[X] My Assistant

[bannockburn]

No. I am saying: Assault cannons have a very strict restriction on what kind of ammunition they load. This ammunition is a category of its own. It has a separate price, separate availability and is even explicitly called "Assault cannon round", respectively "AV Assault Cannon Round".

On the other hand, you have loads of generic ammunition. Basically all other ammunition is available for the same price and the same availability.
It does not matter if you buy a regular round for a shotgun (which is a slug) or a heavy pistol (which could be a 9-10mm bullet). The price and availability is the same. The same goes for frangible rounds. For APDS rounds, for flechette and all the other kinds of ammunition.

These types of ammunition are generic and another thing they all have in common is, that you cannot load them into an assault cannon. Vice versa, you cannot buy an AV assault cannon round and load it into a gauss rifle, nor into a light pistol. THAT is the difference, in my interpretation between exotic and generic ammunition.
Edit for clarification: Of course I am not proposing that you can load a bullet bought for an assault rifle into a light pistol. But the _entry_ you buy from the gear list is still the same.

You can only ever load flamer ammunition into a flamethrower, in a similar vein, and furthermore, there is no way to get "APDS flamer fuel" or any other kind of specialized, but generic ammo.

You may not share my interpretation, but you haven't made compelling points for yours. StealthSigma has, and I can understand his point, but I do not share it.

[X-Kalibur]

It depends entirely on your interpretation of the word "exotic".

1. of foreign origin or character; not native; introduced from abroad, but not fully naturalized or acclimatized: exotic foods; exotic plants.
2. strikingly unusual or strange in effect or appearance: an exotic hairstyle.
3. of a uniquely new or experimental nature: exotic weapons.
4. of, pertaining to, or involving stripteasing: the exotic clubs where strippers are featured.

point 1: I think we can all agree, this does not apply to the ammo.
point 2: As has been demonstrated, there is nothing truly unusual or strange about the rounds or how they work versus any other firearm
point 3: nothing uniquely new or experimental about the PAC
point 4: only if lesbian elves are involved.

So... how is it exotic again? Mind you we are talking about modern (by our standards or SR4 standards, really) firearms. Is the ammo listed anywhere as being "exotic" or is this merely being extrapolated from being unique, which is not a qualifier? A cursory glance at my SR4 PDF shows that neither the weapon or its ammo are listed as exotic.

<edit>
I'll also note that Archaic can sometimes be used as a synonym for exotic, leading to things like arrows, musket balls, etc still being exempt by the wording.

[Mach_Ten]

Mach_Ten: The Panther has a clip-magazine, though. It's not a breachloader. It's a normal rifle firing mechanism writ large.


It's probably impractical or impossible to do with today's materials science, but the Shadowrun 2070s materials science beats the pants off ours.

So, ummm .. why are we even havin this discussion then ?

cause that's just ... "Cause, magic" as we have no basis to go off other than two really badly worded lines in a book.

which really means this could quite possibly go on all year and we'll still be in the same place arguing over whether a 30mm (or smaller or larger) shell that by todays standards is APDS or HEAT or Depleted Uranium.
is exotic or not,


it's just gonna get messy and redundant.

[ChromeZephyr]

it's just gonna get messy and redundant.

That's what we call "normal" around here. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Umidori]

No. I am saying: Assault cannons have a very strict restriction on what kind of ammunition they load. This ammunition is a category of its own. It has a separate price, separate availability and is even explicitly called "Assault cannon round", respectively "AV Assault Cannon Round".

So what about Shotgun-Only Ammunition? Flare and Shock-Lock Rounds? They're clearly in a category of their own, they're explicitly "Shotgun-Only".

On the other hand, you have loads of generic ammunition. Basically all other ammunition is available for the same price and the same availability.
It does not matter if you buy a regular round for a shotgun (which is a slug) or a heavy pistol (which could be a 9-10mm bullet). The price and availability is the same. The same goes for frangible rounds. For APDS rounds, for flechette and all the other kinds of ammunition.

And so what if the price and availability are the same? They're still different rounds - the ammunition rules explicitly state this fact. You cannot buy 100 rounds of caseless light pistol ammo and then use it in a shotgun, or even in a light pistol that requires cased rounds.

The only reason costs and availability of the rounds for smallarms are the same is because it cuts down on bookkeeping. There are technically dozens of varieties of different ammunition available with all those options, but they all share the same price and available because that's just easier to keep track of. And the only reason Assault Cannons have their own separate listing is because you can't have special varieties like an APDS or EX-Explosive round for an assault cannon.

Yes, assault cannons lack the extra options of other ammunition types. Yes, assault cannon rounds have a separate cost and availability. But that's completely unrelated to how assault cannon rounds operate as ammunition, how they fit into clips, how they are chambered in the barrel, and how feasible it is to modify an assault cannon for full auto fire.

These types of ammunition are generic and another thing they all have in common is, that you cannot load them into an assault cannon. Vice versa, you cannot buy an AV assault cannon round and load it into a gauss rifle, nor into a light pistol. THAT is the difference, in my interpretation between exotic and generic ammunition.
Edit for clarification: Of course I am not proposing that you can load a bullet bought for an assault rifle into a light pistol. But the _entry_ you buy from the gear list is still the same..

Again, what does it matter if they have the same gear listing entry? You're stating that the format of the information, chosen entirely for practical purposes of simplifying the rules and reducing word count and printing space, is the true measure of RAI?

You can only ever load flamer ammunition into a flamethrower, in a similar vein, and furthermore, there is no way to get "APDS flamer fuel" or any other kind of specialized, but generic ammo.

Flamethrowers use liquid fuel. It is literally impossible to mod for Full Auto fire because the physics do not operate that way, and because the rules obviously and plainly cannot represent such a thing, even in abstraction. Flamethrowers are obviously exotic, not because they only have one type of fuel listed purchaseable, but because you're shooting a goddamn stream of flaming liquid and not a bullet.

You may not share my interpretation, but you haven't made compelling points for yours. StealthSigma has, and I can understand his point, but I do not share it.

Let's compare our compelling points, shall we?

Argument Against Exotic

• AC Ammo Is A Kind of Bullet
• AC Ammo Is Kept In A Clip
• AC Ammo Is Loaded And Chambered Like All Other Non-Exotic Ammo
• AC Ammo DV and AP is IDENTICAL to Non-Exotic Barret Model 121 EX-Explosive Round
• Absolutely No Game Balance Reason To Deny Assault Cannons FA
• Absolutely No Fluff Reason To Deny Assault Cannons FA Fire
• Absolutely No RAW Reason To Deny Assault Cannons FA Fire

Argument For Exotic

• Separate Ammunition Type Listing, Price, and Availability
• Standard Ammo Type "Options" Not Available

~Umi

[X-Kalibur]

You're assuming a bit much at the end there, Umi, after all, if there was absolutely no reason, RAW or Fluff, to deny the weapon mod, we wouldn't be having a disagreement here, now would we?

[Umidori]

There ISN'T any reason.

RAW does NOT state ANYWHERE that Assault Cannons use exotic ammunition, nor that they cannot accept the FSC Mod.
Fluff I will concede is open to some debate, chiefly because it's so vague in wording, but I'm prepared to drop that point of contention.

~Umi

[Irion]

From my reading, he seems to be arguing that ALL ammunition is Exotic, so therefore none is.
He is a bit confusing (or I am a bit confused). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You said different name. If a different name is enough to lable one exotic ammunition and not the other it is a logical conclusion, that every ammo except one is to be considered exotic.


@X-Kalibur
The problem with your argument is: How is anything exotic with this reasoning?
Arrows and Bolts have been around thousands of years, known to everyone.
Darts, the same.
Batteries? They should be known in SR to the public.

[Stahlseele]

@Umidori:
On the other Hand, the Rules don't state that Trolls can't fly and the Fluff is up to debate because it's a bit vague on wording, but i am prepared to drop that line of thought, because it'd be a tangent and not on topic any more ^^

[Dakka Dakka]

The problem with your argument is: How is anything exotic with this reasoning?
Arrows and Bolts have been around thousands of years, known to everyone.
Darts, the same.

I would not consider those as exotic ammunitions, but the weapons that launch them do feature exotic loading mechanisms, except maybe the sci-fi crossbow of SR4. Then again these cannot be modified anyways, because they don't have one of the modifiable firing modes.

Batteries? They should be known in SR to the public.

Yes, batteries are known to the public, but are they known as propellant for ammunitions (gauss weapons)? I think you can even argue that the energy weapons of SR (lasers, pain inducers etc.) don't use ammunition at all - at least by definition one. If whatever you use to damage a target includes the figurative meaning of ammunition as in definition two, the idea of exotic ammunition becomes pretty meaningless.

@Stahlseele: Trolls can't fly, even if you go by the "if it's not forbidden, it must be allowed" position. Trolls are metahumans which are humans except for some explicit rules and real world humans can't fly. If you deny any connection between a real world concept/object/ect. and the SR concept/object/etc., you can do all sorts of crazy things. Now satyrs don't have a real world counterpart to fall back on....

[Umidori]

@Umidori:
On the other Hand, the Rules don't state that Trolls can't fly and the Fluff is up to debate because it's a bit vague on wording, but i am prepared to drop that line of thought, because it'd be a tangent and not on topic any more ^^

See, if my entire argument was based solely on the notion that RAW doesn't disallow it? I'd totally be with you.

Byt my argument is NOT based solely on the notion that RAW doesn't disallow it.

My argument is that it makes perfect sense given all the evidence we have available. That 1) Assault Cannon rounds are not radically different from normal bullets, that 2) they are not chambered or reloaded radically different from normal bullets, that 3) they are clearly nowhere near as outlandish or exotic as the listed examples of non-moddable weapons like beam weapons and guns that lack moving parts, that 4) FA assault cannons are not imbalanced from a game systems standpoint, and that 5) there is already an equivalent or better option allowed and available with the Barrett Model 121 Sniper Rifle.

Meanwhile, the best evidence anyone can seem to level AGAINST my argument is "Well they have a separate listing in the gear category, so they MUST be exotic!", which is absolute fallacious nonsense.

Honestly, Stalh, I expect better, I really do. You're comparing me to, and treating me like, some impertinent scrub trying to outlandishly break the system by being willfully obtuse about what the rules should reasonably allow or disallow.

Clearly the evidence is in my favor. Clearly the people trying to disallow FA assault cannons don't have a solid leg to stand on. You should be chewing them out for being stubbornly pedantic for no reason other than to be contrary. They're literally trying to disallow something they have no rational reason to disallow.

~Umi

[Stahlseele]

*shrugs*
i would allow FA PAC . .

[bannockburn]

First off, sorry for the quote chopping. I don't like it, but in this case it is necessary to better illustrate what I'm answering to.

So what about Shotgun-Only Ammunition? Flare and Shock-Lock Rounds? They're clearly in a category of their own, they're explicitly "Shotgun-Only".

I've mentioned those in an earlier post. I do believe that this is exotic ammunition, but seeing as shotguns can _also_ fire all other kinds of ammunition, that they can still be modded for FA.

And so what if the price and availability are the same? They're still different rounds - the ammunition rules explicitly state this fact. You cannot buy 100 rounds of caseless light pistol ammo and then use it in a shotgun, or even in a light pistol that requires cased rounds.

My point is that those 100 rounds of caseless light pistol ammo cost _exactly_ the same as 100 rounds of shotgun ammo. Or heavy machine gun ammo. And so on.

The only reason costs and availability of the rounds for smallarms are the same is because it cuts down on bookkeeping. There are technically dozens of varieties of different ammunition available with all those options, but they all share the same price and available because that's just easier to keep track of. And the only reason Assault Cannons have their own separate listing is because you can't have special varieties like an APDS or EX-Explosive round for an assault cannon.

I agree on the bookkeeping. But that also makes the generic ammunition the standardized type of ammunition.
To answer directly to your bolded 'only reason': I think, that this is an assumption on your part. It is an interpretation, nothing more and nothing less. I interpret the fact that they don't have special varieties as the ammunition being exotic, although at this point I'm not sure how many times I should reiterate that.

Yes, assault cannons lack the extra options of other ammunition types. Yes, assault cannon rounds have a separate cost and availability. But that's completely unrelated to how assault cannon rounds operate as ammunition, how they fit into clips, how they are chambered in the barrel, and how feasible it is to modify an assault cannon for full auto fire.

See? I don't believe that this is 'completely unrelated'. I think it's an indication of what is and what is not considered to be exotic.
If something is NOT of the generic type, it is, by definition, more exotic than said generic type.

Again, what does it matter if they have the same gear listing entry? You're stating that the format of the information, chosen entirely for practical purposes of simplifying the rules and reducing word count and printing space, is the true measure of RAI?

Yes, I state that the format is another indication, since there is at no point in the book defined what is exotic and what is not. Your statement that this was chosen for practical purpose and simplification is pure assumption.

Flamethrowers use liquid fuel. It is literally impossible to mod for Full Auto fire because the physics do not operate that way, and because the rules obviously and plainly cannot represent such a thing, even in abstraction. Flamethrowers are obviously exotic, not because they only have one type of fuel listed purchaseable, but because you're shooting a goddamn stream of flaming liquid and not a bullet.

Of course they aren't shooting bullets. But that's not the point. The point is, that flamer fuel is, as well as assault cannon rounds, exotic, because it is in a separate category, with separate price and separate availability.
Oh, and it is, as well as assault cannon rounds, listed under 'Miscellaneous ammo', which says:

"Miscellaneous ammunition includes special types of ammunition usually used in exotic or otherwise unique weapons" (Arsenal, p. 35)
Admittedly, this is only another indication, and it isn't listed there in the core book, but it's another point that supports my interpretation.

Argument Against Exotic

• AC Ammo Is A Kind of Bullet
• AC Ammo Is Kept In A Clip
• AC Ammo Is Loaded And Chambered Like All Other Non-Exotic Ammo

These are all real world reasons. Even if it's a kind of bullet, kept in a clip and is chambered like every other firearm, that does not mean it isn't exotic.
If real world reasoning would apply, a whole lot of other things would work very differently. Multiple pages threads on this forum have gone back and forth about those issues without resolution either (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

• AC Ammo DV and AP is IDENTICAL to Non-Exotic Barret Model 121 EX-Explosive Round

Good point, in principle, but: Do assault cannon rounds also explode when you roll a critical glitch? No. Sorry, this doesn't cut it.

• Absolutely No Game Balance Reason To Deny Assault Cannons FA

I agree.

• Absolutely No Fluff Reason To Deny Assault Cannons FA Fire
• Absolutely No RAW Reason To Deny Assault Cannons FA Fire

These are no arguments, these are statements, and, as I've already said: They are entirely dependent on your interpretation of the words in the books. I don't share it, hence we have different opinions.
By fluff reasons, I assume you're referring to the thing about real world firearms? If so, I agree, but I can't discuss this properly, as I have not enough knowledge about it.

To wit:
I've used the time to look up if there is _any_ kind of exotic ammunition in either arsenal or the core book. I've found none that is described as such, only the 'Miscellaneous' entry in Arsenal.
Not flamethrower fuel tanks. Not water, not any kind of ammunition that is loaded into exotic weapons is described as 'exotic ammunition'.
Furthermore, an exotic weapon does not necessarily require exotic ammunition, so I don't think "Exotic ammunition is what is loaded into an exotic weapon" is a valid definition either.

And, to reiterate:
I do believe that your view is entirely valid. You have to come up with a definition for what ammunition is exotic to really decide if a weapon can be modded for FA. There is none provided. Your definition is different than mine.



Edit: Oh, and after reading your last posting, Umidori. I am not going down to your levels of condescension and snarkiness, but your tone is hurting your points. It is not as clear as you make it out to be and your 'fallacious nonsense' insult will not win you a flower pot. At this point, I am out of patience and will stop discussing the topic with you, since this seems to be your default behavior when someone is not sharing your views. You're free to consider or ignore my points, have a nice day.

[Irion]

Yes, batteries are known to the public, but are they known as propellant for ammunitions (gauss weapons)? I think you can even argue that the energy weapons of SR (lasers, pain inducers etc.) don't use ammunition at all - at least by definition one. If whatever you use to damage a target includes the figurative meaning of ammunition as in definition two, the idea of exotic ammunition becomes pretty meaningless.

No, you can't. They are listed under ammunition, so ammunition they are...
To use real world arguments/definition is always a bit dangerous. Not only considering magic. Why? Because rules are always simplifications and people tend not to check their wording in the dictionary very often.

Trolls can't fly, even if you go by the "if it's not forbidden, it must be allowed" position. Trolls are metahumans which are humans except for some explicit rules and real world humans can't fly. If you deny any connection between a real world concept/object/ect. and the SR concept/object/etc., you can do all sorts of crazy things. Now satyrs don't have a real world counterpart to fall back on....

You are making assumptions to declare something forbidden. But if you follow the "if it is not forbidden"-Dogma you would need to quote a rule saying so. Otherwise it would be allowed...
The point is, NOBODY really follows this kind of interpretation all way through. Most people only do it to arguee for quite specific things, they feel should be allowed...

[ZeroPoint]

Points for or against FA PAC...there are only 2 that matter.

1) Does it use an exotic/unusual loading mechanism?

2) Does it use exotic/unusual ammo?


The loading mechanism we know IS NOT exotic. Its the same as most every fire mode modable firearm. So this shouldn't even warrant bringing in most of the other examples mentioned. There is no reason for flamethrowers, dart/bowguns, lasers, rocket launchers, compressed air dildo launchers, pain inducers, sakura fubukis or other such weapons to enter into the conversation since they all have unusual loading mechanisms and are outside of the scope of the conversation, and anyone who uses them as an argument point is NOT contributing.

The only point of contention is whether it is exotic ammo. Unfortunately we have very little to work with since there are not many other weapons in the books that have normal loading mechanisms yet use exotic ammo. Grenade launchers is about as close as we can get perhaps...except we have grenade launchers with all firing modes available, as we do in real life. The best example is actually the Gyrojet pistol. Uses a clip loading mechanism, but the rounds are small rockets. Rockets don't create enough blowback pressure to power an automatic weapon (so that makes sense to me).

But unlike gyrojet rounds, Assault Cannon rounds are still normal bullets with an explosive warhead (essentially highly stable EX-ex rounds). Nothing exotic about that. The different listing (which is in the same table as all the other generic rounds) in my mind is because they are OBVIOUSLY designed for military hardware, unlike every other type of standard round, so even your standard assault cannon round is forbidden and will have a different availablilty and cost.

This doesn't make it exotic, it just means that the designers were at least making an ATTEMPT at keeping the world somewhat sane.

[X-Kalibur]

I'll point out again that something being unique does NOT qualify it as exotic, by definition.

[Irion]

@ZeroPoint
Which still begs two questions: How do you define "unusual" loading mechanism?

Most of your argument resolves around, that everything with a bullet and a barrel is not exotic. Thats kind of circle logic.
You would not allow a regular cannon to be modded full auto... (Or any front loaded rifle for that matter...)

The loading mechanism form an assault cannon is nothing like the loading mechanism from any "normal" firearm.

Grenade launchers is about as close as we can get perhaps...except we have grenade launchers with all firing modes available, as we do in real life.

There is a HUGE differance between you can't mod them and there ain't any.
You can't mod a single, barrel front reloaded granade launcher to become full auto. Still there might be a full auto granade laucher out there.

Could you build an full auto assault cannon? Yeah, probably. And then you can fit it on a mech.
The question is, can you mod an existing autocannon to become fire full auto.

[Stahlseele]

why would you need to mod an existing autocannon for fully automatic fire?
don't they come standard with full auto?

[Irion]

Well, that was a typo. Probably thinking about mechwarrior a bit too much.
It should have read assault cannon.

[KarmaInferno]

Actually, as a magazine fed weapon, most of what you'd need for a auto-loading system is already there. Install a gas tube and return spring to turn the manually operated bolt to a recoil driven one, and you're done.

Fun fact: It is easier to design a full auto weapon than a semi-auto. The semi-auto has additional mechanisms that prevent the weapon from just firing again if you keep the trigger held down.


-k

[Umidori]

Most of your argument resolves around, that everything with a bullet and a barrel is not exotic. Thats kind of circle logic.
You would not allow a regular cannon to be modded full auto... (Or any front loaded rifle for that matter...)

I assume mean old age of sail muzzle loading black powder cannons? Or do you mean modern artillery pieces? Or do you mean actual modern cannons such as the kind that go on light tanks, APCs, and aircraft?

If you mean an old fashioned cannon, those are obviously "exotic" in that they are muzzle loading weapons without cartridges. If you mean modern artillery pieces, those are also exotic, in that they do not use a "clip" magazine and the cycling of their breeches are relatively slow do to the nature of their designs. And if you mean actual modern cannons, almost all of them are already "autocannons", designed for full auto fire and used in place of machine guns.

The reason muzzle loading is exotic is because modern firearms are designed as breech loaders. The cartridges get loaded into a "clip" magazie, the magazine gets slotted into the gun, and the internal mechanism chambers each round in succession. You can't really create a system for full autofire for a weapon that loads via the muzzle. It's theoretically possible, but needlessly complex. Moreover muzzle loaders don't employ metal cartridges, further complicating the process as you need to add propellant and shot separately.

~Umi

[X-Kalibur]

Again, exotic can also mean archaic, so in regards to muzzle loaded weaponry, guess what? They are archaic and therefore exotic.

[cryptoknight]

@ShadowDragon8685
What destinguishs an assault cannon round from an arrow/bolt rulewise?

It's not fired from a bowstring? Lacks feathers, and doesn't use the archery skill?

[Stahlseele]

It's not fired from a bowstring? Lacks feathers, and doesn't use the archery skill?

technically, strictly from a RULES perspective, none of these apply to either Arrow nor Bolt . .

[Umidori]

Stahl.

A mere three posts back you were JUST complaining about invoking a technicality of rules left unwritten to bypass common sense. What the hell, man?

Moreover, by the rules, Arrows and Bolts are indeed fired from bowstrings (bows and crossbows) and they use the archery skill. I trust you can easily find those sections, and that I need not quote the appropriate segments here, but correct me if I am wrong and I will gladly quote them.

As for feathers? There you technically have the right of it. There is no mention of feathers on arrows or bolts. For arrows, it is not needed because of reasonable assumptions that people know what an arrow is like, replete with flights. For bolts, it is not needed because they lack flights altogether.

But still, needlessly pedantic.

~Umi