High Guard Pulse Laser Question
- Thread starter Jeffr0
- Start date
Bob Weaver
SOC-12
I always assumed that table included both types of lasers and both types of energy weapons. I'd use P-lasers more often for the damage table bonus, if it were not for the difficulty in getting a decent attack factor. Better penetration don't matter if you can't hit the target. IMTU, both Plasma & Fusion guns also get a beneficial DM on the Surface Explosion table.
Has anyone else 'house ruled' in any changes to the damage tables?
Cheers,
Bob W.
No, because, as Book 0 states "...the rules are interlinked to a great extent. If you change one section, you must also be williing to change all other sections which are then rendered inconsistent."
In your example, one must consider the better performance of energy weapons. This makes other weapons less effective in comparison.
Therefore, either other weapons should be pumped up too, or energy weapons should cost more, should use more energy points, should require more tonnage...
A mess.
I stay with the original rules.
Fred
Do note, however, that depending on the rules version in use, there may be an additional DM for the pulse lasers htat the beam lasers do not suffer.
In very early printings of B2, for example, pulse lasers suffered an additional DM of -1 compared to beam lasers shooting at the same target, but this was offset by allowing pulsies to get two damage rolls instead of one when they did manage to hit. This rule was omitted from most later printings of the basic rules, but it does survive in HG2 in the form of pulse laser batteries not increasing in Factor as fast or as high as numerically-identical beam laser batteries, but instead enjoying a wicked extra -2 on any Damage Table rolls they make when they do hit (meaning they roll at a net +4 as under-Factor-A batteries instead of the usual +6). And of course, energy weapons are wonderful for point defense because of their own very advantageous To Hit DMs under HG2.
Under BT space combat, any To Hit DM for pulse lasers that one might apply will probably be a modifier to the straight 9+ Anti-Missile Fire roll; I also apply the DMs for Solomani-style fixed mounts on those rare occasions when someone has been foolish enough to mount lasers in such configurations.
The interesting point to consider is: can lasers (or energy weapons) be used to target still-far-away enemy missiles in the regular Own Fire Phase, as opposed to the Anti-Missile Phase? I tend to say "Yes" but add in a -3 To Hit DM (for the missile's small size but non-evasive nature) to the basic 8+ Gunnery roll (plus range and software-based DMs as appropriate), and remember that all versions of Target say one turret may only engage one target per phase (although this limitation probably does not apply to the Anti-Missile software's operations, since it is running too fast for a sophont Gunner to keep up anyway).
Last edited:
My house rule has always been that only beam lasers can intercept missiles.
Energy weapons are used at close range, and that's too close to intercept missiles which I figure are like big canister rounds going off at a stand-off distance from the target. Pulse lasers already get a bonus in damage while being cheaper to buy. Plus, the -1 to hit DM is easily offset by computers and gunnery skills so its only a minor issue.
So, since I play my game as an RPG first and wargame second, I like to provide reasons to give players plenty of choices. So, only beam lasers IMTU can intercept missiles. Otherwise why would anyone bother with buying beam lasers?
Well, under the old original rules' -1 DM for pulse lasers employed IMTU, in comparison beam lasers are about twice as likely to hit what they shoot at.
Using that DM, pulse lasers need a 10+ To Hit when doing Anti-Missile fire, which makes them much less useful than beam lasers in that particular application.
Which in turn then preserves the choice inasmuch as players are then faced with a trade-off in the form of beam lasers' higher cost for higher accuracy.
So, you know, whatever works IYTU...
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
An ironic statement, considering that CT has to be one of the most extensively "customized" RPGs ever.
Tbeard,
Not ironic. More like ignored.
How many times on various Traveller fora have you seen a post stating I do A IMTU immediately followed by multiple responses stating That directly effects B., How do you then account for C?, and Did you remember about D?.
CT is extensively customized and very little of that customization is done with anything approaching intellectual honesty or rigor.
Then again, why should it? If it works in someone's game, it is by definition "good".
Regards,
Bill
As Whipsnade notes, it is still a fair warning, even if most Trav refs blithely ignore it.
IMTU there is a Golden House Rule: all House Rules must actually improve the experience of playing the game, and if a House Rule can be shown not to, the players may discard it, even over the ref's objections.
After 30-odd years of play, the House Rules IMTU may be counted on the fingers of one hand and fully written-out on one side of a 3x5 index card; I get no complaints.
Tbeard,
Not ironic. More like ignored.
How many times on various Traveller fora have you seen a post stating I do A IMTU immediately followed by multiple responses stating That directly effects B., How do you then account for C?, and Did you remember about D?.
CT is extensively customized and very little of that customization is done with anything approaching intellectual honesty or rigor.
Then again, why should it? If it works in someone's game, it is by definition "good".
Regards,
Bill
Ah Bill... people "fix" carefully balanced games like Monopoly all the time by doing "fun" things like putting Chance money on Free Parking. Then they complain constantly about how long the games drag on-- when in reality they've injected just enough cash into the game system to prevent the weakest player from going out. They also completely ignore rules like the one about properties going up for auction if the player elects not to buy it when they land on it-- this injects a great deal of strategy into a game that most people think of as being luck-dependent and deterministic.
While many elements of the CT system never quite received the degree of revision that they required, almost all of it were mostly corrected by players without their even playing it by "by the book" first. While a system like CAR WARS never took itself too seriously and always remained a game-- the designers greatly discouraged people from comparing "fun" CAR WARS equipment with real world military hardware-- Traveller players have (in general) been willing to overturn most of the game rules in order to suit their notions of so-called realism.
The fact that High Guard made it to a good second edition means that it (out of all the body of CT rules) deserves most to be looked at in its own terms.
Last edited:
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
One must chuckle at that line when reading the bit in HG about "It is possible to include standard drives (at standard prices) from Book 2... "
:smirk:
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Yep, factored into the lower USP in HG as you note.
...by mistake. Included in Starter Edition iirc. In any case it is errata and should be part of all Book 2 CT combat.
Last edited:
