Come on guys...you don't seriously think that a taser dart has the velocity to penetrate a 1/2" to 3/4" ceramic plate, do you?

And yes, if you happen to get a lucky shot and miss the ballistic insert, sure. But that's gotta be what...4-5 net hits at least? That is not going to be a common occurrence. Which abstractly means that good body armor should pretty much make you immune to taser hits.

some new armors have triet titaniumalloysto replace ceramic

much more expensive, but more effective

Aaaaabstraaaaact.

Just keep repeating it.

Aaaaaaabstraaaaaaaact.

Agree with "abstract".

But "abstract" doesn't mean that that a non-magical, non-augmented metahuman can outrun a Ferrari Enzo.

"Abstract" doesn't mean that if I spill my Dasani bottle, the water goes up instead of down.

And "abstract" doesn't mean that a smaller, lighter, slower projectile has a better chance of penetrating a ballistic plate then a larger, faster, heavier projectile.

Just because Shadowrun rules are an abstraction doesn't mean that it's okay to abandon reason, logic, and physics.

I just posted this elsewhere mere moments ago:

Hmmm, just to make a new input into the lethal vs. non-lethal discussion.

As i read about minguns. What do you think about a minigun with gel ammunition used for surpressive fire. That knockdown effect could make things very worse for grunts that don't make their dodge...

Gorath

If you are going to suppress, regular ball ammo is better than gel rounds any day.

Gel rounds are 50% more expensive and the "knockdown" effect is suboptimal when compared to the "sucking chest wound" effect of ball ammo.

Unless you don't want to kill them.

Plus gel round ammo will drop them faster than ball ammo because it does better damage, often against lower armor.

You may not get the same psychological effect as you'd get when the guy explodes into red mist.

Why oh why would you use a minigun if you don't want to kill people? That's like using MLRS for crowd control.

Anyhow, M80 ball worked just fine for the Terminator.

Maybe because you want to really hurt them and suppress the area well?

The terminator doesn't live in a world where gel rounds do more damage.

I never said I was trained. Heck, I even specified that I was a mook.

I totally agree that you may as well play a board game if you're standing in the middle of a bunch of fire because you have a high dodge pool. Either that or a more cinematic game where that actually makes sense.

We generally use lethal force for several reasons. First of all, the non-lethal options tend to feel a little munchkiny to us. We've house-ruled them to be less badass, but they still leave a poor taste in our mouths. Now, if a run calls for it (i.e. kidnap this guy) obviously we'll use it. Plus, we have no trouble using them against civilians. We figure that it doesn't matter if non-lethal weapons are overpowered when we are using them against folks with no combat skills whom we could dispatch easily anyway.

Our second reason for using lethal weaponry is to force surrenders. We feel that most cops and security guards are pretty eager to surrender once it becomes clear that they are outgunned and their very lives are on the line. After a few guards get several limbs broken by our bone-laced spinning Capoera death-dwarf and the speedy elf adept of critical strikey goodness, they generally start thinking that discretion is emphatically the better part of valor and lay down their guns. We are always happy to accept a surrender and carry plenty of zip-strips. This sometimes kills people, but more often just leaves a bunch of people in need of medical attention that we presume the corp provides. Or doesn't. We don't really care really as we are Shadowrunners, not good people.

Finally, we use lethal force since we are BAD PEOPLE. We commit crimes for money. Sometimes pretty terrible crimes. We lie, cheat, steal, kidnap, murder, and blow stuff up. People often suffer substantially as a direct result of our actions. Actions we take for the almighty Nuyen. It seems a bit disingenuous to have a character that is willing to do these things, yet strangely holds to a strict no-killing morality.

Not morality, belief in the goodness of having fewer people want you dead.

meh, if you use Stun Takedowns during a run with the objective of theft (as an example)... the owner of said yoinked item probably weighs the items theft far above any non-lethality incurred by his/her security contingent. and since 90% or more of the security contingent survives... you do indeed have more enemies to contend with later as they might be part of the recovery team.

six of one. half dozen of the other.
neither is the end all, be all.
use what you want; just be ready to accept the consequences.

I certainly agree that leaving less bodies around is a good thing, I just feel that using "non-lethal" weapons isn't necessary. In our games, unless someone is an utter hard-ass, he falls down and stays down if he gets hit for any real damage. A security guard staring at 6-8 boxes of physical damage is hurt, and hurt bad. He needs medical attention, but he will probably survive if said attention is administered relatively quickly. In our games it is pretty rare for someone to take more then that in one go, so fatalities are usually avoided. Generally the only people who die are very unlucky people who take above average attacks and roll below average soaks, or fall off tall things, or what have you. And crazy hardcore types that don't surrender when they should. We shrug of the former as an unfortunate necessity of our line of work and the latter as people we would rather have dead than looking for us later anyway. The rest of our opponents are generally left lying on the ground either having surrendered in the place of superior firepower or after having received semi-serious but treatable injuries. In either case we have a low body count without resorting to tasers, gel rounds, and the like.

Gel rounds, stick-n-shock, and tasers are all well and good, but they really suck when you find yourself trying to shoot through anything. For that matter, so do explosive rounds. The minute you get someone behind some glass, in a vehicle, or in some other random spot where I can generally rule there's an object between them solid enough to noticeably deflect a bullet, all of those ammo types largely become ineffective. Nothing quite like realizing you're about to get run down by a car, trying to punch off a couple of quick rounds at the driver before you dodge out of the way, and watching them go bang when that EX ammo hits the windshield. Startle the hell outta the driver, probably blow a big hole in the windshield, but a lot of this ammo is specifically designed NOT to penetrate hard surfaces... and I make people aware of that. Regular/APDS ammunition really does have it's place.

Ex Explosive is just as good as APDS for shooting through barriers.

IMO the "smart" runners, aka the ones who do it professionally as a career vs. the ones who do it because they've got no other choice, tend to be big on flexibility. Gangers do what gangers do well and they really don't take jobs that don't hit their niche. A pro runner should be able to hit multiple job types without blinking. Carrying non-lethal ordinance is just as much a requirement as a good suit. Anyone remember the quote from the Ork Samurai archetype in the original Street Sam Guide? IIRC:

Bah! Our mage isn't that badass, and thus doesn't cast spells at high force if he can avoid it. If he nails someone with a force 4 combat spell it is pretty unlikely to geek someone. Although, I do remember the time he got 7 or 8 successes on his casting and blew some poor slob to bits. But like I said, these cases are pretty rare.

Mathmatically, the relation between body count and the number of people who want you dead is an inverse parabola. At first, the number of potential revenge seekers rises as the body count increases. However, as you kill off more and more potnetial revenge seekers they'll have fewer survivors to take revenge.

This is the "and his whole family too" method of risk managment.

When just stunning them, the number of potential revenge seekers rises more slowly with respect to stun count but it never falls.

Heh.

Ah crap. We killed one of them. Darnit now we have to whack the whole building.

I think the revenge thing is REALLY over used on these boards.

First off, while many family members/friends would want revenge for the death of a loved one, most don't have the means to deliver that revenge. Not everyone has combat skills and underworld contacts. Most would just rely on law enforcement/corporate security to bring you to justice.

Secondly, there is the self-preservation thing. If joe-bob the salesman's wife gets killed in a high security corporate highrise by masked, SMG-toting people who managed to bypass the building's security system, I SERIOUSLY doubt he is going to have any delusions of being able to track them down and dispatch them. He's gonna be like "Yeah, if I would happen to see one of them somewhere, me and my 6 other corp suit buddies are gonna kick his ass!", but we all know how that would turn out.

Thirdly, the majority of corp-types are going to generally be law-abiding citizens. And as much as they want revenge, many will hesistate to commit murder to get it. They certainly don't want to spend the rest of their lives in prison, even if it means they killed their loved one's killer.

Fourth, when that middle-class joe decides that he has enough gumption and disposable income to actually try tracking down the team responsible for his wife's death, he is gonna run into a world of problems. First off, he is gonna stick out like a sore thumb when trying to work in the shadows. You will find out about his snooping LONG before he gets close to you. And second, he is likely going to be rubbing elbows with dangerous folk in his mission to find you. That is just as likely to get him killed as anything else.

So in general, I believe that Shadowrunners don't need to fear the "revenge factor" as much as these boards would lead you to believe.


Now, there are a few exceptions to this, and I'll list a few examples:

#1. The victim was related to/friends with someone wealthy/powerful. For example, that corporate secretary you geeked could be the favorite niece of a Yakuza Oyabun, or the daughter of a UCAS Senator. Those types of people have the means necessary to find you. But the rich and powerful are only going to have so many offspring/relatives. While a possible scenario, it's not very likely.

#2. The victim was related to/friends with a highly-trained person who could be a real threat to the Runners (other runners, Military SpecOps, Corp Strike Team, etc.) Again, this sort of people can make life for the runners complete hell. But it's not going to happen every run. Or every other run. Or anywhere near that fequent unless your GM is particularly nasty.

#3. The victim belonged to a tight-knit organization that has the means to seek revenge. Killing cops or mafiosi is likely to get you in this boat. This is much more likely to happen than either #1 or #2. And smart runners will keep this in mind.

Bottom line, geeking wageslaves is NOT an automatic death sentance from revenge-seeking loved ones. Not even close.

Oh, and I agree with Hyzmarca , but for different reasons.

Kill 5 people, "We want revenge!"

Kill 10 people, "This guy has to be stopped!"

Kill 50 people, "Fuck that! That dude is fucking DANGEROUS!"

Nobody ever said it was an automatic death sentence. Your'e absolutely right that not every death will involve you getting hunted down. But since you can't control who those goons are related to, the moral beliefs of their families, etc. etc. there is the risk.

Besides, killing 50 people makes others want to hunt you more.

Like I said before, different styles, differen games. But I'll keep talking.

Ok, let me rephrase the example. You have two burglars. The first one breaks into a house, knocks someone unconscious, and steals some stuff. The second one breaks into a house, kills someone, and steals some stuff. Who gets more heat on them?

I agree that you shouldn't carry nonlethal weaponry exclusively. There are times when it's flat out stupid to be firing gel rounds, such as when someone is coming at you in a vehicle or has demonstrated somehow that they're using pain editors to ignore anything less than an actual wound.

EDIT: Cover is -4 dice no matter what weapon you're firing at them, so I don't see how taking cover changes things. If they're actually hiding behind something and you still have to drop them, then yeah, you'll need something capable of punching through the barrier rating of whatever they're using.

Well cover helps more agianst gel rounds... because..of the decreased power from most things that give stun damage.. the cover will provide its rating as armor if they shoot thru it. Given if they shoot thru it.

I personaly like to advoid conflict in everyway, i'm the face normally.. i usally talk my way out of it or what not. But if i do damage its a stunbolt or ball if i play mage, and if play my rigger/decker guy he uses gel rounds, always carry a clip of gel around.

If someone needs to be killed, we can put on in their dome afterward.. i mean a gel round point blank to the skull or eye will still kill. or you just load in that real bullet... POW! or the orc snaps their neck.

Cover doesn't have to be shot through, it can be shot around.

Your example is a little misleading.

They don't penetrate the barrier, that would use the "penetrating barriers" rule. They hit the parts of you that aren't covered by the barrier. IIRC barriers are immune to stun damage, so gel rounds can't hurt them at all.

Re: the biological weapon example: true, but not every run involves that sort of thing, at least not in my games. Like I said, different game styles.

Although you're still more likely to have killed someone whose surivors want you dead if you actually kill people. If you kill nobody, the corp (and whoever else) wants you hunted down. If you kill somebody, you run the risk of them having friends, family, or whatever that will also want you dead, putting two trackers on your tail instead of one.

But yes, as I said, there are times when killing is necessary.

my characters tend to "leave the house" with gel rounds in the gun, and don't want to waste time in the middle of a firefight to decide to change a perfectly good clip.

This has a unique advantage, once they are KOed you can still kill them, and you have more time to think while your not in the heat of battle to decide wether killing them is nessicary at all.

But when I GM (which is most of the time), my PC's are firing EXEX or sometimes APDS (though not in SR4 yet), and leave a trail of bodies behind them, it's actually forced me to have to kill off and retire two PC's because they killed a few of the wrong people and made very powerful enimies.

I'd disagree that I "vehemently adhere to the RAW." My group changes what needs to be changed and ignores what is too crazy. But if the RAW works, we use it, even if it isn't necessarily the best approach.

All discussion of realism, adherence to the RAW, etc. aside I think that using all non-lethal weapons is antithetical to the setting and feel of the game. In a gritty, bloody, violent, noir-world like Shadowrun, it seems very antithematic to have people running around and NOT killing people. Obviously this doesn't mean that Runners should be racking up huge body counts or marking notches on their guns or anything. Those people are considered bloodthirsty monsters and any smart Runner should avoid working with them if at all possible. I think "professional" runners should avoid killing people by coming up with plans that don't involve shooting people, but when it hits the fan things should get bloody and nasty. That's part of the genre! I think that Shadowrunners should have no illusions that what they are doing is pleasant, or moral, or good in any way.

Of course, that's just in my games, and whatever is fun for a group is the "right" way to play, but I do think that the themes of the game back me up.

IIRC the first SR novels were about a guy that avoided killing.

While it's not the "rules" exactly, it details with enough thoroughness in the book what these rounds do when they hit something that it's really not a reach to say that firing a gel round through armored plate just doesn't happen. We're falling into the "common sense > exact interpretation of the rules" realm that some people hate, and others don't care about. The size the book would be if the devs had been forced to spell out every single situation, rather than simply leaving it up to the intellect of their various players to figure out, would be ridiculous.

If I'd said tracer, FMJ, and APDS ammunition aren't *specifically designed* to do "wacky things" like going bang or squish when they hit a surface, would that have helped any?

As for "at" vs "through" a surface, that's pretty easy. In one of them, I'm trying to damage the surface itself, in the other I'm trying to damage someone on the other side. Shooting *through* the door, I can't even see the target on the other side, so I'm going to either fire where I think the guy is, fire off all 7-8 rounds of ammo in a larger arc hoping to hit the guy with one of them, or listen for a second and see if I might be able to get a bead on him. If I'm shooting *at* the door I'm either going to be aiming at the hinges/lock to destroy what holds the door in place, or firing into a tightly grouped area to try and punch a hole in the door.