NEWS

Combat is SR6?

  • 309 Replies
  • 5874 Views

Ghost Rigger

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
« Reply #255 on: (10:12:18/08-11-19) »
"A nice small entry hole and a nice small exit hole" could also describe a lethal head wound. While I agree that APDS shouldn't have +DV, I don't think it should have -DV. Yes, explosive rounds and JHP should deal more raw damage than APDS, but I see no reason they'd deal less damage than cheapass basic bitch bullets. But all this is a side discussion.
After all you don't send an electrician to fix your leaking toilet.

A Guide to Gridguide

dezmont

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 127
« Reply #256 on: (11:09:21/08-11-19) »
If I were to model APDS in a very realistic combat system I would 100% give it -DV simply because 99% of the time it results in less severe injury. The fact that it kills you in the same conditions it kills anyone anytime instantly isn't really a mark for it staying at +0.

That said DV vs AP, at least in 5e, was always sorta a joke because that is a 100% solved space where DV always wins until AP gets to -3 (which is the equivalent of a DV anyway) except in super extreme situations.

Moonshine Fox

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
  • Proudly serving our dragon overlords
« Reply #257 on: (12:42:04/08-11-19) »
"A nice small entry hole and a nice small exit hole" could also describe a lethal head wound. While I agree that APDS shouldn't have +DV, I don't think it should have -DV. Yes, explosive rounds and JHP should deal more raw damage than APDS, but I see no reason they'd deal less damage than cheapass basic bitch bullets. But all this is a side discussion.

Because most of the damage from a bullet is because it deforms on impact, tearing a larger path through the body, severing more blood vessels, and leaving an exit would large enough to not clot easy, leading to a higher chance of shock and death do to either blood lose or internal trauma. A small neat hole is less likely to hit a vital spot, which is how people can survive being shot several times.
« Last Edit: (12:44:43/08-11-19) by Moonshine Fox »

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
« Reply #258 on: (15:27:11/08-11-19) »
If I were to model APDS in a very realistic combat system I would 100% give it -DV simply because 99% of the time it results in less severe injury. The fact that it kills you in the same conditions it kills anyone anytime instantly isn't really a mark for it staying at +0.

That said DV vs AP, at least in 5e, was always sorta a joke because that is a 100% solved space where DV always wins until AP gets to -3 (which is the equivalent of a DV anyway) except in super extreme situations.

Yeah minus in DV makes sense for realism but gamist wise only in a system where it is having a substantive effect on penetrating armor.  Like if instead of a discrepancy of 4 attack rating to defense rating giving a point of edge it instead determined whether or not you used your armor to soak, then less DV but more attack rating would work. Currently its still a bit of a crap shoot if it will provide a edge and the value of an edge is way to nebulous to bother with this as a elite ammo. And it oddly will seem less effective against real armored threats like enemies with hardened armor or heavily armored drones as it doesn't actually reduce their armor and it does less damage and their defense rating will probably be high enough you wont even get the edge.

At the end of the day DV is king.

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #259 on: (15:29:35/08-11-19) »
If we’re going down this road...

Isn’t the point of APDS is that it penetrates the armour and in so doing is slowed and deformed enough that then it causes serious organic damage? Because that would seem to suggest its DV modifier would depend on the armour worn by the target... It could be negative DV on unarmored targets but neutral DV on armoured ones!

Ghost Rigger

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
« Reply #260 on: (16:08:21/08-11-19) »
Yeah, arguments about 1 big hole vs 2 small holes aside, there's no reason for APDS to do less damage against an armored target.
After all you don't send an electrician to fix your leaking toilet.

A Guide to Gridguide

Hephaestus

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • "Milk Run" is a mighty weird way to spell TPK
« Reply #261 on: (17:21:02/08-11-19) »
Yeah, arguments about 1 big hole vs 2 small holes aside, there's no reason for APDS to do less damage against an armored target.

Agreed. While I can see a slight decrease in damage from a real-world standpoint, in this edition it would probably have been better to just state "the target cannot gain an edge based on attack rating, regardless of their defense rating, against shots made with APDS rounds" and then left the DV alone.

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5098
« Reply #262 on: (17:57:38/08-11-19) »
... target cannot gain an edge based on attack rating, regardless of their defense rating, against shots made with APDS rounds ...
But it should also depend on what you are hit with. Using APDS in a hold out pistol at medium range should probably still grant a tactical advantage to the defender.

A better solution would probably be to instead directly decrease DR of the target while using APDS. This increase the chance that the target does not get to gain edge when he is attacked but it also increase the chance that you will gain edge, even if the target is armored.

While game mechanic wise the above would be the exact same thing as increasing AR (as it currently do) this would also have one more feature that simply increasing AR would not:

- It would be highly useful against targets with hardened armor (which I feel is the very niche you would want to use APDS for in the first place and also what would be the big separating factor between APDS and Flechette).

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
« Reply #263 on: (18:49:26/08-11-19) »
The most important part is that APDS rounds should be more effective against targets that have higher armor and/or better cover.

TBH, Iīd say that "Target canīt get Edge (due to the DR/AR comparison) from an Attack made with APDS" is not that bad of an idea. Getting an Edge from AR/DR is something that is more likely if the target has good cover and armor.

Another way would be something like this: "When shooting at a target using APDS Ammo, the following perks of your target are cut in half (round up) when resolving the Attack: Armor, Hardened Armor, Cover Level". With that big of an impact and especially the benefits against hardened armor, even the reduction of the damage score would be justified.         

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2422
« Reply #264 on: (18:53:36/08-11-19) »
APDS gets +2AR to reflect how armor shouldn't be as good against it.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
« Reply #265 on: (19:22:17/08-11-19) »
APDS gets +2AR to reflect how armor shouldn't be as good against it.

Yeah, and that Logic is the problem here (apart from the fact that +2 AR for -1 Damage is a terrible tradeoff). The +2 AR applies regardless of how good the armor (and/or cover) is. It doesnīt get better against stronger armor and it doesnīt offer less benefits against targets with low armor. If I understand it correctly, it even applies when there is no armor at all.

In 5th Edition, APDS (and Armor Penetration in general) at least had a kind of diminishing return against the occasional targets with (very) low armor, because you canīt reduce armor below zero. It also offered significantly higher benefits against hardened armor and drone/vehicle armor. In 6th Edition, itīs just a bad numbers game. APDS Ammo doesnīt really care for armor. It just looks like it does at a very superficial glance.

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #266 on: (03:03:51/08-12-19) »
Another way would be something like this: "When shooting at a target using APDS Ammo, the following perks of your target are cut in half (round up) when resolving the Attack: Armor, Hardened Armor, Cover Level". With that big of an impact and especially the benefits against hardened armor, even the reduction of the damage score would be justified.       
Mmmm. I see where you're coming from, but a downside to this is it shifts calculations from pre-combat to during combat again. I suspect a design goal of the AR/DR system was, wherever possible, to bake all the gun's modifiers into its AR so it could be pre-computed and static. Then combat resolution goes faster, as you don't need to apply numerous modifiers to each other to resolve each attack. And that's a noble goal, in my opinion. Seems a shame to lose it.

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
« Reply #267 on: (06:31:30/08-12-19) »
Another way would be something like this: "When shooting at a target using APDS Ammo, the following perks of your target are cut in half (round up) when resolving the Attack: Armor, Hardened Armor, Cover Level". With that big of an impact and especially the benefits against hardened armor, even the reduction of the damage score would be justified.       
Mmmm. I see where you're coming from, but a downside to this is it shifts calculations from pre-combat to during combat again. I suspect a design goal of the AR/DR system was, wherever possible, to bake all the gun's modifiers into its AR so it could be pre-computed and static. Then combat resolution goes faster, as you don't need to apply numerous modifiers to each other to resolve each attack. And that's a noble goal, in my opinion. Seems a shame to lose it.

I get what you mean. Cutting 3 different possible factors (Armor, Hardened Armor, Cover) in half can be quite some math. Another idea is that the shooter can choose to ignore one of these 3 things entirely. Thatīs a little bit of math, but not that much. And usually, you should have a good estimate on which of these 3 things offers the biggest benefit for the target. Strong Effect, but itīs also counterweighed by the Damage reduction.

Or you can go with Hephaestusī idea of APDS denying Edge gain from AR/DR. Thatīs even less math than RAW and it still fits the purpose of APDS nicely, as this is usually something that happens because of cover and high armor. However in this case, there really shouldnīt be a Damage reduction added to it. And also, the limit of 2 Edge per round should be houseruled. Which is a good idea anyways, so...

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5098
« Reply #268 on: (17:24:23/08-12-19) »
Or you can go with Hephaestusī idea of APDS denying Edge gain from AR/DR.
You already gain that advantage by using an imaging scope....

I still think it would be better if APDS reduced target's armor rating by 2.
(the effect would be similar to +2 AR as it have right now, but it would have a bigger impact on targets with hardened armor).
« Last Edit: (17:27:33/08-12-19) by Xenon »

Ghost Rigger

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
« Reply #269 on: (17:27:46/08-12-19) »
Or you can go with Hephaestusī idea of APDS denying Edge gain from AR/DR.
You already gain that advantage by using an imaging scope....
Wait, what? Using an imaging scope makes your target's armor literally and completely pointless even within its newly defined functionality? Why? Was it not enough that they took our soak dice from us?
After all you don't send an electrician to fix your leaking toilet.

A Guide to Gridguide