Defences against the stun of KAs

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

That's a statistic' date=' as in the third type of untruth after "lies" and "damned lies".[/quote']

 

You say it as if statistics were valueless in making game decisions. All good gamblers have an intuitive grasp of statistics and any scientist will use statistics to provide insight to problems.

 

The misuse of statistics may be rife but that does not mean that my use of statistics is any less value than your anecdotal relation of how Killing Attacks never really do that much STUN.

 

If I roll 1 die 5 times, and get 1 on the first roll, 2 on the second, 3 on the third, 4 on the 4th, and 5 on the fifth. On the sixth roll, what is the likelihood that a 6 will come up.

 

1 in 6. A die has no memory.

 

That works both ways - just because my Psycho Killer did throw a 6 on the multiplier this attack does not mean he will not do so this time.

 

1 in 6 is still a statistic.

 

As for results - with the 14 BODY average I am happy in a game where DEF 30 is high defences with multipliers of 3,4 or 5. Half the time I am doing at least as much stun as the normal attack does (42, 56 and 70 STUN). Indeed, I will be doing getting a stun result far more regularly than my normal attack weilding friends.

 

Again - more statistics but there is no way to discuss this sensibly without some level of chance analysis.

 

 

Doc

 

 

Doc

[Kdansky]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

I have done *extensive* analysis on how KA vs EB is in favour of KA. Just search through the posts I have written, I think the thread is called something with the phrase "unrefutable" in it. Download my Java code and test it. KAs are just better.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

I have done *extensive* analysis on how KA vs EB is in favour of KA. Just search through the posts I have written' date=' I think the thread is called something with the phrase "unrefutable" in it. Download my Java code and test it. KAs are just better.[/quote']

 

I knew someone had done it recently. Too lazy to go searching.

 

 

Doc

[Paragon]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

No, it's not like that. The thing is: You do not need to roll a x5 (or rather: 6+6 in this case), it's often enough to roll a x4 (or even x4.5 if you accept half numbers). So it comes up way more often than only in the x5 case. Even x3 might be very big (4d6 -> 20 body -> 60 stun, try to roll 60+ on 12d6, that will take you a couple minutes of constant rolling).

 

So yes and no, it's mainly the maximum height, and not how often it comes up. Even if that's rare, it sucks each and every time.

 

Yeah. The problem is that unless defenses are very low in a campaign, the extent stun multiple rules almost always make a killing attack a fight ender over time just because its pretty likely that 4 or 5 will come up often enough to do the job. This becomes, if anything, more pronounced as the damage goes up.

[Paragon]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Fortunately' date=' I haven't ever run into this problem. Even if I did, however, I wouldn't worry about it: for whatever reason, the Stun multiplier of killing attacks are very frequently low. If you want to do alot of stun damage in the campaign I'm in, [i']don't[/i] pick KA.

 

But they don't want to do a lot of _average_ stun damage; they want the gusts, because the gusts in the end matter more; they're more likely to stun a target or put it down outright. Against low defense opponents this may not be crucial, but against those with relatively high defenses, the benefits are almost impossible to miss; if you spend a lot of time bouncing but dump enough stun into the target to stun them one time in six, you're still far more effective on the whole than someone else who leaks tiny amounts of stun through consistently.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

I'm very confident that, over time (any usually not over much of it), KAs are better at getting stun damage delivered than normal attacks and cause far more stun results than normal attacks, whenever the defences in a campaign are average or above (about 2x attack DC). For lower defences, people tend to fall over so quickly it barely matters.

 

The trouble with anything like this, though, is that anecdotal evidence will overwhelm the numbers. Player A will have been stunned or KO'd by relatively small KAs, and so see them as stun-bombs, and Player B will have rolled 1x and 2x multiples several phases in a row and so see them as damp squibs.

 

Over time, statistically (and that is not a dirty word, so long as you know the margins of error), KAs deliver more Body and more Stun, but less KB. They are, in short, a better bargain. Average damage matters far less than average damage through defences AND the range of the damage: KAs win on both counts. Despite that they have been with us so long that they have the patina of respectability.

 

What we need to look at, perhaps, is what we want to be able to model with our damage systems. Many people see the bullet as the 'classic' killing attack, but it is not, not really.

 

A killing attack is a damaging power that is defined not so much by the mechanic (even thought that tends to dominate discussion) but by the fact that you require special defences to counter it.

 

I say that the mechanic is not central to the definition of the power because I'm keen to get away fromt he idea that the bullet is the 'standard/classic' killing attack. Sure bullets have interesting damage potentials, and they tend to be quite random, but if you want a power that does damage in a random way, build this:

 

Bullet Bang: (Total: 80 Active Cost, 63 Real Cost) Energy Blast 8d6 (Real Cost: 40) plus Energy Blast 4d6 (20 Active Points); Activation Roll 14- (-1/2) (Real Cost: 13) plus Energy Blast 4d6 (20 Active Points); Activation Roll 11- (-1) (Real Cost: 10)

 

There you go: 8-16 dice damage. If we had an advantage that meant that the damage was only stopped by resistant defences (+1/2, perhaps, given their general prevalance, as a sort of special exception to the AVLD rule), we'd have a pretty decent bullet simulation.

 

OTOH, a plasma attack is going to hurt a lot even if it does not do much Body, because it sears the nerves near the surface:

 

Plasma attack: (Total: 70 Active Cost, 70 Real Cost) Energy Blast 2d6, No Normal Defense (Fireproof; +1), Does BODY (+1) (30 Active Points) (Real Cost: 30) plus Energy Blast 4d6, No Normal Defense (Fireproof; +1) (40 Active Points) (Real Cost: 40)

 

If you want an attack that is designed to take down structures, then you have this:

 

Shatter Smack: (Total: 80 Active Cost, 63 Real Cost) Energy Blast 8d6 (Real Cost: 40) plus Energy Blast 8d6 (40 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Only does Body; -1/2), No Knockback (-1/4) (Real Cost: 23)

 

My point is twofold: in some ways the existence of a KA system makes us lazy; we assume one size fits all and it really does not, but second, and more important, we simply do not need it to emulate what we see as 'killing attacks'. The system already has that pretty much covered.

[Paragon]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

My point is twofold: in some ways the existence of a KA system makes us lazy; we assume one size fits all and it really does not, but second, and more important, we simply do not need it to emulate what we see as 'killing attacks'. The system already has that pretty much covered.

 

Well, to be honest, for most users if they have to go to too much trouble to build an attack, they'll just do the simple thing and not bother with the nuances, even if the simple thing doesn't really do what it should. That's the intrinsic problem with effect based systems; they're great when you want to get something just right, but the cost of that is that you often have to do a lot of fiddling just for relatively day-to-day usage.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Well' date=' to be honest, for most users if they have to go to too much trouble to build an attack, they'll just do the simple thing and not bother with the nuances, even if the simple thing doesn't really do what it should. That's the intrinsic problem with effect based systems; they're great when you want to get something [i']just[/i] right, but the cost of that is that you often have to do a lot of fiddling just for relatively day-to-day usage.

 

You are quite right.

 

I suppose, if I were starting from scratch, I might be inclined to do it with advantages:

 

Killing attack: only resisted by resistant defences: -1

Killing attack: affected by normal defences except for , which require resistant defences: -1/2

 

I'd then rule that the DEF or non-living objects was supplemented by the same amount of nonresistant defences, so a 5 DEF wall was 5rDEF and 5 more nonrDEF.

 

OK, perhaps not quite as nice as a single seperate power.

 

 

 

*For example if the was complex living organisms, like people and many animals, then the attack would be more deadly against that target type e.g. bullets. If the was rigid inanimate objects, then it would make a decent sonic/vibrational attack.

[Paragon]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

You are quite right.

 

I suppose, if I were starting from scratch, I might be inclined to do it with advantages:

 

Killing attack: only resisted by resistant defences: -1

Killing attack: affected by normal defences except for , which require resistant defences: -1/2

 

I'd then rule that the DEF or non-living objects was supplemented by the same amount of nonresistant defences, so a 5 DEF wall was 5rDEF and 5 more nonrDEF.

 

OK, perhaps not quite as nice as a single seperate power.

 

 

If we had a more robust AVLD system, it probably would make KA's somewhat superflous (though some people _like_ the mechanic of KA stun multiples, balance be damned).

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Fortunately' date=' I haven't ever run into this problem. Even if I did, however, I wouldn't worry about it: for whatever reason, the Stun multiplier of killing attacks are very frequently low. If you want to do alot of stun damage in the campaign I'm in, [i']don't[/i] pick KA.

 

 

See, despite a million mathematical models presented here, In actual gameplay with HERO since 1st edition gameplay has always been like you describe. The KA guy almost always takes massive damage from the other guy before his lucky roll comes up and when it does it never seems to be as devastating as presented in these arguments.

The KA shines in heroic games for us because of the low resistant defenses and that seems right. In Supers the only way it gets bought is because of inescapable concept ( a laser IS a KA)

Now buying superheroic defense with how it works in mind makes a big difference I suppose but good design is always better than bad anyway.

[Paragon]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

See, despite a million mathematical models presented here, In actual gameplay with HERO since 1st edition gameplay has always been like you describe. The KA guy almost always takes massive damage from the other guy before his lucky roll comes up and when it does it never seems to be as devastating as presented in these arguments.

 

 

Speak for yourself. I've seen exactly the result I described over the same period; for every time someone managed to have a bunch of 1's or 2's come up the whole fight, someone got a 6 right out the gate and stunned or outright took out someone in the first round of the fight.

 

As someone said, ancedotal experience can tell you all kinds of things, most of them wrong; that's why if you don't use the maths, you'll make decisions that, even if they reflect what's happened in the past, may have nothing to do with the future, and they certainly won't tell you what'll happen anywhere where conditions differ.

 

Now buying superheroic defense with how it works in mind makes a big difference I suppose but good design is always better than bad anyway.

 

The problem is that high defenses are actually the place that makes KAs matter more, as those will almost inevitably choke off normal damage more and more as the dice increase and the variance decreases.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

See, despite a million mathematical models presented here, In actual gameplay with HERO since 1st edition gameplay has always been like you describe. The KA guy almost always takes massive damage from the other guy before his lucky roll comes up and when it does it never seems to be as devastating as presented in these arguments.

The KA shines in heroic games for us because of the low resistant defenses and that seems right. In Supers the only way it gets bought is because of inescapable concept ( a laser IS a KA)

Now buying superheroic defense with how it works in mind makes a big difference I suppose but good design is always better than bad anyway.

 

Individual anecdotal evidence is of limited value: I can quote any number of examples where KAs have proved ridiculously effectvie on the very first hit....but think on this: you simply can't do 70 damage with a 60 AP attack unless it is a KA, and then it comes up about one hit in six. If the dice don;t love you it is true that you might never get any damage through at all, but that is ridiculously unlikely.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

See, despite a million mathematical models presented here, In actual gameplay with HERO since 1st edition gameplay has always been like you describe. The KA guy almost always takes massive damage from the other guy before his lucky roll comes up and when it does it never seems to be as devastating as presented in these arguments.

The KA shines in heroic games for us because of the low resistant defenses and that seems right. In Supers the only way it gets bought is because of inescapable concept ( a laser IS a KA)

Now buying superheroic defense with how it works in mind makes a big difference I suppose but good design is always better than bad anyway.

 

We'll never make progress as long as people take one anecdotal description and use it to form their worldview.

 

Math is the only reliable source of data, because anyone can check your math for errors, but nobody here can prove that Tech's words are even vaguely true without having witnessed all of the hero system gaming he has ever done.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

We'll never make progress as long as people take one anecdotal description and use it to form their worldview.

 

Math is the only reliable source of data, because anyone can check your math for errors, but nobody here can prove that Tech's words are even vaguely true without having witnessed all of the hero system gaming he has ever done.

 

 

Fine I'll bow out but remain unconvinced until someone gives a mathematical model that vaguely reconciles with my decades of play. Mathematical models shouldn't get a pass on the reality check more than anything else.I have to admit these discussion does more to disprove peoples mathematical models to me than anything else. Since nothing is broken for our group I really have no business in this discussion anyway.

 

Remember me the next time the charging rhino completely ignores your near fatal hit and tramples and gores your PC:D

[BNakagawa]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Fine I'll bow out but remain unconvinced until someone gives a mathematical model that vaguely reconciles with my decades of play. Mathematical models shouldn't get a pass on the reality check more than anything else.I have to admit these discussion does more to disprove peoples mathematical models to me than anything else. Since nothing is broken for our group I really have no business in this discussion anyway.

 

Remember me the next time the charging rhino completely ignores your near fatal hit and tramples and gores your PC:D

 

Nobody expects the math to get a free pass. Everyone who posts math should expect that if they're wrong somebody will point it out, showing the work necessary to prove the point.

 

The problem with anecdotal testimony that this is true and that isn't is that it is by nature context sensitive and for people who you don't game with, essentially useless. Things that I have held to be cast in stone and foundations of the system have been cast aside in some gaming groups.

 

What never fails is the math. Assuming the dice aren't loaded, the math always works out in the end.

[archermoo]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Where is the math? I can't find Kdansy's post . I did the search he suggested and got only this thread. I tried Killing attacks and got lots.My wife the accountant is actually quite curious since her own math agrees with me. She thinks you guys may have screwed formulas but I can't find it to prove or disprove. If she agrees with your math I will concede the point ( but don't rely on it in our world of gaming:D

 

Well, the problem with the math is that it depends on things like how much defense the target has. Without taking defenses into account the straight baseline KA vs NA gives the KA slightly lower average STUN, with a higher total amount possible. As you start to add defenses, the KA starts to be a better bet, eventually passing NAs. Exactly where the breakpoint is depends on how many DCs the attacks are.

 

Personally, I have almost always used the Hit Location Chart for at the very least determining the StunX of KAs, and I've never had a problem with them being unbalanced.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Steamteck, in case you need to find it, Kdansky's thread on the math of KA versus EB is here.

 

 

Doc

[archermoo]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Steamteck' date=' in case you need to find it, Kdansky's thread on the math of KA versus EB is here.

 

 

Doc

 

But make sure you go fairly far into the thread before you start looking at the numbers. It was a while before the model he was using became accurate.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

I'm glad you captured that post in a quote Archermoo - I went away to find the thread and came back to find it gone - I was beginning to wonder if I'd imagined it!

 

Doc

[archermoo]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

I'm glad you captured that post in a quote Archermoo - I went away to find the thread and came back to find it gone - I was beginning to wonder if I'd imagined it!

 

Doc

 

I must have been replying to it when he deleted it.

 

Steamteck, let me know if you want me to remove the text of your message from my reply.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Steamteck' date=' in case you need to find it, Kdansky's thread on the math of KA versus EB is here.

 

 

Doc

 

Thanks

[Paragon]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Well, the problem with the math is that it depends on things like how much defense the target has. Without taking defenses into account the straight baseline KA vs NA gives the KA slightly lower average STUN, with a higher total amount possible. As you start to add defenses, the KA starts to be a better bet, eventually passing NAs. Exactly where the breakpoint is depends on how many DCs the attacks are.

 

 

There are also complicating issues involving the linearity of the base damage too; over and above the intrinsic gust in the standard stun multiple die, a 2d6 KA gets more gusting than a 6d6 NA just because its rolling 2d6 instead of 6. This gets fairly trivial by the time you're hitting 12 DC and isn't terribly strong at 9 DC, but at the low end it can be quite marked; a 1d6 KA does its maximum damage (30 stun) one time in 36, whereas its normal equivalent only does it one time 216. Now naturally one time in 36 still isn't a common result, but its frequent enough that it can tip a fight by stunning someone who otherwise simply couldn't be stunned by the attacks involved.

 

 

Personally, I have almost always used the Hit Location Chart for at the very least determining the StunX of KAs, and I've never had a problem with them being unbalanced.

 

Even hit locations have some problems here, but the fact they trend toward the middle much more strongly makes the gusting rather less pronounced. The problem with them is that by necessity, KAs and NAs in the hit location system interact with defenses differently, and this creates some artifacts of its own.

[archermoo]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

There are also complicating issues involving the linearity of the base damage too; over and above the intrinsic gust in the standard stun multiple die' date=' a 2d6 KA gets more gusting than a 6d6 NA just because its rolling 2d6 instead of 6. This gets fairly trivial by the time you're hitting 12 DC and isn't terribly strong at 9 DC, but at the low end it can be quite marked; a 1d6 KA does its maximum damage (30 stun) one time in 36, whereas its normal equivalent only does it one time 216. Now naturally one time in 36 still isn't a common result, but its frequent enough that it can tip a fight by stunning someone who otherwise simply couldn't be stunned by the attacks involved. [/quote']

 

Yup. I never said that defenses were the only matter complicating the math. Just that it isn't as straightforward as some people seem to believe.

 

I'll also note that while a 1d6 KA has a 1 in 36 chance of doing maximum damage, it also has a 1 in 18 chance of doing minimum damage.

 

Even hit locations have some problems here' date=' but the fact they trend toward the middle much more strongly makes the gusting rather less pronounced. The problem with them is that by necessity, KAs and NAs in the hit location system interact with defenses differently, and this creates some artifacts of its own. [/quote']

 

Again, yup. Things are complicated. I've never had any particular balance issues running KAs with hit locations to determine StunX. And I like the way the current system works WRT Normal damage and Killing damage. So I'd be quite happy with it staying just the way it is.

[Paragon]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Yup. I never said that defenses were the only matter complicating the math. Just that it isn't as straightforward as some people seem to believe.

 

 

Sure.

 

 

I'll also note that while a 1d6 KA has a 1 in 36 chance of doing maximum damage, it also has a 1 in 18 chance of doing minimum damage.

 

Yeah, but the issue is that often that doesn't matter as much; it just means that you do nothing rather than leaking some stun through that may or may not matter (because you don't hit again until post-12 has washed it away. The high end result, on the other hand, almost always matters.

 

 

 

Again, yup. Things are complicated. I've never had any particular balance issues running KAs with hit locations to determine StunX. And I like the way the current system works WRT Normal damage and Killing damage. So I'd be quite happy with it staying just the way it is.

 

The problem with the current system in hit locations is while its not as severe as the die roll on gusting (because the high multiple locations are relatively low occurance), it still ends up meaning that killing attacks are much better against significant defenses because its way too easy for a normal attack even in a high multiple location to either flat out bounce or do minimal damage, since its damage is multiplied afterwards and killing attack before. The only time normal dice come out better is against low multiple locations where this features is a small benefit, but since that usually means its the difference between no stun and a pretty small amount of stun, its just less noticeable than the inverse.

 

Mind you, if you use it in settings where damage tends to outreach defenses noticeably, its probably not an effect that's going to be very visible since most damage gets a fair bit through anyway, and in those cases the effect isn't very pronounced and probably pretty much trivial.

[archermoo]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

since its damage is multiplied afterwards and killing attack before.

 

As a note, this is somewhat misleading. Of course the amount of Stun of a KA is determined before defenses are applied to it. It has to be. There isn't anything to apply the defenses to until then. Just as you don't remove the dice whose BODY don't get through defenses in a Normal Attack before you count up the STUN, you don't alter the basis of the amount of STUN done by a Killing Attack until after you determine how much STUN the attack does.