RE: (TFT) RE: Armor of proof

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

Hi All,
	My comments bracketed thus ***   ****

Hi Rick,

> 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.

Are you saying that you should roll 2 dice, subtract 3, then triple the
result? If so, this is an interesting solution. Did you use a multiple so
that damage would be wildly variable?

	***   Yes, exactly.  ***

If so, you could take it further by rolling 1d-1 and multiplying by 4 (or
somesuch).

Or did you mean something else?

> 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!)

I am concerned with concluding that armor would provide significant
protection from muskets unless we can pin down the ranges that the tests
were made. (Actual primary source combat accounts would be even better). The
reason is that I would expect the velocity of a spherical projectile to
attenuate much quicker than a conical projectile. Thus, penetration and
damage should be much higher at point blank range than at say 150 yards.

	***   I agree that damage / penitration
should drop quickly as range increases in real
life.  But do we need that complexity for TFT? ***
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"