Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
This isn't a table about X/6 coverage. We have two systems, an abstract X/6 coverage, and a specific hit location coverage. This table is about specific hit location coverage. They are mutually incompatible systems, because one uses the actual face sub-locations, and one does not.
There are no "cheek guards" in Loadouts: LT. Loadouts LT doesn't have separate items for the different helmet parts. There are helmets, based on historical designs. I can't tell you why they don't follow the rule from Low Tech: go ask the author.
As previously stated, this is NOT for specific assembled equipment pieces that already list what locations they cover.
|
Well, I certainly never read LT abstract coverage system as incompatible from the specific system in Loadouts: LT, and I use them all the time. In fact, the introduction to Loadouts: LT specifically says it follows the rules from LT
Quote:
|
This supplement examines the armor worn by various historical cultures and uses the rules in Low-Tech to model them in a simple format (Loadouts: LT pg 3).
|
As a result, I always read the optional rule of assigning 1d6 values to MA face sub locations as a specific way of making the abstract percentage hit chance system of LT (done on a 1d6) comparable with the specific face locations in MA. All of the historical pieces in Loadouts cover MA face sub locations (they list them specifically in the footnotes by their numerical value)
and those pieces also match the weight/cost and coverage chance that they should according to the LT rules for armor that cover the area. The sole exception to this is that the historical pieces that match the cheek guards in LT completly, including in their total coverage chance, size, and cost, do not cover the MA jaw location. This seems to me to be a rules clarification, not a mutually incompatible rule.