In (at least my version of the MT players's book) the cascade skill list,
rifleman includes auto rifle, but Combat Rifleman doesn't. It is in fact
very difficult to ever get Combat Rifleman, mysteriously mirroring the
situation in the original rules (where PCs didn't get assault rifle, guass
rifle, or ACR -- even in the Army/Marines). This is, in my opinion, asinine.
Looking through the various books, I find all kinds of things that were
in the original rules, don't make sense anymore, but are still there. The
armor rules for animals (what?), mass-independent drives (okay, so I'll
suffer), and my favorite, ship combat. Why couldn't ship combat be simply
an extension of basic combat? Why is that so horrible? The ship combat is
still an extension of the basic rules where bigger weapons increase to-hit
chance, but 10 lasers in a battery do the same damage as 1. When I got the
PHB (when it first came out), I thought `Thank God -- Real ship combat rules!'
when I read the PHB, but noooooo! On a poor, industrial world, on a good
task roll (Man, do I hate the `strangely named four-point modifier' system),
you can get cargo for free if TL is 10- and the starport is 8. Why get a
disintegrator? Combat ranges! Ack!
OK, OK, sorry if I offended, but I always liked Traveller (2-D Universe and
all), and I was enthusiastic when MT was being first advertised, but I think
when I really get down to it, my opinion of it is roughly that of most people's
opinion of Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium. I have always considered
writing my own Traveller rules (with varying levels of success), but I think
that if I was going to play, I'd rather use the Basic/Striker rules. If only
someone would simply extrapolate those for starships, I think it'd be a far
superior system. Even Twilight2000-II is better (though the initiative rules
sucked big time). I guess I just wanted to vent my frustration somewhere.
Or more importantly, an I alone in this? I doubt I am, but I dunno...
-H