Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Gamemasters' Lounge => Topic started by: Zilfer on <05-14-12/1626:50>
-
Does this mean you just shoot from cover and leave your head out there? Or does this mean your shooting from cover twice and then taking cover again?
Trying to familiarize myself with a bit more of the game since the last two week's we've played Shadowrun again coming from our DnD sessions. I know blind fire is -6 and if someone shoots and hides behind cover do they get the +4 for good cover as well to their roll? I think i'm missing something here. Or do they just get the +4 because the opponent knows the General location of the player so it not blind fire.
Thanks!
-
I've always consider shooting from cover a penalty for saying basically that you want to receive the bonus from using the cover, but want to also make an attack.
I rule that it exposes you enough such that the attacker is not making a blind attack against you (use the cover modifiers as needed). Since its not blind fire, I offer the ability to disregard the cover and fire, but give the armour from the cover to the target.
-
I've always consider shooting from cover a penalty for saying basically that you want to receive the bonus from using the cover, but want to also make an attack.
I rule that it exposes you enough such that the attacker is not making a blind attack against you (use the cover modifiers as needed). Since its not blind fire, I offer the ability to disregard the cover and fire, but give the armour from the cover to the target.
So you'd essentially use the Shooting Through A Barrier penalty to offset the Cover bonus? I could see that... and it makes a lot of sense; especially if they're behind something relatively flimsy like the door of a normal, unarmored car.
-
Never understood the cover penalty.
If anything, the bracing bonus should effectively counter any ill effect from moving in and around cover.
I assume it's either a balance thing or...how to put it...a misguided assumption.
SR4 isn't about realism - but it's also an extra, unnecessary modifier. If it is a balance thing...well...cover is kinda super important. If someone is smart enough to use it, they shouldn't be penalized in order to "balance" with people too foolish to get in out of the rain.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
If you really want to hide behind something, stick out your wrist and spray your Uzi at the enemies general direction, it's -6 because you don't see a thing and -2 for shooting from cover.
If you're hiding behind something, pop out for a second, take a shot or two and then duck back behind cover, you take the -2 for the quick movements and somewhat unsteady aim, but gain the benefits of good cover. (+4 Defense)
Problem with the Attack penalty is that there isn't a distinction between Good or Partial cover, imo. It would be better if the -2 applied only to Good Cover. You'd have the option of trading 2 attack dice for 4 defense dice, or keeping your dicepool, but leaving a larger part of your body exposed and making you easier to hit (only 2 extra dice for cover).
Let's say you're standing behind a waist-high brick wall and your enemy is 20 meters away shooting at you.
You'd have 3 options:
A. Lie flat behind the wall, stick your gun out and pray you hit something.
+Good: Enemies will have a really hard time hitting you. (They get at least -6 for not seeing you and will have to bring heavy enough firepower to shoot through the wall.)
-Bad: -6 attack for Blind Fire, another -2 for firing from cover.
B. Crouch completely behind the wall, pop up to take a shot or two, duck down again, relocate, pop up to shoot then dive down again etc.
+Good: Enemies will have a harder time hitting you, as they have to be quick enough to aim and fire when you pop up. (+4 defense for Good Cover)
-Bad: -2 Attack because you never really get time to aim = attacking from cover penalty.
C: Crouch behind the wall, elbows leaning on it for balance while you shoot your enemies.
+Good: Since at least part of your body (everything down from your chest) is behind the wall, enemies have a tougher time hitting you. (+2 defense, Partial Cover)
-Bad: No penalties for you other than the fact that you're easier to hit.
From your question, I think your problem is that you're getting lost in the whole time-paradox issue of turn based combat:
While it's true that at the table actions happen in turns, to the characters everything happens simultaneously.
So in above example, let's use option B.
At the table, GM says "Enemy shoots twice and misses both, Zilfer's turn. Your turn comes up and you say, "I stick out my head, fire twice and duck down again". Enemies turn comes up again and... You're out of sight behind a well! So he takes -6 for blind fire and has to try to shoot through the wall? NO! The time in which he preforms his actions is the same time in which you preform yours.
What happens in the game world is this:
"Zilfer pops up from behind the wall. Enemy swings his weapon in your direction before you get off a shot but was too quick to fire and misses. Zilfer returns fire and hits Enemy in the shoulder at the same time as enemy gets off his second shot. The impact screws up Enemies aim, his shot chips off some brick 20cm to your left. Zilfer quickly get off a second shot and dives back behind cover, preventing Enemy from getting a better aim at him."
My examples however aren't RAW because the Attacking From Cover thing doesn't differentiate between Good or Partial Cover.
By RAW, both B and C would cost you 2 dice on attack, but B'd still give you better cover than C, so always do B.
-
I think the -1 attacker shooting from cover modifier is accurate, it's not exactly perfect shooting stance when you're squatting behind a wall, leaning behind a corner with bullets taking chunks out of the stucco.
-
That's what my exact thoughts where but i wasnt 100% sure. I realized it's all going on at the same time and that's how i could rationalize it but i wanted to double check here before i came to my group with it to explain what's going on. though using structure to steady your aim seems like it would be a bonus not a hindrance.... but standing behind and then leaning out i could agree and now i see why it's there.
As always I thank you fellow board members for your quick responses and insightful posts as well as your inventive tweaks to the rules. :D
-
I think the -1 attacker shooting from cover modifier is accurate, it's not exactly perfect shooting stance when you're squatting behind a wall, leaning behind a corner with bullets taking chunks out of the stucco.
Bullet and wall fragments would fall under suppression. This example also demonstrates another reason cover is nice...without it, those bits of stucco would be bits of you.
Squatting wouldn't be a very good stance, no. Kneeling, sitting, or prone, however, is more stable than standing. If you are "popping in and out of cover" in such a way as to interfere with your accuracy, you are doing it wrong (reflected in a poor weapon skill, rather than a penalty).
If you're doing it right, you're not hopping in and out of a firing position - you're exposing only your weapon, one hand, and one eyeball, and engaging the Bad Guys. This makes you pretty hard to hit, and keeps you in the fight. Simply cowering behind a wall and popping out randomly to take shots might work in Hollywood, but the Bad Guys are going to move around and you're not going to know where until it's too late.
Go to a range and assume a proper firing position behind cover, and you will find you are, if anything, more accurate, due to being in a more stable, braced firing position. Personally, I recommend the VTAC 9 Hole Drill (http://10-8performance.blogspot.com/2011/05/aar-viking-tactics-carbine-15.html) (the link has pics of a couple good firing positions, but there's tons of vids and such out there if you care to see them).
-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate
-
Again that's why i have a problem with the -2 for shooting from cover. I just think you'd prope your gun against cover to make it "MORE" Stable rather then less. I may just do away with that moddifer i'm not 100% sure.
-
I believe the penalty is purely due to prioritising your safety over shooting them.
-
It all depends on the kind of cover you can get. For planning a perfect cover for an ambush you might be right.
But usually we are talking about improvised cover. For that i can see you not getting any extra stability for your shots as well as being hindered from shooting yourself, because the cover will restrict your area of fire.
If you stick your head out all the time, i just call the shot, for an +4DV and negating your cover all in one...
-
It all depends on the kind of cover you can get. For planning a perfect cover for an ambush you might be right.
But usually we are talking about improvised cover. For that i can see you not getting any extra stability for your shots as well as being hindered from shooting yourself, because the cover will restrict your area of fire.
If you stick your head out all the time, i just call the shot, for an +4DV and negating your cover all in one...
"Improvised cover?" As opposed to...what? A bunker? A bench rest? It is generally assumed that, if one is discussing cover in the context of CQB, it's improvised. If it's solid enough to stop a round, chances are you can use it to brace. If you follow the link, the pics and text are good examples from a professional shooter. What angle are you conceiving of needing to shoot from that the Viking barrier wouldn't simulate?
As anyone who has ever "sliced the pie" knows, cover is more about restricting the field of view of your opponent. You actually have physics on your side - vision is a cone. The person closest to the cover actually has the better field of view - they can actually see the Bad Guy before/while the Bad Guy can't see them.
Is the +4DV Called Shot is terribly different than the +4 Defense for Good Cover? Isn't shooting at the person in cover, rather than through the cover, effectively making a called shot? As was stated above, the turn-based nature of SR4 combat has all things occurring at basically the same time. If you shoot at the guy in cover and hit him...without shooting through the cover...then you made a called shot on whatever was exposed, at the time it was exposed.
I'm not conceptualizing what I think shooting in and around cover would be like - I'm forming an opinion based on having done so with a wide variety of different weapons and all kinds of cover...improvised and otherwise...over the better part of a decade. I think it's an unnecessary modifier...my SR4 group consists of myself, an ex-military nationally-ranked 1000-yard marksman, a weaponsmith who is also a pistol and 600-yard champion marksman, and a former Marine, and we all think it's an unnecessary modifier that adds complexity and reduces realism...but I'm not a game designer, nor are they. Maybe there's a good reason for it I just don't see.
*Shrug* It's RAW, so if you like the penalty, keep it.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
That sounds pretty impressive for those people you play with. :D
-
If it's solid enough to stop a round, chances are you can use it to brace [...] cover is more about restricting the field of view of your opponent.
That's exactly what shadowrun cover is - restricting field of view. You can't brace against draperies. Cover is abstract. If in your situation cover is also usable for bracing against, give extra boni for it. But most of the time it will not be the case.
What angle are you conceiving of needing to shoot from that the Viking barrier wouldn't simulate?
Its not about the angle, but imagine the barrier being half a meter thick now. You cones will just be thin lines. At the side your vision is still cut in half. Or its very soft and don't allow any bracing. The viking is an example for almost "perfect" cover. But you can't always choose your cover.
You actually have physics on your side - vision is a cone. The person closest to the cover actually has the better field of view - they can actually see the Bad Guy before/while the Bad Guy can't see them.
Unless you are looking through a one way mirror, i don't see how. If you can see his eyes, he can see your eyes.
-
If it's solid enough to stop a round, chances are you can use it to brace [...] cover is more about restricting the field of view of your opponent.
That's exactly what shadowrun cover is - restricting field of view. You can't brace against draperies. Cover is abstract. If in your situation cover is also usable for bracing against, give extra boni for it. But most of the time it will not be the case.
What angle are you conceiving of needing to shoot from that the Viking barrier wouldn't simulate?
Its not about the angle, but imagine the barrier being half a meter thick now. You cones will just be thin lines. At the side your vision is still cut in half. Or its very soft and don't allow any bracing. The viking is an example for almost "perfect" cover. But you can't always choose your cover.
You actually have physics on your side - vision is a cone. The person closest to the cover actually has the better field of view - they can actually see the Bad Guy before/while the Bad Guy can't see them.
Unless you are looking through a one way mirror, i don't see how. If you can see his eyes, he can see your eyes.
I'm pretty sure he's talking all about blind spots. The closer you are to a barrier the more it obscure's someone's vision of you. If you are 10 feet back from cover someone can see more of you. Take this example, a car behind you can't really see for 50 feet or so behind your car depending on your car so sitting in the front seat you look back through your car. The closer the person is to the back of your car the less you see of their body and the 'more' they see of you. If they are right on your tail they see pretty much all of you while you only see half of them. Now if they start walking backwards you begin to see their waist, their thigh, knees and eventually their feet. While they begin to see less and less of you.
Now your roles have switched, the person in the car is 'closer to cover' than the person further away making you have the advantage of seeing them much easier than they can see you because they are further away. Now your both looking at eachother form the same distance, but again the person that is "closest to cover" has the advantage.
I also don't think that shooting from cover your going to have soft squishy things all the time. In the room i'm in there are desks' counters I could stablize a gun on. in my house there's plenty of things. In an office there are plenty of things to stablize on. In a warehouse you have crates. Where per say are you going to be stablizing some of your gun fire on that it'd wouldn't help you fire? are we firing on top of a mound of blankets, or balloons?
Anyways correct me if i'm wrong Joe but i think what i said sums up what you were trying to say with that last part?
-
Draperies? ???
If I say "cover" and you think "draperies"...you're doing it wrong. :P
Cover generally isn't made of pillows, kittens, or other non-bullet resistant materials. You can conceal yourself behind these things, but they're not really cover. Perhaps SR4 doesn't differentiate between "cover" and "concealment/soft cover"...but it's kind of moot.
Even assuming draperies...seriously...draperies were cover, then, by all means, don't give a bracing bonus. I'm not even suggesting that cover necessarily grant a bracing bonus. I'm saying that firing from cover shouldn't be penalized.
The VTAC barrier doesn't represent "perfect cover" - actually, it's plywood, and wouldn't stop a .22 - it does, however represent a very wide assortment of firing positions from cover. What the cover is made out of is irrelevant. The point is that you can fire from horizontal, vertical, diagonal, slotted, even little openings down on the ground, from a stable firing position.
It is very easy to see someone when they can't see you, if you have an interposing object. (Google "slicing the pie" - I'm long-winded enough without holding a seminar on basic tactical doctrine.) While you are correct - if you can see their eyes, they can probably see you - but you don't have to see someone's eyes to shoot them. (This, plus the draperies, tells me we have a very different approach to problem solving. ;D)
But cover isn't even about who can see who's eyes. People attempting to defend the RAW penalty bring up things like hopping about or impaired views - my point is that this isn't the case. Stand at a corner, a tree, whatever, and look around the edge at someone standing in the open.
You can see all of them. Every last bit. If you're doing it right, they should see the muzzle of your weapon, one eyeball, and maybe a most of one hand. So who has the restricted viewing angle?
So even if said cover is made of bouncy castles and stuffed puppy dogs, whither the penalty to the individual in cover? He has an unrestricted view of his opponent, he can engage without the TJ Hooker Dive Roll or hopping about like a March hare, and he has a pretty stable firing platform from either standing, kneeling, or prone.
Cover is good stuff. Seeking it should be encouraged.
I've kind of derailed this into Houserule territory. My group Houserules the penalty out -- one less arbitrary modifier. That said, I never have a problem with someone playing the RAW version (well, okay, except maybe Scatter ;)).
-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate
-
You are stating the obvious: the reason why the other person gets -4 on the attack targeting the person behind cover.
While I was giving examples, in which the covered person would also get a -2 on his attacks.
Sometimes cover limits a character’s ability to see the action and obstructs his view of his target(s), even when he moves quickly out from behind cover to shoot. If the Attacker benefits from Good Cover, or his cover obscures his view, apply a –2 dice pool modifier to any attacks.
Joe: Yes, thats how SR defines cover, material doesn't matter:
the defender’s form is obscured by intervening terrain or other forms of cover such as brush, foliage, or various obstacles (crates, windows, doorways, curtains and the like)
Any yes, your example barrier is perfect cover and again i don't mean the material, but in this case the thickness. You are obscured, while having a "total" field of vision to the other side. 99% of times this will not be the case. read my examples again, please.
-
Ah I see. Still don't know where they get the idea that it's obscuring your view.... <.<
-
You are stating the obvious: the reason why the other person gets -4 on the attack targeting the person behind cover.
While I was giving examples, in which the covered person would also get a -2 on his attacks.
Sometimes cover limits a character’s ability to see the action and obstructs his view of his target(s), even when he moves quickly out from behind cover to shoot. If the Attacker benefits from Good Cover, or his cover obscures his view, apply a –2 dice pool modifier to any attacks.
Yes, and I disagree with the rule as it is written, for the above reasons.
(I agree...I am stating the obvious. ;))
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
And yes, i agree seeking cover is encouraged. It nets you a +2 bonus. +4 to your defense however often you will get attacked at, while being yourself only at a -2.
Imagine seeking cover behind a couch. It will be a very difficult position to hide behind there, while moving to another difficult position to shoot out from it.. unless you have a smartgun.
The rules themselves states, the -2 is optional depending on the kind of cover. All your examples are of course good examples of cover, but that won't be always possible. Thats all i am saying.
-
And yes, i agree seeking cover is encouraged. It nets you a +2 bonus. +4 to your defense however often you will get attacked at, while being yourself only at a -2.
Imagine seeking cover behind a couch. It will be a very difficult position to hide behind there, while moving to another difficult position to shoot out from it.. unless you have a smartgun.
The rules themselves states, the -2 is optional depending on the kind of cover. All your examples are of course good examples of cover, but that won't be always possible. Thats all i am saying.
Per your own citing of RAW, the -2 for Good Cover isn't optional.
If you are in Good Cover, you get the -2 penalty.
If it were an optional -2 for people seeking cover that specifically required unique contortions, then...well..that's a penalty for shooting from a weird position. If you're penalizing for a weird position, make it a -2 penalty for Weird Position, rather than a blanket penalty -2 for whenever you're smart enough to find more than 50% cover.
-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate
-
don't forget,
If the target has good cover, he gets +4 to defense.
If the attacker is blind firing (can't see target at all), attacker get -6 to attack.
Possible total bonus: +10 to the target ( -6 for the attack, +4 for defense.)
sometimes it's worth while to hide behind the couch, screaming like a little girl.... until someone else draws his fire.
Attacking from cover negative attack modifier makes some sense to me, i see it as you are trying to fire quickly while keeping the best cover you can. That means you are probably not employing proper firing/shooting techniques, or your ability to bring the weapon to bear is extremely limited in you alloted time... (if you have an IP of 3, firing a semi-auto pistol, you are coming up from cover, bring weapon to bare, firing TWICE and ducking back to cover as best you can in 0.6666667 seconds... that's hella fast!!)
Sadly, I couldn't find anythign about "bracing" a weapon in the rules :-\ Could someone direct me to the book/page? (thank you!)
And as usual, you don't have to use every single rule, or rules you don't like. Change things to suit your gmae/players/play style. Enjoy the game and your buddies!
-
Forget? We just had a whole thread about it. :P
(Don't get me started on time in SR. It's an abstract. That's all that we need to know. The fact that it's just not that fast isn't important. What's important is how fast one character is in relation to another.)
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
So you think your fast...? *twirls pistol in hand*
XD i could see one of my character's doing that except the one that would be doing it is a mage! XD
-
So you think your fast...? *twirls pistol in hand*
XD i could see one of my character's doing that except the one that would be doing it is a mage! XD
If my Mage twirled his revolver, he'd probably shoot himself...
...which would be a marked improvement over his usual level of accuracy.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist