Bertil:
>> From: [email removed]
>> Subject: Various Points...
>> To Bertil:
>> Sorry, I typoed. I meant an ARMOURED man, not an UNARMOURED man
>> when discussing sords vs. bare hands...
> I still don't understand how you mean. Could you write the example
>down briefly?
Armour absorbs hits equal to twice its armour levels when hit by a
sword (indeed, any melee weapon, except bare hands). So a sword (damage
2) does NOT penetrate AC1.
A man with strength 6 and unarmed melee combat 7 has an unarmed
damage value of 4. Armour absorbs twice its armour value when hit by a
man with his bare hands, BUT the man also takes one point of damage to
his hand when he hits the armour.
So the armour allows 2 pts through when hit by a bare hand, and none
through when hit by a sword.
Note that this is subject to interpretation. Dark Conspiracy
describes the armed melee rules slightly differently (and the damage
from a sword differently also), and under THAT particular incarnation of
the rules, a sword will generally do more than a man will with his bare
hands. In the original T2K2 rules, armed melee combat is described
similarly to those on DC, but the sword is again different, and in that
case, the bare hands win out over the sword as long as the man doing the
punching is reasonably strong...
---Steve Higginbotham