Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: longbowrocks May 28 2011, 04:15 AM

I've noticed before that War! gets a lot of guff, but only recently took an interest in the perception of it. I chose the wrong thread to start that discussion in, so I'm picking it up here.

I was then asked for references to my claims.

Here we go:
For tougher opposition, I was talking about the meanest vehicle in the game: the Aztechnology Cuanmitztli main battle tank, which is followed by many more of the toughest vehicles in the game (Strictly speaking, there's one main battle tank in MilSpecTech that gets second place for the title of "meanest").
There is also the Aesir weapons satellite. Normal players can't afford these things, but a GM can use them. Some may say these weapons are overkill, and in most games they'd be right, but if everyone's powergaming, these may be necessary since there are builds that can kill that tank in 1 IP (or even one hit) from chargen.

As for "At least now you can't get any item listed in any book you want (restricted gear) at chargen", most of the stuff in War! is over 20 availability. Now I have something to do with my cash other than hoard it for delta grade synaptic boosters.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 28 2011, 04:32 AM

I'm pretty sure no one's complaining about the tanks. It's the MRSI, and the weird spells, and the device creep, and the weapon mod/ammo creep, etc. It's your basic splatbook issues, excepts it's also mil-grade. No, it's not really a problem… as long as no one gets any of it.

Posted by: Socinus May 28 2011, 04:41 AM

When used properly, most of the stuff in War! is used properly. Admittedly there are things in the book that are a little...odd, it just doesn't seem like it would in the rational world.

If characters at a street level were getting their hands on battle rifles, yeah that's going to cause a problem.

Frankly, War! is more accessible for the average player than books like Mil Spec Tech where stuff is just so expensive and so out-there that most players cant touch the stuff.

Posted by: CanRay May 28 2011, 04:50 AM

I think the major issue was that it was promoted as "War! as done in the Sixth World", and turned into "Target: Bogota" or some such. At least, that's my read from it. Which was, admittedly, done in an ER Waiting Room, so I was a bit distracted.

Oh, and no map of Bogota.

Posted by: Medicineman May 28 2011, 04:55 AM

Yes it is, but do we have do repeat this Discussion ?
Its already been dozens of Pages .....

Hough !
Medicineman

Posted by: Daishi May 28 2011, 05:30 AM

There are some components of War! that are usable and useful (and which I appreciate - though they often need some patching up), but I think there is a consensus that it represents a low point in recently produced shadowrun material. Egregious misses (no maps), awkward focus (too little war in a book called War!), production mistakes (table entries missing), mechanical inconsistencies (ballast tanks galore), and some plain broken things (the slow spell is monumentally bad). Considering the rich potential for the subject, it was a disappointment.

Posted by: Faelan May 28 2011, 06:59 AM

Generally speaking a bunch of the crunch is unnecessary. The Battle Rifle for instance which really is an old designation you rarely hear anymore except as a historical reference used to refer to the first generation of selective fire rifles, more commonly known as assault rifles. Now we have completely man portable weapons doing more damage than a Medium Machine Gun. While I appreciate the attempt to inject some correlation of caliber into the game the fact remains that without a complete revamp of the entire firearms catalog all it did was create a category of uber weapons which make no sense when taken as part of the whole. Also the new ammo types and spells are really reaching. Lastly I wanted a book about WAR in the 2070's not a book about A WAR. Big difference between the two. How are battlefield formations affected by the presence of TACC Nets, vastly superior communications, immediate satellite or drone information availability, smart guns, smart munitions for firearms (I was hoping to see these but alas no, I mean we can do it to a 25mm munition today, you think by 2070 we could do it with a bullet sized item, gee whiz thanks for that sensor round), and finally an extrapolation of what it all means to strategic and tactical operations. I hoped to see the book I have hoped to see in many game systems, a book about the conduct of WAR, a War made simple book touching on larger concepts and working its way down. Fortunately I don't need that book, but sometimes it would be nice to have something handy to hand to your players who may not have spent the better part of a decade dealing with it IRL. Instead an adventure book in a war zone with defective gear additions yippee!

Posted by: Fatum May 28 2011, 09:05 AM

Uh, and what kind of sammies needs battletanks to put them down, exactly?

Weapon sats do not need stats. Those are purely "rocks fall, everyone dies" tool.
Also, I'd like to see those builds.

Right, except you can still get all the other gear you want on chargen.
And it's not like there's nothing to spend your money on after the chargen without the War! stuff.

Posted by: Socinus May 28 2011, 09:28 AM

To be completely fair, that would have been an extremely difficult book to write and I think it's better to leave that kind of thing up to the player's imagination to come up with. How would YOU best use a tac-net in battle? How would YOU deploy drones? I feel like a single book laying out how Shadowrun warfare would be fought is too restrictive of the players. One strong part of Shadowrun is that it's a very adaptable and customizable setting that can fit virtually any player in SOMEWHERE and when you start laying out specific parts of the game as more rigid, you lose a little bit of that. I do think Bogata was focused on a bit much, but it seems to me that that was more an effort to show what one part of a war or one kind of a war would be like.

Keep in mind, warfare is not static in general and even less so in Shadowrun so sometimes you might have a fight that looks like something out of Star Trek and other times it might be a battlefield we would find more familiar and trying to lay out all that in one book and still have it be accessible is a monumental task.

While I dont think War! was a glittering gem in the SR4 crown, I dont feel it was atrociously bad. There have definitely been worse, the most recent Way of the Adept is an excellent example.

Posted by: Faelan May 28 2011, 11:28 AM

I don't think it would have been difficult to write at all. Over the years I have noticed in different games they always attempt to do a warfare based book and generally fail miserably because while the writer might "get it" they have never studied it. I am not asking for a set of rules or rigid guidelines, but essentially fluff to help teach players who are not very tactically motivated to have a baseline set of knowledge to work off of. Questions to ask, how to look at terrain, what to look for while moving through a city, essentially a book of considerations, because expecting my players to read the Art of War, On War, On Infantry, Attacks, or any other multitude of historical texts on the matter is unreasonable just to get them thinking about things they normally may not. I guess it comes down to how cinematic you want the game, if they want to play in a warzone I want to be able to give them the right feel without having to fill in their actions just to get them to a minimal layer of survivability.

Warfare can be static, however the first side which can take real initiative will have the advantage. Moving is essentially at its most basic, winning. If you stand still too long you go from hunter to prey, which is even more true in COIN Ops.

I agree it is not a glittering gem, but I think people would have been less offended if it were named Shadows of Colombia, instead of War and all that it implies it will deliver. As to Way of the Adept, I think it is more of a personal flavor thing. For it is a fine piece of work, in fact I don't think it went far enough, but then I like the Earthdawn tie in, and really don't mind magic run, if I wanted to avoid that I would still be running Cyberpunk 2020, of course obviously YMMV.

Posted by: Demonseed Elite May 28 2011, 12:40 PM

It would not be difficult to write at all, just takes a bit of research and some ingenuity. The idea would not be to box in the concepts of war in the Sixth World, but to demonstrate the impact of technology and magic, combined with current Fourth- and Fifth-Generation warfare theories. Which, coincidentally, tie into the concept of shadowrunners (military-themed shadowrunners, at least) extremely well.

Posted by: KarmaInferno May 28 2011, 01:12 PM

This used to be true up until a few years ago.

The larger calibers used in what are now called "battle rifles" were mostly phased out after World War 2, when it was found that most fights didn't need the penetration or range. The old 7.62 caliber M14 is for example considerably better at both than the 5.56 caliber M4/M16, but since most fights in the Vietnam/Korean War era were at short range due to the dense jungle, with light cover, the smaller caliber of the M16 was sufficient. This also allowed the individual soldier to carry more ammo, an important consideration when you have a lot of deep field patrols that don't get access to re-supply that often.

Fast forward to current day combat. The deserts and mountains of Iraq and Afghanistan are a completely different battlefield, with fights often ranging in the 800 to 1000 meter range or more with little obscuring foliage and with tons of hard cover. Additionally, patrols are short and supply chains are readily available. As a result, many of the "smaller" assault rifles like the M4/M16 are considered to be insufficient by many, and in fact a good number of old weapons like the M14 are being pulled out of mothballs, modernized, and pressed back into service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3a%53oldiers_patrol_Waygul_Valley_2009.jpg

The SCAR-H is a new manufacture 7.62 rifle with the same combat role, and also comes in a SCAR-L (light) 5.56 chambering so the Army can eventually replace both the M14 and M16 for special forces use. (Although more recently, the SCAR-L seems to be being pulled back off the field, maybe the US military doesn't want a new 5.56 rifle after all?)




Assuming you're talking about ballistic weapons, not really. Bullets are bullets. They have not changed significantly in 50 years.

I will agree that Hi-Power chambering is kinda silly, though. It might have been better called "Increased Caliber", and do away with the silly "this ammo cannot be had in anything but standard ball". It might need to take a lot of slots since you're replacing the barrel and lower receiver, which is really the entire "gun" part of the gun. I would not put it at more than +1 DV though, the SR system does not handle granularity well.

And yes, it would have been nifty if open war HAD actually erupted somewhere in the SR universe, and the book had covered full on battlefield combat.



-k

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 28 2011, 01:19 PM

Also, video games have them. What? Don't look at me like that. Video games (and other media) are more relevant to SR4 than reality is.

Posted by: longbowrocks May 28 2011, 02:27 PM

They're all over dumpshock.
GA with 30 dice in longarms (sniper) and 6 edge with a barret and APDS.
Anybody with one or more ITS Gonryu on full burst
A strong sammy with the Thunderstruck gauss.
If there isn't a mage build that can do this, people should stop giving them so much credit.

Posted by: Prime Mover May 28 2011, 02:27 PM

1. War did not burn my eyes out.
2. War could have been better organized, play-tested and maps wouldn't have hurt.
3. When complaining about power creep remember this book is about WAR not street running.

In conclusion War has bright spots and I promise if you read it before all the flaming you might be pleasantly surprised.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 28 2011, 02:54 PM

Well... A Mage with a Magic of 6, Spellcasting of 6 (Combat Spells), Focused COncentration 1, Mentor Spirit with a bonus to Combat Spells, +5 Combat Spell Focus (Requires Restricted Gear)... 35 points in Qualities....

21 Dice to cast Combat Spells...
Soak Dice of 13 (Stats of 5, and Limited Spell for the +2 Drain)

Tank has a OR of 5 (Basic Tank, could be 6 or 7 even)...
Armor does not matter, but we will gve it a 20... Body of what? 36? So 24 Boxes of Health.

Your Barret does 9p with AP9 due to APDS (Me Personally, I would use AV rounds for this, but oh well)... You need 3 Net hits to even Scratch the paint, and I will give you 10 hits, for 19 Damage. Autosoak of the Tank gives you 11 Armor (remaining) + 36 Body = 47 Dice... Divide by 4, and you have just inflicted 8 Boxes of Damage... Assume two shots, for 16 boxes of Damage in Complex Action. If I assume 1/3 Resistance Hits like I gave you for the 30 Dice attack, then you have a soak of 15, so you only deal 8 boxes of damage in that same complex action.

Overcast Powerbolt at Force 12... 1 Net hit against a OR of 6 (I will take the middle road here) nets me 13 Boxes of damage in that same complex action. Tank gets no soak. So, A MAge with Less Dice has dealt equivalent damage compared to your vaunted 30 Dice Barrett Using, Tank Killing Sniper form hell.

Mage must soak 7 Boxes of Physical Damage. Takes 3-4 Boxes... With the right Drugs, he can multicast twice, soak the majority of the damage, still be up, and the tank is Dead... Not so much for the Sniper. Though he will be relatively unharmed.

Can you do other things, on both sides, to make it more feasible? Sure. But at its base, The Mage wins in that Combat Pass.

Hell, a Troll Physad, with a Magic of 4 can do as good, if not better than the Sniper, with Unarmed Combat Damage, Killing Strike, Penetrating Strike, Critical Strike, And Elemental Damaging Attacks. At least, I am pretty sure about that, without running the numbers.

Personally. I am going to shoot that Tank with a couple of Inferno Missiles and watch it just Burn Baby Burn.
Even a Moderate Rigger/Hacker can kill that Tank easier than the Sniper or the Mage, for much less investment.


Oh...... And to keep it on topic... I like War...

Posted by: longbowrocks May 28 2011, 02:58 PM

gtg, but I'm curious about the rigger/hacker. Do you mean forcing the tank to destroy itself?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 28 2011, 03:01 PM

Nope... A Rigger/Hacker with a Drone Vehicle armed with Smart Missiles and an Inferno Package. Heat/Fire is BAD for Vehicles (Especially ones with Internal Magazines and/or people), it does bad things to them.

Posted by: Faelan May 28 2011, 03:03 PM

This is the real reason the system should have assigned calibers for the weapons. Most of this is semantics. I think we are speaking the same language but guess what you are calling something a battle rifle, I am calling it an assault rifle, and we still don't know what the real difference is. Another difference I can think of is about 6lbs. of extra weight in the rifle itself, though I would not term the HK417 a battle rifle even if it is a 7.62 rifle.



Actually they were phased out principally for weight and logistical reasons. Lighter load = more rounds carried. Also killing the enemy was no longer the desire, wounding them was preferable because in theory it ate up additional personnel and resources, however anyone who has ever had to deal with COIN Ops will tell you that it usually results in a quick self timed land mine, or suicide rear guard. Give me a round tha puts them down and out.



The M16 is easily effective out to 550 meters or so on a point target and 800 meters on an area target. From experience I am calling the point target a 10" grouping, and area anything larger, and that is with iron sights which is the principal concern. The 6.8 mm would be a better comrpomise, however what started this was essentially that a Medium Machine Gun generally using a 7.62mm round should not be doing less damage than a "battle rifle" presented in WAR. In other words the firearms in SR4 were very granular before and that was fine until someone tried to shoe horn another category into the mix by shoving it towards the specific. All I am saying is make a choice and live with it, I am fine either way, just don't give me half thought out material which does not mesh with existing material, if I want that I will by WOTC products.



I am talking about a shoulder fired man portable selective fire gas operated 5.56mm, 7.62mm, or similar rifle firing an equivalent round as a generally bipod or tripod mounted medium machinegun and doing more damage. In other words with the advent of the SR battle rifle category we now have a battle rifle doing more damage per round than a medium machine gun with a presumably longer barrel. It does not "jive". Lets just be consistent. I don't think anyone really want to go into grain weights, hot loads, and exact ballistics of different rounds and why certain rounds are perfect for sniping while others are not.

Posted by: CanRay May 28 2011, 03:45 PM

"Battle Rifles" are also called "Designated Marksman Rifles" in modern terms (Unlike the Battle Rifles of WWI-Korea.). They're designed to give a unit better range than their light assault rifle calibers allow for. (The US uses the M-14. The Russians had one of the first with the infamous Dragunov, which uses the old 7.62mmX54mm Russian, not the AK-47's 7.62mmX39mm Soviet.). They're what you use when you need something more than an assault rifle, but not as much as a sniper rifle.

And we head back into the area of Shadowrun that I don't like: Lack of calibers.

Posted by: KarmaInferno May 28 2011, 03:52 PM

Well, I think I get what you are saying.

"Assault Rifles", meaning rifles in the 5.56 category, fire mostly the same ammo as light machine guns and really should have the same base damage code.

"Battle Rifles", meaning rifles in the 7.62/.308 category, fire mostly the same ammo as medium machine guns and really should have the same base damage code. Some sniper rifles and DMRs fall into this category and should also have the same damage code.

Heavy machine guns mostly fire .50 ammo and heavier, which is also fired by heavier sniper and anti-material rifles. Again, should have the same damage code.

Really, the only main functional difference between rifles and machineguns of the same ammo class is MGs do sustained fire much better.



-k

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 28 2011, 03:56 PM

Damage Code and Ranges, too—not that range tends to matter in SR.

Posted by: Irion May 28 2011, 04:06 PM

Well, this ain't a problem if you stick with the guns of the core book. But as soon as you increase the amount of weapons it is getting important to make a differance between the different weapons of each type.

An other are the very limited range modifiers. There should be something like minimal range. If you cross it you should suffer heavy modifiers.
So if you try to shoot somebody with an assault cannon in hand to hand combat you are fucked, while a light pistol or a hold out would be viable.

So that for close quarter combat an uzi is superior to an assult rifle.
Something like that

So now if somebody jumps around the corner with an MP (two meters from you) he has a good chance against someone with an assault cannon.

PS: How the hell is it possible to get a table?

Posted by: Faelan May 28 2011, 04:15 PM

Exactly. Though MG's usually have a drastically improved range due to barrel length not to mention initial velocity. The main difference between weapons outside of round size is accuracy. Accuracy is the killer.

Posted by: CanRay May 28 2011, 05:08 PM

"It's not the bullet with your name that matters, it's the one addressed 'To Whom It May Concern'."

"A stray bullet that hits you is just as deadly as an aimed bullet that hits you."

"Friendly fire isn't."

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 28 2011, 05:11 PM

That last one is particularly True...

Posted by: Fatum May 28 2011, 06:47 PM

The way wars were fought during the WWI, the WWII, Vietnam or, say, current Afghanistan campaign are all different, but they are based on the technologies used. It would kill noone to write a short overview of how rigging, drones, tacnets or nanites affected the tactics and strategy. That doesn't mean that every army uses them the same way, just like the modern-day armies do not use the modern-day weapons exactly the same way.

TWotA is a book full of solid crunch, unlike War!, where most new items make you say wtf.


Against some 30 armor 30 dice are not really enough. And burst DV modifiers do not count when calculating armor penetration, too.
And even if you hit, you're still not punching through all of its health at once. Or, if you can back your words up with calculations, please show me a 400BP sammy build that downs a Stonewall in a single IP on average rolls.

Posted by: Method May 28 2011, 07:36 PM

I've been mostly quiet in these debates, but as one of the few that playtested War! I have to say that I agree.

First, the playtesting pool seems to be rapidly deminishing, which is something that needs to be addressed, IMHO. More eyes on the material means more issues caught and corrected. Playtesting takes time and energy, and frankly every group has areas they don't spend that much time on. You assume that if your group doesn't use that much spellcasting (for example), some other playtest group will catch things like the Slow spell (my group spent way more time scratching our heads about Designate, which still doesn't make much sense).

I think some of those that complain most loudly about recent products should be emailing Jason and asking to playtest, because it seem to me like help is badly needed. Ditto for proofreading. Of course given the events surrounding the Late Unpleasantness (namely leaks of confidential materal) I can see why Jason might be hesitant to send playtest drafts out to a larger playtest pool.

But I think some tunes would change if people realized that: A.) its hard to evaluate rules when you have very little (if any) context, and B.) you can suggest fixes, but that doesn't mean they will listen. There are times when I've seen my group's feedback incorporated into the final print almost word-for-word (for which many would be grateful... trust me). Other times you give feedback about a potential problem and the rule makes it to print unchanged. Thats just the way it goes.

Posted by: Fatum May 28 2011, 08:20 PM

I am sorry, I read that as "I think some of those that complain most loudly about the quality of the product they're paying their money for should be emailing Jason and asking for permission to try and do CGL's work for it for free".

Game theory exists. (Btw, basic proofreading, through which War! obviously was never put, exists, too). It's kinda expected that a company which makes games is capable of competent ruleset analysis, if it wants to produce viable rulesets and stay on the market. Playtesting is in no way replacement for adequate rules writing, it's just making sure nothing's off in the results.

I understand, naturally, that writing a book is a huge collective undertaking, and War! wasn't written in the best of times; and I appreciate CGL's efforts to make their new releases better (where present). But should that really be an excuse for such a failure?

Posted by: Method May 28 2011, 08:48 PM

If you don't like the products, you have multiple options: you can stop buying them, you can collaborate to write your own version (see alt.War! project), you can complain loudly on internet forums, you can drink yourself into a stupor. You can do anything you want. I was mearly presenting another option: I (speaking only as an individual with no official ties to CGL) think SR could use more playtesters. I think SR would benefit if some of the people who have these issues provided their feedback to the company *in a constructive way* and *before the books come out*. I appologize if that makes you mad.

100% agree. See my comments above.

Its interesting that you interpreted what I wrote as an attempt to make excuses. I was simply agreeing with a point Prime Mover made: namely playtesting could be better. I say this as an active playtester and you twist that into a defense of an entire process, which has problems that extend far beyond anything that playtesters have any influence over.

The irony here is that we probably agree on multiple levels, but you're just reacting out your frastrations with CGL and/or War! Ah well. Whatever.

Posted by: Irion May 28 2011, 09:12 PM

Well, a problem with shadowrun is the way it is build up.
There is the core book with rules on every subject.
There is augmentation with additional rules on cyberware and medicine.
There is streetmagic with additional rules on magic, astral plane and spirits and stuff like that.
There is get arsenal with additional rules for combat, weapons, vehicles and drones.
There is Unwired with rules on hacking and technomancers.
There is emergance with some rules on technomancers.
There is runners companion with rules on Spirit, AIs, Vampires, livestyle and a lot of additional qualities.
etc. etc
In every book there are also some parts having effects on other books. (Tecnet etc.)
If you go through the manegement problems, it is quite obvious that with this kind of structure the rules will run into problems.
To many additions to consider every time.

Playtesting is in no way able to really prevent that. If you get lucky and got yourself a hell of playtest with photographic memory who is also very organized and knows all the rules it helps.
(Because he is doing your work)
The other way is to make a hell of a core book, which offers a solid ground for any kind of extension (or plan every extension up in front).
All the books are full of little glitches caused by that:
Streetmagic: Latent awakening lets you get around paying Karma for the essence/Magic loss.
Runners Companion: Vampires follow different essence rules, getting also around the essence/Magic loss problem. (Or you might look at the free spirits and the Pact selection)
Unwired: Writing your own programms is much too powerfull if you use it with the rules of augmentation etc. (Considering the fact how easy it is to get raiting 7 or higher while programms are normally restricted to 6)

And war! is just running in the problem, that there are only a few stats for weapons:
Damage, range, armor penetration, fire mode, magazine, concealability.
(Thats fine for 30-40 different weapons but wit more you start to repeat yourself)

Posted by: James McMurray May 28 2011, 09:27 PM

I personally don't see the problem with the Slow spell. It's not like its hard to negate it. An enemy mage used it last night and got 4 hits (800kg). The only PCs in the area were an ork street sam and an ork mage. The NPCs (that were moving) were a materialized toxic fire spirit and a child (who also happened to be a toxic magician). Just those 4 alone (including gear) were around 400kg. There was easily enough movable terrain around that the street sam could have started a chain reaction that would have broken the spell. He didn't think to, and instead all but gave up when his bullets were useless, but that's not the fault of the spell it was a lack of understanding on the player's part about how the spell worked (which made sense as he wasn't the guy with magical knowledge). Instead the rigger rolled a stolen trash truck into the room, killing the spell, spirit, and kid practically simultaneously).

Is it powerful? Sure. Is it broken? Nah, mundanes can end its effects way too easily and it causes a major restriction on your own team's tactics.

I did make one minor change to: speed is 1m per pass instead of 1m per second, since it's easier to track when your combat is bouncing between 4 and 5 passes.

Posted by: Fatum May 28 2011, 09:32 PM

Right, if I don't like the steak I payed for, I can go work as a kitchen boy for free (and offer the chef advice on the amount of salt needed, nothing else, and even that only deliberatively) until the chef learns to make better steaks. Gg. Shadowrun doesn't appear to be lacking in kitchen boys to offer advice, it appears to lack a professional chef - and without one, no amount of advice is fixing the problems.
Also, it's pretty neat how you can read my emotional state over standard TCP/IP; could you please teach me this trick, as well? :ь

Again, there's no arguing playtesting could be better. But there's a question whether volunteering to playtest for CGL would make things better.

Well, the topic here is "Is War! Really that Bad?" You pointed out the problems in a particular area, I just noted that there's no fixing that particular area alone without changing the way things are done to begin with.
So yeah, I pretty much am. Sorry if that bothered you; but frankly, there was no way for this topic not to end in "War! drama, take n+1" from the very beginning. :ь

Posted by: Fatum May 28 2011, 09:34 PM

Uh, War!'s problems weren't really with firearm stats...
Sure, if you want to extend such a homogeneous system as Shadowrun, you have a lot of cross-referencing to do. Luckily, SR4 doesn't have all that many books for that to become an impossible task - as you can see, the fan base is fully capable of pointing out the errors with that...


Ah, I see you don't understand the problems with the spell.
Cast the spell on yourself. What's a bullet's mass? Some nine grams. Artillery shells' have masses in kilograms, actually, ones to dozens of them.
Enjoy being invincible while still being able to cast spells.

And that's even without considerations for molecular thermal movement speeds. If I recall, taking those into account rapidly drops the temperature in the spell's target area to around the absolute zero.

Posted by: James McMurray May 28 2011, 09:44 PM

If your opponent has no magical support and no way to move enough weight (or no reason to know they should) then you don't need Slow to crush them with a mage. A F10 stun spell will work just fine.



Ah, I see. I guess that's where we differ. I tend to assume that spells do what they're meant to do and ignore any interactions with physics that would make them more or less powerful than written. "A wizard did it" and all that. If I had to take into the account particle physics and molecular forces every time someone cast a spell I'd just ban magic altogether and save myself a massive headache.

Posted by: Irion May 28 2011, 09:51 PM

Also very nice is the Technomancer Radar. I guess it meant device rating not signal raiting.

@James McMurray

True if you cast this spell with a force of 6 or higher. But what if you just cast it with a force of 4 and you are withholding 3 dices to reduce the area of effect?
Now you stand in the middle of a "move with only one m/s field" Try to move 600 kg through that.

Posted by: Fatum May 28 2011, 09:58 PM

If your opponent has counterspelling support and is a capable sammie/adept/rigger/all of the above, there isn't much he can do against you when you're under Slow. Even if you're a low-level magician only capable of rolling one hit on the test. This makes the spell broken.

The spell is meant to do the following:
Aren't molecules moving? Aren't they objects?
Or are you guessing what the spells should do by RAI, and run with that guess? That's mighty fine, but the RAW isn't any better for it.

Posted by: Demonseed Elite May 28 2011, 10:18 PM

Shadowrun players are a special type of gamer. You pretty much can't be too careful when writing up any sort of rules, because if you miss a niggling detail, they will break the game with it. It is pretty exhausting to write rules in SR for that reason, a lesson I learned when I wrote the ward rules in Street Magic. I spent months here and elsewhere trying to better explain my intentions and clarify the language to close loopholes. Exhausting, I tell ya!

Posted by: James McMurray May 28 2011, 10:19 PM

The mage himself (plus gear) is probably 150kg. Me and my two buddies are another 450. We walk up next to you (easily inside your 1m radius). One of us shoves you. There you go, problem solved. Or there's two of us but we're trolls.

Better yet I roll over you with a car. Now now only is your spell squashed, but so are you.


I refer you to my original post. If your opponent can't defeat your magic, you don't need Slow to defeat him.



We'll have to agree to disagree I guess. Mixing physics and magic is a bad idea IMO. YMMV

Posted by: Fatum May 28 2011, 10:21 PM

Pah, as if gamers in any other systems are any better.
The only thing stopping players from building Pun-Puns every time is GM's stick, nothing more.

Posted by: Fatum May 28 2011, 10:28 PM

An average human male is around 70 kg, with carrying capacity of around 30 kg. Where are you getting those 150?
Ah, actually, it doesn't matter, cause by the time you walk up/drive up, you're not just dead, you're dead ten times - because the chances were even when you could've shot the mage.

If you pay close attention to my previous posts (just very, very close) you'll notice that I describe a way for a low-skilled mage to be more effective than a high-skilled mage without putting any effort into it.
Finally, let me remind you that low-Magic mages' spells can be resisted with attributes alone; Slow doesn't give that chance, and gives any mage an unbeatable edge against any non-mage opposition (which may mean much for street-level games).

Posted by: Irion May 28 2011, 10:30 PM

Yeah. Because I will be standing there, waiting to be run over.

Physical barrier in front of me. Boom goes your car.


So yeah. I hit any of you with the good old stunbolt and away you stay.

It is not a "I am invinsible spell" yes, thats true. But it protects you from a great amount of dangers.

So in the end you need 2 Trolls to even stand a chance to take me down. (Or a car)
And even considering this, you will probably fail.

Posted by: James McMurray May 28 2011, 11:48 PM

Sorry, I was looking at ork weights, because that's what was in the team when Slow appeared in our game. If everyone is human and there's no terrain aroundm, it'll definitely be harder. I'm not saying it's impossible to set up a scenario where the other side is screwed, I'm saying tat doesn't matter. Replace one human runner with a troll in heavy armor and the weights balance back out.

Why did you even buy War! for your street level game? Seriously, yeah, you're right. The stuff in War! is inappropriate for street level games. I don't think anyone's denying that.



How are you moving away? You slowed yourself, remember?



How many prep spells does your mage have up? Of course you're going to annihilate the opposition if you've got every trick you need in place before the fight starts.



How does slow change that? Stun Bolt is going to annihilate someone regardless of what other spells you have going, and will actually be better if you're not sustaining Slow.



You may want to grab a calculator. 600kg is not hard to get together unless you're fighting in a featureless plain.

I'm not saying Slow is weak. I'm saying it's highly situational. It's definitely possible to arrange scenarios where someone is unavoidably dead because you have Slow. It's also possible to arrange scenarios where someone is unavoidably dead because you have Stun/Mana Bolt. It's the GM's job to ensure that those situations don't happen to the PCs without a long stream of major fuck ups happening first. It's also his job to make sure those situations don't take out important NPCs without a long stream of excellent running by the team.

If Slow ensures anyone's death it's because the GM wanted it that way. If Slow kills someone and it wasn't assured, it's because they couldn't figure out a way around it. Neither of those is a problem with Slow that can't happen with tons of other spells or gear.

Posted by: KarmaInferno May 29 2011, 12:00 AM

It's a bit like programming.

You get one subroutine wrong, out of millions, and the whole program can crash.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, one of the first things I do when learning a new RPG system is try to create a spreadsheet character generator for it. Even if I never finish it, this lets me learn the ins and outs of the rules very well, and if there's a mechanically broken rule it's obvious pretty damn fast.

Granted, even if there's nothing mechanically wrong with a rules set, it can still be broken, but the spreadsheet thing catches a lot of problems.


-k

Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 12:09 AM

Trolls in heavy armor shoot the same bullets as everyone else. Actually, only three hits on a test is enough to protect you from trolls, too - even in melee.

Slow is just a spell like any other. It's not like you need to go through a boot camp to learn it.

You're not moving away. You're killing the other guys, because you can get them at range and they can't (and there's a good chance they're not getting you in melee, too). It's that simple.

Slow makes you almost invincible.

Oh, do tell. Say, you're fighting is a street. What are you, dropping chunks of buildings on the mage? Are you sure you have weapons capable of that, and that you're capable of hitting him with the debris?
Or are you throwing stuff at him? 600 kg is far too much to throw in a moment's notice, before you eat a stunbolt.

Slow is not in any way situational. It works every time, everywhere, under any circumstances, and it provides the benefits incomparable to the spells of similar Power. That is precisely what is wrong about it.
Okay, imagine there's an implant that gives you two points of Agility, and costs Rating x0.2 in Essence and Rating x4,000¥ in nuyen.

You can argue that Agility is highly situational. It's definitely possible to arrange scenarios where someone is unavoidably dead because you have high Agility. It's the GM's job to ensure that those situations don't happen to the PCs without a long stream of major fuck ups happening first. It's also his job to make sure those situations don't take out important NPCs without a long stream of excellent running by the team. If high Agility ensures anyone's death it's because the GM wanted it that way. If high Agility kills someone and it wasn't assured, it's because they couldn't figure out a way around it. Neither of those is a problem with high Agility that can't happen with tons of other spells or gear.

But it's still an implant that's exactly four times as good as Muscle Toner. It's game-breaking and makes for a bad addition to the options your players get.

Same goes for Slow, I'm surprised it's not obvious, especially after me pointing it out thrice.

Posted by: KarmaInferno May 29 2011, 12:16 AM

Slow is pretty much an impenetrable bullet shield even if cast at low Force. Automatically, with no form of threshold or resistance check allowed to beat it.

No other anti-bullet magic comes even close. And most other options require high Force to be really effective.

If it had no effect on ballistic weapons, or at least allowed opposed tests or thresholds to beat it, it would be no problem.

As written, I could throw it up at Force 1 and ignore gunfire as long as I sustained it.

Additionally, it kinda skirts the old idea that magic can't affect time/space.



-k

Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 12:33 AM

Ah, but you see, it doesn't matter cause a tank can still squish you.

Well, it doesn't slow down time, it just slows down the objects' movement (which is about as skirting that line as Levitate, don't you think?).

Posted by: Stahlseele May 29 2011, 12:53 AM

Yes, a Tank can squash the mage . .
But if you need a TANK TO KILL A MAGE . . something is wrong . .
An technically, as written, Slow is Entropy in it's purest Form as a Spell . .

@Topic:
No, War! is not that bad.
It's worse actually.
And why the hell would anybody say that Way of the Adepts was WORSE than War!?

Way was written by a single person, as far as i can tell.
Way was written to be exactly what it is right now and does not try to hide it either.
Way was meant to be something to give a bit more to adepts, nothing more, nothing less.

War! from the Title should let us know who in the 6th world is waging war against whom and why and HOW.
Not tell us about one single war. Not tell us there is other places where there is war going on.
Not tell us about places where war has been and crimes against humanity have happened.

Posted by: Nevermind May 29 2011, 01:02 AM

Even with your BMI 78 Ork, your whole Team could be caught in this spell without breaking the 600 KG.
If not you should check their weight limits. Even the ork hast strenght 3 only:)
The main problem with this spell is, you have only 2 solutions to break this spell,
1. Another mage, doing counterspelling
2. Breaking the weight limit, which can be easy if u have a car at hand, or quite difficult.

A levitating mage some meters in the air with this spell aktive around him, can draw fire from an small Army without harm.






Actually, most situations dont start with a car within ramming distance from the enemy mage, from my experience. So maybe the mage is casing it when he sees the car rolling in his direction, or is it a phantom car appearing directly in front of him?




Slow give u the time to throw some Stun Bolts, without getting shot?
From my experience, most fights start at a distance for shooting not for close combat, but may be different in your game.



My math tells me that 600kg is a lot if you arent a bunch of obese runners, or got some trolls at hand.


Yes its highly situational, there we can agree. But from my experience, there are a lot of situations where slow IS a gamebreaker. Its immunity to Firearms and more. There is afaik no defensive spell with that kind of power.


So your solution is, forget about balancing at design, the GM will save the day anyway, or he is a bad GM?

Posted by: Method May 29 2011, 01:08 AM

Well basically you look at the top of the post where the poster has included an angry face icon as if to indicate they are angry...

Posted by: KarmaInferno May 29 2011, 01:36 AM

That is like saying X isn't broken cos I can still kill it with a nuclear bomb.

ANYTHING that can just stop an attack cold, with no resistance or threshold allowed to defeat it, it is inherently broken.

Other bullet shields either modify the resistance test, or provide some numerical threshold that an attack must defeat to penetrate, and generally the bigger the attack the higher the rating or force of shield is needed to protect against it.

Even an armored bunker allows for some test to penetrate. Slow does not.

Slow just completely bypasses Shadowrun attack/defense mechanics. It does not fit. It is like something written for some other game system.



-k

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 29 2011, 01:43 AM

That, and the snarky/angry tone *everywhere* in the thread.

So. I'm glad we answered this question for longbowrocks. It's his job to have every old debate replayed, because he wasn't here the first (million) times. It's good to periodically recheck our settled conventional wisdom… and to be shown that we were indeed right the last time.

Posted by: jizo May 29 2011, 02:37 AM

would you guys rule that it affected lasers, or HE grenades, or flamethrowers, or tear gas, or any other form of smoke if it did, as explosions generate large amounts of heat, and pressure, neither of which would necessarily be stopped, so a HE missile or grenade would likely be able to take out the hapless mage who cannot dodge because he cannot move quickly to the side. Chemicals don't have to be moving at any quick rate of speed to be effective, bullets may be utterly stopped but that just leaves alternate weapons, even if a motorcycle/car isn't available.

Posted by: Nevermind May 29 2011, 03:16 AM

The Spelll also covers explosions iirc.

So Lasers would be an option.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 29 2011, 03:18 AM

To repeat words from above, 'aren't photons objects?'

… No. Magic is magic, and bad spell ideas are bad spell ideas.

Posted by: James McMurray May 29 2011, 04:24 AM

I'm talking about the Troll himself, and his weight.



If the GM says "we're having a street level campaign" and then says "sure, grab stuff from War!" there'sa disconnect.


Can't argue with that logic. Oh wait, sure I can. They don't have to get you in melee, they just have to move stuff within the radius of your spell. If you make it incredibly tight then yes, they will get you in melee. If you make it really wide then they'll have more nearby terrain to use.



LOL. Tell that to the dead mage from last night. She was almost invincible until the team took a moment to think and work together, then she died.



Why are we fighting in the street? Why didn't I bring magical backup or friends?

In any case, if I can't kill him, I run. If I can't run, the GM wanted me dead anyway and no amount of bitching about Slow is going to stop it from happening.

Posted by: James McMurray May 29 2011, 04:25 AM

Huh, never knew there was a limit to the number of quote blocks in one post.

Until a high body ork in heavy armor with a little bit of gear walks up to you and it stops working.






A tank is waaay into the realm of overkill for combating Slow. A pickup truck (Accel 15/30, Body 14) will hit the mage for 28P (half impact).



I was going by the SR4A weight table. An average ork (Body 6, Strength 5) weighs 128kg. A team of them will easily break 600kg in their underoos.



It only takes a car if you're in a place with no usable terrain. If that's the case then either the team planned very well or the GM planned poorly.

Posted by: James McMurray May 29 2011, 04:25 AM

How does an invincible target draw fire? What sort of army continuously fires at one guy that they can't possibly hurt and ignores all other foes? And what sort of army doesn't have magical backup?



I have no idea, we're talking about a nebulous situation. Again, if the spell is unstoppable in the situation then either the GM screwed up or the players rocked out in their planning.



If your Stun Bolt (or better, Ball) kills me, then it doesn't matter if you know Slow or not. The turn you cast Slow you could have instead cast Stun Bolt and ended the fight.



It depends completely on who they're fighting, why they're fighting, and where the fight happens.



Then your math is wrong or you aren't using the suggested weights (or maybe you're assuming nothing but humans in light armor with no riggers).


Of course not, but I'm also aware that there's no such thing as perfection, especially amongst game designers. Slow is far from the most powerful thing in the game, and it's far from the weakest. There are practically infinite situations in the game and no way for the designers and playtesters to think of them all. It falls on the group playing the game to decide what is to much.

Heck, the Ares Predator is broken if you given them to 12 guys and have them all shoot the same person in the same pass. Eventually you hit a point where every guy is doing 6+ unavoidable damage twice. Should we toss out the weapon, rewrite the combat rules, or just not design scenarios where that happens?



I would definitely have it not affect energy weapons. Actually, that's exactly what was making the mage so scary in the encounter until she started rolling high on her stun balls: her force 8 toxic nuclear spirit with radiation energy attacks (though he never actually hit despite having 21 attack dice. If the team members that were facing her had owned a laser she'd have been toast.

I would have it affect tear gas, smoke, and other particulate clouds.

Posted by: KarmaInferno May 29 2011, 05:19 AM

If several dozen folks across Dumpshock, the official boards, and RPGnet within minutes of the PDF being available were able to spot and point out this problem spell, there's no good reason an editor at least should not have at least had questions about it. Then again, a lot of folks have questioned if this book underwent editing at all, given the multiple other issues in it.

If you were talking some kinda ambiguous situation where the problem would only show up under extensive testing, I could understand.

But this spell just states it protects against bullets. And then provides zero game mechanics to deal with it, so the only "as written" conclusion is that it just automatically stops all bullets cold even if cast at Force 1 by a halfwit with rating 1 Magic and Skill. That should have set off red flags just skimming over the section.

It does not follow any of the other well established rules patterns set by Shadowrun. Attack roll vs either Defense Roll or Threshold.



-k

Posted by: Jhaiisiin May 29 2011, 05:54 AM

One comment from earlier about a lack of playtesters needs to be addressed. CGL isn't lacking playtesters. They're simply not tapping their resources. My group has playtested previous works, and we haven't seen any new work since the RW and DotA projects. We got hammered with playtest after playtest and then nothing. Dunno if we did something to get our funnel of opportunities stopped or not, but my GM hasn't mentioned any such feedback.

Posted by: longbowrocks May 29 2011, 08:57 AM

Ugh. I don't like magic and anything, but I'm super-prejudiced.

Posted by: Ryu May 29 2011, 08:59 AM

Slow works until a mass of (200kg*net hits) is moving in the area of effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air, calculate the volume of the area of effect, find mass, think shockwaves.

Posted by: longbowrocks May 29 2011, 09:06 AM

Hence magic is broken. Although I'm talking about how it does this for a large number of tests across the board:
Easily casting spells at a force over someone's willpower.
Bending light with improved invisibility.
Recharging electronics for infinite portable laser ammo (which works against slow, oh joy ).
Ignoring armor.
Hitting people universally with a picture using rituals.
I shouldn't bring this up though, it's been said before.

Posted by: longbowrocks May 29 2011, 09:08 AM

This is a nice balance, depending on the result. I like it.

Posted by: Mäx May 29 2011, 10:27 AM

You mean somethink like this:
Higher Caliber
Gun is modified to fire higher caliber bullets then it normally does, this gives the gun +1 to DV.
2 10 shop Weapon price + 2500¥ 10R

Thas what i wrote in to my Weapons&Equipment file about a minute after reading the Hi-power chambering and discarding it as stupid as hell.

Posted by: Irion May 29 2011, 10:43 AM

@Ryu

Well, a double edged sword. If you do it, the mage uses the spell as offance. Dropping the temperature in a given environment down to about 10 Kelvin.
Killing everything in the prozess.

Even if you ignore that trick with the temperature. You still end up with the fact, that air has quite a low density.
Under normal circumstances one m³ of air weights about 1.2 kg.
If you take the approach for an ideal gas pV=mRT (T would be 290 K R=287 J/kg K)
So to get a mass of X kg you would need a combination of pressure (pascal) and V (m³) of at least X*83230. (If you do your calculations with bar: X*8.3)
Yes there is a point, where the area gets so big, the hits can't sustain it anymore.
Force 1: 2.09m³
Force 2: 2.09*2³= 16m³
Force 3: 2.09*3³= 56.43 m³
Force 4: 133m³
Force 5: 261m³(2hits)
Force 6: 451 m³(3 hits)
Force 7: 716 m³(5hits)
Force 8: 1070 m³(7 hits)
Force 9: 1523 m³ (10 hits)
This was for a mage standing on flat ground. If you have him levitating the figures are doubled. (So the spell would be unsuable for a Force greater 6)
(I did not take into account movement in the solid ground so.
But there is always the possibility to withhold dices to reduce the area of effect. (Yes you could try to move a lot of air, but it won't work very good, because the air would mostly move around due to the high pressure surrounding the globe.)

But like I said: If you take molecular movement into account, you open an other can of worms. (Not to mention a radius >3 is stupid to begin with. You would catch your hole team inside. Their weight breaking your spell for sure. Since it is not so common to get 4 or more hits.)

Posted by: Fauxknight May 29 2011, 10:47 AM

I don't mind the power creep thats in it, most of the creep is held back with unusually high availability ratings. My problem with War is that a lot of the new rules/items don't seem to be very well defined or thought out:

Battle Rifles aren't defined what weapon category they belong in.

The MRSI grenade launcher has the software loaded on it, but isn't a smartgun, which is required to be able to use the software.

MRSI itself isn't that well explained, can it really be done with a BF weapon, or should you use SA to fire it twice in one pass, or do both ways work, tell us please?

How BF and FA firing modes work with grenade launchers isn't expained at all, but it includes launchers capable of both these firing modes.

High powered rounds give a penalty to hit because of excess recoil, but is it actually recoil and is it per round, or just in general?

Anti-Tank rounds don't define what weapons can use them, they actually use 'i.e.' to describe what weapons can use them. We don't need examples of what can use it, we need a list. Also they're cost and availability is fine for regular firearms, but the cost is way low if they really can be used in assault cannons as well, 1/3 the price of regular ammo with only a little bit higher availability and they're significanlty more effective (actually assault cannons kinda need this so they aren't sub-par to sniper rifles).

The Ballistic Mask specifically talks about being able to use 'vision enhancements as well as well as any modification a helmet can take'. It doesn't have a specific capacity listed and what mods a helmet can take isn't actually defined. Most helmets that can take mods specify vision enhancements and sensors, but its just a crap shoot, there is no official list of 'this can fit into helmets'.



There are plenty more examples. I just feel a disconnect when reading it, like the person who wrote it just wasn't very familiar with the system or they didn't have the other rule books available to them when they were writing it. The other rulesbooks like Augmentation and Arsenal are written in a much clearer and more compatible way, if they introduce a new rule on how to handle something they sit you down and say this is how the new rule interacts with the existing rules, War just doesn't do that.

Posted by: Stahlseele May 29 2011, 12:11 PM

Earth is moving.
WAY more than force*200 kg.
Nowhere does it say in relation to the caster, right?

Posted by: Irion May 29 2011, 12:12 PM

@Stahlseele

No, in relation to earth.

The spell is simply overpowered. It is not badly designed.

Posted by: Medicineman May 29 2011, 12:56 PM

Maybe thats the Reason why its omitted in the German Fronteinsatz !?!

With a Dance at the Front
Medicineman

Posted by: Irion May 29 2011, 01:41 PM

Sounds silly, if you consider the german Streetmagic got the mana static of hell.

Posted by: Prime Mover May 29 2011, 02:17 PM

Haven't used anything in War in a game yet. But I've given a few items some thought.

Slow could be dumbed down to simply subtract a number of power points from an attack equal to the force of the spell and success's. This effect can only be applied to the first attack each turn. Usable until sustain is dropped.

Full auto grenade weapons. I used this rule once and like how it works out.

Calculate damage code as you would for any full auto weapon +1 for each additional grenade. Increase area of effect by 1 meter per additional round fired. This keeps damage reasonable, increases effect and still maintains a serious salsa effect.

EDIT: Cleaned up.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 29 2011, 02:21 PM

I would just have the target roll for each grenade explosion he is in the AOE of. at the Damage that Grenade created. Easiest solution, And still quite deadly. The ripple effect is what makes multiple explosive packages deadly, not the combined explosive potential. Individual Explosions do not work that way. If you chose to have them all detonate together in the exact same location, then maybe (Along with the Law of Diminishing Returns that that effect would produce), but not going to happen with the Autofire Grenade Rules.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 29 2011, 02:31 PM

Even easier... The amount of Ft Pounds of Energy that a Bullet Produces could conceivably drop the Slow Spell in its tracks. Convert the energy from Ft. Pounds to Kilograms and you should see what I mean. Of course, that is WAY more information than is provided in the Game, but still a valid conclusion. Your Typical .50 BMG Sniper Round (700 Grains) imparts an Energy Equivalent of 13,971 Ft. Lbsf on Impact (That is 18,941 J)... MORE than enough to handle that Force 15 Spell in a single shot, with energy left over to spare. By comparison, a 230 Grain, HydraSHock .45 ACP (Heavy Pistol) has 414 Ft. Lbsf (561 J). Which will take care of that Force 1 Spell, if the mage is shot twice in that pass. The 7mm Remingtom Magnum (Hunting Rifle) performs better than the Heavy Pistol (Surprise) with 2837 Ft. Lbsf Energy. Enough for the Force 5 Spell.

Simple really.

Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 02:59 PM

Good job arguing a sarcastic summary :ь


There's a difference between annoyed and mad, but yeah, k, see your point :ь


The spell description itself says it affects explosions. Lasers, I'm not sure about, but how often do you have lasers in your games anyway?


The troll's weight matters only when he's in melee range. For ranges greater than one turn's movement, that means the troll is dead meat with Slow.

Not at all. War!, just like any other book, just presents you a set a options. There's this stat called Availability to determine what the runners can or cannot get.

Nope, you actually can't. Because to move half a ton the mage's way in a moment's notice requires either a weapon powerful enough to level buildings, a vehicle prepared in advance specifically for that occasion (and then driven under a rain of spells), or someone capable of lobbing trash weighting half a ton.

Right, with a whole team against a single mage you have a chance to win. Except that your team is what, some 1600 BP total, and the mage with Slow can be a pain even on 350 BP. Go-go power balance!

Because you're in a city? Why didn't the mage?

The GM has no obligation to design all the encounters around your team; you're not playing D&D 4E. The NPC mages get the spells the same way as PC mages do; and if a single spell learned turns even a shitty mage into an invincible caster of doom, it's a bad spell. This has nothing to do with GM will. What's not to understand?

Posted by: Irion May 29 2011, 03:11 PM

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Thats not that easy.
I stands to reason, that the spell would still be harder to break this way. Because it would only count a bullet at a time.

If you drop something in the earth gravity field you end up with an accelaration von around 10 m/s².
So after one second you would have a kinetic energy of e= 1/2 m* v² = m*10²=1/2*200*100=10.000 J. (Minus 200*1²/2= 100J/s)

And to make things worse, you have to consider how fast the bullet is stopped.

A very easy way to do this is going the way of a force field.
The movement of every (non-living?) object is hindered with a strengh equal hits.

Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 03:16 PM

>walks up to you
>walks up
Which gives you at least an additional turn, or maybe two, to turn him into a heap of ash.

I've already asked you to explain how the terrain is helping against Slow. Still waiting for the answer.
Or do you think that your GM must always give you a lift crane with lead blocks hanging over any mage's head if said mage is using Slow?

It does so by lobbing killy spells around, that's how. Also by being in the way for artillery fire, for example.

No we are not. Giving an opposing mage a single spell is not a GM's screw-up if that spells means that the runners with whatever weapons they have are fragged; it's a glaring hole in the rules. And it's not like runners know which spells the opposing mages know every time.

Or you need several of those to drop the runner. Or there's a bunch of runners and you can't cover them all with a single Stun Ball. Slow solves those problems, all at once.

Except firefights are kinda sorta a typical situation for Shadowrun, you know. And Slow solves firefights completely.
Also, I dare you to find anything as powerful as Slow, power-per-nuyen-wise.


It says "relative to the manasphere, which in most cases is the Earth".


Good job converting energy to mass. Could you, please, now convert meters to volts, and amperes to lumens?

Posted by: Irion May 29 2011, 03:23 PM

Right, now I get what he was doing.
As a matter of fact this approach is quite easy. (e=m*c² + kinetic energy)
But I guess the kinetic energy is not really important that way...

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 29 2011, 04:41 PM

Thanks... I'll be here all week... Lets see:

Meters to Volts. Movement imparts Energy. Harvesting Energy from Human Movement is possible through Piezoelectrical principles. One footstep can provide enough electrical current to light two 60-watt bulbs for one second. That would require 60 Steps per Minute(Damn Fast Walking to be sure, and at 30" per step, that equates out to 46 Meters) to power the Bulbs for a Minute. In Dance clubs that have been used for the research into this application, initial estimates suggest an individual clubgoer could generate roughly 5 to 10 watts, and on a night where the dance floor is packed with moving bodies, the energy from the floor could supply about 60 percent of the club's total energy needs. So 46 Meters/Minute generates 5-10 Watts, at 120 Volts, and about 15-20 Amps. Done, Meters to Volts.

Amps to Lumens. Well, Movement generates enough of a current to create actual electricity. This electricity has an Amperage rating of some sort (Usually 15 to 20 Amps), So, Because I can use movement to power my 23 Watt CFL, at standard Ampereage (usually 15 Amps), Each CFL generates 1200 Lumens. There you go, Amps to Lumens.

Yes, I know, This is very poor (and largely inaccurate) garage-level science, with no real application in physics (at least only minimal application anyways). Some things just do not convert. Please take it as having a bit of fun, and not too serious.

Point is, everyone gets so hung up on how overpowered the SLOW spell is, and yet, few look for other ways to Impact the Spell at all. It is just a blanket statement that "It is too Powerful."

There are ways to have an effect against the user of the spell. Just like any other things magical, you need to use magic to fight Magic. Or a really heavy Troll with Combat Armor on.

I have also seen comments on the result of what happens when you sap the energy from everything around the caster. Unfortunately, the caster would be the only one truly effected by this, as nothing outside of the field is ever effected. So... Bad for the Mage.

Also sucks for the Mage to be standing anywhere near ANYTHING when this spell is cast, as Everything around him IN A SPHERE is affected by the Spell, and would (should) be included in the weight calculation. I am pretty sure that the Ground/Asphalt/Building/ Car/Whatever else enclosed within the field will instantly negate the spells utility.

Not a really well thought out spell, to be sure. Just convert the spell into an Area Effect Levitate (like it says in the text) with a Weight capacity according to the spell, and it works just fine. Ignore any effects it may have on Bullets/explosions/etc. They make no sense.

Just Sayin.

Posted by: Stahlseele May 29 2011, 05:40 PM

The Mass Levitate is how the German War! takes care of THAT issue . .
The Nazi-Accountant-Scalpell and going in to fight and loot dead nazis and their victims ghosts simply got cut i think . .
And replaced by stuff that tells us a bit about military units. As would be expected of a book called War! for my sake!

Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 05:52 PM

Well, we're discussing just how bad War! is, remember? Sure it's possible to fix some of the stuff in it - rewrite the rules for Slow and Designate, lower those insane numbers in the howitzer damage table, etc. That all is not making the book itself any better.

Posted by: James McMurray May 29 2011, 05:58 PM

If your entire argument hangs on one word, it fall apart pretty quickly. He could also drive up, run up, or be levitated up by his friend. Slap a spirit's Movement on his motorcycle for even more fun.



In the scene last night the terrain was a bunch of pregnant women on gurneys hooked to IVs and monitor machines. With the weight the two orks were already providing (plus the mage and her spirit), bumping one gurney into another would have bypassed the weight cap.



Again, why are they shooting at something invincible? I don't care what you're doing, an army that can't possibly touch you isn't going to waste its time shooting at you. If you're truly invincible it surrenders, flees, or dies. If you have friends they can shoot at and they have friends who can handle you, you've just divided the battle, not won it..

Here's the deal: I know for a fact (because I've seen it) that Slow is not an unstoppable force of invincibility. If you want to not use it because it's broken, that's cool. I'll stick with my knowledge, you stick with your belief, and we'll both have fun in our campaigns. However, you absolutely cannot convince me that something I've seen work well is unworkable, and I get the impression I'm not going to convince you, so I'm done debating.

Posted by: James McMurray May 29 2011, 06:03 PM

True. A troll that can't reach the mage and block LOS during that time is dead.



Actually, it was a singgle rigger that killed the mage. The other two guys were already down at that point.



Sorry, my games don't have a lot of high noon showdowns in the streets.


If you set up instant death scenarios you're a douche of a GM and I don't want to play in your games. System has no bearing on that. If though, you're not a douche, then Slow is just another tool for making interesting encounters.

But, you seem like another case where I just have to agree to disagree. I know that Slow can work, you insist it can't. I'll go with my experience over someone else's theory crafting any day. Have fun!

Posted by: Faelan May 29 2011, 06:21 PM

A simple smoke grenade, flare combo screws the spell, or pretty much anything else which obscures the Mages vision. I don't get what the big deal is, a party without magical support going against a roughly equivalent group with magical support is, and always has been at a serious disadvantage. While the spell on paper is not very well thought out and probably better than originally intended it really is nowhere near to being an instant win.

Posted by: Irion May 29 2011, 06:25 PM

@James McMurray

This is quite funny, because you said, that your team surrendered, because of slow. So after your experience slow made the mage invincible.

Posted by: KarmaInferno May 29 2011, 06:26 PM

Dammit, it sounds like I want the German version of War!

If I only understood German.





-k

Posted by: Mäx May 29 2011, 06:27 PM

No he didn't, he said his team killed the mage who had it.

Posted by: KarmaInferno May 29 2011, 06:30 PM

Slow is significantly better than any other equivalent option, without a commiserate increase in either the difficulty of obtaining it or using it.

It also does not follow the Shadowrun rules paradigm of opposed rolls or thresholds.

In short, it's too good for what it costs, and doesn't fit the game system.

That is what makes it broken.



-k

Posted by: Stahlseele May 29 2011, 06:30 PM

Learn to German! ^^

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 29 2011, 06:32 PM

Obscures the mage's vision? Are you kidding?

Posted by: Faelan May 29 2011, 06:36 PM

Don't get me wrong I think it is poorly designed, overpowered, broken even, but I also think there are ways around it even if you leave it as is. For my games I reworded it to work only on things originating within the area of effect. Something new entering or crossing the area is not affected. So slow becomes more of a directed affect instead of a blanket effect. If I am shooting from outside it, it would have no effect, from within and say hello to the 1m/s bullet. Much more workable, but of course a house ruling.

Posted by: Irion May 29 2011, 06:36 PM

Oh, I reread it. Yes. They gave up but the rigger killed him.

Posted by: Mäx May 29 2011, 06:40 PM

If you counnt going down for the count as giving up, then your correct

Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 06:44 PM

And that means exchanging exactly how many actions for the one the mage spends casting his Slow?

Again, you have to move two orks into the melee range, and add some more weight from out there (and it's not like there's a lot of easily movable mass is available everywhere).

Because fighting back is a reflex? Because you don't know if it's invincible until you try? Because the mage might as well be floating at some chokepoint or other? Spells making mages capable of standing up to whole armies are bad.

Noone said it's unstoppable. It's just overly, hilariously brokenly good - see my example with Muscle Toner 2.0. Again, that makes it a bad spell, and a bad tool to use in your campaigns, because it is unbalancing.

And what exactly weighted 600 kg on that rigger? I believe our whole previous discussion has led us to conclusion that you need a whole team to take a single Slow-using mage down, so far...

Oh, so, no break-ins, no getaways, no gang fights, no nothing? Sad.

If a tool allows me to make any low-difficulty encounter into a deathtrap, it's a bad tool. If that same tool requires me to call the army on the runners to be able to do them harm, it's an awful tool that should not be used.

Of course, a single case makes for better proof than comprehensive analysis.
Have fun in your games, as well.


Uh, visibility modifiers are bad, but not all THAT bad for mages. It's not like you can't cast still with those.
And the problem is that in a duel of two parties, exactly similar in everything but the mages' spell loadout, the one with Slow is at immense advantage.


Most German SR books are better - in editing, content, and everything forever.
You have two options - hating the Germans' guts and learning German. I'm doing both

Posted by: Faelan May 29 2011, 06:50 PM

Sorry I may be missing something. As far as I know the spell requires line of sight to target the area. I have not seen anywhere in the books where it states that sustaining a spell suddenly creates a void in the other requirements, which is why most of the time in my games people sustain spells on themselves since they don't need to keep a visual cue on it. Now I do realize many mages will have optics and be capable of negating that solution, however if I am mistaken about LOS please direct me to where it is explained in detail.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 29 2011, 06:51 PM

Yes, and they all have Astral Perception.

Posted by: longbowrocks May 29 2011, 06:56 PM

Must...Resist...Temptation...To restart this argument...

Posted by: Irion May 29 2011, 06:59 PM

@Mäx
Players tend to not give in any second earlier.

@Faelan

There are always ways around. Even the aspected mana static did not make a given mage immortal. He was just the hell better than any magic opposition.

The point is: This spell does to a mage what binky achieved for 3 BP.

The hell, if you use edge and you have a good pool you might survive a freaking thorshot. (right you would need 12 hits, but hey. Surviving a thor shot in the face is worth throwing 40 dices. Well, as a matter of fact you do not need this amount of hits. since the thor shot would enter the area and would be slowed down. Then he would slowly continue to fall, untill enough mass entered the area to break the spell. By this time most of the kinetic energy of the thorshot would be used up for deformation(or absorbed by the field) of the pole itself. So the depris will fall down from maybe 50 meters. A physical barrier should offer enough protection from that...

Posted by: Faelan May 29 2011, 07:00 PM

Smoke would still obscure on the Astral since it is made up of particulates, and the act of shifting would generally indicate that LOS was interrupted unless he was doing it preemptively, but even then you just walk the grenades in (not literally, an artillery term). I don't see how Astral Perception would be a guarantee.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 29 2011, 07:02 PM

Smoke does not. That's why there's FAB.

Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 07:03 PM

Visibility modifiers do not break LOS, they just modify the spellcasting pool when casting through an area with poor visibility.

Posted by: longbowrocks May 29 2011, 07:04 PM

Now THAT is pretty gay. I'm starting to understand people's dislike of WAR!. It can only be countered with WAR!. i.e. lasers vs. slow vs. THOR.

Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 07:05 PM

There are lasers in Arsenal, so not just War!

Oh, and while we're on spells, let's discuss Designate, which is the universal code cracker the spell

Posted by: longbowrocks May 29 2011, 07:05 PM

Well, RAW-wise, but I like the way he's thinking. Might be even more effective than FAB if your GM allows it.

Posted by: Irion May 29 2011, 07:07 PM

@longbowrocks
I am not saying that this in particular is bad. For my taste it is hilerious.
GM:Thorshot, everyone is dead!
P1: Wait a second I...
Great situation.

Posted by: Irion May 29 2011, 07:08 PM

@Fatum

I do not get it, sorry.

Posted by: Faelan May 29 2011, 07:13 PM

Could you please show me where it says this. I just went through the entire book and could not find this. While I understand using the modifiers to get off a quick spell, because no concealment is perfect, your vision would be completely obscured often enough to disrupt a sustained spell, at least in my opinion based on my personal experiences with smoke grenades. A page number would be helpful, I would like to know if I am handling something incorrectly. Thanks.

Posted by: longbowrocks May 29 2011, 07:14 PM

Ditto.

Posted by: Faelan May 29 2011, 07:19 PM

There is no reason smoke would not provide concealment. FAB exists to not only provide concealment, but it acts as low level cover being solid in astral unlike the walls of building.

Posted by: redwulf25 May 29 2011, 07:30 PM

Speaking as a GM they sure as hell do. What fun is it if the GM's encounters are either too weak to offer a challenge or too hard to survive*?


*Yes I'm including running away as an option on the survival front.

Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 07:33 PM

As the author stated, it can be used to fool the target designation systems everywhere on the battlefield. So, when there are shells or missiles in the air that are being directed by active target designation, casting the spell redirects all those at the spell's target instead.
Minding that target designators use coded sequences, obviously that means that the spell is capable of cracking all of their codes at once.

Sure.


Runners choose the targets, GM makes the opposition realistic. If your runners want to assassinate the president of the UCAS, you are under no obligation to make the encounter "level-appropriate". If they want to steal candy from kids, the same line of reasoning applies.

Posted by: Faelan May 29 2011, 07:35 PM

I am sorry the quoted portion doe snot say that it cannot disrupt LOS. It simply says that when initially casting a spell to use Visibility modifiers to the dice pool.

Posted by: suoq May 29 2011, 07:42 PM

Having read this thread, I'm forced to consider that WAR! isn't particularly bad, but at this point the constant lack of game balance, the inconsistencies, and the backlog of rules that people still can't come to a clear consensus on mean that any book is just going to cause all that pent up frustration to burst.

The system itself has been broken since the main rulebook. The rigger and hacker don't actually need any stats. The cost to buying skills via BP and buying them via Karma is completely off. The cost for an extra die in any particular skill or action through ware/tools/whatever appears to be completely random, as is the availability of that extra die.

This isn't a problem as long as the system itself is simple. People can work with a limited broken system. However, with every additional complexity, the brokenness of the system makes it more frustrating. A limited broken system is playable. An unlimited broken system is frustrating.

What Shadowrun is becoming is an unlimited broken system with broken attempts to fix broken sections. (SR4A software vs. unwired software leaps to mind). The issue with WAR! isn't that the book is badly named. The issue is that Shadowrun has no foundation to support all of these things each new rulebook brings. It's a great world, and a great game, but the core rules are horribly broken and can't support the complexity being added. War! is just taking the blame for it.

Posted by: redwulf25 May 29 2011, 07:43 PM

Runners get offered jobs by Johnson's most of the time. If the team decides to do something stupid on their own that's their problem (and running or surrendering is usually still an option unless they fuck up horribly). But in the normal course of play only a total dick of a GM would have Mr. J offer the team a job they stand no chance of surviving. (A job Mr. J thinks they have no chance of surviving if he's screwing them over, but unlike Mr. J the GM should give the team a fair, if difficult, chance of survival.)

Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 08:03 PM

If you can cast a spell through an area with Visibility modifiers (as per the rules in the quote), that means that Visibility modifiers do not break LOS.


There are numerous examples of the contrary. For example, The Way of the Adept adds some solid crunch without ruining anything. Actually, even most of War! is salvageable if you use a lot of houserules and run with RAI.
So it's not a problem with the system (although there is one, there's no arguing that), it's a problem with the particular book.


Of course, the Johnsons should mostly offer beatable runs, and if not, the runners should get a chance to learn they're being set up.
That does not in any way mean that the runners should be unable to paint themselves into a corner, or that they must have a chance to get out of any encounter at all alive.

Posted by: Faelan May 29 2011, 08:13 PM

I argue that it does not. Visibility modifiers are used when something is obscured. It is difficult to see, the fact that you successfully perceive something long enough to cast a spell or shoot it is what the Visibility modifiers and the quoted text, along with every other reference to Visibility modifiers in the book imply. The fact that you have a chance of getting the spell off does not insure that the spell will continue. Maintaining LOS requires a constant ability to perceive the targeted area if it is disrupted even for a moment LOS is lost. At least that is how I run it, and will continue to run until I see it presented as you stated. As it stands nothing in the quoted material suggests to me that LOS is guaranteed after the initial casting.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 29 2011, 08:19 PM

What are you talking about? 'After the initial casting?'

Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 08:23 PM

You can't cast unless you have LOS.
You can cast through areas with Visibility modifiers.
Thus, you have LOS through areas with Visibility modifiers.
Nothing in the rules says otherwise.

Posted by: Faelan May 29 2011, 08:23 PM

You cast a spell and choose to sustain it. While sustaining it your LOS is lost. You don't continue to affect targets you no longer see. Visibility as a modifier to spellcasting (the initial roll, the only roll), does not reflect your vision being obscured after it is cast. If you lose LOS on a target you no longer affect that target and in the case of Slow the area is the target. If you are in the middle of a smoke cloud you have likely lost LOS with the target.

Posted by: redwulf25 May 29 2011, 08:33 PM

Yes they should be able to paint themselves into a corner (through player/character stupidity not through the GM intentionally setting up something unsurvivable) but they need to have a chance to get out of any encounter alive (not always a good chance, and only if they play their cards right) or it's game over, rocks fall everyone dies, and that is no fun for either the players or the GM.

Also you'll note I didn't say all the runs had to be beatable, only survivable.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 29 2011, 08:34 PM

I thought the premise was that you're standing still, so you have touch.

Posted by: Faelan May 29 2011, 08:39 PM

You don't lose LOS of yourself ever, however my understanding was that the spell was being cast in such a way as to protect the caster without affecting him, hence it would no longer be a case of Touch maintaining LOS but sight which is the case with most ranged or AOE spells.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 29 2011, 08:41 PM

Ah. No clue. Several people mentioned that the mage couldn't move, so I'd call that affecting him. As always, it's a weird spell that makes no sense, so that doesn't help.

Posted by: Irion May 29 2011, 08:42 PM

@Fatum

Well, you would need to know the frequenz. Nothing you could not do with a normal target designator too.


Similar problems have been around with the other books too. See emotoys etc.
@suoq
Well, partly. The problem is, in my opinion, not the core book.
The additional books focused on giving new possibilities and new gear instead of new rules.

It is simply not possible to play with basic rules on throw additional dicepool boni with every new book. (See pornomancer)

Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 08:44 PM

Again, a GM's job is making the world react realistically and reasonably to the runners' actions. That has little to do with "setting up level-appropriate encounters", not any more than admitting the Johnson's willingness to see them succeed, and giving them fitting missions.
And there's a bunch of cases where the chances to survive are slim enough to be discarded; again that has nothing to do with GM ill will. That's just how things work - you don't expect to try, say, killing Lofwyr and stay alive and well.


Target designators do not use a simple non-modulated signal to mark the target. It is, in fact, coded. Saying that you can emulate any target designator on the field means you can crack any of those codes, instantly.

Just the fact that you run into problems from time to time doesn't mean you can't avoid them at all.
Yeah, Arsenal, Street Magic and Unwired all had weird rulings and more or less broken pieces, but nowhere as catastrophic as War!

Posted by: Irion May 29 2011, 08:56 PM

You still need to know the modulation. So I do not see a problem. Sorry. It does not say you know every modulation used by everyone on the battlefield.
So I still do not see the problem, but it is late.


The only catastrophic thing I have seen so far is the slow spell. And this spell ain't worse than the aspect mana static of the german streetmagic.
(Or the movementpower from the core book etc.)

Posted by: Medicineman May 29 2011, 09:16 PM

There is no aspected Mana Static
neither in the German Streetmagic nor in the Basic Book !
....(might be in the old Fanpro Book....I'm not shure about that.)

with an aspected Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 09:18 PM

Okay, suppose my designator modulates the sinusoid with 101010101 signal, my squad mate's - with 110110110, and the guy's on the other side - with 100100100. Each of those is used to designate a target for its own missile, and neither we nor the guy on the other side know each other's modulating signals. Now, a mage casts a spell, and all those three missiles go off course and hit the target he designated.

New assault rifles? Unusable. Battlerifles? Leave you full of wtf (as seen above in this thread). High-power chambering? Stats which make no sense, and dubious fluff. Redundant Process Manufacturing? Dubious from the fluff perspective. Monofilament Grenades? Plain out retarded. CI Dragon Box Mine? Best friend of hungry peasants in combat zones, everywhere. Howitzer rounds, vehicle stats, MRSI, cruise missiles, spells - all of those are poorly thought through, poorly edited, or poorly coordinated with what the system already has. That makes the entirety of the book a catastrophe, pretty much nothing from the Game Information chapter being usable as is. Even CGL admits War! was its low point.

Posted by: suoq May 29 2011, 09:46 PM

It would IF there was a consistency to the cost of an additional die, but there really isn't.

4 additional dice worth of agility (a valuable stat in my opinion) costs a grand total of 11.4 BP and .4 essence. (Muscle Toner 4 = 6.4 BP of cash, 5 BP of restricted gear, and .8 bio essence, which, in my experience, is almost always the essence that halved in cost).
One can pick up an addition 4 dice in shooting by simply having a smartlink, a smartlinked gun, 3 other sensors, and having anyone in the team with a level 2 tacnet.

There is almost no reason someone expected to shoot a gun every mission shouldn't have those 8 dice. They're certainly a LOT more affordable than buying the 1 die you get by hard capping your agility, a purchase so unaffordable I've never been able to justify it.

The tools make things like the pornomancer possible not just because they add the number of ways you can get additional die, but because they invariably make some of those tools incredibly cheap due to the random nature of pricing. It's that inherent inconstant value of the price of a die that makes every rulebook lead to Pronomancers.

Edit: Note that the last two points of the muscle toner is the VAST majority of the cost of the muscle toner, roughly 8 BP, but 2 points of agility for 8 BP beats the heck out of 2 points of agility for 20 BP...

Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 09:51 PM

This is all correct, but the thing is, Shadowrun is not aiming to be a gamist system. The prices are dictated by the items' fluff, not the other way round; and the fluff is firmly based on classic cyberpunk novels.
So you can only speak about balance either on closely comparable things - like, items giving boni to the same stat; or outrageous broken cheese like Slow.

Posted by: Irion May 29 2011, 09:55 PM

@Fatum

Why? Seriously I do not get it. (I might sound stupid to you now, but I can't help it)
I thought the mage has also to pick one, like 100101101.


Have, overlooked that. Now I am crying.


Well, but thats an issue with the hole object resistance crap. (Started with improved invisibility)

Whats about them? I found the stats for humanoid drones in Arsenal worse.

Do not get it... (You mean they steal it?)

But right you got point..

Posted by: suoq May 29 2011, 09:56 PM

When everything is broken, deciding what's outrageous broken is like deciding what everyone's favorite color is. When you accept a point of agility costing anywhere from under 2 BP to 25 BP, stuff like Slow is just more of the same.

Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 10:12 PM

Because that's how the author said that spell works.

Ballast tanks galore! Armor(smart)! Woo-woo!

Yes. Wear no metal@Get four drones costing in the thousands, iirc.


It's not that broken. Choosing to raise Agi to 6 is suboptimal, right, but it's partly balanced out by the augmented stat max rules, the maximal cost of items you get at chargen, and the Essence costs.
That's a non-issue, though, since who raises physical stats and not Magic to 6 at chargen anyway.

Posted by: longbowrocks May 29 2011, 11:51 PM

Seems to make sense to me: more processed = less natural = higher OR.

They aren't that weak. I might even buy one as a collectors item someday.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 29 2011, 11:53 PM

How much more processed can a vehicle get?

It's not that they're weak. For one thing, they contain more monowire than they cost.

Posted by: Fatum May 30 2011, 12:02 AM

Like, a couple magnitudes more.

Posted by: Glyph May 30 2011, 12:20 AM

Overall, War seems to fail from a presentation standpoint (no maps, atrocious proofreading), a fluff standpoint (lack of even basic research, things that make no logical sense, and tasteless crap like killing Holocaust victim ghosts to get nazi artifacts), and a crunch standpoint (very little new stuff, but apparently most of it is inconsistent with previous rules, overpowered, or both). From everything I've heard, it's definitely a book I'm going to skip.

Posted by: longbowrocks May 30 2011, 01:02 AM

Give it a few extra acid baths post production for the post-industrial shine.
That, and you could decide the leather seats are too natural, instead going for discarded silicon wafers.

Oh, that again? Isn't the same true for laes cigarettes?

I seem to remember someone saying you could get better prices for monowire if you just scavenged it from a whip, but that doesn't add up. Maybe they meant microwire, which is for grappling guns, but does the same thing without the AP (cost: 1/20 normal monowire).

Posted by: Udoshi May 30 2011, 01:03 AM

As far as I understand with Aspected mana static, it was completely brokenly overpowered and removed before publishing.
.... just someone forgot to remove it from a table in the back of a book, I think.

Posted by: Irion May 30 2011, 05:13 AM

@Udoshi
Friend of mine has a german hard copy with this spell in it.

@Fatum

Can't see that, sorry.

@Yerameyahu

And they should be weak and very bad against armor.
The only way this thing is going to hurt anybody asside from the explosion is, that the person would be covered in monowire. So if he or she moves....
That would have been reasonable and it would have been a interesting weapon this way.
@Glyph

I disagree. It is crap in any possible way. Not just taste.
But I guess thats the fascination of fiction writers with nazis...

Posted by: James McMurray May 30 2011, 06:36 AM

Apparently you didn't read all of my posts or you need to look up the word "invincible" in a dictionary. That mage is now dead, despite having been protected by Slow.

Posted by: Irion May 30 2011, 06:46 AM

Yes. As a matter of fact, because you choose to ignore the rules. A character with slow can't be run over because the car would crash in the slow field.

Posted by: James McMurray May 30 2011, 06:56 AM

The presence of the moving car destroys the Slow, as per the rules of the Slow spell. Seriously, dude. What rules are being ignored and why does a trash truck crash because it bumped into a spell that it instantly annihilated? Page references would be great.

Posted by: Irion May 30 2011, 07:18 AM

@James McMurray
Simple. First the engine block(or to be precise the front of it) enters the field and his movement is slowed. The rest of the car is slowed because of the reaction force. Since the car is outside the field the kinetic energie is not absorbed. Instead it is transformed in heat and transformation energie ripping the car appart.
(Like you see it in car accident going 50 mph against a wall.)
The spell fizzels the moment most of the car has entered the area (or most of the car). But at this point the car has lost most of its kinetic energy.
So the truck would probably come to a hold in front of the mage (or to be precise whats left of the truck). (If the area has a radius of 3 m or something like that)
Then the spell would have been deactivated, and the mage could have a non slow motion spit at the remains and walk away.

The spell is broken, because it is slowing everything to a said speed. No matter what forces are behind it. No matter how fast it went before.
This is the problem. You can shoot planes down with it, crash cars, protect you from bullets, restrain people and it is one of the best rescue yourself spells (if fall of a plane, I want to jump out of a car) etc. etc.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 30 2011, 07:23 AM

Oh, lord. Stop trying to wedge physics into this, it's always a bad idea.

Posted by: Fatum May 30 2011, 07:47 AM

That's cause it was in his forum(?) post, where someone suggested using the spell for that, and the author not only agreed enthusiastically, but said he'd award a player for such inventiveness.

Zeno, go away.

Posted by: Irion May 30 2011, 08:00 AM

@Fatum

Well, yes you could use a Zeno paradox on my example, but you really do not want to to this in intergral form, do you?

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 30 2011, 08:06 AM

Are we going on the assumption that the author knows how the spell should work?

Posted by: Medicineman May 30 2011, 09:00 AM

from what I read here his RAI was something completely different than his RAW

with 2 different Dances
Medicineman

Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi May 30 2011, 12:18 PM

One thing no one mentioned.
1- See the group of trolls running towards you after you cast slow. Cast slow on them. Now they won't be able to reach you this turn, no matter how many IP's they have. Assuming you are a magician with at least 2 IP's, cast something to disable them.
2- Next turn, they are moving out of the slow spell area. Cast another one. Cast something else to disable them.
3- If they are still going after you, go back to '2', else stop.

Now, if for some reason you don't have 2 IP's, just split your dice pool and cast slow AND something else.

Slow is broken, there is no argument for it. Because in the end, you must use physics to deal with it and it will give a headache, because yes, sending a truck over the magician could solve it, but the truck isn't a point in space worth of 1ton of mass. It has length, and the mass is distributed all over.

Posted by: James McMurray May 30 2011, 05:45 PM

Ah, I've already explained my feelings on mixing physics and magic. Buh-bye!




If the group is heavy enough to break your Slow, then using Slow on them to stop them is a really bad idea.

Posted by: James McMurray May 30 2011, 06:41 PM

We haven't used any indirect fire or target designators in our game, so I'm probably missing something, but I don't see anything that says the Designate spell redirects any of the weapons in the vicinity. It says it mimics the effects of a target designator and its net hits are used with the target is fired at. How does that let it pull other missiles out of the sky and redirect them towards the target of the spell?

The spell:



I'm not seeing anything that would allow it to affect weapons that have already been fired, or weapons that are fired at any target other than the original.

Posted by: Fatum May 30 2011, 06:56 PM

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 30 2011, 07:00 PM

I think I addressed that already. If the author enthusiastically supported the idea of using the Heal spell to inflict cancer on people, it'd still be stupid and against the rules.

Posted by: Fatum May 30 2011, 07:09 PM

If the author of the Heal spell said "I designed Heal for you to be able to inflict cancer and other arthropoda, among other uses", I'd seriously consider if I want the spell in my campaign.

Posted by: James McMurray May 30 2011, 07:14 PM

it was in [the author's] forum(?) post, where someone suggested using the spell for that, and the author not only agreed enthusiastically, but said he'd award a player for such inventiveness.

Ah, sorry. I missed where people were saying it worked differently then what was in the book because of an unspecified forum post somewhere on the net.

So if I'm understanding it, as written it doesn't in any way shape or form affect someone else's designated targets, but the author appears to be willing to house rule it to allow that.

Posted by: James McMurray May 30 2011, 07:15 PM

Why not just "seriously consider if you want that person's house rule in your game." I don't see any reason to toss our perfectly functional RAW because the original author's intent was different than what made it to print.

Posted by: Fatum May 30 2011, 07:17 PM

I like how you switch from advocating using RAI to advocating using RAW, James McMurray. It makes your points seem so valid.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 30 2011, 07:23 PM

It's not a question of RAW vs. RAI. RAI means that there's a clear interpretation or error available, not that the author intended something *totally* different from what he wrote. It's also not important if the author's intent was bad, terribly and brokenly bad.

Posted by: Mäx May 30 2011, 07:26 PM

And i like how you butcher the term RAI.
It makes you post seem so smart

Posted by: Glyph May 30 2011, 07:33 PM

Shadowrun books are written by more than one person, and go through various rounds of editing after that. One single author's opinion on what something he wrote should do has no more bearing in a rules discussion than anyone else's opinion. As the person who wrote it, the original author can sometimes help to resolve an ambiguity, when more than one interpretation is possible. But absent an official errata, it is still merely one person's opinion.

Posted by: Fatum May 30 2011, 07:38 PM

>War!
>various rounds of editing

>CGL
>official errata

Posted by: Steven May 30 2011, 08:00 PM

I can ignore the poorly designed layout of the book. I can overlook the dreadful rules, spells, and equipment writeups that were likely never playtested. I can even look beyond the all the illogical omissions (maps, actual information about how militaries in 2070 work). That's all part and parcel for Shadowrun books these days.

But War! was the book that gave us dungeon-crawling through Auschwitz to find artifacts that shouldn't exist there in the first place complete with the need to kill pissed off Jewish (and presumably gypsy, homosexual, pacifists, and everyone else the Nazis killed during the Holocaust) ghosts.

The fact that using a death camp as an adventure hook was even conceived is astonishing enough, but it is nothing compared to the fact that at no point along the way that idea wasn't stomped into the ground. It is truly mind-boggling that nobody at CGL or Topps or wherever asked, "are you out of your mind?"

Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi May 30 2011, 08:14 PM

Unless the group is formed by 3+ Trolls all packed together, then you will be able to cast slow on most people. Also, 3+ targets packed together screams for grenades (specially the monofilament ones)

Posted by: CanRay May 30 2011, 08:23 PM

Well, I'll put it this way. I read it because it was the only book in the ER Waiting Room that was published in the last decade, and have yet to pick it up again.

Every other Shadowrun book I have has at least had three full reads.

Even the novels. Yes, even the bad ones.

Posted by: Stahlseele May 30 2011, 09:05 PM

With the novels, this becomes more understandable, if you have them all . .
because if you have read them all from number 1 to the last cover to cover, you most likely have forgotten what the first ones were like again . .

Posted by: CanRay May 30 2011, 09:10 PM

I used to have almost all the novels. Stupid moving provinces.

As for War! No, I can't suggest it as a purchase. Sorry CGL folks, but it is fail.

Posted by: Stahlseele May 30 2011, 09:17 PM

The german one, on the other hand . . *runs for his life*

Posted by: CanRay May 30 2011, 09:20 PM

So says the man who confessed that he's a Twink.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 30 2011, 09:25 PM

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by: CanRay May 30 2011, 09:27 PM

'Course not, his profile says he's an Immortal Elf. That should have gone without saying, really.

Posted by: Stahlseele May 30 2011, 09:32 PM

Hnngg, when did that happen? <.<;,

Posted by: Magus May 30 2011, 09:35 PM

I miss Fortune The Original Immoral Elf

Posted by: longbowrocks May 30 2011, 09:37 PM

At post #9k?

Posted by: Stahlseele May 30 2011, 09:49 PM

Yeah, shame about the old cookie . .

i did not notice, i was happy with there being Great Dragon over there <.<

Posted by: Magus May 30 2011, 09:52 PM

[quote name='Stahlseele' date='May 30 2011, 04:49 PM' post='1073795']
Yeah, shame about the old cookie . .

Whatever happened to the Old Goat? Did he just fall off the map in Oz?

Posted by: Stahlseele May 30 2011, 10:07 PM

Something like that.
Just up and decided he was done, if i remember correctly . .

Posted by: ggodo May 30 2011, 10:25 PM

You read Born To Run three times? I finished because I wouldn't let it defeat me.

Posted by: CanRay May 30 2011, 10:27 PM

I was going through a very bad time, and I went through all the novels I had. Twice.

I had already read it once. So, yes, I read it three times. I'm not proud.

Posted by: ggodo May 30 2011, 10:55 PM

I applaud you and your endurance. I was so scared when I found out it was the start of a trilogy.

Though, it's still not the worst book I've read
that's http://cdn4.fishpond.co.nz/9780807216194-crop-325x325.jpg

Posted by: CanRay May 30 2011, 11:05 PM

It wasn't endurance. It was a better alternative than what I was going through.

Posted by: ggodo May 30 2011, 11:07 PM

Fair enough, I really enjoyed Wolf and Raven, though. Still trying to track down 2XS, though. Any other suggestions?

Posted by: CanRay May 31 2011, 01:20 AM

http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=28_222&products_id=2476.

Posted by: ggodo May 31 2011, 01:32 AM

Awesome, now to find them in Dead Tree and I'm set

Posted by: CanRay May 31 2011, 01:34 AM

Good luck. Used book stores online and brick and mortar are your best chances. I'm still hunting for Shadowplay, my first Intro to Shadowrun...

Posted by: Grinder May 31 2011, 04:46 AM

Is this thread about novels or a sourcebook called "War"? Just asking....

Posted by: CanRay May 31 2011, 05:06 AM

That tells you how bad War! is. We'd rather talk about the novels.

Posted by: Fatum May 31 2011, 05:12 AM

"War" is even worse than novels!

Posted by: Glyph May 31 2011, 05:19 AM

From all of the negative things that I've heard about it, even reading about Nadja Daviar's dark brown nipples is better than reading "War".

Posted by: Irion May 31 2011, 05:43 AM

There are a lot of bad novels out there...

Posted by: Medicineman May 31 2011, 06:24 AM

No it's about Stahlseele and that He's an Elf now

with a laughing Dance
Medicineman

P.S. SCNR this Offtopic Post

Posted by: Grinder May 31 2011, 07:39 AM

Posted by: Fatum May 31 2011, 07:42 AM

"War!" turned Stahlseele from Great Dragon into an Immortal Elf! More at eleven!

Posted by: Stahlseele May 31 2011, 08:03 AM

*pouts* ._.

Posted by: CanRay May 31 2011, 02:53 PM

A German Twink Elf at that!

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 31 2011, 02:55 PM

Damn, Canray, You beat me to it...

Posted by: James McMurray May 31 2011, 03:15 PM

I think I accidentally downloaded that movie once.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 31 2011, 04:03 PM

You donloaded "A German Twink Elf"?
Was it any Good?

Posted by: James McMurray May 31 2011, 04:15 PM

I didn't really. Just being my usual goofy self.

Though it wouldn't surprise me if it was out there somewhere.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 31 2011, 04:22 PM

Heh... Damn, I was really interested. Sounds like a really good premise for a movie.

Posted by: Machiavelli Jun 1 2011, 12:06 PM

So WAR! is bad....i didn´t read all 8 pages of this topic, but even i understood it now.^^

Posted by: Irion Jun 1 2011, 12:10 PM

Let's put it like that. There are some very good rules. But their amount is around the volume of an errata.

Posted by: CanRay Jun 1 2011, 04:22 PM

"War, Nobby. What is it good for?" he said.
"Dunno, sarge. Freeing slaves, maybe?"
"Absol- Well, okay." - Thud!

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 1 2011, 04:24 PM

Ah, Sir Terry Pratchett. We salute you!

Posted by: CanRay Jun 1 2011, 04:49 PM

Damn straight! Man has a magic sword!

Posted by: Warlordtheft Jun 1 2011, 06:21 PM

Some points on the slow spell that are being missed regarding being shot at:

1. It has no impact on the physics or kenetic energy of a weapon firing into it (AFB-but I recall it mentioning this caveat).
A. So a mage hiding in a slow spell still takes the full damage of any weapon shot at him that hits. His defense is not improved either---the reaction time he has is canceled by the fact that he is slowed. THE FACT IS IT IS MAGIC-PHYSICS BE DAMNED---move along. All it does is delay the inevitable.
B. A mage behind the slow spell will get some benefit, but does not prevent lobbing grenades around it or casting spells.

2. Isn't the drain F/2+3? You don't cast that willy nilly even at force 1.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 1 2011, 06:27 PM

Not true. "Movement in the area is limited to one meter per second, enough to mitigate damage from bullets, explosions, or falls."



Depends on the grenade. If it relies on explosions, the spell will stop it. Spells are definitely good-to-go though.



Yep, though no mage I've ever seen would be overly concerned about 4S drain. Casting it at higher forces gets painful fast, and you'll need more than Force 1 if you want to be able to withstand dispelling.

Posted by: Mäx Jun 1 2011, 07:19 PM

Just remember to tell your GM that your power focus was made using Sangre del Drago bark and you get -1 to drain.

Posted by: suoq Jun 1 2011, 09:48 PM

Having read the above description, is the slow spell the "Holtzman shield" from Dune?

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 1 2011, 09:51 PM

Not really, though I suppose it's still possible to shove a knife in someone. It'd be like a slow motion fight sequence. Unfortunately the spell itself is silent on how it reacts with melee, so it's up to the GM.

Posted by: Fatum Jun 4 2011, 08:06 PM

Okay, I'm reading War! in search for Russian military vehicles. And lo!

Okay, let's skip the usual shit with the name (which is a vaguely Russian-sounding set of letters, translating to something like "Cannon Windou"). Tell me at least, is it a tank or an IFV?
If it's a tank, why does it have gun ports? For the crew to shoot at the opposition while they're not too busy with their direct responsibilities?
If it's an IFV, why is it called a tank repeatedly? Aaaaaargh!

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 4 2011, 08:08 PM

*shrug*. It's tracked and has a heavy turret. I guess the line is blurry.

Posted by: Fatum Jun 4 2011, 08:16 PM

Nope. The line is not blurry. At all.
All Russian IFVs and APCs have heavy turrets (by SR classification) with autocannons (by SR classification) in them. They are IFVs and APCs, respectively, cause they carry mechanized infantry inside.
Hell, when Ukraine converts old T-72s to carry infantry, making them a meter or so longer, they are classified to be heavy IFVs, not tanks any more.
The line is as clear as it could be.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 4 2011, 08:20 PM

So, the difference is just that they have more people in them? Doesn't seem very clear, or meaningful. How many people before it stops being a tank? How few before it stops being an IFV?

It sounds like your problem is the gun ports. Couldn't they be for the crew, and rarely intended for use? This seems like a tiny, insignificant detail to hang the tank/IFV definition on. How would it make any difference? Either way, it has X armor, Y firepower, and Z maneuvering ability.

Posted by: Fatum Jun 4 2011, 09:14 PM

The difference being they have people besides the crew in them. The people they transport around and then drop out, so that those people could fight and die. It doesn't take a genius to comprehend the difference, I am quite surprised that there are people who fail to do that.

Yeah, gun ports could be for the crew (it's an old joke when describing old armour, "Armament: a hole for a gun"), but typically a tank crew should be as protected as possible, and having gun ports kinda contradicts that intent. Moreover, crew members are mostly busy doing their direct responsibilities - like, you know, driving the tank, shooting the gun, reloading it or commanding the whole gig. If he isn't busy enough, he shouldn't be there, to begin with - making tanks as small a target as possible is one of the ways of raising their defense.

Finally, let me remind you that SR stats do not feature the passenger number, and whether Pushka Okne is a tank or a heavy IFV may mean that it seats four as crew, or it seats that plus 8 passengers.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 4 2011, 09:19 PM

Heh... The world may never know...

Posted by: Faelan Jun 4 2011, 09:19 PM

Actually the difference lies in the design stage and the tactical employment of the unit in the field. For instance the M113 was designed to transport infantry to the FEBA, at which point they would generally fall back, or remain in a staging area until called forward. Armament was defensive principally LMG, MMG, sometimes an AT missile or two, or even a recoilless rifle. Often these weapons were added as an afterthought. These weapons were mainly there to protect it on the way to the battle field, assist when ambushed, and aid in defensive positions. An IFV is designed as being an offensive part of the mechanized assault disgorging troops as late as the Assault Position or PLD, and providing a base of fire with generally heavier armament up to and including tank cannon in the 90mm+ range, Gatling or Machine Cannon in the 20mm-30mm range, Automatic Grenade Launchers 30mm-40mm, and Multiple LMG, MMG, and HMG combinations. They are fast and lightly armored designed for large scale maneuver warfare. Delivering troops, supporting in the assault, the consolidation, and follow on maneuver to the next target. APC move troops. IFV move troops and kick ass. Hope that helps

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 4 2011, 09:20 PM

In that case, it's a tank with (ill-conceived) gun ports. It calls it a tank, so it's a tank. It doesn't take a genius to comprehend that, I am quite surprised that there are people who fail to do that. You started it, Snarky McSnidepants.

In all seriousness: it's called a tank, and the only evidence against is very weak (gun ports). If it said 'holds 8+crew', that'd be a horse of a different color. Instead, it says it's a tank that kills tanks.

Posted by: Fatum Jun 4 2011, 10:02 PM

BTRs are supposed to be APCs, but they have automatic cannons and sometimes machine guns to boot.

I'm glad that my repeated explanations have finally let you comprehend the difference. And no, I did not "start it", your arrogant ignorance did.

Now that we're done with personal remarks, the book calls it a tank, then gives it IFV upgrades and stats, and cost times lower than anything remotely tank-related. Doesn't take a genius to tell it wasn't written by a genius, but still I'm kinda lost when writing about it for alt.War. There's nothing preventing an IFV from killing a tank, especially with those flashy ATGM they have. Then again, I can't recall any SR4E books reading "holds 8+crew", it's always guesswork - and it's precisely that guesswork that I aim to eliminate.

Posted by: Faelan Jun 4 2011, 10:22 PM

All of the BTR series were designed to move troops, with a generally light weapon systems as its primary armament, they are APC's. All of them also had variants with an assortment of roles, and armaments. The design was not built around the idea of it being employed as I stated IFV's are intended to be employed in my previous post. The point is the heavier weapon systems were generally tacked on as an afterthought or to provide a cheap method of filling the IFV role. For instance a BTR 80 converted to and assault platform loses space from the passenger compartment, where as an LAV-25 is already designed as a full on assault and fire support platform. You can stick a giant gun on an APC it is still an APC it has lighter armor, lighter load capacities, and when you add something as an afterthought it takes up space. Anyway hope it helps.

Posted by: Fatum Jun 4 2011, 10:31 PM

Right, BTR-90 had me confused, apparently...

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 4 2011, 10:32 PM

Honestly now. If you're arguing that the tank/IFV issue is based on armor, etc., then welcome to my original argument (apparently, the arrogantly ignorant one?). So, either you think it has/hasn't 'tank stats'), or you go by the description (which says 'tank'). Pick one, but don't act like it's my fault you asked a silly question. Jeez, you try to help a guy asking for help…

Posted by: Faelan Jun 4 2011, 10:40 PM

The BTR 90 could still be an APC based on it's employment/deployment. I am not that familiar with current Russian Mechanized Doctrine. By Soviet doctrine it would be an APC, by US Doctrine it would likely be an IFV however ultimately the designation it based on the force it was designed for and how it fits into the order of battle for said force. If you had understood my original post it should have been fairly clear that this was the case.

As to the arrogant ignorance you have accused others of well perhaps you should look in the mirror, everyone is trying to have a discussion, but whether it is intentional or not the tone of your posts fit the moniker perfectly, as exemplified by your latest.

Posted by: Irion Jun 4 2011, 10:44 PM

Geez. There are monifilament granades in this book and you are arguing about a tank having gun ports?

A lot of the stats in Arsenal or even the core book make no sense at all.
War! is not an exception.
It is like playing a game with a resolution of 640*480 on a 25 zoll screen.
If you get to close, all you see are pixels.

Same thing here: If you want to much explaination and defination all breaks apart.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 4 2011, 10:50 PM

So true, Irion. However, Faelan's post was very informative, gun ports or not. He explained that the difference between a tank (which we understand to be a tracked, armored vehicle with a big tank gun on a turret) and an IFV (a tracked, armored vehicle carrying troops, but which could have a 'tank gun') is blurry. 'Tanks' tend to have more armor and bigger guns, while a faster, less armored IFV might not have a 'tank gun' at all.

Lacking any mention of carrying troops, but with multiple references to 'tank', you'd have to assume the vehicle in question is a cheap 'light' tank, in the blurry region. If it were primarily for carrying troops, it'd mention it. This conclusion can certainly be overridden if the stats are overwhelming of the 'light armor, faster' character, of course.

Posted by: Fatum Jun 5 2011, 12:16 AM

I suppose that IFVs generally get less armor cause they need to remain mobile while having larger inner volume, and the same kind of engines (at least the same in power-per-unit-of-volume sense). The tank (?) in question gets the stats closer to a Citymaster or the APCs from the German Arsenal than to tanks from Milspectech (which, I believe, we can trust more than War!). Same goes for the cost. It is precisely the conflict between the text, the stats, the upgrades and the cost that made me ask the question. If you think that "pick one or the other and act on that" is a sufficient answer, I thank you for your willingness to help.
The ignorance in your original argument, naturally, wasn't pointing out the stats, but the claim that tanks and IFVs are hard to distinguish, or that the difference is the number of people inside (on which you persist).


The 90 had me confused on what the BTR line had for armament, not on the combat role of APCs or IFVs. Or tanks, for that matter.
You can continue stating the obvious about the combat doctrine, if you wish.

I have looked in the mirror, nothing of particular interest could be seen, just as I'm not seeing much of the discussion besides blatantly wrong "IFVs and tanks are hard to distinguish", blatantly obvious "tanks, IFVs and APCs are easy to distinguish since they fulfill different combat roles, but those depend on the military's doctrine" and blatantly uninformative "you take one side of the controversy you've mentioned or the other, and run with that".
I am yet to see anything I said proved false for me to be called ignorant, besides the BTR line armament, which I was the first to admit not being fully correct in describing.


The line between a tracked armoured vehicle with a large-bore cannon and a tracked armoured vehicle with a large-bore cannon carrying troops is not a blurry one.
See my example above - when T-72 tanks are converted for carrying troops in Ukraine, they are reclassified heavy IFVs, despite retaining their armouring, armament and tracks.

Yes, it lacks any mention of carrying troops. However, as I have already said, I suspect gun ports among the standard upgrades to be one, since the crew-operated weapons are usually mounted on the vehicle's weapon mounts, with the gun mounts providing the temporarily passengers a chance to use their firearms in addition to that. The light tank explanation is ruined by the cost of the Ares Ocelot, which is a light tank and costs eight times as much as the YNT product. However, the price of the Pushka seems more or less in order with the cost of the Striker from MilSpecTech.
Which serves to display how War! is full of stuff that doesn't make sense compared to the stuff in other books, Irion's right here.


Okay, that message's incredibly on the grumpy side. I beg pardon from everyone involved, of course disagreeing with my opinions is not a reason for the kind of tone implied.
Guess the whole "have to support the book which makes no sense" deal had me worked up, in addition to staying up well past midnight; however slight an excuse that may make.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 5 2011, 01:31 AM

You're right. I could've been more helpful, but you really slapped me right off the bat. Sorry.

To conclude, I think you have to go by the stats and the description (meaning 'a very light baby tank'), because if carrying troops is the deciding factor, it would have mentioned troops. Stupid War!, heh.

Posted by: Fatum Jun 5 2011, 01:43 AM

I've already found and edited a very nice blueprint of a BTR-T, and since I use blueprints for vehicle illustrations (for now at least), I'll go with that. Make it an IFV refit from an old tank, something like T-030 Dikaya Koshka or T-035 Mstitel...

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jun 5 2011, 02:17 AM

The problem you're tripping over isn't about gunports or grenades or names.

It's that you are assuming that the writers have even the slightest idea about real life military or weapons.

Seriously. It's made up by people that largely put in stats cos they "look good".




-k

Posted by: Method Jun 5 2011, 02:25 AM

We are talking about a game where magazines are called clips, right?

Posted by: CanRay Jun 5 2011, 04:05 AM

RAY SMASH!!!

Posted by: Method Jun 5 2011, 04:30 AM

Sorry Canray. Didnt mean to make you go into Incredible Hulk mode...

Posted by: CanRay Jun 5 2011, 04:31 AM

At least you didn't make me flash back into my tech support days...

...

Oh damn, did it to myself. If anyone needs me, I'll be crying in my corner.

Posted by: Grinder Jun 5 2011, 07:00 AM

Careful, dude. Ok?