Vehicle rules Discussion thread With Greyowl

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by GreyOwl

It also describes the Hulk standing there and getting hit, and not getting hurt but damaging the car. The problem is, HS doesn't really differentiate between the two scenarios.

The car still has a chance to defend in both those situations, though. Thematically, if I were trying to collide with Spidey and he zipped out of the way suddenly, there IS a chance that I would run into something and damage my vehicle or roll over, etc. I think it still works.
If you're tough enough to hold up to a vehicle's collision attack or quick enough to dodge it, I think you're going to cause problems for the vehicle.

[Balantai]

Originally Posted by GreyOwl

It also describes the Hulk standing there and getting hit, and not getting hurt but damaging the car. The problem is, HS doesn't really differentiate between the two scenarios.

Okay. Let's look at it this way. If Skulls represent accuracy from an attack, then it makes sense to me that the more skulls you roll for collision, the more possible damage the car would recieve.

If the defending figure rolls defense dice during a collison attack, you must roll defense dice for the car as well.

For instance:
A car has a collision attack 5 and defense 6. The car collides with Hulk and rolls 5 skulls. Amazingly, Hulk rolls 5 shields and takes no damage. You then roll defense against the attack with the car and roll only 1 shield, resulting in the car taking 4 damage. This destroys the car and everyone inside. Very thematic and fun!

Same car attacks Spiderman and the car rolls 3 skulls. Spidey succeeds his Spideysense check and get out of there. Because no defense dice were rolled, the car does not need to roll defense against the attack.

Same car attacks Captain America and the car rolls 4 skulls. Captian America rolls 4 shields to avoid the attack. The car rolls defense dice and rolls 2 shields. The car takes 2 wounds. This could be represented by Captain America getting hit with the car, but deadens the blow against himself by using his shield.

Same car attacks Batman and the car rolls 1 skull. Batman rolls 3 shields to avoid the attack and the car rolls 3 shields to avoid the collision damage. In this instance, the car misses Batman.

I believe the above rule fits all the possible senarios.

[IAmBatman]

I think it could be "If a figure targeted for Collision rolls defense dice and takes no wounds from a Collision attack, the attacking Vehicle must roll defense dice against the Collision attack."
One scenario you left out is what happens when the Car successfully wounds (runs over) a figure with its Collision attack.
If I have 5 attack dice and I attack the Joker and he takes wounds from the attack, I've run him over. Should I have to defend against the attack as well in that situation? I prefer no.

[Balantai]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

I think it could be "If a figure targeted for Collision rolls defense dice and takes no wounds from a Collision attack, the attacking Vehicle must roll defense dice against the Collision attack."
One scenario you left out is what happens when the Car successfully wounds (runs over) a figure with its Collision attack.
If I have 5 attack dice and I attack the Joker and he takes wounds from the attack, I've run him over. Should I have to defend against the attack as well in that situation? I prefer no.

I completely disagree with this statement. Unless Joker is lying on the ground when you hit him, you're not going to run him over. You're going to hit him square on with your bumper and take the brunt of the force on the front of your car. I can maybe see running over small creatures, but not medium or larger ones.

EDIT: Actually, using this logic, if you hit a tree with your car, as long as you hurt the tree in any way, the car will not take any damage. That doesn't seem right.

[A3n]

Originally Posted by GreyOwl

A vehicle with a turn radius of 1 could make a tighter turn than what you have illustrated above. Keep in mind that the turn itself doesn't require any movement. Let me explain.

For clarity I'm going to number the red dots on your diagram from 1-7, starting on the left. If a vehicle has a turn radius of 1, it must move from #1 to #2 before it can turn. At that point it turns to the right. Then it moves forward one space to #3. At that point, it can turn again (whereas in your drawing, it moves two spaces before turning).

I hope that's clear...

Much clearer thanx. Can't say I completely like the logic that the turn itself doesn't require any movement. To me a vehicle can only turn when it is moving & in normal motion the rear doesn't flick out (except for hand-brake turns) which is what happens in the instance you have described. Also by not moving to turn the rear of the vehicle doesn't follow the front all that closely which was a basic mechanic of the double space HS characters. But it does help clarify the 0 turn radius situation.
So this is how it looks following your clarification:

So this for this 1 turn radius it takes 3 moves to complete a "U-turn".

Originally Posted by Felindar

Perhaps to avoid confusion we should place order markers on the vehicle card. That will avoid problems over why the gunner can shoot without an order marker on him. The vehicle just can not move without a driver or shoot without a gunner. If both of the slots are filled than the vehicle can do both.

I agree with Felindar. The Order Marker should be on the vehicle. It should be in the rules that the vehicle cannot move without the required number of pilots or attack without the required number of gunners. This would be more like the HS game mechanics. So without the required number of pilots you could still attack & vice-versa. Then if you wish to make a position change you have an Order Marker on one of the figures that would be involved in the position change. This would also be the way to vacate the vehicle, by having the OM on the figure that is moving out. This just seems more logical for game play.

cheers

[GreyOwl]

Originally Posted by Balantai

I completely disagree with this statement. Unless Joker is lying on the ground when you hit him, you're not going to run him over. You're going to hit him square on with your bumper and take the brunt of the force on the front of your car. I can maybe see running over small creatures, but not medium or larger ones.

EDIT: Actually, using this logic, if you hit a tree with your car, as long as you hurt the tree in any way, the car will not take any damage. That doesn't seem right.

So what do you suggest? The attack the vehicle rolls defense against should depend on the size and "toughness" of the figure it hit, shouldn't it?

What if (stay with me, this is a little strange) the vehicle rolls defense dice against the figure's defense? So basically the figure rolls attack dice equal to its defense number.

[GreyOwl]

Originally Posted by A3n

Much clearer thanx. Can't say I completely like the logic that the turn itself doesn't require any movement. To me a vehicle can only turn when it is moving & in normal motion the rear doesn't flick out (except for hand-brake turns) which is what happens in the instance you have described. Also by not moving to turn the rear of the vehicle doesn't follow the front all that closely which was a basic mechanic of the double space HS characters. But it does help clarify the 0 turn radius situation.

The reason I chose to make the turns zero move is because that's how HS normally works. It doesn't cost a move to turn a figures direction, nor to flip a double-spaced figure.

Originally Posted by A3n

I agree with Felindar. The Order Marker should be on the vehicle. It should be in the rules that the vehicle cannot move without the required number of pilots or attack without the required number of gunners. This would be more like the HS game mechanics. So without the required number of pilots you could still attack & vice-versa. Then if you wish to make a position change you have an Order Marker on one of the figures that would be involved in the position change. This would also be the way to vacate the vehicle, by having the OM on the figure that is moving out. This just seems more logical for game play.

cheers

It would be simpler. What does everyone else think?

[Balantai]

Originally Posted by GreyOwl

So what do you suggest? The attack the vehicle rolls defense against should depend on the size and "toughness" of the figure it hit, shouldn't it?

What if (stay with me, this is a little strange) the vehicle rolls defense dice against the figure's defense? So basically the figure rolls attack dice equal to its defense number.

I still don't quite see it. That doesn't represent the accuracy of the vehicle. If you roll 1 skull for the car, in my mind, that means you barely clipped the defender. It would be easy to dodge and easy to avoid damaging yourself. I still think my above rule is more thematic.

[Balantai]

Originally Posted by GreyOwl

It would be simpler. What does everyone else think?

I prefer to see it on the figure then on the vehicle. I'm looking at it from Batman's point of view. If Batman is in the Batmobile, he has the option of getting out or continuing to drive. If the Order Markers are on the vehicle, it feels like the Batmobile gets to take a turn. It's the driver that makes the decision what to do, not the vehicle.

This would also show when someone uses a gun turret. If Robin is manning a gun turret, he gets to use it when he takes a turn. Not when the vehicle goes.

[GreyOwl]

Originally Posted by Balantai

I still don't quite see it. That doesn't represent the accuracy of the vehicle. If you roll 1 skull for the car, in my mind, that means you barely clipped the defender. It would be easy to dodge and easy to avoid damaging yourself. I still think my above rule is more thematic.

That makes sense, but what I'm trying to figure out is how to represent the difference between your car hitting a squirrel and your car hitting an elephant. With your method, your car would take the same amount of damage both times, but I'm trying to come up with a way so your car would take more damage hitting an elephant than a squirrel.

What if the attack the car rolls defense against is based on the size of the figure that was hit?

[Balantai]

Originally Posted by GreyOwl

That makes sense, but what I'm trying to figure out is how to represent the difference between your car hitting a squirrel and your car hitting an elephant. With your method, your car would take the same amount of damage both times, but I'm trying to come up with a way so your car would take more damage hitting an elephant than a squirrel.

What if the attack the car rolls defense against is based on the size of the figure that was hit?

I think you're on the right track with size.

[GreyOwl]

How about when running over figures:

Small figures - roll no dice
Medium figures - roll 1 unblockable attack die
Large figures - roll 2 unblockable attack dice
Huge+ - roll 3 unblockable attack dice