[Drubbels]

Woops, looks like I did something wrong. I misread your post and my calculations so far all assumed that if a shot didn't beat the previous shot's margin of success, not only would there be no further shots, but the shot itself would miss too. Back to the drawing board for my calculations.

And to think I've just spent an hour or so implementing the formulae in Maple...

[MarcoSkoll]

Don't worry! I am considering both possibilities. ( Sorry, can't say much more, I'm busy in Oxford for a folk festival today).

[Drubbels]

I think this is about it, probably (?)



Top three lines is for the misinterpreted version, bottom three for the version as you originally described it.

x = to-hit chance from BS, range modifiers, movement etc, but not modifiers for autofire
n = number of shots
s = 1 for semi, 0 for full

F/G is the expectation value of the number of hits given all these things.

[MarcoSkoll]

It's a while since I last worked on this, and I know that the announcement of a new SG Design Studio now means that there may eventually be a 2nd edition anyway, but I'd kind of like to press on anyway and have currently settled on a version of semi-auto fire that I'm reasonably comfortable with:

Semi-auto fire is resolved as the overall effect of a burst rather than individually rolling for every shot. The character first rolls for one shot from the burst. If this first roll hits, the character may roll for another shot, but his target number is now the value he rolled for his last hit roll.  This process continues until the character either misses a shot (at which point all remaining shots also miss), or all shots in the burst have been rolled for.

Modifiers:
Semi-auto fire doubles range penalties, but has a +10 bonus for weight of fire, increased by a further +5 for each shot in the burst. All other modifiers are as normal.
A character may aim before firing on semi-auto, but all levels of aim are lost after the first semi-automatic shooting action.

This significantly increases the effectiveness of high-burst semi-auto (as compared to the LRB version, where characters tend to end up fishing for 01-05 results), but I think that's fairly reasonable, given that firing a Storm bolter currently feels a little like this:



It's an abstraction, as it disregards the sequence shots are actually fired in, but as far as the game is concerned, it doesn't hugely matter if it's the first or the fourth shot that hits.
I think the rule of thumb for the (rather rare) case that there's mixed ammunition loaded into the weapon is just going to be assuming shots hit in said order, although the GM could certainly randomise it if it's desperately important.

I'm now adapting Full-Auto to the same principles - I'm thinking about smaller bonuses for the number of shots and/or even higher range penalties, but it'll instead get bonuses for firing at a group and will continue to ignore movement penalties, so it'll find actual use in dealing with fast moving or clustered targets.

~~~~~

Melee-wise, I've been trying to look at whether it's possible to do away with the concept of being "engaged" in combat, in order to allow the system to be more fluid, but it seems like doing away with it entirely may be quite difficult, due to the fact the system does kind of need to allow characters in a brawl to handle their actions one at a time.

I have had a different thought though...

Changing the engaged state so that it's a more general state which a character decides to be in (rather than the rules choosing that for them). If a character elects to be in an Engaged state:
- They can declare their actions one at a time.
- Get free reactions to anything within X (probably about five) yards.
- Become unaware of everything outside that area.
- Characters can become Engaged as a free action (or reaction), but breaking the state mid-active turn requires an action to be spent Disengaging.
- Possibly some other minor things like firing guns a WS test.

This potentially gets very interesting, because it means that the other character isn't immediately Engaged as well - if, say, Sgt Stone gets within range of Inquisitor Shyloque (who's currently aiming for Barbaretta) and engages, Shyloque has the choice to try and take his shot (but with the drawback that this will give Stone a free reaction and the chance to dive for him*). Melees can also start other than with a charge.

*The melee rules as I've currently got them allow reactive characters to completely forego defending themselves in exchange for a much higher chance at a counter-attack... although they only get that attack if the incoming attack doesn't inflict knockback, prone, stunning, system shock, unconsciousness, etc. of course.
(Remember that in the Revised version, you decide your reaction before the attack is rolled for, so choosing this can be very risky if you're being attacked).

It also has other uses. If, say, a character needs to pick a lock where the need for a successful Sg test means it might take a variable number of actions, this tends to be difficult to declare within the normal rules (although I usually let such things be declared as "As many actions as necessary").
Broadening the purpose of Engage could allow characters to Engage themselves on such things, roll the necessary number of tests to pass and then disengage.

There's quite possibly an exploit I haven't seen yet, but aside from the old "GM hits the player with the rulebook" solution, I think with it limiting a character's awareness range so heavily, it can't be too heavily abused - none of the "Oh, I have three actions, I'll aim, shoot then duck back" stuff that the old Lightning Reflexes got used for, because the target (probably) won't be within Engagement range.

EDIT: As an aside, I may at some point want some volunteers to join me at Dark Sphere to do some more play-testing.

[Alyster Wick]

I'm liking those semi-auto rules. It is an abstraction, but one that works. There is something that seems terribly unfair (or at the very least, incredibly unsatisfying) about missing on the first role and losing all the subsequent shots. Statistically though it seems to make sense. With all the bonuses, if someone is a reasonably short distance away you may end up with a 95% to hit them on the first role, meaning there's a relatively remote (1 in 20) chance that you won't hit them at least once.

I may playtest that at the very least. I'll post the results if I do.

As for combat, I think I need more time to wrap my head around the concept. That tends to be a bad thing (at least for me) as it indicates a lot of complexity. When I'm struggling with the concept of a rule/game mechanic that probably means it's going to be clunky to play with.

[MarcoSkoll]

There is something that seems terribly unfair (or at the very least, incredibly unsatisfying) about missing on the first role and losing all the subsequent shots.

The chance of getting at least one hit with low rates of fire like Semi(2) or (3) is usually very similar for average hit chances.

If a character has a 60% chance of hitting with a single shot, the LRB version would give him a 40% chance of hitting with each Semi(2) shot and therefore a overall 64% chance of any hits. The Revised version (assuming a -15 range penalty)... 65% overall.
For high rates of fire, it usually hugely improves their effectiveness, because handling semi as a bonus rather than a penalty stops the "fishing for fives" that happens almost automatically when -60 semi auto penalties are involved.

As another point, remember that the Inquisitor2 draft includes the possibility for reactive characters to try and dodge. Keeping the percentage rolls for semi-auto fire closer to those for single shots makes those modifiers much easier to balance.
A -20 to a 65% chance works out at 45%. -20 to two 40% chances works out as an overall 36% chance (effectively increasing it to a -28 penalty).

So it might at first glance seem unfair to decide that all shots miss based on just one roll (although this is exactly how Dark Heresy handles it), but the modifiers have been chosen fairly carefully... and it has the potential to massively speed up game play. When it comes to full auto, being able to handle 10, 15, 20 shots in just a few rolls is going to be massively quicker.

As for combat, I think I need more time to wrap my head around the concept.

Essentially, it's not that different from how close combat works anyway.

Current effects of being engaged in close combat: Engaged by a charge, declare actions one by one, only aware of the immediate vicinity, can react to attacks, breaking it during the active turn requires spending an action (either a disengage or Pause depending on whether the opponent is still scrapping).

Revised Engaged state: Engaged at will, declare actions one by one, only aware of the immediate vicinity, can react to everything*, breaking it during the active turn requires spending an action.
*It always seemed weird that a character would just stand there while his opponent was circling around behind him!

Making it a more general and at-will state will hopefully make close combat integrate better with the rest of the action and, to an extent, rules (rather than the action system in close combat being an exception to the rules, it can become a core part of them).
Building Engaged up as a standard framework has a lot of possible uses - for example, Greenstuff_gav's Conversation rules are mechanically a lot like verbal melee, and could easily be presented as a special case.

[Alyster Wick]

There is something that seems terribly unfair (or at the very least, incredibly unsatisfying) about missing on the first role and losing all the subsequent shots.

The chance of getting at least one hit with low rates of fire like Semi(2) or (3) is usually very similar for average hit chances.

If a character has a 60% chance of hitting with a single shot, the LRB version would give him a 40% chance of hitting with each Semi(2) shot and therefore a overall 64% chance of any hits. The Revised version (assuming a -15 range penalty)... 65% overall.
For high rates of fire, it usually hugely improves their effectiveness, because handling semi as a bonus rather than a penalty stops the "fishing for fives" that happens almost automatically when -60 semi auto penalties are involved.

As another point, remember that the Inquisitor2 draft includes the possibility for reactive characters to try and dodge. Keeping the percentage rolls for semi-auto fire closer to those for single shots makes those modifiers much easier to balance.
A -20 to a 65% chance works out at 45%. -20 to two 40% chances works out as an overall 36% chance (effectively increasing it to a -28 penalty).

So it might at first glance seem unfair to decide that all shots miss based on just one roll (although this is exactly how Dark Heresy handles it), but the modifiers have been chosen fairly carefully... and it has the potential to massively speed up game play. When it comes to full auto, being able to handle 10, 15, 20 shots in just a few rolls is going to be massively quicker.

Oh no, you're totally right and I get the percentages. Unfair was the wrong term, it should have just been "unsatisfying," as in it's incredibly unsatisfying to crack off ten shots, roll one bad d100 and then call it a day. The effect is purely psychological as it's actually much better for the firing player the way you've done it.

There is something that seems terribly unfair (or at the very least, incredibly unsatisfying) about missing on the first role and losing all the subsequent shots.

The chance of getting at least one hit with low rates of fire like Semi(2) or (3) is usually very similar for average hit chances.

If a character has a 60% chance of hitting with a single shot, the LRB version would give him a 40% chance of hitting with each Semi(2) shot and therefore a overall 64% chance of any hits. The Revised version (assuming a -15 range penalty)... 65% overall.
For high rates of fire, it usually hugely improves their effectiveness, because handling semi as a bonus rather than a penalty stops the "fishing for fives" that happens almost automatically when -60 semi auto penalties are involved.

As another point, remember that the Inquisitor2 draft includes the possibility for reactive characters to try and dodge. Keeping the percentage rolls for semi-auto fire closer to those for single shots makes those modifiers much easier to balance.
A -20 to a 65% chance works out at 45%. -20 to two 40% chances works out as an overall 36% chance (effectively increasing it to a -28 penalty).

So it might at first glance seem unfair to decide that all shots miss based on just one roll (although this is exactly how Dark Heresy handles it), but the modifiers have been chosen fairly carefully... and it has the potential to massively speed up game play. When it comes to full auto, being able to handle 10, 15, 20 shots in just a few rolls is going to be massively quicker.

As for combat, I think I need more time to wrap my head around the concept.

Essentially, it's not that different from how close combat works anyway.

I think the idea is congealing more in my head. My brain works funny, if I sit down with two miniatures in front of me and go thru a hypothetical round or two in my own head it'll probably make more sense. The way you're describing it is actually closer to the way I would envision a proper revision of the rules (I've tried my own hand at it a couple times, but generally I start and then lose steam).

Anyway, if I get to a good place with my understanding of it I may implement these rules in my next game or two and will report back. I'm very open minded when if comes to improving close combat.

[MarcoSkoll]

...as in it's incredibly unsatisfying to crack off ten shots, roll one bad d100 and then call it a day. The effect is purely psychological as it's actually much better for the firing player the way you've done it.

Well, there's only so much I can do about how people psychologically perceive statistics. I get it to an extent - it can be underwhelming in DH to go full-auto on some nearby targets, roll a 90 and watch it all go wide - but is it enough to justify keeping a system that can call for that many dice rolls?

I've been working on trying to find an alternative full-auto mechanism for years, originally as part of the Revised Armoury (which already hosts an alternative flame weapon rule). I did try to see if there were ways of being able to divide it down - for a time, there was a concept rolling one hit roll for each five-ish shots (sort of trying to split the difference between Inquisitor and DH), but I eventually found it to be really ugly to try and explain in rules text.

As far as options that are mechanically simple, there's only a few that come to mind: one roll per shot (as per 1st Ed), which gets sluggish and ill-balanced at high burst; one roll per burst (as per DH), where characters often take six hits at once and go out of the game without a chance; or exploding dice (as per above).

The way you're describing it is actually closer to the way I would envision a proper revision of the rules.

Well, I try.
People are quite within their rights to tell me when they think I'm trying to fix things that ain't broke (or just breaking them more) though*.

*Within reason. I've had a few lengthy PMs (on various forums) full of suggestions for what to do with Inquisitor where I've had to explain that the project is about improving game mechanics, not changing what the game actually is, and if you don't like Inquisitor now, you're probably not going to like it after I'm finished.

Anyway, if I get to a good place with my understanding of it I may implement these rules in my next game or two and will report back. I'm very open minded when if comes to improving close combat.

I won't make promises, but I'll see if I can get a polished and up-to-date version of the melee rules ready.

While the latest ideas are heavily built into the Inquisitor2 reaction system (a lot of the point of establishing Engaged as a general state is so melee can build on that core framework), it shouldn't be necessary to use that system outside of melee, if you don't want. After all, that's loosely how 1st edition already handles it.

[MarcoSkoll]

I'm currently working on the next Beta of the Revised edition, which is going to be... well, as long as it takes, I'm afraid. I'm handling it as a more complete document, which means I need to sort out introductions, explanations of characteristics and the like. (And I'm trying to avoid just direct copy-pasting everything from the LRB).

However, there's a modification to the Injury rules I'm thinking through (and I know I've already mentioned it elsewhere).

System Shock has always seemed a bit oddly balanced.  With both the SS value and the chance of passing the test being based on the character's T, characters go from being highly vulnerable to nigh-immune over a relatively narrow range of T. I've been playing around with a couple of possible ideas.

1) System shock always happens at 10 damage. This stops certain characters being nigh immune by having an SS of 15 or so (even before armour), separates it a bit from the injury levels done, and instead makes a character's resilience to it entirely dependent on their Toughness test.

These tests then get modified depending on how much the threshold is exceeded. Possibilities is that for every extra 5 damage, the character must make an extra SS test, or maybe every point of damage over 10 adds a penalty to the test. (Maybe -2 or -3. Something like -5 would make 20 damage hits put characters out almost automatically which, while realistic, would make already powerful weapons even more so).
In either case, I'm thinking about modifying the basic test with a moderate initial bonus (around +10) to compensate.

2) The somewhat more radical option is that system shock tests become a 2D10+BIV roll (or similar) to try and equal or beat the damage.
I've already used this mechanic for my NPC rules, in order that lower powered weapons weren't completely useless at taking out NPCs (unlike the original Architecture of Hate rules I based them on, where you had to bypass a certain threshold to succeed. With the way it was done, unless you had a boltgun, I think that mostly meant head shots!)

This naturally scales with damage, but it does require SS tests are made a lot more often and it's going to have the above issue about balancing really high power hits. (The NPC version includes a rule that on a double, the NPC either auto passes or fails, depending on whether the double is 6+, or 5 or less, but that's too small a chance for me to think it gives PCs a fighting chance).

[Alyster Wick]

For option 1, I actually really like that. That way lots of basic weapons will very rarely cause an SS test. It really helps tier the weapons out a bit. A bonus to the T test initially is good as well. Characters under T 50 really get the short end of the stick when it comes to SS tests.

Option 2 is interesting, and I'm definitely not opposed. Doing something aside from a straight characteristic test is intriguing and thought provoking. This could be a model for reimagining other applications for the various other characteristics rather than just operating off of the d100 system. On the other hand, one could argue that it's the opposite of streamlining.

In either event, what are your thoughts on additional penalties based on the injury level of the limb affected (before the hit, not due to the damage cause by the hit)? The thinking would be that if you hit an area that is already quite injured then the pain will be increased. For option 1 it could be -10 per injury level (or something like that) and possibly just -1 for option 2? Going to slightly more involved route, you could "downgrade" one dice for each level of damage, a d10 becomes d6, d6 becomes d3. So 1 level of damage would be 1d6+1d10, 2 levels is 2d6, 3 is 1d6+1d3, etc.

[MarcoSkoll]

Option 2 is interesting, and I'm definitely not opposed.

Well, I threw it in for the sake of comparison, but while I'll probably keep it for my NPC rules, I have been drifting away from it for PCs.
It seems a bit like it's changing things for no particular reason, and it's more likely to conflict with old rules. For example, if an effect calls for "testing for system shock", then having changed the test that way would be messy.

My current favourite is Option 1a (the one with more tests for higher level shock). It needs a little more rolling than the modifier of 1b, but it keeps the maths down.

In either event, what are your thoughts on additional penalties based on the injury level of the limb affected (before the hit, not due to the damage cause by the hit)?

I hadn't thought about it. It's an interesting idea, but it could have quite a lot of rules crunch.

As an alternative, what about basing it on injury total and re-purposing the current system shock value? Make the proposed bonus to a SS test somewhat larger (maybe +20), but it only applies if the character's prior injury total was equal to or below their SSV. (Above that, there'd be no bonus at all)
In this case, a tough ~T70 character who hadn't taken any hits yet would be pretty likely to shrug off L1 system shock, and even a T40 or so character would have a reasonable chance of staying in the game (although he'd have a hell of a wound to show for it), but a character that was already wounded and taking higher level system shock would be quite likely to pass out.

That sounds reasonable to me, as it's not hugely interesting if a character passes out to one hit early in the game, but it means even reasonably tough characters will sometimes pass out other than by exceeding their consciousness threshold. And rules-wise, it's not too involved.

[MarcoSkoll]

I've been thinking more about melee combat.

I've already determined that I want weapon reach to affect hit modifiers based on the separation of the characters (which I will be making far more fluid), not the relative lengths of their weapons.
For example: Currently Inquisitor A and his Reach 3 sword always has a +20 reach bonus over Guardman B and his Reach 1 knife (unless up-close, where reach gets reversed, but that's a rules exception I'm hoping to remove).

In the current IRE draft, their reach is instead compared to their separation. If they're separated by 3 yards*, this is the same as the Inquisitor's Reach 3 blade, so he gets a +10 bonus for being at his optimum engagement distance. The Guardsman is two yards from his optimum engagement range, so his Knife suffers a -10 penalty.

*I may eventually use half-yards, should full yards prove to make characters feel too far apart, but I'm intending to make close combat distances slightly larger so that there's more terrain within the "melee area" with which characters can potentially interact. (In any case, characters aren't always blade-to-blade when fighting, and will often be backed off)

Were they separated by 2 yards, they would both be a yard from their optimum engagement ranges, and would both have no benefit or penalty. At one yard, the Guardsman's knife is at its optimum range (+10), but the sword is two yards from its ideal distance (-10).

While the Guardsman will have to work to get close in the first place (so there will still be some advantage to having the higher reach), if he can, the Inquisitor's large blade will actually be difficult to use.

Handling it this way allows the exception of Up-close to be removed (as it becomes an inherent part of the rules that shorter weapons work better closer in - although I intend to include some grappling options for characters in base contact), avoids a high Reach basically just being a hit bonus and probably also allows the exception where Reach 4 weapons become improvised at less than arm's length to be removed**.
** I'm considering allowing a generic option where any weapon can be willingly used as an improvised weapon though - for example, attempting to bash someone with your sword's hilt if they get too close for you to swing the blade properly.

~~~~~

I'm also considering what might be a more radical idea. Defending in close combat is an opposed roll in IRE; this effectively makes the success of the attack a penalty to the defence (making a skilled opponent harder to defend against than a less competent one), which stacks the odds rather heavily against the defender.

So, what if a weapon's Parry Penalty now also applied when attacking? This would obviously need certain weapon profiles to be tweaked, but it would make things a little less weighted against the defender, and would also increase the depth possible with the weapon profile.
As many characters very often opt to dodge, the stat often doesn't mean much at the moment, but this way, the damage of chain or power swords would be slightly countered by them being harder to wield.

[Drubbels]

That looks pretty good - I'd like to say I'll try to playtest this, but I don't see see myself getting in a game any time soon

Do you think that maybe a weapon profile should have separate 'attack penalty' and 'parry penalty' stats for extra granularity, or would that be too much?

I suppose melee weapons could use a redesign of their stats anyway, to give them traits like Rending, Tearing, Trivial etc. (I think you may have once mentioned that you didn't want to force the RIA into IRE, but to be honest I think it would actually be good to include the special traits - just not listing all the innumerable variations of weapons).

Power Weapons - Heavy AP, plus the current weapon-destroying property.
Chain Weapons - Rending and/or Tearing - both seem appropriate, but one is probably enough.
Mono Weapons - Light AP, plus cause Bleeding (?)
Shock Weapons - Trivial, maybe? It would fit with the style of incapacitating people without causing (heavy) damage.



How is the current state of reactions, in your mind?

[MarcoSkoll]

Do you think that maybe a weapon profile should have separate 'attack penalty' and 'parry penalty' stats for extra granularity, or would that be too much?

It would work fine mechanically (and I see no reason players couldn't write weapons that way), but at the moment I'm trying to keep things reasonably compatible with 1st edition character sheets.

There aren't a lot of weapons that really need a distinction between their attack and defence, so I think I'd keep the basic format and instead introduce something like the "Balanced" and "Unwieldy" traits from Dark Heresy to be used on the weapons that need it.

I think you may have once mentioned that you didn't want to force the RIA into IRE, but to be honest I think it would actually be good to include the special traits - just not listing all the innumerable variations of weapons.

I definitely plan on including things like Rending, Tearing and the like in the injuries section (they've been fairly well received) although I don't know to exactly what extent they'll get used.

Some of the possible melee attacks use them, but I'll have to see exactly what happens when I finish boiling everything down.

How is the current state of reactions, in your mind?

It's looking quite good, as I'm managing to iron out of most of the wrinkles and screw down a lot of the terminology and descriptions.

- Action/reaction order is a lot less wishy-washy now; Reactions follow the action that triggers them, unless they're described as "Defensive", which means it makes a simultaneous and opposed roll-off. (This is for things like parrying and dodging)

- Being aware of a reaction automatically allows a character to attempt to change their declared actions. (It's not a good idea to rely on this though, as failing the initiative test ends their turn).

- I've also now described certain actions as "Passive", meaning they never trigger reactions. This covers things like Pause for Breath and recovering from pinning, to avoid reactions being triggered when a character isn't really doing anything.
(Making sure they can never trigger reactions is to avoid discouraging the use of PfB - it's something that should be being used to help account for unexpected things happening, not the cause of unexpected things! And it'd usually be a weak excuse for a reaction anyway.)

- And the concept of the Engaged state seems to have merit. I need to check all the specifics of how it works in multiple combats and there are a couple of possible exploits to deal with, but it does seem to work with the more fluid approach I want for melee.

[Van Helser]

I can get behind the idea of specifying the range between hand to hand combatants, and it certainly would add more to the usual choice of actions being "attack, attack, attack, attack".  It could now go "charge, close, attack, close;" where a charge takes you to 3 yards, and each close action narrows by a yard. A successful dodge by the defender could take them back a yard, should they choose.

I think that making parry/dodge rolls with a negative modifier based on the attackers pass would make for many more decisive combats. This is a good thing in my eyes, as currently combats can roll on for ages, and it's infuriating when your swordsman can't dispose of a goon. Tempering it slightly with a negative modifier based on how easy it is to wield the weapon isn't such a bad idea. A fencing expert should not be able to use an eviscerator as deftly as a rapier.

Ruaridh