No, you see, you haven't argued. You have restrated your conclusion that armor = reinforcement without saying why. If armor = reinforcement, then normal glass is considered reinforced too because it has an armor rating. Your entire argument is that armor is armor, because that's what armor means. I have shown you, however, that the word Armor in Shadowrun refers to things that are not armor at all, like in Barrier ratings. Barriers have Armor, but that doesn't mean they've all been reinforced with military grade armor. So too, a cheap consumer subcompact.

You're also ignoring other parts of RAW, like how a called shot can bypass a vehicle's armor by targetting windows and such. Now, it's up to the GM to decide what vehicles have armored windows (or any windows at all) and what vehicles don't. But if you say that even an Americar lacks non-armored windows, then not a single vehicle in the game has its windows as a weak point. I know they said GM discretion, but they gave windows as an example. They clearly intended that at least some cars would have unarmored windows, otherwise that wouldn't have been listed as an example. And if there's a car that should logically have unarmored windows, it's definitely a cheapass subcombact. You don't get to have your Jackrabbit act like a miniature tank, keeping you safe from gunfire in bad neighborhoods. Why not? Because you did not pay enough money for that. Even though the 2070s are dangerous, consumer cars are not like tanks. Most wageslaves drive around their whole lives without being anywhere near flying bullets, they don't need tank vechiles, they don't want them, and they don't pay for them. If we were talking about a Citymaster, or even a cop car, I'd agree with you. But to say that even a basic subcompact can get run over by a motorcycle without superficial damage is just beyond the pale.

Most cars nowadays are actually really weak when it comes to little things: leaning against it, bumping into it, etc. The sheetmetal is very thin, and the chassis is only really strong in the load bearing members. This means that modern cars are like paper when shooting bullets through.

Whether or not cars should have Armor is up to discretion, but I do believe in the case of vehicles, that armor = armor put there to stop bullets. They have a Body rating, not a Structure rating (structure = armor), so any armor that they have is intended. Again, most cars probably shouldn't have Armor (depending on your view of firearm proliferation), but most of the cars we can buy (BBB and Arsenal) come equipped with such.

SR4, 158, "Vehicle armor functions just like character armor, and is used for the vehicle’s damage resistance tests. Vehicle armor is the same rating against both ballistic and impact attacks."
Arsenal, 133, "Note that the rating of the armor upgrade is not cumulative with the basic armor value that most off -the-rack vehicles are already equipped with. Instead, the modification assumes that the original armor is being stripped and replaced with the new armor."

Seems to back up that the armor rating included in vehicles stats is in fact, armor that comes with it from the factory.

As nathaross said, glass follows barrier rules, and the meanings of its armor and structure ratings are different than that as for armor for characters and vehicles.

That's all well and good. But again, what about the windows? You can't tell me that, even though the book gives windows as an example of where you could shoot a vehicle to bypass its armor, no vehicle actually has normal glass windows, can you? At the very least, if you drive over an Americar with a Revolution, you are going to crack the windshield, if not shatter it. Even if I accept that ordinary 2070s cars have armored bodies that can withstand hundreds of pounds screaming across their tops without even a scratch or a dent, you haven't presented anything to me that says "if there is armor on the vehicle, it covers every inch of the vehicle and it is totally invulnerable."

Or at least pop out because their made of clear densiplast or something.

I'm just curious, but where does it give an example of shooting the windows as a way to avoid vehicle armor? Because as far as I can tell, even attacks against passengers (which would likely be shooting through windows) get the benefit of the vehicles armor. SR4, 162.

Well I would say that it's a situation that falls under the overarcing "Don't be dumb" rule that is clearly stated repeatedly throughout the books...

But if you absolutely have to have a RAW pg number...
BBB pg. 162 "Called Shots on Vehicles"

which in turn references us to:
BBB pg. 149 "Called Shots"
"Calling a shot means that the character is aiming at a vulnerable portion of a target, such as a person's head, the tires or windows of a vehicle, and so on." (Emphasis added) One of the effects a player/gamemaster can choose is:
"Target area is not protected by armor."

In your favor the amount of armor on a vehicle counts as a negative DP modifier. However, if a player makes the attack anyways he gets to completely ignore armor and the target rolls only body. Showing, relatively conclusively I think, that armor and body/structural integrity are seperate beasts.

Instead of referencing the called shot example, why don't you read the rest of the paragraph on p. 162? "A third option, however, is available to the
attacker if the called shot succeeds. The attacker can choose to target and destroy any specific component of the vehicle: window, sensor, tire, etc. The gamemaster determines the exact effect of this called shot, based on the DV inflicted. In most cases, the component will simply be destroyed. Shot-out tires inflict a –2 dice pool modifier per flat tire to Vehicle Tests."

You can do a called shot to shoot out a window. It is its own seperate option, that is not in the "Target area not protected by armor". The GM can decide what can happen if you call a shot to shoot out a window, and do some actual DV to it. Note: Calling a shot to shoot out a window (or a tire) does not make it so the vehicle does not get its armor rating. Shooting a window includes the full armor rating of the vehicle. So, yes, you can call a shot to a window to destroy it, but no, it doesn't remove the armor rating.

Maybe the vehicle's Armor rating could be called Immunity to Normal Weapons instead.

*mind boggles*

Wait a second did I read your question right?

No.. No i'm pretty sure I answered your question here indeed is an example of shooting the windows as a way to avoid vehicle armor.

Well... wow, I really had no idea that you actually thought windows should get the same armor rating as an engine block.

I'd also like to point out that any line that starts out "However, another option" means that it's... another option. If option A (use called shot rules which clearly enumerate shooting a window to bypass armor) doesn't work for your table, for whatever reason, you can use option B (every square inch of your vehicle has it's FULL armor applied to it... at all times).
That would be an appropriate ruling for say... a tank that's meant to soak troll bows but I'm not sure how that applies to a vehicle that has (even when doubled) less armor than a well appointed runner.

I asked that before you posted. Don't quote me out of timeline to attempt to insult my intelligence.



Option A does not specify that shooting a window is bypassing armor. Called shots say that an example of a called shot is shooting a window. There is a called shot to shoot a window. There is a called shot to bypass armor. Calling a shot to bypass armor doesn't mean that a window definitively is or is not it. Calling a shot to shoot a component (window) means that a window is shot. Thusly, there is an example of windows getting the vehicle armor when shot, as it is armored.

You're free to describe the fluff of bypassing armor however you want. They can shoot it up the tailpipe or anything else. It doesn't say "calling a shot to bypass vehicle armor is shooting the windows". Why? Because if you should call a shot to bypass vehicle armor, you are shooting at the vehicle itself, not the passengers. Most likely you're shooting at a small gap between where the hood and the bumper meet. Since you're shooting to damage the vehicle.

If you are shooting at the passengers, then its an attack against the passengers, which follows the regular combat rules.

Well if that's how you read it that's how you read it. I originally thought you just hadn't read the relevant portions but I guess you've spent a good long time coming to this conclusion and I highly doubt I'm going to sway you.

Good luck with that.

I just don't understand how you can say that the examples given for ALL possible called shots, MUST mean that windows are an unarmored part of a car.

Nobody is saying that. We're saying that a called shot to bypass armor, as specifically stated in RAW, CAN mean targetting the windows. It doesn't have to. Heavily armored vehicles will either lack windows, or will have hardened desiplast windows or something, so it certainly wouldn't work on a Citymaster, as the devs have expressed in refuting the whole knifing a citymaster debacle.

What you're telling us is that because a vehicle has armor, its windows MUST be armored to the same extent as the rest of it. What the RAW says contradicts you. While it's up to the GM to say whether the windows are considered a weak point, there is no rational suggestion that low budget civilian cars have armored windows. If they did, that would go against RAW, which suggests that at least some cars will have unarmored windows. My common sense tells me that those cars will be the lower budget ones that are not meant for combat, but rather for commuting back and forth to a dull wageslave job in a safe part of town. If you can present a rational basis for a GM ruling otherwise, I'd be willing to listen.

Larme, you're incorrect. A called shot is stated in RAW as possibly specifically targetting the windows. It is NOT exclusive to avoiding armor. SR4, 149 states, "Characters may “call shots� in an attempt to increase the damage their weapons will do. Calling a shot means that the character is aiming at a vulnerable portion of a target, such as a person’s head, the tires or windows of a vehicle, and so on."

The section that describes avoiding armor states, "Target an area not protected by armor. The attacking character receives a negative dice pool modifier equal to the target’s armor (better armor is more difficult to bypass). If the attack hits, the target’s armor is ignored for the damage resistance test; the target rolls only Body."

And says nothing about windows, or any other specific areas.

This makes your assertion that the text about where called shots might hit, does not make it exclusive to avoiding armor anymore than it is exclusive to targeting a vital area to increase damage. The window example is an example of some kind of called shot. By reading the vehicle called shot rules on page 162, it specifically grants the option to target and destroy a component of a vehicle. SR4, 162, "The attacker can choose to target and destroy any specific component of the vehicle: window, sensor, tire, etc." Since there is no mention of the windows or tires not getting the armor rating, the armor rating applies. And should apply anytime the windows or tires are shot at. Since you can't combine called shots (i.e. call a shot to hit the window while bypassing armor) then you can't shoot a vehicles window and not have it use the vehicles armor.

Maybe I'm technically incorrect, but my point is as valid as ever. It specifically states that windows might be vulnerable parts of a vehicle. If all windows were armored, that would be wrong. A vulnerable spot requires some part to be weaker than another part, like the head of a guy not wearing a helmet, or the windows of a vehicle with unarmored windows. I think the called shot rules clearly indicate that sometimes, windows are less durable than the rest of the vehicle. This would make most sense when applied to normal civilian cars.

Keep in mind we're not talking about doing boxes of damage to a vehicle. We're talking about rolling over it with a heavy object, for which there are no rules. Because no actual damage is being done, no armor rating is used. We're talking about pure, simple, flavor effects.

Are you trying to tell us that a guy in a Revolution should be able to go "vroom, vroom, whee!" over the tops of cars in traffic, and nothing bad would happen, and it would be a magic fantasy world? That doesn't sound like a plausible result. As I see it, the Revolution would leave tread marks, dents, cracked and shattered windshields and headlights, it would knock off hood ornaments. People would honk and yell and call the cops. The cops would show up and arrest the Revolution driver. If you want to play it where Revolutions are magical weightless vehicles that can drive on anything they want to, go ahead. But you're all alone in thinking that.

Funny, that quote you seemed to love so much about the vulnerable parts of a vehicle says, "Characters may call shots in an attempt to increase the damage their weapons will do."
Seems like your quote that specifies that windows are vulnerable is talking about doing more damage.


Sure, and the flavor text used in the description of the Revolution is that gangers prefer it for playing chicken with each other, because they can just roll over the other car. AFAIK I don't think it'd gain popularity as a chicken vehicle if everytime you won you effectively skunk striped their vehicle.



I've said it could scratch paint, and break things like antennaes and hood ornaments, yes. I still disagree that it would dent armored panels or break/spider armored glass.

People would still honk and yell and call the cops if only because that guy is moving faster than they are and they don't like it. As this discussion started with, they'd be faster than a bicycle attempting to match them in speed, regardless of the traffic density. I think that point still stands.

no one is arguing that it's slower. they're arguing that it's not a valid method of delivering messages because you *will* be damaging vehicles (and believe me, the second you touch someone's car that has taken so much as the tiniest scratch they will come after you screaming for blood, and given how many we're talking about this is going to involve an old-fashioned pitchfork-and-torches mob. even if the revolution somehow does magically manage to roll over a vehicle with what is probably 600+ pounds minimum weight including rider and not leave a mark, if the car had previously even been scratched, you are probably now going to get sued for a new paint job)

and honestly, you think the gangers playing chicken are going to care about cosmetic damage to the *other* vehicle?

Assuming the other vehicle is someone in their gang, then yes.

As far as the window debate, I just watched far more monster truck videos than I'd like to. But it seems that the majority of the time when the windows get smashed, its because the truck's wheels are jumped into the air and smash down with the full weight of the truck. When the truck merely drives up onto the car, the windows stay intact.

2 examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQg3eMb0QKU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X369GHl2RE

Notice how all the windows on both stay intact, even though a monster truck (quick googling say they generally weight 10,000lbs+) sat on them. I think that settles the cracking of windows debate.

As far as the panels, since you've agreed the panels are armored no matter what, I'm pretty sure that it can be settled that the reinforced armored panels would likely not not even dent. So, we're back to what I said, some minor paint scratches (arguable due to the smart wheels) and breakage of things like antennae and hood ornaments.

i guess that depends on their relative standing in the gang. if the opponent is higher up, then yes. otherwise, highly unlikely...

another factor is how said act of chicken will affect ones own standing in the gang...

i would say that a study of a group of primates are also representative for a gang. hell, i may even scale up as high as how nations interact...

I don't get it. If part of the vehicle is "vulnerable," doesn't that mean it's easier to damage? That would imply either a) it houses critical systems which, if hit, will majorly hurt the car, or b) it is less reinforced than the rest of the car. For people, it will usually be a. Even if they wear helmets, peoples' heads house an important vital organ, so called shots to the head can increase damage. But for a vehicle's windows, that is not the case. There are no critical systems in windows. Why, then, would it be easier to damage the vehicle when shooting the windows? It must be b) they are less reinforced than the rest of the vehicle. I shoot the window, and the bullet goes through the window and hopefully into the engine block, bypassing the car's stronger chassis armor.

The point is, the book says EXPLICITLY that on some vehicles, windows are a weak point. Your response is "nuh uh!" And your whole argument is based on the word "armor." If an armored vehicle has no weak points simply because it has armor, then that must mean that an armored player has no weak points simply because he's wearing armor. Neither is the case. Neither is supported by RAW. You COULD have a car with reinforced windows that could withstand a motorcycle going over them. That's a GM call. But to have every single consumer car, no matter how cheap and shitty, have a virtually unbreakable windshield? No, I don't think so. I think there are some vehicles that could shrug off more than a Revolution without even a scratch. But that durability is not universal, otherwise they wouldn't specifically tell us that windows might be a vulnerable point.

Monster trucks, which are built specifically to be run over, do not take damage when run over. Therefore, a Nissan Jackrabbit does not take damage when run over.

Are you familiar with the term non sequitur?

Behind the windows is usually a driver, which could be considered a "critical system". It is usually much more productive to shoot the driver than try to preferate the car enough to destroy it. If you are purely trying to damage the vehicle (ie, a remote operated car), shooting the windows would grant minimal benefit as you will likely have bypassed the majority of the armor at an angle ideal for the bullet exiting the vehicle without striking any vital systems.


... Monster Trucks are designed to run over other things, not to be run over. No Monster Trucks were run over in either video.

That van suffered, what looked like some rather cosmetic damage. One ruptured tire, two blown windows and some damage to the side panelling but was obviously able to drive. As for your, remark about the Jackrabbit, assuming that Jackrabbit was made of the same base materials and had the same underlying design principles, it probably would have held up as well or better than that van. The problem, is that to allow for the Jackrabbit's price tag, the materials are poorer.

Physics, as you've already begun to point out also impacts exactly how the Revolution would effect the car it is coming into contact with. You will not be hopping any semis or their trailers, and seeing as how Seattle denizens trust rail about as much as Americans do today, your traffic hopping days aren't going to be as easy as you once thought. Plus, If you are driving on any main highway with a registered vehicle, chances are good that a Lone Star drone would see you commit the multiple accounts of property damage. With a registered vehicle, that means that the star automatically has a bead on you for either a high speed chase or (if you have a SIN) they will just simply deduct the cost of damage from your accounts. Of course, you could always drive with an unregistered vehicle. But as far as I know, the Star considers that grand theft auto.

The fact that bikes are being overlooked makes me quite happy. After all, what's the best way to avoid attention? Looking like a complete dork. People don't want to pay attention to the asshole on the bike. And in 2070, the age of high tech transports, who is going to geek you for your Schwinn? Fine, say your GM wants to teach you a lesson about not having a cool car. Take Area Knowledge at 5 and you won't ever see the bad parts of town because you know where they are.

I believe the Inline Skates were stolen from Diamond Age, not Snow Crash

Again, I'll point out that the average weight of a monster truck is around 10,000lbs. While a bike is closer to 5-800lbs. Considering how little damage the van/car takes from a MONSTER truck, which weights closer to 20times that of a motorcycle, I can believe that a motorcycle would end up doing relatively little damage to a car.

I'm done dealing with Larme on this. Obviously he doesn't take the time to read my posts, much less check the links I provided.

in the age of nanotech, how reasonable would it be to expect small dents and similar be fixed while the vehicle is parked somewhere by the nanites embedded in the surface of the vehicle?

and for older vehicles, cans of stray on dent remover

Sorry, if you're dealing with me, you'll have to use relevant data to prove things. The idea is that Nissan Jackrabbits are small and cheap. It does not matter what a sturdy car in a video can do, because we're talking about the functional equivalent to a Smart Car. Ever seen one of those run over?

The deal is this: I am arguing something simple and common-sense and flavor based. The windows of your cheaper cars in Shadowrun aren't always armored and near impossible to shatter with a fully loaded motorcycle driving on them. Your position is a lot harder to support. You're trying to argue something categorical: that they are always, from the cheapest model up, so armored that you couldn't even effect them. You're basing that on one word, "armor," and nothing else. You are extrapolating the word "armor" to mean "armored from the ground up like a military vehicle." Whereas an example provided in the RAW indicates that windows might actually be a weak point, i.e. it contradicts you. It is difficult to make an unreasonable, categorical argument which offends common sense and contradicts the RAW, which is probably why you have failed to convince me

a monster truck may weigh many times more than a motorcycle, but the weight of said monster truck is also far more spread out than a motorcycle's (just look at the difference in the size of the wheels).

much like you can walk over snow while in showshoes and not leave as significant of an impact in the snow as you would have if you just wore boots, the monster truck is (iirc) designed to spread out it's weight as much as possible.

As a mechanic who has worked on Smart Fortwo's, I can vouch for their lack of Armor or any real reinforcement. It has next to no crumple zone in the front, and and 3-cyl almost right behind you. The body panels are a cheap plastic and the frame is thin.

Now, there is also the issue that it is only ~6ft long and steep front and back. It would be tough to get a motorcycle onto the roof of this thing, and it is no doubt that it would crumple in the roof and probably shatter the glass.

The problem with SR vehicles is that they all have "Armor", which they would not have in the real world. Because they do have armor it means they have been built with reinforcement of some kind. The level of that really depends on how Armored the car is. Who are we to say what cars are going to be made of in 60 years?

Also, the called shot rule to bypass armor by shooting through the window is stupid, so just ignore it.

One last time. Called shot uses shooting out windows as an example of a kind of called shot. It does not specify which kind.

Valid called shots:
Bypass Armor
+1 - +4 DV
Disarm
GM effect
Component of a vehicle

I think everyone can agree that since shooting out a component of a vehicle specifically mentions shooting out a window, that the example of shooting a window out for a called shot is most likely referring to the example in which they use it again. Not to the bypassing armor issue.

And again, when you make a called shot to shoot out a window, IT GETS THE VEHICLE'S ARMOR.

With a called shot to bypass armor, you take a penalty based on the rating of the armor you're trying to bypass, right? So if you want to bypass a whole lot of vehicle armor, it's very difficult, which would mean something like not so much shooting the window (a fairly large target) but the open part of the window (if there is one) or some sort of weird weak spot that most people wouldn't even know about. Like the door handle from a certain angle, or something crazy like that, provided the GM even allows an armor-bypassing shot in that circumstance. But really, a car window is around the size of a human torso, innit.

Please see this thread, where I have made a fairly complete response to what you're arguing. Here, all I will say is that you're getting confused by the abstract nature of Shadowrun armor. Let's say I wear an armored vest. If someone shoots me without making a called shot, I always roll my armor. Does this mean that armor vest are bullet magnets, and that nobody can shoot my arm or my head because I'm wearing the vest? No. Does it mean that because my torso has armor, my head is covered by the same armor? No. Having armor is not the same as being covered from head to toe. So too, having an armored vehicle is not the same as having a vehicle with no unarmored vunlerable places. As you have often said, vehicle armor works like player armor, and that means that while you always roll it against normal attacks, it is not automatically assumed to cover every inch.

Since the "Called Shot" rules are left up to GM fiat, me if you wish to shoot out a window in a vehicle, the window gets the vehicles armor. If you wish to do a called shot someone inside the vehicle, only if there is a breach in the vehicles armor(ie window down, door open etc) and can "See" the target yes.

But in SR4 most vehicles would or do have extreme levels of window tint, or polarization, so seeing if anyone is inside can be interesting. And yes there are tints/polarizations that restrict/inhibit IR too.

A fully rigged vehicle has no need for windows, so such a vehicle would have no windows to shoot out.

WMS

What you're saying, Wearz, is "this is how I run it," which is cool. I think the book tells us that some vehicles would have unarmored windows. But then again, armor is totally abstract. You might add the vehicle's armor to the passenger's armor just because it says so, whether or not there are armored windows or not. I don't think it makes sense to say that all rigged vehicles have no windows; more like all rigged vehicles driven by someone who is concerned with security have no windows. I don't think it's automatic, though it is reasonable for the GM to make that call.

Regardless, even if every inch of a vehicle is covered by armor, some vehicles are just too lightly armored to matter. The Jackrabbit, with its armor of 2, is going to go "crunch!" when you drive on top of it. After all, armor of 2 is what regular, non-reinforced glass has. And regular glass is not motorcycle proof.

As a player and GM of the Phoenix Command System with all it books, armor abstract is what most players and GM's want.

Yes sometimes unusual things occur/happen, but that can be dealt with on a case by case basis.

To me this is like the old Vatican discussion/agreements of "How Many Angels Can Dance On The Head Of a Pin". Entertaining at times but tedious also. We each have our own POV, and nothing is "Canon" per say in this current discussion, due to the Devs/Freelancers have better things to do than get bogged down in such discussions.

WMS

what the argument about rolling over a vehicle with a monocycle really boils down to is impact of a vehicle on other objects. SR3 had really complex rules for this, using examples like riding a motorcycle through a glass door. SR4 unfortunately completely simplified these rules to the point of not having them.