Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: zebulingod@*******.net (Zebulin)
Subject: SR4 comments (Was: SR4
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:37:11 -0700
Max Noel wrote:
> >
> > A troll physad with maxed natural STR, and all his power
> points dumped
> > into STR, with a compound bow and di-koted arrows.
> >
> > *eg*
> >
> > Zebulin
>
> Mmh... That still wouldn't be enough. Attack power is divided
> by 2 against vehicle armor. Unless you're using naval
> weapons, you need an attack power of 81 or more to damage the thing.
>
> -- Wild_Cat
>

Well, if it's a significantly strong troll, what's stopping him from using
harpoons instead of arrows (beyond needing a correspondingly larger bow)?
IIRC, aren't harpoons considered anti-vehicle?

Still, it's a silly idea, but a suitably strong troll physad can shoot
arrows A) a LONG way and B) which can destroy or kill practically anything.

*eg*

I love physad troll NPCs. My players do not.

Zebulin

>From The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord

15. I will never employ any device with a digital countdown. If I find that
such a device is absolutely unavoidable, I will set it to activate when the
counter reaches 117 and the hero is just putting his plan into operation.
Message no. 2
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: SR4 comments (Was: SR4
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:58:37 +0200 (CEST)
--- Zebulin <zebulingod@*******.net> wrote:
> Max Noel wrote:

> > Mmh... That still wouldn't be enough. Attack power
> is divided
> > by 2 against vehicle armor. Unless you're using
> naval
> > weapons, you need an attack power of 81 or more to
> damage the thing.
> >
> > -- Wild_Cat
> >
>
> Well, if it's a significantly strong troll, what's
> stopping him from using
> harpoons instead of arrows (beyond needing a
> correspondingly larger bow)?
> IIRC, aren't harpoons considered anti-vehicle?

Harpoon /missiles/ are, yes. They're even naval. :D
I don't recall seeing stats for fishing harpoons
anywhere in SR books. Then again, I might be wrong.

But as you said, it's a silly idea. Without needing to
go as far as rambo'ing tanks, there was a character in
my team that could theoretically destroy the rigger's
van in a single strike with her /hand razors/
(thankfully, stun damage doesn't apply to Body 1+
vehicles, or she could do it bare-handed -- an adept
with Killing Hands probably can).

-- Wild_Cat
(what are the Reach and HtH combat skill of a vehicle, anyway?)






__________________________________________________________________
Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails !
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 3
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: SR4 comments (Was: SR4
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:40:32 +0100
At 03:58 PM 4/8/2005, Wild_Cat wrote:
>Harpoon /missiles/ are, yes. They're even naval. :D
>I don't recall seeing stats for fishing harpoons
>anywhere in SR books. Then again, I might be wrong.
>
>But as you said, it's a silly idea. Without needing to
>go as far as rambo'ing tanks, there was a character in
>my team that could theoretically destroy the rigger's
>van in a single strike with her /hand razors/
>(thankfully, stun damage doesn't apply to Body 1+
>vehicles, or she could do it bare-handed -- an adept
>with Killing Hands probably can).

Of course a clever runner (who needs to take out the tank and therefore
can't simply run away) will wait until it passes and then nip out of the
alley and plant a bomb on the rear end of the thing... except for the fact
that it takes a little under 64kg of CXII to blow a hole in the armour
according to the cannon rules. It's a long way from the 12oz of Compound
'B' in a sock coated in grease of "Saving Private Ryan" fame.


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? C++(+) US++ P! L E? W++ N o? K? w+ O! M- V? PS+ PE-()
Y PGP? t+@ 5++ X- R+>+++$>* tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e+ h r* y+>+++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 4
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: SR4 comments (Was: SR4
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
-- Lone Eagle <loneeagle@********.co.uk> wrote:
> according to the cannon rules. It's a long way from
> the 12oz of Compound
> 'B' in a sock coated in grease of "Saving Private
> Ryan" fame.

IIRC those socks were just there to blow off the tank
tracks, immobilising them (or perhaps making them more
useless if one woulda gone down a gun barrel). Those
tanks coulda been repaired, though, if it weren't for
the good guys winning (why do victorious armies hardly
ever seem to salvage their opponent's equipment? Lack
of training? Fear of boobytraps?).

cheers,

Jan jaap



__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
Message no. 5
From: arclight@*********.de (Arclight)
Subject: SR4 comments (Was: SR4
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 22:54:44 +0200
At 22:35 08.04.2005, Jan Jaap van Poelgeest wrote:

<snip>

>why do victorious armies hardly ever seem to salvage their opponent's
>equipment? Lack
>of training? Fear of boobytraps?).

The german Wehrmacht used a lot of enemy equipment, as did the french (well
ok, victorious army of some kind ;) with german Panther tanks after WW2.


--
Arclight

Quitters never win, winners never quit,
but those who never quit and never win are idiots
Message no. 6
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 comments (Was: SR4
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:39:38 +0200
According to Lone Eagle, on 08-04-2005 21:40 the word on the street was...

> Of course a clever runner (who needs to take out the tank and therefore
> can't simply run away) will wait until it passes and then nip out of the
> alley and plant a bomb on the rear end of the thing...

...requiring a Willpower (6) test...

> except for the
> fact that it takes a little under 64kg of CXII to blow a hole in the
> armour according to the cannon rules. It's a long way from the 12oz of
> Compound 'B' in a sock coated in grease of "Saving Private Ryan" fame.

That's because, as Paul mentioned, armor ratings in SR are unrealistic
because the same rating applies to the whole vehicle. This is simpler to
use in a game, of course, but does lead to situations like the one you
illustrate :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 7
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 comments (Was: SR4
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:46:33 +0200
According to Jan Jaap van Poelgeest, on 08-04-2005 22:35 the word on the
street was...

> IIRC those socks were just there to blow off the tank
> tracks, immobilising them (or perhaps making them more
> useless if one woulda gone down a gun barrel). Those
> tanks coulda been repaired, though, if it weren't for
> the good guys winning

That is not an issue that the front-line combat soldier is immediately
concerned with. If the tank stops being a threat, that's all that's
required -- regardless of whether it's done by a mobility kill, a
firepower kill, a crew kill, or by completely destroying the whole tank
in a catastrophic fireball.

> (why do victorious armies hardly
> ever seem to salvage their opponent's equipment? Lack
> of training? Fear of boobytraps?).

Enemy equipment is almost always salvaged, even if it's only for
disposal (there were/are large tank parks in Iraq filled with Iraqi
tanks collected by American and British troops); in a full-scale war
you'll also want to look at them for intelligence purposes.

The reason enemy equipment is rarely brought into service by the winning
side is because the winning side often has enough equipment of its own,
and doesn't need the logistical hassle of maintaining enemy vehicles
when they already have enough trouble keeping their own (familiar)
vehicles going. There have been plenty of situations IRL where enemy
equipment was used, though: in WWII you had German troops using T-34s on
the Eastern Front, there are photos of a captured Sherman Firefly in
German use, even British troops used a captured Panther tank in 1944/45.
The best example of it may be the Desert War of 1941-43, though, where
both sides used lots of captured enemy trucks and other vehicles because
anything they could get came in handy. There was an Australian (?) tank
company in Egypt entirely equipped with German Panzer III medium tanks,
for example.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 8
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: SR4 comments (Was: SR4
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 03:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
--- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Lone Eagle, on 08-04-2005 21:40 the
> word on the street was...
>
> and then nip out of the
> > alley and plant a bomb on the rear end of the
> thing...
>
> ...requiring a Willpower (6) test...

... this besides the fact that SR tanks are probably
advanced enough to include some simple anti-personnel
device(s) to prevent just such things from happening
(electrifiable outsides, localised gas release, that
kind of malarky).

cheers,

Jan Jaap



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Message no. 9
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: SR4 comments (Was: SR4
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 12:26:07 +0200
On Apr 9, 2005, at 12:13, Jan Jaap van Poelgeest wrote:

> ... this besides the fact that SR tanks are probably
> advanced enough to include some simple anti-personnel
> device(s) to prevent just such things from happening
> (electrifiable outsides, localised gas release, that
> kind of malarky).
>
> cheers,
>
> Jan Jaap

Not according to SOTA '63. Well, unless you count reactive armor,
which can indeed be used as a very effective, although overkill-ish,
countermeasure.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 10
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 comments (Was: SR4
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 12:34:52 +0200
According to Jan Jaap van Poelgeest, on 09-04-2005 12:13 the word on the
street was...

> ... this besides the fact that SR tanks are probably
> advanced enough to include some simple anti-personnel
> device(s) to prevent just such things from happening
> (electrifiable outsides, localised gas release, that
> kind of malarky).

James Bond tanks :)

If you deploy those tanks with infantry or with other tanks, you're not
going to need that kind of stuff. If you deploy a tank alone, you are
all but asking for it to be killed, and I don't think gadgets will help
that much in preventing that.

Tanks used to have close-in anti-personnel weapons (usually a bomb
thrower in the turret roof) and firing ports for the crew to use pistols
and SMGs from, but modern vehicles don't. That tells me there is a good
reason for not having that kind of kit -- probably because it was
ineffective and/or rarely got used, and because of the weak spots
created in the tank's armor by things like pistol ports.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 11
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: SR4 comments (Was: SR4
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 09:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
--- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Jan Jaap van Poelgeest, on 09-04-2005
> 12:13 the word on the

> > (electrifiable outsides, localised gas release,
> that
> > kind of malarky).

[snip Gurth's voice of reason&reality]

I agree with what you say in that it'd be an
unconventional thing to equip a contemporary tank
with. However I'm assuming that there aren't many big
standing armies in the 6th world, so most armoured
vehicles could potentially be equipped to deal with a
variety of threats, possibly including close (combat)
assault. As Max Noel more-or-less suggested, reactive
armour (perhaps triggerable upon demand) might be
sufficient protection/deterrance against such assaults
anyway.

Perhaps the gimmicks I have in mind would be more
appropriate for riot control type vehicles, not MBTs
built for open warfare.

cheers,

Jan Jaap



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Message no. 12
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: SR4 comments (Was: SR4
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:46:58 +0100
At 05:17 PM 4/9/2005, Jan Jaap van Poelgeest wrote:
>I agree with what you say in that it'd be an
>unconventional thing to equip a contemporary tank
>with. However I'm assuming that there aren't many big
>standing armies in the 6th world, so most armoured
>vehicles could potentially be equipped to deal with a
>variety of threats, possibly including close (combat)
>assault. As Max Noel more-or-less suggested, reactive
>armour (perhaps triggerable upon demand) might be
>sufficient protection/deterrance against such assaults
>anyway.

If there are no standing armies then why have Fort Lewis? Why have Main
Battle Tanks in the first place? Tanks are weapons of open warfare, they
excel at thrusting deep through enemy lines - without standing armies one
doesn't tend to find open warfare of that nature.
Of course in the Desert Wars the tanks tend to be busy hunting other tanks...

>Perhaps the gimmicks I have in mind would be more
>appropriate for riot control type vehicles, not MBTs
>built for open warfare.

A water cannon and armour that will stop small arms tends to be enough for
riot control, and even then they tend not to be deployed without "infantry
support".


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? C++(+) US++ P! L E? W++ N o? K? w+ O! M- V? PS+ PE-()
Y PGP? t+@ 5++ X- R+>+++$>* tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e+ h r* y+>+++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 13
From: flakjacket@***********.com (Simon Nixon)
Subject: SR4 comments (Was: SR4
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:37:32 +0100 (BST)
> Lone Eagle wrote:
>
> If there are no standing armies then why have Fort
> Lewis? Why have Main
> Battle Tanks in the first place? Tanks are weapons
> of open warfare, they
> excel at thrusting deep through enemy lines -
> without standing armies one
> doesn't tend to find open warfare of that nature.
> Of course in the Desert Wars the tanks tend to be
> busy hunting other tanks...

Well as late as the 2030's you had Russia invading
western Europe so the old central NATO members would
definately be keeping the armoured divisions about. In
north America the whole of the mid-west from the
Rockies to the Appalachians and down in to Mexico
seems like mostly nice flat open land, perfect tank
country. Which also coincides with some of the
twitchiest borders.
Message no. 14
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: SR4 comments (Was: SR4
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
--- Lone Eagle <loneeagle@********.co.uk> wrote:
> At 05:17 PM 4/9/2005, Jan Jaap van Poelgeest wrote:

Firs toff, let me say that your reply had me howling
with laughter for some reason (I really don't know
why, maybe I'm mad). You must be feeling gunny.

> >with. However I'm assuming that there aren't many
> big
> >standing armies in the 6th world, so most armoured

> If there are no standing armies then why have Fort
> Lewis? Why have Main
> Battle Tanks in the first place? Tanks are weapons
> of open warfare, they

I said that there aren't *many* not none whatsoever.
This is an impression I've gotten from the canon I've
read and from adding up some inferred assumptions. In
short: given that governments will be getting minimal
income from taxes due to corporate self-governance,
maintaining large standing armies will be far too
expensive for many. Generally speaking, mercenary-type
forces take over the role of the military, the face of
warfare changes into something more localised and
skirmish-based, as there aren't enough available
resources and willing risk-takers in the Sixth World
for any all-our wars to last very long. Speaking
in-game, these assumptions result in PCs being able of
getting involved with "military-type" conflicts, i.e.:
their actions end up influencing the actual political
landscape.

cheers,

Jan Jaap




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about SR4 comments (Was: SR4, 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!