Different weapons for different applications. You don't take a machine gun just for the high ammo capacity, you want the high base damage and range, too.

The Preator does 5P AP 0 a LMG 6P AP-1. But most importantly range. SMGs can't go beyond 150m LMGs reach out to 800m, MMGs and HMGs even to 1200m.

Personally, I'm enamored of the Ingram White Knight because of it's RC 6 gas vent. The base damage and range ain't too shabby either.

And after all, if you're rocking autofire, subtlety isn't in the picture anyway.





-k

It's five, but the point stands. Just buy an external smartlink and a gyromount and your good for running around firing full bursts without penalty. Too bad you can't mod it for HV. That would be even more dakka.

Except that doesn't always work. For a city bus, sure. For an APC or tank? If the bullets can't even get past the skin of the thing, how do they travel through it to hit pasengers?

Didn't the older editions have vehicle hardneded armor that addressed this kind of thing?

They did, and yes, it's a weird thing in some cases. You shouldn't have tanks in your SR anyway. The GM is free to say 'fully-enclosed armored vehicles don't do this', too.

However, don't forget that passengers get the benefit of the vehicle's armor and cover (and a dodge penalty, but that's fair). I don't believe that the rules mean they lose these modifiers for area/FA attacks. It's my interpretation (and I assume a common one?) that the area/FA exception applies only to the issue of 'both vehicle and passengers are hit', instead of the default rule 'an attack must target either passenger(s) *or* vehicle'.

The broken thing about the rule is that 3 bullets in BF cannot damage the passengers and the vehicle at the same time but three bullets in FA can.

Indeed, wonky. I mean, you can't fire 3 bullets and call it FA, but you might do a split Full Burst or something. Not really a big deal, but another Broken Rule. They presumably meant 'Full Burst' instead of FA.

So, what is 4.5? I've been out of the SR game for awhile. I know about SR4A but not sure what 4.5 refers to.

Yes, you can:Emphasis mine.
Which is just as weird, why do passengers have to defend against 10 bullets with only one net hit but not against 6 bullets with 25 net hits? The latter has a much higher chance of actually penetrating the vehicle's hull.

@Bigity: it's just an alternate abbreviation for the Anniversary Edition. Probably because some people feel that the rules changes are almost as vast and far reaching as the changes from D&D 3.0 to 3.5.

Wow, that's stupid. Why do all the guns have BF/FA? Sigh. (Why does everyone compulsively say 'emphasis mine', btw?)

I didn't say it wasn't weird. The whole area/FA rule is weird.

a)Because a lot of RL guns have that too. b) because of the other weird rule that you can call a shot on a BF burst but not on a FA burst, no matter whether the latter burst uses 3(short) 6(long) or 10(full) bullets.

QFT

4.5 is what some folks like to call SR4A.

Because a BF setting on a weapon *forces* a burst of no more than 3 or 5 rounds. FA can have bursts, but you have to manually let off the trigger. That's the difference. BF is basically more controlled, and requires less thought/coordination to get the bursts.

Because we live in an age of prolific misquotes and quotes missing context.

It's a real number between 4 and 5. (emphasis mine)

I don't think it helps though. It doesn't address misquotes, and I'm not saying 'don't bold/underline/etc.'; I'm saying we know you added it.

Jhaiisiin, that's a RL argument, not a SR4 one. If FA does everything that BF does in SR4 (barring other broken rules), it's silly to have BF/FA (instead of just FA). *shrug* I'm not gonna worry about it, but it's one extra ambiguity.

Shadowrun does, in fact, occasionally attempt to model Real Life.

I mean, I know it's rare, but it does happen.




-k

FA does everything BF does AND MORE.

BF is better in panic situations. It's harder to blow your clip against a wall.

Also, some weapons are intentionally BF only because the clip size is too small for FA to be practical.

and less (No called shots)

Spray and Pray AKA suppressive Fire.

Spray and be annoyed is more like SR suppressive fire.

With all but the largest weapons, most combat oriented characters can simply laugh at the potential damage if they are hit at all. Those who fear getting a bit of Stun damage, just drop prone and can still shoot back, since nothing prevents you from shooting from the prone position.

Oh and don't forget the bullet wasting adepts and Bio-Samurai. Chrome Sammies at least could turn off their wired reflexes/MBW.

The brings up another broken rule (that may have already been mentioned). There's no way suppressive fire should take more bullets for some people than for others. It should be the same for every pass you want to suppress, regardless of whether you act that round or not.

Yeah, suppressive fire should be per combat turn, not per pass

No Called Shot for an FA short burst was what I meant by "barring other broken rules".

I guess. I was thinking there could be gray areas where the emphasis could change the meaning, and it might have been in the original quote.

Anyone seen the visibility modifier table in 4A? Ultrasound vision takes a -3 penalty in absolute darkness. What the heck?

That's because of its lack of definition. -3 dice doesn't mean you won't see a shape so much as you won't be finding needles in hay.

This should be for pure ultrasound vision though. If light could affect it at all then it wouldn't be sound based. Or perhaps people could hear you yelling inside a vacuum. Either way it's silly.

Additionally you cannot perceive color with ultrasound imaging.

@longbowrocks: While it is true that ultrasound vision needs only sound to generate the images, you still perceive those images visually. That is why it is called a vision penalty.

Ultrasound?






-k

Correct, and that is an iron rule based on the definition. You won't perceive color with ultrasound imaging no matter how bright or dark it is, but for some reason you get a penalty in darkness, with no penalty in normal light.


But you don't perceive the images using ambient light. The ultrasound device you are using converts sound wave patterns into light, which is only then perceived by your eyes.

For that light to be intercepted by darkness, you would need light/dark mechanics similar to those of dramatized evil (the darkness crept into his room, absorbing all light).

What I wanted to say is that while Ultrasound Vision uses sound waves, the user uses it as his visual sense. Listing its draw backs under Listening penalties would be kind of counterintuitive. I don't know how wide spread noise in the frequency band of those detectors is, but such noise should indeed hinder ultrasound devices.
Passive mode and a select sound filter should take care of it though.

So, you're saying the "absolute darkness" row in the visual modifiers table translates to "lots of chaotic background noise" for ultrasound? They should really have a separate row for that.

No.
I was trying to say that since you use the ultrasound emitter and detector as your vision it is intuitive to find the appropriate modifiers in the table for vision modifiers. I just realize that a whole set of possible modifiers (ultrasound background noise, other ultrasound emitters) is simply missing, and the modifiers resulting form lack of actual light are, to say the least, creative. A blanket -2 or -3 for lack of definition and color and listening modifiers would make a lot more sense.

Hear, hear!

isn't there somewhere a part in the rules that says:"characters with multiple sight enhancements use the lowest negative"?

Well, yeah...but the problem persists in a weird way:

A sammy is shooting at an invisible mage.
If the lights are off, he has a -6 penalty, unless he has ultrasound, in which case it's a -3.
If the lights are on, he has a -6 penalty, unless he has ultrasound, in which case he has no penalty, because it's not dark!?



edit: -6, not -8

Welcome to the world of shadowrun rules...

-CJ

Here's an explanation, in darkness, you just get a faint idea with faint visual references. Hence the -3 modifier. In the light you get precise references, so the faint idea with an accurate visual reference so there is no modifier.

I don't see why people can not get this. If it's ultrasound, you are getting a clear picture regardless of light, unless the room is sound dampened. In that case, people would stand out with even MORE definition (hence bonus).

I don't think I'm going to get this. With pure ultrasound, you can't tell if it's light or dark. You get no color either. Honestly it's like waving a flashlight or not waving a flashlight in front of someone with no eyes. They might hear you and knock you upside the head for being annoying, but other than that, no change.

I'd love a well-thought-out ultrasound penalties table for a houserule at my table.

I think, but can in no way prove, that the table is meant for people who normally use their eyes but are carrying an ultrasound sensor with a visual readout on it, so if it's totally dark you're relying completely on your technogadget, but the brighter it gets the more you can use your eyes as well. At least that's the only way I can see light factoring in at all.

Which actually works as an explanation. Sort of...

I can accept that, as long as no one tries to use that negative modifier for ultrasound vision that replaces normal sight.

I agree: all the various visions are basically assumed to be stacked in SR4. No, it's not clear or well-explained, at all. Neither is the sense/sensor distinction clear or well-explained, despite being important. So, say that pure Ultrasound maxes out at -3 (or whatever, if that's too harsh), while ultrasound-assisted 'normal vision' is different. Definitely an area of clumsy rules, if not Broken Rules.

Even better, the electronic ultrasound vision enhancement covers this, allowing for it to layer over, or replace vision.

That's its own problem, too. Ultrasound is a sensor, but it's listed as a Visual Enhancement.

The rules appear to be identical for ultrasound and, say, thermo under visual enhancements. What's the problem?