IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Ammo Bin, +250 ammo?
Tomothy
post Jun 11 2010, 07:12 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 205
Joined: 7-January 07
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 10,558



My interpretation of the ammo bin vehicle mod is that it effectively adds 250 rounds capacity to a mounted weapon, is that right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lansdren
post Jun 11 2010, 07:25 AM
Post #2


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 572
Joined: 6-February 09
From: London Uk
Member No.: 16,848



If its a belt fed weapon then Yes
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tomothy
post Jun 11 2010, 08:13 AM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 205
Joined: 7-January 07
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 10,558



So, if it's belt-fed then it adds another belt, and if the ammunition is large then it adds to the capacity, but if it's clip fed then it does what? Is it just a container for ammo? That's a pretty crappy mod. Why is it even an option for non belt-fed weapons?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lansdren
post Jun 11 2010, 08:17 AM
Post #4


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 572
Joined: 6-February 09
From: London Uk
Member No.: 16,848



[quote Arsenal Page 131

Ammo Bins (Standard): Sometimes when you’re expecting
a lot of opposition, it’s good to have lots of ammunition
to deal with it. Each ammo bin is attached to a single weapon
mount, and each additional ammo bin attached adds another
250 rounds of ammunition, belt feed, or doubles the weapon’s
normal ammunition capacity in the case of weapons with larger
ammunition (such as rocket launchers).
[/quote]

Makes sense to me, Most vehicle weapons are of the belt feed type LMG MMG and such. If its something more interesting it doubles the normal clip
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tomothy
post Jun 11 2010, 08:20 AM
Post #5


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 205
Joined: 7-January 07
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 10,558



"each additional ammo bin attached adds another 250 rounds of ammunition"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lansdren
post Jun 11 2010, 08:26 AM
Post #6


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 572
Joined: 6-February 09
From: London Uk
Member No.: 16,848



QUOTE (Tomothy @ Jun 11 2010, 09:20 AM) *
"each additional ammo bin attached adds another 250 rounds of ammunition"



You seem to be cherry picking from a whole sentence

QUOTE
Ammo Bins (Standard): Sometimes when you’re expecting
a lot of opposition, it’s good to have lots of ammunition
to deal with it. Each ammo bin is attached to a single weapon
mount, and each additional ammo bin attached adds another
250 rounds of ammunition, belt feed, or doubles the weapon’s
normal ammunition capacity in the case of weapons with larger
ammunition (such as rocket launchers).


As you should be able to see there is a comma after your quote not a fullstop. This implies further information or caveats such as the ammo being for a belt feed system. Or as it the goes on to say if its not belt feed it just doubles ammo capacity.

Whilst it might not be the clearest of options (and I think it could have been done better as two different mods one for belt one for eveything else) I cant seem to see where the issue is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tomothy
post Jun 11 2010, 08:36 AM
Post #7


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 205
Joined: 7-January 07
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 10,558



I thought the comma indicated multiple options i.e. (a) 250 rounds of ammunition, (b) belt feed, © or doubles the weapon's normal ammunition etc...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lansdren
post Jun 11 2010, 08:43 AM
Post #8


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 572
Joined: 6-February 09
From: London Uk
Member No.: 16,848



I can see where your coming from,

In my mind that mod has always been the mounted box of ammo next to the MMG which has always looked like a good mod if thats the weapon choice your going for.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mäx
post Jun 11 2010, 09:34 AM
Post #9


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,803
Joined: 3-February 08
From: Finland
Member No.: 15,628



QUOTE (Tomothy @ Jun 11 2010, 10:36 AM) *
I thought the comma indicated multiple options i.e. (a) 250 rounds of ammunition, (b) belt feed, © or doubles the weapon's normal ammunition etc...

If that was the case it would read:
250 rounds of ammunition, belt feed or doubles the weapon's normal ammunition

The fact that belt feed has comma on both sides means its addentum to 250 rounds part and not a part of an three item list.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Smokeskin
post Jun 11 2010, 09:38 AM
Post #10


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 881
Joined: 31-July 06
From: Denmark
Member No.: 8,995



I read it as small arms that don't accept belt fed ammo can't use an ammo bin.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Jopp
post Jun 11 2010, 09:59 AM
Post #11


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,925
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 948



I would allow the 250 round magazine IF the weapon in question was modified for full auto fire - those are the weapons most likely to utilize belt fed ammo bins.

You want a FA missile launcher, sure, make it full auto and pay up for 250 missiles - but remember, that ammo bin is gonna be quite huuge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakka Dakka
post Jun 11 2010, 10:09 AM
Post #12


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,507
Joined: 11-November 08
Member No.: 16,582



QUOTE (Mäx @ Jun 11 2010, 11:34 AM) *
If that was the case it would read:
250 rounds of ammunition, belt feed or doubles the weapon's normal ammunition

The fact that belt feed has comma on both sides means its addentum to 250 rounds part and not a part of an three item list.
You may also set a comma before the "or" if it is an enumeration. The wikipedia article about the Serial Comma confirms my opinion.

If it were an addendum the passage should be: "250 rounds of ammunition, belt fed, or doubles the weapon's normal ammunition."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Traul
post Jun 11 2010, 11:19 AM
Post #13


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,190
Joined: 31-May 09
From: London, UK
Member No.: 17,229



QUOTE (The Jopp @ Jun 11 2010, 11:59 AM) *
I would allow the 250 round magazine IF the weapon in question was modified for full auto fire - those are the weapons most likely to utilize belt fed ammo bins.

You want a FA missile launcher, sure, make it full auto and pay up for 250 missiles - but remember, that ammo bin is gonna be quite huuge.

And it will be a real pain to load. Now where is my troll buddy when I need him?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tomothy
post Jun 11 2010, 12:11 PM
Post #14


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 205
Joined: 7-January 07
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 10,558



QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ Jun 11 2010, 05:09 AM) *
You may also set a comma before the "or" if it is an enumeration. The wikipedia article about the Serial Comma confirms my opinion.

If it were an addendum the passage should be: "250 rounds of ammunition, belt fed, or doubles the weapon's normal ammunition."

What he said!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakka Dakka
post Jun 11 2010, 12:18 PM
Post #15


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,507
Joined: 11-November 08
Member No.: 16,582



QUOTE (Traul @ Jun 11 2010, 01:19 PM) *
And it will be a real pain to load. Now where is my troll buddy when I need him?
Um, the rules clearly state that the capacity of weapons with larger ammunition such as rocket launchers only double their capacity. Oh and I have found no rule stating that you need FA capability to have a belt feed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Jun 11 2010, 01:09 PM
Post #16


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242



deja vu?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mäx
post Jun 11 2010, 01:15 PM
Post #17


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,803
Joined: 3-February 08
From: Finland
Member No.: 15,628



QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Jun 11 2010, 03:09 PM) *
deja vu?

Oh, you too?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Draco18s
post Jun 11 2010, 01:28 PM
Post #18


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,289
Joined: 2-October 08
Member No.: 16,392



QUOTE
I thought the comma indicated multiple options i.e. (a) 250 rounds of ammunition, (b) belt feed, © or doubles the weapon's normal ammunition etc...


We had this discussion a week ago.

"Belt fed" is not an option, it is a clarifying clause.

The start of it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tomothy
post Jun 11 2010, 01:31 PM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 205
Joined: 7-January 07
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 10,558



I agree it makes sense in the end, but it's poorly written.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakka Dakka
post Jun 11 2010, 01:31 PM
Post #20


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,507
Joined: 11-November 08
Member No.: 16,582



QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 11 2010, 03:28 PM) *
"Belt fed" is not an option, it is a clarifying clause.
Exactly, but the text says "belt feed".

next round (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Warlordtheft
post Jun 11 2010, 01:34 PM
Post #21


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,328
Joined: 2-April 07
From: The Center of the Universe
Member No.: 11,360



As I read it, aren't all small arm weapons belt fed when vehicle mounted (The cost of the modification being included in the vehicle mount).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tomothy
post Jun 11 2010, 01:37 PM
Post #22


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 205
Joined: 7-January 07
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 10,558



QUOTE (Arsenal)
Each weapon mount can also hold
up to 250 rounds of ammunition, if the weapon has a beltfeed
loading mechanism. Weapons with other loading mechanisms
or larger ammunition (rocket launchers, for example) are re-
stricted to their standard amount of ammunition.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Jun 11 2010, 02:04 PM
Post #23


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



There's no real difference between 'belt fed' and 'belt feed'. English is funny.

Draco's right, we talked about this, and it's obviously +250 for already-belt-fed guns, or +100% for rockets/etc. Don't put clip-fed guns on drones unless you know what you're doing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I wouldn't say it's 'crappy'; it's dirt cheap and no one's forcing you to use it with the wrong guns. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banaticus
post Jun 11 2010, 05:30 PM
Post #24


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 510
Joined: 19-May 06
From: Southern CA
Member No.: 8,574



There's a difference. Feed is when the belt is feeding the gun. Fed is when the gun is being fed by the belt.

This chain of bullets is a belt feed for a belt fed gun.
This gun has a belt feed.
This gun is belt fed.
All belt fed guns have a belt feed.
QUOTE
Each ammo bin is attached to a single weapon mount, and each additional ammo bin attached adds another 250 rounds of ammunition, belt feed, or doubles the weapon’s normal ammunition capacity in the case of weapons with larger ammunition (such as rocket launchers).

In this case, the phrase "belt feed" is a parenthetical interjection modifying "250 rounds of ammunition".* It seems perfectly clear to me and the Arsenal quotation backs that up.

*Yes, I put that period outside the quotation mark. I prefer the British style (logical punctuation) over the American style (based on a long dead archaic printers practice that just basically ignores the rules of grammar).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Draco18s
post Jun 11 2010, 05:49 PM
Post #25


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,289
Joined: 2-October 08
Member No.: 16,392



QUOTE (Banaticus @ Jun 11 2010, 12:30 PM) *
*Yes, I put that period outside the quotation mark. I prefer the British style (logical punctuation) over the American style (based on a long dead archaic printers practice that just basically ignores the rules of grammar).


Now you've got me interested. Why'd the printers do that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 12:42 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.