Subject:
|
Re: Auto-fire rule question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:48:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
15 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.fun.gaming, Frank Filz writes:
> Aaron Sneary wrote:
> >
> > Auto-fire rule question for Mike and/or anyone who
> > has used the rules:
> >
> > If a troopers skill is 1d6, max roll is: 6
> > and the penalty for a 30degree arc is: -2
> > Max roll is now 4
> > the AutoUsage rating on Impact Rifle is: 5
> >
> > Then there is NO WAY a trooper can hit ANYTHING with
> > auto fire???
Depending on which optional rules you use. In the simplest case, this
trooper would have to limit hislef to a 15 degree firing arc. Another thing
you could try (although it's a stretch) is to say that if a target is large
enough that it would still be hit by the NearMiss (although otherwise
NearMiss rules don't mix well with Auto fire), then the trooper still hits it.
> > That's crazy. Is this why some people suggest the max
> > roll- AutoSuccess rule?
> > No matter what modifiers the 6 on a d6 is a success?
That is one solution, although I prefer the Better Critical Rolls rule (from
1.4: Basic Combat, quoted here by permission of the author):
" Optional Rule: Better Critical Rolls
---------------------------------------
Any time one of the dice in a roll ends up on the die's
highest number, you may add one more of that die to the
roll. If the new die comes up on its highest-numbered
face, then you may add an additional die, and so on,
until you stop getting such lucky rolls.
"
This system gives the following probability curve:
at 30 degrees, 17% chance to hit any specific target in the arc
at 45, 14% chance
at 60, 11% chance
at 75, 8%
at 90, 5%
at 105, 3%
at 120, 2.8%
at 135, 2.3%
at 150, 1.9%
at 165, 1.4%
at 180, 0.9%
...
at 360, 0.02%
That seems to work pretty well, I think.
> With an eye towards reality, this isn't actually as
> absurd as it sounds. Automatic fire is rather inaccurate
> (at least with traditional weapons, after about the 3rd
> bullet, recoil has moved the weapon so much that it's no
> longer pointing where you aimed, plus, people tend to
> assume it's like a fire hose that they don't really need
> to aim). It is actually most effective as suppression
> fire where the object is to get your opponent to duck so
> you can advance (or retreat) without being shot at.
That sounds about right to me, although I'm not sure I'd recommend keeping
any eyes towards reality.
- Mike.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Auto-fire rule question
|
| (...) This does sound like the best option. I understand that you're chances of hitting someone/thing important should be low, but every bullet that misses the first guy might hit the next guy. If you fire a full clip into a large crowd, you're (...) (23 years ago, 27-Apr-02, to lugnet.gaming)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Auto-fire rule question
|
| (...) With an eye towards reality, this isn't actually as absurd as it sounds. Automatic fire is rather inaccurate (at least with traditional weapons, after about the 3rd bullet, recoil has moved the weapon so much that it's no longer pointing where (...) (23 years ago, 26-Apr-02, to lugnet.gaming)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
