Mercenary 2nd Edition AP rules vs Central Supply CatalogueAP

[travchao999]

So I had a question. The Mercenary 2nd edition appendix 1 table has different AP stats and rules than the AP rules for weapons given in the Central Supply Catologue. For example, the Gauss weapons have their full-AP taken away. Which book do I use for this.

 

[sideranautae]

So I had a question. The Mercenary 2nd edition appendix 1 table has different AP stats and rules than the AP rules for weapons given in the Central Supply Catologue. For example, the Gauss weapons have their full-AP taken away. Which book do I use for this.

As the GM it's your choice.

 

[Nerhesi]

Technically only some weapons have AP now, and it is not based on the ammunition type. However, that may not sit well with some players..

From a play balance perspective, you absolutely do not need anymore AP. In personal combat, effect adds to the damage you do, so you are frequently penetrating armor - it is actually a little concerning.

 

[travchao999]

Ah okay, I wasn't sure if there was some sort of consensus about this. I do realize that more AP would unbalance things, but it kind of makes sense though. I mean, that's just how things kind of work.

I don't know, I'll have to review and make a decision.

 

[locarno24]

The best answer is "probably Merc 2nd Edition" - there was an extended chew-through of the weapons and armour piercing rules here on the forums, so those are the newer rules published recently as an update, and have had more public debate on them.

That said, your game, your rules.

 

[travchao999]

The best answer is "probably Merc 2nd Edition" - there was an extended chew-through of the weapons and armour piercing rules here on the forums, so those are the newer rules published recently as an update, and have had more public debate on them.

That said, your game, your rules.

I realize that people didn't like the armor piercing rules, and I don't quite remember why, but I like to have variation and options. Also, I mean, it just makes sense for things like gauss to be effective against armor. Is it balanced? Not really at all, but that can be solved by realistically restricting things, also by applying the march of technology. Lower tech level AP bullets will have a harder time piercing higher tech level armor.

I guess I kinda figured out my own question, but I guess I asked more to hear arguments for using both sides to develop my own opinion.

 

[sideranautae]

Also, I mean, it just makes sense for things like gauss to be effective against armor.

Actually. It depends a LOT on the round. There is a reason that the 120mm gun on our MBT doesn't use lead as the projectile with the APFSDS.

 

[travchao999]

Also, I mean, it just makes sense for things like gauss to be effective against armor.

Actually. It depends a LOT on the round. There is a reason that the 120mm gun on our MBT doesn't use lead as the projectile with the APFSDS.

Well I mean, yeah, the reason why gauss is so effective is because the standard gauss rounds are electromagnetically charged needles being accelerated at tremendous velocity. So it makes sense that it should be able to penetrate most armor of equal or lower tech level. The needles are so hard, they can punch through light battle dress. It's like a nail gun firing on construction material.

 

[sideranautae]

The needles are so hard, they can punch through light battle dress. .

THAT is what makes a big difference. AP quality is largely dependent upon projectile properties as well.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I would argue that one of the biggest problems isn't the guns, it's the armour.

TL11 armour should be able to ignore just about anything from TL8 and below (except for heavy weapons) and TL15 should be able to do the same thing for TL11. But the RAW don't do that.

Battle Dress should ignore all small arms fire. That is what it was designed for. Combat Armour, same thing, but at a lower TL.

 

[sideranautae]

I would argue that one of the biggest problems isn't the guns, it's the armour.

TL11 armour should be able to ignore just about anything from TL8 and below (except for heavy weapons) and TL15 should be able to do the same thing for TL11. But the RAW don't do that.

Battle Dress should ignore all small arms fire. That is what it was designed for. Combat Armour, same thing, but at a lower TL.

I agree that it is a major part of the problem. I am currently working on rules apply Armor "TL" multipliers. Although I won't do it by individual TL's but by about 3 TL "Bands". TL 0-3, TL 4-9, TL 10-15. (Combat armor, Super strong space ship armor don't start in my game until TL 10)

Another part of the problem for personal armor is that, other than medieval full plate, there is no full armor until Combat armor comes along. Just torso protection really.

 

[dragoner]

The best answer is "probably Merc 2nd Edition" - there was an extended chew-through of the weapons and armour piercing rules here on the forums, so those are the newer rules published recently as an update, and have had more public debate on them.

That said, your game, your rules.

I realize that people didn't like the armor piercing rules, and I don't quite remember why, but I like to have variation and options. Also, I mean, it just makes sense for things like gauss to be effective against armor. Is it balanced? Not really at all, but that can be solved by realistically restricting things, also by applying the march of technology. Lower tech level AP bullets will have a harder time piercing higher tech level armor.

I guess I kinda figured out my own question, but I guess I asked more to hear arguments for using both sides to develop my own opinion.

I use the rules from the central supply catalog, but really, one can drop all the ammunition rules without there being an effect on the game. You could have the best bullet proof vest, high tech, and it would not mean a thing if you were shot in the head, even from a low tech musket. So it is however you want to play it out, as it is all abstract to a certain degree.

 

[sideranautae]

You could have the best bullet proof vest, high tech, and it would not mean a thing if you were shot in the head, even from a low tech musket. So it is however you want to play it out, as it is all abstract to a certain degree.

Yes, that was one of my points, very poorly worded, immediately above.