In TNE, you take blunt trauma damage of 1 pt per D of damage if the shot does not penetrate the armor. But even still hard suits like battle dress should be kind of "all or nothing". But then you get in to issues of spalling and such, which probably isn't worth the complexity.
New Combat rules proposal
- Thread starter Blue Ghost
- Start date
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
If you can't get through the armor, go for the joints.
Grappling a medieval knight encased in full plate armor to put them into joint locks is effective even if you cannot penetrate the armor. Joints are still vulnerable to damage from leverage, even when the limbs are armored.
Grappling a medieval knight encased in full plate armor to put them into joint locks is effective even if you cannot penetrate the armor. Joints are still vulnerable to damage from leverage, even when the limbs are armored.
Well, it sounds like the combat rules were improved upon in TNE and T4. So, maybe I've started an empty thread.
Well, there's "accuracy" and "playability".
Many folks criticize the TNE system on playability. I can't speak to T4.
Personally I'm a CT guy. As the OTU has evolved I still find myself gravitating towards CT. Even when MT came about and I bough the books I still saw the OTU and Rebellion as "optional".
CT combat is good for what it does, and the game as it stood then was more of a guideline and framework. But things like the "first blood" rule or the personal armor value being factored into the combat matrix has always seemed to be a framework like the rest of the basic books.
I guess I just don't see a work around here, and maybe CT combat has seen its day. The only solution I can really viably come up with is to create a chart of energy values for personal weapons, and then list "resistance" or "resilience values" for various armor types.
I think for those people like me who prefer the old basic "proto" version of the game that this would work well. It means that you could list real world weapon energy and armor values on a chart, and then extrapolate "future" weapons; Gauss weapons, basic energy and high energy weapons on a different chart, and then compare the two when it comes to scoring hits. Or just write down the energy value of your personal weapons on your character sheet, and the Referee will have the armor values hidden on his NPCs' char-sheets. Such that if you and your party see an armed gang and engage in combat you won't know if your weapons will be effective or not. To me that seems to be the best solution.
This way you can take out the DMs for armor in the combat matrix, and just let the to hit roll be purely based on environment and range, and not have to speculate what kind of modifier some armor will have against various weapons.
I'm not big on other aspects of the game, but this one thing has sorta-kinda stuck in my claw since 1980. I can't tell you how many times I had complaints ... "How come my combat armor doesn't protect me against that kid throwing rocks at me?!" Strict rules' interpretation means that boy throwing rocks should score damage, but the book says to wing it and house rule stuff that doesn't suit your session nor seem right. But, I'd prefer something a bit more concrete, hence this thread.
I guess maybe I'm all exhausted from this thread. I don't play anymore, this thing is just a hobby, but this is the one thing for which I can't find a solution. Oh well.
CT combat is good for what it does, and the game as it stood then was more of a guideline and framework. But things like the "first blood" rule or the personal armor value being factored into the combat matrix has always seemed to be a framework like the rest of the basic books.
I guess I just don't see a work around here, and maybe CT combat has seen its day. The only solution I can really viably come up with is to create a chart of energy values for personal weapons, and then list "resistance" or "resilience values" for various armor types.
I think for those people like me who prefer the old basic "proto" version of the game that this would work well. It means that you could list real world weapon energy and armor values on a chart, and then extrapolate "future" weapons; Gauss weapons, basic energy and high energy weapons on a different chart, and then compare the two when it comes to scoring hits. Or just write down the energy value of your personal weapons on your character sheet, and the Referee will have the armor values hidden on his NPCs' char-sheets. Such that if you and your party see an armed gang and engage in combat you won't know if your weapons will be effective or not. To me that seems to be the best solution.
This way you can take out the DMs for armor in the combat matrix, and just let the to hit roll be purely based on environment and range, and not have to speculate what kind of modifier some armor will have against various weapons.
I'm not big on other aspects of the game, but this one thing has sorta-kinda stuck in my claw since 1980. I can't tell you how many times I had complaints ... "How come my combat armor doesn't protect me against that kid throwing rocks at me?!" Strict rules' interpretation means that boy throwing rocks should score damage, but the book says to wing it and house rule stuff that doesn't suit your session nor seem right. But, I'd prefer something a bit more concrete, hence this thread.
I guess maybe I'm all exhausted from this thread. I don't play anymore, this thing is just a hobby, but this is the one thing for which I can't find a solution. Oh well.
HanleyTucks
SOC-11
This is far more of a problem than any combat system. We must correct this.
This is what AHL did. That's why it's roll to hit, and roll to penetrate. Weapons have a penetration rating as a +DM to the damage table, armors are a -DM to the damage table. This is why a Body Pistol (+DM of 1) does poorly against Battle Dress (-DM of 10).
Since AHL is meant to be a bit more abstract, that's as far as it goes.
TNE adds detail in that rather than affecting a none/light/serious/dead result, armor reduces the amount of damage done, and this varies by the weapon and the round they fire. So, it's more detailed. It also has hit locations.
Thanks bro, but I'm not really into it anymore. I came back to the forum to get the last of my idears out there for all to chew on. I may do something on GRIP or Skype, but I need to get home first.
I bought AHL but used basic and Snapshot combat because I didn't want to learn yet another system (our groups were already involved in like six different games, each having multiple combat facets). I still have the AHL supp that came with the boxed game, but I can't recall where I put it. I may just check out a PDF on Drivethru. But what you're telling me is that someone already came up with a solution waaaay back in the 80s ... funny how none of the other Traveller players I knew (but did not game with) mentioned it. Oh well. Another thread created for naught.
Still, it was fun discussing ideas.
T4 is between TNE and MT in terms of playability; it kept the crunchy design system that needed people to cross check each other to get legal ship/vehicle/weapon designs from TNE, but the character scale side is much closer to CT, and it's got the nD6 <= Stat+Skill that is carried on into T5.
I've seen two camps of T4 users dominant over the years: those who ignore FF&S2, use the far less optimized QSDS or port ships from CT/MT/T20, and the ones who embrace the complexity, often adding in options galore from expansions and using the "definitive sensor rules"... there's a spectrum between those two, but it lends itself as a ruleset to those positions. Camp 3 is "Used it, didn't like it, went back/on to another edition"
This may be selection bias in action. The core, by itself, is a very playable edition. It's only when you start adding the splats that it becomes overtaken with complexity.
Also note: QSDS (Quick Ship Design System) is built from FF&S1 (as FF&S2 was in development), and has numerous errors as included; it works just fine if you don't want FF&S1 or FF&S2 true compatibility. QSDS2 is QSDS but FF&S2 compliant.
SSDS (Simple Ship Design System) is more complex than QSDS, but isn't full up FF&S2; it's comparable to the Brilliant Lances Technical Book (which is a subset/preview of FF&S1...)I don't know why I like dice by difficulty vs Att for fantasy & supers, but dislike it for Sci-Fi and Space Opera... but I'll note also that the numbers in T4/T5 are particularly bad for my opinions of Att value vs skill value. And T4 was the point I really realized it.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Sometimes you have to make a mistake in order to learn more than you would have from the "correct" answer ... and that fuller understanding can be a very useful thing/experience to have, because it informs you on what NOT to do (and why!) in addition to what TO do in order to get it right.
People who only know "the right answers" for everything are missing vast bulk of experience and perspective on "what makes stuff work" the way it does (and why it is done "that way" rather than some other way).
