Disallowed in Your Game Options

[Mordinvan]

Actually, it will... Physics dictates that it is so... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Ya I know, but the game has no mechanism for that. Presumably it would be handled 'handwavium' by the computer.

[Mordinvan]

Indeed, which means the ammo/round is useless after it penetrates a few load bearing walls, as I could purchase automatic hits to not take damage... 2 Load bearing walls at Rating 32 Barriers provides an immediate 8 points of reduced damage, not counting any other walls or personal armor.

And I would actually apply the damage to each wall independantly, and blead off damage as it progressed rather than just letting it go through 30 walls to impact a target... that way leads madness... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

I've heard developers say you actually check each wall independently, ie 1/2 ap - 6 to each wall, so unless a wall has 12+ barrier, it passes through with out incident. Given how few walls in a structure will actually have that, you'll likely be fine.

[Mordinvan]

So yeah. 4 hits on an gauss rifle enables Energizer Bunny mode. The round just keeps going, and going, and going....

Take into account MOST walls in most high rise buildings are infact not load bearing, and are actually metal stud frames with dry wall, and all you worry about is the balistic/load bearing glass on the outside. I don't see there being many problems unless you are shooting THROUGH floors.

[Mordinvan]

This has gotten me thinking, does the AP apply multiple times? Yeah, the AP is -half -6, but after it has applied AP to the first wall, does it get to apply AP again to the next wall (or even the target)? If it doesn't get to apply AP multiple times, then yeah, a few walls will quickly stop a round of any kind of weapon, because after a few walls the target will have 40+ points of armor.

Personally I don't see why AP would get to apply multiple times. AP doesn't apply multiple times when you stack armor after all.

I've just seen developers use it that way. Don't ask me why, but in given examples they do.

[Smokeskin]

If someone actually manages to install an antitank rail cannon in a building somewhere, I'd let them do something cool with it. Like shoot through a shitload of walls.

Stuff like that is plot devices after all, you don't need rules for it. This is Shadowrun, not Battletech 2075.

[Mordinvan]

If someone actually manages to install an antitank rail cannon in a building somewhere, I'd let them do something cool with it. Like shoot through a shitload of walls.

Stuff like that is plot devices after all, you don't need rules for it. This is Shadowrun, not Battletech 2075.

Like I said, you can fit one on a steel lynx, which can be carried by a redball express.

[Irion]

Well, just to have a way of calculating here, wich does not rape physics.

Gausrifle one net hit against heavy structured matirial.
There are two options:
First:
Using the rules for barriers and adding all the walls together. All Values are given for 10cm. So if you have 4 walls at 10cm and you are just asking if you will get through:
16*4/2-4=28 nope

If you are asking yourself, how many walls will be penetrated:
First: 16/2-4=4 done
Second:16/2+4= 12 klong

[Udoshi]

If you are asking yourself, how many walls will be penetrated:
First: 16/2-4=4 done
Second:16/2+4= 12 klong

Forgot the AP(-4) on the second example. It would be 16/2+4-4=8 vs 10P, done.
You'd need a third wall, adding 8 and 4, to stop it.

[Irion]

I thought you apply armor penetration just once.
Do the math with avarage matirial and just APDS
loaded in a Pistol. You will shoot through an indefinit number of walls,
thus raping physics.
I said I wont do that. So I did not forget it.

[Udoshi]

yeah, uh, we went through that line of thought already. See tymaeus's post a few lines up for the fix. It doesn't rape physics if each wall adds bonus armor until the bullet pings off of something.

the method i was doing, with aforementioned tired math, was only using the two walls relevant to the test, instead of adding the bonus armor from -every- wall to the test, which actually makes sense.

[Smokeskin]

Like I said, you can fit one on a steel lynx, which can be carried by a redball express.

The Steel Lynx entry says it can mount LMGs and smaller weapons.

It has Body 4, like a scooter. Even if it could handle the weight of the weapon and its power source, there is NO WAY it could handle the recoil. Have you ever seen how current tanks recoil when they fire a kinetic penetrator? The Lynx weighs 1% of what they do.

So, if what you're telling me is that you set a Lynx with a rail cannon as a one-shot thing, the Lynx is just there to move and aim the cannon, and once it fires everything breaks, I applaud you. That's a plot device - you found a cool but expensive way to solve an otherwise untractable problem. If you have a serious amount of nuyen to burn on every kill so you do this often, or you actually have <1 ton drones firing rail cannons repeatedly, and you're not attracting enough heat to get caught firing antitank weapons repeatedly in a city, then you really are playing Battletech 2075.

[Saint Sithney]

The Steel Lynx entry says it can mount LMGs and smaller weapons.

It has Body 4, like a scooter. Even if it could handle the weight of the weapon and its power source, there is NO WAY it could handle the recoil. Have you ever seen how current tanks recoil when they fire a kinetic penetrator? The Lynx weighs 1% of what they do.

So, if what you're telling me is that you set a Lynx with a rail cannon as a one-shot thing, the Lynx is just there to move and aim the cannon, and once it fires everything breaks, I applaud you. That's a plot device - you found a cool but expensive way to solve an otherwise untractable problem. If you have a serious amount of nuyen to burn on every kill so you do this often, or you actually have <1 ton drones firing rail cannons repeatedly, and you're not attracting enough heat to get caught firing antitank weapons repeatedly in a city, then you really are playing Battletech 2075.

They changed the rule to one weapon mount per 3 body rounded down rather than up, but it used to be body 4 was all that was needed for a reinforced mount.

Still means you could mount a main gun on a motorcycle according to RAW though...
Personally, I like the idea for Pink Mohawk play, but would create a special class of mount for such weapons if I was playing a more serious game.

[Stahlseele]

They changed the rule to one weapon mount per 3 body rounded down rather than up, but it used to be body 4 was all that was needed for a reinforced mount.

Still means you could mount a main gun on a motorcycle according to RAW though...
Personally, I like the idea for Pink Mohawk play, but would create a special class of mount for such weapons if I was playing a more serious game.

You mean, liek this?
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivation...-1245864892.jpg
http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/...ot_your_fi.html

Or maybe more like this?
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/denmark/denmark.html

Armored Harley Davidson Motorcycle
The Danish goverment between the wars was not generous with any military budget. So the army came up with the idea of "The Armored Motorbike". The Swedish factory Landsverk AB built the armor to the drawings made by the Danish army, and it was put on top of a Harley Davidson armed with a light machinegun. This was more than even a Harley could cope with. It was difficult to control on ordinary road, and a 3x1 vehicle with overloaded suspension wasn't impressive in terrain. It was decided to abandon the project. However, Danish motorbikes knocking out German armored cars and light tanks shows, the idea wasn't totally without merit. This was built 1932 and and dropped in 1935. After the trials the army decided to purchase the Danish Nimbus (below).

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/denmark/FP3-1.jpg
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/denmark/FP3-2.jpg

[Smokeskin]

You mean, liek this?
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivation...-1245864892.jpg
http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/...ot_your_fi.html

That's a recoilless rifle (ie rocket launcher), not a cannon. As the name implies, they don't have to deal with recoil and so can be mounted anywhere that can take the weight, or fired from the shoulder.

[Traul]

yeah, uh, we went through that line of thought already. See tymaeus's post a few lines up for the fix. It doesn't rape physics if each wall adds bonus armor until the bullet pings off of something.

It still does not work. It was not stressed, but my example breaks both Tymeus's method and yours.

With your method, the residual wall armor loses 4 points per paper wall. The more walls, the less armor (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

Now let's look at Tymeus's method for the same example:

Wall 1: 24 - 5 = 19
Wall 2: 1 + 19 - 5 = 15
At this point, physics already lie prostrated in the corner of the room, crying. Tymeus's method does not change anything to the second wall.

Wall 3: 1 + 19 + 15 - 5 = 30
waitwaitwait... the second paper wall actually accelerates the bullet, but the third paper wall is hard as concrete? But they are both the same stuff?!

[Karoline]

No, no, thats the entire -point- of the barrier rules. It doesn't need to reduce it to zero, it just needs to reduce it enough for the damage of the round to exceed the armor(and thus go through. Also, important clarification: Exceed, not equal or exceed.) What you're aruing is that an APDS round fired through a wall magically stops being an APDS penetrator round designed to go through stuff as soon as it goes through a piece of plywood.

No, what I'm arguing is that an APDS round that goes through a plywood barrier is going to be less able to penetrate armor than an APDS round that has not gone through any sort of hindrance. I'm not saying that the bullet should stop if it can't reduce the armor of the barrier to 0, I'm just saying that it no longer has the force required to reduce the armor of anything else.

So, and APDS round with -5 AP that goes through a 2 armor plywood barrier would have used up enough kinetic energy that it only retains enough power to reduce future armor (such as on a target or another barrier) by 3. In other words, the bullet doesn't magically gain more kinetic energy after passing through a barrier. This prevents all the stupid stuff that people keep finding like being able to go through an infinite number of walls, a wall providing less protection if there is a weaker wall behind it, and so on.

So sure, if your bullets are made of unobtainum and propelled by handwavium, then go ahead and keep apply full AP over and over and over again to each barrier, regardless of the loss of kinetic energy and the deformation of the bullet that would occur with each barrier it passes.

Oh, and no, I wasn't saying that you were thinking that the AP applied to the barrier, then the bonus armor, then the person's real armor, what I was saying was that if the target had no armor, then the second application of the AP that you wanted, would then knock off bonus armor that was provided by virtue of the fact that the AP wasn't sufficient to reduce the armor of the barrier, in other words it got to hit the armor of the barrier twice if the target wasn't wearing armor (or was only lightly armored)

[Shinobi Killfist]

But Shinobi, I think that you are missing the point, especially about the Limits for the Mystic Adept... It is specifically stated in the RAW (SR4A Rulebook) what it allows... the FAQ contradicts this... therefore, since the FAQ is not RAW (It is not an errata), RAW supersedes...

The only thing specified to use the full magic rating is the level of physical adept power. Everything else is under the general rule of for everything else uses the full magic rating.

So then someone asks, "does everything else uses the full magic rating mean the force of spells as well?"

The designers responded, "No. Force of spells is determined by the points invested in magic."

General rule, clarified. Which is exactly what FAQs are for.

Whether or not this FAQ applied to 4e or 4A remains to be seen.

[Shinobi Killfist]

No, what I'm arguing is that an APDS round that goes through a plywood barrier is going to be less able to penetrate armor than an APDS round that has not gone through any sort of hindrance. I'm not saying that the bullet should stop if it can't reduce the armor of the barrier to 0, I'm just saying that it no longer has the force required to reduce the armor of anything else.

So, and APDS round with -5 AP that goes through a 2 armor plywood barrier would have used up enough kinetic energy that it only retains enough power to reduce future armor (such as on a target or another barrier) by 3. In other words, the bullet doesn't magically gain more kinetic energy after passing through a barrier. This prevents all the stupid stuff that people keep finding like being able to go through an infinite number of walls, a wall providing less protection if there is a weaker wall behind it, and so on.

So sure, if your bullets are made of unobtainum and propelled by handwavium, then go ahead and keep apply full AP over and over and over again to each barrier, regardless of the loss of kinetic energy and the deformation of the bullet that would occur with each barrier it passes.

Oh, and no, I wasn't saying that you were thinking that the AP applied to the barrier, then the bonus armor, then the person's real armor, what I was saying was that if the target had no armor, then the second application of the AP that you wanted, would then knock off bonus armor that was provided by virtue of the fact that the AP wasn't sufficient to reduce the armor of the barrier, in other words it got to hit the armor of the barrier twice if the target wasn't wearing armor (or was only lightly armored)

Yeah, I think I just apply the full barriers armor t the next barrier or person without AP reducing the barriers carried over armor, then apply AP to the total.

So Barrier 1 has 2 armor, barrier 2 has 2 armor, target has armor jacket so 8/6. AP from a heavy pistol with APDS -5. Barrier 1 gets with its 2 armor gets no armor due to AP, barrier 2 has 4 armor 2 from itself 2 from first barrier, all 4 go away due to -5 AP, target has 8+4 armor or 12-5AP 7 armor. So he is better off since it went through 2 barriers but it still penetrated his armor a bit.

[Karoline]

Yeah, I think I just apply the full barriers armor t the next barrier or person without AP reducing the barriers carried over armor, then apply AP to the total.

So Barrier 1 has 2 armor, barrier 2 has 2 armor, target has armor jacket so 8/6. AP from a heavy pistol with APDS -5. Barrier 1 gets with its 2 armor gets no armor due to AP, barrier 2 has 4 armor 2 from itself 2 from first barrier, all 4 go away due to -5 AP, target has 8+4 armor or 12-5AP 7 armor. So he is better off since it went through 2 barriers but it still penetrated his armor a bit.

Yep, which is the same effect as what I'm proposing, just calculated slightly differently.

[sabs]

What your proposing is:

Wall 1: 2 armor
Wall 2: 2 Armor
Guy: 8 armor

Heavy Pistol: APDS : -5

Wall 1: 5 > 2 = AP now = 3
Wall 2: 3 > 2 = AP now = 1
Guy: 1 < 8 = Guy gets 7+body dice to soak stun damage with?

[Shinobi Killfist]

What your proposing is:

Wall 1: 2 armor
Wall 2: 2 Armor
Guy: 8 armor

Heavy Pistol: APDS : -5

Wall 1: 5 > 2 = AP now = 3
Wall 2: 3 > 2 = AP now = 1
Guy: 1 < 8 = Guy gets 7+body dice to soak stun damage with?

That is what it looks like to me, which is basically what I do but I calculate it differently. Due to how my mind works I find my method easier to conceptualize.

so instead of
Wall 1: 5 > 2 = AP now = 3
Wall 2: 3 > 2 = AP now = 1
Guy: 1 < 8 = Guy gets 7+body dice to soak stun damage with?

Wall 1: 2-5=0
Wall 2: 4-5=0
Guy: 12-5=7 Guy gets 7+body dice to soak stun damage with

[Traul]

With your method (which is also the one I would use), you don't need to test Wall 1 at all: if the bullet is stopped by wall 1, it would never have made it through wall 2 anyway. Check only the last wall for penetration, then soak.

[Karoline]

What your proposing is:

Wall 1: 2 armor
Wall 2: 2 Armor
Guy: 8 armor

Heavy Pistol: APDS : -5

Wall 1: 5 > 2 = AP now = 3
Wall 2: 3 > 2 = AP now = 1
Guy: 1 < 8 = Guy gets 7+body dice to soak stun damage with?

That is exactly what I am proposing. All the sudden walls actually impeed the progress of bullets, instead of giving them extra kinetic energy.

[Mordinvan]

The Steel Lynx entry says it can mount LMGs and smaller weapons.

It has Body 4, like a scooter. Even if it could handle the weight of the weapon and its power source, there is NO WAY it could handle the recoil. Have you ever seen how current tanks recoil when they fire a kinetic penetrator? The Lynx weighs 1% of what they do.

So, if what you're telling me is that you set a Lynx with a rail cannon as a one-shot thing, the Lynx is just there to move and aim the cannon, and once it fires everything breaks, I applaud you. That's a plot device - you found a cool but expensive way to solve an otherwise untractable problem. If you have a serious amount of nuyen to burn on every kill so you do this often, or you actually have <1 ton drones firing rail cannons repeatedly, and you're not attracting enough heat to get caught firing antitank weapons repeatedly in a city, then you really are playing Battletech 2075.

Rigger 3 allowed you to fit one on if you ripped out the turret, and mounted it directly to the hull. This meant the Lynx would have to turn its entire body, and raise or lower itself on its tracks to aim, but for the purposes of what it was meant for, that was often more then enough.

[Mäx]

The only thing specified to use the full magic rating is the level of physical adept power. Everything else is under the general rule of for everything else uses the full magic rating.

So then someone asks, "does everything else uses the full magic rating mean the force of spells as well?"

The designers responded, "No. Force of spells is determined by the points invested in magic."

General rule, clarified. Which is exactly what FAQs are for.

Whether or not this FAQ applied to 4e or 4A remains to be seen.

Thats not a clarification, thats making up house rules, everythink else very obviliously ablies to everything else,otherwise its pointless to say everythink else.
Also that FAQ answer is claiming that max rating of adept powers is limited by the points but in adept powers, so really not a valid FAQ answer.
Contradicting a written rules is not clarifieing in any sense of the word.