Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Barrier Rating Rules part 1
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 12:51:38 +0100
Shane Courtrille said on 14:01/27 Jun 97...

> > Example A1: Carmen aims her Ares Predator at BlackFire, who's behind an
> > armored glass wall (Barrier Rating 4). The Predator does 9M damage, and
> > Carmen has loaded it with regular rounds. From the table, the Damage
> > Barrier Rating against regular ammo is equal to the Barrier Rating x 2,
> > which makes it 8 in this case. The Power Level of 9 exceeds this, so the
> > Barrier Rating is reduced by 1 (to 3) and a 50 cm diameter hole is made in
> > the glass.
> >
> Does this modify the power of the actual bullet in anyway or does it
> keep on going? (could be shes shooting into a nuclear reactor control
> room *shrug*) ;)

Not yet. You have to rember there are TWO steps to the Barrier Rating (BR)
rules -- the first is checking for damage to the barrier, the second is
checking for reduction in Power Level. Since these happen at the same
time, it is best to do these in reverse order if the shot is aimed at a
target on the other side.

However, if the BR is reduced, that reduction won't affect the shot that
reduced it. As can be seen from example A2, Carmen's shot had its Power
reduced by 4, because that was the original BR of the glass. Her next shot
would face the BR of 3, unless of course she were to fire through the hole
the previous round made.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Two words: therapy.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----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------

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.