 Retractable Spur Cyberware, Correct Reach Value? |
  |
 Dec 5 2005, 07:59 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 4-December 05 Member No.: 8,043  |
Hey peeps,
Question about which reach value is correct concerning retractable spur cyberware. In the PDF on page 149 the table lists the spur with +0 reach. Then later on page 337 the table there lists the spur with +1 reach. Which one is correct? Has there been any errata on this? I am inclined to go with +1 reach as a spur sticks your your arm a good 10-20 inches (depending on metatype) Comments? |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 10:57 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,283 Joined: 17-May 05 Member No.: 7,398 |
In all the precious editions, it was +0.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 11:18 AM
Post
#3
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 355 Joined: 3-October 05 From: Ann Arbor, MI Member No.: 7,803 |
Irrelevent. I'd say go with p.337, since it's with the actual entry for the item. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2005, 11:41 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 934 Joined: 26-August 05 From: Earth - Europe - AGS - Norddeutscher Bund - Hannover Member No.: 7,624 |
The same range as a katana or a normal sword? I doubt that.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 12:28 PM
Post
#5
|
|||
|
Chrome to the Core Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,152 Joined: 14-October 03 From: ::1 Member No.: 5,715 |
My thoughts as well. A katar-like weapon has Reach +0 for a reason. They don't go that far from your arm. 10-20 inches does not constitute (I believe) 1 meter, which is (IIRC) the length of a Reach +1 weapon. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2005, 02:02 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 135 Joined: 30-July 04 From: Orebro, Sweden Member No.: 6,523 |
My reasoning to the two diffrent reaches for spur is the lower one is for the spurs you _strap_ onto your arm, the one with reach is correct for cyber.. but hmm.. dunno, I hope they correct it in the errata threat since I mentioned it there some months ago..
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 03:07 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 715 Joined: 4-September 05 From: Metaplane GEPLK136 (The one with the lizards. You remember the lizards, don't you?) Member No.: 7,684 |
I'd say spurs aren't any longer than a long knife, which would be reach 0.
The exception might be trolls -- I had a player once argue that trolls had forearms as long as katanas, roughly, so the spurs would be too. I had to agree; but that was in SR2, back when trolls had short legs and long arms. Looking at the movement rates in SR4, that no longer appears to be the case ;) (Besides, trolls are melee-monster enough as is.) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 04:24 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
and that would (currently) be the +1 reach trolls get naturally |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2005, 04:33 PM
Post
#9
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 715 Joined: 4-September 05 From: Metaplane GEPLK136 (The one with the lizards. You remember the lizards, don't you?) Member No.: 7,684 |
Actually, he was arguing for an additional +1 reach -- one for the arm, and one for the katana-length blade, for a total of two. It made sense logically; but perhaps not from a game balance perspective. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 5 2005, 04:58 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
i guess, if you are assuming that spurs are somehow based off of the forearm they're in, it might be possible, but really, i dont buy that, atleast, not to the effect of the exterior of the blade being longer, more internal space for holding it, maybe, ut just because you have a longer forearm, doesnt mean the blade is going to be longer, i dont think, therefore, it'd still be +0
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 05:31 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
I'm with Aku. If we say that forearm blades are longer for trolls then we're going to have to say they're shorter for dwarves.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 05:52 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,026 Joined: 23-November 05 From: Seattle (Really!) Member No.: 7,996 |
For reference a spur probably could not be longer than the distance between your wrist and elbow, or about 25-30cm on a Human. If the criteria for +1 reach is an additional meter a spur would fall well short.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 07:27 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-April 05 From: France Member No.: 7,343 |
what about 2m telescopic obvious cyber spurs ?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 07:33 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 4-December 05 Member No.: 8,043 |
Just to play devil's advocate here if you guys agree that 1m is the requirement for +1 reach then how in the world do the Stun Baton and Extendable Baton each have +1 reach?
Both these weapons are not 1 m in length. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 07:44 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,026 Joined: 23-November 05 From: Seattle (Really!) Member No.: 7,996 |
My take is they shouldn't. Likely possible explanation would be rounding to the nearest whole meter in the design phase of the game. Suppose the Stun Baton was not a full meter long, but was 51 cm (reference 20 in = about 51cm) and because of this in a calculation somewhere it was allowed the +1 reach while the 25-30cm blade of a retractacble spur still rounded to zero. However I believe the Extendable Baton says it extends to 18 inches (around 46cm) so this doesn't quite work there.
As for the idea of a telescoping spur, would you really want to fight with a hollow bladed sword? |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 09:22 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 178 Joined: 4-September 05 Member No.: 7,682 |
Personally, I would go with the +0 and write off hte +1 as a typo. In all other edition, it was +0. Considering that the spurs can't be any longer than the major bones of the forearm, the only way to warrant a +1 reach would be to implant them into a Troll. Otherwise, survival knives would also get the +1 Reach bonus.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 09:53 PM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
Hey, they already let us fight with monofilament weapons, why not hollow swords? :P Wonder how brittle it'd be... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2005, 09:55 PM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,026 Joined: 23-November 05 From: Seattle (Really!) Member No.: 7,996 |
That's what I was wondering too. I'm sure if you wanted one you could have it, but would it really be as strong as a solid blade? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 6 2005, 12:44 AM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
You could certainly make a telescoping stabbing object of some kind, as long as it had a physical lock built into it (you collapse an ASP baton by slamming it "point" first into a solid object... having your telescoping icepick collapse rather than pierce would suck). Think one of those plastic kids' "lightsaber" things, except made to have a point. Now, getting an edge on something like that would be difficult, but if you're just trying to build a stilletto/rapier type weapon, i could see it in 2070. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 6 2005, 01:22 AM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 178 Joined: 4-September 05 Member No.: 7,682 |
Great... a collapsible Mace of Sharpness.... :wobble:
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 6 2005, 02:37 AM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 24-March 05 From: On a ledge between Heaven and Hell Member No.: 7,226 |
Sometimes I am not sure if the people here are joking or not. Somehow the phrase Go-Go Gadget Spears came to mind when I read this. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 6 2005, 03:19 AM
Post
#22
|
|||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,026 Joined: 23-November 05 From: Seattle (Really!) Member No.: 7,996 |
You're not the only one :) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 6 2005, 03:04 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
The interior of the hollowed telescoping blades could contain a honeycomb-like mesh of smart materials. When current is applied to the mesh, it can become rigid; when the current is off, key links in each hex cell could become flexible and allow the assembly to collapse upon itself.
You could also inject a pressurized liquid of some kind into the hollow spaces, letting hydraulics give you the interior structural integrity needed. This pseudoscience speculation was brought to you by Ares Macrotechnology: Better living through superior firepower. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 6 2005, 06:13 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
Wouldn't that require you to keep a charge of that liquid in the handle, though? And a gas charge (or a physical ram of some sort) to keep it in the blade when it was deployed? You might be able to use a solenoid in the grip for the ram, with a physical lock once it's fully extened so that you aren't draining battery power while. If it were electronically activated, it'd make deployment quite simple, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2005, 11:45 AM
Post
#25
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-April 05 From: France Member No.: 7,343 |
Lol !!! :silly: you got it right ! |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th April 2024 - 03:45 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.