[Shinobi Killfist]

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.

I don't know the term but there are defensive bonus dice that work even if you don't get a defense test.  Cover is one of them, I think there are others but I may be miss remembering things.  Part of the reason I called it static is you get those 4+ dice even if your dice pool is reduced to 0 from multiple dodges for example.  What it comes down to is cover used to be a negative modifier but that caused issues, so they changed it to a positive modifier.  If it applies you always get it I think.  I may be remembering 4A though. 

[Cyber-Dave]

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.

Page 192: "The surprise rules below apply to all situations, whether
all the parties involved are caught off guard or whether
one or more parties are intentionally ambushing others."

All combats begins with surprise. According to the "surprise rules below," (192) there is no situation in which a character automatically fails to use its Defense. It only loses its ability to apply a Defense Roll if it fails an Intuition + Reaction (3) test. If it is being ambushed, at best, the ambushers have no chance to be surprised. Often, the ambushers must attempt to roll surprise as well, they just get a +6 die pool bonus. If someone makes their perception penalty, all they gain is a +2 die pool bonus to their surprise test (192-193). By the RAW, a GM is required to roll a surprise test to initiate ALL combats. Additionally, by the rules as written, it "is possible for [surprise] to happen within a Combat Turn if an unexpected force enters the fray."

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"

This is not strictly true. By the rules as written, page 197 does say, "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." But, the rules also say, on page 190, "If the Defender uses a Take Cover action to get behind something where more than fifty percent of the defender’s body is obscured by intervening terrain or cover, he gains a +4 dice pool modifier to his Defense roll against any attack. This modifier can also apply to prone targets that are at least twenty meters away from their attackers. This modifier is applicable to both Ranged Combat and Spellcasting. Note that this modifier does not negate the Blind Fire modifier the attacker suffers. Both the modifiers to the attacker and to the defender would apply when firing at a target that is totally concealed (one hundred percent behind cover)."

The rules EXPLICITLY note that BOTH modifiers apply. Thus, at first glance, page 190 and 197 contradict each other. Hence my point of contention. Some sort of rule must exist that makes BOTH page 190 or 197 true; otherwise, if we are going to simply say that one of the pages is wrong, the most logical choice would be to say that page 197 is the page that is inaccurate. That is because page 197 is the page that creates a greater degree of implausibility. Personally, I would like to find some way to make both statements true, which means using another rule that clarifies what being "unaware of an attack" signifies in a way that doesn't lead 190 and 197 to contradict each other. 

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."

You are correct. Those are the rules on page 189. But again, the game contradicts itself. First of all, the surprise rules clearly indicate that NOBODY is ever depleted of their defense roll UNLESS they fail their surprise test. Furthermore, the rule you are quoting EXPLICITLY states that "it does not apply to defenders who are already engaged in combat." Such defenders should instead see the "character has superior position" rules on page 187. Furthermore, even if the character is not yet in combat, this rule states that a character still makes use of his cover's defense dice pool.

So, lets see what it says under page 187: "Whether it’s sitting over an opponent’s back in a grapple, attacking from behind, attacking from above, or
attacking from stable ground while the enemy fights to stay standing, having the better position is an advantage in any fight. Whenever the attacker has a significant advantage in footing, perception, or mobility, grant this +2 dice pool bonus."

So, by the RAW, you seem to be wrong. It seems like, according to a very strict reading of the rules as written, this is what happens: If a character is 100% behind cover when you attack them, and combat has not yet begun, we run into a contradiction of code. On one hand, the surprise rules say that everyone should roll surprise. At best, the person making the attack gains the advantage of Ambush on their surprise check. The barrier rules seem to suggest that the foe is automatically unaware of the attack. The most fair interpretation seems to be that the attack counts as an Ambush, but if the target is not surprised then we move to page 187 and use the superior position rules. Alternatively, I could see situations where an attacker is unseen and opens a fight with an attack as resulting in a defender automatically being "unaware of an attack."  Either way, during combat, we always move to page 187 and use the superior position rules (as being unaware of an attack always turns into superior position during a combat encounter).

Which means, during combat, if a target is 100% covered by a barrier the attacker takes a -6 penalty to attack, gains a +2 bonus to the attack, for a net -4 penalty to the attack. The defender may use their defense roll, and they gain a +4 bonus to that defense roll. Outside of combat, if the target has 100% cover by a barrier then the attack either a) results in a surprise roll on which the attacker has the benefit of Ambush or b) a is true, but one way or the other the hidden attacker results in the target being considered unaware of the attack if the attack is the first event which opens up combat (as otherwise the characters are all considered to be in combat, and the "unaware of an attack" rules default to the "superior position" rules). Either way, these rules seem like a mess to me... errata and clarification seems to be needed.

[Cyber-Dave]

...for that matter, where is the rule that says that you automatically hit a barrier if you shoot through 100% cover? Logically, that should be the case. But, I don't see a rule that actually says that anywhere. All I see is a rule that says that when you try and hit a target that has cover, and you tie, you hit the barrier first. Where is the rule that says that 100% cover operates differently? That MUST be somewhere. I can't imagine they missed explicating that exception to the general rule, did they?

[martinchaen]

OK, you may be on to something; I've found a single rules reference to defense pools that would apply for cover situations, but the rules contradict each other yet again.

Page 189, Defender unaware of attack:
"If the defender is behind cover, the defense dice pool is determined by the cover, according to the Defense Modifiers table."
The table list +2 for partial, and +4 for good cover.

Page 190, Defender/target has good cover:
"Note that this modifier does not negate the Blind Fire modifier the attacker suffers. Both the modifiers to the attacker and to the defender would apply when firing at a target that is totally concealed (one hundred percent behind cover)."
Note that a character actually has to take a Take Cover action for this to apply; running behind a wall is apparently not enough; note that the above also indicates that a target that is totally concealed does in fact get a bonus to his defense roll.

Page 190, Cover:
"If you attack someone in cover and you tie in the Opposed Test, you hit your target through the cover she’s using. If you penetrate the barrier (see Barriers, p. 197), you can still do damage to your opponent."

Now, this is where the rules contradict each other.

Page 197, Barriers:
"If an attacker wants to shoot through a barrier and hit a defender on the other side, a few things need to be determined. 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."
OK, so which is it? Hard to say, really.

And then, further down:
"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."
Logically, if you're firing at someone who is 100% behind a barrier, the projectile has to hit the barrier first. It does seem that it is not explicitly stated, however.

Cyber-dave The "all situations" in that statement merely allude to situations where surprise applies, not every situation in every single game. Combat does not HAVE to start with surprise, but it CAN.

And the defender does not gain a defense test if he or she is "unaware of the attack", as previously stated. I personally think you're applying the Surprise rules in ways it was not intended; surprise is situational, not everpresent. Not ALL combat starts with surprise, not necessarily; that is why the rules are listed under Special Actions, and just like Interception, Called Shots, and Dead Man's Triggers, Surprise is special circumstance. Otherwise, it would have been listed under the Combat Turn Sequence, as Step 1. Check for surprise. Instead, Step 1 is Roll Initiative.

As for the conflicting rules about barriers and taking cover, see above. I think the difference is that you can be behind a barrier without having used the Take Cover action, in which case you do not get a defense roll.

Finally, the Defenders already engaged in combat clause goes on to list Superiour Ground, a modifier that only applies to melee combat, not ranged combat...

Again, by RAW, my statement holds true. You are looking at rules out of context.

A) Surprise is optional, not mandatory
B) Take Cover action is required for the defense modifier for cover to apply
C) Superiour Position only applies in Melee Combat

[deek]

The way I have been reading/playing this, is the defender is unaware of the attack, so no defense dice and the attacker is firing blind (so -6 dice). The attacker rolls his attack (with the -6 blind fire penalty, which is a pretty big penalty, along with any other modifiers) and as long as he gets a hit (no hits means missed the barrier), you move onto the Penetrating Weapons rules (i.e. hits increase the DV to get the modified DV, which is compared to Armor),  drop 1 DV because it is one bullet and the structure takes it.  The defender now has to soak 11P damage (this aligns with the example on page 198).

Now, I agree, the text should read "modified DV equals or exceeds the Armor rating of the barrier" (which when that is added, aligns with the example on page 198).

So, it is kinda interesting that if the defender is 51% - 99% behind cover, he gets +4 dice AND a defense roll, but if he is 100% behind cover (and can't see the incoming attack) he gets no defense roll and the attacker takes a -6 penalty for and goes from an Opposed Success Test to a simple Success Test.  I haven't done the math, but it seems that a defender would rarely want to drop fully behind cover and not see the incoming attack.

The other interesting thing is if the defender has good cover and there is a tie on the defense test, the grazing hit rules come into play.  Using that same example on page 198, base damage of 9P is all that is compared, so it won't penetrate the Armor 12 barrier, but had it been a lesser Armor rating, say Armor 8, then the bullet goes through the barrier, losing one DV to the Structure and the defender now has to soak 8P damage.

As far as I have been reading, Penetrating Weapons don't get the Structure + Armor damage resistance, it is an either/or situation. So, this is a choice the defender has to make, either be fully hidden and take your chances with the attacker going with just a simple Success Test with -6 dice, or spending a Simple Action (if he has one to spare) to get Good Cover (+4) and a defense test (i.e. Opposed Success Test).

[martinchaen]

deek; indeed, that is where the confusion starts.

The example on page 198 seems flawed to me. Why go to the trouble of spelling out the Structure + Armor test if it would not be used except for non-penetrating weapons (which is what, exactly? Clubs, and explosives?). Wouldn't it make more sense to make the general rule (penetrating weapons) apply to all situations, and then have the exception (non-penetrating weapons) described separately?

In any case, I'll ask for clarification.

[deek]

Yeah, I agree, it would make sense to more clearly separate the Shooting Through Barriers rules between penetrating and non-penetrating weapons. I know I've read through those two pages at least a dozen times to make sense of it and, of course, it came up during my second combat scene.

There is certainly a missing (based on the examples) "equal to" before the exceeds under the Penetration Weapons text.

Now, I can see why Penetration Weapons wouldn't have to go through a Structure + Armor resistance test, as that is a fast-moving, small point going through the structure. Armor basically dictates what sort of weapons are going to penetrate the barrier. It is certainly open to meta-gaming with either the attacker or defender wanting to know the type of barrier before deciding how to act.

But yeah, clarification would be immensely helpful.

[martinchaen]

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure it makes sense to use Structure + Armor for penetrating weapons. As per my math on the previous page, even a Panther XXL wouldn't be able to punch through hardened materials.

If one uses the penetrating weapons rule, then a weapon with an unmodified DV of 17 certainly becomes a lot more useful...

[Cyber-Dave]

Cyber-dave The "all situations" in that statement merely allude to situations where surprise applies, not every situation in every single game. Combat does not HAVE to start with surprise, but it CAN.

While the rules at the start of the chapter do seem to indicate that you start with initiative, not surprise, I believe that is because they are describing the base rules for a combat turn. Surprise is a special situational rule; the situation just happens to be the first combat turn of EVERY combat. Now, I have quoted the text that says that it applies to ALL combats. I can also quote the list of examples that they give, which covers just about everything in loose analogy. Can you quote a single line of text from anywhere in the game that says that you do not have to start a combat with a Surprise check? Because, I don't agree with you. My reading of the rules is that the text very clearly indicates that every combat, by the RAW, is supposed to start with a surprise check. If you can't quote something that says otherwise, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see anything in the text by which I can justify your paradigm. I see no reason to believe that when the text says that you always start with a surprise roll it doesn't mean just that...

As for the conflicting rules about barriers and taking cover, see above. I think the difference is that you can be behind a barrier without having used the Take Cover action, in which case you do not get a defense roll.

Except, by the rules as written, that is very clearly not the case. By the rules as written, the "unaware of an attack" condition is never applicable once you are in combat. What reason do you have to believe that this is not the case when the rules for that condition state as much explicitly?

Finally, the Defenders already engaged in combat clause goes on to list Superiour Ground, a modifier that only applies to melee combat, not ranged combat...

If it only applies to melee combat, that would mean that "unaware of an attack" doesn't help gun users, in combat, ever. Only melee users can benefit from "unaware of an attack" once combat starts. Otherwise, it only helps you if you are not yet engaged in combat. The condition explicitly states that it never applies to characters already in combat!

[deek]

It seems to me surprise, after reading page 192 about three more times, surprise is directly correlated to awareness.  In a world where the runners have likely taken control or scouted ahead (i.e. they are aware of what is around that next corner) and an HTR squad has been alerted to an intrusion and is moving to cut off the escaping runners "at the pass," both sides of attackers are aware and ready to engage.  I don't think there is any Surprise Test rolled in that situation. There are a myriad of combat examples that show when combat starts, both sides are very aware that a firefight is going to take place.  Even in the Matrix examples, you don't see any deckers rolling surprise before they start marking targets.

Now, when one side or the other is unaware of an impending attack (which may be the majority of combat engagements in your games), then yeah, I can see a Surprise Test starting combat.  Again, I think how often a Surprise Test occurs is up to the tactics used by the players and how the GM sets up security.  As I tell my players, they should do everything in their power to control the term of engagement, so they should try and always ambush the targets, if it is going to come to a firefight.  I also remind them that in most runs, if they are in a firefight, they likely screwed up.

[martinchaen]

Cyber-Dave What you have quoted ("The surprise rules below apply to all situations") merely means that the Surprise Test rules apply to all Surprise situations. Nowhere is it stated that it applies to A) The start of every combat, or even B) in every situation where initiative is initially rolled.

Again, if the Surprise rules were intended to be used each and every time combat was initiated, it would have been listed in "The Basics" chapter (starts on page 158), as it would have been part of, you guessed it, the basics. In fact, surprise is not even mentioned until page 163 under Free Actions.

The proverbial nails in the coffin against your argument as I see it is that if the developers intended surprise to be an integral part of combat, they would have come right out and said so in no uncertain terms. Instead, the text on page 192 is littered with incidentals: Sometimes, normally, some circumstances.
Furthermore, several examples in the pages between 158 and 192 has the example character start combat without using the surprise rules. Even the last example on page 191 does not use surprise:
"Angry drunks start swinging, and the gamemaster calls for Initiative. Everyone rolls for their Initiative Score to start the fight." No surprise rules.

Again, I think you're twisting the rules a little, by reading certain paragraphs and statements that refer to other rules to apply to the whole rule. Unaware is clearly listed as "no defense possible" in the table; by your reading, this is never relevant, so why is it there?

And Superiour Ground just means that being unaware is less useful for a melee character; let's face it, it's going to be hard to land a blow sneakily on someone you're right up in the face of, whereas in a gun battle it's much easier to hide, shift position, and fire from cover. In fact, this is a common tactic employed by sharpshooter units; never fire from the same position twice.

I've asked the questions in the Rules and Clarification threads, hopefully someone will chime in. Again, I don't believe your reading of surprise is accurate, nor do I think your reading of unaware is accurate.

[Cyber-Dave]

Cyber-Dave What you have quoted ("The surprise rules below apply to all situations") merely means that the Surprise Test rules apply to all Surprise situations. Nowhere is it stated that it applies to A) The start of every combat, or even B) in every situation where initiative is initially rolled.

Again, if the Surprise rules were intended to be used each and every time combat was initiated, it would have been listed in "The Basics" chapter (starts on page 158), as it would have been part of, you guessed it, the basics. In fact, surprise is not even mentioned until page 163 under Free Actions.

The proverbial nails in the coffin against your argument as I see it is that if the developers intended surprise to be an integral part of combat, they would have come right out and said so in no uncertain terms. Instead, the text on page 192 is littered with incidentals: Sometimes, normally, some circumstances.
Furthermore, several examples in the pages between 158 and 192 has the example character start combat without using the surprise rules. Even the last example on page 191 does not use surprise:
"Angry drunks start swinging, and the gamemaster calls for Initiative. Everyone rolls for their Initiative Score to start the fight." No surprise rules.

Again, I think you're twisting the rules a little, by reading certain paragraphs and statements that refer to other rules to apply to the whole rule. Unaware is clearly listed as "no defense possible" in the table; by your reading, this is never relevant, so why is it there?

And Superiour Ground just means that being unaware is less useful for a melee character; let's face it, it's going to be hard to land a blow sneakily on someone you're right up in the face of, whereas in a gun battle it's much easier to hide, shift position, and fire from cover. In fact, this is a common tactic employed by sharpshooter units; never fire from the same position twice.

I've asked the questions in the Rules and Clarification threads, hopefully someone will chime in. Again, I don't believe your reading of surprise is accurate, nor do I think your reading of unaware is accurate.

I agree that it is confusing that some of the examples don't start with surprise. I don't know what to make of that. But, the statement, "The surprise rules below apply to all situations, whether all the parties involved are caught off guard or whether one or more parties are intentionally ambushing others," seems explicit and clear. All situations means all situations. Nowhere does it say what you are saying that it does. Perhaps it does mean only situations in which it is possible for someone to be surprised. I am willing to accept that part of your argument on the basis of the examples not always including surprise. If that is the case, however, the wording is a bit confusing.

That, however, does not change the rules for "unaware of an attack" explicitly states "this does not apply to defenders who are already engaged in combat." I see no way around that statement. That means that, during combat, that rule cannot be applied to you. Being unaware of an attack, then, is something that can only benefit you before combat starts...

[martinchaen]

Again, you're taking a contextual statement and turning it into a canonical one. The "all situations" that's referenced is "whenever the Surprise rules are used", not "whenever combat is rolled". The evidence supporting this is the fact that Surprise appears in a separate Special Actions section, along with other circumstantial actions like Interception, Knockdown, Subduing, Called Shots, and Multiple Attacks. These are all Special Actions that take place at some point, and the Surprise rules are used in all situations where Surprise occurs. Some of the examples are vague (normally occurs at the beginning of combat) while others are very specific (a character walking into an ambush set by two opponents), but that still doesn't mean that the context of "Special Actions" should be discarded.

And again, you're taking the statement out of context. Let's examine the rule logically:
"Character has superior position" is a situational modifier listed on page 187 under Melee Modifiers. Agreed?
"Defender unaware of attack" is a situational modifier listed on page 189 under Defense Modifiers. Agreed?

Defender unaware of attack has 4 distinct sentences.
1. If 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.
2. Treat the attack as a Success Test instead.
3. This does not apply to defenders who are already engaged in combat (see Character Has Superior Position, p. 187).
4. If the defender is behind cover, the defense dice pool is determined by the cover, according to the Defense Modifiers table.

1 and 2 are fairly straight forward (simple if, then statement)
3 states that the previous (1 and 2) does not apply if the conditions for "Character has superior position" applies.
3a. Since the "Character has superior position" modifier only ever applies in melee combat, it logically follows that this statement only refers to Surprise in Melee Combat
4 further modifies 1, 2, and perhaps even 3 in such a way as to add dice pool modifiers according to the table.

In no way, shape, or form can this text be interpreted as having no effect on ranged combat, nor does it completely exclude the possibility of it happening during combat. You've several times pointed out that Surprise can happen during combat, I completely agree with this; a third party could enter combat and surprise the character who is in cover, thus gaining the "Defender is unaware of the attack" modifier instead of the "Superior position" modifier.

[Cyber-Dave]

Again, you're taking a contextual statement and turning it into a canonical one. The "all situations" that's referenced is "whenever the Surprise rules are used", not "whenever combat is rolled". The evidence supporting this is the fact that Surprise appears in a separate Special Actions section, along with other circumstantial actions like Interception, Knockdown, Subduing, Called Shots, and Multiple Attacks. These are all Special Actions that take place at some point, and the Surprise rules are used in all situations where Surprise occurs. Some of the examples are vague (normally occurs at the beginning of combat) while others are very specific (a character walking into an ambush set by two opponents), but that still doesn't mean that the context of "Special Actions" should be discarded.

Knockdown applies to every single attack you make. It is, however, in the special actions section. As such, I see no reason why an action that does not take place in every combat turn, but rather only happens during the first combat turn of any combat, would not be slotted into the same section. I don't find your argument convincing on the basis of that evidence. I do find your argument in regards to the examples convincing. But, the text seems to contradict itself so often (on this count), I find it hard to know for certain. At best, I find the text's intent on this count confusing.

3 states that the previous (1 and 2) does not apply if the conditions for "Character has superior position" applies.
3a. Since the "Character has superior position" modifier only ever applies in melee combat, it logically follows that this statement only refers to Surprise in Melee Combat

It does not say what you are saying in 3. It only says that the modification never applies to characters already in combat. It does not say that it never applies to characters already in melee combat. It does not say it does not apply to melee attacks made against characters in combat. It does not say that characters who benefit from the "superior position" rules do not benefit from "target is unaware of an attack." It says, and I quote, "This does not apply to defenders who are already engaged in combat." Then, after that, it includes a parenthetical modification that tells you to see the superior position rules. That parenthetical modification does not indicate that only melee characters are subject to the clause. It only states that further data can be found under the superior position rules. That modification is a method by which characters with melee weapons can gain some benefit from a target that is unaware of an attack, specifically via the superior position rules. Nothing about that construction suggests that characters with guns still gain the benefit of the "target is unaware of an attack" condition, as, again, that condition does not apply to people already engaged in combat.

So, I completely disagree with you. Your ruling does not seem logical to me. It also seems somewhat unfair to melee weapon users, for that matter. It also results in completely illogical situations where characters are more likely to be hit when they are completely behind a wall than when they are poking their head out from around a corner. That is just silly...

Anyways, I thank you for the discussion. At this point in time, I fully understand your logic. I just don't agree with it. I think you are wrong. More importantly, whether you are wrong or right, I think the rule is VERY unclear. But, I would not have been able to come to this decision without debating with you. So, I really appreciate the input.

My personal decision, as of this moment in time, is that the following house rule would work far better than what they have written: When a target is unaware of an attack, then no defense is possible. This does not automatically apply to defenders who are already engaged in combat. In such situations, the target must make an individual surprise check. On a failure they suffer the effects of surprise.

Meanwhile, if a character has 100% cover, the attack always hits the cover first.

Those two rules are simple, cover all possible situations logically, and (most importantly) are equally fair to all characters.

Meanwhile, the "superior position" rules can act as a separate combat modifier that works as currently written.

When I GM, that is what I will be doing.

[martinchaen]

Cool! Glad you were able to make a decision. Keep an eye on the clarifications thread; I've posted a question somewhat to the effect of the Unaware question. Feel free to elaborate on the question if I didn't convey your concern clearly.