Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Steven A. Tinner" <bluewizard@*****.COM>
Subject: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 02:14:29 -0400
OK, I just picked up R2 and gave it the once over.
Nice book, useful info, greatly enhances the playability of a rigger.
(I'm itching to play my "Streethawk-ripoff" biker now! ;-))

However, one small detail has me concerned.
For robots their strength characteristic is listed as being equal to their
Body X Body!?!?!

So a Robot with a Body of 4 has a Strength of 16?!?!?!
Boggle!?

Am I missing something? Or are Robots supposed to be that nasty?
(Maybe FASA's planning on introducing the elementals from Btech? ;-))

Steven A. Tinner
bluewizard@*****.com
http://www.ncweb.com/users/bluewizard
"Never trust a monkey!"
Message no. 2
From: David Mezerette <mezeretted@*****.U-NANCY.FR>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:33:28 +0100
At 02:14 17/10/97 -0400, you wrote:
> OK, I just picked up R2 and gave it the once over.
>Nice book, useful info, greatly enhances the playability of a rigger.
>(I'm itching to play my "Streethawk-ripoff" biker now! ;-))
>
>However, one small detail has me concerned.
>For robots their strength characteristic is listed as being equal to their
>Body X Body!?!?!
>
>So a Robot with a Body of 4 has a Strength of 16?!?!?!
>Boggle!?
>
cool =)
new X-mas gift for riggers: a dragon-killer robot w/ strength of 25 *grin*

gosh...i wish R2 was available in France too atm =/

ChYlD
mezeretted@*****.u-nancy.fr
Message no. 3
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty? -Reply
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:27:40 -0500
>For robots their strength characteristic is listed
>as being equal to their
>Body X Body!?!?!
>
>So a Robot with a Body of 4 has a Strength of
>16?!?!?!
>Boggle!?

I don't have the book yet, but it makes sense to
me that the only limit to how strong a robot can
be is how robust (body) it is built. Strong robots
do tend to be slower (because they have more
mass to move around), but that isn't a given.
Think of it this way: would you rather be puched
by a troll or crushed by a three ton hydralic
press?

Double-Domed Mike
"John Hennry was a mighty steel drivin' man"
Message no. 4
From: Max Rible <slothman@*********.ORG>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:39:09 -0800
At 02:14 10/17/97 -0400, Steven A. Tinner wrote:
>However, one small detail has me concerned.
>For robots their strength characteristic is listed as being equal to their
>Body X Body!?!?!
>
>So a Robot with a Body of 4 has a Strength of 16?!?!?!

Bear in mind that this robot, having a body of 4, is the size of a GMC
Bulldog Step-Van.

--
%% Max Rible %% slothman@*****.com %% http://www.amurgsval.org/~slothman/ %%
%% "Ham is good... Glowing *tattooed* ham is *bad*!" - the Tick %%
Message no. 5
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:02:01 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-17 02:18:12 EDT, you write:

> However, one small detail has me concerned.
> For robots their strength characteristic is listed as being equal to their
> Body X Body!?!?!
>
> So a Robot with a Body of 4 has a Strength of 16?!?!?!
> Boggle!?

Yup, and thinking of the movie Terminator are you surprised at all.

> Am I missing something? Or are Robots supposed to be that nasty?
> (Maybe FASA's planning on introducing the elementals from Btech? ;-))

As for robots being that nasty, yes I believe they are supposed to be.
Though Keith and I came up with a house rule regarding the strength of a
robot. The strength of a robot is the original unmodified body for a drone
of it's category. So a drone that originally had a body of 4, modified to an
8, would still only have a strength of 16.
Message no. 6
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty? -Reply
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:09:57 EST
> >So a Robot with a Body of 4 has a Strength of
> >16?!?!?!
> >Boggle!?
>
> I don't have the book yet, but it makes sense to
> me that the only limit to how strong a robot can
> be is how robust (body) it is built. Strong robots
> do tend to be slower (because they have more
> mass to move around), but that isn't a given.
> Think of it this way: would you rather be puched
> by a troll or crushed by a three ton hydralic
> press?

I would tend to agree with you, but RBB2 also gives the Reaction
equal to their Pilot rating and Initiative DICE equal to Learning
pool (I make have crossed Piloting and Learn, but the point is:
THese things are fast).

Perhaps they have a great reaction time, but lousy reaction speed?
Message no. 7
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty? -Reply
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:01:35 -0400
Brett Borger[SMTP:bxb121@***.EDU] wrote:
[snip]
> > be is how robust (body) it is built. Strong robots
> > do tend to be slower (because they have more
> > mass to move around), but that isn't a given.
[snip]
>
> I would tend to agree with you, but RBB2 also gives the Reaction
> equal to their Pilot rating and Initiative DICE equal to Learning
> pool (I make have crossed Piloting and Learn, but the point is:
> THese things are fast).
>
> Perhaps they have a great reaction time, but lousy reaction speed?

Well, Reaction and Initiative do only reflect how quickly something
can react to a change in its environment (generally speaking).
If something is going to move fast, it really needs to have a high
Quickness...

James Ojaste
Message no. 8
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:02:10 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-17 02:12:23 EDT, bluewizard@*****.COM writes:

>
> So a Robot with a Body of 4 has a Strength of 16?!?!?!
> Boggle!?
>
> Am I missing something? Or are Robots supposed to be that nasty?
> (Maybe FASA's planning on introducing the elementals from Btech? ;-))
>
>
Tinner, I have only one thing to say. Bull and someone else told a story
about Gencon this year and something concerning "General whatshisface and
Harlequin". I know it's humor, but Mike and the ED lady enjoy continuity on
a grand scale. Perhaps it's time to do some considerations.

-K
Message no. 9
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:26:02 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-17 13:41:57 EDT, slothman@*********.ORG writes:

> >So a Robot with a Body of 4 has a Strength of 16?!?!?!
>
> Bear in mind that this robot, having a body of 4, is the size of a GMC
> Bulldog Step-Van.
>
Hold on right there...what about the legs of a Steel Lynx...yes it's a drone,
but it's the first "limbed" machine that I recall, short of the telescopic
thing on a Snooper. Those legs have the same strength (which makes some
sense actually, when you stop to think about it),...and it's no where near
the size of a Step Van.

-K
Message no. 10
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 13:48:48 +0100
J. Keith Henry said on 19:26/17 Oct 97...

> Hold on right there...what about the legs of a Steel Lynx...yes it's a drone,
> but it's the first "limbed" machine that I recall, short of the telescopic
> thing on a Snooper. Those legs have the same strength (which makes some
> sense actually, when you stop to think about it),...and it's no where near
> the size of a Step Van.

That's probably why it only has a Body of 2 in Rigger 2... It does,
however, have its normal 12 points of armor, which makes it immune to most
attacks anyway.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Turn into nothing less than nothing new.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 11
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:51:13 PDT
>> So a Robot with a Body of 4 has a Strength of 16?!?!?!
>> Boggle!?
>>

Depends on what you mean by "robot": the biggest walker has a body
of 2. Strenght enhancement is available, but still, its no troll. The
bulldozer drone (Kodiak) Is supposed to be great for ramming things, but
is to slow to do any real damage. How ever it has a (digging) arm, and
a body of 4....
An APC with arms would have an STR of 25- good enough to rip up
trees or move 500 kilo crates. If that so unreasonable?


> I know it's humor, but Mike and the ED lady enjoy continuity on
>a grand scale. Perhaps it's time to do some considerations.
>

I think not. AFAIK (from talking to him in person) he thinks such
cross-overs are a BAD idea and wishes the ED connection would go away.



Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psycotic - Einstien

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 12
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 13:03:06 PDT
>> >So a Robot with a Body of 4 has a Strength of 16?!?!?!
>>
>> Bear in mind that this robot, having a body of 4, is the size of a
GMC
>> Bulldog Step-Van.
>>
>Hold on right there...what about the legs of a Steel Lynx...yes it's a
drone,
>but it's the first "limbed" machine that I recall, short of the
telescopic
>thing on a Snooper. Those legs have the same strength (which makes
some
>sense actually, when you stop to think about it),...and it's no where
near
>the size of a Step Van.
>
>-K
>
Steel lynx has a body of 2, and is lot listed as a having legs, or
even good off road handling. It also costs ~40k.

Please, before arguing points in RBB2,look at the book. The noise on
the Re:rigger2 post was unbelievable- I had to block delete the whole
thread.


Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psycotic - Einstien

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 13
From: Wind Dancer <winddancer@***********.NET>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 16:22:25 -0400
At 01:48 PM 10/18/97 +0100, you wrote:
>J. Keith Henry said on 19:26/17 Oct 97...
>
>> Hold on right there...what about the legs of a Steel Lynx...yes it's a drone,
>> but it's the first "limbed" machine that I recall, short of the
telescopic
>> thing on a Snooper. Those legs have the same strength (which makes some
>> sense actually, when you stop to think about it),...and it's no where near
>> the size of a Step Van.
>
>That's probably why it only has a Body of 2 in Rigger 2... It does,
>however, have its normal 12 points of armor, which makes it immune to most
>attacks anyway.

ok, I have looked and looked, but where in R2 is the Steel Lynx listed. A
page Ref would be great.

Thanks
Message no. 14
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 13:50:11 PDT
>ok, I have looked and looked, but where in R2 is the Steel Lynx listed.
A
>page Ref would be great.
>
>Thanks
>

P165, bottom, as,um, Steel Lynx Ground Combat Drone. Took me a few
to find, too- Its a general problem, all the entries look to mutch the
same. Little pictures would have helped- siloettes ,at least. And the
index is only 1 page! Say what you will, Awakenings has a good index.
Pic, Pick, Pick.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 15
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 19:31:00 -0500
i saved most of the rigger posts untill AFTER i read my copy. boy did
that add up to a lot of posts:).

On Fri, 17 Oct 1997, Steven A. Tinner wrote:
> However, one small detail has me concerned.
> For robots their strength characteristic is listed as being equal to their
> Body X Body!?!?!
> So a Robot with a Body of 4 has a Strength of 16?!?!?!
> Boggle!?
> Am I missing something? Or are Robots supposed to be that nasty?
> (Maybe FASA's planning on introducing the elementals from Btech? ;-))

AHH but you must rember that body is directly related to size. A
ruffly human size robot has a body of _2_ so only a strength of _4_. your
robot with body of 4 would be the size of a van or pickup truck. Thats
one big robot so of course it can be really strong. The bigest walkers or
anthroform they list in the chassis table only have bodies of 2 so i doubt
you will see Battlemech sized robots anytime soon...

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 16
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:30:47 +0000
Wind Dancer <winddancer@***********.NET> once wrote,

> ok, I have looked and looked, but where in R2 is the Steel Lynx listed. A
> page Ref would be great.

Uhh.. no page refs...but a different book ;) The Steel Lynx drone is
in the final vehicule list of R2, but is described in more detail
(and with A PICTURE! </insert: woohoo>) in the merc book Fields of
Fire.

Trinity

--------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 17
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 13:04:20 +0100
Wind Dancer said on 16:22/18 Oct 97...

> ok, I have looked and looked, but where in R2 is the Steel Lynx listed. A
> page Ref would be great.

The old vehicles are listed in alphabetical order on pages 148 through
166. A slight problem is that for those whose manufacturer is mentioned
somewhere, you'll need to look under that, while those without a known
manufacturer are under the vehicle's name -- so the Steel Lynx sits
between the Sikorsky-Bell Red Ranger and the Surfstar Marine Seacop on
page 165.

I think it'd be a good idea to do a little list that has the vehicles
sorted by their own name, to make looking them up a bit easier.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Turn into nothing less than nothing new.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 18
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 09:44:18 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-18 07:52:48 EDT, gurth@******.NL writes:

>
> That's probably why it only has a Body of 2 in Rigger 2... It does,
> however, have its normal 12 points of armor, which makes it immune to most
> attacks anyway.
>
I was noticing that last night. Boy did you see the cost changes? And to
compare another change...the Ferret is WAY cheaper than it used to be...it
almost sent me into rules shock to be truthful.
-K
Message no. 19
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 10:02:12 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-18 16:04:52 EDT, landsquid@*******.COM writes:

> Steel lynx has a body of 2, and is lot listed as a having legs, or
> even good off road handling. It also costs ~40k.

As I said to the posts that Gurth had put forth, I noticed. But a Steel Lynx
is still a "Limbed" vehicle (if nothing else, the old image is still used).

> Please, before arguing points in RBB2,look at the book. The noise on
> the Re:rigger2 post was unbelievable- I had to block delete the whole
> thread.

I admit that I didn't see the stats on the Lynx in R2 (guys, it's a "black
book" anymore, just a dusky gray one ;). However, I would like to point out
that nothing of the conversation is "noise", it's all brainstorming. It may
be noise to -some- people, but it serves as idea bouncing to the rest.
-K
Message no. 20
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 10:03:43 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-18 16:20:49 EDT, winddancer@***********.NET writes:

> >That's probably why it only has a Body of 2 in Rigger 2... It does,
> >however, have its normal 12 points of armor, which makes it immune to
most
> >attacks anyway.
>
> ok, I have looked and looked, but where in R2 is the Steel Lynx listed. A
> page Ref would be great.
>
> Thanks
>
Page 165, lower left column, last entry. It doesn't have a
"company/producer" at the beginning of it's name for some odd reason.

-K (who does NOT like the way they alphabetized things)
Message no. 21
From: Wind Dancer <winddancer@***********.NET>
Subject: Re: Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:57:37 -0400
At 10:03 AM 10/19/97 -0400, you wrote:
>> ok, I have looked and looked, but where in R2 is the Steel Lynx listed. A
>> page Ref would be great.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>Page 165, lower left column, last entry. It doesn't have a
>"company/producer" at the beginning of it's name for some odd reason.
>
>-K (who does NOT like the way they alphabetized things)

i don't care for it either. mabey they could alphabetixed by vehicle type
or something simpler like that.

Thanks for the page reference from all who responded. It was of great helf.
I was trully dumbfounded.

WD

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Are Robots gonna be THAT nasty?, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

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

Thwap!