12-09-2011, 09:14 AM | #171 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Changing Rapid Fire
Quote:
Its just as easy to get one more hit on the eye of a moving person at 1000 yards as to get one more hit on a moving Star Destroyer at 10 yards. The only difference is the difficulty of the first hit. |
|
12-09-2011, 09:31 AM | #172 | |||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Changing Rapid Fire
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|||
12-09-2011, 09:50 AM | #173 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Provo, UT
|
Re: Changing Rapid Fire
Quote:
It's exactly what the rules were designed to do. Now breaking up the shots into 66 groups of 1 bullet each. THAT might be an exploit... |
|
12-09-2011, 09:59 AM | #174 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Changing Rapid Fire
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
||
12-09-2011, 10:23 AM | #175 | ||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Changing Rapid Fire
Quote:
Quote:
Yes-ish and absolutely respectively. However, I was talking quite specifically about cmdicely's interesting statement that it doesn't "take the arc occupied by the target into account in calculating hits beyond the first". The marginal difficulty to get another hit perspective is really useful, but the conclusion was slightly off.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
||
12-09-2011, 10:37 AM | #176 |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Changing Rapid Fire
While breaking the RoF down to discrete 1 bullet attacks is abusive, no one was talking abou that here. Rather, the full 50-100 RoF would be broken down into several ca RoF 10 attacks. That is pretty much in line with reality, that is, the gunner would move the cone of fire around the vehicle to account for the passengers and to disable the vehicle.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
12-09-2011, 10:43 AM | #177 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Changing Rapid Fire
Quote:
It is perfectly realistic that mounted weapons are far more effective at laying down automatic fire than handheld or even braced ones. It is in line with most of the rules from TS to give it double base Acc in this example*. Note also 'base Acc'. This means that the various benefits from TS will not be double-counted in this figure. *See, for example, Walking the Burst, where mounted weapons do indeed have twice the bonus that braced weapons do.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
|
12-09-2011, 10:43 AM | #178 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Changing Rapid Fire
Quote:
The idea of spraying fire is well and good, but the implementation?
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
12-09-2011, 11:33 AM | #179 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Changing Rapid Fire
Quote:
You attack at full skill, yes. Full skill for an unaimed attack, which is another way to say that you will miss unless you are at very close range and/or have a high RoF bonus.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
|
12-09-2011, 07:03 PM | #180 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Changing Rapid Fire
Quote:
While its more approaching the right feel than a rigoursly grounded approach, the mechanism I suggest earlier in the thread of using the net size/range mod to get to a multiplier which is applied to the number of hits generated by the existing Rapid Fire rules is a quick patch that mitigates this. |
|
Tags |
house rule, rapid fire, rcl, recoil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|