Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Appetite for Destruction.

Expand Messages
  • vivisectandrew
    hey all, nice to see that the INWO Support Group still exists in some form. ... since our group s interest has been rekindled, so have some old disputes (due
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 19, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      hey all,

      nice to see that the INWO Support Group still exists in some form.
      :)

      since our group's interest has been rekindled, so have some old
      disputes (due to card wording, of course).

      our dispute has to do with Disasters and Destruction.
      how exactly is destruction determined? say for instance,
      since i don't have any cards in front of me at the moment,
      that my Disaster destroys if the roll "succeeds by 6 or more",
      the target is destroyed. and as such, say the power/bonuses
      are calculated that i have to roll a 10 or less to succeed.

      two factions exist:
      1. [2-4] Destroy, [5-10] Devastates. Calculated by taking the
      required roll to succeed minus the roll value. if greater than
      or equal to value to destruction, target is destroyed.

      2. [2-5] Devastate, [6-10] Destroy. Calculated by taking the
      roll value compared to the value to destruction. if greater
      than or equal to the value to destruction, target is destroyed.

      arguments for Camp 1 being:
      "Rolls of 2s and 3s are representative of success. The bar was
      set higher, and you sailed past (underneath) it."
      "It's more complicated, it has to be that way."

      arguments for Camp 2 being:
      "It's more representative of the 'final power' of the destruction."
      "Higher number means more power."

      we tend to play Camp 1 style more often than not, but we tend not
      to use Disasters either.

      any help? or can anyone else explain it to me better with less
      ambiguity?

      thanks,
      -andrew.
    • smacinwo
      ... Not use disasters? I wish! It s like freakin Silent Spring every game we play.
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 21, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        > we tend to play Camp 1 style more often than not, but we tend not
        > to use Disasters either.

        Not use disasters? I wish! It's like freakin' Silent Spring every
        game we play.
      • Leviticus Darksyde
        ... Here s the thing: Nowhere in the rules explains where the base number (the highest number needed to succeed) would be. Does it start at 10, or does it go
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 29, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In illuminatinewworldorder@yahoogroups.com, "vivisectandrew"
          <vivisectandrew@y...> wrote:
          >
          > hey all,
          >
          > nice to see that the INWO Support Group still exists in some form.
          > :)
          >
          > since our group's interest has been rekindled, so have some old
          > disputes (due to card wording, of course).
          >
          > our dispute has to do with Disasters and Destruction.
          > how exactly is destruction determined? say for instance,
          > since i don't have any cards in front of me at the moment,
          > that my Disaster destroys if the roll "succeeds by 6 or more",
          > the target is destroyed. and as such, say the power/bonuses
          > are calculated that i have to roll a 10 or less to succeed.
          >
          > two factions exist:
          > 1. [2-4] Destroy, [5-10] Devastates. Calculated by taking the
          > required roll to succeed minus the roll value. if greater than
          > or equal to value to destruction, target is destroyed.
          >
          > 2. [2-5] Devastate, [6-10] Destroy. Calculated by taking the
          > roll value compared to the value to destruction. if greater
          > than or equal to the value to destruction, target is destroyed.
          >
          > arguments for Camp 1 being:
          > "Rolls of 2s and 3s are representative of success. The bar was
          > set higher, and you sailed past (underneath) it."
          > "It's more complicated, it has to be that way."
          >
          > arguments for Camp 2 being:
          > "It's more representative of the 'final power' of the destruction."
          > "Higher number means more power."
          >
          > we tend to play Camp 1 style more often than not, but we tend not
          > to use Disasters either.
          >
          > any help? or can anyone else explain it to me better with less
          > ambiguity?
          >
          > thanks,
          > -andrew.

          Here's the thing:

          Nowhere in the rules explains where the base number (the highest
          number needed to succeed) would be. Does it start at 10, or does it
          go according to the net Power?

          One way to look at it, since 11 and 12 are automatic failures, you
          have to start at 10 and work you way down. Meaning if you need to
          beat a roll by more than 6, you have to roll a 4 or lower.

          However, that rule doesn't work for The Oregon Crud.

          Because with The Oregon Crud, you have to beat the die roll by more
          than 10 to destroy. Under the above rule, that would be impossible
          (10 being the maximum number). So my guess would be you have to set
          the bar according to the net Power, and beat THAT by X to destroy.
          It makes almost perfect sense, except 11 & 12 would still be failures.

          Hope this helps.

          *Leviticus Darksyde*
        • vivisectandrew
          ... yeah, that s exactly what i thought. that s what i meant in the Camp 1 explanation, it s just that my example, (a 10 or less to succeed) an
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            <snip>
            > So my guess would be you have to set the bar according
            > to the net Power, and beat THAT by X to destroy. It
            > makes almost perfect sense, except 11 & 12 would still
            > be failures.

            yeah, that's exactly what i thought. that's what i
            meant in the 'Camp 1' explanation, it's just that my
            example, (a 10 or less to succeed) an Oregon Crud
            can't destroy because there's not enough chance of
            success. i believe we are in total agreement.

            Guess you've got to stack up those bonuses to destroy
            with an Oregon Crud then, huh? :D

            thanks for the help all!
            -Andrew.
          • Leviticus Darksyde
            ... My favorite trick is to combine OC with a Volcano, using the Volcano a the lead disaster (makes perfect sense, when you think about it). You don t need
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 5, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In illuminatinewworldorder@yahoogroups.com, "vivisectandrew"
              <vivisectandrew@y...> wrote:
              >
              > Guess you've got to stack up those bonuses to destroy
              > with an Oregon Crud then, huh? :D
              >
              > thanks for the help all!
              > -Andrew.

              My favorite trick is to combine OC with a Volcano, using the Volcano
              a the "lead" disaster (makes perfect sense, when you think about
              it). You don't need as low a roll to destroy, and you can wipe out
              even the closest Place to its Illuminati. Even better if you can use
              two Earthquake Projector actions on it (remember, they're not
              Unique). Don't forget that Combined Disasters card!

              Fnord.

              *Leviticus Darksyde*
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.