Morgenstern said:
I'm not sure, Psion. I handle web-support material for the site, not actual code
.
As to factual errors in the MAG, we did an awful-lot of research, but there were some errors that I know about (now) that slipped through. You have to be a bit more specific if you want them addressed (which I'll be happy to do
). We keep a pretty good sized errata document on the boards, not because we're sloppy, we just like to deal with anything that does come up in a forthright manner. If you have better info, I'd be glad to incorporate it 8).
Ok I'll go down the ones that immediately come to mind and bother me.
For some reason MAG decided that a 9mm would do more damage than a .40 S&W (same average, but higher max for the 9). This is illogical and unsupported by what studies do exist on this topic. Logically the .40 should be rated as more damaging since it can duplicate or exceed any muzzle energy produced by the 9mm, and will create a hole 25% larger. Given than handgun rounds are way too slow to even consider hydrostatic shock, the deciding factor in damage should be the size of the wound cavity. Thus, a .40 S&W will always exceed the 9mm.
One other detail, the HK UPS in .40 S&W has a 13 round magazine (I know since I have one, having bought it pre-ban). The Sig Sauer P220 in .45 ACP is listed as having 9 round magazines, but it only has 7 in reality. I'd have to check Gun Digest to see if the rest are correct. I only list these because I own them.
Then there's the ammo types. Those rules have a couple glaring holes. They are with three of the ammo options.
Hydrashock- there is no steel post in the center of a Hydrashock. The post is cast into the lead of the bullet and is merely supposed to make it mushroom (expand) better. If there were a steel post in the center they would be illegal for civilian purchase, and I do have a few boxes.
Winchester SXT (Black Talon)- this ammo description sounds like a technical document published by HCI, and is equally accurate. These rounds do not expand into viscious slashing claws as stated. The lead remains bonded to the jacket, so you really don't get any sharp edges. Also the very rules involved are, how best to delicately state this- stupid. According to the rules if you are shot by these they act like wounding weapons, but only for vitality. For wounds, you only bleed for one extra round. Now as I understand it, vitality means you've dodged. Thus how can it be that a bullet which has been dodged causes continued vitality damage? Does it follow you around and keep tiring you out?
Then, last but not least silly, you have the wad cutter description. It rambles on some nonsense about the shape of the bullet tail and then makes them more accurate, but less damaging. Of course reality has nothing to do with this. Wad cutters (also known as full wadcutters, since there is such a thing as a semi-wadcutter) are bullets, usually cast in lead, which are shaped like a cylinder. They have a flat front end, and a flat or sometimes concave rear end. They are designed to punch nice neat holes in paper targets. They are also usually shot only in revolvers (though there are some semi-autos which are designed to shoot them). If anything they would do more damage than normal ammo. They would certainly not do less, or be more accurate.
Another gripe would have to be the recoil rules. They are excessive. By the calculations in the book I would have to have a 16 or higher strength to shoot like I do, and I don't go to the gym that much.
The takedown rules are also fairly silly. They seem to ignore conservation of momentum, and make it WAY too easy to knock someone down. Then again I can at least accept them on the basis of trying to capture cinematic feel.
buzzard
