When do these two modifiers apply?

Does Attacker Firing From Cover apply whenever you are behind *any* kind of cover? For example, if you are standing behind a wall that comes up to your waist and thus does not impair your visibility in any way, does you suffer this penalty? Or, does Attacker Firing From Cover only apply if you are completely hidden behind cover?

For the Multiple Targets modifier, do you suffer the -2 when attacking both the first and the second target, or do you suffer -2 only when attacking the second target?

Similarly, when using a full burst to attack two or three targets, do you suffer a penalty, such as -2 against two targets, and -4 against three? -2 against two or three? No penalty at all?

Actually, I wonder if the "firing from cover" penalty was initially intended to apply to people firing around corners with their smartgun camera.

I believe the attacking from cover would only apply if you are shooting from full cover. I probably wouldn't apply it to partial cover, since you are leaving enough of yourself exposed in order to shoot effectively. When behind full cover you're peeking out just long enough to fire a few shots then ducking back again.

Fire from cover penalty represents the action of covering behind less than total cover and rising up to fire occasionally, like you see in the movies. You could probably ignore the penalty but then you wouln't get maximum benefit of your cover.

multiple targets I believe is -2 beyond the first, thus -2 second target only. If you use full auto to attack 3 targets (one short burst each) you get -2 for the second target and -4 for the last.

We don't use those modifiers, they make no sense in most cases - in the military, we trained to shoot from cover, and it often was far easier (since you could use the cover to steady your weapon) than shooting while standing/kneeling free.

If the cover impedes the attacker's vision, then we apply that as a the "target's cover" modifier.

Special cases may be an exception.

With the full auto multiple targeting, I don't apply any penalty since they have to be within 1 m of each other. I only apply multiple targets if the targets are actually spread out, so firing a short burst at one and then a long burst at one at the other end of the room. As Full auto you could target them both if they are standing next to each other.

I see the Full-Auto multi-targeting as being an exception to the multiple targets rule.

If the Player wants to benefit from his cover he has to accept this modifier for his attack.

No cover no modifier.

As I said, it's stupid though - kneeling behind a wall and resting the gun on its top makes shooting easier, not more difficult.

That's why I stated partial cover doesn't apply the penalty only full cover. If your gun is resting ontop of the cover and you're up there aiming with it, you're not in full cover. If your crouched down behind the wall completely, and just peeking up to fire off a couple rounds thats firing from cover, and you'll get the full cover bonus.

Resting the gun takes more time than just go up, shoot, go down.
If you intend to stay visible through resting your gun the hole time, there would be no modifier from cover for the opponent. Because you're giving a nice target for not trying to cover himself.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. As usual, varied responses.

In general, I'm leaning toward Nightwalker450's interpretations for cover and full auto fire against multiple targets, as they make the most sense to me from a logical point of view.

What FriendoftheDork said about 2 single shots against 2 targets works for me, too.

To summarize:

- Attacker Firing From Cover does not apply if you are behind partial or good cover, unless the cover specifically hinders your view in some manner. For example, standing behind a waist-high wall does not hinder your view in most cases, so you do not suffer a penalty.

- Attacker Firing From Cover applies if you are hidden by cover. This represents you popping out to fire.

- When firing full auto against multiple targets, since they must be within 1 meter of one another, you do not suffer the Multiple Targets modifier.

- When firing 2 single shots or 2 short bursts at 2 separate targets, you suffer the -2 modifier only against the second target.

However, you would still be behind cover, even if you're not completely hidden by the cover. Having some cover is better than none, which would still qualify for the partial or good cover modifier, depending on how much you are covered.

Remember: partial cover = 25% of your body is covered. Good = 50%. Hidden = 100%. Just because you are not 100% does not mean you do not have *some* amount of cover.

We never used the modifier to simulate "popping up" from full cover, for that, we use the "stand up (simple action), shoot (simple action) drop prone (free action)" sequence, or an equivalent of it for shooting around corners.

I can see that further translating to "walk (free action), shoot (simple action), run (simple action)" and thereby negating movement penalties. Thats why I group the actions that can be fluidly put together and apply the penalty per pass, not per action. That and it allows you to fire 2 shots from cover with a SA during each pass by grouping them as such.

That would only apply if you are actually prone in order to gain the hidden fire benefit. If you are standing behind a 2-meter high wall and you occasionally stick your head and weapon around the corner of the wall to fire, you wouldn't need to use a stand up action followd by a drop prone action.

I have no problem with a player stating "I calmly take a shot, then run away". Why should I penalise him for that?

But it looks fun.

Prone or kneeling, to be exact. But I'd treat those situations the same, just because I see them as essentially the same.

I do it because running determines how far you move in a pass. So if you take a shot and run, you are rushing your shot so that you can get the most distance, so you're not going to aim properly. Likewise I run to point A and take the shot, you are hurrying into position and firing as soon as you get there, again rushing your shot. I just handle passes a fluid thing, you are doing everything at one time more or less. I then don't have to handle why player 1 gets said penalties while player 2 doesn't get the penalties, while both in effect do the same thing, but player 2 claimed he ran after the shot was fired. Same actions, same penalties.

YMMV

If you were to allow that, then you'd have to reduce how far the character can run in that pass.

I agree with Nightwalker that the penalties should apply across the pass, not just at the specific instance that you take the action.

In this specific example, I see it as you are rushing your shots so that you can then get moving. That's why you suffer the penalty even though you may not literally be running at the instant that you take your shots.

Edit: Nightwalker beat me to it.

I usually assume PCs take the more favorable/effective way of doing something, unless it's stated otherwise ("I am firing while I run"). But even then, I can't recall any instance where how far one could run in a turn made a iota of a difference in my games. We don't use battlemaps, so if in doubt we're far more likely to simply say "ok, make a run check, if you get X hits then you reach the corner" if we are not sure if the corners is Y or Y+1 meters away.

It's not so much the precise number of meters, centimeters, and millimeters that you can move in a pass. It's the fact that the game's rules are abstract, since the rules cannot possibly list out every real life situation and possibility. So, because of that, you abstractly suffer a penalty on most tests whenever you run (or walk, if you are using the rules in Arsenal).

But, whatever works for you.

So you mean if a character stands behind a metalbox, which gives him partial cover if he tries to cover himself. Means, it's really stupid to think that just standing behind gives him a cover modifier. Actually it does, if the attacker tries to shoot his legs or feet. But the rest of the body will still be uncovered.

You should check the core rules page 141.

Because the actions happen nearly simultanious. That's why the players should declare their actions before their action phase(page 132). Based on that the modifiers for their actions will be applied. Running and shooting in an action phase gives the player a -2 on his shooting. It doesn't matter if he runs before or after the shot.

And I don't think he hasn't the time to calmly take his shot. That sounds like aiming. So he actually will be running in his next phase.

I don't see what's so stupid about that.

In the abstract nature of the game's rules, having some cover, even if it's only 25% of your body, is better than no cover. The keyword here is abtract.

I don't know what you wanted me to see on page 141. Be more specific. I assume you meant any of the following:







If that's what you meant, these rules don't contradict anything I said.

Sorry took the wrong quote.

I was still on the -1 Modifier when firing out of cover, which some of the guys didn't seem to have understood right.

Because you can only benefit from cover if your trying to cover yourself like crouching behind a trashcan than just standing behind it.

Ahh, okay. You had me confused there.

I disagree MarCazm. Standing behind a trashcan (covering say between 25% and 49%) would still give you the partial cover bonus. Unless the character takes a called shot to say, your torso, then you're getting the benefit of the cover, because the combat is abstract too.

Absolutely correct. And according to canon, you would take a -1 penalty to your firearms Dice Pool because of that cover. The reason is, as you pointed out yourself, combat in SR4 (as in all Shadowrun editions) is abstract.

Right, so really, you're not "standing" behind the trashcan, but abstractly located with it between you and the enemies in some fashion which impedes both them shooting at you and you shooting at them.

Pretty much.

I think now he got it. No disrespect.

And which will still be house ruled out of my game, since everyone in my game knows that standing or kneeling behind a wall, and using the top of the wall to rest the gun on makes shooting easier, not harder.

I'm sure you call them on not stating that they tied their shoes, or zipped up their fly too.

I tend to apply the shooting from cover modifier in situations where the cover is improvised. Kneeling behind a three foot wall or shooting from a pre-dug trench is easy. Trying to hunker down in the wheel well of a subcompact car and return fire without exposing yourself is A LOT harder.

But we're not playing your game we're playing Shadowrun. And the rules say if you don't try to cover your not in cover.
Kneeling and resting the gun is called aiming. As long as you aim, you're not covered. And again the rules.

Unless you're specifically, I dunno, stating that you're using a house rule, in which case there's no point in arguing with someone about it.

I know Fuchs is fun to argue with and all that, but c'mon. He's very clearly stated he's not correcting anyone's interpretation of the rules, and is just talking about how those rules are changed at his game table. Arguing with that is like saying someone's wrong when they tell you their favorite color. He knows he's not using the rules as printed, you don't have to keep replying and telling him that.

There's no reason that you cannot both take cover *and* take aim. Utilizing cover does not require any kind of action. You just get behind it and the modifiers kick in. Taking aim is a simple action (normally), so you can use cover, take a simple action to aim, and take a shot.

And, surprisingly enough, taking aim gives a +1 modifier, and firing from cover is -1... canceling out!

And with the martial art that allows you to take aim as a free action...

Cover -1, Take Aim +2, +1 overall bonus