Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

[SWADE] Not Liking the Removal of ACC or Climb for Vehicles.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Deskepticon
    replied
    Slimming down the crunch and putting more control in the GM's hands can a positive thing. Still, if you like the extra crunch and think others would too, turn your homebrew into a SWAG product.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freemage
    replied
    Honestly, for 'open terrain' (flying through the air, driving through a desert) where there's no obstacles, I'd probably give an extra bonus for fastest vehicle, for the reason you mention. I might even opt to declare that Handling counts for one less in such circumstances. But the new Chase rules aren't really meant for that, honestly--they're for situations where you're flying through storms or along a canyon, where terrain matters.

    ACC, honestly, only really ever came up in my games when we were in tactical combat--then, the ability to get up to speed quickly matters a fair bit. But on the timescale where Chases exist, that's usually not as much of an issue--handling IS more important (and "Climb", in my opinion, is basically a factor of Handling for aircraft).

    Leave a comment:


  • kronovan
    replied
    Originally posted by Erolat View Post
    Though I agree that ACCeleration may have been nice to keep I can see why they dropped it. It keeps the rules to a minimum and the game FFF, but does not lose much in doing so...
    That's just the thing though, I never experienced using ACC in game play as a hindrance to the FFF factor. If anything, in my homebrewed rules it enhanced all 3 as there was a thrill to a vehicle getting a bit faster each round.

    As for your "great handling better than top speed" I am not really seeing a problem. Sure the faster vehicle may be able to cover more distance but the maneuverable vehicle may be able to use the shortcuts that the other one just can't maneuver. Of all the stock vehicles the only obvious combination I see that would be a dirt bike chasing a mid-sized car. In that case the above is exactly what would be happening. The bike can drive on sidewalks, cut down narrow streets, jump off bridges.... The list goes on. And even then they both have a +1 to their rolls.
    The 2 vehicles were aircraft, so encountering many obstacles didn't really apply. I can see where you could get creative with that though with some airborne hazards and conditions, but it would have been a real stretch in this particular chase.

    Leave a comment:


  • Erolat
    replied
    Though I agree that ACCeleration may have been nice to keep I can see why they dropped it. It keeps the rules to a minimum and the game FFF, but does not lose much in doing so. In most chases it is more important how fast you can go than how fast you accelerate. Any vehicle on vehicle combat is most likely to be a chase "in slow motion". As in most cases the faster vehicle will be the one to determine if the combat happens or not, or if it becomes an actual chase (Attacker or Defender).

    As for your "great handling better than top speed" I am not really seeing a problem. Sure the faster vehicle may be able to cover more distance but the maneuverable vehicle may be able to use the shortcuts that the other one just can't maneuver. Of all the stock vehicles the only obvious combination I see that would be a dirt bike chasing a mid-sized car. In that case the above is exactly what would be happening. The bike can drive on sidewalks, cut down narrow streets, jump off bridges.... The list goes on. And even then they both have a +1 to their rolls.

    If you are talking about a situation where the chaser has a +2 (or higher) handling and the target is faster but not twice as fast then I can see how that might be confusing. But as I said the maneuverable vehicle can take advantage of the terrain better. Without knowing what your house rule is though I cannot assuage your concerns properly.

    Leave a comment:


  • [SWADE] Not Liking the Removal of ACC or Climb for Vehicles.

    First I want to begin on a positive note and state that I think the new Chase rules are terrific and a vast improvement over SWD. They're fairly close to the homebrew chase rules I concocted using parts of SWEX, so I'm glad to see something official in the CRB that's close to something I know works. That said, I was surprised to see ACCeleration dropped in SWADE, as I found that worked well. I guess it was more of a surprise to me, because I've never had any player, and I mean NEVER, struggle with ACC as a concept; or the Climb value for that matter. I guess it sticks out more for me, as those 2 values figured into my homebrew rule and supported fun, tactical and dynamic chases.

    Meanwhile, I'm finding having just a Handling value in conjunction with TopSpeed to sometimes skew the Change Position maneuver. In particular when a slower vehicle has a very good Handling value, but a lead vehicle's TS isn't twice or greater than the slower one's TS. I'm finding such slower vehicles to be like they're super-fueled in terms of catching them.In my homebrewed rules that would have been prevented by ACC factoring into position changes. Not to mention I have some homebrewed vehicle rules for Weird Wars aircraft ingresses, that use a map and will fall apart without an ACC or Climb value. I also forsee problems running vehicles on the tabletop without an ACC value. Of course I could just keep using my homebrewed rules, but going forward that means vehicle stat blocs in any Pinnacle or 3rd party publications are going to be less useful to me. I'm curious what drove the decision to remove those values, as from my experience they weren't difficult to grasp or use in play.
    Last edited by kronovan; 02-12-2019, 12:54 AM.
Working...
X