Data Sphere

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.

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 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.

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.

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).

Ockham's Razor is a marvelous tool if you whet it well...

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!