Rate of Fire on a Binding Attack?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Hmm, that's not how I do it, but it's very possible I've just been doing it wrong, might be worth asking Kromm for a FAQ answer on it.

(Not that I have a 300 RoF attack in any of my games, but I do have a Super with a high RoF bombardment AE attack...)

Did you already ask or do you want me to do it?

BTW, Bombardment is a different creature entirely.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Did you already ask or do you want me to do it?

You should do it, as I'm apparently not doing it right.

[makai]

Originally Posted by Molokh

How is that geometrically possible?

You place MoS circles centered on the target hex (as per RF rules), so MoS circles already include the target hex T.
You place (300-MoS) circles, each with a radius of 512, no further than MoF (which can be defined for each circle separately if need arises) from point T. Now, there is no way MoF for any single circle will ever be greater than its radius. Thus, all circles are placed within less than their radii from T. Since T belongs to all 300 circles, all 300 AEs hit the target.

MoS is Margin of Success, right?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by makai

MoS is Margin of Success, right?

Yes it is.

[Gudiomen]

Originally Posted by Molokh

How is that geometrically possible?

You place MoS circles centered on the target hex (as per RF rules), so MoS circles already include the target hex T.
You place (300-MoS) circles, each with a radius of 512, no further than MoF (which can be defined for each circle separately if need arises) from point T. Now, there is no way MoF for any single circle will ever be greater than its radius. Thus, all circles are placed within less than their radii from T. Since T belongs to all 300 circles, all 300 AEs hit the target.

This thread is possibly the most munchkin I've seen since 4e... It appears that Molokh has it right here... one thing that might fudge our perception is to continue to view an AoE as a bunch of strings, it's possibly better to visualize enormous ultra-thin pancakes landing on the area and successively covering the target... I agree that if the AoE is large enough the center hex will be hit under almost any circumstances.

I'd definately want Kromm's opinion on this, as it seams quite abusive in the point-vs-power aspect. If you do ask him Molokh, post the answer, will ya?

[Gudiomen]

Mind you, nothing stops us from applying the same principle to a singe point of damage innate attack.

[Not another shrubbery]

*tsk* Proof again that the price of design freedom is eternal vigilance on the GM's part :/

[zorg]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

This thread is possibly the most munchkin I've seen since 4e...

I take it you didn't see Jürgens "Twinking out in Gurps 4E" or my own "Duplication" thread? :)

[HeroPenguin]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Just to note, I do like the solution. Nerfs my Binding 1 RoF 100 /Will /Will attack ('100 chains of doubt') though.

*Victory pose*

@Guido, this isn't actually particularly Munchkin, if you ask me. It's still a ST1 binding attack with a huge multiplier to cost for the effect essentially being auto-hit, and using my ST/5 solution, it's arguably not worth the cost. It's a 512 yard AoE ST 60 Binding. 231 points for Fully Multiplicative Multipliers (which I would use in a game that allowed this), or... 17 points for non-multiplicative?

Binding ST1 = 2 (RoF 300 +300%, AoE 512 +450% = +750% = 15)
2 + 15 = broken.

Okay. Don't do this without using full multiplicative multipliers. THEN it's not that munchkin. Still half cost of a ST60 Binding with an AoE of 512, but eh. I don't care that much about it. XD

[vicky_molokh]

Long story short:

Kromm is very careful about RoF+AE, but recommends Explosion (which I can't figure how to apply to non-damaging effects like Afflictions and Bindings and the like). Kromm says a RFing Binding works the same way as normal Binding for layering purposes (i.e. multiple layers are cumulative whether they hit in the same turn or not). Kromm thinks using X/5 instead of static 1 takes more bookkeeping, but the change won't break anything.