[UT/SS] 4e Star Trek Weapons and Effective TL?

[Phantasm]

I should also note that I'm not saying that their computers are not intelligent. It is shown many times that it's quite the opposite. The ship's computer is shown to be capable of running a few dozen mind emulations of very intelligent people.

What I am saying is that the ship's computer is not self-aware. Intelligent but not sentient in the GURPS sense of the word. Highly advanced problem-solving, yes, but the Enterprise's computer is just about as self-aware as your home computer, and that this is by design. In Ultra-Tech terms, it's probably got a "Non-Volitional" lens on its AI metatrait, unlike Data and Lore who are purely volitional AIs.

I think what stymied the Federation in regards to Moriarty is not whether he was intelligent and sentient but whether he was "alive" in the same sense Data is; even if he was self-aware, Moriarty was still officially a mind emulation, and hence his status as "life" was subject to fierce debate. One captain's opinion, even backed up by an operations officer like Data, is not enough to sway scientists who can look through their history and see disasters regarding such things.



Changing gears:

I think, overall, I can start to model phasers as either rainbow lasers tunable to electrolasers, or particle beams with an omniblaster setting; and disruptors are either particle or antiparticle beams. A powerful enough setting for these will still effectively disintegrate someone. I'll toy with things to see what fits better. Thanks to all who chimed in on this!

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

Changing gears:

I think, overall, I can start to model phasers as either rainbow lasers tunable to electrolasers, or particle beams with an omniblaster setting; and disruptors are either particle or antiparticle beams. A powerful enough setting for these will still effectively disintegrate someone. I'll toy with things to see what fits better. Thanks to all who chimed in on this!

A note on anti-particle beams. First of all, it's not entirely clear, but they seem to be TL 12. They're certainly on par with other TL 12 weapons that are not disintegrators. Secondly, their beams are explosive. This is not meant to say "So they're not disruptors," just be aware of those two facts.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

A note on anti-particle beams. First of all, it's not entirely clear, but they seem to be TL 12. They're certainly on par with other TL 12 weapons that are not disintegrators. Secondly, their beams are explosive. This is not meant to say "So they're not disruptors," just be aware of those two facts.

I'm not sure that I ever saw any ST personal scale weapon that produced energy explosions. Fairly understandable as it tends to be more of a nuisance (you singe your own eyebrows) than a useful trait (you kill or incapacitate multiple enemies in a radius with a single shot).

Side beams and cones are a separate issue and little in UT comes very close to producing such an effect.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I'm not sure that I ever saw any ST personal scale weapon that produced energy explosions. Fairly understandable as it tends to be more of a nuisance (you singe your own eyebrows) than a useful trait (you kill or incapacitate multiple enemies in a radius with a single shot).

Well, you can target the ground, which is nice, and a direct hit does a ridiculous amount of damage (assuming their not armored, but hey, if they're not armored, they're dead already...). But in general, when it comes to explosives, ordinance > beams.

Side beams and cones are a separate issue and little in UT comes very close to producing such an effect.

Which I find frustrating. Fan-beams are definitely a thing in sci-fi. I don't know how much sense they actually make, physically speaking, but they show up every once in a while in sci-fi, especially older sci-fi, and it's a shame that you can't easily emulate that. A "laser shotgun" would be fun.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Which I find frustrating. Fan-beams are definitely a thing in sci-fi. I don't know how much sense they actually make, physically speaking, but they show up every once in a while in sci-fi, especially older sci-fi, and it's a shame that you can't easily emulate that. A "laser shotgun" would be fun.

It can be done with the Powers system and the right Enhancements and the Alternative Attacks rule..

Buy your Innate Attack (Burning) first and I assume a significant amount will need to go into Extended Range. For the AA trade +60% of that Extended range for Cone, 1 hex width. This should shorten range by a factor of 10.

To mimic this with regular equipment take the regular weapon and reduce range to 10% and add the 1 hex wide cone. To have a weapon that does both of these increase weight by 50% to reflect combining two attacks in a one at a time configuration of the Combined Gadgets rule.

[Phantasm]

As far as gear goes, a setting that does a cone attack would be listed as having something akin to "(2 yd)" after the damage, and probably use Beam Weapon (Projector). There's a few weapons in UT that do this; they're not in the Pyramid, but I see no reason we can't put it in as a phaser setting. :)

Has anyone found any fluff text from any source - including on-screen exposition - for what makes a disruptor different from a phaser? (The fluff text tends to be a bit more internally consistent than the show's depictions, I've found.)

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

what makes a disruptor different from a phaser?

The fluff I've seen makes the terms "phaser" and "disruptor" more descriptive of the net effects than the mechanisms, not that the special effects were very distinguishable no matter what the dialogue said.

Phasers are usually described as a sort of particle beam. (In later sources the particles are "nadions", which supposedly interfere with nuclear forces.) We can be sure they aren't lasers, since in The Cage, Starfleet carried laser pistols but phaser rifles.

Disruptors of different races have been described as operating via many different mechanisms, including sonic, phased particle beams like phasers, molecular-level disintegrators, and plasma weapons. In the TOS episode Obsession, Federation phasers even have a disruptor setting, and for that matter Cardassian disruptors could be modified to fire nadion beams like a phaser (per a Voyager episode). Disruptors are generally portrayed as more brutal and less versatile than phasers. They tear apart bodies or disintegrate things, but rarely get used as cutting tools or to heat rocks.

There's no doubt many more sorts of fluff outside of the TV series and movies.

As usual, you can pick whatever you want and justify it one way or another.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

As far as gear goes, a setting that does a cone attack would be listed as having something akin to "(2 yd)" after the damage, and probably use Beam Weapon (Projector). There's a few weapons in UT that do this; they're not in the Pyramid, but I see no reason we can't put it in as a phaser setting. :)

Has anyone found any fluff text from any source - including on-screen exposition - for what makes a disruptor different from a phaser? (The fluff text tends to be a bit more internally consistent than the show's depictions, I've found.)

In TOS I'd represent phasers as being multi weapons that have neural stun, laser and disintegrator settings. I'd represent disruptors as being pulsars, operating by creating an explosion within the flesh.

[doctorevilbrain]

According to the Klingon Bird of Prey technical manual, Birds of Prey Disruptors are plasma weapons. The Disruptors in "Errand of Mercy" from the original series are probably Sonic Disruptors, since they used modified sonic weapon props from "A Taste of Armageddon".

[Phantasm]

One more question, which is probably opening up yet another a can of worms:

Photon and quantum torpedoes, using Spaceships stats. I'm of the understanding that they're basically nukes or anti-matter warheads, but I can go with regular explosive warheads if need be. Regardless of whether I go standard explosive or nuclear, what kind of output difference am I looking at between regular photon torps and quantum torps?