Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Ralph and Ivy Ryan <sgmpaws@*******.COM>
Subject: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 12:57:24 -0500
What *is* this supposed to be?

The good news is that there was a very nice sounding description of how the
VCR actually works. The science may be shakey but it sounds real good; and
could be accurate enough as a description of what the Air Force is doing.

The bad news is that whatever this book was supposed to be; It doesn't make
the cut.

It would have helped if the writer had read the SRII rules as to using a
Concentration vice using a Skill. There is no +2 modifier for going
backwards from a Concentration to the general skill.

And it would have helped if the writer had the tiniest amount of knowledge
as to engines, chassis, hot-rodding, weapon recoil systems, jet engines or
anything else technological. Nearly every example was wrong and most of
the terminology was ridiculous.

As the author obviously had no idea of what he was writing about, it would
have been nice if the line developer had had some idea. Maybe some of the
more glaring errors might have been caught.

I guess it is too much to ask for the editor to catch the errors. It seems
to me that the current crop of "experts" involved in ShadowRun are trying
to destroy the game. Doing a fair job too, at this rate there won't be
anything left but errors. Maybe SR3 will come out and the SRII ruleset
will go up for sale <hope>.

Disappointed but hangin' in,

Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)
Message no. 2
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 13:02:54 +0500
On 23 Dec 97 at 12:57, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:

> Disappointed but hangin' in,
>
> Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)

Ivy, the writer is a member of the list, so maybe you could use a
little more restraint when bitching about his work. I am sure Jon
would welcome constructive criticism (such as what's broke, and your
suggestions on fixing it.) But to just trash it helps no one.

BTW, Steve Kenson who wrote Awakenings is on here too. Just thought
I'd let you know before you put your foot in your mouth again.

--

===DREKHEAD==================================drekhead@***.net====
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
=================================================================
Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 3
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 13:04:41 -0500
On Tue, Dec 23, 1997 at 12:57:24PM -0500, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
> What *is* this supposed to be?
>
> The good news is that there was a very nice sounding description of how the
> VCR actually works. The science may be shakey but it sounds real good; and
> could be accurate enough as a description of what the Air Force is doing.
>
> The bad news is that whatever this book was supposed to be; It doesn't make
> the cut.
>
> It would have helped if the writer had read the SRII rules as to using a
> Concentration vice using a Skill. There is no +2 modifier for going
> backwards from a Concentration to the general skill.
>
> And it would have helped if the writer had the tiniest amount of knowledge
> as to engines, chassis, hot-rodding, weapon recoil systems, jet engines or
> anything else technological. Nearly every example was wrong and most of
> the terminology was ridiculous.
>
> As the author obviously had no idea of what he was writing about, it would
> have been nice if the line developer had had some idea. Maybe some of the
> more glaring errors might have been caught.
>
> I guess it is too much to ask for the editor to catch the errors. It seems
> to me that the current crop of "experts" involved in ShadowRun are trying
> to destroy the game. Doing a fair job too, at this rate there won't be
> anything left but errors. Maybe SR3 will come out and the SRII ruleset
> will go up for sale <hope>.
>
> Disappointed but hangin' in,
>
> Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)

Ouch! Poor spike, looks like there will be some good arguments over
christmas.
1st. I will agree on a few things. The editing sucked. Period.
The book also relied on some things (such as skill web changes)
from the companion. Overall the book isn't my favorite and
I too was slightly disappointed (hype does that), but it did
do what it promised. Riggers now have a common set of rules (instead
of our various house rules), that make them playable. Perhaps
an errata will be printed, perhaps not.
Rigger 2 was the first I was upset with the editing. Cyberpirates
looks very good, as did the books before.
I have a feeling your the type, you just have to agree to disagree
with. I gave it 7/10.
By the way, if you don't like R2, which rules do you use?
Check out Jane's registry. It had a decent set I used until R2
appeared.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all of its students.
Message no. 4
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 16:45:02 EST
In a message dated 97-12-23 12:59:19 EST, you write:

> It would have helped if the writer had read the SRII rules as to using a
> Concentration vice using a Skill. There is no +2 modifier for going
> backwards from a Concentration to the general skill.

The +2 modifier was established in the Shadowrun Companion (Defaulting from
Concentrations/Specializations, p. 48). If you don't use that rule, do what
other people do: ignore it.

> And it would have helped if the writer had the tiniest amount of knowledge
> as to engines, chassis, hot-rodding, weapon recoil systems, jet engines or
> anything else technological. Nearly every example was wrong and most of
> the terminology was ridiculous.

Would you please be more specific as to what, specifically, was wrong? I know
there have been a few typographical errors in some of the examples, but what
else did you see as wrong? Were there conceptual errors? An improper modeling
of some real-world examples?

-- Jon
Message no. 5
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 19:51:11 EST
In a message dated 97-12-23 12:58:57 EST, sgmpaws@*******.COM writes:

> What *is* this supposed to be?

A sourcebook with inspiriation, I thought you liked that???

> The good news is that there was a very nice sounding description of how the
> VCR actually works. The science may be shakey but it sounds real good; and
> could be accurate enough as a description of what the Air Force is doing.

Oh brother...folks, please...somebody hold me down...reverse echo telneting
may be in order soon....

> The bad news is that whatever this book was supposed to be; It doesn't make
> the cut.

Sad to say, you are in a minority this time around (is this a surprise???)

> It would have helped if the writer had read the SRII rules as to using a
> Concentration vice using a Skill. There is no +2 modifier for going
> backwards from a Concentration to the general skill.

Sorry to say, but it does in many instances, IF the ruling calls for such.

> And it would have helped if the writer had the tiniest amount of knowledge
> as to engines, chassis, hot-rodding, weapon recoil systems, jet engines or
> anything else technological. Nearly every example was wrong and most of
> the terminology was ridiculous.

Actually, after drifting through some web sites, I will have to commend Jon
and all those individuals who worked on R2. No, it wasn't perfect, but it was
a far cry from "ridiculous". And nope, ever example wasn't "wrong".

> As the author obviously had no idea of what he was writing about, it would
> have been nice if the line developer had had some idea. Maybe some of the
> more glaring errors might have been caught.

Send me some of those "glaring errors" by direct email if you would please,
and don't worry, I read fast...so you can type as much crap as you like.

> I guess it is too much to ask for the editor to catch the errors. It seems
> to me that the current crop of "experts" involved in ShadowRun are trying
> to destroy the game. Doing a fair job too, at this rate there won't be
> anything left but errors. Maybe SR3 will come out and the SRII ruleset
> will go up for sale <hope>.

Although I do agree that Mike Mulhilvil is not the finest example of a game
design leader, I do NOT believe that he or anyone else is out to "destroy the
game." Hell, that would hurt FASA at the moment...SR books are selling, well
enough, especially compared to other game systems at the moment (I have gone
tripping around some statistics, it's not pretty, but it's NOT bad).

Those are not Errors, those are "Band Aids for War Wounds"...(see if you can
figure that one out).

> Disappointed but hangin' in,

And obviously with little room for "hangin" it would seem...

> Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)

Oh that should be well worth the reading....let's see if you and I agree
where, or what, Steve's definitions of SR "Advanced" Magic really are....

-K
Message no. 6
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 19:57:15 -0500
At 12:57 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote these timeless words:
>What *is* this supposed to be?
>
<sigh>

My, you certainly are a blunt, cynical, and Opinionated Munchkin (Yes, you
heard me. Anyone who can run a game with that much Karma Pool needs a
serious reality check. Sorry. And just for reference... My 5 year
campign character has a total of 25 KP and a Team pool of 18, and we don;t
refresh until the end of an adventure, and i STILL rarely ever use half of
it unless my GM is TRYING to make me burn it. Trying really hard. And I
still feel sufficiently challenged.)

Now, most on this list know me well enough after my almost year and a half
stint to know that I'm one of the friendliest and most easy going guys
around. However, you've maneged, within 3 posts that I've bothered to
read, to ROYALLY annoy me with your self righteous attitude and your "Like
it or screw you all" personality. Sorry, but those are the facts, and as I
told our esteemed Assistant Fearless Leader, it seemed only a matter of
time before I felt it was time to face off and give you a piece of my mind.
Seemed that came sooner than I expected.

Personally, I know exactly what Rigger 2 *IS*. It's a very well done (if a
bit on the Techy side) book that updates and replaces the badly worn out
and incomplete original Rigger rules. Riggers were little more than pilots
under the old rules, now they are a great and much more useful part of the
shadowrun team.

As for the book itself, you may want to consider choosing your words and
your flames a little more carefully, for you never know who might be around
and watching. In this case, the author of said book, Jon Szeto (Nice guy,
BTW), is a listmember. And you just ripped apart (with no real specifics
other than your standard "I don;t like it, it sucks" attitude) his work.
Bad move kiddo...

I'll end this now while I'm still being fairly pleasent, but try and watch
it in the future... Not everyone will agree with you, and blatently
telling people they suck for not agreeing with you is NOT the way to make
friends...

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka Chaos, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Cuddly Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome and Archive
Answer Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
---- in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Bah! Humbug!"
-- Wise man on Christmas :]
Message no. 7
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 19:55:12 EST
In a message dated 97-12-23 13:05:37 EST, drekhead@***.NET writes:

> > Disappointed but hangin' in,
> > Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)
>
> Ivy, the writer is a member of the list, so maybe you could use a
> little more restraint when bitching about his work. I am sure Jon
> would welcome constructive criticism (such as what's broke, and your
> suggestions on fixing it.) But to just trash it helps no one.

Damn it Drek...you shouldn't have told him that...I wanted to watch.... and
besides, I am the -first- person to have doubted "JonSzeto" was really the
same guy (even if that name really is almost unique (won't tell you where else
it was found)). And I do believe Jon would appreciate constructive criticism,
he has taken it well from Mike and I and even bounced a few opinions back.

Which is more than I can say for Steve... (just kidding...)

> BTW, Steve Kenson who wrote Awakenings is on here too. Just thought
> I'd let you know before you put your foot in your mouth again.

Oh there you go again...spoiling all my fun...
-K
Message no. 8
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 20:21:32 -0500
At 01:04 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Lehlan Decker wrote these timeless words:

>By the way, if you don't like R2, which rules do you use?
>Check out Jane's registry. It had a decent set I used until R2
>appeared.
>
Oh, but Lehlan, She can;t do that! Using jane's Registry would involve
using House Rules, and didn;t she go out of her way to tell us that the
House Rules all suck and that by using them, you're cheating your players!

Of course, since Rigger 2 is condiered part of the Core Rules now, and will
be included in 3rd Edition, gee... Does that mean poor Ivy will have to
use these rules she hates so much, or is she just going to whine and revert
to old system?

Hehe...

Sorry, I'm a sarcastic son of a bitch today...

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka Chaos, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Cuddly Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome and Archive
Answer Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
---- in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Bah! Humbug!"
-- Wise man on Christmas :]
Message no. 9
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 20:21:29 -0500
At 01:02 PM 12/23/97 +0500, Drekhead wrote these timeless words:
>On 23 Dec 97 at 12:57, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
>
>> Disappointed but hangin' in,
>>
>> Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)
>
>Ivy, the writer is a member of the list, so maybe you could use a
>little more restraint when bitching about his work. I am sure Jon
>would welcome constructive criticism (such as what's broke, and your
>suggestions on fixing it.) But to just trash it helps no one.
>
Gee, you were much nicer about this than I was :]

>BTW, Steve Kenson who wrote Awakenings is on here too. Just thought
>I'd let you know before you put your foot in your mouth again.
>
Oh yeah... Probably should have mentioned that... Please don;t flame
Steve either... We like him too... he occasionally listens to us :] He's
also a really nice guy :]

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka Chaos, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Cuddly Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome and Archive
Answer Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
---- in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Bah! Humbug!"
-- Wise man on Christmas :]
Message no. 10
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 20:50:06 EST
In a message dated 97-12-23 20:01:54 EST, chaos@*****.COM writes:

(big body of good relpy post snipped)

> I'll end this now while I'm still being fairly pleasent, but try and watch
> it in the future... Not everyone will agree with you, and blatently
> telling people they suck for not agreeing with you is NOT the way to make
> friends...
> Bull

OH, Bull, I find it stunning that we agree totally on something, and
definitely "thing", in this case.

BTW, here's the Water, did you bring the Carp????

-K
Message no. 11
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 21:04:38 -0500
On 23 Dec 97 at 20:21, Bull wrote:

> >Ivy, the writer is a member of the list, so maybe you could use a
> >little more restraint when bitching about his work. I am sure Jon
> >would welcome constructive criticism (such as what's broke, and your
> >suggestions on fixing it.) But to just trash it helps no one.
> >
> Gee, you were much nicer about this than I was :]

Well, it wasn't without restraint. :)

--



===DREKHEAD==================================drekhead@***.net====
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
=================================================================
Best file compression around: 'DEL *.*' = 100% compression

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 12
From: Ralph and Ivy Ryan <sgmpaws@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 21:06:45 -0500
----------
> From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
> Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 3:02 AM
>
> On 23 Dec 97 at 12:57, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
>
> > Disappointed but hangin' in,
> >
> > Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)
>
> Ivy, the writer is a member of the list, so maybe you could use a
> little more restraint when bitching about his work. I am sure Jon
> would welcome constructive criticism (such as what's broke, and your
> suggestions on fixing it.) But to just trash it helps no one.
>

Actuyally Drekhead, I woulda sent the review directly to the guy if I'd
known he was on the list. But I'd have still posted it. Writing that bad
needs to be read down in public. And I am waiting for the next Columbus
Con to meet him in person. After the thing is in print is way too late for
"constructive" criticism, it should have been "criticised" before it
hit
print. I figure I got cheated out of the money I paid for it. And my
local game store doesn't give refunds if the material is no good.


> BTW, Steve Kenson who wrote Awakenings is on here too. Just thought
> I'd let you know before you put your foot in your mouth again.
>

My foot in my mouth? Don't think so. Poor writing will get bad reviews
and lousy writing gets pans in public. Maybe I'll save some one a dollar
or two.
Message no. 13
From: Ralph and Ivy Ryan <sgmpaws@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 21:12:45 -0500
----------
> From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
> Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 1:04 PM
>
> On Tue, Dec 23, 1997 at 12:57:24PM -0500, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
> >
> > Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)
>
> Ouch! Poor spike, looks like there will be some good arguments over
> christmas.
> 1st. I will agree on a few things. The editing sucked. Period.
> The book also relied on some things (such as skill web changes)
> from the companion. Overall the book isn't my favorite and
> I too was slightly disappointed (hype does that), but it did
> do what it promised. Riggers now have a common set of rules (instead
> of our various house rules), that make them playable. Perhaps
> an errata will be printed, perhaps not.
> Rigger 2 was the first I was upset with the editing. Cyberpirates
> looks very good, as did the books before.
> I have a feeling your the type, you just have to agree to disagree
> with. I gave it 7/10.
> By the way, if you don't like R2, which rules do you use?
> Check out Jane's registry. It had a decent set I used until R2
> appeared.

I give it a 1/2 outta 10. I use common sense for most things when it comes
to vehicle combat. Crazy maneuvers I make them roll, but normally there
isn't any vehicle combat. Drive down a crowded street and try to visualize
having car to bike combat. Ain't gonna happen. Too much else in the way,
plus, what're the rest of the people on the road gonna do? Not to mention
the cops!

Incidentially, I liked Cyberpirates too. Thought the Swashers (esp
Gingerbread) were the best part, but the rest was good too. There is some
good stuff coming from FASA, just the "Companion" and R2 were so bad. I am
not one of the rich folks and I hate to waste my money.

Ivy K
Message no. 14
From: TODD ROBBINS <digger-@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 20:24:45 -0600
Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
> Actuyally Drekhead, I woulda sent the review directly to the guy if I'd
> known he was on the list. But I'd have still posted it. Writing that bad
> needs to be read down in public. And I am waiting for the next Columbus
> Con to meet him in person. After the thing is in print is way too late for
> "constructive" criticism, it should have been "criticised" before
it hit
> print. I figure I got cheated out of the money I paid for it. And my
> local game store doesn't give refunds if the material is no good.

Ok, obviously tact and taste are not in your vocabulary. You have
posted absolutely no specefics about what you disliked and have spent
the majority of your time taking cheap shots. It is a lot easier to
criticize than it is to write, and even easier when you don't even
bother to make any declarative statements as to what you felt was
inadequate, merely vague references that would indicate to me that odds
are you haven't even read the book, or if you had it was merely beyond
your comprehension and thus you feel it necessary to take cheap shots at
it's author rather than posting an intelligent critique.

Personally I liked Rigger 2. The format was good, the book was well
thought out and the ideas and concepts were presented well. If asked
for a critique, the only three problems I had with the new book were the
damage rules for vehicles was not a well written section and was not
very clear. The second problem I had was with the lack of the
anthroform in the description of the vehicle chassis section, and I
would like to see some more precise size descriptions placed in this
section as well. My last criticism of Rigger 2 is that desiging a
drone is a bit math & time intensive, and I would like to see this
simplified, but it is a rather minor complaint at best. Other than that
I felt the book was well written and on the whole a very good source
book. Writing a source book, or even an article, is not nearly as easy
as you seem to believe. Perhaps you'd consider your statements more
carefully if you were an author.

> My foot in my mouth? Don't think so. Poor writing will get bad reviews
> and lousy writing gets pans in public. Maybe I'll save some one a dollar
> or two.

Your Foot? No, I'd say more than likely your entire leg up to your
hip. Your commentary to date has been rude and uncalled for, and quite
frankly I believe you owe this author an apology. Regardless of your
opinion of his work you could certainly have taken a few moments to post
an intelligent critique rather than this childish nonsense. Rest
assured, if I had a twit filter this post would have landed you solidly
therein. But since I do not, I shall simply have to endure your trite
and ill concieved reply. Enjoy.

Digger
Message no. 15
From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 19:34:07 -0700
At 21:06 23/12/97 -0500, you wrote:

>I figure I got cheated out of the money I paid for it. And my
>local game store doesn't give refunds if the material is no good.

Not sure about your store, but the store I buy most of my gaming products
at doesn't mind in the slightest if you read through a book before buying
it, as long as you don't crease or bend the pages.

I've never bought a SR book from any store without cracking the cover and
reading at least a few pages first. And yes, upon further inspection, I've
bought books that I didn't enjoy or use very much. Such is life.

-Adam
Who has Rigger 2 about 5 feet away, wrapped up under the tree :-)



-
http://shadowrun.home.ml.org \ TSS Productions \ The Shadowrun Supplemental
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader \ AdamJ@******** \ fro@***.ab.ca
The Shadowrun Archive Co-Maintainer: http://www.interware.it/shadowrun
Message no. 16
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 03:41:52 +0000
On 23 Dec 97, Ralph and Ivy Ryan disseminated foul capitalist
propaganda by writing:

> What *is* this supposed to be?

Ummm... A book? Thingy to read, ya know? With those little funny
black drawings? Ahhh... Nevermind.

<snip>
> And it would have helped if the writer had the tiniest amount of
> knowledge as to engines, chassis, hot-rodding, weapon recoil
> systems, jet engines or anything else technological. Nearly every
> example was wrong and most of the terminology was ridiculous.

Well, I believe you're an engineer specializing in the abovementioned
issues and that you know all about it, neh? (BTW: If you are, I feel
ashamed. Somehow, I doubt it. ;> )
<rant>
There's nothing that irks me off more than the "I know everything and
what you think is WRONG" jerks, for example those that say "humans
explode in space", or anything like that, just because they think
they are the know-it-alls.
</rant>

Anyway, maybe you'd care to point out some specific errors, along
with real-world technical data and your references?

<snip>

> Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)

I just can't wait.


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
Help the environment. Recycle your boss.
Message no. 17
From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 19:48:49 -0700
At 03:41 24/12/97 +0000, you wrote:
>> Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)
>
>I just can't wait.

Yes! Let's see some real hard facts why a Fictional book about Magic is
Wrong! ;)

(And yes Steve, I know you have strong feelings about Magic and the like,
and that Awakenings isn't truly Fiction.. but..:)

-Adam J


-Adam
-
http://shadowrun.home.ml.org \ TSS Productions \ The Shadowrun Supplemental
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader \ AdamJ@******** \ fro@***.ab.ca
The Shadowrun Archive Co-Maintainer: http://www.interware.it/shadowrun
Message no. 18
From: Ralph and Ivy Ryan <sgmpaws@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 21:49:28 -0500
----------
> From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
> Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 4:45 PM
>
> In a message dated 97-12-23 12:59:19 EST, you write:
>
> > It would have helped if the writer had read the SRII rules as to

> The +2 modifier was established in the Shadowrun Companion (Defaulting
from
> Concentrations/Specializations, p. 48). If you don't use that rule,

I don't use *anything* from the "Companion". I can't "ingore it" it
is a
direct violation of the SRII Core Rules.

> > And it would have helped if the writer had the tiniest amount of
knowledge
> > as to engines, chassis, hot-rodding, weapon recoil systems, jet
engines or

> Would you please be more specific as to what, specifically, was wrong? I
know
> there have been a few typographical errors in some of the examples, but
what
> else did you see as wrong? Were there conceptual errors? An improper
modeling
> of some real-world examples?

OK, where to start... Airliner = Heavy Duty Aricraft <?> with two to five
heavy propellor or turbofan engines????? Propellor?? Since when??
Turbofan????? Some low powered commercial planes still have turboprops,
but those dinosaurs are fast disappearing. Commercial planes use Jet
engines.

Under Bikes you have Choppers as a type. Chops are made from another type
of bike. What you meant (I think) is the heavy bike like the Honda
GoldWing, a completely different item.

Under fuels you seem to have forgotten the one that probably will take over
vice all the rest. Alcohol. 80% efficiency vice Gasoline. In a
-supercharged- <Not Turbocharged, those are antique, less effective than
iron lungs> engine gives better performance than gasoline.

Economy: Right out back of our apartment we have two cars. A 95 Honda CX
and a 95 Neon. The Honda is good for 17.5km/ltr normally and the Neon
gives 15.5 km/ltr. Your economy maximums are waaaayyy off. Actually, all
of them are off.

Recoil systems: Hydro-pneumatic is the way it's being done right now.
Works fine, and works with gyro-stabilization as well. Used in the Abrams
and Bradley for example. Zero recoil!

Painting a target with a laser... Use Firearms for the paint if you want
to be accurate and obsolete. Since 91 they use ranging laser, GPS, and a
mini-comp to give the firing piece a 9 digit map co-ordinate. The round
will hit within 9 cm of the co-ordinate. These are artillery pieces, not
Air Force drop and pray weapons.

I can keep this going for a long while but if you are going to be in
Columbus next July for the Com I'll point them out in person.

> -- Jon

Ivy K.
Message no. 19
From: Ralph and Ivy Ryan <sgmpaws@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 22:00:39 -0500
----------
> From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
> Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 8:21 PM
>
> At 01:02 PM 12/23/97 +0500, Drekhead wrote these timeless words:
> >On 23 Dec 97 at 12:57, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
> >
> >> Disappointed but hangin' in,
> >>
> >> Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)
> >
> >Ivy, the writer is a member of the list, so maybe you could use a
> >little more restraint when bitching about his work. I am sure Jon
> >would welcome constructive criticism (such as what's broke, and your
> >suggestions on fixing it.) But to just trash it helps no one.
> >
> Gee, you were much nicer about this than I was :]
>
> >BTW, Steve Kenson who wrote Awakenings is on here too. Just thought
> >I'd let you know before you put your foot in your mouth again.
> >
> Oh yeah... Probably should have mentioned that... Please don;t flame
> Steve either... We like him too... he occasionally listens to us :]
He's
> also a really nice guy :]
>
> Bull

Yup, and I know what word goes after the "Bull"...

Actually, I count everyone who has to change rules they either don't
understand or have to change for whatever reason the munchkins. Which puts
you where??? OZ??

You may not worry about quality, I do.

Ivy K.
Message no. 20
From: Bryan Stephenson <bry@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 21:09:19 -0600
you are correct on all those things, except the GPS tracking gives a 10=
digit grid, and it is supposed to be acurate to within 1 meter..But is=
still only acurate within +/- 10 meters, even with crypto. But then again=
when talking about even our modern day artillery that can take out a full=
Grid Square(1000m) the differences matter little

Bry

*********** REPLY PARTITION ***********

On 12/23/97, at 9:49 PM, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:

>----------
>> From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
>> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
>> Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
>> Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 4:45 PM
>>
>> In a message dated 97-12-23 12:59:19 EST, you write:
>>
>> > It would have helped if the writer had read the SRII rules as to
>
>> The +2 modifier was established in the Shadowrun Companion (Defaulting
>from
>> Concentrations/Specializations, p. 48). If you don't use that rule,
>
>I don't use *anything* from the "Companion". I can't "ingore it"
it is a
>direct violation of the SRII Core Rules.
>
>> > And it would have helped if the writer had the tiniest amount of
>knowledge
>> > as to engines, chassis, hot-rodding, weapon recoil systems, jet
>engines or
>
>> Would you please be more specific as to what, specifically, was wrong? I
>know
>> there have been a few typographical errors in some of the examples, but
>what
>> else did you see as wrong? Were there conceptual errors? An improper
>modeling
>> of some real-world examples?
>
>OK, where to start... Airliner = Heavy Duty Aricraft <?> with two to=
five
>heavy propellor or turbofan engines????? Propellor?? Since when??
>Turbofan????? Some low powered commercial planes still have turboprops,
>but those dinosaurs are fast disappearing. Commercial planes use Jet
>engines.
>
>Under Bikes you have Choppers as a type. Chops are made from another type
>of bike. What you meant (I think) is the heavy bike like the Honda
>GoldWing, a completely different item.
>
>Under fuels you seem to have forgotten the one that probably will take=
over
>vice all the rest. Alcohol. 80% efficiency vice Gasoline. In a
>-supercharged- <Not Turbocharged, those are antique, less effective than
>iron lungs> engine gives better performance than gasoline.
>
>Economy: Right out back of our apartment we have two cars. A 95 Honda CX
>and a 95 Neon. The Honda is good for 17.5km/ltr normally and the Neon
>gives 15.5 km/ltr. Your economy maximums are waaaayyy off. Actually, all
>of them are off.
>
>Recoil systems: Hydro-pneumatic is the way it's being done right now.
>Works fine, and works with gyro-stabilization as well. Used in the Abrams
>and Bradley for example. Zero recoil!
>
>Painting a target with a laser... Use Firearms for the paint if you want
>to be accurate and obsolete. Since 91 they use ranging laser, GPS, and a
>mini-comp to give the firing piece a 9 digit map co-ordinate. The round
>will hit within 9 cm of the co-ordinate. These are artillery pieces, not
>Air Force drop and pray weapons.
>
>I can keep this going for a long while but if you are going to be in
>Columbus next July for the Com I'll point them out in person.
>
>> -- Jon
>
>Ivy K.
>
Message no. 21
From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 20:13:33 -0700
At 22:00 23/12/97 -0500, you wrote:

>Yup, and I know what word goes after the "Bull"...

Ratkovich.

>Actually, I count everyone who has to change rules they either don't
>understand or have to change for whatever reason the munchkins. Which puts
>you where??? OZ??

Okay. I think the etiquette rules in SR2 blow. I think they make little
sense fitting in with the rest of the system, and didn't accurately reflect
how I thought real life etiquette worked. I re-wrote them, so they worked
cleaner in my games.

Am I a munchkin?

The players in my game that use these rules, are they? What about the
other GM's and players that prefer these rules, are they?

Or maybe you're just a little stuck in a rut? Scared of change? Of people
that can think for themselves and decide what they like or dislike?

>You may not worry about quality, I do.

I think each and every one of us worries about quality. But blindly
sticking with what we have and bitching about what's broken isn't helping any.
Working to fix it and help the people that write it to fix it is.

-Adam J

-
http://shadowrun.home.ml.org \ TSS Productions \ The Shadowrun Supplemental
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader \ AdamJ@******** \ fro@***.ab.ca
The Shadowrun Archive Co-Maintainer: http://www.interware.it/shadowrun
Message no. 22
From: Ralph and Ivy Ryan <sgmpaws@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 22:19:48 -0500
----------
> From: Leszek Karlik, aka Mike <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
> Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 10:41 PM
>
> On 23 Dec 97, Ralph and Ivy Ryan disseminated foul capitalist
> propaganda by writing:
>
> > What *is* this supposed to be?
>
> Ummm... A book? Thingy to read, ya know? With those little funny
> black drawings? Ahhh... Nevermind.

No Kidding???

> <snip>
> > And it would have helped if the writer had the tiniest amount of
> > knowledge as to engines, chassis, hot-rodding, weapon recoil
> > systems, jet engines or anything else technological. Nearly every
> > example was wrong and most of the terminology was ridiculous.

> Well, I believe you're an engineer specializing in the abovementioned
> issues and that you know all about it, neh? (BTW: If you are, I feel
> ashamed. Somehow, I doubt it. ;> )

Nope, just a 52 year old ex-WAC who raced cars and bikes in Europe and the
USA on downtime. Built and modified 5 cars and 4 bikes for racing. Also
had lots friends who did things like shoot tank guns and the like. You
really can learn things if you get the exposure.

OK, the rant was funny too, like maybe some people *do* have an idea about
what they're talking about... I'm one of them. I generally don't
criticize what I don't know about.

> <rant>
> Anyway, maybe you'd care to point out some specific errors, along
> with real-world technical data and your references?

Sure... Two things right off (Added to the ones I already posted)...
Vehicle speed and "stress" from "overspeed". Ain't no such thing.
Normally a vehicle has a top speed and a cruising speed. Cruise is 2/3rd
of top normally. (Older Volkswagens had identicle top and cruise but
that's an exception) A car or any other motor vehicle that is halfway well
designed (Any non-racing thing made since 1965 for sure) will run at top
speed until out of gas without damage. You have to un-maintain a car or
bike to kill it.

Modifying (Customizing is his term, but customizing is what you do to the
car or bike. Customizing isn't performance, it's looks) an engine...
Speed, acceleration and hauling ability are a function of torque,
horsepower and gearing. Modifying an engine will (if done correctly) raise
torque, which raises horsepower. Given the same gearing raising torque
will increase acceleration, top speed and hauling ability. Simple, Neh??
Oh yeah, references: Try any good hot-rodding or performance magazine or
book. Chiltons puts out a whole set of them, so does Hot Rod magazine.

> <snip>
>
> > Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)
>
> I just can't wait.

Actually, I kinda liked it. The deal on the Gopher Shaman was precious.
Gave my mage players more to think about too. The Voudoun rules at least
sounded right. I'm not a Mamba (If that's what they're called) but it
sounded as good as the article in White Wolf a few years ago, that author
was supposed to be a Houngan.

>
> Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl;
http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike;

Ivy K
Message no. 23
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 15:49:02 -0800
Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:

> Yup, and I know what word goes after the "Bull"...

Orf, orf, orf, guffaw. and we all know which word comes before Ivy,
roit?

Look, being opinionated is one thing; being opinionated and picking an
argument is
another ("meet" Szeto in Columbus? Sounds more like "assault and
beleaguer" to me)
but stopping so low as to pick on nicknames is absolutely infantile.

It *might* have been interesting hearing your opinion. I'm usually an
open-minded guy.
But no, there's too much of these toddler-room, tweak-headed antics
mixed in.

Welcome to the killfile.


-Mb
Message no. 24
From: Ralph and Ivy Ryan <sgmpaws@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 22:24:09 -0500
----------
> From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
> To: SHADOWRN@***TPROC.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
> Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 9:48 PM
>
> At 03:41 24/12/97 +0000, you wrote:
> >> Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)
> >
> >I just can't wait.
>
> Yes! Let's see some real hard facts why a Fictional book about Magic is
> Wrong! ;)

That'd be difficult. Anyway, I liked it. I think it was good value for my
money and I loved the Gopher Shaman awakening to her totem. Very nice.


> (And yes Steve, I know you have strong feelings about Magic and the like,
> and that Awakenings isn't truly Fiction.. but..:)
>
> -Adam J

Strong feelings about magic??? Like Paul Hume is a mage type feelings? I
can believe it. I am part Native American and practice a Shamanic form
myself. Another reason I really like SR, and why I get so warped out when
things aren't done well.

Ivy Kitten
Message no. 25
From: TODD ROBBINS <digger-@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 22:54:23 -0600
Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
>
> ----------

> I don't use *anything* from the "Companion". I can't "ingore it"
it is a
> direct violation of the SRII Core Rules.

There are a few things from the companion I liked, and a few I
disliked. But you seem to be suffering from the delusion that there are
rules in these books. Any good GM will tell you, the books are
guidelines, not rules.

> OK, where to start... Airliner = Heavy Duty Aricraft <?> with two to five
> heavy propellor or turbofan engines????? Propellor?? Since when??
> Turbofan????? Some low powered commercial planes still have turboprops,
> but those dinosaurs are fast disappearing. Commercial planes use Jet
> engines.

Sure they do.. at the moment. But the older turbo props are still in
use by the military and certain commerical lines for a lot of reasons.
They are more fuel efficient, and can stay in the air over a specefic
area for long periods of time. The are also a lot more effective at
providing cover for ground troops, since the slower stall speeds make it
possible to be a great deal more accurate.

> Under Bikes you have Choppers as a type. Chops are made from another type
> of bike. What you meant (I think) is the heavy bike like the Honda
> GoldWing, a completely different item.

A chopper is merely a motorcycle with an extended front fork. Period.
Granted, they have started to become in modern times a classification of
there own, but I hardly see what the major problem is with the way the
are listed in the Rigger 2 book. A small application of common sense is
all that is needed to discern the two - the basic types are similar
enough in characteristics to be grouped together.

> Under fuels you seem to have forgotten the one that probably will take over
> vice all the rest. Alcohol. 80% efficiency vice Gasoline. In a
> -supercharged- <Not Turbocharged, those are antique, less effective than
> iron lungs> engine gives better performance than gasoline.

You seem to have forgotten that gasoline is commonly mixed with alchol
here in the states, and that alchol in and of itself makes a poor fossil
fuel. It burns to hot and has a tendancy to wear out IC engines more
rapidly than gasoline or a gasoline alchol mixture.

> Economy: Right out back of our apartment we have two cars. A 95 Honda CX
> and a 95 Neon. The Honda is good for 17.5km/ltr normally and the Neon
> gives 15.5 km/ltr. Your economy maximums are waaaayyy off. Actually, all
> of them are off.

Given the fact that this is nearly 70 years in the future I don't
really have a problem accepting that the vehicles listed have differing
economies, given the difference in manufacturing techniques and
materials used in the construction of vehicles in 2058. Doubtless
differences would exist between the vehicles of 2058 and those of today,
much as your honda is a long way from the old Model A.

> Painting a target with a laser... Use Firearms for the paint if you want
> to be accurate and obsolete. Since 91 they use ranging laser, GPS, and a
> mini-comp to give the firing piece a 9 digit map co-ordinate. The round
> will hit within 9 cm of the co-ordinate. These are artillery pieces, not
> Air Force drop and pray weapons.

Gads.. one could write an entire sourcebook on this topic alone. But I
don't think that I would allow a shadowrun team to get there hands on
military hardware of this nature. Some things should be reserved for
the military. Just because the technology exists is no reason to
include it in a shadowrun sourcebook.

Digger
Message no. 26
From: TODD ROBBINS <digger-@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 22:59:18 -0600
> Yup, and I know what word goes after the "Bull"...

Wow.. did you take a course on making friends and influencing people or
is all of this charm and charisma a natural thing for you?

> Actually, I count everyone who has to change rules they either don't
> understand or have to change for whatever reason the munchkins. Which puts
> you where??? OZ??

Actually I count everyone that makes such sweeping generalizations
without regard for the facts as both shortsighted and asinine, but then
I guess that's just me. You may want to inquire as to which rules have
been changed before you go off on a snit. I, for instance, do not allow
physical mages in my campaign. I dislike the concept and feel that they
do not fit well within my campaign structure. I hardly see how that
qualifies as a reason for munchkinism or a lack of understanding of
physical mages. I understand them quite well, that is why I don't use
them.

> You may not worry about quality, I do.

Hehehe.. I must admit, you are without a doubt the most tactless person
I've ever met, and that is saying something. How can you possibly judge
Bull or his campaign? You know nothing of either.

Digger
Message no. 27
From: TODD ROBBINS <digger-@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 23:05:19 -0600
Adam J wrote:

> Am I a munchkin?

Hehehee.. sorry AdamJ, but after speaking with you so often on IRC the
mere thought of someone refering to you, of all people, as a munchkin
sent me into a laughing fit that nearly caused a seizure.

Digger
Message no. 28
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:09:39 -0500
On 23 Dec 97 at 19:34, Adam J wrote:

> At 21:06 23/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >I figure I got cheated out of the money I paid for it. And my
> >local game store doesn't give refunds if the material is no good.
>
> Not sure about your store, but the store I buy most of my gaming
> products at doesn't mind in the slightest if you read through a book
> before buying it, as long as you don't crease or bend the pages.
>
> I've never bought a SR book from any store without cracking the
> cover and reading at least a few pages first. And yes, upon further
> inspection, I've bought books that I didn't enjoy or use very much.
> Such is life.

I used to work retail. There are not too many things that you won't
give a refund on, unless it is not in a resellable condition.
Sorr
===DREKHEAD==================================drekhead@***.net====
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
=================================================================
Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 29
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:09:39 -0500
On 23 Dec 97 at 20:24, TODD ROBBINS wrote:

> Ok, obviously tact and taste are not in your vocabulary. You have
> posted absolutely no specifics about what you disliked and have
> spent the majority of your time taking cheap shots. It is a lot
> easier to criticize than it is to write, and even easier when you
> don't even bother to make any declarative statements as to what you
> felt was inadequate, merely vague references that would indicate to
> me that odds are you haven't even read the book, or if you had it
> was merely beyond your comprehension and thus you feel it necessary
> to take cheap shots at it's author rather than posting an
> intelligent critique.

Well put, Todd.

> Your Foot? No, I'd say more than likely your entire leg up to your
> hip. Your commentary to date has been rude and uncalled for, and
> quite frankly I believe you owe this author an apology. Regardless
> of your opinion of his work you could certainly have taken a few
> moments to post an intelligent critique rather than this childish
> nonsense. Rest assured, if I had a twit filter this post would have
> landed you solidly therein. But since I do not, I shall simply have
> to endure your trite and ill concieved reply.

Yes, she simply doesn't get it. I really don't understand when
ignorant people spew forth such nonsense. What's the point? It is
certainly not a way to win friends and influence people. Pretty soon,
she will be talking to herself.

--

===DREKHEAD==================================drekhead@***.net====
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
=================================================================
Don't be so open-minded your brains fall out.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 30
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:09:39 -0500
On 23 Dec 97 at 21:06, Ivy Ryan wrote:

> Actuyally Drekhead, I woulda sent the review directly to the guy if
> I'd known he was on the list. But I'd have still posted it.
> Writing that bad needs to be read down in public. And I am waiting
> for the next Columbus Con to meet him in person. After the thing is
> in print is way too late for "constructive" criticism, it should
> have been "criticised" before it hit print. I figure I got cheated
> out of the money I paid for it. And my local game store doesn't
> give refunds if the material is no good.

Writing that bad... taken a look at your writing lately? Shall I
point out the errors?

1)It's spelled "Actually".
2)Woulda? Try "would have" or "would've".
3)Never start a sentence with "but".
4)Never start a sentence with "and".
5)You should've used a ";" instead of a "," after criticism.
6)Again with the "and". See number 4.

Since you can't even correctly type a 100 word paragraph, I don't
think you qualify to comment on somebody else's writing.

--

===DREKHEAD==================================drekhead@***.net====
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
=================================================================
A flying saucer results when a nudist spills his coffee.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 31
From: NightLife <habenir@*****.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:37:06 -0500
>> Bull
>
>Yup, and I know what word goes after the "Bull"...


Lady, that a really cheap shot.

>Actually, I count everyone who has to change rules they either don't
>understand or have to change for whatever reason the munchkins. Which
>puts you where??? OZ?? You may not worry about quality, I do.
>
>Ivy K.

Changing the rules doesn't make ANYONE a munchkin. Munchkins are those who
no matter what the rules say or hint at abuse them for their own end.
Usually they're after power either stat wise, skill wise, etc.... Power that
they lack in RL, so they need to compensate in a game. But nontheless they
still abuse any system and it's loopholes to do this. Fixing holes like this
with house rules are generally a attempt to equalize the balance again. A
munchkin will abuse anything they can core or house rules aside. Nuff said.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"I am telling you nothing - merely asking you to remember that death come in
many shades. Some are harsh and infinitely painful to look upon; others can be
as peaceful and beautiful as the setting sun. I am an artist, and many colors
lie on upon my palette. Let me paint him a rainbow, and give you the means to
decide where it ends."

Erik from the book Phantom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 32
From: NightLife <habenir@*****.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:40:56 -0500
snip

>I'll end this now while I'm still being fairly pleasent, but try and watch
>it in the future... Not everyone will agree with you, and blatently
>telling people they suck for not agreeing with you is NOT the way to make
>friends...
>
>Bull

Wow this is what the second time I've seen Bull get ticked off and knowing
Bull it takes a whole lot to get him worked up. But I have to say, Way to go
Bull! I gotta agree with you here.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"I am telling you nothing - merely asking you to remember that death come in
many shades. Some are harsh and infinitely painful to look upon; others can be
as peaceful and beautiful as the setting sun. I am an artist, and many colors
lie on upon my palette. Let me paint him a rainbow, and give you the means to
decide where it ends."

Erik from the book Phantom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 33
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:22:56 EST
In a message dated 97-12-23 21:53:27 EST, you write:

> OK, where to start... Airliner = Heavy Duty Aricraft <?> with two to five
> heavy propellor or turbofan engines????? Propellor?? Since when??
> Turbofan????? Some low powered commercial planes still have turboprops,
> but those dinosaurs are fast disappearing. Commercial planes use Jet
> engines.

When I cast the chassis type of airliner, I was thinking of a large-bodied
aircraft that is larger than those smaller twin-engine airplanes that airlines
use for regional or commuter flights (such as American Eagle, ComAir, and so
on). So Airliner is a broad category that covers everything from a Boeing 707
to a 747.

Within that Airliner category, there is one type of large-bodied plane that
comes to my mind: the C-130 Hercules, which is powered by four propeller
engines. C-130s still see regular use in the Air Force nowadays, so it could
be conceivable something like it could be operating in 2060. (And besides,
even if there weren't, there's no doubt that SOMEONE would want to
retroactively design a C-130 in SR stats.)

> Under Bikes you have Choppers as a type. Chops are made from another type
> of bike. What you meant (I think) is the heavy bike like the Honda
> GoldWing, a completely different item.

Perhaps. But "chopper" is the slang term that I'm familiar with, and no doubt
many other people are too. So I call it a chopper because that's what (mostly)
everyone will think of. Perhaps not the most accurate of terms, but as far as
the common layman (such as I in this matter) is concerned, it's good enough.

> Under fuels you seem to have forgotten the one that probably will take over
> vice all the rest. Alcohol. 80% efficiency vice Gasoline. In a
> -supercharged- <Not Turbocharged, those are antique, less effective than
> iron lungs> engine gives better performance than gasoline.

Again, perhaps. But again, I'm using labels to reflect common perceptions.
"Gasoline" reflects the low-flashpoint fuels used in common commercial
vehicles. "Diesel" refers to the industrial-grade fuel used by heavier
vehicles (such as trucks, tanks, and ships).

I also remember the days during the energy crisis of the late 70s/early 80s
when gasohol (gasoline-alcohol mixture) was popular. If alcohol is as
efficient as you say it is, can you please tell me why gasohol is no longer
being used today? (And if so, where so?)

> Economy: Right out back of our apartment we have two cars. A 95 Honda CX
> and a 95 Neon. The Honda is good for 17.5km/ltr normally and the Neon
> gives 15.5 km/ltr. Your economy maximums are waaaayyy off. Actually, all
> of them are off.

The economy range for a sedan (the vehicle type in dispute) ranges from 8 to
14 km/liter, or about 20 to 34 mpg. True, one can get better economies with
certain types of cars, but there's also the industrial consideration, as to
what the manufacturer is *willing* to produce (another factor taken into
consideration in the vehicle design system). The current trend lately with
auto manufacturers is to produce higher-powered, economy-inefficient cars.

True, with all the concern about the ozone layer, fuel economies might go on
the upswing, as car companies get pressured to build more fuel-efficient cars.
But then again, Shadowrun is supposed to be a quasi-cyberpunk world where the
corps don't care about such niceties as "environmental protection." With that
in mind, I biased the economy ranges a bit to be on the lower end of the
scale.

> Recoil systems: Hydro-pneumatic is the way it's being done right now.
> Works fine, and works with gyro-stabilization as well. Used in the Abrams
> and Bradley for example. Zero recoil!

True. But hydro-pneumatic systems are assumed to be the "default," and with
ANY system there is always some room for error. What I mean with the gunnery
recoil adjuster are *higher*-precision, compact, state-of-the-art, advanced
systems that have a lower variance than the default hydro-penumatic systems.

> Painting a target with a laser... Use Firearms for the paint if you want
> to be accurate and obsolete. Since 91 they use ranging laser, GPS, and a
> mini-comp to give the firing piece a 9 digit map co-ordinate. The round
> will hit within 9 cm of the co-ordinate. These are artillery pieces, not
> Air Force drop and pray weapons.

I assume you are talking about the Indirect Fire rules on pp. 60-61. If not,
please clarify.

What you are describing sounds to me very much like the general system used by
the V/GLLD artillery targeting system used by artillery FIST teams. Yes, you
can get that amount of precision (and a variance of 9 cm requires at least a
ten digit grid, not 9), but remember that a 9-digit coordinate tells the round
to hit a point on the ground. If the target moves during the time of flight,
you may result in a miss. (When I went to NTC and CMTC with my old MLRS unit,
the hardest task we had was performing counterfire against the Kraznovian
2S19s. 2S19s are the Soviet equivalent of the 109A6 Paladin and had very good
shoot-and-scoot capability. Because MLRS has long FMP and flight times, more
often than not all we were doing was pounding sand, since the 2S19s were long
since gone.)

The Indirect Fire rules cover this, but they also cover dynamic situations
where a spotter is in (digital) contact with the firer, allowing the round to
make corrections in mid-flight. A common example of this is the "painting
laser" technique, such as the conjunction between the mast-mounted sensor on
the OH-58D Kiowa and the Hellfire missile fired from an AH-64D Apache, or the
Copperhead anti-tank artillery round in conjunction with the aforementioned
V/GLLD.

A couple other comments of note (answering various comments about Rigger 2 in
general and not necessarily yours in particular):

-- When I designed the vehicle construction system, what I (and FASA Mike) was
aiming for was a *flexible* system that could handle anything from handheld
spider-drones to 95,000 tonne aircraft carriers, and everything in between.
That's a lot of ground to cover. So I'm well aware of the "inaccuracies," but
for the sake of adhering to the KISS principle of engineering, I decided the
system could live with it, for the sake of simplicity. No, it's not perfect,
but at least it's a start.

-- Another thing worth mentioning is that Rigger 2, as part of the Shadowrun
system, adheres to some established guidelines for the game system, both
written and unwritten. One guideline in particular is that Shadowrun is (by
its design) a relatively linear system, and the math requirements are limited
only to algebraic or pre-algebraic math.
Unfortunately, technology rarely works on a linear system. Instead, its
scale can be geometric, inverse-square, exponential, or logarithmic. (FASA
Mike had a fit when I showed him a formula that had a square root in it!) So,
to keep it within the Shadowrun system, I had to simplify much of the math,
which, again, sacrifices a little bit of realism. And again, oh well, we can
probably live with that.

-- Some people here and elsewhere maintain that Shadowrun is more "cinematic"
than it is "realistic," so all of the above might not matter to them.

My $2 (I know I've exceeded $.02)
-- Jon
Message no. 34
From: TODD ROBBINS <digger-@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 23:31:02 -0600
Drekhead wrote:

> Well put, Todd.

Well, I do manage to get lucky on occasion.. hehehe

> Yes, she simply doesn't get it. I really don't understand when
> ignorant people spew forth such nonsense. What's the point? It is
> certainly not a way to win friends and influence people. Pretty soon,
> she will be talking to herself.

Hmm... I thought about it, but I guess I'm just a bit to stubborn to
give up. I believe ignorance should be combated with every ounce of
strength at one's disposal.

Digger
Message no. 35
From: "Steven A. Tinner" <bluewizard@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 02:24:22 -0500
>I don't use *anything* from the "Companion". I can't "ingore it"
it is a
>direct violation of the SRII Core Rules.

Heeheeheehee!
"Direct violation of ..." heeheeheehee!
How, may I ask does ANYTHING in the Companion directly VIOLATE the SR rules
in the main book?

I'm really looking forward to your answer, since everything in the SRC is
listed as OPTIONAL.
Even barring that, I really don't see how any of that information violates
any rules.
Expands upon yes, but violates? Please.

>I can keep this going for a long while but if you are going to be in
>Columbus next July for the Com I'll point them out in person.

Oh this is EXACTLY waht every successful, published author LOVES.
Having their worked picked apart by armchair fanboys who are absolute
experts in every field covered by the author's work.

SR is Science FANTASY, not Science Fiction.
It's not meant to be hard SF, never has been, never will be.
The rules are clunky, and vague, but they work.
IMO RIgger 2 has opened up the rigger as a viable PC, without the need for a
lot of improvising on the GM's part.
Sure, with 15 some years of GM experience, I never really minded fudging the
numbers when my players were involved in a car crash, but it's nice to have
a guideline of three to benchmark my guesses.

Rigger 2 was a fine book. Not perfect by a long shot, but IMO you'd be hard
pressed to find any game matierial that IS.
Seen as the first work by Jon Szeto, I think R2 is an even better product.

If you're unhappy that you spent the money on it ... well that's your
probelm, isn't it?
Your game shop doesn't allow browsing, and they don't give refunds?
Time to find a new game shop. Mail order is nice.

As for the browsing part, if you can practice a little patience, it's
usually only a few days after a new release that you'll start seeing reviews
on the net.
Hold off and read a few before you make a purchase, you'll be much happier.
And hopefully more civil.

Steven A. Tinner (Fighting the urge to sing "The Topcat Song" ;-))
bluewizard@*****.com
http://www.ncweb.com/users/bluewizard
"Physically Adept/Mentally Challenged"
Message no. 36
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 03:41:01 -0500
At 09:49 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote these timeless words:
>----------
>> From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
>> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
>> Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
>> Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 4:45 PM
>>
>> In a message dated 97-12-23 12:59:19 EST, you write:
>>
>> > It would have helped if the writer had read the SRII rules as to
>
>> The +2 modifier was established in the Shadowrun Companion (Defaulting
>from
>> Concentrations/Specializations, p. 48). If you don't use that rule,
>
>I don't use *anything* from the "Companion". I can't "ingore it"
it is a
>direct violation of the SRII Core Rules.
>
Let's see... a handful of Rules Additions and Optional rules for expanding
things is a VIOLATION? Please, dear, dear Ivy, give me the definanition of
"Violation" in the really wierd world you live in...

Also, how do you get e-mail from your world to ours? I thought we severed
those phone lines when Top Cat left...

[SNIP IVYBABBLE]

Well, i won;t even comment on these, accept to say that you're trying to
apply specifics to a generic set of rules... Each Classification takes
into acount variable sizes and some variation to design specs, etc.
Otherwise, those of us without an engineering degree under our belt would
be COMPLETELY at a loss...

>I can keep this going for a long while but if you are going to be in
>Columbus next July for the Com I'll point them out in person.
>
Lucky you Jon... Get to listen to Psycho-Babe live in person at Origins...
Woo Hoo!

I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOO glad I'm going :]

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka Chaos, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Cuddly Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome and Archive
Answer Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
---- in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Bah! Humbug!"
-- Wise man on Christmas :]
Message no. 37
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 03:40:58 -0500
At 08:50 PM 12/23/97 EST, Ereskanti wrote these timeless words:
>In a message dated 97-12-23 20:01:54 EST, chaos@*****.COM writes:
>
>(big body of good relpy post snipped)
>
>> I'll end this now while I'm still being fairly pleasent, but try and watch
>> it in the future... Not everyone will agree with you, and blatently
>> telling people they suck for not agreeing with you is NOT the way to make
>> friends...
>> Bull
>
>OH, Bull, I find it stunning that we agree totally on something, and
>definitely "thing", in this case.
>
>BTW, here's the Water, did you bring the Carp????
>
But wait! There's more! :]

And we don;t ALWAYS disagree :] I just rarely take anything seriously...

<Bad german accent>

"Vait for it..."

</bad german accent>

Bull-who's-starting-to-have-fun
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka Chaos, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Cuddly Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome and Archive
Answer Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
---- in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Bah! Humbug!"
-- Wise man on Christmas :]
Message no. 38
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:14:24 +0100
Bull said on 20:21/23 Dec 97...

> Oh, but Lehlan, She can;t do that! Using jane's Registry would involve
> using House Rules, and didn;t she go out of her way to tell us that the
> House Rules all suck and that by using them, you're cheating your players!

Then I'd better not mention that my house rules compilation is close to
being finished :)

--
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. 39
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:39:07 +0100
Ralph and Ivy Ryan said on 12:57/23 Dec 97...

> It would have helped if the writer had read the SRII rules as to using a
> Concentration vice using a Skill. There is no +2 modifier for going
> backwards from a Concentration to the general skill.

It is when you're using the (optional, supposedly) rules from the
Companion -- a Concentration is one dot away from the general skill, and a
Specialization is a half-dot away from a Concentration.

I don't use this rule, instead I use the SRII rule where two dice are
subtracted from the Concentration's rating, or 4 from the Specialization,
when using the corresponding general skill.

Since SR3 will be put together by the same people who wrote the Companion,
R2, and other recent books, though, my guess is that the Companion's rules
will appear in SR3 instead of the ones in SRII.

--
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. 40
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 04:12:22 -0500
At 03:49 PM 12/23/97 -0800, Matb wrote these timeless words:

>Welcome to the killfile.
>
ROTFL!

That was great Mat... Thanks :] I needed that :]

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka Chaos, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Cuddly Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome and Archive
Answer Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
---- in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Bah! Humbug!"
-- Wise man on Christmas :]
Message no. 41
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 04:12:15 -0500
At 10:00 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote these timeless words:

>> Bull
>
>Yup, and I know what word goes after the "Bull"...
>
In RL it's Ratkovich. in SR is MacAllistar. In your world, I REALLY hope
the name Bull isn;t used at all... I'd feel... tainted... Somehow...:/

>Actually, I count everyone who has to change rules they either don't
>understand or have to change for whatever reason the munchkins. Which puts
>you where??? OZ??
>
Oooooookay.... Let's see, where shall we begin...

My dear, in the last 48 hours, you've managed to seriously infringe upon
the honor and good name of Jon Szeto, by calling him a terrible writer, an
inept hack who knows little to nothing about vehicles, and someone
unfamiliar in the least with the Shadworun Rules. All this, DESPITE the
fact that he got paid for writing the book, and well... You didn't. Guess
we know who's opinions count more as far as the game is concerned, eh?

You've also managed to seriously insult me. I'm an easygoing guy, but
hell. It's the Holidays, and I've got to put up with Retail Hell from a
million and one stupid people in RL, as well as my wonderfully
disfunctional family. The last thing I need is some halfwitted, overblown
windbag who's first reaction is to insult, and second reaction is to insult
even further. You, dear plant lady, definitely are someone who doesn;t
really have any right to open her annoying little mouth, since nothing
worthwhile or even intelligent seems to spew forth.

Lastly, and most importantly, you've managed to insult at least 99% of the
listmembers here, by calling them all the worst of insults to a gamer: A
Munchkin. It seems you define Munchkin a good deal differently than most
of us... (Except maybe Glenn/Elton Robb)). Hear's an idea... Go exchange
your pathetic little dictionary for a real one so that we're at l;east
speaking the same language here, ok? Just because someone uses house
rules, attempting to patch, fix, or replace rules that either they don;t
agree with, doesn;t work with their particular group, or simply might work
better slightly differently, doesn;t mean that they are all super-powered
gamers seeking to be the biggest and baddest character in existence,
usually meaning an Immortal Elf-Dragon who has pet Horrors and Fastjack
owes him several favors... Oh, and he owns his own company. It simply
means that they see things in a slightly different light.

In my world, the world where people are sane and intelligent, this means
that you and they disagree. It's common to disagree, and to even discuss
the relative merits of why you disagree, and the better points of both
sides of the disagreement. Sometimes it's resolved with one person be\ing
swayed by an intelligent and well thought out arguments. Sometimes,
neither party is convinced of the others points of view, and they go their
separate ways. And sometimes, but very rarely, both parties not only fail
to persuade each other of their views, but the disagreement will degenerate
into an arguments.

However, to blatantly tell someone that they are wrong without even
attempted to find out why they do it, and to insult them on top of that, is
just plain rude.

And since your dictionary seems to have omitted the word "rude" from it's
ever so wise pages, let me clarify:

Rude, adverb, not courteous, not polished, rough. -ly, adverb, -ness, noun.

There, isn't that better?

Now, I strongly urge you to put aside your petty and very immature attitude
towards what is supposed to be a fun game, and a fun and informative
mailing list, and grow up a little bit. It's incredibly small minded of
you to think that everyone should feel the way you do, very egotistical to
think that we all want to hear your views on everything, and very unkind to
treat the other listmembers as if they are beneath you. You are no better
than anyone else here, and with your attitudes and admissions, it seems
that you are probably the most Munchkinous person I have ever met, as well
as the most contrary and rude.

Well, now I'm starting to repeat myself. See what you made me do?

>You may not worry about quality, I do.
>
Hehe... I care far more than you apparently, since the quality of both
your posts, your own visions of the rules, and your attitudes is distinctly
lacking. When I see your name on the front cover of a Shadowrun Product,
especially the main book, with an official list of here are the rules, and
ONLY these are r the rules, then I will accept your claims and your
comments as being of some worth. But I don;t really care if you were to
completely invent the most fantastic and terrific RPG ever, your attitude
would still be lacking unless something drastic were done.

I say you owe everyone here on the list an apology, especially myself, Jon
Szeto, and everyone else you have personally insulted, as well as everyone
you insulted by calling a munchkin because of the use of house rules and
for interpreting the rules in a different manner as you.

Once again, please grow up and use a little forethought and intelligence in
your next posting.

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka Chaos, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Cuddly Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome and Archive
Answer Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
---- in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Bah! Humbug!"
-- Wise man on Christmas :]
Message no. 42
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 04:12:24 -0500
At 12:40 AM 12/24/97 -0500, NightLife wrote these timeless words:
>snip
>
>>I'll end this now while I'm still being fairly pleasent, but try and watch
>>it in the future... Not everyone will agree with you, and blatently
>>telling people they suck for not agreeing with you is NOT the way to make
>>friends...
>>
>>Bull
>
>Wow this is what the second time I've seen Bull get ticked off and knowing
>Bull it takes a whole lot to get him worked up. But I have to say, Way to go
>Bull! I gotta agree with you here.
>
Wait till you see the latest one :]

<sigh>

It seems that while most of us are here for fun, and to learn a few new
things, and to make friends... Others are here for... What? I can;t even
fathom...

Ivy obviously doesn;t need "Rules Clarification" since she knows all the
rules she wants to use, and apparently knows exactly was Paul Hume and Tom
Dowd thought about every rules as well. She's not here to make friends, as
has been made abundantly clear... And if this is her idea of fun...
<shrudder>

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka Chaos, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Cuddly Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome and Archive
Answer Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
---- in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Bah! Humbug!"
-- Wise man on Christmas :]
Message no. 43
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 04:12:27 -0500
At 11:31 PM 12/23/97 -0600, TODD ROBBINS wrote these timeless words:
>Drekhead wrote:
>
>> Well put, Todd.
>
> Well, I do manage to get lucky on occasion.. hehehe
>
>> Yes, she simply doesn't get it. I really don't understand when
>> ignorant people spew forth such nonsense. What's the point? It is
>> certainly not a way to win friends and influence people. Pretty soon,
>> she will be talking to herself.
>
> Hmm... I thought about it, but I guess I'm just a bit to stubborn to
>give up. I believe ignorance should be combated with every ounce of
>strength at one's disposal.
>
And if that doesn;t work... take the ignorance and beligerance and mix it
with a fair amount of ridicule :] Always a fun time :]

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka Chaos, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Cuddly Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome and Archive
Answer Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
---- in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Bah! Humbug!"
-- Wise man on Christmas :]
Message no. 44
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 04:12:19 -0500
At 08:13 PM 12/23/97 -0700, Adam J wrote these timeless words:
>At 22:00 23/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Yup, and I know what word goes after the "Bull"...
>
>Ratkovich.
>
Thanks, Adam :]

>>Actually, I count everyone who has to change rules they either don't
>>understand or have to change for whatever reason the munchkins. Which puts
>>you where??? OZ??
>
>Okay. I think the etiquette rules in SR2 blow. I think they make little
>sense fitting in with the rest of the system, and didn't accurately reflect
>how I thought real life etiquette worked. I re-wrote them, so they worked
>cleaner in my games.
>
>Am I a munchkin?
>
Sure are, Adam... Isn't Ivy right and we're all just morons who don;t know
what we're talking about??

>>You may not worry about quality, I do.
>
>I think each and every one of us worries about quality. But blindly
>sticking with what we have and bitching about what's broken isn't helping
any.
>Working to fix it and help the people that write it to fix it is.
>
Yeah, but working to fix it won;t change anything Adam... It still won;t
be in the core SR2 rules, so poor widdle Ivy won't be able to use it...:]
Of course, if she does switch to SR3 when it comes out, I hope she realizes
that a lot of the Companion "Additional" rules, as well as wonderful
products like Rigger 2 will ebcome part of the SR3 core rules, so she;;ll
have to use them, won;t she, even if she doesn;t like them :]

Hehe...

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka Chaos, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Cuddly Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome and Archive
Answer Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
---- in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Bah! Humbug!"
-- Wise man on Christmas :]
Message no. 45
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:15:39 EST
In a message dated 97-12-24 00:13:35 EST, drekhead@***.NET writes:

> Yes, she simply doesn't get it. I really don't understand when
> ignorant people spew forth such nonsense. What's the point? It is
> certainly not a way to win friends and influence people. Pretty soon,
> she will be talking to herself.
>
Actually, after a tripsing around the net a bit...Ivy K -"DOES"- talk to her
(and other's consider "Ivy" an "IT") own many selves....and likes that
fact...

There, I feel better now...
-K
Message no. 46
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 07:12:43 -0700
JonSzeto wrote:
/
/ Would you please be more specific as to what, specifically, was wrong? I know
/ there have been a few typographical errors in some of the examples, but what
/ else did you see as wrong? Were there conceptual errors? An improper modeling
/ of some real-world examples?

I've got one :)

The aircraft take-off and landing distances work, but they're not
really accurate. A plane's take-off distance is determined by it's
take-off speed and it's acceleration. So if a plane had a take-off
speed of 80m/turn and an acceleration of 20m/turn it would take 4
turns to reach take-off speed after traveling 200m. The landing
roll-out is determined by it's landing speed and it's deceleration in
the same fashion. The complications, which you successfuly dodged
:), are that planes have several listed take-off and landing speeds
depending on thier profile (no load, standard load, maximum load,
flaps extended). And wind speed and direction changes it to.

Anyway, like I said the rules work as is :) just wanted to stand up
on my soap box and rant for a bit ;)

-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. 47
From: TODD ROBBINS <digger-@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:34:49 -0600
Bull wrote:
> And if that doesn;t work... take the ignorance and beligerance and mix it
> with a fair amount of ridicule :] Always a fun time :]
>

Hmm.. ok. So was that 2 parts ignorance, 1 part belligerence and 3
parts ridicule, or 4 parts ridicule. Drat, I can never remember that
silly recipe.. Hehehe.. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Digger
Message no. 48
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 07:56:05 -0700
Bryan Stephenson wrote:
/
/ you are correct on all those things, except the GPS tracking gives a 10=
/ digit grid, and it is supposed to be acurate to within 1 meter..But is=
/ still only acurate within +/- 10 meters, even with crypto. But then again=
/ when talking about even our modern day artillery that can take out a full=
/ Grid Square(1000m) the differences matter little
/
/ *********** REPLY PARTITION ***********
/
/ On 12/23/97, at 9:49 PM, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
/
/ >----------
/ >> From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>

[snip]

Bryan, please place your replies after the posts you reply to (as
I've done here). And please trim/edit the posts your replying to.

Welcome to ShadowRN :)

Thanks,
-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. 49
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 16:07:49 +0000
On 23 Dec 97, Ralph and Ivy Ryan disseminated foul capitalist
propaganda by writing:

<snip>

> > The +2 modifier was established in the Shadowrun Companion (Defaulting
> > from
> > Concentrations/Specializations, p. 48). If you don't use that rule,
>
> I don't use *anything* from the "Companion". I can't "ingore it"
it
> is a direct violation of the SRII Core Rules.

ROTFLASTC

"BEHOLD, FOR I HOLD THE HOLY GRAIL OF GAMING: THE CORE AD&D, err... I
mean THE CORE SHADOWRUN RULES! And anything that tries to expand on
those rules is violating them! And lo, there was light. Uhh...
Sorry, wrong book. "


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
NO PROGRAM is idiot proof, idiots are ingenious!
Message no. 50
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 11:40:03 EST
In a message dated 97-12-23 23:57:47 EST, TODD ROBBINS writes:

> alchol in and of itself makes a poor fossil
> fuel. It burns to hot and has a tendancy to wear out IC engines more
> rapidly than gasoline or a gasoline alchol mixture.
>

Ah. That explains much about why some engines use gas and some use diesel, but
I wasn't exactly sure why. (My engineering specialty is in engineering
physics, not automotives.) I knew that gasoline has a lower flashpoint and
burns hotter than diesel. So I figured that for heavier vehicles (like trucks
and tanks), generating the amount of power required to move those vehicles
would probably result in an unacceptably high amount of heat generated on the
side. On the other hand, for smaller vehicles (like cars) the performance (or
emissions) from diesel are probably unacceptable, hence the reason they use
gas.

-- Jon
Message no. 51
From: Mike Loseke <mike@******.VERINET.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:32:13 -0700
Thus spake Ralph and Ivy Ryan:
>
> Recoil systems: Hydro-pneumatic is the way it's being done right now.
> Works fine, and works with gyro-stabilization as well. Used in the Abrams
> and Bradley for example. Zero recoil!

Pardon my french, but what the hell are you smoking? "Zero recoil" on
an Abrams? That gun kicks back 13 inches when fired, and when service
rounds are fired the vehicle is jarred enough to lift the front two road
wheels off of the ground. Please, ask me how I know this...

--
Mike Loseke | It's pudding time, children!
mike@*******.com | -- Primus
Message no. 52
From: Craig J Wilhelm Jr <craigjwjr@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 15:52:57 -0500
At 04:12 AM 12/24/97 , Bull wrote:

>In my world, the world where people are sane and intelligent,

Sounds good. Where do you live again? ;-)

Craig J Wilhelm Jr
Life's just one damned thing after another.
Afterlife RPG Page

http://home.earthlink.net/~craigjwjr/arpgp/
UIN: 1864690
-------------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
v3.12
GAT/$ d? s+:+ a-- C++ !U--- !P !L- !E-- W++ N++
o K- w++ O> !M-- !V PS+ PE+++ Y+ PGP++ t-
5+++ X-- R++ tv b++ DI-- D+ G e++ h* r+ y++**
--------------END GEEK CODE BLOCK--------------
Message no. 53
From: TODD ROBBINS <digger-@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 18:04:13 -0600
JonSzeto wrote:
>
>
> Ah. That explains much about why some engines use gas and some use diesel, but
> I wasn't exactly sure why. (My engineering specialty is in engineering
> physics, not automotives.) I knew that gasoline has a lower flashpoint and
> burns hotter than diesel. So I figured that for heavier vehicles (like trucks
> and tanks), generating the amount of power required to move those vehicles
> would probably result in an unacceptably high amount of heat generated on the
> side. On the other hand, for smaller vehicles (like cars) the performance (or
> emissions) from diesel are probably unacceptable, hence the reason they use
> gas.


Yup.. there are also some other advantages to diesel in larger
vehicles. The problem with using gasoline in larger vehicles can also
be attributed to saftey factors. Gasoline, when mixed with the proper
ratio of air, is very volatile. Gasoline does not burn, Gasoline Vapor
burns. Most gas tanks on smaller vehicles are small enough that even
when empty they simply do not have a high enough air to gasoline ratio
to ignite, thus making the vehicle fairly safe from secondary explosions
in an accident. In fact you can drop a lit match into the gas tank of a
modern vehicle and it will simply extinquish itself in the tank, as
there is simply to much gasoline and not enough air for a proper mixture
to allow combustion.

The larger fuel tanks needed on a vehicle the size of a tractor trailer
rig would have a higher air to gasoline ratio on a nearly empty tank,
and would be more susceptible to this phenomena. Diesel, on the other
hand, actually has to be under pressure to ignite properly. Diesel also
provides better overall fuel economy.
Alcohol is often mixed with gasoline to provide higher octane fuels and
lessen the cost of fossil fuels, since alchol can be distilled from a
variety of plants (corn is used most often). Unfortunatly alcohol by
itself is a poor fuel and burns far to hot for the power it gives in
return.

There have been some smaller vehicles designed to use diesel rather
than standard gasoline, but these were primarly abandoned after they
failed to impress the average consumer. They did offer much better fuel
economy, but the majority of them were poorly designed and had a lot of
problems as a result.

Digger
Message no. 54
From: "Logan Graves <Fenris>" <logan1@*****.INTERCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:20:52 -0500
In our last episode, TODD ROBBINS wrote in responce to:
>
> (Yet another one of) Ivy's posts:
>
> > I don't use *anything* from the "Companion". I can't "ingore
it" it
> > is a direct violation of the SRII Core Rules.
>
> There are a few things from the companion I liked, and a few I
> disliked. But you seem to be suffering from the delusion that there
> are rules in these books. Any good GM will tell you, the books are
> guidelines, not rules.

Ivy,

Show me where it is written that, "ignoring the SR Companion is a
direct violation of the SRII Core Rules." What sort of nonsense is
this? (For that matter show me where it says, said sourcebook is
*included* in these so called, "Core Rules" or that this "Core" even
exists!)

AND I'll show you numerous places where the authors (note the plural)
have written that we as players & GMs should never let the rules get in
the way of the story. The same is true for all of the sourcebooks and
modules.

The idea here is to Role Play and HAVE FUN. From the tone of your
posts this past week, you seem to have forgotten this.

I certainly see no need to get so uptight about such things. Your
players and storyline will benefit far more if you wouldn't either.

--Fenris
_______________________________________________logan1@*****.intercom.net
(>) "I'm not interested in making new friends.
I don't even like the ones I have."
(>) --Captain Austin D. Blackwell
Message no. 55
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 00:29:42 +0000
In article <199712240257.VAA07900@*****.icsnet1.com>, Ralph and Ivy Ryan
<sgmpaws@*******.COM> writes
>OK, where to start... Airliner = Heavy Duty Aricraft <?> with two to five
>heavy propellor or turbofan engines????? Propellor?? Since when??

Next generation of medium-lift transports is a choice between the C-130J
(four turboprops) and FLA (four turboprops).

Those funny eggbeaters actually have advantages in a lot of flight
regimes

>Turbofan????? Some low powered commercial planes still have turboprops,
>but those dinosaurs are fast disappearing. Commercial planes use Jet
>engines.

Above a certain size, and for speed. Note the number of turboprop
transports used for short-haul and for military cargo hauling.

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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 56
From: NightLife <habenir@*****.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 05:08:26 -0500
>Wait till you see the latest one :]

I already did.

><sigh>
>
>It seems that while most of us are here for fun, and to learn a few new
>things, and to make friends... Others are here for... What? I can;t even
>fathom...


You've got me. I can't even think about dealing with people like that with
out the fond thought of testing out some of the new tricks I've picked up
fighting with paired broad swords or just breaking out my two handed baby
and going to town. I got a fuse about an quarter of and inch with half of it
burnt away. ;)


>Ivy obviously doesn;t need "Rules Clarification" since she knows all the
>rules she wants to use, and apparently knows exactly was Paul Hume and >Tom
>Dowd thought about every rules as well. She's not here to make friends, as
>has been made abundantly clear... And if this is her idea of fun...
><shrudder>
>
>Bull

Some people get off on seeming just how far they can push somebody. Like my
old Rifts Gm, Lance. Did I tell you about the tribe of mutant pink bunnies
now that still makes me shudder.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"I am telling you nothing - merely asking you to remember that death come in
many shades. Some are harsh and infinitely painful to look upon; others can be
as peaceful and beautiful as the setting sun. I am an artist, and many colors
lie on upon my palette. Let me paint him a rainbow, and give you the means to
decide where it ends."

Erik from the book Phantom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 57
From: Zixx <t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 22:10:43 +0000
On 23 Dec 97 at 12:57, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:

> It would have helped if the writer had read the SRII rules as to using a
> Concentration vice using a Skill. There is no +2 modifier for going
> backwards from a Concentration to the general skill.
>
> And it would have helped if the writer had the tiniest amount of knowledge
> as to engines, chassis, hot-rodding, weapon recoil systems, jet engines or
> anything else technological. Nearly every example was wrong and most of
> the terminology was ridiculous.
>
> As the author obviously had no idea of what he was writing about, it would
> have been nice if the line developer had had some idea. Maybe some of the
> more glaring errors might have been caught.
>
> I guess it is too much to ask for the editor to catch the errors. It seems
> to me that the current crop of "experts" involved in ShadowRun are trying
> to destroy the game. Doing a fair job too, at this rate there won't be
> anything left but errors. Maybe SR3 will come out and the SRII ruleset
> will go up for sale <hope>.

OK, that does it. I mean I didn't want to reply to any of your posts at
first, but this one FORCES me. Usually, if we just met somewhere, I'd
tell you to f**k off (Spike, Barbie, you can save your carp). But I can't
do that here. Bad luck. Have you ever thought about being a bit more
polite? Or maybe even constructive? Just because you have been on this list
some years ago doesn't meant you're God. If you have problems with other
peoples work, tell what you didn't like andgive ideas about how IYO that
could be improved. Personally attacking (I may have to remind you that Jon
Szeto *is* also on this list) someone...hell, if I has the FL you would be
unsubbed by now!

BTW, if you are so great and know how to do everything right, go and write
your own books!

Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 58
From: Zixx <t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 02:25:13 +0000
On 24 Dec 97 at 10:32, Mike Loseke wrote:

> Thus spake Ralph and Ivy Ryan:
> >
> > Recoil systems: Hydro-pneumatic is the way it's being done right now.
> > Works fine, and works with gyro-stabilization as well. Used in the Abrams
> > and Bradley for example. Zero recoil!
>
> Pardon my french, but what the hell are you smoking? "Zero recoil" on
> an Abrams? That gun kicks back 13 inches when fired, and when service
> rounds are fired the vehicle is jarred enough to lift the front two road
> wheels off of the ground. Please, ask me how I know this...

O.K., how do you know?
(BTW, do you know mass and exit velocity of a round fired from the Abrams?)

Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 59
From: Zixx <t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 02:25:13 +0000
On 23 Dec 97 at 21:49, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:


> > > It would have helped if the writer had read the SRII rules as to
>
> > The +2 modifier was established in the Shadowrun Companion (Defaulting
> from
> > Concentrations/Specializations, p. 48). If you don't use that rule,
>
> I don't use *anything* from the "Companion". I can't "ingore it"
it is a
> direct violation of the SRII Core Rules.

Hell, if I still used SR1 rules (no offense meant, Spike!), I wouldn't
flame Tom Dowd, because FoF used 'wrong' damge codes! If I didn't use the
Grimoire, I wouldn't flame Steve K. for all the 'wrong' things in
Awakenings!
Get a life!

[Errors!]
> OK, where to start... Airliner = Heavy Duty Aricraft <?> with two to five
> heavy propellor or turbofan engines????? Propellor?? Since when??
> Turbofan????? Some low powered commercial planes still have turboprops,
> but those dinosaurs are fast disappearing. Commercial planes use Jet
> engines.

Hey, lady! Turbofan != Turboprop. A Turbofan IS a 'jet engine'. It's just
the technical term (Say Knows-It-All, you didn't know that!?)

> Under Bikes you have Choppers as a type. Chops are made from another type
> of bike. What you meant (I think) is the heavy bike like the Honda
> GoldWing, a completely different item.

Check the definition of 'Chopper' a few pages earlier.

> Under fuels you seem to have forgotten the one that probably will take over
> vice all the rest. Alcohol. 80% efficiency vice Gasoline. In a
> -supercharged- <Not Turbocharged, those are antique, less effective than
> iron lungs> engine gives better performance than gasoline.

Great. You think it will take over the world (hit: It will not! Go and ask
Shell why we still have no electric cars and go figure) and thus everybody
else has to? Please remember that this game isn'T written for YOU ALONE!
It's not something some guys in Chicago pullt out of your mind and solf to
the world! It's *thier* game!

> Recoil systems: Hydro-pneumatic is the way it's being done right now.
> Works fine, and works with gyro-stabilization as well. Used in the Abrams
> and Bradley for example. Zero recoil!

<cough>

[tagerting]
> Since 91 they use ranging laser, GPS, and a
> mini-comp to give the firing piece a 9 digit map co-ordinate. The round
> will hit within 9 cm of the co-ordinate. These are artillery pieces, not
> Air Force drop and pray weapons.

So?


Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 60
From: Mike Loseke <mike@******.VERINET.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 21:54:35 -0700
Thus spake Zixx:
>
> On 24 Dec 97 at 10:32, Mike Loseke wrote:
>
> > Thus spake Ralph and Ivy Ryan:
> > >
> > > Recoil systems: Hydro-pneumatic is the way it's being done right now.
> > > Works fine, and works with gyro-stabilization as well. Used in the Abrams
> > > and Bradley for example. Zero recoil!
> >
> > Pardon my french, but what the hell are you smoking? "Zero recoil" on
> > an Abrams? That gun kicks back 13 inches when fired, and when service
> > rounds are fired the vehicle is jarred enough to lift the front two road
> > wheels off of the ground. Please, ask me how I know this...
>
> O.K., how do you know?

Four years experience as an M1/M1A1 crewman: driver, loader, gunner
and even a few stints as a tank commander.

> (BTW, do you know mass and exit velocity of a round fired from the Abrams?)

Short answer, no. The only figures I ever heard was that the velocity
of a sabot round was about a mile per second and that the impact of the
same round was about 63 tons per square inch. Both of these were for
the 120mm round. I watched a sabot round hit a target that was ranged
at 3825m and the mile per second figure seemed pretty close. Of course,
this particular one wasn't fired at a hard target so the visual effects
from the impact weren't visible.

Gurth may have some more accurate numbers here. I just manned them,
I didn't do the math.

--
Mike Loseke | It's pudding time, children!
mike@*******.com | -- Primus
Message no. 61
From: Deosyne <deosyne@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 08:44:36 -0500
> > >On 23 Dec 97 at 12:57, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
> > >
> > >> Disappointed but hangin' in,
> > >>
> > >> Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)
> > >

Perhaps with a RealVideo exerpt of the author's execution, if these
posts hold true to form.

> > >Ivy, the writer is a member of the list, so maybe you could use a
> > >little more restraint when bitching about his work. I am sure Jon
> > >would welcome constructive criticism (such as what's broke, and
your
> > >suggestions on fixing it.) But to just trash it helps no one.
> > >
> > Gee, you were much nicer about this than I was :]
> >

Well, Bull, you've always been a bit of a firebrand when your feathers
get ruffled. :)

> > >BTW, Steve Kenson who wrote Awakenings is on here too. Just
thought
> > >I'd let you know before you put your foot in your mouth again.
> > >
> > Oh yeah... Probably should have mentioned that... Please don;t
flame
> > Steve either... We like him too... he occasionally listens to us
:]
> He's
> > also a really nice guy :]
> >
> > Bull
>
> Yup, and I know what word goes after the "Bull"...
>

You're certainly a pedantic little shit, aren't you. Reminds me of that
Joe-Orc fellow that attempted to join the list when Gweedo joined.

> Actually, I count everyone who has to change rules they either don't
> understand or have to change for whatever reason the munchkins.
Which puts
> you where??? OZ??
>

So I take it creativity isn't your strong point. Improvisation has
always done wonderous things for increasing the fun had by my players;
especially in combat, when all of that dice rolling can turn an
exciting combat sequence into a numbers game. I shoot Craps when dice
rolling is the agenda.

> You may not worry about quality, I do.

As for quality, Fasa's products have never dissapointed me. It still
fascinates me that they can take a time seventy years from now, throw
in magic, and make it still seem plausible. I believe the only fault
that people will really find with R2 is that Fasa's image of future
technology doesn't mesh with someone else's. But as no one can predict
the future, one explanation is as good as another. Of course, as a GM,
the rules are always subject to your changes. Might want to bone up on
the ol' creativity.

>
> Ivy K.

Shawn

_____________________________________________________________________

That which does not kill me has made a big friggin' mistake.
Message no. 62
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 12:23:20 +0100
Mike Loseke said on 21:54/25 Dec 97...

> > (BTW, do you know mass and exit velocity of a round fired from the Abrams?)
>
> Short answer, no. The only figures I ever heard was that the velocity
> of a sabot round was about a mile per second and that the impact of the
> same round was about 63 tons per square inch. Both of these were for
> the 120mm round. I watched a sabot round hit a target that was ranged
> at 3825m and the mile per second figure seemed pretty close. Of course,
> this particular one wasn't fired at a hard target so the visual effects
> from the impact weren't visible.
>
> Gurth may have some more accurate numbers here. I just manned them,
> I didn't do the math.

The only numbers that are usually given are muzzle velocities, not round
mass :( MV for modern, western tank guns lies around 1500 to 1700 m/s for
APFSDS rounds, so Mike's "mile per second" number is pretty close. HEAT-FS
has a much lower velocity BTW, because its effects don't depend on the
projectile's velocity, unlike those of AP rounds.

Furthermore, I can make an estimate of the penetrator's mass, though: at
about 20:1 length:diameter ratio for a 46 mm round (the diameter of the
penetrator in German 120 mm APFSDS) with an sg in the order of 19 (uranium
or tungsten), that gives a mass of some 6.3 kg. As for the energy: .5 x
6.3 x 1700^2 = 9.10 MJ...

--
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. 63
From: Tony Rabiola <rabiola@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 09:38:49 -0600
On 12/23/97 23:31:02 you wrote:
>
>Drekhead wrote:
>
>> Well put, Todd.
>
> Well, I do manage to get lucky on occasion.. hehehe
>
>> Yes, she simply doesn't get it. I really don't understand when
>> ignorant people spew forth such nonsense. What's the point? It is
>> certainly not a way to win friends and influence people. Pretty soon,
>> she will be talking to herself.
>
> Hmm... I thought about it, but I guess I'm just a bit to stubborn to
>give up. I believe ignorance should be combated with every ounce of
>strength at one's disposal.
>
You must be one busy man...

Argent

Rabiola@**.netcom.com
Argent - Elven Fixer Extrodinaire
It was hot, the night we burned Chrome...
Message no. 64
From: Tony Rabiola <rabiola@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 09:38:50 -0600
On 12/24/97 19:20:52 you wrote:
>
> AND I'll show you numerous places where the authors (note the plural)
>have written that we as players & GMs should never let the rules get in
>the way of the story. The same is true for all of the sourcebooks and
>modules.
>
Even, and in particular, the original DLOH himself, Mr. Dowd. <GASP>

Argent

Rabiola@**.netcom.com
Argent - Elven Fixer Extrodinaire
It was hot, the night we burned Chrome...
Message no. 65
From: TODD ROBBINS <digger-@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 12:40:51 -0600
Tony Rabiola wrote:

> You must be one busy man...

Yup.. that I am.. hehehe. But then again you've met me in person, you
probably know how stubborn I can be.

Digger
Message no. 66
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 14:50:15 -0500
On Tue, Dec 23, 1997 at 08:21:32PM -0500, Bull wrote:
> At 01:04 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Lehlan Decker wrote these timeless words:
>
> >By the way, if you don't like R2, which rules do you use?
> >Check out Jane's registry. It had a decent set I used until R2
> >appeared.
> >
> Oh, but Lehlan, She can;t do that! Using jane's Registry would involve
> using House Rules, and didn;t she go out of her way to tell us that the
> House Rules all suck and that by using them, you're cheating your players!
>
> Of course, since Rigger 2 is condiered part of the Core Rules now, and will
> be included in 3rd Edition, gee... Does that mean poor Ivy will have to
> use these rules she hates so much, or is she just going to whine and revert
> to old system?
>
> Hehe...
>
> Sorry, I'm a sarcastic son of a bitch today...
>
heh..that's ok. I was going to wait until after her replies to point
this out...but.....:)
So far, this arguement has flooded my mailbox, I go away, and have over 200
messages. Thanks guys.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all of its students.
Message no. 67
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 14:52:58 -0500
On Tue, Dec 23, 1997 at 09:06:45PM -0500, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
> ----------
> > From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
> Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
> > Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 3:02 AM
> >
> > On 23 Dec 97 at 12:57, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
> >
> > > Disappointed but hangin' in,
> > >
> > > Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)
> >
> > Ivy, the writer is a member of the list, so maybe you could use a
> > little more restraint when bitching about his work. I am sure Jon
> > would welcome constructive criticism (such as what's broke, and your
> > suggestions on fixing it.) But to just trash it helps no one.
> >
>
> Actuyally Drekhead, I woulda sent the review directly to the guy if I'd
> known he was on the list. But I'd have still posted it. Writing that bad
> needs to be read down in public. And I am waiting for the next Columbus
> Con to meet him in person. After the thing is in print is way too late for
> "constructive" criticism, it should have been "criticised" before
it hit
> print. I figure I got cheated out of the money I paid for it. And my
> local game store doesn't give refunds if the material is no good.
>
Hmm...maybe its just me. But I BROWSE a book in a store before
I buy. Or check out a friends copy. If I don't like it, then I won't
go waste my money. Try this next time.


>
> > BTW, Steve Kenson who wrote Awakenings is on here too. Just thought
> > I'd let you know before you put your foot in your mouth again.
> >
>
> My foot in my mouth? Don't think so. Poor writing will get bad reviews
> and lousy writing gets pans in public. Maybe I'll save some one a dollar
> or two.

IMHO you still have yet to back up any of your argument, beside the
generic, "this sucks". None of us have problems tearing apart rules
or books, hell its what this list does, but do it constructively, not
destructively.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all of its students.
Message no. 68
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 14:56:29 -0500
On Tue, Dec 23, 1997 at 09:12:45PM -0500, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
> ----------
> > From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
> > To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> > Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
> > Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 1:04 PM
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 1997 at 12:57:24PM -0500, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
> > >
> > > Ivy K. (wait for me review of Awakenings)
> >
> > Ouch! Poor spike, looks like there will be some good arguments over
> > christmas.
> > 1st. I will agree on a few things. The editing sucked. Period.
> > The book also relied on some things (such as skill web changes)
> > from the companion. Overall the book isn't my favorite and
> > I too was slightly disappointed (hype does that), but it did
> > do what it promised. Riggers now have a common set of rules (instead
> > of our various house rules), that make them playable. Perhaps
> > an errata will be printed, perhaps not.
> > Rigger 2 was the first I was upset with the editing. Cyberpirates
> > looks very good, as did the books before.
> > I have a feeling your the type, you just have to agree to disagree
> > with. I gave it 7/10.
> > By the way, if you don't like R2, which rules do you use?
> > Check out Jane's registry. It had a decent set I used until R2
> > appeared.
>
> I give it a 1/2 outta 10. I use common sense for most things when it comes
> to vehicle combat. Crazy maneuvers I make them roll, but normally there
> isn't any vehicle combat. Drive down a crowded street and try to visualize
> having car to bike combat. Ain't gonna happen. Too much else in the way,
> plus, what're the rest of the people on the road gonna do? Not to mention
> the cops!
>
> Incidentially, I liked Cyberpirates too. Thought the Swashers (esp
> Gingerbread) were the best part, but the rest was good too. There is some
> good stuff coming from FASA, just the "Companion" and R2 were so bad. I am
> not one of the rich folks and I hate to waste my money.
>
> Ivy K

Sounds like house rules to me. And didn't you say you were against that
sorta thing? R2 and the companion are both "core" rules, and will
most likely see print in SR3.
Rule books are always optional, but they give players a common
reference. Otherwise arguements will result.
We've already altered a few things in R2, and have yet to ever
use the rigged security system. (I don't know if we ever will, none
of us like it that much). But it gives us common ground.
Without it, I would have to write down every common sense rules I use.
(which I do occasionally do), and at that point, hell I'll
write my own game system, and stop spending the money.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all of its students.
Message no. 69
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 15:07:51 +0000
In article <199712260122.CAA29748@*********.netsurf.de>, Zixx <t_berghof
f@*********.NETSURF.DE> writes
>On 24 Dec 97 at 10:32, Mike Loseke wrote:
>> Pardon my french, but what the hell are you smoking? "Zero recoil" on
>> an Abrams? That gun kicks back 13 inches when fired, and when service
>> rounds are fired the vehicle is jarred enough to lift the front two road
>> wheels off of the ground. Please, ask me how I know this...
>
>O.K., how do you know?

I believe Mike's a treadhead. If you're in a tank turret, you become
well aware of the recoil stroke of the main armament.

>(BTW, do you know mass and exit velocity of a round fired from the Abrams?)

Abiut 6kg at 1700 metres per second, for APFSDS, if memory serves.

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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 70
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 18:59:21 +0000
And verily, did Bull hastily scribble thusly...
|You've also managed to seriously insult me. I'm an easygoing guy, but
|hell. It's the Holidays, and I've got to put up with Retail Hell from a
|million and one stupid people in RL, as well as my wonderfully
|disfunctional family. The last thing I need is some halfwitted, overblown
|windbag who's first reaction is to insult, and second reaction is to insult
|even further. You, dear plant lady, definitely are someone who doesn;t
|really have any right to open her annoying little mouth, since nothing
|worthwhile or even intelligent seems to spew forth.

I've just started catching up on the "fun", and I think I can see why Gurth
dived for his stairs at the first appearance of this "person".

GURTH!

##### # # # # ## #####
# # # # # # # # #
# ###### # # # # # #
# # # # ## # ###### #####
# # # ## ## # # #
# # # # # # # #

>*bounce*<
DAMN!

You could've warned us a little more..... clearly.....
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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. 71
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 13:00:41 -0600
Boy i dont check my mail over the holidays and i come back to a nice
little flame war:). Atleast its gives me 400 messages to keep me busy:).

On Tue, 23 Dec 1997, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
> OK, where to start... Airliner = Heavy Duty Aricraft <?> with two to five
> heavy propellor or turbofan engines?????

Ok so he over generalized the chasis ocasionaly. If he had tried to be
more specific on EVERYTHING the book would have needed 30 more pages of
tables. How many runners are going to be able to buy large aircraft
anyway?

> Propellor?? Since when??

The C-130, still in production and will be for years to come springs to
mind right off the top of my head. There were also a number of serious
studies at moving airliners back to turboprops for fuel economy reasons.

> Turbofan????? Some low powered commercial planes still have turboprops,
> but those dinosaurs are fast disappearing. Commercial planes use Jet
> engines.

UMMMMM a Turbofan IS a jet engine. Its an extreemly high bipass engine
like those used on late model Airbus's and 767's or the C-17. Its the
engines that look REALLY wide in relation to their length. A turbo prop
on the other hand is a propeler powered by a jet turbine. both can be
very effecient compaired to traditional low biapass engines.

> Under fuels you seem to have forgotten the one that probably will take over
> vice all the rest. Alcohol. 80% efficiency vice Gasoline. In a
> -supercharged- <Not Turbocharged, those are antique, less effective than
> iron lungs> engine gives better performance than gasoline.

Already in use in most of the US. We mix it in with the oil based
hydrocarbons but we still call in Gasoline. Who says the "Gasoline" of
2058 isnt 30% ethel. Doesnt mean the Joe Average on the streets wont call
it Gasoline anyway.

> Recoil systems: Hydro-pneumatic is the way it's being done right now.
> Works fine, and works with gyro-stabilization as well. Used in the Abrams
> and Bradley for example. Zero recoil!

Funny every time ives seen footage of the M-1A1 firing the entire tank
jumps and that things 70 tones. I would call that recoil personaly.


Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 72
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 19:31:04 +0000
And verily, did NightLife hastily scribble thusly...
|Some people get off on seeming just how far they can push somebody. Like my
|old Rifts Gm, Lance. Did I tell you about the tribe of mutant pink bunnies
|now that still makes me shudder.

No. Do tell..
I'll be GMing Rifts again eventually, and it'd be a nice silly thing to
throw at the party....

<EGMG>

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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. 73
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 20:50:03 +0100
Spike said on 18:59/27 Dec 97...

> I've just started catching up on the "fun", and I think I can see why Gurth
> dived for his stairs at the first appearance of this "person".

I remembered her from last time, yes...

> GURTH!
>
> ##### # # # # ## #####
> # # # # # # # # #
> # ###### # # # # # #
> # # # # ## # ###### #####
> # # # ## ## # # #
> # # # # # # # #
>
> >*bounce*<
> DAMN!
>
> You could've warned us a little more..... clearly.....

Come on, Spike, you've been on this list long enough to have seen the name
Ivy mentioned in various threads. You _could_ have known you have to watch
out... *grin*

BTW, Ivy, if you're still reading this list and are just away now over
christmas and everything, you might find most people here are a likeable
bunch if you don't try to get them to share your viewpoints too much ;)
Even MC 23 turned out to be OK after he made a pretty bad start...

--
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. 74
From: The _Astral _Watch-Dude <elfman@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 15:11:27 -0600
> Even MC 23 turned out to be OK after he made a pretty bad start...

I(or should I say Whitewinger) even turned out pretty good so far...
Message no. 75
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 23:58:45 +0000
On 27 Dec 97, The _Astral _Watch-Dude disseminated foul capitalist
propaganda by writing:

> > Even MC 23 turned out to be OK after he made a pretty bad start...
>
> I(or should I say Whitewinger) even turned out pretty good so far...

No, you didn't. You just tried to start Phys*** vs. **mmies thread!!!

<grin>


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
Potassium ethoxide rules C2H3OK!
Message no. 76
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 22:31:05 -0500
At 06:59 PM 12/27/97 +0000, Spike wrote these timeless words:

>I've just started catching up on the "fun", and I think I can see why Gurth
>dived for his stairs at the first appearance of this "person".
>
[SNIP THWAP and cursing Gurth for lack of warning]

Well guys, I guess this doesn't really matter much anymore... Adam did
some checking, and either Ivy is now subbed under another name, has a
hidden subscription, and is seriously hiding from our flamage, or she's
done unsubscribed herself in a flaming wreck...

So no need to deal with her anymore...:]

Still, it was fun while it lasted <grin>

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka Chaos, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Cuddly Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome and Archive
Answer Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
---- in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html
NEW!!!! UIN: 6460938

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please."
-- Mark Twain
Message no. 77
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 07:27:50 GMT
On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:14:24 +0100, Gurth wrote:

> Bull said on 20:21/23 Dec 97...
>
> > Oh, but Lehlan, She can;t do that! Using jane's Registry would involve
> > using House Rules, and didn;t she go out of her way to tell us that the
> > House Rules all suck and that by using them, you're cheating your players!
>
> Then I'd better not mention that my house rules compilation is close to
> being finished :)

Or the fact that JRR 0.9 is in for a facelift for version 1.0 :P



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

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 78
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 07:27:47 GMT
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 21:49:28 -0500, Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:

> Under fuels you seem to have forgotten the one that probably will take over
> vice all the rest. Alcohol. 80% efficiency vice Gasoline. In a
> -supercharged- <Not Turbocharged, those are antique, less effective than
> iron lungs> engine gives better performance than gasoline.

Hah! Firstly, if you are the claimed "technical genius regarding vehicles"
as you claim to be, I'm surprised you didn't even think of fuel cells.
Ford and Mercedes just pumped millions of dollars into Ballard here in
Vancouver and FCs will be the only real competitor to traditional IC fuels
in the next forty years.

Secondly, I *laugh* at your opinion that turbochargers are "antique, less
effective than iron lungs". Turbos offer much more _useful_ horsepower
that superchargers-- that's why there are only a handful of factory cars
running blowers (compared to the scores offering turbos). I'm not talking
about specially designed vehicles designed to cover 1,320 feet in as little
time as possible; I'm talking about real world figures.

As for comparing a blown alky engine with a normally aspirated or FI
gasoline engine, your only comparing the engines themselves (not the
fuels).

> Economy: Right out back of our apartment we have two cars. A 95 Honda CX
> and a 95 Neon. The Honda is good for 17.5km/ltr normally and the Neon
> gives 15.5 km/ltr. Your economy maximums are waaaayyy off. Actually, all
> of them are off.

How did you determine *your* figures? Are these manufacturer's specs? A
Geo Metro is supposed to get the equivalent of 60 mpg but I don't know of
anyone that managed that feat.

Granted, R2's economy figures are off a bit by today's standards. But they
would be if their "Gasoline" were diluted 30-50% with alcohol.

> Recoil systems: Hydro-pneumatic is the way it's being done right now.
> Works fine, and works with gyro-stabilization as well. Used in the Abrams
> and Bradley for example. Zero recoil!

Capital HAH!



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

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 79
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigger Book 2
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:53:57 +0000
In article <34a5eb9e.15593473@****.direct.ca>, James Lindsay
<jlindsay@******.CA> writes
>How did you determine *your* figures? Are these manufacturer's specs? A
>Geo Metro is supposed to get the equivalent of 60 mpg but I don't know of
>anyone that managed that feat.

I get 60-70mpg from my 1.5 litre Vauxhall Corsa diesel...


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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Rigger Book 2, 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.