Re: (TFT) Doing damasge modernly

["Charles Gadda" <cgadda@earthlink.net>]

Part of the problem is that we are dealing with an overly simplified rules
structure. What is missing is a simple "penetration" type factor that allows
one to measure relative effectiveness vs. armour, as opposed to just trauma.
Note that this should apply to mediaeval type weapons as well: a sword is
less effective against mail than a warhammer or pole axe. Against plate
realistically nothing works well, though a pole axe would probably get the
other guy's attention (as an aside I disagree with the notion that using a
pole arm was nothing more than a vigourous workout; in the real world you
seldom carry things into battle that aren't effective. In any case, I'll
believe it when someone is willing to put their money where their mouth is
and don a suit of accurate plate and let someone swing at them full bore
with a sharpened and functional pole axe. No takers? I'm hardly
surprised...)

Note that the penetration type rule already exists in TFT - look at the
Giant Spider and Giant Scorpion descriptions. Combine this with Rick's
excellent suggestion made just a bit ago on using a lot of dice with high
minuses and you have a good basis for modeling both ancient and modern arms.

Also have to consider that a sword stroke is, on a blow per blow (or round)
basis far more devestating than most bullets. I can cut a person ***in
half*** with a decent sword, and it does not require herculean effort to do
so. A 9x19mm round, on the other hand, unless it breaks a bone, pokes an
artery or vital organ/CNS, is not likely to be immediately dehibilitating.

Regarding bullets, tissue damage goes with cross sectional momentum, while
actual penetration goes with cross sectional kinetic energy. So a big heavy
slow bullet is effective against tissue, but not very good against armour. A
small fast light round is better against armour but lacks stopping power. Of
course, bullet construction is important too. A soft lead round is useless
against any decent hard armour, while an AP round can make even an anemic
cartridge a decent penetrator.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <ErolB1@aol.com>
To: <tft@brainiac.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: (TFT) Doing damasge modernly


> In a message dated 12/1/2004 9:54:32 AM Central Standard Time,
> eac42@columbia.edu writes:
>
> > I'm not sure why modern weapons would need such high damage
> > numbers.  Unless it's explosive, a round is not going to do more damage
> > than, say, a battleaxe.
>
> It really does depend on whether it's a pistol round or a rifle round. A
> .30-06 is going to have approximately three to four times as much velocity
&
> momentum as a typical pistol round, and 10-20 times as much kinetic
energy. That's
> going to pump up it's damage.
>
> > When I was doing modern TFT in connection with a
> > superhero campaign (if I can find the notes, I'll post them, this was
many
> > years and 5 moves ago) IIRC a .45 did 2d6+1.
>
> This sounds like reasonable damage for a .45 ACP to me, but a .45-70
should
> do at least twice as much, if not three or four times as much damage. It's
that
> difference between pistol & rifle, between something intended to stop a
man
> (St 10) vs something intended to stop a bear (St 30). The only reason not
to up
> the damage on the .45-70 vs the .45ACP is if you're taking the Hollywood
> route of mostly ignoring the power difference of pistol vs rifle/shotgun.
>
> >But it ignored most armor,
> >and with a modicum of skill and DX allowed for multiple shots.
>
> I agree that multiple shots is where modern arms have the advantage. I'm
not
> so sure that "ignoring armor" is worth the complications, unless the rule
is
> very simple (e.g. "all guns ignore the first three points of armor").
>
> >People get shot every day, and survive.  Some of them multiple
> >times.  Many of them continue to function, just as they would against the
> >more primitive weapons.  After all, a graze from a bullet is no more
> >inherently deadly than a nick from a sword, and a mace upside the
> >(unarmored) head will kill just as neatly as a .38.
>
> That's pistols vs rifles, once again. As I said in an earlier post, a
single
> pistol wound has about a 20% chance of being fatal. And so yes, 2d-1 is
right
> for either a mace or a .38 special. But a deer rifle (e.g. a .30-30,
.30-06,
> or .308) is *designed* to do one-shot kills of mammals weighing between
100-250
> lbs. So it should have an average damage well over 10 points - at least
2-3
> times the damage of a .38.
>
> Erol K. Bayburt
> Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe 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"