Another look at damage and healing

[Klaus]

The way damage and armour interact has come under a lot if criticism, and at first I agreed with most of it, but on further reflection perhaps it's better than we first thought.

Firstly, what does damage actually mean in MGT?

The criticism seems based on the fact that armour values are quite puny, and even with good armour a character could take damage from even a lowly pistol hit. However, in MGT, not every point of damage is the same as the other.

Characters are not wounded until they take hits in two physical attributes. They are severely wounded when all 3 physical attributes take damage. As in combat damage comes off Endurance first, it's not until they've lost all their Endurance and take hits on their DEX or STR instead that they're injured.

So what does this mean to characters?

Severely wounded can be considered to be a torso hit, bad bleeding, broken limbs, several lesser wounds, or worse. It impacts on movement, and both STR and DEX will lose mods or gain penalties to reflect lesser capability. It is also hard to heal without surgery and a proper medic. Most likely END will be at 0, meaning a -3 to hits returned due to medical care, unless surgery can restore some points.

Wounded can be considered a limb hit or a bad cut, or a nasty but not life threatening blast of shrapnel. One active attribute will be affected, losing bonuses and making the character less capable in combat, or any physical task. Again, END is likely to be 0 but healing is a bit easier with rest.

When just Endurance has taken hits, what does this mean? Being winded? Light concussion? Bruising and pain? Flesh wounds? Minor cuts? Only the END mod is affected, so the more active stats of STR and DEX are unchanged - in combat capability is generally unaffected, though the character is more prone to fatigue. This END is recovered quite quickly, a 1D + END bonus per day. Even badly bruised characters (END 0) have a good chance at healing quickly, and a bit on medical care to start, could be right as rain in a couple of days. A bad beating? A fall without any more serious injury?

So my second point is: what does it actually feel like to be hit by rounds when wearing body armour? I've never been in combat, but surely that has to register somehow - you can't just shrug it off like a girly slap.

Has anyone here actually been hit while wearing body armour? All I have to go on is the telly, but there if someone takes a hit to their flak vest their knocked down and winded, probably bruised, maybe even a broken rib or two. Is this a realistic depiction?

So maybe a character hit by a pistol while wearing cloth should take a few END hits, to represent being knocked over, winded, bruised, etc. Several hits like this is going to injure a character eventually, just through accumulated pain.

So, maybe armour values aren't that wrong after all. I still might add a few points myself as a houserule, and will come up with more kinds of cloth at different tech levels (unless Mercenary is already dealing with this..?). But it seems that looking deeper into damage and healing that the MGT model is quite sophisticated. Anyway, that's my two-penneth.

 

[Chronus]

Regarding the low armor ratings, I think somebody explained it best (unfortunately, I can't remember who it was) . . . high armor ratings will result in little to no damage being inflicted each round. The result? Endless rolls of the dice where little to nothing happens. I suspect the low rating values may be a blessing in disguise.

Still, I haven't tested it yet so others are probably more qualified to give a better opinion. I think the question I'm inclined to ask is this . . . in a given small number of battles, is there a noticeable advantage for the character in the appropriate armor over the one who isn't armored as such?

 

[Stainless]

From;

http://www.bodyarmornews.com/bullet-proof-vest.htm

"Because the fibers work together both in the individual layer and with other layers of material in the vest, a large area of the bullet proof vest becomes involved in preventing the bullet from penetrating. This also helps in dissipating the forces which can cause nonpenetrating injuries (what is commonly referred to as "blunt trauma") to internal organs."

Notice the terms "blunt trauma" and "internal organs". In other words, "Ouch!".



Also, this abstract from;

Wilhelm M & Bier C (2008) Injuries to law enforcement officers: The backface signature injury. Forensic Science International Volume 174, Issue 1, Pages 6-11.

"In today's law enforcement community, one of the most vital tools an officer can possess is personal body armor. However, a recent Department of Justice investigation has raised important questions regarding the protection actually afforded officers through the use of personal body armor, and the current test methods used to assess the armor. Test results show that most Zylon-containing vests showed deformations in excess of the 0101.04 Standard's 44 mm backface signature limit. Such increased deformation can lead to serious injuries, including backface signature injuries, which have occurred in the field. Although the vest is successful in containing the round, it is not effectively dissipating the energy enough to prevent large amounts of vest deformation at the area of impact. Therefore, open, penetrating wounds occur even though the bullet did not penetrate the vest.

The objective of the current study was to further define the backface signature injury through the use of case studies and laboratory experiments. Following the case study investigation, backface signature testing was conducted using a clay medium based on the NIJ 0101.04 Standard. The final component of this research involved the use of post-mortem human specimens (PMHS) for further investigation of the backface signature injury.

Although the underlying cause of backface signature injuries is unknown, energy density is likely to play a role in the mechanism. Energy density (E/a) is defined as the energy per unit area and has been previously used in less lethal skin penetration research. Further research into the underlying causes of backface signature injuries is necessary. In addition to armor testing, the study of law enforcement personnel who have been shot while wearing soft body armor is also a valuable tool for determining the effectiveness of certification standards. Finally, it is important for medical personnel to recognize the backface signature injury and document this as a type of injury separate from blunt trauma or penetrating trauma behind armor injuries. Detailed knowledge of the injury, including the depth of the wound, would be beneficial to the scientific community."

The entire paper is freely available from;

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=42543b7bd9616a5b53aa3f7b26c85b12

 

[Jamus]

I also believe the armor values are just about right. I an reminded of the two nuts that robbed the bank in LA while carrying full auto rifles and wearing kevlar body armor. These guys were stomping around pretty much ignoring the .38 caliber and 9mm rounds being fired at them as well as the few shotgun blasts fired.

If we assume a full multi layer set of kevlar is cloth armor (prot-4) or Flak (prot-6) verse 9mm auto pistols (dmg 3d6-3) I would agree that the armor values were a bit low. If we consider the suit they are wearing as combat armor(prot-12) we suddenly have a situation where to guys in combat armor, and in light of the thickness, over all body coverage, and steel/ceramic plates i would, could soak a ton of damage from side arms and not really notice anything but a lucky(unlucky?) shot. This has been modeled very well in MGT.

The expectation that cloth armor (bullet proof vest) or flak armor should be good or even adequate against modern weapons is unrealistic, a legacy of CT. I know from experience that the Flak jackets issued to US infantrymen have stopped 7.63x39 rounds at extreme range (with broken ribs) as has the K-pot. neither offer much protection at effective or close range. The AK will knock holes through you and your vest at under a hundred yards and the 7.62x39 is not even considered a high powered round when compared to the 7.62 nato or the 5.56. The fact is Flak and the K-pot we not designed to stop a bullet. they are designed to offer some protection from grenade fragment or what have you.

In the example above had the police responded with M16s the two gentlemen in the kevlar would have been made short work. this is accurately modeled in MGT as even a prot-12 set of combat armor has to take notice when someone starts splattering rounds off him with a ACR

 

[tbeard1999]

The way damage and armour interact has come under a lot if criticism, and at first I agreed with most of it, but on further reflection perhaps it's better than we first thought.

I seriously doubt it. I have two basic issues with damage and armor in MGT.

The first is that the rules conflate penetration and damage, which I think are *not* the same thing.

The second is that the most common modern armor type (ballistic cloth) is almost worthless against guns. Besides being dubious in light of modern experience, it's also a significant (and IMHO needless) departure from Traveller canon.

 

[tbeard1999]

I also believe the armor values are just about right. I an reminded of the two nuts that robbed the bank in LA while carrying full auto rifles and wearing kevlar body armor. These guys were stomping around pretty much ignoring the .38 caliber and 9mm rounds being fired at them as well as the few shotgun blasts fired.

If we assume a full multi layer set of kevlar is cloth armor (prot-4) or Flak (prot-6) verse 9mm auto pistols (dmg 3d6-3) I would agree that the armor values were a bit low. If we consider the suit they are wearing as combat armor(prot-12) we suddenly have a situation where to guys in combat armor, and in light of the thickness, over all body coverage, and steel/ceramic plates i would, could soak a ton of damage from side arms and not really notice anything but a lucky(unlucky?) shot. This has been modeled very well in MGT.

This is a rather extreme reach, it seems to me. You are imputing (by fiat) tech level 11+ armor to TL7 bandits in order to rationalize your conclusion that the MGT system is a reasonable reflection of reality.

Ironically, your example clearly highlights MGT's deficiencies when it comes to armor protection.

This is especially true when you consider that adding Effect to the damage will (on average) add 1-2 points *more* to the pistol damage cited above.

 

[Amra]

MGT's RAW armor rules will work fine. If the MGT system is a bit skewed towards offense, this will result in quicker combats. Other RPG systems do this same thing on purpose because stalemates can be boring.

Those who want to beef up armor can do so with no problem, combat will last a bit to a lot longer.

The OP is correct, the MGT system is fine. Others can house rule armor to better suit their tastes. MGT may also offer options in future books.

I'm on the fence with this issue myself, I'll probably run MGT RAW and then change it I want to.

The GM and players are free to rationalize the combat system anyway they want to attempt to conceptualize the action - that's role playing. Using "real world" examples and science is best confined to this role playing, conceptualizing aspect because games are not real life, don't model real life and never will (which is probably a good thing since that would be BORING).

CT uses DM's to hit instead of armor points, this is not "wrong" and works fine with the proper role playing rationalization (Supplement Four supplies one on another thread - sorry, no link). I however prefer armor points (probably due to years of BRP), but I wouldn't say CT is wrong or broken, I would either run with the system or house rule it. MGT should be given the same slack.

 

[aramis]

Penetration and Damage are conflated in most rulesets these days. I've only seen a handful that didn't conflate them within the small arms spectrum, including melee melee weapons.

Penetration and damage both scale with energy increase on a given round. Penetration is a function of hardness of the projectile, shape of the projectile, and energy density of the impact cross-sectional area.

Damage is a function of energy dispersion into tissue; it generally correlates to projectile size, shape and energy, but not, per se, cross sectional area.

Given the same energy, two different penetrators should do different damage; the larger is more likely to shed all the energy into the target per cm of travel. The smaller is more likely to penetrate deeper, and thus more likely to overpenetrate and thus damage less tissue. (But then, fluid dynamics also puts this relationship within a specific energy window; outside that window, damage again climbs with increasing energy.... as the hydrostatic shock rips chunks out the backside of the target in proportion to the energy of the round...)

Penetration is much simpler to work out vs hard armors... the FBI has released formulae in the past for required mm of steel (or equivalent) to resist penetration of small arms. 3G3 is built around those formulae.

It is important to note, however, that penetration is not essential to do significant damage, nor do small caliber weapons actually deliver as much energy as a longsword... even tho they may do MORE damage per unit energy! A .22 ACP is about 125joules, while a good sword swing can be easily 3x that, but the .22 is hitting on about 20mm², the sword will range from 1mm² (edge to side of arm in line of swing) to 200mm² (Flat across the chest or back)... and SCAer's Heavy Combat Rattan is a 2cm wide (instead of 0.5-1mm wide for live steel) contact patch, thus increasing that swinf to 10mm² to 4000mm²...

Tissue disruption requires specific energy densities to occur; armor needs to spread the energy out to be effective...

Modern BPV's DO spread the energy out. A .22 goes from about 20mm² to about 8000mm².... meaning the energy is dumped over an area 1000 times larger... it will hurt, but not bad, according to the one chap I know hit with one. He didn't even get a bruise.(Accidental discharge at home, while dressing for work; he was a security guard.)

I've taken .25ACP shots from 3-10m to an Army field jacket (cotton, 1980's issue) and a navy peacoat... failed to penetrate either. Felt much like a punch.

On the other hand, versus rifles, said ballistic armors result in the energy being dumped over just about the same area as penetration would permit... changes the nature of the wound quite a bit, and prevents cavitation... but also, in many cases, results in more energy on the target... the vest prevents overpenetration.

It's pretty cool stuff... and bloody hard to model effectively in game rules.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Combat: Realism vs Playablility

[I don't have access to MGT yet so I'm just going by what I've read in these forums - please correct anything i state that is wrong and specifically state it is in the rules - feel free to add your opinions too]

People often complain about different parts of the rules not being realistic enough. Everyone, of course is entitled to an opinion and I shall give mine soon enough. I just want to point out that RL is very complicated and even simulations with hundreds of variables running on large computers doing thousands of calculations each minute still can not perfectly duplicate real life.

What is the wind speed and direction, is it raining, is it dark reducing visibility, do you have night vision goggles - what quality and effective range do they have, determine exactly where the target was hit (head, torso, leg, arm, ankle, hand, toe), did it just graze the target or did it hit a vital organ or a blood vessel, for every possible location you can hit was it armored, does damage to that location possibly knock you down, cause you to stumble, spin you around, what was the range to the target and how does this effect chance to hit, range effects amount of damage, did the round go straight through, did it hit a bone.

Do you want to be utilizing 100s of variables and doing thousands of calculations with pencil, paper and dice and consulting hundreds of charts to determine the outcome of your battle? Not me.

IMO combat in a roleplaying system needs to be plausible yet simple.

q: should armor prevent you from being hit?
a: yes and no!!!
in MGT: I believe armor reduce your damage but not your chance to hit

Cloth armor does not prevent you from being hit, hopefully it mitigates some damage. Futuristic armors might actually absorb or repel certain weapons and damage.

My questions:
1) Can someone with high stats still be killed with a single well aimed sniper shot in MGT how about an undetected ambush from behind with a knife to the throat? In real life a good sniper would not find this hard to do. [hmm, guess I'm not a good sniper then. My last kill took 3 shots. Shot one hit the neck instead of the head and missed the windpipe and major arteries. Shot 2 was in the upper leg to bring the target down and prevent it from running. Shot 3 was the kill shot in the head.]

2) There could be an almost infinite (with the # of worlds and various tech levels) number of weapons and ammo types. Is it true that MGT simplifies things and reduces the amount of data and tables by grouping weapons into generalized categories - I am all for this

3) Different positions, such as prone increase cover and decrease your chance to be hit; does it also effect your chance to hit your target in MGT? [you are more accurate when prone than when standing]

4) Is your accuracy reduced if you are moving while you shoot in MGT?

IMO 1 and 2 should be part of a roleplaying combat system while 3 and 4 should be available if done in a very simple logical way, otherwise i could live without them if its just going to complicate combat with too many die roles, die modifiers and table lookups.

 

[Klaus]

The first is that the rules conflate penetration and damage, which I think are *not* the same thing.

They're as similar as to be no difference. It's in the maths. Let's say we have Cloth 10, and the hit is 3d6. On average that's going to be 11 or 12 damage (if you include Effect), for 2 points, then. If there was a penetration stat, what would it be? In the absence of AP ammo (for the time being): 1, 3, 5, more? Let's say 3 for an AR. Now that hit does 5 pts. Be the same difference if you just added 3 to the damage roll.

A penetration stat is only of any consequence if the target isn't wearing armour, otherwise, it's identical to additional damage. The higher the armour values go the more this is true. Now the concern here has been that MGT doesn't model armour vs pen very well, not that unarmoured targets take too much damage. I'm quite phlegmatic about unarmoured folks taking more hits; why not - otherwise armour becomes devalued again.

There is already a hint in the rules as to how armour piercing ammo could work. Shotguns firing pellets double the armour of the target, so conversely it makes sense that special armour piercing ammo halves it. Nice and simple.

There was also a criticism that the ACR was no longer as mighty as it was - cannot agree here either. The additional damage (as compared to an assault rifle) in BK4 is because of specialist ammo - firing standard ball it would be at 3D, same as an AR. Specialist ammo is in the remit of Mercenary.

It would seem reasonable to suppose that high explosive rounds would add 1D to the damage.

 

[tbeard1999]

It's pretty cool stuff... and bloody hard to model effectively in game rules.

Not at all, really.

It (damage vs penetration) can be modeled in Striker/AHL with just a few tweaks. See my combat system for one approach that works well.

It is already modeled in T4 -- by capping maximum damage at 3d for most weapons, high penetration weapons are not unreasonably lethal against lightly armored targets.

GURPS even manages to avoid some of the worst abuses (though its adaptation is rather clumsy).

Space Opera did it by having a separate armor penetration roll.

WH40K does it. (And ye Gods, if WH40K can do it, it ain't that hard).

MT did it.

TNE did it.

So I find the "everyone equates armor and penetration" and "it's too hard" excuses unconvincing.

 

[Klaus]

My questions:
1) Can someone with high stats still be killed with a single well aimed sniper shot in MGT how about an undetected ambush from behind with a knife to the throat? In real life a good sniper would not find this hard to do. [hmm, guess I'm not a good sniper then. My last kill took 3 shots. Shot one hit the neck instead of the head and missed the windpipe and major arteries. Shot 2 was in the upper leg to bring the target down and prevent it from running. Shot 3 was the kill shot in the head.]

2) There could be an almost infinite (with the # of worlds and various tech levels) number of weapons and ammo types. Is it true that MGT simplifies things and reduces the amount of data and tables by grouping weapons into generalized categories - I am all for this

3) Different positions, such as prone increase cover and decrease your chance to be hit; does it also effect your chance to hit your target in MGT? [you are more accurate when prone than when standing]

4) Is your accuracy reduced if you are moving while you shoot in MGT?

IMO 1 and 2 should be part of a roleplaying combat system while 3 and 4 should be available if done in a very simple logical way, otherwise i could live without them if its just going to complicate combat with too many die roles, die modifiers and table lookups.

1. Yes and no. Let's say the sniper has a rifle at long range (+0), is skilled and dextrous (+3 bonus), aims for the maximum (6 minor actions, or 2 cbt rounds, for +6), for a total bonus of +9, then rolls a good hit (10 on the dice), for a roll of 19. The target number is 8, so the Effect is 11! The damage roll, lets say average, is 11, +11 = 22.

That is enough to kill outright an average character without armour (all 7s, therefore 21 'hits'). For a tougher character, lets say with 10s, they are unconscious and severely wounded. However, unless they are a major NPC, the ref is likely to just consider them dead. And, severely wounded characters left untreated will most likely die by themselves.

2. Again, yes and no. It retains the 'classic' weapons of yore, so we have the rifle, the auto-rifle, the assault rifle, and the ACR. That's 4 weapons doing a similar (note I did not say the same) job. There are only minor distinctions between them, usually in range, recoil, and auto value, and the ACR carries lots of integrated tech. But you could say MGT takes a wide view of weapon categories. You can fiddle a bit with the various numbers to create minor distinctions within a category by tech level, which is really what they've done with the rifle in the above description.

3. Prone characters are harder to hit, unless at point blank range, in which case they are easier. No bonus to attack while prone, though you could house-rule a reduction in recoil quite easily. Crouching is also factored: slower, but can make better use of cover.

4. Yes for target movement, no for shooter movement. One thing the rules probably do not model well is charging down the corridor spraying SMG rounds in front of you. Maybe that is a good thing?

 

[tbeard1999]

They're as similar as to be no difference. It's in the maths. Let's say we have Cloth 10, and the hit is 3d6. On average that's going to be 11 or 12 damage (if you include Effect), for 2 points, then. If there was a penetration stat, what would it be? In the absence of AP ammo (for the time being): 1, 3, 5, more? Let's say 3 for an AR. Now that hit does 5 pts. Be the same difference if you just added 3 to the damage roll.

You're ignoring the key distortions that happen when penetration and damage are conflated.

First, high damage/low penetration weapons (like shotguns, old style black powder weapons, and heavy calibre pistols) will either be unreasonably lethal against armored targets or unreasonably nonlethal against unarmored targets.

Second, high penetration weapons will be unreasonably lethal against lightly armored targets.

These problems can probably be solved, but I think it is very fair to ask why such basic issues weren't addressed by the designer. IMHO and FWIW, the general roughness of the MGT combat system is consistent with a last minute addition, which allowed little time for adequate playtesting. This is a shame, because IMHO the combat system is the second most important system in an RPG like Traveller. And because it's the most common system to resolve dramatic conflict, I'd get that right *first* if I designed the game.

There was also a criticism that the ACR was no longer as mighty as it was - cannot agree here either. The additional damage (as compared to an assault rifle) in BK4 is because of specialist ammo - firing standard ball it would be at 3D, same as an AR. Specialist ammo is in the remit of Mercenary.

An awfully convenient rationalization. So...the game has ACRs, but not the *standard* ammunition that they fire? <shrug> I am unconvinced by this post-hoc rationalization.

 

[Klaus]

An awfully convenient rationalization. So...the game has ACRs, but not the *standard* ammunition that they fire? <shrug> I am unconvinced by this post-hoc rationalization.

Well it's in black and white in Book 4. It's not a post-hoc rationalisation, but canon.

All the rest is for Mercenary. The core book is the basic game, Merc adds the extra options. No kind of special ammo is detailed in the core book. And wherever is it said that discarding-sabot, duplex, or Hi-Ex rounds was the default ammo? You can't have 3 types of default. Much simpler to default to ball.

And shotguns are less capable at penetrating armour - tis there in the rules, as written.

 

[aramis]

AHL/Striker conflates the two fairly well... on the pen side.

MT is the only roleplay game that comes to mind that actually doesn't conflate them in the small arms range.

Everything else the the RPG field I've seen conflates them to some degree or another, or uses extensive table systems. (Table driven systems include TriTac, Rolemaster/Spacemaster, Leading Edge's various games.)

Warhammer FB/40K even conflates to a small degree, since armor is all or nothing.

But the actual modelling of the relationship between penetration and damage is hard to do to keep the full spectrum of results.

Klaus:

The standard ACR ammo is not ful-metal-jacket military-ball. just like the standard fro a .12ga is not slug.

 

[CosmicGamer]

One thing the rules probably do not model well is charging down the corridor spraying SMG rounds in front of you. Maybe that is a good thing?

good thing? Depends on which end of the barrel I'm on!

 

[CosmicGamer]

This looks like a good place to bring up this observation on melee combat.

Doing damage with a knife using Str as a modifier
Reason: The more strength, the more force and penetration

Doing damage with a knife using Dex as a modifier
Reason: The more Dex the better chance you have to hit where you are trying to - a vital location
(I use a knife as an example since its easier to show that with a weapon that has little potential energy and with little strength you can still cut a major blood vessel, a tendon, or someones throat)

You might go with
use Dex to determine IF you hit and use Str to determine damage

so, it seams that low dex high str hits less but does more damage = high dex low str because you hit more but do less damage

Personally, I think the Dex should count for more. Dex helps your probability of hitting but now that you've hit your target, calculate damage - and as I stated in the begining, both Dex and Str can logically help increase damage.

What do you think?

When I picture the majority of current day melee fighters they are usually not oversized muscle bound giants but well toned and nimble like most martial artist. Even boxers have good Dex to bob and weave and hit someone moving around and they are a rules restricted fighter as compared to a kick boxer who is definitely more agile. Can't think of a lot of current day examples of fighting with a blade but have you ever seen a fencer who was more muscular than nimble?

 

[Echo]

Well, a person who accurately stabs somebody in a kidney or liver, or heart, or in the carotid artery, is likely to do more damage than somebody who forcefully stabs someone in the gut. Then again, the shock might get 'em anyway.

In my games, I've always let the players choose which stats they prefer as modifiers - but insist that they stick to them.

 

[Jamus]

Klaus:

The standard ACR ammo is not ful-metal-jacket military-ball. just like the standard fro a .12ga is not slug.

Wanted to point out that in the MGT book ACRs ammo type is not mentioned but ammo cost (15) is the same as ammo cost for the assault rifle. Reading the description leads me to believe that the MGT ACR is really just a assault rifle with more bells and whistles. So even though the CT ACR describes a twenty round magazine with DS or HE rounds the MGT describes a forty round magazine and no specific ammo. Seems we are talking about two different weapons and that the MGT ACR may in fact fire full metal jacket or what ever the assault rifle uses as standard. Possible because DS/HE rifle rounds would be highly restricted or illegal, maybe more than the rifle itself? Or maybe mongoose wanted to hold something back for the Mercenary book.

I seem to remember mu T4 emperors arsenal mentioning ACRs firing 4mm flechette DS rounds.. will have to find it.

 

[Klaus]

Wanted to point out that in the MGT book ACRs ammo type is not mentioned but ammo cost (15) is the same as ammo cost for the assault rifle. Reading the description leads me to believe that the MGT ACR is really just a assault rifle with more bells and whistles. So even though the CT ACR describes a twenty round magazine with DS or HE rounds the MGT describes a forty round magazine and no specific ammo. Seems we are talking about two different weapons and that the MGT ACR may in fact fire full metal jacket or what ever the assault rifle uses as standard. Possible because DS/HE rifle rounds would be highly restricted or illegal, maybe more than the rifle itself? Or maybe mongoose wanted to hold something back for the Mercenary book.

I seem to remember mu T4 emperors arsenal mentioning ACRs firing 4mm flechette DS rounds.. will have to find it.

There's also the point that all the clever looking new ammo innovations that inspired MWM and co when initially writing bk4 and the rest have come to nothing in the larger scheme of things. There's no point in sticking in ammo types that never lived up to their supposed potential in the 80's in a game written for the 21C.