Chainsaw=Useless?

Our group has recently been discussing the Chainsaw. The general consensus is that as it stands it is a useless weapon when compared to the shotgun. What I would like to see from the Jyhad community, is some discussion on the physics of wielding a chainsaw in combat and whether increased strength equates to increased damage when using it. A question for people also. Do players think that it isn't a melee weapon because of a) an oversight by WotC b) play balance decision - If chainsaw is melee, why not Talbot's also. Ugh! 3 dmg melee weapon is very good. c) Realism (from WotC, nahh!) I realise from the House Rulings list, that there is already support for the Chainsaw to become a melee weapon, but I'd like to know why.

ckr...@shell02.ozemail.com.au (Christian Kraus) wrote: > Our group has recently been discussing the Chainsaw. The general > consensus is that as it stands it is a useless weapon when compared to > the shotgun. I was thinking that maybe you could add the following rule to make the Chainsaw worth something: Damage caused by the Chainsaw can be prevented normally, but if prevented by equipment or retainers, the preventing card is also burned. Whaddya think? --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

ckr...@shell02.ozemail.com.au (Christian Kraus) writes: >Our group has recently been discussing the Chainsaw. The general >consensus is that as it stands it is a useless weapon when compared to >the shotgun. >What I would like to see from the Jyhad community, is some discussion on >the physics of wielding a chainsaw in combat and whether increased strength >equates to increased damage when using it. >A question for people also. Do players think that it isn't a melee weapon >because of > > a) an oversight by WotC > b) play balance decision - If chainsaw is melee, why not Talbot's also. > Ugh! 3 dmg melee weapon is very good. > c) Realism (from WotC, nahh!) It's probably not a melee weapon due to the fact that it is a chainsaw - and will be doing large damage regardless of weilder's strength. Oversight by WotC - only in editting. It probably should've had card text 'Only usable once per round' instead of 'Once per Combat'. It's easy to image how the two got confused - esp. since the Shotgun has the 'Once per Combat' text already - and WotC editors are Cut-n-Paste-happy. Why would a chainsaw only be usable once per combat? Does it automatically choke when you swing it? I don't think so. A Shotgun? sure - you have to reload, and combat is too quick for reloading. Once per round, if it was the intention, was probably more for game balance than for any concern for realism. Although the case can be made that a chainsaw isn't balanced for combat, so you have to work harder to control it - which might be enough to preclude additional strikes in a round. (Talbot's chainsaw, perhaps, is "magically animated" or somesuch, so as to avoid such restriction :-). ---- The tendency to "fix" the chainsaw and make it a melee weapon is probably due to the ease and obviousness of that fix. Once per Round is (IMHO) a better, more realistic fix that fits better with the card text and TC. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. |

Eric Pettersen (pe...@homer.ucsf.edu.ucsf.edu) wrote: : ckr...@shell02.ozemail.com.au (Christian Kraus) wrote: : > Our group has recently been discussing the Chainsaw. The general : > consensus is that as it stands it is a useless weapon when compared to : > the shotgun. our consensus here, is that the chainsaw is another misprint. i think it was supposed to be usable more than once per combat. i mean, with the shotgun, there is a semi-logical reason for its restriction, which is that it takes too long to reload. with a chainsaw, this really isn't an issue. the bastard sword gives you 2 damage for 1 blood, then the chainsaw would give you 3 damage for 2 blood. it's the sort of pairing the game is full of. matt.

Andre Beaulieu said: > To those who think the chainsaw is useless: > > Ever have a Nosferatu with a Disguised chainsaw and Superiour Potence lay a > "Growing Fury" on you ? > > I rest my case > > -Paul-Andre Actually, that's not possible. Growing fury is for use with a "hand or melee weapon", and nowhere on a chainsaw does it say "melee weapon". Sorry... ********************************************************************* Santiago * Paranoid men live longer. e-mail: * -- Lazarus Long ia...@mail.utexas.edu *

Alan Kwan wrote: > I don't really see why a Chainsaw that can be used for additional strikes > be "unbalancing". You can Blur and blast away a .44 or Assault Rifle, > and unlike the non-melee-weapon Chainsaw (with no modifiers appilicable > to the strike whatsoever), you can use ammo cards for the guns. > It's still an easy obstacle to deal with with a reasonable combat > deck: manuevers or Shattering Blow. I feel this would be very unbalancing: a submachine gun also deals 3 damage, and costs 4 pool instead of 2. Yes, it has a manouver, but if you use it, the only strike you may play is a submachine one (sometimes I suddenly want to play a dodge or a combat ends if things go wrong), and yes, one could use ammo cards, but that ability shouldn't cost 2 extra pool. Realisticly, I feel a chainsaw is far too heavy to use fast and often and you cannot count chainsaw strikes, liek you can count sword strikes or gun shots. I'll go for the 'can only be used once per round' version (no melee). -- Johan Meijdam jo...@pa.twi.tudelft.nl

PLEASE LISTEN SHOTGUN is to .44 as CHAINSAW is to BROADSWORD At least that's how it should have been Does anybody else out there see this relationship???

GRACE WARD (war...@nevada.edu) wrote: : PLEASE LISTEN : SHOTGUN is to .44 as CHAINSAW is to BROADSWORD : At least that's how it should have been : Does anybody else out there see this relationship??? That is a good comparison, but remember that while the shotgun and .44 both cost 2 pool, as does the chainsaw, the sword only costs 1. If the chainsaw only cost 1 pool no one could argue with you, but since it costs two pool it should do more than it does. That's what this argument is all about. (As I am far from the first to point out, the shotgun is in every way better than the chainsaw... same cost, ranged damage, can use ammo cards, no drawbacks. Since every other weapon has its use, this is so odd it is almost certainly an error). This argument is more or less moot anyway, until Dr Garfield or someone at WOTC gives us the right version. My two cents (using logic similar to above): The costs for all the weapons are a little screwy, IMHO. The Ivory Bow is too cheap, the Flame Thrower is too expensive vis a vis the 'Bow. The .44 (2R damage) costs 2 pool, the Submachinegun (3R) 4 pool, the Assault Rifle (4R) 5 pool. The Deer Rifle kind of sucks, too, but I don't see what else it could cost :-). I don't think we're ever going to get a universally acceptable rewrite of the Chainsaw by extrapolating from the other weapons, or from the WOTC clown show, or from Garfield. Let's use them for toilet paper as WOTC intended and stop worrying about it. (Possibly we could send it to Japan so they can use it as a Zen koan... "If there is a correct text for the Chainsaw, but no one knows it, does it truly exist? Speak!"). Yours, Kevin Lowe.

In article <43pogl$f...@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au> ml32...@student.uq.edu.au (Kevin Lowe) writes: >My two cents (using logic similar to above): >The costs for all the weapons are a little screwy, IMHO. The Ivory Bow >is too cheap Yes it is. 1 pool is simply deliberately the Mt$ $$$-man's game rare card idea. 1R aggravated is very powerful in the game. If it costs 2 pool and is not unique, no one (except $$$-poor players) will be using .44's! > the Flame Thrower is too expensive vis a vis the 'Bow. It is at the right cost for its power. It's the Ivory Bow that is the crock. >The Deer Rifle kind of sucks, too, but I don't see >what else it could cost :-). It's a specific anti-Gangrel weapon. Not very useful in general. Perhaps if Chainsaw didn't get its misprint and gets used more often, there will be more meaning for manuevers. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

Sorry if this gets posted twice: I cancelled the original article due to a few math errors. ---------------------------------------------------------- kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes: [Ivory Bow is too cheap] >Yes it is. 1 pool is simply deliberately the Mt$ $$$-man's game >rare card idea. 1R aggravated is very powerful in the game. >If it costs 2 pool and is not unique, no one (except $$$-poor >players) will be using .44's! The costs for weapons follows a simple formula (not that such a formula was used): Maybe my formula is unbalanced in favor of some aspects of game play, or not (I haven't seen weapons abused too much) but it seems to lend support to the statement "Maybe WotC attempted to balance the weapons without regard to rarity". Weapon Cost = F * ( damage - 1 ) F = 3/4 for normal weapons F = 4/4 for Melee weapons F = 5/4 for Ranged weapons F = 6/4 for Guns (Ranged, ammo-using weapons) treat aggravated damage as ( 2 * damage ) If (damage-1) is negative, use zero instead. Note: the real formula shouldn't treat a 1-damage normal weapon the same as a 1-damage gun, but my equation does (by multiplying by zero). Combat Modifiers: ----------------- + 1 per maneuver + 1 if damage modifiers are also aggravated - 0.5 if unique (not a combat effect, but rather: a generic effect). Round fractions to nearset whole number. (one .5 is rounded down, but this is necessary for the jump between 2 and 5 for .44 and Assault Rifle (2 and 4 damage, resp.). I suppose I could've found an exponential (parabolic) curve to fit, but...) NOTE: with this equation, being unique did not affect the rounded result for any of the weapons. Basic examples: --------------- Bastard Sword: (1.00 * (2-1)) = 1 (= 1) Sengir Dagger (1agg->2) (1.00 * (2-1) +1 -0.5) = 1.5 (= 2) Ivory Bow (1agg->2) (1.25 * (2-1) -0.5) = 0.75 (= 1) Flame Thrower (2agg->4) (1.25 * (4-1)) = 3.75 (= 4) Saturday Night Special: (1.50 * (1-1) +1) = 1 (= 1) Deer Rifle: (1.50 * (1-1) +1 +1) = 2 (= 2) .44 Magnum: (1.50 * (2-1) +1) = 2.5 (? 2) Submachine Gun: (1.50 * (3-1) +1) = 4 (= 4) Assault Rifle: (1.50 * (4-1) +1) = 4.5 (= 5) Special effects: ---------------- (These modifiers are chosen to fit a particular weapon) If weilder can initiate Combat, use (2*damage) for damage. (Talbot's Chainsaw) +1 per optional press. (Talbot's Chainsaw) +2/S for paralyzation with S unmodified strikes. (Stake, Rowan Ring) -1 if paralyzation transfers the weapon to the victim. (Stake, Rowan Ring) -X if a weapon does X damage to its owner. (Grenade, Bomb) -X/2 if a weapon deals X damage to friendly minions. (Talbot's Chainsaw) +X if a weapon prevents X damage to its owner. (Talbot's Chainsaw) Halve total cost for each of: only use at long range. (RPG) no use on first round of combat. (RPG) only use once per combat. (Chainsaw, Shotgun, Grenade, Bomb) use burns the weapon. (Grenade, Bomb) Double total cost for each of: can be eqipped during combat. (Zip Gun) Modifiers for out of combat effects (after all combat costs are computed): +1 Arson. (Bomb) +0.5 per action-specific stealth. (Talbot's Chainsaw) +1 per generic stealth. (?) -1 if owner cannot hunt. (Talbot's Chainsaw) Examples: --------- Chainsaw: (0.75 * (3-1)) / 2 = 0.75 (= 1) Talbot's Chainsaw: (0.75 * (6-1) +1 +1 -1.5 -0.5) (Rush3->6) + 0.5 - 1 = 3.25 (= 3) Stake: (1.00 * (1-1) +1 -1) = 0 (= 0) Rowan Ring: (1.00 * ( 0 ) +2 -1 -0.5) = 0.5 (= 1) Grenade: (1.25 * (3-1) -1) / 4 = 0.375 (= 0) Bomb: (1.25 * (5-1) -5) / 4 +1 = 1 (= 1) RPG Launcher: (1.25 * (6-1) / 4 = 1.563 (= 2) Zip gun: (1.50 * (1-1) +1 -1) * 2 = 0 (= 0) Shotgun: (1.50 * (3-1)) / 2 = 1.5 (= 2) The only thing which comes out wrong is the chainsaw, but we all know that no formula should have the chainsaw equivalent in cost to the Shotgun. House Chainsaw: Melee: (1.00 * (3-1)) / 2 = 1 (someone posted this) Once per Round: (0.75 * (3-1)) = 1.5 (= 2) (Actually, once per round should have some modifier as well, but...) [ quoted text not captured ]

I think you have to look at more than just math equations and what effect the weapon has when played. For example, a .44 is not that deadly since the average vamp does 1 damage already. If one of my vamps get's hit by a .44, I think to myself, "boy that sucks." Even if they get additional stikes, I feel bad, but not that bad. If I'm facing a submachine gun, it's a completely different game. Even if I maneuver close to him, if the combat continues past one round, I'm probably toast and I never did any real damage to him. If he's got celerity, then I get REALLY worried. Some of the diplomacy factors are also important. Ie: what usually happens in your games when someone pulls a ivory bow or sengir dagger? I play with every type of weapon except the cainsaw. As for that I clearly have to agree with the general sentiment. But for the rest of the weapons, I think they're balanced. -Yousef

mas...@red.seas.upenn.edu (Yousef G Master) writes: >I play with every type of weapon except the cainsaw. *Cain*saw? Woah! That's a more terrifying thought than that little old Talbot's Chainsaw. Can you imagine what power Cain's Saw holds? [ quoted text not captured ]