TL5 Revolver malfunction

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Do note that B407 is where all the rules for Malf are in Basic Set. It's probably referring to the optional Malfunction rules as a whole, rather than just that table.

Many of the references are certainly for the Malf results table. Others aren't.

For instance, p79, Firearm Quality / Fine (Reliable), "This increases the malfunction number (p. B407) by a step", or p 80, Abuse, "Failure on the required HT roll may lower Malf (p. B407)", are clearly references to Malf numbers and not the table for type of failure. These are places where I'd expect different text if there were a change to a universal default to override Basic. E.g., "This increases the malfunction number (normally 17) by a step".

Considering the fact that Malf is 17 for every TL but one in the High Tech range, it strikes me as more likely that the fact TL 5 has a slightly lower Malf. than every other TL was overlooked

I'm still fond of this theory. It would be very easy to want to mark a weapon table entry as "Unreliable", and just grab the Unreliable footnote from a table or two over. The "Unreliable (16+)" footnote might have been just fine in its place in the TL 6-8 autopistol table, but then be incorrect when pasted at the bottom of the Non-Repeating Pistols Table with all those unreliable TL 5 guns.

(This is the kind of problem that causes tech writers and database people to only store information in one place, and make no copies. But especially with a physical book, ease of reference means duplicating information, which sometimes means duplicating it incorrectly. Also one of the reasons for inventing hypertext. A better way to phrase the footnote, were this actually the case, would be something like "Unreliable; decrease Malf by one step", which works for any TL, and mirrors that text on p79.)

Assuming the footnote is correct, and then seeking an explanation for that, is reasonable. But it's circular reasoning when the question is whether or not the footnote is correct.

But I suppose exegesis of the holy text has yielded all it can, and if no one remembers back to, what, 2007? to answer the "what were they thinking" question, it will remain a mystery.

Thanks to everyone for taking time to rehash the subject for me.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Assuming the footnote is correct, and then seeking an explanation for that, is reasonable. But it's circular reasoning when the question is whether or not the footnote is correct.

If nearly every listed TL5 weapon has the tag, one has to assume that the tag is typical of TL5 weapons, which is what was provided for in the generic case by the table on B.407. In other words, that High Tech assumes Malf. is 17 unless otherwise stated gives the result best matching the generic rules on B. 407. The Malf. given on the table replaces that given on the Malf. by TL table on B. 407. If I am correct, the error lies not with the existence of the Unreliable tag, but with the non-existence of an explicitly stated default Malf.

The tag represents a game mechanic, not an in-setting comparison. An 1860s gunsmith wouldn't look at a Colt Navy and say it was an unreliable revolver, since he can't see the game stats. He would say it was pretty typical of a revolver, but wasn't as good as those newfangled cartridge revolvers, which are very reliable (i.e. about as reliable as typical revolvers would be a century later*).

* And that's the rub. A S&W No. 1 really has about the same reliability as a S&W Model 36, introduced nearly a century later.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

But I suppose exegesis of the holy text has yielded all it can, and if no one remembers back to, what, 2007? to answer the "what were they thinking" question, it will remain a mystery.

It helps that Kromm and PK are in this forum a lot, so it wouldn't be too hard to PM one of them for an answer, if they haven't noticed the thread, yet.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

It helps that Kromm and PK are in this forum a lot, so it wouldn't be too hard to PM one of them for an answer, if they haven't noticed the thread, yet.

Well Kromm was the editor (duh), but do any of the writers post here abouts?

Shawn Fisher, Micheal Hurst, or Hans-Christian Vortisch?

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Well Kromm was the editor (duh), but do any of the writers post here abouts?

Shawn Fisher, Micheal Hurst, or Hans-Christian Vortisch?

As SAFisher and HANS you will see the active authors fairly often. Michael Hurst was given credit for material held over since the first version of High Tech (which was for Gurps 1e).

Speaking of hold overs, at least some of this confusion might be the result of some hold over from a previous book or edition and not anybody's executive decision.