gel / flechette ammo, broken ? 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+

[Serbitar]

gel / flechette:

+2DV / +2AP ,resisted with impact

Standard armor has 2 points less impact than ballistic, so impact +2 = ballistic

even if impact and ballistc are of the same rating, you still need 6 dice to compensate the 2DV (6 dice for 2 hits in damage reduction) an not only 2. your armor rating doesnt matter at all when comparing regular ammo to flechette/gel.

Is there any reason not to shoot with gel/flechette all the time ?

Did I miss something ?

[Clyde]

I'll give you a reason: EX explosives! ;)

I'm not much worried about this, actually. I figure that "regular" ammo refers to full metal jacket (sometimes called "ball") ammunition. It's been well established for over two decades now that this stuff is suboptimal for "social" work. Virtually all police departments only issue hollowpoint ammunition to their officers. Yes, it's much more expensive. However, it's also much more effective. I don't see any reason why "regular" ammo ought to be that useful to a shadowrunner unless you're being cost conscious. Come to think, Lone Star, corpsec and military types should probably be loading "better" ammo, whatever their choices are. The only major user of full metal jacket solid ammunition today is the military - and that only because they're required to by law not because they want the stuff.

[Serbitar]

sounds more like arms race to me.
making ex-explosive the standard makes the game pretty lethal

and still, flechette rounds are broken. the rules clearly do not reflect the intention or what is said in the description in the BBB.

[mintcar]

I like it that special ammo is simply better, not just better in certain situations. Now when cyberware is less expencive, I can make the characters in my campain poor enough that the cost difference matters. ;)

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Stick'n'Shock out of an Racor Sting sounds so much more evil... but i like that sound - if stun condition track overflows into physical, it's Stick'n'Fry. :grinbig:

[TheNarrator]

[The Madhatter]

[hahnsoo]

I will note that in SR3 Forearm Guards only gave +1 to impact against melee attacks.

Under most armor situations, you will indeed have a more effective attack if you are using Gel or Flechette rounds. However, there are quite a few situations where the impact can be higher than the standard "2 less than ballistic", and a few situations where there is no impact armor at all (like Armor clothing), as the +2 AP penalty only applies if they have any impact armor). And neither of them compare to the cheese that is EX Explosive (unless, of course, you don't want to kill your target, in which case Gel Rounds might be preferable).

Personally, I think Stick N Shock is the most interesting of the special rounds in most SR combats. Without the non-conductivity bonus, being zapped by Stick N Shock leaves you disoriented, doing several boxes of Stun damage and removing half Impact Armor for damage resistance. You can use Stick N Shock in a holdout pistol, thus having a highly concealable method of disabling opponents. Also, you can shut down drones and other electronic equipment with it.

[Ellery]

I can't see any good reason not to use flechette rounds all the time, except if it doesn't fit with your character's style (which is, apparently, to do poorly in gun battles), unless you have good access to EX-Ex. The statistical difference is likely to be 2 armor dice, and those don't much matter.

There is even less reason to use APDS, as EX-Ex is better in every way (except possibly if you are covered in fire).

If you want cheap ammo, gel rounds are more effective than regular. The only drawback is if you have someone who insists on doing physical damage hand-to-hand or with spells, and you want to stack more physical damage on top. Since stun spells are better as well, you should just convince the mage to use stun spells.

[Wounded Ronin]

[QUOTE=The Madhatter,Aug 31 2005, 08:00 PM] [QUOTE=TheNarrator,Aug 31 2005, 07:55 PM]
[/QUOTE]
I was under the impression that the military doesn't use hollowpoints because they do poorly against body armor. [/QUOTE]
Not true. It's against the Geneva Convention to use hollow points or fragmenting type rounds due to the grievous wounds they inflict. It's an anachronism, but it's stilled followed by the U.S. Military. [/QUOTE]
I think that while the Geneva Convention is one reason, performance against infantry armor and penetration through cover is another consideration. In a military situation where you're using suppressive fire, it's probably better to have rounds that might penetrate certain barriers than it is to have each cartridge JHPed so that it tickles a little harder when it hits.


EDIT: Personally, I've always had beef with gel rounds being this super-humane way to just do Stun instead of physical. It makes it really, really easy, rather than a self-sacrificing liability, to never ever kill someone.

[Clyde]

For penetration, the military uses a jacketed round with a tungsten carbide tip. Hardly qualifies as "regular" ammo. You can make a pretty strong argument that the military has made less than ideal ammunition choices over the last 6 and a half decades:

1940: decision to use a round nose bullet with the .30 carbine round (drastically limited effectiveness at long range - despite having twice the kinetic energy of a .45 it has far less killing power from all accounts).

~1950: forced NATO countries to accept 7.62x51mm as the standard rifle cartridge. Effectively delays arrival of the modern assault rifle by 15 years in Western armies (while the Soviets already had the AK47)

~1975: decision by NATO to adopt a heavier and lower velocity SS109 round in 5.56x45mm for the M-16 series rifle. This is in error because the bullet used in the M-16 relies almost entirely on velocity for its killing power. The heavier bullet is less likely to be deflected by brush and the like, but stopping power issues with the M16/M4 in close combat are the result.

~1984: is forced by NATO to deploy 9x19mm Beretta handgun. Given the limitation to full metal jacketed ammunition, they have saddled our soldiers with the least effective military handgun cartridge in recent memory.

~1990's: deployment of M4 carbine. Shortened barrel is nice, but results in an even greater loss of muzzle velocity. This results in far less wounding capacity at range. Would be offset if proper lightweight/high velocity bullet were in use.

And while the military is continually concerned about being able to penetrate body armor, the United States Army has never faced an opponent that used any form of serious ballistic armor. The closest is the tendency on the part of some armies to issue magazine carries that cover the front of the chest with spare ammo. Relatively few of our opponents even issue steel helmets (notoriously ineffective v. small arms fire) let alone proper kevlar helmets. In short, they're trading real killing power today for a contingency that has never come up (and likely enough never will).

[Austere Emancipa...]

The Geneva Conventions do not deal with ammunition for small arms. The Final Act of the International Peace Conference, Hague 1899, or more accurately, Declaration IV, 3 thereof. Before anyone starts, the United States is a signatory of the Final Act (see here and here).

[Ellery]

As well as not fully understanding the consequences of their own modifiers.

[Serbitar]

With exex and APDS you reallty see that they dont understand the meaning of their own modfiers, as exex is allways better, regardless of armor.

House rule:

Flechette, Gel:
+2 DV (S) / + Impact
EXplosive
+1 DV / -
EX explosive
+1DV / -1 AP
APDS:
- / -5 AP

[kigmatzomat]

[The Madhatter]

[6thDragon]

[QUOTE=The Madhatter][QUOTE=TheNarrator,Aug 31 2005, 07:55 PM]
[/QUOTE]
I was under the impression that the military doesn't use hollowpoints because they do poorly against body armor. [/QUOTE]
Not true. It's against the Geneva Convention to use hollow points or fragmenting type rounds due to the grievous wounds they inflict. It's an anachronism, but it's stilled followed by the U.S. Military.[/QUOTE]
True but there are some exceptions. Some units expecting to encounter innocent bystanders along with their targets will use hollowpoints. This is because the ball round will penetrate and pass through the target and possibly hit the bystander behind the target. Where the hollowpoint will flatten on impact and definitely not pass through the target. I used them while on embassy duty with the Marines and special forces units use them also. Keep in mind that they are only for pistols. If you try to load them in your MP-5 you are in for quiet a shock.

[Spookymonster]

[Clyde]

So to fully answer Serbitar's original question: yes there is a reason not to use Gel or Fletchette all the time. Other ammo is way more effective :wobble:

An effective house rule (and the only one I've considered so far) would be to remove the AP bonus from EX rounds. They just get a bonus to damage value. That would make more sense, anyhow, as a percussion fused round wound tend to detonate on the first thing it impacts rather than penetrating deeply.

[Crusher Bob]

Then they would still be better than ADPS in all cases :rotfl: .

1 point of DV is effectively worth -3 points or armor penetration.

Against an armored target, +2 DV is roughly the same as -6 armor penetration.

[Clyde]

EX rounds under my house rule wouldn't be better than APDS against very heavy armors. In those cases, the armor would likely convert this reduced EX to stun while APDS would still kill. This is only an issue against security or military armor for most guns, but there you go. Even in SR2 and 3 APDS was only better than EX if you had 6 or more points of ballistic armor (the domain of security armor and the well layered).

[Ellery]

Why is physical better than stun?

[Kagetenshi]

I'll add to that: it isn't, not unless they make someone that has bonuses to Willpower like Trolls get bonuses to Body. Stun is now more advantageous than physical for reasons other than drain (assuming you can take the time to make sure someone's dead afterwards, of course).

And this, folks, is why the variable-length damage tracks were a bad call.

~J

[Ellery]

If they'd said something like, "damage is cut in half (round up) and converted to stun", then maybe it would be worthwhile keeping it physical.

[OSUMacbeth]

Maybe I'm missing the point: Why do people care that Ex-ex is better than APDS? It costs more and has a higher avail. In SR3 APDS was far better than EX. Now EXex is far better than APDS. What is the big deal? When you have bullets that literally explode (as opposed to current day fragmenting "explosive" rounds) I'm not surprised. The only time APDS was ever worse in any way than EX in SR3 was when the target wore less than 4 ballistic armor. So again, why does anyone care? It's not like the devs didn't know this ahead of time. They adjusted price and avail to match. And even this new EX is no old-school AV.

OSUMacbeth