Greetings, I am looking to convert another gaming system to DS2. In this game
I need to make a group of Armored Fighting Vehicles's tougher than normal
AFV's. I see a couple of ways to do this. I would like input as to which is
the
best and most consistant way to handle this.
1) Ignore armor maximums. This way I could add a higher level of armor than
the maximum rating equal to the vehcile size. Under this rule I could make the
armor equal to 1 or 2 higher than the actual size of the vehcile. Thus a size
3 vehicle could have level 4 or 5 armor. This would
not make the vehicle harder to hit, but harder to damage. However, I was
hoping to do a more direct armor conversion.
2) Reduce the effective signature of the vehicle. While this would work,
it does not match the vehicle discriptions or background.
3) Add an extra die (d6 or d8) to defence. This would be as if the vehicle had
soft cover when it does not or was evading when it is not. This seems to be
the most consistant with the way to make targets harder
to damage.
4) Ignore chits of a particular value (ie. ignore all '1' chits or ignore all
'3' chits.)
5) Ignore the first chit of value 3. Ie. if a strength 3 weapon draws 3,1,3 it
would inflict an attack strength of 4. If the player draws
2,2,2
it would inflict an attack value of 6.
6) Something that I didn't think of.
Obviously you must be making these sorts of changes for a particular scenario
or Sci Fi setting.
As a general comment what about setting the CAPACITY to a higher number. eg
For each size give 10 capacity points and double the armour value? A size 2
vehicle then has the same weapons capacity as a size 4 vehicle and same
armour. This makes it harder to hit for unguided weapons systems and gives a
heavy firepower mix.
How does this sound? Too simple?
> ----------
> I am looking to convert another gaming system to DS2. In this game I
I've put together a small ton of AFV designs, and a few of them I found to
make them 'work' I felt it reasonable to 'break' the rules as given. I think
if you use common sense, don't go overboard, and be reasonable, you should be
able to 'break' the rules on occassion.
For example, I have one tank (PanEuropean Light Tank by chance:) that I
consider small in size, but it's gun (fixed) runs nearly the entire length of
the tank and is fairly substantial. I maxed it out, giving
it an HKP/5. Fixed mount meant it took up 10 'spaces', which is exactly
how much a small AFV has.
One other tank I have (don't know where I got it from) I gave one extra level
of armor, because it felt right for *that* tank to have,
for how it's designed/sculpted (as compensation in mine own book I
gave it slow tracked movement; *shrug*)
Another tank has two seperate independently pointing weapons/guns
(Epic WH40K Land Raider). I made this sucker V-Large and gave it
an extra fire control so it could track 2 different targets. It just made
sense that this tank could do that (well, I think tanks should be able to fire
on multiple targets with different weapons
as long as the targets are within arc, but I don't push it ;-)
My philosophy is that if you're *reasonable* about your designs, try to stick
to the given rules as much as you can, don't *abuse* any infractions you make
with the rules, you should be able to 'get away with' the occassional
exception.
You might be SOL if you're playing with rules lawyers, though. ;-)
My take on it all. My response to your dilemma. Hope it's helpful.
Mk
> Brian Bell wrote:
I heartily agree, I have been playing DS2 since it was released, and my
one complaint is that AFVs' are too darn easy to KO - the rest of the
rules I like and the few glitches I am happy to write off for game
playability, but I generally find tanks to be very easy to neutralise,
even with relatively light weapons - I do like #5 above - it would make
tanks a little more survivable (IMHO).
> At 07:56 PM 5/25/97 -0400, you wrote:
This seems the most un-intrusive. It also makes the smaller weapons the
ones most effected if you took out the first "3". This would seem to make some
sense.