T:2013 Missing Weapons?

[3catcircus]

So I'm looking at the master ammo list and cross referencing to the core, addendum, and shooters guides. It looks like some ammo is missing (.32 extra short) as are some weapons (master ammo list includes .17 HMR and 7.62 Tokarev but I can't find what what weapons were included that use it).

Am I just blind?

[Legbreaker]

I believe this has been pointed out before and from memory there are weapons tucked away in obscure corners that use them as alternate calibres.
Not an expert on T:13 myself though, just repeating what I can remember.

[Tegyrius]

Some weapon stats may have been posted on the old 93GS forum and never saved when it went away. It's also possible that we ran the calculations on those calibers in response to fan requests and never actually generated "official" stats. The inclusion of .17 HMR is odd and I can't recall ever stating out a rifle that fired it. On the other hand, I am astonished that I never published stats for anything in 7.62 Tokarev... it's possible I ran those numbers for the Czech weapons sourcebook I never wrote.

- C.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

So I'm looking at the master ammo list and cross referencing to the core, addendum, and shooters guides. It looks like some ammo is missing (.32 extra short) as are some weapons (master ammo list includes .17 HMR and 7.62 Tokarev but I can't find what what weapons were included that use it).

Am I just blind?

I'd never heard of .32 Extra Short! Now I'll have to come up with something that fires it, eventually...

[shrike6]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I'd never heard of .32 Extra Short! Now I'll have to come up with something that fires it, eventually...

Here's a suggestion

http://www.americancowboychronicles....l-of-1882.html

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Some weapon stats may have been posted on the old 93GS forum and never saved when it went away. It's also possible that we ran the calculations on those calibers in response to fan requests and never actually generated "official" stats. The inclusion of .17 HMR is odd and I can't recall ever stating out a rifle that fired it. On the other hand, I am astonished that I never published stats for anything in 7.62 Tokarev... it's possible I ran those numbers for the Czech weapons sourcebook I never wrote.

- C.

Yep. I was surprised at the including of both of those calibres without weapons. I also noted 4.6mm H&K was included without reference as well.

I think that part of this is the old master ammo list is by cartridge type rather than by use in some cases (so the. 30 carbine is listed as a rifle cartridge even though the multiple flavors of the M1 carbine are more detailed in the Pistol Caliber Carbine s supplement).

No matter, between the cheeks design guidelines and the ballistics calculator, the most difficult thing for any new weapon or caliber is finding out the prices...

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I'd never heard of .32 Extra Short! Now I'll have to come up with something that fires it, eventually...

The Protector Palm Pistol/Turbiaux Disc Pistol (1883-1910) and Remington Rider (1871-1888) are the two guns I know of that fire .32 Extra Short. Remington made a cartridge with a 54 grain bullet, while Winchester put an 80 grain bullet on their .32 Extra Short cartridge, both of which were black powder rimfire rounds. The Imperial War Museum lists it as a 7.65x9mmR, and of course Gun Jesus has a video for that. The Rider has a ~3" barrel and 5 shot tube magazine, while the Protector has a 1.75" barrel and 7 shots in a rotary magazine.

[Vespers War]

OK, so here's a rough go at the two .32 Extra Short pistols using FF&S, which really isn't intended for something as funky as a squeeze-trigger palm pistol. Both have extremely low range, which makes sense for a small black powder round from short barrels - these are for settling poker disputes, not military use.

I used an article at The American Cowboy for additional information on the Protector. Reloading involves taking the pistol apart, so it's incredibly slow and requires tools. Figure it can't be done in combat, but can be done during a non-combat 4-hour period regardless of what else is being done.

Protector Palm Pistol, Model of 1882
Wt 0.30 kg, DAR, Mag 7i, Rld ?, Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, SS 4, Rng 2


For the Remington-Rider, I couldn't find the weight after a decent amount of Google searching, so I assumed it's similar to the Protector just for the sake of getting some sort of stats out there. FF&S is insistent it can only have a 3-round tubular magazine, but the actual weapon's known to hold 5 rounds. While the tube is detachable, it has no way to keep rounds from being ejected while detached, so spare tubes cannot be used like detachable magazines. Thus, the magazine is 5i instead of 5 to reflect having to load each round and keep the end of the tube blocked to avoid premature ejection. While it's not a revolver per se, SAR is closest to emulating how the hammer and breech block have to be drawn back to eject the spent round and load a new one from the magazine.

Remington-Rider Magazine Pistol, Model of 1871
Wt 0.30 kg, SAR, Mag 5i, Rld 1, Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, SS 5, Rng 4

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

OK, so here's a rough go at the two .32 Extra Short pistols using FF&S, which really isn't intended for something as funky as a squeeze-trigger palm pistol. Both have extremely low range, which makes sense for a small black powder round from short barrels - these are for settling poker disputes, not military use.

I used an article at The American Cowboy for additional information on the Protector. Reloading involves taking the pistol apart, so it's incredibly slow and requires tools. Figure it can't be done in combat, but can be done during a non-combat 4-hour period regardless of what else is being done.

Protector Palm Pistol, Model of 1882
Wt 0.30 kg, DAR, Mag 7i, Rld ?, Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, SS 4, Rng 2


For the Remington-Rider, I couldn't find the weight after a decent amount of Google searching, so I assumed it's similar to the Protector just for the sake of getting some sort of stats out there. FF&S is insistent it can only have a 3-round tubular magazine, but the actual weapon's known to hold 5 rounds. While the tube is detachable, it has no way to keep rounds from being ejected while detached, so spare tubes cannot be used like detachable magazines. Thus, the magazine is 5i instead of 5 to reflect having to load each round and keep the end of the tube blocked to avoid premature ejection. While it's not a revolver per se, SAR is closest to emulating how the hammer and breech block have to be drawn back to eject the spent round and load a new one from the magazine.

Remington-Rider Magazine Pistol, Model of 1871
Wt 0.30 kg, SAR, Mag 5i, Rld 1, Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, SS 5, Rng 4

The Minneapols Protector is contained in the Undercover Arms Shooter Guide. I assume the .32ES wasn't in the ammo list because of the difficulty in finding it other than as a custom production nowadays.

I also wonder how loads like the .44-40 and .45 Magnum are, quantity-wise - I'm guessing those are mostly handloads nowadays; but if society collapses I'd expect most ammo to be handloads anyway unless the collapse isn't complete enough to put manufacturers out of business. Actually, the current pandemic situation might be a good analogue - ammo is *scarce* right now. I imagine that in the ramp up to a nuclear conflict, between people in a "see it, buy it" mode in regards to common calibers and givens ramping up military production, that it would be even more difficult to buy.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

The Minneapols Protector is contained in the Undercover Arms Shooter Guide. I assume the .32ES wasn't in the ammo list because of the difficulty in finding it other than as a custom production nowadays.

The Minneapolis Protector uses .32 Protector, a Benet primed centerfire cartridge that's slightly smaller than the .32 Extra Short (0.365" case length to 0.390"). The .32ES (rimfire) was used by the Chicago Protector and Remington-Rider. The rimfire .32ES can be made by Roberson Cartridge Company, which uses an offset .22 blank as the rimfire method. I don't know of anyone making the centerfire .32ES, but a .32 BB cap is almost the same size (difference of .007 inches in case length).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I've never particularly researched small arms ammunition so Benet priming was something I was very vaguely aware of but really knew nothing about. So I did what most people on a computer do...

I found the following link quite helpful, it discusses cartridge cases and their priming system but for the section specifically addressing Benet priming, use the second link (otherwise, just scroll through the pages until you get to the "Centerfire" label): -

Cartridge Cases: https://projects.nfstc.org/firearms/...m03_t06_02.htm

Centerfire: https://projects.nfstc.org/firearms/...3_t06_02_c.htm

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Some weapon stats may have been posted on the old 93GS forum and never saved when it went away. It's also possible that we ran the calculations on those calibers in response to fan requests and never actually generated "official" stats. The inclusion of .17 HMR is odd and I can't recall ever stating out a rifle that fired it. On the other hand, I am astonished that I never published stats for anything in 7.62 Tokarev... it's possible I ran those numbers for the Czech weapons sourcebook I never wrote.

- C.

What other regions/nations were planned for publication besides Czechoslovakia?

I'm in the process of taking the core, addendum, and shooters guides and reassembling a personal document to roll all the weapons into one document, apply errata, and rearrange sections (e.g. equipment before combat, exploration and upkeep after combat).

I'm thinking that running through the v2 supplements to bounce off the list of weapons might be a worthy endeavour (and maybe segregate availability by era). Is there a similar set of guidelines for heavy weapons and vehicles as there is for small arms? It looks like the heavy ordnance uses a variation in the demo points to determine equivalent amount of TNT, but I'm struggling with the Blast and Frag values.

[pmulcahy11b]

I guess I have to admit -- I never really took a good look at T:2013, even though I was given a free PDF copy by the designers and actually bought some of the supplements. Guess I have some reading to do if I want to comment in an intelligent manner.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

...if I want to comment in an intelligent manner.

But this is the internet! You're not supposed to actually THINK before commenting!

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I guess I have to admit -- I never really took a good look at T:2013, even though I was given a free PDF copy by the designers and actually bought some of the supplements. Guess I have some reading to do if I want to comment in an intelligent manner.

I'm a fan of the mechanics - roll a number of d20s based upon number of skill points you have, and try to roll under the target number which is your controlling attribute. So - firing a rifle uses Longarms skill and the TN is your Coordination attribute. There are modifiers based upon various factors. An unskilled person rolls 2 d20s and has to take the higher roll. Max skill points in the skill gets you I think 8 d20s. First successful roll that is lower than the TN gives you margin of success (so if TN is 12 and you roll 8, MoS is 4). Each additional successful roll adds 2 to the MoS. There are equivalents of crits and fumbles as well. The total MoS gets added to the basic damage of the weapon.

The "hit points" are nice because they are used as a comparator to the damage rather than having damage subtracted like in D&D. The results of that comparison determine wound severity and additional effects (shock, bleeding, instability, etc.)

I don't know how realistic it is, but it gives the feeling of realism. For those that like fiddly bits, the Stage III ballistics adjust damage and penetration based upon range.

It's a shame really, that it never got the mainstream love it deserves. It's a worthy successor, mechanics-wise, to v1 and v2/2.2.

[Tekrat04]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

I'm a fan of the mechanics - roll a number of d20s based upon number of skill points you have, and try to roll under the target number which is your controlling attribute. So - firing a rifle uses Longarms skill and the TN is your Coordination attribute. There are modifiers based upon various factors. An unskilled person rolls 2 d20s and has to take the higher roll. Max skill points in the skill gets you I think 8 d20s. First successful roll that is lower than the TN gives you margin of success (so if TN is 12 and you roll 8, MoS is 4). Each additional successful roll adds 2 to the MoS. There are equivalents of crits and fumbles as well. The total MoS gets added to the basic damage of the weapon.

The "hit points" are nice because they are used as a comparator to the damage rather than having damage subtracted like in D&D. The results of that comparison determine wound severity and additional effects (shock, bleeding, instability, etc.)

I don't know how realistic it is, but it gives the feeling of realism. For those that like fiddly bits, the Stage III ballistics adjust damage and penetration based upon range.

It's a shame really, that it never got the mainstream love it deserves. It's a worthy successor, mechanics-wise, to v1 and v2/2.2.

I couldn’t agree more. The setting leaves a lot to be desired. The game mechanics on the other hand are to polar opposite of the setting. When I first encountered best of dice pools (DP9 Heavy Gears) as a game mechanic I feel in love with the concept. T2k13 is the best system that use this type dice mechanism.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Tekrat04

I couldn’t agree more. The setting leaves a lot to be desired. The game mechanics on the other hand are to polar opposite of the setting.

I believe the majority of people have a similar opinion. The rules aren't perfect, but with just a little more polishing they could well have been.
The setting on the other hand....

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I believe the majority of people have a similar opinion. The rules aren't perfect, but with just a little more polishing they could well have been.
The setting on the other hand....

Well. It *is* difficult to prognosticate the future in a world where information moves quickly. When the V1 rules were created, the timeline was based upon a well-developed existing cold war that goes hot and a phone call was the fastest way to communicate. The news cycle want 24/7.

I'm the 90s when v2/2.2 was made, the internet was just starting to become a thing (Gopher search was it, and Mosaic was the tool for this WWW thing.). When T:2013 was created, you could get the news on YouTube. Now? We got to see a Myanmar coup live in real time on a Twitter feed.

It's not my cup of tea, but I hold no ill will for the T:2013 authors. Their timeline has events that have been seen in multiple post-apoc media depictions: Under the Dome, The Walking Dead, Jericho, etc.

[Tegyrius]

Looking back at it from 15 years after we started design work, my biggest regret about the Reflex mechanics was trying to do too many things in a tabletop game engine that work much better with a computer mediating the action. I took too many design cues from X-COM.

- C.

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Looking back at it from 15 years after we started design work, my biggest regret about the Reflex mechanics was trying to do too many things in a tabletop game engine that work much better with a computer mediating the action. I took too many design cues from X-COM.

- C.

You say that now, but what if 20 years from now some central/eastern European developer wants to 2077 that stuff!?

[Targan]

I was a fan of the T:2013 rules from the moment I got the book, and remain a fan. I've promoted those rules far and wide and consistently defended them when they've been criticised. Not sure where the idea came from that I was ever a hater. As for the setting, that's one of those things that some old guard T2Kers could never be happy with unless it exactly mirrored their vision of how it should be. I doubt any two random T2Kers could ever exactly agree on the "perfect" timeline.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Looking back at it from 15 years after we started design work, my biggest regret about the Reflex mechanics was trying to do too many things in a tabletop game engine that work much better with a computer mediating the action. I took too many design cues from X-COM.

- C.

So, how would you have done things differently if you were doing them now?

The use of range bands and physics-based damage modeling seems like it might be overkill in comparison to a d100 system or d&d, but it gives a better "feel."

The wound system is very tight - more detailed than a d&d hit point system where you are at 100% until you cross the magic 0 hp, but not a death spiral like some other rpg systems.

The modifiers to determine what your final TN is for ranged combat *is* a bit complicated, but not so unwieldy as to be impossible to use. The other thing that takes some work is figuring out what hard, normal, easy, etc. are when determining non-combat TNs.

My opinion: the only thing that would significantly improve the rules (and supplements) is a chart showing weapons, equipment, and vehicles availability by era with an expanded set of each of them via supplements . This would certainly be handy to allow people to set up Twilight:2000, core Twilight:2013, Twilight: WW2, etc.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Looking back at it from 15 years after we started design work, my biggest regret about the Reflex mechanics was trying to do too many things in a tabletop game engine that work much better with a computer mediating the action. I took too many design cues from X-COM.

- C.

Interconnected Phone apps could do that for a table top game and something like roll20 could do it online.

Tech is way different now as you can expect everyone to have a phone. I am really waiting for someone to do this well.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by kato13

Interconnected Phone apps could do that for a table top game and something like roll20 could do it online.

Tech is way different now as you can expect everyone to have a phone. I am really waiting for someone to do this well.

This. I found some excel calculators to plug in variables with the output being the +/- to your TN. It's now in google sheets and sitting in my phone...

[Stackmouse]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Looking back at it from 15 years after we started design work, my biggest regret about the Reflex mechanics was trying to do too many things in a tabletop game engine that work much better with a computer mediating the action. I took too many design cues from X-COM.

I have been using the Reflex system as my main tool since the early playtesting times of the T:2013 I have streamlined some parts of it and modified others, but I have used the core rules for my homebrewed fantasy (Harn-styled) campaigns, for WoD/Werewolf, and latest for a MechWarrior/BattleTech-campaign.

What I would like to see is an official reflex system v2.0 engine, as a settings independent book. Damn, I'd love to contribute in such a project

[Tegyrius]

The rights to Reflex are in a hazy situation. Keith and I once discussed transferring the system's legal ownership to me (we'd always intended it to be a generic modern system, not exclusively tied to 2013). He's stated elsenet that the transfer happened, but I never received a signed contract from him. Absent that legal document, the system's ownership still resides with whatever legal entity succeeded 93 Games Studio - probably Keith himself unless he started another LLC.

Having said that, my layperson's understanding of IP law is that you can't actually copyright game mechanics, so the concepts and principles of Reflex are available for someone to use as the underpinnings for a "spiritual successor" sort of work. I can tell you that it's unlikely to be me who designs it. I don't know if I have another core system in me. Most of my tinkering these days has been with house rule modifications of v2.2 and occasional forays into other uses for the Gumshoe and Powered by the Apocalypse engines.

If I were going to redesign Reflex (which is not a coy hint - see preceding paragraph), the first thing I would do would be to rework the initiative system. In demo games and short campaigns I ran, it was the single biggest time suck and the greatest sticking point for new players. I personally loved it as a departure from turn-based initiative that provided greater tactical flexibility, but it required a lot of focus from the referee and every player to maintain speed. "Huh, what, it's my turn again already?" I would probably replace it with a conventional turn system, but with individual characters' action economy based around sort of action point system (the X-COM influence is still strong) rather than a fixed number of actions. See also my comments on initiative here.

- C.