Good afternoon Folks,

In last weeks game my GM tried out a new mechanic (on me) where the enemies took the Aim - Called Shot action to "bypass" my armor and effectively reduce my soak by two on those hits. At the time I was rather annoyed, since he managed to hit, but the more I think about it, the more I think the addition of two setback dice might have made the action worse for him rather than better (on average, obviously it worked out for him on that hit). I wanted to go over some of the math involved and I figured more eyeballs to check my math would be useful.

Before we get started, I wanted to set some ground rules. I'm not looking to have a discussion about whether this action should or shouldn't be allowed. I respect his GM'ing skills and my character is a Brawn based Brawler with a lot of soak. I respect the fact that he felt the need to ignore some of my soak to threaten me. What I would like to discuss is whether it was a smart move for him to do this from a mathematical point of view. Namely, if averaged out over a significant sample size, would he do more damage by not taking this action.

The first thing to do seems to be to set some parameters for our experiment. I suspect the results will vary significantly depending on the enemies dice pool and the targets defense so setting some baselines would be helpful. For starters, let's try to recreate the scenario I was in. I have a soak of 9 and def 1 the enemies were firing 10 dmg blaster rifles with a dice pool of YYGG vs Med range.

Test 1 - Regular Aim - YYGGB vs PPS (soak 9)

The Formula (Odds of Success * (# of Success + 10 (W. Dmg) - soak(9)))

Using that formula I got an average damage of 2.83

18.98%	1	0.37968
21.78%	2	0.65328
18.06%	3	0.72232
11.70%	4	0.58485
5.41%	5	0.32472
1.77%	6	0.12404
0.43%	7	0.03464
0.07%	8	0.00603
0.00%	9	0.0003
		2.82986

Test 2 - Called Shot Aim - YYGG vs PPSSS (soak 7)

For this test I got 3.06 damage

20.83%	1	0.83324
18.21%	2	0.91065
11.77%	3	0.70632
5.77%	4	0.40376
2.05%	5	0.16384
0.44%	6	0.03924
0.06%	7	0.0064
0.00%	8	0.00044
		3.06389

So in this particular circumstance, it looks like he was able to average about .25 more wounds by aiming his called shots. It's also worth that their odds of criting dropping by almost a third. All in all, it seems like a pretty even trade to me.

What do you guys think? Did you see any glaring math/logic errors?

I think it would be interesting to see if these results change for different range bands.

7 minutes ago, SladeWeston said:

Good afternoon Folks,

In last weeks game my GM tried out a new mechanic (on me) where the enemies took the Aim - Called Shot action to "bypass" my armor and effectively reduce my soak by two on those hits. At the time I was rather annoyed, since he managed to hit, but the more I think about it, the more I think the addition of two setback dice might have made the action worse for him rather than better (on average, obviously it worked out for him on that hit). I wanted to go over some of the math involved and I figured more eyeballs to check my math would be useful.

Before we get started, I wanted to set some ground rules. I'm not looking to have a discussion about whether this action should or shouldn't be allowed. I respect his GM'ing skills and my character is a Brawn based Brawler with a lot of soak. I respect the fact that he felt the need to ignore some of my soak to threaten me. What I would like to discuss is whether it was a smart move for him to do this from a mathematical point of view. Namely, if averaged out over a significant sample size, would he do more damage by not taking this action.

The first thing to do seems to be to set some parameters for our experiment. I suspect the results will vary significantly depending on the enemies dice pool and the targets defense so setting some baselines would be helpful. For starters, let's try to recreate the scenario I was in. I have a soak of 9 and def 1 the enemies were firing 10 dmg blaster rifles with a dice pool of YYGG vs Med range.

Test 1 - Regular Aim - YYGGB vs PPS (soak 9)

The Formula (Odds of Success * (# of Success + 10 (W. Dmg) - soak(9)))

Using that formula I got an average damage of 2.83

18.98%	1	0.37968
21.78%	2	0.65328
18.06%	3	0.72232
11.70%	4	0.58485
5.41%	5	0.32472
1.77%	6	0.12404
0.43%	7	0.03464
0.07%	8	0.00603
0.00%	9	0.0003
		2.82986

Test 2 - Called Shot Aim - YYGG vs PPSSS (soak 7)

For this test I got 3.06 damage

20.83%	1	0.83324
18.21%	2	0.91065
11.77%	3	0.70632
5.77%	4	0.40376
2.05%	5	0.16384
0.44%	6	0.03924
0.06%	7	0.0064
0.00%	8	0.00044
		3.06389

So in this particular circumstance, it looks like he was able to average about .25 more wounds by aiming his called shots. It's also worth that their odds of criting dropping by almost a third. All in all, it seems like a pretty even trade to me.

What do you guys think? Did you see any glaring math/logic errors?

I think it would be interesting to see if these results change for different range bands.

the only thing is this doesnt take into account the percentage chance of hitting 74% vs 59% so while the average damage per hit is lower the damage over time is higher because of the larger number of hits.

Just now, syrath said:

the only thing is this doesnt take into account the percentage chance of hitting 74% vs 59% so while the average damage per hit is lower the damage over time is higher because of the larger number of hits.

It does take into account the chance of hitting because the total % column only includes positive results. If you total up the %'s you'll see that the totals included in the calculation are the same that you described, only broken out by the total numbers of successes.

6 minutes ago, SladeWeston said:

It does take into account the chance of hitting because the total % column only includes positive results. If you total up the %'s you'll see that the totals included in the calculation are the same that you described, only broken out by the total numbers of successes.

sorry , missed that.

It does get better when people have better than stock laminate armor. 2 setback to ignore 3-4 armor, is much more of a thing.

He isnt really using called shot for its intended purpose. That version of aim is generally supposed to forfeit doing damage in order to achieve some more useful outcome

I've been wondering; where does the idea initially come from that aiming at a "specific part of the target" allows to ignore soak? I can comprehend it for heavily armoured people foregoing a helmet, but otherwise...

7 hours ago, Grimmerling said:

I've been wondering; where does the idea initially come from that aiming at a "specific part of the target" allows to ignore soak? I can comprehend it for heavily armoured people foregoing a helmet, but otherwise...

Consider a headshot. Most helmets are the weaker part of the armor, and can be more susceptible to damage.

In addition, nearly all armor types have to have soft parts for ease of movement. Aiming for one of these places may help bypass soak a bit.

Considering the vagueness in the rules regarding resolving a called shot. I actually like this method a lot.

7 hours ago, Grimmerling said:

I've been wondering; where does the idea initially come from that aiming at a "specific part of the target" allows to ignore soak? I can comprehend it for heavily armoured people foregoing a helmet, but otherwise...

The effects of the called shot mechanic are deliberately not elaborated upon, so GMs and groups can determine their own effects of the ability. This is one example. Triggering a specific critical result is another I've seen before.

On ‎12‎.‎05‎.‎2017 at 5:17 PM, Darcune said:

Consider a headshot. Most helmets are the weaker part of the armor, and can be more susceptible to damage.

In addition, nearly all armor types have to have soft parts for ease of movement. Aiming for one of these places may help bypass soak a bit.

Considering the vagueness in the rules regarding resolving a called shot. I actually like this method a lot.

First of all: No they aren't; helmets, historically/normally, have been the thickest/best part of an armour. It's the underlying bodypart's vulnerability that makes headshots effectual.

Aiming at a limb (actually mentioned in the description) is somewhat different from aiming at a ***** in the armour.

I'm not adverse to "bypassing soak a bit", but to ignoring it outright, as has been suggested.

EDIT: C-H-I-N-K seems to be ambiguously offensive.

It's a derogatory term towards those of asian descent similar to the "N word".