Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    FriendoftheDork

    + friends - friends
    325 link karma
    6,697 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] Pillaging should cause grievances FriendoftheDork 1 points ago in civ

    Pillaging districts have a potential long-term penalty, repairing multiple district in a city that also has had all it's mines destroyed actually takes quite a few turns - I think I spend about 30 turns on a captured capital (with good tiles) just repairing all the stuff. It would also make more sense that to burn down libraries, marketplaces, skyscrapers etc. would piss people off a lot more than tearing down some mines and burning farmland.

    [–] Mali Is WAY Stronger Than I Expected FriendoftheDork 1 points ago in civ

    I found the early nerfed mines were more a problem than the -30% to be fair. Once the mines are buffed by techs and you got sawmills, it's not so bad.

    [–] Lady of the Reeds and Marshes doesn't work ? FriendoftheDork 1 points ago in civ

    Yup. Desert flood plains are also rare, I have yet to see a single tile in two games. Everything is either grassland floodplains or plains floodplains (argh silly name).

    [–] Eliminate a civ in GS with no grievances FriendoftheDork 1 points ago in civ

    Really? Because the AI seems to get "other civs have grievences against you" as a penalty pretty fast when you start taking cities. I was DoWed by two civs, giving me 100 g against them. Then I took two cities giving me about 60 g against, so I thought I was still on top. Even so, other civs got some negative modifers against me - one even my ally (who was also allied with the target, so that makes some sense).

    I could really use a more in-depth explanation on how the grievance system works compared to the old WM score. At hte very least I can see that the penalties are generally much lower, but having -60 from grievances or -150 from WMS is pretty much the same in a game short term, they will denounce you at the very least and stay mad for a long time.

    [–] Krime Bill and specialisations FriendoftheDork 1 points ago in Shadowrun

    Specializations are examples, the GM could allow "pole arm" as a specialization if it fits the bill.

    [–] Missiles and rockets FriendoftheDork 1 points ago in Shadowrun

    Yeah, you weren't wrong overall.

    I like to think of the threshold of an opposed test as the defenders hits. Thus if he got 0 hits, 1 hit gives you 1 net hit.

    I looked at the R&G options for awhile and tried them out with my group, but the "Run for your life" option just became entirely superior to anything else and made grenades a non-issue to anyone with more than 5 Initative score, which basically is everyone. Especially indirect area spells went from being very useful to complete crap right away. I kept the "throw back" rule though as it required a whole action worth of points, as well as a test and some movement. Not going to happen very often, but when it does it's fairly thematic.

    RAW aside:

    Since I play in a 2050s setting I don't use wireless grenades as default just yet, so timer for handgrenades and impact (rather than motion sensor) for minigrenades is what I use right now. Grenades are simply a bit too deadly to be a normal combat weapon, so it becomes one for area denial or grenade launchers you don't normally carry around unless you really mean business. Timers are set for one pass instead, as 3 seconds is too long in SR5 combat vs. in real life where just throwing it takes away a few of those seconds, so by the time it is registered near you there is no time to run. SR don't really take into account the time a grenade spends in the air, tumbling around near you, and the time needed to observe it, recognize it for what it is, and then react, especially in a firefight when you are focused on shooting and not getting shot.

    [–] So the "Our troops are merely passing by" event was fixed going into Civ 6 because you could just ignore it, but in GS they decided to break it again. FriendoftheDork 1 points ago in civ

    That would be in US coastal waters, which in civ terms is borders. Crossing them without permission is a declaration of war.

    Sending a carrier fleet in neutral waters a bit away from Hawai'i though? They can complain, but that's it. The US and China does this all the time in the South china Sea. Of course in real life there are not so much strict rules as countries can use their own judgement. If before WW1 Russia mobilized their armies and sent them to the border with Germany, Germany might be able to convince the powers that this constituted an act of war and be given casus belli to declare - not dissimilar to someone citing self defense for shooting someone who draws a gun and points it in your direction.

    [–] So the "Our troops are merely passing by" event was fixed going into Civ 6 because you could just ignore it, but in GS they decided to break it again. FriendoftheDork 2 points ago in civ

    Yup! Came here to post about this bug/feature that I couldn't remember from the changelog. What's worse, I am friends with Tomyris, so when I was told to bugger off, I couldn't even choose the declare war option either - it was basically just forcing me to say "just passing by" which the game interprets as a solemn wow to move all troops away within a few turns or be a damned liar. The ignore option still had some drawbacks, but this is even more ridiculous than the problem in civ5 as there you could at least backstab friends.

    This is going to piss me off so many times until they fix it again.

    [–] So the "Our troops are merely passing by" event was fixed going into Civ 6 because you could just ignore it, but in GS they decided to break it again. FriendoftheDork 2 points ago in civ

    If the target in question hasn't been informed it's at war it's by definition a surprise attack. The message being sent to the US only hours before the attack. If they had prepared for the attack, then given the US 24 hour warning, it would be different.

    [–] Missiles and rockets FriendoftheDork 1 points ago in Shadowrun

    That's an in-depth explanation of the rules that clarifies much. If the rules itself was equally unambiguous, there would be no problem.

    One thing I react to though: You seem stress the difference between net hits signifying an opposed test vs meeting a threshold. This is incorrect, as exceeding a threshold also constitutes net hits - from the chapter about Hits & Treshold:

    In most tests, the number of hits you get can do more than just determine whether you succeed; it can add to your success. The number of hits you have that is more than what you needed is referred to as your net hits.

    It doesn't refute your points otherwise though - I had pretty much "house ruled" the same outcome even before I knew that's how the rules work.

    Also the last part seems unsupported by the rules:

    What people might debate is how you resolve the scenario when you use a motion sensor trigger to aim at a location close to your target (like the floor or a wall next to the target etc) rather than aiming directly at your target. This is less clear, but I think the general consensus is that you resolve it as a threshold 3 test. If you reach the threshold then you will hit the location and it will not scatter. If you get one or two hits (not net hits since this is just a threshold test) then it might scatter (each hit reduce scatter by 1 meter). If you don't get any hits then it will scatter the full distance.

    There were plenty debates about how this worked in SR4, with some claiming you could target the ground to circumvent the need for more hits than the defender (no threshold 3 then), while others thought it was the only sane way of handling it since there might be multiple targets that conceivably all defend against it. Still, the argument was in favor of requiring some sort of defense to make it possible to survive these things.

    IMO it makes sense that to balance out the the power of these weapons you either need some major drawback (timer, wireless vulnerability) or require an opposed attack roll. While it realistically makes more sense to target the ground next to an opponent than trying to hit the frame of the character itself, at least when penetration isn't an issue, it can be explained as the target being somewhere else when the missile strikes, since unlike the system actions are simultaneous and combat fluid. If you can dodge bullets without magic or being Neo, you should be able to dodge explosions Hollywood style.

    [–] Missiles and rockets FriendoftheDork 1 points ago in Shadowrun

    If it was clear there would not be myriads of posts asking about how this works. There are posts from when SR5 wad released, and probably a few the last couple of years too.

    A bit modified could refer to the "full scatter" rule for example (which is also unclear. 6 on every die? No reduction for hits?) What persuades me is the "uses ranged standard attack roll", but that's the only part that does.

    [–] Missiles and rockets FriendoftheDork 1 points ago in Shadowrun

    You only need a single hit? I thought all of these AoE attacks needed 3 hits to not scatter. If you only need 1 it makes it a better option in many cases. I must have missed your part about scatter. Are the rules clear about this or is it just inferred from the "use standard ranged attack rule"?

    Not saying it's a bad interpretation, but I wish it was explicit.

    [–] Missiles and rockets FriendoftheDork 1 points ago in Shadowrun

    Yeah, the hacking part is why you might not want to use wireless rockets. Although they only arm after 5 meters flight, it might be able to overwrite that with hacking (not sure).

    Because vehicles are larger targets, they should be easier to hit. Also it is harder to "dodge" with a vehicle than a person in general.

    [–] Missiles and rockets FriendoftheDork 1 points ago in Shadowrun

    Yeah I meant for impact trigger. Airburst link is wireless, but timed is probably not intended for rockets.

    Hitting a vehicle with a rocket or a person should also be quite different.

    [–] how to handle player retreating/disengaging from combat? FriendoftheDork 1 points ago in Shadowrun

    I wouldn't mind a team-based rule for this. As it is, it's a free for all with app participants having "perfect" information about the situation. There may be some fighting retreat rules from Run&Gun, but they probably require good skills for that and mostly just give a few bonuses.

    In most games I've played, SR or others, this is just handwaved. The GM tells the players that the enemy seems to slip away, and the understanding is that this is just something that happens, even if technically it is impossible for the agility 4 corpsec to run away from an agility 11 adept. When the PCs retreat, the NPCs are likely to get some parting shots maybe, but then the combat is over until the GM maybe introduces a chase scene with the same enemy or a new one called in as reinforcements.

    But if either side doesn't "play ball" it doesn't really work - said Adept can just run after the enemy and chop them down one by one, or in the oposite case will be long gone when the agility 3 Magician struggles to keep up and gets shot in the back repeatedly by the corpsec.

    I posted an idea about "lull in fighting" or combat pauses that could occur organically in a combat where both sides are interested in healing up, reloading, talk between eachother etc. while in cover, inspired by the Twilight 2013 system. In that game, when there is such a lull either side can fairly easily choose to slip away. If they attempt to do it while under heavy fire however, it is almost impossible without taking lots of shots to the back. More easily for combat characters to pull off in SR, but there is likely to be one or two that can't shrug off repeated 10+ dice of long bursts while running away.

    [–] Missiles and rockets FriendoftheDork 1 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago) in Shadowrun

    So hitting a vehicle with an RPG is practically impossible without Edging the roll?

    EDIT: Thought these launchers had accuracy 3 and needed 3 hits on a direct attack test, which would make them almost never hit.

    [–] 2 American women detained after speaking Spanish in Montana file suit FriendoftheDork 3 points ago in news

    Yeah, but discriminating based on ability is very different from based on race, gender etc.

    You could have a job that required a certain height maximum or minimum for example.

    [–] Gathering Storm: First Impressions Megathread FriendoftheDork 9 points ago in civ

    Have the AI become far more competitive on Religions? In my game with Egypt and normal size map, all the viable religions were founded before I got to the classical age. Normally I can get the tier 2 government and use the prophet card together with a holy site two get one of the prophets. Ironically my holy site gives me +6 faith by itself.

    Civs that got religions were Persia, Greece, Brazil, and two Unmet ones. Not exactly civs I thought would go for religion there.

    [–] Nubia settled on the Nile, is this coincidence or is it supposed to happen? FriendoftheDork 1 points ago in civ

    Yeah my Egypt settled on the Nile too. No coincidence. Although the continent was random.

    [–] Thick barriers (or how much protection does that snowbank offer? FriendoftheDork 1 points ago in Shadowrun

    Hollywood eh? Depends on the tree really. Typical assault rifles today will not penetrate fairly thick trees.

    Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO4KYB1veLI