Re: (TFT) RE: Armor of proof

["Ty Beard" <tbeard@tyler.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "rsmith" <rsmith@lightspeed.ca>
To: <tft@brainiac.com>


> 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? ***

No, because TFT fights happen at very close ranges -- typically 20- hexes
(~27 meters). Damage attenuation should not be very significant at those
ranges IMHO.

--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"