View Single Post
Old 12-27-2015, 08:50 AM   #58
Mailanka
 
Mailanka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Default Re: GURPS Starships line errata (and some observations)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
+2 Acc for fixed mounts is in the beam attack rules but not the ballistic attack rules.

(And, again, in the Tactical system facing and mounting of missiles has no effect on what directions they can attack in.)
There's a static +2 listed in the weapon system rules, and there's nothing stopping you from mounting fix-mounted machine guns, and that sort of makes sense (though it should be noted that despite being called "gun," the guns of GURPS spaceships fire guided munitions, which makes fixing the mounts a little pointless). That said, you're right: the +2 from fixed mounts is not actually listed in the ballistic attack rules. Given that Pulver has applied fixed mount to at least one ballistic weapon (the missile launchers for the Sword-class Heavy Cruiser), I am more than a little curious as to what the intent is. Do they have a limited arc but no +2? Did he originally plan on having fixed mount ballistics, realized it made no sense of all ballistic attacks were guided, and then forget that when he was writing the Sword-Class Heavy Cruiser? Was the lack of a +2 in the ballistic attacks modifiers an oversight? What is errata and what isn't?
__________________
My Blog: Mailanka's Musing. Currently Playing: Psi-Wars, a step-by-step exploration of building your own Space Opera setting, inspired by Star Wars.
Mailanka is offline   Reply With Quote