Re: Armor proposal 1

[John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

You are correct, I exchanged the two proposals ... AP 2 advocated an
increase in dv and AP 1 dealt with movement

Regardless, counter to Greg's statement, ONE of he proposals being argued
was an increase in DV with no new decrease in movement.

John Hogg			johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu

"I am amused by the simplicity of this game.  Send me your finest meats
and cheeses!"				--Kenny Mayne

On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Wright Frazier wrote:

> > AP 1 did indeed advocate increasing DVs ... has it been withdrawn?
> 
> It increased the missile defense of base chainmail by _1_.  Why?
> because it is much better against piercing weapons than a 1.
> 
> > AP1 put plate at a dv of 8, 2DV higher than 6
> 
> Can't you read?  Steel plate is an 8...Iron plate is a 6 in the proposal.
> No change in DVs except for the 1 to chainmail.
> 
> Wright
> 
>