[HoE] Junker Armor, etc.

[Abdullah Oblongota <toadpooka@usa.net>]

It's clobberin' time...

<<  Actually, it should be noted that under Locomotion, slots for
passenger and
  cargo _do_ require components, at least based on the calculations for
Marv's
  Motorcycle.

  I suppose there's a good reason why Vehicles require you to
component-cost
  the dead space, and Armor doesn't, but I can't think of it at the
moment...
  :)>>
The reason is that the vehicle passenger space has controls, etc in it.
Granted, that isn't the best answer.  If it were up to me (which,
fortunately enough, it usually is), I'd count driver/passenger space for
components, but not dead cargo space.
Irregardless, the general building rules call dead space something that
you stick into the device, and it isn't covered by a particular power.
Since Locomotion contradicts that, we can count it as the exception, and
not the rule.

<<Is Armor a problem waiting to happen? It seems like any problems it
might
  present are pretty obvious from the get-go, just as I spotted them
here
  prior to my PCs actually getting to Junkyard to buy them.>>
I've found that armor in any game can be a bitch and 2/3.  Overarmoring
a character is usually the easiest route to powergaming godhood.  But
this is something we gotta deal with...

  <snip idea of rolling stability for each bullet>

<<I don't think there was really any dispute here on this issue.
Although
  that also means the 5-8s come up more than once too. This also means
that
  *sigh* there is yet _another_ die roll involved in the combat. Roll to
hit,
  roll for hit location, roll for damage, roll for Stability check of
the
  armor being hit, roll for stun check, roll for amount of Wind
inflicted...>>
Yeah.  That's gonna be damn annoying, not to mention going too far in
the "unstable" direction.  That armor's not gonna last long.

<<Do you? See my previous post - the Locomotion rules do _not_ entirely
work
  that way, if the Marv's Motorcycle example is correct. Or do you
consider
  "cargo space" to be part of the "power" of Locomotion?

  The Armor rules vis a vis Locomotion are spelled out a lot more
clearly,
  too.>>
Again, I mentioned this earlier, but after a fast reread through the
rules, Marv could've gotten away with not adding "cargo space," and
instead adding "empty space," which is the same thing, but uses no
components.

<<See my previous note: I'm not sure I _want_ to throw more die-rolling
at
  the system, particularly since combat has so many already.
Particularly
  when such die-rolling (per hit, rather than per day) is
counter-indicated by
  the Junker rules. I'm not adverse to the latter, but when anybody
suggests,
  "Yeah, make more rolls during combat" (particularly when this is a
roll that
  you then have to go to a chart to interpret), I start to get a
headache...
  ;)>>
Well, if you make rolls for every Durability step, you're making a lot
fewer rolls than one for every hit (I was a bit off in my original
calculations), but still a few more to balance it out.

<<Sure. But we're not really talking mark-up, and you'd have to
arbitrarily
  (and consistently) mark it up to balance it out in that manner in any
case.>>
I used the word "markup" to show the fact that you were essentially
comparing the retail price of one item (the bulletproof vest at $750) to
the raw materials cost of another (the $30-something for the junker
suit), and not factoring in the cost of the time to build it, the rick
of both building it, and the time and risk of acquiring the skills of a
junker.  Look at the chances of your head blowing up just for learning a
power, and tell me that's not a cost.

<<Rather, presumably the prices generated by Junker cost/components (and

  listed for items) are a _baseline_ to compare relative prices. That's
the
  baseline that's used for, say, buying Gear at the beginning of the
game.
  Okay, I can claim that "Yeah, Armor is rare in [Location of your
choice}
  that you folks are at, pay double." But is someone supposed to mark up

  starting prices too?

  The baseline has to generate consistent values so that you can _then_
mark
  stuff up or down. In this case, it seems to be the baselines
themselves
  that are at fault.>>
When I said "markup," as before, it was to compare retail to raw
materials, not the amount that the Marshal raises prices on things to
keep them out of the hands of the characters.

<<Also, who necessarily said anything about the Junker selling it?
Rather,
  it's a matter of what he _pays_ to make the Armor, for his (and his
party's,
  potentially) personal use. That means I've got to get into marking up
  components that the folks purchase, at, say, Junkyard. And again, to
  consistently keep Armor "balanced" in this manner, I'd have to
consistently
  and arbitrarily set the component cost, rather than base it on
fluctuating
  circumstances involved in typical consumer mark-up.>>
Prices are based on utility.  The junker isn't buying armor, he's buying
CRAP and making functional armor out of it.  2000 pounds of raw steel
costs a lot less than a finished automobile, doesn't it?

<<And finally...I'm already applying a 100% mark-up for costs (see my
  calculations), and you're still getting a superior suit for half the
cost
  you'd pay for mere Kevlar.>>
Comparing this to real-world prices, if you found a way to buy stuff for
ONLY 200% of the cost of the raw materials in it, you'd probably be
accused of controlling the media or something.

<<The whole point of armor is making it more difficult for folks to blow
your
  ass up (thus the Robohunter archetype in the HoE Companion, who
doesn't
  strike me as very mobile either). Your mileage may certainly vary, but
most
  of our group's fights are "stand-and-fight" skirmishes. That's why
  they're...ummm, fights, and not chase sequences.>>
Well, unless you know the stats of everything that your character is
gonna fight, you probably should make sure you have the option of
running.  It's not uncommon for Black Hats to carry AP rounds, in which
case that armor is going to give as much advantage in combat as two lead
weights tied to his ankles.

<(I'll grant that I'm not particularly fond of movement during combat,
as it
  strikes us as perhaps the most clunky of the various systems. Also,
since
  you suffer penalties for firing and moving, it tends to hose over PCs
in a
  bullet/resource-rare environment.)
  On the short term, we have enough folks with low Nimbleness, Limps,
and
  what-not that a Pace of, say, 2.5 due to Load is not that important.
In the
  long term, they drive places so a low Pace doesn't matter (and
wouldn't tend
  to impact the rest of the group with the handicaps mentioned above
anyway).
  Either way, there's not much "slowing down.">>
OK, so the Armor power doesn't confer enough disadvantages _in your
campaign._  But, a good Marshal shows his players that sometimes you
run.  My players used to think they should stand and fight every threat
that came their way...4 maimed limbs later, they wished they had legs
left to run on.
As for the movement not being an issue in your game, I'd say that the
fact the characters have limps and low Pace is a result of the lack of
movement in fights, not the other way around.

 <<*scatches head* That seems to be missing the point that folks are
taking
  high armor to _avoid_ being "chased down". As in any combat situation,
you
  choose between heavy armor and firepower with low mobility, or light
armor
  and firepower with high mobility. There are certainly advantages to
each,
  but random stray shots, ambushes, stuff like that tend to pick off the

  latter more than the former.>>
No, people take armor to make it easeir to survive being "chased down."
There's a crucial difference.  Armor 2 is pretty easy to break through,
when you think about it, and given the law of PC party chases (I don't
have to outrun the monster, I just have to outrun the rest of the
group), guess who's going to have that armor penetrated first.

<<I could of course "penalize" folks in this manner and create such
encounters
  where they absolutely must run. But penalize them for doing what,
exactly?
  Buying cheap AV2? Are we saying that players shouldn't try to get the
best
  buy for their characters?>>
The key to decent Marshaling isn't making encounters where they "must
run" or "must fight," it's making encounters where they MIGHT run or
MIGHT fight.  That slavering beastie might just be able to smash Armor
boy like an otter cracking a clam to get at the creamy center, or it
might be a pushover.  There's only one way to find out, and I doubt any
real person would volunteer for that particular experiment  Now, if your
players are playing their characters like numbers on a sheet of paper,
you need to beat them about the left frontal lobe with a leather edition
Deadlands compendium until they learn what fear is.

<<Don't know. *checks accumulated rulings* Don't see it. I'd certainly
be
  thinking of some simple Wind/round vs. Armor Level/weight kind of
thing.
  But wouldn't have an idea of where to start. That's why I, like, buy
  sourcebooks and stuff.>>
There's always the rules that are already there, and having the
characters have to lift more than a trigger finger during a fight.  Or,
check out those neat survival rules in Wasted West, and give a penalty
to the rolls to resist heat due to the armor (if the answer to this is
"If I have to come up with my own penalty, I might as well write my own
game," I probably should offer to buy your HoE books from you and put
them to a better use).

<Besides, again...we seem to be getting back into this whole
"penalizing"
  thing. So we (presumably) want smart players who play (mostly) smart
  characters, but if they're too smart, we jump in and penalize them in
some
  way?>>
Supposing this thread was started with the intent of coming up with some
sort of solution to this rule that may-or-may-not be broken, some kind
of penalizing is inevitable.  of course, there's always the possibility
it was another statement that, "This game sucks," which wouldn't
surprise me much at this point either.
Keep in mind that there's a difference between penalizing people for
being smart and penalizing people for wearing armor.  If you call
walking around in a claustrophobic tin can 12 hours a day in the burning
dessert "smart," then go ahead and don't penalize the players.  Just
don't call the game broken because you're refusing to do it.

<<Granted, that doesn't mean blatant loopholes shouldn't be sealed up.
But if
  this Armor thing _is_ a blatant loophole (have we determined that
yet?), why
  not just say, "Hey, this doesn't work - here's the fix" rather than
let
  folks use it and then come up with ways to penalize them when they use
it.
  The latter takes much less time and is less of an ongoing kind of
thing.>>
There have been at least 100 million solutions to this problem posted
since the thread came up.  Unfortunately, every one of them is, by
default, a penalty compared to letting the characters walk around
unhindered in suits of plate armor.  If something works to well, any
adjustment to bring it down is a penalty.  That's the definition of the
word.

<<My problem here is that I'm not sure _how_ to make it work without
adding
  even more die-rolling and obtuse Wind systems.>>
The complaint here seems to be, "when a rule exists, why do we have to
use it?" and, "why don't they make more rules to cover for the fact that
I don't want to use some of the others in the books?" There's an
inherent contradiction here...

<<If you incorporate a Browser Spirit into a vehicle, but it runs on
Spook
  Juice rather than G-rays, how do you determine how much "power" the
Browser
  Spirit provides? Does it provide X amount of gallons of SJ equivalent
per
  day/week/month? Or something else?>>
Browser Spirits don't make spook juice, only G-Rays.  Short answer, if
the vehicle runs on Juice, no Browser can power it.
That should be in the Rulings, Hopler mentioned it on the list.

 <<Ummm, first of all, it would seem that Armor built using the Armor
rules for
  Junkers would take "damage" the same way as regular armor (just as
vehicles
  take damage the same way rather they are regular or Junker). Regular
armor
  isn't rated by Durability or takes Durability and durability steps
into
  account (although perhaps it should, I'll agree - how many shotgun
blasts
  can a Kevlar vest _take_...).>>
No, junker vehicles take damage like normal vehicles because junker
devices take damage like normal vehicles, even if they're beer coolers.
Therefore, Armor should as well.  The second question is valid:

<<Second of all, ummm, in your campaign how do you determine how much
damage a
  Junk-Armor suit takes? Armor reduces die-type, it doesn't absorb or
  otherwise "soak" damage. So if my opponent fires a 3d6 gun at the PCs
2 AV
  armor, he simply rolls 2d4 damage to see how much damage the PC takes.
I
  have no idea how much damage was originally generated and how much the
armor
  reduced it by. I could, of course, roll both damages, and figure the
Armor
  takes the difference. Oh good, more die-rolling in combat - just can't
get
  enough of that! ;)>>
Given that armor absorbing damage is doing its job correctly, it should
take damage for the damage it fails to absorb, i.e. the damage
transferred to the character.  Picture a trampoline:  as long as someone
bounces on it normally, it repels the force and takes no damage.  But
too much force, the jumper tears through the trampoline, thus damaging
it.

<<And third...wouldn't that make Junk-Armor completely unviable? The
  pre-mentioned suit of AV2 I built had an actual Size of 3 (the suit
itself
  was size 5, but the Armor was size 3). That would mean that...6 points
of
  damage and the armor is _gone_. Don't even both worrying about making
  Stability checks with the penalties for Durability steps reached.>>
The solution to this is to build a suit that's simply bigger...say, Size
8 or 10, with free space for a single occupant...more components, higher
cost, more weight, everything that building powerful devices should be,
right?

<<Certainly, a literal reading of the rules suggests your interpretation
is
  correct. However, has John Hopler ever actually confirmed this? (I
don't
  see anything in the Accumulated Rulings). I suspect I'll be sending
him
  another [HOPLER] post on this one. It's an intriguing idea, although
  logistically it seems like somewhat of a headache, and makes Armor not
only
  "balanced" vis a vis cost, but totally useless. But do you really
think
  that's what Mr. Hopler intended?>>
Well, I also didn't e-mail Hopler to ask if all the costs for Edges and
Hindrances were what he intended, or if the book had as many pages as he
intended, or if, in his opinion, the retail value was appropriate.  I
assumed that a person has the ability not to disagree with himself if he
doesn't want to.

<<If you do worry about damage and Durability for Armor (and for
smaller-type
  Junk devices in general), the rules in the Junker SB state about the
damage,
  "This is figured in the same way as damage for vehicles." So when you
use
  this procedure, do you divide the damage by 10/5/2/1 like vehicles,
  depending on the type of weapon being used?

  This would certainly help to insure that Junk-Armor would last fairly
long.
  Although should this rule be read literally for _all_ Junker devices
(i.e.,
  a Size 1 commo takes damage like a vehicle??)?>>
Well, that would certainly mean less die-rolling in combat, and overall,
not be too overpowering, as Durability damage adds up over time, not
like wounds do.  What it would mean is that the junker would have to
spend time repairing it a lot.

<<However, I'm still curious how you:

  A) determine how much damage Armor takes from a shot, given the
factors I
  stated before without running up against a logistical/die-rolling
nightmare?
  and

  B) apply this system to regular armor as well? It certainly makes
sense to,
  say, treat Kevlar Vests in the same manner (figure they've got a Size
of 3
  or so and the same Durability as per the Junker chart). But if you
treat
  regular Armor and Junk-Armor the same way, this seems to reduce the
whole
  Durability factor by applying it equally, making Junker-Armor once
again
  more cost-effective.>>
A) see above, no extra die rolls, use the same total.
B) I wouldn't suggest using Durability for normal armor: as you said, it
would being the "unfairness" of junker armor back up, and the lack of
necessary durability steps could reflect the fact that it was
manufactured for the purpose.  Or, we could take the literal approach,
and say that since there are no rules for damaging normal armor, it
wasn't intended to be damaged, while junker armor was.


<<What are you talking about? 14 or 23 the rolls would be made the same
  amount. What has the stability level have to do with it? Each time a
device
  is used. As in deadlands. Thats what I suggested.
  Durability is the answer here yes. I like it but its not going to
effect
  anything that isn't directly attacked in combat. Like a gun or a
sensor or
  anything similar. The Malfunction rules worked fine in Deadlands so we
use
  those.>>
Sorry, here I may have misread.  What I saw was that you made devices
with high Stability roll every use, and those with low to roll every
day.
But if you look at the S&R rules, not all devices (namely, armor) roll
Malfunction for every use.
--
From Whom it May Concern,
Rich Ranallo, The Man They Couldn't Hang

"And there never was an apple, in Adam's opinion, that wasn't worth the
trouble you got into for eating it."
 -Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett, Good Omens