Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Frank Pelletier (Trinity) fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:29:22 -0500
Yes, I bought it.

I read it. I came off... well... disappointed ain't exactly the word,
since there IS good stuff in there. But it definitly left me wanting more.

Why in hell is there a BTL section in there? Filler?

Basically, it would've been good... 8 months ago. But this is not what
I've been waiting almost a year for.

I wanna see if I'm the only one who thinks that way. If so, I'll shut up.
:)


Frank Pelletier
Fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
"Let them hate me, provided they fear me" - Atreus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Trin on the Undernet, Saffron on Sorcery.net
Message no. 2
From: Hunter griffinhq@****.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:00:42 -0500
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:29:22 -0500 "Frank Pelletier (Trinity)"
<fpelletier@******.usherb.ca> writes:
> Yes, I bought it.
>
Yes, I have it also.

> I read it. I came off... well... disappointed ain't exactly the
> word,
> since there IS good stuff in there. But it definitly left me
> wanting more.
>
The Martial Arts rules are SSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOO disappointing.

> Why in hell is there a BTL section in there? Filler?
>
Actually, I was wondering why it was there instead of in VR3.0.

*************************************************************************
********************
Griffin Industries
"A Shadowrunner's Corp."

http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/Griffin/index.html

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 3
From: Alfredo B Alves dghost@****.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:51:01 -0800
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:29:22 -0500 "Frank Pelletier (Trinity)"
<fpelletier@******.usherb.ca> writes:
> Yes, I bought it.

I will as sson as it's available.

> I read it. I came off...

That good, hunh? ;)

>well... disappointed ain't exactly the
> word,
> since there IS good stuff in there. But it definitly left me
> wanting more.

Well, that's what several people have been saying about the rules update
books.

> Why in hell is there a BTL section in there? Filler?

I'd guess because there wasn't room in M&M.

> Basically, it would've been good... 8 months ago. But this is not
> what
> I've been waiting almost a year for.

Well, if you haven't been waiting fo it, How can you complain? ;P~

> I wanna see if I'm the only one who thinks that way. If so, I'll
> shut up.
> :)

You probably aren't. I can't wait to get it myself though. :)

--
D. Ghost
A Mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems
--Paul Erdos

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 4
From: vocenoctum@****.com vocenoctum@****.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:45:48 -0500
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:29:22 -0500 "Frank Pelletier (Trinity)"
<fpelletier@******.usherb.ca> writes:
> Yes, I bought it.

Mines on the way :-)

> I read it. I came off... well... disappointed ain't exactly the
> word,
> since there IS good stuff in there. But it definitly left me
> wanting more.
>
> Why in hell is there a BTL section in there? Filler?


The Simsense section was cut from M&M for room problems. So, it went into
the next book. I would jave liked Chemicals in CC and simsense in M&M,
but thats me, as long as I get all the rules I'm fine. :-)

> Basically, it would've been good... 8 months ago. But this is not
> what
> I've been waiting almost a year for.

A lot of the mixed feelings come from the release schedule. This years
schedule seems decent though, hopefully they can stick to it.
<knock on wood>

Vocenoctum
<http://members.xoom.com/vocenoctum>;

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 5
From: HHackerH@***.com HHackerH@***.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:52:46 EST
In a message dated 3/30/00 8:01:02 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
griffinhq@****.com writes:

> > Why in hell is there a BTL section in there? Filler?
> >
> Actually, I was wondering why it was there instead of in VR3.0.

Neither of you would be the only one's wondering such.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-K
-"Just a Bastard"
-Hoosier Hacker House
"Children of the Kernel"
[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
Message no. 6
From: Logan Graves logan1@********.net
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:55:43 -0500
In our last episode, Schizi wrote:
>
> A lot of the mixed feelings come from the release schedule. This years
> schedule seems decent though, hopefully they can stick to it.
> <knock on wood>

My, aren't you the optimist! ;-)

--Fenris
______________________________________________________Logan@************.virtualAve.net
(>) That Lofwyr ain't all bad. I heard he once
killed an editor and an optimist at the same time.
(>) Din the Decisive
Message no. 7
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:40:28 -0600
From: Hunter
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 7:01 PM

> The Martial Arts rules are SSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOO disappointing.

What's wrong with them? (Trying fervently to bring up an on-topic
discussion that I'm actually interested in.) Personally, when I playtested
them, they absolutely rocked, though there were a few things that needed
tweaking. I'm waiting for my copy before I pass judgment.

Gun design was another thing all together....

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 8
From: Hunter griffinhq@****.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:59:54 -0500
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:40:28 -0600 "Patrick Goodman" <remo@***.net>
writes:
> From: Hunter
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 7:01 PM
>
> > The Martial Arts rules are SSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOO disappointing.
>
> What's wrong with them? (Trying fervently to bring up an on-topic
> discussion that I'm actually interested in.) Personally, when I
> playtested
> them, they absolutely rocked, though there were a few things that
> needed
> tweaking. I'm waiting for my copy before I pass judgment.
>
Have you seen the martial arts 3.0 rules? <tries valiantly to remember
the link>

http://udel.edu/stu-org/galadrim/srii/rules/arts1.htm


> Gun design was another thing all together....
>
The ones at Shadowland were better.

*************************************************************************
********************
Griffin Industries
"A Shadowrunner's Corp."

http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/Griffin/index.html

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 9
From: Frank Pelletier (Trinity) fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:16:11 -0500
"Patrick Goodman" <remo@***.net>

> What's wrong with them? (Trying fervently to bring up an on-topic
> discussion that I'm actually interested in.) Personally, when I
playtested
> them, they absolutely rocked, though there were a few things that needed
> tweaking. I'm waiting for my copy before I pass judgment.
>
> Gun design was another thing all together....

*shudder* Gun design...

Anyways, one of the few things I did find interesting was the new martial
arts rules... nice, clear, simple... except...

They put boxing in the same bag as "pitfighting" and "brawling", again
using
the old stereotypical "Boxing is dumb, Martial arts are way superior" line
of thinking. Fans of the sweet science will agree with me, that boxing is a
"martial" art exactly like any other, not some mindless bar brawl.

I'm just waiting for Erik J. to get his copy and explode :)

Frank
Message no. 10
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:11:50 -0600
Frank said:
:They put boxing in the same bag as "pitfighting" and "brawling",
again
using
:the old stereotypical "Boxing is dumb, Martial arts are way superior" line
:of thinking. Fans of the sweet science will agree with me, that boxing is
a
:"martial" art exactly like any other, not some mindless bar brawl.

A "scientific boxer" can buy just as many (and as good) manuevers as a
martial artist, from what I see.
A "dumb brawler" who doesn't buy any manuevers (which is the advantage
of the style- you can learn it easily, if you don't care to know how to do
anything special) will be inferior to a martial artist of the same skill
(but who has payed extra for his manuevers). No suprise there- the martial
artist payed more for the skill.
In fact, "Boxing" is potentially one of the BEST styles at the top end,
because you can pick up a few manuevers, then raise the skill through the
roof without paying for any more that you don't need. Think about that
before you gripe about it being lumped in with "dumb" brawling...
Additionally, its the only "Martial art" you can get at character
creation without paying nearly double points for.
I rather like it, myself. Excepting that its farily pointless to get a
"brawling" skillsoft. Oh well.

Mongoose

_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 11
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:22:33 -0500 (EST)
Excerpts from ShadowRN: 30-Mar-100 Re: Cannon Companion, thoug.. by
"Frank Pelletier @******
> They put boxing in the same bag as "pitfighting" and "brawling",
again using
> the old stereotypical "Boxing is dumb, Martial arts are way superior" line
> of thinking. Fans of the sweet science will agree with me, that boxing is a
> "martial" art exactly like any other, not some mindless bar brawl.

I saw it as "Boxing is the baseline, Martial arts needs more special
rules for a fighting system where throwing a punch is your standard
maneuver." I also see Boxing as a more freeform style, where you can
choose to specialize in any number of techniques if you so desire, or
you can fight like Tyson.

I was a little disappointed in the editing. For a book that's been
almost done as long as it has, it's pretty sloppy. (TOC has formatting
problems, bayonet statline isn't there p.33 (though it is in the master
equipment list in back)

I'm a bit confused on some of their design decisions...

I don't understand the rules on the Vashon Island Actioneer Long
Coat... It says that it doesn't count as a separate item for layering
armor... Does this mean it functions about the same as a helmet, so
it's B/I rating pretty much acts like +2/+2 instead of 2/2? That's the
only way I can read those rules, and it sounds like it'll get popular
very quickly if that's correct.

I'm not too happy with the Skillsoft options. A lot of them seem a
bit inexpensive, such as Optimization...

Firearm design looks like about what I expected it to be. I
expected ammo load to be more like engines for vehicle design, with
fewer choices. You pick a firearm frame, and then an ammo loading type.
I wasn't expecting to pay more in order to build a revolver instead of
a semi-auto!

Martial arts looks like fun. I'm not convinced that Full Offense is
very useful though... Sounds unlikely that the +1 DL is going to
compensate for the -2 to be hit. Some of the other techniques make me
very happy to see... Blind Fighting, Close Combat, Ground Fighting...
I'm happy, they really broaden fighting to include the feel of other
styles without losing the abstraction of SR melee.

Mark
Message no. 12
From: Frank Pelletier (Trinity) fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:33:34 -0500
"Sebastian Wiers" <m0ng005e@*********.com> once wrote,

(snipped)

> In fact, "Boxing" is potentially one of the BEST styles at the top
end,
> because you can pick up a few manuevers, then raise the skill through the
> roof without paying for any more that you don't need. Think about that
> before you gripe about it being lumped in with "dumb" brawling...

Was I disputing that fact? No. Boxing may be one of the best "martial
arts"
to take at the highest levels. Hourray.

But by that same token, so is brawling, and pitfighting. And I quote:

"The new skill of brawling, though not technically a martial art, represents
generic unarmed fighting techinques previously represented by the Unarmed
Combat skill."

And again...

"Each martial arts skill offers unique advantages and disadvantages similar
to
shamans' totem effects. The only exception is Brawling, which has no
bonuses
or penalties."

(p.88, Cannon Companion)

I wasn't disputing the fact that the system screws "brawling", but the fact
that
boxing is being lumped convieniently into "brawling". There is an enormous
difference between a barroom brawler and Roy Jones Jr. I can only shudder
at the outcry a quote like "Karate, Tae Kwon Do, who cares, they're all the
same" would get. Same thing here.

Again, I am not disputing the system, but the casual lumping of two
completly
different styles.

Frank Pelletier
Fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
"Let them hate me, provided they fear me" - Atreus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Trin on the Undernet, Saffron on Sorcery.net
Message no. 13
From: GuayII@***.com GuayII@***.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 03:14:53 EST
In a message dated Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:40:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Patrick
Goodman" <remo@***.net> writes:

<< From: Hunter
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 7:01 PM

> The Martial Arts rules are SSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOO disappointing.

What's wrong with them? (Trying fervently to bring up an on-topic discussion that I'm
actually interested in.) Personally, when I playtested them, they absolutely rocked,
though there were a few things that needed
tweaking. I'm waiting for my copy before I pass judgment.>>


The martial arts rules rocked??? Sorry, I found them to be severely lacking. For example,
Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do are lumped together as similar martial arts. In what crazy, eff'ed
up world are they similar??? Also, lumping Savate with Muai Thai. One focuses on speed vs.
power. If I had CC with me right now (friend borrowed it), I'd nit-pick some more.

I did like the combat options though (close combat, multi-strike, etc.) Not to sure about
the Full Offensive option though. That just means that I won't have my characters use
it...

Cash
Message no. 14
From: Allen Versfeld moe@*******.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:20:06 +0200
GuayII@***.com wrote:
>
> The martial arts rules rocked??? Sorry, I found them to be severely lacking. For
example, Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do are lumped together as similar martial arts. In what
crazy, eff'ed up world are they similar??? Also, lumping Savate with Muai Thai. One
focuses on speed vs. power. If I had CC with me right now (friend borrowed it), I'd
nit-pick some more.
>

Ah. Here's the problem. See, you know all this stuff. It's
specialised knowledge. Naturally, any rules abstraction is going to be
a load of old bollocks to you. To me, however, who has only even heard
of one of the styles/forms/thingy's that you mentioned...

See what I'm getting at? I seem to recall reading countless similar
arguments, on topics like cars, computers, guns, and so on. The experts
stifle their laughter, while the great unwashed are astounded by the
sheer realism of it all.
--
Allen Versfeld
moe@*******.com

"As a computer, I find your faith in technology to be quite amusing"
Message no. 15
From: Simon Fuller sfuller@******.com.au
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:22:06 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Versfeld <moe@*******.com>
To: shadowrn@*********.com <shadowrn@*********.com>
Date: Friday, March 31, 2000 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: Cannon Companion, thoughts.


>GuayII@***.com wrote:
>>
>> The martial arts rules rocked??? Sorry, I found them to be severely
lacking. For example, Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do are lumped together as similar
martial arts. In what crazy, eff'ed up world are they similar??? Also,
lumping Savate with Muai Thai. One focuses on speed vs. power. If I had CC
with me right now (friend borrowed it), I'd nit-pick some more.
>>
>
>Ah. Here's the problem. See, you know all this stuff. It's
>specialised knowledge. Naturally, any rules abstraction is going to be
>a load of old bollocks to you. To me, however, who has only even heard
>of one of the styles/forms/thingy's that you mentioned...
>
>See what I'm getting at? I seem to recall reading countless similar
>arguments, on topics like cars, computers, guns, and so on. The experts
>stifle their laughter, while the great unwashed are astounded by the
>sheer realism of it all.
>--
>Allen Versfeld


It's realism versus size and complexity. You can have a twenty one volume
reference to every martial art with as much realism as possible, and people
like Allen and I would just look at it and ask why (two syllables with three
letters and one syllable with two) is any different to the twenty-one others
that resemble it, and then stick to dull old karate or whatever hurt the
most. Or as the Marvel Super Heroes RPG had it, the skills of Martial Arts
A, B, C, D, and E (literally) that lacks all but cursory detail that leaves
people who actually know their chi from their dojo cold. It sounds like FASA
put a lot of detail in but lumped simmilar styles together.
If somebody explained why the styles should be seperate in layman terms,
maybe we could say why they shouldn't from our point of view.
Message no. 16
From: HHackerH@***.com HHackerH@***.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 05:14:46 EST
In a message dated Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:01:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, Hunter
<griffinhq@****.com> writes:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Have you seen the martial arts 3.0 rules? <tries valiantly to remember
the link>

http://udel.edu/stu-org/galadrim/srii/rules/arts1.htm
-=-=-=-=-=-=-

He may not have, but I have... and my only response is this ... so, we're going to add a
completely different mechanic to the ENTIRE GAME COMBAT SYSTEM that would mean rewriting
every weapon and object that could be a weapon within the world of Shadowrun, especially
now that SR3 is out???

Okay, people give their opinions (I won't use the "R" word ;-) about stuff being
"rules intensive", but geesh, the system outlined on that page (looking at it in
another window to make certain I'm clear about this) are even MORE rules intensive than
what was thought about for CC's draft.

Also, the rules on the page listed are not as openly versatile as those in CC. At least
the rules in CC (at least, when I last saw them ... like Patrick, I'm waiting on our
copies to arrive) give a person a clue as to how to even go about designing their own
styles and remain abstract enough so as to not add a mechanic to the combat system that is
going to slow the game down even further (Speed is nice, but NOT something that works
where speed is defined by the individual more than the item).

The system is also table intensive and has specific damages for ALL its listed techniques.
The one in CC bases damage on the already existing rules.

Now admit that the "styles" listing on that page are nice, but at the same time
they are not balanced against each other. For the purposes of game mechanics, and a tad
slap of realism, all combat styles are near even IF the opponents are of even experience
in their respective styles. That is primarily because all people learn to adapt, and it's
the individual that makes a style's effectiveness truly ... effective.

One of my favorites is the "Tien Hseh" which required additional knowledge in
another skill (Biotech) at a rating that any edition of SR would have couged up blood at
seeing in a sourcebook (you need level 10 in the skill to use the techniques/skill
listed).

No, the page listed may have details and for those people that *REALLY* have to have
detail, it would work just fine.

For people that are not wanting to bring the game to that level of finite detail, it's
simply NOT needed IMO.

-Keith (who won't comment on the firearms B/R, because he argued that one hard for changes
that he just *knows* didn't get in as well)
Message no. 17
From: HHackerH@***.com HHackerH@***.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 05:16:39 EST
In a message dated Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:18:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Frank
Pelletier (Trinity)" <fpelletier@******.usherb.ca> writes:

-=-=-=-=-
Anyways, one of the few things I did find interesting was the new martial
arts rules... nice, clear, simple... except...

They put boxing in the same bag as "pitfighting" and "brawling", again
using
the old stereotypical "Boxing is dumb, Martial arts are way superior" line
of thinking. Fans of the sweet science will agree with me, that boxing is a
"martial" art exactly like any other, not some mindless bar brawl.

I'm just waiting for Erik J. to get his copy and explode :)
-=-=-=-=-=-

So was I actually. I remember trying to explain this detail to Mike and others and not
quite understanding why this "choice" was being made.

-Keith
Message no. 18
From: GuayII@***.com GuayII@***.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:52:10 EST
In a message dated Fri, 31 Mar 2000 5:15:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, HHackerH@***.com
writes:

<< In a message dated Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:01:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, Hunter
<griffinhq@****.com> writes:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Have you seen the martial arts 3.0 rules? <tries valiantly to remember
the link>

http://udel.edu/stu-org/galadrim/srii/rules/arts1.htm
-=-=-=-=-=-=-

<< Okay, people give their opinions (I won't use the "R" word ;-) about
stuff being "rules intensive", but geesh, the system outlined on that page
(looking at it in another window to make certain I'm clear about this) are even MORE rules
intensive than what was thought about for CC's draft.>>

Actually, the martial arts, v.3.0 is easy to use. Just drop the silly speed thing. It's
what we use (with some modifications, naturally to make it simpler and smoother)

<snip>

<< One of my favorites is the "Tien Hseh" which required additional
knowledge in another skill (Biotech) at a rating that any edition of SR would have couged
up blood at seeing in a sourcebook (you need level 10 in the skill to use the
techniques/skill listed). >>

Boom. Instant NPC only skill. Or drop it. I agree about this one though.
Message no. 19
From: GuayII@***.com GuayII@***.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:07:16 EST
In a message dated Fri, 31 Mar 2000 4:10:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Simon
Fuller" <sfuller@******.com.au> writes:

<big snip>

<< It's realism versus size and complexity. You can have a twenty one volume
reference to every martial art with as much realism as possible, and people like Allen and
I would just look at it and ask why (two syllables with three letters and one syllable
with two) is any different to the twenty-one others that resemble it, and then stick to
dull old karate or whatever hurt the
most. Or as the Marvel Super Heroes RPG had it, the skills of Martial Arts A, B, C, D, and
E (literally) that lacks all but cursory detail that leaves people who actually know their
chi from their dojo cold. It sounds like FASA put a lot of detail in but lumped simmilar
styles together. If somebody explained why the styles should be seperate in layman terms,
maybe we could say why they shouldn't from our point of view. >>

Okie-dokie. I was going to give and example (Hapkido v. Tae Kwon Do) but I just realized
(after typing it) that it wouldn't have cleared anything up, except for 1 or 2 people. I
see if I can work on this...

<<< ... is any different to the twenty-one others that resemble it, and then
stick to dull old karate or whatever hurt the most. >>>

I agree. Even I don't want to list every variation of Karate and Kung Fu.
Cash
Message no. 20
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:47:45 -0500
At 03:14 AM 3/31/00, GuayII@***.com wrote:
>The martial arts rules rocked??? Sorry, I found them to be severely
>lacking. For example, Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do are lumped together as
>similar martial arts. In what crazy, eff'ed up world are they similar???
>Also, lumping Savate with Muai Thai. One focuses on speed vs. power. If I
>had CC with me right now (friend borrowed it), I'd nit-pick some more.

Funny, after reading on DR the parts about their being a very big
similarity between the Firearm creation rules and Spuds system, I saw a
good similarity to a system that I created for martial arts. Its got the
same kind of thing, with additional levels of the skill getting you more
maneuvers, etc. I like that they made it very simple bunching somewhat
similar styles together for people who don't know much about them.

But what it mean to me is that I now have a system that was a little more
clean than mine, and I have a whole mess of styles defined that I can
convert pretty quickly into their system. I know that I already plan to
separate out boxing from brawling, and Carromeleg from Capoeria.

>I did like the combat options though (close combat, multi-strike, etc.)
>Not to sure about the Full Offensive option though. That just means that I
>won't have my characters use it...

I just started getting to those, all though a lot of them look familiar. So
I'll probably be able to add more of them too.

Sommers
Aerospace engineers build weapon systems. Civil engineers build targets.
Message no. 21
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:46:15 -0600
From: Frank Pelletier (Trinity)
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 10:16 PM

> > What's wrong with them? Personally, when I playtested them,
> > they absolutely rocked, though there were a few things that
> > needed tweaking.
> >
> > Gun design was another thing all together....
>
> *shudder* Gun design...

This bodes ill.... That was the biggest problem I had with the book while
playtesting it, since (as of the playtest draft I had) it just wasn't done.

> They put boxing in the same bag as "pitfighting" and "brawling",
> again using the old stereotypical "Boxing is dumb, Martial arts
> are way superior" line of thinking.

I told them they needed to fix that. And I know I'm not the only one.

> I'm just waiting for Erik J. to get his copy and explode :)

I mentioned this specifically in my notes....

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 22
From: Mockingbird mockingbird@*********.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:52:40 -0600
> "Sebastian Wiers" <m0ng005e@*********.com> once wrote,
>
> (snipped)
>
> > In fact, "Boxing" is potentially one of the BEST styles at the top
> end,
> > because you can pick up a few manuevers, then raise the skill through
the
> > roof without paying for any more that you don't need. Think about that
> > before you gripe about it being lumped in with "dumb" brawling...
>

Hi,
To play devils advocate, and to go off halfcock (I am also waiting for
my copy of CC) why wouldn't boxing be lumped with brawling? I agree it is a
martial art, but doesn't it have a lot more similarities to basic brawing
than to eastern styles? I mean boxing boils down to manuevering and using
your hand to hit something. Eastern styles add using other parts of the
body as well, allowing a much greater variety of strikes (kick, elbow, knee,
etc.) and therefore a greater variation of manuevers.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong,
Mockingbird
Message no. 23
From: Adam J adamj@*********.html.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:48:32 -0700
At 08:52 3/31/00 -0600, Mockingbird wrote:

> To play devils advocate, and to go off halfcock (I am also waiting for
>my copy of CC) why wouldn't boxing be lumped with brawling? I agree it is a
>martial art, but doesn't it have a lot more similarities to basic brawing
>than to eastern styles?

I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that it boils down to this:

* Brawling is something that most people can instinctively do - sure, some
do it better naturally (And some do it better because of training - NHB
fighters, for one. :) ), but I don't know a person who wouldn't know how to
throw a few punches, get a guy in a choke or headlock, or throw him to the
ground in a fight. Generally most people can brawl for long enough to get
it broken up by somebody else, without sustaining major injuries. :)

* Boxing has rules, both written and unwritten. You may be able to throw a
damned hard punch in a brawl, but when you're standing face to face with a
trained guy, in an enclosed area, without the "foreign objects" that are
often present in a brawl, you're going to be at a serious disadvantage. He
knows how to move, he knows how to hold his guard, he knows how to read
your body language (Although this is less of an advantage over a
non-boxer), he knows instinctively where he is in the ring, and all that stuff.

Personally, I think that any training in "Boxing" is more likely to be used
in a "Brawling" manner anyway - very rarely are you going to get in a
street or barfight with someone who isn't willing to go for the low blow or
sneak in a headbutt (or a bite to the ear..)

Adam
--
< adamj@*********.html.com / http://shadowrun.html.com/tss >
< ICQ# 2350330 / ShadowFAQ: http://shadowrun.html.com/shadowfaq >
< ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader / Shadowrun Creative Resources >
< FreeRPG & Shadowrun Webring Co-Admin / The Shadowrun Supplemental >
Message no. 24
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:02:19 -0500
From: "Mockingbird" <mockingbird@*********.com>
> > "Sebastian Wiers" <m0ng005e@*********.com> once wrote,
> > > In fact, "Boxing" is potentially one of the BEST styles at
the top
> > end,
> > > because you can pick up a few manuevers, then raise the skill through
> the
> > > roof without paying for any more that you don't need. Think about
that
> > > before you gripe about it being lumped in with "dumb" brawling...
> >
>
> Hi,
> To play devils advocate, and to go off halfcock (I am also waiting for
> my copy of CC) why wouldn't boxing be lumped with brawling? I agree it is
a
> martial art, but doesn't it have a lot more similarities to basic brawing
> than to eastern styles? I mean boxing boils down to manuevering and using
> your hand to hit something. Eastern styles add using other parts of the
> body as well, allowing a much greater variety of strikes (kick, elbow,
knee,
> etc.) and therefore a greater variation of manuevers.

To equate boxing with brawling, then say that Eastern styles allow for a
greater variety of strikes [kick, elbow, knee, etc., ] is incongrous. I
suppose you've perhaps never been in a brawl?

The primary difference between brawling and "martial arts" is one of
technique and finesse [and codification]. Brawlers make as much use of their
elbows, knees, and feet as any Eastern artist.

Boxing is hands-only [unless you include kick-boxing; where do they put
that, martial art or brawling?] but with the technique of a martial art, if
not necessarily the finesse. I would equate it with any other tournament
art, personally.
Message no. 25
From: Oliver McDonald oliver@*********.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:33:47 -0800 (PST)
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:16:11 -0500, Frank Pelletier (Trinity) wrote:

>"Patrick Goodman" <remo@***.net>
>
>> What's wrong with them? (Trying fervently to bring up an on-topic
>> discussion that I'm actually interested in.) Personally, when I
>playtested
>> them, they absolutely rocked, though there were a few things that needed
>> tweaking. I'm waiting for my copy before I pass judgment.
>>
>> Gun design was another thing all together....
>
>*shudder* Gun design...

I see this more as a GM tool. Few players will use it, BUT, there may be some that do...
Definitely cool though. In most cases
the rules on gun modification will be more useful, but I am glad that they put in the
rules for design, it makes it hang together
better.

>Anyways, one of the few things I did find interesting was the new martial
>arts rules... nice, clear, simple... except...

I am happy with them also. Will be using them in my game.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Oliver McDonald - oliver@*********.com
http://www.spydernet.com/oliver/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Space. The Final Frontier. Let's not close it down.
Brought to you via CyberSpace, the recursive frontier.

"that is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may
die."
-H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu."

ICQ: 38158540
Message no. 26
From: GuayII@***.com GuayII@***.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:40:17 EST
In a message dated 3/31/00 10:34:24 AM Pacific Standard Time,
oliver@*********.com writes:

<< On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:16:11 -0500, Frank Pelletier (Trinity) wrote:

>"Patrick Goodman" <remo@***.net>
>
>> What's wrong with them? (Trying fervently to bring up an on-topic
>> discussion that I'm actually interested in.) Personally, when I
>playtested
>> them, they absolutely rocked, though there were a few things that needed
>> tweaking. I'm waiting for my copy before I pass judgment.
>>
>> Gun design was another thing all together....
>
>*shudder* Gun design...

I see this more as a GM tool. Few players will use it, BUT, there may be
some that do... Definitely cool though. In most cases
the rules on gun modification will be more useful, but I am glad that they
put in the rules for design, it makes it hang together
better.

>Anyways, one of the few things I did find interesting was the new martial
>arts rules... nice, clear, simple... except...

I am happy with them also. Will be using them in my game. >>


The gun design rules are def for GM's. Browning Ultra-Power. 525 nuyen. I
reverse engineered it and it came out to be something like 1250 nuyen. Ditto
with the Remington 950...
Message no. 27
From: Oliver McDonald oliver@*********.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:05:57 -0800 (PST)
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:22:33 -0500 (EST), Mark A Shieh wrote:

>
> Martial arts looks like fun. I'm not convinced that Full Offense is
>very useful though... Sounds unlikely that the +1 DL is going to
>compensate for the -2 to be hit. Some of the other techniques make me
>very happy to see... Blind Fighting, Close Combat, Ground Fighting...
>I'm happy, they really broaden fighting to include the feel of other
>styles without losing the abstraction of SR melee.


90% of the time you are completely correct in that assessment of full offense. Not a good
idea if you are going up against
somebody who knows what he/she is doing, even to a basic level, but if they are defaulting
to attribute (+4 to target) then very
useful. This gives them a target of 6 to your 4, and increases your chances of badly
hurting them.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Oliver McDonald - oliver@*********.com
http://www.spydernet.com/oliver/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Space. The Final Frontier. Let's not close it down.
Brought to you via CyberSpace, the recursive frontier.

"that is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may
die."
-H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu."

ICQ: 38158540
Message no. 28
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:47:14 -0500 (EST)
Excerpts from ShadowRN: 31-Mar-100 Re: Cannon Companion, thoug.. by
HHackerH@***.com
> -Keith (who won't comment on the firearms B/R, because he argued that
> one hard for changes that he just *knows* didn't get in as well)

If you're sure they didn't get in, can you propose some house rules?
I'd like to see what you thought.

Mark
Message no. 29
From: Oliver McDonald oliver@*********.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:14:41 -0800 (PST)
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:40:17 EST, GuayII@***.com wrote:

>In a message dated 3/31/00 10:34:24 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>oliver@*********.com writes:
>
><< On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:16:11 -0500, Frank Pelletier (Trinity) wrote:
>
> >"Patrick Goodman" <remo@***.net>
> >
> >> What's wrong with them? (Trying fervently to bring up an on-topic
> >> discussion that I'm actually interested in.) Personally, when I
> >playtested
> >> them, they absolutely rocked, though there were a few things that needed
> >> tweaking. I'm waiting for my copy before I pass judgment.
> >>
> >> Gun design was another thing all together....
> >
> >*shudder* Gun design...
>
>> I see this more as a GM tool. Few players will use it, BUT, there may be
>>some that do... Definitely cool though. In most cases
> >the rules on gun modification will be more useful, but I am glad that they
>>put in the rules for design, it makes it hang together
>> better.
>
> >>Anyways, one of the few things I did find interesting was the new martial
> >>arts rules... nice, clear, simple... except...
>
> >I am happy with them also. Will be using them in my game. >>
>
>
>The gun design rules are def for GM's. Browning Ultra-Power. 525 nuyen. I
>reverse engineered it and it came out to be something like 1250 nuyen. Ditto
>with the Remington 950...

This is a demonstration of the economics of scale (mass production).

-----------------------------------------------------------
Oliver McDonald - oliver@*********.com
http://www.spydernet.com/oliver/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Space. The Final Frontier. Let's not close it down.
Brought to you via CyberSpace, the recursive frontier.

"that is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may
die."
-H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu."

ICQ: 38158540
Message no. 30
From: GuayII@***.com GuayII@***.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:17:47 EST
In a message dated 3/31/00 12:15:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
oliver@*********.com writes:

<< On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:40:17 EST, GuayII@***.com wrote:

>In a message dated 3/31/00 10:34:24 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>oliver@*********.com writes:
>
><< On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:16:11 -0500, Frank Pelletier (Trinity) wrote:
>
> >"Patrick Goodman" <remo@***.net>
> >
> >> What's wrong with them? (Trying fervently to bring up an on-topic
> >> discussion that I'm actually interested in.) Personally, when I
> >playtested
> >> them, they absolutely rocked, though there were a few things that needed
> >> tweaking. I'm waiting for my copy before I pass judgment.
> >>
> >> Gun design was another thing all together....
> >
> >*shudder* Gun design...
>
>> I see this more as a GM tool. Few players will use it, BUT, there may be
>>some that do... Definitely cool though. In most cases
> >the rules on gun modification will be more useful, but I am glad that
they
>>put in the rules for design, it makes it hang together
>> better.
>
> >>Anyways, one of the few things I did find interesting was the new martial
> >>arts rules... nice, clear, simple... except...
>
> >I am happy with them also. Will be using them in my game. >>
>
>
>The gun design rules are def for GM's. Browning Ultra-Power. 525 nuyen. I
>reverse engineered it and it came out to be something like 1250 nuyen.
Ditto
>with the Remington 950...

This is a demonstration of the economics of scale (mass production >>

I know. That's what my friend told me last night when I pointed this out to
him. Of course, he just asked me 30 min ago to design a good SMG for $1000
tops. He didn't quite get why I laughed so hard.....
Cash
Message no. 31
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:20:20 -0600
:The primary difference between brawling and "martial arts" is one of
:technique and finesse [and codification]. Brawlers make as much use of
their
:elbows, knees, and feet as any Eastern artist.

Which is why martial artists MUST learn manuevers, and "brawlers" don't
have to.

:Boxing is hands-only [unless you include kick-boxing; where do they put
:that, martial art or brawling?] but with the technique of a martial art, if
:not necessarily the finesse. I would equate it with any other tournament
:art, personally:

Which is why "Boxers" are in fact allowed to learn manuvers. Kick
boxing is lumped with one of the other martial arts, and "kick attack" is in
fact a valid manuever a brawler (or boxer) can learn.
My guess is, this is not a ridgid system. Its a sytem that reflects the
"real world" school, where folks have general "named" fighting style,
but
also are as likely to pick up a mishmash of other stuff from similar styles
as to stick with what is strictly considered part of that style. Maybe its
wrong to say that brawling is a "similar style" to boxing, but at least a
"boxer" can learn how to "fight dirty", just as IRL. Or he can keep
it
clean, which the rules also allow- at the players option.

Mongoose

_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 32
From: HHackerH@***.com HHackerH@***.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 01:34:29 EST
In a message dated Fri, 31 Mar 2000 2:49:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, Mark A Shieh
<SHODAN+@***.EDU> writes:

<< Excerpts from ShadowRN: 31-Mar-100 Re: Cannon Companion, thoug.. by
HHackerH@***.com
> -Keith (who won't comment on the firearms B/R, because he argued that
> one hard for changes that he just *knows* didn't get in as well)

If you're sure they didn't get in, can you propose some house rules?
I'd like to see what you thought.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Mark, I would have loved to except the entire concept of house rules, as they would now be
called, were erased because the player who developed them (an entire section based on the
CC Design System while we had the draft) that used the ideas of the bullet being the basis
of the "damage level" and the power/powder it used being the basis of the power,
and the gun being the determination of the accuracy) managed to try and shuffle the file
to a diskette, then erased the original from the computer here at work, only to discover
the diskette itself had corrupted sectors.

Talk about an omen...

I've been trying to convince him to redo them, and Mike M. even admittedly he would have
liked to have seen them for perhaps the SOTA books in the future, but he's not had the
motivation to work on them again since (it took him over a month as it was).

*IF* I do manage it, believe me, one way or the other, people will see it.

-Keith
Message no. 33
From: Even even@***********.fr
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:29:22 +0200
> The gun design rules are def for GM's. Browning Ultra-Power. 525 nuyen. I
> reverse engineered it and it came out to be something like 1250 nuyen. Ditto
> with the Remington 950...

Without having read the CC, couldn't that reflect that the weapons in the core rule book
are the most popular models, mass-produced to such an extent that production costs are
lowered?

(That's probably not the intention of FASA, but I guess they had problems getting the
rules to fit the prices of all the guns they've made over the years.)

Oh, and by the way:

If someone would be so kind as to write a short review of the book as a service to those
of us not in the habit of buying every Shadowrun supplement, they'll get a virtual pat on
the back from me...

(>)EvenT.
Message no. 34
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:52:09 -0600
Mark said:
: I don't understand the rules on the Vashon Island Actioneer Long
:Coat... It says that it doesn't count as a separate item for layering
:armor... Does this mean it functions about the same as a helmet, so
:it's B/I rating pretty much acts like +2/+2 instead of 2/2? That's the
:only way I can read those rules, and it sounds like it'll get popular
:very quickly if that's correct.

I think that is correct. However, as soon as you add that 3rd piece of
armor, you WILL be layering. So that jacket, plus (say) full formfit 4 is
6/3, and counts as one piece of armor. Add a "Dallas" slacks / shirt / vest
combo (effectively 2 / 0), and now you ARE layring armor, to the tune of 8/3
worth, and only getting 7/3 protection.
Still, I see that being pretty popular, yeah. I suppose you could say
the total armor value is calculated as normal, and it just doesn't cause the
quickness penalty a layerd item normally would, if +2 / +2 seems like to
much.

: I wasn't expecting to pay more in order to build a revolver instead of
:a semi-auto!


Clip loading is +10 DP. Cylinder is +8. Both offer 4 rounds base, and you
pay for higher capaicity, and generally would (nad can) buy more for a clip
than a cylinder, but you pay for that. Both fire SA for +5DP, or SS
for -5DP, but mostly its revolvers that are single shot. Unless I missed
something, if otherwise identical, a revolver will be slightly cheaper than
an automatic.

: Martial arts looks like fun. I'm not convinced that Full Offense is
:very useful though... Sounds unlikely that the +1 DL is going to
:compensate for the -2 to be hit. Some of the other techniques make me
:very happy to see... Blind Fighting, Close Combat, Ground Fighting...
:I'm happy, they really broaden fighting to include the feel of other
:styles without losing the abstraction of SR melee.

Full offense looks useful mostly in specialized circumstances where your
are already quite unlikely to be hit. Say, if you are invisible, or your
opponant is wounded, confused, ountnumber, or out-reached (epeicialy when
his TN 8 or higher- 6's aren't much easier to roll than 8's)... Or if you
opponant is suprised, and can't fight back at all... or if he's just some
low skill slob with no combat pool left, or even better completley
unskilled... I can see some folks using it fairly often, and to nasty
efect! Admitedly, most of those cases are already nasty for the losing
party.
Even just if you are slugging it out in the dark, on a slipery surface,
and BOTH your TN's are 8+, or are in a similar case where no punch either of
you lands is likely to do harm (due to the involved parties stats and
armor), using full offense would make sense.

Mongoose



_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 35
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 20:30:00 -0500 (EST)
Excerpts from ShadowRN: 1-Apr-100 Re: Cannon Companion, thoug.. by
"Sebastian Wiers"@******
> : I wasn't expecting to pay more in order to build a revolver instead of
> :a semi-auto!
>
> Clip loading is +10 DP. Cylinder is +8. Both offer 4 rounds base, and you
> pay for higher capaicity, and generally would (nad can) buy more for a clip
> than a cylinder, but you pay for that. Both fire SA for +5DP, or SS
> for -5DP, but mostly its revolvers that are single shot. Unless I missed
> something, if otherwise identical, a revolver will be slightly cheaper than
> an automatic.

I apologize for not being more clear. In general, this may be the
case. However, in the case of a Light or Heavy Pistol, Clip loading is
+0 DP
(already part of the frame), while Cylinder is +8 DP. The Revolver could
be downgraded to a SS if you'd like, so you can pay +0 DP for a SA
clip-fed pistol, +8 DP for a SA revolver, or +3 DP for a SS revolver.

Ah well. I guess revolvers are more difficult to make than semi-autos
with the available facilities in 2060 to low demand or something, and I'll
have to suck up some dp if I want this look. I'm just surprised because
it doesn't match my limited understanding of firearms construction.

Mark
Message no. 36
From: Wavy Davy ctysmd@***.leeds.ac.uk
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 15:35:57 +0100 (BST)
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Sebastian Wiers wrote:

> Mark said:
> : I don't understand the rules on the Vashon Island Actioneer Long
> :Coat... It says that it doesn't count as a separate item for layering
> :armor... Does this mean it functions about the same as a helmet, so
> :it's B/I rating pretty much acts like +2/+2 instead of 2/2? That's the
> :only way I can read those rules, and it sounds like it'll get popular
> :very quickly if that's correct.
>
> I think that is correct. However, as soon as you add that 3rd piece of
> armor, you WILL be layering. So that jacket, plus (say) full formfit 4 is
> 6/3, and counts as one piece of armor. Add a "Dallas" slacks / shirt /
vest
> combo (effectively 2 / 0), and now you ARE layring armor, to the tune of 8/3
> worth, and only getting 7/3 protection.
> Still, I see that being pretty popular, yeah. I suppose you could say
> the total armor value is calculated as normal, and it just doesn't cause the
> quickness penalty a layerd item normally would, if +2 / +2 seems like to
> much.

I read that as the Actioneer Long coat functions like a helmet
addition *for the actioneer line only*, just like all the other
multi-combo outfits. Together, they all count as one layer. I
suspect that sentence was to clarify that fact, as there are other long
coats available as a whole armour item.

--
Wavy Davy (who shares wins)
...There should be a detective show called "Johnny Monkey," because every week
you could have a guy say "I ain't gonna get caught by no MONKEY," but then he
would, and I don't think I'd ever get tired of that.
Message no. 37
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 23:29:57 -0500
Yeah, I'm wandering in late; I was at a record show in Albuquerque all
weekend (not to mention growing older). Deal with it. <g>

From: Hunter
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 10:00 PM

> > > The Martial Arts rules are SSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOO disappointing.
> >
> > What's wrong with them? (Trying fervently to bring up an on-
> > topic discussion that I'm actually interested in.) Personally,
> > when I playtested them, they absolutely rocked, though there
> > were a few things that needed tweaking.
>
> Have you seen the martial arts 3.0 rules? <tries valiantly
> to remember the link>
>
> http://udel.edu/stu-org/galadrim/srii/rules/arts1.htm

Yeah, and after I recovered from the hideously hard-to-read white text on
black background (who thought *that* was a good idea?), I started looking at
the actual mechanics of them.

They're too complex and require a lot of re-building of the game system; the
rules in CANNON COMPANION build on existing game mechanics, and therefore
they're simple and easy to implement. Super-detailed and highly realistic?
Maybe not, but those two features also slow things down to a crawl,
especially considering you have to change almost everything about the combat
system to make them work.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 38
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 23:30:00 -0500
From: GuayII@***.com
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 2:15 AM

>> > The Martial Arts rules are SSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOO disappointing.
>>
>> What's wrong with them? (Trying fervently to bring up an
>> on-topic discussion that I'm actually interested in.)
>> Personally, when I playtested them, they absolutely rocked....
>
> The martial arts rules rocked???

Damn skippy. Most of my reasoning can be found in another post I just made
in Hunter's general direction.

> Sorry, I found them to be severely lacking.

And that's you. You'll notice that I said "Personally" in my initial
response. For the combat system that they're now a part of, they're a
fantastic fit and they do the job beautifully (having used the system
extensively in playtesting in my campaign, I can tell you this without
reservation).

> Also, lumping Savate with Muai Thai. One
> focuses on speed vs. power.

Both use the feet extensively, and have similar approaches to many things.
The grouping of various martial arts doesn't mean that they're identical, it
means that they have the same general idea.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 39
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 23:40:12 -0500
From: Mark A Shieh
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 1:47 PM

> > -Keith (who won't comment on the firearms B/R, because he argued
> > that one hard for changes that he just *knows* didn't get in as
> > well)
>
> If you're sure they didn't get in, can you propose some house rules?
> I'd like to see what you thought.

As soon as I actually have the book in my hand and see what wound up in
there, I'll probably clean up some of my playtest notes and post them. When
I was playtesting, there were a lot of holes that needed to be filled.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 40
From: Hunter griffinhq@****.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 01:27:31 -0400
On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 23:30:00 -0500 "Patrick Goodman" <remo@***.net>
writes:
> From: GuayII@***.com
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 2:15 AM
>
> >> > The Martial Arts rules are SSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOO disappointing.
> >>
> >> What's wrong with them? (Trying fervently to bring up an
> >> on-topic discussion that I'm actually interested in.)
> >> Personally, when I playtested them, they absolutely rocked....
> >
> > The martial arts rules rocked???
>
> Damn skippy. Most of my reasoning can be found in another post I
> just made in Hunter's general direction.
>
<nods> I read it. It's a matter of preference, actually.

*************************************************************************
********************
Griffin Industries
"A Shadowrunner's Corp."

http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/Griffin/index.html

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 41
From: Ojaste,James [NCR] James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:11:28 -0400
> From: Mark A Shieh [mailto:SHODAN+@***.EDU]
> Sent: April 1, 2000 20:30
>
> > Unless I missed
> > something, if otherwise identical, a revolver will be
> > slightly cheaper than
> > an automatic.
>
> I apologize for not being more clear. In general, this may be the
> case. However, in the case of a Light or Heavy Pistol, Clip
> loading is
> +0 DP
> (already part of the frame), while Cylinder is +8 DP. The

In the Ammo Loading option, it states: "This replaces the original
method so the points for that load are returned, except in the case
of belt loading". So, as clip-fed costs 10 and cylinder costs 8,
modding a HP will give you back 10DP and cost you 8, essentially
dropping the cost by 2DP.

> Revolver could
> be downgraded to a SS if you'd like, so you can pay +0 DP for a SA
> clip-fed pistol, +8 DP for a SA revolver, or +3 DP for a SS revolver.

In terms of DP cost:
DP Design
0 SA Clip-fed
-2 SA Revolver
-5 SS Clip-fed
-7 SS Revolver

James Ojaste
<resume mode="lurk"/>
Message no. 42
From: GuayII@***.com GuayII@***.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 03:17:40 EDT
In a message dated Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:30:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Patrick
Goodman" <remo@***.net> writes:

<< From: GuayII@***.com
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 2:15 AM

<snip, cut, delete>
> > Also, lumping Savate with Muai Thai. One
> > focuses on speed vs. power.

> Both use the feet extensively, and have similar > approaches to many things. The
grouping of various > martial arts doesn't mean that they're identical, it
> means that they have the same general idea.

What about Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do being lumped together? (I know that I'm nit-picking,
but I have to give at least one final hurrah before I shut up!)

Cash
Message no. 43
From: GuayII@***.com GuayII@***.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 03:23:02 EDT
<< In a message dated Mon, 3 Apr 2000 1:26:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Hunter
<griffinhq@****.com> writes:

> On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 23:30:00 -0500 "Patrick Goodman" >
<remo@***.net> writes:
> > From: GuayII@***.com
> > Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 2:15 AM

> > The martial arts rules rocked???
>
> Damn skippy. Most of my reasoning can be found in > another post I just made in
Hunter's general > direction.
>
<nods> I read it. It's a matter of preference, actually. >>

That is so true. I just hate to see bad information get spread.
Cash
Message no. 44
From: HHackerH@***.com HHackerH@***.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 06:59:37 EDT
In a message dated 4/4/00 2:18:09 AM US Eastern Standard Time, GuayII@***.com
writes:

>
> What about Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do being lumped together? (I know that I'm
> nit-picking, but I have to give at least one final hurrah before I shut up!)

Out of curiosity, as I might be getting styles confused... what does Hapkido
focus upon???

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-K
-"Just a Bastard"
-Hoosier Hacker House
"Children of the Kernel"
[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
Message no. 45
From: GuayII@***.com GuayII@***.com
Subject: Cannon Companion, thoughts.
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:04:57 EDT
In a message dated Tue, 4 Apr 2000 7:00:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, HHackerH@***.com
writes:

> Out of curiosity, as I might be getting styles confused... what does Hapkido
> focus upon???


"HAP- unity, joining, eclectic, gathering
KI- inner strength
Do- art of
A broad definition would be; Hapkido is an eclectic martial art centered around your inner
strength.

Hapkido is a Korean martial art. Hapkido is a total martial art, combining the locking and
breaking aspects of Aikido, the throwing aspects of Judo, the striking aspects of Karate,
and the footwork of Tae Kwon Do."

Tae Kwon Do itself tends to be more linear and focuses on the hands and feet (its Karate
influence). Hapkido was influenced by Aikido and Jujitsu.

Cash

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Cannon Companion, thoughts., 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!