Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Hugh we could dance this for days, but a couple of comments:

 

1. Like it or not, AP does make a niche attack that destroys objects. The fact is that it is now ALSO a very effective frontline attack.

 

2. Entangle - same point - AP attacks do more damage through defences on average and are an effective attack against living targets. I don;t know about you, but I don't often build characters with hardened defences, only when 'massive defence/invulnerability' is the schtick. With AP so effective, I'm probably going to have to re-evaluate my build strategy. You covered Entangle (which has low DEF, minimising AP impact - still effective but not so obvious) but didn't cover Barrier - which seriously suffers against AP attacks because it generally has higher attacks. That gets nerfed too.

 

3. A 4d6 NND Does Body Blast will do 4/14 through defences (or not work at all) and a 9.5d6 AP Blast will do (against 10/20 defences, which seems to be about the suggested norm) 0/23 (or 0/13 if the target has hardened). A 1d6+1 NND Does Body KA will do 4.5/9 through defences (or none) whereas a 3d6 AP KA will do 5.5/11 through defences (0.5/1 if the target has hardened defences). Against higher defences the NND works better, but the 'heavily armoured' concept is proportionally more likely to include some hardened defences. I'm not seeing that NND Does Body has any real advantage over AP.

 

4. In most games I imagine the GM does not work out dmage through defences for the players but tells them what the damage is and lets them work it out themselves. AP attacks are going to be obvious if that is the case.

 

Perhaps we should agree to disagree. I'm going to play 6e as it is written, but I do have concerns about the lower cost of AP and how that is going to affect character design and overall play. I appreciate that you should't use a power or a modifier unless it fits concept, but there are many ways of getting to 'concept', generally, one concept should not have an inherent mechanical advantage over another in game.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Back to the Cap Shield thing, as it has always bugged me - even if a shield can absorbs kinetic energy, I still have two problems with absorbing fall damage by standing on it:

 

1. If it really could absorb kinetic energy to that extent, how does Cap ever move it?

 

2. Falling damage is all about deceleration, not simply impact. Your internal organs are moving downwards at terminal velocity, and you stop suddenly, they are all going to tear away from their housings and flop around inside you. Even if the shield somehow absorbed the kinetic energy damage to Caps feet, he'd still have lungs in his pelvis and thigh bones in his shoulders, as it doesn't take any longer to stop with the shield. There is no crumple zone.

 

Rubber science: I'll get my kitten on it.

[GAZZA]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

1. Personal Immunity.

 

2. Technically all impact damage is about inelastic collisions, whether through falling or getting shot. (Although I imagine there might be some sonic and thermal energy involved with a bullet impact as well). If the shield operates by providing a highly elastic collision (similar to how I understand Kevlar works) then it is theoretically possible that it might dissipate most of the falling damage harmlessly. Close enough for comic book physics, I reckon.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

1. Personal Immunity.

 

2. Technically all impact damage is about inelastic collisions, whether through falling or getting shot. (Although I imagine there might be some sonic and thermal energy involved with a bullet impact as well). If the shield operates by providing a highly elastic collision (similar to how I understand Kevlar works) then it is theoretically possible that it might dissipate most of the falling damage harmlessly. Close enough for comic book physics, I reckon.

 

Just to be clear, I know that superhero stuff is impossible, and accept that it works in game, it is when we try to explain the impossible and fail to keep our explanations consistent that I get ticked off.

 

Personal immunity Yes....

 

I've never seen Cap stop a runaway bus by standing in the road and letting it run into his shield. That's all I'm saying.

[GAZZA]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Well yes, that's a good point. Bad writing, I suspect. There's been a lot of that going around Marvel in the last few years - Civil War, One More Day, House Of M, and need I go on?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

You need not

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Hugh we could dance this for days, but a couple of comments:

 

1. Like it or not, AP does make a niche attack that destroys objects. The fact is that it is now ALSO a very effective frontline attack.

 

My preference is that AP should be an effective attack. It is an advantage for attack powers. However, I don't think it is a highly effective object destroyer. It is effective at getting past high defenses, but many objects do not have high defenses. I don't have the books in front of me, but my recollection is that very few objects/materials have double digit defenses, so let's consider a few object defenses against AP at a 12 DC level (12d6 normal, 9.5d6 AP in 6e; 8d6 AP in 5e):

 

- 4 DEF object - normal attack does 8 BOD; 6e AP does 7.5; 5e AP does 6

- 6 DEF object - normal attack does 6 BOD; 6e AP does 6.5; 5e AP does 5

- 8 DEF object - normal attack does 4 BOD; 6e AP does 5.5; 5e AP does 4

- 10 DEF object - normal attack does 2 BOD; 6e AP does 4.5; 5e AP does 3

- 12 DEF object - normal attack does 0 BOD; 6e AP does 3.5; 5e AP does 2

- 14 DEF object - normal attack does 0 BOD; 6e AP does 2.5; 5e AP does 1

- 16 DEF object - normal attack does 0 BOD; 6e AP does 1.5; 5e AP does 0

- 18 DEF object - normal attack does 0 BOD; 6e AP does 0.5; 5e AP does 0

 

So how often do you run across objects of DEF 9+ to make 5e AP more useful at destroying objects? At that point, any attack is only slowly chiseling away at the object. The 6e AP attack is more useful at 5+ BOD, so it will be more useful more often. But that utility translates into practical results only if it can take a phase off the time required to get through the object, which is also a function of BOD. If it takes the normal attack 3 hits to reduce the BOD of the target to -1, and the AP attack takes the same 3 hits but reduces the BOD to -4 or -7, it has not been any more effective in practice. It needs to get through (to 0 or less BOD) in 2 phases to be materially more effective.

 

My comments do not incorporate the fact that it is often possible to use Haymakers and/or Push attacks to get through objects. Adding 4d6 normal vs 3.2 d6 (3 or 3.5 depending on existing DC's - 80 AP/1.25 = 64 = 12 1/2d6, so +3d6 in our example) 6e AP vs 2.5d6 5e AP (80 AP/1.5 = 53 = 10 1/2d6) impacts how much damage gets through to that high defense object, but then objects I can break out of combat are either "you take a bit of time" or plot points.

 

If I am putting in an object with exceptional defenses, chances are good this is a conscious decision, and indicates a plot point that the heroes cannot simply bust it down. That being the case, this unusual material will certainly be Hardened, or Double Hardened, or whatever it takes to avoid its plot purpose being circumvented.

 

It would, however, seem reasonable for the object rules to consider whether certain materials should have hardened defenses by default, just as others should have some or all defenses non-resistant.

 

2. Entangle - same point - AP attacks do more damage through defences on average and are an effective attack against living targets.

 

I already did the math for a 6d6 6 DEF entangle. AP is superior only if it breaks out faster. Against:

 

8 BOD, 4 DEF, Normal Attack does 8 BOD on average and breaks out exactly in 1 phase; 6e AP does 7.5 BOD on average and takes 2 phases; 5e AP does 4 BOD on average and gets out in 2 phases.

 

6 BOD, 6 DEF, Normal Attack does 6 BOD on average and breaks out exactly in 1 phase; 6e AP does 6.5 BOD on average and takes 1 phase; 5e AP does 5 BOD on average and gets out in 2 phases.

 

4 BOD, 8 DEF, Normal Attack does 4 BOD on average and breaks out exactly in 1 phase; 6e AP does 5.5 BOD on average and takes a phase; 5e AP does 4 BOD on average and gets out in 1 phase.

 

The AP attack never has a significant advantage against an equal DC entangle, so I'm not sure why you perceive AP as the EntangleBuster.

 

I don't know about you' date=' but I don't often build characters with hardened defences, only when 'massive defence/invulnerability' is the schtick. With AP so effective, I'm probably going to have to re-evaluate my build strategy.[/quote']

 

Part of the problem is that hardened tends to be purchased only for high defense characters. In the case of those character, it tends to get tossed on more often because they are supposed to be resistant to damage. So we have low defense characters, against whom AP is less effective (and many of them harden their minimal defenses so they won't risk BOD from AP attacks either - many have Combat Luck, for example) and high defense characters against whom AP is ineffective due to hardened defenses. If AP has no advantage against average defenses, it has no advantage period. Tell me again how this is an "advantage". I think it's why AP becomes a few throwaway points in the Multipower, rarely if ever used because it is so infrequently effective.

 

"so effective" because it will get an extra 1.5 STUN through 20 defenses on an average attack? How much faster will that KO the typical character? 23.5 STUN vs 22 STUN, against a 40 STUN target KO's in 2 hits. 50 STUN makes it 3 phases although this one is a breakpoint since the AP takes him down to -20 STUN (but +2 STUN to avoid this is a lot cheaper than Hardening my defenses).

 

You covered Entangle (which has low DEF' date=' minimising AP impact - still effective but not so obvious) but didn't cover Barrier - which seriously suffers against AP attacks because it generally has higher attacks. That gets nerfed too.[/quote']

 

I haven't looked at Barrier because I'm not confident I'm familiar enough with it to assess it. The defenses of the barrier, combined with the BOD, will determine whether the AP attack has a significant advantage. AP did have an advantage taking down force walls. It would have an advantage on Barriers similar to objects but, again, only if the DEF/BOD is such that the AP attack can break it down in less attacks than the normal attack, which will vary with the barrier.

 

3. A 4d6 NND Does Body Blast will do 4/14 through defences (or not work at all) and a 9.5d6 AP Blast will do (against 10/20 defences' date=' which seems to be about the suggested norm) 0/23 (or 0/13 if the target has hardened). A 1d6+1 NND Does Body KA will do 4.5/9 through defences (or none) whereas a 3d6 AP KA will do 5.5/11 through defences (0.5/1 if the target has hardened defences). Against higher defences the NND works better, but the 'heavily armoured' concept is proportionally more likely to include some hardened defences. I'm not seeing that NND Does Body has any real advantage over AP.[/quote']

 

It seems pretty even. Given they both cost the same points, I would expect them to be of roughly equal effectiveness. But again, as you note, the heavily armored character (where AP should shine) is the one most obvious to have hardened defenses (making AP ineffective).

 

4. In most games I imagine the GM does not work out dmage through defences for the players but tells them what the damage is and lets them work it out themselves. AP attacks are going to be obvious if that is the case.

 

The impact an AP attack has on an opponent is not, for the same reason that the player typically tells the GM the base damage and he works out the damage through defenses. As such, it is not obvious whether the player's AP attack was any more effective.

 

I appreciate that you should't use a power or a modifier unless it fits concept' date=' but there are many ways of getting to 'concept', generally, one concept should not have an inherent mechanical advantage over another in game.[/quote']

 

I agree that concept tends to get twisted. At +1/2, I saw AP used rarely, if at all, and generally purchased only for the traditional Swiss Army Multipower, where it seemed like flavour text since it was almost never used. To me, AP was mechanically disadvantaged when priced at +1/2 - it was rarely, if ever, advantageous. In 6e, it has the potential to be useful, but I do not see it being overly useful. It can compete with other attack types (where in 5e, it was not competitive) but does not, at least in my experience, overwhelm them.

 

Sean, have you (or anyone posting) actually seen AP become dominant in-game after shifting to 6e? I am seeing it seriously considered as a viable choice for a main attack power now, when it was not before, but I'm not seeing them becoming the attack of choice by any means. This is the result I would hope for - a robust choice of possible attacks. In fact, with KA's effectiveness in Supers games reduced, I see AP replacing it as an alternative attack choice, while the KA vanishes to the Swiss Army Multipower, hauled out to attack entangles, barriers and automatons for its superior BOD damage.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Lower DEF objects are probably easy to destroy whatever attack you are using: most of the objects you will find in a superhero world will be DEF of 8 or less, but the ones that are likely to actually cause the PCs problems tend to be higher DEF objects - like military vehicles and such.

 

Looking at it again, I think you are right on the Entangle - there is no practical advantage at all.

 

On Barrier, it depends on build. High Body barriers are best taken down by normal blasts but anything over campaign DC limit (if you have one) and AP 9or some other advantaged build) is your only real option. In my experience, players like high DEF barriers .

 

I've not seen AP becoming dominant because the games I play tend to be long term campaigns where the opportunity to change the characters about is relatively limited and everything got converted over from 5 to 6 anyway. It is something that I'm thinking about for GM characters though - as I go through them much more quickly than PCs

 

As a complete aside, can anyone see any need for the rule that you have to harden ALL of a particular offence - it cannot be partially hardened (6.1.147)? It may have made some sense in 5e, but I can not see the need now: you just halve the defence that is not hardened.

[randian]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

As a complete aside, can anyone see any need for the rule that you have to harden ALL of a particular offence - it cannot be partially hardened (6.1.147)? It may have made some sense in 5e, but I can not see the need now: you just halve the defence that is not hardened.

It does seem rather pointless. Why would it have made sense in 5e?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

As a complete aside' date=' can anyone see any need for the rule that you have to harden ALL of a particular offence - it cannot be partially hardened (6.1.147)? It may have made some sense in 5e, but I can not see the need now: you just halve the defence that is not hardened.[/quote']

 

It's never made sense - and I have always treated "all of a particular defense" to mean "All of a Defense derived from the same SFX" - like all your tanks armor plating, or your power-suits force field, etc. And leave it up to the GM to police what "all of one defense" in that sense constitutes in his campaign.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

In 5e 'hardened' applied to penetrating and indirect too, so even one point of it stopped indirect and penetrating - but there never has been anything to stop you buying a tiny little defence different to your others that is hardened.

[GAZZA]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

In 5e 'hardened' applied to penetrating and indirect too' date=' so even one point of it stopped indirect and penetrating - but there never has been anything to stop you buying a tiny little defence different to your others that is hardened.[/quote']

 

Technically a single point of Impenetrable still stops penetrating completely, which I think is ridiculous.

 

I've always handled partially hardened defences in 5e and previously by dividing the damage into the same ratio as hardened to non-hardened. For example, if you have 20PD and 10 of it is hardened, and I smack you with an attack that does 32 STUN and 10 BODY armour piercing, I work it out as 16 STUN/5 BODY vs 10 PD + 16 STUN/5 BODY vs 5 PD (16 STUN and 0 BODY total).

 

But technically you can make part of an attack Armour Piercing as well. I think it would be a bit of a PITA to work out what happens if you fire a Blast 9d6 + 2d6 AP against someone that has 20 PD, 10 of which is hardened. I do have a little Java application I wrote for the players to simplify working out damage in play; perhaps I'll extend it to handle these sorts of corner cases, but in practice it's not going to come up unless I use a published villain or hero.

[randian]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Technically a single point of Impenetrable still stops penetrating completely' date=' which I think is ridiculous.[/quote']

I compare the BODY of the penetrating attack (read as normal dice) to the amount of Impenetrable defense. A 10d6 Penetrating attack vs 8 impenetrable does 2 minimum stun on average. If you have at least 6 Resistant Impenetrable, you can't take any BODY from a 3d6 Penetrating Killing Attack. It's easy to adjudicate. Sure, you don't need a whole lot of Impenetrable to be useful, but then it rather annoys me how expensive defenses are getting with the proliferation of +1/4 advantages to defend yourself against alternate damage.

But technically you can make part of an attack Armour Piercing as well. I think it would be a bit of a PITA to work out what happens if you fire a Blast 9d6 + 2d6 AP against someone that has 20 PD, 10 of which is hardened.

You could, but I wouldn't allow it. How about a partially area-effect Blast? I can't think of a sane way to handle either. Partially hardened defenses are much simpler: just halve the non-hardened defense.

[dmjalund]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

How about a partially area-effect Blast? I can't think of a sane way to handle either.

sure - no problem

e.g. 6d6 + 3d6 area affect - aim it at a person, and he suffers 9d6. Aim it at a hex and anyone in that hex gets 3d6

I see no problem

[randian]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

That's what killing attacks are for (or BOD drains against inanimate objects, which are considerably better if we're looking at straight up point efficiency).

So long as the object isn't an Entangle. Entangle BODY/PD/ED are all double cost, so it takes 4 points of Drain per BODY. Drains are worse than Blast against them.

[randian]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

6d6 + 3d6 area affect - aim it at a person, and he suffers 9d6. Aim it at a hex and anyone in that hex gets 3d6

Ok, that works. I don't know why you'd want to, though.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

So long as the object isn't an Entangle. Entangle BODY/PD/ED are all double cost' date=' so it takes 4 points of Drain per BODY. Drains are worse than Blast against them.[/quote']

 

i think you might be mistaken, someone just asked about that in the rules forum. i'd find and link it but I'm typing this from a phone...

[randian]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

i think you might be mistaken' date=' someone just asked about that in the rules forum.[/quote']

That was me. I asked if Entangle BODY costing 2 character points per point meant it took 4 points of DRAIN per Entangle BODY, or

if that was simply redundantly stating the "defensive characteristics cost double" rule for Drains and it only took 2 points of DRAIN.

Steve's helpful response wasn't "A is correct" or "B is correct", but "the book is correct".

[GAZZA]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

That sounds like Steve, yeah.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

He's trying to avoid being a substitute index

 

The Book says (at 6.1.217):

 

Adjustment Powers: Negative Adjustment Powers, such as Drains, can affect Entangles. For these purposes, an Entangle’s BODY costs 2 Character Points per point; its PD and ED each costs 2 Character Points per point.

What it does not say, but that bit quoted implies, is that POSITIVE adjustment powers can not affect an entangle. I imagine that if you asked whether that was the case you would get a straighter answer, as I don't think the book directly addresses the point. As far as i know 'normal' objects can have what characeteristics and powers they possess increased by 'positive' adjustment, which would make Entangle a special case.

Pity, in many ways: adjustment powers always go off last so an Entangle that you Multiple Attack with a one hex AoE Body/DEF Aid would nicely boost the effectiveness of an Entangle. Maybe that is why the implication exists.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

...of course in 5e, 'Body' was not a 'defence power' for these purposes, so I don't think the doubling/halving thing applies in that edition.

 

EDIT: Well, it would apply to any DEF adjustment, just not any Body adjustment

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

OK, so now I’m thinking – which is better? Aid Entangle or Aid the Body and DEF of the product of Entangle?

6d6 Entangle: 60 points (6/6 Entangle)

10d6 Aid to Entangle: 60 points (adds 35 character points on average: 9/10 Entangle)

6 ½ d6 Aid to Body and DEF of Entangle: 58 points (adds 23 points on average, halved to 12 to each: 12/12 Entangle)

I think we have a winner. In addition you can apply the second Aid again, if you want, to top up to the maximum effect of 39 points (halved to 20 on each: 16/16 Entangle)

Best of luck getting out of that*.

* Unless you have an AP attack J

[GAZZA]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

It never would have occurred to me that you could Drain entangles, let alone Aid them. (Well obviously you can adjust the entangle itself; I meant the individual BODY or DEF of it).

 

But then, I've never really understood where the "Wrap it Up!" craze came from. You know, the power that lots of bricks now buy that allows them to Entangle based on the available materials. I pretty much just always assumed you could, you know, do that, no power needed - the same way I don't need a brick to buy Blast 12d6 (physical), AE a few metres based on the size of the car, OIF car of opportunity, range based on STR. If there's a car there, the only power I reckon you need is STR; likewise, if there's a bunch of cables or rebars, the only power you need to wrap someone up is STR. (I can see the argument if you're a speedster, since you want to wrap them up really quickly, but most brick versions of the power have "at least a full phase" limitations as well).

[randian]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

It never would have occurred to me that you could Drain entangles' date=' let alone Aid them.[/quote']

You've never seen somebody try to use Drain on an object? Entangles are for the most part ordinary objects, except for the double cost to Drain and Aid them in 6E. Draining walls was always more efficient than punching them. It's amazing how after the GM realizes that, even ordinary objects and structures magically start getting Power Defense.

[GAZZA]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

No, I haven't. In my experience, most Drain BODY type powers tend to be bought with limitations saying that can't affect objects.

 

I'm not saying it's not perfectly legal, or even that it doesn't make sense - just saying it never would have occurred to me.