N18 Fixing Stray Shots

[JawRippa]

Currently stay shots are very easy to abuse - if you target someone behind the initial target, you have a 4+ chance to hit the target regardless of its cover. I was pondering on two ways to houserule the issue away:

1. Stray shots occur only on natural 1's and only hit friendly fighters. This makes it impossible to abuse the mechanic, cuts on excessive rolling and goes with the trend in GW games of "a natural 1 usually means a really bad thing for you"
2. Stray shots hit fighter on 1 if in heavy cover, 1-2 if in lifght and 1-2-3 if in open field. This still leaves room for abuse by targetting someone in the back (especially if they are in the open field), but on the other side it heavily discourages having friendly fighters on your line of fire.

What do you think?

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

We went with 2.
It signficantly reduces the opportunity for abuse whilst still being realistic. It is logical than shooting through a corridor full of targets is more likely to hit something.

 

[cronevald]

I did like the idea that stray shots could be more common when the Underhive Zone Mortalis rules were still in play. Shooting down cramped metal corridors sounds like a pretty risky proposition to me. I didn't like the abusable execution though and much prefer stray shots on a 1 for general play.

 

[JawRippa]

We went with 2.
It signficantly reduces the opportunity for abuse whilst still being realistic. It is logical than shooting through a corridor full of targets is more likely to hit something.

I wonder if it is possible to combine both solutions while speeding up the dice rolling?
Stray shot triggers on any miss, roll a D6: '1-2-3' it hits closest friendly fighter and '6' it hits closest enemy.

 

[TopsyKretts]

No option for hitting on 6+ (regardless of friendly/enemy or cover)

 

[JawRippa]

No option for hitting on 6+ (regardless of friendly/enemy or cover)

Could you clarify?

 

[SweetOrbMace]

We just reversed the roll. So stray shots hit on a 4+ With cover modifiers applied where relevant. It doesn’t align with 1=bad approach, but at least aligns with other shooting. Doesn’t technically prevent abuse, but we’re a small group of players who know and trust each other not to abuse

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

We just reversed the roll. So stray shots hit on a 4+ With cover modifiers applied where relevant. It doesn’t align with 1=bad approach, but at least aligns with other shooting. Doesn’t technically prevent abuse, but we’re a small group of players who know and trust each other not to abuse

That's basically what we did, same as option 2, just you've reversed the dice.

We didn't just want to say "apply cover modifiers" because that might suggest things like Trickshot or Infrasight would affect it, which shouldn't be the case.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Could you clarify?

Fighter in line of stray shot? Hit on 6+.

 

[JawRippa]

Fighter in line of stray shot? Hit on 6+.

Is it on any miss?

 

[TopsyKretts]

It's stray shots!

 

[Scabs]

Stray shots are hilarious! The best way to not abuse them is to not abuse them. That said (so, eloquently, BTW), unlike gang specific abuses, they are an abuse open to any and all. So what goes around comes around. Or choose better players. By the time you House Rule out the abuse from THAT guy, he's on to another. And, all you are doing is punishing the good guys.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

Every single time I've first explained RAW stray shots to a person the discussion goes;
"But I'm in full cover"
"I know, it doesn't matter, it's flat 4+ regardless"
"That's so stupid, you're more likely to hit me by missing!"
"Yeah... that's RAW for ya"
The current RAW is absolutely an issue even if it isn't being abused

Whereas with my houserule (option 2) there's never been any complaints. It's even *more* logical than RAW since cover applies.

Similarly, I hate "just don't abuse it" as a mitigation.
Firstly, people have different definitions of abuse. For example, some say using Overseer is WAAC abuse, others say it's fair game. When those two meet it's always going to be hurt feelings somewhere.
Secondly it puts pressure on players. They might want to do something "legitimate" that accidently causes the abuse. Do they do it anyway and inadvertently be an arsehole? Or do they not and get denied their totally legit thing as well?

 

[Scabs]

There are so many ways to abuse the game and the campaign you can't stop them all. Best to just not abuse it. It's why we don't House Rule stray shots. And, we have one player who just hates them. Which makes it even more fun.

 

[JawRippa]

There are so many ways to abuse the game and the campaign you can't stop them all. Best to just not abuse it. It's why we don't House Rule stray shots. And, we have one player who just hates them. Which makes it even more fun.

If your group is chill enough to allow leaving things like these unattended then I'm happy for you, but I'd much more prefer not having to tip-toe around broken core rule by simply fixing it instead.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

Perfection might be unobtainable, but you can make steps to improve.


Strayshots are great starting point. They're fairly common so it's a fairly noticable rule. Plus this change is simple and apparently more logical than the RAW, it's an improvement in every way.

I think it'd be silly not to include it.

 

[Scabs]

We are simulating criminal gangs of uneducated, underfed, immoral thugs and outcasts with exotic, mysterious (to them), unreliable weapons fighting over scraps of corpse meat in a dark, dank, dangerous, decrepit, dystopian industrial underhive filled with fatal fauna and flora and murderous psychotics. Perfection is not just unobtainable, it is undesirable.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

A grimdark theme is no excuse for bad game mechanics.

 

[Scabs]

I would disagree. Except for Unstable. THAT game mechanic vexes me. But, it is still funny.

 

[MrAndersson]

Why not just scrap the stray shots rule altogether?