Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds Evyn Gutierrez (17 Jul 2020 23:41 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds Rupert Boleyn (18 Jul 2020 00:53 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds kaladorn@xxxxxx (18 Jul 2020 07:20 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds Rupert Boleyn (18 Jul 2020 09:54 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds kaladorn@xxxxxx (18 Jul 2020 10:30 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds Rupert Boleyn (18 Jul 2020 12:59 UTC)
Re: Why, MGT2, Why? Alex Goodwin (18 Jul 2020 18:05 UTC)
Re: [TML] Re: Why, MGT2, Why? Catherine Berry (18 Jul 2020 22:20 UTC)
Re: [TML] Re: Why, MGT2, Why? kaladorn@xxxxxx (19 Jul 2020 00:17 UTC)
Re: [TML] Re: Why, MGT2, Why? Thomas RUX (19 Jul 2020 02:52 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds kaladorn@xxxxxx (18 Jul 2020 15:48 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds Rupert Boleyn (18 Jul 2020 16:01 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds Phil Pugliese (26 Jul 2020 09:03 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds Timothy Collinson (26 Jul 2020 10:09 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds kaladorn@xxxxxx (26 Jul 2020 15:14 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds Ethan McKinney (26 Jul 2020 23:10 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds Timothy Collinson (27 Jul 2020 07:34 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds Ethan McKinney (27 Jul 2020 22:59 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds kaladorn@xxxxxx (28 Jul 2020 03:18 UTC)

Re: [TML] CT Striker Book 3 Hyper-velocty Gun HEAP rounds Rupert Boleyn 18 Jul 2020 12:59 UTC


On 18Jul2020 2229, xxxxxx@gmail.com wrote:
> Can you tell me what particularly you don't like (that is much
> different from what went before)?
>
> I'm curious because I've only given it a cursory look and a lot of
> folk seem to like it. I'd be interesting in hearing what aspects you
> found unpalatable...

Most of these are little personal niggles, but it adds up and for me
makes MgT unplayable. In no particular order:

Colonists find it practically impossible to learn to use guns.

Fusion Guns do radiation damage.

The Far Trader is presented as being a Free Trader hull with bigger
drives and fuel tanks installed. Gone is the classic double-hull and
glazed noses.

They provide some light armoured vehicles in the basic rules, plus some
vehicle weapons, but the man-portable rocket launchers and grenade
launchers are not given any sort of AP  rounds, so they are uses vs the
AFV and G-carrier. The only man-portable weapons that might work for
FGMPs at TL14+, while the AFV is TL12 and the G-carrier (TL15) is very
unlikely to be penetrated by the FGMP.

You need Str 9+ to use a shotgun without penalty.

The illustrations of guns in MgT2 are awful.

 From MgT2's High Guard (playtest version only, so this stuff might've
been changed:

Jump drives no longer use the 1% + 1% per Jn volume that's been standard
since the original HG. Instead they use 2.5% per Jn. The minimum jump
drive size is pretty huge, too (10 DTons). There is no reason for this
change that I can see.

Some of the scaling rules for moving from small ship combat to large
ship combat seem likely to result in different outcomes depending on the
scale chosen.

Quite a few escort and cruiser ships now do 9-G.

There are some rules for making better or worse ship's systems that are
quite reasonable, but it doesn't discuss which would be unsuitable in
the standard Traveller setting, and indeed uses one in a couple of ship
writeups (to make the jump drives smaller).

I don't like the way they've done Black Globes.

I'm sure there's more, but that'll do for now. For some reason this
stuff irks me more than changes between the older systems did.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>