MT Attaching Fusion and Plasma Factors ewan@xxxxxx (24 Sep 2020 11:51 UTC)
Re: [TML] MT Attaching Fusion and Plasma Factors Rupert Boleyn (24 Sep 2020 13:56 UTC)
Re: [TML] MT Attaching Fusion and Plasma Factors Thomas RUX (24 Sep 2020 14:12 UTC)
RE: [TML] MT Attaching Fusion and Plasma Factors ewan@xxxxxx (24 Sep 2020 19:33 UTC)
RE: [TML] MT Attaching Fusion and Plasma Factors Thomas RUX (24 Sep 2020 22:29 UTC)
Re: [TML] MT Attaching Fusion and Plasma Factors Rupert Boleyn (25 Sep 2020 00:45 UTC)
Re: [TML] MT Attaching Fusion and Plasma Factors Thomas RUX (25 Sep 2020 02:31 UTC)
RE: [TML] MT Attaching Fusion and Plasma Factors ewan@xxxxxx (26 Sep 2020 13:58 UTC)
Re: [TML] MT Attaching Fusion and Plasma Factors Rupert Boleyn (26 Sep 2020 16:17 UTC)
Re: [TML] MT Attaching Fusion and Plasma Factors Postmark (28 Sep 2020 12:11 UTC)

RE: [TML] MT Attaching Fusion and Plasma Factors ewan@xxxxxx 24 Sep 2020 19:32 UTC

Thanks Guys,

Now I thought that, because that's what I've done in the absence of anything else, however I couldn't find that in the rules anywhere. Which I found really strange. Which is why I asked the question. Now it might be that I'm just missing something, and I'm quite prepared to accept that I have. Could you point me to the right place?

Also if you use the Attacking Beam Factor for Fusion Turrets and Plasma Turrets it seems as written that they are in no way cost effective, as to make them not worth putting on ships. Which again caused me to ask the question. In the consolidated errata they considerably up the power of Fusion Turrets and allowed them to have two in a turret, which kind of makes me think that someone came across this before (hence the change).

And I came about this enquiry because I started to design a SDB and started to think about what the optimum size, armour and weapon choice would be IMTU.

I need to run the numbers, because I could well be wrong, but I just have an inkling that you can buy a much more combat effective ship against one with Plasma Turrets. If that's the case then why are they there? Or is something missing from the rules? i.e. Attaching Fusion and Plasma Factors ... ?

Or is it that Plasma Turrets need a boost in the same way that Fusion Turrets were given one?

Best regards,

Ewan

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxx@simplelists.com <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> On Behalf Of Thomas RUX
Sent: 24 September 2020 15:12
To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
Subject: Re: [TML] MT Attaching Fusion and Plasma Factors

Hello Rupert,

You beat me with the answer to Ewan's question.

Tom Rux

> On 09/24/2020 6:56 AM Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 24Sep2020 2351, xxxxxx@quibell.org.uk wrote:
> >
> > Is it me or are the MT Attaching Fusion and Plasma Factors Tables
> > missing in Starship combat for MT?
> >
> > Someone must have seen this before.
> >
> > I spent last nigh re-reeding starship combat and the consolidated
> > errata and while it list partial accelerators were missing it has
> > nothing on Fusion and Plasma.
> >
> > Can anyone point me at where they might be?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Ewan
> >
> If you're after the attack tables, 'energy weapons' (i.e. plasma and
> fusion guns) use the beam weapons tables just like lasers, but can't
> attack past short range. They get +2 DM to penetrate defenses though.
> So when it comes to turret weapons beam lasers hit a lot, energy
> weapons penetrate best, and pulse lasers do the best damage (but beam
> lasers and fusion guns get the most criticals).
>
> Of course a real warship wants them all, so they can spread incoming
> damage around.
>
> --
> Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
>
> -----
> The Traveller Mailing List
> Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
> Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com To unsubscribe from
> this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=dHxdYirgSgos395qMhM3iGkCaAJ5nIse