Clarification for a KE rule

[Floxy178]

I've already asked permission from @Agnaa for opening this.

First of all, I'd like to note that this has nothing to do with the rule change. In short, I noticed that a rule on the KE page was misinterpreted by a lot of people and thought it needed to be clarified. Rule:

• There is a destruction/AP calculation contradicting a kinetic energy calculation. The destruction/AP calculation would take priority over the kinetic energy calculation in this case as the AP calculation would be a better proof in regards to how much damage he/she is capable of in an attack.
  • For example, if a character launches a 200kg metal ball against a common wall at Mach 300, but the wall remains largely undamaged, the energy required to cause the minor damage on the wall would take priority over the kinetic energy derived from speed in this case.

I suggest to add a note like "keep in mind that..." to explain that destruction calculation should take priority over "KE lost during destruction", not "KE that it had before destruction". A thrown ball which have tier 7 energy can easily pass through wall causing tier 9 damage and not lose speed significantly(which means that caused destruction is a tiny part of energy ball had) as it can remain most of its energy even after feat, obviously if it doesn't contradict anything.

I'm sure rule implies this anyway but I saw it being interpreted both ways so I think this needs to be clarified.

 

[Agnaa]

I'd be fine with adding something like that, if that is actually a point of confusion.

 

[Floxy178]

Bump

 

[Floxy178]

Bump

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Seems like a perfectly sensible addition, I approve.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. I also approve. I think that it is sufficiently uncontroversial to be applied now.

 

[Floxy178]

Yes. I also approve. I think that it is sufficiently uncontroversial to be applied now.

By the way should I add it myself? If so can you unlock it please?

 

[Agnaa]

Actually, Floxy mentioned to me in DMs that some CGMs disagreed with this. I'd like to hear from them before we implement it.

 

[Migue79]

Following this thread. Addition seems sensible, but I agree that we should allow other fellow CGMs to voice their disagreements.

 

[Antvasima]

Which calc group members disagree with this? We should probably send a notification to them here.

 

[Floxy178]

Which calc group members disagree with this? We should probably send a notification to them here.

@CloverDragon03 and, iirc @Damage3245 were saying that if there's a huge difference between initial KE and destruction, this still should be disqualification according to standarts.

 

[Antvasima]

Which calc group members disagree with this? We should probably send a notification to them here.

@CloverDragon03 and, iirc @Damage3245 were saying that if there's a huge difference between initial KE and destruction, this still should be disqualification according to standarts.

Thank you for the information.

@Damage3245 @CloverDragon03

 

[CloverDragon03]

It's less of what the feat does than it is what the feat FAILS to do, hence the example of failing to dent a wall

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Ugarik

What do you think about this?

 

[Floxy178]

It's less of what the feat does than it is what the feat FAILS to do, hence the example of failing to dent a wall

I don't think anyone disagrees that failing to dent a wall is disqualification. Destruction calculation takes precedence over initial KE in your example because initial KE and lost KE are equal.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Kinda confused on what exactly is being proposed then, to be honest

 

[Floxy178]

Kinda confused on what exactly is being proposed then, to be honest

For example if object had X joule energy before impact and Y joule energy after, it's normal to expect that destruction calculation should be equal to X-Y, not X. So if value that you got from calcing destruction contradicts X this should not be disqualification unless it contradicts X-Y.

If you prove that object lost either all or most of its energy, you will still treat destruction over KE.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I think I get it yeah. I agree with the proposal

 

[TheRustyOne]

I'm alright with the proposal as well.

 

[Floxy178]

Bump

 

[Zeitgeist77]

I think we all will agree with the proposal

 

[Floxy178]

Bump

 

[Floxy178]

Bump

 

[Demon_Lord18]

This needs to be enforced and closed.

 

[Agnaa]

I'd like to hear @Damage3245 's thoughts.

 

[Floxy178]

I'd like to hear @Damage3245 's thoughts.

I sent him the thread on message wall

 

[Damage3245]

Yes, this is fine.

If a lightspeed bullet shot through a wall completely but it was moving so fast that it only destroyed the tiny amount of brick that it was in contact with as it passed through it, then we wouldn't be able to say "The amount of destroyed material only required a far lower amount of energy to damage so the bullet wasn't that strong."

As opposed to if the lightspeed bullet smacked off an ordinary brick wall and barely damaged it; that raises the question of why a bullet with seemingly huge amounts of K.E. caused negligible damage.

 

[Agnaa]

Cool, I've added this bullet point then:

Keep in mind that this destruction should be compared to the energy lost by the object during the event. A ball travelling at relativistic speeds creating a hole its size, and continuing to move at nearly the same speed afterwards, would not be considered a contradiction. While a similar feat, with the ball falling to the ground a few meters afterwards, would be cause for concern.

Keeping this open for a bit just in case any changes should be made to that wording.

 

[CloverDragon03]

That looks good to me

 

[Antvasima]

Should this thread be closed now?

 

[Floxy178]

Should this thread be closed now?

Since no one seems to disagree with Agnaa's addition I think this can be closed.