Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:58:34 +0100
Leszek Karlik, aka Mike said on 13:35/17 Dec 97...

> Besides, assault rifles are made to wound people, not kill them, neh?

That's hand grenades and AP mines. Assault rifles came into being when it
was found that full-power cartridges just weren't necessary for
full-automatic infantry weapons -- soldiers would open fire at maybe 300
meters or less with them and fire lots of rounds till they hit. Lighter
rounds have enough range for that, and reduce the recoil so that also
increases the chance of a hit, and as an added bonus the soldier can carry
more of them.

Assault rifle rounds will kill you just as dead as machinegun rounds will,
provided eithr hits you where it matters.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
It's crap but we love it!
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 2
From: William Gallas <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 12:26:50 +0100
>> Besides, assault rifles are made to wound people, not kill them, neh?
>Assault rifle rounds will kill you just as dead as machinegun rounds will,
>provided eithr hits you where it matters.

During my military service, I learned that assault rifles were designed to
wound and not to kill. The reason is that if you wound a soldier, the
ennemy will need 4 more soldiers to care about him which makes you
eliminate 5 soldiers for only one hit !
In SR, I think it would be interesting too. If the corp wounds you, they
will be able to take you and learn from you. Thus they could use you to
have a free shadowrunners team (your friends...) or otherwise could use you
to kill/capture the other members of the team (where do they live? Call
them and give them a rendez-vous ...).


Cobra.

E-mail adress : wgallas@*****.fr
Quote : "You are who you know"
Message no. 3
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 01:37:52 +0000
On 18 Dec 97 at 10:58, Gurth wrote:


> That's hand grenades and AP mines. Assault rifles came into being
> when it was found that full-power cartridges just weren't necessary
> for full-automatic infantry weapons -- soldiers would open fire at
> maybe 300 meters or less with them and fire lots of rounds till they
> hit. Lighter rounds have enough range for that, and reduce the
> recoil so that also increases the chance of a hit, and as an added
> bonus the soldier can carry more of them.

Reduced recoil was the bonus, Reduced Ammunition weight was the major
reason for the change to .223. They had already decided that a hail
of bullets was better then marksmanship. What they forgot is that
a marksman can deliver a hail of bullets if needed, while a punk with
a "lead hose" can not make a single bullet count. To say nothing of
the proposition that if I engage you at 400 meters with aimed fire
from a real rifle and you have an assault rife that is only good to
300 meters, I can hit you while you can not return the favor. That
from my point of view is a real advantage.

>
> Assault rifle rounds will kill you just as dead as machinegun rounds
> will, provided eithr hits you where it matters.
>
> --
> Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html -
> UIN5044116
> It's crap but we love it!
> -> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <- ->
> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html
> <- -> The New Character Mortuary:
> http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-
>
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version 3.1:
> GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
> Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>


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. 4
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 22:57:16 +0000
In article <199712220935.BAA00514@*****.efn.org>, David Hinkley
<dhinkley@***.ORG> writes
>Reduced recoil was the bonus, Reduced Ammunition weight was the major
>reason for the change to .223. They had already decided that a hail
>of bullets was better then marksmanship. What they forgot is that
>a marksman can deliver a hail of bullets if needed, while a punk with
>a "lead hose" can not make a single bullet count. To say nothing of
>the proposition that if I engage you at 400 meters with aimed fire
>from a real rifle and you have an assault rife that is only good to
>300 meters, I can hit you while you can not return the favor. That
>from my point of view is a real advantage.

I'm in DPM camouflage, on my belly, in a treeline. I paid proper
attention to camming up my face, hands and personal equipment, too.

How far away can you see me, even on a good day?

One reason for the switch to assault rifles was the discovery of how
rarely soldiers engaged effectively at anything much over 100 metres.
It's downright disheartening when actual versus theoretical accuracies
are compared, and the rare occasions when soldiers had both targets at
400+ yards, and time and leisure to engage accurately, were too
infrequent to make them a priority (rather than a nice-to-have - I can
still hit a Figure 11 with ten of ten at 400 yards, with an L85A1)

If you've got unalerted enemy in the open, don't play sniper, call in
mortar fire.

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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 5
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 20:11:33 +0100
Paul J. Adam said on 22:57/22 Dec 97...

> I'm in DPM camouflage, on my belly, in a treeline. I paid proper
> attention to camming up my face, hands and personal equipment, too.
>
> How far away can you see me, even on a good day?
>
> One reason for the switch to assault rifles was the discovery of how
> rarely soldiers engaged effectively at anything much over 100 metres.

AFAIK, that's the main reason why the Germans used shorter 7.92 mm rounds
(33 mm against 57 mm cartridges for the full-power round) for the StG-44
assault rifle -- soldiers armed with full-auto, full-power rifles (like
the FG 42) tended to open fire at short ranges where a reduced-charge
round was just as effective as the full-power one.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Frankly my damn, I don't give a dear.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 6
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 13:36:31 +0000
On 22 Dec 97 at 22:57, Paul J. Adam wrote:


> I'm in DPM camouflage, on my belly, in a treeline. I paid proper
> attention to camming up my face, hands and personal equipment, too.
>
> How far away can you see me, even on a good day?

About as far as you can see me similarly attired, properly cammoed up
in the opposite tree line. Which means that first of us that
leaves his respective tree lines is likely to be dead. At which point
the shooter will likely be engaged by the other members of the dead
mans squad (soldiers tend to come in squads). The shooters squad will
start shooting. Now we are in a fire fight. Which weapon, assault
rifle (AK, M-16) or battle rifle (G3, M-14, M-1 FAL) is more
effective is a product of the terrain. I have trained on a wide
variety of terriain, some was quite open , 200+ meters between tree
lines and some that was very tight, scrub covered hill sides that you
spent most time crawling along game trails because it was faster then
brush busting. I have carried both types of rifles in both, while
the M-16 is lighter and easier to carry then the M-14, I still
prefer the battle rifle. I like that extra 200 meters of reach.

>
> One reason for the switch to assault rifles was the discovery of how
> rarely soldiers engaged effectively at anything much over 100
> metres. It's downright disheartening when actual versus theoretical
> accuracies are compared, and the rare occasions when soldiers had
> both targets at 400+ yards, and time and leisure to engage
> accurately, were too infrequent to make them a priority (rather than
> a nice-to-have - I can still hit a Figure 11 with ten of ten at 400
> yards, with an L85A1)

What is a Figure 11? In the US Army the standard target is a "E" type
(head and shoulders, waist up) and qualification is on a range of
pop-up targets running from 25 to 300 meters. One to three targets
appear at once the allocation is one round per. If memory serves me
the 300meter target appears 4 times. I normally hit it 4 for 4 with a
M-16. With a National Match M-14 I was able to keep them in the black
at 600 yards.

But choice of rifles aside, it is the type of training the soldier
receives, that conserns me the most, an individual that is taught to
shoot well and to a high standard can get more out of his weapon,
then a troop that is taught to put it on rock and roll and burn up
the ammo. One of the complaints I had with the Us Army was the lack
of range time with live ammo, 4 times a year does not cut it.

>
> If you've got unalerted enemy in the open, don't play sniper, call
> in mortar fire.
>
Only if the Artillery is busy with someone elses fire mission.




David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org
******************************************************
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve niether liberty or
safety.
Ben Franklin
Message no. 7
From: Panther <qmilton@**.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 08:34:14 -0800
David Hinkley wrote:

> If memory serves me
> the 300meter target appears 4 times.

Actually, it appears 3. Twice in the foxhole, once in the prone (or is
it the other way around?)

Panther
Message no. 8
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 14:57:04 +0000
On 25 Dec 97 at 8:34, Panther wrote:

> David Hinkley wrote:
>
> > If memory serves me
> > the 300meter target appears 4 times.
>
> Actually, it appears 3. Twice in the foxhole, once in the prone (or
> is it the other way around?)

Thank you for the correction, It has been more years then I care to
think about since I have had to qualify. I am now a PFC ( Proud
F**king Civilian) So I have to pay for my own ammo. By the way do
they still have the "walking" phase?




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. 9
From: Panther <qmilton@**.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 10:12:28 -0800
David Hinkley wrote:

> Thank you for the correction, It has been more years then I care to
> think about since I have had to qualify. I am now a PFC ( Proud
> F**king Civilian) So I have to pay for my own ammo. By the way do
> they still have the "walking" phase?

walking phase? never heard of it. As of May 1997, I'm a PFC, too... :)

Panther
Message no. 10
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 15:23:42 +0000
In article <199712252133.NAA23579@*****.efn.org>, David Hinkley
<dhinkley@***.ORG> writes
>On 22 Dec 97 at 22:57, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> I'm in DPM camouflage, on my belly, in a treeline. I paid proper
>> attention to camming up my face, hands and personal equipment, too.
>>
>> How far away can you see me, even on a good day?
>
>About as far as you can see me similarly attired, properly cammoed up
>in the opposite tree line. Which means that first of us that
>leaves his respective tree lines is likely to be dead.

>At which point
>the shooter will likely be engaged by the other members of the dead
>mans squad (soldiers tend to come in squads). The shooters squad will
>start shooting. Now we are in a fire fight. Which weapon, assault
>rifle (AK, M-16) or battle rifle (G3, M-14, M-1 FAL) is more
>effective is a product of the terrain. I have trained on a wide
>variety of terriain, some was quite open , 200+ meters between tree
>lines and some that was very tight, scrub covered hill sides that you
>spent most time crawling along game trails because it was faster then
>brush busting. I have carried both types of rifles in both, while
>the M-16 is lighter and easier to carry then the M-14, I still
>prefer the battle rifle. I like that extra 200 meters of reach.

British Army experience was that, for the majority of shooters, the
5.56mm L85A1 was more accurate in the hands of soldiers than the 7.62mm
L1A1. Whether that was a function of weapon design, ballistics or of
ergonomics is still debated. Adding the x4 SUIT / SUSAT to the rifle
further increases accuracy at most ranges for both weapons.

This was certainly what I found. Quite possibly the 7.62mm round had
better ballistics, but I was able to put 5.56mm on target more often at
long ranges.

>> One reason for the switch to assault rifles was the discovery of how
>> rarely soldiers engaged effectively at anything much over 100
>> metres. It's downright disheartening when actual versus theoretical
>> accuracies are compared, and the rare occasions when soldiers had
>> both targets at 400+ yards, and time and leisure to engage
>> accurately, were too infrequent to make them a priority (rather than
>> a nice-to-have - I can still hit a Figure 11 with ten of ten at 400
>> yards, with an L85A1)
>
>What is a Figure 11? In the US Army the standard target is a "E" type
>(head and shoulders, waist up)

Figure 11 is the British Army standard target. Sounds similarly sized to
the E.

>and qualification is on a range of
>pop-up targets running from 25 to 300 meters. One to three targets
>appear at once the allocation is one round per. If memory serves me
>the 300meter target appears 4 times. I normally hit it 4 for 4 with a
>M-16. With a National Match M-14 I was able to keep them in the black
>at 600 yards.

Sounds similar to the APWT (Annual Personal Weapon Test). Targets appear
at 100, 200 and 300 metres, targets usually fall when hit (IIRC some
phases are several rounds per target), exposures are <5 seconds. Since
we went to the L85, the ranges are typically longer, fewer 100m and more
300m shots. The test is shot standing, kneeling, prone and in a fire
trench, and some phases are shot in a respirator.

Scores are still higher, even for units with iron sights vice SUSAT.

>But choice of rifles aside, it is the type of training the soldier
>receives, that conserns me the most, an individual that is taught to
>shoot well and to a high standard can get more out of his weapon,
>then a troop that is taught to put it on rock and roll and burn up
>the ammo. One of the complaints I had with the Us Army was the lack
>of range time with live ammo, 4 times a year does not cut it.

Yep. British Army doctrine is that full-auto is for very specific
circumstances: assaulting through the enemy position, point-man for a
patrol, and similar situations. Aimed single shots were doctrine. I
never fired a L85A1 in full-auto, either on exercise or on the range.

>> If you've got unalerted enemy in the open, don't play sniper, call
>> in mortar fire.
>>
>Only if the Artillery is busy with someone elses fire mission.

This is why our battalions have organic mortar platoons, and the lead
units in an advance have MFCs attached with mortar sections (two tubes)
on call. Artillery was expected to be rare, but we learned from the
Falklands the value of having mortar fire on hand for the leading
elements.

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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 11
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 19:56:57 +0000
And verily, did Panther hastily scribble thusly...
|
|David Hinkley wrote:
|
|> Thank you for the correction, It has been more years then I care to
|> think about since I have had to qualify. I am now a PFC ( Proud
|> F**king Civilian) So I have to pay for my own ammo. By the way do
|> they still have the "walking" phase?
|
|walking phase? never heard of it. As of May 1997, I'm a PFC, too... :)

And me? I'm a PFC/PTS
(Part Time Signaller)

Territorial Army. Be a civvy and in the army at the same time...
:)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 12
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 20:06:24 +0000
And verily, did Paul J. Adam hastily scribble thusly...
|British Army experience was that, for the majority of shooters, the
|5.56mm L85A1

Is that similar to the SA80? Or another name for the same thing?


|Sounds similar to the APWT (Annual Personal Weapon Test). Targets appear
|at 100, 200 and 300 metres, targets usually fall when hit (IIRC some
|phases are several rounds per target), exposures are <5 seconds. Since
|we went to the L85, the ranges are typically longer, fewer 100m and more
|300m shots. The test is shot standing, kneeling, prone and in a fire
|trench, and some phases are shot in a respirator.

ACK! Well I'm stuffed then. Mind you, I suppose I could get exempted from
that part. (I can't see detail 10 feet away without my glasses, let alone
300 meters. [and they say it takes at least 3 months for the corrective
lenses to arrive that fit in the respirator...)

|Scores are still higher, even for units with iron sights vice SUSAT.

Never used a susat yet.
(Mind you, I've never actually been on a live range yet...)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 13
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 12:54:26 +0100
Spike said on 20:06/27 Dec 97...

> |5.56mm L85A1
>
> Is that similar to the SA80? Or another name for the same thing?

"SA80" (Small Arms 80) is the popular name for what's properly called the
L85A1 Individual Weapon and/or the L86A1 Light Support Weapon.

> |Scores are still higher, even for units with iron sights vice SUSAT.
>
> Never used a susat yet.
> (Mind you, I've never actually been on a live range yet...)

AFAIK SUSATs are not issued to troops who aren't supposed to be in the
front line.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
There are two things you can do...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 14
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 10:20:05 +0000
On 27 Dec 97 at 15:23, Paul J. Adam wrote:


>
> British Army experience was that, for the majority of shooters, the
> 5.56mm L85A1 was more accurate in the hands of soldiers than the
> 7.62mm L1A1. Whether that was a function of weapon design,
> ballistics or of ergonomics is still debated. Adding the x4 SUIT /
> SUSAT to the rifle further increases accuracy at most ranges for
> both weapons.

What is the x4 SUIT or SUSAT, some sort of telescopic sight?
>

>
> Sounds similar to the APWT (Annual Personal Weapon Test). Targets
> appear at 100, 200 and 300 metres, targets usually fall when hit
> (IIRC some phases are several rounds per target), exposures are <5
> seconds. Since we went to the L85, the ranges are typically longer,
> fewer 100m and more 300m shots. The test is shot standing, kneeling,
> prone and in a fire trench, and some phases are shot in a
> respirator.

That is about the same, we did not have a requirement to fire for
qualification while waering a gas mask. Good thing as the filters on
a M17A1 makes using the sights on a M-16 imposible. They did require
we familarize with a gas mask, and they had a method for "aimed
fire". It was a modified prone, you laid over the rifle such that the
center line of thr rifle barrel lined up with the centerline of your
head and body. You used both eyes and moved your rifle and body
together. It was clumsy, hard to master (I never did) and of
questionable use off the range.

When I was in, the qualification course included a 25 meter target
that gave me fits, it was down and to the side from the rest of the
targets, and was only exposed for a short time. In the early spring,
the olive targets were hard to see against the newly grown brush and
that target tended to be the last one I checked.


[SNIP]
>
> >> If you've got unalerted enemy in the open, don't play sniper, call
> >> in mortar fire.
> >>
> >Only if the Artillery is busy with someone elses fire mission.
>
> This is why our battalions have organic mortar platoons, and the
> lead units in an advance have MFCs attached with mortar sections
> (two tubes) on call. Artillery was expected to be rare, but we
> learned from the Falklands the value of having mortar fire on hand
> for the leading elements.

I had a Weapons Platoon (2 TWO missile systems and 3 81mm Mortars all
on modified M113 carriers) for a while. The units I was in tended to
try the artillery first (bigger bang and it does not use up mortar
shells that will be needed when you can't get the artillery on the
horn) then us. Then the U.S. Army tended to have alot of artillery
attached to mech units in Europe.


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. 15
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 10:20:05 +0000
On 26 Dec 97 at 10:12, Panther wrote:

> David Hinkley wrote:
>
> > Thank you for the correction, It has been more years then I care to
> > think about since I have had to qualify. I am now a PFC ( Proud
> > F**king Civilian) So I have to pay for my own ammo. By the way do
> > they still have the "walking" phase?
>
> walking phase? never heard of it. As of May 1997, I'm a PFC,
> too... :)

You started standing up, and walked slowly towards the target along a
berm (range control and the thought of the two other qualifiers to
each side tended to keep movement slow) when the targets poped up you
could adopt any postion (prone, kneeling, sitting or off hand) and
engage the targets. Then range control would tell every one to stand
and the next sequence would start. When we reached the end (10 meters
or so) they would bring us back to start again. I tended to use
kneeling as it is more stable then off hand (no functional sling on a
M-16) and it was quick to get out of if you could not see the target.
To offten the targets were not visable from the prone.




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. 16
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:57:30 +0000
In article <1032.199712272006@******.teach.cs.keele.ac.uk>, Spike
<u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK> writes
>And verily, did Paul J. Adam hastily scribble thusly...
>|British Army experience was that, for the majority of shooters, the
>|5.56mm L85A1
>
>Is that similar to the SA80? Or another name for the same thing?

SA80's the name for the family, technically, but it gets hung on the
L85A1 rifle the same way SLR stuck to the L1A1.
>
>|Sounds similar to the APWT (Annual Personal Weapon Test). Targets appear
>|at 100, 200 and 300 metres, targets usually fall when hit (IIRC some
>|phases are several rounds per target), exposures are <5 seconds. Since
>|we went to the L85, the ranges are typically longer, fewer 100m and more
>|300m shots. The test is shot standing, kneeling, prone and in a fire
>|trench, and some phases are shot in a respirator.
>
>ACK! Well I'm stuffed then. Mind you, I suppose I could get exempted from
>that part. (I can't see detail 10 feet away without my glasses, let alone
>300 meters. [and they say it takes at least 3 months for the corrective
>lenses to arrive that fit in the respirator...)

Short answer is, wear your glasses under the respirator, that's what I
had to do with the old S6. By the time we got S10s I had contact lenses,
and never did get the corrective inserts.

>|Scores are still higher, even for units with iron sights vice SUSAT.
>
>Never used a susat yet.
>(Mind you, I've never actually been on a live range yet...)

You probably won't use SUSAT unless you get the LSW, only the infantry
get them on their rifles. Second echelon troops like signallers and REME
get the iron sights.


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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 17
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 15:29:52 +0000
In article <199712281817.KAA14256@*****.efn.org>, David Hinkley
<dhinkley@***.ORG> writes
>On 27 Dec 97 at 15:23, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> British Army experience was that, for the majority of shooters, the
>> 5.56mm L85A1 was more accurate in the hands of soldiers than the
>> 7.62mm L1A1. Whether that was a function of weapon design,
>> ballistics or of ergonomics is still debated. Adding the x4 SUIT /
>> SUSAT to the rifle further increases accuracy at most ranges for
>> both weapons.
>
>What is the x4 SUIT or SUSAT, some sort of telescopic sight?

Yes. The L1A1 could be fitted with the Sight Unit, Individual, Trilux
(SUIT): a x4 scope with an illuminated pointer, for service in Northern
Ireland and some other areas where scopes were held to be useful. SOP
was iron sights.

The L85 was designed from the start for a development of that sight, the
Sight Unit, Small Arms, Trilux (SUSAT). Trilux refers to the tritium
light source for the pointer, AFAIK. Infantry units get L85A1s with
SUSAT scopes, other units get rifles with iron sights.

>The test is shot standing, kneeling,
>> prone and in a fire trench, and some phases are shot in a
>> respirator.
>
>That is about the same, we did not have a requirement to fire for
>qualification while waering a gas mask. Good thing as the filters on
>a M17A1 makes using the sights on a M-16 imposible. They did require
>we familarize with a gas mask, and they had a method for "aimed
>fire". It was a modified prone, you laid over the rifle such that the
>center line of thr rifle barrel lined up with the centerline of your
>head and body. You used both eyes and moved your rifle and body
>together. It was clumsy, hard to master (I never did) and of
>questionable use off the range.

Time for a new gasmask, methinks? If you can't shoot in NBC, why bother
being there at all?

>> This is why our battalions have organic mortar platoons, and the
>> lead units in an advance have MFCs attached with mortar sections
>> (two tubes) on call. Artillery was expected to be rare, but we
>> learned from the Falklands the value of having mortar fire on hand
>> for the leading elements.
>
>I had a Weapons Platoon (2 TWO missile systems and 3 81mm Mortars all
>on modified M113 carriers) for a while. The units I was in tended to
>try the artillery first (bigger bang and it does not use up mortar
>shells that will be needed when you can't get the artillery on the
>horn) then us. Then the U.S. Army tended to have alot of artillery
>attached to mech units in Europe.

Sounds about right. If you could get artillery (some of our exercises
gave us attached FOOs) you used it, but if you didn't have a FOO
assigned you went directly to the mortars: our assumption with artillery
was similar to air power, it was better employed deep.

British Army artillery doctrine seemed to be that its primary role was
preparation of targets at battalion level and above, defensive fires for
company or battalion level, counterbattery fire, interdiction and attack
of depth targets. It was a rare platoon commander who could expect to
whistle up a fire mission from a battery of 155s.

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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 18
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 16:40:59 +0000
And verily, did David Hinkley hastily scribble thusly...
|What is the x4 SUIT or SUSAT, some sort of telescopic sight?

SUSAT = Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux. So yes, it's a magnifying sight.
No idea what SUIT is or stands for though....

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 19
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 16:46:25 +0000
And verily, did Paul J. Adam hastily scribble thusly...
|You probably won't use SUSAT unless you get the LSW, only the infantry
|get them on their rifles. Second echelon troops like signallers and REME
|get the iron sights.

Which are almost useless at night from my experience.
(Can't see anything through them)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 20
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 17:20:31 +0000
In article <1974.199712291646@******.teach.cs.keele.ac.uk>, Spike
<u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK> writes
>And verily, did Paul J. Adam hastily scribble thusly...
>|You probably won't use SUSAT unless you get the LSW, only the infantry
>|get them on their rifles. Second echelon troops like signallers and REME
>|get the iron sights.
>
>Which are almost useless at night from my experience.
>(Can't see anything through them)

True for any iron sights. White tape on the back of the frontsight ears
was a useful expedient when we used SLR on exercise: if it was close
enough to see, putting it between the white lines was at least going to
put rounds near them... SA80's iron sights are better in bad light,
believe it or not.

SUSAT works well at night, one of the arguments for it.

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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 21
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 00:17:09 +0000
On 29 Dec 97 at 15:29, Paul J. Adam wrote:


> Time for a new gasmask, methinks? If you can't shoot in NBC, why
> bother being there at all?

Most definately, especially since you had to take the mask off to
change filters. When I got out they were playing with a design that
had a external filter that was fitted to either the right or left
cheek with a cap for the other inlet. The idea was to put the filter
on the off side, so you could get a good stock weld. When it will be
out I have no Idea.

>
> >> This is why our battalions have organic mortar platoons, and the
> >> lead units in an advance have MFCs attached with mortar sections
> >> (two tubes) on call. Artillery was expected to be rare, but we
> >> learned from the Falklands the value of having mortar fire on hand
> >> for the leading elements.
> >
> >I had a Weapons Platoon (2 TWO missile systems and 3 81mm Mortars all
> >on modified M113 carriers) for a while. The units I was in tended to
> >try the artillery first (bigger bang and it does not use up mortar
> >shells that will be needed when you can't get the artillery on the
> >horn) then us. Then the U.S. Army tended to have alot of artillery
> >attached to mech units in Europe.
>
> Sounds about right. If you could get artillery (some of our
> exercises gave us attached FOOs) you used it, but if you didn't have
> a FOO assigned you went directly to the mortars: our assumption with
> artillery was similar to air power, it was better employed deep.
>
> British Army artillery doctrine seemed to be that its primary role
> was preparation of targets at battalion level and above, defensive
> fires for company or battalion level, counterbattery fire,
> interdiction and attack of depth targets. It was a rare platoon
> commander who could expect to whistle up a fire mission from a
> battery of 155s.

When I was in an American Mech Infantry Battalion had 10 platoons (1
Scout 9 Rifle) that operate together. The rest (1 AT platoon, 3
Weapons Platoons and the 4.2 Motar Platoon) either were broken up and
attached out or were in a supporting role. Artillery (155mm) was
normally allocated 1 Artillery Bn (3 batteries)to a maneuver Brigade
(3-5 Battailons, mostly 3). So normally 1 battery was in support of
each battalion. This makes for a 1 in 10 chance of a platoon leader
having 155mm on call, 1 in 10 of 4.2 motar, and 1 in 3 of 81mm. Which
means that half of the platoon leaders had to depend on M203 grenade
launchers. The question is what do you consider rare? This
calculation does not take in to consideration the Corps slice (which
tended to be allocated to "strategic" targets or how much ammo the
guns have to shoot. The 2nd day of the Grenade Invasion the 82nd
fired its training ammuntion, that a couple of Sergeants had been
"smuggled" in to the theater after the division had fired all of its
stocks on the first day.


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. 22
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 08:20:15 EST
In a message dated 97-12-31 03:22:19 EST, you write:

> Most definately, especially since you had to take the mask off to
> change filters. When I got out they were playing with a design that
> had a external filter that was fitted to either the right or left
> cheek with a cap for the other inlet. The idea was to put the filter
> on the off side, so you could get a good stock weld. When it will be
> out I have no Idea.
>

It is out already, for at least four years now (at least in the Active Army).
It's called the M40 (M42 for the tanker version) and from a former NBC guy's
perspective, it's *much* better than the M17. It still doesn't solve the
problem of firing the M-16 in MOPP, however. (And personally, I don't think it
can be solved---not technically, and not with the M-16, anyway. The M-16 uses
iron sights, which requires the user to put his cheek right up against the
butstock. The eyelets prevent this, thus preventing proper sight picture. To
get around this practically requires developing some sort of form-fitting mask
that virtually melds with the contours of the skin. The more practical
alternative is training soldiers to tilt the M-16 45 degrees inward and
cocking the head slightly---still not the best method of aiming, but better
than nothing.)

-- Jon
Message no. 23
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 17:11:37 +0000
And verily, did David Hinkley hastily scribble thusly...
|
|On 29 Dec 97 at 15:29, Paul J. Adam wrote:
|
|
|> Time for a new gasmask, methinks? If you can't shoot in NBC, why
|> bother being there at all?
|
|Most definately, especially since you had to take the mask off to
|change filters. When I got out they were playing with a design that
|had a external filter that was fitted to either the right or left
|cheek with a cap for the other inlet. The idea was to put the filter
|on the off side, so you could get a good stock weld. When it will be
|out I have no Idea.

That's basically what out current respirator is. Although the "cap" on the
other side has been put to a better use, as a secondary speach module for
speaking into radio mikes, etc...
I find it hard to believe anyone would be stupid enough to design a
respirator that had to be removed to change filters though...

LOL!

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 24
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 21:48:27 +0000
On 31 Dec 97 at 17:11, Spike wrote:

> And verily, did David Hinkley hastily scribble thusly...
> |
> |On 29 Dec 97 at 15:29, Paul J. Adam wrote:
> |
> |
> |> Time for a new gasmask, methinks? If you can't shoot in NBC, why
> |> bother being there at all?
> |
> |Most definately, especially since you had to take the mask off to
> |change filters. When I got out they were playing with a design that
> |had a external filter that was fitted to either the right or left
> |cheek with a cap for the other inlet. The idea was to put the filter
> |on the off side, so you could get a good stock weld. When it will be
> |out I have no Idea.
>
> That's basically what out current respirator is. Although the "cap"
> on the other side has been put to a better use, as a secondary
> speach module for speaking into radio mikes, etc... I find it hard
> to believe anyone would be stupid enough to design a respirator that
> had to be removed to change filters though...

Stupid or not the filters on the US M17A1 Protective Mask are
inserted from the inside of the mask, requiring the mask to be
removed before replacement. One of the most important duties of the
unit NBC NCO was to keep track of exposure to determine when the
filters had to be changed. At that point the troops were to be
rotated to a non-contaminated area decontaminated so they could
change filters. Which by the way was not a simple process and if done
improperly could result in a damaged or non-functional mask. Mind you
as there is no way to eat wearing a mask and the fact the Protective
Clothing was only good for about 24 hours of exposure to chemical
agents or rain there was a need to rotate troops. We never had the
opportunty to try out any of the rotation plans.

As to stupidity the Russians copied the design.


David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

Message no. 25
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 00:56:20 +0000
Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike;
Star Wars fan and Amber junkie; FIAWOL; WTF TKD TOO;
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
Consideration rules - is that OK?
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 00:52:19 +0000
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat Revisited
In-Reply-To: <19971231.035534.10110.2.wolfstar@****.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0

In article <19971231.035534.10110.2.wolfstar@****.com>, George H Metz
<wolfstar@****.COM> writes
> Not quite. This dates back to a method he mentioned, based on unarmed
>combat. What he was basically saying is that there's no way someone with
>an unarmed combat skill of 4 or 5 with Wired-3 plus a few other speed
>goodies should be losing to a stock human martial arts master with an
>unarmed combat of 10 or 12.

Leaping in with both feet, I'd point out that wired reflexes are wired
_reflexes_. Someone with Firearms 1 but Wired-3 shouldn't hit the target
more often than an unaugmented shooter with Firearms-10
Message no. 26
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 01:04:57 +0000
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 20:13:33 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Aaron Jones <aaronj@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat Revisited
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>William Gallas wrote:
>/
>/ David Buehrer wrote:
>/
>/ >How about multiplying the Reaction by the number of initiative dice a
>/ >character has and call that number Melee Reaction. If a character is
>/ >attacked in melee before their Melee Reaction *then* they have a +1
>/ >TN for every 10 phases (or fraction thereof) the attack occurs
>/ >before their Melee Reaction.

>/ How about this ? If you still prefer reaction to init, please tell me why ?
>
>I still prefer reaction to initiative :)

> Defending oneself in
>unarmed combat is also reactive. If someone trys to hit you you'll
>automatically defend yourself in some fashion. If you're untrained
>you might jerk your head out of the way or block by getting an arm in
>the way. If you're trained you'll counter the attack however you've
>been trained. How well you've been trained and how well you've
>practiced will decide the effectiveness of your counter. BTW, a
>counter can be something as simple as a block or as complex as
>stepping inside the attack and counter-attacking.
>
Since the amount of training or skill comes into play as to how well
you defend yourself, why not use you Armed/Unarmed skill (ar half of it) as
the multiplier to find a number? Or, come to think of it, the existing
system seems to favor the more skilled opponent in melee...If they're better
than you, you better run or they'll chew you up with
counterattacking...<shrug> Thought I had a good idea, too...

aaronj@******.com
Aaron (Still no SIG file) Jones
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 01:04:57 +0000
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
In-Reply-To: <199712310814.AAA04523@*****.efn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0

In article <199712310814.AAA04523@*****.efn.org>, David Hinkley
<dhinkley@***.ORG> writes
>On 29 Dec 97 at 15:29, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> British Army artillery doctrine seemed to be that its primary role
>> was preparation of targets at battalion level and above, defensive
>> fires for company or battalion level, counterbattery fire,
>> interdiction and attack of depth targets. It was a rare platoon
>> commander who could expect to whistle up a fire mission from a
>> battery of 155s.
>
>When I was in an American Mech Infantry Battalion had 10 p
Message no. 27
From: Russ Myrick <ceedawg@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 02:31:26 -0600
> I were talking about using magic fingers to create a Barrier. A wall,
> in other words....
>
> I agree about using magic fingers to stop melee weapons, but in the
> original example, the spell/ability was used to create a barrier to
> protect fellow teammembers from enemy fire... Hardly something I
> would call "anti-melee weapons use". <grin>
>
> (So no, I'm not wrong. I never am. <grin, duck & run>)

Just a few thoughts on the adaptability of the Magic Fingers spell,
or the Psychokinesis edge...

There are a lot of Manipulation spells that are based on simple
applications of Force. The Clout spell can do damage at range.
The Magic Fingers spell can be used as a pair of hands to do
various things. The Use (Skill) spell lets you use a skill at
range, for example Use Unarmed Combat to defend against a baseball
bat. The Levitate spells let you move people or things about.
There's the Barrier spell or its limited versions for Bullets,
Blast, and Blades. The Remote Control spell lets you manipulate
simple controls. There are probably a few I've missed.

There are a lot of spells because they do a lot of different
things. Granted some are just "limited target" versions of
others, there are still a lot of different game mechanics that
they cover. They all have different target numbers and drain
codes to represent what they can do. There is certainly some
overlap, but IMHO not as much as other people see.

IMHO, the Psychokinesis Edge seems WAY too powerful. Even if it
had a Drain Code of (F/2)+4 D, I would consider it too powerful.
Any single spell or edge that can reproduce the effects of a half
dozen different spells is unbalancing. It's like allowing an
area effect General Illusion spell that can simulate most of the
illusions spells (mask, entertainment, chaos, and all of the
variants). It's just as bad as a General Healing spell that can
Heal, Treat, Cure Disease, Cure Poison, Increase Attribute Body,
and Resist Pain. It seems logical that someone could develop
such general spells at very high drain level
Message no. 28
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 01:51:09 +0000
True. That's what I get for relying on memory. ;)

losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG

Justin :)
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 10:20:50 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: MASKING!!! (Re: Maskig Adept)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
> Date: Saturday, January 03, 1998 12:16 AM

> In a message dated 98-01-02 12:47:46 EST, t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE
> writes:

> > > Also, you're talking about masking, something that's well within the
> > > purview of a full mage.

> > Not that kind of masking. The masking adept (to make him worth
something)
> > can also get kind of invisible in astral space (illusion)....

> Sorry, the missing "n" was just getting to me after a bit ... and I have
to
> agree with Tobias on this. Masking is, like all the other magical
material,
> due for a review. A "Masking Adept" opens up some interesting aspects.
The
> majority of the ideas that I have read in this thread seem to pivot
around the
> "No Illusions In Astral Space" type of argument. Here's a thought
guys...

Uh-oh. ;)

> Masking might not be an Illusion. It might be a Mental Manipulation.
Ever
> considered redesigning "Disregard" for example from the Mental
Manipulation
> POV? It could easily strike-out targets in the Astral and make them
"ignore
> me" (me being the MaskAdept of course ;).

I disagree, but I don't think the rules necessarily do. When I say I don't
think illusions work in Astral Space, I am not just talking about the
category of spells, I am speaking of ANY falsehood being impossible, except
via spirits and the ONE Metamagical ability discovered to date. IMO, it's
just too easy to cast a spell for it to be allowed to manipulate the aura
(or cause any sort of falsehood on the Astral). That's just way too much
power for any spell slinger to have.

Also, take the Shapechange spell, for example. It's not an Illusion spell
- it's a Manipulation spell. I wouldn't allow it to hide the magician's
true form on the Astral, either. He would appear as his usual ideallized
self-image with a spell clinging to his aura. I apologize for any
confusion caused by using the phrase "no illusions in the astral" - as I
meant a broader definition than just the category of spells.

> Here is another thought...how about Transformation Manipulations that are
> transforming the "leading edge of the aura" or "superficial aura"
into
> something that is simply harder to see in the astral?

> Yes, I know many will say I'm "designing my way around something", but it
> changes the pervue in the SR system. Manipulations are NOT Illusions,
> therefore they are subject to slightly different laws...

Well, you said it first. ;) I do think you are trying to design your way
around something - but that's your right. I just don't agree. Yes, the
two types of spells are different, and therefore follow some different
laws. However, if you read my above example, you will see why I don't
agree. Also, keep in mind that manipulation spells exist primarily on the
physical plane. Therefore, IMO, they would be the LEAST likely type of
spell to have any illusion-type effect on the astral (since less of the
spell is on the astral).

> -K

Justin :)
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 10:29:27 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Replying to posts (Was: Re: Maskig Adept)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
> Date: Saturday, January 03, 1998 9:33 AM

> At 02-Jan-98 wrote Justin Pinnow:

> >That is incorrect. Physical Magicians have full access to astral
> >perception and projection per the canon rules. Thus, they aren't
expanded
> >physical adepts, per se. They are a jack of all magical trades.

> Nope, they don`t have projection or perception, they can get perception
> as physad power, but they don`t have it automaticaly.
> Page 119 Awakenings, third paragaph from the end.

Can I ask a favor of the people on this list? I find it a bit annoying to
see the same response to a post from 5 different people. Could you please
read though all your e-mail from the list first and THEN reply to what you
wish to reply to? With all the people on this list, chances are someone
has already made your point for you. In this case, I was incorrect and
acknowledge that. But to be told several more
Message no. 29
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 17:46:14 +0000
At 03-Jan-98 wrote Wyrmy:

>Well I've told yall to look at my sig, but i changed my sig,so here is
>my url:
>http://www.flash.net/~elfman/
>So there it is.It PROBABLY won't be updated anytime soon.

Oh and finaly we see the light :)
Was it so hard to create a sig? :)

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know what a rhinoceros is?
All that is left from the unicorn.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 13:00:11 +0100
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Organization: Affilated Artists
Subject: Re: Bull-In-the-Box
In-Reply-To: <2fff945b.34aebc4f@***.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

At 03-Jan-98 wrote Ereskanti:

>In a message dated 98-01-03 08:45:46 EST, chaos@*****.COM writes:

>> It's entirely possible that Aztech will have a Ghost in the Machine quite
>> shortly :]
>>
>> Bull

>I don't suppose that Bull would be interested in selling that backdoor then
>eh? It would work really well the PBEM...

It seems to me that you are thinking of recruiting another player here Keith
:)

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know what a rhinoceros is?
All that is left from the unicorn.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 12:45:50 +0100
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Organization: Affilated Artists
Subject: Re: Halley's Comet
In-Reply-To: <34AE85D7.62F@*****.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

At 03-Jan-98 wrote Wyrmy:


>I agree especially with Barbie as its controller...... :=<>

What did this mean, realy? :)
You don`t the char, so how can you judge? :)

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know what a rhinoceros is?
All that is left from the unicorn.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 17:23:25 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: George H Metz <wolfstar@****.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Magic Terms)

On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 14:02:10 -0800 Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM> writes:

>>The success level

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3), 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.