FA in DH1 encouraged use of cover, because while it was easier to hit with FA, it applied to the entire enemy, even the bits behind cover. If you wanted to snipe someone out of cover, you needed to aim/called shot. The people complaining about FA seem to have been fighting in wide open spaces and such for the most part.

Nothing gamebreaking about it, really.

FA in DH1 encouraged use of cover, because while it was easier to hit with FA, it applied to the entire enemy, even the bits behind cover. If you wanted to snipe someone out of cover, you needed to aim/called shot. The people complaining about FA seem to have been fighting in wide open spaces and such for the most part.

Nothing gamebreaking about it, really.

We might be going on a tangent, but to adequately make the aimed/called shot on someone behind cover, required two talents to do it without modification, otherwise you were taking a -20 to make the hit. Perfectly feasible in the late game or if you were at short range with an accurate weapon, but earlier on that Full-auto was infinitely superior to hitting on a 10 or under.

Also depending on the gun, that cover could get shredded within a round or 2.

As a side note

I house ruled:

Single shot +10bs to medium and long randes

Semi-auto +10bs short and medium ranges, -10bs long range

Full-auto +20bs short, -10bs medium, -20bs long

Red-dot gives +10bs only to single shot.

Aim only with single shot and accurate applies only if you take at least an aim action. (The accurate part was fixed by ffg anyway)

As a bonus suppressing fire can actually hit something and not only act as a psychological threat

My reasoning is that weapons with multiple fire modes are bettere and firing more then 1 bullet is often preferible (that's why we use in war almost only weapons with at least semi-auto).

As a bonus suppressing fire can actually hit something and not only act as a psychological threat

My reasoning is that weapons with multiple fire modes are bettere and firing more then 1 bullet is often preferible (that's why we use in war almost only weapons with at least semi-auto).

You're wrong, auto-fire is "no use" except as a psychological threat. Otherwise, it misses lot of time. Go speak with some former (or actual) soldiers, they'll tell you.

While Alexel is right about the whole "Full auto actually ruins any semblance of accuracy you had irl" those rules do look reasonable. I certainly don't agree about denying your players a chance to attempt the dodge rolls, but those houserule attack modifiers look solid enough.

Sorry Nirgal, ColArana is right. I didn't take long enough to write my post and give intelligent advise about what you've done.

Your rules, even if not 100% realistics, are indeed interesting (but that's like everything else in the game).

I know that suppressing fire isn't meant to hit but to scare, but by ruleset suppressing fire is less scary than a normal full-auto so doesn't make much sense that you are forced to a WP roll on a suppressing fire manouver that is actually less threatening than a normal full-auto. Considering it by another angle: being submerged in bullets should actually impair your ability to act and if you aren't carefull you should get hit.

We discussed many times of ditiching suppressing fire manouver and impose a WP roll when under "massive fire" or to change the penalty to BS based on how much fire are you recieving but we nevrer actually came up with a rule.

Sorry Nirgal, ColArana is right. I didn't take long enough to write my post and give intelligent advise about what you've done.

Your rules, even if not 100% realistics, are indeed interesting (but that's like everything else in the game).

We all play with different styles and with different assumptions to what we feel "realistic/plausible vs enjoyable".

Every group that plays the same game is going to actually play their own game, even without houserules. Our group played a lot cyberpunk 2020 so we have a "cyberpunk mindset" on gunfights (that's the thing with dodge and fire-modes), plus we have our own vision of the setting so we came up with rules to fix the various things we found not of our liking (or broken), many problems we found probably aren't problems for other gorups and things we never had problems with are probably plaguing someone somewhere.

We discussed many times of ditiching suppressing fire manouver and impose a WP roll when under "massive fire" or to change the penalty to BS based on how much fire are you recieving but we nevrer actually came up with a rule.

I thought about keeping the suppressing fire but imposing penalties also with normal firepower (+10 willpoer test against single shot, +0 against burst, -10 against full auto, for example), but not sure about it.

Firing a gun at any range - can miss a shot by the slightest variance of a MM off angle - having nothing to do with "dodging" rather no one actually dodges in bullet in RL all they can do is be off the trajectory of the projectile - they are tons of instances with people being fired up at practically point blank range and not being hit by the gunfire - most people in point blank firing situations hip shoot as they do not have the luxury of time to properly light up the gun sights - especially when being fired back upon... With that a given I would say sure no one can actually bite a bullet let alone dodge one - but a moving target is still a moving target whether they be 100 meters away for arms distance - 1 inch or 1 millimeter is all that can make the difference between being hit and not...

The Dodge mechanics are good with me

Stay GAMING

Morbid