Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Rules questions, suggestions, and discussion

Moderators: IVhorseman, Pwnerade

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby RedRover » Mon Jul 11, 2016 12:47 pm

stubby wrote:So you'd have something like AP shell (2d8 Piercing + 1d10 Explosive) that would punch through two structure levels and then explode.


So if It was a size 5 mech with 3d10 armor, would it pierce through two sizes and then the explosion would roll against the 3d10 armor still? of would it automatically knock it down to a size 3 mech and just roll against the reduced armor?

Would the size be permanently knocked off?

How would you determine if the d8's kocked off a structure level? Would it be rolling the d8's individually against the 3d10 armor? or 1 d8 against 1d10?

I like the idea, but just want to know how the mechanics would work in a somewhat balanced way, I could see people abusing armor piercing shells making armor kinda useless or making people stack ridiculous amounts of armor to counteract.
User avatar
RedRover
I want you to be
I want you to be
 
Posts: 2479
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:36 pm
Location: CA

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby stubby » Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:21 pm

Okay, let's play this out. The AP shell is 2d8 Piercing plus 1d10 Explosive, and the target is a Size 5" mech.

If the mech has 1d10 armor (or less), then the shell passes through the first and second elements, doing 1d8 damage to each. If there's another element behind them, then the 1d10 explosive goes off.

If the mech has 2d10 armor, then the shell passes through the first element, doing 2d8 damage to it. If there's another element behind it, then the 1d10 explosive goes off.

If the mech has 3d10 armor (or more), then 2d8 piercing is not enough to punch through it. The shell does all 2d8+1d10 on impact.


I guess I should also say that targets with Armor 0 are just destroyed and don't use up any Piercing dice.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby RedRover » Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:28 pm

Makes sense. The playing it out helped me understand what you were saying in the first post.
User avatar
RedRover
I want you to be
I want you to be
 
Posts: 2479
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:36 pm
Location: CA

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby CaptainZebra » Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:38 pm

Those rules seem really interesting.
My keboa5rd =isn't wo5rk=ing ve5ry well at the moment... Exc6use any m=istakes =in my ty-p=ing.(T5r6ust, me =it can get a lot wo5rse than th=is)
User avatar
CaptainZebra
rei sucks
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:21 pm

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby stubby » Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:28 pm

Interesting, but not balanced, which is why I never moved forward with it. It's almost always better to just have straight 2d8+1d10 damage rather than 2d8 Piercing +1d0 damage. A bunch of extra complexity for no real benefit or even particularly unique new gameplay.

But now I'm thinking - if every 1d8 could Pierce two structure levels instead of one, it gets a lot more interesting. It's a lot less likely that the piercing damage destroys the elements it pierces (1d8 vs 2d10, usually), but the piercing is a lot more likely to be successful. Now it has a lot more of the flavor that you're looking for in an armor-piercing attack.

I've been giving this kind of thing a lot of thought lately because it also applies to the Plowing Through rules for Collisions - you shouldn't have to blow twenty dice of Momentum just because you hit a minifig.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby RedRover » Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:49 pm

stubby wrote:I've been giving this kind of thing a lot of thought lately because it also applies to the Plowing Through rules for Collisions - you shouldn't have to blow twenty dice of Momentum just because you hit a minifig.

Unless it is a particularly fat minifig
User avatar
RedRover
I want you to be
I want you to be
 
Posts: 2479
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:36 pm
Location: CA

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby Valiant » Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:31 am

stubby wrote:But now I'm thinking - if every 1d8 could Pierce two structure levels instead of one, it gets a lot more interesting. It's a lot less likely that the piercing damage destroys the elements it pierces (1d8 vs 2d10, usually), but the piercing is a lot more likely to be successful. Now it has a lot more of the flavor that you're looking for in an armor-piercing attack.


I like the sound of that :D
User avatar
Valiant
Don't Steal My Tanks (They're Copyrighted)
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby stubby » Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:50 pm

If every inch of payload uses up two inches of launcher, and every point of explosive size uses up one inch of launcher, then count up twice your payload inches and add your explosive size and that's the size of launcher you need.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby Valiant » Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:16 pm

Voin wrote:I've had an idea of doing a "hybrid" payload where the front part is an "inert" kinetic round, but it has an explosive piggybacking on the back/inside of it. The way it would work is you'd make an attack (probably Component damage) & if the kinetic part managed to ram through the outside shell, then the explosive would detonate on whatever poor schmucks were unlucky enough to be on the inside.


So... APAM (Anti-Personnel Anti-Materiel)?
User avatar
Valiant
Don't Steal My Tanks (They're Copyrighted)
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Previous

Return to The Rulebook

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests