1g Ships and Size:7 worlds...

[AnotherDilbert]

LBB 2:77 pg 10-11 states 2000 seconds from Surface to Orbit (10,000 km) at 1G.
No ifs, no buts, and "reactionless drives" are 100% unicorn farts.

As we can apparently not even agree to what the actual text is that we are discussing I have only one last thing to say before leaving this subject:

the vehicle cannot move

 

[atpollard]

@atpollard ... you're a Super Moderator ... and your desperation is showing.

... So what happens in TURN 2 and TURN 3 under the Vector Movement RAW?
(Would YOU care to answer the question rather than mock me?)

 

[atpollard]

As we can apparently not even agree to what the actual text is that we are discussing I have only one last thing to say before leaving this subject:

Context is EVERYTHING:

(Striker, book 2)​

Rule 75: Naval Vessels ​

​

Starships and interplanetary vessels may occasionally be present to provide fire support. For the most part, even a moderate-sized military vessel will have sufficient firepower to seriously unbalance a game; nevertheless, rules for Traveller and High Guard ships are included for the sake of completeness. ​

​

A. Movement: The movement rate of a spaceship is determined in the same way as that for a grav vehicle; the ship's maneuver drive rating is used as its G value. A ship with a G rating equal to or less than the planetary gravity may not take part in combat actions except from orbit.​

1. Why are Starship Rules presented in Striker? Both "to provide fire support" [for GROUND UNITS] and "for the sake of completeness".
2. What are the Striker Rules for 1G Starships on Size 8+ worlds? They "may not take part in combat actions except from orbit."

Shoehorning a 1 G Starship into the Striker Grav Vehicle rules when it is NOT in orbit is not RAW ... it is your House Rule. Striker RAW say the ship is in orbit.

(Striker, book 3)​

Design Sequence 1 : Vehicles​

I. Grav Vehicle Maneuver Gs: A grav vehicle has Gs of acceleration equal to its thrust in tons divided by its weight, also in tons. One G is needed to keep the vehicle in the air (and if its thrust is less than one G, the vehicle cannot move); thrust in excess of one G is used for maneuver. Thus to find maneuver Gs, subtract one from the total G value.​

1. These are the Striker rules for creating VEHICLES. A Starship is not a "Grav Vehicle" and a Grav Vehicle is not a "Starship".
2. What is the thrust in tons of a CT Starship MD? What is the mass in tons of a CT Starship? How can you even correctly apply this rule to a CT Starship (assuming that a CT Starship IS a Grav Vehicle)?
3. Note that "One G is needed to keep it [Grav Vehicle] in the air". Being pedantic, but STRIKER prohibits movement on a size 4 world as well as a size 9 world ... it is not subtracting "local gravity" to calculate "local thrust" (if you really want to apply it "RAW" to Starships).

[You want to apply Striker Ground Vehicle Combat Movement Rules to a Starship that is explicitly excluded from Striker Ground Combat and ignore LBB2 Surface to Orbit Travel rules ... that is not RAW for a discussion on Surface to Orbit travel for Starships; that is YOUR House Rule. You are welcome to disagree, but I think my position is clear, as is identification of the TEXT that I am discussing.]

 

[Condottiere]

So it's in Striker.

I think there are nuances, in that a streamlined ship probably could escape an atmosphered gravity well with the same acceleration factor, but what they are, I probably couldn't coherently make a case for.

 

[infojunky]

While I am still combing my collection of Marc's magazine interviews for the reference. A answer has been reached via the exhaustive discussions here. Striker does support my supposition of 2g Freetraders and the like.

Pease note I am not questioning anyones understanding of how things work, just looking for a larger breadth of possible ship designs. I am amused by the number of arguments being made, in the all are food for thought.

Again this is Traveller so all opinions are valid, just because I don't agree doesn't mean you are wrong.

 

[atpollard]

While I am still combing my collection of Marc's magazine interviews for the reference. A answer has been reached via the exhaustive discussions here. Striker does support my supposition of 2g Freetraders and the like.

Pease note I am not questioning anyones understanding of how things work, just looking for a larger breadth of possible ship designs. I am amused by the number of arguments being made, in the all are food for thought.

Again this is Traveller so all opinions are valid, just because I don't agree doesn't mean you are wrong.

Most of the argument is over what the RULES ARE for an area that has no clear rules dedicated to that specific area (there is no "landing on Worlds with greater than 1G" section of the rule book). There is actually far more agreement on what CAN BE DONE and what SHOULD BE ALLOWED. Few here likely believe that the Earth is flat and you only need to tip your ship over the edge of the world to launch into space. None likely believe that Starships CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be fitted with "lifters" or "wings" or auxiliary thrust. The questions and debate surround what are the baseline assumptions of the original writer and what do the RULES as WRITTEN actually SAY about this obscure subject. There is much disagreement about which rules apply to Launching to Orbit and what the implications of the subtle references that exist really are.

A case can be made for either (no 1G landing on size 8+ worlds) or (yes 1G landing on on size 8+ worlds) ... and has been. Each individual will need to decide which rules are more directly relevant in YOUR OPINION. It is the "Your view is not RAW" rhetoric that has raised the most rancor.

Ultimately, the game exists only as a 'Legacy' version of rules ... so nothing new "OFFICIAL" is possible [baring some extraordinary event]: CREATE what makes YOU happy. There is room for Traders with better than 1G performance ... even 1.5G performance!

WHATEVER you do will not be RAW to somebody.
The number of times that I have been there ...

 

[infojunky]

Ultimately, the game exists only as a 'Legacy' version of rules ... so nothing new "OFFICIAL" is possible [baring some extraordinary event]: CREATE what makes YOU happy. There is room for Traders with better than 1G performance ... even 1.5G performance!

Heh, now that is a whole other argument... I have toyed with fractional drives more than once.

 

[Spinward Flow]

but the same argument is just as valid for streamlined lift.

PROVE IT.

Cite the RAW which states that starship streamlining adds aerodynamic lifting force.
Extra bonus points if you can cite a reference that mentions a stall speed for starships (preferably for each streamlined configuration code, or are they all the same?).

I'm not the one claiming that starships get AERODYNAMIC LIFT FORCE "for free" in atmospheres just by virtue of being streamlined.
You are.

Once you can substantiate your claim that streamlining = free lift force ... preferably with a citation of RAW ... we can talk.
Until then, you've got nothing but assumption powering your assertion.

I'm pointedly NOT relying on Lift Force to add an additional vector "assist for free" in atmosphere.
If anything, I'm taking the more "universal" approach to the problem that doesn't rely on aerodynamic lift to make starships "go up" in a gravity well.

Or to put it another way, I'm going for the "harder lift" on being able to get to orbit.
The benefit of my approach is that it relies on No External Forces Added beyond what the maneuver drive can deliver in terms of acceleration force (regardless of how that force is engineered). Relying "purely" on the maneuver drive means that in all cases where manevuer G is greater than gravity G (with atmospheric drag being added to gravity G) means that regardless of atmosphere type, your Starship can liftoff and accelerate towards orbit.

Why does that argument not apply to a craft sliding along the surface of the imaginary surface of the planet until the Horizontal vector is greater than the Vertical vector in the Vector Movement rules?

Seriously?

Your maths is wrong because you are making incorrect assumptions. You keep assuming Traveller ships are rockets.

NO.
I am assuming that Traveller starships move under maneuver drive according to Newtonian Physics as expressed by acceleration vector movement.

1G vector "foward" plus 1G vector "aft" = 0G net vector acceleration
1G vector "up" plus 1G vector "down" = 0G net vector acceleration

In order for ANY object (not just starships) to ascend in altitude while inside a gravity well, their net acceleration vector "up" needs to exceed the (gravity) acceleration "down" in order to gain altitude.
If UP exceeds DOWN ... then you go UP (towards orbit).
If DOWN equals or exceeds UP ... you're staying DOWN (on the surface) or descending towards the surface (until making contact with something).

In a Traveller starship, all acceleration force(s) are produced by the maneuver drive in CT.
What orientation the starship takes is immaterial (tail sitter, belly lander, inverted barrel roller, whatever).
To make an object GO UP ... it needs an acceleration force applied to it that is exceeds the local gravity field.
That's not just "rocket science" ... that's bare bones BASIC PHYSICS ... and I'm embarrassed that I even have to explain this (again!).

This is why I say that 1G maneuver drive minus 1G of gravity well means 0G net acceleration in the UP direction ... which means You Are Not Going To Space Today™.

However, a 2G maneuver drive minus 1G of gravity well means 1G of net acceleration in the UP direction ... meaning ... You Go To Space.

That's just the way that acceleration vectors work with Newtonian Physics.

You are never going to convince me with your "rather unique posting style" and my arguments are not going to convince you.

"Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced."
- Upton Sinclair

You refuse to see the OBVIOUS point:

Yeah ... we're done here.

When someone is unwilling to concede that 1-1=0 ...

Was it the design intent of the Game Creator that these ships and the players in them would be unable to land on 1/6 of the worlds they encountered [including EARTH]

{ speaking slowly and patiently }

That's. What. Orbital. Shuttle. Services. Are. For.
That's. Why. Small. Craft. With. High. Acceleration. Are. Useful. For. Surface. To. Orbit. Transfers.

 

[atpollard]

When someone is unwilling to concede that 1-1=0 ...

I have so conceded, but UP is not the only direction.

... So what happens in TURN 2 and TURN 3 under the Vector Movement RAW?

 

[atpollard]

Cite the RAW which states that starship streamlining adds aerodynamic lifting force.

"Should referees need to approximate the relationships between UCP hulls and COACC airframes (e.g., one such use might involve calculating the vehicles' minimum airspeed), use the following table to determine which ratings are congruent."
USP Hull = COACC Airframe = Minimum Airspeed = Maximum Airspeed
Unstreamlined = Simple = 150/75 = 300
Streamlined = Transonic = 175/88 = 800
Airframe = Hypersonic = 350/175 = 5000

- Hard Times, pg 83

You didn't specify CT rules ... and this is the "CT Starship Operations based on STRIKER" that you are advocating for to replace the LBB 2:77 pg 10-11 tables.

 

[Condottiere]

It's a simplification, over all.

What if the spacecraft in question had an aluminum hull, as opposed to a steel one, plus twelve percent of super dense blackholed armour plating?

It's baggage that keeps you down, even if you have wings to fly.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I have so conceded, but UP is not the only direction.

... So what happens in TURN 2 and TURN 3 under the Vector Movement RAW?

Sorry, can't help it. Gravity does not turn on and off as you wish, it's always on.

During the movement phase, lay out the vector of the ship to determine where it will move. If the exact midpoint of the vector lies in a gravity band, a gravity vector will be added to the course vector to create a new vector.

Always, not sometimes. Even if the vector is [0,0].


Turn 1:


The ship cannot generate a movement vector that is not prevented by the planet: "the vehicle cannot move".


Turn 2:


The ship cannot generate a movement vector that is not prevented by the planet: "the vehicle cannot move".

...

Turn n:

The ship cannot generate a movement vector that is not prevented by the planet: "the vehicle cannot move".

 

[mike wightman]

PROVE IT.

Cite the RAW which states that starship streamlining adds aerodynamic lifting force.

Cite where it says it doesn't after all you are the one who cited the absence/evidence thing - hoist by your own petard.
It is a basic law of physics, you do have physics in your Traveller universe don't you?

Extra bonus points if you can cite a reference that mentions a stall speed for starships (preferably for each streamlined configuration code, or are they all the same?).

I am still waiting for you to provide any direct quote that supports your position that doesn't involve your interpretation, by the way what is the stall speed for LBB3 aircraft?
Oh, and LBB2 ships don't have a configuration code.

I'm not the one claiming that starships get AERODYNAMIC LIFT FORCE "for free" in atmospheres just by virtue of being streamlined.
You are.

That's how physics works, if you don't like it stick with your space fantasy game of choice. Or are you claiming that physics doesn't grant aerodynamic shapes a lift force?

Once you can substantiate your claim that streamlining = free lift force ... preferably with a citation of RAW ... we can talk.
Until then, you've got nothing but assumption powering your assertion.

I have physics on my side, you just have incorrect rules understanding.

I'm pointedly NOT relying on Lift Force to add an additional vector "assist for free" in atmosphere.
If anything, I'm taking the more "universal" approach to the problem that doesn't rely on aerodynamic lift to make starships "go up" in a gravity well.

So you are denying that planes can fly in your universe?

Or to put it another way, I'm going for the "harder lift" on being able to get to orbit.
The benefit of my approach is that it relies on No External Forces Added beyond what the maneuver drive can deliver in terms of acceleration force (regardless of how that force is engineered). Relying "purely" on the maneuver drive means that in all cases where manevuer G is greater than gravity G (with atmospheric drag being added to gravity G) means that regardless of atmosphere type, your Starship can liftoff and accelerate towards orbit.

Seriously?

You do realise even rockets have to take lift and drag into account? Seriously

NO.
I am assuming that Traveller starships move under maneuver drive according to Newtonian Physics as expressed by acceleration vector movement.

But not under the laws of physics in any other way

1G vector "foward" plus 1G vector "aft" = 0G net vector acceleration
1G vector "up" plus 1G vector "down" = 0G net vector acceleration

The rules state you p[lot the ship vector then add the gravity vector, the ship vector is in the 0.5g band so by the rules as written the ship can lift off.

In order for ANY object (not just starships) to ascend in altitude while inside a gravity well, their net acceleration vector "up" needs to exceed the (gravity) acceleration "down" in order to gain altitude.
If UP exceeds DOWN ... then you go UP (towards orbit).
If DOWN equals or exceeds UP ... you're staying DOWN (on the surface) or descending towards the surface (until making contact with something).

And this is where you are misapplying vector movement plotting.

In a Traveller starship, all acceleration force(s) are produced by the maneuver drive in CT.
What orientation the starship takes is immaterial (tail sitter, belly lander, inverted barrel roller, whatever).
To make an object GO UP ... it needs an acceleration force applied to it that is exceeds the local gravity field.
That's not just "rocket science" ... that's bare bones BASIC PHYSICS ... and I'm embarrassed that I even have to explain this (again!).

Oh dear someone hasn't read the rules again. Acceleration forces are also produced by gravity and atmosphere - it say so in the rules.
I find it sad that you can not accept BASIC PHYSICS, if you have thrust and a streamlined shape you have lift and drag.

This is why I say that 1G maneuver drive minus 1G of gravity well means 0G net acceleration in the UP direction ... which means You Are Not Going To Space Today™.

So don't try and fly like a rocket, fly like a plane, and you can Get to Space Today.

However, a 2G maneuver drive minus 1G of gravity well means 1G of net acceleration in the UP direction ... meaning ... You Go To Space.

That's just the way that acceleration vectors work with Newtonian Physics.

Only in a universe which denies all other laws of physics, and I am still waiting for you to tell me what you think the "vector" that you plot actually is.

"Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced."
- Upton Sinclair

Yeah ... we're done here.

I bet you reply

When someone is unwilling to concede that 1-1=0 ...

{ speaking slowly and patiently }

Ok I will, the premise of your equation is at fault.

It's not 1-1, it is (1+1)-1 = 1

That's. What. Orbital. Shuttle. Services. Are. For.
That's. Why. Small. Craft. With. High. Acceleration. Are. Useful. For. Surface. To. Orbit. Transfers.

You mean the shuttles that according to LBB1 77 can not get to orbit either?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

We can fail a communicating by slinging the exact same points at each other, again and again...

Context is EVERYTHING:

1. Why are Starship Rules presented in Striker? Both "to provide fire support" [for GROUND UNITS] and "for the sake of completeness".

That is just a desperate waffle. The rules are in Striker, it's RAW.

1. What are the Striker Rules for 1G Starships on Size 8+ worlds? They "may not take part in combat actions except from orbit."

You left out an important part, that I have already quoted:

Striker:

_ _ A. Movement: The movement rate of a spaceship is determined in the same way as that for a grav vehicle; the ship's maneuver drive rating is used as its G value. A ship with a G rating equal to or less than the planetary gravity may not take part in combat actions except from orbit.

_ _ 1. Grav Vehicle Maneuver Gs: A grav vehicle has Gs of acceleration equal to its thrust in tons divided by its weight, also in tons. One G is needed to keep the vehicle in the air (and if its thrust is less than one G, the vehicle cannot move); thrust in excess of one G is used for maneuver. Thus to find maneuver Gs, subtract one from the total G value.

Rule 53: Planetary Environment
_ _ The basic Striker rules describe conditions on an Earth-like planet (in Traveller terms, size 8, with a standard atmosphere). Planets with different sizes, gravities, and atmospheres will have various effects, as explained below.
...
_ _ 1. Movement: For the movement of all ground vehicles, ... Grav vehicles require a more complicated determination of movement. The movement rate is determined as outlined in the vehicle design rules in Book 3, but instead of subtracting 1 from the G-rating of the vehicle's drives, the local gravity is subtracted instead.

This, just like LBB2, says that spaceships with a lower M-drive rating than local gravity can't fly, they can't take off, literally "the vehicle cannot move". How much clearer do you want it?

Gravity affects spacecraft in Traveller. Physics doesn't disappear in a cloud of unicorn farts around spacecraft.

You could at least pretend to read my post before you ignore them?

1. These are the Striker rules for creating VEHICLES. A Starship is not a "Grav Vehicle" and a Grav Vehicle is not a "Starship".

Straw man argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
No, spacecraft are not vehicles and no-one claimed they were. Spacecraft follows the rules for spacecraft, that are explicit in LBB2 and Striker.

1. What is the thrust in tons of a CT Starship MD? What is the mass in tons of a CT Starship? How can you even correctly apply this rule to a CT Starship (assuming that a CT Starship IS a Grav Vehicle)?

By RAW, if you bother to read the rules:

_ _ A. Movement: The movement rate of a spaceship is determined in the same way as that for a grav vehicle; the ship's maneuver drive rating is used as its G value. A ship with a G rating equal to or less than the planetary gravity may not take part in combat actions except from orbit.

1. Note that "One G is needed to keep it [Grav Vehicle] in the air". Being pedantic, but STRIKER prohibits movement on a size 4 world as well as a size 9 world ... it is not subtracting "local gravity" to calculate "local thrust" (if you really want to apply it "RAW" to Starships).

No, if you bothered to read the rules that I have already quoted:

Rule 53: Planetary Environment
_ _ The basic Striker rules describe conditions on an Earth-like planet (in Traveller terms, size 8, with a standard atmosphere). Planets with different sizes, gravities, and atmospheres will have various effects, as explained below.
...
_ _ 1. Movement: For the movement of all ground vehicles, ... Grav vehicles require a more complicated determination of movement. The movement rate is determined as outlined in the vehicle design rules in Book 3, but instead of subtracting 1 from the G-rating of the vehicle's drives, the local gravity is subtracted instead.

[You want to apply Striker Ground Vehicle Combat Movement Rules to a Starship that is explicitly excluded from Striker Ground Combat ...

Only those that explicitly apply to spacecraft. You ignoring them would be a house rule.

... and ignore LBB2 Surface to Orbit Travel rules ...

That are explicitly for Interplanetary Travel, not orbital manoeuvres:

No, this does not describe orbital manoeuvres (it's LBB2'81, p10):
View attachment 3563

LBB2'77, p1 says:
View attachment 3564
No, that doesn't describe orbital manoeuvres either.

that is not RAW for a discussion on Surface to Orbit travel for Starships; that is YOUR House Rule. You are welcome to disagree, but I think my position is clear, as is identification of the TEXT that I am discussing.]

We can continue to scream "yes, it does" and "no, it doesn't" at each other without listening forever. That is not communication.

If you wish to actually communicate, read my argument above, read the rules, and make a response to my argument.


And so, in conclusion:

the vehicle cannot move

 

[Captain_Ahab]

I have physics on my side, you just have incorrect rules understanding.

Please demonstrate this.
Please show how you determine Cl and Cd for your ships, in accordance with the rules
and show how you deal with differing atmospheric densities over varying altitudes
or calculate Lift and drag in a rule system that does not even properly track a ship's mass or thrust
and if we're going to be going down that rabbit hole, shock wave temps and making sure ship's bits that can't handle the temps stay within the shock cone, etc. etc.

and how it all comes together to allow a ship to reach escape velocity ( ~Mach 33, iirc )

if you're going to call upon physics, then it must be done properly
or at least be up-front about what you are leaning on and what your are choosing to ignore
and even then, it'll just be a house rule
if memory serves, Striker was the first attempt of official rules to touch aerodynamics, albeit, greatly simplified

You mean the shuttles that according to LBB1 77 can not get to orbit either?

LBB 77' shuttles have more than enough thrust to land on and launch from any world that can be generated by the rules
or just design your own shuttle, after all

 

[coliver988]

I've been enjoying most of the conversation, and it has made me decide to take into account the M-drive rating for landing on worlds. And it is interesting to watch the ping-pong match from parties that refuse to budge (and I can see most of the sides honestly). And then I recalled a dumb movie I watched over the weekend. Made for TV, fairly predictable, but a fun diversion. And for me, Traveller and the rules are a fun diversion and the RAW is merely the starting point and, as shown, can be interpreted a lot of ways,

Anyway, the dumb movie was about a plane that made orbit and, not designed for a hot re-entry, still manages it. Which reminds me a bit of this conversation for some reason. Starflight (IMDB reference). In the end - we're here to have fun.

Sits back, in hand, and (mostly) enjoying the show.

 

[mike wightman]

A reading of the ship's boat skill implies no smallcraft can't fly on size 8+ worlds, except for an emergency landing.

I am assuming that by TL9 you can add computer controlled flight surfaces to starships as part of the streamlining cost.

I am assuming a 1g continuous thrust can accelerate a streamlined ship to take off speed at which point lift and weight cancel.

I am assuming a starship can then climb to such an altitude where the atmosphere is so thin that lift almost disappears.

I am assuming the TL9 ship hull, magic m-drive field and magic heat sinks can take care of the plasma.

I am assuming the starship can continue to accelerate horizontally at this lift cut off boundary (in part thanks to the above factors which are TL9) until it achieves orbital velocity ay which point it can use inertial orbital insertion. Once in orbit any horizontal thrust will raise the orbit and the orbital velocity until escape velocity is achieved.

Now i will admit there are some TL9 handwaves in there, but I am not trying to claim that here in the real world we could build a machine that could do this. What I am claiming is that lift exists in the Traveller universe, and that starships can use lift to fly to orbit thanks in part to the magic technologies of TL9 (a reactionless m-drive based on pure handwavium, magic heat sinks that are never even officially considered, a magic field surrounding the ship generated by the m-drive that allows for some sort of plasma manipulation).

I can take a stab at a value for the Reynolds Number for a starship's hull plasma field if that would help, but it would be made up, just like Traveller starships.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Now i will admit there are some TL9 handwaves in there, but I am not trying to claim that here in the real world we could build a machine that could do this.

OK, and that is not needed.

What I am claiming is that lift exists in the Traveller universe, and that starships can use lift to fly to orbit thanks in part to the magic technologies of TL9 (a reactionless m-drive based on pure handwavium, magic heat sinks that are never even officially considered, a magic field surrounding the ship generated by the m-drive that allows for some sort of plasma manipulation).

Agreed, lift exists. Physics work and fixed wing aircraft certainly exists in Traveller.
Agreed, some starships might be able fly like aircraft, e.g. the Subbie and the Serpent, even if that might be a house rule on my part. The wings are presumably there for a reason, even if they wouldn't work as commonly drawn.

But from what I understand you claim so much more:
You claim that all streamlined ships can fly like aircraft, regardless of shape, regardless of air density?
You claim that all streamlined ships have a reasonable stall speed, hence runway length, regardless of shape, regardless of air density?
You claim that all streamlined ships can achieve orbital speed in atmosphere with 1 G drives, regardless of shape, regardless of air density?
You claim that that is RAW; stated in the CT rules?


Sorry, I just don't understand: If you want your ships to fly, they fly. But why do you insist so vehemently that the rules say all of that, that it's RAW, even when you say:

Then Striker is wrong.

If you don't like RAW, fine, disregard it.
If you don't like some sources of RAW, fine, disregard them.
But why then claim that what you play is strictly RAW?

 

[mike wightman]

Do you use Striker to resolve all ground combat in your Traveller games?

I am not claiming starships that are streamlined are as maneuverable as aircraft, what I am claiming is that streamlining allows for the ship to get enough lift that it can become airborne...
and no they will have a pretty high stall speed, but they have a 1g engine that is more powerful than the vast majority of even military planes today...
and yes any streamlined ship can achieve orbit, if an air/raft can achieve orbit then why not, and yes they can achieve orbital velocities at extreme altitudes (no need to worry about heat in Traveller)...

When have I ever claimed it is 'written in the rules' - I am claiming it is a reasonable interpretation as I am asked to do by LBB3 since there are no rules written to cover this. I discount Striker for the same reason the economics rules in that work was discounted, the Striker abstraction does not match the setting that had been described prior to its publication.

Where do the rules state ships fly like rockets?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

When have I ever claimed it is 'written in the rules' - I am claiming it is a reasonable interpretation as I am asked to do by LBB3 since there are no rules written to cover this. I discount Striker for the same reason the economics rules in that work was discounted, the Striker abstraction does not match the setting that had been described prior to its publication.

Then we argue over nothing whatsoever.

If you want your ships to fly, they fly.
If you want to discount Striker, you do.
It just isn't mandated by the rules (isn't strictly RAW), and if you don't claim that, we have no disagreement.


If you argue that ships should fly IMTU, we would have a problem, but I don't think you are, right?