Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => HARP SF => Topic started by: Mungo on March 18, 2007, 04:51:43 PM
-
Hi,
Here my comments regarding Combat (but not vehicle combat):
- Combat skills: here I propose some changes based on the following arguments:
- in my experience it is 100 times easier to learn how to shoot than to use Martial Arts or
an archaic weapon. Therefore a DP spent on modern weapons should have more impact
than a DP spent on an archaic weapon
- future energy weapons will be most likely designed to have the same look and feel as
firearms. So the only difference will be recoil, impact of gravity and atmosphere and
different velocity of "bullet"
- Gunnery is for weapon systems (although the description says its for mortars and the
like as well). But there are weapons like barrel-mounted grenade launchers (which BTW
I miss completely here), small mortars, shoulder launched missiles and mounted
machine guns (and their energy equivalent) which in my opinion are personal weapons
who do not require the use of the gunnery skill.
- Mounted Machine Guns are not 2-H weapons in my experience (they behave very
different to an Assault Rifle...)
My proposal therefore:
- I suggest only the following 4 categories for future weapons: Thrown: Grenades, 1-H
Modern, 2-H Modern, Modern Support Weapons (MSW). The groups would be Flamer,
Laser, Firearm, Blaster and for MSW additionally Mortar, Grenade Launcher, Missile
Launchers,...
- The HARP rule for untrained 1-H Edged and 1-H Concussion groups applies for all four
of these 4 modern categories
- +40 OB when foe is downed: in my opinion with modern weapons a downed foe is actually harder to hit...
- Armor: there is a lot doubled from the equipment chapter. I suggest to have it only once.
- Charging: max OB/DB is +-60, in HARP it is +-50 -> I would align it with HARP
- Escape Blast: There is no difference whether the character has already had an action or not this round. I think this action is similar to Sudden Dodge, and there the character looses his action in the next round if he has already acted this round -> I would align these 2 actions.
- I suggest to seperate the actions for melee and modern ranged attacks, now they are mixed together.
- In modern warfare you do a lot of movement while crouching/robbing (is this the English term?) -> I suggest to include ruling on the change of BMR when doing this.
- Blast radii are very digital. I suggest RIs also for mines/grenades, as otherwise I throw a grenade with a blast radius of 25m at a foe who is 26m away and keep standing - and this is not healthy in reality.
- Grenades that are not properly timed can be thrown back -> I would like to see a ruling on that
- I suggest to change the headline "missile use in melee", as the paragraphs below also deals with modern weapons.
- The description "firing into melee" only mentions archaic missile weapons -> I would include modern weapons as well.
- Some actions ignore the damage cap. This is only mentioned in "Damage Cap" but not in the descriptions of the respective actions -> I suggest to include this also in the descriptions of the actions (Aimed Burst,...).
- Stunned: I would exchange the two paragraphs - stating at first how to become stunned and then what happens when you are stunned.
- What I forgot in the "Adventuring Chapter":
- p128: "protects against both wave and particle radiation..". Radiation is always both wave and particle (Wave-particle dualism).
- p128: CR150 for "area that received a nuclear blast": that's only true shortly after the blast. Nuclear weapons are normally designed in a way that radiation levels drop fast.
- In addition I suggest an overview tables for the Decompression, Vacuum , Low/High Pressure rules (CRRs).
BR
Juergen
-
Hi,
Here my comments regarding Combat (but not vehicle combat):
- Combat skills: here I propose some changes based on the following arguments:
- in my experience it is 100 times easier to learn how to shoot than to use Martial Arts or
an archaic weapon. Therefore a DP spent on modern weapons should have more impact
than a DP spent on an archaic weapon
- future energy weapons will be most likely designed to have the same look and feel as
firearms. So the only difference will be recoil, impact of gravity and atmosphere and
different velocity of "bullet"
- Gunnery is for weapon systems (although the description says its for mortars and the
like as well). But there are weapons like barrel-mounted grenade launchers (which BTW
I miss completely here), small mortars, shoulder launched missiles and mounted
machine guns (and their energy equivalent) which in my opinion are personal weapons
who do not require the use of the gunnery skill.
- Mounted Machine Guns are not 2-H weapons in my experience (they behave very
different to an Assault Rifle...)
My proposal therefore:
- I suggest only the following 4 categories for future weapons: Thrown: Grenades, 1-H
Modern, 2-H Modern, Modern Support Weapons (MSW). The groups would be Flamer,
Laser, Firearm, Blaster and for MSW additionally Mortar, Grenade Launcher, Missile
Launchers,...
- The HARP rule for untrained 1-H Edged and 1-H Concussion groups applies for all four
of these 4 modern categories
I am rather wary of handing out OBs of 25 plus stats and modifiers in half the modern weapons to anyone and everyone who has ever trained in a single modern weapon.
Modern Support Weapons can go on the wish list.
- +40 OB when foe is downed: in my opinion with modern weapons a downed foe is actually harder to hit...
That might work better as a melee-only modifier.
- Charging: max OB/DB is +-60, in HARP it is +-50 -> I would align it with HARP
This is a metric versus Imperial issue. HARP Fantasy gives +1 per every foot up to 50'. 50' does not convert into an even number of meters.
- Escape Blast: There is no difference whether the character has already had an action or not this round. I think this action is similar to Sudden Dodge, and there the character looses his action in the next round if he has already acted this round -> I would align these 2 actions.
It's probably closer to Sudden Dive, actually.
- I suggest to seperate the actions for melee and modern ranged attacks, now they are mixed together.
There are some that are relevant to both, however.
- In modern warfare you do a lot of movement while crouching/robbing (is this the English term?) -> I suggest to include ruling on the change of BMR when doing this.
A useful suggestion
- Blast radii are very digital. I suggest RIs also for mines/grenades, as otherwise I throw a grenade with a blast radius of 25m at a foe who is 26m away and keep standing - and this is not healthy in reality.
- Grenades that are not properly timed can be thrown back -> I would like to see a ruling on that
I was trying to keep things simple. I'll consider how a secondary (and only secondary) blast radius might work.
- I suggest to change the headline "missile use in melee", as the paragraphs below also deals with modern weapons.
Sensible enough.
- The description "firing into melee" only mentions archaic missile weapons -> I would include modern weapons as well.
It does, though.
- Some actions ignore the damage cap. This is only mentioned in "Damage Cap" but not in the descriptions of the respective actions -> I suggest to include this also in the descriptions of the actions (Aimed Burst,...).
That would be helpful.
- What I forgot in the "Adventuring Chapter":
- p128: "protects against both wave and particle radiation..". Radiation is always both wave and particle (Wave-particle dualism).
- p128: CR150 for "area that received a nuclear blast": that's only true shortly after the blast. Nuclear weapons are normally designed in a way that radiation levels drop fast.
- In addition I suggest an overview tables for the Decompression, Vacuum , Low/High Pressure rules (CRRs).
It would be more helpful to put these comments in your thread on the Adventuring chapter as then they are less likely to get lost.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
Charge - I think it would work better at +5 per meter charged. It does not covert well with the +1 per foot, but it does work out well when using a game map with hexes or squares, especially if they are equal to 1 meter per hex. But I do agree with making the max be +50.
-
I am rather wary of handing out OBs of 25 plus stats and modifiers in half the modern weapons to anyone and everyone who has ever trained in a single modern weapon.
To clarify:
I meant within a Weapon skill, i.e. among its groups. To bring an example: relaoding and pulling the trigger of a contemporary pistol will be very similiar to a laser pistol. Therefore you can reuse some of your skill. But you do not get any benefits for 2-H weapons, i.e. there you would be at -25 + stats, even if you know a lot about 1-H.
BR
Juergen
-
i.e. handheld (pistol-type) weapons versus shoulder fired (rifle-type) weapons, correct?
-
Yes. And vs. support weapons (mounted / missiles / indirect fire).
-
So basically:
Weapon Class: 1-H "Modern Ranged"
- Weapon Group: Flamers : flame pistol
- Weapon Group: Lasers: laser pistol, minilaser
- Weapon Group: Stunners: electrostunner, laser dazzler, sonic stunner
- Weapon Group: Handguns: holdout gun, pistol, revolver
- Weapon Group: Needlers: needle pistol
Weapon Class: 2-H "Modern Ranged"
- Weapon Group: Flamers : flame rifle, flame repeater
- Weapon Group: Lasers: hunting laser, laser rifle
- Weapon Group: Stunners: electrorifle, sonic stunrifle
- Weapon Group: Machineguns: machine gun, submachine gun
- Weapon Group: Needlers: needle rifle
- Weapon Group: assault rifle, hunting rifle
- Weapon Group: autoshotgun, shotgun
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
Hi,
Yes, exactly. Only the machine gun should go into "Support Weapons", as a it can not be used 2-H (at least not the MG-42 / MG-74 I have experience with, perhaps its different with a 5,56 mm caliber but this I don't know).
BR
Juergen
-
Hi,
One more discrepancy that I noted between HARP and HARP SF: Stunned requires a RR(100) in HARP SF and a RR(150) in HARP -> I suggest to use the HARP ruling.
BR
Juergen
-
Hi,
One more discrepancy that I noted between HARP and HARP SF: Stunned requires a RR(100) in HARP SF and a RR(150) in HARP -> I suggest to use the HARP ruling.
BR
Juergen
This is a deliberate difference. The 150 target is too high. It makes it too difficult to throw off stun. In fantasy, once stunned, a character is limited to half parry and maneuvers at -50. The ability to half parry melee weapons is not terribly useful in a firefight.
Being stunned is also not fun for the player because their character is unable to participate fully for multiple rounds in combat.
This rule was first mooted in a TGC article by me. It later slipstreamed in as an option into Hack & Slash.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
If you consider things like the M-16 and the H&K G36 as "assault rifles", then I would agree that "machine guns" can't be used two handed (except by Arnold who can use them one-handed in all the movies :).
-
If you consider things like the M-16 and the H&K G36 as "assault rifles", then I would agree that "machine guns" can't be used two handed (except by Arnold who can use them one-handed in all the movies :).
There is a grey area, but for simplicity I would suggest that everything that has burst fire as the normal mode of operation (at least in Austria you are pushed to use single fire for all personal weapons like pistols, assault rifles,..) is a machine gun and not to be used 2-H. This is true for everything with 7,62 mm and above.
If this is too harsh, I suggest to have smaller machine guns covered by both 2-H (assault rifle) and Support weapon: machine gun.
BR
Juergen
-
An M-16 is an assault rifle. It fires rifle ammunition and can operate in single or burst mode (for A2 models; A1 models could fire on full auto). It is intended for use by a single person with a reasonably sustained rate of fire and to be used with two hands. While you may be strong enough to hold it with only one hand and fire it as the recoil is not strong, I wouldn't plan on hitting anything. It is not just a matter of having the strength to hold the weapon in one hand but to be able to aim and determine the trajectory from that position.
Submachineguns are generally categorized as weapons capable of burst or auto fire but fire pistol ammunition. Also, usually the barrel isn't heavy enough to maintain a sustained rate of fire (even if the firing mechanism can). Once again while they could be used one-handed they're intended use is with 2 hands.
Machineguns are generally categorized as fully automatic, crew-served weapons firing rifle ammunition. Obviously, their may be gyro-mounts in the game that would allow a machine gun to be fired accurately while mobile. However, machine guns are designed to be mobile, but fired while stationary. (this of course refers to infantry weapons and not mounted weapons. mounted weapons is where I believe the gunnery skill comes in.)
-
Machineguns are generally categorized as fully automatic, crew-served weapons firing rifle ammunition. Obviously, their may be gyro-mounts in the game that would allow a machine gun to be fired accurately while mobile. However, machine guns are designed to be mobile, but fired while stationary. (this of course refers to infantry weapons and not mounted weapons. mounted weapons is where I believe the gunnery skill comes in.)
I fully agree, except concerning the Gunnery skill. With mounted weapons I would distingiush between mounted but operated directly (e.g. the machine gun on top of a main battle tank) or operated indirectly via a targeting system (e.g. a coaxial machine gun in the main battle tank or as main weapon in a turret on a APV). The first category would in my opinion still need the Weapon Skill and only the second the Gunnery skill.
BR
Juergen
-
How is this Mungo?
Weapon Class: 1-H "Modern Ranged"
- Weapon Group: Flamers : flame pistol
- Weapon Group: Lasers: laser pistol, minilaser
- Weapon Group: Stunners: electrostunner, laser dazzler, sonic stunner
- Weapon Group: Handguns: holdout gun, pistol, revolver
- Weapon Group: Needlers: needle pistol
Weapon Class: 2-H "Modern Ranged"
- Weapon Group: Flamers : flame rifle, flame repeater
- Weapon Group: Lasers: hunting laser, laser rifle
- Weapon Group: Stunners: electrorifle, sonic stunrifle
- Weapon Group: Machineguns: machine gun, submachine gun
- Weapon Group: Crew Served Weapons: machine guns, Blaster Guns
- Weapon Group: Needlers: needle rifle
- Weapon Group: assault rifle, hunting rifle
- Weapon Group: autoshotgun, shotgun
and then Gunnery skill for Indirect Fire Weapons (howitzers, cannon, plasma cannon, ship-board weaponry, missiles, etc.)
The new group is in green, and is a single group for ALL crew served assault weapons (i.e. the machine gun on top of a tank or PT boat, the third squad of assault gunners present in any Confederation Marine platoon from the Starfist series of books, etc..)
That make sense?
-
Basically, drawing the distinction between whether the character is directly, physically manipulating the weapon to aim and fire or using a control apparatus to aim and fire. I agree with that.
It just seems like there are more categories than there needs to be, but I don't have time right now to look at it more closely.
-
Some of the individual weapon groups can most likely be combined, but those two weapon categories are most likely accurate enough
-
Yea, I meant the groups not the class (categories).
-
Hi Rasyr,
In principle it looks ok (I do not want to "split hairs"). The only issues left are:
- If you want to use the rule that you get the +25+OB+stats within a category, then the Crew Served Weapons are a little overpowered because then everybody can use them.And they generate a lot of damage over a great distance, but they are normally differently to load (belts) and differently to use (cerw). But in 99% of the cases in a game this will most likely not make any impact.
- There are small indirect fire weapions like barrel mounted grenade launchers and small mortars. What skill would you use? Gunnery? Or Thrown: grenade for the launcher and Gunnery for the mortar?
- Personal anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons (missiles, rocket-propelled guns): would this then also be Gunnery?
And when I look at it closely, I think you can at least merge the assault rifle / hunting gun group with the shotgun group. Just give the shotgun a very small RI but it attacks all targets within a 15 or 30? arc (don't know, have never used one). And have it use different criticals.
BR
Juergen
-
Some of the individual weapon groups can most likely be combined,
No, because we then lose the cleanliness of mapping a specific critical to all the weapons in a weapon group, and we forfeit the variation in fumble ranges currently available (as all weapons in a single weapon group must have the same fumble range).
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
Hi,
What I forgot above: when you put all crew support weapons in one group, then you also lose this cleanliness, as there are again heavy flamers, machine guns, ....
So after some thinking I really would not put them under 2-H, but define a new weapon class:
Weapon Class: Support Weapons
- Weapon Group: Flamers : heavy flamer
- Weapon Group: Lasers: heavy laser
- Weapon Group: Stunners: heavy stunner
- Weapon Group: Machineguns: heavy, light.
- Weapon Group: grenade launchers: barrel mounted, small mortar
- Weapon Group: Shoulder Missile Launcher: AT, AA
Rasyr and Nicholas: for some reason you seem to be very much against introducing such a category. Why?
BR
Juergen
-
Nick -- If HARP mapped a specific critical to a specific group, it was by accident. I was mapping how the weapons were wielded/used to the groups. And the fumble ranges are based on how they were used, along with the type of weapon).
Mungo - I think you are wrong about 25 + OB + stats, or at least stating it wrong. In the core HARP rules, you get to use 1/4 of another group's (from the same cat) OB plus stats OR 25 + stats (NOT BOTH plus stats), whichever was LESS. For other groups in the same category (and then only in certain categories/classes, not all of them).
-
Hi,
Yes, I was stating it wrong, I meant it correctly.
BR
Juergen
-
Hi,
What I forgot above: when you put all crew support weapons in one group, then you also lose this cleanliness, as there are again heavy flamers, machine guns, ....
So after some thinking I really would not put them under 2-H, but define a new weapon class:
Weapon Class: Support Weapons
- Weapon Group: Flamers : heavy flamer
- Weapon Group: Lasers: heavy laser
- Weapon Group: Stunners: heavy stunner
- Weapon Group: Machineguns: heavy, light.
- Weapon Group: grenade launchers: barrel mounted, small mortar
- Weapon Group: Shoulder Missile Launcher: AT, AA
Rasyr and Nicholas: for some reason you seem to be very much against introducing such a category. Why?
BR
Juergen
I don't like committing to significant additions until I've had time to think through all the implications.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
In the few Spacemaster sessions I have managed to run I changed the Weapon Categories to more accurately reflect how a weapon was used and not what the effect was. I like the classes/groups that have been suggested here, they are simple and more realistic. I also think that the Support Weapons Class is a great idea. I haven't read the combat chapter in any detail yet, but in general I think that more emphasis should be put on small support weapons. There should definately be rules for grenade, rocket and missile launchers, mortars and anti-vehicle weapons in general. If you need inspiration I think the old version of Spacemaster had good rules for these.
I would also like to see vehicle mounted weapons for anti-personel use. Right now there is a huge gap between the largest handheld weapons and the smallest vehicle weapons. A good old turret-mounted heavy machinegun on top of your truck would be nice to have :)
And a third thing... what about sniper rifles? Rifles with longer RI's than the assault and hunting rifles.
Okay, so I realize that most of these things can be easily fixed be the SysOp, but it shouldn't take to much work (or space) to put them in the book. Let me know if I missed anything...
-
I'll third the notion of having a Support Weapon Class category for weapons and combat.
-
Don't everybody be too quick to jump on that bandwagon of a whole new class of weapon skills. This is HARP SF, not Spacemaster, we do not want to encourage or even begin down the path of skill creep and that seems to be where this discussion seems to be leading. (Not saying SM has skill creep, only that, like RM, it has a lot of skills, and if HARP SF has a lot of skills, then why not just use Spacemaster instead. Remember, the idea here is to have a lighter game overall.)
I would think that most of those "Support Weapons" could be handled as specific instances of the Gunnery Skill (i.e. Gunnery skill with AA missile batteries or machine gun nests does not equate to skill in ship-board weapons).
Instead of going hog wild to see how many skills can be added (cause, quite simply, I won't allow that to happen), trying looking at the existing skills first and see how they might be used in other ways.
-
Hi,
I fully agree that HARP amd HARP SF should try to minimize the skills needed, especially considering the number of new skills required by the modern world.
Therefore my proposal to change the grouping of modern weapons to 5 categories instead of 6.
I.e. Thrown, 1-H, 2-H, Support, Gunnery instead of Thrown, 1-H Energy, 1-H Projectiles, 2-H Energy, 2-H Projectiles, Gunnery.
The reason behind combining the 1-H and 2-H categories I already explained (see start of thread). Concerning the difference between Support and Gunnery: Gunnery is for weapon systems, i.e. you have targeting systems and so on, Support weapons are directly handled by people. And they are so powerful and different to 1-H and 2-H weapons, that I would not put them in the same category to them.
Another thing: in the current manuscript there are no heavy weapons except machine guns. Therefore it looks as if I introduced more categories. But at the moment you introduce more heavy weapons, you notice in my opinion that they do not fit the current categories. And I would like to have them introduced, as I believe this adds a lot without demanding a lot of rewrite (the criticals are already there...).
What I also believe is that the number of categories is not so important, they are only there to show similiarities (i.e. to use the max. +25+Stats rule with an untrained weapon), the groups are the one that decide the number of DPs required to achieve a certain broadness in weapon skills. And the groups were not yet really discussed, as so far the discussion was more about the categories.
So to finalize: I think the Support Weapon idea is no skill creep and they should neither be added to 2-H weapons or Gunnery. But what we should do is take a careful look at the weapon groups and see what we can combine. A first idea would be also here to only distinguish between
- recoil weapons (needlers, projectiles, shotguns,...)
- energy weapons (flamers, blasters, lasers)
- indirect fired weapons (grenade launchers)
- self-propelled weapons (missiles)
- thrown weapons (grenades)
Then you have in total (incl. gunnery) only 14 clearly defined groups compared to the undefined number in the current manuscript:
- Thrown: Grenades
- 1-H: Projectiles
- 1-H: Energy
- 2-H: Projectiles
- 2-H: Energy
- 2-H: indirect fire
- Support: Projectiles
- Support: Energy
- Support: indirect
- Support: self propelled
- Gunnery: Projectiles
- Gunnery: Energy
- Gunnery: indirect
- Gunnery: self propelled
What do you think?
BR
Juergen
-
I think you can trim that even farther. Off the top of my head, I think that projectile gunnery and Energy gunnery probably feel the same from the user's standpoint. Sure you have to lead them more, but the computer does that anyway.
-
Gunnery is currently a Combat Skill, not a Weapon Class/Category.
The Weapon Skills are intended to be personal melee and missile/projectile weapons, not Support-type Weapons.
Everything in your Support and Gunnery weapon groups can most likely be handled under the single Gunnery skill, by learning a different weapons system each time the Gunnery skill is taken. It covers things like a 50 caliber, crew-served machine gun, to vehicle mounted weapons, to a spaceship's weapon's systems.
Why add more skills to break something out in a manner not required? Especially when doing so changes the focus of the skills?
Gunnery
Gunnery covers the use of weapon systems such as cannon (archaic and laser), mortars, rocket launchers, missiles, and all varieties of vehicle mounted weaponry. (Weapon Skills encompass personal melee and ranged combat.) Each weapon system type must be learned separately.
(Combat ? Qu/In ? Combat)
Now, this description can be expanded to make it clearer that any type of support and other weaponry is included in here.
But so far, you haven't convinced me that new weapon groups (for NON-personal weapons) is required. And Nick and I are the ones that MUST BOTH be convinced for something to be added. You need to give specific reasons, not just make proposals.
-
I am certainly not in favor of adding more skills. The reason I was in favor of the Support Weapon proposal was that first of all it makes more sense (to me anyway!). There are several weapons covered by the gunnery skill which could be classified as a portable, personal weapons (which can be carried around and used by a single guy). I am thinking grenade launchers (including barrel-mounted), rocket-propelled grenades, small missile launchers etc. Second of all it wouldn't really add any skills to the game, just move them from the Gunnery Class to a new Weapon Class.
It doesn't really make much of a difference whether a player purchases his skill in Grenade Launchers from the Gunnery Class or the Weapon Skills Class, but I think it would make Gunnery easier to understand and less of a catch-all skill if it was limited to weapons that require either some sort of positioning (tripod, setting up a mortar, etc.) or is part of a fixed defense (ships and vehicles). Then you could move the smaller portable weapons into either a new Support Group or just into the 2-H Firearm Class, maybe as a new group called Launchers (which would cover the above mentioned weapons).
Two things I do think are very important though are...
1. The weapon groups under the Gunnery skill should be clearly defined like the Weapon Skill groups are now. You could do that with only three groups (directly fired, indirectly fired and launched weapons... with better names obviously :))
2. There should be rules for using these weapons in the book. They are mentioned in the Gunnery skill description but you can't buy them and you can't use them.
I just realized that moving the weapon groups around could interfere with the stat bonusses for the different Weapon Groups (because Gunnery is Qu/In). I will have to think about that.
-
But so far, you haven't convinced me that new weapon groups (for NON-personal weapons) is required. And Nick and I are the ones that MUST BOTH be convinced for something to be added. You need to give specific reasons, not just make proposals.
Hi,
I will try to make my arguments a bit clearer.
a) I do NOT propose a new NON-personal weapon group. All non-personal weapons should use Gunnery.
b) But in my opinion Support weapons are personal weapons. A machine gun can be operated and - in most cases - even carried by 1 person, it is not a weapon system and it does not require some sophisticated targeting mechanism. But it is also definitely no 2-H weapon. You can not use it standing, you have to be prone and use a bipod or tripod. You use burst fire as normal mode of fire (even an assault rifle has single fire). You use normally different magazines (belts). You have a completely different range. And of course this does not mean that a 2nd or 3rd person to help carrying a 2nd barrel or more ammunition does not come handy. And I have personally carried around a .50 M2 - it is possible (although you have to take it apart).
The same applies to AT & AA missiles and RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) like the Carl-Gustav I used. You carry them around, you aim through an optic or - if its dirty - through a mechanical device (in German "Kieme" and "Korn"), you shoot.
Fazit:
Gunnery is for non-personal weapons. 2-H is for weapons you can carry around and fire it by holding it in your hands "on he go". And there are still a lot of weapons in between. Weapons you carry around, but have so much firepower that you need some time to prepare them for shooting (by lying down or putting them on your shoulder). So this is the reason for wanting to add a Support Category.
BR
Juergen
-
I could perhaps possibly see an argument for adding in a single weapon group (or a single skill, like Gunnery, that can be specialized)for man-portable support weapons, but not an entire weapon category.
-
It seems the Plasma Criticals table is missing a result for a final attack roll of 120...the table ends at 116-119. Ran out of room on the page, I suspect. ;D
-
It seems the Plasma Criticals table is missing a result for a final attack roll of 120...the table ends at 116-119. Ran out of room on the page, I suspect. ;D
It should read:
120 Shot takes foe directly in face. Foe?s face ceases to exist, followed by brain vaporizing. Foe dies instantly. Oh yeah, +70 Hits.
-
most likely, I just didn't realize that that portion of the table was hiding... hehe
-
Perhaps, if your colleague wasn't so verbose on that table, describing in detail the gruesome extent of the poor victim's injuries, it would fit nicely on the page. :P I suppose we should be glad that he didn't bring disruptors from SM2 into HARP-SF. Imagine how he would describe those crits. :o
But, I'm sure you'll find a way to stuff it all on the page.