Errata - that difficult subject
- Thread starter vraymond
- Start date
The problem with the 2d+Pen-AV directly for damage in MT is that not all weapons are created equal, and it breaks down on larger (>20Td) vehicles and weapons (Dmg != 3).
On the other hand, using 2d6+Pen-AV for multipliers DOES make sense:
2-: x0
3-6: x0.1
7-10: x0.5
11-14: x1
15+: x2
Note the changes were to match to the task system for memorability.
One could easily add a 19+ = x4 and 23+= x8 line, or smooth to
2-:
3 x0.1
4 x0.2
5 x0.3
6 x0.5
7 x0.5
8 x0.6
9 x0.7
10 x0.8
11 x1
12 x1.2
13 x1.4
14 x1.6
15 x1.8
16 x2.0
17 x2.2
18 x2.4
19 x2.6
or, more memorably but math intense
0- x0
1 to 20 rolled x .1
21+ x2
you can fit the curve a variety of ways.
On the other hand, using 2d6+Pen-AV for multipliers DOES make sense:
2-: x0
3-6: x0.1
7-10: x0.5
11-14: x1
15+: x2
Note the changes were to match to the task system for memorability.
One could easily add a 19+ = x4 and 23+= x8 line, or smooth to
2-:
3 x0.1
4 x0.2
5 x0.3
6 x0.5
7 x0.5
8 x0.6
9 x0.7
10 x0.8
11 x1
12 x1.2
13 x1.4
14 x1.6
15 x1.8
16 x2.0
17 x2.2
18 x2.4
19 x2.6
or, more memorably but math intense
0- x0
1 to 20 rolled x .1
21+ x2
you can fit the curve a variety of ways.
Ok. I guess you need the x2 maximum to stop it getting silly at high Penetration, else you could just do (2d6+Pen-AV) x 0.1 = multiplier.
If using this, you would remove the 2+, 4+ and 8+ multipliers from the normal MT "to hit" roll - would you use instead the Striker rule of "1 extra hit per +2 rolled over base number to hit", and the autofire bonuses from Striker?
e.g. SMG on full auto gets +4/+2/+1 to hit. At close range you need say 7+, if you roll, say, 7 +2(skill) +4(auto) = 13, that's 4 hits, distributed as you wish among valid autofire targets?
Then use 2d6 +3(SMG Pen)-AV on table as above.
cheers,
Mark
Thinking about it a bit more, I'm leaning towards only giving the extra hits for rolling above the needed "to hit" number for automatic fire, along with the autofire bonus. That then tells you how many hits you get and can distribute amongst the autofire targets. Any single shot weapon can only hit once and the (2d6+Pen-AV) multiplier will determine extra damage.
It would still handle pinpoint shots, as MT errata suggests to increase the difficulty by 1 band, and half the AV.
For conversion of autofire bonuses, Striker uses effective, long and extreme ranges, these vary per weapon and don't necessarily match up to the MT range bands. I'd be tempted to say that the autofire bonuses apply to Short (<5m) range, and are halved per range band after that, which sort of keeps it consistent with Penetration calculations. Don't know if that would mess up some of the larger weapons, I suppose you could have an autofire value a bit like the Penetration values, e.g. VRF Gauss +8/2 or similar.
cheers,
Mark
It would still handle pinpoint shots, as MT errata suggests to increase the difficulty by 1 band, and half the AV.
For conversion of autofire bonuses, Striker uses effective, long and extreme ranges, these vary per weapon and don't necessarily match up to the MT range bands. I'd be tempted to say that the autofire bonuses apply to Short (<5m) range, and are halved per range band after that, which sort of keeps it consistent with Penetration calculations. Don't know if that would mess up some of the larger weapons, I suppose you could have an autofire value a bit like the Penetration values, e.g. VRF Gauss +8/2 or similar.
cheers,
Mark
I've done some research and I think I've got some good answers for Mark B., and some items that are going to HAVE to be added to the errata...
To perform final treatment:
[treatment difficulty], Medical, Int, 10 min
With some additional rules as well; I've been trying to figure out how to incorporate this into the errata...
AARRRGH.
More errata updates soon
The interrupters, and it's positive -- that's the standard design for a task, and it's implied by the errata on page 69 regarding hand-to-hand interrupts, and confirmed by the discussion in TD #18.
Actually, the statement about Dur getting to continue his movement is his NEXT turn, as it says that then another pair of interrupts are possible, but for now both sides have used their interrupts. The interrupted unit's turn IS spent. The discussion of this EXACT issue in Travellers' Digest #18 confirms this. Another item to add to the errata, but it will need some rewriting...
In the Travellers' Digest #13 article on injuries and replacements, they change it to exactly as you describe:
To perform final treatment:
[treatment difficulty], Medical, Int, 10 min
With some additional rules as well; I've been trying to figure out how to incorporate this into the errata...
As per the chart on p. 76, Gauss Pistol uses Handgun skill.
There is a specific discussion of the danger space issue in TD #12 that clears up a lot of this. The only missing indirect fire rules I'm aware of were for grenades, and those are in the errata.
There's a good discussion of this in TD #12; The short ruling is that you can actually target all of those adjacent target shots at the primary target if you want.
I've always played the "many weapons virtually useless against Cloth" way... and there's a discussion in TD #17 that explains this, that I'm going to have to add to the errata...
I always thought this method was implied, but it does not appear to be explicitly stated. That's new errata, which is actually covered in the MTJ#4 Q&A, but not with a PAGE REFERENCE.
AARRRGH.
More errata updates soon
Many thanks for the reply:
Ok. I realised that it must be interrupter's speed when I looked at the equivalent spaceship combat task, which says to use Agility.
Hm, I've always assumed that the one interrupt per side was there to prevent huge chains of interrupts occurring, i.e. you are only allowed one interrupt per side per opportunity. This would seem to be supported by the line "only one interupt is permitted per enemy attack or square of enemy movement". The example does specifically say that "When Dur moves another square, or if he shoots while moving down the hall, another pair of interrupts will become possible" which sort of implies that he can continue moving.
Doesn't the rule that they lose their turn result in the fact that as soon as someone tries to move or shoot, you should try and interrupt them, because they will then lose their turn, and if you fail to interrupt you lose nothing? I can't see any disadvantage to doing this every time, which seems a little odd, and would drag combats out unnecessarily.
Incidentally, the Starship combat rules have a slightly different wording: "If successful, it becomes the interrupting unit's turn; the unit's turn is considered spent for the combat round". Which could be taken to simply mean that using your interrupt turn uses your turn, i.e. you don't get a free turn on an interrupt.
Anyway, if the clarifications in TD explain it better, that's good!
Aha. Great!
Sure, just not listed in the skills listings.
Aha. Any chance of seeing this discussion?
Excellent, this makes sense.
Yes please!I've always played the "many weapons virtually useless against Cloth" way... and there's a discussion in TD #17 that explains this, that I'm going to have to add to the errata...
Ok.
Fantastic. Thanks for the info.More errata updates soon
Mark
Actually, just to be picky(!), that's not quite right. The entries in the table on p76 are used to determine the range difficulty (Handgun, Rifle, Thrown, TL FC). The skill used could be different, e.g. ARL uses Rifle range difficulties, but Heavy Weapons skill (I think this is mentioned in the Imperial Handbook under the weapon, but not on this table) to actually modify the difficulty when firing. Similarly for MGs, Recoilless Rifles etc. In this case, of course, the Gauss Pistol does use Handgun skill.
Also, on the table, the errata mentions that the Accelerator Rifle has Pen/Atten of 3/*, however, I don't know that the meaning of the * is explained (presumably that in zero-G there is no attenuation, but then what is it in a gravity field?). Come to think of it, any weapon will not suffer attenuation in Zero-G (well, maybe energy weapons will, and maybe air resistance if there is any).
cheers,
Mark
BTW, a couple of things I've noticed about the errata, on the corrections for the slugthrowers table (p9):
- Accelerator Rifle has Sig M/R and Recoil L, I think this should be Sig M and Recoil L/R. (And as mentioned above, the Pen/Atten 3/* needs some explanation of the *).
- the Assault Rifles (5mm and 7mm) have the same Pen/Atten (2/2). In my version of the rules the 7mm has 3/2, which seems more likely, else there's no difference between them, and brings them into line more with the other 7mm rounds.
- Auto Shotgun: Should it really have 20 rounds for pellets and 10 for all other ammo types? Everything else has the same number of rounds for all types.
cheers,
Mark
- Accelerator Rifle has Sig M/R and Recoil L, I think this should be Sig M and Recoil L/R. (And as mentioned above, the Pen/Atten 3/* needs some explanation of the *).
- the Assault Rifles (5mm and 7mm) have the same Pen/Atten (2/2). In my version of the rules the 7mm has 3/2, which seems more likely, else there's no difference between them, and brings them into line more with the other 7mm rounds.
- Auto Shotgun: Should it really have 20 rounds for pellets and 10 for all other ammo types? Everything else has the same number of rounds for all types.
cheers,
Mark
Aha, not quite right. I just checked in the books, it's the LAG that uses Heavy Weapons skill (although the slug throwers table doesn't mention it, but the skill tables do), even though it's difficulty is as Rifle.
The ARL doesn't seem to be mentioned in the skill tables at all, so I'm not sure if it's a Heavy Weapon or not. Similarly the Accelerator Rifle doesn't appear on the skill tables either, but is presumably covered by Rifleman and/or Combat Rifleman skill?
cheers,
Mark
I've looked over the errata sources; the * for Accelerator Rifle should be "3/-". However, all the errata sources have Sig M/R and Recoil L, which makes no sense: so, I'm going to change the errata.
Also, the 7mm should be 3/2 -- the only errata source that changes it doesn't note it as a change, and all other sources have it as 3/2, so back to 3/2 it goes.
The Auto Shotgun has a 20-shot pellet mag in EVERY source, with no errata.
The ARL and the Accelerator Rifle both use Combat Rifleman, as they are between the ACR and the Gauss Rifle (based on the JTAS #17 issue where the ARL is introduced).
I've posted a new version of the errata, with all the stuff we've discussed on the boards here added!
Also, the 7mm should be 3/2 -- the only errata source that changes it doesn't note it as a change, and all other sources have it as 3/2, so back to 3/2 it goes.
The Auto Shotgun has a 20-shot pellet mag in EVERY source, with no errata.
The ARL and the Accelerator Rifle both use Combat Rifleman, as they are between the ACR and the Gauss Rifle (based on the JTAS #17 issue where the ARL is introduced).
I've posted a new version of the errata, with all the stuff we've discussed on the boards here added!
In this case, even the errata from TD 18 is confusing. If you re-read it, I believe that Joe was trying to say that:
- the person interrupting successfully (the "interruptee"
) gets to take their turn at the moment they perform the interrupt;- and then the interrupted person gets to complete their turn (unless they've been disabled, of course!)
To me, that makes a heap more sense.
As for the accelerator rifle, try this link for the Rifles table, and this link for a copy of the weapon sheet!
(FWIW, it should be Sig = Low and Recoil = Low/R, the "R" meaning "rapid fire is possible".)
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Battledress counts as fully-sealed or rigid armour, so you take no damage from small arms fire. </font>[/QUOTE]What about the exceptional success rule?
It's pretty easy to get 2+ more than you need to hit, which will cause the BD-trooper 1 point of damage.
It doesn't say that a zero penetration result gets no exceptional success damage...
Yup, that's the only way I can read it that makes any sense at all. Of course, when the interruptee continues their turn, they could be interrupted again by someone else (once they've move a square etc). I think the statement about "the interruptee's turn is then over" should be "the interrupter's turn is then over".Originally posted by Hyphen:
In this case, even the errata from TD 18 is confusing. If you re-read it, I believe that Joe was trying to say that:
- the person interrupting successfully (the "interruptee"
- and then the interrupted person gets to complete their turn (unless they've been disabled, of course!)
To me, that makes a heap more sense.
Ok, thanks,
Mark
Ooh, that's a good one. I think the rules are ambiguous on that. I'd probably go with the minimum damage=1,2 or 4 rule though.Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
What about the exceptional success rule?
It's pretty easy to get 2+ more than you need to hit, which will cause the BD-trooper 1 point of damage.
It doesn't say that a zero penetration result gets no exceptional success damage...
Mark
Thanks for these links. I must admit, I'm still not keen on the rules of:
1/ halving the penetration per square regardless of scale, since this changes the penetration effects dependant on the scale being used. For instance, some of the Danger spaces are 30m or 45m+, these are evidentally for use on the 15m scale, else they would be halved to nothing very quickly on the 1.5m scale, which makes giving them such a large danger space pointless in the first place. The only way that I can see to do it is to figure the applicable penetration on the scale that makes most sense, and then convert to the scale that you are actually using. e.g. The 45m DR above would give 3 squares at 15m scale at 0.5, 0.25 and 0.125 penetration multipliers. So in 1.5m scale, that translates to 10 squares at 0.5, 10 at 0.25 and 10 at 0.125 penetration.
2/ using the original "to hit" task to check for hits in the danger space, since this makes the danger space effect of the explosion dependant on things like the range etc rather than the round itself.
The clarification on autofire is interesting, although still a bit fuzzy, I feel. Anyway, being able to allocate hits to the primary target is a good ruling not in the original rules.
Interesting articles, thanks.
Mark
Similar threads
MT Only:
My MT Errata Odyssey
