Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Ranger Arms SM-4

Posted by: Riley37 Nov 20 2007, 07:08 AM

Sniper rifle is, at any moment, in one of these states...
Fully disassembled, can fit in briefcase
1 Complex Action of reassembly:
Partially dissasembled, each half is carbine length
1 Complex Action of further reassembly gets:
Hastily reassembled, use Carbine range mods
Further reassembly (Armorer [2], 1 Complex Action):
Fully reassembled, use Sniper Rifle range mods
(actual test firing gives large bonus for this task)

RAW says it gets -1 DP if bumped; I suggest that any bump causing that, also causes reversion to Carbine range mods.

I assume some internal sensors that aid in reassembly, eg Tab A interfaces with Slot B to check whether it's perfectly re-aligned or needs a slight adjustment on this screw or that screw. Actually test-firing is the best way of double-checking reassembly, as a small misalignment matters a lot at 800 meters range.

kzt is among those who know a lot more about long-distance riflery than I do, so I hope that he's among the second opinion providers.

Posted by: kzt Nov 20 2007, 07:48 AM

My thought is that it isn't possible to have a highly accurate rifle that disassembles such that the chamber throat and barrel is not one piece. I have even more doubt about a mid-barrel seam. So you'd get a 21-27 inch long part, depending on the barrel length.

I've seen hunting rifles that break down this way (it looks to me), where the chamber throat is the join. They are two piece and assemble really fast.

They are not designed for 600-800 meter shots, but have a reputation for being quite accurate. This seems like a reasonable basis for modeling the the Ranger. I don't see any good reason to have it break down any further, other then the silencer, bipod and magazine.

See http://www.wildwestguns.com/CoPilot_And_Guide_Rifles/body_copilot_and_guide_rifles.html

I suspect the Ranger is designed like the the rifle in "The Day of the Jackal", which is silly. But typical SR.

I've never seen anyone make a breakdown rifle that has a joint in the middle of barrel. I can't see how you'd ever get it to reassemble without losing lots of accuracy or blowing out unless it was extremely heavily built.

Posted by: Crusher Bob Nov 20 2007, 09:12 AM

some google-fu indicates that the standard attache case is around 18inx13in and 3-4 inches deep.

Assuming you are using a slightly oversize case that is 20in x 15in, this gives you a diagonal length of 25 inches.

Assuming we place the barrel diagonally in the case, this gives us space for a 20 inch barrel and a 3 inch chamber, with a bit of room for padding in either corner.

Assuming you can fit the receiver (stock + internal magazine + trigger assembly + bipod rail) into one triangle, and the bipod, scope, and bolt into the other triangle, the you are good to go.

I'm not sure you can fit a decent stock into a triangle that is around 18in x 13 inches though.

In any event, The rifle would take much more than 3 seconds to put together.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Nov 20 2007, 03:33 PM

QUOTE (Crusher Bob)

In any event, The rifle would take much more than 3 seconds to put together.

Remember, it's 3 Complex Actions, so figure it takes 9 seconds for an uncybered mundane who knows what they're doing. The rest is initiative boosters that we're well-served by not thinking about too much.

Posted by: Falconer Nov 21 2007, 01:59 AM

I see someone beat me to the 20-24" diagonal. Yeah it makes a lot of sense that the barrel would be stored diagonally. If it had a picattany rail on top then you can securely mount most any 'standard' optics on it... short of having the barrel specially tapped for your scope mounts.

Long range and target rifles only attach the barrel to the stock at a single point near the trigger group. A free floating barrel is much better and predictable than bedding it in a stock where differences in thermal expansion/contraction become issues (as well as screwing w/ barrel harmonics).

Due to it's ability to rapidly break it down, I think the -1 penalty is fine, it just means it's not bedded firmly in the stock assembly and has a bit of 'wobble' if it's handled too roughly. The reduction to carbine ranges is bad call on the one posters part. (the range modifier and lack of damage reduction w/ range bracket rules are all screwed up IMO, but that much of a reduction is also screwed up).

As far as assembly, I'd make it an extended armorer test, then someone might be able to get it together in 3IP's (though I'd slam them w/ the -1 penalty because the assembly was done quickly and the barrel wasn't fully tightly). Use Armorer (not longarms... longarms is shooting, armorer is assembly/disassembly/repair/modification of weapons).

If you need 10 successes to get the gun together, then someone rolling 10 dice per IP... will have it together in 3 complex actions... (you could even apply a negative modifier like wired reflexes gives for motion sensor tests since they're 'twitchy' and less sure-handed while doing things on speed). Further, that could be the threshhold for just getting it together, you need 15 to get it fully together and tightened up, the scope neatly adjusted and get rid of the -1).

Posted by: Nkari Nov 21 2007, 05:06 PM

Fully asembling a AK5(swedish army standard wpn), takes about 7-9 seconds. Add another second or two if you do it blindfolded. Done it myself at those times.

So probably its a yes on that one, tho I dont know much about barrel lengths etc and accuracy etc.. =)

Posted by: Spike Nov 21 2007, 05:27 PM

An unscoped M16 can be fired out to 600 meters with fairly disgusting accuracy, depending on the skill of the shooter, of course. It can also be broken into to peices, which can be reassebled reasonably quickly. The overall length is, as I recall, 40 inches, though the barrel and upper reciever are more than half that. On the other hand, jarring it won't do much to change the functional capability at all.

FULLY assembling it from peices... which gains you nothing as far as stowage space, takes well over 9 seconds, which makes me wonder how far down Nkari's AK5 goes

But mostly: The Ranger Arms SM-4 is a Hollywood Gun. Don't question it, just enjoy it.

Posted by: WearzManySkins Nov 21 2007, 06:07 PM

AK5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK5

WMS

Posted by: Spike Nov 21 2007, 06:18 PM

QUOTE (WearzManySkins)

AK5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK5

WMS

That tells me nothing about how complex/simple the mechanism is at the operator level. For example, my timing on the M16, blindfolded, was 47 seconds, but I had to assemble the bolt and bolt carrier key from about seven peices, plus the charging handle, the heat sheilds, the buffer rod and buffer spring... that consumes time.

If the AK5 is not dissassembled into as many peices, then 9 seconds becomes more reasonable the fewer peices the operator has to deal with.

For example: if the bolt and firing pin assembly are 'one unit', the heat sheild over the barrel appears to either be a single peice or perhaps 'fixed' at the operator level... those could mean that he is assembling as few as three or four pieces, explaining the short time.

But thanks for the Wiki link, I'm always keen to learn about a new toy....

Posted by: kzt Nov 21 2007, 06:26 PM

It's basically 5.56mm FAL. Which doesn't help me very much, but it might help you.

Essentially you'd have to have the scope locked down to the barrel. You wouldn't want to dismount and remount it and "only" get a 1 MOA error if you are shooting at 800 meters.

So you get:
Barrel/Scope
Silencer
Receiver/collapsing stock
Magazine

So 10 seconds wouldn't see that far out of line if you use a surefire-style quick attach silencer. Pull the receiver out, install the barrel/scope, install silencer (optional), Extend stock, load and aim.

Posted by: Riley37 Nov 21 2007, 07:56 PM

QUOTE (Falconer)

The reduction to carbine ranges is bad call on the one posters part. (the range modifier and lack of damage reduction w/ range bracket rules are all screwed up IMO, but that much of a reduction is also screwed up).

Further, that could be the threshhold for just getting it together, you need 15 to get it fully together and tightened up, the scope neatly adjusted and get rid of the -1).

Former - I don't know guns well, so I'm posting for better-informed opinions! I'm friendly to the houserule of a) any range past 10m gets -1 no matter what you're shooting, because point-blank is always easier for the shooter even at 0 MOA, and b) range penalties that increase threshold and reduce damage. If any experienced shooter has an alternate range table, please post it.

Latter - the idea that there's a difference between reassembled well enough to shoot at all (eg if a guard stumbles across your sniper nest), and aligned, double-checked, tightened down to minimal MOA error, is my intent.

What about the "smart mount" that can tell you if the scope is on at exactly the same alignment as last time (when you ranged in the gun)? Could that reduce or eliminate errors in reassembly? (uh, assuming non-blindfolded, non-hasty reassembly)

Posted by: Lilt Nov 21 2007, 08:20 PM

Have you considered the effects that Nanites could have on these things? Maybe an intelligent nanite-based lubricant on the join, which adjusts the barrel to keep it straight then locks in place becoming hard as steel.

I know you're talking RL physics here, and don't mean to insult any experienced firearms experts here, I just thought you might want to consider what in SR's technology might allow something beyond what today's technology can achieve.

Posted by: Spike Nov 21 2007, 08:26 PM

QUOTE (Lilt)

That is certainly a workable idea for 2070 era Shadowrun.

In real life snipers, like hunters, tend to gravitate towards simple and reliable mechanisms over fiddly, if cool, things like nanite lubes that can fail at the damndest time...

It just becomes a matter of taste then:

Shadowrun as cool Hollywood style shoot'em up, where slick, high tech guns rule the day or...

Shadowrun as semi-realistic covert ops wonk, where solid and professional operators use the most reliable and effective gear over what is new and shiny?

Chrome or Black, Omae?

Posted by: WearzManySkins Nov 21 2007, 09:50 PM

here is link for sniper rifle? that fits in a tennis racket case

Grendel SRT

http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,21889.new.html

http://securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2900/2923.htm

WMS

Posted by: Lilt Nov 21 2007, 09:51 PM

Given that nanites are used when installing cybertechnology in shadowrun, I'd hope they're pretty darn reliable. I don't know the exact timeline of SR cybertech, but I assume it's probably been around for a good 40-50 years. That's 40-50 years of people putting their lives in the hands of nanites. I'd imagine many hunters and cover ops agents aren't even going to be that old.

I'm just suggesting that technology which, in the SR world, is proven and has been around for decades might fall into the category of old and faithful enough to be considered. There's possibly even newer and fancier stuff around than whatever they do use, but the hunters aren't using it as the 'old faithful nanopaste' option is more reliable. Or, if you like, there could be other nanopastes that are newer but less reliable, thus the hunters choose the more reliable one.

I mean, if a nanopaste-based lubricant (actual lubricant, rather than the gun-alignment stuff) were more reliable, longer-lasting, and superior (in terms of friction reduction and thus component lifetime), whilst never getting dirty... Which would hunters/covert ops agents use?

It's a matter of perceptions, I suppose. I see no reason that nanites couldn't be used in a gritty campaign, as long as they fit the bill and are treated right. You don't even need to give them air-time, they don't need to be mentioned any more than you normally would what's normally used to lubricate your firearms. If you start mentioning them, you're going down the 'fantastic' route. They can just be there, enhancing the capabilities of your stuff and allowing weapons to be broken down into a larger number of pieces with fewer inaccuracies.

Posted by: Spike Nov 21 2007, 10:00 PM

QUOTE (Lilt @ Nov 21 2007, 01:51 PM)

There is a HUGE difference between reliable in the hands of a trained professional in a controlled environment and reliable in the hands of a poorly trained, or untrained (for nanites anyway) operator in the field. Vast. Mere words can not encompass that gulf.

The M16 is an awesome bit of machinery, highly reliable and accurate. Yet the Ak-47, and the later varients remain popular with a huge number of people despite any number of glaring flaws that you or I could care to mention.

One of the primary reasons for that popularity is that unlike the M16, which is a maintanence whore, the AK can be left in a mud pit for weeks on end, then fired without any but the most rudimentary cleaning... if even that much.

Reliability in the field is paramount for military and paramilitary equipment, particularly weapons, which tend to be used under fairly extreme conditions at the best of times (heat, friction, pressure, rapid temperature changes... all this just from its basic operation:Firing)

EDIT::: to add, the US Army tried to switch to a dry graphite lubricant for the M16 just prior to the Iraq war. Graphite lubricants are not new technology at all. However, they found very quickly that while dry lubricants work extremely well against friction, they work significantly less well against foriegn particulate matter... you know... sand. Within weeks Graphite lube was forbidden and the really old school technique of 'slimy fluid buffer'... that is oil... was back in use. The fluid carries the sand out of the mechanism and provides a layer of buffer material thick enough to prevent most sand/dust based damage and jams.

Posted by: WearzManySkins Nov 21 2007, 10:22 PM

The sniper rifle I saw the Secret Service Agent look over in the trunk the "Limo" was in a very compact case, but it was of a interrupted thread design. As for make and model, the small Big Eyes I was using could not make out those features, but could not get the signalman to bring the Big Eyes on the open trunk.

Interrupted thread design meaning the barrel separated from the receiver assembly. But such designs the more you take apart and put back together the more wear the assemblies go thru. But 50+ years in the future, metallurgy and composites would reduce such wear in such designs.

WMS

Posted by: HappyDaze Nov 21 2007, 10:47 PM

QUOTE

Um... you can self-administer the things by inhaler. Yeah, nanite inhalers are a reality in SR. So if you consider every 8-y/o asthema patient a 'trained professional' and damn near anywhere to be a 'controlled environment' then... yeah.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Nov 22 2007, 01:28 AM

QUOTE (Spike)

One of the primary reasons for that popularity is that unlike the M16, which is a maintanence whore, the AK can be left in a mud pit for weeks on end, then fired without any but the most rudimentary cleaning... if even that much.

I'd bet money that the really important reasons behind its popularity are three fold.

A) Cheap - they are easy to make

B) You can buy it - there are not many export controls on these partly because of the countries of origin and partly because of point C

C) There are lots and lots of them floating around in failed or corrupt states scattered around the world, so they are common and easy to get.

Reliability is a nice addition factor, but availability is probably more significant.

Posted by: Falconer Nov 22 2007, 08:55 AM

I'd like to throw out something here, there's a big difference between throwing together a 'cheap' assault rifle and assembling a precision rifle. AR's are designed and built w/ loose tolerances intentionally so that dirt, sand, etc. won't jam them up. Precision rifles are designed with exceptionally tight tolerances and as such are more prone to jamming problems. They don't slap together easily as a lot of the parts have minimal clearance. Even when you get down to ammo, handloads are more problematic because if the rounds aren't spaced very precisely... you can get situations where the breach doesn't fully close and bad things happen when the gun fires. (by the same token a standard issue assault or battle rifle would chamber and fire that ammo no problem).

And no one who shoots AR-15's competitively at extreme range would ever claim they could throw their rifle together in 9s. Again, those guns are HIGHLY gunsmithed and they have high precision parts assemblies in them. They're kept in nice padded cases, they're not thrown around, they're not subjected to 'grunt abuse', if they're disassembled they're disassembled w/ care for cleaning and reassembled w/ just as much care. Ranger arms is a gun w/ a 1.5km extreme range!!!

The idea of a nano-paste lubricant I find rather laughable. You claim that it can be completely fluid but also rigid at it's option. If it's that advanced, the grey goo scenerio becomes a real threat. You should read the chapter in augmentation that deals w/ nanites and nanobots. I could see a hard nanite which cleans and oils the rifle for you. (that'd be pretty nifty, spray on the nannites they clean and oil the gun for you).

Though I do like the idea of a 'self-aligning' weapon... EG: throw the gun together, then let the actuaotrs and sensors built into it, align it quickly. I just don't think tha'ts a job for nanites.

Riley:
Your comments regards smartlink are pretty apt. Only catch the Ranger Arms doesn't have smartlink (unless you pay double for a custom rifle). As a long range sniper... your overbarrel mount already has a scope, the barrel already has a silencer, and underneath probably a bipod. That leaves paying double for an internal smartgun system. Oh well, strict rules, bipods have no benefit to sniping... so underbarrel external smartlink is an option. Ironically, attaching an external smartlink to your disassembled rifle is an Armorer (4, 1 hour) extended test... so much for fast assembly of that option.

I'd think smartlink would be a nice way to provide an augmented reality bonus to fast assembly. Just like the book says, if you have augmented reality blueprints or the like, it gives a +2 bonus on the technical skill. Armorer skill was just a way to make the 3 complex action comment more variable based on the character doing it. (I figured 10dice x 3actions == 30 dice, 30 dice average 10 hits). And 10 dice isn''t that hard to get (4log, 4skill, 2specialization and/or augmented reality).

Anyhow I looked again at the weapon description and page. I think the only reason they put that -1 penalty in there was because they didn't want to see people grab the rifle just because they could, and then use it all the time as a primary semi-auto 'rifle'. The hunting rifle in the game is 7p/-1.... god forbid characters run around w/ a 8p/-3 'hunting rifle' and not use it as a sniper weapon. Makes me heavily tempted to just weld the thing together to eliminate the 'loose barrel' problem even if I can't easily disassemble/reassemble now. Then pull a 'assault weapons ban' type move and make cosmetic modifications so the weapon is no longer a banned 'F' rating. I can see the GM rolling his eyes at that...

Posted by: kzt Nov 22 2007, 09:18 AM

In SR, it's seems it is always best to assume that anything involving guns that makes little to no sense is because the people writing the rules only experience with guns has been in comic books and movies. So they wanted a breakdown rifle and hence they made it work like a twisted version of the gun in "Day of the Jackal" because they have no clue that these things really exist.

Posted by: Mercer Nov 22 2007, 09:27 AM

That's a fair point, kzt, although I find myself pointing out that a game with dragons and elves can probably handle the hit to the suspension of disbelief that the briefcase sniper rifle entails.

Posted by: mfb Nov 22 2007, 03:10 PM

i really, really dislike that argument. one of the driving forces behind cyberpunk, and science fiction in general, is the idea that this stuff could actually happen. the inclusion of fantasy elements impacts that, certainly, but that doesn't mean it should be discarded altogether. because if we discard it completely, then it's no longer a blend of sci-fi and fantasy, it's just pure fantasy.

Posted by: HappyDaze Nov 22 2007, 04:42 PM

QUOTE

it's just pure fantasy.

Hell, I accepted that SR was just pure fantasy back when I tried to rationalize the NAN. The scieince part of SR has always been just one step more believable than Star Trek, and the same with the society. It's all fantasy fluff, and it could NEVER happen without much more magic than we see in SR, so just learn to take it how it is.

Posted by: mfb Nov 22 2007, 04:54 PM

i've rationalized the NAN, as well as some of the more glaringly wackass societal trends in SR. i figure if i'm going to take things as they are, i may as well stop playing RPGs and just watch TV. ...hell, i don't take things as they are even when i do watch TV.

Posted by: Mercer Nov 22 2007, 09:26 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

i really, really dislike that argument.

And I'm sympathetic to your dislike of that argument. Typically, the more fantastic the fantasy elements of a game, the more grounded the real elements need to be (otherwise, we might all as well be playing Roman Wolfen Bluesmen on a Hoverbikes). But:

Considering all the technological advances that exist in the Shadowrun timeline 63 years from now, including cyberlimbs and computers that plug directly into the brain-- in short the logical extrapolation of the technology we're developing today (completely divorced from the magical elements of the setting)-- having someone develop an accurate snipe rifle that breaks down into a briefcase is really, really, really not that big a stretch.

How the rifle works is not that big of a deal, in much the same way that the game designers don't have to build a working prototype of a cyberarm in order for me to accept that there are cyberarms in the game. They simply say, "There are cyberarms, and here are their stats," and I can assume that whatever problems modern day scientists are having with making cybernetic arms have been solved. Likewise, they don't have to show me detailed drawings of the briefcase sniper rifle. They can just say, "There are briefcase sniper rifles, here are their stats," and I can assume that whatever problems modern day briefcase sniper rifles have, they have been solved.

Posted by: kzt Nov 22 2007, 09:43 PM

Part of what the game does is say that "things you can do today with weapons you can't do in SR despite 63 more years of advanced technology". You don't need to be able to build a prototype, but it would be nice if you had more then a comic book level of familiarity with weapons technology before you write a game that this makes up a lot of.

Pus there are the TERRIBLE weapon illustrations.

Posted by: Large Mike Nov 22 2007, 10:39 PM

1) Even bad weapon illustrations are better than not weapon illustrations.

2) I know that since increased operational tempo in American and Commonwealth armies means more and more of us have military background, the weapons in game are going to get a more critical eye pointed towards them. However, the guys who write the game, by virtue of the fact that they have the time to write a role playing game, likely don't have military background at all. Not everyone can be a tough guy. Forgive them, and change it if it's really giving you sand in your vag. I'm sure at some point, somebody like Raygun will cover off on the SR4 weapons and we'll have a whole new set of stuff to argue about.

3) 9 seconds? Is that just upper and lower receivers plus bolt carrier, or detailed strip? Either way, not bad.

4) It's been my experience that oil collects sand more than anything, but we may be using different kind of oil. Graphite is apparently just the trick for arctic conditions. Or so I've been told, as I've never personally done an arctic exercise.

Posted by: Mercer Nov 22 2007, 10:46 PM

I imagine the game designers only had a "comic-book level" of familiarity with a whole host of things they game was built upon, up to and including cyberlimbs, magic, dragons, and plugging your brain into a Honda. I just find that in a game with cyberninjas and dragons, the briefcase sniper rifle makes an odd sticking point. I mean, are we really flipping through the basic book, seeing a picture of a briefcase rifle and saying, "No way!"

Posted by: Narse Nov 23 2007, 02:32 AM

QUOTE (HappyDaze)

QUOTE

it's just pure fantasy.

I disagree. Strongly. Much of what is proposed in SR is by no means far off. Most of it is just evolutionary changes to existing tech. The basic principles for most everything supplied in the base book are well known. (please note that I do not have Aug. and therefore can't comment on the realism of their conception of Nanotech or Genetech) Startrek, by contrast, makes many assumptions that are just plain wrong. Like faster than lightspeed travel. I could find more examples if you really want me too, but probably none as glaring.

As far as rationalizing the NAN, I like to remember: 100 mages > 10,00 soldiers. (see the canon effects of the Great Ghost Dance). After all what country is going to mess with a group that has access to weapon that it have no defence against (magic) and which can neutralize the country's strongest weapons (like nukes, that don't go off). Note: the cannon assumes that Mages = majorly bad ass, it is this one assumption that lets the NAN exist. (More mages = more firepower, even with a tiny population)

Posted by: Mercer Nov 23 2007, 03:05 AM

Another thing about the GGD, all the really did was set off a few volcanos and a few tornados. But at the time, nobody really knew what mages were capable of, and anyone who had half a clue probably didn't have access to the high levels of the US Government. Clearly, the GGD was slinging some powerful mojo, but on another level you could see it as an elaborate bluff. I mean, how else did the US give up half their country in the face of what was essentially the threat of bad weather?

Or, maybe a handful of Mob Mind and Physical Mask spells are what got the job done. (Remember, this would have been back in SR1 when you could ground spells out into the physical world. So a few astrally projecting shamans show up in the Capitol Building and the White Houses, summon a F1 spirit and tell it to manifest, and then just start chaining Mob Mind spells out.)

Posted by: mfb Nov 23 2007, 03:09 AM

they wiped out an entire air attack brigade (my old unit, actually) with that bad weather. and from anecdotes, they fought several other engagements, and apparently won them all. it wasn't like it wasn't like Howling Coyote said "zomgz i makes teh valcanos asplode" and the US rolled over; the US military gave it their best shot, and they got shut down hard.

Posted by: Large Mike Nov 23 2007, 05:02 AM

Rules changes are retroactive through history unless they have to do with advancing technology. If the setting had actually lost the ability to ground spells through manifest spirits, I'm sure there would be a pretty big in-setting hullaballo about it.

Posted by: Critias Nov 23 2007, 05:45 AM

QUOTE (Mercer)

I think the reason Shadowrun's firearms are something of a sticking point for so many of us is because firearms are real. We don't care how unrealistic cyberarms are, because they're almost wholly made up. We don't mind the Dragons can kick our ass or Immortal Elves are unlrealistic, because we know magic isn't real so they can do whatever the hell they want to. I'm fine with the Matrix working however they want the Matrix to work, and all the imaginary terms and measurements and technological advances it entails, because there's no real life Matrix and it can work however they think it works.

But, well, guns are real. Especially guns that are so very obviously patterned on real-life weapons (complete with brand name and half-assed image). There are real life metal tubes with real life grips and real life magazines that are capable of moving real life pieces of metal really fast, and we know how they do what they do -- so when the in-game versions (despite looking the same, being described the same, having the same manufacturer, etc) work completely differently, it's the sort of thing that's easy to notice and be bothered by.

Posted by: Seven-7 Nov 23 2007, 06:25 AM

QUOTE (kzt @ Nov 22 2007, 04:43 PM)

Part of what the game does is say that "things you can do today with weapons you can't do in SR despite 63 more years of advanced technology". You don't need to be able to build a prototype, but it would be nice if you had more then a comic book level of familiarity with weapons technology before you write a game that this makes up a lot of.

Pus there are the TERRIBLE weapon illustrations.

While I agree with your overall statement, I've got to say something about the bold text:

If the dark ages have taught us anything it's that disease, monarchy, and violence can set an entire civilization back decades in science and technology. In Shadowrun Theme we have actually 6 instances:

VITAS
VITAS: Revenge of the VITAS
Ebola II
Rampaging Dragons (Europe knows what I'm talking about)
TOTAL wipe of all information (IE Crash 1.0)
Crash 2.0: The Crash strikes back
Corporations
ect.

If we think of each as a total restart like the Dark Ages that's a lot that can technologically happen different. If I remember correctly astrology and planetary alignments could be figured out even if they were thinking of the Earth in the center, albeit it was a pain in the ass, however (If I'm still correctly remembering my history) after the DA suddenly science is taking a different turn!

So comparing the technological advance of Shadowrun and Real Life starting in 1980 is futile due to the logic that these events could have halted any wireless research around 2006, or weapon design like the OICW or XM8 might have not had the funding to continue...ect.

Posted by: Falconer Nov 23 2007, 06:28 AM

Critias: i agree... Shadowrun keeps a market model which is actually kinda interesting. A lot of their tech is based on today's cutting edge theory made 'real'. So in that aspect it is very much classic science fiction at it's time of publication. Magic is simply magic though... in many aspects shadowrun mages are much more gimped than in other systems, but at the same time their lack of grounding in reality which ties the sammies/riggers/etc liberates them to do more.

As such, as technology advances some things we learn were wrong (or better methods supercede them). So in a way... SR1's setting was superceded by SR2 by 3, then 4 as a way of selling more books but also as a way of advancing the setting.

As I stated after pointing out that the nanite bits were rather silly. I have zero things against a self-assembling gun. Since I was already going long... I didn't backup why, but it was based on the thoughts of cyberlimbs and the such. Basically electronics are embedded into anything and everything. With that mindset though, why not a gun which folds and unfolds itself in 3 combat rounds w/o the user even doing anything more than setting it down and pressing a button? It's simply a matter or robotics.

All the bits about the NAN are all about the re-entry of magic into the game. If the fights suddenly were refought, I feel things would not be so one-sided anymore. The NAN had a clear temporary advantage... (monopoly on magic) they used it to accomplish their ends. But look at the results of the breakups... what interest do they have in actually reunifying the union? The south was let to succede again. Settingwise, this is probably because multiple independant jurisdictions are more to the corps interests, than the reintroduction of a larger more powerfull centralized nation-state entity.

Posted by: kzt Nov 23 2007, 07:06 AM

Actually, large, unified states with good legal, financial, law enforcement and transportations systems are much more useful to a large corporation than the same area broken into 12 mutually hostile banana republics. Shipments that cross hostile national borders have to clear customs, in countries the work people who rob you get arrested, Bridges don't collapse under your trucks, you don't have to bribe 43 different people to get a phone line installed, etc.

There is a reason why you have to get down to position 22 in the fortune international 500 before you see a country other then the US, France, Netherlands, Japan, Germany, UK. And that is Switzerland. The first 2nd or 3rd world company that isn't an oil company is 185, China Telecom. It's because it sucks to operate in those kind of countries.

But that's another example of the FASA just not caring about anything other then it's "Cool". Sell the Sizzle.

Posted by: Mercer Nov 23 2007, 11:18 AM

QUOTE (Falconer)

As I stated after pointing out that the nanite bits were rather silly.

Nanites to me are the radioactive spider of today. Used to be radiation would give people weird powers. Then it was "genetic modification". Now its nanites. The hoodoo of the day.

For those of you who haven't seen http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0398913/, you really need to check out the dvd. There is this awesome deleted scene in which the evil mastermind, Eric Roberts, is detailing his plan for world domination, and it includes the phrase, "And then, my miniature nanobots...", and the way he buttons miniature nanobots kills me. Not sure why they need to be miniature nanobots. Maybe they're nanites that are so small they're like nanites to nanites. Anyway, once we master miniature nanobot technology, what can't we do?

QUOTE (mfb)

Yeah, but a large part of that was the US Government had no experience fighting magicians, nor any idea of what they were truly capable of. The GGD was serious mojo, as I said, but that doesn't mean it wasn't to some degree a bluff. Its not like they had miniature nanobot technology. Howling Coyote was selling the GGD as a mere taste of things to come, but its much more likely that what they pulled off was pretty close to the limit of their power.

QUOTE (Critias)

But, well, guns are real. Especially guns that are so very obviously patterned on real-life weapons (complete with brand name and half-assed image).

Fair enough. But, [insert long boring argument that SR is not a firearms simulator-- at least not a successful one-- and that ultimately, its more important for the game to be playable than realistic. Mention autofire. Bring it all home with a humorous reference to miniature nanobots, thus completing the comedic rule of three.] See what I'm saying?

Posted by: Fortune Nov 23 2007, 11:47 AM

QUOTE (Riley37)

Personally, I think this is excessive, especially the bolded section. If those were the rules, it would take at least an average weaponsmith (Logic 3 Armorer 3) to properly assemble the rifle successfully with any regularity, which is something I am not willing to accept.

In my opinion, the Active skill of actually using the weapon (in this case rifles) includes the ability to assemble and care for that weapon. The Armorer skill is for modification and repair, if not outright creation of weaponry, ammunition, and armor (it's a big ass skill), and should not be needed just to clean a barrel, or even to put together a weapon that is purposely made to be assembled and disassembled (one could assume the weapon in question was even designed to be assembled rather quickly, being a covert sniper-type rifle and all).

Posted by: Critias Nov 23 2007, 12:33 PM

QUOTE (Mercer)

QUOTE (Critias)

But, well, guns are real. Especially guns that are so very obviously patterned on real-life weapons (complete with brand name and half-assed image).

Yeah, I understand all that. I'm not arguing anything. I'm just explaining that -- as my guess -- that's why I think firearms realism is such a sticking point for some people, when we're all content to just hand-wave the Matrix, Magic, Dragons, Elves, and yadda yadda yadda. I don't really care about the Ranger Arms too much either way, I don't think a briefcase gun is going to break the game or anything. I was just giving my idea as to why some people can get hung up on it.

Posted by: Lilt Nov 23 2007, 09:07 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

I also dislike the argument that because something's unlikely under modern technology, it must be impossible under future technology. SR has all sorts of technology and weapons way beyond what we have now. They have RAIL GUNS. To say that something couldn't function as it says in can in the book because the rules don't totally mirror real-life, or because it doesn't fit with shadowrun's feel, is definately flawed.

Game designers don't nessecarily have the laws of physics in mind when designing rules, nor do they expect their players to all have such knowledge. They have a fun game in mind, and sometimes rules are there purely to encourage X behaviour over Y as they thought X behaviour was more wlike what they wanted. There are also monetary and complexity issues, which are fairly closely related as to increase your customer base you have to make the game playable by everyone of all ages, whilst to increase profits per book you'll be under pressure to not waste extra pages.

Also, who was it who mentioned inaccurate weapon illustrations? Please tell me of one game designer who actually drew one of those images, then prove to me that they drew it like that due to actual lack of knowledge and not because it looked cooler and was aimed at a clientèle with a comic-book knowledge of weapons.

Sure, I highly doubt the game designers (all of them) had as good an understanding of firearms as people here. When dealing with stuff that is possible now but not in SR, you have to ask yourself why that is. Is it because:

The designer wanted it to work that way to encourage/discourage a particular behaviour. Maybe they don't want firearms being too deadly?
The designer wanted to keep the rules simple, and rather than opting for complex extra special-case rules they went for a simple rule-set rather than going to the trouble of turning SR into a real-life simulator.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the designers realistically had the know-how of themselves to make everything as realistic as possible. If they were really bothered about it they could've hired a firearms expert, however, or just asked here for free.
The designer didn't actually know any better, and was just basing the rules on the school of DC/Marvel/Holywood

Sure, sometimes things will fall into category C, but assuming the game designers made the system as it is out of stupidity is going too far. Similarly, the games designers wanted there to be briefcase-portable sniper rifles. Why do they need solid grounding with sniper rifles when they don't with cybertechnology?

Cybertechnology is so far beyond prosthetics these days, it's not funny. It strikes me as a strange double standard to say that one could be nano-augmented and the other not. There's even precedence for entire nano medkit systems in a user's blood... If a nano-system is good to go in my blood system then it's good enough to augment my sniper-rifle!

As for fitting with shadowrun's feel? I'd like to re-visit the points that I made earlier:

QUOTE (spike)

Nanites are autonomous by nessecity. You can't control them all individually, unless you imagine millions of doctors all controlling a nanite each and reattaching each nerve ending. Until there are billions of doctors performing each cybertech install manually, or nano-doctors in the field with the nanites inside your body, the nanites may as well be on the moon for how much direct operator control is possible.

The rest of your email doesn't even begin to address the points that I made that nanites might be more effective than other options. Sure, an Ak-47 can be left in a mud pit for a week and still fire. What if nanite-augmented weapons could be left for a number of years, and still fire? In such cases, they could become the old faithful 'gritty' option compared to other options (or other, newer, nanites). You can have gritty game with nanites making things work. Just as they offer an expanation to cyberware, they offer an explanation to other things in the book working.

I really do think that arguing X is against a flavour Y implies a lacking of imagination to see X with flavour Y rather than actual incompatibility.

Posted by: Spike Nov 24 2007, 12:25 AM

Lilt: You and... uh... the other guy...

Seem to be working under a misaprehension of what a combat firearm has to go through and for how long.

Nanites are far from a perfected technology in SR. Hell, the 'implant versions' require a special control/replacement module or they begin losing function within what... a week?

How long between special 'nanite lube services' is a sniper in the field going to have to go? Mind you, the stresses of firing, particularly in the area of the barrel and firing chamber are going to be much more extreme than the typical human body.

Mind you: I don't have a problem with the idea of a 'briefcase' sniper rifle that can be assembled at the site for the hit. I object to making guns needlessly complex and fiddly, and the idea that it somehow loses damage if poorly assembled, rather than having a shorter range and subsequent lower accuracy of poorly assembled (even that is wonky IMHO... or at least an example of poor design if it is that suseptable to jarring, etc...).

Posted by: Tarantula Nov 24 2007, 12:48 AM

Spike, check out the common applications of nanites in augmentation. They can be used to build small buildings, computers, military tech, among other things. Its not as if the gun has an immune system systematically destroying the nanites (and optimized for fighting things of that size). Hell, put in hard nanites, and I doubt the nanites fair any worse than the barrel does from the heat.

Posted by: Mercer Nov 24 2007, 01:27 AM

To be fair, if the SM-4 is jarred once assembled, all it gets is a -1 to its dice pools. That's barely noticeable. It's the smallest mechanical penalty that exists, at least until someone figures out how to take away half a die. The SM-3 (from previous editions) took a +2 TN penalty if it got knocked, which was a much more dramatic effect. (You may not notice the difference between throwing 7 dice and 8 dice without firing quite a few rounds, but you'll noticed the difference between a TN2 and a TN4, or a TN4 and a TN6. Not so much a TN6 and TN8, though.) It seems to me that the SM-4 was intentionally made to be a much more "user-friendly" (or idiot-proof) weapon.

If it takes 3 Complex Actions and no skill rolls, then the weapon effectively can't be assembled incorrectly. And if the weapon were to be inaccurate, it doesn't seem like its range would matter. If the rounds aren't going where you think they're going, then it really doesn't matter how far they go (especially if the system has no way to account for it, beyond a dice pool penalty).

The weirest part of the SM-4 picture to me is the scope. That thing is huge. It's about 50% of the bulk of the weapon, and technically, anything you can put into the scope you can also put into a pair of contact lenses. The bigger question seems to be why would an assassin who needs to discreetly sneak his sniper rifle around in a briefcase would be using an imaging scope that looks like something you'd use to locate Jupiter.

Posted by: Spike Nov 24 2007, 01:28 AM

QUOTE (Tarantula)

You may be talking to the wrong Runner, omae. I'm the guy that thinks the military probably wouldn't adopt smartlinks for standard issue firearms, regardless of the prevelance or cheapness of the cyberware.

Double true of the wireless world military. Too many points of failure.

Posted by: Tarantula Nov 24 2007, 01:42 AM

Ok Spike, so instead of arguing that cannonically nanites wouldn't be used, why not just say "I disagree with cannon on a variety of points regarding tech, so it my game it would work like this..." Instead of arguing that there wouldn't possibly be nanites in weapons.

Posted by: HappyDaze Nov 24 2007, 06:37 AM

QUOTE

Nanites are far from a perfected technology in SR. Hell, the 'implant versions' require a special control/replacement module or they begin losing function within what... a week?

OK, so have the weapon's stock hold the equivalent of a hive - just fill it back up every 6 months. Possibly excessive for a personal weapon (although for a high-end precision weapon it could work), but similar things are a must have for vehicles.

If you don't want ti integrated, then just follow the example of the nanotech medkit and have a nanotech gunkit that you just hook up to your weapon and let it do it's (non)magic.

QUOTE

How long between special 'nanite lube services' is a sniper in the field going to have to go? Mind you, the stresses of firing, particularly in the area of the barrel and firing chamber are going to be much more extreme than the typical human body.

You'd be suprised at how much stress the living body can put on things. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you might be...

Posted by: Spike Nov 24 2007, 08:31 AM

See... nanotech hive on a delicate precision firearm used by rich white dudes for precision shooting at competions? No problem. Wacky stuff like that exists today.

Outside of hollywood, you'll never see it used by any 'professional' in the field.

Like I said upthread, this is a breakdown between if you like your games Chrome or Black.

Me? I'm happy either way, but when talking guns I tend to work from the Black mindset. Then again it does edge towards my job a bit... so I'm biased. I'll happily PLAY chrome and never look back, but I don't talk about stuff like that all serious.

Posted by: Tarantula Nov 24 2007, 07:35 PM

And Spike, if said weapon outshoots a black weapon 9/10 except when the black is carefully assembled by a extraordinarily good weaponsmith? And the chances of being both a fantastic weaponsmith and an amazing shot are quite low.

Posted by: mfb Nov 24 2007, 08:40 PM

not really. most people who are amazing shots are fairly accomplished gunsmiths, because becoming an amazing shot is more than just shooting a lot--it's knowing your weapon well enough to use it to its maximum effectiveness. knowing your weapon means knowing how it's put together, what makes it accurate and dependable, how to keep it accurate and dependable, what factors limit its accuracy and dependability--in other words, being a weaponsmith.

that said, if nanotech zomgz weapons reach a point where they're as or more dependable than tried-and-true regular weapons, as or more accurate, as or more easy to handle in the field, etcetera, then they'll no longer be zomgz weapons--they'll be tried-and-true regular weapons.

Posted by: Tarantula Nov 24 2007, 08:42 PM

Let me put it a different way. You can't have aptitude armorer and aptitude longarms.

Posted by: mfb Nov 24 2007, 08:43 PM

so? that's one die. aptitude really doesn't mean much.

Posted by: Tarantula Nov 24 2007, 08:45 PM

Except raise the limit you can have it augmented by.

Posted by: mfb Nov 24 2007, 09:01 PM

ah, my bad. there's a two die difference. aptitude really doesn't make all that much of a difference.

Posted by: Tarantula Nov 24 2007, 09:03 PM

Neither does smartlink, or take aim (which, btw, if you're up to a 10 for the skill, makes it a 3 die difference (1 aptitude, 1 for the extra bonus, and 1 more for an extra take aim availible).)

I mean, why bother with any of those.

Posted by: mfb Nov 24 2007, 09:12 PM

i'm not really sure where you're going with this. you said you can't be a fantastic weaponsmith and an amazing shot--i disagree. even within the rules, you can be both. you can't have aptitude in both, but so what? grab aptitude in shooting, since you can get up to a 3-die difference there, and settle for being a whopping 2 dice short of the best weaponsmith who ever lived. you're not going to fail significantly more often than the best weaponsmith ever, so who cares? it's certainly not going to make much of a difference when it comes to accuratizing and assempling a rifle.

Posted by: Tarantula Nov 24 2007, 09:13 PM

Well, going by that arguement, you don't need to know anything about guns, just have a semi-decent logic, and you can put it together just fine by defaulting. (Just as long as you're not likely to glitch.)

Posted by: mfb Nov 24 2007, 09:19 PM

yes. according to my knowledge of the rules, that is true.

Posted by: Tarantula Nov 24 2007, 09:21 PM

So, then since all thats needed is being a good shot, whats it matter if the gun shoots well via nanites, skill, blind luck, or anything else?

Posted by: mfb Nov 24 2007, 09:28 PM

i don't actually recall saying that it does matter. but since you ask, Spike makes a good point--the state of nanotechnology in SR makes nanites undependable, and therefore unsuited for use in the field. if you've got a weapon that can withstand significant abuse and remain fairly accurate, it's going to be favored by most operators over a weapon that is extremely accurate, but which requires extreme care and constant maintenance to remain in working condition.

Posted by: Tarantula Nov 24 2007, 09:32 PM

Please defend your point that nanites are undependable. The fact that they are used in almost every surgery there is, as well as construction, manufacturing, even execs having nanoforges on their DESK, tells me that they're pretty dependable.

Posted by: mfb Nov 24 2007, 09:47 PM

well, there's dependable, and then there's dependable in the field. today, an executive (or a construction worker, or a doctor) is probably going to depend on a sleek, slim cellphone for communication. the equivalent piece of equipment for a military unit in the field is a gigantic green brick that weighs something like thirty pounds. if you drop a cellphone, there's a reasonable chance you'd have to repair or replace it. if you had a SINCGARS, you could beat an elephant to death with it and then call home to report a field acquisition of one (1) deceased pachyderm, Dumbo type.

Posted by: kzt Nov 24 2007, 09:56 PM

Nah, the equiv of a cell phone is an Mobile Subscriber Equipment terminal. Not a SINCGARS.

Posted by: mfb Nov 24 2007, 10:09 PM

eh, whichever. MSE was a bit too high-speed for the units i was in. to your average commander, all that matters is that they both provide voice and data commo. and it's not like you're going to be stuffing an MSE terminal into your pocket!

Posted by: Tarantula Nov 24 2007, 10:13 PM

And, just how is a nanite maintained weapon more apt to malfunction than one that isn't? Seeing as hard nanites could be made of similar materials as the rifle (or even better futuretech materials), the likelyhood of the nanites failing before the rifle would is low.

Even so, put the military grade sniper rifle through the same abuses, and I guarantee the nanite augmented weapon performs better.

Posted by: Whipstitch Nov 24 2007, 10:18 PM

Here's the thing though, when the nanite fails, how does Joe Soldier cope with THAT? They're microscopic and require specialized equipment if they can be repaired at all. You're getting to the point where you're just swapping in and out parts again, and in this case we're bringing ridiculously tiny and expensive parts into it, and I sincerely doubt these tiny and expensive parts could possibly provide enough benefits to justify their cost.

Posted by: Tarantula Nov 24 2007, 10:20 PM

He doesn't, the nanites aren't required for the function of the rifle, they just merely are there to augment the abilities of it. I.E. if Joe Schmoe assembles it, and does a bad job, they can self correct to make the rifle still accurate. If mr. weaponsmith does it, and does a good job, then the nanites don't really do a whole lot, since its already properly aligned.

Nanite failure just means treat it as unaugmented.

Posted by: mfb Nov 24 2007, 10:38 PM

QUOTE (Tarantula)

Seeing as hard nanites could be made of similar materials as the rifle (or even better futuretech materials), the likelyhood of the nanites failing before the rifle would is low.

no, it's actually pretty high. rifles fail all the time, especially under the stress of combat. nanites add more moving parts and more points of failure to a machine that already has a lot of moving parts and a lot of points of failure.

QUOTE (Tarantula)

Nanite failure just means treat it as unaugmented.

if your weapon's nanocalibration thingy screws up, it might just turn off and leave you with an unaugmented weapon--or the points of reference it uses to keep the weapon accurate might get misaligned, and the nanocalibration thingy would screw your weapon up and make it less accurate. you could add a diagnostic thingy to your nanocalibration thingy to keep that from happening--until the diagnostic thingy screws up.

like Spike said, i can see it being used by rich white guys, and maybe by super high-end awesome zomgz black ops teams who don't actually spend all that much time in the field--for instance, they might use it for special occasions when they have to make one really, really hard shot. in those instances, it's probably not going to see enough abuse to worry about it. but for general use by sharpshooters and snipers, no way.

Posted by: Tarantula Nov 24 2007, 11:37 PM

What points of reference it uses? Please, explain how the nanites can screw up. Yes, a significant amount of them could be destroyed, causing them to be unable to perform their function. Other than that, they can't get reprogrammed to mess up the gun, nor do I have any idea what "reference points" you're talking about.

Nanites aren't a point of failure, anymore than the color of the rifle is a point of failure. Sure, you might like your rifle black but if it hits the mud, its gonna turn brown. Does it being brown reduce your ability to shoot with it? I rather doubt it.

Take two identical guns, one with nanite augmentation to correct misalignments and one without such. Now, put them through the same stresses. Which one will shoot better? Most likely the nanite one. At the worst, the nanite one will still fail just as much as the unaugmented one, so whats there to lose?

Posted by: mfb Nov 25 2007, 12:43 AM

the purpose of the hypothetical nanite system we're discussing is to fine-tune the assembly of a firearm such that the firearm is as accurate as possible. in order to perform this function, the nanite system must have points of reference within the parts of the firearm itself, so that the nanite system knows whether or not the assembled parts are correctly aligned or not.

that's just a hypothetical example for this hypothetical nanite system. there's other stuff that could go wrong, depending on the finer details of how the technology works--finer details which we have no idea about. basically, it all depends on how dependable the SR tech writers want to make nanites. in my opinion, judging by the uses to which nanites are put in SR technology, nanotechnology is not developed enough in SR to be useful in standard sniper rifles or other firearms.

i don't view nanites as magical fairy dust that you can sprinkle on something to make it better. i don't see that SR's technology supports that view of nanotechnology. if you do, great. run with that.

Posted by: Falconer Nov 25 2007, 01:15 AM

Tarantula, it makes no sense because you're telling someone who's been firsthand involved in molecular electronics research while in school. That some silly little nanite massing next to nothing can shove a large barrel assembly around. It can deal w/ the massive pressures and forces generated by firing the gun repeatedly as well.

Nanites in shadowrun are used pretty much exclusively at the microscopic levels. I don't expect them to get a large macroscopic effects. Or if they do it'll take them a really long time compared to combat rounds. (building something up a grain of sand at a time can take a while).

As I said earlier, given the chapter on nanotech in augmentation. I can see uses for them. To borrow a page from the M-16's bill of goods... a self-cleaning rifle. Using hard nanites to clean junk and oil the gun's action makes sense to me. Using them to adjust and move things at the macro scale doesn't. They wouldn't be able to survive the barrel, because the gilding metal which mates would scrub them out of the barrel every time it fires. I don't see them fine-tuning the rifle for you, potentially as a sensor net (akin to the nanotech bioscanner) AIDING someone actually doing the fine tuning, but not doing the fine tuning themselves.

Posted by: Tarantula Nov 25 2007, 09:42 PM

mfb, its hypothetical, I believe from the chapter in aug on nanites that they would be capable of doing such, you disagree.

Falconer: A nanite doesn't do a whole lot on its own. All nanites are microscopic, thats part of their definition. Nanites work because there are tons of them. They all do a very tiny job, that adds up to something overall. For example, they can build buildings as quickly as a construction team can. Thats not exactly a really long time.

Hmm, i'm thinking, heres another way they could be useful. Nanites are used in construction because they can create items without seams. Perhaps, instead of aligning the rifle, it instead joins all the seams together, creating one solid piece of metal instead of a bunch of detachable parts. When you're all done, you tell it to undo it, and then you can break it down again.

This prevents it from being able to be bumped out of alignment, as bumping it doesn't change the alignment at all.

Posted by: Mercer Nov 26 2007, 02:45 AM

That's actually a really interesting idea. I don't know anything about nanites, either real, theoretical or in the game (I prefer to call them miniature nanobots, after all) but if the ones in the game can be programed to build an exact replica of something, a sniper could sight his rifle, put it in the nanomizer (where the miniature nanobots work their magic), and carry his sniper rifle around in a ziplock baggie. It'd be a neat way to get through Customs.

Posted by: mfb Nov 26 2007, 02:56 AM

the thing is, that's a bit too interesting. that kind of technology would reshape the world overnight. governments would topple, the megacorps would be broken forever, the world economy would mutate into something completely unrecognizable. nothing would ever be the same again.

Posted by: Mercer Nov 26 2007, 03:07 AM

The older we get, mfb, the more we realize nothing ever was the same.

If a sufficiently revolutionary technology is sufficiently expensive, the revolution will wait. I haven't read Aug, so I don't really know what miniature nanobots are capable of in SR, but there's always going to be someone ahead of the curve.

Posted by: mfb Nov 26 2007, 04:12 AM

the thing is, that technology is inherently free. all you have to do is teach your replicator to build more replicators.

Posted by: Mercer Nov 26 2007, 05:42 AM

The second replicator is free. The first one might cost 800 million nuyen. There's all sorts of reasons why someone who spends 800 million making something might not be motivated to make it self-replicating (like, say, profit). Since we're making up the technology for the game, there's no need for it to do anything we don't want it to do. The miniature nanobots can breakdown a rifle and put it back together one time, for say 100k. That'll be the going rate for the untraceable, undetectable sniper rifle. It makes it more of a plot point than gear (especially since once its reassembled, its just a book sniper rifle).

Posted by: mfb Nov 26 2007, 07:06 AM

what you'd have to do is decide that replicators require some sort of relatively hard-to-acquire element in their composition--weapons-grade plutonium, or somesuch. this assumes that replicators aren't capable of subatomic manipulation--that they can't be used to turn lead into gold, or more importantly, weapons-grade plutonium (or whatever rare element you decide is required to make it go).

nanoconstruction isn't all that fast, and it requires a fair amount of energy--more than could reasonably be stored in your bag-o-rifle. what you'd do is, take your bag-o-rifle and empty it out on a warm, flat surface, like the bottom of a large oven. the warmth would provide the nanites with the energy require; you come back a day later, and you've got a sniper rifle in your oven. or, more reasonably, you've got a pile of sniper rifle parts in your oven that you can quickly assemble into a working weapon.

nanoconstruction is a scary topic. it'd be nice if SR delved a bit deeper into how it works, if only to limit the applications it can be used for.

Posted by: kzt Nov 26 2007, 07:25 AM

nano-disassemblers are pretty darn scary too.

Posted by: Spike Nov 26 2007, 04:17 PM

I recall Augmentation covering self replication of Nanite: they can't do it yet.

THe only reason I recall that is that Shadowrun is not, at this time, worried about a 'Grey Goo' doomsday senario, their nanotech isn't up to the job.

Posted by: Earlydawn Nov 26 2007, 06:02 PM

Bear in mind the cost factor. Nanotechnology is relatively stable in Shadowrun, but it's also way too expensive to simply issue to a grunt at the SOTA that SR is set in. I'm not military yet, but I'd guess that snipers / marksmen are a relatively low-cost operating unit - food, ammo, and medical, right? Compare that to a fighter-bomber squadron, and you have a bargan. That's what infantry is all about, economy. Soldiers are relatively versatile, they're usually comparably cheap to field compared to any other line unit (tanks, aircraft, helicopters), and while I hate to say it, they're expendable.

Now let's look at the OICW. Remember what happened with that bad boy? By and large a huge improvement over the M203 if they could just nail the weight and battery issues, but they didn't even bother. Remember why? Because it made your grenadier too expensive to actually put on the field.

I guess my point is that Shadowrun nanotech is, by cannon, three things: Reliable, Very Useful, and extremely expensive. That's why you wouldn't see your average sharpshooter team running around with nano-anything. I tend to agree that your average unit - police or military - wouldn't even by chromed. You're eliminating their advantage.

Posted by: kzt Nov 26 2007, 06:12 PM

A modern http://www.deathfromafar.com/htm/iba_weaponsys_xm3.html costs $19,000.

The training to use it costs a lot more. They are cheap in comparison to a $75 million aircraft and the $4 billion ship it flies off, but only in comparison.

And they have tried to work on the weight and power issues, but it hasn't worked out yet. It's mutated into the XM25 Individual Airburst Weapon System, but still isn't fieldable.

Posted by: Spike Nov 26 2007, 06:42 PM

QUOTE (kzt)

That is not a Modern Sniper Rifle. That is an SOTA prototype looking for a home. Also the rifle portion is less than half the cost, the rest is equally advanced periphrails.

Never mind that real milspec sniper rifles are typically

A) repurposed assault rifles with some minor work done by a military armorer

B) grandad's bolt action hunting rifle, costing roughly 400-600 dollars.

C)large caliber 'anti material rifles', which still come in under two grand...

Posted by: kzt Nov 26 2007, 07:30 PM

Umm, no. That's a "marksman" rifle.

The Knight's Armament SR25 Mk11 Mod 0 is the SEAL sniper rifle. It's currently commercially listed at $9000. Without a night scope or suppressor. And with a two year delivery estimate.

The Knights Armament XM110 7.62mm Semi-Automatic Sniper System is the new Army sniper rifle. It costs the Army $8500 (when you buy 800), again without a night sight.

Posted by: Spike Nov 26 2007, 07:43 PM

QUOTE

Military

Sniper rifles aimed at military service often deliberately sacrifice a small degree of accuracy to obtain a very high degree of durability, reliability, sturdiness, serviceability and reparability under adverse environment and combat conditions. Military snipers and sharpshooters might also be required to carry their rifles, along with other equipment, for long distances, and as such weight considerations are very important. Military organizations often operate under strict budgetary constraints, which influences the type and quality of sniper rifles they acquire

The Marine Corps uses the M40 bolt action rifle (granddads hunting rifle...)

The US Army uses the M24, also a bolt action...

Here is a http://www.tacticalintervention.com/sniperphotographs.html to photos of said uniformed 'snipers' using them.

The fact that you wish to distinguish the overbudgeted Special Ops guys (Seals...) as Snipers, and the rest of the Sniper School graduates as 'Marksmen' means little to me.

EDIT::: To add: As sweet as the SR-25 is, no military could afford the logistics chain entailing a 2 year turn around per rifle.

Posted by: kzt Nov 26 2007, 08:23 PM

They are replacing/supplementing the M24 with M110s.
http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/04/23/2803-snipers-in-afghanistan-receive-new-weapon/

The SR-25 has a two year lead-time on the commercial market. Because the guys who order in bulk with .mil addresses always go to the head of the line.

Posted by: Spike Nov 26 2007, 08:47 PM

I should point out that the XM110 falls into the 'repurposed assault rifle' catagory. Did you see the pictures? That thing is closely related to the existing M16 weapons (as the SR-25 is explicitly a very heavily modified M16, as I recall from articles back in the day...)

On costs: Given that the military has a long standing tradition of overpaying for stuff.... That's still less than the 19k you? quoted earlier.

Posted by: kzt Nov 26 2007, 09:53 PM

Add the night sight

Posted by: Falconer Nov 27 2007, 02:38 AM

Nanotech:
Part of my reason for thinking this goes too far is because... if I can' make hard nannites self-assemble or do things like this, there's very little to stop you from having them self-assemble into nearly anything with programming. Damn I need a knife, hey little guys line up and lock up... wait I need a screwdriver.. hammer... crowbar.... That's getting silly, it doesn't make sense that they have that kind of holding power or rigidity.

Self assembly brings up the whole grey goo problem.

Now...
Spike, stop before you make yourself look even worse...

At best for a bolt action high precision rifle without optics (precision bolt action, trigger group, precision medium or heavy weight barrel, synthetic stock). Starting figures are roughly in the $3500. That's w/ no optics, no fixtures, no anything. That's a basic accurized bolt rifle in a common calibre like 7.62nato (this is the kind which is commonly bought by law enforcement for 'urban sniping'). Or a match grade semi-auto rifle like a M1A (civilian M-14).

The rifle I'm mentioning has a factory guaranteed precision of .25MOA. So this is no piece of junk. http://www.snipercentral.com/rifles.htm
You'll also note the cost to accurize an off the shelf Remington 700P is listed at $1600. FYI: the Remington 750P typically goes for roughly $750 and it's not uncommon to see it get 1MOA from the factory. (so I'd say as a baseline if a player wanted to accurize the Ruger100 in the SR4 book... it'd cost them 3x base rifle cost)

I'd argue that a pricetag on anything starting w/ an X in the military designator is not a good baseline. As that X stands for experimental or developmental. So there's a lot of prototyping costs in there.

No one I can think of bases their SNIPER rifles off of ASSAULT rifles. Assault rifles simply put do NOT have the hitting power to hurt something at extreme range. They may have enough to make neat little holes in paper at 600m for the 5.56 crowd, but they don't have the energy to seriously hurt or kill a target in one shot at those ranges. (also there's some severe windage problems on small light projectiles like that and you don't get sighting shots). Also since you seem to need the lesson, what is today the M-16 was originally chambered for 7.62, it wasn't until later that it was changed to the 5.56 ammo so it could compete for the role as an assault rifle.

The US Army used the M-21 for ages as it's standard issue sniper rifle, which was based on the M-14 brought up to target competition specs. But the M-14 is type classified as a BATTLE rifle, not an ASSAULT rifle. The SVD may look cosmetically similar to an AK-47 but it was developed independantly of it, it fires a completely different cartidge as well 7.62x54R (also used in their MG's).

There is a HUGE difference between a scout-sniper and a designated marksman. The military puts people through two different training tracks for each. The introduction of designated marksman is very recent in fact, as the schools have only been operating for less than 10 years now! Even then, the marines DMR (designated marksman rifle) is basically an accurized M1A (M-14 battle rifle). Or because of need some have been fielding SR-25's (a bigger M-16 chambering 7.62, also a BATTLE RIFLE not an assault rifle). Only a very few have been handed match grade AR-15's and that mostly because of availability and training (you need to retrain your armorers to handle the new weapons in the field).

Scout-snipers are NOT a special operations only unit. Snipers are normally attached as battalion level assets and operate independantly or attached to a unit at the whim of the battalion commander. They are a regular army unit MOS. DMR school is a field day compared to scout-sniper school. DMR's are squad level guys (1 guy per combat infantry squad ideally has the long range rifle). Their job is to be able to precision engage targets BEYOND ASSAULT RIFLE RANGE (emphasis necessary).

Posted by: mfb Nov 27 2007, 03:23 AM

Falconer, man, double-time to your nearest unlicensed supplier and acquire some medicinal flammables.

there are a lot of 'sniper rifles' that are repurposed assault rifles. generally, these are chambered in larger calibers, such as 7.62 NATO. some people like to call such large-caliber automatic rifles 'battle rifles', and that is perfectly okay. it also perfectly okay to call them assault rifles.

Posted by: Mercer Nov 27 2007, 04:05 AM

QUOTE (Falconer)

I think part of the problem is an assumption that I run into every time I got to a sci-fi movie with certain friends of mine; they assume that because one type of technology exists (say, spaceships), that other parallel-- or even unrelated-- technologies must exist (like say, laser weapons). The problem with that is one type of technology doesn't necessitate another, and even if it did, since we're making it up anyway, it doesn't have to do anything we don't want it to do.

Having nanites be able to make a single uncomplicated item (like a crowbar) doesn't mean they can form and re-form into other items like a cloud of cartoon bees, unless you want it to. The technology is only as advanced as it needs to be for the game. The technology beyond that can be as unreachable as the stars; we don't have to imagine any more than we need to.

Posted by: kzt Nov 27 2007, 04:25 AM

That is true, as long as you can articulate a fairly convincing rational reason besides "it's required by the plot".

Posted by: Mercer Nov 27 2007, 04:40 AM

That reminds me of an answer to a question posed to the creator of Babylon 5 at a sci-fi convention, asking about how fast the spacecraft on the show could travel. "All ships move at the speed of the plot." We figure out what the game needs, and then we justify it by the in-game logic. A more enlightened society might call it "bullshitting".

Having one-shot miniature nanobots makes sense because the corporation that sold them to you wants you to buy more. They're out hundreds of billions in R&D money, and they aren't going to turn a profit if everybody buys one set and moves on. So nanites are going to be very expensive, non-replicating and limited in scope, otherwise no one would be able to justify the expense in creating them. Corporations aren't churning these things out for the good of mankind, they're trying to make a profit.

Posted by: Tarantula Nov 27 2007, 05:46 AM

QUOTE (Falconer)

The nanobots don't turn into whatever they are building, anymore than a construction worker turns into a skyscraper. They simply take material, and move it around at the nano scale, in numbers of thousands-millions, and eventually it turns into what you wanted.

Posted by: Spike Nov 27 2007, 05:52 PM

Falconer: mfb covered the main point of my response much more politely than I would have, so I'll just fill in a few bits of spackle around the edges.

Great: your rifle hits a .25 MOA. The Military generally doesn't shoot for less than 1 MOA, and the FBI only requires a rifle reach .5 MOA for it to be classified as a 'Sniper Rifle' for law enforcement use. Obviously, exceeding the standards is not a bad thing, but it will, naturally, jack the price way up.

Second: yes, accurized bolt action rifles cost more than granddad's hunting rifle, but under 2k is nowhere near the 'cost of a new car' prices everyone else has been tossing off.

None of this has to do with the Ranger Arms other than my comment that while it fits perfectly with a certain style of play (Day of the Jackal 'Chrome' plated play) it would never be the default 'sniper rifle' of military or paramilitary forces, not even the super swoopty special ops guys with money to burn on overpriced toys that don't perform measurably well in actual operation... that is to say outside of competition shooting. Given that: if your Shadowrun game fits a particular style (Black, or paramilitary commando team) the Ranger Arms is a poor choice over even a more conventional hunting rifle... with a scope.

Posted by: Narse Feb 8 2008, 07:33 AM

Sorry to Necro this, but I just ran across http://www.ketmer.com/ai/defense/awcovert/index.htm, a site detailing the Accuracy International AWS Covert. This is a sniper rifle (or so it seems to my inexperienced eyes, after all that does seem to be AI's thing) with integral suppressor that comes with a suitcase to contain all the parts when disassembled. Now, I don't know what the dimensions of this suitcase are, but I'm guessing that it is a bit larger than your standard briefcase. Apparently it is designed for counter terrorism units who need to move their weapons discreetly (don't ask me why a Counter Terrorism unit needs to be discreet when moving weapons). Further the suppressor is supposed to reduce the report to one similar to .22LR match ammunition. Note: this weapon is suggested for uses at around 300m or less as a result of the suppression and trajectory issues of subsonic munitions.

Anyhow, I saw this and immediately thought: "Ranger Arms!" Here's hoping that some of you find this useful.

Posted by: Critias Feb 8 2008, 11:21 AM

Yeah, that'd be either a sport or sniper rifle in SR's terms (chambered in .308, it can go either way). Swanky. I wish I had one. If so, I would use my rifle-in-a-suitcase powers for good, not evil.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 8 2008, 11:34 AM

QUOTE (Critias @ Feb 8 2008, 10:21 PM)

If so, I would use my rifle-in-a-suitcase powers for good, not evil.

That makes one of us.