Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery and multi-targeting
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:09:51 +0100
---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment
Hoi chummers!

This time, my question is quite simple: does the "multiple targets"
(+2/additional target, from the ranged combat modifiers table, SR3
somewhere around p110) modifier apply to sensor-enhanced gunnery? My
understanding is that it doesn't (from a "realism" point of view, the
targeting computer probably has enough processing power to calculate the
weapon's trajectory with at the very least a few milliseconds of advance),
but the rules are a bit unclear there. While they explicitely state that
all the standard modifiers apply to /manual/ gunnery, they remain vague
when it comes to SEG... I've always considered that the modifiers from the
SEG table (SR3, p~150) were all that applied, but I'd like to be sure...

Thanks in advance...

--
Wild_Cat

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/2003

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment--

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @*****.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 2
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery and multi-targeting
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 23:38:56 +0100
---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment
At 09:00 11/02/2003 +1100, you wrote:


>It's a complex action to acquire a target for SEG. I'm under the
>impression that it's not possible to have multiple targets acquired
>simultaeneously. In addition, it's a complex action to fire using SEG.
>Hence, +2/additional target cannot apply because you are limited to a
>single target in an action anyway.

Not true. You can shoot multiple targets in one action with
autofire (there's an example given in the main SR3 book, where a guy shoots
4 gangers in a single complex action using an assault rifle). Besides,
while it's true that you can only lock one target per complex action, there
doesn't seem to be a limit to the number of targets you can be
simultaneously locked onto (though there should be one, perhaps something
based on your sensors rating). You can then fire at any number of targets
with one complex action if your weapon can fire full auto (limited of
course by the gun's firing rate).

The problem arose (well it didn't -- GM didn't ask -- but it's
been bugging me since then) during the following scenario. Basically, my
rigger character was in his van (Sensors 5, twin Ares Alphas on remote
pop-up AA micro-turrets) when about twenty go-gangers approached and
started threatening him and a number of other characters (mostly
merc-types) that were riding along in other vehicles. While the others were
negociating, I proceeded -- simple precaution, y'know -- to get a lock on
every bike. Signature of 2, non-urban environment, ideal weather
conditions, it took me roughly 30 seconds.
Now, when mercenaries negociate with go-gangers, it usually goes
somewhere along the lines of "You won't get a single nuyen from us. We're
not scared. We have a rocket launcher, a LMG and other painful toys. We
don't want any trouble but if you do you'll find some. Go away now."
Problem is, the player negociating failed his roll. A ganger
opened fire on my van. End of negociations, this was going to turn into a
wholesale slaughter. At which point I declared, "Alright, I shoot a single
bullet in each bike." (call it proactive dissuasion) When the GM realized
that I would roll at least 7 dice for each shot, against TNs varying from
-1 to 3 and that the bikers, not being riggers, would have no control pool
to dodge or resist, we decided to retcon the scene and have the merc redo
his negociations roll (with more success this time).

So my question is, is this, rules-wise, correct, or were the TNs
supposed to raise by 2 for each bike after the first (i.e. -1, 1, 3, 5
etc.)? The book seems to indicate it's OK, but not very explicitely...

--
Wild_Cat

(oh, and before you say it's ridiculously overpowered, keep in mind that it
took me 30 seconds to get all these locks. That's ten full combat turns. A
loooong time when combat is actually happening.)

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/2003

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment--

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @*****.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 3
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery and multi-targeting
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:55:54 -0800 (PST)
[SNIP]
> wholesale slaughter. At which point I declared, "Alright, I shoot a
> single bullet in each bike." (call it proactive dissuasion) When
> the GM realized that I would roll at least 7 dice for each shot,
> against TNs varying from -1 to 3 and that the bikers, not being
> riggers, would have no control pool to dodge or resist, we decided
> to retcon the scene and have the merc redo his negociations roll
> (with more success this time).
>
> So my question is, is this, rules-wise, correct, or were the TNs
> supposed to raise by 2 for each bike after the first (i.e. -1, 1,
> 3, 5 etc.)? The book seems to indicate it's OK, but not very
> explicitely...

This is wrong, a misinterpretation of the rules. You would not be
able to shoot one round at each bike in a single action, period.
Ever. Not with a drone, not with a gun in your hand, not even if you
were Harlequin. Here is the problem. A combat turn is 3 seconds.
Even if you, rigging away with a VCR 3 and rolling very well, had an
Initiative of 31+ (so 4 Action Phases). Because firing a weapon via
a VCR is a complex action. And thus, you can fire 4 times a round
(assuming the Init. of 31+ from above). The two seperate turrets can
only be fired in a single action if they are linked, firing at the
same target (IIRC). The reason is simple. No matter how much prep
time you put in, the guns can only fire so fast. Period. Tracking
from target to target takes time. Chambering rounds takes time. And
so on. The only way you could have shot all the gangers at once is
to declay a Full Auto spray. Given that you were surrounded, you
would have been spreading that spray pretty thin, doing little or no
damage to most of the gangers. Even if you had a premade program
that would have the guns shoot all previously acquired targets when
you pushed a certain button, it would still take time for the weapons
to track and fire on each new target. Much more time than a single
Turn. Since you aquired an individual lock on each ganger, I would
have allowed the SEG bonus to firing FA bursts in a spray pattern.
With Area Alphas, I would consider it tactically foolish to fire on
more than about three targets per FA burst. With both turrets
fire-linked (if that can be done in 3rd Ed.), you might be safe going
after four or five targets per FA burst. It is an issue of putting
enough lead into the area to ensure you hit everyone. Lastly, you
would roll once for the spray, not once per ganger targeted.

======Korishinzo
--waiting for one of the rigging gurus to weigh in on this thread



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Message no. 4
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery and multi-targeting
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:21:03 +0100
---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment
At 14:55 10/02/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>This is wrong, a misinterpretation of the rules. You would not be
>able to shoot one round at each bike in a single action, period.
>Ever. Not with a drone, not with a gun in your hand, not even if you
>were Harlequin. Here is the problem. A combat turn is 3 seconds.
>Even if you, rigging away with a VCR 3 and rolling very well, had an
>Initiative of 31+ (so 4 Action Phases). Because firing a weapon via
>a VCR is a complex action. And thus, you can fire 4 times a round
>(assuming the Init. of 31+ from above).

VCR 2, init in the twenties. The action took two phases
(full-auto, ten bullets per complex action, one bullet per target).

> The two seperate turrets can
>only be fired in a single action if they are linked, firing at the
>same target (IIRC). The reason is simple. No matter how much prep
>time you put in, the guns can only fire so fast. Period. Tracking
>from target to target takes time. Chambering rounds takes time. And
>so on. The only way you could have shot all the gangers at once is
>to declay a Full Auto spray.

I did.

> Given that you were surrounded, you
>would have been spreading that spray pretty thin, doing little or no
>damage to most of the gangers. Even if you had a premade program
>that would have the guns shoot all previously acquired targets when
>you pushed a certain button, it would still take time for the weapons
>to track and fire on each new target.

It's my understanding that sensor-enhanced gunnery is exactly that...

> Much more time than a single
>Turn. Since you aquired an individual lock on each ganger, I would
>have allowed the SEG bonus to firing FA bursts in a spray pattern.
>With Area Alphas, I would consider it tactically foolish to fire on
>more than about three targets per FA burst. With both turrets
>fire-linked (if that can be done in 3rd Ed.), you might be safe going
>after four or five targets per FA burst. It is an issue of putting
>enough lead into the area to ensure you hit everyone. Lastly, you
>would roll once for the spray, not once per ganger targeted.

Nope... You roll once for each target. There's an example given in
the combat rules, around pg. 110 in SR3, where a guy shoots 4 gangers in FA
with his AK-97. Granted, it's standard ranged combat, not gunnery, but I
think the roll would be handled more or less the same way with gunnery...

By the way, all this happened around 6 AM (IRL), when reality has
a bad tendency to distort. This is a bit ridiculous, I know (which is why
we decided it never happened anyway), and quite an extreme example. So
here's another one: let's say I only have two targets locked. They're both
identical, in ideal conditions, and the gun has to move by about 20 degrees
to hit the second one (so no big deal with a "tracking lag"). If all recoil
is compensated, will the TN for the second target be the same as the TN for
the first one?

>======>Korishinzo
>--waiting for one of the rigging gurus to weigh in on this thread

--
Wild_Cat
(actually I'm trying to become one... :D)

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/2003

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment--

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @*****.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 5
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery and multi-targeting
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:59:08 +0000
At 10:38 PM 10/2/2003, Wild_Cat wrote:
> Problem is, the player negociating failed his roll. A ganger
> opened fire on my van. End of negociations, this was going to turn into a
> wholesale slaughter. At which point I declared, "Alright, I shoot a
> single bullet in each bike." (call it proactive dissuasion) When the GM
> realized that I would roll at least 7 dice for each shot, against TNs
> varying from -1 to 3 and that the bikers, not being riggers, would have
> no control pool to dodge or resist, we decided to retcon the scene and
> have the merc redo his negociations roll (with more success this time).

IIRC you could only target 6 bikes total couldn't you, a three round burst
simultaneously against the first pair, another two at the second pair and
finally the remaining four rounds of each burst at the last pair. That's
the way the example's written and that's the way we've always played it.

> So my question is, is this, rules-wise, correct, or were the TNs
> supposed to raise by 2 for each bike after the first (i.e. -1, 1, 3, 5
> etc.)? The book seems to indicate it's OK, but not very explicitely...

I'd apply the multiple targets penalty to the sensor tests, (the first
sensor test is at the target's signature with a signature threshold, the
second at signature +2 with a signature threshold...etc. That way the
number of targets becomes effectively self limiting, there comes a time
when the chance of rolling enough successes to get a lock becomes so
unlikely it's barely worth it (the sixth target of that group of bikers for
example, would require a pair of 14s, one 14 isn't too much of a problem
but two gets difficult.
If I've cocked up there let me know.


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? 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-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 6
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery and multi-targeting
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:16:21 +0100
---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment
At 17:59 11/02/2003 +0000, Lone Eagle wrote:


>IIRC you could only target 6 bikes total couldn't you, a three round burst
>simultaneously against the first pair, another two at the second pair and
>finally the remaining four rounds of each burst at the last pair. That's
>the way the example's written and that's the way we've always played it.

The rules are once again obscure on this... Full-auto requires you
to shoot at least three bullets during the complex action (which makes
sense cause if not it's either a short burst -- simple action -- or two SA
shots), but they don't mention if you have to shoot at least 3 bullets per
target when multi-targeting... I was under the impression that you didn't,
especially when your shooting is smartlink- or computer-controlled...

>I'd apply the multiple targets penalty to the sensor tests, (the first
>sensor test is at the target's signature with a signature threshold, the
>second at signature +2 with a signature threshold...etc. That way the
>number of targets becomes effectively self limiting, there comes a time
>when the chance of rolling enough successes to get a lock becomes so
>unlikely it's barely worth it (the sixth target of that group of bikers
>for example, would require a pair of 14s, one 14 isn't too much of a
>problem but two gets difficult.
>If I've cocked up there let me know.

That's an interesting idea, I'll talk to my GM about it... Though
perhaps reducing the modifier to +1 per target and limiting the number of
locks you can acquire to something like Sensors*1.5 or Sensors*2...
And... Why would I need to roll two 14's to lock onto the 6th
target? Locking onto a target only requires one success...

--
Wild_Cat

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/2003

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment--

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @*****.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 7
From: Gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery and multi-targeting
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:17:07 +0100
According to Lone Eagle, on Tue, 11 Feb 2003 the word on the street was...

> IIRC you could only target 6 bikes total couldn't you, a three round
> burst simultaneously against the first pair, another two at the second
> pair and finally the remaining four rounds of each burst at the last
> pair. That's the way the example's written and that's the way we've
> always played it.

As far as I know, you can split up a full-auto burst any way you like (one
round at the first bike, four at the second and five at the third, for
example), as long as you take into account the "stray" 1 round per meter
between targets (which a smartlink negates).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Wat wil die man in hemelsnaam?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 8
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery and multi-targeting
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:16:59 -0800 (PST)
> VCR 2, init in the twenties. The action took two phases
> (full-auto, ten bullets per complex action, one bullet per target).

The Alpha's were smartlinked then? Otherwise you have to walk your
auto-fire from target to target.

======Korishinzo
--suddenly homesick for 2nd Ed. :)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Message no. 9
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery and multi-targeting
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:21:22 +0000
At 06:16 PM 11/2/2003, Wild_Cat wrote:
> And... Why would I need to roll two 14's to lock onto the 6th
> target? Locking onto a target only requires one success...

IIRC (Will check when sober) you require a number of successes equal to the
target's signature to lock on, that's the implication I seem to remember
from Rigger 3.


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? 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-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 10
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery and multi-targeting
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:33:19 +0000
At 08:16 PM 11/2/2003, Korishinzo wrote:
> > VCR 2, init in the twenties. The action took two phases
> > (full-auto, ten bullets per complex action, one bullet per target).
>
>The Alpha's were smartlinked then? Otherwise you have to walk your
>auto-fire from target to target.

I was perfectly willing to write Bast up as 2nd Ed, I just wanted a little
support if necessary.
But yes, the Smartgun interface should have been mentioned.


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? 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-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 11
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery and multi-targeting
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:29:22 +0100
---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment
At 23:21 11/02/2003 +0000, Lone Eagle wrote:

>At 06:16 PM 11/2/2003, Wild_Cat wrote:
>> And... Why would I need to roll two 14's to lock onto the 6th
>> target? Locking onto a target only requires one success...
>
>IIRC (Will check when sober) you require a number of successes equal to
>the target's signature to lock on, that's the implication I seem to
>remember from Rigger 3.

No. Such a rule would render drone networks completely useless: a
(non-troll, not too much cybered) metahuman has a signature of 6. So you'd
need 6 successes on a TN of 6. Most drones have Sensors ratings in the 3-4
zone, and the best you can get at chargen is rating 5 sensors, meaning that
locking onto a human is impossible.

--
Wild_Cat
(Unless you order your drones to ram them, but...)

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment--

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @*****.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 12
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery and multi-targeting
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:37:26 +0000
At 06:29 PM 12/2/2003, Wild_Cat wrote:
>>IIRC (Will check when sober) you require a number of successes equal to
>>the target's signature to lock on, that's the implication I seem to
>>remember from Rigger 3.
>
> No. Such a rule would render drone networks completely useless: a
> (non-troll, not too much cybered) metahuman has a signature of 6. So
> you'd need 6 successes on a TN of 6. Most drones have Sensors ratings in
> the 3-4 zone, and the best you can get at chargen is rating 5 sensors,
> meaning that locking onto a human is impossible.

Locking a human is only impossible in this case in a single action, if you
can pick up a success a turn it'd take you 18 seconds to get a good lock.
However having checked you are right, I'd been slightly confused by the ED
rules.
However I find that a little "unrealistic" it means a dumb drone with
sensor 1 can pick up the latest SOTA Stealth aircraft. (ignoring the ED
system but giving it a basic signature in the ludicrous levels and a really
good ECM system).


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? 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-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 13
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery and multi-targeting
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:48:09 +0100
---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment
At 19:37 12/02/2003 +0000, Lone Eagle wrote:

>However I find that a little "unrealistic" it means a dumb drone with
>sensor 1 can pick up the latest SOTA Stealth aircraft. (ignoring the ED
>system but giving it a basic signature in the ludicrous levels and a
>really good ECM system).

Not that unrealistic... A dumb drone with Sensors 1/6 chance of
managing to lock an Aztechnology Halcon attack plane (not really an SotA
stealth fighter...) /if the distance between them is less than 1km/ (base
flux rating == sensors rating). AFAIK in air-to-air combat, that's REALLY
short range.

--
Wild_Cat
(and given the Halcon's armor and payload, your drone is toast anyway ;-) )

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment--

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @*****.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery and multi-targeting, 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!