And what statement would you be referring to?
Where T5 is Going
- Thread starter DonM
- Start date
- Status
Every statement that Spaceresearcher interprets as attempts to proclaim the right of Traveller authority (Except those that quote Marc Miller).
Hans
Marc is the only Traveller authority and each licensee for their product line. That was clearly documented many months ago.
But that being said, the rest of us can read a book and interpret the document for a more clear understanding of the OTU and rulesets. Even going so far as to propose "MTU working solutions" to problems.
Either someone missed that comment several months ago, or they're having a bad day.
But that being said, the rest of us can read a book and interpret the document for a more clear understanding of the OTU and rulesets. Even going so far as to propose "MTU working solutions" to problems.
Either someone missed that comment several months ago, or they're having a bad day.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Whew. I didn't want to write a long post, but with two people not understanding my points, I guess I'll have to be more clear.
For clarification, my original post said...
SNAP SHOT vs AUTOFIRE QUESTION:
McPerth is wrong about using SnapFire when your weapon would have no AutoFire capability. By the book, SnapFire requires burst, automatic, or continuous fire capability.
And, I have no idea what kind of defensive bonus Blue Ghost is talking about. There's no benefit, defensively, to using SnapFire or AutoFire, in T5.
What I was trying to get you guys to discover is that, as written, both SnapFire and AutoFire can only be performed by the same type of weapon (capable of burst, automatic, or continuous fire). Both require a character to be at Speed-0 (Standing) or Speed-1 (Walking).
So, the game says SnapFire and AutoFire have the same requirements.
As far as benefits, SnapFire gives the shooter a +1D to damage, while AutoFire gives the shooter a +2D to damage.
The point I wanted you to discover, is that SnapFire requires a +2D penalty to difficulty on the attack, while AutoFire requires a +1D penalty to the attack.
Thus, my question: Why would anyone ever use SnapFire? SnapFire is harder to use than AutoFire (+2D to attack difficulty vs. +1D for AutoFire), and the benefit of a successful SnapFire attack is weaker than the same for AutoFire (+1D damage for SnapFire while AutoFire attacks get +2D damage).
Answer: They wouldn't.
Especially since ammo isn't tracked in the game. You'd think that AutoFire might blow through magazines faster than SnapFire, but this thinking is moot because ammo isn't tracked at all in the game.
Now...that's on page 214. If you flip over to page 218, you'll see a chart that does not agree with the text on page 214. There on page 218, the chart says that SnapFire can be conducted at Speeds 0, 1, or 2 (Standing, Walking, or Running). And, now, there's a reason to use SnapFire. The only time you would use it is while you are running.
But, which is correct? You won't really know until official errata is published. Usually, text is correct and tables are wrong, when errata like this appears in games. It's easier to finger flub a table than it is to write out the wrong thing. So, one would tend to think that page 214 is correct.
But, if page 214 is correct, then SnapShot is a useless game option that will never be used by any player. Players will always use the AutoFire option over the SnapFire option.
@BlueGhost: This is what I was talking about when I said, on the surface, T5 combat looks logical and fun, but it's not until you dig into the details (drive the car off the lot) that you start to find the game's problems.
When a person scans over the combat chapter, all the options look logical. And, it remains logical until a game day when a player looks up at the Ref across the table and asks, "Why would I ever use SnapFire?"
Now, I could go down and explain each of my questions in this kind of detail, but I think I'll just let you guys find those problems out on your own.
For clarification, my original post said...
I agree, on the surface, for a first read through, they seem OK. It's only after you drive it off the lot that you find the problems.
Try to answer these questions:
In what circumstance would you use SnapFire rather than AutoFire?
How would you resolve a fist fight in a bar between three PCs and three NPCs?
You've got three PCs with six shot revolvers that do 1D damage. They're in a good defensive position. But, 22 native NPCs, without weapons, will rush them. Can you tell me how the NPCs will win this fight without taking a single hit to any one of them?
If a weapon is capable of burst fire, then why would a PC ever use the single fire option?
Can a PC using a standard pump action shotgun fire and move in the same combat round? Can a PC with an M-16 move and fire in the same round?
What's more deadly? A gunshot wound from a revolver or a single stab from a dagger?
What does the damage type PEN mean?
If an NPC wears standard Cloth armor, what type of weapon will it take to have a chance of inflicting even 1 point of damage?
Start answering those questions, and you will get a better idea of what T5 combat has under the hood.
SNAP SHOT vs AUTOFIRE QUESTION:
McPerth is wrong about using SnapFire when your weapon would have no AutoFire capability. By the book, SnapFire requires burst, automatic, or continuous fire capability.
And, I have no idea what kind of defensive bonus Blue Ghost is talking about. There's no benefit, defensively, to using SnapFire or AutoFire, in T5.
What I was trying to get you guys to discover is that, as written, both SnapFire and AutoFire can only be performed by the same type of weapon (capable of burst, automatic, or continuous fire). Both require a character to be at Speed-0 (Standing) or Speed-1 (Walking).
So, the game says SnapFire and AutoFire have the same requirements.
As far as benefits, SnapFire gives the shooter a +1D to damage, while AutoFire gives the shooter a +2D to damage.
The point I wanted you to discover, is that SnapFire requires a +2D penalty to difficulty on the attack, while AutoFire requires a +1D penalty to the attack.
Thus, my question: Why would anyone ever use SnapFire? SnapFire is harder to use than AutoFire (+2D to attack difficulty vs. +1D for AutoFire), and the benefit of a successful SnapFire attack is weaker than the same for AutoFire (+1D damage for SnapFire while AutoFire attacks get +2D damage).
Answer: They wouldn't.
Especially since ammo isn't tracked in the game. You'd think that AutoFire might blow through magazines faster than SnapFire, but this thinking is moot because ammo isn't tracked at all in the game.
Now...that's on page 214. If you flip over to page 218, you'll see a chart that does not agree with the text on page 214. There on page 218, the chart says that SnapFire can be conducted at Speeds 0, 1, or 2 (Standing, Walking, or Running). And, now, there's a reason to use SnapFire. The only time you would use it is while you are running.
But, which is correct? You won't really know until official errata is published. Usually, text is correct and tables are wrong, when errata like this appears in games. It's easier to finger flub a table than it is to write out the wrong thing. So, one would tend to think that page 214 is correct.
But, if page 214 is correct, then SnapShot is a useless game option that will never be used by any player. Players will always use the AutoFire option over the SnapFire option.
@BlueGhost: This is what I was talking about when I said, on the surface, T5 combat looks logical and fun, but it's not until you dig into the details (drive the car off the lot) that you start to find the game's problems.
When a person scans over the combat chapter, all the options look logical. And, it remains logical until a game day when a player looks up at the Ref across the table and asks, "Why would I ever use SnapFire?"
Now, I could go down and explain each of my questions in this kind of detail, but I think I'll just let you guys find those problems out on your own.
Well, if that's what the rules state about Snap Fire requirements, then there is an issue. Snap Fire (shot), as far as "real world operations" are concerned, it's the equivalent of seeing a target and pointing your weapon in its direction, as opposed to sighting it down the barrel.
I don't want to get too off track and talking about this specific scenario, but to me the rules seem to suggest that there's a bit of common sense that the players and GM need to use. Full Auto or Suppression fire is defined as multiple operations of the weapon at speed 0 or speed 1. Snap fire on the other hand, can be used at speed 2. Ergo you can stand, lay prone or walk with your M249 and lay down suppression fire, but you can't run and rattle off a belt or mag of that same weapon. But, you can run with that weapon, or a Colt sidearm, and pull the trigger while pointing (not aiming) the weapon at a target of opportunity.
It almost sounds like what you're really asking is why would you run and shoot with an M4 or ACR when you have a better chance of laying prone with your M249 or Aliens' Smart Gun, and lay down suppressive fire at nearly everything in your field of view.
The point here is that I think there are some misinterpretations of the rules. I don't see any inconsistencies, but maybe I need a better example.
I don't want to get too off track and talking about this specific scenario, but to me the rules seem to suggest that there's a bit of common sense that the players and GM need to use. Full Auto or Suppression fire is defined as multiple operations of the weapon at speed 0 or speed 1. Snap fire on the other hand, can be used at speed 2. Ergo you can stand, lay prone or walk with your M249 and lay down suppression fire, but you can't run and rattle off a belt or mag of that same weapon. But, you can run with that weapon, or a Colt sidearm, and pull the trigger while pointing (not aiming) the weapon at a target of opportunity.
It almost sounds like what you're really asking is why would you run and shoot with an M4 or ACR when you have a better chance of laying prone with your M249 or Aliens' Smart Gun, and lay down suppressive fire at nearly everything in your field of view.
The point here is that I think there are some misinterpretations of the rules. I don't see any inconsistencies, but maybe I need a better example.
Spaceresearcher
SOC-12
Man, I'm starting to think along the lines of 'Bring back Star Frontiers'. At least the mechanics were straight forward and people could get on with the adventures.
Here's hoping that revision fixes all the issues. (FINGERS CROSSED).
Here's hoping that revision fixes all the issues. (FINGERS CROSSED).
Spaceresearcher
SOC-12
Well I always thought you just enjoy having arguments and debates with practically anyone who posts on the board Rancke but hey if it's your hobby, then good for you.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Just read the box in the upper left hand corner on page 214. What I said is there in black & white.
Um...nope. There's a problem there too. Page 211 says that every character gets to move and attack in a combat round.
Then, look at page 214. In combat, a character has three attack types to choose from: AimedFire, SnapFire, or AutoFire.
Reading the descriptions of the three attack types, you'll see that SnapFire and AutoFire require weapons capable of burst, automatic, or continuous fire.
Therefore, if your colt is a revolver or a single-shot semi-automatic pistol, then you CANNOT MOVE during the round.
Why?
SnapFire and AutoFire are clearly out of the question for you because your Colt is not capable of burst, automatic, or continuous fire. The only attack type left for you to use is AimedFire...
...and under the AimedFire description, a character can not move and use AimedFire in the same round.
Note that AimedFire is not the same as "Aiming". There is an "aiming" rule that requires two rounds (one round of doing nothing but aiming and firing on the round after).
So, your comments above are incorrect in terms of T5. By the rules, a character carrying a six shot revolver cannot move in the same round, but a character using an M-16 set on burst fire can move and fire in the same round using either SnapFire or AutoFire (and, we already know that he'll use AutoFire, from the first example).
I gave you page numbers. Look it up. What I say is correct and printed in black & white.
Well, if you want to go all rules lawyer, then yes, if your character is in a fire fight, and all your friends' PCs have M-16s, but for some reason all you have is a revolver of somekind, then, you cannot move at speed 2 and shoot your weapon. But I think a good GM is going to say otherwise, which is what I was getting at.
To me a snap shot is just quickly pulling the trigger on a revolver. It doesn't entail pulling the trigger and four bullets come out of the chamber. I read snap fire as quickly and / or briefly exposing yourself, or a portion of your person, and firing several poorly aimed shots in the direction of the intended target.
That verse an aimed (note; not aiming) shot which according to the rules exposes the firer for a longer period of time for the benefit of a better sighted shot.
To me the points you're bringing up shouldn't anger anyone. I see them as minor oversights. If you're a GM and you're running a game, and some player brings up the fact that the snap fire rule requires everyone have a weapon capable of burst or full auto, then it's you're job as a GM to say "Well, in the real world...." and then continue to administer the adventure.
To me this is not a major issue. It's a bit of addendum for mister Miller to add. I don't see why people are so bent out of shape about it.
To me a snap shot is just quickly pulling the trigger on a revolver. It doesn't entail pulling the trigger and four bullets come out of the chamber. I read snap fire as quickly and / or briefly exposing yourself, or a portion of your person, and firing several poorly aimed shots in the direction of the intended target.
That verse an aimed (note; not aiming) shot which according to the rules exposes the firer for a longer period of time for the benefit of a better sighted shot.
To me the points you're bringing up shouldn't anger anyone. I see them as minor oversights. If you're a GM and you're running a game, and some player brings up the fact that the snap fire rule requires everyone have a weapon capable of burst or full auto, then it's you're job as a GM to say "Well, in the real world...." and then continue to administer the adventure.
To me this is not a major issue. It's a bit of addendum for mister Miller to add. I don't see why people are so bent out of shape about it.
Then you're missing S4's point. He is talking about what the Rules As Written says, not what a good GM can do to repair the flaws of an ill-considered rule.
Rules are for bad GM's too. Indeed, it can be argued that rules are primarily for bad GMs, good GMs being able to handle things with just their charm and ingenuity.
The fact that a good GM can salvage a bad rule does not make the bad rule good.
Hans
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
What Hans said above is true. You're getting off-track. We're not talking about what is "right" and correct for a Ref to deal with T5 problems. We're talking about the game, as it is written. You said that you gave T5 a looksee and you wondered why people were dogging it. I came back and cautioned you, saying that T5 does look OK upon first glance, but it's not until you start really digging into the rules that you see the flaws.
Then, I gave you some things to look at, hoping that you would investigate on your own and discover the flaws I was describing.
I only went over two of them with you. There are tons of flaws in T5. They're not minor oversights. There are a multitude of problems, if you dig into the rules--stuff that probably won't come out until you either study the game real closely or actually play it in a campaign (where astute players will start discovering them).
If those two issues I mentioned to you were the only problems in T5, then I don't think that there would be the uproar. The anger comes from disappointment in seeing so many areas that have issues.
All I can say is it doesn't strike me as being any worse than MT or even T4. Hell, even basic Traveller itself lacked a task system other than the firing rule, but that didn't keep you all from sticking with the game and coming here decades later to share memories.
Whatever.
I'm just a writer, not a game designer.
Do as you please.
Whatever.
I'm just a writer, not a game designer.
Do as you please.
I've never been able to understand how the argument that 'something else has problems too' somehow makes a problem not matter. S4 isn't talking about MT or T4. He's talking about T5. If he's wrong, that's one thing. But nothing in MT or T4 says anything whatsoever about T5.
And isn't T5 supposed to be better than previous versions?
Hans
Ok, since all that appears to be happening is:
1) People asking questions that aren't answerable
2) People providing answers to T5 questions when they admit they neither have the T5 rules or would use them
3) People asking questions already answered in the thread
Thread lock.
1) People asking questions that aren't answerable
2) People providing answers to T5 questions when they admit they neither have the T5 rules or would use them
3) People asking questions already answered in the thread
Thread lock.
- Status
