to not only solve this problem and put it to bed but also allow people in character who may play independents to still have a fighting chance when they can't afford power armor.
With this said, if a weapon was made to cause damage to a light armor (Tier 4) on multiple hits, it should not be considered a light anti-armor (Tier 4) weapon. While the weapon can be described as being used to assault such targets, when it comes to the tier the author should, depending on the intended effect of the weapon, consider whether the weapon will prove lethal on a single hit for a heavy personnel (Tier 3) or medium personnel (Tier 2) target and label it as such.
To give an example, the Light Armor Service Rifle was designed for use near friendly assets where the potential collateral damage of more powerful weapons was not desired. As such, while it has frequently been employed in an anti-armor role the weapon can be better thought of as a heavy anti-personnel (Tier 3) weapon, as a single shot to a vital area - such as the head or torso - is likely to incapacitate such a target (or penetrate Mishhuvurthyarcarapace), but would take longer to chew through power armor.
A tier 4 weapon is a very destructive weapon, and I also am not sure that people appreciate the gap between tier 3 and 4
The M2 Browning was designed to kill TANKS!The m2 is tier 3, most definitely.
Then what's the Mk 19?It was made to kill WWI tanks which used paper thin mild steel. A modern abrams is definitely only in the Armor tier, not mecha tier. Likely Tier 6, but maybe only 5.
Please remember I've put literally thousands of rounds through these systems, often against actual live targets in theater. I am well acquainted with the capabilities of the US weapons inventory to a degree that I assure you, not even Char is familiar.
I would go so far as to say 20mm is still Tier 3 by SARP rules.
Tier 3I present the Anzio 20-50
How. this thing COULD and WOULD take out a power-armour vehicle.Tier 3
4. I've used those more than a .50Then what's the Mk 19?
Tier 3 is highly likely to do that!How. this thing COULD and WOULD take out a power-armour vehicle.
The reason for this, Shadow, is because that Tier 4 weapons with high rates of fire - assault rifles, submachine guns, etc. - are generally pieces of equipment that are bulky, ammo-hungry (for ammo, be it power packs or bullets, that itself isn't exactly small or light), and very recoil- or backblast-heavy, to the point where firing even a small burst is often enough to severely injure (or even kill) someone without the protection and/or synthetic strength afforded by powered armor. Tier 4 weapons with a low rate of fire - such as the "anti-material rifles" I mentioned on Discord - don't have this issue, however, as they fire slowly enough to prevent recoil from being an issue (provided they're fired in the correct position) and make it feasible to carry their ammunition around.Given the state of the wiki and lack of a proper if any hard ruling on things I propose an idea. Non power armored infantry can use weapons up to tier 4, I have a couple reasons for this and in a moment, I'm going to go over them with you all.
the statement "It's too powerful for an infantry man to have one." This doesn't really hold up well as an excuse, often doweled out as an excuse by older members and game masters.
Yet a quick search threw the wiki you will find a varying degree of weapons that not only meet tier 4 (anti light power armor but sometimes exceed that). The Mutagenic Assault weapon and the lepra are some examples of this, the MAW, for instance is a teir 5 (anti medium power armor) weapon made by the star army and non-power armor infantry can use it without issue. and the Rythankins have a teir 4 pistol that you don't need power armor because "its anti-matter."
Another reason as stated above is no one seems to ever want to fallow the teir 4 or higher is limited to power armor due to rule of cool or some reason. and when you bring it up to them their cookie cutter response it "its sci fi, the calibers and stuff don't make sense that's just how it is." but such a statement interferes with what they said above. So either there's really a rule that states that or its a opinion that is chosen to be followed by certain people and not for others.
Yuuki already did a good job of rebutting this in their post I linked earlier - and besides, as I stated earlier in this thread and this post, it's entirely possible for independent characters to easily access Tier 4 weapons (and beyond, in the case of RPGs and such).So, with the fallowing examples showing that there's either a lack of understanding how to treat the ruling when it comes to sci vs convential or semi realistic weapons. or due to wanting to do the rule of cool, the tier four weapon types being used by non-power armored individuals is a touchy subject so to solve headaches i think non power armored individuals should be able to have infantry weapons of at maximum tier 4 weapons. to not only solve this problem and put it to bed but also allow people in character who may play independents to still have a fighting chance when they can't afford power armor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?