In N3, why do crits need to cancel each other if both players roll one in a Face to Face roll? If this was a real life shooting situation there exists a very real possibility that the two gunmen involved could each take a bullet. I want that in my game, so here's my proposal.
1) Critical hits do not cancel each other in Face to Face rolls when both models shoot.
2) Each model suffers a normal hit and must make the appropriate ARM or BTS save to avoid taking a wound.
3) Laugh or swear as none, one or both models die.
Simultaneous Crit? Simultaneous hit!
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
To keep it consistent with the rules. Also, to keep it simple.
In 2ed, if you had a tie, you were to check the stat to determine who was victorious.
Now, if you have a tie, the answer is simple: both fail.
Your idea would work only if both parties were attacking. What if one was dodging?
Say, Algulacile shoots at a Fusilier with his Combi. Fusilier ARO is Dodge.
Algulacile Crits on the Shooting. That would mean the Fusilier eats a bullet, but... Fusilier Crits on Dodging.
How would you solve that in your mechanics?
There is no chance the Algulacile could be hit as well- Fusilier wasn't attacking (hell, under N3 rules he might even not see the attacker, Dodging at -3, if I guess the rules right). Then again the Fusilier was successful, and he rolled out a Critical Success, just like the Algulacile.
Sure, you could make that an exception from the rules, but exceptions are bad. I mean - we wanted the ruleset to be more streamlined than in 2ed, didn't we? Less exceptions, less rules that work against the general logic of the game. So, that's why now Crits cancel each other out.
Also, keep in mind that Crit means not only a hit, but also a Wound being automatically inflicted, no need for an ARM roll (unless it was a type of ammunition that inflicted multiple Wounds - the only the first one is automatic, and the rest is to be rolled).
In 2ed, if you had a tie, you were to check the stat to determine who was victorious.
Now, if you have a tie, the answer is simple: both fail.
Your idea would work only if both parties were attacking. What if one was dodging?
Say, Algulacile shoots at a Fusilier with his Combi. Fusilier ARO is Dodge.
Algulacile Crits on the Shooting. That would mean the Fusilier eats a bullet, but... Fusilier Crits on Dodging.
How would you solve that in your mechanics?
There is no chance the Algulacile could be hit as well- Fusilier wasn't attacking (hell, under N3 rules he might even not see the attacker, Dodging at -3, if I guess the rules right). Then again the Fusilier was successful, and he rolled out a Critical Success, just like the Algulacile.
Sure, you could make that an exception from the rules, but exceptions are bad. I mean - we wanted the ruleset to be more streamlined than in 2ed, didn't we? Less exceptions, less rules that work against the general logic of the game. So, that's why now Crits cancel each other out.
Also, keep in mind that Crit means not only a hit, but also a Wound being automatically inflicted, no need for an ARM roll (unless it was a type of ammunition that inflicted multiple Wounds - the only the first one is automatic, and the rest is to be rolled).
They say there will be Heaven and the Fount of Kausar,
That there, there will be pure wine and honey and sugar
Fill up the wine cup and place it in my hand
(For) ready cash is better than a thousand credits.
- Rubayyat of Omar Khayyam, but it is a shoddy translation
That there, there will be pure wine and honey and sugar
Fill up the wine cup and place it in my hand
(For) ready cash is better than a thousand credits.
- Rubayyat of Omar Khayyam, but it is a shoddy translation
In the specific case of "both sides shooting," I agree with you that there should be some chance of both shooters hitting. But not 0.25% of all shots (5% of 5%). That's way too high.
So either the N2 or the N3 method is fine. I think I preferred the N2 method, but N3 is faster to play.
So either the N2 or the N3 method is fine. I think I preferred the N2 method, but N3 is faster to play.
“I'm curious, son. When has 'This might be a trap' ever stopped you?”
“Stopped? Never. Slowed me down while I load the guns? Every time.”
-Schlock Mercenary, 22 July 2013.
“Stopped? Never. Slowed me down while I load the guns? Every time.”
-Schlock Mercenary, 22 July 2013.
Section9 wrote:In the specific case of "both sides shooting," I agree with you that there should be some chance of both shooters hitting. But not 0.25% of all shots (5% of 5%). That's way too high.
The grain size / resolution of the rules is not fine enough to represent such a rare event, then. Also, if a situation happens in less than 0,25% cases - and you call it a way too high probability - I personally don't think it is worth going the extra mile to represent it in the rules.
They say there will be Heaven and the Fount of Kausar,
That there, there will be pure wine and honey and sugar
Fill up the wine cup and place it in my hand
(For) ready cash is better than a thousand credits.
- Rubayyat of Omar Khayyam, but it is a shoddy translation
That there, there will be pure wine and honey and sugar
Fill up the wine cup and place it in my hand
(For) ready cash is better than a thousand credits.
- Rubayyat of Omar Khayyam, but it is a shoddy translation
Errhile wrote:Section9 wrote:In the specific case of "both sides shooting," I agree with you that there should be some chance of both shooters hitting. But not 0.25% of all shots (5% of 5%). That's way too high.
The grain size / resolution of the rules is not fine enough to represent such a rare event, then. Also, if a situation happens in less than 0,25% cases - and you call it a way too high probability - I personally don't think it is worth going the extra mile to represent it in the rules.
Fair enough (and quite a valid point in general).
“I'm curious, son. When has 'This might be a trap' ever stopped you?”
“Stopped? Never. Slowed me down while I load the guns? Every time.”
-Schlock Mercenary, 22 July 2013.
“Stopped? Never. Slowed me down while I load the guns? Every time.”
-Schlock Mercenary, 22 July 2013.
Ockham's Razor is a marvelous tool if you whet it well... 
They say there will be Heaven and the Fount of Kausar,
That there, there will be pure wine and honey and sugar
Fill up the wine cup and place it in my hand
(For) ready cash is better than a thousand credits.
- Rubayyat of Omar Khayyam, but it is a shoddy translation
That there, there will be pure wine and honey and sugar
Fill up the wine cup and place it in my hand
(For) ready cash is better than a thousand credits.
- Rubayyat of Omar Khayyam, but it is a shoddy translation
Errhile wrote:Ockham's Razor is a marvelous tool if you whet it well...
Yeah, I think I need a new set of whetstones. The bulls... err, stuff I've had to cut through lately has been murder on an edge!
“I'm curious, son. When has 'This might be a trap' ever stopped you?”
“Stopped? Never. Slowed me down while I load the guns? Every time.”
-Schlock Mercenary, 22 July 2013.
“Stopped? Never. Slowed me down while I load the guns? Every time.”
-Schlock Mercenary, 22 July 2013.
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1