...
> Yes, Benedict, but if someone likes to invent special rules and asks
> a question and someone else likes the practice too and answers, I
> don't think it is a problem, not to me, anyway.
>
> Others like to invent rules to "better simulate fencing" or
> to "better simulate making love" and the system can be easily adapted.
> That's a strength too.
...
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. A recurring theme on this list is people trying to change the HW rules to make them more 'realistic'. Trying to alter the HW rules to make them 'more realistic' is like trying to alter a piano to be like a harpsichord: it completely misses the point. You would do better to learn to appreciate the piano for its particular qualities, or find yourself a harpsichord.
The HW approach is to deliberately abstract EVERYTHING to a target number and APs. This allows the rules to include a multitude of factors that even Rulemonster could not even begin to include. Let us say you add some rules to make automatic weapons 'more realistic'. Will you be adding rules for ricochets? Guns jamming? Limited ammunition? Use of tracer bullets? Movement effects on fire... the list is endless. It's better to cut the Gordian Knot and realize that you don't need to do this.
Consider the example of switching to automatic fire, rather than carefully aiming and squeezing off shots. This is a risky tactic which might or might not work. Many bullets might hit the intended target. Alternatively, the difficulty of controlling the bucking gun could result in bullets missing wildly, you can waste ammunition and the gun could overheat and jam. HW already has an entirely adequate mechanic for representing risky tactics that have a potentially large payoff: make a large AP bid.
Powered by hypermail