On the table on p159 (SR4A), it says defenders get a +3 bonus to defending while they're inside a moving vehicle.

However, on page 171 it clearly states (emphasis added),

So... table says +3 (inside a moving vehicle). Not sure if that is including Good Cover or not, so maybe it's actually a +7.

But the description says +4 (good cover) -2 (limited movement) = +2, along with bonuses to the subsequent damage resistance test.

+3... +7... +2... Which is right?

Your guess is as good as any.

My interpretation is:

If inside a vehicle, apply good cover (+4). If also dodging, apply limited movement (-2).
If the vehicle is moving, apply inside moving vehicle (+3).

So, if you are inside a moving vehicle, but not dodging (meaning you just defend with your Reaction), they you get +7.
+ If you are trying to dodge (as part of full defense), you get your full defense dice and a +5.

If the vehicle is not moving and you are not dodging, you get +4.
+ If you are trying to dodge, it goes down to +2.

And remember, on top of all this, the passenger gets the vehicle armor to his soak dice, so its gonna be tough no matter how you cut it.

I'd actually take the -2 away always, because you'll always be rolling Reaction, but you'll be less able to react inside a vehicle. Go with +2 unless the vehicle is moving, and +5 if it is.

Just to throw a wrench in it, if you're attacking from good cover, you take a -2 penalty to shoot. If you're attacking from a moving vehicle, you take a -3. By a literal reading, you'd then have -5 to shoot the guy with +2 to +7 bonus defense dice. Is it even possible to hit then?

I guess it comes down to one thing: how difficult/complicated do YOU want it to be?

Honestly, I think handling it like regular combat would be the easiest. Characters in vehicles have Good Cover (+4 defense, -2 attack), and if they're inside the vehicle (as opposed to hanging out of the vehicle with a pistol or something), they get +VehicleArmor to their armor stat. If the passengers are completely hidden from attackers, then it might also be considered Blind Firing to get them.

Man I wish I had my copy of SR4A so I could look this up, but I don't believe this was errataed anyway.

You're confusing making a ranged attack versus a melee attack (I believe).

Good cover applies a -4 penalty to the ranged attacker's roll. It is a ranged combat modifier, not a melee combat modifier. In addition, the ranged attacker gets the inside a moving vehicle penalty. So the ranged attacker gets a -7 penalty towards any attacks made against a target in a moving vehicle.

The defender would also suffer a -2 to his dodge test (if he's allowed to roll for defense) to avoid being hit if he is inside a moving vehicle. What I believe should be relevant is that this does not indicate whether this is a defense against melee or ranged attacks, so I assume both.

Ranged Attacker attacking a moving vehicle occupant (-7 to attacker, -2 to defender).
Melee Attacker inside moving vehicle with Defender (no penalty to attacker, -2 to defender).

I may be wrong, but that's my interpretation.

This part was changed in SR4A: cover is not a Defensive bonus, not an Attacker penalty.

The +3 Defender Bonus, I believe, should only be applied when the Defender is in a moving vehicle going significantly faster than the Attacker, such as when the Defender is in a vehicle and the Attacker is on foot. If one applies the -3 penalty for the attacker being in a moving vehicle then that's a 6 point swing in the Defender's favour.

So here's what I think: you apply Good Cover (+4) and then -2 for being "confined" for a net of +2. If the Defender's vehicle is moving at a "significantly" different speed than the attacker (GM discretion) you can apply an additional modifier up to +3 for the defender.

Not not but now. I think.

BlueMax

And here's why I think that is stupid (unless they removed this modifier).

Defender is unaware of the attack (no defense is possible). Congratulations, vehicles provide you with no assistance to your defense if you don't realize you're being shot at, except for the armor provided by the vehicle, which doesn't matter since you're considered behind good cover, so you're getting shot, not the vehicle.

If the attacker still gets the penalties, then I say the rules changes are stupid as well, since you're basically saying yeah, don't bother shooting people in moving vehicles, it's pointless. You're talking about attacker getting -7 and the defender getting +2-+5. That's essentially giving the defender a 9-12 DP advantage over the attacker.

The way I'm interpreting this, and consequently how I will likely be playing it should the situation ever arise, would be that the 'no defense possible' just means that the defender gets no benefit from reaction and dodge (if for some reason they are dodging). However, I'm not sure where to go after that since attacking an unaware opponent becomes a success test. Rather than directly increasing the threshold, you might use the good cover +4, and the moving vehicle +3 (not the -2 for being confined since they are not getting any defense at all anyway) for a total of +7, then divide by 3 and increase the success threshold by that amount. So if you are shooting at a target at long range that is in a moving vehicle and they are unaware of you, you get whatever penalties would be appropriate and roll against a threshold of 6 (4 for being a hard success test according to SR4A pg62 +2 for 7/3 rounded to 2)? Sounds about right to me.

You have to make house rules to make up for a deficiency in rules that had been changed that were previously fine. This rule change makes no sense.

Its not really a house rule. Attacking an unaware opponent (one who cannot defend himself) becomes a success test. Success tests are:
easy: 1
Average: 2
Hard: 4
Extreme: 6

normally a shot at a weapons long range I would say would be hard rather than easy or average. Adding on that the target is in a moving vehicle I think would make it go up the the next step to extreme (6). My division was a GM shorthand to determine whether it warranted the step increase form hard to extreme.

All I can say to this is tell that to my Marine Pilot Friends who generally attempt to "dodge" those attacks pretty damn well while driving their attack choppers and Fighter Planes... Defensive flying IS a dodge attempt (or at teh very least a reaction test) to counter-fire...

Keep the Peace

While we're babbling about house rules, how about this one:

Any time the vehicle or the vehicle's passengers are attacked, the driver can undertake evasive driving (an interrupt action that uses the driver's next available action). Until the driver's next action, the vehicle and all passengers gain the driver's Vehicle skill dice to their defense dice pool, much like Counterspelling. If a passenger uses their own full defense action, these bonus dice from the driver are lost.

And what if the passenger is moving inside the moving vehicle? (Running on a train, for example)

hi hi

In the last game I played, one of the players dodged inside a vehicle by first reclining the seat back and hiding behind the door frame, then by grabbing the OS handles and pulling himself up against the roof.

How about this non house rule.

An attack against a passenger has to hit the vehicle. If the driver is aware of the attack, he gets to dodge it because its gonna hit the vehicle if he doesn't.

I'm pretty sure that whatever directions the shots that took out JFK came from, the bullets didn't touch the limo first. Of course, had the top been up, they would have, but this isn't just a problem with convertables -- Other types of vehicles leave passengers wide open targets too, and they don't even have tops that can be put up.

At which Point, They are Valid Targets... Just Like JFK...

But of course, if they were driving at faster than parade walk, and the driver was aware of the shooter and had the standard runner/rigger driving skills, he probably could have swerved the vehicle out of the way, saving the life of probably one of the most bad ass presidents we ever had, at least according to this video.

JFK

Anyway, if a jumped in rigger IS the vehicle, then its like he's holding everyone else in the car, whether they are exposed or not. If you are capable of dodging out of the way of a bullet (or at least reacting to the shooter in such a way to make you a harder target to hit), then you can make it harder to hit whatever your holding too. My ruling would be that if the driving would be capable of reacting to make it harder to hit the vehicle, he can react to make it harder to hit the people in the vehicle. And honestly, he's not really gonna know the difference between an attack on the vehicle or its passengers.

This is generally known as evasive driving...

...yeah.

Though evasive driving is more anticipative, where as dodging would be reactive.

Tis True

Eh...A general interpretation might be to say if the driver attempts to dodge an attack on one of his passengers, than you could treat it as an Aid action to dodge. Either have the driver or the passenger as the primary dodger and have the secondary roll first with applicable modifiers. Add the hits the secondary gets as a Dice pool bonus to the primary.

Example: After modifiers, the driver and passenger both have a DP of 10 against an attack directed at the passenger. Driver attempts to swerve out of the way as the passenger ducks. Driver rolls 10, getting 4 hits. Passenger rolls 14 (10 + 4 hits from driver) and gets 6 hits. GM compares to Attackers number of hits and determines success or failure.

For the driver you could apply a penalty to his dodge check if you wish. Or, if the drivers hits would be enough alone to dodge the attack then the attack misses and only if he fails do the above.

Both are reasonable options indeed...