Surrealone

If you're truly into making firearm use realistic, then the section of your text that I just quoted needs to be tossed out the window and completely reworked. As evidence I cite a firearm accuracy study conducted of 247 (195 male and 52 female) volunteers. The study grouped the volunteers into 3 categories: novice (i.e. minimal/no experience), intermediate (i.e. recreational experience), and expert (i.e. completed law enforcement firearms training). The study found that experts shot only 10% more accurately than novices and intermediates at 3-15 feet. Here's a link to the study: http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf This becomes especially important when you pair it with a firearm evaluation of the NYPD's gunfight performance, as the NYPD is arguably the largest and best-trained police force in the United States, today. In gunfights where fire was returned, these 'experts' have demonstrated an empirical hit rate of a meager 18%. In situations where the officer fired and gunfire was NOT returned, the hit rate was still only a paltry 30%. Here's a link to that report (you'll find these statistics on page 14 as labeled by the report, itself, not by the PDF page counter): http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf Given the foregoing, the hit rates you stated (which I quoted above) are WAY too high … and since your efforts are all about adding realism, if you're serious about your efforts, you need to dial your hit rates WAY down for experts … and then dial it down (by about 10% more) for intermediates and novices. If that seems like it's going too far (e.g. "but that wouldn't be fun"), all I can really say to that is that you must not be serious about adding realism, since most rounds discharged in gunfights are (realistically) misses, not hits. Surreal P.S. This is exactly what people and states that try to impose magazine capacity limits fail to consider. i.e. The FBI statistics database shows that most threats are stopped by 2 and change shots (which we'll round up to 3) … with the actual decimal value tending to vary based on the caliber being used. Assuming an 18% hit rate for the best-trained law enforcement officer with, say, a 9mm -- that individual will need to empty the 15 round magazine from his department-issued Glock 17 if under return fire … to score 2.7 hits. This should also help set your 'realism' expectation for making firearms more realistic in your games, since you're both supposedly making an effort to do that. The link to the FBI database should be easy enough to find … if you care to do so.

Opinion: I own a level IIIA soft vest and a level III ballistic clipboard. I also know two other non-military, non-LEO individuals who also own level IIIA vests. Let me categorize that properly, though: all three of us are law-abiding 'gun people'. Specifically, the other two both work in gun shops … while I'm a certified firearm instructor and RSO with >800 hours of RSO time on a manned range. (i.e. We're all at higher risk than most ... due to our jobs/hobbies ... and we know it, so we've taken some reasonable precautions.) What I'm getting at is that while available and even inexpensive (i.e. just under $300 for a level IIIA covert/overt vest sans carrier [or with carrier if you're willing to go refurbished] … unless you also want stab and/or taser protection, in which case the cost begins to go up), most people just can't justify they spend -- because they don't have a well-defined need for body armour (like I did/do, for example). I suspect the same is true of criminals -- i.e. most can't justify the spend … and only well-organized criminals tend to make the investment for their nefarious purposes. As for stats: I'm unaware of any specific data gathering that is available to the public on the topic of crimes committed using body armor. Wow, I had no idea. That's an interesting tidbid!

It makes about as much sense as desolidification or teleportation … which work in a comic book setting, too … and thus, are also in the rules.

Minor Transform is cheap enough that enough dice to reliable exceed BODY on those with 10 BODY should be simple enough. Bricks, of course, shouldn't get stunned to begin with (if built properly), so... I think Minor Transform is a pretty clean (albeit imperfect) way to go. That said, while it's messier, I think eepjr24's suggestion is probably best.

Incorrect. The body armor worn during the North Hollywood Shootout (as it's known; Google it if in doubt) was Level IIIA soft body armor. One of the robbers wore a level IIIA vest plus a plate carrier with trauma plate. The other of them wore a level IIIA vest with groin guard … as well as home-made (out of level IIIA vests) thigh, shin, and forearm soft armor. None of the aforementioned would qualify as bulky (i.e. "large and unwieldy" per 6e1 p378), IMHO. It certainly isn't bulky enough to warrant 1/2 DCV (which comes with the 'Bulky' limitation), otherwise all of our troops and law enforcement/SWAT officers who wear soft armor with a plate carrier and trauma plate are all at 1/2 DCV, too -- and I just don't see it.

Well, since you get 12m of Running for free with the base character, you only need to spend 38 AP to buy 38m of running to get a grand total of 50m … while remaining 2CP under the 40AP cap. No sploits needed!

I believe the release of a Grab should Take No Time instead of being Zero Phase. As an example of why: if you KO an opponent who acted before you (in a Segment prior to the one where you achieved the KO) to Grab you, s/he would still have a firm hold on you until his/her next Phase comes up ... unless the release of you Takes No Time. (Note: S/he already spent the END for the STR … making END moot until his/her next Phase comes, despite being KO'd.) I think this example underscores why the release (which costs no END) of a grabee by a grabber should Take No Time (rather than take time or be Zero Phase). Or did I miss something in my own example?

In your eyes, perhaps there's a difference (maybe because it's your suggestion) … but, as you've presented it, I still see no difference. Why? I don't see it your way because if the Lifestyle revolves around or is defined by how much money is associated with the lifestyle, then it's still about money. And if you look at how you defined the lifestyles, they're defined by and thus about money... So all you did was give Money a different label and try to define a difference that … in the end … still revolves around money. In such a case, I prefer the more direct/blunt approach of calling a spade a spade and letting money be money, rather than trying to put some other face on it (much like putting lipstick on a pig).

Having approx. half the OCV of the attackers is not a defense for your bad guys if you only have to target a DCV of 3 to hit the hex -- especially since it's penetrating and also isn't a significantly limited number (i.e. 1 or 2) of charges. Sounds to me like your street level characters need to get themselves some ballistic armour that uses the latest carbon nanotube technology (to layer over top of whatever defenses they already possess), because the defense level you suggest isn't adequate for the firepower they are potentially facing.

And just how does one get one's 15 points worth of Wealthy Lifestyle, then? (Put another way: How is that any different from Money as written, today?) Asking because unless I misunderstood, all you appear to have done is renamed the perk without addressing any of the perceived problems with it.

Adding a house rule that requires armored walls, vehicle bodies, etc. to be Impementrable if intended to withstand rifle hits would seem to be a hell of a lot less work for a GM than tinkering with every defensive value in the game pertaining to walls, vehicle bodies, body armor, etc. that should be able withstand rifle hits. i.e. It's quick, dirty, easily understood by all … and involves no math because one doesn't need to play 'what if' games when it comes to rifle hits and their impacts (on armor -- unlike, say, AP, where one has to divide the armor value in half, see if it is enough, then bump it up to withstand rifle hits if it's otherwise too low). But hey, if you want to have to think about the effects of Armor Piercing on every Resistant Defense in the game to make sure you have enough of it where it counts … and if you feel that is less work than using an Impenetrable house rule, then knock yourself out. Most GM's, however, would probably prefer the easier path and, frankly, I suspect most players would, as well. I raise this because ease of playability is, IMHO, a defining trait among worthwhile alternate/optional rules. As an example, of why: few people use long term endurance loss or lost REC due to temperature level-induced discomfort because both alternate/optional rules tend to be too much of a pain in the ass to be worthwhile for most GMs/campaigns/players...

I would actually argue that rifle rounds should be Penetrating, not Armor Piercing -- such that they ALWAYS do some BODY unless used against an Impenetrable target. My thinking here is that it's Killing Damage we're talking about … so the point is doing BODY, not STUN … and a ballistic plate (within a plate carrier) would seem to represent the addition of an Impenetrable component to otherwise soft body armor. I feel this is a simple and clean way to do rifle rounds -- because I don't see them as doing more STUN than pistol rounds in a system where the chosen attack type (Killing Attack) is intended to do BODY (and with Armor Piercing they'd do more STUN in addition to more BODY). Another option would be to do some kind of Armor Piercing that applies only to BODY … but that's close enough to Impenetrable that I just don't think the wheel needs to be reinvented. Speaking very generally, the stopping power from high velocity rounds comes largely from the generation of hydrostatic shock - a pressure wave developed in the spongy/wet tissues of living objects that is significant enough to damage/destroy tissue that is not actually hit by the projectile generating the wave. (The same concept applies to grenades -- which are much more lethal in, say, a pool of water in which a target is located … than in air … because of the amplifying effects of water on the pressure wave … since the wave moves more efficiently through dense fluids than through less dense ones.) By comparison, the stopping power from heavier, lower-velocity rounds comes largely from the wound channel generated by the projecticle … and the bleeding effects generated within that wound channel. Thus, you cannot look solely at energy when estimating stopping power -- you must also look at what the energy is used for/doing. The big .30 cal round for .300 AAC creates a bigger wound channel and more bleeding effects in a target than a 5.56 NATO round … but the 5.5.6 NATO round generates a more significant wave of hydrostatic pressure. Which round has more stopping power will depend largely on what area of the target was hit … and at what range. Assuming you're not looking for instant knock-down, the larger .300 AAC round that generates more bleeding over time can actually be used to drop large game (e.g. deer) ethically using a suppressed rifle inside of 75 yards … which is absolutely NOT true of a 5.56 NATO round (suppressed or unsuppressed) at any range -- because it doesn't generate enough hydrostatic pressure to kill large game effectively (i.e. not enough tissue damage to kill the animal humanely, and not a large enough wound channel to drop the animal in a way that has it bleeding out quickly). This is why 5.56 NATO tends to only be used to hunt things (ethically) that are no larger than coyote or hogs.

Does it makes sense? Yes Does it do what you are setting out to do (giving further distinction to Killing Damage)? Yes And now the question you didn't ask that should probably also be asked and answered: Does it do what you are setting out to do (giving further distinction to Killing Damage) with enough material/meaningful distinction to warrant bothering? No

Since you had two questions, I'll tackle them in order: 1) Yes, character X can abort his/her Segment 8 Phase to dodge in Segment 5. 2) Yes character Y can attack in Segment 4 and abort his/her Segment 8 Phase to dodge in Segment 5. i.e. You cannot abort after making an attack action in a given Segment/Phase, but you can abort (once) at any time thereafter. As a reminder, if you abort to Dodge, you are considered to be dodging until your next available Phase comes up.

I'm able to ctrl-c and ctrl-v just fine between characters. Not sure whether or not it matters, but I'm on the latest build.

I believe you meant 'magazine', not 'clip'.

The so-called 'flap' is a ballistic groin protector. These tend to be level IIIA soft body armor.

This sounds like you're using 5th Edition. If so, a switch to 6th Edition would resolve this issue (huge STUN damage), since the base STUN multiplier on a Killing Attack in 6th Edition is 1/2d6 (i.e. 1d3) rather than 1d6-1. i.e. 6th Edition did away with the so-called "STUN Lotto" on Killing Attacks and made them mode BODY-centric. That +1 STUN multiplier would cap out at x4 STUN in 6th Edition instead of x6 STUN a la 5th Edition.

IMHO, eepjr24's approach is spot-on.

I'm pretty sure the penalty will vary from GM to GM. Certainly it's more difficult than a called/placed shot to the head, and realistically it's only an option from certain angles....

One taught by The Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness -- meaning it's part of the game and that "min/maxer" should have no negative connotations in Hero System as a result.

I like that house rule, too ... but I could see it being easily-abused and potentially VERY powerful in heroic games.

Hugh put it well, as I, too, fail to follow the logic...

You can't judge a style by just one maneuver or by a tutorial. Krav Maga has other maneuvers appropriate for fast slashing knife attacks, too, and you can search for this on youtube, yourself, if you want to see examples/tutorial. My point was that It's a martial style intended for military use to counter common attacks military people might experience -- which includes pistol threats, knife attacks, and the like. If it wasn't effective for its intended purposes .... it wouldn't still be taught. Surreal

Yes, you can absolutely get Combat Luck that's NOT Hardened ... specifically by taking a -1/4 (most likely, but value would be a GM call) Limitation defined as: Not Hardened.