Monday, May 26, 2008

Proposal: To the death!

timed out, final vote 2-5—Yoda

Adminned at 28 May 2008 10:16:53 UTC

After the text “Speed: Combination of the speed values of all propulsion on the Spacecraft, divided by the Spacecraft’s size.” in the rule Spacecraft, add the following text:

Controller: An organization, the DDA, or any amount of planar entities.

Make the DDA the controller of the DDA Mothership.

Make a new planar entity, Doom Guy.

Make Doom Guy the controller of the Awesome Deathship.

Create a new dynastic rule, titled Space Combat, with the following text:

All DDA Members have a gunnery stat and a piloting stat, both tracked in the GNDT.  DDA Members, with the exception of the DDA Commander, start out with 0s in both stats.  The DDA Commander starts with 20s in both stats.

As a daily action, the DDA Commander may post a story post with the word “Attack” in the title, giving the name of a spacecraft controlled by a planar entity.  The DDA Commander may also authorize the use of the DDA Mothership.  Players may post comments on that post to join the battle, specifying what DDA spacecraft they are using and whether they are the gunner or the pilot.  For each spacecraft, there may be one pilot and gunner per spacecraft.  Once there are at least two comments on that post, the DDA Commander may start combat between the DDA spacecraft(s) and the planar entity controlled spacecraft.

A new story post is created by the DDA Commander for the purpose of combat. Players in the battle may comment on that post with their actions.  Gunners may fire at the enemy spacecraft, either to subdue the target or to destroy it.  Pilots may decide to retreat or stay.  Once all players in the battle have posted, the DDA Commander may roll for their actions and the planar entity’s action. 

When a pilot retreats, their spacecraft is immediately out of the battle.

Firing at a spacecraft is resolved by first rolling DICEX, where X is 500 minus the size of the target spacecraft plus the armor and speed of the target spacecraft minus the power of the firing spacecraft minus the gunnery of the firing gunner plus the piloting of the defending pilot.  If the result is less than 50, the attack hits.  If a shot to subdue hits, then DICE6 is rolled, and on a result of 1 or 2, the target spacecraft is subdued.  It becomes a DDA spacecraft.  DICE6 is rolled for each piece of spacecraft equipment on the subdued spacecraft, and on a result of 1, that piece of equipment is destroyed.

If the hitting shot was meant to destroy the target spacecraft, then DICE6 is rolled.  On a 1, the spacecraft is destroyed and removed from the Spacecraft Register, but one piece of spacecraft equipment (selected by the DDA Commander) is salvagable and is not destroyed.  That piece of equipment may be added on to any DDA Spacecraft.  On a 2 or 3, the target spacecraft is destroyed, and nothing is salvagable.

Any Planar Entities on a destroyed spacecraft are removed from the Planar Entities wiki page.  Any SE on a destroyed spacecraft is lost forever, unless the rules say so.  Any Planar Entities on a subdued spacecraft are contained.  Any DDA Members on a destroyed spacecraft lose all their energy.

The gunner who fires the shot that destroys or subdues a ship gets 1 point of gunnery.  The pilot on that gunner’s ship gets one point of piloting.

Create a new dynastic rule, titled Keeping It Going:

The DDA Commander may create planar entities, spacecraft, and spacecraft equipment at any time, and may modify any planar entity, spacecraft, or spacecraft equipment the DDA Commander feels has a loophole or major problem.

Yes, this is complex.  But I make the mess of rolls.



26-05-2008 17:16:37 UTC

against There’s too many problems with the rule.  For example, what happens if a spacecraft subdues a DDA ship?  Can DDA members choose which side to be on?  What about Allied and Enemy Planars?  Shouldn’t speed of the ship factor into whether the ship succeeds in retreating or not?


26-05-2008 17:45:15 UTC

That would be added in later proposals.


26-05-2008 18:04:37 UTC

I thought you said you would deal with crew, players, and control before combat.


26-05-2008 18:09:31 UTC

Well, crew is partially dealt with here, players are mostly dealt with here, and control is dealt with fully.

I found it quite hard to find a way to deal with crew, players, and control before combat.

Oh, and allied and enemy planars don’t exist yet.


26-05-2008 18:17:34 UTC

against I’m going to say this needs to be done more step-by-step - for example, defining just the rules of firing/subduing in one proposal, defining battle initiation and tying the firing into it in another. This way it’ll be more possible to provide input.

I don’t like the ‘500 minus’ roll much. I reckon weapon used (which doesn’t seem included yet) and gunnery skill should be applied as multipliers (e.g. 0.1x per gunnery skill point; gunnery skill 10 would give x1 on top of original x1, giving x2, making a result of (50 * 2 =) 100 and below a hit.), the salvagable spacecraft equipment should be rolled, not chosen, and some failsafe needs to prevent players going idle during battle preventing the battle from ever resolving (just a time check as alternative to waiting for all players to post, and spacecraft would retreat if someone onboard idled). Also, where’s the definition of the ‘planar entity’s action’? I’m fine with this just being ‘fire’, but it ought to be explicitly stated.

Also, I’m not too happy about the sneaking in of an extended ‘Power to the Commander’ without giving us the chance to opt for that. I’m personally fine with it, but I know some people wouldn’t be, bringing the whole proposal down.

arthexis: he/him

26-05-2008 20:21:07 UTC


arthexis: he/him

26-05-2008 20:23:19 UTC

This is just an attempt to prevent Chuck Norris from being a Planar Entity.


26-05-2008 21:08:20 UTC


Chuck Norris, even if he attacks, can just be subdued and contained.

Darknight: he/him

27-05-2008 01:58:27 UTC


Amnistar: he/him

27-05-2008 05:49:10 UTC

imperial Though I think a step-by-step application of this rule would be a good idea.  More chances to catch loopholes.


28-05-2008 15:49:49 UTC

Way too big and complicated, propose some bitesize bits of this.