Fox1
-
Posts
1,328 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
News
Store
Forums
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Fox1
-
-
Re: I don't quite grok the Multiform rules.
The thing that' date=' to my mind, mitigates in favour of multiform is that he looks very different in the two forms. Changing appearance is something you normally have to pay for, but with multiform you get it for free.[/quote']He also has two completely different minds in the two forms. HULK NOT ROCKET BRAIN, HULK SMASH!
Anyone who doesn't build him with Multiform likely couldn't beat him at tic-tac-toe, and I'm not even sure the Hulk knows the rules to that.
Edit: unless of course you're doing a version of him when Banner did keep his mind while the Hulk. One of many bad ideas that flowed thru Marvel.
-
Re: Vehicle DEX
Interesting... I suppose I ought to pick up a set too, then.I didn't think they'd have such an "outdated" thing stocked. Odd.
I didn't see it when I looked, saw a Champions 2nd Edition set. Maybe I'm clueless.
Here's a ebay link to the book I'm speaking of:
It really is a much improved way of building vehicles. Now that I've worked out the basics of damage I may go back to using it.
-
Re: OCV Penalty on Powers
Ah yeah
... I coulda sworn I read about a method of adding negative modifiers - not near my book so I could just be imagining the whole thing at the moment....The only note about negative modifiers I recall from the 5th edition (revised) is on page 483. There it notes that RMod bonuses are brought as a 3 point when positive and as a minor Side Effect (-1/2) when negative.
Same with OCV on page 482 except bonuses are brought at 5 points per.
Sucks if you ask me. The old way was better.
-
Re: Vehicle DEX
I like the Segmented movement you suggest' date=' but what about the Turn Mode?[/quote']You need to grab a copy of Champions II if you get the chance and look over the orginal rules.
There vehicles were bought completely differently than they are in 5th edition with Turn Mode (2 pts), Acceleration (5 pts) and Deceleration (2 pts) specifically brought.
The Turn Modes were much more restricted than those for characters. No turning on a dime here.
An average vehicle like the family wagon had a Turn Value of 3, An F-15 had one of 20.
If your movement per segment was 1x TURN or less, you got to change your hex facing one each segment.
2x Turns was once every 2 segments.
3x Turns was once every 3 segments.
And so on.
Basically Champions II treated vehicles like something inherently different than characters. A concept I agree with, but those who did later editions apparently did not.
-
Re: OCV Penalty on Powers
Aren't they called Penalty Skill Levels now?Penalty Skill Levels are used as postive values to offset Penalities, such as range modifiers.
-
Re: New Option for Vehicle Combat
I have a book here called The Encyclopedia of Tanks and Armored Fighting Vehicles edite by Christopher F Foss' date=' it just gives one armor value and the type of armor used.[/quote']Rather typical I'm afraid.
You're best bet is to get ahold of one of Jane's books on the subject. For example:
They come in various editions. I have one for APCs in front of me that gives rather detailed armor breakdowns for *some* vehicles. But even here, there are significant gaps. The bigger Jane volumes tend to have more complete data (I referenced one of the smaller ones above), they can be found used and are best bought that way as the price is... significant.
Beyond that you can start making guesses based upon the frontal armor.
The front will always be the thickest, covert that to a DEF value using the chart. Back off a 2-3 points on the side. If there's a Turret and Hull, drop a point on the front and sides for the hull.
The top armor will normally be around 25mm or half the front- whicherever is less. The rear armor often is equal to the side on the Turret.
Rear hull armor tends to be 3 points or so less than the side.
This won't always be accurate, but it's better than nothing if nothing is all you have.
-
Re: Vehicle DEX
Turn modes don't quite seem to handle the differences between a tractor and a fighter jet very well to me; they're not granular enough.They used to be. And they can be made so again.
I believe the two values ought to be used in a complementary fasion, making maneuverability VERY granular (a SPD 1 tractor with a crappy turn mode; a SPD 5 fighter jet with the best turn mode).
The only problem I see with this is that moving in each Segment requires you to deal with the non-granularity of multiples of 12, or the problem of deciding how to divide up the moving/ nonmoving phases if a player wants to go at a speed not divisible by 12 -- say 7, or 17.
This 'problem' already exists.
How do you currently move 60 mph with a SPD 4 character in HERO? The answer is that you don't, you move a rounded number of inches in each of the 4 phases that's somewhat close to 60 mph.
This is in no significant way different. Call it close, round it off, and call it good.
In the "Divide Movement by SPD" method, if a player wishes to change his speed in a given Phase, he simply moves fewer Inches (instead of reducing the movement he makes during every single Segment).
You're vastly overthinking this and causing yourself problems. The old rules allowed you to adjust your speed by a given acceleration/deacceleration value every segment as the driver wished.
The game used to work this way. It was only a mistaken desire to force vehicles to function exactly as characters that changed it.
-
Re: OCV Penalty on Powers
Removed?! Eh?They used to be used all the time for just this sort of thing. Now there's no mention of them and limits are used instead.
-
Re: Vehicle DEX
It also means that each vehicle must have a SPD of at least 12"' date=' or multiples of 12". What if you want to creep around at 2"? [/quote']As already pointed out- SPD 12, movement rate can be whatever you want.
To use the example from earlier, would a SPD 4 character being able to maneuver a bulldozer four times in one Turn be realistic? Shouldn't there be limits on what one can do, movement-wise (including turning and other maneuvers), with certain vehicles during a Turn?
That's what turn modes are for.
There is no existing mechanic for having a vehicle move autonomously every Turn.
There a number of ways of handling this.
The simple method is just to have the driver declare both his combat action and entire course until his next segment, i.e. exactly what happens now if you've purchused the vehicles movement to match the character's SPD to produced a desired mph velocity. Only instead of moving the entire distance in one segment you move at the vehicles declared movement rate each segment.
Another simple method is just to allow the player free movement control on those segments he doesn't go in- but no other action or change of action unless he aborts, i.e. the way the game used to work.
And the main problem is that the SPD 12 method assumes that the vehicle is as maneuverable as its pilot is quick, which is silly.
That's what Turn Modes are for.
-
Re: OCV Penalty on Powers
I just use negative skill levels and call it good. Pity those were removed from the system.
-
Re: Vehicle DEX
Well' date=' actually, there is a reason to limit the SPD of a vehicle, and that is "top speed." [/quote']If you give all vehicles a SPD of 12, and have them move on each segment even if the driver has a slower SPD, that issue is moot.
-
Re: Vehicle DEX
Thinking about this...is a fighter plane really more hard to hit? If a fighter plane and a bulldozer were both moving at the same speed' date=' would the fighter be harder to hit?[/quote']I tend to agree with you. Fighter planes don't so much dodge individual attacks as they avoid weapon envelops in the first place.
On the bright side you have the option to use the velocity based DCV table (personally I'd use a relative velocity based table).
-
Re: Vehicle DEX
Hi Mitchell: This issue has been talked into the ground but I have a slightly different approach to the vehicle dex/spd issue that is working great in my Star Hero game. I give vehicles dex but every vehicle has a spd of 12 for no point cost. This does several GREAT things. It makes the MPH/KPH calculations really easy. It also allows vehicles to move when the character can't act. This is essentially one step closer to how they worked in Champions II/III. I liked that model.
Anyway...onward and upward...
All in all this is easy and important 'fix' for vehicles.
-
Re: New Option for Vehicle Combat
I really like the armor thickness/GDef/HeroDef table' date=' can I get your permission to work up something similar for Star Hero, I want to extrapolate for some of the advanced armor types from Striker and Fire Fusion and Steel, which use hardened steel as the baseline armor value[/quote']By all means go right ahead. The stuff on my website is intended to be used by anybody for their own gaming group.
If you ever publish something based on it, I'd like a credit note somewhere.
Also where are you getting the real world armor values from? the one book I have just gives one overall armor value
Here's a link for a number of frontal armor values:
http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm
Flank/rear/top/bottom values are much harder to come by and I don't have a good online source. I based the conversions on my site off an old copy of Tractics (old style wargame minis system) I had and some guesswork.
Due to the Exponential nature of HERO (and as a result the conversion chart), small differences are generally lost. So close works here just as it does in hand grenades.
-
Re: New Option for Vehicle Combat
with the new ideas' date=' where does reactive armor fit in?[/quote']The easiest approach would to have it apply a bonus to the Armor Value with the ablative limitation. Two points would be typical I think.
Thus a M60A3 Battle Tank with EAP would have a Turrent Front Armor of 18, +2 vs HEAT/Shape Charges (ablative).
Remember that some weapons (like the newest TOW) have a probe designed to overcome the extra protection of reactive armor. These can be brought like so: Resistant Piercing 2 Points with Armor Piercing +1/4 (to avoid the standard one level of hardening Barrier Defense commonly have): only to overcome reactive armor (-1/2)
-
Re: New Option for Vehicle Combat
Sorry: re-read my post, and I completely forgot to say:1. I think you have identified a real problem
2. Well done on doing something positive about it
3. I think the rules you suggest have a great deal of merit and your armour values are far more realistic than the current Hero system
Thanks.
4. Weird, isn't is, that tanks don't buy hardenned armour?
As the Barrier Defense rules noted, such defenses do typically buy one level of hardened armor. It was needed to avoid the common firearm based piercing effects that my house rules have.
I've updated the ammunitions page on my website to reflect the change, with AP ammo now doing 3 points of Resistant Piercing + 1 point resistant Piercing with Armor Piercing (+1/4). It now matches the Heavy Weapon and Armor Rules modeling various AP ammon coming into service now.
Example: A .308 (2d6+1K) would have a Penetration value of 7 points. If it was using AP ammo that would increase by 1 to 8 points due to the single point of Piercing with the AP advantage that such ammo comes with.
This is way the same rules can be used to more realistically model today's body armor. Class III armor can be pointed to stop exactly the weapons it's rated in real life to stop, but not the next weapon up from there.
-
Re: New Option for Vehicle Combat
Rather than having seperate penetration rules I would like to see heavy weapons do penetration and damage seperately, so, for instance, you might buy a 5d6 or 4d6 AP attack or whatever for your main gun for penetration that does 2d6 AE (Hex) if it penetrates.I did just that as a stop gap method since the idea first was published in Golden Age of Champions back in the day. There it was only for shape charges, but the idea works.
I decide to change it because a) it's a complex build,
.50 cal HMGs blow thru a suprising amount of armor and can't really be 'exploding' inside, and c) the problem with containing the random penetration range and still using a Bell curve to resolve it.I appreciate your system is more accurate: penetration should not have such a range as I suggest (although I'd probably have a 3-6 and 15-18 bracket on your penetration chart for plus or minus 2), but I think that it would have more of a 'game' feel and would not require new rules, but could be done in the existing structure.
Well as I noted above, A Penetration 20 attack is nothing more than a standard effect on a 90 AP attack, plus 5 point standard effect Act 12-, plus 5 points standard effect Acts 8.
Edit: Or even better, look at a 20 point Barrier Defense being bought this way: Defense 18, +1 Def Acts on 9+, +2 Def Acts on 13+. All attacks are standard effect against it.
All covered in the -1/4 limit: Barrier Defense
The only change from the system is that its applied to everything as a default and thus explictly built out that way.
The other thing that I know but had forgotten is that range is really important for a lot of tank shells
Very true.
The effect of Range (defining it and the impact on penetration) and rate of fire is work I still have to do. This is just the down range damage part of the question.
-
Re: New Option for Vehicle Combat
Aside from that' date=' my general comments about your system are...I think I would base the amount of damage on Standard Effect (maybe Standard Effect for some of the dice and a roll for the rest, for example) rather than the literal number of DCs. [/quote']I gave that some thought, but I wanted a bell curve around the center line. That required one to throw at least two dice and that opened the result range too much.
The "penetration roll" method I settled on avoids those problems and are in practical terms just an activatation roll for some extra standard effect.
The statement, "This method will result in more BODY damage penetrating these types of defenses..." would probably then not need to be true, and standard defense mechanics could be used again.
Certainly wouldn't meet the goal I set.
I wanted to represent the reality of heavy weapon penetration. If it doesn't penetration it doesn't penetrate. But if it does, there's hell to pay- i.e. full damage is done.
There's no easy way to do that using the standard defense mechanics without using linked powers with complex limits and high total Active Points usage.
I'm really not clear on the Piercing mechanics (I've seen them before, but I never remember the details), so I can't comment much there.
Dark Champions or the old Champions III book.
Basically for a 3 point adder you can have an attack ignore one point of resistant defense treating it as if it didn't exist.
I do like your Armor Effect Limitation, as it can give the same results (minus a little stupid rounding
) as Reduced Penetration but with a lot more flexibility and granularity.Thanks. Did that for my old firearm rules. Couldn't do handguns right without it
Did it long before HERO put the Reduced Penetration limit in the game. Always wondered why they used such a clumsy and inflexible method.
-
Re: How much attention do you give to powers' Senses visibility rules?
I use the rules as they are written in the book.
Seems simple enough to me.
-
I don't think it should come as a suprise to know that I've always considered vehicle combat in HERO to be... well screwed up due to some of the things in HERO that make it work so well for character based combat.
The highly random range of attacks for example cause inflated DEF values for vehicles in order to protected them from small arms and other weapons that they should logically be immune to. That inflation in turn drives up the damage dice of anti-tank weapons to high levels to do any BODY at all to their intended targets. BODY is then increase to represent some ability to withstand damage... and so on.
The final result is almost D&D like Hit Point system as Battle Tanks chip away at each others armor instead of launching a killing blow from a weakly defended angle. Even worse is the disconnect often spoken of on these boards and Superheroes that require all sorts of cute tricks and rule overrides to overcome.
So... I set out to fix all that. House Rules rock you know.
I may have be successful, haven't played tested it much yet. I'm mixed on it in a way because it is in part a new resolution method for HERO and frankly I like avoid that much change. It also seems a lot for something that I've learn to avoid in my games.
But in a choice of not using or using vehicles due to the current rules, a significant change can at least keep me from pulling out another game anytime someone steps into the driver's seat.
So I'm mixed on my effort at this point. I'll give it a spin and see how it goes.
The core idea actually is very much inspired by HERO. Forcewalls and Vehicles by their nature represent a different type of DEF, one that doesn't allow stun to pass unless it has been penetrated by BODY damage. Tagging this with the term Barrier Defense, and expanding some of my firearms work- I've put the 'beta' for the Barrier Defense, Vehicle Armor, and Heavy Weapons up on my website.
While intended for vehicles, it has other applications. It would be easy to use to better represent some comic genre Force Walls IMO, and doing a far more realistic build of personal bullet proof armor would be a snap.
The Key areas the website are as follows:
-> Limits- New -> Barrier Defense
-> Real World Conversions -> Vehicle Armor
-> Real World Conversions -> Heavy Weapons
Anyone interested can look it over and pass along any comments they may have.
-
Re: I could watch him get slapped around all day
the X men have never' date=' in twenty five years, struck me as heroic. [/quote']Let's see... I stopped reading X-Men in 79, or 26 years ago.
I wonder if the say thing ticked us off
When it comes right down to it, the only run of the X-Men I thought worth having was Adams although the first couple dozen New Uncanny X-Men after #96 was ok and introduced some interesting character concepts.
-
Re: Overwhelming PRE attacks
Expose them to more classes of villains. Against a team that's over-reliant upon EGO- and PRE-based attacks' date=' mechanicals are the standard "scissors" to that "paper". For instance, large numbers of Automatons who use Coordinated Attacks.[/quote']IME such in-game counters only seldom control players insisting on taking advantage of the system, it typically makes things worse.
They will either re-double their efforts to find new loopholes, or they will decide that the GM "isn't playing fair" and personal conflict increases. Rolling over after a GM inflicted beating isn't likely.
-
Re: Overwhelming PRE attacks
How do you suggest I handle players that want to have God-like Presence? Besides telling them to take a flying leap? Or introducing them to Menton?If they refuse to obey your restriction their PRE attacks (getting around it with cute builds is a refusal), do one of the following:
1. Remove PRE attacks from the game.
2. Tell them to take a flying leap.
-
Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage
Oh, I completely agree: the damage *is* what's necessary to kill the thing--if it's an animal. If it's an elephant shaped statue then you have to define what the objective of damage is (it could be the statue, even if of a fairly weak material has a lot more BOD--if you are rating what is necessary to destroy it--or you could rate it differently if you will just declare it *broken* at some point).-Marco
Certainly.
HERO's BODY stat is basically a 'broken' point. The 2x BODY = Destroyed is just a simple rule for those who need a number for some reason.
... I coulda sworn I read about a method of adding negative modifiers - not near my book so I could just be imagining the whole thing at the moment....
.50 cal HMGs blow thru a suprising amount of armor and can't really be 'exploding' inside, and c) the problem with containing the random penetration range and still using a Bell curve to resolve it.
) as Reduced Penetration but with a lot more flexibility and granularity.
Introductions and a question about jumping.
in HERO System Discussion
Posted
Re: Introductions and a question about jumping.