Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Telescoping stocks...
Posted by: ChuckRozool Jan 19 2006, 01:10 PM
Ok here's the deal, i'm making a character when i decide i want to buy a Colt M-23.
Now it has a conceal of 3 (i think), so i says to myself i'll just get a telescoping stock...
Problem is they don't appear to exist, at least not in any of the books i own.
The question would be what you the dumpshock community feel should be the conceal modifier for having a telescoping stock. I'm thinking a one or two, i have a friend with an AR-15, and it has a telscoping stock and there is certainly a diference in size when it's collapsed.
Posted by: Slump Jan 19 2006, 01:18 PM
I would just treat it as a folding stock. They both fulfill the same purpose (make the gun smaller when not in use, make the gun more stable when in use), so rather than making the distinction between a tabby and a tourtise shell, just call a cat a cat.
Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 19 2006, 01:56 PM
Since in Cannon Companion (page 83) an unfolded folding stock reduces Concealability by 1 in weapons which normally don't have stocks, I'd say replacing a solid rifle stock with a telescoping one would increase Concealability by 1 when it is collapsed.
It does requite house ruling, since the rules in Cannon Companion specifically state that you cannot put a folding stock on a rifle or a shotgun. This silliness exists because the rules assume a rifle or a shotgun always have stocks, and the (Folding) Stock firearm customization option provides Recoil Compensation which a rifle shouldn't get. Instead of making a separate option for giving rifles and shotguns a folding/telescopic stock which doesn't affect recoil but increases Concealability when folded/collapsed, they just ignored it, leading to several hundred posts worth of ranting on this forum and the ones before it.
Posted by: Mr.Platinum Jan 19 2006, 02:10 PM
Yes I use the folding stocks to replace the regular one also.
Posted by: Crusher Bob Jan 19 2006, 02:12 PM
To give a more rules heavy version:
Folding stock: 300Y?
The fixed stock of a rifle or shotgun may be replaced by a folding stock.
When folded, add 1 to the concealability of the weapon. However treat recoil as from a heavy weapon (doubling all uncompensated recoil). In addition, lower the range category of the weapon by 'one' (ARs use SMG ranges, Shotguns use heavy pistol? ranges).
It takes a simple action to fold or unfold the stock.
Of course, you can also just take a hacksaw to your stock for the increased concealability.
[edits for range penalties]
Posted by: ChuckRozool Jan 19 2006, 02:27 PM
Cool, you guys certainly know your Shadowrun...
I knew there was a reason I registered on this forum.
They said i was daft to register on this site, but i registered all the same, just to show'em
Posted by: Aku Jan 19 2006, 02:43 PM
Crusher, whats the "logic" behind the range penelties? I get the reciol (and like it too, since you dont have the brunt of the recoil going into your shoulder any more) But i don't get why that would affect the ranges.
Posted by: Mr.Platinum Jan 19 2006, 02:57 PM
| QUOTE (ChuckRozool) |
| Cool, you guys certainly know your Shadowrun... I knew there was a reason I registered on this forum. They said i was daft to register on this site, but i registered all the same, just to show'em |
Yeah but soon you'll run into the dark side of this forum, i usually take breaks from ths forum alot.
Posted by: mmu1 Jan 19 2006, 02:59 PM
| QUOTE (Aku) |
| Crusher, whats the "logic" behind the range penelties? I get the reciol (and like it too, since you dont have the brunt of the recoil going into your shoulder any more) But i don't get why that would affect the ranges. |
Agreed - in SR, the range bracket changes when you do things like change barrel length, or make one chambered for a cartridge normally used in a much larger weapon.
Also, while I sort of see the logic behind the double recoil, I think it's a little excessive and doesn't quite make sense, when you consider that in this system, you can fire an SMG one-handed, without using a stock, and not have any problems.
Posted by: Crusher Bob Jan 19 2006, 03:36 PM
The ranges at which you can hit something without a stock are very limited. The guns you can normally add a folding stock to are already very short ranged. If I didn't add the rule abould range reduction, you would be able to saw the stock off your AR and still hit targets 500? meters away. In addition, it is too keep that folding stock option from being too attractive. If you have a simple action to spare, there is no real penalty (except for cost), but having some punk whip his assualt rifle with a folding stock out from under his trench coat and shoot you accurately when you are 500 meters away'rambo style', all in a fraction of a second, is a bit much.
For a shotgun, using the 'longer' 50+ meter range bands of a shotgun also require a stock, limiting 'stockless' shotguns to HPish ranges makes sense.
Posted by: Aku Jan 19 2006, 03:55 PM
Well, i kinda see where you're coming from, but i still think a TN penalty is more approriate over just saying you can only fire out to one range lower. I mean, imagine the scenario that you DON'T have a simple action to flip out , so you whip out your AR, folded stock, and pop off a few shots at a max of what? 100 meters? i dont know the exact number. Next pass, you have your simple available, , so you pop the stock out and POOF! you're shooting at 500 meters now?
Posted by: Nyxll Jan 19 2006, 04:26 PM
| QUOTE (Crusher Bob) |
| The ranges at which you can hit something without a stock are very limited. The guns you can normally add a folding stock to are already very short ranged. If I didn't add the rule abould range reduction, you would be able to saw the stock off your AR and still hit targets 500? meters away. In addition, it is too keep that folding stock option from being too attractive. If you have a simple action to spare, there is no real penalty (except for cost), but having some punk whip his assualt rifle with a folding stock out from under his trench coat and shoot you accurately when you are 500 meters away'rambo style', all in a fraction of a second, is a bit much. For a shotgun, using the 'longer' 50+ meter range bands of a shotgun also require a stock, limiting 'stockless' shotguns to HPish ranges makes sense. |
You could hit them 500 meters away if you can handle the recoil. The muzzle velocity and accuracy is not deminished in any way. If you are strong enough or have a gyromount in your cyberarm, why the heck not?
What is wrong with attractive? It makes sense, also if you are in a firefight, it is a simple or complex action to unfold the stock, or face the extra recoil, that is its downside. Cost is also another factor, you are adding +50% price.
Posted by: Lindt Jan 19 2006, 04:38 PM
| QUOTE (ChuckRozool) |
| Cool, you guys certainly know your Shadowrun... I knew there was a reason I registered on this forum. They said i was daft to register on this site, but i registered all the same, just to show'em |
Yes we do. Welcome, here is your dikoted ally spirit AVS, that you can have sex with, and apperently is drop bear modified.
AE has the right idea. Apply a folding stock to a rifle, makes it slightly more concealable when folded. If you try and fire it with the stock folded, it acts like a heavy weapon(aka 2x recoil). I might also note the problem arses with a folded stock, and internal recoil comp(ala Ares Alpha). The idea is to 'almost' force the user to unfold the stock before firing. I believe there is a rule about stun damage and heavy weapons? Might be a idea to enforce that as well.
Back when I was still learning trap, I shot using a .20 ga. I was at that point strong enough to have it not quite pressed into my shoulder (like it should have been). I switced to a somewhat light weight .12 ga. I had a welt half the size of my fist for a week. Moral of this story is a gun that has a stock, has it there for a reason.
Posted by: mmu1 Jan 19 2006, 04:53 PM
| QUOTE (Crusher Bob @ Jan 19 2006, 11:36 AM) |
| The ranges at which you can hit something without a stock are very limited. The guns you can normally add a folding stock to are already very short ranged. If I didn't add the rule abould range reduction, you would be able to saw the stock off your AR and still hit targets 500? meters away. In addition, it is too keep that folding stock option from being too attractive. If you have a simple action to spare, there is no real penalty (except for cost), but having some punk whip his assualt rifle with a folding stock out from under his trench coat and shoot you accurately when you are 500 meters away'rambo style', all in a fraction of a second, is a bit much. For a shotgun, using the 'longer' 50+ meter range bands of a shotgun also require a stock, limiting 'stockless' shotguns to HPish ranges makes sense. |
I don't have a big problem with someone using a weapon without a stock to fire at things at long range - and no problem if they're using a smartlink.
A stock certainly helps, but the main reasons why pistols and SMGs can't shoot effectively at long range (stock or no stock) are: bullet trajectory (not flat enough), inadequate sights, short barrel.
That, and like I said before, in SR what range increment a weapon uses pretty clearly depends on the type of gun and the kind of round it fires, not whether it has a stock or not. If it was all about whether it has a stock or not, you ought to be able to put a stock on a heavy pistol and start using it at longer range.
Posted by: Crusher Bob Jan 19 2006, 05:11 PM
Long range shooting requires both a weapon careful of putting a bullet that far out and careful control of the weapon when firing. A humman factor that causes a deviation of 2 inches at 25 meters is not that big a deal, at 25 meters. However than same human factor would produce a miss distance of 8 inches at 100 meters (still hitting the target), but at, say, 450 meters, you are looking at a deviation of around 3 feet. The stock is a significant step up in reducing the human error, which is really necessary for long range shooting. Even someone with cyberarms will face problems with torque, since they can not properly brace the weapon.
Posted by: Aku Jan 19 2006, 05:40 PM
but again crusher, i feel that TN penalties on top of recoil, is the best way to handle that, instead of just saying "oh, because your stock is fold in, you can't shoot that far"
Maybe someone's working on a dare of "I bet you can't hit the broad side of a barn with that stock folded in at 400 meters"
Maybe he can, maybe he can't, but who are we to tell him that because he folds his stock in, his bullit is gonna fall short by 100 meters?
Posted by: Nyxll Jan 19 2006, 05:46 PM
| QUOTE (Crusher Bob @ Jan 19 2006, 12:11 PM) |
| Long range shooting requires both a weapon careful of putting a bullet that far out and careful control of the weapon when firing. A human factor that causes a deviation of 2 inches at 25 meters is not that big a deal, at 25 meters. However than same human factor would produce a miss distance of 8 inches at 100 meters (still hitting the target), but at, say, 450 meters, you are looking at a deviation of around 3 feet. The stock is a significant step up in reducing the human error, which is really necessary for long range shooting. Even someone with cyberarms will face problems with torque, since they can not properly brace the weapon. |
It is true someone with a cyberarm will face the same problem, but since you have the str or the built in gyro-mount, the problem gets compensated for.
Picture mounting the weapon on a turret. Since the weapon is mounted at a central point, the stock no longer comes into play, and would therefore be redundant, not adding any additional compensation. Essentially, your shoulder becomes a mounting point, elongating the weapon thus giving you more mechanical advantage over the torque generated from the bullet exiting the weapon (Akin to using a longer leaver to lift something, so less force is required to gain the same advantage). If you have a shorter weapon, you need more energy to compensate for the loss of mechanical advantage, BUT if you do have that force to counter the kickback's force, then the end result would be the same. Now doubling the recoil, is a fair solution for computing the extra force required to compensate for the loss of the stock.
Extra strength, the gyromount, and gas venting will provide extra mechanical advantage to gain the extra control required for accuracy at long distances.
Edit: fixed spelling and grammar
Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2006, 05:51 PM
| QUOTE (Nyxll) |
| You could hit them 500 meters away if you can handle the recoil. The muzzle velocity and accuracy is not deminished in any way. |
this is incorrect. despite what SR says, the main utility of a stock is not reducing recoil. i say again, THE MAIN USE OF A STOCK IS NOT TO REDUCE RECOIL. a stock on a weapon is mainly an aid for precision on any shot--single, burst, autofire, whatever. the act of shooting is one of precision, and you can not get the same precision without a stock as you can with.
re-read Crusher Bob's last post, it explains this.
Posted by: Crusher Bob Jan 19 2006, 05:56 PM
Well, part of the problem is with granularity of the game system. The range categories are massivice simplifications to begin with, in that you can be standing 1 meter outside of extreme range and not take a scratch. In general, bullets are still potentially lethal far past the ranges given by the book (consider IRL, the long range rifle drill of British troops circa WWI, they were able to volley fire at area targets ~1 mile away with 'reasonable' accuracy). The ranges given in the book are the 'point target' ranges for the weapon, not the actual effective range of the bullet. I stuck the reduced ranges in there because I feel that the removal/non-use of the stock on a shoulder arm so radically reduces your ability to hit a point target that the game rule range bands should be reduced to reflect this.
Posted by: Nyxll Jan 19 2006, 06:00 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) | ||
this is incorrect. despite what SR says, the main utility of a stock is not reducing recoil. i say again, THE MAIN USE OF A STOCK IS NOT TO REDUCE RECOIL. a stock on a weapon is mainly an aid for precision on any shot--single, burst, autofire, whatever. the act of shooting is one of precision, and you can not get the same precision without a stock as you can with. re-read Crusher Bob's last post, it explains this. |
Actually, yes it is, you are just not thinking of how it does so. A stock lets you put your face closer to the gun's sites safely. and helps you to position the eye in the same place. Still if you can safely compensate the recoil you gain no advantage.
Picture putting two lasers on a turret, one in the shape of a hand gun, one as a rifle.
The stock gives you no advantage here.
If you have a smartlink, what is the difference?
If you do not have a smartlink, you have to site them in with your eye, what do you gain from using a rifle sites vs a hand gun's? you gain the accuracy, because the distance between the two points of the sites is greater.
With a sawed off stock, the distance between the sites is the same, so what would the advantage of having the stock in that scenario be?? my conclusion is none.
Posted by: Aku Jan 19 2006, 06:06 PM
ok MFB, i understand that the stock is an accuracy aid, but i have yet to hear why, removing the stock, automatically makes your gun unable to fire as far as the tables say it does. As i understand the weapon ranges table, it is there so that you know what the maximum range a gun can fire while still having the power to do the damage listed. And i can't see WHY folding the stock in on such a weapon would automatically reduce it's maximum ranges at which it has the power to do damge.
It wouldnt, you just might not be able to hit the broadside of a 18 wheeler at 500 meters.
How bout this,
"Use smg TN ranges, adding the TN's up to the range ofthe guns maximum. For example, you have replaced the stock of your AR with a telescoping stock. You see you're target running for cover, and don't have the time to pull the stock out, you take aim at 200 meters, hoping to get lucky. Because 200 meters i longer than a standard SMGs range of 150, you take the base tn of 9, plus 6 that falls into the remaining 50 meters, for a BASE single shot TN of 15."
This should make it hella difficult, and incrediably stupid except for the most dire circumstances.
Posted by: Nyxll Jan 19 2006, 06:07 PM
| QUOTE (Crusher Bob) |
| Well, part of the problem is with granularity of the game system. The range categories are massive simplifications to begin with, in that you can be standing 1 meter outside of extreme range and not take a scratch. In general, bullets are still potentially lethal far past the ranges given by the book (consider IRL, the long range rifle drill of British troops circa WWI, they were able to volley fire at area targets ~1 mile away with 'reasonable' accuracy). The ranges given in the book are the 'point target' ranges for the weapon, not the actual effective range of the bullet. I stuck the reduced ranges in there because I feel that the removal/non-use of the stock on a shoulder arm so radically reduces your ability to hit a point target that the game rule range bands should be reduced to reflect this. |
The whole game is a massive simplification of life, meant for some element of realism, and not to overly complicated so that it takes 1.4 million years to compute a shot. The system doesn't take into account wind, barrel wear, and many other factors.
I respect your opinion of reducing ranges, but I think that should be a house rule. If you can handle the recoil, nothing else changes.
I was not saying you double every point of uncompensated recoil, but every single point of recoil and try and soak that down.
Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2006, 06:08 PM
no, no, you're looking at stocks all wrong. what stocks allow you to do is hold your weapon still. seriously, that's their main purpose. if you can hold your weapon perfectly still in relation to your firing shoulder, the rest is easy. any movement will throw your aim off--breathing, blinking, pulling the trigger (not recoil, i mean the physical motion of pulling the trigger). stocks reduce all that jittering around. putting your face closer to the sights has nothing to do with it, though you're correct about positioning the eye. a smartlink will not help with this. it doesn't matter if you know where the gun is pointed if you can't keep the gun pointed at your target long enough to squeeze off a shot.
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 19 2006, 06:12 PM
I am of the opinion that if you want stock removal to decrease a persons accuracy, you should do this by giving them an increased TN, or by decreasing the dice (depending on your edition of choice) There, you've given them a penalty. Leave range categories out of it. The bullet will fly exactly the same in either case, range doesn't change. Your ability to hit things does, fine, I'll accept that. I just think you're applying the penalty in the wrong place.
Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 19 2006, 06:15 PM
| QUOTE (Nyxll) |
| Still if you can safely compensate the recoil you gain no advantage. |
You have never fired a rifle, right?
Regardless of recoil, a stock allows you to anchor the firearm far more firmly into your body, making it far more stable, allowing you to fire the weapon far more accurately. When firing at longer ranges, the difference is immense. It doesn't matter whether you've got arms like the Governator in the 1970s, you can never hold a rifle as steady without using a stock as you can when firmly pressing the stock to your shoulder. Like Crusher Bob and mfb have been saying, the difference is just immense. Cutting the range from AR to SMG is completely justified.
Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2006, 06:16 PM
nah, range category is more accurate (heh!). i mean, sawing off the stock on a rifle isn't going to significantly affect your accuracy at 10m, will impair your accuracy at 75m, and will completely destroy your accuracy at 300m and up. it just makes more sense.
Posted by: Nyxll Jan 19 2006, 06:17 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| no, no, you're looking at stocks all wrong. what stocks allow you to do is hold your weapon still. seriously, that's their main purpose. if you can hold your weapon perfectly still in relation to your firing shoulder, the rest is easy. any movement will throw your aim off--breathing, blinking, pulling the trigger (not recoil, i mean the physical motion of pulling the trigger). stocks reduce all that jittering around. putting your face closer to the sights has nothing to do with it, though you're correct about positioning the eye. a smartlink will not help with this. it doesn't matter if you know where the gun is pointed if you can't keep the gun pointed at your target long enough to squeeze off a shot. |
I know what you are saying, but if you can lock your arm, you gain a similar advantage. We learned tricks like that for photography and video. true, the farther from your body the rifle is the harder it is to keep still. Maybe a +4 for TN, and double the TN, but I really disagree with reducing the range. I think it is the wrong approach.
Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 19 2006, 06:18 PM
| QUOTE (Nyxll) |
| [...] but if you can lock your arm [...] |
Human beings cannot. Hence why we have the stocks in the first place. You could include some sort of special rules for people with very high STR cyberarms.
Posted by: Aku Jan 19 2006, 06:19 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| nah, range category is more accurate (heh!). i mean, sawing off the stock on a rifle isn't going to significantly affect your accuracy at 10m, will impair your accuracy at 75m, and will completely destroy your accuracy at 300m and up. it just makes more sense. |
in other words, somethig similar to what i posted up above...
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 19 2006, 06:20 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| nah, range category is more accurate (heh!). i mean, sawing off the stock on a rifle isn't going to significantly affect your accuracy at 10m, will impair your accuracy at 75m, and will completely destroy your accuracy at 300m and up. it just makes more sense. |
I accept that is a more realistic approach. I agree. I was arguing in favor of simplicity. It's easier to assign a small penalty rather than have your gun have two range tables, IMO. Eh, I guess not that much simpler.
But, if you're going to do that, you should be implementing a corrolary house-rule that adding a stock to a smaller weapon increases it's range, right?
Posted by: Nyxll Jan 19 2006, 06:21 PM
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Jan 19 2006, 01:15 PM) | ||
You have never fired a rifle, right? Regardless of recoil, a stock allows you to anchor the firearm far more firmly into your body, making it far more stable, allowing you to fire the weapon far more accurately. When firing at longer ranges, the difference is immense. It doesn't matter whether you've got arms like the Governator in the 1970s, you can never hold a rifle as steady without using a stock as you can when firmly pressing the stock to your shoulder. Like Crusher Bob and mfb have been saying, the difference is just immense. Cutting the range from AR to SMG is completely justified. |
I grew up in redneck country, fired many, and tried many goofy things with them.
I completely disagree with the idea of reducing ranges, because of principles and tricks I learned from photography. you can hold a camera still at arms length with practice. I think at this point it will just come down to which camp you want to sit in.
And yes, I have tried firing a sawed off .22 with little problem. I do not have the str for a sawed off .308. Aiming did take longer I will grant you that, but I could still hit 50 meters with close to the same accuracy, but I would not call myself a marksman by any means.
Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2006, 06:25 PM
no, locking your arm won't work at all. your shoulder is still free to rotate through its full range, which means you're not going to hit anything at long range.
losing the stock is going to decrease your accuracy more and more the further away your target is, because tiny movements are going to throw a larger and larger variance into the spot your bullet hits. you could come up with a complex series of TN modifiers to reflect that, putting the TN for extreme range at +9 or so. or, you could just use the range tables, which effectively do the same thing.
and it's not like the range tables are 100% accurate anyway. what do you think happens to a rifle bullet at 500m, in SR? does it just stop in mid-air and drop to the ground? no, it keeps moving. in real life, there's a chance you could hit something at 600m with a rifle round (a pretty good chance, actually, but fixing the range tables is not the subject of this discussion). in SR, that chance is so low that it's not worth putting on the range table--you just automatically miss any target beyond 500m, if you're firing an AR.
Posted by: Crusher Bob Jan 19 2006, 06:26 PM
Then, how do you implement the TN penalties?
The difficulty increase in hitting the target is based on the distance of the target from you, not on the physical ability of your weapon to fire a bullet that far (in this case, anyway). Addiing say +2TN to all stockless shots would make the stockless weaopn useless, even at 10 meters.
So how to draw the line at where to apply the TN penalty? Medium range? But then, a stockless AR would shoot just as well out to 100? (what is medium range for ARs?) meters as an AR with a stock on it. What we want to represent is an effect on accuracy that is largely irrelevant over short ranges (50 meters or less) but a huge factor at longer ranges. Reducing the range categories means that the stockless AT shoots as well at 60? meters (medium range for SMGs is?) as the stocked AR does at 100 (medium range for ARs?). The range reduction implementation of the rule allows you to shoot fine at shorter ranges (which you can do without a stock), and produces a reasonably smooth curve, compared to a 'simple' TN penalty. While a 'complex' TN penalty would be more realistic, it would be much more difficult to implement in a useable manner.
Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 19 2006, 06:29 PM
| QUOTE (Nyxll) |
| I grew up in redneck country, fired many, and tried many goofy things with them. |
Then it should be no trouble for you to try this out in practice, or get someone else to try it out for you. If there's no shooting range available, just put a 1' diameter target at 150 meters and try to keep it steady in your sights from a standing unsupported position without letting the stock touch any part of you. If you manage that, I'll take all this seriously.
| QUOTE (Nyxll) |
| I completely disagree with the idea of reducing ranges, because of principles and tricks I learned from photography. |
I guess photography tricks make you a far better marksman than military training does.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| no, locking your arm won't work at all. your shoulder is still free to rotate through its full range, which means you're not going to hit anything at long range. |
Good point. It should take, at the very least, high STR cyberarms and a cybertorso to get a stable firing position without a stock. But if one went that far, then you should also get far better accuracy and/or ranges when firing any stockless weapon with two high STR cyberarms and a cybertorso.
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 19 2006, 06:31 PM
So, something that decreases your accuracy is going to have a larger effect at long range than at short range. Big, forehead-slappin' duh. It doesn't take a PhD in trigenometry to puzzle that one out.
My question is, why does everything else that affects your accuracy give you a TN penalty, while this changes your range table. The only other thing (big IIRC) that changes your range table is muzzle shortening, because that actually changes the velocity of the bullet.
I agree that accuracy penalties would be more realistically represented by changing range, but then shouldn't you do this for everything that affects accuracy? Instead of firing at a TN 15 in the dark, on a train, in a box, at a fox, you should be firing at normal target numbers but short range is now 2", and extreme range goes all the way out to 3 feet?
Why should this accuracy penalty be handled differently than every other accuracy penalty.
Posted by: Nyxll Jan 19 2006, 06:33 PM
you can reduce the movement in your shoulders by angling your arms to one side, similar to a bow.
I agree with you that the range tables are a simplification, but as a GM I never say that a target is 501 meters out. Do you? I look at the range table, and get an idea of distance then make a judgement from there.
| QUOTE |
| Then, how do you implement the TN penalties? |
A +1 for each range category, possibly... seems to be a little more inline with the difficulty factor.
Posted by: Aku Jan 19 2006, 06:41 PM
| QUOTE (Nyxll) | ||
| you can reduce the movement in your shoulders by angling your arms to one side, similar to a bow. I agree with you that the range tables are a simplification, but as a GM I never say that a target is 501 meters out. Do you? I look at the range table, and get an idea of distance then make a judgement from there.
A +1 for each range category, possibly... seems to be a little more inline with the difficulty factor. |
or, do what i did above, take SMG ranges out to extreme, and start stacking them ontop of themselves out to the max range of your stockless gun. You keep short range TN's "acceptable" and then once you start crossing that line, it keeps getting tougher and tougher (twice as difficult, as a matter of fact, for every 150 meters)
Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2006, 07:23 PM
eh, that's... yeah, sure, that works, i guess. but it's incongruous with the rest of the rules. you're basically allowing stockless ARs to be fired at targets beyond Extreme range--but why only stockless ARs? why not SMGs, why not pistols? these weapons are, realistically, no less likely to miss at ranges beyond Extreme than a stockless AR, but you're giving stockless ARs special treatment.
Posted by: The Stainless Steel Rat Jan 19 2006, 07:29 PM
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
| So, something that decreases your accuracy is going to have a larger effect at long range than at short range. Big, forehead-slappin' duh. It doesn't take a PhD in trigenometry to puzzle that one out. |
And remember, with probabilities being what they are in this system, adding the same penalty to both short and extreme ranges results in a vastly different effect on success percentage.
A TN penalty will satisfy the need for simplicity and create a greater impact at farther ranges.
Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2006, 07:33 PM
but it's nonsensical. if you cut the stock off an AR, you've basically got an SMG. SMGs don't face a TN penalty, so why should a chopped-down AR?
Posted by: Aku Jan 19 2006, 07:34 PM
eh, it's only special because a normal AR can be fired at those ranges, you're just upping the dificulty for a stockless AR to do it, and thats what you're saying is happening.
Like i said before, my understanding of the ranges, is not only accuracy, but also the ability for the bullt to acctually do damage at the range. someone asked earlier what we thought happened to a bullt when it hits that magical extreme range.
I think it keeps flying (albeit it for a short distance, rapidly losing volecity and curing to the ground) but has, for the most part, lost the majority of it's penetrating and damage power. I'm sure, if someone wanted too, they could make a damage adjuster, similar to the flechette rules, to show that beyond the "extreme" range, you could still do damage.
My point is, stocked or stockless, you're STILL firing an assualt rifle., and it doesnt lose power simply because you choped the stock off. So, adding a stock to an SMG or pistol won't make it shoot further
EDIT: MFB, are you saying that by cutting off the stock of an AR you will only get the total distance as an SMG? That seems funny, to me, considering that from what i've read, and SMG is using pistol firing mechanisms, and the AR is using the Rifle mechanisms, and is, thus, by default, ALOT more powerful
Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2006, 07:39 PM
| QUOTE (Aku) |
| I think it keeps flying (albeit it for a short distance, rapidly losing volecity and curing to the ground) but has, for the most part, lost the majority of it's penetrating and damage power. |
that's not what happens at all. an M-16A2 has an effective single-target range of 500 yards; a M-249 has an effective single-target range of 1,000 yards. both these weapons fire the same round. the bullet's trajectory isn't different, the M-16 doesn't fire the bullet less. the M-16 is just inherently less likely to hit a single target at ranges beyond 500 yards. a bullet is going to get pulled down to the earth by gravity way, way before it loses a significant portion of its velocity due to air resistance.
(if you're wondering, the M-249's effective range is longer because, when used correctly, you're firing 3-5 round bursts, which means you're more likely to score a hit at any range.)
Posted by: Aku Jan 19 2006, 07:52 PM
Thats in this icky Real life ™ that we have to deal with. I've never seen the book saying anything about what the extend of the range amounts too. However, because all AR's have an assualt rifle Range, i have to assume that there is no mechanical difference in how well they preform at a given distance. All AR's are going to have the same deviation at short, at a medium, at a long, or at an extreme range, flat out, regardless of what "real life" tells us (this gun can only fire effectively to 500 yards, while this once can go to 1500) As far as SR is concerned, they are both AR's, and can thus, at extreme range, with stocks, fire to 550 meters.
Now, what you're telling me, is that, if you saw that stock off, than, theres NO WAY that that AR could fire past 150 meters (the max for an SMG at extreme) And i'm saying, i'm not one to artificially chop the range at what something can be done at, when the gun is powered to do it to a certain extent, simply because you didn't unfold your stock, i still can't understand WHY that gun would only be able to shoot a bullet to 150 meters. Couldnt the AR without the stock still be useful in a paint and spray capacity out to it's max range?
Posted by: The Stainless Steel Rat Jan 19 2006, 07:53 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| (if you're wondering, the M-249's effective range is longer because, when used correctly, you're firing 3-5 round bursts, which means you're more likely to score a hit at any range.) |
??? Does not compute: Won't that 5 round burst actually increase your TN by 5? At extreme range under ideal conditions that decreases your probability of a hit from 1:9 per die (TN 8 ,stationary) to 1:36 per die (TN 13). Even with recoil comp the best you can hope for is no change.
Posted by: mmu1 Jan 19 2006, 07:54 PM
| QUOTE (mfb @ Jan 19 2006, 03:33 PM) |
| but it's nonsensical. if you cut the stock off an AR, you've basically got an SMG. SMGs don't face a TN penalty, so why should a chopped-down AR? |
Of course, realistically speaking, SMGs without a stock should face serious penalties.
You should either stay consistent with the current rules (nonsensical though they might be) and allow stockless ARs to fire without penalty, or develop specific rules for penalties for not using a stock with every type of firearm originally designed to be used with a stock: SMGs, rifles, assault rifles, shotguns, light and medium machine guns, certain kinds of machine pistols (well, almost all of them, really, since without a stock they're virtually useless as practical weapons beyond point blank range)...
Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2006, 07:55 PM
hey, look, you're the one trying to insert realism into SR. if you don't want realism, then simply don't change the rules at all--ARs fire the same with or without stocks. but if you are trying to insert some realism, then you're going about it slightly wonky. your suggestion about using extended SMG ranges works, but like i said, it's incongruous--ARs suddenly become the only weapon that have a range past Extreme. what i meant was, if you're going to allow ARs to have ranges beyond Extreme, why not just do that for all weapons?
SMGs were not 'originally' designed to be fired with a stock--nor were they 'originally' designed to be fired without one. there are stocked and stockless SMGs and carbines, and they are all different. if you want to be more realistic, i'd use Raygun's Carbine ranges for stocked SMGs and SR's SMG ranges for stockless SMGs.
| QUOTE (The Stainless Steel Rat) |
| ??? Does not compute: Won't that 5 round burst actually increase your TN by 5?. |
i'm talking about real life, DiGriz. yes, in SR, a 5-round burst will make you less accurate. in real life, it will make you more likely to hit.
Posted by: mmu1 Jan 19 2006, 08:05 PM
| QUOTE (mfb @ Jan 19 2006, 03:55 PM) |
| SMGs were not 'originally' designed to be fired with a stock--nor were they 'originally' designed to be fired without one. there are stocked and stockless SMGs and carbines, and they are all different. if you want to be more realistic, i'd use Raygun's Carbine ranges for stocked SMGs and SR's SMG ranges for stockless SMGs. |
Fine... "Designed in such a way that they function best with a stock" then, if you want to be anal. That way the handful of SMGs designed without a decent stock and the 2 carbines designed from the ground up without one (I never heard of one, but considering that people built guns with bent barrells designed to shoot around corners...) are not mistakenly included in that category.
Posted by: Aku Jan 19 2006, 08:12 PM
While i've been using AR's in my example, i've been meaning everything larger than an SMG that is already, stocked as a rule. So that means, off the top of my head, sport rifles, sniper's (why, i anyone would, i dont know but...) and ARs
Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2006, 08:12 PM
i'm not being anal, i'm just saying. to me, SMGs already face harsh enough penalties--if you think of the range categories as penalties. an SMG and an AR have roughly similar damage codes, yet an AR's max range is something like 300% longer than an SMG's. that means that an SMG is facing a TN of 9 in situations where an AR faces a TN of 5; that, in turn, means that an AR gets a -4 TN at medium range for having a stock.
Posted by: Nyxll Jan 19 2006, 08:27 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| that's not what happens at all. an M-16A2 has an effective single-target range of 500 yards; a M-249 has an effective single-target range of 1,000 yards. both these weapons fire the same round. the bullet's trajectory isn't different, the M-16 doesn't fire the bullet less. the M-16 is just inherently less likely to hit a single target at ranges beyond 500 yards. a bullet is going to get pulled down to the earth by gravity way, way before it loses a significant portion of its velocity due to air resistance. |
How long are the barells?
The SMG's bullets are smaller than an AR, and the barrels are shorter.
Posted by: The Stainless Steel Rat Jan 19 2006, 08:27 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| i'm talking about real life, DiGriz. yes, in SR, a 5-round burst will make you less accurate. in real life, it will make you more likely to hit. |
Yeah, I kinda knew that. It's just a pet peeve of mine with the system... That's why I came up with http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=8709&hl=&view=findpost&p=265982.
I have used this houserule to great effect in my games, with one change: Damage cannot be staged up if the spray mechanic is used, but extra successes by the shooter must be rolled off by the defender before staging the damage down. (Thanks for the advice Modesitt!)
Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2006, 08:31 PM
barrel length of the M-16 is http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm; the M-249 is http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg17-e.htm. the M-249, as i noted above, has a longer effective range.
pretty good, DiGriz. i did something similar, though i skipped the variable bursts because they added an extra step. i like the idea, though.
Posted by: Nyxll Jan 19 2006, 08:46 PM
| QUOTE (mfb @ Jan 19 2006, 03:31 PM) |
| barrel length of the M-16 is http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm; the M-249 is http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg17-e.htm. the M-249, as i noted above, has a longer effective range. pretty good, DiGriz. i did something similar, though i skipped the variable bursts because they added an extra step. i like the idea, though. |
What are the manufacturing differences? Rifling, boaring tolerances, barrel metal??? Those things also come into play.
Not all guns are created equal. Look at the rifles from Accuracy international.
As a generallity, AR's have a more effective range than SMG's.
As for bursts, it is more likely that you will hit because you have more rounds out there, but each successive bullet is less likely to hit than it's predecessor. I think shadowrun was a little off on this, but it is better than rolling for each bullet. (Which I think you did in SR1)
Edit:
I think what would ultimately satisfy you mfb, and I do not think it is a bad thing, is a specific range chart for each weapon, with modifications. It is grandular, but once you have the lookup table, it would be pretty quick. Gas venting, silencers, and extended barrels would all change the effective ranges. I think this would be really cool, but is much more work that a general blanket rule that was my preference for now.
Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2006, 08:51 PM
rifling, tolerances, and weapon material have little to do with how far a bullet is going to travel. they're certainly not going to vary the actual range of a bullet by 500 yards, at least not at the level of off-the shelf firearms. what those factors do strongly affect is long-range accuracy.
each successive bullet isn't necessarily less likelty to hit than its predecessor. at longer ranges, especially with mechanical sights, your aiming point has a fair likelihood of being off to begin with. you actually depend on the weapon jittering a bit to spread your bullets, giving you a better chance of hitting--like using a shotgun, basically.
as for satisfying me... meh, i could see that being cool, but not for a tabletop game. for a tabletop game, i'd be satisfied by simply calling a chopped-down AR an SMG.
Posted by: mmu1 Jan 19 2006, 08:55 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| barrel length of the M-16 is http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm; the M-249 is http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg17-e.htm. the M-249, as i noted above, has a longer effective range. |
I'm pretty sure those effective ranges were determined based on the assumption that the M-249, unlike the M-16, was being fired from a bipod.
Posted by: Nyxll Jan 19 2006, 08:57 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| rifling, tolerances, and weapon material have little to do with how far a bullet is going to travel. they're certainly not going to vary the actual range of a bullet by 500 yards, at least not at the level of off-the shelf firearms. what those factors do strongly affect is long-range accuracy. each successive bullet isn't necessarily less likelty to hit than its predecessor. at longer ranges, especially with mechanical sights, your aiming point has a fair likelihood of being off to begin with. you actually depend on the weapon jittering a bit to spread your bullets, giving you a better chance of hitting--like using a shotgun, basically. as for satisfying me... meh, i could see that being cool, but not for a tabletop game. for a tabletop game, i'd be satisfied by simply calling a chopped-down AR an SMG. |
we were talking about "effective range" which you mentioned earlier was based on accuracy at those ranges. Sure a pistol will go a km, but you need a steep angle, making it inneffective.) that was why one had a more effective range than the other.
Posted by: The Stainless Steel Rat Jan 19 2006, 09:00 PM
| QUOTE (Nyxll) |
| As for bursts, it is more likely that you will hit because you have more rounds out there, but each successive bullet is less likely to hit than it's predecessor. I think shadowrun was a little off on this, but it is better than rolling for each bullet. (Which I think you did in SR1) |
Yeah, you did. And it sucked.
On a side note, I once considered metagaming me up a run where the team had to eliminate a firearms designer from Ares who used ballistics testing to disprove causality and make a case for time travel. (i.e. Proof that the future existence of a 6th bullet changes the likelyhood of the 1st bullet hitting it's mark.) Obviously this guy had to be silenced before he made this discoverypublic and unmade reality as we know it!
Then I remembered what I would do to a player who metagamed like this and banished the thought forever. (except for the random musing on DS of course
)
Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 19 2006, 09:15 PM
| QUOTE (Nyxll) |
| The SMG's bullets are smaller than an AR, and the barrels are shorter. |
Did you mean cartridges instead of bullets?
Bullets fired from SMGs tend to be much heavier in greater in diameter, although shorter, than those fired from ARs. For example, the US M882 9x19mm ball round has a 112gr projectile, the US M855 5.56x45mm ball round has a 62gr projectile (you can figure out the relative projectile diameters...).
Out of a SMG-length barrel, the 112gr 9mm bullet leaves at ~1400fps, while the 62-grainer takes off from an M16A2 at ~3025fps. The rifle bullet has a greater sectional density and is more aerodynamically shaped, allowing it to maintain its velocity far better.
Anyhow, an http://www.olyarms.com/?page=m1_oa_models# has a shorter effective range than an http://www.hkpro.com/mp5.htm, and it's got nothing to do with the 2.35" of extra barrel (the OA-93 has a muzzle velocity ~800fps or so greater, and the 5.56mm bullet will still be traveling faster at any given range).
Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2006, 09:18 PM
in the original M-16/M-249 post, Aku and i were discussing actual (not effective) ranges of firearms. i was proving to Aku that bullets are still fully capable of injuring and killing beyond the effective range of a given weapon. the effective range of a weapon has as much to do with how easy it is to aim the weapon as it does with how fire the bullet will actually travel. not having a stock decreases the ease with which a weapon may be aimed, thereby decreasing the weapon's effective range.
which is why i'm fine with a chopped-down AR not being able to hit a target at 500m in SR. a stocked AR can't hit a target at 900m in SR--not because the bullet doesn't go that far, but because it's impossible (in SR) to be accurate enough to hit that 900m target. if you chop the stock off an AR, your accuracy is going to decrease--and in SR, that can be translated into decreasing the effective range of the weapon to, say, those used by SMGs. the bullet is travelling just as far, it's just a lot less likely to hit--so much less likely that the system deems it impossible.
if you're going to change that, you should change it for all weapons, stocked or unstocked. make a few new range categories, TNs 12, 16, and 20.
Posted by: Aku Jan 19 2006, 09:30 PM
Which is all fine and good, and at this point, because i'm NOT a gun guy, i can't really back up anything im saying. I just seem to remember the book of the game saying something like "beyond the ranges listed, guns loss their effectiveness at injuring.."
Again, thats just how i remember, and half the time i dont remember my own name....
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 19 2006, 10:54 PM
Bah, just houserule TN 18 beyond extreme ranges (half imaging scope ratings at this range). This, of course, mans that a characfter can hit something a billion kilometers away if he has line of sight with the weapon, but the curvature of the earth will prevent that.
Shooting someone on the moon becomes a possibility until the GM declares that the bullet fell back down and hit the shooter in the head.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)