I remember in 1st-3rd Ed, there were Target Number modifiers to shooting at a target if it was walking or running...I've looked EVERYWHERE in the rulebook for 4th Ed and 4A and cannot find this target number modifiers anywhere. RAW, it seems like hitting a target that's standing still is just as simple as a target that's sprinting full-out. Am I missing something?

This threw me for a loop during a game recently as well. Running targets get a bonus on defense (see SR4A pg. 159), but the shooter gets no penalty. It seems to be a bit of a bass-ackwards way to do things, but there you go. Statistically, the end result is pretty much the same.

There is one strange impact from this: it makes snipers even more terrifying - an unaware target gets absolutely no defense roll. (And practically the whole point of sniping is that the target is unaware.) So RAW means that a sniper can shoot a running target with good cover, inside a moving vehicle, just as easily as he can hit a stationary target out in the open.

The more I look at this, the more bizarre it seems.

I could've SWORN comparing 4th to 4a there was a difference between the two, but sober I can NOT find it! And this is important because I've got friggin' THREE gun adepts playing in the game I've got coming up in a few weeks.

In SR4, the shooter gets a penalty to hit. In SR4A, the target gets a bonus on defense.

Also, SR4 has penalties for the attacker running, but not for the defender running.

Do you have page number references for 4a? I can NOT find it anywhere.

Of course, in that case there should be a few situational modifiers involved.

'Defender Running' is right there in the Ranged Combat Defense (something like that) table, in the Combat section. The attacker penalty is in the Attacker table.

In fact, I use all passive defense bonuses against snipers. It'd be moronic not to. The rules do say that Cover, at least, shouldn't be denied to an unaware target; it's easy to extrapolate this to all 'attacker penalty'-style modifiers.

A reason that cover (for example) was moved from attacker penalty to defender bonus may be to prevent glitches ('I shoot him behind cover'. 'Your gun explodes'.), but it's logical either way. As was said, it's basically identical for opposed tests anyway.

'Defender Running' is right there in the Ranged Combat Defense (something like that) table, in the Combat section. The attacker penalty is in the Attacker table.

In fact, I use all passive defense bonuses against snipers. It'd be moronic not to. The rules do say that Cover, at least, shouldn't be denied to an unaware target; it's easy to extrapolate this to all 'attacker penalty'-style modifiers.

A reason that cover (for example) was moved from attacker penalty to defender bonus may be to prevent glitches ('I shoot him behind cover'. 'Your gun explodes'.), but it's logical either way. As was said, it's basically identical for opposed tests anyway.

As Yerameyahu said they changed that to work that way in the Anniversary edition to prevent increased change to glitch becouse your target is in cover or running.
After all it doesn't make any sense for there to be a bigger chance of my EX-EX ammo cooking of because the guy im shooting at is running.

I would go with the following modifiers:

Shooter Aiming: +1
Shooter...shooting: +0
Shooter Walking: -1
Shooter Running: -2
Shooter Sprinting: -3

Target Unaware: +1 (not even ducking or moving their upper body, completely stationary)
Target Standing Still: +0
Target Walking: -1
Target Running: -2
Target Sprinting / Dodging: -3

So a running gunbattle and a sprinting shooter trying to hit a dodging and sprinting target have a base modifier of -6D6

Pretty good numbers, but i would go the Anniversary editions way and give those dices as a bonus to target, the fact that i and the target are running really shouldn't make it more likely that my gun explodes to my face.

Good point, I cant believe I forgot that rule.

You and your physics. I could actually see the attacker running as making it slightly more likely to glitch, as you jostle the barrel around and the ammo gets shaken up in the clip.

Heh. It's not that it's impossible (esp. with a GM and minor house-ruling) to deal with the 'induced glitches' of the old way, but the new way simplifies that (I feel).

The way I see it, a truly trained gunman (I believe a mention of Snipers was made) can hit someone who is running full out because it is likely that the runner is unaware and thus not going to act unpredictably. If you can lead the target, then they can be running as fast as they can, you're still going to hit them.

That's why it makes sense (to me at least) that the defender/target should get bonuses as opposed to the gunner getting penalties. You running has no effect on my skill, but it does affect your level of predictability(which I rely on) and thus your chances of getting hit.

Yes, but a runner is not moving in a perfectly straight line, and they're bobbing, etc. Certainly harder than one standing still, and leading is harder than not-leading, right? That's where *being* trained (higher skill) allows you to succeed despite the penalty. It makes sense both ways.

Really people, this is simple:

If I do (or don't do) something I get (or don't get) dice.

If I run, I get a defense bonus.

If I can't see in the dark/fog/smoke I get an attack penalty.

Bleh, it really *really* can go either way. Don't try to use your sneaky logic.

Despite what movies show, it is incredibly difficult to hit a moving target. Snipers and professional gunmen much prefer stationary targets. If they move, there is no certainty of a hit. Your chances slide down significantly, and the chance of obstructions increases dramatically.

A very skilled sniper will hit a running person, but that is just it: they have to be extremely skilled. Even a well trained sniper may start missing.

The problem largely comes from things or people getting in the way and calculating time to reach target from when you squeeze the trigger, which means you have to shoot ahead of them and hope you chose the correct direction. People might get in the way when the target is standing still, so snipers prefer high vantage points to shoot over other people when possible. If the target runs, it is more likely they can trip or get behind others.

And sometimes they just dodge. ;P

Arsenal actually already has optional rules for Attacker Walking (-1, page 161).

And, uh, i don't know what you guys are talking about. 4a Has modifiers for running for both the attacker and defender:

Running modifers, 149: -2 to all tests except Charging and Defending.
Attacker running(150): Ranged Attack Modifier -2
Defender running(159): Ranged Attacks Modifier: +2
Somewhat related: Charging is a Melee modifier, +2, and doesn't suffer a movement modifier for running. Someone recieving a charge(if they choose to. The wording is ambigous) gets +1.

The modifiers for running are -both- for attackers and defenders. Its one of the reasons Gyromounts(limbs, mostly), Gyroharnesse(worn), and Gyrolinks(for vehicles) are so good. They let you run, keep the defensive bonus, and not suffer the offensive one.

That being said, i like your table. It makes sense.

Some of the discussion was focusing not on the fact that attackers have a penalty (while they themselves are running), but that *targets* get a bonus for running. Because it used to be that a defender's cover 'bonus' was a penalty to the attacker, not a bonus to the defender.

Theoretically, a running attacker shooting a running defender could get -4 (-2 for running, -2 for moving target), depending on where the game (or GM) chooses to put those bonus/penalty points. I like the SR4A version, which is giving defenders bonus dice for running, cover, etc., while attackers get penalties for their own movement, not their target's.

I remember that movie. Next, if I recall correctly.

Wonder if a Divining mage could pull that off?

You do in fact recall correctly. Was a good movie, though none of it actually happened.



In Mage sure (4 dots of Time magic minimum, I think), not so much in ShadowRun.

I enjoyed it, at the least. Ending was interesting.



Not that'd you need that in Mage. Entropy usually worked very well for lucky duds and the like. And people say Shadowrun mages are powerful...

Every mage in Mage can make toast without a toaster, not every mage in Shadowrun can.

(I also had an Entropy/Time mage once, it was fun--though I couldn't see the future as much as I wanted to)