Injection Darts, Anybody else actually manage to parse that code? Options

[Kerenshara]

OK, I see the rule as written, but I just can’t parse the code. If all I need is two net hits on the opposed attack roll, why is there an AP rating? Why does it even matter if you use Ballistic or Impact armor? Did I miss something else important?



SR4A, P.323; Gear Listing, Ammunition



Injection Darts: For use with dart guns of various types—such as the Parashield pistol and rifle—injection darts carry a single dose of a drug or toxin. Effects depend on the drug payload, but to successfully deliver the payload and penetrate armor, the attacker needs two net hits on the Ranged Combat Opposed Test.



Special Weapons Damage AP Mode RC Ammo Avail Cost

Parashield Dart Pistol As Drug/Toxin –2 SA — 5 © 6R 600¥

Parashield Dart Rifle As Drug/Toxin –2 SA 0 10© 6R 1,700¥



Ammunition, per 10 shots Damage Modifier AP Armor Used Avail Cost

Injection Darts As Drug/Toxin — Impact 4R 75¥

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

OK, I see the rule as written, but I just can’t parse the code. If all I need is two net hits on the opposed attack roll, why is there an AP rating? Why does it even matter if you use Ballistic or Impact armor? Did I miss something else important?



SR4A, P.323; Gear Listing, Ammunition



Injection Darts: For use with dart guns of various types—such as the Parashield pistol and rifle—injection darts carry a single dose of a drug or toxin. Effects depend on the drug payload, but to successfully deliver the payload and penetrate armor, the attacker needs two net hits on the Ranged Combat Opposed Test.



Special Weapons Damage AP Mode RC Ammo Avail Cost

Parashield Dart Pistol As Drug/Toxin –2 SA — 5 © 6R 600¥

Parashield Dart Rifle As Drug/Toxin –2 SA 0 10© 6R 1,700¥



Ammunition, per 10 shots Damage Modifier AP Armor Used Avail Cost

Injection Darts As Drug/Toxin — Impact 4R 75¥

G'Day Kerenshara

I parse it Thusly...

You shoot character...

Damage for the Dart is negligible, but you need to penetrate the impact armor of the target so a -2 AP would apply to the Impact Rating... if it is reduced to 0, and you have 2 net hits, it penetrates and delivers the dart payload... resolve drug/toxin as normal...

If you do not reduce the armor to 0, the dart lodges in the armor and does not penetrate to deliver the payload... if the target is heavily armored, you need to take a called shot to avoid the Impact Rating to bypass the armor's protection...

My 2 Cents...

[Neraph]

G'Day Kerenshara

I parse it Thusly...

You shoot character...

Damage for the Dart is negligible, but you need to penetrate the impact armor of the target so a -2 AP would apply to the Impact Rating... if it is reduced to 0, and you have 2 net hits, it penetrates and delivers the dart payload... resolve drug/toxin as normal...

If you do not reduce the armor to 0, the dart lodges in the armor and does not penetrate to deliver the payload... if the target is heavily armored, you need to take a called shot to avoid the Impact Rating to bypass the armor's protection...

My 2 Cents...

No. By the rules that she quoted, all that is required is 2 net hits. You do not have to pierce the armor (contrary to how it seems to sound), and they do not even have to take damage; all that is required is 2 net hits.

I have no idea why an AP is listed, as an AP of +7 would allow you to deliver the toxin as long as you get 2 net hits.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

No. By the rules that she quoted, all that is required is 2 net hits. You do not have to pierce the armor (contrary to how it seems to sound), and they do not even have to take damage; all that is required is 2 net hits.

I have no idea why an AP is listed, as an AP of +7 would allow you to deliver the toxin as long as you get 2 net hits.

WHich is why she wanted soem Parseing...
By the Strict Interpretation, you are indeed correct, but then, why the AP... clearly it is an example of an over-edited ruleset (Darts) that was never re-evaluated prior to publishing... It appears that there were two sets of information that were sorta smashed together, and something was indeed lost in the translation...

Keep the Faith...

[Neraph]

WHich is why she wanted soem Parseing...
By the Strict Interpretation, you are indeed correct, but then, why the AP... clearly it is an example of an over-edited ruleset (Darts) that was never re-evaluated prior to publishing... It appears that there were two sets of information that were sorta smashed together, and something was indeed lost in the translation...

Keep the Faith...

The AP exists to simulate the actual danger of shooting a giant fricking needle at something. The rules only want 2 net hits though.

It seems that a better way to have worked that out (in order to maintain the fluff) would have been to state that the damage recieved had to be saved as if it were physical damage; trying to word it so you can understand: The damage recieved from an attack with the dart must not be reduced to stun damage as a result of the defender's Impact armor.

IE: modified damage from the attack must exceed the modified armor of the defender, otherwise the toxin does not deploy properly.

Does that make sense? And if it does, can you rehash it to make better sense?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The AP exists to simulate the actual danger of shooting a giant fricking needle at something. The rules only want 2 net hits though.

It seems that a better way to have worked that out (in order to maintain the fluff) would have been to state that the damage recieved had to be saved as if it were physical damage; trying to word it so you can understand: The damage recieved from an attack with the dart must not be reduced to stun damage as a result of the defender's Impact armor.

IE: modified damage from the attack must exceed the modified armor of the defender, otherwise the toxin does not deploy properly.

Does that make sense? And if it does, can you rehash it to make better sense?

It does make sense... the only problem I see is that the Darts have no inherent damage potential... None...
Damage is listed as "Pistol" and "Rifle"... which to me could mean that they intended to have them inflict damage based upon the frame that was being used (4p for Light Pistols, 9p for the PSJJ Rifle)... this could lead to some Inconsistencies, however, as generally, Dart Guns inflict no real damage when used, and your result is because of the Toxin/Drug... To Furhter confuse the issue, they throw in the requirement of 2 Net Hits...

The ambiguity that is the ruleset for Dart Weapons is frustrating... We (My Table) actively use the rules for Capsule Rounds with a -2 AP (vs. the positive AP) and then declare that if you manage to inflict a single point of Stun Damage through the Armor, it has penetrated... Though I do prefer the interpretation I provided earlier, as it seems more "real" to me, but that is just me... what we actually use has been working pretty well so far...

EDIT: And I do think that I see where you are coming from... Damage in your interpretation relies strictly upon placement (Damage of 0 + Net Hits for Modified Damage Potential)... I think that I could get on board with that as well...

[Kerenshara]

OK, you two (thanks for taking the time to answer) seem to be circling the same point I was chewing on. Listening to your discourse reminded me however, that in 1st/2nd Ed, there was a speciffic mechanic for penetrating the armor and that at least one point had to get through. Is there a chance somebody who is reading this thread is willing to dive into the older rule books and find out for me? Or, conversely, if one of the Dev's is hanging out, we seem to have conflicting intentions as presented. In reality, an injection dart has a fiendishly easy time penetrating "soft" body armors, because at heart, they are all woven fabrics. The reason for the "2 Net Hit" rule would imply that "grazing" hits that normally still inflict damage with a standard bullet wouldn't allow the needle to strike perpendicular to the weave and contact the skin. In other words, you just need a "solid" hit. Now, some of the older fluff indicated modern armors were a combination of gel, soft and SOLID PLATES over vital areas. If that's part of it, I would expect you have to actually penetrate armor, where that -2 AP would come into play, and you'd need to inflict at least one point of unresisted damage, or you could say that the final adjusted DV had to exceed the base armor rating, modified by the -2 in order to get through. But for either of those to apply, you'd need a base damage value for the Parashield Pistol & Rifle. (I went back to a copy of the old books I still have access too and found that the Narcojet Pistol was concealability 7, equivalent to a big holdout pistol and the Narcojet Rifle was a 4, equivalent to a big SMG or really compact assault rifle.)

[Octogenarihexate...]

In the end, I just treated them like the cyber dartguns from Augmentation. So they've got a damage code (3P pistol, 4P rifle) and need to score at least one box of damage to inject their toxin.

Seems to have worked out so far; my group's "mad scientist" PC sure loves his dartguns.

[Kerenshara]

In the end, I just treated them like the cyber dartguns from Augmentation. So they've got a damage code (3P pistol, 4P rifle) and need to score at least one box of damage to inject their toxin.

Seems to have worked out so far; my group's "mad scientist" PC sure loves his dartguns.

So damage scales up like a normal weapon? Do you actually inflict damage from the dart itself?
(OK, a dart in the eye is going to suck.)

[McAllister]

Not as much as drugs in the eye is going to suck! Even a syringeful of saltwater would be positively crippling.

But other than the paralysis inflicted upon opponents who have a phobia of needles, what have injection darts got that capsule rounds of DMSO and cyanide don't got? I feel like it's a lot easier to coat an opponent with paintballs o' poison than poke him/her with a flying needle.

[BullZeye]

I think the AP is added to the toxin's penetration. Would be logical that an injected poison works better than sprayed stuff.

[Pollution]

2 NET hits means after soak. I.E. there's -2 AP, so you need to break it down thusly:

You roll your attack. You get say 3 successes. That's GROSS Hits. Not Net.
They roll to soak (defense gives them 1, and armor soak gives them 1). You get 1 NET hits. You fail to deliver the toxin.

You roll your attack. You get 6 successes. That's GROSS hits, Not Net.
They roll to soak (defense gives them 2 armor soak gives them 2). You get 2 NET hits. You deliver the toxin.

It's NET, not GROSS. Therefore, it's the total number of hits AFTER defense and Soak. If it said 2 GROSS hits, you'd then just need to get 2 hits period to do it. NET means after deductions. I.E. Your salary is your GROSS income, your Actual take home (after taxes and insurance ect...) is your NET income.

[BullZeye]

the attacker needs two net hits on the Ranged Combat Opposed Test.

I agree with Pollution's line of thought and that would be logical way to handle it, but that wording just makes things not so simple. It just states the opposed combat test that doesn't involve soaking.

[Kerenshara]

Not as much as drugs in the eye is going to suck! Even a syringeful of saltwater would be positively crippling.

But other than the paralysis inflicted upon opponents who have a phobia of needles, what have injection darts got that capsule rounds of DMSO and cyanide don't got? I feel like it's a lot easier to coat an opponent with paintballs o' poison than poke him/her with a flying needle.

Because capsule has to get past the armor's chemical protection (if any).

[Kerenshara]

2 NET hits means after soak. I.E. there's -2 AP, so you need to break it down thusly:

You roll your attack. You get say 3 successes. That's GROSS Hits. Not Net.
They roll to soak (defense gives them 1, and armor soak gives them 1). You get 1 NET hits. You fail to deliver the toxin.

You roll your attack. You get 6 successes. That's GROSS hits, Not Net.
They roll to soak (defense gives them 2 armor soak gives them 2). You get 2 NET hits. You deliver the toxin.

It's NET, not GROSS. Therefore, it's the total number of hits AFTER defense and Soak. If it said 2 GROSS hits, you'd then just need to get 2 hits period to do it. NET means after deductions. I.E. Your salary is your GROSS income, your Actual take home (after taxes and insurance ect...) is your NET income.

What has me unhappy is that it says the Ranged Combat Opposed Test, not the Damage Resistance Test. That means armor never comes near it. It's my attack roll opposed by their REA+[Dodge if they choose Full Defense]. So all that means is that I need a solid hit (Beat their defense by 2), which has nothing to do with armor whatsoever.

[HappyDaze]

Pollution's suggestion - an I think it's a good one - is that the target's Impact Armor (reduced by the AP of the dart, and also by called shots to avoid armor) adds to the target's dice pool to avoid the Ranged Attack from a dart. In the end, the attacker needs 2 net hits to inject the toxin. This is simple and really solves the problem well.

[Kerenshara]

Pollution's suggestion - an I think it's a good one - is that the target's Impact Armor (reduced by the AP of the dart, and also by called shots to avoid armor) adds to the target's dice pool to avoid the Ranged Attack from a dart. In the end, the attacker needs 2 net hits to inject the toxin. This is simple and really solves the problem well.

The only problem here is that chainmail armor is almost all Impact protection, and it's WORSE than useless against a dart. But I guess it MIGHT explain what the Dev's had in mind. At least it explains the AP commentary. *shrug* I'm just generally fond of the things from times past and was annoyed they weren't in the first printings.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

2 NET hits means after soak. I.E. there's -2 AP, so you need to break it down thusly:

You roll your attack. You get say 3 successes. That's GROSS Hits. Not Net.
They roll to soak (defense gives them 1, and armor soak gives them 1). You get 1 NET hits. You fail to deliver the toxin.

You roll your attack. You get 6 successes. That's GROSS hits, Not Net.
They roll to soak (defense gives them 2 armor soak gives them 2). You get 2 NET hits. You deliver the toxin.

It's NET, not GROSS. Therefore, it's the total number of hits AFTER defense and Soak. If it said 2 GROSS hits, you'd then just need to get 2 hits period to do it. NET means after deductions. I.E. Your salary is your GROSS income, your Actual take home (after taxes and insurance ect...) is your NET income.

However, there is no soak of damage, as there is no damage capability of the dart... you can dodge and not get hit, but that is different than soak...

However, I do like using hte Dart Damages as laid out in Augmentation, which would indeed make sense...

[toolbox]

The only problem here is that chainmail armor is almost all Impact protection, and it's WORSE than useless against a dart.

Well, I can see how it'd be totally useless, but not how it could be worse than that unless it actively pushes the dart into your body.

Besides... chain mail? Are we really expecting chain mail to be any good at stopping tiny, needlepointed darts? I can't think of a better type of weapon to defeat such armour, personally.

[McAllister]

Because capsule has to get past the armor's chemical protection (if any).

And a needle doesn't? Way I see it, depending on the armour, it might be easier to get around it with a spray (f'rexample, heavy armor with gaps between plates) or pierce it with a needle (such as a hazmat suit, all plastic no stopping power).

Idea! In both capsule rounds and darts, pretend the toxin's power is the DV, and the toxin's AP is the attack's AP (-2 in the case of darts). Capsule rounds are "soaked" with body + half impact armour + chemical protection (and will still be effective with 0 net hits), whereas darts are "soaked" with body + impact armour but ignore external chemical protection (like hazmat suits and armour with chemical protection), since they just pierce it. Internal stuff like toxin extractors would of course add dice to "soaking" either one.

Does that sound like a reasonable system?

[HappyDaze]

The only problem here is that chainmail armor is almost all Impact protection, and it's WORSE than useless against a dart.

That's a rather uncommon piece of armor, but even here the mail has a 'synth-woolen' undergarment and still increases the thickness that the dart has to penetrate. I'm certainly willing to overlook a single piece of armor's particulars in order to make a simple ruling. If it matters, you'll also note that the high Impact rating of a chain shirt also makes it especially effective against electrical damage too...

[Eugene]

I always thought that the AP value of injection-style attacks was to counter some of the chemical protection rating of your armor.

i.e. You get hit with a -2 AP attack, and you have 4 points of chemical protection on your armor. So to resist the effect, you roll your Body/Will + (4 protection - 2 AP).

[McAllister]

That's a rather uncommon piece of armor, but even here the mail has a 'synth-woolen' undergarment and still increases the thickness that the dart has to penetrate. I'm certainly willing to overlook a single piece of armor's particulars in order to make a simple ruling. If it matters, you'll also note that the high Impact rating of a chain shirt also makes it especially effective against electrical damage too...

Metallic armour offers no protection against electricity. Of course, no armor is ever specified as being sufficiently metallic for this to apply. The "mail" part of chain mail is metallic, sure, but how much protection does the undergarment offer? I'd still rule chain mail doesn't work, though.

[knasser]

Here's a suggestion. As there are few types of armour that wouldn't stop a flying syringe in my opinion (even if it makes it through, surely there's a couple of kevlar fibres jammed up the fine nozzle of the dart), use the rules for Called Shots. If you have to bypass armour then that means the amount of armour someone is wearing is still a factor in getting them with a dart which makes sense. You could still keep the 2 net hits.

This would mean that you aren't as likely to get someone with a dart as you are with a bullet. And quite frankly, I like that.

K.

[Kerenshara]

Well, I can see how it'd be totally useless, but not how it could be worse than that unless it actively pushes the dart into your body.

Besides... chain mail? Are we really expecting chain mail to be any good at stopping tiny, needlepointed darts? I can't think of a better type of weapon to defeat such armour, personally.

Worse than useless because the rounded links will have a tendency to turn the dart inwards further; In a vehicle, it's clled a shot trap. You shoot at the thing, and the heavier armor actually deflects the shot into a weaker area. A big (and I mean BIG) example of this was the WWII German Königstiger tank with the original Porsche turret, which had a tendency to deflect shots off the lower gun mantle straight down into the top decking of the hull. It's one of the reasons that spikes on medieval armor are actually BAD things: they can help guide a blow into a more solid hit.

And a needle doesn't? Way I see it, depending on the armour, it might be easier to get around it with a spray (f'rexample, heavy armor with gaps between plates) or pierce it with a needle (such as a hazmat suit, all plastic no stopping power).

No, a needle is PENETRATING the barrier, as in poking through. A capsule round has to "soak" through, which is what the barrier is supposed to stop in the first place. Think Goretex^TM. It offers virtually no protection from needles but will stop liquids from passing through.

Idea! In both capsule rounds and darts, pretend the toxin's power is the DV, and the toxin's AP is the attack's AP (-2 in the case of darts). Capsule rounds are "soaked" with body + half impact armour + chemical protection (and will still be effective with 0 net hits), whereas darts are "soaked" with body + impact armour but ignore external chemical protection (like hazmat suits and armour with chemical protection), since they just pierce it. Internal stuff like toxin extractors would of course add dice to "soaking" either one.

Does that sound like a reasonable system?

Hmmmm... That seems overly complex. And it leaves aside that the capsule rounds are listed as having [ - (stun)] for their DV modifier, implying that they still inflict a wound above and beyond the payload. That means making potentially three soak tests for them: physical damage soak, chemical barrier soak, and body resistance/soak. I just can't get behind that. And the basic idea that you actually need a "good hit" with the darts inherently makes sense to me; the margin of success on he to-hit roll needs to be higher.

Wait, who am I kidding here? This is the 6^th World. *smacks self in forehead* This isn't just an ARMOR materials sciences problem, it's a PAYLOAD materials science problem. We aren't limited to a feather stabilized hypodermic here. There's no reason the "dart" couldn't be specially designed and constructed to defeat light armor. These things cost almost four times what normal ammunition does, and they don't include powder or primer! That's a lot of scratch for a simple dart. And a lot of the "plates" in armor are just "soft" armor laminated as opposed to ceramics or similar, and jel can be poked through at least as easily as woven armor. Carbon fiber is great stuff in tensile strength, but it's nowhere near as strong when you try to poke through it perpendicular to the fiber weave.

Heavier armor should still contribute SOMETHING to the process, though. Would somebody help me out and take a peek in the original Street Samurai Catalog? That's where the original Narcojet^TM Pistol and Rifle appeared. What was the actual sidebar rule THERE? (I need to break down and just buy another copy of the original 1st Ed book.)