Combat Table for KH weapons

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
November 21, 2008 - 6:14pm
Refer to: Weapons (Knight Hawks).

What is the base % to hit for these weapons?
(include the % chance for each defense as well)

None
RH
PS
ES
SS
MS
ICM
Comments:

Gilbert's picture
Gilbert
November 22, 2008 - 11:21am
  Look under the second sather war. I believe it is in there for the war.

Anonymous's picture
w00t (not verified)
November 22, 2008 - 4:29pm
Look at the document - there user created weapons (or from Dragon Mag).


Will's picture
Will
November 23, 2008 - 10:51am
It looks to me like SS was using the ½DEX or STR+10%/skill level to hit rules from AD for these weapons as well...it would make sense, as I believe his starship rules were homebrewed from the AD rules before he found Knight Hawks.

 

"You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so."


—Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation

Anonymous's picture
w00t (not verified)
November 23, 2008 - 8:03pm
Will wrote:
It looks to me like SS was using the ½DEX or STR+10%/skill level to hit rules from AD for these weapons as well...it would make sense, as I believe his starship rules were homebrewed from the AD rules before he found Knight Hawks. 


How did the makers of KH come up with the % to-hit for each weapon? Someone please tell me!!! :-)
RB's have 40% chance accross the board while a AR has 60%. There are more RB's in a round than a single AR so it would seem to me the RB's would have a better chance to hit.

Maybe in addition to a higher % to hit with a RB the attacker would also roll to see how many rockets hit the intended target.

On another note - I was thinking about KH to hit %'s. I believe each wepon should have a 100% chance to hit and each modifier would reduce the chance. Like range, speed, HS of defending ship, evading fire and so on. Not sure if it's feasable but I'd like to look into it more.