Can you count the number of painful issues with THAT statement.




It's this giant goto loop, with no exit, and no actual information on HOW you fire a Crossbow or a Bow (or a Slingshot)

Ye gods. I could swear it was a Complex to fire, but I don't remember which rules I was reading.

Edit: Well wait. It says ranged combat rules apply to them. So a Simple to fire, and a Ready to reload.

Most of them are encumbered by their armor also.


Just because I point out how the RAW fails or works counter to how it is commonly perceived does not mean I do not play by RAI.

But if its burst fire or explosives the passengers still take the damage so unless its a drone it wont be running for much longer.

potentially..
except that like I listed in the first quote. The Simple to fire says it's specifically for firearms.
Fire Weapon talks about firing a ready Firearm and then gives a page number that lists Firearms (and not bows)

I agree with you that it's the most logical ruling. But the rules are /incredibly/ vague as to be broken. Which is what this thread is actually talking about

Yeah.. if you aim at the character the character gets to add the vehicle's armor rating to his own for soaking. Unless someone uses a called shot.
But if you just shoot at the car, then hey! magic the passengers take full damage(as does the car) (wait what?)

On the bows/crossbows front?

There's a line on page 155 that specifically says "The Ranged Combat rules also apply to bows and projectile weapons." I'd say between that, Ready Weapon, and Fire Weapon (or Use Simple Object if you're hung up on the word "firearm" being under the "Fire Weapon" rule)...you should be able to figure it out.

This is the point of this thread some of these things are just dumb rules that must be house ruled to work. Thus we compile them tell CGL the etarata it please. Then we have a better game system overall I mean some of these things are simple to fix other might need full rewrites but its better than every table in the world playing difrently even more so when we have SRM that has to play completely RAW not that it can.

One more thing to add the extended test get -1 dice each roll is ok for some but in the grand scale of things makes most things impossible and is also illogical in some cases. Sure It means you can do some thing if you spend for ever on it but oddly enough you tend to be able to IRL ignoring its illogicalness it renders some test in the books imposable no-matter what or in one a few cases needed you to have your magic stupidly high.

"Can figure it out" is different from "the rules say it is only for firearms." That's the point of this thread.


I'd suggest trying to get a formed listed with proposed fixes Stickied, as I figure Catalyst would never actually go through the problems with putting out an official errata.

Also, I consider the -1 DP for Extended Tests an optional rule that my games don't opt for. Otherwise, nearly everything cool or useful is impossible (car modifications and creating spells, I'm looking at you).

That's just an editing goof. It is basically saying that a bow/crossbow is treated as one would a firearm, and since the mode is SS we can derive from there.

OKAY I REALIZE I AM MAKING YOUR POINT. blargh. I'd love to be able to sit down with these books on completion of the compilation phase and just edit.

The downward spiral Extended Tests is an optional rule that should be used situationally by the GM, though. He should judge which tests warrant it, rather than either always/never using it.

It's an editing goof that has some GM's requiring complex actions to fire bows and crossbows.
Fire Weapon should not have the word 'firearms' in it. Or it should include non-thrown projectile weapons.

Thanks for making our point. I mean, it's not a huge deal. But it is kinda weird and silly.

Agreed. For some reason I thought it was the core rule that was how it worked now.

I've mentioned before that I don't own 4A. One day I'll get around to fixing that problem.

Well . . that official thingie DOES have an errata board . . think about it . . a COMPLETE SUB FORUM JUST FOR ERRATA!
How many errors do they expect?
And they want to encroach on free stuff done by fans in my eyes <.<

Free stuff?

Well, semantically speaking you don't "fire" a non firearm, since the term fire refers to applying fire to the charge.

It was an official rule in SR4A at least the first pdf I think they knocked it back to optional when we pointed out it was insane though I'm not 100%

The fans go through the set and point out what won't work, and the company changes it via posting errata.

Beta testing budget = 0

Hell we'll compile here then I'll post them there with a link to here.

It is not a contradiction, it is an addition.

Quote Arsenal Page 103

According to the standard SR4 vehicle combat rules, passengers
are not injured if their vehicle crashes or is destroyed. This
assumes the proper use of safety features and other mitigating
factors. If the characters are not wearing seatbelts and/or have
disabled the airbag systems, gamemasters should feel free to infl ict
Physical damage on characters during vehicle crashes equal to the
damage taken by the vehicle, resisted with Body and half Impact
armor (round down).




Quote SR4 (not A)

Additionally, the passengers gain protection from the vehicle’s chassis, adding the
Armor of the vehicle to any personal armor the characters are wearing.

Better than nothing I suppose.

Or we can use 'Use Skill' if we have to but I'm sure we can find SOME WAY to justify bows being firable according to RAW.

The only thing that's unclear is if it is a simple or complex action. Simple seems punishing enough. Taking a simple to reload and then a complex to fire would make bows super-awful.

From SR4A


It's actually completely reasonable.. until you get to the last sentence.

You start out specific and then end in a sweeping generalization, so I'm trying to follow your problem. I think I know your complaint but I'll try to follow through:

Our Rigger has 30 dice on his Vehicle test. Since he's being chased by 15 vehicles that's -2*15 = -30 (I think the rules should actually say "For each vehicle still in play beyond the first on the driver's side..."). Taking a literal interpretation, though, because the Rigger has a vehicle "in play" on his side (his own) we add +2 to his DP. That least a net DP of 2. Now the Rigger's Mirage has a 140 Speed advantage, so the Rigger gets +14 (140 / 10) to his DP, now netting him 16. For the Cops they have a base DP of 8, +30 for 15 vehicles on their side, -2 for opposing vehicles, netting 36. Given the odds involved of 16 vs. 36 it's likely that the cops will close by 1 Range category each turn. When it comes down to individual maneuvers (like trying to Ram or Cut Off) the Rigger still stands a really good chance of avoiding it, but yeah, the cops will be able to keep up with him.

Now, your "logical" assumption is the "he should be able to get away" - effortlessly, you imply. Remember, that the Chase Combat rules are very abstract in nature, they are supposed to represent the results of a whole series of turns, twists, changes, corners, traffic, buildings, pedestrians, whatever. The rules do not assume that you are on a straight, wide-open, track with no obstacles and everyone is just pinning their foot to the gas in a straight line and going. To me, looking at it, if you have 15 cops working together in an urban environment chasing down one opposing vehicle, there's a pretty good chance that they will, indeed, manage to contain or redirect that vehicle to the point where at least one of them can come within close range through the coordinated use of cut-offs, looping around, herding, redirecting, or whatnot.

If you want to track current speed and exact distance on a round-by-round basis, you can use the rules under Tactical Combat. I'm not saying Chase Combat is perfect by any stretch, but I don't think it's as bad as many are saying.

Where does that come from?

Because Materialization is a physical power, which does not work on the astral, where spirits appear when they are conjoured up . .

Go read your book.

Spirits start on the Astral Plane. Materialization, Inhabitation, and Possession are all physical powers. You can't use physical powers on the Astral plane.

Actually this makes sense in part. Especially in single vehicle crashes, a large vehicle works against the passengers. The force being imparted if you crash into, say, a wall, is going to be the velocity times the mass. The common misconception that consumers have is that a larger vehicle is safer to be in. While this may be true in a multiple vehicle collision, in a single vehicle collision, it is the exact opposite. More likely than not, the large tree, or embankment or building has significantly more mass than your vehicle and will not be moved. Nearly all the kinetic energy generated by the crash will be directed right back at the vehicle itself. The passengers inside are going to get tossed pretty violently in the case of a high speed riot control vehicle crash and the drivers are likely to get crushed.

For motorcycles it doesn't always work because the rider typically exits the vehicle in a crash. Then it becomes the rider's more or less unprotected internal organs and skeleton versus the pavement or whatever other surface it takes up an argument with. Or, unprotected skin in the case of those foolish squids who ride without gear. So it would be the rider's kinetic energy versus the obstacle and/or the friction of the ground. Motorcycle crash damage might be better off resolved using falling damage or something though it would require more math to set up a table that equates speed of motorcycle travel with natural falling acceleration. Though off the top of my head I don't remember how falling damage is calculated in SR4. This way you simulate an ejected rider hitting a solid object as if he were falling horizontally and at a higher than normal rate of speed. Terminal velocity is approximately 200 kph, so you might be able to work backwards from that. Never going to be perfect, but might work better.

The dynamics of vehicle crashes are hard to model in a game. Obviously the key factor to surviving the crash is whether or not the vehicle survives. If its chassis survives, the passengers are going to be in better shape. Problem is in Shadowrun "deadly" damage to a vehicle technically just means it is disabled, not that it is completely obliterated. Manufacturers test cars by ramming them into a wall as opposed to another car so that they can measure the ability of the vehicle to withstand its own mass in a single vehicle collision since they know Asian people and women drive them and this will be the likely result. The rules, unless involving huge amounts of math, aren't going to be able to model the damage taken by a human body in a crash where the chassis of the car "survives" which is why I guess the default is that they take no damage if they use safety systems. But, it is a role playing game and nobody wants their character to die ingloriously in a car accident because, even though they had their seat belt on, the car was torn in half by the impact.

Well, a bigger/larger/tougher vehicle would probably simply break through the wall, leaving some of it's energy and so on untill it is stopped, and not just suddenly go SPLAT against the first wall . . well, in reality at least . . maybe . . of course, these don't apply to shadowrun rules, much less in the context of this thread ^^

Someone almost mentioned this, but I view it as a 'broken rule' that Full Auto attacks hit the vehicle *and* every single person inside. That could mean 10 bullets doing full damage to 2, 4, or a dozen people… and the vehicle.

Just imagine if they had 3 IP's. Blow through two mags in three seconds, amirite?

Take a Riot Control Vehicle with 12 people in it.

Ingram White Knight, full auto narrow burst, shoot at the vehicle.
All of a sudden you're doing 15P to everyone inside, completely ignoring the armor of the vehicle.
x3 for 3IP
You just killed everyone in that vehicle, and the vehicle is completely untouched.

Just as long as you're wearing a fedora and a pinstripe suit while you're doing it.

I wouldn't say 'vehicle untouched'. Your Full Auto attack hits the vehicle *and* all passengers, unless you specifically fired only at the passengers; I believe you have to do so individually.

With non-Full-Auto, it's not clear if you can just say, 'I target all passengers'; that's *another* problem, because how do you decide which passenger(s) get hit? After all, it might be Blind Fire and you don't even know if there are passengers, how many, etc.

Meh. Solve it with a "I aim for the driver's seat" or "passenger's seat", and let the lead fly where it may.

I say vehicle untouched because you would need 6 net hits in order to actually damage an Ares City Master

Vehicles have hardened armor effectively. The Ares CityMaster riot control vehicle has 20 points of armor.
So you have to do 21P in order to damage the vehicle at all.

I don't see any rule stating that the passengers stop applying the vehicles armor to them either. Simply that they have to resist damage along with the vehicle. Right about that part it states that passengers get a bonus from the chassis equal to it's armor.

Oh, I see what you meant, sabs. A Citymaster is a bit of an extreme case, though. Most vehicles have far less armor.

At the very end it says:
In the case of ramming, full-auto and area-effect attacks, both passengers
and vehicles resist the damage equally.

That *could* mean no bonus armor, or it could just mean everyone is hit (both of which would make sense to mention, given the preceding paragraph). No bonus armor doesn't make sense, because the situation hasn't changed, while 'everything is hit' by area-attacks *does* make sense (within this crazy rule). At my table, we say that it's for Suppressive Fire, not Full Auto; Suppressive Fire is an area attack, after all, while Full Auto isn't.

Definitely a messy point in the rules, regardless.

no worries, spirits with the astral gateway power can make it onto the physical plane though

so it's not quite true that spirits *can't* get on the physical... it's just really really improbable. fortunately, once they're dual natured courtesy of the astral gateway, they can then stay on the material and even leave the area of the astral gateway.

but yeah, under normal circumstances, a spirit technically can't materialise or possess anything.

Spirits don't like being corporal for any reason.
It's as uncomfortable for them as a troll trying to squeaze into a dwarven leather gimp suit . .
Also, once they go back to the astral for any reason, they are back to square one again . .

Yeah, that's really one of those "splitting hairs" situations. I think everyone can agree (... maybe not Cain) that the RAI are that Materialization can be used, as it is what makes them actually appear on the physical.

That actually reminds me of this:

... which is from this

I love that post. Classic.

Meaning you and the vehicle resist the same attack. The preceeding paragraph states that passengers get the armor bonus of the vehicle. So while both the car and it's occupants have to soak the 15P full narrow burst (which makes no sense, Wide maybe and definitely supressing fire) the vehicle in question gets armor + body while the occupants get (armor + body) + vehicle armor.

Also depends on how you define resisting equally. The vehicle and occupants both resist the same damage with armor + body + mods. The vehicle armor is a mod for the occupants.

Hence why I brought it up for this post
It depends on how you define resisting equally. It's very ambiguous.
And really, it makes no sense at all for a long narrow burst.

Right. However, I wouldn't say that 'equally' is broken in the same way as 'can't materialize'; it's simply ambiguous, and the proper interpretation is available. I still think 10 bullets for vehicle + as many targets as fit *is* 'broken by design'.

Yes, it's definitely a "what the hell were they thinking"
Not to mention, if I'm in a vehicle with 20 points of Armor.. behind closed windows,etc. How are they getting to aim at me at all?

They don't: you get Good Cover and Blind Fire.

Because the seating arrangements in cars are pretty much standardized due to not being able to do it in a way that is different in a meaningfull way?

Doesn't matter, there are no hit locations anyway. In the case of FA, you hit everyone and the car, regardless of position.