Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Jan-bart van Beek <flake@***.DDS.NL>
Subject:	Re : Laser weapons and vehicle damage
Date:	Mon, 31 Oct 1994 15:13:15 +0100

Message no. 1 Shadowdancer , are you sure about what you said about vehicle armor.
According to my book vehicle armor is used as a barrier rating and is
therefore added to the armor rating. And SR also says vehicle body counts
as composite armor (impact and ballistic). So in total your armor rating
would be body + armor. In fact if you look at it like that, it works
exactly like peersonal armor. your armor is added to the rating of
whatever barrier your standing behind for means of calculatting power
reduction.
If you're standing behind a rating-4 door and you're wearing your
Mortimer (ballistic 4) you would have the equivalent of a rating 8 armor
and a 9M shot would be reduced to a mere 1M.
Doesn't vehicle damage and armor work the same way ?
Help me out on this one will ya.

--------------------------------------------------------------
| Beware of what you ask for you may recieve it |
--------------------------------------------------------------

**** The Cornflake Killer Strikes again ****

From:	Damion Milliken <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Re : Laser weapons and vehicle damage
Date:	Wed, 2 Nov 1994 18:09:28 +1100

Message no. 2 CFK writes:

> Has no one read my question on vehicle mounted weapons, or could it be
> the mail was too fraging long for you to want to read it.

Yep, I've read it, I read _everything_ :-) And what's more I usually reply
to almost as much (and many people like to point this out to me :-), and
many others just set their filters to delete me :-)). I've been off line for
a day or so, hence the lateness in my reply. (Bummer when you have to do
work ain't it? :-))

> Anyway, plaease reply.

Well, you asked for it. I'm not sure which message you were refferign to, but
I was going to reply to both anyway, so I'll lump 'em together to make those
who don't like lots of posts happy (and to make those who don't like big
posts unhappy). Ah well, you can't win 'em all I guess :-)

> Doesn't vehicle damage and armor work the same way ?

Vehicle armour doesn't quite work the same way as character armour, but it
follows a similar method. I'll include my understanding of what occurs, and
I wouldn't mind some comment on that too (particularily from The
Nightstalker, I have yet to see him get a SR ruling incorrect).

Anyway, here's my ideas (I seem to remember posting this fairly recently
actually - did I?):

Case 1: Base Power <= Vehicle armour rating

Jack snot & bugger all happens. You don't get to damage the armour,
you do not reduce it like a barrier rating, you do shit all.

Case 2: Base Power > Vehicle

A] If the weapon is a normal (non-armour piercing) weapon

i) Reduce Damage catagory by one. If the weapon is rated at
light, it does no damage.
ii) Subtract Vehicle Armour rating _plus_ Body rating from
the weapons power. Minimum of 2. (It is likely here that
near on all weapons will have a resultant of 2)
Power-(Vehicle Armour+Body)
iii) Roll Body+1/2Armour against the target number determiend
above. Round down.
Body+(1/2Armour) vs. target determined above.

B] If weapon is an armour piercing variety (eg, AVM/R, or half the
weapons out of FoF)

i) Do not Reduce damage catagory by one.
ii) Subtract 1/2 the Vehicle Armour Rating from the Power of
the weapon. Round down.
Power-(1/2Armour)
iii) Roll Body+1/2Armour against the target number determined
above. Round down.
Body+(1/2Armour) vs. target determined above.

Note that the rules seem contradictory, on page 108 it says, in reference to
armour piercing weapons "Those weapons have a semiarmor-piercing warhead and
do not have their Damage Level reduced, but the Power is reduced by the
vehicle's armor." While on page 99, it says "Against AVRs, the Barrier
Rating of a barrier is halved (round down), as is the Armor Rating for
vehicles (round down)." Now, I decided to make use of the rule on page 99,
but it does get a bit deadly if your vehicle gets hit with an armour
piercing weapon.

Also note that vehicular armour can be reduced by the optional rule in FoF,
which leads me to beleive that it does not get reduced in the same fasion as
a regular barrier (otherwise you'd splatter vehicle armour all over the
place, with two methods to reduce it).

> 'cause I am not wealthy enough to purchase yet another FASA product,
> namely the Rigger's Black Book.

Hey, don't bother, I don't think the RBB actually answers anything, and it
creates a few questions itself.

> I. Can you mount a vehicle-mounted LMG set on a firm-point with a
> Gyrostabilization-unit or do you need a hard point for such
> combinations.Or is the combibation a hardpoint in itself ?

I do not allow gyrostabilisation on firm or hard points. A gyro harness is a
man portable piece of equipment, it is something a human wears. If he got a
custom unit designed for him, I'd allow it then though.

> If so it would give my rigger a vehicle-weapon of 27D power with
> absolutly no recoil. Woaw, fear strikes my heart.(He also put gas-vents
> on them,which I already granted him)

27D! How'd he get that much? Even the vindicator doesn't get that high, the
most rounds you can churn out is 15.

> II. Can you smartlink a vehicle-mounted gun ? I can imagine that it is
> possible with forward-firing machine gun set in fixed position, but what
> about a 360 degree rotating missile laucher ?

If the weapon is, say, mounted on a rotating pintel (or whatever they're
called), that requires a gunner, then sure. If it is a remote weapon, then
nope. Unless you take the rumours in FoF about SmartLink II as true, in
which case a SmartLink II can do what you want, but a smartlink I cannot.
As for the missile launcher, that's easy, you simply cannot have smartlinks
on missile launchers, it says so in the main book.

> If so the 27D gunshot would be made with about 13 dices against a
> target-number of no more then 2 within 20 meters. Ouch.

This raises a question too. Can a rigger augument the attack rolls of remote
weaponry under his control with his combat pool? I woulda said no.

> III. Another question, a bit of the subject, which is also cause of
> much trivia within our group. Can you combine a smartlink sytem with
> cybernetic magnification systems ?

I say yeah, you can combine smartlinks with Low Light. But it would be easy
enough to rule that the cyber mags require some sort of crosshair like
system when used at extended magnification and say no.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v(?) C+(++) US++ P? L !3 E?
N K- W+ M@ !V po@ Y(+) t+ !5 !j R+(++) G(+)('') !tv(--)@ b++ D+
B? e+ u@ h* f(+) !r n--(----) !y+

From:	Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Re : Laser weapons and vehicle damage
Date:	Wed, 2 Nov 1994 22:05:40 EST

Message no. 3 CFK writes:

> > III. Another question, a bit of the subject, which is also cause of
> > much trivia within our group. Can you combine a smartlink sytem
with
> > cybernetic magnification systems ?
>
Damion writes:

> I say yeah, you can combine smartlinks with Low Light. But it would
be easy
> enough to rule that the cyber mags require some sort of crosshair
like
> system when used at extended magnification and say no.
Why not? Smartlink automatically provides a dot to sight by. Since
the dot is projected on to the retina, and the cybereye mag works on
the lens and sight center, the same image is projected to the retina
and on top of the dot, just as in normal sight. Since Low Light and
Thermo also works on the retina(and to the inner eye to some extent)
these would work fine.

Many people run the shadows, praying that whatever gods they worship will smile upon them.
I waltz through shadows with my gods, and I lead!

-SHADOWDANCER-

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer