Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Rules questions, suggestions, and discussion

Moderators: IVhorseman, Pwnerade

Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby Jabberwocky » Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:45 am

I have been rereading the rule book as it has changed from when i had an old account on here long ago... and noticed that there is nothing really covering anti-materiel weaponry such as the Barrett M197 "Light fifty" replica you can buy for minifigs or Recoiless rifles such as the gustav shoulder fired or the 106mm recoiless rifle that would be vehicle mounted.... all of these weapons do not really have an explosive cartridge but can do damage enough to punch through buildings or armored vehicles or pin little minifig spines to walls.... through walls. would one just "increase" the size of the weapon to get desired results? or would one treat the weapon systems as explosives as there are ammunition types that can do damage similar to explosives available for the weapon systems (API ammo really comes to mind for the 50)
TROLOLO
Jabberwocky
Champion
Champion
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:10 am

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby Nimja » Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:45 am

I have no idea what you're talking about with all this gun terminology, but, based on the title, the normal Gun is used for armour piercing purposes in brikwars, the Autogun being used against infantry. Of course, you would have to upscale it to be useful against 3d10 armour and the like.
What Mavericks sig is missing:
Silvawards 2013 wrote:Best Noob
Nominees
-Nimja
-Maverick
Winner: Maverick
User avatar
Nimja
BAHsLHASDSKJFWHEIJUSN
BAHsLHASDSKJFWHEIJUSN
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 2:48 pm
Location: Location,Location

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby Jabberwocky » Sat Oct 17, 2015 3:16 pm

I like using more historical/ grounded forces.... which is funny considering i am amassing a forces based on mg/mgsv. But they use real weaponry in those. The m107... mistyped m197. Is a 50 cal (.5in diameter or 12.7mm diameter projectile) antimateriel rifle (conventional  firearm using a large projectile to destroy armored vehicles and structures) considering that brickarms has a m107 for minifigs that is about a size 2 weapon... it can be upscaled anyway... but the carl gustav is a shoulder fired recoiless rifle.... picture a shoulder mounted howitzer.... producing little to know recoil. Kind of devastating back blast. Fires a large slug... though there are explosive ammunitions for modern use.... the 106mm recoiless rifle was a vehicle mounted us recoiless rifle popular in vietnam because it fit on military mules (m274) and jeeps. It just fired slugs but was hard hitting enough to cause the air To ignite near where the slug impacted.
TROLOLO
Jabberwocky
Champion
Champion
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:10 am

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby Gungnir » Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:35 pm

So wait. Are you saying you want weapons that just kill a target outright? That seems extremely munchkiny.
BrikThulhu eats 1d6 minifigs each turn.
User avatar
Gungnir
Jaw-Jaw
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:01 am

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby stubby » Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:38 pm

Jabberwocky wrote:would one just "increase" the size of the weapon to get desired results? or would one treat the weapon systems as explosives as there are ammunition types that can do damage similar to explosives available for the weapon systems (API ammo really comes to mind for the 50)

I'd go with the increased size first, rather than explosives; the explosive rules are good for area effect but not great at piercing armor.

I've kicked around ideas for a weapon effect that's specifically armor piercing, but it'd be of the flavor of "cancels Shielding" from Armor Plating / Heavy Armor / Shields rather than doing extra damage against structures with massive armor strength in their own right. But that always seemed a little too fiddly and special-purpose to include in the general-purpose main ruleset.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby Maddox » Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:42 am

How about having Anti-Armor weaponry with Supernatural 1d12 Damage Die? That would ignore armor and pack pretty good punch.
Image
User avatar
Maddox
Hero
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:32 am
Location: So cool that even laser-freezing winds get cold

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby AZKAMAT » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:07 pm

You guys don't know a thing about HEAT weapons do you? That's the type of weaponry the OP is referring to when he talks about the Gustav (even though he doesn't call it such).

I've been tossing around this idea too because of how boring the current meta strategy for killing big creations is (ie "just shoot it 'til it dies).

I think you're going all wrong about how to make top-tier anti-armor weapons (at least for modern to futuristic settings). Before I support I'll detail, crudely, how HEAT weapons work IRL.

HEAT stands for High Explosive Anti Tank. It's what is fitted into most anti-vehicle missiles and some direct-fire cannons. Instead of a conventional munition, which tries to beat vehicle armor via kinetic energy and then punch through crew/vehicle components, HEAT ammo chemically burns a hole through a target's armor, enters an open space in the vehicle like an engine space or crew compartment, and then blows up. The way it was explained to me by a guy who used to work on Javelin missiles, HEAT liquefies steel and then pushes it in a concentrated jet when it hits an armored target, thus making the hole for the explosive to go into.

So in brikwars, I think roughly HEAT weapons would have to first beat a raw armor value on their target, and then explode inside of the crew cabin for a vehicle (since brikwars tanks and such rarely have engine spaces built into them).

As for Anti-Material Rifles, those are 'just' big fucking guns. The normal rules can be easily modified to simulate them (such as I have done with my Heavy Sniper Rifle in my custom rules collection).
Check out mah BOL's of STIL! http://brikwars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16612

Kant b'leev uh wun! Image
User avatar
AZKAMAT
Minifig
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:44 pm
Location: SC, USA.

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby Gungnir » Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:22 pm

I don't think a regular minifig should be allowed to carry a weapon that can kill larger creations. It completely defeats the purpose of fielding awesome MOCs in the first place.
BrikThulhu eats 1d6 minifigs each turn.
User avatar
Gungnir
Jaw-Jaw
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:01 am

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby Jabberwocky » Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:24 pm

I know how HEAT rounds work. Im in the army. Work as a medic attached to a scout plt. I referenced the gustav and the 106mm recoiless rifle as they are older weapons used to penetrate armor. The gustav did not always have HEAT rounds. Granted those rounds did exist in the timeframe/tech level i have decided for the army i wish to build. That is why i referred to the rounds fired out of the two weapons as slugs... like a shotgun. Which would be considered a conventional, non explosive ammo
TROLOLO
Jabberwocky
Champion
Champion
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:10 am

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby stubby » Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:50 pm

AZKAMAT wrote:I've been tossing around this idea too because of how boring the current meta strategy for killing big creations is (ie "just shoot it 'til it dies).

Oh no, I'd never use that strategy. I have a lot of strategies for taking down big creations, and almost all of them start with targeted Component Damage. Trying to do it with straight "just shoot it" Size Damage would be the last resort.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby AZKAMAT » Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:03 pm

stubby wrote:
AZKAMAT wrote:I've been tossing around this idea too because of how boring the current meta strategy for killing big creations is (ie "just shoot it 'til it dies).

Oh no, I'd never use that strategy. I have a lot of strategies for taking down big creations, and almost all of them start with targeted Component Damage. Trying to do it with straight "just shoot it" Size Damage would be the last resort.


How big are you thinking of? Between 4-7 Inches at SL 3 is what I had in mind, since that's the average rough stats of tanks I play with. At those sizes it's more tempting to go for a "complete kill" than for a 12 Inch SL 5 Killtron 5000. Context is also important; bunch of infantry next to a tank and you have a lot of shots to pour at small components with a reasonable chance of crippling something. A size 4 gun targeting a SL 3 enemy tank is not the same; you have 1 shot and passing up +1 or more to hit a big target is a big gamble to try and hit a critical component. I should have been clearer originally.
Check out mah BOL's of STIL! http://brikwars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16612

Kant b'leev uh wun! Image
User avatar
AZKAMAT
Minifig
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:44 pm
Location: SC, USA.

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby stubby » Wed Oct 21, 2015 11:32 am

AZKAMAT wrote:How big are you thinking of? Between 4-7 Inches at SL 3 is what I had in mind, since that's the average rough stats of tanks I play with. At those sizes it's more tempting to go for a "complete kill" than for a 12 Inch SL 5 Killtron 5000. Context is also important; bunch of infantry next to a tank and you have a lot of shots to pour at small components with a reasonable chance of crippling something. A size 4 gun targeting a SL 3 enemy tank is not the same; you have 1 shot and passing up +1 or more to hit a big target is a big gamble to try and hit a critical component. I should have been clearer originally.

Nah, even with a 4-7" tank, the treads are probably also 4-7", and the gun turret is probably also somewhere in that 4-7" range. So you've got the same or similar size bonus to the attack, less Armor to punch through since devices have a lower Armor level than the main structure, and greater damage to the tank's immediate effectiveness if the attack succeeds.

So even with a size 4" gun, I'm looking to either immobilize or disarm the tank first, depending on its weapon loadout, what it's threatening in the area, and what kind of other units I have nearby for follow-up attacks.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby stubby » Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:30 pm

Anyway :rule7:, back to the original question:

Currently the only way to do super-damaging slugs is to just increase to larger sizes of the standard Gun, but other effects are possible with some SN dice.

Can you give a play-by-play of how you imagine this panning out in the game? Say I've got two guys going up against two APCs. The first guy fires something like a Carl Gustaf, the second just has a generic 2" Gun. What would have to be different between the two to make the first one "feel" like what you're picturing, compared to the generic experience of the second?
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby Jabberwocky » Thu Oct 22, 2015 12:48 am

The gustav, recoiless rifle, and m107/anti materiel rifles all kind of fit into what i was looking at. They could all be vehicle mounted which i think i am looking at...  i have a m274 (military mule) that i had designed in ldd that i think i am going to mount one of these things to(feel free to check out plasticgear214 if curious)... in order to give it mobility still for the size increase. I was just looking for a simpler method to destroy armored vehicles than all of the calculating radiuses and purchases of ammo etc that come with it... i was just thinking that as weapon size increases, they tend to get explode-y... but size increase and supernatural di should solve the issue nicely
TROLOLO
Jabberwocky
Champion
Champion
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:10 am

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby runnybabbit223 » Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:53 am

I have an costom armor pircing stat on one of my guns that lets it treat all infantry as if they have 1d6 armor.

wouldn't work on vehicles though, (or would it?)
3... 2... 1... DRAGONS!
User avatar
runnybabbit223
worth a try if your desprate
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:19 pm
Location: Outside the Matrix

Next

Return to The Rulebook

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests