Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

[GAZZA]

Three scenarios:

 

i) 4th edition (BBB) rules. Suggested guidelines for a standard supers campaign included 24-30 DEF and a max of 12 DC attacks. Armour Piercing is a +1/2 advantage.

 

ii) 5th edition (FRED). Suggested guidelines now max of 25 DEF, and a max of 12 DC attacks as before. Armour Piercing is a +1/2 advantage.

 

iii) 6th edition: Guidelines as per ii), but now AP is only +1/4.

 

Consequences:

In 4th or 5th edition, 12 DCs of an AP attack is 8d6. In 6th, you can have 10d6. Average STUN totals in each case are 28 (8d6), 35 (10d6), or 42 (12d6, for a non-advantaged Blast/Energy Blast).

 

In 4th edition, against max defences, the non-advantaged 12 DC attack puts through roughly 12 or so STUN; the AP version gets 13 or so. Armour Piercing therefore is a weapon used mainly by agents, who only get to play with (say) 9DCs. Their 9d6 Energy Blast (31.5 average roll) does barely 1-2 STUN against 30 DEF, but a 6d6 AP (average roll 21) does 6.

 

In 5th edition, the lower defences means that AP is basically useless to supers (which is undoubtedly why the cost was reduced). Against 25 DEF, a 12d6 Energy Blast does 17 or so STUN, and an 8d6 AP does 15 or so (in other words, it does less than the non-advantaged version even against max defences). It has reduced utility even for agents; 9d6 now does about 6-7 or so, and 6d6 AP does 8 or so.

 

The decision to lower defences stuck, presumably so that fights wouldn't take so long, or whatever. Fair enough. Obviously Armour Piercing needed a readjustment. But I wonder if the pendulum hasn't swung too far here?

 

In 6e, while a 12d6 Blast is in the same situation as in 5e (ie about 17 or so STUN), a 10d6 AP Blast averages 22 or so. OK, fair enough, that's max defences, we expect AP to be better there. But looking a bit more closely, we find that if the target has more than 14 DEF, Armour Piercing is a superior choice. I would submit that many agents have higher than that, making Armour Piercing better than a normal attack against almost all opponents.

 

Now, obviously the exception is those who have hardened defences. Not having purchased any of the 6e villain books, I am curious - do most villains (at least "brick" types) have hardened defences now?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

If you're using Hard AP Caps of 60 you get 9D6 AP at +1/4, not 10D6. The SETAC tests were run with Def of 8/3r; 20/9r; 30/12r; and 30/18r as generalized baselines. And using Hard Caps (i.e. 60 active points or as close as possible without going over). 9D6AP is 56 Active, 10D6AP is 62 active.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

This is not quite an accurate comparison, because 10d6 with a +1/4 advantage is 62 AP, not 60. It would be more appropriate to compare 9.5d6 Energy Blast with AP (which is exactly the same as 12d6 unadvantaged), at which point it is 17 vs. 21 (advantage AP), and the breakpoint where they do the same is at 17 DEF.

 

Other than that I think your point is accurate; the intended balance looks to be that the regular attack is better against enemies with Hardened defenses, along with minor things like more knockback.

[Escafarc]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

I use a variation of the rules from APG. Each level of AP subtracts 3 pts of Def per DC of the attack(not counting AP) and each level of Hardend counters 3pts of AP per every 5 Active points in the defense(not counting Hardend).

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

I've experimented with some alternate A-P rules for weapons in my Star Hero games: one level of A-P gives the attack Piercing Points equal to half its DC's, two levels gives it Piercing Points equal to its full DC's.

 

For defenses, I do the same thing: one level of Hardening negates Piercing Points equal to half the Defense, two levels negates Piercing Points equal to the full Defense.

 

Using more than two levels of either A-P or Hardening has no effect.

 

Note that I'm using these rules for equipment in a campaign setting where the emphasis is on realism. (And I've found the results to be realistic, if nothing else....) I'm not saying they'd be balanced or desirable for a supers game.

[Matt Holck]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

In a 5th edition game my dragon is in,

The max damage is set at 12d6 but characters can do 10d6 with a half advantage

or 8d6 with a +1 advantage.

 

I'm eager to experiment with the new +1/4 advantages of 6th edition

[ghost-angel]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

er, +1/4 Advantages have been a part of the system for years. . . Autofire 2-3; Delayed Effect; Does Knockback; Difficult To Dispel (1 level of); Inherent; Megascale (1km); Personal Immunity; 1/2 END Cost; Costs END Only To Activate; Limited Range; Time Delay; Trigger (most basic level); Variable SFX (limited group).

 

It's not exactly a new value. . .

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

er, +1/4 Advantages have been a part of the system for years. . . Autofire 2-3; Delayed Effect; Does Knockback; Difficult To Dispel (1 level of); Inherent; Megascale (1km); Personal Immunity; 1/2 END Cost; Costs END Only To Activate; Limited Range; Time Delay; Trigger (most basic level); Variable SFX (limited group).

 

It's not exactly a new value. . .

 

I think what he's getting at is that there are a few +1/4 advantages in 6E (A-P, AE, Explosion) which were previously +1/2 in 5E.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

ah, it becomes clear, from that perspective. . .

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Things are worse than you think: in 5e and before, Hardened covered Armor Piercing, Penetrating and Indirect, all for +1/4. Now that will cost you +3/4. The changes mean that AP is now more effective than a normal attack and that attacks are even more difficult to defend against and effective defences cost even more (and it undermines the effectiveness of non-personal defence powers, especially Entangle which was already looking a bit dodgy. Attacks now effectively do more damage. The advantage of the new way is that there is more granularity in the construction of defences - which is cool but then, coupling it with a decrease in AP cost seems overkill.

 

The other difference - and it may be good or bad - is that characters are more vulnerable and take more damage, meaning combat is quicker. I don't think that is necessary - you want quicker combat, don't mess with the character creation rules, just the character creation guidelines for your campaign. It may be that was the plan all along, but I doubt it.

 

The thing is that balancing the cost of AP and such depends very much on campaign guidelines for defences. Certainly with the general lowering of defences that seems to be the style for 6e, AP at +1/2 would have been less attractive. At +1/4 it seems to go too far the other way, and it still does not seem to be properly balanced when you look at the other changes that have been made too.

 

If you look at defences in 6e as being balanced at 20 for a 12d6 attack, you get 22 through on a normal attack and 23 through an AP attack. That looks more reasonable - but it still leaves an attack that does more stun through defences than a normal attack, whcih just does not feel right. In fact to MAKE it right, you'd probably have to have defences around 16 on average (18 is the balance point but I think that an advantaged attack should generally do less stun than a normal attack against normal defences.)

 

Of course reducing defences changes the balance point for NND type attacks (AVAD NND under 6e). There is less point in an attack that does 6d6 damage (not if you have LS: SC Breathing or hold your breath) for 21 stun if attacks are doing that much or more against standard type defences. It never ends, does it?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

If you're using Hard AP Caps of 60 you get 9D6 AP at +1/4' date=' not 10D6. The SETAC tests were run with Def of 8/3r; 20/9r; 30/12r; and 30/18r as generalized baselines. And using Hard Caps (i.e. 60 active points or as close as possible without going over). 9D6AP is 56 Active, 10D6AP is 62 active.[/quote']

 

This is not quite an accurate comparison' date=' because 10d6 with a +1/4 advantage is 62 AP, not 60. It would be more appropriate to compare 9.5d6 Energy Blast with AP (which is exactly the same as 12d6 unadvantaged), at which point it is 17 vs. 21 (advantage AP), and the breakpoint where they do the same is at 17 DEF. [/quote']

 

9 1/2 d6 is what I'd use as well.

 

Things are worse than you think: in 5e and before, Hardened covered Armor Piercing, Penetrating and Indirect, all for +1/4. Now that will cost you +3/4. The changes mean that AP is now more effective than a normal attack and that attacks are even more difficult to defend against and effective defences cost even more (and it undermines the effectiveness of non-personal defence powers, especially Entangle which was already looking a bit dodgy. Attacks now effectively do more damage. The advantage of the new way is that there is more granularity in the construction of defences - which is cool but then, coupling it with a decrease in AP cost seems overkill.

 

If you look at defences in 6e as being balanced at 20 for a 12d6 attack, you get 22 through on a normal attack and 23 through an AP attack. That looks more reasonable - but it still leaves an attack that does more stun through defences than a normal attack, whcih just does not feel right. In fact to MAKE it right, you'd probably have to have defences around 16 on average (18 is the balance point but I think that an advantaged attack should generally do less stun than a normal attack against normal defences.)

 

I agree that Hardened should not have been split out - it's not worth buying to impact only one advantage per +1/4 advantage.

 

If the AP attack does less damage than a normal attack against a target without hardened defenses, what is the point of buying the advantage? AP becomes useful only against targets with extreme levels of defenses, who are the characters that most commonly have hardened defenses because their designer is building them to be difficult to hurt. In 5e, AP was rarely used, as it was almost never useful, and unreliable due to the risk the target had hardened defenses. In 6e, it is practical to have a character whose primary attack is AP, rather than AP

being seen only in swiss army multipowers, in a slot rarely or never used.

 

I use a variation of the rules from APG. Each level of AP subtracts 3 pts of Def per DC of the attack(not counting AP) and each level of Hardend counters 3pts of AP per every 5 Active points in the defense(not counting Hardend).

 

Not sure how that would play out. 9 1/2d6 subtracts 28 defense, so for +1/4, the target has no defenses? If it's priced at +1/2, 8d6 subtracts 24 defenses, still very high. Am I misreading the mechanic?

[Escafarc]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

9 1/2 d6 is what I'd use as well.

 

 

 

I agree that Hardened should not have been split out - it's not worth buying to impact only one advantage per +1/4 advantage.

 

If the AP attack does less damage than a normal attack against a target without hardened defenses, what is the point of buying the advantage? AP becomes useful only against targets with extreme levels of defenses, who are the characters that most commonly have hardened defenses because their designer is building them to be difficult to hurt. In 5e, AP was rarely used, as it was almost never useful, and unreliable due to the risk the target had hardened defenses. In 6e, it is practical to have a character whose primary attack is AP, rather than AP

being seen only in swiss army multipowers, in a slot rarely or never used.

 

 

 

Not sure how that would play out. 9 1/2d6 subtracts 28 defense, so for +1/4, the target has no defenses? If it's priced at +1/2, 8d6 subtracts 24 defenses, still very high. Am I misreading the mechanic?

 

No you're right but I don't have a problem with it that way. Only a couple of players have a AP Attack and slightly over half have Hardend Def but my players tend to build to a concept and if it doesn't fit they usually don't add it.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

The basic problem in costing advantages like AP is that you can make it balanced for any one power level. But the further you get from that power level, the more skewed the cost becomes so AP becomes either useless or a fantastic deal. I think the +¼ level for AP is actually pretty good for most games; IME at +½ the AP advantage was rarely worthwhile.

 

Although I can see some logical rationale for making Impenatrable separate from Hardened, I think that distinction is too subtle to justify the additional cost. I also think that Penetrating should have been dropped to +¼ too to make it competative with AP, (except it should apply to the STUN of Killing Attacks unless an additional +¼ is applied), but maybe that is just me.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Although I can see some logical rationale for making Impenatrable separate from Hardened' date=' I think that distinction is too subtle to justify the additional cost. I also think that Penetrating should have been dropped to +¼ too to make it competative with AP, (except it should apply to the STUN of Killing Attacks unless an additional +¼ is applied), but maybe that is just me.[/quote']

 

The only reason I think Penetrating is worth +1/2 over AP's +1/4 is the Guaranteed Damage of Penetrating. You (barring Impenetrable/Hardened) always get something through defenses, AP doesn't have that guarantee at all, halving defenses makes it' likely, but not - in my looking at it - any more so that Non-AP Attacks until defenses exceed campaign norms. For "campaign norms" where defenses will block the majority of an attack, but still let damage through, which is what most games have; around 2 DEF / Damage Class with Resistant Def being in the neighborhood of 1/3-1/2 that (in my experience, and roughly compliant with Rules recommended guidelines).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

.................If the AP attack does less damage than a normal attack against a target without hardened defenses, what is the point of buying the advantage? AP becomes useful only against targets with extreme levels of defenses, who are the characters that most commonly have hardened defenses because their designer is building them to be difficult to hurt. In 5e, AP was rarely used, as it was almost never useful, and unreliable due to the risk the target had hardened defenses. In 6e, it is practical to have a character whose primary attack is AP, rather than AP

being seen only in swiss army multipowers, in a slot rarely or never used.

 

One thing that I think is often forgotten when considering AP is that attacks do Body damage as well as stun.

 

An 8d6 AP can damage 14 defence targets with regularity, and that was plenty to get a lot of use out of it in 5e. In 6e a 9.5d6 AP can expect to damage 16-18 DEF targets. With Barrier a new and interesting power for 6e, it will again be seeing plenty of use, I'd have thought.

 

Even then I've run a character in 5e who was a blaster and whose energy blast was 8d6 AP, not in a multipower. You get damage pretty close to that for a 12d6 blaster (28-12=16 against 42-24=18) and have a much higher chance of doing Body to structures and even some characters. Hardened hurts, but then the sort of character with hardened is either spending a lot more on defences than average or has lower basic defences. In 6e, taking AP increases damage through defences and, because the cost of hardened has effectively doubled, it is going to be rarer. It seems a step too far.

 

Given that AP is especially good at doing Body, it can be very effective when combined with a killing attack. A 2.5d6 KA with AP in 5e would average 9 Body and could regularly cause Body damage on things up to 16 DEF. In 6e an AP KA can get up to 3d6 for 56 points: that means you can regularly expect to do Body damage to targets with 20 resistant DEF. Now the current crop of superhero characters has a range or resistant defences, but you could make any of them bleed with that - and being a small number of dice, the Body total is much more volatile, which can make an AP killing attack very scary indeed.

 

I can't agree that AP was useless before, and that makes it too beefy now with the price drop.

[Matt Holck]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

+1/4 for AofE

to hit what cant be hit

may drive up martial artists defenses

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

This is true too: +1/4 for AoE means that even people whose concept is that they are good at getting out of the way will need decent defences as well - you can do an AoE with 9 1/2 dice damage, averaging 33/34 stun. It doesn't automatically hit as you can dive for cover and also the attacker has to hit the relevant space (although on DCV 3 that is not difficult). If we look at the 6e superhero sample characters, we see that Eagle Eye, who is the martial artist type, has a higher PD than Taurus the brick or Hardpoint the armour guy. They all have the same base DCV (although with levels and martial arts, Eagle Eye can manage a higher DCV too).

 

It does seem a bit odd - again a pretty impressive shift in the direction of attack over defence.

 

Of course you could argue that 9.5 dice gets the same through defences of 15 to 16 as 12 dice gets through 24 defences, meaning that a character relying on DCV and faced with AoE can still survive: perhaps the high defence character was too effective in 5e?

 

The high DCV character will have more problems with attacks like Entangle and a brick character throwing a car and doing 12 dice AoE - but then we are not here to make characters invulnerable.

 

Balanced against THAT is the fact that DCV is, of course, not an absolute defence - there's always a chance of being hit, and the player building that sort of character has to acknowledge that.

[GAZZA]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

I was going through some of my 4e materials the other day, and it struck me how few of the sample supers really were playable with 6e guidelines. This isn't a problem per se, of course, but it has meant that using older adventures has required more tuning than I was expecting. Of course I could go back to old school guidelines (20 - 30 DEF, 12 DCs) but I'm determined to at least give the 6e suggestions a fair shake before I dismiss them.

 

Thus far, it has seemed to me that DCV at 5 points per is a tremendous rip off. An 8d6 armour piercing AE 1m radius attack smashes through 25 DEF and does 15 or so STUN, all for a mere 60 active points. Every single one of the PCs has at least one +1/4 AE power (they haven't cottoned on to Armour Piercing yet though). For the PCs, OCV seems overpriced as well - you don't need much to hit hexes, after all.

 

Which is not to say that I think it doesn't work. Jury is still out. Very different to what I'm used to though.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

It is incredible how relatively small changes can have a big impact. I'm sure some of them are deliberate and some unintended. I'm rather liking the feel of 6e, but it is, by far, the biggest leap that Hero has made since 1st to 2nd or (possibly) 2nd to 3rd.

 

The thing we still have to decide is whether it is better to buy a Blast at 8d6 AP AoE (1 to 4m) for 60 points, and get 15 through defences almost every time or buy 12d6 and get 17 through defences some of the time. I know where my money is Of course that depends on defences: AP is less useful against lower defences - but it is worth noting that the sample characters have 20 PD on average, well the heroes do - Maelstrom weighs in at 23/27 - and the guidelines say that 'siperhuman' defences are 16+: there is no actual guideline I can see that 'sets' defences anywhere. There may be a 'sweet spot' where everything works well, but if that is the case I'm worried: I've never felt the need to be at or near guideline values to make the game work before.

 

GAZZA does bring up another excellent point though, and one we have not addressed. In many ways it is also the hardest to control for in game design: synergy. There have been AP detractors (I'm not one) but together with AoE it really is pretty nasty - you get very decent damage and an almost inevitable hit.

[rsbrehm]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

My concern was always an attack with x2 Armor peircing in the old system cost the same as just buying twice the amount of damage.

 

Losing extra knockback and potential stun to half the affective armor of the defending party seemed a little silly considering it would cost the same in point value and endurance.

 

Being a +1/4 is awesome and I have house rulled that my players can't have more than a x3 armor piercing years ago (infinite progression nerf)

 

Needless to say i'm glad it is only +1/4 now.

 

-Shaun

[GAZZA]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

That actually makes an interesting side point. Do any of you as GMs or players actually buy such things as Armour Piercing, Penetrating, Impenetrable, Hardened, and Cannot Be Escaped With Teleportation multiple times?

 

I've never done it. Arguably if you use the rule that Armour Piercing stacks I guess it's worthwhile now, but other than that - what is the special effect? "My armour piercing attack is even more armour piercing than yours!" "Yeah? Well my defences are ULTRA hardened, so they'll stop even your super piercing attack!"

 

I guess I'm saying I find it hard to see a sfx that would be best modelled that way. I mean, if I want defences that are really tough to break even by armour piercing rounds, wouldn't I just buy more of them?

 

"Substance HardToObtainium is pretty good at stopping teleporters. But SuperDimensionMan can still teleport out of them, so I upgraded to ReallyHardToObtainium. Unfortunately, SuperDuperDimensionMan found a way to get through even that, and the lab boys are still working out the bugs with PracticallyImpossibleToObtainium."

 

 

One of the problems with this sort of thing comes with Variable Advantage or Variable Power Pools, but it's always struck me as a mechanic looking for something to model. However, I've been shown before that I lacked imagination by the talented posters here, so anyone want to pwn me?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Multiple levels of these types of advantages (both offensive & defensive) are a necessity imo to model such things as Wolverine's claws and Captain America's shield from the source material.

[GAZZA]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Debatable, surely?

 

Armour Piercing + Penetrating should be enough for Wolverine's claws, and Hardened Impenetrable for the shield. I submit that if you're worried about something with 24 resistant DEF stopping claws, buy more than 4d6 killing attack. Likewise if you're worried about the shield taking damage from a 10d6 killing attack, buy it with more than 60 PD and ED.

 

The point is that you can certainly model "cuts through anything" or "unbreakable" without resort to even one level of each. Certainly the advantages are handy to have, but what does it actually mean to be "really really truly awesomely armour piercing"? How do you manage to get really really sharp claws, for example, that still can't manage to do more than 2d6 damage?

 

Certainly if Hardened Impenetrable walls are everywhere, you need double Armour Piercing or Penetrating to bust them. But really, I'd say that might be a problem with the ubiquity of the defences. I'm not sure an arms race between Armour Piercing and Hardened really helps to improve the game. YMMV.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Hero can not build either 'unbreakable', nor 'cuts through anything' because you end up with the 'immoveable object hit by an unstoppable force thing'. Of course it has been shown in the comics that there are some things that Wolverine's claws can not cut through and that Cap's vibranium shield can be broken*, so we assume that the use of such words both in the game and in the comics involves a silent and invisible 'almost'.

 

What we really need to look at is how all of this affects character builds and game play, and that is an interesting question. I suspect that, whilst some will have been early adopters (OK not so early now), there are a lot of people who have 5e inertia, even if they have moved on to 6e. This thread may well spark a new burst of creative energy, and not a few evil chuckles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Can I just take a moment to RAGE against the ridiculousness of preventing the damage from a fall by standing on the shield when you hit the ground?

 

Thank you.

[Escafarc]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

*Can I just take a moment to RAGE against the ridiculousness of preventing the damage from a fall by standing on the shield when you hit the ground?

 

Thank you.

 

What if it had air brakes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4410K39lds