I've seen other games allow players to combine shooting with another action.
This action is normally movement related and normally makes hitting the target
a bit more difficult.
If you were going to do this in your FMAS game would you A) allow it
with a -1 or -2 shift to firepower, or B) not allow it?
I like games with lots of lead flying about so I'd lean towards option
A. Is a -1 shift enough or would a -2 shift to firepower be better?
Would you make them shoot before, after, or midway through the movement?
D.
Hey D.
I'm tempted to say two shifts, bottoming out at D4. Cost 2 actions,
predesignate start of move and end of move and the shot can be taken anywhere
in between.
I picture someone wanting to run across the end of an alley and shoot down it.
Is that the kind of thing you were thinking?
My 2 cents anyway.
You going to Historicon?
Martin
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lDamond:
How fast are they moving? Over what sort of terrain? Isn't move then shoot (if
you get two actions) supposed to cover move and shoot cases?
Tom
> Damond:
Yes, under normal circumstances the two permitted actions allow for
either move-then-shoot or shoot-then-move, but I think what Damond is
asking about is the ability to actually shoot WHILE moving, as a single
combined action rather than as two discrete consecutive actions. I may have to
think on this, unless anyone else has any good
ideas....?
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
TomB:
> Isn't move then shoot (if you get two actions) supposed to cover move
Jon:
> Yes, under normal circumstances the two permitted actions allow for
You're both correct. In the FMAS games I play (zombies-a-plenty) I
normally insert all sorts of wacky rules as the living are normally greatly
outnumbered by the dead. In the past I've allowed shooting the same weapon
during each action, added additional actions to certain character figures,
etc.
In a "standard" game of FMAS I can see sticking to the basic
two-action turn but in a cinematic game I'd like the figures to be
able to scoot from cover to cover spraying madly at other models on the table
while they move. Using the standard two action turn (sans leader and action
transfer) this is impossible.
I see standard FMAS shooting as better than a snap shot but worse than truly
aimed fire. If you're playing an older version of FMAS with Impact ratings I
don't see that being affected. Firepower certainly. The question becomes how
much of an impact?
Other systems I've played add massive negative modifiers to the to-hit
roll (on the order of -50%).
D.
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 10:38 PM, martin connell
> <mxconnell@optonline.net> wrote:
Do you allow this in your HyperFMA stuff? You and Steve should give it a shot
and report back on how it works.
> I picture someone wanting to run across the end of an alley and shoot
That's it. I'm toying with running a Predator vs. Horde of Bad Shooting Humans
at ECC this year. Or a gladiator game. Or both.:)
> You going to Historicon?
Not this year. I'm saving my pennies for ECC this year.
Damo
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWell, if I were
to write some rules for 'Shoot On The Move' as an action:
As a single action, you may fire while moving. The following restrictions
apply:
a) You must be moving through unobstructed terrain. If you need to cross an
obstacle or move through any terrain costing more than 1" of movement per 1"
of board distance (wading through a swamp or river or clambering over a
massive junkpile, for instance), you may not fire Shoot On The Move.
b) You may only fire small arms - no squad support weapons (perhaps a
SAW on a steadimount as in Aliens, but no tripod mounted weapons or IAVRs).
c) When executing Shoot On The Move, your pace of movement impacts your
accuracy significantly. Normal movement provides a DOWN1 effect on both the
Quality Die and the Firepower Die (or Dice, if you have multiple FP
dice....
shooting full auto on the move is horrendously inaccurate). When moving
quickly (combat move/transport move if that exists in FMAS), take DOWN2
on both dice. When moving slowly (half normal movement rate, if this is
allowed) take a DOWN1 shift on the die of your choice.
(Meta-Game Logic: You need to apply two shifts to penalize this, and it
is
better if they are applied to reduce the maximum on both dice. In-Game
Logic: While moving quickly, you cannot utilize your sighting systems on the
weapon (reduction in FP) and your own natural aim is impeded by the turbulence
of movement (reduction in QD)).
d) Shoot On The Move cannot be combined with any sort of AIM action to gain
extra accuracy or range bands. You blow any such AIM the minute you start
moving.
So, those would be the restrictions I would apply.
Normally, in the real world, if you see shoot on the move, it is SWAT or SF
doing a slow, foot-in-front of foot movement with not a lot of bobbing
up and down. They are moving, but not at 'normal movement rate' and they are
able to engage with decent accuracy firing burst or semi-auto at close
range. There isn't any sprinting around, crossing of obstacles or rough
terrain, or firing full-auto. And they train a lot to make this sort of
on-the-move engagement possible and dangerous.
If you want to be more cinematic, inflict less of a downshift (one of the two
dice, instead of shifts to both), but that's for a more John Woo style game.
T.
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
That's about what I was thinking i.e. support weapons, move
restrictions, etc. One thing I do not like is the shift in quality -
is there precedent for that anywhere else in the FMA chain (FMAS1,
SG2/1, DS3/2/[1?])?
Doesn't mean it's a bad thing per se but I'd prefer monkeying around with
firepower instead of assuming quality is situation dependent.
D.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRe: Split
shifts.
I find in the game, because your highest die or dice matter, that shifting
down only one of the dice of die types still leaves efficacy of fire as you
can still heap up suppressions if your QD is even so so.
FP DOWN shifts with a high QD ---> negligible chances to do actual
wounding,
still a high suppression chance - you change the balance of suppression
vs. wounds.
If you split out the shifts, you get a reduction in overall efficacy, but you
don't get as much of a change in the balance of suppression vs. wounds.
So, in one case, let's say you are rolling D10/D10 vs. a target of 5.
Your odds of suppression are about 75% and your odds of wounding about
25%.
That's about 3:1 suppression to wounds.
If you DOWNshift 2 on FP:
Your odds of suppression are about 35/60 (call it 60%) but your odds of
a wound drop to about 8%, so your ration here is about 7.5:1.
If you split the shifts, you'd have
D8/D8 vs. 5 === Suppression 39/64 = 60%, Wound = 14% = 4.25:1 (not as
good as 3:1, but much better than 7.5:1)
Splitting shifts maintians the proportionality of Suppression to wounds better
(I think). That's why I like the notion.
Yes, it does seem like a new idea.
T.
No equivalent in HyperFMA,. but I think it's an interesting idea. Will give it
a try next we play.
So sad about your absence from HCon (wow - with you MIA at ECC this year
it is a year without Damo).
Perhaps you, me, and the Barosi can arrange a gaming rendezvous? Jerry still
playing?
Maybe
[quoted original message omitted]
Is there a reason to maintain the ratio like that? It makes sense to me that
in this kind of situation the best one should hope for would be a suppression.
Especially if it's untrained rabble (qual d6 and below) throwing lead hoping
to keep heads down.
If you're talking about the skilled fighter (ala Seal team doing tactical
movement) I can see letting them half move and shoot at full effect and
providing a shift if they full move.
It's one of those things I gotta try in order to get a feel.
D.
> On 7/2/10, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
wounds.
> So, in one case, let's say you are rolling D10/D10 vs. a target of 5.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRatio of
suppression to wounds:
I think it should remain as constant as feasible. My logic goes something like
this:
Suppressive fire isn't suppressive just because it is there. It is suppressive
because it is close enough that you know it could easily hit you if you were a
bit more unlucky or exposed. It should be kicking up dirt at your feet,
sizzling past your head, etc. You can't just shoot in the air wildly and have
effective suppressive fire generally. It has to be aimed at the target.
Realistically, if it can be effective suppressive fire, it can be effective
fire. To me, game mechanics that only allow one or the other are a bit silly.
Stargate RPG has a silly bifurcation between suppressive fire,
covering fire, and effective fire - the first applies penalties to
actions of a single enemy figure (can't cause a wound), the second provides
penalties to actions of any enemy figure attacking a single friendly figure
(can't cause a wound), and the third can hit people but causes no suppressive
effects.
When you shoot, you generally intend to kill the enemy. Suppression is just
the result of near misses.
Now, that's not 100% true because you do have a notion of suppressive fire
with high-rate small arms and support weapons, but that is still based
upon presenting a hazard to an enemy by putting rounds where they could hit
him. The only difference between this and normal fire is that you are firing
more rounds with less attention to accuracy than normal. To be effective
though, your higher rate of fire still has to put rounds into his immediate
vicinity. Pictures of US Marines firing M-16s over their heads into the
jungle in vietnam basically translated to wasting ammunition most of the time.
So, I think maintaining the ability to hit and damage a target a fair
percentage of the time (considering the full realm of outcomes from fire) is a
reasonable thing.
But it isn't a big thing, I just think that's how I do it. I like QD shifts
for a lot of things - anything that directly affects the character
himself -
wounds, drugs, fatigue, and movement could be one of those things.
The reality is you can have a fun game any way you slice it. Play with the
numbers until you get outcomes you enjoy.
T.
> On Saturday 03 July 2010 21:16:52 Tom B wrote:
Lots of RPGs do this. I think it's mostly down to a simplification to avoid
having to check for suppression every time someone fires a gun (and risk
players getting bored because their character can't do anything other than
cower behind cover for half the combat). If it's a special case, then it
simplifies combat.
Giving a choice between wounding or suppressing also gives an extra tactical
choice, which can make things more interesting at very little cost in
complexity.
In realism terms it's silly but it can make sense from a game point of view,
at least in an RPG which has different playability requirements to a wargame.
Forgive an ol' vacchead... (I know you won't.)
Isn't 'moving while shooting' merely moving, shooting, and moving again? Maybe
a change to the action structure, perhaps more action steps?
The_Beast
In standard FMAS you have two actions per activation. To do what you propose
would require two turns or a single turn with a leader transferring an action.
D.
> On 7/4/10, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
Absolutely; I was suggesting changing the number of allowed actions per turn.
I'm just asking is this less standard FMAS than any other way of allowing
combined moving and shooting, and does it cause problems elsewhere.
Oh, and along with my previous Happy Canada, to all, a pleasant and safe
Fourth of July. Huzzah!
The_Beast
Damond Walker wrote on 07/04/2010 12:04:42 PM:
> In standard FMAS you have two actions per activation. To do what you
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lSam,
I'll agree that splitting out suppressive fire, covering fire and normal
fire in Stargate SG-1 the RPG, they have created more choices. It is
also simplifying.
However, given that they gave me something like 10 pages of rules for computer
skill (and not really usable ones IMO) and wasted many column inches and game
mechanics on other aspects that will only bog down the game, I find it hard to
imagine they did this for simplicity reasons. Perhaps for the choices, I will
believe.
That said, such 'choices' provoke annoyed comments from players as to why
normal fire can't suppress on a near miss and why covering fire and
suppressive fire can't *ever* harm anyone.
My point was particularly that the reality of suppression effects from fire is
that they are from fire which a) does sometimes hit and cause casualties and
b) has to be close enough to convince people that casualties can ensue.Your
goal is to kill or wound your target if you can, achieve some suppressive
benefit as a consolation prize for near misses. I can't think of a single
soldier who would prefer a near miss to a hit and who aims to miss.
Even support weapons with a beaten zone that are typically far more
suppressive are still trying to kill the people they shoot at. They just
accept the fact they may miss a high percentage of the time. But they are
still shooting to hit what they shoot at.
That's why I favour mechanics to keep the ratio of suppressions to
wounds/kills as close to even as is feasible.
WOW the groups posting agian!LOL
"MOVING WHILE SHOOTING" I think people are thinking like in the combat comics
and the like.
regards james
On Sun, Jul 4th, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> Forgive an ol' vacchead... (I know you won't.)
I have to agree that the 2 actions per activation cover this fairly well. You
can move - shoot already. I guess the issue is that you cannot use both
actions to shoot thus there is no punishment for moving. Shift the die down
one and get on with the game! <G>
> On Monday 05 July 2010 00:50:30 Tom B wrote:
A game focuses on what the designers want to make interesting. I can imagine a
Stargate campaign being focused on technology, so a rule system that doesn't
simplify the tech guy's contribution to a single
die roll (roll a die - you've hacked into the alien's computer system/
you haven't hacked in) sort of makes sense. Combat rules are generally complex
enough without needing extra layers to make combat focused characters feel
wanted. Whether the rules actually work or not is
another matter entirely :-)
> That said, such 'choices' provoke annoyed comments from players as to
Dark Heresy has similar rules, but there is a (reduced) chance of hitting one
or more random targets within the suppressed zone. Normal fire doesn't
suppress however.
> My point was particularly that the reality of suppression effects
Personally, I don't think there should be any suppression rules in an RPG. If
the risk of getting hit and killed is high enough through standard gunfire,
then a character's desire to want to stay behind cover should fall out
naturally. If someone doesn't want to suffer penalties for shooting from
behind cover then they can stay out in the open and calmly return fire. Their
next character
may decide to do things differently :-)
But yeah, I think we're in general agreement.
<Vacchead as Devil's advocate>
Suppressive fire has a long history in cinema, from cowboys 'keep their heads
down', to MG's blithely spraying to the tune of 'give him cover.'
Often used in hostage situations, the hostages never got shot, until recently.
Still, it suggests suppression should be over a larger area than
target-to-kill, with fewer percent of kills.
</Vacchead as Devil's advocate>
The_Beast
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI suppose we
can use Hollywood movies to tell us all we needed to know about military
matters....
Therfore:
1) Hand grenades will either be akin to a small thermonuclear device or will
be utterly ineffective at hitting 'the good guys', while killing dead key
bad guys (unless it is the A-team, in which case bad guys are only
shaken up by hand grenades)
2) Soldiers never need to reload except to increase tension. They only run out
of ammunition if they have offended the director and are about to be killed.
3) Germans are evil, Americans are good, and the British are good or evil
depending on who they are fighting (Americans -> British are evil,
Germans
-> British are good).
4) Suppressive fire that is unaimed is effective.
5) Snipers often shoot other snipers through their optics.
6) Tanks can be neutralized with fragmentation grenades and molotov cocktails.
Even moden ones. Fairly rapidly.
7) Thin walls, brick, single-thickness concrete block, and trees will
stop rifle and MG calibre ammunition.
8) Cover is not required unless you are on the Director's bad side (in which
case it will not help) or unless you are a 'Bad Guy' (whom it also will not
help).
9) Bad guys fight like Imperial Storm Troopers. Good Guys fight like
Sith-Jedi crossovers with a dose of the Governator thrown in for good
measure.
10) The US captured the Enigma machines by seizing German subs.
I think this is what is known as "clubbing baby seals"...
> On 07/07/2010, at 08:24 , Tom B wrote:
> Having finished that list, I think I rest my case about the merits of
So are takeing into consideration say smartgun links, eg point the dot in the
helmet hud at the target. I dont think you can say that because you cant run
and fire with current weapons doesnt mean you wont be able too with future
personnel weapons.
How much kick would a laser or emp gun have.
regards james
On Wed, Jul 7th, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Robert N Bryett <rbryett@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this is what is known as "clubbing baby seals"...
Not really, just a bit beside the point, as movies are about the only detailed
way we have of analyzing zombies, which, I repeat, was the start of the
thread.
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
Movies? I think you mean documentaries, sir.:)
Damo
I, of course, humbly stand corrected.
And, aren't we all impatiently waiting their greatest military tome yet,
Osprey's 'Zombies: A Hunter's Guide'?
The_Beast
Damond Walker wrote on 07/07/2010 07:17:40 AM:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
wrote:
> > Not really, just a bit beside the point, as movies are about the
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lNot really,
just a bit beside the point, as movies are about the only detailed way we have
of analyzing zombies, which, I repeat, was the start of the thread. Doug
---------
Doug,
Those are DOCUMENTARIES. Zombies aren't fictional creatures like honest
politicians, lawyers with a heart of gold, or policemen who find no enjoyment
in the exercise of authority. Zombies are real, hungry, and studying previous
outbreaks is the ONLY way to prepare for future incidents.
<G>
Tom
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l<delurk>
On stabilized personal weapons:
1)Â According to the Deluxe Edition Laser Disc (yes I'm old enough to have
LDs), the smartgun rig was a steadycam rig adopted for use by the actors. And
if you think about it, the sighting monocles, cameras transmitting to the HQ
vehicle, and hard body armor were pretty accurate predictions of the Land
Warrior program.
2)Â The Raytheon's DARPA-funded exoskeleton project looks to be pretty
successful; as of the Modern Marvels 2008 feature just needing independent
onboard power. A stabilized mount on 1st generation powered armor suit might
not be out of the question in the next 20 years, let alone 100 or 200.
The Vachead's POV:
 The best way to deal with zombies (or bug-eyed aliens, mutant
monsters, trans-dimensional invaders, or etc.) is to return to the ship
and
nuke/beam/kinetic-strike/grav-bomb them from orbit. At first, this
might seem
like a move-then-shoot action, but once aboard the ship you are in fact
shooting-while-moving as you orbit the target err...planet :)
J
<lurk>