Navel Damage, How does it work? Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Thanos007]

Well....


Thanos

[Kagetenshi]

You roll a d100, and if you get a 100 you hit your opponent in the bellybutton.

Really, it's another, bigger damage track to handle things that are completely outside the scope of small arms.

~J

[Domino]

Bigger, Badder, BOOM. it is above and beyond the standard Light, Moderate, Serious and Deadly we all know and love. It is staged exactly the same way If you get hit with Light Naval Damage and manage 2 successes you stage it down to Deadly YAY!!!!

Though you are still dead.

it is for weapons meant to damage Tanks and ships and runners should not have much if any dealings with them.

[littlesean]

You do mean Naval and not Navel, right?

[Domino]

Yes, Navel. So it would be BOD+2 M Stun. And the attacker needs a Strength score >= to the Navel's BOD. :D

[mfb]

naval damage works on the same progression as regular damage:
L is 1 box
+2 boxes (total 3) is M
+3 boxes (total 6) is S
+4 boxes (total 10) is D
+5 boxes (total 15) is LN
+6 boxes (total 21) is LM
+7 boxes (total 28) is LS
+8 boxes (total 36) is LD

naval damage is also an area effect, -1 Power per meter. it counts as anti-vehicular.

[GunnerJ]

Naval damage was made because of the Hull rating. Certain exceptionally large vehicles can't practically be given an accurate body score; a heavy aircraft carrier might have a Body of 100, which is unwieldy to say the least. So they came up with a new Body rating for extrememly large vehicles, called Hull. (Incidentally, vehicles with Hull don't have Armor, they have Bulwark). Naval scale damage exists to hurt things with a Hull rating; even anti-vehicular weapons are not very effective, except against maybe Hull 1-3 vehicles, with no Bulwark.

Rigger3 has the exact mechanics.

[toturi]

Think of Naval scale as vehicles' vehicle and you might have a idea of what naval scale is all about.

[Arethusa]

Well, light armor and up. Light vehicles still use the normal damage tracks, while, say, a tank would not.

[mfb]

actually, tanks do use normal damage tracks. the heaviest tank i've seen has somewhere around 40 armor and 12 body, though i believe that there's a german book which details a tank with higher armor and body--said tank is also an LAV. granted, with 40 armor, only naval weapons can even scratch the paint; the highest-rated non-naval weapon of which i'm aware--the Great Dragon ATGM--doesn't have a high enough power to do any damage at all to the tank i'm talking about, the Leopard III.

[Austere Emancipa...]

All land-bound vehicles use the normal damage track (thanks, mfb). The only aircraft that use the Naval track are Suborbitals and Semiballistics.

There are no firearms in the game with a base Power higher than 20, right? There are plenty of 20D(AV)s, but those don't do anything to the Leopard III, like mfb said. The only weapons that can and do blow up MBTs are, apparently, Medium Naval Guns, Medium Railguns and SSMs.

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Jul 19 2004, 04:05 PM

[mfb]

hilariously, if you follow the rules to the letter, railguns and naval guns can't affect the Leopard III either. there's a rule in rigger 3 (don't feel like looking up the page number) that says naval-damage weapons can only be aimed at vehicles with a hull rating.

my next character will steal a Leopard III, and then kill Ares. all of Ares.

edit: i looked up the page number anyway: R3 page 57, last paragraph under Anti-Ship Weapons and Normal Damage. it's kinda confusing, though--is it just talking about anti-ship missiles? all anti-ship weapons in general? if the latter, is there a difference between anti-ship weapons and other weapons that deal naval damage?

personally, i just slap a +4 or +8 modifier on there and let 'em blaze away.

[Austere Emancipa...]

Personally, I see no reason whatsoever to disallow firing anti-ship weapons (cannons or missiles) at smaller vehicles or people. You can do it now (lock onto and fire an AGM-84 SLAM at a truck, for example), you sure as hell can do it in 60 years. Weapons such as mortars do not have penalties, so I see no reason to force penalties with cannons or missiles either.

Anyway, a Leopard could still be easily destroyed by ramming it (I think), or smacking it up with this little toy. To be absolutely sure, ram the Leopard with a suborbital and fire a Sea Saber at the suborbital right before it crashes.

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Jul 19 2004, 04:31 PM

[shadd4d]

I wonder if that's supposed to be a misprint (probably not). I think naval can be aimed at anything. Correction, pg. 57 says that ordinary vehicles (like aircraft and normal motorboats) are too small. That's open to interpretation and is really a pretty...misplaced sentence in an example of what happens when said ordinary vehicle gets hit with an anti-ship weapon. Just saying it's a ship weapon because of a special damage code is...a bit cheap if you're eliminating every possible weapon that could affect the Leopold III (which your average character is going to get at all). Coming up with a armored monstrosity is also a tad...overboard.

It's a GM fiat; for me they work and can hit.

Don

[Kagetenshi]

[FlakJacket]

[mfb]

that's pretty much exactly what it's saying.

[shadd4d]

Yes. It's dumb. It's next to the example of what happens when a character or normal vehicle is hit with anti-ship weapons. Actually in the same bloody paragraph. My fix: they work, naval means bigger bang, let's all get on with the business of playing SR.

Don

[FlakJacket]

Oookay. Think that's something that probably needed to be errata'd then. Not really a pressing thing though since I doubt it's all that common an occurrence and they didn't give stats on a tank chasis either so I just had to use Tzeentch's version.

[shadd4d]

So to the errata should be added naval weapon clarificaiton, tanks chassises and their respective power plants.

Don

[Arethusa]

No, even that's still a bit silly. Should be able to target things far more precisely than that. On the right track, though.

[Austere Emancipa...]

[Necrotic Monkey]

The reason for that is due to the sheer size of the naval vessel more than any special materials that went into its design.

[Kagetenshi]

Exactly. As I've said elsewhere, think of it this way.

If you hit it with an anti-ship missile, will there still be significant recognizable pieces remaining? Significant structural elements? Even if the overall vehicle is destroyed?

If yes, it's probably naval.

~J

[Austere Emancipa...]

To be fair, IRL a MBT would probably have significant recognizable pieces remaining even when hit by an AGM-84 SLAM. In the best case scenario, an MBT could survive such a hit with only surface damage, because many heavy missiles are HE weapons.

Still, that simple "test" does work wonderfully when considering unarmored or lightly armored vehicles.