Tunneling and Vehicles

[assault]

A thought: you aren't supposed to use Tunneling to smash your way into tanks.

 

But, a tank is a kind of vehicle, and there are other kinds of vehicle where you should be able to do that. For example, if you are inside a ship, spaceship or large aircraft, there is no good reason not to be able to break (Tunnel) through internal walls. Or, for that matter, external walls. Such a vehicle is essentially a building (base) that can move.

 

To justify the use of Tunneling to break through walls in buildings, here's some text from Champions Powers. There are similar passages in earlier editions.

 

"SUPER-STRENGTH SMASH-THROUGH
Effect: Tunneling 2m through PD 18 materials
Target: Self
Duration: Constant
Range: Self
END Cost: 4
Description: The character can use his superstrength to rip through walls, vault doors, and the like effortlessly.
Game Information: Tunneling 2m through PD 18 materials (38 Active Points); Requires A Brick  Tricks Roll (-½), No Noncombat Movement (-¼).
Total cost: 22 points."

 

The only real difference I can see is size (and special effects). Where do you draw the line, and why?

[Hyper-Man]

I would allow it vs. real world vehicles if only for all the documented balance issues I've seen on different threads here.The larger the vehicle, the easier the argument since an aircraft carrier is as much a mobile base as it is a vehicle anyway.

 

If the PC's are up against alien, sub-terranian or extra-dimensional invaders with vehicles I might require that the character in question be able to do damage past the vehicle's defenses otherwise before allowing the Tunneling to work.

 

HM

[Amorkca]

I wonder why you are asking this question?

 

If in the process of a game you smash a vehicle into a building why define it as tunnelling?  You aren't buying tunnelling for the vehicle, its just a game effect to meet an end.

 

I just finished watching Captain America: Winter Soldier again and in one part a Heli-carrier crashes along and through a building, its just special effect, common sense says the carrier would damage the building and Falcon had to be rescued by diving into a coptor piloted by Nick Fury. All dramatic effect and cool cinematography, not an intended use for the Carrier but still...

 

Just asking...

[assault]

I wonder why you are asking this question?

 

If in the process of a game you smash a vehicle into a building why define it as tunnelling?  You aren't buying tunnelling for the vehicle, its just a game effect to meet an end.

 

Apparently I wasn't clear enough.

 

You have a Tunneling based power that allows you to break into a bank vault. (See the example from Champions Powers.)

 

It seems sensible that you would be able to use that power to be able to break into the strongroom/safe/vault on the Titanic. (As you do.) (Before it hit the iceberg.)

 

You should arguably be able to use that power to break through the Titanic's hull as well.

 

The Titanic is a vehicle. A tank is a vehicle.

 

You aren't supposed to use Tunneling to bypass a tank's armour.

 

Where do you draw the line, and why?

[Amorkca]

Thanks for the clarification...

 

To rephrase the statement, you want to use your tunnelling power to get inside a vehicle?

 

I would allow this as a "Brick Tricks" alternate use for a power.  In my current game, I've given powers to the players (ok, not quite yet but we're getting closer!) and I've got a built in skill of "Power" representing their learning how to use their powers.  I imagine they will come up with creative ways to use those powers and I will allow them to use them in creative ways provided they make the necessary "Power" skill roll!

 

Originally, I mean to use this skill to provide the first appearance of their powers.  For example, an electrically based character may discover he/she can teleport through electrical outlets "by accident" upon a successful use of the Power skill.  

 

Clear as mud?

[bigdamnhero]

Tunneling doesn't come up much in our games, and I've never used it as a brick trick - I usually see bricks just punch their way through walls - so I may not be the best person to answer this one. Obviously a lot depends on sfx, but in general if your object is to move into a vehicle then Tunneling may be appropriate as long as it's not used as a cheap way to bypass a target's defenses - it's a movement power, not an attack. Again depending on sfx, justifying one and not the other could get fiddly. If I trusted the player not to abuse it, I might not worry about it, but I can see plenty of room for excessive munchkinism, which is I think why RAW restricts it.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: is it a vehicle or a mobile base? My general rule of thumb for RP purposes is: if it moves around the battlemat, it's a vehicle; if the battlemat fits inside it, it's functioning as a base. Obviously there's a lot of wiggle-room around the edges there, and the answer may shift from scene to scene. Say last week's game featured a spaceship-to-spaceship battle; then the ship is functioning as a Vehicle. This week focuses on boarding parties running around inside the ship; now it's functioning as a Base. Don't know if that helps with the Tunneling question or not.

[massey]

I would allow someone to tunnel through a vehicle no problem.  Tunneling is expensive, vehicles are cheap.