[skalchemist]

I'm drawing a blank, can attack ratings go negative?  Or are you unable to attack in that circumstance? 

I thought you couldn't attack at all, but now I cannot find that rule, so I think I might have imagined it.

[Michael Chandra]

If a weapon starts at - AR, then you can't attack, but there's no rule afaik on 'negative AR means no attack possible'.

On the other hand, that IS something I'm houseruling asap. O_O That way assault rifles are nerfed down on extreme ranges.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

It's my opinion that if an Attack Rating is modified to 0 or below, it counts as a "-" and no attack is possible at that range.

[Hobbes]

Have to disagree with a negative AR being the same as "-".  Using Burst Fire at Long or Extreme range shouldn't make it impossible to hit something.  Give the defender the point of edge and roll your dice.

Presuming Firing Mode / Burst Fire or whatever is what is lowering your AR.  Not sure what else does....?

[0B]

Have to disagree with a negative AR being the same as "-".  Using Burst Fire at Long or Extreme range shouldn't make it impossible to hit something.  Give the defender the point of edge and roll your dice.

Presuming Firing Mode / Burst Fire or whatever is what is lowering your AR.  Not sure what else does....?

Agreed- if anything, using burst fire should increase weapon range. I could see some conditions making fire ineffective at certain ranges (Visibility, weather, etc). However, switching to "spraying" your weapon rather than precision shooting increases its effective range.

[Michael Chandra]

Disagree. If negative AR is a problem for you, then you should get some AR-mods on your gun instead. You can reach +6 AR even in BF mode on an Alpha, so just get the tools you need to fire at that range then. All it takes is a Bipod or Tripod and you're already good. Unsupported spraying with negative AR should just miss when your target is >500m out.

[Xenon]

It's my opinion that if an Attack Rating is modified to 0 or below, it counts as a "-" and no attack is possible at that range.

This.

(but there is nothing about this rule wise)


And no, it is not easier to burst fire targets that are hundreds meter away. At that range you always switch to semi auto. At least if you are using an assault rifle.

It make perfect sense that some weapons can be used at long or extreme range while others can't. It also make perfect sense that some weapons (such as mounted heavy machine guns) are better suited for using automatic fire at long or extreme range.


From the sticky house rule thread :

Range categories and Attack Rating
If a weapon does not have an Attack Rating in a certain range category, it cannot be used at that range. Also, if a weapon does not have an adjusted Attack Rating (after applying firing modes, accessories, statuses and ammunition etc) of 1 or more in a certain range category, it cannot be used with that combination at that range.

[Hobbes]

We're talking some corner cases here, stock Assault Rifles, using SA/BF/FA at Extreme Range (or in the specific case of the FN-HAR, Full Auto at Far Range), or the Stoner-Ares, and Ingram Valiant using Full Auto at Extreme Range.

500+ Meter shots just don't come up all that often in Shadowrun.  If your table wants that to be Single Shot only, go for it.  (or require the assorted Gas Vents and Bipods).

I would think an FN HAR at 250+m would still be dangerous on Full Auto.  I know I'd be worried 

   

[Lormyr]

I'll echo Hobbes on this one. It's unlikely to come up a lot, and if it does, I personally don't see any good reason to invent a rule preventing an attack that will pretty much auto award your target Edge (I would imagine their DR is at least 4).

Edit: I want to elaborate a little. Whatever happened to just playing a game using the rules of the game? If that SA/BF/FA firing at penalty makes attacking with insert weapon here an AR of 0, so you determine that should not be possible and they have to switch to insert other weapon here that likely has very little mechanical difference in stats (maybe 1 DV) but substantially better AR because it is above 0, what is really the difference there that we need to invent rules to prevent it?

For example, I want to shoot my Ares Alpha in BF mode at max range so I can score a 6DV hit. My GM decides I can't, because they don't like the idea of me being able to use a weapon with AR 0. I switch to my Remington 900, fire that in SA mode, for a 6DV hit with AR 12.

Is that really worth making up rules over? Weapons in this edition are nearly identical mechanically, so what is the value of that hassle and annoyance to the player?

[skalchemist]

It's my opinion that if an Attack Rating is modified to 0 or below, it counts as a "-" and no attack is possible at that range.

This.

(but there is nothing about this rule wise)

I figured out where I was getting this idea from.  The Spirit rules say that if the spirit's force is low enough that the AR calculation is negative then the spirit cannot attack at that range (pg 147 I think).  But there seems to be no general rule along these lines for non-spirit attacks.

To my mind it makes sense that if the AR goes to zero or less you cannot successfully attack.  But only slight more sense; I can see it both ways.  The most obviously place it would come up in play is extreme range attacks with faster firing modes.

[Banshee]

It's my opinion that if an Attack Rating is modified to 0 or below, it counts as a "-" and no attack is possible at that range.

This.

(but there is nothing about this rule wise)

I figured out where I was getting this idea from.  The Spirit rules say that if the spirit's force is low enough that the AR calculation is negative then the spirit cannot attack at that range (pg 147 I think).  But there seems to be no general rule along these lines for non-spirit attacks.

To my mind it makes sense that if the AR goes to zero or less you cannot successfully attack.  But only slight more sense; I can see it both ways.  The most obviously place it would come up in play is extreme range attacks with faster firing modes.

It supposed to be if the AR starts at zero for that range then you can't attack .. modified AR does not effect the ability to attack... just whether it's a good idea or not from edge perspective.

The comment about spirits is on how you calculate their "starting" AR ... i.e. stronger spirits have greater range.

[Michael Chandra]

That's also how I read that, simply 'if the spirit is <=0, it counts as -'.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Well I figured that <1 = -  gets around potential abuse involving scopes.  If your AR is already super low where you're not gaining the edge, then the cogent concern is whether or not the defender gains edge.  Saying <1 = no attack at least prevents shenanigans involving "yeah I'm using automatic fire at extreme range, doesn't matter!  I have a scope!"

[Banshee]

Well I figured that >1 = -  gets around potential abuse involving scopes.  If your AR is already super low where you're not gaining the edge, then the cogent concern is whether or not the defender gains edge.  Saying >1 = no attack at least prevents shenanigans involving "yeah I'm using automatic fire at extreme range, doesn't matter!  I have a scope!"

If the weapon had an AR <=1 without modifications at extreme range I don't see the issue.

That why is support that only the baseline AR should determine range capability... adding a scope should not actually extend the range of any given weapon just make it better at its "normal" ranges, and extend that same principle to all weapon modifications

[Michael Chandra]

I think SSDR accidentally did >1 when meant <1, aka 'if you modify from X to <1, it should turn into not-possible', not 'you can modify a - into an X to allow attacking outside your range'.