| From: | JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [House Rules] SR Combat |
| Date: | Mon, 8 Dec 1997 23:34:40 EST |
> Design Note: Halve the Power of all ballistic weapons from SR2 under this
> system. The Power of melee attacks and spells does not change. This tends
to
> put all weapons on pretty much the same scale. One of the problems of SR2
> armor and damage as opposed to SR1 is that the Power of ballistic attacks
> increased, while the Power of most melee attacks remained pretty much the
> same, making firearms slightly more effective and melee combat less
> effective. This system seems to even out the disparities, while keeping
> firearms fairly lethal because their damage cannot be resisted as easily as
> a
> punch.
>
Sounds good so far, but I'm not sure how well this "re-engineered" damage
codes would apply to vehicle damage. My initial take is that, with this new
way of handling armor and damage reduction, it would work, but I'm not
entirely convinced. I'd have to think this out some more.
> Hardened armor (like that possessed by some
> critters) also acts like hard cover: if the Power of the attack does not
> exceed the Armor rating, the attack does no damage.
>
I'd also add that vehicle armor would be considered as hardened armor, under
this definition. This would apply both to attacks directed against the vehicle
itself, and also attacks directed against passengers/cargo.
> B. Parry
> If the defender chooses to parry, he rolls his appropriate Melee Combat
> Skill
> as if it were a normal Attack Test against the attacker (modified by Reach,
> etc.). If the defender scores more successes than the attacker, the
attacker
> is hit with a normal attack; follow steps 3 and 4 below. Ties result in a
> flurry of strikes and counterstrikes to no effect.
>
I really do not like this, because it means an attacker has to expend an
action to attack, while the defender can counterattack (and do damage) without
expending an action. I would suggest that a defender may parry ONLY IF she has
an action left: this may be either a held action, or an available action at a
later phase. If the defender chooses to give up a later action, then can the
defender parry the attack.
EXAMPLE: Blade has actions on phases 14 and 4, but on phase 16, he is attacked
in melee combat. Blade may parry the attack, but only if he gives up one of
his phases on either phase 14 or 4.
> If the barrier is very thin, divide the Barrier Rating in half (round down).
> For a very thick or reinforced barrier, double the Barrier Rating. So a
> reinforced concrete wall would have a Barrier Rating of 16. Even an
> anti-vehicle missile wouldn't penetrate such a barrier, only weaken it.
>
I disagree with the last sentence. Anti-vehicle weapons are designed to
penetrate barriers and spew damaging materials inside, damaging crewmen,
engines, and so on. On the other hand, anti-vehicle weapons, to achieve such
penetration, would not significantly weaken the structural integrity of the
barrier.
I would suggest that munitions designed to penetrate barriers (like anti-
vehicle weapons) penetrate if the Power is greater than half the barrier
rating, but its Power would be reduced by half the barrier rating (rounded
down). However, penetrating weapons like these do not reduce the Barrier
Rating.
My $0.02.
-- Jon
