This is a bit of a mystery to me:

Why do missiles have encumbrance of zero while grenades have an encumbrance of 1?

Missiles are actually larger then grenades. Should I really be able to carry an unlimited number of them?

Possibly because the missile launcher has a high encumbrance? And you wouldn't be able to carry an unlimited number; 10 items with 0 encumbrance counts as 1 encumbrance.

Presumably the missiles are loaded into the launcher in an ammo pack or similar, hence you're carrying the launcher. Grenades are in pouches etc and therefore carried individually. Just a guess

Because magical space wizards.

Stop asking questions. Once we start questioning the weight of rockets, the whole system falls apart.

EDIT:
I just wanted to note that you missed out an a HUGE opportunity and I am disappointed....
JabberWOOKIE.
****, son....

If you can accept the encumbrance of the base launcher tube as 1, then it would be 1 per missile. That's probably ok. I don't think they are terribly large projectiles if you can load six in a magazine.

For some odd reason they decided to let the GMs do a lot of the work on how explosive items work. If you wan't to start getting silly with those missiles you'll also notice they aren't Limited Ammo either. So one could hypothesize that they are an unlimited supply, just like gun ammo.

I Believe what they are intending is that the missile profiles modify the base missile tube profile. All that you're getting from them is the damage, the crit, and additional special rules which you're supposed to add to the missile tube profile. If you want to know what the encumbrance for a single missile is, you'll have to ask your GM.

Another question would be, how many missiles does the cost buy you? Just one or enough to fill the missile tube? Really, just color me unimpressed with the rules for explosive weapons in general. Clarity is needed. Too much is left to "common sense" or interpretation or GM ruling.

uhm i have about the other explosives are is the detonite already Set up to be used or do you to wire it cause like you said didnt clarify this either?

uhm i have about the other explosives are is the detonite already Set up to be used or do you to wire it cause like you said didnt clarify this either?

Generally, detonite is treated like C4. Just cause you have the fun clay, doesn't mean you are ready to use it. You need some kind of det cord and the ability to trigger said cord.

Now, you could probably just cheap-o rig a grenade surrounded with this stuff to blow up if someone pulls the string tied to the pin. But, at that point, why bother with the detonite? Overkill. Fun, but pointless.

I vouch for adding more reqs. Requires more investment into the process. Boosts the roleplay factor.

I am not seeing missiles listed anywhere. Help me Jabberwocki, you're my only hope.

They're in Dangerous Covenants.

EDIT:

I just wanted to note that you missed out an a HUGE opportunity and I am disappointed....

JabberWOOKIE.

****, son....

Oops, **** shame. I call myself Jabberwocki on all forums so I didn't think...

And you wouldn't be able to carry an unlimited number; 10 items with 0 encumbrance counts as 1 encumbrance.

Ah, OK. Good to know.

For some odd reason they decided to let the GMs do a lot of the work on how explosive items work. If you wan't to start getting silly with those missiles you'll also notice they aren't Limited Ammo either. So one could hypothesize that they are an unlimited supply, just like gun ammo.

Oh, man. You are right.

I am honestly more confused now than before I asked the question (maybe because I did not read right in the first place).

And, I can add to the confusion. Although "Limited Ammo 1" is not in the description of missiles, on page 52 of "Dangerous Covenants" (section on Secondary Missile System), it says: "Remember, missiles have Limited Ammo 1, ..." ?!

If you can accept the encumbrance of the base launcher tube as 1, then it would be 1 per missile. That's probably ok. I don't think they are terribly large projectiles if you can load six in a magazine.

This sounds like a plausible rulle. So the encumberance rating of "-" for missile probably means that the encumbance is included in the wieght of the Launcher. Since missiles cannot be thrown like granades, they have no encumberance of there own (at least that is the only way I can make sense of it).

But, does this then also apply to granades. The granades that are fired from a grandage laucher are smaller than the hand thrown variety. And a granade laucher can also load six rounds. Does this mean that the granades in the granade launcher also do not count as additional encumberance?

And, I can add to the confusion. Although "Limited Ammo 1" is not in the description of missiles, on page 52 of "Dangerous Covenants" (section on Secondary Missile System), it says: "Remember, missiles have Limited Ammo 1, ..." ?!

I missed that one. That's something I'm finding more and more with this game, you need to read three or four different places to figure out the rules. If you ask me, the Limited Ammo rules aren't sufficient to describe a one use only item, such as a missile. I would've prefered that they had a "One Use" rule or specifically called out explosive items in the Limited Ammo rules. (Most would disagree with me and say the Limited Ammo rules are fine, but I'd prefer my game rules to be more explicit.) They hid the statement that grenades and the like are "One Use" in the Ammo sidebar in the core rule book.

As for encumberance, I'd recommend that each missile (and each grenade from the launcher) is encumberance 1 unless loaded in the weapon. That is if they are being carried individually. If they are carried in some sort of a container designed for carrying missiles, like a backpack or a carrying case, then I'd reduce the encumberance. Our group made a grenade bandoleer that carried 5 grenades for 1 encumberance, which doesn't seem too out of line since the military backpack takes 6 encumberance off your shoulders.

Personally, I'd treat the grenade launcher grenades carried indivdually as the same as thrown grenades for cost and encumberance because they do the same damage and blast. You just can't throw a launched one and vice versa. But, like I said above, ask for some method of carrying the ammo in ways to reduce encumberance.

I missed that one. That's something I'm finding more and more with this game, you need to read three or four different places to figure out the rules. If you ask me, the Limited Ammo rules aren't sufficient to describe a one use only item, such as a missile. I would've prefered that they had a "One Use" rule or specifically called out explosive items in the Limited Ammo rules. (Most would disagree with me and say the Limited Ammo rules are fine, but I'd prefer my game rules to be more explicit.) They hid the statement that grenades and the like are "One Use" in the Ammo sidebar in the core rule book.

As for encumberance, I'd recommend that each missile (and each grenade from the launcher) is encumberance 1 unless loaded in the weapon. That is if they are being carried individually. If they are carried in some sort of a container designed for carrying missiles, like a backpack or a carrying case, then I'd reduce the encumberance. Our group made a grenade bandoleer that carried 5 grenades for 1 encumberance, which doesn't seem too out of line since the military backpack takes 6 encumberance off your shoulders.

Personally, I'd treat the grenade launcher grenades carried indivdually as the same as thrown grenades for cost and encumberance because they do the same damage and blast. You just can't throw a launched one and vice versa. But, like I said above, ask for some method of carrying the ammo in ways to reduce encumberance.

OK. I think this is a very good solution.

What about missiles? Would you treat them the same way?

In other words, every missile that is not loaded in the weapon costs 1 encumberance.

Would seem logical to me, because I would say the missiles are as least as encumbering as a granade (but not really much more either).

If you can accept the encumbrance of the base launcher tube as 1, then it would be 1 per missile. That's probably ok. I don't think they are terribly large projectiles if you can load six in a magazine.

This sounds like a plausible rulle. So the encumberance rating of "-" for missile probably means that the encumbance is included in the wieght of the Launcher. Since missiles cannot be thrown like granades, they have no encumberance of there own (at least that is the only way I can make sense of it).

But, does this then also apply to granades. The granades that are fired from a grandage laucher are smaller than the hand thrown variety. And a granade laucher can also load six rounds. Does this mean that the granades in the granade launcher also do not count as additional encumberance?

The rules don't break down the details of weapons that far but in reality the grenades from a fired grenade launcher are different from hand grenades, and they are smaller.

What about missiles? Would you treat them the same way?

In other words, every missile that is not loaded in the weapon costs 1 encumberance.

Would seem logical to me, because I would say the missiles are as least as encumbering as a granade (but not really much more either).

Yeah, I'd call an individual missile as 1 encumberance. If it was in some sort of rack or clip or something then I could see reducing the encumberance cost. Remember, encumberance is an abstract number which encompasses both weight and how easy it is to carry something. Something that's big and light might have a high encumberance while something small but heavy might have a smaller encumberance than expected.

What about missiles? Would you treat them the same way?

In other words, every missile that is not loaded in the weapon costs 1 encumberance.

Would seem logical to me, because I would say the missiles are as least as encumbering as a granade (but not really much more either).

Yeah, I'd call an individual missile as 1 encumberance. If it was in some sort of rack or clip or something then I could see reducing the encumberance cost. Remember, encumberance is an abstract number which encompasses both weight and how easy it is to carry something. Something that's big and light might have a high encumberance while something small but heavy might have a smaller encumberance than expected.

Yep. Individual missiles (outside of the launcher) may have an encumbrance of 1, while the 6-pack magazine might only be 2 or 3. Or, maybe, the missiles aren't quite the huge things we're envisioning. Shaped charge warheads, wrapped in or around various materials can do some pretty nasty things. Thrown grenades can't be guaranteed to be pointed in any particular direction when they go off, so you don't get quite the same range of options.

Or,

If missiles fit in a magazine of 6 and the missile tube is something of a realistic man portable size I would expect the diameter of a round to be no bigger than a cardboard tube in a paper towel roll.

If missiles fit in a magazine of 6 and the missile tube is something of a realistic man portable size I would expect the diameter of a round to be no bigger than a cardboard tube in a paper towel roll.

I pictured them as being the size of a glass Coke bottle (the old ones). However, since we've seen some really short torpedoes that are little more than warheads with "mystery propulsion", it's possible that the missiles are slotted linearly in the tube (like shotgun shells or the projectiles in a metal storm weapon).

If missiles fit in a magazine of 6 and the missile tube is something of a realistic man portable size I would expect the diameter of a round to be no bigger than a cardboard tube in a paper towel roll.

I pictured them as being the size of a glass Coke bottle (the old ones). However, since we've seen some really short torpedoes that are little more than warheads with "mystery propulsion", it's possible that the missiles are slotted linearly in the tube (like shotgun shells or the projectiles in a metal storm weapon).

I just make the assumption based off the line drawing on p.164 in EoE, it's kind of 'meh' looking but it's got the top feed mag. Nothing says it couldn't be done like a tubular stack magazine in the barrel, or a sort of partial wrap around drum magazine. Given the original encumbrance question though they've gotta be smallish anyway you slice it.