4e Mechanics & Rules Discussion

[Raellus]

Having gotten over my initial skepticism, and started to wrap my head around the 4e rules & mechanics, I am eager to give them a try.

Why is only one PC allowed to Keep Watch as an action during marches? Although I understand the intent to cut down on die rolls, this mechanic seems a bit odd. First off, the roll can't be pushed. Other PCs can't Help with the skill check either. And doesn't this mean that the PC with the highest Observation skill is pretty much stuck always assuming the role of keeping watch during patrols. It all seems a bit all-or-nothing for a task that, IRL, more or less every member of the team would be actively participating in whist moving through disputed and/or enemy-held territory. Is there something that I'm missing?

Also, why do MGs (but not SAWs) have a slower ROF than assault rifles? This also seems odd. MG ammo types have a higher damage per hit, but being able to roll more hits with an assault rifle negates this advantage, does it not? Again, is there something that I'm missing?

-

[Spartan-117]

Why is only one PC allowed to Keep Watch as an action during marches? Although I understand the intent to cut down on die rolls, this mechanic seems a bit odd. First off, the roll can't be pushed. Other PCs can't Help with the skill check either. And doesn't this mean that the PC with the highest Observation skill is pretty much stuck always assuming the role of keeping watch during patrols. It all seems a bit all-or-nothing for a task that, IRL, more or less every member of the team would be actively participating in whist moving through disputed and/or enemy-held territory. Is there something that I'm missing?
-

This tracks pretty closely with 2.2 rules:

Spotting and Surprise: When a group of
characters encounters a group of NPCs, each
group has a chance of spotting the other (Difficult:
Observation). Spotting a group moving
in vehicles is Average: Observation. Spotting
a stationary and camouflaged group is Difficult:
Observation. The roll is made only once
per group, using the highest Observation in
the group. The asset level used is reduced by
one for each character in the group and by
five for each vehicle in the group. It is increased
by alike amount for numbers of characters
and vehicles in the group encountered.
However, the Observation asset used may
never be more than halved or doubled by
these modifications.

Observation: This column gives the Observation
value for the group. Not every character
in the group will be this good; instead, it
represents the best Observation available or
the Observation asset of the point man.

If you want to optimize a 2.2 party from a RAW mechanics POV, have one PC pour every available point into OBS during chargen. Have another pour every available point into Survival. These two skills control encounter ranges, the party's ability to avoid an encounter (which is critical if encounters are being generated randomly, RAW, and you roll a large or well equipped Patrol or Military Convoy) and food acquisition, which are base elements of gameplay.

Looking through FL's rules, that also seems to be a good base for an optimized 4e party as well.

[unipus]

Until either of those characters dies, then the whole party rapidly follows. :)

As for MGs - not looking at ROF specifically, but MGs in 4e are pretty weak using RAW. "More ammo" is essentially the one advantage they have, which has always felt wrong to me. I've played with house ruling it in a variety of ways (starting with reducing the default penalties for shooting them from -2/-3 to -1/-2, giving extra suppression dice chances, etc) but this supplement (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/369750/Service-Rifles-of-Europe-and-North-America) (yes, it's a bit overpriced for what it is, but full of good stuff) has an optional rule that has solved the issue for me, I think.

Essentially it includes a "recoil limit" for every weapon, which if you exceed (in ammo dice) from an unsupported position gives you a -1 penalty. That's it. Too simple? Maybe, but I think it works fine for what it is. The recoil limit is typically 3 or 4 for assault rifles, and 2 for 7.62 battle rifles and MGs. An MG's bipod removes that penalty whenever deployed, letting you go full cyclic. Of course any other weapon with a bipod gets the same bonus, but those aren't super common. You can also remove the penalty by bracing your rifle, but that takes an action (and somewhere you could realistically brace it).

It's a nice easy rule that gets the job done and has tactical implications.

[Raellus]

Thanks guys.

This is a minor quibble (and unrelated to my previous questions), but the Officer archetype lists starting weapons as an SMG or pistol, and presumes in the flavor text that the character is default American. However, there is no SMG listed under the US weapons in the rulebook, nor was any SMG standard issue in US Army regular(i.e. non-SOF) formations during the 1990s, IRL. The closest thing to a standard-issue SMG would be the M3 'Grease Gun' issued to AFV crews, but that was on its way out. Of course, one could use a foreign-made/issued SMG, but that seems like an arbitrary constraint that the other templates aren't bound by, so...

As a ref, I would house-rule this obvious error by allowing a US officer to take a carbine instead of an SMG. It was fairly common, in Vietnam at least, for officers to carry CAR-15s, and I've seen enough photos of officers in the 1980s and 1990s carrying M4s to justify it in the T2k '90s. I hope that if I ever play a US officer, the Ref will not hold my PC to the letter of the [rulebook] law for starting weaponry. ;)

On a somewhat related note, I really like the weapon card illustrations in the 4e rulebook. The weapons and vehicles look more "alive" and worn than the line drawings of earlier editions. One thing that bugs me, though, is duplicate weapons. Why bother with separate weapons cards for the Minimi under US and Swedish weapons, and the RPK under Soviet and Polish weapons? The stats are identical. A simple table would have sufficed for duplicates. That would have created more room for "unique" weapons (e.g. L85) in that section of the rulebook. For example, instead of another card for the AT-4 under Swedish weapons, they could have included the BILL ATGM. Also, I'm really disappointed that the LAV-25 wasn't included as a vehicle card, especially given that one of the campaign settings (Sweden) prominently features a USMC unit. I mentioned this in feedback on the Alpha, but whatevs (at least they fixed the illustration for the PKM, which was originally portrayed as an RPK).

-

[Heffe]

As for MGs - not looking at ROF specifically, but MGs in 4e are pretty weak using RAW. "More ammo" is essentially the one advantage they have, which has always felt wrong to me. I've played with house ruling it in a variety of ways (starting with reducing the default penalties for shooting them from -2/-3 to -1/-2, giving extra suppression dice chances, etc)

Can you expound on which penalty/modifier you're referring to? So far as I'm aware, mgs are handled just like any other ranged combat weapon with the exception of which dice are being rolled.

[Spartan-117]

More ammo is probably more powerful than people realize, given that this is an action economy combat system and you will spend a fast or slow action to reload a magazine fed weapon (depending on your RC reload roll).

Screwing around with a magazine in your hand is time you could have been killing Soviets!

You spend an action to reload a belt fed weapon also, but you do so a third to a quarter as much. That means MOAR dead Soviets! HUZZAH!

[Raellus]

More ammo is probably more powerful than people realize, given that this is an action economy combat system and you will spend a fast or slow action to reload a magazine fed weapon (depending on your RC reload roll).

I keep forgetting about action economy. I don't know if that's because I've only ever used v2.2 combat rules, or exclusively run/played PbP (maybe it's both). Action economy + slightly higher damage per shot probably makes up for a slower ROF.

I reckon the M249 would probably be the min-maxer's small arm of choice then, being as it's got ROF 6 and ammo 200.

-

[Spartan-117]

I reckon the M249 would probably be the min-maxer's small arm of choice then, being as it's got ROF 6 and ammo 200.

-

It's a jam cannon at ROF 6.

[Raellus]

It's a jam cannon at ROF 6.

Can a weapon jam if the shooter didn't push the roll? The only jamming rule I can find reads:

"If you roll two or more * on your base dice or ammo dice after pushing, your weapon jams immediately after resolving the attack..." p66

Checking index...

PDF says Jamming 65, but it's not actually mentioned until p66 and then all it says is what's quoted above. So, if I'm not missing anything, and I'm reading the rule correctly, it looks like jams only occur on pushed rolls.

-

[Spartan-117]

Can a weapon jam if the shooter didn't push the roll? The only jamming rule I can find reads:

"If you roll two or more * on your base dice or ammo dice after pushing, your weapon jams immediately after resolving the attack..." p66

Checking index...

PDF says Jamming 65, but it's not actually mentioned until p66 and then all it says is what's quoted above. So, if I'm not missing anything, and I'm reading the rule correctly, it looks like jams only occur on pushed rolls.

-

Then it's even worse.. it's a miss cannon... ;)

Being able to push is what allows you to hit effectively in many cases. The negative modifiers stack up quickly. Not being able to push because you rolled 6 die and got 2 1's on some of them, is really limiting.

IMHO, ROF 2 or 3 is the sweet spot. At ROF 5 and 6 you are taking real risk of getting a pair of ones. Not that it can't happen with ROF 2/3, but it's less likely to happen. Throw more die, you have more chances for 6 - yes, but an equal amount of chances for 1s.

A min-maxer's dream, from my perspective, is a weapon that you can reliably push to achieve a hit, and if it hits it crits immediately, no need for an extra success or ammo die (those are gravy).

Suppressing the enemy is good. Killing them is better.

*You can debate wounding them might be best - if the OPFOR will reliable react to treat a wounded soldier, tying up action economy for the medic/combat lifesaver (who was otherwise a combatant), that's a pretty good outcome as well.*

[unipus]

Can you expound on which penalty/modifier you're referring to? So far as I'm aware, mgs are handled just like any other ranged combat weapon with the exception of which dice are being rolled.


Yeah, it's on p.65 of the PM:

LIGHT (LMG): Normally fired from a bipod. Can be fired when carried, but with a –2 modifier."

GENERAL PURPOSE (GPMG): Normally fired from a bipod, tripod or vehicle mount. Can be fired when carried, with a –3 modifier.

HEAVY (HMG): Can only be fired from a tripod or a vehicle mount.



Like I said, I think those penalties are a little severe so I dropped them to -1/-2 for LMG/MMG.

[unipus]

And yes, agreed, pushing rolls is very important to success in general, and the main advantage PCs have over NPCs. You can still push a roll even if you're already showing multiple mishaps, though! I had one player do it in a do-or-die situation and it worked out for him. Jammed, almost broken weapon was a far better alternative than the faceful of bullets he seemed all but guaranteed to receive otherwise.

I do agree that in most circumstances, around 3 seems to be the sweet spot for ROF, except those rare instances where there's a stack of enemies bunched together or you just absolutely need to hose a MF'er right now. Otherwise you end up mostly using a lot more ammo and facing a lot more jams for not huge gain. Every now and then, though, you end up with critical hits against multiple enemies in a single shot. That's pretty ninja.

But, again, all this kinda gets to flaws in the presentation of MGs as I see it. It's not that they can't be effective. It's more that they mostly don't seem to bring a lot of their real-world advantages. IRL the MG is the most important part of the squad. In 4E (which I generally think produces slightly abstract but overall very plausible combat results!) it's a second-rate tool, unless you happen to have lots and lots and lots of ammo.

[Heffe]

Can a weapon jam if the shooter didn't push the roll? The only jamming rule I can find reads:

"If you roll two or more * on your base dice or ammo dice after pushing, your weapon jams immediately after resolving the attack..." p66

Checking index...

PDF says Jamming 65, but it's not actually mentioned until p66 and then all it says is what's quoted above. So, if I'm not missing anything, and I'm reading the rule correctly, it looks like jams only occur on pushed rolls.

-

Just confirming that this was my read of that rule as well. It’s only jamming if you’re pushing.

[Heffe]

Yeah, it's on p.65 of the PM:

LIGHT (LMG): Normally fired from a bipod. Can be fired when carried, but with a –2 modifier."

GENERAL PURPOSE (GPMG): Normally fired from a bipod, tripod or vehicle mount. Can be fired when carried, with a –3 modifier.

HEAVY (HMG): Can only be fired from a tripod or a vehicle mount.



Like I said, I think those penalties are a little severe so I dropped them to -1/-2 for LMG/MMG.

Ahhh interesting. Yeah that seems like a good way to go with houseruling in that case.

[Tegyrius]

But, again, all this kinda gets to flaws in the presentation of MGs as I see it. It's not that they can't be effective. It's more that they mostly don't seem to bring a lot of their real-world advantages. IRL the MG is the most important part of the squad. In 4E (which I generally think produces slightly abstract but overall very plausible combat results!) it's a second-rate tool, unless you happen to have lots and lots and lots of ammo.

I haven't examined this issue in detail yet but it seems like the easy fix is to give MGs a limited ability to ignore 1s on ammo dice - possibly ignore the first X 1s, where X equals half of current Reliability, rounded up (so at Reliability 5, you'd have to roll four 1s to affect Reliability and five 1s to jam - not counting any 1s on your base attack dice). This would reflect their designed capability for reliable sustained automatic fire in a better way than just pointing to the action economy advantage of belt feed.

They still have the disadvantages of encumbrance, reduced performance when hip-fired, and high consumption of your most precious natural resource (i.e., lead).

- C.

[Spartan-117]

Obviously if we change the mechanics of the RAW we change what is optimal.

[Tegyrius]

I don't want a universal optimal weapon. I want different weapons to be optimal for different situations and roles. Keeping the hefty penalty to hip-firing MGs while making them less prone to RUD (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rapid_unplanned_disassembly) when being used as intended feels like a reasonable balance to propose. It keeps infantry rifles the best choice for the maneuver element without penalizing your MG team for doing that base of fire thing.

At least, that's the intent.

- C.

[unipus]

I haven't examined this issue in detail yet but it seems like the easy fix is to give MGs a limited ability to ignore 1s on ammo dice - possibly ignore the first X 1s, where X equals half of current Reliability, rounded up (so at Reliability 5, you'd have to roll four 1s to affect Reliability and five 1s to jam - not counting any 1s on your base attack dice). This would reflect their designed capability for reliable sustained automatic fire in a better way than just pointing to the action economy advantage of belt feed.

They still have the disadvantages of encumbrance, reduced performance when hip-fired, and high consumption of your most precious natural resource (i.e., lead).

- C.

That's interesting and could work. As you've written it I think it's a bit too charitable (I don't think I would ever want to let it get beyond ignoring 1 or 2 mishaps, at the most) but there's something to it. Of course then you've got to think of how it affects the pushing issue. If I know I won't jam until I roll 3 or 4 mishaps I probably push almost every roll.

I don't like introducing MORE rolling usually, but something like "you may re-roll even dice showing mishaps when you push" could also do the trick. That could be limited as well. "You may re-roll up to 1 die showing a mishap when you push (or 2 if your weapon is in perfect condition)" or something. Still a chance that you then roll more mishaps, but it's a nice distinct boost to the MG that differentiates it. Dunno, just thinking out loud. I don't like how I'd have to handle this over Foundry, but, eh.

[Heffe]

The "Keeping Watch" piece makes some sense to me due to opposed rolls being made, but I'm not sure about the mg ROF - agreed that that feels like a mistake/oversight. Maybe if it wasn't just an oversight, it was to simulate barrels heating or something? Just a thought.

My concerns with the mechanics lean more toward the armor/explosions mechanics and AT round mechanics. The 4e covers most stuff pretty well, but there are some distinct areas where I feel like the mechanics are a tough fit - for instance, grenades counting as heavy weapons. It feels like they got shoehorned into heavy weapons based on the authors not wanting the system to be overly crunchy, but I think they should have had their own ruleset. As it stands today, unless you get hit directly with a grenade, which is fairly uncommon, and you're wearing body armor, small explosions aren't going to do much. In other words, that +1 armor modifier plus the bare minimum of armor combines to make some funky game elements. For instance, a player wearing a flak vest could be hit square in the chest with a 25mm HE round. With only a single success on the dice, that round likely isn't going to do much more than knock the player down.

Kinetic penetrators are the other area where I have some concerns, and their relevance against HEAT rounds. Right now there's no functional reason to take AP rounds in the higher calibers, because HEAT does everything that AP does, only it also adds explosion mechanics. There's no reason a penetrating HEAT round should risk killing the entire crew of a vehicle, while a penetrating AP round may only barely scratch one of the crew.

[Spartan-117]

For instance, a player wearing a flak vest could be hit square in the chest with a 25mm HE round. With only a single success on the dice, that round likely isn't going to do much more than knock the player down.


Doesn't everyone in the 10 meter hex have to roll 1 damage die if a blast D explosive round hits someone in that hex? If the blast inflicts damage, they then roll hit location, with only head and torso being common armor locations?

[Spartan-117]

this supplement (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/369750/Service-Rifles-of-Europe-and-North-America) (yes, it's a bit overpriced for what it is, but full of good stuff) has an optional rule that has solved the issue for me, I think.

I downloaded this earlier and it looks like a very nice addition. I appreciate that the author corrected a few issues post publication and updated the version with the changes. It's nice to see continuing support for products at DTRPG. I like the move to fractional EU for the rifles as well (0.75, 1.25, etc.).

[unipus]

I'm with you on the rest. I actually had to look up the 25mm stats and you're right, it's wacky. 4 damage, 3 crit, but hitting somewhere with even 1 armor will drop it to 1 base damage. The hex would also be subject to a D blast I think but that also might not do much. It could potentially be hit by ROF 4 of D blasts, I forget how the rules handle that. If it's anything less than "everyone there is hurt real bad" though it's not a very effective rule.


There's no reason a penetrating HEAT round should risk killing the entire crew of a vehicle, while a penetrating AP round may only barely scratch one of the crew.


This part, though... penetrating HEAT can and should do more damage than AP. The issue that the HEAT probably has much less chance of doing so to begin with... something which is definitely simplified out of existence here.

[Raellus]

As it stands today, unless you get hit directly with a grenade, which is fairly uncommon, and you're wearing body armor, small explosions aren't going to do much.

But what about the limbs? They can still take considerable damage from small explosions (like 40mm HE grenades), no?

Body armor, even older stuff like flak vest and steel helmets, was designed primarily to protect the wearer from shrapnel (more so than bullets), so what you described re protection of body armor v. small explosions seems pretty reasonable/realistic.

Luckily for most player parties (and the Ref's that have to track all this stuff), most Soviet soldiers c.1996 weren't equipped with body armor (other than a steel helmet). :D

But yeah, a 25mm HE round to the torso, even a torso clad in PAGST or plate carrier vest, should result in a high probability kill just from the kinetic energy of the impact (pre-explosion), IMHO.

-

[Adm.Lee]

About MGs and ROFs and what makes MGs different from rifles: doesn't this follow from v1 rules? There's not much special in v1 about MGs, other than range and belts for ammo.

unipus' "recoil limit" sounds very interesting here; dunno if I could get my typical group to remember that, though.


Something that bothered me for a bit, until I gave it more thought. One of the suggestions for NPCs is that a GM shouldn't bother to track hit locations and hit points for an NPC, just suppress 'em. That led to the obvious question: "Are NPCs immortal, then?"

But then, I realized one can run NPCs as a group, not as individuals-- pretend it's a whole team/squad/section that's in the hex, and suppression can spread to the whole group. It's a little like playing Squad Leader: the goal really isn't to score a KIA on the enemy, it's to get them to fail those Morale Checks so they stop shooting at you.

That said, I haven't played any more after this revelation, so I'm not sure how to carry on from there.

[Raellus]

About MGs, it seems like the Crit number should be lower than those for assault rifles. Without getting into a debate about the relative merits of various calibers of small arms rounds, it seems like an MG round should do more damage, not less, than an assault rifle round. Therefore, if I'm reading the rules right, an MG's Crit number should be the lower of the two. Am I missing something?

EDIT: Duh! MGs have a higher Damage rating, so lowering their Crit score would, arguably, make them OP.

-

[unipus]

Yeah, it's already not hard to score crits with MGs. My issue is just that they don't seem all that different from rifles in play which I think leaves a bit of a hole when it comes to the small unit tactics that are the meat and butter here! (but yes, the same could be said of earlier editions as well)

[Ursus Maior]

About MGs, it seems like the Crit number should be lower than those for assault rifles.
When approaching this, I ask myself this: Does getting hit by a single bullet from a MG make a critical hit more likely? And I don't see the reason here.

What I could see is a higher Armor value, since often MGs have longer barrels, so their velocity is higher, thus they penetrate better. But that's slippery slope with a system that sacrifices granularity for speed.

[Raellus]

Regarding XP and skill progression, I have a clarifying question. IMHO, the rules aren't very clear on this.

To increase a skill level by one step costs a number of XP indicated in the table to the above right. You can only increase a skill level one step at a time. Learning a new skill (at skill level D) costs 5 XP

INCREASING SKILL LEVEL
TARGET LEVEL XP NEEDED
A 20
B 15
C 10
D 5

So, does it cost a TOTAL of 15 XP to advance from D to B, or does it cost 10 to advance from D to B, and then an additional 15 to advance from C to D?

I think it's the latter, but I'm not sure. What's your interpretation?

-

[Desert Mariner]

So, does it cost a TOTAL of 15 XP to advance from D to B, or does it cost 10 to advance from D to B, and then an additional 15 to advance from C to D?

I think it's the latter, but I'm not sure. What's your interpretation?

-

I don't have the 4E rules but based strictly on your excerpt, I'd say the cost is:

New Skill (D) = 5
Raise from D to C = +10 (total 15)
Raise from C to B = +15 (total 30)
Raise from B to A = +20 (total 50)

[unipus]

Yes, that's correct.

[Raellus]

I want to check my understanding of the Critical Injury rules (which are as follows).

CRITICAL INJURY: If the damage inflicted, after mitigation
by armor and cover, is equal to or higher than the crit
threshold of your weapon, you also inflict a critical injury
on the target.

Some weapons' Dam and Crit numbers are the same, so conceivably a single hit could generate a Critical Injury. However, most weapons' Crit number is higher than its Dam number (usually by one).

My question: For weapons in the latter category, is using ammo die the only way to generate a Critical Injury?

OR

Could Critical Injuries be generated from a scenario like the one that follows: In round 1, the player hits a target in the right arm for 2 damage (the player's weapon's Crit value is 3). In the next round, the player hits the target in the same arm for another 2 damage. Since the total damage to that body part is now 4, over the weapon's Crit score, is a Critical Injury generated?

Similarly, what if the player hits a different body part in the second round, still causes 2 points of damage. Now that the total damage to the target is 4, over the weapon's Crit score, is a Critical Injury generated?

In other words, does only the damage from a single shot or burst count towards generating a Critical Injury? Or, does cumulative damage do so as well? (And, if so, is it cumulative to a single body part, or cumulative for the target's entire body?)

Thanks, in advance.

-

[Ursus Maior]

Option 2 is definitely not an intended reading and frankly, I don't see how this could be read into it. This would immediately generate additional edge cases for rules interpretation that would make it absurd to play by these rules.

However, I'm not sure, how to read your first option and I think there are several misunderstandings at place here.

Some weapons' Dam and Crit numbers are the same, so conceivably a single hit could generate a Critical Injury. However, most weapons' Crit number is lower than its Dam number (usually by one).

My question: For weapons in the latter category, is using ammo die the only way to generate a Critical Injury?

First of all, for most weapons the Crit value is on point higher than the Damage value. Weapons which have both ratings at the same level are exceedingly rare and these weapons are obviously meant to inflict critical hits against unarmored targets very easily (e. g. axe, grenade launcher, heavy machinegun). Heavier weapons and especially weapons under the "Artillery" category (i. e. 20 mm and upwards) usually have their Crit value above the Damage value, basically guaranteeing a critical hit, probably even against personnel in body armor or behind cover.

Now, I'm assuming you mixed up "lower" Crit number and "higher" Crit value in your initial statement, but ammo dice are by no means the only way to generate critical hits. Remember, you can generate up to 4 successes total without ammo dice, if your attribute and or skill level give you D10s and/or D12s.

Any additional success in the to-hit roll gives you +1 damage (p. 63, right above the paragraph on critical hits). So a regular soldier with Agility C and Ranged Combat C would roll 2D8 and could come up with 2 successes, enough to trigger a critical hit with his rifle against an unarmored target not in cover. A better trained professional soldier (Agility B, Ranged Combat B) could hope for a critical hit much more often, however, maybe even against armored targets or those behind cover.

Now, if opponents crouch themselves behind cover and are armor clad, then you might want to take aim with a good optic (+1) probably also seeking good support for your rifle (combined +2) or just let loose more rounds (1-6 ammo dice). Note, however, that successes on ammo dice also allow you to hit other targets, not just enhance damage on the initial target (p. 66).

[Raellus]

Now, I'm assuming you mixed up "lower" Crit number and "higher" Crit value in your initial statement.

Indeed, I did. :o

Corrected in OP.

Any additional success in the to-hit roll gives you +1 damage (p. 63, right above the paragraph on critical hits). So a regular soldier with Agility C and Ranged Combat C would roll 2D8 and could come up with 2 successes, enough to trigger a critical hit with his rifle against an unarmored target not in cover. A better trained professional soldier (Agility B, Ranged Combat B) could hope for a critical hit much more often, however, maybe even against armored targets or those behind cover.

I had not caught that. Thanks.

-

[Spartan-117]

One questions I've had regarding rule and mechanics:

Since Battle Rifle is not specifically mentioned under the Rifleman speciality, would you allow Rifleman to grant the +1 to hit with Battle Rifles?

Without allowing it, you end up with the odd case that Hemvärnet members carrying AK4s who rolled/selected the Rifleman speciality, actually become more skilled at shooting people if they pickup a dropped Soviet AK-47/74... which seems weird and perhaps unintended.

[Tegyrius]

One questions I've had regarding rule and mechanics:

Since Battle Rifle is not specifically mentioned under the Rifleman speciality, would you allow Rifleman to grant the +1 to hit with Battle Rifles?

I would hope that's the intent. As written, the specialty seems to include all shoulder-fired small arms that don't fall under another specialty... and it explicitly includes shotguns, which are sometimes rifled but not rifles by most sane hoplological taxonomy.

- C.

[Ursus Maior]

I concur with Tegyrius. I think not adding the apparently existing category of Battle Rilfes to the list of the Rifleman specialty (p. 50) is either an oversight in copy-editing or during finalization of the rules between alpha, beta and publication edition.

After checking the wording of alpha and beta rules, I realized that nothing had changed there during editing. So, I suppose it's a continuous error and adding the category of Battle Rifles was just forgotten. It just doesn't make sense for those rifles not to have a specialty that gives them +1. All other weapons get that opportunity.

Thus I'd read "Rifleman" to encompass all 'longarms', except hunting and sniper rifles. These use "Sniper".

[Raellus]

"Rifleman" and "Battle Rifle" both contain the same root word (rifle!), so I would rule yes. :)

I still haven't had a chance to play 4e, but I'm trying to get a grip on the rules in the hopes that, someday, I will. My next question is a follow-up on my earlier Crit question.

DAMAGE: If your attack succeeds, you hit your target and
inflict your weapon’s base damage rating on them. Each
extra [target icon] rolled will increase the damage by 1. Roll for a
random hit location and apply the effects of armor.

So, as I understand it, you roll two die per ranged attack, one for the PC's attribute, the other for their applied skill.

For the sake of example, and assuming no modifiers come into play, let's say the player/Ref rolls a six (one target icon) and a ten (two target icons). Since they rolled a six, they hit. Since there're TWO target icons on the other die, does that mean you add +2 to the damage?

-

[unipus]

Correct. (unless they don't have the skill at all, in which case you only roll one die -- or if modifiers cause a die to be eliminated)

If they had rolled a miss on the first die, and a 10 on the second, that would still be two hits. The majority of small arms in the game have a crit rating one higher than their base damage, which makes either of these cases a critical hit. This is the main advantage that highly skilled shooters have - not only do they hit more often, but it tends to be more lethal when they do so.

This is also why ammo dice are so useful, despite a lot of people underestimating their usefulness in the system. The odds are only 16% per die, but when you're in a firefight against multiple opponents, being able to hit more than one at once, or just put one down with a critical right now, becomes super important -- not to mention the significant importance of suppression. A ROF 3 shot has a 42% chance of achieving that!

[Ursus Maior]

Unipus is right, the mechanic of ammo dice is extremely important. Also, I like the way they reflect the dynamics of a firefight, where soldiers try to shoot short bursts, but over the course of 10 seconds (1 combat round) might give off 5-10 bursts.

To me, using 3 ammo dice seems to be the optimum, adding three seperate chances of ~16.67 % to hit at least one additional target. The base damage will often be not the most important part, but you will confer 2 CUF rolls onto the enemy force. That results in two chances of morale failure, hence twice the chance to route the enemy in your turn.

Proper target allocation and concentration of fire is a critical point in this game. Whoever controls morale will be able to move more freely and go into close combat, where less penalties apply and targets loose cover and concealment to a flanking force.

That's exactly how firefights work, if current tactics are applied properly.

[unipus]

Yep. At a glance the system is a bit abstracted but in practice I saw immediately that it generates very believable results that emphasize fire and maneuver tactics. Whoever has fire superiority will generally maintain the initiative (in the true military sense -- I hate the way this word is traditionally used in the roleplaying game sense!) and the freedom to move, act, and win. Depending on how scarce ammo is, this leads to tough decisions about how much to shoot, which is good!

To me, using 3 ammo dice seems to be the optimum, adding three seperate chances of ~16.67 % to hit at least one additional target. The base damage will often be not the most important part, but you will confer 2 CUF rolls onto the enemy force. That results in two chances of morale failure, hence twice the chance to route the enemy in your turn.

I'm not sure if this is how you meant it, but I don't think you can ever force more than one CUF check on a target in a single attack (even if you choose to hit them multiple times). I think what you meant though is that you can use hits on ammo dice to split your hits among multiple targets in the same hex... in which case yes each target hit would face a CUF and potentially cause a cascade if they fail.

[Ursus Maior]

In reverse order for the sake of arguments.

I'm not sure if this is how you meant it, but I don't think you can ever force more than one CUF check on a target in a single attack (even if you choose to hit them multiple times). I think what you meant though is that you can use hits on ammo dice to split your hits among multiple targets in the same hex... in which case yes each target hit would face a CUF and potentially cause a cascade if they fail.Yes, one can only trigger one CUF per person per attack. But a hex is a big place and it's feasible to anticipate that more persons (to use the somewhat awkward term of the rules) of one side occupy the same hex than suffered a CUF roll. Or as the rules put it:

PANIC SPREADS: If you fail a CUF roll and get suppressed, all friendly fighters in the same hex as you must also immediately make CUF rolls to avoid suppression too. However, a single attack can only trigger one CUF roll for the same person, never several rolls. [PM p. 67]

[...] Whoever has fire superiority will generally maintain the initiative (in the true military sense -- I hate the way this word is traditionally used in the roleplaying game sense!) and the freedom to move, act, and win. Depending on how scarce ammo is, this leads to tough decisions about how much to shoot, which is good!
D'accord to all three items: the intention of the rule, the critique on terminology and the consequences of the rules. Conflict should and indeed must generate decisions for role-playing games to work. And fighting conflicts should generate the starkest decisions to be made. It's quite literally about live and death for characters, son the consequences should carry on into the world after the action.

[Raellus]

So, with opposed skill checks and whatnot, is it essentially whoever has the most target icons showing on their dice wins?

Is there also some sort of outstanding success or failure mechanic if X more targets are showing than on the opponents' dice? I seem to recall seeing something about an outstanding success mechanic somewhere in the 4e rules but, of course, now I can't find it.

-

[Ursus Maior]

There aren't any rules for triumphant successes or abysmal failures in T2K4. You have the push mechanic, for bending your luck at the (possible) cost of damaging gear or taking stress or (physical) strain yourself, but beyond that, it's either pass or fail.

[unipus]

Personally, I still always interpret it otherwise. For many tasks, 4 successes paints a much different picture than 1 and I narrate it that way. For other tasks, I sometimes make it clear before the role what the stakes are, ie "One success here and you'll get him to walk away... but you're gonna need more than that to really convince him of anything" or "any successes and you'll climb the wall -- more than that and you get it done quickly and quietly" and so on.

[Raellus]

There aren't any rules for triumphant successes or abysmal failures in T2K4. You have the push mechanic, for bending your luck at the (possible) cost of damaging gear or taking stress or (physical) strain yourself, but beyond that, it's either pass or fail.

I found the bit that I referred to in the OP. It's not an outstanding success mechanic, per se, but it's close. It apparently only applies in certain situations, though, so not for opposed rolls, in general. Off the top of my head, I can't remember a situation where it does apply so, if you know of one, please share.

MULTIPLE SUCCESSES: A roll of 10 or higher on a single die
(only possible with a D10 or D12 of course) counts as
two successes. This means you can potentially roll up to
four successes with a single skill roll (two successes on
each die), if you are both skilled and lucky. With bonus
beyond the first one you can achieve additional effects, if explicitly stated in the rules.

-

[Raellus]

I find the Killing Blow (see below) rule to be a little odd in that it attempts to strictly limit player agency by forcing a roll to execute an action based on solely on willpower. I agree that there should be some sort of a psychological penalty for doing something so taboo (e.g. the +1 stress point seems reasonable), but blocking the action based on a failed roll just seems unnecessarily restrictive and arbitrary. Taking the Killer specialty seems like an expensive way to avoid these restrictions.

KILLING BLOW
A person who is incapacitated by damage is defenseless. If it’s a human being and you want to kill them outright, you must fail an EMP roll (roll one base die only). If the roll succeeds, you simply cannot force yourself to commit the deed. Even if the roll fails and you do kill the victim, you suffer 1 point of stress – killing in cold blood is not easy. If you have the Killer specialty (page 49) you can kill defenseless enemies without these negative effects.

At the risk of sounding sanguine and immoral, does the mechanic of having to pass an EMP roll before being allowed to deliver a killing blow seem reasonable to you?

Not to say that, as a player, I would ever want my PC to do this, but there might be circumstances where it's justifiable (a "mercy killing" to end the suffering of an untreatable, badly wounded enemy, for example). By the same token, as a Ref, I would make sure that if my players' PCs committed any unlawful killings, there would be IG consequences to contend with down the line (the OPFOR would commit even more resources to hunting them down, for example).

The Killing Blow rule seems even more odd given the following rule in the Ranged Combat section.

DEFENSELESS TARGET: If your target is in the same hex and immobile or unaware of you, you gain a +3 bonus.

So, the rules give you a bonus to physically take action against an incapacitated NPC, but then forces an EMP roll to actually carry it out. Why so many hoops? I don't quite get it.

-

[Ursus Maior]

I'm pretty sure these two rules are not necessarily about the same types of targets. The first one is about targets that are "incapacitated by damage" and thus defenseless. The other one is about a target that is "in the same hex and immobile or unaware of you".

Thus, the second type can still be very much a threat. And the second rule is about how easy it's technically to hit them, but shooting an immobile, incapacitated person is still emotionally hard.

[Rainbow Six]

At the risk of sounding sanguine and immoral, does the mechanic of having to pass an EMP roll before being allowed to deliver a killing blow seem reasonable to you?

No, it doesn't seem reasonable to me. I'm aware of instances where this situation has come up in games and I'm not disputing that it can potentially be a difficult topic but player agency should be primary. I don't think you're sanguine or immoral, I think for me the challenge is how the group deal with the consequences, both IC and OOC.

By the same token I've never been a fan of games that use a "Coolness Under Fire" stat to limit / control what actions a character may or may not take. I'm not disputing the realism of these rules, I'm just not in favour of mechanisms that artificially restrict player agency - for me I see little enjoyment in playing a game where I'm told the only thing that my character can do is hug the bottom of a trench and pray because I failed a CUF roll (I'm equally opposed to 'inspirational leader' type rules that do the opposite - it's still an imposed restriction of player agency).

[Raellus]

I'm pretty sure these two rules are not necessarily about the same types of targets. The first one is about targets that are "incapacitated by damage" and thus defenseless. The other one is about a target that is "in the same hex and immobile or unaware of you".

Thus, the second type can still be very much a threat. And the second rule is about how easy it's technically to hit them, but shooting an immobile, incapacitated person is still emotionally hard.

You're right, but both rules could still apply in a Killing Blow situation. For example, an unconscious enemy in the same hex is both immobile and unaware of you, so the targeting bonus rule applies. I don't see how the Defenseless Target rule wouldn't apply, as it is written.

By the same token I've never been a fan of games that use a "Coolness Under Fire" stat to limit / control what actions a character may or may not take. I'm not disputing the realism of these rules, I'm just not in favour of mechanisms that artificially restrict player agency - for me I see little enjoyment in playing a game where I'm told the only thing that my character can do is hug the bottom of a trench and pray because I failed a CUF roll (I'm equally opposed to 'inspirational leader' type rules that do the opposite - it's still an imposed restriction of player agency).

I'm conflicted about CUF mechanics. On the one hand, I agree with you completely about player agency. I believe that players should be able to willfully expose their PCs to enemy fire if they want to. Natural consequences will likely follow from such a decision.

On the other hand, I like the concept of CUF as a mechanic. I think it's way too easy for a player playing a game to decide to take IC life-or-death risks with his/her fictional avatar. If a PC dies, it's not that hard to roll up a new one, or walk away from the game. IRL, if one willfully takes a risk that will likely result in getting shot, the consequences are much more serious. IRL, the decision to expose oneself to incoming fire is much harder, and the vast majority of people will choose self-preservation over valor. In this instance, a CUF mechanic does limit player agency, but, at the same time, it adds a layer of realism.

So I guess, when it comes to whether or not to use CUF, it depends on whether Ref and/or players value agency or realism more. That's a conversation that I think Refs and players should before starting a campaign.

-

[unipus]

I somewhat agree. I do like that the rule tries to prevent murder-hoboism. I don't like that it places a firm prohibition on what the character does.

Here's a quick hack that preserves player agency but is still appropriately brutal:
- If you fail your EMP roll*, then you can kill the victim as you wished. You take the 1 stress.
- If you pass the EMP roll (and thus fail at being able to kill them in cold blood), you can still choose to do it anyway. However you now must take 1d6 stress, and if this incapacitates you, then you roll to pick up a trauma response as normal! You thought it would be easy to kill someone up close, huh?


* note that this is the actual rule. You have to FAIL the empathy check, not pass it!

[Raellus]

Here's a quick hack that preserves player agency but is still appropriately brutal:
- If you fail your EMP roll*, then you can kill the victim as you wished. You take the 1 stress.
- If you pass the EMP roll (and thus fail at being able to kill them in cold blood), you can still choose to do it anyway. However you now must take 1d6 stress, and if this incapacitates you, then you roll to pick up a trauma response as normal! You thought it would be easy to kill someone up close, huh?

I like it. IMHO, this is a better approach than the official one, as it allows for both player agency and IC consequences.

What are your thoughts on CUF mechanics, in general, and 4e's, in particular?

-

[Ursus Maior]

I see the problem with player agency and agree that it is a sub-optimal solution to a problem that actually does exist. It's not far fetched to think that a party might get pinned down totally in one round and wiped out or forced to surrender in the next, without having the chance to act at all.

This might, of course, offer new chances to role-play, e. g. a surrender scene or a flight etc. However, this might not be an enjoyable part of the game as it's quite literally forced upon the players as much as their characters.

However, since I decided to use the Bravo Zulu rules option from the Discord server, which basically introduces a limited amount of "dramatic change tokens" for enhanced player agency, I will allow the use of one of these Bravo Zulu points to immediately break out of suppression. It gives the players a choice to trade a rare resource and regain agency for their character.

I found these rules on the Discord server.

[Raellus]

This might, of course, offer new chances to role-play, e. g. a surrender scene or a flight etc.

Agreed. I don't have a ton of experience playing T2k, but in the 10 or so campaigns that I've been a part of, both as a Ref and as a player, I've never been a part of a mass surrender (and very few hasty retreats).

However, this might not be an enjoyable part of the game as it's quite literally forced upon the players as much as their characters.

As it is, IRL. If one expects a high degree of realism in one's military-themed RPG's, then surrender or flight should be more than just a theoretical possibility. CUF ups the ante.

However, since I decided to use the Bravo Zulu rules option from the Discord server, which basically introduces a limited amount of "dramatic change tokens" for enhanced player agency, I will allow the use of one of these Bravo Zulu points to immediately break out of suppression. It gives the players a choice to trade a rare resource and regain agency for their character.

I found these rules on the Discord server.

This "dramatic change token" option is interesting. It sounds a bit like D&D 5e's Inspiration Points mechanic (which I was thinking of porting to 4e if I ever run it). Would you be able to post the pertinent Bravo Zulu rules here? Or post a link, at least?

-

[Ursus Maior]

@Raellus
It's linked in the Discord oriented towards 4E under the resource library. The link that pops up there leads here: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/749574928239558785/836056206351138866/Bravo_Zulu_Optional_Rule.pdf

Contact me, if it doesn't work. I'm reluctant to share it openly in another form, since it's not my work, but was uploaded by a user by the handle "Abulia".

[Raellus]

The link works. The PDF looks like an official 4e product. Very cool.

-

[unipus]

That's from their template for Workshop publications.

[kcdusk]

I'm late to the discussion guys, but i've been reading up reviews on the new 4E rules by Free Legion. Most of the reviews i've been able to find focus on two things, only one of which is helpful.

They focus on the time line (not helpful, I'll make my own up if i don't like it thanks).

they focus on the quality of the product. Great sketches, great quality, all reasonably helpful feedback.

What they don't really get around to is if the game is any good. It sounds like a whole new rule set, and it sounds like its a reasonably good one. Are you guys enjoying the new game?

[swaghauler]

I'm conflicted about CUF mechanics. On the one hand, I agree with you completely about player agency. I believe that players should be able to willfully expose their PCs to enemy fire if they want to. Natural consequences will likely follow from such a decision.

On the other hand, I like the concept of CUF as a mechanic. I think it's way too easy for a player playing a game to decide to take IC life-or-death risks with his/her fictional avatar. If a PC dies, it's not that hard to roll up a new one, or walk away from the game. IRL, if one willfully takes a risk that will likely result in getting shot, the consequences are much more serious. IRL, the decision to expose oneself to incoming fire is much harder, and the vast majority of people will choose self-preservation over valor. In this instance, a CUF mechanic does limit player agency, but, at the same time, it adds a layer of realism.

So I guess, when it comes to whether or not to use CUF, it depends on whether Ref and/or players value agency or realism more. That's a conversation that I think Refs and players should before starting a campaign.

-

I use the CUF rules that TW2K13 has written modded to V2.2 for this as well. I allow the PC to roll [WILL + CUF] to perform the deed (there still may be psychological consequences). There are some things that need to be determined before the roll can be made though...

1) The intended target/targets is/are: Violent and the PC has witnessed them causing harm to innocent civilians or the PC's own party. = EASY test.

2) The intended targets are RUMOURED to have committed atrocities and have attacked the PC's party with extreme violence. = ROUTINE test.

3) The intended targets were very hostile and have attacked the PC's party and the fight has just concluded. = AVERAGE test

4) The PCs came into a fight (possibly to help a 3rd party) with the intended targets but had no interactions prior to this fight. = FAIRLY DIFFICULT test

5) The PCs have no prior contact but are being told that the intended targets have committed atrocities. = DIFFICULT test

6) The targets are innocent civilians or unresisting wounded soldiers that the PCs did not just fight or interact with. = FORMIDABLE test

7) The targets are innocent children (or puppies/kittens) = IMPOSSIBLE test

I believe, as someone who has exchanged fire with a 10-year-old skinny in Africa and pointed a gun at perps on three separate occasions in the civilian world, that the psychological implications of such acts are much greater than many people believe they are. Those implications are often every bit as damaging as physical wounds, so I instituted this mechanic as a "blend" between reality and player agency.

I don't know IF I even hit that kid, but I DO KNOW that after the ambush on our convoy ended, he was laying in the street... DEAD... with 3 holes in his chest and that any one, or even all three of those bullets COULD BE MINE! That uncertainty is both a blessing and a curse. I don't really KNOW that I killed a kid, but I cannot say that I didn't either. I can STILL close my eyes today and see him as clearly as if it were yesterday firing that AK with the stock tucked under his arm. For those of you who have read my past postings, this was the same (and sole) ambush we had where the RPG rocket skipped off of the ground, went under our HEMMET, and blew a hole in the stone wall across the street as we were entering the Moge near 4 Circle North (heading to the Port from Kismayo on the South). God Bless the 2nd MEU for responding to our call for assistance fast and in force.

[unipus]

Man, that's a story! Sorry you had to go through that. What you describe is the same reason for firing squads... it's so the executioner has some doubt/deniability about whether THEY are the one that did the killing.

[Adm.Lee]

What they don't really get around to is if the game is any good. It sounds like a whole new rule set, and it sounds like its a reasonably good one. Are you guys enjoying the new game?

It's fine. I only ran 2 sessions (plus chargen), without vehicles and light on the foraging & survival, so that's the grain of salt to take it with.

I'm also in an intermittent v2.2 game online, so the main comparison I will make is that v4 is faster to play. The few firefights I ran were over pretty quickly, getting shot is pretty harsh.

I think there's a bit to be uncovered (I think I mentioned this above): a GM can-- without any real work-- run NPCs in squad-like batches, further simplifying the mental paperwork for themselves. A lot of suppression of groups can happen, vice trying to pick off individual opposition.

Both combat and the rest of the rules are aimed at simplicity and speed of play. I hear it's more gritty and crunchy than Free League's other games, but it's not as heavy as GDW's rules.

[unipus]

I'd agree with all of that. I've been running a narrative-heavy game for about the last year (30 sessions or so), starting from the alpha rules. So there have been some changes in that time, some of them suggested by me! But overall the rules are pretty focused on speed but not completely at the expense of depth, and the overall results (in combat anyway) seem as plausible as any I've seen. It still takes half a session to run a decent-sized combat, which is not my favorite thing -- but at least it's not a full session!

[Heffe]

I'd agree with what's been said already regarding whether the new edition being any good or not. There's a couple of noteworthy topics and differences:

1. The older versions felt much more open-ended and narrative driven - I think the older versions just felt like you could go anywhere, do anything. The sky was the limit. I don't know if it's the rules for strategic play, the hex map, the encounter cards, or the limited knowledge about what's happening in the rest of the world, but so far it feels like the new edition is slightly restricting in that regard. As a result, I'm using the world setting and more open narratives/modules of past editions.
2. The actual game mechanics - The new edition is pretty solid and dependable in providing reliable and consistent results. Combat seems streamlined over previous editions while still feeling realistic enough. It does tend to move a little more quickly while still being fairly gritty, which is nice. 3. Char Gen is, IMO, better than previous editions. Sure you lose some attributes and skills, but the efficiency gains in gameplay are worth it, at least to me. I like the new skill resolution process as well, it's a bit more abstracted, but it works.
4. The new edition is admittedly less gritty and more abstracted in other areas as well. Encumbrance is abstracted. Gear is often abstracted. The firing of bursts and automatic fire is abstracted. I imagine this will hit differently for different players. Veterans and gearheads might not like it, but for new players and folks that don't know the difference between an AK-74 and an AKM, I think the new stuff works. And for those that prefer to dig in deep on equipment, you can swap for the old lists really, really easily.
5. Some sections of the new version, I'm not sure should have been included. For instance, the base building mechanics, and solo rules, while nice additions, feel a bit rushed and underwhelming. I would have preferred some lengthier sections on these topics if they wanted to do them well. Of course, at least the new version HAS these topics.

All in all, I'm really happy with my purchase and with the 4th edition as a product. It's different, and it's going to feel different than old editions. Some stuff isn't as good, other things are better. I do think FL did a good job of capturing the spirit of the game though, all things considered. I'd recommend it.

[unipus]

I believe the solo rules WERE a last-minute addition, as it overlapped closely with announcement of The One Ring KS, and Shawn Tomkin's involvement. I also think it's unfortunate that they're stuck way in the back and labeled "solo" as they're super useful even for fully-crewed games. I use the stuff in there more often than the encounter cards!

As for combat, I find the rules to be less crunchy and precise, but actually far more realistic in both approach and outcome. At least when it comes to infantry combat. The vehicle rules are a tiny bit half-baked, admittedly.

[Tegyrius]

1. The older versions felt much more open-ended and narrative driven - I think the older versions just felt like you could go anywhere, do anything. The sky was the limit. I don't know if it's the rules for strategic play, the hex map, the encounter cards, or the limited knowledge about what's happening in the rest of the world, but so far it feels like the new edition is slightly restricting in that regard. As a result, I'm using the world setting and more open narratives/modules of past editions.

This is my impression as well. I haven't had a chance to actually use the system yet due to other project priorities, but from reading it, it feels like the dev team had a very specific outline with a list of "game must do this" priorities, and any mode of play not on that list was not worthy of word count. It's tight design for a game that, for all its hexcrawl promise, doesn't actually seem built for true sandbox play. It's more... scripted.

- C.

[Mahatatain]

1. The older versions felt much more open-ended and narrative driven - I think the older versions just felt like you could go anywhere, do anything. The sky was the limit. I don't know if it's the rules for strategic play, the hex map, the encounter cards, or the limited knowledge about what's happening in the rest of the world, but so far it feels like the new edition is slightly restricting in that regard. As a result, I'm using the world setting and more open narratives/modules of past editions.

I believe that it's the hex crawl system and the encounter cards. If you remove that and just use the v4 system with a "normal" RPG campaign where the GM has a scenario with a plot then it works really well as a game. I'm still learning the system but it feels faster in combat than previous versions of the game so that is good for me.

[kcdusk]

I just ordered T2000 v4, boxed set, from my local online supplier.

I wonder if i am able to get the electronic version of the rule and players handbooks for free? Like some sites suggest.

[Targan]

I just ordered T2000 v4, boxed set, from my local online supplier.

I wonder if i am able to get the electronic version of the rule and players handbooks for free? Like some sites suggest.

Moderator hat on here. Might need a little bit of clarity on what you're asking there. Obviously, any encouragement of pirating copyrighted material isn't acceptable on this forum. Or are you looking for legit means to acquire electronic versions because you already own the physical versions?

[kcdusk]

on the free league site, it says if you buy the physical copy of T2K, you get a free pdf of the rule books also.

On the free league site if you buy their Alien game hard copy rulebook, you also get access to a free pdf.

By buying the hardcopy from milsims.com.au i was wondering if, similar to the free league site, you somehow get access to the free pdf of the books. I've bought local to get the item quicker and, to support local store. But by doing so i might miss out on the pdfs. I didn't know if anyone else had bought box sets (anywhere in the world) and knew if you got the free pdfs via some proof of purchase code. Or if it was only free if you purchased direct from free league website.

So, part two of your suggestion Targon. Legitimate means.

[Skunk]

...
By buying the hardcopy from milsims.com.au i was wondering if, similar to the free league site, you somehow get access to the free pdf of the books. ...

KC, you are in luck. I purchased my copy of the box set from Milsims on release day, when it was on back-order and a few days after I received an email with links to download the pdf from the Bits And Mortar site. I wasn't expecting it, so it was a nice surprise and I got to read them for a few weeks before the game arrived in Australia.
If you don't get one in the next couple of days I'd give the Milsims store a ring and inquire about it

[unipus]

Or just contact FL with your receipt and they will probably hook you up. I was able to do this with one of their other games.

[Targan]

on the free league site, it says if you buy the physical copy of T2K, you get a free pdf of the rule books also.

On the free league site if you buy their Alien game hard copy rulebook, you also get access to a free pdf.

Excellent. No probs.

[kcdusk]

Initiative. just draw cards and lowest goes first? How does that sit with you?

I like that it adds a level of randomness that likely exists in combat.

I don't know if i like a high ranking character drawing a high card a few turns in a row, and always going last. I thought skills and experience should count for more.

I'll need to run some small combat sessions to see how this suits me.

[Mahatatain]

Initiative. just draw cards and lowest goes first? How does that sit with you?

I like that it adds a level of randomness that likely exists in combat.

I don't know if i like a high ranking character drawing a high card a few turns in a row, and always going last. I thought skills and experience should count for more.

I'll need to run some small combat sessions to see how this suits me.
I'm not keen on the intiative mechanic myself as it's a rather arbitrary system. I'm trying to figure out an alternative, homebrew method myself and one thing that I'm working out how to incorporate is the Press or Hold mechanic from the V3 rules. I really liked that concept as it feels more "realistic" to me, though I must stress that I don't personally have any military experience.

Has anyone else started to try to work out an alternative initiative system to the simple card draw?

[swaghauler]

I'm not keen on the intiative mechanic myself as it's a rather arbitrary system. I'm trying to figure out an alternative, homebrew method myself and one thing that I'm working out how to incorporate is the Press or Hold mechanic from the V3 rules. I really liked that concept as it feels more "realistic" to me, though I must stress that I don't personally have any military experience.

Has anyone else started to try to work out an alternative initiative system to the simple card draw?
A quick and dirty method would be to roll the AGL and EMPATHY dice to represent both physical speed (AGL) and your "insight" into what the opposing party is planning to do (EMPATHY). The highest roll goes first and the lower die of the two rolled is compared when the higher dice are tied.

[knightofrubus]

I wonder if CUF might not be the better option as that kinda covers things like knowing how to handle being shot at.

[swaghauler]

I wonder if CUF might not be the better option as that kinda covers things like knowing how to handle being shot at.
My system was developed for Mutant year zero. There was no CUF in that version of the game engine and I have only done the most cursory reading of my nephew's Twilight pdf. The point is that there's nothing stopping you from substituting a characteristic roll for initiative.

[unipus]

I hate initiative rolls in most games. Replacing it with a card draw certainly hasn't improved it, and I've basically abandoned the RAW way of doing it since session two.

What I use instead is various hacks of these ideas, to T2k:

https://www.traaa.sh/no-initiative-action-for-mothership
(his list of WHY is like I wrote it myself)

And this, which is also so-simple-it's-genius:
https://i.imgur.com/WvfxHhx.png

(sorry it's so large!)

If it really comes down to it and I need to know "does X go before Y?" then I do a skill or CUF roll to resolve it.

[Ursus Maior]

I don't know if i like a high ranking character drawing a high card a few turns in a row, and always going last. I thought skills and experience should count for more.
There is a specialty that let's you draw two cards, then choose on which to act. Notice: You seem to keep both, but you only act once, in either initiative slot.

It solves some of the issues of random initiative, but it creates new ones. For example, now it's really important when it's your turn to draw cards, since the pool of cards is very limited. Also, you might want to draw initiative for NPCs in groups of similar NPCs, or otherwise initiative cards will run out fast. Especially, when multiple combatants have this specialty.

[Ursus Maior]

I hate initiative rolls in most games. Replacing it with a card draw certainly hasn't improved it, and I've basically abandoned the RAW way of doing it since session two.

[IMAGE]

If it really comes down to it and I need to know "does X go before Y?" then I do a skill or CUF roll to resolve it.

I certainly like that.

[Adm.Lee]

Initiative. just draw cards and lowest goes first? How does that sit with you?

I like that it adds a level of randomness that likely exists in combat.

I don't know if i like a high ranking character drawing a high card a few turns in a row, and always going last. I thought skills and experience should count for more.

I'll need to run some small combat sessions to see how this suits me.

I'm not fond of it, having used the full 54-card deck in Savage Worlds, and prefer that. Randomness is good, but only 10 cards seems limiting.

[Ursus Maior]

I'm not fond of it, having used the full 54-card deck in Savage Worlds, and prefer that. Randomness is good, but only 10 cards seems limiting.

I never played SW, but did Dead Lands, how does SW work, is it similar?

T2K has the beauty of being simple. NPCs are supposed to be grouped into teams or squads, so they don't draw individual cards. I hope there will be another mechanic, once they do a mass skirmish system. But for now, I can live with what's available. Basically, it's 10 steps of initiative and not every step gets filled.

[Adm.Lee]

I never played SW, but did Dead Lands, how does SW work, is it similar?

T2k 4e, each PC and NPC (or group) draws a card; SW same, but....

-- all are drawing from a standard deck of cards, plus Jokers, and the deck is not shuffled after every round.* Cards are dealt every round.
-- order of initiative is high card to low, Aces high, suit order is Spades-Hearts-Diamonds-Clubs.
-- you can pass your action, and you would hold your card for that.
-- Jokers are wild: someone who draws a Joker can go at anytime (don't think they can interrupt an action, I can't remember), and will have a hefty bonus to one die roll in their action. The deck is reshuffled after a Joker is drawn.
-- A rare few of the Edges can affect the initiative draw. There's one that can draw 2 cards per round, and keep whichever they choose (That's also in T2k4, I see.) There's one that allows one to keep drawing cards if their card is under 5. There's one that can trade cards between player characters. I think there are several that trigger extra benefits if that character is dealt a Joker, but I've never seen those in play.

There's probably some more options that I've forgotten, and I'm sure some of the different setting books have their own variations. I haven't actually played in 3-4 years, so I may be fuzzy on details.
I've never played Deadlands, but I think this is similar.

Again, I hadn't played in 3+ years, but the only-10-cards in the T2k4 deck left me a little cold. Maybe not enough variability, maybe I'm just missing the feel of shuffling a "normal" sized deck of cards?

[Ursus Maior]

SW same, but....


I see, that's really like Deadlands then. Except in DL, some cards are also really bad.

[Spartan-117]

Moving this discussion here:

How does some guy have an A-10 to start the game and I got only 1 spare mag?

[Raellus]

How does some guy have an A-10 to start the game and I got only 1 spare mag?

He's in the rear with the gear, and you're at the tip of the spear. :D

Seriously though, that's a fair question.

Starting gear in 4e: too little, too much, or just right?

-

[Spartan-117]

Starting gear in 4e: too little, too much, or just right?
-

4e = too little. 1.0/2.0/2.2 = too much. 2013 = about right. I like that personal equipment gives player's some decision and agency about how they play their character. I mean, who wants to play a medic with no aid kit, or a rifleman with no rifle.

Also, the personal equipment sacrifice rules in 2013 also bring something really cool to the game. When the RTO's radio stops an otherwise deadly round but now you ain't got no radio, that's really impactful on multiple levels.

If ultra low gear availability is part of the pre-game social contract and core campaign concept ('you POWs will start with nothing...the exception being Major Coolidge has his grand daddy's war watch in his rectum...') then fine.

But it shouldn't come down to a 1d6 roll or some random table that doesn't align well with the character concept. Like the 4e equipment table that will give your combat service support 'medic' some surgical tools and a set of basic tools (like pliers and wrenches), but no actual medical kit. :rolleyes:

[unipus]

I do think the character gear generation in 4E is kinda flawed, or seems incomplete. The group gear section is a lot of fun and a great idea, but also could definitely use some more expansiveness. I understand they were under a pretty hard page limit but it just seems like both of those sections needed another full page and they'd be great.

But in terms of amount of core gear, and ammo, it feels mostly fine to me. I don't think a PC should be running for their lives after losing a major battle and still have 500+ rounds of ammo, etc. One thing 4E does very well through the low starting ammo allocation, and the general deadliness of the system, is encourage you to be cautious about getting into fights.

[unipus]

Also, the personal equipment sacrifice rules in 2013 also bring something really cool to the game.

What's that rule? Is it as simple as "sacrifice something cool in exchange for plot armor"? Who gets to decide, and when?

[Spartan-117]

What's that rule? Is it as simple as "sacrifice something cool in exchange for plot armor"? Who gets to decide, and when?

It's a Stage III optional rule on page 209.

[Rainbow Six]

4e = too little. 1.0/2.0/2.2 = too much. 2013 = about right.

Pretty much this. I always thought the 'purchase' system that the earlier versions used made zero sense. You'd end up with people trying to find ways to spend thousands of USD equivalent and 4e goes too far in the opposite direction, I presume because the design intent is to 'encourage' foraging each hex square on a map.

One thing I thought was often overlooked in games was 'the dead guy's gear.' i had a brief exposure to a 4e online game and we had a dead guy in the Bradley when we started in media res. So I said to the GM 'what about his gear? What are we doing about that?' And he was like 'uh, what do you mean?' So I was like 'well surely the guy has gear.' And the GM was like 'we're not divvying up a dead NPC's gear.'

It seemed like a pretty reasonable request to me. I mean, I know a game where a German LRRP would probably still be stuck on the wrong side of the Vistula if they hadn't been able to use dead NPC's parkas that the GM signed off on before the start to pay the ferryman.

On a serious note I think that does give some latitude for explaining 'extra' gear. I mean, let's face it, looting the corpse is usually pretty much one of the first thing that happens whenever a PC / NPC dies in any game I've been in.

[Spartan-117]

One thing I thought was often overlooked in games was 'the dead guy's gear.' i had a brief exposure to a 4e online game and we had a dead guy in the Bradley when we started in media res. So I said to the GM 'what about his gear? What are we doing about that?' And he was like 'uh, what do you mean?' So I was like 'well surely the guy has gear.' And the GM was like 'we're not divvying up a dead NPC's gear.'


I saw a facebook post by Maciej Komaszyło about finding shelter in the TW2K world. He pointed out that 50% of the world died and many of those deaths were due to famine and disease. So empty houses/apartments/dwellings should be prevalent.

This is my thought as well. Were all the dead buried with their worldly possessions like Egyptian pharos? Prolly not.

I mean, the Ukranians are arming up with WW2 DP-27 MGs.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44034/pre-world-war-ii-dp-27-machine-guns-could-go-to-needy-ukrainian-reserve-units#:~:text=The%20continued%20use%20of%20guns%20 like%20the%20DP-27,widespread%20use%20around%20the%20world%2C%20in cluding%20in%20Russia.

At the end of the world, people and not-easily manufactured consumables are going to be scarce, but relatively durable goods (Rifles, Bayonets, LBE components, Rucksacks - which 4e treats like unicorns BTW - etc.) are going to be plentiful, IMHO.

[Rainbow Six]

At the end of the world, people and not-easily manufactured consumables are going to be scarce, but relatively durable goods (Rifles, Bayonets, LBE components, Rucksacks - which 4e treats like unicorns BTW - etc.) are going to be plentiful, IMHO.
I got a rucksack but the gear I had would have fitted in my pockets...

[Heffe]

Agreed that 4e feels very limited when it comes to gear, especially when stacked up against 1 and 2.

Not only that, but one part of 4e I'm not big on at all is the encumbrance abstraction. I get that they were trying to streamline the rules, but the whole 3kg per unit of weight thing just feels weird and wrong to me. Much prefer the earlier versions where players can track gear on a per lb./kg basis.

Anyone know if there's been some character sheets for 4e created that fiddle with the equipment section to bring it more in line with previous versions?

[Spartan-117]

My quick fix for the EU problem is that each PC should just multiply their carrying capacity by 3 (which gives the amount of kilograms they can carry) and then account for stuff in KGs from that point on, using older sources or Paul's site, with the exception of clothing and LBE.

So a STR 8 PC who would normally carry 8 EU of gear, would be able to carry 24 kg of gear on their person, and another 24kg in their pack.

Every game I've been in has had PCs want gear that doesn't appear in the book. Converting those to EU is more complex than just dealing with their KG weights.

[swaghauler]

My quick fix for the EU problem is that each PC should just multiply their carrying capacity by 3 (which gives the amount of kilograms they can carry) and then account for stuff in KGs from that point on, using older sources or Paul's site, with the exception of clothing and LBE.

So a STR 8 PC who would normally carry 8 EU of gear, would be able to carry 24 kg of gear on their person, and another 24kg in their pack.

Every game I've been in has had PCs want gear that doesn't appear in the book. Converting those to EU is more complex than just dealing with their KG weights.

I did the same for Mutant: YEAR ZERO, and I'd also convert Ranges back to meters. I like to different map scales based on whether the engagement is several hundred meters or just a few meters apart. Don't give me an arbitrary scale, give me a distance that I CAN SCALE to my maps or battle board.

[kcdusk]

My PC just fired an aimed shot at an NPCs head, and hit him.

Did 3 points of damage due to a single success.

The game moved on. My reading of the rules is that it doesn't matter if you get hit in the leg, arm or head, there is no benefit in hitting someone in the head or torso unless you also qualify for a critical hit.

So taking an aimed shot and hitting a called target doesn't give you much benefit unless you roll two or more successes/hits to qualify for the critical.

In my case, running a solo game, i house ruled that a called shot also qualifies for a critical hit, even if there's only one success.

[Spartan-117]

My PC just fired an aimed shot at an NPCs head, and hit him.

Did 3 points of damage due to a single success.

The game moved on. My reading of the rules is that it doesn't matter if you get hit in the leg, arm or head, there is no benefit in hitting someone in the head or torso unless you also qualify for a critical hit.

So taking an aimed shot and hitting a called target doesn't give you much benefit unless you roll two or more successes/hits to qualify for the critical.

In my case, running a solo game, i house ruled that a called shot also qualifies for a critical hit, even if there's only one success.

If he had a vest on and no helmet, then you avoided armor reducing the damage. If he had a helmet on and no vest, you just reduced your own damage. So even without critical hits, it can be useful to perform an aimed shot.

[unipus]

My PC just fired an aimed shot at an NPCs head, and hit him.

Did 3 points of damage due to a single success.

The game moved on. My reading of the rules is that it doesn't matter if you get hit in the leg, arm or head, there is no benefit in hitting someone in the head or torso unless you also qualify for a critical hit.

So taking an aimed shot and hitting a called target doesn't give you much benefit unless you roll two or more successes/hits to qualify for the critical.

In my case, running a solo game, i house ruled that a called shot also qualifies for a critical hit, even if there's only one success.


That's correct, and a bit contentious. My own house ruling on this has been that any hit to the head causes automatic suppression.

[Raellus]

"Rolled" up my first couple of characters using the archetype method. The process was surprisingly fast and resulted in characters that feel balanced.

I know that some people really enjoy the char-gen process but it's one of my least favorite aspects of T2k. Even though I'm more interested in role playing than "roll playing", I tend to get fixated on maximizing PC skill efficiency and effectiveness (min-maxing, I think this is called). The more steps, pieces (abilities, skills, etc.), and maths there are, the more frustrated I find myself becoming. In v1-2.2, there are a lot more steps, so to speak. I've gen'd up PCs using really well-thought out point-buy systems for skills, adding even more granularity to the process. It often takes quite a while. In PbP, it's taken 4-6 players a couple of weeks to finish char-gen. I imagine if this were translated to FtF, it would have taken at least a couple of hours. At the end of it all, I usually feel like a have a PC that's a jack-of-all trades but master of none (or one, at most). And if you're a player or Ref whose actually used the Parachute skill in a game, I'd love to hear the story!

In 4e, there are still choices, but they feel more clear cut, and there was significantly less agonizing during selection. It's clear that a PC can't be good at everything one might want him/her to be. It's easier to focus and prioritize when there are fewer choices to make. It took me about 10 minutes, consulting the rule book for every step, to gen up the first trial PC. After than, I could crank one out in about 5 minutes. This seems pretty ideal for players who want to jump right in and start playing right the game.

Of course, it remains to be seen how these archetype build PCs actually play in a campaign, when faced with skill checks and combat. I may change my mind after giving them a test drive or two (if they survive that long).

-

[kcdusk]

Character creation and T2K timeline are the two things i care about the least. I find both uninteresting, easy to house rule yourself to get the result you want and entirely personal.

I first got into RPGs back in the late 70's (?!). My cousin, who i used to see 3 or 4 times a year, used to Ref while i played. I first remember playing Top Secret. He always made me roll up a rookie character. After a few games, i got sick of it though. I kept dieing and could never grow my PC. But he was relentless in me starting as a rookie PC.

Same thing happened when we moved on to James Bond, which is still one of the best game systems i've seen. My rookie taking on single or multiple "double 0" NPCs. By then i was a bit older and wiser. Had read the rules myself, and knew there was a way to make a "00" character using the rule book.

But personally, i choose or let my players decide what their character is, then just reflect the numbers on the character sheet. No rolling, very little editing, no link back to the rule book. Just make up whatever character you want. Its quicker, and gets the Ref and player into the game of their choice straight away.

Good luck running your characters through their first few encounters. I'm close to writing up my own adventure in the "Post Apocalypse Creative writing" thread. Or maybe i'll just post the encounters in my own thread here. My character, mission, random encounters and how i've interpreted the V4.0 rules.

[Heffe]

I've rolled up a good dozen or so chars for 4e using the life path method (on top of translating the char-gen rules into a flowchart), and I've been pretty happy with it as a character generation method. IMO, the 4e rules are a bit of a give and take over the older rule sets, but on the whole, I find them to be a tad better.

Pros:

Less options leads to less analysis paralysis.
Not only kept, but streamlined the life path method from 2e, which was always one of my favorite aspects.
Once you get your feet under you, it's undeniably fast. If you're willing to just accept whatever the dice rolls, it can be even faster. I imagine someone could program out an automatic character generator (if it hasn't happened already) relatively quickly.


Cons:

It's simple. Perhaps overly so. There's a part of me that misses the higher number of attributes and extreme number of skills. Sometimes the lack of skills don't make a ton of sense, such as how a race car driver suddenly is an expert at driving a tank.
Specialties seem like a bit of a waste to me. FL could have done something with specialties that could give them a little more pop than just a +1 on skill rolls. As is, they all feel a little generic.
The Life Path method can occasionally result in some poorly balanced characters within the same group. Depending upon someone's attribute score rolling, you could have one character with a ACCC in their skills, with another character that had an AAAC in their skills. I end up just giving all of my players 4 points to distribute just to keep it balanced.

[kcdusk]

Question on specialties. Does it say anywhere how many you get during character generation?

Or can you add a specialty during a campaign? Or is it simply one specialty skill per PC?

[Heffe]

Question on specialties. Does it say anywhere how many you get during character generation?

Or can you add a specialty during a campaign? Or is it simply one specialty skill per PC?

I believe if you go with the archetype method, you only get a single starting specialty. If you go life path method though, it can vary quite a bit based upon when war breaks out and how well you roll for promotions. I think my record was five or six specialties on one character, but most ended up with 2 or 3. It should be noted that generally speaking, life path method characters will be a little stronger than the archetype characters, due to the high chance for more attribute points (2 to 6 instead of a flat +3) and the added specialties.

[Raellus]

Regardless of char-gen method, players can also buy additional Specialties with XP, once the campaign is under way (p. 40 of the Player Manual).

@Heffe: As a Ref, I think I'd house-rule chargen so that players using the archetype method could also add one skill level and one specialization from the Childhood table on p. 32. IMO, the archetypes do a decent job of capturing a relatively early career's-worth accumulation of skills, but glosses over anything that came before starting said career. I think adding that one additional skill level and specialization would help round out an archetype build a bit better, and make him/her a bit more "competitive" with Life-path generated PCs. I think adding the Childhood package would also help archetype characters feel a little more real by giving them a bit more backstory (e.g. "So and so grew up in a small rural town, hunting and fishing nearly every weekend...").

-

[Jason]

One big advantage of the Archetype method of chargen is the ability to pick any Specialty, yes, lifepath gives more Specialties, but since it is random, it is possible to end up without what one may consider a 'defining' trait. I made a couple of lifepath characters to be translators, and neither got the Specialty to speak another language.

I ran an ad hoc, shake-and-bake session at Adepticon, and we used Archetype chargen only, and it is nice when you are introducing the game to new players to be able to make playable characters in such a short time.

If I were going to be a player in a campaign, I would choose Lifepath, because it gives characters more......character. But, even min/maxers could do worse than the Operator Archetype with Sniper or Combat Awareness; they may not be old-school snake-eaters, but they can still do work.

[Heffe]

Regardless of char-gen method, players can also buy additional Specialties with XP, once the campaign is under way (p. 40 of the Player Manual).

@Heffe: As a Ref, I think I'd house-rule chargen so that players using the archetype method could also add one skill level and one specialization from the Childhood table on p. 32. IMO, the archetypes do a decent job of capturing a relatively early career's-worth accumulation of skills, but glosses over anything that came before starting said career. I think adding that one additional skill level and specialization would help round out an archetype build a bit better, and make him/her a bit more "competitive" with Life-path generated PCs. I think adding the Childhood package would also help archetype characters feel a little more real by giving them a bit more backstory (e.g. "So and so grew up in a small rural town, hunting and fishing nearly every weekend...").

-

Yep that seems like a good workaround for folks wanting the archetype experience. I suppose you could always just house rule all of it pretty easily as well by giving people 3-4 attribute points, 10-12 skill points, and a couple specialties.

[kcdusk]

Question on page 50 of the players manual. Under specialties, what's the difference between Infiltrator skill and scout?

Scout gives you +1 for spotting others and avoid ambushes. I assume this gives you +1 on the ambush roll from page 60 to spot an encounter before they spot you?

Infiltrator gives you +1 when trying to remain undetected. Does this +1 apply to the ambush roll? Or is it used at a different time and place, like trying to creep past a sentry?

So scout is used to spot the encounter first. Then infiltrator is used to get closer (ambushing, closing distance to enemy per table on page 61)? Or creep past a sentry or into a house? Or something entirely different?

[swaghauler]

Question on page 50 of the players manual. Under specialties, what's the difference between Infiltrator skill and scout?

Scout gives you +1 for spotting others and avoiding ambushes. I assume this gives you +1 on the ambush roll from page 60 to spot an encounter before they spot you?

Infiltrator gives you +1 when trying to remain undetected. Does this +1 apply to the ambush roll? Or is it used at a different time and place, like trying to creep past a sentry?

So scout is used to spot the encounter first. Then infiltrator is used to get closer (ambushing, closing distance to enemy per table on page 61)? Or creep past a sentry or into a house? Or something entirely different?

I have a similar type of distinction in my game BUT I'm playing a Merc2000-style game.

The Scout = Has both Stealth and Observation skills and can hide or avoid the enemy. Also good at Tracking and identifying enemy personnel. operates from camouflaged or concealed positions and avoids enemy contact whenever possible.

The Infiltrator = Has Disguise/Acting and Interrogation and Observation skills. They enter into a place or group by posing as a member of that group to gain "Intelligence" about that group by listening and even asking questions of various group members. They "blend in" to hide and would be called "The Grey Man" in Tradecraft circles (yes this is a thing, GOOGLE it). The girls in the original 1980 Red Dawn are an example of Infiltrators.

[Raellus]

Question on page 50 of the players manual. Under specialties, what's the difference between Infiltrator skill and scout?

Scout gives you +1 for spotting others and avoid ambushes. I assume this gives you +1 on the ambush roll from page 60 to spot an encounter before they spot you?

Infiltrator gives you +1 when trying to remain undetected. Does this +1 apply to the ambush roll? Or is it used at a different time and place, like trying to creep past a sentry?

So scout is used to spot the encounter first. Then infiltrator is used to get closer (ambushing, closing distance to enemy per table on page 61)? Or creep past a sentry or into a house? Or something entirely different?

I think you are correct re Scout. As I understand it, Infiltrator is more for avoiding detection when moving in the presence of patrols, sentries, etc. but, as it reads, Infiltrator could also be applied when trying to move stealthily into position to "ambush [an enemy] in close combat", as per:

"If you want to ambush in close combat, you need to move into the same hex as your target." (p. 60 of PDF)

I hope someone with more 4e experience will chime in to confirm or correct.

-

[Raellus]

I've noticed a potential balancing issue where the Archetype actually trumps Lifepath- the fresh-out-of-high-school draftee.

After mastering Archetype char-gen, I decided to play around with the Lifepath method for a couple of concepts for older, more experienced PCs. I realized that said PCs would probably end up more capable than most (if not all) Archetypes and I was worried about balance in mixed char-gen method party, so I tried to roll up a youngish draftee PC with Lifepath, thinking that it would yield a slightly more capable build than an Archetype. I quickly discovered that Lifepath produced a significantly less capable youngish draftee PC.

Using an Archetype for said base concept actually yields a couple more skills (and better CUF rating) for the PC than the using the Lifepath rules for drafted characters, which state:

"THE DRAFT: If your final term before war breaks out was spent as a civilian (except Intelligence careeers), and if your character is not a local of the country where your game is set, your At War term will be spent as a draftee or volunteer in the military. In this case, one of the two skill increases for the At War term must be RANGED COMBAT – unless you already have a level of D or better in the skill – and you roll for your specialty (or choose) using the Military column." (p. 39, 4e Players Manual)

Assuming no prior, post-childhood career, the Lifepath draftee ends up with a measly three skills (one from childhood, two from The Draft rules) and CUF D.

There's nothing in the rules that says an Archetype PC can't be a draftee. Assuming The Grunt, for example, is a draftee- he/she starts with six skills and CUF C.

The only way in which a Lifepath draftee tops an Archetype draftee is in the Attribute scores (all starting at C, and potentially receiving 6 upgrades, depending on the 2d3 roll).

Adding a civie career prior to being drafted adds two more skills but, after applying the draft term skills, the total is still one less than any Archetype. CUF remains at an anemic D. You might score an extra specialty, if the dice are kind.

So yeah, the vast majority of Lifepath builds are going to be more skilled, possess higher attributes, and have more specialties to start, than pretty much all the Archetype builds (save, perhaps, The Operator). For for your young draftee characters, though, the Archetype is the better option.

-

[Heffe]

I've noticed a potential balancing issue where the Archetype actually trumps Lifepath- the fresh-out-of-high-school draftee.

After mastering Archetype char-gen, I decided to play around with the Lifepath method for a couple of concepts for older, more experienced PCs. I realized that said PCs would probably end up more capable than most (if not all) Archetypes and I was worried about balance in mixed char-gen method party, so I tried to roll up a youngish draftee PC with Lifepath, thinking that it would yield a slightly more capable build than an Archetype. I quickly discovered that Lifepath produced a significantly less capable youngish draftee PC.

Using an Archetype for said base concept actually yields a couple more skills (and better CUF rating) for the PC than the using the Lifepath rules for drafted characters, which state:

"THE DRAFT: If your final term before war breaks out was spent as a civilian (except Intelligence careeers), and if your character is not a local of the country where your game is set, your At War term will be spent as a draftee or volunteer in the military. In this case, one of the two skill increases for the At War term must be RANGED COMBAT – unless you already have a level of D or better in the skill – and you roll for your specialty (or choose) using the Military column." (p. 39, 4e Players Manual)

Assuming no prior, post-childhood career, the Lifepath draftee ends up with a measly three skills (one from childhood, two from The Draft rules) and CUF D.

There's nothing in the rules that says an Archetype PC can't be a draftee. Assuming The Grunt, for example, is a draftee- he/she starts with six skills and CUF C.

The only way in which a Lifepath draftee tops an Archetype draftee is in the Attribute scores (all starting at C, and potentially receiving 6 upgrades, depending on the 2d3 roll).

Adding a civie career prior to being drafted adds two more skills but, after applying the draft term skills, the total is still one less than any Archetype. CUF remains at an anemic D. You might score an extra specialty, if the dice are kind.

So yeah, the vast majority of Lifepath builds are going to be more skilled, possess higher attributes, and have more specialties to start, than pretty much all the Archetype builds (save, perhaps, The Operator). For for your young draftee characters, though, the Archetype is the better option.

-

There's definitely the opportunity for archetype characters to be better than lifepath characters. I think a ton depends on your rolls themselves - 3 attributes for archetype chars is fine, but the option for 6 from a lifepath character is huge. Of course, someone rolling poorly might only get 2 attribute points from the lifepath method...Same thing for when war breaks out, aging effects, etc.

In general, I think FL tended to make the archetype chars just slightly worse than lifepath on average. Using the attribute points as a baseline, the only way to make the archetype truly equal to lifepath chars would be to give the archetype chars 4 attribute points. FL intentionally chose to give them only 3 points, however, presumably to balance out some other advantage that archetype chars had, or as a buffer against lifepath chars that happen to just roll really poorly.

[Raellus]

I'm trying to work out a hybrid char-gen system that uses elements of both Archetype and Lifepath. I want a little more flexibility and capability than Archetype offers, but less randomness (and fewer rolls) than Lifepath. I also don't want to make the hybrid more complicated than Lifepath, or encourage min-max'ing.

Suggestions are welcome.

-

[Spartan-117]

I'm trying to work out a hybrid char-gen system that uses elements of both Archetype and Lifepath. I want a little more flexibility and capability than Archetype offers, but less randomness (and fewer rolls) than Lifepath. I also don't want to make the hybrid more complicated than Lifepath, or encourage min-max'ing.

Suggestions are welcome.

-

Start with the Archetype. Then...

My house rule is that once your skill is C or higher, you get a specialty for it. So if you select Recon C, you could get one of Forward Observer, Historian, Infiltrator, Intelligence, Investigator, Scout.

So each of you will start with 3 specialties.

One for your B skill, and one for each C level skill. More can be learned in game.

[Raellus]

I really like that, Spartan. I think that's the route I'm going to go. Thanks!

Here's a question about action economy during ranged combat:

The Aiming rules state,

"If you do anything else except shoot your weapon after you have aimed, you lose the effect of the aim and you need to spend another fast action to aim again. You can fire repeatedly at the same target without breaking your aim." (PM p. 64)

This can be interpreted two ways, as I read it. One, since reloading is doing "anything else except shoot your weapon", it breaks aim, and another fast action must be spent after reloading to aim before resuming fire. The bit about "you can fire repeatedly at the same target without breaking your aim", however, could be interpreted to mean that after reloading, another fast action to aim is not required as long as the PC resumes firing at the same target as before.

Which is the correct interpretation?

Also, does "you can fire repeatedly at the same target without breaking your aim" mean that you don't have to use a fast action to aim each turn, if you've done it once initially (assuming the target doesn't change, of course)?

-

[Heffe]

I really like that, Spartan. I think that's the route I'm going to go. Thanks!

Here's a question about action economy during ranged combat:

The Aiming rules state,

"If you do anything else except shoot your weapon after you have aimed, you lose the effect of the aim and you need to spend another fast action to aim again. You can fire repeatedly at the same target without breaking your aim." (PM p. 64)

This can be interpreted two ways, as I read it. One, since reloading is doing "anything else except shoot your weapon", it breaks aim, and another fast action must be spent after reloading to aim before resuming fire. The bit about "you can fire repeatedly at the same target without breaking your aim", however, could be interpreted to mean that after reloading, another fast action to aim is not required as long as the PC resumes firing at the same target as before.

Which is the correct interpretation?

Also, does "you can fire repeatedly at the same target without breaking your aim" mean that you don't have to use a fast action to aim each turn, if you've done it once initially (assuming the target doesn't change, of course)?

-

The way I read it is that on a subsequent turn, so long as you haven't taken any other actions, you can continue firing without needing to aim. Given that firing takes a slow action however, that really only means that you can fire on that subsequent turn, and then either stay there doing nothing, or moving using your fast action after you've fired. To me at least, reloading is taking a separate action, and thus would break your aim.

[Raellus]

A question about explosions:

A PC grenadier targets an enemy occupied hex. He rolls a hit. The 40mm HE round from his M203 does 3 damage and has a blast rating of D.

Do both direct hit (3) and blast damage (results of 2d6 roll) apply to every enemy within the same hex? I assume the answer is yes, but I'd appreciate confirmation or correction.

-

[Heffe]

A question about explosions:

A PC grenadier targets an enemy occupied hex. He rolls a hit. The 40mm HE round from his M203 does 3 damage and has a blast rating of D.

Do both direct hit (3) and blast damage (results of 2d6 roll) apply to every enemy within the same hex? I assume the answer is yes, but I'd appreciate confirmation or correction.

-

This question has come up a lot over the past few months since the way the rule book is written (and the grenade example they use on pg 68 doesn't help) leave a lot to be desired. We ended up asking FL directly for clarification here. The TL;DR is that you generally can have an easier time hitting someone with a heavy weapon but do less damage, or have a harder time hitting them but doing more damage.

When using a heavy weapon, such as a grenade launcher, generally a PC would aim for a large target such as a hex. When targeting a hex, the damage done to the target is only the blast damage, not the direct damage. The benefit of this approach is that you don't get any penalties for aiming at a large target (hex or vehicle).

When aiming for a small target directly with a heavy weapon (such as an individual enemy), you would receive a -2 to hit penalty, and therefore have a higher chance of your shot deviating. The benefit of aiming directly at a person however, is that if you hit, you do both the direct damage AND the blast damage.

As I mentioned, the way it's written is a little vague, but it can be found on pages 70 and 71 of the player manual.

I think a lot of the reason for the vague approach here in the book is that things are...abstracted? a lot when it comes to explosions. For example, if you lob a grenade directly at a person and hit despite the -2 penalty, you'd do 2 direct damage in addition to the blast damage. In this instance, the 2 direct damage from the grenade is abstracted as the grenade landing at someone's feet or right under them, as opposed to the damage being imparted from the kinetic energy of the grenade literally smacking someone in the chest after being thrown. Contrast this with other weapons where the direct damage is a representation of that kinetic energy transfer, such as a 30mm round hitting someone in the arm and tearing their arm off.

[Raellus]

Hm. That's an interesting take. I was interpreting the two distinct damage types as representing shrapnel (Direct Damage) and concussive blast (Explosion), similar to the system employed by v2.2. It's familiar and it makes sense to me, real world modelling-wise.

I get the point v area target trade-off argument, but there are already modifiers in place to model that. As I read back through the Heavy Weapons section again, I don't see anything that specifically states or even implies that both types of damage would not be applied to targets within a hex if that hex was the intended targeted and a hit was rolled.

-

[Heffe]

Hm. That's an interesting take. I was interpreting the two distinct damage types as representing shrapnel (Direct Damage) and concussive blast (Explosion), similar to the system employed by v2.2. It's familiar and it makes sense to me, real world modelling-wise.

I get the point v area target trade-off argument, but there are already modifiers in place to model that. As I read back through the Heavy Weapons section again, I don't see anything that specifically states or even implies that both types of damage would not be applied to targets within a hex if that hex was the intended targeted and a hit was rolled.

-

Like I said, the wording leaves a lot to be desired. If it's helpful, here's their written response from back when I asked a similar question about grenades. Unless I may have misinterpreted the response somehow?

Heffe: I had a quick question or two about grenades that I'd love some clarity on. First, an easy one. Do grenades suffer from deviation on misses? Reason would indicate that they would, but it's not stated explicitly in the player handbook so I wanted to ask just to be sure.

FL: Hand Grenades have some special rules about them, but other than those they follow the rules of Heavy Weapons, so yes the deviate if you miss.

Heffe: Second, grenade damage - grenades are listed with both direct damage and blast power. The example of a grenade being used in the player's handbook (pg. 68) indicates that the grenade only did blast damage to Diaz. Is that because the grenade only landed in the same hex as Diaz and wasn't targeting Diaz? Is there a certain proximity to a grenade that a target should be before they take both the direct damage and the blast damage? Should grenades only have blast damage and not both types? Or was the example just written poorly and Diaz should have taken more damage? Any thoughts here or official rulings would be super helpful to clarify the intent of the rules on this topic.

FL: When you use a Heavy Weapon, like a Grenade Launcher (or a thrown HandGrenade), you can target an individual (with a -2 penalty) or you can target something big (like a vehicle) or you can just target the hex. If you target an individual (or a large target), then that individual (if you hit) will suffer Direct Damage (2 for a frag grenade +1 for each extra success) and then there will be a blast (C for a frag grenade) that will do damage according to the explosion rules.
So, since -2 is a lot, it might be good enough to just aim the HandGrenade for the hex instead. Sure, no one will get the Direct Damage, but you also hopefully won't miss.

Source: https://forum.frialigan.se/viewtopic.php?f=131&t=8762&hilit=hand+grenade

[Raellus]

Thanks for the link, Heffe. Fenhorn is a mod, but is he an official FL spokesperson? I haven't spent as much time on that forum as you have, but my impression is that he is not.

If his interpretation is correct, 40mm grenades, at least, are severely nerfed. They have a blast power of D (which only does 1 damage on a successful damage roll). On an indirect (?) hit (i.e. the hex was targeted, not an individual person), the Ref rolls two d6s to determine blast damage. Since you can't push that roll, it has only a 31% chance of doing any damage whatever to enemies within that hex.

That's super low, wouldn't you say? It kind of negates even rolling a successful HW attack with the GL, I would argue.

Here's why I asked this question in the first place. I was soloing a firefight. The Blue Force grenadier rolled a hit on a hex occupied by two prone OPFOR*. I rolled the 2d6s, showing no sixes. So, the two OPFOR in the targeted (and hit) 10m hex escaped injury from a 40mm exploding within same.

If I'm reading this rule correctly, being prone makes one completely immune from a level D blast:

PRONE: If the target is prone, the blast power is reduced one step.

Since D is the lowest level blast, reducing it one step means no blast at all? Or would that mean rolling only one d6? (That would lower the chances of the hit doing any damage to 17%)

Unless the design intent was to nerf 40mm grenades, I think Fenhorn must be wrong (or I'm still missing something).

-

[Heffe]

Thanks for the link, Heffe. Fenhorn is a mod, but is he an official FL spokesperson? I haven't spent as much time on that forum as you have, but my impression is that he is not.

If his interpretation is correct, 40mm grenades, at least, are severely nerfed. They have a blast power of D (which only does 1 damage on a successful damage roll). On an indirect (?) hit (i.e. the hex was targeted, not an individual person), the Ref rolls two d6s to determine blast damage. Since you can't push that roll, it has only a 31% chance of doing any damage whatever to enemies within that hex.

That's super low, wouldn't you say? It kind of negates even rolling a successful HW attack with the GL, I would argue.

Here's why I asked this question in the first place. I was soloing a firefight. The Blue Force grenadier rolled a hit on a hex occupied by two prone OPFOR*. I rolled the 2d6s, showing no sixes. So, the two OPFOR in the targeted (and hit) 10m hex escaped injury from a 40mm exploding within same.

If I'm reading this rule correctly, being prone makes one completely immune from a level D blast:

PRONE: If the target is prone, the blast power is reduced one step.

Since D is the lowest level blast, reducing it one step means no blast at all? Or would that mean rolling only one d6? (That would lower the chances of the hit doing any damage to 17%)

Unless the design intent was to nerf 40mm grenades, I think Fenhorn must be wrong (or I'm still missing something).

-

Agreed that he is a mod, but my understanding is that his words carry weight in terms of rules/gameplay. Also as a mod, I imagine he has the ability to check with the team directly in case any answers aren't as clear. With that all said, I don't think there would be any issues asking again about your particular issue - I definitely agree that the system when it comes to explosions is wonky.

We may have talked about it before, but my best example of how explosions are weird in 4e is the 25mm cannon firing HE rounds. Currently, if a PC is wearing a plate vest and gets hit square in the chest with a 25mm HE round, he would have to roll CUF, but otherwise he'd suffer no injury unless additional successes are rolled by the shooter.

The 25mm HE round does 4 dmg with a +2 armor modifier. The plate vest has 2 armor, bringing the total damage mitigation to 4. Even with the blast rating of D, because blast dmg is handled separately to direct damage, it would all be mitigated by the vest as well (it's unclear if the blast damage hit location would be rolled separately from the direct damage hit location).

In any case, I can't imagine that makes any sense from a real world perspective. You can abstract things, but it just feels off. I do think the FL team should have taken some more time considering how explosions are handled - there's a lot of room for improvement on armor modifiers especially.

[Raellus]

With that all said, I don't think there would be any issues asking again about your particular issue - I definitely agree that the system when it comes to explosions is wonky.

Ok. I've posted the question on the FL forum.

We may have talked about it before, but my best example of how explosions are weird in 4e is the 25mm cannon firing HE rounds. The 25mm HE round does 4 dmg with a +2 armor modifier. The plate vest has 2 armor, bringing the total damage mitigation to 4. Even with the blast rating of D, because blast dmg is handled separately to direct damage, it would all be mitigated by the vest as well (it's unclear if the blast damage hit location would be rolled separately from the direct damage hit location).

Yeah, I remember that discussion. I could see the above making sense if we were talking shrapnel from a 25mm HE round. Kevlar body armor should be able to stop most small fragments- that's its main purpose. But you're absolutely right- a direct hit from a 25mm round would almost certainly prove fatal (or in game rules terms, prompt a Critical Hit roll, at the very least) to anyone wearing 90s-era ballistic armor.

In any case, I can't imagine that makes any sense from a real world perspective. You can abstract things, but it just feels off. I do think the FL team should have taken some more time considering how explosions are handled - there's a lot of room for improvement on armor modifiers especially.

Agree 100%. Unless FL publishes errata Explosions rules updates (highly unlikely, given Tomas' stated position on errata in general), I think I'm going to have to house rule this one. I'm going to apply both: Direct Damage = shrapnel; Explosion Damage = blast.

I'm not sure that armor should be effective against blast damage. From what I've read about IED explosions in Iraq and Afghanistan, blast wave/overpressure/concussive effects typically bypass body armor altogether, sometimes even killing without leaving a mark on the victim.

-

[Heffe]

Ok. I've posted the question on the FL forum.



Yeah, I remember that discussion. I could see the above making sense if we were talking shrapnel from a 25mm HE round. Kevlar body armor should be able to stop most small fragments- that's its main purpose. But you're absolutely right- a direct hit from a 25mm round would almost certainly prove fatal (or in game rules terms, prompt a Critical Hit roll, at the very least) to anyone wearing 90s-era ballistic armor.



Agree 100%. Unless FL publishes errata Explosions rules updates (highly unlikely, given Tomas' stated position on errata in general), I think I'm going to have to house rule this one. I'm going to apply both: Direct Damage = shrapnel; Explosion Damage = blast.

I'm not sure that armor should be effective against blast damage. From what I've read about IED explosions in Iraq and Afghanistan, blast wave/overpressure/concussive effects typically bypass body armor altogether, sometimes even killing without leaving a mark on the victim.

-

That's what I've read as well. Direct fire damage is already pretty lethal in game - I think your house rule would just bring explosions into that same arena. If you make any further changes, can you let us know? I'd be interested in how you find the adjustment.

[Raellus]

New clarification question regarding rolled hits, hit location, cover, and CUF. The scenario is as follows:

Target is in a ditch, only upper body is exposed. PC rolls a hit. Hit location die shows legs. Since the target's legs are behind cover (due to the shot angle, several meters of earth), no damage is done. Is this correct, so far?

Now, since the PC rolled a hit, but no damage was done due to the hit location result and target's cover, does the enemy roll CUF or not?

-

[swaghauler]

New clarification question regarding rolled hits, hit location, cover, and CUF. The scenario is as follows:

Target is in a ditch, only upper body is exposed. PC rolls a hit. Hit location die shows legs. Since the target's legs are behind cover (due to the shot angle, several meters of earth), no damage is done. Is this correct, so far?

Now, since the PC rolled a hit, but no damage was done due to the hit location result and target's cover, does the enemy roll CUF or not?

-

I would. That bullet struck the ground right in front of that soldier. Alternately, you could add a Difficulty Shift to hit and just roll for exposed locations only.

[swaghauler]

Ok. I've posted the question on the FL forum.



Yeah, I remember that discussion. I could see the above making sense if we were talking shrapnel from a 25mm HE round. Kevlar body armor should be able to stop most small fragments- that's its main purpose. But you're absolutely right- a direct hit from a 25mm round would almost certainly prove fatal (or in game rules terms, prompt a Critical Hit roll, at the very least) to anyone wearing 90s-era ballistic armor.



Agree 100%. Unless FL publishes errata Explosions rules updates (highly unlikely, given Tomas' stated position on errata in general), I think I'm going to have to house rule this one. I'm going to apply both: Direct Damage = shrapnel; Explosion Damage = blast.

I'm not sure that armor should be effective against blast damage. From what I've read about IED explosions in Iraq and Afghanistan, blast wave/overpressure/concussive effects typically bypass body armor altogether, sometimes even killing without leaving a mark on the victim.

-

Your assessment of Overpressure Blast damage is reasonably accurate. I say reasonably because sometimes armor does help. M1 Abrams Tanks would INTENTIONALLY roll over small IEDs in Iraq and suffer no real damage from the blast. Alternately, in WWII, the Japanese survived 14" & 16" gun barrages in their bunkers without injury. However, an AH-1 Cobra in Vietnam suppressed an NVA IFV in a rice paddy with 2.75" Rockets. The vehicle was basically only cosmetically damaged but all the occupants were found dead inside from the overpressure blast of the rockets.
I would say VEHICLE armor should be rated at a reduced level for Blast effects damage. Body armor would be worthless from blast damage.

[Raellus]

I would say VEHICLE armor should be rated at a reduced level for Blast effects damage. Body armor would be worthless from blast damage.

Good point. That's what I meant, but I should have been more clear.

-

[Heffe]

New clarification question regarding rolled hits, hit location, cover, and CUF. The scenario is as follows:

Target is in a ditch, only upper body is exposed. PC rolls a hit. Hit location die shows legs. Since the target's legs are behind cover (due to the shot angle, several meters of earth), no damage is done. Is this correct, so far?

Now, since the PC rolled a hit, but no damage was done due to the hit location result and target's cover, does the enemy roll CUF or not?

-

They would, yes. From the Player Manual pg 67:

"If you are hit by enemy fire (even if the damage is fully deflected by armor or cover), or if one or more ammo dice in a failed attack against you show, you must immediately make a coolness under fire roll."

In this instance, it wasn't just that the ground causes no damage to be done. Rather, the ground itself is counted as a type of "cover", and would thus impart additional points of armor to the PC. Sandbags seem like somewhat of an equivalent, so I'd think the ground would reduce the amount of damage taken for the hit by at least 4 points (probably a lot more, given that the ground is thicker than sandbags and the angle of attack). As a result, no damage actually penetrates the armor/cover to the player, but it does still count as a hit, and therefore CUF would still need to be rolled.

[kcdusk]

Agreed, I'd roll for CUF.

[Raellus]

That's what I've read as well. Direct fire damage is already pretty lethal in game - I think your house rule would just bring explosions into that same arena. If you make any further changes, can you let us know? I'd be interested in how you find the adjustment.

After some discussion, and a helpful video link, over on the FL 4e forum, I've reconciled to the fact that, IRL, 40mm HE rounds are less deadly than I thought they were. As a result, I think I'm going to accept the 4e M203/explosion/HW rules as written, and just take the -2 to aim for individual [human] targets. That way, on a hit, the target takes at least the M203 damage, before even rolling for Blast D damage. Anyone else in the same hex will roll for Blast D damage only.

I think my only house rules re explosions (so far) will be that for a prone target, I drop only one D6, and for a prone target in an enclosed space, like a bedroom for example, I roll both D6 to account for overpressure.

-

[Heffe]

After some discussion, and a helpful video link, over on the FL 4e forum, I've reconciled to the fact that, IRL, 40mm HE rounds are less deadly than I thought they were. As a result, I think I'm going to accept the 4e M203/explosion/HW rules as written, and just take the -2 to aim for individual [human] targets. That way, on a hit, the target takes at least the M203 damage, before even rolling for Blast D damage. Anyone else in the same hex will roll for Blast D damage only.

I think my only house rules re explosions (so far) will be that for a prone target, I drop only one D6, and for a prone target in an enclosed space, like a bedroom for example, I roll both D6 to account for overpressure.

-

I just watched that same video a few mins ago, and I think your approach is probably the best way to do it.

One thing that I learned from watching the video was that the fragmentation from the 40mm HEDP seemed to have focused downrange from the shooter in a bit of a cone. There was a bit of fragmentation back toward the shooter as well, but the bulk seemed to follow the path of the grenade itself. I don't know why, but in my head I always imagined those types of explosions having the fragmentation spread out in more of a sphere rather than having so much of the blast focused in one direction like that.

[Raellus]

One thing that I learned from watching the video was that the fragmentation from the 40mm HEDP seemed to have focused downrange from the shooter in a bit of a cone. There was a bit of fragmentation back toward the shooter as well, but the bulk seemed to follow the path of the grenade itself. I don't know why, but in my head I always imagined those types of explosions having the fragmentation spread out in more of a sphere rather than having so much of the blast focused in one direction like that.

I think that might be due to the HEDP round's shaped-charge warhead, which should, in theory, focus most of the blast towards the nose/impact fuse of the grenade. HEDP is designed to defeat light armor. I suspect, but have yet to find a source to confirm or refute, that a "vanilla" HE round would produce slightly more blast/shrapnel, and that said would disperse a little more evenly, compared to HEDP.

Would anyone with RL 40mm grenade experience please weigh in?

-

[Raellus]

Next questions:

GROUP AMBUSHES: Ambushes can be carried out by a
group and against a group of targets. This follows the
usual rules for stealth – the person with the lowest
RECON skill level rolls for the attackers, while the target
with highest RECON skill level rolls for the targets. If you
succeed, you get all of the top initiative cards, equal to
the number of fighters on your side – i.e. if there are
four attackers, you get cards #1 to #4. You can distribute
these as you see fit. The target(s) draws initiative from
amongst the remaining cards.

WAYLAYING: If you lie in wait for an enemy to attack them
as they pass, roll RECON to set up the ambush. This is a slow
action. If you spend a stretch (5–10 minutes) or more to
set up, you get a +2 modifier. If you spend a shift or more,
you get +3. You can push the roll as normal. Record the
number of you roll.

For Group Ambushes, the rules are clear that you use the lowest Recon score among the attackers. Does this mean that if a party member doesn't have any skill in Recon, you role their Attribute only? Or, does it mean to use the lowest score from among PCs that actually have any Recon skill at all? In other words, what does "lowest" mean? None, or lowest actually score (eg. Recon D)? I'm guessing, it's the former, but hoping it's the latter.

Second, in the Waylaying rules, does the following still apply? "The person with the lowest RECON skill level rolls for the attackers." The Waylaying rule follows the Ambushing rules, but doesn't refer directly back to them, so It's not clear. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

-

[Tegyrius]

I would interpret it as the same in both cases. Your least-stealthy team member is the gating factor. If that's the dude with AGL D and no Recon, well... better hope you brought overwhelming force in lieu of overwhelming surprise.

(Also, I would consider waylaying a subset or special case of ambushing for rules purposes because the "Waylaying" header is a third-level header under the second-level "Ambush" header - i.e., subordinate in layout/design terms.)

- C.

[kcdusk]

AMBUSH and WAYLAYING are two of the most important rules for me. Every encounter uses them, especially playing solo. And the consequences of avoiding a contact, verse walking into an ambush is huge.

To be clear; the rules are used a lot, and they have high significance. I'm still playing through a number of engagements to see how comfortable i feel with them before deciding how i feel about the rules. I worry about these mechanics more than player creation or weapon stat rules.

I agree with Tegyruis above.

I'm lucky my PC has high AGL and RECON. This is partly because he's travelling overland on foot, on his own, behind enemy lines. So needs to be highly skilled in this area.

Raellus: I'd post a scout ahead of your party. Allows a player to take on a more significant role, and mirrors real life of an experienced group putting someone out front.

[Raellus]

I would interpret it as the same in both cases. Your least-stealthy team member is the gating factor. If that's the dude with AGL D and no Recon, well... better hope you brought overwhelming force in lieu of overwhelming surprise.

That's what I was afraid of. Unless everyone in the party has at least INT C, Recon C, the odds of surprising any group of "vanilla" Soviet soldiers (INT C, Recon C) is going to be less than even, every time.

The only way of improving the odds is to spend at least 5 minutes preparing to Waylay an approaching enemy. That time isn't always available. i.e. Successful hasty ambushes are probably not in the cards.

Raellus: I'd post a scout ahead of your party. Allows a player to take on a more significant role, and mirrors real life of an experienced group putting someone out front.

Absolutely. My concern is situations where the whole party is together, including its least stealthy (Low INT, Low/No Recon) members. IMHO, it's not realistic for every party member to have minimum INT C, Recon C (not without neglecting other important and/or oft-used skills, at least).

-

[Spartan-117]

There are a few ways to generate positive modifiers from help, so maybe that could be used here.

I mean, if I, as an IT professional with little to no Recon skill, am out tromping around the woods with a Marine Scout/Sniper, I would expect him to 'help' me by telling me to Shut Up, Walk Slower, Stay Behind Me, Watch Where You Put Your Feet, Turn Off Your Flashlight, Watch To the Right, This Hand Signal Means Stop, This Means Go Prone, etc. Probably delivered with profanity, but you get the point. I wouldn't be operating with level 0 Recon when I was operating with him.

[Raellus]

There are a few ways to generate positive modifiers from help, so maybe that could be used here.

Great point. I was imagining pretty much what you described, but forgot (again) about the Help mechanic. Thanks for the reminder.

So, for an attempted Waylaying, with 5 minutes of prep (+2) and several characters helping (+3), the group Recon roll would go from a single D6 (INT D) to a D12 and a D6, correct? Or since the PC with the lowest Recon skill has a 0 in same, would those modifiers only apply to the Attribute score?

-

[kcdusk]

So your starting from a RECON D6 with +5 modifiers.

so D6 turns into D10 + D10. Remember there is a line somewhere that says, or recommends, that you increase or decrease each dice alternatively. You don't just add modifiers to one or the other up to D12, then swap over and start increasing the other.

It might be you go from D6 to D12 + D6. But the odds of D10 + D10 i think are greater for the same modifiers. Does that make sense?

[Raellus]

So your starting from a RECON D6 with +5 modifiers.

so D6 turns into D10 + D10. Remember there is a line somewhere that says, or recommends, that you increase or decrease each dice alternatively. You don't just add modifiers to one or the other up to D12, then swap over and start increasing the other.

It might be you go from D6 to D12 + D6. But the odds of D10 + D10 i think are greater for the same modifiers. Does that make sense?

Yes, thank you. I'd forgotten the rule about balancing dice. When rereading said rule just now, it clearly states that if you don't have a particular skill, you use a positive modifier to step it up to D6. So, you are right- in the above scenario, one would roll two D10s. I like those odds a lot better!

-

[Raellus]

Do successful Close Combat (i.e. melee) attacks trigger CUF rolls? I would assume so, but I can't find anything definitive in the Close Combat or Damage rules. The Suppression rules read:

If you are hit by enemy fire (even if the damage is fully deflected by armor or cover), or if one or more ammo dice in a failed attack against you show , you must immediately make a coolness under fire roll.

"Hit by... fire" strongly implies that this only applies when shot, or hit by an explosion. What about a fist, club, hatchet, bayonet, etc?

-

[Heffe]

Top of page 67 on the right hand side:

"Only firearms, heavy weapons and explosions can trigger suppression--not close combat attacks or attacks with bows and thrown weapons."

[kcdusk]

Agree with Heffe.

I don't think a hit in HTH would generate a CUF.

However, a CUF check could work like "stun" does in other games? You essentially go full protection mode, unable to strike back.

[Raellus]

Thanks, Heffe. I hope I'm not annoying anyone with these questions for which the rulebook states definitive answers.

I don't think a hit in HTH would generate a CUF.

Mike Tyson would probably have something to say about that, but I'm fine with it. ;)

Next question- it's more of a scenario, really, but I want to make sure that I am understanding and applying the relevant rules correctly.

The party vehicle, a BTR, it hit by an shaped charge IED (Blast power B, 3 direct damage). The IED rules state that shaped charges do +1 damage and have a crit level 1, but blast effects are stepped down by one (from blast B to C) for anything not receiving direct damage. So, this shaped charge IED does 4 direct damage.

The BTR has side armor level 4. 4 damage fails to penetrate. I roll vehicle hit location and look at the "did not penetrate" column. The hit location is 9: Commander.

So, the PC riding in the vehicle commander spot- in this particular case, the team sniper with the unit's best Recon score- takes 4 damage and, since the crit level of a shaped charge is 1, automatically takes a crit. I roll on the hit location die and torso is the result. The PC was riding with his torso exposed, so I don't have to worry about cover rules for him (see my next question). Anyway, the vehicle "commander" takes 4 damage to the torso. I roll on the crit table for torso and he lucks out with "broken collar bone". I roll two D10s for blast damage and neither shows targets, so he escapes blast damage (which would likely have killed him).

EDIT: Just looked at the vehicle hit location/component table again. Commander is listed on the penetration side. For 9, on the non-pen side, it reads Ricochet. So, if I'm reading the rules for Ricochet Component Damage correctly, the lookout doesn't take direct damage. Instead, I have to roll CUF for everyone riding "exposed". I rolled for the "commander" and he passed. That's a big swing from a 4 damage torso Crit broken collarbone to no damage at all.

Which of the two interpretations above is correct?

Now, besides rolling CUF for all exposed passengers, I roll Blast C damage. The driver had only his head exposed. I rolled hit location for him and it came up torso. Since his torso was behind cover, does he take damage? The gunner (inside an armored cupola) and a couple of PCs riding upright in the air guard hatches are in the same situation, so this question applies for them as well.

Last, but not least, since the shaped charge IED did not penetrate, and the vehicle damage location was Commander, the BTR doesn't actually sustain any damage, correct?

Odd result, if so, but I can roll with it.

-

[Raellus]

The reason I asked is that, for the last 3 weeks, I've been running a solo campaign with the 4e rules, to learn them through application.

I've written the campaign so far in narrative form, including Ref's notes to talk through how I applied the pertinent rules. If you're curious, the campaign log can be found here:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?p=92322&posted=1#post92322

See post #12 to see how I applied the Shaped Charge IED rules queried above.

-

[kcdusk]

Page 67 of the players manual says if you are hit by fire, and fail a CUF, you must drop prone and loose both actions next turn.

I've found sometimes hitting a NPC, not doing damage (body armour) or very little damage, and the NPC fails their CUF and drops prone. Now, he can often be out of my LOS and so by failing his CUF it feels like he can gain an advantage of being harder to hit (due to being prone) or being out of LOS completely.

Sometimes i think i'd rather hit and kill. Or have the PC pass their CUF. Thoughts?

The only other thing i can think of is, if a NPC fails CUF and goes prone. Can my PC cover ground to get to them knowing the NPC looses their actions next turn? This also raises the question of if my PC knows they are suppressed or not to risk moving towards them.

[Raellus]

An enemy failing CUF and going prone behind full cover could be a problem (like the scenario you mentioned), but there are a couple of ways that you could take advantage of it.

Have a PC set up over-watch on the spot. When the bad guy rears his head, you're ready to pop him before he can regain the initiative.

If the suppressed enemy's position it's within 50m or so of a PC with good mobility, have said PC rush to within hand grenade range and frag him.

Fire and maneuver.

-

[kcdusk]

Something i like about V4.0 in combat, is how the to hit dice and ammo dice work.

A skilled operator rolls D12+D12 and is likely to get a hit, or get multiple successes (>10), with a single shot/bullet.

An unskilled operator rolls D6+D6 plus a handful of ammo dice. The result is maybe a hit (rolling a 6), maybe a suppression. But a boat load of ammo expended, truely spray and pray.

I think this reflects reality well. (Less bullets more hits) verse (lots of bullets and less likely to hit).

I feel like in V4.0 that generally, i see my characters and NPCs using much more bullets than previous editions. I've found this a good thing for two reasons. One, during battle ammo runs low and mag change are needed. Add a tense pause in combat!

Secondly, it does mean burning through ammo that you really do need to start worrying about how many rounds you can carry on your person due to weight. And how many actual magazines do you have? I used to have 100 rounds on me. But now i need to break it down to how many full magazines i have.

Whats a "normal" number of magazines to carry? 4? 6? 8? While on patrol for example.

[Homer]

I hope this helps- everything I’m writing is based on the pre-MOLLE days, but the round counts still hold for MOLLE.

Basic load for the M16/M4 is 210 rounds, 7x30 round mags, or 2x ALICE pouches. Anecdotally, riflemen in some light/airborne/air assault infantry may carry 300-360 rounds (10x30 rd mags) in 4xALICE pouches. The 249 basic load is 600 rounds in 3x200 round hardpacks with 2x SAW pouches. Again, this may be increased in some units by an additional 200-400 rounds or more, normally carried in additional SAW pouches or a “rigger made” pouch. The additional SAW belts are normally in 100 round soft pouches (aka nutsacks). Doctrinally the basic load for a 203/320 is 24 rounds (20 HE/HEDP and 4 ILLUM) carried in a grenadier vest (18 rounds-14/4 with some versions). This varies greatly based on mission requirements, with fewer grenades being carried for short duration patrols, or additional grenades carried on belts, clip on packs, etc. An M60/240 would have a basic load of 600 rounds in 6x100 round belts which are packed in cotton bags with a carrying strap. Sometimes these are carried in SAW pouches, repurposed butt packs, or unit made ammo bags- one unit anecdotally going so far as to have “rigger made” ammo bags held on slings that allowed the AG to feed the gun from the prone with the ammo bearer carrying more in an assault pack and unit members to drop the bags at the support by fire position as they moved up. Extra 7.62 belts are normally carried by the AG and ammo bearer or distributed around the patrol (P for plenty with MG ammo). The gunner usually doesn’t patrol with the full 100 rounds on the gun, but carries a 20-40 round “starter belt’ with the AG to feed the rest upon contact. For a raid or ambush, belts may be linked together to form a 200 or more round belt for continuous fire. Gunners may carry an M9 with 3x15 round mags, but pistols have a tendency to get scarfed up by LTs, senior NCOs, and the battalion staff if MTOE isn’t enforced (plus that’s extra weight; and the 9mm is really a woobie for most fights). SDMs with 7.62mm weapons usually carry between 100 and 180 rounds in 5-10 20 round mags carried in 2-4 ALICE pouches. If a breaching shotgun is carried, usually a dozen rounds will be carried in an ALICE pouch plus a full magazine in the shotgun.

The amount of ammo carried is a continual compromise between likelihood of contact, availability of resupply, and difficulty of movement. Ammo pouches may also be repurposed to carry frags/smokes especially in thick vegetation. Or be modified to carry radios or personal medical kits (with a prominent Red Cross paint markered on pouch). 200 round SAW pouches often find their way to secondary purposes as NVG, admin, or demo pouches.

AT4’s, LAWs, demo, pyro, and claymores as required. Normally at least one AT4 in a fire team. Riflemen are supposed to carry 4xfrags. Frags, smokes, and other grenades are normally issued and adjusted mission dependent. Gunners and MG crew, medics, SDMs, and leadership/specialist personnel tend to carry fewer or no frags but carry smoke and pyro. In urban warfare or when assaulting a fixed position expect to see extra grenades carried in claymore bags, saw pouches, or 2qt covers on a sling.

[swaghauler]

Page 67 of the players manual says if you are hit by fire, and fail a CUF, you must drop prone and loose both actions next turn.

I've found sometimes hitting a NPC, not doing damage (body armour) or very little damage, and the NPC fails their CUF and drops prone. Now, he can often be out of my LOS and so by failing his CUF it feels like he can gain an advantage of being harder to hit (due to being prone) or being out of LOS completely.

Sometimes i think i'd rather hit and kill. Or have the PC pass their CUF. Thoughts?

The only other thing i can think of is, if a NPC fails CUF and goes prone. Can my PC cover ground to get to them knowing the NPC looses their actions next turn? This also raises the question of if my PC knows they are suppressed or not to risk moving towards them.

I have been party to a House Rule in MUTANT: YEAR ZERO that would work for you here...

The rule involves a "Success with a cost" or "degree of failure" rule.

Whenever you are confronted by a natural obstacle (no opposed roll), you set a threshold of 3, 4, or 5 for a failed roll. IF the PC/NPC fails within this margin, they can try the task again with a DIE REDUCTION for the next attempt. So...
A PC tries to climb a chainlink fence with a Threshold of 3. If they fail but roll a 3, 4, or 5, they are still hanging on the fence and can roll next round.
In the case of your CUF test, a failure with a 4 or 5 could result in a go-prone response, BUT on a 2 or 3, they just stand there screaming like a woman in a 50s horror movie.

For opposed tests like trying to intimidate an enemy soldier you ran into on the road, you must BOTH fail your rolls. IF your rolls are HIGHER than the NPC's rolls, you may try to intimidate them again. IF their failed rolls are higher than yours, NOTHING you will ever do will intimidate them until circumstances change per the GM.

[swaghauler]

Agree with Heffe.

I don't think a hit in HTH would generate a CUF.

However, a CUF check could work like "stun" does in other games? You essentially go full protection mode, unable to strike back.

I absolutely disagree with this! Having been hit so hard I momentarily "blacked out," I was then reluctant to close with the Perp afterward DESPITE having an ASP collapsible baton in my hand. He shook me up enough that I even took a couple of steps back. What if you were suddenly confronted by Kane, Andre The Giant, or The Rock? How about stumbling into a bear in the woods at night? I think a CUF check would be in order...

Hell, even a DISPLAY OF FORCE should be able to trigger a CUF check! I have been witness to more than one occasion where officers were held in check by a growling dog or a pair of dogs. I even saw a female State Trooper chased back inside her cruiser by an agitated Chinese Knothead (a type of large white goose).

So I believe that a CUF check should be warranted

[Tegyrius]

"Everybody has plans until they get hit for the first time."
- Mike Tyson

[Heffe]

I absolutely disagree with this! Having been hit so hard I momentarily "blacked out," I was then reluctant to close with the Perp afterward DESPITE having an ASP collapsible baton in my hand. He shook me up enough that I even took a couple of steps back. What if you were suddenly confronted by Kane, Andre The Giant, or The Rock? How about stumbling into a bear in the woods at night? I think a CUF check would be in order...

Hell, even a DISPLAY OF FORCE should be able to trigger a CUF check! I have been witness to more than one occasion where officers were held in check by a growling dog or a pair of dogs. I even saw a female State Trooper chased back inside her cruiser by an agitated Chinese Knothead (a type of large white goose).

So I believe that a CUF check should be warranted

On a personal note swag, I think you're correct. Someone catching a well placed right cross is probably going to take a step back or need a moment to regroup. I was just quoting the actual 4e canon rules as they stand.

This feels like one of those situations where a houserule may be appropriate on an as-needed basis. The current CUF rules dictate that a CUF failure would result in someone dropping to the ground and losing their next turn's actions. While that might be appropriate in some CUF failures in HtH combat, it doesn't feel like it would work for all of them, regardless of whatever damage is being done. To make it more realistic, FL would have needed to add a bit more complexity to what is arguably already a fairly complex melee combat system, so they probably just opted to keep it as simple as possible with no CUF roll on HtH hits.

As a recommendation to make this system more realistic, I might require a CUF roll on all successful HtH attacks, but add a table for effects of that failure so that it isn't a catchall 'drop to the ground and lose next turn' result. For example, roll 1d10 on a successful head hit and failed CUF roll - a result of 1-2 has largely no impact other than the target seeing some stars. A result of 9-10 however would result in the target falling unconscious for 1d6 rounds. Something along those lines.

[swaghauler]

On a personal note swag, I think you're correct. Someone catching a well placed right cross is probably going to take a step back or need a moment to regroup. I was just quoting the actual 4e canon rules as they stand.

This feels like one of those situations where a houserule may be appropriate on an as-needed basis. The current CUF rules dictate that a CUF failure would result in someone dropping to the ground and losing their next turn's actions. While that might be appropriate in some CUF failures in HtH combat, it doesn't feel like it would work for all of them, regardless of whatever damage is being done. To make it more realistic, FL would have needed to add a bit more complexity to what is arguably already a fairly complex melee combat system, so they probably just opted to keep it as simple as possible with no CUF roll on HtH hits.

As a recommendation to make this system more realistic, I might require a CUF roll on all successful HtH attacks, but add a table for effects of that failure so that it isn't a catchall 'drop to the ground and lose next turn' result. For example, roll 1d10 on a successful head hit and failed CUF roll - a result of 1-2 has largely no impact other than the target seeing some stars. A result of 9-10 however would result in the target falling unconscious for 1d6 rounds. Something along those lines.

That's why I posted that houserule that we used in Forbidden Lands a page back. It is used (and presumably developed) by a guy named Chuck who runs Forbidden Lands once a month at my local game shop (the Purple Fox).

[Raellus]

Can PC groups be subdivided for separate Recon roles while attempting to sneak up on OFOR?

For example, a group of PCs are going to attempt a POW rescue. They want to get closer to the camp without being spotted. A couple of the PCs have Recon B. The others have C or D (or no score at all).

Could I split the groups- have the stealthier one approach the camp from the SW and the less stealthy one approach from the SE- and roll Group Recon separately? My gut says the answer is yes, but I don't want to play too fast and loose with the rules.

Is the above a legit application, or am I gaming the system?

-

[Heffe]

Can PC groups be subdivided for separate Recon roles while attempting to sneak up on OFOR?

For example, a group of PCs are going to attempt a POW rescue. They want to get closer to the camp without being spotted. A couple of the PCs have Recon B. The others have C or D (or no score at all).

Could I split the groups- have the stealthier one approach the camp from the SW and the less stealthy one approach from the SE- and roll Group Recon separately? My gut says the answer is yes, but I don't want to play too fast and loose with the rules.

Is the above a legit application, or am I gaming the system?

-

I don't recall anything in the rules against it, or even the rules mentioning a scenario like that. It makes sense to me. If I had a group of PCs that ended up splitting up into multiple groups when approaching a camp, I'd have each group roll independently.

Maybe it feels like gaming the system because knowledge of who is stealthier might be considered meta knowledge? But then, a group of people in real life would probably have an idea of who was able to move more quietly (e.g. who was clumsier, who walked louder, etc.).

[Raellus]

Maybe it feels like gaming the system because knowledge of who is stealthier might be considered meta knowledge? But then, a group of people in real life would probably have an idea of who was able to move more quietly (e.g. who was clumsier, who walked louder, etc.).

That's a good point. In some cases, it would be obvious to the PC (the sniper and the former Ranger, for example, would know that they were relatively stealthy, and the mechanic probably realizes that she's not), but some characters might overestimate their stealthiness.

I suppose that even with guestimating, sub-groups would probably contain individuals with skill differences of only +1 or -1, which is pretty close. If one were to implement the Help rule, the difference would offset.

-

[Raellus]

If I'm reading the rules right, the only way a Medical Aid roll can heal a wounded character is if the character is incapacitated or the wound was the result of a critical hit. I don't see anything about healing a wound that is neither incapacitating or critical. Is this correct?

Let's a say a character with 5HP takes 1HP damage. It's not a crit, and it's not incapacitating. Can a successful Medical Aid roll heal that damage?

-

[Heffe]

If I'm reading the rules right, the only way a Medical Aid roll can heal a wounded character is if the character is incapacitated or the wound was the result of a critical hit. I don't see anything about healing a wound that is neither incapacitating or critical. Is this correct?

Let's a say a character with 5HP takes 1HP damage. It's not a crit, and it's not incapacitating. Can a successful Medical Aid roll heal that damage?

-

That's my read of the rules as well from pg 73.

FURTHER RECOVERY
"Once back on your feet, you will heal 1 point of remaining damage for
each full shift spent resting or sleeping (page 148). This assumes that
you are not starving, dehydrated, or hypothermic (page 78). You can
heal damage and stress at the same time."

One other piece to note though that I think might get overlooked, is infection. From the same page:

INFECTED WOUNDS
"If you suffer 1 point of damage or more from an external attack, you
risk infection. Unless you are treated with a MEDICAL AID roll within a
shift after taking damage, you must make an infection roll (page 81) to
resist falling ill. Antibiotics give a +3 modifier to the roll. You can treat
yourself, as long as you’re not incapacitated."

Infections can get pretty nasty pretty quickly, especially for characters that are already low on HP. A failed roll or two is often enough to put them over the line.

FL I think tried to lean toward the simplicity in other TTRPGs when it comes to wounds. Nothing in the rules really talks about things like the use of first aid kits, the importance of (clean) bandages, etc., when talking about taking wounds. Even for really beefy characters, unless they get incapacitated or critted, they'll typically heal to normal within a few shifts. This brings it more in line with games like D&D, where a character can go from death's door to completely fine within 8 hours. Something's lost in terms of realism there for sure, but it seems like it's a known trade off to keep PCs moving.

[Raellus]

One other piece to note though that I think might get overlooked, is infection.

Infections can get pretty nasty pretty quickly, especially for characters that are already low on HP. A failed roll or two is often enough to put them over the line.

Great point (and a rule that I'd accidentally overlooked). So, even though it looks like successful application of Medical Aid doesn't result in a non-incapacitated, non-critically injured PC recovering any HP, it doesn't prevent the potentially incapacitating (or even deadly) knock-on effects of infection.
Worth it!

FL I think tried to lean toward the simplicity in other TTRPGs when it comes to wounds. Nothing in the rules really talks about things like the use of first aid kits, the importance of (clean) bandages, etc., when talking about taking wounds. Even for really beefy characters, unless they get incapacitated or critted, they'll typically heal to normal within a few shifts. This brings it more in line with games like D&D, where a character can go from death's door to completely fine within 8 hours. Something's lost in terms of realism there for sure, but it seems like it's a known trade off to keep PCs moving.

Agreed. I don't have a big problem with this. Recovering from a bullet wound after a day or two of rest isn't realistic, but it's no fun when your PC can't do anything for a full game session (or several), just to keep it "real". It is, after all a game, and games should be fun.

The way I play this rapid healing off IG is that wounds resulting in 1-2 HP reductions are grazes (or bruised ribs [torso], or concussion [head]). Fortunately, my PCs haven't sustained any incapacitating or critical wounds yet (knock on wood!).

If you're at curious about where most of my recent 4e rules questions are coming from, take a gander at my solo campaign log-ette.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=6793

-

[Heffe]

Great point (and a rule that I'd accidentally overlooked). So, even though it looks like successful application of Medical Aid doesn't result in a non-incapacitated, non-critically injured PC recovering any HP, it doesn't prevent the potentially incapacitating (or even deadly) knock-on effects of infection.
Worth it!



Agreed. I don't have a big problem with this. Recovering from a bullet wound after a day or two of rest isn't realistic, but it's no fun when your PC can't do anything for a full game session (or several), just to keep it "real". It is, after all a game, and games should be fun.

The way I play this rapid healing off IG is that wounds resulting in 1-2 HP reductions are grazes (or bruised ribs [torso], or concussion [head]). Fortunately, my PCs haven't sustained any incapacitating or critical wounds yet (knock on wood!).

If you're at curious about where most of my recent 4e rules questions are coming from, take a gander at my solo campaign log-ette.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=6793

-

I don't mind the fast healing either. It definitely doesn't feel as realistic, but it can sometimes make the game feel like a bit of an action/adventure movie, which I think is more fun given the setting. Characters get shot once or twice, but then before you know it they're back on their feet and in the fight.

[kcdusk]

Can PC groups be subdivided for separate Recon roles while attempting to sneak up on OFOR?

For example, a group of PCs are going to attempt a POW rescue. They want to get closer to the camp without being spotted. A couple of the PCs have Recon B. The others have C or D (or no score at all).

Could I split the groups- have the stealthier one approach the camp from the SW and the less stealthy one approach from the SE- and roll Group Recon separately? My gut says the answer is yes, but I don't want to play too fast and loose with the rules.

Is the above a legit application, or am I gaming the system?

-

I think your doing it right.

Further, you will now have two groups rolling recon. And while one group has a high chance of success and another group a lower chance - overall the chances of someone being spotted has likely gone up due to needing to roll for two groups.

So not only do I think your doing it right, but even if you weren't i don't think your gaming the system because overall you have increased your chance of failure anyway!

[Raellus]

Allowing separate group Recon (i.e. stealth) rolls could also create interesting tactical situations in which the OPFOR detects one PC group but not another (or vice-versa).

I'm not sure how that would work with the Surprise/Initiative rules, though. Off the top of my head, an undetected group could move closer to its opposition while said is preoccupied with an another group.

-

[Heffe]

Most recent info from FL (Tomas officially) regarding how grenade damage works. From the FL forums:

"Hello!

For vehicle cannons 20-40mm, the idea is that they are fired like machine guns (with ammo dice), with the added effect that they also trigger an explosion in the hex where a target is hit. The vehicle cannons are different from the automatic or semi-automatic grenade launchers and mortars in that they are typically aimed at a specific target, not a hex.

And yes, when targeting a hex (not a specific target) with an explosive attack, targets in the blast radius suffer only explosive damage, no direct damage. In the reprint, the direct damage from fragmentation hand grenades has been removed. We will include this change in the updated PDF and errata."

[Heffe]

And some more info from Tomas about how the system is proposed to work in the reprint:

“Hi! This is being adressed in the reprint, and we will of course update the PDF as well and include in an official errata. The new wording on the relevant paragraphs on page 66 in the Player's Manual goes:

AMMO DICE: Firearms give you ammo dice to add to your skill roll. Six such tan colored D6s are included in this boxed set. You can add as many ammo dice to your attack as you like, from zero up to the rate of fire (RoF) rating of your weapon or the number of rounds left in the magazine minus one, whichever is lower. For example, if you have three rounds left, you can add up to two ammo dice.
If you have only one round left, you cannot add any ammo dice to our roll. In this case, or if you choose to use no ammo dice, only one (1) round of ammunition is used in the attack. This is typically only the case for sniper shots (page 63), but can also be useful if you are very low on ammo or your weapon is in a bad condition (low reliability rating).

AMMO SPENT: After your roll, you sum up the D6 digits on all of your ammo dice, then add one (1) to the result. This sum is the total amount of ammunition you have spent on the attack. If the sum on your ammo dice is equal to or more than the number of rounds you have left in the magazine, your magazine is completely emptied.

I hope this clears things up.”

I still have to consider the full impact of the changes, but so far it seems like a positive move. It basically makes it so a flat skill roll is always your first shot, and then subsequent shots would provide ammo dice. It feels pretty clean at first glance.

[Raellus]

It's good to get rules clarification from the source. Thanks for posting those, Heffe.

I've got mixed feelings about a reprint. Of course, it's good to have errors corrected, unclear mechanics clarified, confusing wordings fixed, etc. But it means that the my physical copies will be out-of-date, and I don't feel like paying full price for a few amendments. Hopefully, the PDF version will be updated free of charge.

Also, I asked about potential errata corrections 7 months ago on the Free League T2k forum and Tomas' response was sort of dismissive-

"As for an errata, you're of course welcome report errors, but I can't say that we have seen enough of them yet to merit an official errata."

I guess they've seen enough now.

-

[kcdusk]

Hello team. I have my PC approaching a suspected sniper location which is a 3 story building. Sniper up top, with a novice NPC at street level.

I'm trying to collect all the modifiers that may apply to recon and ambush in this situation as my PC tries to take down the building.

Distance to encounter comes from PDF page 138.
If your in a vehicle and the opposition is on foot there's a -2 to recon (Doesn't apply in this situation).
Weather can impact distance per page 140.
Am i missing any other modifiers in the payer or ref manuals?

[Raellus]

If the sniper spots your NPC and takes an aimed shot at him/her, the sniper gets a +1 modifier for firing from an elevated position.

-

[Tegyrius]

I haven't examined this issue in detail yet but it seems like the easy fix is to give MGs a limited ability to ignore 1s on ammo dice - possibly ignore the first X 1s, where X equals half of current Reliability, rounded up (so at Reliability 5, you'd have to roll four 1s to affect Reliability and five 1s to jam - not counting any 1s on your base attack dice). This would reflect their designed capability for reliable sustained automatic fire in a better way than just pointing to the action economy advantage of belt feed.

They still have the disadvantages of encumbrance, reduced performance when hip-fired, and high consumption of your most precious natural resource (i.e., lead).

Another update after 12 sessions and 8 combats of play in my current campaign. We have one machinegunner (a very large Estonian with an MG3) in the party; everyone else is using an assault rifle, sniper rifle, or (sigh) SMG + machete combo.

Our table's implementation has been to ignore 1s on pushed ammo dice. When pushing a machine gun attack, only 1s on the base dice will reduce Reliability or cause jams.

Observation in play is that this doesn’t seem to be game-breaking. Balancing factors include increased ammo consumption (he’s encouraged to use his full ROF more, so his 7.62x51mm supply has been dwindling) and rigid enforcement of the penalty for hip-shooting a MG (p. 65 for those following along in the Player’s Manual). The net effect is that he spends the first turn or two of combat getting into a good shooting location with partial cover before he opens up, which, to my mind, is functioning as designed. He has jammed twice with double 1s on base dice, and he usually loses at least one point of Reliability each combat (which sucks up downtime actions for the party's techs to address).

- C.

[kcdusk]

I'd love to hear of more in game examples, and learnings. Or AARs to see what others are up to in their games, and even check modifiers and die rolls to see if they/I am interpreting rules correctly.

[Tegyrius]

I'd love to hear of more in game examples, and learnings. Or AARs to see what others are up to in their games, and even check modifiers and die rolls to see if they/I am interpreting rules correctly.

Not exactly what you're seeking, but I've been chronicling my campaign on my gaming blog at https://libellus.de-fenestra.com. There's a chronological index of campaign-specific posts here (https://libellus.de-fenestra.com/?page_id=199).

- C.

[kcdusk]

Agh that's excellent, thanks for the link. Looking forward to some great reading there.

I know long stories are not everyone cup of tea to write up, so my comment was aimed at anyone who wanted to only write up brief encounter AAR with no expectations of expansive creative writing.

[Tegyrius]

Something that came up in last Friday's session of my campaign: vehicle commanders aren't that useful in coordinating crew actions. Solution:

Vehicle Command: As a slow action, the vehicle commander may coordinate the actions of his vehicle's crew. Make a Command check. With success, this counts as help (Player's Guide, p. 46) for each other crew member's actions this turn.

The timing for this wasn't an issue because of our house rules on initiative (https://libellus.de-fenestra.com/?p=268), though I can see how it could be difficult for tables that are using the book rules (even with the ability to exchange initiative with allies).

In the interest of balance, we restricted the benefit to actual crew positions, not passengers. There was some debate about whether human cargo using firing ports should benefit, but I felt that was excessive. If you want an in-game rationale, assume that only the actual crew seats have jacks for the vehicle’s intercom.

The main benefit here was to make the player running the vehicle commander (Ellis, for those following the campaign blog) feel like his XP investment in Command was paying off. So I'm counting it as provisionally successful.

- C.

[Raellus]

Good thinking. I like this idea enough to use it. I would probably add the specific caveat that the PC must be a vehicle commander and not just any officer occupying a command position in the vehicle in order for the Help roll to apply to vehicular ops. A vehicle commander would have the knowledge and experience to effectively direct their vehicle crew during combat. An infantry, officer, for example, would likely have a good grip on infantry tactics, but probably wouldn't know enough about vehicle capabilities, crew roles and responsibilities, and/or the nuances of mounted combat to be particularly helpful (I could even see a non-vehicle commander officer character being a hindrance to crew effectiveness).

Are you thinking that this application of the Help roll would apply to both vehicle combat and driving checks? I would argue that it should.

-

[Tegyrius]

Attacks, driving, comms or sensor use - any reasonable crew actions that would benefit from overall coordination.

- C.

[Raellus]

I may have already asked this question, but it's been almost a year since I've played the game, so...

Can a PC Help another on an opposed Recon roll for a Group Ambush situation?

Here's the situation: I've got two PCs trying to get into a position to observe an enemy POW camp (and eventually, attack the guards). Since they are trying to get into an OP without being detected by the enemy sentries, I assume that I need to follow the rules for Group Ambush, which involves making opposed skill rolls.

One PC has INT A and Recon C, the other has INT B and Recon C. According to the Group Ambush rules, I have to roll for the PC with the lower Recon skill level. Both PCs have Recon C, but I assume that I should then use the lower of the two Ability scores to determine which PC rolls. Is that correct?

The two PCs already have favorable modifiers (+2 total) for distance (200m) and terrain (forest), but I would like to increase the odds of success by having the PC with the higher Recon skill Help the PC with the lower skill level, thereby adding another +1 modifier to the Group Ambush roll. Is that possible/correct? I don't see anything in the rules saying otherwise but I'd like to make sure I didn't miss- or misinterpret- anything.

-

[Tegyrius]

I have not been interpreting the group stealth rules as allowing assistance. No matter how good the team ninja is, they can't fix Noisy McTanglefoot's fundamental lack of investment in Recon.

When there's doubt about the "lowest" skill, I use the probability table on p. 46 to settle the debate.

- C.

[Raellus]

I have not been interpreting the group stealth rules as allowing assistance. No matter how good the team ninja is, they can't fix Noisy McTanglefoot's fundamental lack of investment in Recon.

:D

I see your point, and I agree (to a point). If stealth was purely a physical task, it'd be hard to explain how one person could help another. On the other hand, part of stealth is fieldcraft, and that can be taught/modeled by someone with greater expertise. A more stealthy individual could offer helpful advice like, "Slow down. Look where you step. Avoid those dried twigs. Don't silhouette yourself on that crestline. Stay in the shadows." etc.

-

[kcdusk]

Maybe it can be modelled and some teaching can happen. Might incur a time cost though. So instead of taking 10 minutes to get into position, it takes an hour.

[Raellus]

Maybe it can be modelled and some teaching can happen. Might incur a time cost though. So instead of taking 10 minutes to get into position, it takes an hour.

I like that idea. Unfortunately, early consensus seems to be that opposed recon rolls can't be helped (at all). I'm still waiting for a few more people to weigh in before I decide if it's kosher or not.

Here's another question: An enemy soldier lobs a grenade over a wall towards the PCs. He can't see them, but he has an idea where they are (he saw them move into [suspected] position the previous round). The rules say that for a ranged attack, the attacker must have LOS or they have to use the Indirect Fire rules. Looking at the latter, indirect fire requires a Forward Observer with LOS to the target. So, it appears that the rules don't allow for a grenade attack like the one described above. That's really unrealistic. Am I missing something?

-

[Heffe]

I like that idea. Unfortunately, early consensus seems to be that opposed recon rolls can't be helped (at all). I'm still waiting for a few more people to weigh in before I decide if it's kosher or not.

Here's another question: An enemy soldier lobs a grenade over a wall towards the PCs. He can't see them, but he has an idea where they are (he saw them move into [suspected] position the previous round). The rules say that for a ranged attack, the attacker must have LOS or they have to use the Indirect Fire rules. Looking at the latter, indirect fire requires a Forward Observer with LOS to the target. So, it appears that the rules don't allow for a grenade attack like the one described above. That's really unrealistic. Am I missing something?

-

We're probably getting into some hairy complications of the rules here, but I seem to recall that grenades can only attack hexes. So long as the thrower has LOS to the hex itself, then it would likely be okay.

You might now be asking yourself, "well how would you know on which side of the wall the grenade would land?", and you'd be right for asking that question. The only info we have regarding the answer is found on page 68 of the Player Manual under the Blast Damage section:

COVER: Solid cover (page 58) provides protection
against shielded hit locations, just like for a ranged
attack – unless the explosion occurs in the same hex
as the target.

In short, I don't think the rules are particularly helpful here, and a Referee ruling would probably be in order.

[Claidheamh]

Here's another question: An enemy soldier lobs a grenade over a wall towards the PCs. He can't see them, but he has an idea where they are (he saw them move into [suspected] position the previous round). The rules say that for a ranged attack, the attacker must have LOS or they have to use the Indirect Fire rules. Looking at the latter, indirect fire requires a Forward Observer with LOS to the target. So, it appears that the rules don't allow for a grenade attack like the one described above. That's really unrealistic. Am I missing something?

-

I'd allow the soldier to make an attack on the hex that he assumes the PCs moved into. I wouldn't be dogmatic about the specific indirect fire rule here, but obviously the attacker couldn't target anything but the _area_ he assumes the enemy is in.

[Tegyrius]

The thrown grenade should target the hex, not an individual PC. I mean, yeah, technically, the -3 "target in full cover" penalty should apply, but it's hard to not know where an adjacent hex is, even if it's on the far side of a wall.

- C.

[Raellus]

Thanks for the advice and council, fellas. Applying it, I rolled up an encounter and narrated the results in the post-apoc fiction sub-forum. (See post #28.)

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?p=94938#post94938

-

[Ursus Maior]

You might like to look at the mod's answer to that in the official forum. I added rules from UrbOps to that: https://forum.frialigan.se/viewtopic.php?p=83750#p83750

Short version: UrbOps p. 19 has you answer for Close Quarters Combat. For regular combat, HE and frag hand grenades are aimed at hexes, so the wall is a penalizing feature at best.

AT hand grenades would be a different thing, since you need to aim it at a specific target. And yes, I'd argue, if you try to lob your RKG-3 anti-tank grenade against someone you cannot see, but are beyond close quarters combat, you'd be incredibly lucky to hit your target at all.

[Raellus]

The rules are pretty clear on this, but I want to run it by y'all because what they say doesn't seem correct/realistic. Here's the scenario:

The PC machine gunner, operating a vehicle mounted DSHk HMG is shooting at a Zil-131 truck, which is approaching head-on. He wants to put his first burst into the truck's engine block. Aiming for a specific component means this is a Called Shot. So far, so good. Here's where the rules butt up against realism.

Called shots will never penetrate armor. (p.86)

The Zil has front armor of 1. That means a 12.7mm round (Damage 4, Armor 0) can't penetrate the truck's front grill? Huh? A hit, since it can't penetrate at all, can't damage the engine as engine is in the Penetration Damage column of the Component Damage table (p. 84). I'd have to use the result from the No Penetration column instead. In the engine row, the Non Penetration damage result would be "weapon", of which the Zil-131 is equipped with none. Basically, a hit on a Called Shot as described in the scenario, in this instance, produces no damage to the target.

The rules as stated basically nerfs the HMG and buffs a soft-skinned (i.e. unarmored, IRL) truck in the case of a Called Shot.

Am I missing something?

-

[Heffe]

Rae - I think your read of the rules is correct, but I also think that's just a poorly written rule.

I imagine the intent here was probably to avoid munchkin players from always aiming for ammunition or fuel in order to bypass the vehicle hit chart, but the rule ends up removing quite a bit of player agency. IMO, a houserule is probably in order here.

If it were me, I'd probably stick with the -2 for a called shot, but on a hit roll again to see if hitting the engine block actually has the expected outcome (presumably disabling the engine).

[Raellus]

Thanks all. I feel better equipped to handle a called shot v. vehicle situation in the future.

I pulled the Rain of Ash card from the random encounter deck. Looking at the rules for rads in the Player Handbook (p. 80), there doesn't seem to be any penalty for accumulating permanent rads (other than the sickness that can be caused by exposure to "new" rads, temporary and/or permanent). According to the rules, a PC that starts with six permanent rads doesn't appear to have any disadvantages compared to a PC that starts with 1, and that holds true if any additional permanent rads are accumulated during the course of the game. For example, if they are both exposed to any "new" rads, they both have the same chances of becoming sick, and the same symptoms if they fall ill. That all seems a bit strange. It's more intuitive that the PC with more rads should become more ill.

EDIT: I missed something in the rules, as usual.

"Every time you gain a rad, you must immediately roll for STAMINA to resist radiation poisoning (see Diseases on the next page). The virulence of the disease is equal to +4 minus your total rad count." (p. 80)

So, someone with more permanent rads has greater odds of suffering symptoms of radiation poisoning.

The question below, however, still stands.

What happens when a PC reaches the maximum number of permanent rad points accommodated on the standard char-sheet (there are 10 boxes total)? Death?

It seems like something's missing, or maybe I'm just missing something.

-

[Heffe]

New houserule proposal: Radiation Induced Cancer

Roll for the onset of cancer. Based upon the number of permanent rads the character has, they roll a corresponding die anytime they're exposed and gain a new permanent rad. On a roll of 3 or less, cancer has started growing somewhere on the players body.

If a character develops cancer, every month without treatment the player must subtract a die from an attribute of their choice. When the character has an attribute drop further than D, the character dies.

Permanent rads:
7 rads - 1d12
8 rads - 1d10
9 rads - 1d8
10 rads - 1d6

[Raellus]

New houserule proposal: Radiation Induced Cancer

Roll for the onset of cancer. Based upon the number of permanent rads the character has, they roll a corresponding die anytime they're exposed and gain a new permanent rad. On a roll of 3 or less, cancer has started growing somewhere on the players body.

If a character develops cancer, every month without treatment the player must subtract a die from an attribute of their choice. When the character has an attribute drop further than D, the character dies.

I like this idea. To make it a little less harsh, I think I'd modifying it so that the PC only starts rolling once they've accumulated more than 10 permanent rads.

-

[Tegyrius]

The question below, however, still stands.

What happens when a PC reaches the maximum number of permanent rad points accommodated on the standard char-sheet (there are 10 boxes total)? Death?

It seems like something's missing, or maybe I'm just missing something.

It's not well-articulated at all, but radiation sickness' inclusion on the disease table on p.81 makes me think the design intent is for it to be treated as any other disease, albeit with a different method of "infection." Thus, if a character is suffering from radiation sickness, he's taking damage and is unable to heal damage, the same as any other disease - and he can die if incapacitated. A character with more permanent rads will be dealing with a more severe virulence modifier, and thus will find it harder to recover on his subsequent infection rolls.

- C.

[Raellus]

One area in which I think the 4e rules fall well short is how they handle languages. In 4e, it's pretty much all or nothing. You can either speak a language very well, or you can't speak it at all. The only wiggle room in the rules as written in the Nationality (Languages) subsection of the Character Creation chapter. It states (paraphrasing here) that everyone speaks a little English, and that Warsaw Pact personnel all speak a little Russian.

A PC can learn another language in the game by using skill points to take the Linguist Specialty. However, according to that rule, adding that specialty could conceivably take a PC from not being able to speak a lick of another language to being mistaken for a native speaker of it! That's simply not realistic.

INGUIST: You know another language of your choice, well enough to be taken as native on a successful PERSUASION roll. (p. 51 of the Player's Manual)

As anyone who's learned a second language can attest, it takes time to learn and build proficiency and fluency- sometimes years! I lived in South America for 6 years as a teenager and I still wouldn't consider myself fluent in Spanish. :o

In v2.2, at least, you could be a little proficient, or moderately so, or fluent, by allocating skill points to a second language. It was tricky (and pretty subjective) to determine how well a PC could speak another language in that ruleset because it wasn't really clearly explained what the numbers meant, but at least there were degrees of proficiency.

How have other 4e ref's dealt with second languages?

-

[Tegyrius]

I share your irritation.

My solution is to allow each PC one non-native language for each Empathy rank above D. They have limited vocabulary and can never pass as a native speaker, but they can hold a basic conversation. I've kept Linguist working as written. My table has been happy with that arrangement so far.

- C.

[Heffe]

Agreed here as well - the language system in 4e seems to have been pretty intentionally left simplified, and the version suffers for it.

I've had my crew be able to speak a smattering of Polish simply from osmosis in the default setting (by Ref fiat), and then linguist allows for additional languages as written. It's not great a great system though, especially when no one happened to get the linguist specialty on character creation. As a result, there are a fair number of Poles that speak English. :|

[Claidheamh]

I've been mulling how to deal with languages for the players in my forthcoming campaign as well. I'm considering a three tiered approach to languages:

- 1 rank - speaks a pidgin of the language, can generally make themselves understood, but no nuance and plenty of misunderstandings. -1 penalty for Persuasion checks, -2 for any sort of disguise or subterfuge.

- 2 ranks - speaks language well, but with noticeable accent and some malapropisms. -1 penalty if trying to disguise as a native speaker

- 3 ranks - equivalent of Linguist specialty, character speaks language like a native.

Since I'm also dabbling with some alternate character creation mechanics (around starting equipment), I'm going to roll this fluency into character creation. I hadn't thought about experience points and development, need to roll that around a little more.

[Raellus]

I like your ranking idea, Claidheamh. It might be worthwhile to make Language its own skill (under the Intelligence attribute), with D through A levels indicating levels of proficiency. This would relegate the Linguist specialty to attempts to pass as a native speaker, but that's pretty much how it's currently written in the rules anyway.

In line with Heffe's reasoning, I've always given PCs at least very rudimentary language skills for whatever campaign setting we're using as a matter of course, as long as the PC has spent more than a few months there before the IG action starts. As I've been thinking about this topic, I remembered a reason besides osmosis to continue this practice.

In WW2 (and other 20th century wars, I am sure), US troops were issued with small, basic French phrase books before the D-Day landings. They contained not only touristy words and phrases (e.g. "May I use the bathroom, please?"), but some martial ones as well (e.g. "Where are the German soldiers?"). It stands to reason that the DoD would issue similar Polish phrase books as soon as the fighting moves into Poland*. These would have been issued up to the start of nuclear warfare, at least. PCs could either "buy" this item as part of their starting equipment, or find it during scrounging (something similar could be in the 4e loot tables already).

Access to a basic phrase booklet and exposure to / immersion in the local culture would give US troops in Poland (or wherever) for more than a few months would allow for very basic proficiency in Polish. Think of it as the PC being able to use and understand simple phrases that one might find in an average travel guide (e.g. "Where is the bathroom.").

So, "translating" these principles into skill levels could look something like this:

D- Exposure to local language = beginner (e.g. yes, no, please, thank you)
C- "" plus access to store-bought or G.I. phrase book for local language = basic grasp (Excuse me. Where is the library?)
B- "" plus immersion in local culture (i.e. frequent practice using local language) = proficient
A- all of the above = fluent
Linguist [specialty] = fluent and native-like pronunciation

*IMHO, it would be perfectly reasonable to extend these suppositions to other national military forces (e.g. the BAEF) or campaign settings (e.g. Sweden).

-

[Heffe]

I think you're on to something with those skill levels, Rae - that feels appropriate and matches the schema of FL's other skills. It's still abstracted, but better represents how learning languages works in real life.

Translated to real life I'd be a D in German (used to be a C), a C in Spanish, and being my native language, I'd have an A and linguist specialty in English.

[Claidheamh]

I like your ranking idea, Claidheamh. It might be worthwhile to make Language its own skill (under the Intelligence attribute), with D through A levels indicating levels of proficiency. This would relegate the Linguist specialty to attempts to pass as a native speaker, but that's pretty much how it's currently written in the rules anyway.

I'm hesitant to add a new formal skill into the 4e system, since it disrupts the simplicity of the 12 skills in the RaW, and new skill ranks are handed out pretty carefully in the rules. But I do like the A-D rank structure, as it keeps the nomenclature consistent (my gaming group is a mix of casual gamers who want easy to understand rules and a few hardcore nerds who will break down every part of the rules themselves).

If you're going with languages as a new skill, I'd put it under EMP, since that seems to be where all interpersonal skills live.

In WW2 (and other 20th century wars, I am sure), US troops were issued with small, basic French phrase books before the D-Day landings. They contained not only touristy words and phrases (e.g. "May I use the bathroom, please?"), but some martial ones as well (e.g. "Where are the German soldiers?"). It stands to reason that the DoD would issue similar Polish phrase books as soon as the fighting moves into Poland*. These would have been issued up to the start of nuclear warfare, at least. PCs could either "buy" this item as part of their starting equipment, or find it during scrounging (something similar could be in the 4e loot tables already).

Access to a basic phrase booklet and exposure to / immersion in the local culture would give US troops in Poland (or wherever) for more than a few months would allow for very basic proficiency in Polish. Think of it as the PC being able to use and understand simple phrases that one might find in an average travel guide (e.g. "Where is the bathroom.").

I completely agree that most troops would easily get the basics of communication in Polish, German (and maybe Czech or Russian), I plan to make it easy for a PC to choose basic competence (Rank "C") in a language or two, more skill will require a larger investment at creation time. I offer the ability to have Rank D, for those PCs who decide that they have relied completely on the tried and true American communication method of speaking English more loudly and slowly, while waving their hands.

[Heffe]

Hah! That's great, Claidheamh. Agreed that it should probably live under EMP somehow.

As a suggestion, perhaps a die roll during character creation in order to determine if other languages are known at level C (or above) and how many, but the die results would vary by nation of origin. For example:

American character
1-3: No additional languages
4-5: 1 additional language
6: 2 additional languages

German character
1: 1 additional language
2-4: 2 additional languages
5-6: 3 additional languages

[Raellus]

I'm hesitant to add a new formal skill into the 4e system, since it disrupts the simplicity of the 12 skills in the RaW, and new skill ranks are handed out pretty carefully in the rules.

If you're going with languages as a new skill, I'd put it under EMP, since that seems to be where all interpersonal skills live.

I understand your hesitation re adding a new skill. Maybe we should consider a simpler alternative than adding new mechanics. How about sticking to the rules and just rolling against EMP? It's already SOP in 4e (from p. 44 in the PM: "If you don’t have a level in the skill you’re using, just roll one for the attribute."), so nothing new there. Without a language skill (which doesn't exist in the base rules), a PC would only be rolling the attribute die, so there'd be less chance of success than rolling a pair of dice (1 for attribute + 1 for skill). The slight tweak is this: the Ref can add or subtract multipliers based on the circumstances (which is already a feature of the base rules). For example:

1.) The NPC has a strong regional accent? That's -1.
2.) The NPC uses complex technical jargon? That's -1.
3.) For both of the above, it would be -2.)
4.) The NPC speaks slowly and uses small words? That's +1.

etc.

This would add a little realism without really complicating the rules, as written. Every PC can at least attempt to communicate in another language (based on their EMP score alone). PCs with higher EMP would have a better chance of making themselves understood. Circumstances could make attempts at communicating in another language easier or more difficult, depending on various helpful or complicating factors. It's still abstract, but a little more nuanced this way.

Thoughts?

-

[Ursus Maior]

One area in which I think the 4e rules fall well short is how they handle languages. In 4e, it's pretty much all or nothing. You can either speak a language very well, or you can't speak it at all. The only wiggle room in the rules as written in the Nationality (Languages) subsection of the Character Creation chapter. It states (paraphrasing here) that everyone speaks a little English, and that Warsaw Pact personnel all speak a little Russian.

-

That also bugged me endlessly and it's extremely unrealistic especially for European native who underwent compulsory language trainings in multiple languages during school and thus usually remembered a couple of words, but wouldn't be native in any language but their own.

Hence we extended the rules on languages and all characters speak their native tongue plus some English or Russian (as per the rules) and then 1 additional language per level in Intelligence above D. This is meant to reflect school education and proficiency in these languages is meant to be on a "working" level.

[Claidheamh]

I understand your hesitation re adding a new skill. Maybe we should consider a simpler alternative than adding new mechanics. How about sticking to the rules and just rolling against EMP? It's already SOP in 4e (from p. 44 in the PM: "If you don’t have a level in the skill you’re using, just roll one for the attribute."), so nothing new there. Without a language skill (which doesn't exist in the base rules), a PC would only be rolling the attribute die, so there'd be less chance of success than rolling a pair of dice (1 for attribute + 1 for skill). The slight tweak is this: the Ref can add or subtract multipliers based on the circumstances (which is already a feature of the base rules). For example:

1.) The NPC has a strong regional accent? That's -1.
2.) The NPC uses complex technical jargon? That's -1.
3.) For both of the above, it would be -2.)
4.) The NPC speaks slowly and uses small words? That's +1.

etc.

This would add a little realism without really complicating the rules, as written. Every PC can at least attempt to communicate in another language (based on their EMP score alone). PCs with higher EMP would have a better chance of making themselves understood. Circumstances could make attempts at communicating in another language easier or more difficult, depending on various helpful or complicating factors. It's still abstract, but a little more nuanced this way.

Thoughts?

-

Raellus - I think this is a good, simple way of resolving communications, and it fits with the RaW pretty well (esp the emphasis on bonus / penalties). I may still tweak my character creation a bit, since I'm house ruling a set of 'points' for players to fudge a dice roll or start with additional equipment, and I might figure out how to add language to that list as well.

Ursus - I agree that the character creation rules don't deal with school based training realistically (at least as I understand them). I can say that US based language training is pretty crappy unless you live in an area where you need to exist bilingually.

[Claidheamh]

Mucked around with character creation some with 2 players who'll be in my upcoming campaign, and I noticed that "Scout" is not available as a specialization in any Military career - it's only available to Police, Criminal, and Intelligence career paths. This seems 'off' to me, I think it should at least be available in the Military : At War path.

Thoughts?

[Raellus]

That omission seems odd. Scout isn't even a specialty listed under the Operator archetype, which doesn't make sense because the raison d'etre of many special operations forces is long-range reconnaissance (i.e. scouting). IMHO, there's a much stronger case for military characters to have Scout as a specialty than for criminals and law enforcement characters.

For Archetype PCs, there's nothing in the rules that says players can't select Scout as a specialty, although it's not listed under the "recommended options".

As for Lifepath PCs, as a Ref I would house rule that Scout is an available selection for "operators" and "grunts", if not all military builds.

-

[Tegyrius]

I think you're running into the limitations of a lifepath system built on a very small number of d6 tables.

- C.

[leonpoi]

I think that is probably true. I wouldn't mind changing them to d8 tables - I started but never finished

[Ursus Maior]

I think you're running into the limitations of a lifepath system built on a very small number of d6 tables.

- C.

If FL aims at further developing that product line - of which I'm not certain, as I see more of a broad and less a deep approach in their product line - I'd wish fore a refurbishment of their character generation. Something that gives us more options and wider tables.

[Raellus]

I'm not mathematically minded so when questions of probability come up, I lack confidence, and fear making the wrong call.

Should I shuffle the deck of playing cards I use for an "Oracle" for my solo campaign after each draw, or should I run through the entire deck before reshuffling?

If I was only drawing to ask Yes/No questions, or determine if something was Helpful or Hazardous, then running through the entire deck would guarantee a 50-50 split across 52 draws, and that doesn't seem particularly realistic. But then what about the law of averages?

I'm drawing from the same deck when using the other tables (NPC Motivations, Settlement Problem and Attitude, and Further Elements) in the solo rules as well, so that complicates the Yes/No & Helpful/Hazardous probability issue.

I hope this question makes sense. As I said before, my number sense is not very good.

-

[kcdusk]

If I was only drawing to ask Yes/No questions, or determine if something was Helpful or Hazardous, then running through the entire deck would guarantee a 50-50 split across 52 draws, and that doesn't seem particularly realistic. But then what about the law of averages?

-

I'd argue that guaranteeing a 50/50 ye/no outcome over 52 draws was Ok.

Perhaps flip a coin for yes/nos to remove the cards issue?

Thinking about this more, and something i haven't done myself but am now thinking i might do it for my own solo campaign. I'm considering shuffling the random encounter deck after each encounter.

Why? Because who says you can't run into back to back military patrols? Or civilian hunters? Or bad weather over two consecutive days? In fact i'd argue this makes more sense not to remove the card, not less. Further, if you have an encounter and put the card aside - then you know you won't have to deal with that "encounter issue" again, which removes from the game.

So while i have not answered your question, i think i am going to shuffle the random encounter deck and improve my game because of it.

[Raellus]

Here's a brief scenario. The PCs are planning to ambush an enemy convoy. Since it's a "group ambush" (technically, it's waylaying), I have to roll an opposed Recon check for the PC with the lowest Recon score. That PC does not have the Recon skill (F?). For skill rolls involving Recon, this PC can only roll their attribute base die which, in this case, is C. The whole party spends a shift preparing to waylay the convoy, earning a +3 modifier to the Recon roll.

In this scenario, how do I step up the base die? There's only one base die to start off with- the Attribute. The rules instruct players to balance their die whenever adding or subtracting modifiers.

Do I:

Step up the Attribute from C to B (+1), and B to A (+2) then stop, as there's no second base die (the non-existent skill) to step up?

OR

Do I step up the Attribute base die from C to B (+1). Then step up the Skill base die from F (non-existent) to D (+2), then raise it again to C (+3), so that the two base dice are close to balanced?

OR

Do I step up the Attribute from C to B (+1), then step it up again to A (+2) and then raise the skill F to D (+3)?

-

[Skunk]

Do I step up the Attribute base die from C to B (+1). Then step up the Skill base die from F (non-existent) to D (+2), then raise it again to C (+3), so that the two base dice are close to balanced?
-
This is the way I'd go, I haven't looked in the rules to support it but it matches the balancing scheme I remember. I would play it that if you only have a single dice the first +1 always adds in a second die.

[Tegyrius]

The "Modifiers" section on pages 45-46 has what you need, but it's obfuscated (see below):

Sometimes, external factors help you to succeed. Such modifiers will step up one of your base dice to a better die, from a D6 to a D8 for example. Other times, something hampers your action. This will downstep one of your base dice. You can get modifiers to skill rolls in several different ways: specialties, the difficulty of the action itself, and help from others.

A +1 modifier means upgrading a base die one step, a +2 modifier means upgrading two steps, and so on. A –1 modifier means downgrading a base die one step, –2 means two steps down, and so on. Several modifiers can apply to the same roll, and they are cumulative. A +2 modifier and a –1 modifier add up to +1, for example.

When stepping up and down, always try to balance your dice as much as possible – i.e. step up a lower base die first, and downstep a higher base die. You can never go above two D12s, no matter what modifiers you have. To downstep past two D6s, remove one die. You can never go below one D6. If you lack a skill level and start with just a single base die, step up by adding a D6 (as one step up) and step it up further as needed.

Italicized and bolded for emphasis. The italicized paragraph is where the order of operations is scripted. The bolded sentence is the key to this scenario, and I'm particularly wroth with Free League over it because of what I consider a very poor layout choice here. They put that sentence by itself on the backside of page 45, so in both PDF and print versions, it's not visible on the same spread as the rest of this section.

- C.

[Raellus]

Thanks, Teg. I thought I remembered seeing something like that. The seeming finality of the explanation on p.45 fooled me into not reading beyond it to the next page.

On a different topic, I think the Typical NPCs table on p. 37 of the Ref's Manual is a bit lacking. For example, my PCs have been running into enemy vehicle crews from time to time. The stat blocks from said table that would fit an enemy vehicle crewman are Soviet (or Polish) Soldier. That template lacks basic skills that even a rookie vehicle crew would have. A BTR gunner should have at least a modicum of Heavy Weapons skill but the standard stat block for Soviet Soldier (the closest thing on the list to a BTR gunner) doesn't even mention it.

If I stick to the rules, as written, I can only roll one base die for the NPC's relevant attribute. So, in the case of the hypothetical BTR gunner, he starts with only a d10 (for STR B) before adding or subtracting applicable modifiers. Enemy NPCs that only roll one die definitely give my PCs an advantage, so I'm not complaining too much. It does seem unrealistic and more than a tad unfair, though- I almost feel like I am cheating when I roll that single die for the bad guy.

I've played by the book (and it almost always works to my PCs' benefit). I've also experimented by simply adding a key skill that a trained, experienced soldier would have at level C. In the example of my hypothetical BTR gunner, that would mean adding a D8 for Heavy Weapons to the D10 die for STR attribute. Instead of adding a new skill, I've also just swapped out for a skill on the list (in this case, swapping Ranged Combat C for Heavy Weapons C). That feels more realistic, and fair, but it also puts enemy NPCs almost on par with PCs and I'm not sure I like that very much either. The PCs are, after all, the "stars of the show", and I've invested a lot more time and thought into them than I have some nameless OPFOR in a random combat encounter. I'm torn.

How do you (any of you) handle the somewhat vanilla, one-size-fits-all enemy NPCs of the base rules?

-

[Higgipedia]

How do you (any of you) handle the somewhat vanilla, one-size-fits-all enemy NPCs of the base rules?
-

Mike Verkuilen's excellent Soldiers, Farms, and Refugees supplement in the Free League Workshop has really useful guidelines with four power levels. Each increase in power adds more attribute increases, skills, and specialties.

So you could have low-level foot infantry be CCDD with Ranged Combat C and Recon C. Vehicle crews might be CCDD with Heavy Weapons C, Ranged Combat D, and Drive D.

But his supplement is fantastic and is a must-buy in my opinion.

[kcdusk]

I agree with your thoughts Raellus. I've been using the NPCs as per the book also.


The enemy in my game normally numerically outnumbers my good guys, so the NPCs having lower dice hasn't been as much of an issue.
I think initiative counts a lot. My PC normally has higher initiative, i use a home brew method though that includes the PC CUF, weapon type (pistol, SMG, LMG modifier) plus a die roll. Again, my PC normally gets first go, so another advantage to off set their numbers.
My early combat was two sides blasting at one another, over time more decision making has crept in which your game seems to already have - does a PC fire? Or take cover? If your NPC has higher stats which does feel more realistic, your PCs may also have to take cover more. Or take more snap shots (quick shot followed by taking cover).
The biggest advantage my PC has had, is normally my higher recon for example means i can pick and choose which encounter i engage or avoid. So NPC values may not even come into play.


It may not sound like i'm answering your question. But what i mean is, higher NPC stats does feel more realistic and it may also mean more PC life loss. But there are other decisions or factors that also impact PC life loss or saving.

I'm still struggling for balance.

Also, war isn't fair. My APC was driving down the road the other day, failed his recon roll, and suddenly the enemy had surprise and initiative and my APC is coming down the middle of the road. As a player what can i do? An APC driving down the road is normal, not a risky decision. Yet now the enemy had the drop, oh, and an RPG!!!

Perhaps what i'm saying is. If your PCs are in enough fire fights. Even against NPCs with low dice levels. Eventually, even in spite of good decision making, statistically your PCs will take some losses. Which is why in movies (saving private ryan, platoon, real life ...) when PCs last the full term of war/movie/enlistment and leave alive ........ it is such a relief.

[Tegyrius]

I think it's important to remember that the book NPCs are standard and representative of the most common opponents encountered - infantry. It's not saying "all orcs have these stats." For vehicle crews, my solution has been to give them Heavy Weapons and Driving equivalent to the printed Ranged Combat, then drop Ranged Combat by one step.

Something I've seen is that the most important enemy trait in determining relative threat is Coolness Under Fire. My players aren't afraid to establish belt-fed dominance early, and a suppressed NPC is one who isn't shooting back.

- C.

[Raellus]

Perhaps what i'm saying is. If your PCs are in enough fire fights. Even against NPCs with low dice levels. Eventually, even in spite of good decision making, statistically your PCs will take some losses. Which is why in movies (saving private ryan, platoon, real life ...) when PCs last the full term of war/movie/enlistment and leave alive ........ it is such a relief.

I agree, KC. Roll the dice enough times and, even with a couple of advantages, the odds are going to catch up and bite PCs. I recently found this out the hard way (see https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?p=95391#post95391).

I think it's important to remember that the book NPCs are standard and representative of the most common opponents encountered - infantry. It's not saying "all orcs have these stats." For vehicle crews, my solution has been to give them Heavy Weapons and Driving equivalent to the printed Ranged Combat, then drop Ranged Combat by one step.

That's more or less what I've been doing. I just wanted to see if that jibed with how other Ref's were approaching OPFOR NPCs. Great minds and all!

Mike Verkuilen's excellent Soldiers, Farms, and Refugees supplement in the Free League Workshop has really useful guidelines with four power levels. Each increase in power adds more attribute increases, skills, and specialties.

Thanks, Higgs. I'll check it out.

-

[kcdusk]

Social conflict question.
Person A is trying to convince Person B of something, A outranks B.
Does person A get a +1 to convince them (I say yes).

Real question though, does Person B get a -1 to their own roll since they are outranked? If so, by outranking someone you get a +1 for your own roll and impact them with a -1 for their roll - ie you get two benefits. Is this right or does only one modifier apply?

[Raellus]

I'm pretty sure the modifiers are only applied to the PC's roll. I'm basing this on conclusion on this line in the Social Conflict rules, which precedes the modifier lists, both positive and negative, on p. 61 of the PM:

"Each of the following factors modifies your roll by..." (emphasis added)

It doesn't mention anything about applying modifiers to the opposing party's roll.

-

[Raellus]

It seems like a skilled mechanic should be able to scavenge at least some usable part(s) in less than 5 hours.

From the Players Manual, p. 86:

SCAVENGING PARTS
If you spend a shift scavenging parts from a functional or inoperable vehicle and make a TECH roll, you can find a number of vehicle spare parts equal to the number of you roll. If the vehicle you scavenge is permanently destroyed, you can still scavenge it, but you’ll find one less spare part, meaning you’ll need to roll at least two to find a single usable part. The vehicle you scavenge is permanently destroyed in the process, and can never be scavenged again, even by another person.

I suppose that I could apply the Quick Search rule (sidebar, p. 143), but that seems a little too generous, as it doesn't require a character to make a skill roll. As someone with minimal knowledge of auto mechanics, I would have little to no idea what component I should pull from an APC or what have you.

It seems like there should be a middle ground (between 5 hours minimum and unskilled scroungers spending much less time and essentially getting a freebie).

Is it time to house rule this, or am I missing something?

-

[Ckosacranoid]

I do not understand the time needed to strip some useful stuff off a vehicle. IT would only take a couple of hours to grab some of the more common and easy-to-grab things that are good like wire and other easy-to-pull things. I can understand 5 or so hours to strip down a vehicle totally down to the frame. And the amount of just basic parts is very low in my idea. If you are striving for a car that is running you should get more than 4 parts at max along with some electrical parts also and a few general since there are all kinds of things you can get from a car. I also ran a 2d6 for different parts if the ride was good. IF it has been worked over then the rule for just a couple of things makes sense.