![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I can start things off. The 3rd edition rules with their flat 1d20 fragments was always a problem for me. All the grenades in the game are of a vintage that optimized for uniform fragmentation. Some mechanic mimicking the inverse square rule should have been there. 4th edition, with the number of fragments scaled in part by the distance from the grenade is a step in the right direction.
Even though I have not yet gotten a group together to play 4th edition, I do like the idea of the DoS allowing for more spectacular results. While it may not be 100% true to real world, it makes for better story telling. The damage per fragment is my biggest gripe. The stereotypical room breaching scenario of tossing in a grenade and charging in after it goes off is a viable for any situation using the rules as written. Real world says that it might work for a bunker, but not a wooden building. Doing that would injure or kill the people crouched outside the door waiting to go in when the grenade goes off. As written the rules make Project personnel, who are covered from head to toe in armor with AV 7 or greater assuming they are wearing a helmet, immune from damage if they manage to get the grenade 2.75m away from themselves. That just does not seem right. I mean, if you have someone with an HP-35 and they shoot and hit this person from 5m away, you will do 2dp someplace. If this same person is 5m from a badly thrown grenade that hits (DoS = 1), using the 4th edition rules there are 10 fragments with 3 that hit doing no damage. Make it an extremely well thrown grenade (DoS = 10), you get 100 fragments with 21 hitting for, no damage. This person is at the edge of the lethal range of the grenade and takes no damage. It just feels off. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I like the idea of a bit more realism in the game. I would say to continue to develop the expansion of these rules.
The 5 m kill radius needs to be just that in the game for a grenade. The coveralls shouldn't be the get out of jail free card. If the players do something stupid, that needs to be accounted for. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There is no real good to handle the M67 damage without another table. This table has values for the ranges listed that are at reasonable, let the resistweave be effective in the injury ranges and close to actual data. The curve, while not quite exponential, is still quite close. Again, comments are still appreciated.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I've been working with the formula for a Mk82 500 lbs bomb (up coming article), using an average fragment weight of 150 grains (0.0097 kg) 8000 fragments, out to 50 m I have 17 at 100 m 13, so you are not going to be a happy camper. If the blast doesn't kill you the fragments will.
So I would say the formula is a good representation of game mechanics. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I revised the damage slightly. I did not like the way it dropped off at the end. Expanding the range increments and playing with the curve, I came up with new values that give a more aesthetically pleasing curve.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
If we want to go for super scifi warheads and bombs, there have been rumblings that metallic hydrogen has been produced in the lab. And this could be a stable form of the element even after it is removed from the ultra cold and ultra high pressure environment. (I have no idea about its stability to shock and such, but it is theorized that is could exist in room temperature)
This could lead to an explosive that is 35 times a powerful as TNT per gram and with a density of 1.11g /cm^3 (much higher that previously theorized). So by volume is would be about 23.6 times a powerful. It might actually end up being more powerful in practice as the byproduct of the initial reaction is H2 meaning that could combine with oxygen for an even larger explosion. |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|