Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Incendiary arrows - broken or just pointless?

Posted by: spotlite Sep 19 2004, 11:52 AM

I noticed in the CC that incendiary arrows do 5L every turn for 5 turns, and that this may cause flammable material to catch fire. It says to see P98 for more details.

P98 says that fire which does L damage does not cause things to catch fire.

Que? What'd I miss? Since this incendiary damage is fixed as far as I know (the initial shot can be staged but would those successes stage the fire damage? Could you split your successes somehow? - note, I think that would be wrong, but that's just me), what's the point in incendiary arrows? According to the rules not even shooting it into a petrol barrel would do anything, as this only provides a minus to the object resistance. But 'cannot be set on fire' minus anything is still 'cannot be set on fire'.

I'm sure this can't be right though!

Posted by: bitrunner Sep 19 2004, 04:20 PM

just by your post, i would say that:

"may cause flammable material to catch on fire"
and
"L damage does not cause things to catch fire"

the 2nd statement covers "things" in general, while the first statement specifies "flammable material". so, if you shot the arrow into a pile of paper and plastic, the paper might catch fire, because it is flammable, and the plastic would not, because it is not specifically flammable, and therefore falls under statement 2.

i'm sorry, but common sense (and theatrical gaming) would tell me that if you shot a fire arrow into a barrel of gas would cause an explosion. jeesh, just watch any action movie - in fact, in "Airplane!", you could blow up a gas storage area just by spitting on it!

Posted by: Kagetenshi Sep 19 2004, 04:41 PM

A full barrel of gas wouldn't explode anyway, IIRC.

~J

Posted by: bitrunner Sep 19 2004, 04:44 PM

man, haven't you seen any Rambo films??? sure they do, and cars also blow up when you hit them in the gas tank! come on!

Posted by: TheScamp Sep 19 2004, 04:59 PM

It's gasoline fumes which are explosive. The liquid itself is just highly flammable.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Sep 19 2004, 05:06 PM

An incendiary arrow/bullet/similar projectile certainly wouldn't make any full gas container explode.

It absolutely should set aflame any flammable materials it comes into contact with, however, especially if it ends up sticking in them. If the rules say it wouldn't, fuck the rules.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Sep 19 2004, 05:11 PM

But think of the papercuts!

~J

Posted by: bitrunner Sep 19 2004, 05:19 PM

hmmm, evidently the presence of a "winkie" no longer denotes sarcasm or joking... some of you actually took me seriously...

but, if you like playing "high action" or cinematic games, then what i said would be true - if they do it in the movies, then do it in the game...

if you prefer realistic gaming, then obviously, we know that shooting into a car's gas tank doesn't make the car explode, and when they hit the back of another car, there isn't a ramp on the back end that makes them go up on two wheels or just flip over...

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Sep 19 2004, 05:52 PM

I truly doubt anyone took your seriously. I know I just figured I might as well be serious myself, because you never know if someone actually thinks you can make gasoline containers explode with a bit of flame and heat.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Sep 19 2004, 05:58 PM

Maybe cars in the 2060s have "coolness features" that have supplanted safety features as the new "in" thing. Cars with a fuel-air explosive linked to a breach detection system on the gas tank, with hydraulics and/or powerful springs rigged to launch a car into the air upon collision… hell, maybe people even have some sort of wire always attached to them so that whenever they get shot they're immediately yanked off of their feet away from the impact

~J

Posted by: lokugh Sep 19 2004, 07:04 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

Of course, the big problem with that scenario is that cars in 2060 don't have gas tanks, they are all electric (well, some fuel cell vehicles and one or two minor exceptions). I do wonder what Hollywood (or Nashville or Chicago or wherever) does for dramatics now? Of course, come to think of it, if you hit it with a firebolt, it might still explode, so I guess magic does fix everything

Posted by: Kagetenshi Sep 19 2004, 07:15 PM

IIRC, most of the cars in Rigger 3 are still gas-guzzlers.

And you could just set the FAE to trigger on battery penetration

~J

Posted by: hobgoblin Sep 19 2004, 07:28 PM

and hydrogen and oxygen makes for a damn nice bomb (think fuel cell here), rember that they used it to propel people to the moon...

Posted by: bitrunner Sep 19 2004, 11:45 PM

i side with Kagetenshi - most cars are certainly not electric, and gridlink cars are fewer still as they can only be used in the core of the city where gridlink exists...granted, the cars of the future are more efficient/advanced, as the Ford Americar - the standard consumer car, gets 31 mpg...

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Sep 20 2004, 04:55 AM

QUOTE (bitrunner)

Ford Americar - the standard consumer car, gets 31 mpg

I got 29 mpg. 12.4km/l = 7.71 m/l = 29.2 mpg. Which isn't a whole lot, when several current production cars (officially) get 14-17 km/l. [Edit]And now I realize you most likely weren't serious, and were basically saying the same thing as me. Still, it might be in order to remind you Americans how far you can get with a gallon.

The fuel economy of motorcycles has taken a huge hit in 60 years, however.[/Edit]

Posted by: bitrunner Sep 20 2004, 08:13 AM

you did the official conversion - i used the Rigger 3 quick conversion of 1 km/l = 2.5 mpg...easier math to do in my head...29 mpg is still better than I get right now with my car (pontiac grand am) - i average only about 21 mpg, mostly city driving...sure, there are cars that get better gas mileage, but we're talking about the average...

what i'd like to see (and i know they weren't around when the game was created) is more hybrid cars and cars that run on hydrogen. today's hybrid cars (according to some articles i've read) advertise high mpg, but actually only perform in the mid 30s...maybe the Ford Americar is a hybrid (still listing gas as the primary fuel source)? although i would have thought the mileage would have improved slightly with technology...

Posted by: Edward Sep 20 2004, 08:42 AM

Shooting gas cylinder will often lead to an explosion.

You have highly compressed highly flammable gas now released in the presents of an ignition sores. BOOM.

Or did you mean petrol.

When you yanks go to the “gas” station how do you differentiate between auto gas (witch is compressed natural gas) and petrol (witch is liquid petroleum fuel).

It actually took me half the thread to workout you might be talking about liquid fuel tanks.

On a more game related note I understood that most commuter vehicles in SR where one form of electric or another with grid link. Most models in R3 are not commuter vehicles. And you can drive a grid link car of the grid. That is what its internal battery is for.

Edward

Ps I am in Australia.

Posted by: Hasaku Sep 20 2004, 11:52 AM

Y'know, I don't recall ever seeing a pump for "gas" here in America, only petrol stations. We get the term "gas" from "gasoline" BTW, not the natural kind.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Sep 20 2004, 12:22 PM

QUOTE (bitrunner)

what i'd like to see (and i know they weren't around when the game was created) is more hybrid cars and cars that run on hydrogen. today's hybrid cars (according to some articles i've read) advertise high mpg, but actually only perform in the mid 30s...maybe the Ford Americar is a hybrid (still listing gas as the primary fuel source)? although i would have thought the mileage would have improved slightly with technology...

From what I hear, you can run some of today's hybrids on negligible fuel if you keep a constant speed of about 40mph. It's just the rarity of that situation that results in lower actual econ.

~J

Posted by: TheScamp Sep 20 2004, 01:23 PM

QUOTE

When you yanks go to the “gas” station how do you differentiate between auto gas (witch is compressed natural gas) and petrol (witch is liquid petroleum fuel).

We don't, because cars don't use natural gas here.

Posted by: spotlite Sep 20 2004, 07:36 PM

OK, so its a judgement call. That's fair enough. And I did know about petrol tanks. And yes, we do play cinematic. It makes for better viewing on the 10 o'clock news...

It just seemed a little.. final, is all. Especially with a specific reference. Even if it had been the consensus that they couldn't set anything at all on fire, I'd probably have mentioned it to the game group, they'd have laughed, then we'd have carried on happily using them to set fire to stuff! I was just curious what people thought. Nice tangent though!

Posted by: TheBovrilMonkey Sep 20 2004, 08:15 PM

QUOTE

granted, the cars of the future are more efficient/advanced, as the Ford Americar - the standard consumer car, gets 31 mpg...

You must be joking right? My 35 year old morris minor averages about 30 mpg (when it's not broken

)and I know someone whose car (some kind of citroen I think) usually gets somewhere in the region of 65 to 70 mpg.

As to setting fire to stuff with a fiery arrow, I'd use the specific rule that says that can set stuff on fire over the general rule that says they can't.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Sep 20 2004, 08:24 PM

QUOTE (TheBovrilMonkey)

I know someone whose car (some kind of citroen I think) usually gets somewhere in the region of 65 to 70 mpg.

Woah! That's fucking awesome! A gasoline ICE non-hybrid car? Amazing. That's in the same range as the more economic hybrid cars.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Sep 20 2004, 08:28 PM

Is it a SmartCar or something else that probably weighs less than a Troll?

~J

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Sep 20 2004, 08:40 PM

Surprisingly heavy, those Smartcars. Around 700kg, apparently. Many of those are indeed advertised as capable of 60+ mpg.

The absolute Economy limit for canon Gasoline Sedans is 14km/l, which doesn't hold a candle to these.

Posted by: TheScamp Sep 20 2004, 09:13 PM

QUOTE

My 35 year old morris minor averages about 30 mpg (when it's not broken )and I know someone whose car (some kind of citroen I think) usually gets somewhere in the region of 65 to 70 mpg.

British or American gallons?

Posted by: tisoz Nov 2 2004, 05:01 AM

QUOTE (TheScamp)

QUOTE

When you yanks go to the “gas” station how do you differentiate between auto gas (witch is compressed natural gas) and petrol (witch is liquid petroleum fuel).

We don't, because cars don't use natural gas here.

If you drive enough interstate miles, you will see signs for natural and LP gas. They are just rare. I've seen many state and municipal vehicles rigged to run on natural gas. It uses the same internal combustion engine, different fuel intake.