Cyberguns in Drones (Possible House Rule) Options

[AndyZ]

I'm considering asking my GM about a rule involving using the Cyberguns rules listed on 344-345 of SR4A as capacity listings for drones. Does anyone know if there's any listed rules about this or if it's anywhere near feasible? It'd be nice to be able to put tiny guns in tiny drones.

If it would have to be a house rule, what are some of the pros and cons?

[Udoshi]

If you get Full Mechanical Limbs out of arsenal's vehicle mod section, they mention you its possible to use cyberlimb rules and capacity to get stuff in there.


Don't do it, though. Its a trap. Limbs are 4000Y each, cyberguns start at 2000Y and go up, and don't even come with any standard modifications like regular guns do, and -those- start at around 500Y.

On the other hand, concealed Weapon Mounts are rather expensive as well, so if you're looking for low-ammo stealthguns, it might not be a bad exchange.

[The Jopp]

Why?

Vehicles and Drones can have 1 weapon mount per 3 point of body rounded down.

Sure, you are limited to a plausible weapon in a smaller drone but that's a lot cheaper.

Fixed Flexibility, remote weapon mount is also only 2000Y

[SpellBinder]

As a general rule, one weapon mount can be added to a vehicle for every 3 points of Body it has, rounded up.

Errata 1.3.2 (the latest I know of; the only version available from shadowrun4.com) say nothing to change this.

Anyway, I'd suggest not using cyberweapon capacity for drone slots. A heavy pistol has a capacity rating of 6, a grenade launcher 15, and either can take more with certain mods. A standard sized, exposed, remote control turret mount on a drone takes only 4 slots (if not free and standard on some drones), and can [theoretically] mount up to anything as large as an LMG; only the drone's size would be a reasonable limit on the firearm. A concealed weapon mount is 3 additional slots, so 7 total for a standard remote control turret. That's still smaller than the capacity of a SMG for a cyberlimb (which is 10).

As an added benefit, if money and availability are not an issue and only slots are, add a Gyro Link to the turret; you negate all modifiers to shoot for the vehicle's movement (think of how an Abrams tank can keep its cannon barrel steady while flying by at 60mph).

[Dakka Dakka]

Why?

Vehicles and Drones can have 1 weapon mount per 3 point of body rounded down.

Rounded up as of Arsenal.

As a general rule, one weapon mount can be added to a vehicle for every 3 points of Body it has, rounded up.

Fixed Flexibility, remote weapon mount is also only 2000Y

By RAW this is all you'll ever need since there are no rules for facing and fields of fire, I'm not so sure about chase combat though. But fluffwise flexible mounts and turrets are cooler IMHO.

[Sengir]

Rounded up as of Arsenal.

And rounded down again in 4A. Of course whether a new printing supersedes all previous books or just previous printings oft he same book is a matter of conjecture.

[AndyZ]

It's also worth noting that Weapon Mounts in Arsenal are Standard. That means that they can't be put in minidrones.

[SpellBinder]

And should also be noted that SR4a page 348, where it says you round down, is an unchanged and direct reprinting of SR4 page 341 where it says the same, and limits all weapons to LMG or smaller and that all weapons may have 250 rounds of ammo (250 rounds for an Ares Predator IV? or a Ruger Super Warhawk?).

Arsenal has more explicit rules on weapon mounting, ammo, and including using weapons larger than an LMG. IMO Arsenal's weapon rules take precedence over the core book.

[Sengir]

and limits all weapons to LMG or smaller and that all weapons may have 250 rounds of ammo (250 rounds for an Ares Predator IV? or a Ruger Super Warhawk?).

Yup, that does not make sense. Does it make sense to be able to mount a Vindicator minigun on a small drone, which is no larger than a large dog? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Both rulings have their pros and cons.

[SpellBinder]

Depending on the style of the weapon mount, actually, yes; on an exposed mount only for that size of drone.

In my first post I mentioned the drone's size being a reasonable limit on the size of the gun. I sure as heck wouldn't allow an Ingram White Knight be mounted onto an MCT Spy-Fly, though Arsenal RAW says it is allowed.

I think that the size of the weapon mounted on a drone, along with the type of the mount used (external, internal, or concealed) needs to be detailed more.

[Dakka Dakka]

Yup, that does not make sense. Does it make sense to be able to mount a Vindicator minigun on a small drone, which is no larger than a large dog? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

It does not make any less sense than any other LMG. In such a case Arsenal suggest to apply recoil to the drone and give it RC of its body. So firing the Minigun is a stupid idea unless you want to lay suppressing fire.

@Spellbinder: Tjhe flyspy is a Minidrone. So Arsenal does not allow adding a weapon mount to it. Weapon mounts are standard modifications. They only fit into small drones and larger.

[Sengir]

I think that the size of the weapon mounted on a drone, along with the type of the mount used (external, internal, or concealed) needs to be detailed more.

Yes, definitely.


@Dakka: I didn't even think about firing it, just carrying a minigun plus 250 rounds of ammo (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Dakka Dakka]

@Dakka: I didn't even think about firing it, just carrying a minigun plus 250 rounds of ammo (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Hmm how heavy are 250 shots of caseless ammo? IIRc one of the reasons for experimenting with caseless ammo was the weight and space reduction.
According to wikipedia an empty M249 weighs 7.5 kg and a loaded one 10 kg. Adding 10 kg to a dogsized vehicle should not be such a problem. I assume that the lighter materials of the 2070s, caseless ammunition and the mini gun design about cancel each other out.

[Fix-it]

Hmm how heavy are 250 shots of caseless ammo? IIRc one of the reasons for experimenting with caseless ammo was the weight and space reduction.
According to wikipedia an empty M249 weighs 7.5 kg and a loaded one 10 kg. Adding 10 kg to a dogsized vehicle should not be such a problem. I assume that the lighter materials of the 2070s, caseless ammunition and the mini gun design about cancel each other out.

Sooner than you think (PDF)

[Sengir]

Hmm how heavy are 250 shots of caseless ammo? IIRc one of the reasons for experimenting with caseless ammo was the weight and space reduction.
According to wikipedia an empty M249 weighs 7.5 kg and a loaded one 10 kg. Adding 10 kg to a dogsized vehicle should not be such a problem. I assume that the lighter materials of the 2070s, caseless ammunition and the mini gun design about cancel each other out.

Oops, forgot that caesless ammo is considered standard, they probably also use plastic belts so 250 rounds in SR should about as heavy as 100 modern-day ones.

Quite nice reduction, but those ~1.25 kilos saved in ammo weight, plus saving from lighter material, will hardly make up for increasing the barrel and lock weight by 500% (because there are now six of those) plus the motor and everything. Here is a nice compilation of the components from RL miniguns.



@Fix-it: Those caseless rounds look nearly exactly like the ones for the G11 project. And we all know how that fared once H&K presented the cost estimate and the generals gave their estimate (since that Starfighter thing, they are at least asked for their opinion) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Fix-it]

@Fix-it: Those caseless rounds look nearly exactly like the ones for the G11 project. And we all know how that fared once H&K presented the cost estimate and the generals gave their estimate (since that Starfighter thing, they are at least asked for their opinion) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

that was 20 years ago, when everyone thought the next major conflict would be T-80s rolling through the Fulda gap. even if the brass gets sticker-shock, SOCOM will probably fund it anyway. infantry weight is a serious problem.

[Sengir]

even if the brass gets sticker-shock, SOCOM will probably fund it anyway.

I doubt it. One of the problems with the new system was that it was an unique and insular solution, that does not exactly get better if only one small branch adopts it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)