Combined firepower: a consistent approach

[Madwand]

One of the things that has annoyed me about WEG Star Wars are the inconsistent and badly-considered rules for combining firepower. There are several sources for these rules, all conflicting:

The core book, "unlinking weapons" suggests each linked weapon should be worth -1 pip to damage
The core book, "combined actions" tells you to add +1 pip damage or +1 to hit for each additional person firing.
Galaxy Guide 6 says +1D damage for each additional linked weapon.
The Far Orbit Project has "power control" rules that suggest dice may be evenly distributed from any system and spread about any number of other systems, at most +2D to any one system.
In various books, repeating blasters have various effects but usually just do more damage.

All of these systems are inconsistent and have undesirable consequences. For example, following the GG6 suggestion it only takes 24 fire linked heavy blasters to blow up a planet. The other rules aren't any better.

I suggest a single, consistent rule to replace all of the above: For each doubling of firepower or energy applied to a target, the attacker gets EITHER +1D damage OR +1D to attack. Let's see what this rule looks like when applied to the various sub-systems described above:

When fire-linking weapons, every doubling of the number of linked weapons adds +1D damage or +1D fire control. Most starships allow the gunner to switch between these settings at will. Similar rules apply when unlinking weapons. For example, the X-Wing has 4 laser cannons that do 4D each when unlinked. The pilot may add 2D in any combination to either fire control or damage. When linking weapons with different damage, the damage of lower-powered weapons must add up (using the doubling rule) to at least the damage of the highest-damage weapon in order to add a full die. For example, if a starship has one 6D damage cannon, it will need to fire link it to four 4D damage cannons to provide a total damage of 7D. If the number of weapons available isn't a power of 2, round damage down to the nearest pip. For example, fire linking 7 weapons of the same damage would provide +2D+2 damage. Dice may only be removed from the damage to add to fire control in increments of 1D.

Combined actions: when used to command soldiers or gunners, use the fire-linking rules. The total rating in Command determines how many dice and pips can be "fire-linked" together. The person using Command determines how dice are spread between attack and damage.

Power control: Do not use the rules in "The Far Orbit Project". Instead, each weapon has a total amount of energy available determined by its die total. Doubling the amount of energy available (as per the fire-linking rules) adds +1D damage. At GM option, these rules may also be used for other ship systems in a similar manner, i.e. by doubling the amount of energy (dice) a system uses, you add +1D. "Space" movement counts as 2 space/die. In general, weapons and other ship systems cannot safely go beyond +1D energy use per system.

Repeating blasters: These use similar rules to fire-linked weapons. Due to the rapid fire of these weapons, they are effectively already fire-linked. Most such weapons are assumed to fire 4 shots for every 1 that a normal weapon would fire. Thus, the user may use up to 2D damage dice for attack instead. For example, an E-Web may have +2D to attack/6D damage if the user "sprays and prays", +1D/7D, or the normal "focused-fire" effect of +0D/8D. Certain weapons may have faster rates of fire at GM option. Some starship weapons are also "repeating" in this same manner.

These rules have many useful and somewhat more realistic consequences. For example, it can now be determined that a capital-scale weapon is 64 times more energetic than a starfighter-scale weapon of the same damage. Likewise, it now takes 2^24 = 16.8 million fire linked heavy blasters to do 5D death star-scale damage.

What do you think?

[atgxtg]

THe various incoscistiences are problaby due to changes in the rules between edtions.

The doubling approach isn't bad, although I'm not so sure how it would hold up for repeating blasters. They tend to fire more than 4 times as many shots as a stadanrd blaster.

[Madwand]

[atgxtg]

There is very little inof ofn rates of fires for SW weapons. I know, I did up a formuola for autofire weapons and could only get data for thre Z-6 rotary cannon (166 shots per second, or about 830 shots per round, or about 10000 shots per minute).

For most weapons I ended up using real world weapons as a analogue, figuring that doing so would allow me to use the rule for lower tech weapons like MGs too.


If I got my math right, 166 would be about +7D+1. WHiole admittedly the Z-6 is the extreme example, 7D+1 is a bit much.

How about capping the bonus to half the skill of the shooter to reflect the problems of controlling an autofire weapon? Weapons that are vechile mounted could be limited to the shooter7s full skill value, and weapons that are carred buy braced, limited to 3/4th skill.

[Madwand]

[ZzaphodD]

Theres generally no good way to do autofire in RPGs that keep things playable AND fun.

I played Phoenix Command ages back that came quite close to doing it 'right', but it was neither playable or fun.

Id go for number 4 above, with 1 as a back up..

[ZzaphodD]

Back on topic about combined fire Im not very happy about the current system to begin with.

I know its for simplicitys sake (instead of rolling two damage rolls) but firing 8 docking blasters (Damage 1D) at an armored space ship shouldnt do more damage than a heavy laser cannon.. Its like you cant defeat a tank with 20 light machine guns.

Perhaps rolling damage twice is a better idea. To save up on rolls one might compare the two damage rolls aginst the same Hull roll.

[Madwand]

[ZzaphodD]

With 'current' system I meant RAW..

Sure 4D is better than 8D, but Id still prefer rolling 8D and compare to the hull value. That way no hail of machine guns gonna take out that tank.

[Esoomian]

Blasters aren't machine guns though. Machine guns use kinetic force to damage the target and blasters use heat.

I'm pretty weak on the science here but I don't have an issue with several blaster bolts striking the same area at the same time causing a more significant rise in surface temperature than one blaster bolt alone or even several over time.

If the rise in temperature is enough (IE you roll well in damage) I see no reason why you couldn't damage the tank. It's no different than rolling six after six after six on the wild dice.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.

[ZzaphodD]

[Esoomian]

[Dasharr]

I could be misremembering, but didn't the GG6 rules (2nd ed version) limit the fire-link bonus to 2d (for 3 weapons)? I remember noticing, and a player pointing out, that the fourth laser cannon on an X-wing's quad setup technically didn't do any good according to those rules.

[ZzaphodD]

[Esoomian]

No not really. Even if it is designed to counter heat it will still have a melting point and if that melting point is reached it'll melt and then it'll start to absorb heat more readily. Amour that is designed to counter heat specifically should either have a higher soak vs energy weapons or perhaps just have a higher soak. Either way hit it with enough and you'll still trash it.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.