Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: BITNET%"VO728847@*****"
Subject: Combat
Date: 12-FEB-1992 15:19
From: BITNET%"VO728847@*****" 12-FEB-1992 15:19
To: JNET%"Barnhart@****"
Subj: Combat

I love the idea for the game Shadowrun, the only thing that gets
me a bit down it the combat system. I'm usually the one running the game
Does anyone know a way to simplify it or maybe make the combat run a bit
smoother.

Also I'm interested in abserving in on a game or two of PBEM of
Shadowrun...send me some info.

The Godfather
Message no. 2
From: "Flash, Shaman & Fixer" <STEFFENR@*******.BITNET>
Subject: Combat
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 09:09:00 CST
Posted 27-Oct-92:

>> > Just one more thing to consider...If the defender gets more sucesses
>> > out of his combat pool than the attacker has total then the shot is a
>> > clean miss. I have a phys ad character who survives firefights by
>> > being hard to hit. Remeber in second edition, even trolls are not
>> > bulletproof.
>> >
>> Ah, ha! That's one thing that I thought was true with SR2, but didn't
>> see anything said about. That makes the example a little weird then,
>> doesn't it? If you get more successes FROM AND ONLY FROM YOUR COMBAT
>> POOL than the attacker has, THEN it's a clean miss, right? By George, I
>> Think I've got it!
>>
>> ---
>> The Reverend
>> "He told me of his strange foundation..."
>>
>> Cthulhu in '92! Why vote for the lesser evil?
>> Looking for Alt.Cyberpunk.Chatsubo archives...e-mail if u have info!
>
>The Combat Pool can be a very usefull addition to your ability to keep
>yourself alive. Take this example.
>
>Theseus (ork street sam) and myself (Jake, physical adept) are being
>shot at by a few disagreeable gents who are armed to the teeth.
>Theseus takes the first burst:
>
>Thug 1 gets three sucesses with an HK 227 on burst fire (making it a
>10S attack from 7M). Theseus gets four sucesses (three body, one
>combat pool; target number 5 [armor jacket]). Theseus takes a serious
>wound since he does not get enough sucesses more than the thug to stage it
>down.

BUZZ!! Wrong! If you got 4 successes and the thug with the HK 227 had
3 successes, you took NO damage. You subtract suceesses before you
stage the weapon. It makes a big difference. Note well though, you
did get hit, it just didn't do anything.

>
>Now it's my turn (happy, happy, joy, joy):
>
>Thug 2 also gets three sucesses with an identical weapon (again making
>it a 10S attack.) I get four sucesses, but all from my combat pool.
>Since I get more sucesses than the thug just from my combat pool, it
>is a clean miss.

Right. This was a clean miss.

>
>This shows how powerful the combat pool can be. This example is based
>on a actual encounter (though I have changed it a bit to make it more
>clear.) We had two guys each shooting at us. Theseus' two take him
>down. Mine miss completely. (Of course my GM decides that the some
>guys on the roof then get to shoot at me since the first guys missed,
>since I did so well. But then again, my GM gives even the lowliest
>cops and corp security at least wired one and puts us up against 27
>street sams (we would have been dead if we didn't have the rigger's
>autocannon which the GM didn't know we had.))
>--
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Invincibility depends on one's self; kucloak@*****.cc.ukans.edu
> The enemy's vulnerability on him. bkreed@*****.cc.ukans.edu
> --Sun Tzu Bryan Kennedy Reed
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Russ Steffen | "Madness in great ones |
| UW-Stout | must not unwatched go!" |
| Email : STEFFENR@*******.EDU | -- Shakespeare, "Hamlet" |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 3
From: "J. Earl Williams" <IH46@****.BITNET>
Subject: Combat
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 12:05:02 MST
> >Thug 1 gets three sucesses with an HK 227 on burst fire (making it a
> >10S attack from 7M). Theseus gets four sucesses (three body, one
> >combat pool; target number 5 [armor jacket]). Theseus takes a serious
> >wound since he does not get enough sucesses more than the thug to stage it
> >down.
>
> BUZZ!! Wrong! If you got 4 successes and the thug with the HK 227 had
> 3 successes, you took NO damage. You subtract suceesses before you
> stage the weapon. It makes a big difference. Note well though, you
> did get hit, it just didn't do anything.
>
Waitasec! Is that right? He hit, but you staged down. If you got 4
successes to stage down, would'nt that have given him a Light? I'm
assuming he was using his combat pool to stage down, as opposed to
dodging. If he got one success to dodge, then Thug1 would've gotten
only 2 successes (which would'nt have changed anything). Also, is the
damage code on that right? a 7M burst with 3 successes should've
staged up 7M-->10S (burst)-->10D (stage from 3 successes), shouldnt it?

---
J. Earl Williams
Up the Brotherhood!
Message no. 4
From: LGLUMKA@***.BITNET
Subject: combat
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 15:14:00 EDT
attacker 3 successes hk227 damage 7m -> (burst) 10s

defender armor jacket 5->damage 5s 3 succes CP 1 bod


total -1 successes in favor of defender
(combat pool successes didn't exceed)

total damage Serious wound ( one success negative didn't lower)

________________________________________________________________________________
Their going to take me away HA HA! + Daniel Waisley
Their going to take me away HO HO! + Lglumka@***.grove.iup.edu
To the funny farm + --------(-- IUP FENCING
Where life is great + SCA-SOCIETY FOR CREATIVE ANACHRANISM
All the time + Fencing + Archery
<---------<<<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**************** CRYPTIC DEMESNE & BROTHERHOOD OF AGINCOR ****************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADND-L - NIGHTFOX SHADOWRN - NIGHTFOX, CIRCUIT BREAKER, UPLOAD, DANNAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"how did you get so goood!" "luck, pure unadulterated
luck!!!!!!!!"
Message no. 5
From: STEFFENR@*******.BITNET
Subject: Combat
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 15:23:00 CST
>> >Thug 1 gets three sucesses with an HK 227 on burst fire (making it a
>> >10S attack from 7M). Theseus gets four sucesses (three body, one
>> >combat pool; target number 5 [armor jacket]). Theseus takes a serious
>> >wound since he does not get enough sucesses more than the thug to stage it
>> >down.
>>
>> BUZZ!! Wrong! If you got 4 successes and the thug with the HK 227 had
>> 3 successes, you took NO damage. You subtract suceesses before you
>> stage the weapon. It makes a big difference. Note well though, you
>> did get hit, it just didn't do anything.
>>
>Waitasec! Is that right? He hit, but you staged down. If you got 4
>successes to stage down, would'nt that have given him a Light? I'm
>assuming he was using his combat pool to stage down, as opposed to
>dodging. If he got one success to dodge, then Thug1 would've gotten
>only 2 successes (which would'nt have changed anything). Also, is the
>damage code on that right? a 7M burst with 3 successes should've
>staged up 7M-->10S (burst)-->10D (stage from 3 successes), shouldnt it?
>
>---
>J. Earl Williams
>Up the Brotherhood!

I stand corrected. My copy of SRII has a few paragraphs on pages 90-92
that were rendered unreadable by torn printing film. The original
post was correct, thug 1 did hit.

Sorry for the confusion.
R.S.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Russ Steffen | "Madness in great ones |
| UW-Stout | must not unwatched go!" |
| Email : STEFFENR@*******.EDU | -- Shakespeare, "Hamlet" |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 6
From: Nightfox <DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: combat
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 22:46:47 -0700
Remember the most important thing is a good plan.

We had good troops in Vietnam and good equipment, but we didn't have a good
plan. In desert storm it was the equipment and planning that won it for us.
Think about any of your most succesful runs, there probably the ones where you
had a good plan, and a few backups to take care of when the DM started to screw.

Dan
BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!
Daniel Waisley + SCA - March of Ered Sul - Flagstaff AZ
DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU + Nau fencing club.
"Nightfox" + Brotherhood of the Cryptic Demesne -household
BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!
"A lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I am the most dangerous
man in the universe." - Daniel Waisley "Nightfox"
BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!
Message no. 7
From: Doctor Doom <jch8169@******.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: combat
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 17:05:19 -0600
Herr Waisley:

>Remember the most important thing is a good plan.

>We had good troops in Vietnam and good equipment, but we didn't have a good
>plan. In desert storm it was the equipment and planning that won it for us.
>Think about any of your most successful runs, there probably the ones where you
>had a good plan, and a few backups to take care of when the DM started to
>screw.

Mein Herr, this assertion is one with which I would disagree. A study of
military history has led me to the belief that there is not one factor whose
importance supersedes all other concerns (with the possible exception of HAVING
a military in the first place).

Indeed, Field Marshal von Moltke of the late nineteenth century felt that a
rigid, structured plan was precisely what should NOT be used when prosecuting
a war, citing that any plan shall probably be immediately dropped once the
battle is joined. Obviously, one does require a designation of objectives,
war aims, and a definition of that which shall constitute victory in the
conflict.

It is true that the Prussian Army at this time had developed what is
considered the first "modern" General Staff, but Moltke felt that a
commander's job was to usher the host to the front, and "unleash" them,
depending upon the lower-level officers to handle the details...otherwise, it
would be attempting to micro-managing a battle involving more individuals than
would be for one person, given the level of communication technology at the
time, to comprehend. Since that time, with various innovations in this branch
of science, technology has permitted increasingly more "hands on" generalship.

However, to say that planning is the ultimate determinant of victory is to
ignore a plethora of other factors:

Logistics have determined the success or failure of many a campaign in the
past, those without comprehensive supply systems were doomed to failure. Such
was the case in the various botched attempts of the invasion of Russia, which
stressed the logistical framework to such a degree--especially with the
redoubtable Russian winter coming--beyond its limits. Charles XII of Sweden,
Napoleon, and Hitler all were taught this harsh lesson on the Russian steppes.

Training and Drill. How many great commanders have been praised for the
expertise of their troops, due to the constant demands for an drilling to
perfection? Gustavus Adolphus during the Thirty Years War, Oliver Cromwell
and his "New Model Army", and Frederick the Great of Prussia are only a few
such examples.

Another testament to the attainable level of skill would be the performance of
the British Expeditionary Force, or the "Old Contemptibles" in World War I.
Their marksmanship and rapidity of their fire was of such a elevated degree,
that the German infantry mistakenly thought they were approaching machine guns.
Perhaps a more amusing example would be the Battle of Leuthen, when the
Austrian commander unwittingly chose one of the Prussian Armies maneuvering
grounds!

In line with the previous example: Officer education, training of the officer
corps in the ways and means of warfare is essential to a functioning military,
which means deployment, tactics, strategy, applied at increasingly higher
levels as their education progresses. One principle mentioned during my study
of this was that an officer should always be skilled to a level equivalent to
the next highest rank, as he should be prepared to assume that position at any
given moment. A cohesive, unified military doctrine and central principles is
the function of the War Acadamies and various other military institutions; a
commander should and must be able to depend upon his junior officers. The
successes of the Prussian campaigns in the Danish War, the Seven Week's War,
and the Franco-Prussian War are a testament to this.

One problem seen in the past is a tendency to see doctrine as dogma. My own
institution, Texas A&M, had its origins partially in a desire to generate an
officer corps that was not exclusively of the West Point approach, and all the
difficulties that generated in the War Between the States--one criticism of
which was that the technology available exceeded the tactics used to implement
it.

SIDENOTE: This also ties into the issue of what constitutes the occupation of
an officer? The evolution of the thought surrounding this idea eventually
concluded that officership is a profession, while N.C.O.'s are considered
engaged in a trade. True, with the (possible) tendency in the future for
slightly more dedicated (read: volunteer) militaries, the idea of a
professional soldier may be applicable to all ranks.

Readiness. How many wars has the United States blundered into, only to find,
much to their chagrin, they are COMPLETELY unprepared? Much of America's
history follows the cycle of confident initiation of the conflict, extremely
disappointing results which indicate to them the means they possess are
completely inadequate, an accelerated "catching up" process which means
expenditure of large amounts of manpower and equipment previous to "getting it
right", defeat (or "beating off") of their opponents, and dismantlement of
the
great military machine they have just spend so much blood and funds to develop.

Intelligence. Know thine enemy. With proper fact-accumulating apparatus, one
is far less likely to be caught unawares by sneak attacks, and one shall
possess information on the enemy...his force's composition, size, and
location. Such data can be crucial to the successful prosecution of a battle.
It's no mistake that Rommel in the Second World War sent convoys of trucks
though the desert to mislead his British opponents about his actual position...
it is a issue of misleading your enemy...to fight the information he has on
you, so that you may possibly gain an edge over him.

Last (to come to mind...this is not intended to be an exhaustive list), but
not least is technology, and the continued development of it.

True, technology does not always spell victory, although the disparity betwixt
two forces can never be discounted as a salient factor to the probability of
success for either side. As to the emphasis placed upon technological level
differs according to one's philosophy. Do you adopt the view America has been
espousing for years? Or the Soviet outlook? In either case, technology is a
very salient issue.


The above list, as indicated earlier, is not intended to be exhaustive...
rather, it is supposed to clarify my point that the "Plan" is not THE most
important factor to a battle. To my mind, a better approach would be the
interaction of the above (and other factors) that only by working in unison
can one be considered to have good prospects for victory.


Doctor Doom
Message no. 8
From: Christina Johnson <johnson1@**.UWP.EDU>
Subject: Re: combat
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 17:20:21 -0600
Thank you, Machiavelli meets Sun Tzu.

;)

as always, doom... good job. I've had a request that I save your post so
that my friend might use it as a resource for a research paper.

Not to encourage you, but....

*ducks as all other members of the list throw rubber duckies at her*

Christina M. Johnson, University of WI, Parkside, Kenosha johnson1@**.uwp.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God is a concept by which we measure our pain. -John Lennon
Message no. 9
From: Nightfox <DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: combat
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 16:32:05 -0700
>Herr Waisley:
>
>>Remember the most important thing is a good plan.
>
>>We had good troops in Vietnam and good equipment, but we didn't have a good
>>plan. In desert storm it was the equipment and planning that won it for us.
>>Think about any of your most successful runs, there probably the ones where you
>>had a good plan, and a few backups to take care of when the DM started to
>>screw.

Actually all I was trying to say with us not having a good plan - is that we
basically fought the wrong type of war. I really can't remember all the stuff I
used to know on the topic, I did listen in class that day in Poli-sci 101 and my
two poli-sci war history buff roomates talked about it alot though.

Oh - and don't worry about sending it to the list - it was informative.

Dan
Smirk - hey, it must be nice to be used as a reference in a research paper


BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!
Daniel Waisley + SCA - March of Ered Sul - Flagstaff AZ
DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU + Nau fencing club.
"Nightfox" + Brotherhood of the Cryptic Demesne -household
BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!
GE - d+(-) -p+@ c++(++++) !L u(--) e+(*) m+ s+/ !n+(-) h* f+ g+ w+++ t+ r+ y+
"infinity = zero" - Daniel Waisley "Nightfox"
BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!
Message no. 10
From: Jan-bart van Beek <flake@***.NL>
Subject: Combat ?
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 15:46:36 +0200
Can anybody tell me if this is correct.

Imagine that your firing a Mossberg on burst and score five successes.
That would mean that you get a deadly wound with an extra five successes.

Now , the poor sod who got hit is trying to evade the shot and if that's
not possible catch it with a not so vital body-part.
In other words mAKE A DAMage resistance test.
If he wants to survive this he needs to stage it down to at least serious
damage.
According to the rules we are now using, he first roles his allocated
combat dice. If he scores more then five successes, he has succesfully
evaded the shot and goes free. He then roles his body dice and if he
scores seven successes he gets away with a serious wound.

Is this correct, does he need seven successes or does he need the two
successes to stage deadly down to serious ?


--------------------------------------------------------------
| Beware of what you ask for you may recieve it |
--------------------------------------------------------------

**** The Cornflake Killer Strikes again ****
Message no. 11
From: "Sean T. Getz" <C14101@*******.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 09:15:55 EST
Jan-bart van Beek writes:

>Imagine that you are firing a Mosseburg on a burst and score five successes.
>That would mean you would get a Deadly wound with an extra five successes.

-skip dodge rules...-

>He then roles his Body dice and if he
>scores seven successes he gets away with a serious wound.
>
>Is this correct, does he need seven successes or does he need the two
>successes to stage deadly down to serious ?

Yes, that is correct, he needs seven successes not to croak.
But remember, he still counts his combat pool successes
to stage down damage. (You probably knew that, I was just clarifing)

U-Gene

"The best defense: No be there"
-- Unknown wiseman
Message no. 12
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 17:22:13 +0200
> Can anybody tell me if this is correct.
> Imagine that your firing a Mossberg on burst and score five successes.
> That would mean that you get a deadly wound with an extra five successes.
> Now , the poor sod who got hit is trying to evade the shot and if that's
> not possible catch it with a not so vital body-part.
> In other words mAKE A DAMage resistance test.
> If he wants to survive this he needs to stage it down to at least serious
> damage.
> According to the rules we are now using, he first roles his allocated
> combat dice. If he scores more then five successes, he has succesfully
> evaded the shot and goes free.

You are right so far.

> He then roles his body dice and if he
> scores seven successes he gets away with a serious wound.

No the succeses he got on his pool alone count too. This means that
if the guy got say 4 successes (Hey shotguns are cool cause they
always hit, but the power of the attacks gets seriously fragged)
he only needs another 2 (one success gets dumped)

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+>++++ L+>+++ E--- N++ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 13
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 11:52:24 -0600
> No the succeses he got on his pool alone count too. This means that
>if the guy got say 4 successes (Hey shotguns are cool cause they
>always hit, but the power of the attacks gets seriously fragged)

Yeah, but if the choke is set low enough, you can get TONS of successes.
The problem there is range, but if you want range, use an SMG (or if
possible a rifle of some sort). It's tough to dodge 8 successes or more <G>

_________________
"The mark of a TRUE munchkin can only be...<pawprint>"

-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Message no. 14
From: Matt Hufstetler <gt2778a@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 13:05:10 -0500
> Jan-bart van Beek writes:
> >He then roles his Body dice and if he
> >scores seven successes he gets away with a serious wound.
> >
> >Is this correct, does he need seven successes or does he need the two
> >successes to stage deadly down to serious ?
>
> Yes, that is correct, he needs seven successes not to croak.
> But remember, he still counts his combat pool successes
> to stage down damage. (You probably knew that, I was just clarifing)
>

Really? Our group has always just upped the power level(as opposed to
lowering armour 1 point for the current shot) for every two successes over
deadly.
Message no. 15
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 13:00:20 +0200
> > No the succeses he got on his pool alone count too. This means that
> >if the guy got say 4 successes (Hey shotguns are cool cause they
> >always hit, but the power of the attacks gets seriously fragged)
>
> Yeah, but if the choke is set low enough, you can get TONS of successes.
> The problem there is range, but if you want range, use an SMG (or if
> possible a rifle of some sort). It's tough to dodge 8 successes or more <G>

Yes, I am not knocking shotguns - they absolutely rule, our samie
Archangel used to pack twin Mossbergs permanetly set to choke 2, this
gave him almost always reduced the power to 2, but it also negated
the two-weapon-no-smartlink penalties and lowered the TN to a measly 2
and he still got to fire 4 times a complex action covering an impossibly
wide area. Ever see someone kill 10 people in a complex action ?

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+>++++ L+>+++ E--- N++ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 16
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 01:33:05 +1000
Jani Fikouras writes:

> No the succeses he got on his pool alone count too. This means that
> if the guy got say 4 successes (Hey shotguns are cool cause they
> always hit, but the power of the attacks gets seriously fragged)
> he only needs another 2 (one success gets dumped)

How'd you calculate this? If the baddy has hit with a deadly wound as base,
and still has 5 successes (as in the example, he rolled 5 successes all up),
then you'll need either 6 Combat Pool succeses (to avoid damage completely
your Combat Pool successes need to _excede_ the attacker successes, pg 91
SRII), or 7 successes of any combination of Combat Pool/Body to stage the
damage down to serious (obviously if 6 or 7 of them are from the Combat
Pool, then you've dodged anyhow).

--
Damion Milliken Nominee for the title of _Shadowrun Guru_ adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 17
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 01:45:41 +1000
Matt Hufstetler writes:

> Really? Our group has always just upped the power level(as opposed to
> lowering armour 1 point for the current shot) for every two successes over
> deadly.

The lowering armour values was a 1st ed rule, and hasn't carried over into
2nd ed. The upping the Power rule is a good enough house rule, but it gets a
little complex when you think about it. If you get enough successes to
increase the Power, then that will modify thye TN for your targets
resistance tests, and if he scores some successes, then he cancels yours,
and then the Power would decrease again. But wait, that means his TN would
have been lower... and so on.

--
Damion Milliken Nominee for the title of _Shadowrun Guru_ adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 18
From: Dwayne MacKinnon <910252m@******.ACADIAU.CA>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 15:17:01 -0400
Well,
What *WE* did, way back when when I was actually part of an ongoing
campaign (wistful sigh) we had a house rule that if it for every two successes
over deadly staging, you needed an extra two successes to stage it down...
sort of a deadly+ level, then deadly ++, then deadly +++, etc. We didn't
affect overflow levels... we just had it that it was REALLY hard to resist
the damage.
we thought that this would accurately represent a really well placed
knife, for example. It gets a bit messy when you're dealing with guns though...

DMK

--
"I can't afford to make any exceptions. Once word gets out that a pirate has
gone soft people start to disobey him and it's nothing but work, work, work
all the time." - The Man in Black, from The Princess Bride

Dwayne MacKinnon My opinions are my own, never
910252m@******.acadiau.ca those of my employer.
Message no. 19
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 14:43:23 -0500
On Thu, 30 Mar 1995, Jani Fikouras wrote:

> Ever see someone kill 10 people in a complex action ?

Yep. More than 10. And explosives only need a simple action to
trigger. Very messy.

Marc
Message no. 20
From: Matt Hufstetler <gt2778a@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 21:58:30 -0500
> Matt Hufstetler writes:
>
> > Really? Our group has always just upped the power level(as opposed to
> > lowering armour 1 point for the current shot) for every two successes over
> > deadly.
>
> The lowering armour values was a 1st ed rule, and hasn't carried over into
> 2nd ed. The upping the Power rule is a good enough house rule, but it gets a
> little complex when you think about it. If you get enough successes to
> increase the Power, then that will modify thye TN for your targets
> resistance tests, and if he scores some successes, then he cancels yours,
> and then the Power would decrease again. But wait, that means his TN would
> have been lower... and so on.
>
However, we also play where you just roll combat pool along with body
dice. As we haven't gotten the dodging thing down, and as everyone is
happy with the current way we handle combat, we probably never will.

Matt 'Comatose Raspberry' Hufstetler
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt2778a
Internet: gt2778a@*****.gatech.edu
Message no. 21
From: An Unofficial Shadowrun Guru Named Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 12:11:29 +0200
>Ever see someone kill 10 people in a complex action ?

Does a shaman casting a mana cloud spell in a bar count? Body count in the
order of 20 or so, excluding the intended group of targets...


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I'm not like them. But I can pretend.
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 22
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 17:05:03 +0200
>
> Jani Fikouras writes:
>
> > No the succeses he got on his pool alone count too. This means that
> > if the guy got say 4 successes (Hey shotguns are cool cause they
> > always hit, but the power of the attacks gets seriously fragged)
> > he only needs another 2 (one success gets dumped)
>
> How'd you calculate this? If the baddy has hit with a deadly wound as base,
> and still has 5 successes (as in the example, he rolled 5 successes all up),
> then you'll need either 6 Combat Pool succeses (to avoid damage completely
> your Combat Pool successes need to _excede_ the attacker successes, pg 91
> SRII), or 7 successes of any combination of Combat Pool/Body to stage the
> damage down to serious (obviously if 6 or 7 of them are from the Combat
> Pool, then you've dodged anyhow).
>
> --
> Damion Milliken Nominee for the title of _Shadowrun Guru_ adm82@***.edu.au
>
> (GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
> E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
> b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
>
>


--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+>++++ L+>+++ E--- N++ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 23
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 17:43:59 +0200
> > Ever see someone kill 10 people in a complex action ?
>
> Yep. More than 10. And explosives only need a simple action to
> trigger. Very messy.

I was actually refering to the use of firearms not instruments of
mass destruction :)

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+>++++ L+>+++ E--- N++ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 24
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@****.CAIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 11:08:39 -0500
On Thu, 30 Mar 1995, Marc A Renouf wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Mar 1995, Jani Fikouras wrote:
>
> > Ever see someone kill 10 people in a complex action ?
>
> Yep. More than 10. And explosives only need a simple action to
> trigger. Very messy.

Aww, that's nothin'. Why, I once saw somebody destroy half a
city block without even rolling intitative!
(This thread could go on forever, so let's end it here. *grin*)

-------------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@****.com> =========-------------
| "I came alone as me, just an idea in a long chain of discovery." |
| -Roy Harper |
--------========== http://www.cais.com/jdfalk/home.html ==========--------
Message no. 25
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 18:13:40 +0200
> >Ever see someone kill 10 people in a complex action ?
>
> Does a shaman casting a mana cloud spell in a bar count? Body count in the
> order of 20 or so, excluding the intended group of targets...

Na!!!! anyone can do that! I was refering to firearms. :)
BTW this man-spell in a bar thingy, I have done it a couple times - its prety
cool :)

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+>++++ L+>+++ E--- N++ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 26
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Combat ?
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 20:40:58 GMT
> > >Ever see someone kill 10 people in a complex action ?
> >
> > Does a shaman casting a mana cloud spell in a bar count? Body count in the
> > order of 20 or so, excluding the intended group of targets...
>
> Na!!!! anyone can do that! I was refering to firearms. :)

Lynch's record stands at eight in a Complex Action, burning more Karma than
he liked at all. Ingram 20t in each hand, ten-round bursts, explosive ammo and
firing 3/3/3/1 on eight different ent (lightly armoured, praise the Lord)
targets. I think the last two were looking at a TN of 18: Firearms 10 and 6
dice of Combat Pool, and several rerolls managed to get a success on each. Only
needed to do Moderates on these guys to take them, too... About nine rerolls
all told, I think. The Second Edition Karma Pool was essential there.

As the empty cases jingled on the sidewalk and the bodies fell and the
wounded began to scream, the gang members looked at each other and at Lynch's
smoking Ingrams and at their dead/wounded colleagues, and changed their
policy from all-out attack to all-out retreat. Then Lynch proceeded to give
the rest of the group hell for creating the situation in the first place, by
insulting a group of 30+ bad-tempered street gangers to the point he had to
shoot some to get them to back off: he came in on the end of it when the
team's magician was already down and needed to sort the situation out fast.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or
for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Combat ?, 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.

Thwap!