 Incendiary arrows - broken or just pointless? |
  |
 Sep 19 2004, 11:52 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 611 Joined: 21-October 03 From: Yorkshire Toxic Zone Member No.: 5,752  |
I noticed in the CC that incendiary arrows do 5L every turn for 5 turns, and that this may cause flammable material to catch fire. It says to see P98 for more details.
P98 says that fire which does L damage does not cause things to catch fire. Que? What'd I miss? Since this incendiary damage is fixed as far as I know (the initial shot can be staged but would those successes stage the fire damage? Could you split your successes somehow? - note, I think that would be wrong, but that's just me), what's the point in incendiary arrows? According to the rules not even shooting it into a petrol barrel would do anything, as this only provides a minus to the object resistance. But 'cannot be set on fire' minus anything is still 'cannot be set on fire'. I'm sure this can't be right though! |
 |
 
|
|
Sep 19 2004, 04:20 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 496 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Orlando FL Member No.: 2,915 |
just by your post, i would say that:
"may cause flammable material to catch on fire" and "L damage does not cause things to catch fire" the 2nd statement covers "things" in general, while the first statement specifies "flammable material". so, if you shot the arrow into a pile of paper and plastic, the paper might catch fire, because it is flammable, and the plastic would not, because it is not specifically flammable, and therefore falls under statement 2. i'm sorry, but common sense (and theatrical gaming) would tell me that if you shot a fire arrow into a barrel of gas would cause an explosion. jeesh, just watch any action movie - in fact, in "Airplane!", you could blow up a gas storage area just by spitting on it! ;) |
|
|
|
|
Sep 19 2004, 04:41 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
A full barrel of gas wouldn't explode anyway, IIRC.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Sep 19 2004, 04:44 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 496 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Orlando FL Member No.: 2,915 |
man, haven't you seen any Rambo films??? sure they do, and cars also blow up when you hit them in the gas tank! come on!
;) |
|
|
|
|
Sep 19 2004, 04:59 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 400 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 825 |
It's gasoline fumes which are explosive. The liquid itself is just highly flammable.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 19 2004, 05:06 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
An incendiary arrow/bullet/similar projectile certainly wouldn't make any full gas container explode.
It absolutely should set aflame any flammable materials it comes into contact with, however, especially if it ends up sticking in them. If the rules say it wouldn't, fuck the rules. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 19 2004, 05:11 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
But think of the papercuts!
~J |
|
|
|
|
Sep 19 2004, 05:19 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 496 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Orlando FL Member No.: 2,915 |
hmmm, evidently the presence of a "winkie" no longer denotes sarcasm or joking... some of you actually took me seriously...
but, if you like playing "high action" or cinematic games, then what i said would be true - if they do it in the movies, then do it in the game... if you prefer realistic gaming, then obviously, we know that shooting into a car's gas tank doesn't make the car explode, and when they hit the back of another car, there isn't a ramp on the back end that makes them go up on two wheels or just flip over... |
|
|
|
|
Sep 19 2004, 05:52 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
I truly doubt anyone took your seriously. I know I just figured I might as well be serious myself, because you never know if someone actually thinks you can make gasoline containers explode with a bit of flame and heat.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 19 2004, 05:58 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Maybe cars in the 2060s have "coolness features" that have supplanted safety features as the new "in" thing. Cars with a fuel-air explosive linked to a breach detection system on the gas tank, with hydraulics and/or powerful springs rigged to launch a car into the air upon collision… hell, maybe people even have some sort of wire always attached to them so that whenever they get shot they're immediately yanked off of their feet away from the impact ;)
~J |
|
|
|
|
Sep 19 2004, 07:04 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 122 Joined: 1-September 04 Member No.: 6,621 |
Of course, the big problem with that scenario is that cars in 2060 don't have gas tanks, they are all electric (well, some fuel cell vehicles and one or two minor exceptions). I do wonder what Hollywood (or Nashville or Chicago or wherever) does for dramatics now? Of course, come to think of it, if you hit it with a firebolt, it might still explode, so I guess magic does fix everything :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 19 2004, 07:15 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
IIRC, most of the cars in Rigger 3 are still gas-guzzlers.
And you could just set the FAE to trigger on battery penetration ;) ~J |
|
|
|
|
Sep 19 2004, 07:28 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
and hydrogen and oxygen makes for a damn nice bomb (think fuel cell here), rember that they used it to propel people to the moon...
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 19 2004, 11:45 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 496 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Orlando FL Member No.: 2,915 |
i side with Kagetenshi - most cars are certainly not electric, and gridlink cars are fewer still as they can only be used in the core of the city where gridlink exists...granted, the cars of the future are more efficient/advanced, as the Ford Americar - the standard consumer car, gets 31 mpg...
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 20 2004, 04:55 AM
Post
#15
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
I got 29 mpg. 12.4km/l = 7.71 m/l = 29.2 mpg. Which isn't a whole lot, when several current production cars (officially) get 14-17 km/l. [Edit]And now I realize you most likely weren't serious, and were basically saying the same thing as me. Still, it might be in order to remind you Americans how far you can get with a gallon. ;) The fuel economy of motorcycles has taken a huge hit in 60 years, however.[/Edit] This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Sep 20 2004, 05:09 AM |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 20 2004, 08:13 AM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 496 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Orlando FL Member No.: 2,915 |
you did the official conversion - i used the Rigger 3 quick conversion of 1 km/l = 2.5 mpg...easier math to do in my head...29 mpg is still better than I get right now with my car (pontiac grand am) - i average only about 21 mpg, mostly city driving...sure, there are cars that get better gas mileage, but we're talking about the average...
what i'd like to see (and i know they weren't around when the game was created) is more hybrid cars and cars that run on hydrogen. today's hybrid cars (according to some articles i've read) advertise high mpg, but actually only perform in the mid 30s...maybe the Ford Americar is a hybrid (still listing gas as the primary fuel source)? although i would have thought the mileage would have improved slightly with technology... |
|
|
|
|
Sep 20 2004, 08:42 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
Shooting gas cylinder will often lead to an explosion.
You have highly compressed highly flammable gas now released in the presents of an ignition sores. BOOM. Or did you mean petrol. When you yanks go to the “gas” station how do you differentiate between auto gas (witch is compressed natural gas) and petrol (witch is liquid petroleum fuel). It actually took me half the thread to workout you might be talking about liquid fuel tanks. On a more game related note I understood that most commuter vehicles in SR where one form of electric or another with grid link. Most models in R3 are not commuter vehicles. And you can drive a grid link car of the grid. That is what its internal battery is for. Edward Ps I am in Australia. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 20 2004, 11:52 AM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 282 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 197 |
Y'know, I don't recall ever seeing a pump for "gas" here in America, only petrol stations. We get the term "gas" from "gasoline" BTW, not the natural kind.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 20 2004, 12:22 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
From what I hear, you can run some of today's hybrids on negligible fuel if you keep a constant speed of about 40mph. It's just the rarity of that situation that results in lower actual econ. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 20 2004, 01:23 PM
Post
#20
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 400 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 825 |
We don't, because cars don't use natural gas here. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 20 2004, 07:36 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 611 Joined: 21-October 03 From: Yorkshire Toxic Zone Member No.: 5,752 |
OK, so its a judgement call. That's fair enough. And I did know about petrol tanks. And yes, we do play cinematic. It makes for better viewing on the 10 o'clock news...
It just seemed a little.. final, is all. Especially with a specific reference. Even if it had been the consensus that they couldn't set anything at all on fire, I'd probably have mentioned it to the game group, they'd have laughed, then we'd have carried on happily using them to set fire to stuff! I was just curious what people thought. Nice tangent though! :D |
|
|
|
|
Sep 20 2004, 08:15 PM
Post
#22
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 37 Joined: 26-February 02 From: England Member No.: 1,927 |
You must be joking right? My 35 year old morris minor averages about 30 mpg (when it's not broken :( )and I know someone whose car (some kind of citroen I think) usually gets somewhere in the region of 65 to 70 mpg. As to setting fire to stuff with a fiery arrow, I'd use the specific rule that says that can set stuff on fire over the general rule that says they can't. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 20 2004, 08:24 PM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Woah! That's fucking awesome! A gasoline ICE non-hybrid car? Amazing. That's in the same range as the more economic hybrid cars. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 20 2004, 08:28 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Is it a SmartCar or something else that probably weighs less than a Troll?
~J |
|
|
|
|
Sep 20 2004, 08:40 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Surprisingly heavy, those Smartcars. Around 700kg, apparently. Many of those are indeed advertised as capable of 60+ mpg.
The absolute Economy limit for canon Gasoline Sedans is 14km/l, which doesn't hold a candle to these. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd April 2024 - 08:09 PM |
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.