(TFT) RE: Armor of proof

["rsmith" <rsmith@lightspeed.ca>]

Hi Everyone,
	I've been away for a few days so I have not
been saying much but I've finished reading all of
the gun posts, and wish to throw my 2 cents
(1.66 cents American) into the fray.

	10 years ago, I would be all for penetration
rules of various sorts.  However, I've swung round
to 'simpler is better'.  Note: I am not afraid to
change the game, (see my posts on long bows and
crossbows) I just would prefer that any changes are
data driven, rather than putting in new rules and
especially new phases to calculations.

	If people decide that penetration rules are
needed, I would prefer something simple, -3 penetration
does not bug me to much.  However I do not really
feel that this is needed.

	All weapons that do damage with deep penetration
can blast thru people missing anything important (it
is just a flesh wound!), or penetrate a relatively
short distance and hit something vital.

	How about mid technology pistols do something
like (2d-3) * 2 with armor protecting normally?  Higher
tech or bigger weapons could do things like (2d-3)*3
etc.

	(There are already weapons in TFT which do
double damage before armor and I've used this system
for my Giant Weapons on Ty's web site.  Thus I'm not
adding new rule systems to the game.)


	There is an additional reason I like the system
above.  I run a mature campaign with many well
developed characters who have had years of real time
to build up expensive sets of armor and magic.  They
can stop normal damage quite easily.
	However (2d-3)*3 will make them stop and take
note, even tho that normally their armor and magic
will stop it.



	From my readings (admittedly less detailed than
the experts that have already posted) plate continued
to give protection against guns for quite a while
(well into the 17th century if I remember).  However
gradually the weight needed just became too much for
people to haul around.  The introduction of horse
artillery was the final death blow since big formations
of infantry were helpless before it and infantry had to
disperse and become more mobile.

	I had heard of 'Armor of Proof' but I did not
realize that the proof mark was the mark the slug
left on the armor's finish.  (That is actually
pretty cool!)


	Basically my feeling is that the TFT death and
dying rules are so unrealistic, I don't feel that we
should weld a bunch of complicated or slow rules to
the system even if those rules are realistic.  Keep
the rules lightweight and fast, even if they are
fairly unrealistic.


	Regards, Rick



-----Original Message-----
From: tft-owner@brainiac.com [mailto:tft-owner@brainiac.com]On Behalf Of
Ty Beard
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 6:03 AM
To: tft@brainiac.com
Subject: RE: Armor of proof


> I'm sorry Mr. Beard, as I have much respect for you
> and your writings on TFT, but you are dead wrong on
> this one. "Armor of Proof", which consisted of a back
> and breast plate, were common for soldiers in the
> English Civil War. There were two types, Pistol proof,
> and Musket proof, the difference being the weapon it
> was tested by. The test consisted of a double-charged
> pistol or musket (by double-charge meaning twice the
> normal charge of gunpowder, making the bullet fly much
> faster than normal), discharged at the armor, at about
> 10 paces. The armor, to be sold, had to sucessfully
> stop the bullet, and it was mandatory that the
> proofmark, the dent from the stopped bullet, be
> readily apparent. Armor of proof is little different
> from medieval plate, and indeed, not as thick as some
> of it, so if the metal is of about the same toughness
> (something you have to decide in your own campaign), I
> see little reason that full plate, especially fine
> plate, could not stop a bullet from a pistol or
> arquebuss easily.

Well, it woudn't be the first time!

Can you point me to some sources where I may verify this? If you are correct
that typical plate armor was proof against double charged muskets and
pistols at point blank range, then obviously my concern about armor
protection is misplaced. At least for firearms through about 1700.

Of course, this might raise an issue that historical accounts might be able
to resolve -- is penetration of the armor necessary to kill the target?

--Ty
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"