Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 13:12:27 GMT
If we're talking about layering armour, then I should point out
that it's real easy for the to wear three layers (believe me,
my Players do it all the time, they don;t care if they look stupid)
Especially when you have Msucle Augs and an elf (+1 qickness).

Always use the armour degradation rules, always make them reduce
their combat pools, make sure that they realise the best defence
is not being found.

Shoot them in the legs, two layers don't when they're jacket and
vest 'n' plates.

I do tend to allow the layering of heavy armour, because a Jacket,
Vest and plates, ortho and titanium is better than heavy armour
otherwise.

However, when they layer armour, make it more encumbering than
heavy armour, after all, these single layers of armour interfere
with each other, they're not meant to be worn in this way, try
wearing two leather jackets (even on is larger), then see how
much it slows you down.

'...The final thing, Phil Ward
it's not a drill. Runs-With-The-Pack
It's how many people I can kill' UWCC -: COMMMA
- Slayer P.Ward@**.cf.ac.uk
Message no. 2
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 23:49:23 +1000
P Ward writes:

> If we're talking about layering armour, then I should point out
> that it's real easy for the to wear three layers (believe me,
> my Players do it all the time, they don;t care if they look stupid)
> Especially when you have Msucle Augs and an elf (+1 qickness).

Also remember that only heavy armours reduce the Combat Pool. Even a slug of
a character, with Quickness 1 and a Combat Pool of 2 can wear several sets
of normal armour and not suffer Combat Pool reductions. Of course a nifty
house rule can change this circumstance really quickly. But I don't think
such a rule appropriate. I believe that 2050 armour clothing (like jackets,
lined coats etc) will be no more heavy or encumbering than the normal
article of clothing. Light bulk armour jackets could be easily pruchased if
you spent the time to do a little shopping around.

> Always use the armour degradation rules, always make them reduce
> their combat pools, make sure that they realise the best defence
> is not being found.

True, I agree with this.

> Shoot them in the legs, two layers don't when they're jacket and
> vest 'n' plates.

And I especially agree with this. Actually, by the SR rules, a head shot is
particularily effective, even if the target is wearing a helmet (SR rules
will only give you 1/1 head armour then). A helmet (so I'm told by the
military types on here) would more likely have an armour rating of about 7/7
if it were directly attacked (such as a head shot).

> I do tend to allow the layering of heavy armour, because a Jacket,
> Vest and plates, ortho and titanium is better than heavy armour
> otherwise.

But it's even better still if the jacket becomes partial heavy...

> However, when they layer armour, make it more encumbering than
> heavy armour, after all, these single layers of armour interfere
> with each other, they're not meant to be worn in this way, try
> wearing two leather jackets (even on is larger), then see how
> much it slows you down.

See my comments above. I'd say that armour in SR (excepting designated heavy
armours) would be more or less unencumbering. No more than the clothing it
was based around.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !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. 3
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 13:58:03 GMT
Damion Milliken spake thusly;

> And I especially agree with this. Actually, by the SR rules, a head shot is
> particularily effective, even if the target is wearing a helmet (SR rules
> will only give you 1/1 head armour then). A helmet (so I'm told by the
> military types on here) would more likely have an armour rating of about 7/7
> if it were directly attacked (such as a head shot).

I was thinking of giving them something like that, and maybe writing some rules
for armours on other location (legs, etc) adding to the overall armour effect.
But the players didn't like the idea, they find it hard enough to kill things
without helmets being stronger.

Personally I was thinking of giving them Heavy/Heavy Security ratings. Then
I tempted them with just doubling the ratings, allowing for things like
Kevlar lined hats (1/0 maybe), but they wouldn't bite. Damn.

> But it's even better still if the jacket becomes partial heavy...

Yup, but only the PC's and Sepcial forces types have Titanium, etc. If they
go up against Special Forces all the time, I will kill them. Titanium is
rare as far as I;m concerned, though I did let too many PC's get it at the
start (Damn again).


The only reason I reduce combat pool like this, is because the PC's start to
look the Michelin man, and they bounce light ammo all the time. For a while
it became an arms race, as APDS becmae really common (bad mistake).

'...The final thing, Phil Ward
it's not a drill. Runs-With-The-Pack
It's how many people I can kill' UWCC -: COMMMA
- Slayer P.Ward@**.cf.ac.uk
Message no. 4
From: Quicksilver <jhurley1@****.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 11:06:28 -30000
On Mon, 6 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> P Ward writes:
>
> > If we're talking about layering armour, then I should point out
> > that it's real easy for the to wear three layers (believe me,
> > my Players do it all the time, they don;t care if they look stupid)
> > Especially when you have Msucle Augs and an elf (+1 qickness).
>
> Also remember that only heavy armours reduce the Combat Pool. Even a slug of
> a character, with Quickness 1 and a Combat Pool of 2 can wear several sets
> of normal armour and not suffer Combat Pool reductions. Of course a nifty
> house rule can change this circumstance really quickly. But I don't think
> such a rule appropriate. I believe that 2050 armour clothing (like jackets,
> lined coats etc) will be no more heavy or encumbering than the normal
> article of clothing. Light bulk armour jackets could be easily pruchased if
> you spent the time to do a little shopping around.

Yeah, and how encumbering is a jacket or lined coat today? Pretty
encumbering. Also see my last message.

[snip]

> > However, when they layer armour, make it more encumbering than
> > heavy armour, after all, these single layers of armour interfere
> > with each other, they're not meant to be worn in this way, try
> > wearing two leather jackets (even on is larger), then see how
> > much it slows you down.
>
> See my comments above. I'd say that armour in SR (excepting designated heavy
> armours) would be more or less unencumbering. No more than the clothing it
> was based around.

Again, see my comment on clothing encumberance.

Chavez:"I want to see his eyes when it happens."
Clark:"So use a good scope on the rifle."
Message no. 5
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 17:25:44 +0100
> will only give you 1/1 head armour then). A helmet (so I'm told by the
> military types on here) would more likely have an armour rating of about 7/7
> if it were directly attacked (such as a head shot).

Thats why armor ratings are for all of the body not just the chest.
Hitting a guy wearing an armor jacket and a lined coat with a helmet
even with a called shot to the head is tough as he has an !overall!
armor rating of 8/5. (Plus that +4 TN modifier for that called shot)

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
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: Michael Eames <eames@*.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 16:40:05 -0800
> Yup, but only the PC's and Sepcial forces types have Titanium, etc. If they
> go up against Special Forces all the time, I will kill them. Titanium is
> rare as far as I;m concerned, though I did let too many PC's get it at the
> start (Damn again).
I try to limit the fancy stuff char.(characters) can get at generation
time but they always use the rule about not worrying about availability
at creation. Besides invoking almight GM power (telling them it is not
possible so do try or something to the effect) how can I get around
this. Several char. managed to discover Titanium Bone Lacing and ADPS.
At least they don't use ADPS as they can't get more easily.
Message no. 7
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 14:17:00 +1000
Quicksilver writes:

[Notes on FFBA and how "stiff" it might be. Also words of wisdom on the
"bulkiness" of armours (noteably jackets and coats).]

Hmm. Admitting that I know next to nothing on armour and materials to make
armour, I would say that what you say does make sense. The note on the
broken ribs if you only have a tight weave ballistic material as armour vs
one with bulk as well especially got me. To me it seems like Orthoskin is
similar to the aforementioned tight weave ballistic armour, and it provides
only minimal protection. Since you have now convinced me that wearing an
armour jacket and lined coat (or armour jacket and amoured underwear) at the
same time is rather ristrictive to mobility, what kind of
penalties/modifiers do you suggest for characters doing so? We can't simply
rule the possibility out, as it can be done.

--------------------- (Is this clearer for those reading?)
Michael Eames writes:

> I try to limit the fancy stuff char.(characters) can get at generation
> time but they always use the rule about not worrying about availability
> at creation. Besides invoking almight GM power (telling them it is not
> possible so do try or something to the effect) how can I get around
> this. Several char. managed to discover Titanium Bone Lacing and ADPS.
> At least they don't use ADPS as they can't get more easily.

Well, in the front of Shadowtech someplace it states something along the
lines of that "characters cannot purchase items from this sourcebook using
resources nuyen". So you could point out this rule (I use it, and it works
OK for me - my players accept this). Also, you can request detailed
histories and explanations for the ownership of severly restricted items
(such as heavy weaponry and APDS ammo). Alternatively, you can do as I do,
and simply state to the players that the items they purchase with resources
nuyen will have limited availability, based on character history, and game
term availabiltiy. Since a character is going to be existing in the same
world as what they are being magically created from, their equipment should
reflect the "reality" of the world they live in. ie, if lasers and APDS ammo
are hard to come by once playing, then they would have been difficult to
find for the character during his or her history too. It is just
innapropriate, unjustified, and without reasonable explanation if a
character begins the game with all sorts of wiz-bang gear, but cannot get
access to such items of equipment during the game (unless they can provide a
good explanation of how they got it. And, no, "I did a run on Fort Lewis and
stole it" doesn't usually count.)

I'd rather run the availability of items as a GM ruling rather than a dice
roll by the players. Use the listed availabilities as a guide to just how
likely the thing is to be found, and have the characters contacts and bright
ideas effect whether they can get ahold of it or not.

----------------------
Terry Amburgey writes:

> A number of recent posts about layering armor have mentioned combining the
> form fitting [armored underwear] with something else such as a jacket or
> duster. My copy [I don't have the ISBN number at hand] of the street samurai
> catalog states very specifically that form fitted cannot be combined with
> any other type of body armor. Is this a case of house rules superceding the
> by-the-book rules or are there multiple [and conflicting] printings of the
> SSC? The recent discussion of different [and conflicting] printings of the
> Shadowtech book makes me wonder. Thanks. Terry

I wasn't aware of different versions of the SSC (other than the SRI & SRII
printings), no. What was the difference in the S-Tech books? (I only got
back on about a week ago, so I missed it.)

---------------------
Jani Fikouras writes:

> Thats why armor ratings are for all of the body not just the chest.
> Hitting a guy wearing an armor jacket and a lined coat with a helmet
> even with a called shot to the head is tough as he has an !overall!
> armor rating of 8/5. (Plus that +4 TN modifier for that called shot)

But if one takes a called shot then only the armour rating of the bits of
armour on that body part count. You don't still get 8/5 armour if someone
shoots you in the left toe for example. In fact you'd be lucky to get any
armour (4/2 for the lined coat maybe). Although nothing directly backs up my
statement, there is 1) the fact that when you engage an elemental in HtH,
you take damage from the attack. And you may use armour to protect you if
the GM rules that you struck the elemental with an armoured portion of your
body. And 2) common sense - an armour jacket is just that, a jacket. Jackets
do not (unles grossly oversized) cover ones legs, or head.

I view the SR rules on armour as being a probability thing. On the average,
when someone shoots you, you'll probably be hit in the torso. So an armour
jacket gives good armour ratings as it covers the likely hit locations with
good protective armour. A helmet, although providing much superior armour
for the specific location it protects, is much less likely to actually get
hit, so its contribution to the overall armour rating is less. This is how
it works if someone is just shooting at an opponent in general. If they
bother to call a shot at a specific location, then the armour on that
location should apply, not the general armour rating.

--------------
U-Gene writes:

> I don't let my players stack armor at all. What's the point? I like my
> players to be slightly intimidated if an NPC pulls a Ruger Warhawk, not skoff
> at the fact that the .45 round will flatten against armor (even considering
> the possible reduction in combat pool. So then I need the NPC's to aim for
> the head, or carry around assualt cannons. Besides, if the PC's can get
> blasted by Heavy Pistols, that gives them more insentive not to get shot.
> (I have a hard enough time trying to get my players to SHADOWrun. i.e.
> sneak) But to each his own.

This is another option. Although my players would be devastated at the
thought and would argue black and blue that "why don't I get to layer armour
if I wear two bits? It very obviously _is_ better protection." And I'd tend
to agree.

--------------
P Ward writes:

> I was thinking of giving them something like that, and maybe writing some
> rules for armours on other location (legs, etc) adding to the overall armour
> effect. But the players didn't like the idea, they find it hard enough to
> kill things without helmets being stronger.

But the helmets wouldn't be stronger. They'd only be superior if you were
actually shot in the head (which is the way they were designed. It was only
the fact that SR lacks a hit location system which forced them to be
assigned an odd value and a strange way of being accounted for).

> Personally I was thinking of giving them Heavy/Heavy Security ratings. Then
> I tempted them with just doubling the ratings, allowing for things like
> Kevlar lined hats (1/0 maybe), but they wouldn't bite. Damn.

Remember that things work both ways, so opponents can now just as easily
take aimed shots at PCs head with low armour ratings too...

> Yup, but only the PC's and Sepcial forces types have Titanium, etc. If they
> go up against Special Forces all the time, I will kill them. Titanium is
> rare as far as I;m concerned, though I did let too many PC's get it at the
> start (Damn again).

Yeah, I was quick enough to avoid problems like that. :-)

> The only reason I reduce combat pool like this, is because the PC's start to
> look the Michelin man, and they bounce light ammo all the time. For a while
> it became an arms race, as APDS becmae really common (bad mistake).

Why do you say it was a bad mistake? (APDS is still rare in my game - the
players have about 100 APDS round betwen them, and they've been hoarding for
several years now). It seems inevitable to me, and it does solve the armour
problem and make the game deadly again :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !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. 8
From: Sean Sheridan <spsherid@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 00:04:10 -0600
>Shoot them in the legs, two layers don't when they're jacket and
>vest 'n' plates.
Ever heard about the called shot penalty? +4 to the fireres tn. Sure you
could have the round hit em in the legs, but then you could only do a
maximum wound of seriuos and that would be if you took the leg off. SR
armor doesn't really work on body locations anyways.
>
>I do tend to allow the layering of heavy armour, because a Jacket,
>Vest and plates, ortho and titanium is better than heavy armour
>otherwise.
Have you seen the FoF military grade armor? Hardened Armor rating of 16/12.
Can't get much better than that. Give THAT guy Bone Lacing and orthoskin
and he can smile at those nasty little Panther Cannons. And You can combine
Bone Lacing and Orthosin with Heavy Armor to get a 8/7 armor rating, then a
helmet and forearm guards to rais it to 9/8(9). Then youmight survive being
hit with the cybertrolls titanium fist....
Sean
Message no. 9
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 09:45:57 GMT
Jani Fikouras Wrote:

> Thats why armor ratings are for all of the body not just the chest.
> Hitting a guy wearing an armor jacket and a lined coat with a helmet
> even with a called shot to the head is tough as he has an !overall!
> armor rating of 8/5. (Plus that +4 TN modifier for that called shot)

That's the point, we don;t like the original rule, why should an armour
jacket protect your head (OK some flak vests cover neck, but not the face).

That's why I altered the Called Shot rules, so if you hit a location
that was unprotected by armour, such as the legs, the most commonly
unprotected area, your weapon wasn't slowed down by non-existant armour.

Of course this does lead to problems with N/PC's dying too easily from
head shots, but that leads to a calmer, and less violent game.

And it's +2 for the shadow-runner standard Smart-II. Not even Mages
go without one in my games (at least after they've had a point of magic
shot out of them).

'...The final thing, Phil Ward
it's not a drill. Runs-With-The-Pack
It's how many people I can kill' UWCC -: COMMMA
- Slayer P.Ward@**.cf.ac.uk
Message no. 10
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 20:07:22 +0930
P Ward wrote:
> And it's +2 for the shadow-runner standard Smart-II. Not even Mages
> go without one in my games (at least after they've had a point of magic
> shot out of them).
>

Someone check me if I'm wrong, but... Isn't Magic loss due to Deadly Wounds
in addition to Magic loss due to Essence loss?

So that the above mage would have lost 2 points of magic: one for the
smartlink II, and one "shot out of them".

--
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.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 11
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 13:48:21 +0100
> > Thats why armor ratings are for all of the body not just the chest.
> > Hitting a guy wearing an armor jacket and a lined coat with a helmet
> > even with a called shot to the head is tough as he has an !overall!
> > armor rating of 8/5. (Plus that +4 TN modifier for that called shot)

> That's the point, we don;t like the original rule, why should an armour
> jacket protect your head (OK some flak vests cover neck, but not the face).

If I remember correctly the original poster complained about the lack
of protection provided by a helmet according to the SRII rules. I agree
with him and so I felt it was nececery to point out that this "oversight"
in the rules is "compensated" by the over-all effect of body armor.

> Of course this does lead to problems with N/PC's dying too easily from
> head shots, but that leads to a calmer, and less violent game.

It leads to munchkinism if you ask me.

GM: The dragon attacks you.
Sammie: Oh ok I shoot him in the eye - full auto.

No further comment.

> And it's +2 for the shadow-runner standard Smart-II. Not even Mages
> go without one in my games (at least after they've had a point of magic
> shot out of them).

Lets not start the cyber-for-mages argument, it just died a a week ago.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
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. 12
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 13:51:09 +0100
> P Ward wrote:
> > And it's +2 for the shadow-runner standard Smart-II. Not even Mages
> > go without one in my games (at least after they've had a point of magic
> > shot out of them).
>
> Someone check me if I'm wrong, but... Isn't Magic loss due to Deadly Wounds
> in addition to Magic loss due to Essence loss?
>
> So that the above mage would have lost 2 points of magic: one for the
> smartlink II, and one "shot out of them".

If I remember my rules correctly surgery can result to essence loss, but
its by no means sure.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
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: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 12:55:41 GMT
> I try to limit the fancy stuff char.(characters) can get at generation
> time but they always use the rule about not worrying about availability
> at creation. Besides invoking almight GM power (telling them it is not
> possible so do try or something to the effect) how can I get around
> this. Several char. managed to discover Titanium Bone Lacing and ADPS.
> At least they don't use ADPS as they can't get more easily.

I would suggest not letting them have anything with greater availability
than 2x a relevant ettiquette, and a contact/reason in their background.

This also means they tend to have good ettiquete skills.

In order to remove titanium, try reading the Cyberpunk Ref's manual;
"Listen up you primitive screwheads", some cunning plans in there.
Including the piggyback virus which hides on skinweave (CP sort of
bone-Lacing) and then really messes up the PC involved.



'...The final thing, Phil Ward
it's not a drill. Runs-With-The-Pack
It's how many people I can kill' UWCC -: COMMMA
- Slayer P.Ward@**.cf.ac.uk
Message no. 14
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 13:08:01 +0000
Damion Milliken writes:

> Remember that things work both ways, so opponents can now just as easily
> take aimed shots at PCs head with low armour ratings too...

I know mann, mine do it all the time, it's the only chance they have of
nailing the troll with 16 natural body (ish).


> Why do you say it was a bad mistake? (APDS is still rare in my game - the
> players have about 100 APDS round betwen them, and they've been hoarding for
> several years now). It seems inevitable to me, and it does solve the armour
> problem and make the game deadly again :-)

I believe that APDS should be extremely rare, hence I have a few lower
quality armour piercing rounds available in my game, that only reduce
armour by one or two points. The problem with PC APDS, is that it tends
to leave the major NPC's smoking on the ground, and GM intervention just
doesn't work.

PC: What do ya mean he's still standing, he couldn't have dodged a 4 success
10 round AR burst, no way.


the best solution for the armour problem is using head shots, though legs
do seem to be the least armoured part of the entire body IMO.

'...The final thing, Phil Ward
it's not a drill. Runs-With-The-Pack
It's how many people I can kill' UWCC -: COMMMA
- Slayer P.Ward@**.cf.ac.uk
Message no. 15
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 13:18:18 GMT
Yeah sean, I've seen the FoF stuff, it just hasn't been used in my campgain,
It's too powerful, the nearest the PC's came to it was trying to take
down a full conversion borg from CP (dragoon funnily enough).

That troll's titanium fist does around a 23M stun when his pump is kicked
in, I haven't seen anything that can ignore it yet, if nothing else, the
person Boar hits is always knocked down/back a few metres.

Mind you, Boar tends to use a Riot shield and Katana, now that's really
scary, A troll with +2 Reach and _2 to hit due to the shield, he faced
off against Kyle Morgan's dragon buddy Perianwyr in the Superbrawl
like that, and nearly won. If I hadn't already forced him to use as
much Karma as possible, he would've chopped the dragon to salami in a
straight fight.

'...The final thing, Phil Ward
it's not a drill. Runs-With-The-Pack
It's how many people I can kill' UWCC -: COMMMA
- Slayer P.Ward@**.cf.ac.uk
Message no. 16
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 13:25:47 GMT
Layered armour and Combat Pool penalties

I personally use -1 Combat pool Per point of TOTAL (don't just add half
the worst layer) ballistic armour over Quickness, though I am thinking
of an AUTOMATIC penalty to combat pool for Lined coats combined with
Armour Jackets, because this seems like it shoul'd be a particularly
inflexible combination.

'...The final thing, Phil Ward
it's not a drill. Runs-With-The-Pack
It's how many people I can kill' UWCC -: COMMMA
- Slayer P.Ward@**.cf.ac.uk
Message no. 17
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 13:49:01 GMT
Jani Fikouras wrote
:
> GM: The dragon attacks you.
> Sammie: Oh ok I shoot him in the eye - full auto.

Dragons tend to get the worst of it if they try to take a group of
PC's in a straight fight anyway, and I believe there is a rule (though
possibly a house one) that you canlt aim fully auto fire, and you can't
aim auto-fire, you shouldn't be able to call it, except in the most basic
sense;
PC: I shoot low and chew his legs off.

As it stands, armour does protect the entire body, it seemed silly, so I
changed the rule.

My helmets are tougher than standard ones, they still don't save you from
3x 5.56mm AR rounds in the head, very little could.

'...The final thing, Phil Ward
it's not a drill. Runs-With-The-Pack
It's how many people I can kill' UWCC -: COMMMA
- Slayer P.Ward@**.cf.ac.uk
Message no. 18
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 15:10:05 +0100
> > GM: The dragon attacks you.
> > Sammie: Oh ok I shoot him in the eye - full auto.
>
> Dragons tend to get the worst of it if they try to take a group of
> PC's in a straight fight anyway,

I do not think that this is acceptable, and if that is the case then you
either dont play dragons right or you have way too powerfull PC's.

> and I believe there is a rule (though
> possibly a house one) that you canlt aim fully auto fire, and you can't
> aim auto-fire, you shouldn't be able to call it, except in the most basic
> sense;

Ofcourse you can, you can even move the gun to hit more targets and even
choose which people you hit.

> As it stands, armour does protect the entire body, it seemed silly, so I
> changed the rule.

One of the main reasons I like SR is that its realistic, but not realistic
enough to be a pain in the butt. Armor is a good example for this.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
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. 19
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 01:28:59 +1000
Sean Sheridan writes:

> Ever heard about the called shot penalty? +4 to the fireres tn. Sure you
> could have the round hit em in the legs, but then you could only do a
> maximum wound of seriuos and that would be if you took the leg off.

Why so? I could see a perfectly valid argument based on such things as blood
loss, shock, and so on that allowed deadly wounds to be missing legs. Heck,
the book even has a missing leg as one of the possible "side effects" of
taking a deadly wound.

> Have you seen the FoF military grade armor? Hardened Armor rating of
> 16/12. Can't get much better than that.

Would the wearer of this armour get all the rules for hardened armour? You
know, like being able to subtract their Body from the Power of non-armour
piercing weapons, and being able to roll Body+(Armour/2) for damage
resistance tests? If not, just what advantages does the armour really offer
over normal armour (besides a rating of about twice the next best armour)?

Gurth writes:

> modern (1990s) body armor is so thin you can wear it underneath normal
> clothes and go virtually unnoticed.

That's what I was basing my arguments on, but Quicksilver seems to think
such armour wouldn't work terribly well. And he seems to know what he's
talking about. Quicksilver, can you explain perhaps?

P Ward writes:

> That troll's titanium fist does around a 23M stun when his pump is kicked
> in, I haven't seen anything that can ignore it yet, if nothing else, the
> person Boar hits is always knocked down/back a few metres.

Errrgh. I see why! :-)

> Mind you, Boar tends to use a Riot shield and Katana, now that's really
> scary, A troll with +2 Reach and _2 to hit due to the shield, he faced
^^
What's this bit?

> off against Kyle Morgan's dragon buddy Perianwyr in the Superbrawl
> like that, and nearly won. If I hadn't already forced him to use as
> much Karma as possible, he would've chopped the dragon to salami in a
> straight fight.

He nearly won? How? They'd both have the same target numbers (they both have
+3 to reach), so it unlikely that he would get enormous amounts of
successes, and Perianwyr has an armour rating of 8 doesn't he (or at least
he does in Mercurial I think), that would add up like: Halve the trolls
Power when he hits the dragon (due to hardened armour), and reduce the
damage category by one. That means he'd be doing 11L to the beast as a base
damage. Then you subtract Body+Armour from the power of the attack (since it
is not an armour piercing attack), leaving the dragon taking about 2L. Not
too scary considering he's gets Body+(Armour/2) to roll to resist.

> I personally use -1 Combat pool Per point of TOTAL (don't just add half
> the worst layer) ballistic armour over Quickness, though I am thinking
> of an AUTOMATIC penalty to combat pool for Lined coats combined with
> Armour Jackets, because this seems like it shoul'd be a particularly
> inflexible combination.

I like the sound of your first rule, but how would you handle one of my
players characters? He's a Gator shaman, and has a Quickness of 2. Even
wearing armour clothing is going to reduce his combat pool. I don't think
that is fair on him. The automatic penalty for armour jackets when combined
with lined coats makes good sense though, what'd you suggest?

> > GM: The dragon attacks you.
> > Sammie: Oh ok I shoot him in the eye - full auto.
>
> Dragons tend to get the worst of it if they try to take a group of
> PC's in a straight fight anyway

Only if the team is packing some sort of weapon which is armour piercing,
otherwsie they'll have no hope of damaging the dragon.

> and I believe there is a rule (though possibly a house one) that you canlt
> aim fully auto fire, and you can't aim auto-fire, you shouldn't be able to
> call it, except in the most basic sense;

The rule is that you can't use autofire with a called shot, it is still
possible to aim autofire.

Oh, and to those who keep saying that SR isn't designed for a hit location
type system of body part armour ratings, then how come the folks at FASA
included called shots? They must have envisioned people using the rule to
take head shots and the like. And while it is true that they did fail to
include decent mechanics for the called shots, they do still have the rule.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !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. 20
From: Mark A Sawko <sawk6112@****.GMI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 14:01:05 EST
> I try to limit the fancy stuff char.(characters) can get at generation
> time but they always use the rule about not worrying about availability
> at creation. Besides invoking almight GM power (telling them it is not
> possible so do try or something to the effect) how can I get around
> this. Several char. managed to discover Titanium Bone Lacing and ADPS.
> At least they don't use ADPS as they can't get more easily.

What I like to do for starting characters is not let them get anything with an
availability of 10 or greater. This may be against the normal rules, but it limits
players to SMGs or maybe assult rifles at first. They also can't get any high level armor
because of this rule. It seems to work pretty well for my campaign.
-----

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Mark Sawko | GMI Engineering | Duct Tape: |
| sawk6112@****.gmi.edu | and Management | The solution to everything |
| | Institute | from global warming to |
| | Flint, MI | keeping your socks up. |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Geek Code V2.1:
GE>$ d? H+ s+:- g- p? au a23 w+ v
C+ U P? L- !3 E? N+ K- W+@ M V--
-po+ Y
t++ 5- !j R+ G++ tv+@ b++ D+ B--
e+>e--- u** h- f? r---@ n---- y?
Message no. 21
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 21:47:19 GMT
Our armour house rules are basically this.

1 - Layering armour works as in NAGRL, but to get the benefit it has to cover
different areas - jacket and vest doesn't work, jacket and form-fit does.

2 - Called shots can ignore armour if a location is unprotected. This makes
head shots lethal unless you have some sort of helmet. However, at the moment
there's a baseball cap on the market with a 16-ply kevlar shield in the front
panel: we allow that to offer +1 ballistic and allow head protection.

If you're hit in an armoured location, the armour applies. If not, you get no
armour. So wearing an armour jacket, a 'normal' hit or a chest shot gives you
5/3 armour. If the shooter goes for your head or legs, you have none. A head
protector would give you 5/3 on the head as well. It's slightly unrealistic
but much faster and simpler.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or
for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 22
From: Quicksilver <jhurley1@****.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 15:21:58 -30000
On Tue, 7 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Quicksilver writes:
>
> [Notes on FFBA and how "stiff" it might be. Also words of wisdom on the
> "bulkiness" of armours (noteably jackets and coats).]
>
> Hmm. Admitting that I know next to nothing on armour and materials to make
> armour, I would say that what you say does make sense. The note on the
> broken ribs if you only have a tight weave ballistic material as armour vs
> one with bulk as well especially got me. To me it seems like Orthoskin is
> similar to the aforementioned tight weave ballistic armour, and it provides
> only minimal protection. Since you have now convinced me that wearing an
> armour jacket and lined coat (or armour jacket and amoured underwear) at the
> same time is rather ristrictive to mobility, what kind of
> penalties/modifiers do you suggest for characters doing so? We can't simply
> rule the possibility out, as it can be done.
>
> --------------------- (Is this clearer for those reading?)
> Michael Eames writes:

If your quickness is lower than the *SUM* total of all ballistic
ratings of your layered armor, then you take a combat pool reduction
equal to the difference of the sum of the ballistic rating of the armors
and the character's quickness. (IE, And armor jacket(5/3) and a lined
coat(4/1) combine to give 7/3. This combo would restrict a quickness 6
character by removing 3(!) dice from combat pool. You might also want to
penalize reaction.


>
> > I try to limit the fancy stuff char.(characters) can get at generation
> > time but they always use the rule about not worrying about availability
> > at creation. Besides invoking almight GM power (telling them it is not
> > possible so do try or something to the effect) how can I get around
> > this. Several char. managed to discover Titanium Bone Lacing and ADPS.
> > At least they don't use ADPS as they can't get more easily.
> Jani Fikouras writes:
>
> > Thats why armor ratings are for all of the body not just the chest.
> > Hitting a guy wearing an armor jacket and a lined coat with a helmet
> > even with a called shot to the head is tough as he has an !overall!
> > armor rating of 8/5. (Plus that +4 TN modifier for that called shot)
>
> But if one takes a called shot then only the armour rating of the bits of
> armour on that body part count. You don't still get 8/5 armour if someone
> shoots you in the left toe for example. In fact you'd be lucky to get any
> armour (4/2 for the lined coat maybe). Although nothing directly backs up my
> statement, there is 1) the fact that when you engage an elemental in HtH,
> you take damage from the attack. And you may use armour to protect you if
> the GM rules that you struck the elemental with an armoured portion of your
> body. And 2) common sense - an armour jacket is just that, a jacket. Jackets
> do not (unles grossly oversized) cover ones legs, or head.
>
> I view the SR rules on armour as being a probability thing. On the average,
> when someone shoots you, you'll probably be hit in the torso. So an armour
> jacket gives good armour ratings as it covers the likely hit locations with
> good protective armour. A helmet, although providing much superior armour
> for the specific location it protects, is much less likely to actually get
> hit, so its contribution to the overall armour rating is less. This is how
> it works if someone is just shooting at an opponent in general. If they
> bother to call a shot at a specific location, then the armour on that
> location should apply, not the general armour rating.

Yep. However, the way I run things, you may take a called shot to either
ignore (torso, usually) armor, or you may raise the damage code by on per
std. called shot rules. If you want to do both, you take the penalty
twice. And SGII only applies for the FIRST.


Chavez:"I want to see his eyes when it happens."
Clark:"So use a good scope on the rifle."
Message no. 23
From: Quicksilver <jhurley1@****.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 15:24:49 -30000
On Tue, 7 Mar 1995, P Ward wrote:

> Jani Fikouras Wrote:
>
> > Thats why armor ratings are for all of the body not just the chest.
> > Hitting a guy wearing an armor jacket and a lined coat with a helmet
> > even with a called shot to the head is tough as he has an !overall!
> > armor rating of 8/5. (Plus that +4 TN modifier for that called shot)
>
> That's the point, we don;t like the original rule, why should an armour
> jacket protect your head (OK some flak vests cover neck, but not the face).
>
> That's why I altered the Called Shot rules, so if you hit a location
> that was unprotected by armour, such as the legs, the most commonly
> unprotected area, your weapon wasn't slowed down by non-existant armour.

OK. I do the same. But I don't allow the increase for damage level at
the same time. If you want a damage level increase, you need to take a
second called shot mod.

>
> Of course this does lead to problems with N/PC's dying too easily from
> head shots, but that leads to a calmer, and less violent game.
>
> And it's +2 for the shadow-runner standard Smart-II. Not even Mages
> go without one in my games (at least after they've had a point of magic
> shot out of them).
The link may be standard, but how many weapons are rigged for the level two?

Chavez:"I want to see his eyes when it happens."
Clark:"So use a good scope on the rifle."
Message no. 24
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 09:59:59 +0930
Jani Fikouras wrote:
>
> If I remember my rules correctly surgery can result to essence loss, but
> its by no means sure.
>

Granted, Jani, but the mage loses at least one point for getting cyber
slapped into him, and if he gets shot for a deadly wound and loses a Magic
point that way, it is culmative.

Example (just to make it clear):
Mage gets shot. Loses point of magic. Down to 5 (that's Essence - 1).
Mage gets smartlink put in. Loses another point of Magic. Down to 4.
(that's Essence, rounded down, - 1)

--
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.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 25
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 10:03:58 +0930
Jani Fikouras wrote:
>
> > > GM: The dragon attacks you.
> > > Sammie: Oh ok I shoot him in the eye - full auto.
> >

Greater Western dragon... it bounces. Guess those eyelids are tougher than
they look.

> > Dragons tend to get the worst of it if they try to take a group of
> > PC's in a straight fight anyway,
>
> I do not think that this is acceptable, and if that is the case then you
> either dont play dragons right or you have way too powerfull PC's.
>

Well, you see, the dragon you saw was an illusion... the real dragon was
hovering about a klick in the air, using his enhanced vision to see what
you were going to do. Now that you've shot his illusion, he decides to fry
you all with Manabolts.

> > and I believe there is a rule (though
> > possibly a house one) that you canlt aim fully auto fire, and you can't
> > aim auto-fire, you shouldn't be able to call it, except in the most basic
> > sense;
>
> Ofcourse you can, you can even move the gun to hit more targets and even
> choose which people you hit.
>

Mind you it makes the TN's bloody high.

--
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.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 26
From: Sean Sheridan <spsherid@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 03:30:15 -0600
>That's the point, we don;t like the original rule, why should an armour
>jacket protect your head (OK some flak vests cover neck, but not the face).

You might notice that you do make called shots with EVERY shot you make.
When you roll to hit and you score eight extra successes, wher do you think
you hiy? The stomach? think you blow out the huys head. The extra
succsess let you hit the target in a vital area, or an exposed area.
>
>That's why I altered the Called Shot rules, so if you hit a location
>that was unprotected by armour, such as the legs, the most commonly
>unprotected area, your weapon wasn't slowed down by non-existant armour.

But what about dodging. If you aim at my head it would be a hell of alot
easier to dodge by ducking than if you fired at my chest. Also, can you aim
a burst? You need a free action to make a called shot so you can only make
one an action anyways. I think thzt this concept is covered enough in the
games mechanics. If you want to add a rule like this you HAVE to add some
kind of modification to dodging. As it stands it's easier for a guy in an
armor jacket to dodge a slug from a predator II than it is to dodge a dart
from a taser. Which one is moving faster anyways...

>
>Of course this does lead to problems with N/PC's dying too easily from
>head shots, but that leads to a calmer, and less violent game.
>
>And it's +2 for the shadow-runner standard Smart-II. Not even Mages
>go without one in my games (at least after they've had a point of magic
>shot out of them).

By the way, my FoF says that it reduces the called shot modifier to a +4,
obviuosly a typo. Where did you get the +2 rule? Thanks
Sean
Message no. 27
From: Sean Sheridan <spsherid@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 03:30:34 -0600
>PC: What do ya mean he's still standing, he couldn't have dodged a 4 success
> 10 round AR burst, no way.
>

Just to add my .02 nuyen, I have a character(I know I'm opening myself up to
munchkin threats) who has a skill of eight with her gun, so she rolls 11
dice(custom, enh. art, and r.recorder). Add to that her cybereyes with
thermo low lite and elctric mag three her tns are usually two. SO, with 15
or so dice to roll with each shot she usually KILLS with each bullet.
Without called shots or anything she gets around ten succsess and nothing
can stop that unless it's wearing really heavy armor and then she uses her
bigger guns..
What I'm trying to get at is that a character can overcome a high body and
armor rating without a called shot by having a higher skill and a good
combat pool. And remember that you can fire two shots. Add your combat pool
to the second shot so that your good shot hits against a person whos out of
combat pool and turn em into puree. I think that called shots allow
characters with much lower skills too much power. Ever watch a Chou Yun Fat
movie? "Destroy the Triads supercop..."(A Hong Kong action hero). They
always shoot poeple in the gut and kill em with three or four bullets. Head
shots are just the obviuos result of the aimed shot with all the combat pool
you can stuff into it. It doesn't matter if the defenders tn is 2 if you
have 14 succsess and he can only roll eight or ten dice.
Sean
Message no. 28
From: Sean Sheridan <spsherid@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 03:30:45 -0600
Damian Wites:

>Oh, and to those who keep saying that SR isn't designed for a hit location
>type system of body part armour ratings, then how come the folks at FASA
>included called shots? They must have envisioned people using the rule to
>take head shots and the like. And while it is true that they did fail to
>include decent mechanics for the called shots, they do still have the rule.

I think you'll notice that called shots are basically for actions like
firing at windows of vehicles so you can hit the people inside, or tires so
youre non AP weapon works against the badies, or to make sniping even more
powerful than it already is. Also it helps if you want to make a bad guy
with a really small weakness(like Smaug in the Hobbit) or if you want to
circumvent certain kinds of advantages(Hitting a person almost etirely
protected with a narcojet)
I think SR keeps the combat simple by leaving out things like hit locations.
Losing a leg doesn't kill you ourtight, so Overdamage is virtually
impossible from a leg or arm shot. And is it really fair to apply the same
staging rules for arms as it is for chests. What about shot rounds from
shotguns and explosives like grenades. They hit all over, so how do you
deal with that. Can you aim flechette rounds at a body part. Don't you
automatticly kill someone you hit in the head with a HP round? You might be
bitting off more than you can chew with a hit location system, even an
optional one.
Sean
Message no. 29
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 10:13:59 GMT
The +2 called shot modifier for a Smart-II is in the FoF erratta sheet,
it's floating round the Web somewhere, try Paolo's Home page.

As to Electronic mag, I found those things were too lethal immediately, so
I ruled that you had to AIM to get their benefits, that means that Auto-Fire
was out (good stuff), and only one burst or single shot on your action,
it seems logical, if your looking at someone on x10 magnification, you have a
very small field of vision, so you have to take time to acquire the
target, otherwise all you'll see is a fast-moving blur running in and out
of your target.

Come to think of it, there is always a penalty for using low-light and thermo,
at least +2 for Low-light and +4 for thermo (assuming they're non-natural,
you can;t have both naturally??). Your GM obviously doesn't have the Small-Unit
Tactics concentration of military theory, lucky old you.

Not to mention taht NPC's have threat pool, it doesn't run out, bit of a bugger
theat, I reduce it by one per shot taken at them until their action, to
represent their decreased likelihood of dodging. Anyone else do something like
thus.

When you have loads of dice, any weapon can be lethal, that's what I like about
Buckshot; it reduces the TNo by -1 per (Choke) metres, so you fire it at a few
metres away, aiming at 2's, your NPC is going to get nearly all successes,
if the PC doesn't have as many dice as the bad guy, he's toast.


'...The final thing, Phil Ward
it's not a drill. Runs-With-The-Pack
It's how many people I can kill' UWCC -: COMMMA
- Slayer P.Ward@**.cf.ac.uk
Message no. 30
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 10:19:50 GMT
Losing a leg doesn't kill you outright. It can, read cyberpunk, there was a
story of a police officer who was killed by shock from one (count em, one!)
buckshot pellet in the foot, it's very possible.

OTOH it's also possible to get shot in the head and not feel it, mind you
that story was from a Palladium book, and it as a .22 LR shot.

I would suggest that you either reduce the overall damage by 1 level for
an arm or leg, but still apply the full modifiers to the limb involved.
Add one level for a head shot. That way, if you get hit for a deadly
wound to the leg, with no over-damage, your leg is useless, and may come
off (the dreaded bits-blown-off roll), but the rest of you functions as if on
a serious wound.

Buckshot and Grenades use the all-over Armour value, which is what the basic
shadowrun armour rules represent anyway IMO. A HP roud could just take off
an ear or something, maybe it just grazes you, them 's the breaks and that's
what combat pool is for.

I run a lethal game of shadowrun, my PC's are all very skilled in combat,
becuase they know that some times, no matter how hard you try, there's gonna
be someone who finds and tries to kill you. I Make it lethal to discourage
hack-and-slash gaming, the Players know that if they try to duke it out with
even the basic security guards, they are going to get hurt.

'...The final thing, Phil Ward
it's not a drill. Runs-With-The-Pack
It's how many people I can kill' UWCC -: COMMMA
- Slayer P.Ward@**.cf.ac.uk
Message no. 31
From: Matt Hufstetler <gt2778a@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 12:16:59 -0500
> The rule is that you can't use autofire with a called shot, it is still
> possible to aim autofire.
>
> Oh, and to those who keep saying that SR isn't designed for a hit location
> type system of body part armour ratings, then how come the folks at FASA
> included called shots? They must have envisioned people using the rule to
> take head shots and the like. And while it is true that they did fail to
> include decent mechanics for the called shots, they do still have the rule.

O.k. We've had problems with that too. However, a simple game mechanic
will allow for a better level of playability. Technically when you call a
shot, you are aiming for an unprotected/less protected area. This
provides a game mechanic of upping the base damage code one level, right?
That is technically it. Since Shadowrun does not contain a location based
combat system. So, what I proposed to our group was this. If it is
possible to hit an unarmoured section of a person(eg. If they are only
wearing a armoured jacket), then calling the shot will allow the shot to
bypass armour. No increase damage. We've also been trying to get the
dodge rules down.


Matt 'Comatose Raspberry' Hufstetler
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt2778a
Internet: gt2778a@*****.gatech.edu
Message no. 32
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour (fwd)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 20:22:33 GMT
Forwarded message from Damon Milliken with my comments follows:

> Paul Jonathan Adam writes:
>
> > 1 - Layering armour works as in NAGRL, but to get the benefit it has to
> > cover different areas - jacket and vest doesn't work, jacket and form-fit
> > does.
>
> One could argue differently, but this doesn't sound too bad a ruling.
>
> > If you're hit in an armoured location, the armour applies. If not, you get
> > no armour. So wearing an armour jacket, a 'normal' hit or a chest shot
> > gives you 5/3 armour. If the shooter goes for your head or legs, you have
> > none. A head protector would give you 5/3 on the head as well. It's
> > slightly unrealistic but much faster and simpler.
>
> So you rate helmets at about 5/3?

I basically rate them at whatever you're wearing. I know it's unrealistic
that the same +1/+1 helmet will 'be' a 3/2 if all you have is an armour vest and
8/4 if you're in form-fit III and an armour jacket, but it's also quicker
and easier to play and avoids arguments about exact type of helmet and so on.
>
> -------------------
> Quicksilver writes:
>
> > If your quickness is lower than the *SUM* total of all ballistic
> > ratings of your layered armor
>
> These rules sound good, but how do you handle a character with a very low
> Quickness (like 2)?

I'd say you couldn't reduce quickness below 1, obviously. I also use Strength
as a factor: Strength + Quickness - total ballistic armour as the net penalty
when I bother at all. I just role-play discouraging armour: I don't know
what things are like in the States but banks etc. here have signs about
motorcylcists having to remove their helmets before coming in. Nobody's asked
for mil-grade armour yet, which is a pity. Read The Forever War by Joe
Haldemann for the fun and games possible, heh heh.


> > Yep. However, the way I run things, you may take a called shot to either
> > ignore (torso, usually) armor, or you may raise the damage code by on per
> > std. called shot rules. If you want to do both, you take the penalty
> > twice. And SGII only applies for the FIRST.
>
> Good idea, I hadn't thought of it that way.

Like it myself. Personally I figured that ignoring armour was bad enough so
that upping the damage code just added insult. I do allow the upped damage
when shooting at - say - cars (put a shot through the radiator grille) but
not the ignored armour.
> --
> Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
>
> (GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !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+
>
>

P J Adam, part-time mailman.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or
for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 33
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 09:40:02 +0930
P Ward wrote:
>
> Losing a leg doesn't kill you outright. It can, read cyberpunk, there was a
> story of a police officer who was killed by shock from one (count em, one!)
> buckshot pellet in the foot, it's very possible.
>

Ah, lose a leg (or any limb), and you've got major arteries suddenly pumping
out your blood. You need _urgent_ medical attention, or you will die, very
quickly.

> OTOH it's also possible to get shot in the head and not feel it, mind you
> that story was from a Palladium book, and it as a .22 LR shot.
>
Hey, that reminds me of a bit out of "Clear and Present Danger" (the book).
Kid shoots a guy with a WWI era rifle, also a .22. Hits a couple of times.
The guy (after getting away) looks down at the wound in his chest, and the
head wound causes an artery to blow... But he didn't really think the head
wound was serious.

--
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.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 34
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 11:34:26 +0100
> > If I remember my rules correctly surgery can result to essence loss, but
> > its by no means sure.
>
> Granted, Jani, but the mage loses at least one point for getting cyber
> slapped into him, and if he gets shot for a deadly wound and loses a Magic
> point that way, it is culmative.

I fully agree, for what its worth I am against cybering up mages (unless
you are out for a weird run :). I feel that no magician in his right mind
would voluntarily put cyber into himself. Even a so called "combat mage"
- beats me why a dude with only combat spells would be more effective
than a guy with just manaball - would have to be nuts to go the way of the
burned out.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
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. 35
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 14:17:03 +0100
>If it is
>possible to hit an unarmoured section of a person(eg. If they are only
>wearing a armoured jacket), then calling the shot will allow the shot to
>bypass armour. No increase damage. We've also been trying to get the
>dodge rules down.

I'd say you could use the called shot to either get around armor, or to
increase damage. In the former case, you shoot at an unprotected area of the
body, like the legs (unless they're wearing armored trousers :), and in the
latter you aim for a vulnerable area that _is_ protected by armor, like the
heart.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
They're the self-appointed righteous pragmatists
And they know fifty ways to save the world
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?
Message no. 36
From: Luc <rjwate01@********.SPD.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Layering Armour
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 11:17:20 EST
> Someone check me if I'm wrong, but... Isn't Magic loss due to Deadly Wounds
> in addition to Magic loss due to Essence loss?

yes

> So that the above mage would have lost 2 points of magic: one for the
> smartlink II, and one "shot out of them".

yes


Luc

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Layering Armour, 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!