Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: More on Marc's Cover Rules
Date: Wed May 2 13:25:01 2001
Another query:

> "Concealment" refers to something that makes you harder to see, but does
> not impede your movement or make your shot difficult. Something like
> hiding in a bush, or wearing the camou-flage clothing (see Fields of Fire,
> p. 77). If someone is shooting at you, pretty much your whole body is open
> and without and appreciable cover (leaves or tall grass are good examples
> as they don't stop bullets). Concealment works just like cover for the
> purposes of making you harder to see (i.e. penalties to the observer's
> Perception Test run from +1 for minimally obscured targets to +8 for
> completely obscured targets). However, concealment doesn't have associated
> penal-ties for shooting from it like cover does, so it's better (in an
> accuracy sense) to fire from con-cealment rather than cover, as it doesn't
> restrict your movement. Unfortunately, once you're spotted, concealment
> does you exactly zero good. It offers no protection, and thus does not
> incur a penalty to a shooter's target number to hit the concealed
> character. But if you can't be spotted, you are less likely to be shot at
> in the first place (see Stealth rules below).

It seems to me that someone shotting at a target who is partically hidden
behind bushes should still incur the cover penalty to their TN. They are
unable to clearly see their target, and thus unable to accurately shoot at
them. The situation is similar to shooting at someone hiding behind the
proverbial rice-paper shoji panel. They're hard to see, but the panel
provides no bonus if they're shot through it.

To be honest, I really don't think that the cover/concealment
differentiation is all that needed. Concealment is essentially cover with a
Barrier Rating of zero, and should be simply treated as that.

Shooting from concealment is just as difficult as shooting from cover. It
obscurers your vision too. In fact, shooting from concealment is probably
more akin to shooting a concealed target, as the stuff in between you and
the target is going to impede your shot as much as theirs.

Also, I think that treating camoflague as concealment is probably not
exactly in line with the SR system. This should modify Stealth and
Perception Tests, not Ranged Combat Tests.

--
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. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Marc Renouf)
Subject: More on Marc's Cover Rules
Date: Wed May 2 15:40:01 2001
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Damion Milliken wrote:

> It seems to me that someone shotting at a target who is partically hidden
> behind bushes should still incur the cover penalty to their TN. They are
> unable to clearly see their target, and thus unable to accurately shoot at
> them. The situation is similar to shooting at someone hiding behind the
> proverbial rice-paper shoji panel. They're hard to see, but the panel
> provides no bonus if they're shot through it.

I tend to think so as well, but I have yet to come up with a
really good mechanic to model it. Realistically, though, even a bush it
"visually porous" enough that once you've spotted the guy behind it, you
can usually see how he's standing/squatting/whatever.

> To be honest, I really don't think that the cover/concealment
> differentiation is all that needed. Concealment is essentially cover with a
> Barrier Rating of zero, and should be simply treated as that.

The problem is that shooting from *cover* provides a penalty to
your target number to shoot. A sniper-minded person is going to
immediately point out that that's not always the case. There are times
when being in "cover" doesn't make your shot more difficult. But as for
coming up with a mechanic that covers those situations without breaking
something else, I have yet to satisfy myself.

> Shooting from concealment is just as difficult as shooting from cover. It
> obscurers your vision too. In fact, shooting from concealment is probably
> more akin to shooting a concealed target, as the stuff in between you and
> the target is going to impede your shot as much as theirs.

You'd be surprised. Keep in mind that lying down on open ground
and wearing a Ghillie suit is considered "firing from concealment."

> Also, I think that treating camoflague as concealment is probably not
> exactly in line with the SR system. This should modify Stealth and
> Perception Tests, not Ranged Combat Tests.

Um, re-read the proposed house rule. You'll note that a concealed
target poses *no* modifier to shooting. Once you've been spotted, your
concealment means jack. It *does* modify the Perception tests to spot the
target. In that sense, it follows the existing mechanics pretty much flat
out.

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. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: More on Marc's Cover Rules
Date: Wed May 2 16:05:00 2001
Marc Renouf writes:

> I tend to think so as well, but I have yet to come up with a
> really good mechanic to model it. Realistically, though, even a bush it
> "visually porous" enough that once you've spotted the guy behind it, you
> can usually see how he's standing/squatting/whatever.

Yeah, I see what you're getting at. On the other hand, if both of the
combatants are moving around (which is usually assumed in SR), then I still
think that the obstruction provided by such porous cover should apply
normally. You would have greater difficulty determining where/when the
other guy is moving, even from just dodging and weapon alignment movements.

Of course, it is getting rather close to the line, I agree, and could
probably go either way.

> The problem is that shooting from *cover* provides a penalty to
> your target number to shoot. A sniper-minded person is going to
> immediately point out that that's not always the case. There are times
> when being in "cover" doesn't make your shot more difficult. But as for
> coming up with a mechanic that covers those situations without breaking
> something else, I have yet to satisfy myself.

I know what you mean. I usually break at least one rule in such
circumstances. It only really applies at long ranges, where a small angle
of change in weapon direction can cover a large amount of ground, and thus
keep the firer on target without his cover impeding upon him. Perhaps we
could ignore the cover imposed firer modifiers by 1 point for each range
category above short? With the restriction that the firer must be immobile
(ie at -1 to get shot at) to recieve this bonus.

Actually, that doesn't sound so bad, what do you think?

> You'd be surprised. Keep in mind that lying down on open ground
> and wearing a Ghillie suit is considered "firing from concealment."

Although in game terms all this should give is a TN modifier to perception
tests to spot the shooter, and whatever modifiers come from being prone to
being shot at once spotted.

> Um, re-read the proposed house rule. You'll note that a concealed
> target poses *no* modifier to shooting. Once you've been spotted, your
> concealment means jack. It *does* modify the Perception tests to spot the
> target. In that sense, it follows the existing mechanics pretty much flat
> out.

Oh, OK, it wasn't all that clear in the document. When I read it I
interpreted it as planning on applying the camoflague modifier as a
concealment modifier (like bushes), that added to the TN of an attacker.
Perhaps you might want to more carefully word that bit.

--
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. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Marc Renouf)
Subject: More on Marc's Cover Rules
Date: Wed May 2 16:40:01 2001
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Damion Milliken wrote:

> > I tend to think so as well, but I have yet to come up with a
> > really good mechanic to model it. Realistically, though, even a bush it
> > "visually porous" enough that once you've spotted the guy behind it,
you
> > can usually see how he's standing/squatting/whatever.
>
> Yeah, I see what you're getting at. On the other hand, if both of the
> combatants are moving around (which is usually assumed in SR), then I still
> think that the obstruction provided by such porous cover should apply
> normally. You would have greater difficulty determining where/when the
> other guy is moving, even from just dodging and weapon alignment movements.

Right, and I agree with your reasoning whole-heartedly. I just
think it's a tough thing to make a hard-and-fast ruling on.
I think there may be at least one other thing going on here,
though, and that's a difference in how you and I define the terms "cover"
and "concealment" in game terms. If a bush is sufficiently dense to
obstruct your movement and/or firing, I'd call it cover, not concealment.
Concealment applies *only* to things that don't impair your ability to
move or see your target appreciably.
The problem is that there are things that shouldn't make your shot
harder, but *should* make you harder to hit.

> > The problem is that shooting from *cover* provides a penalty to
> > your target number to shoot. A sniper-minded person is going to
> > immediately point out that that's not always the case. There are times
> > when being in "cover" doesn't make your shot more difficult. But as
for
> > coming up with a mechanic that covers those situations without breaking
> > something else, I have yet to satisfy myself.
>
> I know what you mean. I usually break at least one rule in such
> circumstances. It only really applies at long ranges, where a small angle
> of change in weapon direction can cover a large amount of ground, and thus
> keep the firer on target without his cover impeding upon him. Perhaps we
> could ignore the cover imposed firer modifiers by 1 point for each range
> category above short? With the restriction that the firer must be immobile
> (ie at -1 to get shot at) to recieve this bonus.
>
> Actually, that doesn't sound so bad, what do you think?

It sounds good, with a few caveats:

1) I don't use the stationary target = -1 modifier. Stationary target
and shooter are the same - +0. But yes, the target must be
stationary.
2) Maybe instead of -1 for each range category, how about the difference
in base target numbers? i.e., (base range T#-4)? So you could
ignore 1 point of cover at Medium Range, 2 at Long, and 5 at Extreme
range.

Hmmmm. This still seems a little unweildy to me. It makes the
long-range "sniper-takedown" from a covered position a possibility, but it
really doesn't help the shorter ranges enough.
The other problem is that it couples the modifier to the range of
the weapon, which doesn't exactly make sense. It's not really harder to
lay an assault rifle over the edge of your sandbagged revetment than it is
to do the same with your sniper rifle. Yet at the same range, one allows
you to ignore more cover than the other.
On second thought, I don't think this system quite provides what
we're looking for.

Maybe what's needed is a situation whereby the first shot that
someone takes at an unwary target isn't affected by their cover. After
all, you're not ducking and weaving to cover yourself from your opponent's
return fire yet. You're just blasting him while he's flat footed.
That way, sniper and ambush activities from cover are a
possibility, but once the opponent starts throwing lead your way and you
start ducking, your cover starts affecting your subsequent shots.
Wow. That's pretty easy.

> > Um, re-read the proposed house rule. You'll note that a concealed
> > target poses *no* modifier to shooting. Once you've been spotted, your
> > concealment means jack. It *does* modify the Perception tests to spot the
> > target. In that sense, it follows the existing mechanics pretty much flat
> > out.
>
> Oh, OK, it wasn't all that clear in the document.

Oh, that's okay. I understand that being an Aussie means
that English isn't your first language. ;) Sorry, couldn't help
myself. Anyway, my intent was to make it clear that concealment *only*
applied to Perception tests. The section at the end about "covering
concealment" was probably confusing too. I should fix them both.

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. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: More on Marc's Cover Rules
Date: Thu May 3 00:15:01 2001
Marc Renouf writes:

> I think there may be at least one other thing going on here,
> though, and that's a difference in how you and I define the terms "cover"
> and "concealment" in game terms. If a bush is sufficiently dense to
> obstruct your movement and/or firing, I'd call it cover, not concealment.
> Concealment applies *only* to things that don't impair your ability to
> move or see your target appreciably.

Which is pretty much, as far as I can see, only going to occur if you're set
up, waiting in ambush, with just your barrel poking out of the bushes, and
your eyes placed at a gap so that you can see properly. As soon as you
start moving, or the target starts moving appreciably, you'd have all these
leaves and stuff slapping at your face and cutting in and out of your vision.
(This is reminiscent of the sniping discussion below ;-))

The only case I can think of where you would be concealed while moving about
would be if you were _wearing_ the concealment. This would be a situation
like a ruthenium polymer coated individual (which is extremely effective, I
might add, unless the opposition has thermo vision).

Oh, hang on. I could see a possibility for concealment if you were behind
but very close to a low wall. That way the low wall would afford you a
cover modifier (say +2 or maybe +4 if you're lucky), but you could still
clearly see and respond to your targets movements, even if moving yourself.

> The problem is that there are things that shouldn't make your shot
> harder, but *should* make you harder to hit.

Like low walls...

> Maybe what's needed is a situation whereby the first shot that
> someone takes at an unwary target isn't affected by their cover. After
> all, you're not ducking and weaving to cover yourself from your opponent's
> return fire yet. You're just blasting him while he's flat footed.
> That way, sniper and ambush activities from cover are a
> possibility, but once the opponent starts throwing lead your way and you
> start ducking, your cover starts affecting your subsequent shots.
> Wow. That's pretty easy.

Unless they choose to remain stationary, perhaps? If they're not flinching
("he's cool under fire, he'll keep capping and trust his cover to protect
him, rather than dancing about"), and dodging and stuff, then they're
probably still in a reasonable position to shoot without their cover
bothering them. It depends upon how far their target moves, too. If the
target moves a long way (angle wise), then their cover is more likely to
begin to interfere with their aiming. If the target just dances around on
the spot, then it's no realy problem for them to realign. This reason was
why I proposed the range related rule, but of course, it has problems with
varying weapon ranges (sniping with hold out pistols could become very
attractive in close combat situations, due to their _crap_ ranges ;-)).

Maybe we can just allow people to ignore their cover modifiers for shooting
if they accept the stationary modifier and do not use combat pool for
dodging?

--
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. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Marc Renouf)
Subject: More on Marc's Cover Rules
Date: Thu May 3 14:10:05 2001
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Maybe we can just allow people to ignore their cover modifiers for shooting
> if they accept the stationary modifier and do not use combat pool for
> dodging?

I think this is the simplest solution. It also makes the most
sense in terms of interpretation of existing SR cover rules. I like it
enough that I'm going to include this as soon as I get the chance.

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>;

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about More on Marc's Cover Rules, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!