The Aztechnology Iron Bomb looks pretty good on paper, but I'm really not sure I get how to use it. You can release them from the wings of aircrafts and helicopters? Does that require special machinery on the aircrafts to do so? Would drones suffice for dropping some of these puppies?

Yeah, it requires some sort of specialized ability to hold and drop 'cargo' or specifically bombs. The Krull for example has the cargo air drop capacity, so I figure it could manage it. Anything with an arm could likely hang on to one of these and drop it on people. Anything big enough to carry a person could always just have the person chuck them out the window.

I'm sure you could get inventive with other ways to make use of them if you don't have the specialized bomb dropping equipment.

You would use an external weapon mount, as most commonly found on aircraft...

Keep teh Faith

the launch weapons info is clearly missing some parts, and sadly no amount of prodding have so far resulted in clarification from catalyst.

Where are you having Problems?

Keep the Faith

Well, because a weapon mount allows you to mount a weapon onto it, like say a machine gun. Are you saying that a single iron bomb takes up an entire weapon mount by itself? Thus making the weapon mount a one shot item before you have to land and reload?

I think there is an idea that there should perhaps be some sort of launch weapon that launches these bombs and such.

If you read Launch Weapons... You need a wepon mount to use them...

"Can be fired from specialized launch platforms , or released from the wings of aircraft and helicopters."

Now, the only Launch Platforms specifically mentioned are the Torpedo Launchers... everything else would require a mount... since these are, for all intents and purposes a singl;e "Round" of ammunition (Specialized ammunition, of course, but ammunition none the less) they would require a weapon mount... Attack Helicopters and Aircraft have Missile Pylons (Weapon Mounts) with no external Ammunition bay, so once used, teh mount would have to be manually reloaded... FOr a ship and the Depth Charge, A Weapon mount with additional "Ammo Bins" for additional Charges would work just fine.

Now, if you are looking for a Rocket Pod like you get on the Aguilar, you still use the weapon Mount (Heavy) and attach a Fleche Hail Rocket Pod to it....

Seems pretty simple to me, and all of those rules are in teh book under the Launch Weapons and Vehicle Weapons Entries... I assume that you have read them, so maybe that is not the issue that you are having... Is there something more specific that I can help you with?

Keep teh Faith...

mostly its in the details. That is, what kind of weapons mounts exactly is needed for the launch weapons.

heck, take the eagle, the "fighter bomber" jet. It has only one weapon mount at sale, so how is it supposed to carry out its designated role? And if one follow the rules for retrofitting weapon mounts, it can at best carry 3 extra launch weapons. Thats very low compared to something like a F/A-18, that can fit 9, and for some weapons can have fitted 3 pr mount.

Launch Weapons require Reinforced Weapon Mounts (the weapon is greater than LMG Size)... Some weapons will specify different requirements...

So for a Missile/Bomb Rack, you would need a 2 point Weapon Modification for each mount... Now, if you are using the Weapon modification rules, you can fit as many mounts as the slots will allow... so in this case (the Eagle Fighter Jet) you have a single internal mount included for the Machine Gun, and then you can add (if no other slots are required for anything else) an additional 10 reinforced mounts for missiles and bombs... seems pretty awesome to me, especially for the price that they are charging... If you are sticking to the basic rule, of course, tehn that means you can only attach 6 additional mounts... which will leave you 8 more slots for modifications...

The rule in 4A for 1 mount/3 Body is just that, the standard rule... If you are using the Arsenal Rules (and some common sense, of course) you are using a more specific rule and thus may attach mounts at the standard slot cost of the vehicle (Specific trumps general)... You may of course, also Overmodify the vehicle as well, at your own risk...

Does this help any?

Keep the Faith

thing is, arsenal repeats the 1 mount pr 3 body rule, and claim a reinforced mount takes up two regular mounts. And based on that, the eagles 20 body can only handle 3 reinforced mount, no matter the modification slots.

I think thats the issue. If you assume that launch weapons use the same rules as machine guns, etc that no aircraft in SR can even come close to carrying real world payloads. So imagine that, something in SR that doesn't reflect RL...

There seems to be some debate here, but I think everyone agrees that the Kull can be fitted with two Iron Bombs. Which is good enough to answer my question. Thank you kindly.

funny thing is, it would not be a problem if the book said that ammo bins could add 1 to the launch weapon capacity of a mount.

so with 3 mounts, and 2 ammo bins pr mount, you would get 9 weapons in total. But as the launch weapons are basically nailed onto the end of "vehicle only weapons", rather then given its own section that really spells out what can and cant be done with launch weapons, we are left guessing. And maybe hoping that some hardware book (war?) comes along to expand on launch weapons.

But, It does actually say that... ammo bins are irrespective of Weapon... they double the amount of ammunition for the weapon... Unfortunately, a Lauch weapon is an individual weapon, so an ammo bin would add a second weapon...

I don't see the guessing that you indicate, probably because I have had a lot of experience with the real life variations of these weapons...

War may expand on these things some.... possibly... I do not really know...

Keep the Faith

I've always wanted exact stats for a tactical nuke....

An expansion of military grade stuff would be cool, because right now the book just makes occasional mention of anything really good and powerful being 'military grade equipment'. A better look at tanks, the modern battlefield, perhaps some mass combat rules (or at least suggestions). I don't know if you could quite squeeze an entire book out of this, though looking at how various countries and corps have their militaries set up, what kind of militaries... oh, and stuff for mercenaries could be cool too.

What it actually says is that a reinforced mount takes 2 slots, not 1 (which is effectively similar in that it takes double slots) but you could still add 6 reinforced mounts for a total of 12 slot capacity...

Therefore a body 20 vehicle could hold 6 reinforced mounts (if using the standard rules of 1 mount per 3 body) or it could take 10 such mounts if using the slot cost for modifications (the more specific, detailed rules for modification)

Either way works out pretty well in my book...

Keep the Faith

thats from arsenal, p147.

20 (the body of a FB eagle), divided by 3 is 6,7. looks like 3 reinforced mounts, 4 if your a generous GM, to me.

if it was only about the slot cost, the bit of text i quoted would not be needed, as the slot costs are right there in the table.

You said it yourself... AS A GENERAL RULE (and doing so will not cost you any modification slots to your vehicle if you use that General Ruling)... HOwever, I believe that the specifics of Vehicle Modifications make that section more relevant...

Using the specifics of the Modification Tables, you can add up to 10 Fixed Reinforced mounts to that Plane (Body 20), not that I would use them all for that mind you, but you could... (The rules for Weapon Mount Space Requirements change if you are using the Modification Rules in Arsenal)... pretty beefy I would think...

Of course, If you do not like this, then I guess you have to live with your interpretation, which you apparently do not like... I am just offering an interpretation that seems to fall into the spirit of the Vehicle Modification Rules... and for the record, since I see no reason for such high end weaponry, I have never actually implemented tehm in play, but they are available if I ever seem to need to do so.

Keep the Faith

Then just over-mod the thing. Read the rules regarding that.

If I was your GM, I'd just say, okay you can modify the fighter like so. However, if you use those extra mounts your fighter's maneuverability and speed is going to suffer from the extra drag. That would be the over-modification drawback I'd give you. Guess what, that's how real world aircraft operate also! (their speed, range, etc. is a function of their payloads especially their external payload).


Tymeaus:
You're on very thin ice on your one assertion about how many heavy mounts it takes. The rules are very clear one heavy mount counts as 2 normal mounts (not merely as twice as much mod space). So I don't think you can get around the 1 per 3 points body, then upgrading 2 normals into 1 heavy. Also, this is a banner case for over modification and GM's call.


As far as the bombs go... the things are damned cheap!! One GM once balked when I put down 20 of the things on my starting character equipment (only 1 BP of resources). As far as an expendable item eating up a mount, it's no different than say a LAW... one shot rocket launcher which once you fire it's tossed. Also given their very small blast factor, (really they're not all that much bigger than a frag grenade... and we know the rules for enhancing explosions w/ demolitions). I don't believe they're anything close to the large bombs we're used to. So a good argument exists, that they can be put on a normal weapons mount, not necessarily a large one. (really I'd reserve large ones for things like big torpedoes (think PT boat), the large missiles we traditionally think of hanging of aircraft. In terms of size and weight, they're not much worse than a LMG w/ a large belt of ammo (ammo is heavy).

Think of it this way, there's a HUGE difference between a hellfire and a maverick AGM. Both in size and weight. Yet most missiles covered in SR are only like the kind you'd see man-packed by infantry like a Javelin.

As an aside, the original 4th Ed book said Bod/3 rounded down. That was superseeded by Arsenal, which said round up, and now we have 4A...and that says tells you to round down again.

my best guess there is that as SR4A is a clarified SR4, arsenal still overrides SR4A. This of SR4A as a massive errata of AR4.

Fair Enough... but if you look at the the Table in Arsenal... the Reinforced Mount is not only twice as bulky (2 Slots vs. One SLot) it cost almost 3 times the Nuyen... so in that regard, it actually costs more than the double that is indicated in the main book.

I do agree that in the end, however, it is the GM's call on how he would interpret the modification scenario, as I believe that it could go both ways... I tend to prefer the Modification Rules in Arsenal (as they actually provide a framework of rules) for the most part (as the main book does not), and I can say that there is definitely room for wiggle, depending upon your interpretation...

However, In my opinion, I think that there is Less ambiguity is you use my interpretation... probably just partial to my own thoughts though; it just seems to be more clear that way...

Keep the Faith

The iron bomb has a DV of 22. If you emulate that using commercial explosives you end up needing roughly 50 kg of rating 3 commercial explosives... Thats really not that big compared to unguided bombs of today like the Mk 82. Of course, if military grade explosives were used with the bomb (say rating 10 explosives) you would only need 5 kg of explosives to achieve a DV of around 22.



Copy that...