Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Launch System or Not

Posted by: PiXeL01 Jan 23 2006, 01:41 PM

Yesterday I was sitting and for the first time in years literally created a rigger and designed a drone and customized a vehicle, when a question popped up in my head. As a GM I have always seen the Launch Systems required when you wanted to be able to fire missles/rockets from internal/external mounts but wasnt needed if for instance you installed a generic rocket launcher in a turret. Is this assumption correct or is a launch system needed in both cases?

Being a player again pops up a variety of new/old forgotten questions

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 26 2006, 12:42 AM

I believe this to be the case, but can't confirm until I dig out my copy of Rigger 3.

~J

Posted by: eidolon Jan 26 2006, 02:31 AM

QUOTE (pg. 137 @ R3R)

Launch control systems control the firing of missiles and rockets.

In the descriptions in the weapons section, when it gives the rundown on the new missiles and rockets, it tells you which launch control system (medium or heavy) it requires. So by my reading, if you want rockets or missiles, you have to have launch control systems, regardless of how they're mounted.

Also, it states that in an initiative pass, a vehicle can fire as many rockets or missiles as it has launch control systems.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 26 2006, 02:39 AM

QUOTE (eidolon)

Also, it states that in an initiative pass, a vehicle can fire as many rockets or missiles as it has launch control systems.

Exactly. Regardless of how rockets or missiles are mounted, you need Launch Control Systems to fire them.

Posted by: eidolon Jan 26 2006, 02:57 AM

Were I to have to rule on this in my current game, I think I'd just write up launch control systems at various ratings, and make them capable of launching a number of missiles up to their rating, rather than saying that a vehicle has multiple launch control systems.

This due to the fact that in my head, a "launch control system" is just a computer module that takes in various sensor information, plots firing formulas, and fires the missile. Why have several different ones, physically?

So yeah:

CODE

Launch Control System, medium
Rating Cost CF Consumed
1 750 .5
2 1,500 1
3 2,250 1.5
4 3,000 2
etc.

Honestly, I might not even bother making the CF and Load larger with each upgrade. Sure, the CF and Load numbers are for "balance", but the vehicle design rules are just wonky enough that I don't think it would matter.

Posted by: PiXeL01 Jan 26 2006, 03:41 PM

After I posted I looked at the Faq (Why didnt I do that first, I dont know) But according to it, if you mount a launcher (except for the Balista) a launch system isnt needed.
In a man portable launcher the computer and so on are present already (I guess, no expect here) so mounting it on a vehicle is mostly about wiring and adapting the firing control of the vehicle to the launcher. But if you attach rocket/missile mounts to your vehicle there isnt any form for firing control present so you need the lauch system ...

I need to check things like that before I posted ... sorry to waste your time

Posted by: mfb Jan 26 2006, 11:53 PM

you only need a launch system if you're attaching rockets/missiles to the vehicle itself, with racks or whatever. as pixel read in the FAQ, if you're mounting (say) an IWS Multi-Launcher, you don't need a launch control system--the launher is the launch control system; all you have to do is hook it into the vehicle's electronics.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 27 2006, 12:07 AM

mfb is absolutely correct, sorry about the confusion.

Posted by: eidolon Jan 27 2006, 01:59 AM

So as far as:

QUOTE (R3)

n an initiative pass, a vehicle can fire as many rockets or missiles as it has launch control systems.

goes, do you just rule that the vehicle can fire a number of rockets/missiles up to the amount of launchers it has?

Seems a bit silly, all in all, considering that a squadron of Apache's can loose something like 36 Hellfires per bird in less time than it takes to read a DS post. (I know, I know, game balance.)

Posted by: Edward Jan 27 2006, 10:35 AM

I always used the logic PiXeL01 found in the FAQ, as to the number that can fire in an initiative pass that is fixed at one. Just as a vehicle with 2 turrets can only use one at a time a vehicle with 2 missile launchers can only fire one in an action.

Edward

Posted by: mfb Jan 27 2006, 12:27 PM

QUOTE (eidolon)

Seems a bit silly, all in all, considering that a squadron of Apache's can loose something like 36 Hellfires per bird in less time than it takes to read a DS post.

mmm, ripples.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 27 2006, 12:39 PM

QUOTE (eidolon)

36 Hellfires per bird

That'd be a really cool trick, seeing as how they can only carry 16 per bird. The Longbow FCR can track 16 priority targets at a time, but I can't be bothered to figure out if it can actually engage them all at the same time. I agree, though, that the launch system restriction is very silly and seems antiquated considering the 30-year-old AWG-9 radar of the F-14A/B could engage 6 targets at at time.

Posted by: mfb Jan 27 2006, 12:46 PM

he may be thinking of the unguided rockets whose name i can't recall. 5.75mm, i think. those can, indeed, be fired 36 at a time. purty sight.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 27 2006, 12:52 PM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hydra-70.htm, which can be fired at least 38 at a time, maybe even 76. Of course, you could just declare the M261 Light Weight Launcher a separate launcher system which doesn't require Launch Control Systems.

Posted by: mfb Jan 27 2006, 12:55 PM

or that it is, itself, a launcher. i knew there was a .75 in there somewhere.

Posted by: eidolon Jan 28 2006, 05:11 AM

QUOTE (mfb)

he may be thinking of the unguided rockets whose name i can't recall. 5.75mm, i think. those can, indeed, be fired 36 at a time. purty sight.

I was indeed. My bad. I get all blustery when I talk about the Apache. It's so pretty.

Outside of Austere's need to nitpick when the meaning was obvious, my point stands. Game balancing? Yes. Silly? Very.

QUOTE (AE)

I can't be bothered to figure out if it can actually engage them all at the same time.

They can. When the Delta first made it's appearance, I managed (as a PFC) to walk up in between an bunch of Colonels and other brass and receive a briefing from some pilots about what it's new systems were capable of. Put a couple of Kiowas at the ridgeline to feed the battlefield map to the squadron, and it's "pick things and kill them" time.

MMmmmm.

(That briefing was fun. When it came time for everyone to climp up and check out the cockpit, the Major that flew it in goes: Afternoon sir, how are you Major, yes, that's correct sir, good afternoon, Private...

)

Posted by: nick012000 Jan 28 2006, 05:33 AM

Isn't impersonating an officer a crime?

Posted by: Critias Jan 28 2006, 06:58 AM

Yes. Luckily, being in a room with them is not.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 28 2006, 01:08 PM

QUOTE (eidolon)

Outside of Austere's need to nitpick when the meaning was obvious, my point stands.

Sorry. It's a reflex.

Posted by: eidolon Jan 28 2006, 07:32 PM

QUOTE (nick012000 @ Jan 28 2006, 12:33 AM)

Isn't impersonating an officer a crime?

It's hard to impersonate an officer when you're wearing a uniform with your name and rank on it.

@AE: I know, just messing with you. No offense taken/intended.