Ramming a stopped vehicle? Options

[Yerameyahu]

Nope. Crashing and ramming are clearly the *same* thing, which was my position many posts ago. Like I said at the beginning, I'm not playing strict-constructionist games, though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) If one were, I think Dakka Dakka's point is fine: 'it' takes damage as if it had rammed itself, not 'the whole system is a ram'. But whatever. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

For crashing and ramming, there are standard restraints that impede-yet-protect the normal passengers. This is obvious, regardless of bad rules writing. Without those, though, they take damage. Like falling, this damage is all half-Impact for passengers. Whether or not vehicle armor should be added is unclear, but there's no great reason for it to be; vehicle armor helps against bullets and things, not falling around inside.

The writing mess is probably due to writers who disagreed, I guess? It certainly matters whether or not runners' cars have airbags turned on, tactically.

[snowRaven]

Nope. Crashing and ramming are clearly the *same* thing, which was my position many posts ago. Like I said at the beginning, I'm not playing strict-constructionist games, though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) If one were, I think Dakka Dakka's point is fine: 'it' takes damage as if it had rammed itself, not 'the whole system is a ram'. But whatever. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

For crashing and ramming, there are standard restraints that impede-yet-protect the normal passengers. This is obvious, regardless of bad rules writing. Without those, though, they take damage. Like falling, this damage is all half-Impact for passengers. Whether or not vehicle armor should be added is unclear, but there's no great reason for it to be; vehicle armor helps against bullets and things, not falling around inside.

The writing mess is probably due to writers who disagreed, I guess? It certainly matters whether or not runners' cars have airbags turned on, tactically.

Ah, so we actually have the same stand-point! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Thing is, no matter how well you secure people, they may be injured in a crash, if it's severe enough.

I'd say vehicle armor should apply, because the sturdier the vehicle is the greater the chance that no part of it is pushed into you etc. On the other hand, if you are unsecured and without airbags, you'll be hitting the inside of the vehicle at more or less the same relative speed that the crash occured at (depending on angle etc).

That's why I think the SR4 statement of 'passengers take same damage but adds vehicle armor' works for secured people, and Arsenals 'take same damage but resists with body+half impact only' works well for unsecured people. I'd add any 'personal armor' mod to the secured crash as well.

The only thing that suggests that crashes cause no damage to passengers is the line in Arsenal referring to a rule in SR4 that doesn't exist...author oversight, most likely. If you go by that rule, you can be inside a jet plane that crashes into a mountain side without needing to make a damage resistance test... (unless the jet explodes, that is).

[Draco18s]

That's all the realm of GM fiat. He's the one who decides how anything crashes, really (it could have been a wall, instead). Presumably, 'terrain' (here, the motorcyle… but probably several things behind it, too) also takes appropriate damage. You could theoretically use Barrier rules, as well; but ultimately, none of that is prescribed in the rules (especially the ball of fire).

Really, it makes perfect sense in general: crashing is ramming terrain, airbags always protect passengers unless they're off, ta da. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The "ball of fire" was in reference to the fact the larger a vehicle is, the more likely it is that it'll fill it's damage track fully by "ramming itself."

If you want to get even sillier, take a semi and a motorcycle and have them hit each other head-on. Assuming relative speed, of course.

Depending on which of the two is considered to be "doing the ramming" you end up with vastly different results.

If the semi rams the cycle, the cycle is obliterated (and the semi is out for repairs, as it did half of its own body in damage).

If the cycle rams the semi, the cycle takes a few scratches and otherwise bounces off (truck is undamaged, cycle's body in damage is vastly lower than the truck's resistance dice pool).

[Yerameyahu]

Draco18s, I agree that the basic ramming rules are silly, and we talked about that toward the beginning of the thread (I think the damages are all messed up in the first place). However, leaving damage issues aside, I think the *crash* rules are pretty logical, if we're talking about crashing into 'terrain'. It's that crashing that I'm talking about, not a head-on collision; I would say the rules should separately model that as 'co-ramming', hehe.

The issue is presumably that 'a crash' assumes an immobile, arbitrarily-strong object (e.g., a big solid wall). This assumption is obviously an oversimplification, but perhaps a forgivable one in many cases? Yes, we've all heard of the 'crash into a sheet of paper' problem, but the options are either to have a fully-developed physics/barriers mechanic… or just let the GM wing it. (I choose #2, I'm too lazy.) So, given the assumption, 'ramming itself' makes perfect sense.

[snowRaven]

Depending on which of the two is considered to be "doing the ramming" you end up with vastly different results.

If the semi rams the cycle, the cycle is obliterated (and the semi is out for repairs, as it did half of its own body in damage).

If the cycle rams the semi, the cycle takes a few scratches and otherwise bounces off (truck is undamaged, cycle's body in damage is vastly lower than the truck's resistance dice pool).

True...BUT - if you are actively ramming something, you are probably trying to minimize damage to your own vehicle.

So, the semi ramming a bike would just plow over it, but if you're on a bike trying to 'ram' a semi (stupid as that may be...) you'll likely try and hit a front wheel to force the semi off the road (You're not hoping to crush it with damage, but to have the driver of the semi fail his resulting crash test).

So the discrepancy in the rules are actually somewhat logical, leading to the results you depicted.

If, on the other hand, they are just crashing into each other without ramming, they'd each take damage as if they'd rammed themselves...which will result in the semi being more damaged than the bike, most likely.

By RAW, bike (Growler) takes 12 boxes of damage, rolls 12 in resistance; semi takes 36 boxes and rolls 26 for defense...buying successes leaves the bike with 9 of 11 boxes in damage; semi gets 29 of 17 boxes.

Of course, in a situation like this where the bike offers virtually no resistance for the oncoming truck, I'd say it's logical to either give the semi that 'half damage' rule as if it had rammed the bike, or judge damage based on the smaller of the colliding vehicles - resulting in 11 or 5 respectively. Or just treat it as if they had rammed each other, giving the truck 5 and the bike 32 boxes of damage. SPLAT! makes sense (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Of course, by the line in Arsenal, the motorcycle driver walks away from his destroyed bike without a scratch (as long as the semi wasn't intentionally ramming him - then he's dead...)

[Yerameyahu]

I'm happiest with the 'co-ramming' solution. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Bike takes tons, semi takes less.

That's just the magic of advanced full-body airbags, duh. And ramming=crashing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Draco18s]

However, leaving damage issues aside, I think the *crash* rules are pretty logical, if we're talking about crashing into 'terrain'.

The issue is presumably that 'a crash' assumes an immobile, arbitrarily-strong object (e.g., a big solid wall). This assumption is obviously an oversimplification, but perhaps a forgivable one in many cases?

It isn't really forgivable, if you start looking at it. It's entirely possible to "crash" and not hit anything that's "arbitrarily strong."

In fact, I've done it.
(Which is once more than I'd have liked).

My truck lost traction going around a bend to the left, I crossed over the lane of oncoming traffic, up onto an embankment, missed two trees, a iron-pip mailbox, back across the oncoming lane of traffic, and regained control in my own lane.

Sum total of damages: seriously whacked front-end alignment (i.e. not serious or permanent) and the jitters (I pulled over almost immediate and twitched for 5 minutes).

[Yerameyahu]

I'm suggesting that the mechanic didn't care to model such a case. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

I'm suggesting that the mechanic didn't care to model such a case. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The rules mechanic yes. Apparently not.
(As opposed to Wes, who is awesome, and fixed my truck. ;p )

[snowRaven]

I'm happiest with the 'co-ramming' solution. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Bike takes tons, semi takes less.

That's just the magic of advanced full-body airbags, duh. And ramming=crashing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

As am I =)

It isn't really forgivable, if you start looking at it. It's entirely possible to "crash" and not hit anything that's "arbitrarily strong."

In fact, I've done it.
(Which is once more than I'd have liked).

My truck lost traction going around a bend to the left, I crossed over the lane of oncoming traffic, up onto an embankment, missed two trees, a iron-pip mailbox, back across the oncoming lane of traffic, and regained control in my own lane.

Sum total of damages: seriously whacked front-end alignment (i.e. not serious or permanent) and the jitters (I pulled over almost immediate and twitched for 5 minutes).

I'd say you made a pretty good job of the crash test, perhaps a success with a glitch, missing all those trees and stuff and ending up in your own lane with only minor damage. That, or maybe excellent use of Edge on the vehicle damage resistance test...perhaps even burning a point and forcing the GM to come up with a good explanation for how both you and the car survived. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Draco18s]

I'd say you made a pretty good job of the crash test, perhaps a success with a glitch, missing all those trees and stuff and ending up in your own lane with only minor damage. That, or maybe excellent use of Edge on the vehicle damage resistance test...perhaps even burning a point and forcing the GM to come up with a good explanation for how both you and the car survived. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Oh I'm sorry.

I meant in real life.

[Yerameyahu]

Agreed, snowRaven. The game is not like real life.

[snowRaven]

Oh I'm sorry.

I meant in real life.

Oh, I know =)

I was just translating your real-life experience to game terms, to show that the rules can simulate such an occurence (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)