Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 119

From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org 
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 1999 11:24 PM 
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org 
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #119 
 
 
champ-l-digest         Sunday, January 3 1999         Volume 01 : Number 119 
 
 
 
In this issue: 
 
    Re: Time Stop 
    Re: Define Loss of Balance 
    Re: Hero Creator Patches? 
    CAK interpretations. 
    Re: CAK interpretations. 
    Re: CAK interpretations. 
    Rifts Hero. 
    Re: Vehicle Damage and Pilot STUN 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 23:04:36 -0500 
From: "Dave Mattingly" <dave@haymaker.win.net> 
Subject: Re: Time Stop 
 
For another take on stopping time and all the tricks that you can do with 
it, check out http://www.haymaker.org/haym12.html. 
 
Dave Mattingly 
http://haymaker.org 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 22:54:19 -0500 
From: "Dave Mattingly" <dave@haymaker.win.net> 
Subject: Re: Define Loss of Balance 
 
Check out http://www.haymaker.org/haym18e.html. The Touch sense group is 
defined/proposed, as well as effects of sense-affecting powers on it. 
 
Dave Mattingly 
http://haymaker.org 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 23:34:47 EST 
From: HeroGames@aol.com 
Subject: Re: Hero Creator Patches? 
 
In a message dated 1/2/99 3:35:55 PM, samael@clark.net writes: 
 
>Since you don't have on-line ordering available yet, I'd like to know if 
>the order form *has* to be in pdf format. IMO it would be much better to 
>do 
>the order form itself in text or html so that arthritic people like myself 
>can type in the entries. 
 
It's in PDF format because that was easiest for us to produce. We expect the 
online store to be up literally any day now, so we probably won't take the 
time to convert the order form. Sorry for the inconvenience! 
 
 Steve Peterson, Hero Games  
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 19:20:29 -0600 
From: Tim Statler <tstatler@igateway.net> 
Subject: CAK interpretations. 
 
I was wondering how people interprete Code Against Killing. 
 
Obviously the character can't kill, but does it mean he'll have to try 
and save anyone that is hurt and dying? 
 
Opinions sought and welcome. 
 
Tim Statler 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: 03 Jan 1999 21:18:40 -0500 
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> 
Subject: Re: CAK interpretations. 
 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
Hash: SHA1 
 
"TS" == Tim Statler <tstatler@igateway.net> writes: 
 
TS> Obviously the character can't kill, 
 
CAK does not mean he cannot kill.  A character with a 10-point CAK (common, 
moderate) is most certainly capable of killing someone, but he will do 
everything he can to avoid taking that action. 
 
Disadvantages reflect the character, not the other way around. 
 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
Version: GnuPG v0.9.0 (GNU/Linux) 
Comment: For info see www.gnupg.org 
iD8DBQE2kCT/gl+vIlSVSNkRAtgCAKDm6ib3uzjff7Dndach43W2/8q61wCg9D0a 
wOmi4EointIspHXzZeUMY0I= 
=M+aC 
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
 
- --  
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, 
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should 
GPG Key: same as my PGP 5 (DH) key  \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 18:58:17 -0800 
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net> 
Subject: Re: CAK interpretations. 
 
>I was wondering how people interprete Code Against Killing. 
> 
>Obviously the character can't kill, but does it mean he'll have to try 
>and save anyone that is hurt and dying? 
> 
>Opinions sought and welcome. 
 
Lets put it this way: not any more than anyone else.  If you have a psych 
lim it means you are under rules to act a certain way, it doesnt mean that 
you will not ever do so without the psych lim.  How many times has everyone 
here heard some lil punk player say "but I dont have a code vs killing!" 
 
It seems to me that what you describe would fall under the category of 
another psych lim entirely, if he was somehow compelled to do so. 
 
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Sola Gracia		Sola Scriptura		Sola Fide 
Soli Gloria Deo    	Solus Christus		Corum Deo 
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 19:45:09 -0800 
From: jayphailey@juno.com (Jay P Hailey) 
Subject: Rifts Hero. 
 
>someone else converting Rifts to Hero :) 
>I love Rifts, but I prefer point games to levels. Do you >have anything 
on the web? 
 
Nope, sorry. it weas just an off the cuff thought experiment. A friend 
went through and converted several weapons and armors using Dark 
Champions as a guide. 
 
But my gaming group met the idea of Rifts Hero with a yawn. 
 
The first thing, Absolutely the first thing I changed was the Mega Damage 
concept. I dropped that like a bad habit. 
 
>From there, the conversions were easy. 
 
Any specific questions? 
 
 
Jay P. Hailey <Meow!> 
 
Get a taste of religion. Eat a missionary. 
 
___________________________________________________________________ 
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. 
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html 
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 18:51:30 -0800 
From: jayphailey@juno.com (Jay P Hailey) 
Subject: Re: Vehicle Damage and Pilot STUN 
 
>   An attack's STUN damage would only translate to the >Pilot if a 
vehicular Hit Location system (or something >similar) is being used, the 
pilot's compartment is hit, >and the BODY of the attack (preferably a 
Ranged >one)exceeds the Vehicle's DEF.  In this case, it acts like >a 
Force Wall against the attack, subtracting its DEF from >the STUN and 
BODY. 
 
???  Okay.  Where does it say this specifically? 
 
>   It's always possible, of course, that a system will be >damaged and 
cause operator damage.  How this is handled >depends on the system, and 
generally requires either >individualized mechanics (like Side Effects, 
>susceptibility as a Power Limitation, and such) or house >rules. 
 
>   In TUV I propose that vehicular DEF has more of an >"Armor" effect 
(as opposed to the above "Force Wall" >effect) when protecting the 
passengers from Move Through >and Move By damage; that is, it protects 
those inside by 
>subtracting its DEF from the STUN and BODY done.  Devices >such as seat 
belts and airbags halve the damage from a >collision. 
 
This is the way I have been running it, almost automatically.  I guess 
that's a house rulew, then isn't it? 
 
>   As an afterthought (meaning I didn't think of it until >right now so 
it probably won't be in the book unless Bruce >is reading this and 
decides to add it to my manuscript), >Move Through and Move By damage 
could probably be applied >to those in the target vehicle at a reduced 
rate, as >though they were in the initiating vehicle, depending on >the 
GM's preference. 
 
Hmmm. I would tend to run a move through attack using a vehiclelike any 
other. If the target *moves* then the damage done to the Vehicle ands the 
people inside is halved, but if the thing doesn't move (Like a wall, or a 
cliff, assuming the attack doesn't do enough body to confetti the target) 
then the attcking vehicle and the people inside take the full effects of 
the collision. 
 
Now inside the target vehicle I would tend to apply full damage to the 
targeted vehicle and to the people inside. Being rammed can be a very 
Violent type of collision, and it can really hurt people. Noiw if I felt 
like letting heroic level characters live through such a thing, I'd A> 
remind them of seat belts (50% damage reduction versus collisions)and I 
might even let the targeting car's movement reduce the violence of the 
impact for them. 
 
OTOH, it really depends on the nature of the collison. A PC's car once 
stalled on the railroad crossing. The train came and smeared the car 
before the PC got out. I didn't even roll the dice. The player got to 
roll a con roll to see how well his character survived (Severly injured, 
crippled, basket case or outright dead.) The PC was back in play a few 
months later after intense physical therapy. Large vehicles don't really 
give passenger cars a chance to attenuate damage... 
 
>>For example, you might have a high powered brick or >>energy blaster 
trying totake a VIPER tank or mecha suit >>out of action, but he doesn't 
have the time to just >>destroy the thing outright before it pounds his 
teammates >>to mulch, or maybe has a code-vs.-killing that would 
>>prevent him from doing so.  
>>Can he at least hit it hard enough to con-stun the pilot >>long enough 
to get some breathing room? 
> 
>   I would say not; whatever "con-stun" is, it's unlikely >that a brick 
could hit a vehicle hard enough to do it to >the operator. 
 
I used the term "dazed". the BBB has two uses for the term "Stunned" a 
character who looses all of his stun pips is stunned and unconscious. A 
Character who takes more stun pips than his CON (I.E. a character who has 
a 10 CON and takes 11 or more stun in a single attack, after defenses) is 
also stunned, meaning he stands around and is unable to act in his next 
phase.  I call that "dazed" to differentiate it from a character who has 
lost all of his stun pips. 
 
The terminology is odd, and I apologize, I would have pointed it out when 
I first got onto the list for the benefit of the Hero people if I had 
thought of it then.  I ask them now, please consider changing the usage 
there to make it less confusing. 
 
If I were GMing the scene above (Brick v mecha), I'd say that a called 
shot to the Pilot's compartment could allow the attack to attack against 
the "armor" model rather than the "Force wall" model. 
 
But then I'd say that damage to a speific other pieceof the craft (Like 
to the arms or legs) would do no damage to the pilot.  Automobile drivers 
take no stun from gun fire into the trunk of their car, although most 
people would have to make an ego roll to move in their next phase, 
because the auto does not transmit the force to the driver.  I guess that 
WWII fighters don't stun their pilots when their wings get all shot up.  
It's violent tumbling that happens in their next phase that does violence 
to the pilots... 
 
>>On a slightly related tangent, using the Abrams tank from >>HSA II as 
an example. How do you achieve the classic >>brick-trick of bending the 
main turret gun barrel up to >>render the gun useless? Do you have to do 
more body than >>the DEF of the Tank as a whole? Or could you allow it to 
>>be handled via a STR roll? 
> 
>   In general, since the device is being targeted, I'd use >the device's 
DEF based on the Focus rules. 
>   The main problem I have with this is that the Focus >rules gives a 
DEF equal to AP/5, so the Abrams' main gun, >at 150 Active Points, would 
have a DEF of 30.  I'm of a >mind that the DEF should be AP/10, giving it 
a more >reasonable DEF of 15, or even that DEF should be declared >at 3 
with the option of buying up at 1:1.  (I'd say this >is grist for the 
mill in The Ultimate Gadgeteer!)  :-] 
 
That's an interesting idea (AP/10).  I would also point out that I tend 
to GM called shots against large inanimate objects as somewhat easier 
than against other characters. 
 
"You've grappled the tank. Now give me an attack roll at -8 to shift your 
grip to the main gun."  u-huh. 
 
 
Jay P. Hailey <Meow!> 
 
Get a taste of religion. Eat a missionary. 
 
___________________________________________________________________ 
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. 
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html 
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] 
 
------------------------------ 
 
End of champ-l-digest V1 #119 
***************************** 


Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Monday, May 24, 1999 03:08 PM