Ranged Modifiers, Missing Line item? Options

[GrinderTheTroll]

I noticed that Target Running imposes a +2 TN for ranged attacks, -1 TN for Target Stationary, but no penalty for Target Walking. I'd like to assume that a Target Walking would be +1 TN.

Am I mad or just missing something?

[Austere Emancipa...]

Stationary is -1, walking is +/- 0, running is +2. The assumed state is "moving slightly" which doesn't give a bonus nor cause a penalty.

[GrinderTheTroll]

LOL you just repeated what I said.

Let me try a different tact:

Does anyone else think there should be a +1 TN for walking? Stationary = -1 TN and Running = +2 TN. It's not mentioned that Walking is +0 TN, so I thought it might be errata.

Any thoughts?

[Austere Emancipa...]

I'm saying that's exactly how it's intended to be. There should be no modifier for "Walking" because if you're not Stationary then you're moving slightly, which is pretty much the same as Walking.

If you had a +1 for firing at a Walking target, then obviously the assumed state of an enemy would be "Stationary" and there would be no modifier necessary for that.

There are 3 basic states of movement for a target in ranged combat: The basic (moving slightly such as walking, no modifier), the easy (not moving or Stationary, -1 TN) and the difficult (running, +2 TN).

You could maybe insert a "jogging" or similar "moving pretty fast but not quite running" at +1 TN, but that might be getting into too many modifiers that need to be judged separately by the GM -- when is it jogging, when running, when normal movement.

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Oct 5 2004, 06:15 PM

[GrinderTheTroll]

I can see your point, the thing that got to me was there is no entry for "Walking", it's just not there. I could assume that "Walking imposes +0 TN", but it's not explicitly stated on the Ranged Modifier table.

Consider this:

Based on a 3 round Combat Turn where Joe (Q = 9), John (Q=3):

John walks his max of 1 (+0 TN) and could run 3 (+2 TN).
Joe walks his max of 3 (+0 TN) and could run 9 (+2 TN).

Per SR3, Joe's walk is worth less of a penalty than John's similar run.

I do undetstand the implications of running vs. combat actions and balance (the faster guy would be really hard to hit just walking), but the penalty/bonus logic breaks down here.

Something like:
Meters-per-combat-phase:
0 = -1 TN
1 = +0 TN
2-3 = +1 TN
4-7 = +2 TN
8-12 = +3 TN
13+ = +4 TN

Although it might impose keeping track of how far you've moved instead of what you did. This would help fill the gap using the movement penalty based on "meters-per-action" than the current more generic terms of "Stationary", "Walking" or "Running".

One draw back is that as available Combat Phases approach zero, the penalties would increase, since both sides would be able to move further while walking or running given more available movement across the decreasing number of Combat Phases it would needed to be spread over.

/ramble off.

[Backgammon]

[Austere Emancipa...]

Just because someone doesn't willfully move at least a meter in some direction doesn't mean he's stationary, though, might want to start the table at +0 TN. You already addressed the problem of penalties going up when all combatants are slow, and similarly all penalties going down whenever there's at least one very fast combatant. And the bookkeeping problem, which you also mentioned.

Regardless, a table of that kind might work. Start at +0 TN, change it to meters per Combat Turn instead of per Initiative Pass, that sort of thing. It's not something I personally feel needs more detailed modifiers, and it gives me nasty BattleTech-flashbacks, but it can certainly be made to function nicely in SR combat.

[GrinderTheTroll]

Personally, given the gap and the progression, it might have been better to add it for the sake of showing the 3 types of movement that you'll probably make.

Stationary -1 TN
Walking +0 TN
Running +2 TN



...and hey! I liked Battletech, numbers weren't too bad to calculate and the fact all you needed were 2D6 to play the game, you can't complain too much, heheh.

[Fortune]

[GrinderTheTroll]

LOL yeah we had ALOT of those guys, back when they where made out of lead. Beat the heck out of the little stand-up paper ones though.

Oh the memories...

[TheScamp]

[DarkShade]