Author Topic: =I= weight vs weight IRL  (Read 5644 times)

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5054
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: =I= weight vs weight IRL
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2010, 04:38:53 PM »
Modern soldiers supposedly travel with 60+ kilo packs as standard, (Im sure someone can confirm this, PO?)
More like half that. I have experience hauling around packs of 30+ kilos (not as part of the military though) and can tell you, it's not possible to sprint wearing that.

I weigh a bit over 75 kilos (about 12 stone), and I'd say I was moderately strong - but I figure on my sustainable carrying limit being about half my weight. That limits me to walking for the most part, with perhaps some bursts of running, but no real jumping.
In well fitted armour, distributing the weight evenly, I might improve on that (either in pace or load), but I can't see it being by much.

~~~~~

As an overall suggestion, I have to agree with what Kaled says. If the model is WYSIWYG and doesn't look like it's drastically overloaded, then that's fine. If it looks the person would have to work, no sprinting. And so on and so forth.

The model is usually the best bet. Strictly, if worked out by my version of Enc, someone like Lyra Rhodes is over her Basic Encumbrance by a few points, but if you look at her model, she really doesn't look like she'd particularly struggle. As part of that comes from pricing four revolver reloads at 20% of the weapon's weight, which is pretty steep for just six rounds, we overlook the couple of points over the limit.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline InquisitorHeidfeld

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
Re: =I= weight vs weight IRL
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2010, 05:37:23 PM »
If it weren't for the fact that the Encumberance rules are so obviously impaired I would have suggested that the high weight was more a question of bulk and restriction of movement (and while I have also been practiced in fighting in armour (have also been because I haven't done any seriously in over a decade :-) ) I would say that the restrictions in movement caused by things like your chain bunching under the arms are significant while the weight when worn feels minimal).

However the penalties don't properly reflect that...

I would suggest that it is proper for fighting men of most eras to be (in rules terms) over-encumbered, be it a 90 pound bergen, weapon...etc or a couple of stone of steel plate with chain and a heavy blade. (Granted, the 90 pound Bergen is not rolling kit but even so...)

The design process of things like body armour begins, after all, with the injuries it can prevent and only later considers the wearer's carrying capacity.

Offline Lazarus Caladine

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Kind of echoey upstairs...
Re: =I= weight vs weight IRL
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2010, 08:21:06 PM »
While I do first and foremost write characters based on the models I make for them (or dry fit, mostly going on the process of 'hmm...that would look really cool'), if I were to go fully WYSIWYG I would have to completely ignore any kind of Enc rules.
I might post some WSDP (Work Stopped During Progress) photos tomorrow with all of what I had planned, as well as my completed models for some kind of external opinions, if someone would be nice enough to endulge me.
Laz
Better Living Through Superior Firepower

Offline Kaled

  • Illuminatus Maximus
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 2132
  • Fabricator-General
Re: =I= weight vs weight IRL
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2010, 09:44:16 PM »
Sure, start a thread and post them - I'm sure people will be happy to give feedback. You can always just blutak bits together if you have ideas you want a second opinion on.
I like to remember things my own way... Not necessarily the way they happened.

Inquisitor - Blood Bowl - Malifaux - Fairy Meat

Offline Necris

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
  • This was not luck, this happened just as I planned
    • The Order of the Iron Rose - Necris' PLog
Re: =I= weight vs weight IRL
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2010, 11:20:36 PM »
I can fight for hours (Longest time is 9 hours none stop combat at an endurance camp)
What about sprinting?  Or jumping?  Or swimming?  Or some other the other things that characters occasionally do?  What about falling?  Are there things that you find more difficult in armour and/or loaded down with equipment?


Sprinting yes (though I have knackered knees from other injuries so not so much for me but I can run around quite happily)

Jumping (I am limited to how high I can jump but I can swing into the saddle of a horse)

Swimming (while I've never tried it i doubt 10 stone of metal would make me overly buoyant, but I've heard tell from Viking re-enactors that it is in fact the 30 layers linen padding that kills you not the chain mail)
This here is my very favourite gun...I call her rita.

The Order of the Iron Rose - Necris' Inq28 Plog

Offline Kallidor

  • Inquisitor Lord
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
  • Departmento Munitorum
Re: =I= weight vs weight IRL
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2010, 02:01:51 AM »
I'm not much of a rules person so I may be way off with this suggestion but how about something nice and simple like a penalty to Initiative calculated by Strength devided by the armour's value plus an extra point for each location?

For example (using the rulebook average values), a Guard Veteran with Strength 60 wears Carapace armour on all eight locations so that would be 60/6 = 10 + 8 = 18. So that makes for a total penalty of -18 to Initiative giving only 37 Initiative.

You could rationalise the fact that the stronger the character the greater the penalty is due to strong characters being so much bigger than an ordinary person they have more armour to weigh them down and more muscle to get in the way. There's also no need to impose restrictions on total movement, since there are less actions to use the character won't be able to sprint or run as far anyway.

If you were to take a weaker character though, an average human in full Carapace (say Strength 40) they would only have a penalty of 7 (rounding up) due to the weight of the armour but, when you add in all the locations the total penalty to an average human's Initiative still restricts them a fair old bit; if the average Initiative was 35 the character would only have 20 left over to use but they aren't significantly penalised due to the weight of armour.

As for other items the character might be carrying, like weapons obviously, I would say a quick and simple rule would be that items still weigh the same as described in the rules but they don't impose any restrictions until they exceed the character's base Strength. So a weedy normal human could still carry a lasgun and a few reloads without any problems but if they were to take a laspistol or two with more reloads on top then they would incur more penalties to their Initiative, say -1 Initiative for every point of weight over their strength; this is a slight variation on the rules for Encumberance but more simple I would say and perhaps even more realistic, that ordinary human wouldn't be able to move at all if given a heavy bolter and would struggle to hump around a bolter which is exactly as it should be.
Be Pure!
Be Vigilant!
BEHAVE!

Offline RobSkib

  • Illuminatus 2009
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 845
    • Dreadquill Publishing
Re: =I= weight vs weight IRL
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2010, 12:08:36 PM »
Initiative is also reflective of how quick the character's reaction times are, as well as how aware he is of the surroundings around him - dropping this instead of Speed doesn't make sense to me. Why would you become less observant if you were carrying around a heavy bolter?

Also, there are a lot of people talking about full suits of carapace armour being encumbering - they would be surely? Modern day soldiers don't wear flak jackets on their arms and legs, so why would an Inquisitor? Why would he decide that having the same amount of armour on his extremeties as on his vital organs is a good idea? The standard armour layout for a 'full' carapace armour on one of my guardsmen is 5/4 on the chest and abdomen, then 2 everywhere else. This keeps them well protected, but light enough to carry all the gubbinz I need them to without weighing them down.
An Inquisitor walks into a bar - he rolls D100 to see if he hits it.
                                     +++++++
Gallery of my Inquisitor models here.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5054
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: =I= weight vs weight IRL
« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2010, 01:19:08 PM »
I'm not much of a rules person so I may be way off with this suggestion but how about something nice and simple like a penalty to Initiative calculated by Strength devided by the armour's value plus an extra point for each location?
You're way off.

Because one point of armour: 60/1 = Penalty of 60. 60 points of armour: 60/60 = Penalty of 1.
Clearly doesn't work, because a character is being penalised less for more armour.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline InquisitorHeidfeld

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
Re: =I= weight vs weight IRL
« Reply #23 on: December 07, 2010, 01:21:59 PM »
Initiative is also reflective of how quick the character's reaction times are, as well as how aware he is of the surroundings around him - dropping this instead of Speed doesn't make sense to me. Why would you become less observant if you were carrying around a heavy bolter?
Ummm because you're carrying a Heavy Bolter ;-)

I will attest to a certain tunnel-vision while running around with a SAW for example, I tend to be focussed on suppressing my quadrant and rely on my mates to let me know that I need to switch my fire lane.

However I do agree that Initiative being predominantly a perception factor means that it's not a great target for encumberance penalties...
I'd probably suggest WS actually (I know that fighting in armour I rely on the armour where unarmoured I have to rely on agility and parrying - taking a blow to the ribs as I close is nothing in armour, more concerning in a shirt :-)

Offline GAZKUL

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
  • Abrasive and proud
Re: =I= weight vs weight IRL
« Reply #24 on: December 07, 2010, 06:26:11 PM »
personally i like the method in the book, it gives some advantage speed wise to those who go into battle in a loin cloth carrying a big axe.
"You do not need to prove that you exist because soon you won't"

Offline Charax

  • Arch Deamonlord
  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
  • In His Name
Re: =I= weight vs weight IRL
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2010, 09:55:08 PM »
IIRC (and it's been a long, long time since I've worked with Inquisitor rules) the abstract weight value is something of a mashup of actual weight, mass and bulk. Even through all the work on the CCW rules I couldn't figure out precisely what proportion of weight corresponded to each of those factors, but to have all the game effects Weight has, it should incorporate them all to varying degrees.

Weight is generally (in my experience) only used as a balancing mechanism though.
The guy with his name at the bottom of the page

Offline Lazarus Caladine

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Kind of echoey upstairs...
Re: =I= weight vs weight IRL
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2010, 09:58:57 PM »
Hey guys, just a little message to say my internet has gone to Chaos and is refusing to let me upload any pics onto imageshack. To be honest I will be surprised if this post actually turns up on the forum. I will be trying again tomorrow.
Better Living Through Superior Firepower