Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Alfredo B Alves dghost@****.com
Subject: Rigger 2 oddball question
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 13:55:32 -0500
If I want to weld an RV (or two) to buttom of a zeppelin, will the
zeppelin fly without penalty as long as the RV(s) are covered by the
Zeppelin's Load rating? The Pulling rules on page 33 of R2 don't say much
on towing something that doesn't exceed the pulling vehicle's Load
rating.

With a body rating of 4, an RV (according to the table on page 23 of R2)
weighs up to 2,000 kg (2 metric tons). A zeppelin with an electric motor
(in this case) can have a Load rating of up to 4,000 kg. Does that mean
it can carry two RVs without penalty?

The reason I want to know, is I want to put living quarters in a zeppelin
and there aren't enough CF ... (Why do I want to do /that/? To create a
sort of airborne yacht.)
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 2
From: Max Rible slothman@*********.org
Subject: Rigger 2 oddball question
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 11:57:52 -0700
At 13:55 5/8/00 -0500, Alfredo B Alves wrote:
>If I want to weld an RV (or two) to buttom of a zeppelin, will the
>zeppelin fly without penalty as long as the RV(s) are covered by the
>Zeppelin's Load rating? The Pulling rules on page 33 of R2 don't say much
>on towing something that doesn't exceed the pulling vehicle's Load
>rating.
>
>With a body rating of 4, an RV (according to the table on page 23 of R2)
>weighs up to 2,000 kg (2 metric tons). A zeppelin with an electric motor
>(in this case) can have a Load rating of up to 4,000 kg. Does that mean
>it can carry two RVs without penalty?
>
>The reason I want to know, is I want to put living quarters in a zeppelin
>and there aren't enough CF ... (Why do I want to do /that/? To create a
>sort of airborne yacht.)

Well, CF on a zeppelin is not much of an issue. The important thing
on one of those is *weight*. You can have nice, spacious living quarters
there as long as you take a little trouble to streamline them.
Zeppelins are quite well suited to be yachts of the sky as long as you
don't try to put too many people on board... the mass of the people
and provisions adds up. If the rules don't support this, just ignore
them-- lighter-than-air craft are very different from most other vehicles,
and the "spacious quarters on my flying yacht" is mostly a matter of
style and shouldn't affect game balance.

--
%% Max Rible % slothman@*********.org % http://www.amurgsval.org/~slothman/ %%
%% "Before enlightenment: sharpen claws, catch mice. %%
%% After enlightenment: sharpen claws, catch mice." - me %%
Message no. 3
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Rigger 2 oddball question
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 10:56:19 +0200
According to Alfredo B Alves, at 13:55 on 8 May 00, the word on the street
was...

> If I want to weld an RV (or two) to buttom of a zeppelin, will the
> zeppelin fly without penalty as long as the RV(s) are covered by the
> Zeppelin's Load rating?

I'd say yes, it could be done that way. If nothing else works for the GM,
you could always call the RVs "cargo" :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
But it's obviously a dream, as I'm waiting for that beam...
--Millencollin, "Vulcan Ears"
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL 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. 4
From: Jill jmenning@***********.com
Subject: Rigger 2 oddball question
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 07:43:56 -0500
At 01:55 PM 5/8/00, Alfredo wrote:

>The reason I want to know, is I want to put living quarters in a zeppelin
>and there aren't enough CF ... (Why do I want to do /that/? To create a
>sort of airborne yacht.)

The cargo factor for living amenities makes little sense, anyways, in my
opinion. Take a sixty-foot sport cruiser hull. Max cargo factor, per Rigger
2, is 84. That's not even close to the 200 required for living amenities.
Yet I know people who live *very* comfortably on forty and forty-five foot
boats for most of the year. Depending on how it is set up you have room
for plenty of stuff for two or three people. Longer hulls usually
translates to more space to put other stuff. The few times I've tried to
put living amenities where the rules say I couldn't, I got together with my
GM and just agreed on how much space would be left over afterwards (if any)
and ignored the rules. *shrug*

I do like your idea about the RVs though :o)

Jill
Message no. 5
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: Rigger 2 oddball question
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 10:49:04 -0400
At 08:43 AM 5/9/00 , Jill wrote:

>At 01:55 PM 5/8/00, Alfredo wrote:
>
>>The reason I want to know, is I want to put living quarters in a zeppelin
>>and there aren't enough CF ... (Why do I want to do /that/? To create a
>>sort of airborne yacht.)
>
>The cargo factor for living amenities makes little sense, anyways, in my
>opinion. Take a sixty-foot sport cruiser hull. Max cargo factor, per
>Rigger 2, is 84. That's not even close to the 200 required for living
>amenities. Yet I know people who live *very* comfortably on forty and
>forty-five foot boats for most of the year. Depending on how it is set up
>you have room for plenty of stuff for two or three people. Longer hulls
>usually translates to more space to put other stuff. The few times I've
>tried to put living amenities where the rules say I couldn't, I got
>together with my GM and just agreed on how much space would be left over
>afterwards (if any) and ignored the rules. *shrug*

Double check, doesn't the sport cruiser already have Living Amenities built
into the original chassis?

Sommers
Aerospace engineers build weapon systems. Civil engineers build targets.
Message no. 6
From: Jill jmenning@***********.com
Subject: Rigger 2 oddball question
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 10:22:56 -0500
At 09:49 AM 5/9/00, Sommers wrote:

>Double check, doesn't the sport cruiser already have Living Amenities
>built into the original chassis?

Nope, not so far as I can tell (and I did go back to look). They are
included with the Yacht chassis, which, by the rules/descriptions, is 60+
feet long, but not for the shorter hulls.

Jill
Message no. 7
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Rigger 2 oddball question
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 19:41:56 +0200
According to Jill, at 7:43 on 9 May 00, the word on the street was...

> The cargo factor for living amenities makes little sense, anyways, in my
> opinion.

Some time last year, we had a fairly big thread about living amenities; my
own complaint with them is not the CF requirement (that sounds fairly
reasonable, based on vacationing in RVs for about 12 years) but rather
that it doesn't matter how many people you want to put up in that space.

I'll see if I still have the post I made with the way I would modify the
rules from Rigger 2... Here we are, this is from a post I made on 15
November last year

DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Design Cost:
Basic: 40 points per passenger
Improved: 50 points, plus 40 points per passenger
High: 100 points, plus 40 points per passenger
Maximum Rating: NA
CF Consumed: 100 CF (kitchen block & toilet) + 25 CF per passenger (bed,
seating & some storage space)
Load Reduction: 100 kg + 50 kg per passenger

CUSTOMIZATION SPECIFICATIONS
Parts Cost:
Basic: 4,000Y per passenger
Improved: 5,000Y, plus 4,000Y per passenger
High: 10,000Y, plus 4,000Y per passenger
Parts Availability: 2/14 days
Street Index: 1
Maximum Rating: NA
Base Time: 1 month
Skill: Appropriate Vehicle B/R skill (or basic construction skill --
Carpentry etc.)
Target Number: 2 + number of passengers
Equipment Needed: General Work Shop
CF Consumed: 100 CF (kitchen block & toilet) + 25 CF per passenger (bed,
seating & some storage space)
Load Reduction: 150 kg + 50 kg per passenger

Some modifications were suggested, IIRC, but you should be able to locate
the whole thread in the logs (http://lists.dumpshock.com/) easily enough
given the date I mentioned above.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
But it's obviously a dream, as I'm waiting for that beam...
--Millencollin, "Vulcan Ears"
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL 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. 8
From: Alfredo B Alves dghost@****.com
Subject: Rigger 2 oddball question
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 13:54:18 -0500
On Tue, 09 May 2000 07:43:56 -0500 Jill <jmenning@***********.com>
writes:
<SNIP>
> I do like your idea about the RVs though :o)

Heh. Thanks. I was thinking it'd be funny to weld the front half to the
front of the Zepplin's undercarriage (becoming the new cockpit) and the
back end to the rear of the undercarriage ... for that Oscar Meyer Weiner
Car look ... :)

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Rigger 2 oddball question, 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!