Re: [HOE] Explosions are their own reward, or something.

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

Just so we're on the same page here...

>Let's use an example. Sheol, Shrink, and Big Red are out patrolling the
>peremiter of their camp, when a Combine Junker starts to shell them. A 
>shell
>goes off right next to Big Red. Shrink is 40 feet away, and Sheol is 20 
>feet
>away. The shell does, say, 5d10 damage, with a blast radius of 20.
>
>Old system: Big Red takes 5d10 massive damage. Shrink takes 5d6. Sheol 
>takes
>5d8. Hmmm, that's a lot of diffrent dice to reach for, not to mention that 
>I

That's not correct, is it?  Under the old system, Big Red would take 5d10 
damage (correct), but Shrink takes 4d10 and Sheol takes 3d10.  You're making 
_armor_ reductions based on BR radii, which is not correct as I recall.  You 
reduce by one die per BR, not one die _type_.

And, as previously noted, you would roll the 3d10 for Sheol first.  Then you 
would roll one more dice of damage on top fo that for Shrink.  And then one 
more for Big Red.  That is five d10 and nothing else - no d8s or d6s 
involved.  It doesn't matter _what_ armor they're wearing - you roll a total 
of 5d10.

I think this was what I used in my previous "mathematics" and you didn't 
dispute it then.  But now you're noting you're using a different system.  
Which is fair enough, but I don't think you're using the published system in 
the rules above.  And we were discussing published systems, not variants, 
correct?

>have to roll a hit location for *every* wound, and I have to remember the
>special rule for massive damage and armor... And if people are wearing a 
>lot
>of light armor, I'm gonna be rolling a d6 an awful lot, as opposed to, say,
>once per person...
>

See my previous example - you can easily and reasonably assume that half the 
wounds will go to the Guts (why roll for, say, 20 Wounds when on average 
10-11 are going to go to the Guts anyway?).  And actually, that's where most 
of the damage is going to go and what (if anything) is going to seriously 
hurt the target character.

The light armor point is well-taken, although "an awful lot" in this case is 
6 per person (tops).  This will be most painful if everyone wears nothing 
but Light Armor.  Which in your campaign may very well be the case.  For 
reasons stated below, that's not quite as onerous in my campaign, however.

>New system: I know what's about to happen, so I have my 10d10 ready. No 
>matter
>where they are on the field -- Shrink could be 100 feet away -- and I'm 
>still
>rolling the same 10d10. Sure, I may have to roll them a lot, but I can do 
>it
>rapid-fire as I'm used to the standard Deadlands damage system, which this
>uses, unlike the above, and I can just keep picking up and throwing the 
>same
>dice. The only variable is the number of times I have to do that, and
>depending on what I roll, that doesn't have to be a lot. Big Red takes an
>average of 3 hits (average of 1d6), Shrink takes an average of one (1d6-2),
>and Sheol takes an average of two (1d6-1). That wasn't hard, and I don't 
>have
>to drop die types (which always slows me down) just because my posse did 
>the
>intelligent thing and spread out.
>

Again, you don't seem to be using the published system "correctly" here.  
Either that, or all of your targets are wearing no armor or light armor.  
_If_ that is the case, then the system works better, agreed.  And for your 
campaign, the system may work.

But...if Shrink is wearing AV2 or AV1 (and on even one location), you no 
longer roll 10d10, correct?  You roll 10d8 or 10d6.  because under the new 
rules massive damage is treated "normally."  And normally means armor _does_ 
reduce die type (and then die number when you hit a d4).

And if Shrink has AV2 on the head, but AV1 on the chest, and light Armor 4 
on the arms and legs, then you have to roll 10d8 _and_ 10d6 and 10d10 (and 
then subtracting 4), respectively.

I agree that the same roll should be applied to all locations _with the same 
armor_.  And the same roll could even be used for different people.  No 
re-rolling there!  But what if they have different, actual armor on 
different locations?  You don't seem to be taking that into account above, 
or you don't have to because they only use no or light armor.  And with the 
characters in your campaign you may not have to.

You seem to be using a different system then the ones found in either the 
basic rules or Iron Oasis.  Again, if this system works for you, that's 
great.  But those aren't the systems that were originally posted for 
discussion.  Or...you have a campaign with your PCs only wear light armor.

>It may come down to me being wired different in the head, but have any of 
>you
>TRIED the new Massive Damage system, or did you just go "Ew!" and throw up
>your hands? Speaking as someone who's tried both I think you'll find it's
>easier than it seems. Some things just *seem* complicated when they're
>explained, but are easy to do in practice.
>

As noted previously, yes, we tried the new rules.  However, the system you 
use/used above for the old rules is not correct.  You are using the new 
system as published, but seem to have a campaign where no one wears anything 
but (at best) light armor.  If you have such a campaign, then yes, I would 
agree that the new rules in this case are easier to implement.

There are certainly some advantages to PCs only using light armor (i.e., it 
reduces AP rounds' damage by a die and AP rounds get no benefit).  However, 
ultimately my PCs have gone with AVs rather than light armor and I've got to 
base my conclusions on that.  Or is such a mentality an abnormality?

>See discussion above. Have you even tried the new system in practice? I 
>have.
>It's easier than it looks.
>
>On the other hand, I've already said I seem to have a different threshold 
>for
>'complicated' than most people who are arguing with me. To me, the new 
>system
>is simple, because it is less different than the normal damage system -- 
>less
>of a special case. The old massive damage rules almost seemed to come from 
>a
>different game, to me, and no matter how simple it was, it was yet another
>thing to remember.

In all honesty, you don't seem to be using the old rules correctly if I 
understand your example above.  You seem to be using a version that is more 
complicated then the published one.

I would agree that the old MD rules seem to have come from a different game 
(i.e., they used a simpler form of damage implementation), but they provided 
a (relatively) quick and easy way to implement the same base amount of 
damage per BR on everyone within that BR.

The new rules only work if everyone is wearing light or no armor.  Which in 
your campaign may very well be correct, and so that system works for you.

But in my campaign, some wear light armor, some wear AV1, some wear AV2.  
And they don't wear the same AV on _each_ location.  In this case, the new 
rules are much more cumbersome.

Is that a fair enough summation of the opposing viewpoints here...?

>	-Loki


---

Steve Crow

"Worm Can Opener Extraordinare"

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

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com