| From: | Daniel Williams <daniel@****.DOE.K12.MS.US> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: AMMo |
| Date: | Sun, 9 Oct 1994 01:03:05 CDT |
> Subject: Re: AMMo
>
> CHOPPER writes:
>
> > Even the military have fallen into calling teflon/steel bullets
> > 'teflon coated', like peaple call vacuum cleaners 'hoovers'
> > Ballistic armour-1, power -1 for wound/body roll only
> > (as the bullet doesn't expand as much)
>
> You do realise that this would result in it being _disadvantagous_ to use AP
> rounds in _any_ circumstances don't you? Say I have a heavy pistol, doing
> 9M. If I'm shooting a target with 5 Ballistic armour, and firing regular
> rounds, then the victim needs a target number of 4. If I put in AP rounds,
> my power goes down by 1, and so does their armour rating, meaning that they
> again need a 4 (8-4 in stead of 9-5). Now, if they didn't have any armour
> and I was firing AP rounds, then only the -1 power would apply, meaning that
> I would be better off using regular rounds all the time, even against
> armoured opponents.
The no-armor = lower-damage-to-resist seems to be about right though. An
armor-piercing around isn't designed to destory flesh per say, but rather to
penetrate armor, and so would tend to pass through regular flesh without
as much damage (well, a higher possiblty of less damage than a regular
round).
I think it should be that APDS reduces the power by one (as per
CHOPPER) and halves the armor (as per the normal rules).
--Nefarious
