Re: [SGII] Nasty Cover

Hi,

It was not in 1972 but when I started playing SG2, we forgot the rule
about
armor shift bonus for cover. At that time, we used low impact weapons
(D8
mostly).

However, after finding about the armor shift bonus for cover, we find
hard
cover almost too powerful until we start using higher impact weapons
(D10 -
D12).

Sometime, I think I will introduce different cover type. I didn't
thought
about negative armor shift but this sound like good idea for some
scenario.
It can gives players some hard choices to do!

Also, having lighter type of cover (+1/0), (+2/0), also help to speed
the
game. One can put a small marker for on the table those non-standard
cover
type.

Yves 

>It struck me that this idea could be used to create a third type of
cover to
>sit alongside good ol' soft and hard. My group has just bought a range
of
>toy cars to decorate our local urban death zone and so the plan is to
treat
>them as hard cover for purposes of range but to muck about with the
armour
>shifts to represent the splintering effect. Normally hard cover would
shift
>armour up 2 levels, so we could try anything from a 1 level shift to
>shifting armour down.
>
>We could even leave armour levels alone and shift weapon impact up but
I
>think it feels more consistent with the idea of splintering to reduce
the
>protective value of the cover than to increase the penetration of the
>weapon.
>
>Anyway, the complexity of another cover type seems to be balanced by
the fun
>a player might have knowing that it's still worth hiding behind that
car but
>it might porcupine him if he hangs around too long.
>
>Thoughts? You're going to tell me somebody already came up with this in
1972
>aren't you...?
>
>Mark
>
>
>