[HoE] Junker Armor

[Abdullah Oblongota <toadpooka@usa.net>]

  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.

 <<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.>>
The question I have here is: do you use the x12 multiplier for junkers
buying components, or for non-junkers buying junker made stuff?  If it's
for non-junkers buying stuff (effectively "retail"), then that's just as
good as any other method for determining prices.  If that's how much
your junkers are paying, the ones who're using Electronic components are
making off like banditos.

Of course, aspring economists like me have to be more evil with our
retail markups.  Here's how I do it:
1. Build the device to whatever specifications I want.  They may not
have all the functions the PC wants, and he'll probably be paying for a
few he doesn't need, but if Microsoft Flight Simulator takes up hard
drive space just because I want Excel, they might have the same problem.

2. Find some equipment that does about the same thing that the junker
device does, and undercut that price just a little.  Unless of course,
the components outweigh that price, in which case I raise it up.
Why?
Because junkers are smart, and know how to bargain for stuff.  If a
pistol goes for $100, and a junker builds one that does the same thing
for $20, he's going to sell it for...$90, because he can.  People will
still buy it, because it's cheaper than the normal pistol, and Mr.
Junkman makes a bundle.  There is no constant multiplier, it costs what
the market will allow.
In essence, you take things on a case-by-case basis with non-junkers
buying junker devices, not make a big blanket decision.

<<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. ;)>>
Well, you should certainly not be bludgeoning your players left and
right, to be certain.  But hopefully, you players should want some
suspense.  My players tend to enjoy things more when they don't know if
a stand-up fight will kill one of them.  if yours don't , do what thou
wilt.  But I'd find new players.

<<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?>>
Well, infantry battlesuits aren't out of balance with their price, at
least not in the realm of junker armor.  Or, to take the route other
than "game balance," they're made out of flexible material like Kevlar,
which can't be manufactured in 2094 like it was in the old days.  Junker
armor is made out of metal.

<<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...
:)>>
Armor *is* a shock absorber.  It doesn't do it in the way your car's
shock absorbers do it, but absorbing shock is what armor is all about.
It absorbs most of the shock; what it fails to absorb is what gets
passed through it to the wearer.
One complication you'd have to add, to make it more realistic, is in the
case of head hits.  Say the armor reduces damage from 3d6 to 3d4 on a
head hit.  You'd roll 3d4 to the head, and apply the result to the
armor, then add the 2 bonus head dice.  The armor shouldn't take more
damage just because it's near a head.

<<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.>>
Refer to my clarification on the difference between the Armor power, and
the armor device, below.

<<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.>>
Reread "Damaging devices."  The only similarity between the way devices
take damage and the way vehicles do is the fact that they have
Durability.  No mention is made about dividing the damage as you would
for a vehicle.  Whether or not this is better, I don't know.  I suggest
dividing damage by something smaller than 10, but definitely dividing it
by something.


OK, on to the new material:

_On adding cargo space to a device_
Locomotion has special rules for adding cockpits to a device, which
should count toward it's component costs.  i personally disagree with
adding cargo space into component costs, for reasons below.
Cargo space is something that can be added to ANY device.  It's part of
the basic construction rules.  To illustrate how it should work, read
the following:
Suppose I'm making a device that uses the following powers:
Brains
Agility
Super Strength
Armor
And it will also have 64 slots of cargo space.
Supposing I'm to do cargo like Locomotion says, which power do I add the
64 slots to?  All of them?  One?  The rules say to just add the slots to
the total number in the device, which means I don't include them in the
component costs for any of the above powers.
Now, let's take away Brains, Agility and Super Strength.  Now I'm making
armor.  Why should I add empty space to the slots for figuring
components now, when I wasn't before?

The same problem led to the low Durability estimate for armor.  When the
above multi-powered device gets shot, Durability is taken away from the
total Durability of the frame, not each power seperately.  You can build
a single small power into a larger Frame than necessary, if you want.
The main advantage is a lot more Durability, the disadvantage is more
weight.  Of course, as long as you're making it bigger, add Super
Strength and Temperature to make it tolerable, and you've got it
covered.

The only time the rules say to consider the Frame size of individual
powers in a device is when you're determining the TN for installing it.
Other than that, Frame means the Frame of the device.

Hope that clears things up...
  --------------------------------
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