Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[Geir]

Or ion weapons in the Third Imperium, or personal energy screens, or a sophont having to be onboard a ship for it to jump without penalty...
there are many things MgT has introduced to the setting, and other setting elements it has ignored - fusion+, wafer personalities, makers...

MgT 2e is getting to the same point that 1e suffered from, rule variants scattered all over the place, incompatible rules, contradictory rules, the 2e updates only add to that with different rules in HG2e and HG2e update. Is putting a plaster on vehicles worth it as a 2025 update or is it time to start thinking about doing a complete revision for a joined up 3e where robots, vehicles, weapons, and ships can all benefit from a coordinated construction system. Then make authors use it rather than making up their own rules.

Well I had no intention of including personal energy shields. Fusion Plus is here and the distinction between a maker and a fabricator may be more a distinction in naming.

Nothing in this vehicles upgrade should contradict robots or be incompatible with high guard. Though there is a glaring only partially 'patched' vehicle combat problem: I call it 'shoot the horse':

If a rider is coming at you on horseback and you shoot the horse, it's going to take a bunch of hits to bring it down. If the rider is on a motorcycle or grav cycle, the first shot will completely destroy the cycle and the rider goes tumbling. The 'fix' is currently that weapons that do less than 4D damage attack vehicles in such a way that a vehicle's TL is added to the armour (Core p. 140 - missed it - or forgot about it - myself). This is... a little unsatisfactory, and I'm not sure adding complexity to fix it is going to make it better or worse.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Fair enough! I just want the vehicle rules to be the best they can be and don't want anything distracting from that, but if Geir is confident they can deliver both, well, then, more is of course better!

Yeah. Geir is amazing. If he says he can do it, and the powers that be at Mongoose let him, I have no doubt that he can do it and do it well.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Well I had no intention of including personal energy shields. Fusion Plus is here and the distinction between a maker and a fabricator may be more a distinction in naming.

Nothing in this vehicles upgrade should contradict robots or be incompatible with high guard. Though there is a glaring only partially 'patched' vehicle combat problem: I call it 'shoot the horse':

If a rider is coming at you on horseback and you shoot the horse, it's going to take a bunch of hits to bring it down. If the rider is on a motorcycle or grav cycle, the first shot will completely destroy the cycle and the rider goes tumbling. The 'fix' is currently that weapons that do less than 4D damage attack vehicles in such a way that a vehicle's TL is added to the armour (Core p. 140 - missed it - or forgot about it - myself). This is... a little unsatisfactory, and I'm not sure adding complexity to fix it is going to make it better or worse.

I am always a fan of simplicity with just enough detail for players and Referees to make it their own. Much past that and it will only appeal to the hard-core gearheads, of which, in My younger years, I was one. Now if it takes too much math, I just handwave it and make it simpler. lol

 

[coolAlias]

The 'fix' is currently that weapons that do less than 4D damage attack vehicles in such a way that a vehicle's TL is added to the armour (Core p. 140 - missed it - or forgot about it - myself). This is... a little unsatisfactory, and I'm not sure adding complexity to fix it is going to make it better or worse.

What if we applied the TL as a bonus to armor against ALL personal weapons, regardless of how many dice they do?

Then powerful weapons like Laser Rifles will often still do enough damage to blow things up in one hit, but not always.

Throw in an exception for explosives (any weapon with Blast and, probably, DD type damage) to do full damage and it's both easy to run at the table and gives our on-foot players or NPCs a reliable and fairly realistic method of taking down enemy vehicles.

 

[CordwainerFish]

If a rider is coming at you on horseback and you shoot the horse, it's going to take a bunch of hits to bring it down.

Though the first hit is probably going to make the horse consider alternatives to being anywhere near me.

 

[Geir]

What if we applied the TL as a bonus to armor against ALL personal weapons, regardless of how many dice they do?

Then powerful weapons like Laser Rifles will often still do enough damage to blow things up in one hit, but not always.

Throw in an exception for explosives (any weapon with Blast and, probably, DD type damage) to do full damage and it's both easy to run at the table and gives our on-foot players or NPCs a reliable and fairly realistic method of taking down enemy vehicles.

That might be cleaner, though I think it would make sense to exempt Critical Hits (Effect 6+) as well (shoot out the tires, tyres, or whatever). I am adding a Called Shot rule for aiming at components (matching pretty much the one in the Core book for Space Combat, but with a little twist to avoid making it too powerful and clear up some ambiguities).

So apply the TL armour level to any weapon that does not do DD or Blast damage, except on Critical Hits ?

The thing this does is make most penetrating hits on small vehicles, where even 2 Hull damage is liable to be a 10% accumulation into Critical Hits, either a crit or basically no effect (well, maybe some bodywork needs to be done, but I'm also tossing in the self-repairing thing from robots). But for damage you can roll an 18 on 3D (and get more from effect), so some 'good' non-critical shots will get through and effectively become accumulation crits.

But I'm not seeing that as bad, really. Probably more realistic than whittling away slowly at a protection-like value (something I was looking at - like the penetration and hull breach rules out of Highguard boarding, but different), or being subject to the full effects of a shotgun and hardly any effect from a rifle. AP would apply as normal.

And unlike animals, vehicles don't bleed from flesh wounds (though there is biotech - which may or may not actually be a can of worms)

Okay, so I kept rolling this through my brain as I type it, modifying the text as thoughts wander through. It's a process, like... making sausages from a biotech vehicle (sorry, had to stick with, or poke a stick at, the analogy).

Yes I think that works cleanly:
Add the TL of vehicle to Protection all attacks by personal scale weapons that:

• Do not achieve a Critical Hit
• Do less then 1DD damage (or 10D, though I'm not really keen on the odd weapon that does 10D, 12D or 16D - too many dice - so they will probably not be included, at least in this book)
• Do not have a Blast effect (for real damage, if the Blast is a stun, then never mind, not a Blast in this context)

That's fairly clear and simple and probably does the job. I think a longer term v3 fix that aligns people and animals and robots to vehicles would be to instead scale vehicle hits x10 and spacecraft hits x100... but in that case, getting hit by a starship beam laser would be 1DDD ( okay no jokes about that one) damage to a person.

 

[coolAlias]

Yeah, I forgot to mention Critical Hits should absolutely still be on the table for small weapons fire - that lucky shot to a tire or whatever - but I'm not so sold on the idea rolling damage for them vs. just rolling on the Critical Hit Location table and using the Effect of the attack minus 5 as per p140.

I think ignoring damage and rolling the Crit would more cleanly model small weapon damage against vehicles, whereas if you allowed the damage to go through, then pretty much no matter what weapon you're using, any smaller vehicle would be completely destroyed.

EDIT: Although, you'd be rolling damage anyway since you might get past their Armor + TL, but my point was that I think TL should still apply, as many crits inflict damage, too, which would model the lucky hit even if your damage wouldn't have done much if anything.

Speaking of which, you might want to change the rule to allow crits even when the damage didn't exceed Armor + TL.

 

[Condottiere]

Consistency.

Stealth.

 

[Shardan13]

Anything about altitude of targets and vertical firing angles? The ability of certain vehicles having the ability to shoot things below them with the ammunition ghosting through the crew and the vehicle's floor is a particular bugbear of mine.

 

[Geir]

Yeah, I forgot to mention Critical Hits should absolutely still be on the table for small weapons fire - that lucky shot to a tire or whatever - but I'm not so sold on the idea rolling damage for them vs. just rolling on the Critical Hit Location table and using the Effect of the attack minus 5 as per p140.

I think ignoring damage and rolling the Crit would more cleanly model small weapon damage against vehicles, whereas if you allowed the damage to go through, then pretty much no matter what weapon you're using, any smaller vehicle would be completely destroyed.

EDIT: Although, you'd be rolling damage anyway since you might get past their Armor + TL, but my point was that I think TL should still apply, as many crits inflict damage, too, which would model the lucky hit even if your damage wouldn't have done much if anything.

Speaking of which, you might want to change the rule to allow crits even when the damage didn't exceed Armor + TL.

Since the first bullet (on the post, not out of the gun) says to ignore the Armour+TL rule - so just use Armour - on a critical (Effect 6+) hit , so then that's already accomplished assuming the critical can overcome the actual Armour . That one crit will likely do 'bad things' to the vehicle on accumulation alone, but it doesn't cascade into alternating a lot of other rules.

 

[NOLATrav]

That's fairly clear and simple and probably does the job. I think a longer term v3 fix that aligns people and animals and robots to vehicles would be to instead scale vehicle hits x10 and spacecraft hits x100... but in that case, getting hit by a starship beam laser would be 1DDD ( okay no jokes about that one) damage to a person.

I like where you’re going with this.

For the record I still use a variant of the old MgT 2e play test rules of Personal x1, Vehicle x 5, Ship x 25. It always felt right to me and after some tweaks at my table, it works well.

v3…. there’s a real opportunity for Mongoose to do what T5 didn’t… would be a hoot for the 50th but that may be too soon.

 

[Geir]

Anything about altitude of targets and vertical firing angles? The ability of certain vehicles having the ability to shoot things below them with the ammunition ghosting through the crew and the vehicle's floor is a particular bugbear of mine.

Yes. I specifically say, for a weapon mount 'on' a vehicle, even if it's a turret, you can fire in any arc except the opposite side of the vehicle - so for the top, that would preclude firing at anything in the arc of the bottom of the vehicle.

If the vehicle were open-topped or open frame, you could lean over the side and fire a hand (paw?) held weapon, but you're not likely to get any better than 50% cover from the armour protection (and a mean Referee might check to see if you have a seatbelt attached).

For gunports, they can only fire in the arc of the the side the port is on, so that's already covered.

 

[Shardan13]

Yes. I specifically say, for a weapon mount 'on' a vehicle, even if it's a turret, you can fire in any arc except the opposite side of the vehicle - so for the top, that would precluding firing at anything in the arc of the bottom of the vehicle.

If the vehicle were open-topped or open frame, you could lean over the side and fire a hand (paw?) held weapon, but you're not likely to get any better than 50% cover from the armour protection (and a mean Referee might check to see if you have a seatbelt attached).

For gunports, they can only fire in the arc of the the side the port is on, so that's already covered.

Thanks Geir, perhaps this will encourage more gunship designs to balance out all the grav tanks.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Hey Geir! Just a thought I had since you are thinking of using Vehicle rules to build structures. Don't forget underground structures.

 

[Geir]

Hey Geir! Just a thought I had since you are thinking of using Vehicle rules to build structures. Don't forget underground structures.

That's going to go into the construction rules to excavate them. Then it's just a fitting out process like any other vehicle. We've got tunneller machines and a digger blade already, so there's the start of a process with those parts.

The goal would be to make it come out to something like what a planetoid ship would look like. But planetoid hull is too cheap - it doesn't account for life support, grav plating (yes, you'll be able to add grav plating and its twin: lifters to vehicles) thing like that, so it might not match exactly - in my estimation, planetoid hulls are about half the price they ought to be. Make more sense to make them at least 8K a ton... but we're not fixing Highguard in this book. I just need to make sure vehicles don't obviously outperform or underperform equivalent scale spacecraft by too much.

 

[Geir]

Some more info.

As I mentioned earlier, every thing should have a Type, and Types can have Features. Below is a basic listing (not finalised, but close) with Types as columns and Features as rows. An 'X' means it is a valid feature for that type. Some Features contradict each other (like you can't be both Fast and Slow) and some have prerequisites (you need Jet Engines for both Supersonic and Hypersonic) but that's described with each Feature.

Features Available​

Features	Aeroplane​	Airship​	Grav Vehicle​	Ground Vehicle​	Hovercraft​	Rotorcraft​	Structure​	Submersible​	Watercraft​	Walker​
Aerodyne	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​
AFV	-​	-​	X​	X​	-​	-​	X​	-​	X​	X​
Agile	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	-​	X​	X​	X​
ATV	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Biotech	X​	X​	-​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​
Fast	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	-​	X​	X​	X​
Floats	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Folding Wings	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Hybrid	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Hydrofoil	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​
Hypersonic	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Jet Engines	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Locomotive	-​	-​	X​	X​	-​	-​	-​	X​	X​	X​
Monowheel	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Multi-Legged	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​
Off-Roader	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Open Frame	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​
Open-Topped	X​	-​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	-​	X​	X​
Ornithopter	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Rail rider	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Slow	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	-​	X​	X​	X​
Smart Wheels	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
STOL	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Streamlined	-​	-​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	-​	-​	-​
Supersonic	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Tilt Engines	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Tracks	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Tunneller	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​

(before anyone asks: A streamlined structure can be the basis of a rocket stage, and rocket thrusters, nearly directly lifted from the current version, makes a really simple basis for building actual rockets: the stages above are 'cargo' for multi-stage. Just as a test, the builds emulate a V2 pretty closely at TL5 and you can sneak a SSTO rocket in at TL8 (barely), so I think it's ballpark and all you have to do is count the number of rounds you have for rocket thrust - there's already rules for how you move up the speed bands, and I just expanded it for passing from Hypersonic to Orbital (based on world Size). And I then lifted Heat Shielding from High Guard, because you need to be able to slow down, either by thrust or by friction, if you want to re-enter.

(Grav vehicles don't need to worry as much, since they can float above the atmosphere at much slower velocity and even if moving fast, can slow down to safe speed above the atmosphere before re-entering at fairly slow Speed - it's a whole different paradigm than rocketry)

Streamlined doesn't apply to aeroplanes, because Supersonic and Hypersonic already cover that sort of effect and are costed well enough to take into account shape, materials, and engine changes needed to push the envelope.

An AFV Structure is a bunker...

Also, not on this are power choices as I mentioned and other auxiliary drives, including Lifters, which follow the T5 definition of being good for Very Slow movement at best (but you can tow them if you really want to try making a grav train).

And that's enough for now. Gotta write some stuff...

 

[Terry Mixon]

Some more info.

As I mentioned earlier, every thing should have a Type, and Types can have Features. Below is a basic listing (not finalised, but close) with Types as columns and Features as rows. An 'X' means it is a valid feature for that type. Some Features contradict each other (like you can't be both Fast and Slow) and some have prerequisites (you need Jet Engines for both Supersonic and Hypersonic) but that's described with each Feature.

Features Available​

Features	Aeroplane​	Airship​	Grav Vehicle​	Ground Vehicle​	Hovercraft​	Rotorcraft​	Structure​	Submersible​	Watercraft​	Walker​
Aerodyne	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​
AFV	-​	-​	X​	X​	-​	-​	X​	-​	X​	X​
Agile	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	-​	X​	X​	X​
ATV	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Biotech	X​	X​	-​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​
Fast	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	-​	X​	X​	X​
Floats	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Folding Wings	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Hybrid	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Hydrofoil	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​
Hypersonic	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Jet Engines	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Locomotive	-​	-​	X​	X​	-​	-​	-​	X​	X​	X​
Monowheel	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Multi-Legged	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​
Off-Roader	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Open Frame	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​
Open-Topped	X​	-​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	-​	X​	X​
Ornithopter	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Rail rider	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Slow	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	-​	X​	X​	X​
Smart Wheels	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
STOL	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Streamlined	-​	-​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	-​	-​	-​
Supersonic	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Tilt Engines	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Tracks	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Tunneller	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​

(before anyone asks: A streamlined structure can be the basis of a rocket stage, and rocket thrusters, nearly directly lifted from the current version, makes a really simple basis for building actual rockets: the stages above are 'cargo' for multi-stage. Just as a test, the builds emulate a V2 pretty closely at TL5 and you can sneak a SSTO rocket in at TL8 (barely), so I think it's ballpark and all you have to do is count the number of rounds you have for rocket thrust - there's already rules for how you move up the speed bands, and I just expanded it for passing from Hypersonic to Orbital (based on world Size). And I then lifted Heat Shielding from High Guard, because you need to be able to slow down, either by thrust or by friction, if you want to re-enter.

(Grav vehicles don't need to worry as much, since they can float above the atmosphere at much slower velocity and even if moving fast, can slow down to safe speed above the atmosphere before re-entering at fairly slow Speed - it's a whole different paradigm than rocketry)

Streamlined doesn't apply to aeroplanes, because Supersonic and Hypersonic already cover that sort of effect and are costed well enough to take into account shape, materials, and engine changes needed to push the envelope.

An AFV Structure is a bunker...

Also, not on this are power choices as I mentioned and other auxiliary drives, including Lifters, which follow the T5 definition of being good for Very Slow movement at best (but you can tow them if you really want to try making a grav train).

And that's enough for now. Gotta write some stuff...

Don't forget mole vehicles. Have to have something to use my Drive (mole) on while digging out MasterGwydion's underground volcano lair.

 

[JustEastOfTheEdge]

Simplify whatever you can. It is a RPG. The more detailed you get, the more you open yourself up to errors and criticism like "x doesn't work like this" (like anyone knows how stuff works in the future).

 

[Geir]

Simplify whatever you can. It is a RPG. The more detailed you get, the more you open yourself up to errors and criticism like "x doesn't work like this" (like anyone knows how stuff works in the future).

So dangerous, I know. And towing is one of those "The rulebook doesn't say an Elephant can't play ball" things (I know that's not the right quote, but that's the way I remember it)

Case in point: I am writing a general statement that a vehicle can tow another vehicle if they both have the capability to operate in the same general environment (air, land, sea, submerged). So, an aeroplane can tow another aeroplane: That's how gliders work, they can't get off the ground without it (unless they get pushed off a cliff), but just because that's allowed does not mean an aeroplane is going to be successful towing a helicopter as anything other than dead weight (which will likely result in bad things). And it doesn't prevent a speedboat from also pulling a glider, but don't expect the speedboat to tow a powered down grav vehicle...

At some point the Referee and the players are going to have to agree that the literal words on the page are guidelines, and just because something doesn't say it's not allowed doesn't mean it should be, and vis versa, just because the rules say something is allowed, doesn't mean it has to be allowed in every situation. But you can't teach common sense and you can't waste endless pages on every single edge case; all you can do is write something that applies most of the time and gives someone a clue as to what might not be a good thing to 'allow'.

 

[CordwainerFish]

As long as I can figure out how to design a Kettenkrad, I'll be happy.