Shrapnel Issue #1 Sniper Rifles for TW

[Daryk]

Here are the TW stats for the Sniper Rifles just published in Shrapnel Issue #1.  Six of them suffer damage reduction due to the Reload Factor as a consequence of having less than 10 shots in their magazines.  All six can be easily fixed with the "Expanded Capacity" weapon modification on page 161 of the AToW Companion, which is why I included the "No RLF" column in the table.  Below the table, I'll discuss implications for infantry squad/platoon design.

Code: [Select]

Name Shots AP BD TW Dmg No RLF Crew AToW Rng TW Range
Lancelot Mk V 10 4 4 0.28 1 125 4
Barton AMR (Std) 8 5 7 0.49 0.61 1E 200 7
Barton AMR (AA) 8 6 7 0.59 0.74 1E 200 7
Sairentosutomu 8 4 4 0.22 0.28 1 150 5
Yuan Ling 10 4 4 0.28 1 205 7
Hammel Marksman 12 4 4 0.28 1 130 4
Thorshammer 10 4 4 0.28 1 175 6
SR-17 Suns Killler 15 4 5 0.35 1 150 5
Praetorian S-3 10 5 5 0.44 1E 145 5
Praetorian S-5 10 5 6 0.53 1E 150 5
LRS-53 Sniper Rifle 9 4 4 0.25 0.28 1 140 5
Wilimton RS-14 10 4 5 0.35 1 160 5
Wilimton RS-17 (MD) 10 5 6 0.53 1 175 6
Wilimton RS-17 (Str) 10 5 6 0.53 1 170 6
FNF-J12 (Dark Caste) 8 4 6 0.34 0.42 1 150 5
FNF-J12 (SLDF) 8 4 6 0.34 0.42 1 175 6
Five of the weapons exceed the damage of the bog standard Auto Rifle (0.52; four of them do it even without extended magazines).  None of them exceed the damage of the various Mausers or infamous Federated Arms M42B, so if you have access to those, the way to go is two Sniper Rifles per squad.  If you don't, a single Heavy Grenade Launcher with the rest being Sniper Rifles will maximize your damage and range without impacting your mobility.

Of note, all exceed the Intek Laser Rifle in damage AND range, and most exceed the Mark XX and ER Laser Rifles too.  Most of them are also cheaper than any flavor of Laser.

The absolute most damage that can be done combines Taurian organization with 2 Extended Capacity Barton AMRs firing Anti-Armor rounds and 8 Mauser IICs per squad for damage of 12.43 per squad (rounding to 37 per platoon) at 7/14/21 hex range with no mobility reduction.  This is still inferior to the Support Laser (ER, Heavy Clan) and leaves the Bearhunter as the undisputed king of support weapon damage, though both of those impose a mobility restriction (and the latter has much shorter range).  Paul was right about this aspect of these weapons not being unbalancing (or at least no more so than existing Support Weapons).

I don't know if the various to hit bonuses apply in TW, but if they do, these weapons become extraordinarily powerful (fortunately, the Barton doesn't have those kind of bonuses).  I have left those off the table with a view toward only posting the numbers needed to check the math of the conversions.  See Shrapnel #1 (pages 74-81; that's 75-82 of the pdf file) if you want the whole story.

EDIT: Missed the "Encumbering" note on the Praetorians.  Fixed now.

[Liam's Ghost]

From a fluffy standpoint I think the Taurian rifle is probably the most threatening. All the other guns you'd expect to see in rare special units, while the fluff for the Suns Killer says it's one of the most common military rifles in the Concordat. Not many states can boast planetary militia platoons with light infantry mobility and large laser range.

[Daryk]

And it's 5 points of damage per squad (15 per platoon) with nine of those and one Heavy Grenade Launcher, too.  At the aforementioned 5/10/15 range...

[Dave Talley]

is that normal mech hexes?

or the old human scale hexes for roleplaying?

[Daryk]

The AToW ranges are in meters, and the "TW Range" gives the Short Range in normal 30m hexes.  Yes, some of these rifles have LRM range (with no minimum).  The conversion process from AToW Companion is to take the Short Range in meters, divide by 30, round normally, and that gives the short range in hexes.  Double and triple as normal to get Medium and Long Range (and quadruple for Extreme).

[UnLimiTeD]

Maybe the taurians all have really good eyesight?
Agreed, though, the mode of deployment makes the weapon.

[Daryk]

Well, given its stats, their rifle has a built in scope...  ^-^

[Sartris]

Yes, some of these rifles have LRM range (with no minimum).

[Daryk]

Exploring cost comparisons, I find using 2 Sniper Rifles with Auto Rifles for the rest of the squad is at worst 2 points of damage less at the platoon level than using 1 Heavy Grenade Launcher and Sniper Rifles for the rest.  Several are the same at the squad level.  And it's MUCH cheaper to go that way.  Quick comparison:

5 Auto Rifles and 2 Lancelot Mark Vs per squad: 20 * (2000 * sqrt(80)) + 8 * (2000 * sqrt(400)) = 677,771 for 13 damage

vs.

6 Lancelot Mark Vs and 1 Heavy Grenade Launcher per squad: 24 * (2000 * sqrt(400)) + 4 * (2000 * sqrt(1500)) = 1,269,839 for 14 damage

Plus, most of the Sniper Rifles use the same ammunition as the Auto Rifle (4B/4).

[Maingunnery]

Can any BA with an AP mount use these?

[UnLimiTeD]

If using the rules for that, I don't see why not.
Of course, they are far less impressive on a 4-man squad than a platoon.

[Daryk]

Per Paul's answer to my Rule's question, YES!

[Maingunnery]

If using the rules for that, I don't see why not.
Of course, they are far less impressive on a 4-man squad than a platoon.

Just having the range is a big help in many situations, even if it is just to ping.

[Hellraiser]

I would point out that that option is not for TW level play.

In TW level play you fill those AP mounts &/or Gloves in with Auto Rifle stats (I assume so the BV is accurate).

Now that said, whatever works for your home game or if your playing at the RPG level.

[Daryk]

Tech Manual page 171 doesn't seem to limit it to that:

Battle armor equipped with one or more armored glove manipulators may use one additional non-Melee conventional infantry weapon with crew requirements of less than 2. The weight of this weapon or its ammunition is never counted towards a battlesuit’s weight limits.

[monbvol]

On the same page it also makes no restriction for modular anti-personel weapon mounts, such as those found on the Kanazuchi.

[Daryk]

Am I blind?  I only see a reference to go read page 271...  ???

[monbvol]

There is a section on 171 dealing with modular mounts that can be applied to anti-personel weapons as well, which 170 more directly covers in also not making any restriction that it has to be autorifles.

[Daryk]

Ok... I suppose you could derive that from there, but I'll say page 271 is MUCH clearer:

The rules on p. 218 of Total Warfare presume the battlesuit is mounting a single Auto-Rifle as an AP weapon. At the players’ option, the
damage, ranges and to-hits of alternative anti-personnel weapons types may be found in accordance with Step 2 of the Conventional
Infantry core construction rules (starting on p. 148).

[Hellraiser]

As I said,  Total Warfare rules.   

Not Tech Manual construction rules.

I'm talking canon BA Record Sheets, not create your own options Infantry.

Under TW rules & the fixed BV for canon units, they are counted as being "Rifle/Ballistic" squads.

Ditto the gloves of GDL Scouts, or others.

This goes back to even before TW rules when GDL Scouts were allowed to pick between any of the canon Infantry Platoons & count as a 4 man squad.

Daryk found the rule, its Pg 218 of TW in the Infantry Section & then under BA area & finally in the Anti-Personnel Weapons paragraph.

They are now limited to Rifle/Ballistic where the old GDL let them pick between any of the 5 common weapon options.  (Laser, SRM, Rifle, MG, & Flamer)



Now, again, if you want to create your own platoons for a home game, go for it, equip them any way you want.

I'm just pointing out how they work using canon RS under TW rules for BV balancing.

[Daryk]

Being this entire thread is about infantry weapons from a brand new source, it's not surprising TW doesn't support their use, nor that there aren't any canon record sheets for units employing them (yet).

[Hellraiser]

I really don't think we will get some special BA RS that shows one of these Sniper Rifles, or for that matter, any other weapon in TM, inside the AP mount.

TW has a pretty clear rule, for TW level play, you count them as a Ballistic/Rifle platoon.

Its not even really AR exactly, since the Ballistic/Rifle platoon might have a single squad weapon it its damage table, IDK.

And while I'd love to have my GDL scouts all toting around a Hvy Sup Laser w/ 15 range, that isn't balanced for their BV compared to any other choice someone makes.

Its like letting your custom change your SHS mech into DHS & keep the original BV intact.  (Not that extreme but you get the point)

I get the rule.

And I would happily allow custom infantry in my home games,  I'm just saying slapping any weapon you want into an Elemental's AP mount isn't TW legal or BV balanced.

Its probably not much BV for those different weapons, but, its still BV & a non-canon RS & rules beyond TW.

[monbvol]

Anti-Personnel Weapons: If a battle armor unit carries antipersonnel weapons, follow all the rules for conventional infantry,
using the Rifle, Ballistic column of the Generic Conventional
Infantry Damage Table and the number of active troopers in the
battle armor unit to determine range and assign damage. The
standard rules presume the mounting of a single Auto-Rifle as the
unit’s anti-personnel weapon. At the players’ option, the damage,
ranges and to-hit numbers of alternative anti-personnel weapon
types may be used as per TechManual, page 271. Regardless of the
anti-personnel weapon type or how many anti-personnel weapons
a battle armor unit mounts, the unit can only make one anti-personnel weapon attack in a turn, using only a single anti-personnel
weapon per suit.

There you go, you can expand your options.

[Daryk]

Monbvol, you are my hero...  :smitten:

That said, just so we're all perfectly clear where we each stand: I have always thought (and still think) BV is a completely useless measure, at least as useless as tonnage.  When I use it myself, it's only because the GM of the game in question has set it as a requirement.

OK, that off my chest, please try to keep future conversation focused on these really neat weapons TPTB have given us!  :thumbsup:

[truetanker]

At the players’ option, the damage, ranges and to-hit numbers of alternative anti-personnel weapon types may be used as per TechManual, page 271.

Technically that is not correct...

https://bg.battletech.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/TM_22-Tech-InfTables-Rev2017.pdf

And even this is outdated...

TT

[Daryk]

That errata doesn't address page 271 and has been incorporated into the newest printing, at least far as I can tell.  What exactly is your point? ???

[truetanker]

It's outdated and still in the errata page as ' the ' official weapons listing... so it either needs to go or get replaced.

That's my point...

TT

[Hellraiser]

I have always thought (and still think) BV is a completely useless measure, at least as useless as tonnage.

LOL

Can we test that?   I'll take a TimberWolf-A & you can have an Augustus A-3 Tank.

Or to match tech levels & unit type, I'll take a ThunderBolt-5SE & you can have a Jagermech-6S

BV isn't perfect.  It has a couple areas that even BV2 didn't get right.  But its far better off than any previous method used.

But I think we can agree to disagree & leave it at that.

[monbvol]

It's outdated and still in the errata page as ' the ' official weapons listing... so it either needs to go or get replaced.

That's my point...

TT

Okay so a Tech Manual errata needs to be updated to incorporate new additions of weapons but this doesn't change the fact that Total Warfare corrected sixth printing allows using what they want instead of autorifles.

My pdf is the corrected sixth printing, the latest version of Total Warfare, and just to be sure I checked the December 2019 errata document because it would not have been the first time an errata failed to get incorporated into the pdf, and it has the exact same text that I quoted.

[Daryk]

Hellraiser, I don't know you well enough to make a judgment as to what would be a fair fight between us.  But I'll say at best BV gives us a false impression of what fair would look like.  I suppose that means we disagree, but I'll agree to that.

Errata is out of date the instant it's published.  We shouldn't get wrapped around that particular axle.

Can we PLEASE get back to talking about these cool new Sniper Rifles?  ::)