Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:45:13 EDT
Okay ... I spent most of this morning surfing the net just to get more pics
and clipart for Hacker House, and came up with some questions that I'd like
everyone's input on.

1. Smart Materials with Rotorcraft increase the choppers sig by 1. Would
this do the same for Jet Propellor Aircraft ?

My take ... no, but I keep having doubts about my answer to myself ...

2. Installing BTAC FDDM and BTAC IVIS into a vehicle that does not have a
Pilot rating. Is the vehicle given a default pilot rating of 1?

3. How about a different type of mechanical limb, using the Crane option as
the basis for the amount of weight that it can carry? It's strength would
honk as the arm is built for lifting and carrying, not thwaping the carp out
of something (short of stepping or squishing).

4. How about a new type of sensor ... Defensive Sensors, which detect when
someone is trying to put a target lock onto you. This would be effective
against everything short of astral "Over Here!!!" signs.

Defensive Sensors (Rough Draft)
Level ...Designation ....... CF ......... DP .......... Weight
1 ..... Standard .......... 0/1 ........ 50 ........... 12
2 ..... Enhanced ........ 1/2 ......... 100 ......... 22
3 ..... Security I ......... 1/2 ......... 200 ......... 32
4 ..... Security II ........ 2/3 ......... 250 ......... 42
5 ..... Military I .......... 2/3 ......... 350 ......... 52
6 ..... Military II ......... 3/4 ......... 450 ......... 62

Thanks for your thoughts ....

-Mike
Message no. 2
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:11:29 -0400
Mike Bobroff wrote:
>1. Smart Materials with Rotorcraft increase the choppers sig by 1. Would
>this do the same for Jet Propellor Aircraft ?
>
>My take ... no, but I keep having doubts about my answer to myself ...

I agree - no. Much of the sig from a rotorcraft comes from the rotor.
The rotor itself is made of several bits (to allow repositioning the
blades), and as such is an obvious, distinctive radar signature. With
smart materials, you can ignore those extra mechanical bits. Jet Props
have moving blades, but a) they have a smaller signature to start with
and b) they have to retain that shape to fly. SM won't help here.

>2. Installing BTAC FDDM and BTAC IVIS into a vehicle that does not have a
>Pilot rating. Is the vehicle given a default pilot rating of 1?

Well, the question is really "can I buy piloting for non-drone
vehicles?" I dunno. Piloting 1 is listed at 0 DP, but it's assumed
that that's what you start off with. In any case, the BTAC stuff is
useless without piloting, and I wouldn't want to sit in an autonomous
battle drone so why not just get a drone in the first place?

>3. How about a different type of mechanical limb, using the Crane option as
>the basis for the amount of weight that it can carry? It's strength would
>honk as the arm is built for lifting and carrying, not thwaping the carp out
>of something (short of stepping or squishing).

Different how? What's wrong with the Crane?

>4. How about a new type of sensor ... Defensive Sensors, which detect when
>someone is trying to put a target lock onto you. This would be effective
>against everything short of astral "Over Here!!!" signs.
>
>Defensive Sensors (Rough Draft)
>Level ...Designation ....... CF ......... DP .......... Weight
> 1 ..... Standard .......... 0/1 ........ 50 ........... 12
> 2 ..... Enhanced ........ 1/2 ......... 100 ......... 22
> 3 ..... Security I ......... 1/2 ......... 200 ......... 32
> 4 ..... Security II ........ 2/3 ......... 250 ......... 42
> 5 ..... Military I .......... 2/3 ......... 350 ......... 52
> 6 ..... Military II ......... 3/4 ......... 450 ......... 62

OK, nice table, but what do they actually do? What are they for? Do
they provide bonuses? How exactly are they "effective"?

James Ojaste
Message no. 3
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:21:43 EDT
In a message dated 6/4/98 1:08:16 PM !!!First Boot!!!, James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
writes:

> >2. Installing BTAC FDDM and BTAC IVIS into a vehicle that does not have a
> >Pilot rating. Is the vehicle given a default pilot rating of 1?
>
> Well, the question is really "can I buy piloting for non-drone
> vehicles?" I dunno. Piloting 1 is listed at 0 DP, but it's assumed
> that that's what you start off with. In any case, the BTAC stuff is
> useless without piloting, and I wouldn't want to sit in an autonomous
> battle drone so why not just get a drone in the first place?

Yeah, but if you want a rigger in a vehicle to benefit from these options who
is in another vehicle and does not have either of these in their deck, then
the bonuses given would help greatly ...

> >3. How about a different type of mechanical limb, using the Crane option
> as
> >the basis for the amount of weight that it can carry? It's strength would
> >honk as the arm is built for lifting and carrying, not thwaping the carp
> out
> >of something (short of stepping or squishing).
>
> Different how? What's wrong with the Crane?

This is a different variation on a Mechanical Limb, instead of using the one
as in the Rigger2 ... this arm is built only for lifting and carrying and
nothing else at all. It has, in theory, no effective strength due to it's
design difference.

> >4. How about a new type of sensor ... Defensive Sensors, which detect
when
> >someone is trying to put a target lock onto you. This would be effective
> >against everything short of astral "Over Here!!!" signs.
> >
> >Defensive Sensors (Rough Draft)
> >Level ...Designation ....... CF ......... DP .......... Weight
> > 1 ..... Standard .......... 0/1 ........ 50 ........... 12
> > 2 ..... Enhanced ........ 1/2 ......... 100 ......... 22
> > 3 ..... Security I ......... 1/2 ......... 200 ......... 32
> > 4 ..... Security II ........ 2/3 ......... 250 ......... 42
> > 5 ..... Military I .......... 2/3 ......... 350 ......... 52
> > 6 ..... Military II ......... 3/4 ......... 450 ......... 62
>
> OK, nice table, but what do they actually do? What are they for? Do
> they provide bonuses? How exactly are they "effective"?

Good questions ... these passive sensors are rolled during combat whenever
someone is attempting to fire on a vehicle equiped with these sensors. For
every success these sensors roll against the targeting vehicle's Signature,
the rigger or pilot gains an additional die to their Control Pool when
attempting to dodge the incoming attack.

How does that sound ? Should I increase the cost on the sensors because of
the bonuses they could potentially give ?

-Mike
Message no. 4
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:56:16 -0400
Mike Bobroff wrote:
>> >2. Installing BTAC FDDM and BTAC IVIS into a vehicle that does not have a
>> >Pilot rating. Is the vehicle given a default pilot rating of 1?
>>
>> Well, the question is really "can I buy piloting for non-drone
>> vehicles?" I dunno. Piloting 1 is listed at 0 DP, but it's assumed
>> that that's what you start off with. In any case, the BTAC stuff is
>> useless without piloting, and I wouldn't want to sit in an autonomous
>> battle drone so why not just get a drone in the first place?
>
>Yeah, but if you want a rigger in a vehicle to benefit from these options who
>is in another vehicle and does not have either of these in their deck, then
>the bonuses given would help greatly ...

Well, if the Rigger is in another vehicle, why not use a drone for
the translator vehicle? And would the translation thing actually
work? I doubt it... (IMO, ocourse)

>> >3. How about a different type of mechanical limb, using the Crane option
>> as
>> >the basis for the amount of weight that it can carry? It's strength
>>would
>> >honk as the arm is built for lifting and carrying, not thwaping the carp
>> out
>> >of something (short of stepping or squishing).
>>
>> Different how? What's wrong with the Crane?
>
>This is a different variation on a Mechanical Limb, instead of using the one
>as in the Rigger2 ... this arm is built only for lifting and carrying and
>nothing else at all. It has, in theory, no effective strength due to it's
>design difference.

Therefore it's a winch on a boom. Call it a winch.

>> >4. How about a new type of sensor ... Defensive Sensors, which detect
>when
>> >someone is trying to put a target lock onto you. This would be effective
>> >against everything short of astral "Over Here!!!" signs.
>> >
>> >Defensive Sensors (Rough Draft)
[snip]
>>
>> OK, nice table, but what do they actually do? What are they for? Do
>> they provide bonuses? How exactly are they "effective"?
>
>Good questions ... these passive sensors are rolled during combat whenever
>someone is attempting to fire on a vehicle equiped with these sensors. For
>every success these sensors roll against the targeting vehicle's Signature,
>the rigger or pilot gains an additional die to their Control Pool when
>attempting to dodge the incoming attack.
>
>How does that sound ? Should I increase the cost on the sensors because of
>the bonuses they could potentially give ?

Don't know - I haven't actually used the vehicle combat rules. I
haven't really had a chance to build a rigger since R2, so all I
can do is build vehicles and dream... ;-)

James Ojaste

>
Message no. 5
From: Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 10:14:12 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 07:45 AM 6/4/98 -0400, Mike wrote:
>1. Smart Materials with Rotorcraft increase the choppers sig by 1.
Would
>this do the same for Jet Propellor Aircraft ?
>
>My take ... no, but I keep having doubts about my answer to myself
...

IMHO, absolutely not. The better sig for choppers is because of a
specific design feature of rotorcraft that using smart materials
eliminates.

You've seen what a chopper looks like, I asume. Up on the rotor mast,
there's that set of pistons and actuators that change the angle of
attack for the rotorblades. This is needed because of the physics of
rotorcraft dictate that the rotorblades need a high angle of attack
during certain parts of the flight, and must have a low angle of
attack during others.

Unfortunately, those pistons are hardly aerodynamic, so they add a lot
to the 'noise' factor of the chopper. They also make the radar cross
section of the rotor a bit larger.

If you use smart materials, the rotors of a chopper don't need
actuators to change the angle of attack. The rotors can be made out of
smart materials and be programmed to flex to the different angles of
attack at various voltages.

Without the eggbeater of pistons and actuators, the chopper noise cuts
way down, and there's slightly less of a radar return, which is why
choppers get the harder to detect signature from using smart
materials.

Jet propeller craft have no comporable 'eggbeater' problem to be
eliminated, so there's no reason to get the bonus.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNXarpM2C0fERRVM5AQGHQgQAiZlqJUDza41+E7sce5auN9n5o7WNB23+
wNYhgKq2O6QXx0ZAz6gMZdaPkJ8Z4nqwKUKLDC1Ef87cLTMAgXhK755hwC1NYvYL
/Qb5P5fZ+7S1uE+ufXbgVj82BOadcMmUTP5PEkcTUFhpFKwcMuUXRqG8sqp2mo6l
khcNljRITH0=
=N0e/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA
Message no. 6
From: Matthew Waddilove <m_waddilove@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:36:20 PDT
Mike Bobroff wrote
>
>In a message dated 6/4/98 1:08:16 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
>writes:
<SNIP>
>> Mike Bobroff wrote
>> >4. How about a new type of sensor ... Defensive Sensors, which
detect
>when
>> >someone is trying to put a target lock onto you. This would be
effective
>> >against everything short of astral "Over Here!!!" signs.
>> >
>> >Defensive Sensors (Rough Draft)
>> >Level ...Designation ....... CF ......... DP .......... Weight
>> > 1 ..... Standard .......... 0/1 ........ 50 ........... 12
>> > 2 ..... Enhanced ........ 1/2 ......... 100 ......... 22
>> > 3 ..... Security I ......... 1/2 ......... 200 ......... 32
>> > 4 ..... Security II ........ 2/3 ......... 250 ......... 42
>> > 5 ..... Military I .......... 2/3 ......... 350 ......... 52
>> > 6 ..... Military II ......... 3/4 ......... 450 ......... 62
>>
>> OK, nice table, but what do they actually do? What are they for?
Do
>> they provide bonuses? How exactly are they "effective"?
>
>Good questions ... these passive sensors are rolled during combat
whenever
>someone is attempting to fire on a vehicle equiped with these sensors.
For
>every success these sensors roll against the targeting vehicle's
Signature,
>the rigger or pilot gains an additional die to their Control Pool when
>attempting to dodge the incoming attack.
>
>How does that sound ? Should I increase the cost on the sensors
because of
>the bonuses they could potentially give ?
>

I haven't got R2 with me but isn't this what Counter Detection does, not
game mechanics-wise but concept-wise.

To make things simple ;) you could just give the level as a dodge pool,
while not particularly fitting with the way R2 does things it could be
the simplest way to do it, although at high levels the rigger could get
an obscene amount of dice to dodge an attack (but hey thats what high
rating tech's for :) ).

Also on a side note totally un-mechanics related I'd say that by the
time the attack is being launched it's to late. Stealth is the way to
go.

-Matthew Waddilove

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 7
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:34:50 -0500
On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:45:13 EDT Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
>Okay ... I spent most of this morning surfing the net just to get more
pics
>and clipart for Hacker House, and came up with some questions that I'd
like
>everyone's input on.

Ok, I'll just answer the ones
I-don't-know-anything-about-but-will-inflict-my
-opinions-on-you-anyway :)

<SNIP>
>2. Installing BTAC FDDM and BTAC IVIS into a vehicle that does not have
a
>Pilot rating. Is the vehicle given a default pilot rating of 1?

The default rating of 1 listed in Remote Pilot Advanced Programming
(RPAP) is given when you install the Remote-Control Interfaces ... since
the costs for BTAC FDDM and BTAC IVIS are based on the vehicle's Pilot
rating, I would say you can only install them in vehicles with a Pilot
rating. (thusly, if the vehicle doesn't have a Pilot rating, you would
have to first install a Remote Control Interface which would give you the
default Pilot rating of 1)

>3. How about a different type of mechanical limb, using the Crane
option as
>the basis for the amount of weight that it can carry? It's strength
would
>honk as the arm is built for lifting and carrying, not thwaping the carp
out
>of something (short of stepping or squishing).

You mean you want something like a forklift? ... I dunno ... I'll try to
look into it ... cost should be somewhere between a mechanical arm and a
winch.

<SNIP>
>
>Thanks for your thoughts ....
>
>-Mike

No problem :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 8
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 13:13:31 -0400
At 07:45 AM 6/4/98 EDT, you wrote:

>2. Installing BTAC FDDM and BTAC IVIS into a vehicle that does not have a
>Pilot rating. Is the vehicle given a default pilot rating of 1?

Err, I'd think not. I'm not a R2 expert though, so bear with me for a moment.

The BTAC items basically allow the BTAC info to be used, to be shared, to
be used by drones, and such, right? It's a combat telemetry system that
allows an entire mechanized force to use their weaponry as a single unit,
either against a single or separate targets.

Pilot ratings define how well the vehicle can pilot itself. It requires
either sensors or a GridLink sort of thing. It allows a vehicle/drone to
drive itself.

Seems to me that those are two radically different systems. So I'd say
"No" to your question.

>3. How about a different type of mechanical limb, using the Crane option as
>the basis for the amount of weight that it can carry? It's strength would
>honk as the arm is built for lifting and carrying, not thwaping the carp out
>of something (short of stepping or squishing).

Don't see why not. It'd have a minimal Quickness to represent it's lack of
utility in combat, but it could be very strong as you say. It might also
have limited range of movement.

Erik J.


"Forgive me FASA for I have sinned. It has been 6 days since I last played
Shadowrun and 15 days since I last bought a SRTCG booster pack."
Message no. 9
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 20:21:47 +0100
Mike Bobroff said on 7:45/4 Jun 98,...

> 1. Smart Materials with Rotorcraft increase the choppers sig by 1. Would
> this do the same for Jet Propellor Aircraft ?
>
> My take ... no, but I keep having doubts about my answer to myself ...

I'd say no, it doesn't increase the jet prop plane's signature. The
reason I can see for helicopters is that the rotor system is made
from the smart materials (I guess -- I haven't looked this up in
R2 but it makes sense to me), which are the primary source of
noise in a helicopter. Smart materials would probably allow that
noise level to be reduced somewhat, in much the same way the
ends of the blades on modern military choppers do, but more
efficiently.

> 2. Installing BTAC FDDM and BTAC IVIS into a vehicle that does not have a
> Pilot rating. Is the vehicle given a default pilot rating of 1?

IMHO you have to install a Pilot first, per the Remote-Control
Interface modification in R2.

> 3. How about a different type of mechanical limb, using the Crane option as
> the basis for the amount of weight that it can carry? It's strength would
> honk as the arm is built for lifting and carrying, not thwaping the carp out
> of something (short of stepping or squishing).

Sure, why not? Just using the normal rules for cranes or
mechanical limbs should work, I think.

> 4. How about a new type of sensor ... Defensive Sensors, which detect when
> someone is trying to put a target lock onto you. This would be effective
> against everything short of astral "Over Here!!!" signs.
>
> Defensive Sensors (Rough Draft)
> Level ...Designation ....... CF ......... DP .......... Weight
> 1 ..... Standard .......... 0/1 ........ 50 ........... 12
> 2 ..... Enhanced ........ 1/2 ......... 100 ......... 22
> 3 ..... Security I ......... 1/2 ......... 200 ......... 32
> 4 ..... Security II ........ 2/3 ......... 250 ......... 42
> 5 ..... Military I .......... 2/3 ......... 350 ......... 52
> 6 ..... Military II ......... 3/4 ......... 450 ......... 62

Another item that makes sense, although I think those
figures are too high. You can have a radar warning device
sitting on your dashboard nowadays, so rating 1 or 2
should probably cost no CF and hardly any Load. Remember
that these things are mainly antennas with a little
computer hooked up to interpret the signal.

Also, you need some rules for how these things work. How about
this: Roll a number of dice equal to the Defensive Sensors' rating
against a TN equal to 8 minus the opposing Sensor rating. The
number of successes rolled determines the amount of information
the driver gets:

Successes Information
0 None (you don't know you're being watched)
1 That the vehicle is being scanned by
sensors
2-3 Whether or not the sensors have a lock
4+ The general direction of the sensors

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Is it yours, or is it... goodbye!
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * 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: | Incubated into
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N | the First Church of
o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ | the Sqooshy Ball
tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y? | 21 May 1998
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ + --+--
Message no. 10
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 20:35:57 EDT
In a message dated 6/4/98 1:53:03 PM !!!First Boot!!!, James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
writes:

> >> Well, the question is really "can I buy piloting for non-drone
> >> vehicles?" I dunno. Piloting 1 is listed at 0 DP, but it's assumed
> >> that that's what you start off with. In any case, the BTAC stuff is
> >> useless without piloting, and I wouldn't want to sit in an autonomous
> >> battle drone so why not just get a drone in the first place?
> >
> >Yeah, but if you want a rigger in a vehicle to benefit from these options
> who
> >is in another vehicle and does not have either of these in their deck,
then
> >the bonuses given would help greatly ...
>
> Well, if the Rigger is in another vehicle, why not use a drone for
> the translator vehicle? And would the translation thing actually
> work? I doubt it... (IMO, ocourse)

But, if there are two riggers, in different vehicles, one can then feed the
other targeting information directly instead of "Hey, to your right!" And the
same can be done in return too ...

> >> >3. How about a different type of mechanical limb, using the Crane
> option
> >> as
> >> >the basis for the amount of weight that it can carry? It's strength
> >>would
> >> >honk as the arm is built for lifting and carrying, not thwaping the
> carp
> >> out
> >> >of something (short of stepping or squishing).
> >>
> >> Different how? What's wrong with the Crane?
> >
> >This is a different variation on a Mechanical Limb, instead of using the
> one
> >as in the Rigger2 ... this arm is built only for lifting and carrying and
> >nothing else at all. It has, in theory, no effective strength due to it's
> >design difference.
>
> Therefore it's a winch on a boom. Call it a winch.

I was actually thinking of a crane used as an arm instead, as with a crane you
can better manipulate loads and the like ...

> >> >4. How about a new type of sensor ... Defensive Sensors, which detect
> >when
> >> >someone is trying to put a target lock onto you. This would be
> effective
> >> >against everything short of astral "Over Here!!!" signs.
> >> >
> >> >Defensive Sensors (Rough Draft)
> [snip]
> >>
> >> OK, nice table, but what do they actually do? What are they for? Do
> >> they provide bonuses? How exactly are they "effective"?
> >
> >Good questions ... these passive sensors are rolled during combat whenever
> >someone is attempting to fire on a vehicle equiped with these sensors.
For
> >every success these sensors roll against the targeting vehicle's
Signature,
> >the rigger or pilot gains an additional die to their Control Pool when
> >attempting to dodge the incoming attack.
> >
> >How does that sound ? Should I increase the cost on the sensors because
of
> >the bonuses they could potentially give ?
>
> Don't know - I haven't actually used the vehicle combat rules. I
> haven't really had a chance to build a rigger since R2, so all I
> can do is build vehicles and dream... ;-)

I feel for ya chummer ... ever since the R2 came out riggers and rigging have
really been in vogue here ... and talk about having fun with riggers and
Winternight ...


Oh, and another question ... can the Rigger Adaption from R2 be used by more
than one person, or do you have to purchase more than one Rigger Adaption unit
?

Mike
Message no. 11
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 20:39:53 EDT
In a message dated 6/4/98 2:37:28 PM !!!First Boot!!!, m_waddilove@*******.COM
writes:

> I haven't got R2 with me but isn't this what Counter Detection does, not
> game mechanics-wise but concept-wise.

EECM works against sensors and things of the like, but sometimes during combat
having ECCM up is like putting a beacon up for HARM missiles (radar /
electronic emissions seeking missiles) ... since these sensors are passive,
they would not be detectable, nor jammable at all ... though active ECM by
other aircraft might make it difficult for these sensors to work though ....

Mike

> To make things simple ;) you could just give the level as a dodge pool,
> while not particularly fitting with the way R2 does things it could be
> the simplest way to do it, although at high levels the rigger could get
> an obscene amount of dice to dodge an attack (but hey thats what high
> rating tech's for :) ).
>
> Also on a side note totally un-mechanics related I'd say that by the
> time the attack is being launched it's to late. Stealth is the way to
> go.
Message no. 12
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 20:50:42 EDT
In a message dated 6/4/98 5:55:53 PM !!!First Boot!!!, erikj@****.COM writes:

> The BTAC items basically allow the BTAC info to be used, to be shared, to
> be used by drones, and such, right? It's a combat telemetry system that
> allows an entire mechanized force to use their weaponry as a single unit,
> either against a single or separate targets.
>
> Pilot ratings define how well the vehicle can pilot itself. It requires
> either sensors or a GridLink sort of thing. It allows a vehicle/drone to
> drive itself.

But, how then can a rigger install BTAC FDDM and IVIS into their remote
control decks if they have no pilot rating. I'm trying to figure out how much
it would cost to install a BTAC FDDM or IVIS onto a vehicle that is not a
drone, but driven by somebody who may be abel to benefit from any of the
bonuses they could gain from those two BTAC options ...

Mike
Message no. 13
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 20:56:05 EDT
In a message dated 6/4/98 6:21:29 PM !!!First Boot!!!, gurth@******.NL writes:

> > Defensive Sensors (Rough Draft)
> > Level ...Designation ....... CF ......... DP .......... Weight
> > 1 ..... Standard .......... 0/1 ........ 50 ........... 12
> > 2 ..... Enhanced ........ 1/2 ......... 100 ......... 22
> > 3 ..... Security I ......... 1/2 ......... 200 ......... 32
> > 4 ..... Security II ........ 2/3 ......... 250 ......... 42
> > 5 ..... Military I .......... 2/3 ......... 350 ......... 52
> > 6 ..... Military II ......... 3/4 ......... 450 ......... 62
>
> Another item that makes sense, although I think those
> figures are too high. You can have a radar warning device
> sitting on your dashboard nowadays, so rating 1 or 2
> should probably cost no CF and hardly any Load. Remember
> that these things are mainly antennas with a little
> computer hooked up to interpret the signal.

Okay ... I see the point ... so, how does this sound :

Level ........... CF ........... Weight ...... Cost
1 ................. 0/0 .......... 0.5 ............ 10
2 ................. 0/0 .......... 1.5 ............ 20
3 ................. 1/1 .......... 3 ............... 40
4 ................. 1/2 .......... 6 ............... 50
5 ................. 2/3 .......... 8 ............... 75
6 ................. 3/4 .......... 12 ............. 100

> Also, you need some rules for how these things work. How about
> this: Roll a number of dice equal to the Defensive Sensors' rating
> against a TN equal to 8 minus the opposing Sensor rating. The
> number of successes rolled determines the amount of information
> the driver gets:

I like this method better than the one I gave earlier ... perhaps with this,
the number of net success gained becomes additional Control Pool dice for
either dodge or Hiding tests?

> Successes Information
> 0 None (you don't know you're being watched)
> 1 That the vehicle is being scanned by
> sensors
> 2-3 Whether or not the sensors have a lock
> 4+ The general direction of the sensors
>

Mike
Message no. 14
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:19:03 +0100
Mike Bobroff said on 20:56/4 Jun 98,...

> Okay ... I see the point ... so, how does this sound :
>
> Level ........... CF ........... Weight ...... Cost
> 1 ................. 0/0 .......... 0.5 ............ 10
> 2 ................. 0/0 .......... 1.5 ............ 20
> 3 ................. 1/1 .......... 3 ............... 40
> 4 ................. 1/2 .......... 6 ............... 50
> 5 ................. 2/3 .......... 8 ............... 75
> 6 ................. 3/4 .......... 12 ............. 100

Looks good to me. Not too high, but not so low that they can all
be put on any bicycle either. Now we only need customization
costs, availabilities, street indices, and so on :)

> > Also, you need some rules for how these things work. How about
> > this: Roll a number of dice equal to the Defensive Sensors' rating
> > against a TN equal to 8 minus the opposing Sensor rating. The
> > number of successes rolled determines the amount of information
> > the driver gets:
>
> I like this method better than the one I gave earlier ... perhaps with this,
> the number of net success gained becomes additional Control Pool dice for
> either dodge or Hiding tests?

I hadn't thought of that, but yeah, that gives a bonus that'll
actually mean something when you're trying to dodge incoming
fire. However, those extra dice should _only_ be allowed to be
used against the vehicle equipped with the sensors that were
detected. (You may need to keep track of separate numbers for
different vehicles.) Otherwise, you can detect vehicle A but not
vehicle B, and still escape from vehicle B better that you could
otherwise.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Is it yours, or is it... goodbye!
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * 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: | Incubated into
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N | the First Church of
o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ | the Sqooshy Ball
tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y? | 21 May 1998
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ + --+--
Message no. 15
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 10:38:08 EDT
In a message dated 6/5/98 10:20:21 AM !!!First Boot!!!, gurth@******.NL
writes:

> > Okay ... I see the point ... so, how does this sound :
> >
> > Level ........... CF ........... Weight ...... Cost
> > 1 ................. 0/0 .......... 0.5 ............ 10
> > 2 ................. 0/0 .......... 1.5 ............ 20
> > 3 ................. 1/1 .......... 3 ............... 40
> > 4 ................. 1/2 .......... 6 ............... 50
> > 5 ................. 2/3 .......... 8 ............... 75
> > 6 ................. 3/4 .......... 12 ............. 100
>
> Looks good to me. Not too high, but not so low that they can all
> be put on any bicycle either. Now we only need customization
> costs, availabilities, street indices, and so on :)

Okay ...

Level ........ Customization COst .... Street Index .... Availability ......
1 .............. 100 ........................... 0.75 ................ 2 / 4
hours
2 .............. 300 ........................... 1.0 .................. 3 / 12
hours
3 .............. 1000 ......................... 2.0 .................. 5 / 36
hours
4 .............. 1500 ......................... 2.5 .................. 6 / 48
hours
5 .............. 3500 ......................... 3.5 .................. 8 / 1
week
6 .............. 5500 ......................... 4.5 .................. 10 / 1
month

> > > Also, you need some rules for how these things work. How about
> > > this: Roll a number of dice equal to the Defensive Sensors' rating
> > > against a TN equal to 8 minus the opposing Sensor rating. The
> > > number of successes rolled determines the amount of information
> > > the driver gets:
> >
> > I like this method better than the one I gave earlier ... perhaps with
> this,
> > the number of net success gained becomes additional Control Pool dice for
> > either dodge or Hiding tests?
>
> I hadn't thought of that, but yeah, that gives a bonus that'll
> actually mean something when you're trying to dodge incoming
> fire. However, those extra dice should _only_ be allowed to be
> used against the vehicle equipped with the sensors that were
> detected. (You may need to keep track of separate numbers for
> different vehicles.) Otherwise, you can detect vehicle A but not
> vehicle B, and still escape from vehicle B better that you could
> otherwise.

Okay .. this is the case when having to keep track of all sorts of numbers
comes into play ... but that is what a piece of paper and a pen is for ...

-Mike
Message no. 16
From: Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 19:28:57 EDT
Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> wrote,

> 1. Smart Materials with Rotorcraft increase the choppers sig by 1. Would
> this do the same for Jet Propellor Aircraft ?

As others have pointed out previously, no. The increase to Signature that
smart materials provides is due to the elimination of the "eggbeater
effect," which is a unique occurrence only in helicopters.

> 2. Installing BTAC FDDM and BTAC IVIS into a vehicle that does not have a
> Pilot rating. Is the vehicle given a default pilot rating of 1?

BattleTac IVIS and FDDM can only be installed on a drone (i.e., a
vehicle that is equipped with the Remote Control Interface modification).
Basically, IVIS and FDDM take advantage of the interconnectivity and
protocol of a remote control network to work; they have no innate
communication hardware of their own. Additionally, IVIS is a software
code that coordinates and choreographs the actions of multiple automated
dog-brains. It can't work with flesh-and-blood riggers because, well,
riggers have free will and can always tell the IVIS program to frag off.

However, it COULD be possible to develop a form of FDDM that doesn't
require the presence of a remote control network. FDDM is, after all,
nothing more than an automated fire control system that handles the
gruntwork of processing and directing indirect fire. The only thing you
need the drones for is spotting the target, or pulling the trigger, and
one can always substitute a flesh-and-blood rigger for that.

Alternatively, a simpler answer might be to wire a vehicle for remote
control interface (and thus give it a drone dog-brain), but then limit
the actions of the drone only to fire-support related tasks (forward
observer or gunner), and relegate any driving or direct-fire actions to
the flesh-and-blood driver/pilot. This way you don't have to go through
all the time and trouble of developing a whole new gadget.

> 3. How about a different type of mechanical limb, using the Crane option as
> the basis for the amount of weight that it can carry? It's strength would
> honk as the arm is built for lifting and carrying, not thwaping the carp out
> of something (short of stepping or squishing).

Are you talking about something kind of like those pincer-like "thingies"
(highly technical term, I know :) that are seen on lumber trucks that
allow it to load and unload logs from the trailer beds?

> 4. How about a new type of sensor ... Defensive Sensors, which detect when
> someone is trying to put a target lock onto you. This would be effective
> against everything short of astral "Over Here!!!" signs.

IMO, I would say that normal sensors have some kind of Sensor Warning
Receiver (SWR) that notices when another sensor is detecting it. SWRs of
one form or another (such as the Radar Warning Receiver on RL fighter
aircraft) have been around for a while. I am very leery about creating a
"new" gadget just to reflect a concept or technology that is already
established. If anything, I would consider something like Defensive
Sensors as a more sophisticated tactic for employing ordinary Sensors
and write it up as an advanced rule, rather than a new piece of
equipment, IMO.

> Oh, and another question ... can the Rigger Adaption from R2 be used by more
> than one person, or do you have to purchase more than one Rigger Adaption
> unit?

Um, what exactly do you mean? Are you asking if (1) a rigged vehicle can
be used by one rigger and one rigger alone, or (2) if two or more riggers
can rig a vehicle or remote control deck simultaneously?

If (1), then yes, more than 1 person can operate a rigged vehicle. The
"black box" in the Rigger Adaptation mod is user-nonspecific, so Joe
Rigger can jack into Jane Rigger's rigged Westwind, so long as Joe has
the required cyberware (a datajack and a VCR implant, any level).

On the other hand, it could be possible (maybe) to come up with a black
box that scans the brain pattern of a rigger, and then locks out anyone
whose brain scan doesn't match the box's list of authorized users. I
leave the specifics up for someone else's house rules.

OTOH, if (2) was the question you were asking, then in general, no. With
only a scant few exceptions (such as certain turret designs, as mentioned
in R2, or the Naval Weapons Control Network described in Cyberpirates),
only one rigger can be in command of a rigged vehicle or remote control
network.

-- Jon
Message no. 17
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 08:04:17 EDT
In a message dated 6/7/98 6:40:12 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
JonSzeto@***.COM writes:

> OTOH, if (2) was the question you were asking, then in general, no. With
> only a scant few exceptions (such as certain turret designs, as mentioned
> in R2, or the Naval Weapons Control Network described in Cyberpirates),
> only one rigger can be in command of a rigged vehicle or remote control
> network.
>
Actually, this is the option for "Multiple Riggers" within a system that Mike
was asking. We're talking about two riggers working within a given control
system and working in tandem.

We've got what we call a "Communal Rig" in the home games here. The two
riggers get to work together and gain benefits from each other. Merging
Control Pools for instance. Also, IF someone else is trying to take over the
rig, the Invading Rigger is now confronting two sets of Willpower rather than
one.

For the purposes of combat however, the action steps are increased in one
particular area. The "initiative" of the Communal Rig is decreased by 1
point, using that one point as a "conversational sharing" between the two,
allowing for the coordination, and hence the cumulative, benefits.

Ideas/replies?
-K
Message no. 18
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:13:25 EDT
In a message dated 6/7/98 11:39:54 PM !!!First Boot!!!, JonSzeto@***.COM
writes:

> > 3. How about a different type of mechanical limb, using the Crane option
> as
> > the basis for the amount of weight that it can carry? It's strength
would
> > honk as the arm is built for lifting and carrying, not thwaping the carp
> out
> > of something (short of stepping or squishing).
>
> Are you talking about something kind of like those pincer-like "thingies"
> (highly technical term, I know :) that are seen on lumber trucks that
> allow it to load and unload logs from the trailer beds?
>

Yes ...

Thanks for mentioning this ...

-Mike
Message no. 19
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:17:21 EDT
In a message dated 6/7/98 11:39:54 PM !!!First Boot!!!, JonSzeto@***.COM
writes:

> > Oh, and another question ... can the Rigger Adaption from R2 be used by
> more
> > than one person, or do you have to purchase more than one Rigger Adaption
> > unit?
>
> Um, what exactly do you mean? Are you asking if (1) a rigged vehicle can
> be used by one rigger and one rigger alone, or (2) if two or more riggers
> can rig a vehicle or remote control deck simultaneously?

I am referring to option #2 ...

> If (1), then yes, more than 1 person can operate a rigged vehicle. The
> "black box" in the Rigger Adaptation mod is user-nonspecific, so Joe
> Rigger can jack into Jane Rigger's rigged Westwind, so long as Joe has
> the required cyberware (a datajack and a VCR implant, any level).
>
> On the other hand, it could be possible (maybe) to come up with a black
> box that scans the brain pattern of a rigger, and then locks out anyone
> whose brain scan doesn't match the box's list of authorized users. I
> leave the specifics up for someone else's house rules.

Would this be like making a Reality-Filtered Rigger Adaption ? And, IYHO,
what would the benefits of having a rigger adaption module which does this ...
would it grant either additional bonuses to the control pool, or as it is with
deckers, increase initiative ?

> OTOH, if (2) was the question you were asking, then in general, no. With
> only a scant few exceptions (such as certain turret designs, as mentioned
> in R2, or the Naval Weapons Control Network described in Cyberpirates),
> only one rigger can be in command of a rigged vehicle or remote control
> network.

So, you could then have a Rigger Adaption customization option that has the
potential of having more than one rigger in control at a time ... it would
just have to have a rating like the Naval Weapons Control Network ...

-Mike
Message no. 20
From: Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 23:08:32 EDT
K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM> wrote,

> Actually, this is the option for "Multiple Riggers" within a system that
Mike
> was asking. We're talking about two riggers working within a given control
> system and working in tandem.

> We've got what we call a "Communal Rig" in the home games here. The two
> riggers get to work together and gain benefits from each other. Merging
> Control Pools for instance. Also, IF someone else is trying to take over
the
> rig, the Invading Rigger is now confronting two sets of Willpower rather
than
> one.

> For the purposes of combat however, the action steps are increased in one
> particular area. The "initiative" of the Communal Rig is decreased by 1
> point, using that one point as a "conversational sharing" between the two,
> allowing for the coordination, and hence the cumulative, benefits.

> Ideas/replies?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but again, I say no. No two riggers may
simultaneously control a rigged system (be it a vehicle, remote control
network, CCSS security system, or whatever) at any one time. (With
apologies to Wolfgang Pauli, I call this the Rigger Exclusion Principle.)
In most cases, the system simply locks out the latecomer. In certain
limited conditions (specifically, the EW tactic of Interference, or
attempting to hijack a CCSS security system), a mental fight occurs
between the two riggers, with the loser getting dumped from the system.

On the other hand, there is a loophole to the Rigger Exclusion Principle
which may appear to allow multiple riggers to work concurrently within
the same system. For example, in a combat vehicle with a turret, one
rigger could be driving the vehicle (i.e., the prime mover), while the
other is manning the turret. Alternatively, in the Naval Weapons Control
Network in Cyber-Pirates, multiple riggers may be at work controlling
the various weapon systems on a warship.

What's happening in these cases is that portions of the system as a
whole are partitioned into different "sub-vehicles," each of which is
run by a separate rigger. For example, the combat vehicle in the first
example consists of two "sub-vehicles": the prime mover and the turret.
And in the warship, the Naval Weapons Control network consists of
multiple "sub-vehicles": the NWCN captain's chair, forward naval gun,
aft naval gun, cruise missile control, torpedo control, etc., etc.

However, even in these "sub-vehicle" cases, the Rigger Exclusion
Principle still applies. In the combat vehicle, the rigger controlling
the prime mover has no control over the turret, and vice versa.

Note that if someone is jacked into a remote control deck via a hitcher
jack while a rigger is operating it, it doesn't violate the Rigger
Exclusion Principle. In this case, the character is "hitching along"
with the rigger and doesn't exert any control whatsoever. Since the
rigger is the only one controlling the network, the Rigger Exclusion
Principle still applies.

-- Jon
Message no. 21
From: Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 23:09:32 EDT
Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> wrote,

> > > 3. How about a different type of mechanical limb, using the Crane
option
> > as
> > > the basis for the amount of weight that it can carry? It's strength
> would
> > > honk as the arm is built for lifting and carrying, not thwaping the
carp
> > out
> > > of something (short of stepping or squishing).
> >
> > Are you talking about something kind of like those pincer-like
"thingies"
> > (highly technical term, I know :) that are seen on lumber trucks that
> > allow it to load and unload logs from the trailer beds?
> >
>
> Yes ...

Well, if that's the case, why not just treat it as a variant of a crane
and give it the same design/customization specs as one? After all, all
it does is lift heavy objects, and it doesn't have enough articulation
to do anything else (like pick up something that doesn't want to be
picked up, for example).

> > On the other hand, it could be possible (maybe) to come up with a black
> > box that scans the brain pattern of a rigger, and then locks out anyone
> > whose brain scan doesn't match the box's list of authorized users. I
> > leave the specifics up for someone else's house rules.
>
> Would this be like making a Reality-Filtered Rigger Adaption ? And, IYHO,
> what would the benefits of having a rigger adaption module which does this
...
> would it grant either additional bonuses to the control pool, or as it is
with
> deckers, increase initiative ?

No, actually, I was thinking more of something along the line like the
Individualized Biometric Safety (IBS) from the Corporate Security
Handbook (p. 71). If you don't have that book on-hand, the IBS was a
customized palm grip that read the finger and palm prints of the user
holding the gun. If the grip didn't recognize the print, it wouldn't let
the weapon fire. That's the general concept I was thinking along when I
suggested that idea.

> > OTOH, if (2) was the question you were asking, then in general, no. With
> > only a scant few exceptions (such as certain turret designs, as mentioned
> > in R2, or the Naval Weapons Control Network described in Cyberpirates),
> > only one rigger can be in command of a rigged vehicle or remote control
> > network.
>
> So, you could then have a Rigger Adaption customization option that has the
> potential of having more than one rigger in control at a time ... it would
> just have to have a rating like the Naval Weapons Control Network ...

See the Rigger Exclusion Principle thread I replied to Kieth. Generally
speaking, group network systems like the NWCN are possible, but I prefer
that they should be rare exceptions to the norm.

-- Jon
Message no. 22
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 00:58:57 EDT
In a message dated 6/8/98 10:10:24 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
JonSzeto@***.COM writes:

> On the other hand, there is a loophole to the Rigger Exclusion Principle
> which may appear to allow multiple riggers to work concurrently within
> the same system. For example, in a combat vehicle with a turret, one
> rigger could be driving the vehicle (i.e., the prime mover), while the
> other is manning the turret. Alternatively, in the Naval Weapons Control
> Network in Cyber-Pirates, multiple riggers may be at work controlling
> the various weapon systems on a warship.
>
Uh Jon, gotta get you on this one. The "Naval Weapons Control Network" is NOT
in Cyberpirates. It's that -other- material. You know, the stuff they keep
leaving out...(grumblebitchmoan)

-K
Message no. 23
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 01:02:20 EDT
In a message dated 6/8/98 10:36:29 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
JonSzeto@***.COM writes:

> > So, you could then have a Rigger Adaption customization option that has
the
> > potential of having more than one rigger in control at a time ... it
would
> > just have to have a rating like the Naval Weapons Control Network ...
>
> See the Rigger Exclusion Principle thread I replied to Kieth. Generally
> speaking, group network systems like the NWCN are possible, but I prefer
> that they should be rare exceptions to the norm.
>
>
But those rules that you showered us with a few months ago indicate the NWCN
are NOT that rare, especially in due lite of a Military Installation, or
perhaps a Corporate Facility that uses a large number of Robotics.

In this one instance, IMO, you have bitten yourself in the butt on it. The
NWCN, as we have it anyway, does allow for multiple riggers, and even creates
a Hierarchy of structure, especially when combined with "Captain's Chair"
mode, which is also another example of multiple riggers within a given system.

-K
Message no. 24
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 17:40:12 +1200
Quoth 'K is the Symbol' (1659 09-06-98 NZT):

>> On the other hand, there is a loophole to the Rigger Exclusion
Principle
>> which may appear to allow multiple riggers to work concurrently
within
>> the same system. For example, in a combat vehicle with a turret, one
>> rigger could be driving the vehicle (i.e., the prime mover), while
the
>> other is manning the turret. Alternatively, in the Naval Weapons
Control
>> Network in Cyber-Pirates, multiple riggers may be at work
controlling
>> the various weapon systems on a warship.
>>
>Uh Jon, gotta get you on this one. The "Naval Weapons Control Network"
is NOT
>in Cyberpirates. It's that -other- material. You know, the stuff they
keep
>leaving out...(grumblebitchmoan)

Uhh, are you sure 'bout that, K? Admittedly I only took a ten-minute
skim through CP, but I'm pretty sure something like NWCN was mentioned
in the description of the Stuart-class missile-corvette, albeit in
passing.

Danyel Woods
9604801@********.ac.nz
'Are you deliberately trying to drive me insane?'
'The universe is already mad. Anything else would be
redundant.'
Message no. 25
From: Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:39:13 +1000
On Shadowrun Discussion, K is the Symbol[SMTP:Ereskanti@***.COM] wrote:
> In a message dated 6/8/98 10:36:29 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> JonSzeto@***.COM writes:
>
> > > So, you could then have a Rigger Adaption customization option
that has
> the
> > > potential of having more than one rigger in control at a time ...
it
> would
> > > just have to have a rating like the Naval Weapons Control Network
...
> >
> > See the Rigger Exclusion Principle thread I replied to Kieth.
Generally
> > speaking, group network systems like the NWCN are possible, but I
prefer
> > that they should be rare exceptions to the norm.
> >
> >
> But those rules that you showered us with a few months ago indicate
the NWCN
> are NOT that rare, especially in due lite of a Military Installation,
or
> perhaps a Corporate Facility that uses a large number of Robotics.
>
> In this one instance, IMO, you have bitten yourself in the butt on it.
The
> NWCN, as we have it anyway, does allow for multiple riggers, and even
creates
> a Hierarchy of structure, especially when combined with "Captain's
Chair"
> mode, which is also another example of multiple riggers within a given
system.
>
> -K

I'm with Keith on this one. I personally think that it makes
sense for multiple riggers to be in charge of different systems within a
rigged entity (be it a vehicle, ship, tank, building etc). The larger
the entity, the more input the rigger is going to have to deal with. If
a lot of stuff happens all at once, the poor bastard in the single
rigger scenario is going to be quickly overloaded to the point he/she
isn't going to be able to respond.
By allowing separate riggers to have sole access to different
systems within the whole makes things a lot more robust. For example, in
the case of a long range maritime patrol aircraft, it would make sense
to have a rigger in the cockpit whose sole job is to fly the vehicle,
while having one or more in the back looking after the various sorts of
sensors the plane has, much in the same way that various aircraft have
more than one crew today.
Let's look at it another way - do civilian airliners in SR have
only a single rigger on the flight deck, or do they stick with the
current paradigm of pilot/copilot? If they stick with the latter, then
there must be some way to have the two riggers coexisting in the same
system.
I like the idea of having split duties among riggers. I've used
it in a non-obvious way in a story I have sent into Scrawls. It makes
sense to me. As the size of the vehicle increases, then so does the
number of things they have to look after. There must be a point at which
it becomes too much for a single person to look after, especially if you
consider a combat environment.
That's just my perspective. YMMV.

cheers,
G.
--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

"That rates about a 9.5 on my weird-shit-o-meter"
- Will Smith in "Men in Black"
Message no. 26
From: Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:44:30 +1000
On Shadowrun Discussion, K is the Symbol[SMTP:Ereskanti@***.COM] wrote:
> But those rules that you showered us with a few months ago indicate
the NWCN
> are NOT that rare, especially in due lite of a Military Installation,
or
> perhaps a Corporate Facility that uses a large number of Robotics.

Now that I think about it, I don't think I can remember seeing anything
on the NWCN. Does anyone have them lurking about that is willing to post
them to me (or can remember when they were posted so I don't have to
search through 12 months worth of archives?)

G.
--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

"That rates about a 9.5 on my weird-shit-o-meter"
- Will Smith in "Men in Black"
Message no. 27
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:05:26 EDT
In a message dated 6/9/98 3:51:02 AM !!!First Boot!!!, JonSzeto@***.COM
writes:

> > So, you could then have a Rigger Adaption customization option that has
the
> > potential of having more than one rigger in control at a time ... it
would
> > just have to have a rating like the Naval Weapons Control Network ...
>
> See the Rigger Exclusion Principle thread I replied to Kieth. Generally
> speaking, group network systems like the NWCN are possible, but I prefer
> that they should be rare exceptions to the norm.

True, I see the point ... though from the Threats pov, Winternight would use
this thing to death when going against people who are a major pain in the rear
to themselves ...

-Mike
Message no. 28
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:23:06 EDT
In a message dated 6/9/98 3:51:02 AM !!!First Boot!!!, JonSzeto@***.COM
writes:

> > > > 3. How about a different type of mechanical limb, using the Crane
> option
> > > as
> > > > the basis for the amount of weight that it can carry? It's strength
> > would
> > > > honk as the arm is built for lifting and carrying, not thwaping the
> carp
> > > out
> > > > of something (short of stepping or squishing).
> > >
> > > Are you talking about something kind of like those pincer-like "
> thingies"
> > > (highly technical term, I know :) that are seen on lumber trucks that
> > > allow it to load and unload logs from the trailer beds?
> > >
> >
> > Yes ...
>
> Well, if that's the case, why not just treat it as a variant of a crane
> and give it the same design/customization specs as one? After all, all
> it does is lift heavy objects, and it doesn't have enough articulation
> to do anything else (like pick up something that doesn't want to be
> picked up, for example).

Does this mean that if you put two of these underneath something they could
act as a pair of legs ? Like for a mech then?

> > > On the other hand, it could be possible (maybe) to come up with a
black
> > > box that scans the brain pattern of a rigger, and then locks out
anyone
> > > whose brain scan doesn't match the box's list of authorized users. I
> > > leave the specifics up for someone else's house rules.
> >
> > Would this be like making a Reality-Filtered Rigger Adaption ? And,
IYHO,
> > what would the benefits of having a rigger adaption module which does
this
> ...
> > would it grant either additional bonuses to the control pool, or as it is
> with
> > deckers, increase initiative ?
>
> No, actually, I was thinking more of something along the line like the
> Individualized Biometric Safety (IBS) from the Corporate Security
> Handbook (p. 71). If you don't have that book on-hand, the IBS was a
> customized palm grip that read the finger and palm prints of the user
> holding the gun. If the grip didn't recognize the print, it wouldn't let
> the weapon fire. That's the general concept I was thinking along when I
> suggested that idea.

OMG ... which means then that if applied to a CCSS or other rigger network it
would render outside interference completely into nothing?

-Mike
Message no. 29
From: John Dukes <dukes@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 08:33:59 -0500
>Now that I think about it, I don't think I can remember seeing anything
>on the NWCN. Does anyone have them lurking about that is willing to post
>them to me (or can remember when they were posted so I don't have to
>search through 12 months worth of archives?)

Check page 165 of Cyberpirates. The system mentioned there (although not
named) seems to be what he is describing. Seems simple enough to me. <shrug>

Hope that helped.
-Teeg
Message no. 30
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:05:35 EDT
In a message dated 6/9/98 12:43:43 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
9604801@********.AC.NZ writes:

> >Uh Jon, gotta get you on this one. The "Naval Weapons Control Network"
> is NOT
> >in Cyberpirates. It's that -other- material. You know, the stuff they
> keep
> >leaving out...(grumblebitchmoan)
>
> Uhh, are you sure 'bout that, K? Admittedly I only took a ten-minute
> skim through CP, but I'm pretty sure something like NWCN was mentioned
> in the description of the Stuart-class missile-corvette, albeit in
> passing.
>
I looked again, the total rules for such, including the installation and
Design Point cost is NOT in the Cyberpirates book. The description contains
part of it, almost a "teaser" if you will.

The total rules for NWCN never made it.

-K
Message no. 31
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:08:12 EDT
In a message dated 6/9/98 12:54:08 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU writes:

> > But those rules that you showered us with a few months ago indicate
> the NWCN
> > are NOT that rare, especially in due lite of a Military Installation,
> or
> > perhaps a Corporate Facility that uses a large number of Robotics.
>
> Now that I think about it, I don't think I can remember seeing anything
> on the NWCN. Does anyone have them lurking about that is willing to post
> them to me (or can remember when they were posted so I don't have to
> search through 12 months worth of archives?)
>
I am not sure the "rules" pertaining the detailf of the NWCN (and the
Electrolytic Convertor, and the Nuclear Power Plants...), as that is
completely within the loving hands of Mr. Szeto and Mr. Mulhillvil...

-K (who is almost -completely- tired of the crap FASA has given Jon over this
whole topic)
Message no. 32
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:23:29 EDT
In a message dated 6/9/98 8:24:16 AM US Eastern Standard Time, Airwasp@***.COM
writes:

> > Well, if that's the case, why not just treat it as a variant of a crane
> > and give it the same design/customization specs as one? After all, all
> > it does is lift heavy objects, and it doesn't have enough articulation
> > to do anything else (like pick up something that doesn't want to be
> > picked up, for example).
>
> Does this mean that if you put two of these underneath something they could
> act as a pair of legs ? Like for a mech then?
>
Keith is sitting back and just -watching- this one. He -knows- how badly Jon
just gotted back into -THAT- corner.

-K
Message no. 33
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:24:37 EDT
In a message dated 6/9/98 8:28:13 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dukes@*******.NET writes:

> >Now that I think about it, I don't think I can remember seeing anything
> >on the NWCN. Does anyone have them lurking about that is willing to post
> >them to me (or can remember when they were posted so I don't have to
> >search through 12 months worth of archives?)
>
> Check page 165 of Cyberpirates. The system mentioned there (although not
> named) seems to be what he is describing. Seems simple enough to me.
<shrug>
>
> Hope that helped.
> -
For the purposes of -some- game mechanics, yes. For the answers to the
-REALLY- neat questions. It barely started.

-K
Message no. 34
From: Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 21:05:30 EDT
K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM> wrote,

> But those rules that you showered us with a few months ago indicate the NWCN
> are NOT that rare, especially in due lite of a Military Installation, or
> perhaps a Corporate Facility that uses a large number of Robotics.
>
> In this one instance, IMO, you have bitten yourself in the butt on it. The
> NWCN, as we have it anyway, does allow for multiple riggers, and even
creates
> a Hierarchy of structure, especially when combined with "Captain's Chair"
> mode, which is also another example of multiple riggers within a given
system.

No, I have not. You misunderstand what I mean by the Rigger
Exclusion Principle, and also the structure of the Naval Weapons Control
Network. The NWCN is, after a fashion, a shipboard remote control network,
and each weapon control panel is a drone in the network. When a rigger
jacks into a weapons control panel (which controls a gun turret, a
missile in flight, or a torpedo in the water), it as if he had "jumped"
into that missile, gun turret, or torpedo. And since it is a network,
there is a master control station, or captain's chair, where another
rigger can assume overall fire direction and control.

Note that the Rigger Exclusion Principle does not forbid riggers from
communicating with one another. A rigger jacked into a control panel
controlling a Sea Saber ASM can talk to the rigger controlling the 5-
inch guns, and a rigger in the captain's chair can verbally order a
rigger controlling a MADCAP torpedo to change targets. Also, any of the
four riggers can switch control (or "jump") into an unoccupied position
(For example, Sea Saber control panel #2). But, according to
the Rigger Exclusion Principle, the rigger running the Sea Saber cannot
suddenly take control of the naval guns while the gunnery rigger is
still jacked in. Nor can the rigger in captain's chair automatically
redirect the MADCAP torpedo, while the torpedo rigger is still running
that system. And in NO circumstances whatsoever can two or more riggers
combine Dice Pools, Initiative bonuses, or other cyberware abilities!

IMHO.

-- Jon
Message no. 35
From: Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 21:05:42 EDT
Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU> wrote,

> I'm with Keith on this one. I personally think that it makes
> sense for multiple riggers to be in charge of different systems within a
> rigged entity (be it a vehicle, ship, tank, building etc). The larger
> the entity, the more input the rigger is going to have to deal with. If
> a lot of stuff happens all at once, the poor bastard in the single
> rigger scenario is going to be quickly overloaded to the point he/she
> isn't going to be able to respond.

The point I am trying to make (and that has been largely misunderstood)
is that only _one_ rigger may be in control of _one_ system. If you have
_two_ riggers trying to control _one_ system, then you have two separate
wills attempting simultaneously to tell the system to do different
things. To use an analogy, this is like a case where the multiple
fragments of a split personality are fighting for control of a
schizophrenic person. All you get is a convulsive epileptic seizure.
(OK, not medically true, but you get the idea.)

> Let's look at it another way - do civilian airliners in SR have
> only a single rigger on the flight deck, or do they stick with the
> current paradigm of pilot/copilot? If they stick with the latter, then
> there must be some way to have the two riggers coexisting in the same
> system.

There is --- the aircraft is divided into two "sub-vehicles": the pilot
controls one "sub-vehicle," which in this case happens to be the aircraft.
The "sub-vehicle" that the co-pilot is controlling is actually a dummy
system, a virtual aircraft, separated by the rigger equivalent of a
firewall, that sees, hears, and senses everything that the real airplane
does. If the pilot ever has to un-jack for any reason (or gets unjacked),
then the co-pilot "jumps" out of the virtual aircraft and into the real
one.

(Note that this is not the same as using a hitcher jack. A person tagging
along on a hitcher jack never has any control, and gets dumped if the
rigger gets dumped.)

-- Jon
Message no. 36
From: Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 21:06:16 EDT
Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> wrote,

> > Well, if that's the case, why not just treat it as a variant of a crane
> > and give it the same design/customization specs as one? After all, all
> > it does is lift heavy objects, and it doesn't have enough articulation
> > to do anything else (like pick up something that doesn't want to be
> > picked up, for example).
>
> Does this mean that if you put two of these underneath something they could
> act as a pair of legs ? Like for a mech then?

Except that as it stands up, it spills the truckload of 1,000 year old
carp it was carrying in its cargo, and they get underfoot. The driver
fails his Piloting Skill Roll (+4 modifier for carp-covered hex),
causing the vehicle to fall. It takes damage to the head location, and
the pilot fails his consciousness check (due to the stench of carp
wafting into the cockpit.)

In other words....

XXXXXXXXX X X X X X XXXXX _ XXX
X X X X X X X X X /o\ XXX
X X X X X X X X X | | XXXXXXXXXX
X X X X X X X X X | | XXXXXXXXXXX
X XXXXXXX X X XXXXXXX XXXXX \ / XX XXXXXXX XX
X X X X X X X X X XXXX XXXXX XX
X X X X X X X X X XX XXXXX XX
X X X X X X X X X X XX XX XX
X X X X X X X X XX XX
XX XX
XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
XX XX XX XX XX XXXXX XXXXX
XX XX XX XX XX ^
XX XX XX XX XX |
XX XX XX XX XX |
XX XX XX XX XX 100-ton Atlas
wielding
XX XX XX XX XX 'Mech-sized
XX XX XX XX XX carp


-- Jon
Message no. 37
From: Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:30:52 +1000
On Shadowrun Discussion, Jon Szeto[SMTP:JonSzeto@***.COM] wrote:
> Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU> wrote,
>
> > I'm with Keith on this one. I personally think that it makes
> > sense for multiple riggers to be in charge of different systems
within a
> > rigged entity (be it a vehicle, ship, tank, building etc). The
larger
> > the entity, the more input the rigger is going to have to deal with.
If
> > a lot of stuff happens all at once, the poor bastard in the single
> > rigger scenario is going to be quickly overloaded to the point
he/she
> > isn't going to be able to respond.
>
> The point I am trying to make (and that has been largely
misunderstood)
> is that only _one_ rigger may be in control of _one_ system. If you
have
> _two_ riggers trying to control _one_ system, then you have two
separate
> wills attempting simultaneously to tell the system to do different
> things. To use an analogy, this is like a case where the multiple
> fragments of a split personality are fighting for control of a
> schizophrenic person. All you get is a convulsive epileptic seizure.
> (OK, not medically true, but you get the idea.)
>
Ahh, I see what you are getting at now. It's basically the same
thing I was talking about. I guess the problem is that the way the info
*as written* reads is that there can only be a single rigger in the
overall system at once. What you are saying above (if I am reading this
corrrectly) is that several riggers may be jacked into a single overall
system, provided they are not trying to control the same *subsystem*.
So, for example, it would be possible to have 2 riggers jacked into a
recon drone provided one was only flying the thing and the other was
only working the sensor suite. As soon as the sensor operator tried to
get control of the flying side of things, then we have a conflict.

Works for me.


> > Let's look at it another way - do civilian airliners in SR
have
> > only a single rigger on the flight deck, or do they stick with the
> > current paradigm of pilot/copilot? If they stick with the latter,
then
> > there must be some way to have the two riggers coexisting in the
same
> > system.
>
> There is --- the aircraft is divided into two "sub-vehicles": the
pilot
> controls one "sub-vehicle," which in this case happens to be the
aircraft.
> The "sub-vehicle" that the co-pilot is controlling is actually a dummy
> system, a virtual aircraft, separated by the rigger equivalent of a
> firewall, that sees, hears, and senses everything that the real
airplane
> does. If the pilot ever has to un-jack for any reason (or gets
unjacked),
> then the co-pilot "jumps" out of the virtual aircraft and into the
real
> one.
>
This is cool. I was thinking about this last night, and for the
most part, the pilot would have control of the vehicle (or the autopilot
would have).
I'm not an expert on aircraft controls, but I believe that at
the moment, if there is an emergency, a pilot and copilot can both pull
on the control column to try and bring a plane under control if it is in
a steep dive. How would something like this work in the case of the
virtual aircraft of the co-pilot? Would the computer underneath work out
if the pilot and co-pilot were acting in unison and then add the signal
strength of the co-pilot's actions to the actions of the pilot in the
"real" aircraft?

> (Note that this is not the same as using a hitcher jack. A person
tagging
> along on a hitcher jack never has any control, and gets dumped if the
> rigger gets dumped.)

I thought I had read somewhere there was a hitcher jack for
riggers. Good. I'm using one in a story I am working on at the moment.

cheers
Geoff

--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

"That rates about a 9.5 on my weird-shit-o-meter"
- Will Smith in "Men in Black"
Message no. 38
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:41:01 +1000
Geoff Skellams writes:
> Ahh, I see what you are getting at now. It's basically the same
> thing I was talking about. I guess the problem is that the way the info
> *as written* reads is that there can only be a single rigger in the
> overall system at once. What you are saying above (if I am reading this
> corrrectly) is that several riggers may be jacked into a single overall
> system, provided they are not trying to control the same *subsystem*.
> So, for example, it would be possible to have 2 riggers jacked into a
> recon drone provided one was only flying the thing and the other was
> only working the sensor suite. As soon as the sensor operator tried to
> get control of the flying side of things, then we have a conflict.

I'm sure Jon will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's a little more
complex than that. Basically, in Jon's example where you can have multiple
riggers, you really have multiple, semi-independent rigged systems. For
example, the RIO in a plane will rig in and control sensors, possibly
weaponry, etc, and the pilot would fly the plane. But the decision would be
taken when designing the system.

From what you're suggesting, if I read it right, Geoff, the riggers could
jack into any old system, and work together, as long as they don't try to do
the same thing. I don't think it works like that. But, of course, I could be
wrong.

--
*************************************************************************
* .--_ # "My opinions may have changed, but not the fact *
* _-0(#)) # that I'm right." -- Old Fortune Saying *
* @__ )/ # *
* )=(===__==,= # Robert Watkins <---> robert.watkins@******.com *
* {}== \--==--`= # *
* ,_) \ # "A friend is someone who watches the same *
* L_===__)=, # TV programs as you" *
*************************************************************************
Message no. 39
From: Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:58:37 +1000
On Shadowrun Discussion, Robert Watkins[SMTP:robert.watkins@******.COM]
wrote:
> Geoff Skellams writes:
> > Ahh, I see what you are getting at now. It's basically the
same
> > thing I was talking about. I guess the problem is that the way the
info
> > *as written* reads is that there can only be a single rigger in the
> > overall system at once. What you are saying above (if I am reading
this
> > corrrectly) is that several riggers may be jacked into a single
overall
> > system, provided they are not trying to control the same
*subsystem*.
> > So, for example, it would be possible to have 2 riggers jacked into
a
> > recon drone provided one was only flying the thing and the other was
> > only working the sensor suite. As soon as the sensor operator tried
to
> > get control of the flying side of things, then we have a conflict.
>
> I'm sure Jon will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's a little
more
> complex than that. Basically, in Jon's example where you can have
multiple
> riggers, you really have multiple, semi-independent rigged systems.
For
> example, the RIO in a plane will rig in and control sensors, possibly
> weaponry, etc, and the pilot would fly the plane. But the decision
would be
> taken when designing the system.
>
> From what you're suggesting, if I read it right, Geoff, the riggers
could
> jack into any old system, and work together, as long as they don't try
to do
> the same thing. I don't think it works like that. But, of course, I
could be
> wrong.

No, I was actually meaning the two riggers were jacking into
semi-independant systems. Sorry, I should have specified that a bit
further. I understand that given, say, a bog standard rigged car, then
you could only have a single rigger. To me that much was intuitively
obvious.

I find things more interesting when the role of the vehicle is so big
(because of either the size of the vehicle or because of the information
it collects/uses is so large) that it is too much for a single person to
control. For example, I don't believe a single rigger would have enough
mental grunt to pilot a nuclear aircraft carrier. There are just too
many things for that single brain to keep track of. To me, it makes much
more sense to have a whole pile of riggers looking after subsystems,
which are then linked into some sort of network, so they are all working
together.
Erk, I just had a weird thought. If we have a whole pile of
riggers working on a large vehicle, would the communication network
provide some sort of hive mind mentality among them? I might have to
think about that one a bit further.

My apologies if I caused some confusion.

cheers
G.

--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

"That rates about a 9.5 on my weird-shit-o-meter"
- Will Smith in "Men in Black"
Message no. 40
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 23:26:18 EDT
In a message dated 6/10/98 1:07:26 AM !!!First Boot!!!, JonSzeto@***.COM
writes:

> > Does this mean that if you put two of these underneath something they
could
> > act as a pair of legs ? Like for a mech then?
>
> Except that as it stands up, it spills the truckload of 1,000 year old
> carp it was carrying in its cargo, and they get underfoot. The driver
> fails his Piloting Skill Roll (+4 modifier for carp-covered hex),
> causing the vehicle to fall. It takes damage to the head location, and
> the pilot fails his consciousness check (due to the stench of carp
> wafting into the cockpit.)

But is that not what Structural Agility is for then ?

To keep the thing stable and capable of performing the maneuvers you want it
to?

-Mike
Message no. 41
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 01:46:51 EDT
In a message dated 6/9/98 8:06:29 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
JonSzeto@***.COM writes:

> And in NO circumstances whatsoever can two or more riggers
> combine Dice Pools, Initiative bonuses, or other cyberware abilities!
>
> IMHO.
1) Humility has nothing to do with this :P

2) I wasn't looking at it from the POV of combining Initiative's and the like
or other major abilities. Control Pools...sort of. IF both Riggers are
working on the same end-goal. Me thinks it's time Mike and I finalize out the
Communal Rig and show everyone what we are meaning with this. It's not as
overwhelming as you "sound" like you are making it out to be.

MOST of the Communal Rig is for two or more riggers working in tandem for
particularly massive control feats. IE; shipboard maneuvers, -LARGE-
transport aircraft, spacecraft, etc... This suggestion is NOT something for a
Eurocar Westwind or even a Toyata Elite. It's for "higher end" coordinations,
stuff that the "standard" shadowrunner isn't likely to mess with, but it is
stuff that larger organizations (such as Corporate Forces, Cyberpirates,
Military, etc...) -MIGHT-.

-K
Message no. 42
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 01:54:06 EDT
In a message dated 6/9/98 9:00:18 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU writes:

<snipped the Rigger Overload on a Nuclear Carrier.>

> Erk, I just had a weird thought. If we have a whole pile of
> riggers working on a large vehicle, would the communication network
> provide some sort of hive mind mentality among them? I might have to
> think about that one a bit further.
>
> My apologies if I caused some confusion.
>
Actually, this is EXACTLY what Mike and I working on when it comes the
Communal Rig Network concept. Informational exchange and coordination at "the
next stage of development".

Please remember folks that we had "Winternight" our primary obstacle a couple
of months back, and Riggers are their power. We ran into every sort of Rigged
Nightmare our mentalities could come up with, we just had to find some form of
"game mechanics middle ground" when it came to actually running it for the
players to work within it.

-K
Message no. 43
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:12:04 -0500
>
> Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU> wrote,
>

>
> There is --- the aircraft is divided into two "sub-vehicles": the pilot
> controls one "sub-vehicle," which in this case happens to be the aircraft.
> The "sub-vehicle" that the co-pilot is controlling is actually a dummy
> system, a virtual aircraft, separated by the rigger equivalent of a
> firewall, that sees, hears, and senses everything that the real airplane
> does. If the pilot ever has to un-jack for any reason (or gets unjacked),
> then the co-pilot "jumps" out of the virtual aircraft and into the real
> one.
>
> (Note that this is not the same as using a hitcher jack. A person tagging
> along on a hitcher jack never has any control, and gets dumped if the
> rigger gets dumped.)
>
Heh..congrats on the earlier thawping post. I think its the first from
a FASA "official". And although this may all be IYHO, I figure since you
wrote the rules, it gives you at least 5 votes to our one. Haven't
finished Smuggler's Haven yet, but the Aquashere info etc is great. (Although
I do miss the ship construction rules :()
I'm sure I'll have more comments after I finish it. (Bah work, it just
gets in the way of RPG's :)).
Later.
(Hmm..just realized my reply has no relation to the quoted passage...sorry)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker (850)644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Morality is moral only when it is voluntary.
Message no. 44
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:23:07 -0400
At 09:05 PM 6/9/98 EDT, you wrote:
>The point I am trying to make (and that has been largely misunderstood)
>is that only _one_ rigger may be in control of _one_ system. If you have
>_two_ riggers trying to control _one_ system, then you have two separate
>wills attempting simultaneously to tell the system to do different
>things. To use an analogy, this is like a case where the multiple
>fragments of a split personality are fighting for control of a
>schizophrenic person. All you get is a convulsive epileptic seizure.
>(OK, not medically true, but you get the idea.)

It seems to me that at this point you're both talking about the same
concept, just maybe using some different examples and/or terms to describe
it. I I read it correctly from Jon, you can have one system, which is
divided into many subsystems. As long as a rigger does not try to jump
another rigger's subsystem, he's okay.

So we take a T-bird with heavy ECM/ECCM and a Vindicator on a turret.
Either a) one rigger controls it all through one datajackand rigger control
box. Or b) you have one control box. The pilot has a datajack link (dl)
into the box and he pilots. Another rigger has a dl into the gun, and a
third connects to the electronics. As long as everyone stays in place, no
problem. So all you need is to put additional dl's in the system, and a
black box connector. The black box tells you when you jack in what
subsystems are running off of the control network, and which ones are
available.

>There is --- the aircraft is divided into two "sub-vehicles": the pilot
>controls one "sub-vehicle," which in this case happens to be the aircraft.
>The "sub-vehicle" that the co-pilot is controlling is actually a dummy
>system, a virtual aircraft, separated by the rigger equivalent of a
>firewall, that sees, hears, and senses everything that the real airplane
>does. If the pilot ever has to un-jack for any reason (or gets unjacked),
>then the co-pilot "jumps" out of the virtual aircraft and into the real
>one.

I wouldn't even think that he would need the virtual vehicle. A simple a/b
switch could be hooked up that automatically shunts control to the co-pilot
if the pilot goes offline.

Sommers
Message no. 45
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:33:00 -0400
At 11:30 AM 6/10/98 +1000, you wrote:
> I'm not an expert on aircraft controls, but I believe that at
>the moment, if there is an emergency, a pilot and copilot can both pull
>on the control column to try and bring a plane under control if it is in
>a steep dive. How would something like this work in the case of the
>virtual aircraft of the co-pilot? Would the computer underneath work out
>if the pilot and co-pilot were acting in unison and then add the signal
>strength of the co-pilot's actions to the actions of the pilot in the
>"real" aircraft?

You're thinking of the old time controls, where there was an actual
physical connection between the control column and the elevators. If you're
in a steep dive, you're literally pulling those elevators up by hand
(through a wire) and they want to stay where they are because of air
pressure pushing them back into line with the direction of flight. If both
pilots pulled on them, you had twice as much muscle.

For a modern aircraft with fly by wire, the control colunmn is now a
joystick that connects to motors that change the controls surfaces. It has
a feedback function that changes the rate of change faster the harder you
push it, but you don't have to push very hard. It really is a lot like a
flight simulator. But no matter how hard you push/pull/whatever, that motor
isn't going to pull any harder than its maximum capacity.

Now with riggers, they're nt even using a joystick anymore. Then just
mentally tell that motor to pull for all its worth to pull them up. Another
person thinking the same thing really won't do jack to it at all.

Sommers
"finally the aero degree in use!"
Message no. 46
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:23:18 -0500
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Jon Szeto wrote:

> Except that as it stands up, it spills the truckload of 1,000 year old
> carp it was carrying in its cargo, and they get underfoot. The driver
> fails his Piloting Skill Roll (+4 modifier for carp-covered hex),
> causing the vehicle to fall. It takes damage to the head location, and
> the pilot fails his consciousness check (due to the stench of carp
> wafting into the cockpit.)


LOL Impressive Twap Jon! I LIKE it. Now if you can only get a 1,000 year
old carp mentioned in a FASA product :).

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 47
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:35:17 +0200
*SNIP Jon's impressive & colorful thwap*
>LOL Impressive Twap Jon! I LIKE it. Now if you can only get a 1,000 year
>old carp mentioned in a FASA product :).

I can see it now...

SSC, 3rd edition.

Somewhere in security gear section, there's this...

Carp Launcher

Cost: 3000, acailability 8/2 days
Type: Shotgun
Fire: SA/BF
Damage: 8S Stun
Ammo: 50(c)

This weapon, designed in Ares' urban paicifcation program, is designed to
subdue through smell. The ammo, synthetic copies of small, rotting chunks of
fish also operate on a principle similar to rubber bullets. A side effect of
the weapon is that the target area is rapidly covered by a smell found very
effective in incapacitating its targets, giving a further +4 TN to unprotected
targets within the area of effect.



Fade

--

ADVICE, n. The smallest current coin.
-Ambrose Bierce
Message no. 48
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:45:39 EDT
In a message dated 6/10/98 2:12:26 PM !!!First Boot!!!, decker@****.FSU.EDU
writes:

> Heh..congrats on the earlier thawping post. I think its the first from
> a FASA "official". And although this may all be IYHO, I figure since you
> wrote the rules, it gives you at least 5 votes to our one. Haven't
> finished Smuggler's Haven yet, but the Aquashere info etc is great. (
> Although
> I do miss the ship construction rules :()
> I'm sure I'll have more comments after I finish it. (Bah work, it just
> gets in the way of RPG's :)).

Though the thwapping I received may have been very premature ... I am still
waiting to hear what Jon has to say about the two cranes as legs and the
vehicle having Structural Agility to keep it upright ... even when in motion
...

And, yes, I am also unhappy about the Ship Construction rules not being in
T:SH ...

-Mike
Message no. 49
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:49:54 -0400
Rune wrote:
>*SNIP Jon's impressive & colorful thwap*
>>LOL Impressive Twap Jon! I LIKE it. Now if you can only get a 1,000 year
>>old carp mentioned in a FASA product :).
>
>I can see it now...
>SSC, 3rd edition.
>Somewhere in security gear section, there's this...
>Carp Launcher
[snip]
>This weapon, designed in Ares' urban paicifcation program, is designed to
>subdue through smell. The ammo, synthetic copies of small, rotting chunks of
>fish also operate on a principle similar to rubber bullets. A side effect of
>the weapon is that the target area is rapidly covered by a smell found very
>effective in incapacitating its targets, giving a further +4 TN to
>unprotected
>targets within the area of effect.

Heh - in last night's BGC (Bubblegum Crisis) game, one of the characters
tried to buy some guns from an arms dealer whose cover operation was
a fresh fish brokerage. The conversation went something like
"Hello, what can I do for you?"
"I'd like to buy some fish. A one-time purchase."
"Well, we usually don't handle that sort of thing, but we'll see what
we can do. What kind of fish are you interested in?"
"Fully automatic."

We're not going to forget that anytime soon - it's just a pity that
I'm the only ShadowRN subscriber in the group. :-)

As such:
The basic Carp Launcher may be converted to fully automatic mode with
a simple kit available from any reputable weapons dealer and a few
minutes time. The new module replaces the firing mechanism and uses
an extended drum instead of a clip.

Carp Launcher FA kit (all costs are in addition to basic model)
Cost: 2000, avail 12/7
Type: Shotgun
Fire: SA/BF/FA
Damage: 7S stun
Ammo: 100 (d)

James Ojaste
Message no. 50
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:49:45 EDT
In a message dated 6/10/98 1:35:43 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
runefo@***.UIO.NO writes:

> I can see it now...
>
> SSC, 3rd edition.
>
> Somewhere in security gear section, there's this...
>
> Carp Launcher
>
<snipped the stats>

Yep, THAT is exactly what I was looking for...now, to just figure out how many
of them I can put on a tuna trauler....can we say "near infinite ammo???"

-K
Message no. 51
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:35:04 +0100
And verily, did K is the Symbol hastily scribble thusly...
|Yep, THAT is exactly what I was looking for...now, to just figure out how many
|of them I can put on a tuna trauler....can we say "near infinite ammo???"

Not unless those carp launchers are heavily modified.
Trying to fire a tuna from a carp cannon will cause it to blow up in your
face.
(Wrong calibre of fish, y'see...)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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. 52
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:46:34 EDT
In a message dated 6/11/98 5:35:19 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK writes:

> |Yep, THAT is exactly what I was looking for...now, to just figure out how
> many
> |of them I can put on a tuna trauler....can we say "near infinite ammo???"
>
> Not unless those carp launchers are heavily modified.
> Trying to fire a tuna from a carp cannon will cause it to blow up in your
> face.
> (Wrong calibre of fish, y'see...)
>
Ah, duh, of course (sounds of machinery being quickly modified)...there,
larger bore, and with a bit of iron filings, we can load 'em in the Rail
Cannon Filet' Device...now then, anyone got some good Seafood or Butter
sauce??? Gotta keep this machine "well oiled" you know...

-K
Message no. 53
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:57:30 +0100
And verily, did K is the Symbol hastily scribble thusly...
|Ah, duh, of course (sounds of machinery being quickly modified)...there,
|larger bore, and with a bit of iron filings, we can load 'em in the Rail
|Cannon Filet' Device...now then, anyone got some good Seafood or Butter
|sauce??? Gotta keep this machine "well oiled" you know...

I thought Tuna were a very oily fish....

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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. 54
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:01:40 +1200
Quoth Spike (1158 12-06-98 NZT):

>And verily, did K is the Symbol hastily scribble thusly...
>|Ah, duh, of course (sounds of machinery being quickly
modified)...there,
>|larger bore, and with a bit of iron filings, we can load 'em in the
Rail
>|Cannon Filet' Device...now then, anyone got some good Seafood or
Butter
>|sauce??? Gotta keep this machine "well oiled" you know...
>
>I thought Tuna were a very oily fish....

You guys have too much time on your hands...

Danyel Woods - 9604801@********.ac.nz
Who just realised that this started to get kinda silly right
about the time Bull returned - coincidence? I think not...
Message no. 55
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 01:09:54 +0100
And verily, did Danyel N Woods hastily scribble thusly...
|>|sauce??? Gotta keep this machine "well oiled" you know...
|>
|>I thought Tuna were a very oily fish....
|
|You guys have too much time on your hands...

Yes... And?

:)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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. 56
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:36:49 -0500
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:46:34 EDT K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
>In a message dated 6/11/98 5:35:19 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK writes:
>> |Yep, THAT is exactly what I was looking for...now, to just figure out
how
>> |many of them I can put on a tuna trauler....can we say "near infinite

>> |ammo???"

>> Not unless those carp launchers are heavily modified.
>> Trying to fire a tuna from a carp cannon will cause it to blow up in
your
>> face.
>> (Wrong calibre of fish, y'see...)

>Ah, duh, of course (sounds of machinery being quickly modified)...there,
>larger bore, and with a bit of iron filings, we can load 'em in the Rail
>Cannon Filet' Device...now then, anyone got some good Seafood or Butter
>sauce??? Gotta keep this machine "well oiled" you know...
>
>-K

On a more serious note (somewhat), this could be kind of cool for the
Distinctive Style flaw ... no I don't mean I guy running around with
firing wet fish people ... Someone with a fish (specifically a carp)
carved into his/her bullets ... (although for a matrix icon, you can have
whatever you want ... "I *AM* the carp queen!" ... :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 57
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:23:14 EDT
In a message dated 98-06-11 21:24:47 EDT, you write:

> On a more serious note (somewhat), this could be kind of cool for the
> Distinctive Style flaw ... no I don't mean I guy running around with
> firing wet fish people ... Someone with a fish (specifically a carp)
> carved into his/her bullets ... (although for a matrix icon, you can have
> whatever you want ... "I *AM* the carp queen!" ... :)

My younger brother had a rocker character who was a bass player... not bass
pronounced base, but as in the fish.

His bass guitar was shapped like a fish, and he would sometimes use fish as
drumsticks... my younger brother really needs help.

Nexx
Message no. 58
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:33:02 +1200
Quoth Nexx Many-Scars (1523 12-06-98 NZT):

>In a message dated 98-06-11 21:24:47 EDT, you write:
>
>> On a more serious note (somewhat), this could be kind of cool for the
>> Distinctive Style flaw ... no I don't mean I guy running around with
>> firing wet fish people ... Someone with a fish (specifically a carp)
>> carved into his/her bullets ... (although for a matrix icon, you can
have
>> whatever you want ... "I *AM* the carp queen!" ... :)
>
>My younger brother had a rocker character who was a bass player... not
bass
>pronounced base, but as in the fish.
>
>His bass guitar was shapped like a fish, and he would sometimes use
fish as
>drumsticks... my younger brother really needs help.

<literally collapses in helpless laughter at the image>
You said it, pal. Somebody who comes up with something that ridiculous
*definitely* needs to pay a visit to those nice young men in their clean
white coats...

Danyel Woods - 9604801@********.ac.nz
So how the heck do we get back on topic from here?
Message no. 59
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 02:54:39 -0500
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:23:14 EDT Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 98-06-11 21:24:47 EDT, you write:
>> On a more serious note (somewhat), this could be kind of cool for the
>> Distinctive Style flaw ... no I don't mean I guy running around with
>> firing wet fish people ... Someone with a fish (specifically a carp)
>> carved into his/her bullets ... (although for a matrix icon, you can
have
>> whatever you want ... "I *AM* the carp queen!" ... :)

>My younger brother had a rocker character who was a bass player... not
bass
>pronounced base, but as in the fish.
>
>His bass guitar was shapped like a fish, and he would sometimes use fish
as
>drumsticks... my younger brother really needs help.
>
>Nexx

methinks he watched too much muppets ...

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 60
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:17:41 EDT
In a message dated 6/12/98 1:24:44 AM !!!First Boot!!!, dghost@****.COM
writes:

> >Ah, duh, of course (sounds of machinery being quickly modified)...there,
> >larger bore, and with a bit of iron filings, we can load 'em in the Rail
> >Cannon Filet' Device...now then, anyone got some good Seafood or Butter
> >sauce??? Gotta keep this machine "well oiled" you know...
> >
> >-K
>
> On a more serious note (somewhat), this could be kind of cool for the
> Distinctive Style flaw ... no I don't mean I guy running around with
> firing wet fish people ... Someone with a fish (specifically a carp)
> carved into his/her bullets ... (although for a matrix icon, you can have
> whatever you want ... "I *AM* the carp queen!" ... :)

I believe that flaw is called "distinctive style."

-Mike
Message no. 61
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:47:24 EDT
In a message dated 6/12/98 3:53:51 AM !!!First Boot!!!, 9604801@********.AC.NZ
writes:

> >My younger brother had a rocker character who was a bass player... not
> bass
> >pronounced base, but as in the fish.
> >
> >His bass guitar was shapped like a fish, and he would sometimes use
> fish as
> >drumsticks... my younger brother really needs help.
>
> <literally collapses in helpless laughter at the image>
> You said it, pal. Somebody who comes up with something that ridiculous
> *definitely* needs to pay a visit to those nice young men in their clean
> white coats...

Actually, I see it as the younger brother wanting more attention from his
older brother, and looking back on my own younger brother ... I regret not
having done more with him ...

And Steve was far worse than that ... especially the one day at an Italian
restaurant in Naples, Italy (actually Pozzuoli, for Paolo) he put 4 shrimp
heads onto his fingertips and gave a short rendition of some song I can't
remember the name of ...

-Mike
Message no. 62
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:27:38 -0500
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:17:41 EDT Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 6/12/98 1:24:44 AM !!!First Boot!!!, dghost@****.COM
>writes:
<SNIP K modifying Carp gun to fire tuna (why not just catch carp?)>

>> On a more serious note (somewhat), this could be kind of cool for the
>> Distinctive Style flaw ... no I don't mean I guy running around with
>> firing wet fish people ... Someone with a fish (specifically a carp)
>> carved into his/her bullets ... (although for a matrix icon, you can
have
>> whatever you want ... "I *AM* the carp queen!" ... :)

>I believe that flaw is called "distinctive style."
>
>-Mike

??? That's what I said ... did you mean to type something else?

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 63
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:55:48 EDT
In a message dated 98-06-12 10:48:10 EDT, you write:

> Actually, I see it as the younger brother wanting more attention from his
> older brother, and looking back on my own younger brother ... I regret not
> having done more with him ...
>

Nope. It was my younger brother's friends we played with (he's only 2 years
younger, and intelligent enough that that isn't much of a difference).

Nexx
Message no. 64
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 20:29:19 EDT
In a message dated 6/12/98 4:47:09 PM !!!First Boot!!!, dghost@****.COM
writes:

> >> On a more serious note (somewhat), this could be kind of cool for the
> >> Distinctive Style flaw ... no I don't mean I guy running around with
> >> firing wet fish people ... Someone with a fish (specifically a carp)
> >> carved into his/her bullets ... (although for a matrix icon, you can
> have
> >> whatever you want ... "I *AM* the carp queen!" ... :)
>
> >I believe that flaw is called "distinctive style."
> >
> >-Mike
>
> ??? That's what I said ... did you mean to type something else?

Nope, I just did not catch the distinctive words in your original posting.

Mea culpa ...

-Mike
Message no. 65
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 11:52:33 EDT
In a message dated 6/11/98 6:58:05 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK writes:

> |Ah, duh, of course (sounds of machinery being quickly modified)...there,
> |larger bore, and with a bit of iron filings, we can load 'em in the Rail
> |Cannon Filet' Device...now then, anyone got some good Seafood or Butter
> |sauce??? Gotta keep this machine "well oiled" you know...
>
> I thought Tuna were a very oily fish....
>
Oh they are, I'm sorry. It's just that this way it's a flavor that -anyone-
can recognize. Gotta keep that Distinctive Signature ya know ;)
-K
Message no. 66
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 11:54:12 EDT
In a message dated 6/11/98 7:10:12 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK writes:

> And verily, did Danyel N Woods hastily scribble thusly...
> |>|sauce??? Gotta keep this machine "well oiled" you know...
> |>
> |>I thought Tuna were a very oily fish....
> |
> |You guys have too much time on your hands...
>
> Yes... And?
>
I do NOT have time on hands at this point. Some peanut butter, Jelly, maybe
some turkey slices from last night (shrug)... HEY!!! The Turkey Shooter!!!
Coming to a Dealer near you!

-K
Message no. 67
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 14:24:39 -0500
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 11:52:33 EDT K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
>In a message dated 6/11/98 6:58:05 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK writes:
>> |Ah, duh, of course (sounds of machinery being quickly
modified)...there,
>> |larger bore, and with a bit of iron filings, we can load 'em in the
Rail
>> |Cannon Filet' Device...now then, anyone got some good Seafood or
Butter
>> |sauce??? Gotta keep this machine "well oiled" you know...

>> I thought Tuna were a very oily fish....

>Oh they are, I'm sorry. It's just that this way it's a flavor that
-anyone-
>can recognize. Gotta keep that Distinctive Signature ya know ;)
>-K

Fire them from a -PAN-zer Cannon with teflon coating and only use real
butter ... none of that artificial stuff ...

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 68
From: rabiola <rabiola@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 13:44:52 -0500
>This weapon, designed in Ares' urban paicifcation program, is designed
to
>subdue through smell. The ammo, synthetic copies of small, rotting
chunks of
>fish also operate on a principle similar to rubber bullets. A side
effect of
>the weapon is that the target area is rapidly covered by a smell found
very
>effective in incapacitating its targets, giving a further +4 TN to
unprotected
>targets within the area of effect.
>


Yeah, but does this qualify as an astrally active substance that would
affect awakened creatures and the like?

G, D & R!

Tony Rabiola rabiola@**.netcom.com
Fourth and Sixth World Adept
Still working on the Fifth...
Message no. 69
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ...
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 12:51:24 +1000
rabiolo writes:
>> The ammo, synthetic copies of small, rotting chunks of fish
>
> Yeah, but does this qualify as an astrally active substance that would
> affect awakened creatures and the like?

No, on two counts:
a) It's synthetic.
b) It's rotting, so even if it wasn't synthetic, it would definately be
dead!

Consider yourself lucky I can't be bothered thwapping people today... :)

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Some R2 questions ..., 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!