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...

[HANS]

Originally Posted by 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?

As Kromm says, "normal" is probably meant here to indicate the pi damage that a non-APHEX round of same calibre does. I note, however, that this contradicts how AP rounds work in general, and specifically, in BASIC SET and HIGH-TECH, viz, they get their pi damage reduced by one step on the (realistic) assumption that AP rounds of all types have a tendency to cleanly penetrate flesh. This is, in this case, insofar irrelevant as the internal explosion will usually do you in, but dogmatically, the pi damage of ULTRA-TECH APHEX should go do one step (unless over 20mm), just like it does for HIGH-TECH APHEX or indeed ULTRA-TECH APHC or APEP. I suspect a simple error; if it isn't, I'd like to see the explanation spelled out.

Cheers

HANS

[vierasmarius]

I suspect that they included the tendency of an explosive round to fragment, basically causing it to behave similarly to a frangible or hollow-point round. Combined with the superior penetration of an AP round, it averages out to "normal" piercing.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

I suspect that they included the tendency of an explosive round to fragment, basically causing it to behave similarly to a frangible or hollow-point round. Combined with the superior penetration of an AP round, it averages out to "normal" piercing.

That's what I thought.

Small caliber explosive rounds mostly don't carry enough explosive to cause lethal wounds on its own. Rather, the explosion is a mechanism that causes the bullet to expand and fragment, which is generally considered a Bad Thing for whomever was hit by it.

[Verjigorm]

APEX rounds explode after penetration and the damage is treated as an attack on the vitals. That's 1d x 3 damage, which is enough to cause a knockdown at substantial penalties. APEX shotgun slugs can DR 35, which is sufficient performance to deliver a crippling injury. Even if HEMP rounds are less available or illegal, then an 18.5mm charge of explosive is not a bad way of putting down your targets.

I'm not quite sure how Fragmentation damage works though, do I apply that as well with the crushing damage from the explosion? And also from inside and against the vitals? That could really make up for it.

The way I see it, an 18.5mm APEX round should be able to blow off a persons limb, or very close to it. It has the advantage of not being a HEAT-effect round, so EMA and RAP don't work as well on it. I'd consider an ETK version of it if possible though.