I'm okay with explosions hurting passengers, especially because they get the armor bonus.
For autofire… Well, you hit everyone in the car, but they all get bonus armor. *shrug* It is a little odd. I'm fine with a rule that says 'see if the vehicle's armor is even beaten first'.
My original question was just making sure that the passengers didn't suddenly *stop* getting that bonus armor for any reason.
Full Version: Area Damage: Avoidable, or Only Soakable?
QUOTE (Dr Funfrock @ Apr 25 2010, 10:58 PM) 
See:
Isn't tossing a grenade on the ground by someone's feet (a Success Test) easier than trying to hit them directly with a grenade (an Opposed Test)? Does everyone caught in the blast get a chance to dodge/react?
Yes. The reason it's easier to aim for a location is because it doesn't move. If the intent is to catch a mobile target in the blast radius, then it should be an Opposed Test, whether the grenade is actually thrown at the target or thrown a few meters away. Anyone in the blast radius has until the next IP to get out of the way.
Isn't tossing a grenade on the ground by someone's feet (a Success Test) easier than trying to hit them directly with a grenade (an Opposed Test)? Does everyone caught in the blast get a chance to dodge/react?
Yes. The reason it's easier to aim for a location is because it doesn't move. If the intent is to catch a mobile target in the blast radius, then it should be an Opposed Test, whether the grenade is actually thrown at the target or thrown a few meters away. Anyone in the blast radius has until the next IP to get out of the way.
By "Next IP", that means your next IP, or their next IP?
If it's how it seems, the person who has the lowest initiative should always have grenades, as, if they are last in terms of initiative, the grenade will go off immediately at the next IP (Which is next, if their initiative is lowest)
Am I reading it wrong? This seems really bizarre. Can anyone clear it up with a combat example?
Personally I'd treat damage that bypasses the vehicle's armor (stun OR physical) as direct damage (of the amount after vehicle armor) to the passengers. This way all passengers get the same benefit from the vehicle's armor and body* and then treat the incoming damage normally (i.e. if the vehicle takes 5P after rolling, the players resist 5P subject to armor, eg. vs. 8 armor + 4 body and get 3 hits -> 2S to their track. If it's 5S instead, the vehicle takes no damage, but the passengers are shaken up and again resist).
*Vehicles have "crumple zones" and take damage^ so that the passengers don't have to. That's the whole point.
^Bumpers used to be one of these. Bumpers were cheap and easy to replace, so a "fender bender" was the bumper doing it's job: protecting the car from real damage. $30 would replace it. Now (by which I mean 1990) "bumpers" are structurally integrated into the body of the car, such that replacing it requires taking off a third of the car's external shell (and costs several hundred dollars) and does almost nothing in the way of preventing damage. They're almost purely cosmetic.
*Vehicles have "crumple zones" and take damage^ so that the passengers don't have to. That's the whole point.
^Bumpers used to be one of these. Bumpers were cheap and easy to replace, so a "fender bender" was the bumper doing it's job: protecting the car from real damage. $30 would replace it. Now (by which I mean 1990) "bumpers" are structurally integrated into the body of the car, such that replacing it requires taking off a third of the car's external shell (and costs several hundred dollars) and does almost nothing in the way of preventing damage. They're almost purely cosmetic.
Hmm. Can someone just critique my example here? I haven't used vehicles much in SR4.
HMG FA narrow against Hotspur (Bod 18, Armor 10):
7P/-3, (let's say 2 net hits), so that's 9P/-3 for armor (Physical and penetrates armor), and a total of 18P versus (28-3)=25 Resistance, right?
So, in standard rules that's 18P - (let's say 8 resisted?)= 10 boxes (crap), and each passenger takes 18P and resists with Reaction (-2), and then say, 4 Body + 8 armor + 10 vehicle armor (say, 7 resisted) = 11 boxes. So, everyone's dead and the truck's half-mangled (10/17 boxes), for 10 bullets?
In Draco18s's method, it'd be 12 boxes against the truck, and (12-3)=9 boxes against the passengers? Maybe I should use a lighter MG.
Perhaps if a 'full-auto' attack works on vehicle *and* all passengers, it should be at least a nice 20-round suppression instead.
HMG FA narrow against Hotspur (Bod 18, Armor 10):
7P/-3, (let's say 2 net hits), so that's 9P/-3 for armor (Physical and penetrates armor), and a total of 18P versus (28-3)=25 Resistance, right?
So, in standard rules that's 18P - (let's say 8 resisted?)= 10 boxes (crap), and each passenger takes 18P and resists with Reaction (-2), and then say, 4 Body + 8 armor + 10 vehicle armor (say, 7 resisted) = 11 boxes. So, everyone's dead and the truck's half-mangled (10/17 boxes), for 10 bullets?
In Draco18s's method, it'd be 12 boxes against the truck, and (12-3)=9 boxes against the passengers? Maybe I should use a lighter MG.
Perhaps if a 'full-auto' attack works on vehicle *and* all passengers, it should be at least a nice 20-round suppression instead.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jun 14 2010, 07:30 PM)
Hmm. Can someone just critique my example here? I haven't used vehicles much in SR4.
HMG FA narrow against Hotspur (Bod 18, Armor 10):
7P/-3, (let's say 2 net hits), so that's 9P/-3 for armor (Physical and penetrates armor), and a total of 18P versus (28-3)=25 Resistance, right?
So, in standard rules that's 18P - (let's say 8 resisted?)= 10 boxes (crap), and each passenger takes 18P and resists with Reaction (-2), and then say, 4 Body + 8 armor + 10 vehicle armor (say, 7 resisted) = 11 boxes. So, everyone's dead and the truck's half-mangled (10/17 boxes), for 10 bullets?
In Draco18s's method, it'd be 12 boxes against the truck, and (12-3)=9 boxes against the passengers? Maybe I should use a lighter MG.
Perhaps if a 'full-auto' attack works on vehicle *and* all passengers, it should be at least a nice 20-round suppression instead.
HMG FA narrow against Hotspur (Bod 18, Armor 10):
7P/-3, (let's say 2 net hits), so that's 9P/-3 for armor (Physical and penetrates armor), and a total of 18P versus (28-3)=25 Resistance, right?
So, in standard rules that's 18P - (let's say 8 resisted?)= 10 boxes (crap), and each passenger takes 18P and resists with Reaction (-2), and then say, 4 Body + 8 armor + 10 vehicle armor (say, 7 resisted) = 11 boxes. So, everyone's dead and the truck's half-mangled (10/17 boxes), for 10 bullets?
In Draco18s's method, it'd be 12 boxes against the truck, and (12-3)=9 boxes against the passengers? Maybe I should use a lighter MG.
Perhaps if a 'full-auto' attack works on vehicle *and* all passengers, it should be at least a nice 20-round suppression instead.
Yup that is how the rules work, or fail horribly at being a working system IMO.
I mean, a cross-country racing truck certainly should have no chance against a *heavy* machine gun, and that sucker did use a lot of RC, but it's just a little wild that it only takes 10 rounds to do it.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jun 14 2010, 07:30 PM)
In Draco18s's method, it'd be 12 boxes against the truck, and (12-3)=9 boxes against the passengers? Maybe I should use a lighter MG.
12? I didn't change the way vehicles took damage, the same hits on the attacks would still lead to the truck taking 10 (then 7 to the people inside). The passengers would not be happy, but they'd be alive.
Sorry, I edited the numbers a couple times (3 dice > 1 hit instead of 4:1) and missed that. It should be the same as the standard. The point is the same, though.
The point is the same, though.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jun 14 2010, 08:10 PM)
Sorry, I edited the numbers a couple times (3 dice > 1 hit instead of 4:1) and missed that. It should be the same as the standard. The point is the same, though.
The point is the same, though.Yes. Not-dead passengers
Er, no. The point is that your method differs from the RAW by effectively giving passengers the full benefit of the vehicle's Armor *and* Body. I just wanted to see what it would look like in numbers (how much less).
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jun 14 2010, 10:01 PM)
Er, no. The point is that your method differs from the RAW by effectively giving passengers the full benefit of the vehicle's Armor *and* Body. I just wanted to see what it would look like in numbers (how much less).
Oh, yes, of course. It does, on average, give them more hits, but it would be more reasonable (a vehicle that is not fully damaged is still "drivable," so any vehicle that is damaged as such should still maintain living occupants, to some degree).
It bears some playtesting, I think. In the example of the Hotspur, I didn't factor in the extra 3 Personal Armor (I think?), but now we're stacking Vehicle Body, Vehicle Armor, Personal Armor upgrade, PC Body, PC Armor, not to mention PC Reaction, Dodge, etc. It may be *too* much.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.