Spray and Pray

Homebrew & House Rules
#1

I’ve been considering a house rule for auto-fire, as i think it’s a little off that weight of fire is just a hands down detriment to hitting anything. Paradoxically, it’s also perfectly fine that auto-fire doesn’t gel well with precision.

So my idea is to crib from from the Blast and Guided qualities, and let three advantages from a missed autofire attack be spent to cause a single hit on the original target, causing base damage.

I’d love for people to give me worst case scenarios where such a rule would be unbalanced and horribly abused.

#2

The biggest concern is that a lot of heavy weapons have auto-fire, or even auto-fire only, and when the character has a decent pool the odds of getting neither net success nor 3 Advantage/a Triumph are very slim. Even the occasional miss becomes a hit anyway. With how already abused auto-fire can be, this buff makes it far too meta and takes away what is usually the downside to using auto-fire, because instead of a choice between higher risk to fail and a chance for multiple hits, it becomes the same or less chance to miss with a chance to get additional hits.

From a narrative standpoint, I initially thought the same way, but I’ve since learned more about automatic weapons, and so I’ll give a short description here of the various factors that I think make the RAW correct:

Controllability: Automatic weapons have rapidly repeated recoil. This makes it harder to keep the weapon’s sights on target, and results in a bigger “group” than if you were to pick and choose your shots.

Range: Smaller automatic weapons are lower velocity, use pistol cartridges (or pistol-proportional damage such as with the DH-17), and are only particularly accurate or useful at close ranges where you’re very likely to hit because the target is proportionally much bigger. Here, they are very effective, and in game you’re likely to Succeed with multiple Advantage or Success, either of which can be credited to the high volume of fire. The increase in difficulty makes sense for the loss of accuracy, because you’re less likely to land hits in critical areas because your aim will always be a little off. The actual relevance of that to real combat rather than hit-point/critical injury combat is at best debatable, but that’s a problem with the underlying system, not Auto-fire itself.

Doctrine: Larger automatic weapons, usually using rifle-caliber (LMG, light repeating blaster) or anti-material (HMG, heavy repeating blaster) ammunition are used as much for suppressive fire as for actual targeting. Machine gunners “paint” a zone, cutting down swathes of infantry or suppressing said infantry with the threat of cutting them down. Accuracy of fire or spread is actually not supremely important here because you want to cover a broad area. The M2 Browning .50 cal is actually very accurate, but it is intended for anti-material (e.g., anti-vehicle/aircraft) use rather than anti-infantry, for which a .50 cal is not ideal and a .30 cal is a more suitable choice (for reasons practical and logistical, mostly). Generally, higher rate of fire equals lower practical accuracy due in large part to controllability. Shorter bursts or selective fire (non-Auto-fire use of an Auto-fire weapon) will have greater hit probability for a single target. In the case of using the auto-fire setting at a longer range, success would more be a lucky hit, while Advantage on Failure would more be about Setback and what-not as you successfully suppress the enemy, keeping their heads down. What in game-terms is “select fire” is more likely to achieve both of those objectives.

Psychological: To an undisciplined machine gunner, firing wildly might seem like a good idea. “I’m firing so much, I’ve got to hit something!” However, that isn’t really true. Even suppressive fire must be carefully aimed, because to be effective it has to be within a certain proximity to the targets. More highly skilled and trained gunners will be more accurate in both auto-fire and selective fire, while novices picking up an automatic weapon for what might be the first time will be more likely to trust in volume of fire to hit their target and miss everything as a result. At close ranges, you’re unlikely to miss anyway under firing-range conditions, but throw in combat, cover, and movement, and those chances increase dramatically.

Just as an example, in flight simulators, many describe an increase in accuracy when using slower-firing cannons rather than machine guns because they focus more on actually aiming their shots since they lack the ammunition or rate of fire to try to cover the sky in rounds.

All that to say, I think the +1 difficulty is appropriate, especially if the intention is to hit multiple targets. If you’re trying to engage two separate targets in a combat environment, you’re less likely to hit either one than if you are focused on a single target. If you’re focused on a single target and trying to get a high volume of fire on target, you’ll either be trying to track the target with your burst (rather than firing a spread or a line in front of the target), which is very difficult, or you’ll be holding down the trigger for a longer burst, which results in a corresponding inaccuracy. Non-Auto-fire use of an Auto-fire weapon could represent a “spray and pray” method of targeting a single target, with the lack of a chance for multiple hits representing the large volume of fire over a broader area resulting in lower concentration of rounds hitting the target. It doesn’t have to mean you’re firing single shots.

So I agree with the RAW, but don’t like the addition of “Auto-fire (only)” to some weapons.

#3

I have some practical experience with automatic firearms from the army, and it’s a world of difference firing something like an assault rifle on full-auto (with very few, if any, exceptions you don’t) and a machinegun (where you very rarely don’t). I haven’t got much experience with pistol caliber SMGs (tried it once) and my impression is that they fall a bit in between.

The thing is, while bad for precision, a nice controllable burst of auto-fire slightly improves your chances of hitting something. To clarify what I mean by controllable, even the notoriously heavy and mild recoiling assault rifle I was trained on (the AK5/FN FNC) doesn’t benefit much from auto-fire compared to quick follow-up semi-auto shots. On the other hand, with a little practice, even while firing from the hip using a sling, “walking” fire onto a target with a belt-fed machinegun can be surprisingly accurate.
In the game, auto-fire is auto-fire, whether it’s a tripod mounted e-web or something like a machine pistol, and the thing is, auto-fire is often just generally a bad choice. You talk about suppressive fire, but that plain just doesn’t work, as the suppressive effects would come from advantages, which you roll less of due to increased difficulty. Meaning that non-auto-fire is more suppressive.

On one hand, the approach of increasing difficulty/risk for increasing possible rewards makes sense from a game balance perspective, and gels pretty well with something like an assault rifle. On the other hand, unless you cheese it, auto-firing is often just not worth it, due to the increased difficulty.

I agree, and this might where I have the biggest bone to pick, meaning that a “spray and pray”-rule being tacked on to just autofire (only) might be a nice balance.

#4

Right. I see this as being a non-Auto-fire use of an Auto-fire weapon.

This makes sense to me, and the 3 Advantage rule is reasonable and consistent with how it is handled for other weapon qualities.

Depends on the context, but especially at Short range, it doesn’t take a phenomenal pool to really rip some people up. Also, it’s worth keeping in perspective that you’re essentially getting an entire second attack, not just a slight increase in damage (though it may well be slight if you’re only using a repeating pistol).

YYGGB is, on average, 3 Success/3.12 Advantage vs. Average’s average of 1 Failure/1.5 Threat, so you’re looking at an average result of 2s1.6a for Average, and 2.5s2.35a for Easy. However, it doesn’t take much to shift the first result into second hit territory, and this is a borderline starting character, maybe a mildly advanced character.

True, but if you make it hit on 3 Advantage, now you’re making the problem worse because only non-Auto-fire is at all likely to generate that suppressive fire.

Honestly, they need a good mechanic for Suppressive Fire. I’ve adopted a “Starship-Action”-like action for Auto-fire weapons where the wielder can attempt a check at a set difficult to suppress a target and engaged targets, sometimes with a Blanket Barrage-type effect where an automatic hit can be scored with the target’s Threat or Despair.

#5

For starter/mildly advanced character, it’s pretty good, but above all, a pretty specialized/optimized character, and I guess that’s what annoys me, auto-fire being primarily a high skill option rather than a force multiplier.
I’m not saying skill doesn’t matter with auto-fire, but the bigger and less recoiling a gun gets, the easier it is to make use of volume of fire. It’s the thing I want to adress, without wrecking game balance.

#6

I know this is an old thread, but I’ve been considering replacing Autofire, with Autofire Setting # where appropriate.

When using the Autofire setting, increase difficulty by 1, and you would be able to use the Barrage attacks from starship combat. Narratively, the # represents the rate of fire. Mechanically it will represent the “number of batteries” from the barrage actions.

I know there will be some minor tweaks based on character vs vehicle combat, but the basic concepts will remain.

What do you think?

#7

That’s a good starting place, but I would recommend simplifying it because unlocking a range of actions is strange for a weapon quality, and those actions are poorly designed anyway.
My suggestion:
“The character may increase the Difficulty by one to use the Auto-Fire quality. If successful, he may spend 1 Advantage to increase the damage of one hit of his attack by an amount equal to the Auto-Fire quality and may spend 2 Advantage to inflict a hit for base damage to a second target within Short range of the first target. The second target must not be more difficult than the first.”

You could also drop the “within Short” qualification, but I think it makes sense to not be able to use the Auto-Fire quality to shoot in two directions at once.

#8

I think I get where you are coming from, however I am not a fan of how Autofire is done RAW. It is more reactive than proactive. (“Oh good, I rolled enough advantage to do what I wanted”)

Using “autofire” actions based on the barrages you can do:

  • Suppressive Fire (Blanket Barrage) - Average combat check against a target. If the check succeeds, until start of characters next turn, the target and all opponents at short range from the original target upgrade difficulty of ranged combat checks once, plus once per aa scored on the Suppressive Fire check. If the opponents combat check generates tt, they suffer one automatic hit at half base damage (rounding up), if the check generated D, suffer one automatic hit at full base damage.

  • Focused Fire (Concentrated Barrage) - Ranged combat check, at +1 difficulty, against a single target. If the attack succeeds, character may spend a once to add +1 damage per S on the check. The additional damage can be triggered multiple times, not to exceed Autofire Setting rating.

  • Spray and Pray (Overwhelming Barrage) - Ranged combat check, at +1 difficulty, against a target. If the attack succeeds, character may spend adv to deal one additional hit to a target that is at short range from the original target, the extra hit can be triggered multiple times, not to exceed Autofire Setting rating, but cannot target any adversary that has already been hit using this action, or any adversary with a higher defense rating than the original target. Damage done to each hit is equal to weapon base damage, +1 damage per S on the check.

I like these options better than RAW because I think it gives the players more agency in what they want to do with a rapid fire weapon. Also, I think it better reflects how such weapons are typically used narratively.

#9

We may just have a base philosophical disagreement here about what a weapon quality should do. I’m more inclined to keep it within the scale of what a weapon quality typically is, but if you find it preferable to work outside that I’ll see what I can do to help.

Blanket Barrage struggles to translate because of how damage scales in personal scale vs. planetary scale. Half damage with a turbolaser will do a nasty number on your starfighter, but half damage of a blaster rifle vs. a stormtrooper is 0 Wounds.

Here’s a suggested rewrite, partially based on a “special attack” I made for the system I’m building: “The character may attempt a Hard check using this weapon’s skill against a target within the weapon’s range (this check is not modified by cover, but concealment still applies). If successful, the target and all targets within Short range upgrade the difficulty of their combat checks once, plus once per 2 Advantage. If a target generates 2 Threat or a Despair, it suffers a hit for base damage plus net success.”

I further extended it to include movement using mechanics built into the system. The tricky thing with Blanket Barrage being intended for vehicles is that it’s intended to combat fighters, and fighters usually have to get in close to make their attacks, so it simulates training point-defense systems on a fighter making its attack run. In the case of personal-scale combat, nothing forces the target to remain where he is. You could counter that by having a target trying to perform a Move Maneuver roll a Setback die, suffering a hit on a Failure result.

Concentrated Barrage: For this, I prefer your initial idea of it being damage equal to the auto-fire rating. That would affect my answer for the previous version, though. “If successful, the character may spend 2 Advantage to increase the damage of one hit of the attack by an amount equal to the weapon’s Auto-Fire quality.” I think that keeps it more in line with how a quality works, making it easier to remember, and prevents it from getting out of hand too quickly. One of the big complaints is about stacking damage against a single target.

Overwhelming Barrage is very similar to Auto-Fire RAW, except stronger since it only costs 1 Advantage. It has additional limitations and qualifiers, but I’m not sure that really balances it out. You also run into the problem of whether minions count as one target or multiple. Can you hit the same minion group multiple times?

Just for reference, here’s how I handled automatic weapons in my system. I think this is basically what you’re wanting to represent.
Because weapons have “special attacks” they can do, these kinds of actions are wrapped into my rules. The FFG SWRPG is built in such a way that it can’t handle automatic weapons very well.

Same concept, different system

Hail of Lead: Before attacking a target, as an Incidental, the wielder may add the Scattershot quality [spend Opportunity to deal X damage to target Engaged with the first target or to the first target on a miss] at half the weapon’s base damage and expend [additional ammunition].

Mow Down: Before attacking a Flanked target within the weapon’s range, as an Incidental, the wielder may increase the Danger of his attack by one step and expend [additional ammunition]. If he succeeds, he resolves the initial hit and may then inflict a second hit for full damage to the original target or a target within Reach of the original target (the second target must not be more difficult than the initial target).
A Golden Opportunity may be spent to inflict a third hit in the same manner as the second.

Suppress: The wielder may attempt a Tricky (9) check (using the weapon’s skill) against a target within the weapon’s range (this check is not modified by cover, but concealment still applies) and expend [additional ammunition]. If he succeeds, the target and all characters within Close [~10 yards] range of the target are Suppressed until the beginning of the acting character’s next turn and suffer 1 Strain, +1 for every 3 net Success. If a Suppressed character generates a Critical Danger, he suffers an automatic hit.
2 Opportunity may be spent to give each affected character a Complication on his next check made before the start of the acting character’s next turn.
A Golden Opportunity may be spent to increase the Critical Danger threshold of all affected characters by 1 until the beginning of the acting character’s next turn.

If a Suppressed character attempts to move (by the Move Maneuver or some other method), roll a Danger die and increase the Critical Danger threshold by 1 (this stacks with other increases). If it generates a Critical Danger, the target suffers an automatic hit. After resolving this Danger roll, the character is no longer Suppressed.

#10

P47,

Thank you so much for all the input, I really do appreciate it.

So, on to my thoughts.

Blanket Barrage - I admit, I didn’t look at what half damage would be. Conceptually, I see this as laying down fire as a hazard. I don’t think it needs any specific character as a target, just a point in space. To me, this is a defensive maneuver, not intending to do damage. The only issue I have is that the damage is done in the adversaries turn. How about base damage + quality on two threat or despair. Or maybe base +1 per two threat and base + 4 on despair?

I was considering having any movement require a checked maneuver (athletics or coordination). The difficulty based on the setting #, with appropriate upgrades, boosts and setbacks. Against a blanket barrage you would get benefit of concealment, but cover is interesting. How many times have we seen characters crawling around on the floor avoiding the high power weapons ripping through the walls. (some cover isnt really cover) but a great cinematic scene that I think I worth allowing for.

Concentrated Barrage - I changed the increase from the quality number to successes when I used the quality number to limit the number of times it multiplies. I didn’t want to use it twice for different things. My thinking was successes will be 2ish on average, so that is what can get multiplied, and could reward a really good roll. I am open to alternatives.

I want this to represent just blasting the crap out of something. Honestly, probably intended to be most efficient as personal vs vehicle as way to maybe get through light armor, and less efficient against a single person.

Overwhelming Barrage - yeah, this felt most like the RAW autofire. I’m not sure about balance either, but I feel it’s worth play testing, and tweaking if necessary. I like the idea of not allowing a target to get hit more than once.

I feel minions are one target. I consistently run my minions as staying together. They get one turn, make one attack, etc.

Now, I’ll go check out your system. (Probably should have gone that first.)

Thanks

#11

Glad to be of service.

Base damage + quality makes the most sense, I think. Less math, and keeps the quality value relevant.

The reason for not applying Cover is that suppressive fire is intended to keep your opponent’s head down. When that head pops up, you then shoot that head. Suppressive fire needs to be accurate, it doesn’t need to hit. What actually impairs accuracy is if the enemy doesn’t know where you are (concealment). If I’m firing into the bushes where I think you are, but you’re ten feet to the left, my suppressive fire isn’t going to be as effective.
(Counterpoint to this: Cover gives the target more “safety,” or confidence, and limits the exposed target. This makes a hit less likely even if the suppressive fire is just as accurate. While true, I think this breaks down in two areas: A fleeing character isn’t in cover and increased confidence can cause someone to be more risky. Total effect I think is marginal at best, hence no effect of cover.)

A checked maneuver would fall within the rules to a certain extent, but it adds another aspect slows down the game. It also, I think, doesn’t make sense for the suppressed character’s skill to help him escape. While outside the general pattern of the game, tossing a Setback die with a 33% chance of a hit is the most efficient way of resolving it.

Like I said, the problem is with the single-target stacking. Higher-tier characters can reliably generate high quantities of Advantage, and you had it as 1 Advantage to add damage equal to success any number of times up to the weapon’s auto-fire quality. For example, I have a character who can reliably generate lots of symbols. At Short, it’s Average, let’s say he nets 4s3a. Blaster rifle with Auto-Fire 3, that’s 9+4+(4*3)=25 damage, and it’s only Soaked once. Normal Blaster Rifle, that’s 13 damage, Soaked once. Normal Auto-Fire, that’s (9+4-Soak)*2. If Soak is 5, that’s 20 Wounds vs. 8 Wounds vs. 16 Wounds. Making it 2 Advantage to deal additional Wounds equal to the Auto-Fire quality is a more reasonable trade-off and puts a hard cap on how much damage you can do. It’s also far simpler.

There are many ways to play with those numbers to get different results, such as lowering base damage, messing around with total Advantage, etc., but that’s just an example.

One of the design flaws with Concentrated Barrage is how it stacks and can get out of hand. The classic example is a Lucrehulk one-shotting a super star destroyer with an Easy Gunnery check.

So if four Rivals stand next to each other, they are four targets. If four minions stand in exactly the same position, they’re one target. So a Force user can lift a single life-size wooden statue, or for the same FP cost can lift six stormtroopers?

Some of this is flawed logic in the FFG system, or at least lines left unclear, but that’s why I point out the trouble with single- vs. multi-targeting.

#12

Curse you! (Just kidding). You make so many good arguments, I feel the air rushing out of what I thought was a good idea.

I love the narrative feel of this system, I just think some of the rules encourage players to think mechanically instead of cinematically. I am searching for ways to encourage them to do things they see in the movies. (It’s better to look cool than actually be realistic)

Autofire seemed to be one of those areas that didn’t quite have the “feel”. Sez la vie.

1 Like
#13

You’re very correct in your assessment of the system and of Auto-Fire. That is one of my objectives in the system I’m building and in how I designed automatic weapons to work.

Your fundamental idea of “make Auto-Fire represented by special attacks” is exactly the approach I took in designing my system. The difficulty is that the FFG system isn’t designed for that and the “special attacks” in the FFG system don’t work very well, or at least don’t translate well to personal-scale combat.

If we keep working at it, I think we can find something that helps, but it’ll be more complicated and less familiar than the basic Auto-Fire quality (unless you just slightly modify Auto-Fire like I suggested before).

#14

I’ve tried a few attempts at Auto-Fire changes, but have never settled on one thing for long.

Like Penpen, I have some practical experience having been a M60 gunner (full auto belted bipod/tripod high caliber machinegun), M249 SAW gunner (full auto light machinegun, easily fired from the hip), Mk19 gunner (full auto, but shoots grenades, not sure if that counts), and have training/experience with full auto and 3-round burst assault rifles.

So, my take is full auto can increase odds to get a hit, but only in certain circumstances. Full auto is also good at suppression (making your target run away, or at least duck and not fire back as accurately or less often), but again only in certain circumstances.

At shorter ranges, odds on a hit will increase. At longer ranges, you could argue odds of a hit actually decrease. You may be firing more rounds, but they are going to be severely scattered. So, possibly give a Boost at Engaged/Short, no adjustment at Medium, and a Setback at Long/Extreme? Then, allow spending of Advantage to give a second hit with a successful attack. I would limit additional hit(s) to be upon the same target, or someone Engaged to that target. I would also suggest limiting the spending on extra hits to possibly Medium or closer - it should be very difficult to hit a target multiple times with a burst at long ranges. If you don’t like that, possibly increase the amount of Advantage you need to spend at longer ranges to get a second hit? But, that may be already taken care of by the added Setback. So it may be more simple to just go ahead and allow it with the caveat being you will likely have less Advantage to spend with the extra setback at longer ranges.

Suppression is a much different thing. Bigger calibers suppress better. Have someone shoot in your general direction with a burst of 5.56mm, then do so with a loud obnoxious 7.62mm. Both can kill you, but the 7.62mm just by its sound will quickly take the hero out of you. So, spend Advantages, regardless of a hit, to suppress the target. Maybe have each Advantage, regardless of a hit, give the target a Setback for a round to any Actions? You could also use two Advantage to instead keep the target from moving for a round (pinned down). I would then decrease the amount of Advantage needed by one for larger damage weapons. A Triumph could be used to implement Fear rules, possibly causing the target to run away.

You could mix and match if you roll well enough. Advantage could be spent on both an extra hit and to pin the target in place, for example.