Forums of the Megaverse®

Hey all,

I just wanted a quick clarification regarding the revised Ranged Combat rules from R:UE. I couldn't find my answer in the F.A.Q., so here I go:

Example 1:
Subject X is in partial cover, meaning Subject Y can fire on X as a Called Shot. This I understand.

Example 2:
Subject X is in COMPLETE cover, meaning a Called Shot by Y will not work. Y, however, has a grenade launcher, and fires one in the vicinity of X in hopes of catching X in the grenade's blast radius.

How is the shot by Subject Y in Example 2 treated?:

a) A regular ranged attack with penalties for Firing Blind? (Counts as 1 attack, with a -10 penalty) OR;
b) A Called Shot with penalties for Firing Blind? (Counts as 2 attacks, with a -10 penalty);

As a follow-up question: Can a "Firing Blind" attack be an Aimed shot?


Thanks in advance,

:Grim

Rappanui wrote:straight attack, no penalty. No dodge either. better hope his cover survives the damage.
if it doesn't. he takes half damage. straight meaning, natural roll. (this is a wild shot, Not blind shot)

Thanks for the reply, but you've confused me further.

It's a "straight attack, no penalty", but then you say it's a wild shot, and wild shots have a -6 penalty to strike.

When would the "Firing Blind" penalty apply? When, for example, Subject X runs though an SDC door and Subject Y is shooting X with an MDC rifle THROUGH the door?

There really aren't any good rules for covering this sort of situation. I had a similar issue occur not too long ago, and there was no answer then, either.

I would treat it as shooting wild, because that's effectively what you're doing, Grim. Count it as a called shot still, but there is a -6 penalty, the opponent can still dodge as normal vs a ranged attack.

Wow! I appreciate all the input guys, but each one I receive just brings up more questions. Still, I'm glad we have the opportunity to discuss these things and come to a concensus.

So, to recap, we have Subject X completely hidden in cover, with Subject Y trying to hit X with the Blast Radius of their grenade launcher.

Alrik Vas wrote:I would treat it as shooting wild, because that's effectively what you're doing, Grim. Count it as a called shot still, but there is a -6 penalty, the opponent can still dodge as normal vs a ranged attack.

I've always attributed the "Wild Shot" penalty for situations where the SHOOTER is negatively affected, such as firing from a moving vehicle. In the example I wrote, I don't think there's anything "Wild" about it; it's a controlled, intentional shot at a spot NEAR Subject X.

I would argue that it would be a "Called Shot" (2 attacks) with a -10 penalty for "Firing Blind". If Subject Y were firing on X from a moving vehicle, the -6 penalty for "Shooting Wild" would ALSO apply. Fair?

Also, if Subject X were in complete cover, I would NOT allow a dodge, unless they had some cybernetic/psychic/supernatural edge that allowed them to anticipate attacks they couldn't see. I believe, however, "Rolling with Impact" SHOULD be allowed.

Rappanui wrote:Wild shots have no penalty if you have the Weapon proficiency.

In the revised Ranged Combat rules in Rifts: Ultimate Edition, the penalty DOES apply to WP attacks. (RUE, pg. 361, bottom-left corner of page)


I appreciate all the posts, guys, so keep 'em coming. I hope I'm not sounding like a dick when I reply.

I think the problem here is that there are too many variables to account for in a single rule. Each ruling would would probably need to be a little different each time by the GM after all variables are taken into account.

1) Need more deffinition of "complete cover" including all the surrounding terrain.
A. In an office building, hiding under/behind a large oak desk. Is there a window or a wall behind you, how far, a computer on the desk, corner of the room, does the desk have a solid backing to the floor, other chairs in the vacinity, a book shelf?
B. In the forest concealed by heavy brush. Do you know how deep the brush is, are there trees, spacing, rocks, a felled log or stump that you can or can't see, a ditch, mound of earth, what is potentially behind the target?
C. In a long narrow hallway, but you have a massive riot or tower shield you are completely hiding behind. Are there open or closed doors nearby, windows, fire extinguisher, carpet or tile flooring?

2) Need specifics on the exploive device being used.
A. Thrown grendade, rifle fired grenade, mini-missile?
B. Detonation type, impact, proximity, programmed distance, timed?

3) What is the stated or planned target?
A. I want to aim past the target so the explosion is not impacted by the cover.
B. I want to toss my grenade (4 sec timer) lightly over the desk and hope it lands in the chair and either stays there or rolls to the floor right behind the desk.
C. I am aiming my mini-missle launcher at the overhanging tree branch 30 yards away and 8 feet high becasue I think if it explodes there my opponent will still be in the blast radius.

The -10 for being blind wouldn't necesarrily apply to all these situations. That only applies when you are specifically targetting something you cannot see and (personal ruling here) when the cover is large enough that that it cannot be reasonably assumed where the target is. If the cover is complete but only say 20% bigger than the target I would reduce that penalty if your weapon would not be slowed down by the cover.

My rulings for Item 3, that the player declared.
3)A. Roll strike no bonuses and the -10 penalty for not actually aiming at a target.
3)B. Now you are rolling to hit the chair properly, not the guy hiding. This seems to be a careful throw, OK roll strike with bonuses, 2 attacks for a called shot, -4 for difficulty not specifically being able to see the seat of the chair you are aiming for but you can reasonably tell where it is. Then the GM has to decide if the roll was successful if the blast radius hit the guy hiding. No direct rule for the player to know based solely on his roll.
3)C. Again you are aiming at the tree branch not the target under cover. Roll strike with bonuses, 2 attacks for called shot, maybe add a difficulty penalty if it is windy and the branch is moving or if it is really small. Then on a successful roll again up to the GM to account for where the target is positioned including other unseen ground cover related to where the missile exploded.

Thanks for the input. I just had one question:

For 3A, you have a roll without bonuses with the -10 penalty. Why would the Strike bonuses not apply? If you can aim for the chair behind the desk (3B), why can't you aim for the ground beside the cover?

Grim, i see what you're saying. The -10 penalty works better considering you're doing it blind. I agree you would have bonuses.

However, the opponent would get their normal dodge bonuses because a mortar is very noticable when it's incoming. Sure, you rarely see it, but the sound is distinct. The sound of a grenade launcher is also pretty distinct. Soldiers know these noises and they know whether to duck, drop to the dirt or run like mad depending on how close the incoming round sounds to them. Sure, sometimes there's just nothing you can do...at all...but most people will react to defend themselves when they hear the chunk, ka-thump or weeeeeeeeeeee incomming.

Alrik Vas wrote:Grim, i see what you're saying. The -10 penalty works better considering you're doing it blind. I agree you would have bonuses.

I'm glad you got the meaning of my sentence. I meant "Why wouldn't the strike bonuses apply".

And, I agree with you about the dodge being allowed, as you'd be able to hear the whistle of the launched grenade is it approaches. The "Dodging Bullets & Energy Blasts" penalties on RUE (pg.361) would apply, depending on how close the shooter is.


After reading 42dragon's lengthy post, I believe I was too vague about the details of the scenario. Therefore, I'll revise my first scenario, and add a second:

Scenario #1) X is firing from the open doorway of a Mega-Damage building, using the heavy-duty walls for cover. Y is outside the building, hiding behind his hovercraft, firing back. They are about 100 feet apart, and both X and Y are using "Called Shots" (2 attacks) to fire on each other. X is out of ammo, and ducks behind FULL COVER to load a fresh E-Clip. Y, with their trusty NG-LG6, decides to fire his grenade launcher into the doorway, and nail X with the grenade's blast radius.

In this scenario, I'd give Y a strike roll with his "W.P. Heavy MD Weapons" bonus, -10 for "Firing Blind". A dodge is allowed, and without the penalties previsouly mentioned (RUE, pg.361). This would be a regular attack (1 action). Fair? ;


Scenario #2) The Mega-Building is getting swarmed, so X decides to make a run for it. Near the building is a tall, wooden (SDC) fence, and X runs away, using the fence to cover his escape. Y decides to fire the NG-LG6's laser THROUGH the wooden fence to hit X.

In this scenario, I'd give Y a strike roll with his "W.P. Energy Rifle" bonus, -10 for "Firing Blind", -1 for "Target is Moving", and -1 for "Evasive Action". X would not be allowed to dodge since lasers are silent, unless they have some exceptional conditions that would allow the dodge. This would be a "Called Shot" as Y is trying to gauge where X may be behind the wall. Fair?


I'm sure Scenario #2 will have an issue with the laser goung through the wooden fence, correct?

Grim, for my 3)A. scenario the reason I went with -10 to strike period was based on the vagueness of the attack called out. Just shooting behind the target isn't very specific. Are we talking 5ft, 10 ft, at a wall right behind the target, ect? Had the player called out a bit more specific attack perhaps I would have ruled differently.

On a relate noted to other comments on this post. The -10 to firing blind. Why would you add you bonus to stike back into that? If you are firing blind what are you aiming at to get those bonuses? Say you are trying to shoot at someone hiding behind a 25 ft long bar (crouched down or lower so can't be seen at all). Your laser rifle will punch holes through easy enough. But you really have no idea if the target is crouching, kneeling, crawling, laying down, on the right side of the bar, left side, 2/3 toward the middle. So you would be firing blind trying to hit the target. Why would your bonuses to strike help here? Technically you are aiming at the bar, but it is immobile and large so you don't need a strike to hit it at all which is why you are rolling at -10 to hit the guy hiding. If you wanted to aim at a specific part of the bar your bonuses would help there, but wouldn't really apply to shooting at something you can't see behind the bar unless you have a way of knowing where exactly behind the bar it is, but then isn't complete cover / true blind shot.

Your scenarios: #1, Since you are aiming at the doorway, your bonuses would apply to shoot in the door. No blind penalty here because your target is actually where you want to land the grenade not the guy hiding behind the door frame. I could see some penalties, depending on what the doorway leads into, can the grenade skid off the floor and end up too far inside the building before detonation? In the end it would be a GM ruling how far did the guy duck for cover and did your grenade explode 2 ft inside the open doorway or did it explode 25ft inside the building.

Your secnario: #2, see my above related note. I don't think the WP bonus would apply unless you can continuously see flashes of your target through regular cracks in the fence (and then I would reduce (but not eliminate) the -10 penalty but keep the others). Otherwise would you be able to tell if he is heading left or right or even mostly straight away from the fence. If I am making a called shot along the fence to the right of the opening my target ducked though estimating his speed. No matter what my roll, if he turned left I am never going to hit him. Oh Nat 20 take that, GM "you shot passes through a knothole in the fence just as you intended, and your estimation of the targets speed was spot on, too bad he turned left through that opening not right (could be a move by GM but not a completely unreasonable ruling). I would be better off "I am shooting through the fence blind trying to hit him". Roll a nat 20 and I got lucky and hit him since I didn't call out which direction along the fence I was firing. In either situation bonuses don't really mean anything.

#2 laser going through a wooden fence, I got no issues with that.

It really isn't as complicated as it is made out to be.
The difference between total cover and partial cover is if there is any exposed body to shoot at.
Partial Cover in when one's body is partially concealed, reducing the targeting area.
Total cover is when the body is completely concealed, reducing the targeting area to zero.
In the case of an area of effect weapon, unless the person you are shooting at has cover from all sides, he doesn't have total cover and is treated as having partial cover.

42dragon wrote:On a relate noted to other comments on this post. The -10 to firing blind. Why would you add you bonus to strike back into that? If you are firing blind what are you aiming at to get those bonuses?

I figured the "Firing Blind" penalty applied to situations where the attacker knows where the target is (through other senses, cybernetics/psychic/supernatural powers, data readings, etc.), without being able to visually confirm it. I figured WP bonuses would apply because experienced shooters would be better able to target enemies in these situations.

That being said, experienced shooters would know to wait for a better opportunity to arise when targeting an enemy, and NOT fire with a -10 penalty. You're right, sir: the WP bonus should NOT apply.

42dragon wrote:Your scenarios: #1, Since you are aiming at the doorway, your bonuses would apply to shoot in the door. No blind penalty here because your target is actually where you want to land the grenade not the guy hiding behind the door frame. I could see some penalties, depending on what the doorway leads into, can the grenade skid off the floor and end up too far inside the building before detonation? In the end it would be a GM ruling how far did the guy duck for cover and did your grenade explode 2 ft inside the open doorway or did it explode 25ft inside the building.

Gotcha. I was under the impression that grenades fired from a launcher (like the NG-LG6 from Scenario #1) exploded on impact, and wouldn't scatter/skid like a hand-thrown grenade.

42dragon wrote:Your secnario: #2, see my above related note. I don't think the WP bonus would apply unless you can continuously see flashes of your target through regular cracks in the fence (and then I would reduce (but not eliminate) the -10 penalty but keep the others). Otherwise would you be able to tell if he is heading left or right or even mostly straight away from the fence. If I am making a called shot along the fence to the right of the opening my target ducked though estimating his speed. No matter what my roll, if he turned left I am never going to hit him. Oh Nat 20 take that, GM "you shot passes through a knothole in the fence just as you intended, and your estimation of the targets speed was spot on, too bad he turned left through that opening not right (could be a move by GM but not a completely unreasonable ruling). I would be better off "I am shooting through the fence blind trying to hit him". Roll a nat 20 and I got lucky and hit him since I didn't call out which direction along the fence I was firing. In either situation bonuses don't really mean anything.

Gotcha. I just wanted to add that gauging the target's movement through cracks in the fence could be considered cover and a Called Shot would suffice to strike them, provided that the fence was SDC and the weapon being fired were MD. The -10 penalty wouldn't apply here, I don't think.

Giant2005 wrote:It really isn't as complicated as it is made out to be.
The difference between total cover and partial cover is if there is any exposed body to shoot at.
Partial Cover in when one's body is partially concealed, reducing the targeting area.
Total cover is when the body is completely concealed, reducing the targeting area to zero.
In the case of an area of effect weapon, unless the person you are shooting at has cover from all sides, he doesn't have total cover and is treated as having partial cover.

I think that's where the confusion began for me.

It's all in RUE, pg. 361:

Shooting at Someone Behind Cover:
If the target is completely covered/concealed there is not hope of hitting him from a distance, and the shooter will need to find a different vantage point where he can see the character or move in on the place of protection and concealment. If the target is hiding but part of him/it can be seen or if the target periodically pops his head or arm out to shoot back, curse or peek out, the shooter must make a "Called Shot" to shoot him/it and either shoot what little is seen or wait until he pops into the open for a couple of seconds.

THAT makes it perfectly straight forward, until you read the other section further up the page;

Shooting Blind:
-10 to strike what you cannot see, including shooting into ground cover without actually seeing a specific target, and firing around corners without looking.

So, if a target is in "partial cover", you can shoot them with a Called Shot; if they're in "full cover" it's impossible to shoot them.
BUT, you can shoot a target you can't see with a -10 penalty.

The big question I have is: Does the "Firing Blind" penalty apply to targets in FULL cover?

I think it would. It's not a matter of realism, it's the game mechanic saying you put the shot too short or too far because you couldn't exactly see where they were. I think blind works.

Alrik Vas wrote:I think it would. It's not a matter of realism, it's the game mechanic saying you put the shot too short or too far because you couldn't exactly see where they were. I think blind works.

Agreed.

Thanks!

One last question: Would WP bonuses apply?

Grimlock wrote:Thanks!

One last question: Would WP bonuses apply?

Can't think of a reason why they wouldn't.

Giant2005 wrote:

Grimlock wrote:Thanks!

One last question: Would WP bonuses apply?

Can't think of a reason why they wouldn't.

Indeed. Still using your training to make a best guess.

Thanks for your input, guys. I still hope Rapannui and 42dragon will chime in though...


:Grim

Rappanui wrote:I was not aware they made the firing blind penalty apply to situations where it's not blind but wild. Also if the weapon can shoot past the cover, then yes it's a -10. If they can not shoot past the cover, the attack is a straight roll. (for example, shooting a MDC weapon past a target hiding behind an SDC Wall/rock formation. It would not be possible to target him with any weapons if it was an SDC vs MDC or MDC vs MDC Cover. unless the AOE is bigger then the wall.

Thanks for the reply, sir.

AOE?


I was just curious about one more thing. If you're firing blind, you get a -10. What if there other visibility modifiers, like fog or heavy rain? Would they stack with the -10 for Firing Blind, or is -10 the most you can be penalized for visual impairment?

Grimlock wrote:AOE?

It means Area-of-Effect as in Grenades and Missiles and such.

Grimlock wrote:I was just curious about one more thing. If you're firing blind, you get a -10. What if there other visibility modifiers, like fog or heavy rain? Would they stack with the -10 for Firing Blind, or is -10 the most you can be penalized for visual impairment?

Once you are firing blind, it doesn't matter anymore - you can't get more blind than blind.

Rappanui wrote:targeting with AOE is Not firing Blind, but an attack based on range : with a 8 12 or 16+ required to hit.
(Area of effect) but ... you can be firing blind with an AOE if for example, you are carpet bombing vs a specific target.

Thanks for explaing the AoE term for me, guys.

I understand what you mean:
If the enemy is completely hiding behind their hover craft, you can throw your fragmentation hand grenade (20ft. AoE) BESIDE the vehicle without penalty and damage the guy (and the hover craft) within the AoE.

If the enemy climbed over a wall, I can throw an identical hand grenade over the wall to hit them within the grendade's AoE, but it is done with a -10 "Firing Blind" penalty.

Correct?


Thanks again for all the help, guys. I'm doing my first GMing in a very long time and I want to the game to go as smoothly as possible.

No problem. You'll find that you will make calls more fluidly as things go. Hope you have fun, pal.

Rappanui wrote:Someone cheated on this thread to make shooting blind apply to situations when not blind.
My original Statement was in fact correct. There is no shooting blind penalty unless actually Blind.
Shooting Blind: -I 0 to strike what you cannot see, including shooting into ground cover without actually seeing a specific target, and firing around corners without looking.
this is clearly based on Line of sight issues.
ground cover only matters in Bird's eye view attacks.

Actually, there wasn't any cheating involved. The whole reason I started this thread is to clarify how to interpret the wording of the new ranged combat rules.

It's been determined through the course of this discussion that Firing Blind is NOT to be taken literally, and does not specifically relate to the sense of sight. The penalty applies whether a character has physically become blind, has mud on their visor blocking their vision, or if the target is completely hidden for view yet can still be targeted by a ranged attack.

Grimlock wrote:Hey all,

I just wanted a quick clarification regarding the revised Ranged Combat rules from R:UE. I couldn't find my answer in the F.A.Q., so here I go:

Example 1:
Subject X is in partial cover, meaning Subject Y can fire on X as a Called Shot. This I understand.

Example 2:
Subject X is in COMPLETE cover, meaning a Called Shot by Y will not work. Y, however, has a grenade launcher, and fires one in the vicinity of X in hopes of catching X in the grenade's blast radius.

How is the shot by Subject Y in Example 2 treated?

I'd need to know more specific details.
In general, I'd say that as long as you're aiming at a target that you can see, you have no penalties to strike, regardless of what the blast radius is trying to do.
For example, you're standing outside of a room. You chuck a grenade to the middle of the room, because you think there's somebody that you cannot see within that room, and you want to kill them.
That's just a straight roll- you're aiming at the middle of the room. Either you hit it, or not.
From there, the GM decides whether or not any enemies are in the blast radius.
If you're using a grenade with a 10' blast radius, and the room is only 15' across, you're going to hit anybody in the room (unless they roll to dodge against your previous strike roll).
If the room is bigger, say 30' across, then the entire room won't be covered. If you hit the center of the room, that's 5' on each side that's not going to be in danger. Anybody in those areas doesn't have to dodge.
If you miss the center of the room, then the GM decides where the grenade ends up, and where exactly the blast radius is.

Basically, you pick where you want the epicenter of the blast to be. You roll to strike that place. The GM decides where the area of effect is, based on your roll and the details of the scenario he's running.

As a follow-up question: Can a "Firing Blind" attack be an Aimed shot?

Interesting question!

I'd say that in certain situations, that it could be Aimed.
If, for example, you're in a dark room. You can't see, so you'll be Firing Blind. But if you can hear where the enemy is, I don't see why you couldn't spend an extra attack to Aim at the sounds.

Grimlock wrote:The big question I have is: Does the "Firing Blind" penalty apply to targets in FULL cover?

No.
But it would apply under full concealment.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Grimlock wrote:The big question I have is: Does the "Firing Blind" penalty apply to targets in FULL cover?

No.
But it would apply under full concealment.

Wow...really? When someone is in full cover, doesn't it mean they are fully concealed behind cover? What's the difference?

cover = provides protection from enemy attack.
Concealment = blocks LOS between enemy and you.

while cover often provides concealment, not all concealment provides cover.

take for example a wall to a house.. the wall may conceal most of you from the enemy, but unless it is thick brick or concrete, it will usually not provide much cover from enemy gunfire. and if an enemy knows where you are (due to say you using a window to shoot out from) they'll be able to shoot at the parts they can't see and still hit because the wall provides no protection.

a bit dull video but shows some of what i mean..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSqdTLLZBWw

Grimlock wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Grimlock wrote:The big question I have is: Does the "Firing Blind" penalty apply to targets in FULL cover?

No.
But it would apply under full concealment.

Wow...really? When someone is in full cover, doesn't it mean they are fully concealed behind cover? What's the difference?

Sorry; I'll give a better explanation.

If you're standing behind a 10'x10' sheet of cardboard, you're under full concealment. A shooter can still hit you, because his attacks will blast right on through the cardboard without even slowing. The only trick to hitting you is guessing where you're at behind the cardboard. It's essentially the same as if you were protected by light underbrush or a thick cloud of smoke/fog.
In that case, the attacker is Firing Blind, because they can't see the target.

If you're standing behind a 10'x10' Mega-Damage metal wall, then the shooter still cannot see you, which means you DO have concealment, but seeing you isn't the problem because his attacks will be stopped by the wall itself (until the wall is destroyed). This is Full Cover- your body is completely behind something that has to be destroyed before you can be directly attacked.
The "Firing Blind" rules don't apply in this case, because the attacker cannot fire at YOU; they can only fire at the wall itself, which is an easy target.

If you're standing behind a 10'x10' Mega-Damage transparent force field, then you don't have any concealment, but you DO have Full Cover, because no part of your body can be attacked until the force field is destroyed.

glitterboy2098 wrote:cover = provides protection from enemy attack.
Concealment = blocks LOS between enemy and you.

while cover often provides concealment, not all concealment provides cover.

take for example a wall to a house.. the wall may conceal most of you from the enemy, but unless it is thick brick or concrete, it will usually not provide much cover from enemy gunfire. and if an enemy knows where you are (due to say you using a window to shoot out from) they'll be able to shoot at the parts they can't see and still hit because the wall provides no protection.

a bit dull video but shows some of what i mean..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSqdTLLZBWw

I was going to link to a similar video.

This vid is boring, yet SOLID! Thanks!