Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	rothgefa@*******.com (Robert Fanning)
Subject:	Runaway and Recoil Compensation
Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:21:36 +1000

Message no. 1 I am unsure about "rule of one" for using autofire weapons. Is it up to the
GM's sadism?

If you are using EX rounds, I believe it goes "boom".

I assume that jamming that gun is a common result, shared with single shot
weapons.

What about the weapon burning through the entire clip?

Even with 15 shots in a combat round, that is a mere 5 rounds a second,
which seems pretty low (there is a gun that fires a million rounds a second
now - ammo would not last long).

<@^@> put "Hey Robert!" (without quotes) in the subject line to bypass my
junk mail filter and do not mention any sort of word associated with
commercial transactions.

_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp

From:	westiex@********.net (Craig West)
Subject:	Runaway and Recoil Compensation
Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:45:29 +1000

Message no. 2 > I am unsure about "rule of one" for using autofire weapons. Is it up to
the
> GM's sadism?

Definitely :)

> If you are using EX rounds, I believe it goes "boom".
>
> I assume that jamming that gun is a common result, shared with single shot
> weapons.
>
> What about the weapon burning through the entire clip?
>

I'm sure that there is a lot of things that a particularly inventive GM
could do. You could have something in the weapon break, such as either the
firing mechanism or the trigger. If its belt fed then you can have the
actual belt break. Smartlink systems breaking would cost the player a
bundle, either if the components just wore out or if something shorted. And
if the character has a nice, expensive scope ... (my character has one thats
roughly the same cost of the rifle).

The actual book states that:

"... the character has made a disastrous mistake. The result my be humorous,
embarrasing, or deadly."

P38 or SR 3rd edition

The rules actually state that the character can use karma to avoid an oops
(P246).

From:	gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject:	Runaway and Recoil Compensation
Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:08:24 +0100

Message no. 3 According to Robert Fanning, on Monday 16 February 2004 08:21 the word on
the street was...

> I am unsure about "rule of one" for using autofire weapons. Is it up to
> the GM's sadism?

Basically, yes. _Something_ goes badly wrong, but what exactly is left up
to the situation and the GM.

> If you are using EX rounds, I believe it goes "boom".

Explosive rounds in general (both EX and regular) tend to explode in the
weapon on a roll of all ones.

> I assume that jamming that gun is a common result, shared with single
> shot weapons.

I would think so.

> What about the weapon burning through the entire clip?

That would be a possibility, too, especially with poorly-designed weapons
(you could make this more common on a cheap gun bought on the streets than
on an Ares rifle obtained straight from the Weapons World showroom, for
example).

> Even with 15 shots in a combat round, that is a mere 5 rounds a second,
> which seems pretty low (there is a gun that fires a million rounds a
> second now - ammo would not last long).

That Metalstorm thing you're referring to is not typical for any other kind
of firearm. Most automatic weapons do between 500 and 1,000 rpm, and are
usually in the, roughly, 600-750 rpm bracket. Still, that's 20+ rounds per
turn, which in SR you'll only reach if you get at least two actions.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You've been touched by the doubt of man
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	DroneWar@*******.com (Stephen Allee)
Subject:	Runaway and Recoil Compensation
Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:57:33 -0600

Message no. 4 According to Robert Fanning, on Monday 16 February 2004 08:21 the word on
the street was...

> What about the weapon burning through the entire clip?

It's not as common real-world for a clip-fed weapon as it is for a belt-fed
one. Open-bolt medium machine guns such as the M-60 have "runaway gun"
problems when the chamber heats up to the point where the rounds cook off
even without having the firing pin strike the primer. Normally, you fire a
machine gun in short bursts to keep the weapon from overheating, but if you
are laying down covering fire and kick through a couple of belts, you can
pretty much guarantee that it will happen. Not sure what the magic number is
for this. The last one I saw was with about a belt and a half in one long
burst, but I am unsure as to how many rounds had been put through the weapon
since its last cleaning. Can't quote specifics as they don't let me play
with them much :) An 11B could probably give us a better set of numbers.

If one were particularly evil, one could make the runners test for a
"runaway gun" situation any time the laid sustained consecutive fire on a
target longer than for a couple of turns (such as with suppression fire).
The runner then has two choices: Let a ton of fairly expensive ammo run
through the weapon until is is out of ammo, or try to break the belt. Not
sure how you would choose to handle testing to break a belt but as a
perspective, 10 rounds a second are whizzing through your fingers and you
have to grab the belt and twist it hard enough to get the disintegrating
links to pop out. While still keeping the weapon pointed somewhere other
than your own guys. I hear it's even worse with a heavy machine gun like the
50 cal, but they never let me play with those. Something about medical
units being expressly forbidden from having crew-served weapons. I hate it
when the Geneva Convention gets between me and "Grade A Bang-Bang".

Also, the players could damage the barrel of the weapon from heat warping if
they fire too many rounds through the weapon in one session. M-60's come
with two barrels and you swap them every couple hundred rounds so they can
cool. I would say that it takes a couple of complex actions to swap barrels
unless you have a A-gunner (loader) to help.

Simple action to find the spare barrel in your bag
Simple action to put on the gloves
Complex action to pull off the old barrel
Complex action to put the new one on
Simple action to place the near-melting barrel somewhere intelligent to cool
down (It's considered very bad form to drop a hot barrel on someone...)
Simple action to take off the gloves

And you are back in business...

From:	ShadowRN@********.demon.co.uk (Paul J. Adam)
Subject:	Runaway and Recoil Compensation
Date:	Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:32:29 +0000

Message no. 5 In article <BAY2-F1370oZIi7T5n90000272d@*******.com>, Robert Fanning
<rothgefa@*******.com> writes
>I am unsure about "rule of one" for using autofire weapons. Is it up
>to the GM's sadism?

Pretty much. Anything from "failure to fire" or "failure to feed":
cock,
hook, look, release" to stovepipe stoppages (_shake_ the case free: do
not grab it, I still have the scars) to broken firing pins or rounds
stuck in chambers (both at least out-of-combat stripdowns) to 'stickers'
with rounds lodged in barrels to explosive disassembly of the weapon
with parts flying uncomfortably close to the owner.

Maintenance makes a difference (weapons well-cared for are much more
tolerant than weapons ignored because 'they're designed to take it'.
Build quality is important, as is how hard the weapon is stressed. I
knew folks who shot hundreds of rounds a week with Beretta 92s (the
civilian version of the US M9 automatic) for years trouble-free using
standard NATO ammo (115 grains @ 1300fps), yet some US units (SEALs,
IIRC, using hot-loaded 147-grain rounds) had their M9s come apart,
sometimes launching the slide through the firer's face.
>
>If you are using EX rounds, I believe it goes "boom".

To an extent: there isn't that much explosive in 'explosive bullets' an
I'm not sure you'd be able to even dangerously rupture the magazine,
while I've seen GMs gleefully have 'holdout pistol with four rounds of
explosive ammo' devastate whole roomfuls. (If it's that lethal when the
round blows in the magazine, how come it's so easily shrugged off when
shot into a target?)

>I assume that jamming that gun is a common result, shared with single
>shot weapons.

Single shot weapons are less likely to jam simply because they don't
have to chamber, extract or eject the round as part of a cycle; instead
the round may refuse to fire, may be a sticker, or may split a case or
seperate a case head and so not come out to allow the next round to be
loaded. (And firing pins, hammer mechanisms etc. can still break)
>
>What about the weapon burning through the entire clip?

This mostly happens with "hot guns", most often belt-fed MGs but it can
be done with SMGs too. Closed-bolt weapons are less prone to it but can
still cook off rounds if overfired.

>Even with 15 shots in a combat round, that is a mere 5 rounds a second,
>which seems pretty low (there is a gun that fires a million rounds a
>second now - ammo would not last long).

MetalStorm is a demonstator, not a practical weapon. Most personal
weapons top out at 1,200 rounds/min (SuperMach/HVMG/minigun rates) with
600-800 being usual. A "runaway gun" would basically just finish the
belt/empty the mag fairly uselessly: by the time you realised the
problem it's either out of ammo or you're too busy trying to twist the
belt/dump the mag and stop it: leaving the user wondering whether to
reload an overheated, strained weapon, change barrels (if possible) or
dump it and go to backup. (You _did_ have a backup? :)[1] )

[1] Airsoft has some interesting, Shadowrunesque wrinkles: pistols
actually become moderately useful, since they approach the range of
rifles. There's a certain satisfaction about running out of rifle ammo
and simply hauling out a Desert Eagle (especially when all weapons fire
the same recoil-free ammunition and a Desert Eagle has a 28-round
magazine)

>_________________________________________________________________
>Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
>http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
>

--
Paul J. Adam

From:	ShadowRN@********.demon.co.uk (Paul J. Adam)
Subject:	Runaway and Recoil Compensation
Date:	Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:42:26 +0000

Message no. 6 In article <BAY12-DAV25hRT7cW2z00001b88@*******.com>, Stephen Allee
<DroneWar@*******.com> writes
>It's not as common real-world for a clip-fed weapon as it is for a belt-fed
>one. Open-bolt medium machine guns such as the M-60 have "runaway gun"
>problems when the chamber heats up to the point where the rounds cook off
>even without having the firing pin strike the primer.

This works for just about anything, but open-bolt weapons are more prone
to running away rather than just firing one round, then a few seconds
later cooking off the next...

>Normally, you fire a
>machine gun in short bursts to keep the weapon from overheating, but if you
>are laying down covering fire and kick through a couple of belts, you can
>pretty much guarantee that it will happen. Not sure what the magic number is
>for this.

For the L7A1 GPMG it's 400 rounds in sustained role (10-20 round
bursts), 500 rounds in light role (4-10 round bursts) between barrel
changes. For the HMG it's 200 rounds between changes.

>If one were particularly evil, one could make the runners test for a
>"runaway gun" situation any time the laid sustained consecutive fire on a
>target longer than for a couple of turns (such as with suppression fire).

Even the RPK will let you empty three or four magazines before
overheating. Most SR firefights don't last long enough for this to be an
issue (and the Bad Guys will have a lot more backup coming than you do,
providing a disincentive to linger)

>The runner then has two choices: Let a ton of fairly expensive ammo run
>through the weapon until is is out of ammo, or try to break the belt. Not
>sure how you would choose to handle testing to break a belt but as a
>perspective, 10 rounds a second are whizzing through your fingers and you
>have to grab the belt and twist it hard enough to get the disintegrating
>links to pop out.

Stamp on it, lie on it or lean on it, was the drill I learned. You just
have to overcome the belt lift mechanism: the gun can only pull so hard.

Also, if you're laying down this sort of sustained fire, the gunner
should have a #2 number who's minding the feed, marshalling link from
the rest of the unit, readying spare barrels, and in the event of
runaway breaking the feed while the gunner controls the weapon.

>While still keeping the weapon pointed somewhere other
>than your own guys. I hear it's even worse with a heavy machine gun like the
>50 cal, but they never let me play with those.

Most definitely not one-man weapons: there's a reason some of the bigger
toys are called "crew-served" rather than "individual" weapons.

>Also, the players could damage the barrel of the weapon from heat warping if
>they fire too many rounds through the weapon in one session. M-60's come
>with two barrels and you swap them every couple hundred rounds so they can
>cool. I would say that it takes a couple of complex actions to swap barrels
>unless you have a A-gunner (loader) to help.

M60 is a bad example for barrel changes: it's not a well-sorted design.
GPMG and Bren both had excellent QCBs, as does the US M240 (which is
what we call GPMG). For instance, the M60 is almost unique in requiring
asbestos gloves for what's a routine combat evolution

If you need to change barrels, you also need a #2 to help carry that
much ammunition, and part of their job is to have the spare barrel out
and ready in time for the change: that granted, changing barrels is no
worse than changing magazines on a rifle. A Complex Action, probably.
>
--
Paul J. Adam

From:	rothgefa@*******.com (Robert Fanning)
Subject:	Runaway and Recoil Compensation
Date:	Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:16:04 +1000

Message no. 7 >According to Robert Fanning, on Monday 16 February 2004 08:21 the word on
>the street was...
>
> > What about the weapon burning through the entire clip?
>
>than your own guys. I hear it's even worse with a heavy machine gun like
>the
>50 cal, but they never let me play with those. Something about medical
>units being expressly forbidden from having crew-served weapons. I hate it
>when the Geneva Convention gets between me and "Grade A Bang-Bang".

Isn't it true that the first three targets are the radio operator, the
section gunner and the medic?

Not my favourite choices - I tried to get into the "drop-shorts" (mortars or
artillery), but they had enough of them that year.

>Also, the players could damage the barrel of the weapon from heat warping
>if
>they fire too many rounds through the weapon in one session. M-60's come
>with two barrels and you swap them every couple hundred rounds so they can
>cool. I would say that it takes a couple of complex actions to swap barrels
>unless you have a A-gunner (loader) to help.

>Simple action to find the spare barrel in your bag
>Simple action to put on the gloves

That's what cyberhand replacements are for - especially after you lose
fingers when you break the belt to stop the runaway.

>Complex action to pull off the old barrel
>Complex action to put the new one on
>Simple action to place the near-melting barrel somewhere intelligent to
>cool
>down (It's considered very bad form to drop a hot barrel on someone...)

Or into oily, polluted sewer water (See Knights of the Dinner Table, for
what happens when you do the "fireball down the privy" trick).

>Simple action to take off the gloves

I would wear gloves anyway, considering how polluted the shadowrun universe
is.

<@^@> put "Hey Robert!" (without quotes) in the subject line to bypass my
junk mail filter and do not mention any sort of word associated with
commercial transactions.

_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp

From:	gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject:	Runaway and Recoil Compensation
Date:	Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:05:00 +0100

Message no. 8 According to Paul J. Adam, on Tuesday 17 February 2004 01:32 the word on
the street was...

> To an extent: there isn't that much explosive in 'explosive bullets' an
> I'm not sure you'd be able to even dangerously rupture the magazine,
> while I've seen GMs gleefully have 'holdout pistol with four rounds of
> explosive ammo' devastate whole roomfuls. (If it's that lethal when the
> round blows in the magazine, how come it's so easily shrugged off when
> shot into a target?)

According to the SR3 rulebook, a fumble when firing explosive rounds will
inflict the weapon's base damage onto the firer, with 1D6 successes behind
it. It doesn't really say anything about cooking off the entire magazine
or blowing up the weapon, but as a GM I'd probably rule that at least the
magazine, and perhaps the whole weapon, is ripe for the trash after this
kind of thing happens, at least if the D6 rolls high. However, as you say,
because a true hit is not that much more dangerous than with a regular
bullet, I don't think anyone else would be affected -- except very
close-by people like ammo handlers on belt-fed weapons, etc.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You've been touched by the doubt of man
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	westiex@********.net (Craig West)
Subject:	Runaway and Recoil Compensation
Date:	Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:03:19 +1000

Message no. 9 > >than your own guys. I hear it's even worse with a heavy machine gun like
> >the
> >50 cal, but they never let me play with those. Something about medical
> >units being expressly forbidden from having crew-served weapons. I hate
it
> >when the Geneva Convention gets between me and "Grade A Bang-Bang".
>
> Isn't it true that the first three targets are the radio operator, the
> section gunner and the medic?
>
>

According to the Geneva Convention, medics (as long as they aren't holding a
weapon) are considered non combatants and therefore not legal targets. If
they pick up a weapon, then they're fair game.

Of course, as in real life, not everyone follows the Geneva convention. That
is even if it applies to the various mega corps.

There is a nasty thought, corporations starting to sign world treaties,
surely a sign that they're more powerful then your average country.

Aramis.

From:	gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject:	Runaway and Recoil Compensation
Date:	Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:01:32 +0100

Message no. 10 According to Craig West, on Tuesday 17 February 2004 13:03 the word on the
street was...

> According to the Geneva Convention, medics (as long as they aren't
> holding a weapon) are considered non combatants and therefore not legal
> targets. If they pick up a weapon, then they're fair game.

Roughly translated from my 1991 Dutch Army Handboek voor de Soldaat
("Handbook for the Soldier"), chapter 7 on the laws of war: "[Medical
troops] may not in any way participate in combat. They may be armed. These
weapons may, however, only be used in defense of themselves or of the
wounded and sick in their care. Not, for example, to prevent capture by
the enemy."

In other words, you may not attack medical personnel just because they are
carrying weapons -- but you may attack an enemy medic who is firing a
weapon at your own troops, as long as he's not doing this to defend
wounded troops who are under attack.

Of course, the US didn't sign the Geneva Conventions for quite some time,
so US troops, of course, were not bound by these kinds of restrictions
anyway...

> Of course, as in real life, not everyone follows the Geneva convention.
> That is even if it applies to the various mega corps.

It doesn't apply to any country that hasn't signed it -- that's to say, if
they've signed it, they are bound to it even when fighting someone who
hasn't, but obviously not the other way around. If megacorporations are
regarded as (equivalent to) nation states in international law, then they
could sign conventions like this; otherwise, they couldn't be bound by
them even if they wanted to be (but could, of course, choose to follow
them anyway).

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You've been touched by the doubt of man
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	mal2@.com (mal2@.com)
Subject:	Runaway and Recoil Compensation
Date:	Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:23:49 -0500 (EST)

Message no. 11 <quote who="Gurth">
> [The Geneva Conventions don't] apply to any country that hasn't
> signed it -- that's to say, if they've signed it, they are bound
> to it even when fighting someone who hasn't, but obviously not the
> other way around.

That's not true. Article 2 of the 1st Geneva Convention says that a
signatory is only bound by the Conventions if the other party in the war
is either a signatory or is abiding by the Conventions without having
signed them [1].

If you're in a war with someone who isn't following the Conventions, you
don't have to follow them either.

> If megacorporations are
> regarded as (equivalent to) nation states in international law, then they
> could sign conventions like this; otherwise, they couldn't be bound by
> them even if they wanted to be (but could, of course, choose to follow
> them anyway).

In the SR world, I don't see any reason that a corp with
extraterritoriality couldn't sign the conventions and be bound by them to
the same extent that any other government could.

--
Jerry

[1] from http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y1gcacws.htm
Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and
Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 75 U.N.T.S. 31

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the
present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any
other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High
Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of
them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total
occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said
occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present
Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in
their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention
in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the
provisions thereof.

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer