Hi all,

Could someone who uses HMA summarise for me what problems with HM3 it addresses. I am all in favour of more realism but would like to know why the standard HM3 combat rules are considered imperfect and how HMA fixes these imperfections.

Thanks

HMA is just HM3 with the house rules used by the author (Bill Gant). It's a reflection of his personal tastes and contains elements from various other versions of the HM rules. It's not an all or nothing proposition; you can use any of it you find appealing.

HMA is a way to bring HM3 to work a Little bit like HM1 but still being workable with HM1 stuff. Combat takes a little bit longer to do, but not as extreme as HM1 sometimes could be and not as lethal (and therefore random) as HM3 is. Personally I currently play (when I play HM that is) HM3 with some things from HMA. Especially I like the shock roll system. The shock roll system is also one thing that you with ease can adopt without printing out any new tables or anything actually. It's just another way of how you roll shock rolls. That rules is (or was) an idea that was floating around and I have used that for a very long time without using HMA (or nowadays, the rest of HMA).

_________________
"Corpora lente augescent cito extinguuntur" - Tacitus
Fenhorn's Hârnpage

It would help me if you said why you used the Shock Roll system from HMA rather than just saying you used it. In an effort to understand why I have compared them and it looks like HMA is more forgiving than HM3 - i.e there is less likelihood of falling unconscious from a series of minor injuries in HMA, and some Shock results convert to Stun instead. So I take it the perceived "flaw" in HM3 was that a series of minor scratches was too likely to cause unconsciousness?

I'm just trying to see the flaws that HMA supposedly addresses.

HM3 used cumulative shock roll dice so if you have two minor injuries and got a third you have to make a shock roll with 3d6 (also called e3).

HMA used static shock roll so only the wound that caused the shock roll determined the dice used, all "old" injuries (and fatigue) will be a modifier to the roll. So if you have two minor injuries and got a third you have to make a shock roll with 1d6 (e1) with a modifier of +2 (all the old wounds).

The old HM1 used a similar system as HMA. This is better (most of the time) because in HM (regardless of rules) you are usually injuried a little bit no matter what armour you have. So the big shiny knight will be down with four "glancing hits" (i.e. minors). Perhaps even three or if he is lucky five.

Combat thanks to the cumulative shock roll dice is very much a game of luck, since combat is very fast, less skill rolls are made and you will get your hopes up that you stand up for that e3 roll (most players have a higher endurance than average so this can be handled, unless unlucky) and beware of the e4 and if you stand up after five minors (e5), wow.

I have only talked about minors here. HM3s injury tables are much tougher than HM1 (or HMg) so you can of course get serious or even grievous wounds here and there. Even though, some minor it all it takes.

In HMA you rarely go down due to minors (they yield only e1 rolls) unless you got a lot of old wounds (higher modifier). But still serious and grievous wounds are still dangerous. But since you in general combat is less dependent on if you survive the shock effect of some bruises the HMA system favours skilled warriors (or favour them more).

_________________
"Corpora lente augescent cito extinguuntur" - Tacitus
Fenhorn's Hârnpage

... continued from above.

The drawback is that combat can sometimes take longer. This was a drawback even in HM1. If you have two well-armoured warriors that is also skilled, them they most likely only will cause minors in each other and if using HMA (or HM1 for that matter) you will only cause e1 rolls, perhaps an e2 with a crit. and to down someone causing only e1s is hard (can take perhaps ten or more minors).

Another drawback is the bookkeeping. Mass combats means more paperwork for the GM to keep track of all the injuries. This is also true in HM3 but since most people go down after 3-5 injuries its not that much. A battle between some medium armoured garguns and some light and medium armoured players can take some time before anyone go down since you can't rely on 3-5 minors, you will (probably) need a serious or grievous to down someone.

One more drawback (rare perhaps) is that in HMA (and HM1) it is (for natural reasons) hell to take down a dragon. HM3 was the first Hârn version that we saw a possibility to down one, since 7-10 minors is enough (not so in HMA or HM1).

_________________
"Corpora lente augescent cito extinguuntur" - Tacitus
Fenhorn's Hârnpage

I wrote a thread+graphic going into good detail on that. Click on the graphic it "shows" HMG KO vs HMA (HM1 with 5 point injury per -1 penalty), HM1 (HM1 with 10 point injury per -1 penalty) and HMC.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12671#p166947

Got to click on the attachment. Some say the graphic rotates too quickly so you might want to screen cap or manually advance the charts.

In words:
The new HMG condition system: it matters very little what your condition, injury levels or total injury are. If your CONDITION level < 100 you are doomed to eventually fail the roll regardless of size or number of injuries. Optional rule: on MF you are stunned instead of KO - same deal but you spend time getting stunned before randomly hitting the 1 in 5 CF and pass out.

HM1 original with 10 injury points per -1: Everyone is REALLY TOUGH. Large critical injuries will take you out in a single hit but you may probably pick up 60 points of injury and build up a -6 penalty to be likely to pass out from typical minor injuries. Being REALLY TOUGH. At -60 you can barely stand, you weapon skills may be reduced to mostly mrginal and CFs. Some fights will devolved to beyond -100 injury (-10 penalty) levels with the high END looser sitting at or below 0 EML fighting crawling on hands and knees but no one landing a location causing a shock roll of E2 to finally put him out or kill him. Healing can takes week to months.

HMC/2/3 have 5 injury points per 1d6 penalty: Everyone is REALLY WIMPY. Penalty is ~ 7 times as high as HM1 original. Existing penalties from injury and fatigue are equally likely to knock you out as new injury. A 20 point injury from earlier today is still +4d6 - if you get an E1 now you still roll 5d6 even though you've been up wandering around on that old injury for hours fine it just takes a 1 point knock on your elbow to send you right out. (HMG and HMC both count old injuries as bad as new injuries).


HMA or HM1 modified with 5 injury points per -1: Everyone is REASONABLY TOUGH. Large critical injuries will take you out in a single hit but you may probably pick up a total of 30 points of injury and build up a -6 penalty to be likely to pass out from typical minor injuries. At -30 you can still stand, and most skill warriors skill have weapon skills with significant but heavily impacted chances of success. Some fights may devolve past -50 injury (-10 penalty levels) with a high END looser getting low or close to 0 EMLs, falling to their knees and unable to regain their feet but basically ready to pass out/die on a decent hit. If no KO rolls come their injury penalties build up to 5 times END and they pass out automatically on E0 whether they get a new E-roll or not (optionally).

In all versions large creatures (monsters, Dragons and the like) with END > human deserve to have injury penalties reduced in proportion to their END. A dragon with 30 penalty and a good chance at KO has 300 injury in HM1 and has been laying unable to stand or swing for close to 250 of them. At 5 injury per penalty injury is 150 - better but same issue. HMG CONDITION is >100 at the beginning of the fight so a dragon will actually have a good chance of staying awake/unstunned until enough injury brings CONDITION < 100 then random. HMC the penalties are so high the injury vs penalty issue is barely observable. 30 IP / 6 injury levels brings the dragon down to the beginning of KO range after which even minor hits will eventually trigger a failure. The dragon will still have positive EMLs without needing to modify anything when it passes out "relatively unharmed".

A medium sized dog in HM1 may be effectively "tougher" than an HMC dragon. Approximately 7 times the effect in HMC as HMG: HMC 35 injury totaling 7 dice puts the dragon in range for a KO, HM1 35 injury may be 30 existing injury on the dog plus dice from the new injury: an E1 new injury with a -3 penalty = a max of 9 vs END and the dog may have no chance of KO.

HMG and HMC/2/3 existing injury is equal to effect to new injury. HMA and HM1 the new injury is the primary determination of KO. A single new injury may have an E7 KO roll and go out in a single hit (punch to the groin) while existing injuries have a smaller but increasing effect.

If that doesn't sell you on HMA yet (or anything with -1 per 5 IPs) there is still more...

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

One of the worst effects from attempting to simplify HMC/2/3 results from combining the impact charts so Blunt/Edge/Point/etc impact types are equal impact levels and damage results.
One of the best improvements was to use 5 point injury levels rather than HM1 method of rolling 1d10/11-20/21-30.

In HM1 blunt impact columns were at 1+ 7+ 13+ 19+ - every 6 points - with moderate speed to grievous
(Edge and point had a hidden, unlisted 1+ column that confused everyone)
Edge had columns at 1+ 5+ 9+ 13+ 17+ - every 4 points - ranging quickly to the red (grievous)
Point had columns at 1+ 5+ 11+ 16+ 21+ - every 6 points - ranging slowly to the orange (serious) and even at 21+ top column very little red.

In all versions Point weapons base impacts were slightly higher and excellent values for penetrating armor. In HM1 though the injury charts were balanced to account for the impacts so the impacts that penetrated did limited damage. Point = Small hole: penetrates armor but leaves small hole in person also. Point Impact damages were less but had higher chances to hit critical organs causing kills.

HMC retained the original weapon impacts, combined the different impact type charts and retained the armor penetration values for the different impact types. Edged weapons became less effective - spears became KING.

[Thread: The Almighty HM Spear : viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12954&p=167000#p167000 ]
In all versions Point weapons have high base impacts and pierce armor easily but in HMC/2/3 penetrating they then have roughly double the damage they had in HM1 while loosing the characteristic of hitting deep critical organs.

HMA partially corrects for the HMC change by re-adjusting the impact columns heading numbers only so slightly higher point impacts are required but the spear still hits like an armor-piercing battle-axe with higher damages and no especial concern for critical locations.

HMA does still simplify the HM1 tables significantly and use the 5 point injury levels which are a big plus. However, I prefer my own version http://www.bellsouthpwp.net/g/a/garyash ... pactn1.pdf which does also has the 5 point injury levels but doesn't create POINT impact type super weapons.

* HM1 style "hidden column": 1st column for all start at 1+ but don't actually piece skin til +3 for point or +5 for edge if target is wearing armor - below which the effects and damage are the same but for healing/ treatment/ infection/ poison purposes the actual injury is a bruise rather than a cut or puncture.

** All opinions vary. Some people prefer HMC/2/3 super-simplified combat charts, short-fight combat wimps and/or POINT impact super weapons. A few quick thumb rule changes can change a lot. For example: HMC from 1d6 per IL to 1 point per IL.

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

Injury penalties in 5 point intervals has a downside. The way healing works means players will be in damaged state on many ocassion and they can not really stop to heal up.

The HM1 method of divide by 10 round down works well enough.

Wow, some really detailed analysis there!

Re. Point vs. Edge, I read here that the idea of the sword or spear thrust being more lethal than the sword swing (often cited as the reason why the Roman Legions, with their short stabbing gladius, were so effective) is a bit of a myth, and that both thrusting and cutting attacks could be equally lethal. The article linked to above says that a cutting attack generally requires more strength behind it than a thrusting attack to do the same sort of damage, and that this "finesse" of the thrust compared to the brute force of the cut has tended to attribute somewhat mythical powers to the thrust compared to the cut. The article also suggests that the type of weapon favoured (thrusting or cutting) in any historical place and time probably has more to do with the type of armour expected to be worn by the opponent as anything else.

As there appears to be little real evidence to support the view that Point aspect attacks are immediately more lethal than Edge aspect attacks, I am tempted to use the HMA injury table rather than the HM3 one. Where the Point Aspect might triumph over the Edge Aspect is in after-battle care of the wounded (i.e. internal bleeding from stab wounds being notoriously difficult to treat) but this is outside of the scope of this discussion.

The wound treatment charts do address that though.

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)