Re: Armour and Cover Answer

On 11 Jan 2005 at 23:00, The GZG Digest wrote:

> From: "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
>
> But the PA doesn't get penalized for shooting through the brush when
they
> return fire, so one could argue that they can't be too deep in the
brush.
> And it's not IP so it's not necessarily "snuggling up to cover".

I deliberately didn't say "snuggling up to cover" because that would be 
IP.

Soft cover makes it harder to see the target's outline, which makes it 
less likely for a shooter to deliberately hit a vital area. The only way

you can make it less likely to kill a figure after it's hit is to shift 
that figure's armour die. I don't see a bush as adding a layer of plant 
fiber and leaves to the target's armour, I see it as perhaps deflecting
a 
round a little bit, or changing the shooter's aim point from the centre 
of mass to what he only _thinks_ is the centre of mass.

Again, this is where a lack of designer notes in a game hurt (or, 
perhaps, liberate). You don't know what the game designer had in mind. 
Maybe Jon really meant to have bushes give men better armour, literally.

Or, maybe he looked at the probability of killing a figure behind soft 
cover versus no cover and said to himself, "The odds of hurting a figure

behind soft cover are more realistic if I apply shifts to both the range

die and the armour die. It may not make sense literally, but the odds 
come out right using this mechanism." Or, maybe he just thought, "Apply 
the die shift to both the range die and the armour die. It sort of feels

right, and it's easy to remember."

When you have ADD, you tend to want consistent rules. It took me quite a

while before I could play SG2 without constantly looking at the rules 
(and I tend to do that sometimes, anyway, even when I'm certain of the 
rule). It's easier for me to remember the soft cover die modifier if I 
apply it to both range and armour, and I apply it to everyone,
regardless 
of armour type.

> I'm not saying the way I've been doing it is correct according to the
> rules (which it isn't), just that it's a potential house-rule if John
> wants to tone down PA a bit.

I always thought that PA was sort of wimpy in SG2. A guy with a
flintlock 
pistol has a finite chance of killing a guy in PA. There's a 10.42% 
chance of wounding or killing a guy in PA with a D4 impact weapon
(taking 
into account Impact versus Armour, and the automatic wound recovery roll

made by the PA figure). That seems kind of high to me.

That having been said, I do see your point as far as how soft cover 
"feels". I mentioned a while back that cover should probably be rated 
with independent to Range Die and Armour Die modifiers. A huge curtain
of 
opaque felt, for instance, should probably give a two die shift to hit 
(you can't see what's behind it, and it muffles sound) but no die shift 
for to the armour die. I wouldn't mind coming up with a list of common 
cover types and their ratings. It would make a good house rule.

I can also see not applying the soft cover armour shift when using my 
quick and dirty fire combat option on hyperbear.com, since it already 
gives low impact weapons a disadvantage against PA.

But, hey, I think PA should be big and scary.

Of course, I have my own house rule that helps balance PA by allowing 
missiles to target individual PA troopers...
 
> (<grin> I'm in sales -- I don't have to be right, I just have to be
> plausible).

Plausible until the contract is signed, you mean! *L*

---

Allan Goodall	    http://www.hyperbear.com
agoodall@att.net   agoodall@hyperbear.com

"The secret rules of engagement are hard to endorse,
 When the appearance of conflict meets the appearance of force"
   - The Tragically Hip