how to handle this type of combat.. Options

[ruvidan]

How do you guys handle this type of combat where two people are hiding completely behind cover. When it is their turn, they peep out, shoot and then hide again. I can only guess that the way to handle this would be that the first person would delay his action until the other one pops their head out, and then the delayer would get the first attack right? How do you guys handle this type of combat? Could attacker B ever get the first shot off or would they happen simultaneously? Just curious on you guy's thoughts on this, I've yet to start the first game of SR4 and wondering what experienced GMs do

[Darkness]

Actually, with smartlinks and the accompanying cameras, i would'nt even pop my head out anymore. :) The hand is enough.
Rulewise you are correct so far, but if one of them (especially the one with the lesser initiative) could try to lure a shot from the faster one by holding something over the edge of the table. An opposed Charisma + Con vs. Intuition + Con test might handle if the waiting char falls for the decoy.

[mintcar]

Players could insist on doing this and then I guess I would just let the one with the delayed action go first. Mostly when cover is involved though, combat just goes on as normal eccept for the partial cover modifier. The way I see it, the partial cover represents just what you described. Ducking down once in a while is what you naturaly do and is covered by the resistance roll.

That being said. I´m thinking of a way to drag out fire fights somewhat. Maybe allowing for healing a few stun boxes if you do nothing but surpressive fire for a few rounds. And allowing for 3 something characters to cause the effects of surpressive fire together using handguns... Just a thought.

[elbows]

I rule that if you can shoot at other people, they can shoot at you. Basically, if you pop your head up to shoot, you are vulnerable at least for the rest of the initiative pass. You still get a bonus from cover (up to -4 for the opponent to hit you, I believe).

So with me GMing, the situation might go something like this:
A and B both start out behind full cover.
A wins initiative, stands up to take a shot, and sees that B is behind full cover. He holds his action.
B pops his head up, and A uses his delayed action to take a shot. Now B gets his turn, and can shoot back at A (who is still vulnerable because he popped out to shoot at B).
From this point on, A and B can shoot at each other whenever they have an action. If one of them wants to go back to full cover, he'd have to give up his shot on that action (he could still do other things though, like tossing a grenade without looking).

[Magus]

Or just use grenades for indirect fire. :rotate:

[stevebugge]

If you're feeling mean you could let them go at it for a few rounds, declare a stalemate and artifically pass time and have the cops arrive to respond to the shooting. It would probably cure your players of Jack-in-the-box syndrome.

[Moon-Hawk]

I agree. Hiding behind something and ducking in and out is covered by the "partial cover" modifier. But Darkness has an excellent point. With the new smartlinks all having cameras standard, there is no reason to expose more than your hand to danger. I see this as a problem, and logical tactics would, IMO, detract from the feel of a gunfight that I think we all want.

edit: of course, I started typing this several posts ago, so the relevance has decreased.

[Critias]

Enemies behind hard cover is what God gave us grenades for.

[mintcar]

Remember that the edge you have from sitting ready with your gun while the other guy is squating behind cover goes away if you start squating yourself. The way this would go would propably be: Ambusher gets first shot. Both now commence shooting on eachother until one is dead or runs away.

Dynamic shooting, squating, shooting is simulated by the partial cover bonus and resistance rolls. Nobody in their right mind would retreat from a superior position unless they´re badly hurt or otherwise had it. And if they did, the rules cover that situation perfectly. Once you´ve retreated, you don´t want to peek back up into the waiting barrel.

[Vic Faustus]

Remember that a combat round is only 3 seconds long. Exposing yourself to take an accurate shot should easily take that amount of time. I believe the existing cover penalty is enough. If you want to be protected in a firefight, keep your head down and go full defense and get the cover modifier on top of that. If you want to be involved in the combat, you're going to BE INVOLVED and get shot at.

And don't forget you always have the suppressing fire rule to fall back on, in case you have a wise guy player hiding behind cover first initiative pass, then moving out and shooting on the second (when lesser NPCs are out of actions) and shooting again and moving back behind cover on the third.

[Guest_MK Ultra_*]

In this situation, normaly, the suspending char gets the first shot. If the other one does pop up multiple times in any rhythem, he deserves no better. If the poper alternates his beat however (by delaying his action for some phases, or somthing) id make surprise-rolls for both. Same goes, if some time passes, while the suspending char is wayting (don´t know how long, got to decide this on the spot, depending on circumstances).

But generally, I handel this kind of combat with granades 8)

[Azralon]

[TheHappyAnarchis...]

Ha. I am making called shots on all my opponents guns now!!!

[Moon-Hawk]

So, you roll to hit the gun with a -4 called shot penalty.
They dodge as normal. Assuming you hit, you have a number of net hits, plus the guns base DV for "damage."
How would you now go about determining:
a) the condition of the gun, and
b) if the person can hold onto it

[Azralon]

[SEAL Intel]

What if that pistol was loaded with EX-EX rounds? Could make for some nice fireworks. I can't wait for willie pete granades to come back.

[Adarael]

Consider the possibility of the 'firing through barriers' rule, especially when combined with the barrier-penetrating effects of APDS, or the barrier-reducing effects of explosive ammo. One of the funniest things I've ever seen was when I was running a game and a bunch of schmoes were hiding behind a standard apartment wall, taunting the players to come out and 'fight like men'. One of the players had a pair of machine pistols loaded with EX-EX, and just hosed off the wall with them - the wall wasn't there after the first two bursts. The mooks that weren't chunked by the next bursts were chunked by his friend with an assault rifle.

[Wizard]

[Mr.Platinum]

[Moon-Hawk]

Oh, great, thanks, Wizard. I missed that, somehow.
I like your suggestion for determining damage to the weapon, too.

[ogbendog]

hey, since external smartlinks are often cheaper than internal ones, maybe 1 hit = external SGL destroyed (internal one is fine)

[PlatonicPimp]

External smartlinks are only cheaper on expensive guns. On a cheap gun, internal is actually Less expensive. Go figure.