Yeah, you do need to declare your intended targets and intent to activate autofire before the attack. That is how the difficulty gets set Apologies if I implied that this wasn't the case.

Firing off seven or Eight shots in a matter of seconds at multiple opponents, some falling behind cover, some soaking shots, some deflecting off armour, it would be hard to micro manage those shots so efficiently to say that my shooter could determine shot by shot if the targets were going out of the fight. For me asking the PC for targets ahead of time is a risk reward situation where he decides who the threats are and how long he pauses to spray them with laser before he twitches to the next target. I don't think this is unreasonable.

Totally. I agree that you should ask for targets ahead of time (when determining difficulty). If you're going to require him to state which shot goes where, though (during adjudicating Advantage, and before knowing who is down and who isn't), that's something that gets a little hairy by the rules so you'll probably want to have a discussion out-of-game to address how you're going to handle these situations going forward. In my experience, players generally respond favorably to this approach.

There's definitely some give and take required on both sides of the table. You sound like you've got a good handle on things, though, so my advice is just talk to your player and tell him how it's gonna be for the sake of everyone's enjoyment.

And...ah, I did not realize he jury-rigged it. I had assumed a really high Advantage roll. Doc, the Weasel's advice might be good for this situation (allow him to autofire ONCE for 1 Advantage, but subsequent activation on the same combat check require the normal 2 Advantage).

The Autofire rules were pretty heavily modified during the Beta test period, and still they can be broke-tastic

I'd have flat-out said no. Really its because combat checks are essentially focused skill checks with a time constraint. Can he roll to hack 7 terminals under duress in a single roll? No. So how can he attack X+1 rivals? If its a building full of rivals, he's SOL. That's a building full of things he shouldn't pick a fight with unless he's got a building full of rival backup. Or a Thermal Detonator/Turbolaser handy.

Another facet of the reason I'd say no is they're Rivals. They're not cannon fodder. Rivals tend to be tougher, and more street saavy. If it was a warehouse of Arms Dealers for example, they have a cunning of 4. Nobody with a cunning of 4 sticks around when what amounts to a machine guns starts rattling off shots. AFAIK, there's no rules for surprise rounds in EotE so he'd have opened fire, they would have rolled vigilance, he would have rolled cool and someone might have had a chance to shout a warning and 2 or 3 would have gotten out because most gun bunnies don't grab ranks in cool.

Or as an aside, you could let him do that. Don't forget those guns aren't quiet and/or someone saw him/escaped/hid in a drainpipe. Now he's wanted for 7 counts of murder and all the obligation that entails.

Perhaps you should introduce him to Maelora's group then?

Sure, I could always use more targets! Um, I mean... players...

This will not be well received, but...

Start rolling behind the screen more often and get the table used to it. Then pull out your own stacked autofire rival. Be sure to almost kill him and make sure you don't TPK. End the session with everybody unconscious. Let the players discuss things.

I get the feeling that this guy wont compromise to the GM, but maybe he will to / for the group.

You always can kick him out of the group for the betterment of the others.

He's right about the scope. I've seen agogs and red dots on saws before.

I've seen that also, in the sandbox... however when I asked about this (was a squid with the Army, IA), I was told it was mostly for intimidation and first shot. Even with the low recoil it would be difficult to maintain accuracy with a SAW full out.

OP, the RAW rules are “light”, on purpose, they didn't feel the need to spell out every possible thing, as common sense applies at some point. Thus the posts in here about other impossible things like teleportation, or hijacking a death star.

I would stick to the guns (no pun intended) in regards to the scope, or at the very most allow the bonus for the first round (shot), with all subsequent rounds not receiving it, and in fact degrading over the course of shots.

How many targets are we talking about here? Even at that, there is a limit on advantages, so there is a limit to how many people are able to be targeted. That said, the rules do state that one is giving quality, for quantity (paraphrased), and thus the idea of an aim mechanic, of any sort, would negate the autofire.

One has to tread very carefully in these subjects for fear of over powering basic weapons. Autofire is usually adjusted by ammo, however most star wars weapons don’t really use it, at least not in the traditional sense.

Just come up with something that works for your group, that you’re comfortable with, and by all means come back and update us on what your group decided – for those of us who haven’t encountered the issue, yet, we may cherry pick from your solution.

We house ruled that increased damage from skill checks are split up when making multiple attacks, like auto fire or two weapons. It is silly that you get a great roll and drop 100 damage in a round. If a player was attacking 3 targets and got 8 successes that damage could be split up any way the player likes, but we don't say all 3 hits are +8 damage that's just silly and broken.

One houserule I've been considering is the use of "zones" instead of range bands, and I think they may come in handy here. I was tinkering with this in my Savage Worlds games, and it's kind of a middle ground between the two.

So, as has been mentioned, the length of a round is not set, and an attack roll does not represent one squeeze of the trigger. Some folks have suggested that this gives a person time to line up a shot with the scope, fire a few rounds, then pick a new target, fire again, and so on, because that's what autofire is for: blasting a lot of people. The problem is that lining up multiple shots with a rifle, especially with a scope, takes longer than doing so with a pistol (let's ignore for a moment that the rifle is more accurate, the pistol is quicker). And you can't attack multiple targets with a pistol. So I would say that one combat roll involves a fairly short exchange of actions.

The place where autofire gets difficult is when you have targets in multiple locations. If there are five guys behind a stack of crates, autofire is your buddy, because you can sweep your blaster back and forth across those crates pretty easily. However, if there are two guys behind those crates, and two guys on the catwalk above you, and one guy nearby brawling with the wookiee, you're not going to be able to target all five of those guys with a single roll.

My recommendation is to allow autofire to strike multiple targets within a single zone. A zone is about the size of the smaller range bands, so it's a pretty simple conversion. A cantina might have only two or three zones, such as the bar, the tables, and the stage. Each zone should have a couple of distinct features that characters can take advantage of (let the players suggest them, less work for you). It's a little less narrative, because it kinda requires a map, but the map can be a very simple sketch, which a lot of folks use anyway.

One houserule I've been considering is the use of "zones" instead of range bands, and I think they may come in handy here. I was tinkering with this in my Savage Worlds games, and it's kind of a middle ground between the two.

So, as has been mentioned, the length of a round is not set, and an attack roll does not represent one squeeze of the trigger. Some folks have suggested that this gives a person time to line up a shot with the scope, fire a few rounds, then pick a new target, fire again, and so on, because that's what autofire is for: blasting a lot of people. The problem is that lining up multiple shots with a rifle, especially with a scope, takes longer than doing so with a pistol (let's ignore for a moment that the rifle is more accurate, the pistol is quicker). And you can't attack multiple targets with a pistol. So I would say that one combat roll involves a fairly short exchange of actions.

The place where autofire gets difficult is when you have targets in multiple locations. If there are five guys behind a stack of crates, autofire is your buddy, because you can sweep your blaster back and forth across those crates pretty easily. However, if there are two guys behind those crates, and two guys on the catwalk above you, and one guy nearby brawling with the wookiee, you're not going to be able to target all five of those guys with a single roll.

My recommendation is to allow autofire to strike multiple targets within a single zone. A zone is about the size of the smaller range bands, so it's a pretty simple conversion. A cantina might have only two or three zones, such as the bar, the tables, and the stage. Each zone should have a couple of distinct features that characters can take advantage of (let the players suggest them, less work for you). It's a little less narrative, because it kinda requires a map, but the map can be a very simple sketch, which a lot of folks use anyway.

I think this idea is the most reasonable. If your players are accommodating, this can be narrative.

Player: "Ok I want to spray some bolts at the largest cluster of baddies."

SM: "There are 4 pirates hiding behind a stack of crates, and 2 brutes on your other side. They look like they are about to charge at you."

Player: "All right I aim for the pirates."

SM: "Ok. That's normally a 2 difficulty dice, but since you are attempting to autofire, that's another difficulty dice. Also you'll be taking a setback dice since the pirates have cover."

Feel free to be generous with your destiny points when the autofire-monster goes a-shootin'. After all, stray blaster bolts can have negative affects and a few despairs could really flavor up his pension for calamity.

Zones are how I would do it, personally. It makes sense mechanically, and given the narrative nature of the game, it meshes.

Using the warehouse example, it wouldn't make sense for a guy to be having a seizure with his rifle and hitting every single person who is spread out across the warehouse. I also agree with the others as to how RAW is. It seems to be intentionally light for the sake of allowing narrative play to take precedence, so the GM is sometimes going to have to say, "That simply doesn't make sense, and wouldn't work."

All that besides, zones keep the autofire guy relevant and powerful, but keeps him from effectively negating one element of the game for the rest of the players. Say the legend of Ser Spray'n'pray has reached far and wide, and now baddies who know what to expect of Ser Spray'n'pray and his merry band know that they had ought to spread out.

(Especially with the telescopic sight. With that on his gun, he's only even going to be able to look at a small group at a time. If he wants that bonus, it should restrict who he's able to even fire at, or else it's going to become a liability. (And if this player isn't okay with narrative explanations for rule adjudication, he is perhaps playing the wrong game.))

If I Recall Correctly Autofire, much like grenades can effect anything within short range of the point of Impact, original target etc.

If you group your "units" (minions, rivals, nemesi?es?'s?) but space them at medium range from each other, I would allow hm to mow down any given cluster that was at close/short range of itself, but not the other clusters. Could he theoretically spray a bunch of bullets around in a circle? yes, but i'd upgrade the heck out of that roll. One despair and he's out of ammo, unless he thought to bring some.

Outside of that, as with many things in this game, always always ALWAYS remember that any action taken by the PCs has consequences!!!! Look at the scenario as an observer. A bunch of people just got taken out by one guy with a repeating blaster. If it has happened before, people are going to figure out that he's very mean with that weapon, and will incorporate it into future encounters. Say he just whacked a bunch of Black Sun enforcers? BS isn't stupid. If direct force failed, use indirect. I'm a big fan of poison personally. Hutts aren't stupid either. So the party whacked a goon squad? Then put out a bounty. Maybe a disguised service technician "deactivates their hyperdrive" ( they told me they fixed it!) or plants a transmitter to track them, droping the hammer when they land for repairs? Heck, maybe some random traffic droid caught video of a person murdering half a dozen Imperial Citizens? The Imps will go on a man hunt to be sure.

Alternately, you could just provide him with less things to shoot. Give them a mission where they need to fish for information at a social party. Heck have them go to a planet where he can't walk the streets with military hardware? Have them take a package to a Core world where weapons are prohibited at all?

But most importantly, have fun! and go with the majority. If he is detracting from the other players experiences, talk to him outside of game. If he isn't willing to budge then make the hard decision. One player isn't worth the rest of them.

and if he gets really annoying, deus ex rancorus him. (an sith sorcery infused rancor pops out of a pocket dimension and eats you. make a new character)

I'll reference the RAW tonight at home and see what I can come up with.

I agree with others about having a group discussion if the other players are getting bored. That should be your first step, based on what you said it's not a one-to-one conversation.

If the group doesn't mind then your NPCs will need to fight 'smarter', they'll have heard about this crazy auto-firing monster and will use extreme range snipers, ambushes at close range, gas or grenades, smoke grenades for extreme cover, they'll attack the group in space. Maybe extremely cunning Nemsis would hire them to a weapon restricted planet or station where only blaster pistols are allowed and then attack them.

Also during his roles make sure you're cashing in Destiny points and hit him with out of ammo or weapon jam if despair comes up.

Finally I think FFG could have balanced auto-fire if they had added a slow firing 1 temporary, until end of your next turn, effect to the weapon after an auto-fire is used, miss or hit.

One houserule I've been considering is the use of "zones" instead of range bands, and I think they may come in handy here. I was tinkering with this in my Savage Worlds games, and it's kind of a middle ground between the two.

This is what the FATE system uses and it works very well. I still think the splitting of extra damage makes sense. Just because I hit one guy really well should mean I hit all 8 guys really well. Similar to DnD 4e extra damage attacks like Sneak Attack, it only applies to the first target.

I try and avoid house rules when an actual rule can serve. In this case the RAW says you have to choose target ahead of time so you can set difficulty (including adding Difficulty or Setbacks for doing a 360), and that to determine if an opponent has suffered enough damage to go down counts as a "Notice a single important point in the ongoing conflict"

These two things should be enough for now without house ruling at all.

Basically don't house rule if you don't have to, house rules nearly always have unintended consequences.

I try and avoid house rules when an actual rule can serve. In this case the RAW says you have to choose target ahead of time so you can set difficulty (including adding Difficulty or Setbacks for doing a 360), and that to determine if an opponent has suffered enough damage to go down counts as a "Notice a single important point in the ongoing conflict"

These two things should be enough for now without house ruling at all.

Basically don't house rule if you don't have to, house rules nearly always have unintended consequences.

This is the route that I have proposed. It is difficult to have him declare every target before the roll, as he doesn't know how many shots he will activate until after the roll. Asking a player to assign ADV before the dice pool resolves is unfair.

Although asking him to declare his intentions before the roll isn't, I suppose if he knew ahead of time that he was intending on shooting two dudes to the left, one to the right on the gantry way, and then flipping around to fire two shots into the dude behind him I would upgrade the checks to account for the difficulty of the shot.

To address the use of destiny points, I dislike the idea of picking on certain players with this mechanic, but I agree that throwing a chance for despair is fair in this case, as it is a very complicated and dangerous maneuver. My worry is that I feel like I'm punishing a PC for what is (sadly) a legitimate character build that functions within the RAW. Then again, bad things happen to bad people. The force seeks balance.

This is the route that I have proposed. It is difficult to have him declare every target before the roll, as he doesn't know how many shots he will activate until after the roll. Asking a player to assign ADV before the dice pool resolves is unfair.

Although asking him to declare his intentions before the roll isn't, I suppose if he knew ahead of time that he was intending on shooting two dudes to the left, one to the right on the gantry way, and then flipping around to fire two shots into the dude behind him I would upgrade the checks to account for the difficulty of the shot.

To address the use of destiny points, I dislike the idea of picking on certain players with this mechanic, but I agree that throwing a chance for despair is fair in this case, as it is a very complicated and dangerous maneuver. My worry is that I feel like I'm punishing a PC for what is (sadly) a legitimate character build that functions within the RAW. Then again, bad things happen to bad people. The force seeks balance.

I don't think this is unfair to have the player say "I'm going to attempt to hit these five guys" without knowing for sure if he's going to have the Advantage to pull it off. Narratively you can explain it as he swept his gun across where these guys are and just didn't actually hit all of them. He doesn't need to say "This one then this one, then this one..." he can choose after the fact, when he knows how many Adv he has, which of those five to hit. He just can't add one from outside the group and if he wants to see if one took enough damage to go down he just has to spend an Adv to do so.

I try and avoid house rules when an actual rule can serve. In this case the RAW says you have to choose target ahead of time so you can set difficulty (including adding Difficulty or Setbacks for doing a 360), and that to determine if an opponent has suffered enough damage to go down counts as a "Notice a single important point in the ongoing conflict"

These two things should be enough for now without house ruling at all.

Basically don't house rule if you don't have to, house rules nearly always have unintended consequences.

This is the route that I have proposed. It is difficult to have him declare every target before the roll, as he doesn't know how many shots he will activate until after the roll. Asking a player to assign ADV before the dice pool resolves is unfair.

Although asking him to declare his intentions before the roll isn't, I suppose if he knew ahead of time that he was intending on shooting two dudes to the left, one to the right on the gantry way, and then flipping around to fire two shots into the dude behind him I would upgrade the checks to account for the difficulty of the shot.

To address the use of destiny points, I dislike the idea of picking on certain players with this mechanic, but I agree that throwing a chance for despair is fair in this case, as it is a very complicated and dangerous maneuver. My worry is that I feel like I'm punishing a PC for what is (sadly) a legitimate character build that functions within the RAW. Then again, bad things happen to bad people. The force seeks balance.

In a way, I think you're being a little easy on this player. He's rules-lawyering enough to bother you through RAW, but you don't want to enforce parts of the RAW that would limit some of his antics. I can sympathize, certainly, but I think it might benefit you both to do so (and the party). Declaring targets before auto-firing is part of the RAW, and it helps to limit how obnoxious auto-fire can be during combat. Without knowing how many shots a player will get, they'll probably be inclined to be conservative and pick only a few targets (if you make him upgrade the difficulty for trying to shoot many far away targets, at least), rather than gaming the system to maximize every single shot.

I don't see it as being unfair, either. Even with auto-firing weapons, when you pull the trigger of a gun, you are intending to hit a certain group of people. Which shots hit are more of a coincidence in this case. You don't, however, fire the weapon and then use the force to know which shots are "good" and then bend them at your targets. That is less auto-fire and more guided missile machine gun.

Unless it's the ZF-1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7wOX2WqbXE

what was his total dice pool? to hit 7 targets AND 3 success is 10 symbols on 5 dice with no difficulty dice.

I don't have it right in front of me but...

5 Agility, 4 training, Double aim for 2 boost dice, a scope for one more, Superior weapon quality for automatic + 1 ADV, and Jury Rigged for Auto fire activation on 1 ADV. From what I can remember...

Vs. 2 difficulty dice at long range (scope) and other applicable setback dice from ranged defence.

I don't have it right in front of me but...

5 Agility, 4 training, Double aim for 2 boost dice, a scope for one more, Superior weapon quality for automatic + 1 ADV, and Jury Rigged for Auto fire activation on 1 ADV. From what I can remember...

Vs. 2 difficulty dice at long range (scope) and other applicable setback dice from ranged defence.

Perhaps you should let him, and just toss a few rancor beasts at them?

Half his build is in that blaster.

I don't have it right in front of me but...

5 Agility, 4 training, Double aim for 2 boost dice, a scope for one more, Superior weapon quality for automatic + 1 ADV, and Jury Rigged for Auto fire activation on 1 ADV. From what I can remember...

Vs. 2 difficulty dice at long range (scope) and other applicable setback dice from ranged defence.

Whats his Brawn? Because a Heavy Blaster Rifle is a 6 ENC weapon and it has the Cumbersome 3 quality.

I hope you're not hand waving ENC because it's there to help balance weapons and armor.

He needs at least a Brawn 3 to even use the weapon without a penalty, if he doesn't then he suffers +1 Difficulty Die for each point under. Additionally for each point over his ENC threshold he adds 1 Setback Die (Black)

scope lowers diff not add to the pool. at long range with auto-fire diff is PPPP, scope change diff to PPP. if the targets are rivels someone should have had adversary 1. pool should look some what like this: GYYYYUU-PPR with maybe BB added for cover and trying to clear a large room. also I would have destiny flip for 1 more upgrade for using a two-man weapon solo.

why I am asking is besides gaming the system he got a great roll. as the scope goes, if you auto-fire on 1 target it counts but sweeping a room or suppesive fire it will not count is how my group would treat it.

also I would have destiny flip for 1 more upgrade for using a two-man weapon solo.

You're thinking Heavy Repeating Blaster, he's using a Heavy Blaster Rifle which has Auto-fire.

If he has a HRB that would be Munchkinism for sure...

Also where is this guy hiding this thing? I can't imagine many places that would be ok with a civilian carrying around that kind of fire power. And meeting any sort of underworld connection while packing that thing is an instant cancellation.