GURPS Tactical Shooting

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

For most purposes of the rules it is the human _torso_ that is SM+0 and not the whole human.

The human torso is SM -2 by the standards of size modifiers in GURPS.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The human torso is SM -2 by the standards of size modifiers in GURPS.

Except it's not when you are shooting at it.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Except it's not when you are shooting at it.

Well, yeah, but that's a rules anomaly.

[vierasmarius]

I've got a question concerning shaped-charge attacks. We see one example of a HEAT warhead in Tactical Shooting (the TOZ GSN, pg 67) and it follows the same format as the HEAT warheads in High Tech (Nd(10) cr ex + Md cr ex) rather than the format from Ultra Tech (Nd(10) cr inc + Md cr ex). How is this damage applied? I know there have been discussions on this before on the forum, but I'm hoping to get an answer from a more "official" source. Perhaps it came up in the playtest?

I think it would be handled in one of the following ways, but I don't know which is RAW (or if I'm completely wrong on all of them).

1) A target hit directly takes Nd cr ex with a (10) armor modifier, and a linked Md cr ex. All other targets in the area take Md cr ex, modified for distance. This is based on the UT version, in which the primary damage effect lacks the explosive modifier. If this is also true of the HT format, why is it listed as ex instead of just inc?

2) The primary target takes Nd (10) cr ex + Md cr ex. Other targets take Nd cr ex (dropping the armor divisor) and Md cr ex, both modified for distance. This seems to make the most sense based on the HT version. If so, why do UT warheads lack the explosive modifier on the primary effect? Is it a difference in the technology, or possibly errata?

3) The primary target takes only the Nd (10) cr ex, and all other targets take only Md cr ex. This seems less supported, but I think I heard this interpretation passed around in the discussion. I think this may be how 3rd Edition handled it.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

I've got a question concerning shaped-charge attacks. We see one example of a HEAT warhead in Tactical Shooting (the TOZ GSN, pg 67) and it follows the same format as the HEAT warheads in High Tech (Nd(10) cr ex + Md cr ex) rather than the format from Ultra Tech (Nd(10) cr inc + Md cr ex). How is this damage applied? I know there have been discussions on this before on the forum, but I'm hoping to get an answer from a more "official" source. Perhaps it came up in the playtest?

I think it would be handled in one of the following ways, but I don't know which is RAW (or if I'm completely wrong on all of them).

1) A target hit directly takes Nd cr ex with a (10) armor modifier, and a linked Md cr ex. All other targets in the area take Md cr ex, modified for distance. This is based on the UT version, in which the primary damage effect lacks the explosive modifier. If this is also true of the HT format, why is it listed as ex instead of just inc?

2) The primary target takes Nd (10) cr ex + Md cr ex. Other targets take Nd cr ex (dropping the armor divisor) and Md cr ex, both modified for distance. This seems to make the most sense based on the HT version. If so, why do UT warheads lack the explosive modifier on the primary effect? Is it a difference in the technology, or possibly errata?

3) The primary target takes only the Nd (10) cr ex, and all other targets take only Md cr ex. This seems less supported, but I think I heard this interpretation passed around in the discussion. I think this may be how 3rd Edition handled it.

Option 2.

Originally Posted by B414

If an explosive attack has an armor
divisor, it does not apply to the collateral
damage. For example, the shapedcharge
warhead of an anti-tank rocket
has an armor divisor of (10), but this
only reduces the DR of a target it actually
strikes; those nearby get their full
DR against the blast.
Explosions are considered incendiary
attacks, and can start fires; see
Catching Fire (p. 434).

So, the UT version only hits the thing it hits (except for the linked explosion), and is considered incendiary. The HT version hits everything with the explosion, but only applies the armor divisor to the thing it actually struck (not the other things caught in the blast). This is also considered incendiary.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Option 2.

So, the UT version only hits the thing it hits (except for the linked explosion), and is considered incendiary. The HT version hits everything with the explosion, but only applies the armor divisor to the thing it actually struck (not the other things caught in the blast). This is also considered incendiary.

Cool, thanks for the reference. So, any idea why there's a difference between the HT and UT stats? Is it just a difference in technology, perhaps a more focused blast that improves penetration at the cost of collateral effect?

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Cool, thanks for the reference. So, any idea why there's a difference between the HT and UT stats? Is it just a difference in technology, perhaps a more focused blast that improves penetration at the cost of collateral effect?

No idea. I mean, the book describes it as a "precision shaped-charge," so perhaps the the point is removing collateral damage. On the other hand, if that were the case, you might expect HEMP would use stats more akin to HEAT rounds, so it works better as both an anti-personnel round and an anti-materiel round (hence "multi-purpose"), instead of just a "better" shaped-charge round.

[jacobmuller]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

can you amplify on what's confusing? It seems to me that you take at minimum the four single Step and Wait maneuvers depicted in Figure 4, p23. If you see someone as revealed by your step (plain sight) or something they do reveals themselves around a corner (you make a skill roll or win a Contest depending on what's going on) you may convert the Wait into an attack. If they do something first, like step out, they trigger your Wait, etc.

Yay! A new maneuver is born. Or if you take Attack, then you're Step-Attacking, but if no-one is there you don't shoot?

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

Yay! A new maneuver is born. Or if you take Attack, the you're Step-Attacking, but if no-one is there you don't shoot?

Since you get to Attack immediately if there's a dude there (or get attacked if HE was waiting) because it's your turn, I'd probably not get too picky. You're doing a Step and Wait (Attack if there's a target), and if there's a target RIGHT THEN, you just either shoot or make a Per roll and shoot if you want do to something as prosaic as ID who you're about to blast. :-)

Make no mistake, though, if you step into someone else's wait, you better hope he's a bad shot, your body armor is not defective, and your life insurance is paid up.

[lwcamp]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

That's correct. When I came up with this concept, I looked at the ability for a weapon of a given Acc to hit a circular target at range, and the 22+2xAcc formula fit the data the best.

So Crakkerjakk is exactly right; it assumes you can see the target perfectly, and basically this is a limit on the mechanical accuracy of the firearm. I'm not sure how much imperfect vision would impact you; probably pretty directly, but in a game-useful way it's probably abstracted into "do you see them or not."

If you make your vision roll, you're probably assumed to see pretty well what you are looking at. It's kinda binary. If we were to say "success by X" means you have perfect acquisition, "fail" means you don't see it at all, and intermediate would be a penalty to your roll.

I recall back from my astronomy days that an unaided human eye can resolve details of about a minute of arc. That's equivalent to a reasonably accurate rifle's deviation. Presumably if you are not using a scope you would be limited to something like Acc 4 or 5, perhaps better with Acute Vision or Telescopic Vision.

Luke