Recently we’ve started to see a dramatic proliferation of “four-rail” accessories for submachine-guns, carbines and rifles. Essentially, somebody figured out that there’s no reason you couldn’t hang a flashlight or laser sight off the SIDE of the weapon’s barrel instead of just the top or bottom. Clearly a grenade launcher wants to be under or over (see some of the odd concept weapons the US Army has been playing with) for little things like aiming and recoil and there are other items which need to be specific places like imaging sights if you have to physically LOOK through them.

The only changes are really to swap the hand-guard on the weapon with a different guard, and you’re done. Many manufacturers are actually including this on their higher end models already.

And we’ve also started seeing mountings for multiple / tandem optics, frequently with separate zoom and enhancement devices often with 1 MOA accuracy on modular moutings. Granted, they’re pretty expensive at the moment, but they’re becoming a lot more common, especially on things like sniper rifles.

Anybody see any issues with allowing “Left / Right” as an option for some things?

-Kerenshara

I certainly don't. Even when playing with the rules to see how abusive they can get, I rarely run out of available mounts on weapons.

The only thing you may want to do is make sure your house rule includes a caveat that things like Gas Vents, Silencers, Underbarrel Weapons and etc. can't be placed on these side mounts for obvious reasons. That's the only real abuse potential I see, and more because it's just silly than an actual possibility. Else I guarantee you that someone, somewhere, will try to make an assault rifle with a grenade launcher, net gun, shotgun, and God knows what else attached to it.

I don't really see why not. A little silly for alot of things. But then again with everything you can cram inside a gun, top and bottom are really only reserved for bayonets (if you're old school like me) and other ranged weapons. And a flashlight. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

For certain mounts, like flashlights, I don't think anyone would argue against having an extra external mount spot. Certain accessories just wouldn't really work mounted Left/Right though. Smartgun? In theory yes but really you're usually better off getting it internal and in my mind makes more sense as top or bottom mount only, same with the laser sight. But for basic stuff like guncams, lights, etc. Sure, why not? It's perfectly logical and the only penalty I'd consider would be maybe reducing the concealment of the weapon.

This is a funny situation, because the answer is 'yes, but only for things too trivial to care about in the first place'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But a lot of these accessories that are multi-mounted are replaced by the smartgun system and low-light contacts. Think about it ... why would you want a top-mounted scope, a 45 degree mounted red dot sight (seems to be a trend lately) and an underbarrel light if you can just use your smartgun and low-light w/mag 3 contacts so that the only thing you'll really need is maybe the underbarrel light if anything mounted.

example: 45 side mounted sight

I personally don't have a problem with it if my players, or my character, wants to use a four-sided rail system and load it up. Things that are obviously only available on certain mounts will still be only for those mounts, but hey, it's your weapon.

Becase you can use a low light or IR flashlight to not give away your position as easily but still illuminate for your low light or IR contacts.

It goes back to the old realism vs. its-a-game-for-christsakes argument. If you start allowing additional interesting gun modifications, does that make guns more powerful? If your gaming group is a bunch of gun-fans who like to mod-up guns to high heaven. If you're playing more with all three 'worlds' balanced-out, it might be better to leave well-enough alone.

The enemy has IR and low-light, too. Everyone does. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Ah, but that's just it: I've SEEN lasers and flashlights in particular hung off the sides. Electronically speaking, if you're not having to look THROUGH the sight OPTICALLY (with your own physical eye), then there's no reason moving the "sight" to one side the exact same amount as it would have been above or below presents any problem, is there? It's still boresighted just the same.

Concealment is something else I've been looking at for a while (i.e. bringing it back as unique to each firearm and so forth) and in that case, we still treat accessories of ANY sort as mofifying it.

Other odd case: if you did it right in the BUILDING of a weapon, you could have a laser beam directly above the barrel for example, then mount an optical scope (or just put a rail) higher up and back on the weapon and not really interfere. Remember: when Shadowrun was first written, Awhnohld was still killing S. Connors with a ".45 Longslide with laser-sighting" where the laser was the length of the over-sized weapon and as thick as HIS thumb. These days, I've seen laser sights where the parts are being broken up and linked with thin wires so the emitter is the only real limiting factor, and THAT can be pretty small these days if the batteries and actuators are remote.

Finally, I agree that intgral is always the way to go, but there are times a lot can be gained from looking elsewhere.

Lastly, there are the "loopholes" to be considered.

A smartgun can have it's camera upgraded to whatever. But does it take up WEAPON capacity, or the SMARTLINK's capacity? As an "unlisted" item for rating, by default it has a "rating of 3" for determining available "capacity" for modification. If that applies externally, shouldn't it apply INTERNALLY as well? And what if the weapon has BOTH an INTEGRAL imaging scope (I bring this up in another thread I just posted) with it's own theoretical capacity and an integral smartlink? Now, to cut back on the cheese here, I'd mandate that if you wanted the optics in the Imaging Scope to carry the improvements, then you'd have to SPEND one to include the smartlink IN the scope (like you would to your cyber eye). But that's still a net 2 to 6 capacity gain for imaging, really important with the new improved TacNets. I'd only charge weapon space for things beyond those internal capacities.

Same kind of thing applies to a comlink which has a capacity of 4, but takes modules for Sim Module and Response Enhancer as opposed to Modifications Capacity. Can you have that implanted / installed as cyberware / in a weapon without taking up a separate modification?

I've been home on disability of two weeks now and I've had a lot of time staring at the ceiling and suffering from insomina to work on this drek. I see tables and text chasing each other when I close my eyes. I figured I'd share my suffering with all you folks and see if maybe I was on to something or I just MISSED something.

-Kerenshara

I haven't been on for over a year I think, so I guess you've missed my older posts about firearms. Yes: I'm a bit of a gun (ok: MilWare generally) nut, and I've got quite a lot of thoughts on modding the system in BIG ways to make it more... well, I hesitate to say "real" but how about more hands-on-feeling? What was of interest to me was that two of my big suggestions in older posts made it almost verbatim into WAR! as I had posted them: what I called "Gonzo" round (High-Power Ammunition) and Battle Rifles (7.62x51mm and similar) using essentially Sporting Rifle statistics but having SA/BF/FA options and MilSpec options. What was MOST interesting to me was that Anti-Tank smallarms ammunition is available to "large-bore" weapons like Sniper Rifles, HMGs and Assault Cannons but not to Battle Rifles while explicitly saying in the fluff that Battle Rifles (like IRL) are the primary basis for Sniper Rifles. Combine that with the higher Damage and AP on all the Sniper Rifles and it seems that the folks who are writing SR4X are going with the modern trend to over-sized ammunition for Sniper Rifles (.460 WBM and similar).

I have plans to introduce a more diverse but consistend set of rules at my table for firearms generally and how they're statted to give back some of the "individuality" and "character" they had in older editions, but that's not what THIS thread was about.

Your point is quite well taken, however, overall. It's really minor and niggling, but starting 'runners and low-level badguys are going to be using more off-the-shelf hardware which isn't so "combined" and "integrated" so those side slots might just be important. And as WAR! reminds us, not everybody fighting in a hot-war-zone has MilSpec guns-n-ammo and 'ware so those folks need all the accessory slots THEY can get.

-Kerenshara

I love reading Kerenshara posts (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

When I think of side mounting, how much does balance become an issue? Like making sure you have something on both the right and left mounts so that the tool in your hand isn't awkward to hold to prevent tilting? Of course, I am no gun/tech enthusiast by any stretch unless we get into the fictional kind, so I hope I am not too far off the reserve with this thought.

Another thought I had, is it possible to carry an accessory kit that you just hijack on to other people's weapons, remove after your shadow work and dispose of the other poor sap's firearm, possibly even as a frame up? Why not have signature accessories as opposed to a identifier with a signature weapon you have grown attached to despite wet being a part of your character's work at times? Do people get their weapons in triplicate and store back ups for a rainy day? Custom weapons are kinda expensive but accessories not so much, correct? Just how abstracted are firearm accessories in SR, as abstracted as the ammo sizes?

As written? About the same, which is to say a heck of lot.

-Kerenshara

I recall Raygun was working on rules to add accessory rails to most firearms. I dunno how far he got with that.

Some folks may take it too far, though.

Also!



-k

I hope he's got some serious recoil-comp on there. Otherwise the beer would get shaken.

Of course, there's this classic.




-k

I certainly do. At *least* a duplicate of every gun in every safehouse I have setup, and an extra two where I actually live. With enough ammo to outfit a small rebel army in Africa. You just never know when it could be handy.

The Barrett 121 would be a .50 BMG, but its also significantly better than the other sniper rifles. The lower end sniper rifles are harder hitting than battle rifles, but not nearly as powerfull as the Barrett 121. Since battle rifles are specifically called out as using 7.62 and even 7.62x51 in specific that means the other sniper rifles fall anywhere inbetween 7.62x51 (or .308 Winchester) and .50 BMG, which is a decent amount of room, so sniper loads like the .338 Lapua are still legitimate starting points for the lighter sniper rifles given.

I agree on the accessory slot bit, but I go with whats written because its a game, and they need some semblence of a limitation system (the basis of SR4 rules is limitations, slot limits, availability limits, rating limits, et cetera). In addition to side and angle mounts, I've seen plenty of combo accessories like a foregrip/laser/tactical light single piece accessory. I personally keep a seperate tactical light and foregrip both mounted to the underside of the same gun (except for the pressure switch which is side mounted).

That was precisely my point. I was just a little suprised the PSG Enforcer (obviously a derivation of the MSG-90) got the AP bump though. If it had Battle Rifle stats, I'd be completely ok with the whole thing. (Side note: notice the new offerings from the non-classic manufacturers are going for some interesting calibers like the 6.5 grendel and .338 Lapua? Plays merry hob with Milspec supply chains, but even the US Army is apparently looking hard at dumping the old 5.56 NATO round in favor of something meatier. They looked 100% ready to move to 6.8 Remmington but I've heard a lot of interest in the Grendel cartridge because of combat reports from the Rock Pile. 6.8 would be great in the Sandbox but really packs it up at longer ranges.)

The thing I'm working on is basically going by ammo type and barrel length as a guide rather than "weapon type" which is garbage for the most part. But that's another thread, if people are interested. The way they implemented things in WAR! just reinforces that I think I'm still being true to the intentions (fluff-wise) of the authors.

Another thing I'm playing with is trying to decide stats on the .50 Beowulf Assault Rifle cartridge. Ugly but really short range.

-Kerenshara

Yes, some weapons obviously are more of a category issue. We can pretend they use a beefier cart now in the newer model to account for the higher armor penn.

It's probably a mistake to get too bogged down in this gibberish. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) In Shadowrun, the categories are what matters. Different models of guns are barely different, except in the snipers (god knows why). Apart from the magic RC and the free no-slot crap they come with, of course. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

*Nod*

That's my "assumption" as well, of course. But then what odddball cartridge are they shoehorning into MMGs? Something between the Battle Rifle and Sniper Rifle? That's my objection: that ghost 7P / -2 round. An 8P -3 round I get. Call that one of the sub-.50 heavy rounds. 6P / -1 is 5.56 NATO. Nul sweat. Battle rifles are 7P / -1, NOT -2. OK so I'm being picky, but I like consistency.

Battle Rifles are the newbie, so they're the shoehorn-ee, right? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Maybe they decided that they should be the same as the MMGs, but… I dunno, slightly shorter barrel? (Insert technobabble, it's all the same). I agree that it's odd they broke the existing 'MGs are FA versions of the other guns in the book' theme.

We've houseruled out internal smartlinks requiring an accessory mount. With that gone, I haven't heard much complaining about lack of mounts (discounting the conflict between gas vent and sound suppressor).

However, I think adding some extra slots would make launch weapons and bayonets a lot more popular.

For the sake of balance, I'd tend to rule against this, just to force people to make tactical decisions, but for the sake of realism, it makes perfect sense.

Hasn't this been around since 3rd edition (Cannon companion p. 34, directly under the "Imaging Systems" header)?

"Any two or three of the imaging systems below and in sr3 may be combined and mounted as a single unit."