HERO System Vehicles

[Ndreare]

Why do you not like them? I am sure it has been considered by many but...

 

I realy like the HERO way of doing vehicles, in fact I like them better than any other system I have played in except maybe the Pure War Gaming Systems.

 

Bringing this up because of this thread

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32414

[Hawksmoor]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Because they break Superhero genre convention.

 

Take a f-16 or a M1 Abrams and compare it to a 350 point PC.

 

Examine smear left after the Hero tangles with *one* of these machines.

 

Decide if the vehicles are appropriately done so that you can simulate scenes like in X2, the Hulk or even Kim Possible.

 

That said if Hero class characters get an upgrade in their capabilities so they can stomp puny humans in tin cans like they are supposed to be able to do then the rules are fine.

 

But to do that you need 500-750 point characters.

 

Hawksmoor

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

They are at the same time too detailed and not detailed enough.

 

The level of detail is unnecessary if all you're building is the superhero team's jump jet.

 

The level of detail is insufficient if you're running a game based around vehicles, such as a Car Wars Hero game. If I was running a Car Wars Hero game, I'd want objects (weapons, gadgets, etc.) to have weight and money cost at the very minimum.

 

Finally, the vehicle rules don't really model vehicles all that well. The 3rd edition vehicle rules are far superior: vehicles move in segments (as they should) rather than Phases, and they have stats for Acceleration, Deceleration, and Maximum Range.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

There are a number of problems with HERO system vehicles.

 

1. Attack/Defense ratios are off.

 

This is a general problem with HERO, but it shows up in spades with vehicles. How many penetrating hits do you need to take out a tank with a modern anti-tank weapon? In real life, it's one. In HERO, the number jumps to what? Four? Five? I don't have my book at hand, but a M1A1 will only do 8 body to itself per shot in, and that's when hit up the backside.

 

This can be corrected by altering the weapon/vehicle constructions, but this would be a official 5th edition HERO product- they won't alter those constructions.

 

So we'll be stuck with the strange HERO version of vehicle combat that would bear no relationship tactically or visually to what it was suppose to be modeling (i.e. modern armored combat).

 

Bring a lot of ammo guys.

 

 

2. Damage results are unbuttered bread

 

Actual vehicle damage is done at the compartment (for serious weapons) or at the component level (for lesser weapons).

 

HERO uses really boring small random tables (-x STR, -1 SPD, lose a power) plus an ablative Hit Point system (BODY) that doesn't bring vehicles to life.

 

How in the world does one lose STR on a M1A1? Was the engine damaged? If so, wouldn't that affect your movement rate before it altered your SPD (and thus the rate at which you could fire the top mounted machineguns)? Maybe it damaged the turret rotation mechanism, but why does that affect my movement SPD or ability to fire the smoke launchers?

 

Most of the results have me working overtime in an effort to explain what happened. Nothing is worse than explaining boring stuff and trying to make it interesting.

 

 

3. Vehicles don't feel like vehicles

 

They feel more like characters. They don't have weight, space, powertrains or engines. They simply (like characters) have stats and powers.

 

In short rather than being something different or special, they are more of the same. In addition all the mechanical hooks that could be used to solve issue #2 above are missing.

 

 

4. They don't scale

 

No just with Superheroes, although that has been mentioned. They don't scale with each other.

 

Try creating the range of combat vehicles used in history. We've already seen the designers try.

 

Pit the official version of a platoon of M1A1 battle tanks against the Iowa Class Battleship. The outcome is a joke of simulation.

 

 

5. Movement is wrong

 

As Chris Goodwin noted, the SPD system (so well suited to characters) does a grave injustice to vehicles. Things were much better in 3rd edition.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Robot Warriors had a critical hit table which, despite the name, wasn't used just for critical hits. (Though it could be altered; say, half or less of what you need to hit is a critical.) You'd roll 3d6, add the BODY done by the attack, cross reference it on a chart, and you'd get an effect; effects ranged from disabling weapons, sensors, or limbs, to loss of life support, to pilot taking STUN or BODY, to a power plant hit resulting in meltdown and explosion in 1d6 segments. Adopting something like this would fix your #1 and #2 results.

 

I've often considered writing up something like this for Hero System vehicle combat and may yet do so, if someone doesn't beat me to it.

 

Edit: Agree with #3 as well.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Because they break Superhero genre convention.

 

Take a f-16 or a M1 Abrams and compare it to a 350 point PC.

 

Examine smear left after the Hero tangles with *one* of these machines.

 

Decide if the vehicles are appropriately done so that you can simulate scenes like in X2, the Hulk or even Kim Possible.

 

That said if Hero class characters get an upgrade in their capabilities so they can stomp puny humans in tin cans like they are supposed to be able to do then the rules are fine.

 

But to do that you need 500-750 point characters.

 

Hawksmoor

 

 

I dont see that as a problem. The HULK is not a 350 point starting supers character, nor are most experienced comic book heroes. Further, you can play supers at whatever power level you like -- if you want your supers to be extremely powerful, then play at a higher point level.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Why do you not like them? I am sure it has been considered by many but...

 

I realy like the HERO way of doing vehicles, in fact I like them better than any other system I have played in except maybe the Pure War Gaming Systems.

 

Bringing this up because of this thread

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32414

 

I like the way the HERO System does vehicles as well, in general, but do sometimes feel that the write ups are a little clunky. For that reason I generally dont bother using writeups for mundane cars and such if I can avoid it -- I treat them basically as metal objects with a movement rate the characters can use.

 

I reserve full writeups for exceptional vehicles, like military hardware, vehicles that are actually paid for in points, and things like that.

[prestidigitator]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Wait. Are the problems people have with the vehicle rules in general, or with the example write-ups of specific vehicles? The former I consider to be an actual part of the system. The latter I do not.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I dont see that as a problem.

 

It's a major problem if you want Hulk to whack a tank in a single blow, but don't want to deal with the 50 or 60 dice needed to do it.

 

It could be done by using of partial standard effects, but now you've completely abandoned every construction baseline in HERO except for the tank- talk about counter productive.

 

Also at such levels, it becomes easier to simply move the tank (or even the entire earth) into the sun in order to destroy it instead of just whacking it. Is that really how you want to run your game?

 

Best option is the use of various limits and different vehicle standards, i.e. a different method of doing vehicle conversions. Something that an official publication will not do (and that was the reference point for the original question).

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Wait. Are the problems people have with the vehicles rules in general' date=' or with the example write-ups of [i']specific vehicles[/i]? The former I consider to be an actual part of the system. The latter I do not.

 

The original point of the question is actually specific to the example write-ups. It was a 'mass-battle' book for HERO. Such a book would almost certainly use the example vehicles or something very close to them as the baseline.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Best option is the use of various limits and different vehicle standards' date=' i.e. a different method of doing vehicle conversions. Something that an official publication will not do (and that was the reference point for the original question).[/quote']

 

And that goes back to the discussion a week or two ago about genre standards and differing writeups. A tank is a tank is a tank vs. a Champions tank is different from a War Hero tank.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

It's a major problem if you want Hulk to whack a tank in a single blow' date=' but don't want to deal with the 50 or 60 dice needed to do it.[/quote']

 

 

Theres more than one way to skin a tank. A character that wanted "Tank Smashing Strength" could very reasonably take a Power to make them particularly adept at it.

 

Also, I find that most people dont correctly understand or apply what happens to vehicles when their DEF is exceeded. You dont necessarily have to completely destroy a vehicle to effectively wreck it.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

And that goes back to the discussion a week or two ago about genre standards and differing writeups. A tank is a tank is a tank vs. a Champions tank is different from a War Hero tank.

 

The minute HERO goes down that path is the minute they've admitted that their game system is by nature unable to handle cross-genre hybrids as well as caving on the idea of any baseline standard.

 

Their supplements already suck, making them completely irrelevant to each other is likely not the way to correct that problem.

 

I'm of the opinion that it was possible to do a much better job at creating a standard baseline that would work in all but the most extreme campaigns. Not a perfect job, but a significantly better job.

 

I'm also of the opinion that the current HERO design team will not even attempt such an undertaking.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Theres more than one way to skin a tank. A character that wanted "Tank Smashing Strength" could very reasonably take a Power to make them particularly adept at it.

 

Back to the 'cute tricks' or Long's school of character design, i.e. let's make characters buy special powers to do things that non-HERO fanboys think should be a natural side-effect of a base power. In this case having someone who can carry an Aircraft Carrier on his shoulder whack a tank.

 

You'll forgive me if I'm unimpressed.

 

 

Also, I find that most people dont correctly understand or apply what happens to vehicles when their DEF is exceeded. You dont necessarily have to completely destroy a vehicle to effectively wreck it.

 

Somehow I fail to find such power in the rules as they are written. Reducing something by a point of SPD, or losing a few inches of movement, or whacking the radio, or the complete destruction of the in-dash DVD player does not effectively wreck a tank.

 

There are things there that would (loss of main gun for example), but these are rare compared to range of slightly damaged outcomes given in the charts.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I'm going to briefly chime in with my agreement in regards to the list Fox1 submitted above.

The most telling portion, in my mind, is the need for an optional advanced damage allocation system to reflect the component/ compartment/critical damage concept that would help model vechile combat. I've argued vehemently in the past that the +1body/x2 mass core axiom breaks down in realistic damage assesment... its too simple, and dosen't model the effect of multiple damaging hits in any sort of reasonable fashion. Some earlier editions really have been better in this regard.

For mass combat purposes, however, a simpler critical damage system would be needed. Things would badly bog down otherwise.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I like the HERO vehicle rules very much. The level of detail and flexibility is just about right for me. I much appreciate that they're built similarly to characters - it makes how they work easier for newcomers to grasp IMO, and it's much easier to use them in games where characters and vehicles interact with each other a lot.

 

Being built "right" is so much a matter of personal tastes and biases. I know lots of people who think that characters aren't built "right;" they dislike Segmented Movement, Strength damage and throwing distance, the amount of Body damage it takes to kill someone. That's one reason why HERO websites are so full of House Rules for adjusting these things, which of course is yet another great resource for folks looking to do something different. Very few of those House Rules actually agree on the way to change something, though.

 

If you have a problem with official builds - I certainly do from time to time, and not just with vehicles - you may want to change some of the stats. This is one area where I think HERO really helps you: all the stat builds and point costs are visible right there on the character sheet, so you can easily add or subtract until you're satisfied, without the arbitrariness of a game that just assigns stats to a vehicle without explaining how they're derived. I would disagree with those who might say that this makes the official writeups useless, because you're given a detailed basis to customize, rather than having to stat things up on your own.

 

The "superhero interaction" objection - that supers can't do to vehicles what they do in the comics - is far from universally accepted. I've seen raging debates here between people who want their Standard level Superheroes to hurl and smash tanks and those who don't. For the former, some of the optional rule adjustment suggestions from The Ultimate Brick and Galactic Champions go a long way to help make that happen. (Not for the first time I wish that that stuff had been in the core Champions genre book, but what can you do?)

 

No offense intended, but the "realistic vehicle" argument always gives me a chuckle. Not only because this is a game, meant to simulate the fictional adventure world more than the real world; but because definitions of "reality" also vary widely around here. Just how many anti-tank weapon hits does it take to bring down a tank? The answer ranges from folks like Fox1 who assert that it should be one, to what I call the "Abrams Advocates" who cite documentary proof that that beast is nearly indestructible.

 

When there are perceived inequities in how weapons damage certain targets, like the Abrams vs USS Iowa above, some of the optional rules suggestions are very helpful, like treating the hulls of very large vehicles like walls for purposes of damage rather than just subtracting from the vehicle's BODY total. I've also found that the Real Weapon Limitation, which virtually every vehicle weapon is built with, covers a multitude of sins. If you think that a given vehicle weapon should be less effective against a particular target in real life, then that Limitation makes it so.

 

In a similar vein, if you think that the Defenses of a vehicle should be less effective against weapons of superior technology, then there's no reason why they can't be. A lot of weapon evolution doesn't seem to have changed all that much against the human standard; their lethality against an unarmored target isn't that different. Improvement seems to be mostly increased effectiveness in penetrating armor.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

The minute HERO goes down that path is the minute they've admitted that their game system is by nature unable to handle cross-genre hybrids as well as caving on the idea of any baseline standard.

 

Their supplements already suck, making them completely irrelevant to each other is likely not the way to correct that problem.

 

I'm of the opinion that it was possible to do a much better job at creating a standard baseline that would work in all but the most extreme campaigns. Not a perfect job, but a significantly better job.

 

I'm also of the opinion that the current HERO design team will not even attempt such an undertaking.

 

Im not sure why you have such a negative opinion, nor do I really care, but I do know that you could find a way to express your opinions without being outright insulting or denigrating towards DOJ.

[teh bunneh]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Is your 60 STR brick having trouble rendering a tank useless? Simple. Pick the tank up and flip it over upside down. Problem solved.

 

Or you could go the Warhammer 40k route. A hit that penetrates a vehicle's hull has an equal chance of causing the vehicle to erupt in a giant fireball, pinwheeling across the battlefield and crushing everything in its way as it has of damaging the built-in coffee maker.

 

Like Lord Liaden says, everybody's got their own idea of what makes for good vehicles in a game. No sense fighting over what is, in essence, a matter of personal taste. It's like arguing over which tastes better -- strawberry or chocolate ice cream.

 

Bill.

(When everyone knows that vanilla ice cream is teh win!!1!)

[Lord Liaden]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

What I was trying to get to with my previous post is this bottom line: whatever official baseline for vehicles Hero Games came up with, someone would disagree with it. IMO we have sufficient tools, whether provided by Hero in published books or from our own common sense, to adjust that baseline until we're reasonably satisfied.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Back to the 'cute tricks' or Long's school of character design, i.e. let's make characters buy special powers to do things that non-HERO fanboys think should be a natural side-effect of a base power. In this case having someone who can carry an Aircraft Carrier on his shoulder whack a tank.

 

You'll forgive me if I'm unimpressed.

 

Nice attitude youve got there.

 

Anyway, if your general point is characters with high STR should be able to smash tanks innately, my return point is that the HULK, for instance, has vast STR. He's literally "the strongest one there is" in the Marvel stable. Rated in HERO terms, his STR is far in excess of the 60-70 STR seen on most HERO System characters. The idea of Marvel STR vs HERO STR has been done to death, but the short version is HERO STR is dead life STR -- the amount of weight you can barely get off the ground and stagger a few steps with. Marvel STR is press STR -- the amount you can lift over your head.

 

Personally, I would give the HULK Str somewhere in the 90+ range, and wouldnt blink if he got up into the low hundreds. I also wouldnt hesitate to give him a Hand Attack, or even a HKA in a Hulk SMASH! MP or equivalent.

 

But that's me.

 

Somehow I fail to find such power in the rules as they are written. Reducing something by a point of SPD, or losing a few inches of movement, or whacking the radio, or the complete destruction of the in-dash DVD player does not effectively wreck a tank.

 

There are things there that would (loss of main gun for example), but these are rare compared to range of slightly damaged outcomes given in the charts.

 

Oh, well aside from loosing the main gun to a damage table roll, or forcing the crew to make constant control rolls to do anything, or knocking the crew out from concussion, or flipping the tank over on its turret, or ripping off the turret directly, etc, well gee I guess you're right -- we'll just have to pound the tank until it's a flat sheet of metal.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Personally, I would give the HULK Str somewhere in the 90+ range, and wouldnt blink if he got up into the low hundreds. I also wouldnt hesitate to give him a Hand Attack, or even a HKA in a Hulk SMASH! MP or equivalent.

 

Give me a break. A 90 STR and and a few levels of HA results in... basically nothing to a Def 30 tank.

 

Oh, well aside from loosing the main gun to a damage table roll

 

Already noted, and noted as a rare result.

 

, or forcing the crew to make constant control rolls to do anything

 

Almost always insignificant and temporary.

 

 

 

, or knocking the crew out from concussion

 

Where pray tell me,is that in the rules: "When hit by attacks that do not bypass armor, the crew is out from concussion"? Perhaps on page 284?

 

 

 

, or flipping the tank over on its turret

 

Not the question at hand. Hulk smashes tanks, he doesn't flip them over because he can't smash them.

 

 

 

, or ripping off the turret directly

 

Great idea that will work...

 

Right after I get by that 30 or 20 def, should take with a 100 STR...

 

...oh, gosh. just about forever if in front. Or just a mere couple of full turns otherwise give or take for the rolls and whatever SPD you'd give the Hulk.

 

Yep, that sure is effective.

 

 

, etc, well gee I guess you're right -- we'll just have to pound the tank until it's a flat sheet of metal.

 

 

Well, we could go your route of making stuff up. That's bound to get us somewhere.

[Vondy]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

What I was trying to get to with my previous post is this bottom line: whatever official baseline for vehicles Hero Games came up with' date=' [b']someone would disagree with it[/b]. IMO we have sufficient tools, whether provided by Hero in published books or from our own common sense, to adjust that baseline until we're reasonably satisfied.

 

My issue isn't with the "official write ups." I can just not use them or change them if I find them problematic (or impose clever work arounds to enforce genre tropes*). My issue is with the fact that the vehicle system has long been the red-headed step-child of Hero as a system. It simply hasn't gotten as much work as the other parts of the system. From a legacy percpective (originally a super-hero game that's always had that genre as its primary bread-winner) this makes sense. A vehicle is just a prop. You jot out a few high-points and call it a day. Its there for plot purposes for the most part. Its clunky, but with some GM "extrapolation" it works. In some genres, however, vehicles become much more important, and more granular, worked-out vehicle rules become a priority. The Hero rules work, but they're clunky, and make me do more work than I want to invest in it from an interpretive position. I think the rules currently make a good foundation for a vehicle system, but they need some significant updates to be "good."

 

*I have normal guns built with "real weapon" use a fixed stunX versus "super-defenses," which fixes "Iron Man was stunned by a .44?!" and let characters using "super-attacks" declare they will make a "devastating attack" that does maximum body damage to inanimate objects in exchange for a full phase and 1/2 DCV. On average a brick with 60 STR will do 24 Body to a tank, which removes the "tank to tough for genre conventions" problem. On the other hand, the question becomes: should I have to do those things?

 

Subjective, that. Very subjective.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

What I was trying to get to with my previous post is this bottom line: whatever official baseline for vehicles Hero Games came up with' date=' [b']someone would disagree with it[/b]. IMO we have sufficient tools, whether provided by Hero in published books or from our own common sense, to adjust that baseline until we're reasonably satisfied.

 

I don't care. I've already fixed the problem in my own games. All that wasn't the question put forth in this thread.

 

 

The question was... let's look at the top post here...

 

 

Why do you not like them?

 

So my question to your rant... Why in the world are you arguing with my reasons for not liking them?

 

Seems to me by your own statement, you're wasting your time and mine.

[teh bunneh]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

So, basically you're not fond of the baseline vehicles as listed in the book, and you feel that the critical tables could be modified. All fair criticisms.

 

And as you said:

 

I don't care. I've already fixed the problem in my own games.

 

So, problem solved, no harm done. My only question at this point would be, why all the hate?

 

Their supplements already suck, making them completely irrelevant to each other is likely not the way to correct that problem.

 

I'm also of the opinion that the current HERO design team will not even attempt such an undertaking.

 

What's that all about?

 

Bill.

(Maybe this question deserves its own thread...)

[Lord Liaden]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I don't care. I've already fixed the problem in my own games. All that wasn't the question put forth in this thread.

 

 

The question was... let's look at the top post here...

 

 

 

 

So my question to your rant... Why in the world are you arguing with my reasons for not liking them?

 

Seems to me by your own statement, you're wasting your time and mine.

 

Sorry, Fox1, I didn't realize I was ranting, and I certainly didn't wish to imply that you don't have the right to dislike the vehicle rules. I thought I was just discussing some of the issues that had been raised on this thread. I didn't get the impression that Ndreare only wanted to hear from people who do dislike the rules. Since he was the one who started the thread and posted the question, if he tells me that I'm wasting his time I'll certainly apologise to him.