 Gel rounds |
  |
 Dec 7 2003, 07:51 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 26-November 03 Member No.: 5,852  |
The flavor text says Impact armor is "very" effective against gel rounds, and that Ballistic armor is affected "normally". The rules text says nothing about armor vs. gel rounds. (Pages 280 and 116, SR3.)
Shotgun stun rounds ignore Ballistic, but are resisted by double Impact. (Page 39, CC.) So, what armor resists gel rounds? |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 7 2003, 07:55 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
The other possibility is ballistic+double impact, but if you're going to do that you may as well just take a bat and beat the player who chooses them. It'd be kinder.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2003, 07:59 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,047 Joined: 12-November 03 From: Perilously close to the Sioux Nation. Member No.: 5,818 |
I go with just impact armor.
I try to encourage not killing everyone, but when one of my players is a troll who uses an M2HB as an assualt rifle... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2003, 08:05 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
It's covered by the blanket -2 Power rule; it doesn't matter what armor you're wearing, it's just not going to penetrate you as well as other rounds. It increases your chances for being Knocked Down, however, which is also independant of armor.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2003, 08:18 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Mr. Quote-function Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,312 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Somewhere in Germany Member No.: 1,376 |
You guys might want to take a look at the most recent Errata which says:
p. 116: Gel Rounds [12] Add the following after the third line: "Impact armor, not Ballistic, applies." That will answer your question I guess ... No poll needed there ... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2003, 08:20 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Odd. That makes it exactly equal to other rounds against most traditional armors, like Armored Jackets or Long Coats (where the difference between Ballistic and Impact is 2, too). So now it's still 4M against a guy in either of those armors, while it's 4M with a regular round, too. How does that make it less effective against armor? :) Silly errata.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2003, 08:57 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 26-November 03 Member No.: 5,852 |
Damn, I checked the errata and missed that somehow. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2003, 09:32 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 124 Joined: 21-November 03 Member No.: 5,837 |
Hey Dr Funk, are you sure? Don't most rounds go off of ballistic? I was under the impression if I have an 8M gun(for sake of arguement) and there is a dummy with an armor jacket 5/3...
I shoot with a normal round, his TN is 8-5, 3. Whereas I shoot with a gel round, the TN is 8-3, 5. I think you do better using gel rounds...which doesn't seem right. But impact is impact against punches, and swords and the like...whereas ballistic is versus missles(not arrows or shiruken, etc though) Mind you, you are doing stun, and will have a better knockback. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2003, 09:38 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
But the gel rounds have a flat -2 to power, so it's 8-3-2, or 3 again.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2003, 09:41 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
It does, and that's the point.
Gel Rounds reduce the Power of the weapon by -2 and works against Impact Armor instead of Ballistic Armor. So comparing a Gel Round against a Normal Round in a Heavy Pistol and using a target wearing a Secure Jacket (5/3), the target ends up with a target number of 4 to resist both ways. Regular Round (9M) - (Ballistic Armor 5) = 4. Gel Round (7M) - (Impact Armor 3) = 4. So yes, with the errata switching it to using Impact Armor, they made it just as effective against armor as normal ammunition in many if not most situations. If it continued using Ballistic, the Regular Round would have a TN of 4 while the Gel Round would have a TN of 2, and that fits in much better with the description of the ammunition. If anything, it should be twice Impact with no -2 Power penalty. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2003, 09:48 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
The power penalty expresses that the round still isn't as effective, even against unarmored targets.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2003, 09:55 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
The description states that it's ineffective against armor, suggesting that it's not-quite-as-bad against bare flesh. The fact that it's Stun damage instead of Physical adequently demonstrates that it's not as effective as regular ammo. You need to nail someone with, what, five shots just to get to the same physical level as a regular shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2003, 11:04 PM
Post
#13
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 68 Joined: 5-September 03 From: Rhode Island Member No.: 5,588 |
Unless, of course, for some reason you don't want then dead, but just knocked out. In which case, they are both as likely to get someone out cold, but only one of them is going to reasonably guarantee that they pull through. And if you don't think you'll ever need them, I can say from my personal expirence that taking people alive can give rise to great opportunities. Besides, the principles behind the ammos are the same in most respects. It's not like you are throwing a ball at them. The normal bullet causes pain and trauma by digging into the flesh. The gel round causes pain and trauma, but only in a big flat area on the skin instead of a column through the skin. It's just not as invasive or deep, so I guess that's why it's -2 power. Less raw digging power, if you want to think of it that way. I think the "less effective against armor" was crap to begin with. If you get hit with a sack of potatoes, is a 1/2 inch of padding going to help? No, it'll just transfer the shock right into you. Just my ¥2. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 7 2003, 11:10 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
How on earth did you take anything I've said in this thread as saying that 1) I prefer to kill people and 2) don't see the merit in taking people alive? :please:
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2003, 11:12 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
Im guessing he missunderstood the point you was making about normal rounds being as good by maths of the system.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 02:18 AM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 58 Joined: 8-November 03 Member No.: 5,802 |
The way it seems, gel rounds are pretty much only good for one thing: knocking folks the flock out. The rules for it are perfectly fine; if you make it less effective against Impact, you basically say that getting hit with the equivalent of a ballistic brick is not nearly as bad as, say, getting clubbed to death with a bat.
If you are making a PC, and want to have something that does good stun damage, a gel round is a good purchase. Every gun-bunny I make carries at least a clip or two, for the times that I need to put someone down without killing them. (I would take a Narcojet pistol, but I prefer being able to burst-fire my stun rounds, if the situation goes south.) Before changing the stats on the gel round, at least run some tests on a variety of foes and whatnot to see if they are actually as bad as you think. I've used them extensively as a player, and see absolutely no reason they should be changed. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 02:47 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Changing it? I'm going to be keeping it the way it was before errata. -2 Power, period, plus increased Knockdown and Stun damage. No switch over to Impact or anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 02:54 AM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Chrome to the Core Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,152 Joined: 14-October 03 From: ::1 Member No.: 5,715 |
No Impact? Gel rounds don't aim to pierce (Ballistic). They aim to splat and cause knockdown (Impact). I do agree with the -2 Power rule, but not for knockback.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 02:56 AM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 58 Joined: 8-November 03 Member No.: 5,802 |
I agree with tanka, though I'd probably keep the Knockback. (I don't use it often, just once in a while for cinematics' sake...)
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 03:12 AM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
It's been working wonderfully so far. The -2 works just fine for showing how it's "very effective against armor" as far as I'm concerned.
I see no real reason to change it. But if a change must be made, the -2 Power should be replaced by a double Impact ruling if anything (thereby making it legitimately "very effective against armor"), but not both... that would make it a double whammy. And if you just use Impact and the -2 Power, it in no way makes it "very effective against armor" as previously shown -- it makes it exactly the same against armor. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 04:00 AM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 68 Joined: 5-September 03 From: Rhode Island Member No.: 5,588 |
I was refering to the crack about: "The fact that it's Stun damage instead of Physical adequently demonstrates that it's not as effective as regular ammo." Which I understood to mean that Stun is less effective than Physical ammo, despite having the same damage code, and only slightly reduced damage rating. (which is tied to the fact that 10 stun or 10 physical both mean Night-Night). I did not understand how you came to that conclusion, and I imagined you were a kill-happy gamer (of which, I meet WAY too damn many for my paitence). Sure, it's not a fair assumption, but meh. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 8 2003, 04:08 AM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I've always applied Impact armor to gel rounds. It just seems to make sense that something hitting you for stun in the same fashion as a fist or bat would use the same armor. Besides, ballistic armor is used mostly for penetrating ammunition. I read the -2 Power as being there to keep gel rounds balanced, otherwise you'd be much better off always using them, as was demonstrated above.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 01:12 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 214 Joined: 26-February 02 From: UK Member No.: 340 |
In 2nd Ed wasn't it Ballistic or 2x Impact (whichever is higher)?
I know I was surprised when the Errata came out. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 04:50 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 17-June 02 From: Concord University, Athens, WV Member No.: 2,880 |
Ballistic or double impact are the flechette rules. Now they are, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th April 2024 - 10:46 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.