Action and Combat - Open Discussion

Fri, 2017-06-16 00:27

#102

o11o1

Full Defense against PSI when

Full Defense against PSI when you're not PSI looks a lot like repeating some sort of mantra or imagining brick walls.

—

A slight smell of ions....

Fri, 2017-06-16 17:49

#103

eaton

So, in contrast to my usual

So, in contrast to my usual high-falutin' mechanics theory, I've got some concrete feedback on the combat chapter. I really like the explicit list of "Weapon Traits" like Fixed, Armor Piercing, No Close Range, and so on. Some additions that I think would be useful to add to that table: Single-Use: Breaks or becomes unusable after one attack. (Used by disposable launchers) Fragile: Snaps, breaks, or becomes unusable on superior failures. (used by the monofilament garotte) Accurate: No range modifiers apply to attacks with this weapon. (Used by accushot ammo) It's a little bit of planning ahead, but treating all three as distinct weapon traits makes mixing and matching certain special behaviors on homebrew weapons (or future expansions) more straightforward.

Sun, 2017-06-18 12:11

#104

DivineWrath DivineWrath's picture

Some feedback.

Some feedback. p. 33

Quote:
Most synthmorphs and objects do not heal on their own and must be repaired. Some are equipped with self-repair systems that func- tion the same as medichines (p. XX). Repair spray can be used to make fixes and functions the same as nanobandages (max 3 uses per day). [B]Synthmorphs and objects may also be repaired in a nano- fabrication machine with the appropriate blueprints; treat this the same as a healing vat.[/B]

Emphasis mine. You might want to rethink that line. If fabrication times are the same for EP2 as they were in EP1, then its often quicker to print a new synthmorph or object than to use healing vat times. p. 33-34

Quote:
Physical Repair: Manually repairing a synthmorph or object requires a Hardware Test using a field appropriate to the item (Hardware: Robotics for synthmorphs and bots, Hardware: Aerospace for aircraft, etc.). Repair is a task action with a timeframe of 1 hour per 5 points of damage being restored, plus 8 hours per wound. Appropriate modifiers should be applied, based on conditions and available tools.

Do you need to repair everything in one go, or can you pick and choose what to repair? What if you had only 4 hours to do repairs for a 12 hour repair job?

Sun, 2017-06-18 18:39

#105

ubik2

DivineWrath wrote:If

DivineWrath wrote:
If fabrication times are the same for EP2 as they were in EP1, then its often quicker to print a new synthmorph or object than to use healing vat times.

Healing Vats take "2 hours / wound" (Actions and Combat: page 33). Fabrication time for a synthmorph is "1 week + 1 per MP" (Acquiring Gear and Morphs: page 5). If there's missing limbs (2 days to replace), it looks like it's still faster to repair. If the whole body is missing, it will take 30 days to repair, so in that case, for an inexpensive morph (Case/Dragonfly/Synth), you'd probably just replace it, but for any of the other synthmorphs, it's better to repair. There's also the strain of resleeving (which isn't needed if you stay in the nanofab), but I imagine you'd want a new shell anyhow while that one is being repaired, if it will take more than a couple days. For an object of Major complexity, you're looking at 1 day to fabricate a new one, so if the object is missing limbs, you'd replace it, but if it's just wounded, you'd repair it. A Moderate complexity object should be repaired with 4 or fewer wounds. A Minor complexity object should only be repaired if it has one or fewer wounds.

Mon, 2017-06-19 16:35

#106

less3r

Semi-Auto

Does it say anywhere in there if weapons fired in Semi-Auto mode still get two attacks / two attack rolls for every Attack Complex Action? If so I (clearly) didn't see it.

Mon, 2017-06-19 16:51

#107

Grim G

eaton wrote:So, in contrast

eaton wrote:
So, in contrast to my usual high-falutin' mechanics theory, I've got some concrete feedback on the combat chapter. I really like the explicit list of "Weapon Traits" like Fixed, Armor Piercing, No Close Range, and so on. Some additions that I think would be useful to add to that table: Single-Use: Breaks or becomes unusable after one attack. (Used by disposable launchers) Fragile: Snaps, breaks, or becomes unusable on superior failures. (used by the monofilament garotte) Accurate: No range modifiers apply to attacks with this weapon. (Used by accushot ammo) It's a little bit of planning ahead, but treating all three as distinct weapon traits makes mixing and matching certain special behaviors on homebrew weapons (or future expansions) more straightforward.

I never understood the idea of "disposable" launchers. I mean, yeah the ammo would probably be a pain to carry around, but to say there's no way to reload it seems crazy.

Mon, 2017-06-19 17:09

#108

swordchucks swordchucks's picture

Finally... But only half way.

I'll admit that I've been sort of avoiding this chapter, or, at least, saving it for last. So... fresh eyes on it. This is just the first half of it, too. Hopefully, I'll get through the rest soon. p2 - Step 1: Declare Attack The first sentence is... a little odd. "On their turn in the Initiative order, a character may initiate an attack using the [i]attack[/i] complex action." might be better. Similarly, "the nature of the attack must be declared" feels weird. Maybe "The target or targets and method of attack must be declared as part of the [i]attack[/i] action, which will determine the skill which is rolled against." p2 - Step 2: Declare Defense What do you use to avoid an explosion? That comes up enough that a brief mention here wouldn't be weird. p2 - Step 5: Determine Result To avoid confusion, mention of the attacker's critical beating a higher, non-critical success by the defender is missing. It refers back to Opposed Tests here, but some of the other aspects are glossed over (namely, ties) so it may have newer players a bit confused. The same note applies to the summary on p3. p2 - Step 6: Roll Damage I'd add something in this bit harkening to the bonus damage for autofire. "Superior results and autofire bonuses may increase..." maybe? p2 - Step 9: Determine Wounds "two or more factors beyond" is just odd phrasing. I know what it means from EP1, but I'm not sure a new player would. I'd expect to see the word "multiples" in here, but I'm kind of drawing a blank on how to make it work. p3 - Melee Combat It's just fluff, but it might be worth a throw-away line about how melee weapons are still in use because they're easy to conceal and obtain, even on fairly strict habitats. Really, it's the main reason you see folks with axes and batons in a game. p3 - Melee Ware Under the Melee Weapons heading, it has a note about the skill used. Should we get one about using the Melee skill under this heading, too? p3 - Piston Spike I think I'm in love with the piston spike that leaves a minigrenade in the hole it makes. p4 - Melee Attacks Is there any reason Eelware doesn't have an average damage? Unarmed gets one and it has the same die type. Mention of how the * pistons interact with armor when they deliver their grenade would be nice. I assume that if the spear gets through the armor on the attack, then the grenade ignores the armor. However, I can see it being an argument. p3-5 - Melee Combat One thing I don't like a whole lot about the current system is that there's no nod to morph in the melee combat section. A fury with a sword hits just as hard as a flat. That's... not really great. The only way to excel in melee combat is to have more arms and thus more weapons. p6 - Ammunition and Reloading This feels like an unnecessary shift. You're trading one kind of complexity for a different kind of complexity and it doesn't make a huge amount of simulationist sense, either. Is having weapons have "shots" and having the firing modes consume x shots such an issue? p6 - Indirect Fire Reading this, it seems like you can use indirect fire with any weapon. Is that intentional? p7 - Ranged Modifiers I like that smartlink is now assumed in the base roll. You probably do need to add "Single Shot" to the firing modes section (probably on the same line as SA). p8 - Battle Laser I'd appreciate some clarity on what "mounted" means in this context. Can a morph of a certain size mount it? Vehicle only? p8 - Laser Pulser Does the plasma effect work in vacuum? p8 - Microwave Agonizer What lets you ignore the "move away" effect? If this is just the Pain effect, it may be clearer to cite that here. p8 - Beam and Spray Weapons Overall, I like that the weapons are more universally useful now. The Laser Pulser is at least as potent as a base machine pistol, though larger and without ammo options. That's a lot better than it was in EP1. p8 - Freezer/Shards & Drugs/Toxins One thing about these guys in EP1 was always that the cost of using toxins/drugs in spray weapons was insanely expensive. Some info on how this works (cost-wise) in this edition will be very necessary. I'm happy for them to be more expensive... just not insanely expensive. p10 - Polyguns I'm less interested in these weapons as shapeshifting between weapons and more interested in their ability to assume less detectable forms. I'd like to see the rules on that. p16 - Inspire I don't see why you can't do this for fellow PCs. It'd give the social character something to do. p17 - Confused I've... never really been a fan of this type of condition. Someone with their wits scrambled is more likely to hunker down (which is sort or like the low result, but not quite) or stumble around aimlessly (probably out of cover, if they were in it).

Mon, 2017-06-19 18:16

#109

Surly

Is there a particular reason

Is there a particular reason the Laser Pulser and Particle Beam have knockdown? Makes sense for the laser pulser's stun mode, but I don't don't see how a laser or reasonable-sized particle beam can carry enough momentum to knock someone down. Maybe give them better blinding capabilities? Should multiple ranged weapons work like burst attacks, rather than multiple separate attacks? Same way extra melee weapons work, faster to resolve, and reduces ambidexterous-octomorph shenanigans. Editing issue - the >>>+30? at the bottom of p. 23. I like the way time has become a resource. The downtime and stuff-acquisition systems, the armor mods, current Rep and Resources, all converge on making the amount of time you have to get stuff before a mission as much something to manage as wealth is. I think it works very well! That and morph points seem to naturally lead to well-balanced groups and good pacing.

Mon, 2017-06-19 18:34

#110

ubik2

Grim G wrote:I never

Grim G wrote:
I never understood the idea of "disposable" launchers. I mean, yeah the ammo would probably be a pain to carry around, but to say there's no way to reload it seems crazy.

For weapons like the M72 LAW, the launcher is basically just part of the ammunition. After shooting the rocket, nobody wants to carry around the empty tube until they get back and resupply. If they need 2 rockets, they just grab 2 of the disposable launchers (each loaded with the one shot). There's also some safety benefits, in case the tube gets damaged or warped by the exhaust. The launcher is a bit like the brass case for bullets. You can collect them, and reuse them, but most people don't bother.

Mon, 2017-06-19 19:14

#111

ubik2

swordchucks wrote:p2 - Step 9

swordchucks wrote:
p2 - Step 9: Determine Wounds "two or more factors beyond" is just odd phrasing. I know what it means from EP1, but I'm not sure a new player would. I'd expect to see the word "multiples" in here, but I'm kind of drawing a blank on how to make it work.

"two or more multiples of" would make sense to me, as would "two or more times". Factors is really the other direction (divisors).

swordchucks wrote:
p3-5 - Melee Combat One thing I don't like a whole lot about the current system is that there's no nod to morph in the melee combat section. A fury with a sword hits just as hard as a flat. That's... not really great. The only way to excel in melee combat is to have more arms and thus more weapons.

It would be nice if you could spend a Vigor point to add 1d6 to the damage of a melee attack, though it's probably not that optimal. The Muscle Augmentation ware (from the Enforcer gear set) does provide +1d6 DV.

swordchucks wrote:
p8 - Laser Pulser Does the plasma effect work in vacuum?

You've turned the outer layer of the target into plasma. I don't think there's enough time for this to appreciably diffuse into the vacuum before that second blast of energy hits it (just as there's not enough time for it to diffuse into the atmosphere).

Surly wrote:
Is there a particular reason the Laser Pulser and Particle Beam have knockdown? Makes sense for the laser pulser's stun mode, but I don't don't see how a laser or reasonable-sized particle beam can carry enough momentum to knock someone down. Maybe give them better blinding capabilities?

I'm not certain of the model, but I imagine what's happening is that each pulse of the laser (non PEP mode) is causing a layer of the target to explode, then a small delay for the area to clear, and another blast of energy, and another tiny explosion. It's those surface explosions that knock them down, and the momentum comes from their armor (or flesh). I don't know how you would make a particle beam work in atmosphere, but the vacuum version would cause knockback the same way as the laser. The outer layer of the target explodes, knocking them down. At these energy densities, it's like all armor is reactive armor, which is part of why it's hard to make these weapons as effective as the lower speed kinetic weapons. I think that for particle beams in atmosphere, you'd essentially fire some pre-beam that blasts all the air out of the way (hole-boring), eventually clearing a relatively obstacle free path to your target.

Mon, 2017-06-19 19:57

#112

Trappedinwikipedia Trappedinwikipedia's picture

IIRC charged particle beams

IIRC charged particle beams are self-focusing in atmosphere, so nothing fancy required.

Tue, 2017-06-20 12:04

#113

ThatWhichNeverWas ThatWhichNeverWas's picture

One day I will learn to post quickly. This is not that day.

less3r wrote:
Does it say anywhere in there if weapons fired in Semi-Auto mode still get two attacks / two attack rolls for every Attack Complex Action? If so I (clearly) didn't see it.

I think they don't - they simply aren't subject to SS's 1 shot/round restriction. ----- I'll try and post more tomorrow, but in advance of that: Can we PLEASE change the Freezer so that targets are [Grappled] instead of [Paralyzed]? It would make things so much easier (and make it less of a on-hit-kill monster). Beyond that, I'd kinda like to see it removed as a unique weapon - it can be a Sprayer loaded with the Freezer-Foam chemical. Then we can have freezer grenades, Spray cans for instant cover... all sorts of fun toys.

—

In the past we've had to compensate for weaknesses, finding quick solutions that only benefit a few. But what if we never need to feel weak or morally conflicted again?

Tue, 2017-06-20 14:21

#114

DivineWrath DivineWrath's picture

ubik2 wrote:DivineWrath wrote

ubik2 wrote:
DivineWrath wrote:
If fabrication times are the same for EP2 as they were in EP1, then its often quicker to print a new synthmorph or object than to use healing vat times.
Healing Vats take "2 hours / wound" (Actions and Combat: page 33). Fabrication time for a synthmorph is "1 week + 1 per MP" (Acquiring Gear and Morphs: page 5). If there's missing limbs (2 days to replace), it looks like it's still faster to repair. If the whole body is missing, it will take 30 days to repair, so in that case, for an inexpensive morph (Case/Dragonfly/Synth), you'd probably just replace it, but for any of the other synthmorphs, it's better to repair. There's also the strain of resleeving (which isn't needed if you stay in the nanofab), but I imagine you'd want a new shell anyhow while that one is being repaired, if it will take more than a couple days. For an object of Major complexity, you're looking at 1 day to fabricate a new one, so if the object is missing limbs, you'd replace it, but if it's just wounded, you'd repair it. A Moderate complexity object should be repaired with 4 or fewer wounds. A Minor complexity object should only be repaired if it has one or fewer wounds.

The more I read this, the more I realize that I'm not sure what the different rates are for building stuff. It isn't very clear. Is the one week for building synthmorph in a garage using spare parts, for being printed by a CM machine, or building everything from nothing (print the parts instead of using off the shelf parts).

Wed, 2017-06-21 12:58

#115

less3r

Per Acquiring Gear and Morphs

DivineWrath wrote:
ubik2 wrote:
Healing Vats take "2 hours / wound" (Actions and Combat: page 33). Fabrication time for a synthmorph is "1 week + 1 per MP" (Acquiring Gear and Morphs: page 5). If there's missing limbs (2 days to replace), it looks like it's still faster to repair. If the whole body is missing, it will take 30 days to repair, so in that case, for an inexpensive morph (Case/Dragonfly/Synth), you'd probably just replace it, but for any of the other synthmorphs, it's better to repair. There's also the strain of resleeving (which isn't needed if you stay in the nanofab), but I imagine you'd want a new shell anyhow while that one is being repaired, if it will take more than a couple days. For an object of Major complexity, you're looking at 1 day to fabricate a new one, so if the object is missing limbs, you'd replace it, but if it's just wounded, you'd repair it. A Moderate complexity object should be repaired with 4 or fewer wounds. A Minor complexity object should only be repaired if it has one or fewer wounds.
The more I read this, the more I realize that I'm not sure what the different rates are for building stuff. It isn't very clear. Is the one week for building synthmorph in a garage using spare parts, for being printed by a CM machine, or building everything from nothing (print the parts instead of using off the shelf parts).

Per Acquiring Gear and Morphs, page 5 (June 8 version) "Making Morphs" Section Building a synth requires blueprints and a nanofabricator (I assume medical facility is for bio only). Timeframe = (1+MP) weeks to build a synth. (Skills required are Hardware: Robotics and Program) So the rules assume printing parts. This makes sense for the lore, since only hypercorps and the outer system have access to this level of printing. I suppose morphs are too complex to just use spare parts.

Thu, 2017-06-22 08:56

#116

ThatWhichNeverWas ThatWhichNeverWas's picture

Okay, finally have some time.

First, the quick stuff: - As I mentioned before, make the freezer Grapple instead of Paralysing so that the target has a way out. - Include a note by Fray/Full defence saying whether bonuses to Fray are applied Before or After it's halved vs ranged attacks. - Have cover apply a bonus to Fray instead of a penalty to hit. - Make an explicit upper limit to 'Beyond Range', presumably if it would entail a penalty greater than -60. - Put Ranged Attacks before Melee Attacks, and put the Melee Rules before the Melee Ware/Weapons so that both subsections follow the same format. - Move the 'Weapon Traits' and 'Conditions' lists to the Ranged Combat rules (after Suppressive Fire for example), so that readers understand what the keywords mean before they're used descriptively. - This might be just me, but can we rename 'Hollow-Point' smart ammo to 'Anti-Personnel'? - In the 'Specific Target' called shot subsection, have it point to the Conditions list (subject to GM approval) rather than simply using Blinding as an example. - Move the rules for wielding extra Ranged/Melee weapons to the Ranged Attacks and Melee Attacks subsections respectively. - List the Action Types used for Social Attacks in combat. - Add a note to the Blindness or Healing and Repair section saying how long it takes to recover from inflicted blindness. As a personal preference, I'd make this pretty quick, on the scale of a hour or two assuming biomods are present. This would make the Status less insanely powerful, and can be justified due to the functional simplicity of the repair – a few layers of cells need replacing, not bulk tissue. If it comes up, I'd do the same for deafness due to damage to the eardrum or other membranes. ----- Action Economy ----- I put this in the other thread, but I really want to see more Quick Action options. I won't repeat the other thread too much, but here are some things I think would be good choices from this section: - Calling a Shot (instead of the -10 modifier) - Aggressive Melee Attacks (instead of the Fray penalty) - Firing Full Auto (Having to stabilise the weapon, makes Not Firing Full Auto an actual choice) - Stabilising a Fixed Weapon (Can fire without the -20 to hit) - Ducking behind cover (Increases effective cover modifier) - BlindSight (Roll perception, success reduces penalties for blindness until the next turn) ----- Healing and Repair ----- I don't know if this is a super idea, but would it be possible to attach healing to the recharge system instead of a general timeframe? This would reduce the tome/bookkeeping, and re-enforce the concept of Recharges as low-exertion moments where the Morph can put itself to rights. Of the top of my head, I'd suggest: - No Biomods – 1d10 Per Long Recharge - Biomods – 1d6 per Short Recharge, 1d10 Per Long Recharge - Medichines - 1d10 per Short Recharge, 4d10 Per Long Recharge Also, please change the Poor/Harsh Conditions table entries, the multiplier is misleading. ----- Mental Stress ----- This is a crosspost (partial copy/past too) with the Psi thread, but I'd like to see Stress retooled to represent short-term rather than long-term conditions. This means the 'healing' rate would be significantly increased to be on par with Durability, but damaging effects would become more common. Most significantly, this would mean that effects like Shocking and Stunning attacks, Sedatives and other drugs, Sleight-based attacks, and Microwave Agonizer Pain would all inflict Stress. Running out of SV would result in loss of conciousness, or another effect defined by the source (for example, a combat drug could make the target go into a berserker rage) so long as the effect is the character becoming uncontrollable or otherwise leaving play. Long term effects would then use a variant on the Infection Rating/Strain system; the character has an 'Instability' rating equal to 10 +20 for each Disorder they possess. Other ego traits could also change this base value, and short term bonuses/penalties would come from the situation. When the character encounters a source of stress/instability, they have to roll against this value to avoid triggering their disorder's associated behaviours. Failing to comply with their compulsions inflicts SV. As characters are exposed to disturbing situations they become more and more burdened with psychological problems (negative traits), which in turn affect their actions/effectiveness in-game, until they finally break down (Base Instability 100>), and stop being a player character. Would this be doable, assuming it makes sense?

—

In the past we've had to compensate for weaknesses, finding quick solutions that only benefit a few. But what if we never need to feel weak or morally conflicted again?

Thu, 2017-06-22 15:43

#117

ubik2

less3r wrote:So the rules

less3r wrote:
So the rules assume printing parts. This makes sense for the lore, since only hypercorps and the outer system have access to this level of printing. I suppose morphs are too complex to just use spare parts.

I actually think there aren't usually spare parts in this futuristic world. You have feedstock, and you print what you need on the fly. When you decommission a robot, you don't keep the working parts, you just put them all in the recycler (where they become feedstock), and next time you need an arm, you print the one you need. Of course, spare parts exist for more reasons than this. We're not given fabrication times for really simple stuff, but if your tire just blew up, you probably don't want to wait 2 hours for a new one. It's possible you have a fabber for that that can build you a new tire fast, but otherwise, you would probably carry a spare. The books don't mention fabrication of trivial items that might be required for repair, but presumably these time costs are part of the task timeframe. That would mean it doesn't actually take 2 hours to print the new tire you need, in which case, you might not need a spare after all.

Thu, 2017-06-22 16:01

#118

ubik2

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:-

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
- Have cover apply a bonus to Fray instead of a penalty to hit

This doesn't handle the case where the defender isn't aware. In reality, it affects both rolls (the attacker needs to shoot at a smaller area, and the defender has an easy place to get to to avoid being hit). That seems like overkill for game rules, though.

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
- Make an explicit upper limit to 'Beyond Range', presumably if it would entail a penalty greater than -60.

Probably want to do something about the accushot ammo interaction here, but maybe you just mean no more than 6 range increments. Perhaps the range penalties should also apply even in zero-g, since the arc you need to hit does shrink. I think the recent sniper rifle record would have been at -70 (range increment 500m), but a limit of -60 makes more sense in this game.

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
- Calling a Shot (instead of the -10 modifier)

Is there a mechanical difference between this and taking quick aim (+10) together with a called shot (-10) for a net 0 modifier?

Thu, 2017-06-29 11:01

#119

ThatWhichNeverWas ThatWhichNeverWas's picture

Firing Full Auto means my bullets travel further.

ubik2 wrote:
This doesn't handle the case where the defender isn't aware. In reality, it affects both rolls (the attacker needs to shoot at a smaller area, and the defender has an easy place to get to to avoid being hit).

True, but attack penalties are fairly easy to overcome one way or another, whilst a bonus to the defender has a statistically greater effect in the long run. Seeing as a defender will only be unaware at most one round per combat encounter if at all, this makes cover much more relevant in the majority of cases. I'd also argue that Unaware defenders should be allowed to Fray at -30 when unaware because presumably they're still moving and could get lucky, but that's just me.

ubik2 wrote:
Probably want to do something about the accushot ammo interaction here, but maybe you just mean no more than 6 range increments.

Accushot is relevant, but shenanigans are possible even without it because of the way modifiers are calculated at the moment: An HMG with Superior Position, a Complex Aim and firing Full Auto can get a +80 to hit off the bat, so it can be combined with up to -140 in range penalties to hit something up to 7km (!) away... and then you spend a Point to ignore the penalties. If realism is an issue, the limit can be written as “Attacks further than X cannot be performed in normal combat”, if only because at that point it's more of a plot device anyway.

ubik2 wrote:
Is there a mechanical difference between this and taking quick aim (+10) together with a called shot (-10) for a net 0 modifier?

As per the current version no, though there is a psychological difference between choosing a special effect in exchange for a Penalty, and choosing between a special effect and a numerical bonus. What it does is make certain actions incompatible – you can't combine a Called Shot with active perception, because you're concentrating on the target rather than your surroundings. The more options are moved to the quick action slot the more interesting it becomes; it forces the players to make more decisions, can be used to limit powerful and/or nonsensical combinations (Full Auto + Called shot, anyone?), and creates points of interaction for Gear/Traits. I'm not a fan of '(10) Quick Aim (20) Full Auto Attack (30) GoTo 10'.

—

In the past we've had to compensate for weaknesses, finding quick solutions that only benefit a few. But what if we never need to feel weak or morally conflicted again?

Thu, 2017-06-29 11:25

#120

eaton

Quote:The more options are

Quote:
The more options are moved to the quick action slot the more interesting it becomes; it forces the players to make more decisions, can be used to limit powerful and/or nonsensical combinations (Full Auto + Called shot, anyone?), and creates points of interaction for Gear/Traits.

Just gonna draw a big circle around this and nod vigorously. That's a very succinct summary of my feelings, too.

Thu, 2017-06-29 18:17

#121

o11o1

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:The

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
The more options are moved to the quick action slot the more interesting it becomes; it forces the players to make more decisions, can be used to limit powerful and/or nonsensical combinations (Full Auto + Called shot, anyone?), and creates points of interaction for Gear/Traits. I'm not a fan of '(10) Quick Aim (20) Full Auto Attack (30) GoTo 10'.

Strongly agree. It's part of why I feel a lot of the movement actions should be moved to Quick Actions. (taking cover, say?)

—

A slight smell of ions....

Sun, 2017-07-02 01:42

#122

o11o1

After looking over the Stress

After looking over the Stress rules, I've realized there is an entire category missing! Mundane stress, the usual pressures of trying to survive in the world. Being fired from a job, being charged criminally, running out of credits or rep. Being humiliated in public. I'm not saying these should get a full chart on their own, but it'd be worth mentioning with the other "types" of stress. I feel that most of them would be 1d6, or "flat 1 if you fail the WIL test". It wouldn't come up a -lot- I feel, but it helps make the rules feel like they're still part of the world even when you're not running around on Firewall related adventures.

—

A slight smell of ions....

Sun, 2017-07-02 09:07

#123

Urthdigger Urthdigger's picture

o11o1 wrote:Mundane stress,

o11o1 wrote:
Mundane stress, the usual pressures of trying to survive in the world. Being fired from a job, being charged criminally, running out of credits or rep. Being humiliated in public.

Fairly certain all forms of mundane stress fall under helplessness.

Sun, 2017-07-02 13:20

#124

Thraidh

o11o1 wrote:Strongly agree.

o11o1 wrote:
Strongly agree. It's part of why I feel a lot of the movement actions should be moved to Quick Actions. (taking cover, say?)

Last time we played with just one Complex and one Quick Action, where Moving was considered a Quick Action, too. Also getting into and out of cover. Full Defense and Shooting was a Complex action. So, if you were in cover you had to go out of cover as a quick action and shoot, but then you were exposed until your next turn. That made the fight more exciting. Even with this, my players defeated their foes without any problem, because one full auto hit basically kills a person. That means any real threat has to have at least 20 armor. I like full auto to be a quick action to get the hit or DV bonus. I'll try that next time. I'd probably still allow to have a player run 20 meters while shooting at multiple enemies, but then without any bonus, maybe even with a malus? One more thing: an opposed check where both opponents roll a critical success, should just be treated as a normal success for the higher roller, instead of penalizing the worse roller with a crit fail. Players see that as very unfair to take a rare crit success from them and even more unfair to turn it into a crit fail. Consider: A shoots at B. A rolls 44, which means a rare and very accurate shot. B rolls 33 on Fray, which is basically a Matrix-like dodge manouver. Now try to explain player B, why his 33 crit success is the same as a 88 crit fail. This is viewed as supremely unfair. Saying that the defense was superb, but the shot even better, is a lot easier to explain and the players will understand it. So the crits cancel each other and it is just treated like a normal success. tl;dr: a crit success should always be something good. In an opposed check crit successes should cancel each other.

Sun, 2017-07-02 18:00

#125

o11o1

Thraidh wrote:o11o1 wrote

Thraidh wrote:
o11o1 wrote:
Strongly agree. It's part of why I feel a lot of the movement actions should be moved to Quick Actions. (taking cover, say?)
Last time we played with just one Complex and one Quick Action, where Moving was considered a Quick Action, too. Also getting into and out of cover. Full Defense and Shooting was a Complex action. So, if you were in cover you had to go out of cover as a quick action and shoot, but then you were exposed until your next turn. That made the fight more exciting. Even with this, my players defeated their foes without any problem, because one full auto hit basically kills a person. That means any real threat has to have at least 20 armor. I like full auto to be a quick action to get the hit or DV bonus. I'll try that next time. I'd probably still allow to have a player run 20 meters while shooting at multiple enemies, but then without any bonus, maybe even with a malus? One more thing: an opposed check where both opponents roll a critical success, should just be treated as a normal success for the higher roller, instead of penalizing the worse roller with a crit fail. Players see that as very unfair to take a rare crit success from them and even more unfair to turn it into a crit fail. Consider: A shoots at B. A rolls 44, which means a rare and very accurate shot. B rolls 33 on Fray, which is basically a Matrix-like dodge manouver. Now try to explain player B, why his 33 crit success is the same as a 88 crit fail. This is viewed as supremely unfair. Saying that the defense was superb, but the shot even better, is a lot easier to explain and the players will understand it. So the crits cancel each other and it is just treated like a normal success. tl;dr: a crit success should always be something good. In an opposed check crit successes should cancel each other.

That sounds pretty cool, which is what I want out of a "multiple types of actions" system.

—

A slight smell of ions....

Sun, 2017-07-09 15:42

#126

o11o1

Why should synths be immune to shock? I disagree.

Actions and Combat page 16 wrote:
SHOCK ATTACKS Shock attacks use high-voltage electrical jolts to physically stun and incapacitate targets. Shock weapons are particularly effective against biomorphs and other biological creatures, even when heavily armored. [strong]Synthmorphs, bots, and vehicles are immune to shock effects[/strong]. When hit with a shock effect, make a SOM Check. Apply your Energy armor as a positive modifier. Large targets receive a +30, small targets receive a –30 modifier. Failure means you lose neuromuscular control, fall down, and are incapacitated for 1 action turn (+2 turns per superior failure) and stunned for 3 minutes. Success means you are stunned for 3 action turns. To inflict shock without damage in melee simply requires a touch attack (+20). To inflict shock plus damage requires a regular melee attack.

I don't think that synthmorphs and bots should be flat out immune to shock attacks. They have metal bodies a lot of the time, and plenty of electrical hardware and electronics that can be hurt by high voltage. Synthmorphs already get Light Through heavy Frames, and the right to buy Insulating armor upgrades, same as Biomorphs do. The extra Energy Armor should be giving them plenty of bonus without edging into flat out immunity.

—

A slight smell of ions....

Mon, 2017-07-10 01:18

#127

ubik2

Humans use electric charge

Humans use electric charge for our signaling and muscle control. I presume the "electronics" of the EP world are optical instead, so that portion probably isn't vulnerable to the normal effect of shock. There's the arc of electricity that burns things, which should still be able to do damage, but I think that's covered by the damage portion. The metal shell of a synthmorph makes them less vulnerable to electrical damage, since the current is routed along the outside, instead of passing through the core. It seems unlikely that a synthmorph would use electrical signaling, but electric motors do seem probable. It's possible those would have portions exposed to electric shock for something like a cheap case morph, where nobody bothers to insulate them. Sensors can still be easily overloaded, and it's possible to fry the antennae with shock (and the electronics that need to be sensitive enough to detect the small current induced by radio waves). There's a pretty common trope that you attack robots with an EMP, but this doesn't have a very good basis in fact. The nuke version relies on high voltages generated over long lines of wire (like the power grid of the U.S.). This then provides high voltage spikes at the outlets, which is likely to overload things that are plugged in (unless they have a high speed shutoff). Either shorter wires, or a metal shell protect devices that aren't plugged in.

Mon, 2017-07-10 02:45

#128

ubik2

Actions and Combat, page 2

Actions and Combat, page 2 references Hardware: Explosives. This is also the case for pages 12 and 13. Most of the references are to Hardware: Demolitions. Making Characters uses Hardware: Demolitions as the appropriate field on page 15.

Wed, 2017-07-26 09:59

#129

nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture

Some comments as I (finally)

Some comments as I (finally) read through: -Agreed that synthmorphs shouldn't be immune to some of the shock/agonizer effects. At minimum, they should have an EMP-like effect, and likely will mess with sensitive components like eyes. There's not a lot of things you can put inside of a microwave and it comes out happy. -The penalty for Cone Effects at range, are those in addition to the penalty under the Range section (which apply except in atmosphere)? I hope the answer is yes, but the rules are ambiguous. -Why do the beam and rail gun weapons have nuclear batteries? Nuclear batteries add a huge amount of weight, cost, complexity, and personal risk. What are the tactical gains from this? No one wants to carry five pounds of lead shielding in a thirty-second firefight so their gun can recharge four hours later. Make it a separate accessory. -Range and Gravity--this is a weird confusion. There are a lot of factors that go into effective weapons range; the square-cube law (for beam weapons), drag, cross-winds, machining tolerances of the firearm, etc. There's a reason why an AK-74 has a different performance envelope than an AR-15, although both use a similarly-sized round. Those details are boring, so a -10 per range category is fine. But then gravity waltzes on in, swinging its brass Newton's cradle all around and says no, gravity is the sole determinant. At 0g, hitting a fly off a ship at 2km is just as easy with your pipe gun as with a sniper rifle. Reducing range in high gravity is fine, if you need some rules for that. But I would leave the less-than-1g rules alone, and write the difference off as issues with machining, lag due to distance, etc. Realistically, I'd drop the whole segment and, if you have an adventure in 2g or under acceleration (which I've never seen), put it as a note as part of the background specific to that adventure.

Fri, 2017-08-04 17:47

#130

Proxy Bastion Proxy Bastion's picture

Stealth is optional for this mission...

When I first introduced this game to my gaming group I wrote up a revision of the combat rules. One of the things I changed was ammo. Like you have suggested above Snarl, I gave each weapon a capacity of charges or ammo generally ranging from 6 to 26. To fire the weapon a single charge or ammo is always require. However, I also gave them the following rules for fire modes to add depth of tactical choice. The type of fire mode must be declared at the start of the attack. 1) Semi-auto: Allows the shooter to make two attacks as a complex action by spending one charge for each. No other bonuses. 2) Burst Fire: Allows the shooter to make a single attack as a complex action. At the time the attack is declared additional ammo units may add a +10 modifier to the attack for every charge spent. 3) Full Auto: Allows the shooter to make one attack as a complex action. If the attack is successful then additional ammo charges may be spent to increase the damage. (In my games I used +2 damage for every extra charge spent.) 4) Spread Fire: Only to be used in conjunction with Burst Fire or Full Auto. On a successful attack allows the shooter to add a target for each additional charge spent. The damage of the attack will be divided evenly among the chosen targets. (This last bit is important as choosing too many extra targets dilutes the damage.) 5) Ablation Fire: Only available for use in energy weapons. Allows the shooter to make one attack using a complex action. On a hit the shooter may spend extra charges to add armor piercing to the attack at the rate of -2 AP per charge. Giving my players the option to choose how much ammo to spend on a given attack gave them an economy of resources. They would use Burst Fire when they were under heavy penalties, Full Auto and Spread Fire to clear rooms of weaker enemies, and Semi Auto to conserve ammo or take advantage of a high skill rating in that particular weapon. EDIT: Another change I made in my revised combat rules was to replace the damage dice the railguns received with an exploding dice mechanic. For example, you rolled the same number of damage dice and modifiers for a railgun as you would it's kinetic counterpart except that if one of the dice results was a 10 out of 10 you would roll another damage die. This made railguns powerful but only occasionally so.

Sat, 2017-08-05 01:03

#131

o11o1

Why NOT use Full Auto all the time?

In my (admitably limited) playtesting, my experiance was that the players who sat down and read the rules enough to run some test numbers came to the conclusion that the best answer was always use Full Auto. Since the humble medium pistol supports full auto and has a decently large ammo tank, it's turned into the go-to gun for general use, being hard hitting (if ammo hungry) and pretty well concealable. As well as being presumably legal anywhere that allows guns at all. In terms of having interesting choices in the game, this seems undesirable, since now it's not really a 'choice', it's just the option you always pick.

—

A slight smell of ions....

Thu, 2017-09-07 11:53

#132

Grim G

I'm back!

God it's been too long. Doesn't look like I missed much though. Anyway, to answer o11o1 up there. You do have a point that there isn't many reasons to go select fire, but then again that's kinda the point. I think it said in Transhuman that most of the time it's best to unload on an enemy before taking risks. The only real reason to use other firing modes is either to conserve ammo, take down the target without death, or when you don't need to waste bullets (1 bug round is enough).

Fri, 2017-09-08 07:52

#133

Grim G

Ammo conversion

So after going through the section on reloading again I find myself more confused than ever. It says that you can't use full auto fire when you have less than a quarter of your ammo left, but what is that "quarter" in relative terms? Anyway, how would converting this to real ammo work? I first thought that you'd have to take the SA number and multiply it by 2, (shredders have 100 rounds), but then there's seeker pistols which don't follow this rule (SP ammo is the same in first ed and second).

Sun, 2017-09-24 15:55

#134

ubik2

Shock vs. Stun

I noticed 2e treats shock and stun pretty differently in the mechanics. It would be nice if these two rules were treated more similarly. Right now, shock is very powerful (with significant penalties even on success). On page 16, Shock Attacks gets a paragraph, but Stun just gets an entry in the weapon trait list on page 19. Also, my personal opinion is that the laser pulser (stun) should use the stun effect instead of shock (resisted by kinetic, since this is kinetic force). Resistance to the damage from the laser pulser should still be based on energy armor. The stun grenade should also use the stun effect. I'd also prefer to see an option for an environmentally sealed armor to be immune to shock attacks, rather than just the shock resistant version. It's possible shock attack is intended to represent the more severe versions of stunning attacks, but in that case, the synthmorph invulnerability probably shouldn't apply to all of them.

Fri, 2017-10-27 20:24

#135

ubik2

On page 35 of Actions and

On page 35 of Actions and Combat, there's a reference to stress from "Murdering in self-defense". Perhaps this should be "Killing in self-defense", since self-defense generally prevents it from being considered murder (either manslaughter or justifiable homicide). There are some corner cases, such as excessive self defense (e.g. shooting a man that attempted to punch you), which may technically count as both self defense and murder, but the meaning seems much clearer with the word Killing.

Sun, 2017-11-05 09:51

#136

cpt.crush

Cover Rules

A thing that happened in my play test is that players declared:

I run behind (full) cover.
I step out a meter and shoot.
I go back behind cover again.

That way they attempt to negate the "Attacker Behind Cover (-10)" modifier, while still giving their opponents a "Defender Behind Cover". Should there be rules to address / clarify this situation? RAW does not seem to prevent this, rendering the "Attacker Behind Cover" mostly ineffective. I am not sure I like this. Given EP seems to aim for tactical combat, this feels like an "obvious" way to "cheat the system". Instead, I would prefer that generally the more a character benefits from cover, the more it should affect him. On the other hand, combat is quite complex already, so whatever the solution, it should be simple and intuitive. (Not) addressing this by saying "then NPCs should do the same" isn't really an option I think, as it would lead the whole situation ad-absurdum and turns an actual risk-reward mechanic into a pure "everyone gets -20 on attack".

Sun, 2017-11-05 11:49

#137

Wyvernjack Wyvernjack's picture

Easiest solution seems to be

Easiest solution seems to be to either dropkick the player or tell him "In bird culture, that's considered a dick move." and tell him to play normally.

Sun, 2017-11-05 12:31

#138

eaton

In all seriousness, is that

In all seriousness, is that really broken? "Pop-up" attacks and creative use of cover, within the movement constraints, seem like a core part of the mechanic. It's no more broken than the fact that initiative order and wound penalties make it possible to "bounce" an NPC and prevent them from ever taking a turn. If you can't figure out how to counter it, have NPCs use the technique as well — the creative players will probably come up with something pretty quickly. ;-) Prepared shots and cover fire, for example, would "catch" the player as soon as they emerge even outside of turn order. Suppressing fire would impose penalties. Etc etc. Also… when they pop out from cover, any prepared/suppressing fire wouldn't take penalties — since they're not in cover when the shots happen. If they want to maintain cover bonuses on defense when they take that incoming fire, they'll need to *stay* under cover, rather than popping out and back in.

Sun, 2017-11-05 12:35

#139

Thraidh

Cover rules

Going into cover is explicitly listed as a quick action and according to the new rules you only have 1 complex and 1 quick action per round. I didn't find any rule for going out of cover, but I'd rule that to be a quick action as well. So you can run (automatic), step out of cover (quick) and shoot (complex), but then your turn is complete. Next round you can shoot again and go back into cover, but you'd be exposed for a round. You also cannot use you quick action to aim, which is a good thing in my opinion. If you have a low initiative and spend a point of vigor you could shoot again and go back into cover before someone else can react. This actually makes a low initiative to be a good thing, which seems to be wrong, as this would also let people delay to pull exactly this manoeuvre. I'd probably split a round into three phases. In phase 1 every character can do a quick action, phase 2 can be used for quick, compex or task actions and phase 3 can be used for quick actions only. The first phase is in lowest to highest initiative order, phase 2 and 3 in highest to lowest. You still can only use the original combinations of actions (1 quick and 1 complex/task action or 3 quick actions). The first phase is backwards, because then a low init character has to announce first (e.g. exit cover), so the high init char can react (e.g. aim for the char which now is out of cover). If you want to make it more complex, you can split phase 2 into a declaring and execution phase, where the declaring phase is also backwards. Then the char with the highest initiative would know what will happen and can react to everything. Extra actions gained through spending vigor would be new phases inserted before phase 3, that can be used by everyone spending those points for complex or quick actions, so you'd have 1 quick action and 1+vigor complex/task/quick actions OR 3+vigor quick actions, so it would be impossible to exit cover, shoot and enter cover again in one turn. A simpler way could be to let high init chars choose where they want to be in initiative order AFTER all chars with lower initiative have chosen, and there is no delaying anymore. The the high init char could then guess that a low init char will come out of cover and choose to go after her or him. Anyway, if the high init char is already out of cover, the low init char might shoot him or her before the high init char can shoot. If the high init char chooses to go first, he has to deal with the fact that the low init char is still in cover. This gives the low init char in cover advantage regardless how the high init char chooses, which seems to be wrong again.

Sun, 2017-11-05 13:25

#140

TheGrue

Thraidh wrote:So you can run

Thraidh wrote:
So you can run (automatic), step out of cover (quick) and shoot (complex), but then your turn is complete. Next round you can shoot again and go back into cover, but you'd be exposed for a round. You also cannot use you quick action to aim, which is a good thing in my opinion.

I think it's worth noting that using your quick action to aim a shot from behind cover is just as accurate (+10-10=+0) as using it to step out of cover and shoot (+0). Meaning it is in all cases the superior choice as it also affords a defensive bonus. I mention this because someone above mentioned the "risk-reward" interaction of using cover. Given this I don't see the risk.

—

Thermonuclear Banana Split - A not-really-weekly Eclipse Phase campaign journal.

Sun, 2017-11-05 14:08

#141

Thraidh

I agree. I even award

I agree. I even award "Superior position" if you are e.g. behind a car where you can stabilize your rifle on the car. The "step out of cover" is mostly necessary when you have full cover (corner of a building or hallway), where your enemy cannot see you at all. In that case you cannot see him either so you have to step out and take a moment to orient yourself which is my rationalization of the quick action and the necessity for getting out of cover. If you can stationary in cover and shoot anyway, you should get all the boni. Fortunately for the NPC s corners of buildings or hallways are the most common forms of cover. On the other hand you could also justify a character to get a +10 if the enemy does not move so much that it satisfies a quick action. So if you keep shooting from the same position you can use your quick action to aim, but the enemy gets a +10 for his next shot, because he knows exactly where you are or you use your quick action to reposition. The +10 would only be awarded if a character shoots at the same target multiple times and only if the target does not reposition and only for the second and following shots. Probably receiving a wound (or hit?) should also cancel the bonus as that would mess up your aim. Maybe the bonus should increase by +10 after every shot, so firefights where every side shoots at each other and always misses wouldn't become so long. Anyway, staying stationary while the shots hit everything around you might require a WIL check, because you know that the probability of being hit rises and you have to fight the urge to move away.

Sun, 2017-11-05 14:38

#142

cpt.crush

Quote:

Quote:
In all seriousness, is that really broken? "Pop-up" attacks and creative use of cover, within the movement constraints, seem like a core part of the mechanic.

That's a very fair question, and only the devs can answer that conclusively. I think it is, because the ranged combat rules generally seem to hint at risk-reward and trade mechanics (in particular: aiming, firing modes, range, and cover all trade resources or risk for chances). In that case, it would make sense to nicely contain these sub-mechanics in a balanced mini-game that cannot easily be "cheated or narrated out".

Quote:
It's no more broken than the fact that initiative order and wound penalties make it possible to "bounce" an NPC and prevent them from ever taking a turn.

The reason I think these examples are "less broken" is because the results emerge from the interplay of several mechanics: Players use rules (e.g., wounding) to provoke an obviously intended effect (e.g., disabling an NPC). With cover, in contrast, players can easily avoid a mechanic penalty (harder to shoot) of a certain benefit (more cover) by simple declaration.

Quote:
If you can't figure out how to counter it, have NPCs use the technique as well [...] Suppressing fire would impose penalties.

My point is totally not "fighting" players or countering it. A GM, following that logic consequentially to "win" a fight, could simply declare a low-orbit ion cannon goes off, killing everyone. My point is:

EP seems to opt for tactical combat (e.g., in contrast to more narrative combat of Numenera).
If so, tactical combat rules should facilitate interesting combat game play (e.g., trade of resources).
The balance of these RAW should not be easily be suspendible by player declaration.
The RAW should be simple and unambiguous.

The current "burst fire" and "ammo" mechanics, in contrast, do a better job: If I shoot a Medium Pistol (8/4/2) I have to pick which fire mode I want, trading "reload time" for damage / to-hit. Although "lore" would indicate I should be able to shoot that pistol 1xFA and 4xSA, the rules won't let me. Once I fired FA, I only have one attack left before reload. It's an interesting mechanics that abstracts away "reality" and allows me to be tactical in a fluent way. I want the same for cover.

Quote:
Going into cover is explicitly listed as a quick action and according to the new rules you only have 1 complex and 1 quick action per round. I didn't find any rule for going out of cover, but I'd rule that to be a quick action as well.

Thanks! I wasn't really aware of that. That, however, brings up new problems: In our particular case a player was fighting from a bathroom into a living room, using the door frame for cover. Cover naturally happened as part of basic movement (4m), e.g., leaving the bathroom for a meter, shooting at an enemy, re-entering the bathroom. Would then short movement consume (quick) actions if the player was considered "in cover" for any of its opponents? Likewise, would simply walking back do the same?

Quote:
I'd probably split a round into three phases. In phase 1 every character can do a quick action, phase 2 can be used for quick, compex or task actions and phase 3 can be used for quick actions only. The first phase is in lowest to highest initiative order, phase 2 and 3 in highest to lowest.

I think it could address it, but I think it's very complex to handle practically, at least in our group. In our "reasonably balanced" group with players from D&D and "casuals" we're already eye-balling rules quite a bit already to keep the flow.

Sun, 2017-11-05 16:27

#143

Thraidh

Quote:

Quote:
In our particular case a player was fighting from a bathroom into a living room, using the door frame for cover. Cover naturally happened as part of basic movement (4m), e.g., leaving the bathroom for a meter, shooting at an enemy, re-entering the bathroom. Would then short movement consume (quick) actions if the player was considered "in cover" for any of its opponents? Likewise, would simply walking back do the same?

This is exactly the situation I wrote above. You would be able to walk out of the bathroom (automatic), need to reorient to find your enemy (quick) and shoot (complex). Yes, "reorienting" is not explicitly listed as quick action, but the list of quick actions given is not exhaustive, so you as GM can just rule that "reorienting" is necessary. You can also rule that moving cannot be interrupted by another action, so the player cannot argue that he makes a 2m movement, reorient, shoot and move again. "reorienting" would always be necessary if you see a situation you could not see before (walk around a corner, opening a door, removing a blindfold, turning on visual sensors, ...). Usually you do not need to announce it, but it would inhibit further quick actions. Since we always think we are in a movie: think of what the usual FBI agent does when entering a building containing hostile elements.. If you want to be badass spend a vigor for additional cinematic effects. The 3-phase round is probably only for people who really want to have a very tactical combat. It might boost the value of initiative too much and would need a lot of playtesting.

Sun, 2017-11-05 21:10

#144

ubik2

I think TheGrue's point about

I think TheGrue's point about needing a quick action to take cover handles the mechanical part (no mechanical advantage to the shenanigans). What remains is explaining why this isn't handled by the automatic action of moving. In particular, if you don't know that there's anyone there, and you move behind a wall, it seems like that should be an automatic action, and not a quick action. I'd probably handle this by saying that if you move into cover without taking the quick action, you don't get the benefit of cover that round. You were exposed for enough of your turn that your opponent can get a shot off during that period of time. On the next turn, you'll get the cover for free (presuming you aren't moving out of cover).

Mon, 2017-11-06 13:37

#145

cpt.crush

Quote:Yes, "reorienting" is

Quote:
Yes, "reorienting" is not explicitly listed as quick action, but the list of quick actions given is not exhaustive, so you as GM can just rule that "reorienting" is necessary.

Sounds interesting for full-cover cases, it would not address half-cover though.

Quote:
You can also rule that moving cannot be interrupted by another action, so the player cannot argue that he makes a 2m movement, reorient, shoot and move again.

I would like to keep that part, e.g., roll past a doorframe, shoot, disappear is generally still a cool move. I also thought of another option:

Change "Attacker in Cover" to "Attacker used Cover" (since last round), and
Introduce "Target Appeared during Movement (-20)".

That way, if the attacker claimed cover since last round he would get the malus applied in any case. In addition, for all cases where players didn't (consciously) claimed cover but it "just happened" due to movement, they would receive -20 if a previously invisible target now appears due to their own movement and they want to attack it.

Mon, 2017-11-06 14:43

#146

Thraidh

cpt.crush wrote:

cpt.crush wrote:
I would like to keep that part, e.g., roll past a doorframe, shoot, disappear is generally still a cool move.

I'd just want to avoid situations where the players can attack without risk due to game mechanics. If they somehow stacked boni and used some creative in-character thinking that's fine, but winning by loop holes in the rules is wrong. Anyway, if you have a player doing what you said, the NPC could simply delay until the player is visible and interrupt the players move (given that the NPC has a higher initiative). Coupled with disallowing "aim" for targets which only appear during movement and the movement malus, that should be fine.

Quote:

Change "Attacker in Cover" to "Attacker used Cover" (since last round), and

That way, if the attacker claimed cover since last round he would get the malus applied in any case.

That means, if the attacker starts the turn in cover the malus is applied. Rationale would be that you didn't have the full 3 seconds of unobstructed view and therefore cannot shoot as well. Sounds reasonable. Targets appearing during movement basically surprise you and you can neither aim nor shoot as well. Also you didn't have as much time to see them at all. It would probably count for the target's movement, too. If I'm stationary, but an enemy suddenly appears from behind a wall, I'm surprised, too, and cannot expect to hit as well as another target that was visible all the time.

Tue, 2017-11-07 02:58

#147

ubik2

In the setting, it's possible

In the setting, it's possible for characters to have visibility to the target from a camera, drone, or teammate (Firewall teams get the TacNet ALI) without having line of fire. Attacker has/had cover vs. that target seems like an easy approach. A C | B If I'm C, and there's an A that I'm shooting at on the same side of the cover |, I've benefited from cover from B (on the other side of the cover), but it probably shouldn't be penalizing my attack on A.

Fri, 2017-11-17 05:41

#148

Thraidh

Unfortunately the new rules do not clarify the scenario

But as I reread, I found something we've been missing. The scenario would be the person (henceforth called attacker) who is in cover (in a room) goes to an open door, shoots at another person (defender) and goes back into cover. The complaint was, that he can attack without risk of being attacked back. The rules give us the following:

He cannot use a "Base Move", since that is a leisurely and unhurried motion, which would be completely unrealistic for the person above to do. You'd move quickly until you can see your enemy, shoot and move back quickly, and one could argue that these are actually two moves. Try it out for yourself when nobody looks and thinks you are stupid ;)
"moving with speed" is a "Full Move" which gives you a penalty of -20
If the attacker has a lower initiative than the defender, the defender can delay and if the attacker delays, actions have to be declared first by the attacker, then the defender, so the defender can choose to shoot the attacker when he is visible

Also, if the defender is close enough, he can employ the same tactics: move into the room the attacker is hiding in, shoot with -20 penalty and move out. Or use grenades if available. I still think, there should be a kind of surprise/reorientation penalty for "Target appeared during movement". You can spend Vigor to remove the penalties if you want to be bad-ass. Also, if in such a situation, the defender could hide and employ the same tactics a well, even if at a lower initiative, which would result in a situation where neither attacker or defender could ever see each other. This can be resolved in the attacker with higher initiative delays until the defender is visible and executes his complete action (unhide, shoot, hide), where the defender is helpless to do anything, even if that is unrealistic. How can the attacker know when to execute that manoeuvre? Probably delaying until a trigger should only be allowed for things the character actually knows. I'd allow a contested listen check to see if the attacker can hear when the defender moves. Alternatively the defender should go for a different tactic altogether.

Fri, 2017-11-17 05:44

#149

Thraidh

Anyway, the whole discussion

Anyway, the whole discussion would be moot if it was only allowed to either enter or leave cover once per round however you are accomplishing that.

Mon, 2018-01-08 22:37

#150

Baptized

Seekers being Scramjets

Apparently, seekers are once again going to be based on scramjet tech. So how are they supposed to function in a vacuum or an atmosphere that does not have oxygen? As I understand, basically scramjets suck in air, containing oxygen, mix it with fuel, then have an exhaust for the superheated combustion. But with no air how are they supposed to function? I prefer not having to house rule them like I used to for 1st ed EP.

Tue, 2018-01-09 22:50

#151

DivineWrath DivineWrath's picture

Layering armor - I didn't see

Layering armor - I didn't see anything that helps you. I don't think that light bioware armor (or clothes) should be a problem for proper armor. Multiple limbs for unarmed combat - Read p. 16 in ActionsAndCombat under Extra Melee Weapons. It says that more limbs increases the damage inflicted by unarmed attacks. It doesn't say that you get to make multiple attacks.

Action and Combat - Open Discussion

Pages