All stocks even stock stocks provide 1 point of recoil no mod needed. Why bother with a powered folding stock? SR does not have rules for weapon handling in confined spaces nor does having the stock folded contribute in a positive manner to its ability to be concealed. I mean its cool and all but not really worth taking up a mod slot and $100 (which is still dirt cheep)

I imagine that a powered folding stock doesn't require a simple action to ready, which could be of benefit.

fell its a free action to deploy, but if you are gonna need the stock you are gonna deploy it before hand, its not like a long arm is a quick draw weapon.

Not really. Readying a weapon is a simple action, if you also want your stock deployed (say you were hiding the weapon under your coat previously) now you need another simple action to deploy it which means no shots that round... OR you can ready the weapon, deploy the stock (powered,free) and fire that same round.

Except that you can't actually do that in SR. There is no mod for a folding stock.

Please refer to pages 151 and 198 in Arsenal

/quote Folding Stock: Th e folding stock provides 1 point of recoil compensation when braced against the shoulder. For restrictions on recoil compensation, see p. 148. As the name suggests, the stock can be folded into the weapon’s frame so it is not in the way when it’s not needed. Folding and unfolding requires a Simple Action or, when the powered servo-motor version is used, a Free Action. /quote

Edited for content; added a quote

Except that you could have the stock already deployed while you're hiding it under your coat, and (per RAW) this makes it no harder to conceal.

I could be crazy, as I don't have my BBB at the moment, but doesn't a rigid stock, when added to a weapon, apply a negative modifier to concealability?

In SR there is a modifier for anything the GM wants to give a modifier for.

I give a -2 modifier for detecting an AR with folding stock- in effect shifting the AR from standard +6 to +4 (i.e. the same as concealed SMG, which seems reasonable). But I also give a -2 to any character trying to fire an AR without the stock deployed, for balance.

The best example of a folding stock I have seen is in Jurasic Park. The game keeper who goes with Laura Dern to restart the power gets side tracked by Velociraptors. Until then he has not had the stock deployed from his shotgunbut at that point he unfolds it. Showing that you can use a gun without the stock deployed. I think an automated one is more like role playing.

I guess my beef is that if the gun already has a stock it should take no slots to make it a powered folding, if it has no stock then I am ok with spending some dosh and making it cool while I am at it, ie putting it on a Thunderbolt.

A folding stock needs a hinge or other mechanics, unlike a set piece stock like on a normal rifle.

It depends on the stock and the weapon. ARs shoot fine with a telescoped stock, some of the AKs would be very hard to shoot with a folded stock, other AKs would be OK, a full blown rifle like a FAL would be hard to control and really difficult to shoot accurately at other then close range. There are at least 4 different ways that people have make guns so the stock does something to make the gun shorter for storage or concealment, and not all of them are designed to allow you to shoot it that way.

Just so everyone has some kind of reference, here are a bunch of different folding stock types on various weapons:
LINKY.

I'm going to go with, Because its cool.

In my experience, folding and unfolding a stock is usually a two-handed operation, and while it might seem silly to point this out; If one of your arms was taken out, how else would you fold or unfold your stock? And, seeing as how many ARs can still be fired one handed (though not well), it might be necessary in some convoluted situation. I know I practise firing my AR-10 one-handed and collapsing or extending the telescoping stock can be a bitch, but, since my stock telescopes instead of folding I can tuck the whole gun under one arm and work the mechanism, just like reloading one-handed, it would be somewhat more difficult if the stock folded, you might even have to put it down to do it, and as we all know, putting down your weapon is a Bad Thing^TM. Don't you watch TV? Putting down your weapon to do something is right when something will happen that forces you to leave it behind, then you're without. Just a thought.

Plus, as Killfist says, it's COOL. Rule of cool wins the day.

Because my character would like to be able to shorten the weapon for use in confined spaces, but still have a stock available for long range fire, and being able to fold or unfold the stock with a simple mental command seems like a neat idea to him. He also has a bipod on his sniper rifle, to steady it when taking long ranges.

Assuming that you are a good roleplayer, the fact that the rules do not actually provide mechanical benefits to either of these shouldn't make the slightest difference to whether or not your character makes those decisions.

My beef is not that it provides no mechanical benefit for doing so, but that I would be docked a precious mod slot for it. I mean the mod slots are there for things that do have large mechanical value to the game. I guess what I am saying is, there should be 2 listings for it. One listing that does take a mod slot, and one that does not. If you are adding it to a pistol then it should obviously use a mod slot, but for things that allready have a stock or a folding stock it should just cost a little money to attach.

Unless your character's got the Krav Maga Martial Art from Arsenal and took the advantage that turns "Ready Weapon" into a Free Action. Then nearly everything becomes a quick draw weapon.

Krav Maga is <3

Tachi made me think of this, but with no separate option available, I think it's safe to assume that "folding" includes both folding and telescoping stocks for the purposes of Shadowrun. It's another case of vague terminology. You'll find both "telescoping" and "folding" used in weapon descriptions, but mechanically it's the same thing, so there's only one mod to catch it.



Exactly. Use common sense. The book cannot and will not ever have a specific rule in black and white for every possible situation. When you try, the game ends up giving you cancer. () If a weapon has a stock, and you remove that stock and put on another one, then as you say, you haven't really changed much of anything. So rule that way, or tell your GM your line of reasoning and ask him or her to rule that way.

And I'll reiterate that the common sense rule can apply to the mechanics as well. If it makes sense to have a concealability mod then just do it. If you pay for it (in yen and mod slots) you should get some bonus.

You don't need the game developers to sit at the table and hold your hand.

It totally can and should TRY. One of SR4s hugest failings is the utter laziness of the writers when it comes to abusing "the GM should decide/create this rule," often giving the GM absolutely ZERO basis from which to make said decision. It's not like the GM has access to other resources providing these answers - the BBB is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and if there is nothing in there to give the GM a clue, then "the GM should decide" is read as "We didn't want to do our job, so please do it for us."

Love the world. Rather disappointed by the current edition.

You mean like an official FAQ, a dedicated email address for questions, semi-monthly online chats with the developers and a robust, fan-run forum to which the devs frequently visit, post and answer questions? Man those Catalyst guys are fucking it up...

Seriously dude, the Edition Wars are over and no one wants to rehash it. If you need everything spelled out for you just stick with SR3 (like many people choose to do). You can still enjoy the new setting books and fluff.

But saying that SR4 is crap or the devs are "lazy" because *their goal was to streamline the game* and leave more choices up to the GM is just kicking a horse that is long dead and buried.

Glad I could be of assistance, for once.




This should be a pretty good basis to work off of, if the GM has more than two brain cells to rub together. And, as Method said, there are other resources if you need help. Some of us may be hostile, like me, but most of the others actually try to help people who need it.