alternative rules for armour (inoffical)

[MarcoSkoll]

If the armour is abstracted away into the roll, that immediately hits problems when a character is wearing no armour.
The problem with abstracting in the wrong places is that you're either compensating for armour when you shouldn't be, or not compensating enough for the armour.

Obviously, it's a matter of taste, but I've wanted to see armour get tougher for a while.
I mean, carapace armour is supposed to be pretty tough - but even the basic armoury's pistols will go through it over half the time.

[Kaled]

If the armour is abstracted away into the roll, that immediately hits problems when a character is wearing no armour.
The problem with abstracting in the wrong places is that you're either compensating for armour when you shouldn't be, or not compensating enough for the armour.

I don't see it as a problem, if the character is not wearing armour then the hit will do damage.  The dice tell you the effect of the hit, it's up to players to put it in story terms.  A hit that would just have been stopped by armour (for whatever reason) could instead be a glancing hit that causes minimal damage.

[MarcoSkoll]

Like I said, it's a matter of taste. I don't personally like the idea of abstracting armour in to a roll when that same roll is used for both armoured and unarmoured targets.

Personally, I think that's the most workable of the solutions I've yet seen for making Inq's armour more feasible.

[Magos Exarratus]

I've actually been wanting the more powerful armour to get weaker, as I always feel bad putting a character in powerful armour (though this might be because the character's I would put in powerful armour are usually the most powerful anyway. I don't know, maybe it's just my penchant for making things difficult for myself), although if power and carapace armour were to stay as they were, I'd prefer flak to be slighly higher. Maybe what's required is a sort of three-dimensional system of working out armour and damage, though that might be to complicated. Well, three-dimensional if we say the current system of damage and armour is two dimensional, but if we say it's one-dimensional maybe increasing it to one and a bit dimsenions.

I'll try to explain myself. At the moment, I think the variety in armour is to much, but the problem I actually have with it isn't the difference between armour values, it's the difference in the damage that gets through and the way that affects the longevity of the characters. This might just be my playing style (and bear in mind that I haven't played for a while and I only tend to play at 'Clave meet-ups) but it's what I dislike about armour. However, raising flak armour, or whatever armour I am giving the character at that point (usually based on the model) an extra point or two wouldn't do it in my opinion. Then again, maybe it would. But what I feel is that if it was simply raised it would either make it to strong or make it too similar to carapace armour.

I haven't read the Inq 2 rules but from what I've heard/read of them I take it that weapons are customizable in that there's a base and then you add abilities to them to change how they work etc. Now, based on this shaky assumption I would propose a similar system for armour, for example, flak armour would protect more against certain types of weapons then others. Thinking about it, I think I'm getting confused about what flak armour actually is, so before I begin to really confuse myself I'm going to stop, and come back when I know what I'm talking about. I do however think that armour should be customizable in a similar way to weapons, however rather then dealing damage and range and the likes, you customize what kind of damage it can take and its encumberance (even though that is a seldom used rule/thing) and its quietude and the likes.

I would see there being types of weapon such as energy and flechette and blunt (maybe inlcuding bullets and the like) and blades. I'm sure there are more, but I think gives the general gist. I'm not sure whether this solution would simply create to much book-keeping though, or simply be to much of a hassle.

[Darios]

if read this now several times... and as i don't know it: what is INQ 2? ist it official? where can i get it?

[MarcoSkoll]

What is INQ 2? Is it official? Where can I get it?

1) An update of Inquisitor being written by Precinctomega
2) Not yet, but it may well be. Also, who cares?
3) Nowhere that I know of.

@Magos Exarratus: That sounds horrifically complicated - too many numbers to keep track of. That's more the realm of computer RPGs, not Inq.

[DapperAnarchist]

Isn't it in beta, as in ask and you might get bits? PO was posting bits for review, pre-crash...

[MarcoSkoll]

Ask and you might get bits?

Perhaps. However, there is nowhere you can "just get hold of INQ2"

[precinctomega]

putting armour in the way of a bullet will still rob it of some energy

But a reduction in kinetic energy doesn't always equate to a reduction in damage.  It's well known in military medical circles that 7.62mm rounds were sometimes more deadly when it had passed through body armour, as it not only tended to tumble more through the mass but also dragged particles of armour through the wound with it.

However, a complete simulation is impossible and some alteration to "reality" is essential to an entertaining game (actual combat is often surprisingly dull IRL).

The "four slaps" problem can be better solved by simply altering the damage of unarmed attacks.  INQ2 allows the possibility for low-lethality attacks (such as unarmed attacks or attacks with improvised weapons) to cause negative damage (which is treated as zero damage, incidentally, not as making a person better).

Finally, progress on INQ2 can be found at http://inquisitorsdiary.blogspot.com.  Draft copies are only circulated on a strictly limited basis and a full release (official or otherwise) is anticipated no earlier than 2011.

R.

[Charax]

I seem to remember being the one who proposed a negative damage modifier for strengths lower than 50 on the old, old conclave a while ago. It was a well-received idea.

[MarcoSkoll]

But a reduction in kinetic energy doesn't always equate to a reduction in damage.

True enough. However, making it "all or nothing" would mean that even power armour (particularly with an armour value reduction) would be little proof against bolters (or other powerful weapons) - and that doesn't seem right.

[precinctomega]

It was a well-received idea.

Indeed it was, Charax.  But, as you may recall, INQ2 borrows the Strength Bonus and Toughness Bonus concept from Dark Heresy.  So an attack's damage is expressed as SBa-TBd+Dam-AV (or, Strength Bonus of the attacker, minus the Toughness Bonus of the defender, plus the attack's damage profile, minus the AV on the location hit).

It's easy for weak characters to fail to cause any damage at all to a tough opponent.

R.

[Holiad]

Personally, I'm inclined to think the +D6 armour rule is both an extra roll too far, in terms of complexity, and that it adds a little too much to the ability of light to medium armour against lesser arms fire, even if combined with a small reduction in armour values. From experience, a character in carapace armour already rarely suffers worse than a light wound from 2D6 weapons, and AV10 power armour is practically imperivous to the lesser armaments of the arsenal-I'm not really fond of either getting better. As an alternative means of implementing a similar effect which both avoids rendering small arms even less effective and is less complicated, why not simply give more weapons the rule for boltguns, which have a fixed damage bonus applied only if they penetrate the armour? In effect, this gives each weapon a minimum damage for a wounding hit. On the 'four slaps' issue, I think it's a nice check on really high toughness characters that they do still feel some effect from light wounds, including even being stunned by a lucky hit to the head. Taking four such hits and no other damage is an incredibly unlikely event, and unless they all occur at once you still get a chance to heal some of the injury levels, and quite honestly I'd say an opponent that rolls well enough to manage it has earned the kill.