Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: John Moeller <John.Moeller@*.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: Ramming
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 02:29:27 -0600
Might this be a proper mechanic for ramming?

"Rammer": (Strength)M
Resist : Body vs. attacker's body

(Melee Combat in SRII)

John
Message no. 2
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 22:20:41 +0000
John writes:

> Might this be a proper mechanic for ramming?
>
> "Rammer": (Strength)M
> Resist : Body vs. attacker's body
>
> (Melee Combat in SRII)

Er, is that ramming as in vehicles or people? I take it it is people, by the
resistance "vs. attacker's body".

Well, for starters, (Strength)M is the same damage code as a punch, I would
think a ram would be a little less (but then again I have never been shoulder
charged _really_ hard before, so...). Oh, and I would suggest Stun damage as
well, like punches have.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U 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. 3
From: John Moeller <John.Moeller@*.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 14:37:58 -0600
On Thu, 11 Aug 1994, Damion Milliken wrote:

> > Might this be a proper mechanic for ramming?
> >
> > "Rammer": (Strength)M
> > Resist : Body vs. attacker's body
> >
> > (Melee Combat in SRII)
>
> Er, is that ramming as in vehicles or people? I take it it is people, by the
> resistance "vs. attacker's body".

I did mean people.

> Well, for starters, (Strength)M is the same damage code as a punch, I would
> think a ram would be a little less (but then again I have never been shoulder
> charged _really_ hard before, so...). Oh, and I would suggest Stun damage as
> well, like punches have.

Well, I kind of assumed that the character is doing his best to hit the
other in the chest, but maybe I assumed too much. Maybe just a
knockdown, in which case (Str)L would be better (stun, of course).

My real question was whether I should use a different number (Body) than
the Power (Str) of the attack to resist. Also, should I add Body in
somewhere to the Power?

John IV
Message no. 4
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 16:01:53 -0700
Quickness should factor in there too. A good blow or strike is
*accelerated* into the target at the last possible moment to produce the
greatest possible impulse, hence the largest pressure and kinetic energy.

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 5
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 11:34:02 +0000
John IV writes:

> > > "Rammer": (Strength)M
> > > Resist : Body vs. attacker's body

Um, another thought, how would the "Resist: Body vs. attackers Body" bit work?
The power is already defined as (Str)M. I would have thought it would have been
Resist: Body vs. Damage code.

> My real question was whether I should use a different number (Body) than
> the Power (Str) of the attack to resist. Also, should I add Body in
> somewhere to the Power?

Adam also mentioned incorporating quickness, that is a good idea. You mass
would play a part too (i.e. your Body + gear). The idea of light stun damage I
think is approrpiate, but as for a power level I am a bit stuck. Perhaps
something like (Quickness/3 + Body/2 + kg of mass carried/20)L Stun, or
something like that. The mechanic I just suggested makes a charge by a troll
rather nasty, especially if he's lugging heavy armour and a gyro mounted
minigun, but if he's lugging that I don't know why he wouldn't be using it.
An average person carrying nothing would do 2L Stun, which is probably a bit
low. Perhaps make it Qui/2 instead. Then an average person carrying nothing
would still do 2L due to rounding down. Ah, perhaps change it to (Qui + Bod)/2
then they would do 3L. Anyway, you get the idea.

Also, what skill would you use to attack with? I would not think armed or
unarmed combat appropriate. Perhaps athletics might do.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U 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. 6
From: John Moeller <John.Moeller@*.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 22:27:59 -0600
On Thu, 11 Aug 1994, Adam Getchell wrote:

> Quickness should factor in there too. A good blow or strike is
> *accelerated* into the target at the last possible moment to produce the
> greatest possible impulse, hence the largest pressure and kinetic energy.

True, but heavy calculations hinder gameplay a great deal. You want it fast.

John IV
Message no. 7
From: John Moeller <John.Moeller@*.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 22:34:14 -0600
On Fri, 12 Aug 1994, Damion Milliken wrote:

> John IV writes:
> > My real question was whether I should use a different number (Body) than
> > the Power (Str) of the attack to resist. Also, should I add Body in
> > somewhere to the Power?
>
> Adam also mentioned incorporating quickness, that is a good idea. You mass
> would play a part too (i.e. your Body + gear). The idea of light stun damage I
> think is approrpiate, but as for a power level I am a bit stuck. Perhaps
> something like (Quickness/3 + Body/2 + kg of mass carried/20)L Stun, or
> something like that. The mechanic I just suggested makes a charge by a troll
> rather nasty, especially if he's lugging heavy armour and a gyro mounted
> minigun, but if he's lugging that I don't know why he wouldn't be using it.
> An average person carrying nothing would do 2L Stun, which is probably a bit
> low. Perhaps make it Qui/2 instead. Then an average person carrying nothing
> would still do 2L due to rounding down. Ah, perhaps change it to (Qui + Bod)/2
> then they would do 3L. Anyway, you get the idea.
>
> Also, what skill would you use to attack with? I would not think armed or
> unarmed combat appropriate. Perhaps athletics might do.

As I replied to Adam, I do not want to make it overly complicated,
although ((Qui + Bod)/2)L sounds appropriate.

John IV
Message no. 8
From: Neil Smith <NSMITH@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 09:43:20 GMT
Suggestion: Ramming does (Str)L Stun damage, but also gives the
defender more knockback to cope with (+ Attacker's Bod/2 (3?) to
resistance TN? Use attacker's Bod as "damage" for existing knockback
rules? Can't remember the rules..).

Neil.
Message no. 9
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 19:58:11 +0000
Neil writes:

> Suggestion: Ramming does (Str)L Stun damage, but also gives the
> defender more knockback to cope with (+ Attacker's Bod/2 (3?) to
> resistance TN? Use attacker's Bod as "damage" for existing knockback
> rules? Can't remember the rules..).

Good idea actually. Normal knockdown rules are a Bod test vs. 1/2 the power
level, with a thresh hold (minimum successes) of 1 for light, 2 for mod and
three for serious. I think + attackers Bod/2 would be good, then an average
person would hit for 3L Stun damage, and the target would have a knockdown
target number of 2 instead of one. Oops, not that good really is it (I am
typing as I think here). For someone with better stats it would be better
though.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U 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. 10
From: Neil Smith <NSMITH@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 11:31:24 GMT
> > Neil writes:
> >
> > Suggestion: Ramming does (Str)L Stun damage, but also gives the
> > defender more knockback to cope with (+ Attacker's Bod/2 (3?) to
> > resistance TN? Use attacker's Bod as "damage" for existing knockback
> > rules? Can't remember the rules..).
>
> Damion
>
> Good idea actually. Normal knockdown rules are a Bod test vs. 1/2 the power
> level, with a thresh hold (minimum successes) of 1 for light, 2 for mod and
> three for serious. I think + attackers Bod/2 would be good, then an average

Make the defender roll Bod dice, T# = Attacker's Bod, defender needs
to exceed the threshold as given above (Use just Bod as opposed to
(Bod +Str) /2 for speed & simplicity). This assumes both combatants
are static; increase power for attacker running, decrease for
defender braced, etc. Yields the following:

Mr. Average, pushed by Ms Average: Mr Average rolls 3 dice, TN4 (3 +
1 for L stun), Threshold 1. Rolls 1.5 sucesses, no problem.

Ms Average, charged by Mr Average: Ms Average rolls 3 dice, TN6 (3 +
1 for L stun + 2 for running), threshold 1. Rolls 0.5 success and is
staggered.

Mr Average, charged by Mr Samurai: Mr Average rolls 3 dice, TN10 (6
+ 2 for M stun + 2 for runnng), threshold 2. Rolls 0.25 sucesses
and goes flying.

People will fall over even more when injured/fatigued/encumbered.

Neil.
Message no. 11
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 20:47:59 +0000
Neil writes:

> Make the defender roll Bod dice, T# = Attacker's Bod,

So you are suggesting the damage be (Attackers Bodx2)L Stun?
Or are you just proposing a unique knockback rule for ramming, and the damage
is determined some other way?

> defender needs to exceed the threshold as given above (Use just Bod as
> opposed to (Bod +Str) /2 for speed & simplicity). This assumes both
> combatants are static; increase power for attacker running, decrease for
> defender braced, etc. Yields the following:

I think the idea of putting mechanics behind such a rare and unncessary
form of attack is a bit pointless. If some body ever charges someone, then
the GM can whip up a target number. If we have a mechanic, then no body will
remember it, and so the GM will either need to look it up, or will think "screw
looking the rules up" and make a target number anyhow. The mechanics just
result in what one would expect anyhow; Mr Ave pushing does nothing, Ms Ave
charging makes you take a step back, Mr Sammi charging makes you go into orbit.

Anyway, if mechanics were put onto it, I like the general way this is going.

> People will fall over even more when injured/fatigued/encumbered.

That brings up a thought. Do the wound modifiers from the attack you just got
hit with apply to the test for knockback from that attack?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U 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. 12
From: Neil Smith <NSMITH@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 12:04:05 GMT
> > Neil writes:
> > Make the defender roll Bod dice, T# = Attacker's Bod,
>
> Damion:
>
> So you are suggesting the damage be (Attackers Bodx2)L Stun?
> Or are you just proposing a unique knockback rule for ramming, and the damage
> is determined some other way?

The latter, sort of. Damage dealt is (Str)L and use the existing
knowckback rules but bump up the target number a bit to reflect the
higher masses involved.

>
> If some body ever charges someone, then
> the GM can whip up a target number. If we have a mechanic, then no body will
> remember it, and so the GM will either need to look it up, or will think
"screw
> looking the rules up" and make a target number anyhow. The mechanics just
>

I agree. Entirely. Absolutely. 100%. Exactly what I would do in my
game.

I worked through some mechanics for two reasons: 1. Somebody asked
for them and 2. as I don't yet grok the SR game mechanics, I find it
useful to "play out" scenes in my head, to see what happens.

> Anyway, if mechanics were put onto it, I like the general way this is going.

Thanks.

>
> That brings up a thought. Do the wound modifiers from the attack you just got
> hit with apply to the test for knockback from that attack?
>
I think they ought to; it makes life more fun that way.

Neil.
Message no. 13
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 21:15:09 +0000
Niel writes:

> The latter, sort of. Damage dealt is (Str)L and use the existing
> knowckback rules but bump up the target number a bit to reflect the
> higher masses involved.

Well, if the person charging had a higher strength than body, then the target
number would actually be less. I would say use the regular knockback rules, ie
1/2 power (in this case 1/2 str) and add on 1/2 bod for the mass aspect.
Rather like gel rounds, they have a knockback target number of the power
instead of 1/2 power.
I still tend to like (Bod+Qui)/2 as the power, Str wouldn't have all that much
to do with it. And then have Bod of the attacker as the knockback target
number.

> I agree. Entirely. Absolutely. 100%. Exactly what I would do in my
> game.

Yeah, its amazing what a person will do with their time late at night when it's
either this or study :-)

>> That brings up a thought. Do the wound modifiers from the attack you just got
>> hit with apply to the test for knockback from that attack?
>
> I think they ought to; it makes life more fun that way.

Heh Heh Heh <insert evil GM grin here>

BTW, what would you use as the attackers skill? Unarmed or athletics, I tend
to favour athletics myself.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U 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. 14
From: Neil Smith <NSMITH@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 13:22:58 GMT
> Niel writes: <<<<<-----SP! SP! SP!
<<<<<<<
> NEIL writes:
>
> > The latter, sort of. Damage dealt is (Str)L and use the existing
> > knowckback rules but bump up the target number a bit to reflect the
> > higher masses involved.
>
> Damion:
> Well, if the person charging had a higher strength than body, then the target
> number would actually be less. I would say use the regular knockback rules, ie
> 1/2 power (in this case 1/2 str) and add on 1/2 bod for the mass aspect.
> Rather like gel rounds, they have a knockback target number of the power
> instead of 1/2 power.
> I still tend to like (Bod+Qui)/2 as the power, Str wouldn't have all that much
> to do with it. And then have Bod of the attacker as the knockback target
> number.

Why don't we ask an expert? Are there any rugby / american football
players out there? What do _you_ think is important?

> BTW, what would you use as the attackers skill? Unarmed or athletics, I tend
> to favour athletics myself.

Attacker's choice. The attack has aspects of both.

Neil.
Message no. 15
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 23:05:40 +0000
Neil writes:

>> Niel writes: <<<<<-----SP! SP! SP!
<<<<<<<
>> NEIL writes:

Heh, Heh, I do this all the time :-)

> Why don't we ask an expert? Are there any rugby / american football
> players out there? What do _you_ think is important?

Good idea actually. But knowing our luck we'll get a full blown physics
explanation from Adam :-)

>> BTW, what would you use as the attackers skill? Unarmed or athletics, I tend
>> to favour athletics myself.
>
>Attacker's choice. The attack has aspects of both.

Not such a bad thought. How would you rate it if I had 12 inch shoulder spikes
on my shoulders? :-) [joke - not to be taken seriously]

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U 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. 16
From: Neil Smith <NSMITH@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 14:12:43 GMT
Damion,
> Not such a bad thought. How would you rate it if I had 12 inch shoulder spikes
> on my shoulders? :-) [joke - not to be taken seriously]
>

(Str+2)M damage, but attacker must make a Strength test, T# of number
of boxes of damage done, to aviod being stuck in the target. (<Sings>
"Where did you get that hat?")

Neil.
Message no. 17
From: Enos Michel CDT <x62674f3@******.USMA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 10:07:58 EDT
Neil Wrote-
>>>Why don't we ask an expert? Are there any rugby / american football
>>>players out there? What do _you_ think is important?

Well, I'm _not_ an expert, but having played both sports, I'd say that strength
is really not very important when ramming. Velocity and size are much more
important. I've taken some monsterous hits from little bitty backs, and I'm the
big dumb guy with my ears taped up. Knowing where and how to hit someone is
key. I'd use either athletics or unarmed, again users choice but it should
reflect the style (football tackle, martial arts charge?)


____
|\ /| |__ MIKE ENOS | "Who's the more foolish, the fool
| \/ | | CDT Sgt, USCC | or the fool who follows him?"
| | |___ Company F-3 | Obi-Wan Kenobi

GEEK CODE: GCS d-(++@$), H--, s+, !g, p1(2), !au, a-, w(++), v, c+>+++,
P?, !L, !3, E?, N+, K-, W+>W++, M+(M), !V, -po+, Y+>++, t+(t+++), 5-, j++,
R(+), G'(''''), !tv, b++(+++), D++, B--, e+>++, u**, h--, f+, r+, n---, y+*
Message no. 18
From: Joshua Krage <jkrage@****.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 14:22:55 -0400
I hadn't really though about ramming as an effective melee tactic, but
the more I think about it, the more attractive it seems.

I'm including a quick set of ramming rules that I wrote during lunch.
I've taken into account knockback for BOTH the attacker and defender, and
the possibility that the attacker will take damage. Also, if both people
are moving, things can be much nastier. I kept the damage level at Moderate
since lessening it doesn't seem to make much sense when a standard punch
does Moderate stun. Some parts still need some fleshing out.

Here's my current version of my ramming rules:

As per normal Unarmed melee combat, with the following changes:
- Attacker may use Athletics in place of Unarmed combat, if desired.

- When in motion, the adjusted damage code of the attack is now:
{(BOD+QUI)/2 + (Impact)/2} M (stun)

- (Optional) Instead of using QUI, use meters travelled during the phase.
(This seems WAY too high, esp. when running)

- BOTH the attacker AND the defender make standard knockback tests
vs. the BOD of the other.

- Any knockback is taken in the direction of the attack.
(What about when the Attacker's natural BOD is less than the
Defender's?)

- If knockback is taken, add half the difference of UNmodified BOD
between the attacker and the defender for the net result.
(Attacker'sNaturalBOD - Defender'sNaturalBOD)/2

Negative results are applied to the attacker, if the defender wins
the test.


==
jkrage@****.umd.edu
Message no. 19
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 12:43:08 -0700
On Fri, 12 Aug 1994, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Good idea actually. But knowing our luck we'll get a full blown physics
> explanation from Adam :-)

Not if you don't want one.
But let me say I have stopped an attacker twice my mass charging
in on me with a side kick during sparring, knocking *him* backwards onto
his derriere (well, almost). I also note that I didn't use a "stepping
side kick" or significant windup in any way, so I can assure you that
momentum isn't the only factor.

> Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 20
From: John Moeller <John.Moeller@*.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 13:01:06 -0600
On Fri, 12 Aug 1994, Neil Smith wrote:
> Suggestion: Ramming does (Str)L Stun damage, but also gives the
> defender more knockback to cope with (+ Attacker's Bod/2 (3?) to
> resistance TN? Use attacker's Bod as "damage" for existing knockback
> rules? Can't remember the rules..).

This is the best idea yet. Just treat it as a knockdown/back attack.
Thanks. :)

John IV
Message no. 21
From: John Moeller <John.Moeller@*.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 13:08:22 -0600
On Fri, 12 Aug 1994, Damion Milliken wrote:

> > Suggestion: Ramming does (Str)L Stun damage, but also gives the
> > defender more knockback to cope with (+ Attacker's Bod/2 (3?) to
> > resistance TN? Use attacker's Bod as "damage" for existing knockback
> > rules? Can't remember the rules..).
>
> Good idea actually. Normal knockdown rules are a Bod test vs. 1/2 the power
> level, with a thresh hold (minimum successes) of 1 for light, 2 for mod and
> three for serious. I think + attackers Bod/2 would be good, then an average
> person would hit for 3L Stun damage, and the target would have a knockdown
> target number of 2 instead of one. Oops, not that good really is it (I am
> typing as I think here). For someone with better stats it would be better
> though.

Agreed. I think we've got something here. It's not too complex for
play, but it describes what should happen.

John IV
Message no. 22
From: John Moeller <John.Moeller@*.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 13:14:00 -0600
On Fri, 12 Aug 1994, Neil Smith wrote:

> > > Suggestion: Ramming does (Str)L Stun damage, but also gives the
> > > defender more knockback to cope with (+ Attacker's Bod/2 (3?) to
> > > resistance TN? Use attacker's Bod as "damage" for existing
knockback
> > > rules? Can't remember the rules..).
> >
> > Damion
> >
> > Good idea actually. Normal knockdown rules are a Bod test vs. 1/2 the power
> > level, with a thresh hold (minimum successes) of 1 for light, 2 for mod and
> > three for serious. I think + attackers Bod/2 would be good, then an average
>
> Make the defender roll Bod dice, T# = Attacker's Bod, defender needs
> to exceed the threshold as given above (Use just Bod as opposed to
> (Bod +Str) /2 for speed & simplicity). This assumes both combatants
> are static; increase power for attacker running, decrease for
> defender braced, etc. Yields the following:
>
> Mr. Average, pushed by Ms Average: Mr Average rolls 3 dice, TN4 (3 +
> 1 for L stun), Threshold 1. Rolls 1.5 sucesses, no problem.
>
> Ms Average, charged by Mr Average: Ms Average rolls 3 dice, TN6 (3 +
> 1 for L stun + 2 for running), threshold 1. Rolls 0.5 success and is
> staggered.
>
> Mr Average, charged by Mr Samurai: Mr Average rolls 3 dice, TN10 (6
> + 2 for M stun + 2 for runnng), threshold 2. Rolls 0.25 sucesses
> and goes flying.
>
> People will fall over even more when injured/fatigued/encumbered.
>
> Neil.

Great! :) I think that I can use this without loss of flow. Thanks, guys.

John IV
Message no. 23
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 16:36:44 +0000
Josuha writes:

> - Attacker may use Athletics in place of Unarmed combat, if desired.

This sounds good to me.

> - When in motion, the adjusted damage code of the attack is now:
> {(BOD+QUI)/2 + (Impact)/2} M (stun)

What's the "Impact" bit?

> - (Optional) Instead of using QUI, use meters travelled during the phase.
> (This seems WAY too high, esp. when running)

Perhaps make the number of meters moved be divided by 3 or 4. It should be
taken into account, as the distance moved in the phase determines your
speed. The only thing is that it makes for a rather bulky and horible formula
so perhaps it's not such a good idea.

> - BOTH the attacker AND the defender make standard knockback tests
> vs. the BOD of the other.

Natural Bod I assume.

> - Any knockback is taken in the direction of the attack.
> (What about when the Attacker's natural BOD is less than the
> Defender's?)

I don't think we should get that picky.

> - If knockback is taken, add half the difference of UNmodified BOD
> between the attacker and the defender for the net result.
> (Attacker'sNaturalBOD - Defender'sNaturalBOD)/2

Just what do you mean by this?

> Negative results are applied to the attacker, if the defender wins
> the test.

Adam writes:

>> Good idea actually. But knowing our luck we'll get a full blown physics
>> explanation from Adam :-)
>
> Not if you don't want one.

It was a joke, I wouldn't mind if we did.

> But let me say I have stopped an attacker twice my mass charging
> in on me with a side kick during sparring, knocking *him* backwards onto
> his derriere (well, almost). I also note that I didn't use a "stepping
> side kick" or significant windup in any way, so I can assure you that
> momentum isn't the only factor.

Thats why there is a skill roll, this determines the threshold. Also, don't
forget that in any unarmed attack the defender can counter attack, this can
result in the attacker being the one forced back.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U 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+

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U 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. 24
From: Joshua Krage <jkrage@****.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 1994 19:21:16 -0400
On Sat, 13 Aug 1994, Damion Milliken wrote:
> Josuha writes:

The 'u' comes after the 'h', as in JoshUa. ;)

> > - Attacker may use Athletics in place of Unarmed combat, if desired.
> This sounds good to me.
>
> > - When in motion, the adjusted damage code of the attack is now:
> > {(BOD+QUI)/2 + (Impact)/2} M (stun)
>
> What's the "Impact" bit?

Impact armor rating. I had the wild and crazy idea that being hit by someone
wearing rigid plates would be a little more dangerous. The target's armor
still modifes the adjusted damage code appropriately.

> > - (Optional) Instead of using QUI, use meters travelled during the phase.
> > (This seems WAY too high, esp. when running)
>
> Perhaps make the number of meters moved be divided by 3 or 4. It should be
> taken into account, as the distance moved in the phase determines your
> speed. The only thing is that it makes for a rather bulky and horible formula
> so perhaps it's not such a good idea.

The attacker probably should get a bonus for a higher speed, but that could
be easily taken into account by a blanket +2 for running. If you divide by
3 or 4, then you get the original QUI rating anyway.

> > - BOTH the attacker AND the defender make standard knockback tests
> > vs. the BOD of the other.
>
> Natural Bod I assume.

Either that or the adjusted body (as above), which could take into account
motion of both the attacker and defender. It should be more difficult to
avoid being knocked down by a bigger/faster attacker than a smaller/slower
one.

> > - Any knockback is taken in the direction of the attack.
> > (What about when the Attacker's natural BOD is less than the
> > Defender's?)
>
> I don't think we should get that picky.

Probably not; it just pays to be complete sometimes. If you're charging,
you'll usually have some sort of an effect. The only difficulty is when
the BOD 1 Elf charges the BOD 11 Troll.

> > - If knockback is taken, add half the difference of UNmodified BOD
> > between the attacker and the defender for the net result.
> > (Attacker'sNaturalBOD - Defender'sNaturalBOD)/2
>
> Just what do you mean by this?

Smaller person goes further. This is extra distance someone could go if the
relative BODs of the two participants are pretty different.

> > Negative results are applied to the attacker, if the defender wins
> > the test.

If the attacker is smaller, the attacker is more likely to go flying when
he fails his attack.

> Thats why there is a skill roll, this determines the threshold. Also, don't
> forget that in any unarmed attack the defender can counter attack, this can
> result in the attacker being the one forced back.

This is why I like the test being as much like the normal Unarmed attack,
where the defender has a chance of hurting the attacker.

==
jkrage@****.umd.edu
Message no. 25
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 21:55:11 +0000
Joshua writes:

> On Sat, 13 Aug 1994, Damion Milliken wrote:
> > Josuha writes:
>
> The 'u' comes after the 'h', as in JoshUa. ;)

Heh [meekly] I seem to be good at doing this, don't worry, you are not the
first, and will probably not be the last... But, seriously, when I hit "reply",
the message you wrote comes up, but unless you have a .sig, or a name at the
bottom, then I have to quit the editor, check the name and then "reply" again.
I used to do that, but it wastes too much time, so now I figure if people are
not going to put their name at the bottom of what they write and acknowledge it
as theirs, then I'm not going to either.

> Impact armor rating. I had the wild and crazy idea that being hit by someone
> wearing rigid plates would be a little more dangerous. The target's armor
> still modifes the adjusted damage code appropriately.

Yeah, I agree with the idea in principle, but if you allow the power level
increase for armour, whats to stop me trying to claim one for the weight of
my equipment? or the 3 assault rifles slung over my shoulder (getting hit with
one of those would hurt more than body arnour)?

> The attacker probably should get a bonus for a higher speed, but that could
> be easily taken into account by a blanket +2 for running. If you divide by
> 3 or 4, then you get the original QUI rating anyway.

Yeah, good point, a +2 or +1 for running seems to be the best idea.

> Either that or the adjusted body (as above), which could take into account
> motion of both the attacker and defender. It should be more difficult to
> avoid being knocked down by a bigger/faster attacker than a smaller/slower
> one.

Yep, that also makes sense.

> Probably not; it just pays to be complete sometimes. If you're charging,
> you'll usually have some sort of an effect. The only difficulty is when
> the BOD 1 Elf charges the BOD 11 Troll.

Yeah, but I don't feel the elf would neccessarily bounce back; he would be
stopped dead in his tracks sure, but not neccessarily bounce.

> Smaller person goes further. This is extra distance someone could go if the
> relative BODs of the two participants are pretty different.

But remember the knockback rules for SR only say "knocked over" "takes a
step
(1/2m to 1m) back" or "nothing". There is no mechanism for calculating the
distance moved, so unless you introduce a new game mechanic for this, then
the idea is a bit useless.

> If the attacker is smaller, the attacker is more likely to go flying when
> he fails his attack.

Just as likely to stop dead too wouldn't he be?

> This is why I like the test being as much like the normal Unarmed attack,
> where the defender has a chance of hurting the attacker.

This I agree to.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U 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. 26
From: Joshua Krage <jkrage@****.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 12:33:58 -0400
On Mon, 15 Aug 1994, Damion Milliken wrote:
>> Impact armor rating. I had the wild and crazy idea that being hit by someone
>> wearing rigid plates would be a little more dangerous. The target's armor
>> still modifes the adjusted damage code appropriately.
>
> Yeah, I agree with the idea in principle, but if you allow the power level
> increase for armour, whats to stop me trying to claim one for the weight of
> my equipment? or the 3 assault rifles slung over my shoulder (getting hit with
> one of those would hurt more than body arnour)?

I can't really argue with weight of equipment, but the three assault rifles
probably won't be in a position to do any additional damage, whereas the
armor is generally across the entire body, and the extra weight increases
the attacker's momentum. It would probably be simpler to drop the Impact
portion of the formula (making it (BOD+QUI)/2 ) and optionally replace it
with a fixed modifer of +1 or +2 depending on general load carried.

>> Probably not; it just pays to be complete sometimes. If you're charging,
>> you'll usually have some sort of an effect. The only difficulty is when
>> the BOD 1 Elf charges the BOD 11 Troll.
>
> Yeah, but I don't feel the elf would neccessarily bounce back; he would be
> stopped dead in his tracks sure, but not neccessarily bounce.

I wasn't really thinking of bouncing, but rather continuing on or stopping.
This part should be eliminated. Negative results just count as zero.

>> Smaller person goes further. This is extra distance someone could go if the
>> relative BODs of the two participants are pretty different.
>
> But remember the knockback rules for SR only say "knocked over" "takes
a step
> (1/2m to 1m) back" or "nothing". There is no mechanism for calculating
the
> distance moved, so unless you introduce a new game mechanic for this, then
> the idea is a bit useless.

Treat it as additional distance. Instead of knocked over, the loser goes
flying backwards AND gets knocked over. Instead of a step back, several
steps back. Nothing still stays the same. (Hmm, that sounds odd. :)

==
jkrage@****.umd.edu Joshua Krage
Message no. 27
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ramming
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 13:10:30 +0000
Joshua writes:

> I can't really argue with weight of equipment, but the three assault rifles
> probably won't be in a position to do any additional damage, whereas the
> armor is generally across the entire body, and the extra weight increases
> the attacker's momentum. It would probably be simpler to drop the Impact
> portion of the formula (making it (BOD+QUI)/2 ) and optionally replace it
> with a fixed modifer of +1 or +2 depending on general load carried.

Yeah, I agree with this. Light load gives no mod, medium load gives +1 and
heavy load gives +2. Just what light, medium and heavy are is to be decided.
Probably 0-15kg for light, 6-30 for medium, and 31+ for heavy, or something
similar.

> I wasn't really thinking of bouncing, but rather continuing on or stopping.
> This part should be eliminated. Negative results just count as zero.

Yeah, probably a good idea.

> Treat it as additional distance. Instead of knocked over, the loser goes
> flying backwards AND gets knocked over. Instead of a step back, several
> steps back. Nothing still stays the same. (hmm, that sounds odd :)

:-)

Er, just a thought, is it worth pursuing this any further? Nobody but a
complete rules monger would use the things we are coming up with.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U 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+

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Ramming, 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!