|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 5:34AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jul 27, 2001
|
1. While I personally adhere to the philosophy that anything that isn't specifically addressed in Gamma World follows the rules of 4e, that is an opinion, not an official ruling. Although I would definitely agree that her work is some of the best that the community has to offer, Oraibi's rules are also not official. Ergo, a DM is free to rule either way.
2. Let's review:
Referencing the mini-tank: "An Omega card that makes the entire party invulnerable seems a tad powerful."
"Just because vehicles [in this case, the mini-tank] have hitpoints does not mean that those hitpoints have to be exhausted in order to damage a PC in it."
These statements state conflicting concepts. (Italics mine, of course.) Either my ruling on the mini-tank makes the party invulnerable, or it does not. Which is your opinion? Mine is clearly that it does not, albeit for different reasons than what you've stated.
I am simply stating that I think it would be fun and within the spirit of the game for the PCs to be able to have a fight or two in which they can go toe-to-toe with an Eradicator at a relatively low level. That's hardly a statement of an official ruling. I fail to see what "research" you think my position requires.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 6:29AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2010
|
1. Unless you have the vehicle rules from Legion of Gold in your possession - a product to which most of us do not yet have access - then I'd like to know how you can definitively state, "That's not how vehicles work." If you DO have the vehicle rules from Legion of Gold in your possession, then please feel free to enlighten me.
I've had the LoG book for a week. There are no vehicle rules. (There are, at least, rules for mounts.)
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 8:18AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2007
|
1. While I personally adhere to the philosophy that anything that isn't specifically addressed in Gamma World follows the rules of 4e, that is an opinion, not an official ruling.
The skycycle reference was from Gamma World.
Referencing the mini-tank: "An Omega card that makes the entire party invulnerable seems a tad powerful."
"Just because vehicles [in this case, the mini-tank] have hitpoints does not mean that those hitpoints have to be exhausted in order to damage a PC in it."
These statements state conflicting concepts.
Your ruling makes the party invulnerable. The second quote does not contradict that... it indicates that your ruling is also incorrect.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 8:36AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Dec 23, 2010
|
1. Unless you have the vehicle rules from Legion of Gold in your possession - a product to which most of us do not yet have access - then I'd like to know how you can definitively state, "That's not how vehicles work." If you DO have the vehicle rules from Legion of Gold in your possession, then please feel free to enlighten me.
I've had the LoG book for a week. There are no vehicle rules. (There are, at least, rules for mounts.)
I would use the mounted rules for vehicles as well... page 21 in LoG rulebook, and going by those rules...
I would make a diagram and divide the number of HPs by the squares the tank occupies and keep a diagram of the vehicle with where PCs are located in it. If PCs want to make an individual attack (not using vehicles weapons) you take the -2 modifier and are exposed for remainder of that turn...
The skycycle seems like it would be a little more vulnerable and if you took a big hit... would be knocked off and subject to falling, but thats a whole other debate...
Why did the hoop cross the road?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 9:53AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2001
|
 In any Boards battle of positions, I tend to support the one presenting published rules over fan rules. In the absence of published rules, I tend to support the one acknowledging there are no such rules. In the absence of such acknowledgement, I tend to support the one with internal consistency.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion: - Three Basic Rules (p 11)
- Power Types and Usage (p 54)
- Skills (p178-179)
- Feats (p 192)
- Rest and Recovery (p 263)
- All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 11:10AM
#16
|
|
|
In any Boards battle of positions, I tend to support the one presenting published rules over fan rules.
In the absence of published rules, I tend to support the one acknowledging there are no such rules.
In the absence of such acknowledgement, I tend to support the one with internal consistency.
This. Is. Fantastic. QFT and archived somewhere for later use.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 12:33PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2011
|
Not sure how this is suppose to work, but I can tell you what we did at my table. Basically we figured the tank blocks line of sight and line of effect for everyone but the driver who is most likely going to be firing the big gun. So no one in the tank can attack anyone out of it and vice versa. This isn't really that over powered either when you consider that it basically means the party is getting one attack per round. Granted, it is a nice attack.
This is not to say that this is the right way to do this, but it is what made the most sense to everyone at my table.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 12:57PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
I was stuck with a mini-tank in my game for several sessions. I ruled that it blocked LoS & LoE for characters inside. The driver & gunner could see out of it, but only use the gun to attack. Other passengers couldn't attack from inside, obviously. I ruled that there were two hatches, one in the rear, one in the turret, characters wishing to sit in a hatch had cover, and LoS & LoE outside the tank.
Reallly wasn't that bad. One character chose to ride outside the tank, one drove it a lot - none of them had good enough mechanics to dependably re-load it, so they generally had to exit the tank to fight.
It was a low-level game, so they couldn't salvage it once the Omega Charge Check was finally failed, but the tank's AC & hps would have been a real obstacle to level-apropriate attackers had they chosen to button it up. In a higher level game, the tank's AC and hps wouldn't be too much to chew through.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 1:27PM
#19
|
|
|
As an aside, the in-depth discussion on this card has convinced me that when my players get one, we're gonna go on a Metal Slug story arc.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 1:35PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
In any Boards battle of positions, I tend to support the one presenting published rules over fan rules.
fwiw: I was actually the only person to mention Oraibi's fan rules (and even then I merely provided the link for discussion purposes). They're nice rules, but I don't think I actually saw anyone using them to advance an argument.
Of course, there's no real 'right answer' to this topic, but I was curious about other people's thoughts (and I was also trying to provide references to further the discussion, without offering an opinion).
The D&D vehicles rules can definitely be handy for insight, but the only official vehicle references we currently have for Gamma World are from the Mini-tank and Skycycle Omega cards. However, the skycycle card at least provides insight that a vehicle having HP and defenses doesn't inherently mean that a PC is protected by it.
Still, the notion that the tank is entirely enclosed has merit (even if it is not referenced on the card). However, a DM would probably also have to make some calls on how this affects those inside attacking out. One method was presented in D&D for the Apparatus of Kwalish (AV p.17):
"Sealed: Creatures inside the apparatus of Kwalish cannot gain line of effect to those outside (and vice versa), though they have line of sight to each other through portholes."
The Apparatus also had Claws that could be used to attack creatures.
Again though: I'm merely trying to provide information that other DM's may (or may not) find useful.
|
|
|
