Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:19:29 +0100
Hi! Here I come, once again, to torment you with my weird character
concepts... ;-)

I was just re-reading the spells section in the SR3 core book, and I
got this idea of a character (probably a psi/spellcaster adept) who has
a quickened (or tattooed) high force Magic Fingers spell. He also has
seen too much Hong Kong action movies, and is all about style and
attitude (a recurring trait in my characters, but this one is by far
the most badly intoxicated)...
...So when a firefight becomes a bit too hot, in addition to the
"usual" tricks (the Magneto Effect w/ grenades, etc.), he uses his
Magic Fingers to wield not two, but *four* guns at once. (Coming to
think of it, the same could be done with swords or even monowhips)
...
Are there even rules for that? *prepares to run for Gurth's stairs*

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr@*****.fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 2
From: valeuj@*****.navy.mil (Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3))
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:39:10 +1000
> Hi! Here I come, once again, to torment you with my weird character
> concepts... ;-)
>
> I was just re-reading the spells section in the SR3
> core book, and I
> got this idea of a character (probably a psi/spellcaster
> adept) who has
> a quickened (or tattooed) high force Magic Fingers spell. He also has
> seen too much Hong Kong action movies, and is all about style and
> attitude (a recurring trait in my characters, but this one is by far
> the most badly intoxicated)...
> ...So when a firefight becomes a bit too hot, in
> addition to the
> "usual" tricks (the Magneto Effect w/ grenades, etc.), he uses his
> Magic Fingers to wield not two, but *four* guns at once. (Coming to
> think of it, the same could be done with swords or even monowhips)
> ...
> Are there even rules for that? *prepares to run for
> Gurth's stairs*

Yes there are. But prepared for insainel high target numbers.
Without a rulebook in front of me, off hand I'd say that there's a +4 TN and
thats before even adding in ranges or even taking the first shot. More
creative GMs might even add that little recoil "bonus" along with the fact
that you're wielding 3 other weapons.
Message no. 3
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:52:51 -0800
Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3) wrote:
>
> Yes there are. But prepared for insainel high target numbers.
> Without a rulebook in front of me, off hand I'd say that
> there's a +4 TN and thats before even adding in ranges or
> even taking the first shot. More creative GMs might even add
> that little recoil "bonus" along with the fact that you're
> wielding 3 other weapons.

Ah, but if each hand is holding an SMG and all you are doing is suppression
fire, there are no target penalties.

*eg*

Z
Message no. 4
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:54:48 -0500
At 04:39 PM 1/27/2004, Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3) wrote:
>Yes there are. But prepared for insainel high target numbers.
>Without a rulebook in front of me, off hand I'd say that there's a +4 TN and
>thats before even adding in ranges or even taking the first shot. More
>creative GMs might even add that little recoil "bonus" along with the fact
>that you're wielding 3 other weapons.

I'd probably allow it... Let's see...

Standard penalty for two-weapon combat is +2 to each weapon. Two hands...
Two weapons... +2. The obvious conclusion here is four hands, for weapons,
+4. Your math isn't really off-hand at all. [Actually, it's sort of
off-off-off-hand, but that's just a bad joke.] :)

As for recoil, remember that recoil from one gun affects the other. I'd say
the Magic-Fingered "hands" are immune, as they're not real hands. Per the
spell itself, you can use skills remotely, but with a +2 TN.

So, I'd say you're looking at +4 TN plus cross-weapon recoil for the real
hands, and +6 TN for the fake hands.

Of course, don't forget the Quickness Test (at the Magic Finger's
Quickness) to pick up the guns.

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 5
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:04:40 +0100
> Yes there are. But prepared for insainel high target numbers.
> Without a rulebook in front of me, off hand I'd say that there's a +4
> TN and
> thats before even adding in ranges or even taking the first shot. More
> creative GMs might even add that little recoil "bonus" along with the
> fact
> that you're wielding 3 other weapons.

What if the two MF-controlled weapons are fired first? As they have no
connection with the shooter's physical body, I don't see why the recoil
they generate would apply to the guns you fire with your real hands...
I also thought about expanding the Ambidextry edge rules, something
like lv. 4 (8pts) allowing you to fire 4 weapons at +1 each (well, +3
for the MF'd ones -- considering +2 to all if you don't have the edge
as per standard SR3 rules)... And perhaps a 16-point version of the
edge called "Quadridextry"...
That's getting kind of... expensive.

As Zeb said though, it's gotta be great for suppressive fire, if only
for the fact that it allows you to cover 360 degrees without effort...

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr@*****.fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 6
From: valeuj@*****.navy.mil (Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3))
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:39:07 +1000
> > Yes there are. But prepared for insainel high target numbers.
> > Without a rulebook in front of me, off hand I'd say that
> there's a +4
> > TN and
> > thats before even adding in ranges or even taking the first
> shot. More
> > creative GMs might even add that little recoil "bonus"
> along with the
> > fact
> > that you're wielding 3 other weapons.
>
> What if the two MF-controlled weapons are fired first?
> As they have no
> connection with the shooter's physical body, I don't see why
> the recoil
> they generate would apply to the guns you fire with your real hands...
> I also thought about expanding the Ambidextry edge
> rules, something
> like lv. 4 (8pts) allowing you to fire 4 weapons at +1 each (well, +3
> for the MF'd ones -- considering +2 to all if you don't have the edge
> as per standard SR3 rules)... And perhaps a 16-point version of the
> edge called "Quadridextry"...
> That's getting kind of... expensive.
>
> As Zeb said though, it's gotta be great for suppressive
> fire, if only
> for the fact that it allows you to cover 360 degrees without effort...

They may not have connections to the body, so I would have the mage make a
willpower or magic test or whatever to try and control the guns.
With nothing to counterbalance the recoil, the gun's gonna flyback wildly.
Message no. 7
From: Johnflang@***.com (Johnflang@***.com)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:17:24 -0500
In a message dated 1/27/2004 3:19:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, maxnoel_fr@*****.fr writes:

>
>
> Hi! Here I come, once again, to torment you with my weird character
> concepts... ;-)
>
> I was just re-reading the spells section in the SR3 core book, and I
> got this idea of a character (probably a psi/spellcaster adept) who has
> a quickened (or tattooed) high force Magic Fingers spell. He also has
> seen too much Hong Kong action movies, and is all about style and
> attitude (a recurring trait in my characters, but this one is by far
> the most badly intoxicated)...
> ...So when a firefight becomes a bit too hot, in addition to the
> "usual" tricks (the Magneto Effect w/ grenades, etc.), he uses his
> Magic Fingers to wield not two, but *four* guns at once. (Coming to
> think of it, the same could be done with swords or even monowhips)
> ...
> Are there even rules for that? *prepares to run for Gurth's stairs*
>
> -- Wild_Cat

Note this is without rule book. To use a skill with Magic Fingers Requires a seperate
spell/skill for each skill. You would need the spell Use Skill Pistols 4 quickened. If
quickned then there are no TN penalities for multiple spells. Then there is the matter of
firing four pistols at once. In my campaign I would make you use the penailities for
firing/using two weapons and expand it too four. I am real glad members of my group dont
read this board or they would be working on it for thier characters.

John
Message no. 8
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:31:45 -0500
At 06:17 PM 1/27/2004, Johnflang@***.com wrote:
>Note this is without rule book. To use a skill with Magic Fingers
>Requires a seperate spell/skill for each skill. You would need the spell
>Use Skill Pistols 4 quickened. If quickned then there are no TN penalities
>for multiple spells. Then there is the matter of firing four pistols at
>once. In my campaign I would make you use the penailities for
>firing/using two weapons and expand it too four. I am real glad members
>of my group dont read this board or they would be working on it for thier
>characters.

Nope. The "Use (Skill)" spells are limited versions of "Magic
Fingers,"
found in MitS, I think. You can use /any/ skill with "Magic Fingers", you
just suck up a +2 TN penalty.

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 9
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:07:39 +0000
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:39:07AM +1000, Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3) wrote:
> > > Yes there are. But prepared for insainel high target numbers.
> > > Without a rulebook in front of me, off hand I'd say that
> > there's a +4
> > > TN and
> > > thats before even adding in ranges or even taking the first
> > shot. More
> > > creative GMs might even add that little recoil "bonus"
> > along with the
> > > fact
> > > that you're wielding 3 other weapons.
> >
> > What if the two MF-controlled weapons are fired first?
> > As they have no
> > connection with the shooter's physical body, I don't see why
> > the recoil
> > they generate would apply to the guns you fire with your real hands...
> > I also thought about expanding the Ambidextry edge
> > rules, something
> > like lv. 4 (8pts) allowing you to fire 4 weapons at +1 each (well, +3
> > for the MF'd ones -- considering +2 to all if you don't have the edge
> > as per standard SR3 rules)... And perhaps a 16-point version of the
> > edge called "Quadridextry"...
> > That's getting kind of... expensive.
> >
> > As Zeb said though, it's gotta be great for suppressive
> > fire, if only
> > for the fact that it allows you to cover 360 degrees without effort...
>
> They may not have connections to the body, so I would have the mage make a
> willpower or magic test or whatever to try and control the guns.
> With nothing to counterbalance the recoil, the gun's gonna flyback wildly.

An interesting thought. In reality the recoil from a properly held weapon has to be
absorbed by your entire body. It is not strictly speaking a matter of strength but rather
of mass. Strength is necessary to maintain proper control, but it isn't where the recoil
*goes*.

What's the point? Magic fingers have no mass! What is going to happen to the recoil? I
see two possible resolutions, one of which I prefer a great deal for reasons I will
explain:
1. There is nowhere for the recoil to go and the gun just flies back.
2. The recoil is "transferred" into the caster of the spell through the
telekinetic link.

I prefer option 2 since it fits better with one's intuition about how the spell ought to
work (if such a thing can even exist). The problem with option 1 is that while it works
OK in the case of the gun, there are other situations in which the results it would give
don't make any sense. For instance, nobody doubts that magic fingers ought to be able to
throw a baseball, but if you go with option 1 then this is impossible. Option 1 only
works in the case of the gun since the system involves both the bullet and the gun so the
gun, having mass, can absorb the bullet's recoil, it just has nowhere else to transfer it.
But when your system is only one object, like a baseball, then there is nowhere for the
"recoil" of throwing a baseball to go so it can't happen. With option 2 this is
a nonissue.

However, accepting option 2 has the immediate consequence that the recoil from the weapons
being held by the magic fingers should effect all the other weapons in the same manner as
the recoil for two weapon fighting does. It potentially has other more subtle
consequences as well, and that deserves some thought.

I suppose there is a third option: Just wave your hands and say "it's magic!",
but such feelings are against my nature ;)

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 10
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:08:03 +0100
> I am real glad members of my group dont read this board or they would
> be working on it for thier characters.
>
> John

Heh... Thanks :-p. However I don't think the "4-way Akimbo" is the
most dangerous trick you can pull with Magic Fingers. My personal List
of Dangerous MF Uses includes:
- ("The Magneto Effect") Pulling the pins from your enemies' grenades.
- ("Cube Belmont") Using a monofilament whip. No risks of cutting
yourself when your physical body is a dozen meters away from the whip.
Besides, your opponent can't really counterattack and hurt you, can he?
Note that this also works with any melee weapon, or even unarmed combat
(IIRC MF hands have a Str attribute equal to the Force of the spell)
- ("You're driving too fast") When you're being chased by a biker gang,
squeezing the front brakes on their bikes as hard as your magic fingers
can (or if they're strong enough, having fun with the steering bars)

...and many others, but I'm not going to reveal all my trade secrets at
once, am I? ;-)

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr@*****.fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 11
From: ra002585@**.unicamp.br (Bira)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:33:07 -0200
> Are there even rules for that? *prepares to run for Gurth's stairs*

Switch to Exalted :).

--
Bira
http://www.shadowlandbr.hpg.com.br ou
http://www24.brinkster.com/shadowlandbr/index.html
Message no. 12
From: robertennew@*****.com.au (Robert Ennew)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:01:12 +1100 (EST)
--- "Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3)"
<valeuj@*****.navy.mil> wrote: > > Hi! Here I come,
once again, to torment you with
> my weird character
> > concepts... ;-)
> >
> > I was just re-reading the spells section in the
> SR3
> > core book, and I
> > got this idea of a character (probably a
> psi/spellcaster
> > adept) who has
> > a quickened (or tattooed) high force Magic Fingers
> spell. He also has
> > seen too much Hong Kong action movies, and is all
> about style and
> > attitude (a recurring trait in my characters, but
> this one is by far
> > the most badly intoxicated)...
> > ...So when a firefight becomes a bit too hot, in
> > addition to the
> > "usual" tricks (the Magneto Effect w/ grenades,
> etc.), he uses his
> > Magic Fingers to wield not two, but *four* guns at
> once. (Coming to
> > think of it, the same could be done with swords or
> even monowhips)
> > ...
> > Are there even rules for that? *prepares to run
> for
> > Gurth's stairs*
>
> Yes there are. But prepared for insainel high target
> numbers.
> Without a rulebook in front of me, off hand I'd say
> that there's a +4 TN and
> thats before even adding in ranges or even taking
> the first shot. More
> creative GMs might even add that little recoil
> "bonus" along with the fact
> that you're wielding 3 other weapons.

I assume seeing as thin air Is actually holding the 2
or 3 other firearms that how can you judge recoil of
the magic finger weapons? If recoil for these weapons
was judged on willpower or concentratiion In general
then that would seem fair, seeing as you have to
concentrate to control them. Example 3 firearms
magically controlled by magic finger, willpower &
Intelligence add together then divided by two could be
a pool of extra dice to handle the animated weapons or
count as the recoil compensation. Just an Idea, what
do you all think?

GZ

http://personals.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Personals
New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time.
Message no. 13
From: silvercat@***********.org (Jonathan Hurley)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:31:20 -0500
-----Original Message-----
Subject: RE: Shiva-style Gun-fu

--- "Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3)"
<valeuj@*****.navy.mil> wrote:
[snip]
> > I was just re-reading the spells section in the
> SR3
> > core book, and I
> > got this idea of a character (probably a
> psi/spellcaster
> > adept) who has
> > a quickened (or tattooed) high force Magic Fingers
> spell. He also has
> > seen too much Hong Kong action movies, and is all
> about style and
> > attitude (a recurring trait in my characters, but
> this one is by far
> > the most badly intoxicated)...
> > ...So when a firefight becomes a bit too hot, in
> > addition to the
> > "usual" tricks (the Magneto Effect w/ grenades,
> etc.), he uses his
> > Magic Fingers to wield not two, but *four* guns at
> once. (Coming to
> > think of it, the same could be done with swords or
> even monowhips)
>
> Yes there are. But prepared for insainel high target
> numbers.
> Without a rulebook in front of me, off hand I'd say
> that there's a +4 TN and
> thats before even adding in ranges or even taking
> the first shot. More
> creative GMs might even add that little recoil
> "bonus" along with the fact
> that you're wielding 3 other weapons.

I assume seeing as thin air Is actually holding the 2
or 3 other firearms that how can you judge recoil of
the magic finger weapons? If recoil for these weapons
was judged on willpower or concentratiion In general
then that would seem fair, seeing as you have to
concentrate to control them. Example 3 firearms
magically controlled by magic finger, willpower &
Intelligence add together then divided by two could be
a pool of extra dice to handle the animated weapons or
count as the recoil compensation. Just an Idea, what
do you all think?


-----Reply to original message-----

Recoil isn't going to be a huge problem - the effective strength of the
spell is the number of sorcery successes, and the drain isn't high enough
that a competent sorcerer has to reserve too many dice against drain. A
decent gas vent system will take care of the recoil well enough. For more
fun, take the weapon(s) to a decent enchanter, and have them enchanted as
sustaining foci for Magic Fingers to offload the concentration penalty. (OK,
a really good enchanter - the weapons are most likely going to qualify as
highly processed materials, and other kinds of target number nastiness for
enchanting). For more fun, add in Enhanced Aim to offset the penalties for
Magic Fingers...

Slightly easier to enchant would be a sword (you don't have to use highly
processed materials, and could conceivably get a virgin telesma). Almost as
effective; possibly even more effective due to differences between ballistic
and impact in low-profile armor. I personally wouldn't allow it to be a
weapon focus; at least, I wouldn't allow it to stay active once it left the
mage's aura. But that's hardly necessary. Now I have an idea for an ally
spirit in embodied form, however.
Message no. 14
From: mattgbond@********.com (Matthew Bond)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:52:55 -0000
David Kettler wrote:
> I suppose there is a third option: Just wave your hands and say
> "it's magic!", but such feelings are against my nature ;)

Though kind of appropriate when dealing with explaining how a particular
magic spell interacts with real objects...

Matt


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.568 / Virus Database: 359 - Release Date: 27/01/2004
Message no. 15
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:17:12 +0100
According to Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3), on Tuesday 27 January 2004
22:39 the word on the street was...

> Yes there are. But prepared for insainel high target numbers.
> Without a rulebook in front of me, off hand I'd say that there's a +4 TN
> and thats before even adding in ranges or even taking the first shot.
> More creative GMs might even add that little recoil "bonus" along with
> the fact that you're wielding 3 other weapons.

Well, extending the normal rules for two-weapon fighting puts you at a +6
TN (assuming it's +2 for each weapon beyond the first, as SR3 implies),
with another +2 for each weapon held in a Magic Fingers spell, and then
the GM might want to add recoil :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You've been touched by the doubt of man
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 16
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:18:44 +0100
According to Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3), on Tuesday 27 January 2004
23:39 the word on the street was...

> They may not have connections to the body, so I would have the mage make
> a willpower or magic test or whatever to try and control the guns. With
> nothing to counterbalance the recoil, the gun's gonna flyback wildly.

Magic Fingers has a Strength equal to the number of successes behind the
spell, so that would be enough to hold the gun, seeing as how even a
Strength 1 character can fire weapons without adverse effects from their
recoil.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You've been touched by the doubt of man
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 17
From: robertennew@*****.com.au (Robert Ennew)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:23:53 +1100 (EST)
--- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:

<snip>

> Magic Fingers has a Strength equal to the number of
> successes behind the
> spell, so that would be enough to hold the gun,
> seeing as how even a
> Strength 1 character can fire weapons without
> adverse effects from their
> recoil.

Cool to know, but how much recoil comp. does even a 10
success In spell (equivalent of a troll strength)
acheive, not much at all according to cannon
companion, I think 1 - 2 maybe. Fat chance of magic
fingers compensating for much more then pistol(s),
you'll be lucky If It could handle a burst from a SMG,
& don't even think about Heavy weaponry (remember
uncompensated recoil from heavy weapons without a
comp. system designed for the weapon = +2 for those
skinny arms ;) I think I like some of these creative
Ideas these spell slingers have come up with are In
order, otherwise there's gonna' be a major shortage of
material for mages capes when houdini's out there put
holes In their suits trying to juggle the ol' lead
hose ;)

GZ - " And for my next trick, watch me juggle 4 SMG's
on full auto")

http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Greetings
Send your love online with Yahoo! Greetings - FREE!
Message no. 18
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:03:32 +0100
According to Robert Ennew, on Thursday 29 January 2004 07:23 the word on
the street was...

> Cool to know, but how much recoil comp. does even a 10
> success In spell (equivalent of a troll strength)
> acheive, not much at all according to cannon
> companion, I think 1 - 2 maybe. Fat chance of magic
> fingers compensating for much more then pistol(s),

I didn't say it would compensate the recoil, I said even a Magic Fingers
with 1 success would allow you to hold the weapon without it flying
backward _completely_ out of control :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You've been touched by the doubt of man
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 19
From: SteveG@***********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:29:54 +0200
Matthew Bond wrote:
> David Kettler wrote:
> > I suppose there is a third option: Just wave your hands
> and say "it's
> > magic!", but such feelings are against my nature ;)
>
> Though kind of appropriate when dealing with explaining how a
> particular magic spell interacts with real objects...

Not really, no. While the concept of magic and how it works in SR may be
based in fantasy, the mechanics of it are still scientific. For me, there
still has to be some basis of logic and physics involved when dealing with
magic, or anything. So I would heartily agree with David's view on the
matter.

Just my 2 cents.


Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon



**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
Message no. 20
From: SteveG@***********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:31:19 +0200
Gurth wrote:
> Magic Fingers has a Strength equal to the number of successes
> behind the
> spell, so that would be enough to hold the gun, seeing as how even a
> Strength 1 character can fire weapons without adverse effects
> from their
> recoil.

But as Mr. Kettler correctly pointed out, recoil is offset by mass, not
strength.


Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon



**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
Message no. 21
From: mattgbond@********.com (Matthew Bond)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:55:37 -0000
Steve Garrard wrote:
> Gurth wrote:
>> Magic Fingers has a Strength equal to the number of successes
>> behind the
>> spell, so that would be enough to hold the gun, seeing as how even a
>> Strength 1 character can fire weapons without adverse effects
>> from their
>> recoil.
>
> But as Mr. Kettler correctly pointed out, recoil is offset by mass,
> not strength.

More accurately, the force of the recoil is conteracted by a force
comprised of the mass of the shooter and a velocity... thus if the magic
fingers can supply sufficient force they can counter recoil.

That they can provide some force is evident from them being able to pick
up the gun in the first place, the problem then becomes one of deciding
exactly how much counterforce they can exert. If they can have 'virtual'
strength, why can't they have 'virtual' body

Matt

Matt


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.568 / Virus Database: 359 - Release Date: 26/01/2004
Message no. 22
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:19:25 +0100
According to Steve Garrard, on Thursday 29 January 2004 12:31 the word on
the street was...

> But as Mr. Kettler correctly pointed out, recoil is offset by mass, not
> strength.

If that were 100% true, then none of us would be able to lift anything off
the floor -- lifting is counteracting gravity by using the strength of
your muscles, not the mass of your body. Recoil is a force like gravity,
except it's (usually) pointing in a different direction; if you say that
strength won't help to bring recoil under control, you're IMHO also saying
you can't lift stuff off the floor...

The reason mass helps with recoil is because recoil from a weapon has a
given force, and so it's able to give more acceleration to a small mass
than to a larger mass. As high-school physics points out, F = m*a, so for
a given F, a will go down if m goes up.

However, recoil from a hand-held firearm is not a matter of rigid objects
being pushed around by external forces. This would be the case with, for
example, weapons like a gun mounted rigidly on a tank (without a
recoil-absorbtion mechanism -- which is very rare, BTW) but not with one
held in a hand. For one thing, the line of recoil is often above the point
where the weapon is actually being held, so it will attempt to pivot due
to the recoil. Since the hand/arm is not rigid, it will allow some
movement, but the more strength you have, the better you will be able to
keep this movement under control. Only if you were to hold the weapon
absolutely rigidly, like with a cyberarm with its joints locked, then your
body mass would become the more important factor, I'd think.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You've been touched by the doubt of man
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 23
From: james@****.uow.edu.au (James Niall Zealey)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:18:18 +1100
> Steve Garrard <SteveG@***********.co.za>
>
> But as Mr. Kettler correctly pointed out, recoil is offset by mass, not
> strength.
>
>
No. Recoil is offset by
1) Momentum
2) Force (specifically the force of friction)
3) Strength (specifically the ability to apply the forces required to
negate the off-centre force of firing it - this keeps the gun on target)

Note that in terms of modifiers to hit, only the last term is important
- it's the only one which changes the trajectory of the bullets coming
from the gun.

Since magic fingers has no real shape, there's nothing to stop you from
holding a gun in such a fashion as to change that off-centre force to a
centroid force, in which case the only effect recoil has is to push the
gun backwards. Which might be a problem in the case of an automatic
weapon, but otherwise...

Additionally, what does the stat "strength" mean in shadowrun anyway? My
guess would be that, like in other games, it's a combination of every
factor that allows one to exert physical force. IOW, depending on the
character, it could easily mean a great dexterity and intelligence in
applying force at the right point, or the alternative brute strength,
the musclature and mass required to exert raw force on something.

Or in other words strength is the game stat which represents momentum
(among other things).

Most importantly, it's the game stat which cancels recoil - size isn't
taken into account. So magic fingers fire a gun just like a human being
of equivalent strength does. No random modifiers added just to screw
over the neat idea.
Message no. 24
From: robertennew@*****.com.au (Robert Ennew)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:47:19 +1100 (EST)
--- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote: > According to
Robert Ennew, on Thursday 29 January
> 2004 07:23 the word on
> the street was...
>
> > Cool to know, but how much recoil comp. does even
> a 10
> > success In spell (equivalent of a troll strength)
> > acheive, not much at all according to cannon
> > companion, I think 1 - 2 maybe. Fat chance of
> magic
> > fingers compensating for much more then pistol(s),
>
> I didn't say it would compensate the recoil, I said
> even a Magic Fingers
> with 1 success would allow you to hold the weapon
> without it flying
> backward _completely_ out of control :)

Oh, okay, sorry Gurth :) It's still gona suck trying
to BF or FA.

GZ

http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Greetings
Send your love online with Yahoo! Greetings - FREE!
Message no. 25
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:04:01 -0800
Robert Ennew wrote:
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 6:47 PM
> To: Shadowrun Discussion
> Subject: Re: Shiva-style Gun-fu
>
> --- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote: > According to Robert
> Ennew, on Thursday 29 January
> > 2004 07:23 the word on
> > the street was...
> >
> > > Cool to know, but how much recoil comp. does even
> > a 10
> > > success In spell (equivalent of a troll strength)
> acheive, not much
> > > at all according to cannon companion, I think 1 - 2 maybe. Fat
> > > chance of
> > magic
> > > fingers compensating for much more then pistol(s),
> >
> > I didn't say it would compensate the recoil, I said even a Magic
> > Fingers with 1 success would allow you to hold the weapon
> without it
> > flying backward _completely_ out of control :)
>
> Oh, okay, sorry Gurth :) It's still gona suck trying to BF or FA.
>
> GZ
>


What everyone is forgetting is this:

Suppression Fire doesn't use any modifiers, IIRC, and so recoil doesn't
MATTER.

*checks Cannon Companion*

Well, lookie here, they've changed it since FoF, and for the better I see.

So, now then, you've got your Mage with two HV-LMGs suppressing a hallway
(3m x 3m) and putting 4 rounds through each 1m x 1m area. The modifiers
*assuming the defender doesn't dodge* for the attack test take into account
"...only the attacker's wounds, the target's cover (if any) and a +2 for
suppressive fire. The attacker may also not use Combat Pool."

Which means that, if the Mage has laser sights on each weapon, and they're
at short range, the TN# to hit is 5 with 36 rounds of HV-LMG. Any character
which moves through that area will *at least* take 4 rounds, and I'd rule 8,
meaning they need to make 8 successes on a Dodge test to completely miss
getting tagged.

Of course, if they do get tagged, they only have to roll against the base
power of the weapon, staged by the Mages successes on his test, and cannot
make another Dodge test (assuming he had any combat pool left).

(As an aside, this settles an argument I had with my players over the ease
of hitting someone with suppression fire vs aiming and shooting. This
effectively makes it less insane. It doesn't, however, say how many rounds
hit, which I guess is okay, anyway.)

So, really, recoil is meaningless in this scenario.

Master Shiva-Gunfoo keeps the bad guys down whilst his buddies get to do
whatever they like, and as long as the ammo belts don't run out, he's safe
to keep standing there.

Zebulin
Message no. 26
From: robertennew@*****.com.au (Robert Ennew)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:01:15 +1100 (EST)
I reckon If they get hit by more than 1 stray round,
they either have to role a resistance/dodge test for
each Individual round at base damage, or If hit by 3
or more rounds roll one resistence test but treat as
If hit by a burst.
example: catch 2 stray rounds of 9M assault rifle: 2
dodge &/or resistance tests of 9M (or 1 test against
10M like in a short burst). In case of 3 stray
rounds,treat as a burst, It would be 13M ('cept
without the level increase as the rounds weren't all
zeroed In on you, you were just silly enough to walk
Into them). Any more than that:say 7 rounds tagged In
suppressive fire, resist as If full automatic burst
16M (If you wanted to be sadistic, catching anymore
than 3 stray rounds would still increase the damage
level). what do you all think?

GZ

http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Greetings
Send your love online with Yahoo! Greetings - FREE!
Message no. 27
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:12:34 +0000
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 07:19:25PM +0100, Gurth wrote:
> If that were 100% true, then none of us would be able to lift anything off
> the floor -- lifting is counteracting gravity by using the strength of
> your muscles, not the mass of your body. Recoil is a force like gravity,
> except it's (usually) pointing in a different direction; if you say that
> strength won't help to bring recoil under control, you're IMHO also saying
> you can't lift stuff off the floor...
>

That's a straw man argument if there ever was one. Of course everything is based on
Newton's laws. I certainly hope nobody was trying to claim otherwise. But the specifics
of how a force manifests itself do vary. The world would be quite dull otherwise.

> The reason mass helps with recoil is because recoil from a weapon has a
> given force, and so it's able to give more acceleration to a small mass
> than to a larger mass. As high-school physics points out, F = m*a, so for
> a given F, a will go down if m goes up.
>
> However, recoil from a hand-held firearm is not a matter of rigid objects
> being pushed around by external forces. This would be the case with, for
> example, weapons like a gun mounted rigidly on a tank (without a
> recoil-absorbtion mechanism -- which is very rare, BTW) but not with one
> held in a hand. For one thing, the line of recoil is often above the point
> where the weapon is actually being held, so it will attempt to pivot due
> to the recoil. Since the hand/arm is not rigid, it will allow some
> movement, but the more strength you have, the better you will be able to
> keep this movement under control. Only if you were to hold the weapon
> absolutely rigidly, like with a cyberarm with its joints locked, then your
> body mass would become the more important factor, I'd think.
>

I will confess the image I had in my mind when I made my earlier statement was of firing a
rifle which, while probably not what the original poster had in mind, is the only kind of
gun I've ever actually fired so it's what I'm most familiar with. I'm going to continue
on that line of thought if only to clarify my earlier statement. Besides, I can't imagine
that the principle behind a pistol or SMG sized weapon is that different.

In any event, you can tell just by how a rifle is held that the user does not intend to
directly oppose the recoil with brute strength. It is simply impossible to apply that
much forward force in such a position, but that's OK because it's not what you're trying
to do. What's doing the real work is the stock. The gun wants to go backwards, but it's
braced against your body and can't. The gun's momentum is transferred into your body and
through you into the ground. Where recoil is a problem is that the gun, seeking the path
of least resistence, will often be deflected in a lateral direction. It is the lateral,
not the backwards, movement that you oppose with strength. That is what I meant by saying
that strength is used for control and the recoil is absorbed by mass.

Is a pistol that different? I don't know. They don't have stocks, certainly, but I
believe proper pistol-firing posture involves locking your joints, effectively turning
your arm into a stock.

In any event, none of this applies to magic fingers since they have no mass. Yes, you can
attempt to directly oppose the gun's movement with strength, but that is *not* what a
ordinary person is doing when they fire a gun and shouldn't be treated as such. You can't
reasonably just let the gun fly backwards either since you have to be applying a force
somewhere (as you pulled the trigger) and this would cause the gun to rotate as it flew
back, completely ruining your aim.

I'm not saying I have a perfect solution to this problem or anything, but it's something
worth considering.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 28
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:16:31 +0100
According to David Kettler, on Friday 30 January 2004 06:12 the word on the
street was...

> In any event, you can tell just by how a rifle is held that the user
> does not intend to directly oppose the recoil with brute strength.

Not _just_ with brute strength. Vertical fore-grips, as currently popular
on assault rifles and similar weapons (see the AUG and the M4 SOPMOD, for
example) are there because they help in absorbing recoil. If strength
wasn't a factor here, everybody would be using simple rifle stocks on such
weapons.

> Is a pistol that different? I don't know. They don't have stocks,
> certainly, but I believe proper pistol-firing posture involves locking
> your joints, effectively turning your arm into a stock.

Depends. One of my players, who used to shoot pistols, keeps telling me he
was taught to keep all the joints in his firing arm angled so that the
weapon would be able to recoil up and back. Whereas if you watch, for
example, that show SAS Survival Secrets on BBC 2, you'll notice these guys
firing pistols with their arms straight and rigid so as to absorb the
recoil that way.

> I'm not saying I have a perfect solution to this problem or anything,
> but it's something worth considering.

The simple thing to do is, in any case, to just follow the existing game
rules: apply recoil compensation if the Magic Fingers' Strength is high
enough (unlikely, but possible).

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You've been touched by the doubt of man
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 29
From: trick_ster@*******.com (Niels Sønderborg)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:44:16 +0100
My problem with this isnt the recoil, but how he would aim all the guns at
the same point without becoming totally confused. He wouldnt be able to fire
in four directions in my opinion.
In the recoil issue I would say the gun(s) would do a spin in the air after
firing their first shot since nothing is really holding them up. Then again
this is a fantazy world involving when magic ...
But I would under no cercumstances allow anyone to do the multipole gun
trick you are descriping.

_________________________________________________________________
Få alle de nye og sjove ikoner med MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.dk
Message no. 30
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:40:45 +0100
Niels Sønderborg wrote:

> My problem with this isnt the recoil, but how he would aim all the
> guns at the same point without becoming totally confused. He wouldnt
> be able to fire in four directions in my opinion.

That's why the +[2 to 6] TN modifier was suggested. It's just an
extension of two-guns shooting (hence the "quadridextry" edge I
suggested ;) ).
In any case, that wouldn't be an issue when using suppressive fire
(you don't need a lot of accuracy when all you want to do is to cover
the area with lead).

> In the recoil issue I would say the gun(s) would do a spin in the air
> after firing their first shot since nothing is really holding them up.

Well, the Magic Fingers are holding the guns, and while they may or
may not have a mass, they are capable of exerting a force (Newtons).
They even have a Strength rating.
Now I think the problem is, how high must your Strength be in order to
effectively use a gun? IIRC there aren't rules for that, aside from
encumbrance and recoil compensation.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr@*****.fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 31
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 11:12:12 +0100
According to Niels Sønderborg, on Saturday 31 January 2004 15:44 the word
on the street was...

> My problem with this isnt the recoil, but how he would aim all the guns
> at the same point without becoming totally confused.

That's what the +2 modifier for firing two guns represents: the fact that
it's not that easy to aim two weapons point at the same target. So if
someone wants to use four guns at the same time, the easy solution is to
just read the modifier as meaning "+2 per weapon beyond the first". It'll
get difficult _really_ quickly.

> He wouldnt be able to fire in four directions in my opinion.

Firing in four directions wouldn't be the problem. Hitting what you're
trying to aim at would be :) But, as has been mentioned, suppressive fire
can go a long way -- although I'd probably slap on a modifier for anyone
trying to do suppressive fire into two or more directions at once.

> But I would under no cercumstances allow anyone to do the multipole gun
> trick you are descriping.

I certainly wouldn't go that far. Always let players try, and if they
happen to succeed once or twice, then more power to them.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You've been touched by the doubt of man
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 32
From: james@****.uow.edu.au (James Niall Zealey)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 08:41:23 +1100
> David Kettler <davek@***.lonestar.org>
> Date:
> Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:12:34 +0000
>
> >
> That's a straw man argument if there ever was one. Of course
> everything is based on Newton's laws. I certainly hope nobody was
> trying to claim otherwise. But the specifics of how a force manifests
> itself do vary. The world would be quite dull otherwise.

I really fail to see how it's a straw-man argument. Your arguing that
strength has nothing to do with the exertion of force, while mass does.

> In any event, you can tell just by how a rifle is held that the user
> does not intend to directly oppose the recoil with brute strength. It
> is simply impossible to apply that much forward force in such a
> position,

Bollocks.

> but that's OK because it's not what you're trying to do.
> What's doing the real work is the stock.

Since we're in a physics arguement, I'll disagree here. Work=expenditure
of energy. The stock does not expend any of it's store of kinetic,
potential or chemical energy. It remains the same.

> The gun wants to go backwards,

ie - it exerts a force

> but it's braced against your body and can't.

which is opposed by another force

> The gun's momentum is
> transferred into your body and through you into the ground.

True, but it's not quite that simple. The guns force is opposed by a
force from your body - one exerted by your muscles. Since a human being
is not a rigid body, we cannot simply treat it as one.

IOW - this doesn't work unless the human being exerts force. He exerts
force upon the gun in order to keep it still, and he exerts force upon
the ground in order to keep himself still.

> Where
> recoil is a problem is that the gun, seeking the path of least
> resistence, will often be deflected in a lateral direction.

Path of least resistance isn't the term to be used here - it applies to
fluids and electricity.

What should be used here is the fact that the force the gun applies is
not entirely directly backwards, and that the layout of the human body
and general construction of a gun means that we are ill equipped to
control the 'lateral' movement of said gun - in otherwords we exert
inadequate force.

> It is the
> lateral, not the backwards, movement that you oppose with strength.
> That is what I meant by saying that strength is used for control and the
> recoil is absorbed by mass.

Firstly, From the oxford english dictionary:

Strength: 1. The quality or condition of being strong. a. Power of
action in body or limbs; ability to exert muscular force.

Secondly - since the human being is not a rigid body, he must be
exerting force in order to compensate for the force exerted by the gun
(ie - recoil).

Humans use their muscles to exert force.

Therefore humans use their muscles to oppose recoil.

Finally
"recoil is absorbed by mass"

Forces do not get absorbed by masses - they must be opposed by another
force. They may generate only a minimal amount of velocity in an object,
but that's not absorbtion.

> Is a pistol that different? I don't know. They don't have stocks,
> certainly, but I believe proper pistol-firing posture involves locking
> your joints, effectively turning your arm into a stock.
>

ie - turning the arm into a rigid body which transfers force to the rest
of the human body.

> In any event, none of this applies to magic fingers since they have no
> mass.

Which is totally irrelevant.

> Yes, you can attempt to directly oppose the gun's movement with
> strength, but that is *not* what a ordinary person is doing when they
> fire a gun and shouldn't be treated as such.

Yes, it is and yes it can be.

> You can't reasonably just
> let the gun fly backwards either since you have to be applying a force
> somewhere (as you pulled the trigger) and this would cause the gun to
> rotate as it flew back, completely ruining your aim.
>

Garbage. Magic fingers applies a force wherever you want it to. Meaning
it applies a force to the trigger, and one directly opposing it, at the
same time as applying a force to the back of the gun, on the same line
of effect that the force from the recoil takes. Which, incidentally,
would cancel out the recoil.

> I'm not saying I have a perfect solution to this problem or anything,
> but it's something worth considering.
>

No. It's not.
Message no. 33
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:44:19 -0500
At 02:31 AM 1/28/2004, Jonathan Hurley wrote:
>Recoil isn't going to be a huge problem - the effective strength of the
>spell is the number of sorcery successes, and the drain isn't high enough
>that a competent sorcerer has to reserve too many dice against drain. A
>decent gas vent system will take care of the recoil well enough. For more
>fun, take the weapon(s) to a decent enchanter, and have them enchanted as
>sustaining foci for Magic Fingers to offload the concentration penalty. (OK,

That won't work... Well... Not as you're thinking. You'd need to enchant
the guns you /hold/ rather than the ones that the Magic Fingers actually
affects.

>a really good enchanter - the weapons are most likely going to qualify as
>highly processed materials, and other kinds of target number nastiness for
>enchanting). For more fun, add in Enhanced Aim to offset the penalties for
>Magic Fingers...

I don't think I'd let /any/ aiming devices assist the magic-fingered guns.
You obviously can't smartlink something you're not holding, and four laser
dots would just be confusing.

>Slightly easier to enchant would be a sword (you don't have to use highly
>processed materials, and could conceivably get a virgin telesma). Almost as
>effective; possibly even more effective due to differences between ballistic
>and impact in low-profile armor. I personally wouldn't allow it to be a
>weapon focus; at least, I wouldn't allow it to stay active once it left the
>mage's aura. But that's hardly necessary. Now I have an idea for an ally
>spirit in embodied form, however.

Oooooh... Evil... :)

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 34
From: robertennew@*****.com.au (Robert Ennew)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 05:59:58 +0000 (GMT)
--- Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr> wrote: >
<snip>
> It's just an
> extension of two-guns shooting (hence the
> "quadridextry" edge I
> suggested ;) ).

nice suggestion Wild Cat, but the only reason why I
wouldn't bother with this edge Is because all (Meta)
humans have only 2 arms to play with, so, Why would
there be a need for the edge (except for the above
nifty Idea), unless the runner specifically trains
using this spell In this way there would be no reason
for the edges existence. The possibility could be
though that a runner lost both his arms In an
accident, had to use his legs & toes to perform tasks
that his arms used to do such as; a decker keyboard
bashing because last run he caught hacking Into
Aztechnology :)

GZ - "How do can possible say your Quadridextrous,
you've only got two arms")





___________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80
http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk
Message no. 35
From: silvercat@***********.org (Jonathan Hurley)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 01:03:38 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy J. Lanza
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 3:44 AM
To: Shadowrun Discussion
Subject: RE: Shiva-style Gun-fu

At 02:31 AM 1/28/2004, Jonathan Hurley wrote:
[snip]
>Slightly easier to enchant would be a sword (you don't have to use highly
>processed materials, and could conceivably get a virgin telesma). Almost as
>effective; possibly even more effective due to differences between
ballistic
>and impact in low-profile armor. I personally wouldn't allow it to be a
>weapon focus; at least, I wouldn't allow it to stay active once it left the
>mage's aura. But that's hardly necessary. Now I have an idea for an ally
>spirit in embodied form, however.

Oooooh... Evil... :)

-----Reply to message-----

Evil is as evil does. Actually, in general, melee weapons are
disconcertingly effective in SR. For that matter, anything that is reduced
by impact armor is highly effective. But some fun could definitely be had by
a knife (if concealibility is desired) or a sword (if not) and magic
fingers. A little bit of Dikote added on, and mayhem is definitely the word.

Note for the munchkin-detectors: I'm a GM, and haven't played a character in
a campaign run by someone else in years. This is evil-GM mode, not
power-gaming...
Message no. 36
From: robertennew@*****.com.au (Robert Ennew)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:49:56 +1100 (EST)
--- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
<snip>
> > My problem with this isnt the recoil, but how he
> would aim all the guns
> > at the same point without becoming totally
> confused.
>
> That's what the +2 modifier for firing two guns
> represents: the fact that
> it's not that easy to aim two weapons point at the
> same target. So if
> someone wants to use four guns at the same time, the
> easy solution is to
> just read the modifier as meaning "+2 per weapon
> beyond the first". It'll
> get difficult _really_ quickly.

Don't you mean aim 2 weapon points at different
targets (If you mean exactly what you said 2 wewapon
points , 1 target please explain). "The usual
suspects" portrays this really well when 1 of the
Baldwin brothers pycho characters guns down 2 goons
who have a hold of his buddies. He judges the
situation lines them up each with a pistol, then POW!
1 goon cops It In the head & the other In the heart It
looks like. Definately not that accurate but It can be
done stylishly like In the movie mentioned.

> > He wouldnt be able to fire in four directions in
> my opinion.
>
> Firing in four directions wouldn't be the problem.
> Hitting what you're
> trying to aim at would be :) But, as has been
> mentioned, suppressive fire
> can go a long way -- although I'd probably slap on a
> modifier for anyone
> trying to do suppressive fire into two or more
> directions at once.

Why, It's not that difficult to fire & forget, that's
what suppressive fire Is, point In the general
direction & squeeze the trigger. You don't have to
think or see, your doing It to keep their heads down,
as long as there roughly In their general direction
they'll stay down till the bullets stop flying about
them.
Besides, a Infantry Seargant explained to me the only
reason why they use double tap (only Initial contact)
on a target Is when a scout Is surprised, swings
around quickly In direction where noise came from
while pumping a quick round hopefully Into target If
spotted (a form of suppressive fire), followed by 2nd
follow - up round dead on target. The 1st round Is In
defence & to frighten target Into taking cover, the
2nd Is dead on target after you've zeroed In on target
from the 1st round. Let me tell you, they're deadly
accurate, more often then not, depending on the
distances, the 1st rounds hits the target as well as
the 2nd.
The rest of the squad conserve ammo & use only single
shots, unless they too were surprised. They're
proffessional soldiers, so whatever they shoot they
hit, If there's a chance they'll miss they manetain
fire discipline & hold off till enemy provides a
better target of opportunity.

> > But I would under no cercumstances allow anyone to
> do the multipole gun
> > trick you are descriping.
>
> I certainly wouldn't go that far. Always let players
> try, and if they
> happen to succeed once or twice, then more power to
> them.

Kudos Gurth, thats how the games enjoyment expands to
beyond the source books & to the fans & lists :)

GZ

http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Greetings
Send your love online with Yahoo! Greetings - FREE!
Message no. 37
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:21:05 +0100
According to Robert Ennew, on Monday 02 February 2004 07:49 the word on the
street was...

> Don't you mean aim 2 weapon points at different
> targets (If you mean exactly what you said 2 wewapon
> points , 1 target please explain).

I had re-written the sentence, but forgot to delete the word "point" -- so
it ended up as a mixture of "aiming two weapons at the same target" and
"making two weapons point at the same target". In any case, what I meant
is holding one weapon in each hand, and firing both at a single target.
IMHO this is what the SR rules for using two guns represent.

However, firing two weapons at two different targets is also catered for,
by using both the +2 for two weapon combat, and the +2 for subsequent
target. You could fire at target A with the weapon in your right hand, and
at target B with the weapon in your left hand, at a +2 modifier against A
for using two weapons, and a +4 when firing at B for two weapons plus
second target.

> Why, It's not that difficult to fire & forget, that's
> what suppressive fire Is, point In the general
> direction & squeeze the trigger.

Yes, but you're generally only doing it in one direction at once (even if
it's a fairly wide arc). With suppressive fire you still have to make your
rounds go into a specific area in order to have effect, so if you want to
do this into several different arcs at the same time, you're going to have
to divide your attention -- and thus get a TN modifier, if you ask me.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You've been touched by the doubt of man
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 38
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:58:22 +0000
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 08:41:23AM +1100, James Niall Zealey wrote:
> >David Kettler <davek@***.lonestar.org>
> >Date:
> >Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:12:34 +0000
> >
> >>
> > That's a straw man argument if there ever was one. Of course
> >everything is based on Newton's laws. I certainly hope nobody was
> >trying to claim otherwise. But the specifics of how a force manifests
> >itself do vary. The world would be quite dull otherwise.
>
> I really fail to see how it's a straw-man argument. Your arguing that
> strength has nothing to do with the exertion of force, while mass does.
>

That is not even remotely what I have been arguing. You obviously did not understand me.

> > In any event, you can tell just by how a rifle is held that the user
> >does not intend to directly oppose the recoil with brute strength. It
> >is simply impossible to apply that much forward force in such a
> >position,
>
> Bollocks.
>
> >but that's OK because it's not what you're trying to do.
> >What's doing the real work is the stock.
>
> Since we're in a physics arguement, I'll disagree here. Work=expenditure
> of energy. The stock does not expend any of it's store of kinetic,
> potential or chemical energy. It remains the same.
>

Before we get into a physics argument I should probably warn you that I have been a
student of physics for many years now...

Anyway, all you are doing is playing word games. The word "work" has many
meanings, and in my previous statement I was never using the physical meaning that
work=energy. I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way, though frankly I don't see how you
might have.

> >The gun wants to go backwards,
>
> ie - it exerts a force
>
> >but it's braced against your body and can't.
>
> which is opposed by another force
>

Yes, the normal force.

> >The gun's momentum is
> >transferred into your body and through you into the ground.
>
> True, but it's not quite that simple. The guns force is opposed by a
> force from your body - one exerted by your muscles. Since a human being
> is not a rigid body, we cannot simply treat it as one.
>

A human being is not a perfect rigid body, no, however you seem to be treating a human as
if he/she were completely amorphous, which is by far a worse approximation than treating a
human as a rigid body.

Let me make this perfectly clear since it seems to be the crux of your confusion:

Bullet of mass m1 leaves gun of mass m2 at velocity v1 with momentum p1=m1*v1
Gun recoils with momentum -p1
Gun *cannot move backwards* because there's a person (mass m3) in the way. Thus the gun
exerts a force on the person.
If the person were floating in space then that would be it. The gun/person system would
move back at velocity (v1*m1)/(m2+m3).
This, however, is not the case. The person is in contact with the ground, and thus there
is a static frictional force that must be overcome before the person can move back. Since
this threshold is proportional to the person's mass, which tends to be large compared to
m1, it is generally speaking not overcome (unless you're, say, trying to fire an assault
cannon) and thus the person stays in place and momentum -p1 is transferred to the earth.

Where does strength come into this picture? Nowhere! Is this a gross simplification?
Absolutely! Which is why I *never claimed* that strength didn't matter. It is true, that
humans are not rigid bodies. A person must then use one's strength to try and stay rigid.

However, even if this picture is a simplification you cannot simply ignore it. All I was
claiming is that mass matters. And it damn well does, since a person is *not* simply
using strength to directly oppose the motion of the gun. That simply isn't how it works,
and to try and do it that way would be far more difficult.

This is why a gun being held by magic fingers, which don't have mass, would be far more
difficult to control.

> IOW - this doesn't work unless the human being exerts force. He exerts
> force upon the gun in order to keep it still, and he exerts force upon
> the ground in order to keep himself still.
>

As I explained above, the force between the human and the gun is the normal force and the
force between the human and the ground is the frictional force. Neither one requires any
effort on the person's part.

> >Where
> >recoil is a problem is that the gun, seeking the path of least
> >resistence, will often be deflected in a lateral direction.
>
> Path of least resistance isn't the term to be used here - it applies to
> fluids and electricity.
>

Actually, it applies to a lot of things. I don't know about you, but I use it wherever it
works, rather than following some dogma. In any event, I was making an effort to keep
things from being too technical because I know nobody wants to read technical threads.

> What should be used here is the fact that the force the gun applies is
> not entirely directly backwards, and that the layout of the human body
> and general construction of a gun means that we are ill equipped to
> control the 'lateral' movement of said gun - in otherwords we exert
> inadequate force.
>

If you want to be technical then you should say that the contact between the gun and the
person is not flat and not along the gun's center of mass so when the gun is forced back a
torque is created. This torque has to be corrected by exerting strength.

That of course is exactly what I have been saying all along: strength is used for control.
None of this has anything to do with directly opposing the motion of the gun.

> >It is the
> >lateral, not the backwards, movement that you oppose with strength.
> >That is what I meant by saying that strength is used for control and the
> >recoil is absorbed by mass.
>
> Firstly, From the oxford english dictionary:
>
> Strength: 1. The quality or condition of being strong. a. Power of
> action in body or limbs; ability to exert muscular force.
>
> Secondly - since the human being is not a rigid body, he must be
> exerting force in order to compensate for the force exerted by the gun
> (ie - recoil).
>
> Humans use their muscles to exert force.
>
> Therefore humans use their muscles to oppose recoil.
>

Again, there is this other force that you are completely ignoring called the normal force.

> Finally
> "recoil is absorbed by mass"
>
> Forces do not get absorbed by masses - they must be opposed by another
> force. They may generate only a minimal amount of velocity in an object,
> but that's not absorbtion.
>

Again, I was trying to avoid being too technical. I have explained this all in great
detail above.

> > Is a pistol that different? I don't know. They don't have stocks,
> >certainly, but I believe proper pistol-firing posture involves locking
> >your joints, effectively turning your arm into a stock.
> >
>
> ie - turning the arm into a rigid body which transfers force to the rest
> of the human body.
>

OK...

> > In any event, none of this applies to magic fingers since they have no
> >mass.
>
> Which is totally irrelevant.
>

Which is exceedingly relevant for all the reasons I have stated above.

> >Yes, you can attempt to directly oppose the gun's movement with
> >strength, but that is *not* what a ordinary person is doing when they
> >fire a gun and shouldn't be treated as such.
>
> Yes, it is and yes it can be.
>

*sigh*...no, it isn't. Again, explained above.

> >You can't reasonably just
> >let the gun fly backwards either since you have to be applying a force
> >somewhere (as you pulled the trigger) and this would cause the gun to
> >rotate as it flew back, completely ruining your aim.
> >
>
> Garbage. Magic fingers applies a force wherever you want it to. Meaning
> it applies a force to the trigger, and one directly opposing it, at the
> same time as applying a force to the back of the gun, on the same line
> of effect that the force from the recoil takes. Which, incidentally,
> would cancel out the recoil.
>

It is a matter of finess. Balancing the forces precisely would be exceedingly difficult
and a small discrepancy is enough to badly effect your aim.

> > I'm not saying I have a perfect solution to this problem or anything,
> >but it's something worth considering.
> >
>
> No. It's not.
>

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

To be honest I am completely sick of arguing this stupid point. I don't care anymore!
You can do whatever you want in your games and it won't bother me in the least. However
when I see somebody grossly misunderstand/misinterpret what I have said as badly as you
did I feel compelled to correct them. And since I find myself just repeating the same
thing over and over again I've grown quite tired of it. This will be my last post on the
subject, period. If you have some problem with what I'm saying, then don't use it.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 39
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:18:51 +0100
According to David Kettler, on Monday 02 February 2004 18:58 the word on
the street was...

> And since I find myself just repeating the
> same thing over and over again I've grown quite tired of it. This will
> be my last post on the subject, period. If you have some problem with
> what I'm saying, then don't use it.

Welcome to the wonderful world of gaming mailing lists, where people will
take a small comment you make that has no bearing on your argument at all,
and spin a huge thread out of it as if it does -- completely ignoring the
points that you consider relevant ;) I've even seen people quit mailing
lists because of it, making everyone the loser if you ask me...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You've been touched by the doubt of man
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 40
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:26:58 -0800
<Major Snippage>

So, basically, we've decided that IF a person can use the Magic Fingers
spell to fire multiple guns at once, one or more of the following happens:

1) The guns fire once, at a huge TN#, then spin/fall/fly backwards/etc and
are useless, due to physics in a world of magic. d:
2) The mage can fire them all, but at a huge TN# penalty when aiming them at
specific targets
3) The mage can use them to lay down suppressive fire from hell (no, not the
actual place, just LOTS of it)

I won't address point number one, merely because arguing physics in a world
of magic is folly. Point number two is equally pointless, unless we're
talking about a character who wants to spend an hour or so aiming them, in
which case, his TN#s would be significantly less, but I'm not sure I'd allow
them to be too low. Each additional weapon is going to be more insane than
the first to fire. Point three, well, that's pretty much all I see this
particular trick being useful for. You can put a hell of a lot of rounds
downrange, and there's a moderate chance to hit, since suppression fire
rules don't allow modifiers based on offhand/sight/situational modifiers
beyond attacker wounds, target cover, and a +2 for suppression fire. (To me,
that means that, if you are in perfect health, and the targets are in the
open, your TN#s are 6, regardless of smartlink, laser sight, sustaining
multiple spells, visibility, offhand, ambidexterity, etc. Hey, talk to the
people that made the rules.)

If my players tried it, great, they'd probably get away with it once or
twice before the opposition caught on.

*evil thought*

Mage with multiple sniper rifles and the time to spend aiming to reduce all
those modifiers... Ew! Ew! Ew!

But anyway, suppression fire sounds like the best use to me. With sustaining
foci, the mage would only need lots and lots of ammo and a skill of 6 or 7
to guarantee a hit on every target (assuming 1 in 6 succeeds). Faster firing
weapons would be better, obviously, an HVAR or HVLMG would be best, IMO,
with the LMG being better due to use of belted ammunition (clip a few belts
together and you won't run out of ammo in the foreseeable future).

Hmmmm...

*thinks about it for a minute*

*egmg*

Yes, why not? After all, it's only as sick as a spell to produce a flawless
mirror to reflect laser weapons, making mages effectively invulnerable once
again. [: (But that's another discussion, and not as relevant to SR3 as it
was to SR2.)

Zebulin

"Per Ardua ad Astra"
Message no. 41
From: cmd_jackryan@***.net (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:55:12 +0100
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:33:07 -0200, Bira <ra002585@**.unicamp.br> wrote:

>
>> Are there even rules for that? *prepares to run for Gurth's stairs*
>
> Switch to Exalted :).

Ah, not really necessary (Nice game, though :).

The TN for using a weapon is +4 for both Magic Fingers, no combat pool
allowed, IIRC.


--
Phillip Gawlowski
Bastard GameMaster From Hell (Der Meister) and General Idiot

"Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting twice."
- Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC (Ret.), regarding combat handgun training
Message no. 42
From: james@****.uow.edu.au (James Niall Zealey)
Subject: Shiva-style Gun-fu
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:07:39 +1100
> David Kettler <davek@***.lonestar.org>
>
>
> To be honest I am completely sick of arguing this stupid point. I don't
> care anymore! You can do whatever you want in your games and it won't
> bother me in the least. However when I see somebody grossly
> misunderstand/misinterpret what I have said as badly as you did I feel
> compelled to correct them. And since I find myself just repeating the
> same thing over and over again I've grown quite tired of it. This will
> be my last post on the subject, period. If you have some problem with
> what I'm saying, then don't use it.

Please accept my apologies David - it appears that I did indeed
misinterpret your post:

What I saw was someone using the phrase "straw man arguement" and
claiming that Newton's laws were irrelevant, then following up with
claims that mass absorbed recoil, and that force didn't matter to the
arguement. I realise that these aren't in fact your views, merely a
dumbed down explanation of the way things work.

We both agree that forces (including the force that friction exerts on a
body of a certain mass) are responsible for cancelling recoil.

My question (and not necessarily to you) would be - if strength does not
incorporate this ability - what stat in SR does? Should the mass of a PC
(most likely estimated from race, strength and body) be used as the stat
on which to base his personal recoil compensation? If we say yes, then
the case could be made that magic fingers cannot compensate for recoil.
If we say no, that strength already includes this ability, then magic
fingers can handle a gun just as readily as any PC.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Shiva-style Gun-fu, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!