Called shot is as useful as your GM wants to make it. If everyone is wearing full armour, helmet included, all the time, it's going to be useless. I don't see that as a fault of the system, I see it as a fault of the GM.

I think extra damage would be interested but ultimately the point of called shots is simply to hit specific locations, that's all.

C'mon - dont talk about this "GM says" stuff. My players want hard-coded rules.

The RAW armours DO have head protection values which are only slightly below the other, so there is no constant GM rule shifting at my table.

Dont put that on the GMs shoulders. The rules should be balanced, so the GM just has to make sure they are followed.

Myself as a player also would prefer reliable written rules to spontaneous GM decisions.

There are always exceptions that needs GM rule, but this is no exception - this is a regular case.

If you want to play by GM decisions, why not just role 1d100 in any roll and just GM-decide if its a success or not, without any rules at all. You wouldnt even need to make character sheets or buy a rulebook.

Currently, hitting a special hit location is worth almost nothing, if the target is not wearing strange armour, or is some beast that has one single body part without natural armour (which sounds soooo scripted).

Going without a helmet is incredibly common in the setting, though. It's hardly ridiculous for a GM to have the odd NPC without headgear. Plus, called shots don't have to mean targeting a body part. I mean, just look at the text;

"Often an Acolyte must pick out one particular spot to dispatch his foe, such as a weak ***** in his armour or the external power conduit keeping a power field active"

That latter bit about the power conduit is a good example. I don't think called shots should become a means of boosting damage arbitrarily, That's not what a called shot is meant to be. As far as I'm concerned, they should stay a means of targeting specific locations for good effect. It's up to the GM to provide opportunities to use the ability though, like with anything else.

It's also worth noting that locational damage plays a part here too. If you want to stop a target moving, it's much better to shoot in the legs, due to the tables.

Thats much too narrative for my games and much too much "GM good will".

I prefer tactical options which can better be calculated.

And by the way: you still can use this narrative option on top of any damage increase rules as an optional exchange.

If an armour in the NPC stats uses head armour, I will not just remove it in most situations.

In the same move, I do not force my players to track when they get off their helmet and when not.

If the armour has the stats it has the stats. Everything else is just a lot of book keeping - and I thought you did not like book keeping at all, do you ?

I tend to describe a scene and then make the equipment match myself. So if I wax eloquent about the ugly scars on the thug in the lead crisscrossing his face and my PCs decide to shoot him through said scarred face they can. This is also how I get into situations like describing a combat servitor using an idling Argus's landing gear as cover and the psyker then using TK to flip the lever retracting the landing gear. Good times.

Anyhow, I think Tom makes a good point that the rulebook seems to have a somewhat expansive and situational view of called shot value, but gaunt is also correct that you could have a flat damage increase as an alternative. So long as the damage increase was not so great as to discourage the clever solutions and sideways thinking I would be okay with that for my campaign anyhow.

Called shot is as useful as your GM wants to make it. If everyone is wearing full armour, helmet included, all the time, it's going to be useless. I don't see that as a fault of the system, I see it as a fault of the GM.

I think extra damage would be interested but ultimately the point of called shots is simply to hit specific locations, that's all.

Called shots aren't about finding a weak spot on the targets armor. They are about hitting the part of the target that isn't behind cover.

Auto fire does the same job as well: 3 or 4 hits will also get one or two to a location without cover.

Why not have armor give a penalty to perception if the helmet is worn?

Auto fire does the same job as well: 3 or 4 hits will also get one or two to a location without cover.

True. But some weapons don't have that option.

Auto fire does the same job as well: 3 or 4 hits will also get one or two to a location without cover.

True. But some weapons don't have that option.

So therefore those weapons are "punished" to make a 1AP called shot to get the same effect without any further benefit (besides maybe 1 less armour, IF the not-cover location has 1 less).

Not enough.

A damage bonus accourding to DoS would be a good and balanced change, which also gives good skilled attackers an edge they deserve.

It's worth noting that head, left arm and right arm (the stuff that will usually be out of cover) are each only a 1/10 chance to hit. It's entirely likely you won't hit those spots using a small burst. Or even a decent sized one.

It's worth noting that head, left arm and right arm (the stuff that will usually be out of cover) are each only a 1/10 chance to hit. It's entirely likely you won't hit those spots using a small burst. Or even a decent sized one.

You mean I might not get my location with 1 less armour ? A tragedy indeed.

I specifically referred to cover. Selective reading doesn't do anyone any favours.

I specifically referred to cover. Selective reading doesn't do anyone any favours.

You need to see the whole context.

Usually 2 body poarts are out of cover, not only one.

Yes, typically head and an arm. That means each shot has a 2/10 chance to hit an exposed part. Not exactly spectacular.

Not with 1 hit - but 2-3 hits, which will have different locations (as you count +2 on the table for each), will often hit at least 1 non-cover location.

Often, but not always. And in the end you're expending three bullets to probably hit the right location, instead of expending one to definitely hit it.

In a deadly game, the number of bullets are only relevant if you have a weapon with a quite small magazine.

But our discussion makes no sense.

You wanna keep your oppinion, I do have mine. Nothing will change one of these.

I just don't see your point. You can shoot a burst and have a CHANCE of hitting the right spot (and a fairly miniscule chance of hitting it more than once, I suppose), or expend far fewer bullets for a guaranteed result. I don't see how a called shot isn't the better option when it comes to enemies that are making good use of cover.

In general my players prefer to risk shooting the cover only if they think they have a reasonable chance of damaging it, under the theory that over the course fo the fight sprays might hit a target as Gaunt suggests or they might just start wounding him through the cover.

When a target is sitting behind 30 AP bulkheads or whatever then they tend to go for called shots since wasting ammo on an undercover target in the hopes of tagging his exposed head is not worth it. This is especially true if they have single shot weapons or overcharge. An overcharge called shot that will avoid 30 AP of cover for sure is way better than crossing your fingers.

Those things said, the psyker using inferno and everyone else chucking grenades is also a preferred tactic. Grenades, since they are in direct, also deal with the especially annoying foes who use one AP to step out, one to aim, one to fire on overcharge, and one AP to step behind full cover. Both my PCs and cautious enemies have used this to great effect. It forces grenades, valiant charges, flanking, or other creative efforts to overcome.