Aren't Daleks just a bit too tough?

[simonf]

Now I know that getting into a fight with a Dalek just isn't smart, so it kind of stands to reason that Lethal damage should be reduced by two levels by the Dalek's forcefield, and then the amount of damage reduced by 10 by the armour, to... well, 0, basically. But how well does this reflect what happens in the TV series, where Captain Jack, Mickey Smith, and Colonel Blue's rebel forces all have guns that can actually destroy them? It makes me think that something needs to be tweaked a bit in the rules...

[Catsmate]

Yeah, there's a bit of a dichotomy in the Whoniverse between the 'Dalek as unstoppable killing machine' and 'Dalek as mook' memes. The Time Lord RPG handled it well giving Daleks relatively low weapons accuracy, but allowing for coordinated Group Fire:

The referee has a most useful tool here: the group fire rule. If he chooses to keep the Daleks, say, in clusters of five and use the group fire rule, these creatures become the deadly aliens they occasionally appear to be. By choosing to shoot individually at a separate target, or by forgoing group fire, the average Dalek hasn’t a hope of hitting the Doctor or his companions provided that the characters dodge. And here the referee can assure the speedy dispatch of unimportant referee characters simply by assuming they do not dodge. Look at the series and see how it works

Both Time Lord and DWAITAS deliberately de-emphesise combat which makes it awkward to reproduce certain parts of the series where weapons are employed.


What I'd do, and in fact do do as my games tends to be less Who-purist when it comes to violence, is change the weapons; add the Armour Penetration trait (either as in Rocket Age or your own version) and Energy Penetration trait (reducing the effectiveness of force shields). Likewise dump the '4/L/L' stat and allow for higher basic damage.
A struptor pistol with 6/12/18 damage and AP5 is reasonably effective as an anti-Dalek weapon. Of course it's not easy to acquire one...

However Daleks are supposed to be powerful, weapons capable of destroying them easily should be either bulky (the equivalent of AMRs and rocket launchers), advanced (e.g. Gallifreyan struptors) or the product of work (and skill rolls) by PCs. If you want to take them on either prepare and equip properly (heavy weapons, personal force shields, powered armour et cetera) or accept casualties.


Hope this helps.

[Stormcrow]

A Dalek has a forcefield that reduces your success two levels, then armor that reduces damage by 10 points. They don't try to avoid being hit. A group of humans with assault rifles firing together (Cooperation rule) will each give +2 to the leader's roll, so assuming a decent roll or enough backup, they'll get a Fantastic result on the Dalek. The forcefield turns that into Success, and so they do 3 points of damage. This is completely negated by the Dalek's armor.

The Cooperation rule doesn't provide for doing extra damage as a group or for concentrating fire on a single point, and you can't spend Story Points to raise results above Success. Therefore, to mimic this sort of thing, the GM MUST invent a new rule. I would rule that if you hit the eye stalk you can spend a Story Point to disregard the armor. Damage is as per hitting the head. You still won't do a lot of damage, but a few such hits will finally destroy the Dalek. And because of the forcefield you'll still want several marksmen to "concentrate their fire," to give you that necessary Fantastic result.

[Stormcrow]

Of course, when you zap out of a parallel universe carrying a gun as big as you are, you can pretty much expect to completely ignore the forcefield and armor when firing. (Where exactly did they get those?)

[simonf]

Sept 18, 2014 1:26:42 GMT Stormcrow said:

Of course, when you zap out of a parallel universe carrying a gun as big as you are, you can pretty much expect to completely ignore the forcefield and armor when firing. (Where exactly did they get those?)

It's a good question, given that they look exactly like the Preachers' guns from Doomsday/The End of the World, which didn't do a whole lot to the Daleks even after the Doctor modified them. Anyway, I thought the group fire idea sounded pretty good, but the fact remains that even Jackie Tyler was able to blast a Dalek into oblivion, and as much as I admire the game for upholding the anti-violence ethos of the TV series I can envisage some players watching a Dalek go BOOM and getting a bit annoyed when they can't pull off the same thing in the game. As I see it, the solution is to give certain very difficult to obtain weapons even higher damage codes (e.g. 10/L/L), reduce the Daleks' defenses so that 4/L/L weapons do have a chance of damaging or destroying them, or allow characters to use Story Points to add extra dice to damage. 

[olegrand]

Wouldn't the upcoming Tenth Doctor sourcebook be the ideal place to include such optional rules about heavy-duty anti-Dalek weaponry, concentrated fire etc. ? How can we pass this suggestion to C7?

[misterharry]

Sept 18, 2014 15:14:32 GMT olegrand said:

Wouldn't the upcoming Tenth Doctor sourcebook be the ideal place to include such optional rules about heavy-duty anti-Dalek weaponry, concentrated fire etc. ? How can we pass this suggestion to C7?

Apart from emailing Cubicle 7 direct, Corone is one of the writers on the DWAITAS range and occasionally pops into the forum. It might be worth drawing his attention to the suggestion in this thread.

Alternatively, Andrew Kenrick is the DWAITAS line editor and also frequents the forum.

[Escher]

Too tough?
There's always this:




and he's in fact featured in a cameo in this weeks' Time Heist making him Canon.

[Catsmate]

Sept 18, 2014 17:48:48 GMT Escher said:

Too tough?
There's always this:




and he's in fact featured in a cameo in this weeks' Time Heist making him Canon.

But his Daleks couldn't fly (needing hoverbouts) and didn't have force shielding.

[Marnal]

I just leave the Daleks as unstoppable. It may not fit with how they are portrayed in some TV episodes, but it keeps my players scared to death of them when they show up. Which is [to my way of thinking] more true to spirit of the show.

[simonf]

Sept 18, 2014 22:23:07 GMT Marnal said:

I just leave the Daleks as unstoppable. It may not fit with how they are portrayed in some TV episodes, but it keeps my players scared to death of them when they show up. Which is [to my way of thinking] more true to spirit of the show.

Right, but I think in most Dalek stories one or more Daleks do get destroyed, if not by their enemies then by other Daleks. If the end of Into the Dalek had been part of a RPG session then Rusty's shots (4/L/L) would all have been bouncing off the other Daleks. So I'm fine with Daleks being extremely hard to stop, but not unstoppable.

[misterharry]

The Seventh Doctor Sourcebook has introduced weapons which ignore the first x points of Armour: the Special Weapons Daleks's cannon ignores the first 10 points, as do UNIT's Teflon Anti-Dalek Shells; UNIT's Armour Piercing Rounds ignore 5 points of Armour. Of course, with New Series Daleks you still need to get through a Dalek's forcefield, so you need a Fantastic result.

[Catsmate]

Sept 19, 2014 5:48:00 GMT simonf said:

Sept 18, 2014 22:23:07 GMT Marnal said:

I just leave the Daleks as unstoppable. It may not fit with how they are portrayed in some TV episodes, but it keeps my players scared to death of them when they show up. Which is [to my way of thinking] more true to spirit of the show.

Right, but I think in most Dalek stories one or more Daleks do get destroyed, if not by their enemies then by other Daleks. If the end of Into the Dalek had been part of a RPG session then Rusty's shots (4/L/L) would all have been bouncing off the other Daleks. So I'm fine with Daleks being extremely hard to stop, but not unstoppable.

That's a good point. In general it's almost unheard of for a military vehicle to be immune to it's own weapons so I'd expect that Dalek weapons would be effective against other Daleks.

[Catsmate]

Sept 19, 2014 9:57:52 GMT misterharry said:

The Seventh Doctor Sourcebook has introduced weapons which ignore the first x points of Armour: the Special Weapons Daleks's cannon ignores the first 10 points, as do UNIT's Teflon Anti-Dalek Shells; UNIT's Armour Piercing Rounds ignore 5 points of Armour. Of course, with New Series Daleks you still need to get through a Dalek's forcefield, so you need a Fantastic result.

Yeah that was in Rocket Age and makes sense. You could do something similar for penetrating force shields, either as a special effect/Trait for energy weapons (advanced ones at least) or as a projectile warhead.

This could be part of a scenario as the Doctor/PCs desperately improvise to overpower and modify stock blasters,  create 'field penetrator circuits' for UNIT's grenade launcher rounds or develop a 'shield damper' to even the battle.
Lots of room for PC skills to make the difference and ratchet up the tension.

[misterharry]

Sept 18, 2014 1:26:42 GMT Stormcrow said:

Of course, when you zap out of a parallel universe carrying a gun as big as you are, you can pretty much expect to completely ignore the forcefield and armor when firing. (Where exactly did they get those?)

Presumably developed by the alt-Torchwood of Pete's World by retro-engineering whatever the Doctor did to Mickey's gun in Doomsday.

[Bewildered Badger]

Sept 19, 2014 9:57:52 GMT misterharry said:

The Seventh Doctor Sourcebook has introduced weapons which ignore the first x points of Armour: the Special Weapons Daleks's cannon ignores the first 10 points, as do UNIT's Teflon Anti-Dalek Shells; UNIT's Armour Piercing Rounds ignore 5 points of Armour. Of course, with New Series Daleks you still need to get through a Dalek's forcefield, so you need a Fantastic result.

Has anything listed the stats for 'bastic headed' bullets? In 'Revelation Of The Daleks' a burst of these from a sub-machine gun destroyed a Dalek no problems. They were less effective in 'The Parting Of The Ways', failing to get through the force-field (although the fact they were being fired by untrained civilians may have influenced matters).

[Catsmate]

Sept 19, 2014 16:02:33 GMT Bewildered Badger said:

Sept 19, 2014 9:57:52 GMT misterharry said:

The Seventh Doctor Sourcebook has introduced weapons which ignore the first x points of Armour: the Special Weapons Daleks's cannon ignores the first 10 points, as do UNIT's Teflon Anti-Dalek Shells; UNIT's Armour Piercing Rounds ignore 5 points of Armour. Of course, with New Series Daleks you still need to get through a Dalek's forcefield, so you need a Fantastic result.

Has anything listed the stats for 'bastic headed' bullets? In 'Revelation Of The Daleks' a burst of these from a sub-machine gun destroyed a Dalek no problems. They were less effective in 'The Parting Of The Ways', failing to get through the force-field (although the fact they were being fired by untrained civilians may have influenced matters).

They are not mentioned in the Sixth Doctor Sourcebook (as I noted in the errata thread). I modelled them as advanced APEx rounds.

Bastic
ammunition    

Enhanced ammunition for projectile weapons incorporating a mono-molecular tip,
for armour penetration (negates 5 levels of Armour) and an explosive core
(causes a secondary wound if armour is penetrated) for terminal effect.
Sometimes supplied to primitive planets for use in indigenous firearms against
offplanet invaders.

For more advanced CPR slugthrowers (energy enhanced or liquid propellant) bullet damage is typically 3/6/9 base effect for rounds fired
from handguns or machine pistols, 4/8/12 for assault rifles and 6/12/18 for
heavy sniper rifles.

[Corone]

Sept 18, 2014 15:52:09 GMT misterharry said:

Sept 18, 2014 15:14:32 GMT olegrand said:

Wouldn't the upcoming Tenth Doctor sourcebook be the ideal place to include such optional rules about heavy-duty anti-Dalek weaponry, concentrated fire etc. ? How can we pass this suggestion to C7?

Apart from emailing Cubicle 7 direct, Corone is one of the writers on the DWAITAS range and occasionally pops into the forum. It might be worth drawing his attention to the suggestion in this thread.

Alternatively, Andrew Kenrick is the DWAITAS line editor and also frequents the forum.

It may already be part of the plan, we have aimed to be as complete as we can be.
But possibly better to remind Andy K nearer the time as we have a couple more Doctors to get through

[misterharry]

Sept 19, 2014 16:51:44 GMT Catsmate said:

They are not mentioned in the Sixth Doctor Sourcebook (as I noted in the errata thread). I modelled them as advanced APEx rounds.

Bastic
ammunition    

Enhanced ammunition for projectile weapons incorporating a mono-molecular tip,
for armour penetration (negates 5 levels of Armour) and an explosive core
(causes a secondary wound if armour is penetrated) for terminal effect.
Sometimes supplied to primitive planets for use in indigenous firearms against
offplanet invaders.

For more advanced CPR slugthrowers (energy enhanced or liquid propellant) bullet damage is typically 3/6/9 base effect for rounds fired
from handguns or machine pistols, 4/8/12 for assault rifles and 6/12/18 for
heavy sniper rifles.

Can we use this when we get to The Sixth Doctor Expanded Universe Sourcebook?

But what do you mean by a secondary wound? Does the bullet do the same damage again but totally ignoring armour, if the first damage penetrates?

[Catsmate]

Sept 19, 2014 20:17:23 GMT misterharry said:

Can we use this when we get to The Sixth Doctor Expanded Universe Sourcebook?

Absolutely, go ahead.

Sept 19, 2014 20:17:23 GMT misterharry said:

But what do you mean by a secondary wound? Does the bullet do the same damage again but totally ignoring armour, if the first damage penetrates?

Yep. The idea is that if the bullet penetrates armour it explodes inside the target, causing a second attack unaffected by the armour. I should have been more specific, the second attack is 3/6/9 for all but the largest bullets.

[Marnal]

In the FASA RPG [which worked like that AiTaS RPG in that all beam weapons did the exact same 'lethal' damage] they stated that Dalek Neutralizers completely ignore Dalekanium armor. So there's a work-around that was actually licensed by BBC.

[Catsmate]

Sept 20, 2014 0:35:33 GMT Marnal said:

In the FASA RPG [which worked like that AiTaS RPG in that all beam weapons did the exact same 'lethal' damage] they stated that Dalek Neutralizers completely ignore Dalekanium armor. So there's a work-around that was actually licensed by BBC.

True. And Cyberweapons ignored most/all of the Cybermen's armour too, allowing for a Companion to grab a Cyberweapon and massacre Cybermen while previously lasers had been mostly ineffective.

Time Lord had 'alien' weapons being rather more powerful (8 Wounds) than human types (generally 6 Wounds); given the 'beat the difference' mechanic that made them far more effective against the more heavily armoured aliens.

Personally I favour giving Daleks, Cybermen et cetera weapons that negate most of their own defenses, not only does it allow for working Dalek v Dalek firefights but also allows PCs to scavange such weapons to have a better chance.

[Corone]

Sept 20, 2014 10:12:23 GMT Catsmate said:

Personally I favour giving Daleks, Cybermen et cetera weapons that negate most of their own defenses, not only does it allow for working Dalek v Dalek firefights but also allows PCs to scavange such weapons to have a better chance.

While I don't disagree,
I'd argue that is your PCs have got to the point where they are shooting at Daleks,
they have already lost...

[Catsmate]

Sept 20, 2014 11:04:46 GMT Corone said:

Sept 20, 2014 10:12:23 GMT Catsmate said:

Personally I favour giving Daleks, Cybermen et cetera weapons that negate most of their own defenses, not only does it allow for working Dalek v Dalek firefights but also allows PCs to scavange such weapons to have a better chance.

While I don't disagree,
I'd argue that is your PCs have got to the point where they are shooting at Daleks,
they have already lost...

True but sometimes the Doctor's companions have to fight a delaying action while he works on his masterplan.

And of course players may prefer a different style of game from the classic Who, even C7 has acknowledged this with the UNIT Sourcebook.

[cigarman]

I use rules from Primeval, Rocket Age, and Pulp Fantastic in my DWAiTS games. Anything that uses the same system is fair game in my campaign, so if Rocket Age has an Armor Piercing advantage for weapons, then the Dalek invincibility problem is solved.

Of course Anti-Dalek weapons are rare, but a bit more common in Dalek theatres of war.

And a bit of Jiggery-pokery, with some story points, can always help.

My favorite Anti-Dalek weapon one of my PC Timelords came up with is a mini T-mat device that attaches to the end of a rifle loaded with explosive rounds. Beams the round past the forcefield and armor, directly into the Dalek shell.

[doctorjest]

I think overcoming something like this is what story points are really supposed to be for. Something like convincing a Dalek into shooting his fellow Daleks, or a group of soldiers led by a PC concentrating fire on a Dalek's eye stalk aren't the sort of thing to be handled through the normal combat rules, they're plot twists invoked from the "doing something remarkable" or "hang on I have an idea" rules. This reflects much better the way the show portrays the Daleks: they're completely unstoppable except when the plot requires that they're not. And that "when the plot requires it" factor is what Story Points are there to emulate.

[Catsmate]

Since I've finally had time to peruse the Seventh Doctor Sourcebook in detail, the "Teflon Anti-Dalek Shells" actually seem rather over-powered. Not only will they routinely penetrate Dalek armour (AP10) but they have a one-in-three chance of ignoring the force shield also. A GPMG with a belt of these would be a highly effective weapon against even a small group of Daleks, especially from ambush.
I may re-write the stats for Bastic tipped ammunition in light of this.

One nitpick is that while the stats for armour-piercing rounds for robots; in the episode Lethbridge-Stewart actually described these as "a very efficient semi-armour piercing high explosive round for giant robots", so they should have combine moderate AP with an explosive secondary effect. Perhaps AP5 plus an automatic 'Good' damage result? Somewhat in line with the anti-Yeti explosive rounds.

[misterharry]

Sept 25, 2014 10:58:25 GMT Catsmate said:

One nitpick is that while the stats for armour-piercing rounds for robots; in the episode Lethbridge-Stewart actually described these as "a very efficient semi-armour piercing high explosive round for giant robots", so they should have combine moderate AP with an explosive secondary effect. Perhaps AP5 plus an automatic 'Good' damage result? Somewhat in line with the anti-Yeti explosive rounds.

As I mentioned in your other thread, I don't think the actual line by the Brigadier mentions the armour-piercing rounds as being explosive.

[Catsmate]

Sept 25, 2014 11:40:41 GMT misterharry said:

Sept 25, 2014 10:58:25 GMT Catsmate said:

One nitpick is that while the stats for armour-piercing rounds for robots; in the episode Lethbridge-Stewart actually described these as "a very efficient semi-armour piercing high explosive round for giant robots", so they should have combine moderate AP with an explosive secondary effect. Perhaps AP5 plus an automatic 'Good' damage result? Somewhat in line with the anti-Yeti explosive rounds.

As I mentioned in your other thread, I don't think the actual line by the Brigadier mentions the armour-piercing rounds as being explosive.

Bugger, my mistake. I was going by the novelisation. Oops...