Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Greg James <james@******.ARC.AB.CA>
Subject: Recoil question
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 09:30:37 -0600
I have encountered something I don't understand in the SRII rules, and I
was wondering if someone more familiar could explain.

I'm on page 93, in the example of full-auto recoil. Fourth paragraph (of
the example), it says "a total of 4 points of recoil modification." Fine.

5th para. "The three-round burst qualifies for 3 points of recoil, which
the weapon compensates for." Fine.

6th para. "Now, however, six rounds have left the weapon, so the recoil
modifier is 6. The weapon compensates for 3, leaving 3." Hey, shouldn't
that be, "The weapon compensates for *4*, leaving 2"?

Similarly, 7th para. Why not "The recoil compensation is now 6 (10-4)."?

Why is the recoil compensation being limited to 3?


In Canada, room temperature IQs dropped 50 | Greg James Msc., BSc.(H)
points in 1977. Why? | Research Programmer, PAMI
"Sail all summer, then ski when the | Alberta Research Council
water gets hard." | james@******.arc.ab.ca
Message no. 2
From: Gary Carroll <gary@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 08:43:05 -0700
>greg: I have encountered something I don't understand in the SRII
>rules, and I was wondering if someone more familiar could explain.
>
>I'm on page 93, in the example of full-auto recoil. Fourth paragraph
>(of the example), it says "a total of 4 points of recoil modification."
>Fine.
>
>5th para. "The three-round burst qualifies for 3 points of recoil,
>which the weapon compensates for." Fine.
>
>6th para. "Now, however, six rounds have left the weapon, so the
>recoil modifier is 6. The weapon compensates for 3, leaving 3."
>Hey, shouldn't that be, "The weapon compensates for *4*, leaving
>2"?
>
>Similarly, 7th para. Why not "The recoil compensation is now 6
>(10-4)."?
>
>Why is the recoil compensation being limited to 3?

here's the eratta

p.92-93 full-auto mode
replace the sentence beginning "each round fired..." with the
following: "each round fired inposes a +1 recoil modifier for the
entire group."

also replace the last sentence on the page with: "the power rating
of the weapon increases by 1 point for every round fired in that
full-auto burst."

the example has some errors. replace the fifth to seventh
paragraphs with the following: "the first punk gets a three-round
burst, which increases the damage code of the weapon to 10D. the
three-round burst qualifies for 3 points of recoil, which the weapon
compensates for. punk 1: damage code 10D, target number 3.

"punk 2 gets a three-round burst too, with the same healthy damage
code of 10D. now, however, six rounds have been fired so the total
recoil modifier is 6. the weapon compensates for 3, leaving 3 for a
+3 modifier. this is the second target of the combat phase, which
adds another +2 modifier. punk 2: damage code 10D, target number 8.

"punk 3 gets the four-round burst (lucky her) that has a damage
code of 11D. the recoil modifier is now +7 (10-3). being the third
target also means a +4 modifier added to the attack because of
multiple targets. punk 3: damage code 11D, target number 14."


*looks like it's suppose to be only 3 pts of recoil reduction
*either that or the eratta missed it too.

Thanks
Gary C.
Message no. 3
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 23:10:01 +0200
>I have encountered something I don't understand in the SRII rules, and I
>was wondering if someone more familiar could explain.
>
>I'm on page 93, in the example of full-auto recoil. Fourth paragraph (of
>the example), it says "a total of 4 points of recoil modification." Fine.

You're talking about the example aren't you? I think nobody has managed to
get that worked out completely and correctly, math-wise... Maybe someone
should, and email it to FASA :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The Teddy Pugh Interview
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 4
From: Cugel the Clever <cugel@**.NET>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 00:53:57 +01.0
On 21 Aug 95 at 23:10, Gurth wrote:

[recoil example on p. 93 black book]
> You're talking about the example aren't you? I think nobody has
> managed to get that worked out completely and correctly,
> math-wise... Maybe someone should, and email it to FASA :)

My name is nobody :)
It's easy, the example is dead wrong; Everything is okay till you
reach the third paragraph from below. The right numbers are:
(book quote -> right number)
The weapon compensates for 3 -> should be 4
, leaving 3 -> 2
punk 2: damage code 10D, target number 8 -> 7
the recoil modification is now +7 -> 6
(10-3) -> (10-4)
punk 3: damage code 16D, target number 14 -> 13

AFAIK these are the correct numbers, hopes this helps.

Martin Steffens (Cugel@**.net / bdi05626@***.rhij.nl)
Many an ancient lord's last words had been, "You can't kill me
because I've got magic aaargh."
(Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times)
Geek Code v3.0:
GLS d-(+) s+:+ a?(26) C+(++) U P? L? E? W+ N++ K? w+ O- M- V? PS+
PE- Y+ PGP t+(--) 5? X++ R+(++) tv b+++ DI? D++ G+ e++ h+(!) r y+
Message no. 5
From: Greg James <james@******.ARC.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 16:57:23 -0600
>[recoil example on p. 93 black book]
>> You're talking about the example aren't you? I think nobody has
>> managed to get that worked out completely and correctly,
>> math-wise... Maybe someone should, and email it to FASA :)
>
>My name is nobody :)
>It's easy, the example is dead wrong; Everything is okay till you
>reach the third paragraph from below. The right numbers are:
>(book quote -> right number)
>The weapon compensates for 3 -> should be 4
>, leaving 3 -> 2

No, this is wrong. The weapon only generated 3 points of recoil, so you can
only compensate for 3. It is correct in the example.

In Canada, room temperature IQs dropped 50 | Greg James MSc., BSc.(H)
points in 1977. Why? | Research Programmer, PAMI
"Sail all summer, then ski when the | Alberta Research Council
water gets hard." | james@******.arc.ab.ca
| http://www.arc.ab.ca/~james/
Message no. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 11:27:47 +0200
>No, this is wrong. The weapon only generated 3 points of recoil, so you can
>only compensate for 3. It is correct in the example.

Let's see, it occurs to me that the softback version of the book might have
slightly different numbers in the example... I'll make an attempt to sort it
out as well :)

The first punk: TN 3, +3 recoil, -3 gas vent = TN 3 ; 10D damage.
Second punk: TN 3, +2 second target, +6 recoil, -4 gas vent = TN 7; 10D damage.
Third punk: TN 3, +4 third target, +10 recoil, -4 gas vent = TN 13; 11D damage.

That should be correct, I think.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The Teddy Pugh Interview
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 7
From: Ioannis Pantelidis <jpante@******.COMPULINK.GR>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 12:34:05 +0300
On Mon, 21 Aug 1995, Greg James wrote:
> I'm on page 93, in the example of full-auto recoil. Fourth paragraph (of
> the example), it says "a total of 4 points of recoil modification." Fine.
> 5th para. "The three-round burst qualifies for 3 points of recoil, which
> the weapon compensates for." Fine.
> 6th para. "Now, however, six rounds have left the weapon, so the recoil
> modifier is 6. The weapon compensates for 3, leaving 3." Hey, shouldn't
> that be, "The weapon compensates for *4*, leaving 2"?
> Similarly, 7th para. Why not "The recoil compensation is now 6 (10-4)."?
> Why is the recoil compensation being limited to 3?
IT IS AN OBVIOUS MISTAKE

jpante@*********.gr
I am the Way,the Truth and the Life (Gospel of john 14,6)
Message no. 8
From: "Victor Rodriguez, Jr" <sedahdro@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 05:14:00 EST
>here's the eratta
>
>p.92-93 full-auto mode
>replace the sentence beginning "each round fired..." with the
>following: "each round fired inposes a +1 recoil modifier for the
>entire group."
>
>also replace the last sentence on the page with: "the power rating
>of the weapon increases by 1 point for every round fired in that
>full-auto burst."
>
>the example has some errors. replace the fifth to seventh
>paragraphs with the following: "the first punk gets a three-round
>burst, which increases the damage code of the weapon to 10D. the
>three-round burst qualifies for 3 points of recoil, which the weapon
>compensates for. punk 1: damage code 10D, target number 3.
>
>"punk 2 gets a three-round burst too, with the same healthy damage
>code of 10D. now, however, six rounds have been fired so the total
>recoil modifier is 6. the weapon compensates for 3, leaving 3 for a
>+3 modifier. this is the second target of the combat phase, which
>adds another +2 modifier. punk 2: damage code 10D, target number 8.
>
>"punk 3 gets the four-round burst (lucky her) that has a damage
>code of 11D. the recoil modifier is now +7 (10-3). being the third
>target also means a +4 modifier added to the attack because of
>multiple targets. punk 3: damage code 11D, target number 14."
>
>
>*looks like it's suppose to be only 3 pts of recoil reduction
>*either that or the eratta missed it too.
Where did you get this info from? It's all wrong :) the shooter in the
example is using an Ingram Valiant LMG with Gas Vent 3 (recoil comp. =3) and
a shoulder Stock (Recoil comp =1) for a total of 4 points of recoil. The
power of the attack increases 1 point per bullet fired after the first
(first bullet does the normal dammage of the weapon).:)
---Sedah Drol
Message no. 9
From: "Victor Rodriguez, Jr" <sedahdro@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 05:15:00 EST
>>[recoil example on p. 93 black book]
>>> You're talking about the example aren't you? I think nobody has
>>> managed to get that worked out completely and correctly,
>>> math-wise... Maybe someone should, and email it to FASA :)
>>
>>My name is nobody :)
>>It's easy, the example is dead wrong; Everything is okay till you
>>reach the third paragraph from below. The right numbers are:
>>(book quote -> right number)
>>The weapon compensates for 3 -> should be 4
>>, leaving 3 -> 2
>
>No, this is wrong. The weapon only generated 3 points of recoil, so you can
>only compensate for 3. It is correct in the example.
Sorry, If I am looking at the same example on pg 93 of SRII the gun has gas
vent 3 (+3 recoil comp) and a shockpad (+1 recoil comp) which comes out to
+4 recoil compensation in the base 10 mathematical system (3+1=4).:)
---Sedah Drol
Message no. 10
From: "Victor Rodriguez, Jr" <sedahdro@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 05:14:00 EST
>I have encountered something I don't understand in the SRII rules, and I
>was wondering if someone more familiar could explain.
>
>I'm on page 93, in the example of full-auto recoil. Fourth paragraph (of
>the example), it says "a total of 4 points of recoil modification." Fine.
>
>5th para. "The three-round burst qualifies for 3 points of recoil, which
>the weapon compensates for." Fine.
BTW thats a misquote: the 3-round burst counts for 2 points of recoil, for
which the gun compensates.
>6th para. "Now, however, six rounds have left the weapon, so the recoil
>modifier is 6. The weapon compensates for 3, leaving 3." Hey, shouldn't
>that be, "The weapon compensates for *4*, leaving 2"?
Once again a misquote: 5 points of recoil, final modifier for recoil being 1.
>Similarly, 7th para. Why not "The recoil compensation is now 6 (10-4)."?
>
>Why is the recoil compensation being limited to 3?
What book are you using are you sure it is Shadowrun Second Edition? You
misquoted the text.:) Recoil modifier is equal to total number of rounds
fired minus one (first shot does not count) minus recoil compensation.
---Sedah Drol
Message no. 11
From: "Victor Rodriguez, Jr" <sedahdro@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 05:32:00 EST
>>No, this is wrong. The weapon only generated 3 points of recoil, so you can
>>only compensate for 3. It is correct in the example.
>
>Let's see, it occurs to me that the softback version of the book might have
>slightly different numbers in the example... I'll make an attempt to sort it
>out as well :)
You mean to tell me that the paperback version is different than the
Hardback version as far as that example goes. If so I shall send my humble
appologies to those of you who I said were wrong that's if your using the
paperback, because I am using the hardback for my replies.:)
---Sedah Drol
Message no. 12
From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 11:40:32 GMT
> > From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
>
> > >No, this is wrong. The weapon only generated 3 points of recoil,
> so you can > >only compensate for 3. It is correct in the example.
> >
> > Let's see, it occurs to me that the softback version of the book
> might have
> > slightly different numbers in the example... I'll make an attempt
> to sort it > out as well :)
> >
> The fact that FASA claimed all the errata were in the softback when
> in practice they were not but..
>
> > The first punk: TN 3, +3 recoil, -3 gas vent = TN 3 ; 10D damage.
> > Second punk: TN 3, +2 second target, +6 recoil, -4 gas vent = TN
> 7; 10D damage.
> > Third punk: TN 3, +4 third target, +10 recoil, -4 gas vent = TN
> 13; 11D damage. >
> > That should be correct, I think.
> >
> Believe so!!
> The errata even contained an error for one example, sommething like
> TN 5 and 1,3,4,5,6,6,6,6,6 being 5 success!! oops. still most of the
> examples are enough to teach you the system after which you can
> reverse engineer them and find the errors.
>
> > --
> > Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl -
Mark
Message no. 13
From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 12:45:03 GMT
> From: "Victor Rodriguez, Jr" <sedahdro@*****.COM>

> >I have encountered something I don't understand in the SRII rules, and I
> >was wondering if someone more familiar could explain.
> >
> What book are you using are you sure it is Shadowrun Second Edition? You
> misquoted the text.:) Recoil modifier is equal to total number of rounds
> fired minus one (first shot does not count) minus recoil compensation.

I think this is a case of you suffering form more typos in the
hardback.
The first round does not count for recoil if (and only if) you are
firing in semiautomatic fire mode. There are about two errors in the
master table of recoil modifiers in the Hardback version, and even my
softback is not totally correct (corrected 3rd printing). Burst fire
and full auto pick up recoil for EVERY bullet fired.

even the errata from the GM screen has errors but you can work out
what FASA meant to say.

> ---Sedah Drol
>
Mark
Message no. 14
From: Axel Strack <strack@***.TU-FREIBERG.DE>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 15:06:13 MESZ
I think we should clarify things a bit. It seems to me that there are different
versions of the recoil-rules out there.

1.) Recoil = # of shots fired - 1

2.) Recoil = # of shots fired

We in our gruop are using the SR 2ed. hardcover (german version) and there
recoil-rule #2 is applied. If you are citing number so please also mention the
type of your rulebook.

Oh gosh, I forgot all the smileys ! Please be not offended.

Kid Flash

strack@*******.tu-freiberg.de
Message no. 15
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 15:21:23 +0200
>>Let's see, it occurs to me that the softback version of the book might have
>>slightly different numbers in the example... I'll make an attempt to sort it
>>out as well :)
>You mean to tell me that the paperback version is different than the
>Hardback version as far as that example goes. If so I shall send my humble
>appologies to those of you who I said were wrong that's if your using the
>paperback, because I am using the hardback for my replies.:)

No, I'm a lucky owner of a hardback edition of SR2, which has several
mistakes in it that the softback doesn't... Look at the errata sheet for
both books, all mistakes made in the softback are also in the hardback, but
the hardback also has loads of others, which FASA presumably corrected
between the times the hb went to the printers and the time the sb went.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The Teddy Pugh Interview
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 15:21:20 +0200
>What book are you using are you sure it is Shadowrun Second Edition? You
>misquoted the text.:) Recoil modifier is equal to total number of rounds
>fired minus one (first shot does not count) minus recoil compensation.

First shot does count, it's in the errata. So firing 4 rounds gives you +4,
not +3. Only if you fire on semi-auto does the first round not count (the
first shot is at +0, the 2nd at +1).

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The Teddy Pugh Interview
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 17
From: "Victor Rodriguez, Jr" <sedahdro@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:33:00 EST
>I think we should clarify things a bit. It seems to me that there are different
>versions of the recoil-rules out there.
>
>1.) Recoil = # of shots fired - 1
>
>2.) Recoil = # of shots fired
>
>We in our gruop are using the SR 2ed. hardcover (german version) and there
>recoil-rule #2 is applied. If you are citing number so please also mention the
>type of your rulebook.
I am using SR 2ed. hardcover (english version) where #1 is used in text and
#2 is used in table.
---Sedah Drol
Message no. 18
From: "Victor Rodriguez, Jr" <sedahdro@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:33:00 EST
>>What book are you using are you sure it is Shadowrun Second Edition? You
>>misquoted the text.:) Recoil modifier is equal to total number of rounds
>>fired minus one (first shot does not count) minus recoil compensation.
>
>First shot does count, it's in the errata. So firing 4 rounds gives you +4,
>not +3. Only if you fire on semi-auto does the first round not count (the
>first shot is at +0, the 2nd at +1).
Where is this errata located? Was it put out by FASA? I would like to get
download it. By the way were these type of discrepancies in SRI? Just
curious. :)
---Sedah Drol
Message no. 19
From: Cugel the Clever <cugel@**.NET>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 21:46:24 +01.0
On 21 Aug 95 at 16:57, Greg James wrote:

> >My name is nobody :)
> >It's easy, the example is dead wrong; Everything is okay till you
> >reach the third paragraph from below. The right numbers are: (book
> >quote -> right number) The weapon compensates for 3 -> should be 4
> >, leaving 3 -> 2
>
> No, this is wrong. The weapon only generated 3 points of recoil, so
> you can only compensate for 3. It is correct in the example.

Nope, from SRII black book, p. 93:
"The Valiant has a damage code of 7S, and this particular weapon is
equipped with a rating 3 gas vent system on the barrel and a shock
pad on the stock, for a total of 4 points of recoil modification"

I rest my case :)

Martin Steffens (Cugel@**.net / bdi05626@***.rhij.nl)
Many an ancient lord's last words had been, "You can't kill me
because I've got magic aaargh."
(Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times)
Geek Code v3.0:
GLS d-(+) s+:+ a?(26) C+(++) U P? L? E? W+ N++ K? w+ O- M- V? PS+
PE- Y+ PGP t+(--) 5? X++ R+(++) tv b+++ DI? D++ G+ e++ h+(!) r y+
Message no. 20
From: Greg James <james@******.ARC.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:02:48 -0600
>On 21 Aug 95 at 16:57, Greg James wrote:
>
>> >My name is nobody :)
>> >It's easy, the example is dead wrong; Everything is okay till you
>> >reach the third paragraph from below. The right numbers are: (book
>> >quote -> right number) The weapon compensates for 3 -> should be 4
>> >, leaving 3 -> 2
>>
>> No, this is wrong. The weapon only generated 3 points of recoil, so
>> you can only compensate for 3. It is correct in the example.
>
>Nope, from SRII black book, p. 93:
>"The Valiant has a damage code of 7S, and this particular weapon is
>equipped with a rating 3 gas vent system on the barrel and a shock
>pad on the stock, for a total of 4 points of recoil modification"

I'm not denying that the Valiant has 4 points of recoil modification. What
I'm saying is tha during a three-round burst, as in the SRII (sc,3rd
printing) example, only three points of recoil are generated. Therefore,
the recoil compensation can only nullify the generated recoil, not further
reduce the target number.

Even if the Valiant had *ten* points of recoil reduction, it can only
cancel what was generated.

In Canada, room temperature IQs dropped 50 | Greg James MSc., BSc.(H)
points in 1977. Why? | Research Programmer, PAMI
"Sail all summer, then ski when the | Alberta Research Council
water gets hard." | james@******.arc.ab.ca
| http://www.arc.ab.ca/~james/
Message no. 21
From: Cugel the Clever <cugel@**.NET>
Subject: Re: Recoil question
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 01:27:19 +01.0
On 22 Aug 95 at 14:02, Greg James wrote:

> I'm not denying that the Valiant has 4 points of recoil
> modification. What I'm saying is tha during a three-round burst, as
> in the SRII (sc,3rd printing) example, only three points of recoil
> are generated. Therefore, the recoil compensation can only nullify
> the generated recoil, not further reduce the target number.

Yes, and...? The numbers given by me are still correct:
First ganger; base target 4; -1 for laser = 3
recoil +3; recoil compesation 4, so for first three shots no recoil
=> target number = 3

Second ganger; +2 different target, +6 recoil, -4 recoil comp. =>
total modifiers +4 => target number = 7

third ganger; +4 different target, +10 recoil, -4 recoil comp. =>
total modifiers +10 => target number = 13

Again, your honor, I rest my case :)
(I think the prosecution overlooked the laser ;)

Martin Steffens (Cugel@**.net / bdi05626@***.rhij.nl)
Many an ancient lord's last words had been, "You can't kill me
because I've got magic aaargh."
(Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times)
Geek Code v3.0:
GLS d-(+) s+:+ a?(26) C+(++) U P? L? E? W+ N++ K? w+ O- M- V? PS+
PE- Y+ PGP t+(--) 5? X++ R+(++) tv b+++ DI? D++ G+ e++ h+(!) r y+
Message no. 22
From: Bruce <gyro@********.CO.ZA>
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:07:46 +0200
Hello

Reading FoF , page37. Franchi SPAS shotgun
It says that the weapon has a +2 recoil modifier and 1 point
of recoil reduction from the stock.

Now if I fire one shot from the shotgun, is there any penalty?
If I fire two shots in the same phase, the second shot has a +4 mod
because it is the second shot, right? (presume the stock is folded)
And if I fire a burst, the recoil mod is +6? And the second burst +12?

This sounds really difficult! Surely spraying 6 shot rounds into an
area will make it pretty easy to hit SOMEthing?

Thanks
BRUCE <gyro@********.co.za>
*Executive Engineer* *FrontLine Games*
Yo soy un disco quebrado
Yo tengo chicle en cerebro
sm:)e
Message no. 23
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Recoil Question
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:40:24 -0600
On Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:07:46 +0200 Bruce <gyro@********.CO.ZA> writes:
>Hello
>
>Reading FoF , page37. Franchi SPAS shotgun
>It says that the weapon has a +2 recoil modifier and 1 point
>of recoil reduction from the stock.
>
>Now if I fire one shot from the shotgun, is there any penalty?
>If I fire two shots in the same phase, the second shot has a +4 mod
>because it is the second shot, right? (presume the stock is folded)
>And if I fire a burst, the recoil mod is +6? And the second burst +12?
>
>This sounds really difficult! Surely spraying 6 shot rounds into an
>area will make it pretty easy to hit SOMEthing?

The way I'd interpret the entry is:
If you fire one shot from the shotgun, there is a +2 penalty from recoil.
If you fire two shots in the same round, the first shot has a +2 penalty
and the second has a +3.
If you fire a burst, the first burst has a penalty of +5 and the second
has a penalty of +8.

IOW, calaculate recoil normally, then add 2. That's how interpret it.
Does that make sense?

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
re-cur-sion (ri-kur'-zhen) noun. 1. See recursion.

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 24
From: Bruce <gyro@********.CO.ZA>
Subject: Re: Recoil Question
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:18:35 +0200
-----Original Message-----
From: D. Ghost <dghost@****.COM>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: 19 November 1998 02:54
Subject: Re: Recoil Question


>>Reading FoF , page37. Franchi SPAS shotgun
>>It says that the weapon has a +2 recoil modifier and 1 point
>>of recoil reduction from the stock.

<snip examples>

>IOW, calaculate recoil normally, then add 2. That's how interpret
it.
>Does that make sense?


I dont recall ever having seen a mechanic like that in regards recoil
I thought it was a "per shot" kinda system
Any other clues?

BRUCE <gyro@********.co.za>
*Executive Engineer* *FrontLine Games*
Yo soy un disco quebrado
Yo tengo chicle en cerebro
sm:)e
Message no. 25
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Recoil Question
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:26:34 +0000
Ghost said,

> >It says that the weapon has a +2 recoil modifier and 1 point
> >of recoil reduction from the stock.
> >
> >Now if I fire one shot from the shotgun, is there any penalty?
>
> IOW, calaculate recoil normally, then add 2. That's how interpret it.
> Does that make sense?

I always thought it was an unhelpful reminder that shotguns use heavy
weapon recoil.

Regards,
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 26
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Recoil Question
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:33:59 -0700
For the mere cost of a Thaum, Bruce wrote:
/
/ And if I fire a burst, the recoil mod is +6? And the second burst +12?
/
/ This sounds really difficult! Surely spraying 6 shot rounds into an
/ area will make it pretty easy to hit SOMEthing?

Don't forget to open up the choke. Firing a shotgun burst on full
spread can reek havoc.

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 27
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Recoil Question
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:13:06 +0100
According to Bruce, at 12:07 on 19 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

> It says that the weapon has a +2 recoil modifier and 1 point
> of recoil reduction from the stock.

What bothers me about FoF is how they put rules that normally apply anyway
in the weapon's description, but in different words so it's either
confusing or not clear that two rules are actually the same.

In this case, I've always read it as "The SPAS uses heavy weapon recoil
rules" just like any other BF-capable shotgun (according to the SRII
errata and SR3). IOW, recoil remaining after compensation is doubled.

> Now if I fire one shot from the shotgun, is there any penalty?

I would say no.

> If I fire two shots in the same phase, the second shot has a +4 mod
> because it is the second shot, right? (presume the stock is folded)

No. If there is no recoil comp on the weapon, the second shot gets a +1 TN
modifier -- the heavy weapon recoil rules only apply to shotguns fired in
BF mode. Anyway, recoil in SA-mode only applies to the second shot, and it
only gets the modifier from the shot before it, not from itself.

However, if you read the rule in FoF as meaning that the recoil modifier
for every shot is +2, then the SPAS has a +2 for the second shot (and +0
for the first).

> And if I fire a burst, the recoil mod is +6? And the second burst +12?

If you're using the stock, the first burst would be at +4, and the second
at +10 when using the heavy weapon recoil rules.

If you take each shot at +2, then you get a +5 and +11, because the 1
point of compensation would only be able to take 1 off the recoil of the
first shot (making the burst go from +6 to +5).

Without the stock, it would be +6/+12 in either case.

> This sounds really difficult! Surely spraying 6 shot rounds into an
> area will make it pretty easy to hit SOMEthing?

Not if the gun is pointing at the ceiling by the time the third shot
leaves the barrel...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
He likes to sleep. Sometimes he has good dreams.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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. 28
From: Joshua Mumme <Grimlakin@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Recoil Question
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:13:53 -0600
Fade wrote:

> Ghost said,
>
> > >It says that the weapon has a +2 recoil modifier and 1 point
> > >of recoil reduction from the stock.
> > >
> > >Now if I fire one shot from the shotgun, is there any penalty?
> >
> > IOW, calaculate recoil normally, then add 2. That's how interpret it.
> > Does that make sense?

The way that I do the recoil is as I believe was stated in SR3 not sure
though. But here it is. For every point of UNCOMPENSATED recoil as in not
allready dampend then add the recoil modifiers but doubled. So a +2 becomes
a +4.

>
>
> --
> Fade
>

Grimlakin
Message no. 29
From: "Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Recoil Question
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:19:52 +1000
> >>Reading FoF , page37. Franchi SPAS shotgun
> >>It says that the weapon has a +2 recoil modifier and 1 point
> >>of recoil reduction from the stock.
>
> <snip examples>
>
> >IOW, calaculate recoil normally, then add 2. That's how interpret
> it.
> >Does that make sense?
>
> I dont recall ever having seen a mechanic like that in regards recoil
> I thought it was a "per shot" kinda system
> Any other clues?
> BRUCE <gyro@********.co.za>
>
No, there isn't a specific mechanic like that, but if you read it and
think about it...

The weapon has a + (plus, mind you) 2 recoil modifier (modifier).

Now, I know Shadowrun is sometimes bad about this kind of thing, but I
do believe if they'd intended for this to follow the heavy weapons rules
they would have stated that in so many words.

The reason why no one has ever seen a mechanic like this in regards to
recoil before is because (as I see it) this is a NEW MECHANIC.

Now look at the wording. It says the weapon has a +2 modifier. Doesn't a
plus imply an addition rather than a multiplication (which is what the
heavy weapon recoil rules are)? And it's a modifier - not a multiplier.

I'd agree with D. Ghost. I'd say you're supposed to add 2 points of
recoil to any shot you make with the weapon. (As I recall, this is the
same rule that the Barret Sniper rifle has.) Any recoil compensation
subtracts from that normally.

IF it said "The weapon has a x2 recoil multiplier" I would agree that
it's using the heavy weapons recoil rules. But it doesn't say that.

And, what with Gas Vents and the like (inc. the high strength and recoil
rules from FoF), I reckon the final recoil modifier from my
interpretation is likely to be higher than from your interpretation -
unless, of course, you've got a gun with no accessories. No big deal,
but I just think my interpretation is more realistic.

*Doc' does his 2 plus tables. 1+2 is 2. 2+2 is 4. 3+2 is 6. 4+2 is 8.
5+2 is 10...*

*Doc' behaves like an absolute smartass...:)*

Doc'

.sig Sauer
Message no. 30
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Recoil Question
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:17:24 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 10:19 AM 11/20/98 +1000, you wrote:
>> >>Reading FoF , page37. Franchi SPAS shotgun
>> >>It says that the weapon has a +2 recoil modifier and 1 point
>> >>of recoil reduction from the stock.
<<Snip>>

>Now, I know Shadowrun is sometimes bad about this kind of thing, but
I
>do believe if they'd intended for this to follow the heavy weapons
rules
>they would have stated that in so many words.

A few books down the road, in the BBB3, they do state explicitly that
shotguns fired in burst fire mode follow the heavy weapons rules.

>The reason why no one has ever seen a mechanic like this in regards
to
>recoil before is because (as I see it) this is a NEW MECHANIC.

I see it as part of the poor Quality Control that was evident in
certain places of Fields of Fire, right up there with the Colt M-23
with the Conceal rating of 40(c).

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNlTRDKPbvUVI86rNAQEO4AQApBiNG7FwilzHDMdTxCsmN0VxC4XF//ei
GVTM85vtMHnb9zq5Pzc3F4jiwuXmyAEZgt5ZP40ThLCs8hkKZpTf+asqv0SM046d
3lbIK08u7eaY0+4NCs2+gv2yK6z6uqIdOcq36kr25nzbrfjxyh+UNDlnaJ9bNUIz
a8mSDG2O0Qc=
=KyxM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 31
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Recoil Question
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:15:34 +0100
According to Ratinac, Rand (NSW), at 10:19 on 20 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

> Now, I know Shadowrun is sometimes bad about this kind of thing, but I
> do believe if they'd intended for this to follow the heavy weapons rules
> they would have stated that in so many words.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Read the other weapons' special rules
in FoF -- for exmaple, they say things like "The HVAR accepts under-barrel
and top-mounted accessories," completely ignoring the stock mount.

> Now look at the wording. It says the weapon has a +2 modifier. Doesn't a
> plus imply an addition rather than a multiplication (which is what the
> heavy weapon recoil rules are)? And it's a modifier - not a multiplier.

FASA never does seem to be brilliant with mathmatics...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
He likes to sleep. Sometimes he has good dreams.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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. 32
From: BrotherJustice50@***.com BrotherJustice50@***.com
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:10:05 EDT
This has probably been answered many times before, but here goes. For heavy
weapons, using both SR3 and the new CC rules, when calculating recoil, do you
double the recoil first, or only double the uncompensated recoil? Example:
Joe fires an HMG at FA and fires a 7 round stream of bullets. He has a STR of
6 (-1 Recoil) and Gas Vent IV. Is his recoil 7-5=2x2=Final Recoil Modifier of
+4? Or is it 7x2-5=Final Recoil Modifier of +9? Which way?
Message no. 33
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:22:28 -0600
BrotherJustice50@***.com wrote:
>This has probably been answered many times before, but here goes. For heavy
>weapons, using both SR3 and the new CC rules, when calculating recoil, do you
>double the recoil first, or only double the uncompensated recoil? Example:
>Joe fires an HMG at FA and fires a 7 round stream of bullets. He has a STR of
>6 (-1 Recoil) and Gas Vent IV. Is his recoil 7-5=2x2=Final Recoil Modifier of
>+4? Or is it 7x2-5=Final Recoil Modifier of +9? Which way?

Double the recoil before compensating. The final recoil in your example
should be +9.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"If we fill our hours with regrets of yesterday
and with worries of tomorrow,
we have no today in which to be thankful."
Message no. 34
From: Wavy Davy ctysmd@***.leeds.ac.uk
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:47:52 +0100 (BST)
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:

> BrotherJustice50@***.com wrote:
> >This has probably been answered many times before, but here goes. For heavy
> >weapons, using both SR3 and the new CC rules, when calculating recoil, do you
> >double the recoil first, or only double the uncompensated recoil? Example:
> >Joe fires an HMG at FA and fires a 7 round stream of bullets. He has a STR of
> >6 (-1 Recoil) and Gas Vent IV. Is his recoil 7-5=2x2=Final Recoil Modifier of
> >+4? Or is it 7x2-5=Final Recoil Modifier of +9? Which way?
>
> Double the recoil before compensating. The final recoil in your example
> should be +9.

Not so. On p.110 of SR3, under 'Recoil' it says

"For example, if a medium machine gun fires 10 rounds and has 6 points
of recoils compensation, its final recoil modifier would be +8n (10
for the ten rounds minus 6 for the recoil compensation equals 4, 4
doubled is 8)"

There is no direct rule regarding this in CC.

So this means, in BrotherJustice's example, the final modifier would
be +4 (7-5 = 2, 2*2 = 4)

--
Wavy Davy (who shares wins)
...If you're robbing a bank, and your pants suddenly fall down, I think it's
okay to laugh, and to let the hostages laugh too, because life is funny.
Message no. 35
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:04:01 -0600
Wavy Davy wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:
>
> > BrotherJustice50@***.com wrote:
> > >This has probably been answered many times before, but here goes. For
> heavy
> > >weapons, using both SR3 and the new CC rules, when calculating recoil,
> do you
> > >double the recoil first, or only double the uncompensated recoil? Example:
> > >Joe fires an HMG at FA and fires a 7 round stream of bullets. He has a
> STR of
> > >6 (-1 Recoil) and Gas Vent IV. Is his recoil 7-5=2x2=Final Recoil
> Modifier of
> > >+4? Or is it 7x2-5=Final Recoil Modifier of +9? Which way?
> >
> > Double the recoil before compensating. The final recoil in your example
> > should be +9.
>
> Not so. On p.110 of SR3, under 'Recoil' it says
>
> "For example, if a medium machine gun fires 10 rounds and has 6 points
> of recoils compensation, its final recoil modifier would be +8n (10
> for the ten rounds minus 6 for the recoil compensation equals 4, 4
> doubled is 8)"

Well that's F'd up, IMHO. This isn't directed against you Davy, but at
SR's rule.

I could almost swear that in the SR2 rules heavy weapon recoil was doubled
before recoil compensation was applied.

And in any case, it doesn't make sense to apply the recoil compensation
before doubling the recoil.

If recoil for heavy weapons is doubled, and each point of recoil
compensation counters *one* point of recoil, then recoil compensation
should be applied *after* the recoil is doubled. If a heavy weapon fires a
three round burst then that results in six points of recoil (3 x 2). How
in the heck can a two points of recoil compensation, for example, counter
four points of recoil just because the recoil compensator is mounted on a
heavy weapon. Do recoil compensators suddenly become more efficient if
they're mounted on heavy weapons?

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Learn, Teach. Get, Give. Pass it on. Pass it on."
Message no. 36
From: Andy Minor andyman@****.pyro.net
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:43:32 -0500 (CDT)
> Wavy Davy (who shares wins) wrote:
>
> > Double the recoil before compensating. The final recoil in your example
> > should be +9.
>
> Not so. On p.110 of SR3, under 'Recoil' it says
>
> "For example, if a medium machine gun fires 10 rounds and has 6 points
> of recoils compensation, its final recoil modifier would be +8n (10
> for the ten rounds minus 6 for the recoil compensation equals 4, 4
> doubled is 8)"
>
> There is no direct rule regarding this in CC.

There isn't? The phrase that sticks in my head about heavy weapons and
recoil is "double all uncompensated recoil when using heavy weapons." It
says that exactly on CC, page 24 (in the Heavy Weapons opening paragraph).
So compensate first, then double. Your example below is exactly right.

Andyman


> So this means, in BrotherJustice's example, the final modifier would
> be +4 (7-5 = 2, 2*2 = 4)

--
Andy Minor
Andyman@****.net
Message no. 37
From: Wavy Davy ctysmd@***.leeds.ac.uk
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:00:59 +0100 (BST)
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:

> If recoil for heavy weapons is doubled, and each point of recoil
> compensation counters *one* point of recoil, then recoil compensation
> should be applied *after* the recoil is doubled. If a heavy weapon fires a
> three round burst then that results in six points of recoil (3 x 2). How
> in the heck can a two points of recoil compensation, for example, counter
> four points of recoil just because the recoil compensator is mounted on a
> heavy weapon. Do recoil compensators suddenly become more efficient if
> they're mounted on heavy weapons?

I dont think so, no. It just means that if the recoil is not
compensated, the effects on accuracy are greater because of the heavier
calibre. I do see your point though. I think the SR3 rule is more
playable, as using your version a super machine gun's fullauto recoil
is +36!

There is also the issue of mounting. Rigger 2 suggests that having a
proper mount negates the double-uncomensated recoil for heavy weapons
(p.57) Would a gyromount or tripod count in these situations? I
would rule so, just to make these weapons actually have a change of
hitting something rather than degenerating into a competition to see
how high a traget number we cant get!


Wavy Davy (who shares wins)
...If you're robbing a bank, and your pants suddenly fall down, I think it's
okay to laugh, and to let the hostages laugh too, because life is funny.
Message no. 38
From: Wavy Davy ctysmd@***.leeds.ac.uk
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:05:49 +0100 (BST)
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, Andy Minor wrote:

> There isn't? The phrase that sticks in my head about heavy weapons and
> recoil is "double all uncompensated recoil when using heavy weapons." It
> says that exactly on CC, page 24 (in the Heavy Weapons opening paragraph).
> So compensate first, then double. Your example below is exactly right.

Okay add " that is any different to SR3" of the end if ya would for
me!

:)

--
Wavy Davy (who shares wins)
...If you're robbing a bank, and your pants suddenly fall down, I think it's
okay to laugh, and to let the hostages laugh too, because life is funny.
Message no. 39
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:51:37 -0400 (EDT)
dbuehrer@******.carl.org writes:
> Well that's F'd up, IMHO. This isn't directed against you Davy, but at
> SR's rule.
>
> If recoil for heavy weapons is doubled, and each point of recoil
> compensation counters *one* point of recoil, then recoil compensation
> should be applied *after* the recoil is doubled. If a heavy weapon fires a
> three round burst then that results in six points of recoil (3 x 2). How
> in the heck can a two points of recoil compensation, for example, counter
> four points of recoil just because the recoil compensator is mounted on a
> heavy weapon. Do recoil compensators suddenly become more efficient if
> they're mounted on heavy weapons?

I always assumed that the recoil compensators were bigger on
the heavy weapons... When I GM, you aren't allowed to take a gas vent
off of a SMG and remount it on your HMG.

Mark
Message no. 40
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 14:29:43 -0600
Mark A Shieh wrote:
>dbuehrer@******.carl.org writes:
> > Well that's F'd up, IMHO. This isn't directed against you Davy, but at
> > SR's rule.
> >
> > If recoil for heavy weapons is doubled, and each point of recoil
> > compensation counters *one* point of recoil, then recoil compensation
> > should be applied *after* the recoil is doubled. If a heavy weapon
> fires a
> > three round burst then that results in six points of recoil (3 x 2). How
> > in the heck can a two points of recoil compensation, for example, counter
> > four points of recoil just because the recoil compensator is mounted on a
> > heavy weapon. Do recoil compensators suddenly become more efficient if
> > they're mounted on heavy weapons?
>
> I always assumed that the recoil compensators were bigger on
>the heavy weapons... When I GM, you aren't allowed to take a gas vent
>off of a SMG and remount it on your HMG.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the cost of recoil compensation the
same, regardless of whether it's mounted on a regular firearm or a heavy
weapon?

If there were a cost difference, I would go along with you, but there
isn't, so...

BTW, as I re-read my post it came off pretty brusk. I did not intend to
write it that way. It was more in the mood of a dazed sort of "you gotta
be kidding me" :)

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are
permitted to remain children all of our lives."
-Einstein
Message no. 41
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:03:13 +0200
According to Wavy Davy, at 20:00 on 17 Apr 00, the word on the street
was...

> I dont think so, no. It just means that if the recoil is not
> compensated, the effects on accuracy are greater because of the heavier
> calibre. I do see your point though. I think the SR3 rule is more
> playable, as using your version a super machine gun's fullauto recoil
> is +36!

So use some rules that allow partial bursts to hit. All it takes is an
open test instead of a normal skill test: with the house rule I use, you
roll your dice, and the difference between the roll and the TN, without
recoil modifiers, is the number of bullets that hit out of an aimed burst
(with a minimum of 1 round). The number of successes, for staging the
damage, is equal to half (round up) the number of successes that equal or
exceed the TN for a single shot.

For example, a target at Medium range (TN 5) under partial cover (+4)
being fired at with a smartlinked (-2) AK-97 at full auto (10 shots). The
single shot TN is 7, and your dice roll 2, 5, 8, 8, 14. That's a high of
14, so 14 - 7 = 7 rounds hit, with two successes: 8, 8, and 14 are three
successes, divided by 2 gives 1.5, rounded up to 2 successes. Therefore,
the total damage will be 15D with two successes behind it.

Compare this to the SR3 rules, where the entire burst would have missed,
because you needed a 17 to hit for 18D damage.

*insert Marc's "That's what I use, too" here :) *

> There is also the issue of mounting. Rigger 2 suggests that having a
> proper mount negates the double-uncomensated recoil for heavy weapons
> (p.57) Would a gyromount or tripod count in these situations?

No; they provide standard recoil compensation equal to their rating.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: 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. 42
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:03:13 +0200
According to dbuehrer@******.carl.org, at 12:04 on 17 Apr 00, the word on
the street was...

> Well that's F'd up, IMHO. This isn't directed against you Davy, but at
> SR's rule.
>
> I could almost swear that in the SR2 rules heavy weapon recoil was doubled
> before recoil compensation was applied.

In SRII, it was also applied after compensation.

> And in any case, it doesn't make sense to apply the recoil compensation
> before doubling the recoil.

That's what I figure, too. Doubling after compensation allows players to
negate the recoil much more easily -- stick a gas vent 3 on a BF shotgun
and you've got a 12D weapon that has no recoil...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: 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. 43
From: The Dave minushuman308@*******.com
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 14:08:02 GMT
>Mark A Shieh wrote:

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the cost of recoil compensation the
>same, regardless of whether it's mounted on a regular firearm or a heavy
>weapon?

I know this has been run into the ground over the posts from the cailber
questions, but the big difference isn't whether the compensator costs more,
but whether it is the same cailber as the donor weapon. Most SMG's will
fire a larger handgun round such as 9mm, .40 S+W, or .45 ACP whereas HMG's
are closer to the 7.62x59mm and .50 BMG ranges. An internal gas vent will
be ribbed into the barrel of a weapon and therefore cannot be placed on a
different firearm, and an external compensator must be placed on a firearm
of the same caliber or it won't even thread into the barrel.

What I try to do is lay down a list of handgun calibers doing approximately
the same damage IRL - .38 special and 9mm for example - and then make a
master list of guns I believe would use those calibers. If players buy
ammo, they buy it gun-specific and can only switch ammo between weapons of
the same caliber. This makes things really interesting when you have a team
member out of rounds and another slides him a clip (which are also
gun-specific IRL). I run with one guy who has never fired a gun in his life
and argues this with me every time we play. Oh well.

The Dave
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 44
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:24:57 -0600
The Dave wrote:
>>Mark A Shieh wrote:
>
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the cost of recoil compensation the
>>same, regardless of whether it's mounted on a regular firearm or a heavy
>>weapon?

Actually, I wrote this, not Mark :)

>I know this has been run into the ground over the posts from the cailber
>questions, but the big difference isn't whether the compensator costs
>more, but whether it is the same cailber as the donor weapon. Most SMG's
>will fire a larger handgun round such as 9mm, .40 S+W, or .45 ACP whereas
>HMG's are closer to the 7.62x59mm and .50 BMG ranges. An internal gas
>vent will be ribbed into the barrel of a weapon and therefore cannot be
>placed on a different firearm, and an external compensator must be placed
>on a firearm of the same caliber or it won't even thread into the barrel.

Ah, got it. So despite the fact that the price for a gas vent in Shadowrun
would be the same regardless of the weapon modified, a gas vent on a heavy
machine gun is more effective than a gas vent on a hold out pistol, but
because the heavy machine gun produces more recoil it's all relative.

Then I guess all I need to do to ease my mind is add a house rule for my
game that recoil compensators are a percentage cost of the weapon they are
applied to, instead of a flat cost. Now I just have to go through all of
the recoil compensators and figure out the percantages :)

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Warm nights, good food, kindred spirits....great life!"
Message no. 45
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:28:17 +0100
In article <4.2.2.20000418081754.00a2b140@******.carl.org>,
dbuehrer@******.carl.org writes
>Ah, got it. So despite the fact that the price for a gas vent in Shadowrun
>would be the same regardless of the weapon modified, a gas vent on a heavy
>machine gun is more effective than a gas vent on a hold out pistol, but
>because the heavy machine gun produces more recoil it's all relative.

Actually, if you treat "gas venting", especially an improved gas vent-2, as
porting the barrel rather than fitting a compensator, then it could be
more expensive to modify a hold-out - small barrel, higher precision
needed :)


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 46
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
<BigSnip(TM)>
> Then I guess all I need to do to ease my mind is add
a house rule for my game that recoil compensators are
a percentage cost of the weapon they are applied to,
instead of a flat cost. Now I just have to go through
all of the recoil compensators and figure out the
percantages :)
> -Graht

Twenty, thirty, forty and fifty percent respectively,
Dave. That makes them quite a bit more expensive for
the larger weapons, but quite a bit less for smaller
ones. It averages out.

That'd be my call, anyway.

*Doc' wonders about getting recoil compensation for
his nose, so he doesn't rattle his brains around when
he sneezes...*

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

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com
Message no. 47
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:14:22 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
:>> Do recoil compensators suddenly become more efficient if
:> > they're mounted on heavy weapons?

IMO, yes, they would. A gas vent would have more powerful gas discharge
to vector agains recoil, barrel weights and grips would be further from
center of mass, providing more leverage / rotational inertia, etc. In any
case, its reasonable enough to allow heavy wepons full recoil compensation
effects.

:> I always assumed that the recoil compensators were bigger on
:>the heavy weapons... When I GM, you aren't allowed to take a gas vent
:>off of a SMG and remount it on your HMG.
:
:Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the cost of recoil compensation the
:same, regardless of whether it's mounted on a regular firearm or a heavy
:weapon?
:
:If there were a cost difference, I would go along with you, but there
:isn't, so...

The cost (and weight) might vary some, but that seems pretty finicky for
a game like SR. Actually, wiehgt would go up more than cost- maching a
naumber of vents itno a hunk of metal (or whatever) doens't cost much more
if its a slightly bigger chunk of metal.


Mongoose

_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 48
From: Glenn Sprott wasntka44@*********.net
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:59:14 -0400
dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the cost of recoil compensation
the
>same, regardless of whether it's mounted on a regular firearm or a
heavy
>weapon?
>
>If there were a cost difference, I would go along with you, but there
>isn't, so...

That isn't really the issue. If you compare the price of clothing,
you might see what I mean. Most of the time (if not all), XXXL size
clothing costs the same as M and S sizes. They are different, but I
hope the XXXL guy doesn't try to fit into the S. : )

---------------------------
Wasntka
"...That peculiar disease of intellectuals,
that infatuation with ideas at the expense
of experience that compels experience to
conform to bookish preconceptions."
--Archibald MacLiesh
Message no. 49
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 00 00:13:03 -0500
Not trying to go off topic with this but as one who has to buy 3X and 4X
Clothing I can tell you that that is most certainly NOT the Case. I pay
between a 10% and 100% premium for clothing that fits me depending on the
piece. Part of it is Economies of scale (There are fewer people my Size
than there are who wear M and L Clothes) Evidenced by the fact that XS
Clothig is also more expensive than the norm, but most of it comes from
increased cost of Raw Materiels.

To bring it a little more on topic, This is why Dwarves and Trolls have
to pay a 10% premium on many things to get them properly Sized for their
bodies.


Steve


On 4/17/00 9:59 pm, Glenn Sprott said:

>dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the cost of recoil compensation
>the
>>same, regardless of whether it's mounted on a regular firearm or a
>heavy
>>weapon?
>>
>>If there were a cost difference, I would go along with you, but there
>>isn't, so...
>
>That isn't really the issue. If you compare the price of clothing,
>you might see what I mean. Most of the time (if not all), XXXL size
>clothing costs the same as M and S sizes. They are different, but I
>hope the XXXL guy doesn't try to fit into the S. : )
>
>---------------------------
>Wasntka
>"...That peculiar disease of intellectuals,
>that infatuation with ideas at the expense
>of experience that compels experience to
>conform to bookish preconceptions."
> --Archibald MacLiesh
>
>
>
>
Message no. 50
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 07:43:09 -0600
Paul J. Adam wrote:
>In article <4.2.2.20000418081754.00a2b140@******.carl.org>,
>dbuehrer@******.carl.org writes
> >Ah, got it. So despite the fact that the price for a gas vent in Shadowrun
> >would be the same regardless of the weapon modified, a gas vent on a heavy
> >machine gun is more effective than a gas vent on a hold out pistol, but
> >because the heavy machine gun produces more recoil it's all relative.
>
>Actually, if you treat "gas venting", especially an improved gas vent-2, as
>porting the barrel rather than fitting a compensator, then it could be
>more expensive to modify a hold-out - small barrel, higher precision
>needed :)

Hey! Don't go throwing wrenches at my monkeys!

;)

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Warm nights, good food, kindred spirits....great life!"
Message no. 51
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Recoil Question
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 07:46:25 -0600
Sebastian Wiers wrote:

>:> I always assumed that the recoil compensators were bigger on
>:>the heavy weapons... When I GM, you aren't allowed to take a gas vent
>:>off of a SMG and remount it on your HMG.
>:
>:Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the cost of recoil compensation the
>:same, regardless of whether it's mounted on a regular firearm or a heavy
>:weapon?
>:
>:If there were a cost difference, I would go along with you, but there
>:isn't, so...
>
> The cost (and weight) might vary some, but that seems pretty finicky for
>a game like SR.

Thank you Mongoose for pointing that out, and reminding me of a rule that I
try to follow, "If you can't make a house rule that's simpler than the
original and that significantly improves the game, leave it be."

Upon reflection I've decided to just leaves things as they are regarding
recoil compensators.

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

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Recoil Question, 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!