The 2 skulls in TA

[johndallman]

So, one can buy TA:Skull up to skill -3, although with a fairly large investment, 5 points. Attacking from the rear, that means one can attack the skull at only -1 net. I don't have a problem with this, but it does emphasise the value of helmets.

[Kromm]

The skull is a larger target than the face; it's simply hard to hit from the front. Realistically, it should be easy to strike from behind, especially for those who practice it. Helmets are essential in a fight with weapons, and even the most minimal versions protect the skull where they might leave the rest of the head open. Running around with your head uncovered in a mad melee where somebody is liable to get behind you is suicidal.

[Ulzgoroth]

A relevant note is that, if I understand right, Low Tech pot helms protect only the top of the skull. You need a fuller helm to completely cover the skull from behind.

[Gudiomen]

Ok, I'm sold... +2 situational it is. I'm probably over worried.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

A relevant note is that, if I understand right, Low Tech pot helms protect only the top of the skull. You need a fuller helm to completely cover the skull from behind.

Where are you getting this from? The armor location table assigns 20% coverage to the skull and 10% coverage to the face, out of the 30% of the entire head... it seems to support full coverage of the skull.

Looking at the pot-helm entry further along, and it's also 20%. It clearly states that it protects the skull location.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

Where are you getting this from? The armor location table assigns 20% coverage to the skull and 10% coverage to the face, out of the 30% of the entire head... it seems to support full coverage of the skull.

Looking at the pot-helm entry further along, and it's also 20%. It clearly states that it protects the skull location.

Yes, but that isn't what it really means, if I'm not mistaken. Low Tech's armor is broken down by numerical hit location, and it's written more from those than from the actual meanings of location names. It specifically, though parenthetically, notes that the pot helm covers only locations 3-4. It goes on to explicitly say that it does not cover location 5, from front or back.

Now, I'm away from my Basic Set, but IIRC, location 5 is the Face from the front, but is the Skull from the back.

[Gudiomen]

No, I think you're mistaken. What it says under the "5" hit location in basic set is that "Random attacks from behind hit the skull instead". Just like many other rolls often offer an alternative, when that makes more sense.

This doesn't make the "5" hit location, clearly mared as "Face" the skull from behind, just that if you're rolling randomly from behind it doesn't make sense for a hit to land on the face. So treat as a hit to the skull instead. Including whatever DR the skull has.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

No, I think you're mistaken. What it says under the "5" hit location in basic set is that "Random attacks from behind hit the skull instead". Just like many other rolls often offer an alternative, when that makes more sense.

This doesn't make the "5" hit location, clearly mared as "Face" the skull from behind, just that if you're rolling randomly from behind it doesn't make sense for a hit to land on the face. So treat as a hit to the skull instead. Including whatever DR the skull has.

So, your theory is that an item that explicitly says "areas 5, 17-18 get no protection – front or rear" protects you when you have a hit to area 5 from the rear rolled?

I find that unlikely. I also find helmets like some of these, this (see second post), and this that protect the crown of the head but don't enclose the back of the skull.

Then again, I must say I have seen helmet designs that look like they protect the whole skull without covering the ears, which would be impossible by my reading...

EDIT: I think my take is influenced by misinterpreting some Dan Howard posts, so grains of salt probably should be added.

[Gudiomen]

I'm saying that "5" is a face hit. From behind, you replace it with a skull hit, just like it says on the book. Whatever DR there is on the skull, applies.

The table is merely giving you a more sensible option than hitting the face form the back. Just like when you roll for a broken weapon on a table, but the weapon is very fine, so it doesn't make sense and you drop it... instead. That doesn't make dropping your weapon the same as breaking it.

Just read the entries on p.552 of Basic and think carefully about the wording. Think about all the other random tables, and the fact that there is no mention of this interpretation of yours, and it isn't applied in anywhere in any of the other books.

Now do a little exercise: put you're fingers on you're eyebrows, now run them horizontally towards the back. You'll notice that they meet near where the neck meets the skull. Also note that the head tilts back a little, and on the second pic you can see that the helm is worn slightly tipped back.

Look at this. And notice that while the skull is easier to hit from the back, more accessible, it doesn't correspond to the area on the front. And the neck's also easier to hit, even though the rules don't reflect this.

It'd probably be more accurate to say "If you roll a face hit from behind randomly, you hit the skull on a roll of 1-3 and the neck on a roll of 4-6 on 1d." But they went for simplicity. The neck's also easier to hit from behind, the reason most beheadings used that position. And instead of giving +2 to hit the skull from behind, it might make more sense for +1 to the skull and +1 to the neck. But I digress...

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

I'm saying that "5" is a face hit. From behind, you replace it with a skull hit, just like it says on the book. Whatever DR there is on the skull, applies.

I've got to go back, once again, to the text on the helms which explicitly addresses whether or not they protect area 5 from the back.

If area 5 cannot actually be hit from the back, that makes no sense.

It is not impossible that 'area 5' is being used as a synonym to 'face' and thus is talking about whether or not the DR applies to a called shot to the face from behind at -7. But that doesn't make much sense either.

[Gudiomen]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

It is not impossible that 'area 5' is being used as a synonym to 'face' and thus is talking about whether or not the DR applies to a called shot to the face from behind at -7. But that doesn't make much sense either.

You're dealing with two different books. Basic took the more direct and simple approach that on a random hit from behind, it wasn't possible to hit the face, or at least not probable enough to afford the chance on the random roll.

Low-tech takes the more refined approach that allows you to target the face from behind (ears, side of the jaw, etc...), but because of the awkward position and difficulty to target, it's at -7 instead of -5.

Where is this text you talk about in helmets protecting area "5" from behind? I'm going to need a quote.

The text I'm talking about, and the only reference I can find that associates area "5" with a skull hit is on Basic, p.552, the hit location table, note [4]. Where it says to treat a random roll of 5 as a skull hit.