Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Drew Curtis <dcurtis@***.NET>
Subject: Assault Cannons (vs RA:S drones)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 00:32:51 -0500
Two questions/issues

Can people name disadvantages to using assualt cannons? One is obviously
the weight of the thing and its ammo.

Assault cannons vs vehicles. In SR3 p.149, it says: Against AV munitions
(weapons that use a shaped-charge, penetrating warhead specifically
designed to take out vehicles), vehicle armor does not reduce the Power by
half and does not reduce the Damage Level. Now when shooting a RA:S
drone, is an assault cannon an AV weapon?

Drew Curtis, President, Digital Crescent, Incorporated
http://www.dcr.net (502) 226 3376 Internet and Software Design services.
Offering dial-up Access from Frankfort to Louisville and all points between.
Message no. 2
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Assault Cannons (vs RA:S drones)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 00:26:43 -0600
On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 00:32:51 -0500 Drew Curtis <dcurtis@***.NET> writes:
>Two questions/issues
>
>Can people name disadvantages to using assualt cannons? One is
obviously
>the weight of the thing and its ammo.

Uhm... Are you looking for Canon disadvantages or houserules?
(By the way, the thing is BIG! So feel free to toss Lone Star at `em if
the runners are out on the street or impose a target number mod if they
are in tights spaces in the Renraku Arcology.

>Assault cannons vs vehicles. In SR3 p.149, it says: Against AV
munitions
>(weapons that use a shaped-charge, penetrating warhead specifically
>designed to take out vehicles), vehicle armor does not reduce the Power
by
>half and does not reduce the Damage Level. Now when shooting a RA:S
>drone, is an assault cannon an AV weapon?

An assault cannon is, from your reference, an AV munition ... why would
that be different against the AR:S drones? (NOTE: I do not have RA:S yet
and so have no knowledge of any special properties that RA:S drones may
have that would prompt you to ask the above question.)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 3
From: "Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Assault Cannons (vs RA:S drones)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 17:47:19 +1000
> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 00:32:51 -0500 Drew Curtis <dcurtis@***.NET>
> writes:
> >Assault cannons vs vehicles. In SR3 p.149, it says: Against AV
> munitions
> >(weapons that use a shaped-charge, penetrating warhead specifically
> >designed to take out vehicles), vehicle armor does not reduce the
> Power
> by
> >half and does not reduce the Damage Level. Now when shooting a RA:S
> >drone, is an assault cannon an AV weapon?
>
> An assault cannon is, from your reference, an AV munition ... why
> would that be different against the AR:S drones? (NOTE: I do not have
> RA:S yet and so have no knowledge of any special properties that RA:S
> drones may have that would prompt you to ask the above question.)
> D. Ghost
>
Oh, actually, guys, I've always thought that assault cannons WEREN'T
anti-vehicular - I don't know if it's just my reading or what, but as
far as I'm aware, assault cannons are big'n'nasty things designed for
taking out heavily armoured people, not vehicles. That's why vehicles
mount the autocannon, which is bigger, heavier, more expensive - and
only does 12D damage!!! If an assault cannon (18D) was an AV weapon,
then why bother with an autocannon?

*Doc' shoots a Porta Potty with his assault cannon and watches the
shells bounce off (hey, it's on wheels - doesn't that make it a vehicle?
:) )*

Doc'

.sig Sauer
Message no. 4
From: Bruce <gyro@********.CO.ZA>
Subject: Re: Assault Cannons (vs RA:S drones)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:46:04 +0200
-----Original Message-----
From: Ratinac, Rand (NSW) <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: 02 December 1998 08:48
Subject: Re: Assault Cannons (vs RA:S drones)


<snip Drew Curtis>


>Oh, actually, guys, I've always thought that assault cannons WEREN'T
>anti-vehicular - I don't know if it's just my reading or what, but as
>far as I'm aware, assault cannons are big'n'nasty things designed for
>taking out heavily armoured people, not vehicles. That's why vehicles
>mount the autocannon, which is bigger, heavier, more expensive - and
>only does 12D damage!!! If an assault cannon (18D) was an AV weapon,
>then why bother with an autocannon?


I'm gonna agree with the good Doc on this one.
However, the description in Street Samurai Catalog describes the
Assault cannon rounds as Shaped Charge and Armour Piercing.
This lives up to all the requirements for an anti-vehicle weapon.
Could it be that AutoCannon is inferior, and if so , why?

I presume that an Assault Cannon is a 20mm calibre. With the ammo
described and the calibre taken for granted, I dont see it penetrating
heavy vehicle
armour, which it would if it was an AV weapon.

Thanks

-- BRUCE <gyro@********.co.za>
*Executive Engineer* *FrontLine Games*
Eva's Gyro
Message no. 5
From: Drew Curtis <dcurtis@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Assault Cannons (vs RA:S drones)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 11:44:32 -0500
On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, D. Ghost wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 00:32:51 -0500 Drew Curtis <dcurtis@***.NET> writes:
> >Two questions/issues
> >
> >Can people name disadvantages to using assualt cannons? One is
> obviously
> >the weight of the thing and its ammo.
>
> Uhm... Are you looking for Canon disadvantages or houserules?

Either. I had a problem with a cybertroll not long ago and the
suggestions people had were very helpful.

> An assault cannon is, from your reference, an AV munition ... why would
> that be different against the AR:S drones? (NOTE: I do not have RA:S yet
> and so have no knowledge of any special properties that RA:S drones may
> have that would prompt you to ask the above question.)
>
Well that's the question, is it an AV munition? There isn't anything to
indicate this in SR3.

Drew Curtis, President, Digital Crescent, Incorporated
http://www.dcr.net (502) 226 3376 Internet and Software Design services.
Offering dial-up Access from Frankfort to Louisville and all points between.
Message no. 6
From: Drew Curtis <dcurtis@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Assault Cannons (vs RA:S drones)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 11:46:18 -0500
On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Bruce wrote:

> >Oh, actually, guys, I've always thought that assault cannons WEREN'T
> >anti-vehicular - I don't know if it's just my reading or what, but as
> >far as I'm aware, assault cannons are big'n'nasty things designed for
> >taking out heavily armoured people, not vehicles. That's why vehicles
> >mount the autocannon, which is bigger, heavier, more expensive - and
> >only does 12D damage!!! If an assault cannon (18D) was an AV weapon,
> >then why bother with an autocannon?
>
>
> I'm gonna agree with the good Doc on this one.
> However, the description in Street Samurai Catalog describes the
> Assault cannon rounds as Shaped Charge and Armour Piercing.
> This lives up to all the requirements for an anti-vehicle weapon.
> Could it be that AutoCannon is inferior, and if so , why?
>
> I presume that an Assault Cannon is a 20mm calibre. With the ammo
> described and the calibre taken for granted, I dont see it penetrating
> heavy vehicle
> armour, which it would if it was an AV weapon.
>
That was what we figured too. So the question is, is it AV or not?

Drew Curtis, President, Digital Crescent, Incorporated
http://www.dcr.net (502) 226 3376 Internet and Software Design services.
Offering dial-up Access from Frankfort to Louisville and all points between.
Message no. 7
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Assault Cannons (vs RA:S drones)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:20:52 -0500
Drew Curtis wrote:
> > >Oh, actually, guys, I've always thought that assault cannons WEREN'T
> > >anti-vehicular - I don't know if it's just my reading or what, but as
[snip]
> > However, the description in Street Samurai Catalog describes the
> > Assault cannon rounds as Shaped Charge and Armour Piercing.
> > This lives up to all the requirements for an anti-vehicle weapon.
[snip]
> That was what we figured too. So the question is, is it AV or not?
>
Not. The V* guns (Vanquisher, Vengeance, Victory and Valiant) aren't
even AV weapons and they're mounted! AV weapons will be explicitly
marked as such (the anti-vehicular rockets, for example) - just as
naval guns will be explicitly marked as such.

"But this is the standard issue pistol for the UCAS navy - of *course*
it does naval damage!" :-)

James Ojaste
Message no. 8
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Assault Cannons (vs RA:S drones)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 20:21:53 +0000
*SNIP stuff on Assault Cannons*
> That was what we figured too. So the question is, is it AV or not?

P.279, BBB3:
"This massive weapon fires shells equivalent to explosive bullets,
but without the bullets' inherent instability.".

Explosive ammo isn't AV ammo. Same with HEM and AVM. Remember to use
the explosive ammo rules, though.

Disadvantages for assault cannons.. well, the primary disadvantage is
that it is, without equal, the least subtle troll - portable weapon
in the game. Fire it and everyone in the neighbourhood knows you're
there, and where 'there' is.

There is not, however, (m)any hard and fast disadvantages to it. All
the problems I've identified is related to 'soft' details -
detection, subtlety, social situations, traceability, that sort of
thing. They are easy to go easy on.. if AC's are a problem, don't.

Regards,
Fade
Message no. 9
From: "Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Assault Cannons (vs RA:S drones)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:21:51 +1000
> Explosive ammo isn't AV ammo. Same with HEM and AVM. Remember to use
> the explosive ammo rules, though.
>
> Regards,
> Fade
>
Errr...Fade...did you just say AVMs (Anti-VEHICLE Missiles) aren't
anti-vehicular weapons?

8-)

*Doc' doesn't have time to do a smartass comment right now. Sorry.*

Doc'

.sig Sauer
Message no. 10
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Assault Cannons (vs RA:S drones)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 18:05:07 -0600
On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 11:44:32 -0500 Drew Curtis <dcurtis@***.NET> writes:
>On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, D. Ghost wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 00:32:51 -0500 Drew Curtis <dcurtis@***.NET>
writes:
>> >Two questions/issues
>> >
>> >Can people name disadvantages to using assualt cannons? One is
obviously
>> >the weight of the thing and its ammo.

>> Uhm... Are you looking for Canon disadvantages or houserules?

>Either. I had a problem with a cybertroll not long ago and the
>suggestions people had were very helpful.

Give it a kick ... +2 or more recoil on the first shot (this would
qualify as a heavy weapon so in addition double any uncompensated
recoil.) and/or make the character resist a 10L Stun wound (reduced by
Impact or Half Impact or even NO Impact.) each time the gun is fired.

Stress the size of the thing ... give it a target number penalty to fire
if not braced by a tripod or bipod or something similar. (most of the
weight of the thing is going to be in front of your hands so you are at a
mechanical disadvantage to hold it that way, let alone aim and fire it.)

>> An assault cannon is, from your reference, an AV munition ... why
would
>> that be different against the AR:S drones? (NOTE: I do not have RA:S
yet
>> and so have no knowledge of any special properties that RA:S drones
may
>> have that would prompt you to ask the above question.)

>Well that's the question, is it an AV munition? There isn't anything to
>indicate this in SR3.

Okay .. Looking it up, it is NOT Av ... it does not even appear to be AP
anymore. However, I interpret its decription to mean that it use
explosive ammo rules versus barriers but does not use the explosive ammo
rules for cooking off.

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 11
From: "Davidson, Chris" <Christopher.Davidson@***.BOEING.COM>
Subject: Re: Assault Cannons (vs RA:S drones)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 07:00:22 -0800
> "But this is the standard issue pistol for the UCAS navy - of *course*
> it does naval damage!" :-)
>
Yes, but only when aiming at the naval.

-=Toffer=-
Message no. 12
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Assault Cannons (vs RA:S drones)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 03:52:09 +0000
Ratinac wrote:

> > Explosive ammo isn't AV ammo. Same with HEM and AVM. Remember to use
> > the explosive ammo rules, though.
>
> Errr...Fade...did you just say AVMs (Anti-VEHICLE Missiles) aren't
> anti-vehicular weapons?

<voice from the tomb>
NO
</voice from the tomb>

I meant to say that explosives does not mean anti-vehicular, since
then HEM's would be anti-vehicular.
*cough* *cough*

Regards,
Fade

--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 13
From: "Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Assault Cannons (vs RA:S drones)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 13:54:09 +1000
> > > Explosive ammo isn't AV ammo. Same with HEM and AVM. Remember to
> use
> > > the explosive ammo rules, though.
> >
> > Errr...Fade...did you just say AVMs (Anti-VEHICLE Missiles) aren't
> > anti-vehicular weapons?
>
> <voice from the tomb>
> NO
> </voice from the tomb>
>
> I meant to say that explosives does not mean anti-vehicular, since
> then HEM's would be anti-vehicular.
> *cough* *cough*
>
> Fade
>
Heh heh heh...be more careful with your wording next time, or people
might think you meant to imply that you really thought that it was quite
probable that...wait. What was I saying again?

Damn.

*Doc' curses over his short-term memory problem.*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Assault Cannons (vs RA:S drones), 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!