Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Alternate Vehicle Damage Rules
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 09:04:52 -0600
The vehicle damage rules have always kind of bugged me. On the one hand
resolution is to simple, on the other hand damage effects are to complex.

Well, true to form, I've had a thought :) I should preface this thought by
noting that in my game a character becomes incapacitated when their wound
modifiers equal their willpower, and fall unconscious when their wound
modifiers exceed their willpower.

I propose using wound modifiers, and wound modifiers only, for determining
the effects of damage to vehicles.

Treat wound modifiers as target number modifiers to any tests required for
either the vehicle, it's systems, or the driver(s) and any gunner(s) (the
only exception being that the TN for damage resistance tests would not be
modified by the wound modifier). So, if a vehicle has suffered Light
damage and the driver is required to make a driving test of some sort, he
would add a +1 to the TN. If the same vehicle's targeting system were
required to make a test to lock on to an opposing vehicle, a +1 modifier
would be applied to the TN.

The wound modifier is applied in a negative manner to any ratings that the
vehicle has. For example, if a vehicle with a base signature of 4 has a
light wound, it would have a signature of 3. If the same vehicle has a
handling of 5, it would be increased to 6. (I think I did that right :/
) And yes, the rating of the above targeting system would be reduced by
1. It may sound harsh that such systems have their ratings reduced, and
target number increased, but I feel that this accurately reflects reality
in that it doesn't take much damage to radically affect a piece of
equipment/hardware.

The vehicle's base speed is divided by the cumulative wound modifier. A
vehicle with a moderate wound would divide it's speed by two. If the
damage was later increased to a moderate level, the base speed would be
divided by 3. If the wound modifier exceeds the vehicle's body, it can't
move (water vehicles sink, air vehicles cease to fly). However, other
aspects may continue to function (see below).

A vehicle and it's systems are not destroyed until overflow damage exceeds
it's body. A vehicle with a Body of 4 may continue to function (although
not well) until it has taken Deadly +4 boxes of damage.

Deadly damage incurs a +4 wound modifier. Any boxes of damage beyond
deadly incur an additional +1 wound modifier.

What'd I miss? Where'd I go wrong? :)
To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Warm nights, good food, kindred spirits....great life!"
Message no. 2
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: Alternate Vehicle Damage Rules
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:12:15 -0700
From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
> Treat wound modifiers as target number modifiers to any tests required for
> either the vehicle, it's systems, or the driver(s) and any gunner(s) (the
> only exception being that the TN for damage resistance tests would not be
> modified by the wound modifier). So, if a vehicle has suffered Light
> damage and the driver is required to make a driving test of some sort, he
> would add a +1 to the TN. If the same vehicle's targeting system were
> required to make a test to lock on to an opposing vehicle, a +1 modifier
> would be applied to the TN.

First off, I'm assuming you are still using the standard vehicle damage
rules?

> The wound modifier is applied in a negative manner to any ratings that the
> vehicle has. For example, if a vehicle with a base signature of 4 has a
> light wound, it would have a signature of 3. If the same vehicle has a
> handling of 5, it would be increased to 6. (I think I did that right :/
> ) And yes, the rating of the above targeting system would be reduced by
> 1. It may sound harsh that such systems have their ratings reduced, and
> target number increased, but I feel that this accurately reflects reality
> in that it doesn't take much damage to radically affect a piece of
> equipment/hardware.

Well, this is a bit more extreme then what exists I'll give it that. I don't
think the double-whammy on EVERY subsystem is a good thing though. Either
make a simplistic chart or say the gamemaster chooses ONE other subsystem to
be damaged.

> The vehicle's base speed is divided by the cumulative wound modifier. A
> vehicle with a moderate wound would divide it's speed by two. If the
> damage was later increased to a moderate level, the base speed would be
> divided by 3. If the wound modifier exceeds the vehicle's body, it can't
> move (water vehicles sink, air vehicles cease to fly). However, other
> aspects may continue to function (see below).

This sounds ok...except what about low-Body vehicles? Specifically Body 0
drones? Since Body in SR is a function of mass, not durability per se, I
would consider changing that to base Handling instead.

> A vehicle and it's systems are not destroyed until overflow damage exceeds
> it's body. A vehicle with a Body of 4 may continue to function (although
> not well) until it has taken Deadly +4 boxes of damage.

How about every point of overflow destroys one option? Otherwise low Bod
vehicles are hosed while high Bod vehicles can stay in action purely by
virtue of their weight ;)

> Deadly damage incurs a +4 wound modifier. Any boxes of damage beyond
> deadly incur an additional +1 wound modifier.

Egads man...

> What'd I miss? Where'd I go wrong? :)

I think the penalties are a bit excessive but I do like the overall
simplicity. Some super simple way way of handling subsystem damage would be
nice ;)

Ken
---------------------------
There's a war out there, old friend, a world war. And it's not about who's
got the most bullets, it's about who controls the information. What we see
and hear, how we work, what we think, it's all about the information!
Cosmo, 'Sneakers'
Message no. 3
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Alternate Vehicle Damage Rules
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 14:28:46 -0600
Tzeentch wrote:
>From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
> > Treat wound modifiers as target number modifiers to any tests required for
> > either the vehicle, it's systems, or the driver(s) and any gunner(s) (the
> > only exception being that the TN for damage resistance tests would not be
> > modified by the wound modifier). So, if a vehicle has suffered Light
> > damage and the driver is required to make a driving test of some sort, he
> > would add a +1 to the TN. If the same vehicle's targeting system were
> > required to make a test to lock on to an opposing vehicle, a +1 modifier
> > would be applied to the TN.
>
>First off, I'm assuming you are still using the standard vehicle damage
>rules?

Yes. Though I haven't had to look at them in a while.

> > The wound modifier is applied in a negative manner to any ratings that the
> > vehicle has. For example, if a vehicle with a base signature of 4 has a
> > light wound, it would have a signature of 3. If the same vehicle has a
> > handling of 5, it would be increased to 6. (I think I did that right :/
> > ) And yes, the rating of the above targeting system would be reduced by
> > 1. It may sound harsh that such systems have their ratings reduced, and
> > target number increased, but I feel that this accurately reflects reality
> > in that it doesn't take much damage to radically affect a piece of
> > equipment/hardware.
>
>Well, this is a bit more extreme then what exists I'll give it that. I don't
>think the double-whammy on EVERY subsystem is a good thing though. Either
>make a simplistic chart or say the gamemaster chooses ONE other subsystem to
>be damaged.

Imagine car that runs into a wall at a low speed. It takes some damage,
but is still running. That impact could potentially damage every
subsystem. The same car takes a round from a high powered firearm. That
attack could damage a few subsystems at best. To take everything into
account would require multiple charts based on how the damage was incurred,
and simplicity is what I'm driving for.

Also, I would like vehicle combat to be more like personal combat, quick
and easy, yet somewhat accurate.

> > The vehicle's base speed is divided by the cumulative wound modifier. A
> > vehicle with a moderate wound would divide it's speed by two. If the
> > damage was later increased to a moderate level, the base speed would be
> > divided by 3. If the wound modifier exceeds the vehicle's body, it can't
> > move (water vehicles sink, air vehicles cease to fly). However, other
> > aspects may continue to function (see below).
>
>This sounds ok...except what about low-Body vehicles? Specifically Body 0
>drones? Since Body in SR is a function of mass, not durability per se, I
>would consider changing that to base Handling instead.

How is mass different from durability? :) A 40 ton tank is very durable,
and has a high mass. A BMW sportster is pretty light, and isn't the least
bit durable. High body typically reflects high mass, which typically
reflects heavier and stronger materials, which typically results in a more
durable vehicle. I can't think of any exceptions off hand...

And this doesn't really change the rules, just takes a different spin on
it. If a Body 0 vehicle takes any damage per the rules, it's
destroyed. Ditto with my rules. One of my goals is to try to stay close
to the spirit of SR's rules.

> > A vehicle and it's systems are not destroyed until overflow damage exceeds
> > it's body. A vehicle with a Body of 4 may continue to function (although
> > not well) until it has taken Deadly +4 boxes of damage.
>
>How about every point of overflow destroys one option? Otherwise low Bod
>vehicles are hosed while high Bod vehicles can stay in action purely by
>virtue of their weight ;)

My point exactly. And I honestly can't figure out the implication of the
winking smiley here :)

> > Deadly damage incurs a +4 wound modifier. Any boxes of damage beyond
> > deadly incur an additional +1 wound modifier.
>
>Egads man...

That's what I do to characters in my game, and it works well.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Anything I have ever done that ultimately was worthwhile....
initially scared me to death."
-Betty Bender
Message no. 4
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: Alternate Vehicle Damage Rules
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:12:01 -0700
From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
> Imagine car that runs into a wall at a low speed. It takes some damage,
> but is still running. That impact could potentially damage every
> subsystem. The same car takes a round from a high powered firearm. That
> attack could damage a few subsystems at best. To take everything into
> account would require multiple charts based on how the damage was
incurred,
> and simplicity is what I'm driving for.

Well, the basic system is not much simpler then what already exists - it's
just a lot more deadly ;)

> How is mass different from durability? :) A 40 ton tank is very durable,
> and has a high mass. A BMW sportster is pretty light, and isn't the least
> bit durable. High body typically reflects high mass, which typically
> reflects heavier and stronger materials, which typically results in a more
> durable vehicle. I can't think of any exceptions off hand...

Just because a fighter jet weighs a lot does not make it durable. If I pack
on lead weights to a drone how does that make it more durable? Of course I'm
not a huge fan of how Body is used for vehicles - its a confused mess that
is supposed to take into account size, weight and durability all at once.

> And this doesn't really change the rules, just takes a different spin on
> it. If a Body 0 vehicle takes any damage per the rules, it's
> destroyed. Ditto with my rules. One of my goals is to try to stay close
> to the spirit of SR's rules.

But its not necessarily destroyed - it just rolls 0 dice for the Damage
Resistance test. Your version does give a more anime/Hollywood feel though -
with enemy vehicles going up in fireballs left and right. Hold-Outs with AV
ammo become real drone killers. One light wound on that Steel Lynx and BOOM!

> My point exactly. And I honestly can't figure out the implication of the
> winking smiley here :)

I just think its amusing that depending on your interpretation vehicle
designers should be packing on weights to the vehicles to make them
"tougher." Its a function of the abstraction - it works..up to a point.

Ken
Message no. 5
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Alternate Vehicle Damage Rules
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 11:30:58 +0200
According to Tzeentch, at 16:12 on 5 May 00, the word on the street was...

> > And this doesn't really change the rules, just takes a different spin on
> > it. If a Body 0 vehicle takes any damage per the rules, it's
> > destroyed. Ditto with my rules. One of my goals is to try to stay close
> > to the spirit of SR's rules.
>
> But its not necessarily destroyed - it just rolls 0 dice for the Damage
> Resistance test.

Rigger 2, page 105: "The Arachnoid has a Body Rating of 0, which means
that any hit by any weapon of any size automatically destroys it." Much
the same line appears for the other drone with a Body of 0.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
But it's obviously a dream, as I'm waiting for that beam...
--Millencollin, "Vulcan Ears"
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Alternate Vehicle Damage Rules, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.