And after one punch in your chin/cheekbone(or a martial artist doing something such as a half-fist to the throat, collapsing your trachea), I doubt you could shoot him at 20ft anyway. And yes, he would just be standing there, like a silhouette.

Its pretty easy to knock most people out with a punch (without a glove). The countless youtube fight videos show it when the person gets a lucky shot off and connects right. With a professional fighter, you can be assured their punch will hit hard, and connect in the right places.

Isn't speed supposed to be squared ?
If you want to calculate energy, you need Joules.

Your numbers are kinda wrong...
Let's get some more precise informations.

A 9x19mm parabellum bullet for example, will weight 8.0 g and travel at 350 m/s. Developing an energy of 494 J.
A .357 magnum bullet, more fitting to a heavy pistol I think, will weight 158 g (yeah!) and travel at of 380 m/s. All for an energy of 731 J.
And that's only pistol ammunitions. Rifles ammunitions will go way higher.
For example, 1775 J for the standard 5.56 NATO rounds, and more than 4000 J for the infamous 8 mm Mauser.
Let's not even look at the higher caliber...

A good punch will go at 8 m/s, a top karate strike at 10-15m/s. But you can't just calculate it by saying "I will launch my fist at that speed".
From wikipedia, I found a karate strike has an energy of 450 J and boxer Rocky Marciano was supposed to have been measured at 1028 J.

The size of the area where that energy is received is important too, and there again it's the bullet advantage...

Oh I expect to be knocked out... but in this test we aren't testing combat conditions... I will eventually wake up... and then I will shoot him. It's about who's willing to quit first... I expect him to punch me and quit before I get to shoot. And if I get to pick my gun to shoot with... I'll take either an 8 gauge shotgun, or an elephant rifle.

Of course you'd get to pick the gun as he got to pick the fighter. I'd take the rifle, and at 400 meters I wouldn't miss. Even if it didn't kill immediately, there is no way the boxer would then be able to cross that 400 meters to punch a second time.

Of course, after a punch I might be really hurt, so I would probably request a week or so to recover, and if the rifle round didn't kill the boxer I'd give him the same week to recover before round 2. Fair is fair.

Also, nobody in their right mind would do this for fun, so there would have to be some valuable prize for the last man standing. Also, it would have to be immune from laws - no use having such a stupid pissing contest if the guy with the gun has to go to prison afterwards for murder.

I think a good shooter with a shotgun will ALWAYS beat an excellent boxer.

Because the boxer must close in to strike, and a shotgun does not forgive...

In that case I'd argue the punching should come from average shooting distances as well.

Punching is being done in average punching ranges. Shooting should come from average shooting ranges.

And then, for the Control Group, Shooting should be done at average punching ranges, and punching should be done at average shooting ranges.

Got to keep this scientific now.

Sure, so long as there's no timescale for when I have to shoot him back by. He stands still and takes a .22short in the base of his skull when I get out of hospital, and I'll shake his hand when he digs himself out of his grave. He may K.O me, but he won't kill me with one punch. And I'm neither exceptionally strong, nor trained with a handgun. There's a reason they're known as "equalisers".

Keep in mind (at least Sr3 wise) melee also has less DP modifiers: no movement mods. Which you will oten have in ranged.

Never said he'd kill you. Point was effectiveness in combat. If you get incapacitated/give up first, he wins. If he is incapacitated/gives up first you win.

And whyever should that be? The thing about ranged is that it is ranged, though it can also be used both close up. Punching can be done only close up. That is an advantage for ranged, not for punching.

Then for scientific accuracy we should go for simultaneous actions.

I will set it up so that his punching me causes a shotgun to fire a slug striking his head.

Yes? One which I pointed out. Someone said that unarmed strikes couldn't compare to damage done by firearms. It can. Either one can incapacitate you. Punching is less likely to kill you (represented by being Stun damage). The fact that a punch or a shot can both incapacitate is my point. You don't really want either to happen to you.

And yes, as pointed out, it takes considerably more skill to use a punch effectively as compared to a pistol.

Yes, both are not good. However, a punch in the gut is going to hurt like a bitch. A shot in the gut is going to kill your monkey ass in a couple of hours without medical treatment. Sure, both can fuck you up. One shoves a chunk of metal into your body, bounces it around, ripping apart your internal organs. The other impacts and will certainly bruise you, and if you get hit right, by someone who knows reasonably well what they're doing, then you're going to be in a world of hurt. I think most martial artist/hand-to-hand/melee combatants will agree that a gun wins though.

Hell, a random twitch of the muscles in your arm as you drop can kill someone with a gun in your hand. I don't see that really happening with a fist or a knife...

Just because either can incapacitate you doesn't mean that they do comparable damage. You can kill someone with a spork, if you stab them hard enough and in the right place with it. That doesn't mean that spork damage is equivalent to sword damage. At equivalent skill levels, any handgun (even a little .22) is more likely to inflict incapacitating damage than an unarmed fist. You can point out that Mike Tyson has a very good chance of knocking someone out, but a similarly skilled pistoleer will kill you nearly 100% of the time with a 9mm.

At equivalently high skill levels the ability to incapacitate with either gun or unarmed strike approaches 100%. At lower skill levels, it is easier to incapacitate with a gun. But, at the higher skill levels, they are both able to incapacitate on a frequent basis. The ability to incapacitate is why I say they do comparable damage. (Again, as I said, fists won't kill easily, which is why they have the base Stun damage, not Physical). If you can drop someone in a punch by doing 10S, or kill them with a gun by doing 10P, its still comparable damage.

SprainOgre, you don't punch someone in the stomach to incapacitate them. You'd hit them in the temple, chin, throat, nerves, spine, etc. Your argument is like saying getting shot in the toe won't kill you, so guns are worthless.

.


Now we're reading the same book, even maybe on the same page!!!

.

Sine shoting someone in any of these places is going to be at least as bad, if not worse in some cases, with a gun, I don't see what you're getting at. However, since you need to go to those areas with an unarmed strike to incapacitate, a gun give you some more options on places to hit to get the job done, doesn't it? Also, to build on the "shot in toe" example, getting punched in the toe is just as useless then, isn't it?

I'd say hitting where you intend to hit (such as areas to incapacitate) is represented by how skilled someone is, and again, ties into how I said that the skill requirement to be incapacitatingly effective with a firearm is considerably less than to be the same with unarmed strikes.

Assuming both people are skilled enough to reliably hit their targetted areas, (and in the case of the unarmed striker, with necessary force), they are still equally incapacitating.

Again, this spawned because someone claimed that unarmed strikes were not comparable with firearms in terms of damage. They are, it just takes a lot more skill to get there.

Right, right. And I agree that, yes, unarmed/hth combat can be devastating in a fight. However, it's not as efficient as be trained in a firearm, which costs fewer points. This, however, is a good thing since that's really how things work. But sure, I can easily agree that getting punched by someone who knows what they're doing is not a happy place to be, the same as being shot.

Yes. I never said they were equally efficient. Just that they are comparable for damage.

And, to get back on topic, the things melee trades in terms of overall effectiveness it gains quite a lot in various qualities. (Legal, quiet, doesn't have to be readied, stunning, multitude of ways to use it (subduing, maneuvers, etc)).

In other words, I think that while the damages of the two methods of attack are comparable, they both have their advantages and disadvantages, and trying to "buff" melee up to equal firearms would unbalance them.

...I'd rather not have my ear or nose bit off by Mike Tyson .

I know this comment isn't particularly useful, but this pissing contest thread is so full of win.

I don't think that adding a melee skill to defense against ranged weapons in melee is the way to go. You could argue that you can grab the arm of the shooter and keep the gun pointing away from your face, so melee skills should count. The fact is, though, that if the guy with the gun is able to move away from you just a couple steps, then he can shoot you without your melee skills doing much to help. For that reason, I think that a better way to handle this is to use Subduing rules (BBB, page 152). Grab the arms of the guy and keep the gun pointing away from you. It's likely that the guy will break the grapple during his action, but he'll need to spend a Complex action to do that, so no shooting at you after that, unless the guy with the gun has more IPs. If the grappler has more IPs though, he will be able to inflict some serious damage on the guy with the gun, so the IP advantage runs both ways. For people with the exact same number of IPs, it could lead to a long fight with lots of grapple and break free. I think it works reasonably well for unarmed vs ranged weapon, but I'm not entirely sure how to handle, say, bladed weapon vs ranged weapon. The Subduing rules make more sense for someone using his hands than for someone using a knife. Maybe the Clinch maneuver could allow you to add your melee skill to defense tests against ranged weapons while clinched? Anyways, just throwing that out there too.

Subduing is the win for fighting 1 on 1. Oh look, that big bad sammy has a full auto shotgun.... *grapple*.

Not only does the graplee need to spend a complex action, they actually have to succeed at breaking out of the grapple. As long as the grappler is moderately more skilled than the graplee, more IPs don't help all that much.

To add some background to this thread: I've read that a LOT of Iraq War vets have experienced some kind of hand-to-hand combat. However, based on the way that the Armed Forces handle urban warfare, and engage in CQB, I can't imagine the context to this. How does it happen? What kinds of units see hand-to-hand the most frequently?

The ones closest to the enemy troops. /smartass

Yeah, it's only at roughly equal skill that the extra IP determines who gets to deal damage - either subdual damage, if the grappler has the IP advantage, or ranged damage, if the grapplee does.

Small room/hallway = sure bet that you'll be engaged in hand-to-hand combat. The way the various first world powers handle urban combat hasn't really changed much in the last 70 or so years. The basic formula is defensive grenade (now flash-bangs, but same idea of using concussive force to provide surprise/cover for the assault) followed by a fast rush on the side of the force with the initiative. Fairly simple, and also fairly simple to get mucked up...

By the way, am I the only who thinks that subduing damage is awfully violent? Sure, you need to catch the guy first, but a Damage Value equal to Strength with no test whatsoever? The BBB says: "Consider the subdued character to be prone for any attacks made against him." So I think I would use that instead to houserule subduing damage in the following way:

Inflicting Stun damage to a subdued opponent still requires a successful melee test, but the attacker gets +3 dice for “Opponent Prone� and the defender gets -2 dice for “Defender Prone�. Damage is calculated as usual. Successfully defending does not free the defender from the grapple.

It seems to me that it would make subduing a bit more reasonable. As of now, if you have a fight between someone with 3 IPs and someone with 1 IP, then the faster guy could let the slower one act first, then subdue him, then cause (2xStrenght) DV totally unopposed, which seems a bit high. The houserule I proposed above would probably give roughly the same results on average, but it would also introduce a greater variability in the damage, which I think would be a good thing. But then again, I don't really know much about close combat, so... maybe the subduing damage rules are more realistic than I think?

The damage is resisted normally, with Body+Impact. And, with a vascular choke, the vast majority of humans will fall unconscious in 3 seconds. No one can last more than 6.

I've had a little Brazilian Jujutsu, not much at all, really. But if I can get a hold of you, I can seriously fuck you up if you don't know what you're doing. And that's just with a couple-three months of training. Imagine what my instructor could do to you.

Yeah, and any average peon can learn to kill you dead with a gun in 2 hours.
What's your point?

My point is that someone grappling you could do a lot of damage. I was responding to Triggerz's surprise at the amount of damage that a subduing character can cause.

Ho, sorry then, I didn't see you were answering that post.
My bad.

But then, I agree with you: subduing IS very powerful.

I understand how deadly it can be. I just wonder whether having automatic subduing damage is the best mechanic to handle this type of stuff.

It takes a complex action, and is an automatic *hit*, not automatic damage. & net hits do not add to it.

That wasn't your point. You were talking about "force". And if you want to pick the ideal meleeist as your example, I'll take an MG42 at 200m on an open field with 500 rounds of belt.

Your "point" was about "force" whatever you think that means in trauma causing. My point was that guns *in general* are more dangerous then melee *in general*. Would you rather I shot you with a 9mm or punched you? I'm pretty certain I'd rather you punched me than shot me with a 9mil or even a "piss-ante 2-2".

So they aren't comparable.

If you're talking combat effectiveness, a moderately skilled weapon user will take *no* damage from a skilled hand to hand fighter, because the unarmed man will be stone cold dead before they land a punch (In RL; they *are* comparable in SR4, because of mojo). At the top n% (where n is a small number) of human performance, they might have the same *stopping power* once you're in melee range, but across the sweep of combat situations guns just win. They do more actual damage to what they hit, they have better ranges, they're easier to use.

I'd still rather be punched in the throat than shot there. Because the punch does less damage. An EMT might be able to tracehotomise me, restart my heart and save my life. They won't be able to reconstruct my third and fourth cervical vertebrae and my ruptured spinal cord. Same for any other vital spot.

Guns do more damage.

Bare knuckle fighters would fight for 3 hours before one went down. Would a pistol fight in a boxing ring last that long? No. Because

Guns do more damage.

Yes, but they are cases when guns won't do. Specifically Close Quarter Combat.
Military still have melee training for a reason...

Guns will do more damage yes, but if you can't hit that's useless.
And that's even worse with longarms.

I wasn't. Merely capability for melee to put out similar damage, particularly in terms of shadowrun (which it can surpass most guns). IRL, punches can hit with similar incapacitating abilities as some firearms, so there is a basis for it being similar in shadowrun as well.

How long do you have to train to learn to punch in such a way that you knick arteries?

Incapacitating abilities. Again, as I said, this is shown in SR by being able to punch for 10S and drop someone. Which is comparable damage to someone who can shoot a gun for 10P and kill them. The damage is comparable.

Ok, I guess I should have chosen my words more carefully. My question is this one: once you've been subdued, does skill help in any way, or is the subduer able to inflict the same damage on you regardless of your skill? Of course, as long as you break the hold before damage is inflicted, it doesn't matter. But I am asking about those cases where the subduer has the time to inflict damage.

Anyways, our group is still transitioning to SR4, so I haven't really played yet with fourth edition rules and there's stuff in the rules I often still don't think about using. The subdued character can buy an extra IP by using a point of Edge, so he can use that to break the hold if need be. I hadn't really thought about that and I guess that's good enough a chance to avoid extreme subduing damage (which can be quite horrible when the subduer has more IPs than the subdued character, as I explained earlier).

Agreed. If a sammy has 4 IPs, and subdues a 1IP character after they've acted, then they get 3 rounds of (Strength)S damage (resisted) before the guy gets a chance to break out.

I'll side with Muspell on this one, and say that it doesn't matter how good you are, if someone has got you in a good choke (sleeper for example) you are going to go out in 3-10 seconds. Subduing is very accurate in this respect.
�
I think this is just another example of why multiple IPs are A Good Thing©

What's your definition of close quarter combat?

If I'm within 5 feet of you with a readied, off-safe, loaded MP-5, the minute you start to step up to me, I point it at you and hold down the trigger.

You might get to punch me. If I have a sawed off shotgun instead of the MP-5... I actually doubt you will.

Yeah, I know. I'm not saying the rules aren't clear on that one. They are among the clearest of all SR4! I proposed a house rule to make subduing damage an opposed test though (earlier in the thread), and I wanted people's opinions on that.

Basically, regular Opposed melee test, but with the attacker getting +3 DP for "Opponent Prone" and the defender getting -2 DP for "Defender Prone", as the rules say that attacks against a subdued character are treated as if the character was prone. Damage would be roughly the same most of the time, I think, but skill would now play a role. I'd like to know if it makes more sense from a RL perspective on subduing. I'm no martial artist in RL, so I have no clue about that.

[EDIT: Re-reading your post, I guess your opinion is that the rule is ok as it is, right?]

CQC is not always plain sight.
In fact it's rarely the case...

Let's say you are in a building, with your MP5, you turn a corner and I jump on you with a machete.
(why is everyone limiting melee to bare-hand?)
Not sure you will win in this situation...

Building cleaning, trench fighting, etc. There are many cases where a melee specialist can or will be at an advantage.

Yes, my opinion is that the rule the way it is is ok. Instead of punching, the subduer is trading in that ability for more guaranteed damage at the expense of being able to do anything else.