Re: [HoE] Junker Armor, etc. *long but final*

["Steve Crow" <crow_steve@hotmail.com>]

><<  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.
>

And seat cushions, and stuff like that, too.  It's not clear to me that 
Locomotion really specifically contradicts that (you have to look at the 
example to figure it out), but it's not an unreasonable assumption.  And 
certainly all the vehicles I've built calculated cargo/dead space in such a 
matter, even before I scrutinized the rules more closely.

><<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...
>

Even without Junker rules I'd agree, it's a problem (i.e., Wolverine 
Battlesuit, Cyborgs). But at least those systems make some attempt to 
balance it out.

The catch is that those are pretty much more the _basis_ for characters.  I 
can discourage or simply ban the archetype, and take other measures within 
the game to make sure they don't get such things within the campaign (which 
isn't hard - you the Marshal just don't leave Wolverine Battlesuit lying 
around ;) ).

But the Armor power within the Junker archetype(s) is a bit trickier.  It's 
really a subset of an overall character archetype, and one you can't really 
ban - adding Armor to other stuff (i.e., Locomotion, various air vehicles 
from Iron Oasis) is too essential.

>   *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.
>

It seems to run about 50/50 for my rolling.  But I'm not taking into account 
those Durability steps that you mentioned, and that I hope you responded to 
my request for more detail on *you did - see way below*).

More likely, making those extra roll(s) are going to make me and my players 
"unstable."  ;)

><<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.
>

That struck me as a loophole in the rules as well.  But I think you can only 
use cargo space to store cargo - not unused slot space.  However, this is an 
area that I would agree could be..."creatively" interpreted either way.

><<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.
>

Actually, upon discussion last night, we thought the best way was to simply 
make a roll after each _combat_ rather than at either each Durability Step 
or with each hit the armor took.  Again, I'm not adverse to going against 
the "once a day" rules for Stability checks, but I want to keep it down to a 
minimum.

><<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.
>

Well, it seems like a lot of folks missed this in my original posts.  And it 
was buried among my verbiage.  :)  However, I use a x12 multiplier (i.e. # 
of components x 12) to generate "cost."  This works consistently for pretty 
much everything else on the low end of the scale.  So if you build a .45 
revolver with Junker powers, and cost it out this way, it comes out to about 
the same as a "list price" .45.

At the high-end it makes things a bit cheaper, but stuff that big also has 
high g-ray/spook juice costs that don't get directly factored in to building 
which make it close to equal.

Armor is the _only_ low-end item I've found so far that comes off as cost 
disportionate.

Now, in all this the one thing I've _never_ done is attack someone for 
suggesting the cost be higher (although I've asked what they think it should 
be).  And no one has really claimed my x12 modifier was lousy either.  
Everyone has just kinda talked around it.  But if not x12...then what to 
factor in the "risks" of Junker costs?

>   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.
>

Understood.  So do you feel my proposed x12 is too low?  It seems to 
generate roughly equivalent costs (factoring in non-direct building costs 
like g-rays/spook juice) for everything else.

><<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?
>

Guess I'm not following here.  He's buying relatively cheap "crap" and 
making functional armor out of it, agreed.  So the determining factor then 
becomes the risk multiplier that I _do_ take into account.  Again, do you 
think x12 is too low?

><<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.
>

Okay, now we're on to my proposed modifier.  But at that point, if you apply 
a higher multiplier, other Junk-stuff starts to climb out of price range.  
Iron Oasis Junkers apparently have a substantial business in selling Junk 
stuff.  If their stuff costs considerably more to build than other stuff you 
could buy, than those Junkers are out of a job.

Now, obviously some manufactured pre-war stuff you can't find as easily as a 
Junker makes it.  So it's a delicate balancing act.  But just so we Marshals 
have a single constant reference from which to work with, what single 
constant/multiplier would you recommend?

And as a final note, given that it only takes 11 components to make a AV 2 
Body Suit...you would have to use a multiplier of approximately _68_!!! to 
make it cost out to the 750 of a Kevlar Vest.  And in fact, it should cost 
more, since it's better than a suit.

You take that multiplier and apply it to any non-Armor Gadget, and the cost 
is obscene.  Folks ain't buyin' this stuff in Junkyard.  I don't care how 
uncommon a .45 revolver is - no one's going to spend (approximately) $1020 
for a Junk-.45 (and with Stability and stuff factored in) when they can get 
it for the list price elsewhere.  Your mileage may vary, of course.

><<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.
>

Well, that's where you're kinda at the mercy of your players.  My players 
_don't_ do that.  Now, never mind that one of the basic GM rules of thumb 
should be "Give your players what they want, not necessarily what you want" 
(a rather broad overstatement, but basically sound).  My players have their 
characters pack lot of heavy firepower, and do things like increase their 
Quickness so that they hit fast, hit first, and hit hard.  They're (mostly) 
Heroic, several are Hunted by and/or have a hatred of Black Hats...they not 
just going to abandon the field of battle because the Black Hats got AP 
rounds.  As they commonly do, agreed - it's a basic character/stat feature.  
I'd say it would be uncommon if they _didn't_ have AP rounds.  ;)

But...so what?  This, IMO, is one of those "logic gaps" that I must admit, I 
find confusing.  Folks ARE GOING TO WEAR ARMOR.  It keeps you alive more 
often than not.  The benefits far outweigh the disadvantage of being 
confronted by guys with AP rounds.  You could say the same thing about 
Kevlar, or Infantry Battle Suits, or whatever.

And if they're going to wear armor, they're going to buy and wear the best, 
most cost-effective armor possible.

We seem to be sidestepping this by ignoring any weight limitations or 
affects of these types of armor, but not Junk-built armor.  Even Mr. Hopler 
doesn't really play up the "weight issue" in the Armor section.  He says 
"sometimes" it comes into play.

But if you're going to use this "fix", don't you have to use it 
consistently?  So you let characters in Infantry Battlesuits dance around 
and run freely, but guys in not-dissimilar AV 2 Junk-suits slow to a snail's 
pace?

Again, I'm not adverse to playing around with Mr. Hopler's 
rules/suggestions.  But this then points out the logical contradictions in 
such "fixes."  Players (well, my players) pick up on this kind of thing.

>   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.
>

Wrong.  They've taken that kind of stuff from day one, before the campaign 
even began.

But as an aside...

Your definition of a "good Marshal" seems to vary from mine.  To each their 
own, certainly.  But...IMO a good Marshal sees what the players want to do, 
and what they build their characters for, and adapts accordingly.

If my players, for instance, de-emphasized combat and gave themselves a lot 
of persuasion/smarts type stuff, I build my campaign accordingly.  They're 
experienced players:  I don't think it's my place to "learn them" what I 
think _they_ should learn.

By the same token, if they take combat-heavy characters, that's what _they_ 
want.  What exactly is the point of frustrating them by throwing lots of 
non-combat things at them?  To teach them something about "balanced" 
characters?  People aren't "balanced" in real life - why do we expect 
characters to be balanced in RPGs?  My players _know_ what they want - 
they're not novices and they're not stupid.

Now, this isn't to say that a Marshal should give the players _everything_ 
they want.  But clearly if they have a concept for what they want to see 
overall in a campaign, isn't it a Marshal's job (much less a basic job 
requirement if he wants to keep his players?) to try and meet that?

>  <<*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.
>

Depends.  There's a wide number of factors there.  Let's just say that for 
the purposes of my campaign, AV 2 helps them more than it hurts them.  Of 
course, you have to ignore _any_ weight problems with Kevlar/Inf. 
Battlesuits, and start worrying about such things for Junk-armor only to do 
so.

><<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.
>

To clarify things:

They're playing their characters like heroic adventuring types who have 
sworn to fight evil creatures.  You can disagree with their reasoning (you'd 
have to take that up with them).  However, they're of the opinion that 
running away to fight another day just means the creature or Black Hats or 
whatever you were fighting will just be waiting for you next time, they'll 
know what to expect and plan accordingly (and since I play most enemies as 
intelligent when appropriate, they typically do), and those creatures/Black 
Hats/whatever may kill a lot more innocents because you were too cowardly to 
stay and finish it or die trying _now_.

HoE, IMO, is not about fear but about _overcoming_ fear.  Sometimes you 
stand and fight whether you want to or not.  Again, your mileage may vary on 
this.  But that's my players' opinions on the matter, and it strikes me as a 
valid (although not the _only_ valid) opinion.  Other than frustration, what 
is to be gained in this case by teaching them that they have to run 
sometimes?

Or to put it another way...they know the risks, they know the fear, and they 
still prefer to armor up, stand and fight.

><<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).
>

No, I said I _would_ be interested in a simple penalty system.  I just don't 
find the existing rules that helpful.  Don't have the companion book right 
here, though, but recall looking at them and not finding the heat stuff very 
appropriate.  The only other existing rules I'm aware of that come into play 
are running, Pace, and that kind of thing, which you've cited before.  And 
are only useful if your PCs...well, run.

><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

Ummm, no it isn't inevitable.  The possibility also exists to make the Armor 
power for Junkers equitable with _every other_ Power.  Making it consistent 
with other powers does not penalize the players (any more than those other 
powers do).

The possiblity also exists to tamper with the "base prices" for Kevlar vests 
and stuff.  I'm not sure how much a Vest goes with these days, but given 
100+ years of "future tech," wouldn't it possibly be cheaper than $750?  
Most of the list prices for guns and stuff seemed to be based on modern-day 
prices.  Lowering the cost of a kevlar Vest certainly wouldn't penalize 
players.

Even your Durability thing, because it is inherently part of the overall 
Junker rules, is less a "get 'em!" penalty than a logical extension of the 
Junker rules.  It doesn't penalize them any more than other Junker devices 
do.  _That_ to me is the issue.

>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.
>

*scratches head* I don't believe myself or anybody else called the _game_ 
"broken."  Anyhoo, wearing AV 2 Junk-body armor in Minnesota/Iowa doesn't 
really meet the criteria you state above for what my players are doing 
(smart or otherwise), so it's a moot point.  I'm not sure if the armor in 
question is claustrophobic (any more so than a Infantry Battlesuit?  Not 
sure...).

><<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.>>

On the contrary, once you have a set of penalties created, you have to apply 
them in each and every combat you have.  This is very much an ongoing kind 
of thing.  On the other hand, tweaking a figure in the Armor rules and 
inking it into your Junker book, or adjusting a price for Kevlar, takes 
seconds and is then permanent.  Although I'll grant that determining exactly 
what that change should be might take longer.

Basically it's a "extended upfront/no ongoing" vs. "brief upfront/always 
ongoing" kinda thing.  Honestly, I'm not sure that the former takes any less 
time than the latter, but it probably doesn't take any more, either.

>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.
>

Well, as noted before, there have actually ben about three broad categories 
of solutions.  Not all of them constituted penalties, but they did fall into 
the other two categories.

><<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...
>

Not sure that I follow you here.  I think that the Armor rules do have to be 
used (assuming you're using Junkers).  Armor is too integral to too many 
other Powers.  I never said there was _any_ other rule in the book I didn't 
want to use.  I just feel that the rules you've cited are not relevant to 
the particular circumstances of my campaign.  Pace rules only work if folks 
run and want or have to run.

Clearly the rules cover it in your campaign, but that doesn't mean they 
cover it in every campaign.  And I don't think my basic campaign precepts 
are that obscure.

><<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.

It's not in the rulings, but it's useful to know.  Thanks.  Slightly odd 
(never put a Browser Spirit in a Jet, I guess ;), but straightforward.

>No, junker vehicles take damage like normal vehicles because junker
>devices take damage like normal vehicles, even if they're beer coolers.

This doesn't seem to make much sense for say, a walkie-talkie.  Which is why 
I question later if that's exactly what Mr. Hopler intended.

>Therefore, Armor should as well.  The second question is valid:
>
>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.
>

I'm not a physicist (nor do I play one on TV).  However, I considered that 
as well.   I suspect we could argue the physics of that, though.  Armor 
doesn't have shock absorbers and springs and stuff (well, unless the Junker 
wants to put it in...  ;) ).  Those absorb the impact as well as the 
material of the trampoline itself.  Armor has no such benefit.

But for the sake of argument, okay, we'll say armor takes damage equal to 
the person inside of it. My players didn't think that sounded right either 
when I conveyed your idea to them, but if it makes life simpler... :)

>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?
>

Not sure I'm following here.  Only the size of the _armor_ is relevant for 
its Durability.  What would the rest of the suit _do_ exactly?

If you're saying use the size of the Suit, not the size of the Armor...I can 
do that.  In fact, I already do.  I just don't use it to figure the 
durability of the Armor itself.  In the example, although I've never stated 
it, although the size of the Armor is 3, the size of the suit itself 
(allowing for dead space and all) is 5.  However, see my later note about 
how if you figure the Armor damage as vehicular damage, even Size 3 may not 
be a problem.  I did correct myself on that.

><<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
>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.
>

Those, of course, are not subject to misinterpretation or have seeming 
inconsistencies (i.e., walkie-talkies being treated as Vehicles for damage 
purposes, worrying about Durability about Junk-Armor but not regular armor 
when it doesn't make sense to have Kevlar Vests of Infinite 
Bullet-Absorbing(tm)).  Nor is this question relevant to real-world issues 
that John has no control or say in.

[various snippage where you caught up to the fact I agreed with you on 
Vehicle Damage/durability meaning Armor wasn't unfeasible]

><<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.

This doesn't seem to make sense, but again, for the sake of arguement I'll 
go for it.

>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.

It could also simply mean that they didn't think of it at the time, but it 
later occurred to John while writing TJmC that it was a good idea, but he 
didn't want to go back and errata it in the basic rulebook.  This is exactly 
the kind of thing where asking an author for clarification/input can be a 
_good_ thing, IMO.

[various snippage of Rich responding to someone else's post about Durability 
and Mad Scientist stuff in Deadlands that I never raised]

So overall, let me sum it up.  I think the Durability thing _might_ work 
best (as I've said before) and Rich's comments are very useful there.  I 
would have to try it out and see for sure, though.  This isn't a "get the 
player" penalty, IMO, but an inherent extension of the existing Junker 
rules.

And let me thank Rich for taking the time to respond.  He certainly has 
given me a few things to think about (as has everyone).  I think there are a 
few fundamental things that we as GM disagree on, but it's not germane to 
what I think is a potential answer to my original post.

>--
From Whom it May Concern,
>Rich Ranallo, The Man They Couldn't Hang


---

Steve Crow

"Worm Can Opener Extraordinare"

Check out my website at:  http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/4991/

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com