IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The Woo School of Gunfighting, It's not dead yet, pass another mag
Siege
post Mar 1 2004, 12:42 AM
Post #1


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,065
Joined: 16-January 03
From: Fayetteville, NC
Member No.: 3,916



Alright, I think I'm growing delusional from lack of food, but give this a skim and see just how far gone my thinking is:

Woo school

Two guns, same target
+1 TN for off-hand weapon
laser sights or smartlinks apply

Two guns, different targets
+1 TN for off-hand weapon
+1 TN for each meter seperating the targets
These penalties are cumulative;
laser/smartlink systems apply

Two guns, targets on opposite sides of the shooter
the flat penalty is +8, divided as the player sees fit
+1 TN for off-hand weapon
laser/smartlink systems apply as long as the +8 penalty is divided between both shots; if the penalty has not been divided, the targeting bonuses only apply to the unpenalized shot.

Logic: This represents how much attention the shooter pays to either target; the more the penalties are shifted to a target, the more attention is being paid to the remaining target.

Example: Jack pulls his two Colt Manhunters and proceeds to unload on Target A. He suffers a +1 Penalty for off-hand use, but resolves the shots normally.

Example 2: Jack pulls his two Manhunters and wants to engage Targets A and B, standing roughly three meters apart. In addition to the +1 TN penalty for off-hand, Jack racks up another +3 TN for splitting his Attention between two targets. He can allocate the penalty as he sees fit -- either +1 on one arm and +2 on the other or the entire +3 on one arm.

Example 3: Jack sees Target A in front of him just as Target B steps out behind our runner. Jack declares a shot on both Target A in front of him and Target B behind him. In addition to a +1 TN for off-hand use, Jack eats a +8 TN penalty. He can choose to divide this penalty among either arm as he sees fit.

Cinematic effect: Jack must either turn left or right while pointing both guns out, keeping both targets in the very peripheral of his vision (+4 against Target A and +4 against Target B, splitting his focus with an additional +1 TN for off-hand) -or- he aims at one target while pointing his gun in the direction of the other and hoping luck carries the day (0 penalty against Target A and +8 against Target B, +1 for off-hand).

Special circumstance: If the shooter uses a sense other than vision to acquire his target or has an independent eye to provide additional data, the player may reduce the +8 penalty by the bonuses offered by secondary sense.

Exceptional senses include:
Spatial Recognition: -2 (does not offer laser/smartlink bonuses)
High Frequency hearing: -1 (does not offer laser/smartlink bonuses)
Orientation system: -1 (does not offer laser/smartlink bonuses)
Independent Eye: Penalty reduced to +5, not +8
*Does offer laser/smartlink bonuses
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Herald of Verjig...
post Mar 1 2004, 12:50 AM
Post #2


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,066
Joined: 5-February 03
Member No.: 4,017



I can't decide if this is sensible and balanced as a simple rules change or if it should be an alternate pistols skill.

The TN for distance between 2 targets should be based on arc distance, not the exact distance. One meter at one meter away is a larger arc than one meter at ten meters away.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Siege
post Mar 1 2004, 12:55 AM
Post #3


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,065
Joined: 16-January 03
From: Fayetteville, NC
Member No.: 3,916



QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm)
I can't decide if this is sensible and balanced as a simple rules change or if it should be an alternate pistols skill.

The TN for distance between 2 targets should be based on arc distance, not the exact distance. One meter at one meter away is a larger arc than one meter at ten meters away.

The thought occured to me, but I wanted to get a general idea of interest before trying to explain the idea of arc distance, never mind game implementation.

-Siege
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jason Farlander
post Mar 1 2004, 01:56 AM
Post #4


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,049
Joined: 24-March 03
Member No.: 4,323



hmm..

It requires a bit o' the math, but you should probably combine rules 2 and 3 into a single rule based on the angle of firing. Every 20 degrees that separate the two targets adds a +1 to the TN mod "pool", to be divided between the targets. Obviously, this maxes out at 180 degrees, or +9.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nikoli
post Mar 1 2004, 02:58 AM
Post #5


Chicago Survivor
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 5,079
Joined: 28-January 04
From: Canton, GA
Member No.: 6,033



Why not make this a Martial Art? Ya know, with maneuvers that include pistol whipping and stylistic clip removal techniques.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheOneRonin
post Mar 1 2004, 07:22 PM
Post #6


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,109
Joined: 16-October 03
From: Raleigh, NC
Member No.: 5,729



Hehe...Grammaton Cleric style.

At close range, using two firearms shouldn't be much trouble, but it would get a whole lot harder once the distance increases.

However, I like the idea of a Martial Art surrounding Pistols-Akimbo.

Maybe I've just watched too much Equilibrium.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Siege
post Mar 1 2004, 08:14 PM
Post #7


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,065
Joined: 16-January 03
From: Fayetteville, NC
Member No.: 3,916



I was trying to avoid creating a martial art because, frankly, I don't care for the idea that fighting with two weapons particularly qualifies as a martial art.

No more or less than any other combat skill could be called a "martial art".

-Siege
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BitBasher
post Mar 1 2004, 08:40 PM
Post #8


Traumatizing players since 1992
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,282
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Las Vegas, NV
Member No.: 220



I'm a diehard Woo fan, and if you want to make it really woo, then you need to pay attention to a few things. Theres a lot of misconceptions about woo gunfighting:

1) Double pistols in woo movies really are for supressing fire, rarely hitting anything past 10 feet or so. Double pistols are largely only used in CQB to get more rounds off.

2) Virtually never does the woo shooter shoot at 2 different targets at the same time. When a woo shooter shoots at a different target with each gun he will only use one gun at a time. This is either using the right or the left gun, not both.

3) The woo shooter does a WHOLE lot of missing. On average, firing 2 guns, the woo shootewr hits about 20-30% of the rounds he shoots MAX, and there's a LOT of reloading.

This was determined by watching The Killer, Face/Off, Hard Boiled, MI:2, A Better Tomorrow, Blackjack (im sorry), Hard Target, Broken Arrow, Windtalkers (blah), and Paycheck (Which I dont recall any double pistols at all)... and some older imports. I specifically payed attention to the woo.

The rules in the book work just fine for 99% of everything done in a woo flick.

Most rules I have seen are for getting the game to do things that are cool to see, but aren't actually woo.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheOneRonin
post Mar 1 2004, 09:11 PM
Post #9


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,109
Joined: 16-October 03
From: Raleigh, NC
Member No.: 5,729



QUOTE (Siege @ Mar 1 2004, 03:14 PM)
I was trying to avoid creating a martial art because, frankly, I don't care for the idea that fighting with two weapons particularly qualifies as a martial art.

No more or less than any other combat skill could be called a "martial art".

-Siege

Indeed. I suppose I read a little much into the the thread title.

As it stands, these look like perfectly acceptable rules, at least in my game. Although it does sort of encourage players to use two firearms at the same time. But if you are going for that John Woo style, it fits perfectly.

As far as it being a Martial Art, well I just don't see conventional Firearms training including the use of two pistols at the same time. To me that would be some sort of specialized training, along the same lines as a martial art. Maybe not much like what we've seen in Equilibrium, but certainly different from the norm.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nikoli
post Mar 1 2004, 09:15 PM
Post #10


Chicago Survivor
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 5,079
Joined: 28-January 04
From: Canton, GA
Member No.: 6,033



Well, while not canon, the Grifter (a comic book character), adapted a particular martial art into an art for pistols. Very handy too... Of Course, there are no mechanics in comic books, only what the author wants there to be or not be.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Siege
post Mar 1 2004, 09:21 PM
Post #11


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,065
Joined: 16-January 03
From: Fayetteville, NC
Member No.: 3,916



It depends on the scenario -- two guns at one target usually means you want something dead really, really fast.

And you still have to reload which means you get to spray fire around more, but a character will still be down more often than not swapping out mags.

If the GM enforces various combat penalties, the two-weapon penalties will discourage casual shooters from attempting it.

-Siege

Edit: And if you want to pistol-whip a target, melee (clubs) does the trick.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Solstice
post Mar 1 2004, 09:42 PM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 870
Joined: 6-January 04
From: Idaho
Member No.: 5,960



the only drawback to this fighting style is when you have to hold one pistol between your knees while you reload the other one. :P

At least it's not akimbo revolvers... :eek:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr. Woodchuck
post Mar 1 2004, 09:49 PM
Post #13


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 24-February 04
Member No.: 6,102



for the most part the rules do exist you can take the ambidexterity edge and +2 second target penaltys. the clubs skill specialization (pistol whip) and a martial art that lets you use clubs as a manoeuver. the only major differences is that the smartlink systems can only be used one at a time. it is a nobel effort but i don not think that you need house rules to accomplish your goals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Siege
post Mar 1 2004, 10:07 PM
Post #14


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,065
Joined: 16-January 03
From: Fayetteville, NC
Member No.: 3,916



I don't care much for the efforts to level game balance in regards to two-pistol shooting.

I don't like the 3rd edition initiative system for much the same reason.

My purpose was to create a feasible, reasonable and believeable way of representing the idea of handling two handguns with accuracy.

-Siege
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheOneRonin
post Mar 1 2004, 11:57 PM
Post #15


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,109
Joined: 16-October 03
From: Raleigh, NC
Member No.: 5,729



Boy Siege, you are getting no love today. :grinbig:

For the record, I like your rules. They certainly add a lot of flavor, and give the two-pistol-packing Samurai some more flexibility.

Speaking of stuff you don't like, I've had great issue with the SR3 Initiative rules too. I've come up with an interim solution to make things move more quickly and flow better, but it's not perfect. I would like to know how you house-rule initiative.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Siege
post Mar 2 2004, 12:09 AM
Post #16


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,065
Joined: 16-January 03
From: Fayetteville, NC
Member No.: 3,916



QUOTE (TheOneRonin @ Mar 1 2004, 11:57 PM)
Boy Siege, you are getting no love today.  :grinbig:

For the record, I like your rules.  They certainly add a lot of flavor, and give the two-pistol-packing Samurai some more flexibility.

Speaking of stuff you don't like, I've had great issue with the SR3 Initiative rules too.  I've come up with an interim solution to make things move more quickly and flow better, but it's not perfect.  I would like to know how you house-rule initiative.

I'm not sure I'd want loving from some of the people on this board. :grinbig:

I don't bother house-ruling initiative. If you expect to survive combat with fast people, you'd better be as fast if not faster or at least really, really tough.

My GM has been pretty good about keeping the initiative munchkins at bay, so it's never been a real issue.

-Siege

Edit: That is, we use the old Init -10 for additional actions. Which means the runners have, on average, one or two additional actions over NPCs, but we've never found it to be massively unbalancing. Especially when my GM starts using situational penalties for combat.

Sometimes, it just means we get to flee sooner and with less casualties than expected.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BitBasher
post Mar 2 2004, 12:53 AM
Post #17


Traumatizing players since 1992
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,282
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Las Vegas, NV
Member No.: 220



QUOTE
Which means the runners have, on average, one or two additional actions over NPCs, but we've never found it to be massively unbalancing.
If it's not unbalancing then the new init system wouldn't really affect you. :D In reality one extra action before anyone else gets to go is horribly unbalancing :D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Siege
post Mar 2 2004, 01:00 AM
Post #18


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,065
Joined: 16-January 03
From: Fayetteville, NC
Member No.: 3,916



QUOTE (BitBasher)
QUOTE
Which means the runners have, on average, one or two additional actions over NPCs, but we've never found it to be massively unbalancing.
If it's not unbalancing then the new init system wouldn't really affect you. :D In reality one extra action before anyone else gets to go is horribly unbalancing :D

Yeah, I know you like the new system Bit.

I can't stand it -- for some reason it sticks in my craw something fierce.

-Siege
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BitBasher
post Mar 2 2004, 04:02 AM
Post #19


Traumatizing players since 1992
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,282
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Las Vegas, NV
Member No.: 220



[off topic]

Just out of curiousity is there any particular reason?

I'll say up front I like it because it immensely helps the game from a GM point of view. Please no one underestimate the positive effects this has on the game. By reducing the effects the arms race has in the Init category there are many positive ramifications.

1) Players to not HAVE to spend essence and starting magic to get the absolute highest speed, as they will act in the first pass regardless. This allows...

2) Mages and Mundanes with no natural reflex boosting are no longer impotent in combat, with the combat being ovr before they get a chance to act. This helps by...

3) Normal security guards no longer have to be unrealistically cybered to pose a challenge. Working well in teams with some competency will get the guards some actions in the first pass, and since combat pool doesnt refresh nearly as often...

4) As a result of (1) I see FAR more balanced character types, where they are willing so use cyber they normally would not since in 2nd edition Slow Speed meant Death. Period. MANY more types and designs of characters become viable to play in a game where dice are never fudged.

...There are many more reasons but those are the ones I feel drastically changes the game for the better. The game feels more threatening, which adds to atmosphere and grittiness. The only players in my game that were wholesale oppposed to the changes were those that felt they needed a "superpower" style game where they felt the need to drastically overpower the opposition. They didn't like the increased risk added to combat. They all came around eventually. But YMMV.
[/off topic]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Siege
post Mar 2 2004, 07:31 AM
Post #20


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,065
Joined: 16-January 03
From: Fayetteville, NC
Member No.: 3,916



QUOTE (BitBasher)
[off topic]

Just out of curiousity is there any particular reason?

I'll say up front I like it because it immensely helps the game from a GM point of view. Please no one underestimate the positive effects this has on the game. By reducing the effects the arms race has in the Init category there are many positive ramifications.

1) Players to not HAVE to spend essence and starting magic to get the absolute highest speed, as they will act in the first pass regardless. This allows...

2) Mages and Mundanes with no natural reflex boosting are no longer impotent in combat, with the combat being ovr before they get a chance to act. This helps by...

3) Normal security guards no longer have to be unrealistically cybered to pose a challenge. Working well in teams with some competency will get the guards some actions in the first pass, and since combat pool doesnt refresh nearly as often...

4) As a result of (1) I see FAR more balanced character types, where they are willing so use cyber they normally would not since in 2nd edition Slow Speed meant Death. Period. MANY more types and designs of characters become viable to play in a game where dice are never fudged.

...There are many more reasons but those are the ones I feel drastically changes the game for the better. The game feels more threatening, which adds to atmosphere and grittiness. The only players in my game that were wholesale oppposed to the changes were those that felt they needed a "superpower" style game where they felt the need to drastically overpower the opposition. They didn't like the increased risk added to combat. They all came around eventually. But YMMV.
[/off topic]

Not a problem -- I'll address each point individually. I should point out, this is how the behavior works in the games with my crew.

QUOTE
1) Players to not HAVE to spend essence and starting magic to get the absolute highest speed, as they will act in the first pass regardless. This allows...


Players don't have to spend starting magic and cyber to be the fastest on the block under the old system either. One or two of the starting characters are combat types and have +2d6 init. The remaining 3 or 4 may have an init boost of +1d6, if anything.

Which means while two characters are hell in combat, the rest of the party isn't and takes pains to avoid entering combat. And the +2d6 critters aren't bullet proof, which means while they may chew up any initial response teams, more are coming who aren't sporting wound penalties and as well as still trying to keep their buddies alive.

Additionally, the hyper-fast runners tend to be one-trick ponies -- at least the ones I've seen in play.

QUOTE
2) Mages and Mundanes with no natural reflex boosting are no longer impotent in combat, with the combat being ovr before they get a chance to act. This helps by...


In the one round combats, mages did have a tendency to get left out. In a protracted battle, they still provide an invaluable advantage. And because they're not as fast as their cybernetically twitching fellows, they don't step into scenarios where they need to be as fast.

The 3rd edition pass system was implemented not as a hypothetical realism, but as an artificial balancing agent to give mages and others a competitive advantage to characters that bought and paid for their own advantage. If you want to be faster, buy the 'ware.

QUOTE
3) Normal security guards no longer have to be unrealistically cybered to pose a challenge. Working well in teams with some competency will get the guards some actions in the first pass, and since combat pool doesnt refresh nearly as often...


Normal security guards shouldn't pose much of a threat. Neither should three year olds. At least, not one-on-one.

The kicker comes from the overwhelming numbers and firepower the sec guards can bring to bear. Two or three guards with assault rifles can pin down a team while more guards move into position. Mages can rain death from distance. Gas just plain sucks.

And if you buy the idea that a career sec guard might get some cheap 'ware from a mass production line, they're just that much more dangerous.

QUOTE
4) As a result of (1) I see FAR more balanced character types, where they are willing so use cyber they normally would not since in 2nd edition Slow Speed meant Death. Period. MANY more types and designs of characters become viable to play in a game where dice are never fudged.


Slow in a gun fight is dead, generally speaking. And if you realize that gun battlers are bad for your health, your crew tends to avoid them at all costs.

If a game has a military bent or is high-combat, then I could see the case for the 3rd ed system. Frag, the characters would still be loading up on reflex 'ware and bullet-stopping abilities.

My characters are usually adepts with a +1d6 Init bonus and a mishmash of logistical skills. When the bullets fly, he dives for cover and doesn't come out until the shooting's done or he can safely engage a target without exposing himself.

That's the sane, reasoned approach of someone who knows he isn't as fast as the samurai and combat specialists in his company and realizes that even with the body armor he's got, it's very likely he'll take a S or D wound without benefit of cyberware to aid his bullet stopping. To say nothing of magic loss.

The basic reason I despise it so much? It sheds "realisim" (and I do remember this is a fictional game) in favor of an artificial game balancing mechanic that serves no reasonable purpose other than to level the playing field in an unrealistic and unfair manner. Particularly since the slow characters who feel the need for speed can go out and buy the stuff to make them combat oriented. Of course, it cuts down on their other abilities, but that's the price the character has to pay.

And having multiple combat specialists often gets tedious and downright fatal when you have to deal with the remaining 95% of the run that doesn't involve combat.

We've never had a problem with it in our games, although SR's move away from non-combat to combat does highlight the change. After all, they did break firearms into what, six seperate skills while condensing Etiquette?

-Siege
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dim Sum
post Mar 2 2004, 09:28 AM
Post #21


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 21-April 03
From: Singapore
Member No.: 4,487



Hoi, chummers, back from a long hiatus. :D Miss me? Miss me? Yes? A bunch of lousy shots you all are, then! :D

Actually, Siege, I do miss the 2nd ed initiative rules as they made more sense in terms of "realism" but I do agree with Bit's points on game balance - 3rd ed *is* a more balanced game at the expense of "realism" and mundanes.

Anyway, on-topic, I was very amused to see your rules for Woo-fighting 'cos about 7 years ago, I introduced a very simple rule: if a player wanted to use two sidearms and was willing to cry out "John Woooooo!!!!" in a chop-socky, bad Chinese accent at the dramatic moment, I gave him 1-2 bonus dice to roll (no other changes to the rules)! :D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Drain Brain
post Mar 2 2004, 11:58 AM
Post #22


The Sewer Jockey
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 857
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Kent, United Kingdom
Member No.: 1,197



And don't forget the bonus for shooting two pistols whilst diving (feet together) through a door, round a corner, or from the top of something - in slow motion. Extra dice if you can angle so there are sparks flying/flames roaring behind you! :D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nikoli
post Mar 2 2004, 12:36 PM
Post #23


Chicago Survivor
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 5,079
Joined: 28-January 04
From: Canton, GA
Member No.: 6,033



If I recall the init rules are like this:
Char A gets 27
Char B gets 21
Goon C gets 15
Char D gets 5 (poor mage)

Combat goes as such:
A shoots at goon, B shoots at Goon, C soots both A adn B as simple actions, D tosses power bolt at C
Next phase
A shoots Goon, B Shoots, C ducks and considers running out open window,D doesn't go
Next phase
A walks up and caps goon, B scans for next combatant, C bleeds, D wishes he had gotten that sustaining focus for his increased initiative spell.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Voran
post Mar 2 2004, 01:38 PM
Post #24


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,401
Joined: 23-February 04
From: Honolulu, HI
Member No.: 6,099



Shouldn't there also be some sort of bonus to TN when firing just after a flock of doves fly by or something? :)

Its sort of a bastardization of some of the existing rules, but if I recall how one of my old games that incorporated doublefistedblazingaction, basically firing 2 weapons like that acted as a single attack, raising the power by one, and increasing the damage code by 1. Kinda a poor man's burstfire. If I recall it kinda made sense, and didn't slow down the combat too much. Instead of rolling separate attacks, and separated defenses/dodges whatever, you just rolled the 1 attack. When someone fires off a burst under normal rules, you don't dodge for each bullet fired, you just wrap it up into one anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheOneRonin
post Mar 2 2004, 02:15 PM
Post #25


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,109
Joined: 16-October 03
From: Raleigh, NC
Member No.: 5,729



QUOTE (Nikoli)
If I recall the init rules are like this:
Char A gets 27
Char B gets 21
Goon C gets 15
Char D gets 5 (poor mage)

Combat goes as such:
A shoots at goon, B shoots at Goon, C soots both A adn B as simple actions, D tosses power bolt at C
Next phase
A shoots Goon, B Shoots, C ducks and considers running out open window,D doesn't go
Next phase
A walks up and caps goon, B scans for next combatant, C bleeds, D wishes he had gotten that sustaining focus for his increased initiative spell.

This is exactly what Siege is talking about. In the SR3 rules system, the faster characters take their additional actions AFTER the slower characters. While this does sort of balance the game, it is doing nothing more than patching a flawed initiative system in the first place. Not to mention, it totally buchers any degree of plausibility/realism.

Imagine intentionally breaking someone's legs, then buying them a wheelchair so their can get around. You wouldn't have a problem at all if you avoided breaking the guy's legs from the start.

I agree that wired up characters SHOULD be faster, but the margin by which they are faster in SR borders on the obscene. I've greatly reduced the effects of initiative boosting cyber/bio/magic, and upped everyone's base initiative to 2D6+Reaction, which gives a bit more variety. No one rolls more dice than that, and while the faster characters get more actions during a 3 second round, their actions are spread out, rather than coming all in front of or all behind the slower characters. In my games, this seems to work out well. The faster characters DO have an edge, but it's no longer the streetpunk-vs.-AC-130 specter gunship edge.

This also has a side-effect of speeding up each combat round. Of course, YMMV.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th August 2019 - 07:15 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.