Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Autofire
Date:	Sun, 7 Aug 1994 00:34:00 +0000

Message no. 1 --
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+

From:	Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Sun, 7 Aug 1994 00:47:15 +0000

Message no. 2 Hmmmmmm, I don't know about that :-( This sucks, I wonder why my mailer does
that?

In SR2 a burst gives a +3 mod. Autofire gives a +1 per bullet fired after the
first. i.e. if you fire a burst then you get +3, and if you fire a 10 round
full auto burst, you get a +9. If you fire a three round full auto burst, you
get a +2.

Now, this was corrected in the SR2 errata, and the full auto bursts now give +1
per bullet fired. So a 10 round full auto burst would give a +10 mod, and a
three round full auto burst a +3 mod.

I was already using a house rule that fixed this problem, and it went the
opposite way. I gave the first burst fired in the combat phase a +2 instead
of a +3. This moved the burst fire recoil into line with the full auto recoil
and semi automatic recoil. i.e. the first round fired in the combat phase
did not have a recoil modifier associated with it. If you fired a burst, then
you got a +2 if it was your first this combat phase, and a +3 if it was your
second. If you were fireing full auto or semi automatic, then the rules stayed
the way the were.

I tend to think my rule is more in line with what the SR rules were trying to
get at than what the errata came out with. After all, you don't get a +2 for
the second semi auto round fired. And in 1st ed. the full auto recoil did not
include the first round.

What does everyone else think? Do you use the SR2 rule, the errata rule, or
something else?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+

From:	Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Mon, 8 Aug 1994 12:16:26 -0400

Message no. 3 I have entirely redone the autofire rules so that no matter how many
targets you are firing at with however many bullets each, you noly have
to roll once. As far as recoil goes, though, I use the SRII rule as it
stands, i.e. full auto fire = +1 for every round AFTER the first, and
burst fire is +3 for the whole burst.
Where the difference lies is that we don't carry the +3 from the first
burst over to the second. So the first burst is at +3. Then the second
burst is also at +3, not at +6. The rational behind this is that you
have that extra little instant between pulls of the trigger to bring the
weapon back into line, something that you don't have with a full-auto
weapon. This is why 3-round-burst is so much more efficient that autofire.
Also note that it is possible to fire all ten rounds at a target and
only hit with two (depending on how agile your target can be when dodging
and/or how badly you suck with a machinegun), something that is not
possible with Shadowrun Rules.
Different, yes, but it actually works amazingly well. If anyone cares
or is interested at all, I can give you the rules we use. They're pretty
simple.

Marc

From:	Will Cottrell <UGCOTTRE@******.BITNET>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Mon, 8 Aug 1994 13:08:20 EDT

Message no. 4 Marc, I'd like to see what you have but I can't seem to get to you
through personal mail so I'll post it and suffer the consequences. :-)

Please send me your new autofire rules,
Will

+-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+-=--=--=--=--=--=---=--=--=--=--=--=-+
Willard Martin Cottrell | We should understand well that all
| things are the works of the
Bitnet: UGCOTTRE@****** | Great Spirit.
Internet: UGCOTTRE@*****.CIS.ECU.EDU | Black Elk, Oglala Souix
+-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+-=--=--=--=--=--=---=--=--=--=--=--=-+

From:	Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Tue, 9 Aug 1994 14:13:34 +0000

Message no. 5 Marc

I think you should post the rules you have. I would think enough people would
be interested, if they aren't, then they'll at least be able to comment. :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+

From:	Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Tue, 9 Aug 1994 13:49:45 -0400

Message no. 6 Okay, I have gotten enough suggestions that I post the autofire
rules that I will do so. So here goes...

The best way to illustrate this is by example. So you have a
shooter with a firearms skill of 5 firing a tricked-out AK-97, complete
with laser sight and Gas-Vent 3. His target is standing still in medium
range in broad daylight (Yeah, how often does >this< happen). The
shooter thinks to himself "too good to be true," so he opens up fullauto
on his target. His base target number is a 4 (5 for medium range, -1 for
laser sight). He rolls his 5 dice, plus three combat pool. He gets a 2,
2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 8, and 11. This is where it gets tricky. If he surprises
his target (no dodge), then the only number you need is the 11. You
calculate the number of bullets that hit as follows. The first bullet,
and any that are taken care of by recoil modification hit at the base
target number, and any after that go up on a one for one basis (or one
for two if it's a heavy weapon. So the firer would get his first round,
plus the next three at a target number of four. That means a total of
four rounds hit on a four, and go up from there as per normal recoils, so
five at T# 5, 6 at T#6, et cetera. The firer rolled an 11, so he would
hit with 11 rounds, but he could only fire 10, so there ya have it. Ten
rounds hit with one success. Damage for an AK-97 is 8M. Every round
adds +1 to the power level, every three adds one to the damage code, for
a final damage rating of 18(light over Deadly), so the target gets to
resist against a target number of 18 -armor, or take 11 boxes of damage
(ouch) Oh, yeah, in case you hadn't noticed, in our game we keep staging
the damage up as normal after deadly, so you have Light/Deadly,
Moderate/Deadly, S/D, D/D, L/D/D, ... so it is possible to completely
obliterate your target in one hit. Makes things REAL interesting, lemme
tell ya. So the target is pretty much hosed. But what if the target
knew the shooter was there and could dodge (it was too good to be true)?
Using the previous example, the shooter gets 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 8,
and 11. Say the targt gets two dodge successes. So you take off the
targets success STARTING FROM THE HIGHEST, so the 11 and 8 are gone. So
you take the highest remaining number, in this case a 5. But there are
two of them, so the firer gets to stage the damage up one code. As
before, four rounds hit at four, and the fifth at t#5, so the damage is
13S, staged up to 13D by the firer's two successes. Again, ouch.
Note that if the target got five dodge successes, the highest
remaining number would be a 3, which is a failure, so the shooter would
miss completely. Note also that if the shooter has a base target number
of four, gets a whole buttload of fours and on seven, he may actually do
more damage with fewer rounds simply because he has more successes at
that number. In this instance, dodging can actually put you into a
higher damage code. Oh, well, sucks to be you, you just dove into the
shooter's arc instead of away from it. Eat that damage.
This makes autofire weapons EXTREMELY dangerous, and difficult to
dodge (after all, there's a lot of lead in the air), as they should be.
Also, you can shoot at multiple targets and only roll the dice
once. Say the same shooter is shooting at three targets. He decides to
split it into 4,3,3 rounds respectively (they are close enough together
that he won't have to walk his fire). His target number to nail the
first guy is a four, and that hits with all four rounds fired at that
target. Now comes the secondary target modifier of +2, so the next guy
gets hit on a 5+2=7 to 7+2=9, so with a 9, the shooter would get the
second with all three rounds fired his way. The last goon gets hit on
8+2+2 through 10+2+2. If the shooter fired from surprise, he would
hit the first goon with one success (an 11) for 12S, the second goon with
all three (the 11 is sufficient to hit with all three because it's higher
than the 9 needed) for 11S, and would miss the last target entirely.
Note that all targets take successes off from the top, so if each goon
got one success, the first goon would still catch 12S with one success
(the 8), the second goon would drop to getting hit with two round for
10S, with one success (again, the 8), and the last goon still gets
missed. Note that if all of the targets got two dodge successes, only
the first target would be hit, and he would then be hit with two
successes (the two 5's) for a damage code of 12D (oops, dodged into the
line of fire, or more likely, in front of his buddy goon #2).
Generally, the first target and maybe the second get hit
(assuming they are all dodging), which makes sense, because if your
targets scatter, by the time you get around to shooting at the last one,
he's already moved.
Also, for those of you who are wondering, the average number of
rounds that hit against dodging opponents is around 4, which also makes
sense. I mean, people manufacture weapons with three round burst for a
reason. Still, a skilled shooter can hose down multiple targets
effectively.
The system may seem confusing or unwieldy (mainly because my
ability to create examples sucks...kinda like FASA...but at least I think
my math is right), but when you actually use it and get used to lining
your succeses up numerically and taking off the top, it's surprisingly
easy to use, and lends itself to results that make more sense than the
rules as written in SRII.
If anything seems unclear, or if you have any questions, let me
know and I will do my best to explain fully.

Marc (rockin' & rollin' on full-auto mode...)

From:	"Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@*******.UPS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Mon, 8 Aug 1994 21:58:44 -0700

Message no. 7 Marc,

I am sighting you for a violation of the Freedom of SR Information Act. Post
your autofire rules or face the conseqences.

*******************************************************************************
* See Ya in Shadows * * "Trust No One." *
* Jason J Carter * Carter@***.EDU * The late Deep Throat *
* The Nightstalker * * The X-Files *
*******************************************************************************

From:	Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Tue, 9 Aug 1994 12:27:27 -0700

Message no. 8 I like your autofire system Marc, if I can figure it out.
Since the highest number rolled determines how many bullets hit,
then how do the targets figure their Combat Pool Dodge number? Firer's
skill? Vanilla SR would say their dodge is just Base Code+Rounds Fired,
what do you say?

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+

From:	Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Wed, 10 Aug 1994 01:18:39 -0500

Message no. 9 Von Herr Carter:

> Marc,

> I am sighting you for a violation of the Freedom of SR Information Act. Post
> your autofire rules or face the conseqences.

I rather always liked, and incidentally perfered to operate under the
auspices of the Imperial Freedom of (Other People's) Information Act.

Colonel Count von Hohenzollern und von Doom, DMSc, DSc, PhD.

Doom Technologies & Weapon Systems -- Dark Thought Publications
>>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.
<<<
[ Doctor Doom : jch8169@*******.tamu.edu ]
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"Attack, attack, and when in doubt, ATTACK!" -- Frederick the Great of Prussia

From:	"Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@*******.UPS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Tue, 9 Aug 1994 23:28:23 -0700

Message no. 10 The good Docktor said:

>I rather always liked, and incidentally perfered to operate under the
>auspices of the Imperial Freedom of (Other People's) Information Act.

And a fine Act that is, but I can't use it. For me to do so would violate
Paragraph 26 of Section 5. I'm loathe to do that since the penality for that
is a visit from the Spanish Inquisition.

*******************************************************************************
* See Ya in Shadows * * "Trust No One." *
* Jason J Carter * Carter@***.EDU * The late Deep Throat *
* The Nightstalker * * The X-Files *
*******************************************************************************

From:	Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Wed, 10 Aug 1994 16:38:07 +1000

Message no. 11 Jason Carter, Nightstalker remarked:

> The good Docktor said:
>

> >I rather always liked, and incidentally perfered to operate under the
> >auspices of the Imperial Freedom of (Other People's) Information Act.
>

> And a fine Act that is, but I can't use it. For me to do so would violate
> Paragraph 26 of Section 5. I'm loathe to do that since the penality for that
> is a visit from the Spanish Inquisition.

Oh-oh. I thought we were all supposed to be using the Freedom _From_
Information Act.

As Homer would say: Dooh!

luke

"Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and
car keys to teenage boys" - P.J.O'Rourke

From:	Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Wed, 10 Aug 1994 17:03:52 +0000

Message no. 12 Marc writes:

[His new and improved SR autofire system]

The only problems I can see are the one you pointed out (that even if you
dodge, sometimes you can take _more_ damage than if you didn't), and the one
someone else asked about what target number you use for dodging.

Other than that, I really liked it. It'll take a bit of getting used to, but I
can see that after it's been in use a while one would get to know it easily.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+

From:	Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Wed, 10 Aug 1994 11:39:45 -0400

Message no. 13 On Tue, 9 Aug 1994, Adam Getchell wrote:

> I like your autofire system Marc, if I can figure it out.
> Since the highest number rolled determines how many bullets hit,
> then how do the targets figure their Combat Pool Dodge number? Firer's
> skill? Vanilla SR would say their dodge is just Base Code+Rounds Fired,
> what do you say?
>

Generally, the Dodge target # is a 4, as per normal rules, but
situational modifiers apply to this, i.e. being wounded, being seated or
prone, having your pants down around your ankles...

Marc (who has literally been caught with his pants down during a marathon
paintball game. Luckily, they assaulted the base from the opposite
side. :) )

From:	Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Wed, 10 Aug 1994 11:56:50 -0400

Message no. 14 On Tue, 9 Aug 1994, Jason Carter, Nightstalker wrote:

> The good Docktor said:
>
> >I rather always liked, and incidentally perfered to operate under the
> >auspices of the Imperial Freedom of (Other People's) Information Act.
>
> And a fine Act that is, but I can't use it. For me to do so would violate
> Paragraph 26 of Section 5. I'm loathe to do that since the penality for that
> is a visit from the Spanish Inquisition.
>
Oooh. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

<<<<<<JARRING CHORD>>>>>>

"NOBODY expects...the SPANISH INQUISITION !!!!"

Marc ("Surprise is our chief weapon. Surprise and fear, fear and
surprise...)

From:	Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Wed, 10 Aug 1994 10:12:59 -0700

Message no. 15 On Wed, 10 Aug 1994, Marc A Renouf wrote:

> Generally, the Dodge target # is a 4, as per normal rules, but

I didn't think the Dodge target was ever just a 4; seems to make
Dodging rather easy, but maybe under your system it does not matter.
Especially if you aren't adding in recoil modifiers.
I like this idea on second thought, because wounds, being prone,
and cover should all apply nicely--except that cover should be a bonus to
dodging? Or maybe, since the firer has applied it, we shouldn't use it
twice. Or maybe split it evenly and apply half to the attacker as a
penalty and half to the defender as a bonus...
Anyway, just rambling. Really like the concept, though. Thanks!

> Marc (who has literally been caught with his pants down during a marathon

That's too funny! Hahaha!

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+

From:	Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Thu, 11 Aug 1994 20:39:40 +0000

Message no. 16 Adam writes:

> > Generally, the Dodge target # is a 4, as per normal rules, but
>
> I didn't think the Dodge target was ever just a 4; seems to make
> Dodging rather easy, but maybe under your system it does not matter.

No, according to the rules the dodge target number is Power-Armour. And it
is not, strictly speaking, a dodge. Dodge was 1st ed, and there is no
reference to dodging in 2nd ed. It is implied by the fact that if you achieve
more succeses than you opponent then the shot misses, but it is only implied.
Other target number modifiers might apply, depending on how you read the rules.
It says that wound modifiers do not apply to tests to reduce or avoid damage
(such as this), but it does not say that _NO_ target number modifiers apply.
This means it may be popssible to effect someones damage resistance target
numbers with, for eg, a stink spell. If someone can clarify this for me,
_please_do_. I currently rule that this is not the case, but there is
definately a case that could be argued.

As for dodge (well, not dodging really, combat pool dice) target numbers,
the only reason I can see FASA (No $ - yet) made it Power-Armour is for
simplicity. I tend to like base numbers (like 4 or 5 or 6, or whatever), but I
am more than willing to listen to new ideas as I am not too content with this
system.

> Especially if you aren't adding in recoil modifiers.

Yes, rather, but I don't know where you got this idea from, it wasn't in the
original post (was it?).

> I like this idea on second thought, because wounds, being prone,
> and cover should all apply nicely--except that cover should be a bonus to
> dodging? Or maybe, since the firer has applied it, we shouldn't use it
> twice.

I would not use it twice, as it is, as you say, penalising the firer twice.
This goes for the dodging target number practice of setting the dodge target
number to 12-(Firers target number); it penalises the firer if the target
number is high, and the target if the target number is low.

> Or maybe split it evenly and apply half to the attacker as a penalty and
> half to the defender as a bonus...

Interesting though, but I think it is fine just how it is.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+

From:	Alexander Borghgraef <Alexander.Borghgraef@***.AC.BE>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Thu, 11 Aug 1994 12:39:54 --100

Message no. 17 Stupid question: can some gun freak out there tell me what type of guns the
A-Team used? (I know they used M-16's in the begining, but later they used
something in between an AK-47 and a FN-FAL).

________________________________________________________________
| | |
| Listen to them, | Am I evil? |
| The Children of the Night. | I am man, |
| What sweet music they make! | Yes I am! |
| | |
| Dracul. | Diamond Head/Metallica |
|__________________________________|___________________________|

From:	Alexander Borghgraef <Alexander.Borghgraef@***.AC.BE>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Thu, 11 Aug 1994 12:54:28 --100

From:	Enos Michel CDT <x62674f3@******.USMA.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Thu, 11 Aug 1994 07:28:48 EDT

Message no. 19 The A-Team?

Hmmmm, I think that they were Ruger Mini-14's with some sort a folding stock
wern't they? Anybody have a better guess?

____
|\ /| |__ MIKE ENOS | "Who's the more foolish, the fool
| \/ | | CDT Sgt, USCC | or the fool who follows him?"
| | |___ Company F-3 | Obi-Wan Kenobi

GEEK CODE: GCS d-(++@$), H--, s+, !g, p1(2), !au, a-, w(++), v, c+>+++,
P?, !L, !3, E?, N+, K-, W+>W++, M+(M), !V, -po+, Y+>++, t+(t+++), 5-, j++,
R(+), G'(''''), !tv, b++(+++), D++, B--, e+>++, u**, h--, f+, r+, n---, y+*

From:	Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Fri, 12 Aug 1994 00:03:51 +0000

Message no. 20 > Are there any weight encumbrance rules for SRII? I don't see a Str1 wimp
> walking around with a Vindicator and 500 rounds of ammo,a shotgun and 2
> Predators every day.

In the "Behind The Scenes" section there is a subsection caleld "Hauling
The
Load" I can't give you a page refernce as I don't have my book with me.
The rule is something like 5x Str for no encumberance, 10x for an effective
light stun (while ever you carry that much), 15x Str for a moderate and so on.
You also lose movement when you carry too much.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+

From:	John Moeller <John.Moeller@*.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Thu, 11 Aug 1994 14:26:46 -0600

Message no. 21 On Thu, 11 Aug 1994, Alexander Borghgraef wrote:

> Are there any weight encumbrance rules for SRII? I don't see a Str1 wimp
> walking around with a Vindicator and 500 rounds of ammo,a shotgun and 2
> Predators every day.

Yes. If you look up the section "Hauling the Load" in the Behind the
Scenes chapter of the SRII basebook, you will find the rules.

Str x 5 w/o appreciable effect
Str x 10 is equivalent to a Light stun
Str x 15 is Moderate, he/she cannot run, and movement is cut in half
Str x 20 is Serious (maximum), and movement is at a quarter normal.

Lifting is a different matter.
he/she can add (Str)D6 to his/her maximum (Str x 20) for (Body) turns.

Hope this helps,

John IV

From:	Andrew Hayes <ahayes@********.ZETA.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Autofire
Date:	Mon, 2 Jan 1995 12:56:08 +1100

Message no. 22 Ok, guys. Just a quick topic that has been bugging me for a while.
Thought I would bring it up here.

Autofire:
The rules say that you can fire 10 rounds using a complex action each
combat phase. This is hard to get straight in my mind, as autofire is just
what it says - automatic firing at a fixed rate.

How do other GMs handle it when their players (usually the merc with the
LMG) take the bit between their teeth and hold down their triggers on
full autofire over two consecutive (for her) combat phases?

Do the other
players/NPCs have to dodge lead if their combat phase lies between the
combat phases of the merc? (I have been using the suppression fire rules
in FoF, though others might disagree) Does the LMG actually have rates of
fire that varies from character to character? (I mean, a character with 3
combat phases in a round can fire 30 bullets, while the mage with only 1
can only fire 10 bullets.)

I'd be interested in hearing opinions.

Thanks heaps.

Andrew

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Autofire
Date:	Sun, 1 Jan 1995 22:59:57 -0500

Message no. 23 >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Hayes
<ahayes@********.ZETA.ORG.AU> writes:

Andrew> The rules say that you can fire 10 rounds using a complex action
Andrew> each combat phase. This is hard to get straight in my mind, as
Andrew> autofire is just what it says - automatic firing at a fixed rate.

Yup.

Andrew> How do other GMs handle it when their players (usually the merc
Andrew> with the LMG) take the bit between their teeth and hold down their
Andrew> triggers on full autofire over two consecutive (for her) combat
Andrew> phases?

They say, ``we could do it realistically, but that would take two hours to
resolve everything, or we can use the simplified game mechanic and be done
with it in about 20 seconds. What do you want to do?''

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | head.

From:	Matt Dunne <stretch@*********.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Tue, 3 Jan 1995 18:21:11 GMT

Message no. 24 >Ok, guys. Just a quick topic that has been bugging me for a while.
>Thought I would bring it up here.
>
>
>Autofire:
>The rules say that you can fire 10 rounds using a complex action each
>combat phase. This is hard to get straight in my mind, as autofire is just
>what it says - automatic firing at a fixed rate.
>
>How do other GMs handle it when their players (usually the merc with the
>LMG) take the bit between their teeth and hold down their triggers on
>full autofire over two consecutive (for her) combat phases?
>
>Do the other
>players/NPCs have to dodge lead if their combat phase lies between the
>combat phases of the merc? (I have been using the suppression fire rules
>in FoF, though others might disagree) Does the LMG actually have rates of
>fire that varies from character to character? (I mean, a character with 3
>combat phases in a round can fire 30 bullets, while the mage with only 1
>can only fire 10 bullets.)
>
>I'd be interested in hearing opinions.
>
>Thanks heaps.
>
>Andrew
>
>

I think the rates of fire in the rules involve more that just holding down
the trigger. Maybe someone should come up with some rule for straight
'holding down the trigger and spraying' shots.
Cheers,

Matt Dunne.

stretch@*********.co.uk

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
"That's an interesting point of view", Jules, Pulp Fiction.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

From:	Gurth <gurth@***.NL>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Wed, 4 Jan 1995 18:55:54 +0100

Message no. 25 >Autofire:
>The rules say that you can fire 10 rounds using a complex action each
>combat phase. This is hard to get straight in my mind, as autofire is just
>what it says - automatic firing at a fixed rate.
>
>How do other GMs handle it when their players (usually the merc with the
>LMG) take the bit between their teeth and hold down their triggers on
>full autofire over two consecutive (for her) combat phases?
>
>Do the other
>players/NPCs have to dodge lead if their combat phase lies between the
>combat phases of the merc? (I have been using the suppression fire rules
>in FoF, though others might disagree) Does the LMG actually have rates of
>fire that varies from character to character? (I mean, a character with 3
>combat phases in a round can fire 30 bullets, while the mage with only 1
>can only fire 10 bullets.)

I simply treat it as a ten-round (or however many rounds (s)he fires) burst
in the Combat Phase in which it's done. Roll to see if it hits, if it does
the target takes damage from 10 rounds at once... with your LMG that would
be something like 17D-plus-a-lot-of-damage-levels.

The way I see it is that FASA decided to simplify autofire rates because of
the varying number of Combat Phases in a turn. If you'd compare it to real
life, autofire rates in Shadowrun are pretty low, even for a character with
3 actions firing a minigun: fire 15 rounds on each of the actions and you
fire 45 rounds in about 3 seconds, or 900 rounds per minute. A _real_
minigun (say, an XM-214) easily reaches 4,000 rpm. But you can't hold that
in your hands.

Gurth@***.nl
Remember all your yesterdays / GC2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g P?(3) !au !a>?
In the deep blue / w+(+++)y v*(---) C+(++) U P? !L !3 E? N++ K-
Before the world came / W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@
And rested down on you / D+(++) B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?

From:	The Passman <pshryer@*.UMN.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Thu, 12 Jan 1995 12:40:42 -0600

Message no. 26 > I think the rates of fire in the rules involve more that just holding down
> the trigger. Maybe someone should come up with some rule for straight
> 'holding down the trigger and spraying' shots.
> Cheers,
> Matt Dunne.
> stretch@*********.co.uk

Ask, and ye shall receive(sorry this took so long, I've been busy)

Suggestion for Supression fire for Shadowrun.
These rules apply to any fully automatic weapons in shadowrun.

If a player so chooses she may engage in suppressing fire and from then
until the time that she chooses to stop(or runs out of ammo) she may
"spray" a 30 degree firing arc. This is done at a rate of 10 rounds per
10 phases(or fractions thereof). Anyone in the arc at the beginning of
the 10 phases or anyone entering thereafter must roll to be hit(roll a
standard to hit, no mods for sgun, laser sights, etc.) if hit roll 1d3 to
determine the number of rounds hitting that person(each round does listed
damage and must be resisted separately).

If a player wishes to change his firing arc he may do so at the beginning
of a turn or at the end of each 10 phase "action" with the following
limitations, the character may only change to an adjacent 30 degree area
and after doing so may not change again for 2 "actions"(unless he wishes
to change back which may be done on the following action).

Other conserns:
any weapon doing this should be treated as a weapon firing 10
rounds for recoil purposes, this means that if the weapon/user does not
have 10 pts of recoil comp there are pluses to the target numbers to hit.

Also, if a character is doing supressive fire, they no longer roll
initivite(sp). If a character(doing supressive fire) wishes to stop,
they can do so, but only at the end of the turn, at which point the roll
init for the following turn and continue normally. The only exception to
this if a character runs out of ammo, if this happens they may do nothing
for the remainder of the round(except free actions).

Well, what do you think?
The Passman

--

find me at | A scientist looks at the world and says, "Why?"
pshryer@**.d.umn.edu | A poet looks and says, "Why Not?"
if you want to look | I'm unemployed, who could I speak for?

From:	Matt Dunne <stretch@*********.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Sun, 15 Jan 1995 08:10:34 GMT

Message no. 27 >> I think the rates of fire in the rules involve more that just holding down
>> the trigger. Maybe someone should come up with some rule for straight
>> 'holding down the trigger and spraying' shots.
>> Cheers,
>> Matt Dunne.
>> stretch@*********.co.uk
>
>Ask, and ye shall receive(sorry this took so long, I've been busy)
>
>Suggestion for Supression fire for Shadowrun.
> These rules apply to any fully automatic weapons in shadowrun.
>

I like your rules but maybe you should take penalties when trying resist
damage when hit because you are actually not fully active in 'ducking and
diving' as it were.

I know this doesn't sound like a good explaination but I can't think of a
better way of putting it right now. Like I said before the rates of fire
take into account other factors other thatn just holding down the trigger,
combat sense factors.

Cheers,

Matt Dunne.

stretch@*********.co.uk

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In today's world where righteous and lawful ideals are seldom rewarded it
is better to be the predator rather than the prey." Matt Dunne on rush hour
traffic 1995.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	The Passman <pshryer@*.UMN.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Sun, 15 Jan 1995 02:40:17 -0600

Message no. 28 > >Suggestion for Supression fire for Shadowrun.
> > These rules apply to any fully automatic weapons in shadowrun.
> I like your rules but maybe you should take penalties when trying resist
> damage when hit because you are actually not fully active in 'ducking and
> diving' as it were.
Well you would already be at a -1(target not moving) mod since you cannot
move around much when laying down suppressive fire(I suppose I should
have stated that more explicitely) but perhaps an additional -1 TN, since
you are making yourself a _very_ "Visible" target, would be in order.

>
> I know this doesn't sound like a good explaination but I can't think of a
> better way of putting it right now. Like I said before the rates of fire
> take into account other factors other thatn just holding down the trigger,
> combat sense factors.

I know exactly what you mean.

> Matt Dunne.

The Passman
--

find me at | A scientist looks at the world and says, "Why?"
pshryer@**.d.umn.edu | A poet looks and says, "Why Not?"
if you want to look | I'm unemployed, who could I speak for?

From:	"James W. Thomas" <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: autofire
Date:	Wed, 18 Jan 1995 11:14:55 +0000

Message no. 29 > James> the numbers are a guide, not a rule.
> >> By about the 4th round the recoil has pulled your aim well off the
> >> target, and anything beyond that is wasted. Thus, 3-round bursts.
> James> <CHOPPER> not with the latest 5th and 6th generation weapons.
> James> the G-11 with its caseless 3rd burst from a free barrel/bolt system
> James> lead the way
>
> Even the vaunted G11's 1100 rpm cyclic isn't enough.
<CHOPPER> the G-11 gets 2000rpm on 3rd burst
This is because the barrel, rotation bolt assembly and ammo all
cut free of the weapon casing and recoil seperately. the recoil
of the weapon is only felt when the recoiling assembly reaches
the stop. And by this time the three rounds have all been fired.
therefore, the recoil modifier would not effect this burst
> It's great for 3-round
> bursts, but on full auto it will /still/ drift after 4 or 5 rounds of
> consecutive automatic fire. Argue all you want, but take it up with Sir
> Isaac Newton.
<CHOPPER> i'm not ignoring the laws of motion, I'm showing how
you can 'play the system'.
> However, the G11 is /not/ the basis for weapons in Shadowrun, the M-16A1
> and it's ilk are, and those are 25 years old today.
<CHOPPER> Pity...
> James> Them came the next generation with gas venting, c. a. d. and
> James> Rotating cam systems.
>
> Ummm... lots of nifty buzzwords that mean next to nothing, other than the
> gas venting, which isn't really all that new, and is mostly only useful for
> heavy wepons like howitzers and rocket-propelled munitions which generate
> lots of gasses to vent.
<CHOPPER> some of the new SMG's like the Spectre are gas vented
and so they stay accurate on autofire. the venting cuts the
barrel rise out.
Computer aided gun design allows you to accurately map the
forces acting within the gun, and make a gun capable of
providing a balanced action/reaction. Less recoil
Rotating cams control autofire weapons by catch/release on
the bolt. this allows you to alter the ROF by presise amouts,
from the weapons 'free' ROF to 1 rpm, and ANYWHERE inbetween.
So you can choose the ROF where the bullet recoil, spring
recoil, slide return, bolt motion etc. all the forces in the gun
are in balance, so the gun has NO Perceived Recoil!
<as used in the Bushman MP. the gun fires at 1400rpm free, and
the cam is set at 450 rpm, the ROF of minimum recoil>

> James> Admitedly autofire from light weapons at extended range is
> James> inaccurate. But close in, autofire almost garentees multiple hits.
>
> Nope. Not unless you've got the muzzle braced right up against your
> target's belly.
<CHOPPER> =)
thats the way to fight

> Or you're /very/ good and the target is stationary and you're using
> tracers. On a firing range. With no cover. With good light. And no wind. In
> which case about half of what you fire will actually hit what you want.
> James> But in SR at point blank, firing a smg with a high ROF(15) on full
> James> auto requires TN 4 (range) + 15 (rds fired).
>
> Yup. That's about right compared to the real world.
<CHOPPER> what I thinks wrong is that if you get one sucess, the
whole burst hits. if you don't, nothing. No inbetween ground

> As I said, fully automatic fire is for area suppression; that's all it's
> good for. Shadowrun does a reasonable job simulating it.
<CHOPPER> then how do you suppress an area? autofire at an
area and hope they run into it? the rules bog down on this one.
How do you suppress an area?
> >>>>> "Luke" == Luke Kendall
<luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU> writes:
> Luke> Stainless Steel Rat writes:
> >> The US Marines in VietNam fired more than 10 times as many rounds as the
> >> US Army did in WWII, yet the Marines scored fewer than 1/10th as many
> >> kills.
>
> Luke> My impression has always been that the WWII troops were better
> Luke> soldiers than the troops in Vietnam. I thought lack of discipline,
> Luke> drug abuse, etc. were common problems in Vietnam - possibly because a
> Luke> lot of troops were unable to believe that their presence there was
> Luke> `right'.
<CHOPPER> I seem to remember from somewhere that the US Rangers
were classed as an active fighting unit 36 hours after
deployment in the combat area. thats when their drugs were off

> Regardless, it still shows that firing lots of rounds doesn't improve kill
> scores. If it did, then it would stand to reason that the USMC in VietNam
> would have had the best kill ratios of any US troops. As it is, the USMC in
> VietNam has one of the /worst/ kill ratios of any US troops in history.
<CHOPPER> but in Vietnam the standard tactics were suppression
of all possible enemy. (ie autofire at every bush) and not short
controled bursts at targets at close range, which is a valid use
of autofire to put multiple rounds into a target.
> --
> Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>

CHOPPER
we want NAN-C!
NAN-cookbook Now
March on FASA demanding Nan cookery sourcebook to be arranged
(includes awakened recipes? Griffon Burger!)

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: autofire
Date:	Wed, 18 Jan 1995 10:22:32 -0500

Message no. 30 >>>>> "James" == James W Thomas <cm5323@***.AC.UK> writes:

>> Even the vaunted G11's 1100 rpm cyclic isn't enough.
James> <CHOPPER> the G-11 gets 2000rpm on 3rd burst

No, it doesn't.

The initial prototypes had a cyclic that high, but they had /lots/ of
problems. The redesigned, production model is around 1100 rpm.

[this is getting confusing... read the originals]

James> <CHOPPER> what I thinks wrong is that if you get one sucess, the
James> whole burst hits. if you don't, nothing. No inbetween ground

Then address that. Yeah, it's kinda bogus, but it's easier to just say ``it
all hits or misses'' rather than attempting to deal with each individual
round. SR1 did it that way and firefights seriously bogged. That's the
tradeoff between realism and playability, and FASA went with playability.

James> <CHOPPER> then how do you suppress an area? autofire at an area and
James> hope they run into it? the rules bog down on this one. How do you
James> suppress an area?

Use the stray shots rules. They work /perfectly/, if they do bog down a
bit.

James> <CHOPPER> but in Vietnam the standard tactics were suppression of
James> all possible enemy. (ie autofire at every bush) and not short
James> controled bursts at targets at close range, which is a valid use of
James> autofire to put multiple rounds into a target.

Yeah, it was. And it was proven to be innefective under those conditions
unless you were using a belt-fed weapon. A 30-round magazine is pretty
useless for long-term, wide area suppression.

Anyway, as of the M-16A2, fully automatic fire is no longer an option
except with the USMC who has specific permission to modify the M-16A2
(which just happens to be simply opening up the case, bending a wire over,
and closing it back up to allow the selector full motion). The USMC is the
/only/ US Military branch to properly train to use a fully automatic
weapon, ie, short, controlled bursts controlled by the trigger rather than
a burst limiter, with brief, small area suppression intermixed.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | returned to its special container and
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | kept under refrigeration.

From:	Eric Boatman <ElecDeath@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: autofire
Date:	Wed, 18 Jan 1995 13:19:45 -0500

Message no. 31 Doesn't Field of Fire (the Merc Book) have rules for suppression fire
in the back. I think it just states that if someone enters the suppressed
area they may get hit by a stray shot.

From:	"James W. Thomas" <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: autofire
Date:	Thu, 19 Jan 1995 14:04:48 +0000

Message no. 32 >
> >>>>> "James" == James W Thomas <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
writes:
>>>>Rat= ratinox@***.neu.edu
>
> James> <CHOPPER> what I thinks wrong is that if you get one sucess, the
> James> whole burst hits. if you don't, nothing. No inbetween ground
>
rat> Then address that. Yeah, it's kinda bogus, but it's easier to just say ``it
rat> all hits or misses'' rather than attempting to deal with each individual
rat> round. SR1 did it that way and firefights seriously bogged. That's the
rat> tradeoff between realism and playability, and FASA went with playability.

<CHOPPER>
heres the way i play it
sorta like Twilight 2000 mixed with SRII

Choose Burst lenght
Roll skill with weapon x burst multiplier dice, TN by range
cover, visibility, movement etc
(modify TN by recoil stated with burst)
Each sucess generated is a bullet that hits
use normal power+rounds hit
damage class+1 per 3 rds that hit
for damage determination

Burst lenghts
rds fired skill TN mod for recoil
3rd burst 3 x1 +1 simple
short burst 4-9 x2 + 1/2 rds fired simple
long burst 10+ x3 + 1/2 rds fired complex
Walking bursts is still 1 rd per metre
Recoil comp counters recoil mods as normal

So a Skill 6 sammie with 3rd burst smg rolls 6 dice, TN 5 at
close range. Gasvent 2 gives TN 4, so the full 3rds should
hit.
damage is power+3, damage +1class
But at range , with long burst with a supermachinegun TN 7 + 7
with recoil GV 4 =TN 10.
sammie rolls 6 x 3 dice, TN 10 gives 1 hit
So damage is basic for weapon only

This way, successes don't increase damage, they put more rounds
into the target.

comments?
do you think this system works?

CHOPPER
PS this assumes ideal firing stance. (from prone/ shoulder/ two
handed grip for SMG/MP)
TN +1 for firing SMG one handed
TN +2 for hipfiring anyone?
don't forget +ve TN mods for movement, cover,etc

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: autofire
Date:	Thu, 19 Jan 1995 10:17:43 -0500

Message no. 33 >>>>> "James" == James W Thomas <cm5323@***.AC.UK> writes:

James> <CHOPPER>
James> heres the way i play it
James> sorta like Twilight 2000 mixed with SRII
[...]
James> This way, successes don't increase damage, they put more rounds
James> into the target.

It's more realistic than what's there, but I think the dice rolling can get
obscene, especially with the weapons with really high rates of fire (Skill
10 after some experience, concentration and specializtion isn't
unreasonable, times three for a long burst, that's 30+ freakin' dice to
deal with. I don't roll that many dice in Champions!). You can also wind up
with the minor problem of scoring more successes than you're firing
bullets: do the extra successes stage individual rounds, or all of them, or
what? And where does Combat Pool fit into all of that? It also doesn't take
into account the cumulative effects of multiple strikes in rapid
succession: regardless of how good your armor is, two or three hits in
rapid succession, very close to each other are going to punch more energy
through than two or three widely spaced hits (basic rules of thermodynamics
and elastic deformation); and the effects of systemic shock of those
multiple hits are going to be greater.

Not that I have anything better, other than using the stray shots rules
(which as I said, can bog down, but then it's just 2 dice vs. a T#4, I
think, per round). But when you peel it apart, most of the revised
mechanics in SR2 fire combat really do work a lot like real life.

BTW, I need to correct myself about the G11's cyclic. When firing 3-round
bursts /only/ it has an ROF of around 2000rpm. However, it cannot sustain
that (that's where they had problems); it's sustained ROF is 1100rpm.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | head.

From:	Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Sun, 16 Apr 1995 16:32:48 GMT

Message no. 34 > Well if you want realism, you'd better look for a different system.
> SR is designed to look realistic (like the movies) not to actually
> be realistic.

And with some tweaking does so very well...

> > An Ingram SuperMach SMG is capable of firing 15 rounds in one complex
> > action. If it does so, the damage goes up to 21D. Now, whereas light
> > pistol rounds will bounce off of average "street" armors (armor
jacket), 15
> > light pistol rounds have a force exceeding that of a Panther Assault Cannon.
> > And either A) all of them will hit. Or B) all of them will miss.
>
> I think you dont quite understand whant Full Auto means. Full Auto is not
> Supression fire, when firing in Full Auto mode you dont spray a whole area
> in the hope that you'll hit someone/something. In your example the horrendous
> damage code is justified by the fact that all 15 bullets hit - now dont
> tell me that 15 bullets (no matter what calliber) donr mean certain death.

Well, normally when we fired a GPMG (the FN-MAG 7.62mm, now the US M240 as
well...can't keep a good gun down) the idea was to fire bursts of five to ten
rounds and swing the sights slighly...you hit the target with three or four and
put the rest to either side. Now that's neither suppression nor "all or nothing"
and it was much easier to hit like that than firing the same number of single
shots (firing from an open bolt the GPMG is not as accurate as you'd like,
and your trigger control needs to be spot on)

And "15 bullets means death..." If I tread on your toe once it won't kill you.
So if I tread on it fifteen times it will? If the bullets are just mashing
themselves flat on your Kevlar, how are they killing you? The SR system isn't
usually too bad, but weapons like the SuperMach really show the holes.

As an example, look at weapons like the ILARCO 180 - a .22LR SMG. Almost no
recoil and wonderfully controllable, firing .22 bullets at 1200-1500 rounds
a minute - 20 or 30 a second - and you have an interesting weapon. But the
problem is that it's relatively ineffective against body armour (although that
can be an advantage - for instance, in a prison riot where the guards are
armoured and the cons aren't) If one round flattens on armour, twenty will,
and peripheral hits will be less lethal. So if a guard's weapon is taken, it's
less likely to be deadly to the other security.

> On the other hand what you describe is supression fire, the attacker
> sprays 15 rounds in the defenders direction and only a few if any
> hit - and that is reflected by the supression fire rules.

Unfortunately SR doesn't model the fact that a three-round burst with
controlled dispersion (a la G11) is intended to compensate for aiming error
by increasing the chance that one round will hit, not to triple the damage to
the target. And sadly, area suppression fire is rather ineffective - using an
assault rifle on targets wearing armour jackets means you might hit someone
with a 7M wound...they then resist with Body and Combat Pool, say 6 dice,
looking for four 2s. Nothing to be scared of, really, is it? On the other
hand, a ten-round burst into a confined space can for many characters be more
effective than aimed fire... And a Ingram SuperMach in each hand, firing
suppression into a one-metre target area... okay, 6L damage - with 30 dice.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or
for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

From:	Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Mon, 17 Apr 1995 13:29:34 GMT

Message no. 35 In message <199504170946.LAA23709@****.informatik.uni-Bremen.de>
SHADOWRN@*****.nic.surfnet.nl writes:
> > Cinematically, anyway, this happens a lot,
> > especially at close range; "BRRRT!" and the guy twitches as a buncha
> > holes appear in his shirt, and he falls down dead. Not much fun
> > to be on the recieving end of, though....
>
> Thats exactly what I meant, now I admit I am totaly clueless when it
> comes to guns, but from a cinematic point of view this seems very
> plausible.

Well... as a gun nut this might be odd, but we stuck to that interpretation
of autofire because it's a cinematic tradition. When the evil NPC who's
been after you for ever is cornered and you shoot him, you don't want the
realism of the first few rounds hitting him and the rest missing, you
want to burn a full magazine into him point-blank!

But then I'm warped :-)

The SR system isn't hugely realistic in autofire, but we've been using it for
a long time with just minor tweaks on recoil and we've come to like it. It
fulfils the role of a fast, cinematic combat very well: as a John Woo fan I
feel that's very important.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or
for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Tue, 18 Apr 1995 09:37:16 +0200

Message no. 36 >If one round flattens on armour, twenty will,
>and peripheral hits will be less lethal. So if a guard's weapon is taken, it's
>less likely to be deadly to the other security.

Not necessarily... if that were the case an A-10 wouldn't damage a tank at
all (for anyone not knowing what I'm talking about: the A-10 is an American
ground-attack aircraft carrying the biggest cannon ever put into an
aircraft, a 30mm 7-barrel contraption. One 30mm round will flatten against a
modern tank's armor, but an x-round burst fired at 4200 rpm punches
through... Granted, it's 30mm depleted uranium rounds, not .22LR.)

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Boodschap Van Algemeen Nut
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)

From:	Daniel Kollmer <dkollmer@**.OR.AT>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Tue, 18 Apr 1995 16:17:58 +0200

Message no. 37 >>If one round flattens on armour, twenty will,
>>and peripheral hits will be less lethal. So if a guard's weapon is taken, it's
>>less likely to be deadly to the other security.
>
>Not necessarily... if that were the case an A-10 wouldn't damage a tank at
>all (for anyone not knowing what I'm talking about: the A-10 is an American
>ground-attack aircraft carrying the biggest cannon ever put into an
>aircraft, a 30mm 7-barrel contraption. One 30mm round will flatten against a
>modern tank's armor, but an x-round burst fired at 4200 rpm punches
>through... Granted, it's 30mm depleted uranium rounds, not .22LR.)
>
>
>Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
> Boodschap Van Algemeen Nut
>Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
>P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
>B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
>
>
I've been gamemastering Shadowrun for some time now and i found out that the
autofire rules have one major problem:Consider somebody who uses a SMG to
fill the air in some area with lead.The probability of hitting something
would surely increase.In the Shadowrun rules the probability for hitting
something DECREASES while if you hit you do more damage.I developed the
following houserule:Every shot compensated through recoil reduction
decreases the difficulty level.The person shooting states which target(s)
should be hit by how many shots.The target then resists agains all shots
individually.

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Tue, 18 Apr 1995 15:26:21 -0400

Message no. 38 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Kollmer <dkollmer@**.OR.AT>
writes:

Daniel> I've been gamemastering Shadowrun for some time now and i found out
Daniel> that the autofire rules have one major problem:Consider somebody
Daniel> who uses a SMG to fill the air in some area with lead.

This is called suppression fire, and if you use the suppression fire rules,
you get reasonable results.

Daniel> The probability of hitting something would surely increase.

This is a myth: it doesn't. We have several recent wars (Viet Nam, Korea,
Dessert Storm, and a variety of others) to look to for proof.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | returned to its special container and
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | kept under refrigeration.

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Tue, 18 Apr 1995 15:24:07 -0400

Message no. 39 >>>>> "Gurth" == Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:

>> If one round flattens on armour, twenty will, and peripheral hits will
>> be less lethal. So if a guard's weapon is taken, it's less likely to be
>> deadly to the other security.

Gurth> Not necessarily... if that were the case an A-10 wouldn't damage a
Gurth> tank at all

Ah, no. AP/DU rounds from the Avenger do, indeed punch nice, messy holes in
MBT hulls, thankyouverymuch, mostly because of the chemistry involved in
mixing uranium and steel at high temperatures. The resulting compound/alloy
is very soft, like solder, and melts very quickly under the high heat you
get when metal hits metal at a combined velocity of several hundred meters
per second. You *don't* get that kind of reaction with DU against anything
other than steel, which is why tungsten carbide penetrators are generally
superior in the small arms categories.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | which, if exposed due to rupture, should
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.

From:	Richard Bukowski <bukowski@**.BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject:	Autofire
Date:	Tue, 18 Apr 1995 14:07:49 -0700

Message no. 40 You know, after thinking about it, I think Bob's idea of reducing the
TN given large numbers of shots fired seems like a perfect
augmentation to the autofire rules that I posted earlier. To wit: if
we add the -1 to base TN for every 3 rounds fired in an autofire burst, it
corrects a few of the niggling problems I had with that system.

One problem I had with my new rule system was that high TN bursts
would now be little better than single shots, since you had to get
several successes to make more than 1 bullet hit. If you had a base
TN of, say, 9, it was very unlikely that firing a burst of 3 was going to
do more than a single shot of 1.

Some on the list have made arguments that may actually bear this out;
saying that bursts are limited to 3 shots because more than 3 don't
hit, and someone (can't remember the name, sorry) said that H&K had
even gone to 2 shot bursts because the third shot was iffy too.
However, I like the idea that "hosing down" a person would increase
chances to hit with at least a few bullets.

Subtracting one from the base TN for every 3 rounds has some very nice
effects:

1. A heavily wounded or otherwise high-TN-modified character will tend
to want to spray a clip in the direction of an enemy in the hopes of
hitting them. Reducing TN for many bullets has the realistic (?)
effect of making it more possible to tag the opponent with one bullet,
while not drastically increasing the number of bullets that will hit
the target (takes 3 bullets to decrease TN by 1, which will usually
increase the expected number of hits by less than 1 bullet, especially
in high-TN cases). This also helps out the GM who wanted his players
to waste ammo. :)

2. It means that more bullets fired improves chances to hit with at
least one bullet, even though this improvement is not drastic due to
the need to allocate successes. Burst fire is attractive again.
Dropping clips or large portions of belts is also attractive due to
the TN drops.

I'm not sure where these effects fall in the spectrum of realism; I
think they are an improvement. It seems that both cinematics
(spraying clips to hit targets) and playability (a very simple TN mod)
are reasonably traded off.

Rick

From:	Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Wed, 19 Apr 1995 19:28:27 +0930

Message no. 41 Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> Daniel> The probability of hitting something would surely increase.
>
> This is a myth: it doesn't. We have several recent wars (Viet Nam, Korea,
> Dessert Storm, and a variety of others) to look to for proof.

Not quite true, Rat. If I fill the air with a lot of lead, the chances of
any given bullet drops down to nothing. But the chance that at least one
bullet hit rises fairly well, compared to a single unaimed shot. And, after
a point, aiming autofire only serves to keep it pointing in the right
direction. (This all assumes there's something there to hit, of course).

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Wed, 19 Apr 1995 11:10:50 -0400

Message no. 42 >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Watkins <bob@**.ntu.edu.au>
writes:

>> This is a myth: it doesn't. We have several recent wars (Viet Nam,
>> Korea, Dessert Storm, and a variety of others) to look to for proof.

Robert> Not quite true, Rat. If I fill the air with a lot of lead, the
Robert> chances of any given bullet drops down to nothing. But the chance
Robert> that at least one bullet hit rises fairly well, compared to a
Robert> single unaimed shot.

Well, yes and no. This is called ``suppressing an area.'' But there's a bit
of myth here, too. It takes a tremendous ammount of high velocity lead to
reasonably suppress even a 20-meter wide cone at 50 meters, a lot more than
you'll find in the 30-round magazine of your average assault rifle. I'm
talking about chewing through a 250-round box of ammunition over the course
of 20 to 30 seconds of continuous hosement, not the 3 seconds it takes you
to empty your rifle's magazine. This is one of the primary reasons why an
assault rifle absolutely sucks for defense purposes; I'd rather have an M-1
Garand or a belt-fed BAR for that.

But, all things considered, either the stray shots rule in the SR2 rulebook
or the suppression fire rules in Fields of Fire work reasonably well.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | unknown glowing substance which fell to
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | Earth, presumably from outer space.

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Thu, 20 Apr 1995 11:27:45 +0200

Message no. 43 >assault rifle absolutely sucks for defense purposes

Smart-ass remark: isn't that why it's called an _assault_ rifle? :)

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I used to think that today would never come
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Thu, 20 Apr 1995 10:20:45 -0400

Message no. 44 >>>>> "Gurth" == Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:

>> assault rifle absolutely sucks for defense purposes
Gurth> Smart-ass remark: isn't that why it's called an _assault_ rifle? :)

Why, yes, as a matter of fact, it is. Remember a few days back during the
gun control thread when I mentioned that my reasons for not wanting
automatic weapons in the hands of civilians was tactical? That's why.

But actually, a more proper term is ``assault weapon,'' that being a weapon
you would use to assault a position. To defend a position you'd be much
better off with a battle rifle such as the M-1 Garand.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | head.

From:	Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Thu, 20 Apr 1995 14:55:04 -0700

Message no. 45 On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, Gurth wrote:

> Not necessarily... if that were the case an A-10 wouldn't damage a tank at
> all (for anyone not knowing what I'm talking about: the A-10 is an American
> ground-attack aircraft carrying the biggest cannon ever put into an
> aircraft, a 30mm 7-barrel contraption. One 30mm round will flatten against a
> modern tank's armor, but an x-round burst fired at 4200 rpm punches

Not true. As Rat pointed out, there is an exothermic reaction
with uranium and steel. Also, the A-10 goes against the thin top armor
of a tank, not the frontal glacis.
Also wrong about biggest cannon in an aircraft. In WWII we
experimented with quad Bofors 40mm in B-25s, and in Vietname we had
C-130s with 105 mm howitzers.

> Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/getchell.html

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Thu, 20 Apr 1995 20:03:44 -0400

Message no. 46 >>>>> "Adam" == Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
writes:

Adam> Also wrong about biggest cannon in an aircraft. In WWII we
Adam> experimented with quad Bofors 40mm in B-25s, and in Vietname we had
Adam> C-130s with 105 mm howitzers.

Largest airborne gun is, I think, the 155mm Howitzer carried by the AC-130H.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | accelerate to dangerous speeds.
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |

From:	Sinbad Sam <sinbad@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Thu, 20 Apr 1995 18:35:07 +0000

Message no. 47 Adam Getchell wrote,

> Not true. As Rat pointed out, there is an exothermic reaction
> with uranium and steel. Also, the A-10 goes against the thin top armor
> of a tank, not the frontal glacis.

Your very correct about aircraft cannon's attacking the top armor so
to speak.

> Also wrong about biggest cannon in an aircraft. In WWII we
> experimented with quad Bofors 40mm in B-25s, and in Vietname we had
> C-130s with 105 mm howitzers.

One point the Germans during WWII had the ME-410 which mounted a 75mm
cannon, And Today the USAF has aircraft that mounts a 105 mm howitser
in a low recoil mount.

Sinbad Sam

From:	Jason Ustica <usticaj@**.ERAU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Thu, 20 Apr 1995 19:03:49 -0700

Message no. 48 On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> >>>>> "Adam" == Adam Getchell
<acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU> writes:
>
> Adam> Also wrong about biggest cannon in an aircraft. In WWII we
> Adam> experimented with quad Bofors 40mm in B-25s, and in Vietname we had
> Adam> C-130s with 105 mm howitzers.
>
> Largest airborne gun is, I think, the 155mm Howitzer carried by the AC-130H.

No I think Adam's right. I believe the largest gun on the AC-130 was the
105mm. A 155mm gun would be way to powerful to mount in an aircraft, even
a C-130. I've talked to a few AC-130 pilots at numerous airshows, and
from what they say, the 105 is a handful as it is. Note I don't have any
documentation to back myself up right now, but I have read extensively
about the C-130 family when I was younger.

/------------------------\/-------------\
|Jason Ustica || Embry-Riddle|
|usticaj@**.erau.edu || Aeronautical|
|GO L.A. KINGS!! (please)|| University |
\------------------------/| Prescott,AZ |
\-------------/

From:	David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Thu, 20 Apr 1995 23:34:32 -0700

Message no. 49 Gurth wrote:

> Not necessarily... if that were the case an A-10 wouldn't damage a tank at
> all (for anyone not knowing what I'm talking about: the A-10 is an American
> ground-attack aircraft carrying the biggest cannon ever put into an
> aircraft, a 30mm 7-barrel contraption. One 30mm round will flatten against a
> modern tank's armor, but an x-round burst fired at 4200 rpm punches
> through... Granted, it's 30mm depleted uranium rounds, not .22LR.)
>
>
Quick Historical Note: The largest cannon successfully mounted on an
aircraft was 75mm it was mounted on the American B-25H bomber, a 75mm was
also mounted on a Stuka Dive Bomber and tested in combat (the pilot did
not like the was the plane seemed to stop when the gun fired) and I had a
grammar school teacher discribe attempts to mount a 5 inch gun on a B-24
Bomber. The gun was fired while the plane was in flight, but the gun kept
ending up in the bomb bay after tearing loose from its mounts.

David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Autofire
Date:	Fri, 21 Apr 1995 11:34:20 +0200

Message no. 50 Adam Getchell:
> Not true. As Rat pointed out, there is an exothermic reaction
>with uranium and steel.

That's what I didn't know (they don't tell you these things in the first
year of a chemical engineering course, you know :)

> Also wrong about biggest cannon in an aircraft. In WWII we
>experimented with quad Bofors 40mm in B-25s, and in Vietname we had
>C-130s with 105 mm howitzers.

I'm always typing before thinking, I guess. Some B-25s had 75mm tank guns,
and I believe the 105mm in the AC-130 was fitted after Vietnam, though.

Rat:
>Largest airborne gun is, I think, the 155mm Howitzer carried by the AC-130H.

105mm (a modified Army M102, I believe, fitted in place of the rear-most
40mm cannon), unless they fitted a 155 in the past few years that I don't
know of. I doubt it though, imagine what the recoil would do to the airframe...

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Living on "if..." and "if I tried..."
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)

Message no. 51 >>>>> "Jason" == Jason Ustica <usticaj@**.ERAU.EDU> writes:

>> Largest airborne gun is, I think, the 155mm Howitzer carried by the AC-130H.

Jason> No I think Adam's right. I believe the largest gun on the AC-130 was
Jason> the 105mm.

Yup; I double-checked and it's a 105mm carried by the AC-130A, AC-130H, and
AC-130U.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | children under 10 should avoid prolonged
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | exposure to Happy Fun Ball.

Message no. 52 <"Arrggh! NO!" They all scream.> <grin>

Sorry (well, not really :-)) to start up the autofire debate again guys,
buuutt - it keeps bugging me.

--------------------------
Paul Jonathan Adam writes:

> And with some tweaking does so very well...

What kind of "tweaks" do you suggest?

---------------------------
Stainless Steel Rat writes:

> [You'll usually only hit with the first 1-3 rounds of a burst, regardless
> of the number of rounds in the burst.]
...then...
> [You'll probably hit with either the first 1-2 rounds, or all but the last
> 1-2 rounds.]

So which is it Rat?

But, seriously Rat, you seem to imply there are two markedly different types
of autofire. That designed to "cover", and that actually designed to hit.
The Suppression Fire rules seem to cover <heh> the former pretty well, but
do the autofire rules cover the later? It could be that all us inexperienced
persons who know nothing about autofire are mixing up suppresion fire and
the other kind, and trying to apply supression fire principles to normal
autofire (you seemed to be saying this before when you posted). Is this
marked difference in the practical applications of autofire so evident? (I
mean, there is a pretty darn great difference in the expected outcomes of a
10 round suppresive burst and a 10 round, um, for lack of a better word
"aimed" burst, according to the SR rules. Does this occur with such a degree
of difference in RL?)

-----------------------------
Michael Orion Jackson writes:

> [Skill plays only a minor part in autofire]
...then...
> [Deterministic rules approach to autofire]

OK, this seems to be a mechanism for suppression fire. Is this right? Or are
things not as Rat seems to imply, and "aimed" autofire is not really
possible at all (rather suppressive autofire should be the normal rules)?

------------------------
Richard Bukowski writes:

> [His house rules which, to my untrained/inexperienced mind, make perfect
> sense]

Note, Rick, I think you calculated the burst Power levels incorrectly, you
took a 3 round burst from an 8M weapon, and made it 10S. Should it not be
11S? Similarly a 2 round burst of the same weapon, shouldn't it be 10M, not
9M? I think you're a Power level under on all your burst code damages.

> [Bob's -1 per 3 rounds mod]

What you say seems like good stuff to me. But remember that someone firing a
minigun is going to be getting an automatic -5 becasue of this rule, and
that coupled with the "clump" rules means that they _absolutely_ waste
people. Realistic enough I suppose (miniguns are not renound for their lack
of effectiveness), but decidedly deadly. A similar outcome will be observed
with someone who fires many rounds from a recoil compensated weapon. If they
have a decent number of dice (like PC sammies), then they can very very
easily make every round hit, since they'll be need 2's or 3's to hit. I
reckon the modifications you already suggested have made SR autofire much
more deadly, and that further deadliness modifications are probably not all
that needed.

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

Message no. 53 Gawd, but this debate gets complicated. My personal belief is that
three-round bursts should be resolved using the standard SRII procedure, as
that is the only burst size that really has a hope in hell of landing on
one target. Larger bursts should either be resolved using some sort of
"suppressive fire" rule as in FoF or by some other set of GM-devised
rules. Note that in the autofire rules I posted, a three-round burst was
stipulated to use the standard rules, with everything larger going into
the non-standard rules I cooked up one dreary night at three in the
morning.
On a vaguely related topic, I feel a little uncomfortable with
the rules concerning "super-machinguns" in FoF. They are not very clear
to me, and the only way I can think of to integrate them into my concept
of autofire is to assume that the shoot two(?) rounds per "shot" and then
plug that back into the definition of autofire. In other words, a Ares
Hvar shooting six rounds would be treated as a "three-round burst" as far as
hit determination goes.
Miniguns would not be subject to this exemption, tho', because
I've heard from people who actually used them (a freind of mine was a
door gunner in Vietnam) that they were a sacred bitch to keep on one target.
They would still kick all ass as suppressive weapons, though. *demonic grin*

Peace
__________________________________________________________________________
|Michael Orion Jackson |"A college student is a mechanism for |
|moj0001@****.acs.unt.edu |converting caffeine into finished |
|>Flaming is immature.< |homework" -unknown, but perceptive author |
__________________________________________________________________________

Message no. 54 >>>>> "Damion" == Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
writes:

>> [You'll usually only hit with the first 1-3 rounds of a burst, regardless
>> of the number of rounds in the burst.]
Damion> ...then...
>> [You'll probably hit with either the first 1-2 rounds, or all but the last
>> 1-2 rounds.]

Damion> So which is it Rat?

Either; it depens on whether you start by aiming at the target or ``walk''
your fire at him. In either case, after you start hitting, recoil will tend
to pull you off target.

Damion> But, seriously Rat, you seem to imply there are two markedly
Damion> different types of autofire. That designed to "cover", and that
Damion> actually designed to hit.

That's right.

Damion> The Suppression Fire rules seem to cover <heh> the former pretty
Damion> well, but do the autofire rules cover the later?

They do moderately well. They're not the most realistic mechanic (SR1's
autofire was closer) but then, as I said, the more realistic you make the
mechanic the more time it will take to resolve. Just compare SR2 with
Phoenix Command sometime to see what I mean.

Damion> It could be that all us inexperienced persons who know nothing
Damion> about autofire are mixing up suppresion fire and the other kind,
Damion> and trying to apply supression fire principles to normal autofire
Damion> (you seemed to be saying this before when you posted).

That wouldn't supprise me; but it's a common mistake. Filling an area with
lead doesn't make it more likely that you'll hit something, but it does
make it more likely that some of what you fire will hit something that you
want to hit. The two sound similar, but there's a difference if you look
carefully.

Damion> Is this marked difference in the practical applications of autofire
Damion> so evident? (I mean, there is a pretty darn great difference in the
Damion> expected outcomes of a 10 round suppresive burst and a 10 round,
Damion> um, for lack of a better word "aimed" burst, according to the SR
Damion> rules. Does this occur with such a degree of difference in RL?)

Yes, it does. Just compare the statistics of World War II, in which the
standard US issue weapon was the M-1 Garand, with the statistics for Viet
Nam, in which the standard issue weapon was the M-16. You will note that
for every round the US Infantryman in WWII fired, a Marine fired between 50
and 100 rounds of ammunition, yet the average WWII Infantryman had an order
of magnitude more confirmed and suspected hits than his Marine counterpart.
Yes, I'll admit that the types of warfare played some role in the disparite
statistics, but still, that's a hell of a lot of ammunition expended by the
Marines for so little return.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox |
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |

Message no. 55 > --------------------------
> Paul Jonathan Adam writes:
>
> > And with some tweaking does so very well...
>
> What kind of "tweaks" do you suggest?

Some revisions of the recoil system, mostly. And I don't assume all
the rounds from a burst hit... the all-or-nothing bit still bugs
me, but the suppressive fire rules pretty much fixed that. I'll post
the modified rules when I kick them into printable shape :-)

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or
for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Message no. 56 > Miniguns would not be subject to this exemption, tho', because
>I've heard from people who actually used them (a freind of mine was a
>door gunner in Vietnam) that they were a sacred bitch to keep on one target.

From what I've read, a minigun is difficult to aim because the barrels spin,
making it difficult to line up the point of aim (in your sight) with the
point the bullets will actually strike. Or something close to that reason.
Maybe we should give miniguns an inherent +1 to the TN except for
suppression fire?

>They would still kick all ass as suppressive weapons, though. *demonic grin*

That's what they're meant for anyway :)

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sanity is contagious
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)

Message no. 57 On Tue, 25 Apr 1995, Gurth wrote:

> > Miniguns would not be subject to this exemption, tho', because
> >I've heard from people who actually used them (a freind of mine was a
> >door gunner in Vietnam) that they were a sacred bitch to keep on one target.
>
>From what I've read, a minigun is difficult to aim because the barrels spin,
> making it difficult to line up the point of aim (in your sight) with the
> point the bullets will actually strike. Or something close to that reason.
> Maybe we should give miniguns an inherent +1 to the TN except for
> suppression fire?
>
They are already subject to a +14 mod on straight recoil, assuming no
recoil comp. or str mods. Someone posted a very detailed description of
the firing cycle of a mimi-gun recently. Basically, the round is fired
at the same point every time, so your aim point is theoretically the
same. Consider, however that the gun+ammo weighs in excess of fifty
pounds or so (25+ kg.) It's hard to keep that much on line EVEN IF you're
not firing it. If you don't believe me, go pick up something that weighs
that much and try to hold it steady enough that a (hypothetical) stream
of bullets coming out the other end remain roughly on target. Unless you
are in very good shape your arms are going to be shaking enough to
throw your aim off. Now imagine the barrels spinning at several hundred
rpm. The torque from this will screw with your aim even more. Now, for
the part every lead-happy PC (uhh, that's redundant, I think) has been
waiting for: you pull the trigger. A stream of lead begins to spew out at
a tremendous rate and spent shell casings begin to pool up around your
anklesat a prodigious rate. But, now the gun is recoiling. As you can
see, firing a mini-gun can be an hellacious ride. Fun, tho'. :)
Seriously, leave minigunners alone. They have it hard enough anyway.
> >They would still kick all ass as suppressive weapons, though.
> >*demonic grin*
> That's what they're meant for anyway :)
>
Anything becomes a suppressive weapon when fired from the side of a
moving helicopter, whether you aim it or not. :)
>
> Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
> Sanity is contagious
> Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
> P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
> B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
>
BTW, I think the STR-based recoil modifier in FoF should be
changed into a STR/BOD mod. Perhaps just average the two stats and use
the same table. Think about it: STR helps you hold the gun in place, and
BOD (the mass and resilience of your body) helps you absorb the force of
the recoil. Just a thought.
Also, I tremendously enjoyed the Running Gear supplement you did,
Gurth. Great job! It takes forever to print, but I get a sadistic thrill
out of annoying the penis masqueradeing as a lab moniter in my dorm. :)
It takes an hour and a half on our printer, and he coudn't cancel the
print job. Muhahaha!
__________________________________________________________________________
|Michael Orion Jackson |"A college student is a mechanism for |
|moj0001@****.acs.unt.edu |converting caffeine into finished |
|>Flaming is immature.< |homework" -unknown, but perceptive author |
__________________________________________________________________________

Message no. 58 > They are already subject to a +14 mod on straight recoil, assuming no
>recoil comp. or str mods.

+15, you also count the first round, as explained in the errata.

>Someone posted a very detailed description of
>the firing cycle of a mimi-gun recently. Basically, the round is fired
>at the same point every time, so your aim point is theoretically the
>same.

That would have been me. It is the same theoratically, but I think that in
practice it varies a bit. Anyway, if you aim a minigun at a fixed point
(brace it real well), I believe the rounds end up in an ellipse, which does
mean the point of aim isn't too well aligned with your sights.

>Consider, however that the gun+ammo weighs in excess of fifty
>pounds or so (25+ kg.) It's hard to keep that much on line EVEN IF you're
>not firing it.

A minigun would have such a recoil that you can't fire it handheld even if
you want to. More Guns! says that General Electric states the recoil for
it's 5.56mm minigun as being around 45kg. The gun itself weighs around 12 kg
(empty), so it would be managable as long as you don't fire it.

> Also, I tremendously enjoyed the Running Gear supplement you did,
>Gurth. Great job!

Thanks :)

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tijd voor een andere tekst...
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)

Message no. 59 On Tue, 25 Apr 1995, Michael Orion Jackson wrote:

> BTW, I think the STR-based recoil modifier in FoF should be
> changed into a STR/BOD mod. Perhaps just average the two stats and use
> the same table. Think about it: STR helps you hold the gun in place, and
> BOD (the mass and resilience of your body) helps you absorb the force of
> the recoil. Just a thought.

And a good one at that. But wouldn't this depend on the weapon?
Like, small weapons don't have that much mass to be countered by Body?
Maybe it would be, like, perhaps, a division between Firearms and
Gunnery? Firearms Recoil Negation depending on Str only, and Gunnery Recoil
Negation depending on a Bod/Str average? Or maybe that'd be too
complicated? Or maybe the Hauling the Load ruled incorporate this? With
Fatigue TN modifiers, I mean? I don't know, do you? Do you like question
marks? I know I do?

-Jonas

Message no. 60 On Wed, 26 Apr 1995, Jonas Gabrielson wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Apr 1995, Michael Orion Jackson wrote:
>
> > BTW, I think the STR-based recoil modifier in FoF should be
> > changed into a STR/BOD mod. Perhaps just average the two stats and use
> > the same table. Think about it: STR helps you hold the gun in place, and
> > BOD (the mass and resilience of your body) helps you absorb the force of
> > the recoil. Just a thought.
>
> And a good one at that. But wouldn't this depend on the weapon?
> Like, small weapons don't have that much mass to be countered by Body?
> Maybe it would be, like, perhaps, a division between Firearms and
> Gunnery? Firearms Recoil Negation depending on Str only, and Gunnery Recoil
> Negation depending on a Bod/Str average? Or maybe that'd be too
> complicated? Or maybe the Hauling the Load ruled incorporate this? With
> Fatigue TN modifiers, I mean? I don't know, do you? Do you like question
> marks? I know I do?
>
> -Jonas
>
I think that body mass would apply universally to help negate recoil.
Recoil is a physical force like any other, so the same force (i.e. a shot
from the same gun) acting on two different masses should theoretically
move the larger mass less. So if you weigh in at 200 Kg. (one to many
tweenkies, eh?) and you're little bro' weighs 100 Kg, theoretically you
would be moved half as far by a shot from the same gun. The physics I am
using is grossly oversimplified, but I don't want to make this too
complicated. Suppose we compromise and say that every weapon SMG class
and above (i.e. anything that can be used with two hands) gets the
STR/BOD mod and the various pistols get the straight STR mod.

Peace,
__________________________________________________________________________
|Michael Orion Jackson |"A college student is a mechanism for |
|moj0001@****.acs.unt.edu |converting caffeine into finished |
|>Flaming is immature.< |homework" -unknown, but perceptive author |
__________________________________________________________________________

Message no. 61 >> They are already subject to a +14 mod on straight recoil, assuming no
>>recoil comp. or str mods.
>
>+15, you also count the first round, as explained in the errata.

Don't mind me or anything guys, but don't you still _double_ recoil
for vindicators? It'd have to be a pretty low calibre minigun to get
single recoil. OTOH, if it was in .22, It'd still do nearly the same
damage, it just wouldn't go through hardened armour.

Mind you, I do like the idea of Averaging Body and Str for recoil
reduction, I already modified the table so you had to be a _bit_
bigger to get the hig mods. though.

Phil (Renegade)

Message no. 62 >>>>> "P" == P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK> writes:

P> Mind you, I do like the idea of Averaging Body and Str for recoil
P> reduction, I already modified the table so you had to be a _bit_
P> bigger to get the hig mods. though.

I suggested this idea, (Str+Bod)/2, about two years ago :).

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | unknown glowing substance which fell to
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | Earth, presumably from outer space.

Message no. 63 In your message dated Wednesday 26, April 1995 you wrote :
> On Tue, 25 Apr 1995, Michael Orion Jackson wrote:
>
> > BTW, I think the STR-based recoil modifier in FoF should be
> > changed into a STR/BOD mod. Perhaps just average the two stats and use
> > the same table. Think about it: STR helps you hold the gun in place,
> > and BOD (the mass and resilience of your body) helps you absorb the
> > force of the recoil. Just a thought.

> And a good one at that. But wouldn't this depend on the weapon?
> Like, small weapons don't have that much mass to be countered by Body?
> Maybe it would be, like, perhaps, a division between Firearms and
> Gunnery? Firearms Recoil Negation depending on Str only, and Gunnery
> Recoil Negation depending on a Bod/Str average? Or maybe that'd be too
> complicated? Or maybe the Hauling the Load ruled incorporate this? With
> Fatigue TN modifiers, I mean? I don't know, do you? Do you like question
> marks? I know I do?

I was always suspicious of "body = bulk" and don't use that. Most of the
SAS and the Parachute Regiment are actually quite small, lightly built men
who turn out to be made out of steel hawsers and titanium bones :-)

Body, to me, represents toughness, resistance to infection, and so on. In
my game, a huge, fat couch potato would have Body 1: The OmniPresent Lynch,
who looks like he needs a few good meals to fatten him up, has Body 7 when
you include the bone lacing. Mere bulk doesn't come into it.

So someone with Body 6 could be overpowered easily by a burst of recoil...

Just my UKP 0.016 worth...

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Message no. 64 >Don't mind me or anything guys, but don't you still _double_ recoil
>for vindicators? It'd have to be a pretty low calibre minigun to get
>single recoil. OTOH, if it was in .22, It'd still do nearly the same
>damage, it just wouldn't go through hardened armour.

Vindicators do use the +2 recoil mods (pg 58 SSC 2nd ed) for heavy weapons,
though they are considered light machineguns for the purpose of range (seems
to remember that LMG's used normal recoil rules, but isn't quite sure).

>Mind you, I do like the idea of Averaging Body and Str for recoil
>reduction, I already modified the table so you had to be a _bit_
>bigger to get the hig mods. though.

Well, there's all kinds of ways of dealing with recoil. I kinda like the
(body+strength)/2 thing, but that (in my group) makes overall recoil
compensation higher if anything. Another way is to think... "is there
really any gas vent out there that will allow 4 shots (or even 3) before
recoil starts acting up?" The answer is no... Now, I know this is cutting
away parts of the game (and normally we only add things like this) so I
don't expect too many people agreeing here. But I'm going to a Gas-vent 1
and Gas-vent 2 system that is (to me) more realistic for the purposes of my
game. I can see maybe three shots getting off okay with a monstrous gas
vent before recoil starts working against you, but not something like 6.

I also add things like barrel weights (can't remember technical term for the
life of me...wants to say muzzle brake) that drop another point of recoil.

Anyone else out there working in these directions? And I really do like the
idea of modifying that chart. What numbers do you use? And would you
impose extra recoil for weak runners? (just a thought...I might end up
doing that, too).

-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>

Message no. 65 Something I've considered in the case that I ever run my own SR game is to
shift the STR required to get recoil comp down by one for weapons with
a power rating of 6 or less, and shift it up by one for those with power
10 or higher, and maybe again for those over 12, etc. This leaves the
mainstays of heavy pistols, asault rifles and most SMGs in the same
category as before. This does have the effect of making light pistols,
machine pistols and the lighter calibre SMGs desirable for runners who're
just in good shape and not STR 5 or 6 powerhouses :-). Anyway I think
that Light Pistols and Machine Pistols offer little, even in terms of
concealability. Mainly a roleplaying thing.

Tim Serpas :Geek Code v.2: GS d- H++>+++ s:- !g p1 auVW a- w+ v+ C+(++++)
BS Physics : U P? !L !3 E---- N++ K++ W M- !V -po+ Y+>++ t+ !5 j+>$
wretch@**.com: R+ G'' tv+>! b+>++ D+ B-- e++>-- u+ h- f+>* r+ n+ y+
"The world is made up of electrons, protons, neutrons and morons."
Morgus the Magnificent

Message no. 66 Y'all wrote
<stuff about hihg body <> bulk>

Mind you I allowed the players to go over racial max (to 1.5 like it
sayas at the back) and I regret it now. e have a 15 year old girl
with body 9!

I make them get large chairs for their cars, etc. They look like
Arnie as far as I'm concerned. Fortunatley most of them replaced
their muslce replacements with Augs, which don;t increase bulk, so
they're not quite as big as they were.

Phil (Renegade)

Message no. 67 Tim serpas Wrote

<stuff about altering recoil reduction due to STR)

Sounds good enough, if a little fiddly to remember in the midst of a fast-
paced combat. I'll think about using that. Remember though, for those of
you wioth Troll sammuies, max recoil reduction due to str is 4 (from the
table, not the paragraph).

Personally I like Light Pistols; good capacity, and a 6 in the head (at
4's with smart-II in the right situation). And I tend to modify MP's
for fully auto; we have it now, why not in SR?

Phil (Renegade)
who likes to use Ceska VZ/120's as a dress gun.

Message no. 68 On Wed, 26 Apr 1995, Paul J. Adam wrote:

> I was always suspicious of "body = bulk" and don't use that. Most of the
> SAS and the Parachute Regiment are actually quite small, lightly built men
> who turn out to be made out of steel hawsers and titanium bones :-)
>
> Body, to me, represents toughness, resistance to infection, and so on. In
> my game, a huge, fat couch potato would have Body 1: The OmniPresent Lynch,
> who looks like he needs a few good meals to fatten him up, has Body 7 when
> you include the bone lacing. Mere bulk doesn't come into it.
>
> So someone with Body 6 could be overpowered easily by a burst of recoil...

I agree that you have a definite pint here, but there is a
precedent rule using the "Body equals bulk"-theory, and that is the
Stopping/Knockdown Rule - you know, when you're hit badly, you make a
Body chack against Power to see if you fly backwards into the wall. I saw
someone had a babble if this was actually physically possible, but we
wouldn't like another, thank U very much. I just think it's cool, and use
it anyway.

But to add to the mayhem, recoil absorbtion is a *lot* about
posture. I've gone through my military education, and I want to tell you
that it's no breeze to hold back recoil from an assault rifle. Actually,
my experience is that everyone, regardless of bulk and brawn, was equally
phazed by the awsome power of recoil - it's almost impossible to brace
yourself in advance, since it's so fast (the recoil almost comes before
you pull the trigger :) ). A part of this might be that you hold the
rifle to your shoulder, and only a fraction of the body is actually
moved, but I won't go into this at depth.

Anyway - posture. You know an assault rifle is rested against the
sholder for recoil reduction. Well, if you just place the rifle a bit
wrong, you might end up with the shoulder joint snapped. That is how
powerful the reciol is. To counter this you have to stand in a special
way - lean forward on your foremost leg (squatting just a bit), and put
the hindmost leg ninety degrees from the direction of aim. Even then, the
rifle will jump in single-shot fire, and you'll spend a second to realign
your aiming. As a rule, we never used full auto fire.

Granted, this was a heavy, bulky rifle not of the modern designs
(i.e. made of metal instead of plastics), firing a 7,62 calibre slug, and
am neither the world's best sharpshooter (although I was top three in my
company) nor am I large and strong (rather, I'm of average height and
below-average weight - lanky and sinewy with lots endurance), but I think
you get the picture.

Actually, I'm not even sure of the Strength rule, but I use it to
keep gamers happy, and thinking that maybe it can be made. I still think
a Str/Bod average is feasible (given the rules precendent mentioned), but
maybe it should be used on weapons braced against the abdomen (or
similar), since they would work against a greater part of the body mass.
This means it would be applied primarily to large weapons used in
suppression fire.

Thoughts?

-Jonas

Message no. 69 >Mind you I allowed the players to go over racial max (to 1.5 like it
>sayas at the back) and I regret it now. e have a 15 year old girl
>with body 9!

Sorry chummer, but you shouldn't let things get out of hand like this.

So you let the characters get stats above racial max - don't just let them say
"I now have a body of 8 - I paid the karma - SO I get it" Make them explain it
away with roleplaying and characterization". There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that a 15
year old girl will have a body of 9 unless she is 7 feet tall and 250+
pounds!!! (and if she is that big - try and find her a date :).

She would be VERY noticeble.

Try one of my NPC's - CRUSH from shadowtalk. CRUSH exceeds the troll body
and str natural limits (and this is not counting in all of the bioware and
cyber) CRUSH is also 12'7" tall and weighs 600+ pounds. and he has about
2% body fat (his metabolism is just way too high). His caloric intake
is somewhere around 10K calories a day. thats about real 9 meals. He has a
walk in refrigerator at home.

Don't let the players bowl you over - make a stand and make things fit. If the
character wants to raise his attributes - have them talk to you first. people
just don't change this quickly. Tonight I am putting a stop to the Rigger in
our group who started off with a Chr of 2 and is now up to a 5, the reason why
is that I haven't explained things well enough to him about how I let people
advance. He knows how many points it takes and raises things, but I still say
people should have reasons for raising something by more than 1 in any short
period of time - even if the reason is just intensive use (like firearms).

Nightfox

Message no. 70 >>Mind you I allowed the players to go over racial max (to 1.5 like it
>>says at the back) and I regret it now. We have a 15 year old girl
>>with body 9!

>Sorry chummer, but you shouldn't let things get out of hand like this.

I have a solution that seems to work really well for the "over racial max"
problem. For the 1st point over it costs twice the karma. 2nd point =
three times. 3rd point = four times. 4th point = 5 times. 5th point = 6
times. Based on the rules, 5 points is the highest anything could go up
(troll body attribute). Let's say a troll with 11 body wants to have a
natural 16. That works out to be (24 + 39 + 52 + 75 + 96) 286 karma. And
it's realistic, too! (a main theme in any rule I butcher/redesign/create)
Now the other extreme is something like a troll who wants to be smart.
Racial max of 4 can be upped to a 6 at a cost of 28 karma. Human
strength... RM 6, upped to 9 = 74 karma. Whatcha think?

Another way to work the costs (so they kinda come out even, this is more
realistic) is to use the unmodified stat (i.e. troll with 11 body raises
attribute as if it were a 6) cost for the first example now changes to (14 +
24 + 36 + 50 + 66) 190 karma. Second example = 38 karma. Third, of course,
is still 74. This achieves realism in that it uses a percentage-type system
for enhancements based on character racial limits/bonuses. It's cheaper in
some ways, more expensive in others, but more fair overall. The only spot
where a GM suffers is that it's that much easier for a troll to hit 16
natural body...yikes. But it's still harder than "normal" (which is 140
karma). What's the opinion on this one?

-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Who is now thinking he'll use the second one...

Message no. 71 Ngithfox
<wrote lots of things on the subject of mirage; who's now 16 and 200 lbs>

Exactly what I thought, wish I'd noticed when she added the karam on...

They do have trouble finding her a date, and she does weigh about 200 lbs,
she has trouble getting into small cars, etc. she is very noticeable,
she is also quite insane (she has a cyberarm with a narco-gun implant,
and normally loads a random mix of Black Lace, Neurostun, Doom, and
Cyanide), she killed her own father at her corp's behest, and nowe
adopts random members of the team as her father for each mission!

Funnily enough she's so noticeable that the team want to kill her!
She has become a liability!

We have a troll like that, he's called Boar. I took the proportions of a
basketball player, and compared to a normal human, and then applied the
same stats to the troll average.

Boar is about 350cm, 300 odd Kg's, and has cerebral boosters to make him
as smart as a 12 year old. the player is something of a poewr gamer, but
Boar is a lovely character, he never remembers how to reload guns,
sometimes forgets just which amrtial art he knows, and loves small animals
(he has a few dead ones in his voluminous pockets). Boar's great.

We do tend to advance over a fairly long period, but I agree, in some cases
(mirage particularly, that's why she has to die Bwa-Ha-Ha) I did let them
get out of hand. Funny, most people see me as a pretty tioght DM.

Phil (Renegade)

Message no. 72 > > I was always suspicious of "body = bulk" and don't use that. Most of
> > the SAS and the Parachute Regiment are actually quite small, lightly
> > built men who turn out to be made out of steel hawsers and titanium
> > bones :-)
> >
> > Body, to me, represents toughness, resistance to infection, and so on.
> > In my game, a huge, fat couch potato would have Body 1

> I agree that you have a definite pint here, but there is a
> precedent rule using the "Body equals bulk"-theory, and that is the
> Stopping/Knockdown Rule

It's not precedent, it's FASA's decision that Body is both size and
toughness, and at least they're consistent. I just disagree with it in many
ways. For Knockdown, a high-Body character is fit, tough and stays up: a
low-Body character collapses in a heap sobbing when hit.

> But to add to the mayhem, recoil absorbtion is a *lot* about
> posture.

Absolutely.

> Anyway - posture. You know an assault rifle is rested against the
> sholder for recoil reduction. Well, if you just place the rifle a bit
> wrong, you might end up with the shoulder joint snapped. That is how
> powerful the reciol is. To counter this you have to stand in a special
> way - lean forward on your foremost leg (squatting just a bit), and put
> the hindmost leg ninety degrees from the direction of aim. Even then, the
> rifle will jump in single-shot fire, and you'll spend a second to realign
> your aiming. As a rule, we never used full auto fire.

What were you using? G3s, FN-FALs? I never had a problem with the L1A1 SLR,
firing rapid aimed shots from the shoulder...about three rounds in two
seconds at a hundred yards for almost all hits. But the target didn't
duck, didn't dodge and didn't shoot back :-)

> Thoughts?

I don't use the Body/Strength rule except to impose penalties in extreme
cases - a Str 2 / Body 2 mage with a Ruger Super Warhawk, for instance.
Having fired a .44 Magnum, they are *lively* rounds - and I'm an
experienced pistol shot, who owns a .45ACP automatic and loads his own ammo
pretty hot (Major plus 5% - 200-grain lead semi-wadcutter at 850fps).

I do use a rather mutilated recoil system, and will post it in a while. I'm
away for two weeks, though, so won't be saying much for a fortnight :-(

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Message no. 73 Topcat wrote :-
> I also add things like barrel weights (can't remember technical term for the
> life of me...wants to say muzzle brake) that drop another point of recoil.

I think it's called Heavy Barrel, as in M16 H-Bar.

Phil (Renegade)

Message no. 74 P Ward writes:

> Remember though, for those of you wioth Troll sammuies, max recoil
> reduction due to str is 4 (from the table, not the paragraph).

Couldn't you interpret it so that, like it says "For every 2 full points of
a character's Strength Rating above 3, the character gains 1 level of Recoil
Reduction..."? And that the table is just a reference of the more common
Strength Ratings for ease of use? I can't see why the bonus would suddenly
cut out at 12 Strength, pretty illogical.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

Message no. 75 Damion Wrote
> Couldn't you interpret it so that, like it says "For every 2 full points of
> a character's Strength Rating above 3, the character gains 1 level of Recoil
> Reduction..."? And that the table is just a reference of the more common
> Strength Ratings for ease of use? I can't see why the bonus would suddenly
> cut out at 12 Strength, pretty illogical.

Oh yes, you can and that's probably the way it was meant. My players
certainly would have taken it that way, if they'd looked at the book
carefully enough.

However, I like autofire weapons to have some chance of missing, even
with the new-improved autofire system, I'm trying to use.

Phil (Renegade)

Message no. 76 >Topcat wrote :-
>> I also add things like barrel weights (can't remember technical term for the
>> life of me...wants to say muzzle brake) that drop another point of recoil.
>
>I think it's called Heavy Barrel, as in M16 H-Bar.

That I haven't added, yet (but I will). What I was thinking of is actually
kind of a blocky addition to the barrel. Best example that comes to mind is
that of the P9-S sport version. There is an addition to the barrel that
helps to negate recoil with its extra weight.

And why hasn't anyone posted back about the recoil things I asked about?
(wondering if that message went to the list in full or just to Phil)

-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>

Message no. 77 >Couldn't you interpret it so that, like it says "For every 2 full points of
>a character's Strength Rating above 3, the character gains 1 level of Recoil
>Reduction..."? And that the table is just a reference of the more common
>Strength Ratings for ease of use? I can't see why the bonus would suddenly
>cut out at 12 Strength, pretty illogical.

Right, but that's another reason why I think that a 3-5 strength should be
the base 0 recoil comp. 1-2 should be +1 recoil (they aren't strong enough
to handle firearms that well.) then go up from there. 6-8 = -1. 9-11 =
-2. 12-14 = -3. Etcetera. Or however you wish to run it in your game.
Whatcha think?

-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>

Message no. 78 On Sun, 30 Apr 1995, P Ward wrote:

> Topcat wrote :-
> > I also add things like barrel weights (can't remember technical term for the
> > life of me...wants to say muzzle brake) that drop another point of recoil.
>
> I think it's called Heavy Barrel, as in M16 H-Bar.
>
I can remember a special term for barrel wieghts, but the idea
behind them is to change the overall balance of the weapon (normally a
pistol) so it points better. This is normally done with low caliber (i.e.
22LR) target pistols). The Heavy barrel is based on a different theory,
that a heavy barrel is less effected by heat (from the firing of the
weapon) and from other stresses on the barrel (from a leather sling).
Speaking of weapons accesories there is one that makes a great
deal of difference when using a rifle for aimed fire. Slings are more
then just a way to carry a rifle around (despite what the US Army thinks)

David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

Message no. 79 On Fri, 28 Apr 1995, Bob Ooton wrote:

> I have a solution that seems to work really well for the "over racial max"
> problem. For the 1st point over it costs twice the karma. 2nd point =
> three times. 3rd point = four times. 4th point = 5 times. 5th point = 6

Heh. My GM (Hi, Russ) implemented something like this for all attribute
increases, not just over-racial-max. First raise cost the new level in
karma points. Second raise cost 2x new level, and so on. I think it was
actually my idea, but he pounced on it. Gotta learn to keep my mouth shut.
:)

--Craig

Message no. 80 Dave Hinkley Wrote :-
> Speaking of weapons accesories there is one that makes a great
> deal of difference when using a rifle for aimed fire. Slings are more
> then just a way to carry a rifle around (despite what the US Army thinks)

I assume you mean it makes aiming them easier if you wrap them round your arm
or something? Rather than being recoil compensation Neh?

Not being a gun-user, I wouldn't know.

Phil (Renegade)

Message no. 81 >Dave Hinkley Wrote :-
>> Speaking of weapons accesories there is one that makes a great
>> deal of difference when using a rifle for aimed fire. Slings are more
>> then just a way to carry a rifle around (despite what the US Army thinks)
>
>I assume you mean it makes aiming them easier if you wrap them round your arm
>or something? Rather than being recoil compensation Neh?

If that's the case, then the US Army knows that well enough and has for
decades...

-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>

Message no. 82 On Tue, 2 May 1995, P Ward wrote:

> Dave Hinkley Wrote :-
> > Speaking of weapons accesories there is one that makes a great
> > deal of difference when using a rifle for aimed fire. Slings are more
> > then just a way to carry a rifle around (despite what the US Army thinks)
>
> I assume you mean it makes aiming them easier if you wrap them round your arm
> or something? Rather than being recoil compensation Neh?

A sling makes it easier to hold the rifle steady. The front sight
does not move as much (or at all, but if the sling is too tight your
pluse can effect your accuracy) making it easier to insure that is on
target when the rifle goes off (if a marksman is good he does not know
the exact moment the rifle will fire until it does). The key in target
shooting is to be perfectly still at the time of shooting, if the shooter
can be still and keep a good sight picture he has the best chance of
hitting the desired target. As to the second part it has little effect on
the recoil other then insuring that the shooter does not make any of the
mistakes that makes it worse (failing to hold the rifle firmly to the
shoulder is a good example of this type of mistake).

David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

Message no. 83 Marc Renouf wrote:

> It is for this reason that I handle autofire as a sort of open
>test, wherein it's possible to hit with fewer rounds than you allocated
>to a target.

Which triggered a few ideas. I don't have any specifics (as I can't bring
those rule books to work) but thought I'd bounce it off the walls for feedback.

The person firing the autofire weapon picks a spot that he wants to shoot
at. TN is based on range. Check for scatter per the grenade rules (roll
2d6 to determine number of possible meters off target, and 1d6 for
direction, each success reduces the scatter by one meter).

Autofire weapons have a spread, similar to shotguns. The spread of the
autofire burst is based on range and uncompensated recoil. The greater the
range, the greater the spread. The greater the recoil, the greater the
spread. Reduce the power/damage of the attack in a manner similar to the
shotgun spread rules. Target's within the zone of fire may dodge the
attack in a manner similar to the shotgun spread rules.

Thoughts?

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"All things are at all times, in motion. Take the time to watch the dance."
-John Caeser Leafston

Message no. 84 Hi Folks!

Tonight, after seeing a classic example of the SR autofire rules in
(mis)action, I prompted my group to discuss house rule options. For the
record, the situation in question was the teams Troll trying out a new gun
at "Big Al's Guns, Ammo, and Sex Slaves" (kind of a story, but let's just
say that the place is in Africa - see the Cyberpirates sourcebook), on an
otherwise slow selling slave (kind of a story, but let's just say that I run
an often dark campaign). The gun in question was a vindicator minigun on a
gyro mount.

So our intrepid (yeah, right!) runner aims the weapon at the unsuspecting
(yeah, right!) target, and lets loose a 15 round long autofire burst. In
the existing SR rules, he had 6 points of recoil compensation from the gyro
mount, and 1 from his strength. The target number was 4, because conditions
were good (the target in question was being held in place by the two other
slow selling sex slaves who drew the slightly longer straws), and it was
daytime with no other adverse conditions. So his TN was 4 + 8x2 (8
uncompensated rounds, and the double heavy weapon modifier), for a final TN
of 20. Obviously, he missed, and said that the gun was crap.

Had the gun hit, it would have done 22D! 7S base damage, and +15 power, + 5
damage levels for the 15 rounds fired. More than likely it would have been
only with a single success.

At this point, we began our discussion. The rules we hashed out are as
follows:

Ignore the SR burst and autofire rules completely.

Burst and autofire are handled in exactly the same way, but the actions
(Simple and Complex) to perform them remain as in the old rules.

Any burst or autofire, regardless of the number of rounds fired, has a
damage code of the base damage of the weapon.

For every 3 rounds fired, the firer receives a -1 TN modifier.

For each round fired that is compensated for by recoil compensators
(strength, gas vents, gryo mounts, etc., etc.) the firer receives an
additional die to the roll. The number of additional dice received is
limited by the lesser of (a) the firers skill with the weapon, or (b) the
number of rounds fired.

Blast away!

So, the second shot arrives, as Big Al eggs him on with "c'mon, you can do
better than that!". So, our honourable (hah!) runner lines up the now bowel
released and drek scared sex slave, being held by two more equally feacally
endowed sex slaves, and blasts away. The TN is 4, as before. Firing 15
rounds gives him a -5 to his TN. With his skill of 6 in Heavy Weapons, he
gets 6 additional dice to roll for the test. Blatto! Scratch one slow
selling sex slave. (Seriously, folks, I didn't actually expect the players
to go through with this, it was only intended as a dark mood setting event
to show the levels of depravation and desparation that are reached in parts
of Africa in the SR world.)

He rolled about 10 successes, which meant that he hit for 7D + 8 successes.

Anyway, this particular example was the worst case scenario, and showed how
_seriously_nasty_ these rules could be.

The next example was an Aztech truck driver (later on in the night) who had
an Uzi III with a laser sight. He fired a burst of 3 rounds and had a skill
of 3. He was shooting at a manifested Force 9 Air Elemental, and so was
never going to have any effect whatsoever anyway, but the example is at the
other end of the spectrum. His TN was 4 (they were in the cabin of the
truck), less 1 for the laser sight, and less 1 for the 3 round burst. He
had no recoil compensation, and so he didn't get any additional dice. He
rolled two successes, and thus hit for 6S.

Under the old rules, the driver would have had a TN of 4 +3 (for recoil) -1
(for laser sight) = 6. His damage would have been 9S, and he would have
missed.

The reasoning for these rules is as follows:

In general (Paul?) automatic weapon fire is used primarily because it puts
more rounds in the air toward the target, and thus increases the likelihood
that 1 or 2 of these rounds will actually strike the target. In SR,
automatic weapon fire assumes that ALL of the rounds hit, or ALL of the
rounds miss. Thus a target either gets completely annihillated, or is
unharmed by the fusilade of lead flying around him.

The way recoil affects the TNs in SR makes autofire an "all or nothing"
proposition. So we figured that since the idea is to increase the chances
of doing approximately the normal damage of the weapon, then we wouldn't
adjust the Power or Damage Level of the attack. We would simply make it
easier to hit for that level of damage. Hence the -1 per 3 rounds
modifier. The firer will be able to more easily roll successes, and will
thus be more likly to hit.

Then we wondered how recoil compensators would come into play, as they
increase the number of rounds that will land on target, thus also increasing
the damage done. So we fell back to another common SR method of providing
assistance: extra dice. Additional dice give a greater chance of getting
more successes, and thus increasing the damage done.

In the final result, the damage done can be considered to be either one of,
or a combination of, better round placement, or more rounds hitting. The
entire process is an abstraction. GMs can gorily describe how victims of
autofire are blown to chunky little bits, or deprived of the tops of their
heads, or whatever, with as few or as many rounds hitting as suits their
descriptive needs at the time.

Notes: This system probably works a little better in our game, because we
use the Melee Staging rules for Ranged Combat. If this makes no sense, then
let me explain.

In melee combat if the damage is staged up to Deadly, and additional
successes remain, then every two additional successes add one to the Power
of the attack.

In ranged combat, if the damage is staged to Deadly, each additional success
must be countered by the victim before the damage can be resisted.

So in our games, in ranged combat, additional successes past the number
required to reach Deadly add one to the power per two successes. So in the
example above of 7D + 8 successes, this would turn into 11D. We find that
this rule is quite satisfactory, as it still means that it's possible to
injure people in heavy armour if you're good enough to get the Power up, and
it allows people with low Body attributes to have a chance of surviving a
really good shot. Rather than simply needing 5 more successes than they have
dice to begin with, they need 8's instead of 4's on their test.

With a couple of typical examples other than the ones above, we came to the
conclusion that the new autofire rules had a couple of effects. Usually
people using autofire would hit significantly more often than they used to.
In fact, they would hit far more often. On the other hand, when they hit
now, they would hit for significantly less damage than in the past. The
damage, however, was usually a decent amount more than a single shot, simply
due to the increased number of successes (which can be visualised as more
rounds hitting). It made autofire a lot more dangerous than the joke that
it used to be, but it actually made it somewhat less dangerous for big,
hard, armoured targets (like Trolls in Heavy Security Armour) because the
damage was actually more managable now.

What does everyone think? (PS thanks TopCat for the original inspiriation
many years ago - it took me this long to try the rest and become unsatisfied
:-))

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 85 Damion Milliken wrote:

> <SNIP> (the target in question was being held in place by the two other
> slow selling sex slaves who drew the slightly longer straws), and it was
> daytime with no other adverse conditions. So his TN was 4 + 8x2 (8
> uncompensated rounds, and the double heavy weapon modifier), for a final TN
> of 20. Obviously, he missed, and said that the gun was crap.
> <SNIP> held by two more equally feacally endowed sex slaves, and blasts away.
> The TN is 4, as before. Firing 15 rounds gives him a -5 to his TN. With his
> skill of 6 in Heavy Weapons, he
> gets 6 additional dice to roll for the test. Blatto! Scratch one slow
> selling sex slave. <SNIP>
> In general (Paul?) automatic weapon fire is used primarily because it puts
> more rounds in the air toward the target, and thus increases the likelihood
> that 1 or 2 of these rounds will actually strike the target. In SR,
> automatic weapon fire assumes that ALL of the rounds hit, or ALL of the
> rounds miss. Thus a target either gets completely annihillated, or is
> unharmed by the fusilade of lead flying around him.

Just have to comment here. With the miss, and the fact that two people were
HOLDING the target, I would have assumed that the two slaves holding the hapless
one in place would have been annihilated and you would have had one scared
sh*tless slave going "oh my god oh my god oh my god" on the ground covered in
blood and splattered body parts.
<SNIP>

--
--Strago

All Hail Apathy! Or don't. Whatever. -abortion_engine

Down with the Moral Majority
-Green Day

Message no. 86 On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Tonight, after seeing a classic example of the SR autofire rules in
> (mis)action, I prompted my group to discuss house rule options.

[SNIP example]

My problem with your proposed rule is this: a burst-fire SMG with
full recoil comp has a better chance to hit than a single round fired from
a weapon (as the 3 rounds give you a -1 T#, as well as 3 more dice from
the recoil comp). Realistically, that's not the case.
You made a comment (and an appeal to Paul for verification) that
the reason you shoot more rounds is to have a higher probability of
hitting. The answer is "it depends."
I think you're confusing "searching" or "suppressive" fire with
targeted auto fire. The reason that SMG's tend to limit it to three round
bursts is not because it increases your chance of hitting the target, but
rather because it increases your chance of inflicting lethal damage to
said target. All three rounds should land in (more or less) the same
general area. This is aimed fire.
Suppressive fire, on the other hand, seeks merely to fill the air
with lead in order in increase the chances that *something* will hit
(although it's usually only a round or two out of the whole mess).
It's not targeted or aimed, and it's most effective aspect is that it
scares the crap out of people.
There are already rules for both suppressive and searching fire
(in the Cannon Companion, sorry, I don't have a page reference). You may
want to take a gander at them and see if they offer anything useful.
I agree that the published rules suck. You know the house rules
that we use and I understand that you prefer a different solution. This
method is better than the published rules by far, and with the exception
of the fact that I think it confuses two very separate methods of autofire
weapons use, it would probably be fine over the long haul.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@*********.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;

Message no. 87 >So our intrepid (yeah, right!) runner aims the weapon at the unsuspecting
>(yeah, right!) target, and lets loose a 15 round long autofire burst. In
>the existing SR rules, he had 6 points of recoil compensation from the gyro
>mount, and 1 from his strength. The target number was 4, because conditions
>were good (the target in question was being held in place by the two other
>slow selling sex slaves who drew the slightly longer straws), and it was
>daytime with no other adverse conditions. So his TN was 4 + 8x2 (8
>uncompensated rounds, and the double heavy weapon modifier), for a final TN
>of 20. Obviously, he missed, and said that the gun was crap.
>
>Had the gun hit, it would have done 22D! 7S base damage, and +15 power, + 5
>damage levels for the 15 rounds fired. More than likely it would have been
>only with a single success.

One idea I toyed with in the past was that instead of rolling it
as one attack for a full auto spray, you could break it down into multiple
bursts. So in the above example you would instead roll for 5 separate
attack tests against the target, the first 2 bursts being pretty easy but
each one becoming more difficult due to accumulated recoil. There are of
course a few possible problems with this method, the biggest issue being
that now you have to roll 5 attack tests instead of only one, which will
slow things way down. You also have to decide how combat pool spent on the
attack would be allocated. Would you add the dice to each burst, or have
to split them between the bursts? This method would make more sense for
spraying multiple targets in a single complex action, but could be a
workable way to throw a bunch of rounds at a single target.
Any thoughts, comments, or flames for wasting game time rolling a
million dice?

archangel@*********.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12 (Decipher at http://www.geekcode.com/ )
GU d- s+: a22? C++ UL P L+ E(----) W+ N++ o? K? w(---) O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+
PGP? t-- 5 X+ R+ tv b++(+++) DI++++ D++ G e h(--) !r y-
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

Message no. 88 Marc Renouf writes:

> My problem with your proposed rule is this: a burst-fire SMG with
> full recoil comp has a better chance to hit than a single round fired from
> a weapon (as the 3 rounds give you a -1 T#, as well as 3 more dice from
> the recoil comp). Realistically, that's not the case.
>
> <Snip targeted burst fire explanation>

Hmm, you make a good point here.

Someone with such an SMG and a skill of 4 would need 4's to hit with a
single round in good conditions, and would get, say, 2 successes, for a
final dammage code of 6S.

If they fired a burst, then they'd need 3's, and they'd get 7 dice. They'd
get, say, 5 successes, for a final damage code of 6D.

Assuming that they both actually hit (see below*), then the rules I've
proposed somewhat model the "lethal damage" of a controlled 3 round burst.
The final effect, game wise, is a Deadly wound over a Serious wound. The
mechanics might not look at the situation exactly right, but they do
generate an appropriate result.

* The problem, as you stated, is that the person firing a controlled 3 round
burst in difficult conditions is much more likely to do damage than someone
firing a controlled single shot in the same conditions. Once the TN gets to
6 or so, then a -1 can make a huge difference. I suspect that in an
appropriately controllable weapon (such as one with gas venting) the 3 round
burst if fired in a controlled manner would likely be an all hit or all miss
proposition, in much the same way as a single shot would be. Is this
reasonable? If it is, then the SR mechanics actually work OK, at least for
controlled bursts using compensated weapons.

> There are already rules for both suppressive and searching fire
> (in the Cannon Companion, sorry, I don't have a page reference). You may
> want to take a gander at them and see if they offer anything useful.

Searching fire is pretty much absolutely useless as the rules are
presented. The example with the vindicator minigun would have given the
firer an additional 5 dice, but his TN would still have been 20. There
would have been no difference in the outcome.

OTOH, the covering fire rules are OK, but we've only ever used them a few
times. Perhaps I should suggest these rules to my group.

> I agree that the published rules suck. You know the house rules
> that we use and I understand that you prefer a different solution. This
> method is better than the published rules by far, and with the exception
> of the fact that I think it confuses two very separate methods of autofire
> weapons use, it would probably be fine over the long haul.

Yeah, I still can't get my group to like your rules for autofire because of
that "dodging into more damage" thing ;-). OTOH, I convinced them last night
to use your cover and called shot rules, which I really do like.

I'm still always looking for better ways to handle autofire... <grin>

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 89 From: Damion Milliken
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 10:34 PM

> Searching fire is pretty much absolutely useless as the rules are
> presented. The example with the vindicator minigun would have given the
> firer an additional 5 dice, but his TN would still have been 20. There
> would have been no difference in the outcome.

I remember something about "no recoil modifiers" but I may be wrong, could
anybody clarify this plz

> OTOH, the covering fire rules are OK, but we've only ever used them a few
> times. Perhaps I should suggest these rules to my group.

the only problem I see here is the completely unrealistic RoF of SR weapons,
but the basic concept of these rules is a good one.

taj

--- www.neosophia.exit.de ---

There's so many different worlds
So many different suns
And we have just one world
But we live in different ones

Message no. 90 TexasFriedCriminal writes:

> > Searching fire is pretty much absolutely useless as the rules are
> > presented. The example with the vindicator minigun would have given the
> > firer an additional 5 dice, but his TN would still have been 20. There
> > would have been no difference in the outcome.
>
> I remember something about "no recoil modifiers" but I may be wrong, could
> anybody clarify this plz

The rule is:

"Rather than increasing the Damage Level, every 3 rounds add an additional
die to the Attack Test. The weapon must be fired for a minimum of six
rounds to use searching fire. All standard combat modifiers and Combat Pool
apply."

The no recoil bit is for the covering fire rules.

> > OTOH, the covering fire rules are OK, but we've only ever used them a few
> > times. Perhaps I should suggest these rules to my group.
>
> the only problem I see here is the completely unrealistic RoF of SR weapons,
> but the basic concept of these rules is a good one.

I guess that it's easy enough to triple, or multiply by 10 the number of
rounds that can be used for covering fire.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 91 Robert Manning writes:

> One idea I toyed with in the past was that instead of rolling it
> as one attack for a full auto spray, you could break it down into multiple
> bursts.
> <snip>
> Any thoughts, comments, or flames for wasting game time rolling a
> million dice?

This is halfway to the SR 1 rule of rolling for each individual bullet...
<grin> OTOH, this rule _was_ quite satisfactory in regards to how things
actually worked, but it was _very_ unsatisfactory regarding time and dice
rolling required. Your rule is halfway in between, and is what we've used
on occasion. We had a player for a long time who had a Troll and a HMG. He
could fire 8 rounds with no recoil, and he always fired 2 four round
bursts. We used to pretty much treat this as burst fire, and allow him to
target whatever two targets he preferred. Even if the two targets were the
same target twice. It actually worked very well.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 92 On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Hmm, you make a good point here.

Right, and it's something that a lot of people don't really think
about. The common misconception with auto-capable weapons is that the
user is intending to "spray and pray," as it were. Especially for burst
weapons, this is *not* the case.

> Assuming that they both actually hit (see below*), then the rules I've
> proposed somewhat model the "lethal damage" of a controlled 3 round burst.
> The final effect, game wise, is a Deadly wound over a Serious wound. The
> mechanics might not look at the situation exactly right, but they do
> generate an appropriate result.

Perhaps, but you give the shooter an extra damage code in ideal
conditions (6D as opposed to 6S).

> * The problem, as you stated, is that the person firing a controlled 3 round
> burst in difficult conditions is much more likely to do damage than someone
> firing a controlled single shot in the same conditions. Once the TN gets to
> 6 or so, then a -1 can make a huge difference. I suspect that in an
> appropriately controllable weapon (such as one with gas venting) the 3 round
> burst if fired in a controlled manner would likely be an all hit or all miss
> proposition, in much the same way as a single shot would be. Is this
> reasonable?

Pretty much. Like I said, it's not to increase the chances of
hitting, it's to increase the chances of *killing*.

> If it is, then the SR mechanics actually work OK, at least for
> controlled bursts using compensated weapons.

I've never really had a problem with the burst rules, although I
use a house rule that treats each burst as separate (recoil-wise).

> Searching fire is pretty much absolutely useless as the rules are
> presented.

To tell you the truth I haven't really looked at it all that
closely. My group stopped playing SR shortly after CC came out. But
maybe I'll take a gander at it this weekend.

> OTOH, the covering fire rules are OK, but we've only ever used them a few
> times. Perhaps I should suggest these rules to my group.

I would. We use suppression fire all the time. It scares the
bejeesus out of people and keeps their heads down while other members of
your team can get into position.

> Yeah, I still can't get my group to like your rules for autofire because of
> that "dodging into more damage" thing ;-).

If you don't like that aspect of it, just let the dodging
character decide how many of his successes he is going to apply. Easy.

> OTOH, I convinced them last night to use your cover and called shot
> rules, which I really do like.

Good deal. Let me know how they work out. I'd really like some
hardcore playtest feedback.

> I'm still always looking for better ways to handle autofire... <grin>

See above.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@*********.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;

Message no. 93 At 05:39 AM 4/28/2001 +1000, Damion Milliken wrote:
>Hi Folks!
>
>Tonight, after seeing a classic example of the SR autofire rules in
>(mis)action, I prompted my group to discuss house rule options.

When it comes to Auto Fire, I use the suppression fire rules. They're
clean and quick.

If someone is firing bursts, they have the option of choosing a target, or
using the suppression fire rules. They usually just pick a target and
apply recoil and recoil compensation.

Bad guys however will work together to combine their three round bursts
into a very impressive volley of suppressive fire.

And a group of bad guys with auto fire weapons is a nightmare for the PCs,
as they will fill the air with lead and make any movement through, into, or
out of that area very hazardous. Course, all the PCs have to do is wait
until the bad guys run out of ammo, but for some reason they haven't caught
on to that yet... <evil gm shrug>

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Gridsec, Nice Guy Division
--
"Anything I have ever done that ultimately was worthwhile....
initially scared me to death."
-Betty Bender

Message no. 94 <snipt!(TM)>
> Perhaps, but you give the shooter an extra damage
code in ideal conditions (6D as opposed to 6S).
<snipt!(TM)>
> Pretty much. Like I said, it's not to increase the
chances of hitting, it's to increase the chances of
*killing*.
> Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Mark, think about what you're saying. First you say
that Damion's rule tends to give someone using burst
fire more successes and damage than someon just firing
a single shot, then you say that the POINT of burst
fire is to increase the chances of killing the target
- which can be fairly accurately represented (in
SR-rules terms at least) by giving the shooter a
better chance of rolling more successes, and thus
increasing the damage!

Like Damion said, the actual mechanics of the rules
may be somewhat odd, but the end result seems to work
out okay, and definitely much more realistically than
the core SR rules.

Damion, next time I run a game, I think I'm going to
try your rule out. And I think my characters just
might start carrying automatic weapons again. :)

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @*****.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

Message no. 95 >Mark, think about what you're saying. First you say
>that Damion's rule tends to give someone using burst
>fire more successes and damage than someon just firing
>a single shot, then you say that the POINT of burst
>fire is to increase the chances of killing the target
>- which can be fairly accurately represented (in
>SR-rules terms at least) by giving the shooter a
>better chance of rolling more successes, and thus
>increasing the damage!

Not entirely. More Dice (and thus more successes) means you will hit
difficult shots more often. Most notably, it means a target will be hit a
LOT more often, after accounting for combat pool dice used to "dodge".

I would much much much rather my character be hit by a ranged attack with a
10D damage code and 1 success than one with a 10M damage code and 5
successes. The first, you can dodge pretty easy with just a few combat pool
dice. That represents a lethal but not very accurate attack. The second,
you need 10+ combat pool dice to dodge relaibley. That's a very accurate
attack that happens (due to accuracy) to be lethal.

>Like Damion said, the actual mechanics of the rules
>may be somewhat odd, but the end result seems to work
>out okay, and definitely much more realistically than
>the core SR rules.

And maybe much more lethaly, depending on the other rules you use or not.
Using them with melee weapons style staging mitigates thier lethality some,
but othewise it might be overkill.

Actually, the bit on melee stagin had me confused about dodging. Just how
do you handle dodging, Damion? Do you simply have each success stage down
damage, with no comparison to the attackers successes for purposes of a
"clean miss"?

>Damion, next time I run a game, I think I'm going to
>try your rule out. And I think my characters just
>might start carrying automatic weapons again. :)

Note that under SR3 rules, every 3 rounds fired increases the dodge TN by 1.
That already increases accuracy enough that 3 and 6 round bursts were quite
popular (and lethal) in our game.

-Mongoose

Message no. 96 > Not entirely. More Dice (and thus more successes)
means you will hit difficult shots more often. Most
notably, it means a target will be hit a LOT more
often, after accounting for combat pool dice used to
"dodge".

Which is why you should certainly use the melee
staging rules as Damion suggested.

> I would much much much rather my character be hit by
a ranged attack with a 10D damage code and 1 success
than one with a 10M damage code and 5 successes. The
first, you can dodge pretty easy with just a few
combat pool dice. That represents a lethal but not
very accurate attack. The second, you need 10+ combat
pool dice to dodge relaibley. That's a very accurate
attack that happens (due to accuracy) to be lethal.

Let's do this realistically, Mongoose, shall we,
rather than just pulling numbers out of our asses?
I'll assume we're talking an SMG in burst-fire mode.
Say two average goons, attributes 3, no recoil
compensation, combat pool 4, SMGs 3. Base target
number 4. All results will be averaged. Goon 1 makes
his attack. Assume he puts in all the dice he can,
he's rolling 6 dice. Using SR3 rules, that number
jacks up to 7 and we can expect he'll roll 1 success.
Goon 2 can resist 10S damage using up to 7 dice. With
an armoured jacket, he'd be rolling against a 5 - on
average, he'll get 2 successes - Serious damage. If he
dodges, he's rolling his combat pool - 4 dice if he
uses them all - against a target of 5. He can expect
one success. If he's lucky, he'll get 2. So if he's
lucky, he won't be hit. If he's not, he'll be
resisting 10S with 3 dice (target 5 with his armoured
jacket). Same result - Serious damage.

With Damion's rules, the target number is reduced to
3. With 6 dice, you can expect 4 successes. 7D damage.
Goon 2 is dodging against 5 with 4 dice - impossible
to completely dodge. However, with his armoured jacket
he'd be resisting 2D damage. Rolling his maximum of 7
dice, you'd expect 6 successes - only Light damage.

Gee, I know which one I'd rather resist.

Fact of the matter is, autofire weapons should be more
accurate and lethal than they are. Like Damion pointed
out, anything besides a completely recoil compensated
burst in the SR3 rules is either terribly deadly, or a
complete miss. His way - well, in this particular
instance, Goon 2 escaped lightly - but he WAS hit and
chances were always that he was GOING to be hit. With
the SR3 rules, Goon 1 was rolling 6 dice against a 7.
That's only a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a SINGLE
success - the odds were good that he would miss
completely, but if he didn't, Goon 2 was in serious
trouble.

Sure, Damion's rules aren't perfect, but I think
they're a lot better than the SR3 rules.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @*****.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

Message no. 97 Marc Renouf writes:

> Right, and it's something that a lot of people don't really think
> about. The common misconception with auto-capable weapons is that the
> user is intending to "spray and pray," as it were. Especially for burst
> weapons, this is *not* the case.

Another variation of the rule that we thought about was to reverse the
modifiers. I have a feeling that this might better handle this problem:

* Give an additional dice to roll for each extra round in the burst,
regardless of recoil compensation
* Give a -1 TN for every three compensated rounds in the burst

Because in SR TN modifiers are (by far most of the time) more significant
and important than additional dice, this places a higher weighting of
importance on recoil compensation, rather than "spray and pray"
fill-the-air-with-lead effects.

Otherwise, the rule is similar to my first proposal. It still has the
problem, however, of granting greater chances of hitting to someone firing a
3 round controlled compensated burst, which is not ideal.

> Perhaps, but you give the shooter an extra damage code in ideal
> conditions (6D as opposed to 6S).

Perhaps we can have different rules for controlled bursts, ones that are
more similar to the original SR rules. The other query I have is, if a
weapon has sufficient recoil adjustment to be able to fire, say, 10 rounds
with no recoil (I think that it can be done, or at least very closely), is
it reasonable to consider this a 10-round controlled burst?

> If you don't like that aspect of it, just let the dodging
> character decide how many of his successes he is going to apply. Easy.

We thought about that, but then someones "successful dodge", in that they
scored successes, would be converted into the original damage anyway, which
meant that their dodge really wasn't successful at all. If that makes any
sense at all :-).

> Good deal. Let me know how they work out. I'd really like some
> hardcore playtest feedback.

OK, I will do.

Thanks for the input on my autofire ideas!

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 98 [Rand Ratinac] writes:

> Mark, think about what you're saying. First you say
> that Damion's rule tends to give someone using burst
> fire more successes and damage than someon just firing
> a single shot, then you say that the POINT of burst
> fire is to increase the chances of killing the target
> - which can be fairly accurately represented (in
> SR-rules terms at least) by giving the shooter a
> better chance of rolling more successes, and thus
> increasing the damage!
>
> Like Damion said, the actual mechanics of the rules
> may be somewhat odd, but the end result seems to work
> out okay, and definitely much more realistically than
> the core SR rules.

The only problem is that in bad conditions, you're better off firing a 3
round controlled burst, because it's _easier_ to hit, and will do the _same_
damage, when compared to a single shot. This is not exactly how it really
is, as in such circumstances it is just as difficult to hit with a
controlled burst as a single shot, but the damage is greater for the former.

I can see Marc's point, but I can't see a good way to resolve it (yet ;-)).
OTOH, it only really applies when circumstance conspire to give TNs of 6 for
a single shot, and thus the -1 makes a statistically significant difference.

> Damion, next time I run a game, I think I'm going to
> try your rule out. And I think my characters just
> might start carrying automatic weapons again. :)

That'd be great! Let me know how it goes, if you would. I have a feeling
that even after I discuss these problems that people have brought up with my
group, that they'll still want to keep the rule anyway. Mostly because it's
relatively simple, fast, easy to calculate, and /mostly/ satisfactory.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 99 Sebastian Wiers writes:

> And maybe much more lethaly, depending on the other rules you use or not.
> Using them with melee weapons style staging mitigates thier lethality some,
> but othewise it might be overkill.

Yeah, it occurred to me that otherwise people using autofire would probably
be getting, say, 8 successes relatively easily. This would be very
dangerous with normal SR ranged combat rules. We've been using the melee
staging rules for ranged combat for a long time now, so it only occurred to
me as an afterthought. Interestingly, when we first discussed it, the
question was "to apply ranged combat staging to melee combat", but the
reverse was actually decided. Each is actually equally valid, but each has
differing implications.

> Actually, the bit on melee stagin had me confused about dodging. Just how
> do you handle dodging, Damion? Do you simply have each success stage down
> damage, with no comparison to the attackers successes for purposes of a
> "clean miss"?

We use the dodge rules as normal. So if an attacker gets 4 successes on a
ranged combat test, then the dodger needs 5+ to successfully dodge the
attack. And yes, you are right, this _will_ make it difficult to dodge
autofire, because attackers will now be routinely getting twice the
successes that they used to. OTOH, their damage is significantly lower (say
6M rather than 9S for an SMG burst), so the actual damage the target takes
will probably be lower, or the same, after dodging. We compare the dodge
test to the melee counterattack test. This stage of the operation is a
success cancellation stage. After this, damage is calculated from the
remaining successes, the same in both melee and ranged combat.

> Note that under SR3 rules, every 3 rounds fired increases the dodge TN by 1.
> That already increases accuracy enough that 3 and 6 round bursts were quite
> popular (and lethal) in our game.

Oh, yes, that's something that I should have mentioned. We removed this
rule when we introduced the autofire rules. Otherwise we'd have a double
jeopardy effect. My rules already account for this difficulty by allowing
the firer to roll more successes, thus making it more difficult to dodge,
but for a different game mechanic reason. There is a similar net effect,
however.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 100 According to Robert Manning, on Fri, 27 Apr 2001 the word on the street was...

> One idea I toyed with in the past was that instead of rolling it
> as one attack for a full auto spray, you could break it down into multiple
> bursts. So in the above example you would instead roll for 5 separate
> attack tests against the target, the first 2 bursts being pretty easy but
> each one becoming more difficult due to accumulated recoil. There are of
> course a few possible problems with this method, the biggest issue being
> that now you have to roll 5 attack tests instead of only one, which will
> slow things way down.

It's still better than the SR1 rules, where you rolled a separate test for
each round fired. Granted, the maximum autofire rate was equal to your
skill +1, with an absolute maximum of 7 rounds per action, but still it
caused far too much dice rolling to resolve autofire. This kind of mechanic
works well enough in a game where each skill test is rolled with only one
die, but not really in SR.

> You also have to decide how combat pool spent on the attack would be
> allocated. Would you add the dice to each burst, or have to split them
> between the bursts?

I think that if you were to use these rules, then Combat Pool dice should be
allocated to targets and not to bursts. So if you decide to put in 3 Combat
Pool dice against target A, then you roll those 3 extra dice on all the
tests made to hit that target with this set of bursts. OTOH that may be a
bit too powerful as well, not to mention it causes even more dice to fly
across the table :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If there are vegetarian hamburgers, why isn't there beef lettuce?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Message no. 101 On 4/28/2001 4:39 AM, Damion Milliken at dam01@***.edu.au wrote:

> What does everyone think? (PS thanks TopCat for the original inspiriation
> many years ago - it took me this long to try the rest and become unsatisfied
> :-))

I've been following this thread and I like these autofire rules a lot, but
one big question came to mind: what about heavy weapons? Are you just
ignoring the whole "double uncompensated recoil" bit? I can't see any good
way for it to fit in the system you've got here, but it seems it might be
important to take it into account. Any ideas? Maybe halving the dice bonus
provided by recoil compensators?

-moose

Message no. 102 First off, thanks for the mention, Damion =)

Now, as you can guess, I *really* like these rules.
I've also read through the recent replies on the new
system and it's given me a few thoughts on how to
manage the recoil issue and make things a little more
even, I guess. This isn't to say that I don't like
that system, I do and likely will use it myself again,
just that this may help those who are looking for mods.

Power: (see "Recoil Compensation")
Damage Code: does not increase
TN: -1TN per 3 rounds fired
Recoil: +1TN per uncompensated round (+2 for heavy)
Recoil Compensation: +1 Power per point (up to # of
rounds fired) & -1TN from recoil per point

Effect-wise, you get a system where recoil matters.
If you fire a 3-round burst and have 3 pts of recoil
compensation, you'll have accurate and damaging fire.
If your weapon has no recoil compensation, you have to
cope with the issues caused by that. There's a big
reason why almost all weapons designed for full-auto
or burst-fire are designed to compensate recoil: if
you don't, the weapon will not be accurate.

Burst-fire works great just so long as recoil is
managed. The better recoil is handled, the better the
burst will perform. A weapon that simply wasn't built
to fire bursts, aside from the simple modifications to
the firing mechanism, isn't going to perform as well
as one that has been designed to account for the
effects that are forced on a weapon firing in that mode.

Ingram Smartgun (Smartlink -2TN, BF/FA modes, 3 pts RC)
Firing at medium range (Base TN 5 - 2 for smartlink = 3)
* 1 single shot (TN 3, base damage 7M)
* 3-round burst (TN 3 - 1 for system = 2, 10M)
* 9-round burst (TN 3 + 6 recoil - 3 system = 6, 10M)

As a reminder, these autofire rules do not have an effect
on the single shot, it is only presented for comparison.

The burst is more likely to hit and hurt than a single
shot. It is not overwhelmingly so (+16.7%), so balance
is maintained. The focused attempt at a 9-round burst
is less likely to hit (-50%) than a single shot, but is
probably just as likely to hurt depending on the armor
of the target in question.

With an SMG skill of 3 and 3 dice from combat pool,
you would get @* successes (7D), with a 3-round burst
you would get @* successes (10D+1), and with a 9-round
burst you would get @* success (10M). Suppression fire
would likely be the best choice for anything over 3
rounds, which is what training will tell you anyway.

By doubling skill and combat pool, you double the rate
of success (which is assuming perfect conditions and
open shooting) to 8 successes for the single shot (7D+4),
10 successes for the 3-round burst (10D+6), and 2
successes for the 9-round burst (10S). I would assume
this is adequately deadly for many campaigns (certainly
my own) and yet it isn't insanely so.

Math required for burst or full-auto:
1. Base TN
2. Add recoil penalties adjusted for compensation
3. Add to power from recoil compensation (up to # fired)
4. Adjust for targeting measures and situational penalties

I think that's pretty simple and straightforward. It
requires only one roll and you don't have to look at
the roll any further than you would a normal ranged
combat roll. It takes away adding to the power of the
weapon based on # of rounds fired and it takes away the
adjusting of damage code based on every 3 rounds fired
and adds two other, similarly simple, adjustments.

I still like the system that Damion listed and I think
it can work great (better than the normal system, I
think most of us will agree). This one, I feel, is
equally viable and may work better for your game.

As always any thoughts are welcome. =)
--
Bob Ooton
<rbooton@*****.edu>

Message no. 103 How about this new and relatively unique idea:

-Make no change to single shot and burstfire. With burstfire, the max
recoil related mod is +3, so why worry? If the gun doesn't have recoil
comp, chances are it is not well suited to burstfire anyhow.
-Autofire attacks are treated like normal (complex action, multiple bursts
allowed)
-There is NO modifier for recoil on full auto shots, period.
-If the attack is successful (before "dodging"), roll 1 die for each round
in the attack. If the round was fired without recoil, or compensated for,
it needs a 3 to be able to strike the target. If not, it needs a 5 to be
able to strike the target. Uncompensated recoil from Heavy Weapons causes
one compesated round to count as uncompensated. I recomend roilling them
all at once (different color dice), or in two lots (compensated and
uncompensated)
-Dodging is figured as normal- every 3 rounds that could be hits adds +1 to
the dodge TN.
-Damage is figured as normal- every 3 rounds that hit increase it by one
level, each round past the first adds 1 to power.
-Attack successes can be "sacrificed" to make an addtional round hit, if the
attacker wishes.

My figuring is, its not really much harder to aim a full auto burst than a
single shot- after all, the first few rounds aren't really affected by
recoil. Getting more rounds to hit is largely a matter of luck. Skill only
really plays a roll in how much damage the rounds that DO hit will do.

Example- Street Samurai Sledge, with a Ingram SMG, decides to really lay
into a Troll in security armor. Sledge goes full auto with 9 rounds (its
all thats left in the clip). His SMG skill is 7, and he uses 5 combat pool
dice. Its good conditions, long range with a smartlink, so the TN is 4.
Sledge (predictably for these examples) gets 6 successes. He has 6 points
of recoil comp (he's hopped up the gun, and he's strong). He rolls 6 dice
with a TN of 3, and 3 with a TN of 5. He gets 4 and 1 success. 5 of the 9
fired rounds are gonna hit the troll. The troll can now dodge with a TN of
5, and is facing a damage code of 12S, staged up by whatever is left of 6
successes after the troll resists the damage.
The other 4 rounds (9 if the troll miraculously dodges) can be treated
as "stray rounds", if you wish.

This actually makes normal (compensated) autofire LESS deadly, but overall
makes putting a lot of lead in the air MORE deadly than it currently is
(since it now usually misses) and certainly more deadly that firing fewer
rounds would be. That's somewhat intended for cinematic effect- it rewards
you for NOT firing short controlled bursts! It also makes reloads a more
frequent occurance...

I'm still toying with a method to let skill influence how many rounds hit
(besides the obvious "simulation" of how much damage is done by staging).
Sacrificing an attack success to be able to re-roll one of the dice for a
round that did not hit seems best, since it really gives a LOT of benefit if
you can bump a hit from 2 to 3 rounds, or 5 to 6.

-Mongoose

Message no. 104 On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, [iso-8859-1] Rand Ratinac wrote:

> Mark, think about what you're saying. First you say
> that Damion's rule tends to give someone using burst
> fire more successes and damage than someon just firing
> a single shot, then you say that the POINT of burst
> fire is to increase the chances of killing the target
> - which can be fairly accurately represented (in
> SR-rules terms at least) by giving the shooter a
> better chance of rolling more successes, and thus
> increasing the damage!

Right, so long as the target number is a low number. If the
target number is high (which it's going to be in most combat situations),
then having more dice doesn't help as much as it should.
There are two things going on here, hitting, and doing damage.
In Shadowrun mechanics, *hitting* is basically rolling a sufficiently high
number to result in at least one success. *Damaging* is having a damage
code that is high enough to be hard to resist.
My point is that firing on burst mode with Damion's rules is more
likely to result in a *hit* than firing a single round (due to the fact
that he drops the target number). This is contrary to how burst-capable
firearms actually work. Irrespective of how much damage is actually done,
you shouldn't be able to *hit* more with burst weapons simply because
they're burst weapons.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@*********.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;

Message no. 105 According to Marc Renouf, on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 the word on the street was...

> My point is that firing on burst mode with Damion's rules is more
> likely to result in a *hit* than firing a single round (due to the fact
> that he drops the target number). This is contrary to how burst-capable
> firearms actually work. Irrespective of how much damage is actually done,
> you shouldn't be able to *hit* more with burst weapons simply because
> they're burst weapons.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK there are two reasons why you'd want to
have a burst limiter on a weapon IRL. One is to cut down on wasted
ammunition (because with full-auto weapons users have a tendency to spray
lots of rounds at the target and miss with most of them), the other is to
create a controlled spread which will increase the chance of a hit over
that of firing a single round. When you really look at it, the first
reason is basically the same as the second, in that it's intended to allow
the firer to put more rounds onto the target than firing single shots can,
thereby increasing the chance of obtaining a hit.

IMHO, Damion's house rule would represent this fairly well.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If there are vegetarian hamburgers, why isn't there beef lettuce?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Message no. 106 On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Damion Milliken wrote:

> > If you don't like that aspect of it, just let the dodging
> > character decide how many of his successes he is going to apply. Easy.
>
> We thought about that, but then someones "successful dodge", in that they
> scored successes, would be converted into the original damage anyway, which
> meant that their dodge really wasn't successful at all. If that makes any
> sense at all :-).

Yes, it makes sense. I guess I just don't see it as a problem.
If you give the dodging player the ability to decide how many of their
successes to apply, it's all up to them what damage code they take.
But realistically, I've only rarely ever seen this phenomenon come
up during a game. And usually even if the shooter gets more successes,
the difference in target number is such that the Body Resistance test will
be *much* easier. Remember that the difference between a T# 5 and a T# 6
is twice as many successes on any given roll.
For instance, if you have a situation where a shooter is shooting
in ideal conditions (base T# 4), and rolls a 1,1,2,4,5,5,8,9 with a
garden-variety, uncompensated AK-97, the max he'll hit his target with is
6 rounds. The dodge breakdown would be as follows:

# dodge succ rounds hit Damage Code
0 6 14D
1 5 13S
2 2 10S (2 shooter successes)
3 2 10M
4 1 9M
5 1 8M
6 miss ---

It is of note that I do *not* use the +1 dodge modifier for every
3 rounds with this system. Autofire is hard enough to dodge as it is.
But the point remains that for every dodge success, even for those cases
where the damage code goes back up, the presence of armor often more than
mitigates the difference. Consider just a basic armor jacket (5/3) on
someone with a Body of 6 (to make the math easier).
At the break point between two and three successes, the damage
code is the same (Serious), but the Body Resistance target number is going
to be (13 - 5 = 8) vs. (10 - 5 = 5). Statistically, someone with a Body
of 6 is going to generate 0.8333 successes at T# 8, but 4 successes at
T# 5. That's the difference between not staging the damage down at all
and staging it down twice. So while it looks like you're dodging into
more damage, it's usually not the case.
I'm not saying it can't happen. A roll of 1,1,3,4,4,4,4,5 is
going to go from 10M to 9D with a single dodge success. In this instance,
the dodger is better off not applying the dodge success at all and just
chewing the pain. I guess I don't have a problem with this because
statistically it comes up so rarely in the game.

Marc

Message no. 107 > Right, so long as the target number is a low
number. If the target number is high (which it's
going to be in most combat situations), then having
more dice doesn't help as much as it should.
> There are two things going on here, hitting, and
doing damage. In Shadowrun mechanics, *hitting* is
basically rolling a sufficiently high number to result
in at least one success. *Damaging* is having a
damage code that is high enough to be hard to resist.
> My point is that firing on burst mode with Damion's
rules is more likely to result in a *hit* than firing
a single round (due to the fact that he drops the
target number). This is contrary to how burst-capable
firearms actually work. Irrespective of how much
damage is actually done, you shouldn't be able to
*hit* more with burst weapons simply because they're
burst weapons.
> Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Point taken, but I haven't seen any better suggestions
yet. What's the address of your site with the autofire
rules? Think I might have a look.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @*****.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

Message no. 108 On Tue, 1 May 2001, [iso-8859-1] Rand Ratinac wrote:

> Point taken, but I haven't seen any better suggestions
> yet. What's the address of your site with the autofire
> rules? Think I might have a look.

You can find them at:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jormung/shadowrun/rules.html#Autofire

Keep in mind that those were written for SR2, but the mechanics
haven't changed from SR2 to SR3. My updated SR3 house rules are almost
finished (I've just got to re-write part of the martial arts section and
check to make sure all the page number references are right). You can see
what I have done at:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jormung/shadowrun/rules3.html

Take a look, try them out, and let me know what works and what
doesn't.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@*********.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;

Message no. 109 Dan Grabon writes:

> I've been following this thread and I like these autofire rules a lot, but
> one big question came to mind: what about heavy weapons? Are you just
> ignoring the whole "double uncompensated recoil" bit? I can't see any good
> way for it to fit in the system you've got here, but it seems it might be
> important to take it into account. Any ideas? Maybe halving the dice bonus
> provided by recoil compensators?

Yeah, we toyed with this too. The only good idea we came up with was to
only give a -1 TN per 6 rounds fired, rather than per 3 rounds fired. This
is pretty much exactly what the double recoil penalty effect translates
too. It wouldn't make sense to halve the dice bonus, as this is for
compensated rounds, which are as accurate as compensated rounds for non
heavy weapons.

The -1 TN per 6 rounds fired makes heavy weapons rather less useful for
spraying an area than small arms. On the other hand, such weapons are
designed for spraying an area from vehicle mounts, tripods, and other not so
man portable emplacements. Such mounts provide considerable recoil
compensation effects. Anyone silly enough to carry one around can probably
expect to hit nothing anyway, so the -1 TN per 6 rounds is probably quite
reasonable.

An interesting point that came up while discussing this was the (Power)L
Stun damage suffered by anyone firing a heavy weapon. It seemed reasonable
to us that the Power should be reduced by the recoil compensation devices in
place (such as gas venting) as these reduce the kick back of the weapon.
What do you think?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 110 rbooton@*****.edu writes:

> Power: (see "Recoil Compensation")
> Damage Code: does not increase
> TN: -1TN per 3 rounds fired
> Recoil: +1TN per uncompensated round (+2 for heavy)
> Recoil Compensation: +1 Power per point (up to # of
> rounds fired) & -1TN from recoil per point
>
> Effect-wise, you get a system where recoil matters. If you fire a 3-round
> burst and have 3 pts of recoil compensation, you'll have accurate and
> damaging fire. If your weapon has no recoil compensation, you have to cope
> with the issues caused by that. There's a big reason why almost all
> weapons designed for full-auto or burst-fire are designed to compensate
> recoil: if you don't, the weapon will not be accurate.

The problem I can see is that the last bit is not entirely accurate. "If you
don't have recoil compensation, the weapon will be accurate for only the
first round or two" is probably more like it. If you're blasting away with
a 10 round burst from an uncompensated weapon, then the first round will
likely be on target (if you can shoot at all), and the rest will likely be
in the roof somewhere. With the above system, we'd be looking at:

-3 TN from 9 rounds
+9 TN (assuming that the first round is 'compensated', otherwise +10) from
recoil

For a final TN modifier of +6, and a damage code equivalent to the base
damage code of the weapon. What I am getting at, I guess, is that this,
although much better than the SR system, is still likely to generate a null
effect and no damage what so ever.

> As always any thoughts are welcome. =)

I think that it's a really good way of handling controlled burst fire, but I
think that it is not so good for multiple round bursts that are not recoil
compensated. Mind you, it's still miles ahead of the SR rules. And it's
also less deadly than what I proposed. Everyone in my game is wondering if
their characters are going to survive the next decent sized fight... <grin>

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 111 Sebastian Wiers writes:

> -If the attack is successful (before "dodging"), roll 1 die for each round
> in the attack. If the round was fired without recoil, or compensated for,
> it needs a 3 to be able to strike the target. If not, it needs a 5 to be
> able to strike the target. Uncompensated recoil from Heavy Weapons causes
> one compesated round to count as uncompensated. I recomend roilling them
> all at once (different color dice), or in two lots (compensated and
> uncompensated)

Although I do not personally like this idea myself, largely due to it's
randomness (although, thinking, it would probably be a good replacement for
the covering fire rules), it prompted me to think of another interesting way
to handle autofire.

Do you think that it would be possible to have a system whereby the number
of successes determined the number of bullets that hit? Somethings like:

* Ignore recoil penalties
* Fire at the base TN with all other modifiers
* Each success means that one bullet hits the target
* Calculate damage in the normal SR way (each round hitting gives +1 Power,
every 3 give +1 DL)

There comes a problem with recoil compensation effects, however. Perhaps it
would be possible to rule that the first success allowed all compensated
rounds to hit, and each success after that added one of the uncompensated
rounds. When the target dodged, they simply removed successes, and thus
bullets, from the attack. If they go tequal successes, then they took base
damage, as normal, more and it was a complete miss.

This would be problematic if the firer got more successes than bullets,
though. Although perhaps these could just make it more difficult to dodge
the attack, as the additional successes would need to be dodged first.

In this system, however, there would not be much room for staging the damage
up. Perhaps the additional successes, over the number of bullets, after
dodging, could be used to stage damage up.

What do you all think? Decent idea, or whacked out on weed?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 112 Well, this thread has made for some interesting reading. I had a new
idea which I think might be a good compromise. I think it splits the
difference between those presented here without having to roll extra
dice.

When making an autofire hit test, apply all the normal TN mods for
range, lighting, etc to get the TN to hit as if for a single shot.
Decide how many rounds to fire and make the roll.

To figure out how many hit, divide the stream into 3-round bursts,
with a +2 TN per burst, cumulative (so +2 for first, +4 for second,...)
Now you read the dice to see if the "bursts" hit, from the last burst
to the first, taking away the top two dice as you do. You only need one
die to succeed with the burst, but two dice are always taken away.

Calculate the final damage based on how many "bursts" hit, plus any
additional successes left on the dice for the final burst.

So, for example, assuming ideal conditions, base TN = 4. Samurai with
skill 6 and CP 6 decides to do a 9-round blast. He rolls all 12 dice,
getting: 1,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,7,9,10,13. Since he fired 9 rounds, that's
3 bursts. 3*(+2TN) = +6TN added to the base of 4 is 10 for the last
burst, 8 for the second and 6 for the first.

To figure how many hit, compare 10 to the roll and taking away the 13
and 10. Now compare 8 to the roll, taking away the 9 and 7. Now compare
6 to the roll, leaving no successes.

So a total of 2 "bursts" hit, so figure the final damage by adding +6
to the power and +2 stages.

Another example, same samurai, but only fired 6 rounds. The roll was
1,1,2,4,4,5,5,7,8,8,9,10.
Last burst has a TN of 8 and the first a TN of 6. Comparing 8 to
the roll removes the 9 and 10. Comparing the 6 to the roll removes
the 8 and 8. Since the last burst check was successful, check the rest
of the roll against the TN of 6 to count any extra successes. In this
case there is one more, with the 7. It's not enough to stage the damage
up, but does count normally otherwise.

Another way to work this is to count successes for the ealier bursts
first, making them more likely to hit and the later bursts less likely.
In which case, the final TN comparisons for staging would compare
against the final burst TN.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Message no. 113 Well, in regard to the recent autofire discussion, I thought I would post my
groups experiences uses Marc's rules. Please ignore this if you don't want
to read some boring "Here's what happened..." stories.

We were playing the First Run adventures. ( I know some people have issues
with these, but for teaching everyone the rules and giving a decent feel for
the background, they are OK)
In the Food Fight, we used vanilla SR3. There are only two runners. A
troll merc and a Mission: Impossible type guy (M:ITG). So we go in, the gang
busts in, blam blam, M:ITG takes a shotgun to the gut (first pass) and hides
behind the counter with the checkout girl (got her number, but that's another
story). Leaving my troll merc to fend for himself. Being one tough SOB he
proceeds to smack down several gangers with HtH and pistols. Now he is shot
from behind, full auto uzi < 10ft. complete miss. OK try again next pass.
miss again. He feels godlike. Sure... <Skip rest of story>

Next adventure (the one with Villiers...Yeah, I know...)
Use Marc's rules. (figure single shot TN, full auto TN, find # of bullets
hit, etc.)

Everything goes fine till the Red Samurai attack. M:ITG is hiding behind
the wrecked car leaving troll boy to fend off all the Sammies (see a pattern
here?) <Skip to 'interesting' part> after several rounds, about three
sammies find themselves with complex actions available (don't ask about the
others). They each fire full auto at the Troll, who, being an idiot, was in
the open. About 6-8 rounds hit per burst. Leaves our troll with 3! Serious
wounds. He stays up for another pass (pain editor) and then collapses in the
truck. <Skip>

Anyway, what does that mean? Well, it sure put the fear of God in our friend
the troll, who at the beginning of the encounter remarked, "What only ten of
them?" What I am trying to say is that, I find Marc's rules to put autofire
in a place of fear. It makes the runners breathe a sigh of relief when the
gangers they jump are "only" carrying shotguns and pistols, and want to run
for the hills when MegaCorpSec(TM) busts out the AK's. In our groups case at
least, we find our selves trying to avoid the firefights, even though the
chars carry heavy weapons and their van has enough ordnance to take out a
small building.

Bringing it to an end, I recommend that everyone interested in more realism
and LESS firefights think about using his rules. Thanks Marc. Sorry to
everyone else who had to read my dumb stories...

Big Q

And remember...control those bursts by thinking "Kill a family of
seven...kill a family of seven..."

Message no. 114 Yet another new autofire system!

(This has possibly been mentioned elsewhere, but I wouldn't know - this
just came to me)

Roll at standard to-hit, no recoil modifiers. Each compensated round
requires one success to hit. Each uncompensated round requires two
successes to hit. Take successes first for the compensated rounds.

So if Sammy Guns rolls 4 SMG dice and 4 CP dice when he shoots his
Ingram Smartgun at a TN of 4, he'll get approximately 4 successes.
Since the Smartgun has three points of recoil compensation, the first
three rounds hit and three successes are removed. His fourth success
isn't enough to buy an extra round of uncomensated ammo, so the damage
goes from 7M to 10S with 4 successes. If Sammy Guns had managed 5
successes, the damage would be 11S with 5 successes.

Good points: The first round is as accurate as it can be. All
compensated rounds are fairly accurate. All uncompensated rounds have
difficulty hitting, but they can still hit.

Bad points: Too deadly?

Options: Would it be better if the damage code was not raised as more
rounds hit (10M instead of 10S, each with 4 successes if from the first
example)? How about if dodge target number was always 4? Use both or
would one work better or is anything needed at all?

| Bob Ooton <rbooton@*****.edu>
| aka TopCat, the cyberware advocate
| Member of the Black Hand Demo Team

Message no. 115 >Yet another new autofire system!
>
>(This has possibly been mentioned elsewhere, but I wouldn't know - this
>just came to me)
>
>Roll at standard to-hit, no recoil modifiers. Each compensated round
>requires one success to hit. Each uncompensated round requires two
>successes to hit. Take successes first for the compensated rounds.
>
>So if Sammy Guns rolls 4 SMG dice and 4 CP dice when he shoots his
>Ingram Smartgun at a TN of 4, he'll get approximately 4 successes.
>Since the Smartgun has three points of recoil compensation, the first
>three rounds hit and three successes are removed. His fourth success
>isn't enough to buy an extra round of uncomensated ammo, so the damage
>goes from 7M to 10S with 4 successes. If Sammy Guns had managed 5
>successes, the damage would be 11S with 5 successes.
>
>Good points: The first round is as accurate as it can be. All
>compensated rounds are fairly accurate. All uncompensated rounds have
>difficulty hitting, but they can still hit.
>
>Bad points: Too deadly?

I find the bad point to be that no attacker can possibally hit with more
autofire bullets than thier have attack dice. Makes those super-machine-gun
class weapons pretty pointless. (They are under the standard rules, due to
recoil, but...)

I know there's realistically a strong link between a users skill and how
many rounds hit, so maybe that's not a bad thing.

-Mongoose

Message no. 116 From: "Bob Ooton" <rbooton@*****.edu>
> Yet another new autofire system!
<Snip>
> Bad points: Too deadly?

Not realy as I see it. You don't stage the damage up, or do you?

How many roundss did you Sammy fire? Does the number of rounds not
affect the shot at all? Is there any difference between firing 6
rounds or 10 rounds (except that more rounds _can_ hit with 10
rounds).

I can only imagine staging the damage up if you achive more successes
than you fire rounds. which would indicate fireing less rounds could
raise the damage level, but fireing more rounds could raise the power
level (and the damage for each three rounds).

How do you handle heavy weapons?

> Options: Would it be better if the damage code was not raised as
more
> rounds hit (10M instead of 10S, each with 4 successes if from the
first
> example)?

Don't think so. You will end up doing damage with a high power level,
but actually not doing a lot of damage (wound level = start wound
level). Who is afraid of 20M, compared to 12D?

> How about if dodge target number was always 4?

So you mean ignore the +1 per 3 rounds fired?

> Use both or
> would one work better or is anything needed at all?

Don't know, just expressing my first thoughts.

Lars
--
Lars Wagner Hansen, Jagtvej 11, 4180 Sorø
l-hansen@*****.tele.dk http://home4.inte.tele.dk/l-hansen

Message no. 117 On Fri, 4 May 2001 Trollrunner@***.com wrote:

> Bringing it to an end, I recommend that everyone interested in more realism
> and LESS firefights think about using his rules.

This is precisely what they were intended for. My players tend to
avoid combat like the plague, and when they do get into it, it's usually a
short, sharp, well-planned ambush that minimizes the risk of taking return
fire. It doesn't always work, but at least it shows they're thinking.

> Thanks Marc.

No problem. Thank *you* for the feedback. It's nice to hear that
the rules are having their intended effect in *other* peoples' games as
well.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@*********.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;

Message no. 118 ----- Original Message -----
From: Lars Wagner Hansen <l-hansen@*****.tele.dk>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Autofire

> From: "Bob Ooton" <rbooton@*****.edu>
> > Yet another new autofire system!
> > <Snip>
> > Bad points: Too deadly?

> Not realy as I see it. You don't stage the damage up, or do you?

Yes, damage is still staged up as per normal from successes.

> How many rounds did you Sammy fire? Does the number of rounds not
> affect the shot at all? Is there any difference between firing 6
> rounds or 10 rounds (except that more rounds _can_ hit with 10
> rounds).

I'm assuming ten rounds in the example. The number of rounds affects
the roll in as much as that is the maximum you can hit with. So there
is no difference aside from the number of rounds that can hit. This is
to reflect how you are more likely to hit with early rounds from a
targetted burst than you are to hit with the late ones due to the
effects of recoil.

> I can only imagine staging the damage up if you achive more successes
> than you fire rounds. which would indicate fireing less rounds could
> raise the damage level, but fireing more rounds could raise the power
> level (and the damage for each three rounds).

Why's that? If you fire a single bullet, damage stages up...

> How do you handle heavy weapons?

Each uncompensated heavy round requires three successes. I had
forgotten to post that in the example =)

> > Options: Would it be better if the damage code was not raised as
> > more rounds hit (10M instead of 10S, each with 4 successes if from
> > the first example)?

> Don't think so. You will end up doing damage with a high power level,
> but actually not doing a lot of damage (wound level = start wound
> level). Who is afraid of 20M, compared to 12D?

Using my original example, it'd be 10M + 4 successes staged up to 10D as
opposed to 10S + 4 successes staging up to 10D + 2. Only slightly less
deadly overall, but it is a difference.

> > How about if dodge target number was always 4?

> So you mean ignore the +1 per 3 rounds fired?

Yes.

Thanks for the input, btw =)

| Bob Ooton <rbooton@*****.edu>
| aka TopCat, the cyberware advocate
| Member of the Black Hand Demo Team

Message no. 119 ----- Original Message -----
From: Sebastian Wiers <m0ng005e@*****.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: Autofire

> I find the bad point to be that no attacker can possibally hit with
more
> autofire bullets than thier have attack dice. Makes those
super-machine-gun
> class weapons pretty pointless. (They are under the standard rules,
due to
> recoil, but...)

They aren't totally useless thanks to suppression fire rules, but I
agree that under normal autofire rules, those Super-MGs have a lot of
problems. Under my system, well, they aren't any *more* useless than
they are under the regular rules and actually manage to hit now and
then... let's see a comparison.

Sammy Guns with his 4 SMG dice and 4 CP fires his shiny new Ingram
SuperMach 100 on full-auto. Assuming a TN of 4 (remember, no recoil
mods are figured in under this system), he should get 4 successes on
average. The SuperMach has 3 points of built-in recoil compensation, so
3 successes are used by the compensated rounds, leaving 1 success for
uncompensated rounds. That means only three rounds of the burst hit,
making damage go from 6L to 9M with 4 successes, so it stages up to 9D.
A full fifteen rounds go spraying against the wall behind his target,
but it looks impressive and the target has some resisting to do.

Under normal circumstances, Sammy Guns firing 18 rounds with the
SuperMach gets no successes. It would do 24D if it could only get one
filthy success, but the odds of rolling a 19 on 8 dice are fairly small
(1 in 6 to get a six, then 1 in 6 to get a six on that next die, then 1
in 6 to get a six on the next die, then 6 in 6 to get a one or better on
the last one multipled out for eight dice... less than a 4% chance of it
happening on a roll of 8 dice). The target feels like Jackson and
Travolta in Pulp Fiction when the kid misses them with every round. He
might even have a religious experience because of it.

Under my method, the guy hits with some rounds. Under the normal
method, he's too busy drooling over the firepower to even aim that first
shot.

> I know there's realistically a strong link between a users skill and
how
> many rounds hit, so maybe that's not a bad thing.

That's one of my thoughts in designing the system. The more skill you
have with a weapon, the more likely you'll know how to compensate for
recoil. You'll know how the weapon will pull and will be able to
sustain fire on moving targets better because of it.

Overall, I like it a lot. I'm implementing it in my game immediately.
Can't wait to see the results =)

| Bob Ooton <rbooton@*****.edu>
| aka TopCat, the cyberware advocate
| Member of the Black Hand Demo Team

Message no. 120 On Mon, 7 May 2001, Bob Ooton wrote:

> Overall, I like it a lot. I'm implementing it in my game immediately.
> Can't wait to see the results =)

My guess is bloody. The fact the the successes count not only how
many rounds hit but also stage the damage is a deadly double whammy. Even
hitting with 3 recoil-comp'ed rounds out of an assault rifle is 11D. To
me, the damage level rises *way* too fast.

Marc

Message no. 121 ----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Renouf <renouf@********.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: Autofire

> > Overall, I like it a lot. I'm implementing it in my game
immediately.
> > Can't wait to see the results =)

> My guess is bloody. The fact the the successes count not only how
> many rounds hit but also stage the damage is a deadly double whammy.
Even
> hitting with 3 recoil-comp'ed rounds out of an assault rifle is 11D.
To
> me, the damage level rises *way* too fast.

Which is why I asked about not increasing Damage Code for every three
rounds. If damage code remains normal and a firing person gets 3
successes on a burst from an assault rifle, they get 11M + 3 successes
or 11S + 1. Do you consider this more accurate and viable? That's one
of the things that I'd wondered about in creating this system...

You've worked with autofire rules yourself. If the damage code does not
rise for every three rounds fired, is this system as good as I think it
is? The first bullet is as accurate as it can be, with each additional
bullet being slightly more difficult, more so if it is uncompensated.
The likelihood of hitting with the early rounds in a burst is high,
while the likelihood of hitting with the later rounds is low. It
accounts for heavy weapons with the "3 successes per uncompensated round
rule". It also seems easy at a glance to use. Is my ego overriding
common sense somewhere in there or have I managed to cover all the
bases?

| Bob Ooton <rbooton@*****.edu>
| aka TopCat, the cyberware advocate
| Member of the Black Hand Demo Team

Message no. 122 Sorry for the tardiness of this reply. Work has been a little
busy lately.

On Mon, 7 May 2001, Bob Ooton wrote:

> You've worked with autofire rules yourself. If the damage code does not
> rise for every three rounds fired, is this system as good as I think it
> is? The first bullet is as accurate as it can be, with each additional
> bullet being slightly more difficult, more so if it is uncompensated.
> The likelihood of hitting with the early rounds in a burst is high,
> while the likelihood of hitting with the later rounds is low.

Right, but you run into the problem where an unskilled guy with a
fully-compensated weapon still can't hit anything. Example: Ganger Steve
has a brand new FN-HAR. He has it retrofitted with improved Gas Vent 4.
He puts a shock pad on the stock and a bipod up front. Ganger Steve has a
dope-dealing neighbor whose fly wheels have an obnoxious car alarm. In
the middle of the night, the car alarm is going off incessantly. Steve
has had enough and decides to take steps. He cracks out his wizzer
FN-HAR, sets the bipod feet on the sill of his open bedroom window, puts
the dope-mobile directly in his sights, and squeezes the trigger.
Steve has a total of 4 (gas vent) + 1 (stock) + 1 (shock pad) + 2
(bipod) = 8 points of recoil reduction. Steve is also a pretty stong guy,
so his strength gives him the extra 1 point he needs to get up to a
completely compensated weapon. Ouch.
But Steve is a ganger. He's never been in the military, and his
experience with rifles is pretty weak. He has a skill of 1. By the
standup vanilla SR3 rules, Steve has a fairly decent chance of reducing
the dope-mobile to scrap metal. Under your rules, he'll only hit with a
maximum of two rounds (one success from his skill, the other from his one
allowable die of Combat Pool). Even though the last round out of the
barrel is just as accurate as the first, Ganger Steve is still unable to
take advantage of this technological marvel he has procured.
Autofire weapons are dangerous, even in the hands of relatively
unskilled shooters, *especially* when the recoil is very slight. I don't
think your proposed system accurately reflects that.
On the plus side, it's easy. That alone may make it worth using,
especially if your campaign is high on cinematic feel. It means the
"goons" with low skills can blaze away with autofire weapons all day and
the heroes can be largely unafraid. If that's what you're going for,
then I think you've hit on a decent system.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@*********.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer