Well....
Thanos
Full Version: Navel Damage
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
Really, it's another, bigger damage track to handle things that are completely outside the scope of small arms.
~J
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.
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.
You do mean Naval and not Navel, right?
Yes, Navel. So it would be BOD+2 M Stun. And the attacker needs a Strength score >= to the Navel's BOD. 
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.
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.
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.
Rigger3 has the exact mechanics.
Think of Naval scale as vehicles' vehicle and you might have a idea of what naval scale is all about.
Well, light armor and up. Light vehicles still use the normal damage tracks, while, say, a tank would not.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
It's a GM fiat; for me they work and can hit.
Don
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| All land-bound vehicles use the normal damage track (thanks, mfb). |
This isn't actually mandated anywhere, mind you. If you decide to make a mobile fortress, it'll probably be naval-scale. It just so happens that it's a tad inefficient for most uses.
~J
| QUOTE (shadd4d) |
| Correction, pg. 57 says that ordinary vehicles (like aircraft and normal motorboats) are too small. |
Well that's dumb. Not having R3R in front of me, you're saying that if you mount a rail-gun on a tank chasis then it can't fire at other tanks or ground vehicles?
that's pretty much exactly what it's saying.
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
Don
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.
So to the errata should be added naval weapon clarificaiton, tanks chassises and their respective power plants.
Don
Don
No, even that's still a bit silly. Should be able to target things far more precisely than that. On the right track, though.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||
This isn't actually mandated anywhere, mind you. If you decide to make a mobile fortress, it'll probably be naval-scale. It just so happens that it's a tad inefficient for most uses. |
Correction: All canon land-bound vehicles and land-bound vehicles designed with the canon design rules use the normal damage track.
The reason for that is due to the sheer size of the naval vessel more than any special materials that went into its design.
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
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
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.
Still, that simple "test" does work wonderfully when considering unarmored or lightly armored vehicles.
i think the line is refering to targeting by sensory lock on rather then manual aim. so a rail gun aimed by manual means should be able to take out a tank. and i allso think a rigger guided (as opposed to sensory guided) cruise missile may be able to hit the target.
The opposite would seem to make more sense…
~J
~J
Indeed.
maybe so but this is sr we are talking about 
the game where you can make a man virtualy invisible by haveing him strip and body coverd by special fibers...
someone pop the question off to the right autohrity or check if there is a errata on it (alltho i dout it looking at this thread)...
the game where you can make a man virtualy invisible by haveing him strip and body coverd by special fibers...
someone pop the question off to the right autohrity or check if there is a errata on it (alltho i dout it looking at this thread)...
| QUOTE (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. |
The biggest tank in german sourcebooks is said Leopard III.
It was initially introduced in the german Rigger 3.01D along with the other tanks that later on made their world wide appearance in SOTA 2063.
Rigger 3.01D also includes the chassis and powerplant data on those vehicles.
IIRC that data was originally supposed to be in SOTA 2063 as well, but was left out for unknown reasons. I remember Adam once saying that it was planned on providing them on the SR Homepage, but so far that hasn't come true ...
And yes, no canon non-naval weapon can scratch the Leo's armor even when using anti-vehicular ammo unless a GM makes use of the "lower armor for parts" rule when doing a called shot ...
That fact caused major uproar when the Leo was introduced here in Germany ...
Cochise, is the chassis template for the tanks then in the english version of Rigger 3.01D?
Regarding the Leopold III, I can see the proliferation of nuclear weapons as the best answer.
Don
Regarding the Leopold III, I can see the proliferation of nuclear weapons as the best answer.
Don
| QUOTE (shadd4d) |
| Cochise, is the chassis template for the tanks then in the english version of Rigger 3.01D? |
Can't tell ...
Currently I have three SR-products on my "must buy"-list ... and Rigger 3 revised happens to be one of them ... (The others being M&M revised and the new german version of the Gamemasterscreen that includes an updated version of Critters) ...
So far SoE (which still hasn't reached me) had higher priority than these ...
Anti-ship Weapons != having naval damage. What's missing is a line to say weapons that are not Anti-Ship Weapons may have Naval Damage. Otherwise it's a category of weapon just like light pistols or shotguns are. Or more precisely it's used as a short for three categories of weapons: Anti-Ship Missiles (Javelot, Sea Saber, Sirocco), Anti-Ship Rockets (ASROC) and Anti-Ship Torpedoes (MADCAP). You can more or less get it on the weapons range table of R3 p.95 and the category sub-header p.93. You can't target a car with an anti-ship weapon just like you can't mount a silencer on a shotgun. Railgun are "Vehicle Weapons" and therefore don't have to follow the target rules of Anti-Ship Weapons.
That doesn't quite hold up. You can suppress a shotgun and you can fly a missile down a busy city street an into a truck or an open window if need be.
But that's still SR rules: you can't mount a Silencer, only a Sound Supressor, on a Shotgun, and you can't fire an Anti-Ship Weapons on ordinary vehicles. Yeah, the Harpoon Block II could be used against ground targets... But without even trying to blow up a road or a truck, the Javelot Aerial Defense Missile is described as "used for long-range air defense against aircreft, anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles" and falls in the category of Anti-Ship Missiles, preventing it from being fired against ordinary vehicles such as... aircrafts. And the cross-section of a missile is even much smaller.
I'm sorry to be the one to learn you SR rules have never been realist.
I'm sorry to be the one to learn you SR rules have never been realist.
Nath: We agree that that could well be interpreted to be the rule, and we agree that it's not realistic -- the latter being far more important here. The biggest ASMs in Rigger 3 weigh 900kg, only 50% more than a Harpoon and much less than any RL missiles that are used against ships but would be incapable of tracking smaller, ground targets.
In 60 years, I don't see why even the biggest missiles couldn't be accurately targeted on just about everything -- neither the sophistication of the sensors or the maneuverability of the missiles should pose any problem.
So, regardless of whether that is the rule or not, we can safely ignore it because it makes no damn sense.
In 60 years, I don't see why even the biggest missiles couldn't be accurately targeted on just about everything -- neither the sophistication of the sensors or the maneuverability of the missiles should pose any problem.
So, regardless of whether that is the rule or not, we can safely ignore it because it makes no damn sense.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.