What works? How are ships and vehicles armed?

[whartung]

These critical hits are reduced in number by one for each two factors of armor the target ship has; round odd numbers down.

I'm sorry Mike, but this is another nail in the argument.

With this rule, and under your interpretation of the Surface Explosion table, that means that Critical Hits are affected by armor - twice. Armor gets to double dip with Crits.

First by denying them in the first place (via the DM on the SE table), and second by directly affecting the number of Crits.

That doesn't seem very "fair".

The Armor DM does not negate the hit itself, it negates any internal damage caused by the hit. The hit still happens, and dings the door and hammers the gong. It just doesn't break through. Higher armor makes that resistance more likely (just as one may feel armor should). An armored target will take less internal damage than an unarmored one, but armor does not necessarily "reduce" the damage, it simply makes it more unlikely.

While the hammer may not break through the shell, the ship is still rocked by the blast. The Captain, First Officer, and the helm crew are grabbing their consoles as the camera is tilted. "That was close" one of them may exclaim. From these ship rocking moments, crits happen. It can even be argued that the higher armor level represents overall structural integrity of the hull, which is why higher armor mean for less crits. But the crits still weaken the ship. Hit it hard enough, enough times, and even the thickest armor loses its integrity.

In the past week, we've had an pretty good earthquake storm. There's been 18 small quakes near by, and we've felt 15 of them (which is a record for us to be sure, its been a rockin year compared to 1 felt per year before this). Scaring the cats, rattling the house. "None" of them have broken through my well built, wood framed house. They've been bouncing off my plywood sheeting wrapped house, thankfully.

But, one of them rolled a crit.

A small piece of back splash tile popped off wall. (Trust me, if you saw my wife's expression, this was, indeed, a "Crit"). A bit of silicone glued it back in place.

But a critical hit indeed, with no actual penetrating damage.

Crits are the "concussion" protocol of HG combat. No matter how good your helmet, get hit in the head hard enough, enough times, its going to have consequences.

 

[Rupert]

That is a simply not possible when you think about it.
No surface damage - none, not a bit
No radiation damage - none, not a bit
No Interior Explosion damage - none, not a bit

Just off to the critical table, I'm sorry but that is preposterous.

And yet you are apparently okay with a hit doing no surface damage and blowing a ship clean up if a hit rolls a '2', or '3-5' followed by '2-4' and getting the 'ship vaporised' critical result. How is that different? No surface damage, no interior damage, but the ship blows up.

Besides, we know that there has been a lot of damage - the ship blew up!

Sensible players will be rolling any automatic criticals first, because there's not much point carefully tracking loss of computer levels (for example) if a critical from the same hit then blows the computer up.

It is explicit in the rules: Weapons which penetrate the ship's defenses inflict damage on their targets
the ship's defences include the armour - it says so, in black and white.

The damage table is the armour penetration table, if the result is 22+ then there is no damage, and that includes criticals.

"No effect" does not mean no affect apart for ship vapourised.

I'm sorry but I can not accept that a damage result of no effect means anything other than no damage at all.

So, if I shoot an unarmed 20-ton ship's boat with a Meson-T, and the first damage roll is a 'weapon-4' radiation and a 'screens-3' interior explosion result, as no damage was done, I get no extra damage rolls and no criticals? Or, even with a factor-7 pulse laser for 'weapon-3' - no damage was done at all, (the hit is 'ignored', which is at least as much like 'no damage' as 'no effect'). And if I'm in my little ship's boat and I dump all my fuel, so 'fuel' hits are also ignored, the only surface hits that can trigger criticals are the ones that do manoeuvre damage, even though I'm in a tiny utility craft with no armour at all.

Sorry, but the idea that a hit that doesn't get a damaging result from the first hit somehow doesn't get all its other damage rolls is just silly. A big gun isn't doing to those criticals because it damaged some system with a basic damage rolls, it gets them as part of its basic damage.

 

[Rupert]

What I don't understand is why don't they armor small craft up to the TL? It doesn't cost or weigh nearly enough to matter.

Because it actually does below TL14 (at least in HG - I don't know about MgT). The sample small craft in HG would lose a lot of their cargo space at TL12, and all of it at TL11-. So armouring things like landers and assault shuttles to a high degree is probably not practical.

And 12-15 armor gives you basically immunity to turret weapons unless they turn 30 lasers on you? Allowing armor and not using it makes less sense than not allowing it and then publishing designs that have it anyhow. Is wildly nerfing the armor somehow making up for inconsistency with the rules? (I say inconsistency because while there's two examples of published small craft not following rules, there's not any errata I've seen that actually allow it.)

Remember, a penetrating hit always gets a damage roll, and 'no effect' requires 22+, which allowing for the +6 for non-spinals/nukes, means it takes armour-4 to push even a 12 'off the table' and armour-14 to push all rolls off the table (armour-16 to do this to pulse lasers). So a lot of armour is very nice, but it takes maxed out TL14+ armour to make a ship immune to small-sized weapons. And then some a-hole brings a meson bay to the party...

 

[McPerth]

And yet you are apparently okay with a hit doing no surface damage and blowing a ship clean up if a hit rolls a '2', or '3-5' followed by '2-4' and getting the 'ship vaporised' critical result. How is that different? No surface damage, no interior damage, but the ship blows up.

Well, as I understand this, a Surface Explosion result that results on a critical (or on an interior explosion taht leads to it), the armor has claraly been penetrated, while a result of 22+, and so no effect, means taht armor has not been penetrated, so not all defenses have...

So, if I shoot an unarmed 20-ton ship's boat with a Meson-T, and the first damage roll is a 'weapon-4' radiation and a 'screens-3' interior explosion result, as no damage was done, I get no extra damage rolls and no criticals?

This case is like the one above.The armor has been penetrated, even if no damage has been done to systems. So, as all defenses have been penetrated, atuomatic criticals would be triggered. IMHO.

 

[Badenov]

Because it actually does below TL14 (at least in HG - I don't know about MgT). The sample small craft in HG would lose a lot of their cargo space at TL12, and all of it at TL11-. So armouring things like landers and assault shuttles to a high degree is probably not practical.

I guess I'm just talking TL15 armor, but for fighters, not cargo haulers. No reason to armor them. But interceptors have every reason to want to ignore incoming hits. The sample small craft in HG are absolutely civilian models.

Remember, a penetrating hit always gets a damage roll, and 'no effect' requires 22+, which allowing for the +6 for non-spinals/nukes, means it takes armour-4 to push even a 12 'off the table' and armour-14 to push all rolls off the table (armour-16 to do this to pulse lasers). So a lot of armour is very nice, but it takes maxed out TL14+ armour to make a ship immune to small-sized weapons. And then some a-hole brings a meson bay to the party...

So, presuming a fighter built at TL15 laughs off anything a turret can throw at it?

 

[Rupert]

Well, as I understand this, a Surface Explosion result that results on a critical (or on an interior explosion taht leads to it), the armor has claraly been penetrated, while a result of 22+, and so no effect, means taht armor has not been penetrated, so not all defenses have...

But getting an 'automatic critical' somehow does not mean the armour has been penetrated?

This case is like the one above.The armor has been penetrated, even if no damage has been done to systems. So, as all defenses have been penetrated, atuomatic criticals would be triggered. IMHO.

So ignoring a hit is not the same as it having no effect?

This seems to me to be an attempt to force the mechanics to fit into a pre-conceived model of how they should work, when they just don't work that way.

 

[Rupert]

I guess I'm just talking TL15 armor, but for fighters, not cargo haulers. No reason to armor them. But interceptors have every reason to want to ignore incoming hits. The sample small craft in HG are absolutely civilian models.

So, presuming a fighter built at TL15 laughs off anything a turret can throw at it?

Yes, which might be why the rules don't list adding armour as one of the steps of small craft design (though that just pushes the problem up to 100-199 DTon ships). Even with no armour small craft combats tend to be slow to completely ineffectual - needing a 8+ to 10+ to hit (allowing for size), with agility adding to that, individual small craft often simply can't hit each other even with TL14+ fusion guns (factor-5 beams).

 

[McPerth]

But getting an 'automatic critical' somehow does not mean the armour has been penetrated?

Here we'll enter on a paradox, as to roll it first it must penetrate all defenses, and armor is one. The problem, IMHO, is the lack of definition of armor penetrated (unlike other defenses)

So ignoring a hit is not the same as it having no effect?

An armor piercing round can cross an unarmored (or lightly armored) target and just pass through it without damaging it, if it hits nothing inside. That would be your ingored hit, but has penetrated the "armor" (or lack of it)

OTOH, armor may stop the round fully, avoiding damage on the target. That's the "no effect", and it's because armor has not been penetrated.

 

[mike wightman]

I'm sorry Mike, but this is another nail in the argument.

With this rule, and under your interpretation of the Surface Explosion table, that means that Critical Hits are affected by armor - twice. Armor gets to double dip with Crits.

First by denying them in the first place (via the DM on the SE table), and second by directly affecting the number of Crits.

That doesn't seem very "fair".

The Armor DM does not negate the hit itself, it negates any internal damage caused by the hit. The hit still happens, and dings the door and hammers the gong. It just doesn't break through. Higher armor makes that resistance more likely (just as one may feel armor should). An armored target will take less internal damage than an unarmored one, but armor does not necessarily "reduce" the damage, it simply makes it more unlikely.

And if it is 22+ it has no effect

While the hammer may not break through the shell, the ship is still rocked by the blast. The Captain, First Officer, and the helm crew are grabbing their consoles as the camera is tilted. "That was close" one of them may exclaim. From these ship rocking moments, crits happen. It can even be argued that the higher armor level represents overall structural integrity of the hull, which is why higher armor mean for less crits. But the crits still weaken the ship. Hit it hard enough, enough times, and even the thickest armor loses its integrity.

Far too much Star Trek. If the ship is rocked by the blast then it takes internal explosion hits

But, one of them rolled a crit.

A small piece of back splash tile popped off wall. (Trust me, if you saw my wife's expression, this was, indeed, a "Crit"). A bit of silicone glued it back in place.

But a critical hit indeed, with no actual penetrating damage.

Crits are the "concussion" protocol of HG combat. No matter how good your helmet, get hit in the head hard enough, enough times, its going to have consequences.

Crew 1 means she would be a bit more than astonished...

You are describing Internal explosion rather than critical hit

 

[mike wightman]

And yet you are apparently okay with a hit doing no surface damage and blowing a ship clean up if a hit rolls a '2', or '3-5' followed by '2-4' and getting the 'ship vaporised' critical result. How is that different? No surface damage, no interior damage, but the ship blows up.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
If you mean a surface explosion result then yes that is damage,
If it is 22+ and no effect then there is no damage.

Besides, we know that there has been a lot of damage - the ship blew up!

None to the surface, no radiation, no internal explosion ... just crew 1

Sensible players will be rolling any automatic criticals first, because there's not much point carefully tracking loss of computer levels (for example) if a critical from the same hit then blows the computer up.

Sensible players will be rolling on the damage table first, and if there is no effect there is no effect.

Where in the damage resolution flow chart of HG 80 does it say to check for critical hits...

So, if I shoot an unarmed 20-ton ship's boat with a Meson-T, and the first damage roll is a 'weapon-4' radiation and a 'screens-3' interior explosion result, as no damage was done, I get no extra damage rolls and no criticals? Or, even with a factor-7 pulse laser for 'weapon-3' - no damage was done at all, (the hit is 'ignored', which is at least as much like 'no damage' as 'no effect'). And if I'm in my little ship's boat and I dump all my fuel, so 'fuel' hits are also ignored, the only surface hits that can trigger criticals are the ones that do manoeuvre damage, even though I'm in a tiny utility craft with no armour at all.

Again I have no idea how you reach that conclusion. You have just stated damage is done.
If damage is allowed by the damage table you then go on to check for automatic criticals.

Sorry, but the idea that a hit that doesn't get a damaging result from the first hit somehow doesn't get all its other damage rolls is just silly. A big gun isn't doing to those criticals because it damaged some system with a basic damage rolls, it gets them as part of its basic damage.

I have no idea what your reasoning is.

My reasoning is the damage table is consulted after the weapons vs other defenses, armour is the final passive defense.

If the result of the consultation of the damage table is no effect then no damage or criticals are possible, but if damage is caused then you move on to the criticals.

otherwise is is pointless to roll on the damage table, you should consider criticals first, which is not the way the rules are written.

 

[mike wightman]

But getting an 'automatic critical' somehow does not mean the armour has been penetrated?

It is not automatic - all defences have to be penetrated, and that includes armour.

So ignoring a hit is not the same as it having no effect?

If you miss you miss.

If you fail to penetrate a screen or point defence there is no effect

If you fail to penetrate armour - no effect - then there is no effect

This seems to me to be an attempt to force the mechanics to fit into a pre-conceived model of how they should work, when they just don't work that way.

The mechanics are sound, it is this sudden re-interpretation that is puzzling

 

[Rupert]

Here we'll enter on a paradox, as to roll it first it must penetrate all defenses, and armor is one. The problem, IMHO, is the lack of definition of armor penetrated (unlike other defenses)

Again:

Fire against each ship occurs in the following sequence:

A. All batteries which will fire against that ship must be stated.

B. Dice are rolled for each battery to determine if it scored a hit.

C. For each battery that achieved a hit, dice are rolled to determine if it penetrated the defensive fire of the target. Each battery fired by the target ship as defense may not be fired again in the turn.

D. Dice are rolled to determine if the passive defenses of the target ship are penetrated.

E. If the battery has hit and then penetrated all defenses, then damage inflicted is determined.

Note that step 'E', rolling damage occurs after 'penetration'

Weapons which penetrate the ship's defenses inflict damage on their targets. Each battery is allowed one roll on one or more damage tables, depending on weapon type. This roll may be modified by various factors.

This rules comes after the rules describe rolling to hit, and to penetrate defences, but before any discussion of the damage rolls (which is where armour comes in).

If you follow the rules step-by-step it is very clear that the number of automatic criticals (and extra hits) are determined independent of damage rolls, which is logical - first you find out how many rolls you need to make, and then you roll them.

An armor piercing round can cross an unarmored (or lightly armored) target and just pass through it without damaging it, if it hits nothing inside. That would be your ingored hit, but has penetrated the "armor" (or lack of it)

OTOH, armor may stop the round fully, avoiding damage on the target. That's the "no effect", and it's because armor has not been penetrated.

Nowhere does it say that. All it says is that the hit had no in-game mechanical effect. That does not mean it didn't blow a hole in the ship, trash someone's stateroom, and mess up the paintwork. All it means is that the hit did not affect anything combat-relevant.

 

[mike wightman]

The automatic criticals is not part of the damage sequence you are [focused] on.

The rules state armour is a passive defense

The automatic critical rule is provisional that all defenses are penetrated

Armour is a defense.

 

[Rupert]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You are claiming that a critical that blows the ship up without some other damaged system isn't possible, but you can have exactly that happen off the damage tables.

An 'automatic critical' also automatically penetrates armour and does its thing. Armour already defends against these by reducing the number of them, potentially to zero. The number of them that do occur is the number that have penetrated the ship's armour.

Your argument relies on interpreting 'penetrated' in a way that the rules do not use it when they are describing how hits and damage are resolved. The word 'penetrate' is only used in reference to getting past defensive fire and screens. IT is not used in reference to armour.

Step 'E' of the 'Combat Step' of the game turn says "Batteries which hit and penetrate all defenses must determine the damage they inflict." By your argument, they must determine their damage after they have determined their damage, because they can't know if they 'penetrated' until they have rolled their damage, which they can't do unless they've penetrated (and so on in an infinite loop), which [cannot be correct].

 

[Rupert]

The automatic criticals is not part of the damage sequence you are [focused] on.

The rules stare armour is a passive defense

I says that once, in a descriptive summary of combat. In the rules proper it does not call armour a defense, and it never talks about penetrating armour.

The automatic critical rule is provisional that all defenses are penetrated

Armour is a defense.

Rolling damage at all is provisional on penetration.

 

[atpollard]

RULE 1) No personal attacks. You may attack ideas, subjects, or documentation. However you will not get personal at all.

A little civility would go a long way. Honest people will have differences of opinion.

Words like "pedantic", "stupid", "ridiculous" ... and phrases like "failure to comprehend" ...

do not contribute to the open and honest exchange of ideas, and should be avoided.​

The US Army offers the following advice on EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION:

• Stand Up.
• Speak Up.
• Shut Up.

So say what you have to say, and move on.
It is not your job to make EVERYONE agree with you.

 

[mike wightman]

You are claiming that a critical that blows the ship up without some other damaged system isn't possible, but you can have exactly that happen off the damage tables.

Umm, no you can't, the transfer of damage is a damage result - no effect is no effect.
Not the same thing at all.

An 'automatic critical' also automatically penetrates armour and does its thing. Armour already defends against these by reducing the number of them, potentially to zero. The number of them that do occur is the number that have penetrated the ship's armour.

An interior explosion result on the surface damage (which is a damage result, not no effect) which then causes a crit on the Internal table shows catastrophic damage - but they are the results of rolling successfully on the table, not the damage result no effect.

Your argument relies on interpreting 'penetrated' in a way that the rules do not use it when they are describing how hits and damage are resolved. The word 'penetrate' is only used in reference to getting past defensive fire and screens. IT is not used in reference to armour.

It my interpretation because the rule is not clear. Penetration means "get through"
is armour a passive defense - yes
must defenses be penetrated for damage - yes
is it logical to interpret the damage table as akin to armour penetration - yes

Step 'E' of the 'Combat Step' of the game turn says "Batteries which hit and penetrate all defenses must determine the damage they inflict." By your argument, they must determine their damage after they have determined their damage, because they can't know if they 'penetrated' until they have rolled their damage, which they can't do unless they've penetrated (and so on in an infinite loop), which [cannot be correct].

The alternative is illogical.
roll to hit
roll to penetrate active defenses
roll damage (armour penetration)
if "no effect" there is no damage, no "automatic" criticals
if there is any effect move on to "automatic" criticals (if any)

I have to ask - has this ever come up in a HG combat you have played out?

 

[mike wightman]

I says that once, in a descriptive summary of combat. In the rules proper it does not call armour a defense, and it never talks about penetrating armour.

The rules you mean? GDW had this habit of hiding statements like this

Rolling damage at all is provisional on penetration.

Rolling on the damage table is the armour penetration roll.

 

[Ekofisk]

Here we'll enter on a paradox, as to roll it first it must penetrate all defenses, and armor is one. The problem, IMHO, is the lack of definition of armor penetrated (unlike other defenses)

Let me try and come at this from a slightly different angle and see if that clarifies my viewpoint.

Box 15 on the ship data sheet is NOT armor, it's "Hull Strength". This is a holdout from HG79. The reason why this doesn't matter in the game (yet perversely matters in this discussion) is that there is no place left TO roll penetration of the hull. The tables were all removed in HG80. If a battery penetrates defensive weapons and screens then a hit has occurred. Proceed to the ship damage tables.

Here is where armor enters the picture. The hit has already occurred and been confirmed. Armor mitigates damage but if the weapon is powerful enough relative to the size and/or armor rating of the ship then damage is automatic (and severe).

This seems consistent with the wording of the rules.

 

[McPerth]

Box 15 on the ship data sheet is NOT armor, it's "Hull Strength".

I don't know what version/edition of the game you talk about. Mine is the one in the FFE Book Books 0-8 The Classic Books. On it, in page 52m wgere the USP is described, box 15 is named "Hull Armor", not "Hull Strenght"...

Here is where armor enters the picture. The hit has already occurred and been confirmed. Armor mitigates damage but if the weapon is powerful enough relative to the size and/or armor rating of the ship then damage is automatic (and severe).

And so armor is useless for smaller ships, except against the smallest batteries (which may be good or bad, depending on your view of space combat)...

Do you accept there's a possibility of armor not being penetrated and fully stopping a hit (or several ones)? If you do, how is this represented in game, if not by the "no effect" result on the table, as there's no table to penetrate armor?

Now my turn to try to see it from another angle.

What does an USP weapon code means? Basically it means either many weapons of the same kind or a larger one.

In the case of several weapons of the same kind (turret batteries), you’re assumed not all of them hit, but some did while others missed. This is clearly reflected in the Black Globe rules, where the EPs reaching the target are USP code dependent, not weapon number dependent (so, while a single non nuke missile delivers 1-2 EPs depending on TL, 30 of them only deliver 8-9 EPs, not 30). It’s also to note that, as a game artifact, only one damage roll is delivered, ignoring how many weapons really hit (so, if a battery hits and penetrates defenses, it will do the same damage regardless it being a 1 rated battery or a 9 rated one).

So, it may well be possible that each and every such small hits are stopped by armor, each one independently from others, regardless of the size of the ship receiving them, and no damage is received, criticals included.

As per larger weapons (bays and spinals, excluding missile bays that are just more missiles but should act as turret batteries), they are assumed to deliver a more powerful beam, but only one, so it either hits or misses, and penetrates or not the defenses, but the some miss some hit does not apply.

Even so, there are many factors intervening on the damage produced (or not). The exact span of time it is hitting, the hitting angle, where exactly of the ship it hits (more or less armored), etc.. This is, IMHO, what the damage roll means, and a no effect (22+) may well mean it has either only hit marginally, not penetrated armor (as if you roll a 22+ the ship is armored), etc. Spinals, being much larger, are more likely to damage and to produce more damage (represented by the multiple rolls). But the possibility for, even while hitting, doing absolutely no damage if the armor stops it is there…

To keep the similitude with rounds in armor combat, a turret would be a rifle, while a battery may be many rifles, and a bay either more rapid firing (a MG or auto-canon) or a larger round, while a spinal would be even larger round.

Even against a small AFV, many rifle (or MG) rounds may be individually stopped, and so having no effect at all, and even against larger rounds the possibility exists.

OTOH, I accept if the round is large enough (let’s say a naval artillery one), a smaller tank may be affected even if armor stops the shrapnel from it (e.g. being put upside down due to the force of the explosion vs the lighter weight).
I see, game wise, the reasoning under the auto criticals, even if no damage. It’s a way to give larger ships more survival chance: a heavy armored 200 kdt (rating R) Battleship will not receive criticals from a T rated PA, a 10 kdt destroyer/light cruiser/BR (K rated) will (and have his armor reduced by it, if it survives), but OTOH I see odd that armor cannot stop them, even if it stops all firing…