 Game level, Why must it be street? |
  |
 Jan 22 2008, 08:23 PM
Post
#476
|
|
|
Runner  Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185  |
32-13 = 19... but yeah, he miscalculated (besides not using the errated flechette modifiers).
|
 |
 
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 08:53 PM
Post
#477
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Somebody check me on this, but I recall the Batplane bouncing a few shots previous to this. Ordinary pistol fire, maybe, but still... As far as the Citymaster goes, let's try it again with one substitution. Mr. Lucky was armed with an Anti-vehicular rocket launcher or a Panther XXL. Now, all of a sudden, he stands a chance of hitting a spot vulnerable enough to target the driver. For the GM stuff, I'll just point out that most GM's say they follow some of the ideals I posted. All I'm suggesting is that GMs should take it to the next level. Many others already have. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 22 2008, 09:04 PM
Post
#478
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,883 Joined: 16-December 06 Member No.: 10,386 |
Considering that many anti-tank weapons (HEP/HESH in particular) operate on the principle of penetrating the armor and killing the crew through spalling rather than utterly destroying the armor and frame, feel free to consider me ambivalent. In the case of the panther cannon the fact that the vehicle in question will escape unharmed is a bit worrying, but in the case of the rocket you're still catching the vehicle in the radius.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 09:07 PM
Post
#479
|
|
|
The ShadowComedian Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 |
did anybody take into consideration that jokers "handgun" barely qualified as a usual pistol? that thing had more of a rifle than anything else . .
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 10:16 PM
Post
#480
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 |
Well, an anti vehicle weapon should certainly be capable of killing a citymaster - and I'm pretty sure they can both penetrate the armour, thus as outlined
So you can punch through. Tada. Which is really the way it should work. Fab. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 22 2008, 10:26 PM
Post
#481
|
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
The problem, once again, is that the rocket launcher shot is actually more difficult than the flechette pistol, mechanically speaking. He doesn't even have a Heavy Weapons skill, so the total penalties go to -53. If you had a problem with the pistol shot, you should really have more of a problem with a rocket launcher.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 10:31 PM
Post
#482
|
|
|
Technomancer Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,638 Joined: 2-October 02 From: Champaign, IL Member No.: 3,374 |
Unless, of course, the gauge by which he determines whether or not he "has a problem" with a given example is not, as yours seems to be, the total amount of negative modifiers on a specific task for which someone is going to perform a Long Shot test.
I know that in my games I would probably not allow someone with a pistol to penetrate a Citymaster while I would allow someone with an anti-vehicular weapon to try the shot regardless of whether or not the latter has a greater penalty than the former. Why? Because I perceive that an anti-vehicular weapon is appropriate to the task at hand while a pistol is not. Now, if that same pistol were firing APDS rounds, I might allow it once more because the character shooting the pistols is now armed with a weapon that can, in some way, be considered remotely possible of penetrating powerful armors, that being the point of APDS rounds. Thus, my games are open to a lot of interpretation, by me, by the players, and by group consensus. It all depends on the situation that a person finds themselves within at a given time. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 10:38 PM
Post
#483
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 |
I don't care about total number of negative modifers. I care that the weapon is capable of penetrating the armour as is required by the blindfire rules as outlined
An anti-vehicle rocket is of sufficient size to blindfire through the armour of the vehicle in question, and thus I have no issue with a lucky guy picking up an anti tank gun of some description, pointing at a tank and taking it out. Given this requirement, it is significantly less difficult for the anti vehicle rocket to take out a vehicle, because it can, whereas a pistol automatically fails, ninjas or no. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 23 2008, 12:33 AM
Post
#484
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
Cain, the A/V rocket doesn't suddenly ignore armor, nor does it necessarily increase your ability to find a vulnerable spot. It just has a higher chance of hitting the vulnerable areas because... it's a high explosive projectile designed specifically to take out armored vehicles. It's just a smidge different than flechete rounds.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 23 2008, 01:05 AM
Post
#485
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
Longshot tests do not care for modifiers. That is a problem if players insist on doing things by edge which they could never manage according to common sense.
Cite Calvin: "I´ve got loads of common sense, I just choose to ignore it". Most of us have sensible players, and most of us who GM have certain rights. The unlucky few who fall in neither category will eventually have a problem, everyone else won´t. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 23 2008, 03:01 AM
Post
#486
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
hmm, interesting erratas... will have to run some playtest on those... the nerfing of special ammo alters several things. as to the emotive response.. not if you are using deershot or birdshot, if you are using slugs then sure, oh yeah, remember the damn thing is a tank! even an LMG should not do significant damage to a tank with regular ammo. yet using the numbers above a white knight with a gyro will more than pulverize the target with soft lead rounds. (ok the skill is automatics now, but that makes it even better as his backup weapon is now a light smg.. he just specializes in the big one) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 23 2008, 03:03 AM
Post
#487
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
I know I promised I wouldn't do this now that Knasser's left, but this is another logical fallacy, an Appeal to Common Sense. Basically, what constitutes "common sense" is not one universal monolithic thing. It changes from situation to situation. I could pose a slightly-altered question, and "common sense" would dictate a different answer. (And I did, in the form of the Shot Heard Round the Barrens.) Any system that demands "common sense" in the place of objectivity and fairness is not a good system, is in fact a broken system, and becomes an instant candidate for "Horribly broken". Onto a slightly different topic: mechanically and objectively, the more difficult something is to do in game, the higher the penalty should be on it. This shows the priorities and theme of a game. For example, in a fantasy world, build a fully-automatic gun is much more difficult than blacksmithing a suit of armor. In a modern game, the reverse might be true. SR4 allows cinematic actions to be easier than realistic ones, which should mean it's a cinematic game. Except, of course, it demands the Appeal to Common Sense fallacy, and tries to impose realism onto the Citymaster shot. So, we have a thematic disconnect which also interrupts the suspension-of-disbelief required for any RPG to succeed. As far as GM rights go, that I haven't argued. I've simply pointed out that those rights are no greater than that of any other player. Which, the best counterargument is: "But I don't do it that way!". Actually, as demonstrated, you *do*, if you're any good as a GM; it's just a matter of level. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 23 2008, 12:39 PM
Post
#488
|
|||
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
An appeal to common sense is a logical fallacy because "common sense" is pretty undefined. Or, to make the statement relevant, disputes based on differences in perception are quite possible as long as common sense is needed. Larger parts of your argument are a fallacy because they deal with your expectations of the game. The divide between cinematic and simulationist is as unclear as it gets, at least within the abstraction level of useable RPG rules. "Horribly broken" has no place in a logical argument, either. As your opinion, it gets to be valid. The GM quality issue is also not logical in nature, but a question of individual perception. Again, your perception is valid. Now people do not like to have something attacked because of "faulty logic", especially in matters of valid personal perception. In such a case you do not reduce their aggression by ignoring their counter arguments. (I like my opinion pretty much, it is close to flame bait for me. But common sense prevails :D ). If you condense your points to - longshot tests should be limited somehow, or forbidden - hardened armor needs a rework you´ll get less flak for statements that do not strenghten your position. Our game has no longshot tests, and hardened armor will get a houserule soon. (@Kremlin: That thing is an APC, not a real tank. And you need luck and a large weapon to take it down) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 23 2008, 01:21 PM
Post
#489
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
True, but I was examining the artwork for it, it would be classed as a heavy APC in modern terms, only slightly below an IFV. so my reference about LMGs stands, the bradley IFV is an APC with a light turret attached. The Bradley can slowly drive into a hailfire of .50 nBMG rounds, so 7.62 will do nothing. Yet Lucky can reliably take one out with a 7.62mm LMG |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 23 2008, 02:27 PM
Post
#490
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
Are you aware of the approach lunchbox´s group has taken? See the Immunity to normal weapons thread, first page. They implement hardened armor using half rating as automatic successes on the DR test.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 23 2008, 02:32 PM
Post
#491
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
And rolling the other half of the rating, adding the hits. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 23 2008, 02:38 PM
Post
#492
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
Aye. Not-so-minor omission on my part.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 23 2008, 03:00 PM
Post
#493
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
WW2, Korean War, and Veitnam era crat were made of aluminium, just like most modern craft. They weren't equipped to stop weapons fire. This is why bomber crews were issued flack jackets in the first place, because it was almost guaranteed with shrapnel would pierce the craft. But, such shrapnel was far more likely to kill the crew than it was to disable the bomber. But the thing about those sorts of aircraft is that they aren't very fragile. Sure, you can put holes in them very easily, but they can also easily fly with holes in them. NATO countries stopped equipping aircraft with .50 machine guns for just that reason. A .50 machine gun can swiss cheese a fighter, but the holes maynot be big enough to take it down. In order to take down a robust aircraft with a machine gun, you either need to be very accurate, very lucky, or make very large holes relative to the size of the target aircraft. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 23 2008, 06:29 PM
Post
#494
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
I don't understand your point. At any event, people are trying to invalidate the objective examples I present with an appeal to common sense, as if common sense were some all-seeing, all-knowing, logically consistent font of wisdom. It's not. Common sense is what sounds sensible at the time, which does not equal what's logically correct or what's right. As for the rest: I'm slowly bringing people around to admitting that the rules are broken. The new counterargument seems to be: "But it's not broken that badly!", not enough to even qualify as broken in some people's book. Which is fine: Once I'm done convincing people that there is a problem, I can show people the degree to which is is broken. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 23 2008, 06:42 PM
Post
#495
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 941 Joined: 25-January 07 Member No.: 10,765 |
Actually: You have continually failed to address the surgical destruction of your examples at any point. In fact, if I were so inclined, I could quote you stating you weren't even attempting to read posts that demolished your examples as flawed. I'm certain there is a logically fallacy of 'ignoring evidence to the contrary' but I really don't care enough to decend to the level, as you have, of simply waving away everyone else by insisting their arguments are irrelevant. Before this thread I was inclined to think there was something wrong on the margins of Shadowrun re: Mr. Lucky killing a citymaster. After this thread I am inclined to think you are here with an agenda and just about anything you say should be examined in detail rather than simply accepted at face value. In other words: You are not bringing me around, quite the opposite. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 23 2008, 07:41 PM
Post
#496
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Emphasis mine. I'm not disagreeing or anything, I just thought I'd highlight that bit, given the context of Mr. Lucky and all. Carry on. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 23 2008, 07:47 PM
Post
#497
|
|||
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
...then there's the A-10 Warthog, ugly as sin, but pretty much a flying tank. I've stated an updated version (the Super Warthog) out for 3rd ed. As to RL SOTA aircraft, most are made (at least the civilian ones) with a fair amount of composite materials to save weight and increase fuel efficiency. The last really "rugged" jet transport was the Boeing C-135/B-707 series which was built to military specs. There have been documented cases of these planes surviving some incredible situations and still making it back to the airport/airbase. Also the only deliberate barrel roll done (in public view at least) with a large airliner was by "Tex" Johnson with the 707 -80 at the Seattle Seafair races back in '55. That single manoeuvre nearly got him sacked until Boeing started receiving inquiries from airlines interested in ordering. rolling a 707 ...old film but still pretty impressive, like to see someone try that with an Airbus... [/derail] |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 23 2008, 08:28 PM
Post
#498
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
The Shot Heard Round the Barrens has yet to be "surgically" attacked at any point. Or seriously attacked, for that matter. The Citymaster argument is now switching over to the Batplane argument, which I think should be very interesting. The only person whose arguments I deliberately ignored (and which I read) was Frank's, who had become a little too excitable to discuss matters with. I won't go any further on that topic. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 23 2008, 09:02 PM
Post
#499
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
The citymaster and the Batplane have NOTHING IN COMMON. The Citymaster is a wheeled ground armored vehcile, whereas the Batplane is a lightly armored flying vehicle. Batman is protected by nothing more than bullet-proof glass in the Batplane, the driver of the Citymaster is behind solid armor plating. Stop drawing silly comparisons.
As to your shot heard round the barrens, we've already conceded that the shot is possible with luck, and presented counterarguments to your example where only the PC had edge to use. You've ignored that, so how can we hope to debate with you when you won't even look at, let alone recognize the other side of the argument? |
|
|
|
|
Jan 23 2008, 09:36 PM
Post
#500
|
|
|
Cybernetic Blood Mage Group: Members Posts: 3,472 Joined: 11-March 06 From: Northeastern Wyoming Member No.: 8,361 |
Although I only vaguely remember the movie (Hells, the only Batman movie that I can truely say that I liked is 'Batman Begins'.) as I remember it Joker pulled out a pistol that was almost as long as he was and shot down the batplane in a single shot.
Yeah, I think I'm going to agree with Cain on this one, that shot as I remember it isn't anymore feasible then allowing Mr Lucky to take down a citymaster. (I wouldn't allow either in my games.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 15th February 2025 - 03:39 PM |
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.