Help Converting MgT to TNE

[wildfire]

I'm thinking of using he Gypsy knight's Clements sector for my next game but prefer the TNE rule set and was wondering if anyone had any tips for converting MgT ships to TNE ships, I can figure out most of the changes easily enough but the armour is stumping me right now.




Mods if this is in the wrong place please move if needed.

 

[GypsyComet]

We don't really have a specific spot for inter-edition tinkering, so the destination system's specific forum is as good as any.

You have a couple obvious options for ship armor: attempt to replicate the effects in the new system, or just assign the same volume used in MGT to the TNE design and extrapolate rating from there.

 

[wildfire]

Thanks,

Been digging around though various sites found a MT vehicles to TNE guide by a "mad geo" that basically said take the thickness and convert so the volume of hull and material should be all I need will have a stab when I can find time - bank holiday weekend coming up so busy. will post here when I have something workable.

 

[whartung]

Unless you anticipate just a lot of starship combat, you can probably simply hand wave away the bulk of it, and RP your way through combats.

Probably more important to know what cabinet the food bars are in in the galley.

 

[wildfire]

Depends on how the player act it might not crop up but I'm sure at lest one or two will want to know things like how tough their hull is before they try something "inventive"

 

[aramis]

The ship armor is (Vaguely) CT HG armor ratings.

 

[wildfire]

The ship armor is (Vaguely) CT HG armor ratings.

Okay, is there a correlation between that and the TNE armour value?

I'm currently planning on using the MgT tonnage value over and above the minimum needed for the g-rating and see how they turn out.

 

[whartung]

Depends on how the player act it might not crop up but I'm sure at lest one or two will want to know things like how tough their hull is before they try something "inventive"

I guess my point is simply that it doesn't matter what the armor type is. The Ref has a general idea of toughness. If Thing penetrating the ship and doing damage is useful to the story, then it's going to penetrate the ship (who knew that seam weld was weak), if not, it's not.

So, it shouldn't be a question of "how strong is the armor", it's more of a Ref decision of "how strong do you want it to be". If the ship being damaged is that important, then whatever is going to damage it is going to be made big enough to do the damage.

The actual numbers involved are less important.

Role play, not roll play.

"A thug runs toward the hatch carrying something that looks like a satchel charge." "We shoot him!" "Gee, yea, he's serpentining and you miss/you hit his arm and he keeps going/you shot him in the head just as he was throwing it. He runs/stumbles/shambles forward and sticks the satchel to the hatch/the satchel flies through the air and sticks to the hatch, apparently there's some kind of adhesive on it".

My bet is that satchel charge is big enough to blow the hatch/hull.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[wildfire]

Ah I get what your saying but I have a couple of players who will run the numbers on designs and want to know the details of a ship.

It's part of why we play TNE over other versions the ships and vehicles are more detailed, the other systems are just too abstract for us as GM and players

 

[aramis]

Okay, is there a correlation between that and the TNE armour value?

I'm currently planning on using the MgT tonnage value over and above the minimum needed for the g-rating and see how they turn out.

Via striker, yes. Convert HG AV to Striker AV, via Striker Rule 75. Convert that to centimeters of steel via the design sequences in striker, then convert that via FF&S into TNE AV.

High Guard	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
Striker AV	60	64	67	70	72	74	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86
cm Steel	190	269	349	453	538	640	761	830	905	987	1080	1170	1280	1400	1520	1660	1810
TNE AV	95	134	174	226	269	320	380	415	452	493	540	585	640	1400	700	830	905

Essentially, divide the cm of steel by two to get the armor, drop fractions.

Note that, for MT players, the striker AVs below 100 are identical to MT AVs.

 

[wildfire]

Thank you very much for this, it will make the conversions much easier

 

[mike wightman]

Don't use it, it is wrong.

Aramis - that is the wrong Striker AV

The boxed set included the errata sheet on publication, do not use the rule as printed in the rulebook, it is wrong.

Note that the errata is included on the FFE CT disc in the file Striker Book 4.

 

[aramis]

Don't use it, it is wrong.

Aramis - that is the wrong Striker AV

The boxed set included the errata sheet on publication, do not use the rule as printed in the rulebook, it is wrong.

Note that the errata is included on the FFE CT disc in the file Striker Book 4.

The errata in my box and in the CD's Book 4 says AV0 is changed. To Striker AV 40. Which is 33.3 cm or AV 17. It does NOT change the rest of them.

 

[mike wightman]

So you think:

Book 2: In Rule 75, Naval Vessels,
the Striker armor rating corresponding
to a High Guard armor
rating of zero should be 40, not 60.

means that a HG armour rating of 1 is still 64 etc?

The correct progression should be 40, 43, 46 etc.

 

[aramis]

So you think:

Book 2: In Rule 75, Naval Vessels,
the Striker armor rating corresponding
to a High Guard armor
rating of zero should be 40, not 60.

means that a HG armour rating of 1 is still 64 etc?

The correct progression should be 40, 43, 46 etc.

I disagree. I take the errata EXACTLY as it is written. It's not changing the progression.
The errata speaks only of armor 0. Given that the first point in HG costs double, I've never thought it much of an issue.

 

[Condottiere]

It's good to know that there's thirty three and a third centimetres of hard steel between you and the universe(s).

 

[mike wightman]

I disagree. I take the errata EXACTLY as it is written. It's not changing the progression.
The errata speaks only of armor 0. Given that the first point in HG costs double, I've never thought it much of an issue.

You are wrong to do so, it has been clarified many many times.

You may want to take a peek at MT too...

 

[Antony]

You seem to have an error for the HG AV13 columns - have a look at the TNE values for the AV on either side to see.