Armor maker questions

[navanod]

After spending a couple of weeks reading through the rules on the CD, I decided it was time to sit down and start putting things into practice. Since the odds of getting an honest Traveller game going are slim, and the rest of the family has been hinting at getting back into Rifts (yes, you may taunt me now), I decided to see if I could twist the T5 rules into a Rifts conversion. Since PC equipment is going to be the first order of business, I decided to start with the armor maker.

Since I've decided on a twist to the basic setting, I'm going to start with the standard bad-guy armor, the Coalition Dead Boy armor. Basically, it is a full body combat environment hard-suit somewhat akin to combat armor, not powered but sealed for post-apocalyptic battlefields. I'm going to deal with just the Armor value to start with to simplify things.

So, we'll start with a Suit - TL=5, Mass=10, Armor=2, Cr 1000.

Then we'll add Combat Environment - TL=7, Mass=2.5, Armor=7, Cr x6.

Burden = Medium, so TL=0, Mass=1, Armor=0, Cr x1.

Stage=Standard, so TL=1, Mass=1, Armor=0, Cr x1.

As I understand it, everything adds (except for Armor and Protection - according to the table and p272, Armor/Protection under Descriptors multiplies, and stage/burden mods add.)

So, with nothing else added, we wind up with

TL=13 (5+7+0+1)
Mass=14.5 kg (10+2.5+1+1)
Armor= 14 (Base 2, x 7 for CE)
Cost=Cr 6,000

Armor-14 is sufficient to stop up to 2d hits, which covers a good range of typical small arms and explosives.

So, is that even close to everyone elses read on the basics?

Another question - Burden and Stage effects Add to armor/protection - does that happen before or after multiplying? It seems the addition of burden/stage mods happens after the initial multiplication, otherwise anything with a negative mod on a suit ends up with negative armor (adding Light - base Armor = 2, -3 for light, equals -1 x 7 for Combat Environment).

So, if we make it Light armor, we wind up with TL=13, Mass=10.15 (14.5 * .7), Armor=11 (14-3 for light), Cost=6600 (6000*1.1)?

 

[Reban]

That note on the table on p272 that Armor and protections multiply seems to be at odds with the instruction on how to use the Fillform:

Fillform. For each column, compute the totals. Tech Levels sum. Some entries under Mass may multiply. Burdens sum. Some costs multiply

I thought it was straight addition unless there was a multiplication sign.

I've submitted some errata on the Stage effects for Armor. The current errata document for other Maker Stage Effects tables where there are errors in the Stage Effects have said to use the master version on p500.

 

[LordRhys]

When you make a set of TL13 Battledress using ArmorMaker you get 45 points of armor (AV 45) using multiplication.

This is the same as the Battledress on page 610 of the BBB.

 

[navanod]

Hmmm...and if you don't multiply, then Battledress-13 has an AV of 14, while a Combat Environment suit has an AV of 9. A quick look at some of the other sample armor from that page shows they were done by multiplying Type AV and Descriptor AV, then adding Stage (and presumably Burden).

So, the higher number by multiplying bears out with the examples. I suppose that is something you could houserule for you games - if you want lower armor values, then add. If you want Battledress to be walking tanks, multiply.

 

[LordRhys]

My solution is to make weapons better at penetrating armor without making them deadlier to unarmored characters.

I've already came up with some House Rules to address the issue, and once I organize my notes so that other people can actually understand them (hopefully by Monday), I'll post the results.

 

[Reban]

You guys are right, multiplication is right as per the side note on the table (which I admit I didn't notice ).

It should really have come up in the instructions on p262. (my excuse)


On the Stage effects, Standard shouldn't really add +1 to TL and +1 to Mass should it? Its supposed to designate the base model that is un-modified. Check out the table on p500. I suspect the next draft of errata will clear this up.