HTML conversion by Michael P. Owen, March 2000
Last issue (4/2), Bill Jeg brought up an interesting point of ethics, and I'd like to answer it.
Yes, there can be good practical reasons for even a biker gang to spare people when they can.
First, if you're road-raiding, you're doing it in the back
country, far from towns. This means (assuming that if you strip
the vehicle of everything
you want, it's in no condition to go anywhere) that the driver is
left on foot, with nothing but the clothes on his back, a good
long ways from
anywhere. Believe me, he's now in no position to do you any harm,
and he has other things to worry about -- like making it to the
next town on
foot. A several-mile hike in tough country is enough to take the
starch out of anybody, and after a couple of miles he'll have
other things to
worry about besides you. If you've been kind enough to leave him
a full canteen, sidearm, and map with the water holes marked, he
might even
feel comparatively grateful.
Second, I assume you only pick on vehicles you expect that you
can handle. This means your average working stiff on down to
desperately
unemployed -- not people in the professional duelling class. This
translates to people with not much in the way of resources -- in
money,
political clout, or duellist connections. About all he can do
against you, once he finally makes it to the nearest population
center, is notify the
cops. Now, how many reported crimes ever get solved, even in the
cities, let alone on the road? The most you can expect is that
the local law
will make a few passes through the area to see if they can spot
anything. Your normal road-watch precautions should take care of
that.
Third, gangs who just strip vehicles and leave their victims
alive and pretty much unharmed rate a much lower priority with
either the law or
duellists than gangs who make a regular practice of killing
people. If you kill a lot of people, sooner or later it will be
worth somebody's time and
expense to mount a big campaign and come clean you out. But if
you're only stealing goodies, you're not worth as much effort.
This may rankle
your pride, but it increases your chances of survival.
So go ahead and spare the drivers; you'll live longer.
Leslie Fish
El Cerrito, CA
When are you guys going to make a supplement for the Car
Wars character? Let's face it, Car Wars is a boardgame,
not really a role-playing
game. I, for one, would want to see a roleplaying supplement for CW
to come out. It already has an interesting setting. All you need
is some
rules for ability scores like strength, intelligence, and so on.
Then you would need more skills and more equipment for the
character.
Well, besides that, the game is great, especially Dueltrack! I just got it, and I think it's great!
Thuyet Chau
Lake Elsinore, CA
Roleplaying? You mean, like with differences between characters, and hundreds of skills, but set in the Car Wars universe? What a good idea . . .
Scott D. Haring
In the past several issues of ADQ it has become
glaringly obvious that the AADA disapproves of the Big League
Unlimited Duelling
organization. Perhaps you do not understand; the membership of
BLUD is dedicated to having a whole lot of fun, without the
restrictions
imposed by the AADA. BLUD matches are down n' dirty, no holds
barred events. BLUD members are not looking for prestige or
wealth; all we
want to do is have fun. We do not invite hordes of spectators to
watch our fights, because we know they might get hurt.
We do not hand out mints of money to the first person to ace a
tire. We do challenge each other to find out who among us is the
most skilled
(and, of course, to inflict some mindless mayhem on heavily-armed
automobiles). We are not the barbarians you paint us to be,
although BLUD
does contain a higher level of psychopathic imbeciles that I
would prefer. BLUD is no longer attracting the upper crust of
combat-minded
autoduellists, but who would you expect to join a group of
"bloody barbarians" who squabble over "cheap
trophies and bragging rights."
Now, you, the AADA, seem to think BLUD poses some kind of threat
to your members. Ever stop to consider the brute size of the AADA
in
2036? Nowadays you could take out the Brotherhood!
In any case, a bunch of boys just trying to have some fun are
now in this up to our collective necks. And as Mr. Haring said,
it's sure to get
worse before it gets better. I would like to ask all of you to
stop all this nonsense so we can get back to where we belong --
autoduelling.
Andy Wineke
BLUD-affiliated independent
Madison, WI
I am writing you to inform you of some of the problems with
the corrections of the CA rules (ADQ 4/1, p .10). I agree
the with the 10-point
limit, but the "one weapon per side" rule hurts honest
designers who use linked weapons (like me).
These limits are no longer any help. Using Dueltrack
and metal armor, 10 points of non-ablative metal armor weighs
only 50 lbs. per space.
Designing killer vans suddenly became a lot easier (I enclose my
own design to illustrate). (Editor's note: The design featured
an RL front and 3 MMLs to the other sides, all protected by 10
points metal component armor.)
So, how can we fix it? Simple. Whenever a shot hits an
unarmored side, roll 1d6. If the number rolled is 3 or over the
number of spaces the
weapon on that side (without the extra armor), damage passes that
weapon and continues to the next opponent. This way, people in
vehicles
using the loophole will not live long! You may also wish to
disallow metal component armor. Hope this helps!
Ron Midthun
Sauk City, WI
If I had known the trouble this simple gadget would cause,
I never would have printed it. You make some good suggestions,
Ron. First, the
"one weapon per side" rule can be modfied so that
one 10-point piece of CA can protect a single weapon or group of
legitimately linked
weapons (like 2 MGs or 3 HRs, not
two different weapons . . .). Base the cost and weight of the CA
on the total spaces of the linked
package. For now, this is just a suggestion, not an
"official" rules change -- feedback is encouraged.
As for metal component armor, I never considered the possibility when I printed the item -- I was thinking strictly in terms of ablative plastic. Of course, I didn't specifically say that component armor could not be metal, so lots of people gave it a try. Your reaction is typical, Ron -- just about everybody agrees it's a bad idea, game-balance-wise. So here's a new rule (or a clarification of an old one): Component armor cannot be made of metal. This is official.
Scott D. Haring
The following are observations and creative suggestions that require no reply --
1) Hire David Ladyman to be the AADA letter-answerer so the editors have a chance to edit.
2) Convince John Nowak to write a novel in the spirit of yet-another-gaming-company's Dragonlance series.
3) Gather together a bunch of short stories, think of a
creative name (like, Tale-pipes, for instance), and publish a
yearly fiction anthology in the
same way you do Uncle Albert's.
4) Send letter bombs to rules lawyers.
Cornwainer Thomas
Oakland, CA
Thanks, Cordwainer. My thoughts: 1) I like David too much
to ever give him that particular job; 2) I guess that's up to
John, but I wouldn't
mind; 3) Interesting idea -- anyone else agree?; 4) No
comment.
Scott D. Haring
