As far as autofire rules go, the core mechanic in SR3 is... a less than optimal aproximation of what autofire should be.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if what's the core mechanic becomes the Optional Rule, replaced by some variation of the Suppressive Fire or the Searching Fire rules as the new default.

For all we know the game's already 90% written, but hey, wishful thinking makes for a nice idle past time.

Who else wants to see autofire revamped?

Couldn't hurt.

i do. can't stand the autofire rules. something like my bullet-per-success rule'd be nice, but i'm probably biased.

Anything to empty those clips faster is good.

SR by nature is surprisingly bullet efficient. Not a lot of bullets get wasted, even on autofire.

i would like to see the auto-fire rules revised, but i'll live if they don't do it.

i know my friends and i were discussing making a homerule for how AF works, and i like what we had laid out, but i've forgoten by now (i moved away from them and haven't played in about a year).

really i think they just need a little tweaking from what they are now.

Well, one of the things that makes it so bullet efficient is the smart-gun/link. No wasted bullets walking the arc from target to target. Though i don't recall seeing good rules on innocent bystanders being hit (though, if your good, there aren't any bystanders at all, innocent or otherwise)

They could probably make it slightly better by adding more wasted ammo (without smartlink at least) and more destruction. But it can not, must not become more complex. Shadowrun is one of the few games involving modern fire arms where it´s not significantly more complex to fire full auto than it is to fire one shot. And that´s the way I like it.

Our way was complicated (so sucks).

Say you fire a 6 round burst with your AK97 at base target number 4. The target for the first bullet is 4, second is 5, third is 6, so on...

You roll the dice once: We'll say a skill of 4.

You get 02 05 04 03.

We take the highest number you rolled, which in this case is 5, as the cutoff. Any bullets that pushed the target to 6 or above (in this case, the last 4 bullets) miss.

So what our shooter scores is 2 bullets hitting their mark. Incidentally, we scored 2 successes. (1 on the target 4, 1 on target 5 *note: no die gets counted twice btw)

Instead of an all or nothing code of 13D (we don't count the first bullet for increasing power), we have essentially a 2 round burst doing 9S (with the two successes).

Presto! Way too compicated! But we like it. Still there are plenty here that will say it sucks, but gimme a break, we had to come up with something.

It's not very complicated at all, and it's one the better houserules I've seen here (been around for a little while, far as I know). I've personally not been fond of it because of what it does with staging (which, in a lot of cases, makes firing a single shot far too superior and reliable). That, and it really, really does not work well with capped recoil and realistic rates of fire.

It also carries with it the stigma of being -- more or less -- an Open Test. I proposed rules like that about five years ago, and got mixed results/feelings. I like that it's no longer all or nothing, but people hate their Open Tests.

It's just a form of Open Test, because your highest die determines how many rounds hit. That's, y'know, what's called an Open Test. High die counts, it sets the bar for how many shots hit, it's the cut-off point (however you want to phrase it).

I'm not saying I don't like it -- like I said, I came up with a rule like that myself and have been using it in the games I run for about five years now -- I'm just saying some people don't.

I guess I can understand your reasoning on that

Just use the standard damage code and add an extra die for each round of automatic fire.

Recoil still adds to the target number for the test as normal.

How much simpler do you want it?

As it stands in SR3...

Each bullet fired during automatic fire (including the first) adds 1 to the power of the attack. (Makes you wonder why people dont do 1 round automatic fire instead of single shot)

Each three bullets fired during automatic fire (including the first) adds 1 to the damage level of the attack.

Each round fired during an automatic fire attack (including the first) adds 1 to the recoil modifier of the attack.

The maximum damage level is still D... extra levels do not apply twords the optional deadlier over damage rule. (Debate that one elsewhere)

Another possible reason is that "At least three rounds must be fired in each burst." (sr3.115)

If it requires three rounds, then why the rules for a short burst?

Because the paragraph I quoted above continues: "If the belt or [magazine] runs short, see Short Bursts, above."

I was just pointing out that you don't have to have at least three rounds for a burst. Technically.

"i've only got one round left in my clip. better flip it to FA, for that +1 bonus!"

My brain is upside down.

Imagine firing a two-shot burst with a Guardian or something. Go go complex action!

Related to the original question, though, the important bit is that you cannot choose to fire a shorter burst -- unless you always load just 1 or 2 rounds in a magazine.

Yup.

I'd tend towards wanting FA to mainly become a useful strategy for supression fire rather than maintaining it's current role.

Perhaps it could go to a system where it's a fixed TN to fill x number of meters or x degrees of arc full of lead for a full initiative pass and anything that move into that area is hit on a fixed TN for a base power hit.

As a result goons with automatic weapons and hard cover become actually quite difficult to dislodge unless you are willing to wait out thier ammo and/or absorb some damage.

that's already covered with the suppressive fire rules from CC. what's needed is a way to make autofire more likely to hit a single target. the searching fire rules do not satisfy this requirement, since +2 dice and +6 TN are hardly more likely to hit than a single shot.

If FA becomes strictly suppressive or searching fire, I will be sorely disappointed. Takes away all the cinematic effect IMO...