I submit to you, if they had meant for the penalty to be -3 ... they would have said "-3", not "-2". Or at least, have said "an additional -2".

Arguably that "additional" could be implied, in that fact that the cause is "excess" recoil.

~Umi

Eh. I'd say that was stretching the point a fair bit, and reading a wholelot into it that just isn't there.

It'd also make a fairly basic "magnum"-style round, in a LIGHT PISTOL even, worse than the recoil of full-on HMG rounds, or Assault Cannons. Serious logical disconnect there, IMO.

agreed- excess in this context- clearly means "over and above". there are statutes written more vague than this. i think in the context of the rules as a whole and the way the system is designed, that the +2 additional recoil is what is intended rather than a +2 superceding recoil.

Except that reading it this way produces LESS recoil in your theoretical light pistol than any other way of reading it. If it instead applied a flat -2 to every shot, on top of recoil, including the first shot, without being able to be compensated... how is that anything but even MORE ridiculous?

Also, can you even put high-powered chambering on a light pistol to begin with?

~Umi

By RAW, you could put high-powered chambering in a holdout.

Yes, as indicated above. And not really all that ridiculous. American Derringer used to offer their signature Derringer in caliber .45-70 (Hell, they still might). Crazy, but there you go. The recoil to that was physically painful, even with the first round. Most people I witnessed shooting it flinched as they fired, before the round actually went off. That -2 (even applied to the 1st shot) seems pretty sane to me, as a rule goes.

Um, what?

-0, -2 ... instead of -0, -1. If the gun is burst-fire capable, two bursts produce -4, -10 (total).


Yep. .32 H&R Magnum, for example. Also, .221 Remington Fireball.

See, at best I would read it as 0, -3 and at worst I would read it as -2, -3 depending upon whether the first round is affected. We include even the 1st round in that -2 calculation (so we go with the -2, -3 values for SA). A short burst would then be -4, -5 (for a total of -9, not -10).

This is exactly why i too believe, that -2 modifier should apply even to the first shot. Larger calibers have that effect in real life, even when firing from calm steady stance.
SR4A may state, "first shot is unmodified", but (afaik) it does not state "always unmodified" and as High-power chambering was not around when SR4A was written, I have no problem of that rule superseding former rule.

You may not have a problem with it Vilda, but I certainly do, and for some pretty damning reasons I've already mentioned.

1) The new rule is worded horrendously, with an unacceptable level of ambiguity, which is likely the result of poor quality control consistant with the rest of the book that it originates from.

2) The new rule fails to directly state that it supercedes or modifies any previous rules in any way, which is in direct contrast to previous situations of new rules superceding old ones. (See Street Magic, Runner's Companion, Arsenal, Augmentation, etc.)

3) Your "pre-emptive flinching" headcanon doesn't make any sense when expanded beyond a limited scope. Why should a high powered light pistol incur a greater penalty than a far more damaing but otherwise "normal" powered sporting rifle?

~Umi

I'll bite...

Becasue a hig-powered Hand cannon has much less mass to compensate for the greater recoil... That's why.
It is a fact of real life "High-Powered" pistols. I would MUCH rather fire a .50 Caliber Rifle than a .50 Caliber Pistol. Or a .45-70 Rifle vs. a .45-70 Derringer. The Rifle's have MUCH less recoil, comparatively.

This from personal experience.

The primary concern is just 'does this rule punish the user enough for using better ammo?' You only bother answering 'does it SCIENCE?' afterward.

Color me a bit confused there Yerameyahu... Huh?

I think that the -2 to each action (including the first shot) is adequate recompense for a High-Power Chambering. Hell, we have been using it that way since it came out, and sems to work pretty well.

My point is that, if you *want* the mechanics of 'preemptive flinching', it doesn't matter if you don't like the fluff. You can always fix the fluff, as you did in your response.

Oh my... you really don't have any clue whatsoever do you....

1) The ONLY part of the new rule which is ambiguous is the last phrase. The operative parts of the sentence are 100% clear... there's a penalty... there's a penalty on every shot at -2 dice. The only ambiguity is whether it's a *SEPARATE* recoil modifier or an untyped situational modifier. (as in separate... new... not due to number of rounds fired which was previously the ONLY source of recoil in the game).

2) It doesn't need to. It creates a new modifier... -2 dice when HPC gun is fired... simple. Add it to the ranged firing table as it's own line! (no different than arsenal adding large target... or small target).

3) You're firing a round which does as much damage as a sport rifle or assault rifle round... in a very very small lightweight and concealable pistol. Why is it doing so much damage... because instead of normal 'propellant' they use a high explosive to propel the bullet. It's not like an Ex round which actually fires a high explosive mini-nade. Are you TRYING to make our case for us?


Quite frankly.. I think the mod is kinda bleah. Though I think it would be a lot of fun on an assault cannon (given the lack of good AC ammo comparative to small arms (like say a barrett firing anti-vehicle -6AP rounds)... Overall I prefer APF (as silly as they are). But it wouldn't be the first time a dog of ammo type has been put in the game.

It's "not clear" in that it presents a differing wording than the standard rule, but given the history of Shadowrun this could mean it's an actual new rule, or it could also mean the author simply worded it wierdly and it's supposed to work like the the standard rule.

If it is supposed to be "new law", it should specifically and explicitly say that it is so and is a deliberate departure from the previous rule. That's just good game design practice.


-k

I just like the fact that after you add it to your assault cannon ammo is less than 1/5 the normal price so it takes 150 shots for an upgrade of a panther to pay for itself.

Shortstraw... I'd multiply the cost of any ammo by 10 or 100 for an assault cannon before street price increases for legality/rarity.

In any case, I don't think it is available for an AC by RAW because they don't give an AC ammo cost. There's only two distinct round types listed for AC's.


The mod would make sense on slow firing big guns... since they really have no recoil to worry about, so it would provide some reason to add a little RC (assuming it is a recoil mod) while still keeping a SA/SS firing mode would be within reason for the extra damage. In that case, you're effectively looking at the same recoil across 2 shots as 2 short narrow bursts... for slightly better damage increase +2DV(post-threshold) vs +2DV-1AP (pre-threshhold). That's the reason I don't dismiss it as a completely bad mod just a poor choice for small arms.

The high power mod does not restrict the weapon type and it explicitly states "A weapon with this modication can only fire high-power rounds."

High-Power Rounds +2 –1 B 20F 80¥ it's that simple (by RAW anyway and as we all know War! is the best written of all the source books).
Also note that the availability IS higher so you might have trouble finding the 150 rounds to get your money back.

Yeah, some high caliber pistols are very hard on the hands. After the first shot you want something less likely to break your wrist.

A poorly written description does not excuse this example of the worst kind of word-weasel-y rules lawyering around.

Besides, an Assault Cannon can only fire Assault Cannon Rounds. HP Rounds are not AC rounds. Case solved.
That is like saying you can add the Modification to a Grenade Launcher and then use the HP Rounds in place of Grenades. Sheer Lunacy.

Or worse: applying it to a LASER weapon ...

Heh... Indeed.

Where in the rules has recoil EVER been affected by weapon weight? By this logic, the Reduced Weight weapon mod should roughly double your recoil, right?

This line of thinking is just getting stretched absurdly thin. It already relies on a number of unproven assumptions.

The "pre-emptive flinching" affecting the first round already doesn't occur in ordinary weaponry of any level of recoil, which is at direct odds with how this line of thinking suggests it should operate. It also has no demonstrated basis in the rules whatsoever, and in fact I have personally quoted direct evidence against it from the rules.

Moreover, all of the above relies on the assumption that the new ruling supercedes prior rules despite not directly stating that it changes any prior rules, which is entirely not in keeping with the trends of prior rule changes, and which requires yet another layer of assumption to allow for it.

And all of THAT relies on the assumption that the rule itself is written properly and fully intentionally put into the form it currently takes, which again doesn't fit with what we know about the quality of the book the rule comes from.

That's an awful lot to assume.

In fact, it's a whole lote more to assume than simply, "The rule was meant to employ the existing recoil rules as they stand, but whoever wrote the rule didn't write it properly for whatever reason."

Occam's Razor suggests the latter is far more likely to be the actual case.

~Umi

"Oh, but you could TOTALLY have a high powered laser! It'd have extra powerful peak-discharge packs and maybe a different mixture of lasing gases to produce a stronger beam! And the production of this higher power laser would create pockets of plasma within the lasing gases, which while wholly contained by the weapon's construction (and causing no damage to it), results in severe vibrations from the high energy convection going on within the lasing chamber, which manifests as the aforementioned -2 dice pool modifier which applies on every shot including the first!"



~Umi

To sum up Umidori's 12:45 post:

"If a conclusion requires a five-meter-high house of cards as it's foundation ... perhaps you should think things over some more."

^_^

Are you being sarcastic, Umidori? Because that's perfectly fine. If you wanted High-Powered to apply to a laser (for some reason), you'd use the crunch, and handwave the fluff… just like you did. All that matters is the rules-desired mechanical effect.

Except that lasers do not and cannot recoil.

*facepalm*

Oh, and also the bit about the high powered mod stating the weapon fires rounds and whatnot. It wouldn't make logical sense because of the weapon's nature. You can't put an Additional Clip on a Breach Loading rifle for obvious reasons. You likewise cannot outfit a laser weapon to fire high powered slugs.

And I'm not even going to get INTO what having active plasma convection strong enough to produce severe vibrations going on inside your gun would actually result in. In short it would be Very Bad.

~Umi

Well said, and I agree.

Actually, Occams Razor favors the wording of the rule. Each shot suffers a -2 Dice Pool Modifer, SINCE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT STATES.

Just because the base weapons (in the main book and Arsenal) do not suffer a penalty to the 1st shot does not mean that they can NEVER suffer such a penalty. And guess what, High Power Chambering does just that. THE ONLY QUESTION is whether Recoil Compensation would work against the incurred Dice Pool penalty.

As for Flinch induced by excessive recoil IRL, it is a documented fact. *shrug*
And as for Weight, it is a non-mechanic in the game, but IRL has massive impact on the felt recoil, which is what I was replying to.

Would you agree that perhaps the -2 recoil penalty was placed under a category the writer felt it best fit under, as opposed to creating a new penalty type altogether?

The rule doesn't actually state that. What it actually states is:

"High-power rounds inflict a -2 dice pool penalty when fired due to excess recoil."

Applying that modifier to the first shot is merely YOUR INTERPRETATION of what is stated. The rule itself is sadly highly ambiguous. Not just because I say it is, but because of how linguistics work. The rule as written has multiple meanings in the English Language. That is simple fact. The rule is written so ambiguously that without directly being told which meaning was intended by the rule's author, we cannot truly know which was meant, or even which is more likely.


No, it doesn't "do just that". Not without making at least some of the assumptions I highlighted above, chiefly the ones about assuming the new ruling intentionally supercedes the prior ruling without it stating that it does, which is in direct contrast to prior rule changes which DO state they supercede and replace previous rules.

Also, apparantly there is not an "ONLY QUESTION" involved, because numerous other people happen to have their own separate questions which are based in reasonably sound logic (which, if you personally find to be logically flawed, please point out the logical fallacies involved so it can be demonstrated rationally). You haven't addressed these questions except to dismiss them as invalid without any sort of evidence of their supposed invalidity other than your sheer unwillingness to address them rationally.


Yeah, that's great. It was also never actually in question... and... Oh yeah! It was also never relevant as it has absolutely no basis in the rules of the game system. For similar examples, see all the people who complain about the Matrix Rules not matching real life hacking. (Threads and threads of that stuff, should keep you amused for hours.)

~Umi

If you are asking how we handle it, we handle it as Recoil Modifier, adjustable by Recoil Compensation. The only other option is to treat it as a Standard -2 to each firing action, NOT adjustable by Recoil Compensation.

HOWEVER, since the Penalty is explicitely mentioned to come into play every time the weapon is fired, this penalty applies even to the first shot, thus you have the following modifiers:

-2 on SS Actions (Total of -2)
-2, -3 on SA Actions (Total of -5)
-4, -5 on Short Bursts (Total of -9)
-7 on a Long Burst (Total of -7)
-11 on a Full Burst (Total of -11)

Suppressive fire suffers a -2 Dice Penalty due to the excessive recoil of the weapon.

As it should be, based upon the description of the modifier.

Yeah, that's my question to you Ty. Would you agree that the description of the modifier is perhaps misplaced? That rather than creating an entirely new penalty, the writer/editor had slipped it into an existing modifier. Perhaps this was done to not invalidate existing rules and tables.

Really? "WHEN FIRED" MEANS JUST THAT... "WHEN FIRED". Did you fire the weapon? Yes, therefore you will have sufferred a -2 penalty. Period.

See, let me repost your Quote for you...



You cannot take that any other way. And it does not supersede all rules prior. It adds an additional rule FOR HIGH POWERED WEAPONS ONLY. That is all. It does not re-write recoil rules at all (It changes it for a very minimal class of weapons: HPC Weapons). There are really only 2 valid choices here, Umidori, based upon the actual wording of the rule.

1. It is a standalone Dice Pool Penalty, and Recoil Compensation will not apply. This penalty Always applies to every action taken with the weapon (When it is fired).
2. It is a Recoil Penalty, with a CHANGE ON THE RECOIL RULES FOR THAT WEAPON MODIFICATION, that applies a Recoil Penalty that is compensatable. HPC alters the Basic Assumption of no recoil in the first shot for that weapon only.

Either way, you are suffering a penalty whenever you fire the weapon. This includes the first shot.

No, I would not... I have posted my reasons already.

It is either a Recoil Modifier that can be compensated for, or it is a Recoil Modifier that cannot be compensated for. Either way, it is still a Recoil Modifier (and actually applies to every fired action with the weapon, thus affecting the 1st shot as well).

NO, it ISN'T.

"High-power rounds inflict a -2 dice pool penalty when fired due to excess recoil."

Linguistically, this has multiple meanings and readings. It does not instantly mean "every time the weapon is fired". The usage of "when fired" is not specific. A machine gun that that slowly overheats "when fired" is not that same thing as a machine gun that slowly overheats no matter what so long as you fire at least one shot, even if you never fire any others, it still continues to magically build up heat slowly until it is 'Over-Heated' and consequently inoperable.

It's like saying a certain drug "when taken" has Effect X. You have to consider all the relevant context and possible circumstances. It doesn't actually mean that "every time the drug is taken" it has Effect X, no matter what. For example, someone who is immune to that drug will NOT suffer Effect X, for obvious reasons. And anyone who argued that "No, it affects even an immune character because the new rule supercedes the prior drug rules" is clearly misunderstanding the way the rules system works and is intended to work.

This is just how English works.

~Umi

To politely interject, when fired is a bit ambiguous due to our perceptions of how it should read. Reading strictly, the suffix -ed applies a past tense, meaning the round being projected already happened. If it read when fir-ing, It'd very clearly be a penalty to the initial shot.

"High-power rounds inflict a -2 dice pool penalty when fired due to excess recoil."
Strange how the most obvious(ly ridiculously broken) reading of this sentence hasn't cropped up yet:
High-power rounds inflict a -2 dice pool penalty IF and only IF excess recoil causes the firing.
As that never happens, there's no need to argue about how often to apply the mod or whether RC counters it.
Case closed.

Ears, I love you.

I ...

...

... I actually agree with this, 100%. Color me gobsmacked.

HAH, I was just considering the many different possible interpretations of that sentence due to the vagaries of the English language. You beat me to that one.

On another note, as an outside observer, the recent posters (whether they realize it or not) are just going in circles. No new text or interpretations have been submitted other than Ears' in the last 2 pages.

Just agree to disagree and move on to my next question....

So none of us like how high powered chambering is worded or how it works (whichever interpretation of that you subscribe too)
Many of us however, like the idea of having it in the game and believe it should show up in some form.

So how would you change it to make it usable?

Pax and Almost Normal actually agreeing with something?

THE END TIMES ARE NIGH! 2012 WILL SEE THE RUINATION OF US ALL! AAAAAHHHH!



~Umi

For me? Well, I feel the need to clean up my own wording a bit more, still, but the first draft is this:

“High Powered” is not a separate ammunition type; many kinds of ammunition are available in “high powered” variants. Such ammunition costs four times the normal price, and it's availability is increased by +8; the DV of such ammunition is increased by 2 and AP by -1. Only weapons modified to accept HP ammunition may use it. All uncompensated recoil is doubled (-2 penalty per point); for heavy weapons, it is instead tripled (-3 penalty per point). Finally, High Powered ammunition is especially loud; the use of HP ammunition provides listeners with a +3 die pool bonus to detect or locate the sound of each shot. (This modifier is cumulative with silencers and suppressors.)

Like I said, the wording needs to be cleaned up, and some better formatting applied. I might need to adjust that DP modifier for hearing shots, too.

But generally, that's how I intend to handle it at "my" table. Which is to say, "completely houseruled, top to bottom, inside and out".

I agree, but I stipulated that "*If* you wanted High-Powered to apply to a laser (for some reason)"… you could do that. The point is that science and realism don't matter.

There is no 'linguistic' evidence that 'when fired' fails to apply to the first short, while 'when firing' does apply to the first shot. That's just more handwaving.

You've had a lawyer, a professional who deals with linguistics on a regular basis as part of their highly regulated career, tell you that different readings than your own are entirely possible. The only person doing any handwaving is you, and that's in an attempt to clear the air of any opinions you don't personally care for.

A valid counter-interpretation has been posited. Either give a logical, rational explanation for why that counter-interpretation is rationally flawed, or say nothing please. I'm tired of you just dismissing anything you don't want to hear without addressing it.

~Umi

I dunno about you mooks, but I started drinking an hour ago, and this conversation is much more bearable now.

Also, I like Umi more after a few beers.

Heh... How rude...