 Availability of Strato-9 and Steel Lynx |
  |
 Jan 15 2004, 10:02 PM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 146 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 201  |
@Modesitt : Base cost of 800 :nuyen: for 10 rounds and 16/2wk is cheap? Interesting...
It has tires? Two words: Run Flats Collisions: the "fired drone" would have no application anywhere... Also, it can't count as a pedestrian, as it is a vehicle. Which means your truck would get screwed up to. Stairs: Check FoF page 68. The SL has four "legs" which afford it independently maneuverable wheels. Lock the brakes and start climbing. As to ladders... ya, it'd be screwed :) Unless you did some extra playing around :) And as to grenades and confined spaces: that "base power rating" thing is a killer, ain't it? :) Grim Shear "So there I was, sticking my finger in a socket..." |
 |
 
|
|
Jan 15 2004, 11:04 PM
Post
#52
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-July 03 Member No.: 4,963 |
Yes, that is RELATIVELY cheap. You don't need that many AV rounds to take a vehicle down. A full clip for most SMG's is about 30 rounds, a total cost of 2400 base, but chances are you're going to pull that availability down a great deal by taking extra time, so it's probably going to be closer to 3200. An SMG doing 7M base can easily punch through the armor of a Steel Lynx(Do not cut power of SMG in half, cut SL's armor in half and round down to 4, 7-4=3, do not reduce damage level, 4M before bonuses from burst fire). Chances are, you'll come up with a situation at some point in a campaign that calls for AV rounds. For example, blowing up a limo. You usually aren't given time to buy the bullets.
Why wouldn't a fired drone have any applications? What's the difference between a drone that is moving under it's own power and one that is being thrown or fired in some manner?
Don't have FOF, but I'll take your word for it. I always imagined it in my mind as looking something like a miniture tank with a top-mounted turret and 4 wheels instead of tracks. The ladder thing is actually a personal example. I was playing a Rigger and we had to sweep out a pair of buildings. The intended core of the job was the underground meth lab. Guess how you got down there? That's right. You had to climb down. My steel lynx was relegated to sitting on top of the ladder and making faces at the enemies it couldn't see.
Your comments on grenades inspired me to look up the costs of land mines. I find it a little bit, uh, backwards that land mines, a speciality item if there ever was one, are harder to get ahold of than APDS or AV rounds. They're also almost assuredly cheaper. How far d'you think a troll can throw a 5-kg object? |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jan 15 2004, 11:52 PM
Post
#53
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
True, APDS ammo probably should be cheaper than land mines. AV ammo shouldn't exist (at least not for small arms), so there's not much sense in thinking about what the price of it should be. But none of this stuff should be very expensive, because it's damn simple and cheap to manufacture, and there are dozens of armies and corps with craploads of the stuff that they don't need and won't mind much if they suddenly disappear (especially when a small sum of money appears in the commanding officer's bank account at the same time). The really funny thing about land mines is that an AV land mine has a blast rating of -1/meter and does AV damage in that whole area... So it's, like, uhh, shaped to send penetrating heat/metal spikes in several directions at once, looking basically like 8 LAW rocket heads strapped together. Yeah, that's it. Now make it directional, and it will almost assuredly destroy heavily armored (Armor 9) drones up to 8 meters away (will still do 6D to the drone through its armor at that range). Another way to get rid of large amounts of these drones is an M-12 Mortar with AV rounds. 6,000 for the Mortar (SI factored in), 1,000 per round (ditto). 16D(AV) will blow up any drone, except that Armor 30 monster. You'll have to fight that thing with a weapon that is just as broken: Great Dragon ATGM. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 16 2004, 12:38 AM
Post
#54
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 917 Joined: 5-September 03 From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Member No.: 5,585 |
Anyone put a HVAR into a Steel Lynx loaded with AV rounds and decided to go for REAL "Robot Wars"?
Just...wondering... :spin: L: |
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2004, 01:47 AM
Post
#55
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123 |
I think I saw that once on The A-Team ;) Anyway, why wouldn't a white phosphorus grenade detonate C-4? It's certainly enough heat and the blast pressure is intense enough to cause 14M damage. That's what I thought made C-4 go off, heat and pressure. Surely you've heard the old story about the toeless guy cooking Jiffy Pop :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 16 2004, 01:55 AM
Post
#56
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
I thought C4 was detonated via electric charge?
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2004, 02:11 AM
Post
#57
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,049 Joined: 24-March 03 Member No.: 4,323 |
Nope. This has been mentioned a number of times before, but c-4 actually requires a separate detonator. Often, this separate detonator is set off via an electric charge, which is why the myth of c-4 requiring an electric shock to detonate has become so widely believed. Here is an overview of how what, exactly, c-4 is and basically how it works. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 16 2004, 05:32 AM
Post
#58
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 400 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 825 |
Ah. That rule is not in my earlier printing, but I do see it in the Errata. However, it is my opinion that Manipulations are, as usual, a different case. That is, of course, unless you also wish to argue that a Force 4 (or greater) Armor spell is required against some of the more specialty ammunition, or (heaven forbid) a monowhip. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 16 2004, 05:39 AM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
the newest ammo to hit the street: magekillers! see, they're sheathed in junk optitronics, so they're too technical for your average armor spell to affect.
or, to be a bit more succinct: nothing good can come of this. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2004, 06:21 AM
Post
#60
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,965 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Member No.: 2,032 |
@Jason Farlander: The Vehicles and Magic section on P150 of SR3 says that vehicles have an OR of 8+body+(Armor/2).
On Base TNs: In the Sorcery Section on P182 of SR3 it says that spell TNs are either Body, Willpower, or OR. It also, however, states that other spells have specific TNs stated in their spell descriptions. I read that as "Spell description has priority", and it makes sense as otherwise you would be using the Body/Willpower of the subject as a TN to levitate them anyway. On Minimum Force: I am not 100% sure this rule applies, certanly people have stated it previously when talking about Elemental manipulation spells vs Vehicles (did someone get a quote fron Rob Boyle about it? I'm not sure). Certanly applying it to everything (Levitate, Armor, Improved Invisibility, ETC) makes magic less powerful, and lets some stupid things happen (The technologically advanced bullets idea, the fact that better armoured drones are better at resisting illusions, ETC), but I think it technically could be within the rules so it's up-to the GM. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2004, 06:29 AM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,049 Joined: 24-March 03 Member No.: 4,323 |
In general, I make it a point to limit the usefulness of low-force spells in my games. In the very specific cases of barrier and armor spells I ignore OR rules because such spells do not allow a resistance roll for anything, even unarmed combatants. If a spell effectively can not be resisted, then I do not apply object resistance. Makes sense to me. Furthermore, in these cases, the lower-force spells are simply less useful against anything, non-living objects included. So, while this may or may not be a strictly canon interpretation, it works just fine for me and I see no reason to change it.
However, levitate can be resisted by an unwilling target, and, even though objects do not get to check for resistance, I would consider them to be unwilling simply by default. I would apply OR in this case. OR is intended as a counterbalance to the fact that the object can not roll to resist the spell as a living object could, and I see no reason why manipulation spells should be able to bypass this. Basically, I see the rules, as they stand, as a means of preventing characters from picking up large numbers of force 1 spells for the sole purpose of using them on objects. Force is a measure of the overall utility of a spell, and I like to keep it that way in regards to the number of targets the spell can affect (I am also backed by the books in this, but I think my own reasons are also sufficient). Edit: Lilt -- Ok. I dont use rigger 3 all too terribly often, as I rarely have players who want to play riggers (I require them to know all of the rules and be willing to take a test covering vehicle combat, electronic warfare, and general terminology before they can do so, which tends to discourage them).... but I see the reference. It doesnt make sense to me considering the categories on the OR table, but I guess they just wanted to make vehicles a little easier to affect with magic. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2004, 11:38 AM
Post
#62
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Yes, it's got heat, and really close the grenade it's got pressure. But unless you actually put the WP grenade inside the explosive charge, I'm pretty sure it hasn't got enough pressure. The "explosion shift distance" (I have no idea what that is in English) of a 0.25kg charge of TNT is in the low 2-digit centimeters (20cm? 30cm?) -- 2 0.25kg sticks of TNT have to be at that distance or closer for the explosion to continue from one to the next. A WP hand grenade has got a very, very small primary explosive, the main (only?) purpose of which is to spread the WP around. The pressure it generates is very, very small compared to even fragmentation grenades (which are really poor as detonators as well). So even if you had a WP grenade right inside the block of C-4, it might not go off -- the pressure might not get high enough at any point, it would just spread WP and burning C-4 in a radius quite a bit smaller than what the WP would normally fly. If the WP grenade is outisde the C-4 block, the chances are extremely slim that it would set off the C-4. If the WP grenade is some distance away (even a few inches), you've got better chances winning the lottery. Throwing a WP grenade around a corner where you've got C-4 is not going to work. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 16 2004, 12:00 PM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
you'd do better lighting the c-4 on fire, then tossing a concussion grenade.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2004, 12:07 PM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
The MK3A2 offensive ("concussion") hand grenade has ~227 grams (8 ounces) of TNT in it. It would be much better for detonating the C-4 whether you set the C-4 on fire beforehand or not. If you can get the concussion grenade within ~20cm/8" of the explosive device, you're almost guaranteed a detonation. If the C-4 was on fire, I suppose that range could be as much as doubled, but that's just an uneducated guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2004, 12:14 PM
Post
#65
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 12-December 03 Member No.: 5,895 |
Hey Ppl,
Thanks for all the nice answers and spinoff discussions. My decition was to up the availabiliy of both the Strato-9 and the Steel Lynx and saying to my rigger, hey you need something to look up to. And he bought it. I also ripped away his mini turret in his van since the Avail for that is also way to hi. Actually the only turret you can start with according to rigger3 revivised is a micro turret. We basically cut a deal. I take away your cool tools because they are too cool and would unbalance your game, and you can customize your van abit and stuff. I suggested he took a Doberman and another spotter instead. He will be far from the powerbase he was with the Steel Lynx and the Strato-9. More in line with the rest of the group. and again thanks for all the responses. regards Bjarte |
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2004, 12:20 PM
Post
#66
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Just make sure your other PCs are less powerful than standard and it would be alright.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2004, 12:29 PM
Post
#67
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 12-December 03 Member No.: 5,895 |
This rigger might be less then standard able to do damage with his drones, but his wheels are hot.
He still has a micro turret with a Assault rifle in it, a Doberman with 2 other guns and a spotter drone. So he still can do the stuff, not just as good. As a side note, i read in some fiction that the rigger did not care for the spotters cause they did not have guns. Is this a normal reaction in your games as well? Do security riggers/rigger pc's not take out spotting non armed drones? I take it for granted that they take down Strato-9. While it has very powerfull sensor equipemnt it lacks armour and that gun it has just say "shoot me". So in some areas he is perhaps weeker then a starting rigger should be, but in others he is wizz. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2004, 12:35 PM
Post
#68
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
riggers can be 'controlled' by keeping strict watch on their gear and downtime. don't always give them time to repair all their drones in between runs; enforce the fuel and optempo rules. the key to playing a good rigger isn't managing your toys--it's managing your time, so that you've got the toys you need at the time you need 'em.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2004, 12:46 PM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
My PCs usually take out spotter drones with a material nature spirit as soon as they can. Since the drone can't fire back, the spirit wins eventually and the spirit's interference really messes up the drone's spotting for indirect fire.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2004, 05:51 PM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 675 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 2,034 |
Can you start with a pop-up micro turret?
The regular turrets are one of those basically useless to shadowrunners things (in most campaigns). |
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2004, 06:26 PM
Post
#71
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 12-December 03 Member No.: 5,895 |
You can start with a pop-up micro turret. Since the avail for its part is Turret Cost / 400 and the cost for a micro turret is 2500 = 6.
That is a pop-up remote mirco-turret that can hold a assault rifle or smaller arms. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2004, 06:44 PM
Post
#72
|
|||||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123 |
I figured that's what he meant by using it as a detonator. I figure if you can set off a burning piece by stomping it with your foot, a grenade blast at 0 meters is more than adequate.
That blast does 14M by itself, so calling it "very, very small" is an understatement. It's enough to cause damage, potentially even more than other grenades. Of course I'm talking about SR grenades here. I don't even know if these things exist IRL. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 16 2004, 08:55 PM
Post
#73
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
HOLY SHIT! GOD DAMN! What the hell were they thinking when they put up those numbers? That's just fucking insane. The American M15 grenade contains about 15 ounces, along with a small bursting charge which ignites the phosphorous and scatters it over a 17 metre radius. An ounce or two of some basic explosive, the brunt force of which is used up to scatter the WP, does 14M when an offensive hand grenade (basically 0.25kg of straight high explosives) does 10S? Just strip the WP from the WP grenades and use them as concussion grenades against heavily armored foes. These things certainly exist IRL, and that's what I was talking about, since by canon Shadowrun rules there's no way you could ever detonate plastic explosives with a White Phosphorous grenade. By canon Shadowrun, only an EMP grenade could do that, or firing at the explosive with a taser. That's why there's no point in discussing detonating plastic explosives in canon SR terms. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 16 2004, 09:28 PM
Post
#74
|
|||||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123 |
That made me laugh ;)
It's still nice to talk about if you're like me: I know enough about C-4 to make it work properly, but I don't know shit about guns and grenades and so I don't touch those rules.
I thought of that too, but then noticed IPE grenades on the same page which are cheaper and do that better. Presumably WP grenades were designed around the time of IPE and that's why they've got more power than Core Book grenades. Incidentally, do you suppose that an incendiary or tracer round could set off C-4? I've read that it can take rifle rounds with no problem, but I've never read about ones that were on fire. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 16 2004, 10:44 PM
Post
#75
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Just a basic incendiary or tracer round? I doubt it, but I can't be sure. It might not give off enough heat to detonate the stuff, but I just don't know. If it came up in a game, I'd just roll a die, 1-3 it doesn't work, 4+ it works.
Sorry, I suck at swearing in English. EI JUMALAUTA! EI SAATANA! |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 11th March 2025 - 07:29 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.