Re: [SGII] Nasty Cover

[Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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
>
>
>