4e Mechanics & Rules Discussion

[Spartan-117]

Obviously if we change the mechanics of the RAW we change what is optimal.

[Tegyrius]

I don't want a universal optimal weapon. I want different weapons to be optimal for different situations and roles. Keeping the hefty penalty to hip-firing MGs while making them less prone to RUD when being used as intended feels like a reasonable balance to propose. It keeps infantry rifles the best choice for the maneuver element without penalizing your MG team for doing that base of fire thing.

At least, that's the intent.

- C.

[unipus]

I haven't examined this issue in detail yet but it seems like the easy fix is to give MGs a limited ability to ignore 1s on ammo dice - possibly ignore the first X 1s, where X equals half of current Reliability, rounded up (so at Reliability 5, you'd have to roll four 1s to affect Reliability and five 1s to jam - not counting any 1s on your base attack dice). This would reflect their designed capability for reliable sustained automatic fire in a better way than just pointing to the action economy advantage of belt feed.

They still have the disadvantages of encumbrance, reduced performance when hip-fired, and high consumption of your most precious natural resource (i.e., lead).

- C.

That's interesting and could work. As you've written it I think it's a bit too charitable (I don't think I would ever want to let it get beyond ignoring 1 or 2 mishaps, at the most) but there's something to it. Of course then you've got to think of how it affects the pushing issue. If I know I won't jam until I roll 3 or 4 mishaps I probably push almost every roll.

I don't like introducing MORE rolling usually, but something like "you may re-roll even dice showing mishaps when you push" could also do the trick. That could be limited as well. "You may re-roll up to 1 die showing a mishap when you push (or 2 if your weapon is in perfect condition)" or something. Still a chance that you then roll more mishaps, but it's a nice distinct boost to the MG that differentiates it. Dunno, just thinking out loud. I don't like how I'd have to handle this over Foundry, but, eh.

[Heffe]

The "Keeping Watch" piece makes some sense to me due to opposed rolls being made, but I'm not sure about the mg ROF - agreed that that feels like a mistake/oversight. Maybe if it wasn't just an oversight, it was to simulate barrels heating or something Just a thought.

My concerns with the mechanics lean more toward the armor/explosions mechanics and AT round mechanics. The 4e covers most stuff pretty well, but there are some distinct areas where I feel like the mechanics are a tough fit - for instance, grenades counting as heavy weapons. It feels like they got shoehorned into heavy weapons based on the authors not wanting the system to be overly crunchy, but I think they should have had their own ruleset. As it stands today, unless you get hit directly with a grenade, which is fairly uncommon, and you're wearing body armor, small explosions aren't going to do much. In other words, that +1 armor modifier plus the bare minimum of armor combines to make some funky game elements. For instance, a player wearing a flak vest could be hit square in the chest with a 25mm HE round. With only a single success on the dice, that round likely isn't going to do much more than knock the player down.

Kinetic penetrators are the other area where I have some concerns, and their relevance against HEAT rounds. Right now there's no functional reason to take AP rounds in the higher calibers, because HEAT does everything that AP does, only it also adds explosion mechanics. There's no reason a penetrating HEAT round should risk killing the entire crew of a vehicle, while a penetrating AP round may only barely scratch one of the crew.

[Spartan-117]

For instance, a player wearing a flak vest could be hit square in the chest with a 25mm HE round. With only a single success on the dice, that round likely isn't going to do much more than knock the player down.

Doesn't everyone in the 10 meter hex have to roll 1 damage die if a blast D explosive round hits someone in that hex If the blast inflicts damage, they then roll hit location, with only head and torso being common armor locations

[Spartan-117]

this supplement (yes, it's a bit overpriced for what it is, but full of good stuff) has an optional rule that has solved the issue for me, I think.

I downloaded this earlier and it looks like a very nice addition. I appreciate that the author corrected a few issues post publication and updated the version with the changes. It's nice to see continuing support for products at DTRPG. I like the move to fractional EU for the rifles as well (0.75, 1.25, etc.).

[unipus]

I'm with you on the rest. I actually had to look up the 25mm stats and you're right, it's wacky. 4 damage, 3 crit, but hitting somewhere with even 1 armor will drop it to 1 base damage. The hex would also be subject to a D blast I think but that also might not do much. It could potentially be hit by ROF 4 of D blasts, I forget how the rules handle that. If it's anything less than "everyone there is hurt real bad" though it's not a very effective rule.

There's no reason a penetrating HEAT round should risk killing the entire crew of a vehicle, while a penetrating AP round may only barely scratch one of the crew.

This part, though... penetrating HEAT can and should do more damage than AP. The issue that the HEAT probably has much less chance of doing so to begin with... something which is definitely simplified out of existence here.

[Raellus]

BOOM and Bust

As it stands today, unless you get hit directly with a grenade, which is fairly uncommon, and you're wearing body armor, small explosions aren't going to do much.

But what about the limbs They can still take considerable damage from small explosions (like 40mm HE grenades), no

Body armor, even older stuff like flak vest and steel helmets, was designed primarily to protect the wearer from shrapnel (more so than bullets), so what you described re protection of body armor v. small explosions seems pretty reasonable/realistic.

Luckily for most player parties (and the Ref's that have to track all this stuff), most Soviet soldiers c.1996 weren't equipped with body armor (other than a steel helmet).

But yeah, a 25mm HE round to the torso, even a torso clad in PAGST or plate carrier vest, should result in a high probability kill just from the kinetic energy of the impact (pre-explosion), IMHO.

-

[Adm.Lee]

About MGs and ROFs and what makes MGs different from rifles: doesn't this follow from v1 rules There's not much special in v1 about MGs, other than range and belts for ammo.

unipus' "recoil limit" sounds very interesting here; dunno if I could get my typical group to remember that, though.


Something that bothered me for a bit, until I gave it more thought. One of the suggestions for NPCs is that a GM shouldn't bother to track hit locations and hit points for an NPC, just suppress 'em. That led to the obvious question: "Are NPCs immortal, then"

But then, I realized one can run NPCs as a group, not as individuals-- pretend it's a whole team/squad/section that's in the hex, and suppression can spread to the whole group. It's a little like playing Squad Leader: the goal really isn't to score a KIA on the enemy, it's to get them to fail those Morale Checks so they stop shooting at you.

That said, I haven't played any more after this revelation, so I'm not sure how to carry on from there.

[Raellus]

And Another thing...

About MGs, it seems like the Crit number should be lower than those for assault rifles. Without getting into a debate about the relative merits of various calibers of small arms rounds, it seems like an MG round should do more damage, not less, than an assault rifle round. Therefore, if I'm reading the rules right, an MG's Crit number should be the lower of the two. Am I missing something

EDIT: Duh! MGs have a higher Damage rating, so lowering their Crit score would, arguably, make them OP.

-

[unipus]

Yeah, it's already not hard to score crits with MGs. My issue is just that they don't seem all that different from rifles in play which I think leaves a bit of a hole when it comes to the small unit tactics that are the meat and butter here! (but yes, the same could be said of earlier editions as well)

[Ursus Maior]

About MGs, it seems like the Crit number should be lower than those for assault rifles.

When approaching this, I ask myself this: Does getting hit by a single bullet from a MG make a critical hit more likely And I don't see the reason here.

What I could see is a higher Armor value, since often MGs have longer barrels, so their velocity is higher, thus they penetrate better. But that's slippery slope with a system that sacrifices granularity for speed.

[Raellus]

XP and Increasing Skill Level

Regarding XP and skill progression, I have a clarifying question. IMHO, the rules aren't very clear on this.

To increase a skill level by one step costs a number of XP indicated in the table to the above right. You can only increase a skill level one step at a time. Learning a new skill (at skill level D) costs 5 XP

INCREASING SKILL LEVEL
TARGET LEVEL XP NEEDED
A 20
B 15
C 10
D 5

So, does it cost a TOTAL of 15 XP to advance from D to B, or does it cost 10 to advance from D to B, and then an additional 15 to advance from C to D

I think it's the latter, but I'm not sure. What's your interpretation

-

[Desert Mariner]

So, does it cost a TOTAL of 15 XP to advance from D to B, or does it cost 10 to advance from D to B, and then an additional 15 to advance from C to D

I think it's the latter, but I'm not sure. What's your interpretation

-

I don't have the 4E rules but based strictly on your excerpt, I'd say the cost is:

New Skill (D) = 5
Raise from D to C = +10 (total 15)
Raise from C to B = +15 (total 30)
Raise from B to A = +20 (total 50)

[unipus]

Yes, that's correct.