NEWS

Shooting from Cover

  • 24 Replies
  • 8114 Views

Zilfer

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1326
« on: <05-14-12/1626:50> »
Does this mean you just shoot from cover and leave your head out there? Or does this mean your shooting from cover twice and then taking cover again?

Trying to familiarize myself with a bit more of the game since the last two week's we've played Shadowrun again coming from our DnD sessions. I know blind fire is -6 and if someone shoots and hides behind cover do they get the +4 for good cover as well to their roll? I think i'm missing something here. Or do they just get the +4 because the opponent knows the General location of the player so it not blind fire.

Thanks!
Having access to Ares Technology isn't so bad, being in a room that's connected to the 'trix with holographic display throughout the whole room isn't bad either. Food, drinks whenever you want it. Over all not bad, but being unable to leave and with a Female Dragon? No Thanks! ~The Captive Man

KommissarK

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 96
« Reply #1 on: <05-14-12/1737:33> »
I've always consider shooting from cover a penalty for saying basically that you want to receive the bonus from using the cover, but want to also make an attack.

I rule that it exposes you enough such that the attacker is not making a blind attack against you (use the cover modifiers as needed). Since its not blind fire, I offer the ability to disregard the cover and fire, but give the armour from the cover to the target.

JustADude

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3043
  • Madness? This! Is! A FORUM!
« Reply #2 on: <05-14-12/1757:34> »
I've always consider shooting from cover a penalty for saying basically that you want to receive the bonus from using the cover, but want to also make an attack.

I rule that it exposes you enough such that the attacker is not making a blind attack against you (use the cover modifiers as needed). Since its not blind fire, I offer the ability to disregard the cover and fire, but give the armour from the cover to the target.

So you'd essentially use the Shooting Through A  Barrier penalty to offset the Cover bonus? I could see that... and it makes a lot of sense; especially if they're behind something relatively flimsy like the door of a normal, unarmored car.
« Last Edit: <05-14-12/1759:36> by JustADude »
“What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.”
― Albert Einstein

"Being average just means that half of everyone you meet is better than you."
― Me

JoeNapalm

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Ifriti Sophist
« Reply #3 on: <05-14-12/1826:10> »

Never understood the cover penalty.

If anything, the bracing bonus should effectively counter any ill effect from moving in and around cover.

I assume it's either a balance thing or...how to put it...a misguided assumption.

SR4 isn't about realism - but it's also an extra, unnecessary modifier. If it is a balance thing...well...cover is kinda super important. If someone is smart enough to use it, they shouldn't be penalized in order to "balance" with people too foolish to get in out of the rain.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

Xzylvador

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3666
  • Ask me about NERPS! 30% Sales!
« Reply #4 on: <05-14-12/1832:32> »
If you really want to hide behind something, stick out your wrist and spray your Uzi at the enemies general direction, it's -6 because you don't see a thing and -2 for shooting from cover.
If you're hiding behind something, pop out for a second, take a shot or two and then duck back behind cover, you take the -2 for the quick movements and somewhat unsteady aim, but gain the benefits of good cover. (+4 Defense)


Problem with the Attack penalty is that there isn't a distinction between Good or Partial cover, imo. It would be better if the -2 applied only to Good Cover.  You'd have the option of trading 2 attack dice for 4 defense dice, or keeping your dicepool, but leaving a larger part of your body exposed and making you easier to hit (only 2 extra dice for cover).

Let's say you're standing behind a waist-high brick wall and your enemy is 20 meters away shooting at you.
You'd have 3 options:

A. Lie flat behind the wall, stick your gun out and pray you hit something.
+Good: Enemies will have a really hard time hitting you. (They get at least -6 for not seeing you and will have to bring heavy enough firepower to shoot through the wall.)
-Bad: -6 attack for Blind Fire, another -2 for firing from cover.

B. Crouch completely behind the wall, pop up to take a shot or two, duck down again, relocate, pop up to shoot then dive down again etc.
+Good: Enemies will have a harder time hitting you, as they have to be quick enough to aim and fire when you pop up. (+4 defense for Good Cover)
-Bad: -2 Attack because you never really get time to aim = attacking from cover penalty.

C: Crouch behind the wall, elbows leaning on it for balance while you shoot your enemies.
+Good: Since at least part of your body (everything down from your chest) is behind the wall, enemies have a tougher time hitting you. (+2 defense, Partial Cover)
-Bad: No penalties for you other than the fact that you're easier to hit.

From your question, I think your problem is that you're getting lost in the whole time-paradox issue of turn based combat:
While it's true that at the table actions happen in turns, to the characters everything happens simultaneously.
So in above example, let's use option B.
At the table, GM says "Enemy shoots twice and misses both, Zilfer's turn. Your turn comes up and you say, "I stick out my head, fire twice and duck down again". Enemies turn comes up again and... You're out of sight behind a well! So he takes -6 for blind fire and has to try to shoot through the wall? NO! The time in which he preforms his actions is the same time in which you preform yours.
What happens in the game world is this:
"Zilfer pops up from behind the wall. Enemy swings his weapon in your direction before you get off a shot but was too quick to fire and misses. Zilfer returns fire and hits Enemy in the shoulder at the same time as enemy gets off his second shot. The impact screws up Enemies aim, his shot chips off some brick 20cm to your left. Zilfer quickly get off a second shot and dives back behind cover, preventing Enemy from getting a better aim at him."

My examples however aren't RAW because the Attacking From Cover thing doesn't differentiate between Good or Partial Cover.
By RAW, both B and C would cost you 2 dice on attack, but B'd still give you better cover than C, so always do B.
« Last Edit: <05-14-12/1836:27> by Xzylvador »

Exodus

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 75
« Reply #5 on: <05-15-12/0043:35> »
I think the -1 attacker shooting from cover modifier is accurate, it's not exactly perfect shooting stance when you're squatting behind a wall, leaning behind a corner with bullets taking chunks out of the stucco.
I prefer to GM for Role Players not Roll Players

Zilfer

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1326
« Reply #6 on: <05-15-12/0111:39> »
That's what my exact thoughts where but i wasnt 100% sure. I realized it's all going on at the same time and that's how i could rationalize it but i wanted to double check here before i came to my group with it to explain what's going on. though using structure to steady your aim seems like it would be a bonus not a hindrance.... but standing behind and then leaning out i could agree and now i see why it's there.

As always I thank you fellow board members for your quick responses and insightful posts as well as your inventive  tweaks to the rules. :D
Having access to Ares Technology isn't so bad, being in a room that's connected to the 'trix with holographic display throughout the whole room isn't bad either. Food, drinks whenever you want it. Over all not bad, but being unable to leave and with a Female Dragon? No Thanks! ~The Captive Man

JoeNapalm

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Ifriti Sophist
« Reply #7 on: <05-15-12/0714:25> »
I think the -1 attacker shooting from cover modifier is accurate, it's not exactly perfect shooting stance when you're squatting behind a wall, leaning behind a corner with bullets taking chunks out of the stucco.

Bullet and wall fragments would fall under suppression. This example also demonstrates another reason cover is nice...without it, those bits of stucco would be bits of you.

Squatting wouldn't be a very good stance, no. Kneeling, sitting, or prone, however, is more stable than standing. If you are "popping in and out of cover" in such a way as to interfere with your accuracy, you are doing it wrong (reflected in a poor weapon skill, rather than a penalty).

If you're doing it right, you're not hopping in and out of a firing position - you're exposing only your weapon, one hand, and one eyeball, and engaging the Bad Guys. This makes you pretty hard to hit, and keeps you in the fight. Simply cowering behind a wall and popping out randomly to take shots might work in Hollywood, but the Bad Guys are going to move around and you're not going to know where until it's too late.

Go to a range and assume a proper firing position behind cover, and you will find you are, if anything, more accurate, due to being in a more stable, braced firing position. Personally, I recommend the VTAC 9 Hole Drill (the link has pics of a couple good firing positions, but there's tons of vids and such out there if you care to see them).


-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate
« Last Edit: <05-15-12/0847:42> by JoeNapalm »

Zilfer

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1326
« Reply #8 on: <05-15-12/1241:02> »
Again that's why i have a problem with the -2 for shooting from cover. I just think you'd prope your gun against cover to make it "MORE" Stable rather then less. I may just do away with that moddifer i'm not 100% sure.
Having access to Ares Technology isn't so bad, being in a room that's connected to the 'trix with holographic display throughout the whole room isn't bad either. Food, drinks whenever you want it. Over all not bad, but being unable to leave and with a Female Dragon? No Thanks! ~The Captive Man

Chrona

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3794
« Reply #9 on: <05-15-12/1245:16> »
I believe the penalty is purely due to prioritising your safety over shooting them.

Lethe

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 666
  • Every man dies. Not every man really lives.
« Reply #10 on: <05-15-12/1251:19> »
It all depends on the kind of cover you can get. For planning a perfect cover for an ambush you might be right.
But usually we are talking about improvised cover. For that i can see you not getting any extra stability for your shots as well as being hindered from shooting yourself, because the cover will restrict your area of fire.

If you stick your head out all the time, i just call the shot, for an +4DV and negating your cover all in one...
« Last Edit: <05-15-12/1252:55> by Lethe »

JoeNapalm

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Ifriti Sophist
« Reply #11 on: <05-15-12/1327:06> »
It all depends on the kind of cover you can get. For planning a perfect cover for an ambush you might be right.
But usually we are talking about improvised cover. For that i can see you not getting any extra stability for your shots as well as being hindered from shooting yourself, because the cover will restrict your area of fire.

If you stick your head out all the time, i just call the shot, for an +4DV and negating your cover all in one...

"Improvised cover?" As opposed to...what? A bunker? A bench rest? It is generally assumed that, if one is discussing cover in the context of CQB, it's improvised. If it's solid enough to stop a round, chances are you can use it to brace. If you follow the link, the pics and text are good examples from a professional shooter. What angle are you conceiving of needing to shoot from that the Viking barrier wouldn't simulate?

As anyone who has ever "sliced the pie" knows, cover is more about restricting the field of view of your opponent. You actually have physics on your side - vision is a cone. The person closest to the cover actually has the better field of view - they can actually see the Bad Guy before/while the Bad Guy can't see them.

Is the +4DV Called Shot is terribly different than the +4 Defense for Good Cover? Isn't shooting at the person in cover, rather than through the cover, effectively making a called shot? As was stated above, the turn-based nature of SR4 combat has all things occurring at basically the same time. If you shoot at the guy in cover and hit him...without shooting through the cover...then you made a called shot on whatever was exposed, at the time it was exposed.

I'm not conceptualizing what I think shooting in and around cover would be like - I'm forming an opinion based on having done so with a wide variety of different weapons and all kinds of cover...improvised and otherwise...over the better part of a decade. I think it's an unnecessary modifier...my SR4 group consists of myself, an ex-military nationally-ranked 1000-yard marksman, a weaponsmith who is also a pistol and 600-yard champion marksman, and a former Marine, and we all think it's an unnecessary modifier that adds complexity and reduces realism...but I'm not a game designer, nor are they. Maybe there's a good reason for it I just don't see.

*Shrug* It's RAW, so if you like the penalty, keep it.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
« Last Edit: <05-15-12/1334:35> by JoeNapalm »

Zilfer

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1326
« Reply #12 on: <05-15-12/1350:07> »
That sounds pretty impressive for those people you play with. :D
Having access to Ares Technology isn't so bad, being in a room that's connected to the 'trix with holographic display throughout the whole room isn't bad either. Food, drinks whenever you want it. Over all not bad, but being unable to leave and with a Female Dragon? No Thanks! ~The Captive Man

Lethe

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 666
  • Every man dies. Not every man really lives.
« Reply #13 on: <05-15-12/1354:15> »
If it's solid enough to stop a round, chances are you can use it to brace [...] cover is more about restricting the field of view of your opponent.
That's exactly what shadowrun cover is - restricting field of view. You can't brace against draperies. Cover is abstract. If in your situation cover is also usable for bracing against, give extra boni for it. But most of the time it will not be the case.

Quote
What angle are you conceiving of needing to shoot from that the Viking barrier wouldn't simulate?
Its not about the angle, but imagine the barrier being half a meter thick now. You cones will just be thin lines. At the side your vision is still cut in half. Or its very soft and don't allow any bracing. The viking is an example for almost "perfect" cover. But you can't always choose your cover.

Quote
You actually have physics on your side - vision is a cone. The person closest to the cover actually has the better field of view - they can actually see the Bad Guy before/while the Bad Guy can't see them.
Unless you are looking through a one way mirror, i don't see how. If you can see his eyes, he can see your eyes.

Zilfer

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1326
« Reply #14 on: <05-15-12/1407:56> »
If it's solid enough to stop a round, chances are you can use it to brace [...] cover is more about restricting the field of view of your opponent.
That's exactly what shadowrun cover is - restricting field of view. You can't brace against draperies. Cover is abstract. If in your situation cover is also usable for bracing against, give extra boni for it. But most of the time it will not be the case.

Quote
What angle are you conceiving of needing to shoot from that the Viking barrier wouldn't simulate?
Its not about the angle, but imagine the barrier being half a meter thick now. You cones will just be thin lines. At the side your vision is still cut in half. Or its very soft and don't allow any bracing. The viking is an example for almost "perfect" cover. But you can't always choose your cover.

Quote
You actually have physics on your side - vision is a cone. The person closest to the cover actually has the better field of view - they can actually see the Bad Guy before/while the Bad Guy can't see them.
Unless you are looking through a one way mirror, i don't see how. If you can see his eyes, he can see your eyes.

I'm pretty sure he's talking all about blind spots. The closer you are to a barrier the more it obscure's someone's vision of you. If you are 10 feet back from cover someone can see more of you. Take this example, a car behind you can't really see for 50 feet or so behind your car depending on your car so sitting in the front seat you look back through your car. The closer the person is to the back of your car the less you see of their body and the 'more' they see of you. If they are right on your tail they see pretty much all of you while you only see half of them. Now if they start walking backwards you begin to see their waist, their thigh, knees and eventually their feet. While they begin to see less and less of you.

Now your roles have switched, the person in the car is 'closer to cover' than the person further away making you have the advantage of seeing them much easier than they can see you because they are further away. Now your both looking at eachother form the same distance, but again the person that is "closest to cover" has the advantage.

I also don't think that shooting from cover your going to have soft squishy things all the time. In the room i'm in there are desks' counters I could stablize a gun on. in my house there's plenty of things. In an office there are plenty of things to stablize on. In a warehouse you have crates. Where per say are you going to be stablizing some of your gun fire on that it'd wouldn't help you fire? are we firing on top of a mound of blankets, or balloons?

Anyways correct me if i'm wrong Joe but i think what i said sums up what you were trying to say with that last part?
Having access to Ares Technology isn't so bad, being in a room that's connected to the 'trix with holographic display throughout the whole room isn't bad either. Food, drinks whenever you want it. Over all not bad, but being unable to leave and with a Female Dragon? No Thanks! ~The Captive Man