Stacking force walls

[OddHat]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

I don't think your example is what everyone is referring to as "stacking".

 

I think the issue is with taking one instance of Forcewall, say 10PD /10ED with enougn extra width to potentially allow it to curve into a giant "U" where the character is "stacking" both ends of the "U" between himself and an attacker.

U

Considering that it only takes an extra 5" of width to fully englobe a group of hexes imagine having an effective 20PD /20ED Forcewall facing 1 direction for 60-80 Active points if "stacking" of this manner were to be allowed in the rules.

 

HM

 

Wouldn't breaching one side of the U bring down the whole force wall?

 

I thought the issue was creating multiple force walls, one behind the other, which is technically legal?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

Wouldn't breaching one side of the U bring down the whole force wall?

 

I thought the issue was creating multiple force walls, one behind the other, which is technically legal?

 

Oh, like the recent TK debate regarding multiple instances of the same constant power. You're probably right. I hadn't researched the FW rules thoroughly lately.

 

HM

[OddHat]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

Oh, like the recent TK debate regarding multiple instances of the same constant power. You're probably right. I hadn't researched the FW rules thoroughly lately.

 

HM

 

Succor is actually the major munchkin bait for that rule (imo). It's the old infinite aid loop made even worse, a 30 active point power that can make the character a god if he has one minute of prep time.

 

There are some legal builds and power applications that a GM needs to feel free to ban.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

I don't think your example is what everyone is referring to as "stacking".

 

I think the issue is with taking one instance of Forcewall, say 10PD /10ED with enougn extra width to potentially allow it to curve into a giant "U" where the character is "stacking" both ends of the "U" between himself and an attacker.

U

Considering that it only takes an extra 5" of width to fully englobe a group of hexes imagine having an effective 20PD /20ED Forcewall facing 1 direction for 60-80 Active points if "stacking" of this manner were to be allowed in the rules.

 

HM

 

Not what i meant - in the 'single U' example, breaking any of it would break all if it. What I am talking about is putting up a force wall and then another seperate one:

 

ll

 

Like that.

 

Basically the debate is over does/should the FW power allow you to erect more than one FW at a time, each of which can take full damage before collapsing and the collapse of one not effecting the other(s).

 

Least that's what I've been talking about, I don't know about everyone else....

 

 

Excellent use of smileys BTW - we should have more of this

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

Not what i meant - in the 'single U' example, breaking any of it would break all if it. What I am talking about is putting up a force wall and then another seperate one:

 

ll

 

Like that.

 

Basically the debate is over does/should the FW power allow you to erect more than one FW at a time, each of which can take full damage before collapsing and the collapse of one not effecting the other(s).

 

Least that's what I've been talking about, I don't know about everyone else....

 

 

Excellent use of smileys BTW - we should have more of this

 

Sorry, I hadn't been as thorough in my research as usual before posting to this thread. Now, after reading this and the TK threads I think we may just need to take a closer look at the rules for constant/continuous powers.

 

Let's say someone wanted to model the powers of someone like Cyclops from the X-Men. Not only would they need to buy the Continuous advantage but also some custom limitation to represent that he can only target one thing at a time (what he is looking at) since one of the default abilities defined for Continuous is the ability to choose a 2nd target after the 1st as long as the END is paid. This default is the source of most of the debate regarding FW and TK. If you take away the ability to choose a 2nd target as a default and either eliminate it all together or just include it as an adder/advantage that works like Extra Limb(s) for that power only. Maybe 5-10 points or a (+1/4 to +1/2) Advantage only available for powers that are already constant/continous and include an "!" warning description. At that point you have consistent rules for all constant powers, not just the special case of FW. Just an idea.

 

HM

[prestidigitator]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

I'm not sure what the problem with multiple FWs is. If an attacker could break down one FW, he can break them all down with enough attacks, just like the defender could keep putting them up with enough attacks. If you are worried about Autofire on the FW, the answer is still simple: for an attacker with an Autofire attack, roll each Autofire shot seperately until the last FWs break and allow each shot of an Autofire attack to hit a different instance of the FW (provided the previous shot got through). Maybe if a shot that penetrates one FW doesn't have enough umph to penetrate the next, even allow its damage to be cumulative with the next shot's damage (in an Autofire attack). Probably once you get to the last FW you should treat damage from the remaining shots normally against the defender by subtracting the DEF of the FW (provided the attack roll was good enough for those remaining shots to hit!).

 

In short, allow Autofire to counter Autofire (fight ...fire with ...fire).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

I do like the idea of an (auto)fire v (auto)fire battle

 

The (potential) problem with stacking is that a character with time to prepare could have enough FWs stacked in frnt of him that it would take hundreds of points of BODY damage to get to him. There will always be a way around any defence, but it is potentially abusive. Moreover you can hav relatively tiny force walls that don't cost uch stacking and still wind up with hundreds of BODY defence, especially if you alow autofire erection (!) and the opponent doesn't have autofire, or not as much as you.

 

You either don't allow it, allow it but charge for it or just allow it depending on personal preference. I'm for allowing it at a cost.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

I do like the idea of an (auto)fire v (auto)fire battle

 

The (potential) problem with stacking is that a character with time to prepare could have enough FWs stacked in frnt of him that it would take hundreds of points of BODY damage to get to him. There will always be a way around any defence, but it is potentially abusive. Moreover you can hav relatively tiny force walls that don't cost uch stacking and still wind up with hundreds of BODY defence, especially if you alow autofire erection (!) and the opponent doesn't have autofire, or not as much as you.

 

You either don't allow it, allow it but charge for it or just allow it depending on personal preference. I'm for allowing it at a cost.

Remember that if they are small enough you can break through all of them in zero time and with minimal End using Casual Str.

 

So maybe the countermeasure is actually a Limited Str (or TK).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

I had not thought of casual strength: good point!