War, HUH! What the hell's it good for?, Absolutely nothing! Options

[hermit]

Frank had a problem of letting his bias actually cause him to misquote and misinterpret some aspects of war.

Genuinely curious. Like?

[Blade]

Frank had a problem of letting his bias actually cause him to misquote and misinterpret some aspects of war. That caused his review to lose all credibility.

I wouldn't say that. I'd say there was an emphasis on bad parts with long rants about how bad they are, while good parts were dismissed with a simple "actually pretty good". There might be some things presented as "facts" but that are debatable (such as how useless and universally hated the short writeups really are), but I haven't seen any misquote.

It does make me feel like an angry and exultant person is shouting at me about how bad it is and how retarded the writers are. It isn't very effective with me (I dislike the tone so I try to dissociate myself from the review) but I guess it could be with other people.

[Omenowl]

Genuinely curious. Like?

The side note on nuclear weapons. Lot of people (frank was not alone in this) did not read the section as an example and rather took it as an absolute.

[Doc Chase]

Naturally there would be; War! was a piece that vindicated Frank's views on the company as a whole. I've read the review, and I've reviewed it myself - with varying degrees of success - and I've seen his salient points.

There is a nugget of truth in his review: There was an editing failure with this book. Despite his axe to grind, or anyone's axes to grind, this is an undisputable fact. Some of the nonsensicals that were in Frank's review are a direct result of that failure; such as some of the vehicle names and subsequent explanations as an example. I have a high hope that they were able to get at least some fixes in before the file got to the printer so those who chose to wait for a paper copy will get a higher quality product than those who purchased the .pdf (of which I do near-exclusively now). I hope the lack of a map was a layout failure and not simply a lack in general. I hope the errata team is hard at work and that said errata will be published (as Aaron has helpfully,er...helped me get a few suggested fixes to said team directly). I am saddened that the team is hard at work in a way as it means it's been cut out for them, but as long as the end result is a better product then I suppose I'll live with it.

[hermit]

The side note on nuclear weapons. Lot of people (frank was not alone in this) did not read the section as an example and rather took it as an absolute.

I disagree. It's not written like this. Everyone, see for yourself.

[ Spoiler ]

NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Nuclear weapons still exist in the Sixth World, even if their dependability has been questionable since the Awakening. Some postulate that the Earth’s manafi eld effects rapid nuclear reactions, while others believe that Gaia has some sort of cosmic veto power over nukes, but the fact remains: nuclear weapons have become unreliable. The gamemaster
is encouraged to decide for herself when and where nuclear weapons detonate as designed, with the general guideline that the smaller the nuke, the more reliable it is—and a reminder than even a small nuclear explosion can dramatically alter the landscape of a city or even a nation, so they should be used cautiously.
In the case of a nuclear detonation, the forces unleashed in a full-scale nuclear blast are beyond the scope of the rules of a role-playing game. Small “suitcase nukes” are more conceivable; in game terms, the Damage Code for the smallest feasible nuclear device would be over 130P, –6/m. Generally, though, a nuclear device is mainly a plot device;
simply choose the area devastated (a minimum of a 20m radius).
Use the following guidelines to determine the radiation effects of a nuclear blast. The area devastated will be an area of deadly radiation poisoning, with a concentric circle of equal radius beyond that is a severe radiation zone, another radius will have moderate radiation, and the radius beyond that will be an area of mild radiation poisoning (see Radiation, p. 167, Arsenal).

Bold part is mine. I see no indication this is a suggestion. There are different suggestions to the handling of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons above and below, but if this is intended to be an example, it omits to tell us so. Maybe you read what you want to read there? Maybe it was intended to be, but Aaron missed to tell us that, then. Reading it as a suggestion rather than a rather weird rule (which goes well with the equally absurd rules on kinetic weapons, btw) is entirely interpretation, the text does not support it.

[KarmaInferno]

It's the words "more conceivable" and "generally" that paint it to sound more like a suggestion to me, rather than a hard game rule.

But you're right in that the text really needs to separate talking about hard rules and fluff better.




-k

[sabs]

I read that section like this:

If you want nukes in your game.. we recommend using suitcase nukes.

If you want to do that.. You should make the damage code 130P -6m at a minimum, you could go way higher.

But really, it's a nuke, just make the area you want into rubble, and kill as many people as you like. it's a god damn nuke, do you really need rules for it's damage code? REALLLY?

I think that section is actually written perfectly fine.
And the part about "nukes aren't reliable" Is fine too.

Some wackjobs think it's the manafield, other wackjobs think it's the gaiasphere. Fuck if we know.. but the key is, many nukes fired since the awakening have malfunctioned, or not detonated as planned for a variety of reasons. So, if you're going to nuke something, keep that in mind.

[Aaron]

If you're looking for a more "realistic" nuclear device, you might try a "small" nuke of 10 tons (a la the discontinued Davy Crockett mortar or the W54). If you go by Arsenal, that's 400P, -2/m. If you want a "more realistic" Damage Code for that, based on blast studies, I'd recommend about 3800P. Call it -8/m for the blast.

A so-called suitcase nuke would be more likely to be a dirty bomb than an actual nuclear device. Arsenal already has rules for radioactive areas.

[hermit]

What damage does the largest aerosolic bomb do again?

[Adarael]

I think that section is actually written perfectly fine.
And the part about "nukes aren't reliable" Is fine too.

Not to mention that it is really, *really* easy to fuck up a nuke's ability to go critical-as-planned, either resulting in a smaller than expected blast, or a total fizzle. No lie, nukes are easy to disable - if I had 30 seconds and a hammer, I could disable any nuke in any country's arsenal (as long as it wasn't encased). You don't even need to know what you're doing - you just hit it repeatedly, and you'll probably break it.

Disclaimer: it will still explode and kill you. It just won't be a *nuclear* explosion.

[sabs]

A Tsar Bomba would be 50 Megaton.

So 1kg of TNT is a rating 4 explosive according to Arsenal

so the damage rating would be 4+hits x sqrt 50,000,000,000 = 4+hits x 223606 dv

Noone's soaking that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

A Tsar Bomba would be 50 Megaton.

So 1kg of TNT is a rating 4 explosive according to Arsenal

so the damage rating would be 4+hits x sqrt 50,000,000,000 = 4+hits x 223606 dv

Noone's soaking that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Which is why Nukes are a Plot Device, more than anything else... We do not need stats for such things... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[sabs]

Which is why Nukes are a Plot Device, more than anything else... We do not need stats for such things... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

We have stats for them.
TNT is Rating 4 for 1 kg.
A Ton is 1000kg, A Kiloton is 1 million kg, A Megaton is 1 billion kg.

But I totally agree with you (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[hermit]

You need to stat the hard radiation and the neutron wave too, though. Those are just as lethal as the shockwave itself.

[sabs]

You need to stat the hard radiation and the neutron wave too, though. Those are just as lethal as the shockwave itself.

No,
No you don't

And Arsenal has rules for Radiation already. You can use Google to do the radiation ranges for you.

[Seth]

Not to mention that it is really, *really* easy to fuck up a nuke's ability to go critical-as-planned, either resulting in a smaller than expected blast, or a total fizzle. No lie, nukes are easy to disable - if I had 30 seconds and a hammer, I could disable any nuke in any country's arsenal (as long as it wasn't encased). You don't even need to know what you're doing - you just hit it repeatedly, and you'll probably break it.

Agree...or you could drop a satchel of grenades next to it. Nukes are really hard to make work, and the smaller they are, the harder they are to make work correctly. So hit it with a hammer instead of cutting the red wire.

[hermit]

But if you drop a satchel of grenades sufficiently big, it deals the same damage as the nuke!

No,
No you don't

And Arsenal has rules for Radiation already. You can use Google to do the radiation ranges for you.

Not on hard radiation. I'd use the Radioactive Wave spell as a basis there.

[sabs]

But if you drop a satchel of grenades sufficiently big, it deals the same damage as the nuke!


Not on hard radiation. I'd use the Radioactive Wave spell as a basis there.

a troll max augmented can't carry a satchel of grenades that big ;L)

and they have rule for DEADLY, Intense, and lower radiation.

You can fudge something fairly close.
Really, it's good enough and I'd rather do that.. and not make other specific rules for something that should be in plot device land.

[hermit]

I personally wouldn't need rules at all. Maybe something loose with death zones, and varouls levels of autodamage that allows for no resistance.

[Tzeentch]

A Tsar Bomba would be 50 Megaton.

So 1kg of TNT is a rating 4 explosive according to Arsenal

so the damage rating would be 4+hits x sqrt 50,000,000,000 = 4+hits x 223606 dv

Noone's soaking that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

-- The nuke rules are silly weak at the low end, and at this kind of scale they are ridiculously over the top. Consider that even with -6/m damage drop-off, with 7 hits and the above you get about 1,575,000P (rounded) damage. That's basically "vaporized" in Shadowrun damage terms for over a 160 mile radius (and then at the edges it peters to a light wind within the space of about 10 meters). The broken damage scaling in 4e leads to some rather bizarre situations, and should probably be glossed over in actual gaming unless people want to know why mininukes won't scratch the paint beyond about 30 meters and their big nukes glass massive swaths of countryside. Don't get me wrong, nukes are damaging, but not like how they are currently modeled in Shadowrun. The mininuke fix of stepping up their damage drop-off to be the same as for the THOR shots just means the big nukes get even more crazysauce.

-- From the authors perspective they could have not mentioned nukes except in vague terms, but then the complaint would be "But they gave a damage code to THOR shots!" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I have some sympathy on the tightrope that had to be walked here, especially given the inadequacy of the rules.

[Omenowl]

In the case of a nuclear detonation, the forces
unleashed in a full-scale nuclear blast are beyond
the scope of the rules of a role-playing game. Small
“suitcase nukes” are more conceivable; in game
terms, the Damage Code for the smallest feasible
nuclear device would be over 130P, –6/m. Generally,
though, a nuclear device is mainly a plot device;
simply choose the area devastated (a minimum of
a 20m radius).
Use the following guidelines to determine the
radiation effects of a nuclear blast. The area devastated
will be an area of deadly radiation poisoning,
with a concentric circle of equal radius beyond that
is a severe radiation zone, another radius will have
moderate radiation, and the radius beyond that will
be an area of mild radiation poisoning (see Radiation,
p. 167, Arsenal).

First it was a sidebar to GMs on how to generally deal with Nukes in game. Note it gives generalities about Nukes with minimums and even then it is up to GM fiat. I consider that a guideline rather than a definitive rule. Kind of hard to argue even in the strictest terms that a suitcase nuke will do X damage when it gives no less than 130P (it could be much greater) and no less than 20m (again could be much greater).

[hermit]

I consider that a guideline rather than a definitive rule.

Good for you. It can be interpreted differently though.

I have some sympathy on the tightrope that had to be walked here, especially given the inadequacy of the rules.

That the SR4 system breaks down hard with anything above punks in the gutters with guns level has been known sicne Arsenal. There are possible fixes to this, like a differnet dmage scale for massive and mega damage - scaling things back like SR3 and SR2 did with Big Stuff. Bit instead they just ran with it and wrote up bizarre rules. So no, they wrote that tightrope themselves.

[Saint Sithney]

I'm pretty sure CGL got this message already regarding the general quality of the release.

Almost a month ago, in fact.
Multiple writers have commented that there's a lot of internal flak about this release, and Big Daddy Bills has even acknowledged that mistakes were made.

But sloppiness isn't what upsets me.
If this was just about a PDF that costs less than my underware, it would be an excessive outpouring. For me though, it's not about War as a product, but War as a promise.
I'm upset that the setting is being constantly retconned so that things aren't as bad and cultures never clash . If the ideas in War are what we're left to replace that with, then this setting is ruined.

It's like they're saying, "Well, we'll just get rid of the conflicts between ideologies that form the basis of cyberpunk, because they make some people uncomfortable. Really, who needs to look at the idea of a future where technology has made humanity obsolete and the disenfranchised masses are left helpless but to cling to cultural identity just to stay afloat and try and justify their existence. That's not relevant or interesting. But you know what is? KILLER TREES."

It's not a bad book that I find unacceptable. What I find unacceptable is that this bad book is representative of what's being offered in return for what's being taken away. Is the face of post-cyberpunk really epileptic trees?


Okay, now you can go back to arguing about the rules some more.

[hermit]

Big Daddy Bills has even acknowledged that mistakes were made.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/proof.gif)
Reading that for the first time there. A link would be appreciated.

It's like they're saying, "Well, we'll just get rid of the conflicts between ideologies that form the basis of cyberpunk, because they make some people uncomfortable.

Yeah, and from there, they go to kill Jews and Roma. Because the way to be less offensive by scrapping a fictional conflict between fictional ideologies is of course, antisemitism, antiziganism and generally everything that made the Nazis as popular as they are.

But you know what is? KILLER TREES."

That's just the retarded idea to put these things somewhere. The entire writing process at CGL seems to be like writing a bad fanfic. Make up some sues ("interesting characters"), then toss in some kewl, edgy and wyld stuffz (Aztlan, Nazis, Nazi magic, killer trees, genocide) and let it write itself. It doesn't work for the umpteenth Sailor Moon X Naruto fanfic, and it won't work here as well.

[Draco18s]

It doesn't work for the umpteenth Sailor Moon X Naruto fanfic, and it won't work here as well.

Hey, that fanfic had an awesome sex scene, be honest. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)