|
Post by Aristo on Apr 21, 2013 14:20:55 GMT -5
So then it's not possible to give vehicles 'true' antipersonnel LMG-type weaponry, like they're equipped with in real life. An "anti-infantry" projectile would be more like a M242 Bushmaster autocannon, then.
|
|
|
Post by comstar on Apr 21, 2013 17:03:59 GMT -5
Yes you can use Squad Attachment or Specialist weapons instead. In the previous version one rules all these weapons were a higher points cost as they were added to Gruntz units before halving the points now they are added after. So they can be used points as is. This as far as I know should work in Barracks. Hope this helps
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Apr 22, 2013 12:45:06 GMT -5
I still have my doubts about full auto. I have played a few games now using the concentrated fire fix and it is way better than without it. My problem is like Aristo says the way a tank with a main gun and LMG operates just does not seem right. The -1 for full auto and -1 for vehicle secondary weapon means the chances of hitting anything with the LMG are slim.
|
|
|
Post by Aristo on Apr 22, 2013 12:57:40 GMT -5
I don't mind the -1s so much; it's just small arms are capable of doing damage to tanks and the like, which technically should be out of their caliber. The way Gruntz's mechanics work, you can do damage to just about anything - with anything - provided you get good rolls. In some situations, that seems a bit of a stretch, but understandably, the rules were meant for quick and friendly play.
If you think about it, an SA. medium projectile could potentially do 20 damage if you get double sixes on a vehicle. If that vehicle is a heavy tank (18 Guard), the shot would do three points of damage. Just think, a modern-day SAW equivalent can potentially kill a heavy tank! Realistically, it seems impossible, but with the mechanics of the game, it can be done. Maybe vehicle armor ought to be bumped up, or the gap between small arms and heavy weapons should be bigger to reflect realistic properties of weapons.
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Apr 22, 2013 14:33:20 GMT -5
I don't mind the -1s so much; it's just small arms are capable of doing damage to tanks and the like, which technically should be out of their caliber. The way Gruntz's mechanics work, you can do damage to just about anything - with anything - provided you get good rolls. In some situations, that seems a bit of a stretch, but understandably, the rules were meant for quick and friendly play. If you think about it, an SA. medium projectile could potentially do 20 damage if you get double sixes on a vehicle. If that vehicle is a heavy tank (18 Guard), the shot would do three points of damage. Just think, a modern-day SAW equivalent can potentially kill a heavy tank! Realistically, it seems impossible, but with the mechanics of the game, it can be done. Maybe vehicle armor ought to be bumped up, or the gap between small arms and heavy weapons should be bigger to reflect realistic properties of weapons. I think you have to take this as a fudge for the rest of the system to work. Robin is very clear that Gruntz is not meant to be a "realistic" interpretation" of future warfare. The whole concept of hull points is probably not realistic. A tank hit by an RPG would explode or not. It wouldn't take a percentage of damage. Yes the SA weapon should not realistically be able to damage a heavy tank but I can live with it being able to cause minor damage if it gets exceptionally good rolls. Without the full auto fix, the equivalent of a LMG can easily take out light armour which was just nuts.
|
|
|
Post by blooddave on Apr 22, 2013 14:50:42 GMT -5
I don't mind the -1s so much; it's just small arms are capable of doing damage to tanks and the like, which technically should be out of their caliber. The way Gruntz's mechanics work, you can do damage to just about anything - with anything - provided you get good rolls. In some situations, that seems a bit of a stretch, but understandably, the rules were meant for quick and friendly play. If you think about it, an SA. medium projectile could potentially do 20 damage if you get double sixes on a vehicle. If that vehicle is a heavy tank (18 Guard), the shot would do three points of damage. Just think, a modern-day SAW equivalent can potentially kill a heavy tank! Realistically, it seems impossible, but with the mechanics of the game, it can be done. Maybe vehicle armor ought to be bumped up, or the gap between small arms and heavy weapons should be bigger to reflect realistic properties of weapons. I just take this to indicate that armor development has lagged behind weapons development in the future. Even with projectile weapons, "they" must have made advances on the projectile and/or the way it is accelerated, so that even "regular" projectiles have some (slight) chance of damaging armored vehicles. I can imagine that transporting heavy armor through space to battle on a colony world might be too expensive to justify, while improved weapons are lighter and less expensive to transport. EDIT: I use the "cost to transport" rationale to justify why my forces have no tanks or aircraft - when the reality is the "cost to buy the minis" along with "storage space for vehicle minis" is the real issue.
|
|
|
Post by papabees on Apr 22, 2013 21:53:14 GMT -5
So given that this is a monster thread can someone summarize the issue and the offered solution?
|
|
|
Post by Aristo on Apr 22, 2013 22:13:16 GMT -5
As I understand it: The issue: FA on vehicles is potentially overpowered when firing at other machines. Ex. A GSV with vehicle light lasers has a damage output capable of winning firefights with tanks armed with heavy plasma. Likewise, this is not representative of the vehicle light weaponry being of smaller caliber than their heavier counterparts. The solution: Use FA on infantry as normal, but against vehicles/single targets, count the multiple shots as you would one Concentrate Fire action, rolling a single dice to determine hits and damage. Details here: gruntz15.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ps&action=display&thread=1035
|
|
|
Post by papabees on Apr 23, 2013 7:46:52 GMT -5
Thanks.
|
|
peabody
Grunt
Canuck Amok
Posts: 95
|
Post by peabody on Apr 23, 2013 11:18:44 GMT -5
I liked it when it was templates. No extra rolls, no calculations and no fuss beyond figuring deviation if you miss...
You could register hits on vulnerable targets in an area beyond your direct hit, or potentially still get results if you missed; the reduced damage had to overcome the soak of those under the template. Easy.
Also, encourages squads to spread out.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Harold on Apr 23, 2013 11:51:54 GMT -5
As I understand it: The issue: FA on vehicles is potentially overpowered when firing at other machines. Ex. A GSV with vehicle light lasers has a damage output capable of winning firefights with tanks armed with heavy plasma. Likewise, this is not representative of the vehicle light weaponry being of smaller caliber than their heavier counterparts. The solution: Use FA on infantry as normal, but against vehicles/single targets, count the multiple shots as you would one Concentrate Fire action, rolling a single dice to determine hits and damage. Details here: gruntz15.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ps&action=display&thread=1035Awesome explanation, I was a little lost too. That makes a lot of sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by papabees on Apr 23, 2013 14:42:05 GMT -5
I liked it when it was templates. No extra rolls, no calculations and no fuss beyond figuring deviation if you miss... You could register hits on vulnerable targets in an area beyond your direct hit, or potentially still get results if you missed; the reduced damage had to overcome the soak of those under the template. Easy. Also, encourages squads to spread out. Yea but I never felt like the damage was realistic for those not the direct target of the attack. I always thought I was really lucky if anyone in the AOE ever was waxed.
|
|
|
Post by Aristo on Apr 23, 2013 14:57:32 GMT -5
And that's why I find the gatlings a bit underwhelming.
|
|
peabody
Grunt
Canuck Amok
Posts: 95
|
Post by peabody on Apr 23, 2013 16:44:02 GMT -5
I saw that as being something easier to tweak and to work with than the current situation. Plus it would have reinforced the 'interdiction fire' ability which seems to be of little use at the moment, but has great potential.
Actually have had some good results with the Gatling and 4" template....
|
|
|
Post by papabees on Apr 23, 2013 21:52:25 GMT -5
I think if it was -4 or -3 it is a totally different story.
|
|