Now you might be thinking 'AH HA! I got you! The weapon doesn't have a belt feed, therefore it doesn't have any ammo!' Great. You can read. So can I. Now if you read up a bit, the ammo bins say they augment a particular gun point("Each ammo bin is attached to a single weapon mount")....so 250 rounds. In both editions of the book, its pretty clear that a weapon mount gets 250 rounds, and the only hurdle is getting access to them with some weapons. With a #2 ammo bin, you now have a beltfeed on the weapon mount, because the mod says it does.
So, like I've been saying the entire thread, all the ammo bins do is move the belt feed to the weapon mount instead of the gun, and you just hook that up to any weapon you care to throw in the mount.

That sounds great until you look at something that would have an equivalent size round, for example the shells for the vehicle weapon the S-K Taurus Light Gauss Cannon (AR 124). Read the description, or more to the point, the stat block. Here is a gun that is (well damn) belt fed and has shells that are about the size of grenades, and guess what, it only gets 50 shots per belt!

Physical size of the ammunition definitely has a say in the amount of ammo you can fit on a belt in a standard ammo bin. When it's referring to 250 rounds of belted ammunition, it's still referring to bullets (and I'm hesitant about including HMG bullets in that list, but since there's nothing against it, I won't go against it.)

Edit: Never mind the fact that I'm still pretty sure you're wrong about how ammo bins work and it sure as hell wouldn't be how it would rule in my game.

Except that you missed a small point in the quoted text... Which I highlighted above for you...

The Ammo Bin with the Mount can hold UP TO 250 Rounds of Ammunition (that would be up to 250 rounds for a light machine gun)... the other piece that you are missing is that weapons that are not Belt-Fed have their standard loading mechanism (with their standard amount of rounds therein)... so if you put an Ares HVAR on there, it will have a Removable Clip/Drum from which to draw its ammo, and would have either 50 Rounds (Clip) or 100 Rounds (Drum, if modified for such) for availability... While if you mount a Fleche Hail Barrage Rocket Pod, the Bin will hold 20 Rockets/Missiles, as that is the standard load capacity of the weapon...

Right. It is obvious that the Ammo Bin mod does not make a non-beltfed weapon beltfed.

Ah ha! This. Then we take this...



And suddenly we get:

"Ammo bins add 250 rounds (belt fed) or double normal ammo capacity."

Only if you ignore the conditional for the "double normal ammo" bit, which is reference to weapons with unusually large types of ammunition -- namely rockets, missiles, mortars, and so on and so forth.

Common Sense 58,382,017 : Pedantic Reading of Only What You Want to See 0.

You're absolutely correct on the usual operations of that ammo mechanic. However, as the Ammo Bin modifies the rules for a Weapon mount, the two are not exactly the same. Related, similiar, but not quite the same. I didn't miss the bit about belt-feed not being changed - I noticed it, and thought ahead. Read on.

A Weapon Mount has 250 rounds of ammo, usable with a belt-feed weapon. Got it. Now, a Mount+Bins is not the same as a Mount. It is a Mount + Bins. (What exactly those bins do for you is up in the air. ), but since the bins modify the mount, their rules should take precedence over.

Now, your arguement can be extended to: You MUST add a belt feed, through ammo bins, to a mount in order to use a weapon with a belt feed, because the one on the improved mount, through a #2 ammo bins doesn't work somehow. And thats the crux of the arguement for me - you paid for it, its there, its not a completely useless/redundant piece of equipment. Now what, exactly, does that mount beltfeed do?


This. Under pretty much any other circumstance I'd agree with you.
However. You still get a hardware test to incorporate a gun into the mount. And it just so happens this particular mount comes with its own feed mechanism. If you're going to say 'no, that mount feed is useless' you might as well say 'your extra ammo is useless too', because its the exact same mod, and you should treat them the same, because double standards are bad, and making a hardware test to make everything work together is a perfectly reasonable use of the skill.

Otherwise, what is the point of paying for a beltfeed through ammo bins at all?


Edit: Funk, who were you responding to?

It's a bin. A metal bucket, for holding ammo. To be precise, it holds an additional 250 belted rounds, or 100% more of rockets/etc. The only reason for ammo bins is increase ammo reserves for a belted weapon, or launch weapon.

All other weapons get their normal clip/mag/etc., and really don't benefit from Ammo Bin. Theoretically, you could store several spare clips in the bin, but there's no 'feed mechanism'.

The gun has a feed mechanism, which had better be belted if you want it to draw ammo out of the bucket. I don't know what you're talking about the 'mount beltfeed' and things being useless? The fact is, Ammo Bin costs a mere 200¥, is 6R, takes a single slot, and can be installed by even the most unskilled armorer. You're not investing much, and you're not getting much. If that added the belt-fed option to a gun, it'd be the cheapest, simplest *major* weapon mod ever. Even SA to SS or FA to BF costs 600¥, and large mods are [Weapon]+2000¥.

By this reasoning the +100% rockets can't be fed automatically either. I doubt this is the intention of the rule.

No, it's reasonable for a launcher to have a feed, or maybe a pepperbox.

So why isn't it reasonable to assume that one way of implementing a mod to the weapon mount is to add a "universal" beltfeed?
With the exception of the Fleche Hail Barrage Rocket Launcher, which has no magazine type, all rocket launchers in the BBB and Arsenal are either muzzle loaders or use internal magazines. Putting a box next to it won't magically teleport the rockets into the launch tubes or the internal magazine. So either both implementations need outside help to "reload" or both are viable options to increase the time between replenishing the ammunition.

Whatever happened to this being a simple discussion of people attaching chainsaws to assault rifles?

*Puts on Leonidas voice*
THIS IS DUMPSHOCK!

On a more serious note, detaching the wepon mount discussion from the thread may be a good idea.

I was thinking about a missile launcher, but you're right. Muzzle-loaders would certainly not get a feed. That would be even more unreasonable (200¥, 6R, Threshold 4 to install, 1 slot) than giving non-belted guns beltfeeds.

Why is it you insist on RAW for smaller weapons but are okay with using "reason" for launchers?

"The rules allow me to" is a RAW interpretation, not a RAI one.

Also, note that the rules you quote as "option 2" are from the core book, whereas "option 1" is from the Arsenal sourcebook, a book intended to presumably clarify, revise and expand on core book rules.

It is not "unreasonable" to think that the ammo bin rules in Arsenal are supposed to replace the core book entry, rather than add an additional option. Especially given that they appear to cover the same subject, only with the Arsenal version being greatly expended and detail.



-karma

Because vehicle missile launchers have feeds or racks. I wasn't thinking about a personal RPG, which certainly would not, as Dakka Dakka pointed out. If none of the rockets and missiles in the game are feed-compatible, then they don't have one. At the price and complexity of the Ammo Bin, it's crazy to suggest that it's anything but a bucket.

All weapons have feeds.

Folks are just pointing out that it makes NO logical sense that you can fit 250 rounds of grenade ammo in the same space that 250 light pistol ammo fits in. The standard non-vehicle ammo belts reflects this, as does the Arsenal entry on vehicle ammo bins. The SR4 entry does not.




-karma

Only if those grenades are belted. It's 250 rounds of belt.

...well we tried, at least

Here's how we solve it... You take the same ammo bin and load it down with 250 bust a move toys that have mono wire and a claymore finish and let the fun ensue.

You know what would be completely fucking awesome? Dual-wielding belt-fed machine pistols drawing from a giant ammo pack on your back. Seriously.

You definitely wouldn't need the whole Neo/Boondock Saints pistol-vest!

That would be a Raust Roomcleaner.

Only it's not a pistol, but a (very bulky) shotgun.

How bulky? Is it, for example, small enough for a troll to fire one-handed?

Actually, he probably could. I'll dig up the stats when I get home.

You'd be limited to about 2,000 rounds for each gun though.

Hm. 2000 12ga shotgun shells is like 50 Liters of volume, isn't it? 'Bulky' doesn't begin to cover it.

'EVERYTHING is small enough for a Troll to fire it one handed . .
The RULES even say so!
There's NOTHING stopping you from firing that PAC one-handed.
Or the L/M/HMG . . Or the Minigun. But the last one gets problems from recoil.

20,000 steel spheres 10mm in diameter. It's actually pretty small.

I was just trying to convince me gm of this. Now I'm going to have to change it to handcrossbows with exploding tips.

It doesn't shoot shells? Because shells have their own size. I wasn't even taking air space into account, just ballparking. In reality, it'd be significantly more volume to allow for packing. Even a bucket of 20000 10mm balls would be over, what, 4 gallons of volume?

2,000 rounds of shotgun shells for each gun - so 4,000 shotgun shells. That would weigh 100 pounds (almost exactly) and would require a container just a little smaller than a mini fridge.

I don't think that would be considered "man portable" in real life but in Shadowrun it's not out of the question.

Just gave the greatest idea I have had for modded weapons in along time. Capsule rounds with small spools of monofilament wires with multiple weights inside. When they hit the body the multiple weights all act to spin the wire (like a mini ninja star of thin death) inside the body, slicing the whole of it up. Or maybe even screw the capsule, have it just shoot out the weights with the wire attached if you dont want to go through the hassle of putting the wire in it.

Also, reminded me of an adept I made years back that I based on an eldar harlequin. Had a custom hold out taser with the prongs made from mono tipped needles and the wire replaced with a monofilament wire the had random parts have attached memorized alloys like the memory blade. The prongs would shoot out and with the tips, enter the body, after which the electrical charge from the taser itself would give the target a stun aswell as cause the different memorized alloys to twist and pull the wires everywhich way inside the body, rendering it to goo. Would use it in combat and close shooting range and was alot of messy fun.....

The gun shoots steel spheres via self-contained pneumatics.

A sphere has a volume of 4/3 pi r^3. 10mm gives a single sphere a volume of 523 cu. mm

20,000 spheres have a volume of 10,471,975 cu. mm

Optimal sphere packing ratio is about 74%. So that volume is really 7,749,261 cu. mm

There are 1000 cu. mm to a cc. 7,749 cc. 7749 cc measures out to 2 gallons (US liquid).

This backpack has a volume of 50 liters.

50 liter = 50,000 cubic centimeters.

So 20,000 steel spheres (weighing 80 kg*) fills 15% of the pack, by volume.

*Based on the quality of the steel, obviously:

The density of steel varies based on the alloying constituents, but usually ranges between 7.75 and 8.05 g/cc (wikipedia).

At a dense 8g per cubic centimeter, our 10,471cc of steel weighs in at 83775 grams, or 83.7kg. Hence, why I initially said that in Alpha Omega is slightly less than 20,000 spheres, as the heavy duty pack only holds 80kg.

I see. That's not a shotgun, then. Those are bullets.

I'm pretty sure you're doing the closest-packing wrong. It's 75% density (optimally), not 75% *of* the density of the spheres; that would mean you'd actually made spheres take up *less* than their own volume—quite a trick.

And that is a BIG backpack.

Oops, you're right.

20,000 spheres at 10mm diameter, so 1cm "cubes"

20,000 cc * .74 = 14800cc

14,800 cubic centimeter = 14.8 liter or 29.6% of the pack's volume or 3.9 gallons (US liquid).



It's a hiking backpack that would actually hold something weighing 80kg without breaking.

Right, 4 gallons.

Oh, no doubt. But it's a BIG backpack. Certainly there are people strong enough to carry that, plus their other gear. While running and dodging. Some people. If goblinoids are people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzhSAx6MUno#t=3m38s




-karma

Eg. all long-trip hikers. Which means every troll in ShadowRun not bound to a wheel chair or on crutches.

I did not go on a week long backpacking trip when I had the chance when I was in scouts (no interest in that much physical activity in the Californian desert mountains during the summer) but each person was expected to lug at least 50 kg of stuff, if not more (we're talking 16 year old boys here).



Haha, nice.

I'm just saying, 80kg is a lot more than 50kg, and that's *just* ammo. Nevermind the gun, armor, monofilament chainsaw, etc. And it's BIG (i.e., a concealability issue). I'm not saying it's impossible or never useful or anything like that.

I've sometimes thought that Hellsing is a little Shadowrunny.

Only, y'know, way over the top.



-karma

That sounds like monofilament bolo rounds.
There was both Monofilament Bolos and Bolo-Rounds in SR3 i think
So this would be the next logical step actually O.o

This sounds interesting as well. Even if it's a bit contra productive to a weapon concept which is meant to stun a target, not wound it ^^

the monofilament bolos show up in arsenal as well, p40.

It's very Pink Mohawk.

That is, of course, it's maximum feasible ammo capacity. You could lug around less and still be effective (1000 spheres for only 4 kg, for instance).

You could also take a water buffalo and fill it full of steel marbles and use that for full on pwnage.

Figure that thing holds at least 1000 gallons of water, if not more. It could supply ammo to 8 soldiers for 8 hours of sustained full auto fire.

Better idea: drop a brick of C4 in the bottom, fill the rest of it with BBs, and you've got the world's biggest claymore mine. Aww, yeah.

This lacks the directionality of a claymore mine, but it is a hell of a fragmentation bomb. BTW BBs may be a bit small, replace them with wingnuts or normal nuts

Pink Mohawk enters hardware store, "I need a thousand gallons of wing nuts."

Urist McShopkeep: "..."

The urge to stat that best out is uponme Though it would have to be some weird veical backpack thingy.
Has 4 weapon mounts for the 2 heavy ones use the uunderbarel rules to add a one shot RL to each gun mount on a body 12 veichal.
I'll be back with statistics.

*sigh* Hellsing was once cool . . then it got stupid silly <.<

It got silly slowly though reading it all or watching it all in order make sit so much less retarded. *rasies hand* I am a rabid fan so YMMV.

And here are the stats:
Base "mount" cost 24,400Ұ
Horizon Doble Revolution (Enclo,Mono)
Sidecar x2
Weapon Mount (Reinfoced,External,Fixed,Manual Control) x2
Ammo Bins x4 (2 each weapon)
The guns x2 = 44800
22400 for a Heavy Autocannon with a UB great dragon RL
Ammo x2 = 1800ex-ex/20400AV/1440APDS
600 ex-ex rounds 6000 (AV 7200 or APDS 4200 can be picked)
1 great dragon rocket 3000
Total cost = 71000ex-ex/89600AV/70640APDS
Dual wielding heavy autocannons with UB Rocket launchers = Priceless

MMk. This is why reading the rules yourself are important, instead of going on quotes that people are saying. It is not just a bin, it is more (depending on how you install it)


A standard Weapon Mount uses a weapon's belt feed.
A Weapon Mount + #2 Ammo Bin has its own belt feed. The mount's belt feed, that I mentioned. What does this belt feed do?
You have paid for it. It is taking up a slot. It is providing a function the weapon mount itself wouldn't normally have. Now what does it do?

my opinion, is that, basically, now you -do- have an ammo feed system on the mount, meaning you don't need one on the gun.(Exotic ammo like rocket ammo stull uses their own rules). But, more or less, this guy put it in words for me: