[Cyber-Dave]

In the barriers section of the rules, it states that if a person is completely hidden behind a barrier then a target gains a -6 blindfire penalty, but is unaware of the attack. In the cover sections of the rules, it says that someone who has good cover gains a +4 to their defense roll; if the target also cannot see the target, it also takes a -6 blindfire penalty. So, I am not sure how to resolve this combination of rules. At first, I thought being unaware of the attack meant you cannot roll your defense. The rules for good cover seem to suggest otherwise. Also, as far as I can tell, you are never subject to a loss of your defense roll unless you fail a surprise test. This is my current interpretation of this combination of rules:

If you are hiding behind cover that neither you nor your enemy can see through, and they blindfire at you, they take a -6 DP penalty. You must roll a surprise test. If you pass the surprise test, you gain a +4 bonus to your defense roll. If you fail it, you (individually) suffer all the normal penalties for failing on a surprise test, and cannot roll a defense test.

Would this be an accurate reading of the rules? If not, what page do I go to in order to discover an accurate reading of the rules, and what is an accurate reading of the rules?

[Shinobi Killfist]

Thats how I read it, though I think they always may get the cover dice for a defense test. 

[martinchaen]

I belive the rules for barriers come into play if you are completely out of sight against the attacker, say in another room behind a wall with no line of sight between attacker and defender. Certain attacks could still target you; say the cop saw you run into the room and close the door, and, hellbent on taking you down, fired his Assault Rifle at full auto against the wall.

In the above example, you would follow the attacking a barrier option; attacker gets -6 to attack roll, defender does not get a defense roll, and the rules for barriers apply.

If instead you ran behind a low wall, and in game terms ducked down and kept peeking up to see if the cop followed you, the cop could attack and try to shoot you in the noggin. Attacker still gets -6, but this time you get a defense roll, but the barrier rules apply (so you take full damage as the rounds doesn't have to penetrate the barrier because he's aiming for your head).

That's just my reading of it; not sure if it's accurate or not.

[Shinobi Killfist]

If you are automatically unaware and unable to use defense in far too many cases your accuracy would go up with blind fire and that does not seem right to me.  ts not like you are actually dodging bullets you are making yourself  a hard target, blind fire or not you are a harder target.  That may end up being the correct reading to the rule, but I sure as hell wont use it. 

I like Cyber Daves reading of the rule, but I personally wont force a reaction test if you are already aware of the guy who is about to shoot at you, and assuming some kind of appropriate enhanced sense, I'd allow a perception test to bypass the need for the reaction test in the case of some kind of ambush(I Roll up and unload 400 rounds into your apartment because you burned me on the last job)

[Cyber-Dave]

I belive the rules for barriers come into play if you are completely out of sight against the attacker, say in another room behind a wall with no line of sight between attacker and defender. Certain attacks could still target you; say the cop saw you run into the room and close the door, and, hellbent on taking you down, fired his Assault Rifle at full auto against the wall.

In the above example, you would follow the attacking a barrier option; attacker gets -6 to attack roll, defender does not get a defense roll, and the rules for barriers apply.

If instead you ran behind a low wall, and in game terms ducked down and kept peeking up to see if the cop followed you, the cop could attack and try to shoot you in the noggin. Attacker still gets -6, but this time you get a defense roll, but the barrier rules apply (so you take full damage as the rounds doesn't have to penetrate the barrier because he's aiming for your head).

That's just my reading of it; not sure if it's accurate or not.

It strikes me that this is logical too. So, this would be my new reading:

If you have no knowledge of where the person attacking at you is (either via some sort of line of sight or an AR tag), then you are "unaware of your opponent." If you are unaware of an opponent, and that opponent attacks you, you must make a Surprise Test (as per the normal surprise rules, except you are the only one making it). Whether you are aware of an opponent on the other side of a barrier or not, if you have complete 100% cover, someone attacking you through a barrier always hits the barrier first.

How does that sound?

[martinchaen]

Shinobi; while it's true that it may seem like blindfire is more accurate, it'll be less damaging.

"A defender using the barrier as cover receives a defense bonus for cover. If the defender is completely hidden behind the barrier, the attacker suffers a –6 Blind Fire dice pool modifier for not being able to see his intended target, but the hidden defender is considered unaware of the attack."
This supports my above reading; if you can see the attacker you get a defense roll, if you can't you don't.

However, you still have to shoot through the barrier if the defender is unaware. Read on:
"If the barrier takes the hit first, the gamemaster rolls Structure + Armor to resist the damage, and the structure takes any unresisted damage. If the Structure rating is exceeded by the damage it suffers, any remaining damage is transferred to the target behind the barrier."
So, not only does the structure roll Structure + Armor ratings (a minimum of 3 for glass, to the more standard 10 for furniture (hide behind the couch!) or even 26 for brick and plastcrete, but only unresisted damage exceeding the structure rating passes through.

Furthermore, penetrating weapons like firearms are affected by the rules on page 198, where a single bullet penetrating a barrier reduces the DV by one.

So, for an Ares Predator V using regular rounds with an assumed 5 net hits (even with a -6 modifier, it was a good shot!):
Base DV of 8P, modified DV of 13P, -1 AP

Against glass (SR1, AR2-1):
Roll 2d6>5, average 0 hits. Structure takes 1P (its SR), 13-0-1=12P exceeds its armor (AR1), rules for penetrating weapons for a single bullet reduces DV by 1, and 11P passes through.

Against drywall (SR2, AR4-1):
Roll 5d6>5, average 1 hits. Structure takes 2P (its SR), 13-1-2=10P exceeds its armor (AR3), rules for penetrating weapons for a single bullet reduces DV by 1, and 9P passes through.

Against ballistic glass (SR4, AR6-1):
Roll 9d6>5, average 2 hits. Structure takes 4P (its SR), 13-2-4=7P exceeds its armor (AR5), rules for penetrating weapons for a single bullet reduces DV by 1, and 6P passes through.

Against hardwood (SR6, AR8-1):
Roll 13d6>5, average 3 hits. Structure takes 6P (its SR), 13-3-6=4P does not exceed its armor (AR7), and the bullet is stopped clean.

As you can see, shooting through barriers is generally not a good idea, particularly if the target hides behind hard walls like brick.

Cyber-Dave:
Surprise generally only comes into play when combat is started; if, as in my example above, a running gunfight ends up in a PC/NPC hiding in another room (or otherwise taking themselves completely out of sight), then no surprise is generated. The cop would have seen the PC run into the room, and simply fires.

In my opinion, the PC escaping the cop to hide in another room should only have to roll surprise if he completely didn't expect the cop to shoot at him, or if it hadn't been a running gun battle already. This is up to GMs to decide for themselves, however.

See above for why this is generally a very bad idea, however.

To put things into context, even a heavy sniper rifle will have a hell of a time penetrating harder materials. Let's examine a Ranger Arms SM-5, which has 14P base damage, and an AP of -5, firing APDS rounds for an additional AP of -4, again assuming 5 hits for a modified DV of 19 (this guy is good!). It would still only take a brick barrier to stop the shot on average.

Brick wall: SR10, AR16-9
Roll 17d6>5, average 4 hits. Structure takes 10P (its SR), 19-4-10=5P does not exceed its armor (AR7), and the bullet is stopped clean.

Even a Panther XXL (DV17P, modified DV22P, AP-6) would be hard pressed to penetrate harder materials to damage the target behind the wall.
The same brick wall: SR10, AR16-6
Roll 20d6>5, average 5 hits. Structure takes 10P (its SR), 22-5-10=7P does not exceed its armor (AR10), and the bullet is stopped clean.

[Cyber-Dave]

Cyber-Dave:
Surprise generally only comes into play when combat is started; if, as in my example above, a running gunfight ends up in a PC/NPC hiding in another room (or otherwise taking themselves completely out of sight), then no surprise is generated. The cop would have seen the PC run into the room, and simply fires.

I have some MAJOR issues with that reading. First of all, the game explicitly states that surprise can occur at any time during a fight; surprise is not a rule to be used only when combat is first initiated.

Second of all, if shooting at someone with NO cover between you, from stealth, when they don't know that a fight is about to start, still gives a target a chance to roll surprise and apply defense, then there is no way that a target should not have a chance to apply their defense when you a) are already in combat, and the target knows that it can come under attack, and b) you don't know where the target is. When the target sees holes getting punched through a plaster wall it will duck and cover just like it would from any other attack. The ONLY way I can fairly see a target EVER having its defense roll removed is IF it first fails a surprise check. I can, however, see localized attacks that might surprise an individual attacker during a fight (thus forcing an individual surprise roll on one character).

And yes, I realize shooting through cover deals less damage. That, however, does not justify the attack becoming more accurate. It should be both a) less accurate and b) deal less damage. Unless, of course, a lack of sight surprises a target, which should be the result of a surprise roll...

[martinchaen]

I did say "generally", not "always". And that's cool, that's your interpretation of the surprise rules

"Surprise normally occurs at the beginning of combat, but it is possible for it to happen within a Combat Turn if an unexpected force enters the fray."
That's the rule, and you're free to take that as you will. I would choose to not apply surprise tests unless a) it was at the start of combat, b) an unexpected force enters the fray, or c) something surprising happens.

Furthermore, under surprise and perception:
"In some circumstances, gamemasters may wish to give a character the chance to be alerted that something is about to happen. The best way to do this is to make a secret Perception Test for the character. If the character is  lucky, he may, for example, hear approaching footsteps, notice the smell of nic-stick vapor as he approaches the corner, or just get that tingly feeling that someone is behind him."

It's possible that the character running to hide hears a slide being racked, or the muted "FIRE!" command from the opposing squad leader, but it's not mandatory.

Someone running from a battle to hide behind a wall does not constitute a surprise to me, but that's just me. Like I said, you're free to apply surprise as you will in your games, just like any other GM. It is, however, not required, and a GM can choose to not apply surprise tests and deny the character the defense roll.

[Cyber-Dave]

I did say "generally", not "always". And that's cool, that's your interpretation of the surprise rules

"Surprise normally occurs at the beginning of combat, but it is possible for it to happen within a Combat Turn if an unexpected force enters the fray."
That's the rule, and you're free to take that as you will. I would choose to not apply surprise tests unless a) it was at the start of combat, b) an unexpected force enters the fray, or c) something surprising happens.

I would say that getting shot at by a foe that you are "unaware of" is something surprising. Either you are aware or the foe, and you can use your defense roll against him. Or, you are not aware of the foe, and then you are potentially surprised by him.

Furthermore, under surprise and perception:
"In some circumstances, gamemasters may wish to give a character the chance to be alerted that something is about to happen. The best way to do this is to make a secret Perception Test for the character. If the character is  lucky, he may, for example, hear approaching footsteps, notice the smell of nic-stick vapor as he approaches the corner, or just get that tingly feeling that someone is behind him."

It's possible that the character running to hide hears a slide being racked, or the muted "FIRE!" command from the opposing squad leader, but it's not mandatory.

Sure. But, whether they get a perception test or not, they ALWAYS get a surprise test. A successful perception test only gives them a +2 modifier to their surprise test. It doesn't do anything else. It does not alleviate the need for a surprise roll. 

Someone running from a battle to hide behind a wall does not constitute a surprise to me, but that's just me. Like I said, you're free to apply surprise as you will in your games, just like any other GM. It is, however, not required, and a GM can choose to not apply surprise tests and deny the character the defense roll.

No, it doesn't. And, nobody would have to roll surprise as a result of him doing so. But, the character BEHIND the wall might get surprised by the person shooting at him if he cannot see the shot before it happens In that situation, the person BEHIND the wall, and only the person behind the wall, would have to roll a surprise check. He might get surprised. Nobody else would. It would be a localized surprise check, as set by the precedent of ambushers not having to roll surprise checks if they are able to keep track of the positions of the people they are ambushing. Those being ambushed would be the only people rolling surprise. This, to me, seems like a similar situation.

I don't see any other fair or logical way to run it, to be honest. But, as you said, that is just me. We can agree to disagree! I just happen to agree with too much of what other posters in this thread have stated to accept that anyone should ever have their defense roll automatically taken away without a failed surprise check.

[martinchaen]

I disagree with your interpretation that characters "always" gets a surprise test; while this is true in cases where the GM decides that a Surprise Tests is called for, the GM is not actually required to call for surprise tests at any point according to the rules. If you wish to include surprise when a character ducks behind a wall and completely leaves line of sight for opposing parties, that's up to you, but it is by no means required by the rules as written.

In fact, by the rules as written (page 197) the hiding character is either
A) using the barrier as cover, in which case the attacker takes no penalty and the defender gets a +4 dice roll modifier to his defense test (as per the Defender Target has good cover rules on p190), or
B) is completely hidden behind the barrier, in which case the attacker takes a -6 Blind Fire penalty (page 178) and the defender "is considered unaware of the attack"

So to answer your original question, being unaware means being considered to have already failed your surprise test.

Look at the Defense Modifiers on page 189:
"Defender unaware of attack:
f the defender is unaware of an incoming attack (he does not see the attacker, the attacker is behind him, or he is surprised), then no defense is possible. Treat the attack as a Success Test instead. This does not apply to defenders who are already engaged in combat (see Character Has Superior Position, p. 187). If the defender is behind cover, the defense dice pool is determined by the cover, according to the Defense Modifiers table."

This is further supported by the example on page 193:
"Caster failed on the Surprise Test and gets no Defense Test as he is considered unaware of the attacker."

[Shinobi Killfist]

Another area that makes this asinine is auto fire.  So auto fire only reduces your defense pool, well if you don't have one its not reduced.So firing 300 rounds through the wall is no more likely to hit you than a single shot, and if the auto fire exceeds the RC it is actually less likely to hit you. 

Don't get me wrong strictly by raw I think martinchaen is correct.  It just makes it a really, really dumb rule.  The average human is roughly about as likely to get hit standing directly in the line of fire as he is hiding behind full cover(assuming a net pool of 1 or higher after blind fire) anyone with enhanced reflexes is more likely to get hit.  You get full cover, you are super ninja extreme with 20 dice in your defense pool, what do you do, stand totally still kind of close to the last place they saw you. 

[Michael Chandra]

If you are hiding behind cover that neither you nor your enemy can see through, and they blindfire at you, they take a -6 DP penalty. You must roll a surprise test. If you pass the surprise test, you gain a +4 bonus to your defense roll. If you fail it, you (individually) suffer all the normal penalties for failing on a surprise test, and cannot roll a defense test.

Would this be an accurate reading of the rules? If not, what page do I go to in order to discover an accurate reading of the rules, and what is an accurate reading of the rules?

No, the idea is that the cover makes it so that the attack doesn't quite get a good chance to hit you. So I think you always roll for cover even when you don't get a defense test. If you only got a 1-inch gap to fire through, the guy not realizing won't make the shot easier. No time right now to check for details, though.

[Shinobi Killfist]

If you are hiding behind cover that neither you nor your enemy can see through, and they blindfire at you, they take a -6 DP penalty. You must roll a surprise test. If you pass the surprise test, you gain a +4 bonus to your defense roll. If you fail it, you (individually) suffer all the normal penalties for failing on a surprise test, and cannot roll a defense test.

Would this be an accurate reading of the rules? If not, what page do I go to in order to discover an accurate reading of the rules, and what is an accurate reading of the rules?

No, the idea is that the cover makes it so that the attack doesn't quite get a good chance to hit you. So I think you always roll for cover even when you don't get a defense test. If you only got a 1-inch gap to fire through, the guy not realizing won't make the shot easier. No time right now to check for details, though.

I forgot the static defense pool, so while not as bad as I thought it is still really dumb. 

[martinchaen]

Shinobi Killfist I agree, by RAW the rules for firing through barriers do not favour full auto. Not only does the target not get a defense test since he is considered unaware of the attack (see last comment) and as such the negative dice pool modifier is useless, but it also makes it harder to damage the character since the rules for penetrating a barrier states that the DV is reduced by an additional 1 box for 1 bullet, 2 boxes for 3 bullets, 3 boxes for 6 bullets, and 4 boxes for 10 bullets.

Taking your Average Human (TM), I'lll give him AGI 3 and Pistols 3 (he's had a little bit of training). With a dice pool of 6, he is blind firing at a wall which gives him a modifier of -6, preventing him completely from being able to hit you.

A slightly above average human (AGI 4 and Pistols 4) would still only have a marginal chance of hitting you (2d6>5), and a very, very low chance of actually doing any damage.

And what is a "static defense pool"?

Michael Chandra How do you "roll for cover" if you don't get a defense test; i.e. what do you mean by "rolling for cover"? If that is the barrier resistance test, then yes, I agree.

[martinchaen]

OK, I'm going to ask for clarification on the "Shooting through barriers" rule, because the "Shooting Through A Barrier" example on page 198 uses the Penetrating Weapons rules, not the "Shooting through barriers" rules.

In essence, it looks like the example on page 198 completely disregards the barrier rules on page 197 by allowing the second shot to punch through the security door with just a single point of DV removed. According to the rules as written, the security door (SR8, AR12) should have absorbed 8 points of damage before comparing the modified DV to the AR of 12. Additionally, in the example the DV only equals the AR, whereas in the rules it is stated that the attack as to exceed the AR.

As per the penetrating weapons rule:
"This is only true for weapons whose modified DV exceeds the Armor rating of the barrier. As above, if the modified DV is less than the Armor, the attack is stopped dead with no damage to anything."
There's a missing "or equals" in here, either with modified DV exceeding the AR or the modified DV being less than the AR.

The example should read something like this:
"When Wombat moves behind a security door (Armor 12) he stops for a quick breather. The goon takes a shot and scores 3 hits this time (lucky goon). Since the security door takes the first hit, the GM rolls Structure 8 + Armor 12, and scores X hits. The modified DV of the attack is 12P-X hits, equal to the Armor of 12, so the shot punches through. The door takes 1 box of damage, and 11P passes through to hit Wombat., less than the Armor of 12, so the shot still doesn't punch through."

Penetrating weapons should only apply if you're shooting through a barrier that you can see through, or if the modified DV of the weapon after the structure takes damage exceeds the structure armor.
"If the barrier between the attacker and defender is transparent, like bullet resistant glass, there is no cover or obstruction to sight, but the attack must penetrate the barrier to reach the defender (see Penetration Weapons, p. 198)."

According to this ruling, a Full Auto weapon would actually help, because if the barrier is transparent the target and the attacker can actually see each other. So, a Full Auto complex action using 10 rounds would reduce the defenders dice pool by 9 with the only adverse effect (assuming you can eat 9 Recoil) being the reduced DV of 4 you'd get from shooting through the transparent barrier.