Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Buzzed Aug 23 2003, 08:38 PM

This is the oldest argument in the history of Shadowrun. Is armor bypassed when a called shot hits an unarmored location?

I have found another bit of text, this one being quite clear on how it is handled. It describes the system much differently then how the cannon is usually perceived.

M&M pg. 35 Under section Armor. 2nd paragraph.

"When a called shot is made against a character, or a specific limb or area is otherwise targeted or damaged, use only the Armor Rating for that location."

When they refer to location they are referring to: head, arm, leg, front torso, or back torso.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 23 2003, 08:55 PM

I believe that quote is in the Melee section (no books at present), and specifically refers to that type of combat.

Posted by: Lilt Aug 23 2003, 09:02 PM

In my game, A called shot to the head will, if they are not wearing a helmet/other head armor (full body suits count too), ignore armor and stage the damage level up by one. I do, however, apply vision/movement modifiers a lot of the time so it would be a difficult shot unless both people were stationary and in a well-lit environment. This is not the canon opinion, however, which seems to be that you can bypass impact armor but not ballistic and that you either stage the damage level up by one or ignore impact armor.

Posted by: OurTeam Aug 23 2003, 11:55 PM

Nice find, Buzzed. It appears that the rules in M&M and CC, for a variety of called shot situations, are as close to a blanket statement that called shots can be used to bypass armor as you can get without a blanket statement. Even if there were a blanket statement in an errata, I'm sure that many would still play the way the main SR3 book describes it for its playability.

For those that haven't yet looked up the reference, it's describing Cyberware Armor (Body Plating) that can be built into cyber limbs/torsos/skulls. For normal shots, the average rating across these 5 areas is added to worn armor. For shots targeting a specific location, only use the Body Plating rating of the cyber limb/torso/skull at that location. It would be easy to interpret the "Armor Rating" described in this paragraph as referring only to the Body Plating (as it does in the prior paragraph and following paragraph), and thus would not affect general rules regarding worn armor and called shots.

For those that don't remember, here are some of the other situations describing called shots:

Optional advanced rules for melee called shots which, if used, provides the target the benefit of only the armor in the targeted location (CC p. 85).

Called shots with a weapon delivering a drug can target a non-armored body part, bypassing impact armor worn (MM p. 106).

Called shots against a subtarget on something vehicle-sized or larger (SR3 p. 114 and 149).

Posted by: motorfirebox Aug 24 2003, 12:31 AM

in my game--in our games, that is, on SL--called shots can avoid armor or raise the damage level.

there are arguments that allowing such called shots makes the armor values all wonky. personally, i'm comfortable with the results.

Posted by: Tziluthi Aug 24 2003, 02:00 AM

Unfortunately, although I'm more inclined to side with the more realistic of the systems, i.e. you can call a shot to a unarmoured vital point, such as the head, it does leave itself open to abuse from chronic flechette/smartlink-2 users. But then again, if you were to shoot someone in the head with an assault rifle or a .50 cal pistol, then they would be dead anyway. Not to mention shredding them up with flechette ammo.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 24 2003, 02:21 AM

If Shadowrun incorporated a viable armor system instead of the abstract one that is canon now, I could see called shots working for everything. As it stands though, combat as a whole is an abstract system, and having any and all called shots work to bypass armor unbalances the game, in my opinion.

Posted by: motorfirebox Aug 24 2003, 04:35 AM

i don't particularly see it as abuse, when a character uses a tool in the capacity it's designed for. besides, minute they run into some guy with a helmet, they're in trouble.

i should note that, for called shots, the target has to be not wearing any armor at all, on the targeted extermity. for instance, a called shot on a guy wearing an open-faced helmet can't bypass armor on his head, even if you say "but i'm shooting at his face!"

Posted by: Voltage Aug 24 2003, 05:53 AM

On 106 of Man & Machine, when talking about exposure to drugs through weapons, the following is said:

"Called Shots: A character can intentionally target a non-armored body part. A successful called shot nullifies any Impact armor worn. If the weapon used also causes damage, the called shot modifier can either negate armor or stage the weapon's Damage Level.

Posted by: Darth Phylos Aug 24 2003, 06:22 AM

You could check http://www.geocities.com/darth_phylos/Rules.htm#Optional%20Called%20Shot%20Rules rules...

Posted by: Buzzed Aug 24 2003, 03:27 PM

Ok then I simply use bullets with a chemical dose. Now i can tell the gm that my bullets bypass the armor because they have a chemical in them.

Now if they didn't have a chemical in them, bypassing armor would not be an option.

Does this make sense? Hmm.

Obviously those rules apply to the chemical damage part of the bullet, not the bullet itself.

Posted by: Dog Aug 24 2003, 04:35 PM

"I make a called shot to the head."
"He's wearing a helmet."
"Okay then, to the face."
"With a visor."
"Fine. The lower face."
"And an elaborate chin strap."
"Okay, but the chin strap can't have the same armor value as the rest of the helmet!"
And so on.....

Seems like number crunching to take advantage of a (deliberately) abstract system to me.
In my games, called shots up the damage level, that's all. The myriad factors of precisely where the character is aiming and what the armor covers are -in my opinion- all accounted for in the dice. No sense in bogging the game down in an argument about ballistics and trig.

I mean, if you want to get picky about it, you could go on forever; does an upturned collar on an armored jacket count as protection for the head? What if you want a non-lethal called shot; has anybody checked into armored gloves? Armored kneepads? Remember Sally on the cover of previous editions? She's got boots, kneepads, shorts and a long coat. You could end up with four or five different armor ratings for her legs alone.
See how this could get pretty stupid pretty fast?

Posted by: motorfirebox Aug 24 2003, 04:56 PM

see my previous post, dog.

Posted by: Dog Aug 24 2003, 04:59 PM

Actually, I was responding specifically to your previous post.

Posted by: motorfirebox Aug 24 2003, 10:35 PM

er... did you misunderstand it? i said very clearly that you can't do what you're talking about. i didn't back it up with chapter and verse, however, which i'll do now: M&M, 35, it says that there are five possible hit locations--arms, legs, front and back torso, and head.

Posted by: Talondel Aug 24 2003, 10:46 PM

A vest covers torso. A jacket covers torso and arms. A long coat covers torso, arms, and legs. Security armor covers pretty much all those. Milspec, too. A helmet covers the head. Form Fit varies by coverage (read the description for each level to see what it's got). Pants cover the legs. Man, this is hard stuff.

How tough is that, honestly? Your "reply" to MFB's previous post obviously didn't really pay attention to that post, where he explains exactly where the ambiguity stops. He said "if they have a helmet on," and you ignored that, and decided to carry it on into the face, visor, and chin strap nonsense. The house rule is pretty simple, and pretty straightforward -- if it's obviously armored by (insert armor here), you aren't going to bypass it by a called shot to (insert body part here).

You know what parts of your body are covered by what garments, don't you? Where there might be some ambiguity, the GM steps in (which is part of the job, having some balls). If your group's GM isn't willing to make that sort of call, that's fine. Our group?

We play in a setting where every single one of us is as likely to be running a game as playing in one -- we're all GMs as much as players, though some of us have stronger tendencies one way or the other. Most of the play is done in an "open" area where there aren't even any formal GMs... and it's never been a problem. It's pretty cut and dry, all told, about what's armored where, and what sort of called shot can or can't bypass it. I can't think of a single time there's been "an argument about ballistics and trig." And that's in an on-line area where there's no single figure of power and decision-making to make that sort of call, even. If you've got a regular SR gaming group with a regular SR GM, and he can't think for himself about whether a jacket covers the arms or a vest covers the head, that's not really our fault.

And, remember, we're not saying it's the right way to play, nor are we claiming it's canon. We're saying, simply, that it's a house rule we use. If you don't like it, don't try to tell us we're wrong; just choose not to use it. Just because it works for us doesn't mean we're forcing it on you. Just because you think it doesn't work doesn't mean you need to tell us we're wrong, or claim we're numbers-crunching and abusing the rules, or call it stupid.

Posted by: motorfirebox Aug 24 2003, 10:54 PM

actually, i am saying it's the right way to play. if you don't play this way, i'll stab you.

Posted by: Talondel Aug 24 2003, 11:08 PM

Don't listen to him, he's drunk. And stupid.

Posted by: motorfirebox Aug 24 2003, 11:25 PM

*slap* back in the kitchen. hey, who the fuck said you could wear shoes?

the on-topic portion of this post: somebody earlier mentioned sl2 and flechette combos. this is fine, if the TN remains at four--which it should never, ever, ever do, unless the shooter has surprise. people who stand out in the open, returning fire and depending on combat pool to save them are stupid. if the PCs want to do that, fine; the opposition never should. use your NPC goons intelligently: make them use covering fire, make them take cover, hell, make 'em retreat once in a while. there are very, very few characters who can consistently make a headshot when their target has +6 cover.

Posted by: Zazen Aug 25 2003, 03:00 AM

Since noone seems to have mentioned this, I remember that the quote that started this thread comes from the section on cyberlimb armor plating. It shouldn't be applied to worn armor.

Posted by: motorfirebox Aug 25 2003, 03:38 AM

well, see, we're basically dealing with a house rule, here (i continue to contend that the overwhelming bulk of called shot rules make bypassing armor a viable legal option for any called shot, but that's me). these house rules are based on, among other things, that short little passage in M&M.

Posted by: Lucyfersam Aug 25 2003, 06:17 AM

Our groups way of dealing with the abusable nature of called shots has always been to increase the target numbers beyond the basic plus four, and then only count the armor for that region. We give the standard +4 if you are trying to hit for somewhere vital on the torso or for a limb, +6 for head, +8 for face, +12 for eye (no, there is no real reason to shoot for eye, but it doesn't mean we haven't had ppl want to do it anyway.) We also have called shots negate cover modifiers if the area the shot is called to is fully open, but there are frequently also enough extra modifies from things like movement that it still makes the shots reasonably hard. And then of course, if the players start using called shots, so do the NPCs, and no one really wants a group of NPC guards armed with assault rifles or SMGs shooting them in the face. Between these two things, called shots don't really become at all unbalanced in our game.

Posted by: Dog Aug 26 2003, 05:13 AM

MFB: Sorry to hurt your feelings. I said I was referring to your comment, not arguing with it. You brought up the issue, I offered my opinion. Talondel: who told you that you were wrong?
(Everyone gets a chance to be heard....see how it works?)

And I still don't like body part specific called shots, (canon or not) for the reasons I described. It's the beginning of a slippery slope. A slope that leads down to Twilight 2000. My nonsense and your rule is just a matter of degrees.

"Get your head outta that book, we're roleplaying here!!"

Posted by: motorfirebox Aug 26 2003, 07:00 AM

haha, you didn't hurt anybody's feelings, dude. i'm just confused as to the point you're trying to make--by the rules (or, if you're more comfortable with it, by our house rule), the response to "well, i'm aiming for his chin" should be "sorry, doesn't matter, he's wearing a helmet and you're not allowed to bypass it with a called shot to the head."

Posted by: DigitalMage Aug 26 2003, 01:17 PM

Posted by: Cochise Aug 26 2003, 01:48 PM

Posted by: Cain Aug 26 2003, 06:53 PM

Here's where the logic breaks down-- if someone's got 5 points of armor on a cyberarm, and you call a shot to the hand, does it at all make sense that a hand (or a finger, even) gets the full 5 points of armor? A hand or finger can't have nearly the protection that a full arm has.

With that in mind, I prefer to not have to calculate specific armor ratings per finger (except for the third one, in the case of rules-munchkins) and I find it makes the gameplay go much faster if you keep it abstract.

As a slightly silly example, here's a debunking of the head shots = uber death shot theory:

Munchkin: "All right! I got him in the head! He's DEAD!"
GM: *rolls dice* "Um, no. He soaked."
M: "No way! I got him in the head! He's dead! No fair!"
GM: "Um... you got one success post-dodge, with a hold-out packing standard, against a troll with titanium bone lacing and otrthoskin. He soaked."
M: "WAH! I got him in the HEAD! You're cheating!!"
GM: *sighs and loads Orbital Cow Launcher*

Posted by: motorfirebox Aug 26 2003, 11:31 PM

thing is, cain, the logic breaks down just as quickly if you're talking about calling a shot with a cybersquirt or punch. yes, it doesn't make sense that a hand has as much armor as a whole arm--but it makes just as little sense that the armor from a flak vest should be applied when i make a headshot on some punk.

about helmets--note that their rating isn't 1/2. it's +1/2. i generally take that to mean that a helmet has the same armor rating as the armor to which it's matched (plus the value of the helmet). admittedly, this leaves the question of why adding a helmet makes torso armor more effective. a viable house rule for this is to just ignore the added value of the helmet, and just give the entire thing (helmet and all) the base armor value.

Posted by: Shockwave_IIc Aug 27 2003, 12:05 AM

Posted by: motorfirebox Aug 27 2003, 01:26 AM

well, sure, if you define "behind cover" as "sitting still, with your head poking out." that's almost as stupid as standing out in the open, though. haven't you seen any action movies at all? you know when somebody pops out, fires a few shots, and then ducks back, all in the course of about three seconds? that's cover.