GURPS Grand Unified Hit Location Table

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by phayman53

But as I understand it, the latest compiled version of RAW separates the jaw from the cheeks in spite of what LT 112 seems to indicate.

Jaw was separated already before Low-Tech was published - the face sub-locations were introduced in Martial Arts. If you look at the rules closely, Low-Tech doesn't actually have the facial features as locations (See below).

Originally Posted by phayman53

The problem is that the rules in LT do not assign specific locations to the 1d6 roll, at this point in the rules one merely adds the total locations covered and then rolls to see if it beats the chance of coverage. It is later, I believe in Loadouts: LT, that specific locations on the face were given specific assigned values on that 1d6 roll.

We have four different official sources dealing with the face.

• The Basic Set has the original "Face", and "eyes", which are essentially a sub-location of face (particularly in the case of armor).
• Martial Arts introduced the Ear, Jaw, Nose sub-locations and assigned effects to them.
• Low Tech introduced pieces of armor with abstract, "partial coverage of the face", and uses words that align with Martial Arts and Basic Set. The actual locations have no special effects, except to prevent you from making a helmet with cheek guards and broad cheek guards together, or something.
• Loadouts: Low Tech introduced the table to roll on to see what facial feature you hit randomly if you hit the face - this was missing from Martial Arts. It turns out the table from Loadouts LT matches the one I made up, including the "cheek" location that doesn't do anything*, so that's nice. Loadouts LT also introduces a whole lot of specific face armor with specific coverage, but does not retrofit this onto the generic pieces of armor from Low Tech.

My Table A was written before Loadouts LT but I've kept it because it doesn't conflict.

It was aimed to harmonize the hit locations (with game mechanical effects) and the armor types (with cost and weight) and produce a random-sub-table like was available for other locations. At the time, it was effectively a house rule (thus the big disclaimer in the top post) but now the random sub table is matched in Loadouts. It was on the document because of how jarring it was that the face didn't have the sub-table - but SJG have now fixed that, so I don't have any house rules at all again, which is my preference.

The goal of the document is not to "fix" books. I'm not fixing the lack of an individual jaw piece in Low Tech, and I'm not changing the fact that cheek guards cover the jaw, according to Low Tech. The minute that SJG decides to change that, I'll update the document to address that change. However at this point, I just can't justify putting house rules in now that I've got the last one out.

I'm not debating you on whether there should be a jaw piece or not, or whether the cheek guards should actually cover the jaw or not. That's another thread. This document is for the RAW.

Although FWIW, the other 1/6 coverage equivalent of the cheeks seems to be in the spectacles.

*Although on review, I don't have it on my table on page 2. Time to get that crowbar out again.

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by Bruno

My Table A was written before Loadouts LT but I've kept it because it doesn't conflict.

But it does conflict because you specifically have cheek guards listed as covering location 1 (the jaw), when in Loadouts: LT no cheek guards cover location 1, they only cover location "4-5".

Originally Posted by Bruno

The goal of the document is not to "fix" books. I'm not fixing the lack of an individual jaw piece in Low Tech, and I'm not changing the fact that cheek guards cover the jaw, according to Low Tech. The minute that SJG decides to change that, I'll update the document to address that change. However at this point, I just can't justify putting house rules in now that I've got the last one out.

But if you keep to the "fluff" text in LT of the cheek guards covering the jaw too, you have the problem of violating the numerical part of the rules in LT. Cheek guards, by your interpretation, now cover on a 3/6 chance instead of LT and Loadouts: LT raw of only covering on a 2/6 chance. Generally, shouldn't the numerical aspects of the rules outweigh the descriptive aspects if there is a contradiction? Especially in a case like LT armor coverage where coverage chance is closely linked to cost and weight of the armor piece?

Originally Posted by Bruno

I'm not debating you on whether there should be a jaw piece or not, or whether the cheek guards should actually cover the jaw or not. That's another thread. This document is for the RAW.

But it is not following RAW, at least as far as RAW coverage chance from cheek guards. It is only in Loadouts: LT that they do assign specific coverage locations to different pieces of armor. In the case of Loadouts: LT, SJ Games authors chose to harmonize the problem by having the jaw (1) location covered almost exclusively by neck armor that rises to the bottom of the face (like LT's Ventail and Bevor on pg. 113), with the exception of some of the Samurai face armors on Loadouts: LT pg. 33 and the Kranos on L:LT pg. 13. The cheek guards on all of the listed helmets specifically do not cover this location (including the Roman helmet that also appears in LT).

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by phayman53

But if you keep to the "fluff" text in LT of the cheek guards covering the jaw too, you have the problem of violating the numerical part of the rules in LT. Cheek guards, by your interpretation, now cover on a 3/6 chance instead of LT and Loadouts: LT raw of only covering on a 2/6 chance. Generally, shouldn't the numerical aspects of the rules outweigh the descriptive aspects if there is a contradiction? Especially in a case like LT armor coverage where coverage chance is closely linked to cost and weight of the armor piece?

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.

[Anders]

Judging from this, hitting the Jaws seems to be fairly easy. And produce spectacular results.

[phayman53]

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

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.

[Bruno]

I'm pretty sure that's referring to the weights and costs. The fractional coverage simply doesn't follow the rules used in Loadouts, with the roll on table and specific numbers.

The coverage in Low Tech only sums up to 5/6 coverage. Even the visor only provides 5/6 coverage.

It's just not the same thing.

[Agent]

Originally Posted by Bruno

The coverage in Low Tech only sums up to 5/6 coverage. Even the visor only provides 5/6 coverage.

Not with certain neck options. As to the visor, I believe that is due to not having good 'anchorage' below the jaw. It's still the jaw location that is open. Like with the historical Sutton Hoo helmet.

In Loadouts jaw coverage seems somewhat infrequent and usually causes the -1 penalty for 'stiff head movement' in connection with neck armor such as a ventail. But there is also the samurai Hanbô. Apparently 1/5 cost and weight of a Sômen, or face plate.

Overall, though, it does seem to have a vague inconsistency. Cheek Guards in Low-Tech says 'These pieces protect the cheeks and jaw'. Eh. Official or no, personally I'm just going with 'jaw' needing separate coverage ala the Hanbô or the various neck+ options. It works quite well with your table, just that the '1' has a different notation basically.

[Bruno]

Once again, the GUHLT (bleh what an acronym) is updated! There's some formatting tweaks (text was cropped accidentally) and I've added a third page dedicated to weapons and objects.

This means I've pulled the "striking at weapons" from page 2; I've never been happy with it being mixed in with body parts. Now I've got enough other object things to justify separating it out!

Objects are on page 3 so that if you don't care, you can just print pages 1 and 2 double-sided.