Full Version: Assault Cannon Recoil
What type of recoil does the panther assault cannon have? As a heavy weapon, it doubles uncompensated recoil, but since it only fires in single shot mode, the base rules have it with 0 recoil to begin with, despite the description describing it as "It comes with a smartgun system and rigid stock with shock pad, though those are hardly enough to compensate for its tremendous recoil" The stats also give it a point of recoil compensation. But I am still wondering how much is the base recoil?
You are right.
How much would the base recoil be, would the assault cannon offer more than one shot? That one needs a houserule. I´d say 3 feels right, but its not relevant anyhow.
How much would the base recoil be, would the assault cannon offer more than one shot? That one needs a houserule. I´d say 3 feels right, but its not relevant anyhow.
aren't there autocannon in SR4?
No, only the single-shot Panther XXL. And that one did not get special rules, only the basic double recoil (no effect here).
well, i'm sure there will be. after all, they can't just disappear. that's why SR still has naked de--er... groundi--er... wood spir--er...
at any rate, the double recoil rules will come into play when they show up.
at any rate, the double recoil rules will come into play when they show up.
This argument comes up every few weeks. It's flavor, kids. Fuckin' get over it.
| QUOTE (Geekkake @ Nov 17 2006, 01:54 AM) |
| This argument comes up every few weeks. It's flavor, kids. Fuckin' get over it. |
And new people join every few weeks, and are inspired to ask questions that may have been previously asked. We then have the option of directing the newcomer to some of those previous threads and pretty much killing any further discussion, or try to answer the poster's question, sparking another round of lively debate.
If, on the other hand, a new member dares to resurrect a dated thread, people jump on him about it, which can plainly be seen in some threads where this has occured. Not really much of a win-win situation for the newcomer, is it?
I prefer discussion ... that's why I come here. It doesn't matter to me whether we've gone over a certain topic three dozen or three hundred times. If you are personally sick and tired of one particular topic, like say Assault Cannon recoil, then you do always have the option of not reading any thread that is dedicated to that subject.
Well, if you don't mind rehashing the same discussion repeatedly, then I'm sure you don't mind when people come in and make the same complaints that've been made before regarding the discussion being rehashed.
| QUOTE (Geekkake @ Nov 17 2006, 02:08 AM) |
| Well, if you don't mind rehashing the same discussion repeatedly, then I'm sure you don't mind when people come in and make the same complaints that've been made before regarding the discussion being rehashed. |
And how exactly do these complaints contribute to the discussion at hand?
Real simple: It's either flavor, or it's broken. We have people on either side. As is the Dumpshock way, there is no budging. It's a dead argument rehashed a bunch of times.
I'm not going to goddamned argue with you all day about it. If my dismissal offends you or otherwise rubs you the wrong way, you, also, can feel free to ignore my responses. Kthx.
I'm not going to goddamned argue with you all day about it. If my dismissal offends you or otherwise rubs you the wrong way, you, also, can feel free to ignore my responses. Kthx.
Were we arguing? I was merely questioning the need for you to respond to a Dumpshock newcomer's legitimate inquiry with the phrase "Fuckin' get over it".
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| Were we arguing? I was merely questioning the need for you to respond to a Dumpshock newcomer's legitimate inquiry with the phrase "Fuckin' get over it". |
That's the Geekkake way, is it not?
Discussion is welcome at Dumpshock, even if the topic has been discussed before. While we do generally ask that members try a search or two before starting a new post, we also encourage helpful contributions and posts that contribute to, rather than take away from, the discussion at hand.
| QUOTE (Eben McKay) |
| That's the Geekkake way, is it not? |
It might be, but it's not the Dumpshock way. Nor is it particularly welcome.
Thanks, and we now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
I did actually do a search for this question, and nothing came up. If you do a search now, all you will find is this thread. Sorry if this question has come up in the past, but I couldn't find it.
Guess I need to increase my Data Search skill... If I tip the coffee guy, I might have enough Karma...
Guess I need to increase my Data Search skill... If I tip the coffee guy, I might have enough Karma...
As was said, don't worry too much about it. Fresh faces and fresh conversation with differing outlooks are what keeps communities like this one alive.
Perhaps we need to keep this topic bumped so new comers will see it right away. I can recall other boards that bump FAQ type topics.
| QUOTE (Jack Kain @ Nov 17 2006, 09:55 AM) |
| Perhaps we need to keep this topic bumped so new comers will see it right away. I can recall other boards that bump FAQ type topics. |
The problem with that, or just 'Stickying' an FAQ-type thread, is that it tends to get cluttered with assorted crap, and becomes less useful to the very people it was intended to help.
Besides, what is the harm with a newcomer posing an often asked question, getting a polite response, and feeling somewhat welcomed, and maybe even a little excited when he or she sparks off an often-held but still lively debate about the topic they started? Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
We generally don't allow bumping. If a topic is that relevant, it will stay at the top by participation.
As to stickies, we've kept them to a minimum in the past, and at present are continuing that trend. Generally for the reasons that Fortune mentioned, they aren't as useful sometimes for things that require/need actual participation in order to stray relevant. They're better for policies, announcements and the like.
As to stickies, we've kept them to a minimum in the past, and at present are continuing that trend. Generally for the reasons that Fortune mentioned, they aren't as useful sometimes for things that require/need actual participation in order to stray relevant. They're better for policies, announcements and the like.
Best way is to be a good DS neighbor and provide a link or suggest a search function. Which isn't the same as the angry demand that they use the search that usually comes up.
Best way is to answer the damn question! 
Is there an actual real world equivalent of Assault Cannons, or did SR just make these things up?
| QUOTE (IvanTank) |
| Is there an actual real world equivalent of Assault Cannons, or did SR just make these things up? |
They are not real, but they were stolen from Robo-cop 2 apparently. Or so it looks to the casual observer.
| QUOTE (kzt) |
| They are not real, but they were stolen from Robo-cop 2 apparently. Or so it looks to the casual observer. |
RoboCop 1.
And those "Cobra Assault Cannons" were .50BMG sniper rifles with some plastic slapped on...
I´m with Fortune here. I could be bothered to answer, and if I don´t like the question I walk on. Wanna see dumpshock at its greatest Ivan? Spark a caliber discussion.
Autocannons are platform weapons - I don´t think we need those without more advanced vehicle equipment. A troll might get to carry the single shot-version for coolness, once in a while,ut even that is stretching reality in favor of fun.
Autocannons are platform weapons - I don´t think we need those without more advanced vehicle equipment. A troll might get to carry the single shot-version for coolness, once in a while,ut even that is stretching reality in favor of fun.
| QUOTE (IvanTank) |
| Is there an actual real world equivalent of Assault Cannons[...]? |
As M¥$T1C said, they are stolen from Robocop, where they were pimped Barrett M82s, but, as Oracle mentioned, the closest RL equivalent to how the weapons are described in Shadowrun is the Barrett XM109.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.