Travellers Needed! High Guard Updates

[Arkathan]

Will this update include rules for Borderland's USI-175 System Defense Boat that is 125 tons, which breaks it down to one hardpoint for the 100 tons (bay) and one hardpoint for the additional 25 tons (fixed mount)?

Is the intent now to round up on one hardpoint per 100 tons, such that a scout with a one dton observation cupola bolted on to it's side is now magically capable of supporting a second turret?

 

[mavikfelna]

Will this update include rules for Borderland's USI-175 System Defense Boat that is 125 tons, which breaks it down to one hardpoint for the 100 tons (bay) and one hardpoint for the additional 25 tons (fixed mount)?

Is the intent now to round up on one hardpoint per 100 tons, such that a scout with a one dton observation cupola bolted on to it's side is now magically capable of supporting a second turret?

The suggestion I added when this came up recently with @Terry Mixon and our other friend on FaceBook is to say that for ships over 100 tons, for the non 100 multiple parts of the tonnage, use the small craft size and rules for firmpoints but with a floor of 25 tons minium to avoid the situation you are pointing out. My initial though was also to say if there is already a hardpoint mounted weapon, then you could only add fixed mount weapons, not the 1 single turret or barbette allowed in the firmpoint rules. But they convinced me that the 1 single turret isn't really that big a deal, so just no barbette. I would also be ok with lowering the threshold from 25 to say 20, but not much lower than that.

Also, it seems to already be a rule because of the Sword Worlds Sleipnir class patroller, that you can replace a hard point with 3 fixed weapon firmpoints, which makes missile launching ships more effective cost wise, though the tonnage saved would need to go to magazine space to keep them completive. It might actually be an official rule somewhere, but I'm not sure where if it is.

 

[Arkathan]

... Also, it seems to already be a rule because of the Sword Worlds Sleipnir class patroller, that you can replace a hard point with 3 fixed weapon firmpoints, ...

As it happens, this does not appear to be the case. Fixed mounts are High Guard compliant (pg 28), take up one harpoint, and allow up to three weapons per mount. The number of hardpoints on the Sleipnir is three, matching its 300 dton hull.

 

[Condottiere]

I seriously considered that when I had come up with a one hundred twenty tonne hull, but design rules would conservatively use existing tonnages.

That means, of you have one hundred and five tonne primary hull, you can add one firmpoint, one hundred thirty five tonnes, two firmpoints, and one hundred seventy tonnes, plus three firmpoints.

Barbette is somewhat strange at seven tonnes if you exchange three firmpoints for unknowable reasons, though you could say that the extra two tonnes were needed to shore up the quasi hardpoint.

 

[Terry Mixon]

As it happens, this does not appear to be the case. Fixed mounts are High Guard compliant (pg 28), take up one harpoint, and allow up to three weapons per mount. The number of hardpoints on the Sleipnir is three, matching its 300 dton hull.

Do fixed mounts take a hardpoint? I don't think so, as they can be on sub-100-ton ships that have no hardpoints. The fixed mount is hardpoint independent.

 

[Terry Mixon]

The suggestion I added when this came up recently with @Terry Mixon and our other friend on FaceBook is to say that for ships over 100 tons, for the non 100 multiple parts of the tonnage, use the small craft size and rules for firmpoints but with a floor of 25 tons minium to avoid the situation you are pointing out. My initial though was also to say if there is already a hardpoint mounted weapon, then you could only add fixed mount weapons, not the 1 single turret or barbette allowed in the firmpoint rules. But they convinced me that the 1 single turret isn't really that big a deal, so just no barbette. I would also be ok with lowering the threshold from 25 to say 20, but not much lower than that.

Also, it seems to already be a rule because of the Sword Worlds Sleipnir class patroller, that you can replace a hard point with 3 fixed weapon firmpoints, which makes missile launching ships more effective cost wise, though the tonnage saved would need to go to magazine space to keep them completive. It might actually be an official rule somewhere, but I'm not sure where if it is.

Once again, the fixed mounts are not hardpoint dependent. I have no stress with the floor of 25 tons, but they should act in all ways as the other firm points do and use the same rules.

 

[Arkathan]

Fixed mounts take up a hardpoint. (HG'22 p28)
Firmpoints are used on things too small for hardpoints.
Both fixed mounts and firmpoints fire only in the direction in which they were mounted.

Edit: The SDB above uses a Fixed Mount (one hardpoint), but mounts a fighter scale weapon on it.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Fixed mounts take up a hardpoint. (HG'22 p28)
Firmpoints are used on things too small for hardpoints.
Both fixed mounts and firmpoints fire only in the direction in which they were mounted.

Edit: The SDB above uses a Fixed Mount (one hardpoint), but mounts a fighter scale weapon on it.

They shouldn't sound so much alike. It's confusing.

 

[Arkathan]

They shouldn't sound so much alike. It's confusing.

Agreed.

 

[mavikfelna]

Fixed mounts take up a hardpoint. (HG'22 p28)
Firmpoints are used on things too small for hardpoints.
Both fixed mounts and firmpoints fire only in the direction in which they were mounted.

Edit: The SDB above uses a Fixed Mount (one hardpoint), but mounts a fighter scale weapon on it.

But in the case of the SDB, it doesn't have a hard point available to mount the fixed weapon fighter weapon on, and if it were mounted on a hard point fixed mount, they could put 3 in there and they would be standard weapons, not fighter weapons. So it must be using a firmpoint, not just a fixed mount.
But thank you for the page 28 reference, it at least cleared up the 3 fixed weapons x2 on the Slepnir. Not sure how I missed the obvious table.

 

[Arkathan]

But in the case of the SDB, it doesn't have a hard point available to mount the fixed weapon fighter weapon on, and if it were mounted on a hard point fixed mount, they could put 3 in there and they would be standard weapons, not fighter weapons. So it must be using a firmpoint, not just a fixed mount.
But thank you for the page 28 reference, it at least cleared up the 3 fixed weapons x2 on the Slepnir. Not sure how I missed the obvious table.

Hence my asking @MongooseChris if this was going to be in the new rules.
The official stats show two hardpoints being used, even though one is mounting a weapon better suited for firmpoints.
Is it a one-off from someone who maybe didn't understand the rules, a design from someone who didn't CARE about the rules, or is it a new rule?

 

[Terry Mixon]

Hence my asking @MongooseChris if this was going to be in the new rules.
The official stats show two hardpoints being used, even though one is mounting a weapon better suited for firmpoints.
Is it a one-off from someone who maybe didn't understand the rules, a design from someone who didn't CARE about the rules, or is it a new rule?

I've heard there are other ships like this, but I don't have references. I don't believe it's a one-off mistake.

 

[Arkathan]

I've heard there are other ships like this, but I don't have references. I don't believe it's a one-off mistake.

Matt has said that it is acceptable for things to not follow the rules all the time... but it would be nice to know in advance when exceptions are intentional, unintentional, or when they are changes to the rules.

 

[Terry Mixon]

One suggestion to consider. Powerplants have no advantage to make them stealthier. With the other systems allowing for better stealth, I think something like that should be considered for powerplants.

 

[Condottiere]

You could try turning them off.

 

[Terry Mixon]

You could try turning them off.

The same is true of the maneuver and jump drives, until they had options to not needing to do so provoded. I’d rather see something like that.

 

[Sigtrygg]

To reduce the signature of a fusion power plant:
gravitic heat sink to deal with the waste heat
something to block neutrino emissions... meson screen/damper tech? superdense matter shield?

 

[Terry Mixon]

To reduce the signature of a fusion power plant:
gravitic heat sink to deal with the waste heat
something to block neutrino emissions... meson screen/damper tech? superdense matter shield?

I’ve not missed the suggestions you’ve made to use it earlier. It would do the trick and do the trick.