Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	DragonC147@*.com DragonC147@*.com
Subject:	Armor Ratings on Vehicles
Date:	Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:57:29 EDT

Message no. 1 Hi,

I've been looking around the web at the vehicles that fellow runners/GM's
have created. One of the things i noticed most about these vehicles is that
a large number of them have unusually high armor ratings, IE fighters with 30
armor points. I know that in the Rigger Black Book that FASA had put a limit
on how much armor something could carry, something like body times 3 or so,
but in Rigger 2 there is no limit. Because of this you could put 111 points
of armor on a Thunderbird like the Banshee or StoneWall (now gone) or 103
points of armor on an Airliner, and there aren't any rules to stop it from
happening. It would only cost 138k¥ to do this, only 44k if done at vehicle
creation. What is a standard rule of measure for armoured vehicles like
aircraft/APC's, tanks, thunderbirds, etc.....

Dragon Claw

From:	Zebulin Magby zebulingod@*****.com
Subject:	Armor Ratings on Vehicles
Date:	Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:40:22 -0700

Message no. 2 <DragonC147@***.com> wrote:

"Hi,

I've been looking around the web at the vehicles that fellow runners/GM's
have created. One of the things i noticed most about these vehicles is that
a large number of them have unusually high armor ratings, IE fighters with
30
armor points. I know that in the Rigger Black Book that FASA had put a
limit
on how much armor something could carry, something like body times 3 or so,
but in Rigger 2 there is no limit. Because of this you could put 111 points
of armor on a Thunderbird like the Banshee or StoneWall (now gone) or 103
points of armor on an Airliner, and there aren't any rules to stop it from
happening. It would only cost 138k¥ to do this, only 44k if done at vehicle
creation. What is a standard rule of measure for armoured vehicles like
aircraft/APC's, tanks, thunderbirds, etc.....

Dragon Claw"

----

Well, actually, Rigger 2 introduced another rating, called Load rating,
which limits the amount of armor a vehicle can carry based on the type of
engine something uses.

-Zebulin-Magby-
ICQ: 21932827
SRGC: SR1 SR2++ SR3+++ h+ b+++ !B UB IE+
RN+ STK++ W- dk+ ri++ m-(d++) gm++ M- P++

"The splendor of the Universe pales in comparison to that of a fine woman."
-Me '2K
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GU d- s+:+>: a22 C++++ UL-- 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+++ z+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

From:	DragonC147@*.com DragonC147@*.com
Subject:	Armor Ratings on Vehicles
Date:	Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:43:11 EDT

Message no. 3 In a message dated 10/23/00 3:41:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
zebulingod@*****.com writes:

> <DragonC147@***.com> wrote:
>
> "Hi,
>
> I've been looking around the web at the vehicles that fellow runners/GM's
> have created. One of the things i noticed most about these vehicles is
that
> a large number of them have unusually high armor ratings, IE fighters with
> 30
> armor points. I know that in the Rigger Black Book that FASA had put a
> limit
> on how much armor something could carry, something like body times 3 or so,
> but in Rigger 2 there is no limit. Because of this you could put 111
points
> of armor on a Thunderbird like the Banshee or StoneWall (now gone) or 103
> points of armor on an Airliner, and there aren't any rules to stop it from
> happening. It would only cost 138k¥ to do this, only 44k if done at
vehicle
> creation. What is a standard rule of measure for armoured vehicles like
> aircraft/APC's, tanks, thunderbirds, etc.....
>
> Dragon Claw"
>
> ----
>
> Well, actually, Rigger 2 introduced another rating, called Load rating,
> which limits the amount of armor a vehicle can carry based on the type of
> engine something uses.
>
>
> -Zebulin-Magby-

I know but using the rules in Rigger 2 and the load ratings you can put 111
points of armor on a thunderbird and 103 points on an jet airliner.

DC

From:	Augustus shadowrun@********.net
Subject:	Armor Ratings on Vehicles
Date:	Tue, 24 Oct 2000 10:28:02 -0700

Message no. 4 ----- Original Message -----
>From: <DragonC147@***.com>
>
>I know but using the rules in Rigger 2 and the load ratings you can put 111
>points of armor on a thunderbird and 103 points on an jet airliner.
>

Well... whatever you are doing, you are doing it wrong.

Using the example of the GMC Banshee (a thunderbird), it currently has 18
armour points and has 805 in Load available.

Each point of armour for the Banshee weighs 180 (body*body*5).

the 805 free load, divided by 180 is 4 (with a remainder).

So... the banshee can take on another 4 points of armour and still have 85
Load free... So if they're gonna use it to smuggle anything, whatever it is
it better be light and worth a tonne of nuyen.

now yes... there are a few holes in the system... looking over the rules I
can see that there is an aircraft that can take almost 100 points of armour
on it. But then the other part of armour kicks in... every 6 points you add
increases handling by 1.

So if you took that light fixed wing plane and threw on 100 armour points,
its handling would go up by 17...

And finally... in Rigger 2 on p146 you'll find the most important rule in
the vehicle construction process... the GMs approval. It even says in there
that Fasa acknowledges that in order to make the system flexible, general
enough to serve everything, and simple enough, there are some holes in the
rules that can be abused.

Augustus

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer