GunMaker Issues Discussion

[LiminalMask]

I've put a post on the Errata thread regarding issues I've found in GunMaker. Rather than clutter up that thread with discussion about what I've found, I've started a thread here. I will update the post on the Errata thread as discussion here progresses. I welcome your input.

Copy of my post on Errata thread (original):
GunMaker Errata

CLARIFICATION NEEDED ON BURDEN MODIFIER FOR ARTILLERY: p. 251, the Categories table of GunMaker lists the qreBs values for artillery as -1, -2, -4, -4. However, given that a negative B modifier makes a weapon lighter, should these values not be positive? I.e. as you get to bigger and more unwieldy guns, they become more burdensome?

ASSAULT ARTILLERY DOES BANG DAMAGE AS PRIMARY: p.252. The Assault Gun (and other Assault Artillery) has Bang damage listed as its H2, Blast damage listed as its H3. Since, with all Artillery, the H1 type is the same as the H2 type, this means that the Assault Gun does more Bang damage than anything else. (p. 251: "* Hit Type is determined by other details of the weapon.") As you modify this weapon (Advanced, Heavy, etc.) it only gets louder, but does not do more physical damage.
AG-8--Wx: R=4 7500cr 7.2kg B=-1 Bang-3 Blast-2
HAG-8--Wx: R=5 15000cr 9.36kg B=3 Bang-4 Blast-2
AAG-11--Wx: R=4 15000cr 5.76kg B=-2 Bang-5 Blast-2

STANDARD SHOTGUNS ARE UNATTRACTIVE CHOICES, DESIGNATED SHOTGUNS ARE BETTER THAN SIMILARLY DESGINATED RIFLES: Generally speaking, Shotguns do equivalent damage to rifles, yet have much shorter ranges. While shotguns are slightly cheaper, and do offer a (small) benefit in CQ (Rifle=-5, Shotgun=-3), these advantages do not seem compelling enough reason to purchase one over a Rifle. Conventionally, shotguns sometimes have a wider field of fire or the ability to hit multiple targets within their limited range, but there are no rules providing for this. (Which may be as intended, but it would make shotguns a more attractive choice.) Note that Shotguns actually become better than rifles (due to price) if you select Hunting or Assault shotguns. Some comparisons are below. Note the range on the Assault Shotgun. This is because GunMaker assigns a range of 4 to any weapon with the "Assault" descriptor. I'm not sure this makes sense for a shotgun to hit targets at 500m, even with slugs (though the rules specify shotguns as shooting pellet shot).
Standard Comparison:
R-5--Wx: R=5 500cr 4kg B=0 Bullet-2
S-4--Wx: R=2 300cr 4kg B=0 Bullet-2
SR-5--Wx: R=2 600cr 2kg B=0 Bullet-3 (Survival Rifle, for comparison)
Hunting Comparison
HR-5--Wx: R=3 600cr 3.6kg B=-1 Bullet-3
HS-4--Wx: R=3 360cr 3.6kg B=0 Bullet-3
Assault Comparison
AR-7--Wx: R=4 750cr 3.2kg B=0 Bullet-2 Bang-1 Blast-2
AS-6--Wx: R=4 600cr 3.2kg B=0 Bullet-2 Bang-1 Blast-2

"LIGHT" LASER WEAPONS: There is no point making "light" versions of laser carbines or rifles. A light laser carbine has the same basic stats as a laser pistol, but is much heavier and more expensive. The same is true with laser rifles vs. laser carbines.
LtLR-10--Wx: R=4 3300cr 3.36kg B=-1 Burn-3 Pen-2
LC-10--Wx: R=4 2400cr 3.6kg B=-1 Burn-3 Pen-2
LtLC-10--Wx: R=3 2640cr 2.52kg B=-2 Burn-2 Pen-2
LP-10--Wx: R=4 300cr 1.32kg B=0 Burn-3 Pen-2

"HEAVY" LASER WEAPONS: Conversely, a Heavy Laser Pistol (HLP-10) outperforms a Laser Carbine in nearly every way except Burden. Further, it does the same damage as a standard Laser Rifle, yet is much cheaper, gives a better CQ bonus, and weighs comparably (factoring in Burden), and the same Range (see below).
HLP-10--Wx: R=5 600cr 1.72kg B=3 Burn-4 Pen-2
LC-10--Wx: R=4 2400cr 3.6kg B=-1 Burn-3 Pen-2
LR-10--Wx: R=5 3000cr 4.8kg B=0 Burn-4 Pen-2

LASER PISTOL RANGE: Laser pistols have the same range as laser rifles or carbines, which doesn't make much sense to me. Since a Laser Pistol does the same damage as a Laser Carbine there's no incentive to even buy a heavier, more expensive, worse-in-CQ Laser Carbine. IMO, Laser Pistols should have R=3, Laser Carbines R=4, Laser Rifles R=5. (Or perhaps 2/3/4).

MACHINE PISTOL POSSIBLY OVERPOWERED: The "Machine" Designation for Pistol (MP-5) creates a weapon that is superior in nearly every way to other weapons in its class. This is mostly because of the damage it does for the price and weight. Curiously, the Machine Pistol does not grant Burst or Autofire. (There is no provision for "Machine" designation on the table, p. 256) If the damage was brought down to comparable levels but the pistol was given Burst and/or Auto capacity that might make it more appropriate.
MP-5--Wx: R=3 225cr 1.32kg B=0 Bullet-3
MgP-6--Wx: R=3 165cr 1.21kg B=1 Bullet-2 (Magnum Pistol)
R-5--Wx: R=5 500cr 4kg B=0 Bullet-2 (Standard Rifle, less damage, better range)
HS-4--Wx: R=3 360cr 3.6kg B=0 Bullet-3 (Hunting Shotgun, same damage & range, more expensive, worse in CQ)
BR-6--Wx: R=5 400cr 4kg B=1 Bullet-3 (Battle Rifle, same damage, better range, more expensive, worse in CQ)

CLARIFICATION ON "ANTI-FLYER" AND "ANTI-TANK" DESIGNATION: p.244-245. "Anti-Flyer: The weapon is intended for use against Flyers, typically through a higher rate of fire than similar weapons. Anti-Flyer refers to some aspect of the weapon’s operation…" If the weapon is intended for use vs. Flyers, are there any special bonuses when attacking these targets? Are there penalties when used against non-Flyers? None are specified in the rules, making the "Anti-Flyer" weapon just as effective vs. all targets. Similarly, Anti-Tank weapons are intended against heavily armored ground vehicles but "may reasonably be used against any vehicle." Are there bonuses for use of these weapons vs. vehicles? Penalties against non-vehicle targets?

CLARIFICATION ON NON-PROJECTOR LASER WEAPONS RECEIVING POWER LEVEL CONTROLS: p. 256. "Adding Laser to Rifle adds P1-P2-P3 to become Off-Single-Burst-P1-P2-P3." This means that Laser Rifles have a variable power setting. Also on p. 256, "P1-P2-P3: The weapon has three settings for power level. The standard level is P1 and corresponds to 1D damage in each of the possible damage types for the weapon." This is confusing, since the rules also specify that Laser Rifles base damage is Burn-4, Pen-2. If the lowest setting is at P1 corresponds with Burn-1 and Pen-1, and the highest setting to Burn-3, Pen-3, how does this explain the GunMaker information for Laser Rifles? Conversely, does this mean that setting a Laser Rifle to P2 turns the damage to Burn-5, Pen-3? And if set to P3, does it become Burn-6, Pen-4? (Wow, that's going to hurt, even with the Quality check). Clarification is needed, here. (Personally, I would remove P1-P2-P3 from all Laser weapons except Projectors, where you can have a variable Laser Projector.)

CLARIFICATION ON RANGES FOR "SNUB", "BODY", and "VHEAVY" BURDEN: The table on p. 253 lists the range modification for these three Burdens with an asterisk, i.e., *2, *1, *5 respectively. There is no notation of what this asterisk means. I am assuming it means you do not modify the range of the weapon like in other Burdens, but rather set the Range to that number (i.e. All Snub weapons have a range of 2). But this should be spelled out.

CLARIFICATION ON "TARGET" STAGE: Target Rifles and Pistols are "optimized for accuracy" (p.247). However, there is nothing in the QREBS for this Stage that affects accuracy. Quality gets a +2, but Quality does not affect accuracy. Ease of Use, however, does. Should it be E instead of Q?

 

[Reban]

"LIGHT" LASER WEAPONS: There is no point making "light" versions of laser carbines or rifles. A light laser carbine has the same basic stats as a laser pistol, but is much heavier and more expensive. The same is true with laser rifles vs. laser carbines.
LtLR-10--Wx: R=4 3300cr 3.36kg B=-1 Burn-3 Pen-2
LC-10--Wx: R=4 2400cr 3.6kg B=-1 Burn-3 Pen-2
LtLC-10--Wx: R=3 2640cr 2.52kg B=-2 Burn-2 Pen-2
LP-10--Wx: R=4 300cr 1.32kg B=0 Burn-3 Pen-2

There's an important section on p243 entitled Some designs are impractical. Some combinations produce weapons that have no practical benefits or don't offer the operator any advantage over another variant of the weapon.

Now you could just avoid building them or you could think like a government contractor, by building these weapons, bribing the right people and have the quartermater corps issue them to the troops so the grunts have something to complain about.

"HEAVY" LASER WEAPONS: Conversely, a Heavy Laser Pistol (HLP-10) outperforms a Laser Carbine in nearly every way except Burden. Further, it does the same damage as a standard Laser Rifle, yet is much cheaper, gives a better CQ bonus, and weighs comparably (factoring in Burden), and the same Range (see below).
HLP-10--Wx: R=5 600cr 1.72kg B=3 Burn-4 Pen-2
LC-10--Wx: R=4 2400cr 3.6kg B=-1 Burn-3 Pen-2
LR-10--Wx: R=5 3000cr 4.8kg B=0 Burn-4 Pen-2

Depending on how you see laser magazines working that B=3 could be a fairly big and awkward power cell strapped to your belt. It sucks that magazine capacity wasn't spelled out.

LASER PISTOL RANGE: Laser pistols have the same range as laser rifles or carbines, which doesn't make much sense to me. Since a Laser Pistol does the same damage as a Laser Carbine there's no incentive to even buy a heavier, more expensive, worse-in-CQ Laser Carbine. IMO, Laser Pistols should have R=3, Laser Carbines R=4, Laser Rifles R=5. (Or perhaps 2/3/4).

In other versions laser range is based on the Focal Array diameter so the range is independent of the size of the weapon. The size of the weapon affects things like power, rate of fire and magazine capacity.

Isn't it Laser Pistols and Carbines R=4 and Laser rifle R=5 anyway?

CLARIFICATION ON "ANTI-FLYER" AND "ANTI-TANK" DESIGNATION: p.244-245. "Anti-Flyer: The weapon is intended for use against Flyers, typically through a higher rate of fire than similar weapons. Anti-Flyer refers to some aspect of the weapon’s operation…" If the weapon is intended for use vs. Flyers, are there any special bonuses when attacking these targets? Are there penalties when used against non-Flyers? None are specified in the rules, making the "Anti-Flyer" weapon just as effective vs. all targets. Similarly, Anti-Tank weapons are intended against heavily armored ground vehicles but "may reasonably be used against any vehicle." Are there bonuses for use of these weapons vs. vehicles? Penalties against non-vehicle targets?

I think Anti-Flyer is a poor choice of name. Looking at the chart these weapons are for hitting things at a distance with fragmentation rounds with the option of burst mode. They could be better called Long distance guns shooting fragmentation rounds. While that fits what we'd call Anti-Aircraft guns it also covers other types of weapons. I'm think of how the Bofors L70 40mm anti-aircraft gun has been fitted to the CV90 IFV. Technically this would be a T5 Anti-Flyer Autocannon fitted to a Tracked Carrier.

CLARIFICATION ON NON-PROJECTOR LASER WEAPONS RECEIVING POWER LEVEL CONTROLS: p. 256. "Adding Laser to Rifle adds P1-P2-P3 to become Off-Single-Burst-P1-P2-P3." This means that Laser Rifles have a variable power setting. Also on p. 256, "P1-P2-P3: The weapon has three settings for power level. The standard level is P1 and corresponds to 1D damage in each of the possible damage types for the weapon." This is confusing, since the rules also specify that Laser Rifles base damage is Burn-4, Pen-2. If the lowest setting is at P1 corresponds with Burn-1 and Pen-1, and the highest setting to Burn-3, Pen-3, how does this explain the GunMaker information for Laser Rifles? Conversely, does this mean that setting a Laser Rifle to P2 turns the damage to Burn-5, Pen-3? And if set to P3, does it become Burn-6, Pen-4? (Wow, that's going to hurt, even with the Quality check). Clarification is needed, here. (Personally, I would remove P1-P2-P3 from all Laser weapons except Projectors, where you can have a variable Laser Projector.)

I had assumed that P1 meant 1D in each damage class so Blast-3 was 3D and Burn-2 was 2D

Switch it up to P2 and you get Blast-3 giving 6D and Burn-2 giving 4D

Switch it all the way to P3 and you get Blast-3 giving 9D and Burn-2 giving 8D damage.

By the way I'm confused do you mean Laser Designator rather than Laser Projector. As far as I can see Projectors haven't got variable power settings, Designators do. EDIT Laser adds P1,P2,P3 of course!

 

[LiminalMask]

There's an important section on p243 entitled Some designs are impractical. Some combinations produce weapons that have no practical benefits or don't offer the operator any advantage over another variant of the weapon.

Yes, this is true, and it could even apply to this situation. This sort of ruling makes sense with something like the "Recoilless Laser" or "VHeavy Carbine" examples from the text p.243. I suppose, though that "Light" and "Heavy" versions of a weapon seem pretty common, and likely to be manufactured. (Example, doesn't a "Light Pistol" seem like something that should exist? Yet, that makes a Damage-0 weapon.) So, while I grant you that the "Impractical Designs" rule might apply here, I think we should at least press on certain combinations and not give the system a pass just because this rule exists. This Impractical Design rule should, IMO, only apply rarely.

Depending on how you see laser magazines working that B=3 could be a fairly big and awkward power cell strapped to your belt. It sucks that magazine capacity wasn't spelled out.

And while I agree with you, I'm mostly interested in examining the rules as is, rather than hashing out house rules. I want to make sure the system as printed 'works' on a basic level. I would love an ammo system. But since there isn't one, I'm just looking at the values as printed and evaluating them.

In other versions laser range is based on the Focal Array diameter so the range is independent of the size of the weapon. The size of the weapon affects things like power, rate of fire and magazine capacity.

Again, there's nothing like this in the rules, so I have to evaluate the weapons as is in comparison to each other. And if Laser Pistols have the same range and damage as a Laser Carbine, why would anyone ever want to use a Laser Carbine? It's heavier, it's more expensive, it's worse in Close Quarters, both weapons use the same skills. There's no provision for Ammo so they fire the same number of shots. There should be, IMO, reasonable tradeoffs between different weapons to make the choices attractive. Weapons need not be equal, but there shouldn't be a weapon that would never be chosen, given an option for something else better in every respect.

Isn't it Laser Pistols and Carbines R=4 and Laser rifle R=5 anyway?

It is, my mistake.

I think Anti-Flyer is a poor choice of name. Looking at the chart these weapons are for hitting things at a distance with fragmentation rounds with the option of burst mode. They could be better called Long distance guns shooting fragmentation rounds.

I'm not a military weapons wonk, but this makes sense. Except, there's currently no provision for Fragmentation damage being any different than Bullet damage. Or Burn, or Blast, or...

I had assumed that P1 meant 1D in each damage class so Blast-3 was 3D and Burn-2 was 2D

Switch it up to P2 and you get Blast-3 giving 6D and Burn-2 giving 4D

Switch it all the way to P3 and you get Blast-3 giving 9D and Burn-2 giving 8D damage.

Here's what it says on p. 256:
The standard level is P1 and corresponds
to 1D damage in each of the possible damage
types for the weapon.

Power Level P2 corresponds to 2D damage;
the user must roll Quality or less to avoid weapon
malfunction.

Power Level P3 corresponds to 3D damage;
the user must roll Quality or less TWICE to avoid
weapon malfunction.

Now, I see "1D damage in each of the possible damage types" and that says to me that if a Projector does Burn and Pen damage (as a Fire Projector (flamethrower) does), that means on the lowest setting it does Burn-1, Pen-1. But perhaps clarification is needed.

By the way I'm confused do you mean Laser Designator rather than Laser Projector. As far as I can see Projectors haven't got variable power settings, Designators do. EDIT Laser adds P1,P2,P3 of course!

On p.252, you can see Laser under "Exotic Designators and Projectors". I don't see any ruling elsewhere saying you can't have a Laser Projector. (Interestingly enough, a Laser Projector (LPj-14) requires TL 14 and does less damage than a Laser Pistol (LP-10) except on it's highest setting. Though again that depends on whether or not Laser Pistols have variable settings as well, and how that rule applies. I also just noticed that Laser Projectors have Range=0, so that's another problem. I'll add it to the list.)

 

[LiminalMask]

CHECK RANGE ON PROJECTORS/LASER PROJECTORS: On p. 251, Projectors are listed as base range of 0. Most of the Descriptors for Projectors on p.252 have Ranges assigned to them, except for Laser, defaulting a Laser Projector to R=0.

CHECK TECH LEVEL FOR PROJECTORS: Projectors have a base Tech level of 9. While this makes sense for certain types (esp. Exotics), it does not make sense for certain Spray Projectors, such as Fire, Poison Gas, Acid, Stench, which all could exist with WWII-era technology at least. Other types might need reevaluation as well. (Sonic Projectors have base TL of 12? Laser Projectors have TL 14, when Laser Rifles are TL 10? etc.)

 

[Reban]

Again, there's nothing like this in the rules, so I have to evaluate the weapons as is in comparison to each other. And if Laser Pistols have the same range and damage as a Laser Carbine, why would anyone ever want to use a Laser Carbine? It's heavier, it's more expensive, it's worse in Close Quarters, both weapons use the same skills. There's no provision for Ammo so they fire the same number of shots. There should be, IMO, reasonable tradeoffs between different weapons to make the choices attractive. Weapons need not be equal, but there shouldn't be a weapon that would never be chosen, given an option for something else better in every respect.

There probably a Murphy's Law of Combat that says if there is a heavier more expensive generally worse all round version of a weapon, thats what the average grunt will be sent to war with.

Just one insight I've had to GunMaker that might be helpful; Just because the Maker outputs something called a Pistol or a Carbine (or Projector or Autocannon etc.) doesn't mean you can't use it to represent a weapon that isn't described by the system.

For example a Laser Carbine (the mental image of which is: a grip, a trigger, a power cell, a barrel with a lens on the end and a stock) could be attached to a suit of BattleDress as an integral weapon. Its still described as a Laser Carbine, but now its forearm mounted, or the laser emitter sits on one shoulder and tracks the users vision for point of aim.

What I'm saying is: don't get caught up with the names output by GunMaker. Look at the overall function and fit it to a form that matches your requirement. It might not apply to the particular examples of Laser Carbines and Pistols but it might come in helpful at some point.

I'm not a military weapons wonk, but this makes sense. Except, there's currently no provision for Fragmentation damage being any different than Bullet damage. Or Burn, or Blast, or...

Yeah we've been here before in other threads

For me in terms of Anti-Flyer, the concept of the "Weapons System" comes into play. its not just the gun or missile that shoots down the Flyer but the Sensor, the Mount, the Operator and the Weapon all working together.

Here's what it says on p. 256:
The standard level is P1 and corresponds
to 1D damage in each of the possible damage
types for the weapon.

Power Level P2 corresponds to 2D damage;
the user must roll Quality or less to avoid weapon
malfunction.

Power Level P3 corresponds to 3D damage;
the user must roll Quality or less TWICE to avoid
weapon malfunction.

Now, I see "1D damage in each of the possible damage types" and that says to me that if a Projector does Burn and Pen damage (as a Fire Projector (flamethrower) does), that means on the lowest setting it does Burn-1, Pen-1. But perhaps clarification is needed.

Having a closer look at the table on p256 which says Laser grants P1-P2-P3 and then the Weapon Descriptor table on p252. I think I've spotted an error. Under Long Arms and Handguns Lasers get Burn-2 and Pen-2 where as under other headings Laser gets Burn-1-2-3 and Pen-1-2-3

p256 says Weapons controls are the sum of the type and descriptor so Laser weapons should all be Burn-1-2-3 and Pen-1-2-3.

So yes your reading of the rules is correct and I was misled by the info on the Weapon Descriptor table.

This errata probably applies to other Descriptors with P1-P2-P3

On p.252, you can see Laser under "Exotic Designators and Projectors". I don't see any ruling elsewhere saying you can't have a Laser Projector. (Interestingly enough, a Laser Projector (LPj-14) requires TL 14 and does less damage than a Laser Pistol (LP-10) except on it's highest setting. Though again that depends on whether or not Laser Pistols have variable settings as well, and how that rule applies. I also just noticed that Laser Projectors have Range=0, so that's another problem. I'll add it to the list.)

I guess I have the concept of Projectors as being short ranged weapons which spray, throw, eject, squirt their effect. Projectors for me are a class of weapons that include: Pepper Spray, CS Gas, Tazers, Scramblers, Sonic Alarms carried by women, Flashers (the Emperors Arsenal kind) and those flashy things carried by MiB agents (I can't remember what they are called).

You're correct that you can have a Laser Projector but it might look like a laser pointer that you shove in someones face or use to burn through door locks.

 

[LordRhys]

So can anyone tell me how to determine the number of shots that a Multi-Missile Launcher has?

The design rules are very sketchy on the subject.

I'm trying to design a weapon suitable for a Grav Gunship.

 

[LiminalMask]

So can anyone tell me how to determine the number of shots that a Multi-Missile Launcher has?

The design rules are very sketchy on the subject.

I'm trying to design a weapon suitable for a Grav Gunship.

p. 244: Multi-Launchers. A Multi-Launcher is a refinement allowing multiple uses before reloading.

That's all it says. Combine this with:

p.248: The creation or design of weapons assumes the creation of suitable ammunition and of magazines or cassettes that will feed munitions to the weapon. The weapon design does not delve into the process in that great a depth.

In short: There are no rules for ammunition in T5. There is no need to reload a weapon; it is assumed to be a part of the combat turn that happens as needed. So... your question is irrelevant, as I read the rules. There may be rules for mounted weapons that are different in VehicleMaker or Starship Design, as I'm not as familiar with them. But from a WeaponMaker standpoint? Ammunition is just 'given' and not part of the game.

Now, you may make a house rule of your own to cover ammo. I will likely do the same. It makes little sense for a rocket launcher to have, essentially, infinite ammo, considering rockets take up space. Likewise, a Marine charging into combat should have to carry spare magazines, not merely assume he can spray autofire with impunity as long as he likes. That's how I feel, anyway. But again, that's not covered in T5.

 

[LordRhys]

Then why are Multi-Launchers LIGHTER than single launchers?

I can make a multi-launcher that holds 8 or even 100 missiles with the exact same stats and they weigh exactly the same AND they weigh less than a single shot missile launcher?

 

[LiminalMask]

Then why are Multi-Launchers LIGHTER than single launchers?

I can make a multi-launcher that holds 8 or even 100 missiles with the exact same stats and they weigh exactly the same AND they weigh less than a single shot missile launcher?

I don't know. At a guess, and if I remember rightly, MLs are higher TL than Ls and so that might account for reduced weight. Also, I'm assuming the weight is for the weapon itself, not its munitions. But again this is only a guess.

I also speculate the intention of the ammo statement (the "un-rule") is not to give permission to make unreasonable designs like a 100-shot rocket launcher, but rather to assume that the weapon is reloaded periodically during combat as needed to keep combat flowing quickly. Tecnically, though, you could make a 100-shot ML; just there's no point in doing so. An 8 shot ML is functionally the same as a 100-shot one. You just reload the 8-shot more often, but since there is no provision in the rules for reloading during combat, they are functionally the same.

The weight difference could also be errata, I don't know.

 

[LordRhys]

What I believe is that the weight given for a Multi-Shot Launcher is the weight for a certain number of shots and somebody forgot to include that information.

As far as ammunition goes, there's a BIG difference between weapons like guns where the size and mass of ammunition is a small fraction of the weapon mass, and missile launchers where the size and mass of the missile is generally MORE than the weapon itself.

For example the weight of an RPG is almost entirely the rocket itself, the launcher is nothing more than a lightweight tube and a triggering mechanism.

Before anybody starts designing equipment these issues NEED to be resolved.

It's completely ridiculous to require every single GM to design ALL of their weapons from scratch and make up their own rules so that what we have as a community is a bunch of incompatible weapon designs.

A little clarity in the rules would go a LONG way towards satisfaction with the game and certainly improve the odds of continued support.

 

[LiminalMask]

What I believe is that the weight given for a Multi-Shot Launcher is the weight for a certain number of shots and somebody forgot to include that information.

It's entirely possible that at one point in T5's history, there were ammo/reloading rules. This could be an artifact of that. However, I will say that as a Beta tester, the no-ammo rules that appear in the final book are the same as they were in Beta.

Before anybody starts designing equipment these issues NEED to be resolved.

It's completely ridiculous to require every single GM to design ALL of their weapons from scratch and make up their own rules so that what we have as a community is a bunch of incompatible weapon designs.

A little clarity in the rules would go a LONG way towards satisfaction with the game and certainly improve the odds of continued support.

While I agree, personally, that there ought to be ammo rules, and their absence takes a lot away from the game, I don't think, from a purely technical view, there NEEDS to be ammo rules. The rules for using a weapon work just fine and one GM's weapon can be used by another GM without changes provided 1) we all use the same Wx and Fillform and 2) we all handwave away any ammo considerations. If we assume that all weapons have the ammo they need to work in all combat situations all the time, then there's no problem as far as the system working and compatibility between GMs being retained.

Now, is point #2 something appealing? That is certainly debatable. Some might prefer the simplicity of it, and keeping combat going fast, not having to keep track of every shot, etc. I personally do not like the lack of ammo rules, and feel it takes away from the game and in some cases (as you point out about rockets and missiles) strains the suspension of disbelief. I will probably develop my own house rules about ammo, barring something released later. If I share my weapon designs, I will probably include my own ideas about ammunition, with the understanding that other GMs will take or leave it.

 

[LordRhys]

The GunMaker rules as written appear to be broken.

The most powerful Fusion Weapon you can create (Advanced Vheavy Fusion Autocannon - 18) does a maximum of 120 points of damage with an average of 70 points.

And while this is sufficient to take out a TL-9 Tank (AV-50), it's barely adequate for a TL- 10 Heavy Tank (AV-100), and won't even scratch a TL- 11 Very Heavy Tank (AV-150). And this is BEFORE you add any options to the Tanks.

An Advanced Heavy Grav Tank TL-15 (AV 120) is virtually immune to the most powerful weapon you can create with GunMaker.

 

[LiminalMask]

The GunMaker rules as written appear to be broken.

The most powerful Fusion Weapon you can create (Advanced Vheavy Fusion Autocannon - 18) does a maximum of 120 points of damage with an average of 70 points.

And while this is sufficient to take out a TL-9 Tank (AV-50), it's barely adequate for a TL- 10 Heavy Tank (AV-100), and won't even scratch a TL- 11 Very Heavy Tank (AV-150). And this is BEFORE you add any options to the Tanks.

An Advanced Heavy Grav Tank TL-15 (AV 120) is virtually immune to the most powerful weapon you can create with GunMaker.

Yes, though this is a question of are Guns underpowered or is Armor overpowered (or a little of both?) I raised this question in another thread here, though where you're focused on high-damage artillery and tanks, I was concerned that a character in Quilt armor is immune to virtually all non-military grade weapons. It's the same problem, though. I posted this issue to the errata thread, and I believe DonM has passed it on to Marc. Hopefully, we'll get an answer before too much more time passes.

 

[LordRhys]

I've come up with Armor Penetration House Rules that relieve the problem a little without overcomplicating things but I need to test them out a bit to see how well they work.

Weapons with Pen Values ignore 2x the Pen value, and weapons with Bullets ignore 1/2 Bullet value if Long Guns or Machineguns (Treat SMG's as Pistols), with Armor Piercing (AP) Ammo available for these weapons. AP Ammo increases the armor penetration to 1/2 Bullet value for Pistols and SMG's, and 1x Bullet value for Long Guns and Machineguns. Gauss Pistols are treated as Long Guns, and Gauss Rifles/Machineguns receive a 50% bonus at all levels.

This would allow a Gauss Rifle-12 to ignore 3 points of Armor Value normally and 7 points with AP Ammo.

For this to work with Combat Rifles you need to convert the Frag entry for the Combat Descriptor to Bullet. That didn't make sense anyway. Why would what we would call an Assault Rifle do Frag Damage instead of Bullet Damage? You can't even create an AK-47 with that sort of rule.

Frankly, the simplest solution would be to just cut Armor Values in half. I may try that too.

 

[Rynak]

Yes, though this is a question of are Guns underpowered or is Armor overpowered (or a little of both?) I raised this question in another thread here, though where you're focused on high-damage artillery and tanks, I was concerned that a character in Quilt armor is immune to virtually all non-military grade weapons. It's the same problem, though. I posted this issue to the errata thread, and I believe DonM has passed it on to Marc. Hopefully, we'll get an answer before too much more time passes.

According to the BBB, quilted armor has an AV of 1. Probably a typo since it says it is an upgrade of cloth armor that has an AV of 14, but maybe these should be reversed?

 

[LiminalMask]

According to the BBB, quilted armor has an AV of 1. Probably a typo since it says it is an upgrade of cloth armor that has an AV of 14, but maybe these should be reversed?

I brought this issue up in this thread. My reading of the basic armor chart is that AR= and CA= values are reversed. I've submitted this for Errata. (I also think the values under SE= should be under IN=). But AR=1 would be much too little, especially considering that Cloth is supposed to be ballistic cloth.

 

[LordRhys]

It looks more like ALL of the Armor examples on page 610 may be wrong.

It sure looks to me like the Weapon examples on page 240 are wrong (I haven't checked the Armor examples).

I'll try to duplicate the Armor Examples with ArmorMaker tonight and see what I get.