Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Simple Weapons
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Kerenshara
I was reflecting recently on some of the things I miss from older editions of the game, and a couple comments in other threads convinced me to post this as a separate thread. Here's my question:

Is there more details you'd like about the weapons (and/or gear) in the Shadowrun 4(A) rules?

For myself, there are two items:

I miss the differential concealability modifiers, one pistol being just a bit more concealable, more maneuverable. Bullpup rifles having a slight advantage. That sort of thing.

I would like more definitive reliability information, especially with the emergency of the glitch and the critical glitch. Those kinds of considerations always drew my attention whenever I saw them in a game, and it's not a lot of extra stuff to keep track of, right?

I am sure there are other things people would love to bring up, but those are my two. Have at it, but try to play nice!
kzt
There way too many guns in SR. At the level of abstraction that the SR developers claim to be trying to achieve there should be one gun per type. And they should probably merge the light pistol and the heavy pistol, because that never did make any sense outside the game, and who the hell ever picks a light pistol as the gun they have?

And truthfully, the differences between guns in the real world is lot LESS than the differences between guns in SR. Mostly I get the feeling that whoever writes the rules doesn't actually play, so they don't actually realize that most of the guns they include are so greatly outclassed by a few models that only a total idiot would actually choose any of the rest.
KCKitsune
QUOTE (kzt @ Jun 18 2009, 01:23 AM) *
There way too many guns in SR. At the level of abstraction that the SR developers claim to be trying to achieve there should be one gun per type. And they should probably merge the light pistol and the heavy pistol, because that never did make any sense outside the game, and who the hell ever picks a light pistol as the gun they have?


The reasons to carry a light pistol are:
  1. Cost
  2. Concealment
  3. Availablity
Meatbag
QUOTE (kzt @ Jun 18 2009, 05:23 AM) *
And truthfully, the differences between guns in the real world is lot LESS than the differences between guns in SR.



You're serious, aren't you?


Oh hell...

You mean to tell me that, based on the pictures provided, the Colt Manhunter is just as easily concealable as the Ruger Super Warhawk? Or that all double-taps from all arms should generate comparable recoil? This is what SR's doing now.

This is an SMG in 4.6x30mm

This is an SMG in 9x19mm

Do you consider these weapons even roughly "alike"? I don't. They'll both ruin your day, but one does it harder, the other does it sneakier.

I think SR4 does a reasonable job, hence my vote, but if anything? They aren't different *enough* to even vaguely approach reality.

That's fine, because I'm not really looking for realism in a game about freelance mercenaries raiding monolithic corporations in the magical cyberpunk future, but let's not bring up "guns in the real world" here.
tsuyoshikentsu
Because I really want to see a page per gun when Catalyst can publish things I actually care about. A blurb and a pic's perfect; some things about the older rules should stay dead and buried.
kzt
QUOTE (Meatbag @ Jun 18 2009, 12:06 AM) *
Do you consider these weapons even roughly "alike"? I don't. They'll both ruin your day, but one does it harder, the other does it sneakier.

Given how SR assumes that pistols=rifles, yes, in SR they should be the same.

They say they want an abstract game system in which wearing a bullet proof vest = lots of armor everywhere on your body and pistols do as much damage as assault rifles, they should stick with that level of abstraction everywhere. No more of the "But as the Ares Mk19 has special sauce so it has + 1 to damage and -1AP".
Knight Saber
I think there's just the right level now... there are some light pistols with heavy ranges, or heavy ones with light ranges (and better concealability), different firing modes, special silener, etc. I missed the concealability ratings at first... put a Browning Ultra-Power in a Concealed Holster under your Lined Coat for a conceal. of 14 and walk into the White House with it... smile.gif I can still get a Secura Kompact if I want a smaller heavy pistol though.

Streamlining things to the current level makes the game faster and easier, and this from someone who started with SR1.

I'm very glad that they abstract calibers and the like. There's no consensus about how effective one type of bullet or gun is versus another and the people who are passionate about it will discuss it to death. That doesn't contribute to the value of play, where the important thing about your gun is "Is it to the Johnson's head?" or "Is it running low on ammo as the corpsec team comes through the door?"
Zormal
I like the current level of abstraction. More categories would just be confusing. I *really* like the fact that there are 'speciality' weapons with bonuses, like Morrissey Elite with its -1 Concealability.

I'd even like a bit more of those speciality weapons, though I'm not sure if that's just the player's desire for new cool things in me.
Bob Lord of Evil
QUOTE (Knight Saber @ Jun 18 2009, 09:24 AM) *
That doesn't contribute to the value of play, where the important thing about your gun is "Is it to the Johnson's head?" or "Is it running low on ammo as the corpsec team comes through the door?"


Now that is funny! grinbig.gif

I should point out, that IMO, I like the extra detail but it doesn't cause me any consternation that it isn't included. There is enough ballistics data available that I went ahead and created a little manual for SR 3rd covering the various firearms and the calibers (i.e. damage and ammo capacity) that they come in.
BullZeye
I wouldn't mind reading bit more about the guns or having bit more variety on the weapon stats, but to keep things simple, it's cool. What's bit odd is that every gun in the same category has almost the same damage, even though there's huge differences on guns and their size/power. I would like to see more powerful but small guns, like those really short barreled revolvers that one can see in movies in woman's handbags biggrin.gif
Dr. Dodge
I definitely like the abstraction, if one gun has better stats in the same class (concealability comes to mind) it leaves you scratching your head why anybody would take something else, other than to be contrarian (PB120??? my guy uses a light fire!! WEEEE! [hopefully those dont have the same SR3 stats, but you get the idea]). The big problem i had before was heavy pistols with the equivalent concealability of light pistols in previous editions, like the ultra power. That and the others like it made light pistols pretty much obsolete and a waste of space because nobody ever bothered to buy one. The new blanket concealability made me very happy. Obviously the stats arent the same for every individual gun, but the more generalized way they have it now is good to me.

honestly i would be happy if they all had the same stats, and we just have a bunch of pictures for different individual guns.
Warlordtheft
I miss the gun creation from cannon companion (made the tommy gun and m1 garand stats for a 2058 Sanfransico campaign).
They were alot of fun to use. But I think in arsenal, with the mod rules there, you can do pretty much the same thing. Alot of it starts out with a basic design (AK-97 for example), mod it's stats using the rules, and call it something else.

As for more detail-I would have liked more basic design to start from with different advantages and disadvantages. All properly balanced. I was also not sure why, in the rules the gas vent's, and smartlinks and such don't count toward the modification limit.
Mx
I voted for blueprints, but only becouse those would be cool.

I'm fine with the current level of detail, i would like few more weapon types and generally more different weapons, especially melee weapons.
DuctShuiTengu
I like the way SR4 does it.

For the most part, weapons of one category are about equal with each-other outside of what modifications they have (and how much ammo they carry). And then you get the slightly odd weapons within the various categories (shotgun pistols, high-velocity SMGs and Assault Rifles, and the various light and heavy pistols that play with the trade-off between range, damage, and concealability). That said, I do occasionally wish that there were a little less random variation in the cost (the Colt M23 is half-again the cost of the AK-98 and has 1 higher availability with the only difference in stats being a clip that holds two more rounds).

It's not necessarily accurate, but it provides a reasonable level of simplicity and balance between the different firearms, with preference based on style and the desire to get the set of features you want, rather than ending up with only one SMG that anyone uses because it's always going to outperform the other 20.

Edit to Add: There's a part of me that would like a bit more "fluff" information on the various weapons - though more-so with the other gear - but having read through arsenal, there's not really anything in there that I'd be willing to see cut to make room for it (with the possible exception of some of the armored clothing, I could easily have done a few less versions of the armored business suit (throw in a brief blurb that X company produces something similar in Y style and move on)). Extra fluff would have been nice, but I either don't know enough to really miss what isn't there, or I do know enough to fill it in myself, depending on the category of gear.
suppenhuhn
I like the way they did the guns but would prefer some kind of display akin to the old street samurai catalogue.
Zombayz
I'm a weapons nut. I can field strip a Lee-Enfield, M1 Garand, SVT-40, and a pile of other things by memory. I also realize that SR can stat out the nitpicky bits, like the diference between a round of 7.62x51mm and 7.62x54r.

Still, blueprints please.
paws2sky
QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Jun 17 2009, 11:24 PM) *
Is there more details you'd like about the weapons (and/or gear) in the Shadowrun 4(A) rules?

I'd like to see some examples of "comparable models" like they did for vehicles in Arsenal.

I'd have preferred a more free form version of the modding rules from Arsenal, but I can live with that system.

QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Jun 17 2009, 11:24 PM) *
I miss the differential concealability modifiers, one pistol being just a bit more concealable, more maneuverable. Bullpup rifles having a slight advantage. That sort of thing.

Oh yeah, I definitely miss the old concealability rules.

The new ones could be workable, but I think the did it assbackwards. IMO, the more concealable a weapon, the bigger bonus your should get to your Palming roll.

QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Jun 17 2009, 11:24 PM) *
I would like more definitive reliability information, especially with the emergency of the glitch and the critical glitch. Those kinds of considerations always drew my attention whenever I saw them in a game, and it's not a lot of extra stuff to keep track of, right?

I disagree on this point. I don't care much about reliability info and I like the freedom the GM is given to make up effects of glitched and critically glitched rolls. What's needed, IMO, is something like in the old Street Samurai catalog, when the shadow talkers mentioned what happen when their weapons when sour on them. (Like the SMG that shook itself into pieces while firing full auto...)

-paws

Larme
Poll nazi sez: why can't people just use simple language in poll questions??? Everything has to be a declarative sentence of ambiguous meaning. Pardon my agitation level, but what is the *bloody* difference between "a light pistol's a light pistol" and "I usually don't pay too much attention to the details?" What do those even mean? I could assume that one is more detail oriented than the other based on their order in the list, but how do I even know? So what if the thing is what it is? How much detail do I want in that case? Do I want all guns in that category to be identified as "light pistol" with one single statline? Or am I simply stating that I don't give a damn? How does "I don't pay attention" even answer the question? Is it saying that you have no opinion on this poll because you don't care? Or are you saying that you'd like for there to be less detail than their currently is? "I would like some more categories and details" is also ambiguous because it's a compound answer. Does everyone who picked it want both? Do some of them just want more details like getting concealability back? Do others of them actually want it to be categorized by ammo caliber, muzzle velocity, and trigger pull? We'll never know, because the answer is such a mishmash.

Here's an example of how this poll should be conducted if you want real answers: "How much detail should SR4 provide about firearms?" (Generic -- all guns should be identified by category only (i.e. light pistol, assault rifle). Simplified -- the system has too many options and details, there should be some variety, but less than there currently is. Same -- SR4A strikes the right balance in terms of firearm detail. More -- The system should include more details, such as concealability and weight. Much more -- The system should include as many weapon stats as feasible, up to and including such things as reliability, muzzle velocity, and time to break down, clean, and reassemble.)

As it is, you've got random, unreliable answers, based on ambiguously defined declarative statements which don't answer the question. Though I will give you one thing, the SR4A option is clear, so at least we know what proportion think the current system is about right. And no, I'm not going to shut up about polls until people pay some damn attention to how they're written! mad.gif
Kerenshara
QUOTE (Larme @ Jun 18 2009, 07:13 PM) *
Poll nazi sez: *Snip*

Wow. I don't mean to sound like a complete bitch here, but I tell you what Larme. Do us all a favor and toss up a new thread with the questions the way you want them, your own take on a descriptive post, and let us know how that turns out for you. When you get enough people responding to represent a viable random sampling with a magin of error under 4%, get back to us. Thanks!
Jaid
if you are polling, it is presumably because you want to get data. presumably, you also want to get that data to be more accurate, not less accurate. as such, it makes perfect sense to ask better poll questions, even if you don't expect to get a large enough sample to get that low margin of error (in fact, i would say it's even more important, because you can ill afford anything that *increases* your innacuracy in a poll that is already going to be inherently innacurate).

or, to put it another way; someone who throws forty dice on a test can probably afford to lose 5. someone who throws 8 dice on a test probably can't afford to lose 5. thus making something that would help mitigate that 5 dice penalty more important for the person with 8 dice, not less important.
Omenowl
I like the abstration, but I would have preferred calibers rather than types of pistols.

Put large pistol, small pistol and calibre.

Ok large pistol has larger clip, less recoil and greater range
Small pistol has concealibility and less ammo.
Calibre determines damage and armor piercing, which is added to the type of ammo.

Sort of like this:
.22 round Damage 2 recoil -1
.32 Damage 3 recoil -2
9mm Damage 4 recoil -3
.44 magnum Damage 4 recoil -4
5.56 damage 6 recoil -5
7.62 damage 7 recoil -6
.50 damage 8 recoil -7

Then go by size for recoil subtract for each round and then add that to the previous. -1die for each round past the first, and if the ammo recoil exceeds the weapon recoil then (ammo recoil - weapon size) die penalty per round.
Hold out pistol 1
Light pistol 2
Heavy pistol 3
SMG 4
Assault rifle 5
LMG 5
MMG 6
HMG 7

Each point above recoil would be uncompensated recoil penalty for each round. So an Assault rifle firing .50 calibre shells would have a -2 for the 1st round, a -5 for the second, -8 for the third.
A light pistol firing 7.62 rounds would have -4 for the first round, -9 for the second and so on.

A bit too complicated, but does allow for sniper and big game style weapons with compensators to fire large rounds without penalty.
Larme
QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Jun 18 2009, 07:08 PM) *
Wow. I don't mean to sound like a complete bitch here, but I tell you what Larme. Do us all a favor and toss up a new thread with the questions the way you want them, your own take on a descriptive post, and let us know how that turns out for you. When you get enough people responding to represent a viable random sampling with a magin of error under 4%, get back to us. Thanks!


All you have to do is think about the neutrality and comprehensibility of your poll answers, and poll nazi will go away nyahnyah.gif I'm not proposing that Dumpshock polls must be scientifically accurate, or generate representative samples. I'm just saying, if you want a poll, please don't make it a useless poll! It hurts me to see those frown.gif This is something that I'm interested in, and I think my views on the subject help more than they hurt, so no I'm not going to go away just because you'd prefer I did.
tsuyoshikentsu
Larme, shut up. Seriously. What you're basically saying is, "Unless you do things exactly my way, your poll is worthless." Which 1) it isn't, and 2) is a rather offensive and patently useless view to hold.

So unless you can actually contribute something to the conversation, please go away.
Larme
My posts are based on college courses in statistics. If you'd like to challenge the accuracy of my statements about the validity of a particular poll, please feel free, by PM if you feel that it's too off topic. I'm not making up a special my way of polling, I'm applying what I know about the standards that polling experts apply. If I'm in error, of course, I'd hate to go uncorrected.
suppenhuhn
We are all happy that you successfully completed you statistics 101 for social scientists. Congratulations. biggrin.gif

And now holler along and show your skills by making an unbiased poll about what people think of poll-trolls. nyahnyah.gif
tsuyoshikentsu
QUOTE (Larme @ Jun 18 2009, 08:26 PM) *
My posts are based on college courses in statistics. If you'd like to challenge the accuracy of my statements about the validity of a particular poll, please feel free, by PM if you feel that it's too off topic. I'm not making up a special my way of polling, I'm applying what I know about the standards that polling experts apply. If I'm in error, of course, I'd hate to go uncorrected.

Then you should know that this is what's called an "informal poll," and no one actually cares about the exact spread of votes. This poll is useful towards me because, even though the results may not be within any wire's standard of accuracy, it tells me the general feeling of this forum -- which is that most people sit in the middle here.
toturi
I would like more game mechanics for the weapons themselves but actually less fluff for them. I'd rather SR4A simply cut out all the fluff justification of why and how and simply gave us the what.
Kerenshara
QUOTE (Jaid @ Jun 18 2009, 08:21 PM) *
if you are polling, it is presumably because you want to get data. presumably, you also want to get that data to be more accurate, not less accurate. as such, it makes perfect sense to ask better poll questions, even if you don't expect to get a large enough sample to get that low margin of error (in fact, i would say it's even more important, because you can ill afford anything that *increases* your innacuracy in a poll that is already going to be inherently innacurate).

or, to put it another way; someone who throws forty dice on a test can probably afford to lose 5. someone who throws 8 dice on a test probably can't afford to lose 5. thus making something that would help mitigate that 5 dice penalty more important for the person with 8 dice, not less important.

Thank you, Mr. Jaid.

However, you presume that the purpose of the poll (or any of my polls or threads) is to gain an accurate census or crossection of the DS population, and neither you nor Larme bothered to ask me what my actual objective was. In this case, as much the other polls I have tossed up thus far, my intention was to get peope to consider and evaluate their own opinions about certain issues and then to stimulate active discourse about those opinions and ideas. I could care less about the supposed accuracy of the numbers themselves except as they represent that some people took the time to read my description, evaluate their own position, and then hit the "vote" button. I always vote as the first person when my poll goes up, and my own position has in only one of my questions actually been the middle "neutral" choice. My agenda is simply to provide an excuse for people to share and debate ideas, that you will notice, are primarilly centered around the "flavor" of the 6th world. This one is the single most "crunchy" pollso far, but it was structured to ask one fundamental question: do the Crunchy BitsTM provide sufficient structure and detail for the fluff and story you are trying to tell? I personally would like a little more detail in this case, as I indicated by my description in the OP and my vote. Other people have contributed constructive ideas to the discussion, and as opinions none is more or less correct than any other. But often in the course of such discussions, a random lurker is stimulated into a new line of thinking and takes away something wonderful and unique to add to their own game. I know that has happened because I have received PMs to that effect, and as long as some people are happily participating in my polls, and others see the intended benefits of them (and my other threads) then I will continue to post in the fashion that I find most constructive to those ends. If anybody dislikes the poll question, or the topic of my threads, they are free to avoid or ignore them as they please, as it is no hardship or injury to me.

In any event, thank you for your input, and enjoy your day.
eidolon
There are no "rules" for how you may or may not conduct polls on this site, nor should anyone presume to know more about the intent of a poll than the author.

I'm frankly tired of seeing threads go "metagame." Less talking about the damn threads, more talking in them. Seriously, the berating each other and going high and mighty on each other is really fucking stupid. Just have conversations like civilized people, instead of monkeys trying to "win" the damn boards/internets.

And no, this isn't a warning or a mod post, but I can damn sure tell you that it's on our collective minds.
Kronk2
I actually miss the days when the sourcebooks were in game content. Art of the gun, and some running commentary on each. Maybe not a whole page for each, but at least lets try and recap some of the awesome from the first edition. There were full page color adds for stores and clubs in game. I know we can get fans/models to dress for the shots.
Do we really need 22 heavy pistols? maybe. If they all do the job with a slightly different panache' or punch. I have no problems with a pistol sized for a troll that does some amazing AP or damage or something. its a gun. for . a . troll. I also have no problem with light pistols. In all actuality if you are good with the gun, something a little smaller sometimes is a better thing. IMHO however its always best to learn to use the gear of the personnel that you are fighting.
Kerenshara
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't there used to be a mechanic (in an older edition) whereby ties in initiative were broken by whose weapon had the better concealability, reflecting better ability to bring the weapon on target? It's a serious concern in CQB (Close Quarters Battle) as is being demonstrated over and over in the house-to-house fighting taking place in Iraq. Compact weapons are easier to use when sweeping/clearing a room. A weapon that takes the concept to nearly unbelievable heights is the Fabrique Nationale P90. If you've watched any episodes of Stargate SG-1, you know the weapon I'm talking about. It's barely 3 kg / 6.6 pounds loaded with a 50-round clip of low-recoil, armor piercing and extremely accurate rounds (5.7x28mm). It's only 500mm / 19.7 inches long, but the barrel is still a full 256 mm / 10.1 inches. It's a bare 210 mm / 8.3 inches tall, excluding optics. It was specifically designed to be usable from inside the cramped confines of a vehicle and has no sharp corners, a built-in contoured fore-grip and all brass is ejected straight downwards so you don't have spent cartridges caroming around and coming back at you. It's a tour-de-force in the design of personal defense weapons/sub-machine guns. And it's direct decendant exists in the 6th World: the FN P93 Praetor from Arsenal.

Ok, that's a lot of real world details, but I think it is a little over-abstract to have a weapon like that, which can punch through a trauma plate of a class-III vest, a ballistic dummy, and back out the back panel in the same league as another submachine gun chambering a 9mm Parabellum cartridge.

It's barely larger than a machine pistol, has better AP, and should be quick and easy to bring to bear. Yet it's the same concealability and AP and there's no mechanic for handling. Or the "smg" chambered for the full-up 6.8 SPC assault rifle cartridge with a colapsible stock that's as short as an MP-5 - the muzzle energy is jaw dropping for such a weapon. That's where I feel a little let down by the system.

That's my two centinuyen, at any rate.
Shinobi Killfist
I liked the street samurai catalog style. Still the less info stlye is fine and dandy. What isn't fine and dandy is clone guns that look different, and that is what 4e gave me. I like having actual differences beyond clip size and a point of RC in a category. On top of that the concealability rules in 4e are a pile of suck.

I liked how concealable you could make weapons in previous editions, and i liked that the conceal stat let you get past MAD without needing absurd luck on your side. They kind of assumed since metal detectors were everywhere, guns were made to try to hide form MAD so less metal or weird profiles that the computer would identify as something other than a gun. Now the MAD just needs 1 hit and it knows its there. Its not 1 hit opposed by the conceal # of the weapon, just 1 hit. I find that lame. Heck they core mechanics would work great for this, but they dropped the ball on it. You could even make it a big dice rolling fest if that is your cup of tea. Conceal stat+palming+agility? vs Rating of scanner+logic+electronics? and still you could have 1 net hit= finding the gun.
kzt
QUOTE (toturi @ Jun 18 2009, 09:37 PM) *
I would like more game mechanics for the weapons themselves but actually less fluff for them. I'd rather SR4A simply cut out all the fluff justification of why and how and simply gave us the what.

Yes.
kzt
QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Jun 18 2009, 10:39 PM) *

Ok, that's a lot of real world details, but I think it is a little over-abstract to have a weapon like that, which can punch through a trauma plate of a class-III vest, a ballistic dummy, and back out the back panel in the same league as another submachine gun chambering a 9mm Parabellum cartridge.

I don't think it goes through the ceramic plates of a rifle vest, which is what a class III vest is. (A class IIIa vest is much lighter and what I think you mean.) And the bullet ballistically is equiv to a .22 LR HP. Which means it either requires a much crunchier combat/damage system or just gets treated as another SMG.
BullZeye
I think it's really hard to stat out those new fancy AP rounds that at the moment, most state of the art weapons use. My guess they would be something like 2P -3AP or alike. Well, in SR one can buy those awesome APDS for any caliber so that kinda neutralizes the need for such exotics as P90 and alike.

I still remember quite some damage codes from good ol' cyberpunk where all calibers had their own damage code. Ranging from 1d6 of .22's to 6D6+3 of the .667 Hellbringer or alike biggrin.gif If you wanted a bigger gun than the guy next door: buy it. People still preferred to use not quite that powerful weapons even though there were a lot of options. The big guns and their ammo were lot more expensive so one had to do some simple math on bucks per damage.
toturi
QUOTE (kzt @ Jun 19 2009, 02:19 PM) *
Yes.

I am not sure I mean it in the way you think I mean though.

I am all for more special stuff. I can't really be bothered what the writers call those special stuff - gas vents, silencers, laser sights, etc. Just remove the fluff references on how they work and give me what they do and if they stack with other stuff, etc. Divorce the SR physics from real life physics and then decide how close you want RAW SR physics to mirror real life or whether you want to even do so at all.
Mx
QUOTE (BullZeye @ Jun 19 2009, 10:57 AM) *
6D6+3 of the .667 Hellbringer or alike

Don't you mean .666 Magnum grinbig.gif
BullZeye
QUOTE (Mäx @ Jun 19 2009, 12:00 PM) *
Don't you mean .666 Magnum grinbig.gif

I think it was .667 but would have to dig up some old prints to find it biggrin.gif .667 After all is bigger than a .666 grinbig.gif But yea, you might be right... but one heck of a pistol it was, never the less. It really wasn't official as pistol calibers ended in the core to 12mm which was 4D6+1, I think...
Kerenshara
QUOTE (kzt @ Jun 19 2009, 02:26 AM) *
I don't think it goes through the ceramic plates of a rifle vest, which is what a class III vest is. (A class IIIa vest is much lighter and what I think you mean.) And the bullet ballistically is equiv to a .22 LR HP. Which means it either requires a much crunchier combat/damage system or just gets treated as another SMG.

The interceptors are NOT class III - they are class IV. And class IV would do a very good job... with the plate. The plate isn't really that large. The class IV vests with an intact plate are excellent. Without it, they aren't bad, but they're not going to stop armor piercing or high caliber / high velocity rounds. That round has long had a reputation as an armor piercer. Based on what I have seen, I would say it had either a 6P/-1 with SMG range or 5P/-2 with SMG range. Doesn't need to be too crunchy, just tewak the existing categories to represent unique developments/designs. Like back in 1st Ed, when the Predator had a higher damage code that the rest of the heavy pistols.
Kerenshara
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Jun 19 2009, 02:12 AM) *
I liked the street samurai catalog style. Still the less info stlye is fine and dandy. What isn't fine and dandy is clone guns that look different, and that is what 4e gave me. I like having actual differences beyond clip size and a point of RC in a category. On top of that the concealability rules in 4e are a pile of suck.

I liked how concealable you could make weapons in previous editions, and i liked that the conceal stat let you get past MAD without needing absurd luck on your side. They kind of assumed since metal detectors were everywhere, guns were made to try to hide form MAD so less metal or weird profiles that the computer would identify as something other than a gun. Now the MAD just needs 1 hit and it knows its there. Its not 1 hit opposed by the conceal # of the weapon, just 1 hit. I find that lame. Heck they core mechanics would work great for this, but they dropped the ball on it. You could even make it a big dice rolling fest if that is your cup of tea. Conceal stat+palming+agility? vs Rating of scanner+logic+electronics? and still you could have 1 net hit= finding the gun.

You know, that last part's not a bad idea, but more for MAD is dirt simple in application, not much (no) skill needed to use. A cyberscanner on the other hand...

And you've given me a couple ideas on concealability with the palming test too...
Kerenshara
QUOTE (toturi @ Jun 19 2009, 04:08 AM) *
I am not sure I mean it in the way you think I mean though.

I am all for more special stuff. I can't really be bothered what the writers call those special stuff - gas vents, silencers, laser sights, etc. Just remove the fluff references on how they work and give me what they do and if they stack with other stuff, etc. Divorce the SR physics from real life physics and then decide how close you want RAW SR physics to mirror real life or whether you want to even do so at all.

You know, the ONLY problem with that is it's a LOT harder to mod the weapons if you don't know what's already there: can't put a silencer on a weapon with gas vent for example...

I liked the old Street Samurai Catalog. What I would LOVE would be a multi-hundred page weapons catalog on the old Street Samurai Catalog's lines with all the chewey bits (game description) Crunchy BitsTM (game stats) AND fluff in a PDF format, since most people would rather the thing for reference anyway.

That way, the Devs can not leave 2/3 of the thing on the cutting room floor and have their merry way with it and still charge the price of a normal length source book. I'd pay it, at any rate. Then we can print it ourselves and shove it in a 3-Ring binder (or a Levenger Circa binder) ourselves.
toturi
QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Jun 19 2009, 09:36 PM) *
You know, the ONLY problem with that is it's a LOT harder to mod the weapons if you don't know what's already there: can't put a silencer on a weapon with gas vent for example...

I liked the old Street Samurai Catalog. What I would LOVE would be a multi-hundred page weapons catalog on the old Street Samurai Catalog's lines with all the chewey bits (game description) Crunchy BitsTM (game stats) AND fluff in a PDF format, since most people would rather the thing for reference anyway.

That way, the Devs can not leave 2/3 of the thing on the cutting room floor and have their merry way with it and still charge the price of a normal length source book. I'd pay it, at any rate. Then we can print it ourselves and shove it in a 3-Ring binder (or a Levenger Circa binder) ourselves.

You misunderstand me. You can't put a silencer on a weapon with a gas vent if the rules say so. If the rules say the weapon has a gas vent, then it does, that is crunch, you will know what is there because the space used for fluff can be used for crunch instead, you will be told there is a laser sight, a gas vent, etc. There's no need for fluff to confuse things.
DWC
QUOTE (toturi @ Jun 19 2009, 10:03 AM) *
You misunderstand me. You can't put a silencer on a weapon with a gas vent if the rules say so. If the rules say the weapon has a gas vent, then it does, that is crunch, you will know what is there because the space used for fluff can be used for crunch instead, you will be told there is a laser sight, a gas vent, etc. There's no need for fluff to confuse things.


Actually, you can put a silencer on a weapon with an integral gas vent, just like you can put a gas vent on a weapon with an integral silencer or sound suppressor. Built in items don't occupy a modification or accessory location. The only downside is having to spend an action (simple or free) to close the vents on the gas vent before the suppressor will work properly.

If you couldn't put a suppressor and a gas vent on the same weapon, the Ingram Smartgun wouldn't come out of the box with both.
Larme
QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Jun 19 2009, 09:36 AM) *
[font="Lucida Console"]You know, the ONLY problem with that is it's a LOT harder to mod the weapons if you don't know what's already there: can't put a silencer on a weapon with gas vent for example...


Just as an aside, yes you can, using Arsenal's mod rules. Modifications do not take up mounts, in theory you can put all the barrel mounts on the same gun, even if it's a kind of gun that normally doesn't have a barrel mount. That's because mods do not take accessory mounts, those are for removable, temporary accessories.

I think that an FAQ, or possibly an errata, explains the effect of both a gas vent and a silencer/suppressor -- you can't have both work at once. Either you turn the gas vents off and the silencer works, or you turn the gas vents on and the silencer is useless.

I dunno, maybe you're not trying to get into this level of detail about the actual rules, if not, you can ignore me. wink.gif
kzt
QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Jun 19 2009, 06:27 AM) *
The interceptors are NOT class III - they are class IV. And class IV would do a very good job... with the plate.

2.4 Type III (Rifles)
Type III hard armor or plate inserts shall be tested in a conditioned state with 7.62 mm
FMJ, steel jacketed bullets (U.S. Military designation M80) with a specified mass of 9.6 g (147
gr) and a velocity of 847 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (2780 ft/s ± 30 ft/s).

Type III flexible armor shall be tested in both the “as new? state and the conditioned state
with 7.62 mm FMJ, steel jacketed bullets (U.S. Military designation M80) with a specified mass
of 9.6 g (147 gr) and a velocity of 847 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (2780 ft/s ± 30 ft/s).
toturi
QUOTE (DWC @ Jun 19 2009, 10:06 PM) *
Actually, you can put a silencer on a weapon with an integral gas vent, just like you can put a gas vent on a weapon with an integral silencer or sound suppressor. Built in items don't occupy a modification or accessory location. The only downside is having to spend an action (simple or free) to close the vents on the gas vent before the suppressor will work properly.

If you couldn't put a suppressor and a gas vent on the same weapon, the Ingram Smartgun wouldn't come out of the box with both.

Hence "if the rules say so".
Snow_Fox
I said 'about right' but play 3rd ed. the guns are very much liek the cars in 3rd ed. a few basics which you can then change a little. I mean oki may knoww more about guns than many posters here but for game terms, as an example there's little real differnece betwen a Baretta .380 Cheetah and a Walther .380 PPK. or say between a Browning 9mm and a Barretta 9mm. Yes i know if we really want to go over the top we can find differences but for games terms, there's not eough to worry over.
kzt
Realistically there isn't any difference at the scale of the game between a glock 21 or a Berretta M92FS, or a Glock 19. They are all "service pistols" and pretty much do the same thing, despite the ranting on the intrawebz.
BullZeye
QUOTE (kzt @ Jun 21 2009, 12:59 AM) *
Realistically there isn't any difference at the scale of the game between a glock 21 or a Berretta M92FS, or a Glock 19. They are all "service pistols" and pretty much do the same thing, despite the ranting on the intrawebz.

I would really be amazed if game-wise two 9x19 pistols would have some damage difference. Though the guns you gave as an example have a difference in their caliber, Glock 21 being a .45. Some minor differences M92FS and G 19 do have, but on SR scope of rules the difference might be the clip size. But on the weapons in the same category, there ought to be more variation. Like FN Five-seveN is also quite like those sample guns you gave but has significantly different type of ammo. Of course if there was one light pistol that packs same punch as a heavy pistol, everyone would get one. But not all guns are made equal. Some pack a lot more punch for their size than others, but people still prefer to use the old reliable models.
Kerenshara
QUOTE (Snow_Fox @ Jun 19 2009, 09:51 PM) *
I said 'about right' but play 3rd ed. the guns are very much liek the cars in 3rd ed. a few basics which you can then change a little. I mean oki may knoww more about guns than many posters here but for game terms, as an example there's little real differnece betwen a Baretta .380 Cheetah and a Walther .380 PPK. or say between a Browning 9mm and a Barretta 9mm. Yes i know if we really want to go over the top we can find differences but for games terms, there's not eough to worry over.



QUOTE (BullZeye @ Jun 20 2009, 05:33 PM) *
I would really be amazed if game-wise two 9x19 pistols would have some damage difference. Though the guns you gave as an example have a difference in their caliber, Glock 21 being a .45. Some minor differences M92FS and G 19 do have, but on SR scope of rules the difference might be the clip size. But on the weapons in the same category, there ought to be more variation. Like FN Five-seveN is also quite like those sample guns you gave but has significantly different type of ammo. Of course if there was one light pistol that packs same punch as a heavy pistol, everyone would get one. But not all guns are made equal. Some pack a lot more punch for their size than others, but people still prefer to use the old reliable models.

The biggest thing I find as problematical is that ideology and personal belief starts to get pretty messily involved in game mechanics when it comes to firearms. My favorite example is the .45 ACP cartridge. I can't tell you how many systems I have looked at where the .45 outperforms everything EXCEPT the .357 and .44 magnum becasue there are people who believe that is objective truth. This being despite the fact that the much more modern .40 S&W cartridge delivers superior muzzle energy and energy on impact across the entire ballistic envelope, as well as exhibiting a flatter trajectory across the effective range, and annecdotal evidence suggests it has better armor penetration characteristics (and fits more rounds in the clip to boot). Admittedly, the .45+P cartridge manages to improve on the characteristics I just mentions, but the number of automatic handguns chambered to handle that cartridge can be counted on a hand or maybe two.

My feeling is that if there are different cartridges involved, you need to at least consider if you need diferent game stats. IIRC the FN Five-seveN fires the same round as the P90 I mentioned further up this thread. That round SHOULD have a serious re-examination of its numbers. And I am sure there are others as well. That's why I said I wanted a bit more detail.

Another example might be that the AK47, G3 and M16 would all wind up as "assault rifles" per SR4 categorization, and there is NO way on earth you can seriously equate their ballistics to one another in anything more vague than "they shoot bullets". The first two have the same diameter, but the G3 has over three times the effective range. The M16 has more than two and a half times the effective range, but less stopping power due to a smaller round. Throw in some of the new cartridges that are hitting the market (most in the 5.7mm to 6.8mm class) which emphasize stopping power, controlability (read: recoil), and accuracy. The 6.5mm Grendel 123gr Lapua round has gotten SERIOUS attention recently for a combination of phenomenal accuracy from barrels as short as 368 mm / 14.5 inches in length, delivers frightening muzzle energy, has both penetration and stopping power, and has a low felt recoil force.

Overall, I would be satisfied with ranges listed for each weapon rather than by total class (for example, the P90 has a stated effective range with a 256mm / 10.1 inch length barrel of up to 250 meters / 273 yards - show me a 9mm SMG that can claim that?). I would have liked a better means of dealing with concealability. (The old numbers were squashed at about 2:1 and averaged.) I would like individual consideration of damage and penetration if there is a different round chambered. You don't need to go nutz, just far enough to have some diferentiation. I wouldn't mind having a "round type" category either, because having all light pistol ammunition being interchangable is too much of a good thing (simplicity and abstraction). And as I said, a reliability category would come back to that "old reliable" thing. Current weapons are routinely being held up to the AK-47 as an example for reliability to me matched or exceeded. Some of the tests are getting downright scarry (as in: I am glad as hell it's not ME holding that weapon that was just soaked in seawater then dunked in sand and fired fully automatic). On the other hand, there are all kinds of horro stories of cheap knock-offs and poorly engineered or fielded designs (*cough* original M-16 in Vietnam? *cough*). I can't see the 6th World having FEWER of those knock-offs than our own modern world, can you?

I know I'm not going to get an official change out of the Devs, and I guess I'm not really looking for one. On the other hand, I would love any constructive ideas on those three areas that anybody wants to contribute.

Oh, and as to the whole idea of "use the customization rules to make it work", there are a lot of things you can't mod in unless that's how it was engineered in the first place. The customization rules for weapons really reflect (with a few notable exceptions like Electronic Firing) bolt-on or swap-out refinements to the existing platform.

And as a final thought: The XM-30 and the Styer Aug multi-guns; most "carbines" still use their parent weapon's cartridge, and adding a belt feed and a heavier barrel probably does much the same. The "sniper" versions are probably "designated marksman" varieties. But all of them get unique statistics and range changes. But if you go by the RAW, they swap down to pistol cartridges for the Carbine, and swap up to Sniper rounds or Machine Gun bullets. The 7.62x51mm round is used in the G3 battle(assault) rifle, dozens of sniper systems world wide, and most Western GP/Medium machine guns. Just a thought.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012