Field Catalogue questions

[ResslynHalvik]

A couple of questions about the Field Catalogue rules for conventional weapons.

1. Has anyone been able to recreate the Sword Worlds Aluksen Ase ("ship gun", if my Finnish is right) weapon using the FC rules?

2. Am I right that it is not possible to create a personal weapon that achieves better than AP 2 until you get gauss weapons at TL12?

 

[MasterGwydion]

A couple of questions about the Field Catalogue rules for conventional weapons.

1. Has anyone been able to recreate the Sword Worlds Aluksen Ase ("ship gun", if my Finnish is right) weapon using the FC rules?

2. Am I right that it is not possible to create a personal weapon that achieves better than AP 2 until you get gauss weapons at TL12?

Ignore the Field Catalogue. It is poorly written and none of the current weapons can be built using that broken system.

 

[MonsterX]

A couple of questions about the Field Catalogue rules for conventional weapons.

1. Has anyone been able to recreate the Sword Worlds Aluksen Ase ("ship gun", if my Finnish is right) weapon using the FC rules?

2. Am I right that it is not possible to create a personal weapon that achieves better than AP 2 until you get gauss weapons at TL12?

what do you mean by personal weapons? You mean personal defense weapon? Your problem is going to be short barrel length, for which there is a trade off with AP. The rules say a PDW is "typically" compact, but what that means is kind of up to you. Maybe an anti-tank rifle is compact enough for you? You can get some serious AP from that, especially with the right ammo.

Most of the AP comes from the ammo type, and an assault weapon can do better than AP 2 base AP, but then add considerably more with the right ammo.

And I disagree with MasterGwydion about using the FC. The weapons are fine, though I'd let the CSC override the FC where they disagree - the CSC weapons are generally "better". There are good and necessary concepts in the FC like signature, quickdraw and suppressing fire, and it is nice to have some unusual and idiosyncratic weapons available.

 

[MasterGwydion]

And I disagree with MasterGwydion about using the FC. The weapons are fine, though I'd let the CSC override the FC where they disagree - the CSC weapons are generally "better". There are good and necessary concepts in the FC like signature, quickdraw and suppressing fire, and it is nice to have some unusual and idiosyncratic weapons available.

What weapons have you built that match those in published materials? The FC rules do not allow you to build the weapons currently detailed in the published materials. So, explain to me how "non-functional" equals "fine".

 

[ResslynHalvik]

Most of the AP comes from the ammo type, and an assault weapon can do better than AP 2 base AP, but then add considerably more with the right ammo.

I am looking for something assault weapon size, but I can't see how to do it with anything more than AP 2, until you reach TL12 for gauss weapons.

What I had in mind was something like the Aluksen Ase, but less bulky, and with AP4 at a short range (say 20m).

I'd be very interested in seeing the Aluksen Ase as a worked example of how to use the rules.

 

[MonsterX]

I am looking for something assault weapon size, but I can't see how to do it with anything more than AP 2, until you reach TL12 for gauss weapons.

What I had in mind was something like the Aluksen Ase, but less bulky, and with AP4 at a short range (say 20m).

I'd be very interested in seeing the Aluksen Ase as a worked example of how to use the rules.

Can't help you with the Aluksen Ase. Weapons from other books aren't necessarily reproducible using the FC, which is indeed a big problem. Also, I don't have the Swordworld book.

But, to get an assault length weapon with AP 3 without special ammo, fit a heavy rifle with an assault barrel. We are starting to get out of PDW territory here

Probably none of this is worth it, as you should just max out on special ammo instead and keep the gun small, but it is technically possible as I understand it.

 

[MonsterX]

What weapons have you built that match those in published materials? The FC rules do not allow you to build the weapons currently detailed in the published materials. So, explain to me how "non-functional" equals "fine".

I don't try to design weapons that match the other published materials, since those weapons already exist in setting so I don't need to design them.

I know that at least some of the CSC weapons can't be reproduced from the FC, but their characteristics such as signature, and quickdraw can be assigned from the FC, which I do when a situation comes up where I need to know this. I just accept this and allow players to buy CSC of FC gear as available in setting. I ignore aspects of the FC that contradict other rules in other books - like low-pen for energy weapons. It works fine in my game, which is all I care about.

I do wish it all matched perfectly together, but, alas, we live in an imperfect world.

 

[Arkathan]

I don't try to design weapons that match the other published materials, since those weapons already exist in setting so I don't need to design them.

I know that at least some of the CSC weapons can't be reproduced from the FC, but their characteristics such as signature, and quickdraw can be assigned from the FC, which I do when a situation comes up where I need to know this. I just accept this and allow players to buy CSC of FC gear as available in setting. I ignore aspects of the FC that contradict other rules in other books - like low-pen for energy weapons. It works fine in my game, which is all I care about.

I do wish it all matched perfectly together, but, alas, we live in an imperfect world.

The point of MC's and others' argument being that the FC should not have been allowed to release a weapon design system that does not duplicate the current weapon designs with costs and mass within at least 10%.

And if a USEABLE weapon design system IS released, then all future equipment updates MUST use that system.

 

[Sigtrygg]

If I were to re-write the FC gun construction rules I would work backwards

make a "spreadsheet" of every weapon in the crb and CSC and every parameter i can find for said weapon

deconstruct each weapon in terms of

barrel length, upper, lower, stock, ammunition, magazine capacity, sighting system, add ons

masses etc. would be determined from real world data and game data

damage dice and special damage are then determined

Or I just use a real world gun and sci fi it...

 

[ResslynHalvik]

But, to get an assault length weapon with AP 3 without special ammo, fit a heavy rifle with an assault barrel. We are starting to get out of PDW territory here

Still only gets to AP 2, I think.

As I saw, what I was hoping to do was look at a modified version of the Aluksen Ase, but I can't work out how to reproduce that in the FC rules, so I don't know how to modify it.

 

[MonsterX]

Still only gets to AP 2, I think.

As I saw, what I was hoping to do was look at a modified version of the Aluksen Ase, but I can't work out how to reproduce that in the FC rules, so I don't know how to modify it.

Showing my math, AP 1 per damage dice, but you get -1 damage dice for the shorter barrel, so 4D for the heavy rifle, i.e. a heavy rifle with assault barrel gives you AP 4 - 1 = 3.

 

[MonsterX]

The point of MC's and others' argument being that the FC should not have been allowed to release a weapon design system that does not duplicate the current weapon designs with costs and mass within at least 10%.

And if a USEABLE weapon design system IS released, then all future equipment updates MUST use that system.

I don't disagree with any of the points about compatibility, but I use it anyways despite the inconsistencies, and find it valuable. I'll leave it up to Mongoose writers to decide what they MUST and MUST NOT do, but if they make a better FC I'll buy it and use it instead.

 

[ResslynHalvik]

Showing my math, AP 1 per damage dice, but you get -1 damage dice for the shorter barrel, so 4D for the heavy rifle, i.e. a heavy rifle with assault barrel gives you AP 4 - 1 = 3.

Oh, that's not how I have interpreted the FC rules at all. Where are you finding the rule that the number of dice equals the AP rating? Also, I don't see your rule that an assault barrel reduces AP, just two contradictory statements (pages 43 and 43) about whether it reduces damage.

All I can see about penetration and AP are the table on p39, the ammunition types on pp50-52, and odd table on p18 which seems to say almost nothing.

 

[ResslynHalvik]

If anyone with both Sword World's and the FC who understands the FC rules can show me how to recreate the Aluksen Ase, that would be fab

 

[hopsnbaer]

Oh, that's not how I have interpreted the FC rules at all. Where are you finding the rule that the number of dice equals the AP rating? Also, I don't see your rule that an assault barrel reduces AP, just two contradictory statements (pages 43 and 43) about whether it reduces damage.

All I can see about penetration and AP are the table on p39, the ammunition types on pp50-52, and odd table on p18 which seems to say almost nothing.

CSC update page 178 - ARMOUR PIERCING
These rounds are pointed projectiles of dense or very
hard material designed to punch through armour. AP
ammunition provides a weapon with an AP trait equal to
the number of damage dice it rolls. If the weapon already
has the AP trait, this is added to the final AP score.

 

[hopsnbaer]

Oh, that's not how I have interpreted the FC rules at all. Where are you finding the rule that the number of dice equals the AP rating? Also, I don't see your rule that an assault barrel reduces AP, just two contradictory statements (pages 43 and 43) about whether it reduces damage.

All I can see about penetration and AP are the table on p39, the ammunition types on pp50-52, and odd table on p18 which seems to say almost nothing.

I would copy a similar gun with similar stats from the CSC or Core without the AP trait and give the gun AP ammo out of the CSC. It is how I am dealing with the Assault Weapons in the new Armies of the Fifth Frontier that don't have the AP trait. Although I don't really like the AP trait stacking.

 

[Arkathan]

... I'll leave it up to Mongoose writers to decide what they MUST and MUST NOT do...

Fair enough. Even the SCOTUS affirmed the right of people to make fools of themselves.
A system that is published should work, and should be used by the writers. Otherwise, all involved look foolish.

 

[agentwigggles]

If anyone with both Sword World's and the FC who understands the FC rules can show me how to recreate the Aluksen Ase, that would be fab

very likely not possible
even if it is, its def. not worth the time to figure it out
Just reduce the weight and make it a new gun.

 

[Condottiere]

Field Catalogue rules are hit or miss.

As regards armour piercing, it's dependent on muzzle velocity, size of ammunition, and a minimum hardness of the ammunition, which isn't covered in the book.

Greater muzzle velocity, plus increased size of ammunition, means greater recoil.

Then, you can configure the ammunition itself to have greater penetration, which would be either discarding sabot/elongated dart, jet of molten metal, or a very hard/heavy cone.

Easier at one hundred twenty millimetres, than twelve.

 

[MonsterX]

Oh, that's not how I have interpreted the FC rules at all. Where are you finding the rule that the number of dice equals the AP rating? Also, I don't see your rule that an assault barrel reduces AP, just two contradictory statements (pages 43 and 43) about whether it reduces damage.

All I can see about penetration and AP are the table on p39, the ammunition types on pp50-52, and odd table on p18 which seems to say almost nothing.

The table on p18 is key - it tells how to calculate base AP from penetration. You need a +1 penetration, and the only way you can get that (as far as I can tell) is using AP rounds (on p52). The reduced AP for assault barrels is from p42 - it reduces damage dice, which means it ultimately reduces AP because you get 1 fewer damage dice.