ADQ 6/4 is probably the best issue since the back-t~back issues 4/4 and 5/1! Keep up the good work!!!
Josh Kirkpatric, Walnut Creek, CA
Probably? Only probably? Grrrr.
Whenever we "rules lawyers" come up with a really good loophole (my favorite pastime), like component armor on cyclists, or Armor-Piercing Fireball Specials, you accuse us of treating this game like a lawyer treats the law. However, when it comes to publishing more Oops, Son of Oops and Mr. Fixits than you had rules to start with, you put them wherever, and good luck to us to find them. I feel like a lawyer researching a case when I build a vehicle, so why shouldn't I argue like one?
When will we see you make a comprehensive Second Edition rulebook that you can't fit an Ogre through?!
Donald O. Spragg, Esperance, NY
P.S. What about putting a cluster bomb in an option I ejection seat?
Comprehensive rulebook: I'm working on it Cluster bombs in ejection seats: Not while I work here, you won't
I would like to add my opinion to the continuing debate over X-ray lasers and the effects of their lethality on autoduelling.
X-ray lasers' tremendous price ensures that they will very rarely be seen either on the road or in the arena. And besides, an X-ray laser isn't really that much more deadly than, say, one of Uncle Al's new Blast Cannons or two linked VMGs. linking two autocannon provides even more firepower than a heavy X-ray laser, for less cost. Yet there is no yelling and screaming about BCs or weapon links.
I think the furor over X-ray lasers is probably "much ado about nothing." Their high prices will severely reduce the degree to which they are seen, and their lethality is not that much greater than other new weapons or linked sets of older weapons.
Robert Eikel, La Jolla, CA
Since the publication of ADQ 6/4 I have come up two more variations for Route 'Em. Since it is a solo adventure, it does takes a limited amount of schizophrenia to play both the gang members and the ranger to their limit. During playtesting of the scenario the only time it becomes impossible for the ranger to win is when playing the Innocent Bystanders option. To play the bad guys to their worst, I started to have the biker shoot the bystanders. This takes points away from the ranger. It is an evil thought, but a fun one at the same time.
The second one is for those that have played the scenario as much as I have. Every once in a while, I replace the Mad Dogs with a gang of Elvis impersonators and T I. as a music critic.
On a more serious note, in ADQ 4/3 ADQ&A Scott Haring totally messed up on answering a question from Matthew Johns. I'll repeat the question: let's say a vehicle calculates his HC as 4, rounds it down to 3, since it's the highest allowed. Then he loses a wheel. What is his new HC? Scott replied: The permanant HC penalty (-3) is deducted from the original HG of 4, not the rounded-down HC of 3. So the new HC is 1. See, there is a reason for raising your HC above 3!
Now that blew away my understanding of the whole idea of having a maximum HC at all. I wrote Scott and asked him why even have a maximum HC of 3 if all penalties are subtracted from the original HC. He said, "for game balance." Obviously I am looking for a better answer. Any ideas? I think the car's new HC should be 0. That original HC is worthless.
David N. Searle, Antioch, Illinois
You want a better answer, you've come to the right place. Suppose, for the sake of this argument, that we replace "game balance" with a pseudo-reality check and assume HC 3 grants you about 1G cornering ability (I have no idea whether this is so, but it's close). If your car can pull 1 G on the skid pad, adding wide street tires (Radials, in game terms) won't significantly raise this amount. However, once some bozo zaps your expensive tire out from under you, and assuming you maintain control, your radials will make a difference - and that's what Scott's ruling takes into accounL Play it the other way if you want: I'm comfortable with the rules as they are.
Congratulations on your editorship. Good luck. By the way, while Dodges & Dragons was obviously not a serious autoduelling article, it was well thought out, well written and a lot of fun to play. Those are the main reasons I subscribe to ADQ...
At GenCon/Origins last year, I spoke to Steve Beeman and Ben Ellinger about the possibility of a major tournament, on the scale of the World Championships, held annually at GenCon. The subject arose due to my complaining (whining, actually) about not being able to attend Origins, and, thus, the Worlds, every year.
Many duellists (and gamers in general, of which I am one) have room in their budgets and schedules for only one major convention, and since Milwaukee is within driving distance of Louisville, my choice has to be GenCon.
We discussed a couple of possibilities for such a tournament:
The Autoduel Grand Prix. Basically, World Combat-Racing Championship, using the Dueltrack rules
Div. 15 World Championship. Since the Worlds are usually held at Div. 30, hold a separate convention with a lower spending limit. While I realize that it may seem strange to have two World Champions, in the world of 2039 there are presumably ten, one for each division. This is the type of setup I'd prefer, though any tournament large enough to be covered in ADQ would be great (yes, I'm a glory hound, I admit it).
Jeff Wilder, Louisville, Kentucky
I like the idea of running a racing event at GenCon enough that I'm going to do just that. But it won't be on the same par with the AADA Worlds; more likely, it would be a one-shot tournament like most of the events at GenCon. Naturally, it will get a short writeup here.
This year's World Championship final round will be Division 15. The idea of running separate championships for each division staggers the mind (not to mention my organizational abilities).