Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

I think you just made an important point. The rules you have implemented must be taking in context of all the other rules you've introduced. Your take on STR, BODY, CSLs and so on, combined with the rules on firearms all create a specific feel and deliver a specific result, your goal of a more realistic firearms solution. A single aspect of those rules really cannot stand alone and taken out of context can seem difficult to apply.

 

I think a key here in this discussion is Fox1's exception to the use of "reality" when referring to a game. So noted. The game you run Fox is obviously one rooted in realism, something other players on the board may consider of different import than you, some more some less. I can certainly appreciate realism, and I can see how when someone posts that they have come up with a new, more realistic firearm system that you could take exception based on the amount of effort you have put into making your system as good as it can be.

 

I don't feel the need to demonstrate my research, knowledge, and experience because, like you, I know what I know (and don't know) and am comfortable with that knowledge. It's served me thus far and I see no need to change it. I am not trying to make the most perfect simulationist experience. Dramatic reality, as long as it doesn't conflict with my knowledge base and is fun, is all I am interested in.

 

I have read through your site and your system. I have always stated I think you have done good work. I do have a question though.

 

You put rifles at 2d6/2d6+1K. Various ammo types can bump that by +1DC or so at an appropriate range. You also use hit locations, and impairing/disabling rules, although you do not use cumulative BODY damage. How do these rules combine to make rifles less powerful than as presented in the rules? Is the non-cumulative BODY the key? On the surface it would seem they do the same amount of damage, are applied to hit locations normally, and cause impairing/disabling wounds with the same frequency.

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

You put rifles at 2d6/2d6+1K. Various ammo types can bump that by +1DC or so at an appropriate range. You also use hit locations' date=' and impairing/disabling rules, although you do not use cumulative BODY damage. How do these rules combine to make rifles less powerful than as presented in the rules? Is the non-cumulative BODY the key? On the surface it would seem they do the same amount of damage, are applied to hit locations normally, and cause impairing/disabling wounds with the same frequency.[/quote']

 

You're correct. The non-cumulative BODY is the key, especially in games with Auto-fire.

 

Consider a not very uncommon occurance with a M16 vs. a BODY 10 victim. A good roll can cause all the shots from a 3 round burst to hit, Let's say the damage rolls were an 9, 5 and 6.

 

Under the standard HERO rules, the character is dead. Under mine, he's taken three impairing injuries and has some bleeding problems- but most likely (assuming medical aid with in a couple of turns or so) is in little danger of death.

 

Also helping out in this is the fact that I count bleeding damage on its own individual track (which is cumulative).

 

Depending upon a campaign's individual levels and ratios of resistant/non-resistant defenses, the danger from "a death of a thousand cuts, well two, three, four, five or six..." can be highly significant or not. But I'm certainly far below the death level for a standard HERO no resistant defense campaign.

 

 

 

There are other desirable (for me) effects. A character taking a 8 point hit in the arm with a 7.62x51mm rifle round can duck for (or be knocked down into) cover. He can then take a recovery, bind the wound and return to action.

 

Doing so in standard HERO means he's 2 points away from worrying about dying. Doing it in my game means he only has to worry about a impaired arm and being down at least the required 8 stun.

 

This alters the dymanics of play greatly, and it's much more common to see the classic action of a wounded hero charging back into battle.

 

 

As as side note, I always assumed that BODY was non-cumulative in HERO even before I started my work on firearms. It was years before someone pointed out that the rules were different.

 

I can't imagine running the with with cumulative BODY...

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

non-cumulative BODY is something I've thought about for a while. So, bleeding has its own track, but the amount of bleeding dice is a function of each individual wound or total wounds. If I had 3 2-BODY wounds would I take 3x1d6 bleeding or 2d6 bleeding? And these dice represent STUN lost unless a 6 is rolled, correct?

 

Death occurs:

1. When a vital location is destroyed (x2 BODY to a location)

2. When BODY lost to bleeding equal BODY

 

Maiming occurs:

1. When a location suffers x2 BODY in a single hit, otherwise it is impaired at > BODY/2, and disabled at > BODY.

 

Thank you for answering. I can see now why you raise pistol damage, otherwise it would be impossible for a 9mm to disable a hand. A few more....

 

1. Destroying vitals/head seems clear. A M16 against an unarmored opponent at 50" or less will cause 2d6+1 damage, which against a 10 BODY target is a disabling wound, but against an 8 BODY target is instant death. However, limbs/extremities would rarely if ever be destroyed by gunfire, which is certainly more cinematic than real. A barret might, or a heavy pistol and JHP, but even then it would be rare. How about shotguns?

 

2. Shotguns. Are they on another list somewhere? Grenades as well, or as they are in the system are they okay?

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

If I had 3 2-BODY wounds would I take 3x1d6 bleeding or 2d6 bleeding? And these dice represent STUN lost unless a 6 is rolled, correct?

 

You'd take 3x1d6 in bleeding and the dice do represent STUN unless a 6 is rolled.

 

 

 

Death occurs:

1. When a vital location is destroyed (x2 BODY to a location)

2. When BODY lost to bleeding equal BODY

 

Maiming occurs:

1. When a location suffers x2 BODY in a single hit, otherwise it is impaired at > BODY/2, and disabled at > BODY.

 

Correct.

 

 

However, limbs/extremities would rarely if ever be destroyed by gunfire, which is certainly more cinematic than real.

 

True enough.

 

About the only way you'd lose a limb to normal range weapons is from bleeding loss. Each point of Body from bleeding equals one point on the cumulative Bleeding Track and increases the individual wound by a point.

 

Basically that means you'd have to take a > BODY hit in the limbs, and then bleed for enough damage to reach 2x the limb so it 'dies', but not enough to equal your total BODY on the bleeding track so you don't.

 

Much rarer than reality. But this is intended for heroic action adventure after all.

 

If I was concerned about it, I would likely enforce the CON roll rules for *recovering* from Disables, and put more teeth into them at that.

 

 

2. Shotguns. Are they on another list somewhere? Grenades as well, or as they are in the system are they okay?

 

Slug use the normal conversion rules with the 'damage reduced by range' limit. A 3/4" hunk of lead hurling at down range at 1600 fps will ruin your day.

 

I've been using the rules for Shotguns shot and Explosives given in Golden Age of Champions, Here there be Tigers, and The Armory from the old days. I did up the damage a little (00 shot for example does a base of 2d6K per pellet 'group'), but everything else was the same.

 

If you're unaware of the rules from those old books, I can detail them for you. In meantime I'll assume you know about them.

 

The reason these weapons aren't up on the website currently is that I'm giving very serious thought to changing it.

 

There are a lot of good things about those old rules but one major bad thing. It takes an exceptionally long time to resolve as you're basically rolling the results of 4 or more damaging attacks per 'hit'. Things really get out of hand if your grenade lands where it would injury four or five characters.

 

So it's due for a change. Just trying to decided upon the best method.

[gewing]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

I figure I put enough research into this to warrant its own thread. The first list contains the Damage Classes I have devised for calibered pistol ammunition, the second list contains the Damage Classes I have devised for metric pistol ammunition. Feel free to use these lists as a reference when statting out your pistols.

 

• .22: 4 DC
  
• .25 Auomatic Colt Pistol: 4 DC
  
• .32 Automatic Colt Pistol: 5 DC
  
• .380 Automatic Colt Pistol: 5 DC
  
• .357 Magnum/ .357 SIG: 6 DC
  
• .38 Special: 6 DC
  
• .400 Cor-Bon: 6 DC
  
• .40 Smith & Wesson: 6 DC
  
• .45 Automatic Colt Pistol: 7 DC
  
• .454 Casull: 7 DC
  
• .44 Automatic Magnum Pistol/.44 Magnum: 8 DC
  
• .50 AE: 9 DC (change back to 8 DC if you don't want to go this far).

• 5.45mm: 4 DC
  
• 5.56mm: 4 DC
  
• 7.62mm, 7.62x17mm: 5 DC
  
• 9mm Makarov: 5 DC
  
• 9x18mm Makarov: 6 DC
  
• 9mm Parabellum: 6 DC
  
• 10mm: 6 DC
  
• 9x21mm Russian: 7 DC
  
• 5.7mm (AET): 7 DC
  
• 12.3mm: 8 DC
  
• 12.5mm: 8 DC

 

 

Sorry I'm just getting to this...

 

.380 and .38 special could be the same damage (perhaps oversimplification, but unless the .38 is +p it works imo)

but I don't like the .38, .40, .357magnum, .357sig, 10mm, 9makarov doing the same damage.

 

The .45 acp should do FAR less damage (two dc or so?) less than a .454 casull. The Casull should do MORE than a .44 magnum. The .454 SHOULD do more damage than a .50 AE. The .50 AE has about .30% more energy than a .44 magnum, bullet weights are not vastly different.

 

9x21 russian should be about the same as a .357 magnum/.357 sig.

 

The 5.7x28mm FN round should probably do the same "damage" as a .22 lr or at MOST one dc more, but be AP.

 

 

just some data, cor bon hunting loads for comparison.

 

44AUTO MAG 240gr JHP 1450fps/1120ftlbs

44Rem MAG 180gr JHP 1700fps/1155ftlbs 44Rem MAG 240gr JHP 1500fps/1200ftlbs 44Rem MAG 300gr JSP 1300fps/1126ftlbs 44Rem MAG 320gr HC 1175fps/981ftlbs

454CASULL 240gr JHP 1450fps/1121ftlbs 454CASULL 265gr BCHP 1800fps/1907ftlbs 454CASULL 300gr JSP 1650fps/1814ftlb 454CASULL 320gr FPPN 1600fps/1819ftlb 454CASULL 335gr HC 1600fps/1905ftlbs note the first .454 load is a "light load"

 

for more comparison, check out their "Price Lists" they have different loads for different calibers designed for both hunting and self defense.

 

http://www.corbon.com/?uid=12665&page=1634

[gewing]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Now I know nothing about guns but some stuff about physics. Basically ammunition is a lump of lead of a fixed mass and a lump of low explosive whose expansion propels it, yes?

 

Assuming the barrel is long enough to allow the explosive to fully burn, I'm not sure how different guns can subsantially effect the MOMENTUM of the ammunition they use. Momentum, I'd have thought, given that all bullets of a given calibre have similar density and shape, would be the primary determiner of damage potential. I can see the barrel length and rifling effecting accuracy but I can't really see it effecting momentum, and, in my dim little way, I'd have thought this is what matters for base damage. Am I wrong?

 

longer barrels will usually add a little velocity, sometimes a lot.

 

Though some rounds don't gain much, such as .45 acp.

[gewing]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Because it doesn't.

 

He's point was based upon firing postures, and the primary effect of firing postures is not a matter of any form of strength, but rather increasing fine weapon control- factors that matter with any weapon completely independent of weight, size or recoil. Even the biggest and mightest of men will go to two-handed or prone or other solid firing posture when shooting for best result.

 

In short, his point was like saying "Look, bright lights to the east!, take a -3 to the STR Min".

 

Right... sure... whatever.

 

Btw, neither HERO nor my house rules take firing postures into account correctly. In my case its because it would result in a very non-action movie approach to combat. HERO's reason is unknown to me (I would hope it was the same).

 

 

 

I wouldn't insult people who kept up with modern research on the subject.

I disagree with you on firing posture/strength min I THINK... I may be misreading you.

 

When I was 12 or 13 years old I started shooting highpower with an M-14 NM which weighed about 11 lbs iirc. It was technically quite a bit too heavy for me to use, as I was about 120 lbs, at most.

 

Once I got it up into a proper offhand position, I could shoot it fairly well.

I could not have made a SNAP SHOT with it at that time.

 

I now weigh close to 240 lbs. I am significantly out of shape, but I can snap up even the SUPERHEAVY AR-15 that my dad built as a test bed, it weighs 17 or 18 lbs.

 

I wouldn't want to carry it around, but I can still throw it up if I need to.

I can fairly EASILY get into a proper offhand position with it.

 

Similarly, I can shoot .44 magnum desert eagle one handed. I would NOT use one this way in a fight, but that is only partially due to weight. It is primarily due to the fact that my medium sized hand doesn't feel as if I have a truly solid grip on it, and I cannot reach the safety or hammer unless I use my other hand.

 

 

 

 

Like I said, I may have misunderstood you.

[gewing]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

The problem with this is you don't know who has or had not done the research. You don't know who is or is not qualified. Perhaps some of these individuals are more qualified and/or knowledgable, but simply do not wish to flaunt that, merely allowing others their opinions and not attack them for it.

 

(FYI, I've done only a small amount of research on small arms vs people, but thats because I don't have much of a problem with how the game handles it now, so I didn't feel the need to do so. I've done tons of research on larger calibur weapons like Tank guns on up for the express purpose of making vehicles combat more aesthetically pleasing in my games. If I felt the need to add more "realistic" rules for small arms fire to my games, I would heavily research it before doing so. I simply do not feel the need to do so at this time)

 

 

Putting up links does not necessarily mean you have done a lot of research. Neither does NOT putting up links mean you haven't done any research.

[gewing]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Excellent idea. Be careful of the dating if anyone takes you up on your offer.

 

 

 

Let me give you a little brief history so that you understand what's behind my warning.

 

Serious study of firearms and wound ballistics took off at the end of the 19th century and was basically completed (for the weapons of the time) in the early 20th by such greats as Theodor Kocher and General Hatcher to name a couple of men whose influence far outlive their own lives.

 

Things were rather settled until the 1950s, at this point a number of designers and gun writers appeared who championed the idea of very small high velocity bullets as improvement of the breed. One could almost say the era was kicked of by the .357 mag and .270 Winchester.

 

In the sixties the development of the M16 further the trend athough actual understanding of how it managed to create the wounds it did wouldn't become complete for decades.

 

The cult of velocity (or KE) being the end all in firearm design was on a roll.

 

The final seal was locked into place by researchers (including Bruchey WJ Jr.) working for the FBI attempting to determine the best weapons for law enforcement. Firing weapons into gelatin blocs, they measured what they thought was the most significant element of 'stopping power', the temporary wound cavity upon which they based the rating system called the Relative Incapacitation Index.

 

With an official government stamp on it, it appeared to many that a new era of firearms knowledge had dawned. The trickle to 9mm and other small but high KE value weapons turned into a waterfall.

 

By the time of the first modern era rpgs, the 'value' of KE was a given to anyone doing research on the subject (and willing to ignore older sources in favor of new). Games ranging from GURPS, Morrow Project, Champions, and Phoenix Command all based their in-game firearm values on it.

 

Things starting falling apart in the latter half of the 1980s. Events such as the famous FBI Miami Shootout caused a re-examination of the whole concept of wound ballistics.

 

Work by a number of people (M.L. Fackler, M.D, working for the Letterman Army Institute of Research is perhaps THE name in the field) revealed the errors of the RII methods. Oddly enough, the resulting work showed that the original concepts developed pre-1950 were still highly valid.

 

Since 1986 all further creditable work in this field has supported Dr. Fackler. I know of no study or research that credits KE as the primary factor in wound determination.

 

That said, there was some value in the rush to high velocity weapons- not in wounding as such, but in flatter shooting weapons. Add in advances in bullet design (some by near accident as in the case of the M-16's .223 round), and effective low recoiling weapons have appeared. There's typically always some good with the bad.

 

 

Dr Fackler has done some Great research. He has imo also become convinced that there is ONLY one way to think.

 

I don't bow down to any guru. I also don't trust people who verbally abuse anyone who disagrees with them. As most of his groupies seem to.

[gewing]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

On a related note, have any of you ever checked out the Guns! Guns! Guns! (or 3G3) book by BTRC? It is supposed to be a generic gun creation book for various game systems including HERO, and it uses mathemathical calculations that include stuff like kinetic energy to generate the stats.

 

Those who have seen it - is it useful? (as opposed to "realistic")... frankly the discussion of kinetic energy and energy transfer is partially Greek to me...

 

I only had an older version so take this with salt:

 

Good BUt...

IIRC

It over simplifies a LOT of the information, and the damage model was based exclusively on ARMOR penetration.

 

Living tissue does NOT respond the same way as steel. A .45 soft lead round ball, even from a Muzzle loading rifle won't penetrate as much steel as a 9mm ball round. I know which I would rather shoot a living target with, under any NORMAL situation.

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Dr Fackler has done some Great research. He has imo also become convinced that there is ONLY one way to think.

 

That would have more weight IF there were any other research results that indicated another approach.

 

That said, he may have been at the top of the world for too long. I'm uncertain of the details, but it seems he used seriously flawed conditions when tested the new blended metal bullets (i.e., he used his standard methods to test a weapon designed to operate in a radically new way).

 

The field (like most fields) could use new blood and a little shake up. I'm sure it will happen.

 

However in the meantime, this is the best work out there. It's what I'll use.

[gewing]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

That would have more weight IF there were any other research results that indicated another approach.

 

That said, he may have been at the top of the world for too long. I'm uncertain of the details, but it seems he used seriously flawed conditions when tested the new blended metal bullets (i.e., he used his standard methods to test a weapon designed to operate in a radically new way).

 

The field (like most fields) could use new blood and a little shake up. I'm sure it will happen.

 

However in the meantime, this is the best work out there. It's what I'll use.

 

Exactly my point. Certain of his followers are even worse, imo.

 

The one who went on at length about how the 6.8mm had been so extensively tested and it was "The best for the role" but provided NO details about any other testing, and what few things he did provide sounded like a serious apples to oranges test, a standard production bullet versus a custom 115 gr "open tip match" bullet in the 6.8. I think Dr. Fackler himself blasted that one.

 

IIRC, Dr. Fackler has decided that "Temporary cavity" does NOTHING, but imo a more accurate description would be "Is unpredictable at best"

 

I have rolled my eyes so many times at people who say that "full metal jacket is better than hollowpoint because it can't fail to expand and it gives penetration." If a Hollowpoint fails to expand, it basically performs EXACTLY like an fmj. If the hollowpoint does expand, it creates a larger wound volume. As long as the basic penetration is there, it doesn't imo have any significant drawbacks. The claims that any bullet that penetrates less than whatever the pundit likes, in facklerites it often seems to be 14-15 inches or more, is useless also drive me nuts. So the .357 magnum 125 gr hollowpoint is useless, huh? I think a lot of experienced police officers would disagree.

 

Or that "light bullets have no penetration" Or that "They aren't mixing their gelatin properly." etc. One of the worst comes down to "He isn't one of our Wound ballistics members." Okay, fine, whatever.

 

I actually gave up on what was a pretty good website because the Facklerites were so derogatory to anyone who questioned their pronouncements.

 

 

I have come to the conclusion that bullets should be selected based on what you want them to do. I am not a Police officer. I am much less likely to have to make a transverse shot through the arm and into the side of the chest than they are. Therefore I might be willing to accept a bullet that penetrates more than 9" if it gave me the expansion, accuracy, control, etc that I wanted. As it happens, There are a lot of good bullets that will penetrate 11-14 inches, with significant, reliable expansion.

 

The two I am looking forward to testing in our guns are the Corbon DPX and Powerball. Both seem to penetrate 12-14 inches on average, and have significant expansion. I have yet to see any flaws in them. I suspect the DPX will be the way to go, but the .45 acp Powerball is interesting too.

 

 

 

EDIT: I have actually met the men behind the "blended metal bullets." I admit to not being sold on them for general purpose, but I have a hard time questioning the fact that they WILL penetrate armor, then cause really significant tissue disruption. I think my biggest worry about them is that I agree the claim that "the temperature of the target affects their performance" makes NO logical sense.

 

 

If it were legal under the rules of land warfare, I'd be inclined to use the barnes x bullet. I have some other ideas, but one I hope to develop into an article for submission, so I won't go too far with it.

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Certain of his followers are even worse' date=' imo. [/quote']

 

Sadly a condition that can be found anywhere on any subject.

 

Ideally you wouldn't have followers. The science would be presented and that would be the end of the subject. All the unknowns however provide room for what can perhaps be called "faith-based ballistics".

 

IIRC, Dr. Fackler has decided that "Temporary cavity" does NOTHING, but imo a more accurate description would be "Is unpredictable at best"

 

I have to side with him as far as a straight up measure of physical damage goes. I wonder however if significant temporary cavity effects make the strike more noticeable at some level, even if only psychological. And of course there are parts of the body that do react very badly to hydrostatic pressure, even if it's a small total percentage.

 

 

I actually gave up on what was a pretty good website because the Facklerites were so derogatory to anyone who questioned their pronouncements.

 

Open forum websites attract those sorts.

 

 

EDIT: I have actually met the men behind the "blended metal bullets." I admit to not being sold on them for general purpose, but I have a hard time questioning the fact that they WILL penetrate armor, then cause really significant tissue disruption. I think my biggest worry about them is that I agree the claim that "the temperature of the target affects their performance" makes NO logical sense.

 

 

Right now, I've put them in the "unknown real world function" category.

 

The only information I've seen on them is from the company marketing them, and I've learned to be very skeptical of what are basically sale pitches long ago. The look to be impressive, but without knowing more details about how they actuall function and under what limits- I'm not going to go out on a limb and make any guesses.

[Toadmaster]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

"faith-based ballistics".

 

That is about it in a nutshell, the human body is just to obstinate to make things easy, it happens all the time a person is killed in a minor fender bender while another survives a crash no one could survive without any long term effect. Trying to relate damage to living organisms is funky at best, ballistics is no different.

[bitter thorn]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

That would have more weight IF there were any other research results that indicated another approach.

 

That said, he may have been at the top of the world for too long. I'm uncertain of the details, but it seems he used seriously flawed conditions when tested the new blended metal bullets (i.e., he used his standard methods to test a weapon designed to operate in a radically new way).

 

The field (like most fields) could use new blood and a little shake up. I'm sure it will happen.

 

However in the meantime, this is the best work out there. It's what I'll use.

 

Your link is not active.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Your link is not active.

 

It's a three year old link. The Internet changes on us, unfortunately. You could try looking it up on the Internet Archives and seeing if it's saved there.

 

Otherwise you'll have to PM or email Fox1 and see if he answers. He left a while back over some argument and hasn't been back, so it's iffy whether his contact info is still good.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Your link is not active.

 

Dude! That post was three years ago! Give the guy a break!

[Inu]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Dude! That post was three years ago! Give the guy a break!

Dude doesn't even post here any more.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Well, in terms of DC by Caliber, I do think that the rules give short shrift to the differences in power between a .50 AE, a .454 Casull, a .460 XVR, and the .500 S&W rounds. Basically, they all would do 2d6+1 under the existing rules. But the .500 S&W is substantially more powerful than the .50 AE, from what I understand, and the Casull and XVR are somewhere in between.

[Daemon]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

This thread should probably not have been made. =P

 

If you go onto pistol forums, there are endless threads arguing about the relative lethality of various types of ammunition in real life. Even the Army can't get it straight; elements within the military argue against 5.56mm, with other elements insisting it does it's job.

 

I just don't think this kind of granularity is achievable or really important in HERO; random die effects versus highly variable resistance to lethality ( BODY and defenses ) makes it way too complex to accurately simulate. It's difficult to simulate even in real-world tests.

 

The best answer is just to apply whatever thematic rules you feel appropriate for ballistic weapons in your campaign, and go from there.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Dude doesn't even post here any more.

 

...more's the pity.

 

I think if you wanted a realistic damage system for guns, or at least a more realistic one, you probably need to look at the hit location chart a bit more. Tiny little bullets, hitting something vital, can kill just as easily as great big honking ones. If they don't kill then they will do less tissue damage (generally), but any bullet that (say) penetrates the chest cavity, doesn't bounce off a rib, and ends up making a hole in the heart, is going to be fatal.

 

For low energy bullets that is largely a matter of luck where they end up. For high energy bullets, ones that are going in one side and probably coming out the other, having barely noticed, it is a matter of placement.

 

That's the 'instant kill' formula (actually the death might take some short time).

 

Depending on what else is hit, there might be a slow death option; oh my, what a lot of pressure there was in my femoral...or just some sort of impairment.

 

In fact there is a reasonably strong argument for not counting Body damage as a total at all, but using the individual damage total as a modifier to the likely effects depending on hit location.

 

Of course if you follow that line of reasoning too far, you end up playing Role Master.

[Inu]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Of course if you follow that line of reasoning too far' date=' you end up playing Role Master. [/quote']

Or Phoenix Command. =D

[bitter thorn]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

It's a three year old link. The Internet changes on us, unfortunately. You could try looking it up on the Internet Archives and seeing if it's saved there.

 

Otherwise you'll have to PM or email Fox1 and see if he answers. He left a while back over some argument and hasn't been back, so it's iffy whether his contact info is still good.

 

Sorry, I'm new to the boards and I'm not really up to speed on who is still active.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

No problems.

 

Yeah, Fox1 was an interesting one, though. He had some damn good ideas, but he could be extremely obstinate in both giving and receiving criticisms.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

No problems.

 

Yeah, Fox1 was an interesting one, though. He had some damn good ideas, but he could be extremely obstinate in both giving and receiving criticisms.

 

Obviously.