The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

are their rules on difficulties for shooting a moving target
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Official Rules -> are their rules on difficulties for shooting a moving target Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tetsuoh
Captain
Captain


Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Posts: 505

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:42 am    Post subject: are their rules on difficulties for shooting a moving target Reply with quote

as the topic says, been looking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shootingwomprats
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 2684
Location: Online

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nope but there are difficulty penalties for size. There are also situational modifiers the GM may assess as well. Do not forget cove modifiers as well.
_________________
Don Diestler
Host, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Savar
Captain
Captain


Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Posts: 589

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You could say that dodging is movement.

MAP with running.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only mods i see in any of the books based on target movement comes in space combat in regards to missiles/torpedoes and bombs.

Page 127.

Missiles, bombs and proton torpedoes: Missiles, bombs and torpedoes are physical weapons which deliver awesome firepower. However they are difficult to target. Their Difficulty numbers are modified by how fast a target is moving.
A ship going a space speed of 3/atmospheric speed of 100-150) has a +5 modifier.
A ship with a space of 4/atmos of 151-200 adds +10
A space of 5/atmpos of 201-250 adds +15
and anything from space 6 or atmos of 251+ adds +20.

The only OTHER spot you see about target speed modifying a to hit roll is in the MTFAS (multiple targeting and frequency acquisition system) of Storm troopers helmets, adding a +2d to their blaster skill to hit targets going faster than 10m a round.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cynanbloodbane
Commander
Commander


Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 410
Location: Cleveland, Go Tribe!

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really just counted this as one of the many things a GM was supposed to take into account when setting the difficulty number.
_________________
"Yes because killing the guy you always planned on usurping and killing anyways in order to save your own kid, totally atones for murdering a roomful of innocent trusting children." The Brain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is also the question of heading. A target moving towards or away from the shooter will not be as difficult to target as a target moving laterally across the shooter's line of fire. The relative lack of lateral movement will make calculating lead somewhat easier.

Personally, I've never liked applying the target speed penalties just to missiles and bombs, as their short effective range seemed penalty enough. I'd rather take those difficulties and apply them more generally, like so:
    Target Speed = To Hit Difficulty Modifier
    Stationary or Cautious = None
    Cruising = +5
    Full = +10
    All-Out = +15

    -5 if the Shooter is in the Target's Front or Rear Fire Arcs.

It's not pretty or perfect, but it works...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Ninja-Bear
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 26 Sep 2016
Posts: 209

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
There is also the question of heading. A target moving towards or away from the shooter will not be as difficult to target as a target moving laterally across the shooter's line of fire. The relative lack of lateral movement will make calculating lead somewhat easier.

Personally, I've never liked applying the target speed penalties just to missiles and bombs, as their short effective range seemed penalty enough. I'd rather take those difficulties and apply them more generally, like so:
    Target Speed = To Hit Difficulty Modifier
    Stationary or Cautious = None
    Cruising = +5
    Full = +10
    All-Out = +15

    -5 if the Shooter is in the Target's Front or Rear Fire Arcs.

It's not pretty or perfect, but it works...


Im going to have to use this. Its just what I'm looking for.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that "in the front/rear fire arc" needs some more thought.

Its's perfectly possible to be travelining perpendicular to an enemy and still be in his front fire arc.

It sounds like the rule makes the assumption that the weapons are mounted on some kind of mobile platform (a ship/vehicle) and that some of them are mounted port or starbord.

Also, the rule seems to assume that shooter and target are the same scale. "All-out" for a turtle would make no difference to a targeting system (even human eyes, in this case) that is designed to engage targets moving at higher speeds.

I think that the penalties are probably good as is. I just feel that given that scaled weapons have fire control systems, we run into some weird scenariios. I actually feel that this question raises another issue with regard to the RAW scale system, and why I think that opponents of different scale should have targeting restrictions placed on the fire control systems (the system just doesn't "register" targets below a certain scale).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
I think that "in the front/rear fire arc" needs some more thought.

Its's perfectly possible to be travelining perpendicular to an enemy and still be in his front fire arc.

It sounds like the rule makes the assumption that the weapons are mounted on some kind of mobile platform (a ship/vehicle) and that some of them are mounted port or starbord.

It's actually representing how the target's speed will have a greater effect on the shooter's Difficulty if it is moving across the shooter's field of vision. A shooter trying to hit a moving target from the side will have to deal with a lot more relative movement than he will if the target is coming at him or going away.

That being said, the above system is nowhere near perfect.

Quote:
Also, the rule seems to assume that shooter and target are the same scale. "All-out" for a turtle would make no difference to a targeting system (even human eyes, in this case) that is designed to engage targets moving at higher speeds.

Actually, my assumption was that differences in scale would be handled by the Scale Modifier rule. But you're right on relative speed being a factor. A better system would be dice-based instead of flat Difficulty modifiers (IMO, Dice better represent the randomness of trying to hit a moving target), using absolute speed values, either in SUs/round or meters/round.

Either that or taking 1E Speed Codes and applying them to a ship's Dodge roll.

Quote:
I think that the penalties are probably good as is. I just feel that given that scaled weapons have fire control systems, we run into some weird scenariios. I actually feel that this question raises another issue with regard to the RAW scale system, and why I think that opponents of different scale should have targeting restrictions placed on the fire control systems (the system just doesn't "register" targets below a certain scale).

I'm opposed to putting in absolute restrictions in place. IMO, a -4D or -6D penalty to hit is representative of trying to hit something your Gun's fire control can't even track, without completely eliminating the possibility of a lucky hit.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's an alternate idea, using the 2R&E Speed Modifier Chart from Torpedoes and Missiles:
    Space / Atmosphere Speed Range* = Fire Control Penalty
    11-20 / 400-799 = -1D
    21-30 / 800-1,199 = -2D
    31-40 / 1,200-1,599 = -3D
    41-50 / 1,600-1,999 = -4D
    51-60 / 2,000-2,399 = -5D
    60+ / 2,400+ = -6D

    Additional -1D penalty if the attacker is firing at the defender from the defender's Left or Right Fire Arcs.

    *This number is the total Move per round, not the Base Move. For instance, an A-Wing moving at All-Out (Base Speed of 12, times 4 for All-Out) would move up to 48 units in one round. That speed falls in the 41-50 group, so any Fire Control attempting to target the A-Wing would suffer a -4D penalty.

    To use a film example, the TIE Fighters attacking the Falcon in ANH were "coming in too fast", flying at 20 SUs/round (Space 10 x 2 for Full Speed), which imposes a -1D penalty to the Quad-Laser's Fire Control on the Falcon.

I intentionally designed the chart with insanely high numbers because some of the ships on the upper limits of speed actually get that fast at All-Out. The Plexus Droid Vessel with a Space of 15 just barely misses the 60+ range, while the Storm IV Cloud Car tops out at 2,080 meters per round at All-Out.

Of course, the upper range Fire Control penalties can only be used at All-Out Speeds (no evasive maneuvers allowed), and the player will need to weigh the benefits of using pure speed to evade attacks as opposed to performing evasive maneuvers.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:

I'm opposed to putting in absolute restrictions in place. IMO, a -4D or -6D penalty to hit is representative of trying to hit something your Gun's fire control can't even track, without completely eliminating the possibility of a lucky hit.


Yeah, sure. I realize that the scale penalty can eclipse the fire control bonus; though, in certain cases, I'd just as soon eliminate the fire control bonus and impose the penalty as well. I'm not opposed to a lucky hit; however, at ranges that are too short for the fire control system to be useful, it's also very easy to get "under the gun" for a smaller scale target, not to mention hiding under the craft in the first place (a pilot in a starfighter has no line of sight to certain angles below his cockpit--a speeder scale target like a swoop bike could make fast enough and tight enough maneuvers to just not be visible, etc. The larger scale shooter also needs to fight at the appropriate distance to really be effective).

Some would say that the scale differences already take these things into consideration, and that's perfectly reasonable, IMO. I think that the most important question is how often the issue comes up during play and by extension, how important is the "realistic" representation to the overall play experience?

Another thing that gives some insight into the designer's intent is the aforementioned stormtrooper helmet granting a bonus to hit targets moving faster than 10m per round. In this case, it seems safe to say that moving 11 or more meters in a round would probably grant a +2D bonus to dodge (or impose a -2D penalty on the attack roll).

The argument could be made that for every additional 10m/round (beyond the first 10m), a penalty of 2D is assessed to hit. Or, for every 5m/round, it's 1D, etc. But, again we run into the issue of scale. What difference does an additional 10m make when the target is moving 400m in a round? I could see using the 2D penalty as a base, and then for every size category larger, the penalty is reduced by 1 pip per speed increment. So, a character scale shooter targeting a speeder moving 60m/round would have a speed penalty of 3D+1 instead of 5D.

But, at this point, it's getting to a level of detail that I feel probably does more to encumber the system than to refine it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
I'm not opposed to a lucky hit; however, at ranges that are too short for the fire control system to be useful, it's also very easy to get "under the gun" for a smaller scale target, not to mention hiding under the craft in the first place (a pilot in a starfighter has no line of sight to certain angles below his cockpit--a speeder scale target like a swoop bike could make fast enough and tight enough maneuvers to just not be visible, etc. The larger scale shooter also needs to fight at the appropriate distance to really be effective).

I agree, and it's something I've looked at in the past, along the lines of not allowing larger-scale weapons to shoot at smaller-scale targets if that target is at Point Blank Range, with increased Difficulty to the smaller target for trying to stay "under the guns". I've never really been able to hammer out a version that I really liked, though...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Error
Captain
Captain


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 680
Location: Any blackberry patch.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cynanbloodbane wrote:
I really just counted this as one of the many things a GM was supposed to take into account when setting the difficulty number.

Me too. I have really only read like 5% of the material anyway. So I don't always know where to find charts. Not that there is one for this.

Most moving objects in the Star Wars games are vehicles anyway, and are moving very fast. A stationary blaster would have a hell of a time hitting a speeder bike or swoop going full speed, and almost no possibility of hitting a fighter going full speed. Of course the RAW permits such things, but real-wold experience tells me there's very little chance of hitting a blur.

When you write rules for things like this you walk a dangerous line...when do I start to consider relative speed...? Haha

I can see the thread now! Shocked
_________________
The only words of explanation you need for any concept in the entire Star Wars universe are the words Science Fiction and Space Opera.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm on the relative speed already. It would be a variation on the chart from above, but with the speed calculated by the combined velocities of the two ships. For instance, an A-Wing in a head-to-head with an Interceptor at Full Speed would have a combined velocity (in space) of 46, which would generate a bonus that each would apply to their Dodge rolls.

If, however, the A-Wing was on the Interceptor's tail, the Speed difference would be negligible (-2), thus cancelling out any bonus or penalty. I did something similar for my ASC system, and I have some free time today, so I will probably be working something up for it.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Error
Captain
Captain


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 680
Location: Any blackberry patch.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
I'm on the relative speed already. It would be a variation on the chart from above, but with the speed calculated by the combined velocities of the two ships. For instance, an A-Wing in a head-to-head with an Interceptor at Full Speed would have a combined velocity (in space) of 46, which would generate a bonus that each would apply to their Dodge rolls.

If, however, the A-Wing was on the Interceptor's tail, the Speed difference would be negligible (-2), thus cancelling out any bonus or penalty. I did something similar for my ASC system, and I have some free time today, so I will probably be working something up for it.

I can see that you are the Pit madman...

I sometimes take relative speed into account when determining difficulties or bonuses/penalties, but I never math it out. The net result is usually accurate enough for me, but that's because I'm lazy and so are my players. Embarassed
_________________
The only words of explanation you need for any concept in the entire Star Wars universe are the words Science Fiction and Space Opera.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Official Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0