Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

To sever a limb you need to inflict double the damage necessary to cripple it (Note that injury beyond that needed to cripple is lost). So your 10HP character would have a crippled leg, and would have lost 6 HP. A blow of at least 12 points of damage would be necessary to cut the leg off, but the victim would still only lost 6 HP.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Very interesting! I've never thought of this myself, though. I wonder what others have to say about this.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Do you recall where that is in the rules?

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Page B421. You might also check out the box on the previous page, on accumulated wounds.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

The simplest way would be to ignore the "Right" or "Left" labels on the table for the arms. Then, when hit in the arm or hand, roll 1d:

1-2: The shield arm/hand is hit
3-6: The other arm/hand is hit

That translates "twice as hard to hit" over to a 1d roll, and should be relatively easy to use in play.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Just to get it straight (not quite sure about it, yet):

First, it seems there is consensus, that an uncalled "default attack" is against the torso...
But is it right, that striking and/or shooting at a random hit location is by RAW also just a "normal target option" with no penalty at all?
And how many of you play it that way? (so far, normally I use that only for "wild strikes" or something like that)

What do you think of giving a generic penalty of -1 (?) to random attacks?
(mainly to avoid giving away free headshots etc. "for nothing" and also to represent a slightly higher chance of missing, due to the unprecise, chaotic nature of the attack)

Especially when the fighters aren't wearing any armor, I don't like the idea of players just being lucky and regularly hitting at critical locations for free. Also, the other way around, I think it would be very unpleasant for the players if all mooks would constantly attack them like that.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

We don't use random hit locations, for no reason beyond that it requires added dice rolling, and a chart to look things up in.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

I usually use random hit locations for attacks that can reasonably be said to be 'unaimed'; rapid fire gunshots (particularly by untrained shooters), covering fire, flying shrapnel, ricochets, etc. In some cases I use it when grappled fighters are trying to strike eachother, as a random way of determining what parts of the enemy's body the grappled man can reach - just to make combat a bit more interesting.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

I don't see a point in penalizing an attack further for the use of random hit locations. With different damage types interacting with different DRs and wounding in different ways over each hit location, there is significant strategic value in actually calling your hit location. Random hit location may get you a high value target by accident, but generally it's going to get you a sub-optimal combination for the targets DR and your damage type, unless you're using a crushing weapon - at which point the throat and skull are prime (but hard to hit randomly) and everything else basically sucks equally :D

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Less "unprecise, chaotic," more "whatever presents itself," I would think.