Put it in his eye, I said, not his body

Occasionally I have a good idea and my players later find a way to exploit it in a way that doesn't gel with the intent of the rules.

So, one of my players pointed out that the perk "Put it in his eye!" from Pyramid 3/61 technically allows you to get a +1 for hitting the torso.

In other words, you could buy the perk, and if a monster hit you in the body, you could hit that monster back in the body for a +1.

That's not exactly what I meant. I agree the wording says that, but the intention was mostly to knock off -1 of penalty for hitting a specific hit location via giving the player a +1 to hit it. I wasn't thinking torso at all, and I don't think it is cost-balanced at 1 point for a +1 to hit back. It goes from "you hit my leg, I hit your leg!" to "I get a +1 to hit you back, and by the way my Trademark move is a swing to the body anyway."

Even with the stipulation that, despite what my players might think, the perk states you must be hit and fail to defend/not defend. It's not good enough to get struck at, or struck at but defend successfully, but to be actually hit and suffer the consequences of that (even if it's 0 damage thanks to DR.)

So I simply ruled, as the guy who wrote that, that for my game torso hits don't count. Sorry. It has to be a smaller sub-location or this odd form of vengeance-based might not work as I intended. In another campaign that might be fine, but it's not what I was thinking when I wrote it.