Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Body armors (was Re: Bows and Arrows)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:39:42 +0100
According to Eric Josue, at 22:24 on 3 Nov 98, the word on the street
was...

> This brings up another thing...Body armor is not light. I can't imagine
> a character with a strength of 1 being able to wear body armor heavier
> than armor clothing. This is because modern body armor (coupled with
> ceramic plating), would be too heavy or cumbersome for them to wear
> properly. Thoughts?

SR already includes rules for this by reducing a character's Combat Pool
based on the amount of armor worn (see page 285); however, it's based on
Quickness and not Strength, which does appear a bit strange to me. A quick
house rule would be to change Quickness over to Strength to calculate
Combat Pool reductions.

OTOH, I do not consider myself to be very strong -- call it Strength 2 in
SR terms -- but I have repeatedly worn a 4.5 kg M69 armor vest for several
hours without much trouble (although when you take it off you feel a load
dropping off your shoulders :)

Finally, whether wearing body armor is a pain or not depends on the
situation you're in. For example in the Korean War, where the first large-
scale issue of modern body armors made of synthetic materials to military
forces took place, soldiers returning from uneventful patrols often
complained about the vest's weight and encumbrance, while those returning
from firefights generally did not.

However, simulating this in SR with rules will be a bit difficult if not a
bit pointless as well, I feel.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Perjury does not include lying if lying is the
only sensible way to get you out of trouble.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> 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. 2
From: Jhary-a-Conel <Jhary-a-Conel@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Body armors (was Re: Bows and Arrows)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 19:51:08 +0100
On 4 Nov 98, at 10:39, Gurth wrote:
[snip Eric Josue's suggestion to limit armour on 'weak' characters]
> SR already includes rules for this by reducing a character's Combat Pool
> based on the amount of armor worn (see page 285); however, it's based on
> Quickness and not Strength, which does appear a bit strange to me. A quick
> house rule would be to change Quickness over to Strength to calculate
> Combat Pool reductions.
[snip example of armoured Gurth]
> However, simulating this in SR with rules will be a bit difficult if not a
> bit pointless as well, I feel.
Hm. Refer to SR3, p.274, "Hauling the Load", pp. 283-284 for the
weight, and pp. 40-41, 55-56 for Strength Attribute. Problem solved
(by the book, I don't like the "Hauling the Load"-rules as they are
written)


Jhary
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | JaC / SP |"Fanaticism consists|
| / /_/ ____/ | Jhary-a-Conel@***.net | of redoubling your |
| \___ __/ | ICQ#: 7 517 216 | efforts when you |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | have forgotten |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | your aim." |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary ---(G.Santayana)-+
Message no. 3
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Body armors (was Re: Bows and Arrows)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:53:00 +0100
According to Jhary-a-Conel, at 19:51 on 4 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

> Hm. Refer to SR3, p.274, "Hauling the Load", pp. 283-284 for the
> weight, and pp. 40-41, 55-56 for Strength Attribute. Problem solved

I don't really agree. Yes, the rules Hauling The Load weight would allow
if you're wearing body armor (that is, the armor would count against the
weight being carried) but basing Combat Pool reductions on the degree by
which the armor ratings exceed Quickness does not feel right to me. The
way I see it, if you're stronger you can cope with the encumbrance better
than when you're not as strong; OTOH Quickness is used in the Combat Pool,
so perhaps FASA's reasoning was that if the armor prevents you from being
agile, your pool will be reduced. Still, IMO you can offset the agility
penalty by being stronger, not by being quicker, if you understand what I
mean.

> (by the book, I don't like the "Hauling the Load"-rules as they are
> written)

Agreed, they just about make it impossible to carry anything for even
short periods of time...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Perjury does not include lying if lying is the
only sensible way to get you out of trouble.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> 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. 4
From: Brian and Shannon <bcsnskm@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Body armors (was Re: Bows and Arrows)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:51:42 -0000
I have a problem with the whole effective quickness and combat pool
reduction thing in SR3. Looking at Fields of Fire last night I noticed that
the FASA version of camouflaged clothing ( pg52) had a Ballistic of 3 and an
Impact of 1..and that the camouflaged jacket ( which appears to be based of
a field jacket.. or perhaps a flak jacket) has a protection of Ballistic 5
Impact 3 . so if you wear the two together...it's total rating( not
effective) would be 8/4 By the rules ( pg. 285) with a normal human
quickness ( 3) the average soldier wouldn't be able to move as their
effective quickness would be 0... does this strike anyone else as strange?
Don't even get me started on the supposed "Mil-spec armor" in the same book

--
Brian Seagroves
"No Ma'am , it's not a beanie, it's a beret
Message no. 5
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Body armors (was Re: Bows and Arrows)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 12:00:30 -0500
At 06:51 AM 11/5/98 , you wrote:
>I have a problem with the whole effective quickness and combat pool
>reduction thing in SR3. Looking at Fields of Fire last night I noticed that
>the FASA version of camouflaged clothing ( pg52) had a Ballistic of 3 and an
>Impact of 1..and that the camouflaged jacket ( which appears to be based of
>a field jacket.. or perhaps a flak jacket) has a protection of Ballistic 5
>Impact 3 . so if you wear the two together...it's total rating( not
>effective) would be 8/4 By the rules ( pg. 285) with a normal human
>quickness ( 3) the average soldier wouldn't be able to move as their
>effective quickness would be 0... does this strike anyone else as strange?
>Don't even get me started on the supposed "Mil-spec armor" in the same book

I have to double check but I believe in the rules they refer to its as the
character's effective quickness. That means that their quickness doesn't
change. The character simply recieves an additional modifier to any test
that are related to quickness, like firearms tests.

For milspec armor, the full blown version in FoF, I would say that it has
enough motorized components in it to reduce this quickness penalty, say
adds +3 to the effective quickness or whatever. Then you don't lose as much
as the suit is helping you. I'd have to look at it a little more as its
never actually come up in our campaign.

Sommers
Homepage here now!
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~sommers/shadowrun.htm
Message no. 6
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Body armors (was Re: Bows and Arrows)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:55:51 -0600
Yes, the rules Hauling The Load weight would allow
if you're wearing body armor (that is, the armor would count against the
weight being carried) but basing Combat Pool reductions on the degree by
which the armor ratings exceed Quickness does not feel right to me. The
way I see it, if you're stronger you can cope with the encumbrance better
than when you're not as strong; OTOH Quickness is used in the Combat Pool,
so perhaps FASA's reasoning was that if the armor prevents you from being
agile, your pool will be reduced. Still, IMO you can offset the agility
penalty by being stronger, not by being quicker, if you understand what I
mean.

++++++++++++++
Remember the "Great Bike Debate" before GenCon, Gurth? Quickness is
pretty clearly a major indicator of leg strength, since it determines how
fast you can run. It could even be an indicator of slow twitch muscle
mass (strength would indicate fast twitch muscle mass). Somebody with
high quickness and low strength could still be quite vigorous, but not any
good at applying that strength to a task. They might "Throw like a girl"
and carry loads inefficiently, despite having decent muscle mass.

^^0^90053
++++++++++++++
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Body armors (was Re: Bows and Arrows)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:08:03 +0100
According to Mongoose, at 13:55 on 5 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

> Remember the "Great Bike Debate" before GenCon, Gurth?

We never did get to test the theory, though... Next year, bring bikes
instead of your skates, okay? :)

> Quickness is pretty clearly a major indicator of leg strength, since it
> determines how fast you can run. It could even be an indicator of slow
> twitch muscle mass (strength would indicate fast twitch muscle mass).
> Somebody with high quickness and low strength could still be quite
> vigorous, but not any good at applying that strength to a task. They
> might "Throw like a girl" and carry loads inefficiently, despite having
> decent muscle mass.

Could be, but I'm still not really convinced. Wearing body armor is
different from carrying a load in that you don't really notice its weight
until it's taken away (or until you get to do some heavy work and/or go
into a hot climate, I guess). Hmm... that could be an argument for not
using Strength to base Combat Pool reduction on :)

However, since as you say Quickness is "a major indicator of leg
strength" -- which I agree with -- wearing body armor that does not cover
your legs would not impair Combat Pool as much as wearing armor on your
legs would. What, in my experience, body armor does is impair movement in
general -- you can't turn your head or stretch your arms as far as you
normally can, etc. because its bulk gets in the way. To push it out of the
way requires strength, I feel, not quickness.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Perjury does not include lying if lying is the
only sensible way to get you out of trouble.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> 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

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Body armors (was Re: Bows and Arrows), 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!