Autofire and Modified DV Options

[3278]

This came up at the table today - hey, guys! - and I figured we may as well get the community consensus on it.

Under what circumstances does autofire apply to the modified Damage Value mentioned on p149, SR4a [or p140, SR4], when determining whether damage will be Physical or Stun? Obviously, autofire does not apply to the modified Damage Value in the case of short narrow bursts ["Note that
this DV modifier does not apply when comparing the DV to the armor rating." (p153, SR4a or p143, SR4)], but are short narrow bursts unique in this way, or does autofire never apply when determining the modified Damage Value?

[Yerameyahu]

Never. Nor for hardened armor, ItNW, etc.

[Shortstraw]

He be correct.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

What more need be said? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[3278]

Well, how about this: chapter and verse? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Where and how is this rule enumerated?

[Bearclaw]

Forgive the threadjack, but, on a related note: What about stick and shock rounds? Do you resolve the damage from a 3 round burst as 3 seperate 6s wounds, plus successes, or do you just do it as a normal 3 round burst, with ammo that does 6s instead of 5p or whatever?

[Loch]

The latter. Add your net hits to the 6S(e) damage of the round and compare to the target's armor (after AP) for determining if you got past Hardened/ITNW, then add the burst damage to that value to find the total DV that the target must soak.

[Ryu]

Well, how about this: chapter and verse? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Where and how is this rule enumerated?

The Precious pg. 150, lowest row of the "Ranged Combat Summary" box. Also pg. 149 Step4, where AF is not factored in.

[Sengir]

Never. Nor for hardened armor, ItNW, etc.

Always. Except short narrow bursts (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Well, this is how we run it, works fine and has as much RAW support as the other interpretation.

[Mäx]

Always. Except short narrow bursts (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Well, this is how we run it, works fine and has as much RAW support as the other interpretation.

Except it doesn't, as you would find out if you bothered to read the sections of the rules meantioned in the post above yours (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[Paul]

Well at least there's no confusing answers in this thread. I'll assume by "Precious" you mean the SRA edition, and I'll try to look up those very rules, and see if I can make heads or tails of everyone's answers so far. In the mean while I'll hope for someone with better writing skills than I to drop by the thread and break it down into manageable pieces.

[3278]

Ah, okay. "The Precious" is, indeed, SR4a. The table in the upper-right hand corner has a list of things that modify DV, namely net hits, ammunition, and autofire, with the latter being asterisked to this: "Autofire does not count when comparing the modified DV to the modified Armor." That's about as unequivocal as it gets. Thank you, everyone!

Sure is a stupid way to write it into the rules, though: it should be explicitly written into the steps on 149, and explicitly spelled out in the Burst Fire Mode and Full Auto Mode sections on p153 and p154 [which should be rewritten for clarity, anyway].

[Sengir]

Except it doesn't, as you would find out if you bothered to read the sections of the rules meantioned in the post above yours (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

Except that the step-by-step instructions on p. 149 do not mention burst/FA at all, therefore when accepting this as a reason not to factor in the damage increase in the decision between physical and stun dmg., one consequently must not factor in this damage increase at all.
The summary on p. 150 is just that, a summary -- a short and necessarily imprecise recapitulation which should never take precedence over the original text. If the abstract of a paper says A and the full text says A but also B, the full text wins.

Now, I'm not saying that my interpretation is the sole and universal salvific way, IMO both are valid but we have made better experiences when full auto bursts can damage hardened armor (i.e. anything which does not take stun).

[Yerameyahu]

Nope, doesn't make sense, Sengir. Even if you're ignoring the rules, the autofire mechanic reflects the fact that small/weak attacks bounce off armor; multiple small/weak attacks *still* bounce.

[Sengir]

Nope, doesn't make sense, Sengir.

Feel free to point out any fault in my logic..


And you are not using RL firearms knowledge to discuss SR, are you? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

I… just pointed out the flaw. In that same post.

And no, I'm not. The whole armor system of SR is based on this *game* concept.

[Sengir]

I… just pointed out the flaw. In that same post.

Not really, all you did was cite an RL example...which is not even universally true, a large number of small impacts can do far more damage than one large hit depending on the circumstances.

The whole armor system of SR is based on this *game* concept.

Circular reasoning: The concept exists, therefore it's fundamental, therefore it has to exist.

[Yerameyahu]

Not a RL example, a SR4 example, but whatever. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Not at all. We're talking about the effect of autofire. The concept of 'beating armor' is a larger, separate one. One which underlies SR4 armor. Autofire is a specific application of that concept.

[Mäx]

and explicitly spelled out in the Burst Fire Mode and Full Auto Mode sections on p153 and p154

It is mentioned in the first entry for narrow burst, rewriting it into ever following entry would be total waste of word count.
Especially when there's a handy summary restating how it works later in the book, but the page 149 should indeed be rewritten to actually include the damage from auto fire.

[Yerameyahu]

These things happen. The classic 'called shot in BF-short burst, not in FA-short burst' typo is an example.

It baffles me how someone could see the note on p150 and ignore it. It can only be selective reading, and it produces truly weird results: inconsistent *and* illogical.

[AppliedCheese]

Its the "can't kill a tank with a machinegun" concept. If one machinegun round won't go through two meters of rolled steel, 10 won't do any better. They all sparkle away harmlessly.

Granted, in real life there would a sliding curved scale of the effects of multiple impacts versus armor thickness/hardness/ablation rate, but calculus and reams of D6s make poor bed partners when 75% of the time the answer is "can't kill a tank with a machinegun".

[Sengir]

Not a RL example, a SR4 example, but whatever. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I've never seen stuff bounce off armor in SR4, only dice rolling. So naturally, any argument like "small rounds should bounce off armor" is based on RL observations.

Not at all. We're talking about the effect of autofire.

And you are claiming that a fundamental rule exists, because if that fundamental rule existed it would be fundamental and thus could not be ignored. Circular reasoning at its best.

I'm also still waiting for you to point out any flaws you might have found...

[Yerameyahu]

That's not what I said, in either case. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) First and unrelated, I'm terribly sad for you if you've only ever seen dice rolling in SR.

In SR4, small rounds bounce off armor. I apologize for being too metaphorical, so I'll rephrase into lame terms: if you don't beat the armor, you do stun (living targets) or nothing (vehicles, barriers). *Ping* (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I said a fundamental concept: DV has to beat armor. It's no accident that this correlates to reality, but it requires no mention of reality to talk about. Autofire is an application of this general concept.

Your 'logic' is apparently 'ignore the parts of the book that disagree', so I'm going to keep pointing out the same flaw until you stop being silly. So I guess keep waiting? Whatever makes you happy. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Kirk]

I've never seen stuff bounce off armor in SR4, only dice rolling. So naturally, any argument like "small rounds should bounce off armor" is based on RL observations.



And you are claiming that a fundamental rule exists, because if that fundamental rule existed it would be fundamental and thus could not be ignored. Circular reasoning at its best.

I'm also still waiting for you to point out any flaws you might have found...

Oh, enough of this.

Sengir, in another thread on another list you argued, successfully, that the clarification in a chart determined sensor ranges. These weren't in the rules, they were in a chart.

We have a chart. It is labeled summary. It has a line "Autofire does not count when comparing the modified DV to the modified Armor." Therefore, using your previous argument, it is the rules and applies.

If per your previous argument the charts are as much rules as the book, then this chart's rule applies.

Notice I'm not arguing about bullets bouncing or anything else. I am merely using your reasoning and the rules as written.

[Sengir]

I said a fundamental concept: DV has to beat armor.

Modified DV. The question is what goes into "modified" and what comes later.

Your 'logic' is apparently 'ignore the parts of the book that disagree', so I'm going to keep pointing out the same flaw until you stop being silly.

Since you apparently think that a secondary source which is clearly labeled as providing only an abridged description ("summary") is superior to the full primary source: If I wrote an IMDB summary claiming that Chewie is Luke Skywalker's father, would I change Star Wars canon and label the movies irrelevant?