Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: David Buehrer dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:46:44 -0700 (MST)
Elling Polden wrote:
/
/ > / Further I think the SR3 Armor rules are Crap
/ >
/ > How so?
/
/ I would say that it is kinda crappy that you cant hurt a Bulldog
/ Stepvan BC with a HMG. Sure armor technology has advanced, but my
/ impression is that you can damage a present day APC with 7,62 ball
/ (That would be a MMG). IMHU it was uneccesary and bad for the game to
/ halve weapon power before apying to hardened armor. Now you have to
/ get a friggin' LAW to hurt your neighbourhood pizza delivery van.Not
/ to mention Steel Lynx drones or dudes with heavy armor. A light Mil
/ grade armor can now take non-armor piercing Assault cannon round no
/ sweat. Nosir, i dont like it (And im the one thats making 36D ATGMS)

Ah. That's a reflection of the design philosophy behind Shadowrun,
IMHO. Shadowrun is a game of running and hiding in the shadows. Not
stepping into the spotlight. IMHO heavy armor is a spotlight; avoid
it, go around it, but don't try to go through it.

Also, heavy armor is a wonderful GM tool. When encountered it's the
GM's way of saying, "You're going to have to use your brain to get out
of this one," or "You've been caught. Surrender now, let the bad guy
tell you his plan, make your escape, and *then* defeat him."

If heavy armor was easy to defeat then it would become a ho hum element
of combat. As it stands now when the PCs encounter heavy armor their
first thought is, "Oh shit." It's impressive as hell and demands that the
PCs use their heads. It's a challenge to be embraced.

Also, on the few occasions when the GM gives the PCs those LAWs to take
out the oppositions APCs in the final battle, or let's them drive the
MBT through the city streets in the radical chase scene, it's icing on
the cake. It's special. If you change the armor rules then you turn a
unique flavor into a bland filler ingredient. (Forgive the baking
analogy, my mind is on food this morning :)

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 2
From: Sven De Herdt Sven.DeHerdt@***********.be
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:22:47 +0100
> David Buehrer [SMTP:dbuehrer@******.carl.org] Wrote:
>Also, heavy armor is a wonderful GM tool. When encountered it's the
>GM's way of saying, "You're going to have to use your brain to get out
>of this one," or "You've been caught. Surrender now, let the bad guy
>tell you his plan, make your escape, and *then* defeat him."

I especially love military armor: it is hardened/heavy armor and it is
very hard to get by... for a runner that is (Moehahahaha...).

Sven ;-)
Message no. 3
From: Protokol13 Protokol13@********.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:29:40 -0500
David Buehrer wrote:

> >>>

> ...IMHO. Shadowrun is a game of running and hiding in the shadows. Not
> stepping into the spotlight. IMHO heavy armor is a spotlight; avoid
> it, go around it, but don't try to go through it.
>
> Also, heavy armor is a wonderful GM tool. When encountered it's the
> GM's way of saying, "You're going to have to use your brain to get out
> of this one," or "You've been caught. Surrender now, let the bad guy
> tell you his plan, make your escape, and *then* defeat him."
>
> ... As it stands now when the PCs encounter heavy armor their
> first thought is, "Oh shit." It's impressive as hell and demands that the
> PCs use their heads...

>>>

That is very true... It has to be taken into consideration that whether or not
the runners are heavily armed, they are still "living in the shadows".
Running around with big guns, and gunning down security vehicles, and blowing
up large vehicles is a big no-no. After all, there's always someone who will
have more resources than even the best runner, and I doubt anyone wants to
attract the wrath of a very powerful person.

I find that making things close to impossible, should be a must in some
situations. It forces runners to think, rather than shoot. I had some
adventures, that ended up in bloodbaths because players didn't get the "hint",
that they shouldn't take on powerful opposition. The players were really mad
at 1st, but they soon realized that I really did give them a chance. The only
ones that survived were the ones that were thinking, rather than shooting like
wild men. Let's just say that they have a new view of my adventures now, they
actually are a lot more fearful of areas where anyone would be fearful. I
felt sorry for the "bloodbath", but if I let them off easy they would've never
learned. The only problem is that it can be quite easy to kill of players
with things such as heavy armor, and powerful magics. It has to be also be
taken into consideration that players should trust the GM as a fair judge,
with a little favor for his players. In some situations it should also be
possible to give players a chance against heavily armored characters or
vehicles... Sensors, armor weakspots, etc...

-=PrOtoKol13=-
ICQ: 17589925
Message no. 4
From: Elling Polden thorondor_sr@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:37:13 -0800 (PST)
Under the old rules you still couldn't take out a heavily armored
opponent unless you where packing major firepower. SR 2 Ligh Mil Armor
could still take a LAW in the chest. Now you need ATGM.
The major argument in the defence of the new armor rules is that it
makes it harder for the runners to take on better equiped NPCs.
Problem here is that this goes bouth ways. Lets take the ole Buldog
Stepvan BC. It is a unrestricted civilian vehicle, costs maybe 60 K,
and you need armorpiercers to even harm it. Any runner that is not
stupid would get one, and tadah! they are prety close to unstoppable.
And if you dont get a StepVan you can buy similar protection for your
family car for 6250 Nuyen. No police partol (Maybe exept for in
Aztland) has the firepower to stopp it if you use runnflat tires. The
same goes for the Ford Canada Bison, one of the more popular runner
rides. It migth have only four points of armor, but that is enough to
stopp a Assault Riffle. With the old rules you had to have atleast a
security grade vehicle to get that kind of protection. Now its free
for any runner to buy, and they even changed the only ammo that could
stopp a 9+armored vehicle. Thus our friends in the Star have to bring
in the realy big guns to even be a challenge to the runners. More
effective armor causes a kind of a inflation in weapons. Not because
players are munchies, but because they have to get bigger guns to
survive, and the GM must bring in bigger guns to be a threat to the
runners. The old armo rules should be sufficient to prevent runners
from tangeling with pepole out of their leauge. If they do anyway and
die, Hey, thats evolution to you. If your players cant be kept from
doing someting stupid without making it imposible, its better to let
the be buchered by that SWAT team and begin again a little bit wiser
so that they won't try the next time.

Elling Polden


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 5
From: David Buehrer dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:22:22 -0700 (MST)
Elling Polden wrote:
/
/ Problem here is that this goes bouth ways. Lets take the ole Buldog
/ Stepvan BC. It is a unrestricted civilian vehicle, costs maybe 60 K,
/ and you need armorpiercers to even harm it. Any runner that is not
/ stupid would get one, and tadah! they are prety close to unstoppable.

IMO any runner that *would* get one would be stupid. If they use a Bulldog
then they turn the spotlight on themselves and they aren't in the shadows
anymore. The Bulldog marks them and makes it easy to ID their handy work.

The point of being a shadowrunner is to stay in the shadows. That means
buying equipment that you can take into the shadows with you. That means
operating in the shadows.

As you pointed out using something like the Bulldog will bring the
wrath of Lone Star (or a corp's paramilitary assets) down upon you.

The smart thing to do is to get an inconspicuous Ford Americar that you
can ditch if you need to without losing much.

Also, if you jump into the spotlight Johnsons will stop hiring you.
They want shadowrunners, people who are subtle and can pull off a job
with a minimum of fuss. If you shadowrunning with a Bulldog and heavy
weapons you're going to attract a lot of attention that Johnsons don't
want.

/ Thus our friends in the Star have to bring
/ in the realy big guns to even be a challenge to the runners. More
/ effective armor causes a kind of a inflation in weapons. Not because
/ players are munchies, but because they have to get bigger guns to
/ survive, and the GM must bring in bigger guns to be a threat to the
/ runners.

My advice to any GM who has players that do this is to not play the
escalation game. Let them have their big guns and toys and roleplay
the consequences of their actions. Johnsons will stop offering them
jobs. Contacts will start to distance themselves from the PCs. Lone
Star will be prowling for them, forcing the PCs to move around and
hide. If they cause enough mayhem Lone Star will come gunning for
them. But Lone Star won't take the direct route. They'll track down
the characters and ambush them, capturing them alive, taking away their
toys, and tossing them into prison where the challenge is staying alive
and making their escape.

If you play the escalation game and kill the unruley PCs, no one really
learns anything.

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 6
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 22:31:15 +0000
In article <19990226173713.5711.rocketmail@******.yahoomail.com>, Elling
Polden <thorondor_sr@*****.com> writes
>Problem here is that this goes bouth ways. Lets take the ole Buldog
>Stepvan BC. It is a unrestricted civilian vehicle, costs maybe 60 K,
>and you need armorpiercers to even harm it. Any runner that is not
>stupid would get one, and tadah! they are prety close to unstoppable.

Nope. Lone Star get the plates, or just have a Condor drone above it.
Watch it, follow it, and when it stops at a residence a SWAT team in
milspec armour (which Lone Star are licenced to wear) armed with Really
Big Guns go in and take out everyone who was driving it, with a few
ATGMs into the Bulldog to be sure it doesn't start driving around
shooting people.

You carry big guns, you get a big response. It becomes extremely
worthwhile to take you out.

>And if you dont get a StepVan you can buy similar protection for your
>family car for 6250 Nuyen. No police partol (Maybe exept for in
>Aztland) has the firepower to stopp it if you use runnflat tires.

If you're shooting it out with the cops, you're in so much trouble
already...

Sure, you can blast past the cops. But you're _wanted_. You're known.
You are no longer anonymous. And that's the end of your useful
shadowrunning days.

>More
>effective armor causes a kind of a inflation in weapons. Not because
>players are munchies, but because they have to get bigger guns to
>survive,

Why? Why not be more picky about their fights?

I grew up playing Traveller and Call of Cthulhu, which are to RPGs what
Rainbow Six is to first-person shooters: guns _kill_, firefights are
dangerous and best avoided, and gunplay is a good way to die.

> and the GM must bring in bigger guns to be a threat to the
>runners.

Nah. All you need is to have the work dry up. The idea of shadowrunners
is that they're inconspicuous and deniable. Employers don't want too
much noise... unless they're hiring sacrificial decoys to draw fire.
Johnsons want teams who don't draw heat onto them.

Big guns and lots of noise is _bad_ for business.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 7
From: Ken KSchrader@********.net
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 19:41:01 -0500
This might be opening a big can of worms here but wouldn't police have gear
that would hit the electrical systems of vehicles. No need to blow past the
armor then. Fry the electronics and if the runners don't come out have a
flatbed towtruck come along and move the vehicle away back to the station
where there would likely be a large enough canopener...

-----Original Message-----
From: shadowrn-admin@*********.org
[mailto:shadowrn-admin@*********.org]On Behalf Of Paul J. Adam
Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 5:31 PM
To: shadowRN@*********.org
Subject: Re: Heavy Armor


In article <19990226173713.5711.rocketmail@******.yahoomail.com>, Elling
Polden <thorondor_sr@*****.com> writes
>Problem here is that this goes bouth ways. Lets take the ole Buldog
>Stepvan BC. It is a unrestricted civilian vehicle, costs maybe 60 K,
>and you need armorpiercers to even harm it. Any runner that is not
>stupid would get one, and tadah! they are prety close to unstoppable.

Nope. Lone Star get the plates, or just have a Condor drone above it.
Watch it, follow it, and when it stops at a residence a SWAT team in
milspec armour (which Lone Star are licenced to wear) armed with Really
Big Guns go in and take out everyone who was driving it, with a few
ATGMs into the Bulldog to be sure it doesn't start driving around
shooting people.

You carry big guns, you get a big response. It becomes extremely
worthwhile to take you out.

>And if you dont get a StepVan you can buy similar protection for your
>family car for 6250 Nuyen. No police partol (Maybe exept for in
>Aztland) has the firepower to stopp it if you use runnflat tires.

If you're shooting it out with the cops, you're in so much trouble
already...

Sure, you can blast past the cops. But you're _wanted_. You're known.
You are no longer anonymous. And that's the end of your useful
shadowrunning days.

>More
>effective armor causes a kind of a inflation in weapons. Not because
>players are munchies, but because they have to get bigger guns to
>survive,

Why? Why not be more picky about their fights?

I grew up playing Traveller and Call of Cthulhu, which are to RPGs what
Rainbow Six is to first-person shooters: guns _kill_, firefights are
dangerous and best avoided, and gunplay is a good way to die.

> and the GM must bring in bigger guns to be a threat to the
>runners.

Nah. All you need is to have the work dry up. The idea of shadowrunners
is that they're inconspicuous and deniable. Employers don't want too
much noise... unless they're hiring sacrificial decoys to draw fire.
Johnsons want teams who don't draw heat onto them.

Big guns and lots of noise is _bad_ for business.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 8
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 12:11:01 +0100
According to David Buehrer, at 11:22 on 26 Feb 99, the word on
the street was...

> IMO any runner that *would* get one would be stupid. If they use a Bulldog
> then they turn the spotlight on themselves and they aren't in the shadows
> anymore. The Bulldog marks them and makes it easy to ID their handy work.

You should tell that the player in my group who owns a heavily-armored
Ares Roadmaster (or "Ares Roadshow" as it's been named after all the
modifications he's made to it, including oversized wheels, 16 headlights,
and a 4,000-nuyen stereo). The other players keep telling him that they
won't take that truck if they want to not draw attention to themselves,
but they don't always succeed in convincing him.

Which is fine from the GM's POV... :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"The only mechanoids ever issued with genetalia were those serving
aboard Italian starships" --Kryten, Red Dwarf VIII
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 9
From: David Hinkley dhinkley@***.org
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 03:27:43 -0800
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
Subject: Re: Heavy Armor
To: shadowrn@*********.org
Date sent: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:22:22 -0700 (MST)
Send reply to: shadowrn@*********.org

> Elling Polden wrote:
> /
> / Problem here is that this goes bouth ways. Lets take the ole Buldog
> / Stepvan BC. It is a unrestricted civilian vehicle, costs maybe 60 K,
> / and you need armorpiercers to even harm it. Any runner that is not
> / stupid would get one, and tadah! they are prety close to unstoppable.
>
> IMO any runner that *would* get one would be stupid. If they use a Bulldog
> then they turn the spotlight on themselves and they aren't in the shadows
> anymore. The Bulldog marks them and makes it easy to ID their handy work.

Paint it chocolote brown, put the driver in a brown uniform and the vehicle
disapears in a North American City. Want have an invisible car? Start with a
medium priced four dour sedan, paint it bright yellow, put a lit in service light
on top, paint a name on the side and the police will never get a useful
discription.


>
> The point of being a shadowrunner is to stay in the shadows. That means
> buying equipment that you can take into the shadows with you. That means
> operating in the shadows.

With careful camoflague you can make your own shadows at high noon.

> As you pointed out using something like the Bulldog will bring the
> wrath of Lone Star (or a corp's paramilitary assets) down upon you.
>
> The smart thing to do is to get an inconspicuous Ford Americar that you
> can ditch if you need to without losing much.

Stolen from a long term parking lot, with stolen plates from another vehicle,
put the originals back on just before you dump it. Or leave the stolen plates
on it, the keys in the ignition, a bit of evidence in the trunk and park it in a
high crime area <EPCG>




David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

===================================================Those who are too intelligent to engage
in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato
Message no. 10
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:14:06 -0500 (EST)
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Paul J. Adam wrote:

> Nope. Lone Star get the plates, or just have a Condor drone above it.
> Watch it, follow it, and when it stops at a residence a SWAT team in
> milspec armour (which Lone Star are licenced to wear) armed with Really
> Big Guns go in and take out everyone who was driving it, with a few
> ATGMs into the Bulldog to be sure it doesn't start driving around
> shooting people.

...and the blast kills twenty innocent civilians in a nearby
streetside cafe...
Seriously, I don't think this would be their first response. Cops
(even Lone Star) have a duty to "serve and protect," which means that
unless they have a *damn* good reason, they're not going to start throwing
heavy ordnance around on the street.

> You carry big guns, you get a big response. It becomes extremely
> worthwhile to take you out.

While I tend to agree with this, I tend to think that the "big"
response you get won't necessarily involve missile salvos.

> >effective armor causes a kind of a inflation in weapons. Not because
> >players are munchies, but because they have to get bigger guns to
> >survive,
>
> Why? Why not be more picky about their fights?

I agree with Paul on this one. And contrary to what people seem
to think, combat in Shadowrun *can* be deadly. One of the PC's virtually
*always* gets wounded, and things just start to go downhill from there.
Now the PC's in my campaign are doing a tour as mercs in Southeast Asia,
and they are discovering just how bad combat can suck. Think of it as an
object lesson, a way to "get it out of their systems," if you will.

> Big guns and lots of noise is _bad_ for business.

Amen, brother.

Marc
Message no. 11
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:40:47 +0000
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.990301085337.4766A-100000@*******>, Marc
Renouf <renouf@********.com> writes
>On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> Nope. Lone Star get the plates, or just have a Condor drone above it.
>> Watch it, follow it, and when it stops at a residence a SWAT team in
>> milspec armour (which Lone Star are licenced to wear) armed with Really
>> Big Guns go in and take out everyone who was driving it, with a few
>> ATGMs into the Bulldog to be sure it doesn't start driving around
>> shooting people.
>
> ...and the blast kills twenty innocent civilians in a nearby
>streetside cafe...

You do pick the point at which to engage :) Try to minimise casualties
and all that.

> Seriously, I don't think this would be their first response. Cops
>(even Lone Star) have a duty to "serve and protect," which means that
>unless they have a *damn* good reason, they're not going to start throwing
>heavy ordnance around on the street.

No, but on the other hand they aren't going to twiddle their thumbs
while you run amok with assault rifles and grenade launchers either. You
will get dealt with. You will, unless you're extremely careful, be
fought to a standstill and killed or captured.

>> You carry big guns, you get a big response. It becomes extremely
>> worthwhile to take you out.
>
> While I tend to agree with this, I tend to think that the "big"
>response you get won't necessarily involve missile salvos.

Depends how nasty your vehicle is and various other factors. The British
Army issued 40mm MECAR rifle grenades to units in Northern Ireland to
deal with cars that crashed checkpoints, for instance. Use one and you
better have a damn good reason for doing so... but you've got them on
issue, because they were needed to deal with the threat.

That doesn't mean every Lone Star patrol car has a case of LAWs in the
boot, but it _does_ mean they have them available to deal with heavily
armed/armoured threats. Corporate units caught operating outside
jurisdiction, as much as shadowrunners...

The cops will have the means to deal with a lot of threats. They won't
always leap to the most lethal option, but they will try to contain and
minimise a threat as fast and safely as they can.


>> Why? Why not be more picky about their fights?
>
> I agree with Paul on this one. And contrary to what people seem
>to think, combat in Shadowrun *can* be deadly. One of the PC's virtually
>*always* gets wounded, and things just start to go downhill from there.

Yep. You're bleeding. People remember someone who was dripping blood and
had bullet holes in his/her clothing. Makes a clean getaway hard... plus
you're leaving evidence splashed all over the place.

You need someone to fix you up. How much do you trust your streetdoc?
What's the price on your head right now?

And so on it goes. Gunshot wounds are _not_ nice, they need quite a lot
of surgical repair work and the sooner the better.


>Now the PC's in my campaign are doing a tour as mercs in Southeast Asia,
>and they are discovering just how bad combat can suck. Think of it as an
>object lesson, a way to "get it out of their systems," if you will.

Yep. Nothing like being wounded, short of ammunition and hunted to focus
the mind :)

>> Big guns and lots of noise is _bad_ for business.
>
> Amen, brother.

They call it "shadowrunning" for a reason: get into the light and the
work dries up.

Apart from people hiring expendable trigger-happy bozos to act as
distraction, of course, but that neither pays well nor offers many
retirement options.
--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 12
From: Scott Peterson herne454@*******.net
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 17:25:17 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_001C_01BE6408.794C1DA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul J. Adam <Paul@********.demon.co.uk>
To: shadowRN@*********.org <shadowRN@*********.org>
Date: Monday, March 01, 1999 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Heavy Armor



>No, but on the other hand they aren't going to twiddle their thumbs
>while you run amok with assault rifles and grenade launchers either. You
>will get dealt with. You will, unless you're extremely careful, be
>fought to a standstill and killed or captured.


Anyone recall LA and two goons in full body armour and lots of ammo for
their uzi and ak's?
300+ cops 4 swat teams and it still took them 4 hours to geek the bastards.
You can bet they havve plans in place for that if it happens again.

>Depends how nasty your vehicle is and various other factors. The British
>Army issued 40mm MECAR rifle grenades to units in Northern Ireland to
>deal with cars that crashed checkpoints, for instance. Use one and you
>better have a damn good reason for doing so... but you've got them on
>issue, because they were needed to deal with the threat.


MECARS's are nice but another example of this type of thing is Look at the
west bank of Isreal.....the IDF has started allowing light MG's and Im not
sure if itfs RPGs or Rifle Grenades or maybe it was even the new HK grante
pistol, but theve beefed up alot to....threat dictates response...and when
the bad guys have stuff they get their stuff to.....


Another thought is We tend to look at this 2050+ era from 1999 eyes....Dudes
there rampaging critters that cabn be more deadly than a cyber god with a
banshee lav

>That doesn't mean every Lone Star patrol car has a case of LAWs in the
>boot, but it _does_ mean they have them available to deal with heavily
>armed/armoured threats. Corporate units caught operating outside
>jurisdiction, as much as shadowrunners...


I woundnt bet on that....if not a lay atleaset something nasty...

>The cops will have the means to deal with a lot of threats. They won't
>always leap to the most lethal option, but they will try to contain and
>minimise a threat as fast and safely as they can.


True in OUR eyes but again the awakend world is nasty...you can bet they
have 3 primamry modes of responding.

Talk
Side Arm
calling all cars and Tanks:)


Is Scott tough? Yes, Talented? On occasion, Brave? Oh Certainly! He is also
erratic, irresponsible, accident prone and a constant threat to public
Safety. The trick is to keep him pointed in the right direction.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it.
Whenever they shall grow weary of the exhisting government, they can
exercise thier constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary
right to dismember or overthrow it. ---Abraham Lincoln

------=_NextPart_000_001C_01BE6408.794C1DA0
Content-Type: text/x-vcard;
name="Scott Dean Peterson.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="Scott Dean Peterson.vcf"

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Peterson;Scott;Dean
FN:Scott Dean Peterson
ORG:Foundation For Predictive Medicine;Las Cruces Chapter
TITLE:Coordinator
TEL;HOME;VOICE:505-523-9688
TEL;CELL;VOICE:none
TEL;HOME;FAX:505-523-9689
ADR;HOME;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;;600 E boutz=0D=0Abldg 1
=0D=0Aapt a=0D=0A;Las Cruces;NM;88005;USA
LABEL;HOME;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:600 E boutz=0D=0Abldg 1
=0D=0Aapt a=0D=0A=0D=0ALas Cruces, NM
88005=0D=0AUSA
URL:http://tatooine.fortunecity.com/apollo/61/index.html
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:herne454@*******.net
REV:19990302T002516Z
END:VCARD

------=_NextPart_000_001C_01BE6408.794C1DA0--
Message no. 13
From: Wyrmy elfman@******.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 18:47:55 -0600
Scott Peterson wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul J. Adam <Paul@********.demon.co.uk>
> To: shadowRN@*********.org <shadowRN@*********.org>
> Date: Monday, March 01, 1999 3:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Heavy Armor
>
> >No, but on the other hand they aren't going to twiddle their thumbs
> >while you run amok with assault rifles and grenade launchers either. You
> >will get dealt with. You will, unless you're extremely careful, be
> >fought to a standstill and killed or captured.
>
> Anyone recall LA and two goons in full body armour and lots of ammo for
> their uzi and ak's?
> 300+ cops 4 swat teams and it still took them 4 hours to geek the bastards.
> You can bet they havve plans in place for that if it happens again.
>

Can anyone say ,:"choppers with miniguns and rockets standing by, Sir!";
I knew you could. }:^]
--
-W in the light
----------------------------------------------------------
Wyrmy: Wyrm druid, Scholar, Pokemon trainer extroidenaire.
Famous Quote: "Pikachu? What Pikachu?" BZRAK "Oh,(cough), THAT
Pikachu!"
Message no. 14
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:30:01 -0600
:>> ATGMs into the Bulldog to be sure it doesn't start driving around
:>> shooting people.
:>
:> ...and the blast kills twenty innocent civilians in a nearby
:>streetside cafe...
:They call it "shadowrunning" for a reason: get into the light and the
:work dries up.


The bulldog stepvan is described in the original RBB as one of the
most common delivery type panel trucks on the market. If you are getting
on peoples case about what seems (from a stealth AND getaway perspective)
a logical vehicle choice, you might as well advise that they also not wear
armor, not carry guns, and not learn magic spells. Sure, everything in
its right place, but the fact is, most Shadowruns involve (the potential
for) violence, and not being prepared for that is plane old stupid. I'd
much rather my character have to hide a gun I did not use than need a gun
I don't have...
I think this whole discussion spun out of control into the area of
self congratulatory "anti-munchkin" back patting that ignores how
frequently normal shadowrunners get attacked and how easily shadowruns
turn violent.
Shadowrunners almost never have the timetable or information needed to
construct reliable "sneak in, grab, leave" plans, and ARE hired for their
ability to deal with what happens when they encounter opposition. They
get a good reputation if they cause fewer problems than they solve, but
most employers don't mind a little boom and bang on the job- some (like
Ares, or the mob) actually request it, and not just from their
"expendable" unattached assets.

Mongoose
Message no. 15
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:56:55 +0100
According to Mongoose, at 15:30 on 4 Mar 99, the word on
the street was...

> The bulldog stepvan is described in the original RBB as one of the
> most common delivery type panel trucks on the market. If you are getting
> on peoples case about what seems (from a stealth AND getaway perspective)
> a logical vehicle choice, you might as well advise that they also not wear
> armor, not carry guns, and not learn magic spells. Sure, everything in
> its right place, but the fact is, most Shadowruns involve (the potential
> for) violence, and not being prepared for that is plane old stupid. I'd
> much rather my character have to hide a gun I did not use than need a gun
> I don't have...

And it pays to do some extra work to insure that. For example, in one run
our team had to infiltrate a party, but it was strictly no-weapons-
allowed. So, we hijacked a caterer's van, dressed one of our team up as
the driver, and had her hide weapons at the party site. In the end the
only shots fired were from a Narcoject pistol, but we _had_ weapons in
case things would have gotten out of hand.

> I think this whole discussion spun out of control into the area of
> self congratulatory "anti-munchkin" back patting that ignores how
> frequently normal shadowrunners get attacked and how easily shadowruns
> turn violent.

Exactly. It pays to be prepared for a worst-case scenario even if you
don't expect it to happen. Almost _any_ shadowrun will involve some shots
being fired at some point, in my experience.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Hoera, we leven nog!
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 16
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 23:08:28 +0000
In article <01bd01be6687$37c30b60$0d3ef1cf@****>, Mongoose
<m0ng005e@*********.com> writes
>:They call it "shadowrunning" for a reason: get into the light and the
>:work dries up.
>
> The bulldog stepvan is described in the original RBB as one of the
>most common delivery type panel trucks on the market. If you are getting
>on peoples case about what seems (from a stealth AND getaway perspective)
>a logical vehicle choice, you might as well advise that they also not wear
>armor, not carry guns, and not learn magic spells.

If common vehicles need Big Weapons to deal with, cops will have Big
Weapons. After all, there are criminals beyond shadowrunners, and
there's only so many times that crooks can crash a Lone Star roadblock
in their Bulldog before Lone Star upgun to deal with it.

Just a fact of life.

>Sure, everything in
>its right place, but the fact is, most Shadowruns involve (the potential
>for) violence, and not being prepared for that is plane old stupid. I'd
>much rather my character have to hide a gun I did not use than need a gun
>I don't have...

Point is, you considered hiding the gun to be important.

The cops can almost always outgun you. The only way to win a gun battle
with the police is to break contact fast, before they pin you down and
smother you with numbers and firepower. Big Guns work for that... as
long as you remember they're there to help you run away and you don't
get target-fixated.

> I think this whole discussion spun out of control into the area of
>self congratulatory "anti-munchkin" back patting that ignores how
>frequently normal shadowrunners get attacked and how easily shadowruns
>turn violent.

I came in on the idea that you could drive around in a bulletproof
Bulldog van laughing at cops. Using a properly-marked or properly-
anonymous Bulldog to avoid attention, relying on its armour as a
_second_ line of defence rather than the first, troubles me not at all,
but if it's a common vehicle then it'll be commonly used by criminals
and the cops will have the means to deal with it.


> Shadowrunners almost never have the timetable or information needed to
>construct reliable "sneak in, grab, leave" plans, and ARE hired for their
>ability to deal with what happens when they encounter opposition. They
>get a good reputation if they cause fewer problems than they solve, but
>most employers don't mind a little boom and bang on the job- some (like
>Ares, or the mob) actually request it, and not just from their
>"expendable" unattached assets.

True: but, again, a firefight means you were noticed and being noticed
is bad for the life expectancy. Doesn't mean certain death, but it _is_
to be avoided if at all possible.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 17
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 19:04:42 EST
In a message dated 3/5/99 7:01:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Paul@********.demon.co.uk writes:

> If common vehicles need Big Weapons to deal with, cops will have Big
> Weapons. After all, there are criminals beyond shadowrunners, and
> there's only so many times that crooks can crash a Lone Star roadblock
> in their Bulldog before Lone Star upgun to deal with it.
>
> Just a fact of life.

An alternate thought: how many of the Bulldogs are sold per year, per capita,
on average? Not many, I bet. Such vehicles might turn out to be rather easy
to trace. And driving an easily traced vehicle is BAD news for runners.

Besides which, you can _always_ decide Lone Star, in that town, has started
packing one or two disposable AVM launchers in the trunk of each patrol car,
what with the number of heavy vehicles running roadblocks after (presumably)
violent crimes. Pop an AVM at a big, slow-moving (comparatively anyway), and
easy-to-target Bulldog, and the passengers thereof are going to SERIOUSLY
reconsider their choice of ride. :-) Or die, either way it solves the
problem. Heh.

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 18
From: Elling Polden thorondor_sr@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 02:55:36 -0800 (PST)
---GMPax@***.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/5/99 7:01:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> Paul@********.demon.co.uk writes:
>
> > If common vehicles need Big Weapons to deal with, cops will have Big
> > Weapons. After all, there are criminals beyond shadowrunners, and
> > there's only so many times that crooks can crash a Lone Star
roadblock
> > in their Bulldog before Lone Star upgun to deal with it.
> >
> > Just a fact of life.
>
> An alternate thought: how many of the Bulldogs are sold per year,
per capita,
> on average? Not many, I bet. Such vehicles might turn out to be
rather easy
> to trace. And driving an easily traced vehicle is BAD news for
runners.

Well, as the Bulldog (with the new armor rules, anyway) gives you as
much protection as it does, they will be fairly common. Every
gangerlord that can aford it will get one. The Mob will get theirs,
and so will the Yacks, the Corps, about every delivery service in the
sprawl as well a heaps of Uprigth citicens that are conserned about
GoGangs. The Sprawl is huge and my bett is that there must be tens of
thousands of StepVans out there.
>
> Besides which, you can _always_ decide Lone Star, in that town, has
started
> packing one or two disposable AVM launchers in the trunk of each
patrol car,
> what with the number of heavy vehicles running roadblocks after
(presumably)
> violent crimes. Pop an AVM at a big, slow-moving (comparatively
anyway), and
> easy-to-target Bulldog, and the passengers thereof are going to
SERIOUSLY
> reconsider their choice of ride. :-) Or die, either way it solves the
> problem. Heh.

This brings me back to my original critisim of the new armor rules.
Weapon Inflation. Tougher armor means there is a need for bigger guns.
with SR2 armor ruels, did LS need AVMs? No. Did the runners need AVMs?
ocationaly when facing corp parmilitary forces. Now the runners need a
AVM to stopp a pizza delivery truck. If the runner need these heavy
weapons to stopp armored vehcles they will get them. It is not
munchie. Its called keeping the edge. If the runner do not have the
equipment to handle what he is facing, he cant do his job. He is
losing his edge. He is further reducing his own chanses of survival. A
runner will always try to ensure his chanse of survival. A PC that
doesnt is not realistic. Ensuring your survival does not mean hosing
everything with LMGs, it means having the tools to handle what you are
likely to face. With the old armor rules this would be a heavy
Pistol,SMG or assault rifle.
No need for missiles and stuff. IMHO the new armor rules upsett game
balance(especialy since all vehicles where designed to be used with
the old rules), and should thus be ignored.

Thorondor

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 19
From: David Hinkley dhinkley@***.org
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 03:25:06 -0800
From: GMPax@***.com
Date sent: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 19:04:42 EST
To: shadowrn@*********.org
Subject: Re: Heavy Armor
Send reply to: shadowrn@*********.org

> In a message dated 3/5/99 7:01:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> Paul@********.demon.co.uk writes:
>
> > If common vehicles need Big Weapons to deal with, cops will have Big
> > Weapons. After all, there are criminals beyond shadowrunners, and
> > there's only so many times that crooks can crash a Lone Star roadblock
> > in their Bulldog before Lone Star upgun to deal with it.
> >
> > Just a fact of life.
>
> An alternate thought: how many of the Bulldogs are sold per year, per capita,
> on average? Not many, I bet. Such vehicles might turn out to be rather easy
> to trace. And driving an easily traced vehicle is BAD news for runners.

The RBB discribes the Bulldog as "a standard, reliable delivery truck" and
goes on to say "All the major delivery services...use them". So I would say
that the number is in the ten's of thousands nationwide. And if you were to
paint your truck in the same livery as one of the large parcel delivery or
diaper services in your area of operations, the truck would disapear in plan
site. If you copied a 24 hour service it would work at night too. And even if
you are spotted getting away, the discription would fit a lot of other vehicles
on the road.

This method works almost as well as painting your get-away car bright yellow.






David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

===================================================Those who are too intelligent to engage
in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato
Message no. 20
From: Veskrashen veskrashen@*******.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 12:27:42 -0600
As far as this whole thread goes, i was wondering if anyone had tried
to reverse-engineer any of the old designs for vehicles, like the
bulldog, to see if they jive with the new construction rules. I know
that my old Westwind 2000s with 9 armor are illegal now...
If they dont jibe, then that would help a bit for the armor debate,
making it so that vehicles were at least a bit less invincible. As far
as regular vehicles go, though, the unarmored ones i mean, they seem
way too fragile. It is very difficult to render even a Yugo inoperable
using an assault rifle: the vehicle is usually damaged, but also
usually stops because the driver is seriously wounded or the tires get
blown out at high speed. Actual vehicle damage is far more difficult
to achieve, as the large blocks of metal comprising the drivetrain and
engine are rather durable, and resist 450 grain lumps of deformed
high-speed lead a lot better than body panels and windows do.
My suggestion: rules for targetting the driver and passengers,
through doors and windows, causing damage to the and only armor
degradation and minor cosmetic damage to the vehicle itself. This
removes the problem of reworking the armor rules entirely (though i
think a rework of the 2nd ed rules to make them a bit tougher might
work), and would more accurately simulate real-life solutions.

-Mojo.
Message no. 21
From: JonSzeto@***.com JonSzeto@***.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 14:15:51 EST
Elling Polden <thorondor_sr@*****.com> wrote,

> This brings me back to my original critisim of the new armor rules.
> Weapon Inflation. Tougher armor means there is a need for bigger guns.
> with SR2 armor ruels, did LS need AVMs? No. Did the runners need AVMs?
> ocationaly when facing corp parmilitary forces. Now the runners need a
> AVM to stopp a pizza delivery truck. If the runner need these heavy
> weapons to stopp armored vehcles they will get them. It is not
> munchie. Its called keeping the edge. If the runner do not have the
> equipment to handle what he is facing, he cant do his job. He is
> losing his edge. He is further reducing his own chanses of survival. A
> runner will always try to ensure his chanse of survival. A PC that
> doesnt is not realistic. Ensuring your survival does not mean hosing
> everything with LMGs, it means having the tools to handle what you are
> likely to face. With the old armor rules this would be a heavy
> Pistol,SMG or assault rifle.

A standard GMC Bulldog (not the special Bonded Courier version) has a
Body/Armor Rating of 4/2 (p. 157, R2). Under SR3 rules, this makes it immune
to all weapons with a Damage Level of L (hold-outs and light pistols), as well
as all other weapons with a Base Power of 4 (heavy pistols generally have a
base Power of 9-10, SMGs 6-7, assault rifles 8).

For argument's sake, let's say it got struck by an SMG (6M) firing in semi-
auto mode. The van then rolls 4 dice against a Damage Code of 1L (6/2 - 2 = 1,
-1 Damage Level reduction b/c it's a vehicle). Assuming the attacker only got
the minimum 1 success to hit the van (and that the van is unrigged, and thus
unable to make a Dodge Test), then the van needs to get 3 successes to shrug
off all damage altogether. If the attacker got 3 or more successes, the van
would have taken at least Light damage. If the attacker was shooting the SMG
in burst or FA mode, it would have taken more.

In this particular instance, I don't see how the 3rd edition armor & vehicle
rules encourage weapon inflation. No, you aren't guaranteed a certain kill
with anything less than an AVM, but you WILL do damage.

In fact, I don't see weapon inflation being a problem, unless characters
regularly use or encounter vehicles with an Armor Rating of 5 or greater. And
that's something that a GM should certainly be able to control. (Unless you
actually like those kinds of high-octane games.)

-- Jon
Message no. 22
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 14:33:11 EST
In a message dated 3/6/99 1:29:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
veskrashen@*******.com writes:

> My suggestion: rules for targetting the driver and passengers,
> through doors and windows, causing damage to the and only armor
> degradation and minor cosmetic damage to the vehicle itself. This
> removes the problem of reworking the armor rules entirely (though i
> think a rework of the 2nd ed rules to make them a bit tougher might
> work), and would more accurately simulate real-life solutions.
>
> -Mojo.

Another thought: Make the vehicles take standard damage from ALL weapons
(light = 1 box, moderate = 3 boxes, etc).

Then multiply the BOXES of damage for the vehicle by some large amount,
perhaps based on the body of the vehicle. For example:

BODY Multiplier Total Damage Boxes
0 0.1 1
1-2 1.0 10
3-5 2.0 20
6-9 3.0 30
10-14 4.0 40
15+ 5.0 50

In this way, you still reflect the "cause any damage to a body 0 minidrone,
and it is destroyed" ... 1 box of damage wrecks it totally. :-)

However, for larger, high-body vehicles, say a decent truck with Body 4 or 5,
and it would take TWO "deadly" level wounds to wreck it. In _addition_ to the
regular staging-down of non AV class weapons.

Lastly, you can of course ALWAYS attack the passengers of the vehicle, you
just have to penetrate the vehicle's armor. Might be 0, for normal, civilian
cars. Might be 10 or 20, for military vehicles. This penetration should NOT,
however, include the BODY of the vehicle in the calculations. After all, yer
not TRYING to put slugs into the frame or engine, you are trying to go through
the doors and windows.

And finally, of course, there are the called shots to things like tires,
windows, et al. And the ever-popular Magnesium bullet through the gas tank.
<g>

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 23
From: Veskrashen veskrashen@*******.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 15:04:54 -0600
GMPax@***.com wrote:
> Another thought: Make the vehicles take standard damage from ALL weapons
> (light = 1 box, moderate = 3 boxes, etc).
>
> Then multiply the BOXES of damage for the vehicle by some large amount,
> perhaps based on the body of the vehicle. For example:
<SNIP table and effects thereof...>

Yeah, i agree with you here. Maybe not scale it up so quickly, but it
definitely makes more sense...

> Lastly, you can of course ALWAYS attack the passengers of the vehicle, you
> just have to penetrate the vehicle's armor. Might be 0, for normal, civilian
> cars. Might be 10 or 20, for military vehicles. This penetration should NOT,
> however, include the BODY of the vehicle in the calculations. After all, yer
> not TRYING to put slugs into the frame or engine, you are trying to go through
> the doors and windows.

IMHO, the armor of a vehicle does not include the windows. Those
function just like normal armored glass (barrier rating 8, 4 for
regular ballistic glass), without the anti-vehicle power and damage
reductions. After all, as far as i can tell, the whole point for the
AV adjustment was to balance out how resislient metal armors can be;
windows just don't follow this rule. Doors, yes.

> And finally, of course, there are the called shots to things like tires,
> windows, et al. And the ever-popular Magnesium bullet through the gas tank.
> <g>

Yes. THIS is the sort of thing a cop would resort to: APDS assault
rifle rounds at the driver through the window, explosive rounds at the
tires, fragmentation grenades on contact fuses popped under the front
grill...

Another question: a vehicle gets hit from the side with a force 6
blast manipulation spell, which has a special effect of double
knockdown/knockback. Would the vehicle be knocked over if it were
stationary, or forced to make a crash test if moving? What if the
spell in question were area effect, would that make a difference?

-Mojo.
Message no. 24
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 15:26:20 -0600
On Sat, 06 Mar 1999 15:04:54 -0600 Veskrashen <veskrashen@*******.com>
writes:
<SNIP>
> Yes. THIS is the sort of thing a cop would resort to: APDS assault
>rifle rounds at the driver through the window, explosive rounds at the
>tires, fragmentation grenades on contact fuses popped under the front
>grill...
<SNIP>

I don't know about that... APDS /MAYBE/, Explosives (and explosive
rounds), EXTREMELY unlikely. People bitch about potholes now, imagine
how they'll bitch f the cops are MAKING them whilst trying to catch
someone for going 3 miles over the speed limit ... :)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"You, you're like a spoonful of whoopass." --Grace
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 25
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 15:21:52 -0600
On Sat, 6 Mar 1999 14:33:11 EST GMPax@***.com writes:
>In a message dated 3/6/99 1:29:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>veskrashen@*******.com writes:
<SNIP>
>Another thought: Make the vehicles take standard damage from ALL weapons
>(light = 1 box, moderate = 3 boxes, etc).
>
>Then multiply the BOXES of damage for the vehicle by some large amount,
>perhaps based on the body of the vehicle. For example:
>

I cleaned up the below chart. (note: to ensure consistency on different
systems with a *FIXED WIDTH FONT*:
1) Type messages using a Fixed Width Font, and
2) do not use the the TAB character to align things. Use the spacebar
instead.

>BODY Multiplier Total Damage Boxes
>0 0.1 1
>1-2 1.0 10
>3-5 2.0 20
>6-9 3.0 30
>10-14 4.0 40
>15+ 5.0 50
>
>In this way, you still reflect the "cause any damage to a body 0
minidrone,
>and it is destroyed" ... 1 box of damage wrecks it totally. :-)
>
>However, for larger, high-body vehicles, say a decent truck with Body 4
or 5,
>and it would take TWO "deadly" level wounds to wreck it. In _addition_
to the
>regular staging-down of non AV class weapons.
<SNIP>

Uhm... what happened to "Make the vehicles take standard damage from ALL
weapons (light = 1 box, moderate = 3 boxes, etc)."?

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"You, you're like a spoonful of whoopass." --Grace
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 26
From: Elling Polden thorondor_sr@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 14:40:57 -0800 (PST)
---Veskrashen <veskrashen@*******.com> wrote:
>
> As far as this whole thread goes, i was wondering if anyone had tried
> to reverse-engineer any of the old designs for vehicles, like the
> bulldog, to see if they jive with the new construction rules. I know
> that my old Westwind 2000s with 9 armor are illegal now...
> If they dont jibe, then that would help a bit for the armor debate,
> making it so that vehicles were at least a bit less invincible.

They jive. The Stepvan has Armor five in Rigger 2

As far as regular vehicles go, though, the unarmored ones i mean, they
seem
> way too fragile. It is very difficult to render even a Yugo inoperable
> using an assault rifle: the vehicle is usually damaged, but also
> usually stops because the driver is seriously wounded or the tires get
> blown out at high speed. Actual vehicle damage is far more difficult
> to achieve, as the large blocks of metal comprising the drivetrain and
> engine are rather durable, and resist 450 grain lumps of deformed
> high-speed lead a lot better than body panels and windows do.
> My suggestion: rules for targetting the driver and passengers,
> through doors and windows, causing damage to the and only armor
> degradation and minor cosmetic damage to the vehicle itself. This
> removes the problem of reworking the armor rules entirely (though i
> think a rework of the 2nd ed rules to make them a bit tougher might
> work), and would more accurately simulate real-life solutions.

What about bulletproof glass? You are rigth about the dammage thoug. I
have heard acounts of high speed chases in Northern Ireland where both
parties where using FA weapons. As far as I understood it neither
where trying to disable the opponents car, but rahter take out the
pasangers.(somthing the pusuing brits where unable to do as the PIRA
guys had stacked sandbags against the rear door.)

Elling Polden
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 27
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 18:57:21 EST
In a message dated 3/6/99 4:03:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
veskrashen@*******.com writes:

> Another question: a vehicle gets hit from the side with a force 6
> blast manipulation spell, which has a special effect of double
> knockdown/knockback. Would the vehicle be knocked over if it were
> stationary, or forced to make a crash test if moving? What if the
> spell in question were area effect, would that make a difference?
>
> -Mojo.

IMO, if it's moving, and the force of the spell is high enough, say equal to
the body of the vehicle, or greater; yes, absolutely, a crash test. You've
just been shoved, HARD, in one side.

As for tipping it over, that's iffy. High center-of-gravity trucks (like the
aforementioned Bulldog), sure. However, other vehicles might just be shoved
sideways.

My mother's Ford Escort (a Body 1 or 2 vehicle if EVER there was one, heh ;-),
was hit by a five or six ton roll of material (she works for a textile
company, once known as "Pellon" and now known as Fruedenberg Nonwovens, or
some such ... they make the Fusible Web people use in crafts and clothing so
often; they move the stuff around the plant, including building to building,
on many-ton rolls).

The thing moved the car three feet sideways (the hit was the rear passenger
side quarterpanel). Miracle was, the frame wasn't bent by it, nor was the
alignment affected much (says something for lightweight, easy-to-move cars).

I'd equate six tons of fabric and steel, doing 20-30 mph, as at LEAST a force
6 ram or blast-effect spell, and the little "economy" car didn't roll. :-)

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 28
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 19:02:42 EST
In a message dated 3/6/99 5:15:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, dghost@****.com
writes:

> I don't know about that... APDS /MAYBE/, Explosives (and explosive
> rounds), EXTREMELY unlikely. People bitch about potholes now, imagine
> how they'll bitch f the cops are MAKING them whilst trying to catch
> someone for going 3 miles over the speed limit ... :)
>

Yeah, but: the cops would be pulling out those explosives when the situation
WARRANTED it.

Kind of like the shootout, in LA was it? Where the cops had to go to a GUN
STORE, and borrow guns that coudl HOPE to penetrate the body armor the
criminals were wearing. Normally, big high-powered, automatic and/or armor
piercing firepower is ANATHEMA, in the public's eye, as far as COPS using them
goes.

The gun store owner is well nigh to being a HERO for giving them JUST THAT, to
deal with those morons. <g>

It's all situational. If a runner was fleeing a crime, was a "known murderer
and dangerous fugitive" and had <gasp> killed a COP or two, people would blame
the potholes on SHADOWRUNNERS, as a group.

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 29
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 18:32:30 -0600
On Sat, 6 Mar 1999 19:02:42 EST GMPax@***.com writes:
>In a message dated 3/6/99 5:15:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.com
>writes:
>
>> I don't know about that... APDS /MAYBE/, Explosives (and explosive
>> rounds), EXTREMELY unlikely. People bitch about potholes now,
imagine
>> how they'll bitch f the cops are MAKING them whilst trying to catch
>> someone for going 3 miles over the speed limit ... :)

>Yeah, but: the cops would be pulling out those explosives when the
situation
>WARRANTED it.

Nope. I don't think so. I don't believe the "police" will ever, outside
of Hollywood, start lobbing grenades or launching missles. Nor will they
use flechette ammo. Explosive ammo they *might* use but they are much
more likely to use APDS. I would say, however, that 90+% of the time,
outside of High Threat Response Teams, the cops don't carry anything
except regular ammo. The High Threat Response Teams will (IMO) still
mainly use Regular Ammo but will have APDS handy (with instructions not
to use it unless in DIRE need.).

One way I'd run it is say that the Police supply the cops with regular
ammo but the cops buy their own APDS rounds ...

>Kind of like the shootout, in LA was it? Where the cops had to go to a
GUN
>STORE, and borrow guns that coudl HOPE to penetrate the body armor the
>criminals were wearing. Normally, big high-powered, automatic and/or
armor
>piercing firepower is ANATHEMA, in the public's eye, as far as COPS
using them
>goes.

As far as I know, the gun store owner did NOT give them armor piercing
rounds. Additionally, at exactly what point did the cops start lobbing
grenades at the robbers? They didn't. The property damage and chance of
harming bystanders is just too great. (The cops in SR may not give a
rats ass about bystanders but they do care about bad PR.)

>The gun store owner is well nigh to being a HERO for giving them JUST
THAT, to
>deal with those morons. <g>
>
>It's all situational. If a runner was fleeing a crime, was a "known
murderer
>and dangerous fugitive" and had <gasp> killed a COP or two, people would
blame
>the potholes on SHADOWRUNNERS, as a group.

That would be too big of a risk on the cops part (All it takes is one
snoop and the company stock drops due to the bad press.) and it is not
likely that they will have explosives with them.

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"You, you're like a spoonful of whoopass." --Grace
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 30
From: Paul Gettle RunnerPaul@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 23:12:02 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 02:33 PM 3/6/99 -0500, GMPax@***.com wrote:
>Another thought: Make the vehicles take standard damage from ALL
weapons
>(light = 1 box, moderate = 3 boxes, etc).
>
>Then multiply the BOXES of damage for the vehicle by some large
amount,
>perhaps based on the body of the vehicle. For example:
<<Snip Chart>>
>In this way, you still reflect the "cause any damage to a body 0
minidrone,
>and it is destroyed" ... 1 box of damage wrecks it totally. :-)
>
>However, for larger, high-body vehicles, say a decent truck with Body
4 or 5,
>and it would take TWO "deadly" level wounds to wreck it. In
_addition_ to the
>regular staging-down of non AV class weapons.

This also works well when used in conjunction with a house rule that
allows for damage levels past deadly. That way, large ammounts of
attacker successes, or weapons that have higher levels of base damage
can have a chance of doing signifigant ammounts of damage to a
vehicle, even under the above rules.

There are generally two schools of thought on how many condition
monitor boxes damage levels such as "Deadly Plus" and above should
fill in.

One school duplicates the 1,3,6,10 progression for the higher levels
of damage, with the higher damage levels doing 11,13,16, and 20
contition monitor boxes worth of damage respectively.

The other school notes that Moderate damage does 2 more boxes worth
than Light, Serious does 3 more boxes than Moderate, Deadly does 4
more boxes than Serious, and follows that trend with higher damage
levels doing 15,21,28, and 36 condition monitor boxes worth of damage.

There should be a discussion about "Deadly Plus" levels of damage in
the old ITribe archives, from mid-January 99, under the subject
"Deadly Damage: A misnomer"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQCVAwUBNuH8jaPbvUVI86rNAQHu5wP/b8mCw7kIGgrBwxcCKCjo5uv40e53gfem
a8nzJI0sRx3eQfpSmZxpZa7P1APd7z0ySsayBnTkLQUQzgkxDXa3wh5eNhfOWft/
G/sfuZoKopnY0O+dhB0m+x8R4+WBBJmQBoAkWGI7hXclodL6IhR8w6kiCRFM0qFQ
TnHKmvqpPDs=ZQ0I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 31
From: Aerio Chrome aeriochrome@****.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:55:49 -0600
On Sat, 6 Mar 1999 14:15:51 EST JonSzeto@***.com writes:
>A standard GMC Bulldog (not the special Bonded Courier version) has a
>Body/Armor Rating of 4/2 (p. 157, R2). Under SR3 rules, this makes it
>immune to all weapons with a Damage Level of L (hold-outs and light
pistols),
>as well as all other weapons with a Base Power of 4 (heavy pistols
generally
>have a base Power of 9-10, SMGs 6-7, assault rifles 8).

Uh, unless there is an erratta I missed, SR3 says "If a weapon's reduced
Power (unaugmented by burst or full-auto fire rates) does not exceed the
armor's rating, the weapons fire does no damage to the vehicle" (SR3 p.
149). The weapons reduced Power is equal to 1/2 the base Power round
down. That means that to affect a vehicle with an armor rating of 4, the
weapon needs to have a base Power of 10. One half of nine round down is
four which doesn't exceed the armor rating. That means that the only
weapons listed in the SR3 rule book which will affect a Bulldog are one
heavy pistol, one shotgun, a sniper rifle, an HMG, and an assault cannon
(not including missiles).


>For argument's sake, let's say it got struck by an SMG (6M) firing in
>semi-auto mode. The van then rolls 4 dice against a Damage Code of 1L
(6/2
>- 2 = 1,-1 Damage Level reduction b/c it's a vehicle). Assuming the
attacker
>only got the minimum 1 success to hit the van (and that the van is
unrigged,
>and thus unable to make a Dodge Test), then the van needs to get 3
successes to
>shrug off all damage altogether. If the attacker got 3 or more
successes,
>the van would have taken at least Light damage. If the attacker was
shooting
>the SMG in burst or FA mode, it would have taken more.

Therefore in your example the SMG rounds would just bounce off the van,
one half of six is three which does not exceed the armor rating.

>In this particular instance, I don't see how the 3rd edition armor &
>vehicle rules encourage weapon inflation. No, you aren't guaranteed a
certain
>kill with anything less than an AVM, but you WILL do damage.

So therefore in order to hurt the Bulldog there are only five non-missile
weapons capable of doing so. Raise the armor rating up to six and that
number drops down to two, the sniper rifle and the assault cannon. Raise
the armor rating to 12 and you have something which even laughs at
assault cannons (since it was ruled that they are NOT anti-vehicular).

>In fact, I don't see weapon inflation being a problem, unless
>characters regularly use or encounter vehicles with an Armor Rating of 5
or
>greater. And that's something that a GM should certainly be able to
control.
>(Unless you actually like those kinds of high-octane games.)

Or you encounter any security drones, Ares Guardians and Steel Lynxs have
an armor rating of 12. Of course the reverse is true, not many corps will
issue their security guards AVMs, so a runner group with a Guardian or
two to act as support if the drek hits the fan is undefeatable. Just send
the invulnerable drones to mop up the security and run before a response
force capable of dealing with the drones show up.

Aeriochrome
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 32
From: Joshua Ring strago@***.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:49:55 -0500
"SNIP!"

Well, I have a serious problem with all vehicle damage.
Here's an example:
Say Joe Runner is firing a gun at a cement wall. The bullets will damage the
cement wall, right? It's not like the cement wall will be impervious to the
bullets. After a while, he WILL knock a hole in the wall, right?
It's the same thing as vehicle armor. Joe Runner firing an SMG at a Bulldog
will damage the armor, and the body of the Bulldog. With a lucky shot, he
might just hit the engine block and stop the car dead. In some situations
that's impractical (ie. Mac Truck heading straight for Joe will not be
stopped by shooting at it, mainly because of inertia), but all I'm saying is
that damaging a vehicle is not as tough as it is in SR.
In my game, here's the way it works:
Subtract armor rating from TOTAL power rating. This is the target number for
resistence test. Roll Body. Until the vehicle sustains a serious wound, it's
not too impaired. If trying to hit some dude inside, add body to armor rating
before success test. This way, it simulates that the bullet's gotta go
THROUGH the armor and the body before hitting the dude inside.
Message no. 33
From: JonSzeto@***.com JonSzeto@***.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:25:53 EST
From: Aerio Chrome <aeriochrome@****.com>

> On Sat, 6 Mar 1999 14:15:51 EST JonSzeto@***.com writes:
> >A standard GMC Bulldog (not the special Bonded Courier version) has a
> >Body/Armor Rating of 4/2 (p. 157, R2). Under SR3 rules, this makes it
> >immune to all weapons with a Damage Level of L (hold-outs and light
> pistols),
> >as well as all other weapons with a Base Power of 4 (heavy pistols
> generally
> >have a base Power of 9-10, SMGs 6-7, assault rifles 8).

> Uh, unless there is an erratta I missed, SR3 says "If a weapon's reduced
> Power (unaugmented by burst or full-auto fire rates) does not exceed the
> armor's rating, the weapons fire does no damage to the vehicle" (SR3 p.
> 149). The weapons reduced Power is equal to 1/2 the base Power round
> down. That means that to affect a vehicle with an armor rating of 4, the
> weapon needs to have a base Power of 10. One half of nine round down is
> four which doesn't exceed the armor rating. That means that the only
> weapons listed in the SR3 rule book which will affect a Bulldog are one
> heavy pistol, one shotgun, a sniper rifle, an HMG, and an assault cannon
> (not including missiles).

That is correct. Against a vehicular Armor Rating of _4_. The Bulldog has
an Armor Rating of _2_. So anything with a Power of 6 or better can affect
it. (OK, I did make a math error by saying it's immune to anything under 4.
But there aren't that many weapons that I know of that have a Base Power
of 5.)

-- Jon
Message no. 34
From: Aerio Chrome aeriochrome@****.com
Subject: Heavy Armor
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:40:35 -0600
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:25:53 EST JonSzeto@***.com writes:
>That is correct. Against a vehicular Armor Rating of _4_. The Bulldog
>has an Armor Rating of _2_. So anything with a Power of 6 or better can
>affect it. (OK, I did make a math error by saying it's immune to
anything
>under 4. But there aren't that many weapons that I know of that have a
Base
>Power of 5.)

Sorry about that, I musta misread it. I thought the vehicle had an armor
of 4 (I didn't bother to look it up to make sure). So yes, anything with
a power of 6 or greater can affect it. But my points for higher armor
values are still valid. Six points of armor is pretty much invulnerable
to small arms, while 12 points requires an AVM if you want to do anything
more than scratch the paint. I think the armor rules for vehicles are WAY
too extreme. It would help if there was anti-vehicular ammo, but since
they've decreed that apds isn't that option doesn't exist. Runners coming
up against a hostile drone with 12 points of armor are DEAD, because most
will not be carrying AVM's. That type of firepower is unnecessary for
what 80-90% of jobs runners would get? Kinda pointless to do a simple B&E
carrying around a Ballista, not to mention that destroying the prototype
you are being paid to steal is not the best way to advance your career.

Aeriochrome
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Heavy Armor, 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!