Grenade Sensor Questions, Sensors on Airburst grenades Options

[Major Doom]

On the Scatter table for Grenades (SR4A, page 155) there is mention of Sensor rating reducing scatter for Airburst grenades. Unfortunately this is the only mention of the use of Sensors for grenades, unless I missed it somewhere else in another section or book (which Shadowrun is notorious for spreading rules all over the place).

Does the table suggest that regular Sensors (SR4A, pages 333-334, and Arsenal, pages 59-61) can be placed on individual Airburst-ready grenades? If so, which sensor would be reasonable to suffice?

[Falconer]

Grenades don't have sensors and aren't guided munitions. The entry on airburst is there for missiles (page 156... rocket and missile scatter). They're guided weapons and you'd subtract the missile's sensor rating from it's scatter roll.

If you read the rules text on page 155 (text trumps tables), you'll also notice thrown grenades are -1 success. Aerodynamic & GL's are still -2 per hit. The airburst scatter is 2d6. (under some printings the text on p322 still has this wrong as 1d6. It's supposed to be 2d6 scatter).


If you had a missile launcher on your vehicle... you'd fire the missile using gunnery + (command/sensor/agility) + (higher of missile or vehicle sensor rating). Net hits would reduce scatter, sensor rating of the missile (not the vehicle) would reduce as well.

[Major Doom]

Okay, the table was misleading since the text said that Airburst grenades roll 2d6 for scatter instead of 3d6, and in the table Airburst is listed as 2d6, I figured that entry applies to grenades.

It's great the core rules are misleading and offer no proper explanations.

[Yerameyahu]

If you think *this* is a tricky rules point, I advise you not to read the rest of the book. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Udoshi]

Okay, the table was misleading since the text said that Airburst grenades roll 2d6 for scatter instead of 3d6, and in the table Airburst is listed as 2d6, I figured that entry applies to grenades.

It's great the core rules are misleading and offer no proper explanations.

Copy-paste errors in the transition from 4th to Anniversary edition. They unnecesarily nerfed scatter, because oh no, grenades are deadly.

Just use 4th edition scatter, its way less dumb.

CODE

SR4:
Standard grenade: 1d6 meters - 2 pr net hit
Aerodynamic grenade: 2d6 meters - 4 pr net hit
Grenade launcher: 3d6 meters - 4 pr net hit
Rocket: 2d6 meters - 1 pr net hit
Missile: 2d6 meters - 1 pr net hit (- sensor rating)
Airburst: 2d6 meters - 1 pr net hit (- sensor rating)

CODE

SR4A:
Standard grenade: 1d6 meters - 1 pr net hit
Aerodynamic grenade: 2d6 meters - 2 pr net hit
Grenade launcher: 3d6 meters - 2 pr net hit
Rocket: 4d6 meters - 1 pr net hit
Missile: 4d6 meters - 1 pr net hit (- sensor rating)
Airburst: 2d6 meters - 1 pr net hit (- sensor rating)

[kzt]

"Our explosives rules suck, our rules for grenades suck and we have no idea how to fix them, so we'll make it impossible for anyone to hit with a rocket or grenade to make up for it."

[Sengir]

Copy-paste errors in the transition from 4th to Anniversary edition. They unnecesarily nerfed scatter, because oh no, grenades are deadly.

Just use 4th edition scatter, its way less dumb.

The original 4th Ed book has the same erroneous "- Sensor" in the entry for Airburst, you quoted ityourself (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The original 4th Ed book has the same erroneous "- Sensor" in the entry for Airburst, you quoted ityourself (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Just because you can apply an Airburst Link to a Grenade does not magically make the grenade capable of carrying a Sensor Package. You would use the (- Sensor) tag for Guided Rockets and Missiles. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[StealthSigma]

"Our explosives rules suck, our rules for grenades suck and we have no idea how to fix them, so we'll make it impossible for anyone to hit with a rocket or grenade to make up for it."

Wasn't the solution for grenades to aim for a square or object that is unable to defense to avoid painful scatter? I know my character can throw a grenade 80 meters and roll 9 dice so that should be, at worst, 1d6-2m for scatter, and I'm not even heavily vested in throwing weapons.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Wasn't the solution for grenades to aim for a square or object that is unable to defense to avoid painful scatter? I know my character can throw a grenade 80 meters and roll 9 dice so that should be, at worst, 1d6-2m for scatter, and I'm not even heavily vested in throwing weapons.

We just use them as Direct Fire weapons, and only use scatter if you miss... Works for us. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[StealthSigma]

We just use them as Direct Fire weapons, and only use scatter if you miss... Works for us. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Sooooo I directly throw the grenade at a square on the ground which is incapable of defense?

[kzt]

Sooooo I directly throw the grenade at a square on the ground which is incapable of defense?

IIRC, they eventually explicitly banned that.

[ZeroPoint]

IIRC, they eventually explicitly banned that.

Which just shows me that they have no clue what they are doing.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Sooooo I directly throw the grenade at a square on the ground which is incapable of defense?

Sorry... Direct Fire for Grenade Launchers, Rockets and Missiles. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Thrown Grenades have scatter as normal...

[Falconer]

IIRC, they eventually explicitly banned that.

No they didn't ban that.

If you try and attack a person yes... the roll is opposed. If you take a severe dislike to the interior decor especially that gauche office chair and decide to shoot it instead. That's good as well. (I've always said everyone in the blast radius should get a check to take cover from the blast and treat it as extra distance).

War even explicitly added a direct fire mode for trying to shoot things without scatter with a normal ranged attack test.

[Major Doom]

If you think *this* is a tricky rules point, I advise you not to read the rest of the book. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Too late. My head hurts every time I read the rules.

[KarmaInferno]

I have very successfully used Gecko Grip and cheap flying drones to deliver grenades.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)



-k

[Udoshi]

Just the other day, I was thinking that Gecko Grips are cheap enough to put on grenades, particularly if its one-mod-per-10-ammo if your GM plays enough TF2 to say stickygrenades exist.


Not useful for directly reducing scatter, but GREAT for traps.

[Big D]

As an example, if you have opponents taking cover behind, say, crates in a warehouse, and you want an airburst grenade to go off between and just behind two of those crates in order to catch two opponents in the blast, what kind of roll do you (currently) face? What if, instead, the opponents are drones zig-zagging across open terrain so fast that it's hard to get a direct hit with bullets?

I remember that there used to be some heated debates on this exact topic, and there never seemed to be a good compromise; GLs either targeted the ground at someone's feet with miraculous accuracy, or else an opponent taking a full dodge action meant you couldn't get a grenade within his Zip Code. Has that changed?

[Draco18s]

No they didn't ban that.

Actually they did. If there is anything living within the blast zone, you MUST roll an opposed test.

[Falconer]

Actually they did. If there is anything living within the blast zone, you MUST roll an opposed test.

How about backing that up with an actual rules quote Draco... oh wait you can't. You're making up things you *MUST* do without any cited authority. At least I backed up my position with an actual rules pointer to a published rulebook.


The closest to anything you're saying is the FAQ (which is not RAW, and should only be taken as an indication of intention). Says there *SHOULD* (not *MUST*) be a roll... but then stops short of answering any of the really thorny problems which it then brings up. There are 3 rent-a-cops at the donut dispensor... you toss the grenade... which one rolls the dodge?! (the dodgemonkey... or the fattest one!... why does the fattest benefit from the dodgemoney or vice versa). Grenades by their very nature attack an area, not a person.

Not once in the rulebooks does it ever say you can't attack an immobile target which can't dodge and screw everyone else over in it's vicinity. Which is the reason this question comes up. The RAW does not disallow attacking an immobile inanimate object.

Given that targets have a full IP to run away from the blast zone I don't think it's an issue. (remember movement is split over all the available IP's.


In War (p140) they further altered the published rules (after the FAQ... so I take that as a clear indication of change in RAI). For contact fused grenades fired from a GL at least... they act just like any other direct fire weapon. You fire it at a target... you stage up the damage with net hits just like a normal bullet... and if it misses only then roll scatter! (I like it, it makes the underbarrel GL with HE grenades a viable anti-vehicle weapon... even if the blast radius is a bit of a drawback compared to a panther cannon).

At least I back up my posts, don't get into a nya'ah I'm right, you're wrong posts.



Onto other things:
I'm not hostile to each and every person getting a roll to reduce damage when a grenade goes off. (make the explosion appear farther than it really is as a game kludge). But I acknowledge that as a house rule. (I'm against one person affects scatter for everyone in the blast zone). This is mostly for people attacking the floor type situations and the problems inherent in attacking multiple people with an area attack. (see area spells, or suppressing fire for similar situations).

The gecko-grip idea is a good one. Though the rules allow you to contact fuse, so it seems superfluous except for trap purposes (either tripwire or command det). And really you want to try and toss a grenade that is as likely to stick to your hand as to the impact point. (I'd definitely treat a glitch the same as ex(-ex) ammo... and most people don't have good thrown weapon dice pools.. making glitches far more likely! *evil GM laugh* (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ).

I've been known to use bust-a-moves with grenades duct-taped to them as well. bust-a-move + gecko grip... instant suicide drone bomb for fairly cheap. Oh no, they're getting away... 'ka-boom' I had a bust-a-move sneak under their car and attach to their undercarriage near the fuel tank!

[Draco18s]

How about backing that up with an actual rules quote Draco... oh wait you can't. You're making up things you *MUST* do without any cited authority. At least I backed up my position with an actual rules pointer to a published rulebook.

name='SR4A page 155']Resolving a grenade attack is a two-step process. The first step determines where the grenade ends up in relation to the target (see Determine Scatter, below). The second step resolves the effect of the grenade's explosion.

DETERMINE SCATTER
To determine the grenade's final location, first chose the intended target. Make a standard ranged attack test using the attacker's Agility + appropriate combat skill (Throwing Weapons or Heavy Weapons), opposed by the target.

Yes, there is a success test version to get the grenade to be somewhere specific. However, if that was intended to be used all of the time even when there are living targets in the blast zone, then the opposed test version wouldn't exist.

And then we wouldn't have posts like this one:

At any rate what I wished they'd done is just have it be a success test to get the grenade to a certain point. And then some other test for the defenders to get off the spot if they can see it coming (maybe for every success they can move a meter away).

Q.E.F.D.

(Quod Erat F*cking Demonstrandum)

I'm still going to get into a Missions game at some point and be a demolitions expert with an intense hatred of furniture.

[Falconer]

Draco:
It says the target. It never says the target must be living. Which is entirely the point. That target could be the guard... or the wall behind the guard, or even the donut dispensor. Walls aren't known for their ability to roll reaction and dodge. You haven't done one thing in RAW to support your assertion. Only quoted text which doesn't say what you claim it says.


You claimed that if there is anything living in the blast radius... it *MUST* be opposed by that living target. Your words not mine. That's what I took issue with. Nowhere not once does it state your target must be living (especially if there's multiple living and unliving targets in the blast zone). That's why I say you're making up things which aren't in the rules, and which the rules in War directly contradict. (there are no rules saying I can't shoot the chair with a predator IV, and I can fire the contact-fused GL just like the predator in that case).


Similarly... in a fast moving situation like say vehicle chase... simply dropping the grenade on the ground isn't good enough. Room to room fighting is kind of static. If trying to hit a moving vehicle with a slow moving grenade... then yeah it's going to be opposed. Since you need to hit the right patch of ground to get one moving item with another.

[Draco18s]

Draco:
It says the target. It never says the target must be living. Which is entirely the point. That target could be the guard... or the wall behind the guard, or even the donut dispensor. Walls aren't known for their ability to roll reaction and dodge. You haven't done one thing in RAW to support your assertion. Only quoted text which doesn't say what you claim it says.

Walls and doughnut dispensers are still locations. They lack a "reaction" stat and therefore cannot dodge and therefore are not targets capable of an opposed roll.

You claimed that if there is anything living in the blast radius... it *MUST* be opposed by that living target.

If there is a living target in the area that can dodge, you cannot target an area, or the opposed roll rules are extraneous and should not exist.

[Falconer]

Yes Draco... and this argument does nothing to address changes in RAW since the publication of War.


Furthermore, NEVER does it state that the target chosen must be capable of an opposed roll. You're inventing an additional requirement which IS NOT PRESENT. This has been hashed out quite a few times in the past. Search the forum archives.

Which is why I'm accusing you of making up house rules and asserting them as RAW when the written and published rules never once say anything of the sort. The rules here aren't even grey.