Spacecraft Damage Scale

[AnotherDilbert]

In the Spacecraft Damage Scale section damage is scaled, but Protection and AP is not. This leads to the absurdity that weapons that can't damage a grav tank (Protection 150), can be lethal danger to dreadnoughts.

E.g.: A 35 t fighter can mount a barbette, or for the same 5 tons 5 fixed mounts of quad Heavy Machine Guns, i.e. 20 HMGs. The HMGs will do 4D + 4 for each additional HMG = 4D + 76 vehicle scale damage. Firing APDS ammunition the attack will have AP12. And ROF3

The fighter attacking a dreadnought at adjacent range will do 3[ROF] * ( (4D+76)/10 - (15[Protection] - 12[AP] ) ≈ 3 * ( 9 - 3 ) = 18 damage.
A grav tank with 150 Protection will shrug off that puny damage.

Furthermore the fighter attacking a dreadnought will probably have a rather good hit chance, which means a substantial chance of critical hits. A few fighters will knock out a dreadnought with critical hits long before it notices the structural damage.

Solution: Scale Protection and AP the same way as damage.

 

[Nerhesi]

In the Spacecraft Damage Scale section damage is scaled, but Protection and AP is not. This leads to the absurdity that weapons that can't damage a grav tank (Protection 150), can be lethal danger to dreadnoughts.

Where is the absurdity? a 2D+4 triple pulse multiplying it's damage by 10. So thats 2D+4+Effect x 10. A particle barbette is 4D+Effect x 10... fusion barbette 5D+Effect x10. After this you subtract protection, so yes - that grav tank can be easily turned into vapour. Protection is subtracted AFTER the damage is multiplied.

AP does not scale because it does not transfer at all. This perhaps needs more clarity.

E.g.: A 35 t fighter can mount a barbette, or for the same 5 tons 5 fixed mounts of quad Heavy Machine Guns, i.e. 20 HMGs. The HMGs will do 4D + 4 for each additional HMG = 4D + 76 vehicle scale damage. Firing APDS ammunition the attack will have AP12. And ROF3

A heavy Machine gun is 4D, +4 for each machine gun after the first. A quad heavy is 4D+12.. where is the +76 coming from?
How does 4D+12 AP12, Auto 3, (28-48 total penetration/dmg per hit) compare to a barbette that is doing 30 to 180 (+effect x 10) per hit?

I have a feeling you erroneously somehow counted the "auto" dice into your quad-linking calculations.

The fighter attacking a dreadnought at adjacent range will do 3[ROF] * ( (4D+76)/10 - (15[Protection] - 12[AP] ) ≈ 3 * ( 9 - 3 ) = 18 damage.
A grav tank with 150 Protection will shrug off that puny damage.

I see the errors compounding here. The incorrect damage calculation plus the assumed AP in vehicle scale magically stays the same in spacecraft scale. In actuality, here is how it is playing out. The fighter firing heavy machine guns at a 15 armour dreadnought:

Even with Maximum damage 48, and a great hit (+5 effect), you have 53 damage. 53 damage / 10 = 5 space scale. 5 - 15 armour = no damage to dreadnought. As it should be - the WW2 era machines guns seem to bounce of the Bonded Superdense armour dreadnought.

Solution: Scale Protection and AP the same way as damage.

Protection doesn't need to scale because damage is multiplied by 10. In fact, there was a significant effort made by several playtesters to ensure there is functionally no difference from the armour you put on a flying grav-tank vs the armour you put on a fighter if they're both using the same material.

The AP issue needs clarity - either to have it scale as per damage rules, or to have it not transfer from personal scale to space scale at all.

However, everything else seems clear as per Core Rulebook, Page 157. Especially:
"Note that the multiplication or division of damage due to scaling is performed after all other modifiers for damage have been applied, including Effect and the Destructive trait."

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I think you misunderstand my calculation. I started with 20 HMG, so 4D + additional 19 * 4 = 4D + 76.

I assumed that traits such as Auto3 and AP12 are unchanged by damage scaling, since the traits are the same in personal combat and space combat and the rules state that they exist, but not that they are removed.

I consider it a bit problematical that 4 HMG will bounce off the dreadnought (or fighter), but 20 HMG will penetrate just fine. But still bounce off the grav tank with the same armour.

I still think that scaling the AP trait will solve the perceived problem. You are entirely correct in that Protection should not scale.

It is a bit inconsistent that effect scales, but the rules are clear and I do not see it as a big problem for space combat. It's more problematical in vehicle combat where a grav tank gunner can 5 damage with a really good hit, but the small craft gunner can add 50 damage with the same hit.

 

[Nerhesi]

I think you misunderstand my calculation. I started with 20 HMG, so 4D + additional 19 * 4 = 4D + 76.

I did misunderstand, because the rules state that up to four such weapons may be mounted for each ton dedicated to them. They will be attached to fixed mounts on any spacecraft of less than 50 tons
. Therefore, the maximum is 4 heavy machine guns (or any weapon) firing at once, and armour would be subtracted from each hit of that "quad-linked weapon". This is a good thing of course and more realistic.

I assumed that traits such as Auto3 and AP12 are unchanged by damage scaling, since the traits are the same in personal combat and space combat and the rules state that they exist, but not that they are removed.
I consider it a bit problematical that 4 HMG will bounce off the dreadnought (or fighter), but 20 HMG will penetrate just fine. But still bounce off the grav tank with the same armour.
I still think that scaling the AP trait will solve the perceived problem. You are entirely correct in that Protection should not scale.

It is a bit inconsistent that effect scales, but the rules are clear and I do not see it as a big problem for space combat. It's more problematical in vehicle combat where a grav tank gunner can 5 damage with a really good hit, but the small craft gunner can add 50 damage with the same hit.

I guess this now a moot point with the above clarity At best, I see quad linked FGMPs doing 2DD+60, so 2D+6 damage in space scale. At best thats significantly worse than a triple pulse laser (same damage, as pulse gets a +2 to hit bonus - but pulse has long range vs adjacent at best for FGMPS), and FGMPs can be screened

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I read the rule differently: "However, up to four such weapons may be mounted for each ton dedicated to them."
Nowhere is it stated that each ton is a separate mount, so if I dedicate 5 tons I may mount 20 HMGs in a single mount?

You get the same problem with AP if you use a single Medium Autocannon 8D, Auto3 AP24 with APDS ammo. If AP is used and not scaled dreadnought armour will be completely ignored. ( 8D + Effect ) / 10 ≈ 3, Auto 3 so average damage 9 * ToHit chance. For a small fighter that is quite a lot better than any single space turret weapon.

Note that 5 autocannons do a lot more damage as separate mounts than as a single 8D+32 mount.

I do not see why the AP trait should be removed, it is still armour piercing ammo and should penetrate a lightly armoured spacecraft, but scaled to not penetrate a heavily armoured warship.

The autocannon (and perhaps a few HMGs) should be a problem for a Type S, but not a dreadnought.

 

[Nerhesi]

I read the rule differently: "However, up to four such weapons may be mounted for each ton dedicated to them."
Nowhere is it stated that each ton is a separate mount, so if I dedicate 5 tons I may mount 20 HMGs in a single mount?

Actually, literally, in that same line that is exactly state... here it is:
"However, up to four such weapons may be mounted for each ton dedicated to them. They will be attached to fixed mounts on any spacecraft of less than 50 tons, and small pop-up turrets operated from a remote station on larger ships."

Each grouping is it's own fixed mount or small pop-up turret. Each mount or turret is a separate attack roll. Even without this line it is still self evident - but nonetheless, there it is! (you can also see the CSC rules on quad-linked weapons on battle dress. Up to 4-weapons can be mounted together to make one attack roll).

You get the same problem with AP if you use a single Medium Autocannon 8D, Auto3 AP24 with APDS ammo. If AP is used and not scaled dreadnought armour will be completely ignored. ( 8D + Effect ) / 10 ≈ 3, Auto 3 so average damage 9 * ToHit chance. For a small fighter that is quite a lot better than any single space turret weapon.

Note that 5 autocannons do a lot more damage as separate mounts than as a single 8D+32 mount.
I do not see why the AP trait should be removed, it is still armour piercing ammo and should penetrate a lightly armoured spacecraft, but scaled to not penetrate a heavily armoured warship.
The autocannon (and perhaps a few HMGs) should be a problem for a Type S, but not a dreadnought.

Ok - you really gotta forget about the AP not being scaled. That simply isn't happening. I know it is unclear but AP carrying over from personal/ground scale simply isn't happening. It is either not going to carry over at all, or will be divided by 10. Wait on Matt to chime in here - and yes I agree we need to clarify which approach it will be in the rules. (It just definitely wont be the nonsense AP simply carries over as is - lol)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

OK, great, AP is going to be clarified (nerfed).

I think "group into battery" for Smaller Weapons needs clarification. The RAW does not explicitly state what you say they should say. Nothing in the Smaller Weapons text box says that each ton of weapon is a separate fixed mount. Perhaps it should.

 

[Nerhesi]

OK, great, AP is going to be clarified (nerfed).

I think "group into battery" for Smaller Weapons needs clarification. The RAW does not explicitly state what you say they should say. Nothing in the Smaller Weapons text box says that each ton of weapon is a separate fixed mount. Perhaps it should.

...

Thats exactly what RAW states in that box, and I've what I've quoted above

"However, up to four such weapons may be mounted for each ton dedicated to them. They will be attached to fixed mounts on any spacecraft of less than 50 tons, and small pop-up turrets operated from a remote station on larger ships."

It clearly states that you mount for each ton dedicated to 4 weapons... So thats mounting PER ton. Then it goes on to define the mount as either a fixed mount or a small pop-up turret. This clearly indicates by RAW that each 4 group of weapons is a separate "mounting".

It does not say, in any way, that multiple mounts of those 4-grouped weapons, will be mounted all together on one fixed mount or one small pop-up turret. The collective predicate (they will be attached) is in every way still concerning a mounting of a dedicate ton (also known as 4 weapons or less). Further clarity is provided by the line "attached to fixed mounts... and small pop-up turrets". This clearly indicates, as well, that 1-ton dedicates groups are attached to multiple mounts, not a single mount for all of them.

Ugh - flashbacks of analytical logic

 

[AnotherDilbert]

OK, I accept that is should mean that, but I cannot see it clearly. I still request a rewrite for clarity.

The rules for grouping weapons is stated as a characteristic of Turrets and Fixed Mounts (the kind that uses hardpoints), so Small Weapons should perhaps not be grouped at all.

 

[FallingPhoenix]

"However, up to four such weapons may be mounted for each ton dedicated to them. They will be attached to fixed mounts on any spacecraft of less than 50 tons, and small pop-up turrets operated from a remote station on larger ships."

For what it's worth, I could see that sentence meaning what you've stated, Nerhesi, but I could also easily read it as an unspecified number of mounts for an unspecified number of weapons. What I mean is, to me, it's not clear and unequivocal that 1 ton = 1 mount. I could easily pull 1 mount per weapon out of that statement, for example.

A simple fix would be "Each ton of weapons will be attached to a fixed mount on any spacecraft of less than 50 tons, and a small pop-up turret operated from a remote station on larger ships." Now it's completely clear and unequivocal (I think ).

 

[Nerhesi]

Simple enough