Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Brian McCallister <mccllstr@********.EDU>
Subject: R2 Sensors
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:33:08 -0500
Okay, question about R2, can a rigger use control pool dice on sensors
tests? Most drones are dealing with sensors 1 or 2, and that is not a
whole lot of dice.

Question 2, anthroforms. There is no power plant listed for anthroforms.
How much load can they handle? This gets important for putting armor on
them. If military grade armor is hardened armor, couldn't you put an
equivalent on anthroforms that go into high risk areas? Wouldn't that
weigh considerably less than armor as per R2 rules, but have the same effect?


-Skrub
Message no. 2
From: Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: R2 Sensors
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 11:17:11 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-07 10:34:12 EST, Brian McCallister writes:

> Okay, question about R2, can a rigger use control pool dice on sensors
> tests? Most drones are dealing with sensors 1 or 2, and that is not a
> whole lot of dice.

No. The control pool reflects the greater control vehicles have over their
vehicles, and as such, it has no effect on systems not directly relating to
maneuver, such as vehicle weapons, electronic systems (including Sensors) and
so on.

Note that some other dice pools may handle some of these "other" vehicle
systems (Combat Pool for vehicle weapons, Task Pool for using electronics).
Also note certain cyberware or vehicle/drone accessories may also add dice.
For sensor-related Perception Tests, advanced datajacks (from Shadowtech) and
the IPA ClearSight autosoft (p. 100) add additional dice.

> Question 2, anthroforms. There is no power plant listed for anthroforms.
> How much load can they handle? This gets important for putting armor on
> them. If military grade armor is hardened armor, couldn't you put an
> equivalent on anthroforms that go into high risk areas? Wouldn't that
> weigh considerably less than armor as per R2 rules, but have the same
effect?

Anthroforms use the same power plants as walker drones. They are treated as
vehicles when it comes to resolving damage.

Hope this helps,

-- Jon
Message no. 3
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: R2 Sensors
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:21:02 +0000
Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM> once wrote,

(snipped)
> Anthroforms use the same power plants as walker drones. They are treated as
> vehicles when it comes to resolving damage.
(snipped)

Yes, Mr. Szeto, but realistically, you could put a set of Heavy Milspec
armor on an Anthroform drone, since, As I read it, they are almost human
looking, faster, stronger...uhh...well, not thougher. Why would you
burden yourself with plate armor that costs a bundle when you could just
slip on some human armor on that drone. Voila!

Another clarification, please. Passenger actions during Vehicle combat.
If I read correctly, passengers cannot act offensively until the driver
had AT LEAST one action. That's not much of a problem with highly
cybered riggers (with 3 or 4 dice of initiative), but imagine being caught
with Joe Slow as a driver. The way it works now, If Joe Slow has the
misfortune of rolling, let's say, 5 on his initiative, then all the street
monsters in tow won't even be able to act until that combat phase, and all
actions are lost? With all due respect, this is ridiculous.

But the theory behind it is plausible. Combat maneuvers are bumpy ones.
So I came up with this solution.

SIMPLE ACTION:

Hanging On: Using a simple action, a character can try to secure himself
in such a way that he is able to take offensive actions. Therefore, a
secured passenger can act BEFORE the rigger had his first action, and is
considered secured for the rest of the combat turn, or until the vehicle
fails a crash test, or is hit by weapon fire. In this case, another
simple action must be taken to secure oneself to the vehicle once again.

If I misread that part of the rules correctly, then I am sorely mistaken.
But I think it does work that way.

One last thing. I have been very vocal about my dislike of R2. I won't
hide that fact. But we can all see the effort that went into this book,
and I would like to commend you for this. Maybe even too much effort
:). In an attempt to be a realistic as possible, you, IMHO, went too far
into details. Ah well... But the writing's cool! (loud, sucking noise)

Salutations

Trinity
------------------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 4
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: R2 Sensors
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 11:15:07 -0700
Frank Pelletier wrote:
/
[..to Jon Szeto]
/ One last thing. I have been very vocal about my dislike of R2. I won't
/ hide that fact. But we can all see the effort that went into this book,
/ and I would like to commend you for this. Maybe even too much effort
/ :). In an attempt to be a realistic as possible, you, IMHO, went too far
/ into details. Ah well... But the writing's cool! (loud, sucking noise)

Ditto. I'm not to of 75% of R2, but that's just a difference of
opinion. But I respect the hell out of you for writing it and
getting it published.

-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 5
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: R2 Sensors
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 15:45:14 EST
> Hope this helps,
>
> -- Jon

Whoa, now we've got some authority on here! :) Welcome aboard.

<shameless plug>
Be sure to read my review of Rigger 2 in the next issue of The
Shadowrun Supplemental, due out around the 16th!
</shameless plug>

Question: Vehicle Availabilities and Street Indexes?

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 6
From: Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: R2 Sensors
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 18:43:43 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-07 16:02:04 EST, Brett Borger writes:

> Question: Vehicle Availabilities and Street Indexes?

Availability and Street Index is calculated the same way as it is in the BBB.
In case you've forgotten, here it is again:

The Availability of a vehicle is equal to its cost divided by 10,000. The
base time is equal to half the Availability (rounded down) in days. Street
Index is 0.75 for vehicles costing less than 10,000, 1 for vehicles between
10K and 50K, and 2 for more than 50K.

Of course, gamemasters are free to raise or lower Availability Codes and
Street Indexes as they see fit.

I don't know how it got left out. I distinctly remember Mike and I talking
about it.

-- Jon
Message no. 7
From: Oliver McDonald <oliver@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: R2 Sensors
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:49:08 +0800
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:33:08 -0500, Brian McCallister wrote:

>Question 2, anthroforms. There is no power plant listed for anthroforms.
>How much load can they handle? This gets important for putting armor on
>them. If military grade armor is hardened armor, couldn't you put an
>equivalent on anthroforms that go into high risk areas? Wouldn't that
>weigh considerably less than armor as per R2 rules, but have the same effect?

Vehicle armour is not equal to body armour.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Oliver McDonald - oliver@*********.com
http://web2.spydernet.com

Space. The Final Frontier. Let's not close it down.

Brought to you via CyberSpace, the recursive frontier.
Message no. 8
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: R2 Sensors
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 20:19:51 +0000
Oliver McDonald <oliver@*********.com> once wrote,

(snipped)
> Vehicle armour is not equal to body armour.
(snipped)

Oh no? Where is that written? That car has....6 armor.... This guy
has...6 armor... Where's the difference? Add in a gelpak, and you've
got yourself some hardened armor... Oh, you don't get that damage code
reduction...that's a pity. But the weight and cost you're saving far
outweights any disadvantages possible...

BTW, even non-armored vehicles get that Damage code reduction, not
just armored ones.

Trinity
------------------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 9
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: R2 Sensors
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 07:57:59 GMT
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997 18:43:43 -0500, Jon Szeto wrote:

> In a message dated 97-11-07 16:02:04 EST, Brett Borger writes:
>
> > Question: Vehicle Availabilities and Street Indexes?
>
> Availability and Street Index is calculated the same way as it is in the BBB.
> In case you've forgotten, here it is again:
>
> The Availability of a vehicle is equal to its cost divided by 10,000. The
> base time is equal to half the Availability (rounded down) in days. Street
> Index is 0.75 for vehicles costing less than 10,000, 1 for vehicles between
> 10K and 50K, and 2 for more than 50K.
>
> Of course, gamemasters are free to raise or lower Availability Codes and
> Street Indexes as they see fit.
>
> I don't know how it got left out. I distinctly remember Mike and I talking
> about it.

This is something that can easily be included in SR3. No harm done.



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 10
From: NightRain <nightrain@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: R2 Sensors
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 16:44:19 +1000
>Another clarification, please. Passenger actions during Vehicle combat.
>If I read correctly, passengers cannot act offensively until the driver
>had AT LEAST one action. That's not much of a problem with highly
>cybered riggers (with 3 or 4 dice of initiative), but imagine being caught
>with Joe Slow as a driver. The way it works now, If Joe Slow has the
>misfortune of rolling, let's say, 5 on his initiative, then all the street
>monsters in tow won't even be able to act until that combat phase, and all
>actions are lost? With all due respect, this is ridiculous.


Actually, the action they can move on is determined by the open ended
driving test for driver points. The higher the roll, the faster the
passengers move, even with a slow driver.

NightRain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL : nightrain@***.brisnet.org.au
: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
ICQ : 2587947
Message no. 11
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: R2 Sensors
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:29:25 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-07 10:33:47 EST, mccllstr@********.EDU writes:

Sorry about snipping the first question, the "Control Pool to Help Sensors"
is a No btw.

> Question 2, anthroforms. There is no power plant listed for anthroforms.
> How much load can they handle? This gets important for putting armor on
> them. If military grade armor is hardened armor, couldn't you put an
> equivalent on anthroforms that go into high risk areas? Wouldn't that
> weigh considerably less than armor as per R2 rules, but have the same
effect?
> -Skrub

Now here is a crux question. I have a feeling this is going to come up a LOT
here once someone else figures it out, Mike and I already have some rules on
this, but that's something else.

Vehicles, okay, drones that look 'humanoid', wearing personel armor that is
"Hardened" in order to get the best of both worlds. Sure, it's possible,
IMHO. Two things I would like to point out.

Quickness of the Robot/Anthroform would be compared to the armor and negate
control pool dice from the rigger, IMHO.

Actions, the armor would have to be fitted a bit differently to begin with.
That would make the armor awfully difficult to provide for (hey, it has a
maintenance also folks).

-K
Message no. 12
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: R2 Sensors
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:55:02 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-07 19:50:24 EST, oliver@*********.com writes:

> Vehicle armour is not equal to body armour.
>
I think we all realize that, but if you are using the Military Grade armor,
then it may as well be.

-K

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about R2 Sensors, 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!