[JonA]

Also, an issue that was raised over on the Deniable Resources forum was:

Under the machine weapons rules on pg 33 it says that you can divide the damage dice among multiple targets of focus it on one target for a +4 to hit. It also advises that the armour is subtracted from each dice rolled.
I take this to mean that if I concentrate fire on one person with my SMG (6D6) I roll all 6 damage dice and subtract their armour from each dice result (or 6xtheir armour from the dice total)?

This means that field combat armour (most commonly used by agents). a helmet and a disc shield with give them +5 AV almost completely nullifying an SMG, amd making a machinegun not that scary.

It seems to me that agents with only the norm in terms of armour have very little to fear from fully automatic gunfile.

The designer did respond with:

Light, kinetic machine weapons are not the weapon of choice against armoured Agents, but I assure you that there are plenty of attack forms you'll be hiding from. Plasma weapons for example. Additionally, a gunman can become very skilled with his weapon (mastered weapon training), purchase better quality weapons or aim. This increases the damage on the weapon and will allow an Agent with a simple handgun to deal some significant wounds. Hope this helps.

Also on the matter of cover:

I have hit another bit in the rules that I have an issue with, or I cannot properly fathom, the cover rules (pg 144).
As I see it, any cover you take applies the same penalty to you as your opponent.
This means that taking cover in a gunfight only makes sense if you are the better shot.

The way I see it, kneeling behind a desk so that only your head, upper torso and arms are visible vs. someone who is standing in the open should give you better protection from them that they get from you.
My first instinct is to house-rule this so that you get 2 less penalty than your opponent, therfore if you are hiding behind the aformentioned desk your opponent is at -4 and you are at -2.
Of course if he takes cover in a similar desk you are both at -6.

Of course I could be missing something, and I am not basing this on anything more than a feeling and a couple of paintball sessions so I could be talking gibberish.

Anyone got any comments for or against the cover rules?

Admittedly this might be that I'm picturing a more gritty game than the designers intended, with people taking cover in gunfights and fearing fully automatic bursts.

Two responses - one from another poster and the second from the game designer again:

Paul,

I agree the equal reduction in attack as the cover bonus confused me. I think the designers were thinking that in order to untilise the cover you were forced to take a less than optimal firing position, and the penalty reflects the reduction in accuracy from an unstable stance and grip, etc.

However, most modern combat shooters are trained in using cover to support a firing position, so this pokes a hole in the theory (I certain was given such training in my army basic combat training) - in fact some firing from cover positions are more stable and more accurate than normal free-standing (firing from a trench for example).

I also agree that a lower penalty is certainly appropriate here.

I would be interesting in hearing Harker's comments on why the game designer(s) chose this approach.


Shane

Hi Paul,

Shane is correct in his summary that it is supposed to represent a disadvantage inherent in maintaining your cover and to keep large combat fairly simple. But as Shane pointed out some cover is very strong and confers a significant advantage to the combatant. There are dozens of combinations of cover / exposure and a blanket rule which caters to each variation would be awkward.

Therefore the basic modifiers are the same for each party, the GM is then free to utilise the 'General Modifier' rule on page 140 to give one of the fighters an edge over the other.

This seems to be what you have suggested with your alterations in the modifiers. When designing the game we were keen to keep everything simple and have the GM say 'Hmmm, I think a bonus is warranted in this case", rather than continually referring to the book for the stated modifier.

Cheers for now, Harker

All can be found here:

http://www.deniableresources.co.uk/f...forum.php?f=12