You can make an unarmed attack to grapple someone with 2 AP.

This is an opposed WS test - if you win, the opponent is grappled, if he cannot evade.

A grappled person counts as dazed.

A grappled person can break free with 2AP and a successful opposed Strength test or Acrobatics test.

If breaking free has 3+ DoS, the grapple can even be taken over and the former grappler is now grappled himself.

To maintain a grapple costs 2AP each turn.

While grappling someone, you can do the following actions:

- inflict 1 Fatigue with 2 AP and a succesful opposed Strength test

- let go

- use the grappled as human cover with 2 AP and a succesful opposed strength test

In this case, it is no longer counted as being in melee. The grappled remains in this position unless the grappler decides otherwise or the grappled breaks free

- put manacles or ropes on the grappled with an succesful opposed WS test and 2 AP

- move the grappled by 1m with 1 AP and a succesful opposed strength test

- other attacks on the target are only possible, if it is in the human cover position (knife at the throat or pistol to the head)

No.

A grappling sub-system is a needless complication. Grappling is not adequately represented in the rules currently, but a whole other set of combat rules and actions for it is not the answer.

This is also the third thread on the topic.

I like it.

No.

A grappling sub-system is a needless complication. Grappling is not adequately represented in the rules currently, but a whole other set of combat rules and actions for it is not the answer.

This is also the third thread on the topic.

What happens when you're using your "human cover" option? If I shoot at an enemy using a civilian as human cover, and deal, say, 9 damage with no penetration, how do I resolve that damage? Assume the civilian has a toughness bonus of 3 and no armour.

What happens when you're using your "human cover" option? If I shoot at an enemy using a civilian as human cover, and deal, say, 9 damage with no penetration, how do I resolve that damage? Assume the civilian has a toughness bonus of 3 and no armour.

If you would hit one of the grapplers body locations that is behind the living cover, the cover ist hit instead with the normal damage.

If the attackers damage is higher than the defence value of the cover, the grappler also gets hit, but reduced by the defence value ofthe grappled.

So how does that affect the person being used as cover? Is damage applied normally? What happens when they die?

The cover person gets the full damage. When they die, it remains of the wound effects caused if the cover still remains.

By the way...something that I think about the first time now:

- cover gets reduced if damage higher than it penetrates it

- armour does not get reduced when getting penetrated

Why is cover reduced, but armour isnt getting damaged ?

The cover person gets the full damage. When they die, it remains of the wound effects caused if the cover still remains.

By the way...something that I think about the first time now:

- cover gets reduced if damage higher than it penetrates it

- armour does not get reduced when getting penetrated

Why is cover reduced, but armour isnt getting damaged ?

Because having your players needing to constantly repair their armour every goddamn fight is zero fun and a big pain in the ass that does nothing but let you play a super specific weird game where your actually playing the maintenance crew responsible for fixing this stuff up. Roll 1d10 days in line waiting to get into the shop and then 1d5 hours before you get told to go home and come back in 1d5 weeks.

Making armour only damaged in specific circumstances means your not dealing with this and can you know...go play the game.

What happens when you're using your "human cover" option? If I shoot at an enemy using a civilian as human cover, and deal, say, 9 damage with no penetration, how do I resolve that damage? Assume the civilian has a toughness bonus of 3 and no armour.

If you would hit one of the grapplers body locations that is behind the living cover, the cover ist hit instead with the normal damage.

If the attackers damage is higher than the defence value of the cover, the grappler also gets hit, but reduced by the defence value ofthe grappled.

The cover person gets the full damage. When they die, it remains of the wound effects caused if the cover still remains.

By the way...something that I think about the first time now:

- cover gets reduced if damage higher than it penetrates it

- armour does not get reduced when getting penetrated

Why is cover reduced, but armour isnt getting damaged ?

So, using my example above, the grappler would receive 6 damage (9 minus the DV of the civilian), and the civilian would also receive 6 damage? That doesn't make sense. By your logic, the shooter will have rolled 9 damage but dealt a total of 12 damage.

If you go accourding to your logic, also cover would never be damaged, as the cover itself would get no harm.

If a bullet goes through something, it does its damage. If it has enough kinetic energy to strike through something additional afterwards, of course it can do additional damage.

If you shoot through person a into person b with a sniper rifle in a straight line, both will get a hole in their bodies.

If a loaction covered by the "meat shield" is struck add meat shields TB (or perhaps TBx2) to the targets DV.

High powered weapons IE rifle rounds, lasbolts and so on, will properly penetrate clean through a human body.

Modern rifle rounds do..

Anyhow, Just a suggestion

If you go accourding to your logic, also cover would never be damaged, as the cover itself would get no harm.

If a bullet goes through something, it does its damage. If it has enough kinetic energy to strike through something additional afterwards, of course it can do additional damage.

If you shoot through person a into person b with a sniper rifle in a straight line, both will get a hole in their bodies.

The damage is a result of the transfer of kinetic energy, by definition a bullet that passes through a target and does damage to it has transferred kinetic energy to that target and so does not have as much kinetic energy remaining to transfer to future targets. This is fundamentally represented by the cover mechanic.

To more accurately represent lost kinetic energy one should probably do as the above post suggests and subtract not just Tb but something like Tb*2. At this point it is not unlikely the hit is pretty trivial which is likely why no mechanic exists for representing the circumstance and instead such unlikely grey areas are left to a rule 0 decision.

That said, if you want to hold a body in front of you to block my autocannon full of felling rounds I suppose I could probably just kill you both even with such limits as Tb*2, probably fine.

It is both the kinetic energy itself and the physical problems you get as you have a hole in your body...

It is both the kinetic energy itself and the physical problems you get as you have a hole in your body...

He's saying that enough energy has been lost that it might not make a hole in your body.

Thats why the damage is reduced by the complete defence value of the shield person.

I am just saying it is fully possible to deal more than the regular damage, if the shot goes through and hits another person.

Even if it does not punch a hole through you, it might be enough to hit you with an impact that hurts.

That doesn't make sense from either a realistic or a mechanical point of view. Hitting two people with the one projectile magically makes it more powerful?

The big problem with the mechanic is that it introduces too many rules for something that's probably not going to be used all that often, so it's not likely to make it into the rulebook.

I would like it as a sidebox maybe.

In our group we have that every second game

If you have armour on your back and front then it should count as (2xarmour)+TB armour for whoever is being shelded.

If you have armour on your back and front then it should count as (2xarmour)+TB armour for whoever is being shelded.

Good idea !

No it isn't!

As MaliciousOnion says, all of this is incredibly complicated for a situation that will see use rarely or never.

No it isn't!

As MaliciousOnion says, all of this is incredibly complicated for a situation that will see use rarely or never.

Would you ?

Thanks.

I would side with CPS on this. I agree that rules for the following would be helpful:

Human shield

Grabbing and immobilizing someone

Tossing or shoving people

All of those have some kind of rules questions they bring up that beg some form of official rule. How much cover does a human shield provide and how do you keep them restrained? What should you roll to restrain someone and how do they break out? How far can you toss or shove someone?

These are all actions that would take place in structured time with a fair bit of frequency and this are ideal for having hard rules behind them.

Cps, I think you suggested creating a martial talents tree? My problem with using talents to model potential new actions is that you're essentially taxing a player for the ability to do something that is possible for anyone. This is why I dislike the Disarm and Knockdown talents. I as an untrained dude could have a decent chance of disarming someone or knocking them down in a fight. It's not some kind of foreign martial art; its grabbing a weapon away or tripping or shoving someone. Things like grabbing someone and holding them down are such natural human pursuits that one of our oldest sports (wrestling) is based around it. The other problem with these action allowance talents is that the GM must now also remember that they exist so that when a player says he wants to disarm an enemy the GM can tell him no, too bad, should have taken a talent. But oh, someone wants to shoot the gun out of his hand? That isn't listed as a talent so go for it!

And GauntZero, here is the problem with pretty much every rule suggestion you've laid out: they are all adding layers of simulation and complication that are beyond the scope of this ruleset. Here is an analogy: you are playing monopoly and someone wants to reflect building upkeep by making you roll for each property you own using a formula of how many people have landed on it times the number you roll on a die times the value of the property and you pay this every time you pass go. Sounds kind of cool, right? The problem is that you're suddenly tracking how many other people have landed in the property, you've suddenly eliminated the random component of what space you land on that dictates every other rule in monopoly, you're now working at a level of complexity that is at odds with the rest of the game. Why not play a different game at that point rather than a weird simple/complex hybrid? That idea is fine as a house rule, but it has no place in the official rules of the game.

So what about this idea to add the armor in the back of the person? I'll be polite, but that is just a bad idea. Why? Armor is likely designed to protect from the outside, not the inside? Do you want to model this aspect? What if the bullet hits a part of the armor that is weaker? Do you want to start modeling more detailed hit locations? Most body armors are designed for hits from the front primarily. Do you want to give a rear value for every piece of armor? Rule complexity is a balancing act, as every system within the game should ideally be at the same level. Pretty much all of your minor tweaks are tipping the game into greater complexity and this unbalancing how the systems all work with each other. It's not like the rules are perfect, though. The investigation parts of the game really need more fleshing out to balance with the combat. I've made my own suggestions to that end.

GauntZero, the reason why there has been a core group of people rejecting all of your ideas is that they all unbalance the complexity of the rules and cause things to suddenly not work together correctly. And before you start grousing about how great complexity is, I am not trying to say its always a bad thing. I'm saying that if you take a medium complexity game and add a high complexity subsystem to it, everything gets thrown off.

It's obvious you want a high complexity game. Shadowrun and hack master are decent choices for this. I'm not as familiar with hackmaster, but I know shadowrun is filled with options and subrules and ends up with a bunch of crazy unbalanced (as in, technomancers suck compared to hackers, you ALWAYS have to take X implant to be effective) rules. DH was butting up against shadowruns level of complexity, but its obvious in the beta that they wanted to time it down and this eliminated a bunch of subsystems. I know that when you suggest things it's to make the game you want to play, but that game is pretty obviously not the game that DH2 is being aimed at, not is it the game that DH2 is going to be. This sucks, but nothing is stopping you from porting the setting over to rules that you like better.

I hope this has been enlightening, and a lesson on game design for some people in this forum.

Well, Nimsim, to put it far more short than you do: I disagree with you.

I do know the Shadowrun Rules VERY well (at least Edition 2-5) and I really like some of their approaches (and I definitely like their level of complexity, where they are more or less benchmark).

They definitely also have their balance issues, but so did DH1 (and in my oppinion far worse).

Sub-Rules are a great thing. If you dont want them - ignore them. But deny them to those who want them is just ignorant towards these. Of course they add complexity - but: make them optional and nobody is hurt.

And dont hide behind an invented "group of Core Gamers". I am also a "Core gamer" and so are many I know. And definitely not a majority is sharing your way of thinking.

Some people are afraid of the challenge complexity gives to balancing a system, or, towards oneself while playing. I can understand that - but I don't share that attitude.

Thats what a beta is for - adressing balance issues, adding important features and giving hints from players side.

Declaring your text as "lesson" is just hybris. Its your oppinion - not more - not less.

A Martial Arts talent tree was someone else's suggestion, not mine. My original suggestion was folding in some of the unarmed talents from OW into the Melee talent tree, reworking them to allow you to apply status effects or increase base unarmed damage (or similar), IF unarmed combat is to be represented at all. I agree with you that Disarm and Knockdown are bad as talents for the reasons you list.

Personally, I think unarmed combat should be handled narratively, not in the context of the combat system. I've yet to see a grapple subsystem that isn't a byzantine mess, and I don't want DH2 to have something akin to Pathfinder's mess of a grapple system.