Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Ancient History Mar 23 2010, 12:14 AM

http://www.shadowrun4.com/resources/faq.shtml

Now, I've been seriously campaigning to get the FAQ updated for quite a while now, and even though I did all the work fixing the verdamnt page. Finally, after seven months of consistent bitching and me calling it quits and threatening to post it on my own site, the FAQ I mostly wrote has finally been posted! Yay!

Just for you and me, I will mention that whenever the FAQ mentions "an upcoming rulebook" in the Magic section, it was talking about a book that was planned to be written by Jennifer Harding and myself. There were actually full answers to those questions, but several of the other freelancers protested that the purpose of a FAQ is to answer questions and not rewrite or provide new rules, so they were removed. I might dig them out and post them later, just so we have something to argue about.

Posted by: Starmage21 Mar 23 2010, 12:16 AM

Anything interesting in there?

Posted by: Ancient History Mar 23 2010, 12:23 AM

Considering the last FAQ was '06? Yeah, I think so. Couple three things, anyway.

Posted by: Mantis Mar 23 2010, 12:23 AM

You have answered a question I just posted about adepts and foci. Thank you, thank you, thank you. So yea I think there is some interesting things in there. For me anyway. Yay new FAQ.

Posted by: JM Hardy Mar 23 2010, 12:27 AM

I was going to post a message about this, but Bobby beat me to it! As I mentioned on the blog, I appreciate the work of the many freelancers who had input into the document, but special credit needs to go to Bobby, who kept pushing for this to happen and made sure it didn't fade away. If the FAQ is helpful, thank him and every other name on the bottom of the page.

Jason H.

Posted by: darthmord Mar 23 2010, 12:30 AM

The FAQ entry for Mystic Adepts and Magic splitting are in conflict with the rules published for SR4A.

I'll read over it more over the next couple of days.

Posted by: Mantis Mar 23 2010, 12:30 AM

Hmmm going to need a few more thank yous to cover all those names. Anyway thanks guys. This is almost as good as a new source book.

Posted by: Squinky Mar 23 2010, 12:44 AM

Very awesome. Thanks guys!

---edit----

Genetic heritage just got more interesting, and it seems they fixed and clarified some rules on cyberlimbs. Woot!

Posted by: Fatum Mar 23 2010, 01:26 AM

Okay, the most important thing I see this far is

That should invalidate at least some worries about the Possession traditions.

Oh, and I was right about Data Bombs after all.

Posted by: nemafow Mar 23 2010, 01:36 AM

You legend AH, thank you

Posted by: Squinky Mar 23 2010, 01:38 AM

Agreed. Although it does clarify that ITNW stacks with other armors now. I remember some arguing over that

Posted by: sn0mm1s Mar 23 2010, 01:58 AM

It also appears that if you aren't astrally perceiving in some fashion you cannot use stealth skills against those who are.

Posted by: Glyph Mar 23 2010, 02:00 AM

Correct. The example in the book (basic SR4 - not sure if SR4A has the same example) has a mystic adept with one point dedicated to adept powers using it to buy four levels of rapid healing.

This directly contradicts:



Still, despite that and what I am sure will be a few other errors, it is good to see the FAQ updated, and to see them weigh in on some of the issues that have been circulating around the forums for awhile.

Posted by: crizh Mar 23 2010, 02:01 AM

Wow, that's a fairly major change to Possession.

I seem to recall that the FAQ used explicitly say almost exactly the opposite.

I've noticed a few changes that are going to take some getting used to and might cause some controversy and I'm only half way through....

Posted by: Fatum Mar 23 2010, 02:10 AM

Wait, how comes you can use cellular repair to regain Essence lost to HMHVV Infection, when Runner's Companion explicitly states otherwise on page 83?

Posted by: Ancient History Mar 23 2010, 02:18 AM

<snap> Should have been "Energy Drain." It was a re-write of an old question. Always something you miss in proofing. Oh well.

Posted by: crizh Mar 23 2010, 02:22 AM

Half-limb armour counts it's full rating. SR4A changes document in error.

Halle-goddam-lujah!

Thank you AH.

Posted by: nemafow Mar 23 2010, 02:45 AM

Question regarding the FAQ though.

What happens if Response is reduced to 0?
If Response reaches 0, your commlink is overloaded, and slows to a snail's crawl. Think Windows 98. The commlink does not crash, and your icons are still able to act, albeit slowly.

If your Response is reduced to 0, doesnt that reduce System to 0 as well, and effectively a crashed OS?

Posted by: Ancient History Mar 23 2010, 02:51 AM

Note the question immediately above that one.

Posted by: nemafow Mar 23 2010, 02:58 AM

That explicity is worded regarding running too many programs, what if there were other circumstances that your Response was reduced to 0?

But nevermind, you have obviously answered my question, 'no'

Posted by: Ancient History Mar 23 2010, 03:00 AM

Six an one, I think.

Posted by: Squinky Mar 23 2010, 03:03 AM

And seconded. I saw that old ruling lately, and it didn't make sense

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 23 2010, 04:58 AM

I still don't like that ruling on Hardened Armor + Normal Armor, as it means drakes in dracoform having hardened armor 4 is still neigh useless (how often do you see attack DVs at 4 and less? Only if an unaugmented human is punching you). But it is the most reasonable method.

Posted by: hobgoblin Mar 23 2010, 05:12 AM

nothing on how launch weapons and hardpoints interact.

Posted by: sn0mm1s Mar 23 2010, 05:27 AM

Well, the character can fall 4 meters without having to roll any dice to prevent damage so they have that going for them.

Posted by: hobgoblin Mar 23 2010, 05:36 AM

hmm, that that entry about warding a van new?

Posted by: Dragnar Mar 23 2010, 05:37 AM

That's a problem with the rules for hardened armor in general, not specifically stacking it with normal armor, which is outside of the scope of a FAQ.

Posted by: hobgoblin Mar 23 2010, 06:41 AM

interesting that one time pads are mentioned as still existing and effective, if cumbersome.

that may be the way the banks and credit companies operate, by way of one time pads exchanged between them or supplied by the orbital bank. (gray suit, mirror sunglasses, suitcase locked to wrist. or maybe a non-wireless datajack and area bomb in the head).

that is, when a customer buys something, the sum is reserved on their account using a normal data connection. But no "money" is actually transferred yet. Then at some point the banks/companies involved gather up said "reserved" orders and verify them with each other, using the one time pad.

Posted by: hobgoblin Mar 23 2010, 07:17 AM

heh, now i want to give my character obvious cyberfeet thats sculped the chromed shoes, complete with bulk enhancement so that i can have 3/3 armor in each foot. Total armor provided, 6/6, for a cost of .5 essence.

Posted by: Ryu Mar 23 2010, 08:53 AM

A new FAQ? Cool! *sniff*

Posted by: Tycho Mar 23 2010, 08:57 AM

lol

I guess in the next days we will finally see the augmentation Errata from August 08

if nobody feels resposible to simply post a new FAQ for that amount of time. Things are very bad...

@AH Nice work, would be cool if you can post the missing rules.

Posted by: Tycho Mar 23 2010, 08:57 AM

lol

I guess in the next days we will finally see the augmentation Errata from August 08

if nobody feels resposible to simply post a new FAQ for that amount of time. Things are very bad...

@AH Nice work, would be cool if you can post the missing rules.

Posted by: Muspellsheimr Mar 23 2010, 09:20 AM

The FAQ is much better than the previous version, but still contradicts the Rules as Written.

If the intent is to change a rule to how it was "intended" to work, put it in a fucking Errata document. The purpose of a FAQ is to clarify unclear rules, not alter or add to them. I'm even willing to write the damn Errata if desired (I'll just House Rule as appropriate in my game thereafter), but until then, stop trying to use the FAQ as such.



I have not thoroughly read through the FAQ yet, but the two contradictions I noticed where:

• Splitting Dice Pools - While not explicitly spelled out in the rules for several instances of splitting dice pools (such as multicasting), when splitting a dice pool, you divide the base pool, then add all applicable modifiers to each division seperately. This, the FAQ got correct. What it fails at is it's "Base Pool" and "Modifiers".
  
  QUOTE (Shadowrun 4 Anniversary p.60)
  The dice pool is the sum of the relevant skill plus its linked attribute,
  plus or minus any modifiers that may apply.
  
  Anything that does not directly affect the rating of the Skill or the Attribute, but does adjust the Dice Pool is a modifier, regardless of if it specifically states it or not. This includes Specializations and Foci - both of which are listed as adjusting the base pool prior to division.
  
  
• Mystic Adepts - the FAQ still incorrectly lists the Magic value dedicated to "Magician" skills as determining maximum Force of spells & spirits, as well as if it is Stun or Physical. This is blatantly false (despite the unclear phrasing), as the Drain value or damage type, or the Force of magical activities,are not factors of the skill, which is specifically what the partial value applies to. In addition to there being absolutely no rules whatsoever of the Drain or Force values being based off of the skill, I can further support this by pointing out numerous areas where Drain & Force are not dependent on spellcasting or conjury to begin with (metamagics & wards being notable examples). This is in addition to the specific wording regarding Adept Powers that the full value applies to the maximum Rating, indicating the same for Force..
  
  Note: Irrelevant to this in particular, but Mystic Adepts do not suddenly become overpowering if they use their full Magic for Force & Overcasting - they become playable outside of a few specific niche builds.

If I notice any more rules conflicts in the FAQ as I go over it in more detail, I will update/post as appropriate.

Until the FAQ is adjusted to accurately reflect the Rules as Written, or the Errata is updated to accommodate the "intended" rules, it remains an effectively null document in any rules discussion or debate.

Posted by: AndyZ Mar 23 2010, 09:25 AM

I was wrong about how vehicle speed and acceleration works. Interesting.

If I may humbly suggest a ruling for 5e, I suggest that for non-legged vehicles the walking and running rate determine how much you can increase or decrease the velocity of the vehicle. For example, a Suzuki Mirage has an Acceleration of 20/50 and a Speed of 200.

For example, via running, the first turn it can run to rev up to 50 velocity, second turn the runner stops flooring the pedal and it increases at the walking rate to 70. However, on the third turn he wants to stop it entirely. The running rate decreases the speed by 50 and gets him down to 20 velocity, so he needs a vehicle test to try to stop it dead.

It may help to just call it Speed instead of Velocity and say Top Speed instead of the old Speed.


Thank you very much for the updates!

Posted by: Wuerfelwerfer Mar 23 2010, 10:30 AM

1) The FAQ mentions the Laser Crescent Axe, but I thought that was dropped from 4th Ed. Is it still hidden somewhere?

2) The first answer under 'CYBERWARE/BIOWARE/NANOTECH/GENETECH' implies that you could buy deltaware cultured bioware, while the book (p. 64) says that you can't. What gives?

Posted by: Muspellsheimr Mar 23 2010, 10:38 AM

The Laser Crescent Axe does not exist in currently released Shadowrun 4 books. I do not know why it is in the FAQ (or where).

p.64 (Shadowrun 4) does not at any point say Cultured Bioware is separate from the normal Standard-Alpha-Beta-Delta grades. It's description is extremely poorly worded, and not entirely accurate on the fluff end either, but it does not say what you claim whatsoever. I don't know if that description was updated in the Anniversary printing, but I suggest you use that, to begin with. Reading Augmentation would also be a good idea before making statements on rules of the book's namesake you don't actually understand.

Posted by: Brol_The_Mighty Mar 23 2010, 11:04 AM

Wow Mud. Whereas I understand pointing out possible conflicts between the new and updated FAQ with some of the books, why such hostility? The credibility of your argument is diminished when presented in the manner that you do.

Posted by: Wuerfelwerfer Mar 23 2010, 11:51 AM

Why, thank you for your unsolicited and non-contributing answer.
The laser crescent axe can be found in the FAQ by using a brand new technology called the 'search function'. Entering any of the three words should direct you there.

'Implant Grades' on p. 64 Shadowrun says that there are four grades of cyber- and bioware (basic, alpha, beta and delta) and then goes on (in paragraph 2) that there is another grade for bioware called cultured.
And since all ware can only be bought in one grade, I deduced that cultured and, say, delta, rule each other out.

Further on, I suggest you take a nap so you'll be less grouchy before continuing to post here.

Posted by: WorkOver Mar 23 2010, 11:59 AM

He is always like that, he must be an angry person in real life, or an extreme know-it-all control freak. Maybe he is just an extreme asshat, I suspect its a lot of all of it.

Posted by: Dumori Mar 23 2010, 12:08 PM

Dont be hard on him. Muspellsheimr is just misunderstood.

Posted by: Ancient History Mar 23 2010, 01:06 PM

The freelancers that put the FAQ together (not just me! Thank them too!) were attempting to clarify the rules as the exist, not create new rules (that's the purpose of new books) or to "fix" the rules (that's the purpose of errata). That said, there were some situations where different arguments regarding playability won out.

Re: Splitting Dice Pools
The wording here gets into gamer legalese (what is a modifier?) but the general purpose is to avoid "double-dipping" so to speak - adding the same specialization or focus to two different tests being performed at the same time.

Re: Mystic Adepts
Closest the FAQ comes to an actual errata, meant to reflect the actual intention of SR4A, and again is intended to avoid abuse of this character concept and emphasize the division between the mystic adept's abilities.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 23 2010, 01:06 PM

Also this on p303

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 23 2010, 01:09 PM

Um. If you're performing two different skills you don't get the specialization of both to both pools (8 dice, split) you get the benefit of specialization to each pool (4 dice, split). I think that's pretty clear.

Posted by: DireRadiant Mar 23 2010, 01:38 PM

By extension of this principle we shouldn't use the main rule books either?

Posted by: Prime Mover Mar 23 2010, 02:21 PM

I read the faq before I came here and the mention of an upcoming book associated with the weapon focus vehicle caught my eye and my attention, now I come here and see that the freelancers who have left were supposed to write it . That trumps any argument over semantics for me.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 23 2010, 02:28 PM

Uh?

"Until the RAW is adjusted to accurately reflect the RAW, or the Errata is updated to accommodate the "intended" rules ("adjust RAW"), it [RAW] remains an effectively null document in any rules discussion or debate."

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Mar 23 2010, 02:47 PM

This is now p.70 in SR4A, and it states such:


I've bolded the relevant information.

Basically, this explicitly states that there are 4 grades for cyber- and bioware (standard, alpha, beta and delta). It says that in addition, meaning to be combined with the previous information, some bioware has to be cultured by its very nature. There is no additional wording anywhere that specifically states that something cannot be cultured and deltaware. P. 61 of Augmentation seems to state that cultured too can be of any grade. Cultured isn't deltaware. It's matched to your nervous system. Alpha-, beta- and deltaware are matched to your body's protiens to help prevent rejection and ease integration (read: give you lower essence cost), whereas deltaware is specifically made according to your DNA to insure best possible integration.

Cultured is simply a different "type" of bioware, for lack of a better term, rather than a -ware grade like alpha/beta/delta.

Relevant supporting quote from Augmentation.

Posted by: FriendoftheDork Mar 23 2010, 03:04 PM

I really don't get the acceleration rules. The FAQ tries to explain them using the same confusing semantics as the RAW, but also seem to contradict it at times.

So far I've just interpreted/house ruled them to mean Speed=top speed and Acceleration=changes in speed (not movement). Also I completely ignored the vehicle test to increase speed... how can pressing a gas pedal require a test? Instead greater speed should give penalties to vehicle crash tests, if it doesen't already.

Now the first line about Speed is clear. Then it says

"Acceleration determines the vehicle's movement rate (see Movement Rate. p. 149, SR4A); the first number is the "Walking" rate and the second number is the "Running" rate (p. 168-169, SR4A). Divide the vehicle's Movement rate by the number of Initiative Passes in that turn to see how far it travels in each pass."

So acceleration determines (equals?) movement rate, which is then the total movement that turn (divided by passes). Which means that the Van is slower than a human... yeah right..

Then in the example the vehicle is moving at a velocity which is unexplained how it got to, and when trying to increase it further, a fairly difficult vehicle test is required... still going well below the safe top Speed of the vehicle. With the whopping 4 hits, 2 are used just to avoid crashing I assumed, 1 is used to accelerate by 10 meter (which is the same as the running rate of the vehicle, which I thought would be automatic just like for creatures). The last hit mysteriously disappears!

Then there is some nonsense about you need one test in order to accelerate the vehicle by 5 meters... argh.

Posted by: Wuerfelwerfer Mar 23 2010, 03:10 PM

Ah, so they changed it from SR4 to SR4A. Then this FAQ item makes sense. Thanks!

Posted by: Xahn Borealis Mar 23 2010, 04:36 PM

Who did this, I wonder?

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 23 2010, 05:07 PM

Noticed this below it,



The guideline I was given was that if the non-metahuman form's body is less than the armor value, then they're trapped and take damage equal to that armor value. It's a bit excessive (imagine taking 8P damage, resisted with your "less than 8 body" without armor), especially considering that (assuming your body doesn't change) a body 4 character can wear 8 armor without penalty.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 23 2010, 06:52 PM

Slight error here. It states that if a character doesn't drop prone immediately (on the shooter's turn, which by RAW is impossible, as dropping prone is a free action IIRC, which the defender does not have at that specific moment) they take damage.

I think what you're looking for here is that if he doesn't drop prone or take cover on his next action then he takes damage. "Not moving" is not "dropping prone" and therefore would not render the character safe. It gets murky when the defender has fewer passes than the attacker and you're using the optional "everyone has four passes with regards to movement" rule, but I'd say that instead of continuing to move the character could drop prone instead.



Is there source for this? Or is this "from the guy who thought up the quality and has no RAW basis"? This would actually effect my local game, as Bear Who Digs Through Walls [bear shifter adept] picked up Magic Resistance, as it was way cheaper than buying an equivalent value of willpower.



In addition, they're also not making any new links, as far as I am aware. That is, they're only reusing established links.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Mar 23 2010, 07:10 PM

You can only take free actions if it is or has been your turn; being able to drop prone against suppressive fire is a matter of having better Initiative.

Posted by: Ancient History Mar 23 2010, 07:25 PM

I'm not sure where you're getting the "drop prone immediately" bit, which seems to be the source of your consternation.


The description for the Magic Resistance positive quality makes it incompatible with the Adept, Magician, and Mystic Adept qualities - the additional qualities mentioned are in Street Magic and so of course are not mentioned in the main book; the question is only intended to clarify that the same limitation should apply to those qualities as well.

Posted by: BookWyrm Mar 23 2010, 07:34 PM

Here's my question;
Is the current FAQ up to date?

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 23 2010, 07:36 PM

Uh:

If a character is an area covered by suppressive fire, does he need to make a defense test immediately when the shooter starts firing?

If he is in the suppressed area and he is not behind cover or prone—then yes, he must resist the attack as soon as the bullets start flying.



Ok, fair. I am AFB at the moment, so I wasn't able to check. Most of the FAQ entries have a "see page X in book Y" when they state things as fact, whereas this one was short and had no reference.

Posted by: Ancient History Mar 23 2010, 07:57 PM

Okay, that's not the FAQ saying a character has to drop prone immediately (though if they can do it, that's a neat trick), that's a statement that if the character is not already behind cover or already prone (i.e. standing around in what is presumed to be an exposed location), then they need to make a defense test. I had thought that was clear, but I guess it could be misread.

Posted by: Ancient History Mar 23 2010, 07:58 PM

Accurate through Running Wild, aside from one or two little artifacts (cellular repair and HMHVV should have been Essence Drain, I think).

Posted by: BookWyrm Mar 23 2010, 07:59 PM

Thanks AH.

Posted by: Muspellsheimr Mar 23 2010, 08:02 PM

Then include it in Errata. As I said, I will even write the damn thing for you, if you want.

Until then, it does not belong in the FAQ, regardless of "playability" or other arguements.

No, it doesn't. It's rather quite clear what a modifier is - I even provided the quote for you. Anything that affects a Dice Pool other than Attribute or Skill is a Dice Pool Modifier.

Such "double-dipping" (applying Specialization to each split pool) is the only reason splitting pools is usable to begin with, and is RAW.

Here the FAQ specifically & directly contradicts the Rules as Written, apparently in the name of "playability" [Note: This ruling effectively makes Mystic Adepts useless outside a few very specific, specialized, niche builds - which are still generally done equally or better with other archtypes]




And again, points dedicated to mana-based abilities applies to the use of Magic-based skills. While there can be an arguement made for that affecting maximum Force & determining Overcasting, it is unsupported. Show me one quote - just one - from the rules declaring maximum Force, & Drain being Stun or Physical, being based off of skills.

I can show you several quotes where such values are not even remotely related to skills.

Posted by: Ancient History Mar 23 2010, 08:15 PM

Musp, you're trying to turn steak into beef here. I gave you the justification behind it, but I'm no longer a freelancer. You may bitch and kvetch to me about the FAQ - I put most of it together - but I can't change any of it. Send an e-mail to Jason, with a book reference, and Ghost willing he'll respond to you faster than he will to me.

[/edit]If it makes you calm down a little, I think the main fuck-up in that one was the example. I can't even remember if I wrote it or if it was error-by-committee at this point.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 23 2010, 08:28 PM

So if I go, and there are 8 dudes in front of me all currently standing out in the open, and suppressive fire them, I immediately, on my turn cause all eight of them to make a defense test against [base] DV? Then when its their turn, if they don't drop prone they have to resist [base] DV again?

Posted by: Ancient History Mar 23 2010, 08:36 PM

Well, considering that you're spraying bullets about like water from a hose, and all of them are standing in front of you and in the open...yeah, pretty much. The hail of bullets starts during the shooter's first Action Phase, and proceeds until the shooter's next Action Phase (barring, y'know, being disarmed or killed). So your eight mooks standing out in the open would make an initial defense test, and then if any of their Action Phases came up before the shooter's next they would have the option to bite the dirt (drop prone), or in some other way attempt to move out of the area or get behind cover or shoot back, etc. (all of which again represents the possibility of getting shot, since you're standing in front of a guy shooting wildly at your general direction, and so would require another Defense test).

Posted by: kjones Mar 23 2010, 08:40 PM

Every time I try to understand the vehicle rules, I get more confused. It doesn't help that "Acceleration" doesn't seem to mean what they think it means.

Posted by: Ancient History Mar 23 2010, 08:44 PM

Well, yeah, that's the root of the problem. You have to use the metahuman movement rules for vehicles and it...doesn't work.

Posted by: kjones Mar 23 2010, 09:17 PM

I just read through the FAQ section again and got even more confused.

Would anyone care to provide a clear explanation of how vehicle movement is supposed to work?

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 23 2010, 09:25 PM

Ḭͤ̋̐ͤ̽̽̚t͎̩̱͓̜͙͛̈̍͋͘ ̗̯͎̣̦͉͌ͬͯc̖͕̲̬̾̐͌̀̎̔̈a̾ͧͮͨ̎ͧ̚n̞̼͋̈́̈ ̮̦͑͂n̘̹͈̩ͪ̂o̱̜̮̥͚̓̋ͩ̿̅̾͠t͕̠͛ͣͥ̚͟ ̷̘͍̦̼͇̩ͬͤb̷̯̰͉̘̟̎̉ͣ̾̾ͩͅê̢̝͂͂ ̦̠̻̪̹͙͔̍ͧ̃͗͌̓͡c͆̍̋͛͌͋҉͎̙̳̯̥͇͇o̦̣͇͕̺̎̐m̺͙͉͇̓ͧͨ̄ͦ̐͑p̜̙͈̤r̨̥͒͗͐́͑̑̍e̦̊ͮͦh̡̻ê̶̩̤̞̆͐̚n̲̼̗̹̉͑d̖̓̄̓̌ȩ̦͖͛ͫ̔̄̋̑d̨̐͒̐ͩ̌͐̆.̦̥͍͉̳͗̉ ̲̣̮̩͑̒ͮͥͮ̾ͧͅ ̢̃̅̾I̷͓͉̩͙͕ẗ̢ ̻̫̟͗̈̈́̑̾iͭs͎͓̱̑́ͦ̒ ͖̤̥͆̈́̕Z͕̞̝̖͈͕ͩͭ͑ͥ͊ͥA̗̺̦̳̖̿̑ͭͤ͆͘ͅL̜̟̙̗̽̒͒ͧͪ̒ͬG͙̰̻̺̐ͅO͙͙̻̲̲͎͇

Posted by: hobgoblin Mar 23 2010, 09:48 PM

my take of the vehicle rules, based on SR4a and faq is this:

do not care one bit about acceleration during chase combat.

do not care one bit about speed during normal combat.

during chase combat, only compare speed to speed (consider the vehicles to always move at their max safe speed) for opening opposed tests, and forget that acceleration as a stat exists.

during normal combat, have the vehicle behave as a normal person, using acceleration stats.

Posted by: Tycho Mar 23 2010, 10:00 PM

I always thought the right answer to:

How does vehicle Speed and Acceleration work? is:

They don't!



cya
Tycho

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 23 2010, 10:02 PM

Hence my ZALGO post. The rules simply don't work as written.

Posted by: FriendoftheDork Mar 23 2010, 11:50 PM

Use a minigun and it gets really ugly DV 9 FTW.. and you only need to fire 30-40 rounds or so.

Also notice the defenders all get their Edge in addition to reaction on this test without having to use a full action - most serious opposition will simply dodge the bullets.


In fact in my games I used to think this was too puny, especially for SMGs... soaking 5 damage is nothing when you're a troll and even unarmored civillians will not get killed by this alone unless I use some strange mook house rule - suddenly driveby with random spraying into crowds is mostly harmless.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 24 2010, 12:57 AM

Reading over the BBB on Suppressive Fire, I find that the FAQ is correct. "Any character that is currently in (but...)"

Posted by: Falconer Mar 24 2010, 01:33 AM

I have to agree, it's nice to have an updated FAQ and it does clarify a lot. Ancient deserves some kudos for pushing this through and getting it almost completely correct.

However, I have to back up Muspellsheimr on this one... those two examples are clearly in full contradiction to the RAW provided in SR4a. I had the exact same reaction reading that section.


Those belong in errata (which also has the benefit of playtesting), not in a FAQ. As they do not clarify one wit, they instead confuse the issue as they're in direct contradiction to the rulebook. The rulebook is very clear on what a dicepool modifier is... If the devs do not want to treat some items as dicepool modifier... then they should create a new category of skill mods and errata it. (right now we have attributes, skills + skill mods, and dicepool modifiers... by RAW the first three get split then apply the second).


Even the hardened armor doesn't bother me... my argument was based on a simple fact and intended balance result (limiting obscene armor pools). EVERY other source of armor in the game states that it is cumulative w/ the worn armor total (and worn armor doesn't stack). Hardened has no words to this effect leaving it the only case of armor w/o a stacking/non-stacking clause leaving it ambiguous and people just assumed it stacked. (nothing in the rules stops a creature from having say 5 points hardened, and 8 points natural armor... IE: 8 points to resist all damage but only immune to 5 or less giving a lot more leeway in critter creation). So in this case, the FAQ actually does clarify a clearly ambiguous area of the rules.

Posted by: Emy Mar 24 2010, 01:46 AM

So, someone that has 1 IP can still use Suppressive Fire to great effect. However, now... while someone with 4 passes still eats through a ton more bullets, they also have more potential to do damage per turn.

Posted by: Falconer Mar 24 2010, 01:54 AM

The only way to deal w/ that is to give everyone 4 passes of sorts. Which can get a little unwieldy though it would play better IMO. But that's not really germaine to a FAQ thread.

IE: EVERYONE breaks their movement up into 4 passes... someone w/ a single IP only gets 1 complex or 2 simple actions spread out across those IP's.

IP1: decker moves behind cover
IP2: decker stays behind cover
IP3: decker fires 2 shots from his pistol (2 simple action) or lays down one pass if covering fire.
IP3: decker out of actions but moves his final quarter movement.

Posted by: Fatum Mar 24 2010, 03:20 AM

The more I think about this idea, the more I like it, actually.

Posted by: AngelisStorm Mar 24 2010, 03:32 AM

Forgive me if these were brought up earlier and I missed them. However, these are the 3 big concerns I see from the new FAQ:

1.

This seems to open the door for spellcasting with implanted (paid for with Essence) radar. While I think it's really cool that you can -finally- cast spells if you know where your opponent is (for example, a Wolf shifter's sense of smell), it will be interesting to see what happens now that the "must have sight between you and your opponent" is potentially not in effect.

2.
While I'm sure it closes the door for some abuses, I think it's kinda lame that a Street Sam and someone possessed by SATAN!! are on the same page now. Now there is no reason to have the Troll Sam (or most Sams, actually) be possessed: they generally have close to maxed out attributes anyway. (Trolls and Body being an exception, since it's hard to raise that stat.)

3. The Mystic Adept thing (which hs already been brought up).

... so the solution to Mystic Adepts -not- being overpowered was to... nerf them some more? Not only do they have all the same restrictions as before, but now they also have -another- cap on the number of ranks they can put into their powers?

Posted by: KCKitsune Mar 24 2010, 05:22 AM

I think the idea of using Mana spells through walls should still be off limits. The reason I say this is because if the PCs can do this, then the security mages can do this too (if they have the 'ware). You know if the corps can have mages do this then they WILL have those mages getting the 'ware... completely stupid if they don't.

I still would like to know if a hacker can program an emulator for his smartgun system so he doesn't need to have the smartgun eyeware or contact lenses. If the Technomancers can do it with a complex form, then why can't hackers do it with a program.

Posted by: pbangarth Mar 24 2010, 05:25 AM

So, with the clarification of the Endowment Power, it would appear that a projecting magician capable of Invoking could have his friendly Invoked Guardian spirit Endow him with Materialization/Possession.

A Materialization tradition magician could then Materialize into the Physical plane (taking care not to go beyond her 6 hours of Astral Projection) right by her body, put on her armor, and be armored and ItNWed for some kick-ass fun. The Possession tradition magician could Possess his own homunculus (8/8 + ItNW).

Here's a thought: Given that an Endowed Power is at the Force of the Endowing spirit, the Materialization/Possession would then be at that Force. A Materialized or Possessing entity has Attributes at its Force. So, the astrally projecting magician who enters the Physical Plane would have Attributes equal to the Force of the Endowing spirit. Not only the core Attributes, but things like Edge, Essence and Magic.

This would appear to be a way that a clever and lucky magician could temporarily increase her special Attributes. A magician with Magic 4 who survives Invoking a Force 8 spirit could temporarily bump her Edge, Essence and Magic to 8. Cool, eh?

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 24 2010, 06:16 AM

Not only that, but the spirit could endow the mage with Endowment!

The mage then could endow the entire party with Innate Spell (spirit endows it to the mage first) and give the entire party spellcasting, magic, edge, astral projection, possession....Endowment...

It's a giant magical circle jerk.

(Quick, exit thread before succumbing to the desire to make a sexual joke!)

Posted by: pbangarth Mar 24 2010, 06:19 AM

You can't be Endowed with more than one Power at a time. So, if the mage has Endowment, that's all he can give. (SM, p. 99)

They could all be well Endowed, though.

Posted by: KCKitsune Mar 24 2010, 06:20 AM

too late...

Posted by: dirkformica Mar 24 2010, 07:37 AM

Actually the limitation is that a character can only have one Endowment from a particular spirit. Multiple spirits can grant Endowment to a single character who could be well and multiply Endowed.

"No character may gain more than one power from a spirit in this way at a time."

Posted by: FriendoftheDork Mar 24 2010, 08:15 AM

This is pretty much how I interpret the rules already. Although the rules seem to indicate that said decker can't change his mode of movement on subsequent passes unless he spends an action.
Delaying an action is already covered by RAW:

"A character can also delay his action until the next
Initiative Pass."

In this example, the decker first declares walking movement rate (get to cover) but taking no action. Then he remains stationary, then takes his main action(s), and in the last pass uses a free action to resume movement again (potentially a sprint action).



Oh btw about the suppressive fire part, it seems the enemy CAN drop prone when they are fired upon:

"Drop Prone
A character may kneel or drop prone at any time, as long
as he is not surprised (see Surprise, p. 155). A character who is
surprised may not drop prone."

Notice it says: At any time. The same words are used on the Full Defense action.

Posted by: HappyDaze Mar 24 2010, 09:09 AM

Perhaps the guy that did the "art" for Cyberpunk 3 toyed with this for a time...

Posted by: Serian Mar 24 2010, 10:04 AM

@ Mystic Adept

So, I have now de facto two seperate magic attributes, magic (spellcasting) and magic (adept powers), which have no synergy effects except how bright I am on the astral plane, how strong I am when punching through wards ... and when paying karma to increase the magic (spellcasting + adept powers) attribute?

Is it just me, or is a cyber/bio-mage (or in other words: some magical guy using magic-hurting stuff) not just cheaper in karma than a mystic adept (or in other words: some magical guy using magical stuff) even when paying twice for a point of Magic lost via essence-loss, while he can in addition increase his other powers, i.e. ware with money instead of karma, which a mystic adept isn't able too?

Some playing with numbers shows also that a mystic adept which splits his magic 50/50 loses around 3/7 of all the karma he puts in the attribute (compared to a fictional character who really uses two magic attributes), while some guy splitting it 5/1 doesn't. Which means, the mystic adept which opts for versatility instead of specialization and hugh dice-pools ... pays even more for mediocre abilities, while mystic adepts which specialize and so have higher pool gets a less immense price-up.

Weird.

Posted by: ravensmuse Mar 24 2010, 11:05 AM

Kind of OT, but does Draco's Zardoz or whatever post screw up the thread for anyone else?

Posted by: Fatum Mar 24 2010, 12:54 PM

If only by its stupidity.
Technically, the whole topic is displayed just fine for me.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Mar 24 2010, 12:57 PM

Yeah, defensive options are all interrupt actions as far as I recall.

Posted by: fistandantilus4.0 Mar 24 2010, 01:10 PM

What, we're seriously doing name calling now? Name calling and other general personal attacks violate the Terms of Service. Consider this your warning.

In the future, if you feel frustrated with someone adding a post you feel to be less than worthy, don't contribute to the unworthiness in kind.
-F4.0

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 24 2010, 01:16 PM

It's "ZALGO" and entirely depends on if you a) have the right language fonts installed and b) have your browser set to display in UTF-8.

Otherwise you get a bunch of garbage characters (diamonds, hex values in boxes, and question marks). Even then it depends on your browser. I did a test and IE8 doesn't render the same UTF-8 string the same way as FireFox 3.5 does.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Mar 24 2010, 01:21 PM

That question was discussed a long time ago, positively answered by Rob Boyle and subsequently made it's way into FAQ and Augmentation, p. 127: "Cultured bioware may also be alpha, beta, or delta grade."

There's nothing to discuss there anymore.

Posted by: ravensmuse Mar 24 2010, 01:30 PM

Yep, that's what I'm getting. That's a little annoying, but thankfully your sig doesn't seem to off-set it. So..

Posted by: Doc Byte Mar 24 2010, 01:38 PM

Don't forget that mystical armor's astral armor as well! That protects you from most spirits up to force 8 in astral space / astral combat.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 24 2010, 02:29 PM

Likely due to which extended characters are in use. They were pretty much generated at random (both are "mini fuckups" http://www.eeemo.net/, though my signature was edited by hand to give an increasing level of corruption from one end to the other, though http://i42.tinypic.com/2iqn6tj.jpg is still my favorite).

Posted by: pbangarth Mar 24 2010, 02:37 PM

Ah... so one way to read "a spirit" is "a single spirit" as opposed to the way I had read it, "a source which is a spirit". Am I in the minority here?

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 24 2010, 02:49 PM

The original wording is just ambiguous enough to be interpretable both ways equally validly.

Posted by: ravensmuse Mar 24 2010, 03:58 PM

See, I know that it's because I browse at work and they still only use IE6 with no additonal languages attached. So.

Just making sure it wasn't something else.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 24 2010, 04:43 PM

Hehehe.

Posted by: Sponge Mar 24 2010, 05:48 PM

I'm certainly no expert on guns, but it seems most instances of "firing into a crowd" in the news cause remarkably few casualties, so I don't have a problem with this being "mostly harmless".


So you're purposely including stuff in your sig to give people a hard time while reading Dumpshock, then?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Mar 24 2010, 05:58 PM

I have always interpreted it as "A" spirit, not "The" Spirit...
So, in this instance, you would only be able to receive Endowment once, and while you had that endowment, you could not have another...

"A" Car is a class of vehicles... "The" car is a specific vehicle...

Thus A Spirit is a class of spirit... whereas The Spirit is the one you just summoned (it is a particular spirit)...

Just my 2 Nuyen...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 24 2010, 06:11 PM

I didn't do it to make it intentionally hard to read dumpshock (except the signature that grew outside of my posts, which I did for a day, and only happened if the browser was correctly rendering UTF-8, and that was done to be funny--I didn't use enough UTF-8 characters to actually make anything illegible and highlighting a word in a post caused the UTF-8 characters to be hidden behind the text).

Also: its actually not my fault that the forum allows UTF-8 characters that way. One forum I'm on allows UTF-8, but they're somehow contained to the signature box (I did the giant rising line and as soon as it hit the break between sig and post it stopped). Another forum didn't even let me use the characters at all (they got converted to garbage). So I did it "to see if I could" and once I could, and had my laugh, I turned it back into something reasonable. I figured dumpshock users might appreciate the semi-hack* more than anywhere else, too.

*Its not really a hack, it just looks like it.

Posted by: Johnny B. Good Mar 24 2010, 06:23 PM

Something that I did not see addressed in the Faq is the nature of Olfactory boosters and scent tracking. While according to the faq adepts' Enhanced Smell power give them access to the Scent Tracking table (Page 206, running wild), there still hasn't been any clarification as to whether Olfactory boosters do the same. The table implies that enhanced pheromone receptors do, and add their rating to the test. Any indication on whether or not olfactory boosters will become useful in that respect?

Posted by: Ancient History Mar 24 2010, 06:27 PM

<shrug> I'm all for it.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Mar 24 2010, 06:35 PM

Of course, the Olfactory Booster entry itself is the reference for olfactory scanners, both used as chemsniffers and as pheromone scanners – and that's the scanner by itself.

So with an actual brain behind it, tracking somebody based on scent shouln't be an issue.

Posted by: sn0mm1s Mar 24 2010, 07:39 PM

Which would then beg the question of why get the inferior Improved Scent power when "any sense provided by cyberware can also be provided by this power"?

The olfactory booster can go up to rating 6 - giving 6 dice vs 2 dice from the FAQ. The booster also lets you smell many other things not listed under the critter power.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Mar 24 2010, 08:05 PM

You mean like the only earware added in Augmentation, Increased Sensitivity, does less than Audio Enhancement in the main book?
Shit happens. Shadowrun drags along lots of leftovers that even the fourth edition couldn't cleanup completely. They grouped a lot of implants sensibly and removed some cruft, but they couldn't get it all.

The Taste Booster is the same ballpark. It does the same thing as the Olfactory Booster (by RAW!), just for the sense of taste. Aside from you now being able to determening really well how salty, sweet, sour, bitter and umami something is, this means you can detect poisons (or explosives) by the time the are in you mouth. Instead of just detecting them with the chemsniffer function of your Olfactory Booster before you put them in your mouth in the first place.
Just they already rolled the analytical and the sense enhancing implants in one, so they weren't willing to roll smell and taste in one.

Posted by: darthmord Mar 24 2010, 10:06 PM

I believe there is a limit of one endowment per person per spirit. Such that if a mage wanted to do that, he'd need two spirits to do it. One to endow Materialization and one to endow Endowment.

Posted by: Fatum Mar 25 2010, 10:32 AM

Well, with the new clarification of the suppressive fire rules, it can make quite a number of bodies, in fact.

Posted by: KCKitsune Mar 25 2010, 02:31 PM

OK, based on this, is getting the "Vomeronasal Organ" metagenic quality (RC pg 116) redundant when you get an olfactory booster? Can you do exactly the same things, but have none of the bad side effects*? If so I'm dropping that metagenic quality and getting biocompatibility (cyberware).

* == more vulnerable to tailored pheromones (double effective), and has problems with really bad smells.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Mar 25 2010, 02:33 PM

Metagenetic Qualities don't have to be better – they are just things that can happen through SURGE.

And of course, they are undetectable by either cyberware scanner or asensing… not that it matters much in this case.

Posted by: Fatum Mar 25 2010, 02:39 PM

Wait, wait, SURGE is undetectable with assensing?

Posted by: FriendoftheDork Mar 25 2010, 02:40 PM

Well... no. Sure, inaccurate gunfire tends to cause few intended casualties, but alot of people (often innocents) die in drive-by shootings. Adding automatic weapons into the mix makes alot of difference. Which is why some leftist radical people (probably all evil communists or facists) don't like the idea that automatic weapons are available to the general public.

Now I'd like Supressive Fire to be potentially lethal to most kinds of people (i.e. a potential to do 10P damage or more), but fairly inefficient in killing specific targets (compared to close burst which can do +9 damage over base). Also note that it only uses 20 rounds, which is actually a fairly controlled burst in the normal amount of time (3 seconds). Most automatic weapons are able to shoot 30 rounds in the same amount of time. Shooting Suppressive Fire for 4 passes is a bit much though, 80 bullets in 3 seconds is too much for most weapons. The venerable MG42 might pull it off, and certainly miniguns.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 25 2010, 02:58 PM

Same gun, same hands, only difference is if the sammy turned on his wires.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Mar 25 2010, 03:13 PM

Unless it's Astral Hazing…

Posted by: DWC Mar 25 2010, 03:29 PM

The new suppressive fire ruling makes a Steyr TMP loaded with SnS into a pretty solid weapon, since the incapacitation effect neatly sidesteps suppressive fire's use of only base weapon damage.

Posted by: AngelisStorm Mar 25 2010, 04:25 PM

That's one thing that's always kinda bothered me. I realize that "it's just a game," but two people (one normal, one a juicer) both holding down the trigger for 3 seconds shouldn't lead to a 60 bullet difference.

Also, while it's far from perfect, don't forget about the Severe Wounds optional rules in Augmentation. Since Joe Smoe has a average stats of 2, that means the odds are pretty good that he will be hit by suppressive fire (drive by = Suprise Check everyone!), and that he will glitch or critically glitch on his damage resistance test.

Though I also feel unhappy that a drive by with an SMG only takes off a bit over half the condition modifier of Joe-on-the-Street. But it's how the rules are set up.

Posted by: FriendoftheDork Mar 25 2010, 05:41 PM

S&S is already a very solid "weapon." But yeah I get your point. It's kinda expensive though.



Of course. Which is why I assumed that when you shoot you're not just holding down the trigger, you're firing in controlled bursts. Sammies have the advantage of targeting and compensating recoil quicker. But the ROF of the weapon itself should always be the high cap. The normal bursts are fine (max 10 rounds per pass), but 4 successive Suppressive Fire bursts shouldn't be allowed IMO. Not that it's a problem, ammo tends to limit one to one or two SF actions anyway.

Posted by: pbangarth Mar 25 2010, 11:04 PM

I don't know. I'm hiding around the corner and stick the submachine gun around that corner and hold the trigger down, there ain't no controlled burst there. Just as much lead as I can spray the corridor with. I hold it for 3 seconds, the sammie holds it for 3 seconds, it's the weapon doing the bullet count for both of us.

Posted by: crizh Mar 25 2010, 11:19 PM

Recoil only accumulates in single Action Phases. It's not unreasonable to assume that part of what gives people additional IP's is the ability to control weapon recoil.

Not to overcome it but to recover, reposition and fire again.

A case could be made that someone with only one IP is incapable of putting more than 20 rounds into anywhere other than the ceiling. They could fire 60 rounds in a combat round but 40 of them wouldn't go anywhere useful.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 25 2010, 11:50 PM

Except that they only every spend 20 out of their clip, it lasts the full 3 seconds, but if the sammy, with more passes, doesn't spend a second complex action maintaining the suppression (spending 20 more bullets) then no one gets hit that turn.

Posted by: crizh Mar 26 2010, 01:21 AM

Yeah, that is wack.

You could houserule it to last until the same Initiative count on the next pass, a bit like grenades.

That could work nicely actually, one guy chucks a grenade and his pall fills the area with lead to stop anybody escaping or throwing it back.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 26 2010, 02:00 AM

Likely, someone would be willing to take the spray in order to throw it back anyway: Edge to avoid, then resist [base] DV, or sit on top of a 10P explosion?

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 26 2010, 02:00 AM

Likely, someone would be willing to take the spray in order to throw it back anyway: Edge to avoid, then resist [base] DV, or sit on top of a 10P explosion?

Posted by: AngelisStorm Mar 26 2010, 02:31 AM

Kinda a neat idea (suppression fire lasting 1.5 seconds or 1/4 of a round). However it still leaves the question: Why can't a "normal" person hold the trigger down for 3 full seconds?

The suggestions that suppressive fire is actually controlled firing bursts (not "hold the trigger down") is interesting. But Suppressive Fire really seems like it's intended to spray an area (not controlled). No recoil (who cares, if the bullets are going wherever anyway), no "can't see target" penalty (great to drive by people in a house), and it can hit multiple people.

... this is just a thought off the top of my head (I have to get going in a minute), but what if Suppressive Fire takes a complex action to start (as normal), and then it takes a free action each pass to continue it? (With the implication that movement is broken into 4 passes, and everyone gets a free action every pass. Which I know has potential problems to.)

Posted by: hobgoblin Mar 26 2010, 03:19 AM

i suspect its basically a artifact from the generations of changes that SR have gone through.

it started out that a high initiative character would get a extra set of actions for every whole 10 rolled on the initiative test.

so if the sam rolled 36, and the civilian rolled 6, the same would get a action at 36, 26, 16, 6, while the civilian would only get a action at 6.

this lead to some thing like the group running into a bunch of guards, rolled initiative, and then the sam would go on to shoot each guard dead, with reloads half way, before the decker or mage would even have blinked.

this was changed in SR3 to become that the sam and the civilian would both take their actions at the first pass, but then the sam would get his next 3 passes before a new round. This is basically the same as with SR4, except they made the number of passes fixed, based on implants, powers and spells, rather then based on the roll of the dice.

Posted by: crizh Mar 26 2010, 04:05 AM

I'll preface this by saying I have zero hands on experience with firearms. Well almost zero.

My original point was just how many rounds is it physical possible to spray into a particular area on full auto before accumulated recoil results in every subsequent round being directed into the ceiling?

I think it might have been the M1 Garrand I recently heard someone say of that only the first half dozen rounds went in the direction of the target and after that you were pretty much firing into the sky.

I'm assuming there comes a point that even a skilled marksman that is properly braced for the recoil has to let off the trigger for a moment just to keep the weapon pointed in the same 15 to 20 degree arc. Maybe about 20 rounds?

Someone with one IP that fires 20 rounds on full auto fires them in the same time span as someone with 4 IP's. The guy with one IP isn't quick enough to get the weapon back on target and let loose another 20 rounds any faster than 3 seconds after the first. So his options are let go of the trigger after 20 rounds or keep holding the trigger and waste 40 rounds firing at Saturn.

He sure can't keep holding down the trigger for 3 whole seconds and only fire 20 rounds.

(I know, I know that's almost exactly the cyclic rate of fire of most assault weapons....)

Posted by: FriendoftheDork Mar 26 2010, 07:37 AM

The rules doesen't say an anything about just holding down the trigger. Or that you can use Suppressive Fire without looking. Or at least it would give a -6 penalty on the test. SF eliminates recoil modifiers, but nothing about range, visibility and other penalties. In any way, just holding down the trigger means the weapon is empty in about 3 seconds and probably everything past the first 10 rounds are wasted. I don't mind the wastage (I'd much prefer wasting ammo was implemented in SR, with reduced ammo costs), but it seems counterproductive.



As I see it, Supressive Fire is intended to suppress the targets in the area, not just throw away bullets. Thus a certain degree of accuracy is required. People are not suppressed if bullets are whirring trough the air 10 meters away, but they might be if the bullets are no more than 1 or 2 meters away. And as said, there is nothing in the rules that say that visibility penalties are ignored.

Posted by: FriendoftheDork Mar 26 2010, 07:48 AM

I could get this quote into the last post: The answer to your question is "it depends." Caliber, weight of weapon, recoil compensation, skill of user, strength of user... etc. For instance, the HK416 (similar to m14) has a fairly low recoil for assault rifles, yet when a friend of mine fired all 30 rounds in about 3 seconds, the muzzle climbed quite a bit. When his drill instructor did the same the weapon was almost perfectly stable.

The Garand has only 8 rounds so having the first 6 shots in rapid Semi-Auto being mostly on target is actually very good. Especially considering the high caliber.

20 rounds for suppressive fire seems all right to me. The problem comes when you can do that 4 times in 3 seconds...MAYBE twice.

Posted by: hobgoblin Mar 26 2010, 07:59 AM

dont recall if SR4 have it in there somewhere, but earlier editions had a rule for walking fire between multiple targets when using full auto.

iirc, it was 1 bullet pr meter between the targets, unless one was using a smartlinked weapon.

Posted by: FriendoftheDork Mar 26 2010, 08:05 AM

Right. Well it was too much bookkeeping back then and most sammies had smartlinks anyway.

But I was talking about shooting in general, everything above single shot.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Mar 26 2010, 09:20 AM

It makes sense to me, that you need an action to start suppressive fire, and you can stop at any point in the same combat turn. If you have more IPs, you can stop after one or more passes and do something else, but you can also sit out the round if you prefer. As soon as the turn ends or you do something else, the suppressive fire ends.

Posted by: Larsine Mar 26 2010, 10:25 AM

That was 2nd edition. It really started out with this:
Initiative 1-10: 1 action
Initiative 11-16: 2 actions
Initiative 17-22: 3 actions
Initiative 23+: 4 actions

Start from the top, take your action on you initiative count, sbutract 7 for when your next initiative comes.

So rolling 36 initiative would mean actions on 36, 29, 22 and 15.

And there were only actions, no complex, simple or free actions, just actions.

Lars

Posted by: hobgoblin Mar 26 2010, 10:43 AM

heh, guess i should grab that SR1 pdf and read it.

Posted by: FriendoftheDork Mar 26 2010, 10:56 AM

That might just be the best way to handle it.

Hmm how is this supposed to get handled with delay action? Example:

Ninja the Unaugmented with katana wants to charge street sam with Ingram X. They are 20 meters apart from one another, and Sam has 3 IPs.

Sam wins initative. He doesen't want to engage in CQB just yet, and he thinks he'll need more than one burst to take down the Ninja. So he fires suppressive fire, getting 4 hits.

The ninja will immediately have to either drop prone (using his only free action), or try to dodge. Normal mortals might have to succeed on a Composure test, but not this Ninja. He fails to get 4 hits on Reaction+Edge, but manages to soak 3 out of 5 damage. Then it is his turn. He knows he can't run 20 meters in a single pass, so he wants to delay his action until he can charge the Sammie.

Now, since he's still not in cover or prone, will he have to resist suppressive fire again? After all he is not taking any actions this pass so it would be as if he had no actions left. The SR4 rules seem to indicate that movement itself can trigger the damage, and the FAQ confirms this. The FAQ also says that just standing there and not moving causes damage "as soon as the bullets start flying", but doesen't specify how often, so I assume it is only once.

So if we assume said Ninja has to evade bullets again, he will do so as he moves 8.3 meters (25/3) closer to the sammie. Then it's the sammie again. He thinks he's doing fine so he continues with the same suppressive fire action, essentially giving up an action.
Ninja takes damage again.
This time (third pass) the Sammie switches over to a narrow burst. For some strange reason he manages to miss entirely.
Then at last the Ninja can charge the Sammie without having to resist more damage.

Looks ok? In my game I'd divide the round in 4 instead since I can't see why having one or not having one with more passes would change anything. Both the Ninja and the sammie gets to continue movement or do nothing in the last pass. In that case the Ninja would have to run another pass just to get to the sammie, but since sammie doesen't have more than 3 passes it matters little anyway. Sprint can be used to increase speed in this example, but the Ninja might want to have the option to intercept the sammie later, thus reserving his free action.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Mar 26 2010, 11:26 AM

That doesn't seem quite right. But there are several things.. iffy.. with your example.

- You divide movement over IPs, which is not precisely the normal way to do it. Normally, the guy with only 1IP really does move faster than the guy with 3IPs, but at the end of the round they've run about as far. Occasional bursts of speed at 1IP vs. a steady tempo at 3IPs. It strains suspension of disbelief, I know.
- By splitting the movement over three IPs instead of one, the ninja suddenly had to deal with triple the amount of bullets - talk about double jeopardy!
- The Ninja only has 1 free action, and running consumes a free action, so he couldn't intercept anyway.

It seems suppressive fire needs to be properly balanced with movement. So here some ways:

a) (The RAWer version) You walk 10m or run 20m in a combat turn. Running costs you a free action in the first IP. You have a maximum number of meters of movement to "spend" in the entire turn, at any moment you like. So the Ninja could reach the Sam in the first pass if he wanted. You can be hit by multiple volleys of Suppressive Fire from the same shooter.
You could also do stuff in your first turn, like throw a grenade, and then move away.

b) You walk 2.5m or run 5m per IP, even IPs you don't normally get. Running still consumes a free action per IP you run; improved reflexes don't really make you all that much better a runner after all. Suppressive Fire lasts for as long as the shooter spends Complex Actions, but you only get hit once. It consumes 20 bullets.

All in all, option B is more realistic. A is more abstract, flexible and probably easier to use. It requires a little suspension of disbelief however.

Posted by: hobgoblin Mar 26 2010, 11:36 AM

the thing about initiative passes is that they are more about ones ability to make fast decisions then it is about raw speed.

the ninja is able to make one decision in the same time as the sammie is able to make 3.

the interesting thing is that the sammie and the ninja can move the same distance, but the sammie can start to move at the same time as the ninja, pass 1, stop in the middle, pass 2, and move again at pass 3, to come to the same distance as the ninja, end of turn.

reflex enhancements are all about data gathering and processing speeds, not in any ways about raw physical movement speed.

so to apply that to suppressive fire in the hands of 3 pass sammie, you get this:

pass 1: sammie opens fire, ninja goes oh shit and goes prone.

pass 2: sammie finishes processing that ninja is now prone, stops the spraying and instead targets and shoots.

pass 3: if ninja survived pass 2, sammie processes that and fires again.

end of turn: if ninja is still alive his brain is finally able to grasp all the inputs over the last couple of passes, and he becomes highly aware that he now have several bleeding wounds. So now he tries to make up his mind about what his next actions will be. Sammie notices that ninja is still alive and considers appropriate actions.

Posted by: FriendoftheDork Mar 26 2010, 12:26 PM

No, RAW states that IF it becomes important to know exactly how far a given person moves during an initative pass, you are to divide the total movement on the numer of initative passes used in the combat. Always assuming there are 4 passes is bending RAW though, that's why I divided it by 3 in the example. The ones with more initative passes does not gain more movement as a result of that. You could argue that he could make more Sprint actions and thus have higher overall movement, but that's a whole other can of worms already discussed at length in the Movement thread not so long ago.

Splitting movement makes ranged combat THAT much better that melee. Then again I guess there is a reason why ranged combat has become the norm and that acually charging a soldier with a loaded ready gun is paramount to suicide today. This is the same wether Suppressive Fire is used or not, 2-3 passes of gunfire is usually enough to take down any melee combatant - which is why a melee combatant either needs suprise, be very close, or have an insane speed to have a chance.

As for free action for running, yeah my bad. In which case charging always means you can't intercept later and prevent an enemy from getting away. So in order to "stick" someone in melee you need to be close enough that you can walk to the enemy.

As for your examples, a) is not RAW. b) is close to it but has wrong speeds, running speed is more than twice of walking speed. Additionally, you don't only get hit once, according to the FAQ you get hit as soon as the lead starts flying and additional movement will also trigger it. So that's at least 2 instances where you have to defend against SF, unless the firing character is stopped somehow.




In you example the Ninja spends 1 free action and still has a complex or 2 simple actions left that he never uses. I wouldn't reccomend this unless he failed a composure test. By RAW the ninja would otherwise be able to act in pass 2, after the sammie, by delaying his actions.

Posted by: hobgoblin Mar 26 2010, 01:29 PM

i am unsure if thats true, but then i didnt really go into the finer points of the action sequence. I was mostly demonstrating a different way to read the basic initiative rules so that it was more about being able to made decisions faster then being physically faster.

when i look back at it, the ninja would have been hit with the suppression fire before being able to go prone, as you can not do a free action before your first regular action in a round. And that brings up a question i cant see RAW answering, if the use of the free action forfeits the ability to delay the other action(s) available.

Posted by: FriendoftheDork Mar 26 2010, 02:09 PM

Hmmm... no.



But note that when a characters Action Phase comes up he may then choose to delay, and then take a free action.




And at the last.. the exception:



Emphasis mine. The entry for Full Dodge has a similar wording. So the Ninja CAN drop prone, but then loses the free action that he could otherwise have used to run. And in my example he needs to run if he wants to close to melee.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Mar 26 2010, 03:11 PM

This does create rather bizarre "observer effects" though. For example:

- Ninja is running towards Sam. Both have 3 IPs, Ninja can move 25m, and Sam is 25m away. He'd arrive in IP 3; he moves 8.3m per IP.

- As above, but now with an Observer with 4 IPs. Suddenly Ninja can't reach Sam in IP 3 anymore, because he only moves 6.25m per IP.

Or, sillier:

- Sam has 1 IP and commences Suppressive Fire until his next action phase (next combat turn). Ninja has 3 IPs from Wired II. Ninja only reaches Sam in IP 3, and risks Suppresive Fire 4 times by strict reading.

- Ninja shuts off his Wired II, and can now reach Sam in IP 1. He now only risks Suppressive Fire 2 times by strict reading.

Posted by: FriendoftheDork Mar 26 2010, 04:54 PM

Yes, that's why in my game I always count rounds as having 4 IPs, no matter how many IPs the combatants can act. At gives a benefit to ranged combat, but that's fine by me. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Posted by: Wandering One Mar 26 2010, 05:11 PM

That's actually not hard to deal with if the Ninja delays his 3rd action to the fourth and you allow a 'continue running' action in the 3rd IP (which he would have been doing in the 4th that he didn't have, just switched 'em around). It will allow for the Ninja to still reach the sammy in the 'last' IP of the round and act, which is the case you want for either of the above scenarios.



Which makes it very very painful to run into a hail of lead... but yeah, quantum physics shouldn't be part of the rule. Observation should not change outcome.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Mar 26 2010, 05:55 PM

Yeah, that's one way to at least keep things consistent.

OTOH, I don't really think close combat needs to be made any harder. Just that all melee attacks are Complex Actions with a fairly low DV is bad enough. I like close combat because it has its own style and flash - no need to make it impossible for "realism".
Also, I'm not so sure that RL gun vs. knife is such a certain proposition at short ranges.
But that's mostly solvable by allowing melee defense pools when in close combat with gun-armed opponents. I like gun-fu.

Posted by: rumanchu Mar 26 2010, 06:09 PM

It's not that the turn is being split into different slices based on the number of IPs you have, though, it's more that people with more IPs have more actions that they can complete in the same singular clock of time (1 turn).

1 IP: 1 Complex and 1 Free action *or* 2 Simple and 1 Free action per turn
2 IP: 2 Complex and 2 Free actions *or* 4 Simple and 2 Free actions per turn
3 IP: 3 Complex and 3 Free actions *or* 6 Simple and 3 Free actions per turn
4 IP: 4 Complex and 4 Free actions *or* 8 Simple and 4 Free actions per turn

(Obviously, this list is somewhat simplified, because I'm not taking into account that you can substitute Free actions for Simple, nor am I listing every possible combination of Simple and Complex actions)

For the sake of fairness to "regular" people with only 1 IP, the game splits those pools of actions up, but you could very well play it that everyone only has one Action Phase per turn, so a samurai with 3 IPs could fire 6 short bursts at Initiative 19, while the Halloween Ganger could only fire two short bursts at Initiative 10. (Obviously, you'd have to rework things like recoil and multiple targets and so on if you went to more actions in a single action phase).

Regardless, the point of it all is that the passage of the three seconds in each combat turn is subjective depending on the number of passes that you have. It would probably make more sense (at the cost of more bookkeeping) to have the turn split up into five 0.6s phases and give characters a number of phases that they can act in based on the number of IPs that they have (with movement being a "non-action" that you can take in any pass that would move you 1/5 of the movement rate for your movement type).

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 26 2010, 06:53 PM

I think his point was, that a wired sam vs. a mundan means that the sam gets shot with more bullets with his wired reflexes turned on than if they're turned off when the mundane is using Suppressive Fire.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Mar 26 2010, 07:07 PM

Yes. Which is really not supposed to happen, having more IPs shouldn't be a disadvantage in combat.

This is avoided however, if you state that an instance of Suppressive Fire can't hit you again*; you take hits for being in the area, not for the amount of actions you take in the area.




*And perhaps for moving while suppressed; so hit at most twice.

Posted by: rumanchu Mar 26 2010, 09:37 PM

*shrug*

I don't find it entirely unreasonable to think that someone who is standing in the open while bullets fly randomly around them *might* be hit if he, rather than taking cover, chooses to turn and take a shot at one guy, then turn and shoot another guy, then turn and shoot *another* guy. You dramatically increase your odds of a fatal head wound in Russian Roulette if you pull the trigger three times rather than passing the gun to the next guy after your first pull.

As a GM, I would look at the situation at hand before simply pointing to the rules and saying that someone has to resist the suppressive fire in multiple passes (in the example of a mundane laying down suppressive fire on a fully-chromed samurai). (Because it's such a movie/comic book thing for the badass assassin to wade into gunfire nonchalantly, I'd probably have the samurai make a simple Composure test rather than the regular Reaction+Edge test for each successive pass).

I'd do the same if the samurai decided to lay down suppressive fire in 4 successive passes at a cluster of mundanes standing around. On the whole, though, I'm not laying awake at night because there's at least one situation where it's arguably *better* to have fewer IPs than someone else.

Posted by: kzt Mar 26 2010, 10:43 PM

They don't know what "Velocity" means either....

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Mar 27 2010, 08:51 AM

It's nice to see it updated. But it's still little more than a collection of random house rules, just as it always has been. Would be nice if the people who write it would keep that mind and, when offering up one of their house rules that are directly contrary to the written rules, clearly label it as such. Page references would be great as well. Blackjack did a far better job of doing both of those things on his old site.

It's a bloody shame that there aren't really any of the big Shadowrun sites of old around anymore. They used to be a real thrill to browse through.