Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: trick_ster@*******.com (Niels Sønderborg)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 11:58:32 +0100
Ever since I bought the Rigger Black Book I wanted to see the stats on the
GMC Stonewall MBT. Anyone got any believable stats on that nice piece of
vehicle or could someone tell me where I can find them?

Your friendly Neighhood Dane

Niels

_________________________________________________________________
Få alle de nye og sjove ikoner med MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.dk
Message no. 2
From: pentaj2@****.edu (John C. Penta)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 06:52:43 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Niels Sønderborg <trick_ster@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2003 5:58 am
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB

> Ever since I bought the Rigger Black Book I wanted to see the
> stats on the
> GMC Stonewall MBT. Anyone got any believable stats on that nice
> piece of
> vehicle or could someone tell me where I can find them?

Can't, anywhere.

It was, ahem, edited out of existence after RBB.

Disinformation, anyone?

John
Message no. 3
From: cmd_jackryan@***.net (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 13:00:40 +0100
Am Wed, 05 Nov 2003 06:52:43 -0500 hat John C. Penta <pentaj2@****.edu>
geschrieben:

>
> Can't, anywhere.
>
> It was, ahem, edited out of existence after RBB.
>
> Disinformation, anyone?

At least the German Rigger 3 features one (or two) MBTs, and has
illustrations for one.
AFAIK, the same is true for Rigger 3 Revised.

That should provide hints on what weaponry and armor a post Euro-Wars MBT
features.


--
Phillip Gawlowski
Bastard GameMaster From Hell and General Idiot
Message no. 4
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:12:02 +0100
Le 05 nov. 2003, à 13:00, Phillip Gawlowski a écrit :

> At least the German Rigger 3 features one (or two) MBTs, and has
> illustrations for one.
> AFAIK, the same is true for Rigger 3 Revised.

Those two tanks can also be found in State of the Art 2063, along with
most of the other vehicles specific to the German Rigger 3.

I seem to recall that the Stonewall MBT is universally loathed by
those who know its stats, as it is ridiculously overpowered -- the kind
of overpowered that breaks the laws of physics.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr@*****.fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"


--
maxnoel_fr@*****.fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 5
From: flakjacket@***********.com (flakjacket@***********.com)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:29:16 +0000 (GMT)
Niels Sønderborg wrote:

> Ever since I bought the Rigger Black Book I wanted to see the stats on the
> GMC Stonewall MBT. Anyone got any believable stats on that nice piece of
> vehicle or could someone tell me where I can find them?

Not sure /where/ they are, but I do remember them being insanely munchy. Something like a
supersonic panzer with so much armour it shouldn't have really been able to fly. Then add
in the main weaponry, drones and the cost and it was just /bad/.

They basically just looked at it later and decided it was all a disinformation ploy by the
CAS to get it the hell out of their game. :)
Message no. 6
From: jameserec@*****.ca (James Erec)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:41:31 -0500 (EST)
> > Ever since I bought the Rigger Black Book I wanted
> to see the stats on the
> > GMC Stonewall MBT. Anyone got any believable stats
> on that nice piece of
> > vehicle or could someone tell me where I can find
> them?

The stats for Main Battle Tanks and other Military
hardware is not in any rigger books for a reason.
Shadowrunners are not meant to play with them. They
are more powerful than any non military organization
would be allowed to play with. If a shadowrunner
happened to steal one, a very large force would be
sent to destroy them. This would quickly end the game
and that shadowrun team would be eliminated. If a
munchkin GM decides to let his munchkin players drive
around in one then they are obviously not playing
shadowrun as it was meant to be and should move on to
Mechwarrior or something else where that kind of
ordinance is meant to be. As an aside I believe the
damage done by an MBT is rated the same as Naval
Damage.


====Kato Combat Cabbie

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Message no. 7
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:21:59 -0800
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:41:31 -0500 (EST)
James Erec <jameserec@*****.ca> wrote:
> > > Ever since I bought the Rigger Black Book I wanted
> > to see the stats on the
> > > GMC Stonewall MBT. Anyone got any believable stats
> > on that nice piece of
>
> The stats for Main Battle Tanks and other Military
> hardware is not in any rigger books for a reason.
> Shadowrunners are not meant to play with them

[snip]

Thats such nonsense. It's the job of the rules to cover all aspects of 2063
society, including the military. It's then the job of the GM to direct the
campaign where it's supposed to go. If aircraft carriers and jet fighters are
detailled, then MBTs are also needed. I think it would be a blast to hijack a
tank for one-shot use.
--Anders
Message no. 8
From: trick_ster@*******.com (Niels Sønderborg)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 21:10:20 +0100
If military hardware should be out of runner's reach, then why did they show
the Banshee or the ability to make Thunderbirds? The Banshee is imho just as
military as the Stonewall, and yeah I have considered using one as a tool in
a run for my players hehe ;)

Your Friendly Neighborhood Dane ...

_________________________________________________________________
Få alle de nye og sjove ikoner med MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.dk
Message no. 9
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 12:22:03 -0800
My players understand the one underlying truth of Shadowrun. The more
hardware they pack, the more resistance they run into and the more people
want to put the hurt on them. They have, so far, resisted the impulse to get
a Banshee or anything similar. I think they fear a UCAS/Ares response.

*egmg*

Z
----- Original Message -----
From: "Niels Sønderborg" <trick_ster@*******.com>
To: <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: GMC Stonewall MTB


> If military hardware should be out of runner's reach, then why did they
show
> the Banshee or the ability to make Thunderbirds? The Banshee is imho just
as
> military as the Stonewall, and yeah I have considered using one as a tool
in
> a run for my players hehe ;)
>
> Your Friendly Neighborhood Dane ...
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Få alle de nye og sjove ikoner med MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.dk
>
Message no. 10
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 12:39:58 -0800
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 12:22:03 -0800
"zebulingod" <zebulingod@*******.net> wrote:
> My players understand the one underlying truth of Shadowrun. They have, so
far, resisted the impulse to get a Banshee or anything similar. I think they
fear a UCAS/Ares response.
>
> *egmg*
>
> Z
Ya got 'em wipped, alright!
--Anders
Message no. 11
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 12:52:38 -0800
"Anders Swenson" <anders@**********.com> wrote:
>
> Ya got 'em wipped, alright!
> --Anders

All I'm saying is that, if you are armed with heavy security armor, and you
decide to go take out a few cops "for fun" you have to expect a response at
an equal or overwhelmingly superior level, you know?

They tried that once. They looked at the Lonestar book, figured what kind of
response they'd get and decided to go for it. Lasted about 15 minutes before
Lonestar responded with some of their "experimental procedures".

Z
Message no. 12
From: cmd_jackryan@***.net (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 11:31:55 +0100
Am Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:21:59 -0800 hat Anders Swenson
<anders@**********.com> geschrieben:


> Thats such nonsense. It's the job of the rules to cover all aspects of
> 2063
> society, including the military. It's then the job of the GM to direct
> the
> campaign where it's supposed to go. If aircraft carriers and jet
> fighters are
> detailled, then MBTs are also needed. I think it would be a blast to
> hijack a
> tank for one-shot use.
> --Anders

Well, you know, MBTs aren't the weapon of choice anymore on a battlefield.
T-Birds, LAVs and Armored Cav are the weapons of choice on battlefields
(take a look at Baghdad for example, and you see why). Sensor equipment
and advances in armor and weapon technology render an MBT basically
useless on a battle field. That is why all MBTs in Rigger3 and SOTA63 are
from the Euro-Wars, and only Aztechnology is still building some for local
use.


--
Phillip Gawlowski
Bastard GameMaster From Hell and General Idiot
Message no. 13
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:13:04 +0100
According to Phillip Gawlowski, on Friday 07 November 2003 11:31 the word
on the street was...

> Well, you know, MBTs aren't the weapon of choice anymore on a
> battlefield. T-Birds, LAVs and Armored Cav are the weapons of choice on
> battlefields (take a look at Baghdad for example, and you see why).

One of the main images of the last Iraq war was of M1A1s rolling through
Bagdad...

> Sensor equipment and advances in armor and weapon technology render an
> MBT basically useless on a battle field.

*g* This sound suspiciously much like "ATGMs make MBTs obsolete" and
"attack helicopters make MBTs obsolete", both of which have proven to be
false...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Don't you know you know what's right?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 14
From: jameserec@*****.ca (James Erec)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:10:56 -0500 (EST)
--- Anders Swenson <anders@**********.com> wrote: > >
[snip]
>
> Thats such nonsense. It's the job of the rules to
> cover all aspects of 2063
> society, including the military. It's then the job
> of the GM to direct the
> campaign where it's supposed to go. If aircraft
> carriers and jet fighters are
> detailled, then MBTs are also needed. I think it
> would be a blast to hijack a
> tank for one-shot use.
> --Anders

I stand corrected. I did a little research and found
that the reason the stats for the GMC Stonewall were
not included originally was because they did not have
a system out yet which supported that kind of damage.
The Stonewall and other MBT's do what in game terms is
now called Naval Damage. For those that wish to
compare an MBT doing Naval Damage to a Banshee, I
would like to see the stats for the Banshee you are
using. I'm not aware of any that have ordinance of
that magnitude. I still believe that they are beyond
the reach and aspirations of any sensible shadowrun
team. Unless you live in a world where your average
UTC is sporting a panther cannon as a sidearm in
triple A neighbourhoods. IMO any sensible GM would
make the response to a team cruising through the
barrens in a Stonewall quick and lethal. How would a
character survive a hit from a weapon that does naval damage?

====Kato Combat Cabbie

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Message no. 15
From: The_Sarge@***.de (MatthÀus_Cebulla)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:13:37 +0100
> IMO any sensible GM would
> make the response to a team cruising through the
> barrens in a Stonewall quick and lethal.

And what about a team of mercenaries cruisin' through
the Jungle of Atzlan? ;-) Not everyone plays Seatlle-based
Street-runners...

> ====> Kato Combat Cabbie

Matthäus
--
Matthäus is now listening to "Marillion - Warm Wet Circles".
04:25m is the length. From the Album "Clutching the Straws"
Message no. 16
From: jameserec@*****.ca (James Erec)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:23:35 -0500 (EST)
--- Matthäus_Cebulla <The_Sarge@***.de> wrote:
> And what about a team of mercenaries cruisin'
> through
> the Jungle of Atzlan? ;-) Not everyone plays
> Seatlle-based
> Street-runners...
>
> > ====> > Kato Combat Cabbie
>
> Matthäus
> --
I can't imagine the lethality of a merc campaign in
Aztlan. The MBT should feel right at home in this
setting. I imagine a campaign of this nature would
limit your skillset though. Riggers would be the most
sought after characters. The poor little sami with
his little bitty popgun would be relegated to filling
ammo bins and fetching water for the real fighters.

====Kato Combat Cabbie

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Message no. 17
From: The_Sarge@***.de (MatthÀus_Cebulla)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:27:23 +0100
> I can't imagine the lethality of a merc campaign in
> Aztlan. The MBT should feel right at home in this
> setting. I imagine a campaign of this nature would
> limit your skillset though. Riggers would be the most
> sought after characters. The poor little sami with
> his little bitty popgun would be relegated to filling
> ammo bins and fetching water for the real fighters.

The sam would have enough to do.
Grunts don't die... (Figuratively speaking. *g*)
You jst cannot infiltrate ANYTHING with a tank.
Sometimes you get ambushed at a nights rest.

And sometimes the damn tank just brakes the
hell down! *evil gm grin* Let's get out the machetes
and sneak beyond all those patrols and hungry
paracritters. ;-)

Enogh there to justify a soldier.

> ====> Kato Combat Cabbie

Matthäus
--
Matthäus is now listening to "Ganz Schön Feist -
Selbstgespräche".
02:20m is the length.
Message no. 18
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:36:35 -0800
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:23:35 -0500 (EST)
James Erec <jameserec@*****.ca> wrote:
> --- Matthäus_Cebulla <The_Sarge@***.de> wrote:
> >[snip]
> > --
> I can't imagine the lethality of a merc campaign in
> Aztlan. The MBT should feel right at home in this
> setting. I imagine a campaign of this nature would
> limit your skillset though. Riggers would be the most
> sought after characters. The poor little sami with
> his little bitty popgun would be relegated to filling
> ammo bins and fetching water for the real fighters.
>
> ====> Kato Combat Cabbie

Shadowrunners are always the small mammals who eat the eggs...
Our group is up to maybe 60 Karma, and we'd have fun.
--Anders
Message no. 19
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 03:07:49 +0100
James Erec wrote:

> barrens in a Stonewall quick and lethal. How would a
> character survive a hit from a weapon that does naval damage?

Short version: not.

Long version: A troll with maxed-out Body (11) could theoretically
survive MN damage (21 boxes IIRC). He'd be bleeding to death, but not
dead yet. A medic or a mage could save him, provided the healing was
applied within 11 combat rounds (36 seconds).
Now that I come to think of it, a troll Phoenix shaman with maxed-out
Body (and thus the insane overflow capacity of 22) could even sustain
SN damage (28 boxes) and live for 44 additional combat rounds without
any outside assistance.

All of this is, of course, assuming the attacker has scored less than
2 successes on his gunnery test. Which will seldom be the case, and
once the damage is in the DN range, it's not even worth trying to
survive it (MADCAP torpedo against a regular, non-naval target: TN to
resist 100, and unless you get less than 2 more successes than the
attacker -- too tired to calculate the odds but they're ridiculous --
that's 36 boxes of damage for you).
Which is why, IMO, a surprise attack by a FDDM network of MBTs is the
only reasonable way (if there is such a thing) to kill a great dragon
short of a big bomb.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr@*****.fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 20
From: ShadowRN@********.demon.co.uk (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 09:44:37 +0000
In article <oprx9jjhlw3bvec1@****.gmx.net>, Phillip Gawlowski
<cmd_jackryan@***.net> writes
>Well, you know, MBTs aren't the weapon of choice anymore on a
>battlefield. T-Birds, LAVs and Armored Cav are the weapons of choice on
>battlefields (take a look at Baghdad for example, and you see why).

Baghdad, which was reached and overrun by M1A2s?

>Sensor equipment and advances in armor and weapon technology render an
>MBT basically useless on a battle field.

This song has been sung since 1916, when it was pointed out that
anything from an artillery piece to an anti-tank rifle to a
courageously-handled machine gun[1] could kill a tank.

Even now, there are plenty of weapons that can kill MBTs... but MBTs
remain extremely popular. Why is this?

Because to kill a MBT, you have to either manoeuvre to get a shot at its
vulnerable rear arc, or else use a specialised, expensive, heavy weapon.
A Javelin ATGM is a very effective antitank weapon, but it's also very
heavy and expensive: a frontline infantry battalion of ~800 men might
have 24 Javelin launchers.

Lighter, cheaper weapons (like LAW, AT-4, the ubiquitous RPG-7) are much
more widespread, but struggle to kill tanks except by lucky hits.
However, they will very effectively destroy or disable lighter vehicles:
to reliably survive a RPG hit, you're looking at ~30 tons or more of
rolling iron (Bradley, Warrior).


So, you can try to force through an enemy position with light vehicles,
where every fireteam has weapons that can kill you (and there could be
over a hundred firing positions per battalion)... or you can lead with
heavy armour and support it with mechanised infantry, both of which are
resistant to most weapons and vulnerable only to the enemy's ATGM teams.
It's a lot easier to avoid, suppress or destroy 24 firing points than
120.

Light forces are extremely useful too, but most so when used as part of
a combined force.


>That is why all MBTs in Rigger3 and SOTA63 are from the Euro-Wars, and
>only Aztechnology is still building some for local use.

The US hasn't *built* any tanks for quite a few years, but it's been
continually upgrading its M1s. The UK isn't likely to build any new
tanks for at least ten or fifteen years (incremental mods to the CR2
fleet, then replacement by MODIFIER[1]). Lack of a current, open
production line doesn't mean lack of tanks at all.

Besides, Aztlan's "local use" includes frontiers with California and the
Confederacy; and Texas is textbook tank country. Open enough to make
hiding damn near impossible, flat enough to make rapid manoeuvre
possible, in other words ideal for a force heavy on mobility, firepower
and protection.




[1] Early tanks were armoured with riveted boilerplate: while it would
stop bullets, multiple hits flung spall and fragments off the inside of
the armour so badly that the crews had to wear chainmail facemasks.
Hitting a rivet would blow it through the armour and turn it into a
bullet-like projectile ricocheting around inside the hull.

[2] Mobile Direct Fire Equipment Replacement. A very open concept study,
examining how much protection you can get from active measures
(anti-sensor, jamming, deception) and how much passive protection
(armour, camouflage) you still need to be able to operate on the
battlefield.
--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 21
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:46:37 +0100
On Saturday, Nov 8, 2003, at 03:07 Europe/Paris, Max Noel wrote:

> All of this is, of course, assuming the attacker has scored less than
> 2 successes on his gunnery test. Which will seldom be the case, and
> once the damage is in the DN range, it's not even worth trying to
> survive it (MADCAP torpedo against a regular, non-naval target: TN to
> resist 100, and unless you get less than 2 more successes than the
> attacker -- too tired to calculate the odds but they're ridiculous --
> that's 36 boxes of damage for you).
>
Attempting to resist a TN of 100 is difficult. With 22 dice to score
1 success is 3.899E-10 %. Basically impossible. However, I imagine if
you knew the attack were coming you would have a MUCH better chance to
dodge. :-)

--
Scott Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86
Message no. 22
From: gpammenter@*****.com (Gareth Pammenter)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 19:25:16 -0800 (PST)
> Scott Harrison <scott@**********.com> said:
<snippage>
> Attempting to resist a TN of 100 is difficult.
> With 22 dice to score
> 1 success is 3.899E-10 %. Basically impossible.
> However, I imagine if
> you knew the attack were coming you would have a
> MUCH better chance to
> dodge. :-)
>
> --
> Scott Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86


It's hard to dodge Navel class weaponry, as (if I
recall correctly), they pretty much all have AoE's.
Which means that even an LN navel gun will do "Normal
D level" damage at double it's power in meters.

In short, people go squish. On the upside, Navel
weaponry can't target anything much smaller then a
tank. :)

Grim Shear
"Don't make me break out Gertrude!"


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Message no. 23
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: GMC Stonewall MTB
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:00:13 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillip Gawlowski" <cmd_jackryan@***.net>
To: "Shadowrun Discussion" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: GMC Stonewall MTB


> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:21:59 -0800 hat Anders Swenson
> <anders@**********.com> geschrieben:
>
>
>>If aircraft carriers and jet fighters are detailled, then MBTs are also
needed. I think it would be a blast to
> > hijack a tank for one-shot use.
> > --Anders
>
> Well, you know, MBTs aren't the weapon of choice anymore on a battlefield.

> Phillip Gawlowski

So, what kind of an MBT can you squeeze out of Rigger 3? How vulnerable is
it to
other weapon systems?
--Anders

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about GMC Stonewall MTB, 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!