| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 3:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
So basically two 'bugs' interact with eachother (scaling and weird damage ratings)..
Theres a reason why I end up whinging a lot of things when it comes to character vs vehicle combat. Speeder bikes tends to blow up by just looking at them, all critical components, and walkers can be taken out by repeating blasters...(not to mention a 10D HMG).
Luckily none of my character uses firearms so I dont need to add that into the eqation.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | BINGO! THat is just it, the weapons in the new D6 rules are on a different scale. THere is a blaster rifle in D6 Space that does 8 or 10D damage instead of 5D. Some of the melee and primitive weapons in the new D6 also do more damage that thier WEG counterparts. |
I've looked all through the D6 Space book, and I can't find this mysterious super weapon you keep referring to that shows this inflation of damage. Highest damage weapon in the D6 space book is 7D+1 for a Medium Machine Gun.
There's a 7D for a Blaster Rifle, and 7D for a Gyroject rifle are also listed. Certainly no 8D or 10D.
I'm sure you can find fan made stats on weapons with ridiculous amounts of dice. Both for projectile weapons AND for STar Wars weapons. I'd hardly say, though, that there's a massive increase in weapon damage like there's been an inference of. If so, I'd love to see some page numbers.
Even looking in D6 Adventure, the highest damage I can find is the MG42 at 8D+2. And if you know anything about the MG42, you wouldn't disagree with that damage.
I definitely don't see anything at 10D anywhere though. Like I said, unless you're looking at fan made stuff, and then you can get whatever sort of numbers you want if you look hard enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimace wrote: |
I've looked all through the D6 Space book, and I can't find this mysterious super weapon you keep referring to that shows this inflation of damage. Highest damage weapon in the D6 space book is 7D+1 for a Medium Machine Gun. |
First off, the 6D .45 pistol is from a fan supplment. I pointed it out becuase the person who was looking for firaearms stats down loaded a fan supplment and I wanted to warn them that not all the writeups are the same. I dig out the firaemarns supplment that had the 6D pistol.
| Grimace wrote: |
There's a 7D for a Blaster Rifle, and 7D for a Gyroject rifle are also listed. Certainly no 8D or 10D. |
Yes, but that 7D blaster rfile is still doing more damage than the 5D baslter rifle of Star Wars. Now if you scale the damage values of the D6 weapons to match up with the blaster you get values that make a lot more sense in the Star Wars system.
| Grimace wrote: |
I'm sure you can find fan made stats on weapons with ridiculous amounts of dice. Both for projectile weapons AND for STar Wars weapons. I'd hardly say, though, that there's a massive increase in weapon damage like there's been an inference of. If so, I'd love to see some page numbers. |
Sure, I'll put some examples together.
| Grimace wrote: |
Even looking in D6 Adventure, the highest damage I can find is the MG42 at 8D+2. And if you know anything about the MG42, you wouldn't disagree with that damage. |
Well, I do, at least as far as Star Wars D6 goes. In a system where the E-Web is only do 8D, a submachine shouldn7t be doing 8D+2. There are rules in the new D6 system that don't apply in D6 SW. For instance, full autoo fire in D& reduces the weapon damage. Many of the weapons in D6 do more damage than thier Star Wars counterparts.
Come to think of it, I'll disagree with 8D+2 for it in the new D6 system too. If, according to your post a Medium mechanie gun is doing 7D+1, then the M42 should be doing less than 7D+1, and 8D+2 is too much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimace wrote: | | Even looking in D6 Adventure, the highest damage I can find is the MG42 at 8D+2. And if you know anything about the MG42, you wouldn't disagree with that damage. |
Why use an almost non-portable e-web when you can use a machinegun which (even from another galaxy) is ancient. The MG42 isnt even a heavy machingun and should therefore be compared to the SW weapon Medium Repeating blaster.
So, if not 'power creep' then definitely a different philosophy when it comes to how to represent automatic fire in the game.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: |
Well, I do, at least as far as Star Wars D6 goes. In a system where the E-Web is only do 8D, a submachine shouldn7t be doing 8D+2. There are rules in the new D6 system that don't apply in D6 SW. For instance, full autoo fire in D& reduces the weapon damage. Many of the weapons in D6 do more damage than thier Star Wars counterparts.
Come to think of it, I'll disagree with 8D+2 for it in the new D6 system too. If, according to your post a Medium mechanie gun is doing 7D+1, then the M42 should be doing less than 7D+1, and 8D+2 is too much. |
The MG42 is NOT a submachinegun. It's a very fast firing, very deadly machine gun.
Here's a brief bit on one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL09sLcKW4M
Perhaps knowing a bit about weapons might make you understand that not all projectile weaponry should be lower than a Star Wars blaster.
Don't get me wrong. Some blasters are going to be stronger than a counterpart projectile weapon. But there's also going to be projectile weapons stronger than a blaster in terms of damage. The thing that Star Wars doesn't take into account is that on Earth, firearms were developed to the point of high efficiency. The same does not seem to be the case in Star Wars projectile weapons. Likely, in STar Wars, blasters were developed fairly quickly after projectile weapons so development stopped on making effecient, deadly, projectile weapons. Development instead went towards blasters. So in Star Wars the typical projectile weapons ARE weaker than blasters. But those same projectile weapons are also weaker than projectile weapons of our modern day...where projectile weapons are the MAIN weapon, not a throwback "ancient" weapon. A Star Wars projectile weapon is probably closer to something you'd see in the 1800s on Earth. Were blasters developed then, then you'd have the exact same stats that you've got for Star Wars weapons. But since Earth kept progressing, the weapons got deadlier and more effecient. They shoot farther, faster and do more damage when they hit. Doesn't make them "wrong" when compared to Star Wars. Just different.
And ZzaphodD, yes, it is a different philosophy. Especially if you look at the opening words to Star Wars and realize that while Star Wars has hyperdrives and blasters and lightsabers, it was all "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." Those words allow for not everything created for D6 to HAVE to fit with Star Wars stats. Should people try to keep that in mind when statting new stuff....ABSOLUTELY! Should weapons always be relegated to being weaker than blasters...absolutely NOT! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimace wrote: | | Perhaps knowing a bit about weapons might make you understand that not all projectile weaponry should be lower than a Star Wars blaster. |
Why then are blastes so widespread while slugthrowers are used on extremely backwards planets? If slugthrowers were more effective, a portable machinegun more deadly than an e-web for example, they were going to be the mainstay weapon of choice. Simple as that!
Again, looking at SW slugthrowers (Morellian might be the mega-factor exeption) they are inferior to blasters, even before you take armor against physical into account. Perhaps a SW MG42 would do about 5D+2 damage.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Grimace"]
[quote="Grimace"]
The MG42 is NOT a submachinegun. It's a very fast firing, very deadly machine gun.
Oops I thought you meant an M42. 
| Grimace wrote: |
Perhaps knowing a bit about weapons might make you understand that not all projectile weaponry should be lower than a Star Wars blaster. |
Just becuace I misidentified the MG42 for the 42 doesn't mean I don't know anything about weapons. But since you apparently know something about weapons why does the MG42 do 8D+2 damage when a medium machinegun. does 7D+1? THe MG42s 7.92 mm round and the weapon's performace are not that much different than other medium machineguns.
And while we are on the subject of knoweledge. What do you (or anyoone esle) know about blaster technology? Is there information on the joules per shot, shot diamter, penetration, or tissue disruption avlaible for these weapons anywhere?
| Grimace wrote: |
Don't get me wrong. Some blasters are going to be stronger than a counterpart projectile weapon. But there's also going to be projectile weapons stronger than a blaster in terms of damage. The thing that Star Wars doesn't take into account is that on Earth, firearms were developed to the point of high efficiency. |
No, not really. On Earth projectile weapons have a rather low effciency, most of the energy is wasted and only a fraction goes towards propelling the bullet.
Now if you meant that firearms can be very deadly, then yes, they can, but not to the point that you seem to be claiming. On Earth, most people who get shot survive if they recieve medical treatment. In D6 any weapon any weapon that routinely beats the target STR roll by 16 or more is an autokill.
| Grimace wrote: |
The same does not seem to be the case in Star Wars projectile weapons. |
And just what are you basing that on? According to the on-screen evidence we have no idea as to the weapon7s effeciency. If you are talking about how effective thre weapons are in combat, then I7d say that the evidence supports the view that blasters are at least as effective as thier slugthrowing analougs.
With the notable exceptions of Price LEia7s shoulder hit, and Luke7s cyber hand hit, every other person who get blasted drops. Maybe some of them are only wounded but we can't tell from what we see on screen. Still the one stop stopping percentage of blasters compares favorable with firearms. True, stormtrooper armor looks useless on screen, but that7s another issue.
| Grimace wrote: |
Likely, in STar Wars, blasters were developed fairly quickly after projectile weapons so development stopped on making effecient, deadly, projectile weapons. Development instead went towards blasters. So in Star Wars the typical projectile weapons ARE weaker than blasters. But those same projectile weapons are also weaker than projectile weapons of our modern day...where projectile weapons are the MAIN weapon, not a throwback "ancient" weapon. A Star Wars projectile weapon is probably closer to something you'd see in the 1800s on Earth. Were blasters developed then, then you'd have the exact same stats that you've got for Star Wars weapons. But since Earth kept progressing, the weapons got deadlier and more effecient. They shoot farther, faster and do more damage when they hit. Doesn't make them "wrong" when compared to Star Wars. Just different. |
No. It is just that when D6 Star Wars was written the damage scores were kept low to encorage the sort of heroic play that suits the setting.
Since that time, damage have been increased in other D6 products. The new D6 even uses a differnt method for handling damage, too..
| Grimace wrote: |
And ZzaphodD, yes, it is a different philosophy. Especially if you look at the opening words to Star Wars and realize that while Star Wars has hyperdrives and blasters and lightsabers, it was all "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." Those words allow for not everything created for D6 to HAVE to fit with Star Wars stats. Should people try to keep that in mind when statting new stuff....ABSOLUTELY! Should weapons always be relegated to being weaker than blasters...absolutely NOT! |
I think you are missing a key poijnt. Not all D6 system stats are designed to be interchanged with each other. SO it is not that Earth firarms are more powerful than firearms in Star Wars, but that the new stats are not on the same scale as the ones used in Star Wars D6.
Or do you assume that Earth humans are quicker, more perceptive, stronger, and better technically inclined that humans in Star Wars? The max human stat in the new D6 books is 5D, not 4D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10300
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anakin
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 129
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:44 pm Post subject: Re: Firearms stats |
|
|
| Gregorius wrote: | | Does anyone have any statistics for a slugthrower assault rifle, light machine gun, automatic rifle (think Gewehr 43, SVT 40, or M14, and a sub-machine gun? |
I was starting to think no one would ever ask! 
Enjoy!:
http://www.angelfire.com/in/comcorporation/firearms.html
_________________
If you fall seven times, get up eight times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, anyone have any stats for slugthrowers that shoot payload rounds (miniature concussion missiles or things like that)?
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Random Numbers
Commander
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 454
Location: Gladsheim
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't forget the ammo capacity for blaster. My guess would be that any army would cheer at the thought of not having to haul tons of rounds around. Whit all the portable fusion reactors lying around recharging is not really an issue.
_________________
Random is who random does... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Random Numbers wrote: | | Don't forget the ammo capacity for blaster. My guess would be that any army would cheer at the thought of not having to haul tons of rounds around. Whit all the portable fusion reactors lying around recharging is not really an issue. |
I see that as the primary advantage of blasters. Because the ammo is so small and so light, one guy with an E-11 and a bag of power packs can do the job of a machine gunner and crew.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally i always felt the '# shots" for most blasters was too high.. I have yet to see a fight get to where anyone has even gone through half their shots, except for those using Thunderer heavys (25 shots per pack).. Even in gaming sessions where they have more than 1 combat.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Personally i always felt the '# shots" for most blasters was too high.. I have yet to see a fight get to where anyone has even gone through half their shots, except for those using Thunderer heavys (25 shots per pack).. Even in gaming sessions where they have more than 1 combat. |
I have actually lowered the ammo capacity for heavier weapons. Dont have the numbers before me but the 'super heavy' heavy blasters have an ammo capacity of between 12-15 shots.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Personally i always felt the '# shots" for most blasters was too high.. I have yet to see a fight get to where anyone has even gone through half their shots, except for those using Thunderer heavys (25 shots per pack).. Even in gaming sessions where they have more than 1 combat. |
Of course, do we ever see anyone reload in the movies? (That being a serious question, not rhetorical.) Also, I've found automatic fire provides ample opportunity to run out of ammo without hitting much!
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
