 Vehicles and Lightning Bolts, Metalic armor on vehicles? |
 Sep 5 2003, 01:07 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706  |
Now, one of my friends and I had a short debate on how powerful lightning bolt is against vehicles. When I got home, I did some research and have to say that he was wrong in that it's not as powerful as he said, but it's more powerful than I was upholding.
Namely, my question is this: I assume vehicle armor is composed largely of ceramics and composites. This armor may not be 100% effective against an electrical attack, but I certainly wouldn't expect it to be useless. From SR3, the damage of a lightning bolt spell would be halved and staged down before comparing it to vehicle armor. Thus, a 6D lightning bolt would become 3S. Let's say the target is a Doberman (armor 6). Armor 6 vs. strength 3 seems like no comparison, even if you penalize it because of the nature of lightning bolt. However, Rigger 3, page 27 they give a sketchy example in which this spell does an M wound to the drone. What am I missing? |
 |
 
|
 |
Replies
(1 - 14)
|
Sep 5 2003, 01:14 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Deus Absconditus Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,742 Joined: 1-September 03 From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS Member No.: 5,566 |
Could it be because Lightning Bolt spells are inherently non Anti-Vehicular, and therefore their level is staged down again?
I know we've had to invent some wacky rules for spells hitting vehciles with armor, if the vehicle has armor, because technically a force 6 lighhtning bolt won't penetrate the armor of a vehicle if it's got 3 - despite the fact that it should, as electonics and engines are vulnerable to electrical discharge. (This isn't so much the case if you get struck by lightning naturally, as the bolt wishes to discharge to the ground. A spell is directed where to discharge, though.) |
|
|
|
|
Sep 5 2003, 01:54 AM
Post
#3
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
Oh, sorry. The M damage from the example is because it was staged down. What I'm saying is that a 3S attack shouldn't have damaged something with hardened armor 6 unless you completely ignore the vehicle's armor. As far as a lightning bolt being powerful against a vehicle... well, I don't necessarily see that. The doberman is wheeled and thus somewhat insulated, and even with magic directing a bolt of electricity into it, I don't see it necessarily becoming more powerful because of that. Right now all I'm wondering about is the fact that they appear to completely ignore armor in the example (which is sketchy at best). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 5 2003, 02:06 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Deus Absconditus Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,742 Joined: 1-September 03 From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS Member No.: 5,566 |
Yeah, that is pretty sketchy.
I wasn't saying LB spells should ignore all armor or become more powerful... I just think they should be able to damage a vehicle with 3 armor *somewhat*, if they're force 6... which they can't currently, without some tweaking. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 5 2003, 06:37 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 344 Joined: 28-July 03 Member No.: 5,133 |
Also, remember that there are special rules for vehicles that get hit by lightning elemental effects while rigged. It causes brain sprain for the rigger.
Sunday |
|
|
|
|
Sep 5 2003, 10:46 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Deus Absconditus Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,742 Joined: 1-September 03 From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS Member No.: 5,566 |
True dat.
Honestly, my spell-vehicle interaction experience is very small; it's been confined to hitting a chopper once, and then nuking some drones. So my memory of how precisely it works is pretty shoddy. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 5 2003, 11:24 AM
Post
#7
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
That a Doberman is wheeled should offer no extra protection. Wheels contribute nothing to the lightning protection cars offer, contrary to popular belief. After all, natural lightning may travel miles through a good insulator (air) before hitting the car. A few more centimeters of rubber isn't going to add much. The important protection offered by cars - and fully enclosing metallic vehicular armor - is the metal shell itself. The (natural) lightning is conducted harmlessly around the occupants (and interior components) by the metal shell to the ground. Speaking of natural lightning, non-conductive composites (ceramics and plastics) in aircraft can be badly damaged by lightning. An example of unprotected composites hit by lightning. Typically, you want to add some metal (aluminum) foils and films to composites to protect them from lightning. Discussion on protecting aircraft from lightning. NOAA Lightning Discussion - see Myths & Truths Now, as for magical lightning effects, I'm sure things might work out a bit differently. I could understand lightning spells ignoring *personal* metallic armor, particularly because the metal is in (almost) direct contact with the wearer, unlike a passenger in a car. I'm a little dubious about lightning spells ignoring metallic vehicular armor, but I don't have MitS handy. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 5 2003, 12:19 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
That's only if the spell actually does damage to the vehicle. Which is the point I'm arguing ;) And the Rigger 3 example in question is in the section where the brain sparking rules are presented ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 5 2003, 05:57 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 10-December 02 Member No.: 3,716 |
If the vehicle's got a half full, non-insulated petrol tank there's a chance that a spark will occur within = boom ;o)
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 5 2003, 06:17 PM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
Yeah, but secondary effects are tested against OR. I don't have any complaints about that one (since it's pretty dang hard to get a vehicle to ignite even when you hit it with a fireball). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 5 2003, 07:10 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Actually inlike movies, a fuel tank will NOT explode when hit by lightning or shot by a bullet. The oxygen content is too low for ignition. Gasoline as a liquid will not burn, only the vapors butn, and only then with an ample supply of oxygen. This is why you never see craters in the ground after all those auto accidents that happen everyplace in the world today. Nor do you ever hear of a car exploding beacuse of a police or gang gunfight. Because it doesn't happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 5 2003, 07:24 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 92 Joined: 26-February 02 From: COS Member No.: 548 |
What if it's a Nova?
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 6 2003, 02:59 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 731 Joined: 25-March 02 From: Rye, New York Member No.: 2,470 |
electricity, magical or mundane, should still obey the same rules and even a predominantly plastic vehical will still have a metalic frame.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 9 2003, 09:28 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 92 Joined: 26-February 02 From: COS Member No.: 548 |
No the car, the "Nova".
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 10 2003, 06:22 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 174 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,478 |
heh. i think you'll find the rules for that under '0-body drones'.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 18th January 2025 - 10:25 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.