[Traveller Battlefield Dev] New Combat Rules to Try!

[MongooseMatt]

Welcome Travellers... we need your help!

We have been tinkering with some new rules for combat in Traveller for some time now and think they are ready for everyone to take a look at! You can download the new Traveller: Battlefield Dev rules right here: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0609/6139/0839/files/Battlefield_Dev.pdf?v=1718871728



They cover a slight modification to the Initiative rules, larger changes to attack rolls and, most importantly at the moment (in terms of game design), a revision to the AP rules.

We would love it if you would download the PDF (it is not long), go through it and let us have your comments and, best of all, give it a whirl in some of your games.

The key thing we are most interested in will be the changes to the AP trait, as this is what kicked this whole project off. However, the other combat rules come from a 'side' Traveller project so we put them in to a) get your feedback and b) gauge their suitability for 'core' Traveller. This is not an all or nothing thing, if you like one set of rules but not the others, they can still be integrated into Traveller.

If, after your comments and subsequent tweaking, any of these rules meet the grade and genuinely add something to Traveller, we may be looking at including them in a future Core Rulebook. If not, well, back to the games designer's drawing board we go!

Any and all comments welcomed, and you are welcome to quiz us on our thinking, so let us know what you think!

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Some spontaneous first impressions:
Overall, I like this!

Starting with the AP changes however…. That particular part I’m not so sure of.

Warhammer 40K moved away from “all or nothing” and imho came out better for it. The current AP system gives some benefit of even lesser armor, while all or nothing would simply render it useless (against AP weapons only, to be fair!)

My favorite part from the AP chapter was the final, optional rule, AP and effect option. That one is getting an instant include in my games!

I’ll have to think more about it.

The suggested melee changes sound fantastic! Less chess, more dynamic combat! Will follow up with thoughts and comments soon

 

[MongooseMatt]

Warhammer 40K moved away from “all or nothing”

This is true, and was certainly one of the inspirations for this rule (as was our own Battlefield Evolution game, though that created the divide by using D6 and D10 for attacks).

However, moving away also created some issues in Warhammer - for example, Terminators had to be given more Wounds in later editions to become born again hard, whereas before they could be really quite scary (and the 2 wound Grey Knight Paladins were positively frightening with an Apothecary in the unit!).

What we are kinda looking at with these AP rules is to create several 'divides' within weapon vs. armour scales, making meaningful leaps between the likes of Flak/Cloth/Combat Armour/Battle Dress, and the weapons set against them. We foresee (though this has not yet been implemented) that this style of divide will pay great game design dividends when we revise vehicles, effectively creating bands of anti-tank weaponry, and the vehicles that can resist them (especially if we root TL into those bands as well).

Also has the benefit that one mathematical calculation (albeit an easy one, granted) is removed from combat. Which is always good.

Consider this PDF the first 'sweep' of the rules, and one that would need a fair bit of tweaking before full implementation. However, it does plant a flag in our intentions for AP.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Do you want comments on this thread or on the feedback forum?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Do you want comments on this thread or on the feedback forum?

This thread would be just great, thank you!

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

This is true, and was certainly one of the inspirations for this rule (as was our own Battlefield Evolution game, though that created the divide by using D6 and D10 for attacks).

However, moving away also created some issues in Warhammer - for example, Terminators had to be given more Wounds in later editions to become born again hard, whereas before they could be really quite scary (and the 2 wound Grey Knight Paladins were positively frightening with an Apothecary in the unit!).

What we are kinda looking at with these AP rules is to create several 'divides' within weapon vs. armour scales, making meaningful leaps between the likes of Flak/Cloth/Combat Armour/Battle Dress, and the weapons set against them. We foresee (though this has not yet been implemented) that this style of divide will pay great game design dividends when we revise vehicles, effectively creating bands of anti-tank weaponry, and the vehicles that can resist them (especially if we root TL into those bands as well).

Also has the benefit that one mathematical calculation (albeit an easy one, granted) is removed from combat. Which is always good.

Consider this PDF the first 'sweep' of the rules, and one that would need a fair bit of tweaking before full implementation. However, it does plant a flag in our intentions for AP.

True, good points.

Simple, quick and “layered” combat has its perks. I guess one thing that irks me with the changes is that both weapons and armor will need changes, rendering all previous material “useless”.

Implementing the AP change now would mean the still fresh, updated CSC loses a lot of its value, as will all books with published equipment.

The combat rules change can be done without affecting anything else, but changing how weapons and armor interact changes something in every book

 

[MongooseMatt]

Simple, quick and “layered” combat has its perks. I guess one thing that irks me with the changes is that both weapons and armor will need changes, rendering all previous material “useless”.

One reason we have been putting this off

However, it would likely only be AP and Protection scores that would change, so I think we would do a single PDF covering every Traveller book of the current edition to list every weapon and armour ever published.

Plus perhaps a quick-and-dirty rule-of-thumb to let Referees convert on the fly with a decent degree of approximation.

 

[agentwigggles]

Disarm Action
The flourish is great, but mechanically its easier to disarm through a grapple and more likely to succeed, since it doesnt require a follow up roll. The follow up roll, means that I am gambling on a disarm, over the guaranteed damage I am sure to do. Especially if the Chip Damage is still in effect where you do a Min of 1 point of damage on an MoE of 6+

I would instead open up what the MoE 6+ can do to a lot more options.
Give the Target the Fatique Status
None Mechanical Cosmetic Effect (Zorro Z)
Gaining Superior Position. DM+2 to your Next Attack or Defense
Gain Additional 2 rounds before Melee Combat makes you gain the Fatique Status
Move the target by 2 meters, and then to move with them or not. If you dont, then the attack of opertunity is not triggered.
Reduce Reload from a Complex Action to a Simple Action
Recover a Fatique status

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

One reason we have been putting this off

However, it would likely only be AP and Protection scores that would change, so I think we would do a single PDF covering every Traveller book of the current edition to list every weapon and armour ever published.

Plus perhaps a quick-and-dirty rule-of-thumb to let Referees convert on the fly with a decent degree of approximation.

Sure, minor changes, but still.

It’s like how armor on small craft changed in the High Guard Update. Arguably an improvement in several ways, but there’s a lot of small craft spread across all books that now have way too much armor, forcing either a recalculation/rebuild or ignoring that rule.

Also, there’s a difference between death and death.

In a board game, my terminator might not be dead dead when you rapid fire plasma guns into him, but he’s mission killed.

When my Traveller however goes into negatives on all physical stats he’s very dead. Permanently. So even a partial damage reduction from his flak vest will make a difference there, while still making him mission killed.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Also, be aware that I haven’t tested any of this yet, I’m just going with gut feeling and first impressions. It’s entirely possible that the proposed AP change along with these new combat rules makes for a superior gaming experience.

Not entirely happy about the prospect of current edition books becoming partially
invalidated, but the changes might be smaller than I imagine, and all or no gin does help with survival in other situations, when armor is adequate, so…

 

[Sigtrygg]

Initiative - this bit is missing something.

2. Simplifying the Travellers’ turns by having them
act simultaneously, while also bringing the
number of dice rolls made after increasing them
by rolling during every round.

The player who rolls initiative - why would you not pick the player character with the highest Dex or Int?
Could the ref require Int or Dex be used? or randomised? or rotated through the player characters?
Shouldn't leadership skill also apply as well as tactics?

 

[ColinD]

The melee multiple attack (pg 6) with increasing negative DM on the attacks is an exciting idea. An example of how this works would be instructive. It reads "Before making a melee attack, a Traveller can choose to make up to three separate attacks, launching each in skilful quick succession or a complete frenzy. Each attack will have a negative DM equal to the twice the total number of attacks being made."

Would that mean Traveller says "I will make three melee attacks this round."
Referee says, "Okay, First attack -2, second attack -4 and third attack -6".

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Twice the total number suggests -6 to all three?

Which, I’m not sure I like.
I love the idea of a flurry of blows, but if using two weapons means -2 to both attacks, then imho two attacks with one weapon should also be -2, and not -4.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Twice the total number suggests -6 to all three?

This (as it stands).

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

This (as it stands).

Might be a bit harsh imho. Especially considering the two weapon penalty of -2 as mentioned above.

Love the idea of it though, trading accuracy for a flurry of blows!

 

[ColinD]

This (as it stands).

Thanks! I will try it out in my weekly game and I'll report back what they thought.

 

[Goober]

Initiative - horses for courses. I always have players roll individual initiative every turn. That's just me. I have played it so you roll initiative at the start of the combat and it stays, but then I added an action where you can re-assess the battlefield and then re-roll your initiative to try and get a better score.

AP Trait revisions add a layer of complexity that probably isn't necessary IMHO. Its nice and straightforward just to deduct Protection from Damage. If I have learned anything from watching YouTube videos (being British and therefor not allowed to test a variety of firearms in my own back garden to gauge the effects) penetrating rounds still lose energy when defeating armour. Even if they penetrate, the aren't as damaging as the same round that didn't encounter armour. I don't feel like this is represented in the revised AP rules. Instead it feels like the penetrating round has simply ignored the armour without expending energy to bypass it.

 

[Synther]

Not really a fan of party initiative or rolling initiative at the top of every round. Player agency is removed with party initiative. While rolling initiative at the top of every round may be a closer simulation of reality, in the terms of game mechanics it simply slows things down to a sludge.

I kind of like the melee rules, though I disagree with not being allowed to make ranged attacks. A pistol can be fired at point blank range in melee and the gun itself can be parried, thus causing the attacker to miss. Likewise, carbines and SMGs exist for close quarters fighting.

The new AP rules swing the pendulum too far the other direction, making armour piercing be an all or nothing trait. I feel the AP rules work fine the way they are.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Initiative Feedback:

The original rules as written were a problem. If one chose to use their Tactics skill, they risked a negative effect and the enemy could just have no skill, roll no check and had no risk of a negative effect to initiative. Not very fair to the side that had the tactics skill. Might be best just to leave it alone unless your skill was very high. Certainly don't roll it if you only have level 0.

These BATTLEFIELD DEV rules solve that problem, which is good, but as written, they make Tactics-0 useless. Since Tactics is almost always only ever used for Initiative rolls, having a level zero in it, means it is near totally worthless. Roll +0 = Roll

My home rule solution, basically uses the original rules as written with one slight caveat: If one side rolls Tactics, then both sides must roll Tactics, Even if that means they have to do so at a -3 for not having the skill. This means that if one side has even a little tactics is very likely going to act before the side that has no tactics, but that if both sides have tactics, then it is up to how high their skills are compared to each other, AND THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE in my opinion upon seeing all the worlds examples of tactical contests. It is not the most common skill in Traveller, but it should be a big boon in combat when non-combat experienced characters face combat vets.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Initiative Feedback Cont.

With regard to option 1 under the Initiative section:
The original rules state that if they tie on initiative, then go to DEX. If they tie on DEX then they act simultaneous.... and then it gives no clue how "simultaneous" is resolved.

BATTLEFIELD DEV seems to try to resolve what "simultaneous" means.

Again, it comes to a similar solution to one of my house rules. My rule is written like this; "If still tied, they act simultaneously; (House Rule; this means write down current action, then execute action by action, move then combat, range is based on range after the current action, damage applied at end of the current action. At any point, a character may cancel their action, but they don't get to take another one in its place)"

In this, they only have to state their action; Move, or Ranged Attack etc. They did not have to state more detail "I move forward 6m, diagonally" unless this information could be important once revealed. Referee's may need to referee here. This simplifies writing it down. It also means that the player does not automatically lose their attack if their first target choice is eliminated. Sure, using BATTLEFIELD DEV you could say they wasted fire on the same target as another acting character, but in game-play terms, you have robbed that player of their chance to make an impact. Less fair and less fun.

You do have to go action by action. So if you have 3 minor actions (your first 2 minor actions are really a significant action used as 2 minor), and they have a significant action followed by a minor, then you do your first action (the 2 minors), then they do their significant action. Then resolve both simultaneous, then do the same with the last minor action for each.

The problem I see with the BATTLEFIELD DEV variant is that it does not address what range you are attacking at. If you shoot at a target at the same time it is moving toward you and both your action and theirs are considered simultaneous, then what is your range? The range when they started their movement? The range after movement? My rule has explicitly stated the range is after movement. I don't have a compelling reason why I picked after movement rather than before (or I can't remember my reason). I mainly just wanted it codified and set down.

ALL OF THIS is pretty complex and should only rarely be needed, which is the case if you only employ it for tied initiative and tied DEX.