Re: more thrown weapons

[Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>]

> If you are going on knowing its coming or not knowing its coming making
> no difference, then why not +7?  +3 mob; +2 Agi; +2 Per. = +7
> Don't see the reasoning there.  In the course of a battle, you aren't
> throwing at someone tied down.  If they are tied down, they loose
> agility and mobility.  And if they are tied down, its a completely invalid
> test cause you wouldn't be throwwing something at them, you'd be
> walking up and putting a dagger in their eye.

*sigh* AQ doesn't distinquish these things. A man sitting down fishing
has the same DV as a man who knows your firing at him and is actively
dodging. I'm not saying your arguments don't have some truth, I'm
saying they are irrelevant within the context of the AQ ruleset. But
lets say I take your full 7 into account and it still proves ludicrously
simple? 

Lets make the test as it should be. AQ rules to reality. If I'm
working with an inanimate target, do the same in AQ. Provide the
appropriate modifiers, so all it really has for a DV is armour.
How does that change what we are testing? Answer... it doesn't.
AQ rules still say I can only throw one dagger a round. Your missing
the purpose of the test Wright... missing it by a lot. Lets compare
apples to apples.

Your AQ character doing the _EXACT_ same test that we perform in
reality. I'm not simulating combat, I'm simulating mechanics.

Take the same test and put in an aware, moving target. What changes?
In reality: chance of hitting; in AQ: chance of hitting (in terms of
target having higher DV). Same test. The data will extrapolate.

Scientific method and all that rot...

						-Steve