Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 00:19:07 -0400
Let's see if I can answer a lot of things in one posts. No names are
quoted for speed of answering, no offense meant.

>But you'd only get +1, not +2, would be my opinion: smart goggles
>without the goggles.

With this set-up I'd say +2.

>Actually, if you have a first edition SR book, look up the
>description of the Smartgun (GUn side, not cyber side)...it will say
>that it requires some form of input, and it lists a datajack as one
>of them. :) For the longest time my characters never took a
>smartgun link...why spend .5 essence when .2 will do?
>This vanished in SRII however...

Hmmm. I'll have to search for that if I ever get the time.

>I'm not sure about that. I'd require a display link, and possibly some sort
>of SPU or headware memory to run the ballistic software on, but I'd give
>the user of such a rig +2, simply because the datajack is a *two-way* data
>channel, unlike a goggle-rig. I know one of my biggest problems in hitting
>the target (with a rifle, anyway) was pulling the trigger without jerking
>the weapon. A two-way data-path gives you the ability to electrically fire
>the trigger, without messing around with muscle movement in the hand and
>arm.

That ballistic program would external for this. Not everything has
to be in a cyber solution. That's what started me thinking about using a
datajack to use different things.

> No, you'd get a +2 bonus since a datajack interfaces with and can override
>your normal sensory input. An overlay of a targeting dot is a simple matter.
> BTW, there's a datajack Smartlink system in NERPS:Shadowlore.

Kewl!

>I always thought a smartlink included an Expert system to help with the
>aligning and to project where the bullet would hit (remember the 'no stray
>rounds' benefit of smartlink, something has to be doing the work for that).

It still wouldn't have to be a cyber element to do this.

>Deliberately, I think. Personally, I liked he visual of a character plugging
>his gun into his head (a lot of the early SR and CP artwork feature this
>method of smartlink), but frankly, the palm induction system is a lot more
>concealable when in use, no time spent plugging your gun in, either. But the
>'plug-in' method has arguments in its favor, also, if you have a loooooong
>cord. :)

Heh, heh, heh.

>That might be possible, I'm not sure. It mostly depends on whether the
>system that processes where the aiming cross is to be projected, is in the
>gun or in the user's head. If it's in the gun, then this setup would do,
>IMHO, while if it's in the user then you need something more: you could
>say it costs .25 Essence, namely for the part of the smartlink that's in
>the user's head (see the "smartlink in cyberarm" thread) and then accepts
>input through the user's datajack -- plug a cable into the smartlinked
>gun, and the other end into the datajack, and you have a smartlink.

Gee, but my solution generally costs more Essence to do. I would say
that .25 Essence is covered (externally in part as well).

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 2
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 00:36:15 -0400
Can't recall if I've ever brought this up before and RBB2 finished
it might be too late but oh well. With datajacks and assist technology,
why does a Rigger need a VCR. Assist is already giving all the sensory
override input through the Datajack, so why is the VCR the only way to
go? I felt like the only reason Shadowrun did this was to create a niche
for the different archetypes that prevented easy crossovers. Riggers
would easily drift into Samurai hybrids if it wasn't for the VCR / Wired
Reflexes incompatibilities and it gets too expensive to be a efficient
Rigger / Decker. It never felt that justified to me.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 3
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:08:52 -0600
MC23 wrote:
|
| Can't recall if I've ever brought this up before and RBB2 finished
| it might be too late but oh well. With datajacks and assist technology,
| why does a Rigger need a VCR. Assist is already giving all the sensory
| override input through the Datajack, so why is the VCR the only way to
| go? I felt like the only reason Shadowrun did this was to create a niche
| for the different archetypes that prevented easy crossovers. Riggers
| would easily drift into Samurai hybrids if it wasn't for the VCR / Wired
| Reflexes incompatibilities and it gets too expensive to be a efficient
| Rigger / Decker. It never felt that justified to me.

If a person jacks directly into a vehicle all of the data he get's is
in its raw form. He can still control the vehicle (I think the rules
state that doing so incures a negative modifier though).

If the person has a VCR, its just like a decker using a deck. The
VCR translates the data and arranges it in a much nicer picture,
making it that much easier to drive the vehicle.

However, I will admit that I don't see the reason for putting the VCR
inside a person. All a decker has to do is jack into his deck and
all of the enhancements reside on the deck (all a decker needs is a
datajack). Why can't the VCR be installed in the vehicle? Or setup
as a "deck" that the rigger connects to the vehicle before jacking
into it? This is one case where I think they were trying to
"balance" the game. And, IMHO, I don't think it's necessary.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 4
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117" <KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:54:21 -0500
You wrote:
> If a person jacks directly into a vehicle all of the data he get's is
> in its raw form. He can still control the vehicle (I think the rules
> state that doing so incures a negative modifier though).

> If the person has a VCR, its just like a decker using a deck. The
> VCR translates the data and arranges it in a much nicer picture,
> making it that much easier to drive the vehicle.

> However, I will admit that I don't see the reason for putting the VCR
> inside a person. All a decker has to do is jack into his deck and
> all of the enhancements reside on the deck (all a decker needs is a
> datajack). Why can't the VCR be installed in the vehicle? Or setup
> as a "deck" that the rigger connects to the vehicle before jacking
> into it? This is one case where I think they were trying to
> "balance" the game. And, IMHO, I don't think it's necessary.
A) I think I agree that part of the reason was game-balance.
B) Have you ever read 'Hardwired' by Walter Jon Williams? In it, the main
character is a rigger (first place I ever saw the idea, anyway) and his VCR
used his body's learned nervous responses (like those that make it easier to
hit a baseball once you've done it many times over) to improve his handling
ability with a jet. It's not the same as ignoring your body's nerves (the ones
that lead to the muscles, not just the CNS) the way a datajack does. The
datajack, for the most part, just shuts the body down when decking, overrides
sensory input with ASSIST, and sets up a system of translating intended motions
into code variations. A VCR, as I understand it, is wired both into one's
senses as a datajack, and *also* into all your muscular control nerves, so that
'learned' proficiency of the body helps you (as with the baseball example). It
needs to be much more invasive to function this way, but look at the bonuses it
gives a rigger versus an ordinary pilot, versus a datajack which is 'access to
the matrix' but no especial bonus. Hmm, now think about a VCR-type datajack
designed solely for decking... scary idea. :) But anyway, hope this makes
sense.

losthalo
Message no. 5
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber -Reply
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 15:16:17 -0500
<snip question: why a VCR?>

In my mind, what a VCR does is to translate your
sense of body into a sense of vehicle. If the
vehicle was shaped like a human body and had
sensors in all the same places, this would be an
easy thing. However, for most vehicles, its not.
The more essence you spend on your VCR, the
better YOU are at adapting to non-human
mechanical "bodies". While a rigger with VCR-1
rigging a banshee will have 360 degree vision,
he probably could only concentrate on a smaller
area, just because his brain isn't wired any other
way. A rigger with a VCR-3 gets full 360 decree
vision with "Instincts" to match. As a result, he
reacts to threats much quicker. A VCR-1 riding
a rigged bike simply has some senses and
controls for throttle position etc. VCR-3 and you
get a phenominal sense of balance on the bike
etc. as well.

Double-Domed Mike
Message no. 6
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber -Reply
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:41:16 -0600
Mike Elkins wrote:
|
| <snip question: why a VCR?>
|
| In my mind, what a VCR does is to translate your
| sense of body into a sense of vehicle. If the
| vehicle was shaped like a human body and had
| sensors in all the same places, this would be an
| easy thing. However, for most vehicles, its not.
| The more essence you spend on your VCR, the
| better YOU are at adapting to non-human
| mechanical "bodies". While a rigger with VCR-1
| rigging a banshee will have 360 degree vision,
| he probably could only concentrate on a smaller
| area, just because his brain isn't wired any other
| way. A rigger with a VCR-3 gets full 360 decree
| vision with "Instincts" to match. As a result, he
| reacts to threats much quicker. A VCR-1 riding
| a rigged bike simply has some senses and
| controls for throttle position etc. VCR-3 and you
| get a phenominal sense of balance on the bike
| etc. as well.

Okay, I'll buy that. But ASIST can override sense, feelings,
emotions, etc. Why can't ASIST be used in place of a VCR. Why does
it have to be wired directly into the riggers system. Why can't it
be exterior? The speed of a decker's deck can be boosted, his feel
for the net increased, his senses heightened, all transmited through
a datajack. Why can't a rigger do the same?

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:29:58 +0100
David Buehrer said on 8:08/21 Aug 97...

> If a person jacks directly into a vehicle all of the data he get's is
> in its raw form. He can still control the vehicle (I think the rules
> state that doing so incures a negative modifier though).

To jack into a vehicle, the minimum requirement is a datajack in the
person, and a datajack link in the vehicle. That gives rudimentary
cybernetic controls, translating to +2 Reaction in game terms, but the
modifications to the vehicle add 1 to Handling as well.

> If the person has a VCR, its just like a decker using a deck. The
> VCR translates the data and arranges it in a much nicer picture,
> making it that much easier to drive the vehicle.

Once there's rigger control gear in the vehicle, and the driver has a VCR,
then the full +2+1D6 per level of VCR applies, as well as a Handling
reduction equal to twice the VCR level. That should improve driving by a
big factor, IMO.

> However, I will admit that I don't see the reason for putting the VCR
> inside a person. All a decker has to do is jack into his deck and
> all of the enhancements reside on the deck (all a decker needs is a
> datajack). Why can't the VCR be installed in the vehicle? Or setup
> as a "deck" that the rigger connects to the vehicle before jacking
> into it? This is one case where I think they were trying to
> "balance" the game. And, IMHO, I don't think it's necessary.

Agreed, if you really look at it a VCR would probably be unnecessary, at
least as long as a plausible explanation of why it's so damn invasive
comes up. The one I tend to use is that connections throughout the body
are required, that explains the Essence cost anyway, but I don't as yet
have a reason _why_ you'd use your whole body to drive a car like this...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Looking over the edge...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 8
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber -Reply
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:59:29 -0500
At 21-Aug-97 wrote David Buehrer:


>Okay, I'll buy that. But ASIST can override sense, feelings,
>emotions, etc. Why can't ASIST be used in place of a VCR. Why does
>it have to be wired directly into the riggers system. Why can't it
>be exterior? The speed of a decker's deck can be boosted, his feel
>for the net increased, his senses heightened, all transmited through
>a datajack. Why can't a rigger do the same?

Because a normal datajack conection blocks
your movement to protect your body.
It translates only the signals from your brain
to be of use for the deck.
A VCR takes its imput direct from your muscles
and nerves and feeds these output to the vehichle.
Its essential the same as bossted reflexes with
a minor change: its works the otherway.
You think you move, your nerves channel the commands than comes the VCR and
takes these trough
the datajack into the vehichle.
--
Barbie


One lived hour is still living.
Message no. 9
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber -Reply
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 18:26:24 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-21 15:44:19 EDT, you write:

> Okay, I'll buy that. But ASIST can override sense, feelings,
> emotions, etc. Why can't ASIST be used in place of a VCR. Why does
> it have to be wired directly into the riggers system. Why can't it
> be exterior? The speed of a decker's deck can be boosted, his feel
> for the net increased, his senses heightened, all transmited through
> a datajack. Why can't a rigger do the same?

ASIST is used. If it wasn't, a Rigger wouldn't have any sensory imput. You
also have to realize that the way VCRs work - providing a reaction bonus - is
not possible if going through a deck. Response Increase in a deck is more
like this. Level 1 = 486, Level 2 = Pentium, Level 3 = AMD K6. It increases
the deck's reaction to incoming data. A VCR enhances the Rigger's reflexes
while piloting a vehicle. A Datajack interfaces with a VCR, and is required
to use one. Datajack provides ASIST interface, VCR does something else
entirely.

Wolfstar
Message no. 10
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber -Reply
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 21:11:58 -0600
George Metz wrote:
|
| also have to realize that the way VCRs work - providing a reaction bonus - is
| not possible if going through a deck. Response Increase in a deck is more
| like this. Level 1 = 486, Level 2 = Pentium, Level 3 = AMD K6. It increases
| the deck's reaction to incoming data.

I don't think so. If a decker with response increase III is decking
at the same time as a Sam with Wired III is in combat, the rules
state that you run them both simultaneously. Somehow that response
increase III is allowing the decker to act as fast as the Sam.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 11
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 04:16:21 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-21 20:51:49 EDT, you write:

> Once there's rigger control gear in the vehicle, and the driver has a VCR,
> then the full +2+1D6 per level of VCR applies, as well as a Handling
> reduction equal to twice the VCR level. That should improve driving by a
> big factor, IMO.

What????? Waitasec, I can't find the handling reduction listed anywhere.
Never mind that a Handling reduction like that would put the majority of
vehicles well below zero for handling on roads. Also, there's a debate in my
group at the moment - probably because we rarely use vehicles is the reason
it's taken us this long to realize it - is with the Armor conversions from
RBB to SRII. The book states that Armor is multiplied by three. then it says,
"Also, divide the armor cost by 3, and multiply the maximum allowed by 3."
Now, if I'm reading the vehicle rules from SR First Edition right, anything
with a damage code of M is not capable of damaging a vehicle normally if the
vehicle has even one level of Armor, and this includes just about every
pistol, SMG, and a good chunk of the rifles.
The question is, when you buy armor from RBB, for each point of armor
purchased, is the rating tripled AND the cost divided by three, which works
out to roughly 9 points of Armor for the listed cost of 1 point of armor(2500
nuyen), or is the cost of 2500 nuyen per point of armor in SR1 divided by
three to get the cost of 1 point of Armor in SRII(This, of course, would mean
that the moment SRII came out, my First Edition vehicle was no longer capable
of bouncing pistol ammo)?
There was something else that I was going to ask about, but my brain lost
it. I'll remember as soon as I hit "Send". Oh well. Thanks in advance for the
answers.

Wolfstar - "YES, I want to delete it!" <pause>
"NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!" =)
Message no. 12
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber -Reply
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 04:34:42 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-22 00:21:16 EDT, you write:

> I don't think so. If a decker with response increase III is decking
> at the same time as a Sam with Wired III is in combat, the rules
> state that you run them both simultaneously. Somehow that response
> increase III is allowing the decker to act as fast as the Sam.

Yuppers, that's how it works. Keep in mind that you only issue commands, and
the commands you issue are at the speed of thought. Response Increase
determines how fast the thing that PROCESSES your commands - ie, your deck -
can actually react to them. Your deck does all of the work, you just tell it
what to do and hope that it does it fast enough.

Wolfstar
Message no. 13
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:43:20 +0100
George Metz said on 4:16/22 Aug 97...

> > Once there's rigger control gear in the vehicle, and the driver has a VCR,
> > then the full +2+1D6 per level of VCR applies, as well as a Handling
> > reduction equal to twice the VCR level. That should improve driving by a
> > big factor, IMO.
>
> What????? Waitasec, I can't find the handling reduction listed anywhere.

SRII page 183, the Vehicle Operations Table: "Rigger In Control: -(VCR
Level x 2)"

> Never mind that a Handling reduction like that would put the majority of
> vehicles well below zero for handling on roads.

So? You end up with a Handling TN of 2.

> Also, there's a debate in my
> group at the moment - probably because we rarely use vehicles is the reason
> it's taken us this long to realize it - is with the Armor conversions from
> RBB to SRII. The book states that Armor is multiplied by three. then it says,
> "Also, divide the armor cost by 3, and multiply the maximum allowed by 3."

My SRII book (hardcover) only mentions to multiply the armor ratings by 3.
Going by that, I've divided the cost per point by 3 and multiplied the
maximum by 3, as you say, because that makes sense with this multiplier.

> Now, if I'm reading the vehicle rules from SR First Edition right, anything
> with a damage code of M is not capable of damaging a vehicle normally if the
> vehicle has even one level of Armor, and this includes just about every
> pistol, SMG, and a good chunk of the rifles.

The Damage Level is reduced by one, so if it's Light already it's
impossible to damage vehicles. Moderate-damage weapons can hurt vehicles
just fine.

> The question is, when you buy armor from RBB, for each point of armor
> purchased, is the rating tripled AND the cost divided by three, which works
> out to roughly 9 points of Armor for the listed cost of 1 point of armor(2500
> nuyen), or is the cost of 2500 nuyen per point of armor in SR1 divided by
> three to get the cost of 1 point of Armor in SRII(This, of course, would mean
> that the moment SRII came out, my First Edition vehicle was no longer capable
> of bouncing pistol ammo)?

IMO it means that the first point costs 2500Y / 3 = 833Y, and each point
after that costs 5000Y / 3 = 1667Y. For ease of calculaton, you could rule
that the first three points cost 833Y each, so you can simply stick with
the figures in the RBB when buying armor in multiples of 3 points.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Looking over the edge...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 14
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:18:15 GMT
George Metz writes

> is with the Armor conversions from
> RBB to SRII. The book states that Armor is multiplied by three. then it says,
This converts SR1 vehicle stats to SR2.

> "Also, divide the armor cost by 3, and multiply the maximum allowed by 3."
This converts SR1 vehicle rules to SR2 when adding more armour,
basically 1 point of 2nd edition armour costs 1/3 as much as a point
of 1st ed armour (as by the rule above you tripple 1st ed ratings to
get 2nded) and you can add three times as much. The costs in RBB1
being for adding 1st edition armour.

Gurth answered the rest.

Mark
Message no. 15
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:43:27 -0400
George Metz once dared to write,

> The question is, when you buy armor from RBB, for each point of armor
>purchased, is the rating tripled AND the cost divided by three, which works
>out to roughly 9 points of Armor for the listed cost of 1 point of armor(2500
>nuyen), or is the cost of 2500 nuyen per point of armor in SR1 divided by
>three to get the cost of 1 point of Armor in SRII(This, of course, would mean
>that the moment SRII came out, my First Edition vehicle was no longer capable
>of bouncing pistol ammo)?

Nope, what you've got here is another unclearness in the rules.
Triple existing armor on a vehicle and one third cost for buying
additional armor. Does that clear things up?

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 16
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 17:42:04 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-22 05:52:26 EDT, you write:

> > What????? Waitasec, I can't find the handling reduction listed anywhere.
>
> SRII page 183, the Vehicle Operations Table: "Rigger In Control: -(VCR
> Level x 2)"

Found it, thank you. That IS obscene. Comes in handy for off-road driving
though. =)

> > Never mind that a Handling reduction like that would put the majority of
> > vehicles well below zero for handling on roads.
>
> So? You end up with a Handling TN of 2.

Yup. For all but the absolute WORST conditions, assuming VCR Level 3. With
dice from your drive skill, Control Pool, and Autopilot Rating dice, I doubt
a rigger'd ever crash accidentally.

> > Also, there's a debate in my
> > group at the moment - probably because we rarely use vehicles is the
reason
> > it's taken us this long to realize it - is with the Armor conversions
from
> > RBB to SRII. The book states that Armor is multiplied by three. then it
says,
> > "Also, divide the armor cost by 3, and multiply the maximum allowed by
3."
>
> My SRII book (hardcover) only mentions to multiply the armor ratings by 3.
> Going by that, I've divided the cost per point by 3 and multiplied the
> maximum by 3, as you say, because that makes sense with this multiplier.

Right, but SRII Softcover - and I think the Hardcover Errata - say to also
divide the cost by three.

> > Now, if I'm reading the vehicle rules from SR First Edition right,
anything
> > with a damage code of M is not capable of damaging a vehicle normally if
the
> > vehicle has even one level of Armor, and this includes just about every
> > pistol, SMG, and a good chunk of the rifles.
>
> The Damage Level is reduced by one, so if it's Light already it's
> impossible to damage vehicles. Moderate-damage weapons can hurt vehicles
> just fine.

No, because in First Edition, when attempting to attack a vehicle with a
weapon that didn't have a vehicle damage code, you reduce the damage level by
1, even if there's no armor. 1 point of armor reduces the damage level by 1
more, for a total reduction of two levels. Which means you need a weapon with
a damage level of S to even affect a vehicle with armor.

> IMO it means that the first point costs 2500Y / 3 = 833Y, and each point
> after that costs 5000Y / 3 = 1667Y. For ease of calculaton, you could rule
> that the first three points cost 833Y each, so you can simply stick with
> the figures in the RBB when buying armor in multiples of 3 points.

Actually, I'd triple the cost-per-body thing as well. If, in first edition
you could get 3 points of armor at 2500 nuyen each, it only makes sense that
in SRII you can get 9 points of armor without the increase in cost. Assuming,
of course, that you disagree with my stance.

Wolfstar
Message no. 17
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 11:40:59 +0100
George Metz said on 17:42/22 Aug 97...

> > So? You end up with a Handling TN of 2.
>
> Yup. For all but the absolute WORST conditions, assuming VCR Level 3. With
> dice from your drive skill, Control Pool, and Autopilot Rating dice, I doubt
> a rigger'd ever crash accidentally.

Riggers are supposed to be shit-hot drivers, aren't they? Let's assume the
above VCR bonus doesn't exist -- check the difference between a rigger
with Car skill 5, Reaction 4, and VCR level 2 on one side, and a street
sam with Car 5, Reaction 4, and wired refs 2 on the other. Both have the
exact same initiative and skill dice, the only advantage is that the
rigger gets Control Pool dice. This makes the rigger a better driver
already, sure, but since it's supposed to be the rigger's area of
speciality IMHO that isn't enough...

> > My SRII book (hardcover) only mentions to multiply the armor ratings by 3.
> > Going by that, I've divided the cost per point by 3 and multiplied the
> > maximum by 3, as you say, because that makes sense with this multiplier.
>
> Right, but SRII Softcover - and I think the Hardcover Errata - say to also
> divide the cost by three.

Per point, I assume.

> > The Damage Level is reduced by one, so if it's Light already it's
> > impossible to damage vehicles. Moderate-damage weapons can hurt vehicles
> > just fine.
>
> No, because in First Edition, when attempting to attack a vehicle with a
> weapon that didn't have a vehicle damage code, you reduce the damage level by
> 1, even if there's no armor. 1 point of armor reduces the damage level by 1
> more, for a total reduction of two levels. Which means you need a weapon with
> a damage level of S to even affect a vehicle with armor.

SR1 went further than you say: Power and Staging were halved as well as
the Damage Level going down by 1. A 10S4 weapon did 5M2 against a vehicle.
This only went for heavy weapons, since other weapons were incapable of
damaging a vehicle (SR1 page 71); I couldn't find the rule you referred
to, but it looks to me like the only weapons that could damage an armored
vehicle in SR1 were heavy weapons with a Damage Level of M or higher.

> Actually, I'd triple the cost-per-body thing as well. If, in first edition
> you could get 3 points of armor at 2500 nuyen each, it only makes sense that
> in SRII you can get 9 points of armor without the increase in cost. Assuming,
> of course, that you disagree with my stance.

Okay, here's my revisions of the costs, according to what I've penciled on
page 112 of my RBB:

Maximum Value: 3x Vehicle's Body (original Body for cycles and aircraft)
Speed Penalty: -5/-15 per 3 points
Economy: +10% per 3 points
Handling: +1 per six full points
Cost: 2,500Y (1,750Y for cycles and aircraft) per 3 points to original
Body x3. 5,000Y per 3 points thereafter


--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Looking over the edge...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 18
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 02:02:30 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-23 05:44:18 EDT, you write:

> Riggers are supposed to be shit-hot drivers, aren't they? Let's assume the
> above VCR bonus doesn't exist -- check the difference between a rigger
> with Car skill 5, Reaction 4, and VCR level 2 on one side, and a street
> sam with Car 5, Reaction 4, and wired refs 2 on the other. Both have the
> exact same initiative and skill dice, the only advantage is that the
> rigger gets Control Pool dice. This makes the rigger a better driver
> already, sure, but since it's supposed to be the rigger's area of
> speciality IMHO that isn't enough..

Plus, do not forget that the rigger also gets handling modifiers equal to
twice the level of the VCR ... so that Sammie may have an extreme difficulty
pulling off some of the same maneuvers that a rigger can ... and all of this
because the rigger is reacting to information that the autopilot and other
systems on the car are giving to the rigger.

AirWips
Message no. 19
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 11:18:20 +0100
Mike Bobroff said on 2:02/24 Aug 97...

> > Riggers are supposed to be shit-hot drivers, aren't they? Let's assume the
> > above VCR bonus doesn't exist [snip]
>
> Plus, do not forget that the rigger also gets handling modifiers equal to
> twice the level of the VCR ...

*sigh* Take a good look at the double-quoted text...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Looking over the edge...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 20
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 17:01:26 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-23 17:58:26 EDT, you write:

> > Yup. For all but the absolute WORST conditions, assuming VCR Level 3.
With
> > dice from your drive skill, Control Pool, and Autopilot Rating dice, I
doubt
> > a rigger'd ever crash accidentally.
>
> Riggers are supposed to be shit-hot drivers, aren't they? Let's assume the
> above VCR bonus doesn't exist -- check the difference between a rigger
> with Car skill 5, Reaction 4, and VCR level 2 on one side, and a street
> sam with Car 5, Reaction 4, and wired refs 2 on the other. Both have the
> exact same initiative and skill dice, the only advantage is that the
> rigger gets Control Pool dice. This makes the rigger a better driver
> already, sure, but since it's supposed to be the rigger's area of
> speciality IMHO that isn't enough...

Except for one problem, which I discovered last night. The last line above
the chart says, "These modifiers apply only to non-combat situations." IMO,
this was their attempt to prevent PCs from abusing the hell out of this rule.
It doesn't really make sense. Your rigger steals the WK-2 Stallion from
CorpSec motor pool for extraction. It's a big vehicle, he's never flown one,
he's under a LOT of stress from the schmucks flying up on his butt with
assault rifles blazing, and (just for shits&giggles) a tropical storm just
pulled up and is dumping on the city. Yet, all I have to do is give the corp
ONE lousy attack chopper, and all those bonuses disappear, because of the VCR
handling mods.

> > > My SRII book (hardcover) only mentions to multiply the armor ratings
by 3.
> > > Going by that, I've divided the cost per point by 3 and multiplied
the
> > > maximum by 3, as you say, because that makes sense with this
multiplier.
> >
> > Right, but SRII Softcover - and I think the Hardcover Errata - say to
also
> > divide the cost by three.
>
> Per point, I assume.

It doesn't say. Here's the section from softcover.
"Multiply Vehicle Armor Ratings listed for the vehicles in the Rigger Black
Book by 3 to make the values compatible with the SRII rules. Also, divide the
armor cost by 3, and multiply the maximum allowed by 3."

> > > The Damage Level is reduced by one, so if it's Light already it's
> > > impossible to damage vehicles. Moderate-damage weapons can hurt
vehicles
> > > just fine.
> >
> > No, because in First Edition, when attempting to attack a vehicle with
a
> > weapon that didn't have a vehicle damage code, you reduce the damage
level by
> > 1, even if there's no armor. 1 point of armor reduces the damage level
by 1
> > more, for a total reduction of two levels. Which means you need a weapon
with
> > a damage level of S to even affect a vehicle with armor.
>
> SR1 went further than you say: Power and Staging were halved as well as
> the Damage Level going down by 1. A 10S4 weapon did 5M2 against a vehicle.
> This only went for heavy weapons, since other weapons were incapable of
> damaging a vehicle (SR1 page 71); I couldn't find the rule you referred
> to, but it looks to me like the only weapons that could damage an armored
> vehicle in SR1 were heavy weapons with a Damage Level of M or higher.

Page 103 Rigger Black Book, Second column, "Firearms Against Vehicles." It
states the above method of determining vehicle damage, then it says, "This
holds for ALL weapons, not just heavy weapons." Further down the page under
Vehicle Armor it says, "Each level of armor protection reduces the Damage
Level (L,M,S, or D) by one." In other words, 1st Ed. armor would bounce just
about any non-heavy round you fired at it, but the equivalent in 2nd Edition
doesn't? See why it doesn't make sense?

> > Actually, I'd triple the cost-per-body thing as well. If, in first
edition
> > you could get 3 points of armor at 2500 nuyen each, it only makes sense
that
> > in SRII you can get 9 points of armor without the increase in cost.
Assuming,
> > of course, that you disagree with my stance.
>
> Okay, here's my revisions of the costs, according to what I've penciled on
> page 112 of my RBB:

<Snip revised entry>

That's about what they're saying, but it also reduces armor for some
mystical reason to something that no longer provides the protection it did.
Granted, you throw in Body as Ballistic/Impact Armor, that's another story,
but you have to have at least 6 body to pull that off.
Alternately, we could forget about it and wait for Rigger 2 to ship in
15-20 days... =)

Wolfstar
Message no. 21
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:20:22 +0100
George Metz said on 17:01/24 Aug 97...

> Except for one problem, which I discovered last night. The last line above
> the chart says, "These modifiers apply only to non-combat situations." IMO,
> this was their attempt to prevent PCs from abusing the hell out of this rule.
> It doesn't really make sense.

My idea exactly, so I apply them to all situations. In some cases this
would even make it _easier_ to drive a vehicle in combat -- you're
stealing a really big truck (one of those Australian road trains) and
you've never driven one before: that's a +6 to the Handling TN. Now
someone starts shooting at you, and your TN suddenly drops by 6, to the
base Handling...

> It doesn't say. Here's the section from softcover.
> "Multiply Vehicle Armor Ratings listed for the vehicles in the Rigger Black
> Book by 3 to make the values compatible with the SRII rules. Also, divide the
> armor cost by 3, and multiply the maximum allowed by 3."

The hardcover doesn't have the second sentence, so I had to make up my own
values, basically.

> Page 103 Rigger Black Book, Second column, "Firearms Against Vehicles." It
> states the above method of determining vehicle damage, then it says, "This
> holds for ALL weapons, not just heavy weapons." Further down the page under
> Vehicle Armor it says, "Each level of armor protection reduces the Damage
> Level (L,M,S, or D) by one." In other words, 1st Ed. armor would bounce just
> about any non-heavy round you fired at it, but the equivalent in 2nd Edition
> doesn't? See why it doesn't make sense?

Actually SR1 doesn't make sense to me: put one point armor on a vehicle,
and suddenly almost all non-heavy weapons automatically bounce off? I like
SRII's rules better here, at least you have a chance of damaging a lightly
armored vehicle with a pistol.

> Alternately, we could forget about it and wait for Rigger 2 to ship in
> 15-20 days... =)

That would be our best bet, I think :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Looking over the edge...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 22
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:52:16 +0200
>Actually SR1 doesn't make sense to me: put one point armor on a vehicle,
>and suddenly almost all non-heavy weapons automatically bounce off? I like
>SRII's rules better here, at least you have a chance of damaging a lightly
>armored vehicle with a pistol.

What I find a little annoying is how easy it is to destroy cars with, say,
a pistol. If you're a halfway good shot, you'll completely wreck a ford
americar with a single shot. (Smartgun, skill 3 (average) 3 cpool..
6 dice, TN 2, ~5 successes, body test 2 dice TN 7 ~0 successes = wrecked.)

(Or do I interpret 'light weapons' to mean only light pistols instead
of 'non heavy' weapons (MMG+) ?)
Message no. 23
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 06:59:06 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-25 06:52:30 EDT, you write:

> What I find a little annoying is how easy it is to destroy cars with, say,
> a pistol. If you're a halfway good shot, you'll completely wreck a ford
> americar with a single shot. (Smartgun, skill 3 (average) 3 cpool..
> 6 dice, TN 2, ~5 successes, body test 2 dice TN 7 ~0 successes = wrecked.)
>
> (Or do I interpret 'light weapons' to mean only light pistols instead
> of 'non heavy' weapons (MMG+) ?)

Light weapons means non-heavy, yes. And out of curiosity, have you ever seen
a Ford Escort shot with a .44 Magnum at close range? Won't go through the
engine block(maybe - these days you can never tell) but the engine will be
totally trashed. Also, IIRC, they're making vehicle Body Ratings based on
size when Rigger 2 comes out. That may solve the above problem.

Wolfstar
Message no. 24
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 22:25:31 +0100
Rune Fostervoll said on 12:52/25 Aug 97...

> What I find a little annoying is how easy it is to destroy cars with, say,
> a pistol. If you're a halfway good shot, you'll completely wreck a ford
> americar with a single shot. (Smartgun, skill 3 (average) 3 cpool..
> 6 dice, TN 2, ~5 successes, body test 2 dice TN 7 ~0 successes = wrecked.)

That's caused by rating vehicles essentially on the same scale as
characters, and compensating by saying the vehicle gets some armor from
its Body (which characters don't). Shoot a Predator with some skill at an
average citizen (no armor, Body 3), and he/she/it will die. Shoot the same
thing at a typical shadowrunner (armor jacket, Body 5+) and the result
will be a relatively minor wound.

Vehicles are really too weak to stand up to typical firearms except light
pistols and hold-outs (which can't damage vehicles at all) in much the
same way, IMHO.

> (Or do I interpret 'light weapons' to mean only light pistols instead
> of 'non heavy' weapons (MMG+) ?)

All weapons that do Moderate or higher damage as base can damage a
vehicle under SRII rules.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If words were wisdom I'd be talking even more.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 25
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 18:17:21 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-25 17:23:53 EDT, you write:

> > Except for one problem, which I discovered last night. The last line
above
> > the chart says, "These modifiers apply only to non-combat
situations."
IMO,
> > this was their attempt to prevent PCs from abusing the hell out of this
rule.
> > It doesn't really make sense.
>
> My idea exactly, so I apply them to all situations. In some cases this
> would even make it _easier_ to drive a vehicle in combat -- you're
> stealing a really big truck (one of those Australian road trains) and
> you've never driven one before: that's a +6 to the Handling TN. Now
> someone starts shooting at you, and your TN suddenly drops by 6, to the
> base Handling...

Sure, that makes sense. Now I've gotta find a way to convince my GM to
ignore a rule. <sighs> He's a good guy, and he comes up with well thought-out
house rules, but when it comes to ignoring a rule or ruling, he's a wuss. =)

> > It doesn't say. Here's the section from softcover.
> > "Multiply Vehicle Armor Ratings listed for the vehicles in the Rigger
Black
> > Book by 3 to make the values compatible with the SRII rules. Also,
divide the
> > armor cost by 3, and multiply the maximum allowed by 3."
>
> The hardcover doesn't have the second sentence, so I had to make up my own
> values, basically.

Yup, that I know. I've got a softcover, my friend has a hardcover. 'Causes a
lot of "The book doesn't say that!" "Yes it does!" style arguments.
Which I
win since I've got the newer version. =)

> > Page 103 Rigger Black Book, Second column, "Firearms Against
Vehicles."
It
> > states the above method of determining vehicle damage, then it says,
"This
> > holds for ALL weapons, not just heavy weapons." Further down the page
under
> > Vehicle Armor it says, "Each level of armor protection reduces the
Damage
> > Level (L,M,S, or D) by one." In other words, 1st Ed. armor would bounce
just
> > about any non-heavy round you fired at it, but the equivalent in 2nd
Edition
> > doesn't? See why it doesn't make sense?
>
> Actually SR1 doesn't make sense to me: put one point armor on a vehicle,
> and suddenly almost all non-heavy weapons automatically bounce off? I like
> SRII's rules better here, at least you have a chance of damaging a lightly
> armored vehicle with a pistol.

I'm not saying SR1 makes sense(It didn't, good enough reason for SRII), but
a vehicle that could previously bounce Heavy Pistol ammo can't do so anymore
because in an alternate dimension this is just a game and they released a
revised version? That REALLY doesn't make sense.

> > Alternately, we could forget about it and wait for Rigger 2 to ship in
> > 15-20 days... =)
>
> That would be our best bet, I think :)

Sounds like a plan. Will resurrect the thread when I get my grubby little
hands on it. =)

Wolfstar
Message no. 26
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 06:49:31 GMT
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:52:16 +0200, Rune Fostervoll wrote:

> What I find a little annoying is how easy it is to destroy cars with, say,
> a pistol. If you're a halfway good shot, you'll completely wreck a ford
> americar with a single shot. (Smartgun, skill 3 (average) 3 cpool..
> 6 dice, TN 2, ~5 successes, body test 2 dice TN 7 ~0 successes = wrecked.)

I felt this way too, due to the fact that I used to work on cars all
day long and know their strengths and weaknesses. To sum it up, SR
handles vehicle combat very poorly indeed. True, a .44 Magnum will
ruin the engine block of your Honda pretty easily, but does this
necessarily mean that the car is "dead"? Or does it mean that an
automatic handling test is required (at +3) just because I threw a rod
and dumped my antifreeze all over the place? No.

Late last year I began working on a proposal to replace the original
RBB. By the time version 0.9 was finished, however, I discovered that
FASA was already working on their own version (I tried to submit my
work and was turned down). It is called "Jane's Rigger Registry"
(named after the company responsible for keeping civilian and military
databases of many different vehicles). If anyone is interested, you
can find it on my web page or on Paolo's site. I believe that it
increases realism to some extent without trying to dominate the game
mechanics.

James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
the grace to accept the things I cannot,
and a great big bag of money."
Message no. 27
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Combining Cyber
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 15:40:00 GMT
on 22.08.97 W0lfstar@***.COM wrote:

W> > > Never mind that a Handling reduction like that would put the majority
W> > > of vehicles well below zero for handling on roads.
W> >
W> > So? You end up with a Handling TN of 2.
W>
W> Yup. For all but the absolute WORST conditions, assuming VCR Level 3. With
W> dice from your drive skill, Control Pool, and Autopilot Rating dice, I
W> doubt a rigger'd ever crash accidentally.

Yeah, but the TNs are far to high for a non-rigger. (That's just like the
TNs for firearmes. To low for Sammys, but you can't push them without
making it impossible for all the others)


Tobias

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Combining Cyber, 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!