A matter of balance, cronstructive criticism only 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+

[lorthazar]

Okay, it has come to my attention that some people have expressed their concern that a Heavy Pistol is much better at penetrating armor than an Assault Rifle or even some Machine Guns in the SR universe. I have a simple solution.

A. Increase all Armor Ratings by 50%
B. Rule that Melee Weapons, Rifles, Sniper Rifles, Slug Firing Shotguns, Assault Rifles and all Heavier weapons have the ability to ignore 1/3 of of armor and barriers. This would stack with APDS and AV rounds for these weapons would ignore 2/3 of the Armor Ratings
C. For the effects of armor stack just use the old armor ratings or multiply Quickness by 1.5 and penalize for every 3 points over.

Example a Lined Coat would be 6/3
One shot from an Ares Predator would net a 3M base
One shot from a Colt M23 would net a 4M base

Makes more sense, doesn't it.

[Ol' Scratch]

A. No, that will break just about everything else.
B. Using fractions in a game is a bad idea and makes things overcomplicated, especially when you want to use them for all purposes.
C. See above.

If you really want to "fix" the problem, house rule it so that weapons in a higher category than Pistols use APDS rules against body armor by default.

[Jrayjoker]

The difficulty lies in the rounding of odd numbers, what do you propose?

[nezumi]

[Critias]

Maybe instead of changing everything but Heavy Pistols in order to "fix" Heavy Pistols -- from armor, to melee weapon armor penetration, to other firearm armor penetration, to the way armor stacks -- it would be easier to just, I dunno, lower the power of Heavy Pistols, if you think it's worth a house rule.

[lorthazar]

Maybe it would be easier but not quite as realistic. Sorry but A, B and C were meant to be used together, I was not trying to imply to that they were seperate rules. They are all one rule together.

What this does is is keep pistols and submachines guns as deadly as they should be versus unarmored targets but reduces there effectiveness versus armored targets.

If it easier for you to grasp just mulitply the armor rating only when a holdout, light pistol, heavy pistol and submachine gun is used against an armored target.

By the way if you don't know how to deal with partial fractions get someone to explain it to you. (said humorously)

[scoundrel]

Why wouldn't it be as realistic?

[Shadow]

You could just increase the power of all the AR's. I think currently they are all around 7 or 8M? You could just make them S instead.

[lorthazar]

How many times have you heard of a man keep going after taking a pair .45ACP rounds? Now how many time have you heard of some junkie taking a full clip from a M-4 carbine and still keep moving? Now add in kevlar armor and suddenly the position is reversed. Why? becuase the jacket slows up the assault round so it doesn't blow throught the man, meanwhile the .45 ACP just give some bruises and cracked ribs. The simple fact is that to an unarmored average man a .223rem is dangerous and potentially lethal, but in some parts of the body simply blows through. However a .45ACP will do pretty horrific damage to an unarmored man even if it strikes a nonvital spot. A bigger hole is more blood loss, trauma, and shock.

[Edward]

I believe it is appropriate that a heavy pistol has moor penetrating power than an assault rifle round.

My understanding is that in terms of projectile mass and kinetic energy a modern heavy pistol beats an assault rifle, and that a modern heavy pistol dose better penetrate armour than an assault rifle round.

The only heavy weapons that have SR penetration lower than a heavy pistol are light machine guns; all the MMGs and HMGs have damage codes higher than heavy pistols

Would one of the resident gun nuts care to contradict or confirm this asesment.

Edward

[nezumi]

If you really wanted to fix it that way, I think it would be easiest to say armor values are increased by 50% against SMGs, pistols and unarmed attacks. That's much simplier than B.

I think you made C to compensate for A, and I really don't think A is necessary. An armor jacket simply shouldn't be that effective. If you drop A, C is unnecessary.

[Wounded Ronin]

[Edward]

The only ammunition I have ever handles was .22, .222 and 12 gauge shells

Images I have seen of assault rifle rounds and what I know of the bore size on heavy pistols (.45 inches, 9mm, .50 inches) will bare me out on projectile size,

There is also my vague memory of somebody saying something.

I am most willing to be proved wrong but I await somebody with some claim to knowledge the subject threw first hand reeding of published kinetic energy fingers or penetration experiments (or having performed said experiment in a scientific manner)

I know people of this type exist on the board, I have tried in vain to understand many of there threads.

Edward

[Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*]

[Ed Simons]

[Modesitt]

Or, you could just switch the power on AR's and HPs.

Currently, there's a rather amusing problem in the form of how power interacts with vehicle armor. See, if I put 5 points of armor on a vehicle, I know I'm absolutely immune to all assault rifle fire. BUT, if one of those dudes whips out an ares predator with ex-explosive rounds and starts plinking at me, it can actually damage me.

How will you deal with the fact that HPs will still shoot through walls better than ARs?

I repeat - The problem is HPs, NOT everything else. Lower all 9M HPs to 8 and you are DONE. Or you can make a Flavor Rule and say that most HPs in SR are loaded with hollow point rounds(From Cannon Companion). So they just tear apart unarmored people, but do jack when they hit serious armor.

[nick012000]

Heavy pistols are worse at penetrating armor already, if you're using your rifle properly, that is, using burst and autofire. When you compare the 9M pistol shot with the 11S rifle burst it becomes obvious which is superior, against everything but Hardened Armor.

[TheBovrilMonkey]

[Johnnycache]

It's not that big of deal - one big shot or a lot of little ones. If you want strict realism, most SMGs should have the same damage codes as HPs and most ARs should have the same codes as sport rifles, but that'd just be sick. Is there any reason to fix the situation, other then percieved "realism?" Because the trolls screw up the realism. :D

I'd fix it by reducing HP power, if you must.

[Mortax]

[Raygun]

[Crimson Jack]

None of this has ever been a big issue in our gaming group. However, to be constructive, I think the easiest house rule would be to knock the power down a notch as well. I hate excessive math and house rules based on realism in my game. That's just me.

[lorthazar]

Well, these rules had done well in playtest, but then again our campaign you see almost no rifles of anykind, so it was simple matter to just multiply the armor rating for everything. However I do agree that for most campaigns it would be simpler to multiply armor by 1.5 only when fired on by hand guns (holdouts, lights, heavies, and SMG's). If that is too much math for you I suggest the TWERPS system.

[Critias]

"In order to lower the effective Power of handguns, I'm instead going to multiply armor ratings, and then let everything but handguns ignore a percentage of some of that armor. Then I'm going to change how armor stacks, too, just to make sure everything's nice and complicated."

"Then I'm going to post these rules on-line, and ask for opinions, with a disclaimer that only people with something positive to say about my rules is allowed to say anything at all. If anyone suggests that, instead of increasing armor and the power of everything but handguns, I simply decrease the power of handguns? I'll call them stupid. Because math is fun, and we should do extra math whenever we can. Simplicity is for chumps!"

[Edward]

Modesitt
If you switch the power on AR and HP you really stuff things up. Most notably because that would mean that a AR has higher power than a LMG.

Critias
The original poster did not say that only positive posts where required, he said that only constructive posts where required, (in a strict reading only constructive posts buy people with criticism). This means that arguments should be properly thought out and explained, without insults or more than the tiniest hint of sarcasm, and I am not detecting the post where he insulted you personally or your position, although I share your position there is a case for increasing armor and power on all but handguns, specifically to maintain the lethality of handguns in relation to unarmored targets.

so pleas, put down the flame thrower and try to think and reason logically, if something doesn’t make sense then simply say so or ask for an explanation, no need for the agro.

Edward