Jump to content


Armoured Rules?

2 replies to this topic

#1 ComradeSch



  • Members
  • 96 posts
  • Location:V9Y 4V2
  • State:British Columbia
  • Country:Canada
  • LycanAuxiliary on Youtube

Posted 24 July 2018 - 11:13 PM

This is perhaps an extension of the highly controversial shields question (that is, ban/limit/have a piercing or destructive weakness/allow unrestricted), but maybe for some games, perhaps some specialized armour rules would be a good way to add a dynamic (and the light/heavy dichotomy) to the games you play?


If I may throw around some ideas:

  • Perhaps wearing actual obvious armour like Captain Xavier's plate carrier or a helmet can't be "pierced" by Elites, but Megas/Stefans/rockets/Rival can pierce them. The logic here is shields are generally built much, MUCH thicker and heavier than body armour, both in Nerf and IRL, so the more specialized ammo types can pierce while the shields will stop them. Mostly because in armour you can see or feel if a specialized projectile hits you, but if someone spams a proton pack, a Rapidstrike and a Mastodon at you, you wouldn't really be able to keep track of whether you were hit, say, 16 times or 4. One pierce=1 tag is probably better. Also, stefans fire at a very high velocity, and in real battle, a higher-velocity projectile is much better at piercing armoured plates, and massive shields can, in fact, be pierced by super-powerful Longshot builds using half-lengths.
  • Obviously fairly standard eye protection (IE safety glasses or goggles) wouldn't be a form of armour, and neither would a mask over the lower face, but a "closed" helmet (such as https://www.nfstrike...tml?sku=2458672 ) would count as a form of armour when the face is covered?
  • If you're hit where you're not armoured, even an Elite will tag you, and possibly a limit on how much armour coverage you can wear (like shield size limits)? This may force players to really pick and choose where their armour coverage is and will provide some dynamic considerations to armour choices.
  • Perhaps even a standard list of what counts as armour protection, which each group can agree on, so that someone doesn't strap cardboard to their back and say it's a form of armour?

Obviously I'm just throwing ideas out there, lemme know what you think.

  • 0

Moar dakka iz best dakka ya gitz.

#2 masterchief117



  • Members
  • 55 posts

Posted 25 July 2018 - 12:50 PM

in our wars mega can pierce shields only tagging the person holding then and rockets destroy them for the rest of the game

  • 0

#3 Meaker VI

Meaker VI


  • Moderators
  • 1,190 posts
  • State:Washington
  • Country:United States
  • u/MeakerVI on Reddit

Posted 25 July 2018 - 03:53 PM

I've never been a fan of MEGA/elite rules distinctions. Yeah, it gives MEGA rounds a purpose, but I know I can't discern one from the other in the heat of things, and the kids I play with would never make the distinction either.


The best shield rules I've seen/heard of/considered are ones that limit the size to something reasonable (no tower shields, but a buckler or maybe the area of a 3' round is OK) but otherwise make it basically invincible/only breakable with rockets/socks or are limited per team (or have another team-undesirable effect, like longer respawn time) and are basically invincible. So for armor, it'd be a similar setup: The armor is basically invincible, but is either small (chest plate only?) or limited in quantity (or longer respawn) per team. I'd probably also make armored players less mobile than non-armored players, maybe by giving them a special vest to indicate the armored portion (safety vest etc.) but make them wear a weight belt or backpack loaded with sandbags or something.


If I were to run both, shielded players would likely be immune to fire except from missiles, and armored players would take more hits to take down. Spamming an armored player would be assumed to be a knock-out, they wouldn't need to carefully keep track (I actually have found that the groups I play with have an easier time discerning how many times they were hit vs. what hit them).

  • 0

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users