Zombie AR

[dhorn]

I was recently asked by a player why armor piercing rounds do not lower the AR of zombies despite lowering the AR of armored targets by 2 (page 108 in DR).

Here is my response... I'm looking for further input or comments on my interpretation. I am certainly no expert on the subject, so your thoughts are welcome.

I'd say that the kind of AR attributed to armor is subtly different from the AR concept for zombies (unless the zombie in question is wearing body armor, of course). I think Kevin was looking for a way to capture the idea of a zombie being relatively impervious to bullets.

I did a quick scan of info regarding armor piercing bullets. I am, admittedly, not an expert on the topic so correct me if this info (or my logic) is incorrect.

Armor piercing rifle and pistol rounds are generally built around a penetrator of hardened steel or tungsten designed to retain its shape and carry the maximum possible amount of energy as deeply as possible into the target. Upon impacting a hardened target (like a bullet-proof vest), a normal copper casing is destroyed, but the penetrator of an armor piercing round continues its motion and penetrates the armor.

Zombie skin is not hardened like a bullet-proof vest. It is normal human skin in various states of decomposition. Therefore, the penetrator hits with maximum velocity and likely penetrates through the ghoul - though this would also depend on the ballistics of the round itself. A normal round would also hit with (nearly) maximal velocity.

Here's where I really start to speculate: The ability of the round to do damage to a zombie is not affected by the fact that it is armor piercing. Given a target with no armor at all, an armor piercing round would have (nearly) the same effect as a non-armor piercing round. The damage capacity (and the ability to do damage at all) is more of a characteristic of the round's ballistics.

Thanks in advance for any insight you might provide.

[azazel1024]

The issues with the AR system is that applies to the head as well. The head is mostly brain, though I'll admit you could put a round through the side of the jaw, check bone, etc.

An AR of 14 makes no sense for the head, it should be either 0, or very low, say 8. Otherwise it is indicating that the head becomes significantly hardened compared to the head when living.

An armor piercing bullet would be more likely to penetrate and cause damage than a non armor piercing bullet in this scenario.

For damage to the body, if we assume regular old decomposing flesh, and less things that when hurt are significant than armor piercing would do less damage (IE we need to be hitting bones, or maybe major nerve clusters to disable anything).

Against an unarmored person armor piercing bullets are likely to do less damage. They tend to overpenetrate reducing the energy transfered to the target, along with expanding less creating a smaller wound channel. So against a zombie, armor piercing bullets to the body would do less damage by reducing the likelihood that they'd hit nerves or bones and being more likely to simply penetrate bones instead of smashing them (of course few bones are so large that a bullet would simply bore through without shattering it anyway, AP or not).

Frankly I think your best round is going to be a 9mm or larger SMJ (semi-metal jacket) round. Or better yet, 12 guage slug or 10 or 12 guage OOO buck.
-Matt

[Ronin Shinobi]

Issue came up a few months back when I asked about AR effects of zombies, VS supernatural PS and should it lower the AR rating of a zombie. Many thought only in the realm of came mechanics and were saying no until someone pointed out the facts of how zombie AR works in the palladium system.

Supernatural Strength is not an MDC only system. It exists in both Heroes Unlimited as well as Palladium Fantasy, both of which also have an AR system. There is never any mention of Supernatural PS altering AR in any way, shape, or form.

The problem is that Dead Reign changed the mechanic for AR. Origionally AR when applied to supernatural beings ment that the creature was so tough that the attack just bounced off the creatures hide. Now in Dead Reign they tried giving zombie's AR to indicate that while you hit the zombie you didn't do any damage as you didn't hit anything vital. Frankly AR sucks as a mechanic for this as zombies are human corpses and from over a decade of martial arts I can tell you that human beings are very easy to break in ways that inhibit movement. Unless you are playing a game where you have to totally destroy the zombie to "kill" it, then frankly your average zombie should be very easy to hit and damage.

Supernatural Strenght frankly is the sort of damage dealing where ordinary humans are seriously injured if not killed outright in a single hit. With the body of a healthy living 20 year old athlete their bones are only about as tough as a hardwood sapling and will never get any stronger. Now a zombie's body is rotting ie falling apart. if your average supernatural creature will literally crush the life out of a human being in one or two hits, a zombie may not feel any pain but it will suffer structural damage with any hit. Basically any hit should damage a zobine and quickly destroy it barring any form of supernatural regeneration of a magically created zombie.

viewtopic.php?f=77&t=107857

[azazel1024]

Yeah I remember that thread.

Frankly that is why I think zombies need two ARs.

One for blunt and cutting attacks, one for stabbing and piercing attacks.

Stabbing and piercing should be significantly higher than cutting and blunt.

A penalty to strike the throat or head.

Reducing the main body SDC and hitpoints to zero incapacitates the zombie. They can't move around because their arms/legs/spine/etc is so broken/crushed/severed that they can't even pull themselves along with their hands.

Lower SDC/hit points for the head, and -5 to strike, but bonuses apply. Leave it at that.
-Matt

[RoadWarriorFWaNK]

i would suggest dumping Armor Rating entirely. It's obsolete and doesn't make any sense in either the game world or the real world. If that makes the zombies too weak, give them more hit points to compensate.

[dhorn]

I am seriously considering that last suggestion of just dumping AR for zombies - at least for the head. It seems to be a poor solution to the problem of making zombies harder to kill.

The reason this came up is because I had a player roll for a head shot and he hit, but was below the AR. It doesn't make sense to me that the bullet would blast through the head, but do no damage. I didn't like that.

One other rule that I dropped was the requirement for a natural 17-20 for a head shot - I allow bonuses.

[Rockwolf66]

Among my group we have done away with the Zombie AR and the natural 17+ to the head. The reason being is that my group consists of military vets, Milsim enthusists, and more than casual shooters. basically flesh is flesh, bone is bone and bullets do lots of damage. Heck before modern ballistic testing mediums they used to either record data at autopsys or shoot cadavers to gather terminal ballistics data.

Zombies being animated cadavers should react like a normal cadaver to a bullet.

Plus on a major RPG forum we had a great big thread on how zombies were given greater and greater "edges" in order not to simply be mowed down in large numbers by any sort of organized resistance. Basically with zombies they are easy to destroy individually but once you get high enough numbers then they become a real threat.

I guess that is why I like Josh's setting. there is a good reason as to why there are imediatly large numbers of zombies and there is someone working to keep the survivors disorganized.

[Ravenwing]

I like the AR rating in some aspects, although I think it's to high. I set it at 12, and ignore all the silly rules about head shots, we just use the standard called shot rules.

[Tearstone]

Personally, I don't agree on the thing with small calibers. I agree that for the torso they should deal half damage, as they're a very small round and aren't likely to do much. But in a headshot, they have enough energy to easily penetrate the skull, but once passing through the skull, do not have enough energy to exit. With this being the case, they bounce around inside the cranium and even fragment, creating a blender-like effect inside the brainpan. Scrambled eggs anyone?

[Ravenwing]

Personally, I don't agree on the thing with small calibers. I agree that for the torso they should deal half damage, as they're a very small round and aren't likely to do much. But in a headshot, they have enough energy to easily penetrate the skull, but once passing through the skull, do not have enough energy to exit. With this being the case, they bounce around inside the cranium and even fragment, creating a blender-like effect inside the brainpan. Scrambled eggs anyone?

I whole heartedly agree, and would add that Composite Longbows, or even longbows are far more deadly then guns. Arrows punch through bone so easy it isn't funny.

[Tadrith]

As I understand it the damage from a bullet is separated in to two parts. The Physical damage the pullet dose as it hits you and penetrates and the greater Hydrostatic Shock damage that the bullet causes in your soft tissue. Imo the Zed would take less dmg from a head shot than a human even if there's fragmentation because all their soft tissue is already rotting and they don't care about organ damage. Just my 2 cents.

[CyCo]

In a one off CoC game I ran some years ago, I made a rule saying that zombies took 1/2 damage from slicing weapons (swords, and including axes), full damage from blunt weapons (baseball bats, hammers, etc), and only one point of damage from any piercing weapons (pitchforks, spearguns) which also included bullets. IE; you spray a zombie with a automatic weapon and 4 bullets hit. They do 4 points of damage total. If any bullets hit the head (like an aimed shot), the zombie took 1/2 damage from the bullet, and the damage rolled was the chance of destroying the head outright, destroying the zombie. IE; they shoot the zombie in the head. Damage rolled is 24. The zombie takes 12 points of damage, and has a 12% chance of destroying the head.

They were never that lucky getting any specialist ammo like Armour Piercing. If they did, I'd say they do two points of damage when they hit a zombie, and the chance of destroying the head would be equal to 100% of the damage rolled. So in the above example, the chance to destroy the zombies head would be 24%.

If you want to use that as a basis for something in DR, feel free.

8]

[Shotofentropy]

I am seriously considering that last suggestion of just dumping AR for zombies - at least for the head. It seems to be a poor solution to the problem of making zombies harder to kill.

The reason this came up is because I had a player roll for a head shot and he hit, but was below the AR. It doesn't make sense to me that the bullet would blast through the head, but do no damage. I didn't like that.

One other rule that I dropped was the requirement for a natural 17-20 for a head shot - I allow bonuses.

If 17 (min for head hit) -3 for small target/"called shot" is 14 (zombie ar), it "hit" but was below AR, you didn't hit the head. These are ZOMBIES! Break the leg it will keep stepping on it! Just like a human could do, just hurt like HELL! I think everyone is missing the disparity of the situation. Look at the "point blank range for bonuses" but now you've got a zombie 10ft away and been moaning for a minute!

[flatline]

I am seriously considering that last suggestion of just dumping AR for zombies - at least for the head. It seems to be a poor solution to the problem of making zombies harder to kill.

The reason this came up is because I had a player roll for a head shot and he hit, but was below the AR. It doesn't make sense to me that the bullet would blast through the head, but do no damage. I didn't like that.

One other rule that I dropped was the requirement for a natural 17-20 for a head shot - I allow bonuses.

If 17 (min for head hit) -3 for small target/"called shot" is 14 (zombie ar), it "hit" but was below AR, you didn't hit the head. These are ZOMBIES! Break the leg it will keep stepping on it! Just like a human could do, just hurt like HELL! I think everyone is missing the disparity of the situation. Look at the "point blank range for bonuses" but now you've got a zombie 10ft away and been moaning for a minute!

If I shatter their leg with a hammer, pain has nothing to do with their inability to walk on it.

--flatline

[Icefalcon]

I am seriously considering that last suggestion of just dumping AR for zombies - at least for the head. It seems to be a poor solution to the problem of making zombies harder to kill.

The reason this came up is because I had a player roll for a head shot and he hit, but was below the AR. It doesn't make sense to me that the bullet would blast through the head, but do no damage. I didn't like that.

One other rule that I dropped was the requirement for a natural 17-20 for a head shot - I allow bonuses.

If 17 (min for head hit) -3 for small target/"called shot" is 14 (zombie ar), it "hit" but was below AR, you didn't hit the head. These are ZOMBIES! Break the leg it will keep stepping on it! Just like a human could do, just hurt like HELL! I think everyone is missing the disparity of the situation. Look at the "point blank range for bonuses" but now you've got a zombie 10ft away and been moaning for a minute!

If I shatter their leg with a hammer, pain has nothing to do with their inability to walk on it.

--flatline

Depends on how much of the muscle is there to keep it in place. I DO think it would make them more clumsy though.

[robertbc73]

If I shatter their leg with a hammer, pain has nothing to do with their inability to walk on it.

--flatline[/quote]
Depends on how much of the muscle is there to keep it in place. I DO think it would make them more clumsy though.[/quote]

I would how well or ineffective non lethal bullet would be. Probably nothing even if head shots. Yes?

[Rockwolf66]

I've known a few people who have been shot where it hit bone.

One guy had a 1/2 inch section of collarbone smashed into powder by a .22LR pistol. Another was hit in the knee by a riccocheing bullet fragment, he's now got an artificial knee because the damage was so bad.

There are very few places on a human body where a bullet will not do damage. Even if a bullet does not hit bone it will tear apart muscle and weaken it. Do enough damage to a muscle and it becomes useless. While Individual bullets might now stop a zombie is you use enough of them you can cause enough damage to cause mechanical falure of the skelital/muscular system.

Heck three rounds from an AK47 along the upper part of the shoulders is enough to take the head off a ballistic jell torso. A single .50BMG round will make a hole through a torso that I can fit my fist through. With toepoper mines I can reduse a fast zombie into a crawling target. Said crawling target is much easier to eliminate than a running zed.

[Ronin78]

I think in this case AR could be the difficulty of doing damage that counts. Since a lot of attack will damage areas of a zombie that will do no damage. Like bullets that pass right through the torso. Unless it hits something structural its negligent damage.

[flatline]

I think in this case AR could be the difficulty of doing damage that counts. Since a lot of attack will damage areas of a zombie that will do no damage. Like bullets that pass right through the torso. Unless it hits something structural its negligent damage.

That's fine for bullets, but if I swing a hammer or machete at a zombie's arm, there's a 100% chance that I'll impact the bone (which is my goal).

--flatline

[MurderCityDisciple]

As far as Zombie AR goes, I think I will only apply it to non-called shot melee attacks. You can beat a zombie to a bloody, ragged pulp if you just beat on it's main body (which I think the AR simulates well enough).

The rest of Zom-Combat I will go with my own standard Palladium-ish ruleset.

[cornholioprime]

Frankly AR sucks as a mechanic for this as zombies are human corpses and from over a decade of martial arts I can tell you that human beings are very easy to break in ways that inhibit movement. Unless you are playing a game where you have to totally destroy the zombie to "kill" it, then frankly your average zombie should be very easy to hit and damage.

An AR of 14 makes no sense for the head, it should be either 0, or very low, say 8. Otherwise it is indicating that the head becomes significantly hardened compared to the head when living.

Zombies being animated cadavers should react like a normal cadaver to a bullet.

One on one the Zombies should be easier to fight and destroy not harder.

Not necessarily.

Dead Reign zombies are mystically empowered so that they can see the "invisible" (life auras), sense living creatures in a spherical radius around themselves regardless of visual or physical obstructions, have strength that is double (or even more) the strength that they had in life, see without eyes, create the Zombie Moan without vocal cords, and heal by the indirect absorption of PPE instead of needing food and water in the traditional sense (in the case of most Zombie types).

Why, then, would anybody assume that it is for some strange reason beyond the realm of possibility that the body could be physically hardened as well by the same mystic forces that turned the corpse into a Zombie in the first place...in addition to the "increased" level of protection conferred to something that is no longer subject to things like pain and injuries that are disabling or fatal to the living??

[Ravenwing]

Frankly AR sucks as a mechanic for this as zombies are human corpses and from over a decade of martial arts I can tell you that human beings are very easy to break in ways that inhibit movement. Unless you are playing a game where you have to totally destroy the zombie to "kill" it, then frankly your average zombie should be very easy to hit and damage.

An AR of 14 makes no sense for the head, it should be either 0, or very low, say 8. Otherwise it is indicating that the head becomes significantly hardened compared to the head when living.

Zombies being animated cadavers should react like a normal cadaver to a bullet.

One on one the Zombies should be easier to fight and destroy not harder.

Not necessarily.

Dead Reign zombies are mystically empowered so that they can see the "invisible" (life auras), sense living creatures in a spherical radius around themselves regardless of visual or physical obstructions, have strength that is double (or even more) the strength that they had in life, see without eyes, create the Zombie Moan without vocal cords, and heal by the indirect absorption of PPE instead of needing food and water in the traditional sense (in the case of most Zombie types).

Why, then, would anybody assume that it is for some strange reason beyond the realm of possibility that the body could be physically hardened as well by the same mystic forces that turned the corpse into a Zombie in the first place...in addition to the "increased" level of protection conferred to something that is no longer subject to things like pain and injuries that are disabling or fatal to the living??

Mostly because it just smacks in the face of logic really.

A zombie is a corpse. a reanimated one, but a corpse none the less. and corpses act in a certain way, besides the natural one of laying still and rotting.

Also Zombies in DR can't see the invisible. If I'm a mage, and I cast Invisibility on myself, they can't see me. Period.

No where in the book does it say that a Zombie can moan without vocal cords( although considering the odd powers of the zombies in the game I'd bet they were suppose to have that ability.). They can see without eyes( which I also disagree with, along with the whole see Aura's and detect life energy, not to mention healing. Add that to my list of things that need to be fixed in DR.)

[Josh Hilden]

One on one the Zombies should be easier to fight and destroy not harder.

Wow I wrote that post a long time ago. Sure the rules as published make them insanely difficult to kill as opposed to "Classic Hollywood" Zombies, but as originally pitched, approved, and written they were not. But hey the way it was printed is cannon. Just change it if you don't like it, these days I do 85% of my gaming in either 3.5 or Savage Worlds (still trying to decide which rule set to use for my new Zombie Game next year).

[Ravenwing]

One on one the Zombies should be easier to fight and destroy not harder.

Wow I wrote that post a long time ago. Sure the rules as published make them insanely difficult to kill as opposed to "Classic Hollywood" Zombies, but as originally pitched, approved, and written they were not. But hey the way it was printed is cannon. Just change it if you don't like it, these days I do 85% of my gaming in either 3.5 or Savage Worlds (still trying which rule set to use for my new Zombie Game next year).

Lol, as written I change nearly 60% of Dead Reign.

[Icefalcon]

One on one the Zombies should be easier to fight and destroy not harder.

Wow I wrote that post a long time ago. Sure the rules as published make them insanely difficult to kill as opposed to "Classic Hollywood" Zombies, but as originally pitched, approved, and written they were not. But hey the way it was printed is cannon. Just change it if you don't like it, these days I do 85% of my gaming in either 3.5 or Savage Worlds (still trying to decide which rule set to use for my new Zombie Game next year).

I would like to see a 3.5 zombie game. It is the system I play in 90% of the time.

[Josh Hilden]

One on one the Zombies should be easier to fight and destroy not harder.

Wow I wrote that post a long time ago. Sure the rules as published make them insanely difficult to kill as opposed to "Classic Hollywood" Zombies, but as originally pitched, approved, and written they were not. But hey the way it was printed is cannon. Just change it if you don't like it, these days I do 85% of my gaming in either 3.5 or Savage Worlds (still trying to decide which rule set to use for my new Zombie Game next year).

I would like to see a 3.5 zombie game. It is the system I play in 90% of the time.

I have the rough draft of the setting hammered out and now I am just smoothing the edges. We are leaning toward 3.5 at this point.

[Icefalcon]

One on one the Zombies should be easier to fight and destroy not harder.

Wow I wrote that post a long time ago. Sure the rules as published make them insanely difficult to kill as opposed to "Classic Hollywood" Zombies, but as originally pitched, approved, and written they were not. But hey the way it was printed is cannon. Just change it if you don't like it, these days I do 85% of my gaming in either 3.5 or Savage Worlds (still trying to decide which rule set to use for my new Zombie Game next year).

I would like to see a 3.5 zombie game. It is the system I play in 90% of the time.

I have the rough draft of the setting hammered out and now I am just smoothing the edges. We are leaning toward 3.5 at this point.

Will the game see publication? And if so, which company?

[cornholioprime]

Mostly because it just smacks in the face of logic really.

You seem to be forgetting the fact that a self-ambulatory corpse "....smacks in the the face of logic" from the very get-go.

After allowing the dead to walk again -and you should SERIOUSLY ask a medical professional about why it wouldn't be possible in the realm of physics and physiology to make a Zombie, not even by a T-Virus -the rest of the zombie's beyond-human capabilities in this fictional setting are relative child's play for the zombie to have.

Including the admittedly insane levels of increased durability.

A zombie is a corpse. a reanimated one, but a corpse none the less. and corpses act in a certain way, besides the natural one of laying still and rotting.

No, a CORPSE is a corpse, of course of course.

These are re-animated dead with supernatural abilities, stats, and durability.

BIG difference.

Also Zombies in DR can't see the invisible. If I'm a mage, and I cast Invisibility on myself, they can't see me. Period.

Given that the setting in question is devoid of (most) magic, I don't even know why you brought that up.

I don't recall that most Undead or Animated Dead can see the invisible (besides these guys' ability to see normally invisible life energy). So what?

No where in the book does it say that a Zombie can moan without vocal cords( although considering the odd powers of the zombies in the game I'd bet they were suppose to have that ability.).

You don't have the latest Sourcebook, do you?

(Page 13 of Sourcebook Three, friend.)

They can see without eyes( which I also disagree with, along with the whole see Aura's and detect life energy, not to mention healing. Add that to my list of things that need to be fixed in DR.)

You ever seen dead eyes in real life?

The liquid in the eyeball, and/or the corneas and pupils, start to go opaque anyway, so if we were dealing with "real" Zombies they wouldn't be able to see by strictly physics-based means whether their eyeballs were still intact or not.

Once again, Animated Dead are NOT mere corpses, at least not in the technical sense regarding the supernatural forces that empower them.

[cornholioprime]

One on one the Zombies should be easier to fight and destroy not harder.

Wow I wrote that post a long time ago. Sure the rules as published make them insanely difficult to kill as opposed to "Classic Hollywood" Zombies, but as originally pitched, approved, and written they were not. But hey the way it was printed is cannon. Just change it if you don't like it, these days I do 85% of my gaming in either 3.5 or Savage Worlds (still trying to decide which rule set to use for my new Zombie Game next year).

I really like how hard your Zombies are to kill (although, admittedly, I don't to game even in Rifts over here, much less Dead Reign).

It turns even the toughest tough Players into nervous Nellies (unless of course it's one of those Psycho Soldiers) instead of just going all out and thinking that they could clear out Los Angeles all by themselves with a katana and a few hundred rounds to go into their snub-nosed revolver.

[Josh Hilden]

One on one the Zombies should be easier to fight and destroy not harder.

Wow I wrote that post a long time ago. Sure the rules as published make them insanely difficult to kill as opposed to "Classic Hollywood" Zombies, but as originally pitched, approved, and written they were not. But hey the way it was printed is cannon. Just change it if you don't like it, these days I do 85% of my gaming in either 3.5 or Savage Worlds (still trying to decide which rule set to use for my new Zombie Game next year).

I would like to see a 3.5 zombie game. It is the system I play in 90% of the time.

I have the rough draft of the setting hammered out and now I am just smoothing the edges. We are leaning toward 3.5 at this point.

Will the game see publication? And if so, which company?

Definitely since I am the one publishing it through my own company Gorillas With Scissors Press.