Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Stuart Marsh <sam10@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Battletac
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 20:44:53 +0000
How much does the battletac system actualy cost <see FOF p.59> there is no
cost listed and my players are eager to get hold of it.

Tacoma Joe <Stuart>
Message no. 2
From: Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Battletac
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 20:17:19 EST
Tac Joe writes:

> How much does the battletac system actualy cost <see FOF p.59>
there is no
> cost listed and my players are eager to get hold of it.
>
The cost is in there. I do not have my FoF with me at the moment, but
try looking in the equipment section of the book. I think it is under
electronics or sensors, near the targeting devices.


Many people fear Death, saying it is the bitter end.
I say Death is just lonely, crying out for a friend.

-Shadowdancer- <briddle@*****.vinu.edu>
Message no. 3
From: Erik S Jameson <esj@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Battletac
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 14:35:25 -0700
On Wed, 14 Dec 1994, Stuart Marsh wrote:

> How much does the battletac system actualy cost <see FOF p.59> there is no
> cost listed and my players are eager to get hold of it.
>
As I recall, the cost for the Battletac system is 10x the price of the
communications systems you want to made into a Battletac. This means
that the personal unit for the Winter Systems Taccom, made into a
Battletac (or equivalent) would cost 185,000Y (or something like that).
So it is VERY expensive.

Erik, a.k.a. the Whistler
Message no. 4
From: "Thomas W. Craig" <Craigtw1@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Battletac
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:45:49 -0500
Check page 77 of FoF for cost of Battletac. Last sentence of Battletac
supplemental rules states "If a system has Battletac(TM) capability, multiply
all prices by 10."(page 77 FoF)
There you go,
Tom Craig
Message no. 5
From: Loki <jek5313@*******.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Battletac
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 18:11:20 -0600
Erik:
> As I recall, the cost for the Battletac system is 10x the price of the
> communications systems you want to made into a Battletac. This means
> that the personal unit for the Winter Systems Taccom, made into a
> Battletac (or equivalent) would cost 185,000Y (or something like that).
> So it is VERY expensive.

Beautiful. The first price I've been able to find. Where did you find it?



--

Dark Thought Publications & Doom Technologies, Inc.
>>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.
Message no. 6
From: Stuart Marsh <sam10@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Battle tac
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 14:49:47 +0100
I read the fields of fire erreta on battle tac and i`m a bit confused
It says you use the military theory skill or the concentration small unit
tactics
It then says later that you should use the battletac skill which is a
special skill gained after character generation at the same cost as a
general skill
Which skill do you roll when you roll for tactcics
???????

Cinder
Message no. 7
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Battle tac
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 16:24:11 BST
Cinder wrote
>
> I read the fields of fire erreta on battle tac and i`m a bit confused
> It says you use the military theory skill or the concentration small unit
> tactics
> It then says later that you should use the battletac skill which is a
> special skill gained after character generation at the same cost as a
> general skill
> Which skill do you roll when you roll for tactics
> ???????
>
> Cinder

Ugly piece of rule ain;t it?

Personally, I use just use Military Theory (small-unit),

But perhaps the number of dice you can role due to limited by Leadership
(Tactics: small-unit), and by the Battle-tac skill.

What does everyone else use Leadership (Tactics) for? Is it just another
check to see if the NPC's actually follow your tactics roll?

NB. I actually make the player work out the plans roughly. If another
character deviates from those plans significantly, they lose the
initiative bonus, due to those tactics.

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 8
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Battle tac
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 01:00:19 +3400
P Ward writes:

> Personally, I use just use Military Theory (small-unit),

I'd say it either means you get to roll _both_ your Military
Theory:Tactics:Small Unit skill, _and_ your Battletac special skill (ie you
add the two skill Ratings and roll the total), or that the maximum number of
dice you can roll from your Military Theory:Tatics:Small Unit skill is equal
to your Battletac special skill.

I prefer the second interpretation, as it means players can't simply grab
one of these hot little items and go for it, they need to learn both
Military Thoery:Tactics:Small Unit and Battletac skills first. And the
Battletac skill can only be aquired after character generation, and costs
the same as a general skill (ie they gotta fork out lots of hard earned
karma to use the nifty little device properly).

> What does everyone else use Leadership (Tactics) for? Is it just another
> check to see if the NPC's actually follow your tactics roll?

I guess so, my players have never bothered to use Leadership skills on NPCs
(probably 'cause they shoot every NPC they come accross :-)). And none of
them have followers or gangs as contacts.

The book differentiates Strategy and Tactics as "general plans" and
"topical
plans" respectively. So I'd say you'd use your Strategy specialisation to
get the NPCs to agree to a basic plan, then you'd have to use the Tactics
specialisation to get them to carry out specific orders once you were
executing the manouver (sp?). But I'm only taking a guess.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 9
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Battle tac
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 16:05:33 BST
Damion spake :-
> I'd say it either means you get to roll _both_ your Military
> Theory:Tactics:Small Unit skill, _and_ your Battletac special skill (ie you
> add the two skill Ratings and roll the total), or that the maximum number of
> dice you can roll from your Military Theory:Tatics:Small Unit skill is equal
> to your Battletac special skill.

> I prefer the second interpretation,

That sounds about right, though they don't actually metion skill limiters
like that anywhere else.

Doesn't really matter though, even if you use unencrypted radio-links
and no ECM/ECCM, Battle-tac is still too expensive a toy for most runners
to bother with. Most just use radios instead.


Would I be right in assuming that it -2 Tno for Battle-Tac, +2 for radio,
and +0 for direct Visual and audio communication (ie. both hunkering down
behind the same piece of cover)?

Phil (Renegade)

A Decent Throat-mike - the runner's friend.
Message no. 10
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Battle tac
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 18:53:34 +1000
P Ward writes:

> Would I be right in assuming that it -2 Tno for Battle-Tac, +2 for radio,
> and +0 for direct Visual and audio communication (ie. both hunkering down
> behind the same piece of cover)?

I'd say that'd sound about right to me. And you'd apply modifiers for
background noise and the like too if you were relying on person to person
communication without any nifty devices like radios.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 11
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:53:29 +0000
While looking at military gear, I noticed one fairly obvious
ommission - the BattleTac. There's no info on it, at least in my
version of FoF. It says the effect (-2 tn to all appropriate tactics
tests and similar) but weight, cost, range etcetera is not listed.
(More info on p.84, yes.).

Any suggestions? Is it anywhere I missed?

--
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. 12
From: Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject: Re: BattleTac
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:00:03 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 05:53 PM 3/27/98 +0000, Fade wrote:
>While looking at military gear, I noticed one fairly obvious
>ommission - the BattleTac. There's no info on it, at least in my
>version of FoF. It says the effect (-2 tn to all appropriate tactics
>tests and similar) but weight, cost, range etcetera is not listed.
>(More info on p.84, yes.).
>
>Any suggestions? Is it anywhere I missed?

Grab the FoF eratta sheet of of one of the websites There's a bit more
info there.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNRvbEM2C0fERRVM5AQHdMQP/Y/St6qwbkkAau3j1AKaLK/Um6gqoUGBD
XpAWMtxAQ+IMwtCAX2D+rehkF1FQjvxHHoSUU2KF9o2DbKXZb6nDaVQQevXvb41E
RycCo9XLptUNeAgOuyD6XhQ4ZnfBrFiH/R8LLbiZVUbdaLL/mZ2VAPrhjU+6qIi9
h2xoM4CwaoE=
=XOtJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA
Message no. 13
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: BattleTac
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:12:20 +0000
> >Any suggestions? Is it anywhere I missed?
>
> Grab the FoF eratta sheet of of one of the websites There's a bit more
> info there.
Most likely. After spending the better part of an hour reading all
sorts of stuff which is not errata, I'm inclined to ask someone to be
more specific than 'one of the websites'. Thanks in advance.
(TSS seems okay, though. Moving on....)

--
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. 14
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: BattleTac
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:29:29 +0000
Found it. The Shadowrun Archive. Good site, looks like.
---------------
Page 59 - Battletac IS

Replace final paragraph with the following:

"Using battletac requires military science skill, or preferably the
small unit tactics specialization, and the special skill battletac
(Aquired as general skill after creation)"
-----------------

Doesn't really help, does it?

Well, I'll make up something myself.

From the picture it looks about 1 kilo wrist model. Requires a
portable comm unit, costs 40000, street index 4, 14/10 days
availability.
--
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. 15
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: BattleTac
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 21:57:57 +0000
On 27 Mar 98, Fade disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

<snip>
> Doesn't really help, does it?
>
> Well, I'll make up something myself.
>
> From the picture it looks about 1 kilo wrist model. Requires a
> portable comm unit, costs 40000, street index 4, 14/10 days
> availability.

Well, there's the note at the end, in the "rules" chapter - any
BattleTac compatible communications system costs, IIRC, ten times as
much. So, for a measly 10 times the price of a standard radio, you
get a BattleTac system with no encryption. And for 10 times the price
of this funky rating 14 comm unit - well, you get a fancy rating 14
BattleTac unit.



Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike;
Amber fan and Star Wars junkie; UIN 6947998; WTF TKD; FIAWOL; YMMV; IMAO; SNAFU; TANJ
Geek Code v3.1 GL/O d- s+: a19 C+++ W-(++) N+++ K? w(---) O@ M- PS+(+++) PE Y+
PGP- !t--- 5+(-) X- R*+++>$ tv-- b++++ D+ G-- e h--*! !r-- !y-*
Cyclists do it in the saddle.
Message no. 16
From: The Vagabond <nomad74@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: BattleTac
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:00:12 PST
>Found it. The Shadowrun Archive. Good site, looks like.
>---------------
>Page 59 - Battletac IS
>
>Replace final paragraph with the following:
>
>"Using battletac requires military science skill, or preferably the
>small unit tactics specialization, and the special skill battletac
>(Aquired as general skill after creation)"
>-----------------
>
>Doesn't really help, does it?
>
>Well, I'll make up something myself.
>
>From the picture it looks about 1 kilo wrist model. Requires a
>portable comm unit, costs 40000, street index 4, 14/10 days
>availability.

If you are talking about the BattleTac's availablity(I must of have
missed this during my down time), then it's not supposed to have one.
It's milspec hardware, that's generally to be used by the folks
Shadowrunners are *running* against. Of course, if you want, it would
make an excellent goal of a run. But I wouldn't just have Joe-Bob pull
up from behind his "special stash" under the counter.
It's also a good bennie if the PCs of a Special Forces campaign
think to ask for one(or make up the skill). Of course, I'm not going to
*volunteer* the info. :)
If I'm yapping about stuff that was already brought up, just ignore
this post, or sling your carp to my email box.


-Vagabond <nomad74@*******.com> <ICQ 4297972>
___________________________________________________________
"What, drawn, and talk of peace! I
hate the word
As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee..."
-Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet(Act I, scene I)


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 17
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 15:04:49 +0000
Leszek wrote:
> > From the picture it looks about 1 kilo wrist model. Requires a
> > portable comm unit, costs 40000, street index 4, 14/10 days
> > availability.
>
> Well, there's the note at the end, in the "rules" chapter - any
> BattleTac compatible communications system costs, IIRC, ten times as
> much. So, for a measly 10 times the price of a standard radio, you
> get a BattleTac system with no encryption. And for 10 times the price
> of this funky rating 14 comm unit - well, you get a fancy rating 14
> BattleTac unit.

LOL! Found it, p. 77. Another editor's gem. At the Battac gear page
it just says 'see P.84 for more info (page 84 is small unit tactics
description.).

A standard comm unit costing 18500, I fail to see what you mean by
'measly' ;).
Especially when you need a master unit somewhere....

(3 mill for a 10-man unit... in comms gear? No wonder it's not in use
by the military, only corp special units and private units. (Sidebar
comment in FoF.). I'd give it a street index of +10 as well, and make
it as available as heavy military armor - if ever the runners had 30
mill to spare and wanted to burn it on something like that, they'd be
welcome to it, but I'd question their sanity in doing it... not that
they'll ever get 30 mill.).

--
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. 18
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:19:13 EST
In a message dated 98-03-27 11:54:14 EST, you write:

<< While looking at military gear, I noticed one fairly obvious
ommission - the BattleTac. There's no info on it, at least in my
version of FoF. It says the effect (-2 tn to all appropriate tactics
tests and similar) but weight, cost, range etcetera is not listed.
(More info on p.84, yes.).

Any suggestions? Is it anywhere I missed? >>

This is the one item the GM says to have all sorts of fun with ...

Though there is some information available though ...

The Rating of a BTAC'S encryption is a stunning 14 ...

Weight is somewhere in the 2 to 3 kilo range ...

And as for the cost, have all sorts of fun, although the potential of making
something that acts like a BTAC is now possible with the advent of R2 and the
additions of Snake Eyes, FDDM, and the IVIS Sytems, amongst other things.

Mike
Message no. 19
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:03:24 +0000
On 28 Mar 98, Fade disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

[...]
> LOL! Found it, p. 77. Another editor's gem. At the Battac gear page
> it just says 'see P.84 for more info (page 84 is small unit tactics
> description.).

Hehehehe.

> A standard comm unit costing 18500, I fail to see what you mean by
> 'measly' ;). Especially when you need a master unit somewhere....

Well, no, this is not a "standard" comm unit. This is a Sony comm
unit. But that's not the only model of communication equipment
available on the market. ;>

Say, a Rating 10 comm unit for something like 10,000¡. (Doesn't one
of the supplements have radio equipment in it? My Wordman's equipment
list sure does... ;))


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bea=
r/mike;
Amber fan and Star Wars junkie; UIN 6947998; WTF TKD; FIAWOL; YMMV; IMAO; =
SNAFU; TANJ
Geek Code v3.1 GL/O d- s+: a19 C+++ W-(++) N+++ K? w(---) O@ M- PS+(+++)=
PE Y+
PGP- !t--- 5+(-) X- R*+++>$ tv-- b++++ D+ G-- e h--*! !r-- !y-*
I just took an IQ test. The results were negative.
Message no. 20
From: grahamdrew grahamdrew@*********.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:38:53 -0400
IronRaven wrote:
>
> I was going through FoF last night, and I noticed something: there is no
> price or availabilty info available for the BattleTac. Do I have a
> defective copy, or is left out of every copy? There is no data in any of
> the online erratas I've found.
> CyberRaven Kevin Dole
> http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
> "Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
> Dismemberment."
> "Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"

Nope, your copy is straight. Look on p. 77, second paragraph on the
second collumn.

"If a system has BattleTac capability, multiply all prices by 10"

One an errata note, there is a p. xx reference in my copy (3rd printing)
in the begining of the above mentioned paragraph. Can somebody put this
in the errata as referencing to p.58 (I think that's the right page)?

--
If a device is designed to do one thing really well, it can be
redesigned to do many things badly.
-Paranoia
Datastore 8 - http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Maze/1673/
Message no. 21
From: grahamdrew grahamdrew@*********.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 07:46:39 -0400
IronRaven wrote:
>
> At 02.38 06-18-99 -0400, you wrote:
> >"If a system has BattleTac capability, multiply all prices by 10"
>
> Ah, ahah... Opps. I've been thinking that it is a stand-alone piece of
> equipment.
>
> Hmmmm.....
> I wonder if this can be combinded with a sentry gun....
> I wonder how much it would cost to build a BattleTac module that can accept
> input/output to a variety of devices (cameras, pocket computers, GPS,
> samrtlink optics[!]).....
>
> CyberRaven Kevin Dole
> http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
> "Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
> Dismemberment."
> "Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"

I'd go about it diffrently:

Build the module into the camera, the computer, etc. Make the computers
interface directly into the BattleTac network itself. To figure that
cost, multiply the camera/computer's cost by 10 as stated. It's that
simple.

--
If a device is designed to do one thing really well, it can be
redesigned to do many things badly.
-Paranoia
Datastore 8 - http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Maze/1673/
Message no. 22
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:42:04 -0400
I was going through FoF last night, and I noticed something: there is no
price or availabilty info available for the BattleTac. Do I have a
defective copy, or is left out of every copy? There is no data in any of
the online erratas I've found.
CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 23
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 19:40:17 +0200
According to IronRaven, at 11:42 on 26 Jun 99, the word on
the street was...

> I was going through FoF last night, and I noticed something: there is no
> price or availabilty info available for the BattleTac. Do I have a
> defective copy, or is left out of every copy? There is no data in any of
> the online erratas I've found.

There is a price, but it's hidden in the rules section on BattleTac, page
77. The last sentence of that section reads: "If a system has
BattleTac(tm) capability, multiply all prices by 10." Why this didn't make
it onto page 59 as well -- it's one-third blank, so there certainly is
room for it -- I don't know.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
E-mails uit het verleden bieden geen garantie voor de toekomst.
-> ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 24
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 13:18:48 -0500
: I was going through FoF last night, and I noticed something: there is no
:price or availabilty info available for the BattleTac. Do I have a
:defective copy, or is left out of every copy? There is no data in any of
:the online erratas I've found.
:CyberRaven Kevin Dole


P. 77, FoF is the only entry I've seen. It describes Battletac effects
(basically, it seems to make the user able to comprehend massive amounts of
battle field data without spending any time using the comm systems...), and
states that "If a system has BattleTac capability, multiply all prices by
10." So basically, if both people have BattleTac capable gear (at 10 times
the price of normal gear), they can use the BattleTac system effects FOR
THAT GEAR. For example, if one person has a BattleTac camera, and his buddy
a BattleTac display, than they on can send the other info per BattleTac
rules (neither person needs to do any work, and the info entered into the
BattleTac system is known freely to all who can access it). They guy with
the vid display can not respond, though- he'd need appropriate equipment to
do so, whether it was BattleTac or not.
The most common use would be for everybody to have BattleTac radios, GPS
units, and camera / HUD units, I'd say. Note that, realistically, they
should not be able to TALK any faster, but at least they won't waste time
selecting the right frequency to reach whichever person they wanted, and can
show them any video info and positional data they want. If you also had
BattleTac range finders, you could tie that info to your GPS data and call
in indirect fire pretty easy- but that's a bit beyond most Shadowrunner's
scope of operations.
Message no. 25
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 14:46:51 -0400
At 02.38 06-18-99 -0400, you wrote:
>"If a system has BattleTac capability, multiply all prices by 10"

Ah, ahah... Opps. I've been thinking that it is a stand-alone piece of
equipment.

Hmmmm.....
I wonder if this can be combinded with a sentry gun....
I wonder how much it would cost to build a BattleTac module that can accept
input/output to a variety of devices (cameras, pocket computers, GPS,
samrtlink optics[!]).....


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 26
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:22:23 -0500
:>"If a system has BattleTac capability, multiply all prices by 10"
:
:Ah, ahah... Opps. I've been thinking that it is a stand-alone piece of
:equipment.
:
:Hmmmm.....
:I wonder if this can be combinded with a sentry gun....
:I wonder how much it would cost to build a BattleTac module that can accept
:input/output to a variety of devices (cameras, pocket computers, GPS,
:samrtlink optics[!]).....


Well, I think since it lets you exchange (and comprehend) information so
freely (without taking actions) in the heat of battle (where using all those
gizmo's would normally be an exorcise in distraction leading to death), it
is probably as much an emphasis on combat friendly ergonomic design of the
individual components as a networking protocol. The art on p.59 rather
contradicts this, but it also looks, in that picture, like the guy is
spending some time using the system- maybe making a "small unit tactics"
roll, since that's what the system is intended to aid.
Unless I'm really misinterpreting what "freely exchange... without
restriction" means.... but the sense I'm using seems to be the one most
folks assume- not that it just automatically matches frequency and file
format and so forth, but that it actually makes sharing such info
"effortless".

Mongoose
Message no. 27
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:34:12 -0500
:> Hmmmm.....
:> I wonder if this can be combinded with a sentry gun....

:I'd go about it diffrently:
:
:Build the module into the camera, the computer, etc. Make the computers
:interface directly into the BattleTac network itself. To figure that
:cost, multiply the camera/computer's cost by 10 as stated. It's that
:simple.

Actually, its even simpler- in R2, sentry guns are a type of drone.
BattleTac sytems (IVIS and FDDM) can be installed in drones. Viola. It is
NOT cheap, but it does potentially add dice to the drones tests...

Mongoose
Message no. 28
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:39:46 -0400
At 07.46 06-18-99 -0400, you wrote:
>I'd go about it diffrently:
>Build the module into the camera, the computer, etc. Make the computers

OK, diferent design therories. You are talking about dedicated systems.
I am talking about modular systems. I want to be able to pack a single
unit with a few basic accessories, and purchase locally available
peripherals (ie, long-range mikes, computer, camera). My system increases
bulk, but it is easier to smuggle a single computer module, and purchase
and modifiy the accessories as you near the target, than it is to try and
bring a computer, a camera, a GPS, and all sorts of other items with an
advanced military data transfeer system built into them past customs.
Don't think like a corporate flunky. Think free. Think to survive.
Think the shadows!


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 29
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 19:13:16 EDT
In a message dated 6/26/1999 12:41:02 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.nl writes:

> > I was going through FoF last night, and I noticed something: there is
no
> > price or availabilty info available for the BattleTac. Do I have a
> > defective copy, or is left out of every copy? There is no data in any of
> > the online erratas I've found.
>
> There is a price, but it's hidden in the rules section on BattleTac, page
> 77. The last sentence of that section reads: "If a system has
> BattleTac(tm) capability, multiply all prices by 10." Why this didn't make
> it onto page 59 as well -- it's one-third blank, so there certainly is
> room for it -- I don't know.

Wait a second folks ... There is still no price for a stand-alone BattleTAC.
Are you guys saying use the price(s) for the Field Communications gear and
then multiply???

-K (who suddenly finds a point of interest)
Message no. 30
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 19:19:20 EDT
In a message dated 6/26/1999 4:01:32 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
m0ng005e@*********.com writes:

> Well, I think since it lets you exchange (and comprehend) information so
> freely (without taking actions) in the heat of battle (where using all
those
> gizmo's would normally be an exorcise in distraction leading to death), it
> is probably as much an emphasis on combat friendly ergonomic design of the
> individual components as a networking protocol. The art on p.59 rather
> contradicts this, but it also looks, in that picture, like the guy is
> spending some time using the system- maybe making a "small unit tactics"
> roll, since that's what the system is intended to aid.

We've had to consider this as well, in that if a player uses his/her BTAC,
they must spend an action. Cybered connections make it a Simple Action to
perform a tactical action with the system. Non-Cybered systems (like those
the artwork seems to indicate in the book) would require a Complex Action.

> Unless I'm really misinterpreting what "freely exchange... without
> restriction" means.... but the sense I'm using seems to be the one most
> folks assume- not that it just automatically matches frequency and file
> format and so forth, but that it actually makes sharing such info
> "effortless".

Hmmm....I'm not sure I understand this paragraph Mongoose. Are you saying
that it *does* automatically do the frequency matching and file format, and
*that* makes the sharing of the information "effortless", or are you saying
it is nothing more than a fancy communications system with a vid/trid screen
and a nifty name to make people think it's more?

-K
Message no. 31
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 19:23:46 EDT
In a message dated 6/26/1999 4:40:29 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
cyberraven@********.net writes:

> OK, diferent design therories. You are talking about dedicated
systems.
> I am talking about modular systems. I want to be able to pack a single
> unit with a few basic accessories, and purchase locally available
> peripherals (ie, long-range mikes, computer, camera). My system increases
> bulk, but it is easier to smuggle a single computer module, and purchase
> and modifiy the accessories as you near the target, than it is to try and
> bring a computer, a camera, a GPS, and all sorts of other items with an
> advanced military data transfeer system built into them past customs.
> Don't think like a corporate flunky. Think free. Think to survive.
> Think the shadows!

Hmmm....I actually don't think your system would increase the bulk anymore
than the other variation. Both systems require the hardware/peripherals
after all. I've also noticed that the rules for BTAC in R2 are NOT quite the
same as those in FoF.

-K (shrugs)
Message no. 32
From: arclight arclight@**************.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 01:53:14 +0200
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-admin@*********.org
> [mailto:shadowrn-admin@*********.org]On Behalf Of Ereskanti@***.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 1999 1:13 AM
> To: shadowrn@*********.org
> Subject: Re: BattleTac

<snip>

> Wait a second folks ... There is still no price for a stand-alone
> BattleTAC.
> Are you guys saying use the price(s) for the Field Communications
> gear and
> then multiply???
>
> -K (who suddenly finds a point of interest)

take a normal transceiver (500 nuyen as in SR3) and give it
BattleTac capability? :)

arclight
Message no. 33
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 22:36:23 -0500
:> Unless I'm really misinterpreting what "freely exchange... without
:> restriction" means.... but the sense I'm using seems to be the one most
:> folks assume- not that it just automatically matches frequency and file
:> format and so forth, but that it actually makes sharing such info
:> "effortless".
:
:Hmmm....I'm not sure I understand this paragraph Mongoose. Are you saying
:that it *does* automatically do the frequency matching and file format, and
:*that* makes the sharing of the information "effortless", or are you saying
:it is nothing more than a fancy communications system with a vid/trid
screen
:and a nifty name to make people think it's more?
:
:-K

At the very least, it would remove the nead to (for example) make sure
you were on sqaud freq and not platoon freq, or to make sure you were
sending telemetry data on the telemetry feq to a reciever using the same
format... etc. I.E., any BatleTac device follows a set of "innetllegent"
protocals, making all communication devices "transparent". So yeah, I'm
saying that's the part it makes effortless- I can see how that would work,
and could be pricey, at least if it was a military-specific item.
As most people use it, you get to send (and understand) more data than
you normally could- for example, you can share and understand telemetry
data, video, and sound (from many people, no less), without taking any
action to do so. Well, sending is no problem- just assmue it ALL gets
pupmed out, all the time.
How somebody could UNDERSTAND all that, I have no idea. Either you have
to assume it uses some damn slick display / sound ergonomics to vastly
increses the human abilty to comprehend information, or you just assume its
like your whole platoon (or other BattleTac-ed group) is standing there
shouting at you, waving pictures and maps, and you can pay attention to a
few or as many of them as you want, with normal risk of getting confused.
I'm leaning towards this later assumption- you can "effortlessly" grab
whatever info / sound / images are being sent, but it takes some effort to
try and understand them if you look at / listen to a bunch of feeds at once.
So yeah, I guess I see it as just being a really nicely integrated comm
/ navdat / image sytem (or whatever it is you paid for, at 10 times normal
price). By no means is that a trivial or useless item- comm snafu's can
kill, and you can rarely anticipate all the configurations you may want to
use ahead of time. There's an obvious synergy effect (the boost to tactics
skill use), and the potential use with IVIS and FDDM systems, but I don't
think that that requires every user to be able to understand everything
every other user sends, all at once...

Mongoose
Message no. 34
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 22:39:27 -0500
:Wait a second folks ... There is still no price for a stand-alone
BattleTAC.
:Are you guys saying use the price(s) for the Field Communications gear and
:then multiply???
:
:-K (who suddenly finds a point of interest)

Actually, I think its for almost ANY kind of data or comm gear- GPS-Nav
dat, rangefinders, cameras, normal radios, headware radios, and so forth. I
don't think it ads new capabilties to those systems- it just lets them all
share (and to an extant process)data they normally can share in a way that
is easy to use on the fly.

Mongoose
Message no. 35
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 22:43:21 -0500
:> Wait a second folks ... There is still no price for a stand-alone
:> BattleTAC.
:> Are you guys saying use the price(s) for the Field Communications
:> gear and
:> then multiply???
:>
:> -K (who suddenly finds a point of interest)
:
:take a normal transceiver (500 nuyen as in SR3) and give it
:BattleTac capability? :)
:
: arclight

Yep. You' never have to try to select the right frequency when trying
to talk with any BattleTac users in range, and if you used coordinated voice
communications, you'd get the tactics bonus. Its not magic, though- that
radio could not suddenly send and display images or telemetry info, for
example!

Mongoose
Message no. 36
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 02:34:29 EDT
In a message dated 6/26/1999 6:54:24 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
arclight@**************.com writes:

> > Wait a second folks ... There is still no price for a stand-alone
> > BattleTAC.
> > Are you guys saying use the price(s) for the Field Communications
> > gear and
> > then multiply???
> >
> > -K (who suddenly finds a point of interest)
>
> take a normal transceiver (500 nuyen as in SR3) and give it
> BattleTac capability? :)

Next question that would come to me then is "WHY?" For some reason, I (and
most of us here) have always played the BattleTAC stuff as being kind of like
a Cyberdeck. It has a central processor that does "X" (as defined in FoF),
and then peripheral possibilities, such as the Tactical Field Communications
gear (FoF) and the FDDM./IVIS modules (Rigger2) and lastly the FnF stuff
(HHH). Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm getting used to this idea of late, but to
me, the concepts that I'm reading here on the list are getting me even more
confused than I could have ever been on mine own.

-K
Message no. 37
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 12:04:26 +0200
According to Ereskanti@***.com, at 19:13 on 26 Jun 99, the word on
the street

> Wait a second folks ... There is still no price for a stand-alone BattleTAC.
> Are you guys saying use the price(s) for the Field Communications gear and
> then multiply???

Yes. BattleTac isn't a stand-alone system, it's an addition to other
communications gear. Unfortunately this isn't 100% clear from the
description of the system in FoF, but in the absense of a cost for the
thing by itself, there aren't many alternative ways to see it, IMHO.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
E-mails uit het verleden bieden geen garantie voor de toekomst.
-> ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 38
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 09:37:00 -0400
At 19.23 06-26-99 EDT, you wrote:
>Hmmm....I actually don't think your system would increase the bulk anymore

I'm not worried about bulk; I admit that using a stand-alone BattleTac
module that can interface with a number of external peripherals would not
result in any weight or bulk savings.

>than the other variation. Both systems require the hardware/peripherals

I'm willing to bet that someone who knows thier stuff can identify
BattleTac adapted equipment. By only having to run in one module, my odds
of spoofing customs and security are better than hauling along a dozen
peices of equipment that each have that system built into them.

>after all. I've also noticed that the rules for BTAC in R2 are NOT quite
the
>same as those in FoF.

Don't have R2, sorry.


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 39
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 12:42:04 -0400
At 02:34 AM 6/27/99 , Ereskanti@***.com wrote:
>Next question that would come to me then is "WHY?" For some reason, I (and
>most of us here) have always played the BattleTAC stuff as being kind of like
>a Cyberdeck. It has a central processor that does "X" (as defined in FoF),
>and then peripheral possibilities, such as the Tactical Field Communications
>gear (FoF) and the FDDM./IVIS modules (Rigger2) and lastly the FnF stuff
>(HHH). Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm getting used to this idea of late, but to
>me, the concepts that I'm reading here on the list are getting me even more
>confused than I could have ever been on mine own.

Okay, the way that I've always assumed that it worked is this. BattleTac is
an add on module that you hook up to your communications system. When FoF
first came out, the only comm system was the Philips system in that same
book. Now in SR3 we have multiple systems with variable ratings for the
amount of frequencies and encryption schemes. Philips just happens to be
the best one, and I believe if you work out the math it works out to be the
right price for a rating 14 system.

So the runners decide that they need some kind of comm gear, and all go out
and buy rating 3 comm gear for 1500 nuyen. This gives a belt transmitter
and a headphone set like you see in all of the military movies, and the
capability to switch between 6 different channels. But all you can do is
hear each other, and that's not enough. So you multiply the cost of the
transeiver by 10, for a total of 15000 each. In addition to the headset,
you now have this handy little touch screen that straps to your wrist and
hooks up to transmitter. Instead of just sending out voice, you now also
send out burst data tranmissions.

So what do you get from that data? Well, you get a display showing all of
your teammates. If you load up a map of the area first, you can pinpoint
where on the map all of your other teammates are at a glance (free action).
If you spot any opposition, you can mark them on the map with a touch for
position and a touch off of a pull down menu for type of opposition (simple
action). With another touch of the screem (simple action) you can let
everyone know your status (injured, low on ammo, etc). With yet another
touch (simple action) you can requeat backup, spirit help, setting up an
ambush, etc. With purchase of a microcamcorder (for 2500) you can broadcast
additional video footage of what you're seeing (included with a free action
for observing the obvious or a simple action for a Perception Test). With a
touch (simple action) any other member of the network can see the video feed.

All this means is that for tactics test the character with the small unit
tactics skill gets a -2 to his Target Number. No voices need to be used to
coordinate between units. A lot more information can be passed along
quickly instead of using spoken words. Friendly fire goes way down as you
know where everyone else is, and you don't get ambushed as much. If anyone
listens in, they don't hear voices, they get a data stream that they need
to decmompile with another BattleTac system. And if you throw in
encryption, they need to get past both of them.

Does that help clear it up?

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 40
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:44:50 EDT
In a message dated 6/27/1999 5:04:48 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.nl writes:

> > Wait a second folks ... There is still no price for a stand-alone
BattleTAC.
>
> > Are you guys saying use the price(s) for the Field Communications gear
and
>
> > then multiply???
>
> Yes. BattleTac isn't a stand-alone system, it's an addition to other
> communications gear. Unfortunately this isn't 100% clear from the
> description of the system in FoF, but in the absense of a cost for the
> thing by itself, there aren't many alternative ways to see it, IMHO.

Actually there is Gurth. It lies in the fact that a central, coordinative,
processor of some form is still going to have to exist. Without it, there is
no tactical or "ease of access" reference guide for the system to use. The
concept of "variable protocols" that would be needed by individual systems
that would have to be integrated would keep the idea completely at a loss to
the rest. No, there does have to be *something* that functions as a central
processor IMO.

-K
Message no. 41
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:53:39 EDT
In a message dated 6/27/1999 11:46:05 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
sommers@*****.umich.edu writes:

<snip huge example and possibility>
> Does that help clear it up?


It does answer a question or two yes...however, it still leaves open the
concept of a coordinative processing system.

-K
Message no. 42
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:52:51 -0500
:Actually there is Gurth. It lies in the fact that a central, coordinative,
:processor of some form is still going to have to exist. Without it, there
is
:no tactical or "ease of access" reference guide for the system to use. The
:concept of "variable protocols" that would be needed by individual systems
:that would have to be integrated would keep the idea completely at a loss
to
:the rest. No, there does have to be *something* that functions as a
central
:processor IMO.
:
:-K


Maybe its more like "distributed computing", or maybe something called
"the
internet"? :-) The more B-T adapted gear you add in, the more power you'd
have- each item has at least enough power to handle its own interface and
routing, and adding more units just adds more potential routes. A bunch of
gear that communicates effortlessly doesn't require a central processor; it,
in effect, forms a processor itself.
OK, so maybe my analogy is bad, but I don't see the need for or benefit
of a central processor; if you have a voice only Comm system, and you ad in
BattleTac, its not capable of video, so it doesn't need any video capable
processing. When you buy video, then you pay for those processors. If
there was central processing, there would be limits to its capabilities, and
/ or you'd be paying for abilities you did not use.

Mongoose
Message no. 43
From: Arclight arclight@*********.de
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:12:58 +0200
hi!

Is it possible to integrate a decker (jacked into
the matrix) into a battletac network? Could he share
his information with, say, the samurai running through
a corporate compound? How would this look like, role-
playing wise?

--
[mailto:arclight@*********.de] ~~~~~~~~ [ICQ:14322211]
[ ]
[ All suspects are guilty, serious. ]
[ Otherwise they wouldn't be suspects, would they? ]
[ ]
[my_BABY:#361] ~~~~ [http://www.datahaven.de/arclight]
Message no. 44
From: Nexx nexx@********.net
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:14:13 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arclight" <arclight@*********.de>

> Is it possible to integrate a decker (jacked into
> the matrix) into a battletac network? Could he share
> his information with, say, the samurai running through
> a corporate compound? How would this look like, role-
> playing wise?

I would say yes, but only if the decker had some way to connect with the
sammy... headware radio wouldn't work, but if he could get control of a
Slave Node he might have a better chance... or a kick-butt one if he wants
to spend the time and money to integrate a battle-tac transmitter into his
deck, where it can take information from the RAM.
Message no. 45
From: Anissa Mathias anissamr@*****.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
>Is it possible to integrate a decker (jacked into
>the matrix) into a battletac network? Could he share
>his information with, say, the samurai running
through
>a corporate compound? How would this look like, role-
>playing wise?

A good idea of what it would look/sound like can be
found in the Dragon Heart Saga By Jak Koke.
Jane-in-the-Box is the Decker for the Draco Foundation
in the series and can communicate to the runners
through her deck. She can pick up their
conversations, monitor their vitals and other cool
stuff.

Anissa

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
Message no. 46
From: Arclight arclight@*********.de
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:57:50 +0200
And so Anissa Mathias said :

<snip>

> A good idea of what it would look/sound like can be
> found in the Dragon Heart Saga By Jak Koke.
> Jane-in-the-Box is the Decker for the Draco Foundation
> in the series and can communicate to the runners
> through her deck. She can pick up their
> conversations, monitor their vitals and other cool
> stuff.

Totally forgot that one, thanks. However,
what would really interest me is what information
the samurai could get from the decker. Can he get
video footage from the deckers VR environment? If
he had a datajack, could he even jack into the
matrix if he had access to a cyberdeck? Maybe even
a remote one, not even a deck in his backpack?
(please note that I don't own the Matrix SB)

Arclight
Message no. 47
From: Mister Incognito misterincognito@*******.com
Subject: BattleTac
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 10:07:43 GMT
Try using the Battletac MatrixLink (or whatever it's called) from The
Matrix. It's intended purpose was a Battletac link for deckers in the matrix
so they could work in groups. Our GM simply decided for an extra 8K you
could link it into a normal Battletac Link group for a Jane-in-the-Box
effect.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about BattleTac, 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!