Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-19-2015, 04:53 PM   #51
weby
 
weby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default Re: GURPS Starships line errata (and some observations)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scc View Post
I'm pretty sure that when your ~.75 AUs from Sol a Solar Panel Array outputs two Power Points
Not according to space ships: "A solar power system. If exposed to sunlight it generates one Power Point."

Also note that the description of the thing starts with: "The Von Braun-class is typical of the largest and most modern stations in Earth or Mars orbit..." and Mars is just "a tiny weeny bit" further than 0.75 au form Sol.. :)
__________________
--
weby's gaming stuff: http://weby.roto.nu
weby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2015, 03:54 PM   #52
Mailanka
 
Mailanka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Default Re: GURPS Starships line errata (and some observations)

Sword-Class Heavy Cruiser in SS3 page 14. The stat-line is listed as having a DR of 100/100/50, but the design has 140/140/70 (which seems to fit the actual stats for streamlined diamonoid)

Also, it has 10 fixed rear-mounted missile launchers. Does it expect to be running away often?
__________________
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
Old 12-26-2015, 05:24 PM   #53
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: GURPS Starships line errata (and some observations)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mailanka View Post
Also, it has 10 fixed rear-mounted missile launchers. Does it expect to be running away often?
Facing doesn't matter for missile launchers in the tactical combat system.

I'm not seeing a rule in the basic combat system that makes that true, but I may be overlooking it.
__________________
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
Old 12-26-2015, 08:14 PM   #54
weby
 
weby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default Re: GURPS Starships line errata (and some observations)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
I'm not seeing a rule in the basic combat system that makes that true, but I may be overlooking it.
SS page 57:
"Fixed mount weapons can only fire at a target if the weapon
is in installed in a hull section facing the enemy."
__________________
--
weby's gaming stuff: http://weby.roto.nu
weby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2015, 10:20 PM   #55
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: GURPS Starships line errata (and some observations)

Quote:
Originally Posted by weby View Post
SS page 57:
"Fixed mount weapons can only fire at a target if the weapon
is in installed in a hull section facing the enemy."
Yeah that's the exact opposite of what I'm looking for.
__________________
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
Old 12-27-2015, 01:16 AM   #56
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyv, Ukraine
Default Re: GURPS Starships line errata (and some observations)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
Yeah that's the exact opposite of what I'm looking for.
And yet it seems necessary to prevent missiles from grabbing a +2 to their Acc at no cost whatsoever.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2015, 08:35 AM   #57
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: GURPS Starships line errata (and some observations)

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
And yet it seems necessary to prevent missiles from grabbing a +2 to their Acc at no cost whatsoever.
+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.)
__________________
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
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
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
Old 01-23-2016, 01:25 PM   #60
Mailanka
 
Mailanka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Default Re: GURPS Starships line errata (and some observations)

The Typhoon-Class Deep Space Fighter on page 11 of SS4 is listed as having two super fusion reactors, giving it 8 energy points. It uses these to power the two non-fixed(?) forward-mounted X-ray laser batteries it has, and the four super fusion torches it has on the back... only super-fusion torches aren't powered systems.

So in the very least, listing them as powered is errata. Having a redundant generator might be errata, and while a turret on a single-person starfighter isn't inconcievable, I suspect the intent is to have it fixed.
__________________
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
Reply

Tags
spaceships

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.