Full Version: Stun rounds vs vehicles
Something interesting came up in game play last night. A security dude mistakenly opened up on one of my drones with a weapon full of gel rounds. Is there any rules covering this? While it states somewhere that Body 0 vehicles are destroyed if they take any weapon damage what about Body 1 or 2? Especially flying ones it would seem that there might be some effect.
A quick and dirty answer, without knowing the exact situation would be, no effect.
I would probably add wound modifiers til the end of the round or something, just for the impact, but no actual damage.
I would probably add wound modifiers til the end of the round or something, just for the impact, but no actual damage.
Hmm... in canon, there doesn't seem to be an effect. I'd make you take a crash test, though, for a flying drone if the "damage" would have caused knockback (using the drone's body, etc).
It doesn't matter if you whack a car with a sword or a baseball bat, they're both going to do damage. The same is true of the various ammunition types; it doesn't matter if it's regular or gel rounds, they're still doing damage.
Though the amount of damage is going to be neglible in most cases due to the rules for standard weapons and vehicles, especially vehicles with armor. If you didn't have any armor on the vehicle... well, it was going to go down sooner or later on a run.
Though the amount of damage is going to be neglible in most cases due to the rules for standard weapons and vehicles, especially vehicles with armor. If you didn't have any armor on the vehicle... well, it was going to go down sooner or later on a run.
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| It doesn't matter if you whack a car with a sword or a baseball bat, they're both going to do damage. |
Gel rounds only do stun damage, though.
I'd say do the suggested knockback rules. Maybe damage on a really good roll.
Still I agree about kinetic energy. Also you could make some body test to see if sensors were hit or clogged with gel.
| QUOTE (TinkerGnome) | ||
Gel rounds only do stun damage, though. |
So do baseball bats. What's your point?
| QUOTE (TinkerGnome @ Dec 2 2003, 01:19 PM) | ||
Gel rounds only do stun damage, though. |
And where do you apply Stun damage when you've got no room on your stun monitor?
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) | ||||
So do baseball bats. What's your point? |
What are the rules for stun damage attacks to vehicles?
The Condition Monitor. It makes no distinction between Physical or Stun damage because both are equally effective against a vehicle. Vehicles are not humans; it doesn't matter if you're smashing them or puncturing them, they both have the same end effect. You'll also note that vehicles don't have different Ballistic/Impact ratings.
The condition is up to you to find a rule that states that Stun damage is ignored, not me to find one where it states that it's not.
The condition is up to you to find a rule that states that Stun damage is ignored, not me to find one where it states that it's not.
| QUOTE (Spookymonster @ Dec 2 2003, 01:31 PM) | ||||
And where do you apply Stun damage when you've got no room on your stun monitor? |
Eh? If you want to get technical:
| QUOTE (SR3 @ p145) |
| Vehicles do not take stun damage |
So nowhere.
I'd let a baseball bat or gel round destroy a body 0 drone but not much else. A crash test would probably be involved, too, for moving drones (that would have taken damage only).
[edit] To make that more sensical, if a vehicle/drone would have taken damage from the attack (had it not been stun) after applying body modifiers and armor and rolling damage resistance, I'd make it take a crash test. Generally, the only things you'll see hitting that category are body 2 or less vehicles and drones. Joe Troll would need a strength of 19 to even have a hope of making a citymaster budge, for instance (and even then, it'd be resisting 2L with its body dice). [/edit]
I stand corrected then.
I'll chime in with "no effect".
It might damage a glass lens or other vulnerable sub-part if they call a shot.
It might damage a glass lens or other vulnerable sub-part if they call a shot.
Also vehicles and drones do not suffer knockback, knockback specifically applies to characters.
You do not slide a vehicle a meter sideways by shooting it.
You do not slide a vehicle a meter sideways by shooting it.
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| The Condition Monitor. It makes no distinction between Physical or Stun damage because both are equally effective against a vehicle. Vehicles are not humans; it doesn't matter if you're smashing them or puncturing them, they both have the same end effect. You'll also note that vehicles don't have different Ballistic/Impact ratings. The condition is up to you to find a rule that states that Stun damage is ignored, not me to find one where it states that it's not. |
Actually, I was concurring with your argument, not TinkerGnome's. My point was that just because vehicles don't have stun monitors doesn't mean they ignore stun damage. Rather, the stun damage to a vehicle is treated just like overflow stun damage to a living creature, i.e., apply it to the physical monitor.
As to TinkerGnome's quote:
| QUOTE |
| Vehicles do not take stun damage |
I'd be interested in seeing what the rest of that paragraph has to say as well (don't have my books here with me at work, unfortunately
).
| QUOTE (BitBasher) |
| Also vehicles and drones do not suffer knockback, knockback specifically applies to characters. You do not slide a vehicle a meter sideways by shooting it. |
But if it's in the air, it'll move at least slightly. I think opening up on a small flying drone with a full-auto burst of gel rounds should be enough to knock it into a nearby wall or something. I wouldn't say it's out of the question, realism-wise.
| QUOTE (Spookymonster) | ||
I'd be interested in seeing what the rest of that paragraph has to say as well (don't have my books here with me at work, unfortunately ). |
It's not helpful, really, one way or another, but since you ask:
| QUOTE (SR3 @ p145) |
| Vehicle Damage Condition Monitors are used to track damage to vehicles, in the same way as tracking damage to characters. Vehicles do not take stun damage, so they have only a physical damage track (see the Vehicle Condition Monitor). Vehicle damage may be Light, Moderate, Serious, or Destroyed (equivalent to Deadly). Vehicles receive target number modifiers, Initiative penalties and Speed Rating reductions based on their damage status, as shown on the Vehicle Damage Modifiers Table. |
I do want to note that I'm not making an argument for crash tests in canon. It'd be a house rule.
It is still easy to interpret it the way I have in my games. Sure, they don't take stun damage because they have nothing to stun, but that doesn't mean Stun damage (notice the change in capitalization) doesn't affect it. The vehicle just takes it as regular damage.
But I understand others who might choose to ignore it. It's just how I prefer to see it.
But I understand others who might choose to ignore it. It's just how I prefer to see it.
Vehicles don't take stun damage at all. They ignore it completely. Rather oddly in my opinon.
I'd say if your car takes D stun from a gel round apply a L wound to the car.
A gel round would break a window or dent a panel, but it wouldn't penetrate the vheical and actually harm something important unless you had a gaping hole in the armor already
I'd say if your car takes D stun from a gel round apply a L wound to the car.
A gel round would break a window or dent a panel, but it wouldn't penetrate the vheical and actually harm something important unless you had a gaping hole in the armor already
Agreed. It's hard to bruise a car.
Which is why I'd probably not do real damage to a vehicle from stun rounds, but would likely call for a crash test in certain situations. Take a guy on a motorcycle that gets nailed with a gel round. Does the motorcycle break down (well, realisticly, it might, but probably not)? It's more likely that the guy on the motorcycle gets knocked to the side a bit as his vehicle takes the impact. The same thing for flying drones.
Thus the crash test to see if the sudden jerk sends them into a wall, etc.
Thus the crash test to see if the sudden jerk sends them into a wall, etc.
| QUOTE |
| Thus the crash test to see if the sudden jerk sends them into a wall, etc. |
The kinetic energy from that is negligable. It's roughly the same as the recoul felt by the person firing the gun. That's not a sudden jerk at all, especually to a drobe that probably weights a hundred kilos or so. That's like saying they should roll a crash test from the recoil of firing a heavy pistol on a weapon mount without any recoil comp.
| QUOTE (BitBasher) |
| The kinetic energy from that is negligable. It's roughly the same as the recoul felt by the person firing the gun. That's not a sudden jerk at all, especually to a drobe that probably weights a hundred kilos or so. |
Whereas a character that weighs a hundred kilos or so can potentially be knocked back several meters.
The way I see it...if you stage up a baseball bat or gel round shot high enough, you will do REAL damage anyway. So why worry about anything else. If the car takes physical, viola...if you didn't stage it up far enough, then the shot sucked...the bat didn't hit hard enough...etc.
Otherwise I would assume only cosmetic damage, that gel may be bad for paint, maybe a mirror knocked off, but nothing worth noting short of atmosphere.
Otherwise I would assume only cosmetic damage, that gel may be bad for paint, maybe a mirror knocked off, but nothing worth noting short of atmosphere.
Dende, in the staging you talk about, are you describing "overflow" from the stun condition monitor to the physical condition monitor, or some technique for staging beyond 10 boxes of Stun delivered in one attack?
| QUOTE |
| Zazen said: Whereas a character that weighs a hundred kilos or so can potentially be knocked back several meters. |
Not by canon. The only knockback there is from guns is no movement at all, move back one meter, or move back one meter and fall down. This represents the mental shock of being shot, and pain, not the actual imparted kinetic energy. That's approximately sumbling a step or so, or losing your balance and falling over backwards. That's it. The knockback is the same if it's from a hold out to a APM.
Uhm, no it's not. It's based directly upon the Power of the attack. A hold out is going to have a TN of 2, whereas a Panther Assault Cannon is going to have a Power of 9. If they were loaded with Gel Rounds, the Power would be 4 and 18 respectively, assuming the latter could use Gel Rounds for purposes of this example.
Unless you're talking about the effect, but that's just silly. The effect of a hold-out pistol's knockback isn't going to knock most people down. The effect of a PAC's knockback is going to knock most people down.
Unless you're talking about the effect, but that's just silly. The effect of a hold-out pistol's knockback isn't going to knock most people down. The effect of a PAC's knockback is going to knock most people down.
OK, simple solution. It only has one monitor, and it makes no difference between Stun and Physical. If you take a baseball bat to a car, what happens? Damage. If you take a gun to a car, what happens? Damage.
There you have it, even if it does stun, it still damages the same. Forget whether or not it does stun or physical and just apply the damage as-is.
There you have it, even if it does stun, it still damages the same. Forget whether or not it does stun or physical and just apply the damage as-is.
| QUOTE (tanka @ Dec 2 2003, 05:14 PM) |
| There you have it, even if it does stun, it still damages the same. Forget whether or not it does stun or physical and just apply the damage as-is. |
No, I'd have to say that they're vastly different kinds of damage. Fire a clip of handgun ammo into the hood of a car and take another car and get a big guy to hit it the same number of times with a baseball bat. Which did more damage to the vehicle's ability to move and function? Sure the baseball bat might have put in some serious dings and scraped off some paint, but does that actually impair the vehicle's ability to run and turn?
The baseball bat and the gun are not doing the same strength in damage.
If you can get a guy that can hit as hard as a bullet hits, then the answer would be that they do the same (Excepting piercing) amount as each other.
Edit: The average person with a baseball bat does 4M Stun. The average person with a gun does anywhere from 4L (Hold-out) to 10M (Heavy pistol).
If you can get a guy that can hit as hard as a bullet hits, then the answer would be that they do the same (Excepting piercing) amount as each other.
Edit: The average person with a baseball bat does 4M Stun. The average person with a gun does anywhere from 4L (Hold-out) to 10M (Heavy pistol).
Right. Give a sledge hammer to a troll (Strength 8, assuming it's a STR+1M Stun weapon) and let him go to town on the vehicle. Then give some schmoe with an equal skill level in Pistols a heavy pistol. In my opinion, they're going to do about the same amount of damage.
I'd just stage down the DL another level. 5S-Stun becomes 2L when hitting a unarmoured vehicle, but thats's just my houserule.
Doc, whta I was addressing is that no matter the weapon, the effects of knockdown are identical. One meter or not, and standing or not. The power of the weapon just increases the odds of it happening.
Which to me, suggests that it's more than a mental shock at getting hit. If it were purely mental and had nothing to do with the kinetic energy of the blast, Gel Rounds wouldn't double the target number. Sure, the designers decided against putting in a distance dependant upon the Power of attack (which I'm thankful for, as that could have gotten pretty silly in some circumstances I'm sure), the context behind what's happening is more than just a stunned stagger at being shot.
Although I follow Tinkergnome's quote from SR3 pg. 145, and rule in my games that stun damage does not affect vehicles, there is an even more bizarre situation that results, which hasn't been mentioned yet.
That Body 1 Armor 0 electrically powered drone gets to ignore taser jolts and smacks from stun batons.
That Body 1 Armor 0 electrically powered drone gets to ignore taser jolts and smacks from stun batons.
That's already covered under electricity-based attacks.
~J
~J
The point your missing is that it shouldn't need to be a rule -- taser jolts and stun batons only do Stun damage. So if Body 1, Armor 0 electrically-powered drones get to ignore it, it suggests that some other types don't. Thus, some other types suffer damage from Stun attacks (even if the damage isn't labeled as Stun on the condition monitor).
dende had a good point. if you stage the attack to D+2 stun, the vehicle will take an L wound. it's hard to do, but it should be hard to put a hole in a car with a round that's designed to not make holes.
and as far as 'knockdown' goes--don't drivers have to make crash tests, when their vehicles take damage?
and as far as 'knockdown' goes--don't drivers have to make crash tests, when their vehicles take damage?
Doc, tasers do stun damage and can have secondary effects from the jolt, as per combat manipulations. See the appropriate section on elemental effects.
edit: It's just that, against a vehicle, the secondary effect is the ONLY effect since the jolt isn't enough to physically damage the vehicle, but it may be enough to affect sensitive systems.
edit: It's just that, against a vehicle, the secondary effect is the ONLY effect since the jolt isn't enough to physically damage the vehicle, but it may be enough to affect sensitive systems.
"Vehicles do not take Stun damage, so they have only a physical damage track" is almost as clear as they could have possibly written it, guys. They lack the track for stun damage because they don't take stun damage, not because it automatically overflows into physical or any other such thing.
I understand the desire to let vehicles, especially small ones, get banged up by baseball bats and big metal poles. Just let them do physical on-the-fly when you feel it makes sense. Creating a weird new interpretation that lets Bruce Lee destroy a car with two or three jabs is not an elegant solution.
I understand the desire to let vehicles, especially small ones, get banged up by baseball bats and big metal poles. Just let them do physical on-the-fly when you feel it makes sense. Creating a weird new interpretation that lets Bruce Lee destroy a car with two or three jabs is not an elegant solution.
no kidding. the vehicle damage rules are hinky enough as-is.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| That's already covered under electricity-based attacks. |
I've been looking for those rules for a reason unrelated to this thread, but I've forgotten where they are and I can't seem to find them. Wanna help me out with a page number?
Uhm, no it's not. As I said before, it can easily be read to be saying "Vehicles do not take Stun damage, so any damage they take is considered Physical damage on their one and only track." Stun is a biological type of damage, but that in no way makes vehicles immune to bludgeoning attacks.
According to you guys, if an unarmored Body 0 rotodrone were to come by, you couldn't hurt it by bashing the $#*@ out of it with a bat... and that's just ludicrious.
According to you guys, if an unarmored Body 0 rotodrone were to come by, you couldn't hurt it by bashing the $#*@ out of it with a bat... and that's just ludicrious.
so is totally destroying a car with a burst of gel rounds, doc.
That one's a matter of opinion. I still have little problem with it.
so is totally destroying a car with a burst of gel rounds, doc. besides which, we're arguing that you can-- you just have to rack up 8 successes in one roll to do it.
edit: ack, bug. and, yes, that's a matter of opinion. if you're of the opinion that a round which is designed to not puncture human skin can suddenly blow through a steel car body and take out the engine, that's your opinion. it's so inane it's cross-eyed, but it's an opinion.
edit: ack, bug. and, yes, that's a matter of opinion. if you're of the opinion that a round which is designed to not puncture human skin can suddenly blow through a steel car body and take out the engine, that's your opinion. it's so inane it's cross-eyed, but it's an opinion.
I'd rather have one or two bizarre situations occur because of a sensible rule (which can be found in just about any rule in the game) than not have a rule which results in even more ridiculous situations. The logic being used with the vehicles is the same for any inanimate object; if a vehicle can't be destroyed by a sledge hammer or baseball bat, why should anything else?
The reference that comes immediately to mind is Magic in the Shadows page 52, but it's not applicable in this circumstance. Looking for non-spellslinging reference...
Rigger 3 page 101 has the Zapper Strip, and page 27 has the notes for electrical effects on riggers.
~J
Rigger 3 page 101 has the Zapper Strip, and page 27 has the notes for electrical effects on riggers.
~J
doc, a vehicle can be destroyed by a baseball bat. that body 0 drone? with a little luck, a lucky guy with 4 skill in clubs could take it down in one hit: 4 skill +4 cp vs TN 3 (reach), and the rotodrone doesn't get to dodge or counter. come up all successes, and it's down.
contrary to popular belief, it's hard as hell to destroy a car with a sledgehammer. bust up the windows? dent the body? maybe bend the rims? sure. but when you're done, the car will still turn over and go when you hit the gas.
contrary to popular belief, it's hard as hell to destroy a car with a sledgehammer. bust up the windows? dent the body? maybe bend the rims? sure. but when you're done, the car will still turn over and go when you hit the gas.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.