Ultra-Tech - APHEX Piercing Damage

[Phil Masters]

A query I thought I'd run past the public...

In Ultra-Tech, APHEX ammo is described as doing "normal" piercing damage with a (2) armor divisor (plus the explosive follow-up, of course). My first interpretation of this was that it did the normal piercing damage for the weapon - so, for example, an 18.5mm shotgun would do 4d+4 (2) pi++ plus the follow-up. However, it occurred to me that this might mean that the weapon always did pi damage (rather than pi+ or pi- or pi++), whatever its calibre...

Has there been a ruling on this anywhere?

[alaph]

Ok my stab at this.

Going from context the ammo types above APHEX are explicit when they mention a down grade of pi type so in this case I would read "normal" as meaning unmodified from the type of ammo that is being made into APHEX.

Take that as you may.

[Mathulhu]

My thoughts

Damage types like piercing and its derivatives are a function of the dimensions of the thing making the wound. So if all APHEX rounds did the same type of damage they should have a similar dimensions.

I don't think a 10mm APHEX round and a 4mm APHEX round would have sufficiently similar dimensions to do the same damage.

[Kromm]

"Normal piercing damage" here means "the weapon's usual piercing damage," and not "plain old piercing damage rather than small, large, or huge piercing damage." The damage types are "small piercing," "piercing," "large piercing," and "huge piercing"; we're precise about this usage, and don't use "normal piercing" as a synonym for any of those four terms.

[Phil Masters]

Thanks for the clarification.

(The party bodyguard in my TS campaign will be pleased to know that any pesky minifabbed cybershells and hijacked vehicles she has to deal with can be quite reliably fed 4d+4 (3) pi++ with a 1d cr ex explosion follow-up using the internal explosion rules...)

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

Thanks for the clarification.

(The party bodyguard in my TS campaign will be pleased to know that any pesky minifabbed cybershells and hijacked vehicles she has to deal with can be quite reliably fed 4d+4 (3) pi++ with a 1d cr ex explosion follow-up using the internal explosion rules...)

18.5mm caseless Shotgun (or CAW)? Given that she's dealing 1d cr ex explosive damage and TS is TL 10, that seems to be the right caliber, though I would like to note that its armor divisor (2), not (3) (even gauss weapons with APHEX rounds downgrade to (2)).

But why isn't she using HEMP rounds? I'm not asking rhetorically, as this has been bugging me for awhile. HEMP rounds seem, in all ways, better than APHEX rounds. First, against an unarmored target, she's going to deal an average of 32 damage from the shotgun blast and then an additional 9-12 damage from the internal blast (so about 42 damage). Against a target with a DR of 17, she'll just barely penetrate for 1 point of damage (which improves to 2) and deal that 9-12 damage for an average of 11-14 damage. A single round costs $7.2

Using an 18.5 mm HEMP round, she'd inflict 6dx2(5) imp inc + linked 1d+1 cr ex. Against an unarmored target, I'm not sure if that would count as an internal explosion (let's not, for the sake of this argument), but we're dealing an average of 80 damage with just the core blast, plus about 4-5 damage from the explosion. Against a target with a DR of 17 (the best armor the APHEX will penetrate, on average), the HEMP round will still deal around 72 damage (its core 40 will penetrate the effective DR of 4 with 36 damage remaining, and then double as its impaling). The HEMP round costs $3.6, half the amount of the APHEX round.

So why would she use an APHEX round? I could imagine TL being a concern, but she's using TL 10 APHEX rounds, so I don't see why she can't use TL 10 HEMP rounds. HEMP can be loaded into weapons just as small as APHEX rounds, costs half as much, deal far more damage and penetrate armor far better. Why use APHEX rounds?

The only time I can imagine it is if the core weapon deals sufficient damage that it's actually superior to the HEMP round of its caliber, generally high velocity rounds like ETC rounds from a Anti-materiel rifle, or a Portable Railgun, and even then, I think the difference in armor penetration still favors the HEMP round...

[Ulzgoroth]

Note that Impaling isn't so useful against cybershells and vehicles, which are Unliving.

If present, composite armor with EMA might be easier to defeat with APHEX than HEMP. Though if the stats you're citing are correct, that doesn't seem to apply for this weapon.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Note that Impaling isn't so useful against cybershells and vehicles, which are Unliving.

Nor is Huge Piercing. Still, it's not a point I had considered. Also, an internal explosion counts as an attack against the vitals, hence the x3 damage. A creature without vitals would, apparently, take no additional damage. I presume vehicles and cybershells do have "vitals," though.

If present, composite armor with EMA might be easier to defeat with APHEX than HEMP. Though if the stats you're citing are correct, that doesn't seem to apply for this weapon.

Right, you'd need a highly damaging weapon, such as the high velocity rounds I mentioned before. Personally, against such a heavily armored target, using high velocity rounds, I think you'd be better off with a straight penetrator (like an APEP), but on the other hand, APEPs are very expensive, so that balances nicely.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Nor is Huge Piercing. Still, it's not a point I had considered. Also, an internal explosion counts as an attack against the vitals, hence the x3 damage. A creature without vitals would, apparently, take no additional damage. I presume vehicles and cybershells do have "vitals," though.

An interesting point. It does seem as if at least some targets without vitals should still suffer more from an internal explosion than an external one, but aside from bypassing DR I don't see how they would.

But normal machines are still vulnerable, yes.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Right, you'd need a highly damaging weapon, such as the high velocity rounds I mentioned before. Personally, against such a heavily armored target, using high velocity rounds, I think you'd be better off with a straight penetrator (like an APEP), but on the other hand, APEPs are very expensive, so that balances nicely.

If I remember the stats right, with a gauss shotgun instead of conventional the APHEX would penetrate 20d+2 instead of 20d for the HEMP against composite EMA, and have the followup explosion besides.

Of course, it doesn't seem likely that something with a mere DR 70 would have composite EMA anyway. Most rounds above 15mm probably are best used as payload shells.

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Note that Impaling isn't so useful against cybershells and vehicles, which are Unliving.

It gets a x1 damage multiplier, same as Huge Piercing. Which is about as good as anyone can hope for.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If present, composite armor with EMA might be easier to defeat with APHEX than HEMP. Though if the stats you're citing are correct, that doesn't seem to apply for this weapon.

She's a bodyguard, not a soldier. If she has to start worrying about seriously military stuff like significant amounts of composite armour, she's probably in the wrong place, and she'll be going away in search of a bigger gun.