| |
In lugnet.gaming.brikwars, Shaun Sullivan wrote:
> The major disadvantage to packing maces in brikwars is, of course, the fact
> that they only do stun damage.
While not really a good fix, there's the temporary solution of adding +1 CP to
change the Stun damage to Normal damage, but it's not directly supported, only
indirectly (see 9.1.1 creature creation rules):
"By default, this attack has a UR of 2 and does (Power x 1d6) Stun Damage. For
+1CP, a body part can be converted from Stun to normal Damage, which is more
appropriate for parts with teeth or claws."
Since both a short appendage and a mace would cost the same CP, have the same
UR, and do the same default damage, I'd say it's similar enough in nature to
allow such a modification-- though I would argue that your mace has to resemble
"teeth or claws" rather than a straight mace that just has a spherical ball at
the end.
Plus, since adding +1 CP doubles the cost of the mace (since it costs a base of
1), I'm even less objectioned to it. Had maces cost more, or done more stun
damage, I might argue that a simple +1 CP wouldn't be enough to counterbalance
the increase from stun->normal damage (like if you went from 3d6 stun to 3d6
normal), but in this case, I'd be ok with it just costing the measly 1 CP.
On the other hand, modifying standard weapons isn't exactly something that
should be done without just cause...
> On the one hand, I understand the rationale. If the target is wearing plate
> mail and a helm, then there's a good chance that the mace will just stun.
> After all, those things are designed to not crumple upon impact, presumably,
> and it's difficult to get enough force behind them to carry damage through
> to a particular area.
>
> On the other hand, against chain mail, they'll do the job. As they will
> against an unarmored target. I mean, when you substitute skull-crumpage for
> helm-crumplage, it's bound to be effective.
This makes me wonder whether maces and/or stun weapons should have some sort of
seperate rule governing their action based on the target. Though I'd hate to
have a wooden club do *regular* damage, or a spikey iron mace do *just* stun
damage when attacking your average flesh/unarmored bits.
I suppose I'd argue for a new classification of bludgeon like 'spikey mace' or
something that does regular damage instead of stun, and just costs 2 CP's.
> I guess my question is, what thoughts do other mace-loving people have? Are
> there suggested "fixes" (understanding that the rule may not actually be
> broken ...)? Recommendations? House rules that somehow groove with the
> official documentation but make the mace more attractive?
In the last game I had mace-wielders, but they had 3 power, making the mace much
more effective. Hm. Yeah, that makes the existing mace rules even less
appealing, honestly-- consider that 1d6 stun on your average TL 2 trooper will
only get by the default '3' armor value 1/2 the time. And that after the 1st
hit, the opponant is only stunned. It takes 3 successful blows to kill him, and
that's assuming that he doesn't magically roll a 6 becoming 'unstunned' by 1
level. Hmmm.
[goes away and writes a program]
On average (tried 1 million times), against an AV of 3 (assuming that the target
*DOESN'T* take action when merely stunned), a 1d6 stun weapon will take 9.2
attempts to actually kill the target. Now, compare that to how many strikes
you'd THINK it would take to kill someone with a big spikey mace.
When the attacker's power rating is upped to 2: 4.1 attempts
When upped to 3 power: 3.7 attempts
But that's again assuming that your opponent is unarmored and at TL2. Hm. [runs
program a bit more]
Power | 3 AV | 4 AV | 5 AV | 6 AV | 7 AV | 8 AV |
------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
1 | 9.20 | 17.07 | 61.32 | never | never | never |
2 | 4.11 | 4.62 | 5.57 | 7.41 | 12.04 | 23.26 |
3 | 3.71 | 3.78 | 3.92 | 4.16 | 4.60 | 5.37 |
Compare that to the number of attempts when dealing out regular damage:
Power | 3 AV | 4 AV | 5 AV | 6 AV | 7 AV | 8 AV |
------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
1 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 6.01 | never | never | never |
2 | 1.09 | 1.20 | 1.39 | 1.71 | 2.40 | 3.59 |
3 | 1.00 | 1.02 | 1.05 | 1.10 | 1.19 | 1.35 |
Yeah, considering that most units on the board are going to be around 5+ AV
(who's going to show up with unarmored troops? Honestly!), I'd say maces are a
little more usless than they probably should be...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Simply A-mace-ing
|
| Let me dispense with my bias up front: I think maces are *so* cool. Those beautiful skull-crunching flanges, that sleek round shaft, that brushed nickel color ... I love a good mace. Plus, there isn't much cooler than a knight in full armor, letting (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jun-03, to lugnet.gaming.brikwars, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
