It seems like it's assumed that street sams have multiple initiative passes which makes me assume that each pass counts as more opprotunities to kill people, but where in the book does it list what you can actually do in multiple IPs.

This implies that a CT has as many IPs as the character with the most actions, yet any other character can only move in those they don't have actions in.

The previous paragraph clarifies it, when it talks about characters with two actions getting to go again during a second initiative pass, etc.

What the part you're quoting is saying, is that if you have one initiative pass, you don't have any actions you can take when other people are getting their second initiative passes, and so on.

It is poorly worded.

Basically, it takes an unwired character three seconds to point a gun and pull the trigger twice. A wired character, being faster, can point a gun and pull the trigger 4,6,or 8 times in three seconds. However, it would be prohibitive to calculate times per action down the the fraction of a second so the IP system instead. Characters get either 1, 2, 3, or 4 IPs per combat.

If samurai A has 3 IPs and mundane B has 1 IP then a combat turn is divided into three passes which may or may not represent 1 second each depending on our point of view. B acts in the first pass and so does A, then A acts in the second pass while B twiddles his thumbs for no apparent reason, then A acts in the third pass while B twiddles his thumbs for no apparent reason.

This all adds up to abstractly represent the fact that B's single IP lasted 3 seconds with A had 3 IPs during the same 3 seconds.

Ok, I guess I wasn't connecting the two paragraphs as one thought. So does that mean that you can do anything in subsequent IPs that you can normally do? Is there no max rate of fire for weapons? So you could actually unload 600 rounds per minute with 4 ips and 20 mags? This works for movement too? A person with 4 ips can run 4x faster than any regular person?

You have to understand that without reaction enhancers, 3 seconds seems like 3 seconds. The 1IP guys doesnt jsut wait with his thumb up his butt while the Sam uses his other IP.
Initiative Enhancers speed up the character to the point that the character thinks time has slowed down. 3 seconds can seem like 6, 9 or even 12 seconds long, and that's what lets them perform more actions.
So when Joe blow fires his gun twice, each shot is taking 1.5 seconds. The Sam with 3IP is firing 3 shots for each one Joe is firing, and thats what Joe sees.
To get the best view of battle with multiple IP, you have to wait till the end of the turn then show all the reactions. Someone that was just shot and falling to the ground wouldnt have even hit the ground by the end of the Turn, so a wired Sam might just shot the guy 3-4 times just because he cant make sure he is dead just on visual cues.

Base running speed for a human is 25m PER TURN. With Initiative Enhancers a Human's running speed is still 25m PER TURN.

First you figure out the highest number of IP present (i.e. the Sam with Wired-2 for 3 IP). This is the number of initiative passes during the turn.

Every combatant divides their movement speed by this number; that's the movement per pass (i.e. 10/3=~3.3m and 25/3=~8.3m for Walking and Running move).

Then you start the first IP, everyone can act here. Just make one complete action.
You can also move up to your movement per pass.

Afterwards the second IP is on, everyone with at least 2 IP can act here. Just make one complete action.
You can also move up to your movement per pass, even if you cannot act in this pass!

Afterwards the third IP is on, everyone with at least 3 IP can act here. Just make one complete action.
You can also move up to your movement per pass, even if you cannot act in this pass!

...

Bye
Thanee

Base running speed is 25 meters per turn, but running speed can be increased by a Strength + Running test, this costs a simple action. A character with 1 IP can increase his speed twice while a character with 4 Ips can increase his speed 8 times.

Assuming equal dice pools and uniform hits, the formula is 25+2hits2 vs 25+2hits8

If 4(25+2hits2)=25+2hits8 then 75 + 2hits8 = 2hits8 -> 75 = 0 which cannot be true in the real numbers under standard operations. So one won't go 4 times the other unless there is a disparity in dice pools.

75+ 16A =16B -> B=A +75/16=A+4.6875. So, a character with 4 IPs will go 4 times as fast as a character with 1IP if he averages 5 more hits per test than the 1 IP character does.

I would say that you have to spend a Simple Action each pass to increase the running movement for that pass (and probably all following in which you do not have an action phase) by two times the hits divided by the number of passes for the turn, just like you have to spend a Free Action to run during each of your actions.

Bye
Thanee

Movement during combat with multiple IPs is probably one of the all time strangest things in SR4.

I'll echo the above, though - keep in mind that IPs are an abstraction. Everything still happens in the same 3 seconds. It's just like init in DnD - you aren't really swinging your sword, then waiting for the other guy to swing his sword. It's all happening at once, you just have to have some way to delineate it.

I still like White Wolf's system, where you declare actions in order of reverse init. So the lowest init declares first, and the highest declares last. That way the low person can be completely out of the loop by the time it gets to their turn in combat, if, say, their target has left the area, or died, etc.

The WW system was great, true, but it was also slow as hell...

Can you really claim an primary intrest in expediance when you play a game that is known to call for 30+ die in one roll?

Yes, when it's an upgrade from a system where you had to reference 6 different sections of the BBB to figure out the TN to take a shit.

Does anyone else allow their players to delay action to the next pass even if they would not normally act on it? I had it come up once a bit ago and couldn't quickly find a ruling against it. Decided to let it slide but I wanted to confirm here before allowing it to become law. Have to admit too that I haven't done an research into it since and I'm at work right now...

As long as the player hasnt used up all their IP in a turn, I see no problem with them delaying into a IP they wouldnt normally get, though you cannot use more than 1IP worth of actions at one time. (IE. someone with 2 IP delays to IP4, they act on IP4 but lose 1 of thier IPs because there is no IP5.)

You could have someone act on the 1st and 4th, just 4th, just 3rd or whatever as long as they dont try and use more IP than they have normally.

It's in the rules:

Edit: Beaten to the punch.

But:

It's not a bad idea for someone with 2 ips to go first, and last. First means you can get to cover and fire once, and last means you can Take the most tactically sound action....

How about breaking up an action? I draw the line at say, spending a simple action to fire once in IP1 and then holding their second simple action from IP1 in order to fire in IP2. They call me a nitpicker but it just doesn't feel right to me.

Your hangup is that you're seeing the two simple actions as a unit that's not subdividable, when in fact, they are two seperate and entirely independent actions. If a player wants to take a second free action in a phase instead of one of their simple actions, do you make them lose for their second simple action as well?

I wouldn't allow the split.

At that point, I'd say "Yeah, it would be really neat if you could have that much tactical flexibility, eh? Much like someone devoted to combat. Buy some Cram."

I'm all for helping the 1 IP guy out, but by sticking with 1 IP, you're admitting that you're not willing to devote extra resources to combat. In combat, I feel like you should feel as though the sams are waltzing about you to some degree.

Because holding a lone Simple Action into the second IP gives you sooo many tactical options vs a wired SAM who might be taking as many as 3 more complex actions, or 6 more simple actions this turn.

You have to remember that your second Simple action SHOULD be delayed to IP3, but for game simplicity it is all lumped into IP1. If anything, the character declares his second shot in IP1 but it doesnt happen until IP3.
Breaking down the actions of someone who has only 1IP of actions for a combat turn:
Complex action - Takes 3 seconds to perform
Simple action - Takes 1.5 seconds to perform
Free action - any action that should be able to be performed while doing another action (IE Saying 3 words while firing your gun)

Each IP takes .75 seconds to complete when considering that you have 4IP total. Therefore your first shot (simple) takes both IP1 and IP2 to perform while your second shot covers IP3 and IP4.

A person with 2 IP would be fireing two shots for your every one. A person with 3IP would be firing 3 shots for your every one shot. You sure as hell should be intimidated when going against someone like that.

And no, I wouldnt allow anyone to split their IP ingame, wired or otherwise.

Yes.

Edit: Second thought, I would only allow them to split their IP if they had a valid excuse to do so. It would be a situational specific GM call.

Hmmm.

Originally, I had based my thoughts on the first paragraph under IPs, where action is used to refer to everything you do in a pass..

However, the line you quoted convinces me the intent is otherwise, when *fully* quoted:

"A player can declare a delayed action on any of his actions in any pass."

So the designers clearly meant to allow it. I'm still not sure how I feel personally about it.

Easy, you got a surprise turn to perform the warning shot.

So you blow your surprise turn firing a warning shot. Now you have to do initiative for the turn in which you will actually hold your action. Will you win?

Delaying a simple action has never come up in any SR game I played in, but I didn't find anything in the SR4 rules that actually indicates it's not possible.

This is what I don't get: Splitting WHAT action?

I take one Simple Action. That entire first Simple Action occurs in the first IP, so there's no split here. I spend a Free Action to delay, and the rules say I can delay into the next IP, sacrificing the action that I would have gotten in that next IP, if there was one.

The second Simple Action, which is a totally seperate action from the Simple Action I took earlier, occurs entirely in the next IP, so no split here either.

Where is this supposed "split"?

It's over use of the word action. When a player acts on his turn he declares his "action" or can delay his "action" or whatever. When he acts he can use a complex *action* or two simple *actions*.

Note these are not just two different types, but two different applications of the word action. A players "action" in the round consists if one complex or two simple *actions*. Two different things.

So basically, because one sentence in the Section 3A (which I would like to point out is titled "Declare Actions" and not "Declare Action", BTW), reads "Alternately the character can choose to delay his action until a later Action Phase in that Combat Turn" instead of say, reading "Alternately, the character can choose to delay one or more of his actions until a later Action Phase in that Combat Turn" that the term "action" can possibly be interpeted to mean "all the things a character does in a combat turn" even though every other place in the book the word action is used it means "one specific thing a character does, that may be classified as Free/Simple/Complex depending on how long it takes"? I don't buy that.


Aside from arguments on the meaning of the word "action" in section 3A, the passage on Delayed Actions on p.134 is rather explicit: "A player can declare a delayed action on any of his actions in any pass."

Try this, when you see Simple Action, Complex Action or Free Action, see them as a proper name for a game term, a part of a whole Action which is also a proper name. That's what I read.

So basically, if you see Action, they aren't talking about Simple, Free or Complex, but when you can choose to take a Free Action and a Complex Action or two Simple Actions.

I also don't like how it works in game. Think of a standard combat turn. Do you really want a player acting on his turn and saving a simple action (say, firing a pistol) until later in the round? I want them to act and move on, make a choice and allow combat to flow. If they delay to a later step, fine, but this sounds like it could get abusive quick in the right circumstances or simply cause confusion when a player isn't sure how much of his Action he has left after that last players Action took an hour and three source books to resolve.

I can't see how delaying a simple action could be abused.

It requires a tad more brainpower, but it also adds flexibility to combat, so I think it's worth it. I don't really think it will even be used in most combats.

If you read on they talk about allowing you to take you Free Action later in the round but do not mention the possibility of doing the same with a Simple Action. I have to conclude that if they intended the second Simple Action you are allowed to have the same flexibility they would have mentioned it when they expressly stated Free Actions can be used later. Or simply point it out under Delaying Actions, what do you think?

I think you're putting too much faith in the literalness of game designers.

Seriously - we read them like that. Most authors don't write them like that. Having been one (on a minor scale), and known more, I can tell you that the majority of them don't think at that level of detail - you really can't, and still be creative.

Possibly a good editor will go back and catch that stuff, but I'm not sure such a creature truly exists.

Here's my take. It can't really be that overpowered, since they're not getting any extra actions or anything. But anything that adds a level of tactics without adding raw-munchy-power is an inherently good thing.
I disagree that keeping track of it would be significantly more difficult.
I'm going to allow it IMG.

From what I read I didn't see any indication that you could save a Simple Action for later in the round. Originally I was just curious if other people thought that might be the case as well and if they though this would be balanced.

When I mentioned that it might be hard for players to keep track of how many actions they have expended/available I was using GM speak for "Players Will Abuse This".

How the Player Thinks - "Take a Simple action to Aim and another to fire, but wait, did he see me add the extra dice? Was he paying attention? Would be believe me if I told him i didn't Aim? He's got ten red smaurai to keep track of..."

I have no illusions that my PCs will lie cheat and steal to get even the slightest precived advantage. Hell, we are playing Shadowrun here, I'd expect nothing less. As a GM I am just trying to keep things operating as close to the base line as possible so numbers don't spiral out of control and everything runs smoothly. I run a tight ship, tighter in SR4 as the rules aren't as scattered out yet.

Yeah, I will add to my previous comment: I'm not frustrated and mad at you, so much as with your cheatin' players.