What's new
  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 April 2024 is YE 46.3 in the RP.

Rejected Submission [Rules] Weapon Limitations Update

F

FrostJaeger

Chief Parakeet
Banned Member
  • Submission Type: Rules Update
  • FM Approved Yet? No, @Wes.
  • Faction Requires Art? No.
For Reviewers:
  • Contains Unapproved Sub-Articles? No.
  • Contains Links to Unapproved Articles? No.
  • Contains New Art? No.
  • Previously Submitted? Yes; approved by Wes.
  • Changelog: Link
  • Checklist Requested? Yes.

The only change in this version is that I added the following to the Notes section...

* Weapon-carrying systems capable of being easily deployed or launched from a host platform’s cargo bay or internal stores count towards the weapon limits described in the previous sections.

* Drones, [[guide:mecha_and_power_armors#mecha|mecha]], [[guide:mecha_and_power_armors#power_armors|power armor]], [[guide:aerospace_craft|small craft]], and [[guide:ground_vehicles|vehicles]] that are part of a host platform's complement do not count towards the weapon limits described in the previous sections.

...and added an OOC Notes section.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
This will create issues with shipping. I think it would be better to just leave that loophole alone seeing as there is no mechanical reason that it cannot be done and it would contradict past Canon RP. There are disadvantages to using the bay doors of a cargo ship launch Ordnance, namely there is opening in your ship. Even an explosion on your Shields could potentially be felt in your cargo bay. That being said, a note informing a player about the dangers of opening your ship in combat might be useful.
 
@Soban: Drones would be weapon systems that are capable of things like independent movement and target acquisition - essentially, autonomous small craft.

@Rizzo: will reply to your post later, as it’s lengthier and I’m out shopping atm.
 
Alrighty-o, @Rizzo. To start, I don’t believe this will impact shipping all that much, because the proposed rules say (emphasis mine) that “weapon-carrying systems capable of being easily deployed or launched from a host platform’s cargo bays or internal stores” are what counts as weapons. That word, “easily,” is what makes all the difference - because the crew of a freighter under attack by pirates having to...
  • Manually unload the shipment of missiles they’re carrying.
  • Cobble together an interface between the computers of the missile and the freighter.
  • Orient the freighter’s open (and, as you pointed out, highly-vulnerable) cargo bay in the direction of the pirates.
...isn’t what I’d call something that can be “easily deployed”; in contrast, that same crew launching a specially-designed, pre-loaded, and ready-to-fire missile pod (or “gun” pod) out of the freighter’s cargo bay with the push of a button is what I’d call something that can be “easily deployed.”

Regarding the mechanical reason such a thing can’t be done, well, it’s due to the fact that it’s a way of bypassing the Weapon Limitations as @Alex Hart eloquently explained here; on the topic of it contradicting past canon roleplay, that’s...not really a problem, in my opinion. A single PA was, for instance, capable of taking on a full-sized warship in SARP’s early days, yet such a feat obviously isn’t really doable now. Is that a contradiction? Yes - but it’s one that, similar (in my opinion) to this, would simply be accepted as being one of those instances of “things that were doable in the past but can’t be done anymore.” The roleplay wouldn’t be invalidated - it would simply be left as is, similar to how roleplay involving the since-removed concept of FTL interdiction is, to the best of my knowledge, still considered canon.
 
Oh, I was expecting a larger explanation, like a bomb. This seems more like a firecracker, but I think I understand now. I guess using a forklift to load a missile onto some scaffolding while a member of the crew gets outside with a laser pointer to guide it would not be an example of easily deployed... not that has ever happened in one of my stories. :rolleyes:

I guess in on board with this idea. It won't restrict any IC actions and can remedy the issue at hand. Who approves rule updates? Is that an administrator thing?
 
@Wes approves rule-related submissions, as far as I know - and (should you desire for such a thing to happen, of course) perhaps such an event could occur to a FSC transport carrying munitions to SAoY forces in desperate need of a resupply? It, in my opinion, would be pretty interesting for a plotship to roleplay.
 
I'd say that perhaps a better wording could be "Deployable weapons platforms stored within a ship with the intent for use in combat count towards the weapon limit." This covers not only cargo containers filled with ship to ship missiles, but also mines. Both of these are A) deployable weapons systems, B) stored within a ship, and C) intended for use in combat.

This includes weapons such as the Boxmine and the RUDaaS container, both of which need regulation under the rules to prevent abuse.
 
That wording might work out but I'd hate for the description to specifically disuade players from cargo bay shooting. It's about the only strength that cargo ships have in a fight, though we should note it's dangers. Perhaps if we clarified what kind of weapons the WepLim counts its effect might solve the issue more directly. Since we do not count hardpoint weapons, which are naturally outside of a vehicle and detachable, I would suppose that the weapons we specifically want to count are the ones a ship always have. That would be the weapons that are integrated straight into the hull. These are weapons that are protected by the hull and would not be capable of being interchanged or relocated without reconstruction. The benefits are that they'd be serviceable by the crew, easily fired from the bridge/cockpit, and protected by the armor. Something like a tank inside a cargo ship firing through the bay door would be exposed to the hazards hitting the shields.
 
Click to expand...

Only bombs and torpedoes deployed from a small craft's hardpoints do not count towards the weapons limitations. This means that Boxmines and Missile containers are to be counted normally, as well as anything created in their vein.

Also, why are you concerned about the viability of Cargo ships in combat when they shouldn't even be there. Of course they're going to be at every conceivable disadvantage, that's natural.
 
Because it makes no sense for a cargo ship that is near a battle to have a crew that just shrugs their shoulders if/when they get attacked. IC trumps OOC. It's possible ICly to forklift a weapon to a bay door. Our OOC rules cannot create invisible walls IC.
 
Might I suggest a compromise via proposing that the rule read as follows?

Weapon-carrying systems capable of being easily deployed from a host platform’s internal storage areas count towards the weapon limits described in the previous sections.

I know, @Alex Hart, I know - it’s basically just a condensed version of what I originally wrote. After spending a good half an hour or so thinking about it, however, I believe that the above rule would fulfill the same purpose as what you proposed here - as the Boxmine and RUDaaS Container are both “capable of being easily deployed from a host platform’s internal storage area,” thus meaning that they would count as weapons - and satisfy the concerns @Rizzo raised about freighter crews not being able to utilize the munitions and/or weapons they’re carrying for defensive purposes in emergency situations.

Edit: As for how they’re counted, it would be in terms of however many can be launched simultaneously; the C8, for example, would be treated as having 96 Tier 9 weapon systems in addition to its main armament (due to the drone’s 4 C8 Defense Field Facilities each being capable of simultaneously launching 24 Tier 9 Boxmines), while the C9 would be treated as having 96 Tier 13 weapon systems in addition to its main armament (due to the drone’s 24 C9 Vertical Launch Cells each being capable of simultaneously launching 4 Tier 13 RUDaaS Containers).
 
Last edited:
As long as there is no possible chance of an invisible wall appearing IC I'm all for it. My biggest concern is that someone will run into a situation where there is a mod saying "your character can't do that" and his only reason is that it breaks an OOC rule. The two should never interfere with each other and I'm confident that if we're capable moderator our solution will ensure a seamless unity of IC and OOC.
 
I agree, we should avoid invisible walls. Unless IC there is an actual invisible wall.

Welcome to one of the biggest complaints about Okami: The ocean invisible wall.
 
I'd like to know, @Wes , if this is to be official soon. I just modified the Plumeria 2E to be compliant (Removed the missiles, added one rearward fixed turret to compensate/let the DOGA model keep making sense) and am still working on other designs with this in mind.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top