| From: | Quickfix dives <eazy@*****.COM.AU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [COW] Hellblast (was Andrews been thinking aga |
| Date: | Wed, 10 Sep 1997 01:22:40 +1000 |
>> No matter which way you add it up it will come to the
>> same amount of damage taken. With all damage resolved at the same
>time it
>> shouldn't matter as to timing.
>
>As I said, the timing seems trivial at first, but it can make a
>difference. As in an example from our game the other night. One of the
>players' teams was hit by a Hellblast when another runner interecpeted
>his shadowrun. He placed the counters for the 8+d6 damage first
>killing off Ajax and then he went about doling out counters for the 2
>armor piercing damage each amongst the rest of his runners. If he had
>to place the armor piercing damage first, this would have meant that
>Ajax could have only taken one more point of damage from the 8+d6
>(he's a 3/3) and since you can't normally overflow damage on a runner
>this would mean that Craig would have had to find other recipients for
>two more points of damage from the spells Attack Value (which Ajax had
>been used to soak in my first example).
>
>Does my quesion make better sense now?
>
Yep it does. Thanks.
Thinking through what i meant. I believe i was actually advocating AP
damage being determined first. I was thinking that with the simultaneous
damage timing that the AP damage would always then occur...but on
reflection i realise this is false.
This false belief led me to think that armour became the real issue.
AP damage is allocated first because this damage cannot be prevented from
reaching the runner whereas normal damage can.
QuickFix
I consume my mother that bore me,
I eat my nurse that fed me,
then I die leaving all blind that saw me.
