Autofire

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Greetings,
a few thoughts on the new autofire rules.

Burst
The new burst rules seems to be based only on the weapon's base damage. A weapon adds +1 to its damage for every D, so a 3 D weapon bursting deals 3D+3 damage. However, it consumes ammo equal to its auto rating. This means that an auto 4 and auto 6 weapon deal the same damage while burst-firing, but the auto 6 weapon 'pays' more, with 6 bullets fired.

I feel that either all burst fire should consume the same number of bullets, regardless of auto value, or that the number of bullets fired affects burst damage.

Since I do find it a bit weak that a gauss rifle, (4D, auto 4) only deals an extra 4 damage when bursting (average damage of one shot is 14, firing 4 shots increases damage to 18) I would love to see something similar to the new starship rules, i e for each shot beyond the first, +1 damage is added per D or the weapon. Example: Gauss rifle (4D, auto 4) fires a 4-round burst, dealing 4D +4 +4 +4 damage.

Yes I realize this will mess upp armour values... Perhaps the base damage (4D) and the added burst damage (12) could count as two separate attacks for armor reduction purpouses? Or the extra burst damage (+D instead of +1) only comes into play against unarmoured opponents, or for the portion of the damage that penetrates armour, or... something.... I don't know.



Autofire
So, no dice-pool any more? I guess this is balanced by there not being a skill cap when autofiring any longer either. Should work, feels quicker and easier. I like how scope and auto can't be used together, limiting autofire's usefullness at long range.

I'm not quite fond of the ammo cost for autofire, however. I know it was the same last edition, but it feels a bit much IMHO... I mean, 12 shots to make two attacks? With no damage bonus?

A few more or less random ideas:

1) add burst damage to the attacks (the original +burst, not my above suggestion). This would mean that the gauss rifle gets two attacks that each deal 4D+4 damage and the total ammo cost is 12, while an ACR would get three attacks at 3D+6, costing 18.

2) Halve the ammo cost, making it auto/2 x 3 instead, or number of attacks times 3.

3) Allow relevant weapon skill to lower the required number of shots.

4) A two-parter. Start with 2) above, but add another category of attack. This one costs auto x 3, you roll auto number of dice, pick the highest. The rest of the dice gets paired with the highest dice for individual attacks. Example. An auto 4 weapon fires. 5 4 4 3. 5 is highest. The attack rolls are thus 5+4, 5+4 and 5+3. Basically, auto-1 number of attacks.

5) Make full auto some form of Area-of-Effect attack, with area size determined by auto rating.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Hmm, option 4 above might be a bit excessive... An auto 6 weapon would get 5 attacks, that's a lot...

Another option: full auto could work as currently written, but with a boon roll for each attack, to symbolize the hail of bullets.

Speaking of boon dice, how about an alternate burst, where the aim is to increase hit chance instead of damage? Call them focused vs spread burst or something, and allow a boon roll.

 

[-Daniel-]

I would think Boon needs to remain an add-on because of external situations. The person using the weapon has a cyber arm that is stabilized, then the burst gets a boon added. In my opinion boon shouldn't be tied into the "internal" mechanics that way.

 

[Infojunky]

I have always had issue with the Burst mechanism adding damage, in that Firing bursts was a method of increasing chances of a hit, not specifically an attempt to do more damage.

I liked the dice pool in the base rules, as such I have considered making burst fire use the same mechanic with 3dice. (Or consider this a burst attack gets a Boon Die, and functionally a long full auto bust effectively gets both a boon and bane die)

As extra damage, effectively any addition to the To-Hit roll is a increase to damage via the Effect score for the hit....

Alternate Ammo use, roll an Average Die for each burst. And for Full Auto roll number Average dice equal to the number of attacks rolled (thou a 3 round burst still uses 3 rounds).

 

[MongooseMatt]

I'm not quite fond of the ammo cost for autofire, however. I know it was the same last edition, but it feels a bit much IMHO... I mean, 12 shots to make two attacks? With no damage bonus?

People tend to waste a lot of ammunition in combat.

 

[theodis]

I have always had issue with the Burst mechanism adding damage, in that Firing bursts was a method of increasing chances of a hit, not specifically an attempt to do more damage.

Actually that is exactly what a burst is supposed to do IRL. Think of it as an automatic double-tap. You try to hurt the target you already acquired more.

A standard three round burst leaves the barrel of a rifle in about 0.2 to 0.3 seconds. A double-tap takes about twice as long. This is not meant to do the trick of "some of the bullets will hit anyway". For this you take autofire and hope for the best.

kind regards,
Stephan

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

So that makes sense for a burst, but what about "full auto" as in empty the magazine while screaming "Say hello to my little friend!". That should allow additional damage as well as additional targets/hits. BUT, not as many as it you actually aimed. Full auto should somehow allow you hit multiple targets but at a negative DM. ALMOST like the point defense and anti-missile fire in Space Combat.

Proposal:
You can roll to hit multiple targets at a cummulative DM (maybe DM-2) up to the number of your AutoFire rating.

BUT, you blow the entire magazine and if you have already used some ammo from that magazine, you get a reduced number of targets.

Perhaps that is too fiddly though...

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Something along the lines of missile defense would be nice for personal combat, yes.

Keep picking targets, but get -1 or -2 for each.

Alternatively, didn't the first mercenary book have a rule for sustained/panic fire where a weapon added +2 to its auto rating, but wasted loads of ammo and got a -DM to hit? Something like that...

Another idea is to treat the attack action as comprised by two minor actions, aim and shoot. Hence it would be possible to snap fire at -1 DM. Or use the rule for doing multiple things simultaneously and allowing a player to attack twice, both attacks at -2.



Ok, by now I'm just rambling, time to shut up and sleep...

 

[-Daniel-]

Perhaps that is too fiddly though...

This. I think we are bumping up against that age old issue RPGs have. Do you want a game or a simulation. In my case, keep it simple and a game and I will live with a little "unrealism".

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Yeah, even as I was writing it out and trying to fully explain myself I realized it might be too much, but still wanted to see what others thought.

 

[anselyn]

Yeah, even as I was writing it out and trying to fully explain myself I realized it might be too much, but still wanted to see what others thought.

What I remember from somewhere else suggested the following:

Single Shot/Semi-Automatic: standard way of firing - single attack - normal damage.

Burst Fire: single attack with automatic weapon - increased damage on single target.

Autofire: Single target and area around them - lots of ammo used. Extra damage on main target. One target to either side of main is targeted but with an extra difficulty to hit - for normal damage.

Spray-and-Pray: Really lots of ammo - (half a magazine) - autofire attack on main target one level of difficulty easier, targets to left and right attacked at normal difficulty.

The gradation from Autofire to Spray-and-Pray makes sense to me - but at the cost of more detailed tracking of ammo.

 

[Melbourne Accords]

There is certainly a lot of value in presenting burst fire as increased damage against a single target. It keeps play moving/works well. I've just posted on Auto rating in this thread:

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=133&t=114042

 

[MongooseMatt]

The gradation from Autofire to Spray-and-Pray makes sense to me - but at the cost of more detailed tracking of ammo.

It certainly makes sense - but it is too detailed to track for the Core rules.

Maybe something for a future combat book!

 

[paulsnow]

The gradation from Autofire to Spray-and-Pray makes sense to me - but at the cost of more detailed tracking of ammo.

It certainly makes sense - but it is too detailed to track for the Core rules.

Maybe something for a future combat book!

Yes.

I think that, as the name suggests (or I inferred from the author's comments), Spray-and-Pray, is what you see semi-trained fighters doing on the news - or is shown in films to look impressive. Properly trained soldiers use autofire. Spray-and-pray also may be getting into Suppressive Fire use. So - subtleties for the detailed combat rules.

 

[Infojunky]

I have always had issue with the Burst mechanism adding damage, in that Firing bursts was a method of increasing chances of a hit, not specifically an attempt to do more damage.

Actually that is exactly what a burst is supposed to do IRL. Think of it as an automatic double-tap. You try to hurt the target you already acquired more.

Hey, if you say so, I'll let you argue with Jarhead Gunnery Sergeant who explained it to me.


BTW, 3 round Burst give a +1 to hit by the rules in the CSC.....

 

[-Daniel-]

Hey, if you say so, I'll let you argue with Jarhead Gunnery Sergeant who explained it to me.

Could it be that we are now arguing over different uses for the same function? I could see using a three round burst, from an MP5 for example, being seen as a way to hit the same target three times. Thus more damage. The rate of fire would almost make that happen if even a little control was exerted combined with the relatively low recoil. Where a three round burst from a M4 might be used more to give your burst a small spread. That way the heavier recoil becomes a benefit to the intended use.

If so, this would explain why the "Jarhead Gunnery Sergeant" shared what his expected outcome would be. The other sources would then offer what their expectation would be.

Truth be told, I really don't mind either way so much as we all "agree to disagree" on the level of realism found in a game mechanic. Some lines are drawn for game mechanic reasons and we know this.

 

[GJD]

Just a minor thing, but why have an Auto value that is divided by 2 for attack and multiplied by 3 for ammo consumption? I understand what the values mean, but having to divide by 2 and then multiply by 3 means the original number is largely pointless.

It seems simpler to me to have the Auto value represent the number of attacks, and each attack uses 5 or 6 rounds (5 is a nice round number).

Or make it a split stat: 2/12 means a burst gives 2 attacks and consumes 12 rounds.

G.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

So, I just wanted to drop by and comment the new auto-fire rules... Turns out the rediculously simple solution of simply halving the auto score... worked. Really good. Shorter bursts, but the damage per additional shot is improved a bit (auto 2 means 1 additional shot deals 2 damage, auto 3 drops damage to 1,5 per shot) and the number of bullets required for full-auto bursts is halved. Nice!

I'd say I'm 80, perhaps even 90% happy with the new autofire rules, good job! The one thing preventing me from giving it 100 % happyness is something that ironically was part of the very first beta rules - basing the burst bonus damage on the base damage of the firing weapon. The first beta rules acknowledged this, but failed to take number of shots in account. When a triple spaceship turret links its fire, the bonus damage is based upon the fring weapon, and when a battledress with an integrated weapon mount fires, the weapon's number of dice is added to the damage, but not for burst-firing personal weapons.

If this system was implemented for personal weapons an ACR would deal 3D+6 damage instead of 3D + 3.

It's not the end of the world though, and overall I'm quite happy with the way the rules are looking now! I do remember voting against forbidding scope/aim to be used with autofire, but I've come to accept that too. So, yeah, just wanted to say that. Thanks