Jump torpedo

[whartung]

Is it? I'm not so sure; if it were the case that objects smaller than 100 tons could jump, we could have seen missiles jumping into enemy systems bearing world-buster warheads, homing into the nearest populated planet, and doing the horrific in every major war the Traveller universe has seen. Can you imagine how, for example, the Sword Worlds might have acted in the FFW, had this tech been available in the rules?

Some rules NEED to be removed so as to balance game play. Just saying.

Nonsense. You think this isn't happening with a 100dt ship because it costs too much? The jump torpedo is not some magical enabler of bad behavior, and a 100dt ship is still spectacularly small in the dark of space.

 

[mike wightman]

Is it? I'm not so sure; if it were the case that objects smaller than 100 tons could jump, we could have seen missiles jumping into enemy systems bearing world-buster warheads, homing into the nearest populated planet, and doing the horrific in every major war the Traveller universe has seen. Can you imagine how, for example, the Sword Worlds might have acted in the FFW, had this tech been available in the rules?

A planet busting warhead in a 50kg missile? That I would like to see...
Take a 100t scout courier, fill it with antimatter cannisters , accelerate it to near c and then jump it to the enemy system...

eSome rules NEED to be removed so as to balance game play. Just saying.

I do not see how a jump message torpedo unbalances the game.

That's a bit harsh, calling it a dictat, but I get the point on this issue; IMTU, they'll remain available - and that's the key, here: IMTU (or IYTU, whatever ) is a reality of sorts. You can include or discard whatever you like for your version of the game as you see fit. Now, if you're writing something for the OTU, that's a different story, obviously, but IMTU is a handy thing to have.

My point is they are rules are being removed because the view of the setting is being changed. Why not leave the rules alone so people have choice and say which stuff isn't used in the OTU?
FF&S offered loads of options that didn't fit the TNE universe, but the options were there.

Reconning, rebooting, call it what you like, but as above: If you don't like the changes, don't use 'em. IYTU

Can't use them - they have been removed from the rules - if I want to include them I have to use a different rule set.

 

[mike wightman]

In the T5.0 Core Rules, Meson Guns do exist as a 200dton "Main Weapon" Bay. Has this also been changed going forward toward T5.1, or is that an exception?

It's something from the MgT HG2 v2 playtest rules.

Which makes little sense removing them from MgT OTU when they are still in the T5 OTU...

 

[aramis]

In the T5.0 Core Rules, Meson Guns do exist as a 200dton "Main Weapon" Bay. Has this also been changed going forward toward T5.1, or is that an exception?

Note that this is a major retcon -
CT has TL 13+ 100Td bays, TL15+ 50 Td bays, in both the 1979 and 1980 versions of HG.
MT as well.
TNE/T4, one can build a man-pack meson gun.

 

[Redcap]

Nonsense. You think this isn't happening with a 100dt ship because it costs too much? The jump torpedo is not some magical enabler of bad behavior, and a 100dt ship is still spectacularly small in the dark of space.

OK, setting aside jump torps, you'd be happy seeing <100dt fighters with jump drives, then? And that wouldn't unbalance the game? Even a tad?

A planet busting warhead in a 50kg missile? That I would like to see...
Take a 100t scout courier, fill it with antimatter cannisters , accelerate it to near c and then jump it to the enemy system...

OK, I'll cop to that, the idea of a sub 100dt missile with a planet cracker on top was a little silly *sheepish grin*

I do not see how a jump message torpedo unbalances the game.

My point is they are rules are being removed because the view of the setting is being changed. Why not leave the rules alone so people have choice and say which stuff isn't used in the OTU?

FF&S offered loads of options that didn't fit the TNE universe, but the options were there.

So? I still maintain that you have the option to run it IYTU. That does not make it a different game. It just switches out something you don't like. Think of it as leaving out the onions from a recipe, yeah, the flavour might be a bit different, but it's still the same beef stew. And if you like FF&S, use it. I did every so often, and probably will again.

Can't use them - they have been removed from the rules - if I want to include them I have to use a different rule set.

That's being faaaaaar too rigid, IMHO. By the same guideline as I mentioned above, I dislike, no, wrong word: I HATE the MT setting. Does that mean I'm not playing traveller if I play in a universe where the GURPS setting/Lorenverse is in play? No, it just means I run a different 'milieu' (Who the heck came up with THAT word?! Use 'parallel setting' and I'd have understood the meaning in an instant!); by the same token, I use CT rules, the MT Task system, and as just mentioned, GT setting. Does that make it not-Traveller? No. Just means I mix'n'match, like a wide variety of folks who like the game.

It's something from the MgT HG2 v2 playtest rules.

Which makes little sense removing them from MgT OTU when they are still in the T5 OTU...

Ah. That's why I couldn't find anything on that. Thanks.

Note that this is a major retcon -
CT has TL 13+ 100Td bays, TL15+ 50 Td bays, in both the 1979 and 1980 versions of HG.
MT as well.
TNE/T4, one can build a man-pack meson gun.

Hmm. I'll stand by my previous comments: IYTU is the thing to bear in mind. If you don't like it, leave it out. If you want it, and it's been removed, add it back in. Who the hell cares if you play the game your way, as long as the majority is still a form of Traveller that your players and you can still relate to and run with?

Just because they might decide that French Mustard is no longer to be made, doesn't mean that you have to go and use English Mustard all the time, now: You can still make the other variety if you want to.

I could keep saying this until I'm blue in the face: IYTU. You have the choice to decide to include, or not to include, to add, or not to add: That's the beauty of it all: You have choice.


ps... Also - who's to say that sub-100dt Jump Drives aren't practical at TL G or H? IYTU!

 

[aramis]

Roger - the OTU is defined, at least in CT and MT, as much by the "errata-applied" rules as it is by the fluff and explicit setting materials.

 

[Redcap]

Aramis - I'm not disputing that for an instant; what I'm banging my chest over is the abundance from some quarters of a form of quasi-religious ultra-orthodox-like adherence to it all. It's enough to make a vicar kick in a stained-glass window in frustration! All I'm saying is bend a little; be flexible: If you don't like Jump Torps, don't use them (I don't, as you might have guessed), or, if you want them in the mix, use them - IYTU!

To mix my genres a bit, "I think I will stick my head in the station's fusion reactor. It would be quicker. And I suspect, after a while I might even come to enjoy it." (Londo, "Babylon 5", S01E22 'Chrysalis').

 

[mike wightman]

I think you are missing my point.

If there is stuff in the rules that offers choice I have choice. If there are no rules for choice I have no choice. It's not about rigidity, it's about flexibility.

Removing rules for stuff because the official setting becomes more defined removes choice.

 

[Redcap]

*banging head on desk*

 

[flykiller]

*banging head on desk*

thread winner.

 

[Redcap]

Thank you, thank you, thank you

*Takes a bow, and promptly smacks his head on the edge of the desk again*

OW! :nonono:

 

[whartung]

OK, setting aside jump torps, you'd be happy seeing <100dt fighters with jump drives, then? And that wouldn't unbalance the game? Even a tad?

Considering the inefficacy of fighters without Jump Drives, I doubt they'd rock the boat much at all.

ps... Also - who's to say that sub-100dt Jump Drives aren't practical at TL G or H? IYTU!

FF&S let's you have sub 100dt Jump vehicles.

 

[Redcap]

Considering the inefficacy of fighters without Jump Drives, I doubt they'd rock the boat much at all.

heh. Can't argue that too much at all

FF&S let's you have sub 100dt Jump vehicles.

Interesting. Hadn't noticed that myself, but then I haven't used it to make ships in the past, just vehicles.

 

[aramis]

Considering the inefficacy of fighters without Jump Drives, I doubt they'd rock the boat much at all.



FF&S let's you have sub 100dt Jump vehicles.

But insists that they use fuel and drives as if they were 100Td anyway. So, effectively, no sub-100Td Ship Jump Drives.

 

[mike wightman]

OK, setting aside jump torps, you'd be happy seeing <100dt fighters with jump drives, then? And that wouldn't unbalance the game? Even a tad?

Which game would it unbalance? Fighters are pretty ineffective in moderate to high TL HG engagements. What's the difference between them jumping under their own power and being carried between systems by a carrier, or using jump gates like in B5 to travel between systems?
I have run games with ftl fighters, I even had a game where powered armour was FTL capable.

The only thing that really unbalances the Traveller setting is introducing FTL comms. Saying that I have used Traveller to run Star Wars, B5, Star Trek all of which have FTL comms.

OK, I'll cop to that, the idea of a sub 100dt missile with a planet cracker on top was a little silly *sheepish grin*

Probably doable as a 50ton missile... I kid

So? I still maintain that you have the option to run it IYTU. That does not make it a different game. It just switches out something you don't like. Think of it as leaving out the onions from a recipe, yeah, the flavour might be a bit different, but it's still the same beef stew. And if you like FF&S, use it. I did every so often, and probably will again.

Oh I pick and choose from every Traveller version for MTU and throw in stuff from other games too.
My issue is that if you produce core rules without the options then how do people find out about those options?

That's being faaaaaar too rigid, IMHO. By the same guideline as I mentioned above, I dislike, no, wrong word: I HATE the MT setting. Does that mean I'm not playing traveller if I play in a universe where the GURPS setting/Lorenverse is in play? No, it just means I run a different 'milieu' (Who the heck came up with THAT word?! Use 'parallel setting' and I'd have understood the meaning in an instant!); by the same token, I use CT rules, the MT Task system, and as just mentioned, GT setting. Does that make it not-Traveller? No. Just means I mix'n'match, like a wide variety of folks who like the game.

One of the things I like about Traveller is that I can adapt it to suit the game I want to run, or my players want to play in. Often that means making stuff up, but where I can I like to adapt what is there e.g. for my Culture based setting I used the psionics rules to describe/make up rules for displacers, EM effector weapons and such like).

Hmm. I'll stand by my previous comments: IYTU is the thing to bear in mind. If you don't like it, leave it out. If you want it, and it's been removed, add it back in. Who the hell cares if you play the game your way, as long as the majority is still a form of Traveller that your players and you can still relate to and run with?

How do you add it back in if there are no rules for it? Yes I can take stuff from earlier editions, I can steal stuff from other games, I can borrow stuff made up by the good folk here on CotI.
What if I am new to the game and the only rules are the T5 rules or the 2eMgT rules that are so closely tied to this weeks vision for the OTU that the options are not there?

Just because they might decide that French Mustard is no longer to be made, doesn't mean that you have to go and use English Mustard all the time, now: You can still make the other variety if you want to.

Not if you don't know French mustard existed.

I could keep saying this until I'm blue in the face: IYTU. You have the choice to decide to include, or not to include, to add, or not to add: That's the beauty of it all: You have choice.

Only if the options are there. If they have been removed at source then I have to be aware of earlier rules or use the aforementioned other sources.
CT encourages you to make stuff up, as time went by more and more options were added, some were taken away until we got FF&S, probably the single best supplement for Traveller ever, almost GURPS like in the options it offers. Do all of the options exist in the OTU? No, they even provide guidelines in how to adjust TL developments to suit the game you want to run.

ps... Also - who's to say that sub-100dt Jump Drives aren't practical at TL G or H? IYTU!

Nothing, I have Ancient era jump capable battledress in my War of the Ancients setting.

 

[Redcap]

The only thing that really unbalances the Traveller setting is introducing FTL comms. Saying that I have used Traveller to run Star Wars, B5, Star Trek all of which have FTL comms.

Agreed on FTL in Traveller; it's already out of the bottle for other genres (except the Vorkosigan Saga for GURPS), so little impact is felt for them, but for Traveller in all it's incarnations, that would be a major balance-banger.

Probably doable as a 50ton missile... I kid

:rofl:

Oh I pick and choose from every Traveller version for MTU and throw in stuff from other games too.

Fair play (so to speak), and glad to hear it Modification being the mother of invention, and all that

My issue is that if you produce core rules without the options then how do people find out about those options?

The classic books (and MT et al) are still available in both hard copy and as CD-ROMS; I dare say that e-book downloads will be on the plate sooner or later, too; this all assumes, of course, that the person buying the game makes the conscious decision to look at older versions as well or instead of the more recent versions, so I take the point, which is well made.

One of the things I like about Traveller is that I can adapt it to suit the game I want to run, or my players want to play in. Often that means making stuff up, but where I can I like to adapt what is there e.g. for my Culture based setting I used the psionics rules to describe/make up rules for displacers, EM effector weapons and such like).

heh. Aside time... had a game with psionics in it ages ago; my (quietly) psionic PC was falling down a cliff, and had a brainfart moment, deciding to save himself, and teleported to the bottom of the cliff, thinking to save himself from the rather sickening and crunchy sudden stop at the bottom. Naturally, I ignored the conservation of energy physics rules, and wondered why the ref made me roll versus edu. The referee hadn't forgotton those physical laws, the sadistic wossit. Ker-splat.

How do you add it back in if there are no rules for it? Yes I can take stuff from earlier editions, I can steal stuff from other games, I can borrow stuff made up by the good folk here on CotI.

What if I am new to the game and the only rules are the T5 rules or the 2eMgT rules that are so closely tied to this weeks vision for the OTU that the options are not there?

As mentioned above, it's a well-made point, and accepted. Not an easy thing to work around, I'll agree.

Not if you don't know French mustard existed.

Hmm. Lot less hotdogs on the menu, then

Nothing, I have Ancient era jump capable battledress in my War of the Ancients setting.

LOL

 

[Hyphen]

ps... Also - who's to say that sub-100dt Jump Drives aren't practical at TL G or H? IYTU!

Did you read my CANON PROBLEM 1: Jump Torpedoes page??

 

[Redcap]

Just now - thanks; I'll go with a modified S#3:

S3: "Clarke's Law"

Allow sub-100t jumps at TL 16. This is the simplest and most elegant solution - the Leviathan's j-torps are therefore experimental technology supplied by Glisten, the Regency's jump-boats are cutting-edge tech developed during the cross-fertilisation of ideas between HRD/Deneb and the Darrians. The only canon change is to raise the TL of the jump drives installed on the jump-boats to TL 16.​

 

[Condottiere]

Even at tech level sixteen, transitioning would have a minimal volume threshold, the extreme end of the stick would be ten tonnes.

 

[robject]

MWM has passed a dictat that meson guns only exist in the T5 OTU as spinal mounts. No more battlefield meson guns, no more meson bays.

He's limited them on ships under 2,500 tons to "main" guns only.