Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 12:50:02 2001
Can anyone give me the stats for converting armor from D&D to SR equivalents?
Most specifically chain mail.
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (TexasFriedCriminal)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 13:05:01 2001
From: Sinabian@***.com
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 6:50 PM

> Can anyone give me the stats for converting armor from D&D to SR
> equivalents?
> Most specifically chain mail.

having been confronted with a dwarf in chainmail (don't ask) I ruled that
Chainmail has an impact armor of 4.

Chainmail (0/4) :)


-- ^/_Texas - Fried - Criminal_\^ --
------ www.neosophia.exit.de -----
"And nothing can we call our own but death
And that small model of the barren earth
Which serves as paste and cover to our bones.
For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings."
William Shakespeare
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 13:15:01 2001
In a message dated 3/18/2001 11:11:40 AM Mountain Standard Time,
Texas-Fried-Criminal@********.de writes:

> having been confronted with a dwarf in chainmail (don't ask)
Doesn't sound too unrealistic. Movie characters have had chain mail before
like the guy from Commando. And then again in Cyborg.

> I ruled that
> Chainmail has an impact armor of 4.
>
> Chainmail (0/4) :)
This would sound good, though wouldn't it at least have a ballistic rating of
1? Some of the earliest bullet-proof vests I believe were made of chain
mail...or at least I've seen it used in the movies to stop bullets. (sorry,
can't remember the movie...it was a western I think and probably Clint
Eastwood because that's just about the only kind of western I watch...)
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (TexasFriedCriminal)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 13:25:01 2001
From: Sinabian@***.com
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 7:15 PM

> > I ruled that
> > Chainmail has an impact armor of 4.
> >
> > Chainmail (0/4) :)
> This would sound good, though wouldn't it at least have a
> ballistic rating of
> 1? Some of the earliest bullet-proof vests I believe were made of chain
> mail...or at least I've seen it used in the movies to stop
> bullets. (sorry,
> can't remember the movie...it was a western I think and probably Clint
> Eastwood because that's just about the only kind of western I watch...)

from the point-of-view of a bullet (or arrow for that matter) a chainmail is
mostly holes...
very fine chainmail could actually slow a bullet down, but it would have to
be made of more fexible materials than steel, and if you take that road, you
could just as well use a kevlar vest.

so for real chainmail I'd say there is no ballistic protection whatsoever

-- ^/_Texas - Fried - Criminal_\^ --
------ www.neosophia.exit.de -----
"And nothing can we call our own but death
And that small model of the barren earth
Which serves as paste and cover to our bones.
For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings."
William Shakespeare
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jamz)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 13:40:00 2001
> From: Sinabian@***.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 7:15 PM
>
> > > I ruled that
> > > Chainmail has an impact armor of 4.
> > >
> > > Chainmail (0/4) :)
> > This would sound good, though wouldn't it at least have a
> > ballistic rating of
> > 1? Some of the earliest bullet-proof vests I believe were made of chain
> > mail...or at least I've seen it used in the movies to stop
> > bullets. (sorry,
> > can't remember the movie...it was a western I think and probably Clint
> > Eastwood because that's just about the only kind of western I watch...)
>
> from the point-of-view of a bullet (or arrow for that matter) a chainmail
is
> mostly holes...
> very fine chainmail could actually slow a bullet down, but it would have
to
> be made of more fexible materials than steel, and if you take that road,
you
> could just as well use a kevlar vest.
>
> so for real chainmail I'd say there is no ballistic protection whatsoever
>

I imagine chainmail in the 2060's would be made out of plastics of some sort
and would be nice and light to wear under a nice kevlar vest. Either that or
how about chainmail coated in Dikote? :)

Jamz
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Ahrain Drigar)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 14:55:01 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: <Sinabian@***.com>
Subject: Eh...why not I says...


> Can anyone give me the stats for converting armor from D&D to SR
equivalents?
> Most specifically chain mail.

I've run and played in a "Shadowblade" fantasy campaign converted from D&D.
What I used is straight from there.

AC bonus = impact rating. i.e. Chain mail is AC +5 so has I 5. Plate has
AC +8 (AC of 2) so has I of 8. Works beautifully. I would probably rule
Ballistic is anywhere from 1/3 to 1/4 of impact since the decline of armor
was partially because of the influx of firearm use.

got some weapon conversion if you want too.

Ahrain
Shadowblade creator
"Blades gleam brightest in the shadows!"
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott W)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 15:50:01 2001
> I've run and played in a "Shadowblade" fantasy campaign converted
from D&D. What I used is straight from there.

> AC bonus = impact rating. i.e. Chain mail is AC +5 so has I 5.
Plate has AC +8 (AC of 2) so has I of 8. Works beautifully. I would
probably rule Ballistic is anywhere from 1/3 to 1/4 of impact since
the decline of armor was partially because of the influx of firearm
use.

I wonder whether you'd want to increase the penalties to Quickness
and Combat Pool by some degree, just to reflect the fact that ancient
armour is heaaaavy.

-Boondocker

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Augustus)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 16:00:01 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: <Sinabian@***.com>


> Can anyone give me the stats for converting armor from D&D to SR
equivalents?
> Most specifically chain mail.

For my SR-Post Apocalypse sourcebook, this is some of the ponderations I had
on metal armours...

Well, you can think that metal armours (Ring, Scale and Chain) should have a
better armour value against edged weapons than against blunt ones...

To make up for that deficiency, most of these armours are worn with a
leather underpadding (for the protection value as well as to help prevent
chaffing).

When it comes to ballistic attacks, you can pretty much assume ringmail will
have no armour value (or 1 at max, if you are feeling generous) since the
rings are big enough for bullets to easily pass through and leather armour
provides no ballistic protection.

Chainmail is rings similar to ringmail, but they are much finer (smaller
rings/links)... this should afford some ballistic protection... I also came
up with "fine" chainmail... where the links are a very tight weave made of
very small links... to the point where it can prevent most bullets from
penetrating the wearer.

Scalemail would be a leather underpad with small to medium "flaps" of metal
either riveted or sewn over the leather, or an entire interconnected 'suit'
worn over the leather.

Based on this, what I came up with was:

Leather Armour: 0/2
Studded Leather: 1/3 (The 1 ballistic is to take into account the
plausability that a bullet will hit one of the studs)
Ringmail: 1/4*
Chainmail: 3/5*
Fine Chainmail: 4/5*
Scalemail: 6/5*

* = +2 impact armour vs. edged weapons.

Thats what I came up with... feel free to tear it apart at will...

Augustus
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Steve Collins)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 16:05:01 2001
On 3/18/01 3:53 pm, Scott W said:

>
>> I've run and played in a "Shadowblade" fantasy campaign converted
>from D&D. What I used is straight from there.
>
>> AC bonus = impact rating. i.e. Chain mail is AC +5 so has I 5.
>Plate has AC +8 (AC of 2) so has I of 8. Works beautifully. I would
>probably rule Ballistic is anywhere from 1/3 to 1/4 of impact since
>the decline of armor was partially because of the influx of firearm
>use.
>
> I wonder whether you'd want to increase the penalties to Quickness
>and Combat Pool by some degree, just to reflect the fact that ancient
>armour is heaaaavy.
>
>-Boondocker
>


Ancient Armor is not all that heavy, not really significantly heavier
than modern armor of equivalent levels of coverage. A Suit of Full Plate
only weighs in at around 30 Kilo's, the modern body coverage equivalent
would be Heavy Security Armor which weighs in at around 20 Kilo's.
Assuming it is attached properly you won't even notice that extra 10
Kilo's except after a long period of exertion.

Steve
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sven De Herdt)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 17:55:01 2001
Scott W wrote:

> I wonder whether you'd want to increase the penalties to Quickness
> and Combat Pool by some degree, just to reflect the fact that ancient
> armour is heaaaavy.

Personally, I would rule that you use 1.5 or 2 times the armour rating in
regards to calculating the penalties.

Especially since you never just wear only chainmail armour, but almost
always add some kind of padding underneath.

Just my thoughts,

-sven ;)
--
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sven De Herdt)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 18:05:01 2001
Texas-Fried-Criminal wrote:
>
> from the point-of-view of a bullet (or arrow for that matter)
> a chainmail is mostly holes...

I would like to say that it actually stops or at least slows down an arrow
(unless your using those English longbows!).

About the holes, there usually pretty small (approximately 4 mm) and tightly
woven intertwinigly (don't know if this is the correct spelling).
This pattern should offer some kind of protection against ballistic weapons,
although it would be neglectable when using modern weapons.
So for this matter I would give it a ballistic rating of 1.

-sven ;)
--
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sven De Herdt)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 18:10:01 2001
> Based on this, what I came up with was:
>
> Leather Armour: 0/2
> Studded Leather: 1/3 (The 1 ballistic is to take into account the
> plausability that a bullet will hit one of the studs)
> Ringmail: 1/4*
> Chainmail: 3/5*
> Fine Chainmail: 4/5*
> Scalemail: 6/5*
>
> * = +2 impact armour vs. edged weapons.

I wouldn't give archaic chainmail armour a ballistic rating higher than 1 (2
at the most). Especially if you consider that the English longbows could
easily penetrate these kinds of armour and full plate armour didn't provide
that much of a protection.

Considering that a bullet probably has much more speed and kinetic energy to
penetrate this kind of armour than the ancient long bows, I wouldn't allow a
ballistic rating higher than 2.

just my thoughts,

-sven ;)
--
Message no. 13
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sven De Herdt)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 18:10:07 2001
Steve Collins wrote:
>
> Ancient Armor is not all that heavy, not really significantly heavier
> than modern armor of equivalent levels of coverage. A Suit
> of Full Plate
> only weighs in at around 30 Kilo's, the modern body coverage
> equivalent
> would be Heavy Security Armor which weighs in at around 20 Kilo's.
> Assuming it is attached properly you won't even notice that extra 10
> Kilo's except after a long period of exertion.

Agreed, but the padding you are wearing underneath the Full Plate does
restrict some of your movements. And although you can still run in your
Full Plate suit, it does wear you out and makes you sweat like hell,
especially on a warm summers evening :)))

just my thoughts,

-sven ;)
--
Message no. 14
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 18:55:01 2001
>> 1? Some of the earliest bullet-proof vests I believe were made of chain
>> mail...or at least I've seen it used in the movies to stop
>> bullets. (sorry,
>> can't remember the movie...it was a western I think and probably Clint
>> Eastwood because that's just about the only kind of western I watch...)

They have a chainmail BP vest in "Wild Wild West", but I don;t think that it
was there for historical (or engeneering) realism. Actual civil war era
persoanl armor was solid plating. It worked about as well as a good flak
vest, but was not very popular.

-Mongoose
Message no. 15
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 22:45:01 2001
> I wonder whether you'd want to increase the penalties to Quickness
>and Combat Pool by some degree, just to reflect the fact that ancient
>armour is heaaaavy.
>
>-Boondocker

Nah, just make it HEAVY. Real medieval armors weighed in at what, 15-30
kilos? With other gear, thats enough to encumber many characters. Trolls
and dwarves would probably be OK, but others...
Might want to jack the mass up a bit for elves, orcs, and trolls, though,
since they are (much) bigger than the medieval humans youd be bassing the
weight of antique armor on.

-Mongoose
Message no. 16
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott W)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 23:00:01 2001
> Nah, just make it HEAVY. Real medieval armors weighed in at what,
15-30 kilos? With other gear, thats enough to encumber many
characters.

Good point! Encumerance rules... I'd forgotten about those...

> Trolls and dwarves would probably be OK, but others... Might want
to jack the mass up a bit for elves, orcs, and trolls, though, since
they are (much) bigger than the medieval humans youd be bassing the
weight of antique armor on.
> -Mongoose

BTW, whoever started this thread... why the heck do you want to
have an SR character wear chain mail? Just curious, you
understand...

-Boondocker

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 17
From: shadowrn@*********.com (John Pederson)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 23:20:01 2001
"Scott W" <see_scott_run@*****.com> wrote:
> Mongoose wrote:
> > Nah, just make it HEAVY. Real medieval armors weighed in at what,
> > 15-30 kilos? With other gear, thats enough to encumber many
> > characters.
>
> Good point! Encumerance rules... I'd forgotten about those...

You'll just have to keep a full total. Armor + weapon(s) + the
additional 15 kilos or so of random stuff (food, water, spare
clothing, tents/portable shelter, gear for caring for the armor and
weapons, etc) ought to be pretty cleanly wax any character's ability
to carry extra stuff (the SR3 encumbrance rules are a lot nastier than
I remember the SR2 rules being). Which is why God made pack horses.

> > Trolls and dwarves would probably be OK, but others... Might want
> > to jack the mass up a bit for elves, orcs, and trolls, though,
since
> > they are (much) bigger than the medieval humans youd be bassing
the
> > weight of antique armor on.
> > -Mongoose

Elves are probably all right, because they're just taller, really.
They're not significantly heavier (in general) than a human. Trolls
and orks (and possibly dwarves, but that's a bit sketchier), on the
other hand, can probably expect an addition 25-50% weight on their
armor, possibly more.

--
John Pederson
pedersje@**.rose-hulman.edu
ICQ UIN 3190186
Message no. 18
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 23:35:01 2001
In a message dated 3/18/2001 5:01:20 PM Mountain Standard Time,
m0ng005e@*****.com writes:

> They have a chainmail BP vest in "Wild Wild West", but I don;t think that
it
> was there for historical (or engeneering) realism. Actual civil war era
> persoanl armor was solid plating. It worked about as well as a good flak
> vest, but was not very popular.

That was the movie I was thinking of! Thank you! And thank everybody for the
responses I've been getting to this question. It's been most helpful. By the
way, what does everybody think of 750¥ for the cost of a chain mail shirt?
(This is based on the fact that chain mail in D&D is 75 gold and 75¥ just
seemed way too cheap...)
Message no. 19
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 23:35:09 2001
In a message dated 3/18/2001 9:04:19 PM Mountain Standard Time,
see_scott_run@*****.com writes:

> BTW, whoever started this thread... why the heck do you want to
> have an SR character wear chain mail? Just curious, you
> understand...

Just a random thing. It's how I envisioned the character. It's a chain mail
shirt that's going to go under a ballistic cloak for a drow ranger (if you
haven't already worked up how to use Drow in SR and want to I've got a little
write-up on it on my web page http://members.aol.com/sinabian) based on the
rangers of D&D and also borrowing from the Rangers from Babylon 5. Got the
idea for that from the telescoping staff in the CC.
Message no. 20
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Sun Mar 18 23:45:01 2001
--part1_49.8e80170.27e6e8fd_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 3/18/01 11:39:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Sinabian@***.com writes:


> (This is based on the fact that chain mail in D&D is 75 gold and 75¥ just
> seemed way too cheap...)
>

75 gold...1 gold piece in medieval times, most people estimate, is about 1000
dollars today...

--part1_49.8e80170.27e6e8fd_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message
dated 3/18/01 11:39:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
<BR>Sinabian@***.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid;
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">(This is based on the fact
that chain mail in D&amp;D is 75 gold and 75¥ just
<BR>seemed way too cheap...)
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial"
LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>75 gold...1 gold piece in medieval times, most people estimate, is about 1000
<BR>dollars today...</FONT></HTML>

--part1_49.8e80170.27e6e8fd_boundary--
Message no. 21
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 00:20:00 2001
>>>what does everybody think of 750¥ for the cost of a chain mail shirt?

You can get armor quality chainmail today. I remeber seeing a site for it,
and I think a shirt would run about $500-$1000 for real armor quality-
welded stainless rings for industrial / shark protection, not decorative
jumprings, so that seems a fair price.

-Mongoose
Message no. 22
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bira)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 00:40:01 2001
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:45:49 EST
DemonPenta@***.com wrote:

> In a message dated 3/18/01 11:39:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> Sinabian@***.com writes:
>
>
> > (This is based on the fact that chain mail in D&D is 75 gold and 75¥
just
> > seemed way too cheap...)
> >
>
> 75 gold...1 gold piece in medieval times, most people estimate, is about 1000
> dollars today...

Of course, there's also the entry on Dunkie's will giving about
34 billion UCAS dollars to some guy in payment for one gold piece the
dragon borrowed from an ancestor of his :).

--
Bira <ra002585@**.unicamp.br>
All your base belong to us!
Message no. 23
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damian Sharp)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 01:05:01 2001
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Sven De Herdt wrote:

> I wouldn't give archaic chainmail armour a ballistic rating higher than 1 (2
> at the most). Especially if you consider that the English longbows could
> easily penetrate these kinds of armour and full plate armour didn't provide
> that much of a protection.
>
> Considering that a bullet probably has much more speed and kinetic energy to
> penetrate this kind of armour than the ancient long bows, I wouldn't allow a
> ballistic rating higher than 2.
>
> just my thoughts,

Good thoughts, but you're not thinking Shadowrun style. Unless I'm
mistaken, arrows go off Impact armor, so basing the ballistic rating of of
an English Long Bow's ability to penetrate doesn't hold.

In fact, I'd want to say English Long Bows, being the archtypical reason
for armor to stop being used, are a bad example, since they were
exceptional bows, used by exceptional people. I've seen Elven Sams, not
horribly cybered for bows, punch through Security Armor with some
effectiveness, after all.

I'd be more inclined to say an English Long Bow is 'superior' to a
standard bow, and the people using them maximised for bow use. Like that,
they could probably punch through nearly anything, Shadowrun-style.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Graduate |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ridiculous Lucky Captain Rabbit King,
Lucky Captain Rabbit King Nuggets are for the youth."
Message no. 24
From: shadowrn@*********.com (kawaii)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 01:25:01 2001
From: "Damian Sharp" <zadoc@***.neu.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 01:05


> In fact, I'd want to say English Long Bows, being the archtypical reason
> for armor to stop being used, are a bad example, since they were
> exceptional bows, used by exceptional people. I've seen Elven Sams, not
> horribly cybered for bows, punch through Security Armor with some
> effectiveness, after all.

I thought that crossbows were the archtypical reason for people to stop
using heavy armor? Given the faster training time for a crossbowman as
opposed to a longbowman, and the whatnot... :)

>
> I'd be more inclined to say an English Long Bow is 'superior' to a
> standard bow, and the people using them maximised for bow use. Like that,
> they could probably punch through nearly anything, Shadowrun-style.

Well, I would say that the English long bow is no more powerful than the
X-bow in SR, or some of the currently made composite bows. Modern tech and
all that, but then, I'm not a big archery connosier, so.. :)

>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Graduate |
> | Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
> | Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 25
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damian Sharp)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 01:35:00 2001
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, kawaii wrote:

> From: "Damian Sharp" <zadoc@***.neu.edu>
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 01:05
>
> > In fact, I'd want to say English Long Bows, being the archtypical reason
> > for armor to stop being used, are a bad example, since they were
> > exceptional bows, used by exceptional people. I've seen Elven Sams, not
> > horribly cybered for bows, punch through Security Armor with some
> > effectiveness, after all.
>
> I thought that crossbows were the archtypical reason for people to stop
> using heavy armor? Given the faster training time for a crossbowman as
> opposed to a longbowman, and the whatnot... :)

Well, okay. That too, but lots of people use English long bows as a
reason, too. I suppose the crossbow was a bigger thing.

> >
> > I'd be more inclined to say an English Long Bow is 'superior' to a
> > standard bow, and the people using them maximised for bow use. Like that,
> > they could probably punch through nearly anything, Shadowrun-style.
>
> Well, I would say that the English long bow is no more powerful than the
> X-bow in SR, or some of the currently made composite bows. Modern tech and
> all that, but then, I'm not a big archery connosier, so.. :)

Yeah, me neither. But having spoken to a few, it seems the English long
bow is the pinnacle of Long Bows. Personally, I think it has more to do
with the people using them, who, as recall, had slightly warped bodies,
ideally suited to using a long bow. And, as we all know, when you max a
person towards doing a certain thing, they're really good at it. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Graduate |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ridiculous Lucky Captain Rabbit King,
Lucky Captain Rabbit King Nuggets are for the youth."
Message no. 26
From: shadowrn@*********.com (kawaii)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 02:20:01 2001
From: "Damian Sharp" <zadoc@***.neu.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 01:33


>
> Yeah, me neither. But having spoken to a few, it seems the English long
> bow is the pinnacle of Long Bows. Personally, I think it has more to do
> with the people using them, who, as recall, had slightly warped bodies,
> ideally suited to using a long bow. And, as we all know, when you max a
> person towards doing a certain thing, they're really good at it. :)

lol! That's the first time I heard that the English had slightly warped
bodies. :) A very interesting theory... I wonder if any of our English
lurkers might be so kind as to confirm or debunk this? :)

But it is true that any person or set of people who do any one thing for a
long time tend to do it really well. :) Look at the mongols and their
horse-riding and archery while on a horse abilities. :)

>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Graduate |
> | Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
> | Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 27
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damian Sharp)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 02:30:00 2001
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, kawaii wrote:

> From: "Damian Sharp" <zadoc@***.neu.edu>
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 01:33
> > Yeah, me neither. But having spoken to a few, it seems the English long
> > bow is the pinnacle of Long Bows. Personally, I think it has more to do
> > with the people using them, who, as recall, had slightly warped bodies,
> > ideally suited to using a long bow. And, as we all know, when you max a
> > person towards doing a certain thing, they're really good at it. :)
>
> lol! That's the first time I heard that the English had slightly warped
> bodies. :) A very interesting theory... I wonder if any of our English
> lurkers might be so kind as to confirm or debunk this? :)

Not _all_ the English, just the bowmen. ;)
But, archery isn't easy. If you did it all the time, you're probably warp
your body, too. :)

> But it is true that any person or set of people who do any one thing for a
> long time tend to do it really well. :) Look at the mongols and their
> horse-riding and archery while on a horse abilities. :)

Well, when everyone around you thinks something's important, you're more
likely to specialize in it. After all, look at all the computer people we
have now. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Graduate |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ridiculous Lucky Captain Rabbit King,
Lucky Captain Rabbit King Nuggets are for the youth."
Message no. 28
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bruce)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 02:35:01 2001
> In a message dated 3/18/2001 5:01:20 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> m0ng005e@*****.com writes:
>
> > They have a chainmail BP vest in "Wild Wild West", but I don;t think
that it
> > was there for historical (or engeneering) realism. Actual civil war era
> > persoanl armor was solid plating. It worked about as well as a good flak
> > vest, but was not very popular

I'd just like to note that getting hit with a bullet while wearing chain mail is
gonna cause all kinds of interesting shrapnel problems as bits of the suit go
wizzing off, usually into the wearer of the suit. NOT fun.

Bruce
Message no. 29
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 06:30:07 2001
According to Sinabian@***.com, on Sun, 18 Mar 2001 the word on the street was...

> Can anyone give me the stats for converting armor from D&D to SR equivalents?
> Most specifically chain mail.

You could use the D&D armor bonus as the SR armor ratings, though to be
realistic, that wouldn't work too well -- full plate would give 8 points of
armor and thereby stop an assault rifle round. Realistically, even a light
pistol is going to shoot through it. Perhaps if you were to split the D&D
armor bonus between ballistic and impact ratings, that might work better.
For example, the full plate could then give 4/4 armor, while chain mail (+5
bonus) would be something like 3/2.

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

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 30
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 06:30:10 2001
According to Sinabian@***.com, on Sun, 18 Mar 2001 the word on the street was...

> > Chainmail (0/4) :)
> This would sound good, though wouldn't it at least have a ballistic rating of
> 1?

I'd give it a higher Ballistic rating than impact, for the reason that mail
("chain mail" is incorrect :) is very flexible.

> Some of the earliest bullet-proof vests I believe were made of chain
> mail...

17th century body armor, made to stop both edged weapons and bullets,
consisted of steel plates worn on the chest and back. After that, body
armor fell from favor until World War I, at which time all sorts of
different stuff was tried, from steel plates to woven silk, but AFAIK no
mail to stop bullets (there were highly impopular mail face masks for tank
crews at the time, but that was to protect against spall, not bullets).

> or at least I've seen it used in the movies to stop bullets.

Highly unlikely IRL, but if you want to be cinematic you could let it
happen...

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

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 31
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 07:35:01 2001
> > > I ruled that Chainmail has an impact armor of
4.
> > >
> > > Chainmail (0/4) :)
> > This would sound good, though wouldn't it at least
have a ballistic rating of 1? Some of the earliest
bullet-proof vests I believe were made of chain
mail...or at least I've seen it used in the movies to
stop bullets. (sorry, can't remember the movie...it
was a western I think and probably Clint Eastwood
because that's just about the only kind of western I
watch...)
>
> from the point-of-view of a bullet (or arrow for
that matter) a chainmail is mostly holes... very fine
chainmail could actually slow a bullet down, but it
would have to be made of more fexible materials than
steel, and if you take that road, you could just as
well use a kevlar vest.
>
> so for real chainmail I'd say there is no ballistic
protection whatsoever
> -- ^/_Texas - Fried - Criminal_\^ --

Have you SEEN real-life chain, bub?

Sinabian, I'd give basic chainmail a ballistic rating
of 1. It's not going to do much to diffuse the force
of the blow (it's designed to stop cutting blows, not
crushing/compressing ones), but unless it's a VERY
clean hit, the rings will almost certainly absorb some
of the force.

On the other hand, chances are good that the bullet
would punch some of the rings into the wound, and
unless you keep it very clean, that's a good way to
get a nasty infection.

Double-layered chain (heavy, but it was used
sometimes), would double the ballistic protection and,
I'd say, add 2 to impact.

Also, for complete realism, I'd halve the protection
against any impaling (spear, thrown knife, thrusting
blade with a slender point) or clubbing weapon,
because chain simply wasn't very good against those
kinds of weapons.

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

.sig Sauer

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 32
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 07:40:01 2001
<snipt!(TM)>
> > I wonder whether you'd want to increase the
penalties to Quickness and Combat Pool by some degree,
just to reflect the fact that ancient armour is
heaaaavy.
> >-Boondocker
>
> Ancient Armor is not all that heavy, not really
significantly heavier than modern armor of equivalent
levels of coverage. A Suit of Full Plate only weighs
in at around 30 Kilo's, the modern body coverage
equivalent would be Heavy Security Armor which weighs
in at around 20 Kilo's. Assuming it is attached
properly you won't even notice that extra 10 Kilo's
except after a long period of exertion.
> Steve

Chainmail was particularly bad for this, though,
Steve, as practically all the weight dragged on the
shoulders.

I could understand if you wanted to treat Quickness as
one or two points lower for determining those
penalties, or if you ruled that you didn't have to
layer such armour to suffer Q and CP penalties. Dunno
how realistic it'd be, but it wouldn't be my game. ;)

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

.sig Sauer

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 33
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 07:45:00 2001
> > Based on this, what I came up with was:
> >
> > Leather Armour: 0/2
> > Studded Leather: 1/3 (The 1 ballistic is to take
into account the plausability that a bullet will hit
one of the studs)
> > Ringmail: 1/4*
> > Chainmail: 3/5*
> > Fine Chainmail: 4/5*
> > Scalemail: 6/5*
> >
> > * = +2 impact armour vs. edged weapons.
>
> I wouldn't give archaic chainmail armour a ballistic
rating higher than 1 (2 at the most). Especially if
you consider that the English longbows could easily
penetrate these kinds of armour and full plate armour
didn't provide that much of a protection.
>
> Considering that a bullet probably has much more
speed and kinetic energy to penetrate this kind of
armour than the ancient long bows, I wouldn't allow a
ballistic rating higher than 2.
>
> just my thoughts,
> -sven ;)

I'd have to go with Sven, Augustus. (Augustus, right?
It was you who sent that post?) There was a reason why
medieval armour was phased out with the introduction
of firearms - and those were CRAPPY firearms compared
to SR weapons.

Kevlar versions of the armour might have codes like
yours, but at best I'd give plate armour Ballistic
rating 3 and everything else something lower than
that. I could go with your impact ratings, though.

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

.sig Sauer

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 34
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 07:45:03 2001
> > (This is based on the fact that chain mail in D&D
is 75 gold and 75¥ just seemed way too cheap...)
>
> 75 gold...1 gold piece in medieval times, most
people estimate, is about 1000 dollars today...

Ya reckon?

*snort*

Who says that?

Anyway, ask the guys from the SCA - some of them get
replica chain made for them. Dunno if it'd be as good
as the real thing, but if it is, you could go with
whatever they pay.

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

.sig Sauer

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 35
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 07:50:01 2001
> > In fact, I'd want to say English Long Bows, being
the archtypical reason for armor to stop being used,
are a bad example, since they were exceptional bows,
used by exceptional people. I've seen Elven Sams, not
horribly cybered for bows, punch through Security
Armor with some effectiveness, after all.
>
> I thought that crossbows were the archtypical reason
for people to stop using heavy armor? Given the faster
training time for a crossbowman as opposed to a
longbowman, and the whatnot... :)
<snipt!(TM)>
> kawaii

Oh, gawd, don't start that one again. :)

Anyway, you're both wrong. As I just said, the reason
armour went the way of the dodo was the firearm.
English (Welsh, actually) longbows were nasty, but
didn't completely alter the face of battle. Crossbows
were OUTLAWED by the Roman Catholic Church during the
Middle Ages. Firearms, on the other hand, made knights
grow up, once they got good enough.

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

.sig Sauer

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 36
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Ahrain Drigar)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 10:10:01 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
Subject: RE: Eh...why not I says...


> Have you SEEN real-life chain, bub?
>
> Sinabian, I'd give basic chainmail a ballistic rating
> of 1. It's not going to do much to diffuse the force
> of the blow (it's designed to stop cutting blows, not
> crushing/compressing ones), but unless it's a VERY
> clean hit, the rings will almost certainly absorb some
> of the force.

Seen and worn my friend. Only shirts were soley on the shoulders. A
hauberk <sp> (shirt with an attached "skirt") was actually resting on the
hips by use of a wide thick leather belt. It was tucked to free up mobility
and increase the length of time it could be worn. Pants were also suspended
by a belt (obviously : P )

The heaviest stuff I've worn weighed in at around 39 kilos (about 86 lbs.
for those metricly chalanged :P ). Plate over chain. Figured I'd train in
the heavier stuff for a tourney and go down to the regulation there.
Figured I'd be a little faster with the excess off. worked almost to well.
Overcompensated for alot, but this is WAY OT.

>
> On the other hand, chances are good that the bullet
> would punch some of the rings into the wound, and
> unless you keep it very clean, that's a good way to
> get a nasty infection.
>
> Double-layered chain (heavy, but it was used
> sometimes), would double the ballistic protection and,
> I'd say, add 2 to impact.

IMO, I'd probably only add 1. The increase in thickness isn't all that
much. Maybe from 16 guage to 12 guage at most RL equivilants antway).

Unless you were talking about 2 chain shirts. In that case why not use the
rules for layering armor? I was talking about "Doubled Mail" as called by
some.

> Also, for complete realism, I'd halve the protection
> against any impaling (spear, thrown knife, thrusting
> blade with a slender point) or clubbing weapon,
> because chain simply wasn't very good against those
> kinds of weapons.

True for straight chain mail, but that is also partially why the leather
gambison (leather under suit) was worn, to help diffuse the damage (and to
keep you from getting NICE little ring shaped bruises, not pretty beleive
me!). I would say maybe -1 or -2 vs impailing/bludgeon weapons

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

BEENIE WEENIES!!!!!!!

sorry, bad flashback flaw to cub/boy scouts!

Ahrain
Message no. 37
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Ahrain Drigar)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 10:25:01 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott W <see_scott_run@*****.com>
Subject: Re: Eh...why not I says...


>
> > I've run and played in a "Shadowblade" fantasy campaign converted
> from D&D. What I used is straight from there.
>
> > AC bonus = impact rating. i.e. Chain mail is AC +5 so has I 5.
> Plate has AC +8 (AC of 2) so has I of 8. Works beautifully. I would
> probably rule Ballistic is anywhere from 1/3 to 1/4 of impact since
> the decline of armor was partially because of the influx of firearm
> use.
>
> I wonder whether you'd want to increase the penalties to Quickness
> and Combat Pool by some degree, just to reflect the fact that ancient
> armour is heaaaavy.
>
> -Boondocker

Agreed, to a point

OK, take full Maximillian plate (circa 1500's). Plate worn over chain in
spots (mainly joints) and ribbed (no NOT for "her" pleasure : P) would be
about 9 impact in SR.

IIRC, a penalty comes from every 2 points over quickness to you combat pool.
Max normal human Q is 6 average would be around 4 for those who would wear
this stuff so we are talking a penalty of around 1 or 2.

Having worn similar (I don't go for "ribbing") it sounds about right. The
main problem I have in full armor is not movement but visibility. IT SUCKS!
Still working on rules for that. Any ideas? Unless there are some already
and I've been wearing my helmet while reading the book? : P

Most warriors wearing this stuff were only slightly above average (IRL, not
the movies) so would have combat pools roughly around (Q4, I3, W3=CP of) 5.
Losing 1 or 2 points is considerable. But I can see your point for
Shadowrunners though. Maybe like someone says multiply by 1.5 or something.
The normal rules work for me.

Or possible categorize them like in D&D 3E. Light, Medium, and Heavy. Light
normal rules, Medium add 1 to normal penalty rules, Heavy add 2 to normal
penalty rules. (example above armor would be a -3 to -4 instead.

Quality armor can be made or enchanted to reduce this penalty

This actually works better IMO.

Ahrain
Message no. 38
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan Choy)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 13:15:01 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sven De Herdt" <sven.deherdt@******.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: 18 March 2001 6:03 PM
Subject: RE: Eh...why not I says...



> I wouldn't give archaic chainmail armour a ballistic rating higher than 1
(2
> at the most). Especially if you consider that the English longbows could
> easily penetrate these kinds of armour and full plate armour didn't
provide
> that much of a protection.
>
> Considering that a bullet probably has much more speed and kinetic energy
to
> penetrate this kind of armour than the ancient long bows, I wouldn't allow
a
> ballistic rating higher than 2.
>
> just my thoughts,
>
> -sven ;)

My thoughts: 'probably' doesn't hack it for this discussion. Go do the
physics.

Ancient longbow KE was not 'low' compared to modern firearms.
Firearms are just easier to use.
You don't fire hypersonic rounds from a longbow, but the bullet is __MUCH__
lighter than a clothyard arrow.

Skipping the physics for the moment, I have to leave for a service call...


Tetsujin no Oni
Jonathan Choy
"of course I fight dirty... I'm from the Horde!'
Message no. 39
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Mon Mar 19 18:55:12 2001
--part1_105.7ab895.27e7f6ed_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 3/19/01 7:48:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
docwagon101@*****.com writes:


> > 75 gold...1 gold piece in medieval times, most
> people estimate, is about 1000 dollars today...
>
> Ya reckon?
>
> *snort*
>
> Who says that?
>

Some frighteningly detailed online game I found....Hundred Years War
or something. Maybe I'm just delusional. I remember though that gold was used
for land purchases, etc. Stuff where you're buying high-value things.

--part1_105.7ab895.27e7f6ed_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated
3/19/01 7:48:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
<BR>docwagon101@*****.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid;
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">&gt; 75 gold...1 gold
piece in medieval times, most
<BR>people estimate, is about 1000 dollars today...
<BR>
<BR>Ya reckon?
<BR>
<BR>*snort*
<BR>
<BR>Who says that?
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial"
LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Some frighteningly
detailed online game I found....Hundred Years War
<BR>or something. Maybe I'm just delusional. I remember though that gold was used
<BR>for land purchases, etc. Stuff where you're buying high-value
things.</FONT></HTML>

--part1_105.7ab895.27e7f6ed_boundary--
Message no. 40
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Eh...why not I says...
Date: Tue Mar 20 07:25:00 2001
<snipt!(TM)>
> Seen and worn my friend. Only shirts were soley on
the shoulders. A hauberk <sp> (shirt with an attached
"skirt") was actually resting on the hips by use of a
wide thick leather belt. It was tucked to free up
mobility and increase the length of time it could be
worn. Pants were also suspended by a belt (obviously :
P )

Good point. I was speaking of just a shirt.

> The heaviest stuff I've worn weighed in at around 39
kilos (about 86 lbs. for those metricly chalanged :P
). Plate over chain. Figured I'd train in the
heavier stuff for a tourney and go down to the
regulation there. Figured I'd be a little faster with
the excess off. worked almost to well. Overcompensated
for alot, but this is WAY OT.

And you're a lunatic, but that's way OT too. ;)

> > Double-layered chain (heavy, but it was used
sometimes), would double the ballistic protection and,
I'd say, add 2 to impact.
>
> IMO, I'd probably only add 1. The increase in
thickness isn't all that much. Maybe from 16 guage to
12 guage at most RL equivilants antway).
>
> Unless you were talking about 2 chain shirts. In
that case why not use the rules for layering armor? I
was talking about "Doubled Mail" as called by some.

No, I meant doubled mail, too. I'll defer to your
judgement, as I've never actually seen the stuff. Two
chain shirts? DEFINITELY layering rules.

> > Also, for complete realism, I'd halve the
protection against any impaling (spear, thrown knife,
thrusting blade with a slender point) or clubbing
weapon, because chain simply wasn't very good against
those kinds of weapons.
>
> True for straight chain mail, but that is also
partially why the leather gambison (leather under
suit) was worn, to help diffuse the damage (and to
keep you from getting NICE little ring shaped bruises,
not pretty beleive me!). I would say maybe -1 or -2
vs impailing/bludgeon weapons

Oh, sure, but again I wasn't speaking of that (or I'd
have mentioned it :) ). What you mentioned sounds
reasonable. I'd say -1 if the chain is only Impact 4.

> > Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!
>
> BEENIE WEENIES!!!!!!!
>
> sorry, bad flashback flaw to cub/boy scouts!
> Ahrain

*lol*

I don't wanna know. :)

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

.sig Sauer

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Eh...why not I says..., 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!