Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Erik S Jameson <esj@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Boot to the Head!
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 16:06:31 -0700
I said this once before, but I'll say it again because it seems to have
been lost in the fallout over this helmet/called shot thing.

Helmets may indeed be stronger than the rest of the armor, but armor
designs for people and for tanks are vastly different...

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. If I take a called shot (which, BTW,
can be to ANYTHING, not just a "weak spot" or other such drek) to
someone's unarmored head, WHY should they get the advantage of the armor
jacket they're wearing? It makes absolutely NO sense what so ever!!
No, FASA has not given hit locations or different wound types, but who
cares? If I decide to shoot someone where they are unarmored, or less
armored, then they should ONLY be able to resist with the armor that is
covering that part of the body. What FASA meant by having helmets add
onto the normal armor value is this: the normal shot is not aimed at any
specific area; it's too hard. So helmets provide additional "cover".
For the whole body, when the shots are not aimed.

But what happens when I do aim my bullet to the head? The victim only
gets their helmet to resist. Yea, this sucks drek for a lot of you out
there because it makes to game more lethal. But I, for one, love those
runs when you only survive because you were able to make that last second
called shot. The same concept also holds true for any other body
location that is not armored. The armored jacket does not cover the
legs. Normally, this is not important. But if I decide to try to
kneecap someone, then the lack of protection becomes a factor

Again, the reason this works is that in combat situations, you are just
aiming at the person. Probably the chest area because it is the biggest
target. You aren't normally aiming at any part in particular. Yes, this
is all an abstraction of real life combat, but it is simple to use. I
like what someone else said about roleplaying armor. No or little
damage, it hits the vest. Mondo hurts mean the shot hit somewhere the
armor wasn't.

All in all, this whole discussion is mostly academic. But for those
times when you are doing a called shot to a body location, then I suggest
only using the armor value that protects that area. If this makes your
game too lethal for your taste, then make called shots to body parts
harder. I mean, it not's going to be easy to hit an arm that is moving
around...

In any case, I know this was long, but the discussion was beginning to
bother me, so I just had to rant a little. Thanks. And please, this
wasn't directed at anyone in particular, so...

Erik, a.k.a. the Whistler
Message no. 2
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Boot to the Head!
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 09:54:41 +1000
Erik S Jameson writes:

> Helmets may indeed be stronger than the rest of the armor, but armor
> designs for people and for tanks are vastly different...

Absolutely.


> I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. If I take a called shot (which, BTW,
> can be to ANYTHING, not just a "weak spot" or other such drek) to
> someone's unarmored head, WHY should they get the advantage of the armor
> jacket they're wearing? It makes absolutely NO sense what so ever!!

Personally, I'm quite confident that they intended that the rules should
work this way:

When worn over a (5,3) jacket, the armour rating of a helmet is
(6,5) [don't have my books here, so I'm guessing it's (+1,+2)].
But the biggest cumulative benefit you can get from a helmet
is (+1,+2).

The rules are weird because they don't have hit locations. But a helmet
is tougher armour than a ballistic jacket - so it's absurd to say that
a head shot would only have (1,2) armour there.

> No, FASA has not given hit locations or different wound types, but who
> cares? If I decide to shoot someone where they are unarmored, or less
> armored, then they should ONLY be able to resist with the armor that is
> covering that part of the body. What FASA meant by having helmets add
> onto the normal armor value is this: the normal shot is not aimed at any
> specific area; it's too hard.

Agreed.

> So helmets provide additional "cover".
> For the whole body, when the shots are not aimed.

This is just a rules kludge, I think everyone is agreed.

> But what happens when I do aim my bullet to the head? The victim only
> gets their helmet to resist.

Exactly. And see my interpretation above, of what this means.

luke
Message no. 3
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Boot to the Head!
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 09:59:10 +1000
Erik writes:

> Helmets may indeed be stronger than the rest of the armor, but armor
> designs for people and for tanks are vastly different...

?Er, how did tanks get into it? :-)

Any ideas on the "pure" armour rating of a helmet? As in, if I did take an
aimed shot at the head, and it had a helmet on it (dang! - shoulda gone for
the knees), just what kinda armour rating would it have?

As for your rant on aimed shots, that is what I think (and if ya read my
posts then ya might agree - they just weren't as bluntly spelled out as you
put them :-)).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v(?) C+(++) US++ P? L !3 E?
N K- W+ M@ !V po@ Y(+) t+ !5 !j R+(++) G(+)('') !tv(--)@ b++ D+
B? e+ u@ h* f(+) !r n--(----) !y+
Message no. 4
From: Nightfox <DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Boot to the Head!
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 18:05:15 -0700
>But what happens when I do aim my bullet to the head? The victim only
>gets their helmet to resist. Yea, this sucks drek for a lot of you out
>there because it makes to game more lethal. But I, for one, love those
>runs when you only survive because you were able to make that last second
>called shot. The same concept also holds true for any other body
>location that is not armored. The armored jacket does not cover the
>legs. Normally, this is not important. But if I decide to try to
>kneecap someone, then the lack of protection becomes a factor

Yes but just using head armor doesn't cut it. Take, for example, Heavy Mil Spec
armor (the hardened variety) w/ a helmet - it has an armor rating of 16/13 and
this is hardened - ie ASSAULT CANNONS BOUNCE OFF!!!

Now the helmet itself is 2/3 (hardened) which means that you can penetrate the
bloody thing with A LIGHT PISTOL!!!

So Assault Cannon to body - NO EFFECT
Light Pistol to Head - YOUR DEAD

Ya see - it starts failling once you get above form fit armor.

- What I propose is that for Head shots - use the full value of the helmet and
armor. For lower armor values it means that there are open gaps that may be
busted through. On heavier armors it mean that the gaps are closed up and
harder to punch through.

If you look at it - it makes sense both in game mechanics and real life.

Remember - be cinematic


>damage, it hits the vest. Mondo hurts mean the shot hit somewhere the
>armor wasn't.

or someplace the armor was weakened. Or it ricochets around it the armor
tear arteries and such.


Nightfox
Message no. 5
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Boot to the Head!
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 13:05:21 +1000
Nightfox writes:

> - What I propose is that for Head shots - use the full value of the helmet and
> armor. For lower armor values it means that there are open gaps that may be
> busted through. On heavier armors it mean that the gaps are closed up and
> harder to punch through.
>
> If you look at it - it makes sense both in game mechanics and real life.

Sounds fine _if_ you are wearing a helmet.

But, what if I'm wearing the armour without the helmet?

It makes shit all sense then.

Or, what if I'm wearing a heavy military armour helmet, but it's with an
armoured vest? Would you say that I get +2/3 (or whatever) for the helmet,
and +1/2 (or whatever) for the vest? This makes absolutely no sense at all.

I would simply like to know the actual armour rating for helmets, so in the
event of a person wearing one getting shot in the head, I can assign an
appropriate armour value. I could also forsee it would be very easy to make
a ruling as to what parts of the body are covered by what types of armour
(after all, the term jacket or vest _is_ pretty suggestive). This would also
make it possible to "layer" armour effectively so that different parts of
your body are covered by different bits of armour, but _unless_ somebody
specifically takes an aimed shot at a particular portion, you would only get
the regular SR effect.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v(?) C+(++) US++ P? L !3 E?
N K- W+ M@ !V po@ Y(+) t+ !5 !j R+(++) G(+)('') !tv(--)@ b++ D+
B? e+ u@ h* f(+) !r n--(----) !y+
Message no. 6
From: Vincent Paul Quitoriano <vincentq@***.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Boot to the Head!
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 20:13:20 -0700
<As if this could be decided by majority vote...> My new GM does the
"roleplay" method of hit location, where the player rolls first, then
figure out the location from there. Which means that he effectively
disallows purposely calling head shots, which isn't too bad... we play by
"deadly" rules (half off ballistic armor ratings). The only reason we
call shots is for hitting targets' legs or objects (swords, guns, foci,
and decks (real nasty... my favorite char's a decker and losing your
1.2MY reason-d'-existence really SUCKS)).
For covering around corners, he just asks, "Do you want 25%, 50%, 75%, or
100% cover?" As for merely peeking around, he never checks for being hit,
since that sort of thing never happens in (good) literature.
As in your full-armor-and-cannon vs. helmet-and-light pistol.... of
course, only an idiot would shoot an unarmored, helmeted target IN THE
HEAD. Whenever we need the "pure" armor value (once in a run we managed to
reinforce a doorway with our armor vests, duct tape, and furniture), we
use the armor values table under "reinforced material", modified for
thickness.
Whew... pretty long for a first post. I'll try to make it shorter and
funnier next time.
Message no. 7
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Boot to the Head!
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 23:58:22 -0700
On Sun, 9 Oct 1994, Erik S Jameson wrote:

> Helmets may indeed be stronger than the rest of the armor, but armor
> designs for people and for tanks are vastly different...

Compare the radius of curvature on a helmet to a breastplate.
See, a curved armored surface like, say, a helmet is more likely
to make a shot glance off of it than a flat bullet-trapping breastplate.
Geometry is geometry, no matter how you look at it.

> But what happens when I do aim my bullet to the head? The victim only
> gets their helmet to resist. Yea, this sucks drek for a lot of you out

Repeat: the helmet armor is likely to be more resistant to
bullets than the armor jacket, because of its slope and the fact that it
is probably thicker. Why? Because a 2 inch-thick helmet doesn't weigh
as much as a 2-inch thick breastplate. That was the point I was making
about tanks. Ten inches of Chobham on a turret doesn't weigh as much as
10 inches on the entire front slope, because a turret has less surface
area.

> Again, the reason this works is that in combat situations, you are just
> aiming at the person. Probably the chest area because it is the biggest

Soldiers aim at the center-of-mass because it moves the least, in
addition to being the largest target.

> Erik, a.k.a. the Whistler

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 8
From: Chris Lubrecht <lubrecht@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Boot to the Head!
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 11:28:42 -0400
Here is my thought, if you are going to start aiming for weak spots, then
you will need to assign each limb its own "Body rating", after all ya
can't roll six dice for that scrawny left pinkie.(G) (this is a joke son)

Nigel
Message no. 9
From: Gareth Owen <glowen1@*****.NHS.GOV.UK>
Subject: Re: Boot to the Head!
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 16:36:13 +0100
Dang!

Following this thread has convinced me that the only way to make sense
of armour is to use a hit location scheme.

Hmmm.

OK, try this for size:
Do it the GURPS way, a hit normally hits the torso, as unless you
say otherwise you are aiming for the centre of gravity of the body
(like armed police (I'm British, OK?) are taught to. You can aim
for other locations (head, each arm, each leg) at a penalty to hit
and for special damage effects (don't ask me what yet). Each piece of
armour covers different locations at different values. i.e.
an armoured jacket gives 5/3 to the torso and arms, security
armour gives full coverage, grade-3 FFBA covers everything except
the head, helmets cover the head and long coats cover the torso
legs and arms.

If you don't aim for special locations I guess you can ignore a
rule like this most of the time, but when you need that extra 'edge'
voila.

Any opinions?

GLO

--
Gareth Owen | Mail: glowen1@*****.nhs.gov.uk
Message no. 10
From: Gareth Owen <glowen1@*****.NHS.GOV.UK>
Subject: Re: Boot to the Head!
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 16:51:28 +0100
>
> Here is my thought, if you are going to start aiming for weak spots, then
> you will need to assign each limb its own "Body rating", after all ya
> can't roll six dice for that scrawny left pinkie.(G) (this is a joke son)
>
> Nigel
>
Odd you should mention it, one of my players is very prone to losing
pinkies, mind you,he's got a few of the tattoos as well :-)

GLO

--
Gareth Owen | Mail: glowen1@*****.nhs.gov.uk
Message no. 11
From: "David L. Hoff" <DLHOFF@****.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Boot to the Head!
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 21:32:00 CDT
One thing to keep in mind if you want to design a "hit location" system, you
should keep in mind that the values given to SR armor are based on two
factors:
1) The actual protective value of the material the armor is made of;
2) The amount of body surface covered.

For example, an armored vest vs an armored jacket: both of them are probably
made of exactly the same material. However, the vest has a rating of 2/1, and
the jacket has a rating of 5/3. The difference is largely due to the fact
that the vest only covers the chest, while the jacket covers the vest and both
arms.

So, if you plan on making a hit location table, you will have to create new
armor values for all of the armor in the game. For example, a vest may stay
at 2/1, but then a jacket would also have to be 2/1, but would cover three
seperate hit locations, while the vest would only cover one.

Sorry to make this long winded. I hope my point got across there somewhere.

--Phoenix
dlhoff@****.wisc.edu
Message no. 12
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Boot to the Head!
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 12:52:36 +1000
Phoenix writes:

> So, if you plan on making a hit location table, you will have to create new
> armor values for all of the armor in the game. For example, a vest may stay
> at 2/1, but then a jacket would also have to be 2/1, but would cover three
> seperate hit locations, while the vest would only cover one.

Well, you might have to do something similar even if you don't make up a new
hit location table. It is possible to take an aimed shot and result in a
similar effect.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v(?) C+(++) US++ P? L !3 E?
N K- W+ M@ !V po@ Y(+) t+ !5 !j R+(++) G(+)('') !tv(--)@ b++ D+
B? e+ u@ h* f(+) !r n--(----) !y+
Message no. 13
From: Paolo Marcucci <marcucci@***.TS.ASTRO.IT>
Subject: Re: Boot to the Head! (fwd)
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 08:29:26 MET
>
> Dang!
>
> Following this thread has convinced me that the only way to make sense
> of armour is to use a hit location scheme.
[chomp]

> Gareth Owen | Mail: glowen1@*****.nhs.gov.uk
>

Well we use a "reasonable" hit location system. If a character
shoot to another without calling shots, the armor given is
valid for all body (you don't try to hit something specific).
If there is a called shot, the armor used is that covering
the part of the body aimed. If it is to the head (and the
opponent is wearing an helmet), the rating of the helmet is
used (I'm suggesting to my group to raise armor for helmets,
1/2 just don't seem real enough :). If the shot is called to
other part of the body, not covered by armor, no armor is
given.

This way you can call a shot to the legs of a bad guy. If
you stage the wound to D (quite easy, without armor :), the
guy doesn't die, but is stopped.

Of course, staging a head wound to D stop the guy in a
more definitive way :)

So there are basically three body parts: head, torso and legs.
Head has helmet or nothing, torso has full armor, legs none.
This, of course, in the case of an armor jacket or something
similar. Security armors cover all the body, so the rating is
applied to everywhere. Mhhh.... thinking of that, maybe is
here where the +1/+2 rating of the helmet applies?

Ok. So, what's the rating of an helmet weared (sp?) without
a security armor? 6/7 sounds fine to me...

Bye, Paolo
--
______________________________________________________
Paolo Marcucci marcucci@***.ts.astro.it
http://www.oat.ts.astro.it/marcucci/home.html

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Boot to the Head!, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!