Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: lodestar Dec 2 2003, 05:09 PM

Something interesting came up in game play last night. A security dude mistakenly opened up on one of my drones with a weapon full of gel rounds. Is there any rules covering this? While it states somewhere that Body 0 vehicles are destroyed if they take any weapon damage what about Body 1 or 2? Especially flying ones it would seem that there might be some effect.

Posted by: Bearclaw Dec 2 2003, 05:14 PM

A quick and dirty answer, without knowing the exact situation would be, no effect.
I would probably add wound modifiers til the end of the round or something, just for the impact, but no actual damage.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Dec 2 2003, 05:17 PM

Hmm... in canon, there doesn't seem to be an effect. I'd make you take a crash test, though, for a flying drone if the "damage" would have caused knockback (using the drone's body, etc).

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 2 2003, 05:18 PM

It doesn't matter if you whack a car with a sword or a baseball bat, they're both going to do damage. The same is true of the various ammunition types; it doesn't matter if it's regular or gel rounds, they're still doing damage.

Though the amount of damage is going to be neglible in most cases due to the rules for standard weapons and vehicles, especially vehicles with armor. If you didn't have any armor on the vehicle... well, it was going to go down sooner or later on a run.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Dec 2 2003, 05:19 PM

Posted by: moosegod Dec 2 2003, 05:26 PM

I'd say do the suggested knockback rules. Maybe damage on a really good roll.

Posted by: Traks Dec 2 2003, 05:29 PM

Still I agree about kinetic energy. Also you could make some body test to see if sensors were hit or clogged with gel.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 2 2003, 05:30 PM

Posted by: Spookymonster Dec 2 2003, 05:31 PM

Posted by: Cray74 Dec 2 2003, 05:32 PM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 2 2003, 05:35 PM

The Condition Monitor. It makes no distinction between Physical or Stun damage because both are equally effective against a vehicle. Vehicles are not humans; it doesn't matter if you're smashing them or puncturing them, they both have the same end effect. You'll also note that vehicles don't have different Ballistic/Impact ratings.

The condition is up to you to find a rule that states that Stun damage is ignored, not me to find one where it states that it's not.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Dec 2 2003, 05:35 PM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 2 2003, 05:37 PM

I stand corrected then.

Posted by: Zazen Dec 2 2003, 05:43 PM

I'll chime in with "no effect".

It might damage a glass lens or other vulnerable sub-part if they call a shot.

Posted by: BitBasher Dec 2 2003, 05:43 PM

Also vehicles and drones do not suffer knockback, knockback specifically applies to characters.

You do not slide a vehicle a meter sideways by shooting it.

Posted by: Spookymonster Dec 2 2003, 05:43 PM

Posted by: Zazen Dec 2 2003, 05:52 PM

Posted by: TinkerGnome Dec 2 2003, 06:02 PM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 2 2003, 06:05 PM

It is still easy to interpret it the way I have in my games. Sure, they don't take stun damage because they have nothing to stun, but that doesn't mean Stun damage (notice the change in capitalization) doesn't affect it. The vehicle just takes it as regular damage.

But I understand others who might choose to ignore it. It's just how I prefer to see it.

Posted by: CoalHeart Dec 2 2003, 06:07 PM

Vehicles don't take stun damage at all. They ignore it completely. Rather oddly in my opinon.

I'd say if your car takes D stun from a gel round apply a L wound to the car.

A gel round would break a window or dent a panel, but it wouldn't penetrate the vheical and actually harm something important unless you had a gaping hole in the armor already

Posted by: ThatSzechuan Dec 2 2003, 06:14 PM

Agreed. It's hard to bruise a car.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Dec 2 2003, 06:16 PM

Which is why I'd probably not do real damage to a vehicle from stun rounds, but would likely call for a crash test in certain situations. Take a guy on a motorcycle that gets nailed with a gel round. Does the motorcycle break down (well, realisticly, it might, but probably not)? It's more likely that the guy on the motorcycle gets knocked to the side a bit as his vehicle takes the impact. The same thing for flying drones.

Thus the crash test to see if the sudden jerk sends them into a wall, etc.

Posted by: BitBasher Dec 2 2003, 06:46 PM

Posted by: Zazen Dec 2 2003, 07:05 PM

Posted by: Dende Dec 2 2003, 08:24 PM

The way I see it...if you stage up a baseball bat or gel round shot high enough, you will do REAL damage anyway. So why worry about anything else. If the car takes physical, viola...if you didn't stage it up far enough, then the shot sucked...the bat didn't hit hard enough...etc.

Otherwise I would assume only cosmetic damage, that gel may be bad for paint, maybe a mirror knocked off, but nothing worth noting short of atmosphere.

Posted by: OurTeam Dec 2 2003, 08:56 PM

Dende, in the staging you talk about, are you describing "overflow" from the stun condition monitor to the physical condition monitor, or some technique for staging beyond 10 boxes of Stun delivered in one attack?

Posted by: BitBasher Dec 2 2003, 09:03 PM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 2 2003, 09:11 PM

Uhm, no it's not. It's based directly upon the Power of the attack. A hold out is going to have a TN of 2, whereas a Panther Assault Cannon is going to have a Power of 9. If they were loaded with Gel Rounds, the Power would be 4 and 18 respectively, assuming the latter could use Gel Rounds for purposes of this example.

Unless you're talking about the effect, but that's just silly. The effect of a hold-out pistol's knockback isn't going to knock most people down. The effect of a PAC's knockback is going to knock most people down.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 2 2003, 09:14 PM

OK, simple solution. It only has one monitor, and it makes no difference between Stun and Physical. If you take a baseball bat to a car, what happens? Damage. If you take a gun to a car, what happens? Damage.

There you have it, even if it does stun, it still damages the same. Forget whether or not it does stun or physical and just apply the damage as-is.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Dec 2 2003, 09:16 PM

Posted by: Tanka Dec 2 2003, 09:20 PM

The baseball bat and the gun are not doing the same strength in damage.

If you can get a guy that can hit as hard as a bullet hits, then the answer would be that they do the same (Excepting piercing) amount as each other.

Edit: The average person with a baseball bat does 4M Stun. The average person with a gun does anywhere from 4L (Hold-out) to 10M (Heavy pistol).

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 2 2003, 09:22 PM

Right. Give a sledge hammer to a troll (Strength 8, assuming it's a STR+1M Stun weapon) and let him go to town on the vehicle. Then give some schmoe with an equal skill level in Pistols a heavy pistol. In my opinion, they're going to do about the same amount of damage.

Posted by: Dogsoup Dec 2 2003, 09:23 PM

I'd just stage down the DL another level. 5S-Stun becomes 2L when hitting a unarmoured vehicle, but thats's just my houserule.

Posted by: BitBasher Dec 2 2003, 09:31 PM

Doc, whta I was addressing is that no matter the weapon, the effects of knockdown are identical. One meter or not, and standing or not. The power of the weapon just increases the odds of it happening.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 2 2003, 09:35 PM

Which to me, suggests that it's more than a mental shock at getting hit. If it were purely mental and had nothing to do with the kinetic energy of the blast, Gel Rounds wouldn't double the target number. Sure, the designers decided against putting in a distance dependant upon the Power of attack (which I'm thankful for, as that could have gotten pretty silly in some circumstances I'm sure), the context behind what's happening is more than just a stunned stagger at being shot.

Posted by: Corporate Raider Dec 3 2003, 01:02 AM

Although I follow Tinkergnome's quote from SR3 pg. 145, and rule in my games that stun damage does not affect vehicles, there is an even more bizarre situation that results, which hasn't been mentioned yet.

That Body 1 Armor 0 electrically powered drone gets to ignore taser jolts and smacks from stun batons.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 3 2003, 01:09 AM

That's already covered under electricity-based attacks.

~J

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 3 2003, 01:59 AM

The point your missing is that it shouldn't need to be a rule -- taser jolts and stun batons only do Stun damage. So if Body 1, Armor 0 electrically-powered drones get to ignore it, it suggests that some other types don't. Thus, some other types suffer damage from Stun attacks (even if the damage isn't labeled as Stun on the condition monitor).

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 02:19 AM

dende had a good point. if you stage the attack to D+2 stun, the vehicle will take an L wound. it's hard to do, but it should be hard to put a hole in a car with a round that's designed to not make holes.

and as far as 'knockdown' goes--don't drivers have to make crash tests, when their vehicles take damage?

Posted by: Hasaku Dec 3 2003, 02:46 AM

Doc, tasers do stun damage and can have secondary effects from the jolt, as per combat manipulations. See the appropriate section on elemental effects.

edit: It's just that, against a vehicle, the secondary effect is the ONLY effect since the jolt isn't enough to physically damage the vehicle, but it may be enough to affect sensitive systems.

Posted by: Zazen Dec 3 2003, 03:06 AM

"Vehicles do not take Stun damage, so they have only a physical damage track" is almost as clear as they could have possibly written it, guys. They lack the track for stun damage because they don't take stun damage, not because it automatically overflows into physical or any other such thing.

I understand the desire to let vehicles, especially small ones, get banged up by baseball bats and big metal poles. Just let them do physical on-the-fly when you feel it makes sense. Creating a weird new interpretation that lets Bruce Lee destroy a car with two or three jabs is not an elegant solution.

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 03:09 AM

no kidding. the vehicle damage rules are hinky enough as-is.

Posted by: Zazen Dec 3 2003, 03:10 AM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 3 2003, 03:10 AM

Uhm, no it's not. As I said before, it can easily be read to be saying "Vehicles do not take Stun damage, so any damage they take is considered Physical damage on their one and only track." Stun is a biological type of damage, but that in no way makes vehicles immune to bludgeoning attacks.

According to you guys, if an unarmored Body 0 rotodrone were to come by, you couldn't hurt it by bashing the $#*@ out of it with a bat... and that's just ludicrious.

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 03:12 AM

so is totally destroying a car with a burst of gel rounds, doc.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 3 2003, 03:13 AM

That one's a matter of opinion. I still have little problem with it.

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 03:13 AM

so is totally destroying a car with a burst of gel rounds, doc. besides which, we're arguing that you can-- you just have to rack up 8 successes in one roll to do it.

edit: ack, bug. and, yes, that's a matter of opinion. if you're of the opinion that a round which is designed to not puncture human skin can suddenly blow through a steel car body and take out the engine, that's your opinion. it's so inane it's cross-eyed, but it's an opinion.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 3 2003, 03:18 AM

I'd rather have one or two bizarre situations occur because of a sensible rule (which can be found in just about any rule in the game) than not have a rule which results in even more ridiculous situations. The logic being used with the vehicles is the same for any inanimate object; if a vehicle can't be destroyed by a sledge hammer or baseball bat, why should anything else?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 3 2003, 03:18 AM

The reference that comes immediately to mind is Magic in the Shadows page 52, but it's not applicable in this circumstance. Looking for non-spellslinging reference...
Rigger 3 page 101 has the Zapper Strip, and page 27 has the notes for electrical effects on riggers.

~J

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 03:22 AM

doc, a vehicle can be destroyed by a baseball bat. that body 0 drone? with a little luck, a lucky guy with 4 skill in clubs could take it down in one hit: 4 skill +4 cp vs TN 3 (reach), and the rotodrone doesn't get to dodge or counter. come up all successes, and it's down.

contrary to popular belief, it's hard as hell to destroy a car with a sledgehammer. bust up the windows? dent the body? maybe bend the rims? sure. but when you're done, the car will still turn over and go when you hit the gas.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 3 2003, 03:29 AM

Not if you bash the hood enough, sometime it'll break and you'll start hitting parts.

And, since, by the rules, it doesn't take Stun, there can be no Overflow, and thus no Physical.

Posted by: Hasaku Dec 3 2003, 03:31 AM

You keep mentioning how ridiculous it is that you can't damage a vehicle with a baseball bat. Have you considered how ridiculous it is that a bat only does stun damage in the first place? I think it's pretty funny that you use a completely unrealistic rule to argue in favor of realism.

Posted by: Zazen Dec 3 2003, 03:48 AM

I remember watching an episode of GI Joe when I was a little kid where that White Ninja badguy was training cobra soldiers and he demonstrated his ninjitsu mastery by destroying a tank with his bare hands. That seemed pretty ridiculous, even at 10 or so years old.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 3 2003, 03:51 AM

He's a Ninja, how is that ridiculous?

He was obviously a Physical Mage with Killing Hands (D).

Posted by: Zazen Dec 3 2003, 03:55 AM

Yeah, ninjas are pretty cool after all. And by cool, I mean totally sweet.

Posted by: Shadow Dec 3 2003, 04:13 AM

Posted by: Tanka Dec 3 2003, 04:16 AM

Hoo-freaking-rah. Want to talk realism? Don't play Shadowrun. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: Dende Dec 3 2003, 04:23 AM

Posted by: Tanka Dec 3 2003, 04:26 AM

How about if you only deal it Stun, which it then doesn't mark? You can't keep track of how much it takes to Overflow to Physical then...

Say I bat it with M Stun. You mark nothing. I repeat, which should move it to S Stun. You mark nothing. Say this time I manage S Stun, which raises it six boxes to L Physical. You still don't mark anything, because there is no Stun on Vehicles!

So, therefore, Overflow does not work for the average Joe.

Posted by: Dende Dec 3 2003, 04:29 AM

The average Joe, a mundane shawdowrunner with no combat pool...and a skill of 4 with a crowbar dealing 6S could indeed. 6L physical in one hit. even a pussy can deal it...it just takes them longer than someone who would be...WORTH PLAYING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 3 2003, 04:33 AM

What's the damage and reaction on a cat? I think they'd be restricted to slashing the tires.

~J

Posted by: Tanka Dec 3 2003, 04:35 AM

Posted by: Dende Dec 3 2003, 04:40 AM

If he is using a bat he is an idiot. Why not try a crowbar...something made of...of METAL...

Beyond that, we are talking about a PC I assume, since why else would you really care? even an NPC that is a foe in a game would have more than 3 Atts and nada. I would really question that me personally would be out trying to mess up cars..especially with a bat, my int of 4 tells me maybe I should use something better.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 3 2003, 04:42 AM

The example is of a bat, not a crowbar. Besides, IMO, a crowbar does Physical. The prongs at the ends look freaking painful.

So, for simplicity's sake, the bat is the example, so, he uses the bat to do 4M Stun.

Besides, what if nothing else is readily available? Bats are cheap and can be found at most general stores like K-Mart and such.

Posted by: Dende Dec 3 2003, 04:51 AM

The question remains...why is little pussy Str 2 or 3 me trying to beat a car to death witha bat? If I wanna stop the thing why not remove a few vital engine peices, hell open the hood pop the battery line off or the tranny hose and wham, dead car. Unless I wanna deal cosmetic damage and have the joy of beating the car...why do it with a wooden bat? Does a metal bat work better? I would assume so...All bats aside, I could just shoot the tire, in 2061 I can find a gun at the local corner store. Even a called shot wouldn't be that bad for me untrained assuming AIMing and whatnot.

Logically I would think I wouldn't be beating the car. My STR 6 char might be, with a 6 clubbed training and a nice fat combat pool aside. Any char could easily beat a car with a bat, even 4M base Stun with 6 successes deals a L phys, hit it 10 times and the thing is done. WHy are we assuming me myself am going to beat it and not the char I made, which is the whole point of RPG?

Posted by: Dende Dec 3 2003, 04:55 AM

I think I might also mention the trend of cars lately...assuming a non barricated car...

my 1965 Ford Mustang can take baseball sized hail with no scratch(well to paint once...that's it) But all my buddies cars...cheap aluminum and plastic numbers get beaten by smaller hail, even pea sized leaves dents... I think sure the hell I can beat the hell out of car like that...A neon would go down in like 3 minutes. An armored car, no, and I wouldn't try to beat one with a bat.

Assuming stable trend, the cars of 2060 could go down as if not more easily.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 3 2003, 04:55 AM

Because we're arguing whether or not the car should take Physical from Stun, not whether or not you or I could do it.

Oh, and you can only Take Aim for a number of turns equal to half your skill, IIRC. So that means a defaulter cannot Take Aim once.

Besides, have you ever gotten so angry at something you wanted to take something blunt to it? I get angry at my PC. People get angry at their consoles for losing a game. Others get angry at their car. So Average Joe can't get his car to start, he's already had a horrible day, he loses it and starts beating his car with the nearest thing he can find, which, for some reason, is a baseball bat.

Posted by: Cain Dec 3 2003, 05:36 AM

The point still is, you're not going to do much damage to a car's function by beating it repeatedly with a baseball bat. Sure, you'll beat up the body work, take out a few lights or windows, but you're not going to be denting the actual frame or be able to smash the engine block.

You may be able to target specific parts of the car and do damage, but that's covered under the Called Shot versus Vehicles rules.

BTW, Doc: The rules also say that any damaging effect trashes a Body 0 drone. Since there are no Body 0 drones in the main book, only R3r, those rules take precedence. You can destroy a spider drone by stepping on it.

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 06:43 AM

what cain said. you're not--a troll isn't--going to do enough damage with one, ten, or fifty smacks with a baseball bat to put a car out of commission. you guys watch too much Walker: Texas Ranger.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 3 2003, 06:59 AM

Actually, banging up the rims of a car can be pretty bad and result in higher TNs for driving tests. Really frags with your steering.

Sure, that's a Called Shot, but who's to say Average Joe isn't going to randomly bash the rims as well as everything else?

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 07:03 AM

that's when Average Joe gets 8 successes and deals an L wound to the car.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 3 2003, 07:05 AM

I'll grant you that one, Cain, but what a Body 1 drone? I can't destroy something the size of a toaster with a sledge hammer or bat either? Especially something the size of a toaster that doesn't have a speck of armor on it like, oh, most Body 1 drones?

If anything, vehicles *should* have a "stun" Condition Monitor even if it has absolutely no effect on the vehicle. It would simply count as cosmetic damage at that point; damage that can easily be repaired for only a couple hundred nuyen per box. But even without it, I have absolutely no problem suspending my disbelief and allowing stun weapons to hurt most vehicles. Does it seem silly in some situations to a few of you? Sure. But I can name quite a few other core rules that provide equally silly situations, too. It's a game first and foremost.

I think the vehicles rules are screwy to begin with. The larger a vehicle is, the more dice it should have to resist damage compared to what they currently receive, more along the lines of two or even three or four times their Body rating, and I'm a strong advocate of including that in the rules. As it stands, a Body 6 vehicle isn't that much more difficult to destroy than a Body 3 vehicle using a handgun unless it's armored, yet I firmly believe that shouldn't be the case.

And on that same idea, I don't think vehicles should be immune to damage from weapons just because they do Stun damage to metahuman bodies.

Also, just as a side note, you do *not* need to focus on hitting a vulnerable part of a vehicle when smacking the hell out of it with a bat. That's assumed by the standard combat rules. A Called Shot against a vehicle would do the same thing it does against anything else; raising the target number to earn you a +1 Damage Level on the attack. You *could* also make a Called Shot upon a specific part of the vehicle if you so desired, like an antenna or a tire or something, but by default it's already assumed you're trying to cripple the vehicle. That's where your Skill rating comes in.

That said, I do admit that I've house ruled it so that Stun weapons are staged down twice as much as regular weapons (much like what someone else suggested earlier in the thread), both in Power and Damage Level (to a minimum of 2L) simply because I *do* agree that you're going to have a harder time with a baseball bat than a pistol.

But on the same hand, I don't see how, say, a caltrop is going to do enough damage to a car to cripple it compared to a sledgehammer or other heavy Stun weapon. Remember, it have the potential to completely cripple the vehicle while Stun weapons (by a strict reading of the rules) have absolutely no chance, regardless of how much more damaging they are.

Oh, and for another example of the weirdness of what can happen: I imagine if some guy jumps off a 100-story building and slams into your car, it's going to be pretty crippled. Yet, but the rules, that's simply impossible simply because Metahuman Bodies only do Stun damage (CC p. 11).

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 07:08 AM

funk, i wouldn't have a problem if it made things screwy in a couple of situations. your rules make it screwy every time someone takes a bat to a car. Joe Average can, all of the sudden, beat an Americar into a scrap heap in three or four hits. and you say called shots are unrealistic!

called shots against subcomponents, by the way, generally require you to do only M damage to destroy that component. for instance, shooting out a tire? M damage, it's blown.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 3 2003, 07:08 AM

Completely impossible. Clubs is Str, Average Joe has 3, which also incurs a +TN for defaulting. His CP is 4, of which I believe he can only add 1, so that's a maximum of 4 successes.

Average Joe can't do it, by game standards.

Yet Average Joe can do it in the real world.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 3 2003, 07:08 AM

Also, where are you guys coming up with this rule that you can stage a weapon up past Deadly Stun damage? As far as I know, you can't. Your *Condition Monitor* flows excess Stun damage into the Physical track, but no single attack from a Stun weapon can do Physical damage by the rules as far as I know. (Please include a page reference if/when you correct me, thanks. )

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 07:14 AM

okay, Joe Average can't. but Joe Average also can't commit suicide with a handgun--Joe Average, in SR, can hardly accomplish crossing the street.

Joe "I Suck at Baseball" Normal, with clubs 2, can bust up an Americar in three or four hits. better?

Posted by: Zazen Dec 3 2003, 07:15 AM

The optional overdamage rules are in the combat section of SR3. I don't remember the page number.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 3 2003, 07:16 AM

Nope, not better. He can still only get four successes, then.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 3 2003, 07:20 AM

Joe Average can commit suicide with a handgun, based on a ruling in MitS that states that one can assume a character capable of causing any desired level of damage to themselves.

~J

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 07:20 AM

yeah. four successes. that's D damage, buddy.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 3 2003, 07:21 AM

D Stun, buddy. The vehicle clinks and nothing Physical is done.

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 07:23 AM

uh, we're on different pages. i'm saying that if Stun weapons deal normal damage to a vehicle, it's unrealistic because Joe Normal can completely destroy a car in 3-4 hits, max.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 3 2003, 07:24 AM

Well, then, my post is null and void.

I do agree with Doc Funk's ruling. Stun weapons take to Physical at one stage lower. Or at least some sort of "Cosmetic" Monitor. After so much abuse, even that goes Physical.

Posted by: Zazen Dec 3 2003, 07:27 AM

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 07:35 AM

i could buy a penalty-free 'Cosmetic' monitor, but i'd want half a vehicle's body to apply as armor against Stun attacks. in addition to the -1 Level, i mean. and gel rounds would face a further -1 Level adjustment (so, -3 total: -1 for being a vehicle, -1 for doing Stun, -1 because there's no room for Jello in an engine block).

Posted by: Fortune Dec 3 2003, 07:38 AM

There's an optional rule (somewhere) that could be applied in this situation. That's the one that, IIRC, allows characters to do Physical damage when attacking using Unarmed Combat by taking a TN penalty.

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 07:40 AM

that'd be the Vicious Blowjob. er, That Blows. no, wait.

anyway, it's a maneuver, something like +2 TN and you stage with 4 successes instead of 2.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 3 2003, 07:46 AM

I remember reading that somewhere. I think it was CC, but I'm not entirely sure.

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 07:47 AM

it was. check in the melee section. it's not really suited for what we're discussing, because you'd have to invest some points into it (and even more points, if you want to use it with clubs).

Posted by: Fortune Dec 3 2003, 07:48 AM

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 07:53 AM

hm. have to look for that.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 3 2003, 07:54 AM

I skimmed through all of CC and found nothing. Care to specify a page?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 3 2003, 08:04 AM

Joe Average picks up a heavy pistol and shoots the car that's just sort of sitting there. He, remarkably, has a Skill of 3 in Pistols and uses his full Combat Pool on the attack. He scores 3 succeses and the vehicle only scores one. He just did a Moderate wound on the vehicle.

Joe Average then reaches over and picks up a baseball bat so that he can bash the hood of the car that was just sort of stitting next to the other one. He, remarkably, has a Skill of 3 in Clubs and uses his full Combat Pool. He scores 3 successes and the vehicle scores 3 as well (it only had a Power of 4M Stun to begin with, dropped down to 2L). Joe Average doesn't even phase the vehicle.

Three more shots with the pistol -- 12 seconds of work -- and the first car is toast, yet he'd have to bash the vehicle repeatedly for an hour just to stand a chance of doing the same. Yep. Pretty insane interpretation of the rules there.

I'm sure you'll come back and point to trolls and other mega-strength characters. My only response to that is going to be a big fat "duh." I would hope that the exaggerated strength possessed by trolls and their ilk would be sufficient to bash the living hell out of something as simple as a standard Ford Americar in short order. The same goes for an elephant stomping on one, someone falling on top of one, and etc.

Considering it's a game where a single shot from a gun *does* stand a pretty good chance of completely disabling anything but the most heavily armored vehicles (Pistols 6, -2 TN, 6 Combat Pool will net about 10 or so successes, while that poor little Ford Americar has only 3 dice to try and somehow get at least four successes on a TN of 4), and I honestly don't see why some of you are getting so heated over it. I guess only one type of theatrical-inspired damage is acceptable in some people's mind...


(And yes, I know my averages are probably a little off; I'm not very good at calculating 'em with dice. But the point still stands.)

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 08:15 AM

funk, that's wholly realistic. you can not total a vehicle with three or four swings of a baseball bat, in real life. where in the world did you get the idea that you could? even with an hour of bashing, i doubt you could do enough damage to a car to keep it from moving.

the gun thing, hey--at least a bullet has a chance of puncturing the hood in one go. a few lucky bounces around in the engine block, maybe a fuel line, and the car's out of commission.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 3 2003, 08:22 AM

Uhm. That's what I was saying, MFB. The rules *reflect* that you're going to have trouble bashing a car to "death" even after an hour of bashing.

And along your logic there at the end, the same can be said about me and my sledgehammer (simply because you continue to have trouble with the mental image of a baseball bat). I can slam it into the hood just right and possibly smash a few important engine components, completely putting it out of it's misery. And I'm not even a muscle-bound troll. Hooray for selective suspension of disbelief!

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 08:24 AM

honestly? i doubt it. i trump your imagination with my dollar spent at a car bashin' back in high school. it was there for six hours, with god knows how many kids and adults paying a buck each for two hits with a 10-lb sledge, and at the end of the day they drove it into the garage.

the book rules reflect that. your rules do not.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 3 2003, 08:27 AM

And when it comes down to it, I don't give a flying fuck. The same can be said about people shooting a car with a handgun, yet you have no problem suspending your disbelief for that. The same is true with me the other way around.

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 08:29 AM

no, the same can't be said for shooting a car with a handgun. a bullet punches through the car's body and wreaks havoc in the engine. a sledgehammer puts a massive dent in the body and maybe twists a Thingamabob that sticks up too far.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 3 2003, 08:33 AM

...and yet cars in the real world often get riddled with tens to hundreds of rounds without being rendered useless even if so riddled by groups of experienced shooters, yet an incompetent boob who only has a basic skill in using one can do it in 4 shots easy. Go figure. And whoa be it if it's shot by an experienced shooter... the car's almost guaranteed to go up in a single shot every time.

Continue to argue all you like. It's obvious we're not going to go anywhere with this.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 3 2003, 08:51 AM

Posted by: mfb Dec 3 2003, 10:25 AM

yeah, and all sorts of other crazy shit happens in the real world, too. for every vehicle you show me that shrugs off a fusillade, i can show you ten that broke down after one lucky shot. disabling a car with two or three light pistol rounds is unlikely, but within the realm of probability. disabling a car with a baseball bat is only barely within the realm of possibility, much less probability. just because one rule is mildy retarded, that's not carte blanche to make up any crazy rule you want. yeah, the vehicle damage rules aren't quite realistic--but your rule is wholly unrealistic.

Posted by: Link Dec 3 2003, 04:01 PM

The rule for doing physical damage with a stun weapon is in Fields of Fire p83. It appears it was omitted in the Cannon Companion.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 3 2003, 04:45 PM

Posted by: Lindt Dec 3 2003, 06:57 PM

O k, for one we all agree that damage to vehicles is broken. As for it not taking stun damage (damm... I want the Proof smily back{{}) its on Pg 145 Sr3 on the right side about half way down. Vehicles do not take stun damage.
Lets say I have avg skills. I take my .45 Colt (9M) and put 2 rounds into a car. Assuming no staging on a body 4 car (lets say a Crown Vic) its reduced to a piddly 4L twice. A few holes, and you lost a sparkplug wire
Ok, now Im a massive troll. I take my sledge hammer (str+3M stun) and my massive str (9). I take a wack at that car. My 12m stun would change to 6m physical (Im sure I saw this somewhere...) and now Im doing..... oooo 3L. Mabey you bent up a fender enough to get it in the way of something.
Now even with a called shot, nither can really break any major parts (with out GM approval). However, someone mentioned something about staging. IMO, you could actually do damage to a car with stun rounds. However, its gotta be a really solid hit.
I hose down said Crown Vic with an Ak-47 on FA. Assuming I hit (ouch) we go from 6M stun (rember, gel rounds) to 17D stun (6m-9s-12d-16d-17d). Lets let it roll over from the stun track. Here is where this breaks... we now have a wopping 16L (down to nothing from reduction). At this point there is enough mass to break things.
Suggestion, ignore the damage reduction if it rolls over from the stun?
*edit* Armor negates stun. Makes sense. Its hard rolled steel plating. Your not gonna do jack to it with out very big guns.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 3 2003, 07:00 PM

You mean that? </offtopic>

Posted by: lodestar Dec 3 2003, 07:04 PM

I think this is the most entertainment I've gotten out of a single post in a long time. We simply ruled that no damage was inflicted. assuming the dalmation has at least the integrity of a garbage can, no ammount of shooting it with a paintball gun would hurt it. I was just curious to see what others might have done, The ruling, like all good gamemastering, was done on the fly to keep the game going. I'd hate to see what might have happened in one of your fellows sessions.

Posted by: CanvasBack Dec 3 2003, 07:07 PM

Besides, how many body 1, armor 0 drones are there?
*quick duck and roll out of the line of fire*

Posted by: 3Threes Dec 3 2003, 07:09 PM

i got pissed off at my car one time because it kept stalling on me at intersections - so i got out, took my crow bar, yelled at it in the parking lot of the mall, and hit it on the backside once then went inside to buy stuff

when i came back out it wouldnt start

turns out the spot i hit was 2 inches from the collision detector in the trunk that shuts down the gas line when it detects a collision

Posted by: Zazen Dec 3 2003, 07:31 PM

Posted by: Connor Dec 3 2003, 07:36 PM

A caltrop might be able to take out the tires though...

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 3 2003, 07:36 PM

Sure can. They do (STR-1)L Physical damage when thrown.

Throwing Weapons 6, Strength 5, Combat Pool 6: 12 dice, TN 4. 6 successes on average I believe.
Body 3 Vehicle (Ford Americar): 3 dice to resist, TN 2, and let's say two of are successes.
End result: Light wound increased to Serious throw staging, then brought back down to Moderate due to it being a vehicle.

Posted by: Lindt Dec 3 2003, 07:41 PM

The reduction is before the staging. It states that any wepon with a light damage code will not damage a vehicle.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Dec 3 2003, 07:46 PM

Ah, I was not aware of that. I stand corrected then. We'll just dikote it first.

But at least it's nice to know that a hold-out and light pistol can't do any harm, either.

Posted by: moosegod Dec 3 2003, 07:47 PM

However, caltrops can damage any tires a vehicle has if thrown in front.

Posted by: Corywn Dec 3 2003, 09:14 PM

Posted by: TinkerGnome Dec 3 2003, 11:04 PM

Umm... so you're saying that a round which generally causes a large bruise (and possibly a cracked rib) on a human could tear through durable plastic or metal? It'd probably give it a nice dent, but punch a hole through? What part of human flesh is stronger than plastic or metal?

Posted by: Shadow Dec 3 2003, 11:39 PM

Posted by: Cain Dec 4 2003, 12:34 AM

Posted by: Modesitt Dec 4 2003, 12:55 AM

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1998/02/F.RU.98021094702.html

The pertinent part...

Posted by: Moonstone Spider Dec 4 2003, 12:56 AM

Actually I'm not at all sure that these baseball bat blows aren't unrealistic in destroying a car. After all, a hit to the radiator and your car won't make it 10 yards without overheating, and the radiator is right under the hood in the front where any blow to the grill will probably hit it. In two hits it's reasonable to dent the hood enough to reach the air intake, then smash the air filter. No air=no combustion. I'm ignoring the ramifications of electric fuel-cell cars here, you can probably jinx them even easier with a hit to some electrical system. Now hitting a car in the door will never make it quite running but there's a huge number of delicate things under the hood that will make the car quite running (Or else quit running a minute after startup) from a quite delicate blow, ranging from the distributor cap to the oil filter. And the hood's just thin sheet metal.

This is, of course, ignoring vehicle armor possibilities but if the vehicle has even one point of armor you'll need strength 4 to do more than scratch the paint, and then given even a moderate car body you'll die of old age trying. At 4 points of armor even a troll shouldn't be able to hurt it so that's pretty reasonable in my mind.

Posted by: Dende Dec 4 2003, 01:15 AM

Are we saying that any vehicle has armor plating? I understand why a car with plating wouldn't be beaten by a baseball bat, same reasona butterknife won't cut hardened military armor...

HOWEVER, we are talking about a an Americar...the equivilent to a Dodge POS Neon in 2060. I think very easily these cars, which have no vehicular armor plating, could fall to overflow damage from a good stun attack.

Posted by: TheScamp Dec 4 2003, 04:17 AM

Posted by: Dende Dec 4 2003, 04:20 AM

We are talking about Overflow damage...if you go above D in Stun you start to do an L physical...the arguement is whether or not a you can do overflow when there is no stun bar to overflow from...Which if you do it in one attack makes sense, if not, you can't track it.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Dec 4 2003, 04:22 AM

You can't actually overflow in one attack under the standard rules. Unless I'm missing something, at least (if I am, page number, please).

Posted by: Fortune Dec 4 2003, 04:24 AM

Posted by: Dende Dec 4 2003, 04:28 AM

How about a page number that says you can't?

According the the way I have always played RPGs and the way most do, if it says you can do somthing you can do it. If it says you can't you can't do it. If it says nothing you can. This is also true from rules of the Game Playing Manefesto from Dx and the Tri Stat system.

You really should consider posting a quote that tells me I can't do overflow in a Single attack, cause for now that is how my group plays, unless we see a quote I don't see that changing.

Posted by: Fortune Dec 4 2003, 04:38 AM

Posted by: Dende Dec 4 2003, 04:40 AM

So while if I shoot a guy with enough gel rounds he goes down and eventually overflows to true D... But using a sledgehammer I can't possibly kill a man?

I like that system.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 4 2003, 04:40 AM

Isn't this where the optional rule of allowing that to occur comes in?

I can take a pipe to a guy's head, he's unconscious, and he has a Serious Physical wound to boot!

Posted by: Fortune Dec 4 2003, 04:42 AM

As I said, in a single attack. If he already has some Stun and you do Deadly, then it overflows into his Physical monitor. You specifically asked about a single attack, as that is what is in question here, what with vehicles having no Stun monitor.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 4 2003, 04:44 AM

With one swing, I can nearly kill somebody with something that only does stun. Granted, I'm semi-trained in martial arts and have a good grasp of where to hit to do the most damage, but the same example is displayed by people who grab the pipe out of sheer frustration.

Posted by: Fortune Dec 4 2003, 04:51 AM

I understand that. So could I if I wanted to. Canon-wise though, it'd take at least 2 swings of the sledge in order to actually inflict death on someone.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 4 2003, 04:55 AM

Which is where canon doesn't make sense, and where we simply houserule it to make sense for the time being.

Yes, I know, we aren't going for pure realism, but some of it is too obvious.

Now, if it were some Str 1 kid doing the swinging, I'd say the guy ends up with a bruise and a very bad attitude. Or maybe just an egg on the side of his head and the same bad attitude. Other than that, he's toast, 'natch.

Posted by: Fortune Dec 4 2003, 04:57 AM

IIRC, even by the canon Ranged Combat rules, you would need 20 successes over-and-above staging damage to Deadly Stun in order to do Deadly Physical in one (Stun) attack. After Deadly Stun, every two successes gives the target one box of Physical Damage.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 4 2003, 04:58 AM

Technically speaking, it's bulldrek (No, I don't mean the site).

Posted by: Fortune Dec 4 2003, 05:00 AM

Oh well. I was asked about the canon rules, and then challenged as to their validity when I gave them. I made no comment as to their relevance to real life, as my games tend to be just that...games.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Dec 4 2003, 05:17 AM

Even the rules which let you overflow in ranged combat are optional rules. Which brings it back to the point that you cannot, by canon, overflow from stun to physical in one hit.

Realistic? Not really.

Likely to be house ruled? Yep.

Want to hear the really sick thing?

Here it goes. Take our friend, Joe Troll. Joe really, really hates Ford Americars. Since Joe is a big guy (strength 10), he's inclined to beating them up when given a chance. One night he spots a victim in a parking lot and goes to work with a baseball bat. Joe takes a swing and it does nothing. He takes another. Still nothing. About thirty swings later, Joe drops the bat in frustration and gives the car half a dozen karate chops (Joe had two years of karate in high school). The wheels fly off and the car is toast.

So, a martial artist can do with their bare hands (via the vicious blow technique) what a blunt instrument cannot? That's just weird. But apparently legal (per CC, Vicious Blow manuever).

Posted by: BitBasher Dec 4 2003, 05:53 AM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 4 2003, 05:58 AM

He's talking about the martial arts maneuver, not the adept power.

~J

Posted by: BitBasher Dec 4 2003, 06:30 AM

Oh, well in that case I also think the martial arts maneuvers are optional and therefore not part of this conversation since we seem to be talking about strict canon only.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 4 2003, 06:35 AM

I believe there's an option to do similarly that isn't a part of the martial arts rules, but if you're removing optional items, technically all sourcebooks other than the BBB are optional as well.

~J

Posted by: Hero Dec 4 2003, 07:13 AM

I say use common sense, and common sense says gel rounds wont do much besides break glass, dent, and rip off curtain exterior attachments (mirrors, and antenna if lucky). A gel round could probably puncher the radiator, but the gel round has to be either a luck hit or aimed at that location, but either way the gel round wont do much other then that. As for using a clubs and what not, use common sense too, something tells me enough time a sledge will do damage to a vehicle. Thats what most people have been trying to say, dont need any special rules because there is already a rule for that, the rule zero.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Dec 4 2003, 01:02 PM

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 4 2003, 02:12 PM

I am sure there was a discussion on doing Physical damage with Stun melee weapons WAY back, Doctor Funkenstein being one of the people discussing the issue... And I remember suggesting then that you could use the same system for doing Physical with clubs and the like as you do with Bone Lacing, ie ½ Power, no change in DL. I think someone has mentioned those numbers in this thread earlier on, too.

I also remember that the thread died almost immediately after I suggested that, and no one got to comment on it. So either everyone accepted that as a house rule and just stopped talking, or they absolutely hated it so much they didn't want to have anything to do with the whole thread afterwards. I think it's the latter.

Either way, I'll use ½ Power, same DL, if something like this comes up IMG.

Posted by: Raptor1033 Dec 4 2003, 03:15 PM

IIRC vicious blow can be used with blunt weapons as well. i think it says any weapon that did stun before can now do physical, which leads to it's own problems of someone trying to get a shock glove to do physical. may not be exactly right but that's what i remember.

Posted by: Lindt Dec 4 2003, 04:20 PM

Oh, and heres a good one for you. I slam away at my car with a bat. no Effect. I pull out my katana, and trash it in a few rounds. Now thats screwed up too...
Honestly, Id like to get it (meaning this houserule that is forming) to the point where, with a solid hit (multiple sucesses), will do light damage to an unarmored vehicle.

Posted by: Random Voices Dec 4 2003, 05:32 PM

Posted by: CoalHeart Dec 4 2003, 06:40 PM

Troll with Killinghands D Titanium bone lacing and lots of strength and hardliner gloves could make a tank implode Wheee fun.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 4 2003, 07:15 PM

Posted by: Tanka Dec 4 2003, 09:28 PM

Posted by: TinkerGnome Dec 4 2003, 09:32 PM

If the katana were being swung full on, that doesn't make sense. Stabbing, though, it does make sense.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 4 2003, 09:32 PM

I thought that four or five was supposed to be exceptional worksmanship...

~J

Posted by: Shadow Dec 4 2003, 10:08 PM

Yeah but then you Dikote it, and your looking at 10 or 15!

Posted by: Tanka Dec 4 2003, 10:12 PM

True katanas were waterfolded about 10,000 times, making them nearly mono-molecular. 10 was the usual quota for a Samurai of high standing. One of those in SR terms would deal about (Str+3)S and take 1/2 of the Impact rating. It would also cost about 100,000 for the real deal. If you dikoted that, it wouldn't take it up a damage level, as you just killed the near mono-molecular edge.

Posted by: BitBasher Dec 4 2003, 10:16 PM

tanka, your information about katana manufacture is woefully historically incorrect, but typical.

I'll let someone with more time on their hands than I have at work set you straight.

Anyone?

Posted by: Tanka Dec 4 2003, 10:17 PM

Actually, it isn't incorrect. I did quite a few studies on it. Most of the books I read said the same as I. Those that didn't were filled with many other innacuracies, so I threw them out the proverbial window.

Posted by: Cain Dec 4 2003, 10:48 PM

Ok, here's the thing. Katanas are designed to cut through flesh, not metal. Fanboy or not, this much is very well recognized; the folding causes micro serrations in the blade edge, increasing the surface area and allowing it to do more cutting damage. Which is fine and dandy if you're cutting through something soft.

When you're going after something hard yet flexible, like metal, you need to puncture it as opposed to cutting it. Puncturing damage depends on how concentrated the force is-- the smaller the surface area, the better your chances of puncturing an object is.

But back to topic-- again, you can use the called shot rules. According to the BBB, the GM can then decide to alter the damage threshold required to harm a vehicle. You can rule that certain types of Stun damage can hurt specific parts of a car.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 4 2003, 11:16 PM

Katana are made of steel. Extremely high-quality steel, but still steel. If they were "nearly mono-molecular", the edge would destroy itself the first time it hit bone.

~J

Posted by: Tanka Dec 4 2003, 11:27 PM

The sheathe contained a whetstone along the edge to remove anything extra, and it also had to be carried "upside-down" to keep the blade from dropping straight through the sheathe, and any fingers on the sheathe.

Posted by: Dende Dec 4 2003, 11:39 PM

Katana(the high quality ones...ie non trinkets, but battle worthy blades) are actually some of the highest tempered steel in the world. Many of the blades were tempered 1000 or more times, making the baldes stonger than any steel in production today, and better than any european weapon at the time, and modern weapons now. True Katana could slice through my 1965 Ford Mustand(steel body, not modern aluminium or plastic, or futuristic lower qaulity high production crap...) like a chainsaw thru cheesecake IN THE RIGHT HANDS. If you hit them imporperly the blade could very easily snap...but if you know what you are doing...my car is gone.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 4 2003, 11:42 PM

Posted by: Tanka Dec 4 2003, 11:45 PM

I know this sounds very cheap and like a cop-out, but I lost them a couple of reformats back. WinXP fragged me over by making me lose them.

They were basically just portions of real books scanned in as a .jpg. Sadly, as I said, WinXP killed them off because it randomly linked a never used program to the Documents and Settings folder. I uninstalled the program and they all went away.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 4 2003, 11:47 PM

I'll take you at your word that you had the sources (just a statement, not implying that I'm doing you a favour by doing so ), but that leaves me with my previous opinion: that your sources didn't know what they were talking about.

~J

Posted by: Tanka Dec 4 2003, 11:51 PM

I know that I can't disprove or prove my statement without the images that I scanned, so I won't try.

However, yes, bludgeoning with an edged weapon does little to nothing against a vehicle. Thrusting, however, will usually go straight through today's cars. Anything unarmored in 2063 probably has less of a barrier rating than cars today do.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 5 2003, 12:05 AM

What do you mean by "straight through"? The hood, roof, etc. tends not to be particularly sturdy on many cars, while punching through the engine block seems a bit less likely. Though I suppose there are all sorts of exposed hoses.

~J

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 5 2003, 12:07 AM

And here I was thinking that a True Katana ™ had to slice right through a fire hydrant or a car engine block. I always wondered how the weaponsmiths got a hold of fire hydrants and car engine blocks back in middle age Japan.

Perhaps some filthy rich fanboy ought to buy himself a few dozen ancient katanas and then hire some "modern samurai" to break 'em all on a car engine block. Or a fire hydrant. Or simply an inch radius steel rod.

Also, funny how them middle age smiths were capable of making swords that are sharper than 2060s monoswords (S+3 S vs S+3 M), and that beat 2060s Dikoted katanas penetration-wise (S+3 ½ armor vs S+4 full armor). Not that I'm doubting you at all, tanka...

[Counting the seconds 'til someone goes off on a huge katana-rant...]

Posted by: Tanka Dec 5 2003, 12:08 AM

I mean through what everybody says will withstand a sledgehammer, like the hood. That will, thusly, have a good chance of hitting the block or anything else that is needed for running the car.

Posted by: Shadow Dec 5 2003, 12:20 AM

According to http://bujinathensacademy.free.fr/weapons-ken-jutsu-1.html web, the most you ever folded a katana was 30 times.

Posted by: Shadow Dec 5 2003, 12:24 AM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 5 2003, 12:24 AM

I'm not sure if it's accurate to say that the curved shape is a coincidence. Katana have wonderful aerodynamic properties as a result of their curve, and I've heard it said that curved blades flat-out cut better than straight blades, so if it's just a side effect of the manufacturing it's a remarkably fortuitous side effect.

~J

Posted by: Shadow Dec 5 2003, 12:29 AM

Theres more, I just figured I would keep it short and not rant too much. They kept the blades curved at first (if you read the websites you learn this) because the backside could be reinforced. Since they were only for calvary this was a good thing. But as the sword filtered down they kept it curved cause that was the way they liked them, not because it was particulary better.

A lot of people talk about Katana's like they were magic. I would put a german broadsword, or 16th century english sword made from damascus steel up against anything Japan produced. Assuming equal skill, the english blade would win.

The thing they had that made them better was their training. All Samurai were martial artists. They were professional warriors. Thats all they ever did. Few countries produced that kind of mentality in a class. They worked at their craft 18 hours a day. You never here about english foot soldiers doing that.

Posted by: moosegod Dec 5 2003, 12:30 AM

That's because English foot soldiers were conscripts.

You saw equal dedication in the knightly class.

Posted by: Kurukami Dec 5 2003, 12:33 AM

That seems an accurate observation. I've seen similarly made straight blades -- that is, created by the multiple foldings of the steel, which if I'm not mistaken you can tell by the tiny wavy lines on the flat of the blade -- that had no curve. And cavalry and naval sabers, which at least in the West usually aren't made by the folding method, also have blades which curve similarly to the katana.

Posted by: Shadow Dec 5 2003, 12:39 AM

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 5 2003, 12:39 AM

I could only find http://jive.dumpshock.com/default/thread.jsp?forum=1&thread=1496&start=56&msRange=1 on the old forums. Either the Search function there is still a bit odd, or most of the funnier rants are just well hidden.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 5 2003, 12:53 AM

So... How 'bout them stun rounds versus vehicles?

By the by, I stand by what I said. However, it isn't the topic at hand, and it's hardly related to Shadowrun. Best we close up this portion before an admin comes and locks it up.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 5 2003, 01:01 AM

I'd personally defend all of that as Shadowrun-related, for exactly the reason it came up. Someone made an assertion about the abilities of a weapon in showing that another weapon should have its abilities altered, and another person challenged that first assertion. That argument must be resolved to continue or end that particular line of argument.

~J

Posted by: Shadow Dec 5 2003, 01:05 AM

I understand you standing by what You said Tanka, and I don't want you to feel I was personally attacking you. One of my pet peeves is the myth that the "Samurai" sword is all powerful, when in fact it wasn't. My aim was to spread some educational-love and enlighten a few souls.

Truth be told I think they look cool as hell. My favorite tv show right now is

http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/samuraijack/.

Him and his magic sword so rock.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 5 2003, 01:09 AM

Stun rounds vs Vehicles was pretty much wrapped up by Hero:
"I say use common sense, and common sense says gel rounds wont do much besides break glass, dent, and rip off curtain exterior attachments (mirrors, and antenna if lucky). A gel round could probably puncher the radiator, but the gel round has to be either a luck hit or aimed at that location, but either way the gel round wont do much other then that."

And just to break the windshield, the gel round would have to be fired from a seriously powerful rifle at a good angle -- just firing it at the car straight from the front just might cause windshield to crack, but it wouldn't break through. From a pistol, gel rounds would be limited to breaking off the mentioned antennae and possibly mirrors, because I refuse to believe that a pistol gel round would break something as thick as a car window.

And canon supports this, as has been mentioned. By canon, Stun attacks would never cause any Damage to a vehicle.

Posted by: Fortune Dec 5 2003, 01:23 AM

Posted by: Tanka Dec 5 2003, 01:23 AM

I know it wasn't a personal attack, and that katanas are not all powerful. However, IMO, they are better than most other swords.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 5 2003, 01:33 AM

Posted by: moosegod Dec 5 2003, 01:37 AM

But small ones can suffer from knockback, right?

Posted by: TinkerGnome Dec 5 2003, 02:48 AM

The katana vs. the sledgehammer. There are two cases:

Katana is used to stab. Katana is better at damaging a vehicle than the sledgehammer (particularly if it is stabbed into the engine compartment or anything with a fuel purpose).

Katana is used to hack. Sledgehammer wins. I'd wager to say (without going out and trying it) that a sledgehammer blow will be more dangerous to a vehicle (which is inside a metal or plastic shell) than a slash from a sword. There's simply a better ratio of force to area with the hammer (which probably has more force in the first place).

Posted by: Raskolnikov Dec 5 2003, 04:35 AM

This is a simple matter, and I cannot believe you have been arguing for 8 pages about it.

Vehicles do not take stun damage. Stun damage done to a vehicle is not taken by the vehicle. This isn't open to syntax arguement. If you think it is, you're trying to be clever, but it's not working out terribly well for you.

There is a book-written way for a stun weapon to damage a vehicle. An attacker can declare to be attempting physical damage with a stun weapon (this is apart from the vicious blow manuvuer) and the attack is carried out as normal, but the power is halved. Additionally, since it is not an anti-vehicluar weapon, the damage code of the attack is reduced by one. Unfortunately for some, this only applies to melee weapons. Gel rounds cannot be made to inflict physcial damage by the attacking character, thus they cannot hurt a vehicle outside of a GM ruling (shooting at a window for instance, a situation where a character makes a called shot to target a subtarget and the GM applies a special effect).

So technically, by canon, yes, club-master Bob can indeed destroy a family sedan with a few wacks of his baseball bat which is a shame, but there you go. At least average Joe won't be able to do it, and gunmaster Frank is just out of luck.

Unrelated to this thread, katana were carried so the edge pointed the ground for two reasons. First, if it was carried the other way, when drawn the blade would be pointing at whoever was in front of you, thus turning the blade up was considered the ready position and you generally wouldn't want to walk around like that. Secondly, and more important, it was turned down to prevent the edge from touching the sheath along the length and jostling while walking, riding, etc, thus dulling it.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 5 2003, 04:49 AM

Rask: Can you provide the page number saying where a Physical instead of Stun is done at half power? I know it's in FoF, but that's 2nd, and thus is not Canon any longer.

Posted by: Raptor1033 Dec 5 2003, 05:23 AM

found one place that sells what appears to be quality katanas http://sdksupplies.netfirms.com/cat_shinken.htm check it out if ya want

Posted by: Moonstone Spider Dec 5 2003, 05:57 AM

As a jeweler by trade I have some passing familiarity with pattern-welded metal, although I've worked considerably more with Mokume Gane (Folded Precious Metal) than Damascus or Toledo Steel.

My family has a genuine Japenese Katana which my grandfather took off an officer during WW2 after shooting him (What can I say? Looting the bodies is a time honored tradition in most militaries). While it may or may not be on par with "magical" weapons, it most definetly cannot chop through an engine block or even a piece of rebar. I've tried.

Incidentally a few commentaries about the folding, folding too many times will actively screw up your metal, with each folding you lose some carbon into the air and your steel grows less rich. Japanese steel started with insanely high carbon levels in the 3-4% area and grew less rich with each folding until they reached a reasonable level towards the end, which was typically 10-20 folds. If you folded a sword 10,000 times you'd either have to start out folding near-pure graphite with some slight iron impurities (Which would, as mentioned, be the size of a house) or else wind up with pure iron which would be so soft from overworking Average Joe could bend it into a pretzel with his bare hands.

Lastly you cannot cheat mother nature. Katanas keep their edge wonderfully because their steel is rich with carbon and thus harder than other steels. This makes them snap rather easily. Katanas are great at cutting flesh due to the curve of the blade and micro-serration (Although even that is only possible in ladder-pattern welded steel, just any damascus doesn't do that.). This makes Katanas utterly suck against any kind of serious armor. Everything in sword making is a trade-off, make it great at one thing and you give up something else.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 5 2003, 06:41 AM

Hard on the edge, soft in the core. It's amazing work, but far from supernatural. I do believe they still haven't figured out exactly what impurities give the slightly bluish sheen on old katana, though.

~J

Edit: and some swordsmiths can do insane things like tell the carbon content of metal to within about .1% just by looking at it. That's the crazy part, not the sword itself.

Posted by: Lindt Dec 5 2003, 02:36 PM

Wow... What did I start? Now, after seeing a demo where someone peirced a sheet of 3/16" alum. sheathing with a wakasachi with what looked like very little effort, I MAY be convinced that a sword will do more effective damage to a car then a sledge hammer.
However, this was suposed to be stun vs vehicles, not the melee vs vehicles that Im adressing. Synopsys, stun should be able to hurt non-armored cars. But not much, and not without a pretty outstanding shot. Melee wepons, should be able to hurt non-armored cars, but again, not much.
But rember, 10 guys doing light damage can trash stuff.

Posted by: Hero Dec 5 2003, 06:06 PM

Well put Moonstone Spider, I hope this stems all those Katana myths and what not. I believed some of those myths, but after reading that, I think I just threw those out the proverbial window.