Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Helmets
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 15:50:47 -0700
See, this is a little quirk about Shadowrun combat resulting from
the lack of hit locations.
A helmet gives something like +2/+1 armor, _added_ to the base
armor the goon is wearing. In point of fact the helmet armor itself is
just as hard, if not harder than the armor material the goon is wearing,
but in Shadowrun with a sort of logarithmic power progression it didn't
make sense to double armor values for wearing helmets.
Huh? I mean that armor in Shadowrun is sort of averaged out over
the entire body, so that the values reflect what sort of armor a general
shot has to contend with. A helmet merely raises the average by adding
extra to another hit location.
Also, a Power 8 weapon is more than twice as good as a Power 4
weapon, especially against Armor rating of say, 2 (and infinitely better
against Hardened Armor 4).
In actuality, helmet armor is usually the hardest stuff in the
suit, not the least of which is due to the radical slope on the helm (more
glancing shots) and the fact that there is less of a weight penalty for
loading armor topside than over a breastplate (the same rationale explains
why Battleship Turret armor is heavier than the side belt). If you really
want a nitty-gritty simulation of modern fire combat, I'd suggest Phoenix
Command (and once you get the hang of the charts, it isn't too slow
either).
On the other hand, by head shot we usually think of a shot to the
forehead or mouth, or some sort of location where the armor ain't.
Trouble is, there are plenty of helmets (in Shadowrun) that don't have such
holes, especially Security armor and Military Grade Armor.
Looking at Called Shots, one finds one can use it to aim for a
weakness, like a chink in armor or somesuch, _if the firer is aware such
exists_. I don't see too many weaknesses in Milspec armor, so you can't
aim for something that just ain't there.
Wrapping this up, you can make a Called Shot to bypass the goon's
armor, but it wouldn't necessarily be a head shot per se (or you might
end up hitting the helmet). If they've got Full Security Armor or
Milspec armor, though, tough luck chummer.


+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 2
From: Jeremy Smith <jsmith@*****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 20:10:31 -0500
>If they've got Full Security Armor or Milspec armor, though, though
oops, last word should be :
>tough luck chummer.

And then the team discovered mana combat spells, and it was good.

jeremy
Message no. 3
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 20:41:02 -0500
On Wed, 5 Oct 1994, Jeremy Smith wrote:

> And then the team discovered mana combat spells, and it was good.

And then the team discovered that pushing anvils out the window on to
unsuspecting mages was a very effective anti-magic technique.

And it was good.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or anyone else
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 2.1) GJ/CM d- H-- s-:++>s-:+ g+ p? au+ a- w++ v* C++(++++) UL++++$
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: Alan Hill <shadow@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 21:46:46 -0400
> On Wed, 5 Oct 1994, Jeremy Smith wrote:
>
> > And then the team discovered mana combat spells, and it was good.
>
> And then the team discovered that pushing anvils out the window on to
> unsuspecting mages was a very effective anti-magic technique.
>
Then the Mages discovered quickened Personal Mana/Physical Barriers with
ratings around 15. And it was good.

Shadow (20D? No problem.)
Message no. 5
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 22:15:07 -0400
>>>>> "Alan" == Alan Hill <shadow@******.NET> writes:

Alan> Then the Mages discovered quickened Personal Mana/Physical Barriers
Alan> with ratings around 15. And it was good.

And then the Corps reevaluate the definition of "acceptable losses" and
nuke the side from orbit.

So, are we playing Shadowrun or Warhammer here?

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> |When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox|returned to its special container and kept
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |under refrigeration.
Message no. 6
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 21:49:35 -0500
On Wed, 5 Oct 1994, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> And then the Corps reevaluate the definition of "acceptable losses" and
> nuke the side from orbit.

And it was good....

> So, are we playing Shadowrun or Warhammer here?

Rifts...

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or anyone else
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 2.1) GJ/CM d- H-- s-:++>s-:+ g+ p? au+ a- w++ v* C++(++++) UL++++$
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. 7
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 11:48:49 -0400
On Wed, 5 Oct 1994, Jeremy Smith wrote:

> >If they've got Full Security Armor or Milspec armor, though,
> >tough luck chummer.


> And then the team discovered mana combat spells, and it was good.


...only to discover that the Hardened Milspec armor was prepared
for issue by an enchanter and is now the anchoring site for a personal
anti-spell barrier. And it was no longer so good.

Marc
Message no. 8
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 15:22:41 +1000
Adam writes:

> A helmet gives something like +2/+1 armor, _added_ to the base
> armor the goon is wearing. In point of fact the helmet armor itself is
> just as hard, if not harder than the armor material the goon is wearing,
> but in Shadowrun with a sort of logarithmic power progression it didn't
> make sense to double armor values for wearing helmets.

Hey, yeah, that makes perfect sense. So what would you suggest we do when
someone with a helmet gets hit with a head shot? Would they only get the 2/1
armour, or would they more appropriately get 5/5 (or somehting about that)
armour, which is representative of the armour value of a helmet? With the
smartlink II out, a head shot with the victim having a helmet is very
deadly, mayhaps more deadly than it should be?

--
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. 9
From: Paolo Marcucci <marcucci@***.TS.ASTRO.IT>
Subject: Helmets
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 12:07:49 MET
Date: 941219 Time: 10:15PM Location: Redmond Barrens (Trieste, It)

Player: "Ok, I'll shoot him to the head"
GM: "He's in partial cover, you make a called shot?"
Player: "Yes."
GM: "mmhhh, target number... 4 - 2 for smartlink + 4 called shot"
Player: "Hey, I've got a Smartlink level 2, it's +2 for called shots"
GM: "Yes? Well.. 4 - 2 for smartlink + 2 called shot + 4 partial cover"
Player: "uh?"

What do you think about this rule?

Date: 941219 Time: 10:16PM Location: Redmond Barrens (Trieste, It)

Player: "Aha! I hit him!"
GM: "Yes. But he has an helmet"
Player: "It's 2 points of armor..."
GM: "No. It is +2 points of armor, he has a sec jacket, so it is 5+2 points
of armor on the head..."
Player: "uh?"

Again, what do you think?

Bye, Paolo
--
________________________________________________________________________
Paolo Marcucci
marcucci@***.ts.astro.it
http://www.oat.ts.astro.it/marcucci/home.html
"Reboot it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" - Gareth Owen :)
Message no. 10
From: Martin Steffens <BDI05626@***.RHIJ.NL>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 12:31:47 +0100
On Mon, 19 Dec Paolo wrote:

> Date: 941219 Time: 10:15PM Location: Redmond Barrens (Trieste, It)
>
> Player: "Ok, I'll shoot him to the head"
> GM: "He's in partial cover, you make a called shot?"
> Player: "Yes."
> GM: "mmhhh, target number... 4 - 2 for smartlink + 4 called shot"
> Player: "Hey, I've got a Smartlink level 2, it's +2 for called shots"
> GM: "Yes? Well.. 4 - 2 for smartlink + 2 called shot + 4 partial cover"
> Player: "uh?"
>
> What do you think about this rule?

Euuuh, difficult one. I think it's correct the way you do it. If you
do not use the partial cover penalty everyone starts shooting people
in the head (or other parts which are exposed) because it's easier
(with smart link II) or just as difficult but does more damage.
Wheep, Wheep, Holy Game Balance (tm) Alert!!!


> Date: 941219 Time: 10:16PM Location: Redmond Barrens (Trieste, It)
>
> Player: "Aha! I hit him!"
> GM: "Yes. But he has an helmet"
> Player: "It's 2 points of armor..."
> GM: "No. It is +2 points of armor, he has a sec jacket, so it is 5+2 points
> of armor on the head..."
> Player: "uh?"
>
> Again, what do you think?

This one is a problem. The rules contradict themselves on this
(suprise, suprise). You can use the rule you described above, or you
can use the rule listed under Called Shots (around p. 85 Black Book I
think) which states that you can use the barrier rating of the object
being shot at (face-plates are always a favorite!). I use it the way
you described, again because of game balance, and I think the game is
deadly enough already :-).

Greetings,

Fael Inis <aka Martin Steffens>
Message no. 11
From: Stefan Struck <struck@******.INFORMATIK.UNI-BONN.DE>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 13:14:35 +0100
Paolo writes:
>
> Date: 941219 Time: 10:15PM Location: Redmond Barrens (Trieste, It)
>
> Player: "Ok, I'll shoot him to the head"
> GM: "He's in partial cover, you make a called shot?"
> Player: "Yes."
> GM: "mmhhh, target number... 4 - 2 for smartlink + 4 called shot"
> Player: "Hey, I've got a Smartlink level 2, it's +2 for called shots"
> GM: "Yes? Well.. 4 - 2 for smartlink + 2 called shot + 4 partial cover"
> Player: "uh?"
>
> What do you think about this rule?
>
> Date: 941219 Time: 10:16PM Location: Redmond Barrens (Trieste, It)
>
> Player: "Aha! I hit him!"
> GM: "Yes. But he has an helmet"
> Player: "It's 2 points of armor..."
> GM: "No. It is +2 points of armor, he has a sec jacket, so it is 5+2 points
> of armor on the head..."
> Player: "uh?"
>
> Again, what do you think?
OK, that's a HOUSE RULE in my group.

Called shot to the head (+4) if head is clear visible (maybe +2 if a
little bit behind cover), no armor here, except helmets.

So, both of the examples above don't fit to our rules.
first example. Target 4 - 2 smartlink + 2 called shot (level 2)= 4
I have to admit, that I didn't know FoF, does Level 2 Smartlink gives
only +2 to called shots or the regular -2 as well?

second example. He has armor 2/2

bye,
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: zeus.informatik.uni-bonn.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 12
From: Stefan Struck <struck@******.INFORMATIK.UNI-BONN.DE>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 13:25:41 +0100
>
> On Mon, 19 Dec Paolo wrote:
>
> > Date: 941219 Time: 10:15PM Location: Redmond Barrens (Trieste, It)
> >
> > Player: "Ok, I'll shoot him to the head"
> > GM: "He's in partial cover, you make a called shot?"
> > Player: "Yes."
> > GM: "mmhhh, target number... 4 - 2 for smartlink + 4 called shot"
> > Player: "Hey, I've got a Smartlink level 2, it's +2 for called shots"
> > GM: "Yes? Well.. 4 - 2 for smartlink + 2 called shot + 4 partial
cover"
> > Player: "uh?"
> >
> > What do you think about this rule?
>
> Euuuh, difficult one. I think it's correct the way you do it. If you
> do not use the partial cover penalty everyone starts shooting people
> in the head (or other parts which are exposed) because it's easier
> (with smart link II) or just as difficult but does more damage.
> Wheep, Wheep, Holy Game Balance (tm) Alert!!!
Then, please explain to me, why it would be harder, to shot someone in
the head, who is standing behind a wall, let's say 1.5 m high, than
someone without the wall. Makes no sense, forget the Holy Game Balance.

bye,
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: zeus.informatik.uni-bonn.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 13
From: Marcel Emami <rab@****.INFORMATIK.UNI-MANNHEIM.DE>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 13:24:10 MEZ
>

Paolo wrote marcucci@***.ts.astro.it
> Date: 941219 Time: 10:15PM Location: Redmond Barrens (Trieste, It)
>
> Player: "Ok, I'll shoot him to the head"
> GM: "He's in partial cover, you make a called shot?"
> Player: "Yes."
> GM: "mmhhh, target number... 4 - 2 for smartlink + 4 called shot"
> Player: "Hey, I've got a Smartlink level 2, it's +2 for called shots"
> GM: "Yes? Well.. 4 - 2 for smartlink + 2 called shot + 4 partial cover"
> Player: "uh?"
>
> What do you think about this rule?

Yes right: firsst modifiers for the person then for called shot.
But the GM souhld say it first. As you told it it seems to me the GM
wanted a high target number...
But rules are OK:partial cover AND called shot.

>
> Date: 941219 Time: 10:16PM Location: Redmond Barrens (Trieste, It)
>
> Player: "Aha! I hit him!"
> GM: "Yes. But he has an helmet"
> Player: "It's 2 points of armor..."
> GM: "No. It is +2 points of armor, he has a sec jacket, so it is 5+2 points
> of armor on the head..."
> Player: "uh?"
>
> Again, what do you think?
>
<<CHOP>>
Wrong he made a called shot so NPC has ONLY helmet.
If player didn't make a called shot (even if only the head could be hit)
NPC has his secure jaket
Everthin IMHO of course
It seems to me that GM wanted to save the live of this NPC.
RAB
GM/GO -d+(---) -P+(---) c+(+++) l u e+ m+ s /- n+ h+ f+ g++ w+ t-- r++ y++

rab@***.informatik.uni-mannheim.de
P.S.
HXAMNY

Rab
Message no. 14
From: Marcel Emami <rab@****.INFORMATIK.UNI-MANNHEIM.DE>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 13:31:36 MEZ
Soory forgot something:
to the second (armor 7 or 2 )
Player can decide what he wants eihter game effect (no armor) or more
damage (don`t know wheter higheer powerniveau or woundlevel or both )
If player decide for more damage NPC has all his armor (7)

Rab
GM/GO -d+(---) -P+(---) c+(+++) l u e+ m+ s /- n+ h+ f+ g++ w+ t-- r++ y++

rab@***.informatik.uni-mannheim.de
Message no. 15
From: Gurth <gurth@***.NL>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 21:45:02 +0100
>Date: 941219 Time: 10:15PM Location: Redmond Barrens (Trieste, It)
>
>Player: "Ok, I'll shoot him to the head"
>GM: "He's in partial cover, you make a called shot?"
>Player: "Yes."
>GM: "mmhhh, target number... 4 - 2 for smartlink + 4 called shot"
>Player: "Hey, I've got a Smartlink level 2, it's +2 for called shots"
>GM: "Yes? Well.. 4 - 2 for smartlink + 2 called shot + 4 partial cover"
>Player: "uh?"
>
>What do you think about this rule?

Called shots are a tricky little number, me thinks. If he's in partial cover
but his head is showing, and your player specifically states he wants to
blow the guy's head off, I don't think I'd apply the +4 for partial cover.

>Player: "Aha! I hit him!"
>GM: "Yes. But he has an helmet"
>Player: "It's 2 points of armor..."
>GM: "No. It is +2 points of armor, he has a sec jacket, so it is 5+2 points
> of armor on the head..."
>Player: "uh?"
>
>Again, what do you think?

I think about this one that that is the problem of not working with hit
locations. It has advantages (speeding up play, less die rolls, etc.), but
with called shots like these, they only work confusing.
Anyhow, I'd say: only apply the 2 points of armor from the helmet (unless
the NPC is wearing an armor jacket with an equally-armored hood over his head :)


Gurth@***.nl or Gurth@******.nl
Remember all your yesterdays / GC2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g P?(3) !au !a>?
In the deep blue / w+(+++)y v*(---) C+(++) U P? !L !3 E? N++ K-
Before the world came / W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@
And rested down on you / D+(++) B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@***.NL>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 21:45:11 +0100
>Wrong he made a called shot so NPC has ONLY helmet.
>If player didn't make a called shot (even if only the head could be hit)
>NPC has his secure jaket

But in that way, all players are going to make called shots if only part of
the target is visible. And they're going to state at what body part they're
aiming:

GM: "The guy with the pistol is standing half around the corner, aiming his
gun at you."
Player: "what body parts can I see?
GM: "His right arm, his head, and his right leg."
Player: "What's he wearing?"
GM: "He wears a helmet and what looks like an armor jacket."
Player: "I shoot him in the leg. He's not wearing a long coat, right?"
GM: "Err, no he isn't. You hit? Damn! Errm, yeah, he hasn't got any armor on
his leg, no, errrr, he takes the full 10S of that shotgun, then."
Player: "I did an aimed shot, right? That means 10D!"

I somehow don't think this is helping the game balance along.

>It seems to me that GM wanted to save the live of this NPC.

Sometimes you have to to keep a firefight going past the first 3 Combat Phases.


Gurth@***.nl or Gurth@******.nl
Remember all your yesterdays / GC2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g P?(3) !au !a>?
In the deep blue / w+(+++)y v*(---) C+(++) U P? !L !3 E? N++ K-
Before the world came / W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@
And rested down on you / D+(++) B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 17
From: Stefan Struck <struck@******.INFORMATIK.UNI-BONN.DE>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 09:57:23 +0100
Gurth writes:
> GM: "The guy with the pistol is standing half around the corner, aiming his
> gun at you."
> Player: "what body parts can I see?
> GM: "His right arm, his head, and his right leg."
> Player: "What's he wearing?"
> GM: "He wears a helmet and what looks like an armor jacket."
> Player: "I shoot him in the leg. He's not wearing a long coat, right?"
> GM: "Err, no he isn't. You hit? Damn! Errm, yeah, he hasn't got any armor on
> his leg, no, errrr, he takes the full 10S of that shotgun, then."
> Player: "I did an aimed shot, right? That means 10D!"
>
> I somehow don't think this is helping the game balance along.
>
> >It seems to me that GM wanted to save the live of this NPC.
>
> Sometimes you have to to keep a firefight going past the first 3 Combat Phases.
As stated somewhere in the black book, aimed shot gives special effect,
or more damage. I would count shouting at legs and heads and such things
under special effects. So, no armor, but no extra damage.
bye,
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: struck@****.informatik.uni-bonn.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 18
From: Marcel Emami <rab@****.INFORMATIK.UNI-MANNHEIM.DE>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 10:31:50 MEZ
> GM: "The guy with the pistol is standing half around the corner, aiming his
> gun at you."
> Player: "what body parts can I see?
> GM: "His right arm, his head, and his right leg."
> Player: "What's he wearing?"
> GM: "He wears a helmet and what looks like an armor jacket."
> Player: "I shoot him in the leg. He's not wearing a long coat, right?"
> GM: "Err, no he isn't. You hit? Damn! Errm, yeah, he hasn't got any armor on
> his leg, no, errrr, he takes the full 10S of that shotgun, then."
> Player: "I did an aimed shot, right? That means 10D!"
>
> I somehow don't think this is helping the game balance along.
>
<<CHOP>>>
No he can choose to do either the 10D _O_R_ the no armor rule not both.
(I stated this already in a mail later.)
And if players do a called shot in the leg let them do +4 TN.But if they hit
and do deadly damage only the leg is hit and npc can't move.
But he isn't dead (rule of thumb a called shot in a limb gives the 'owner'
of the limb a wound with one woundlevel less)

Rab rab@***.informatik.uni-mannheim.de
Geekcode
GM/GO -d+(---) -P+(---) c+(+++) l u e+ m+ s /- n+ h+ f+ g++ w+ t-- r++ y++

P.S.
MXAHNY
Message no. 19
From: pran r mukherjee <pran@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 18:02:42 -0500
On Mon, 19 Dec 1994, Gurth wrote:

> >Wrong he made a called shot so NPC has ONLY helmet.
> >If player didn't make a called shot (even if only the head could be hit)
> >NPC has his secure jaket
>
> But in that way, all players are going to make called shots if only part of
> the target is visible. And they're going to state at what body part they're
> aiming:
>
> GM: "The guy with the pistol is standing half around the corner, aiming his
> gun at you."
> Player: "what body parts can I see?
> GM: "His right arm, his head, and his right leg."
> Player: "What's he wearing?"
> GM: "He wears a helmet and what looks like an armor jacket."
> Player: "I shoot him in the leg. He's not wearing a long coat, right?"
> GM: "Err, no he isn't. You hit? Damn! Errm, yeah, he hasn't got any armor on
> his leg, no, errrr, he takes the full 10S of that shotgun, then."
> Player: "I did an aimed shot, right? That means 10D!"
>

This doesn't hold water, because you can make a called shot to either
avoid armor OR up the damage code, not both. So he either hits in the
leg for 10S, or hits the target in a "vulnerable area" for 10D. About
the called shot/cover thing, if you don't want players always shooting
for the head or gun, make small called targets a +6 modifier, because
realistically if you call a shot, cover does not apply.
Message no. 20
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 09:41:20 +1100
Paolo Marcucci writes:

> Player: "Aha! I hit him!"
> GM: "Yes. But he has an helmet"
> Player: "It's 2 points of armor..."
> GM: "No. It is +2 points of armor, he has a sec jacket, so it is 5+2 points
> of armor on the head..."
> Player: "uh?"

You have to think about reality. A helmet is the toughest part of the
armour. I would rate it at least 7/4 - but to be fairer, it should be
+2/+1 above heavy security armour, when considered alone. The +2/+1
thing is a rough fudge (because there are no hit locations), that assumes
the character is moderately well armoured.

The only time you'd make a called shot to the best-armoured spot on the
body, is if that spot is the only bit you can see.

I think Adam Getchell explained it best:

> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 15:50:47 -0700
> From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
> Subject: Helmets
>

> See, this is a little quirk about Shadowrun combat resulting from
> the lack of hit locations.
> A helmet gives something like +2/+1 armor, _added_ to the base
> armor the goon is wearing. In point of fact the helmet armor itself is
> just as hard, if not harder than the armor material the goon is wearing,
> but in Shadowrun with a sort of logarithmic power progression it didn't
> make sense to double armor values for wearing helmets.
> Huh? I mean that armor in Shadowrun is sort of averaged out over
> the entire body, so that the values reflect what sort of armor a general
> shot has to contend with. A helmet merely raises the average by adding
> extra to another hit location.
>

> [...]
> In actuality, helmet armor is usually the hardest stuff in the
> suit, not the least of which is due to the radical slope on the helm (more
> glancing shots) and the fact that there is less of a weight penalty for
> loading armor topside than over a breastplate (the same rationale explains
> why Battleship Turret armor is heavier than the side belt). [...]

luke

"Is it death if you send it back because it was the wrong colour?"

(with apologies to Shadowdancer :-)
Message no. 21
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 20:56:37 -0500
On Mon, 19 Dec 1994, Gurth wrote:

> But in that way, all players are going to make called shots if only part of
> the target is visible. And they're going to state at what body part they're
> aiming:

So here's a few ideas. If they make a called shot and miss, they
miss completely. If they make a normal shot and miss, they might still
hit. Sounds strange, but it works. Here's how:

Say you have a target. Target is man-sized, standing,
stationary, in good light conditions, at short range, etc. (yeah, like
*that* ever happens...) The only problem is that the target is standing
only half exposed in a doorway. So the base target number is 4 (no
smartgun link). If you take a called shot to the
head/gun/arm/shoulder/whatever, you have the choice of either increasing
the damage code, ignoring armor, or going for a special game effect.
Your target number is 4 + 4 = 8 (although in FoF it gives rules for more
or less cover, and in cases where the cover is +6, I would make the
called-shot modifier +6 as well)
But if you take the normal shot, you have a 4 + 4 = 8. Say you
roll your dice and get a bunch of 5's. Technically, you miss, but if the
target were standing in the open, you would have hit. But what if the
target is standing behind a rice-paper shoji panel? The bullet would
pass right through the paper and paste the target anyway. So what you do
is this: If you get any successes that are less than the required target
number, but more than the target number needed to hit the same target in
the open, you do hit, but the target gets the benefit of the barrier
rating of the cover as armor.
Granted, this can cause problems if you get numbers that are
above the modified number *and* between the modified and unmodified
numbers, but if that is the case, just ignore those successes between and
only count those that hit with the cover modifier.
This system is kind of a kludge, but it works. It also stresses
the importance of solid cover over insubstantial cover. Additionally, it
takes care of the tendency to always do called shots.

> GM: "The guy with the pistol is standing half around the corner, aiming his
> gun at you."
> Player: "what body parts can I see?
> GM: "His right arm, his head, and his right leg."
> Player: "What's he wearing?"
> GM: "He wears a helmet and what looks like an armor jacket."
> Player: "I shoot him in the leg. He's not wearing a long coat, right?"
> GM: "Err, no he isn't. You hit? Damn! Errm, yeah, he hasn't got any armor on
> his leg, no, errrr, he takes the full 10S of that shotgun, then."
> Player: "I did an aimed shot, right? That means 10D!"

Again, you only have three choices:

1. Target has to suck down a higher damage code.
2. Target gets no armor with which to resist.
3. Some other game effect --> "I rip out his eyes with my hand
razors!" It may only cause a light or moderate wound,
but it's gonna suck to have +8 to your target numbers.

But you don't get all of the above. Make the firer pick one
*before* the dice are rolled.

Just a few thoughts...

Marc
Message no. 22
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 13:33:42 +0930
>
> >Date: 941219 Time: 10:15PM Location: Redmond Barrens (Trieste, It)
> >
> >Player: "Ok, I'll shoot him to the head"
> >GM: "He's in partial cover, you make a called shot?"
> >Player: "Yes."
> >GM: "mmhhh, target number... 4 - 2 for smartlink + 4 called shot"
> >Player: "Hey, I've got a Smartlink level 2, it's +2 for called shots"
> >GM: "Yes? Well.. 4 - 2 for smartlink + 2 called shot + 4 partial cover"
> >Player: "uh?"
> >
> >What do you think about this rule?
>
> Called shots are a tricky little number, me thinks. If he's in partial cover
> but his head is showing, and your player specifically states he wants to
> blow the guy's head off, I don't think I'd apply the +4 for partial cover.
>
Try this: he's behind partial cover, and he's probably aware people are
going to shoot at him. So he ducks.
Remember, these people aren't sitting ducks. If they were, not only
wouldn't they get the partial cover for the called shot, there would be a
-1 to the TN as well (stationary target)

> >Player: "Aha! I hit him!"
> >GM: "Yes. But he has an helmet"
> >Player: "It's 2 points of armor..."
> >GM: "No. It is +2 points of armor, he has a sec jacket, so it is 5+2 points
> > of armor on the head..."
> >Player: "uh?"
> >
> >Again, what do you think?
>
> I think about this one that that is the problem of not working with hit
> locations. It has advantages (speeding up play, less die rolls, etc.), but
> with called shots like these, they only work confusing.
> Anyhow, I'd say: only apply the 2 points of armor from the helmet (unless

Yeah, just 2 points of armour is there on the head.
One (somewhat rational) variation on the called shots is that the increase
in Damage assumes you are aiming somewhere that is fairly vital (ie head,
center chest, etc). If you make a called shot for a limb, I _lower_ the
Damage, (unless it's something like a taser or a narcoject). My players
prefer this, actually. Let's them shoot someone in the legs to stop them
from getting away, and still have a decent chance of getting a live
prisoner. (Natch, there's no armour, unless they have a long coat, or
armour underwear).


--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 23
From: Martin Steffens <BDI05626@***.RHIJ.NL>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 16:30:13 +0100
I wrote:
> > Euuuh, difficult one. I think it's correct the way you do it. If you
> > do not use the partial cover penalty everyone starts shooting people
> > in the head (or other parts which are exposed) because it's easier
> > (with smart link II) or just as difficult but does more damage.
> > Wheep, Wheep, Holy Game Balance (tm) Alert!!!

On Mon, 19 Dec Stefan wrote:
> Then, please explain to me, why it would be harder, to shot someone in
> the head, who is standing behind a wall, let's say 1.5 m high, than
> someone without the wall. Makes no sense, forget the Holy Game Balance.

You're right its stupid, but as FASA uses no hit-locations I think it
still remains a problem in regard to the target numbers.
I also think its a stupid rule: you take a +4 to hit someone in a
vulnerable place (=unarmoured place) and still he gets to use all his
armour substracted from the damage.

I use it the following way:
Called shots are still at +4 but do not increase the damage level by
one, but for every two (or perhaps one, I still need to test
this) successes the attacker gets, substact one point of armour. In
this way you can also easier wound someone in hardened heavy-armour
(a feat still inpossible if you use the old rules).

Greetings,

Fael Inis <aka Martin Steffens>
Message no. 24
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Helmets
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 13:31:19 +0200
>I can get a British Army helmet (Kevlar), no problem.

Somebody tried to sell me one in a shop in Newcastle last year, so they're
easy enough to get for sure :)

>The problem is it
>looks exactly like what it is, and I will certainly attract attention
>wearing it. It won't pass as a motorcycle helmet either :-)

IMHO the helmet in the SR2 rules also looks very much like a military
helmet. It falls under the heavy armor section, which are said to be obvious
armors. But why nobody has made motorcycle helmets with kevlar inserts...


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It's explosive!
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 25
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Helmets
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 12:38:07 BST
> IMHO the helmet in the SR2 rules also looks very much like a military
> helmet. It falls under the heavy armor section, which are said to be obvious
> armors. But why nobody has made motorcycle helmets with kevlar inserts...

We do it all the time, after all, full face bike-helm is probably already
worth the +2 impact, so all you have to do is put a few sheets of kevlar
in where the foam is, and away you go.

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 26
From: Sanction <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Helmets?
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 23:55:56 -0500
I had a quick question based on something I read in one of the net supplements.

How do you handle the armor rating for helmets?

We have always assumed (without thinking about it) that, for called
head-shots the only armor available is that +1 that the helmet provides.
But, the supplement brought up the point that helmets are tough and provide
just as much, if not more, protection for the head, as armor plating does on
the torso. I think the rule suggested was something like take the base
armor rating of the armor the helmet comes with, add the helmet bonus, and
that is the armor rating for the helmet for head shots. Ex: Light military
armor ballistic 10, light military helmet +1 (I know there is no such
thing), so, ballistic rating 11 versus a head shot.

(Oh, and Dave Fallon, your opinion is definitely something I'm curious
about, if we ever manage another game.)

How is that handled in other peoples games. Oh, and the effect of a rule
like this means that you can no longer drop well armored goons with head
shots, something I've always been fond of.

--Sanction
Message no. 27
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Helmets?
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 00:26:44 -0500
> I had a quick question based on something I read in one of the net supplements.
>
> How do you handle the armor rating for helmets?
>
> We have always assumed (without thinking about it) that, for called
> head-shots the only armor available is that +1 that the helmet provides.
> But, the supplement brought up the point that helmets are tough and provide
> just as much, if not more, protection for the head, as armor plating does on
> the torso. I think the rule suggested was something like take the base
> armor rating of the armor the helmet comes with, add the helmet bonus, and
> that is the armor rating for the helmet for head shots. Ex: Light military
> armor ballistic 10, light military helmet +1 (I know there is no such
> thing), so, ballistic rating 11 versus a head shot.
>
> (Oh, and Dave Fallon, your opinion is definitely something I'm curious
> about, if we ever manage another game.)
>
> How is that handled in other peoples games. Oh, and the effect of a rule
> like this means that you can no longer drop well armored goons with head
> shots, something I've always been fond of.
>
> --Sanction
>
Hmm...how about the neck or the face plate. They aren't going to be
composed of ceramic armor, so they should have a much lower balistic
rating.
Message no. 28
From: David Fallon <dfallon@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Helmets?
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 21:27:06 -0800
> I had a quick question based on something I read in one of the net
supplements.
>
> How do you handle the armor rating for helmets?
>
> We have always assumed (without thinking about it) that, for called
> head-shots the only armor available is that +1 that the helmet provides.
> But, the supplement brought up the point that helmets are tough and
provide
> just as much, if not more, protection for the head, as armor plating does
on
> the torso. I think the rule suggested was something like take the base
> armor rating of the armor the helmet comes with, add the helmet bonus, and
> that is the armor rating for the helmet for head shots. Ex: Light
military
> armor ballistic 10, light military helmet +1 (I know there is no such
> thing), so, ballistic rating 11 versus a head shot.

It makes more sense than the way I've been doing it, that's for sure. I
don't know... Makes sense. As long as there's a consistant rule, I don't
care how we play it. <Grin> It's going to make the stars that much harder,
though....

> --Sanction


David Fallon
[SK]Club
Clan Stalker
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/6060
Message no. 29
From: Mark McLaughlin <mmclaugh@*******.EENG.DCU.IE>
Subject: Re: Helmets?
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 12:25:57 -0800
Sanction wrote:
>
> I had a quick question based on something I read in one of the net supplements.
>
> How do you handle the armor rating for helmets?
>
> --Sanction

This is a subject which has also been bothering me for a while and I`m
kind of hoping that I can get some answers,
1. Is a called shot to the head +4 TG
2. According to the rules is it just the balistic rating of the helmet
that is used against a gun.
3. How is damage taken (any house rules here?), is it taken seperately
from the normal physcal body damage counter or what.

Is seems to me that if you can get a shot on target for someones head
he`s dead and thats it...
If my NPC`s aim for the head the players last around 10 seconds but if
they dont and the players do then my NPC`s provide no challenge...

Mark McL
Message no. 30
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Helmets?
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 13:41:33 +0100
Sanction said on 23:55/ 2 Dec 96...

> I had a quick question based on something I read in one of the net
> supplements.
>
> How do you handle the armor rating for helmets?

I think I know which net.supplement you read that in... :)

The trouble with helmets and called shots in SR is that there are no hit
location rules, so armor protects "the whole body" under normal rules.
When somebody makes a called shot, you have to use GM discretion to decide
on the armor used to resist the attack. In case of a character wearing
only an armor jacket, this is easy -- somebody makes a called shot to the
head? Okay, there is no armor protection at all (I don't give these
"avoid armor" called shots the normal +1 Damage Level).

Helmets add +1 to the armor value because there are no hit locations, but
they had to have _some_ effect in game terms, else nobody would bother
with them. Helmets IRL can be made pretty strong, especially because they
can be rigid and don't have to conform to the body shape of everyone who
is going to wear it -- you just add padding and straps inside to make sure
everyone can wear it. With that in mind, a IMO helmet gives the same
protection as the armor it belongs to when it is the _only_ piece of body
armor resisting the shot.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Originally genuine.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 31
From: Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Helmets?
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 00:05:56 +1100
At 11:55 PM 2/12/96 -0500, Sanction wrote:
>I had a quick question based on something I read in one of the net
supplements.
>
>How do you handle the armor rating for helmets?
>
Well, first we chucked out the bonuses that helmets & boots give to the
character's total armour rating. Protecting an otherwise exposed body part
from called shots is benefit enough. Then we gave helmets and boots an
appropriate armour rating equivalent to the gear it's associated with: e.g.
normal helmets and boots have a rating of 5/3, security helmets and boots
have a rating of 6/4 and milspec helmets and boots have a rating of 7/5.
Works for us.

Chris

_______________________________________________________________
Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.
Message no. 32
From: "Blair A. Monroe" <bmonroe@******.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Helmets?
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 08:31:37 -0500
At 11:55 PM 12/2/96 -0500, you wrote:

>
>How is that handled in other peoples games. Oh, and the effect of a rule
>like this means that you can no longer drop well armored goons with head
>shots, something I've always been fond of.
>
> --Sanction
>
>

I haven't had to deal with it...so few of my PCs and NPCs wear helmets all
a called shot to the head means is the target has to resist the attack
without the benifit of his armor rating (and usually a dead target). It
does sound like a reasonable way of handling though.



______________________________________________________________________________
Blair A. Monroe | bmonroe@******.fsu.edu | http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bmonroe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 33
From: Guido Hölker <guido@******.COM>
Subject: Helmets
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 14:38:21 +0100
We handle it that way:
A helmet gives the helmet armor against a called shot; no more benefits with
one exception:
Someone wearing a helmet gets the benefits of reducing the Damage code
against flechette / Shot (it's still raised by one for the called shot, of
course, and usually it's still enough...)We give this benefit for any kind
of armor heavier then 3/2 8treat them as hardened armor for tis purpose),
because an armor rating of 4 means the existence of plates and not only
kevlar mats. Therefore the players are always hunting for APDS..
Message no. 34
From: Tony Jimenez <Tony@***.MEGAHITS.COM>
Subject: Re: Helmets?
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 09:09:50 EDT
SH>At 11:55 PM 12/2/96 -0500, you wrote:

SH>>
SH>>How is that handled in other peoples games. Oh, and the effect of a rule
SH>>like this means that you can no longer drop well armored goons with head
SH>>shots, something I've always been fond of.
SH>>
SH>> --Sanction
SH>>
SH>>

SH>I haven't had to deal with it...so few of my PCs and NPCs wear helmets all
SH>a called shot to the head means is the target has to resist the attack
SH>without the benifit of his armor rating (and usually a dead target). It
SH>does sound like a reasonable way of handling though.



SH>____________________________________________________________________________
SH>Blair A. Monroe | bmonroe@******.fsu.edu | http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bmonroe
SH>----------------------------------------------------------------------------


I pretty much didn't bother with extra rules, I just kept the armor
rating at the same rating as the entire suit + the helmet for all
tests. I figure that if a character is wearing a lot of armor plus a
helmet, he should be well protected against shots. Although a
character that has no helmet is an exception to the rule, this would
allow someone to actually do a "called shot" without having an
outrageous target number. I like keeping my game thin on rules,
because I hate having 90% die rolls, and 10% role-playing or tactical
combat.

-Tony J. < Tony@********.com >
Message no. 35
From: Steve Lusk <hunter@*****.CA>
Subject: Re: Helmets?
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 15:37:19 -0500
Sanction wrote:
>
> I had a quick question based on something I read in one of the net supplements.
>
> How do you handle the armor rating for helmets?

[sni pbody pararagraph]

We add in the +1 to the entire rating (both ballistic and impact). For
called shots, we divide the total armour (yes armoUr, im from Canada) by
2 (round up) and use that. The reason i incorporatte the body armour
rating is because a regualar shot can still hit the head. Conversely, a
called shot to the head can still hit the body. I use this to roleplay
the damage after all the dice rolls (a called shot to the head causing L
damage could hit the body, a called shot with D damage might hit the
throat, etc.)
--
Thus endeth the sermon

--William Hunter
Message no. 36
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Helmets?
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 17:58:26 +0000
In message <2.2.32.19961203045556.006b3708@********.cis.yale.edu>,
Sanction <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> writes
>I had a quick question based on something I read in one of the net supplements.
>
>How do you handle the armor rating for helmets?

Our rule is, for simplicity, if you get a head shot, a helmet counts as
full armour equal to whatever you're wearing. Thus, if you're in armour
jacket and helmet, your head has 6/4 armour just like the rest of you.
Helmets are _tough_.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 37
From: Droopy <droopy@*******.NB.NET>
Subject: Re: Helmets?
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 02:19:41 +0000
Sanction wrote,

> How do you handle the armor rating for helmets?
> We have always assumed (without thinking about it) that, for called
> head-shots the only armor available is that +1 that the helmet provides.

This is why I went to an alternate armor system back in SRI. I use
the btech hit location charts and an armor rating system based upon
an article in Space Gamer/Fantasy Gamer in march 1990.

The system breaks armor down into materials and article of clothing
to figure the armor rating for any given location. Most of the other
rules in the article seem to have worked their way into SRII.

I'm sure that I could write the rules up and give them to Paolo if
anybody wanted me to.


--Droopy

droopy@**.net
Message no. 38
From: Sanction <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Helmets?
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 02:38:25 -0500
Droopy wrote:
>The system breaks armor down into materials and article of clothing
>to figure the armor rating for any given location. Most of the other
>rules in the article seem to have worked their way into SRII.
>
>I'm sure that I could write the rules up and give them to Paolo if
>anybody wanted me to.
>
>
I'd sure appreciate that, if you don't mind

--Sanction

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Helmets, 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.