Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Damion's questions
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 11:09:08 +0100
Damion Milliken said on12 Nov 95...

> > Where _is_ Damion anyway?
>
> Damion is still in existence. He's just lurking. Which sucks (I won't
> say exactly _what_ or _how_ it sucks - I'll just let you all use your all
> too vivid imaginations...).

I see you're back in in the shape many of us remember all too well :) Come
on Damion, it wouldn't hurt to do this _slightly_ more often than you have
over the past 6 months ;)

> This one's partially directed at Marc, since he advocates this tactic
> fairly often. Friends in the melee. [snip] Anyway, I have the
> problem that it never starts. [example also snipped]
> The gangers never _get_ to mass on the lone combatant and make use of
> the friends in the melee bonus, which if they ever got, would enable them
> to literally slice MBAUTWLTCTIHWHCA to ribbons (excepting
> MBAUTWLTCTIHWHCAs likely huge Body of course).

This is a tough one. I've never really had the chance to see this in
action, since my players tend to kill things with firearms before they get
close enough for HtH combat...
Maybe a solution is to prevent them from being in a row (like we all
remember from the good old **&* days: "There are 40 orks, ten for each one
of you. (...) You killed the first one and the one behind him steps
forward to take his place..." :) ANYWAY: to have them sort of swarm
MBAUTWLTCTIHWHCA before anybody rolls for initiative. That way you _can_
say that they're all engaged in the melee already, even though they
haven't had any action yet.

> Now, for my next trick, I'm going to ask about astral projection <Nooo!
> they all yell>. Well, this one's pretty flame free I'd imagine.

*sigh of relief* :)

> Well, what happens if a magician has a cyberarm,
> and he astrally projects? I would have said that since the cyberarm does
> not actually modify his aura, it only slightly diconnects it from his
> body, then his aura would show his true, original arm, rather than (a) a
> cyberarm, or (b) no arm. What do the rest of you think?

His original arm, I think. My reasoning goes like this: the magician has a
cyberarm; if you look at him with astral perception, you notice two things
at least: 1) he's magically active, and 2) his Essence is lower than yours
(if you've got an Essence of 6 that is :). You may notice a change in his
aura where his arm is, but the aura doesn't simply end at his shoulder, to
be continued by the non-living aura of the cyberarm. So I would say the
aura would have the original arm in place when the magician astrally
projects, though maybe with a cyberarm-induced change in it...

> Now, for the question I just thought of. Since when a magician astrally
> projects he is taking his aura with him, then what happens if someone
> attempts to target his body with a Mana spell?

*grinding noises* I'd say the magician takes damage from it, or whatever
the spell does. Plain and simple. Although I could be wrong (always leave
a backdoor open :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Too much time on my hands
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-

-----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. 2
From: "Damion Milliken" <adm82@***.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Damion's Questions
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 15:44:36 +1100 (EST)
Hmmm, the listproc software decided that I somehow managed to unsubscribe
between writing my last message and writing this one. Oh well, that was
easily fixed.

Gurth writes:

> I see you're back in in the shape many of us remember all too well :) Come
> on Damion, it wouldn't hurt to do this _slightly_ more often than you have
> over the past 6 months ;)

Yeah, but the moment I make one post, it's the tip of the wedge. Like
this... :-)

> ANYWAY: to have them sort of swarm MBAUTWLTCTIHWHCA before anybody rolls
> for initiative. That way you _can_ say that they're all engaged in the melee
> already, even though they haven't had any action yet.

Yeah, this would work occasionally, but it is far from an all round solution.

The Digital Mage writes:

> How about teh gangers all delay their action, until all have a delayed
> action, and then they all call them in at teh same time, a sort of:
> "Okay everyone ready, come on Bill get with it, okay everyone ready now?
> After 3 we all charge the troll. 1, 2, 3 Aaaaaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhhhh!!!!"

Well, the problem with that is that even when several characters delay their
actions and act on the same phase, they still act sequentially. The order
is determined by their original initiative rolls (see Initiative Ties on pg
79 SRII). So the same problem still remains.

Marc A Renouf writes:

> I think I see a common trend here, and that seems to be a
> misunderstanding of the term "friends in combat." You don't all have to
> go at the same time to get the FIC modifier, you just all have to be
> engaged with the same target.

That's the problem though, initially, all the combatants are not engaged
with the same target. The rule is fine if we are in a situation where
"MBAUTWLTCTIHWHCA is involved in a scrap in a bar with 5 gangers. After the
initial blows have been exchanged, the line up for actions is
MBAUTWLTCTIHWHCA 21, 11, 1, gangers 12, 10, 9, 7, 5." In this example, all
the gangers are already engaged with the same target, so even though they do
not go simultaneously, they still get the friends in the melee bonus. What
I was talking about was the very first round where you have MBAUGWLTCTIHWHCA
who just elbowed a ganger out of his bar stool, and the gangers 4 mates at
the table 6m away who look up, pull knives/grab bottles/etc and snarl.
First round comes, and each ganger has to physically get to MBAUTWLTCTIHWHCA
before they can engage in melee combat. But when each gangers arrives, his
mates are nowhere near the melee, so it is impossible for the ganger to get
the bonus.

> Sure, it would be keen if you all waited to attack at the same instant,
> but the point remains that your very presence, even if not attacking at that
> particular instant, will affect someone else's actions. Your foe may not be
> able to commit himself to a solid counterattack because he's worried about
> your four friends who may turn that distraction into an opportunity.
>
> Remember that in SR, hand-to-hand combat is slightly abstracted
> to make it playable. The FIC modifiers, even if you're not all
> attacking at once, reflect the dangers of facing multiple opponents for
> just the above reason.

Perhaps if they all moved up to MBAUTWLTCTIHWHCA and _then_ delayed their
actions, the bonus would apply, since they are all physically within
striking distance, just like if it were the second round (and they had
somehow survived that long). But this, however, brings up a second point.
Interception. Do you (and others) rule that someone passing nearby another
character (whether intending to stop or continue) is a valid target for use
of the interception rule? (Hey, what's the difference between someone who's
planning on passing, and someone who's planning on stopping nearby? Only
the intent as far as I can see, and that isn't likely to make a
difference.) If so, then when the gangers charge up to MBAUTWLTCTIHWHCA,
the player could employ the interception rule on the passing ganger and get
a free melee attack each time, thus smearing them anyway.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a19 C++ US++>+++ P+ L E W(+) N o(@) K? w(+) O(@) M- V? PS+ PE(@)
Y+ PGP@>+ t+ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--- b++(+++) DI? D+@ G++(+) e h(*) !r y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 3
From: "Damion Milliken" <adm82@***.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Damion's questions
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 15:45:18 +1100 (EST)
Gallas William writes:

> As always technology, be it for magic fingers or not, is of no use to extend
> a LOS (except for the material furnished in Corporate Security Sourcebook).
> I have a new idea about the earlier discussion about magic fingers spell:
> I think the clairvoyance spell is only to be used to see more details of the
> scene (because lockpicking a door at a 100 meters distance is impossible...)
> but not to extend your LOS (and the exemple is the novel is a new exception
> to the rules).

Yeah, that's good I think. Play the Magic Fingers like any other sustained
spell, in that it can pass out of LOS once cast. Only with Magic Fingers,
to use the spell properly, you actually have to be able to see what it's
working on. Thus the idea about using remote technological viewing devices
(such as drones) to get a close up. I'll assume the phrase "within his
view" does not mean the scene must actually be within his LOS, only
somewhere he can see what is going on (by whatever means - such as a drone
TV camera relay from the interior of a building to outside where the
magician is).

> If the aura doesn't change, it should be possible to have a spell that
> could leave your body without all the cyberware you have (by giving you the
> appareance of your aura, as per the paranimals power, as we stated it in the
> list).

I assume you refer here to the aural template that is used as a basis for
the "base" to regenerate to for regenerating creatures? Actually, you have
quite a good point. If, as cybertechnology says, the aura does not in fact
change, only the connectivity of the aura to the physical body, then how
does a healing spell work? What does such a spell use as it's basis to heal
to? If it uses the aura, then it will attempt to "heal" the cyberware out
of the persons body. The only explanation I can think of (quickly) is that
the spell is simply not powerful enough to do so, and so it stops at the
limit of the cyberware. A more grunted up version however...

Another thing, if all cyberware does is detach the aura from the body, then
how come Essence loss is so permanent? Would it not seem logical that once
the offending cyberware was removed, the aura would again be in greater
alignment with the body, and thus the Essence would be regained?

> Third, a street sam (or another) with cybereyes should be able to see you
> when you use some invisibility spell because these eyes would only be a
> machine and not a part of him.

Well, I think the Invisibility spell actually fools the brain behind the
eyes, so it wouldn't matter whether the eyes were cyber or not, only that a
brain was taking the informnation feed from them directly, and was within
LOS of the spell (you can't fool someone who's looking on by closed circuit
TV).

Terry Amburgey writes:

> I was under the impression that, when astrally projecting, you looked like
> an 'idealized self image'. There's an 'aside' in SRII where an old geezer of
> a mage looked really buff on the astral ["...you young snots never figure it
> out..."].
> What happens when a magician with a cyberarm projects? Depends on what
> he/she has as an idealized self image. When my [nerd] mage projects, he
> looks like that guy on the front of all the pulp romance novels :) Terry

Hmmmm, that makes me wonder. What if my stylised self image is a 50 meter
tall, 7 headed, firebreathing hydra on a 30 meter long skateboard... :-)
Otherwise I think you have quite a good point, most peoples stylised self
images tend to include a pair of fully functional arms.

> P.S. Welcome back from lurking.

Thanks. It seems you've had quite a, err, warm ride while I've been gone.
Not meaning to criticise (you did start quite a few good, if hot, threads),
but I personally do think you went a bit overboard a few times. But,
anyhow, continue!

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a19 C++ US++>+++ P+ L E W(+) N o(@) K? w(+) O(@) M- V? PS+ PE(@)
Y+ PGP@>+ t+ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--- b++(+++) DI? D+@ G++(+) e h(*) !r y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 4
From: "Damion Milliken" <adm82@***.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Damion's Questions
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 15:49:26 +1100 (EST)
Damion Milliken writes:

> Hmmm, the listproc software decided that I somehow managed to unsubscribe
> between writing my last message and writing this one. Oh well, that was
> easily fixed.

Hmmm, it also managed to decide that I sent not one, but two copies of this
particular mail to the list too. Curious.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a19 C++ US++>+++ P+ L E W(+) N o(@) K? w(+) O(@) M- V? PS+ PE(@)
Y+ PGP@>+ t+ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--- b++(+++) DI? D+@ G++(+) e h(*) !r y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 5
From: The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Damion's Questions
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 10:53:57 +0000 (GMT)
On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> > How about teh gangers all delay their action, until all have a delayed
> > action, and then they all call them in at teh same time, a sort of:
>
> Well, the problem with that is that even when several characters delay their
> actions and act on the same phase, they still act sequentially. The order
> is determined by their original initiative rolls (see Initiative Ties on pg
> 79 SRII). So the same problem still remains.
>
The gangers would be acting on the same combat phase, there are 21 of
these in a turn (I think the highest initiative you said was the sam's at
21). As each turn is 3 seconds each phase is 1/7 of a second. If you or
your players are going to quibble that this is not simultaneously
then.... The point is, the game mechanics rule that each NPCs actions
occur in a sequential manner -this is to keep things easy in terms of
game rules. But if you think about it logically pretty much everything is
happening at once.

> > Sure, it would be keen if you all waited to attack at the same instant,
> > but the point remains that your very presence, even if not attacking at that
> > particular instant, will affect someone else's actions. Your foe may not be
And this is the crux of it, just because a foe hasn't attempted to hit
you yet does not mean they aren't in combat. If they represent a
potential threat (ie within striking distance) then the sam is forced to
keep an eye on them, his attention is diverted and he is more vulnerable.
Of course the sam can elect to try to maneuver so he puts his current
opponent in the way of a second foe -thus keeping them out of combat :)

> > able to commit himself to a solid counterattack because he's worried about
> > your four friends who may turn that distraction into an opportunity.
Exactly!

> Perhaps if they all moved up to MBAUTWLTCTIHWHCA and _then_ delayed their
> actions, the bonus would apply, since they are all physically within
> striking distance, just like if it were the second round (and they had
> somehow survived that long).
Like I said their actions are happening pretty much simultaneously, if
you wanted you could say that each ganger moves forward simultaneously
and then roll for attacks. And if the ganger can get into teh fight and
attack within 1 combat phase they are effectively in striking distance.

> Interception. Do you (and others) rule that someone passing nearby another
> character (whether intending to stop or continue) is a valid target for use
> of the interception rule? (Hey, what's the difference between someone who's
> planning on passing, and someone who's planning on stopping nearby? Only
> the intent as far as I can see, and that isn't likely to make a
> difference.) If so, then when the gangers charge up to MBAUTWLTCTIHWHCA,
> the player could employ the interception rule on the passing ganger and get
> a free melee attack each time, thus smearing them anyway.
I wouldn't allow this, I say that the reason a person can make an
EFFECTIVE free attack is that the foe is moving (and thus finds it
difficult to dodge, backtrack, sidestep etc) and that the PC doesn't have
to move. Also f the foe is running past his own momentum will add to the
damage he incurs.

The Digital Mage : mn3rge@****.ac.uk
"So that which I imagine, is that which I believe" -Rush
Shadowrun Web Site http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mn3rge/Shadowrun.html
Message no. 6
From: "Damion Milliken" <adm82@***.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Damion's Questions
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 01:21:31 +1100 (EST)
The Digital Mage writes:

> The gangers would be acting on the same combat phase, there are 21 of
> these in a turn (I think the highest initiative you said was the sam's at
> 21). As each turn is 3 seconds each phase is 1/7 of a second. If you or
> your players are going to quibble that this is not simultaneously
> then.... The point is, the game mechanics rule that each NPCs actions
> occur in a sequential manner -this is to keep things easy in terms of
> game rules. But if you think about it logically pretty much everything is
> happening at once.

Yeah, I agree entirely, providing the gangers are all within striking
distance to provide the bonus. However, it is easily possible to move 10m or
more within a combat turn, and this means that unless all combatants are
starting within striking distance (possible, but not likely), then they
cannot get the bonus (or the full bonus). However, if the hordes were to
use your suggestion of "1...2...3...Charrrrggge!", and delay their actions
until they could all move into striking distance more or less
simultaneously, then I suppose that the bonus could be granted. Fair
solution, I think it works and is consistent. It also makes a bit of sense:
"You see the gangers holding off, nudging each other and glancing your way
while you wait, hefting your axe, for them to do something. Then they all
rush forward at once..."

> I wouldn't allow this, I say that the reason a person can make an
> EFFECTIVE free attack is that the foe is moving (and thus finds it
> difficult to dodge, backtrack, sidestep etc) and that the PC doesn't have
> to move. Also f the foe is running past his own momentum will add to the
> damage he incurs.

Yeah, I agree with your logic. How about for a fleeing melee combatant?
Someone who's currently engaging someone else in melee and has decided that
"descretion is the better part of valour and all that" (that's become almost
as much of a cliche as the quote "discretion is the better part of valour"
itself)? Would you allow a freebe melee attack on them as they retreated?
Or would you think that a strategic retreat would prohibit such an attack?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a19 C++ US++>+++ P+ L E W(+) N o(@) K? w(+) O(@) M- V? PS+ PE(@)
Y+ PGP@>+ t+ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--- b++(+++) DI? D+@ G++(+) e h(*) !r y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 7
From: "Mark Steedman" <RSMS@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Damion's Questions
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 15:41:31 GMT
"Damion Milliken" writes
>
> > I wouldn't allow this, I say that the reason a person can make an
> > EFFECTIVE free attack is that the foe is moving (and thus finds it
> > difficult to dodge, backtrack, sidestep etc) and that the PC doesn't have
> > to move. Also f the foe is running past his own momentum will add to the
> > damage he incurs.
>
> Yeah, I agree with your logic.
Thats fine as long as the combatent is 'trying to move past'. This
rule basically is intended to stop you running past opponents 'simply
because its not his phase', if you are stopping by them, you are
assumed to be on guard and they don't get to engage you for free.

> How about for a fleeing melee combatant?
> Someone who's currently engaging someone else in melee and has decided that
> "descretion is the better part of valour and all that" (that's become
almost
> as much of a cliche as the quote "discretion is the better part of valour"
> itself)? Would you allow a freebe melee attack on them as they retreated?
If they just turn and run like mad seems reasonable.

> Or would you think that a strategic retreat would prohibit such an attack?
>
a strategic withdrawl is possible. at a maximum of say 1/2 quickness
sounds possible, but if you want full speed you have to turn your
back and unless you can find a handy corner to cover it for the vital
half second while the gap reaches 2m youre in drek.
As to how fast you can withdraw without giving a free attack have
to await some of the list members with suitable experience before a
more than 'that seems sensible' answer.

Mark
Message no. 8
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Damion's Questions
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 12:48:08 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> I was talking about was the very first round where you have MBAUGWLTCTIHWHCA
> who just elbowed a ganger out of his bar stool, and the gangers 4 mates at
> the table 6m away who look up, pull knives/grab bottles/etc and snarl.
> First round comes, and each ganger has to physically get to MBAUTWLTCTIHWHCA
> before they can engage in melee combat. But when each gangers arrives, his
> mates are nowhere near the melee, so it is impossible for the ganger to get
> the bonus.

Think about this rationally. The four gangers would not charge
over to waste this troll singly. They'd get up from the table in a pack,
shamble on over, spreading out as they went (to cut off possible routes
of escape. They'd take those extra three seconds to get into position
and (hopefully) intimidate their target. It may even take them more time
than that just to wade through the interposing tables/patron just to get
there. In any case, by the time they get to the troll, they can most
likely get that "friends in combat" modifier regardless of the fact that
they will actually attack in different phases. Added to this is the fact
that all of this movement is probably not taking place in "combat time"
so it doesn't really matter how long it takes.

> But this, however, brings up a second point.
> Interception. Do you (and others) rule that someone passing nearby another
> character (whether intending to stop or continue) is a valid target for use
> of the interception rule? (Hey, what's the difference between someone who's
> planning on passing, and someone who's planning on stopping nearby? Only
> the intent as far as I can see, and that isn't likely to make a
> difference.) If so, then when the gangers charge up to MBAUTWLTCTIHWHCA,
> the player could employ the interception rule on the passing ganger and get
> a free melee attack each time, thus smearing them anyway.

This is a blatant misinterpretation and abuse of the interception
rule. Go back and read the interception paragraph again. It says that
a) you need to go within 1 meter of the attacker (what idiot would get
that close to a troll with a combat axe?) and b) that you are attempting to
pass (or in this case move up to) *without attacking.* The gangers most
definitely mean to attack, and thus are not subject to interception.
Face it, the troll is toast unless the gangers are total wussies.

Marc
Message no. 9
From: "Damion Milliken" <adm82@***.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Damion's Questions
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 16:47:44 +1100 (EST)
Marc A Renouf writes:

> Think about this rationally.

Yeah, I have since, ta for the pointers too BTW.

> This is a blatant misinterpretation and abuse of the interception
> rule... *without attacking*...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Whooa, _how_ could I miss that bit! Well, that solves that argument then
doesn't it? :-) What do you think on the retreating/fleeing side of things?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a19 C++ US++>+++ P+ L E W(+) N o(@) K? w(+) O(@) M- V? PS+ PE(@)
Y+ PGP@>+ t+ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--- b++(+++) DI? D+@ G++(+) e h(*) !r y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 10
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Damion's Questions
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 14:07:49 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 15 Nov 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> What do you think on the retreating/fleeing side of things?

I would say that if the target were actively trying to flee (as
opposed to a "fighting withdrawal"), that the person doing the
interception would get a free melee attack on the fleeing target if they
could catch them (after all, the fleeing person is within a meter, is
trying to move away, and has no intention of attacking, thus fitting all
the requirements for being susceptible to interception).
In this case, though, I'd probably apply at least the modifier
for "attacker running" to the melee hit. While you could argue that the
target is also running, the relative motion is not such that it would
make a difference. It *is* more difficult to hit somebody when you're
chasing them running flat-out, however. But then again, even though the
attacker will get less successes, the target doesn't get a counterattack,
so it all comes out even in the end.

Marc

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Damion's Questions, 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!