Ya I know, but the game has no mechanism for that. Presumably it would be handled 'handwavium' by the computer.

I've heard developers say you actually check each wall independently, ie 1/2 ap - 6 to each wall, so unless a wall has 12+ barrier, it passes through with out incident. Given how few walls in a structure will actually have that, you'll likely be fine.

Take into account MOST walls in most high rise buildings are infact not load bearing, and are actually metal stud frames with dry wall, and all you worry about is the balistic/load bearing glass on the outside. I don't see there being many problems unless you are shooting THROUGH floors.

I've just seen developers use it that way. Don't ask me why, but in given examples they do.

If someone actually manages to install an antitank rail cannon in a building somewhere, I'd let them do something cool with it. Like shoot through a shitload of walls.

Stuff like that is plot devices after all, you don't need rules for it. This is Shadowrun, not Battletech 2075.

Like I said, you can fit one on a steel lynx, which can be carried by a redball express.

Well, just to have a way of calculating here, wich does not rape physics.

Gausrifle one net hit against heavy structured matirial.
There are two options:
First:
Using the rules for barriers and adding all the walls together. All Values are given for 10cm. So if you have 4 walls at 10cm and you are just asking if you will get through:
16*4/2-4=28 nope

If you are asking yourself, how many walls will be penetrated:
First: 16/2-4=4 done
Second:16/2+4= 12 klong

Forgot the AP(-4) on the second example. It would be 16/2+4-4=8 vs 10P, done.
You'd need a third wall, adding 8 and 4, to stop it.

I thought you apply armor penetration just once.
Do the math with avarage matirial and just APDS
loaded in a Pistol. You will shoot through an indefinit number of walls,
thus raping physics.
I said I wont do that. So I did not forget it.

yeah, uh, we went through that line of thought already. See tymaeus's post a few lines up for the fix. It doesn't rape physics if each wall adds bonus armor until the bullet pings off of something.

the method i was doing, with aforementioned tired math, was only using the two walls relevant to the test, instead of adding the bonus armor from -every- wall to the test, which actually makes sense.

The Steel Lynx entry says it can mount LMGs and smaller weapons.

It has Body 4, like a scooter. Even if it could handle the weight of the weapon and its power source, there is NO WAY it could handle the recoil. Have you ever seen how current tanks recoil when they fire a kinetic penetrator? The Lynx weighs 1% of what they do.

So, if what you're telling me is that you set a Lynx with a rail cannon as a one-shot thing, the Lynx is just there to move and aim the cannon, and once it fires everything breaks, I applaud you. That's a plot device - you found a cool but expensive way to solve an otherwise untractable problem. If you have a serious amount of nuyen to burn on every kill so you do this often, or you actually have <1 ton drones firing rail cannons repeatedly, and you're not attracting enough heat to get caught firing antitank weapons repeatedly in a city, then you really are playing Battletech 2075.

They changed the rule to one weapon mount per 3 body rounded down rather than up, but it used to be body 4 was all that was needed for a reinforced mount.

Still means you could mount a main gun on a motorcycle according to RAW though...
Personally, I like the idea for Pink Mohawk play, but would create a special class of mount for such weapons if I was playing a more serious game.

You mean, liek this?
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivation...-1245864892.jpg
http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/...ot_your_fi.html

Or maybe more like this?
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/denmark/denmark.html

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/denmark/FP3-1.jpg
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/denmark/FP3-2.jpg

That's a recoilless rifle (ie rocket launcher), not a cannon. As the name implies, they don't have to deal with recoil and so can be mounted anywhere that can take the weight, or fired from the shoulder.

It still does not work. It was not stressed, but my example breaks both Tymeus's method and yours.

With your method, the residual wall armor loses 4 points per paper wall. The more walls, the less armor

Now let's look at Tymeus's method for the same example:

Wall 1: 24 - 5 = 19
Wall 2: 1 + 19 - 5 = 15
At this point, physics already lie prostrated in the corner of the room, crying. Tymeus's method does not change anything to the second wall.

Wall 3: 1 + 19 + 15 - 5 = 30
waitwaitwait... the second paper wall actually accelerates the bullet, but the third paper wall is hard as concrete? But they are both the same stuff?!

No, what I'm arguing is that an APDS round that goes through a plywood barrier is going to be less able to penetrate armor than an APDS round that has not gone through any sort of hindrance. I'm not saying that the bullet should stop if it can't reduce the armor of the barrier to 0, I'm just saying that it no longer has the force required to reduce the armor of anything else.

So, and APDS round with -5 AP that goes through a 2 armor plywood barrier would have used up enough kinetic energy that it only retains enough power to reduce future armor (such as on a target or another barrier) by 3. In other words, the bullet doesn't magically gain more kinetic energy after passing through a barrier. This prevents all the stupid stuff that people keep finding like being able to go through an infinite number of walls, a wall providing less protection if there is a weaker wall behind it, and so on.

So sure, if your bullets are made of unobtainum and propelled by handwavium, then go ahead and keep apply full AP over and over and over again to each barrier, regardless of the loss of kinetic energy and the deformation of the bullet that would occur with each barrier it passes.

Oh, and no, I wasn't saying that you were thinking that the AP applied to the barrier, then the bonus armor, then the person's real armor, what I was saying was that if the target had no armor, then the second application of the AP that you wanted, would then knock off bonus armor that was provided by virtue of the fact that the AP wasn't sufficient to reduce the armor of the barrier, in other words it got to hit the armor of the barrier twice if the target wasn't wearing armor (or was only lightly armored)

The only thing specified to use the full magic rating is the level of physical adept power. Everything else is under the general rule of for everything else uses the full magic rating.

So then someone asks, "does everything else uses the full magic rating mean the force of spells as well?"

The designers responded, "No. Force of spells is determined by the points invested in magic."

General rule, clarified. Which is exactly what FAQs are for.

Whether or not this FAQ applied to 4e or 4A remains to be seen.

Yeah, I think I just apply the full barriers armor t the next barrier or person without AP reducing the barriers carried over armor, then apply AP to the total.

So Barrier 1 has 2 armor, barrier 2 has 2 armor, target has armor jacket so 8/6. AP from a heavy pistol with APDS -5. Barrier 1 gets with its 2 armor gets no armor due to AP, barrier 2 has 4 armor 2 from itself 2 from first barrier, all 4 go away due to -5 AP, target has 8+4 armor or 12-5AP 7 armor. So he is better off since it went through 2 barriers but it still penetrated his armor a bit.

Yep, which is the same effect as what I'm proposing, just calculated slightly differently.

What your proposing is:

Wall 1: 2 armor
Wall 2: 2 Armor
Guy: 8 armor

Heavy Pistol: APDS : -5

Wall 1: 5 > 2 = AP now = 3
Wall 2: 3 > 2 = AP now = 1
Guy: 1 < 8 = Guy gets 7+body dice to soak stun damage with?

That is what it looks like to me, which is basically what I do but I calculate it differently. Due to how my mind works I find my method easier to conceptualize.

so instead of
Wall 1: 5 > 2 = AP now = 3
Wall 2: 3 > 2 = AP now = 1
Guy: 1 < 8 = Guy gets 7+body dice to soak stun damage with?

Wall 1: 2-5=0
Wall 2: 4-5=0
Guy: 12-5=7 Guy gets 7+body dice to soak stun damage with

With your method (which is also the one I would use), you don't need to test Wall 1 at all: if the bullet is stopped by wall 1, it would never have made it through wall 2 anyway. Check only the last wall for penetration, then soak.

That is exactly what I am proposing. All the sudden walls actually impeed the progress of bullets, instead of giving them extra kinetic energy.

Rigger 3 allowed you to fit one on if you ripped out the turret, and mounted it directly to the hull. This meant the Lynx would have to turn its entire body, and raise or lower itself on its tracks to aim, but for the purposes of what it was meant for, that was often more then enough.

Thats not a clarification, thats making up house rules, everythink else very obviliously ablies to everything else,otherwise its pointless to say everythink else.
Also that FAQ answer is claiming that max rating of adept powers is limited by the points but in adept powers, so really not a valid FAQ answer.
Contradicting a written rules is not clarifieing in any sense of the word.

Very much true. An FAQ is meant to give examples of how rules work in order to clarify, not to change or interpret. Errata is the only accepted means of changing or interpreting rules in an official capacity. (Not to mention contradicting what is already written only muddys the water further)

I'll just say I disagree with you.

Interpret things however you want at your table and I'll do the same at mine.

Best advice in the thread....

Yes ofcource your free to rule how you like at your table and i'm not even saying that i wouldn't neccesary rule it like you do if i was running a game.
Im only disagreeing with the validity of that bonkers FAQ answer.
You can't just take a half of an answer and claim its just clarifying a general rule, when the other half of the answer directly contradict an explicitly stated part of that same general rule.

Of course. But if we weren't exchanging opinions about how we do things compared to others, then what are we doing here?

Sure, I just don't feel like getting into a what is RAW, legitimate use of a FAQ argument. There is no real definition for it, and people like to use it as an attempt t bludgeon people with there view of what the rules should be.

I have my views, I have stated them. If people want to disagree they can, but arguing the point is fruitless. No one can prove one side is right since they are undefined terms and situations. It is a game and is there to be fun, rules, raw, FAQ all should be used in what ever way makes the game at your table fun. Getting hung up on what is the "right" rule is pointless.

I am happy to discuss how I view things, how I run a game and why. And I like seeing how others do the same and sometimes adapt because I think they are doing it better. But get into an argument over undefined technical terms not so much.

With that in mind, I am actually mostly curious as to the ~why~ you feel the rules should be read as such. Is it a flavor issue? Or a balance issue? Had it ever actually come up? Because it doesn't limit what I feel the most amusing abuse of the mystic adept would be, giving them 1 magic for spells because you have to and the rest as adept so they can take spell resistance along with improved reflexes and have access to counterspelling, making them a defacto mage killer.

The Klincher for me is that a Dev has outright said thats the way it is. So we have two sources related to the game actually saying it is ( Dev, FAQ - means theres some sort of agreement there amongst the designers.
Further more, in personal experience the one guy in our group who tries to find the Magic Bullet optimization for any roleplaying and board game we play is ALL OVER mystic adepts.

A dev saying "No its really supposed to be this way" and an FAQ don't make a house rule. It makes it a fact of the game.

I just find it amusing someone would focus on Mystic Adepts when Mages or Adepts individually are much easier to power build.

However, I'm done disputing whether that ruling is fact or not. It remains the same, if it is not in an official capacity, which a Dev and FAQ are ~not~, then it is not fact as far as I'm concerned. At this point I'm more concerned with the why behind the ruling for people.

I'd imagine it is along the lines of your mage killer idea above. Basically the have the best of all worlds. They can get cyber, they can get spells, and they can get adept powers. They get to be gunbunnies that can toss spells, or spellcasters that can hold their own in a mundane fight. It is less their raw power, and more their extreme versatility.

However, in my 1/5 example you are going to have, with a foci... half the dice of a full mage? maybe 2/3rds if you're lucky? And then you're sacrificing a lot from gunbunny skills. You could just as easily be a mage with a high rating sustaining focus for Improved Reflexes to get the same effect. Again, it seems to me to be an unnecessary reading of the rules when there are far easier things to break that are far more broken. With the ruling as is there is almost no reason to make a Mystic Adept, aside from my mage killer idea... that I should really expand upon and present to my GM.

I actually don't know how the rule should be handled at my table in this case. I think I said much earlier that I don't like them, but having never played one and never had one in a game I have no idea what in play works out to be balanced. I can see how this can be abused, but anything can be abused. My initial thought is I'd go with the FAQ because it is easier to remove a restriction in play than to add one in. So if in play with the faq ruling the player ends up being fine, I'd stick with it. If he ends up being lackluster I'd change to the full magic for force interpretation. It still would be tough to judge since how good a character looks has a lot to do with the player. My only large concern about the FAQ ruling is background count. Dropping 2 magic out of your 5 for a normal mage still means he can do something, dropping 2 from your 3/3 mystic adept would cripple the magic part.

Depends on how the build goes. You'll only be behind a mage by the five dice that the hit in magic took, and for a large part, high numbers of hits aren't required based on your spell selection. Perhaps the biggest thing I've generally seen is MAs with only 1 point in adept to get access to focused concentration so they can cut back on foci. (No need to argue on if you think this is a correct interpretation of the power or not, I'm just saying that is what I often see)

In my experience a few dice does not make much of a difference for the mages since they are normally targeting one stat. so in the 1/5 example he is down 5 dice sure but usually that is meaningless. In the clutch situations, background count, counterspelling etc it will come into play. Again in play I'm not sure how it pans out overall, some of this is table dependent, how often does the opposition have magical support, how often are you dealing with background count etc.

In my games it would depend on if the mystic adept was the only mage in the party or not. I'm there to privde a challenging story, not wipe them out so if he is solo backgoround count etc. would be rarer. If they have other mages it would be more common in order to show the difference between a focussed mage and the mystic adept, and to privde a better challenge.

Overall still don't know what the rule should be though.

Edit to add.

Also the loss of astral projection is very table dependent. In every game I've played going astral is usually just a way to get your butt handed to you for breaking off from the party. It occasionally provides somewhat useful information but rarely more than you'd get from basic surveillance and talking to your contacts. Other games seem to make it out to be super fantastic scouting tool with little danger, and some a more balanced approach. Astral perception is somewhat big, but you can take a phys adept ability to cover that.

That is an interesting concept, I hadn't fully considered the usage of initiation. I'm not 100% familiar with Street Magic intiation abilities, could I get a quote on that one? It's the only book I have only a physical copy of, and not a PDF.

<edit> I find projection to just be in general more useful than merely perceiving, albeit both can be of great use with assensing, depeding on your angle of aptitude.

You mean focused concentration? It isn't an initiation, it is an adept power from digital grim...whatever. Costs one PP and allows the user to ignore one penalty up to.. I think it is their magic score, so often up to -6. There is alot of debate about this power though, including if it lasts for a length of time or just for one turn, and if it can be used to cancel out 6 points worth of sustaining penalty, or if they count as separate -2 penalties. I don't have the book, so can't quote it.

P.S. Please don't argue on it here, I don't really care, I'm just pointing out that there is debate about it.

Not to argue over, but to show.

"Heightened Concentration
Cost: 1
The adept is capable of tuning out a single distraction to her
task at hand. When using this power, the adept can ignore a single
situational negative dice pool modifier of a value up to her Magic
attribute. This power requires a Complex Action to activate and
maybe be combined with the Adept Centering metamagic"

Digital Grimoire pg 18.

Interesting, that is definitely an obfuscated rule. It certainly implies that it lasts as long as you want, but it at least explicitly states only 1 situational modifier. You can of course then argue that all your sustained spells are only 1 distraction but they are technically 3 seperate entities... most curious indeed.

Yep, and thus the power sparking large arguments over how it should be interpreted.

But anyway, this is one of the appeals of the MA, that they can get that to negate one (or more) sustaining penalty, and essentially have a free sustaining focus of F infinity and that isn't bound by category of spell and isn't at risk of being lost.

Do you have any examples of practical uses? The need of a Complex action to activate looks like a major drawback to me.

I guess on the metamgic front they get access to adept centering and attunement. Both are pretty damn awesome, but I don't think its game breaking or anything for them to have them.

Centering in general is the style of metamgic I don't like the ones that increase with grade. You get your grade up a bit and all of a sudden they have stupendously powerful effects. In earlier editions shielding was effectively magic immunity since it both gave dice like counter spelling and raised the TN by the initiate grade. In this edition there is noting that bad, but centering still does a crap ton when you level up your initiate grades a bit. For physical adepts there versions allow you to ignore penalties to combat and physical skills, for mages you start throwing stupid tons of drain resistance dice.

It comes down to the interpretation on how it works. If it lasts for as long as the penalty exists its soli all around. For example darkness penalties, previously I'd say cover penalties but now its bonus dice, and specifically what people talk about sustaining penalties. You sustain your spell without the need for a focus saving both karma and cash. Some claim it applies to multiple sustaining penalties since they are added together into one penalty.

It is not broken but it is fairly damn useful and cool.

Cast improved reflexes 4, use a complex action to ignore the -2 sustaining penalty for the rest of the day, laugh manically as you just got out of buying and binding a F4 health sustaining focus.

At least that is one (perhaps the more common based on the number of MAs I've seen use it that way) interpretation.

There is also the interpretation that the 'focus on a task' part means that it is only reduced for some short set amount of time to preform a particular task, as opposed to meaning 'you can focus on other stuff in general'.

And then there is the interpretation that 'sustaining spells' is a single distraction, regardless of how many spells you are sustaining, and thus you could (with magic 6) sustain 3 spells for free.

I will only say this... Powers are not designed for Player Characters specifically, or in exclusion... The average Magic Attribute is a 3, so Heightened Concentration is useful in ignoring the penalty for a single spell (Usually), assuming that you are a Mystic Adept...

Shadowrunners are a cut above the rest, and are the ones that may have a high Magic Rating, which in turn will result in a better useage of Heightened Concentration. I fall in the group that considers Spell Sustaining Penalty as a single Penalty, regardless of how many spells are sustained... after all, they are not named differently dependant upon the number of spells sustained... Does this make heightened Concentration somewhat powerful? Well, it could... yes, you could ignore up to 3 spells at character Creation using that adept ability... So what? And as a note, it is not sustaining up to 3 spells for free, as you claim; that ability actually cost you a full point of magic to do... not all that free to me...

Heightened Concentration is not game breaking in my opinion... it is not the "Be-all, end-all power" for everyone to have. Will there be some mystic adepts that have this ability, sure, but there are a lot of useful adept powers depending upon your character concept. Hell, I prefer adepts and Mystic Adepts, and yet, I have NEVER had a single one take this power... not yet anyways...

Anyways...

Thanks for the answer. So it is not Heightened concentration that is overpowered but the 2 layers of cheese some put on it. As you said, it's better to drop the argument here to avoid the flames