A new approach to Killing Attacks

[Sean Waters]

Every now and then we have a bit of a chat about killing attacks, and they don’t really solve anything. If you are happy with KAs then fine, if not, I’ve been trying to think of a way to include deadly attacks without changing too much around. Here’s what I’ve come up with.

 

To me, a killing attack should not simply be an attack that does more damage, but it should be an attack that has a good chance of seriously injuring a target.

The current KA does a good job of the variability of actual damage delivered, because you can get shot and it can go through the palm of your hand or it can go through your heart. In fact you are taking the same amount of damage – the KA isn’t actually varying – what matters is where you are hit. If you are hot on detail, do that with a hit location system. I’m just after deadly. However, another concern of mine is that I really don’t think bullets should trouble most armoured superheroes. If a KA doesn’t get to the meat, it isn’t going to hurt much.

 

OK, here’s what I’ve got.

 

Killing Attack (Attack Power)

Cost 5 points for 1 point of Killing Attack

Ranged (5x Active Points)

Costs END

 

You determine at the time of building whether the KA affects physical or energy defences. When you hit with a KA, compare the target’s resistant defence. If the KA exceeds the rDEF then you damage the target, if not, the attack bounces, causing no damage.

 

OPTIONAL RULE: For slightly more detail, if you think it necessary, a KA that bounces does the 2xKA total in STUN damage to the target. The target can resist with any available defences, including the armour used to bounce the attack and non-resistant defences.

 

If you penetrate the target with the KA, it takes Body damage equal to the KA total and (½d6+2)xKA stun damage. KA’s that penetrate hurt.

You can buy additional KA points that ONLY work for penetration for 3 points, and additional KA points that ONLY work for damage for 3 points. You can not have more than double the penetration in damage, or more than double the damage in penetration. (Thus for 60 points you can buy a KA that is 12 PEN/12DAM, or anywhere between 14 PEN/8 DAM and 8 PEN/14 DAM)

 

NOTE defences no longer reduce damage – they are simply there to determine if the attack penetrates. You can buy defences at a +1/2 advantage ‘Tough’ to ALSO reduce damage, thus if you have 6/6 armour it will not stop any KA of 7 or more penetration, but if the defences are tough then they will stop KAs up to 6 points AND reduce the damage of any that do penetrate by 6 points. Things with DEF rather than normal defences are always considered ‘tough’, i.e. all inanimate object defences reduce damage. This reflects the fact that they do not have vulnerable insides like we do.

 

Non-resistant defences no longer play any part in the killing attack mechanic (unless you use the optional rule for KAs that bounce, above).

 

Footnote: there is now only one KA power, not a ranged and HtH version. You can create a HtH version by taking ‘no range’ and a new advantage ‘STR adds damage’ (+1/2). This will have no effect on real cost but will have implications for active point cost.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

*chews, thinks*

 

Well.

 

It's lethal. If you want lethal, you got lethal. However -- and bear in mind Sean that I'm not advocating one way over another -- you're really going to grease the party of a Heroic game inside of 2 phases, or one round of well placed autofire. If you want simulate that level of mortality and casualities, this will do it.

 

My big issue here is the 'spirit' of HERO as I perceive it; step one is landing the strike, followed promptly by the application of defenses. You've given Killing Attacks almost a new limitation; "All or Nothing, -1/2." So you could, reasonably, apply that (or a variant thereof) as a new fangled form of Piercing, but the version as you've written it strikes me as being hyper-lethal.

 

I'm all for verisimilitude, but this looks like it runs the risk of a massively high player casualty rate.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

*chews, thinks*

 

Well.

 

It's lethal. If you want lethal, you got lethal. However -- and bear in mind Sean that I'm not advocating one way over another -- you're really going to grease the party of a Heroic game inside of 2 phases, or one round of well placed autofire. If you want simulate that level of mortality and casualities, this will do it.

 

My big issue here is the 'spirit' of HERO as I perceive it; step one is landing the strike, followed promptly by the application of defenses. You've given Killing Attacks almost a new limitation; "All or Nothing, -1/2." So you could, reasonably, apply that (or a variant thereof) as a new fangled form of Piercing, but the version as you've written it strikes me as being hyper-lethal.

 

I'm all for verisimilitude, but this looks like it runs the risk of a massively high player casualty rate.

 

....and I thought you'd like this one, Thia

 

I can see the point: it IS lethal. Mind you it is a killing attack. I don't mind a killing attack killing. But...well, is it that lethal? You KNOW how much a 15 point pistol is going to do: 3 points of killing damage, so a 3 point vest will stop it. At present you need a 6 point vest to stop it.

 

Get shot in the head and - well - you take 3 points, 6 with hit locations - but you take up to 12 with what we have now. I really think it will balance nicely for heroic levels. It will be damn scary for superheroes though; at superheroic levels your defences get penetrated and you take a LOT of damage.

 

There are two things I like about this approach: first off it acknowledges that damage is (largely) exponential. I know Hero likes to fluff the point, but we shouldn't, not really. Secondly it deals with penetration and damage seperately. You can build exactly what you want, and that is Hero at its very root and core. Ammo that goes through armour better, or that makes a mess of what it hits if it is not adequately protected. We can do that right now, of course, but the potential for customisation is much greater here.

 

Oh, and a third: you CAN make bullet proof heroes.

 

A fourth, I suppose, is that it probably is accurate: real armour tends to be all or nothing most of the time: a shot gets through and rips you up, or it doesn't.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

I quite like this idea Sean. Not sure of the pricing right enough - you have 15 points of killing attack against some one with 15 rPD, you do no damage. For 5 points more you do 16 points of BODY - effectively doubling the point of the power...

 

I like the system but would like to see it developed somehow to avoid this. It is deadly because it gets applied against a variety of defence levels and so is deadly versus one target and useless against another...

 

I would suggest penetration costing 3 points per point and damage costing 8 (though both numbers are pulled out of thin air!).

 

It is cheap to buy lots of penetration but more expensive to buy damage...

 

 

Doc

[schir1964]

New Mehanic: Lethal Attack

 

Killing Attack [Attack, Ranged, Costs END]

This power has a good chance of seriously injuring a character. A Killing Attack is comprised of two components: Penetrating Points, and Damage Points. Penetrating points are used to determine if the attack succeeds in damaging the target. Damage points is the amount of damage delivered to the target on a successful attack (defenses do not reduce damage points). The player must decide upon purchase whether the attack does Energy or Physical damage.

 

Attack Resolution

• Penetration Points > Resistant Defenses
  
  • Body Damage Taken: Damage Points
    
  • Stun Damage Taken: (Damage Points) x (1/2d6 + 2)
    

  [*]Penetration Points <= Resistant Defenses

  • Body Damage Taken: Zero Damage Points
    
  • Stun Damage Taken: Zero Damage Points (* See Optional Rules Below)
    

 

Cost

Penetration Points: 3 Points Per Point

Damage Points: 3 Points Per Point

 

Modifiers

Tough (+1/2): Defenses with this advantage reduce the Damage Points of a Killing Attack.

STR Adds To Damage (+1/2): STR increases the damage of the Killing Attack.

No Range (-1/2): Killing Attack is reduced to Hand-To-Hand range.

 

Optional Rules

Concussive Rule: Killing Attacks that do not penetrate resistant defenses still inflict 2 x Damage Points of Stun which is reduced by any defenses the target may have (resistant or non-resistant).

 

Concept Reworked For Presentation

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

I quite like this idea Sean. Not sure of the pricing right enough - you have 15 points of killing attack against some one with 15 rPD, you do no damage. For 5 points more you do 16 points of BODY - effectively doubling the point of the power...

 

I like the system but would like to see it developed somehow to avoid this. It is deadly because it gets applied against a variety of defence levels and so is deadly versus one target and useless against another...

 

I would suggest penetration costing 3 points per point and damage costing 8 (though both numbers are pulled out of thin air!).

 

It is cheap to buy lots of penetration but more expensive to buy damage...

 

 

Doc

 

 

A killing attack should be deady, that's where I started. OTOH it can't be an 'ultimate attack', or no one would chose anything else.

 

In heroic games it is nasty, but probably no nastier than killing attacks are at present: it becomes very nasty indeed at higher point totals though. Once you get through defences you are going to mess the target up. You can mitigate this a bit by buying more expensive defences (tough defences at +1/2) which mitigate the damage as well as the penetration.

 

I think that mitigates the 'all or nothing' nature quite well: most defences are all or nothing: if you blow though it hurts a lot, but really tough characters who are hard all the way through: soneone who turns into a creature of rock rather than just grows a crust of rock armour will be hurt less.

 

I agree that damage seems cheap: it is what kills, but the problem with making it more expensive is that it becomes pretty ineffective as an attack at heroic levels. At superheroic levels you can afford to spend a bit more on defences. If damage was more expensive you wouldn't be able to do enough to get close to what a KA can do now, and the idea was not to simply neuter KAs.

 

One thing that does bug me slightly at present is the 'combat luck' effect, or a suerhero with a decent PD and a tiny bit of resistant defences: hit them with a KA and it tears a hole in them that they hardly feel. This doesn't work like that because it always hurts in protortion to the Body damage.

 

Another thing that bugs me - a bit - is that a normal human is 10 Body - say a SWAT team member - and with 8 point body armour on. I mean - don't get me wrong - a 60 point KA is going to mess the guy up, but it won't kill him. In a heroic game it might well, with disabling and such, but guys in serious body armour are always getting holes punched through them.

 

Anyway, to a large extent this reflects my personal ideas about KAs. I think that there is considerable potential for customisation: you can build someone with a hard skin or someone who becomes hard all the way through. It doesn't give stun results that are silly (in terms of either ridiculously high stun results, or ridiculously low ones). Also it reflects my personal philosophy -and one sort of supported byt he RAW - that damage should be more exponential in nature.

 

Hmm. I doubt it will catch on or be adopted, but I like tinkering, and it seems like a reasonable approach - someone might like it, and, if so, I'm happy

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Mehanic: Lethal Attack

 

.........................

Concept Reworked For Presentation

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Cheers, Christopher. I appreciate the work you put in to organising us tinker freaks

[Doc Democracy]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

You can mitigate this a bit by buying more expensive defences (tough defences at +1/2) which mitigate the damage as well as the penetration.

 

I'd missed the tough advantage. I would make toughened defence more like damage resistance (or why not retain that and keep the name - seems more appropriate) so that you do not get all or nothing defences again. With and advantage a defence is, by default, all tough or none of it is.

 

Doc

[schir1964]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

I'd missed the tough advantage. I would make toughened defence more like damage resistance (or why not retain that and keep the name - seems more appropriate) so that you do not get all or nothing defences again. With and advantage a defence is, by default, all tough or none of it is.

 

Doc

Sean, would you like to rename Tough to Resistant?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

Sean, would you like to rename Tough to Resistant?

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

I fear that might engender confusion as we already use 'resistant' for other stuff. Specifically resistant defences resist KA penetration and tough defences resist KA damge (although, by definition if a defence is TOUGH it is also RESISTANT, however a defence can be resistant without being tough). So, you can have tough, resistant defences.

 

NB You left out the rule that Damage should not exceed 2x penetration etc, but, thinking about it, I like it better that way. More potential for abuse but also more potential for concept realisation

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

I'd missed the tough advantage. I would make toughened defence more like damage resistance (or why not retain that and keep the name - seems more appropriate) so that you do not get all or nothing defences again. With and advantage a defence is, by default, all tough or none of it is.

 

Doc

 

 

Not necessarily: 12/12 armour costs 36 points and provides 12 points of penetration resistance to killing attacks (as well as the normal benefits against normal attacks).

 

You could buy 6/6 of that (18 points worth) as 'tough' for +1/2, or an additional 9 points, for a total spend of 45 points.

 

Any killing attack up to 12 points of penetration bounces, and any KA with more than 12 points of penetration then loses 6 points of damage before the Body is applied.

 

For example, you have the above defences and you are hit by a 14/10 killing attack (62 points worth of KA). The 14 points of penetration go right through your armoured shell, but your tough innards reduce the damage you take from 10 points to 4 points.

 

That gives quite a lot of room for interesting customisation.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

I fear that might engender confusion as we already use 'resistant' for other stuff. Specifically resistant defences resist KA penetration and tough defences resist KA damge (although' date=' by definition if a defence is TOUGH it is also RESISTANT, however a defence can be resistant without being tough). So, you can have tough, resistant defences.[/quote']

 

Hmm, but then you let existing nomenclature cause confusing terminology.

 

I can hear the conversation now:

"So Damage Resistance only affects penetration, not damage"

 

"Well, damage does penetration as well as BODY damage. If you want something to reduce the damge you buy Tough"

 

"So damage resistance doesn't affect the damage I take and Toughened Armour doesn't make it harder for something to go through it?"

 

"That's right!"

 

"Boy this game is complicated...."

 

 

I would even go with swapping the terms. It makes sense for Tough armour to prevent missiles getting through, it makes sense for damage resistance to resist damage.

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

Hmm, but then you let existing nomenclature cause confusing terminology.

 

I can hear the conversation now:

"So Damage Resistance only affects penetration, not damage"

 

"Well, damage does penetration as well as BODY damage. If you want something to reduce the damge you buy Tough"

 

"So damage resistance doesn't affect the damage I take and Toughened Armour doesn't make it harder for something to go through it?"

 

"That's right!"

 

"Boy this game is complicated...."

 

 

I would even go with swapping the terms. It makes sense for Tough armour to prevent missiles getting through, it makes sense for damage resistance to resist damage.

 

Doc

 

It is most inconmsiderate of them to have used 'damage resistance' already Still I take your well made point: they shall indeed be swapped...unless there is an even better term lurking out there...

[Doc Democracy]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

It is most inconmsiderate of them to have used 'damage resistance' already Still I take your well made point: they shall indeed be swapped...unless there is an even better term lurking out there...

 

 

I like the style! Executive decision making at its finest!!

 

 

Doc

[Ice9]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

With this system, is there any point to Damage Resistance? For the same price as making your defenses resistant, you could make them Tough instead, which does as much as Resistant (because reducing damage to zero eliminates it, even if it technically goes through), plus actually reducing the damage.

[Blackberry]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

This actually makes superhero games deadlier.

 

Bad guys will need souped-up KAs to do anything to supers, which means those KAs are very deadly.

 

Consider a standard energy projector with a 15/15 Force Field and 10 BODY. With this system, a 75 point KA is totally ineffectual, while an 80 point KA instantly puts our hero at -6 BODY and bleeding to death. In RAW, a 5d6+1 KA would put our hero at -6 BODY only by rolling all sixes.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

With this system' date=' is there any point to Damage Resistance? For the same price as making your defenses resistant, you could make them Tough instead, which does as much as Resistant (because reducing damage to zero eliminates it, even if it technically goes through), plus actually reducing the damage.[/quote']

 

The defences have to be resistant to be made tough: if it can't bounce attacks then it can't protect you from the damage either. The +1/2 for tough goes on the total cost of the defence, so, for instance, if you have 20 PD, you wanted to make 12 of it resistant, that would cost 6 points. To make 6 of that tough would cost an extra 4 points: the cost of a +1/2 advantage on 6 resistant pd (9 character points).

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

This actually makes superhero games deadlier.

 

Bad guys will need souped-up KAs to do anything to supers, which means those KAs are very deadly.

 

Consider a standard energy projector with a 15/15 Force Field and 10 BODY. With this system, a 75 point KA is totally ineffectual, while an 80 point KA instantly puts our hero at -6 BODY and bleeding to death. In RAW, a 5d6+1 KA would put our hero at -6 BODY only by rolling all sixes.

 

That is right, although two things mitigate that:

 

1. I would expect superpowered KAs to often buy more penetration at the expense of damage, and

 

2. I would expect many superheroes to buy at least some tough defences, thus making mitigating any damage caused.

 

OTOH I want KAs to be very worrying for players. This is a deadly attack, not just one that works like a normal attack but has a bit more variability in the damage caused.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

This actually makes superhero games deadlier.

 

Bad guys will need souped-up KAs to do anything to supers, which means those KAs are very deadly.

 

To be fair, it provides the option of making superhero games deadlier.

 

If the GM knows that a killing attack is likely to kill then he may equip fewer of his villains with such attacks or may not use them as often.

 

This would provide a tool that isn't really there just now and would make people respect the name of the power (killing attack) as doing what is described on the tin...

 

Doc

[prestidigitator]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

Hmm. I kinda like the basic idea of simplifying the mechanics to use normal damage dice and/or Standard Effect (I'd prefer the option rather than only one choice), but I think I'd prefer it to be not quite so all or nothing. Maybe provide a basic simplification that isn't so deadly, but giving the GM options on top of that.

 

I also wouldn't want it to start out ranged. Why not start it at a base of HTH without Str, and allow an advantage for each? The existing Ranged (+1/2) advantage and the proposed new Strength Adds Damage (+1/2) advantage should work fine IMO. That also provides the usual HKA cost = RKA cost, with an option of expensive ranged attacks that also add Str damage (don't get me started on standard heroic thrown weapons breaking that stupid rule...). If that seems too cheap, increase the values of the Advantages on Killing Attacks maybe. (Of course, this change might be the little push we need to re-cost both damaging attacks and defenses...).

 

Really the penetration vs. damage looks to me like to opposing Limitations ("Only to Penetrate Defenses" and "Only After Penetrating Defenses"). Both at -1/2 to -1, I suppose. For a little less all-or-nothing we could just go with the former, and the GM could optionally require the latter in games where we really want lethality. The reason I say it will be less lethal without "Only After Penetrating Defenses" is that people won't see the need to buy tons and tons of dice in order to affect opponents. They still CAN buy tons of dice, of course, and will be just as lethal with them.

[prestidigitator]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

Here's an idea on Resistant Defences. In return for the Body only being reduced by the target's Resistant Defence, what if we allow the Stun of the attack to be reduced by Resistant Defence plus Total Defence (provided the target has any Resistant Defence at all I suppose). That means Resistant Defences will essentially count twice vs. the Stun of Killing Attacks. Sound like a good trade-off between Killing vs. Normal? Maybe enough for the two to be a basic choice (like Physical vs. Energy) rather than a whole different construct or an Advantage or something?

 

Example 1

 

Attack: 5d6 doing 6 Body, 19 Stun

 

Defences: 4 rXD, 10 XD

 

Normal: Target takes 0 Body, 9 Stun

 

Killing: Target takes 2 Body, 5 Stun (19-4-10=5)

 

Example 2

 

Attack: 10d6 doing 10 Body, 35 Stun

 

Defences: 10 rXD, 20 XD

 

Normal: Target takes 0 Body, 15 Stun

 

Killing: Target takes 0 Body, 5 Stun

 

Example 3

 

Attack: 15d6 doing 15 Body, 50 Stun

 

Defences: 10 rXD, 30 XD

 

Normal: Target takes 0 Body, 20 Stun

 

Killing: Target takes 5 Body, 10 Stun

 

 

Example 4

 

Attack: 4d6 doing 3 Body, 11 Stun

 

Defences: 0 rXD, 5 XD

 

Normal: Target takes 0 Body, 6 Stun

 

Killing: Target takes 3 Body, 11 Stun

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

Hmm. I kinda like the basic idea of simplifying the mechanics to use normal damage dice and/or Standard Effect (I'd prefer the option rather than only one choice), but I think I'd prefer it to be not quite so all or nothing. Maybe provide a basic simplification that isn't so deadly, but giving the GM options on top of that.

 

I also wouldn't want it to start out ranged. Why not start it at a base of HTH without Str, and allow an advantage for each? The existing Ranged (+1/2) advantage and the proposed new Strength Adds Damage (+1/2) advantage should work fine IMO. That also provides the usual HKA cost = RKA cost, with an option of expensive ranged attacks that also add Str damage (don't get me started on standard heroic thrown weapons breaking that stupid rule...). If that seems too cheap, increase the values of the Advantages on Killing Attacks maybe. (Of course, this change might be the little push we need to re-cost both damaging attacks and defenses...).

 

Really the penetration vs. damage looks to me like to opposing Limitations ("Only to Penetrate Defenses" and "Only After Penetrating Defenses"). Both at -1/2 to -1, I suppose. For a little less all-or-nothing we could just go with the former, and the GM could optionally require the latter in games where we really want lethality. The reason I say it will be less lethal without "Only After Penetrating Defenses" is that people won't see the need to buy tons and tons of dice in order to affect opponents. They still CAN buy tons of dice, of course, and will be just as lethal with them.

 

Grrr. OK.

 

15 points of Killing attack does 2d6 killing damage, killing damage being defined as damage that is only stopped by resistant defences. Apply defences normally (but completely ignore anything that is not a resistant defence) and apply damage normally (i.e. damage rolled is stun, Body = 0 on a roll of 1, 1 on a 2-5 and 2 on a 6)

 

You can buy additional damage for 3 points per 1d6, but that only cuts in if the Body damage you do with the base KA equals or exceeds the DEF of the target.

 

For instance:

 

For 60 points you can buy an 8d6 KA. Roll 8d6, and apply to resistant defences: say you roll 28/8 (an average roll) and the target has 12 points of resistant defence, it takes (28-12)= 16 stun and (8-12)= 0 Body.

 

Alternatively you could buy a 6d6 KA with 5 extra damage dice. On an average roll you will do 6 Body and 21 stun. If the target has 6 rDEF then you do (21-6)=15+5d6 damage (averaging 15+17.5=32 stun and 5 Body.

 

If you want an AP attack, you only need apply the advantage to the base KA damage, not any extra damage.

 

Let's see: compare that to a current KA: you roll 4d6 in a 60 point attack, averaging 14 Body and 37 Stun. Against 12 rDEF you get 25 stun and 2 Body through. Against 6 rDEF you get 31 stun and 8 Body through.

 

Nah. Rubbish Much more logical, but rubbish.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

Here's an idea on Resistant Defences. In return for the Body only being reduced by the target's Resistant Defence' date=' what if we allow the Stun of the attack to be reduced by Resistant Defence [i']plus[/i] Total Defence (provided the target has any Resistant Defence at all I suppose). That means Resistant Defences will essentially count twice vs. the Stun of Killing Attacks. Sound like a good trade-off between Killing vs. Normal? Maybe enough for the two to be a basic choice (like Physical vs. Energy) rather than a whole different construct or an Advantage or something?

.....................

 

 

That seems to work nicely

 

I am, however, keen not JUST to mitigate the occasional ridiculous stun result, but also to make KAs potentially really nasty and scary. IMO, a KA that does not Body shouldn't hurt too much, a KA that does Body should hurt like hell. Getting there is ...problematic.

[prestidigitator]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

I am' date=' however, keen not JUST to mitigate the occasional ridiculous stun result, but also to make KAs potentially really nasty and scary. IMO, a KA that does not Body shouldn't hurt too much, a KA that does Body should hurt like hell. Getting there is ...problematic.[/quote']

 

Like I said, I think requiring one of those Limitations or the other on every die of the attack should be a GM option, rather than being the baseline or only choice.

 

Suggestion:

 

Only to Penetrate (-1/2 or -3/4)

The dice of an attack to which this limitation is applied cannot do damage once the defences are passed. Roll them separately from the other dice of the attack and apply them

first

: simply reduce the target's defences by the amount rolled (min zero). At the -1/2 level this applies to

either

the Stun or Body of an attack. At the -3/4, it applies to both.

 

Only to Damage (-1/2, -3/4, or -1)

The dice of an attack to which this limitation is applied have absolutely no effect if the other dice of the attack do not surpass the target's defenses. Roll them separately from the other dice of the attack and apply them

last

: if the other dice of the attack do not match or exceed the target's defences, these dice do no damage. At the -1/2 level this applies to

either

the Stun or Body of an attack. At the -3/4, it applies separately to both the Body and the Stun. At the -1 level, neither the Body nor the Stun of the dice have any effect if

either

is blocked (the normal case being that if no Body gets through no Stun does either, but some limited Defence Powers might cause it to go the other way too, such as ones limited by some kind of

Affects Stun Only

Limitation).

 

Note that those Limitations are mutually exclusive, but you could actually have an attack separated into three pools of dice: some with Only to Penetrate, some with neither Limitation (normal dice), and some with Only to Damage. That might make things a little complicated, but it could be worth pondering for an interesting variety of attack. Seems like it would make things highly tunable. Heh.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

Assuming a 60 point game and an average defence of DCx2 and DC resistant, you'd need to be able to roll more than 24 stun to achieve penetration, which is about 7 dice, on average, or 35 points worth.

 

That leaves you 25 points to spend on extra damage. If you run AP caps then you can only manage another 5d6, or a total for damage of 12d6, 42 points - standard average.

 

If you ignore AP caps but stick to a 60 point real limit, you can manage an extra 8 1/2 d6 damage.

 

It is more difficult to achieve significant damage if you penetrate with Body. You need at least 12 points of Body damage, or 12 dice on average. That is 40 points of -1/2 penetration, leaving only 4 dice of damage (4/14) if you enforce a real cap (and nothing on an active cap).

 

That is a fair system, but I'm not, I have to admit, necessarily looking for 'fair'. . I think that a killing attack that does Body damage should hurt like hell, and one that doesn't, shouldn't. That is entirely a matter of personal preference though, and rather tends to ignore game balance.

 

I think the original concept is self regulating to an extent: people are bound to catch on and buy tough defences, at least in part, and penetration will generally exceed damage anyway.

 

You could remove the 'penetration can be more than double damage (and vice versa) limitation and build a 6d6 KA with 10 points of penetration: 6d6 damage to anything with less than 17 rDEF, or 3d6 KA with 15 points of penetration (3d6 damage to less than 19 rDEF). You still run into an upper limit of 19 rDEF making you invulnerable to (unmodified) killing attacks in a 60 AP game. I don't mind that so much - KAs are deadly against the unarmoured, but normal attacks are the only way to go against the heavily armoured. At present it is the other way around!