TL5 Revolver malfunction

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

So the default Malf per TL rule from B279 / B407 is obsolete and should be ignored in favor of using 17 at all TLs?

Not at all. For a generic weapon, use the generic rule. This is, for example, the base from which one may design one's own weapons and is the number used to derive the Malf. numbers in Low-Tech and High-Tech, with modifications for individual weapons.

For a weapon listed in a GURPS gear supplement, use the listed Malf., which is 17 unless otherwise noted.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Icelander

For a weapon listed in a GURPS gear supplement, use the listed Malf., which is 17 unless otherwise noted.

Low-Tech and High-Tech tables do not list a Malf for every weapon. That column is absent from the tables, hence the discussion about what the default Malf would be. The tables discussed occasionally have a footnote that notes a difference for a particular weapon -- but different from what?

I find it quite implausible that the TL 3 Handgonne on B279 has a Malf of 12, but the TL 3 Gonne on p91 of Low-Tech has a Malf of 17, just because it's not in Basic. I also doubt this Gonne is some particularly notable specific model of weapon that was remarkably reliable for its day, beyond even what "Very Fine" modifications could achieve. Or take the TL 4 "Flintlock Musket" (B279) and the TL 4 "Musket" (LT 93). What makes the latter Malf 17 while the former is Malf 14?

This "Rule of 17" sounds like a bit of shorthand that was invented for one of the modern all-guns supplements to save time and space, which would have made sense in that limited context, but now is getting misapplied to every GURPS book.

I could also see someone deciding that the Basic numbers were just far too harsh, and that firearms were never that unreliable. Therefore, all default Malfs should be 17. In that case, it's just errata in Basic (occasionally propagated elsewhere by reference), and the default Malfs would apply to Basic weapons as well at LT or HT ones.

But it makes no sense to say that "generic" weapons are somehow far worse than the non-model-specific weapons listed in other books, which are every bit as generic as the ones in Basic. That LT TL4 musket isn't some specific musket made to extremely high standards; it's just a representative of the type.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Low-Tech and High-Tech tables do not list a Malf for every weapon. That column is absent from the tables, hence the discussion about what the default Malf would be. The tables discussed occasionally have a footnote that notes a difference for a particular weapon -- but different from what?

I find it quite implausible that the TL 3 Handgonne on B279 has a Malf of 12, but the TL 3 Gonne on p91 of Low-Tech has a Malf of 17, just because it's not in Basic. I also doubt this Gonne is some particularly notable specific model of weapon that was remarkably reliable for its day, beyond even what "Very Fine" modifications could achieve. Or take the TL 4 "Flintlock Musket" (B279) and the TL 4 "Musket" (LT 93). What makes the latter Malf 17 while the former is Malf 14?

This "Rule of 17" sounds like a bit of shorthand that was invented for one of the modern all-guns supplements to save time and space, which would have made sense in that limited context, but now is getting misapplied to every GURPS book.

I could also see someone deciding that the Basic numbers were just far too harsh, and that firearms were never that unreliable. Therefore, all default Malfs should be 17. In that case, it's just errata in Basic (occasionally propagated elsewhere by reference), and the default Malfs would apply to Basic weapons as well at LT or HT ones.

But it makes no sense to say that "generic" weapons are somehow far worse than the non-model-specific weapons listed in other books, which are every bit as generic as the ones in Basic. That LT TL4 musket isn't some specific musket made to extremely high standards; it's just a representative of the type.

It's possible that the Low-Tech tables may just assume TL specific Malf. without specifying all Malf. numbers other than crit./17 as High-Tech does. I can't check right now, but if Gonne lists no Malf., it's almost certainly that way.

Checked it, you are right. Unlike HT, Low-Tech does not specifically note when firearms have a Malf. number which differs from crit./17. In that case, use the generic rules on B407.

The rule I mentioned is the style which Hans uses for all firearms stat blocks, but of course, LT has generic types of weapons rather than specific brand names.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The rule I mentioned is the style which Hans uses for all firearms stat blocks

I went back through my copy of HT, which alas is paper, so it's harder to search. Malf isn't in either index. But I did go back over the sections where it seems like this rule ought to appear, starting on p78 with the firearms section. I didn't find this rule.

There are a number of references back to the Malf numbers in Basic, and some text where they use examples of improving smaller Malf numbers, where you'd expect them to cite 17 rather than (say) 15 in the example if that were the common number. Most of the text seems to be written assuming that the Basic numbers are still valid. The only place where this rule would seem to fit is some of the table footnotes, where a number of weapons share the same footnote labelling them "Unreliable", yet citing a Malf of 16.

Perhaps this rule shows up in Tactical Shooting? Or the earlier supplements like Adventure Guns or Pulp Guns? (None of which I have.)

[RyanW]

It is confusing, as there is nothing that specifically overrides the rule in Basic. However, it seems most likely that the intent on the tables in High Tech is that there is one malfunction number (presumably 17) unless otherwise specifically stated on the weapon table.

Probably best to read the table in Basic as giving typical, but not default, Malf. by TL, which, if you notice just how many TL 5 weapons have "malfunctions on a 16+" tag, is pretty much the case.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by RyanW

It is confusing, as there is nothing that specifically overrides the rule in Basic. However, it seems most likely that the intent on the tables in High Tech is that there is one malfunction number (presumably 17) unless otherwise specifically stated on the weapon table.

Well, I guess if there's no actual rule, I don't feel so bad for not being able to find it :) Though I'm not persuaded that silent rule change is more likely than a single-character typo ("16" instead of "15") in the Unreliable footnote, or overlooking the fact that a correct TL 6 footnote also got used to denote unreliable weapons at TL 5?

What then of all the text that supposes different Malf numbers? For instance, the intro text on p78 that discusses the increasing reliability at each TL, the "Firearm Quality" section on p79 that imports B407 values ("This increases the malfunction number (B407)..."; the "Malfunctions" section on p81, which notes "The relative likelihood of misfires and stoppages variety by TL and weapon type", discussing rearranging the Firearm Malf Table on B407, yet doesn't mention a change to the Malf numbers themselves? I found lots of references to Malf IN HT, but didn't see mention of changing defaults from Basic. Whoever wrote the text didn't seem to have a background mindset that all firearms had been realigned to a single Malf number except for specific exceptions.

I've made a lot of typos and cut-n-paste errors in my time. Those don't seem unlikely at all. Or maybe the text and tables were created and/or reviewed by different people with different mental images of what the rules were. (A proposed change debated in playtest, perhaps, that never actually made it into the text? It's not in the HT errata, though.)

if you notice just how many TL 5 weapons have "malfunctions on a 16+" tag, is pretty much the case.

Yes. Six of six TL5 entries on p81. (Which makes me wonder "unreliable compared to what?" If everything's equally unreliable, then it'd be hard for any particular model to develop a bad rep.) 7 of 13 on p94 (which also has the same footnote reused between TL5 and TL6).

It would have been fewer notes to mark the fewer weapons as "Reliable". The autopistols have notes for both better and worse types, but at least the different ones are in the minority.

Or just put in a Malf column and list the Malf for every weapon, which would at least be clear. Probably cramps the table.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Yes. Six of six TL5 entries on p81. (Which makes me wonder "unreliable compared to what?" If everything's equally unreliable, then it'd be hard for any particular model to develop a bad rep.) 7 of 13 on p94 (which also has the same footnote reused between TL5 and TL6).

If my assumption about High Tech's assumption is right, and Malf is 17 unless otherwise stated, it means unrealiable compared to the baseline firearm which would be typical of TL6-8. Unreliable is typical at TL5, and below average at TL6+.

I admit it's a change that should have been handled better, but it best matches my expectations. Most importantly, it's the solution that gives the closest match to the results of the Basic rules. Otherwise, if you assume "Unreliable...16+" was supposed to be -1 to Basic's TL based Malf, it suggests that TL 5 weapons were somehow nearly all worse than themselves. Basically, "Malf. 17 unless otherwise stated" requires the least doublethink for me to understand.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

I went back through my copy of HT, which alas is paper, so it's harder to search. Malf isn't in either index. But I did go back over the sections where it seems like this rule ought to appear, starting on p78 with the firearms section. I didn't find this rule.

It's implicit in the fact that all cases where Malf. is some number other than crit./17, it's noted in the Notes.

[Darkclaw]

Originally Posted by Icelander

It's implicit in the fact that all cases where Malf. is some number other than crit./17, it's noted in the Notes.

The problem I run into when making this implicit assumption is that we are explicitly referred back to p.B407 with the generic TL Malfunction numbers, as Anaraxes mentions, in a number of places, such as improving the quality of firearms to Fine (Reliable). I can assume, for instance, that the Malf. for upgrading my character's S&W Number 3 is 17 because there isn't a note for it, but when I look at page 79 of High Tech for the upgrade info, it refers me to B407 where I'm explicitly told it's 16+.

It certainly seems like High Tech and so on probably assume a base 17 for Malfunctions (Adventure Guns, for instance, also has 15 of 29 TL5 revolvers noted as being Unreliable/Very Unreliable with 16+/15+ for Malfunctions), but it would have been nice to have this called out somewhere, in contrast to B407.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Darkclaw

The problem I run into when making this implicit assumption is that we are explicitly referred back to p.B407 with the generic TL Malfunction numbers, as Anaraxes mentions, in a number of places, such as improving the quality of firearms to Fine (Reliable).

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.

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, or the way they initially set things up in the book was TL-dependent but took up too much space, and when they cleaned things up by assuming a base Malf of 17 they simply forgot to make a note of it in the book itself.