Re: [DL] Single Action/Double Action/Gattling Weapons

[Jesse Burneko <jburneko@yahoo.com>]

I use the new rules and have not encountered any
problems.  I don't know if any of this has to do with
my posse's unusually high (at least from what I can
tell) survival rate.  But I'm fine with that.

The only problem I have is that no one in my posse has
the confidence to try and fan a single action so
eventually they traded in their single actions for
double actions but in some ways that makes sense
economically because after all the idea is that a
double action is a technological improvement over a
single action.

And as far as I can tell a double action is not
superior to a gattling gun when each is weilded in the
hands of two gunmen with similar shootin' apptitudes. 
Imagine for a minute that you have gunman A shooting a
double action with a skill of 5d12 and gunman B
shooting a gattling gun with a skill of 5d12.  Sure,
gunman A will get off 2 solid shots in an action but
it's VERY likely that all 3 of gunman B's shots will
hit.  AND gunman B only has to make 1 roll, that's 1
chance to go bust where as gunman A has 2 chances and
with 5d12 the odds of going bust are high.  And
finally there's just the plain simple fact that gunman
A will run out of bullets before gunman B.  So gunman
B at least has one 3 bullet burst coming down on
gunman A with no fear of retaliation.

Jesse

--- Jacek Warecki <jacek.warecki@rtswireless.com>
wrote:
> 
> I have a few problems with the new, or new to me
> anyway, rules for single
> action, 
> double action and gattling weapons.  My first
> problem is that double action
> weapons 
> are superior to gattling weapons.  Given that a
> gattling weapon is a weird
> science
> gizmo, is more expensive and has a reliability this
> should not be so.  My
> second problem is the overwhelming firepower of a
> two-fisted cowpoke with a
> pair 
> of DA pistols.
> 
> I know this issue has been raised before, so please
> forgive me if in my
> search of the
> archives I have missed the answer, but has anyone
> come up with, what they
> feel is, an
> elegant way of resolving these two issues?  Or have
> you played with the new
> rules and 
> found these issues not to be a problem?
> 
> 	Thank You
> 	    Jack
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net
> with
> 	unsubscribe deadlands
> as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/