Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: MINION <goehrigd@****.CANISIUS.EDU>
Subject: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:51:30 -0500
1.) I have seen that a lot of people like wearing full body armor
to the corner store in their games. Others like having a
essence of .005 and more crome than a '57 chevy. Other
worry that tanks are whimpy..

While it is true some people may think it is stupid or
whimpy to walk aroung in armored clothing and a light
pistol.. I will disagree.

a.) even in the deadliest games a guy can make a run in
his birthday suit. The number one rule of making a
good run is DON'T LET THEM KNOW YOUR THERE. Any troll
can blast his way in, the best way is not to be seen.

b.) armor is should not be used... why.. if your
making a run why are you getting shot at? See rule one.

c.) has anyone heard of tatics? Best way to keep from
getting waxed is not to get hit.. dive for cover.

d.) the police won't call in a SWAT team or assult
cannon if they think your lightly armed. This is
when your wirers 1 or 2 kick butt. The cops have
heavy pistols you have heavy pistols. The you have
wires the cops don't. You got an edge make it count.
If you've got an assult cannon and wires the
police have a CITY MASTER or panzer/T-BIRD.. Think about it.

e.) DocWagon won't touch you if you look suspicious
if you look like a bystander who was in the wrong place at the
wrong time you might get to use your card.

f.) You know the penalty for having wires 3 and muscle aug 4
in SEATTLE is? You disappear...

2.) Spells

I have also seen that people are trying to devise the
physics of spell casting. Here is an idea.

Why can't spells be cast through a camera?

Same reason ther aren't martix spirits or car spirits.
Spells are living entities of astral energy. Spirits can not
enter highly processed objects..(see spell damages/effects
against objects in the GRIMORE 2) The object's nature
inhibits them. In SR a wiz doesn't cast a spell, he creates
it, breathes life into it, and sends it on its way to do a job.
A shaman doesn't throw or fire a mana bolt he persuades
his totem, and gathers energy as an offering, and the totem
(a spirit) uses the energy to give life to a spell.

Also the spell must be able to "see" the target through
a foci or direct sight of the person's aura.

_____________________________________________________
| "Deaf And Blind And Dumb And Born To Follow, |
| What You Need Is Someone Strong to Guide You." |
|_____________________________________________________|
|Goehrigd@********.bitnet | Goehrigd@****.canisius.edu|
|_____________________________________________________|
Message no. 2
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:57:34 -0800
On Thu, 2 Mar 1995, MINION wrote:

> inhibits them. In SR a wiz doesn't cast a spell, he creates
> it, breathes life into it, and sends it on its way to do a job.
> A shaman doesn't throw or fire a mana bolt he persuades
> his totem, and gathers energy as an offering, and the totem
> (a spirit) uses the energy to give life to a spell.

I really *like* this. And it is why Paul Hume writes about
spells somethimes looking like odd sorts of animals on astral space.
By the way, I can recall it being said that a blind mage can
still assense (this was a heated argument on this list about 6 months
back). It is also noted in the German sourcebook that the Spokenkrei,
those "Spirit-Watchers" gifted with astral sight, lose if when they lose
their vision or get cybereyes. I imagine that the trauma of the loss
breaks their fragile connection to the mana flow.

> |Goehrigd@********.bitnet | Goehrigd@****.canisius.edu|

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 3
From: The Bastard Child of God <goehrigd@****.CANISIUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 15:16:04 -0500
On Thu, 2 Mar 1995, Adam Getchell wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Mar 1995, I wrote:
>
> > In SR a wiz doesn't cast a spell, he creates
> > it, breathes life into it, and sends it on its way to do a job.
> > A shaman doesn't throw or fire a mana bolt he persuades
> > his totem, and gathers energy as an offering, and the totem
> > (a spirit) uses the energy to give life to a spell.
>
> I really *like* this. And it is why Paul Hume writes about
> spells somethimes looking like odd sorts of animals on astral space.

I'm glad.. I felt that the way people were discussing spells on this
list as some sort of tool was degrading to magic. What I always liked
about SR was that spells were living breathing things where as in AD&D
they are just glorified combat mechanics. Lets stress the magic and
not the rules in games people..

People who play MAGE: THE ASCENSION know where I'm comming from.

It also mentions in the SR rules that spells are alive and that spells
can fight each other based on their forces. Any way I think my way
of describing it is cooler than saying "Spells are formulas that
you follow and get a result". Spells are insanity giving birth to
power, not rules.

_____________________________________________________
| "Deaf And Blind And Dumb And Born To Follow, |
| What You Need Is Someone Strong to Guide You." |
|_____________________________________________________|
|Goehrigd@********.bitnet | Goehrigd@****.canisius.edu|
|_____________________________________________________|
Message no. 4
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 11:21:09 +0100
>1.) I have seen that a lot of people like wearing full body armor
> to the corner store in their games. Others like having a
> essence of .005 and more crome than a '57 chevy. Other
> worry that tanks are whimpy..

I have to argue about this :) I suppose you're referring to me saying that a
Banshee isn't really a tank and that its armor of 18 is pretty low? As far
as I'm concerned the Banshee is a light tank or a scout vehicle. But
shadowrunners can't really take one on toe-to-toe, I agree with that. As far
as that's concerned it's a deadly vehicle (then again, I can show you ways
to take out an MBT with almost bare hands if you get close enough to it).

>DON'T LET THEM KNOW YOUR THERE
>if your making a run why are you getting shot at?
>Best way to keep from getting waxed is not to get hit..

That's the way FASA want people to run the shadows if I read the books well.
But I don't think you can expect players to behave the way FASA wants them
to. Also, if FASA wants people to go in stealthily, why do they give them
loads of guns, one even more deadly than the other?

> DocWagon won't touch you if you look suspicious
> if you look like a bystander who was in the wrong place at the
> wrong time you might get to use your card.

That's where I think you're wrong. DocWagon is a corp, not a civilian
ambulance service. Alright, they won't pull you out of a fight -- they use
their guns to protect their own stuff, but I think they would pick you up if
you're wounded no matter the situation.

> f.) You know the penalty for having wires 3 and muscle aug 4
> in SEATTLE is? You disappear...

To play the ball back to you: don't get caught.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Walk this world with me
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 5
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 11:22:35 +0100
> It also mentions in the SR rules that spells are alive and that spells
> can fight each other based on their forces. Any way I think my way
> of describing it is cooler than saying "Spells are formulas that
> you follow and get a result". Spells are insanity giving birth to
> power, not rules.

Are you some sort of shaman dude :) ? I figure that any hermetic
worth his salt would laugh his lungs out if he heard this explanation :)

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
L+>+++ 3 E--- N+ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5+ !j(-) R+++(--)
!G tv(++) b++ D+ B- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
Message no. 6
From: The Bastard Child of God <goehrigd@****.CANISIUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 08:15:27 -0500
On Fri, 3 Mar 1995, Gurth wrote:

> > worry that tanks are whimpy..
>
> I have to argue about this :) I suppose you're referring to me saying that a
> Banshee isn't really a tank and that its armor of 18 is pretty low? As far
> as I'm concerned the Banshee is a light tank or a scout vehicle. But
> shadowrunners can't really take one on toe-to-toe, I agree with that. As far
> as that's concerned it's a deadly vehicle (then again, I can show you ways
> to take out an MBT with almost bare hands if you get close enough to it).
>
Yes and no... I think T-Birds should be kept out of runner's hands unless
they are on special military operations..


> >DON'T LET THEM KNOW YOUR THERE
> >if your making a run why are you getting shot at?
> >Best way to keep from getting waxed is not to get hit..
>
> That's the way FASA want people to run the shadows if I read the books well.
> But I don't think you can expect players to behave the way FASA wants them
> to. Also, if FASA wants people to go in stealthily, why do they give them
> loads of guns, one even more deadly than the other?
>
the reason can be found in a section of a "BATTLELORDS" supplement
that the author of the equipment book wanted to be sure there is always
a way to take you down. Anyways most runners I know who kept a visible
profile bought the farm after a few runs..


> > DocWagon won't touch you if you look suspicious
> > if you look like a bystander who was in the wrong place at the
> > wrong time you might get to use your card.
>
> That's where I think you're wrong. DocWagon is a corp, not a civilian
> ambulance service. Alright, they won't pull you out of a fight -- they use
> their guns to protect their own stuff, but I think they would pick you up if
> you're wounded no matter the situation.
>
NEo Anarchist's guide to the Real life clearly states that Doc
won't enter any area that is "a security risk" If you're wounded
in the Barrens you better have a multi million nuyen deal or
your going to bleed to death.


> > f.) You know the penalty for having wires 3 and muscle aug 4
> > in SEATTLE is? You disappear...
>
> To play the ball back to you: don't get caught.
>

My point exactly.


_____________________________________________________
| "Deaf And Blind And Dumb And Born To Follow, |
| What You Need Is Someone Strong to Guide You." |
|_____________________________________________________|
|Goehrigd@********.bitnet | Goehrigd@****.canisius.edu|
|_____________________________________________________|
Message no. 7
From: The Bastard Child of God <goehrigd@****.CANISIUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 08:16:42 -0500
On Fri, 3 Mar 1995, Jani Fikouras wrote:

> > It also mentions in the SR rules that spells are alive and that spells
> > can fight each other based on their forces. Any way I think my way
> > of describing it is cooler than saying "Spells are formulas that
> > you follow and get a result". Spells are insanity giving birth to
> > power, not rules.
>
> Are you some sort of shaman dude :) ? I figure that any hermetic
> worth his salt would laugh his lungs out if he heard this explanation :)
>
shamans are such savage creatures...

My totem is WYRM

_____________________________________________________
| "Deaf And Blind And Dumb And Born To Follow, |
| What You Need Is Someone Strong to Guide You." |
|_____________________________________________________|
|Goehrigd@********.bitnet | Goehrigd@****.canisius.edu|
|_____________________________________________________|
Message no. 8
From: Michael Eames <eames@*.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 18:51:28 -0800
About players wearing Full Heavy Armor continually this would be plain
old uncomfortable and would wear somebody down. My players tried this
and I just told them flat out that you don't watch TV in your Heavy
Armor. Later I found a little obscure line in the SRII book. Which says
that for every point the protection of the armor exceeds your Quickness
you lose one Combat Pool. I don't know about other players groups but
mine tend to dislike losing Combat Pool. BTW I think I found this under
the Combat Pool area.
Message no. 9
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 14:10:26 +1100
Michael Eames writes:

> About players wearing Full Heavy Armor continually this would be plain
> old uncomfortable and would wear somebody down. My players tried this
> and I just told them flat out that you don't watch TV in your Heavy
> Armor. Later I found a little obscure line in the SRII book. Which says
> that for every point the protection of the armor exceeds your Quickness
> you lose one Combat Pool. I don't know about other players groups but
> mine tend to dislike losing Combat Pool. BTW I think I found this under
> the Combat Pool area.

I know what you mean, that rule is quite handy but it still allows sammies
to use Partial Heavy with realtive ease. I find that my players tend to not
bother about heavy armours anymore, they use the layered armour rules from
NAGRL instead. And, yes, they do try to sleep in their armour jackets :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 10
From: Malcalypse The Younger <shadow@******.NET>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 00:01:24 -0500
On Sat, 4 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> NAGRL instead. And, yes, they do try to sleep in their armour jackets :-)

I find this depends on where you're sleeping. My current character tends
to live in a partially reconstructed abandoned building, where he's
re-built the roof so that that nasty sun light doesn't get in while he
tries to sleep (No, he's not a vampire, but he IS albino, a severe alergy
to sunlight). Other than that, there is no climate control, so yes, he
DOES tend to sleep in as many clothes as possible, including the armor
jacket :)

Shadow
Message no. 11
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 11:13:10 +0100
>Later I found a little obscure line in the SRII book. Which says
>that for every point the protection of the armor exceeds your Quickness
>you lose one Combat Pool. I don't know about other players groups but
>mine tend to dislike losing Combat Pool. BTW I think I found this under
>the Combat Pool area.

That rule doesn't really work for a character with Quickness 7 and a heavy
security armor... Some people also use that rule for all armor, not just for
heavy armors.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Blabbering on like rubbish there...
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 12
From: Michael Eames <eames@*.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 23:02:41 -0800
> Michael Eames writes:
>
> > About players wearing Full Heavy Armor continually this would be plain
> > old uncomfortable and would wear somebody down. My players tried this
> > and I just told them flat out that you don't watch TV in your Heavy
> > Armor. Later I found a little obscure line in the SRII book. Which says
> > that for every point the protection of the armor exceeds your Quickness
> > you lose one Combat Pool. I don't know about other players groups but
> > mine tend to dislike losing Combat Pool. BTW I think I found this under
> > the Combat Pool area.
>
> I know what you mean, that rule is quite handy but it still allows sammies
> to use Partial Heavy with realtive ease. I find that my players tend to not
> bother about heavy armours anymore, they use the layered armour rules from
> NAGRL instead. And, yes, they do try to sleep in their armour jackets :-)
>

My sammies tend to have to much of an ego aout not getting hit to wear
partial. It is all or nothing. Most ...no all my runners use Secure
Jackets. Basically a high priced light weight Armor Jacket. Sometimes
they might change into form fitting stuff. They are to AD&Dish were they
think heavy armor would hurt a magician so he doesn't wear it. But I
don't see any rule in which the heavy armor would hinder.
Message no. 13
From: Michael Eames <eames@*.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 23:11:43 -0800
> >Later I found a little obscure line in the SRII book. Which says
> >that for every point the protection of the armor exceeds your Quickness
> >you lose one Combat Pool. I don't know about other players groups but
> >mine tend to dislike losing Combat Pool. BTW I think I found this under
> >the Combat Pool area.
>
> That rule doesn't really work for a character with Quickness 7 and a heavy
> security armor... Some people also use that rule for all armor, not just for
> heavy armors.
>
>
Then make a rule in which that heavy of an armor reduces Quickness. Or
if someone has only a really high Quickness make sure you look up the
Hauling the Load section in SRII. (Rules for how much they can carry and
still move.) Even if they have a decent strength after that they are
bound to have a Body which is high (probably a sammie) thus the armor
weights more.
Message no. 14
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 19:46:12 +1000
Michael Eames writes:

> My sammies tend to have to much of an ego aout not getting hit to wear
> partial.

I find it is generally my magicians who have this type of ego problem. They
all tend to have Combat Pools in the double figures, and dodge practically
everything. (Of course this is relatively easy to get around if I want to ..)

> Most ...no all my runners use Secure Jackets. Basically a high priced
> light weight Armor Jacket.

Um, it's the other way round actually. Secure Jackets are low priced, high
weight Armour Jackets. But yes, it is the most common type of armour in my
game too.

> Sometimes they might change into form fitting stuff.

My players tend to wear either Form Fitting or Lined Coats along with their
Armour/Secure Jackets. These combos tend to be pretty good with the layering
armour rules from NAGRL.

> They are to AD&Dish were they think heavy armor would hurt a magician so
> he doesn't wear it. But I don't see any rule in which the heavy armor would
> hinder.

There isn't any rule about it. Magicians can wear as much armour as the next
guy (providing they can carry it - the limiting factor in my games is the
magicians strength. The mage in my current campaign has trouble carrying his
Armour Jacket and an SMG, let alone if he tried to put on a heavy suit of
armour.)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 15
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 11:46:22 +0100
>Then make a rule in which that heavy of an armor reduces Quickness. Or
>if someone has only a really high Quickness make sure you look up the
>Hauling the Load section in SRII. (Rules for how much they can carry and
>still move.) Even if they have a decent strength after that they are
>bound to have a Body which is high (probably a sammie) thus the armor
>weights more.

I'm not having problems with characters running around in heavy armors, so
I'm not going to implement a rule like this one. The characters _do_ have
heavy armors, but I adapt the opposition's weaponry to them -- of which I've
informed the players.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Blabbering on like rubbish there...
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 16
From: Michael Eames <eames@*.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 19:20:49 -0800
The rule in NAGRL (which stands for what?) about layering armor are?
Message no. 17
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 13:21:09 +0930
Michael Eames wrote:
>
> The rule in NAGRL (which stands for what?) about layering armor are?

You get the full use of your best armour, and half the value of the second
best. Futher layering is pointless.

Also, some armours can't really be layered. I.e., an armour jacket under a
long coat doesn't really work, but an armour vest would. Nothing can be
layered _under_ the heavy suits (partial and up). Not even the armour
underwear.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 18
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 15:27:08 +1000
Robert Watkins writes:

> > The rule in NAGRL (which stands for what?) about layering armor are?

Neo Anarchists Guide to Real Life.

> You get the full use of your best armour, and half the value of the second
> best. Futher layering is pointless.

Rounding down (as near all SR roundings are :-)).

> Also, some armours can't really be layered. I.e., an armour jacket under a
> long coat doesn't really work, but an armour vest would. Nothing can be
> layered _under_ the heavy suits (partial and up). Not even the armour
> underwear.

It doesn't actually say this in the book. I personally can't see what's
wrong with an Armour Jacket & Lined Coat combo (nor the Armour Underwear and
Partial Suit one).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 19
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 15:34:57 +0930
Damion Milliken wrote:
>
> It doesn't actually say this in the book. I personally can't see what's
> wrong with an Armour Jacket & Lined Coat combo (nor the Armour Underwear and
> Partial Suit one).
>

Well, there isn't in the book, but there's common sense. An armour jacket,
for example, is relatively bulky. If you put a Lined Coat over that, the
coat had better be a few sizes too large for you.

All of the heavy stuff has to be tailored. The way I read this is that you
wear a relatively thin jump suit, and the armour fits snugly over that. In
my game, the armour underwear is a bit too thick for it. Of course, you
could get it tailored for the armour underwear. (None of my players have
asked that, yet...)

With layering, it's mostly a case of thinking about what you are doing.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 20
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 16:16:26 +1000
Robert Watkins writes:

> Well, there isn't in the book, but there's common sense. An armour jacket,
> for example, is relatively bulky. If you put a Lined Coat over that, the
> coat had better be a few sizes too large for you.

That's my point (or, rather, my players point). Also, I would have thought
that by 2050 an armour jacket would have shrunk in size and bulk
considerably. So too with the lined coat.

> All of the heavy stuff has to be tailored. The way I read this is that you
> wear a relatively thin jump suit, and the armour fits snugly over that. In
> my game, the armour underwear is a bit too thick for it. Of course, you
> could get it tailored for the armour underwear. (None of my players have
> asked that, yet...)

Hmm, tailoring of heavy armours. That's a good thought (I had previously
allowed players to wear heavy armour provding it had the correct "Body" size
for them, excluding racial cross overs of course). Requiring them to have
heavy armours tailored to them is a very good idea. But you made the point
neccessary yourself about armoured underwear and heavy armours.

> With layering, it's mostly a case of thinking about what you are doing.

Yeah, but you gotta watch it when your players start thinking too :-) (Like,
"I'm a human, right? And if I put on my partial suit, right? And then I put
on Joes lined coat right? - where Joe is a Troll -, could I get the layering
armour rules?)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 21
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 15:53:51 +0930
Damion Milliken wrote:
>
> > With layering, it's mostly a case of thinking about what you are doing.
>
> Yeah, but you gotta watch it when your players start thinking too :-) (Like,
> "I'm a human, right? And if I put on my partial suit, right? And then I put
> on Joes lined coat right? - where Joe is a Troll -, could I get the layering
> armour rules?)

"Sure... But you have to make Quickness checks (tn 4) every 2 minutes to
prevent tripping over... Joe's coat is wide enough, but it's a tad long."

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 22
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 16:40:26 +1000
Robert Watkins writes:

> > Yeah, but you gotta watch it when your players start thinking too :-) (Like,
> > "I'm a human, right? And if I put on my partial suit, right? And then I
> > put on Joes lined coat right? - where Joe is a Troll -, could I get the
> > layering armour rules?)
>
> "Sure... But you have to make Quickness checks (tn 4) every 2 minutes to
> prevent tripping over... Joe's coat is wide enough, but it's a tad long."

Cut the bottom off? :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 23
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 11:19:12 +0100
>That's my point (or, rather, my players point). Also, I would have thought
>that by 2050 an armour jacket would have shrunk in size and bulk
>considerably. So too with the lined coat.

That's what I thought too, until I read this post :) See, the concealability
of the armor jacket is 6, which is a measure of how easy it is to spot that
the jacket has armor plates in it... In my "collection" I have an American
Vietnam-era nylon body armor, and everyone who's seen it thought it was a
body warmer (you know, a sleeveless winter jacket). This might be because
nobody expects people to wear armor these days, and so don't recognize it
when they see it, but I would imagine that by 2050/55 armor would be so thin
it's virtually impossible to spot (comparing my vest with a modern-day
kevlar one shows that mine is about twice as thick as vests made 15 years
later...)


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Blabbering on like rubbish there...
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 24
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 20:17:51 +0930
Gurth wrote:
>
> >That's my point (or, rather, my players point). Also, I would have thought
> >that by 2050 an armour jacket would have shrunk in size and bulk
> >considerably. So too with the lined coat.
>
> That's what I thought too, until I read this post :) See, the concealability
> of the armor jacket is 6, which is a measure of how easy it is to spot that
> the jacket has armor plates in it... In my "collection" I have an American
> Vietnam-era nylon body armor, and everyone who's seen it thought it was a
> body warmer (you know, a sleeveless winter jacket). This might be because
> nobody expects people to wear armor these days, and so don't recognize it
> when they see it, but I would imagine that by 2050/55 armor would be so thin
> it's virtually impossible to spot (comparing my vest with a modern-day
> kevlar one shows that mine is about twice as thick as vests made 15 years
> later...)

Kevlar is still the main protector in 2055, I believe.

And besides, jackets (armoured or unarmoured) ARE bulky. It's part of being
warm and all that.


--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 25
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 23:00:05 +1000
Robert Watkins writes:

> Kevlar is still the main protector in 2055, I believe.
>
> And besides, jackets (armoured or unarmoured) ARE bulky. It's part of being
> warm and all that.

Yep, that makes sense, but isn't the concealabiltiy (as someone else pointed
out) the concealability of the armour built into the jacket? The jacket
itself would be pretty obvious I'd imagine. But the concealability rating of
6 would be the target number for people to _realise_ that the jacket has
kevlar built into it, not the target number for them to actually spot the
kevlar I'd think. However, the Vietnam era jacket somebody descibed would be
soemthing easily worn under a lined coat, so I could't see why one couldn't.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 26
From: Quicksilver <jhurley1@****.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 10:12:28 -30000
On Mon, 6 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Robert Watkins writes:
>
> > > The rule in NAGRL (which stands for what?) about layering armor are?
>
> Neo Anarchists Guide to Real Life.
>
> > You get the full use of your best armour, and half the value of the second
> > best. Futher layering is pointless.
>
> Rounding down (as near all SR roundings are :-)).
>
> > Also, some armours can't really be layered. I.e., an armour jacket under a
> > long coat doesn't really work, but an armour vest would. Nothing can be
> > layered _under_ the heavy suits (partial and up). Not even the armour
> > underwear.
>
> It doesn't actually say this in the book. I personally can't see what's
> wrong with an Armour Jacket & Lined Coat combo (nor the Armour Underwear and
> Partial Suit one).
>

Not having the book right on hand, I can't quote exactly, but: In NAGRL,
it says to use common sense to determine what can and cannot be layered.
I suppose this depends on what your personal view of what the armor is.
It does mention that this usually means that only one jacket-styled armor
can be layered over clothing-styled armor.

Two: in SSC, it notes that Form-fitting Body Armor *cannot* be worn in
conjunction with any other armor. No reason given in the book. However,
I have a reason. FFBA is entirely "soft" armor. (I derive this from
its high concealability and almost non-existant impact rating) One of
the reasons this armor works as well as it does is that it is taut. The
tighter and less flexible the armor is, the more efficient it is in
distributing the kinetic energy of the bullet across the body surface.
This means that it is one: custom-tailored, especially for females(if you
don't believe me, look at a Second Chance (tm) body armor catalog). Two:
the higher levels of armor are increasingly restrictive of motion. Even
if the joints are not made of the ballistic material, the rest of the
armor won't slide on the body, hindering motion of the arms and legs.
Three: I doubt very seriously the Kevlar (or its derivatives) breath.

These add up to the following (IMHO & YMMV) facts. One, FFBA, especially
level 3, is damn' uncomfortable to wear for any length of time. Two, it
is so restrictive, it cannot be worn with any degree of freedom with any
other armor. (Put on a wetsuit, a set of flannet-lined jeans, and an
overcoat with a zip-in lining to simulate wearing FFBA with armored
clothing.)

Chavez:"I want to see his eyes when it happens."
Clark:"So use a good scope on the rifle."
Message no. 27
From: Quicksilver <jhurley1@****.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 11:02:28 -30000
On Mon, 6 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Robert Watkins writes:
>
> > Well, there isn't in the book, but there's common sense. An armour jacket,
> > for example, is relatively bulky. If you put a Lined Coat over that, the
> > coat had better be a few sizes too large for you.
>
> That's my point (or, rather, my players point). Also, I would have thought
> that by 2050 an armour jacket would have shrunk in size and bulk
> considerably. So too with the lined coat.

I have in my closet (actually laying on my bed:-) an overcoat with a
removeable liner. The label claims the liner is 100% acrylic. The
reason I picked this particular coat as an example is that I know for a
fact Second Chance sells a kevlar insert that is Class II rated, IE it
will nominally stop 9mm parabellum and slower rounds. However, my point
is that the cot, W/O the kevlar, just with the 100% acrylic liver, is
damn' heavy and bulky. i'd say at least a couple of pounds, minimum.
This weight is only going to go up if I bought the armor insert.
Furthermore, despite advances in material science, "loose" armor is not
going to get much lighter. "loose" armor, such as that in a lined coat,
has to be reatively heavy, so as to absorb as much of the kinetic energy
of the round as possible. If the round is just stopped from penentrating
the coat by the fact that it is unable to penentrate the tight weave of
the ballistic material, it means that the bullet has just dumped ALL of
it kinetic energy into whatever is behind the coat, like your rib cage.
Wham, instand broken ribs. If, on the other hand, the energy is
dissipated by having to move a massive (relative to the bullet) liner,
much more of the energy in the bullet is going to be dissipated in moving
the jacket, and less of it will be dissipated into the target's body.
Armor clothing aslo qualifies as "loose" armor. Please note, "loose,"
soft armors have neglible impact ratings. Kevlar and its derivatives
have neglible effect on piercing, tearing weapons, and most close-combat
attacks will be made against the extremities, which must, for reasons of
mobility and weight distribution, be relatively unarmored anyway.

An Armor Jacket, Armor Vest, and Vest w/ plates, OTOH, is something
different. The soft armors get their Ballistic numbers from their low,
all around coverage. The two hybrid armors get their (higher) ballistic
ratings from their excellent coverage of the area most likely to be hit
in ranged combat - and most likely to be fatally hit, due to the
concentration of vital organs in the area - the torso. The other
noteworthy feature of the Jacket and Plated vest is their high IMPACT
value. This comes from their hybrid nature - the fact that they have
hard plates in vital regions. These plates are probably in three
locations: Back over the shoulderblades, right ribcage, and left
ribcage. This gives a decent amount of protection, without unduly
hampering mobility. Nevertheless, such a piece of clothing is going to
be bulky. I doubt very seriously that you could wear either of these two
pieces of clothing with a lined coat. Let me try an experiment...

I just went to my closet, got out a light windbreaker (just two layers of
nylon), a cotton vest, and my aforementioned lined coat. I put them on
and tested my mobility. My arm motion was *severly* restricted. From at
rest, I could move them to not quite parallel with the floor both
directly in front of me, and straight out from my body. Motion beyond
this was extremely difficult. Furthermore, I have, on numberous
occasions, worn that coat with a sport jacket and sweater, and
experienced a like degree of restriction. And I am very limber.

I made this long post for two reasons. One, I don't believe that
material science in going to reduce the bulk of personal body armor
anytime soon, and two, even unarmored clothing is going to be bulky and
hard to maneuver in when worn as you describe.

>
> > All of the heavy stuff has to be tailored. The way I read this is that you
> > wear a relatively thin jump suit, and the armour fits snugly over that. In
> > my game, the armour underwear is a bit too thick for it. Of course, you
> > could get it tailored for the armour underwear. (None of my players have
> > asked that, yet...)
>
> Hmm, tailoring of heavy armours. That's a good thought (I had previously
> allowed players to wear heavy armour provding it had the correct "Body"
size
> for them, excluding racial cross overs of course). Requiring them to have
> heavy armours tailored to them is a very good idea. But you made the point
> neccessary yourself about armoured underwear and heavy armours.

See my previous post about FFBA. Also, for a better idea of what the
heavy armors look like, see the armor that the troopers wore in Universal
Soldier. Tailoring is required for the full benifits of the armor, but
if you loosen/tighten the straps and adjustments, there is no reaon why
they shouldn't get some benifit from the armor (sya a -1 to both
ratings. APDS would halve the original, then subtract one for ill-tailoring)

>
> > With layering, it's mostly a case of thinking about what you are doing.
>
> Yeah, but you gotta watch it when your players start thinking too :-) (Like,
> "I'm a human, right? And if I put on my partial suit, right? And then I put
> on Joes lined coat right? - where Joe is a Troll -, could I get the layering
> armour rules?)
>
> --


Chavez:"I want to see his eyes when it happens."
Clark:"So use a good scope on the rifle."
Message no. 28
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 12:12:44 +0100
>Yep, that makes sense, but isn't the concealabiltiy (as someone else pointed
>out) the concealability of the armour built into the jacket?

That was me, and I think it does. As you went on to say, it's pretty hard
not to spot a jacket...

>The jacket
>itself would be pretty obvious I'd imagine. But the concealability rating of
>6 would be the target number for people to _realise_ that the jacket has
>kevlar built into it, not the target number for them to actually spot the
>kevlar I'd think. However, the Vietnam era jacket somebody descibed would be
>soemthing easily worn under a lined coat, so I could't see why one couldn't.

If you buy your lined coat about one or two sizes too large you can wear it
over a 1960s body armor, yes. But anyone who knows you will see that
something is wrong (you look much fatter than you did before you put it all
on)... modern (1990s) body armor is so thin you can wear it underneath
normal clothes and go virtually unnoticed. And then to think my vest says
"WEAR ARMOR OVER SHIRT AND UNDER FIELD JACKET" ...


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
And it rips my life away... But it's a great escape...
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 29
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 12:12:49 +0100
>Two: in SSC, it notes that Form-fitting Body Armor *cannot* be worn in
>conjunction with any other armor. No reason given in the book. However,
>I have a reason.

[reason deleted]

The actual reason is that SSC came out before NAGRL did, and at that time
layering armor was O U T of the question. I think they added that comment to
prevent people from doing it anyway, using a reasoning like "it's underneath
all my clothes, and I wear an armor jacket over it. I should get all the
armor ratings."


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
And it rips my life away... But it's a great escape...
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 30
From: Luc <rjwate01@********.SPD.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject: Re: 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 11:54:37 EST
> That's what I thought too, until I read this post :) See, the concealability
> of the armor jacket is 6, which is a measure of how easy it is to spot that
> the jacket has armor plates in it... In my "collection" I have an American
> Vietnam-era nylon body armor, and everyone who's seen it thought it was a
> body warmer (you know, a sleeveless winter jacket). This might be because
> nobody expects people to wear armor these days, and so don't recognize it
> when they see it, but I would imagine that by 2050/55 armor would be so thin
> it's virtually impossible to spot (comparing my vest with a modern-day
> kevlar one shows that mine is about twice as thick as vests made 15 years
> later...)

I view the concealability for armor to be used when someone is trying to see
if the clothing is armored (which most people would not want to do for every
person they see).

Luc

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about 1.) Equipment 2.) Spells, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!