 Riggers, tests, and the Dice Pools to make them, ...things I thought I knew. |
  |
 Nov 8 2004, 03:27 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 188 Joined: 16-June 03 From: Da Burgh, PA Member No.: 4,751  |
I have recently been rereading the rules for vehicle combat and rigging to resolve questions that occuring in current game. I have been encountering that many of the things allowed in game were actually HR of long standing. So the followign are a few questions to find the page numbers I'm looking for.
Vehicle Dodging - This needs its own section in the rigging chapters. 1] Can only riggers dodge while driving? 2] Can riggers use both combat and control for dodge tests? 3] Can they dodge vehicle maneuvers as well as ranged attacks? 4] Is the target number for a vehicular dodge test the handling rating or 4? |
 |
 
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 03:41 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Only Riggers can dodge while driving, they can only use Control Pool, the TN is the Handling rating. Not sure about 3.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 04:23 PM
Post
#3
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
As in, avoid someone attempting to ram them? Or do you mean something else? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2004, 04:27 PM
Post
#4
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 188 Joined: 16-June 03 From: Da Burgh, PA Member No.: 4,751 |
Avoid ramming, which I believe is the only relevant maneuver. Kagetenshi, what is the page number reference for only riggers can dodge? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 8 2004, 04:37 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,049 Joined: 24-March 03 Member No.: 4,323 |
Well, Control Pool is used for vehicular dodging tests, right? Only riggers have a Control Pool, so, even if there is no explicitly stated rule prohibiting non-riggers from making dodge tests when driving, they still can't because they lack the appropriate dice pool.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 04:40 PM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
This is an interesting wording that I hadn't noticed before. Because of this, a Rigger gets -2*VCR level to their Dodge TNs as well, which I had initially assumed not to be the case. Ouch. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2004, 04:48 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,840 Joined: 24-July 02 From: Lubbock, TX Member No.: 3,024 |
Didn't they change the -2*VCR level to just -VCR level?
EDIT: Or was that change for driving tests? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 04:48 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
Yes, and he also gets to deal with the up to +8 from terrain and velocity factors.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 04:54 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Ah, Driving Tests have different modifiers than some of the others. Thanks for pointing that out.
On the other hand, keep in mind that as long as one avoids driving unfamiliar vehicles or excessively large vehicles of type, everything that adds to the dodge TN adds to the attack TN as well. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 05:00 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 188 Joined: 16-June 03 From: Da Burgh, PA Member No.: 4,751 |
Thanks for the page ref!
So riggers could use combat or control. Without VCR driving could use combat. Hideous target numbers could result from speed, terrain, and/or damage. VCR, natch, has advantage. Am I missing something? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 05:01 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Er, wait. Wording is vague. Let me reread and get back to you… Ok. It all hinges on what you think one part of what I quoted means. The relevant part: "Riggers may attempt to dodge[…]using Control Pool instead of Combat Pool". More specifically, the initial "Riggers may" and whether it is indicating the entire group of people who can dodge or simply specifying a special rule for a subset, and the use of the phrase "instead of Combat Pool", which could either imply that you could otherwise use Combat Pool or it could be phrased that way to make the difference from an ordinary non-vehicle dodge test clear. I will have to think on this one. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 05:26 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 188 Joined: 16-June 03 From: Da Burgh, PA Member No.: 4,751 |
Where are you seeing in the rules that non-riggers are not allowed to dodge? Don't have my book but I'd look in the rules pertaining to Captain's Chair, Driving with a Datajack, and any cross references.
Dodging is obviously part of the Bill of Rights, it's all mucked up. We hold these truths to be self evident ...death, incarceration, and pursuit by happy triggered SWAT teams. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 06:13 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
This is why I allow non riggers a control pool equal to their natural reaction.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 06:14 PM
Post
#14
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
So the two interpretations are: Riggers may attempt to dodge, as opposed to other characters who may not attempt to dodge, using control pool instead of combat pool. OR Riggers may attempt to dodge using control pool instead of combat pool, as opposed to other characters who must use combat pool. Is there another reference somewhere else that tells us which of these grammatical interpretations is coorect? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2004, 06:14 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I'm not finding one. Looking, though…
~J |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 06:21 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
I'm not even seeing anything about "dodge tests" on page 133, like the quote refers us to, or anything in the errata that fixes that page reference.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 06:30 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
It's a misprint. The real page is 113.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 06:45 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Wow. So it is a referall to the plain old "Dodge Test" rules, not some wonky "Vehicle Dodge Test," like I was assuming. Huh. That's sort of a lean towards the "anyone can dodge when they're driving" interpretation, I'd say.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 06:47 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,049 Joined: 24-March 03 Member No.: 4,323 |
It seems pretty clear to me that the "instead of combat pool" part is included for the purpose of clarifying that you use the normal dodge rules on page 133 (where by 133 they meant 113), except you use control pool instead of combat pool. Rigger 3 has a similar line on page 80. While this is in a section on optional rules for integrating vehicles into normal combat, note that there is a clarification involved that makes this quote relevant even if the option is not used:
emphases mine The explicit mention that non-rigged vehicles can not make dodge tests, the lack of any clarifying statement in either section along the lines of "Non-riggers may only use Combat Pool for vehicle-based Dodge Tests," my understanding of what combat pool is supposed to represent and a bit o' the common sense thrown in for good measure all leave me convinced that combat pool can not ever be used to vehicle-based dodge tests, and that non-riggers can not dodge with vehicles at all. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd July 2025 - 06:33 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.