The problem is we're told that Rifle Cannons have a -3 against BAR10 armor and then told, "Except they do more damage on BA."
If 5 points is full damage from an AC/5 against BAR10 armor why does Rifle Cannon damage vary by 3? It either should do full damage or it shouldn't.
FALSE. The rules state, "
because they lack the armor penetrating power of modern autocannons, rifles of all sizes must subtract 3 points of damage (to a minimum of 0) for successful attacks against any unit except for... battle armor..."
The 3 more damage is a player euphemism at best and bad math at worst. It is simply Battle Armor takes full damage from Rifle Cannons and Autocannons. That simple. You're complicating it more than it is every single time you type +3.
I keep being told my math is wrong but when I keep seeing 1+1=3 I'm going to question it.
Because it is not "1+1=3". It is simply X without X-3, and you're converting it to X+3. That is why your math is wrong.
You still have to get through the armor. I know there's a lot of abstraction with BA but either the armor is BAR10 or it isn't. If it is, RCs shouldn't do full damage. If it is, then RC's -3 damage should be removed.
And if that was the only thing involved in the equation, I would be in agreement. But it is not.
The only armors where all weapons do full damage are BAR7 and under. Making BA BAR5 (2,3,4,6,or 7) allows all weapons to do full damage without any weirdness.
Maybe it isn't the internal structure but BAR level? I say that because blaming the structure makes no sense. There is more structure on a 2 ton BA than there is on a 2 ton Proto. There's more structure on a 2 ton BA than on a 3.5 ton hovercar. Yet these units can shrug off a LRC with no damage but a BA will but it's only RCs that do more damage and it's the chassis to blame? Sorry. Not buying it. I can see blaming the armor but not the chassis.
Except that would be going against the rules. You're changing what the armor is in your theory, and then applying it as your suggestion? Make up your mind as to which it is, please.
There may be more mass in the structure, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is configured the same way. A hovercar is structured to provide the frame for the armor, 1-2 doors, maybe a turret, and the propulsion mechanisms. Battle Armor has to not only support the armor, but provide the mobility needed in the average Infantryman. Those parameters are quite different as our own people are finding out just trying to invent the first producible PA(L).
I'm not the one saying 1+1=3. That's what I'm seeing here. Mech 1+1=2. Tank 1+1=2. BA 1+1=3.
Which perfectly demonstrates that your math is wrong. I'm not your kindergarten teacher or your mother who will give you a pass because of your effort. I'm the engineer telling you that you're using the wrong formula and coming to incorrect conclusions which will lead to something that won't work. You're using basic math when you need to be doing at least a little algebra.
BA take X damage from Rifle Cannons. Battlemechs take X-3 damage from Rifle Cannons. There is no 1+1 involved at all.
I got no idea. None. This thread is about fixing what we see as problems with the rules. If I liked them I wouldn't be posting in this thread trying to fix them.
Yet you spend all this time arguing about possibilities of the cause of it, and have even claimed that the canon and rules are wrong.
If you go back and look I've said various weapons. Every time I get the run around. Also please not the bold and underlined in the your quote. IF BA were armored properly, they wouldn't take full damage from Rifle Cannons.
No, you don't get the run around, you've gotten an "I don't know" and theories, and that's it. You've also try to equate Rifle Cannons and Autocannons as if they were the same exact thing, when they aren't aside from both pushing rounds out a barrel through explosive propulsion. You might as well be comparing Standard AC rounds with AP rounds or Streak SRMs with Tandem-Charge SRMs. Until you can demonstrate that they both use the same type of rounds, it really is you who is running around on your own wondering why no one is talking to you.
As the rules exist, it wouldn't matter if BA were armored in BAR5 or BAR 27, they still take the full damage from Rifle Cannons unless the armor itself has some advantage against all Ballistic weapons. The "if armored properly" was for those were that armor does matter.
Or maybe their armor isn't really BAR10. It's just a Theory but there are some facts. All weapons do full damage against BAR2-7 units. Against BAR8-10 units all weapons, except Rifles do full damage. Rifles have a -3. BA AToW BAR levels go up to 18. It's a theory but it sure looks like TW BA aren't BAR10.
Wow, back to confusing your theory with your suggestion. Make up your mind, will you?
Wow! You completely missed what I said, I said a single shot. Not burst. As in the Multiple Target Rules in Tac Ops page 98. AC/20 half damage = 10 points. IF BA chassis can't withstand a hit from a RC why doesn't a single round from a AC/20 do 13 points of damage?
Nope, you said, "
If a HRC can do 9 points of damage to a BA, a single round from an AC/20 should do 13 points as it's hitting harder." You stated no other rules, and some AC/20s do just fire a single round in their fluff. In game terms, a "round" from an autocannon could be a burst shot or a single shot and considered the same until such advanced rules are put in to play. Any implications were purely in your head and otherwise unstated.
If there wasn't an X-3, there wouldn't be a problem to fix.
Not in argument, but you do need to realize that this IS an X-3 situation, not an X+3 or 1+1=3 situation. Until you do, you're running around with theories that do not match the situation, so your suggestions will not make sense.
If BA defends against RCs as well as other BAR10 units, why do RCs do full damage against them?
Why are you asking a question about something I did not say?
I did not say that, "
BA defends against RCs as well as other BAR10 units." I said, "
BA defends against RCs just as well as it defends against more powerful weapons." Those are two completely different statements.
I'm guessing this is before Phelan Kell was captured by the Clans. I'd say that the sensors were scanning just fine but the warbook was having issues because nothing matched up. Clan Tech wouldn't have been known at the time. So the scanner says, "I see this" to the warbook and the war book says, "That can't be! That weapon is X tons and that weapon is Y. Non of this makes sense! AAARRRGGG!!!!
Then why would it think it was facing a Marauder with weapons it didn't know were Large Lasers in the arms? Confusing it with the MAD-3M?
The Rules only one.
Interesting. I still only have the old one before they split it, not the two new ones... yet.
The people living on New St. Andrews.
Reference, please.
True we don't have all the information but it makes more sense than "because a heavier stronger chassis can't do it".
Who said "heavier stronger chassis"? The ability for construction to do something is largely determined by how the structure is arranged just as much as the materials being used for it, more in the cases where the materials are of a similar strength. That's basic engineering.
I have no idea where you're getting that. As is currently means as is currently. Not as it should be because it already is.
Because you have often confused my "as it is" with "as it should be" in several conversations, and you have often argued as one being the other in the same conversation.
A Rifle Cannon hits any unit with BAR7 or less armor. That hit does full damage. Same Rifle hits BAR8 or better armor it suffers -3 damage. Do I really need to list a specific vehicle?
AToW page 186 puts BA armor in between personal and tactical and hits can penetrate.
That sounds very similar to have units with BAR2-7 take damage.
And I was talking about the difference in scale where any damage from anything can take out a normal human being would be Total Warfare, while ATOW operates on a more personal basis. The concepts do get blurred in the transition.
A custom Blue Nova with BAR 8 armor, good?
Nope. You were using a modern reference. A closer analogy would have been a Bradley, or maybe even the armored trucks banks use to get cash from businesses.
If the chassis can't support it, the armor wouldn't be as strong.
More the armor wouldn't be as effective. Which is my point about BA taking the full damage from Rifle Cannons. Now you're getting it. A plate of armor intended for an Abrams, and mounted on a Chevy Nova would be far more effective than you just holding on to it or having it strapped to you.
200 years of concurrent production is irrelevant. It was said to be intended for OMNIs. There were no OMNIs for anything to be intended for them.
I would say 200 years of concurrent production is quite relevant when compared to just a couple decades between the introduction of the Warhammer IIC and the Coyotl, and the Hunchback IIC came out just a couple years afterward. Still it took a decade or two for Omnitech to really take hold, but after more than 150 years, it would be rather idiotic to not be building your weapons to take pod mounts, which would then start universalizing mounts in the rest of your equipment. And the Clans abhor waste of any kind.
It would be a dated quirk, like say, after 2900, but still there. Still, it is a discussion best saved for another thread.
If imports were possible the RC wouldn't be used. And they seem to be doing the job as there's not enough salvage to go around.
That depends on where you're able to import from. Importing from another corner of the Periphery that is just as bad off as you are won't really give you Improved Heavy Gauss Rifles in a pinch.
That there can be counters by coincidence is fine. No problem. That a 2 ton BAR takes full damage from a LRC while those same rounds are bouncing off a 500kg vehicle with inferior armor just isn't believable.
Sorry, but this whole thread is about a counter by coincidence.
The rules as written say otherwise.
Actually the rules on Rifle Cannons say, "
because they lack the armor penetrating power of modern autocannons, rifles of all sizes must subtract 3 points of damage..."
Okay. So, you don't like the rules, as is, either, right?
Then...
Why bother to rationalize what isn't working to begin with?
It's not to rationalize what isn't working, but to rationalize the reasons for the decisions to try and be consistent. It also provides a base work on how to operate the changes and if something should be kept in a specific situation to keep such lore in tact.
That, and trying to rationalize something that isn't specifically told is as much fan creation as any of the changes.
The only reason it's lasted this long is for the same reason that someone thinks X is considered X+3 because it isn't X-3.
Now, granted, I get what you're trying to say. In the picture of the elemental suit, you don't see much in the way of a skeleton supporting the armor plates. In fact, it could be argued that the armor is the structure, to which slabs of Myomer are attached internally. So, without some sort of backing to give it a little extra support to redirect the damage, the armor loses its integrity more readily since it's having to absorb all the energy that an armor/structure layout would potentially divide. And! Since the suit is designed to protect the wearer for as long as possible without presenting breachable plates, that translates into full damage.
Or at least, the structure is configured so the result is the same.
I see a problem with the fact that RCs do full damage against internal structure. So, this kinda suggests that Structure may be accounted for separately. This is arguable, of course, and I'm not going to try to justify it.
Rifle Cannons don't do full damage to Internal Structure if it taken at least one point off of the armor protecting and reducing the damage. And as noted, on the Total Warfare scale, Battle Armor do not have any notable Structure to damage.
Aside:
However, for me, it brings up another inconsistency with the application of RC and the -3 damage being arbitrary. I personally don't see armor 'vanishing' once it's reached zero points. That's the point holes start getting punched through it, having lost cohesive integrity overall. This is my take on why you don't get to auto-hit an exposed location at any range to destroy it, because the armor's still there, providing some protection that the combat unit may use to deflect shots against. It also contributes, in my opinion, to why you still have a high probability of not crippling an item with structure damage. (But, of course, this is part of my automated defensive motion I view all combat units as using to some degree or other. A rare view when interpreting what you imagine on the tabletop.)
I've thought about that, too, but in order to justify it, one would have to be seeing damage to the Structure's damage reduced by the armor over all.
If I ever get around to organizing and writing it down, I've been theorizing on how to do Warmachine's damage model in to the system, but instead of Armor itself being dropped, it is the Armor Integrity, much as you're suggesting in your mind's eye, which is what would provide full armor protection until gone, and then mitigate internal damage to a certain point. But there's a lot to work with considering all the equipment currently in Battletech.
