you ever try to mount an HMG on a Schwinn? much harder to do than a wand

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.

For barriers, Aug, 40, "Foot anchors cannot penetrate materials with a Barrier rating higher than 10 (most pavements have a Barrier rating of ." Since move pavement can support semis, or even a citymaster rolling around. I don't think that the basic armor built into all vehicles would have trouble supporting the weight of a motorcycle. Yes, it might scratch it up. I don't think they'd commonly be rolling over cars, just when they had do if they couldn't lanesplit.

Nothing you have quoted says that the windows are always armored. Vehicle armor functions like player armor. This means that for regular attacks, the armor rating applies to damage resistance. The does not mean, however, that every single inch of the armored entity is considered to have the same armor rating. Nothing you have quoted suggests this. If a runner has an armored jacket on, and is not wearing anything on his head, his head does not gain an armor rating of 8/6. While there are no actual hit location rules in Shadowrun, you're not telling me that if you tied an armor jacketed runner to the ground, and ran over only his head with a car, his head would get 6 impact armor, are you? Because that's what you're implying. I think, however, your quote goes directly against you. If a player puts on a PPP vitals protector and is otherwise naked, he is not considered to have a 1/1 armor rating everywhere. Because damage is abstract, if someone just did a regular attack on him, he'd get that armor rating. But they could do a called shot to bypass his armor with just a -1 penalty, since everywhere except his balls is unarmored and it's easy to not hit his balls. So too cars: they have an armor rating, and general attacks against them will be resisted with the armor rating. But this DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that the windows are armored. NOTHING you have quoted suggests that. The only place in RAW that talks about windows says that they might be vulnerable spots on a vehicle. As such, your argument that they are never vulnerable is FLAT OUT WRONG. You have advanced no arguments to support your assertion that windows are always as armored as the vehicle, you have just repeated your assertion. Your failure to set out any text that supports you reinforces the fact that there is none.

And I'm not sure where you're going with the quote about foot anchors. Are you saying that because a pavement with barrier rating 8 can support a semi, then a Shadowrruner with 16 armor (easily doable) can be run over by a semi without even needing to test whether he gets hurt? That is a non sequitur. And even if armor 8 did mean that, what about the Nissan Jackrabbit? It has an armor of 2. You're telling me that if rating 8 can be run over without being damaged, then so can armor 2, which is 4 times weaker. Another non sequitur.

Here's the thing: you can't prove your argument. The RAW contradicts you. Not every single car window in the whole world is as durable as an armor plate. Some vehicles might have windows that act like heavy duty armor. Some vehicles might not even have windows. Some vehicles might have external armor that you couldn't even scratch with a jackhammer. But some vehicles might just have an armored frame with plastic panels on the side that fall off if you kick them. Armor only has to do with damage which is strong enough to do physical boxes to the vehicle. If a vehicle got its windshield smashed, or its panels dented, it would not actually have boxes of damage, it would still drive just fine. A motorcycle driving on a car is not an attack, there is no body resistance, there is no chance for armor to come into play. An armored vehicle's insides will be perfectly fine, because at the very least its armored frame will protect its passengers and its working parts. But that says nothing, not one single word, about what happens to the outer chassis or the windows. You are arguing for a GM interpretation that ignores RAW and ignores common sense, and treats all cars like invincible tanks, even though most of them could probably be taken out with a single well aimed pistol shot under the SR4 ruleset. You cannot prevail on this point because your argument is fundamentally unreasonable. I agree that, say, an APC would laugh at a Revolution driving over its top. But there is no suggestion in the books that regular cars are built like APCs. The only thing we have is "they have armor." Where they have armor is up to the GM. And one thing for the GM to consider is the suggestion that some cars have windows as a vulnerable spot. As such, it is unreasonable to rule that all vehicles have all-over armor including their windows for all time forever. You're wrong, give it up.

SR4, 162, "Called shots against vehicles follow the same rules as for Called Shots, p. 149. 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 choose to call a shot to shoot out a window of a vehicle. It does not say the components do not get armor. Therefore, the components get armor as normal. This means that on EVERY vehicle, shooting at its window uses the full armor for the vehicle.

..ahh but that only works if the Schwinn is in that game which should not be mentioned as magic wands don't exist in SR (at least not without investing a tonne of Karma for a couple shots).

HMG? All you really need is a Gyromount and an Ares Alpha, then you have both bullets and grenades.

Again, this goes back to the abstract nature of armor. A person in an armored vest still gets armor when resisting damage. That doesn't mean you can only shoot them in the vest. It just means that if they're wearing armor, they're always considered to benefit form it, unless someone uses a called shot to bypass armor.

All in all, it is up to the GM to decide if windows are armored. It doesn't say they don't have armor. That's not what I'm arguing. That's your straw man. I'm arguing that they might not have armor, depending on the vehicle. Some will, some won't. Just like how some NPCs might have full body armor, and others will have armor covering only part of their bodies. The difference between the two is not whether they get to roll armor, it's whether their armor can be bypassed.

Regardless, I think the Jackrabbit shows that you're wrong about what would happen with a Revolution driving over cars. With an armor of 2, the Jackrabbit and similar vehicles will not be just fine after being run over. Some vehicles might be, but your ultralight subcompacts will be in big trouble.

Yes, the entirety of a character or vehicle gets the benefit of armor unless a called shot to bypass armor is used. Since calling a shot to a component of a vehicle is not calling a shot to bypass armor, the component gets the benefit of the armor. Therefore, the windows by RAW are in fact, armored.

I never used a jackrabbit as my example. And, its the only car with an armor rating that low. Which is funny, because it actually costs more than the honda spirit, the subcompact I used for my example, which has an armor of 6.

If I was driving a revolution in the manner I described, I'd be sure as hell not to be running over stuff that would get damaged by it.

I don't think that non-motor bikes really need to be added to the gear section any more than deodorant needs to be.

It serves a basic function: gets you from a point A to point B. Unlike a car or motorcycle, the amount of customization you can do with it is extremely limited. It provides no protection from...well, anything, and can't be used for much else than it's intended purpose: transportation. So, a GM can rule that a bike costs anywhere from 50-200 nuyen, and depending on how good the bike is, it can get you to any given place X% faster. It doesn't need a statline, street cost, or anything else that appears with a typical gear entry. It can be a useful tool, but so can a hammer. Doesn't mean it needs it's own entry in the book.

Edit:

RAW rarely captures the spirit of the rules, and even more rarely the fun of them. If you shoot a window, and it's not plated glass, it's not going to have armor.

Like Larme says, it really depends on the kind of vehicle in question. Simply saying "Oh, it has the same armor as the rest of the car due to a glitch in the rules!" kind if takes the fun out of things.

Besides, remember that one bug in the rules with the cybersmelling? It was a simple augmentation, 1000 nuyen a level, that added +1 perception dice for each level. It was meant to have three levels, like most augmentations of that type. But a glict in the wording left this out, meaning that by RAW, you could buy out as many levels of this at you wanted. I recall someone on these very forums talking about how THAT could be abused...



Don't always rely on RAW for your fun.

No, see, that's where your logic goes splat into a brick wall. Just because you roll armor doesn't mean every inch is armored. That would mean that an armor vest covers a runner's head. It doesn't. Do you get it, or do I need to be clearer?

1. I did not vote on the poll because I believe there are more important issues with SR4 than bikes.

2. I just have to share this.... during a recent run, an NPC showed up on a stolen 10 year old ork's bike.... the ork beat him up and stole his Scorpion.

3. Conceal doesn't make you invisible... people just may not notice you... just as a chameleon suit can be spotted (and recorded on camera) so to can someone protected by conceal.

4. Guard you prevent the situation.

5. Constantly summoning/binding spirits to help you make/protect you from idiotic decisions..... smart.... real smart.....
(In my games after the first time you pulled that stunt, ALL spirits would roll edge to resist summoning/binding....)

6. Some Corps may get footage of your stunt and decide to take you apart to see how it works (have fun with the "extractions")

Logically, you are shooting the window. For resisting the damage the window gets vehicle body + vehicle armor. Therefore, the window is armored.

It is a given that the window is being shot. It is also a given that the window gets to use the vehicles armor attribute for damage resistance. Therefore, the window is armored by RAW. Whether you think this should be the case or not is irrelevant, that is how RAW is.

Every inch does not necessarily have to be armored, correct. But that is represented by using the Called Shot to Bypass Armor rules, which this is not. Since you're not bypassing the armor, you are shooting it. (Shown by using the armor rating in the damage resistance.)