Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Smash Sep 12 2013, 02:15 AM

Hi,

Just a quick one. The vehicle combat rules suggest that when shooting at a vehicle you can shoot either the vehicle or a passenger who then benefits from the vehicle armour as well as their own (but dodge at -2).

What if I'm on a bike? Do the same rules apply? I'd imagine that they're probably supposed to even if conceptually that's a little non-sensical. Maybe you can lean down one side and get cover.

If you don't get armour from the vehicle do you still get the -2 to dodge? If you did then bike combat seems pretty crap, they can't really ram anyone and you can get picked off easier than if you were on foot.

While realistically bike combat should probably be ineffective (and it seems a lot of people care about realism a lot in this game for some reason) surely the coolness of bike combat should be encouraged? Have I missed something and how do people deal with this?

Posted by: PraetorGradivus Sep 12 2013, 02:39 AM

I do not want to go back to the days that a bike was a better weapon to kill people than a gun.

Just saying.

Posted by: Chrome Head Sep 12 2013, 03:49 AM

I was going to reply that there should be a negative modifier to the attacker's roll as it is difficult to fire at a moving object. For some reason I can't find a rule that says that in the combat section. I can't even find a modifier for "firing at a walking/running target", much less for firing at a target on a moving vehicle. I must have missed it..

Posted by: Jack VII Sep 12 2013, 04:34 AM

5E considers all of those as modifiers to the defender's defense roll. They're found on 188 through 190.

As far as the motorcycle, I think you get the +3 Dice for being "in" a moving vehicle. I guess the question is which part of that is most pertinent to the bonus: the "in" a vehicle part or the fact that it is moving. Based on the text over in the vehicle combat section, the "in" a vehicle part is apparently covered by the Cover rules (Check Damage and Passengers on 205) so I am assuming the moving part is more important to the bonus in question.

My gut call would be that you get the +3 for the moving vehicle, don't get the armor, and don't take the -2 since that is based on the limited maneuvering available inside the interior of a car.

Posted by: PraetorGradivus Sep 12 2013, 05:10 AM

Let's look at this logically...

Your inside and Ares Roadmaster which is described as an Armored Car... but you don't think the armor counts...reall?

But, this is SR, and when did we ever believe logic and SR go hand in hand?

Posted by: RHat Sep 12 2013, 05:26 AM

So then what's the point of armoured bikes?

Posted by: SpellBinder Sep 12 2013, 05:32 AM

Spray-And-Pray.

Bike's no good if it's shot to shit and won't run.

Posted by: CanRay Sep 12 2013, 05:37 AM

I don't know, it was pretty hilarious when one of the PCs in my group almost killed himself by doing acrobatics on his motorcycle while trying to imitate a ninja he saw on the 'trid recently...

Posted by: Jack VII Sep 12 2013, 06:05 AM

So the decision between shooting the bike or shooting the troll riding on it isn't a no brainer anymore? (Shoot the bike)

Seriously though, there are a decent number of bonuses for people in/on vehicles, so the vehicle is probably easier to hit.

Posted by: Jack VII Sep 12 2013, 06:10 AM

Who said that? I think we were both talking about whether motorcycles would be treated differently.

People in vehicles specifically benefit from the vehicle's armor (p. 205 although this kind of flies in the face of the barrier rules/penetrating weapons, but whatevs).

I think I'd backtrack and just run motorcycles just like any other vehicle, even if it doesn't make much sense. It's a lot cleaner.

Posted by: Smash Sep 12 2013, 08:09 AM

I agree this is probably the intent of the rules. It just feels like there should be something different about bikes. Considering you can't mod them that much (at least in 4th Ed anyway). They should definately be easier to destroy (the rules already support this) but they should probably be harder to hit. Do bikes have handling still in 5th ED? Maybe if you didn't get the -2 if you are specifically targetted and you could add the bikes handling to dodge rolls that just might be enough of a difference to make them worth while.

Posted by: Manunancy Sep 12 2013, 11:00 AM

It keeps your bike from being trashed Under your butt, and from the front the armor's till brtween you and any incoming nastyness. Consdierign how weapons can be fitted to a bike (usually, pointing to the front) that's not too bad a situation. Though AOE weapons really suck when you're on a bike.

Posted by: FuelDrop Sep 12 2013, 11:05 AM

This is also why combat bikes should come with anti-missile systems built in.

And THAT is why we need a Gatling missile launcher.

Posted by: Trillinon Sep 12 2013, 05:29 PM

The usefulness of an armored motorcycle would depend on its shape. Sure, a simple cruiser with an armored tank and engine isn't going to protect the rider. But a full fender racing bike, or something like an armored Goldwing will provide some protection from most angles, and pretty much full coverage from the front.

It's easy to imagine a rider, crouched behind an armored full fender, two light machine guns protruding from the front, firing away at a target in front of him as bullets bounce off his windscreen.

Posted by: Sendaz Sep 12 2013, 07:27 PM

Just need to bring back the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EUmWhITPOA line of bikes.

Posted by: DMK Sep 12 2013, 08:38 PM

Deeds, not words!