Forum

I don't really understand this. Here is what it says in the book:

"Most vehicles can be used as weapons (to run your target over). It counts as a close combat attack but both attacker and defender roll for DRIVING."

FIRST QUESTION: What if the defender is on foot? They roll for DRIVING? What about rolling MOBILITY instead?

continuing...

"This roll can be combined with the speeding action above, but since the DRIVING Roll will then be an opposed roll, the effectiveness of the speeding might be reduced."

SECOND QUESTION: Aren't both "opposed" rolls? If I'm the defender and I'm "more successful" on the "close combat" thing from the first quote, don't I still just avoid damage? I don't quite understand this.

Thanks!

OK, we figured this out. Since SPEEDING is something that you roll for (in order to move the vehicle further zones) and you say you want to SPEED/RAM, you may have to use up the "successes" to get to the target, and since it is an opposed roll you may not be able to both ram the target and then move past them further. In a sense they either

A. See it coming since you are coming from so far away, you use up your "moves" to get to them and by that time they have a great chance of opposing.
or
B. You want to ram them and keep on going, but that becomes more difficult as some of what would have been movement "from successes" gets eaten up by their opposed rolls.

It took a bit but we got it.

Though I will say that if the target it on foot it should be a MOBILITY roll for them.

I think opposed roll, both parties roll against each other, and the one with the higher success wins. For the second question, yes, both rolls are opposed, but in the context of a vehicle attack, if the defender's roll is more successful, they avoid the damage. The "effectiveness" refers to the driver's ability to maintain control and speed while engaging in an opposed roll.