Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan Szeto)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Mon Jul 9 14:15:01 2001
From: "Robert Fanning" <rothgefa@********.com.au>

> 1) Number of rounds in weapon mounts.....
> Couldn't they just have a limit of 0.2 CF, 0.1 CF or even 0.02 CF capacity
> in mounts?

For some weapons, particularly large-caliber weapons (like assault cannons
tank rounds, and particularly naval guns) 0.2 CF is not enough. Also, some
uses (namely aerial strafing and anti-aircraft guns) require a whole
buttload of ammo to perform adequately. (For example, the AH-64 Apache
carries as part of its standard loadout 1,200 rounds of 30mm chain gun ammo
-- the SR equivalent of an autocannon.) In fact, the expression "the whole
nine yards" originates from WWII aerial combat, in which the pilot had to
use nine yards of belted ammo -- the standard loadout for the gun.)

IMO it's best to leave the ammo bin capacity open-ended and let the GM set
the upper limits.

> 2) If says that adding a weapon to a vehicle, it can only accept
accessories
> that are part of the weapon, except smartguns, which much be internal.
>
> Now, does that mean all accessories must be internal or integral with the
> gun?

Yes.

> I can accept things like bipods and stuff like shock pads couldn't be
added
> to the rifle, but scopes that come with the weapon when you buy it
shouldn't
> be different from imaging systems and scopes that you add on.....

Except that vehicle-mounted weapons use the vehicle's sensor systems to
fire, so scopes aren't necessary.

> 3) I couldn't find a magazine selector - if I want to put a variety of
> different ammos in the different magazines, say APDS, EX, Fletchette and
> incendary; there doesn't seem to be any mechanism? So should I just
> allocate 0.2 CF to each? 10,000 assault rifle rounds is an awful lot -
> 500kg of ammo. It would take me a long time to burn through that much,
> although, some players I have known.......

You would need a separate ammo bin for each type of ammo.

> 4) In the old edition, you had to double the cost of a gun to mount a
hand
> held weapon on a vehicle, but I looked and looked, but could find only a
> reference to a gun conversion kit, with no price (I assume same as a
> mechanics or weaponsmith kit), but you seem to only buy that once, in
> addition to your vehicle, electronic, computer and weaponsmith kits)

You need a weapon conversion kit to mount a weapon in a mount (fixed mount
or turret). Unfortunately the specs for conversion kits was left out of
Rigger 3; this has already been submitted to the errata list currently
under development. In the meanwhile, you can find the numbers listed at
(http://forums.dumpshock.com//Forum18/HTML/000024.html#3).

> 5) Engines - I wished to swap the EC engine in the glider they have, so
that
> it could run on solar cells and charge the battery - you can get them for
> drone mini-blimps, which is ok I guess. Could I rig an AC rectifier to
give
> the EC engine power from the solar cells and just let it drift along, or
to
> suppliment the power requirements? Surely a normal battery powered engine
> is enough for an ultralight glider?

No. Electric fuel cells have a higher overall power output per mass than
electric batteries do. (One reason why electric cars aren't commercially
viable yet; the batteries needed for an adequate travel range are way too
heavy.) If you swapped out the EC engine for batteries, you would seriously
cut the performance down, plus add more weight (especially by jury-rigging
a rectifier to the battery, which wouldn't work anyway).

(Personally, I think the concept of the Artemis Night Glider running on an
electric engine is just plain ludicrous. Whoever came up with that idea had
absolutely no clue about aeronautics. If it were up to me, I would have
deleted it from Rigger 2 and Rigger 3 -- if I wasn't obligated to include
it in the update and re-compilation of previously published vehicles.)

> EC engines should be able to use solar panels? Whoever wrote the rules
for
> EC engines had a poor grasp of physics - hydrogen cells do not produce AC
> power, they are like conventional batteries using a chemical reaction,
> wheras a internal combustion engine burning hydrogen would produce AC with
a
> generator as it uses coils and transformers. Transformers do not work on
DC
> power.

It is not the chemical conversion of hydrogen and oxygen to water that
produces electricity. Electric fuel cells work by inducting the hydrogen
ions (in essence, free protons) through a coil to generate a magnetic
field, that subsequently induces a current in the power circuit.

In other words, electric fuel cells aren't governed by the Laws of
Thermodynamics, but rather by Maxwell's Laws of Electromagnetics.

> Surely the EC engine is the hybrid version of the petrochem internal
> combustion engine? Why should there be a difference?

It is not (per my explanation above). However, hybrid engines are also
covered in Rigger 3 (on p. 117).

> 6) Maintenance cost of vehicles - players should be given a mothball
> option - putting the car up on blocks, coating the parts in vaseline and
> other things that would not induce and wear and tear. Getting the car
back
> on the road would take some work - pumping up and rebalancing the tires,
> recharging the battery, relubricating the moving parts for first ignition.
> Or should as a player, I disassemble a backup or rarely used vehicle for
> parts - so I have a collection of parts, not a vehicle, which doesn't need
> maintenance costs?

"Mothballing" (or, in my part of the USA, "cinderblocking" ;) a car
doesn't
avoid the need for maintenance. Metal corrodes, rubber dry-rots, fluids and
lubricants contaminate. At best you're only slowing down the wear and tear,
not eliminating altogether.

That said, there are options for basing maintenance off of usage. Check out
the Optempo Rules in the Advanced Rules chapter.

> 8) Offroad vehicle penalty for on road? Why should a person driving on a
> flattened road have a harder time than off the road? I can accept the
> handling penalty at higher speeds, but not if you are Sunday driving along
> the highway. Hmm, looks like I drive on the gravel or grass road shoulder
> on the highway from now on.

However, if you are Sunday-driving on the highway, you would not need to
make Handling Tests. Handling Tests only apply when you are performing non-
standard vehicle operations -- hairpin turns, emergency braking, vehicle
combat, and so on. And in these cases, off-road handling CAN adversely
affect performance.

> 9) The price of fly by wire systems - 1.25 x the cost of the whole vehicle
> for EACH LEVEL - does that include other accessories unrelated to the
engine
> systems.

For customization, the cost is based on the price of the base vehicle. This
is to keep things simple -- no need to break down the cost of the
individual components.

> Pg 192: Semiballistics A/S-K G. Concorde and G. D. SV250 has 50,000kg fuel
> by 0.01 km/kg = 500km travel
> Pg 193: Suborbitals F-B China Clipper and Ilyushin IL-159 has 80,000kg
fuel
> by 0.01 km/kg = 800km travel
>
> Either that should be 0.1 km/kg, or that is the fuel they use to get out
of
> the atmosphere and coast in very low earth orbit, representing the
> "manuevering fuel" - They have only 250 or 400km for the launch and
re-entry
> to move around.

The fuel represents the "maneuvering fuel." When SBs and SOs kick into
high-speed mode, a separate set of engines (and fuel) kick in. (In other
words there's a difference between the "maneuver thrusters" and the "main
thrusters.") Since no PC is likely to own a SB or SO anyway, that's better
handled as a handwave than by bean-counting the amount of rocket fuel.

> The drop tanks used for the Suborbitals to get them to low earth orbit are
> also not listed.

IMO booster rockets and tanks are more of a plot device than anything else.

> Also, I would like more details in the rules on orbital habits, especially
> at the Lagrange points.

Orbital habitats will be covered in the upcoming Target: Wastelands book
(which should be due out around the beginning of 2002, according to Rob
Boyle, the SR developer, during the Shadowrun seminar at Origins).

> Also, could Jim suits be adapted for vacuum conditions or for nuclear
> reactors?

No. JIM suits are designed for the high-pressure environment at deep ocean
depths and have lost of performance problems operating outside of the
water.

> Now supposing I was to go down to a scuttled Russian nuclear submarine and
> salvage the ICBMs, why couldn't I build my own sub-orbital as a player?
It
> would be a small cramped cabin, with no ammenities, but surely you can
hold
> it for 40 minutes? I don't need to carry 156 passengers, probably no more
> than 5. I can understand it might be a one way trip, with refueling
> problems (plus a heap of alarmed fighter jets converging on the location),
> but it might be just the ticket for getting out of a country in a hurry
(or
> into it), especially out of the soviet union.

No. The vehicle design rules are supposed to model MASS-PRODUCTION
vehicles, made by the big companies with lots of nuyen and teams of design
engineers at their beck and call. The tooling, facility, and labor
requirements to build a vehicle are too much for any one individual (or
even a small team of individuals) to perform on their own.

In any case, semiballistics aren't built directly from ex-ICBMs. ICBMs may
have served as the INSPIRATION for SBs, but the performance parameters
require some major re-engineering design for SBs to do what they have to
with a minimum of negative side effects.

-- Jon
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Mon Jul 9 14:25:02 2001
--part1_df.173dc52c.287b5283_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 7/9/01 2:23:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Szeto@********.com writes:


In any case, semiballistics aren't built directly from ex-ICBMs. ICBMs may
have served as the INSPIRATION for SBs, but the performance parameters
require some major re-engineering design for SBs to do what they have to
with a minimum of negative side effects.
----------

Sideline to that...Jon, if SBs follow the same profile as an ICBM on
an inbound track, how the hell do they NOT get shot down as incoming
nukes?:-) Always bugged me.

--part1_df.173dc52c.287b5283_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica>In a message dated 7/9/01 2:23:55 PM Eastern
Daylight Time,
<BR>Szeto@********.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>In any case, semiballistics aren't built directly from ex-ICBMs. ICBMs may
<BR>have served as the INSPIRATION for SBs, but the performance parameters
<BR>require some major re-engineering design for SBs to do what they have to
<BR>with a minimum of negative side effects.<FONT SIZE=3>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">----------
<BR>
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sideline to
that...Jon, if SBs follow the same profile as an ICBM on
<BR>an inbound track, how the hell do they NOT get shot down as incoming
<BR>nukes?:-) Always bugged me.</FONT></HTML>

--part1_df.173dc52c.287b5283_boundary--
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Chris Shaffer)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Mon Jul 9 14:30:01 2001
At 7/9/2001 01:19 PM, you wrote:
> > 9) The price of fly by wire systems - 1.25 x the cost of the whole vehicle
> > for EACH LEVEL - does that include other accessories unrelated to the
>engine
> > systems.
>
>For customization, the cost is based on the price of the base vehicle. This
>is to keep things simple -- no need to break down the cost of the
>individual components.

Does this mean the cost of the chassis, or the cost of the entire vehicle,
or something else? If I design a nifty car that costs 120,000Y including
all the design and customization options, do I have to pay 150,000Y to add
a level of drive by wire? What, exactly, does "base cost of the vehicle" mean?


-----
"The basic difference between religion and psychiatry is
about $150 an hour." --Attributed to Dr. Joyce Brothers in
an ad for _Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher_.
Chris Shaffer http://www.uic.edu/~shaffer/
chris@*****.net AIM:ChrisShaff
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Mon Jul 9 14:35:01 2001
In a message dated 7/9/01 2:35:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
DemonPenta@***.com writes:


Sideline to that...Jon, if SBs follow the same profile as an ICBM on
an inbound track, how the hell do they NOT get shot down as incoming
nukes?:-) Always bugged me.
-------------------
<mutters bad words at AOL> Screwed that up. Sorry folks.
Question remains, nonetheless.
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Mon Jul 9 14:40:02 2001
Jonathan Szeto writes:

> > 1) Number of rounds in weapon mounts.....
> > Couldn't they just have a limit of 0.2 CF, 0.1 CF or even 0.02 CF capacity
> > in mounts?
>
> <Snip 9 yards>
>
> IMO it's best to leave the ammo bin capacity open-ended and let the GM set
> the upper limits.

Jon, I think he meant the "free" ammo amount, ie:

"Ammunition Bins (p 135 R3)
Fixed mounts and turrets are assumed to hold an ammunition load equal to
twice the mounted weapon's Ammo rating"

> > <Snip magazine selector>
>
> You would need a separate ammo bin for each type of ammo.

So one of the things firearm conversion does that _isn't_ stated in the rules
is allow for multiple ammo feeds?

> It is not the chemical conversion of hydrogen and oxygen to water that
> produces electricity. Electric fuel cells work by inducting the hydrogen
> ions (in essence, free protons) through a coil to generate a magnetic
> field, that subsequently induces a current in the power circuit.

Are you sure about this? I've never heard of this process, but I've many
times heard of chemical reaction fuel cells oxidising a fuel (such as
hydrogen or methane) and reducing an oxidant (such as oxygen), then
combining the cations and anions through some sort of electrolyte, meanwhile
tapping the electrical potential created for power.

> However, if you are Sunday-driving on the highway, you would not need to
> make Handling Tests. Handling Tests only apply when you are performing non-
> standard vehicle operations -- hairpin turns, emergency braking, vehicle
> combat, and so on. And in these cases, off-road handling CAN adversely
> affect performance.

This might sound like a whinge, but then why are there "Non-Stressful
Situation", "Stressful Situation", and "Action Performed During
Combat"
modifiers on the Driving Test Modifiers Table on p 134 SR3? If the only time
one ever needs to make a driving test is in a non-standard situation, then
having a modifier for making one in a "Non-Stressful Situation" is rather
redundant. Additionally, having a modifier for "Stressful Situation" is also
rather pointless, as it will _always_ be applied, and the Handling of every
vehicle should just be increased by 1!

Also, while I'm on the topic of silly Handling modifiers, why are there
modifiers for "Large Vehicle of Type" and "Very Large Vehicle of
Type"?
Shouldn't the Handling of these vehicles just be adjusted by the listed
amount instead?

> For customization, the cost is based on the price of the base vehicle. This
> is to keep things simple -- no need to break down the cost of the
> individual components.

Mind you, it makes Drive-by-Wire and Improved Suspension cost _more_ than
the original vehicle! Per level! Isn't that a little too much?

> IMO booster rockets and tanks are more of a plot device than anything else.

IMO semiballistics are more of a plot device than anything else. Which
prompts the question as to why they were ever included at all ;-).

> > Also, could Jim suits be adapted for vacuum conditions or for nuclear
> > reactors?
>
> No. JIM suits are designed for the high-pressure environment at deep ocean
> depths and have lost of performance problems operating outside of the
> water.

OTOH, the design constraints of working underwater at high pressures are
probably more stringent than the design constraints of working in
atmospheric conditions. Making JIM suits for hazardous material work (such
as reactors) would probably be _simpler_ than making them for deep sea
underater work. Vacuum for space is another matter entirely... :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Mon Jul 9 14:45:01 2001
DemonPenta@***.com writes:

> Sideline to that...Jon, if SBs follow the same profile as an ICBM on an
> inbound track, how the hell do they NOT get shot down as incoming nukes?:-)
> Always bugged me.

I'm not Jon, but an obvious answer occurs to me: you book ahead! Notify your
destination of your arrival time, and they won't shoot you down. Same as
current day airlines do - if they're passing over someones airspace, they
make a habit of telling that someone, else they risk some serious loss of
customer confidence when the military of that someone blows their passenger
filled airliner out of the sky :-).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Mon Jul 9 15:10:01 2001
Von DemonPenta :

> Sideline to that...Jon, if SBs follow the same profile as an ICBM on
>an inbound track, how the hell do they NOT get shot down as incoming
>nukes?:-) Always bugged me.

*EG* Interesting Idea...

Arclight
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jane van Roekel)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Mon Jul 9 22:15:04 2001
>From: Damion Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au>

>This might sound like a whinge, but then why are there "Non-Stressful
>Situation", "Stressful Situation", and "Action Performed During
Combat"
>modifiers on the Driving Test Modifiers Table on p 134 SR3?

I wondered about this on Sunday. When Squeaker's meet with his dealer goes
wrong, and he wants to get the hell out before the bad guys with the SMGs
shoot him to bits, then is he at +whatever for a 'stressful' situation as
well as +2 for being in combat? I figured it was one or the other. His
buddies turned up and took out the bad guys and I made them all roll again
to see if they got away before reinforcements arrived. Most of the party was
driving away as quickly as possible, but Squeaker was taking his time, so I
gave them +1 for stress, but not him. Then they complained about having to
roll Handling tests at all, when they were just driving away, in no danger
at that point.

Jane
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gabe Chomic)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Mon Jul 9 23:35:02 2001
> > 9) The price of fly by wire systems - 1.25 x the cost of the whole vehicle
> > for EACH LEVEL - does that include other accessories unrelated to the
> engine
> > systems.
>
> For customization, the cost is based on the price of the base vehicle. This
> is to keep things simple -- no need to break down the cost of the
> individual components.
>
>

Just to clarify. It's always been somewhat strange in my mind, that
particular cost (and all of the ones written that way.) I think it
means that it multiplies the cost of the vehicle by 1.25, and then adds
the cost of the vehicle.

I.e. 60,000 vehicle. Add in level 1 FBW (or whatever, 1.25
multiplier). New cost of vehicle = 60000 + 60000*1.25 = 135,000

Yes or no?

Gabe
--
"He's got an AK-47 for his best friend...
Business, the American way."
-Queensryche, "Empire"
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 05:05:04 2001
Jane van Roekel writes:

> I wondered about this on Sunday. When Squeaker's meet with his dealer goes
> wrong, and he wants to get the hell out before the bad guys with the SMGs
> shoot him to bits, then is he at +whatever for a 'stressful' situation as
> well as +2 for being in combat? I figured it was one or the other.

That's pretty much what I think, too, but I've no real justification for it
:-).

> His buddies turned up and took out the bad guys and I made them all roll
> again to see if they got away before reinforcements arrived. Most of the
> party was driving away as quickly as possible, but Squeaker was taking his
> time, so I gave them +1 for stress, but not him. Then they complained about
> having to roll Handling tests at all, when they were just driving away, in
> no danger at that point.

I think that you were right. If they're driving under unusual circumstances,
like if they're speeding (ie driving at speeds faster than what would
normally be considered safe for the road and conditions), then a Handling
test is fair enough. OTOH, if they were just puttering along at the speed
limit, then they wouldn't really need to make the test.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Zixx)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 06:25:01 2001
Am Montag, 9. Juli 2001 20:50 schrieben Sie:
> DemonPenta@***.com writes:
> > Sideline to that...Jon, if SBs follow the same profile as an ICBM
> > on an inbound track, how the hell do they NOT get shot down as
> > incoming nukes?:-) Always bugged me.
>
> I'm not Jon, but an obvious answer occurs to me: you book ahead!
> Notify your destination of your arrival time, and they won't shoot
> you down. Same as current day airlines do - if they're passing over
> someones airspace, they make a habit of telling that someone, else
> they risk some serious loss of customer confidence when the
> military of that someone blows their passenger filled airliner out
> of the sky :-).

Funky way to win a war: Tell them you're sending in some SBs for
negotiation, but instead send some really big ICBMs. Just imagine
what kind of warhead would fit into a SB.....ouch

Zixx
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Achille Autran)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 09:20:01 2001
>Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 04:47:44 +1000 (EST)
>From: Damion Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au>
> > It is not the chemical conversion of hydrogen and oxygen to water that
> > produces electricity. Electric fuel cells work by inducting the hydrogen
> > ions (in essence, free protons) through a coil to generate a magnetic
> > field, that subsequently induces a current in the power circuit.
>
>Are you sure about this? I've never heard of this process, but I've many
>times heard of chemical reaction fuel cells oxidising a fuel (such as
>hydrogen or methane) and reducing an oxidant (such as oxygen), then
>combining the cations and anions through some sort of electrolyte, meanwhile
>tapping the electrical potential created for power.

Well, my encylopedia tells that fuel cell function by controlling the
electronic layout of a combustion reaction, by setting one part of the
reaction around the anode and the other part around the cathode where the
electrolyte is consumed instead of the proper fuel/co-fuel (comburant ? My
dictionnary sucks, sorry), but is regenerated by the electron flux (that
either removes or puts back electrons) in the circuit that connects the
anode and the cathode created by the difference of electric potential. The
energy output is this electron flux. Of course not every electrolyte is
good for a fuel/co-fuel pair, as it needs to create a proper potential
difference and be properly regenerated. Finding good trios is a nice part
of the sport of creating good fuel cells. E.g. for the oxygen-hydrogen
cell, the electrolyte is (K+,OH-) in water solution.
The combustion reaction is 2xH2+O2 -> 2xH2O
In the fuel cell it becomes:
2xOH-+H2 -> 2xH2O + 2e- at the anode and
2xH2O+O2+4e- -> 4xOH- at the cathode

No coils and stuff in that. There is a kind of circulation, at least to get
rid of the by-products, but the power output is not caused by this
movement, in fact the power consumed by the pumps, refiners and stuff like
that are what makes fuel cells thermodynamic efficiency drop from close to
a theoric 100% to a mere 60+%.

>This might sound like a whinge, but then why are there "Non-Stressful
>Situation", "Stressful Situation", and "Action Performed During
Combat"
>modifiers on the Driving Test Modifiers Table on p 134 SR3? If the only time
>one ever needs to make a driving test is in a non-standard situation, then
>having a modifier for making one in a "Non-Stressful Situation" is rather
>redundant. Additionally, having a modifier for "Stressful Situation" is also
>rather pointless, as it will _always_ be applied, and the Handling of every
>vehicle should just be increased by 1!

I take it as this:
Non-stressful situation, handling test needed: you're driving your Mc Laren
Formula 1, you're thirty seconds before anyone else, gotta win the grand prix.
Stressful situation: ditto, but Michael Schumacher is right behind you and
sneaking his blotchy nose in your gear box at every braking.
Combat: you're about to win the world championship, Michael has just
whipped out the machine-gun and the gear box is /not/ armored!

>Also, while I'm on the topic of silly Handling modifiers, why are there
>modifiers for "Large Vehicle of Type" and "Very Large Vehicle of
Type"?
>Shouldn't the Handling of these vehicles just be adjusted by the listed
>amount instead?

These are weirder. Maybe are they intended for "on the fly" tests using an
unspecified vehicle that has no handling rating, somewhat supplying a
default handling of 6 and 7 for large and extra-large vehicles like haulers
or busses (driven with the "car" skill), if you consider that usual cars
have handling 4.

>Mind you, it makes Drive-by-Wire and Improved Suspension cost _more_ than
>the original vehicle! Per level! Isn't that a little too much?

Drive-by-wire is a rather complex tech and a very deep modification, I can
see it worth 1.25 times the total value of the vehicle. Think of setting a
Cessna 152 for fly-by-wire: you'll need to shift the gravity center,
install the computer /with the proper software fitted with the Cessna
characteristics/ (not cheap), the servos, the sensors, maybe improve the
resilience of the cell to handle the improved mobility... If drive-by-wire
is /not/ a design option but a modification, it /will/ involve extensive work.
Improved suspension is probably a typo, however. We'll see in the errata.

<SNIPPOLA (TM, used courtesy of Down-Under Inc.)>
> > No. JIM suits are designed for the high-pressure environment at deep ocean
> > depths and have lost of performance problems operating outside of the
> > water.
>
>OTOH, the design constraints of working underwater at high pressures are
>probably more stringent than the design constraints of working in
>atmospheric conditions. Making JIM suits for hazardous material work (such
>as reactors) would probably be _simpler_ than making them for deep sea
>underater work. Vacuum for space is another matter entirely... :-)

Nope, in water you've got something wonderful: Archimedes' push. JIM suits
can't handle their own weight, and just hang helpless on land as they lack
the power to even lift a leg or an arm. Pressure and water-tightness are
infinitely easier to handle, in fact, than the mechanical power and
movement synchronisation you need for movement on land where gravity is not
compensated. That's why we have had JIM suits for a few decades and slo-mo
clumsy "robots" right now, but no dudes in power armor jumping 'round...

Converting a JIM suit for space operation would be a lot less difficult
than converting it for land operation. The weight parameter is cancelled by
orbital micro-gravity, you would have to make the hermetic joints hold the
other way around and improve air conditionning and heat shielding, but all
the servos would function just as well. Heck, don't astronauts train with
their space suits in pools? However, using a converted JIM suit in space is
a big weigth waste, as most of the heavy shielding handling the pressure is
useless: you only have to handle 1 atmosphere pressure, not the 30-40 you
find 300-400m deep.

Molloy
Message no. 13
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Keith Duthie)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 10:10:01 2001
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Achille Autran wrote:

> >modifiers for "Large Vehicle of Type" and "Very Large Vehicle of
Type"?
> >Shouldn't the Handling of these vehicles just be adjusted by the listed
> >amount instead?
>
> These are weirder. Maybe are they intended for "on the fly" tests using an
> unspecified vehicle that has no handling rating, somewhat supplying a
> default handling of 6 and 7 for large and extra-large vehicles like haulers
> or busses (driven with the "car" skill), if you consider that usual cars
> have handling 4.

Actually, I think it's more for "you've just borrowed a car - it's much
bigger than you're used to, so you're not doing as well as you normally
do in cars."

--
Understanding is a three edged sword. Do you *want* to get the point?
http://www.albatross.co.nz/~psycho/ O- -><-
Standard disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this message are unlikely to
be mine, let alone anybody elses...
Message no. 14
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan Szeto)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 10:55:01 2001
From: Chris Shaffer <chris@*****.net>
> >For customization, the cost is based on the price of the base vehicle.
This
> >is to keep things simple -- no need to break down the cost of the
>individual components.

> Does this mean the cost of the chassis, or the cost of the entire vehicle,

> or something else? If I design a nifty car that costs 120,000Y including
> all the design and customization options, do I have to pay 150,000Y to add

> a level of drive by wire? What, exactly, does "base cost of the vehicle"
mean?

It means, use the straight number value listed in the "Cost:" entry. Do not
figure in increases (or discounts) for Street Value, and ignore any other
customization mods.

From: DemonPenta@***.com
> Sideline to that...Jon, if SBs follow the same profile as an ICBM on
> an inbound track, how the hell do they NOT get shot down as incoming
> nukes?:-) Always bugged me.

If I was more irritable than my always pleasant personality ;), I would have
probably shot back with a remark like, "What part of 'similar' do you not
understand?" ;)

But seriously, SBs operate in a manner SIMILAR to ICBMs, but that does NOT
mean that their flight paths are identical. (Meta)human flesh isn't capable
of pulling as many Gs as weapons-grade plutonium, after all. There would
probably be enough differences in the flight path (not to mention radar
signature) to make an SB distinguishable from an ICBM.

And, of course, NORAD (or its SR equivalents) can always call up the FAA (or
its equivalents) in case of doubt... difficult as it is for government
agencies to accept the concept of cooperating with each other. :)

From: Damion Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au>

> Jon, I think he meant the "free" ammo amount, ie:
>
> "Ammunition Bins (p 135 R3)
> Fixed mounts and turrets are assumed to hold an ammunition load equal to
> twice the mounted weapon's Ammo rating"

But the statement you quoted explicitly states that you get twice the normal
ammo rating as "free" ammo. Anything else beyond that 2x Ammo capacity
requires an ammo bin, and, again, I say leave it open-ended and let the GM
dictate the upper limit.

> You would need a separate ammo bin for each type of ammo.
>
> So one of the things firearm conversion does that _isn't_ stated in the
rules
> is allow for multiple ammo feeds?

To be honest, the jury's still out on that one. For belted ammo it's best to
restrict it to a single feed, both for tactical and technical reasons.
Projected advances in automation could allow for switching between different
belts, but that increases the risk of a weapon jam. Also, it's easy to get
confused under fire and use the wrong belt -- it'd be much simpler to
remember that weapon A uses ball (normal) ammo, while weapon B uses
special-purpose ammo.

On the other hand, for large-caliber individual rounds (tank and artillery
rounds, for example), there are autoloaders in the works that are capable of
differentiating between different types of rounds (HEAT v. APDS v. HE, etc.)

Personally, I'd rather leave it up to the GM to decide on a case-by-case
basis. But in those circumstances where it would be permissible for multiple
ammo feeds, a separate bin is required for each ammo type.

> Are you sure about this? I've never heard of this process, but I've many
> times heard of chemical reaction fuel cells oxidising a fuel (such as
> hydrogen or methane) and reducing an oxidant (such as oxygen), then
> combining the cations and anions through some sort of electrolyte,
meanwhile
> tapping the electrical potential created for power.

That is the basis of fuel cells, but the mistake people are assuming is that
the energy comes from the thermal energy released in the chemical reaction.
Rather, the electrical energy from the fuel cell comes from the ionization
of hydrogen, which creates a hydrogen ion and a free electron. During the
anodization process, the free electrons are forced down a separate coil-like
path from the hydrogen. This in turn induces an electric current, which
produces the electric energy a la an electric generator.

The best explanation that I have seen can be found at
(www.usfcc.com/USFCC-TransportationBrochure.pdf). It's an Acrobat file, but
most of the really informative ones exist mainly in .pdf files. Most web
pages unfortunately tend to be PR or political-action hype with little
informative content.

(I have also heard of research that forces the hydrogen ion to travel down a
coiled tube instead of the electron, since a hydrogen ion is literally a
free proton. However I haven't been able to find any reference to verify
that rumor.)

> This might sound like a whinge, but then why are there "Non-Stressful
> Situation", "Stressful Situation", and "Action Performed During
Combat"
> modifiers on the Driving Test Modifiers Table on p 134 SR3? If the only
time
> one ever needs to make a driving test is in a non-standard situation, then
> having a modifier for making one in a "Non-Stressful Situation" is rather
> redundant. Additionally, having a modifier for "Stressful Situation" is
also
> rather pointless, as it will _always_ be applied, and the Handling of
every
> vehicle should just be increased by 1!

Keep in mind that the Vehicle Test is a catch-all test that covers all sorts
of driving situations where there is a chance of failure or adverse effect.
Non-stressful situations would include those which are routine but still
somewhat risky (landing on an aircraft carrier, for example) or for unusual
procedures in a non-emergency situation. (Landing on a highway or open field
for a meet, for example.)

What constitutes a Stressful or non-Stressful situation IMO is a decision
best left to the GM.

> Also, while I'm on the topic of silly Handling modifiers, why are there
> modifiers for "Large Vehicle of Type" and "Very Large Vehicle of
Type"?
> Shouldn't the Handling of these vehicles just be adjusted by the listed
> amount instead?

The "Large/Very Large Vehicle of Type" shouldn't be used to differentiate
between different types of vehicles in the same group (for example, sedans
and tractors). Rather, they are used to differentiate between different
models of vehicles within the same chassis type. For example, compare a Ford
Escort to one of those ancient Chevy boat-cars you see in 70s cop shows.
Both are classified as sedans, but the boat-car is a lot more clunky than
the Escort. Or for another example, compare a 727 to a 747; both are
Airliners, but the 727 is more maneuverable than the 747, which has all the
grace of a flying hippopotamus.

> IMO semiballistics are more of a plot device than anything else. Which
> prompts the question as to why they were ever included at all ;-).

Mike asked me to. ;)

> OTOH, the design constraints of working underwater at high pressures are
> probably more stringent than the design constraints of working in
> atmospheric conditions. Making JIM suits for hazardous material work (such
> as reactors) would probably be _simpler_ than making them for deep sea
> underater work. Vacuum for space is another matter entirely... :-)

But that means designing a whole new suit, which gets away from the point
that Robert was aiming for.

-- Jon
Message no. 15
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 11:05:01 2001
--part1_6e.cc50a5f.287c752f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 7/10/01 11:06:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Szeto@********.com writes:


There would
probably be enough differences in the flight path (not to mention radar
signature) to make an SB distinguishable from an ICBM.
---------
We hope.

----------
And, of course, NORAD (or its SR equivalents) can always call up the FAA (or
its equivalents) in case of doubt... difficult as it is for government
agencies to accept the concept of cooperating with each other. :)
--------

In 3 minutes, will NORAD (still exists in SR, acc'ing to Target:
Smugglers' Havens) get past the FAA switchboard? I think not.:-) So chances
are, the first few years of the things are FILLED with accidental splashes,
and passengers still take their life in their hands when they fly one. Never
mind the issues of noise pollution; A big problem at MODERN airports, let
alone with SBs and Suborbitals...

--part1_6e.cc50a5f.287c752f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated
7/10/01 11:06:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
<BR>Szeto@********.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>There would
<BR>probably be enough differences in the flight path (not to mention radar
<BR>signature) to make an SB distinguishable from an ICBM.
<BR>---------
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;We hope.
<BR>
<BR>----------
<BR>And, of course, NORAD (or its SR equivalents) can always call up the FAA (or
<BR>its equivalents) in case of doubt... difficult as it is for government
<BR>agencies to accept the concept of cooperating with each other. :)
<BR>--------
<BR>
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In 3 minutes, will
NORAD (still exists in SR, acc'ing to Target:
<BR>Smugglers' Havens) get past the FAA switchboard? I think not.:-) So chances
<BR>are, the first few years of the things are FILLED with accidental splashes,
<BR>and passengers still take their life in their hands when they fly one. Never
<BR>mind the issues of noise pollution; A big problem at MODERN airports, let
<BR>alone with SBs and Suborbitals...</FONT></HTML>

--part1_6e.cc50a5f.287c752f_boundary--
Message no. 16
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 11:15:04 2001
Keith Duthie writes:

> Actually, I think it's more for "you've just borrowed a car - it's much
> bigger than you're used to, so you're not doing as well as you normally
> do in cars."

So what if what you're used to driving is a 90 wheel 4 trailer truck? <grin>

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 17
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 11:25:01 2001
Jonathan Szeto writes:

> > Jon, I think he meant the "free" ammo amount, ie:
> >
> > "Ammunition Bins (p 135 R3)
> > Fixed mounts and turrets are assumed to hold an ammunition load equal to
> > twice the mounted weapon's Ammo rating"
>
> But the statement you quoted explicitly states that you get twice the
> normal ammo rating as "free" ammo. Anything else beyond that 2x Ammo
> capacity requires an ammo bin, and, again, I say leave it open-ended and
> let the GM dictate the upper limit.

Yes, but the point he was trying to make is that this is inconsistent and
illogical. An Assault Cannon, with a normal ammo clip of 20, has 40 free
shots available when mounted on a vehicle. That's 0.4 CF of ammo space.
While a Hold Out Pistol, with a normal ammo clip of 6 has 12 free shots
available. That's, er, 0.0012 CF of ammo space. His argument was "would it
not be more sensible to say that weapon mounts come with 0.02 CF of free
ammo space, rather than 2 times the normal clip capacity?".

> The "Large/Very Large Vehicle of Type" shouldn't be used to differentiate
> between different types of vehicles in the same group (for example, sedans
> and tractors). Rather, they are used to differentiate between different
> models of vehicles within the same chassis type. For example, compare a Ford
> Escort to one of those ancient Chevy boat-cars you see in 70s cop shows.
> Both are classified as sedans, but the boat-car is a lot more clunky than
> the Escort. Or for another example, compare a 727 to a 747; both are
> Airliners, but the 727 is more maneuverable than the 747, which has all the
> grace of a flying hippopotamus.

I still don't see why 747's don't just have a Handling of 2 higher than
727's then. :-) It'd be a lot cleaer and a lot less confusing.

> But that means designing a whole new suit, which gets away from the point
> that Robert was aiming for.

Thanks to Molly for explaining why it wouldn't work anyway ;-).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 18
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 11:30:01 2001
DemonPenta@***.com writes:

> Never mind the issues of noise pollution; A big problem at MODERN
> airports, let alone with SBs and Suborbitals...

It is mentioned that SBs take off in a semi-conventional manner, and achieve
a high altitude before engaging their booster rockets to specifically avoid
this problem.

BTW, I think it highly unlikely that when these things were first introduced
that different authorirtes _didn't_ talk to each other extensively about
when and where they were flying. NORAD would have been keen to see just how
(di)similar their trajectories and radar signatures were from ICBMs, and the
companies running the SBs would have been very concerned to ensure that
their multi-million dollar investments didn't get accidently falsely ID'd
and shot down.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 19
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 11:35:01 2001
--part1_106.25ae220.287c7b61_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 7/10/01 11:26:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dam01@***.edu.au writes:


So what if what you're used to driving is a 90 wheel 4 trailer truck? <grin>


Same modifier, different reason: It's a lot SMALLER than yer used to.
Truckers should stay to trucks!:-)


--part1_106.25ae220.287c7b61_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated
7/10/01 11:26:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
<BR>dam01@***.edu.au writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>So what if what you're used to driving is a 90 wheel 4 trailer truck?
&lt;grin&gt;
<BR>
<BR>
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Same modifier,
different reason: It's a lot SMALLER than yer used to.
<BR>Truckers should stay to trucks!:-)
<BR></FONT></HTML>

--part1_106.25ae220.287c7b61_boundary--
Message no. 20
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Keith Duthie)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 11:40:01 2001
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Keith Duthie writes:
>
> > Actually, I think it's more for "you've just borrowed a car - it's much
> > bigger than you're used to, so you're not doing as well as you normally
> > do in cars."
>
> So what if what you're used to driving is a 90 wheel 4 trailer truck? <grin>

Then perhaps you should start thinking about applying modifiers for
/smaller/ vehicles :-P

--
Understanding is a three edged sword. Do you *want* to get the point?
http://www.albatross.co.nz/~psycho/ O- -><-
Standard disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this message are unlikely to
be mine, let alone anybody elses...
Message no. 21
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 12:10:01 2001
--part1_bc.170f5170.287c83cc_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 7/10/01 12:08:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dam01@***.edu.au writes:

> BTW, I think it highly unlikely that when these things were first
> introduced
> that different authorirtes _didn't_ talk to each other extensively about
> when and where they were flying.

You would be surprised. Air travel and air defense systems are so
mangled, so screwed up in communicating with each other, that there are many
countries airlines refuse to fly to, or charge through the nose. (One big
reason why flying to the Mideast is so expensive seems to be that airlines
charge extra for the pure risk of flying there. You never know when a SAM or
ADF might mistake a 707 airliner for an E3.)

--part1_bc.170f5170.287c83cc_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated
7/10/01 12:08:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<BR>dam01@***.edu.au writes:
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid;
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> &nbsp;&nbsp;BTW,
I think it highly unlikely that when these things were first
<BR>introduced
<BR>that different authorirtes _didn't_ talk to each other extensively about
<BR>when and where they were flying. </FONT><FONT
COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial"
LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You would be
surprised. Air travel and air defense systems are so
<BR>mangled, so screwed up in communicating with each other, that there are many
<BR>countries airlines refuse to fly to, or charge through the nose. (One big
<BR>reason why flying to the Mideast is so expensive seems to be that airlines
<BR>charge extra for the pure risk of flying there. You never know when a SAM or
<BR>ADF might mistake a 707 airliner for an E3.)</FONT></HTML>

--part1_bc.170f5170.287c83cc_boundary--
Message no. 22
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 12:30:01 2001
At 12:19 PM 7/10/2001 +0200, Zixx wrote:
>Am Montag, 9. Juli 2001 20:50 schrieben Sie:
> > DemonPenta@***.com writes:
> > > Sideline to that...Jon, if SBs follow the same profile as an ICBM
> > > on an inbound track, how the hell do they NOT get shot down as
> > > incoming nukes?:-) Always bugged me.

Well, for one the SB is launched from an airport (military satellites can
detect ICBMs when the are launched and/or computers can back track an
ICBM's path to find out where it came from).

An SB is *much* larger than an ICBM. A simple radar return would identify
an SB, not to mention real time visual tracking from a satellite.

SB launches are probably filed at least 24-hours in advance. I would also
suspect that SB launches have to be cleared with the defense systems of the
originating country and the destination country.

A nuclear attack against a similarly armed country requires you to launch
everything at once. One ICBM disguised as an SB will just provoke the
target country to launch everything they have against you. Therefor I
suspect that if a nuclear country sees what appears to be an SB, they
assume it's an SB, because no nuclear country would try to disguise a
single ICBM as an SB as it's opening move in a nuclear war.

All IMHO.

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader II
--
Message no. 23
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 12:40:01 2001
--part1_96.16bebb77.287c8ac3_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 7/10/01 12:41:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
davidb@****.imcprint.com writes:


Therefor I
suspect that if a nuclear country sees what appears to be an SB, they
assume it's an SB, because no nuclear country would try to disguise a
single ICBM as an SB as it's opening move in a nuclear war.
------0-------0------0---------0---------0--------0--------00---------00------

--00------00--------
Whaddabout a non-nuclear country? Kinda the problem, Dave.

--part1_96.16bebb77.287c8ac3_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica>In a message dated 7/10/01 12:41:07 PM
Eastern Daylight Time,
<BR>davidb@****.imcprint.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Therefor I
<BR>suspect that if a nuclear country sees what appears to be an SB, they
<BR>assume it's an SB, because no nuclear country would try to disguise a
<BR>single ICBM as an SB as it's opening move in a nuclear war.<FONT SIZE=3>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial"
LANG="0">------0-------0------0---------0---------0--------0--------00---------00------
<BR>
<BR>--00------00--------
<BR>Whaddabout a non-nuclear country? Kinda the problem,
Dave.</FONT></HTML>

--part1_96.16bebb77.287c8ac3_boundary--
Message no. 24
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 12:55:15 2001
DemonPenta@***.com writes:

> Whaddabout a non-nuclear country? Kinda the problem, Dave.

Where exactly is the problem? If a nuclear armed country launches a nuke
disguised as an SB at a non-nuclear armed country, it's not much different
to them launching an ICBM at the non-nuclear country, is it? It's not like
the target country can do much either way... And if a non-nuclear armed
country gets it hands on a single ICBM and launches it in disguise at a
nuclear armed country (if you meant things the other way 'round), then
they've pretty much signed their extinction certificate, haven't they? Just
like if they launched the ICBM directly at the target country...

Now for terrorist application, OTOH, such a disguise has merits. OTOOH, I
think enough people have pointed out that ICBMs would not look anything like
SBs to make this all nothing but a cool background plot idea for a crazy run
:-).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 25
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 13:00:01 2001
At 12:43 PM 7/10/2001 -0400, DemonPenta@***.com wrote:
>In a message dated 7/10/01 12:41:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>davidb@****.imcprint.com writes:
>
>
>Therefor I
>suspect that if a nuclear country sees what appears to be an SB, they
>assume it's an SB, because no nuclear country would try to disguise a
>single ICBM as an SB as it's opening move in a nuclear war.
>------0-------0------0---------0---------0--------0--------00---------00------
>
>
>--00------00--------
>Whaddabout a non-nuclear country? Kinda the problem, Dave.

Why would a nuclear country disguise an ICBM as an SB if they want to nuke
a non-nuclear country? There's no fear of retaliation, so they can just
shoot the ICBM straight in.

If a country has a significant missile defense system and is paranoid
enough to worry about ICBMs disguised as SBs, then there probably won't be
any SB flights to that country. The paranoid country just wouldn't allow
SB flights in at all.

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader II
--
Message no. 26
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 13:25:14 2001
According to Graht, on Tue, 10 Jul 2001 the word on the street was...

> A nuclear attack against a similarly armed country requires you to launch
> everything at once. One ICBM disguised as an SB will just provoke the
> target country to launch everything they have against you. Therefor I
> suspect that if a nuclear country sees what appears to be an SB, they
> assume it's an SB, because no nuclear country would try to disguise a
> single ICBM as an SB as it's opening move in a nuclear war.

Unless it's intended as the excuse for starting a war... "They fired at us
because they thought one of our SBs was an ICBM, so we're only defending
ourselves by launching a retaliation strike."

Not that it would matter in the end if you're talking about nuclear powers
with fields full of ICBMs, but hey...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
A bad day fishing is still better than a good day dying.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) 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
Message no. 27
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Chris Shaffer)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 13:40:01 2001
>>What, exactly, does "base cost of the vehicle"
>>mean?
>
>It means, use the straight number value listed in the "Cost:" entry. Do not
>figure in increases (or discounts) for Street Value, and ignore any other
>customization mods.

What goes in the cost entry for custom designed vehicles? Is it:

Cost = (Chassis DP + Power Plant DP + Design Options DP + Customization
Options DP) * Mark Up * 1000

Or is it, as you seem to be suggesting??? I may be wrong here:

Cost = (Chassis DP + Power Plant DP + Design Options DP) * Mark Up * 1000

Or could it be:

Cost = (Chassis DP + Power Plant DP) * Mark Up * 1000

It seems like it would be cheaper and simpler to buy a duplicate of my
current vehicle with rating 3 drive by wire rather than pay through the
nose for an upgrade. To add rating 3 drive by wire to a vehicle that
originally cost 100,000Y would cost me 375,000Y. That's outrageous.


-----
Germans, of course, have no love life. They can't, since
whispering "I love you" to your sweetie sounds just the same
as telling her that you wish to eviscerate her corpse and
place the head on a spear in the front yard as a warning to
others." --Dan Sorenson
Chris Shaffer http://www.uic.edu/~shaffer/
chris@*****.net AIM:ChrisShaff
Message no. 28
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Chris Shaffer)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 13:45:02 2001
>What goes in the cost entry for custom designed vehicles? Is it:
>
>Cost = (Chassis DP + Power Plant DP + Design Options DP + Customization
>Options DP) * Mark Up * 1000
>
>Or is it, as you seem to be suggesting??? I may be wrong here:
>
>Cost = (Chassis DP + Power Plant DP + Design Options DP) * Mark Up * 1000
>
>Or could it be:
>
>Cost = (Chassis DP + Power Plant DP) * Mark Up * 1000

Whoops, make all that *100 not *1000.


-----
Germans, of course, have no love life. They can't, since
whispering "I love you" to your sweetie sounds just the same
as telling her that you wish to eviscerate her corpse and
place the head on a spear in the front yard as a warning to
others." --Dan Sorenson
Chris Shaffer http://www.uic.edu/~shaffer/
chris@*****.net AIM:ChrisShaff
Message no. 29
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:20:04 2001
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:40:18 -0600 Graht <davidb@****.imcprint.com>
writes:
<SNIP>
> A nuclear attack against a similarly armed country requires you to
> launch
> everything at once. One ICBM disguised as an SB will just provoke
> the
> target country to launch everything they have against you. Therefor
> I
> suspect that if a nuclear country sees what appears to be an SB,
> they
> assume it's an SB, because no nuclear country would try to disguise
> a
> single ICBM as an SB as it's opening move in a nuclear war.
>
> All IMHO.

Yeah, but who's going to launch their whole arsenal at Luxembourg? ;)

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 30
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan Szeto)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 17:30:05 2001
From: Gabe Chomic

> Just to clarify. It's always been somewhat strange in my mind, that
> particular cost (and all of the ones written that way.) I think it
> means that it multiplies the cost of the vehicle by 1.25, and then adds
> the cost of the vehicle.
>
> I.e. 60,000 vehicle. Add in level 1 FBW (or whatever, 1.25
> multiplier). New cost of vehicle = 60000 + 60000*1.25 = 135,000
>
> Yes or no?

The number is incorrect. (Sorry, just noticed it now.) It should be 0.25.
This IIRC has already been submitted to the R3 errata in progress (along
with a bunch of others where that "1" crept in), but if it isn't, it will be
shortly.

From: Damion Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au>

> Yes, but the point he was trying to make is that this is inconsistent and
> illogical. An Assault Cannon, with a normal ammo clip of 20, has 40 free
> shots available when mounted on a vehicle. That's 0.4 CF of ammo space.
> While a Hold Out Pistol, with a normal ammo clip of 6 has 12 free shots
> available. That's, er, 0.0012 CF of ammo space. His argument was "would it
> not be more sensible to say that weapon mounts come with 0.02 CF of free
> ammo space, rather than 2 times the normal clip capacity?".

However, small arms use firmpoints, while heavy weapons use hardpoints, and
the CF and Load requirements (both of which partially accommodate the
intended weapon) are distinctly different between the two. So size
differential is largely a moot point.

-- Jon
Message no. 31
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Chris Shaffer)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 17:45:01 2001
>However, small arms use firmpoints, while heavy weapons use hardpoints, and
>the CF and Load requirements (both of which partially accommodate the
>intended weapon) are distinctly different between the two. So size
>differential is largely a moot point.

Is there anything that says you can't put a bunch of pistols in a
turret? And a heavy machine gun has rounds that are *much* smaller than
cannon or missile rounds, so I don't think it's really a mott point.


-----
There seem to be a zillion definitions of co-dependent. My
current favorite is "trying to make people stay around by
giving to them."
Chris Shaffer http://www.uic.edu/~shaffer/
chris@*****.net AIM:ChrisShaff
Message no. 32
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Chris Shaffer)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 10 17:45:04 2001
At 7/10/2001 04:37 PM, you wrote:
> > Just to clarify. It's always been somewhat strange in my mind, that
> > particular cost (and all of the ones written that way.) I think it
> > means that it multiplies the cost of the vehicle by 1.25, and then adds
> > the cost of the vehicle.
> >
> > I.e. 60,000 vehicle. Add in level 1 FBW (or whatever, 1.25
> > multiplier). New cost of vehicle = 60000 + 60000*1.25 = 135,000
> >
> > Yes or no?
>
>The number is incorrect. (Sorry, just noticed it now.) It should be 0.25.
>This IIRC has already been submitted to the R3 errata in progress (along
>with a bunch of others where that "1" crept in), but if it isn't, it will be
>shortly.

And that makes all the difference in the world. I'm still curious to know
how the base price is calculated (per my earlier email).


-----
There seem to be a zillion definitions of co-dependent. My
current favorite is "trying to make people stay around by
giving to them."
Chris Shaffer http://www.uic.edu/~shaffer/
chris@*****.net AIM:ChrisShaff
Message no. 33
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Wavy Davy)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Wed Jul 11 08:00:01 2001
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Chris Shaffer wrote:

> What goes in the cost entry for custom designed vehicles? Is it:
>
> Cost = (Chassis DP + Power Plant DP + Design Options DP + Customization
> Options DP) * Mark Up * 1000
>
> Or is it, as you seem to be suggesting??? I may be wrong here:
>
> Cost = (Chassis DP + Power Plant DP + Design Options DP) * Mark Up * 1000
>
> Or could it be:
>
> Cost = (Chassis DP + Power Plant DP) * Mark Up * 1000

If you're asking what do you apply the markup to, then the answer is
everything. Chassis, Plant, Design Options and Customisations added as
design options. You'd then add on the cost of Cusomisations added as
customisations, in nuyen. eg Abaltive armour, Cargomounts, Tires, etc

That would be your base cost. As far as I can figure anyway :)

> It seems like it would be cheaper and simpler to buy a duplicate of my
> current vehicle with rating 3 drive by wire rather than pay through the
> nose for an upgrade. To add rating 3 drive by wire to a vehicle that
> originally cost 100,000Y would cost me 375,000Y. That's outrageous.

Retrofitting a vehcile not designed to incorporate something like drive
by wire will be more expensive that including it it the initial design.

However, IMHO, there are definatly some disrepancies between adding
customisations and design options in R3. eg its cheaper to add armour
as a cust. than as an option. Why? <shrug> But it works more or less.
I've had to tweak some numbers hear and there to get playable versions
of vehicles I've wanted to create.

--
Wavy Davy (who shares wins)
...You can't tell me that cowboys, when they're branding cattle, don't sort of
"accidentally" brand each other every once in a while. It's their way of
letting off stress.
Message no. 34
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan Szeto)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Wed Jul 11 14:30:01 2001
From: Chris Shaffer <chris@*****.net>

> What goes in the cost entry for custom designed vehicles?

Then you use the design specs. (Which is based off of the Chassis DP cost --
and the 1.75 multiplier for that cost is also wrong, it should be 0.75.)

The customization specs only apply if you use a production model and
"upgrade" it.

> Is there anything that says you can't put a bunch of pistols in a
turret?

Common sense?

Seriously, and with respect, this (as well as other cases that have been
offered) is really an extreme case that stretch the boundaries of
plausibility. The rules can't cover everything, no matter how detailed or
concise they go; at some point the GM is going to have to impose a reality
check. Game supplements, rule expansions, and (to a degree) house rules will
lessen the demand for a GM reality check, but it won't make it go away
altogether.

> And a heavy machine gun has rounds that are *much* smaller than
cannon or missile rounds, so I don't think it's really a mott point.

However, machine guns, by their function, use a LOT of rounds, which in turn
needs more space.

The point of it, though, and to return to Robert's original complaint, I
don't think there's any need to change the rules for ammo allocation in
vehicles. No, they're not perfect, and yes, they can be broken when pushed,
but within normal parameters, they do the job they're supposed to. To use a
phrase our development managers like to tell us engineers, "It doesn't have
to be perfect, it just has to work."

-- Jon
Message no. 35
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Thu Jul 12 02:35:00 2001
Jonathan Szeto writes:

> > What goes in the cost entry for custom designed vehicles?
>
> Then you use the design specs. (Which is based off of the Chassis DP cost --
> and the 1.75 multiplier for that cost is also wrong, it should be 0.75.)
>
> The customization specs only apply if you use a production model and
> "upgrade" it.

I think what he means is "Say I design some custom vehicle with all sorts of
Design Modifications and Customisations, and it costs 500,000Y total. Then I
build this car, but later I want to install Drive-by-Wire. Do I have to pay
0.75 x 500,000?"

To which I think the answer is "yes". Even if 400,000 of that 500,000 is
Customisations - you've already built all this complicated gadgetry into the
car, so now you have to live with it being much more difficult to modify.

> However, machine guns, by their function, use a LOT of rounds, which in turn
> needs more space.

So, logically, the designer of such a system _should_have_to_allocate_more_
_space_, rather than mysteriously and magically get it for free!

Fighter aircraft, by their function, need to fly fast, which in turn needs
greater engine thrust. But they don't get 10 times the thrust for putting in
the same engine as a little Cessna just because they "need" it.

I think his suggestion was very valid. Actuallly, I think it would probably
be wiser to do away with "free" ammo altogether, and make people put it in
ammo bins. That'd solve the problem.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 36
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 17 03:45:01 2001
> From: "Robert Fanning" <rothgefa@********.com.au>
> > 2) If says that adding a weapon to a vehicle, it
can only accept accessories that are part of the
weapon, except smartguns, which much be internal.
> >
> > Now, does that mean all accessories must be
internal or integral with the gun?
>
> Yes.

Uh...what about gas vents, which aren't removeable
once added? Is that considered 'integral'?

> > 3) I couldn't find a magazine selector - if I want
to put a variety of different ammos in the different
magazines, say APDS, EX, Fletchette and incendary;
there doesn't seem to be any mechanism? So should I
just allocate 0.2 CF to each? 10,000 assault rifle
rounds is an awful lot - 500kg of ammo. It would take
me a long time to burn through that much, although,
some players I have known.......
>
> You would need a separate ammo bin for each type of
ammo.

Okay, PLEASE put this in the errata, Jon, or Rob or
whoever handles that. :) This is a very important
thing that's not even hinted at in the book.

> > EC engines should be able to use solar panels?
Whoever wrote the rules for EC engines had a poor
grasp of physics - hydrogen cells do not produce AC
power, they are like conventional batteries using a
chemical reaction, wheras a internal combustion engine
burning hydrogen would produce AC with a generator as
it uses coils and transformers. Transformers do not
work on DC power.
>
> It is not the chemical conversion of hydrogen and
oxygen to water that produces electricity. Electric
fuel cells work by inducting the hydrogen ions (in
essence, free protons) through a coil to generate a
magnetic field, that subsequently induces a current in
the power circuit.
>
> In other words, electric fuel cells aren't governed
by the Laws of Thermodynamics, but rather by Maxwell's
Laws of Electromagnetics.

So, like, does this mean solar cells WON'T work with
EC engines? If so, does it actually say this in the
book somewhere?

> > 9) The price of fly by wire systems - 1.25 x the
cost of the whole vehicle for EACH LEVEL - does that
include other accessories unrelated to the engine
systems.
>
> For customization, the cost is based on the price of
the base vehicle. This is to keep things simple -- no
need to break down the cost of the individual
components.
> -- Jon

Jon, do such multipliers as the one above actually
mean the customisation costs 1.25 times the cost of
the vehicle? i.e you pay more for a single level of
the customisation than you did for the entire vehicle?
For some things (like drive-by-wire) that kinda makes
sense, but I do recall there are some items (engine
customisation springs to mind IIRC) where it doesn't
make sense that just tooling around the engine (or
whatever you're doing) would cost more than the
vehicle did in the first place.

If you've already answered any of these questions,
feel free to ignore mine. I'll get to what you
said...eventually. :)

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @*****.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Message no. 37
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking
Date: Tue Jul 17 03:55:01 2001
> > > 1) Number of rounds in weapon mounts.....
Couldn't they just have a limit of 0.2 CF, 0.1 CF or
even 0.02 CF capacity in mounts?
> >
> > <Snip 9 yards>
> >
> > IMO it's best to leave the ammo bin capacity
open-ended and let the GM set the upper limits.
>
> Jon, I think he meant the "free" ammo amount, ie:
>
> "Ammunition Bins (p 135 R3)
> Fixed mounts and turrets are assumed to hold an
ammunition load equal to twice the mounted weapon's
Ammo rating"

Which is never enough anyway. :)

I thought Robert was talking about the fact that you
buy ammo bins in 0.2 CF increments, but it then
suggests 2 CF as the minimum bin size. I'm probably
wrong, but still...anyway, I'd think that, especially
with the smaller drones, where you don't have a lot of
CF to play with, most GMs would ignore that
suggestion.

> > > <Snip magazine selector>
> >
> > You would need a separate ammo bin for each type
of ammo.
>
> So one of the things firearm conversion does that
_isn't_ stated in the rules is allow for multiple ammo
feeds?

And again, can someone make sure that this is put in
the errata at the very least, and preferably in future
printings of the book as well?

> > However, if you are Sunday-driving on the highway,
you would not need to make Handling Tests. Handling
Tests only apply when you are performing non-standard
vehicle operations -- hairpin turns, emergency
braking, vehicle combat, and so on. And in these
cases, off-road handling CAN adversely affect
performance.
>
> This might sound like a whinge, but then why are
there "Non-Stressful Situation", "Stressful
Situation", and "Action Performed During Combat"
modifiers on the Driving Test Modifiers Table on p 134
SR3? If the only time one ever needs to make a driving
test is in a non-standard situation, then having a
modifier for making one in a "Non-Stressful Situation"
is rather redundant. Additionally, having a modifier
for "Stressful Situation" is also rather pointless, as
it will _always_ be applied, and the Handling of every
vehicle should just be increased by 1!
> Damion Milliken

I was wondering that myself. I mean, street sammies
and mages don't suffer modifiers for shooting or
casting spells in combat, nor do deckers suffer
modifiers when they're engaged in combat.

On the other hand, riggers are the only characters who
get target number reductions for simply BEING riggers
- is that why these modifiers exist? I'd figure so.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @*****.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking, 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.