RDU Neil

Dang it, I never did get the hang of that back when I was pretending to be a guy. It's a wonder I lasted as long as I did.
 
 
 

You guys and gals DO realize we play tabletop games, right ? What are tabletop gaming sessions if not action movies with infinite budgets?
 

Yeah, I'd have liked to see a bit more in terms of assurances that I won't have to get another one of those missile test alerts.

Part of my exasperation stems from the fact that there is always a percentage of people within the United States that are quick to rationalize a state-sanctioned street execution (as opposed to the more formal use of the term) no matter the circumstances. We're now at a point where, if a police officer kills someone in a situation where deescalation would have prevented a casualty, we just shrug our shoulders and move on. Along with our school shootings, we've accepted both injustices as a fact of life.
 
Loud music? Drunk? Black? You mean he wasn't handing out food to the poor while performing free dental cleaning on the side out of the goodness of his heart? "Good enough for my conscience." I don't buy the idea that the man waved an empty gun willy-nilly at law enforcement "just because", intoxicated or no: for a black guy in the United States, that's basically a death sentence.

Actually I was thinking of this (I don't think it will be a problem in this game) but I kinda like the idea that any damage added to equipment can only go as far as max damage on the weapon (assuming ranged attack, HKA's are already limited to no more than double) Essentially guaranteeing max damage isn't overpowered, but makes the damage significant 7 damage on every shot by a 9mm would be really good, but we don't have that pistol punching through body armor when it shouldn't (again, in a game of cinematic realism.)
I think I'll try that.

By RAW, yrs, anything stacks with anything so far as adding damage or DEF - unless otherwise noted by limitations.
 
The solution is campaign limits on DEF and Damage Classes.

“That's the way it was. Privilege, which just means 'private law.' Two types of people laugh at the law; those that break it and those that make it.”

― Terry Pratchett, Night Watch

And a comment reported by the Canadian Press, attributed to an anonymous diplomat at the recent G7 summit, will probably become my mantra the next time this President spews venom our way: "Aren't we all getting used to it? The dog barks, the caravan moves on."

Along with the Gods: The Two Worlds is a live action Korean movie based on a webcomic according to the back of the box. I picked it up at the walmart.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Along-With-the-Gods-Two-Worlds-Blu-ray-DVD/341402248
CES

Here is some great analysis on DC set pieces, vs. Marvel set pieces
 
 

Build a wall! I don't want to hear no mealy-mouthed whining from you BJWs!* Always letting those Danish Reds "wander" over here and steal grass from hard chewin' Holsteins.
 
 
 
 
 
*Bovine Justice Warriors

The content is in the 8 June 2018 issue of Science (likely to be behind a subscriber wall).
 
Two papers here.  The one getting all the press is the result of mass spectrometer measurements of the stuff released from Martian surface samples when the stuff is heated.  This kind of thing was done with the Viking landers back in 1976, but the unsuspected presence of powerful oxidizing substances (perchlorates) in the Martian soil, generated over time by the solar ultraviolet (Mars's atmosphere does not block UV), made it more likely that those early results were due to the perchlorates reacting with stuff in the analysis chamber.  There's no way to remove the perchlorates from the soil, but by structuring your measurement process correctly you can sidestep them (cause them to be released from the soil, chew up other stuff which is what we really want to know about now, and eventually all the perchlorates are used up).  In effect, that's what they did with the mass spectrometer measurements: only measure things that are released after all the perchlorate damage is done.
 
Once you do that, you get solid detections of hydrocarbons (both aliphatics, chain-shaped molecules, like butane; and aromatics, ring-shaped molecules, the prototype of which is benzene), and things called thiophenes, which are compounds of carbon, hydrogen, and sulfur.  All of these are generated in the experiment by cooking the soil sample causing more complex organics to break down, and the breakdown products are released as gas and measured in the mass spectrometer.  You don't have a direct handle on what complex organics are in the soil; you just know they're there because only complex organics will release the other things when cooked.  It would take a rather more sophisticated instrument (something much larger than what's in the Curiosity rover now) to perform measurements of what those original organics are.
 
The second paper isn't getting as much press, but it also is interesting in the astrobiology front.  Using a laser spectrometers aboard  several instruments there have been measurements of methane content in the Martian atmosphere since 2004,  well before the Curiosity rover landed (Hiroshima Day 2012).  The detection of methane was announced early on, but it wasn't clear what it meant.  On Earth, methane is released from both currently-living biological sources (e.g., the bacteria in the guts of ruminants that turn cellulose into something that can be digested) and geological sources (some of which, at least, are from no-longer-living biological sources, but not all the sources are known).
 
The "other paper" in today's Science is a series of methane measurements from Curiosity, extending back over five Earth years (Aug 2012 - May 2017 included in the analysis), about 2 2/3 Mars years.  The methane content measured varies seasonally -- highest levels in norther summer, bottoms out in winter/spring.  Seasonal variation like that is easiest to explain via biological activity, not geological.

Build a wall! I don't want to hear no mealy-mouthed whining from you BJWs!* Always letting those Danish Reds "wander" over here and steal grass from hard chewin' Holsteins.
 
 
 
 
 
*Bovine Justice Warriors

The May 19, 2018 issue of the Economist has an article about how astronomers are using the GAIA dataset to try solving a fairly significant puzzle in astrophysics: the rate at which the universe expands. Astronomers have two ways to measure this... and the measurements do not match. One method works directly from the Cosmic Microwave Background. The other uses a "ladder" of inferences:
-- Nearby stars can have their distance measured by parallax.
-- Within that range are bright, pulsating stars called Cepheid variables. Conveniently, a Cepheid's period correlates rather precisely with its absolute brightness. So, Cepheids can be used to find the distance to nearby galaxies. (Near in a cosmic sense, anyway.)
-- In those galaxies, astronomers see supernovae; and because they know the distance to the galaxies, they can tell that a certain kind of supernova always has a certain brightness. So, by watching for these supernovae, astronomers can measure the distance to galaxies out hundreds of millions of light-years.
-- And by measuring how fast those galaxies recede at a given distance, they infer the rate at which the universe expands.
 
The two methods do not give the same result. They differ by about 6 kilometers per second per megaparsec. (IIRC. I don't have the article in front of me.)
 
Oops.
 
Many astronomers hoped the problem was in the long chain of inference from parallax to Cepheids to supernovae. Every measurement has a margin of error, after all, and the errors at one link in the chain will increase the errors of later stages. It was hoped that GAIA, by supplying more accurate measurements to more stars than were ever measured before, would adjust the brightness scale for Cepheids -- and this correction would adjust the distances to galaxies and make the measurements of cosmic expansion match.
 
Nope. They still don't match.
 
From this, astronomers conclude that something is going on they do not understand, and it's probably pretty important. More research needed.
 
Dean Shomshak

tl;dr version : I applied most of the rules we've talked about here, and they really worked, in an extensive gun fight scenario in last night's game.
 
For what it is worth, I ran a five and half hour (in game play) ranging gun fight in my game last night (PCs invading the corporate HQ of an elite Private Security/mercenary force), so we had the chance to really put the criteria I listed above, as well as in the thread about guns, damage, rate of fire, etc.  It was an amazingly cinematic gunfight that ranged from the basement to the seventh floor of a high rise, with more bullets, magazines and grenades spent than in most of the previous games put together. I found the combination of criteria worked pretty well.
 
Here are guidelines I wrote up for my campaign, and then we played the game to test them.
 
Hit Locations: As per RAW, the Hit Location chart will be utilized in combat. Exception Note: Called shots to a specific location will still roll if there is more than one number result. Ex.: If a called shot to the head hits after modifiers, then a die roll will determine if 3 (face), 4 (head), 5 (throat) was the actual location. 
Range Modifiers: SW will utilize the Range Modifiers from 3rd Edition Danger International.  
-0 for Point Black to 6 meters 
-1 for 6+ to 12 meters 
-2 for 12+ to 18 meters, etc. 
Multiple Attacks: There are several changes to this maneuver from the RAW. 
Multiple Attacks suffer a -1 OCV penalty for each attack after the first. 
Range is halved, so penalties accrue faster (e.g. -0 up to 3 meters, -1 up to 6 meters, etc.) 
Not every attack can utilize multiple attacks. Weapon type affects whether Multiple Attack can be used, and how many attacks can be attempted in a single action. 
Barehanded/hand-to-hand weapons requires Rapid Attack, limited to 2 attacks, only weapons size "small" are allowed  
Bows, crossbows, thrown weapons cannot utilize Multiple Attacks w/o GM permission 
Early firearms cannot utilize Multiple Attacks 
Revolvers can only go up to 3 shot MAs 
Semi-automatic pistols can go up to 5 shot MAs 
Pump action shotguns cannot utilize MAs, semi-automatic shotguns may do up to 2 shot MAs 
Select Fire automatic weapons can fire up to 2 bursts (3 or 5 rounds), but at -2 for both bursts.  
 
As for the armor discussion, I basically went with...
 
Did not go with extra activation for plates... just didn't need another roll.
 
Did not involve increased stun multipliers for any weapons except the Benneli M4 one PC used. Just using Hit Location stun multipliers as is worked just fine.
 
With Light AP on rifle rounds automatically, I feel it very much makes long guns way better than pistol rounds, but doesn't escalate the damage into "one shotting" people with a 5.56 all the time. It was really important in the game last night, as the final aspects of the fight had both sides pretty heavily armored up and blazing away with SIG MCX variants using .300 AAC (2d6 +1 damage, light AP as noted above).
 
I adopted the rule of Hard armor, if no body gets through, no stun applied at all. This worked REALLY well, as it felt right when it happened, and sped up the game.
 
The Hard armor rule for no stun and vs. light AP really brought home how much more effective the armor is with the plates than hitting in just a soft armor spot, again without ramping up certain armor to really high levels.
 
The explosive damage applied as above is REALLY deadly, as two fully armored bad guys were caught point blank in a stairwell with a fragmentation grenade... (roll three 2.5d6K attacks vs. three different hit locations, and each only affected by 1/2 of any armor in those locations). It felt really correct, with the idea that damage drops off quickly with distance and any barriers. (third guy was slightly farther back and blocked by two buddies when grenade went off, so dropped the damage to 2d6 and only two locations... he was effed up but alive, until they shot him on their way up the stairs.)
 
Blowthrough came into play as a PC was in a close quarters shootout between two glass and paneling offices with a support column in between, and both guys ended up blazing away right through the thin walls at each other, which only stop a couple of rounds out of twenty or so that went back and forth in that burst series, after they'd been shooting at each other for a while. Felt very right.
 
Had great moments of multiple different effects from rounds hitting armor, where the bullets were simply stopped, others where they did partial penetration or just brusing damage, other time where soft armor was penetrated for really nasty wounds, though not lethal because they stopped some of it, hard armor totally sucking up some rounds, etc. One great scene had a PC get the drop on one guy with a three round burst. Two shots hit, head and chest, helmet and plate... but he rolled really well, doing just 1 Body over the defenses on each hit, so Stun did translate through, and this did lay the guy out, Con stunned and unconscious (briefly), and it felt right... not a common occurrence, but right in this instance with two high rolls dead center to noggin and chest.
 
What I do realize is that full body armor is very effective, especially against lighter rounds. The few pistols shots that weren't targeting heads/bare faces, got sucked up like nothing if it hit the armor. No SMGs were used, but I feel the lethality would have been much less if the Light AP was not in play. (I rule SMGs don't achieve the velocity of assault rifles/long guns, so don't achieve Light AP), so there would have been less armor penetration in those cases.
 
 
Anyway... really feel like these rules work well for a semi-realistic, cinematic, heroic level gun fights.  If that is your thing.... try 'em out.
 
 

tl;dr version : I applied most of the rules we've talked about here, and they really worked, in an extensive gun fight scenario in last night's game.
 
For what it is worth, I ran a five and half hour (in game play) ranging gun fight in my game last night (PCs invading the corporate HQ of an elite Private Security/mercenary force), so we had the chance to really put the criteria I listed above, as well as in the thread about guns, damage, rate of fire, etc.  It was an amazingly cinematic gunfight that ranged from the basement to the seventh floor of a high rise, with more bullets, magazines and grenades spent than in most of the previous games put together. I found the combination of criteria worked pretty well.
 
Here are guidelines I wrote up for my campaign, and then we played the game to test them.
 
Hit Locations: As per RAW, the Hit Location chart will be utilized in combat. Exception Note: Called shots to a specific location will still roll if there is more than one number result. Ex.: If a called shot to the head hits after modifiers, then a die roll will determine if 3 (face), 4 (head), 5 (throat) was the actual location. 
Range Modifiers: SW will utilize the Range Modifiers from 3rd Edition Danger International.  
-0 for Point Black to 6 meters 
-1 for 6+ to 12 meters 
-2 for 12+ to 18 meters, etc. 
Multiple Attacks: There are several changes to this maneuver from the RAW. 
Multiple Attacks suffer a -1 OCV penalty for each attack after the first. 
Range is halved, so penalties accrue faster (e.g. -0 up to 3 meters, -1 up to 6 meters, etc.) 
Not every attack can utilize multiple attacks. Weapon type affects whether Multiple Attack can be used, and how many attacks can be attempted in a single action. 
Barehanded/hand-to-hand weapons requires Rapid Attack, limited to 2 attacks, only weapons size "small" are allowed  
Bows, crossbows, thrown weapons cannot utilize Multiple Attacks w/o GM permission 
Early firearms cannot utilize Multiple Attacks 
Revolvers can only go up to 3 shot MAs 
Semi-automatic pistols can go up to 5 shot MAs 
Pump action shotguns cannot utilize MAs, semi-automatic shotguns may do up to 2 shot MAs 
Select Fire automatic weapons can fire up to 2 bursts (3 or 5 rounds), but at -2 for both bursts.  
 
As for the armor discussion, I basically went with...
 
Did not go with extra activation for plates... just didn't need another roll.
 
Did not involve increased stun multipliers for any weapons except the Benneli M4 one PC used. Just using Hit Location stun multipliers as is worked just fine.
 
With Light AP on rifle rounds automatically, I feel it very much makes long guns way better than pistol rounds, but doesn't escalate the damage into "one shotting" people with a 5.56 all the time. It was really important in the game last night, as the final aspects of the fight had both sides pretty heavily armored up and blazing away with SIG MCX variants using .300 AAC (2d6 +1 damage, light AP as noted above).
 
I adopted the rule of Hard armor, if no body gets through, no stun applied at all. This worked REALLY well, as it felt right when it happened, and sped up the game.
 
The Hard armor rule for no stun and vs. light AP really brought home how much more effective the armor is with the plates than hitting in just a soft armor spot, again without ramping up certain armor to really high levels.
 
The explosive damage applied as above is REALLY deadly, as two fully armored bad guys were caught point blank in a stairwell with a fragmentation grenade... (roll three 2.5d6K attacks vs. three different hit locations, and each only affected by 1/2 of any armor in those locations). It felt really correct, with the idea that damage drops off quickly with distance and any barriers. (third guy was slightly farther back and blocked by two buddies when grenade went off, so dropped the damage to 2d6 and only two locations... he was effed up but alive, until they shot him on their way up the stairs.)
 
Blowthrough came into play as a PC was in a close quarters shootout between two glass and paneling offices with a support column in between, and both guys ended up blazing away right through the thin walls at each other, which only stop a couple of rounds out of twenty or so that went back and forth in that burst series, after they'd been shooting at each other for a while. Felt very right.
 
Had great moments of multiple different effects from rounds hitting armor, where the bullets were simply stopped, others where they did partial penetration or just brusing damage, other time where soft armor was penetrated for really nasty wounds, though not lethal because they stopped some of it, hard armor totally sucking up some rounds, etc. One great scene had a PC get the drop on one guy with a three round burst. Two shots hit, head and chest, helmet and plate... but he rolled really well, doing just 1 Body over the defenses on each hit, so Stun did translate through, and this did lay the guy out, Con stunned and unconscious (briefly), and it felt right... not a common occurrence, but right in this instance with two high rolls dead center to noggin and chest.
 
What I do realize is that full body armor is very effective, especially against lighter rounds. The few pistols shots that weren't targeting heads/bare faces, got sucked up like nothing if it hit the armor. No SMGs were used, but I feel the lethality would have been much less if the Light AP was not in play. (I rule SMGs don't achieve the velocity of assault rifles/long guns, so don't achieve Light AP), so there would have been less armor penetration in those cases.
 
 
Anyway... really feel like these rules work well for a semi-realistic, cinematic, heroic level gun fights.  If that is your thing.... try 'em out.
 
 

I thought the movie was essentially Thanos's Hero's Journey.
 
That doesn't make Quill screwing up any more correct -- Thanos should have been able to solve the problem himself to move his story forward in a satisfactory way.
 

“But he did not understand the price. Mortals never do. They only see the prize, their heart's desire, their dream... But the price of getting what you want, is getting what you once wanted.”
― Neil Gaiman, Dream Country
 
I found the article, or at least one that covers the story in question:
Tennessee Town Grapples With Fear After ICE Raid Shakes Community
And here is my favorite quote:

Again... if this had been stated in the movie, or alluded to, or addressed in some way.
 
My issue isn't that fans can come up with all kinds of explanations that might make sense, but that the movie itself fails to address clear implications of what was stated in the movie. Especially when it comes to the central tenant of the film.
 
They've clearly stated that this was like an episode of TV, where you are expected to have watched all the other movies, so we don't have to build in motivation and character development to the characters you've already seen... they just "show up" and you go with it because... you saw all the other movies. That means these characters are just set pieces, because Story is about character and development... so that means Thanos is the only real character in this movie. Everyone and everything moves around him, his motivations, actions, dramatic arc, etc.
 
So now, all critical attention needs to fall on that dramatic arc... so you better damn well make it compelling, believable and engaging. You can't leave major holes to assumptions. Any drama comes not from what Thanos is doing, but why... and how does it dramatically change throughout the arc. That is Story... because otherwise you simply have a string of scenes. In this case, they really failed in two major areas. First, his stated motivation is highly flawed, and it was never called out... by either a "That makes no sense! You must just be insane!" or "I have become death, savior of the universe... and will take the role of Life Culler!" or whatever. Second, his supposed emotional arc with Gamora, where they completely failed to convince that he had any true emotion or love for her... so that he pays a dramatic price. We only have his word that he cared, and a few tears, in the face of decades of emotional torture and galactic slaughter was supposed to make us empathize and connect with him? Worst of all, the universe as defined, agreed that his horrific behavior constituted "love", otherwise it wouldn't have coughed up the soul gem for him. If the MCU is the kind of place where the cosmic fundamentals believe the most misogynistic form of male control and manipulation of women, up to the point of sacrificing the woman for the man's gain, is "love"... well then I'm pretty sure I hope the entire universe gets wiped out, not just half of it... because that isn't a place that I care to have exist... even in fiction.
 
I'm really surprised that there aren't more negative reactions among the fandom that the main takeaway from Infinity War is that the MCU, at a fundamental, structural, cosmically conscious level is abhorrently and violently sexist.

Yay Marvel!

I've come to the point where I can't support football because of the entertainment value based on injury cost to the players.
 
But I can say I've become a fan of the Philadelphia Eagles, lately.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jun/04/trump-calls-off-philadelphia-eagles-visit-white-house?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=277174&subid=24646434&CMP=GT_US_collection
 
Being "disinvited" to this White House is a serious badge of honor.

Now here is an oddity. The punk singer who returned to life
 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-44374766

Yeah, and by that I mean that from the writer's perspective, Quill is a Hero who is every bit as much on a Hero's Journey as any character from myth or literature. The fact that he shares that spotlight with other Heroes doesn't change the storytelling template he fits into. Fallibility is a useful trait in a Hero (it makes him more relatable), but it must be used with great care by any writer, and it can't be used to justify a poor writing decision, which is what is going on here in my view. In this particular case, Quill "losing it" did not feel like the plausible reaction of a Hero (who knew the full scope of the stakes involved) in a moment of stress, but rather it felt like a highly contrived reaction forced on the Hero (by the writer) in order to propel the plot to the next required point in the narrative.

The more the tariffs' thing comes into play, the more I'm embarrassed. Not that I think all tariff's are bad, but these tarrifs are born of rationale regarding war and national defense? SERIOUSLY, what the....
 
We're doing this to Canada because of National Security?
1) The Term "National Security" has pretty much officially lost any meaning or credibility with this stunt if it hadn't already.
2) It's BLEEPING Canada! We take shots at each other, we joke, we sometimes grumble a bit about the other, but they're pretty much the best neighbors a country could ever be hoped to be blessed with on its northern border! They've had our backs more times than I care to count. Many Americans have family up there, and vice versa. And Coworkers and friends and so on. They're so much like us  in so many ways that Europeans often confuse them for Americans (Not nice, Euro guys, don't do that, it shakes them up terribly). They're peaceful (Barring , I am told, certain strong convictions on Hockey?) and unless there's a fight over some dead pig on an island again they are particularly peaceful with us.
3) They're a successful democracy. Aren't we supposed to ... you know, give points for that ? Lord knows we may fall out of that category ourselves. But seriously, shafting dictatorships, punishing autocracies, and boycotting goods from Putintania, I could understand. But while we pride ourselves on carrying the torch of liberty blazing for all the world to see, Canada has it's own more eco-friendly (and less likely to draw mosquitoes) lantern of freedoms.
 
God will punish America for its treatment of it's good neighbor, in fact, Justin Bieber is probably going to cut three more albums and move to Texas.
 
 
Good work, Trump. You ####weed
 
 
 
 

I was about to say that. heh.
 
Seriously, it is less about whether you buy into Quill losing it like that for me... it is about sloppy/lazy writing. When the big plot of 10 years worth of movies hinges on the lamest hack maneuver of "have the hero do something stupid" in order to move the villain along... that is just lame. I've written this before, but it galls me from a creative POV, and especially when the Russo brothers have been so smart in the past with character motivations and plot connections... and this was just bad. It also makes the villain seem 'less' as well removing all pathos for the viewer. "Really? That trope? What garbage!" and the rest of the movie is undermined.

I was about to say that. heh.
 
Seriously, it is less about whether you buy into Quill losing it like that for me... it is about sloppy/lazy writing. When the big plot of 10 years worth of movies hinges on the lamest hack maneuver of "have the hero do something stupid" in order to move the villain along... that is just lame. I've written this before, but it galls me from a creative POV, and especially when the Russo brothers have been so smart in the past with character motivations and plot connections... and this was just bad. It also makes the villain seem 'less' as well removing all pathos for the viewer. "Really? That trope? What garbage!" and the rest of the movie is undermined.