ProfGrizzlyJon
Emperor Mongoose
So, has anyone mentioned the 40K connection to “scything claws” as errata?
VHB 2026 Errata
- Thread starter Geir
- Start date
Arkathan
Emperor Mongoose
In playtesting, I made a carnifex bio-vehicle and ran that against my players. Does that count?
ProfGrizzlyJon
Emperor Mongoose
I would be fascinated by those stats.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
For the love of Cleon can we get the scaling of the three construction books redefined.
None of this slots are 3 litres except when they are 54, a "space" is half of the real "space".
What is wrong with the litre, the cubic metre and the displacement ton for units?
Then maybe, just maybe, you can start scaling the weapons between the various sizes.
A space is 3.5 cubic metres, is that for the whole "space" (ie the 2 spaces but we only allocate 1). So should a space be 1.75 cubic metres, Is it 4 spaces per ton or 8 spaces per ton with 4 of them unusable in the design sequence? How dos this map to the scaling we were given in Robots...
This is all so avoidable.
Decide on the scaling and fix it across the three books, because at the moment it is a confusing mess of abstract units that have variable value depending on context of use.
None of this slots are 3 litres except when they are 54, a "space" is half of the real "space".
What is wrong with the litre, the cubic metre and the displacement ton for units?
Then maybe, just maybe, you can start scaling the weapons between the various sizes.
Take this ^ example.
A space is 3.5 cubic metres, is that for the whole "space" (ie the 2 spaces but we only allocate 1). So should a space be 1.75 cubic metres, Is it 4 spaces per ton or 8 spaces per ton with 4 of them unusable in the design sequence? How dos this map to the scaling we were given in Robots...
This is all so avoidable.
Decide on the scaling and fix it across the three books, because at the moment it is a confusing mess of abstract units that have variable value depending on context of use.
Arkathan
Emperor Mongoose
It seems pretty simple to me. You are declaring the usable spaces. The infrastructure to move it is equal to that. If you allocate cargo, four spaces is a dton. To store a 200 space vehicle you need 50 dtons for the customizable part and 50dtons for the standard fuel, chassis and locomotion.
Certain locomotive choices either use additional space or give you access to additional space freed up in infrastructure. The declared usable space plus infrastructure space is unchanged.
Is that preferable to keeping track of fractions? Each person needs a space or each person needs 0.25 dton.
Certain locomotive choices either use additional space or give you access to additional space freed up in infrastructure. The declared usable space plus infrastructure space is unchanged.
Is that preferable to keeping track of fractions? Each person needs a space or each person needs 0.25 dton.
mavikfelna
Emperor Mongoose
Please dear GOD just do everything in displacement liters/tons and have the total space be the listed value. Then you assign a % value of the vehicle used for infrastructure based on TL, engine, motivation type, frame and whatever other infrastructure and construction type you don't want to have explicit rules/equipment for.
This is one of my complaints about robots as well. The motive type, TL, power, all of stuff that gets put into that invisible 50% that is added on shouldn't always be 50% and the robot size should be its total size, not its usable volume.
Why are these not like ships, with the whole volume listed and then used for % based as well as explicitly sized equipment, and why can't they use interchangeable equipment? it would be so much easier and more understandable done that way as well as more flexible.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Well, there's ergonomics, and three dimensions.
The “explanation” on page 25 is not really that helpful. A much less specific description would simply state that vehicles are actually bigger than the useful spaces due to engines, fuel, transmission, ground clearance, and a myriad of other design requirements.
It would have been much easier to say that the vehicle shipping size is the space it takes up as cargo and is based on its type as per pages 28 - 34.
I’d initially stated that most ships use only the vehicle shipping size for docking space but further reading show that this is not the case and it appears that the assumption is that vehicles do require that extra 10% with only older designs using the exact vehicle shipping size. Incidentally, docking bays for vehicles seem ridiculously expensive compared to the vehicle itself - your air-raft is MCr 0.25 but your docking space is 5 times that! Ouch!
It would have been much easier to say that the vehicle shipping size is the space it takes up as cargo and is based on its type as per pages 28 - 34.
I’d initially stated that most ships use only the vehicle shipping size for docking space but further reading show that this is not the case and it appears that the assumption is that vehicles do require that extra 10% with only older designs using the exact vehicle shipping size. Incidentally, docking bays for vehicles seem ridiculously expensive compared to the vehicle itself - your air-raft is MCr 0.25 but your docking space is 5 times that! Ouch!
Last edited:
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
Just a simple question.
How many "real" spaces per displacement ton.
Not the imaginary spaces that don't count towards vehicle construction.
The current rules state 4 spaces per ton.
But half those spaces are not usable for construction.
So one displacement ton is 4 spaces, 2 usable, 2 not usable
Or is it a 4 "construction" space vehicle space per ton, in which case there are 8 spaces in a displacement ton.
Which is it, because at the moment I have no idea.
How many "real" spaces per displacement ton.
Not the imaginary spaces that don't count towards vehicle construction.
The current rules state 4 spaces per ton.
But half those spaces are not usable for construction.
So one displacement ton is 4 spaces, 2 usable, 2 not usable
Or is it a 4 "construction" space vehicle space per ton, in which case there are 8 spaces in a displacement ton.
Which is it, because at the moment I have no idea.
Apologies if this comes across like mansplaning but I’m trying to get my head around it as well.
Based on page 25 there are theoretically 4 spaces per dTon and this looks to have confused the crap out of everyone - me included.
I have come to the realisation that the actual number doesn’t matter - the only thing that matters is initial useable space per dTon and that is listed on pages 28-34 for each vehicle type.
It would have been sufficient to say that vehicles for the most part and by dint of their strange shapes, fuel tanks, and various other design features, like wings for example, take up more than their initial useable space and due to that you can only fit 2 useable spaces in a dTon, or 1 useable space if it’s an aeroplane, or 10 if it’s a squished airship.
I use the term “initial” as options like “Slower” or “Reduced fuel” can give bonus useable space(s) that do not affect the outside dimension. These extra spaces haven’t magically appeared but are a result of reducing engine size and/or fuel capacity. If an initial design called for a V8 to get the standard performance but you opted for a V6 then it would be slower but have more internal space. Similarly, if you reduced the size of the fuel tank you would reduce the range but you could use the space saved for more cargo or passengers.
This only really works when designing something from scratch - replacing you ‘65 Ford Mustang V8 with a V6 or, god forbid a straight 4 is not only a crime against humanity, it’s pointless as the engine bay is still the same size. If you designed a new Mustang with a straight 4 you could take the reduced power pack into account to make a smaller engine bay and fuel requirement resulting in more passenger or cargo space - it would still a crime against humanity though…
Last edited:
