Because Fred was tired of the complaints on the present damage rating system, he decided to start working on a new system which would serve as a better guide to support the narrative of the Star Army Role Play.

Pardon the dust. This is being done on the fly.

Bear in mind that these are guidelines meant to help players know how effective their tools are, while still providing Game Masters narrative control over what actually happens.

At the heart of the Damage Rating system are the weapon classes. Each class is accompanied by one or two examples of what one could expect to see as armour in its grouping. The listed armours are paired with examples of weapons that could be expected to defeat the armor when properly employed.

This information is intended to be used to give Game Masters and Players an idea of what to expect from the application of a particular weapon, while also giving an idea of what they can expect their defences to withstand. This reference gives GMs and Players a tool to help in the process of making informed decisions regarding their chosen equipment.

While the values presented on this page are meant to be as accurate as possible it is not intended to be used as a final arbiter as to the function of a weapon. Rather it is a guideline to help GMs and Players determine whether the equipment suits their application before reading the equipment's article to better understand how to best apply the equipment.

It is important to note that while a weapon can be expected to defeat it's intended target within the same class, that this is only if the operation of the weapon used with skill. A user needs to attempt to strike a vital area of the target, as many units are capable of sustaining operation should a non-vital section be damaged. Further the chaotic nature of combat may mean that a direct hit might not happen resulting in a diminished effect on the target.

When you design a weapon to be able to effectively kill something, then when used you expect it to succeed at that task.

Therefore, when using a light anti-personnel weapon on a lightly protected person, a successful hit can potentially kill the target. It doesn't mean it will, as striking a limb - barring health complications such as shock or bleeding - will be less immediately fatal than going for the heart or brain.

When a weapon is designed with the intention of effectively killing something, it should be expected that the weapon will succeed at that task.

Therefore, it can be expected that when using a light anti-personnel weapon on a lightly protected individual that a successful hit can potentially kill the target. This does not mean that a hit will guarantee a kill, as striking a less vital area such as a limb - barring health complications such as shock or excessive blood loss - will fail to be immediately fatal as opposed to a hit that does damage to vital structures such as the heart or brain.

A weapon's purpose designates what expected target it is meant to be lethal to. That doesn't mean, however, that it will be ineffective when used against a hardier target. The reverse is also true: it can be that much more deadly if used on a softer target than its intended design.

While a weapon's designated purpose should give a clear idea as to what you can expect a weapon to be lethal to, that doesn't mean that the weapon will be ineffective when used against a hardier target. The reverse of this is true, the weapon is likely to be much more deadly when used against a softer target than what it is designed to kill.

For the purposes of helping illustrate this point the below chart gives examples of approximate results from the use of weapons from classes above and below a target's class.

This said, this sets power armor like the Mindy to still do its job of protecting its wearer against anti-personnel weapons… but this does not make being peppered upon by smallarms or anti-personnel grenades a trivial matter.

Weapons achieving larger lethality could very well spell the end of a target despite not hitting in a critical location. A man struck in the shoulder by an aether saber-rifle could be vaporized on hit. If you're a power armor stuck in the blast radius of an anti-starship torpedo, that's probably it for you too.

With this in mind, it can be clearly understood that a power armor like the Mindy will do its job and protect the wearer from anti-personnel weapons, however this does not guarantee safety from prolonged smallarms fire nor does it make anti-personnel grenades a trivial matter.

In addition weapons of a higher class could very well spell the end of a target despite not hitting it in a critical location. For example an unarmored man struck in the shoulder by an aether saber-rifle could be vaporized by the hit. Another example is that an individual in a power armor that is stuck in the blast radius of an anti-starship torpedo, you can probably count on it being the end for you.

No, not that kind of protection. Shame on you for thinking dirty thoughts.

This section provides guidelines to help with the understanding of the nature of defences in the setting giving players and GMs an idea of how different properties act.

Having extra armor effectively doesn't help much except designate the 'class' of the target.

At its most basic armor is what gets between an individual and what is trying to kill them. Different materials function in different ways as such it is a good idea to research what materials you are likely to be interacting with so as to best determine how to represent the armor as it is damaged while preforming its job.

It is important to note that changing how much armor a unit has is going to affect which class it belongs in. Adding extra armor to a Daisy for example might move it from Class 5 (Medium PA) to Class 6 (Heavy PA). In addition to this class change it would also affect the function of the unit which should be taken into account IC.

Being in a vehicle, in itself, also lends a degree of protection to the user. A power armor may endure under fire without breach, and slowly deteriorate/ablate to a point where its breakdown will eventually threaten the wearer on subsequent harm. This is generally done by weaponry under the class-value of the machine.

As one would expect placing one's self within a vehicle lends a degree of protection to the user. For example: A power armor may endure weapons fire without breach, while slowly deteriorating/ablating to a point where its breakdown will threaten the wearer should the source of damage continue without being addressed.

It is important to remember that weapons fire that slowly wears away at the armor of a unit is likely under the class value of the machine. Should a weapon be intended to take multiple successive shots to destroy a target it should likely be placed a class or two below the target depending on the amount of successive hits intended.

Shielding, in turn, is the plot tool that likely provides GMs with the ability to lend players a certain level of 'recoverable crunchability' when under fire from similar-tier opponents.

“Shield Class” indicates the kind of abuse they are made to withstand at the utmost, while “Shield Endurance” indicates how much of that they can soak up.

In general, most vehicles with good-shielding will be equipped with same-class shields with an Endurance of 2. This is based on the level of lethality displayed by Wes during the Sakura plot. This means that a potentially ship-killing hit will be able to be soaked up by the shielding.

“Shield Endurance” as a number can count fractions as shown above in dimishing/increasing lethality. Excess damage the shield cannot handle will bleedthrough to what the shield was protecting.

To make it more simple, shields usually go from full strength to half-strength when something that could kill a player hits him. It's like the equivalent of two extra lives; though the shield doesn't discriminate on a hit that would've been truly lethal (head, chest) and one that might not have been (limbs).

Shield recovery is usually a matter of player action, depending on opportunities left by both equipment and Game Master;

For power armor, ducking under cover for a little while or shunting capacitor power to the shield generator could help it recover. Full-endurance recovery is recommended. Generally, GMs want players back in the action quickly, it's a good way of rewarding players for being cautious, depending on teamwork for cover, or loadout selection.

For larger vehicles such as starships, shield recovery can be a matter of reinforcing one shield facing at the expense of another, or redistributing power from certain ship systems to compensate for ailing shielding. Using reserve power can also yield such a benefit. This is a facet ideally left to player intervention, as there are few ways to do damage control in a fast paced battle and shield reinforcement/restoration could be one way to do it.

Shielding, is a plot tool that provides GMs with the ability to lend players a certain level of 'recoverable crunchability' when under fire from similar-tier opponents.

“Shield Class” indicates the kind of abuse that the shielding systems are made to withstand at the utmost, while “Shield Endurance” indicates how much of damage from that class of weaponry that they can soak up.

As an example, in general most vehicles with good-shielding will be equipped with shields of the same class as the vehicle with an Endurance of 2. This means that a potentially ship-killing hit will be able to be soaked up by the shielding twice. This guideline is based on the level of lethality displayed by Wes during the Sakura plot and should function as a benchmark when considering shielding systems in the setting.

When a shield receives damage from a source that is above its Class the excess damage the shield cannot handle will bleed through to what the shield was protecting. This means that more weapons of a higher Class can potentially damage or outright destroy a target even when it has full integrity shielding.

To give an example: Shields usually go from full strength to half-strength when something that could kill a player hits him. This provides a function for the player that could be considered equivalent of two extra lives; though with the caveat that the shield's doesn't discriminate based on whether a hit that would've been truly lethal (head, chest) as opposed to one that might not have been (limbs).

The process of shield recovery, should usually be reliant on player action while also depending on opportunities provided by both equipment and Game Master.

For example with power armor, a player could duck into cover for a time to allow the shielding system to recharge, or alternatively shields could be restored by shunting capacitor power to the shield generator which could help it recover. It is recommended that full-endurance recovery of shielding systems be used as generally, GMs want players back in the action quickly. This provides a good way of rewarding players for being cautious, depending on teamwork for cover, or good choices during load-out selection.

For larger vehicles such as starships, shield recovery can instead be portrayed in character as a decision to reinforce one shield facing at the expense of another, or to redistribute power from certain ship systems to compensate for ailing shielding. If available using reserve power can also yield such a benefit. This is a facet of an engagement that is ideally left to player intervention, as there are few ways to do damage control in a fast paced starship battle and shield reinforcement/restoration could be one way to do it.

Lethality here is being considered per-shot. The damage potential for weaponry that has a very rate of fire is something that's unique to the weapon and its submission process.

This said, if a weapon was made to cause damage to a 'light armor' (Class 4) on multiple hits, it was probably meant to be a weaker weapon than “Light Anti-Armor”.

For the purpose of this damage system lethality is being considered on a per-shot basis. The damage potential for weaponry that has a very high rate of fire is something unique to the weapon and should be detailed and elaborated upon during the submission process.

With this said, if a weapon was maid to cause damage to a 'light armor' (Class 4) on multiple hits, it should not be considered a “Light Anti-Armor Weapon”. While the weapon can be described as being used to assault such targets, when it comes to the Class the author should, depending on the intended effectiveness of the weapon, consider whether the weapon will prove lethal on a single hit for a Class 3 or Class 2 target and label it as such.

To give an example, the LASR 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 an “Anti-Heavy Personnel Weapon” (Class 3) as a single shot to a vital area (head, torso) is likely to incapacitate such a target.

Before, an unit's class level created a certain expectation as to what kind of weapon it could field. Following this revision, this would be loosened.

It's entirely possible today to have infantry use anti-materiel rifles to be able to shoot and damage/cripple tanks. Following this real world example shows that today's infantry might very well be wielding (Class 6) “Heavy Anti-Armor” weaponry.

The same could be said within our roleplay, where we expect the KFY-produced Aether Saber-Rifle to be able to cut holes through a ship's hull; this may solidly situate them in the (Class 7) “Light Anti-Mecha” category - in turn making them dangerous even to the larger Mishhuvurthyar mecha.

The same can be said for limited-use weaponry such as grenades. A person can carry a number of anti-personnel grenade and use them for a far larger level of lethality than most other anti-personnel weapons offer.

Missiles/torpedoes on fightercraft usually see the same notion, making bombing runs on larger vessels a realistic threat.

Before, using the previous system it was common that a unit's 'class' level created a certain expectation as to what kind of weapons it could field. Following this revision, these guidelines would be relaxed.

It's entirely possible in the context of modern warfare to have infantry use anti-materiel rifles, or man portable missile systems to be able to shoot and damage/cripple tanks. Following this real world example, it suggests that today's infantry might very well be wielding (Class 6) “Heavy Anti-Armor” weaponry.

The same could be said within our roleplay, where we expect the KFY-produced Aether Saber-Rifle to be able to cut holes through a ship's hull; this may solidly situate them in the (Class 7) “Light Anti-Mecha” category - in turn making them dangerous even to the larger Mishhuvurthyar mecha.

This same attitude can be applied toward for limited-use weaponry such as grenades. A person can carry a number of anti-personnel grenades and potentially use them to achieve a far larger level of lethality than most other anti-personnel weapons offer.

Missiles/torpedoes on fightercraft should usually see the same notion, making bombing runs on larger vessels a realistic threat.

The reverse is also true.

Let's take the Plumeria-class gunship for example.

It's built around a singular weapon: its aether shock array. Since “pocket battleship” is bandied about, I've no problem thinking that this is meant - especially when used in squadrons - to actually be something that can potentially sink heavy cruisers and battleships. I'd set it as a (Class 13) “Light Anti-Capital” weapon.

The two railguns on its wings strike me more as its dogfighting weapons against ship of a similar-size class. Weave around, get a good firing solution, pew pew and expect it to hurt or die. This kind of slates those as (Class 11) “Medium Anti-Starship” weapons.

The turreted anti-ship cannons, though, don't have me as convinced of that. They pivot, they've a good range of fire, and just giving them equal potency to the pylon railguns just seems to lack in character. No. When I close my eyes to imagine those, I expect them to be serious business against starships, but without being the one-hit KO expected from the pylon railguns. I see those gutting shuttles open, though (and I'm not talking small shuttlecraft here). So, I'd set them as (Class 9) “Heavy Anti-Mecha” weaponry.

The smaller anti-armor weapons I believe were meant as a direct counter to Mishhu battlepods, as well as some extra duty to shoot down power armor and incoming missiles. I don't think a power armor, when hit by that, should really expect to survive unless it has pristine/extremely good armor & shielding. As such, I'd make them (Class 7) “Light Anti-Mecha” weaponry.

The two torpedoes the Plumeria can carry are weapons I expect to directly supplement the ship-killing firepower it can bring to bear with its traditionally slow-charging railguns. They're Z-1s, and not the classical AS-7s (which in my mind would be more for anti-capital bombing). I'm kind of thinking the anti-matter versions would do as much as the positron railguns themselves, so thet'd be (Class 11) “Medium Anti-Starship” warheads too.I see their value as breaking the fire rate/lethality limit/charge time the Plumeria has to make it especially good at what it is: an interceptor that swiftly brings down nimble warships ships or can perform devastatingly (for its size) brief hit-and-run strike on a heavier target without having the extra mass of a full torpedo loadout.

It's built around a singular weapon: its aether shock array. Since the title “pocket battleship” is bandied about, I've no problem thinking that this is meant - especially when used in squadrons - to actually be something that can potentially sink heavy cruisers and battleships. I'd set it as a (Class 13) “Light Anti-Capital” weapon.

The two railguns on its wings strike me more as its dogfighting weapons against ship of a similar-size class. Intended to be used as one weaves around to get a good firing solution, fire and expect it to hurt or die. This kind of slates those as (Class 11) “Medium Anti-Starship” weapons.

The turreted anti-ship cannons, though, don't have me as convinced of their stated role. They pivot, giving them a good range of fire, and just giving them equal potency to the pylon railguns just seems to lack in character. No. When I close my eyes to imagine those, I expect them to be serious business against starships, but without being the one-hit KO expected from the pylon railguns. I see those gutting shuttles open, though (and I'm not talking small shuttlecraft here). So, I'd set them as (Class 9) “Heavy Anti-Mecha” weaponry.

The smaller anti-armor weapons I believe were meant as a direct counter to Mishhu battlepods, as well as some extra duty to shoot down power armor and incoming missiles. I don't think a power armor, when hit by that, should really expect to survive unless it has pristine/extremely good armor & shielding. As such, I'd make them (Class 7) “Light Anti-Mecha” weaponry.

The two torpedoes the Plumeria can carry are weapons I expect to directly supplement the ship-killing firepower it can bring to bear with its traditionally slow-charging railguns. They're Z-1s, and not the classical AS-7s (which in my mind would be more for anti-capital bombing). I'm kind of thinking the anti-matter versions would do as much as the positron railguns themselves, so thet'd be (Class 11) “Medium Anti-Starship” warheads too. I see their value as breaking the fire rate/lethality limit/charge time the Plumeria has to make it especially good at what it is: an interceptor that swiftly brings down nimble warships or can perform devastatingly (for its size) brief hit-and-run strike on a heavier target without having the extra mass of a full torpedo loadout.