SPACE COMBAT - Sand Caster

[Sigtrygg]

I see what you mean, but all the attacker needs to do is aim their nose up 1 degree and at those speeds they would be firing "over" the cloud at the target.
Good point about the changed ion beam in a vacuum. I think (others will know more than me) that those kinds of weapons in traveller are supposed to shoot a stream of neutrons or protons or electrons or whatever other cosmic particles, and essentially are a weaponised version of what they use at CERN (which does fire its particles in a vacuum - and has to of course).

At CERN all the particles remain inside the accelerator where they can be controlled by the magnetic fields, if the charged particles were to leave the confines of those fields they would rapidly spread,
In the vacuum of space once the particles leave the PAWS they have to be neutralised - so you accelerate charged particles but then neutralise them as they pass the end of the gun.

 

[Arkathan]

I see what you mean, but all the attacker needs to do is aim their nose up 1 degree and at those speeds they would be firing "over" the cloud at the target.
Good point about the changed ion beam in a vacuum. I think (others will know more than me) that those kinds of weapons in traveller are supposed to shoot a stream of neutrons or protons or electrons or whatever other cosmic particles, and essentially are a weaponised version of what they use at CERN (which does fire its particles in a vacuum - and has to of course).

THOSE charged particles have the advantage of being guided for the entirety of their course by large superconducting magnets, the lack of which in space turn ZAPPP into foo.

 

[Vormaerin]

I see what you mean, but all the attacker needs to do is aim their nose up 1 degree and at those speeds they would be firing "over" the cloud at the target.
Good point about the changed ion beam in a vacuum. I think (others will know more than me) that those kinds of weapons in traveller are supposed to shoot a stream of neutrons or protons or electrons or whatever other cosmic particles, and essentially are a weaponised version of what they use at CERN (which does fire its particles in a vacuum - and has to of course).

yeah, but CERN is a bit bigger than a turret

 

[AdamWillow]

SPACE COMBAT - Sand Caster

The gunner must succeed at a Gunner (turret) check against a laser weapon and, if successful, will add 1D plus the Effect of the check to the ship’s armour against that laser attack only. Each Disperse Sand reaction uses one canister of sand.

Quick question about this part.
Does this Gunner (turret) check has a normal 8+ difficulty or is it oposing check to a laser weapon attack roll?

 

[Condottiere]

I always assumed it was a general roll, considering the lack of a reaction time against an energy weapon.

Could be a called shot, in which case, the reward would be an increased effectiveness.

 

[Arkathan]

It is an 8+ against the incoming weapon, not opposing the gunner. The gunner's effect is added in with damage.

 

[Ol'Weedy]

I envision the SC 'attack' roll, as the gunner's attempt to get the sand cloud into the best position to cover any fire coming from the enemy ship. Would be easy if you're running away from said ship, At longer ranges, and with lateral movement involved, it would be a bit trickier, and need to be predictive.
That said, a 6G movement to the side, isn't really going to effect the angle THAT much, if you're 25000km apart.

 

[Vormaerin]

Arkathan's got the right of it for MgT2e combat.

In the really olden days, you launched sandcasters in the missile phase and they traveled to a target and filled that space with sand, so if you fired through it with lasers, it wasn't great for the lasers.

But once combat stopped being vector based, sandcasters became this time traveling thing where you somehow fired a burst of sand after the lightspeed weapon was fired at you, so it could soak some of that damage.

Though in T5 they are best used as sandblasters to scrape enemy sensors off their hull so they can't see you to shoot.

 

[JustEastOfTheEdge]

"Sand" in 3D high-speed combat is simply ridiculous, no matter how you spin it. Should've have been ditched with 2e, IMO!

 

[MasterGwydion]

I don't mind having them in the rules, but I don't use them in My designs for the reasons stated above.

 

[Vormaerin]

"Sand" in 3D high-speed combat is simply ridiculous, no matter how you spin it. Should've have been ditched with 2e, IMO!

I tend to agree with this, but you could do something like 2300, where ships can produce a magnetic field that traps the chaff/sand as a kind of ablative screen around the ship. But that's a very different mechanical resolution. It's something you turn on first, not as a reaction.

Having some defense against lasers makes sense for a game where you don't want the PCs taking millions of credits of damage every time there's a space skirmish.

 

[JustEastOfTheEdge]

I tend to agree with this, but you could do something like 2300, where ships can produce a magnetic field that traps the chaff/sand as a kind of ablative screen around the ship. But that's a very different mechanical resolution. It's something you turn on first, not as a reaction.

Having some defense against lasers makes sense for a game where you don't want the PCs taking millions of credits of damage every time there's a space skirmish.

Yes, my players tend to opt for "avoidance shields" once they realise the costs involved in repairing. I am not too sure, but it feels easier to hit in 2e, with numerous positive modifiers from crew, software, etc

 

[Condottiere]

Chaff/reflec/ablative.

I've always maintained there's a vast potential to uncork with the sandcaster weapon system.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I tend to agree with this, but you could do something like 2300, where ships can produce a magnetic field that traps the chaff/sand as a kind of ablative screen around the ship. But that's a very different mechanical resolution. It's something you turn on first, not as a reaction.

Having some defense against lasers makes sense for a game where you don't want the PCs taking millions of credits of damage every time there's a space skirmish.

That is called Reflect Armor.

 

[GabrielGABFonseca]

I've been mulling the wording of the Sandcaster Reaction over and I now have thoughts™.

I think the original intention was that each sandcaster turret would only be able to react against a single incoming energy attack, though multiple sandcaster turrets can be used for that same one attack. This somewhat makes sense, as by absorbing/refracting/reflecting/whatever-ing the energy of incoming attacks the sand would be sublimated and/or lose its optic/magnetic properties, so I can begrudgingly accept that.

As for the whole time-travelling sand canisters thing... I do like how Squadron Strike: Traveller handles it, where you deploy sand before the attacks are publicly announced and resolved, but after they're written down. It adds a nice element of bluffing to it all which I enjoy.
But for MgT2, if you really need a rationalisation, what I say is that as space combat turns - even dogfight turns - last multiple seconds, I postulate that the weapon fire lasts for more than just an instant; laser beams (continuous or pulsed) and particle beams track and hit their targets for multiple seconds, and the 'reaction' bit is that as soon as the gunner/computer realises the hull is being hit, it fires off a cannister and absorbs part of the incoming attack - this is why, under this interpretation, sand blocks some but rarely all incoming damage.

But yes, this is more a polite fiction to explain the weirdness than an actual explanation.

 

[WHULorigan]

That is called Reflect Armor.

Not quite. Reflec(t) would also increase your passive sensor detection signature, whereas simple sand (ablative) can be dark and absorb the damage w/o that disadvantage. Reflective sand could be a superior defensive cloud compared to simple ablative, but with the disadvantage of increased passive-sensor signature.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Not quite. Reflec(t) would also increase your passive sensor detection signature, whereas simple sand (ablative) can be dark and absorb the damage w/o that disadvantage. Reflective sand could be a superior defensive cloud compared to simple ablative, but with the disadvantage of increased passive-sensor signature.

Reflec affects all incoming laser fire. Sandcasters do not. Reflec shouldn't be a smooth, mirror-like surface. It should be a rough, mirrored surface that scatters the incoming EM signals in all directions, diluting and dispersing them. Then it would work for both stealth coating and laser defense.

But, alas, Traveller writers didn't think of that and wanted to keep physical defenses and electronic defenses separate.

 

[Condottiere]