Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ The Final Call on the Panther Cannon
Posted by: JonathanC Jan 23 2008, 07:36 PM
As it appears in the BBB, the Panther Cannon is weightless (like all weapons), and has no particular penalties for size. So essentially, anyone with the Heavy Weapons skill can fire one, especially since the recoil, according to the rules, is negligible. In older editions the Panther was mainly used by Trolls, because nobody else was strong enough. Now, you could have an anemic dwarf lighting people up with this thing, unless there's a rule that I'm missing. Was this ever addressed officially?
Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 23 2008, 07:55 PM
It's adressed mostly by the fact that it's a single shot weapon that's virtually impossible to conceal and fires wildy expensive anti-tank rounds. It'd be realistic if it had more penalties attached, I suppose, but it'd also have very little business being included in the RAW.
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 23 2008, 08:02 PM
Maybe Arsenal will introduce strength minimums per weapon class for unsupported firing. Something like, Assault Cannons/HMGs/MMGs/etc have a minimum Str (or Bod, or Str+Bod) of Blah. For every point less than Blah, you take a -Blah penalty to dice rolls. Or you could make up your own rules.
But no, there's nothing officially forbidding a 6-year-old girl from firing a panther cannon, and she doesn't officially take damage from the recoil. AFAIK, anyway.
Posted by: JonathanC Jan 23 2008, 08:04 PM
Yeah, that's more or less what I meant, Moon-Hawk. I was just really surprised to see that they'd made those changes. I'm all for lightening the bookkeeping aspect of SR, but there's a limit, you know?
Posted by: Dashifen Jan 23 2008, 08:20 PM
I wonder if we could modify the knock back rules for this. Something like if you fire a weapon whose base DV is greater than your Body, you need to make a Body + Strength test to avoid getting knocked on your rear by the recoil. The threshold of the test could be related to the weapon:
- Tasers, Hold-outs, Light Pistols, Machine Pistols: 1
- Heavy Pistols, SMGs: 2
- Assault Rifles, Rifles, Shotties: 3
- Heavyweapons: 4
Then, burst or full auto could either increase the threshold (+1 and +2 perhaps?) or reduce the die pool.
Thoughts?
Posted by: Cain Jan 23 2008, 08:31 PM
Failing that, we could just assume that the Panther comes with a bipod.
Posted by: Hank Jan 23 2008, 08:50 PM
| QUOTE (Dashifen) |
I wonder if we could modify the knock back rules for this. Something like if you fire a weapon whose base DV is greater than your Body, you need to make a Body + Strength test to avoid getting knocked on your rear by the recoil. The threshold of the test could be related to the weapon:
Then, burst or full auto could either increase the threshold (+1 and +2 perhaps?) or reduce the die pool. |
Maybe require a knockdown test if (STR + BOD < DV), so you don't have to make a test everytime your normalish human fires his pistol. Then you can ditch the category dependent thresh-holds and just have the threshhold determined by burst/full-auto.
Same effect, just less dice-rolling. Although now a reasonably hefty human could fire the Panther Cannon without any cyber.
Or have a knockdown test if (BOD < DV), but only apply that rule for Panther Cannons and machine guns. Then you must have a troll to fire the panther cannon, or be heavily cybered.
Posted by: Starmage21 Jan 23 2008, 09:34 PM
| QUOTE (Hank) | ||
Maybe require a knockdown test if (STR + BOD < DV), so you don't have to make a test everytime your normalish human fires his pistol. Then you can ditch the category dependent thresh-holds and just have the threshhold determined by burst/full-auto. Same effect, just less dice-rolling. Although now a reasonably hefty human could fire the Panther Cannon without any cyber. Or have a knockdown test if (BOD < DV), but only apply that rule for Panther Cannons and machine guns. Then you must have a troll to fire the panther cannon, or be heavily cybered. |
which makes NO sense considering the weapon is designed to be usable by an unaugmented human. The description of the weapon indicates it has tremendous recoil, but since the weapon is single shot, the soldier(or runner) firing the weapon has ~3 whole seconds to obtain another sight picture(of course this is faster for the wired user). If this thing couldnt be fired effectively by the soldiers it was meant for, it wouldnt have gotten the "thumbs up" from the top brass.
Also, "anti-tank ammo" has such a subjective meaning. It could be U-238 armor penetrating round as much as it could be a HEAT round.
When I think of the Panther Assault Cannon(or Panther XXL in SR4's case), I tend to match it with the largest "rifle" type weapons in use today. The ones that might be so big as to not be practical for a man-portable weapon. Say, like a 20mm rifle:
http://www.defensereview.com/stories/anzio/SHOT%20Show%202007%20-%20Anzio%20Ironworks%20Mag-Fed%2020mm%20Anti-Materiel-Sniper%20Rifle_4.jpg
Posted by: JonathanC Jan 23 2008, 09:37 PM
...it's still kinda silly that a 6 year old boy could fire it under the current rules.
Posted by: Exodus Jan 23 2008, 09:45 PM
| QUOTE (Dashifen) |
I wonder if we could modify the knock back rules for this. Something like if you fire a weapon whose base DV is greater than your Body, you need to make a Body + Strength test to avoid getting knocked on your rear by the recoil. The threshold of the test could be related to the weapon:
Thoughts? |
I don't know how true this idea is, well among Small arms.
Handling Recoil is more skill based than it is based on DV. I shotgun can indeed put you on your ACE, BUT if you know how to shoulder it correctly and have a proper stance, there is practically no way your going to fall on your butt.
I've taken some women out to the Gun Range on a couple of occassions, and while the recoil is troublesome, when they shoulder properly and have a proper stance they will never fall. To manage recoil, in my SxS 12 ga, we use recoil reduction cartridges. Eventually after firing them for a while, you'll get used to the recoil and will be able to Handle the firearm allot better.
Like I said I really think its more skill base than anything else.
Posted by: Starmage21 Jan 23 2008, 09:46 PM
| QUOTE (JonathanC) |
| ...it's still kinda silly that a 6 year old boy could fire it under the current rules. |
Why is it important that said 6 year old buy can or cant fire it? Watch youtube videos, and youll find a few where kids are shooting .50 BMG rounds all day so long as they dont have to actually carry the rifle itself.
Fortunately, we're not playing KiddieRun. So you can consider the lack of weapon weights or recoil effects of large weapons acceptable oversight in that a regular infantryman should be able to use these weapons practically.
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 23 2008, 09:48 PM
| QUOTE (Starmage21) |
| Fortunately, we're not playing KiddieRun. |
Oh, damn it, now I'm having campaign ideas.
Posted by: JonathanC Jan 23 2008, 10:08 PM
| QUOTE (Starmage21) | ||
Why is it important that said 6 year old buy can or cant fire it? Watch youtube videos, and youll find a few where kids are shooting .50 BMG rounds all day so long as they dont have to actually carry the rifle itself. Fortunately, we're not playing KiddieRun. So you can consider the lack of weapon weights or recoil effects of large weapons acceptable oversight in that a regular infantryman should be able to use these weapons practically. |
Well, in Shadowrun the kids can carry them too. Juggle them if they want, actually. Things are weightless, after all. And there aren't really guidelines for how strong you'd need to be to carry something like a Panther cannon. Strength 3? 4? 6? Who knows. It's all too abstract.
Also, I doubt those kids on Youtube are firing from the shoulder, or even the hip, with a gun the size of the Panther cannon. In SR3 that thing was gigantic, and the idea of a child, or even a full grown Dwarf, wielding it was laughable.
Posted by: Exodus Jan 23 2008, 10:27 PM
| QUOTE (JonathanC) |
| Also, I doubt those kids on Youtube are firing from the shoulder, or even the hip, with a gun the size of the Panther cannon. In SR3 that thing was gigantic, and the idea of a child, or even a full grown Dwarf, wielding it was laughable. |
Arnold Schwarzenegger would have a hard time firing it from the shoulder, the gun is does not have an even weight distribution and is really meant to be fired from a prone position.
Posted by: Exodus Jan 23 2008, 10:29 PM
| QUOTE (JonathanC) |
| Well, in Shadowrun the kids can carry them too. Juggle them if they want, actually. Things are weightless, after all. And there aren't really guidelines for how strong you'd need to be to carry something like a Panther cannon. Strength 3? 4? 6? Who knows. It's all too abstract. |
Weight they left out intentionally because the developers didn't want it to turn into DnD where you had to micro manage your inventory, because of weight issues. Its left to GM discretion to say hey thats too heavy.
Posted by: Eryk the Red Jan 23 2008, 10:32 PM
The objection is that there is nothing in the rules to reflect the huge weight/recoil that it's supposed to have, which make it most practically a vehicle/troll-mounted weapon. Fragile elf or troll weightlifter makes no difference in your ability to handle the weapon. That seems wrong (and in conflict with established fluff).
Posted by: Starmage21 Jan 23 2008, 10:58 PM
The 20mm and the 50BMG rifles CAN be fired from the hip or the shoulder, doesnt mean youre going to want to hold it that way for long (Barret's M82/M107 is something like 30 pounds). The recoil on them isnt all that huge either, as muzzle breaks and internal recoil dampening systems like spring loads on the barrel reduce overall hit.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 23 2008, 11:22 PM
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) | ||
Oh, damn it, now I'm having campaign ideas. |
Make a perverse and horrifically violent parody of Home Alone.
Posted by: djinni Jan 23 2008, 11:28 PM
| QUOTE (JonathanC @ Jan 23 2008, 04:37 PM) |
| ...it's still kinda silly that a 6 year old boy could fire it under the current rules. |
they can also drive a citymaster, unrigged, get ware that doesn't have to be replaced as they get older, and fire a sniper rifle at full range without needing to rest it, etc... don't look at one aspect from a different game (sr3/sr4 are too different to be the same game), and get upset, just houserule it if it bothers you that much, we just use common sense.
Posted by: Ravor Jan 23 2008, 11:31 PM
Well to be fair, the fluff has stated that ware needs replaced as they get older. (Granted, it was Third Edition fluff, but as far as I'm concerned, fluff is fluff and is equally valid across Editions even when the rules say otherwise.) 
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 23 2008, 11:34 PM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) | ||||
Make a perverse and horrifically violent parody of Home Alone. |
...hehhehheh...
Posted by: Stahlseele Jan 23 2008, 11:42 PM
only cyber would need replacement i'd say . . bio grows and gene/nano does not have any problems with a body of different size either *g*
as for home alone . . perfectly doable with some mean spirited dwarves with a sick sense of humor and some dumb elves *g*
Slip-Spray . . the one fun solution to most everything ^^
Posted by: JonathanC Jan 23 2008, 11:55 PM
| QUOTE (djinni) | ||
they can also drive a citymaster, unrigged, get ware that doesn't have to be replaced as they get older, and fire a sniper rifle at full range without needing to rest it, etc... don't look at one aspect from a different game (sr3/sr4 are too different to be the same game), and get upset, just houserule it if it bothers you that much, we just use common sense. |
The thing is, the fluff is SR4 still describes the Panther as the humongous monster gun. Then the rules say that an anorexic elf could dual-wield them.
Posted by: djinni Jan 24 2008, 12:47 AM
| QUOTE (JonathanC) |
| The thing is, the fluff is SR4 still describes the Panther as the humongous monster gun. Then the rules say that an anorexic elf could dual-wield them. |
don't the rules state that only SMG's or smaller can be fired one handed?
Posted by: Spike Jan 24 2008, 12:59 AM
I don't care what the rules say! I've found my next character!!!
Dual panther weilding anorexic elves fer teh winnah! 
Posted by: ixombie Jan 24 2008, 01:35 AM
I think the rules say that the GM decides who can use a panther cannon. They don't provide weight values or strength requirements. That doesn't mean that neither one exists.
I don't think the panther cannon needs to be nerfed with more requirements. Do people regularly abuse them? No. Why? Horrendous availability, very expensive per shot. There are much better guns for your money. And panther cannons aren't even all that great, especially compared to most autofire weaponry. The only time you really want a panther cannon is when your target has hardened armor. And even then, much of the time a sniper rifle would do the trick, or if it's really heavy a panther cannon won't even work and you'll need a rocket launcher.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 24 2008, 02:41 AM
| QUOTE (Spike) |
| I don't care what the rules say! I've found my next character!!! Dual panther weilding anorexic elves fer teh winnah! |
...nah, ten year old girl in a Japanese school uniform.
Posted by: djinni Jan 24 2008, 03:07 AM
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| ...nah, ten year old girl in a Japanese school uniform. |
didn't kill bill have that?
Posted by: bibliophile20 Jan 24 2008, 05:04 AM
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) | ||||||
...hehhehheh... |
Ooooh... I like it...
Posted by: Lyonheart Jan 25 2008, 01:21 AM
Lack of a listed weight does not make them weightless, just like your troll can't go around armed with a Ares Citymaster strapped to his back, 6yr olds don't get Panther Cannons. Though the Japanese School girl may get a pass it it's that sort of game.
Posted by: JonathanC Jan 25 2008, 01:23 AM
| QUOTE (Lyonheart) |
| Lack of a listed weight does not make them weightless, just like your troll can't go around armed with a Ares Citymaster strapped to his back, 6yr olds don't get Panther Cannons. Though the Japanese School girl may get a pass it it's that sort of game. |
And based on what rule are you denying a 6 year old the right to carry a Panther? A Citymaster is a vehicle, and vehicles are never carried by characters. A Panther is a weapon. It has no listed weight. Who's to say that you can't carry one with a strength score of 1? There's no listing for what strength score would be required.
Posted by: Eyeless Blond Jan 25 2008, 02:39 AM
| QUOTE (JonathanC) | ||
And based on what rule are you denying a 6 year old the right to carry a Panther? A Citymaster is a vehicle, and vehicles are never carried by characters. A Panther is a weapon. It has no listed weight. Who's to say that you can't carry one with a strength score of 1? There's no listing for what strength score would be required. |
P. 130, under Carrying Gear (emphasis mine):
"As long as your players are reasonable about the carrying
abilities of their characters, there is absolutely no need for the
gamemaster to micromanage weights and encumbrance (and if
they aren’t reasonable, feel free to penalize them appropriately)."
Sabe?
Posted by: Shrike30 Jan 25 2008, 07:32 AM
I just stick with the "don't play Shadowrun with rules lawyers" approach. Works pretty well at filtering out assault-cannon equipped 6 year olds.
SR4 kind of assumes that the players and the GM are on the same page about general "what's reasonable?" kind of questions, or are capable of reaching an agreement should a debate arise. "Can a child use a weapon described as "enormous" and that fires ammunition used in the main gun for tanks?" is one of those questions that, if you're having to ask, would ideally mean that your GM doesn't slap his forehead when he hears it, and goes on to okay it's use after a short, enthusiastic discussion with the rest of the player group about what they want in their game. "Totally!"
Posted by: Exodus Jan 25 2008, 03:23 PM
| QUOTE (JonathanC) | ||
And based on what rule are you denying a 6 year old the right to carry a Panther? A Citymaster is a vehicle, and vehicles are never carried by characters. A Panther is a weapon. It has no listed weight. Who's to say that you can't carry one with a strength score of 1? There's no listing for what strength score would be required. |
Common Sense
Posted by: Critias Jan 25 2008, 03:32 PM
| QUOTE (JonathanC) |
| Who's to say that you can't carry one with a strength score of 1? |
*ding ding ding*
"Who is 'The GM,' Alex?"
"Right answer, for four hundred nuyen. The board is yours, pick a category."
"I'm feeling pretty lucky here, Alex. I'll stick with 'Really Easy Gaming Stuff,' and go for eight hundred."
Posted by: Starmage21 Jan 25 2008, 04:26 PM
| QUOTE (Critias) | ||
*ding ding ding* "Who is 'The GM,' Alex?" "Right answer, for four hundred nuyen. The board is yours, pick a category." "I'm feeling pretty lucky here, Alex. I'll stick with 'Really Easy Gaming Stuff,' and go for eight hundred." |
I'd say any adult with a strength of even 1 can carry and use a panther cannon, but after a few hours of nonstrenuous activity or a few minutes of strenuous activity(combat) i'd apply the effects of exhaustion.
Strength 1 w/ the infirm negative quality probobly would be the ones having trouble even lifting the thing.
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 25 2008, 04:31 PM
| QUOTE (Critias) | ||
*ding ding ding* "Who is 'The GM,' Alex?" "Right answer, for four hundred nuyen. The board is yours, pick a category." "I'm feeling pretty lucky here, Alex. I'll stick with 'Really Easy Gaming Stuff,' and go for eight hundred." |
Goddammit, Critias. Why did you have to go and put coffee in my nose? That's just mean, man.
Posted by: Kremlin KOA Jan 25 2008, 06:02 PM
| QUOTE (Lyonheart) |
| Lack of a listed weight does not make them weightless, just like your troll can't go around armed with a Ares Citymaster strapped to his back, 6yr olds don't get Panther Cannons. Though the Japanese School girl may get a pass it it's that sort of game. |
[TANTRUM] But I WAAAANNNNNTT ONE!!!!![/TANTRUM]
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 25 2008, 08:21 PM
...what, the Panther canon or Japanese schoolgirl?
Posted by: JonathanC Jan 25 2008, 09:13 PM
Everybody is saying common sense, but common sense is generally based on having an idea of the situation. All I know about a Panther cannon is that it's big. So if STR 1 is unreasonable, what about STR 2? Still too small? What about 3? At what point can someone wield one with only one hand? STR 10? 12?
There are absolutely no guidelines to go by. And nothing to base recoil modifiers off of, even though the fluff text suggests that the gun has huge recoil. At this point the game rules (Panther has no recoil mod) conflict with what the gun's description is telling you. So what's the common sense answer when the rulebook is arguing with itself?
Posted by: Dashifen Jan 25 2008, 09:22 PM
| QUOTE (JonathanC) |
| There are absolutely no guidelines to go by. And nothing to base recoil modifiers off of, even though the fluff text suggests that the gun has huge recoil. At this point the game rules (Panther has no recoil mod) conflict with what the gun's description is telling you. So what's the common sense answer when the rulebook is arguing with itself? |
But why does there need to be? No one is going to know if your game is different from mine (unless we compare notes or our players do) and, probably, no one is going to care.
Posted by: DireRadiant Jan 25 2008, 09:23 PM
There's no mechanical restriction in the rules. So a STR 1 character can carry and fire a Panther Cannon.
If you want to add or modify or change the mechanics to satisfy yourself and your players, go for it.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 25 2008, 09:25 PM
| QUOTE (djinni) | ||
didn't kill bill have that? |
...yeah, but she had a spiked ball on a chain that she swung around.
http://www.starpulse.com/Movies/Kill_Bill_Volume_1/gallery/KILLBILLVI006/
Posted by: Eryk the Red Jan 25 2008, 09:39 PM
I think "do whatever you want" is a decidedly unhelpful answer. The issue is that it's hard to come up with a common sense solution when there's no frame of reference for such a solution.
That said, I dunno. I've not had to make a rule on it because the only character in my game who's tried to pick up an assault cannon is the two-ton troll. (It should be noted that in my game, assault cannons are more powerful and the book stats are actually representative of anti-materiel rifles.) If it came down to it, I'd probably pick a Strength rating, like 8 or 10, and say you get -1 or -2 to attack rolls for each Strength point by which you fall short.
But that's just an ass-pull, as any rule of this nature would be, since there's really no rules about weapon size. There's weapons that people can use without problems, and presumably there's weapons that don't work like that (like artillery, not that there are or should be rules for that). But there's nothing in the middle.
Posted by: DireRadiant Jan 25 2008, 09:53 PM
No Rules --> Some Rules --> More Rules --> Even More Rules --> Rules for Everything.
No Book --> Small Book --> SR4 Book --> Huge $$$ Book --> No Book.
By explicitly choosing open base mechanics and a relatively consistent resolution engine the game authors have empowered the GM and Players to play the game as they please within a common framework for all the players.
We can add weights and recoil crunchiness to the game, a few pages here and there, and frankly some people, including myself would throw it out and ignore it in their games. So you can make everyone pay for stuff only some would use, or provide a base consistency and allow everyone to enhance it as they please to satisfy their individual and disparate needs.
It's up to the GM, or a full SR4 recall and reprint and redistribution!
And frankly the vast majority of any game session is created by the GM, I constantly find myself lamenting the lack of metahuman psychological, sociological and pathological characterization and behavioral information in the main rule book. It causes me severe problems in figuring out how the NPC s are supposed to act, can we add that to the rule book please? Needs an errata!
I still say you do whatever you want. It doesn't affect me, it might help you.
Now if you want to have a rule published to make me do what you want, well, then we'll need to have a little chat about that.
Posted by: Aaron Jan 25 2008, 10:31 PM
If only there were some sort of person to act as a guide or leader for the game, a sort of "game master" if you will, that could be relied upon to make judgment calls of this sort.
Posted by: JonathanC Jan 25 2008, 10:37 PM
If only there was a book, a...rulebook, if you will, that gave the Gamemaster some vague idea on which to build his rulings. Hmm....
Posted by: Dashifen Jan 25 2008, 10:52 PM
There is. That it doesn't have exactly what you're looking for doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you with a foundation from which to build the game you want to play. One of the great strengths of the SR4 system is its flexibility. Too many more rules and you lose that flexibility.
Posted by: JonathanC Jan 25 2008, 11:01 PM
So, what part of the book provides the information I'd need to guesstimate what kind of strength you'd need to fire a Panther Assault cannon? And what about the recoil? If I apply recoil modifiers, I'm technically countermanding the rules. If I don't, I'm going against what's in the flavor text.
Posted by: cx2 Jan 25 2008, 11:09 PM
Some people seem to have a problem with the idea of "GM approval" being a de facto mechanic.
I have never seen a rocket launcher other than on TV and in computer games, I know very little about them. I know this much - they are a fairly big size and definitely not somehting I would like to lug around. On this basis, and on the basis of what a particular campaign is like I could make an educated guess on what is reasonable for someone to carry a rocket launcher. Similar enough with a Panther, don't overthink things. The moment you overthink you complicate the rules far too much for any rulebook to handle entirely without turning it into something more akin to a tabletop wargame than an RPG.
Or to be more simple - a GM doesn't need to make his mind up about what requirement there is unless someone is an idiot about it.
Posted by: Stahlseele Jan 25 2008, 11:10 PM
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| ...what, the Panther canon or Japanese schoolgirl? |
both *g*
Posted by: Fortune Jan 25 2008, 11:53 PM
| QUOTE (JonathanC) |
| So, what part of the book provides the information I'd need to guesstimate what kind of strength you'd need to fire a Panther Assault cannon? And what about the recoil? |
I guarantee that I could pull the trigger on a weapon that outweighed me by thousands of pounds. I don't think a strength minimum should be required to 'fire' a weapon. As for carrying it I have seen African kids of 2 or 3 or 4 (or whatever), too small to effectively lift and hold their AK-47s. Instead, they just grab it by the barrel and drag it behind them until they get to where they can prop it up (or lie prone) and use it.
Recoil really isn't all that much of a problem. Fluff says that the weapon has a kick. So what? It is only Single Shot, so whatever kick it has is already taken into consideration prior to the next time the weapon can be fired.
Posted by: MaxMahem Jan 26 2008, 12:11 AM
| QUOTE (JonathanC) |
| So, what part of the book provides the information I'd need to guesstimate what kind of strength you'd need to fire a Panther Assault cannon? And what about the recoil? If I apply recoil modifiers, I'm technically countermanding the rules. If I don't, I'm going against what's in the flavor text. |
Really, I think you are harping on the wrong problem here. By the RAW a STR score of 1 is sufficient, which is logical. It doesn't take a super-athlete to wield and fire even a very large rifle. If you are strong enough to lift it (which there are rules for) you can probably use a single-shot weapon like the Assault Cannon effectively. In game terms even a sub-average weakling can do it.
I can see where you might have an issue having small children firing such a weapon. But unless (as other have said) you are playing kiddyrun, this is likely to only be an issue for you, the GM. So you are free to apply any penalty that you deem appropriate, for small children with assault cannons. I would go with -2 or so. You players are not likely to be complaining about the size of the penalty you are applying to children with panther cannons. Personally I would probably be more concerned where these children got the schooling in using Heavy Weapons. Though I admit it could make for a interesting run...
The real question you should be asking is, what the heck IS the assault cannon? It's been around since like 2nd edition or so, and its still not clear. Logically it doesn't match up with any real-world weapon we have or any we really imagine. There just aren't man-portable weapons that fire large high-explosive shells at significant velocities. I tend to think of it as something like Bato's big gun from Ghost in the Shell, but really there is no clear answer, its picture certainly doesn't make sense.
Posted by: Lyonheart Jan 26 2008, 12:19 AM
| QUOTE (JonathanC) | ||
And based on what rule are you denying a 6 year old the right to carry a Panther? A Citymaster is a vehicle, and vehicles are never carried by characters. A Panther is a weapon. It has no listed weight. Who's to say that you can't carry one with a strength score of 1? There's no listing for what strength score would be required. |
Can you give me a rules quote that says vehicles are not carried by characters, of course not, your basing that on LOGIC, the same logic that prevents a 6yr old from toting a cannon.
Posted by: Kremlin KOA Jan 26 2008, 12:26 AM
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| ...what, the Panther canon or Japanese schoolgirl? |
hehehe
I prefer college girls
that was just my impression of a 6 year old in an Assault cannon store
Posted by: Fortune Jan 26 2008, 12:28 AM
| QUOTE (Kremlin KOA) |
| I prefer college girls |
College girls still go to school, so they count!
Posted by: Kremlin KOA Jan 26 2008, 12:30 AM
| QUOTE (DireRadiant) |
| Now if you want to have a rule published to make me do what you want, well, then we'll need to have a little chat about that. |
Funny you should mention that.
In the next Errata, any time the Gm or players use, mention, or think about the Vory v Zakone, the table must send $10 to my Paypal account
Posted by: Mercer Jan 26 2008, 02:17 AM
| QUOTE (MaxMahem) |
| The real question you should be asking is, what the heck IS the assault cannon? It's been around since like 2nd edition or so, and its still not clear. Logically it doesn't match up with any real-world weapon we have or any we really imagine. There just aren't man-portable weapons that fire large high-explosive shells at significant velocities. I tend to think of it as something like Bato's big gun from Ghost in the Shell, but really there is no clear answer, its picture certainly doesn't make sense. |
I've always thought of Panther Cannons as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_rifle, although I guess a more modern version would be the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-materiel_rifle. I've always preferred Panther Cannons to be in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_mm_caliber, particularly because:
| QUOTE (wiki) |
| Like most cannon ammunition, 20 mm caliber weapons are typically used against large targets such as vehicles, buildings, or aircraft. Though effective against individual soldiers, 20 mm ammunition is so large and heavy that its effects are nearly all wasted on relatively small targets. |
In a world with juggernauts, megladons and dragons (oh my), I could see a weapon like this becoming a lot more popular. (Also, given that an "individual soldier" might be ten feet tall or made primarily of titanium, they might no longer be considered small targets.)
Posted by: cx2 Jan 26 2008, 02:25 AM
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
College girls still go to school, so they count! |
Depends what part of the world you're from
I always was amused by the tendency for Americans to blur the line between school, college and university.
Posted by: Fortune Jan 26 2008, 02:31 AM
| QUOTE (cx2) |
| I always was amused by the tendency for Americans to blur the line between school, college and university. |
It isn't as much a blurred lined as a category. Engaging in employment for renumeration is known as 'work', while attending an institute dedicated to education is called 'school'.
And what makes you think I'm American?
Posted by: Starmage21 Jan 26 2008, 03:28 AM
| QUOTE (Mercer) | ||||
I've always thought of Panther Cannons as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_rifle, although I guess a more modern version would be the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-materiel_rifle. I've always preferred Panther Cannons to be in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_mm_caliber, particularly because:
In a world with juggernauts, megladons and dragons (oh my), I could see a weapon like this becoming a lot more popular. (Also, given that an "individual soldier" might be ten feet tall or made primarily of titanium, they might no longer be considered small targets.) |
I agree with this.
Posted by: MaxMahem Jan 26 2008, 03:34 AM
| QUOTE (Mercer) | ||||
I've always thought of Panther Cannons as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_rifle, although I guess a more modern version would be the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-materiel_rifle. I've always preferred Panther Cannons to be in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_mm_caliber, particularly because:
In a world with juggernauts, megladons and dragons (oh my), I could see a weapon like this becoming a lot more popular. (Also, given that an "individual soldier" might be ten feet tall or made primarily of titanium, they might no longer be considered small targets.) |
You're interpretation is a common one, but I don't think it exactly matches the fluff, which describes some sort of very large caliber weapon (at least 20mm, probably larger) which fires explosive shells of some sort. The images certainly look nothing like any sort of modern or past anti-material rifle. I honestly think that some sort of AAA cannon is probably the best fit to the fluff, like the Bofors 40 mm cannon or something. Of course having such a weapon be man-portable (or even-troll portable) is pushing the limit of realism. Anti-material rifles are probably closer to the larger and more deadly variants of sniper rifles in the fluff.
Can't say the concept isn't cool though
Posted by: Starmage21 Jan 26 2008, 04:43 AM
| QUOTE (MaxMahem) | ||||||
You're interpretation is a common one, but I don't think it exactly matches the fluff, which describes some sort of very large caliber weapon (at least 20mm, probably larger) which fires explosive shells of some sort. The images certainly look nothing like any sort of modern or past anti-material rifle. I honestly think that some sort of AAA cannon is probably the best fit to the fluff, like the Bofors 40 mm cannon or something. Of course having such a weapon be man-portable (or even-troll portable) is pushing the limit of realism. Anti-material rifles are probably closer to the larger and more deadly variants of sniper rifles in the fluff. Can't say the concept isn't cool though |
The Barret 121T from SR3 cannon companion is the biggest "rifle" class weapon ever published in the game.
20mm ammo is quite capable of some serious explosive effects, and it certainly IS used on some APCs as a main gun.
Posted by: MaxMahem Jan 26 2008, 05:10 AM
| QUOTE |
| The Barret 121T from SR3 cannon companion is the biggest "rifle" class weapon ever published in the game. 20mm ammo is quite capable of some serious explosive effects, and it certainly IS used on some APCs as a main gun. |
There is a world of difference in the .50-20mm rounds used on some man-portable anti-material rifles and the 20-30mm rounds used on an APC.
A typical anti-material rifle round might be the .50BMG or something as big as the 14.5x114mm Russian. But modern rounds on an APC are even bigger than that. The M2 uses the massive 25mm NATO which is more than twice as large. And the trend seems to be of increasingly large rounds with most of the world up-gunning to even large 30mm weapons. Of course the Bofors round I was talking about is considerably larger than even that.
---
But this really isn't my point. I've got no beef with ruling the Assault Cannon an exceptionally large and powerful anti-material rifle, I just don't think it fits the fluff. Which describes something different, and the art which certainly looks different. But then again when you start talking very large anti-material rifles and smallish cannons used on APCs the differences in our opinions are not so far apart.
Also my point is that the fluff on the Assault Cannon really doesn't make a lot of sense, which I stand by.
Posted by: lunchbox311 Jan 26 2008, 04:56 PM
Here is a close modern day one.... the barrett XM 109
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/lunchbox311/xm109.jpg
It is a 25mm "payload" rifle.
The shell it is using is a scaled down version of the apache helicopter cannon round (which is 30mm.)
It is still an X class rifle because the recoil is a bit too high for most people.
Posted by: Stahlseele Jan 26 2008, 05:14 PM
but then again, most people doesn't include Dwarves, Orcs and Trolls *g*
Posted by: hobgoblin Jan 26 2008, 05:43 PM
hell, i have at times envisioned it as a kind of handheld "mortar"
maybe it was the previous edition art that made me think that way...
Posted by: Stahlseele Jan 26 2008, 05:51 PM
it's more akin to the rocket launcher from UT or Quake i'd say . . it's a direct fire weapon that fires rocket propelled explosives, if i am thinking of the right weapon right now . .
Posted by: cx2 Jan 26 2008, 06:49 PM
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
It isn't as much a blurred lined as a category. Engaging in employment for renumeration is known as 'work', while attending an institute dedicated to education is called 'school'. And what makes you think I'm American? |
I apologise if I assumed. However from a British perspective "engaging in education" is called education, and school is primary(up to 11)/secondary(11-16/18 if they have sixth form) schools. It just strikes me as particularly odd to see "school" used as a categorisation.
Posted by: Stahlseele Jan 26 2008, 07:43 PM
Schoolgirl = Girl in School-Uniform, preferably with short skirt . . everything else is of secondary importance <.<
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 27 2008, 01:25 AM
| QUOTE (lunchbox311) |
| Here is a close modern day one.... the barrett XM 109 http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/lunchbox311/xm109.jpg It is a 25mm "payload" rifle. The shell it is using is a scaled down version of the apache helicopter cannon round (which is 30mm.) It is still an X class rifle because the recoil is a bit too high for most people. |
...isn't this the RL weapon they doctored up for Robocop? Or was it an M-82? Thought I saw something here on the forum but my search foo is too lazy today.
as to schoolgirls with big guns....
http://www.animecubed.com/galleries/gunslingergirl/gsg008.jpg.shtml
You'll need to scroll down a little...
Posted by: hobgoblin Jan 27 2008, 01:52 AM
it was some version of barret that "modified" for the movie(s) yes. i recall looking it up at one time.
Posted by: Ed_209a Jan 28 2008, 02:34 PM
The Robocop Cobra Assault Cannon was a Barrett M82 with a gee-whiz scope bolted on top. It may have even been the viewer from one of the movie's cameras.
I agree 100% with the Barret Payload rifle being a close match for a Panther Cannon.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 28 2008, 03:57 PM
...Thanks. Kinda thought so as I discovered that the XM500 (the pic in LB311's link) didn't come out until 2006.
(did a little more digging last night)
BTW appropriate handle given the topic.
Posted by: Ed_209a Jan 28 2008, 09:22 PM
"Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply. "
Posted by: Shrike30 Jan 29 2008, 07:30 AM
| QUOTE (Ed_209a) |
| The Robocop Cobra Assault Cannon was a Barrett M82 with a gee-whiz scope bolted on top. It may have even been the viewer from one of the movie's cameras. I agree 100% with the Barret Payload rifle being a close match for a Panther Cannon. |
Check out Arsenal when you get a chance. The new assault cannon's artwork looks like an artist's rendering of a Barrett payload rifle. Answers (in a sort-of-subtle way) years of debate on the Internet, for me
Posted by: TheOneRonin Jan 29 2008, 03:00 PM
Yeah, I envision it as something like this:
http://rutube.ru/tracks/363192.html?v=577ee4c0634a0556bb38fc3c29b83c29
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 29 2008, 09:51 PM
| QUOTE (Ed_209a @ Jan 28 2008, 01:22 PM) |
| "Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply. " |
...
Just saw the original a couple nights ago. Still a fun film.
@TheOneRonin: Yeah this one get's my vote too. I like the fact it breaks down small enough to effectively stick in a golf bag. If I saw someone pull this out on the links I most certainly would let him play through....
"Damn sliced it! Caddy, the NTW-20 please...
Posted by: Stahlseele Jan 29 2008, 10:55 PM
| QUOTE (TheOneRonin) |
| Yeah, I envision it as something like this: http://rutube.ru/tracks/363192.html?v=577ee4c0634a0556bb38fc3c29b83c29 |
me wanna, do they deliver?
Posted by: Ed_209a Jan 30 2008, 02:18 PM
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| Just saw the original a couple nights ago. Still a fun film. @TheOneRonin: Yeah this one get's my vote too. I like the fact it breaks down small enough to effectively stick in a golf bag. If I saw someone pull this out on the links I most certainly would let him play through.... "Damn sliced it! Caddy, the NTW-20 please... |
At a little less than 4 feet, the payload rifle fits in a golf bag _without_ breaking down. You just have to put one of those club socks over the muzzle brake.
Posted by: hobgoblin Jan 31 2008, 02:50 AM
| QUOTE (Stahlseele) | ||
me wanna, do they deliver? |
likely guess, only to recognized nation states...
but when it comes to firearm laws, im known to be wrong...
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)