4e Mechanics & Rules Discussion

[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]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

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

Indeed, I did.

Corrected in OP.

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

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.

-

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by unipus

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]

Originally Posted by unipus

[...] 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

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]

Originally Posted by unipus

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]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

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).

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

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.

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

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/attachmen...ional_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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

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.