Simple question: Do you get your damage bonus when you perform a carrier attack?

Emerald Dart throws a punch, with his fist covered in his cytotoxic sap (yes, this is a real player's character). 

His CC gives him 2d8 HtH.  His sap is treated as a Chemical attack doing 2d8.  His damage bonus is +2. 

If he hits with both, does he do 2d8+2+2d8 or 2d8+2+2d8+2?

His punch does 2d8+2. 
If he uses chemical power ranged, it's 2d8+2. 
So it makes sense that the damage bonus counts for both, since it counts individually. 

The problem arises when you have a high damage mod guy, with Ht. Attack or Mega Int.  I don't think 2d8+12+2d8+12 is quite fair...

I'd like to hear opinions.

I agree with Paul, mostly.  I would give the damage mod for the payload attack only and not the carrier.

The main reason for the carrier is to deliver the payload.  It does not have to be a smashing blow, just a hit. If the carrier misses, the payload is gone, therefore it is more important to land the carrier first. That being the case, I would be more worried about scoring a hit with precision than doing a lot of damage.

You are spot on: The damage adds up too quickly and can score an incapacitating blow with one shot. Not horrible for bad guys against heroes, if it fits your plot, but it makes the fight too easy for the heroes otherwise.

Dr.Demented wrote on May 13^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:



Doctor D,

You have my position reversed.  I would give the damage mod for the payload and not the carrier for the reasons listed.

My agreement with Paul is only one attack gets a bonus and not both.  The difference is he favors the carrier where I favor the payload.

Hmmm, I see now what you mean. 

I guess I misunderstood you incorrectly.

Ah my bad on that.

No need to apologize, Dr. As it turns out, Paul and I were saying the same thing and I wanted to make my thought clear.

I have to agree with pretty everyone, the damage bonus is only going to be applied to the primary attack, not the carrier attack, as that's already doing extra damage.

You know, Ironnerd, your post got me to read through the 2.1 rules again, and I still can't find that part that says to apply the Damage Modifier only once.

One curious thing I did observe (by reading through the combat example between Crime Teacher and Gunslinger), was that one combatant leaping onto the back of another was done just as a regular HTH attack.  We've long required such an attack to require two rolls to hit (just like targeting a part of the body), but now I'm wondering - especially with the base for HTH being so low - if perhaps it should just require one?

@Majestic: I do not have V&V 2.1, only Revised edition (I normally call it VV2). That may be a change from 2.0. In VV2, Since I write only for FGU, I like to keep things simple and I figure 2.1 would only confuse me. In VV2, I would think that jumping on another character's back would be like a grappling attack and require two to-hit rolls.

@Phrennzy:  Niiiice! 

Edited:

Majestic wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 3:38pm:


I'm sure you realize that does not sound convincing at all lol.   

I personally would only give one damage bonus but if it is in question why not just send a message to Jeff Dee or Jack Herman and ask what their thoughts were if it was not specific enough?

Maybe they will respond on their site

I think you might have missed my correlation between auto fire and Carrier Attacks, Ironnerd.

The point was that you only apply a character's damage modifier once, even though (technically) it's a number of attacks (I think about the highest in any of the published adventures is 4 per action).

So it serves as a decent guide to intent.  That even if a character had three Heightened Attacks (as one PC in my campaign has), that character wouldn't apply them to each bullet in the auto-fire example.

Thus one could extrapolate that it is perhaps unfair to add any kind of damage bonus (big or little) more than once for a carrier/payload attack.

No problem at all, sir.  And by no means am I saying that I am "doing it right", either.  As many of you know, my game is quite heavily house-rules, though most of it is ways of clarifying (and expanding upon) the RAW.

Multiple attacks have long been problematic; I'm glad they put the bit in there about the GM being free to limit them "to keep things under control".  Early on I/we found this to be a problem, and it's something I've been really strict on since.

Just as a fun aside, allow me to share one humorous anecdote relating to multiple attacks:

My buddy played in a PBEM (or PBP, something electronic, not face-to-face) and had a really cool, super-strong martial artist called the Dragon.  His GM allowed up to four attacks per phase (IIRC) on the same target.

So we tested things out, playing Dragon vs. Wolverine (as my best friend in high school had statted him out).  Dragon, who was very fast, moved up to Wolverine and hit him.  Then did so again and again and again.  Then when it was his turn to move again, he did the same, doing four more attacks.  Before Wolverine had even had the opportunity to move or act (or use his Regeneration), his Power was at 0 and his Hit Points were so far in the negative that he would have been atomized (i.e., loss of Basic Hits). 

My friend then understood why - in the FTF group we were both in - I was so against multiple attacks on the same target in the same phase. 

I know we've discussed auto-fire at length before, and TBH it's pretty confusing as written.  I know when Justice first visited here we found we were both doing it completely differently.

In any event, however one decides to do Carrier Attacks is good by me.  I think a GM who keeps a reasonable cap on Damage Modifiers (and Heightened Attack damage) it probably isn't game-breaking to allow on both attacks.

I'm still 95% sure I've seen (at least a somewhat) "official" answer on this, though.  Could have been anywhere over the years (one of the many email lists, message boards, forums, etc.).

Since it wasn't clear before (from either the RAW or my own Supplemental Rules), I definitely decided to spell out how we do it in my latest version (Version 5), so I'm glad this issue came up! 

I agree. Unfortunately we lose a lot in text-only mode, and I want to avoid unintended insanity.

AlabasterKnight wrote on Jun 29^th, 2015 at 11:25pm:


So you do not allow the accuracy modifier on the payload attack?

Hey Paul (et al...),
The rule states that a Carrier attack requires two rolls to attack, one for the Carrier, one for the payload.

Carrier Attacks:
In a carrier attack, two rolls to hit are also required. However in this instance roll first for the carrier attack: if it hits it takes full effect and allows the payload attack to be resolved. If the first roll misses, the payload attack is ignored.

As for accuracy and damage mods... not quite so clear... the carrier attack rule does not mention either, and the rules are not super specific for Accuracy or Damage Modifier...

3) Damage Modifier
Two modifiers are obtained, one from intelligence and one from Agility. These are cumulative. The final result is the bonus or minus to any damage result inflicted by the character on an opponent. Record it.

4) Accuracy
A modifier on the character's chances of hitting any target. Record it on the Character Record Sheet.

Damage modifier applies to "any damage result inflicted by the character on an opponent", since both the carrier and payload do damage, an argument could be made that the damage mod applies to both. Of course one could also argue that if a character attacks a friend, the damage mod does not apply since he is not an "opponent" (same is true for walls and cars and stuff...).

Since the Accuracy modifier effects the characters odds of hitting the target, it could be argued that the acc mod does not apply to the payload, and only the carrier - since it actually HITs the target and the payload can be thought of as being "delivered".

Again, I apply both acc and dmg mod to carrier and payload - but that's just at my table, and it does not seem to cause any problems (and may change due to this conversation on what I thought was a really simple rule). But if I sit at another GM's table and he interprets the rule differently, I play his way.

As long as the players have a good time, you're doing it right.

Phrennzy wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 10:17am:


So, were we talking accuracy and to hit or damage mod?
I personally think a second roll to hit is retarded for the payload, the delivery being the carrier, however, I can also subscribe there may be instances to apply that, thus I run a second hit roll as a GM's discretion usually and it's situational, but that house rule.

Damage mod is all about the carrier.

I definitely think there needs to be two attacks to hit, one for the carrier and another for the payload.  Not only does it suggest that in the rules, but it makes the most sense.

I mean, if a defending character has Adaptation, and the attacking player has a HTH carrier with a Lightning Control payload, how do we best figure out what happens?

Adaptation does nothing to slow down HTH, so let's suppose that the carrier will hit.

Now how do we resolve whether that Lightning will hit as well?  The rules have you make a second attack (for the payload) just like you would do if a different character was blasting that target from across the battlefield (with Lightning).

To make that payload (Lightning) automatically hit, or to automatically make it miss seems stange to me.

The rules work perfectly as-is (regarding the two rolls to hit part), and this is one of those things that I would never consider house-ruling, as I don't see any way to improve upon them.

Phrennzy wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 1:05pm:


Not bad, Phrennzy. I like your take on that.

AlabasterKnight wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 2:43pm:


I wouldn't consider the gun to be a carrier because you don't hit anyone with the gun.  (Unless it's one of those old punch guns triggered to discharge when punching.)

Totally agree that more rolling is not necessarily better.  (To speed things up we often roll the damage along with the to hit.  If you miss, you just scoop up the dice.  If you hit, you've already got the damage out there.)

We've often used the "add up all the damage together", too, Phrennzy.

And yes, AK, if a gun is using special rounds, then absolutely they should have two rolls.  It's not uncommon in our games (in fact, I'd say it's more common than not) for the carrier to hit, but the payload to not actually impact the target.

Probably the most common usage of this would be the archer with a whole batch of trick arrows.  They might be really good at getting their arrows to hit, but that doesn't give them an easier way of landing attacks (that otherwise they couldn't make).

So the arrow might hit, but the Ice Carrier (if the target had Adaptation) would not leave the target covered in ice.  Or they might hit with the arrow (which they are super accurate with, due to Heightened Expertise, training, etc.), but that doesn't mean the stun payload (which attacks as Paralysis) will.

That payload attack (in the case of Paralysis) should have no more chance of affecting the target than if they'd been shot by a Paralysis Ray from some other villain.  The carrier simply allows them a way of getting a (basically free) two-for-one attack.  It gives the character the opportunity to land two attacks.  Nothing in the rules suggests that the second attack lands for free (without a roll).

What if the payload is carried inside the ammo and the ammo penetrates before effect?

Or let's dumb it down: Captain America takes a spear to the chest. Right there at the tip of the spear embedded in his chest now are the three sticks of dynamite affixed to the spear with duct tape and the lit fuse is up. Boom! Do we really need a to hit roll to blow Cap to smithereens?

This is the house rules section, right?

Majestic wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 5:17pm:

And, if you read my comment above, I sometimes based on the case make a second roll if the hero makes a case for an applicable defense to payload...

We're in house rules, right? Just making sure?

Ironnerd wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 8:38am:


We can have the conversation about accuracy elsewhere at a later time.

One thing that is remarkably absent from any other consideration: Contributor or not, this is the house rules section where everyone gets to express what they do to tweak the rules for home use where they may not find them sensible or agreeable. This is outstanding any interpretation of whether the ideas are procedurally correct in the rules as written published Nineteen Eighty-Two.

This is not the section of the forum where the wily veterans come and beat people over the head as the rules police regardless that motivation.

Thanks,

This is the House Rules section but it also stated it was the forum for discussing rules in general.  There wasn't a forum area more applicable. 

I enjoy hearing everyone's views on the rules and how they implement them.  That's how a game grows and becomes more fun for me and my group. 

The rules set of V&V is so broad that house rules MUST be applied, as there are constant situations that arise that are not covered.  (Or that are found so repugnant by the players that they MUST be house ruled.)

I'm coming late to the party for a response, so allow me to just say pretty much what Phrennzy said, that this is the section of this forum for discussing both the House Rules as well as the regular Rules.  There doesn't seem to be another 'Rules' section on this forum.

And I don't think anybody has beat anyone over the head or been a "rules policeman" here on this discussion.  Certainly that's never been my intent, and I haven't picked that up from anybody else here.

You clearly feel that carrier attacks don't work well as written in the rules, and some of us disagree with that.  No big deal.  You're free to house rule things as you like.  The only insult (that I'm aware of, FWIW, ironically enough, has come from you (calling the RAW, which you disagree with, as being "retarded").  Ironnerd wasn't the only one who was a bit offput by that remark.  It was a bit demeaning to those of us who find it to be an elegant, excellent way of adjudicating things.

But I don't find it fair to insist that because this is the House Rules section that we can't bring up the actual rules of the game.  As is often the case, sometimes people misunderstand something about how the rules work in a certain way (it's happened to all of us; there's many places where they're not very clear), and this is a great place for clarifying things and perhaps honing or adjusting things to create variants or house rules.

For the most part, this has actually been a very interesting thread. It is always eye-opening to see how different people see the same rule in different ways.

I never find conversations with players/fans/GMs/customers to be dull or boring in the least. They are always enjoyable, informative, and even inspiring (as in, it inspires new thoughts in my normally dormant mind). It's also a really important method for getting feedback on the product and a feel for what rules or sections need some attention.

Did everyone like my July 4th emoticon under the forum banner?

*cough* trying to change the subject *cough*