Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Lasers and penetration
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:06:25 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 09:08 PM 11/11/98 -0800, Ronin wrote:
>Okay, I guess I haven't made myself all that clear on the whole
"laser
>punching though the target" issue.
<<Snip>>
>I dispute none of what you and the others have said about this
subject.
>In real life, I'm sure lasers work just like you have stated. I
>however, am deriving my conclusions based upon the rules printed in
the
>SR books.

Allright, I'll dispute you on the rules then. Nowhere in the rules
does it say specifically how lasers interact with barriers. You chose
to treat barriers as lasers treat impact armor, (i.e.: using 1/2 the
rating to resist).

Something to consider though, is the fact that regarless of the
rating, a barrier is usually substantially thicker than impact armor
of the same rating. Impact armor 3 is usually represented by thin
rigid plates of metal or ceramic laminate. These plates have very
little bulk to them; this is represented by the fact that armor with
such plates is only slightly less concealable than the same type of
armor without plates.

Barrier Rating 3 however (cheap material) could be, for example, a
less-than sturdy particle board door, the kind that splinters and
breaks open wonderfully when the runner team's troll kicks it in. Such
a door would be about 3-4 cm thick. This is signifigantly more
thickness a laser would have to burn through than a thin, rigid plate
of metal. This is why I give barriers their full rating vs. lasers,
instead of treating a barrier the same as impact armor.

This does mean that ducking behind a 3-4 cm thick particle board door
gives you the same level of protection as wearing a suit of Light
Mil-Spec armror; laser vs. full barrier rating of 3 in the first case,
laser vs. 1/2 impact armor rating of 6 in the second. However, Light
Mil-Spec armor would be much closer to the thickness of the door than
say a Vest With Plates would be, so I don't see much of a problem
here.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNksHc6PbvUVI86rNAQHYmAP6AuzDSqiT90IyuNc0uCoZHAW94BQwZrTI
qB/ZagXZ4sancTD4tqEn7wR3hRz3DF8UzG+2geYoZPQv+LRhA0NbnovTED9PftR8
PsW0yGUqMmJYNqJSl07EtRl3fTL5KAmQjdm53X+XLDPLpcwbNW62SWo5ejU3ZCNk
VbTARJYjmvQ=
=t7o6
-----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. 2
From: One Ronin <ronin@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Lasers and penetration
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 10:38:05 PST
>>Okay, I guess I haven't made myself all that clear on the whole
>"laser
>>punching though the target" issue.
><<Snip>>
>>I dispute none of what you and the others have said about this
>subject.
>>In real life, I'm sure lasers work just like you have stated. I
>>however, am deriving my conclusions based upon the rules printed in
>the
>>SR books.

The above is what I said.

>Allright, I'll dispute you on the rules then. Nowhere in the rules
>does it say specifically how lasers interact with barriers. You chose
>to treat barriers as lasers treat impact armor, (i.e.: using 1/2 the
>rating to resist).

Absolutely correct. However, in the rules it DOES say that if a PC is
standing behind a door who's barrier rating is 4, and an NPC takes a
shot with his Predator loaded with APDS rounds, the door will only lower
the power of the weapon by 2, not 4. This is because APDS rounds cut
barrier ratings and ballistic ratings in half when shooting through.
Since lasers are resisted by impact armor, not ballistic, I just applied
the same rule to them. If this isn't in line with physics, change the
rules for laser weapons. However, if they penetrate as well as APDS
rounds, then the rule of 1/2 barrier rating is appropriate. Anyway, I
give up. Use whatever rules you feel comfortable with.

>Something to consider though, is the fact that regarless of the
>rating, a barrier is usually substantially thicker than impact armor
>of the same rating. Impact armor 3 is usually represented by thin
>rigid plates of metal or ceramic laminate. These plates have very
>little bulk to them; this is represented by the fact that armor with
>such plates is only slightly less concealable than the same type of
>armor without plates.

So change the rules on laser weapons.

>Barrier Rating 3 however (cheap material) could be, for example, a
>less-than sturdy particle board door, the kind that splinters and
>breaks open wonderfully when the runner team's troll kicks it in. Such
>a door would be about 3-4 cm thick. This is signifigantly more
>thickness a laser would have to burn through than a thin, rigid plate
>of metal. This is why I give barriers their full rating vs. lasers,
>instead of treating a barrier the same as impact armor.

So change the rules on laser weapons.

>This does mean that ducking behind a 3-4 cm thick particle board door
>gives you the same level of protection as wearing a suit of Light
>Mil-Spec armror; laser vs. full barrier rating of 3 in the first case,
>laser vs. 1/2 impact armor rating of 6 in the second. However, Light
>Mil-Spec armor would be much closer to the thickness of the door than
>say a Vest With Plates would be, so I don't see much of a problem
>here.

So change the rules on laser weapons.

So change the rules on laser weapons.

So change the rules on laser weapons.

So change the rules on laser weapons.

I wonder if I've made myself clear this time..........


-Ronin

Mai mentsu konna mai kikyo.

ICQ #:11373195


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 3
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Lasers and penetration
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:51:25 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 10:38 AM 11/12/98 -0800, Ronin wrote:
>So change the rules on laser weapons.
<<Snip>>
>So change the rules on laser weapons.
<<Snip>>
>So change the rules on laser weapons.
>
>So change the rules on laser weapons.
>
>So change the rules on laser weapons.
>
>So change the rules on laser weapons.

Is there a canon rule in any of FASA's published works or errata
sheets that defines how lasers interact with barriers? I couldn't find
one.

If there's no rule to start with, then it's not so much changing it,
as coming up with houserules for it. You stated yours, I stated mine.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNksuI6PbvUVI86rNAQGxMgP9EbHVAEeYG4qVOQ2grcwMF+gQWWg2N0j6
fBLqYVVP74b6NvfAzRnQUhFP6MJX66ItMRnY6o73z+N/PF7y5YNKoNQo83tFcgo9
FsQ+o/sUIGCIY4POqFqCbA5daqgnm2FuW6eLQUW6aff0RV+KNGTXHDZ5WwDSEOX2
/4GJ5XuFm1s=
=N/8h
-----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. 4
From: jpmumme <Grimlakin@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Lasers and penetration
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 14:46:30 -0500
One Ronin wrote:

>
>
> So change the rules on laser weapons.
> So change the rules on laser weapons.
> So change the rules on laser weapons.
> So change the rules on laser weapons.
> So change the rules on laser weapons.
> So change the rules on laser weapons.
>

Stop me if I am wrong but you feel that the "rules" are nothing more than a
guidlines for the Game master to use?

> -Ronin

GrimlakinStop the Insanity follow the rules!
Message no. 5
From: Tim Kerby <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Lasers and penetration
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 14:55:28 -0500
On 12 Nov 98, at 14:46, jpmumme wrote:

> Stop me if I am wrong but you feel that the "rules" are nothing more than
> a guidlines for the Game master to use?

That's exactly what they are. It even says so somewhere in the first
few pages (sections) of the book.

A creative GM needs to be flexible. If the rules inhibit that
creativity, then they need to go out the window.

IMHO.

--

=================================================================
- Tim Kerby - |"Letter writing is the only
- drekhead@***.net - | device for combining
HTML to: drekhead@********.net | solitude and good company."
ICQ - UIN 2883757 | -Lord Byron
Message no. 6
From: jpmumme <Grimlakin@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Lasers and penetration
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 15:09:54 -0500
Tim Kerby wrote:

> On 12 Nov 98, at 14:46, jpmumme wrote:
>
> > Stop me if I am wrong but you feel that the "rules" are nothing more
than
> > a guidlines for the Game master to use?
>
> That's exactly what they are. It even says so somewhere in the first
> few pages (sections) of the book.
>
> A creative GM needs to be flexible. If the rules inhibit that
> creativity, then they need to go out the window.
>
> IMHO.

Bah creativity who needs it we need rules set in stone for every possible
occurence. Gee isn't sarcasam wonderful.

Grimlakin
What do you man I can't make a PanGalactical SnargleBlaster with icecream and
sevenup?
Message no. 7
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Lasers and penetration
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:06:21 +0100
From what I can tell Ronin`s extrapolation of the rules is quite correct.

I`ll use the same, simply because it fits better the `idea` of laser rifles
as encountered in current science fiction. This also makes the laser rifle
clearly different from other weapons. I can ignore, partially, that it does not
fit current laser technology because, as Adam`s post makes clear, there`s many
ways to skin that particular cat. As it a brand new development in 60 years it
probably does NOT work in a way easily identifiable or with the same limits as
today`s lasers.

Regards,
Fade

--

ADVICE, n. The smallest current coin.
-Ambrose Bierce

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Lasers and penetration, 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!