| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
What if you can only apply the autofire bonus to damage at targets at or below scale, higher scale targets you can only add bonus to hit?
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16179
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | What if you can only apply the autofire bonus to damage at targets at or below scale, higher scale targets you can only add bonus to hit? |
Why would you do that? Applying the autofire bonus to damage means you are focusing on a specific point on a much larger target, pouring blast after blast of energy into it. The largest targets will have some sort of weak point (Death Star, anyone?). Modern tanks are a perfect example. If you fire a machinegun at the front armor plate, you'll just get a lot of sparks and ricochets. If you hit the same tank from the side with a .50 cal. aimed at the tank treads, you can disable it. A sniper with a Light .50 can put a bullet into the turret ring and wedge the turret in place, disabling it. The whole idea is using the target's greater size as an advantage, allowing you to focus on the target's weak points to disable it, rather than using brute force. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't understand that argument. A lot of posts have been along the lines of not wanting a repeater to take down a tank too easily, and now you are saying it should?
Yes, a character scale weapon should be able to damage something in a higher scale, but as the result of targeting the weakness, not adding more random shots.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | What if you can only apply the autofire bonus to damage at targets at or below scale, higher scale targets you can only add bonus to hit? |
The problem is that some vehicles are unarmoured, and puring autofire into them would definitely do more damage than a single blast.
But you touch at a core of the problem. How do you come up with a rule that does not create a new problem while fixing the first.
As pointed out above, the Autofire bonus to damage is for concentrated fire at the target. This would work just as well for higher scale targets, just not for well armoured ones. However, this is the 'armour problem' already mentioned, which requires going over all vehicles and ships you want to use and give them an armour value (or giving generic values).
In this case I limit my problem to how differ between heavy firepower and rapid fire, preferrably without taking on the armour issue.
The problem with my above solution is that it cant be a catch all solution. If you are firing at a totally unarmoured target, and this is mostly a problem when shooting at living targets as most vehicles can be assumed to have some kind of bodywork and structural parts which can soak up some damage, there should be no pardon from the Autofire damage. Where should one draw the line? Is a blast west enough to varrant this rule, or should it require bounty hunter armour? One would have to decide on a certain armour level where this rule comes into play for living targets. It quickly becomes a bit arbitrary if you dont make it a factor of weapon damage vs armour dice. And we are back at the armour question again.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16179
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | I don't understand that argument. A lot of posts have been along the lines of not wanting a repeater to take down a tank too easily, and now you are saying it should?
Yes, a character scale weapon should be able to damage something in a higher scale, but as the result of targeting the weakness, not adding more random shots. |
That's entirely my point. In your original argument, you were saying that the autofire rule should only be applied to targets of a larger scale for damage rolls, not To Hit rolls. The idea behind an autofire rule is that, by putting out a lot of rounds, it increases either the amount of damage you inflict or your chances of hitting a specific target. In the former choice, you are aiming carefully and trying to put as many rounds as possible "on target." Having a target with a larger scale (i.e. bigger) makes that even easier, so a Character firing at a Speeder receives the normal +2D Scale bonus to hit. However, since the target is larger and more heavily armored, the Character also receives a -2D penalty to damage.
At this point, the degree of the gunner's skill comes into play, as he has to keep the gun on target as he fires off dozens or hundreds of rounds, trying to get as many of them as possible at whatever weak point at which he is aiming. IMO, the best in-game representative for that is Version 2 of the Optional Combat Rule: Skill Damage Bonus in RoE (page 58), specifically, for every 5 points by which the gunner succeeded on the To Hit roll, he gains a +1 bonus to damage.
The other two options suggested in RoE are a straight 1 for 1 bonus (The gunner adds the points by which he succeeded on his To Hit roll directly to damage) or a dice pool (where a gunner decides in advance to divide up his blaster skill dice between accuracy and damage). IMO, Option 1 is a bit too powerful. I like Option 2, but not as much as the rule I quoted above, for a variety of reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16179
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | The problem with my above solution is that it cant be a catch all solution. If you are firing at a totally unarmoured target, and this is mostly a problem when shooting at living targets as most vehicles can be assumed to have some kind of bodywork and structural parts which can soak up some damage, there should be no pardon from the Autofire damage. Where should one draw the line? Is a blast west enough to varrant this rule, or should it require bounty hunter armour? One would have to decide on a certain armour level where this rule comes into play for living targets. It quickly becomes a bit arbitrary if you dont make it a factor of weapon damage vs armour dice. And we are back at the armour question again. |
I would just ignore the armor as a rules issue. Armor when worn by a character adds to their Strength to resist damage, but armor that is integral to the design of a vehicle is already included in the vehicle's overall Hull Strength rating. Just roll the dice as normal, adding the results of whatever rules you are using; if the damage roll isn't high enough, then the armor was strong enough to resist. End of story. I know RoE makes the suggestion that one should definitely use the hit location rules in the Main Rulebook when in combat with PCs or NPCs wearing partial body armor.
As for the question of heavy firepower versus rapid fire, it should be covered in the stats. A laser cannon or missile launcher would fire a single round with a high Damage rating, reflecting the amount of energy released with a single shot. A repeating blaster, on the other hand, puts out a lot of little shots, and the stats would have a lower damage rating (compared to the rocket launcher), but would have the autofire dice to play with. The autofire rule reflects the gunner's choice of technique with the blaster (i.e. does he spray a fan of blaster bolts across a line of advancing enemies, or does he focus all his fire on the one dug-in sniper, trying to either override his protective cover or just keep his head down?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:44 pm Post subject: Re: Differing between heavy firepower and rapid fire. |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: |
I had the same idea for characters too before. The idea came from the fact that wearing bounty hunter armour did little for 'weak' (standard human) persons. The idea was the same as yours above. If a weapon did not meet a certain number of D:s in damage the attack would not penetrate armour and no resistance roll was neccesary. The idea never got realized as I couldnt come up with a way to interpret existing stats into this rule. I didnt want to redo all armours. |
You don7t have to redo the armor, just the way it works. If you subtract the armor off the damage dice before they are rolled you can use the same stats but arnmor becomes more effective. The reason why is becuase the armor reduces the max damage roll, and there is no chance of the armor rolling a "1" and soaking 1 point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | [As for the question of heavy firepower versus rapid fire, it should be covered in the stats. A laser cannon or missile launcher would fire a single round with a high Damage rating, reflecting the amount of energy released with a single shot. A repeating blaster, on the other hand, puts out a lot of little shots, and the stats would have a lower damage rating (compared to the rocket launcher), but would have the autofire dice to play with. The autofire rule reflects the gunner's choice of technique with the blaster (i.e. does he spray a fan of blaster bolts across a line of advancing enemies, or does he focus all his fire on the one dug-in sniper, trying to either override his protective cover or just keep his head down?) |
The problem is that the game rules don't differentiate between the source of the ddamage ice. As far as the rules go 10D damage is 10D damage.
Since mutiple weapons, combined fire, and autfire all increase the weapon damage, according to RAW, the net effect is the same as if you were firing amore powerful weapon. This is fine against "soft" targets, but doesn't make much sense when shooting against a "hard" target. For instance, firing a lot of 9mm rounds at a M1 tank.
One difficulty with the targerting locations rules is that larger scale object grant bonus to the smaller attackers. This makes it very easy for characters to trade off skill dice for damage (as per Rules of Egagement), thereby offsetting some or all of the scale dice the us that the larger scale object gets to soak.
Some suggestions:
1- We could note if a vehicle is ahard or soft target. Hard targets could subtract thier scale dice from the attackers damage dice, instead of adding to thier soak dice. That would help without requiring rewrting the stats for every vehicle. Soft vehicles could add the scale dice to soak as usual.
2- I suggest the scaling dice that normally add to targeting come off the target's dodge dice instead. That way it won't make it any easier to for someone to target a weak spot (like a 2m exhaust port) just because the vehicle that the target is part of happens to be huge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:56 pm Post subject: Re: Differing between heavy firepower and rapid fire. |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: |
I had the same idea for characters too before. The idea came from the fact that wearing bounty hunter armour did little for 'weak' (standard human) persons. The idea was the same as yours above. If a weapon did not meet a certain number of D:s in damage the attack would not penetrate armour and no resistance roll was neccesary. The idea never got realized as I couldnt come up with a way to interpret existing stats into this rule. I didnt want to redo all armours. |
You don7t have to redo the armor, just the way it works. If you subtract the armor off the damage dice before they are rolled you can use the same stats but arnmor becomes more effective. The reason why is becuase the armor reduces the max damage roll, and there is no chance of the armor rolling a "1" and soaking 1 point. |
I didnt want to change the existing mechanic, if possible. It has been with us decades of SW gaming and feels 'right'. The thought was to add a lower limit where you didnt even needed to roll resistance.
For example.
A Bounty Hunter is shot by a blaster pistol (4D). Because of his tough armour (2D) the shot is deflected by the armour. If he had been shot with a heavy blaster (5D) he would have rolled resistance as usual (STR+2D vs 5D damage). Please note that the threshold for not having to roll a resistance roll is just pulled out of the air. The problem with this rule was coming up with a simple way of handling this threshhold that was consistent and didnt create new problems. For example, a 1D armour doesnt absorb half the damage of a 2D armour with the existing system.
Hmm, thinking loud here..
If the damage is less or equal to protective value +3D or less the damage bounces of the armour and theres no need to resist damage. How about that? A 1D bounty hunter armour will then automatically deflect a 4D blast. Problem, Boba Fetts armour will automatically deflect a light repeating blaster at 6D...hmmm.
Perhaps with another of my weapon rules Ive been thinking of. Point blank (0-3m) damage is +1D. Idea came from the Last Man Standing story, where it was mentioned that 'from this range' the armour wouldnt stop a blaster bolt from a rifle.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14035
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That is interesting, but it seems to favor once again, high strength characters...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16179
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | 2- I suggest the scaling dice that normally add to targeting come off the target's dodge dice instead. That way it won't make it any easier to for someone to target a weak spot (like a 2m exhaust port) just because the vehicle that the target is part of happens to be huge. |
Personally, I'm in favor of any rule that makes gameplay faster and more streamlined. How about a hard rule that the autofire rules can only be used to increase damage against targets that are no more than one scale step above the firing weapon? That way, an E-WEB could still make mincemeat out of a speeder, but would bounce right off something Walker-Scale or higher. After all, hardness is more a matter of relativity than anything else (in that sense that you are comparing an armor's effectiveness against the weapon being used against it). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | That is interesting, but it seems to favor once again, high strength characters... |
On the contrary, low STR characters 'get a break'.
If the attack penetrates the armour (ie is over the 'penetration threshold') then damage resistance works as normal, favouring no one.
A 4D attack vs a target with STR 2D wearing armour of 1D has a good chance of wounding (and as I use the 1st ed damage rules in my games they mostly wound the target). If the target had STR 4D, the total resistance dice of 5D would mean that the target most of the time would be safe (except for a stun).
With the above rules the 4D blaster shot wouldnt penetrate the armour and no resistance roll would be neccessary. Why would the high STR target benefit the most?
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Random Numbers
Commander
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 454
Location: Gladsheim
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I still think the easiest solution is to only apply autofire dice to skill. There is still only one roll for dodge and rolling one or two extra times for the rapid fire weapons won't matter. Most of us will still use autofire to increase our chances to hit while dodging and drinking coffee.
_________________
Random is who random does... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4834
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Autofire is something that's bothered me quite a lot, so I understand where you're coming from. However, rather than trying to determine armor ratings or whatnot, why not simply determine how many shots per second (or minute) the weapon is capable of. Take into account that it is nearly impossible (from what I've been told) to have every round hit someone when on full auto, and assign a die code.
For example, a weapon might hit a target a maximum of 1D-2 times per shot (minimum 1).
An Eweb might hit as many as 2D+2 times per round.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd been thinking about the auto-fire dice situation. A possible solution that I came up with is to use a combination of RoE's extra damage rule #2, and special off colored dice for auto-fire.
So, to begin with, a player makes a choice, if he's going to target multiple targets (he can add in 1 target for the cost of 1 auto fire die without MAP), or if he’s going to concentrate fire on a single target.
He then rolls his blaster skill with the special auto fire dice added in (any removed if he wants to attempt to hit multiple targets); adds up his skill roll first (adding +1 damage per 5 above target’s difficulty or dodge roll). Now, if with the player’s dice, they manage to hit the target: auto fire dice are added in at +1 damage for every 2 rolled on them, so max extra damage would be +3 per D of auto fire. If the character does not quite make difficulty to hit, then auto fire dice get added in to hit, and any remaining over is calculated: +1 damage for every 2 above difficulty.
I think that in some ways, this is a bit more balanced; even a slob with an E-Web is going to make a group of troops think twice about charging him since sheer volume of blasts will likely equate to them getting hit, and it makes use of volume of shots vs. heavy firepower. Never allowing too much extra damage, but making it worthwhile enough that someone would consider getting a repeater vs. a standard blaster rifle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
