Action and Combat - Open Discussion

134 posts / 0 new
Last post
o11o1 o11o1's picture
Does that mean we should

Does that mean we should consider having it be an Armor Bypass instead?

A slight smell of ions....

Grim G Grim G's picture
YAY MATH :D

YAY MATH :D
I knew there would be scaling issues with halving armor somewhere.

Grim G Grim G's picture
Also, just to be clear,

Also, just to be clear, Shredders are 2 handed right? I always thought they were like shotguns but the fact that shards have conceal (something most pistols don't have) is making me pause.

EDIT: Also just noticed that holdouts are restricted but shards aren't... WTF?

jaunty Harrison jaunty Harrison's picture
How is spending Vigor for an

How is spending Vigor for an extra action intended to interact with Wielding two or more weapons. Is it meant to permit you to attack again with every ranged weapon you are carrying? Ambidexterity is already cheap and frightfully strong, so I can't imagine that it needs to be multiplied through the use of vigor.

Trappedinwikipedia Trappedinwikipedia's picture
That's how it worked in 1e.

That's how it worked in 1e.

Shredders weren't 2 handed in 1e either IIRC.

The battlesuit is probably missing it's full write up, where it's likely a vehicle which can't be stacked with more than 4 points of worn armor. It's also worth noting that a Reaper can wear one in 1e, and that probably hasn't changed.

Urthdigger Urthdigger's picture
jaunty Harrison wrote:How is

jaunty Harrison wrote:
How is spending Vigor for an extra action intended to interact with Wielding two or more weapons. Is it meant to permit you to attack again with every ranged weapon you are carrying? Ambidexterity is already cheap and frightfully strong, so I can't imagine that it needs to be multiplied through the use of vigor.

I imagine that is indeed how it works, just like how speed worked in 1st edition. Except not as broken as you could only get essentially speed 2.

jaunty Harrison jaunty Harrison's picture
I suppose I was just hoping

I suppose I was just hoping that if they were nerfing characters that used to rely on Neurachem/Reflex/MRDR, that they'd rein in the ambidexterity abusers a little bit too.

ubik2 ubik2's picture
TheGrue wrote:There is no

TheGrue wrote:
There is no reason ever to do it instead of doubling damage.

It's pretty unlikely, but if you have Armor-Piercing or Called Shot: Bypass Armor, together with the halving armor from the critical, there are some cases where halving armor is better, since the combination reduces armor to 0.

For example, doing 5 damage vs. a foe with 20 armor with an Armor-Piercing weapon, you would do:
Doubling: 5*2 - 20*1/2 = 10 - 10 = 0 (no damage gets through)
Halving Armor: 5 - 20*0 = 5 (5 points get through)

I suppose there's also some odd cases where you don't want to do enough damage to destroy someone, so you want to do less damage, but that's even less likely.

ubik2 ubik2's picture
Trappedinwikipedia wrote:It's

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
It's also worth noting that a Reaper can wear one in 1e, and that probably hasn't changed.

EP2 has a -20 penalty to all physical actions when you're wearing multiple layers of armor (pg 21). The synthmorph frames count as a layer of armor, which effectively prevents them from wearing the non-synth armors.
It's not a big deal, but I thought I'd bring it up as an unfortunate artifact of the rules as written.
TheGrue TheGrue's picture
ubik2 wrote:TheGrue wrote

ubik2 wrote:
TheGrue wrote:
There is no reason ever to do it instead of doubling damage.

It's pretty unlikely, but if you have Armor-Piercing or Called Shot: Bypass Armor, together with the halving armor from the critical, there are some cases where halving armor is better, since the combination reduces armor to 0.

For example, doing 5 damage vs. a foe with 20 armor with an Armor-Piercing weapon, you would do:
Doubling: 5*2 - 20*1/2 = 10 - 10 = 0 (no damage gets through)
Halving Armor: 5 - 20*0 = 5 (5 points get through)

I suppose there's also some odd cases where you don't want to do enough damage to destroy someone, so you want to do less damage, but that's even less likely.

Hm, interesting. To run with that a little, if your target has 10 armor:

Doubling: 5*2 - 10/2 = 10 - 5 = 5
Half armor: 5 - 20*0 = 5

If your target has less armor than that,

Doubling: 5*2 - 8/2 =10 - 4 = 6
Half armor: 5 - 8*0 = 5

To summarize,

If your weapon is Armor Piercing, you should only pick half armor if your target's armor is greater than twice your damage.

Otherwise, you should always pick double damage.

Any way you slice it, this isn't an interesting choice. There are four possible scenarios involving the interaction with criticals and armor:

1) Shooter has non-AP weapon
2) Shooter has AP weapon, target's armor is less than double damage
3) Shooter has AP weapon, target's armor is greater than double damage
4) Shooter has AP weapon, target's armor is exactly double damage

In three of these cases, one option is a "trap" that results an objectively worse outcome. In the forth case, both options are equivalent.

This is not a meaningful choice.

Thermonuclear Banana Split - A not-really-weekly Eclipse Phase campaign journal.

Vae Dei Vae Dei's picture
ubik2 wrote:TheGrue wrote

ubik2 wrote:
TheGrue wrote:
There is no reason ever to do it instead of doubling damage.

It's pretty unlikely, but if you have Armor-Piercing or Called Shot: Bypass Armor, together with the halving armor from the critical, there are some cases where halving armor is better, since the combination reduces armor to 0.

For example, doing 5 damage vs. a foe with 20 armor with an Armor-Piercing weapon, you would do:
Doubling: 5*2 - 20*1/2 = 10 - 10 = 0 (no damage gets through)
Halving Armor: 5 - 20*0 = 5 (5 points get through)

I suppose there's also some odd cases where you don't want to do enough damage to destroy someone, so you want to do less damage, but that's even less likely.

I had been assuming that halving the armour was multiplicative, not additive. If we keep the 'halving the armour' option, that will need to be clarified in the book. Unless I just missed it.

Andinel Andinel's picture
I'm going to chime in on the

I'm going to chime in on the whole reload ratings thing. Rather than having to use division to count ammo (which gets complicated when people will switch firing modes), why not just have SS/SA cost 1 reload, BF cost 2, and FA cost 4? That reduces things to a single reload stat.

For special ammo, counting individual bullets on top of that all adds another layer of complexity. I'd rather just see the single Reload system, and have ammo sold in reload increments. On top of that, having "standard" ammo sold as 100 round increments seems to conflict with the statement laying out the reload rules that you're assumed to always carry enough standard ammo.

Leetsepeak Leetsepeak's picture
Andinel wrote:I'm going to

Andinel wrote:
I'm going to chime in on the whole reload ratings thing. Rather than having to use division to count ammo (which gets complicated when people will switch firing modes), why not just have SS/SA cost 1 reload, BF cost 2, and FA cost 4? That reduces things to a single reload stat.

For special ammo, counting individual bullets on top of that all adds another layer of complexity. I'd rather just see the single Reload system, and have ammo sold in reload increments. On top of that, having "standard" ammo sold as 100 round increments seems to conflict with the statement laying out the reload rules that you're assumed to always carry enough standard ammo.

This sounds like a cool way to simplify it, I like this suggestion.

ubik2 ubik2's picture
Armor piercing stacking

Vae Dei wrote:
Unless I just missed it.

This came up earlier in the thread as well, but I guess it's easy to miss.

From page 2, in the "Step 7: Apply Armor" section, "A critical armor-piercing attack will reduce the AV to 0".

TheGrue wrote:
This is not a meaningful choice.

I agree that it's probably better to eliminate the option to halve armor on a critical, since it makes things simpler, and has minimal game impact.

If that rule went away, the stacking rule would need to altered, but it should probably be altered for clarity in any case (to indicate the interaction with Called Shot: Bypass Armor and Armor-Piercing).

Andinel Andinel's picture
Full automatic fire typo

In the section describing full automatic fire, the text says "You may attack a single target with concentrated fire or up to three separate targets within one meter of each other. In the case of concentrated fire, choose either a +30 modifier to hit or increase the DV by +2d10. In the case of two adjacent targets, make a single attack test against all three."

I assume that the last sentence should be "in the case of three adjacent targets"?

ubik2 ubik2's picture
Mental stress

o11o1 wrote:
That said, on the Stressful Experiences table, I would taboo any occurrence of "halving" on these charts. Just to reduce having to use division for anything. Plain d6s and the occasional d6-1 seems ideal. There also seem to be weird "divided by one" markings in various places I think I'll ignore.

The number before the slash is the stress you take when you fail the WIL check, and the number after the slash is the stress you take if you succeed.
Edit: This is stated on page 34 in the Stress Value section.

Unrelated, but I also realized that in the earlier discussion about whether to double damage or halve armor on a critical hit, it's the GM that makes this decision, and not the player. In that case, the GM will probably frequently choose to halve armor instead, and it is a meaningful option.

TheGrue TheGrue's picture
ubik2 wrote:o11o1 wrote:That

ubik2 wrote:
o11o1 wrote:
That said, on the Stressful Experiences table, I would taboo any occurrence of "halving" on these charts. Just to reduce having to use division for anything. Plain d6s and the occasional d6-1 seems ideal. There also seem to be weird "divided by one" markings in various places I think I'll ignore.

The number before the slash is the stress you take when you fail the WIL check, and the number after the slash is the stress you take if you succeed.
Edit: This is stated on page 34 in the Stress Value section.

Unrelated, but I also realized that in the earlier discussion about whether to double damage or halve armor on a critical hit, it's the GM that makes this decision, and not the player. In that case, the GM will probably frequently choose to halve armor instead, and it is a meaningful option.

Since in all cases one option is far and away the superior outcome, the only "choice" on the GM's part is "do I want to screw the player?"

"You rolled a crit against an unarmoured target? Okay, reduce its AV of zero by half."

I maintain that this is still not a meaningful choice.

Thermonuclear Banana Split - A not-really-weekly Eclipse Phase campaign journal.

Grim G Grim G's picture
Urthdigger wrote:

Urthdigger wrote:

I imagine that is indeed how it works, just like how speed worked in 1st edition. Except not as broken as you could only get essentially speed 2.

I wouldn't necessarily call it broken. Remember that Neurachems were free to use, Vigor costs points and takes time to recharge.
Andinel wrote:
I'm going to chime in on the whole reload ratings thing. Rather than having to use division to count ammo (which gets complicated when people will switch firing modes), why not just have SS/SA cost 1 reload, BF cost 2, and FA cost 4? That reduces things to a single reload stat.

For special ammo, counting individual bullets on top of that all adds another layer of complexity. I'd rather just see the single Reload system, and have ammo sold in reload increments. On top of that, having "standard" ammo sold as 100 round increments seems to conflict with the statement laying out the reload rules that you're assumed to always carry enough standard ammo.


Leetsepeak wrote:

This sounds like a cool way to simplify it, I like this suggestion.

The problem with this is that it's exactly like 1ed rules, but instead of 1/3/10, you're suggesting 1/2/4. And if it comes down to that, I'd rather have the realism of 1ed.
Urthdigger Urthdigger's picture
Grim G wrote:Urthdigger wrote

Grim G wrote:
Urthdigger wrote:

I imagine that is indeed how it works, just like how speed worked in 1st edition. Except not as broken as you could only get essentially speed 2.

I wouldn't necessarily call it broken. Remember that Neurachems were free to use, Vigor costs points and takes time to recharge.

...I know. I'm saying using vigor pools is LESS broken than using neurachem and such to always run at speed 3-4 :P

Grim G Grim G's picture
Trappedinwikipedia wrote:That

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
That's how it worked in 1e.

Shredders weren't 2 handed in 1e either IIRC.


Don't recall that. But since it's apparently true, I demand a 2 handed heavy shredder; the shard rifle!
Kojak Kojak's picture
Well, if the shredder wasn't

Well, if the shredder wasn't already a two-handed weapon, I'd like to see it become one. Players being able to double-fist shredders just seems wrong.

"I wonder if in some weird Freudian way, Kojak was sucking on his own head."
- Steve Webster on Kojak's lollipop

Maudova Maudova's picture
Kojak wrote:Well, if the

Kojak wrote:
Well, if the shredder wasn't already a two-handed weapon, I'd like to see it become one. Players being able to double-fist shredders just seems wrong.

Dual wielding, multi-fired, point blank shredder build is strong.

~Alpha Fork Initialized.
P.S. I often post from my phone as I travel extensively for work. Please forgive typos and grammar issues.

RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
For those of you that are

For those of you that are skeptical of the Reload mechanic, is it that you'd rather go back to EP1 ammo counting, or that you'd rather see it simplified further? For example, only counting BF/FA for purposes of reloading, or only requiring a reload on a critical failure?

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

o11o1 o11o1's picture
RobBoyle wrote:For those of

RobBoyle wrote:
For those of you that are skeptical of the Reload mechanic, is it that you'd rather go back to EP1 ammo counting, or that you'd rather see it simplified further? For example, only counting BF/FA for purposes of reloading, or only requiring a reload on a critical failure?

Allowing Reloading to be a Quick Action instead of a Complex (at least for small weapons) makes a lot of my own worries basically go away.

This is an area of the game where you probably benefit from codifying two to four sets of optional rules, since a lot of this comes down to table preference more than there being one "optimal answer".

I actually kinda like the current reload setup, in the sense that "We are counting the number of complex actions rather than the bullets directly" is a fairly natural clarification to use, it sets aside all the arguments about double tapping and "what if I want to fire an 8 bullet burst instead of a 10 bullet burst" and makes the more clearly part of the game abstractions.

There is a very important caveat here: Actually tracking the number of shots between reloads is only worth our time if those numbers are small. Here's looking at you, Battle Laser, with your 50-action clip. Heavy weapons, or Belt Fed weapons like that should probably use Critical Failures (or Enemy Superior Successes) as their metric for running out. A six shot revolver doesn't need to be using the same rules as larger ordinance.

One clarification I would say is that we should consider making it explicit that using a Burst Fire counts as eating up two of your Single Shot ammo stacks, for cases where players are switching back and forth between different fring types. Come out and say that the "BF" column is just for ease of reference, and that they all collapse back to single shot style if you have to handle tracking mixed firing.

Having some sort of reloading mechanic gives you a nifty way to differentiate weapons of different size categories. The Medium Pistol, with double the clip size of it's Heavy and Holdout siblings, is going to be my new favorite, even if it's not ideal on the concealable or the stopping power side. (The Machine guns should probably gain some different reload values from each other in a like manner)

Better reload supply will probably be one of my preferred types of weapon modifications down the road as well.

Only counting Burst and Auto Fire, however, is an interesting proposal. You'd probably want to reexamine the actual numbers you have, but it could work. The way I imagine it there, the Medium Pistol would have 4+1 Bursts in it, which is to say that it can do 4 bursts (or two Autofires) and still have a handful of bullets left for single shot. If you spend the 4 and want to still single shot, you can proceed for a number of single shots equal to your burst, or you can burn them all in one last Burst and go dry.

Actually, phrasing it out like that now sounds even messier than just counting bullets in the first place. I think I may have over complicated it, but just allowing "infinite" single shots tickles my odd-detector.

as for only needing a reload on a critical failure, that may have worked nicely for something like Fate which is abstracting away your need to reload at all, but EP is just gritty enough that if reloading is going to be a thing, it needs to happen decently often. Critical fails happen on well below 10% of rolls once you include Vigor spends, or well below 5% if you assume the shooter has a Guns of 60. There are other ways to make it dice based (like checking the number on the ones place of the dice) but this makes it pretty random, and won't always properly tell the difference between different weapon types.

My suggestion then is two-fold: use a method fairly similar to the current structure, and/or the EP1 counting bullets system for all weapons that have a limited amount of ammo, fewer than 10 shots between reloads. Any weapon that has a "lot" of ammo, rather than having us track it by the bullet, it either drains on a crit fail, or if the GM notices you've been firing it for more than ten rounds without a stop to check the ammo supply, then start rolling a depletion check each round. This does somewhat split the weapons table into two different types, those that worry about ammo, and those that generally dont.

To scan the tables:
Bullet Counters: Pistols, Sniper Rifles, Seekers in General, Buzzers, Plasma Rifle, Hand Laser
Assumes You're Good: Assault Rifles, Machine Guns, Battle Laser, Most Sprayers, Large Energy Weapons.

If we want a slightly more interesting Depletion check, then have that check be a single D10, and on a natural one it's out of ammo (after completing your attack). Apply a -1 penalty for each time you've fired it, and optionally have a flat positive bonus that is weapon specific. If those weapons have flat bonuses in the +5 or +10 range, then a player will cotton on that it won't run out until they've gotten those 5 or 10 attacks off, and only then do they start playing the odds game. This might be useful to represent "large but finite" ammo packs. Other weapons with very small ammo packs, may just have you track it directly.

And again, write multiple optional rules because tables are going to differ in what they care about. I've had GMs that actively hate all types of combat, and I've had GMs that love lots of firefights.

A slight smell of ions....

TheGrue TheGrue's picture
RobBoyle wrote:For those of

RobBoyle wrote:
For those of you that are skeptical of the Reload mechanic, is it that you'd rather go back to EP1 ammo counting, or that you'd rather see it simplified further? For example, only counting BF/FA for purposes of reloading, or only requiring a reload on a critical failure?

Personally, I'm not a fan of counting ammo by the bullet or by the trigger pull unless I'm playing a tabletop wargame or a video game. Let me tell you how I'm going to run ammo and reloading at my table:

Standard ammo consumption/reloading is abstracted away. You're assumed to have enough magazines/batteries on hand to cover normal ammo consumption, and are reloading when necessary during pauses in the fight. If you roll a critical failure, you magdump and burn through your reserves; now your weapon is empty and you're out of reloads. This is where spare mags come in; every unit of ammunition you buy represents additional reserves over and above standard consumption. When you roll a critical failure and deplete your ammo reserves, "reloading" with a complex action consumes the spare set and gets you shooting again.

tl;dr you track magazines on hand instead of bullets in the gun, and reload only when you crit fail

One effect of this system is that characters with less experience (ie lower Guns skill) are more likely to critically fail; this represents inexperienced shooters wasting ammo or underestimating how much they need, while experienced shooters are more efficient (ie less likely to crit fail).

Thermonuclear Banana Split - A not-really-weekly Eclipse Phase campaign journal.

nerol-1 nerol-1's picture
I like simple things.

I like simple things.
The combat in EP1 and EP2 is well done but me and the players loose track of ammo very easily.
I would keep track of Sb and FA only.
The idea to recharge on a critical failure, or if missing on a xx-99 roll, could create the strange situation when it's time to recharge after one short busrt only.

Next week I'll play 2 test scenarios with new and old EP players. I will let you know what they think about combat (and the rules in general)
Ciao
Luca

il NeRo
www.sentinellefirewall.blogspot.it
The blog about the adventures of 4 Italian Sentinels

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture
RobBoyle wrote:For those of

RobBoyle wrote:
For those of you that are skeptical of the Reload mechanic, is it that you'd rather go back to EP1 ammo counting, or that you'd rather see it simplified further? For example, only counting BF/FA for purposes of reloading, or only requiring a reload on a critical failure?

Either of those two would work for me
The current setup is in an awkward place between the realism and abstract spots.
Maudova Maudova's picture
Ammo Counting is UnFun

I don't really think ammo counting is something, as a Game Master, I have ever given two s4!7s about. I only care about it when its dramatically important or when a player just starts dumping BF and FA attacks over successive turns. So if there is going to be mechanical tracker of ammo it should only really come into question when there is Burst Fire and Full Auto+ and reloading speed, if called into questions should be based on weapons size/caliber.

Reloads should happen on 6 shooters, Seekers, and other guns that perform burst fire and full auto . Roll against 98%, every Burst fire -5% and every FA -15%. On a fail, the gun "Jams/Needs a Reload" as dramatically appropriate.

Crit Fail on a attack roll should have zero do to with ammo count, that doesn't even make since in an abstract way.

IMO.

~Alpha Fork Initialized.
P.S. I often post from my phone as I travel extensively for work. Please forgive typos and grammar issues.

Grim G Grim G's picture
RobBoyle wrote:For those of

RobBoyle wrote:
For those of you that are skeptical of the Reload mechanic, is it that you'd rather go back to EP1 ammo counting, or that you'd rather see it simplified further? For example, only counting BF/FA for purposes of reloading, or only requiring a reload on a critical failure?

Personally I see the Reload mechanic as being a dumbed down version of counting ammo. You're keeping track of it regardless and decreasing your mag to the lowest point after firing full auto just sounds stupid.

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if your party is as well equipped as the standard US soldier (9 mags + 1 in the rifle), but in urban and covert settings you could only have 3 mags tops without it looking suspicious. My vote is keep ammo the way it always was; it's complicated but you can't solve every issue.

Grim G Grim G's picture
TheGrue wrote:RobBoyle wrote

TheGrue wrote:
RobBoyle wrote:
For those of you that are skeptical of the Reload mechanic, is it that you'd rather go back to EP1 ammo counting, or that you'd rather see it simplified further? For example, only counting BF/FA for purposes of reloading, or only requiring a reload on a critical failure?

Personally, I'm not a fan of counting ammo by the bullet or by the trigger pull unless I'm playing a tabletop wargame or a video game. Let me tell you how I'm going to run ammo and reloading at my table:

Standard ammo consumption/reloading is abstracted away. You're assumed to have enough magazines/batteries on hand to cover normal ammo consumption, and are reloading when necessary during pauses in the fight. If you roll a critical failure, you magdump and burn through your reserves; now your weapon is empty and you're out of reloads. This is where spare mags come in; every unit of ammunition you buy represents additional reserves over and above standard consumption. When you roll a critical failure and deplete your ammo reserves, "reloading" with a complex action consumes the spare set and gets you shooting again.

tl;dr you track magazines on hand instead of bullets in the gun, and reload only when you crit fail

One effect of this system is that characters with less experience (ie lower Guns skill) are more likely to critically fail; this represents inexperienced shooters wasting ammo or underestimating how much they need, while experienced shooters are more efficient (ie less likely to crit fail).


This sounds like an interesting idea at first, but I noticed a few things I don't like:
Banking on critical failures alone would mean that (statistically speaking) you could fire 99 automatic bursts and only run out of ammo on the hundredth, which begs the question, how big is your mag? At the same time you could theoretically waste an entire mag after the first shot regardless of how big the capacity is.

The only time a rule like this ever made sense to me was in Apocalypse World, and only because most fights in AW are all settled with 1 roll.

eaton eaton's picture
Quote:My vote is keep ammo

Quote:
My vote is keep ammo the way it always was; it's complicated but you can't solve every issue.

Tend towards this, myself. Ammo counting wasn't that bad and when it was annoying groups were free to handwave past it.
UnitOmega UnitOmega's picture
Yeah, same. When running more

Yeah, same. When running more survival horror scenarios, I find the literal counting of bullets and mags very useful for the tone and most people can wrap their heads around these concepts (Thanks, video games) and people who don't care do just ignore it. I don't think reliance on Rule 0 should be a cornerstone but as seen in the playtest you can't appease everybody and I think a sound system which people can wrap their heads around easily like just counting the actual bullets in the mag and if people need to simplify it for their taste they can still easily see where it is.

H-Rep: An EP Homebrew Blog
http://ephrep.blogspot.com/

TheGrue TheGrue's picture
Grim G wrote:TheGrue wrote

Grim G wrote:
TheGrue wrote:
RobBoyle wrote:
For those of you that are skeptical of the Reload mechanic, is it that you'd rather go back to EP1 ammo counting, or that you'd rather see it simplified further? For example, only counting BF/FA for purposes of reloading, or only requiring a reload on a critical failure?

Personally, I'm not a fan of counting ammo by the bullet or by the trigger pull unless I'm playing a tabletop wargame or a video game. Let me tell you how I'm going to run ammo and reloading at my table:

Standard ammo consumption/reloading is abstracted away. You're assumed to have enough magazines/batteries on hand to cover normal ammo consumption, and are reloading when necessary during pauses in the fight. If you roll a critical failure, you magdump and burn through your reserves; now your weapon is empty and you're out of reloads. This is where spare mags come in; every unit of ammunition you buy represents additional reserves over and above standard consumption. When you roll a critical failure and deplete your ammo reserves, "reloading" with a complex action consumes the spare set and gets you shooting again.

tl;dr you track magazines on hand instead of bullets in the gun, and reload only when you crit fail

One effect of this system is that characters with less experience (ie lower Guns skill) are more likely to critically fail; this represents inexperienced shooters wasting ammo or underestimating how much they need, while experienced shooters are more efficient (ie less likely to crit fail).


This sounds like an interesting idea at first, but I noticed a few things I don't like:
Banking on critical failures alone would mean that (statistically speaking) you could fire 99 automatic bursts and only run out of ammo on the hundredth, which begs the question, how big is your mag? At the same time you could theoretically waste an entire mag after the first shot regardless of how big the capacity is.

The only time a rule like this ever made sense to me was in Apocalypse World, and only because most fights in AW are all settled with 1 roll.

As I said, the idea of this system is that the actual mag count is abstracted. You're assumed to have enough magazines/batteries on hand to cover normal ammo consumption, and are reloading when necessary during pauses in the fight. Another assumed abstraction is that one roll of the dice does not equal one pull of the trigger, much the same way that rolling once on Unarmed is not a single punch.

This also handily does away with the oddness inherent in EP's action economy, whereby a gun's maximum rate of fire is directly proportional to how many actions the shooter has. Making three successive full-auto attacks is not three seperate bursts of fire in this system, but represents the shooter's enhanced reflexes allowing them to better control a single burst and maximize shots on target. Because really, if "full auto" represents holding down the trigger and letting the weapon fire as fast as it is physically capable of doing so, being faster isn't going to magically squeeze more bullets down the muzzle.

Thermonuclear Banana Split - A not-really-weekly Eclipse Phase campaign journal.

Grim G Grim G's picture
TheGrue wrote:

TheGrue wrote:

As I said, the idea of this system is that the actual mag count is abstracted. You're assumed to have enough magazines/batteries on hand to cover normal ammo consumption

Unless you're part of some military with ammo stockpiles, it doesn't work. You're either going to be in some remote place with no easy access to ammo, or in an urban setting where everything has to be carried in your coat pocket.

TheGrue wrote:
Another assumed abstraction is that one roll of the dice does not equal one pull of the trigger, much the same way that rolling once on Unarmed is not a single punch.
This would imply getting rid of firing modes. If any roll can deplete that is.

TheGrue wrote:

This also handily does away with the oddness inherent in EP's action economy, whereby a gun's maximum rate of fire is directly proportional to how many actions the shooter has. Making three successive full-auto attacks is not three seperate bursts of fire in this system, but represents the shooter's enhanced reflexes allowing them to better control a single burst and maximize shots on target. Because really, if "full auto" represents holding down the trigger and letting the weapon fire as fast as it is physically capable of doing so, being faster isn't going to magically squeeze more bullets down the muzzle.

I fail to see a real problem here. So a guy can unload a mag in 3 seconds, I don't care, rate of fire was never specified anyway.
ubik2 ubik2's picture
Firing modes and reload

Grim G wrote:
This would imply getting rid of firing modes. If any roll can deplete that is.

You could deplete from SA with a critical fail, deplete from BF on a double superior fail, and deplete from FA with a single superior fail. A bad result that would deplete a lower fire rate also depletes the higher rate. This also influences the unskilled shooter to use SA or BF, while the more skilled shooter can get away with FA.

It does eliminate the distinction on guns based on their clip size (so the medium pistol is poor).

If your target number is 40 to hit, and your opponent has a target number of 40 to dodge (80 Fray), you will deplete around 6% of the time from SA, 15% of the time from BF, and 38% from FA.
If your target number is 80 to hit, you will deplete around 2% of the time from SA, 11% of the time from BF, and 12% of the time from FA.
Edit: Updated numbers from anydice
http://anydice.com/program/c048

This may reward the high skill player too much, since he's already getting the extra damage dice from superior successes more frequently, but it does let you do firing modes.

If you wanted to maintain clip size, each of these failures could drop the capacity by 1 point, and normal weapons would have a capacity of 1, while weapons that hold more shots would have 2 or even 3.

Trappedinwikipedia Trappedinwikipedia's picture
That'd mean that a skilled

That'd mean that a skilled shooter never runs out of ammo if they fire in bursts.

I like the ammo counting myself, it was never too difficult to track with poker chips or on a computer for me. Expressing it in terms of firing modes and actions seems unnecessary to me, though I don't mind a whole lot.

That said, I house ruled my game to separate magazine size from being intrinsic to weapons, for more freedom over the current extended mag rules, so I wouldn't mind more magazine upgrades, and if that's easier with the current system of ammo tracking, than I would support that.

ubik2 ubik2's picture
Trappedinwikipedia wrote:That

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
That'd mean that a skilled shooter never runs out of ammo if they fire in bursts.

Based on the numbers above, for a standard size magazine, a skilled shooter would need an average of one reload every 9 bursts. For 3 round bursts, that's 27 bullets, which is fewer than the 30 from an M16 magazine. More problematic are the semi-automatic mode, where the skilled shooter gets 50 shots, and the full-auto fire, where the skilled shooter gets the unlikely 8 volleys (perhaps they're very short bursts for such a skilled shooter).

This is with a target number of 80. A professional rating for a skill is 40, according to the game, so it is probably an exceptional shooter (or shooting the broad side of a barn).

Anyhow, I'm not really pushing for this system. I just suggested it as a way of addressing the issue with only needing to reload on a critical failure, and noticed the probabilities were pretty good. It may end up being as much of a hassle as counting bullets in play (which isn't terrible). In particular, explaining the rule is complicated.

Trappedinwikipedia Trappedinwikipedia's picture
You can't get double superior

You can't get double superior fails with a skill rating of 40 unless you have situational penalties. If you pass with a 40 or less you can't fail with a 33 or less. Regardless of how it's set up, having it be possible to reload, fire one shot, and need to reload a machine gun box or laser battery is dumb, and shouldn't ever be possible, that's worse than just tracking ammo.

CordialUltimate2 CordialUltimate2's picture
When considering ammo please

When considering ammo please check the depth of the system and its complexity.

Current playtest reaload mechanic:
Complexity: You have to count reloads and remember the conversion rules for different types. 3 new weapon stats.
Depth: It counts ammo and sometimes you run out.

Old rules:
Complexity: You count ammo. One weapon stat - magazine size.
Depth: It counts ammo and sometimes you run out.

As you can see the current reload is actually bad design it doesn't simplify things at all, adds new rules and doesn't get anything for that price.

Exurgents wanna eat your ass and you are low on ammo? Register to mobile gear catalogue at eldrich.host.mesh! ORDER NOW! FOR FREE PLASMA MINIMISSILE PACK! *explosive delivery options included

ubik2 ubik2's picture
Trappedinwikipedia wrote:You

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
You can't get double superior fails with a skill rating of 40 unless you have situational penalties. If you pass with a 40 or less you can't fail with a 33 or less.

I think the Game Mechanics section could use some clarification, but on an opposed test, you can fail despite having a high target number. Since the section on superior results just referenced failing (not rolling above the target number), I interpreted this to apply to the opposed test failures as well. It's entirely possible that this wasn't the game designer's intent, though.

For the scenario where you fire one shot and need to reload, a jam might better characterize what has happened. It's a critical failure, so some of the suggested results are having the weapon be destroyed or having the player lose their next action. Reload sounds like it fits that latter option pretty well.

UnitOmega UnitOmega's picture
That would have to be a

That would have to be a technical consideration. Battery operated weapons definitely don't jam - and I'd need to double check if a caseless weapon (which firearms in EP are said to be) can do so but I'm not sure they necessarily can? If there's no brass to eject and everything is used up and thrown out the barrel so the mechanisms should be pretty simple - but my practical knowledge of firearms are limited so I don't know every kind of jam and mechanism failure you might have.

That said, from a mechanical perspective I don't think clearing a misfire (as a result of a extra failure) or other problem should be characterized quite the same as a "reload" action even if it takes a Complex Action to fix. Depending on what you're doing reload can indicate use of spare ammunition which may or may not be being tracked.

Getting too into the details might cause unnecessary confusion about what is narratively going on vs what is mechanically going on. I'm assuming part of the reason Reload has switched at all is to try and actually keep the serious structural simulation of knowing how much ammo is on your person from interfering with just the game and it's story keeping a natural flow. Or all the people who the developers talk to are just big babies about simple math. Either way, the purpose of the simplification is to actually keep it simple and in an easy-to-follow frame of reference so that people don't have to track an exact number of rounds and necessarily get into literal numbers of shots while still keeping the very real balancing factor that certain types of weapons can be used so many times before you need to take a break and reload them - and in the case of variable ammo switch them around. With Guns now all in a single skill I think that's an important mechanical quality that the game needs to maintain.

H-Rep: An EP Homebrew Blog
http://ephrep.blogspot.com/

Trappedinwikipedia Trappedinwikipedia's picture
ubik2 wrote:I think the Game

ubik2 wrote:
I think the Game Mechanics section could use some clarification, but on an opposed test, you can fail despite having a high target number. Since the section on superior results just referenced failing (not rolling above the target number), I interpreted this to apply to the opposed test failures as well. It's entirely possible that this wasn't the game designer's intent, though.

To me it looks like opposed tests have a winner and loser, with success and failure on the tests being a separate thing. So if person A succeeds and person B fails person A wins, but if person B had also passed but rolled lower they didn't actually fail, they just lost; which means that they wouldn't be subject to a superior fail if applicable.

But, the last wording when dealing with both sides getting a critical success casts doubt on that because in that case the person who rolled higher wins with critical success, and the person who rolled lower has their critical success turned into critical failure. That would support your interpretation, so I agree that it is unclearly written.

ubik2 wrote:
For the scenario where you fire one shot and need to reload, a jam might better characterize what has happened. It's a critical failure, so some of the suggested results are having the weapon be destroyed or having the player lose their next action. Reload sounds like it fits that latter option pretty well.

I don't really like the idea of jams being that frequent, EP guns are supposed to be pretty nice, and well made guns from WW1 could put hundreds of thousands of rounds through them without jamming.

I really like the ammo counting personally, but I think that's because I've been playing games with ammo counting for long enough that I have come up with good ways to track it, so I don't really feel the burden. I like having an objective sense of how much is left before needing to reload, instead of worrying about bad luck on the dice. IMO they add enough uncertainty already. Ammo tracking for reloads is nice, but it's quite easy to ignore how much overall ammo is carried by the players, which I think this edition mostly wants to do.

ubik2 ubik2's picture
UnitOmega wrote:That would

UnitOmega wrote:
That would have to be a technical consideration. Battery operated weapons definitely don't jam - and I'd need to double check if a caseless weapon (which firearms in EP are said to be) can do so but I'm not sure they necessarily can?

Caseless weapons can still jam (though in fewer ways), but I do like to imagine that in the future, they've solved these problems.
As you point out, using jam as the in-world justification for the game mechanic doesn't apply to energy weapons or railguns.

For groups where people aren't firing FA all the time, and the group doesn't want to track ammo, it's probably simple enough to just not bother.
If the GM notices everyone is firing FA all the time, or thinks it's straining the verisimilitude, it's probably time to track ammo (counter as in EP1) for those individuals.

Regardless of whether the reload mechanic is used, though, the GM does generally need to come up with some narrative for what went wrong when there's a critical failure. I would be pretty disappointed if I just got:

GM: You critically fail, so you lose your next action.
Me: What happened?
GM: I dunno. Something went wrong, and you lose your next action.
Me: Did my gun jam or something?
GM: No, it's the future. Guns don't jam. You just lost your next action.
Me: Oh. Ok.

UnitOmega UnitOmega's picture
Yeah, I was more talking

Yeah, I was more talking about losing your next action as specifically being referred to as reloading. The GM obviously has to come up with some justification, but part of that is the generic BSing a GM has to do on a regular basis. Individual "bricks" of ammo might be duds, you might have accidentally loosened a battery contact and need to reset it, maybe you accidentally thumbed the safety on before pulling the trigger and have to now figure that out and reset it. This is an issue with all systems of "MAL"/critical failure with weapons though and just reflects the general need to be able to come up with justifications in game. It's like how revolvers don't have the same "jam" problem an automatic does but you can still get a dud bullet or something stuck in the cylinder to cause a mechanical failure.

H-Rep: An EP Homebrew Blog
http://ephrep.blogspot.com/

eaton eaton's picture
Quote:GM: You critically fail

Quote:
GM: You critically fail, so you lose your next action.
Me: What happened?
GM: I dunno. Something went wrong, and you lose your next action.
Me: Did my gun jam or something?
GM: No, it's the future. Guns don't jam. You just lost your next action.
Me: Oh. Ok.

Also, note that there's a difference between running out of ammo and optionally reloading (versus switching to another weapon, seeking cover, yelling and drawing fire, praying for a quick death, etc) or simply *losing your next complex action*.

UnitOmega UnitOmega's picture
Praying for a quick death is

Praying for a quick death is an Automatic Action, certainly?

H-Rep: An EP Homebrew Blog
http://ephrep.blogspot.com/

Grim G Grim G's picture
ubik2 wrote:UnitOmega wrote

ubik2 wrote:
UnitOmega wrote:
That would have to be a technical consideration. Battery operated weapons definitely don't jam - and I'd need to double check if a caseless weapon (which firearms in EP are said to be) can do so but I'm not sure they necessarily can?

Caseless weapons can still jam (though in fewer ways), but I do like to imagine that in the future, they've solved these problems.
As you point out, using jam as the in-world justification for the game mechanic doesn't apply to energy weapons or railguns.

For groups where people aren't firing FA all the time, and the group doesn't want to track ammo, it's probably simple enough to just not bother.
If the GM notices everyone is firing FA all the time, or thinks it's straining the verisimilitude, it's probably time to track ammo (counter as in EP1) for those individuals.

Regardless of whether the reload mechanic is used, though, the GM does generally need to come up with some narrative for what went wrong when there's a critical failure. I would be pretty disappointed if I just got:

GM: You critically fail, so you lose your next action.
Me: What happened?
GM: I dunno. Something went wrong, and you lose your next action.
Me: Did my gun jam or something?
GM: No, it's the future. Guns don't jam. You just lost your next action.
Me: Oh. Ok.


I'd say counting semiauto or BF is unnecessary for weapons with huge mags like a shredder or assault rifle with an extended mag, but for something like a heavy pistol, every shot counts.
Grim G Grim G's picture
If I may steer the

If I may steer the conversation away from ammo for a moment. I'd like to speculate more on poly guns and how extensive their rules are. For example, can I get a sniper rifle that fires SMG ammunition fully automatic? Can I have a holdout that shoots heavy pistol rounds?

UnitOmega UnitOmega's picture
IIRC, it says you have to

IIRC, it says you have to switch ammo (this makes sense loosely but EP doesn't give a fuck about calibers so it's fine) when you switch type and it says "as above" so I would think not. The Polygun sounds like it just warps to the dimensions of the gun class and applies that principle - which means you can switch between a holdout for concealment to a big heavy pistol when you need some stopping.

And you just pull a handful from those big piles of loose 100 rounds you get when you buy ammo and stuff them in.

H-Rep: An EP Homebrew Blog
http://ephrep.blogspot.com/

Scottbert Scottbert's picture
My thoughts as I read:

My thoughts as I read:

Actions and Combat
Wait, Making Characters said thrown weapons were an exotic skill, here they're Athletics? Which is it?
Can you Full Defense against Psi? Even if you're not psychic?
Does the Blind entry mean 'GM decides between 50% miss chance or -30', or '-30 to the check AND 50% miss chance'?
Average damage value might look cleaner in its own column
Should it be mentioned that choking won't work on someone in a hardsuit?
I appreciate the new Restricted tag that makes it clear what isn't a problem to have in most habs.
This single/burst/full-auto ammo count seems needlessly complex /and/ unrealistic. Just tracking ammo per magazine normally is more straightforward and slows the game down less if someone ever switches firing modes. Not having to track spare ammo unless the GM asks is a good idea though. Instead of the second paragraph, you could just say: "If you only use burst or autofire, dividing the magazine size by 2, 3 or 10 may be more convenient than tracking individual rounds" or somesuch. Also, just listing magazine size instead of the nebulous 'reload' value.
Last paragraph of full automatic should say "In the case of two or three adjacent targets, make a single attack against all of them."
Is there a reason we're not listing item sizes for weapons anymore?
Laser pulser: Should be "quickly followed by" not "quickly fired by"
Freezer foam: breathe is the verb, breath is the noun
Oh the Thrown skill thing is clarified down here. The earlier mention was just misleading.
High velocities should not be hyphenated
I notice some ammunition types are not restricted, but all kinetics and seeker launchers are. What does this mean?
Tactical Multipurpose's complexity is misaligned.
So EVERY stun grenade/seeker includes the parts for overload whether it will be used or not? This seems wasteful. Likewise TMP. HE and Frag require completely different things, don't they? This isn't like biter rounds.
Oh, that's what -30/50% means. Maybe you should put 'see text' up there.
If the Ambidextrous trait needs to be taken once per additional limb you can use without penalty, that should probably be noted here. Also it's strange that one paragraph says it's just -20 for offhand penalties, then another says it's -20 cumulative per additional limb.
It feels slightly weird that AP ammo gives a DV penalty that isn't noted in the table. It would probably be clearest to include it in the ammo table and have the description say 'weapons and ammo listed as armor-piercing already incorporate this DV penalty in the table'
No Point Blank and No Close should probably be listed seperately.
Bots: Suddenly we're talking about AIs instead of ALIs? What's the difference?
Jamming uses the robot's vigor pool... so what's the point of the 'Wirehead' eidolon that has a vigor pool?
Falling damage table might benefit from having columns for low/high gravity
Microgravity: Maybe note that floating objects in a pressurized hab will eventually settle against ventilation grates. http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff900/fv00900.htm
Gravity transition zones: Spinning habitats do not project some sort of 'simulated gravity' field inside them! If they're pressurized, air friction may start pushing you, but describing that as 'encountering simulated gravity' is misleading!
Lose a negative ego trait is listed twice
Why does your software mindstate crash from physical damage that isn't to the cyberbrain?
Just curious, is the revivification time going from 2 hours after death to 24 hours after death based on new developments in brain science or just meant to be more convenient for game purposes?
Do muses and other ALIs suffer stress and trauma, or are they immune?
Acute stress response: Suggestion: instead of calling for a reroll if flight is impossible, defer to fight on 3 and detachment on 4. The seriousness of the moment could be damaged by rerolls.
Can muses still do psychotherapy for people? The section on mental healing should mention this.

Pages