Burst-Fire Weapon Damage

[paladin2019]

Reading sarna.net (possibly my first mistake) has raised a question. The entry for the light recoilless rifle, as just one example, states its damage is 2+1d6 anti-infantry damage, combining the basic damage value and the AI damage in the same way a MG platoon would. Is this correct? The entry on TW pg 216 (8th printing) leads me to the conclusion that this weapon only deals 1d6 damage to a conventional infantry platoon.

Any clarification would be helpful.

[Daryk]

Link please?  I don't see what you're talking about on the Light Recoilless Rifle page...

[Calimehter]

I think that is just a formatting thing on Sarna (listing basic weapon damage "plus" any specials like burst damage). 

Your reading of the TW rules seems correct to me, as burst damage is its own entry on the 'non infantry weapon damage against infantry' table, and should not be combined with the other entries on the table (such as 'direct-fire ballistic' like the Recoilless rifles would get if they didn't have the burst ability).

[paladin2019]

Link please?  I don't see what you're talking about on the Light Recoilless Rifle page...

https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Light_Recoilless_Rifle_(Battle_Armor)

Damage: 2 + 1D6 vs. Infantry.

If it's just Sarna's formatting, the "+" should be "or." They mean radically different things.

[Colt Ward]

No, it is like flamers and other AI weapons- you get a base damage + variable amount, in this case it is abstracting the shrapnel from the shells.  Since each point of damage from such a weapon = 1 trooper dead (or damage doubled in the open!), then you can go 3-8 infantry dead from a SINGLE LRR equipped BA (like IS Std LRR) trooper . . . typical squad, gives you the potential to kill 32 troopers w/o the open bonus.

Average is going to be minimum 6 dead up to 15 . . . the upper end of that is going to take a bite out of any regular rifle foot platoon.

[Charistoph]

Except I see no such instruction to do so on Total Warfare pgs 216-217.

Burst-Fire Weapons say to roll the dice listed.  The "Non-Infantry Weapon Damage Against Infantry Table" says "Burst-Fire  See Burst-Fire Weapons above."  The Burst-Fire Weapon Damage vs Conveional Infantry Table says "Light Recoilless Rifle 1D6".

No mention of base damage or Damage Value is stated anywhere here except to say that you use it on Buildings that ConvInf are located in.

The only weapon I know of for doing this is the Plasma Rifle, and that one is a unique system in that regard.

[Daryk]

Huh... I never noticed the BA version was that much different than the infantry version.  I don't know what motivated TPTB to classify the BA versions of Recoilless Rifles as Anti-Infantry weapons when their conventional infantry versions aren't.

[Weirdo]

The 'why' is unknown, but the fact is that it is always a fallacy to assume that a BA weapon and its CI equivalent by the same name will have anything in common.

[Daryk]

Tech Manual also explicitly describes the BA rifles as "anti-armor" weapons (page 268 refers).

[Paul]

The 'why' is unknown, but the fact is that it is always a fallacy to assume that a BA weapon and its CI equivalent by the same name will have anything in common.

Yeah, I want to co-sign on that observation. I think another example of that kind of mistake is the "small laser" on Battle Armor. Those boxes emit 3 damage at 1/2/3 range, but are absolutely not like the 0.5 ton 'Mech weapon at all. They should've gotten a unique name, like 'BA Laser' or whatever.

[Weirdo]

No BA weapon matches its mech-scale or infantry-scale equivalent. The three groups have no overlap.

[paladin2019]

Yeah, I want to co-sign on that observation. I think another example of that kind of mistake is the "small laser" on Battle Armor. Those boxes emit 3 damage at 1/2/3 range, but are absolutely not like the 0.5 ton 'Mech weapon at all. They should've gotten a unique name, like 'BA Laser' or whatever.

Initially, they were. All of the BA weapons were. That was their thing: they mounted 'mech weapons. Over the years, things have become more stratified, but you still use the standard weapon profiles if the weapon isn't on either of the BA special table.

[Weirdo]

They may use the same ranges and deal the same damage, but one look at their masses will tell you that a BattleMech Small Laser and Battle Armor Small Laser are two wildly different beasts, with only the two aforementioned stats in common.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Yeah, I want to co-sign on that observation. I think another example of that kind of mistake is the "small laser" on Battle Armor. Those boxes emit 3 damage at 1/2/3 range, but are absolutely not like the 0.5 ton 'Mech weapon at all. They should've gotten a unique name, like 'BA Laser' or whatever.

IIRC, in fluff it was called a support laser.  They should have stuck with that name.

[Weirdo]

That would have caused the exact same confusion with the infantry-scale support laser, for the exact same reasons.

[Colt Ward]

They may use the same ranges and deal the same damage, but one look at their masses will tell you that a BattleMech Small Laser and Battle Armor Small Laser are two wildly different beasts, with only the two aforementioned stats in common.

Except a lot of the weight for one would be the aiming mechanisms- which we are told- and power/coolant lines- which we are told- that a BA unit does not need on the same scale.  The ARM is the aiming mechanism for many, body mounts a lot would still be the body but you trade power/coolant runs for the equivalent of a T&E.

[Daryk]

The gripe about the Recoilless Rifles specifically is that their own description in Tech Manual says they're anti-armor weapons, but TW has them as anti-infantry ones.

[Charistoph]

The gripe about the Recoilless Rifles specifically is that their own description in Tech Manual says they're anti-armor weapons, but TW has them as anti-infantry ones.

They are kind of set up as both, really, in regards to the rules.  Doing good Damage to both Armor and Infantry for their Range and size.

Realistically, I will admit I was surprised to see them having Rapid-Fire statistics, particularly knowing them from their WWII equivalents.  It's like using a bazooka as an Anti-Infantry weapon.  Sure, it works great against groups in close quarters, but against a group that will be skirmishing to reduce machine gun fire?  They should be less effective.

Still, it could be based on the warhead design, too.  Realistically, they should be like Infantry SRMs against another ConvInf unit unless the ability to carry different Ammo types is allowed.

[paladin2019]

Realistically, I will admit I was surprised to see them having Rapid-Fire statistics, particularly knowing them from their WWII equivalents.  It's like using a bazooka as an Anti-Infantry weapon.  Sure, it works great against groups in close quarters, but against a group that will be skirmishing to reduce machine gun fire?  They should be less effective.

Note that 20+ troopers in a 15m radius is not a skirmishing formation in any sense, and such a formation's resistance to "area-effect"* damage is represented by the +1 modifier to hit smaller units.

*Area-effect in the vernacular sense, not the rules sense, natch.

[Failure16]

Well, a 30 meter hex has 3118 square meters to spread out in. Workable for 28 troopers, since they will each have about 111 square meters each for elbow room (assuming a gymnasium floor). Either way, hexes are decently large places on an interpersonal scale. (They fall apart when you are talking about AFVs and BattleMechs and the engagement/weapon ranges they should have, but that isn't germane.)

Standard dispersion for an infantryman when moving to contact in open terrain can range from three to ten meters and under fire they still will be in that range (since they will be prone or close to it behind whatever cover or concealment they can find). Fire teams will often be very close together internally, and squads pretty close, and the next squad kinda close (those are all scientific measurements, by the way ).

Disregarding rules, I personally consider recoilless rifles as anti-armor--or at least point-target--weapons. Even with fancy futuristic flechette/beehive/AP rounds, they won't be dismantling infantry platoons in job lots. But this one is at the bottom of my concerns for BattleTech infantry-related rules.

[idea weenie]

Well, a 30 meter hex has 3118 square meters to spread out in. Workable for 28 troopers, since they will each have about 111 square meters each for elbow room (assuming a gymnasium floor). Either way, hexes are decently large places on an interpersonal scale. (They fall apart when you are talking about AFVs and BattleMechs and the engagement/weapon ranges they should have, but that isn't germane.)

Standard dispersion for an infantryman when moving to contact in open terrain can range from three to ten meters and under fire they still will be in that range (since they will be prone or close to it behind whatever cover or concealment they can find). Fire teams will often be very close together internally, and squads pretty close, and the next squad kinda close (those are all scientific measurements, by the way ).

Disregarding rules, I personally consider recoilless rifles as anti-armor--or at least point-target--weapons. Even with fancy futuristic flechette/beehive/AP rounds, they won't be dismantling infantry platoons in job lots. But this one is at the bottom of my concerns for BattleTech infantry-related rules.

This should also mean that if you have a lot of infantry in a hex (above standard stacking limits) then either your AI shots will be more accurate to hit anything, or your AI shots will do more damage per hit.  So above a certain number of infantry in a hex you have extra AI damage being done (i.e. using Mechs with MGs vs a riot composed of people packed 1 per square meter, or 3118 779 per hex).

[Charistoph]

Well, a 30 meter hex has 3118 square meters to spread out in. Workable for 28 troopers, since they will each have about 111 square meters each for elbow room (assuming a gymnasium floor). Either way, hexes are decently large places on an interpersonal scale. (They fall apart when you are talking about AFVs and BattleMechs and the engagement/weapon ranges they should have, but that isn't germane.)

Funny, I get 779.4m² in a hex with a Short Diagonal of 30m.  That translates to just under 26m² per soldier if no one else is there.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/hexagon

Note that 20+ troopers in a 15m radius is not a skirmishing formation in any sense, and such a formation's resistance to "area-effect"* damage is represented by the +1 modifier to hit smaller units.

*Area-effect in the vernacular sense, not the rules sense, natch.

Two problems. 

It's not a 15m Radius, but a 17.32m Radius.  The 15m is the Apothem (according to the omnicalculator I'm using to get a hexes square meterage).

You're assuming the weapon has notable area of affect.  Most anti-armor weaponry used was to be anti-Armor.  While there was an explosion, it tended to be more focused than a mortar round is.  While I don't doubt setting up ammo for it to be Anti-Personell is possible, they wouldn't be the same shot any more than a standard SRM round would be.

[Failure16]

Yeah, your numbers are right. My apologies. Doesn't change the supposition that there is more than enough space for an infantry platoon to spread out normally, especially in depth.

[paladin2019]

Funny, I get 779.4m² in a hex with a Short Diagonal of 30m.  That translates to just under 26m² per soldier if no one else is there.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/hexagon

That gives each trooper a circular area with a radius of ~2.6m ~2.9m*. That is barely enough to stay the standard minimum 5m away from every other trooper and not enough to have proper dispersion between elements. It's tight.



*fat-fingered the keypad, sorry.

[Charistoph]

That gives each trooper a circular area with a radius of ~2.6m ~2.9m*. That is barely enough to stay the standard minimum 5m away from every other trooper and not enough to have proper dispersion between elements. It's tight.

Not as tight as what marched in the early 1800s, and again, it depends on what's shooting at them.  An anti-Armor round may pink mist a guy and a couple behind him if it's using a penetrating rod, but only give tinnitus to the guys left and right of him.  While a frag grenade would have better probabilities for casualties due to it being designed for anti-personnel.

[Failure16]

Tight but doable. Ten meters between troopers in a team and then again for the SL and other fire-team is standard today and since a long while. But, well, people bunch up, and when they are taking cover, they tend to bunch up even more. In MOUT, there will be times you'll be rubbing right up against your buddy, whether you like him or her or not.

Infantry platoons have been using frontages for attack and defense of about a hundred meters since WWII. When moving in column, an infantry platoon will likely only be about twenty meters wide (if even that, but possibly a hundred long). Intervals may well ideally be 5-10 meters from the next trooper, but the teams will almost certainly be in wedges and therefore staggered. And sure, squads will probably have about 20m separating them.

But this isn't the real world. "BattleTech" started with squads as their lowest-level infantry element (in BattleDroids) but quickly went up to platoons by the time most players saw them in a ruleset (in CityTech). They have little to no concept of platoon or company organizations, ranking structures, combined arms within an infantry-specific context, or how nearly anything else infantry-related works since the introduction of firearms and explosives. An infantry platoon (or two, if you want to play those odds) fits in a hex tactically in the BTU, and that's just the way it is.

EDIT:

I've attached a very quick scale drawing of a hex and four seven-trooper squad columns with teams in wedges. The circles are 2.5m diameter. Little way to get modern Western infantry standard intervals between troopers and squads, but there is room to move around a little bit.

Daryk is right. The initial image was wrong, so there is considerably less room. Twenty-eight troopers fit, but there is no pretension of anything other than a parade-ground formation using five meter-plus intervals for elbow room.


So, tight, yes. That is the truth.

[Daryk]

By eye, I'm estimating those circles to be 2.5 meters in diameter... are you sure about them being 5m? ???

[paladin2019]

Not as tight as what marched in the early 1800s, and again, it depends on what's shooting at them.  An anti-Armor round may pink mist a guy and a couple behind him if it's using a penetrating rod, but only give tinnitus to the guys left and right of him.  While a frag grenade would have better probabilities for casualties due to it being designed for anti-personnel.

And a light recoilless rifle does how much AI damage (and why I'm asking the question in the first place)? An extra 2 on top of the 1d6 seems a bit excessive.

[Daryk]

TW page 217 says just 1d6.

[paladin2019]

Back to the OP. Is Sarna repeatedly giving bad interpretations of the rules when it posts AI weapons' damage as "X + YD6 vs. infantry" rather than changing the "+" to an "or"?

[Daryk]

I believe so, based on the above page reference in TW.

[Hellraiser]

Yes, its 2 Damage v/s ARMOR,   OR,   1D6 Burst against Conventional Infantry

Sarna is wrong,  TW is Right.

It is Not the 3-8 range figure mentioned previously.

[Charistoph]

And a light recoilless rifle does how much AI damage (and why I'm asking the question in the first place)? An extra 2 on top of the 1d6 seems a bit excessive.

And yet, it is the same as an Elemental's Machine Gun.

Yes, its 2 Damage v/s ARMOR,   OR,   1D6 Burst against Conventional Infantry

Sarna is wrong,  TW is Right.

Or Sarna is just not presenting it in a way we're reading it properly, such as "It does 2 Damage vs Armor and 1D6 versus Infantry.".  It is lacking in proper separation to be properly parsed.

Either way, Sarna isn't a proper rule source, the book is.  Always confirm with the book when available.

[idea weenie]

Yes, its 2 Damage v/s ARMOR,   OR,   1D6 Burst against Conventional Infantry

Sarna is wrong,  TW is Right.

It is Not the 3-8 range figure mentioned previously.

Does anyone on this thread have Edit authority on Sarna so it can be corrected?  Or know who to contact who does have Edit authority?

[paladin2019]

Everyone has edit authority, it's an open wiki. That's part of the problem.

[paladin2019]

And yet, it is the same as an Elemental's Machine Gun.

And the same methodology as conventional infantry MGs, which have an explicit rule that they deal their cluster damage roll plus 1d6 to other conventional infantry. Because they are engaged in grazing fires and such, making them ersatz area-effect weapons.

[Charistoph]

And the same methodology as conventional infantry MGs, which have an explicit rule that they deal their cluster damage roll plus 1d6 to other conventional infantry. Because they are engaged in grazing fires and such, making them ersatz area-effect weapons.

Umm... I don't think so.  The Damage isn't automatically doubled, for one.

Your basic missile-less Elemental or Inner Sphere Battle Armor would do a Cluster Roll to see how many of the Machine Guns hit, than that number of D6 would be rolled for the Damage.

Their Anti-Personnel weapons could be used like a regular Conventional Infantry Rifle Squad, so...

Or were you meaning that one does 2 sets of rolls to attack the Conventional infantry?

Either way, a Machine Gun sends a hail of bullets down range and usually spreads it around.  They tend to not be explosive.  Meanwhile a Recoilless Rifle is technically explosive, but not necessarily a fragmenting one to hit fleshies in a wide area due to the need to focus its explosion to penetrate Armor.

[paladin2019]

A machine gun platoon attacking conventional infantry makes its cluster roll to determine its damage as normal and then adds 1d6 to that. It deals anywhere from 2 to 23 damage to another conventional infantry unit, depending on size and rolls.

[Hellraiser]

And yet, it is the same as an Elemental's Machine Gun.

To be clear.

How much are you saying the Elemental MG does?

The way you respond seems to imply that you feel the MG does 3-8?

No Mech Scale Weapon does Damage + Burst Damage, that I know of.    Closest is the Plasma Rifle that does Damage + Heat.
Every other Mech/BA weapon listing is Armor Damage,  OR,  Burst Damage w/ the Burst Damage listed as +XD6, but its not actually PLUS damage.

[Hellraiser]

A machine gun platoon attacking conventional infantry makes its cluster roll to determine its damage as normal and then adds 1d6 to that.

This sounds right, but its also the exception to mech/ba weapons that are Damage or Burst, not Damage + Burst.

[Daryk]

What's not clear is if Squads (when using Squad Deployment rules) get the 1d6 or not.  Does it take 8 Machine Guns to get the +1d6, or something less (i.e., 2 per Squad)?  The answer to that raises all kinds of questions about BA, and gets weirder when you realize a full Platoon reduced to one trooper still gets the +1d6...

[Charistoph]

A machine gun platoon attacking conventional infantry makes its cluster roll to determine its damage as normal and then adds 1d6 to that. It deals anywhere from 2 to 23 damage to another conventional infantry unit, depending on size and rolls.

Which is not the same methodology that Battle Armor use.

To be clear.

How much are you saying the Elemental MG does?

It does according to the chart, and both do 1D6.

The way you respond seems to imply that you feel the MG does 3-8?

Only if you've skipped previous comments.  I understood this to be a BA's Light Recoilless Rifle and a BA's Machine Gun.

[Hellraiser]

What's not clear is if Squads (when using Squad Deployment rules) get the 1d6 or not.  Does it take 8 Machine Guns to get the +1d6, or something less (i.e., 2 per Squad)?  The answer to that raises all kinds of questions about BA, and gets weirder when you realize a full Platoon reduced to one trooper still gets the +1d6...

Hmm, good question.
I don't play w/ squads but I'd be inclined to rule 4d6 as OP & say NO.
Or at least nerf it & say every squad gets a flat +1 damage boost to mimic the D6 rolling a 3-4 based on # of squads in the platoon.

[Daryk]

If you could have six squads of 5 in a platoon, I'd agree 100%...

As it is, I think that reduces the damage unnecessarily... :/

[Hellraiser]

As it is, I think that reduces the damage unnecessarily... :/

How?   A single D6 will average 3.5 damage.

3-4 Squads (Jump v/s Other) will do 3 or 4 damage across all squads.

To me, leaving it as +D6 per Squad is a huge boost for an already OP/Cheesy tactic of using Squad Deployment.

[Daryk]

But each squad has to make its own to hit roll, so it's not really +xd6 damage.

[paladin2019]

Also, the squad deployment rules don't say the squad weighs any less than the platoon, so there's that. And the rule is that MG platoons deal extra damage. Squads =/= platoons.

[Colt Ward]

Also, the squad deployment rules don't say the squad weighs any less than the platoon, so there's that. And the rule is that MG platoons deal extra damage. Squads =/= platoons.

Huh?  That is the point of the Goblin's 1t infantry bay, same with some VTOLs.

[Hellraiser]

But each squad has to make its own to hit roll, so it's not really +xd6 damage.

That isn't any different than the # of Miss/Hit you get w/ a Platoon over time.

X is the # of Hits

End result is each TURN in the game you would have 3-4x as many chances at +D6.

Like I said, I'd call it a single point to each squad, or, allow a single squad to have the bonus each turn before it makes the to hit roll.

Squad Rules are already broken, no reason to add to the OP of it.

[Hellraiser]

Huh?  That is the point of the Goblin's 1t infantry bay, same with some VTOLs.

And you know, The entire original APC line  :)

I don't have a problem w/ squads, just the way the split up rules gave them a TMM bonus w/o putting that into the BV calc.

To me if you want to field squads you should just build them as short platoons w/o any bonus.

I also wouldn't have given MGs a flat +1D6 bonus when you have platoon sizes that vary.

Instead give them a %% Bonus to the entire platoon, like 10-20% &/or a bonus damage per weapon w/ the burst.  (+1 Per Support MG in AI Damage)
So 2nd damage value, like,  24 points v/s Armor,  28 v/s Infantry,  etc etc.

[paladin2019]

Huh?  That is the point of the Goblin's 1t infantry bay, same with some VTOLs.

Because when infantry was introduced to the game, they had tonnage equivalents but not weights. The original APCs and such had 7 man capacities rather than weight capacities and you were expected to figure out that a platoon could be split across four of them and reconstituted at the far end. Tonnage was the balancing mechanism for battles and so infantry platoons were generally considered equal to light 'mechs. See CityTech. If you want lighter infantry units that can fit in those bays, you build them via TM. Trust me, I use enough infantry that I would love it if I could get light units via squad deployment.

TL;DR, those 1t infantry bays are current implementations of legacy rules.

[Hellraiser]

those 1t infantry bays are current implementations of legacy rules.

Actually, now I'm curious, when was the last time a 1-Ton bay was seen in a TRO.
I can think of stuff from the 80's, maybe early 90's.
But I think most newer TROs have all gone to full bays, in many cases multi-platoon bays.

[Daryk]

Tech Manual page 155 gives weight per trooper.  And it's been some time since TPTB acknowledged the Taurians exist (squads can be TEN troopers).  This shouldn't be hard.

[Charistoph]

Actually, now I'm curious, when was the last time a 1-Ton bay was seen in a TRO.
I can think of stuff from the 80's, maybe early 90's.
But I think most newer TROs have all gone to full bays, in many cases multi-platoon bays.

I can't say, but a quick MML search gives the Packrat, the APC line, the Wheeled Scout, Goblin, Ignis, Cellco Ranger, Fury Command, J-37 Ordnance Transport, RRV 'Rock Rover', Thang-Ta, MASH truck, and Phalanx Prototype before getting in to the Unofficial lines.

Tech Manual page 155 gives weight per trooper.  And it's been some time since TPTB acknowledged the Taurians exist (squads can be TEN troopers).  This shouldn't be hard.

And Marians can be 25.

[paladin2019]

Tech Manual page 155 gives weight per trooper.  And it's been some time since TPTB acknowledged the Taurians exist (squads can be TEN troopers).  This shouldn't be hard.

It's one thing when building a squad with TM. TO's squad deployment rules provide you with three or four 7-man squads and no weight reduction, full stop. So your full-strength Taurian foot platoon using these rules is now four 7-man squads, each of which weighing 3 tons. (It also means a generic Jump SRM platoon consists of three 7-man squads weighing 4 tons each.) The rule is not comprehensive; if you want more granularity, discuss it with your opponent.

Addendum: if you consider this silly, consider that a Locust swarmed by two Level Is of BA has no speed reduction carrying the extra 12 tons, but an Atlas carrying a 4-ton IS BA squad mounting mag fists loses 1 walking MP. There are abstractions in the game.

[Daryk]

Then clearly there needs to be errata.

[Failure16]

The infantry rules in their entirety need to be drug out into the street and shot down like the dogs they are. The infantry rules have changed probably more than anything else in the game, so the precedent to change them is alive and well.

[Daryk]

Agreed! :)

[Colt Ward]

I can't say, but a quick MML search gives the Packrat, the APC line, the Wheeled Scout, Goblin, Ignis, Cellco Ranger, Fury Command, J-37 Ordnance Transport, RRV 'Rock Rover', Thang-Ta, MASH truck, and Phalanx Prototype before getting in to the Unofficial lines.

So . . . the Thang-Ta and Phalanx are the most recent designs with 1t bay IIRC.

Also, the Condottiere . . .