Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Rules questions, suggestions, and discussion

Moderators: IVhorseman, Pwnerade

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby Valiant » Mon Nov 02, 2015 4:04 pm

Jabberwocky wrote: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


What I tend to do for my vehicles and infantry that have anti-armour weapons is I'll use a certain amount of d6's and assign rules and conditions for the ammo. For example, my Leo. 2A6M CAN+ fires a APFSDS round from its 6" L/55 cannon. Due to the high penetration and damage value of this ammo type, it may do 9-11 d6's worth of damage to a vehicle with 3d10 armour or higher. However, if it's firing at infantry, the damage would be 2d6 instead as to account for the fact that you're practically firing a high velocity tungsten rod.

Because of this, I tend to load up my vehicles with HE, HEAT and APFSDS.
However, since the rules officially assign the damage value to the gun length, I'll be making a suggestion to possibly change the nature of launchers to reflect their different ammo types, or introduce a new weapon altogether: the cannon. Damage values for cannons would be determined by ammo type, quality of ammunition and barrel length.

Hope this helped!

~Valiant
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 » Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:44 pm

Valiant wrote:What I tend to do for my vehicles and infantry that have anti-armour weapons is I'll use a certain amount of d6's and assign rules and conditions for the ammo. For example, my Leo. 2A6M CAN+ fires a APFSDS round from its 6" L/55 cannon. Due to the high penetration and damage value of this ammo type, it may do 9-11 d6's worth of damage to a vehicle with 3d10 armour or higher. However, if it's firing at infantry, the damage would be 2d6 instead as to account for the fact that you're practically firing a high velocity tungsten rod.

I think I can see what you're trying to get at, but it's not really how damage works in brikwars - if I'm firing a high velocity tungsten rod, I'd expect it to do Target Overkill and penetrate through a whole line of infantry, not get stopped by the first guy it hits.

That gives me a good idea to make armor piercing more funny though: armor piercing rounds do a max of 2 dice of damage per target SL; all remaining damage penetrates through and is treated as Target Overkill damage, even if the original target survives.

Valiant wrote:Because of this, I tend to load up my vehicles with HE, HEAT and APFSDS.
However, since the rules officially assign the damage value to the gun length, I'll be making a suggestion to possibly change the nature of launchers to reflect their different ammo types, or introduce a new weapon altogether: the cannon. Damage values for cannons would be determined by ammo type, quality of ammunition and barrel length.

This is already how Launchers work; see Payload Launchers under 8.4.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5055
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby Valiant » Mon Nov 02, 2015 6:02 pm

Is it implied or actually written there? It's been a while since I checked, but last time the rule book didn't make it clear to me.
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 » Mon Nov 02, 2015 6:05 pm

Payload Launchers
Launcher:
Cost:(Size)x3CP
Use:(Size)x2
Range:(Size)x6"
Damage:(Payload Structure Level)d6 or object's Damage
Notes: Max Payload Size = Launcher Size/2; max Explosive Xsize = Launcher Size

That's the Launcher stats. Use and Range are determined by the Size of the Launcher's barrel or throw arm; Damage is determined by whatever Payload it's launching.

Generic objects, like if you're launching a boulder from a catapult, do generic d6es of damage as if hitting in a Collision. Weaponized objects do whatever their damage rating is.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5055
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby CaptainZebra » Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:19 pm

Wait, if explosive size is Xsize and inch size is Size, is Xsize or Size used for what can fit into the launcher?
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 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:49 am

Whoops! Corrected! Max Payload Size = Launcher Size/2; max Explosive Xsize = Launcher Size .
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5055
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby CaptainZebra » Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:34 pm

That makes much more sense
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 Kommander Ken » Sun Jul 10, 2016 9:24 am

Jeesh, reading these first few posts made my brain hurt. If I ever want to get into that fancy sci-fi stuff I'll have to really re-invent the wheel here. How do you guys do it?
User avatar
Kommander Ken
bad at shitposting
 
Posts: 1670
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:25 am
Location: Coming soon to a Brikverse near you.

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby CaptainZebra » Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:39 pm

Just go into the more lego-ish route of lasers and rockets. Look at space themes for inspiration for builds and weapons. Pseudo modern stuff is fun but not as brikwarsy.
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 lordintype » Sun Jul 10, 2016 2:40 pm

I just got clone troopers and swapped their heads. I don't like complicated names for weapons or ships, so I have names like "Slightly larger laser" or "Big ship".
Spoiler: show
Sloths are notoriously good at disguises
User avatar
lordintype
something different
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2014 3:20 pm
Location: The middle of Middle Earth

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby RedRover » Sun Jul 10, 2016 3:21 pm

I pull fluff outta my ass like magicians' pull rabbits outta their hats.
User avatar
RedRover
I want you to be
I want you to be
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:36 pm
Location: CA

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby Steel_Valkyrie » Sun Jul 10, 2016 7:30 pm

What I like to do is have projectiles and launchers do two types of damage, explosive and ballistic. Ballistic can go through a target (like a vehicle, if it hits) and explosive damage works like a normal explosive, only going through walls if it can bust them down. Some types of ammo have both, and depending on the type of shell, they either go off separately, with the explosive damage going off after the ballistic, (like aphe, size 3 bal 3 ex 3) or they happen at the same time, with any extra ballistic damage going past the explosion. (Heat, size 3 bal 2 ex 4) I guess if it was a penetrate-and-explode shell that successfully hit a vehicle it would explode inside? I dunno. This is just my ad-hoc way.
Image
User avatar
Steel_Valkyrie
Also sounding like a whiny bitch
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:04 pm

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby CaptainZebra » Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:23 am

Seems -pretty reasonable
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 RedRover » Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:26 am

Do you have the ballistics able to penetrate armor at any level? Because if it could casually penetrate 3d10 armor just by being a successful hit and then blowing up inside basically rendering the vehicle useless, that is a little broken. However, it it automatically penetrates 1 die of armor on a hit and then maybe more on a critical success, then that would be more balanced. Even if it penetrated 2d10's worth of armor at least the  vehicle could roll its remaining d10 against the explosion and get a fighting chance.
User avatar
RedRover
I want you to be
I want you to be
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:36 pm
Location: CA

Re: Non-Explosive Anti-Armor Weapons

Postby stubby » Mon Jul 11, 2016 12:31 pm

I've always wanted a type of damage that pierced the first element it hit and saved the majority of its damage for whatever was behind it. So if you shot a minifig, it might be wasted - it would lose a die or something and then just keep going - but if there was an ice cream truck behind it then the ice cream truck would take the 3d10 or whatever. So the trick would be to always try to shoot things that were behind other things, or that had an interior that you wanted to shoot more than the exterior.

I've also always wanted to make a variation of d8s that were armor piercing instead of Blast Damage. It might be something like when a Piercing attack hits an element, it spends as many of its d8s of Damage as that element's Structure Level plus Shielding level (minimum 1d8, for targets with no Shielding and SL less than 1) and then keeps going whether the d8s killed the object or not. When it runs out of d8s, it triggers all the rest of its dice. So you'd have something like AP shell (2d8 Piercing + 1d10 Explosive) that would punch through two structure levels and then explode.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5055
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Rulebook

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests