Um, because it's an ammo bin for the mounted weapon, Dakka Dakka?

The mount already has 250, which doesn't imply anything. The bin adds 250. In case you wanted more. There's no A, B, C.

If all the rocket launchers in the game are muzzle/breach/whatever-loading, then the bin *shouldn't* autoload them. That's not a bug.

Or the clip/magazine (am I the only one who hates the SR definition of those terms?) is simply replaced with a double capacity one, that's certainly more viable for 200 than changing the complete feed mechanism...


OK, fun weapons...how about a combination of twin-blade cyberspur and shock hand? Most people did not appreciate the humanity of cauterizing their wounds right away, but playing with the lightning between the blades gave a reliable intimidation bonus
And of course the semiauto mortar with a ten-round drum on a smart firing platform. All good things come from above...

The thing is that there are no rocket launchers with detachable magazines (which the book calls clips ). There are only muzzle loaders and, those with internal magazines, none of which can increase their capacity without massive modification to the weapon or some automated feeding system. And if such a system can be bought for one type of weapon (with doubled ammunition capacity) it is not any more unbalancing to have a similar system for other weapons without the increase in ammunition.


Interesting, but unfortunately there is no double damage (electrical+physical) and the shock hand only does stun damage. That is hardly enough to simulate cauterization.

Obviously, the fix for this is box/magazine-fed vehicular rocket launchers, which simply haven't been written for SR4. I believe they had them in Rigger 3.

It is *not* adding the ability for things like disposable LAWs to reload themselves (again, for 200¥ and no mod points).

Yes, it does. It doubles the ammunition capacity. There is no mention of needing to reload manually. Since any weapon can be attached and detached from in about 2 minutes, large modifications on the weapon itself cannot be necessary. So the mount must feed the rocket launcher new rockets if a bin is attached all for 200¥ and no mod slots on the weapon.

Point, however, that doesn't mean that the weapon is belt fed or that it can be made belt fed for 200¥ and no mod slots on the weapon or that by doing so its ammo capacity increases to 250 rounds.

There's no mention really of any vehicular rockets/missiles, which doesn't imply one way or the other. But if you want to argue the *mount* does something, that's a lot more reasonable than saying the *ammo bin* does it.

Most fixed magazines are still easiy accessible from outside, so it would be no big deal to weld on a bit of extra metal for more capacity and install another spring (or whatever the transport mechanism is). I know, that would be a mod of the weapon itself...


Yeah, that was more fluff-wise. Solution for the double damage thing was to use the standard spur damage, with the secondary effects of electrical damage.

Sorry, it has to be the "bin" because a feeding mechanism is not needed for muzzle loaders if there is no increased capacity.
@Draco18s: If one type of weapon can get a feeding mechanism why shouldn't another.

Let me walk you through it:
You have a vehicle with a reinforced (just to be sure) weapon mount.
You attach a muzzle loaded rocket launcher. It has a capacity equal to the number of tubes (usually).
You add an ammo bin. So the rocket launcher has a capacity equal to twice the number of tubes. Unless more than one projectile can be stored and fired from one tube, there must be some kind of feeding mechanism.

Now let's remove the launcher and the bin and attach an SMG.
The SMG has a certain clip size.
If you add an ammo bin, why shouldn't this bin also come with a feeding mechanism, if the other clearly does?

You've once again only managed to state how a bin has two options:

A) +250 ammo (belt fed)
B) +capacity (other feed)

As both examples were option B.

I give up. If you do not want to see the sentence as an enumeration of three items, I cannot convince you.

All you're arguing is that drones *can't* reload muzzle loaders. You're certainly not supporting the idea that they somehow can, or should.

There's no reason to say 'if it works (big if!) for rockets, it should work for SMGs'; rocket launchers and SMGs are different.

Grammatically I can see the three items, unfortunately only 2 of the three make sense and when the middle one is encapsulated in parentheses instead the sentence results in a 2 item sentence with a clarifying clause.

It's like if I, you know, said something like this sentence. And retyped it (you know) to be like this one.

Shadowrun is notorious for being poorly proofed. It is riddled with grammatical errors, typos, and plain old bad writing. In light of this, which seems more likely: that the entry for the Ammo Bin modification is in error, or that I can stick a Raecor Sting in a vehicular weapon mount and it magically gains the ability to feed ammo from a belt?



Also, I'm a little curious as to how you think you can maintain any credibility whatsoever when you've basically admitted that your interpretation is bullshit.

Metal Storm


No Bin Required....
That is all...

Sakura Fubuki?
Takes up more space.
It would need to look like the LRM pods on the shoulders of a mad cat.
That's a complete rework of the weapon-system.
if there's only a single barrel, then it becomes an even more complicated reloading system.

There is a difference between imbalanced/gamebreakingly powerful, read as written, and player opinions on how things would work. I have not admitted my interpretation is bullshit. All I'm pointing out, well, there's a difference between disallowing something because its against the rules, disallowing something because its imbalanced, and disallowing something because you don't like it. I am fully capable of debating within the rules, while laughing about how retarded it would be in the real world. But just because its stupid, doesn't mean its not possible.

For example: I recently got a thunderstruck gauss cannon in our game. Its entirely within the rules to acquire one if you can deal with the availability, as well as buying a fake license for it. My gm was cool with it. (sure, I only got three shots off with it before it was taken out, but it was worth it)
On the other hand, most gm's would go 'you're not allowed to have that.' Because 9p AP half - 4 is enough to kill anything in the game, and it has such a long range you can snipe with it, its pretty much unstoppable.

Within 400bp, I can use rules-fu to roll a cyborg jarhead who is allso a magician. If someone's silly enough to use pre-4a karmagen rules, I can roll a spirit with force 12 out the door of character generation. Those are entirely within the rules to do. They're also fucking stupid, and if I someone brought those to me as a player, I'd almost certainly tell them no.

Think of it as two sides to the same coin: There's discussing the rules, and then there's actually using them in play without ruining the game for someone.

So, what you're saying is, if you take an Ammo Bin on a mount with a belt-fed machine gun, take the machine gun off, and put a missile launcher on, the bullet ammo feed magically reconfigures itself to fit rockets?

No. You have belt of 250 LMG ammo and a rocket launcher. You forgot to change out the ammo.

Er, what? The machine gun *is* the feed.

So a belt of ammo is inseparable from the weapon.

Uh huh.

Well, enlighten me. Say we do change out the ammo in the same example. What now?

You have double the weapon's normal capacity as the weapon does not have a belt feed mechanism.

The weapon mount comes with an ammo bin by default (that's where it's storing the initial 250 rounds of standard ammo), and in the case of unusual ammo, you only get normal capacity due to the size of the weapon in question. By adding a (second) bin of the same size you get that much more ammo (250 rounds if belt fed, or weapon's normal).

Unhandled exception error: SR4A has stopped working and needs to shut down. RAW says nothing about changing the (putative) feed mechanism with the weapon.

Where does the rules say that one ammo bin fits all sizes? Does this also mean that a Lined Coat that fits a gnome fits a giant, too?

Here:

1) That's not an Ammo Bin. 2) It still doesn't say one-size-fits-all. 3) It specifically addresses rocket launchers.

The rule for lager and smaller metatypes cover clothing and such the rule for swaping weapons say it can be done easly in a few minuets full stop.

Oh, well, good. If everything is one-size-fits-all, I'mma gonna start using the clips from my Ares Alpha with my Colt Manhunter. Whee!

1) Ammo bins specifically add 250 rounds or the weapon's normal capacity, which is the same as the base mount's capacity.
2) It specifically says otherwise.
3) It says "larger ammo types SUCH AS rocket launchers"

1) Still two different things.
2) No it doesn't. At least not what you quoted. Not that it matters, as I was talking about Ammo Bins.
3) Uh, yeah, and? It still specifically addresses rocket launchers. And by addressing it, I mean it specifically states that it doesn't get 250 fucking rounds of ammunition; it gets whatever it normally gets.

...I'm done here...

<shrugs> You're the one who started off saying the same thing I was, then spontaneously started arguing against it. I have no idea why you did it myself.

It makes no sense that somehow magically an "extra ammo bin" can add feed mechanisms to any weapon without modifying the weapon, and effortlessly switch from feeding rockets to bullets.

Okay. You have a LAW rocket launcher in the turret. The additional ammo bin feeds it rockets somehow.

Even if the base turret is incapable of this. Even if launcher wasn't previously capable of being reloaded. And without modifying the weapon in any way shape or form.

This is already getting a little ridiculous. I can how it might be PHYSICALLY possible to design such a mechanism, even with a muzzle loader, by having some sort of arm that reached around the muzzle of the launcher to insert the rockets.

But at the price of just 200¥? No freaking way.

But now, you lift the launcher out of the turret and stick in a LMG. You swap out the rockets for LMG ammo, and it magically can fit into the EXACT SAME mechanism, without modifications. And the ammo bin feed that was previously feeding rockets to the non-reloadable launcher can now mysteriously feed the belts to the LMG without alteration.

You've invented the magic universal ammo feed. Takes any and all sorts of ammo from rockets to grenades to bullets, and without modifying the weapons installed in any way can feed them to any sort of loading mechanism, even if the weapon is single shot and HAS no loading mechanism, from muzzle loading to internal magazine to belts to rails.

Again, all for the low low price of 200¥. And an easy skill threshold of 4.

How can this be anything but utterly ridiculous?

Or, alternately, we can simply assume that the entry on the additional ammo bin is just written wrong, that the writer just forgot that "other loading mechanisms or larger ammunition" were limited to standard capacity. That it does NOT feed a damn thing, and is just an expansion of the turret's existing ammo box, making it bigger.

Which in turn only feeds the belted ammo to weapons that CAN accept belt feeds, other weapons being "restricted to their standard amount of ammunition"



-karma

KarmaInferno, that was probably the most sensible argument I've seen on this thread. Which means it will either be ignored, or will spawn even more argument.

Guys, seriously. If you want to continue discussing this, make a new thread or find one that probably already exists.

On Topic.

some of my favorite Fun weapons

Freeze Foam splash grenades. (toss one in a car, its hilarious)

Flamethrower with under-barrel Flamethrower in Side-by-Side configuration (basically a double barrel that you can fire them both simultaneously for +1 DV)

Flamethrowers in general (aesthetics really)

Laser-Induced Plasma Channel

Ballista with Disposable LAW rockets instead of bolts (to get past those pesky scatter rules)

Dual Eichiro Hatamoto IIs with underbarrel Eichiro Hatamoto IIs

I love flamethrowers in concept, but I would never create a character who used one in Shadowrun. It basically turns you into a living bomb (even if the rules don't really address it). It turns you into a primary target (ahead of even mages!), and even one stray bullet can spell disaster not only for you and your weapon, but your entire team as well.

That said, I miss the Big D's Temper™ Shells from 3rd Edition. It essentially made your shotgun into a mini-flamethrower, using the choke/spread rules to simulate a fan of flame shooting from the barrel. I tried my hand at converting it recently, but haven't had a chance to try it out yet. It probably needs a little fine tuning, but here's the basic gist of it:

I love shells like that. I want them for my roomsweeper.

I would probably change the text to: Edge (0) test, +1 for every shot fired.

I would also probably require the Level 2 Enviromental mod. Alternatively, Level 1 might double the number of shells which can be fired before the Edge test increases, with multiple applications being allowed (2 shells, 4, 8, etc). That might be to complicated though.

Just 2 .

I'm all for unique shotgun options, to make them a more interesting choice.

Holy Crap! It shoots rockets!

It's so sad that they suck in Borderlands.

Frag-12 Shotgun shells, combine with combat shotgun. Nough said.

http://www.defensereview.com/1_31_2004/FRAG%2012.pdf

Check your damn sources before you post. That is a rule for weapon mounts, not ammo bins.

KarmaInferno: Or, the simplest solution: By installing the ammo bins, you have to choose which version you're installing(whether its 2 or 3 to choose from, depending on your side in this). If you want to change it, you have to remove the mod, and put it on again in a different configuration. After all, its only a threshold of 4. It makes sense that a flexible mod like that would be able to be adjusted with a toolkit. The arsenal book even has examples of weapons with adjustable mechanisms, such as one of the shotguns and the taurus multi.

I wonder if the writer who wrote the ammo bin rules thought this much of a mental clusterfuck would ensue? Is that why the wording was done that way instead of simply being; "Its a bin, you put your fucking ammo in it. It does not make a weapon belt fed through magical properties related to wording in a book."?

The authors obviously did not think of weapons which require some sort of manual action (muzzle loaders, manual repeating rifles, break actions...) when writing the rules for weapon mounts. But seriously, who in their right mind would mount those on a drone?

Most airborne fighting vehicles carry rockets/missiles nowadays. They are either muzzle loaders or other one-shot constructions. The other thing is, if you do not allow the belt-feed addition by ammo bin, nobody will mount any other gun than an LMG on a normal mount or a HMG on a reinforced one. smaller drones should also be able to take Pistols/Assault rifles without being limited to 30-60 shots.

BTW Whats the capacity for an Ares Alpha in a mount with ammo bin? Does the Grenade Launcher get double Capacity too?

Hot-Shots
Capsule Rounds filled with White Phosphor & Lighter Fluid in two sealed compartments.
As Capsule Rounds + Elemental Effect Fire

Corroders
Capsule Rounds filled with Hydrocloric Acid
As Capsule Rounds + Elemental Effect Acid

What does the lighter fuel do in the mixture?

Bah Hydrochloric Acid, that's weak. Use Hydrofluoric Acid instead.

No, the Alpha would get normal capacity for primary and secondary, because neither supports a belt.

You're right: anyone who wants more than one clip of ammo in a drone's gun will get a belt-fed weapon. That doesn't sound very tragic. Neither does single-shot rockets/missiles.

Problem is the stronger the acid, the more chance it will burst the capsule rounds. Acid in paintballs is kind of a silly idea. Now,say, a superquirt....or dart gun