Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Cannon Companion Firearm Design Question
Date: Mon Apr 30 15:50:01 2001
Are mods such as the Laser Sight, Imaging Scope, and Sound Suppressor
supposed to reduce concealability? By the book, they don't, but I suspect
that's an error.

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Cannon Companion Firearm Design Question
Date: Mon Apr 30 21:25:00 2001
> Are mods such as the Laser Sight, Imaging Scope, and
Sound Suppressor supposed to reduce concealability? By
the book, they don't, but I suspect that's an error.
> D. Ghost

Al, I figure that these are INTERNAL accessories, as
opposed to the external versions you usually buy.
Remember, they cost FCU - that (generally) means
they're inside the gun. If they're going to cost FCU
AND concealability, no one would bother getting them -
they'd build the gun, then get the vanilla versions of
the mods from the rules, lose concealability, but not
FCU, pack other nastiness into the interior space they
saved and probably pay less for the mods because they
don't have to worry about the mark-up.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @*****.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (John Pederson)
Subject: Cannon Companion Firearm Design Question
Date: Mon Apr 30 22:05:01 2001
Rand Ratinac wrote:
> D. Ghost wrote:

>> Are mods such as the Laser Sight, Imaging Scope, and
>> Sound Suppressor supposed to reduce concealability? By
>> the book, they don't, but I suspect that's an error.
>
> Al, I figure that these are INTERNAL accessories, as
> opposed to the external versions you usually buy.
> Remember, they cost FCU - that (generally) means
> they're inside the gun.

I'm going to disagree, although I think that not noting these things
on the final document was a Bad Idea(tm) on FASA's part.

> If they're going to cost FCU
> AND concealability, no one would bother getting them -
> they'd build the gun, then get the vanilla versions of
> the mods from the rules, lose concealability, but not
> FCU, pack other nastiness into the interior space they
> saved and probably pay less for the mods because they
> don't have to worry about the mark-up.

My main reason for disagreement is that those items are listed in
the same area as the _external_ smartgun system. Quite frankly, if
that version of the external smartgun link is internal enough to not
affect concealability, why would you bother with the internal version
(which should be a design option, if you ask me, but I digress)? I
mean, it will be cheaper, cost fewer FCU, be removable, and can be
added/removed in the field fairly easily. And the trade-off is an
extra half-pound to a pound of weight, and a mount.

If it were internal: it would not require mounting, and it would be
listed in the 'internal modifications' section, rather than under
'physical modifications', which probably all alter the appearance of
the weapon.

The advantage on all those options is that the physical modifications
are generally not permanent, so they won't cost FCU under most
circumstances. When you make the modification integral (not internal),
it costs FCU, though you may be able to leverage some sort of
advantage for that out of your GM, aside from the fact that it may not
take up a mount-point.

Just a quick view at my opinion of the weapon design rules in the CC:
they strike me as being a bit over-balanced in some areas (removing
the trigger or saftey *costs* FCU?) and over-generalised in others
(the fact that shoving too many FCU of stuff can make it impossible to
'permanently' mount something on the weapon, whatever that actually
means), and a bit dumb all the way around. I use them as a guide, and
use whatever real info I can dig up on firearms as a sanity check. I
don't have a problem making use of lots of it (after-market mods,
especially), but hte design rules are ... sketchy.</soapbox>

--
John Pederson
sometimes known as Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Cannon Companion Firearm Design Question
Date: Mon Apr 30 22:40:01 2001
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:07:06 -0500 John Pederson
<pedersje@**.rose-hulman.edu> writes:
<SNIP>
> Quite frankly, if
> that version of the external smartgun link is internal enough to not
> affect concealability, why would you bother with the internal
> version
> (which should be a design option, if you ask me, but I digress)?

If it were a design option, then the internal smartlink system would not
be removable and would not be able to be added after construction ...
which may not be a bad idea, but that may have been the intention.

<SNIP>
> Just a quick view at my opinion of the weapon design rules in the CC:
> they strike me as being a bit over-balanced in some areas (removing
> the trigger or safety *costs* FCU?) and over-generalised in others
> (the fact that shoving too many FCU of stuff can make it impossible to
> 'permanently' mount something on the weapon, whatever that actually
> means), and a bit dumb all the way around. I use them as a guide, and
> use whatever real info I can dig up on firearms as a sanity check. I
> don't have a problem making use of lots of it (after-market mods,
> especially), but hte design rules are ... sketchy.</soapbox>

After retrodesigning many of the SR weapons, I came to a similar
conclusion and decided, with Jane's Guns Recognition Guide and The
Encyclopaedia of World Military Power in hand, to redesign the firearm
design rules. You wanna help? :)

/me notes that he'd be a lot further along if a system crash hadn't
ruined his Corel WP Suite install or if Mickeysoft Word hadn't been
written by crack monkeys. :)

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (John Pederson)
Subject: Cannon Companion Firearm Design Question
Date: Mon Apr 30 23:50:01 2001
dghost@****.com wrote:

> If it were a design option, then the internal smartlink system would not
> be removable and would not be able to be added after construction ...
> which may not be a bad idea, but that may have been the intention.

Quite right, but I'm not sure it's removable as it currently stands.
I'm mostly just not certain that it makes a whole lot of sense as an
after-market addition.

> After retrodesigning many of the SR weapons, I came to a similar
> conclusion and decided, with Jane's Guns Recognition Guide and The
> Encyclopaedia of World Military Power in hand, to redesign the firearm
> design rules. You wanna help? :)

I think you'll probably be better off if I don't:) If you can
web-surf, a little judicious question-asking in the Dumpshock Forums
should turn up at least one metric shload-goddammit[0], and Google
should be easily proddable into finding worthwhile info. Sounds like
you've already got better data than I do, though. If you haven't, you
should check out Raygun's site (http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun).
I'm not a big fan of some things over there, but much of the
information has been useful for my abuse and misuse.


> /me notes that he'd be a lot further along if a system crash hadn't
> ruined his Corel WP Suite install or if Mickeysoft Word hadn't been
> written by crack monkeys. :)

Well, there are multiple alternatives, you know. To be vaguely
SR-related, if not gun-related, I'm waiting for all programs to be
compiled to bytecode for a generic, standard VM (yeah, right), so that
a given program can run on any cyberdeck, MPCP, etc, without having to
worry about the exact nature of the hardware it's on which it's
executing. Given Moore's Law, it ought to be pratical on a broad-range
basis Real Soon Now.



0. one metric shload-goddammit equates to a lot. I've had most of two
years since I last signed off the list, during which time I've soaked
up some strange inside jokes. That's one of them.

--
John Pederson
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Cannon Companion Firearm Design Question
Date: Tue May 1 06:15:01 2001
According to dghost@****.com, on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 the word on the street
was...

> Are mods such as the Laser Sight, Imaging Scope, and Sound Suppressor
> supposed to reduce concealability? By the book, they don't, but I suspect
> that's an error.

I would assume they alter Concealability as they do normally -- that is,
you look in the stats for the actual accessory and not for the modification.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If there are vegetarian hamburgers, why isn't there beef lettuce?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL 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 Cannon Companion Firearm Design Question, 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!