View Single Post
Old 12-27-2015, 11:09 AM   #59
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: GURPS Starships line errata (and some observations)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mailanka View Post
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.
There's nothing stopping you from mounting ballistic weapons unlike the ones actually covered in Spaceships, but the combat system doesn't cover them. Ballistic attack rules also don't include range modifiers, because as you note all ballistic attacks are guided munitions. (SS7 introduced some, probably, but didn't really give rules for using them.)

There is that +2 back in the general weapon system rules. I think no +2 for fixed ballistic weapons, as written in the specific rules, makes more sense (for the reason you note) and is at least as well supported by the text. I do not remember whether we've gotten Word of God on which way was intended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mailanka View Post
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?
I don't think there's anything confusing about the missile launchers on the Sword-class Heavy Cruiser, which you cite from Spaceships 3, using fixed-mount missile launchers.

It's in Spaceships 3, alongside the tactical combat rules, which make the rear-facing fixed tubes perfectly practical. The fixed tubes don't offer anything I'd call a real advantage (on the premise that they don't get the +2) but they do mean that a single gunner can fire them all together which, by the book, is impossible with turrets. As endlessly discussed, doing that is game-mechanically an incredibly bad idea, but the published material has always seemed to consider it reasonable.

The only missile turrets in the book are on the Admiral-class battleship. All other missile-armed ships use fixed tubes, and rear-mounted tubes are common. I dunno whether this was a semi-rational choice to limit turret crews or just a matter of matching concepts (as many ships seem to be designed to a concept rather than to be practical under the rules) but either way, SS3 clearly doesn't see a problem with throwing them around.

The one peculiarity you're pointing out only requires that that quirk of the basic combat rules be overlooked.


(Is there a rule somewhere saying you can use multiple fixed batteries on the same facing as a single attack? I remember there being one, and SS4 probably needs it, but I can't find it now.)
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote