Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: What ? <MCM@***.BRIGHTON.AC.UK>
Subject: Vehicle Armour
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 11:59:00 BST
One of my players is just about to redesign his vehicle (He doesn't know this
but a couple of Avm's are due to go his way :) ) So I'd thought I'd check up on
my rigger stuff.And then I read the armour Errata, which states that if the
power of the weapon ( before adding burst of full auto mods) doesn't excede
the vehicle's armour rating the the attack fails. So this means the SR1 3(9)
points of armour stop a light machine gun and 4(12)points stop a Heavy machine.

Is that right ? Have I missed something ?

If that is right, then isn't silly then MMG and HMG's to do nothing to that
sort of armour ?

-WHAT
Message no. 2
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 13:16:38 -0700
WHAT asked:

>>One of my players is just about to redesign his vehicle (He doesn't know this
>>but a couple of Avm's are due to go his way :) ) So I'd thought I'd check up
>>on my rigger stuff.And then I read the armour Errata, which states that if the
>>power of the weapon ( before adding burst of full auto mods) doesn't excede
>>the vehicle's armour rating the the attack fails. So this means the SR1 3(9)
>>points of armour stop a light machine gun and 4(12)points stop a Heavy
>>machine.

>>Is that right ? Have I missed something ?

Assuming your going by SRII rules, you've missed nothing. 12 points of SRII
vehicle armor will stop an HMG from damaing the vehicle.

>>If that is right, then isn't silly then MMG and HMG's to do nothing to that
>>sort of armour ?

No, it's not silly. Your talking about Tank Level Armor when your talking about
12 points. Only three vehicles in the SRII rulebook have more than 6 points
of armor. What are they? The GMC Banshee (a light tank), the Ares Citymaster
(an Armored Personnel Carrier), and the Frederated Boeing Eagle (a vectored-
thrust air seperiority craft). These are vehicles you would expect machineguns
to bounce off of. That's what AVMs and Assault Cannons are for.

See Ya in Shadows,
Jason J Carter
The Nightstalker
Message no. 3
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 01:35:11 +1000
On page 108 it says:

"Against vehicles /without/ armour ... A weapons Damage Code is also reduced
by one level..."

In the next paragraph it then says:

"In attacks against vehicle /with/ armour the armour acts as a barrier
rating..."

It makes no mention of reducing the damage code of the weapon. Does this
mean that for attacks on vehicles with armour one does not reduce the p[ower
level?

Damion
Message no. 4
From: Christopher Higgins <as812@*******.CARLETON.CA>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 16:46:32 -0400
>
>On page 108 it says:
>
>"Against vehicles /without/ armour ... A weapons Damage Code is also reduced
>by one level..."
>
>In the next paragraph it then says:
>
>"In attacks against vehicle /with/ armour the armour acts as a barrier
>rating..."
>
>It makes no mention of reducing the damage code of the weapon. Does this
>mean that for attacks on vehicles with armour one does not reduce the p[ower
>level?
>
>Damion
>
Damage Code doesn't count versus Barriers. It's Power vs. Barrier
until you give up or the Barrier breaks. Vehicles without armour reduce
Power level with Body just as Characters reduce Power level with worn armour.
Perhaps a rigger can jump in here because my expertise is in Magic but
I believe that normal Barrier rules apply when used on vehicles. eg.
Double Barrier rating vs. Firearms. Hope it helps.
Christopher Higgins
Message no. 5
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 18:54:19 -0700
On Sun, 12 Jun 1994, MILLIKEN DAMION A wrote:

> On page 108 it says:
> "Against vehicles /without/ armour ... A weapons Damage Code is also reduced
> by one level..."
> In the next paragraph it then says:
> "In attacks against vehicle /with/ armour the armour acts as a barrier
> rating..."
> It makes no mention of reducing the damage code of the weapon. Does this
> mean that for attacks on vehicles with armour one does not reduce the p[ower
> level?

Yes. It means that you use the complete 'base" Power level and the
normal Damage Code. If you shoot a three round burst from an Assault Rifle
(base 8M damage code) at an unarmored vehicle and get 11S for your
damage, you reduce the Power by the Body of the vehicle and you lower the
Damage Code to M.

In the case of an Armored vehicle you compare the base 8 Force of a
single round against the value of the Armor, as a barrier, to see if you
get penetration at all. Remember that any Barrier has twice it's rating
against firearms. So if your car has 9 Armor, it has an effective 18
points of Barrier against that Assault Rifle.

Does that help?

Ivy
Message no. 6
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 16:38:13 +1000
Ivy writes:
> > On page 108 it says:
> > "Against vehicles /without/ armour ... A weapons Damage Code is also
reduced
> > by one level..."
> > In the next paragraph it then says:
> > "In attacks against vehicle /with/ armour the armour acts as a barrier
> > rating..."
> > It makes no mention of reducing the damage code of the weapon. Does this
> > mean that for attacks on vehicles with armour one does not reduce the p[ower
> > level?
>
> Yes. It means that you use the complete 'base" Power level and the
> normal Damage Code. If you shoot a three round burst from an Assault Rifle
> (base 8M damage code) at an unarmored vehicle and get 11S for your
> damage, you reduce the Power by the Body of the vehicle and you lower the
> Damage Code to M.

Yep, that sound fine.

> In the case of an Armored vehicle you compare the base 8 Force of a
> single round against the value of the Armor, as a barrier, to see if you
> get penetration at all. Remember that any Barrier has twice it's rating
> against firearms. So if your car has 9 Armor, it has an effective 18
> points of Barrier against that Assault Rifle.
>
> Does that help?

Of a sort. That means that about the only thing which will harm a citymaster
(armour 12) is an armour piercing anti vehicle missile. I take it by the
example that you use the "Break Thru" rules for vehicle armour? So does one
have to fully reduce the barrier rating to 0 before damaging the vehicle? Or
does make use of the "firing Thru" rules once the power exceeds the barrier
rating? I think the 1st ed rules in the Rigger Black Book were a lot easier
to comrehend.

Damion

PS for the head count, I'm Damion Milliken, Wollongong, N.S.W., Australia
> Ivy
>
Message no. 7
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 01:27:21 -0700
Ivy, while you are correct about reducing the Damage Code by one when firing
at armored vehicles you are wrong about applying the Armor Rating as a barrier.
You do not double the armor rating before comparing it to the base weapon
power. The qoute from the rules is "That is, if the the base Power of the
weapon, unmodified by burst or full auto fire, does notg exceed the rating of
the vehicle armor, it will not penetrate."

Yes this does contradict the rule that Barrier Rating is double versus bullets,
but the barrier rules are screwed up anyway.

*******************************************************************************
* See Ya in Shadows * * "Trust No One." *
* Jason J Carter * Carter@***.EDU * The late Deep Throat *
* The Nightstalker * * The X-Files *
*******************************************************************************
Message no. 8
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 20:04:19 +0930
Ivy writes:
> In the case of an Armored vehicle you compare the base 8 Force of a
> single round against the value of the Armor, as a barrier, to see if you
> get penetration at all. Remember that any Barrier has twice it's rating
> against firearms. So if your car has 9 Armor, it has an effective 18
> points of Barrier against that Assault Rifle.
>
Sorry, Ivy, but you've got it wrong. Here's how it works:
If the Power level of the weapon is less than the Armour level, it won't
penetrate. (The armour is NOT doubled, Ivy, that's only for security
doors).
If the weapon can penetrate, the damage code gets shifted down one, and
the Power level is dropped by the vehicle's body AND the armour (minimum
TN of 2, remember).
This is then resisted, as per normal rules. The vehicle gets "Body" dice
equal to its body plus half the armour. No Combat pool dice, but riggers
can use Control pool dice, instead.

Need an example? A punk with a heavy pistol (9M) shoots at a vehicle with
Body/Armour of 5/2. The pistol has more than 2 power, so it penetrates.
The vehicle then rolls 6 dice (5 + (2/2)) against a TN of 2 (9 - (5+2)).


--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 9
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 20:10:48 +0930
Jason writes:
>Yes this does contradict the rule that Barrier Rating is double versus bullets,
> but the barrier rules are screwed up anyway.
>
Barrier Rating is NOT double against bullets. Read the "Firing Through"
rules. (P98, Black book).

To clarify the situation: The barrier rating is not doubled against
bullets if you are trying to shoot through the barrier. It is doubled
against "edged melee attacks", if you are trying to hit something on the
other side.

If you are trying to _break_through_ the barrier (ie, shoot out a window
so you can reach through to unlock the door), THEN the Barrier rating is
doubled, and it's treated like Blast agains Barriers.

An addition to my last post: the damage is reduced for all weapons, except
for special anti-vehicle weapons.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 10
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 20:53:32 +1000
Robert writes:
> Sorry, Ivy, but you've got it wrong. Here's how it works:
> If the Power level of the weapon is less than the Armour level, it won't
> penetrate. (The armour is NOT doubled, Ivy, that's only for security
> doors).

I take it you then use "Break Thru" rules?, to damage the barrier.

> If the weapon can penetrate, the damage code gets shifted down one, and
> the Power level is dropped by the vehicle's body AND the armour (minimum
> TN of 2, remember).
> This is then resisted, as per normal rules. The vehicle gets "Body" dice
> equal to its body plus half the armour. No Combat pool dice, but riggers
> can use Control pool dice, instead.
>
> Need an example? A punk with a heavy pistol (9M) shoots at a vehicle with
> Body/Armour of 5/2. The pistol has more than 2 power, so it penetrates.
> The vehicle then rolls 6 dice (5 + (2/2)) against a TN of 2 (9 - (5+2)).

Ok then, does the armour get reduced as well? Otherwise you'll never damage
anything with even moderate armour, and an assault cannon will never hurt a
citymaster: body/armour 4/12 that means target number 2 for resistance, with
10 dice.

Damion
Message no. 11
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 20:46:24 +0930
Damion writes:
> Robert writes:
> > Sorry, Ivy, but you've got it wrong. Here's how it works:
> > If the Power level of the weapon is less than the Armour level, it won't
> > penetrate. (The armour is NOT doubled, Ivy, that's only for security
> > doors).
>
> I take it you then use "Break Thru" rules?, to damage the barrier.
>
Nope, I use the Blast against Barrier rules. (Close enough, though, just
semantics). I use the Fire-through rules to hurt the vehicle.

>
> Ok then, does the armour get reduced as well? Otherwise you'll never damage
> anything with even moderate armour, and an assault cannon will never hurt a
> citymaster: body/armour 4/12 that means target number 2 for resistance, with
> 10 dice.
>
It won't get damaged in the previous example (with a heavy pistol). With
an assault cannon, it would, as assault cannons have blast effects.
BUT BUT BUT... an assault cannon isn't a firearm, so the armour wouldn't be
doubled against it.
(Gets complicated, uh?? :)

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 12
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 23:00:46 +1000
Robert writes:
> Damion writes:
> > Robert writes:
> > > Sorry, Ivy, but you've got it wrong. Here's how it works:
> > > If the Power level of the weapon is less than the Armour level, it won't
> > > penetrate. (The armour is NOT doubled, Ivy, that's only for security
> > > doors).
> >
> > I take it you then use "Break Thru" rules?, to damage the barrier.
> >
> Nope, I use the Blast against Barrier rules. (Close enough, though, just
> semantics). I use the Fire-through rules to hurt the vehicle.

the blast aginst barriers says to use the barrier effect table, which is
under "Break Thru"

> > Ok then, does the armour get reduced as well? Otherwise you'll never damage
> > anything with even moderate armour, and an assault cannon will never hurt a
> > citymaster: body/armour 4/12 that means target number 2 for resistance, with
> > 10 dice.
> >
> It won't get damaged in the previous example (with a heavy pistol). With
> an assault cannon, it would, as assault cannons have blast effects.
> BUT BUT BUT... an assault cannon isn't a firearm, so the armour wouldn't be
> doubled against it.
> (Gets complicated, uh?? :)

uh huh!
Soo, if the power is greater than the armour, the armour only gets damaged if
its a blast effect weapon? even if i hit a barrire rating 2 armour with a hvy
mg?

Damion
Again, who liked it more when barriers were separate from vehicle armour.
Message no. 13
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 22:57:42 +0930
Damion writes:
> the blast aginst barriers says to use the barrier effect table, which is
> under "Break Thru"
>
Yeah, I know that. But the difference is Break Through rules are used only
when you are trying to destroy the armour, while Blast Against Barrier
rules are for generic explosion like effects.

> uh huh!
> Soo, if the power is greater than the armour, the armour only gets damaged if
> its a blast effect weapon? even if i hit a barrire rating 2 armour with a hvy
> mg?
>
Yeah, but hey, it's not perfect.
On the other hand, remember that windows,etal are destroyed when the
vehicle gets hurt to Moderate damage, and the paint job will be blown to
hell.

The key idea here is that a couple of holes doesn't wreck the armour.
Unless they are BIG holes.

> Again, who liked it more when barriers were separate from vehicle armour.
So did I... it was a LOT simpler. :)



--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 14
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 00:53:46 +1000
Robert writes:
> Yeah, I know that. But the difference is Break Through rules are used only
> when you are trying to destroy the armour, while Blast Against Barrier
> rules are for generic explosion like effects.
>
> > uh huh!
> > Soo, if the power is greater than the armour, the armour only gets damaged if
> > its a blast effect weapon? even if i hit a barrire rating 2 armour with a hvy
> > mg?
> >
> Yeah, but hey, it's not perfect.
> On the other hand, remember that windows,etal are destroyed when the
> vehicle gets hurt to Moderate damage, and the paint job will be blown to
> hell.
>
> The key idea here is that a couple of holes doesn't wreck the armour.
> Unless they are BIG holes.

OK, but if I hit a barrier rating with higher rating than my power, with myh my
hvy mg, then I do damage it, assuming that it is between half and equal to.
But not if the power is lower.
Ah, thats not too clear. How 'bout an eg:
my hvy mg, doing 10S, hits a vehicle with armour 2, and it dam ges the
vehicle, but not the armour. If the vehicle had more armour, say 12, then I
would damage the armour, as per the "Break Thru" rules. Or, would I not
damage the armour as my power is under half (2 times the barrier rating)?
Anyway, the gist of it is that if the vehicle had crap armour then I don't
damage it (it being the armour), but if it has good armour then I do. This
does not seem to be particularily logical, or am I missing something?

Damion
Message no. 15
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 00:56:54 +0930
Damion writes:
> my hvy mg, doing 10S, hits a vehicle with armour 2, and it dam ges the
> vehicle, but not the armour. If the vehicle had more armour, say 12, then I
> would damage the armour, as per the "Break Thru" rules. Or, would I not
> damage the armour as my power is under half (2 times the barrier rating)?
> Anyway, the gist of it is that if the vehicle had crap armour then I don't
> damage it (it being the armour), but if it has good armour then I do. This
> does not seem to be particularily logical, or am I missing something?
>
You're missing something. :)
It's a (relatively) simple rule: if you are using blast effects, you
damage the armour. If you aren't, you don't.

That's armour damage. As for the damage to the vehicle, that's done with
the Firing through rules, regardless of wether the weapon has a blast
effect.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 16
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 01:51:45 +1000
Robert writes:
> It's a (relatively) simple rule: if you are using blast effects, you
> damage the armour. If you aren't, you don't.
>
> That's armour damage. As for the damage to the vehicle, that's done with
> the Firing through rules, regardless of wether the weapon has a blast
> effect.

But if armour is stated to be a barrier, and barriers can be damaged by
bullets (all be it not too much), the shouldn't armour also be able to be
damaged by bullets?

Damion
PS what time is it?
Message no. 17
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 01:43:12 +0930
Damion writes:
> But if armour is stated to be a barrier, and barriers can be damaged by
> bullets (all be it not too much), the shouldn't armour also be able to be
> damaged by bullets?

Ah, but now you've hit on the difference between the "Firing-through"
rules, and the "Break through" rules. One is trying to inflict damage on
something on the other side, the other is trying to destroy the barrier.

Which rule you use depends on your intent. IMHO, if I'm shooting at a
vehicle, I want to destroy it, not just damage the armour. So the
"Firing-through" rules are what I use. And, under Firing-through rules,
the bullets won't significantly damage the barrier, whereas a blast effect
could (As well as hurting the vehicle behind it).

>
> Damion
> PS what time is it?
Just past 1:30am where I am. :)

>


--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 18
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 09:49:20 -0700
On Sun, 12 Jun 1994, MILLIKEN DAMION A wrote:

> Ivy writes:
> > > On page 108 it says:
> > > In the next paragraph it then says:
> > > It makes no mention of reducing the damage code of the weapon. Does this
> > > mean that for attacks on vehicles with armour one does not reduce the
p[ower
> > > level?
> >
> > Yes. It means that you use the complete 'base" Power level and the
> > normal Damage Code. If you shoot a three round burst from an Assault Rifle
>
> Yep, that sound fine.
>
> > In the case of an Armored vehicle you compare the base 8 Force of a
> > single round against the value of the Armor, as a barrier, to see if you
>
> Of a sort. That means that about the only thing which will harm a citymaster
> (armour 12) is an armour piercing anti vehicle missile. I take it by the
> example that you use the "Break Thru" rules for vehicle armour? So does one
> have to fully reduce the barrier rating to 0 before damaging the vehicle? Or
> does make use of the "firing Thru" rules once the power exceeds the barrier
> rating? I think the 1st ed rules in the Rigger Black Book were a lot easier
> to comrehend.
>

Once the Barrier Rating is below the Power of a single round then I go to
the "Firing Through" part of the rules.

And, yes, about the only thing that will hurt a Citymaster really is an
armor-piercing missile. That's why they are designed that way.

> Damion
>
> PS for the head count, I'm Damion Milliken, Wollongong, N.S.W., Australia
> > Ivy
> >
>
N.S.W. Australia. And S.K.Khoo is from Newcastle, England. Yep, no
joke, Internet sure does get around. We oughta start a fanzine on this
thing.
Ivy
Message no. 19
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 09:59:46 -0700
On Sun, 12 Jun 1994, Jason Carter, Nightstalker wrote:

> Ivy, while you are correct about reducing the Damage Code by one when firing
> at armored vehicles you are wrong about applying the Armor Rating as a barrier.
> You do not double the armor rating before comparing it to the base weapon
> power. The qoute from the rules is "That is, if the the base Power of the
> weapon, unmodified by burst or full auto fire, does notg exceed the rating of
> the vehicle armor, it will not penetrate."
>
> Yes this does contradict the rule that Barrier Rating is double versus bullets,
> but the barrier rules are screwed up anyway.

Hi Nightstalker,
I see what you are saying, but I think you missed a sentence on pg. 98.
It is in the second paragraph under the bolded "Firing Through" and it
says this: "...the defender can subtract both his appropriate Armor
Rating and the 'adjusted' Barrier Rating from the Power of the attack."
The only adjustment for firearms is in the next section down where they
are talking about breaking through a barrier. But that is what you are
trying to do with your bullets, break through, that is.

It really can be taken both ways, I guess. Of course, taken your way it
makes any rating of armor less than 9 pretty useless. I prefer the more
restrictive view (that of doubling the rating against bullets) myself,
but I can see how you would get to the other view.

>
> *******************************************************************************
> * See Ya in Shadows * * "Trust No One."
*
> * Jason J Carter * Carter@***.EDU * The late Deep Throat *
> * The Nightstalker * * The X-Files *
> *******************************************************************************
>
Ivy
Message no. 20
From: Christopher Higgins <as812@*******.CARLETON.CA>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 14:17:35 -0400
>
>OK, but if I hit a barrier rating with higher rating than my power, with myh my
>hvy mg, then I do damage it, assuming that it is between half and equal to.
>But not if the power is lower.
>Ah, thats not too clear. How 'bout an eg:
>my hvy mg, doing 10S, hits a vehicle with armour 2, and it dam ges the
>vehicle, but not the armour. If the vehicle had more armour, say 12, then I
>would damage the armour, as per the "Break Thru" rules. Or, would I not
>damage the armour as my power is under half (2 times the barrier rating)?
>Anyway, the gist of it is that if the vehicle had crap armour then I don't
>damage it (it being the armour), but if it has good armour then I do. This
>does not seem to be particularily logical, or am I missing something?
>
>Damion
>
Don't forget guys that if you're working with SRII, you need to
translate the Rigger Black Book stats. Page 283 SRII states:
".Multiply the Vehicle Armor Ratings listed for the vehcles in the Rigger
Black Book by 3 to make the values compatible with the SRII rules."
That armour rating of 2 is now a 6. I think that the difference
between Firing Through and Break Through depends upon your intent. If you
want to blow a hole in the side of a vehicle you use Break Through.
Barrier Rating is doubled versus firearms because even if the round
penetrates, you've only created a small, negligible hole whereas if you
are trying to shoot someone who's inside a van, you use Firing Through
because all you intend to do is get a round through so the Barrier Rating
is not doubled vs. Firearms. I don't know about melee attacks though. I
think that a katana would have a much easier time driving through a
barrier than a blunt weapon would.
Christopher Higgins
Message no. 21
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 12:15:35 +0930
Ivy writes:
> Hi Nightstalker,
> I see what you are saying, but I think you missed a sentence on pg. 98.
> It is in the second paragraph under the bolded "Firing Through" and it
> says this: "...the defender can subtract both his appropriate Armor
> Rating and the 'adjusted' Barrier Rating from the Power of the attack."
> The only adjustment for firearms is in the next section down where they
> are talking about breaking through a barrier. But that is what you are
> trying to do with your bullets, break through, that is.
>
Ivy, the adjustment they are talking about is the fact that while most
barriers only get their barrier rating, security doors have twice that
rating for Firing Through tests.
(See the bottom of the first column on page 98)

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 22
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 20:06:18 -0700
On Sun, 12 Jun 1994, Robert Watkins wrote:

> Ivy writes:
> > In the case of an Armored vehicle you compare the base 8 Force of a
> > single round against the value of the Armor, as a barrier, to see if you
> > get penetration at all. Remember that any Barrier has twice it's rating
> > against firearms. So if your car has 9 Armor, it has an effective 18
> > points of Barrier against that Assault Rifle.
> >
> Sorry, Ivy, but you've got it wrong. Here's how it works:
> If the Power level of the weapon is less than the Armour level, it won't
> penetrate. (The armour is NOT doubled, Ivy, that's only for security
> doors).

Sorry Robert, but as the paragraph says, compare the Power of the weapon
against the adjusted barrier rating of the armor. The adjustment for
firearms, from the section below, is to double the barrier rating.

As I told Nightstalker, I can see where you got your numbers, but your
interpretation makes all armor useless until the rating is 6 or over.

This is one of those times where I personally go for the most restrictive
reading of the rules. Your milage may differ.

> If the weapon can penetrate, the damage code gets shifted down one, and
> the Power level is dropped by the vehicle's body AND the armour (minimum
> TN of 2, remember).
> --
> Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au

Ivy
Message no. 23
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 20:15:09 -0700
Hi Damion,

On Mon, 13 Jun 1994, MILLIKEN DAMION A wrote:

> Robert writes:
> > Yeah, I know that. But the difference is Break Through rules are used only
> > when you are trying to destroy the armour, while Blast Against Barrier
> > rules are for generic explosion like effects.
> >
> > > uh huh!
> > > Soo, if the power is greater than the armour, the armour only gets damaged
if
> > > its a blast effect weapon? even if i hit a barrire rating 2 armour with a
hvy
> > > mg?
> > >
> > Yeah, but hey, it's not perfect.
> > On the other hand, remember that windows,etal are destroyed when the
> > vehicle gets hurt to Moderate damage, and the paint job will be blown to
> > hell.
> >
> > The key idea here is that a couple of holes doesn't wreck the armour.
> > Unless they are BIG holes.
>
> OK, but if I hit a barrier rating with higher rating than my power, with myh my
> hvy mg, then I do damage it, assuming that it is between half and equal to.
> But not if the power is lower.
> Ah, thats not too clear. How 'bout an eg:
> my hvy mg, doing 10S, hits a vehicle with armour 2, and it dam ges the
> vehicle, but not the armour. If the vehicle had more armour, say 12, then I
> would damage the armour, as per the "Break Thru" rules. Or, would I not
> damage the armour as my power is under half (2 times the barrier rating)?
> Anyway, the gist of it is that if the vehicle had crap armour then I don't
> damage it (it being the armour), but if it has good armour then I do. This
> does not seem to be particularily logical, or am I missing something?
>
> Damion
>
OK, we have two ways of reading armor (mine and everyone else's :)) but
either way, if you hit armor with a weapon with more Power than the
Armor's Rating you make a neat hole in it. This hole doesn't count as
damage. Got that?

Now if you hit armor with a weapon whose Power is in the range from 1/2
the Armor's Rating up to it's Rating the round doesn't penetrate but it
does take one Rating point off the armor (it damages it).

If you hit armor with a weapon whose Power is less than 1/2 of the
Armor Rating then the bullet bounces off. Nothing else happens.

Did that help?

Ivy
Message no. 24
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 20:20:44 -0700
On Mon, 13 Jun 1994, Robert Watkins wrote:

> Damion writes:
> > my hvy mg, doing 10S, hits a vehicle with armour 2, and it dam ges the
> > vehicle, but not the armour. If the vehicle had more armour, say 12, then I
> >
> >
> You're missing something. :)
> It's a (relatively) simple rule: if you are using blast effects, you
> damage the armour. If you aren't, you don't.
>
> That's armour damage. As for the damage to the vehicle, that's done with
> the Firing through rules, regardless of wether the weapon has a blast
> effect.

Sorry Robert, but per pg.98, Barrier Effect Table, blast is not necessary
to damage a Barrier, wether that barrier is armor or not.

Ivy
Message no. 25
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 21:01:42 -0700
On Mon, 13 Jun 1994, Robert Watkins wrote:

> Ivy writes:
> > Hi Nightstalker,
> > I see what you are saying, but I think you missed a sentence on pg. 98.
> > It is in the second paragraph under the bolded "Firing Through" and it
> > says this: "...the defender can subtract both his appropriate Armor
> > Rating and the 'adjusted' Barrier Rating from the Power of the attack."
> > The only adjustment for firearms is in the next section down where they
> > are talking about breaking through a barrier. But that is what you are
> > trying to do with your bullets, break through, that is.
> >
> Ivy, the adjustment they are talking about is the fact that while most
> barriers only get their barrier rating, security doors have twice that
> rating for Firing Through tests.
> (See the bottom of the first column on page 98)

OK, what does the bottom of the first column have to do with what we were
talking about? That's talking about doors, we're talking about
destroying a vehicle. I mean, like, I'm confused now.

The original deal was about how the armor on a vehicle works. If someone
was firing through the vehicle armor at a person inside, then the "Firing
Through" rules would be enough. But if they are trying to destroy the
vehicle, then they have to contend with the Breaking Thorugh rules too.
They don't have any armor-piercing high-explosive rounds in this game,
and those are the only things that can take advantage of the "Firing
Through" rules and still have a chance of destroying a vehicle.

>
> --
> Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
> Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
> it's because they were up all night.
>
Ivy
Message no. 26
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 18:25:12 +1000
Ivy writes:
>Hi Damion

G'day Ivy

> OK, we have two ways of reading armor (mine and everyone else's :)) but
> either way, if you hit armor with a weapon with more Power than the
> Armor's Rating you make a neat hole in it. This hole doesn't count as
> damage. Got that?

The vehicle then resits with Bod + 1/2 Armour vs a target number of Power
minus (Bod + Armour), at a wound catagory less. The vehicle also keeps all
its armour (relatively) intact. OK, that sound good.

> Now if you hit armor with a weapon whose Power is in the range from 1/2
> the Armor's Rating up to it's Rating the round doesn't penetrate but it
> does take one Rating point off the armor (it damages it).
>
> If you hit armor with a weapon whose Power is less than 1/2 of the
> Armor Rating then the bullet bounces off. Nothing else happens.
>
> Did that help?

Think so. The difference between yours and everyone elses is that you double
the armour value before comparing it to the power level to determine if it
penetrates, damages, or bounces off, for bullets that is, not blasts. For
blasts the barrier (by your method, and everyone elses) is compared at it
base value. I'll skip over swords and blunt attacks, who ever hits cars with
knives?

Damion
Message no. 27
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 00:14:42 +0930
>
> On Mon, 13 Jun 1994, Robert Watkins wrote:
>
> > Ivy, the adjustment they are talking about is the fact that while most
> > barriers only get their barrier rating, security doors have twice that
> > rating for Firing Through tests.
> > (See the bottom of the first column on page 98)
>
> OK, what does the bottom of the first column have to do with what we were
> talking about? That's talking about doors, we're talking about
> destroying a vehicle. I mean, like, I'm confused now.
>
No, we're talking about damaging barriers. Or more precisely, shooting
through Barriers, as per Firing Through rules.

> The original deal was about how the armor on a vehicle works. If someone
> was firing through the vehicle armor at a person inside, then the "Firing
> Through" rules would be enough. But if they are trying to destroy the
> vehicle, then they have to contend with the Breaking Thorugh rules too.
> They don't have any armor-piercing high-explosive rounds in this game,
> and those are the only things that can take advantage of the "Firing
> Through" rules and still have a chance of destroying a vehicle.
>
Ah, I finally see why you insist on saying you are Breaking Through. And,
sorry, but I disagree. The armour is not the vehicle. It is quite possible
to destroy or cripple a vehicle without wrecking any armour on it.

And yeah, I agree the armour would get damaged in most vehicle wrecks. But
that's because most vehicles with armour are so heavily armoured that
bullets won't hurt them much. But the armour doesn't NEED to get
destroyed, that's what I'm saying.

Also, IMHO, Firing Through can be done at a distance, while to me,
Breaking Through barriers can only be done reasonably close up. (How do
you "Break Through" a barrier (wether or not it is vehicle armour) from up
to a klick away??). It becomes a question of intent: Do you want to damage
the armour, or what the armour is protecting?

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 28
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 11:16:35 -0700
Hi, Damion,

Yes, this whole argument actually rests on 'why' are you shooting at the
vehicle. I started from the idea that you wanted to destroy the
vehicle. Seems that everyone else thought you were trying to hit someone
'in' the vehicle.

See, a bullet isn't going to destroy a vehicle if you are just shooting
at a passenger. And that is what the "Shooting Through" rules are for.

If you want to destroy a vehicle, then you are into the "Breaking
Through" rules, and they are a completely different kettle of mackerel.
An assualt rifle round isn't going to hurt a motor, or a transmission,
at all. If you want to destroy a vehicle, then you have to use magazines
full of ammo, and literally shoot it to pieces, to do any real damage.

So that's why the two different rules both apply to shooting up
vehicles. Always remember that the vehicles of 2050 have reflective
windows too. you are always at that infamous +8 to your Target Number to
shoot at a passenger in anything but a side-on motorcycle. And always
remember the Speed Diferential modifier for shooting, whether at the
vehicle or at the passenger.

Ivy
Message no. 29
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 11:40:41 -0700
OK, Robert, I can see your point, but...

The way the whole thing works it dependent on your target. If your
target is the slag inside the car, the Firing Through rules are the
one to use. But, if you are trying to destroy the car, then you have to
"Break Through" the armor. You just aren't going to hurt a car with an
assualt rifle, or any other reasonable firearm, bu making a few little
holes in it. A couple of magazines worth of holes, maybe, but by that
time you have broken through the armor too.

Ivy
Message no. 30
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 14:45:22 +1000
Ivy writes:
> Hi, Damion,

Evening Ivy

> Yes, this whole argument actually rests on 'why' are you shooting at the
> vehicle. I started from the idea that you wanted to destroy the
> vehicle. Seems that everyone else thought you were trying to hit someone
> 'in' the vehicle.

You were right

> See, a bullet isn't going to destroy a vehicle if you are just shooting
> at a passenger. And that is what the "Shooting Through" rules are for.

In that case, where would the Body of the vehicle come in?

> If you want to destroy a vehicle, then you are into the "Breaking
> Through" rules, and they are a completely different kettle of mackerel.
> An assualt rifle round isn't going to hurt a motor, or a transmission,
> at all. If you want to destroy a vehicle, then you have to use magazines
> full of ammo, and literally shoot it to pieces, to do any real damage.

Hence (or because of) the times two vs firearms rule?

> So that's why the two different rules both apply to shooting up
> vehicles. Always remember that the vehicles of 2050 have reflective
> windows too. you are always at that infamous +8 to your Target Number to
> shoot at a passenger in anything but a side-on motorcycle. And always
> remember the Speed Diferential modifier for shooting, whether at the
> vehicle or at the passenger.

Ya, I remembered most of that :-)

Damion
Message no. 31
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 22:45:32 -0700
Everybody,

After all this debate on how to do damage to vehicles I decided to take a close
look at "Vehicles, Weapons, and Magic" (SRII page 108-9).

The first column defines thing pretty nicely.

Vehicles withoug armor use the Body as armor and reduce damage code by one
level.

Vehicles with armor compare the base weapon power to the armor level like a
barrier to determine if damage can be done. If damage can be done then add
Body and Armor and use as armor rating. Damage Code is reduced by one.

Semi-armor pierceing rockets and missiles do not have damage level reduced.

To resist the damage roll Body Rating plus one-have Armor Rating against a
target number of Power minus (Body Rating + Armor Rating). Riggers can allocate
Control Pool dice to this roll.

Note that the rules say that armor ACT a barrier, not that it is one. Thus
the shooting thru and breaking through rules do not apply towards vehicles.
They are not barriers. This is supported by the lack of any references to
the barrier rules in this section (except for one about determining if a vehicle
breaks a wall) and the fact that the Ram spell acts differently against vehicles
and barriers.

*******************************************************************************
* See Ya in Shadows * * "Trust No One." *
* Jason J Carter * Carter@***.EDU * The late Deep Throat *
* The Nightstalker * * The X-Files *
*******************************************************************************
Message no. 32
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 17:20:39 +0930
>
> OK, Robert, I can see your point, but...
>
> The way the whole thing works it dependent on your target. If your
> target is the slag inside the car, the Firing Through rules are the
> one to use. But, if you are trying to destroy the car, then you have to
> "Break Through" the armor. You just aren't going to hurt a car with an
> assualt rifle, or any other reasonable firearm, bu making a few little
> holes in it. A couple of magazines worth of holes, maybe, but by that
> time you have broken through the armor too.
>
But Ivy, under Break Through rules, you don't hurt what's on the other
side of the armour (the vehicle, not the driver) until the armour is gone!

Also, under your rules: A weapon with high power won't hurt the armour,
but will go through it. A weapon with moderate power won't go through it,
but will hurt it. Say what? I'm missing something here...

> Ivy
>


--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 33
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 09:58:23 -0400
In a previous post on the same discussion, Ivy stated that an
assault rifle would not damage an engine or transmission. Unfortunately,
this is not the case. I have seen the damage done to an engine-block by
an AK-47, and let me tell you, it was not a pretty sight. The shot had
been fired from the side of the car, and one round went through the tire,
totalled the brake assembly, punched through the well, and took a LARGE
chunk out of the exhaust manifold. Another round went straight through a
header, which will really suck if you're driving at the time. I have not
seen, but have heard tell of m-16 rounds (smaller, but more velocity and
hence kinetic energy, gotta love that v^2 term in the equation) that will
penetrate the thickest parts of an enine block, but I have never seen it
myself.
Message no. 34
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 00:25:10 +1000
Nightstalker writes:

> Everybody,
>
> After all this debate on how to do damage to vehicles I decided to take a close
> look at "Vehicles, Weapons, and Magic" (SRII page 108-9).
>
> The first column defines thing pretty nicely.
>
> Vehicles withoug armor use the Body as armor and reduce damage code by one
> level.

Yep

> Vehicles with armor compare the base weapon power to the armor level like a
> barrier to determine if damage can be done. If damage can be done then add
> Body and Armor and use as armor rating. Damage Code is reduced by one.

In what way do they compare?

> Semi-armor pierceing rockets and missiles do not have damage level reduced.

Sounds fine

> To resist the damage roll Body Rating plus one-have Armor Rating against a
> target number of Power minus (Body Rating + Armor Rating). Riggers can allocate
> Control Pool dice to this roll.

Got that

> Note that the rules say that armor ACT a barrier, not that it is one. Thus
> the shooting thru and breaking through rules do not apply towards vehicles.
> They are not barriers. This is supported by the lack of any references to
> the barrier rules in this section (except for one about determining if a vehicle
> breaks a wall) and the fact that the Ram spell acts differently against vehicles
> and barriers.

OK, then it would seem that vehicle armour cannot be reduced (except for the
optional rules on FoF). How does one ever damage a banshee. 18 armour means
twos for all resistance tests, and the high body means all successes. If
armour cannot be reduced, then the vehicle is invulnerable. Or, as is
becomming my favourite question: am I missing something?

Damion
Message no. 35
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 10:21:42 -0400
Speaking of Ram spells against vehicles vs. against barriers, how do
they work? The rules are supremely confusiong, mainly that you simply
knock holes in things with spells like Ram, Wrecker, and (my favorite)
Urban Renewal. But if you look in the grimoire, all of these spells have
a base damage code of Serious (and drain codes of Ouch). Does this mean
that barriers have 10 boxes of "damage" to take before they fail
completely? If so, how come this is not mentioned in the firing
through/at barriers section? Can anyone clarify this for me? Because if
you just take the rules for firing against barriers, those spells are
next to useless.
Message no. 36
From: Thorben Woehler <tew@****.INFORMATIK.RWTH-AACHEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 16:28:08 +0200
> OK, then it would seem that vehicle armour cannot be reduced (except for the
> optional rules on FoF). How does one ever damage a banshee. 18 armour means
> twos for all resistance tests, and the high body means all successes. If
> armour cannot be reduced, then the vehicle is invulnerable. Or, as is
> becomming my favourite question: am I missing something?

Vehicle combat in SRUN is not that detailed... Therefore a Banshee is
not easy to damage... I wonder how the feathered serpent in the novels
could scrap one with its fiery breath...

There is at least one weapon in the rules that can damage anything...

The VIGILANT ROTARY AUTOCANNON... Damage 20T Burstfire and Fullauto!!!

SHADE
Message no. 37
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 13:50:57 -0700
Hi, Nightstalker,

My, do I feel a little slow right now. I just re-read that section, and
I think you are correct. I think I got carried away, and I have some
players that are going to hate you after the next game. ;)

(One of them has been surviving of my old armor rule for a while now, and
that's gonna end right sharply.)

Allow me to apologize, and thanks for the interpretation.

Ivy
Message no. 38
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 15:41:20 -0700
re: Marc A Renouf item on damaging an engine with an Assault Rifle.

Ok, basically the header was damaged, twice, so it got noisier. To stop
and engine you gotta shatter the block or break a piston, or the cam, or
crank, or something vital. The exhaust system really isn't vital.

The reason I said that was an experiment thet the Rifle and Pistol team
did in Germany back when the 7.62 NATO round was still the standard. The
Team Captain was trying to prove that the M-16 wasn't good enough for
military use y'see. (Not that proving it would change anything...)

We (the team) shot up 7 different vehicles with M-16s (with the older 65
grain bullet, not the newer 82 grainer, it might work better) and a
"captured" AK-47 and couldn't stop any of them from running. This includes
a VW Beetle. (Bloody thing ran with 6 holes in the crankcase, go figure.)

The heavier (180 grain) M-14 round wasn't a sure kill on a vehicle
either, but a magazine-full generally was. (FYI, the M-14 <7.62 NATO>
round is what SRII uses in their HMG! A "real" .50GPHMG would get the
14D of the Barret)

Breaking the brakes is fun, but the Idea is to stop the car. Montana
State Police use 12Ga Slugs or a .458 Winchester Elephant Rifle to stop
cars when they set up a roadblock incidentially. They don't even try to
do it with an assault rifle. BTW, a .458 slug wi{l go clear through a
M-113 APC from side to side. But it won't go through the front armor and
do any more than roll around the inside. We tested it too.

Anyway, that's my experience.

I figured out, from Nightstalker's post, that SRII does it differently,
and I'm going with what they wrote. And the Nightstalker's
interpretation, it's gonna cause some bent players, but I think he's
right. After all this argument too. ;)

Ivy
Message no. 39
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 13:42:36 +1000
SHADE writes:

> There is at least one weapon in the rules that can damage anything...
>
> The VIGILANT ROTARY AUTOCANNON... Damage 20T Burstfire and Fullauto!!!

Burst fire and full auto with a max of 4 or five shots tho. Thats a max of
25D. On an banshee (armour 18, bod 6) thats reduced down to 1D (but its
really 2D) and the banshee gets 15 dice to resist. I don't see the banshee
taking a lot of damage, unless the firer get many successes. And that is
unlikely, as the vigilant rotary autocannon has a +3 (I think) recoil
modifier per shot, mucho recoil compensators needed here :-)

Damion
Message no. 40
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 14:01:17 +1000
Ivy writes:

> Hi, Nightstalker,
>
> My, do I feel a little slow right now. I just re-read that section, and
> I think you are correct. I think I got carried away, and I have some
> players that are going to hate you after the next game. ;)
>
> (One of them has been surviving of my old armor rule for a while now, and
> that's gonna end right sharply.)
>
> Allow me to apologize, and thanks for the interpretation.

whooa, Ivy backs down - it must be a first :-)

Ok, please enlighten me on the now standard enterpretation.

Ta

Damion
Message no. 41
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 21:47:32 -0700
Damion,

The comparison is "does the power of the attack exceed the armor rating?" If
no, then that attack bounces off of the armor. Keen :)

As for Banshee's, they are Tanks. They are supposed to be nearly invulnerable.
However, for AVR & AVM (that anti-vehicle rockets and missiles) the armor
value is halved. That's 16D verus effective armor of 9 and body of 6 yielding
a 11 dice roll against 2D damage. Still damn good, so you better be really
good with that rocket launcher.

Don't you just love tanks?

*******************************************************************************
* See Ya in Shadows * * "Trust No One." *
* Jason J Carter * Carter@***.EDU * The late Deep Throat *
* The Nightstalker * * The X-Files *
*******************************************************************************
Message no. 42
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 21:57:58 -0700
Ivy,

Apology not accepted! I will not accept an apology if you did not insult or
injure me.

I will however accept your thanks on reminding you of the rules :)

P.S. You really should change the rules that annoy both you and the players.
Afterall the rules state that this is just a guide.

*******************************************************************************
* See Ya in Shadows * * "Trust No One." *
* Jason J Carter * Carter@***.EDU * The late Deep Throat *
* The Nightstalker * * The X-Files *
*******************************************************************************
Message no. 43
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 22:16:29 -0700
Marc A Renouf writes:

> Speaking of Ram spells against vehicles vs. against barriers, how do
>they work? The rules are supremely confusiong, mainly that you simply
>knock holes in things with spells like Ram, Wrecker, and (my favorite)
>Urban Renewal. But if you look in the grimoire, all of these spells have
>a base damage code of Serious (and drain codes of Ouch). Does this mean
>that barriers have 10 boxes of "damage" to take before they fail
>completely? If so, how come this is not mentioned in the firing
>through/at barriers section? Can anyone clarify this for me? Because if
>you just take the rules for firing against barriers, those spells are
>next to useless.

The Ram family of spells works by making your spell success test versus the
target's resistance value (found on the Object Resistance Table). Add the
number of successes to the spell force to get the "power" of the attack.
Apply this power to the barrier following the Barrier rules.

Ignore the damage Level. It just tells you how the spell was designed.

Note that you are correct. As they are written, the Ram family of spells is
next to useless. Not only is the power likely to be to low to be effective,
but the Barrier rules are screwy at best, and FASA seems to have forgotton
that the Barrier Rating of an object is DOUBLED against combat spells!

*******************************************************************************
* See Ya in Shadows * * "Trust No One." *
* Jason J Carter * Carter@***.EDU * The late Deep Throat *
* The Nightstalker * * The X-Files *
*******************************************************************************
Message no. 44
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 09:10:57 -0400
On Tue, 14 Jun 1994, Thorben Woehler wrote:

> > OK, then it would seem that vehicle armour cannot be reduced (except for the
> > optional rules on FoF). How does one ever damage a banshee. 18 armour means
> > twos for all resistance tests, and the high body means all successes. If
> > armour cannot be reduced, then the vehicle is invulnerable. Or, as is
> > becomming my favourite question: am I missing something?
>
> Vehicle combat in SRUN is not that detailed... Therefore a Banshee is
> not easy to damage... I wonder how the feathered serpent in the novels
> could scrap one with its fiery breath...
>
> There is at least one weapon in the rules that can damage anything...
>
> The VIGILANT ROTARY AUTOCANNON... Damage 20T Burstfire and Fullauto!!!
>
> SHADE
>
Patently untrue, unfortunately. Remember, if the base power
level is less than the armor, the only effect you will get is a reduction
of that armor. So a vehicle with an armor of higher than twenty....
The maximum that can be put on a civilian vehicle is 24 according to the
rules, but by that time it probably looks like a tank anyway.
Message no. 45
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 23:47:15 +1000
Nightstalker writes:

> As for Banshee's, they are Tanks. They are supposed to be nearly invulnerable.
> However, for AVR & AVM (that anti-vehicle rockets and missiles) the armor
> value is halved. That's 16D verus effective armor of 9 and body of 6 yielding
> a 11 dice roll against 2D damage. Still damn good, so you better be really
> good with that rocket launcher.

Why is the armour halved?
I thought that the vehicle just didn't get its body involved in the power
level reduction (it rolled vs power minus armour, not power minus (body +
armour)), andf the wound catagory didn't get reduced.

Damion
Message no. 46
From: James A Riegel <riegelja@*******.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 17:02:52 -0400
Damion writes:
>
> Burst fire and full auto with a max of 4 or five shots tho. Thats a max of
> 25D. On an banshee (armour 18, bod 6) thats reduced down to 1D (but its
> really 2D) and the banshee gets 15 dice to resist. I don't see the banshee
> taking a lot of damage, unless the firer get many successes. And that is
> unlikely, as the vigilant rotary autocannon has a +3 (I think) recoil
> modifier per shot, mucho recoil compensators needed here :-)
>
> Damion
>

Basically all true. Have you read the commentary posted on the side in FoF?
I seem to remeber someone stating that on the high end, armor technology had
outpaced penetration technology. The whole point to the Banshee is to be
impossible to kill. Also, someone mentioned awhile ago something about a
feathered serpent flaming a banshee. If it was what I am thinking of, that
would be Tessien from Never Deal With A Dragon (Robert Charette V. 1, Secrets
of Power{gotta give full credit to him}). Tessien destroyed a Panzer (albeit a
stripped down made for stealth Panzer). I have never found in any text a
reference to what a Panzer is in SRII. Is it just another name for the Banshee
LAV? Also, I'm sure the various militaries are working on weapons to take out
Banshees, but if players ever got the it would be so Monty Hall as to be
insane.
Message no. 47
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 15:14:33 -0700
On Tue, 14 Jun 1994, Jason Carter, Nightstalker wrote:

> Ivy,
>
> Apology not accepted! I will not accept an apology if you did not insult or
> injure me.

Why, Thank you, kind sir, Glad I didn't insult you, wasn't trying to. ;)

> I will however accept your thanks on reminding you of the rules :)

You definitely have them. ;)

> P.S. You really should change the rules that annoy both you and the players.
> Afterall the rules state that this is just a guide.

After so many years with AD&D I have a real dislike of fiddling with the
rules. It leads to no-one, including me, knowing exactly what a rule
means, or which ones pertain to this particular game.

What I'm doing instead is writing my own ruleset, in fact, my whole
game. And I do plan to publish it. Then I can read things like "What
kind of idiot wrote this messed. . ." Oh, well. ;) I'm serious about
the rules/game though. I will be self-publishing it in the later part of
this year or early next year.

And I *do* have a solution for vehicular armor questions. <grin>

Ivy
Message no. 48
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 15:40:10 -0700
Re: Vehicle armor being halved against Armor-piercing attacks?

Um, Nightstalker, where did you get this? I can't find it in the SRII or
RBB anywhere. APDS does work that way, roughly (if you're firing
through, only) but APDS is for Firearms.

Confused, again, <but not insane>

Ivy
Message no. 49
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 16:52:51 -0700
SRII, p. 277 second column:
"APDS ammo (SSC p.63) halves the Ballistic Armor Rating and
Barrier Ratings (when firing through, only). Vehicle armor reduces the
Power of APDS ammo by one-half its rating (round down) and reduces the
Damage Level by one level.

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 50
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 11:18:48 +1000
James writes:

> Basically all true. Have you read the commentary posted on the side in FoF?
> I seem to remeber someone stating that on the high end, armor technology had
> outpaced penetration technology. The whole point to the Banshee is to be
> impossible to kill. Also, someone mentioned awhile ago something about a
> feathered serpent flaming a banshee. If it was what I am thinking of, that
> would be Tessien from Never Deal With A Dragon (Robert Charette V. 1, Secrets
> of Power{gotta give full credit to him}). Tessien destroyed a Panzer (albeit a
> stripped down made for stealth Panzer). I have never found in any text a
> reference to what a Panzer is in SRII. Is it just another name for the Banshee
> LAV? Also, I'm sure the various militaries are working on weapons to take out
> Banshees, but if players ever got the it would be so Monty Hall as to be
> insane.

Could ya just define "Monty Hall" for me, I remember reading something about
it somewhere (alongside munchkinism I think) but I cant rememebr what it
reffered to. Ta

Damion
Message no. 51
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 11:36:24 +1000
adam writes;

> SRII, p. 277 second column:
> "APDS ammo (SSC p.63) halves the Ballistic Armor Rating and
> Barrier Ratings (when firing through, only). Vehicle armor reduces the
> Power of APDS ammo by one-half its rating (round down) and reduces the
> Damage Level by one level.

Still splatters heavy mg apds ammo against a banshee though. maybe use
a barret against a banshee? BTW, how does depleted uranium ammunition work?
I always thought it just worked better than lead as it had a much higher
mass and greater density. One of the SR novels had some explanation to do
with the uranium burning, this true?

Damion
Message no. 52
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 22:55:56 -0700
Check the Rocket Launcher rules on page 99 for details on how AVM's affect
vehicle armor.

*******************************************************************************
* See Ya in Shadows * * "Trust No One." *
* Jason J Carter * Carter@***.EDU * The late Deep Throat *
* The Nightstalker * * The X-Files *
*******************************************************************************
Message no. 53
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:22:05 -0400
On Wed, 15 Jun 1994, James A Riegel wrote:

> Basically all true. Have you read the commentary posted on the side in FoF?
> I seem to remeber someone stating that on the high end, armor technology had
> outpaced penetration technology. The whole point to the Banshee is to be
> impossible to kill. Also, someone mentioned awhile ago something about a
> feathered serpent flaming a banshee. If it was what I am thinking of, that
> would be Tessien from Never Deal With A Dragon (Robert Charette V. 1, Secrets
> of Power{gotta give full credit to him}). Tessien destroyed a Panzer (albeit a
> stripped down made for stealth Panzer). I have never found in any text a
> reference to what a Panzer is in SRII. Is it just another name for the Banshee
> LAV? Also, I'm sure the various militaries are working on weapons to take out
> Banshees, but if players ever got the it would be so Monty Hall as to be
> insane.
>

Yes, "Panzer" is another name for a Low Altitude Armored Vehicle
(LAV or LAAV). Also "thunderbird." "Banshee" is a specific name,
like
"Abrams" attached to the M1A1.
As to it being Monty Haul if Players get a wepon that can damage
a Banshee, just remember that AVR's and AVM's have a fairly heinous
penetration ability, and they are a little easier to get than, oh, say,
an artillery piece ;)

Marc
Message no. 54
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 14:07:57 -0400
On Thu, 16 Jun 1994, MILLIKEN DAMION A wrote:

> adam writes;
>
> > SRII, p. 277 second column:
> > "APDS ammo (SSC p.63) halves the Ballistic Armor Rating and
> > Barrier Ratings (when firing through, only). Vehicle armor reduces the
> > Power of APDS ammo by one-half its rating (round down) and reduces the
> > Damage Level by one level.
>
> Still splatters heavy mg apds ammo against a banshee though. maybe use
> a barret against a banshee? BTW, how does depleted uranium ammunition work?
> I always thought it just worked better than lead as it had a much higher
> mass and greater density. One of the SR novels had some explanation to do
> with the uranium burning, this true?
>
> Damion
>

Don't believe everything you read, chummer. True, the metal will
iquify, but then again, so will lead. The problem is, it only works when
the round hits something HARD. body armor, flesh, bone, and other "soft"
targets have little or no chance of causeing a depleted uranium, tank
sabot, or any other armor-piercing round of undergoing phase-change. So,
unfortunately, the example of the burning hole in the guy's body is a
little on the over-romanticized side. Sorry.

Marc
Message no. 55
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 12:39:03 -0700
Depleted Uranium makes a good penetrator mostly due to its mass.
But yes, at high pressures Uranium will combust with iron in an
exothermic reaction.
Pretty high pressures at the tip of a 40mm 1500 m/sec penetrator
dart, I'd say.

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 56
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 20:58:51 -0400
>>>>> "Adam" == Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
writes:

Adam> Depleted Uranium makes a good penetrator mostly due to its mass.

Tungsten carbide is at least as good, if not better against non-steel armor.

Adam> But yes, at high pressures Uranium will combust with iron in an
Adam> exothermic reaction.

Actually, what happens first (and I've mentioned this at least twice on
this list :) is that the uranium alloys with the steel, resulting in a
compound much like what you get when you mix tin and lead (solder), very
soft, very malleable, very easy to slice thorugh.

BTW, DU is listed as AP/I (armor piercing/incendiary), just for the record.

Adam> Pretty high pressures at the tip of a 40mm 1500 m/sec
Adam> penetrator dart, I'd say.

You mean 4mm, I'd guess :).

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "One likes to believe in the freedom of
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | baseball." --Geddy Lee
Message no. 57
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 13:07:38 +1000
Adam writes:

> Depleted Uranium makes a good penetrator mostly due to its mass.
> But yes, at high pressures Uranium will combust with iron in an
> exothermic reaction.
> Pretty high pressures at the tip of a 40mm 1500 m/sec penetrator
> dart, I'd say.

So it will only work against hard iron. so it wont be effective against the
FoF hardened military armour?

Damion
Message no. 58
From: Jai Tao <jdfalk@****.CAIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 23:53:48 -0400
On Thu, 16 Jun 1994, Adam Getchell wrote:

> Depleted Uranium makes a good penetrator mostly due to its mass.
> But yes, at high pressures Uranium will combust with iron in an

Didn't we spend a month or so arguing about Depleted Uranium in
May? Well, I wasn't interested then, and I'm not now -- however, I'm not
going to try to stop you. Just, please, keep it short, scientific, and
related to Shadowrun!
Message no. 59
From: Rob Moulton <szicepik@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 00:29:12 -0700
On Thu, 16 Jun 1994, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> Adam> But yes, at high pressures Uranium will combust with iron in an
> Adam> exothermic reaction.
>
> Actually, what happens first (and I've mentioned this at least twice on
> this list :) is that the uranium alloys with the steel, resulting in a
> compound much like what you get when you mix tin and lead (solder), very
> soft, very malleable, very easy to slice thorugh.

So I'd buy a clip that had alternating rounds. The first was Uranium and
the next, and explosive round.

Rob
Message no. 60
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 10:09:27 -0400
>>>>> "Rob" == Rob Moulton <szicepik@****.ucdavis.edu>
writes:

>> Actually, what happens first (and I've mentioned this at least twice on
>> this list :) is that the uranium alloys with the steel, resulting in a
>> compound much like what you get when you mix tin and lead (solder), very
>> soft, very malleable, very easy to slice thorugh.

Rob> So I'd buy a clip that had alternating rounds. The first was Uranium
Rob> and the next, and explosive round.

Standard practice, actually, for most anti-armor cannon, mixing up HEDP,
APDS, and HEAT rounds in the magazine. The US Army has a couple of schemes
which produce some really nice results; they're usually not an even
intermix of round types, though.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "One likes to believe in the freedom of
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | baseball." --Geddy Lee
Message no. 61
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 12:37:47 -0400
On Fri, 17 Jun 1994, Rob Moulton wrote:
(on the subject of DU ammo...)
>
> So I'd buy a clip that had alternating rounds. The first was Uranium and
> the next, and explosive round.
>
> Rob
>

Actually, I once played a character who alternated the rounds in his
clips in threes so that each burst would fire a different variety of
ammunition. Usually it went regular-explosive-flechette, but I would
substitute APDS for regular when (rarely) I could gets my hands on it.
Weird, but surprisingly effective. Good for gag-value, too.

Marc
Message no. 62
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 14:27:29 -0700
On Fri, 17 Jun 1994, Marc A Renouf wrote:

> Actually, I once played a character who alternated the rounds in his
> clips in threes so that each burst would fire a different variety of

(Shudder) So how did your GM resolve the rules?
Old style Shadowrun it could work 'cuz you rolled for each round,
but with the burst fire rules....
You *are* going to send me your burst fire rules, aren't you? ;-)
>
> Marc
>

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 63
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 11:03:58 +1100
Eve Forward writes:

> Once you start taking damage, too, your handling goes down, your speed
> suffers, your armor gets shot away, your sensors start failing, your hull
> isn't watertight anymore....

That's one thing which has always bothered me. As far as I can tell, it is
impossible to "blast off armour" from vehicles in SR. [Excepting the new FoF
rules on armour degredation - which include vehicle armour]. This always had
me confused, bacuse the armour was compared to a barrier rating, and
barriers could be reduced, yet vehicle armour could not. How do you run
those rules?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 64
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 17:50:23 -0800
On Sat, 4 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> rules on armour degredation - which include vehicle armour]. This always had
> me confused, bacuse the armour was compared to a barrier rating, and
> barriers could be reduced, yet vehicle armour could not. How do you run
> those rules?

As Eve can tell you, I allow vehicle armor to be reduced exactly
the same way barriers are. FOF also has rules for degrading *personal*
armor, so I think it's within the game system.

> Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 65
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 15:23:46 +1100
Adam Getchell writes:

> As Eve can tell you, I allow vehicle armor to be reduced exactly
> the same way barriers are. FOF also has rules for degrading *personal*
> armor, so I think it's within the game system.

The FoF rule actually states that hardened armour degrades the same way. But
anyway, do you run it so that the armour degrades as well as the weapon
doing damage? ie, using the Break Through rules for damage to the vehicle's
armour, and the Firing through rules for damaging the vehicle? Or do you run
it differently?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 66
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 14:15:01 -0800
On Sat, 4 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> doing damage? ie, using the Break Through rules for damage to the vehicle's
> armour, and the Firing through rules for damaging the vehicle? Or do you run
> it differently?

I just let the weapon do it's normal, staged damage to the
vehicle and then calculate the armor loss for the next hit.

> Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/getchell.html
Message no. 67
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 12:48:49 +1000
Adam Getchell writes:

> > doing damage? ie, using the Break Through rules for damage to the vehicle's
> > armour, and the Firing through rules for damaging the vehicle? Or do you run
> > it differently?
>
> I just let the weapon do it's normal, staged damage to the
> vehicle and then calculate the armor loss for the next hit.

But I was asking what mechanics you use to calculate the damage and armour
loss. I guessed already that you did both :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 68
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 16:21:24 +0930
Damion Milliken wrote:
>
> > I just let the weapon do it's normal, staged damage to the
> > vehicle and then calculate the armor loss for the next hit.
>
> But I was asking what mechanics you use to calculate the damage and armour
> loss. I guessed already that you did both :-)
>

There are rules in FoF for this... I don't have it with me, but isn't it
something like Serious wound removes half the power level for the armour
and a Deadly wound removes the full power level (these are before Damage
tests, I think... so if you walk into full-auto (base of D), and get off
with a Light, you'd still want to run away quickly.)

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 69
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Armour
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 20:21:14 +1000
Robert Watkins writes:

> There are rules in FoF for this...

I know, & so does Adam I guess, but he doesn't use them. I was enquiring as
to what he did use.

> I don't have it with me, but isn't it something like Serious wound removes
> half the power level for the armour and a Deadly wound removes the full
> power level (these are before Damage tests, I think... so if you walk into
> full-auto (base of D), and get off with a Light, you'd still want to run
> away quickly.)

OK, here it is, the FoF Armour Degredation rule:

"ARMOUR DEGREDATION

For the sake of simplified bookkeeping, SRII ignored the effects of
armour degredation. The following rule takes armour degredation into account.
A character who takes a Moderate wound or greater damage from a
non-Stun attack suffers armour damage. The armour loses 1 point for every
multiple of its appropriate value represented by the Power of the attack.
For example, a character wearing an armoured jacket takes a hit from a
submachine gunburst with a Damage Code of 10S. The jacket has a Ballistic
Rating of 5. If the character takes at least Moderate damage, the attack
permanently reduces the rating of the armour by 2 points.
The rule also applies to Impact armour. Hardened body or vehicle
armour (but not critter armour) degrades at the same rate."

Now, the problem I see with this is what does the damage the character takes
have to do with how much the armour is degraded? A character can be hit with
an assault cannon, and as long as they stage it down to Light or less, their
armour is fine. While on the other hand they could be hit with a hold-out
which the firer got many sucesses for, and lose an armour point. I'd make it
that any weapon with a damage code of Moderate (or perhaps Serious) or
greater had this effect myself, though this would likely result in lots of
shredded armour. But not to worry, it makes firefights less attractive.

Now, the original idea was to see what Adam used, since he didn't use this
rule.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 70
From: docwagon101@*****.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Vehicle armour
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:28:50 +0000 (GMT)
Guys, just been rereading Rigger 3, and when I got to
concealed armour, a question occurred to me. Basically
- why is concealed armour not compatible with regular
vehicular armour?

All it says in the book is that they aren't
compatible, then makes a rather specious comment -
"After all, what's the point of installing concealed
armor, when installing standard armor on top of it
blatantly gives away the fact that the vehicle is
armored?"

Why is this specious? Well, think about it. The
description of concealed armour states that it "is
hidden in a vehicle's interior spaces". Which means it
would be UNDER any standard armour on the vehicle (as
also evinced by the fact that it takes up CF). So
that's point a) going from the descriptions of the
different armour types, there doesn't seem to be any
good reason why you can't put both on the same
vehicle. Point b) is where it gets interesting - that
is, the POINT of installing standard armour and
concealed armour. And that is, to hide just how
armoured a vehicle is. It's called surprise value Take
a Ford-Canada Bison for instance. It's armoured.
EVERYONE knows it's armoured. So it's not going to
raise any eyebrows when it drives down the street. But
what if underneath that standard armour you install a
few points of concealed armour? Gangers open up on you
with heavy pistols or what-have-you expecting to put a
few dings in your ride - and aren't they surprised
when the bullets just bounce off? Same thing goes for
any stock vehicle. If it's armoured as standard,
everyone's gonna know it's armoured - but if you
secretly beef up that armour...well, that's what
shadowrunning's all about, isn't it? Doing things all
sneaky-like. ;)

So I can see the value of having both kinds of armour
on the one vehicle, and I can't see any good reason
why they should be incompatible. So what do you guys think?

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!





___________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80
http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk
Message no. 71
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicle armour
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:21:04 +0100
According to Rand Ratinac, on Friday 30 January 2004 10:28 the word on the
street was...

> Guys, just been rereading Rigger 3, and when I got to
> concealed armour, a question occurred to me. Basically
> - why is concealed armour not compatible with regular
> vehicular armour?

I think the idea is that the Concealability is what the writer had in mind.
If you put obvious armor on a vehicle, then it will completely negate the
Concealability of any hidden armor you may have installed as well -- so
you might as well have gone for all-obvious armor anyway, and save
yourself some money and CF.

I don't see a need to forbid installation of both types of armor in a
single vehicle, but (sadly) the current generation of gamers, raised on
video games and d20 System, probably needs to have this kind of thing
explicitly mentioned and made simpler than absolutely necessary :(

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

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 72
From: docwagon101@*****.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Vehicle armour
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 05:45:51 +0000 (GMT)
> I think the idea is that the Concealability is what
the writer had in mind. If you put obvious armor on a
vehicle, then it will completely negate the
Concealability of any hidden armor you may have
installed as well -- so you might as well have gone
for all-obvious armor anyway, and save yourself some
money and CF.

Why? Sorry, Gurth, but that makes no sense whatsover.
Concealed armour is specifically described as being
added to internal spaces in your vehicle. If anything,
having standard armour over the top should make it
TOUGHER to spot the concealed armour underneath.

> I don't see a need to forbid installation of both
types of armor in a single vehicle, but (sadly) the
current generation of gamers, raised on video games
and d20 System, probably needs to have this kind of
thing explicitly mentioned and made simpler than
absolutely necessary :(
> Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age:

Uh...what's your point? Sorry, man, but I'm not
getting you here - I still do not see any valid reason
why the two types of armour should be incompatible.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!





___________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80
http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk
Message no. 73
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicle armour
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:09:24 +0100
According to Rand Ratinac, on Monday 02 February 2004 06:45 the word on the
street was...

> Why? Sorry, Gurth, but that makes no sense whatsover.
> Concealed armour is specifically described as being
> added to internal spaces in your vehicle. If anything,
> having standard armour over the top should make it
> TOUGHER to spot the concealed armour underneath.

Agreed. However, what I was trying to say is that the writer probably felt
that the Concealability rating of the armor is there so you can judge
whether or not it can be seen _if_ the vehicle is armored, not if it has
specifically _hidden_ armor (there is a distinction there). Since standard
armor has no Concealability, a vehicle with it will be obviously armored,
so there is no need to check if you can spot the hidden armor on it -- you
will know it is armored automatically.

> Uh...what's your point? Sorry, man, but I'm not
> getting you here - I still do not see any valid reason
> why the two types of armour should be incompatible.

Like I said, neither do I -- the only one I can think of is to make the
game rules simpler for players who can't be bothered to use their own
intelligence :)

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

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 74
From: docwagon101@*****.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Vehicle armour
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:44:47 +0000 (GMT)
> Agreed. However, what I was trying to say is that
> the writer probably felt
> that the Concealability rating of the armor is there
> so you can judge
> whether or not it can be seen _if_ the vehicle is
> armored, not if it has
> specifically _hidden_ armor (there is a distinction
> there). Since standard
> armor has no Concealability, a vehicle with it will
> be obviously armored,
> so there is no need to check if you can spot the
> hidden armor on it -- you
> will know it is armored automatically.

*slaps forehead*

Okay, NOW I'm getting your point.

> Like I said, neither do I -- the only one I can
> think of is to make the
> game rules simpler for players who can't be bothered
> to use their own
> intelligence :)
> Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age:

*lol*

Perhaps.

Well, I can see all sorts of areas where having some
armour hidden and some visible would be of benefit,
and without any good reason why they wouldn't work
together, as a GM I think I'm going to declare they
will. Hopefully my GMs will be open-minded next time
I'm making a rigger character. :)

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!





___________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80
http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk
Message no. 75
From: rothgefa@*******.com (Robert Fanning)
Subject: Vehicle Armour
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 16:39:22 +1000
Well, there one reason I could think of layering concealed armour with
regular armour.

If you had an RV that comes with 4 points of regular armour, you might want
to increase it without people being aware of it.

It could come as a rude shock to some rent-a-cops taking shots at you to
realize your truck has more armour than a panzer.

<@^@> put "Hey Robert!" (without quotes) in the subject line to bypass my
junk mail filter and do not mention any sort of word associated with
commercial transactions.

_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
Message no. 76
From: docwagon101@*****.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Vehicle Armour
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:41:07 +0000 (GMT)
--- Robert Fanning <rothgefa@*******.com> wrote: >
Well, there one reason I could think of layering
> concealed armour with
> regular armour.
>
> If you had an RV that comes with 4 points of regular
> armour, you might want
> to increase it without people being aware of it.
>
> It could come as a rude shock to some rent-a-cops
> taking shots at you to
> realize your truck has more armour than a panzer.
>
> <@^@> put "Hey Robert!" (without quotes) in the
> subject line to bypass my
> junk mail filter and do not mention any sort of word
> associated with
> commercial transactions.

Robert, dude - you obviously didn't see my original
post. That's precisely the scenario that prompted me
to ask this question in the first place. ;)

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!





___________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80
http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Vehicle Armour, 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!