The debate involves armor, but the question that is debated is whether the game tracks health or wounds. If it weren't for armor, nobody would care how damage is tracked, but due to the nature of the armor cards, it becomes important.
If health is tracked, then armor gives you two bonuses: it adds to your defense roll, and it sops up damage when it's destroyed.
| Health Accounting Example: |
| A character is attacked with a 5d weapon and hit. The defending character has a base health of 2 and is wearing light armor. Attack roll: 6+6+5+3+3 = 23 Defense roll: 6+6+3 = 15 Now the character loses one health, and decides to lose the health from the armor. So now they have 2 health left (effectively taking no damage). |
If wounds are tracked, then you still get your bonus to defense roll, but armor does not sop damage, because it is lost when you take damage (and the damage is recorded elsewhere, not forgotten).
| Wound Accounting Example: |
| A character is attacked with a 5d weapon and hit. The defending character has a base health of 2 and is wearing light armor. Attack roll: 6+6+5+3+3 = 23 Defense roll: 6+6+3 = 15 Now the character takes one wound, and since they took 1 point of damage their armor is discarded. Now if you subtract wounds from health, the character has one health point left. |
I prefer the latter interpretation as it prevents, or at least weakens "unkillable characters" (people with 2pt armor, 3 base wounds, and a pile of med kits and adrenalin surges who try and stuff them into the wounds before the armor falls off).
It is really hard to kill a character with 5-8 health... and even more so when they just decide to drop their armor (because that nuke only did one damage) and play another next turn. I'm not saying that it still wouldn't be hard to kill them, but at least by doing damage you could start to make progress (for instance, if they lost light armor, they'd be 2 dice down next attack minimum).
No comments:
Post a Comment