TW2013 vehicle errata + questions

[Martti]

Hi all!

When there still was the 93 games studios forum, there was a post on vehicle errata. It basically focused on tactical movement (vehicle movement in ticks rather than one movement for the EoF) and had the vehicle AV redesigned.

I've got three questions: is that errata available as an .pdf file somewhere?

What would be the proper AV for technicals and gun trucks (see, the uparmoured tactical trucks got their AV tweaked a bit)?

Third one is more of a suggestion. When a pc group drives into an ambush, I was thinking about not using the tactical movement values per se, but to convert the speed of the vehicle into ticks. The way it seems to me is that every 10km/h is a 8m in a move action. Thus a car driving 80km/h would cross 64 meters in a single move action. For me it seems to work well, because we use metric system with 1/285 minis and a battlemap (about 8m per hex in the same scale).

I would, however, need a simple guideline in case for an event that a vehicle skids from a highway. Of course it would then have a different modifier for the terrain, paved vs. offroad. Usually this would lead to more than a x3 factor in safe speed, that could inflict even another penalty level. Trying to get back to the lane would be a driving task for the next move action with the penalties. The errata says: "At each speed declaration, a vehicle can accelerate or decelerate a maximum of one multiple of its safe tactical speed." This declaration is an action by the driver at the start of the EoF. How would the terrain affect the speed declaration?

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Martti

When there still was the 93 games studios forum, there was a post on vehicle errata. It basically focused on tactical movement (vehicle movement in ticks rather than one movement for the EoF) and had the vehicle AV redesigned.

I've got three questions: is that errata available as an .pdf file somewhere?

It's on my 2013 support wiki. The errata for vehicle armor values and sensors is available here. I just dug up the alternate vehicle movement rules and posted them here.

What would be the proper AV for technicals and gun trucks (see, the uparmoured tactical trucks got their AV tweaked a bit)?

Good catch! That was a sidebar entry so I never looked at it when I was working on the errata for the standard vehicle designs.

I think those values will vary based on the quality and quantity of improvised armor plate that the conversion crew is able to mount. However, for a rule of thumb - increase a technical's hull Armor by 3, a 2.5-ton gun truck's by 6, and a 5-ton gun truck's by 8.

- C.

[Martti]

Thank you for the info.
I'm planning on using AV 2 for hits from below if the vehicle has a underarmour like most off-road vehicles have/can be installed off the shelf. Unless its a hit to the suspension. I guess that a 3mm steel/aluminium plate plus the hull/chassis would be at least close to AV 2 gamewise.

Another thing would be special rules for motorcycles. I never had one, but some of the players have, and have protested the rules for the speed acceleration/declaration rules for a whole EoF. They state that motorcyles can come to a full stop/accelerate to full speed a lot faster. I guess it's highschool physics, but in game terms the factors could be doubled or tripled and giving the driver a manouver bonus for turns if the driver has a qualification/motorcycles.

As a side note, reflex is a great system and we've been using it about 4-5 years now. It's a shame that there is no other board discussing 2013 related topics like the 93 games studios had, at least that I know of. It was a good tool for a GM. TW2000 rules are great too and have a value of their own (especially with all the supplements and challenge magazine articles), and we did play it a lot in our teens, but I prefer reflex for gaming purposes ATM.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Martti

As a side note, reflex is a great system and we've been using it about 4-5 years now. It's a shame that there is no other board discussing 2013 related topics like the 93 games studios had, at least that I know of. It was a good tool for a GM. TW2000 rules are great too and have a value of their own (especially with all the supplements and challenge magazine articles), and we did play it a lot in our teens, but I prefer reflex for gaming purposes ATM.

I'd be happy to see more discussion of the T2013 rules on this forum. The main criticism in the past around here of T2013 has related to its alternate timeline (which I don't think is all that bad), but the rules seem pretty well regarded by those familiar with them.

I've said before that the Stage III Reflex rules are the first rules system I've seen that could lure me away from Gunmaster.

[Martti]

that and the age of the gaming community. Most younger players might not be so drawn into older system like the tw series. So those who are into tw tend to have long ties to the system and the canon supplements. I do like older games like traveller and the old version of cyberpunk, and am not as interested in the new games per se.another thing is the milsim orientation of all things tw related,we tried to play civilian oriented games with all the tw systems but when moving to a more paramilitary aproach the system seems to work properly.