Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Dwayne MacKinnon <910252m@******.ACADIAU.CA>
Subject: Vehicle Combat Question
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 17:13:15 -0300
Well,
Maybe you folks can help me out. I was wondering about called shots
against tires on a vehicle.
Now, I understand that tires have a Barrier Rating of three. So,
if a weapon has a power of 4-6, the barrier rating will be reduced by
one the first time they're hit. If the power were >=7 a half meter hole
would be produced (effectively destroying the tire.)
So, my question is, what good are Run-Flat tires? The RBB says that
they give 5/3 armor protection. Does this mean it would take a power
of 9 to take down the barrier rating of the tires by 1? And that it would
take a power of twelve or more to take them out with one shot?
And finally, let me see if I've got this straight. When you shoot at a
vehicle that has armor, you compare the base power of the attack with
the value of the armor on the vehicle. If the armor > power, the weapon
has no effect, period.
If the power > armor, check it against TWICE the value of the armor.
If 2*armor > power, just deduct 1 from the armor rating.
If power > 2*armor, check for hole damage. :-) :-) :-)
Finally, with regards to AVRs/AVMs and ADPS: Halve the Armor rating
for the above calculations. One thing I'm not clear on, though: Do you also
halve the armor rating when reducing the power for the damage resistance roll?
For calculating the number of dice you use in the damage resistance roll?

Finally, to end this inelegant mish-mash off: Is it safe to assume t
Damage Resistence Roll and the Condition Monitor preclude the "hole"
effect from the the Barrier Effect Table from happening
to vehicles?


DMK

--
Dwayne MacKinnon My opinions are my own, never
910252m@******.acadiau.ca those of my employer.
Message no. 2
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Combat Question
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 11:43:58 +0200
>Well,
[snip]
> So, my question is, what good are Run-Flat tires? The RBB says that
>they give 5/3 armor protection. Does this mean it would take a power
>of 9 to take down the barrier rating of the tires by 1? And that it would
>take a power of twelve or more to take them out with one shot?

That's most likely because the RBB is a first-edition sourcebook. The rules
for vehicles were quite different back then.
Perhaps you can use the tire's armor value by adding it to the Barrier
Rating, yes. So you'd need a weapon with a Power of 9 or more to damage a
runflat tire.

> And finally, let me see if I've got this straight.
[snip]

Sounds right, yes. Don't know if it's 100% as the rules state it, but it
sounds good enough for me...

> Finally, to end this inelegant mish-mash off: Is it safe to assume t
>Damage Resistence Roll and the Condition Monitor preclude the "hole"
>effect from the the Barrier Effect Table from happening
>to vehicles?

I think so, but it's much nicer on your players if you _do_ use it that way :)


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Lieder, die die Welt nicht braucht
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 3
From: Brian Baker <sbakerbe@****.TRISTATE.EDU>
Subject: vehicle combat question
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 20:45:01 -0500
I have a question reguarding vehicle combat in SRII. The rules given in the
rulebook and the RBB assume that the vehicle is in motion. What if it isin't?
What if a rigger controlled vehicle is sitting still and the rigger is inside
firing his turet mounted weapons. How many attacks can he make? Does he need to make a
position test? If he has more than one weapon mounted on a turet can he
fire more than one? I'd appreciate any help with this situation.
Message no. 4
From: Dustin Wood <cukoo@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:36:20 -0700
>I have a question reguarding vehicle combat in SRII. The rules given in the
>rulebook and the RBB assume that the vehicle is in motion. What if it isin't?
>What if a rigger controlled vehicle is sitting still and the rigger is inside
>firing his turet mounted weapons. How many attacks can he make? Does he
need to make a position test? If he has more than one weapon mounted on a
turet can he
>fire more than one? I'd appreciate any help with this situation.
>
I would say a rigger gets a normal initiative for the purposes of
determining attacks (VCR included) without having to spend an action to
control the vehicle since its not moving (or maybe he would have to spend an
action just to keep control of vehicle systems?). I would say no position
test since the three options are Fight, Flee and Pursue, apparently
reffering to moving vehicles.

As for the last one, most GMs I've played with allow the rigger to target
one weapon and the autopilot fires the others (using its rating as its
weapon skill).
Message no. 5
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 00:43:09 -0400
On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Brian Baker wrote:

> I have a question reguarding vehicle combat in SRII. The rules given in the
> rulebook and the RBB assume that the vehicle is in motion. What if it isin't?

In this case, I would run initiative as normal except that the
rigger need not spend an action to control the vehicle nor make a
position test at the beginning of the round. I would also *not* limit the
actions of anyone else in the vehicle. Basically the rules in RBB assume
the sort of dodging, careening, shooting mayhem associated with the
typical car chase. If this is not the case, then it's basically a normal
firefight with some pretty expensive cover.

> What if a rigger controlled vehicle is sitting still and the rigger is inside
> firing his turet mounted weapons. How many attacks can he make?

As many as he has actions. Keep in mind that turrets and the
like are actively controlled just like drones. Unlike drones, however,
they do not have autopilots to take control to do something like
"continue firing at target x" If the vehicle itself has an autopilot of
sufficient rating, it may fire a weapon as well. So if neither the
rigger nor the autopilot is actively controlling a turret, that turret is
dormant.

> Does he need to make a position test?

No need. The relative position will not change, and all of the
limiting factors on how many actions passengers can take are invalid.
There is no dodging and weaving, so nobody's going to lose a shot due to
positioning.

> If he has more than one weapon mounted on a turet can he
> fire more than one?

I would say yes, but generally all of the weapons mounted in a
turret are linked and thus will fire at the same target. There are
exceptions to this (mainly in military vehicles), but for all intents
and purposes it is easier to consider them as linked attacks. The
benefit of linked weapons in a turret is that they can fire in wider arcs
than centerline or hardpoint weapons.
Just a note on autopilots: when firing a weapon, the autopilot
rolls its rating as a skill. But all autopilots engage in sensor-aided
targetting as they have no "eyes." Thus, anytime your autopilot fires,
it is actually rolling the autopilot rating plus the sensors rating.
This can actually end up being a significant amount of dice for some of
the nastier drones. Furthermore, suppression fire doesn't require a
skill roll, so autopiloted drones are generally real good at area
suppression, especially when firing linked automatic weapons.
I hope this helps. I was a rigger madman a while back, so most
of the stuff is still pretty fresh in my head. I will agree that RBB is
a lot on the vague side, but if you dig through it, quite a bit of the
stuff is actually in there (just not where you'd expect to find it).

Marc
Message no. 6
From: Ioannis Pantelidis <jpante@******.COMPULINK.GR>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 10:11:39 +0300
On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Brian Baker wrote:

> I have a question reguarding vehicle combat in SRII. The rules given in the
> rulebook and the RBB assume that the vehicle is in motion. What if it isin't?
> What if a rigger controlled vehicle is sitting still and the rigger is inside
> firing his turet mounted weapons. How many attacks can he make? Does he need to
> make a position test? If he has more than one weapon mounted on a turet can he
> fire more than one? I'd appreciate any help with this situation.
yes you are right. When the vehicle is not moving the rigger does not
spend action to control the vehicle not even make a opposition test. so
if he has available actions he can fire more than once. But he must pay a
complex action for controling the remote turret.
Message no. 7
From: "Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen)" <jfiko@********.PHYSICS.AUTH.GR>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 21:46:56 +0300
>
> I have a question reguarding vehicle combat in SRII. The rules given in the
> rulebook and the RBB assume that the vehicle is in motion. What if it isin't?
> What if a rigger controlled vehicle is sitting still and the rigger is inside
> firing his turet mounted weapons. How many attacks can he make?
> Does he need to make a position test? If he has more than one weapon mounted
> on a turet can he fire more than one? I'd appreciate any help with this
> situation.

I'd say that the rigger doesn't have make a position test and he has as many
attacks as he has complex actions. The rigger doesn't have to spend a compex
action to comntrol his vehicle, though he has to spend one to control the
remote turret before he gets to fire with it.
As for firing all the weapons he is carrying on the turret I think that
depends whether he is firing through his sensors or optically.
The only modifiers a rigger gts when firing through sensors are somewhere
in a table in the section that talks about sensors (sorry don't have a RBB with me :) ),
so I guess firing with more than one weapons (including
vehicle mounted fixed arc weapons) or more than one targets doesn't get
any modifiers.

--Nick


--

"Tonight, hell sends an Angel bearing gifts"
the Crow.
Message no. 8
From: "Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen)" <jfiko@********.PHYSICS.AUTH.GR>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 21:52:28 +0300
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Brian Baker wrote:
>
> > I have a question reguarding vehicle combat in SRII. The rules given in the
> > rulebook and the RBB assume that the vehicle is in motion. What if it isin't?
> > What if a rigger controlled vehicle is sitting still and the rigger is inside
> > firing his turet mounted weapons. How many attacks can he make? Does he need t
> o
> > make a position test? If he has more than one weapon mounted on a turet can he
> > fire more than one? I'd appreciate any help with this situation.
> yes you are right. When the vehicle is not moving the rigger does not
> spend action to control the vehicle not even make a opposition test. so
> if he has available actions he can fire more than once. But he must pay a
> complex action for controling the remote turret.

Don't forget to add the modifiers from the relative speeds table in the
SRII p.108 :)

--Nick


--

"Tonight, hell sends an Angel bearing gifts"
the Crow.
Message no. 9
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 18:15:27 +0200
> > What if a rigger controlled vehicle is sitting still and the rigger is inside
> > firing his turet mounted weapons. How many attacks can he make?
>
> As many as he has actions. Keep in mind that turrets and the
> like are actively controlled just like drones. Unlike drones, however,
> they do not have autopilots to take control to do something like
> "continue firing at target x" If the vehicle itself has an autopilot of
> sufficient rating, it may fire a weapon as well. So if neither the
> rigger nor the autopilot is actively controlling a turret, that turret is
> dormant.

Well he still needs to pay pne action per remote turret to keep the
turret going. The rest of the riggers actions can be expended to shoot
with the turret.

> > If he has more than one weapon mounted on a turet can he
> > fire more than one?
>
> I would say yes, but generally all of the weapons mounted in a
> turret are linked and thus will fire at the same target. There are
> exceptions to this (mainly in military vehicles), but for all intents
> and purposes it is easier to consider them as linked attacks. The
> benefit of linked weapons in a turret is that they can fire in wider arcs
> than centerline or hardpoint weapons.
> Just a note on autopilots: when firing a weapon, the autopilot
> rolls its rating as a skill. But all autopilots engage in sensor-aided
> targetting as they have no "eyes." Thus, anytime your autopilot fires,
> it is actually rolling the autopilot rating plus the sensors rating.
> This can actually end up being a significant amount of dice for some of
> the nastier drones. Furthermore, suppression fire doesn't require a
> skill roll, so autopiloted drones are generally real good at area
> suppression, especially when firing linked automatic weapons.

I agree, the rigger would have to roll for each weapon and the
(common) target would then resist separate attacks.

I have a question of my own now. What is the quickness rating of
a drone ? I mean how much distance can a drone cover in a combat
round/complex action.

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-- C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)

PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r


Moderator of alt.c00ld00z (coolness in general)
Message no. 10
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 14:35:28 -0400
On Fri, 15 Sep 1995, Jani Fikouras wrote:

[concerning direct rigger control of a turret-fired weapon]

> Well he still needs to pay pne action per remote turret to keep the
> turret going. The rest of the riggers actions can be expended to shoot
> with the turret.

Aaaaaarrrrgh! No, he doesn't. A turret is *not* a vehicle. A
turret is *not* a drone. It is treated as such *only* for purposes of how
many a rigger can control.
Think of it this way: the turret isn't going anywhere, right?
It's just swivelling and elevating to bring the target into the weapon's
line-of-fire. It's directly analogous to a person shooting a firearm.
You just point and shoot. You don't need to spend an action controlling
your arm, you just do it. It's the same with a turret.
The reason a *moving vehicle* requires an action spent on control
is that FASA (rightly) assumes that you need to pay at least a modicum of
attention to where you are going so you don't crash into stuff. You can
even go without spending the action to control the vehicle, but at the
end of your last action, you need to make a crash test. If you pass it,
you're golden. You just scammed yourself an extra action. If you fail,
you wipe.
Now apply this to a turret. If you don't spend an action to
control your turret, it would just have to make a crash test. But what
is a turret going to crash into? Hence, the rigger does *not* spend an
action to control a turret.

> I have a question of my own now. What is the quickness rating of
> a drone ? I mean how much distance can a drone cover in a combat
> round/complex action.

Drones are exactly like vehicles in that they have a listed
speed. The numbers given are for cruise/maximum speed respectively and
they are given in meters per combat turn. As far as how much a drone can
cover in a single complex action, I would merely divide the speed of the
drone by the number of actions the drone got. This is really only
important when dealing with environments where the drone needs to get to
a certain destination (say a doorway) before someone else's next action
(say before the goon closes the door). Otherwise, it usually doesn't matter.

Marc
Message no. 11
From: "Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen)" <jfiko@********.PHYSICS.AUTH.GR>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 10:30:13 +0300
>
> On Fri, 15 Sep 1995, Jani Fikouras wrote:
>
> [concerning direct rigger control of a turret-fired weapon]
>
> > Well he still needs to pay pne action per remote turret to keep the
> > turret going. The rest of the riggers actions can be expended to shoot
> > with the turret.
>
> Aaaaaarrrrgh! No, he doesn't. A turret is *not* a vehicle. A
> turret is *not* a drone. It is treated as such *only* for purposes of how
> many a rigger can control.

The rigger can control remotely as many vehicles as he has ports in his remote
control deck. I don't think that the rigger has to connect his turret to the
control deck in order to use it. So why does the turret count one less to the
vehicles he can control.

> Now apply this to a turret. If you don't spend an action to
> control your turret, it would just have to make a crash test. But what
> is a turret going to crash into? Hence, the rigger does *not* spend an
> action to control a turret.

The turret doesn't have to crash, just simply if the rigger doesn't spend
a complex action to control it he doesn't get to fire with it.


--Nick


"Tonight, hell sends an Angel bearing gifts"
the Crow.
Message no. 12
From: "Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen)" <jfiko@********.PHYSICS.AUTH.GR>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 11:52:42 +0300
> Think of it this way: the turret isn't going anywhere, right?
> It's just swivelling and elevating to bring the target into the weapon's
> line-of-fire. It's directly analogous to a person shooting a firearm.
> You just point and shoot. You don't need to spend an action controlling
> your arm, you just do it. It's the same with a turret.

It is not that simple, you see, you believe that when a rigger is rigged
in a vehicle than the car becomes a part of his body, wheels are his legs
weapons are his arms, all his has to do is point and shoot. If it were
this way than riggers would get some modifiers when firing rigged their
vehicle mounted weapons (as per smartlink or something like that) but it
isn't like that, when firing optically riggers don't get any modifiers.

--Nick

--

"Tonight, hell sends an Angel bearing gifts"
the Crow.
Message no. 13
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 13:25:02 -0400
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen) wrote:

> The rigger can control remotely as many vehicles as he has ports in
> his remote control deck. I don't think that the rigger has to connect
> his turret to the control deck in order to use it.

Technically speaking, yes, the turret must be connected to the
remote-control deck, but realistically speaking, I would assume that this
interface is taken care of when Rigger-control gear is installed into the
vehicle. Control remote turret would be "built-in" to the vehicle's VCR
interface such that the rigger didn't need an extra piece of equipment to
operate them.

> > Now apply this to a turret. If you don't spend an action to
> > control your turret, it would just have to make a crash test. But what
> > is a turret going to crash into? Hence, the rigger does *not* spend an
> > action to control a turret.

> The turret doesn't have to crash, just simply if the rigger doesn't spend
> a complex action to control it he doesn't get to fire with it.

You've missed my point. What happens when the driver of a moving
vehicle *doesn't* spend an action to control it? The driver needs to make
a Crash Test. But the vehicle still moves. It's not stationary just
because the driver didn't spend a control action. So with a turret, if
you don't spend a control action, the turret can still move. You can
still fire with it. *Nowhere* in the rules does it state that an action
must be expended in addition to whatever actions the rigger spends firing
the wepaons in the turret. Ergo, a rigger does *not* need to spend an
action to control a turret. Before you apply a rule to something, think
about what the rule *means*.

Marc
Message no. 14
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 13:34:42 -0400
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen) wrote:

> It is not that simple, you see, you believe that when a rigger is rigged
> in a vehicle than the car becomes a part of his body, wheels are his legs
> weapons are his arms, all his has to do is point and shoot. If it were
> this way than riggers would get some modifiers when firing rigged their
> vehicle mounted weapons (as per smartlink or something like that) but it
> isn't like that, when firing optically riggers don't get any modifiers.

Yes, but a rigger can't optically target with a remote turret.
So your point is not germane to the discussion. Sensor-aided targetting
is always considered to be at short range, which is one hell of a bonus
to my mind. As good as a smartgunlink.

Marc
Message no. 15
From: "Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen)" <jfiko@********.PHYSICS.AUTH.GR>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 01:43:18 +0300
>
> On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen) wrote:
>
> > It is not that simple, you see, you believe that when a rigger is rigged
> > in a vehicle than the car becomes a part of his body, wheels are his legs
> > weapons are his arms, all his has to do is point and shoot. If it were
> > this way than riggers would get some modifiers when firing rigged their
> > vehicle mounted weapons (as per smartlink or something like that) but it
> > isn't like that, when firing optically riggers don't get any modifiers.
>
> Yes, but a rigger can't optically target with a remote turret.
> So your point is not germane to the discussion. Sensor-aided targetting
> is always considered to be at short range, which is one hell of a bonus
> to my mind. As good as a smartgunlink.

Of course he can, if you read the paragraph where optical targeting is
described in the RBB (sorry haven't got an RBB with me :) ) you will see
if I remember corectly that optical targeting can be achieved through video
sensors also described as a part of every remote turret. If riggers couldn't
target optically then optical targeting would only be described as an
option for gunners or regular turrets.

-- Nick :)

--

"Tonight, hell sends an Angel bearing gifts"
the Crow.
Message no. 16
From: "Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen)" <jfiko@********.PHYSICS.AUTH.GR>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 01:58:16 +0300
>
> On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen) wrote:
>
> > The rigger can control remotely as many vehicles as he has ports in
> > his remote control deck. I don't think that the rigger has to connect
> > his turret to the control deck in order to use it.
>
> Technically speaking, yes, the turret must be connected to the
> remote-control deck, but realistically speaking, I would assume that this
> interface is taken care of when Rigger-control gear is installed into the
> vehicle. Control remote turret would be "built-in" to the vehicle's VCR
> interface such that the rigger didn't need an extra piece of equipment to
> operate them.

If the remote turrets controls were "built in" as you say to the vehicle's
VCR, then there would really be no reason why the remote turret would count
to the riggers control limit. It sez in the RBB that remote turrets are like
drones it doesn't really specify whether a complex action has to be spend
for every round that the rigger operates the turrets, but I think it really
makes sence this way. You see remote turrets "need" more of the riggers
attention in contrast to firmpoints and fixed arc weapons. When you
say that the rigger doesn't need to spend an action to control a turret then
you equalize fixed arc weapons with high tech equipment like pop-up remote
turrets.

>
> > > Now apply this to a turret. If you don't spend an action to
> > > control your turret, it would just have to make a crash test. But what
> > > is a turret going to crash into? Hence, the rigger does *not* spend an
> > > action to control a turret.
>
> > The turret doesn't have to crash, just simply if the rigger doesn't spend
> > a complex action to control it he doesn't get to fire with it.
>
> You've missed my point. What happens when the driver of a moving
> vehicle *doesn't* spend an action to control it? The driver needs to make
> a Crash Test. But the vehicle still moves. It's not stationary just
> because the driver didn't spend a control action. So with a turret, if
> you don't spend a control action, the turret can still move. You can
> still fire with it. *Nowhere* in the rules does it state that an action
> must be expended in addition to whatever actions the rigger spends firing
> the wepaons in the turret. Ergo, a rigger does *not* need to spend an
> action to control a turret. Before you apply a rule to something, think
> about what the rule *means*.
>
I guess the rigger has to declare after he rolls his initiative which
complex action he will sucrifice in order to fire his remote turret. It's
really simple, if he doesn't spend any complex actions
to control his turret than of course he doesn't *crash* but he doesn't get
to fire any of his turret mounted weapons.
I believe that the system was made this way to give an advantage to
regular turrets and gunners. Though riggers get the chance to mount turrets
they have the drawback of having to spend one complex action a round for
their turret :).

--Nick

--

"Tonight, hell sends an Angel bearing gifts"
the Crow.
Message no. 17
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 21:53:44 -0400
On Sun, 17 Sep 1995, Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen) wrote:

> > Yes, but a rigger can't optically target with a remote turret.
> > So your point is not germane to the discussion. Sensor-aided targetting
> > is always considered to be at short range, which is one hell of a bonus
> > to my mind. As good as a smartgunlink.
>
> Of course he can, if you read the paragraph where optical targeting is
> described in the RBB (sorry haven't got an RBB with me :) ) you will see
> if I remember corectly that optical targeting can be achieved through video
> sensors also described as a part of every remote turret. If riggers couldn't
> target optically then optical targeting would only be described as an
> option for gunners or regular turrets.

Hmmmm. I see where the confusion is arising. You are correct in
that the RBB does make a distinction between "sensors" and visual
sensors. But on the other hand, optical targetting needs to be described
for vehicles which have no sensors or times when sensor-aided targetting
is not appropriate (areas with much ECM interference). It still doesn't
sound like a remote turret should require an action to control, though.
My rationale comes directly from the reasoning behind spending an action
to control the vehicle and the lack of any mention of turrets requiring a
spent action to control.

Marc
Message no. 18
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 22:10:37 -0400
On Sun, 17 Sep 1995, Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen) wrote:

> It sez in the RBB that remote turrets are like
> drones it doesn't really specify whether a complex action has to be spend
> for every round that the rigger operates the turrets, but I think it really
> makes sence this way. You see remote turrets "need" more of the riggers
> attention in contrast to firmpoints and fixed arc weapons. When you
> say that the rigger doesn't need to spend an action to control a turret then
> you equalize fixed arc weapons with high tech equipment like pop-up remote
> turrets.

No, they are not equalized. Pop-up remote turrets and the like
cost much more in the way of CF and cost than comparable fixed or
hardpoint systems. A medium pop-up remote costs 6 CF and mounts less
"points" worth pf weapons than a normal turret would. To me, this extra CF
and cost reflects not only the mobility equipment but the controls as well.
In fact, the RBB description of remote turrets states that this is indeed
the case.

> I guess the rigger has to declare after he rolls his initiative which
> complex action he will sucrifice in order to fire his remote turret. It's
> really simple, if he doesn't spend any complex actions
> to control his turret than of course he doesn't *crash* but he doesn't get
> to fire any of his turret mounted weapons.

But again, you've missed my point. Just because you don't
allocate an action to control a vehicle doesn't mean the vehicle doesn't
move. So a turret could still move. And since a turret *can't* crash,
the rigger (or even the gunner controlling it) shouldn't have to pay an
action.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that a rigger
needs to expend a complex action to control a drone. He can merely tell
it "do this." Does that mean that the drone doesn't get to fire? Of
course not. It will do its damnedest to hose whatever gets in its path.
So if you treat a turret as a drone, it also doesn't need an action spent.

> I believe that the system was made this way to give an advantage to
> regular turrets and gunners. Though riggers get the chance to mount turrets
> they have the drawback of having to spend one complex action a round for
> their turret :).

Actually, the system already gives an advantage to gunners and
normal turrets. If you have two Banshees fighting it out, the one with
the gunner is going to get more shots off than the one without. Why?
Because the one without has to split his actions between firing and
controlling the tank. Thus, he'll get one less shot every round, and
suffer because of it (this is assuming a relatively equal skill level
and both opponents choosing the "fight" option in the position test).

Marc
Message no. 19
From: "Gary L. Kelley" <gkelley@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 01:10:42 -0500
>
> You've missed my point. What happens when the driver of a moving
>vehicle *doesn't* spend an action to control it? The driver needs to make
>a Crash Test. But the vehicle still moves. It's not stationary just
>because the driver didn't spend a control action. So with a turret, if
>you don't spend a control action, the turret can still move. You can
>still fire with it. *Nowhere* in the rules does it state that an action
>must be expended in addition to whatever actions the rigger spends firing
>the wepaons in the turret. Ergo, a rigger does *not* need to spend an
>action to control a turret. Before you apply a rule to something, think
>about what the rule *means*.
>
>Marc
>
>

Think of it like your driving down the street and you turn around to say
some thing to the person behind you, the vechiles still moving but who is
controlling it. In SR you just refused the handling action so now make a
crash test. With turrents you not *driving* it your just pointing it in the
direction you want to shoot so you really don`t need a handling test.

KRK
Message no. 20
From: "Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen)" <jfiko@********.PHYSICS.AUTH.GR>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 11:09:43 +0300
> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that a rigger
> needs to expend a complex action to control a drone. He can merely tell
> it "do this." Does that mean that the drone doesn't get to fire? Of
> course not. It will do its damnedest to hose whatever gets in its path.
> So if you treat a turret as a drone, it also doesn't need an action spent.

No, I think that the RBB makes it clear that for every vehicle the riggger
conrols he needs to spend a complex action (including drones) or the vehicle
crashes. There are two ways of controling drones, through orders, the way you
said it and cybernetically the way the rigger controls his car for example.

--Nick

--

"Tonight, hell sends an Angel bearing gifts"
the Crow.
Message no. 21
From: "Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen)" <jfiko@********.PHYSICS.AUTH.GR>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 11:28:09 +0300
>
> On Sun, 17 Sep 1995, Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen) wrote:
>
> > > Yes, but a rigger can't optically target with a remote turret.
> > > So your point is not germane to the discussion. Sensor-aided targetting
> > > is always considered to be at short range, which is one hell of a bonus
> > > to my mind. As good as a smartgunlink.
> >
> > Of course he can, if you read the paragraph where optical targeting is
> > described in the RBB (sorry haven't got an RBB with me :) ) you will see
> > if I remember corectly that optical targeting can be achieved through video
> > sensors also described as a part of every remote turret. If riggers couldn't
> > target optically then optical targeting would only be described as an
> > option for gunners or regular turrets.
>
> Hmmmm. I see where the confusion is arising. You are correct in
> that the RBB does make a distinction between "sensors" and visual
> sensors. But on the other hand, optical targetting needs to be described
> for vehicles which have no sensors or times when sensor-aided targetting
> is not appropriate (areas with much ECM interference). It still doesn't
> sound like a remote turret should require an action to control, though.
> My rationale comes directly from the reasoning behind spending an action
> to control the vehicle and the lack of any mention of turrets requiring a
> spent action to control.
>

Since the RBB doesn't make it clear, I think it is a matter of interpretation. Still my
main argument for believing that turrets require an action to be
spent is that I don't want fixed arc weapons and remote turrets to be the same
in the game. Turrets are the only ones that can be made Anti-Air capable,
the only ones that can fire in 360 degrees, the only ones that can be mounted
with cannons, they can be fixed to be 100% conceilable etc. and I don't think
that the amount of money that it costs and the CF that it needs actually "pay
off" for the "power" that it offers to the rigger.

--Nick :)

--

"Tonight, hell sends an Angel bearing gifts"
the Crow.
Message no. 22
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 12:49:50 +0200
> No, I think that the RBB makes it clear that for every vehicle the riggger
>conrols he needs to spend a complex action (including drones) or the vehicle
>crashes. There are two ways of controling drones, through orders, the way you
>said it and cybernetically the way the rigger controls his car for example.

Nick, maybe this bit of advice will help: make up your own ruling and go
with that, whether it is explicitly covered in the rules or not, and whether
someone disagrees or not, that doesn't matter. Just play it the way you like
it...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Be all that they told you
-> Unofficial Shadowrun Guru & NERPS Project Leader <-
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 23
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 10:59:30 GMT
In message <199509170828.LAA11106@********.physics.auth.gr>
SHADOWRN@*****.nic.surfnet.nl writes:
> Since the RBB doesn't make it clear, I think it is a matter of interpretation.
> Still my main argument for believing that turrets require an action to be
> spent is that I don't want fixed arc weapons and remote turrets to be the same
> in the game. Turrets are the only ones that can be made Anti-Air capable,
> the only ones that can fire in 360 degrees, the only ones that can be mounted
> with cannons, they can be fixed to be 100% conceilable etc. and I don't think
> that the amount of money that it costs and the CF that it needs actually "pay
> off" for the "power" that it offers to the rigger.
> --Nick :)

What happens to a turret if the rigger doesn't spend an action, then?

I mean, on a B-17, if the pilot leaves his seat to get coffee, the aircraft
is uncontrolled. It might spin, stall, crash into another aircraft...

If one of the gunners leaves *his* turret, what happens? The guns don't
fall out of the mounts, the turret doesn't lock onto and fire at a
friendly... it just sits immobile until the gunner uses it again.

The rigger controlling a remote turret doesn't have to spend any actions
at all on it IMHO. But if he doesn't control it he can't use it. Turrets
*are* far more flexible than fixed or pintle mounts, but they also allow a
GM more margin for malice...

"I swing the turret around and open fire!"
"There's a sad squeal of seized bearings. You remember what the old mechanic
said about changing the turret seals... and how you thought it was too
expensive..."

Hard to do that with a fixed or pintle mount. Pintle mounts can be
detached, fixed mounts hidden... turrets are *large* and not easily
hidden. Look at the size of a 7.62mm machine gun and 800 rounds of ammo:
that's a bulky package, and that's only a MMG. It might retract, but
any police officer leaning in through your window to ask for your
licence and registration will see hydraulics and ammo belts.

--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 24
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:16:27 +0200
>
> On Fri, 15 Sep 1995, Jani Fikouras wrote:
>
> [concerning direct rigger control of a turret-fired weapon]
>
> > Well he still needs to pay pne action per remote turret to keep the
> > turret going. The rest of the riggers actions can be expended to shoot
> > with the turret.
>
> Aaaaaarrrrgh! No, he doesn't. A turret is *not* a vehicle. A
> turret is *not* a drone. It is treated as such *only* for purposes of how
> many a rigger can control.
> Think of it this way: the turret isn't going anywhere, right?
> It's just swivelling and elevating to bring the target into the weapon's
> line-of-fire. It's directly analogous to a person shooting a firearm.
> You just point and shoot. You don't need to spend an action controlling
> your arm, you just do it. It's the same with a turret.
> The reason a *moving vehicle* requires an action spent on control
> is that FASA (rightly) assumes that you need to pay at least a modicum of
> attention to where you are going so you don't crash into stuff. You can
> even go without spending the action to control the vehicle, but at the
> end of your last action, you need to make a crash test. If you pass it,
> you're golden. You just scammed yourself an extra action. If you fail,
> you wipe.

This is a totally different way of looking at it. I suppose you are right
I just never thought of it that way.

> Now apply this to a turret. If you don't spend an action to
> control your turret, it would just have to make a crash test. But what
> is a turret going to crash into? Hence, the rigger does *not* spend an
> action to control a turret.

Anyway my problem (our problem) is the sentence under "Remote Turrets"
that sez that a remote turret counts as another drone as far as the
"control limit" of the rigger is concerned. I figure that the control
limit is the number of ports the remote control deck has, but isnt
wiring a turret on your own car through a remote control deck stupid ?

> > I have a question of my own now. What is the quickness rating of
> > a drone ? I mean how much distance can a drone cover in a combat
> > round/complex action.
>
> Drones are exactly like vehicles in that they have a listed
> speed. The numbers given are for cruise/maximum speed respectively and
> they are given in meters per combat turn. As far as how much a drone can
> cover in a single complex action, I would merely divide the speed of the
> drone by the number of actions the drone got. This is really only
> important when dealing with environments where the drone needs to get to
> a certain destination (say a doorway) before someone else's next action
> (say before the goon closes the door). Otherwise, it usually doesn't matter.

What speed would you take then, cruising or top speed ? On the contrary
I think that its very important.

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

Moderator of alt.c00ld00z (coolness in general)
Message no. 25
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:20:41 +0200
> > The rigger can control remotely as many vehicles as he has ports in
> > his remote control deck. I don't think that the rigger has to connect
> > his turret to the control deck in order to use it.
>
> Technically speaking, yes, the turret must be connected to the
> remote-control deck, but realistically speaking, I would assume that this
> interface is taken care of when Rigger-control gear is installed into the
> vehicle. Control remote turret would be "built-in" to the vehicle's VCR
> interface such that the rigger didn't need an extra piece of equipment to
> operate them.

Thats the way I see it too, this however still leaves us with the
"control limit" problem. Thats why I figured that if the remote control deck
has nothing to do with it - well then its the "action limit" FASA is
refering to (total number of action is the total number of vehicles a rigger
can control without rolling a chash test).

> > > Now apply this to a turret. If you don't spend an action to
> > > control your turret, it would just have to make a crash test. But what
> > > is a turret going to crash into? Hence, the rigger does *not* spend an
> > > action to control a turret.
>
> > The turret doesn't have to crash, just simply if the rigger doesn't spend
> > a complex action to control it he doesn't get to fire with it.
>
> You've missed my point. What happens when the driver of a moving
> vehicle *doesn't* spend an action to control it? The driver needs to make
> a Crash Test. But the vehicle still moves. It's not stationary just
> because the driver didn't spend a control action. So with a turret, if
> you don't spend a control action, the turret can still move. You can
> still fire with it. *Nowhere* in the rules does it state that an action
> must be expended in addition to whatever actions the rigger spends firing
> the wepaons in the turret. Ergo, a rigger does *not* need to spend an
> action to control a turret. Before you apply a rule to something, think
> about what the rule *means*.

I agree, could you please explain that "control limit" thing then ?

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

Moderator of alt.c00ld00z (coolness in general)
Message no. 26
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:22:37 +0200
> > Yes, but a rigger can't optically target with a remote turret.
> > So your point is not germane to the discussion. Sensor-aided targetting
> > is always considered to be at short range, which is one hell of a bonus
> > to my mind. As good as a smartgunlink.
>
> Of course he can, if you read the paragraph where optical targeting is
> described in the RBB (sorry haven't got an RBB with me :) ) you will see
> if I remember corectly that optical targeting can be achieved through video
> sensors also described as a part of every remote turret. If riggers couldn't
> target optically then optical targeting would only be described as an
> option for gunners or regular turrets.

And riggers not using sensors and full cybernetic cotrol.

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

Moderator of alt.c00ld00z (coolness in general)
Message no. 27
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:28:56 +0200
> > Of course he can, if you read the paragraph where optical targeting is
> > described in the RBB (sorry haven't got an RBB with me :) ) you will see
> > if I remember corectly that optical targeting can be achieved through video
> > sensors also described as a part of every remote turret. If riggers couldn't
> > target optically then optical targeting would only be described as an
> > option for gunners or regular turrets.
>
> Hmmmm. I see where the confusion is arising. You are correct in
> that the RBB does make a distinction between "sensors" and visual
> sensors. But on the other hand, optical targetting needs to be described
> for vehicles which have no sensors or times when sensor-aided targetting
> is not appropriate (areas with much ECM interference). It still doesn't
> sound like a remote turret should require an action to control, though.
> My rationale comes directly from the reasoning behind spending an action
> to control the vehicle and the lack of any mention of turrets requiring a
> spent action to control.

Well, we agree here. Spending a whole action to just move a turret and
then spending another action to shoot is a bit extreme. OTOH I feel that
its the only realistic expalanation I can think of for the "control limit"
thingy.
One could say that because of the extra action the rigger spent, he gets
the luxury to shoot each weapon at a different target without the +2
TN modifier. Hmmmmm

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

Moderator of alt.c00ld00z (coolness in general)
Message no. 28
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:38:39 +0200
> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that a rigger
> needs to expend a complex action to control a drone. He can merely tell
> it "do this." Does that mean that the drone doesn't get to fire? Of
> course not. It will do its damnedest to hose whatever gets in its path.
> So if you treat a turret as a drone, it also doesn't need an action spent.

Both is correct, a rigger can assume control of a drone thusly using his
own initiative, gunnery skill etc for all success tests (this costs an
action or a succesfull crash test :) Or he can issue a command to the
autopilot (we dont know what the drones initiative will be in this
case, but it'll use its autopilot skill as its piloting skill and its
sensors rating+autopilot rating as its gunnery skill).
One could argue that a remote turret could use the autopilot/sensors
of the car to fire its weapons given a command by the rigger. Or one
could go so far as to install extra sensors, but thats a different story.

> > I believe that the system was made this way to give an advantage to
> > regular turrets and gunners. Though riggers get the chance to mount turrets
> > they have the drawback of having to spend one complex action a round for
> > their turret :).
>
> Actually, the system already gives an advantage to gunners and
> normal turrets. If you have two Banshees fighting it out, the one with
> the gunner is going to get more shots off than the one without. Why?
> Because the one without has to split his actions between firing and
> controlling the tank. Thus, he'll get one less shot every round, and
> suffer because of it (this is assuming a relatively equal skill level
> and both opponents choosing the "fight" option in the position test).

Hmmm, I think that pop-up remote turrets are enough of an advantage as
they are. Just think about it, a rigger with fixed arc weapons is screwed
by definition because he cant hit squat. A rigger with a pop-up turret
(and a gunner) is screwed because he has to carry a gunner around. A
rigger with a remote pop-up turret has no problems at all.

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

Moderator of alt.c00ld00z (coolness in general)
Message no. 29
From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 13:33:10 GMT
Jani Fikouras writes
>
> > Now apply this to a turret. If you don't spend an action to
> > control your turret, it would just have to make a crash test. But what
> > is a turret going to crash into? Hence, the rigger does *not* spend an
> > action to control a turret.
>
> Anyway my problem (our problem) is the sentence under "Remote Turrets"
> that sez that a remote turret counts as another drone as far as the
> "control limit" of the rigger is concerned. I figure that the control
> limit is the number of ports the remote control deck has, but isnt
> wiring a turret on your own car through a remote control deck stupid ?
>
i would say YES! I don't see why a turret should cost an action to
control, well you can just ignore it as a failed crash test for a
turret isn't going to do any harm, its not as if riggers really need
worry about taking crash tests anyway except in tight terrain.

[HB - very slight spoiler, won't give much away]
I have
memories of HB 'a fist full of karma' most of the bad guys were on
horses, and trying to ride and shoot, with low initatives it was
crash test or spend the whole round 'controlling horse', needless to
say several fell off when some ever so kind PC decided they could
really use a serious wound half way through the round, and all of a
sudden they needed 7's not to fall off. That was alos a case of
modifiers, most folks needed 8's to 10's to hit at some of the
combats!

> > > I have a question of my own now. What is the quickness
rating of
> > > a drone ? I mean how much distance can a drone cover in a combat
> > > round/complex action.
> >
ok my try.

the cruising speed multiplied by successes on the position test is
the speed of a drone/vehicle, except it cannot exceed maximum speed
(without gravity assist of the terminal variety) however many
successes you roll. You can then either divide this speed by the
number of actions the rigger gets and move it (total/actions) each
rigger action or divide it by the number of phases in the round eg
is sam starts round in 25 and drone makes roll for 100m a round, it
will move 4m in 25,24,23,22,21.......3,2,1 regardless of when in the
round the rigger actually acts. The rigger can of course choose to
stop it at his/her action or fire the guns etc..... . The latter is
more realistic, helps with range at action and 'did it beat the ___'
questions for little more book keeping. Generally i ignore position
tests except in true rigger on rigger combat as without terrain
modifiers etc the rigger will get more successes than matter
especially if in fight, which i assume if the rigger is just engaging
things, generally then drones can just be moved at cruise per complex
and its close enough [many things have max = cruise * 3 approx and
VCR2 riggers usually get very low 20's for 3 actions initative)

>
> --
Mark
Message no. 30
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:39:44 +0200
> Think of it like your driving down the street and you turn around to say
> some thing to the person behind you, the vechiles still moving but who is
> controlling it. In SR you just refused the handling action so now make a
> crash test. With turrents you not *driving* it your just pointing it in the
> direction you want to shoot so you really don`t need a handling test.

Ah, but this is not combat driving. SR rules refer to combat driving.

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

Moderator of alt.c00ld00z (coolness in general)
Message no. 31
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:41:15 +0200
> No, I think that the RBB makes it clear that for every vehicle the riggger
> conrols he needs to spend a complex action (including drones) or the vehicle
> crashes.

Well, Mark is right there. You can just decide to take your chances and
go for the chash test. If you are lucky you everythings frosty and you
managed to squize off one more shot, if not you crash.

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

Moderator of alt.c00ld00z (coolness in general)
Message no. 32
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:02:05 -0400
On Mon, 18 Sep 1995, Jani Fikouras wrote:

> Hmmm, I think that pop-up remote turrets are enough of an advantage as
> they are. Just think about it, a rigger with fixed arc weapons is screwed
> by definition because he cant hit squat. A rigger with a pop-up turret
> (and a gunner) is screwed because he has to carry a gunner around. A
> rigger with a remote pop-up turret has no problems at all.

Until that nice State-police officer pulls you over and decides
to ask you to open up your trunk. Then you're screwed.

Marc
Message no. 33
From: Andre' Selmer <031SEA@******.WITS.AC.ZA>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 17:04:16 +0200
<DATA CORRUPT: 1.24MP LOST>

}
} Anyway my problem (our problem) is the sentence under "Remote Turrets"
}that sez that a remote turret counts as another drone as far as the
}"control limit" of the rigger is concerned. I figure that the control
}limit is the number of ports the remote control deck has, but isnt
}wiring a turret on your own car through a remote control deck stupid ?
}
Lets throw another spanner in the works. What if the drone has
two independently mounted weapons ? Does that mean that the rigger
has to add two to his limit instead of one ? Personal opinion
cropping up, and I hereby stand to correction. ie I've never played a
rigger before.

From what I understand the control deck has a number of ports.
That is the limit of the number of drones that a rigger can have
active at one time. Each vehical takes up a single port. Each weapon
point after the body of the vehical counts as an extra 0.25 (round
up). So
taking a munckin example, Joe-Drives-Like-A-Maniac has his little 'ol
beat up Ford what ever (Body 2). He can have up to 2 weapons points
connected to it and take up only a single port. To attach another
weapon requires the use of anther port and hence Joe can have 6
weapons attached to the Ford with use of two ports.

There is however an alternative, there could be ports available (at
extra cost) that can handle more channels (read: weapons). Or even
the rigger could shunt weapon control to weapons that was ment for
other functions (less important) of the vehical.

My .2 =Y=
















Andre'

+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|It has been said that the they who stay in the shadows have|
|no soul, no depth, no moral conviction. But how can one |
|say this when, it is they who have lost themselves in the |
|search utopia. We are the realists, we work from the |
|unseen corners of society, we do what no another has the |
|strength to do, with our cybered bodies and magic extreme |
|we prevent the corruption from spreading and destroying |
|your dreams, not through power, but bullets, sweat, tears |
|and blood. All of this we do for your sake, and few nuyen. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+

-
|_|_
/ \ \ /~\/~~~~
| | | - \_/ + THUMP...Thump..thump = Boom ?
| | |
\___/
Message no. 34
From: Kelly Martin <kelly@*******.BLOOMINGTON.IN.US>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:07:23 EST5
"Jani" == Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE> writes:

>> Think of it like your driving down the street and you turn around
>> [...]

Jani> Ah, but this is not combat driving. SR rules refer to combat
Jani> driving.

you obviously have never driven in Los Angeles.

k.
--
kelly martin <kelly@*******.bloomington.in.us>

You can't sue one hundred million people.
-- me, as quoted in the August 14, 1995 New York Times.
Message no. 35
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 12:30:05 +0200
> > Hmmm, I think that pop-up remote turrets are enough of an advantage as
> > they are. Just think about it, a rigger with fixed arc weapons is screwed
> > by definition because he cant hit squat. A rigger with a pop-up turret
> > (and a gunner) is screwed because he has to carry a gunner around. A
> > rigger with a remote pop-up turret has no problems at all.
>
> Until that nice State-police officer pulls you over and decides
> to ask you to open up your trunk. Then you're screwed.

Well you can cover the guns, hell you can even seal them up so that they
are not visible unless you break the seal or open some hatch. After all
a cop doesnt have the right to search your car now has he. So as long as
you keep things out of sight everything's frostie.

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

"In my mind I see the matrix, and in the matrix is held the power. The lock
to the matrix is my will, and in the matrix my will becomes the power."
Message no. 36
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:18:12 +0200
> } Anyway my problem (our problem) is the sentence under "Remote Turrets"
> }that sez that a remote turret counts as another drone as far as the
> }"control limit" of the rigger is concerned. I figure that the control
> }limit is the number of ports the remote control deck has, but isnt
> }wiring a turret on your own car through a remote control deck stupid ?
> }
> Lets throw another spanner in the works. What if the drone has
> two independently mounted weapons ? Does that mean that the rigger
> has to add two to his limit instead of one ? Personal opinion
> cropping up, and I hereby stand to correction. ie I've never played a
> rigger before.

The number of weapons is irrelevant. We are talking about remote
pop-up turrets here. Fixed arc weapons require no effort ot control,
our problem are remote turrets (turrets that are operated by the
rigger not a gunner).

> From what I understand the control deck has a number of ports.
> That is the limit of the number of drones that a rigger can have
> active at one time. Each vehical takes up a single port. Each weapon
> point after the body of the vehical counts as an extra 0.25 (round
> up). So

Not only drones, remote vehicles. Yes the problem is that the RBB
refers to some "control limit" in the paragraph about remote turrets.
Now logically this "control limit" should be the total number of ports
on the remote control deck, but why would anyone hardwire a turret
located on the car through his remote control deck????

HEY I got an idea!!!! (no jokes please :) What if they actually mean
that the rigger can use the remote turret even when not in the car.
This would explain why he has to connect the turret to the deck
and I suppose that the remote control gear or the car would have
some sort of slot for the remote control deck.
So arigger would get into the car slot the remote control deck in
then jack himself in. This would allow him to use the turret without
paying an aditional action (and even use the turret when he is not
in the car) and would cost him one port from his remote control deck.

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

"In my mind I see the matrix, and in the matrix is held the power. The lock
to the matrix is my will, and in the matrix my will becomes the power."
Message no. 37
From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: vehicle combat question
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:08:59 GMT
Jani Fikouras writes
>
> HEY I got an idea!!!! (no jokes please :) What if they actually mean
> that the rigger can use the remote turret even when not in the car.
you may be onto something, but you can (assuming its got remote gear)
drive the car about without being in it. So it would be a bit silly
if you could not.

> This would explain why he has to connect the turret to the deck
> and I suppose that the remote control gear or the car would have
> some sort of slot for the remote control deck.
it is a remote turret after all.

> So arigger would get into the car slot the remote control deck in
> then jack himself in. This would allow him to use the turret without
> paying an aditional action (and even use the turret when he is not
> in the car) and would cost him one port from his remote control deck.
>
wether he is it the car or not.
he could attach to the turret (one port) or the car (one port), the
car having effectively a two port remote deck in it (you got to add
it when you do the turret but) one port for the turret and one for
the car, a remote deck is after all a 'rigger control splitter box',
so i don't see why all the splitting has to be done it one
physical box!

Mark

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about vehicle combat question, 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!