Anti-armour weapons in AToW?

[nonex]

Hello, I'm new to CBT, but mainly interested in the universe and the roleplaying aspect.

I was looking at the AToW rules and couldn't figure out how an infantryman character is supposed to do meaningful damage to an armoured vehicle or BA. I'm not saying a grunt should be able to destroy either in one hit, but surely a PC should be able to do something to make the player feel like he's contributing. It just doesn't feel the same when you have to have an entire squad firing LAWs simultaneously to destroy one BA. The heavy recoilless rifle also seems to be pretty useless using the AToW conversion rules.

Am I getting something wrong or does the inclusion of armoured vehicles break the game somewhat?

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Hello, I'm new to CBT, but mainly interested in the universe and the roleplaying aspect.

I was looking at the AToW rules and couldn't figure out how an infantryman character is supposed to do meaningful damage to an armoured vehicle or BA. I'm not saying a grunt should be able to destroy either in one hit, but surely a PC should be able to do something to make the player feel like he's contributing. It just doesn't feel the same when you have to have an entire squad firing LAWs simultaneously to destroy one BA. The heavy recoilless rifle also seems to be pretty useless using the AToW conversion rules.

Am I getting something wrong or does the inclusion of armoured vehicles break the game somewhat?

An unarmored character is supposed to stand no chance versus an armored target.  In fact, that man-portable weapons are virtually useless against armor is a good thing, as it doesn't encourage PCs to engage such targets.. since tactical weapons used in return fire will smoke a PC dead in one hit.

It's better, IMO, if the entire party is on like scales. (either everyone or no one is a MechWarrior, either everyone or no one gets Battle Armor, etc) You can't challenge parties as a unit if you have MechWarriors and infantry in the same party.    This is because of the phenomenon you already honed in on..  Whatever opposition you bring to keep the MechWarrior busy, the grunt infantry are powerless to (directly) effect.

Now, there is a case to be made against my suggestion of homogenous party composition.  The unarmored troopers could in fact do what unarmored infantry do on a battlefield: spot targets.  Maybe act as decoys.  Problem is, the guys in Mechs/Tanks get to do all the actual killing.  If the group understands and is ok with these imbalanced roles, then go for it.

Going back to my suggestion, I'd prefer to see unarmored infantry roleplaying combat vs armored targets as a desperate, hanging by the fingernails affair.  Re-skin that battle at the end of Saving Private Ryan where they try to hold off the Panzers from crossing the bridge using nothing more than their small arms and ingenuity... at least long enough for the NPC cavalry to arrive.  Takes a ton of the tension out of the fight if one or more of the party is a Mech jock who's reliably on hand to bail them out. (and as noted, then does all the actual killing)

[nonex]

Going back to my suggestion, I'd prefer to see unarmored infantry roleplaying combat vs armored targets as a desperate, hanging by the fingernails affair.

Oh yes, this is what I very much would like it to be. In AToW, however, it's not even that. It's the infantry failing to achieve anything roughly 100% of the time and dying horribly. Facing a tank with a M72 would be desperate in, say, GURPS, but you might be able to maim the crew by spalling at the very least.

[guardiandashi]

the infantry needs "special weapons and tactics to do anything to the mech /tank.

examples from novels.
grayson (infantry) vs lori (locust) walked up and pointed a srm pack loaded with infernos at her mech and psyched her out (yes the locust would have ripped him apart, twin machine guns vs 1 infantry guy ... no contest

ramage infantry dude put a sachel charge on a locusts foot (crit hit foot actuator) then when the pilot was dumb enough to get out shot him and took over the mech.

senior tech grey death shot a flare gun into an archers sensor /camera cluster, no actual damage but the mech was treated as having 1 or 2 sensor crits until it was dealt with

cass suthorn attached a power line to a mop, then shoved it into a mechs joint, massive electrical damage (and wielding) effects
climbed a mech and activated the external "rescue" controls popping the hatch and took out the pilot

notice every one of these examples is not going toe to toe with the mechs strengths its all about side stepping the strengths and attacking where it is weaker (or out smarting the designer/pilot)

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Well, like the scene I referenced was the climax of the movie, going head to head with Mechs, Tanks, or Battlearmor when you're PBI should be the climax of an entire campaign.  If you die (likely, when one hit will red-mist you), then it was after having had a 'good run' in the campaign.  Even then, you're not actually killing anything. Like in the scene, a major victory was just in using grease-laden socks to attach explosives to the tank's running gear.  The resulting explosion didn't actually damage the tank, but it did snap a tread.. thus 'mobility killing' it and ultimately stopping it from crossing the bridge.

Unless you have your own armored assets in the party, that's the only sort of victory one can expect to have.

That being said, there are a few, very few, examples of successful unarmored infantry units/characters taking on and beating armored targets.  I'll reference you to the exploits of Cassie Suthorn (of 17th Recon fame) and those of the Black Cats mercenary company.  Basically, what they show as possible is setting up booby-traps, and then luring the armored targets into them.  (tank won't do much after it falls into a pit, etc)

Dovetailing on what guardianashi said about special weapons and tactics, remember that there IS such a thing in the BattleTech universe as "anti-mech trained" infantry.

They use grappling rods to climb up a hostile mech, place satchel charges at strategic points, and GTFO before the mech kills them.  Even under the best of circumstances, the mech will probably kill a bunch of them, but since they come a platoon at a time, the idea is most will get away.  Kind of works, just not for those unlucky enough to be swatted.  It translates to ATOW RPG play, just not very well unless you have enough NPCs to fill out a platoon to soak those stray deaths.

[Wrangler]

Hello nonex

Do you have only the ATOW main book?  There are options for different types of characters and profiles with the ATOW Companion PDF.  It has beefer character templates that may make it easier and give you more options of type rpg your shooting to do.

I would also look for fan-made characteer generator if possible.  ATOW's character build system is complicated as heck for anyone to tackle.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

A third thing to keep in mind is that the ATOW rules still have the Golden Rule.. where you can change whatever you want.  In fact, I'm convinced it assumes you must deviate from the written rules to inject your own common sense from time to time.  (Barrier rules is proof positive of this)

So, if you want a well aimed LAW weapon to actually cripple a mech's leg, go for it via Fiat or some other system you come up with.  It's perfectly reasonable.  Fluff has repeatedly mentioned Clan Elementals succumbing to small arms fire (and even being one-shotted by DEST assassins wielding katanas..) which is impossible under ATOW rules unless some 'common sense' were applied to occasionally downgrade the protective qualities of the armor.

[nonex]

The resulting explosion didn't actually damage the tank, but it did snap a tread.. thus 'mobility killing' it and ultimately stopping it from crossing the bridge.
Unless you have your own armored assets in the party, that's the only sort of victory one can expect to have.

Oh yeah, mobility kills against vehicles are piss-easy in CBT. That much I know.

So, if you want a well aimed LAW weapon to actually cripple a mech's leg, go for it via Fiat or some other system you come up with.  It's perfectly reasonable.  Fluff has repeatedly mentioned Clan Elementals being dropped by small arms (and even by DEST assassins wielding katanas..) which is impossible under ATOW rules unless some 'common sense' were applied to occasionally downgrade the protective qualities of the armor.

Would fiat or through-armour criticals be better and in which book are the rules for the latter found anyway?

Hello nonex
Do you have only the ATOW main book?  There are options for different types of characters and profiles with the ATOW Companion PDF.  It has beefer character templates that may make it easier and give you more options of type rpg your shooting to do.

I have the Companion and was planning on using the through-armour-critical type thing for BA from it. Anyone have any experience on that optional rule?

[guardiandashi]

well I know in older editions the way those "special" osks against elementals was to use 2 or 3 special case rules such as "the shotgun kill on an elemental" the hero used a shotgun, loaded with an armor piercing slug (increased penetration from slug, increased pen from ap round) aimed shot faceplate (penalty to hit but uses faceplate (visor) specific armor instead of elemental overall/general armor, successful hit meant that it managed to pierce/defeat the armor, hit to elementals head all damage multiplied by the head multiplier, and I think it was a crit hit as well so bonus damage there = unconscious / dead elemental.

[Acolyte]

I use a simple house rule. Double the BD on all single shot support weapons when used against a hard target. For burst fire multiply the BD by 1/5 the rate of fire. Figure damage from there.

So a Support Laser which normally does 6E/8 does 6E/16. Bar 10 armor makes takes the BD down to 12, 1 point of armor damage. A Machine Gun, Support does 5B/5B with a burst of 20, so does 5B/20. Bar 10 armor takes the BD down to 15, 2 point of armor damage. Some adjustments will be needed for some weapons like the BearHunter. I reduce the multiplier by one for every recoil over -2 and increase it for every recoil under -2.

Why? Same reason why 'Mech scale weapons only do 6 times their damage when really they should be doing 10. When used against a soft target - like your PC's - there's a considerable amount of wasted overpenetration. A PPC doesn't expend all it's energy on a person, it make a sizable Rorschach splotch and keeps going. When it hits armor all that energy goes into the armor.

The through armor crits work very well for AToW scale games but photocopy them onto an easily accessable sheet to speed up play.

   - Shane

[nonex]

I use a simple house rule. Double the BD on all single shot support weapons when used against a hard target. For burst fire multiply the BD by 1/5 the rate of fire. Figure damage from there.

So a Support Laser which normally does 6E/8 does 6E/16. Bar 10 armor makes takes the BD down to 12, 1 point of armor damage. A Machine Gun, Support does 5B/5B with a burst of 20, so does 5B/20. Bar 10 armor takes the BD down to 15, 2 point of armor damage. Some adjustments will be needed for some weapons like the BearHunter. I reduce the multiplier by one for every recoil over -2 and increase it for every recoil under -2.

Makes sense. Thanks.