|
Post by timsnoddy on Dec 11, 2012 12:53:25 GMT -5
I pointed out a heavy tank armed with a heavy plasma and full auto vehicle light projectile and a heavy APC armed with two full auto vehicle light lasers. Both came to 51 points, I realised the tank would be most likely to lose in a duel. Which seems the wrong way round. If GSV's are limited to only anti infantrty weapons there would seem little point in choosing anything other than the full auto laser other than for aesthetic reasons. The full auto light laser deals out 11 damage and 4 AP so firing at a heavy tank the average damage it would cause would be 11+4+7 die roll, total 22. Causing 5 damage to the tank. With a minimum of 2 chances to hit and a possible 4. The vehicle heavy plasma seems a very poor choice in comparison with only one chance to hit and less range for a point less. The 4 extra damage for the plasma does not make up for this.
There was a need for IFV's and some man carried equipment to have a chance of waxing multiple infantry. The vehicle light laser looks a step too far being a serious danger even to the heaviest vehicles.
I really hope I am missing something.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Harold on Dec 11, 2012 13:34:31 GMT -5
The tank will be able to take 9 more points of damage, which is a decent amount.
Also, remember, full auto can't be used at long range and is at a -1.
If there are other targets within 4 inches, you have to shoot at them first, before going back to the first target (unless you missed, then you can keep shooting).
Why do you think the 4 extra points of damage doesn't make up for the difference?
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Dec 11, 2012 14:00:12 GMT -5
The maximum potential damage against another vehicle from a heavy plasma in a round is 19 +2D6. Maxing at 31. From a full auto vehicle light laser it is 4x15 =60 plus 4x2D6. Maxing at 108. Taking average die rolls it is 26 versus 88. Only having a single chance to hit the plasma is more likely not to hit at all than the VLL. In short arming a tank or mech with a full auto anti infantry weapon seems much more effective at taking out enemy armour that any other non automatic weapon. I had not picked up the bit about having to spread fire if possible which makes a little difference. My immediate thought is to screen my vehicles with as low cost infantry as possible which seems very un sci-fi. The vehicle light projectile in comparison with a max damage of 11 +2D6 per hit seems OK, not really worrying a heavy vehicle on average rolls. It has to do well to cause significant damage.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Harold on Dec 11, 2012 14:25:35 GMT -5
Yeah... I see your point.
So, you just would have to out range them... if you do, they'll be shooting at the same penalty you will, with a weapon that does 4 less points, and paying more for it.
Once you get in range though... that full auto is going to cause some problems.
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Dec 11, 2012 14:30:12 GMT -5
And the VLL out ranges all the medium weapon systems besides missile and laser. Also has the same range as heavy projectile, gatling and plasma.
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Jan 2, 2013 13:20:09 GMT -5
Had my first game on Saturday using 1.1 rules and suffered the usual horrible defeat. Wary of drawing conclusions from a single game but these thoughts come to mind re full auto. I thought the D3+1 hits might be too much but it seems OK. The -1 can turn a lot of hits into misses. We played full auto weapons as not using the AP value when firing at vehicles. Even this seemed too much. An infantry medium projectile FA (in real world terms probably a LMG) was much more of a threat to light armour than a missile launcher due to the potential of multiple hits. In future I will house rule FA weapons used in FA mode as not having the AP value and suffering the -2 damage for not having AP capability when firing at vehicles. I will ignore the multiple target thing as well as it is just too tempting to screen light armour with rubbish infantry.
Other random thoughts. I really liked having some chance of taking out SA weapons. Scout sized mechs seem flavour of the moment. 14 guard makes them really hard to hit. And the 14 soak along with 12 damage means it takes more than a single RPG hit to take them down. Light and scout sized GSV's just don't seem worth it. Seems better value to reclassify some of these models I own as various sizes of vehicle specialist.
|
|
|
Post by inrepose on Jan 3, 2013 7:06:48 GMT -5
So would you table the idea that adding Full Auto to a version of a weapon should add a larger incremental cost to reflect the extra damage output? Also should we be thinking about adjusting down the AP on full-auto mode to reflect the scatter follow-on fire of full auto?
|
|
|
Post by baldlea on Jan 3, 2013 7:34:29 GMT -5
The vehicle light laser with FA didn't seem over priced when we used it but the fact it was punching multiple hits through MBTs did seem wrong.
IMO just taking away the AP would do the trick.
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Jan 3, 2013 12:26:56 GMT -5
So would you table the idea that adding Full Auto to a version of a weapon should add a larger incremental cost to reflect the extra damage output? Also should we be thinking about adjusting down the AP on full-auto mode to reflect the scatter follow-on fire of full auto? Probably a bit of both. The points value is nearly right. At the moment full auto is a pretty automatic choice of weapon if you are just looking for the best value for money. Off the top of my head I would say +4 for full auto versions of SA and specialist weapons. It should be higher for the light vehicle versions, say +6. As originally stated I would be in favour of removing AP completely when used in full auto mode. Even at this our SA MP with damage 7 reduced to 5 for not having AP in full auto mode is still a reasonable threat to all but the heaviest vehicle specialists. Eg against a medium soak 12, 7 up causes damage. The FA weapon would still have the option of firing normally which would be 7 +1AP probably a better choice against heavier targets. Forgot to say the new suppression rules are ace. You dread every casualty and there is much more variation in the score required to pass a test.
|
|
|
Post by comstar on Jan 3, 2013 18:55:44 GMT -5
I've had lots of games when using full auto weapons on both sides and the -1 to hit and the variable of rolling for number of shots seems to balance out over time. As you have to role for each hit is resonably balanced I do think removing the AP would turn the weapon in to a no gower and effectively kill off the weapon. With no AP they may be sorta ok against vehicle specialist but against actual vehicles they would be a no gower think about a fifty cal in ww2 blazing away at a vehicle a single shot or multiple shots still had as much chance at nocking holes in anything they touched and didn't start bouncing because more shots went down range! One of the things that I now play is the Gatling weapons that have a template that by normal game rules allows you to hit one target and auto hits everything else under neath at -5 damage. If missed all under the template is at-5 when scattered. Now what I do is place template and any thing that is underneath it get to be hit at full value but you must hit each target with different cover Modz if required. This also stops template scattering behind building etc. This I also do with granades a flamers. Also the no AP rule should always be put in place when ever you do get a -5 to damage but only then! I hope that all makes sense as writing this on my iPhone as PC out of action at moment!
|
|
|
Post by demonetrigan on Jan 4, 2013 6:30:48 GMT -5
So would you table the idea that adding Full Auto to a version of a weapon should add a larger incremental cost to reflect the extra damage output? Also should we be thinking about adjusting down the AP on full-auto mode to reflect the scatter follow-on fire of full auto? I think Full Auto is probably a little cheap at the moment, but I also believe that weapons defined as Anti-Infantry are too effective v's vehicles. Perhaps something that says an anti infantry weapon that has AP ONLY applies that AP to infantry figures would be the simplest generic solution. I remember playing one of the mechwarrior games where the most effective model in the game was an Atlas with Jump jets and 8 machine guns.
|
|
|
Post by baldlea on Jan 4, 2013 7:39:36 GMT -5
The SA ones seem OK as they are (apart from the obvious typo). I can imagine something with FA cutting up a scout vehicle specialist if you get lucky...you are only talking about a bike or similar, after all.
It's the "anti infantry" vehicle weapons that seem massively out of klilter on FA. Especially that laser. You are looking at an average of three shots with a base damage of 15 against other vehicles. That's much heftier than just "anti infantry". A vehicle heavy projectile is only one point of base damage higher!
If you took off or reduced the AP to 1, they would still kill a typical Grunt per shot and might get lucky against a vehicle.
Or perhaps against vehicles, you only get one shot but keep the AP as listed. This represents the "multiple shots" ripping into the vehicle. That would also get around the urge to screen a vehicle with cheap Grunts.
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Jan 4, 2013 11:59:50 GMT -5
I've had lots of games when using full auto weapons on both sides and the -1 to hit and the variable of rolling for number of shots seems to balance out over time. As you have to role for each hit is resonably balanced I do think removing the AP would turn the weapon in to a no gower and effectively kill off the weapon. With no AP they may be sorta ok against vehicle specialist but against actual vehicles they would be a no gower think about a fifty cal in ww2 blazing away at a vehicle a single shot or multiple shots still had as much chance at nocking holes in anything they touched and didn't start bouncing because more shots went down range! One of the things that I now play is the Gatling weapons that have a template that by normal game rules allows you to hit one target and auto hits everything else under neath at -5 damage. If missed all under the template is at-5 when scattered. Now what I do is place template and any thing that is underneath it get to be hit at full value but you must hit each target with different cover Modz if required. This also stops template scattering behind building etc. This I also do with granades a flamers. Also the no AP rule should always be put in place when ever you do get a -5 to damage but only then! I hope that all makes sense as writing this on my iPhone as PC out of action at moment! Sorry, have to completely disagree. As stated in my original example for a supposed anti infantry weapon to be able to do a potential 77 more damage than a dedicated plasma weapon (one size larger) does not seem right. Surely a LMG should not on average cause more damage than an RPG hit which is where we are now. WWII machine guns were a threat to light armour but not to tanks which is what I think we should be aiming at. On a pure cost analysis I don't think any weapon comes close to the effectiveness of the vehicle light laser FA. Interesting one re AE weapons. I had been steering clear of the heavier missile systems as they were auto death to infantry even at the -5 damage. Rolling for each hit seems worthy of consideration.
|
|
|
Post by comstar on Jan 4, 2013 16:51:33 GMT -5
It would if you rolled near maxium shots (D3+1 x 2 if two weapons) and everything hits granted but in practice this hasn't happened I'm my games and I played so far. Are you taking -1 per shot with a vehicle weapon shot as well as the normal -1 for full auto! Even with base 10 defense some are going to miss and then suddenly it goes a bit different on the shooting front. Once my PC is working I'll post some of my house rules which I hope some of you guys may like
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Jan 5, 2013 7:29:26 GMT -5
It would if you rolled near maxium shots (D3+1 x 2 if two weapons) and everything hits granted but in practice this hasn't happened I'm my games and I played so far. Are you taking -1 per shot with a vehicle weapon shot as well as the normal -1 for full auto! Even with base 10 defense some are going to miss and then suddenly it goes a bit different on the shooting front. Once my PC is working I'll post some of my house rules which I hope some of you guys may like Average rolls are still 26 damage for the plasma (19+7) and 44 for the VLL (15+7) *2 shot minimum guaranteed. BUT no I wasn't taking a -1 per shot with subsequent shots. Are you saying it should be -2 on the second shot, -3 on the third and -4 on the fourth? If so this makes a world of difference. Robin could you confirm this is what was intended or what is.
|
|