Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Thomas Holmes" <Thomas.A.Holmes-1@**.umn.edu>
Subject: RE: Overcoming Armour
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 13:09:25
I don't believe called shots should be changed from the existing system.
The armor rules are very broad and generic, not at all ment for a location
by location system. SR is fast an efficient, there are some excellent
systems that cover realism, but I notice very few people play them because
there's so many modifiers and rules mods that they're a pain to play. The
current system allows called shot to do +1 damage level. That works fine.
Have had very few problems with people surviving snipers in my games. If
it's not a sniper situation, chances are there's no way you can get in a
truly well aimed shot (tgt moving, firer moving, etc.).

Thomas
Message no. 2
From: Paolo Marcucci <paolo@*********.it>
Subject: Re: Overcoming Armour
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 1996 08:44:27 +0200
Thomas Holmes wrote:
>
> I don't believe called shots should be changed from the existing system.
> The armor rules are very broad and generic, not at all ment for a location
> by location system. SR is fast an efficient, there are some excellent
> systems that cover realism, but I notice very few people play them because
> there's so many modifiers and rules mods that they're a pain to play. The
> current system allows called shot to do +1 damage level. That works fine.
> Have had very few problems with people surviving snipers in my games. If
> it's not a sniper situation, chances are there's no way you can get in a
> truly well aimed shot (tgt moving, firer moving, etc.).
>
> Thomas

We use the +4 modifier for a large area (the head) and the +8 for a
little area (an eye). In these cases, armor doesn't count. Unless the
target wears an helmet.

No modifications to the power or the level of the damage. Did you notice
how many bad guys wear an helmet these days :) ?

BTW: helmets should give a +1/+2 armor. So, if I shoot a guy to the
head, what's the armor, 6? (armor jacket+helmet), 1? (helmet only). In
the latter case, why the armor rating is given as +1/+2 and not 1/2?

Bye, Paolo
Message no. 3
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Overcoming Armour
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 11:21:14 +0100
Paolo Marcucci said on 8:44/ 9 Aug 96...

> BTW: helmets should give a +1/+2 armor. So, if I shoot a guy to the
> head, what's the armor, 6? (armor jacket+helmet), 1? (helmet only). In
> the latter case, why the armor rating is given as +1/+2 and not 1/2?

Because if you start with no armor (head shot, goes around the armor worn
on the torso) and add 1 to it, you end up with an armor rating of 1 :)

You could rule that the helmet has an armor rating of 6/5, just like the
medium security armor, but because of SR's system without hit locations
it adds +1/+2 to other armors instead of its full rating. That way, a head
shot that strikes the helmet gets the 6/5 armor to deal with.

Players may not like this, though, because why make a head shot if it
gets the same armor as a normal shot? So say there's a 50% chance of
hitting the helmet, and 50% of hitting the unarmored head (face, neck,
etc.), or halve the actual armor for a head shot.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
one boy, one girl, comfortable lies
-> 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. 4
From: Richard M Conroy <Richard_M_Conroy@***.ir.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Overcoming Armour
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 96 11:08:00 PDT
Gurth wrote:
>You could rule that the helmet has an armor rating of 6/5, just like
>the medium security armor, but because of SR's system without hit
>locations it adds +1/+2 to other armors instead of its full rating.
>That way, a head shot that strikes the helmet gets the 6/5 armor to
>deal with.

Sounds good to me, but you could reduce the ratings if it wasn't a full
helmet (face/neck exposed) and a motorbike helmet would be pretty
useless.

>Players may not like this, though, because why make a head shot if it
>gets the same armor as a normal shot?

Fuck em !

This isn't about giving balanced charity opportunities to players. The
whole concept of head shots was suggested by players because of it's
*realism* - shooting exposed vital locations to bypass armor. If there's
armor, they should have to deal with it, and BTW, a Kevlar helmet has
better stopping power than a Jacket.

>So say there's a 50% chance of
>hitting the helmet, and 50% of hitting the unarmored head (face, neck,
>etc.), or halve the actual armor for a head shot.

Complete suits would have no exposed locations, and most helmets worn by
anyone with sense would have only bits of the neck exposed (whick could
probably be covered by a kevlar collar). That 50% is a bit too big, and
would vary by profile. Your better off just reducing the overall head
armor depending on exposure.

Richard.
O--------------------------------------------------------------------O
\Food for thought lies in the\Richard_M_Conroy@\Roadkill on the Info \
\depth of an inedible brick. \ccm.ir.intel.com \-rmation SuperHighway\
O-------------------------------------------------------------------O
Message no. 5
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Overcoming Armour
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 17:15:25 +0100
In message <320ADE4B.5A28@*********.it>, Paolo Marcucci
<paolo@*********.it> writes
>BTW: helmets should give a +1/+2 armor. So, if I shoot a guy to the
>head, what's the armor, 6? (armor jacket+helmet), 1? (helmet only). In
>the latter case, why the armor rating is given as +1/+2 and not 1/2?

Because a helmet offers a lot of protection, if only over a small area.
1/1 armour for a standard helmet equates to less protection than leather
clothing against impacts, for instance, yet I say as a motorcyclist that
this is not true. It might only protect your head, but it protects it
well.

Basically, unless you want more grades of helmet than you can shake a
stick at, it's easiest to say that a helmet gives your head the same
armour rating as the rest of your body on a called shot.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 6
From: Pete Sims <petesims@********.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Overcoming Armour
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 21:20:04 +0100
In article <320a35d2157d243@*****.tc.umn.edu>, Thomas Holmes
<Thomas.A.Holmes-1@**.umn.edu> writes
>I don't believe called shots should be changed from the existing system.
>The armor rules are very broad and generic, not at all ment for a location
>by location system. SR is fast an efficient, there are some excellent
>systems that cover realism, but I notice very few people play them because
>there's so many modifiers and rules mods that they're a pain to play. The
>current system allows called shot to do +1 damage level. That works fine.
>Have had very few problems with people surviving snipers in my games. If
>it's not a sniper situation, chances are there's no way you can get in a
>truly well aimed shot (tgt moving, firer moving, etc.).
>
>Thomas
>
>
Too true.
However, if you have armour problems, it may be worth having a look at
some of the stuff Gurth has knocking around on his and other sites. I
recently got hold of an ammunition article, giving different types of
ammunition different abilities and governing effects by altering weapon
damage and power accordingly. I introduced it to my players and they
loved it, even allowing for the fact that the NPCs get it too. The main
point being that someone (Gurth or someone else) thought very hard about
ammunition and bullet effects, put it down on a piece of paper, and
posted it. It works, has the desired effect of individualising
ammunition and as a result weapon types, without affecting existing
rules.

Damn good article, mucho kudos to the guy that wrote it, some of you
might be interested in hunting it down. I'm almost positive I got it off
Gurths web page, but I could be wrong.

>

--
Pete Sims
Message no. 7
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Overcoming Armour
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:57:40 +0100
Pete Sims said on 21:20/11 Aug 96...

> Damn good article, mucho kudos to the guy that wrote it, some of you
> might be interested in hunting it down. I'm almost positive I got it off
> Gurths web page, but I could be wrong.

I think you're wrong... :) Of course I'm not 100% sure, but I think you're
talking about the Tarot Firearms article by Paul Finch. Very detailed and
lots of ammo, but is there a complete version out yet? (The one I found on
my HD just now is one I saved from the list on 15 Jan 95.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
As far as I'm concerned, time's the state of my jeans.
-> 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------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Overcoming 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!