Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gavin Lewis <lewis@**.EDU.AU>
Subject: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:31:28 +0800
In my campaign we have always played a rule (house rule?) that if exploding
ammo fails its resistance roll against fire (eg flame bomb), that the clip,
magazine etc is treated as ONE bullet for damage.

For example if Dreg is carrying 4 clips of explosive ammo and is hit with a
flame bomb (assuming he survives the flame bomb) and 3 of his clips fail
their resistance roll against fire he is facing 10M 10M 10M. I played a game
on the weekend where the group was hit with a flame bomb. It was only force
4, so most people survived, however, one poor fella was carrying one clip of
explosive rounds. Instead of facing 10M, the GM (not me I was a PC for this
one) told him he had to resist every single bullet ie 10M to the power of 38
(or whatever it is).

This got me thinking so when I got home I started searching the rules. The
rules I found were a bit ambigious and could be treated either way. My
question to all of you is .... "Am I missing some obvious rule about dealing
with exploding ammo OR what are some house rules when it comes to dealing
with exploding ammo?"

Gav

PS For those of you interested the poor fella that faced 10M to the power of
38, died horribly - made the "remove heart spell" look like a 5 course meal! ;)



"In crises the most daring email: lewis@**.edu.au
course is often the safest" tel: +61 9 239 5525
fax: +61 9 239 5544
Henry A. Kissinger Gavin Lewis
The University of Notre Dame - Aust.
Message no. 2
From: Dark Avenger <Avenger@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 02:56:41 +0000
In article <199702210231.KAA07352@*********.nd.edu.au>, Gavin Lewis
<lewis@**.EDU.AU> writes
>In my campaign we have always played a rule (house rule?) that if exploding
>ammo fails its resistance roll against fire (eg flame bomb), that the clip,
>magazine etc is treated as ONE bullet for damage.

Well, in all honesty I'd agree with the GM that made the multiple
ruling. After all, if a clip is carrying 38 rounds and you throw it
onto a fire, it's not one big bang, its 38 bangs. That's one of the
major threats of exploding ammunition. If you watch some of the old war
movies from Nam, or Korea, when ammunition cooks off, you get a series
of reports from the rounds stored in the area. Which means it's all
cooking off individually. I feel that you have been overly generous to
your players.

In the case of survivability, it's one of those things. You take the
risks and pay the price, there's no easy route out. However, cooking
ammo is a pretty random thing, and there's no guarantee that the effects
are all going to cover the person concerned, some rounds will punch out
in a random direction. There are a number of games that provide
templates for this sort of thing, like Kryomek for instance, or you can
use a reduced power grenade blast rule to see if any other characters in
the party have been hit by random fire. But the poor sap wearing the
ammo is the one who is unlikely to survive the incident. There are a
couple of people here better qualified than me to talk about the effects
of cooked off rounds, but I don't think your ruling of 10M per mag is
realistic or fair. It offers the PC a survivability ratio that he/she
really isn't entitled to.

Oh, well, just my non-genetics and humble opinion <g>

--
__ \ | \
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A dark shadow in a dark world |___/
Message no. 3
From: Dolores Chesser <shaggy68@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 00:12:09 -0600
Gavin Lewis Said:

> In my campaign we have always played a rule (house rule?) that if
exploding
> ammo fails its resistance roll against fire (eg flame bomb), that the
clip,
> magazine etc is treated as ONE bullet for damage.
>
> For example if Dreg is carrying 4 clips of explosive ammo and is hit with
a
> flame bomb (assuming he survives the flame bomb) and 3 of his clips fail
> their resistance roll against fire he is facing 10M 10M 10M. I played a
game
> on the weekend where the group was hit with a flame bomb. It was only
force
> 4, so most people survived, however, one poor fella was carrying one clip
of
> explosive rounds. Instead of facing 10M, the GM (not me I was a PC for
this
> one) told him he had to resist every single bullet ie 10M to the power of
38
> (or whatever it is).
>
> This got me thinking so when I got home I started searching the rules.
The
> rules I found were a bit ambigious and could be treated either way. My
> question to all of you is .... "Am I missing some obvious rule about
dealing
> with exploding ammo OR what are some house rules when it comes to dealing
> with exploding ammo?"
>
> Gav
>
> PS For those of you interested the poor fella that faced 10M to the power
of
> 38, died horribly - made the "remove heart spell" look like a 5 course
meal! ;)

I know one thing is that exploding ammo that doesn't come out of a barrel
has a MUCH less velocity, which means less damage. I would almost say that
the clip was strong enough to contain the bullet(s) and if not, would not
hit with the power of 10M. Also what are the chances of all 38 rounds
hitting him? (Hope he put the clip outside his armor!)

John
Message no. 4
From: Shawn Baumgartner <Breakdown@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 01:39:01 -0500
In response to Gavin's question on exploding ammo:

Count every damn bullet.

I was curious about that sort of thing a few years back, myself, and
being the unwise individual I am, I decided to experiment.
I took a box of .22 shells (non-explosive, at that), a five gallon gas
can, and some coffee cans out to the salt flats. I dumped a few bullets
in each can and poured about an inch of gas in each one. Lay down a long
trail of gas to each can, duck behind car, light match, and toss.

Didn't find much of any of the coffee cans, my ears rang for a good
three hours, my paint job was <pun>shot</pun>, and I've still got a
faint scar on the inside of my right wrist where a ricochet caught me.

Count every damn bullet.

Shawn
Much smarter than he used to be.

-----------------------------------------------------
Oh No!
Another damn page!
http://www.toptown.com/CENTRALPARK/DEOSYNE/
Ah what the hell; better than gardening!
Message no. 5
From: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 02:14:56 -0700
> From: Gavin Lewis <lewis@**.EDU.AU>

Solution #1

> In my campaign we have always played a rule (house rule?) that if exploding
> ammo fails its resistance roll against fire (eg flame bomb), that the clip,
> magazine etc is treated as ONE bullet for damage.

Solution #2

>......, however, one poor fella was carrying one clip of
> explosive rounds. Instead of facing 10M, the GM (not me I was a PC for this
> one) told him he had to resist every single bullet ie 10M to the power of 38
> (or whatever it is).

Well In either case I think the ruling is just a teensy bit
harsh..One or both seem not to account for two things..a complete miss..or
rounds that do not cook off...

In order to save time Solution #1 is the simplest..However it is
still an automatic hit...

If you want to do it the complex way..Step 1: each round resists
being cooked off individually..step 2: each round has to roll to
hit..step 3: each round that actually hits has to be resisted..with
accumulating modifiers...this would take forever of course...Not my
choice of solutions..But there you have it...
-------------------------------GRANITE
=================================================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer
Message no. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:45:27 +0100
Gavin Lewis said on 10:31/21 Feb 97...

> In my campaign we have always played a rule (house rule?) that if exploding
> ammo fails its resistance roll against fire (eg flame bomb), that the clip,
> magazine etc is treated as ONE bullet for damage.

I think this is the "right" way, according to the rules for explosive ammo
(p.93, SRII). However, these deal with when the Rule of One comes up on
firing explosive rounds, and they could mean that only the _current_ round
explodes, leaving the rest of the clip intact.

> Instead of facing 10M, the GM (not me I was a PC for this one) told him
> he had to resist every single bullet ie 10M to the power of 38 (or
> whatever it is).

For a 38-round clip, you could either just let the PC resist 10M
(shouldn't that be 9M, unless he was using EX Explosive?), or make it 48D,
as if it were a 38-round burst. This second method seems rather too deadly
to me, though it would be more realistic.

As for house rules, I'm now thinking of treating every 5 rounds of
exploding ammo as one in a burst -- so 38 rounds would add +7 to the
Power Level, and +2 to the Damage Level, making "only" 17D.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
And I wonder what's in a day...
-> 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. 7
From: Caric <caric@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:02:34 -0700
> For example if Dreg is carrying 4 clips of explosive ammo and is hit with
a
> flame bomb (assuming he survives the flame bomb) and 3 of his clips fail
> their resistance roll against fire he is facing 10M 10M 10M. I played a
game
> on the weekend where the group was hit with a flame bomb. It was only
force
> 4, so most people survived, however, one poor fella was carrying one clip
of
> explosive rounds. Instead of facing 10M, the GM (not me I was a PC for
this
> one) told him he had to resist every single bullet ie 10M to the power of
38
> (or whatever it is).
>
Typically this is how we handle exploding ammo...in the above description
of a clip of what appeared to be a 38 round magazine. If the mag had gone
up then the character would have resisted 47M first bullet does normal
damage and then every bullet there after adds one to the power so it is not
deadly, but pretty certain they are going to take a moderate wound.

~Caric

"All the world's indeed a stage, we are mearly players.
Performers and portrayers. Each anothers audience,
outside the gilded cage." -Rush
caric@*******.com
Message no. 8
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 21:22:05 -0500
>PS For those of you interested the poor fella that faced 10M to the power of
>38, died horribly - made the "remove heart spell" look like a 5 course meal!
;)

I GM'd a cahracter that ended in a similar manner. In creation he insisted
on getting a flamethrower. I mentioned a few warnings about strapping a
tank of presurized, highly flamable substance on to your back with lead
flying around, but he insisted.

Later in the run, he was in a crypt (it was a trap set up by a vampire), and
opened a coffin (wired with C-4). Chunky salsa. BEFORE the Flamethrower
was factored in, I think the total pressure/shockwave effect made it up to
28D. Needless to say, they couldn't find enough of him left to put on a
microscope slide.

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 9
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 01:28:56 +0000
In message <199702210639.WAA05253@*********.alma.webtv.net>, Shawn
Baumgartner <Breakdown@*****.NET> writes
>In response to Gavin's question on exploding ammo:
>
>Count every damn bullet.

<Alarming experiment snipped>

You're still alive, aren't you? :)

Soak a PC in gasoline and ignite them, and their ammo eventually cooking
off (remember, you have to get that heat through their clothing, through
the magazine, through the cartridge case and to the powder: meanwhile
the same heat is providing crippling third-degree burns, igniting
clothing, melting synthetic fabrics onto flesh, and generally inflicting
horrifying injuries) will seem like light relief or a merciful release.

If you get ammo that hot, the person carrying it has other problems by
then.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 10
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 01:22:01 +0000
In message <rXMPKTAp7QDzEwIf@********.demon.co.uk>, Dark Avenger
<Avenger@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>Well, in all honesty I'd agree with the GM that made the multiple
>ruling. After all, if a clip is carrying 38 rounds and you throw it
>onto a fire, it's not one big bang, its 38 bangs.

Yeah, but...

It's 38 rounds going off in an uncontrolled manner. Once the bullet's
out of the case, the rest of the powder just burns (put some "gunpowder"
in an ashtray and try to light it: it just sizzles and burns
reluctantly, it doesn't explode). No velocity behind the bullet, and the
bullet is (or should be) pointed away from you.

Now, the heavy canvas '58-pattern pouches I kept my Army rifle's ammo
in, and the polypropylene holders for my pistol's spare clips, are both
pretty robust: and in both cases, the magazine is made of sheet metal.
The magazine would contain the bullet, the pouch the flash.

I'd have to say that you'd have to do something silly, like keep a spare
magazine in your underwear, to take more than a Light from "exploding
ammunition": anything hot enough to make your ammo go up spontaneously
would do you far more harm, and rounds cooking off in your pockets would
be the least of your problems.

>That's one of the
>major threats of exploding ammunition. If you watch some of the old war
>movies from Nam, or Korea, when ammunition cooks off, you get a series
>of reports from the rounds stored in the area. Which means it's all
>cooking off individually. I feel that you have been overly generous to
>your players.

It might cook off individually, but small-arms rounds aren't the
problem. It also gives you time to drop your web gear and get away from
it.

Again: IRL if your ammo is cooking off, you've got massive and probably
unsurvivable third-degree burns already and are probably praying that
one of them will kill you. It's not likely to, though.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 11
From: "Arno R. Lehmann" <arlehma@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 23:20:36 +0100
On Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:45:27 +0100, Gurth wrote:

>For a 38-round clip, you could either just let the PC resist 10M
>(shouldn't that be 9M, unless he was using EX Explosive?), or make it 48D,
>as if it were a 38-round burst. This second method seems rather too deadly
>to me, though it would be more realistic.

Since not every bullet will hit the character, I would divide the power
or the damage by two, so it would be 24D (still bad) or 48M (perhaps
too low, but the M-damage will be yours).
Division of the power by four might also work, then your example would
come to 12D, here the IMO rather low chance of being hit by a
bullet fired in a "random" direction is represented.

--
Arno
*********************************************************************
Be careful when replying to this mail - check the address !!!
(And send me a note when you notice that
the reply-to-address points to the list!)
*********************************************************************
Message no. 12
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:30:48 -0500
>I'd have to say that you'd have to do something silly, like keep a spare
>magazine in your underwear, to take more than a Light from "exploding

THis reminds me....why do action film heroes always shove the gun down the
front of their pants? Maybe I'm just a little over-protective of my
manhood, but I always thought of that as not too smart...

:)
-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 13
From: Dark Avenger <Avenger@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:59:09 +0000
In article <jCDRLDA5okDzEwoD@********.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
<shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>In message <rXMPKTAp7QDzEwIf@********.demon.co.uk>, Dark Avenger
><Avenger@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>>Well, in all honesty I'd agree with the GM that made the multiple
>>ruling. After all, if a clip is carrying 38 rounds and you throw it
>>onto a fire, it's not one big bang, its 38 bangs.
>
>Yeah, but...
>
>It's 38 rounds going off in an uncontrolled manner. Once the bullet's
>out of the case, the rest of the powder just burns (put some "gunpowder"
>in an ashtray and try to light it: it just sizzles and burns
>reluctantly, it doesn't explode)

You're right, years ago, when I was a silly child, I used to play with
cordite, making genies and things for amusement when I was a lad,
cheesed the old man off, as it was his reload powder I was using... But
setting a match to cordite is different to cooking it in a container.
Take a small metal container with a tight lid. Pour in some cordite.
Seal the lid as tightly as you want, sit it on a fire, and watch what
happens. It does not burn and fizzle, the lid flies off in a very
dramatic manner, and occassionally if you've got the mix right, the can
is destroyed.

>. No velocity behind the bullet, and the
>bullet is (or should be) pointed away from you.

Up to a point I agree with what you say Paul, however, 1 person was
killed and 2 seriously injured when some fuckwit decided it would be fun
to throw .303 ammunition onto a bonfire during a fireworks display a few
years ago. The rounds didn't burn off nicely, they exploded, propelling
the slugs with as much velocity as if it had come from a weapon. The
other 15 rounds blew off randomly punching into cars and buildings and
screaming off into the sky. The police over here decided to ban any
further bonfires/fireworks displays unless they were supervised by the
police and had an ambulance on hand with a full medical team. (That has
since changed again). *They* certainly don't think it's harmless, and I
doubt the people that were hit by the rounds would agree with your
analysis.

Rounds cooking off don't act in a friendly way. They explode. They
pretty much go off as if fired. And although their direction is pretty
random, it's not *harmless*, not by a long way.

Whether or not the metal of your magazine would hold a round is I should
imagine, dependant on the caliber of the bullet. Maybe it could contain
a 5.56, it's possible they're too piss weak for any penetration of
armour. I don't know, not having had the privilege of playing with that
type of weapon. Tell you what, why don't you borrow one, and bring it
over one day, then at least I can argue from a point of knowledge on
that. 7.62, 9mm, .45 etc, punches through thin metal without too much
bother, .44 is known to punch _through_ vehicles. US Highway Patrol
used to use them to stop vehicles by cracking the engine casing with
them. If you doubt me, just take one of your own guns and cap a few
rounds off at your car.

Also, most Shadowrunners do not wear equipment equivelant to British
Territorial Army while they're playing soldier. :) They are wearing
street clothes, not thick heavy canvas. Some may be wearing light body
armour. I'm not going to get into that at the moment, because I disagree
with the argument that the rounds wouldn't have the effect I suggested.

The other point is that most magazines I've seen and used, are stamped
metal, not cast steel. Which means there is a seam, that seam is likely
to be a weak point. If you want to try it out, have a word with your
range master, maybe he won't brand you as a lunatic, and will allow you
to cook a magazine of 9mm. Let me know what happens, I think you'll be
surprised.

>I'd have to say that you'd have to do something silly, like keep a spare
>magazine in your underwear, to take more than a Light from "exploding
>ammunition":

This I totally disagree with, I can't remember the names, but I may be
able to find them, talk to the three that got hit at the bonfire, I'm
sure they would disagree that they received a "light" wound.

>anything hot enough to make your ammo go up spontaneously
>would do you far more harm, and rounds cooking off in your pockets would
>be the least of your problems.

Agreed. However. In SR, it is possible to resist the effects of flame
(magical), yet the clothing may not, which means you have a problem, and
exploding ammo is likely to be a part of that problem. If not
immediately to the character who is turning into a human torch, then
certainly to his immediate neighbours.

>It might cook off individually, but small-arms rounds aren't the
>problem. It also gives you time to drop your web gear and get away from
>it.

There you go again. How many Shadowrunners go running around in the
middle of a city wearing webbing and a bergen. Shadowrunners operate in
cities most of the time, not Salisbury Plain, which means they either
blend with the populace and the area, or they become targets for law
enforcement.

In all honesty, if I was a cop in 2057 Seattle, and witnessed a group of
people slinking around wearing webbing, canvas pouches and playing
soldier, I would be screaming for SWAT and FRT's, and digging out the
biggest fragging gun I possessed.

The majority of magazines will be kept in shoulder pouches, made of
leather, or possibly in their jacket or pants pocket, not in hacking
great canvas pouches strong enough to survive a direct nuclear strike.
<g>

>Again: IRL if your ammo is cooking off, you've got massive and probably
>unsurvivable third-degree burns already and are probably praying that
>one of them will kill you.

Agreed

However, isn't it possible to use Magic to heat the magazine/slugs to
ignition point, without fireballing the entire site? (or am I confusing
a different game?)

>It's not likely to, though.

Strongly disagreed.


--
__ \ | \
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A dark shadow in a dark world |___/
Message no. 14
From: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:50:11 -0700
> From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
> THis reminds me....why do action film heroes always shove the gun down the
> front of their pants?

Partially it is for concealment..and for easy access as well...
I know lots of guys who do this..Granted they have clip
holsters...But..Accidents will happen...I personally perfer down the
back of the pants for concealment..I think it is more comfortable as
well...

> Maybe I'm just a little over-protective of my
> manhood, but I always thought of that as not too smart...

I'm not overpretective..I like all of my parts where they are..And if
There were some sort of accident..I would only lose a chunk of
sitdown padding..And I have lost lots of that to supervisors..So I
think I could manage...
-------------------------------GRANITE
=================================================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer
Message no. 15
From: Dvixen <dvixen@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:51:39 -0800
> >I'd have to say that you'd have to do something silly, like keep a
spare
> >magazine in your underwear, to take more than a Light from "exploding
>
> THis reminds me....why do action film heroes always shove the gun down
the
> front of their pants? Maybe I'm just a little over-protective of my
> manhood, but I always thought of that as not too smart...

For the same reason the women are scantily clad, in stead of being smart
and wearing something *functional* - It looks better than sticking it in a
jacket pocket.

--

Dvixen dvixen@********.com
"And I thought First Ones were rare." - Ivanova - Babylon 5
The opinions expressed are those of the myriad voices in my head
Message no. 16
From: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 02:06:37 -0700
> From: Dvixen <dvixen@********.COM>
> For the same reason the women are scantily clad, in stead of being smart
> and wearing something *functional*

That is something that always irked me..There is some guy in heavy
armour with huge weapons..and then the female lead is wearing
something akin to a bikini and carrying a pistol..What is she bullet
proof??? Not that I dislike the female form..quite the contrary..But
it is simply silly....
-------------------------------GRANITE
=================================================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer
Message no. 17
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:33:40 +0100
Brett Borger said on 21:30/24 Feb 97...

> THis reminds me....why do action film heroes always shove the gun down the
> front of their pants? Maybe I'm just a little over-protective of my
> manhood, but I always thought of that as not too smart...

Like Dvixen said, it looks cooler than putting the gun in a sensible
place. Action movies are full of dumb or plain silly things that make
everything look a lot more exciting than RL behavior -- a few examples:

* They always shoot hundreds of rounds from a gun but happen to run out
of ammo in criticial situations.
* Grenade explosions look like clouds of gasoline set on fire, and nobody
ever gets turned into hamburger by the fragments
* Nobody ever seems to apply a safety before putting a gun away
* The women always wait for the main (male) character to come and save
them (preferably while screaming their lungs out), instead of taking
action themselves
* "It's only a flesh wound"

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I hear the voice of reason on the P.A.
-> 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: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:33:40 +0100
Dark Avenger said on 21:59/24 Feb 97...

> Up to a point I agree with what you say Paul, however, 1 person was
> killed and 2 seriously injured when some fuckwit decided it would be fun
> to throw .303 ammunition onto a bonfire during a fireworks display a few
> years ago. The rounds didn't burn off nicely, they exploded

One thing to remember here is the difference between a bonfire and a
fireball spell: the fireball is there for only an instant, and then it's
gone. The bonfire OTOH gets to heat up the rounds thrown into it for quite
some time -- I doubt they went off the instant they were thrown in.

> Whether or not the metal of your magazine would hold a round is I should
> imagine, dependant on the caliber of the bullet. Maybe it could contain
> a 5.56, it's possible they're too piss weak for any penetration of
> armour.

Not even half a millimeter of mild steel?

> Also, most Shadowrunners do not wear equipment equivelant to British
> Territorial Army while they're playing soldier. :) They are wearing
> street clothes, not thick heavy canvas. Some may be wearing light body
> armour.

Agreed, you'd look suspicious to say the least if you're walking around
with a full set of military load-bearing equipment...

> The other point is that most magazines I've seen and used, are stamped
> metal, not cast steel. Which means there is a seam, that seam is likely
> to be a weak point.

I think most magazines in SR would be injection-molded plastic.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I hear the voice of reason on the P.A.
-> 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. 19
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:13:10 -0500
<snip various comments about how its hard to cook off rounds>

My real life knowledge of this is zero, but one comment that hasn't yet been made
is that we were talking about Shadowrun exploding rounds, which unlike real life
hollow points or dum dums, actually have an explosive core.

Page 241: "Very tiny versions of grenades, explosive rounds come with standard
military weapons. Though unpopular with troops because of the disastrous results
of a weapon malfunction or misfire, these rounds remain in wide use by both
civilians and the military. Exposure to intense heat such as flames or fireballs can
also cook the touchy things."

One can argue that no sane military would issue these as standard equipment, but
it is explicitly stated that these are touchier than ordinary rounds.

Double-Domed Mike
Message no. 20
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:15:51 -0500
>For the same reason the women are scantily clad, in stead of being smart
>and wearing something *functional* - It looks better than sticking it in a
>jacket pocket.

<splutter>
But...but....I thought....when Lavacious Linda the Seattle Slayer wears that
Black leather halter top and miniskirt, she does it for the
*manuverability*! That's why! The clothing doesn't impede her! She is
secure enough that she doesn't mind her enhanced D-cups bouncing around. It
is perfectly functional!
</splutter>

*Note: To those of you who didn't get this....I'm joking.*

-=SwiftOne=-
"Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity" Heinlein
Message no. 21
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:15:50 -0500
>>It's 38 rounds going off in an uncontrolled manner. Once the bullet's
>>out of the case, the rest of the powder just burns (put some "gunpowder"
>>in an ashtray and try to light it: it just sizzles and burns
>>reluctantly, it doesn't explode)

>Rounds cooking off don't act in a friendly way. They explode. They
>pretty much go off as if fired. And although their direction is pretty
>random, it's not *harmless*, not by a long way.

So You are saying guy at ground zero gets hit....but not with all 38
rounds.....the others hit the guys team....:)
<sly GM grin....>

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 22
From: James Paulsen <lowfyr@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:08:16 -0600
Gurth wrote:
>
>
> > Up to a point I agree with what you say Paul, however, 1 person was
> > killed and 2 seriously injured when some fuckwit decided it would be fun
> > to throw .303 ammunition onto a bonfire during a fireworks display a few
> > years ago.


I would have to agree with Gurth. I have personally seen a similar
display of stupidity (Although with far less magnitude). Three .22 long
rifle rounds were thrown into a fire--not quite a bon-fire, but just as
hot. It took well over thirty seconds for the rounds to cook off,
fortunately harming no one.

When I GM and the player gets his with any flame, I give them at least
five to ten three second combat turns to get their magazines out of the
flame, and then halve the power and damage code of the attack--though it
still really sucks for the character.

Jim
Message no. 23
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:32:22 +0000
On 24 Feb 97 at 21:30, Brett Borger wrote:
[snip]
> THis reminds me....why do action film heroes always shove the gun down the
> front of their pants? Maybe I'm just a little over-protective of my
> manhood, but I always thought of that as not too smart...
Cause that is one of the best places to hide a gun when you have no
holster. Trousers sit to tight at the sides, the at the back they are
a) not tight enough, and b) more difficult to reach.

OTOH, I'd prefer a hidden holster at the small of my back, too! :-)


Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |'The rich control |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| The Government, |
| \___ __/ | | The Media, |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | And the Law!' |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | - Queensryche |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 24
From: John Chesser <shaggy68@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 15:37:11 -0600
> From: James Paulsen <lowfyr@***********.COM>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
> Date: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 11:08 AM
>
> Gurth wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Up to a point I agree with what you say Paul, however, 1 person was
> > > killed and 2 seriously injured when some fuckwit decided it would be
fun
> > > to throw .303 ammunition onto a bonfire during a fireworks display a
few
> > > years ago.
>
>
> I would have to agree with Gurth. I have personally seen a similar
> display of stupidity (Although with far less magnitude). Three .22 long
> rifle rounds were thrown into a fire--not quite a bon-fire, but just as
> hot. It took well over thirty seconds for the rounds to cook off,
> fortunately harming no one.

I have thrown 20+ .22LR rounds into a fire while camping with friends. (We
all ran and hid in a ditch) and it takes them at least 10 seconds to cook
off (But these are regular .22LR rounds and not explosive!) with some
cooking off (I don't think I've ever said that before "cooking off")
minutes later. All they really did was pop and did not have much velocity
to hurt (Bruise maybe..) anyone.

John
Message no. 25
From: Gweedo The Killer Pimp <yawas@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:47:09 EST
>When the hero (or bad guy, even) steals a car, it never has a security
>system. ('You are standing too close to the vehicle. Please step
>away.'
>Plethora of annoying noises follows...)
-------
These kind of things are saved for when the spoof of the movie comes out.
Just think about it Arnold Schwarzenwhosits not breaking a window of a
car when it sez "Please step away from the vehicle." Ha, reality has no
place in movies.


Gweedo the Killer Pimp strikes again!
Message no. 26
From: Dark Avenger <Avenger@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:26:59 +0000
In article <33131C80.5A2B@***********.com>, James Paulsen
<lowfyr@***********.COM> writes

>When I GM and the player gets his with any flame, I give them at least
>five to ten three second combat turns to get their magazines out of the
>flame, and then halve the power and damage code of the attack--though it
>still really sucks for the character.
>
>Jim

That sounds reasonable. It does offer the character some protection,
and it becomes the players choice to take the risk of not removing the
magazines.


--
__ \ | \
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A dark shadow in a dark world |___/
Message no. 27
From: Dark Avenger <Avenger@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:25:13 +0000
In article <199702251132.MAA09554@**********.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>Dark Avenger said on 21:59/24 Feb 97...
>
>One thing to remember here is the difference between a bonfire and a
>fireball spell: the fireball is there for only an instant, and then it's
>gone.

True enough, but in that instant, it's just as hot, if not more so.
Though in a saving throw situation, the ammo should get a monus to save
against the effects, burning clothing... well, depends on the nature of
the clothing.

>The bonfire OTOH gets to heat up the rounds thrown into it for quite
>some time -- I doubt they went off the instant they were thrown in.

I have no idea, not actually seeing the idiot throw it on I have no idea
how long the ammo was in the fire.

>> a 5.56, it's possible they're too piss weak for any penetration of
>> armour.
>
>Not even half a millimeter of mild steel?

I can't say Gurth. I've fired a number of different rounds from a
variety of weapons, but I have not had the pleasure of playing with the
SA80 or similar. Unfortunately my involvement with the military ended
while they were still playing with FN SLR's and the SA 80 came in a
while after I finished playing at soldier.

>> street clothes, not thick heavy canvas. Some may be wearing light body
>> armour.
>
>Agreed, you'd look suspicious to say the least if you're walking around
>with a full set of military load-bearing equipment...

Damned suspicious. This is something that has always irked me somewhat
about military types, they equate all actions in Shadowrun with those of
their own experience in the field. The streets are vastly different to
an exercise with your regiment.

>I think most magazines in SR would be injection-molded plastic.

I'm not sure on this. There are obvious advantages, not least of which
is convenience and cost effectiveness, once the equipment is installed
and running, plastic mags would be a lot cheaper to produce than stamped
metal, but the wear and tear on the magazine from pressure (containing
the rounds for long periods) use (sliding in and out of housing) and
general mistreatment by the owner, dropping etc, may mean that the
plastic magazine is not a desired option. I haven't really played about
with any of the current plastic mags, so I don't know how strong they
are. It may well be that this is something the industry may strongly
consider in the near future. If that is the case, then I can't see those
magazines containing an exploding round, regardless of the caliber.


--
__ \ | \
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A dark shadow in a dark world |___/
Message no. 28
From: Dark Avenger <Avenger@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:35:03 +0000
In article <9A8DF852CB@**.opp.psu.edu>, Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
writes

>>Rounds cooking off don't act in a friendly way. They explode. They
>>pretty much go off as if fired. And although their direction is pretty
>>random, it's not *harmless*, not by a long way.
>
>So You are saying guy at ground zero gets hit....but not with all 38
>rounds.....the others hit the guys team....:)
><sly GM grin....>

Not entirely. The poor schmoo at GZ is likely to be hit by either
rounds or returning casings, certainly he will be effected by the
explosion of the round. However, the other rounds are going to go off
randomly, and I feel that they should be rolled for any hits. It's
possible they might continue to impact on the victim, or maybe his team
mates. Anyone that stands around in the vicinity of cooking rounds
needs their head checked, even becoming one with the floor is not
necessarily safe, finding hard cover is a good idea. I'm not sure what
modifiers should be added to the hit roll, maybe +2 per foot of distance
between GZ and target would be reasonable, with power halved initially
and then reduced by -1 per metre travelled. That should give enough
variation that the majority of the time the other PCs are safe, but
still stand a chance of an (un)lucky roll giving a hit.


--
__ \ | \
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A dark shadow in a dark world |___/
Message no. 29
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:06:18 +0000
|
|In article <199702251132.MAA09554@**********.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
|<gurth@******.NL> writes
|>Dark Avenger said on 21:59/24 Feb 97...
|>
|>One thing to remember here is the difference between a bonfire and a
|>fireball spell: the fireball is there for only an instant, and then it's
|>gone.
|
|True enough, but in that instant, it's just as hot, if not more so.
|Though in a saving throw situation, the ammo should get a monus to save
|against the effects, burning clothing... well, depends on the nature of
|the clothing.

Actually, as fireball is a combat spell, the ammo and clothing shouldn't get
a penalty. The way it should work is to target the "naturalness" and
"refinedness" of the material......

With refined materials this is usually 10 or so....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 30
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 03:05:00 +0000
In message <2yfYzDA5i1EzEwBS@********.demon.co.uk>, Dark Avenger
<Avenger@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>In article <199702251132.MAA09554@**********.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
><gurth@******.NL> writes
>Damned suspicious. This is something that has always irked me somewhat
>about military types, they equate all actions in Shadowrun with those of
>their own experience in the field. The streets are vastly different to
>an exercise with your regiment.

True, but even Glock's own ammunition pouches are pretty solid items. I
doubt they'd stop a _fired_ bullet, but they should quite easily retain
a cookoff. Tough thermoplastic. And, again, they carry the mags with the
rounds pointed _away_ from me.

You want to carry spare magazines in _something_, or they (a) snag and
pull rounds out, (b) get damaged and cause endless stoppages, (c) are
not accessible when needed. You might get away with stuffing one spare
magazine in a pocket, but that's about it.

I wouldn't advocate full military web gear for runners most of the time,
but a glance in the Uncle Mike's catalogue shows you a wealth of ways to
carry spare magzines in a concealable manner more efficient than "stick
it in a pocket".

I tried relying on pockets, when I first started shooting Practical
Pistol, and I rapidly acquired two magazine pouches. They make a _big_
difference.

>I haven't really played about
>with any of the current plastic mags, so I don't know how strong they
>are. It may well be that this is something the industry may strongly
>consider in the near future. If that is the case, then I can't see those
>magazines containing an exploding round, regardless of the caliber.

The Glock magazines are plastic over metal. Many all-polymer magazines
have had problems; they tend to flex under load (it's surprising how
much force a magazine follower spring exerts when the mag is full) and
this causes distortion, and hence misfeeds. Hence, it's an area where
you still see metal. Even aluminium can be dubious (too soft).

I'd also wonder how caseless ammo _could_ cook off and fire a bullet:
the biggest danger would be the heat of burning propellant, not flying
bullets. If the G11's ammunition is any guide, then the bullet is at the
core of the round anyway: nothing to contain the pressure, nothing to
make the bullet go in any particular direction: just a flash and a flame
and a scorched bullet left behind.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 31
From: Dark Avenger <Avenger@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 01:54:37 +0000
In article <7MN3oEBch6EzEwTD@********.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
<shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes

>>their own experience in the field. The streets are vastly different to
>>an exercise with your regiment.
>
>True, but even Glock's own ammunition pouches are pretty solid items. I
>doubt they'd stop a _fired_ bullet, but they should quite easily retain
>a cookoff. Tough thermoplastic. And, again, they carry the mags with the
>rounds pointed _away_ from me.

I think I'll agree to disagree with you. I've witnessed cooking rounds
and the effect they have on people. I feel that you are maybe a little
generous in assuming that no round will cook with any power.

>not accessible when needed. You might get away with stuffing one spare
>magazine in a pocket, but that's about it.

Fair enough, and most modern holster rigs will allow a combination
weapon/magazine hold. However, as you yourself have stated many times,
you don't go out with one or two mags. If you're on a mission, you take
as much ammo as possible. That either means you wear webbing, or find
alternate means, and greatcoats/dusters have deep pockets that can be
slotted (pocketed) for magazines. This doesn't offer a lot of
protection for an exploding round.

>carry spare magzines in a concealable manner more efficient than "stick
>it in a pocket".

But there are limitations to this, and deep pockets are still a
reasonable way to carry a lot of items. The chances of damaging the
magazines in a pocket are the same as for a concealable pouch or web
gear, a bullet hit or hard fall *may* cause damage.

>I tried relying on pockets, when I first started shooting Practical
>Pistol, and I rapidly acquired two magazine pouches. They make a _big_
>difference.

They do. But how many magazines do they carry, and how concealable are
they?

>>consider in the near future. If that is the case, then I can't see those
>>magazines containing an exploding round, regardless of the caliber.
>
>The Glock magazines are plastic over metal.

That's today's tech. Plastic in SR is much stronger. Plassteel wall
sections etc etc. Plastic technology is increasing all the time. As
are other materials. Wether or not all magazines in SR would be plastic
is highly debateable, I personally feel that they would probably stay
with stamped metal, for the simple reason it's proven to be tough enough
for the job.

>Many all-polymer magazines
>have had problems; they tend to flex under load (it's surprising how
>much force a magazine follower spring exerts when the mag is full)

That's why I'm not convinced about the concept. Plastic has a nasty
habit of not co-operating and under extreme temperatures or pressure,
can buckle very easily. However, it's possible that the tech may
improve sufficiently.

>I'd also wonder how caseless ammo _could_ cook off and fire a bullet:

Caseless, as far as I know can't. The propellant just burns as their is
no compression around it (breech) to create the necessary pressure for
propelling the round. But it does not state anywhere in the books that
*all* SR rounds are caseless, in fact the majority are still brass
cased, and only a few weapons are specified as caseless.

>make the bullet go in any particular direction: just a flash and a flame
>and a scorched bullet left behind.

And someone with a small area of third degree burns. Not to mention
anything that's nearby.


--
__ \ | \
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A dark shadow in a dark world |___/
Message no. 32
From: Dark Avenger <Avenger@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 02:00:05 +0000
In article <1145.199702261306@*****.teach.cs.keele.ac.uk>, Spike
<u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK> writes
>Though in a saving throw situation, the ammo should get a monus to save
>|against the effects, burning clothing... well, depends on the nature of
>|the clothing.
>
>Actually, as fireball is a combat spell, the ammo and clothing shouldn't get
>a penalty.

I didn't suggest it should get a penalty, I stated, that the ammo
should get a *bonus*. Most rounds in that situation would be encased in
brass cartridges, and inside a metal(?) magazine. Which means the
fireball may have less effect, depending on where they're kept. In the
case of Paul's marvelous webbing, I don't think even they'd get scorched
<g>

>The way it should work is to target the "naturalness" and
>"refinedness" of the material......

Erm, yeah, right, whatever that means.

Allowing for the fact that a fireball is an area effect spell (?) then
isn't it likely that it is unecessary for the mage to "target" the
clothing, and just dump the spell on the victim? The clothing and
surrounding materials will suffer accordingly anyway.

>With refined materials this is usually 10 or so....

So are you saying that a pair of denim jeans, and a leather jacket get a
saving throw of *10* against a fireball, to prevent torching, or to
catch light?

--
__ \ | \
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A dark shadow in a dark world |___/
Message no. 33
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 23:56:10 +0000
In message <p6aTQJAlqOFzEw6k@********.demon.co.uk>, Dark Avenger
<Avenger@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>Spike<u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK> writes
>>Actually, as fireball is a combat spell, the ammo and clothing shouldn't get
>>a penalty.
>
>I didn't suggest it should get a penalty, I stated, that the ammo
>should get a *bonus*. Most rounds in that situation would be encased in
>brass cartridges, and inside a metal(?) magazine. Which means the
>fireball may have less effect, depending on where they're kept.

ISTR a Fireball affects everything everywhere in its area of effect and
visible to the caster. A Damaging Manipulation would be blocked by
obstructions, a Fireball (combat spell) fills a space with an eyeblink
of flame and then vanishes, hence armour has no effect.

>In the
>case of Paul's marvelous webbing, I don't think even they'd get scorched
><g>

Depends on the type: but seriously, someone had a tripflare (about a
pound of white phosphorous) spontaneously ignite in his '58 pattern ammo
pouch. He had time to roll onto his back, unfasten his belt, and get out
of the webbing without suffering injury. That stuff is surprisingly good
at resisting fire, at least for long enough for you to get it off and
throw it away.

>>With refined materials this is usually 10 or so....
>
>So are you saying that a pair of denim jeans, and a leather jacket get a
>saving throw of *10* against a fireball, to prevent torching, or to
>catch light?

Your low-magic campaign is showing through, Pete :)

Targeting inanimate objects is based on how "natural" they are.
Unfinished wood is easy to affect by magic. Alloy steel is harder.
Complex mechanisms are very hard. See the Object Resistance Table (SR2,
Page 130) for the rules.

And remember, in the 2050s, synthetics (i.e. complex, processed
materials seem to be the rule: cotton denim and leather are luxury
items, not everyday street wear. (If "real food" is a luxury, then where
do you grow cotton or graze cattle?) Clothing becomes a harder target
for spells, unless the target's wealthy :)

I admit it seems counterintuitive to me, though. For flame attacks, you
_want_ plain cotton. For instance, wearing jungle combat fatigues
(lighter and faster-drying than standard combats) in the UK is usually
acceptable to most units, but it's a chargeable offence in Northern
Ireland: because they have a high polyester content, and so melt onto
your flesh if you are petrol-bombed.

Standard combat fatigues are mostly cotton, and while they can be
persuaded to burn it takes considerable effort to get them to do so: and
the residue is ash. Synthetics tend to melt, leaving a sticky, searingly
hot residue glued onto your body to cause severe injury. Not nice.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 34
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 23:41:48 +0000
In message <l6UQwGAdlOFzEwbX@********.demon.co.uk>, Dark Avenger
<Avenger@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>In article <7MN3oEBch6EzEwTD@********.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
><shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>>True, but even Glock's own ammunition pouches are pretty solid items. I
>>doubt they'd stop a _fired_ bullet, but they should quite easily retain
>>a cookoff. Tough thermoplastic. And, again, they carry the mags with the
>>rounds pointed _away_ from me.
>
>I think I'll agree to disagree with you. I've witnessed cooking rounds
>and the effect they have on people. I feel that you are maybe a little
>generous in assuming that no round will cook with any power.

I didn't say that, merely that _most_ will cook with little power, and
the problem remains that I would be very reluctant to carry ammo with
the business ends pointed at my tender flesh if there were any
noticeable numbers of people trickling into hospital as a result of ammo
cookoffs.

Apart from anything else, if this was a significant problem, Uncle
Mike's and Bianchi and the other holster/harness manufacturers would
offer either tougher magazines, tougher pouches, or armour pads to go
behind your spare magazines.

>>not accessible when needed. You might get away with stuffing one spare
>>magazine in a pocket, but that's about it.
>
>Fair enough, and most modern holster rigs will allow a combination
>weapon/magazine hold. However, as you yourself have stated many times,
>you don't go out with one or two mags. If you're on a mission, you take
>as much ammo as possible. That either means you wear webbing, or find
>alternate means, and greatcoats/dusters have deep pockets that can be
>slotted (pocketed) for magazines. This doesn't offer a lot of
>protection for an exploding round.

Ever seen a serious Practical Pistol competitor using, say, a single-
stack Colt M1911A1? Wall-to-wall ammo pouches around the waist, from hip
to hip, eight or ten magazines.

And why can't you beef up the armour on the pockets or pouches? If the
pockets are deep, thread them through the Lined Coat's armour inserts so
the ammo is _outside_ the armour, for instance.

>>carry spare magzines in a concealable manner more efficient than "stick
>>it in a pocket".
>
>But there are limitations to this, and deep pockets are still a
>reasonable way to carry a lot of items. The chances of damaging the
>magazines in a pocket are the same as for a concealable pouch or web
>gear, a bullet hit or hard fall *may* cause damage.

But they're much harder to get to in a hurry: and the concealability may
well be worse, since instead of being restrained they're floating around
in pockets.

>>I tried relying on pockets, when I first started shooting Practical
>>Pistol, and I rapidly acquired two magazine pouches. They make a _big_
>>difference.
>
>They do. But how many magazines do they carry, and how concealable are
>they?

One magazine (for a Glock 21, 13 rounds each) per pouch: very
concealable, they hold the magazines upright flat against the body. Half
of the length is against your belt anyway, where you expect a degree of
rigidity. Under a loose jacket or long coat, they would be very hard to
spot.

You could put six or eight pouches on your belt, and two on the 'off'
side of a shoulder holster, and hide all of it with a jacket or coat.

>>The Glock magazines are plastic over metal.
>
>That's today's tech. Plastic in SR is much stronger. Plassteel wall
>sections etc etc.

Stronger plastic = less likely to be penetrated, perchance? ;)

>>I'd also wonder how caseless ammo _could_ cook off and fire a bullet:
>
>Caseless, as far as I know can't. The propellant just burns as their is
>no compression around it (breech) to create the necessary pressure for
>propelling the round. But it does not state anywhere in the books that
>*all* SR rounds are caseless, in fact the majority are still brass
>cased, and only a few weapons are specified as caseless.

Other way round, apparently. SRII, page 238: "Many weapons offer two
versions, for standard loads or caseless ammunition, though the latter
is far more common in the 2050s."

I'd always played it that Lynch was something of a dinosaur for his
stubborn preference for brass :) And sustained fire weapons will likely
stay caseless for some time, since the case acts as a useful heatsink:
but pistols, SMGs and perhaps assault rifles could easily lurch that
way.

Whether I agree with the rules is another matter - how do you handload
caseless rounds? - but that's what they say.

>>make the bullet go in any particular direction: just a flash and a flame
>>and a scorched bullet left behind.
>
>And someone with a small area of third degree burns. Not to mention
>anything that's nearby.

Exposed, it doesn't burn.

I'll put a round's worth of powder in an ash tray and burn it off with a
match. Oh, wait, I have done :) (checking the charge weight with a
scale). Just sparks and fizzles: remember all this is happening inside a
magazine and inside a pocket, pouch or other form of container, and
probably the other side of a pocket: not pressed hard against bare skin.

I'd be far more concerned about the Fireball spell that caused all this:
_compared to that_ I doubt ammo cooking off is a particularly
significant threat.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 35
From: Dark Avenger <Avenger@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 03:37:14 +0000
In article <BauZdIAaIMGzEwEG@********.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
<shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>In message <p6aTQJAlqOFzEw6k@********.demon.co.uk>, Dark Avenger


>ISTR a Fireball affects everything everywhere in its area of effect and
>visible to the caster.

That's what pretty much what I thought.

>A Damaging Manipulation would be blocked by
>obstructions, a Fireball (combat spell) fills a space with an eyeblink
>of flame and then vanishes, hence armour has no effect.

righto... So in otherwords it's possible for caseless ammo to
spontaneously ignite, causing further high temperature burns. But still
I feel the brass cased should get a bonus to its save.

>>case of Paul's marvelous webbing, I don't think even they'd get scorched
>><g>
>
>Depends on the type: but seriously, someone had a tripflare (about a
>pound of white phosphorous) spontaneously ignite in his '58 pattern ammo
>pouch. He had time to roll onto his back, unfasten his belt, and get out
>of the webbing without suffering injury. That stuff is surprisingly good
>at resisting fire, at least for long enough for you to get it off and
>throw it away.

There you go.. confirmation. If you want a fireproof Shadowrunner, buy
British military webbing <snigger>

>>saving throw of *10* against a fireball, to prevent torching, or to
>>catch light?
>
>Your low-magic campaign is showing through, Pete :)

Yeah, I know. As you know I dislike Magic a bit, so I tend to steer
away from it. maybe I ought to read those sections a bit more <g>

>Targeting inanimate objects is based on how "natural" they are.
>Unfinished wood is easy to affect by magic. Alloy steel is harder.
>Complex mechanisms are very hard. See the Object Resistance Table (SR2,
>Page 130) for the rules.

I've used the resistance tables before (a long time ago) when Chris
decided it'd be fun to fireball a Lone Star patrol car... <g> But most
of the time we don't use magic, so it's not something I get into very
often.

>do you grow cotton or graze cattle?) Clothing becomes a harder target
>for spells, unless the target's wealthy :)

I'm not totally convinced of this. I agree that the majority of
clothing would consist of synthetic materials. it's difficult to get
that trendy semi gloss finish onto a pair of Levi's, but I feel that
standard cloth would be available for clothing if at inflated prices.
Though as for the rich only... Hmmm... Leather, OK, it states in the
sourcebook that real leather is more expensive, but not prohibitively
so. As for the areas for grazing cattle, growing cotton and foods.
Most of Snohomish in Seattle is farm land That's a sizeable area. Also
there are massive tracts of land owned by the Native Americans, they
seem to be interested in a back to nature attitude, which indicates that
Seattle and other areas would be able to trade with them for materials
(increasing the cost, but not beyond the reach of say, the middle
class.)

And of course Tairngire. They also have a vested interest in producing
foods and clothing. As Tairngire has exports massively in advamce of
it's imports and deficit, it would be a reasonable assumption to say
they could be exporting natural products along with technology. All of
this would add up to a ready availability of natural materials for
clothing. The rich would get pure wools and expensive tailored or
designed cuts. The middle class would get the more regular style cuts
that we see in chainstores today. Look at the current price of Jeans.
If you buy a named lable, then the price is anywhere up to 8 times the
price of an unbranded pair. If that is refelcted into SR terms, it
would be safe to assume that the increase in value would be about 150%,
but still within the reach of the middle classes. It's the lower
classes and street people who would be wearing primarily synthetic
and/or corporate uniform clothing.

>Ireland: because they have a high polyester content, and so melt onto
>your flesh if you are petrol-bombed.

Exactly. It would make sense for Runners to invest a certain amount of
their income in decent clothing. For instance the CP2020 Gibson
streetwear and Battle Gear, is all based on natural materials. I find
it strange to think of a Runner wearing synthetics and man made
materials. In most of the campaigns that I've read about on this list
for instance, the financial gain from a run is quite impressive. A lot
more than I usually award for a run... <grin> except for the odd
occassion of course. (BTW, have you considered how you're going to get
all that gold out of the UK yet... snigger)

>the residue is ash. Synthetics tend to melt, leaving a sticky, searingly
>hot residue glued onto your body to cause severe injury. Not nice.

Another good reason for runners to invest in sensible materials.

Hmmm.. man made vs natural materials... Do I detect a topic drift <g>


--
__ \ | \
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A dark shadow in a dark world |___/
Message no. 36
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 00:46:56 +0000
|I didn't suggest it should get a penalty, I stated, that the ammo
|should get a *bonus*. Most rounds in that situation would be encased in
|brass cartridges, and inside a metal(?) magazine.

This should have no effect with a combat spell. See below.

|Which means the
|fireball may have less effect, depending on where they're kept.

Nope. Fireball affects Aura. Just as Armour offers no protection to humans,
it should offer no protection to ammo, and the brass cartridges could be
considered armour.

Think of it this way. When a combat spell goes off, the energy infuses the
target. Instead of damaging only the outside, it penetrates armour and gets
to do REAL damage inside the aura. If this is the aura of a man made
chamical explosive, it's target number should be high enough to resist the
effect, but the actual metal of the ammo should offer no extra protection/

In the
|case of Paul's marvelous webbing, I don't think even they'd get scorched
|<g>

I think they would....

|>The way it should work is to target the "naturalness" and
|>"refinedness" of the material......
|
|Erm, yeah, right, whatever that means.

Think of it this way.

Natual = Wood, cotton, wool.
Refined/unnatual = Plastic, man-made fibres, explosives.

Metals fall somewhere in between.

The target number to attack something natural is either it's Body rating (If
Alive) or it's "Closeness to nature". Wood, wool and cotton in pure forms
would have a target number of 3 or 4. If they'd been varnished (in the case
of wood) or bleached and dyed in the case of the wool/cotton, this might
increase to 5 or 6....

|Allowing for the fact that a fireball is an area effect spell (?) then
|isn't it likely that it is unecessary for the mage to "target" the
|clothing, and just dump the spell on the victim? The clothing and
|surrounding materials will suffer accordingly anyway.

Only if the mage manages to roll highly enough.
Just because he can damage someone with a body of 4 doesn't mean he'll
damage something else (unless he gets at least one success to match it).

|>With refined materials this is usually 10 or so....
|
|So are you saying that a pair of denim jeans, and a leather jacket get a
|saving throw of *10* against a fireball, to prevent torching, or to
|catch light?

Denim is mainly cotton. Leather is... Well, leather.
These are natural, with maybe a little processing such as polish and dye.
I'd say the T# for those would be 5 or 6....

Now, if the person was wearing Nylon, or Kevlar THAT would have a T# of
10....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 37
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 01:57:03 +0000
|Hmmm.. man made vs natural materials... Do I detect a topic drift <g>

Why not? It's a valid topic....

--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 38
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Fire and Exploding ammo
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 00:13:57 +0000
In message <C4Z1RGAqXPGzEwXB@********.demon.co.uk>, Dark Avenger
<Avenger@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>In article <BauZdIAaIMGzEwEG@********.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
><shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>>ISTR a Fireball affects everything everywhere in its area of effect and
>>visible to the caster.

>righto... So in otherwords it's possible for caseless ammo to
>spontaneously ignite, causing further high temperature burns. But still
>I feel the brass cased should get a bonus to its save.

I used to try arguing that one, but the problem is that even inside the
case you're getting the equivalent of primer flash. And the case does
allow the pressure to rise enough to blow the bullet loose, meaning the
powder burns faster and hotter.

This is one situation where caseless ammo really does have an advantage.

<snip sensible stuff about the price of natural fibres/leather>

>>Ireland: because they have a high polyester content, and so melt onto
>>your flesh if you are petrol-bombed.
>
>Exactly. It would make sense for Runners to invest a certain amount of
>their income in decent clothing. For instance the CP2020 Gibson
>streetwear and Battle Gear, is all based on natural materials. I find
>it strange to think of a Runner wearing synthetics and man made
>materials. In most of the campaigns that I've read about on this list
>for instance, the financial gain from a run is quite impressive. A lot
>more than I usually award for a run... <grin> except for the odd
>occassion of course. (BTW, have you considered how you're going to get
>all that gold out of the UK yet... snigger)

Gold? What gold? <Innocent look>

I'd personally agree. Again, while natural fibres are easier to ignite
magically, they are also less damaging if they burn while on you. And
fire retardant chemicals (nice and processed and complex, high TNos) are
available today: a smart runner would probably treat their clothing with
that stuff.

And I've never really seen leather burn :)

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Fire and Exploding ammo, 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!