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 ?
Full Version: gel / flechette ammo
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
| QUOTE (Clyde @ Aug 31 2005, 04:45 PM) |
| 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. |
I was under the impression that the military doesn't use hollowpoints because they do poorly against body armor. Apparently it doesn't take much to cause the hollowpoint to not expand, thus taking away its advantage. Also, I suspect that a hollowpoint, expanded or otherwise, probably has poorer penetration than ball ammo. Also, the military prefers to wound rather than kill. Burying the dead is cheap. Caring for the maimed is costly.
Police, on the other hand, go up against people who rarely wear body armor and could quite possibly be on PCP and thus can't be stopped without being killed. Hence the hollowpoints. Somewhere in the dumpshock forums there's a link to an FBI study on handgun effectiveness.....
The original poster is right that flechette is no longer as powerless against armor as it once was. But impact+2 might not always be equal to ballistic. I don't have an SR4 book, but in SR3 there were lots of little add-ons that could improve your impact armor: helmets, forearm guards, bone lacing and dermal armor/sheath cyberware.
| QUOTE (TheNarrator) |
| [/QUOTE] I was under the impression that the military doesn't use hollowpoints because they do poorly against body armor. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
[/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.
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).
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).
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).
| QUOTE (Clyde) |
| 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). |
Kinetic energy does not necessarily have anything at all to do with "killing power"; certainly not when you're limited to FMJ ammunition, when the diameter and shape of the bullet become extremely important determiners of the shape and size of the wound caused. The round nose of the .30 Carbine bullet actually allows it to make a slightly larger wound than a more pointed spitzer bullet would have -- but of course the .45 is likely to prove more lethal, as the .30 is still moving at only ~2000fps at the muzzle and is unlikely to tumble, so the size of the wound cavity is mostly decided by the shape and diameter (with the .45 winning out by a factor of 1.5x) of the bullet.
| QUOTE (Clyde) |
| ~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. [...] stopping power issues with the M16/M4 in close combat are the result. |
I have to ask... You do realize that if the M193 and M855 bullets stayed intact on hitting a human, the difference of 225fps at the muzzle would really make no difference at all for lethality? The problem is that both bullet designs fragment when they tumble at high velocity: over 2700fps will reliably fragment, 2500-2700fps might or might not, less than 2500fps is unlikely to significantly fragment. The M193 will have the necessary velocity at longer ranges than the heavier M855 -- ~200 meters vs ~150 meters. In close combat, however, it makes little to no difference, as both rounds will tumble and fragment and cause very large wound cavities (compare this and this).
| QUOTE (Clyde) |
| For penetration, the military uses a jacketed round with a tungsten carbide tip. |
The new US Army M993 and M995 armor piercing rounds for 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm weapons do indeed utilize tungsten carbide in a jacketed bullet, but instead of a tungsten carbide tip these bullets have a full tungsten carbide core. Earlier armor piercing bullet designs for these calibers used similar bullets with the cores made out of steel instead.
As for the topic at hand, I'm not at all surprised by weird ammunition ruling the day. In fact, I was sure that would happen when it was first discussed on this forum how combat and damage might work with the new dice mechanic. That's what happens with simplified dice mechanics, when the game designers decide they aren't going to make any exceptions for real-life logic.
As well as not fully understanding the consequences of their own modifiers.
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
House rule:
Flechette, Gel:
+2 DV (S) / + Impact
EXplosive
+1 DV / -
EX explosive
+1DV / -1 AP
APDS:
- / -5 AP
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| 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. |
You could always reduce the range of gel-equipped weaponry by one step to reflect the change in mass.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| The Geneva Conventions do not deal with ammunition for small arms. The Final Act of the International Peace Conference, ...... |
Check out the first number 3. "To prohibit the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope, of which the envelope does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions."
[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.
[/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.
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| As well as not fully understanding the consequences of their own modifiers. |
At first I didn't understand this, so I went through the math. Call me out on this if I'm wrong:
The ExEX +2DV/-2AP is the same as the APDS +0DV/-4AP when determining if the defender is taking physical or stun damage; both result in a 4 point spread between the DV and the AP. But what about the damage resistance test? Reducing the damage resistance test (DRT) by APDS's 4 dice means roughly 1 less success on average (and, consequently, one more box of damage taken on average). Reducing the AP by 2 while also raising the threshold (+2DV) equates to a -8 dice penalty on the DRT, roughly 3 fewer successes (3 more boxes of damage taken) on average.
If the target is wearing no armor whatsoever, all AP modifiers are pointless (you cannot have a negative AP in the DRT). This makes APDS nothing more than expensive, hard to get standard rounds. Meanwhile, ExEX will still enjoy its DV modifier.
Wow... given the higher Availability (16R vs. ExEX's 12R) of APDS rounds, the only thing it would appear to have going for it is cost ($70 vs. ExEX's $100) and safety (no glitch effect).
As for non-lethal rounds, Stick n' Shocks are the best choice for holdouts, light pistols and machine pistols. Check out the Yamaha Sakura Fubuki in particular - you'll get 8S (6S +2DV when firing a narrow burst of SnS ammo) with no recoil penalties, more ammo capacity than the Slivergun, and easier to conceal! Since SnS ammo only does Stun damage, the fact that the burst fire DV modifier doesn't apply in the DV vs. AP test becomes irrelevant. On average, you'll be applying a -2AP (-half of impact armor, typically 4, rounded up) modifier to the DV test as well, except on those rare occasions when you're attacking a nonconductive target. Plus, as Hahnsoo already mentioned, you've got the additional benefits of possible incapacitation and electronics disruption.
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 
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.
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.
Then they would still be better than ADPS in all cases 
.
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.
.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.
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).
Why is physical better than stun?
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
And this, folks, is why the variable-length damage tracks were a bad call.
~J
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.
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
OSUMacbeth
@Spookymonster: Right calculation
Keep in mind that a troll will go down much faster with stun damage, than with physical damage. So stun damage is better all the way. Only when it comes to shooting through barriers and such, stun suxx.
Keep in mind that a troll will go down much faster with stun damage, than with physical damage. So stun damage is better all the way. Only when it comes to shooting through barriers and such, stun suxx.
OSU, check the availability again.
Hint: 16 is more than 12.
Hint: 16 is more than 12.
Ack, my apologies! Before the pdf was released, someone from gencon said that the ex-ex was higher avail, so I thought there was no problem. Now I agree. This is crap. In my game, consider those two avails switched.
OSUMacbeth
OSUMacbeth
Well, the obvious solution is a houserule for pretty much all ammunition types 
| QUOTE (Serbitar) |
| House rule: Flechette, Gel: +2 DV (S) / + Impact EXplosive +1 DV / - EX explosive +1DV / -1 AP APDS: - / -5 AP |
Like these ?
EX-Explosive is barely any better than Explosive in that list. Otherwise, it looks a lot more sensible than the default.
| QUOTE (Serbitar) | ||
Like these ? |
Yeah, like those.
Sorry, I missed your post, cause nobody's commented on it at all!
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| EX-Explosive is barely any better than Explosive in that list. Otherwise, it looks a lot more sensible than the default. |
That was my intention.
+2 DV with an availability that is saying: "everybody can get it in a week" is a little too much in my opinion.
But this opinion could change. I still have to review the impact of the new Dermal Plating and Orthoskin on game balance (especially in combination with an armor jacket).
( A troll with dermal plating 3 and armor jacket could have an armor rating of 12)
Armor 12 often won't even stop a pistol round. I wouldn't worry about it. It'll be stun damage and only a box or two, but it'll hit and hurt.
Oh, does dermal plating stack with natural troll dermal plating now?
@Gort: dindnt find anything against that.
@Ellery:
I would say the standard case is a sam with body 6 ( including cyber) and armor jacket.
thats 14 dice for an average of 4.66 hits. Give him 7 body and 2 adittional points of armor (plating, orthoskin) and he has 17 dice averaging for 5.66 hits.
The heavy pistol does 5p plus 1 hit for being hit -1 AP.
The sam a) would take 6-4.33 boxes of stun damage
sam b) would take 6-5.33 boxes of stun damage
The troll with body 10-12 (including cyber) and 12 Armor (including czber) has 22-24 dice to roll which are about 7-8 hits. needs a good shooter to damage him.
Nah anyway: This physical to stun conversion doesnt help anybody. Exluding healing times, stun is worse for all combat oriented chars as they have more body than willpower.
I woud, house rule the following: Physical damage that is converted to stun is halved (round up) after damage resistance.
Example:
Joe Runner is hit with a heavy pistol with 1 hit. The modified DV (5+1) = 6 is compared to his armor jacket (8-1) = 7, so only stun damage. In his resistance test he throws 3 successes, leaving 3 boxes of stun, wich are halved to 2 (round up) boxes because its converted physical damage and we dont want unconcious characters all arround and armor to mean something.
Thene ven APDS would gets its importance back.
@Ellery:
I would say the standard case is a sam with body 6 ( including cyber) and armor jacket.
thats 14 dice for an average of 4.66 hits. Give him 7 body and 2 adittional points of armor (plating, orthoskin) and he has 17 dice averaging for 5.66 hits.
The heavy pistol does 5p plus 1 hit for being hit -1 AP.
The sam a) would take 6-4.33 boxes of stun damage
sam b) would take 6-5.33 boxes of stun damage
The troll with body 10-12 (including cyber) and 12 Armor (including czber) has 22-24 dice to roll which are about 7-8 hits. needs a good shooter to damage him.
Nah anyway: This physical to stun conversion doesnt help anybody. Exluding healing times, stun is worse for all combat oriented chars as they have more body than willpower.
I woud, house rule the following: Physical damage that is converted to stun is halved (round up) after damage resistance.
Example:
Joe Runner is hit with a heavy pistol with 1 hit. The modified DV (5+1) = 6 is compared to his armor jacket (8-1) = 7, so only stun damage. In his resistance test he throws 3 successes, leaving 3 boxes of stun, wich are halved to 2 (round up) boxes because its converted physical damage and we dont want unconcious characters all arround and armor to mean something.
Thene ven APDS would gets its importance back.
You know, you should put all your house rules on a website or something, Serb. I like what you've put on this forum so far.
Whoops, I somehow neglected to pay attention that we were discussing a troll. Sorry about that.
Yes, armored trolls are hard to hurt--too hard, most likely.
Yes, armored trolls are hard to hurt--too hard, most likely.
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| Whoops, I somehow neglected to pay attention that we were discussing a troll. Sorry about that. Yes, armored trolls are hard to hurt--too hard, most likely. |
Yeah. My dwarf gunslinger adept (a convert from SR3 to SR4, so he's quite overpowered) barely grazed a troll gunslinger adept NPC (using SR4 creation rules) in a recent shootout. I fired two shots, both from a Ruger Superwarhawk in each hand, doing a base of 8DV, -4 AP (EX-Explosive ammo). He took about 2 stun damage each shot, and my dwarf rolled 20 dice. As far as return fire, I took two shots that brought me up to 8 boxes of physical (ouch), and I was using Edge for my Reaction test.
With 20 dice you only got 1 netto hit ? And the troll had armor 13 ?
Or mabye my math is wrong. (Gunslinger needs at least 1 netto hit to hit = 9DV -4AP, needing at least armor 13 to make it stun. The troll needs average of 21 (9 from armor) dice to reduce it to 2)
Or mabye my math is wrong. (Gunslinger needs at least 1 netto hit to hit = 9DV -4AP, needing at least armor 13 to make it stun. The troll needs average of 21 (9 from armor) dice to reduce it to 2)
| QUOTE (Serbitar) |
| With 20 dice you only got 1 netto hit ? And the troll had armor 13 ? |
This wasn't an average troll, I'll tell you that much. And it was using Edge on a couple of the tests.
na ok, than thats not the average example for a troll.
You are right 6thDragon. There are definitely exceptions to the Conventions. I'm sure you remember most ranges that are cleared for .50s having the tire covered posts that remarkably resemble human silhouettes.
| QUOTE (The Madhatter) |
| There are definitely exceptions to the Conventions. I'm sure you remember most ranges that are cleared for .50s having the tire covered posts that remarkably resemble human silhouettes. |
What do .50 BMG weapons have to do with any conventions dealing with the law of armed conflict?
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) | ||
What do .50 BMG weapons have to do with any conventions dealing with the law of armed conflict? |
The .50 is an anti-material round according to the Conventions. That article is definitely not followed though.
Why do we have to house-rule everything... 
Anyone thinking about putting together a PDF of the houserules? (Assuming a consensus on what is good comes about)...
Anyone thinking about putting together a PDF of the houserules? (Assuming a consensus on what is good comes about)...
| QUOTE (The Madhatter) |
| The .50 is an anti-material round according to the Conventions. That article is definitely not followed though. |
No it is not -- there is no convention dealing with armed conflict that does such classifications. None. Feel free to read through everything here; you won't find such a convention, because it does not exist.
Let's put it this way: there is absolutely no convention, law or agreement stopping militaries from firing mortars, howitzers, artillery rockets or MOABs at enemy personnel. Why the fuck would using .50 BMG rounds against soldiers be banned?
How this myth got started, I just cannot fathom.
[Edit]Just did a Google on this. The raw stupidity of humankind never ceases to amaze me. And nobody bothers to actually look up these conventions that are so handily available on the internet for any blogger to read.[/Edit]
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) | ||
No it is not -- there is no convention dealing with armed conflict that does such classifications. None. Feel free to read through everything here; you won't find such a convention, because it does not exist. Let's put it this way: there is absolutely no convention, law or agreement stopping militaries from firing mortars, howitzers, artillery rockets or MOABs at enemy personnel. Why the fuck would using .50 BMG rounds against soldiers be banned? How this myth got started, I just cannot fathom. [Edit]Just did a Google on this. The raw stupidity of humankind never ceases to amaze me. And nobody bothers to actually look up these conventions that are so handily available on the internet for any blogger to read.[/Edit] |
Sorry to offend you. I'm only reapeating what I've been taught. I'll defer to the power of the internet next time.
Sigh, we have to squash this idea with some regularity.
From what I remember, there was some controversy over the incendiary machine gun rounds (designed to attack Zeppelins) used during WWI, but Google is just turning up Crimson Skies references for me.
[edit]
Here's a quote from the BBC website:
From what I remember, there was some controversy over the incendiary machine gun rounds (designed to attack Zeppelins) used during WWI, but Google is just turning up Crimson Skies references for me.
[edit]
Here's a quote from the BBC website:
| QUOTE |
By the middle of 1916, there were new developments in incendiary/explosive ammunition for .303" machine guns. Initially, there was a reluctance to use them as they contravened the Hague Convention4, but Germany's use of gas in April 1915 hardened the resolve to beat the 'Hun' by any means possible. There were three types used together as 'mixed incendiary' the effects of which complemented each other. |
[/edit]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.