Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 21:00:45 +0100
Greg said on 11:19/12 Aug 97...

[snip]
> Also, what do you mean by "clip afterclip"? Bullets are heavy... even if
> every sodier carried 10 clips (not-likely but why not use a nice round
> number)

Since you mentioned Vietnam, I urge you to take a look at a few pics
taken during that war. A great many photos show soldiers wearing M-56
webbing with more than two ammo pouches (four 20-round M16 magazines
each) plus one or two bandoleers (seven magazines each) for good measure;
some also used canteen carriers to hold extra magazines; I don't know how
many magazines they held, but going by the ALICE ones in my collection
I'd say at least five. Especially later on in that war, many US soldiers
carried (wore?) up to three bandoleers and not much else in the war of
LBE; that's 21 magazines, plus one in the weapon. They wouldn't carry all
this if they didn't need the ammo in a firefight.

Now I agree with you that since Vietnam things changed, especially wher
ammo expenditure is concerned. But I also think that in SR, players should
fire off a bit more round than they usually do. I cannot really remember
any firefight in five years of playing SR in which PCs had to reload in
the middle of a firefight.

> that is a paltry few rounds for a protracted battle if one is burning
> "clip after clip". The military can be very stupid about very many
> things, but I would not claim that they aren't good at what they do...
> Rambo tactics only exist in Hollywood.

True.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
...who hates heatwaves
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 2
From: "Steven A. Collins" <scollins@**.UML.EDU>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:42:04 -0400
On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, Gurth wrote:

->Greg said on 11:19/12 Aug 97...

//snip//

->
->Now I agree with you that since Vietnam things changed, especially wher
->ammo expenditure is concerned. But I also think that in SR, players should
->fire off a bit more round than they usually do. I cannot really remember
->any firefight in five years of playing SR in which PCs had to reload in
->the middle of a firefight.
->

I have had it happen a few times. characters firing 2 3rnd
bursts/action and getting 3-4 actions per combat round tends to chew
through the ammo pretty quickly. 2 to 3 rounds of combat at most and
you are empty. Of course a combat that takes more than 3 rounds is
pretty rare and usually takes a whole night to play, but such is the
nature of role playing combat.
Message no. 3
From: Skye Comstock <bilbo@****.NWLINK.COM>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:07:21 -0800
>Now I agree with you that since Vietnam things changed, especially wher
>ammo expenditure is concerned. But I also think that in SR, players should
>fire off a bit more round than they usually do. I cannot really remember
>any firefight in five years of playing SR in which PCs had to reload in
>the middle of a firefight.

That's odd... Just last Friday, most everyone in our group had
to reload at one time or another. Considering there were 16
gangers popping caps at us, that's reasonable. We were basically
just letting bullets fly in hopes of scaring them (which didn't
happen). Strange... I'd try to get away from a BF shotgun,
an LMG that unloaded about 3 clips worth, an assault rifle,
and a machine pistol. ;)

Then again, I was also screwed... The GM said I couldn't lob
off a Burst twice in a turn.

-Skye
Message no. 4
From: Mike Loseke <mike@******.VERINET.COM>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 16:07:16 -0600
Quoth Gurth:
>
> Greg said on 11:19/12 Aug 97...
>
> [snip]
> > Also, what do you mean by "clip afterclip"? Bullets are heavy... even
if
> > every sodier carried 10 clips (not-likely but why not use a nice round
> > number)
>
> Since you mentioned Vietnam, I urge you to take a look at a few pics
> taken during that war. A great many photos show soldiers wearing M-56
> webbing with more than two ammo pouches (four 20-round M16 magazines
> each) plus one or two bandoleers (seven magazines each) for good measure;
> some also used canteen carriers to hold extra magazines; I don't know how
> many magazines they held, but going by the ALICE ones in my collection
> I'd say at least five. Especially later on in that war, many US soldiers
> carried (wore?) up to three bandoleers and not much else in the war of
> LBE; that's 21 magazines, plus one in the weapon. They wouldn't carry all
> this if they didn't need the ammo in a firefight.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but when I was forced to wear M-16 ammo
pouches on my LBE (after happily carrying a .45 for 4 years), the pouches
were designed to carry 3 30-round mags. Are these a different ammo pouch
then what you're referring to? I'm not familiar with one that could hold
4 20-round mags. Was it an ALICE pouch instead of an LBE/LCE pouch?

> Now I agree with you that since Vietnam things changed, especially wher
> ammo expenditure is concerned. But I also think that in SR, players should
> fire off a bit more round than they usually do. I cannot really remember
> any firefight in five years of playing SR in which PCs had to reload in
> the middle of a firefight.

This, I think, varies from group to group. My characters usually wind
up reloading whatever weapon they may be using (at least once) in at
least half of the fire-fights they find themselves in. This is a good
thing, because it means that you're still alive. :)

--
Mike Loseke | Tsujigiri: trying out a new sword
mike@*******.com | on a chance passer-by.
Message no. 5
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 23:34:38 +0100
In message <199708121858.UAA16139@*****.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>Since you mentioned Vietnam, I urge you to take a look at a few pics
>taken during that war. A great many photos show soldiers wearing M-56
>webbing with more than two ammo pouches (four 20-round M16 magazines
>each) plus one or two bandoleers (seven magazines each) for good measure;
>some also used canteen carriers to hold extra magazines; I don't know how
>many magazines they held, but going by the ALICE ones in my collection
>I'd say at least five. Especially later on in that war, many US soldiers
>carried (wore?) up to three bandoleers and not much else in the war of
>LBE; that's 21 magazines, plus one in the weapon. They wouldn't carry all
>this if they didn't need the ammo in a firefight.

Jungle warfare, and suppressive fire. Remember, this is the war that
formalised the term "reconnaisance by fire"... That _devours_
ammunition. Add in short ranges, an omnipresent threat, and troops who
were generally poorly experienced, and you have a recipie for ludicrous
ammunition expenditures.

Jungle, forest and urban warfare will do that to you, though.

Colleagues who went through PCBC (Platoon Commander's Battle Course) at
Warminster told similar tales of jettisoning almost every item except
ammunition: but that was to support a platoon attack of over thirty men,
crawling on their bellies over four hundred yards towards the enemy
position (one section firing, two moving).

Anyone ever try to belly-crawl four hundred yards? Move ten yards, stop
and lay suppressive fire, move, stop and fire... Think how long it takes
to reach the objective, and how much ammunition you expend in
suppressing the enemy continuously as you do so.

_Real_ infantry warfare is almost nothing like anything you'll see in
movies. The best approximations I've seen from Hollywood were all from
1986: "Hamburger Hill" and "Platoon".

The BBC production "Tumbledown" was excruciatingly accurate, but
probably doesn't get much seen outside the UK.


>Now I agree with you that since Vietnam things changed, especially wher
>ammo expenditure is concerned. But I also think that in SR, players should
>fire off a bit more round than they usually do. I cannot really remember
>any firefight in five years of playing SR in which PCs had to reload in
>the middle of a firefight.

SR firefights should be short and to the point. If you and your
opponents are both in cover and trading fire, they'll get reinforced
before you do. Win fast, or get out.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 6
From: "MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:34:23 +1000
> Now I agree with you that since Vietnam things changed, especially wher
> ammo expenditure is concerned. But I also think that in SR, players should
> fire off a bit more round than they usually do. I cannot really remember
> any firefight in five years of playing SR in which PCs had to reload in
> the middle of a firefight.
>

Well, actually I've had to do it once or twice, but that's only because I
like my characters slightly realistic..... From a rules POV it's stupid
to fire at full-auto, and as a consequence my character rarely hits
anything, unlike the rest of the team.

How many PC's do you know that dodge or duck when someone fires at them?
Most I've seen just walk straight through a hail of bullets until they get
badly injured.

Now, _that's_ Rambo tactics.


> > Rambo tactics only exist in Hollywood.
>
> True.
>

And in the 'less' trained armies of the world.
Message no. 7
From: "MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:36:07 +1000
> I have had it happen a few times. characters firing 2 3rnd
> bursts/action and getting 3-4 actions per combat round tends to chew
> through the ammo pretty quickly. 2 to 3 rounds of combat at most and
> you are empty. Of course a combat that takes more than 3 rounds is
> pretty rare and usually takes a whole night to play, but such is the
> nature of role playing combat.
>

Try twin Ingram Supermachs firing at Full-auto for 3 actions; My
character walked out of the firefight about 5 kilos lighter.
Message no. 8
From: "MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:41:47 +1000
> >Now I agree with you that since Vietnam things changed, especially wher
> >ammo expenditure is concerned. But I also think that in SR, players should
> >fire off a bit more round than they usually do. I cannot really remember
> >any firefight in five years of playing SR in which PCs had to reload in
> >the middle of a firefight.
>
> SR firefights should be short and to the point. If you and your
> opponents are both in cover and trading fire, they'll get reinforced
> before you do. Win fast, or get out.
>

Which is cool if you're playing a bunch of ex-Special Forces /ex-Army
guys.... Some people don't have the training to work that well.

One thing that stuck in my mind was a news item from South Africa which
showed a street battle in Suweto; The guy featured in the story emptied
an entire clip out of a beretta up a street while lying on his side (I
doubt he hit anything, he was firing so fast), then he reloaded, got up and
emptied the second clip as well.

I'd have to say that that's more like the realism of what a short fight in
shadowrun should be.

Marty
Message no. 9
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 11:24:02 +0100
Mike Loseke said on 16:07/12 Aug 97...

> I'm not saying you're wrong, but when I was forced to wear M-16 ammo
> pouches on my LBE (after happily carrying a .45 for 4 years), the pouches
> were designed to carry 3 30-round mags. Are these a different ammo pouch
> then what you're referring to? I'm not familiar with one that could hold
> 4 20-round mags. Was it an ALICE pouch instead of an LBE/LCE pouch?

ALICE pouches are intended for carrying three 30-round magazines, yes,
with the two nylon bands at the top to create "cells" inside. However,
during the Vietnam War, US Army soldiers were equipped with M1956 and
M1967 web gear (the difference is that M1956 is canvas & steel, M1967 is
nylon & plastic), which are different from the ALICE gear introduced in
the early 1970s. M1967 was a kind of interim between M1956 and ALICE,
really, and wasn't much used. BTW, the three are completely
interchangeable. The universal ammo pouches for M1956 web gear are wider
than their ALICE equivalents (I just held the two next to each other, so
I'm pretty certain about this :) and hold four 20-round M16 magazines (or
two 20-round M14 magazines, 25 12-gauge shotgun shells, four M1/M2 carbine
magazines, or 2 grenades) internally, plus two hand grenades externally,
but not in pockets like the ALICE pouches do.

Good info with very good color plates can be found in Osprey Men-At-Arms
205: US Army Combat Equipments 1910-1988.

> This, I think, varies from group to group. My characters usually wind
> up reloading whatever weapon they may be using (at least once) in at
> least half of the fire-fights they find themselves in. This is a good
> thing, because it means that you're still alive. :)

The worst thing about nearly all the SR firefights I've seen is that
players don't even bother to reload afterward, and then in their next
fight _still_ don't run out of ammo no matter how hard I try to make
them :(

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
...who hates heatwaves
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 10
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 03:37:08 +0000
On 12 Aug 97 at 16:07, Mike Loseke wrote:

[snip]

> I'm not saying you're wrong, but when I was forced to wear M-16 ammo
> pouches on my LBE (after happily carrying a .45 for 4 years), the pouches
> were designed to carry 3 30-round mags. Are these a different ammo pouch
> then what you're referring to? I'm not familiar with one that could hold
> 4 20-round mags. Was it an ALICE pouch instead of an LBE/LCE pouch?
>
The Army had a pouch designed for M-14 Magazines. It held 3 20 round
magazine. The same pouch could hold 4 20 round M-16 magazines. It was
heavy canvas with special, "hasp and pin" fastener that often didn't.
I used them in ROTC frist with a M-1, then M-14 and finally with an
EM-16 (first generation M-16, no bolt assist. While these carries
will hold several 8 round en-bloc clips (M-1), they do not work
well at all.


David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

====================================================
Those who are too intelligent to engage in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato
Message no. 11
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 03:37:07 +0000
On 12 Aug 97 at 21:00, Gurth wrote:

[snip]

> Since you mentioned Vietnam, I urge you to take a look at a few pics
> taken during that war. A great many photos show soldiers wearing M-56
> webbing with more than two ammo pouches (four 20-round M16 magazines
> each) plus one or two bandoleers (seven magazines each) for good measure;
> some also used canteen carriers to hold extra magazines; I don't know how
> many magazines they held, but going by the ALICE ones in my collection
> I'd say at least five. Especially later on in that war, many US soldiers
> carried (wore?) up to three bandoleers and not much else in the war of
> LBE; that's 21 magazines, plus one in the weapon. They wouldn't carry all
> this if they didn't need the ammo in a firefight.

Those bandoleers probably did not contain magazines. The U.S. Army
packs 5.56 NATO anmmuntion in a metal "ammo can" containing several
bandoleers Each banoleer contains 7 pockets each containg a cardbord
box with 2 10 round stripper clips. A magazine speed loader
was packed in one or more of the banoleers. With a speed loader the
ammunition can be loaded fast by stripping the rounds into the
magazine. This mode of packing, makes for fast issue of ammuntion, is
relitivly quiet (important to a good infantryman) and relitive eaze
of carrying. To say nothing of the amount of trash it produces :).
By the was it is a pain (sometimes literally) to load magazines with
stripper clipped ammo with out the speed loader.




David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

====================================================
Those who are too intelligent to engage in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato
Message no. 12
From: Mike Loseke <mike@******.VERINET.COM>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:12:09 -0600
Quoth Gurth:
>
> Mike Loseke said on 16:07/12 Aug 97...
>
> > I'm not saying you're wrong, but when I was forced to wear M-16 ammo
> > pouches on my LBE (after happily carrying a .45 for 4 years), the pouches
> > were designed to carry 3 30-round mags. Are these a different ammo pouch
> > then what you're referring to? I'm not familiar with one that could hold
> > 4 20-round mags. Was it an ALICE pouch instead of an LBE/LCE pouch?
>
> ALICE pouches are intended for carrying three 30-round magazines, yes,
> with the two nylon bands at the top to create "cells" inside. However,
> during the Vietnam War, US Army soldiers were equipped with M1956 and
> M1967 web gear (the difference is that M1956 is canvas & steel, M1967 is
> nylon & plastic), which are different from the ALICE gear introduced in
> the early 1970s. M1967 was a kind of interim between M1956 and ALICE,
> really, and wasn't much used. BTW, the three are completely
> interchangeable. The universal ammo pouches for M1956 web gear are wider
> than their ALICE equivalents (I just held the two next to each other, so
> I'm pretty certain about this :) and hold four 20-round M16 magazines (or
> two 20-round M14 magazines, 25 12-gauge shotgun shells, four M1/M2 carbine
> magazines, or 2 grenades) internally, plus two hand grenades externally,
> but not in pockets like the ALICE pouches do.

Ah. Let me just say this: Holy Cow! I didn't even know that much about
the different equipment while I was *in* the Army! I guess having this
type of thing as an outside interest you tend to accumulate more info
on the subject.

--
Mike Loseke | Tsujigiri: trying out a new sword
mike@*******.com | on a chance passer-by.
Message no. 13
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 20:53:00 GMT
on 12.08.97 gurth@******.NL wrote:

[ammo use]

g> Now I agree with you that since Vietnam things changed, especially wher
g> ammo expenditure is concerned. But I also think that in SR, players should
g> fire off a bit more round than they usually do. I cannot really remember
g> any firefight in five years of playing SR in which PCs had to reload in
g> the middle of a firefight.

Rather simple: Right now, nobody uses the FA mode. One Complex action and
a TN that really sucks. Change it. Right now, we let the player roll after
three shots against the new TN and add succsess (much like Blackjacks rule
for FA). Talking about BJ's rules: Add his 'maximum firepower' rule (which
basicly means that you can fire as often as you want)

Example: Jason, the drek-hot-former-SEAL-shadowrunner messes around with
AG Chemie again (he just can't stop it). This time there are two killers
who want to talk to him about the damage on their nice african arcology
and convince his that SK isn't that nice. Jason takes out his Urban Combat
and starts fireing. The first Chemmy gets 7 rounds, the other 10. The UC
has a recoil compensation of 5 (including strengh) and a smart 2 system,
so the TNs for the first slavo are 2, 3 and 4. No problem for J. He gets
18 succsesses (That's 14D with 8 boxes overflow. Surprise!). The other
salvo is 8, 11 and 14. Due to a certain lack of pool dices, Jason doesn't
get the second burst, but the first with 6 and the third with 2
succsesses. As there was a 'hole' in the fireing, there are two attacks
now. the first is 9D +1od the second is 12D. Both killers are pretty dead
and if those five guys just comming araund the corner are from the same
team, J should take out a new clip RSN...


As you see, this makes FA much deadlier (Hell the UC does 7M damage, but I
produced damage codes, that make LMGs look like Streetlines),so but you
will also pretty soon find you players fireing in FA all the time. The
risk of putting a 10 shot burst into the ceiling is much smaller (would
you normally have done a 7+10 burst?), and so is the time a clip will
last.

Tobias
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
Message no. 14
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:52:00 GMT
on 13.08.97 s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU wrote:

s> One thing that stuck in my mind was a news item from South Africa which
s> showed a street battle in Suweto; The guy featured in the story emptied
s> an entire clip out of a beretta up a street while lying on his side (I
s> doubt he hit anything, he was firing so fast), then he reloaded, got up and
s> emptied the second clip as well.
s>
s> I'd have to say that that's more like the realism of what a short fight in
s> shadowrun should be.

Yep! Something many GM forget: NPCs don't like firefights! 99% of them
will just run away. Even most corp-guards will run if the lead get's
airborn. They have family, goddammit! They are no lunatics like your
average SR-group, consisting of adrenalin-junkies and psychos!

Tobias
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
Message no. 15
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 16:11:20 -0400
On Thursday, August 14, 1997 16:53, Tobias
Berghoff[SMTP:Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE] wrote:

> Example: Jason, the drek-hot-former-SEAL-shadowrunner messes around with
> AG Chemie again (he just can't stop it). This time there are two killers
> who want to talk to him about the damage on their nice african arcology
> and convince his that SK isn't that nice. Jason takes out his Urban
Combat
> and starts fireing. The first Chemmy gets 7 rounds, the other 10. The UC
> has a recoil compensation of 5 (including strengh) and a smart 2 system,
> so the TNs for the first slavo are 2, 3 and 4. No problem for J. He gets
> 18 succsesses (That's 14D with 8 boxes overflow. Surprise!). The other
> salvo is 8, 11 and 14. Due to a certain lack of pool dices, Jason doesn't
> get the second burst, but the first with 6 and the third with 2
> succsesses. As there was a 'hole' in the fireing, there are two attacks
> now. the first is 9D +1od the second is 12D. Both killers are pretty dead
> and if those five guys just comming araund the corner are from the same
> team, J should take out a new clip RSN...
>
>
> As you see, this makes FA much deadlier (Hell the UC does 7M damage, but
I
> produced damage codes, that make LMGs look like Streetlines),so but you
> will also pretty soon find you players fireing in FA all the time. The
> risk of putting a 10 shot burst into the ceiling is much smaller (would
> you normally have done a 7+10 burst?), and so is the time a clip will
> last.

As I pointed out in an earlier thread, this isn't that necessary. Take an
AK-97. Add GV4 and a shock pad. (That's 5 points of recoil comp, with *no*
strength modifiers, 6 point of recoil comp if the user has >4 strength.)
This means he can honk off an *aimed* 6 round burst with minimal penalties.
For those of you following at home, that is a 14D attack, and further
bullets beyond the 6 just add power. That's plenty deadly. And sucks down
ammo. Besides, FA isn't really useful for aimed fire most of the time
anyway. Use the covering fire rules.

I combined these with the "Stray Shots" rule from the black book to
generate a pretty decent spray-and-pray simulator.
--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 10:13:47 +0100
Tobias Berghoff said on 20:53/14 Aug 97...

> Rather simple: Right now, nobody uses the FA mode. One Complex action and
> a TN that really sucks. Change it. Right now, we let the player roll after
> three shots against the new TN and add succsess (much like Blackjacks rule
> for FA).

I've done something else, and calculate two TNs for full-auto fire (or BF
for that matter): one with the recoil modifiers, and one without. If the
non-recoil TN is exceeded, a number of rounds equal to the difference
between the roll and the recoil TN _miss_ (though at least one round hits
in this case). If the recoil TN is exceeded, all rounds hit.

For example, fire 10 rounds at Short range and your TNs are 4 and 14. If
you roll 8, 6 rounds miss and thus 4 rounds hit.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Our foreign policy is not a political issue."
--Harry S. Truman
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 17
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 18:58:14 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-17 11:16:40 EDT, gurth@******.NL (Gurth) writes:

>
> I've done something else, and calculate two TNs for full-auto fire (or BF
> for that matter): one with the recoil modifiers, and one without. If the
> non-recoil TN is exceeded, a number of rounds equal to the difference
> between the roll and the recoil TN _miss_ (though at least one round hits
> in this case). If the recoil TN is exceeded, all rounds hit.
>
> For example, fire 10 rounds at Short range and your TNs are 4 and 14. If
> you roll 8, 6 rounds miss and thus 4 rounds hit.
>
This is actually something fairly useful, but not necessarily easy to use.
For most of the players out there, this would be easy to implement. I am
just uncertain about the added math that would be encorporated.
-Keith

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [semi-OT] Magazines carried (was Re: Cover Modifiers), 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!