I'm fully aware that each additional question I clutter this thread with makes it less likely for me to get an answer for some other question, but each new one seems more important than the old ones.

p. 56 R3, under Anti-Missile Defense Systems says to "use the procedure employed when attacking an aircraft." Does that refer to some rules in particular, or does it simply mean that such attacks are conducted with the usual vehicle combat rules? Asking because I don't remember seeing any rules about attacking aircraft specifically.

And concerning Sensor Tests and locking on, do you think this would be OK for a house rule:

• Any vehicle/drone can maintain a number of Sensor lock-ons equal to its Sensor rating.
• As a Free Action, a rigger can add or remove any number of targets from the "lock-on list" of a vehicle he is currently rigging, a drone he has jumped in or any drone in a RC Network where he is in Captain's Chair Mode, unless another rigger is jumped in that drone.
• Each target that has been locked-on is considered locked with the number of successes the targeting vehicle scored in the latest (Active) Sensor Test against the target. There is no separate Sensor Test when an object is locked. If in the latest Sensor Test the vehicle did not score any successes against the target's Signature, it cannot be locked on (obviously).
• As a Complex Action, a rigger can "clean sweep" his Sensors, allowing a new (Active) Sensor Test against all objects in his Sensors' range. Roll the Sensor Test dice only once, and compare those scores against all objects in range. This can be done with a directly rigged vehicle, or any drone within the rigger's RCN that does not already have a rigger jumped in.

I think what you got wrong in your post with the SAM example was his early warning system. Sensor lock in Rigger land does not equal radar lock today. sensor lock is the drone recognizing the extent of it's target, and calculating where it will be, actively tracking it using ALL of its sensors, so that would be the highlighting you talk of, that is the sensor lock on. not nessesarily directional radar, but just an understanding of what the target is.

-Mike R.

don't forget about missle intellegence. that make sa difference too in the sam example.

as for the radar locked AA gun, that is a good example of a sensor enhanced gunnery.

now imagine for a moment that you were trying to shoot a moel aircraft with that same gun (sig do you think that your gun would autotrack and give lead for an object that is much more difficult to lock onto? the act of putting the crosshairs on target was the complex action of locking on (very easy on a sig 2-3 jet). I'm betting you didn't pull the trigger til after the lock? than you did one complex action (sensor lock on) and then another (fire missles).

it doesn't take very long, but a rigger is moving fast enough that what you described wouldn't take any longer than a rigger doing the same on his vehicle.

as for drones, the drone doesn't have the advantage of knowing human processing power, so it has to positively lock on to the target to figure out where to shoot, just like tha man, the difference is the man can ID the right target much faster.

In response to the housrules
p. 56 R3, under Anti-Missile Defense Systems says to "use the procedure employed when attacking an aircraft." Does that refer to some rules in particular, or does it simply mean that such attacks are conducted with the usual vehicle combat rules? Asking because I don't remember seeing any rules about attacking aircraft specifically.[/QUOTE]
there is no special rules for aircraft that I know of, they just mean vehicle combat. use the incoming missle as one vehicle and the missle defence as the weapon.

And concerning Sensor Tests and locking on, do you think this would be OK for a house rule:


* Any vehicle/drone can maintain a number of Sensor lock-ons equal to its Sensor rating.

I think thisshould be linked to the drones pilot rating, not the sensor rating.

* As a Free Action, a rigger can add or remove any number of targets from the "lock-on list" of a vehicle he is currently rigging, a drone he has jumped in or any drone in a RC Network where he is in Captain's Chair Mode, unless another rigger is jumped in that drone.


if you use a one time or repeatbale Active test to lock on to all targets in range, than this makes some sense. but just telling the drone to shoot at that car, when the drone hasn't seen the car, ishouldn't work without some sort of battletac system


* Each target that has been locked-on is considered locked with the number of successes the targeting vehicle scored in the latest (Active) Sensor Test against the target. There is no separate Sensor Test when an object is locked. If in the latest Sensor Test the vehicle did not score any successes against the target's Signature, it cannot be locked on (obviously).

I would require at least one active sweep for the combat area, as maybe a simple action, to aquire all the targets that are in range

* As a Complex Action, a rigger can "clean sweep" his Sensors, allowing a new (Active) Sensor Test against all objects in his Sensors' range. Roll the Sensor Test dice only once, and compare those scores against all objects in range. This can be done with a directly rigged vehicle, or any drone within the rigger's RCN that does not already have a rigger jumped in.



yeah like this except required and treated as an active must be done anytime a new craft enters range that you want to hit, regardless if the passives picked it up or not (passives are for saying hey somethings here, active is for saying get em boys)

-Mike R.

Is it possible to use a normal weapon to target a normal (non-naval) missile in flight?

~J

Well, when I said "normal weapons" I was actually thinking in terms of a MMG mounted on a vehicle.

~J

Per SR3 pgs. 135-136 and 152, I've always treated a successful the Active Sensor Test (which is a complex action) as a successful lock-on for Sensor Enhanced Gunnery. In addition, there is no need for future active sensor tests to retain lock-on unless the drone wants to try for more successes to get additional information (see table on pg. 136), or something happens that would increase the TN for the Active Sensor Test (for example, losing direct LOS, which would increase the TN by +2).

Accordingly, when I give drones commands (or program my SOP commands in advance), I always include guidance to attempt Active Sensor Tests when not doing anything else. There's no canon limitation on the number of lock ons tracked, although the GM could certainly apply Comprehension Test TN penalties if the drone had to deal with a crowd of potential targets.

Achieving pre lock-on is the only way drones (not directly controlled by a rigger or with robot enhanced initiative) can be effective in combat. Otherwise, since they won't get more than one action a turn (a drone with Pilot 3 controlled via Captain's Chair mode has initiative of 3 + 1d6), the drone will only be firing once every six seconds.

Since there is no mention of a normal Sensor Test, Active or Passive, taking an action in the section describing Sensor Tests, I automatically assumed that they do not take any action. E.g. when a vehicle appears in the Sensor range of a drone, I assume the drone gets a free, no-action Sensor Test to notice it.

If a drone does not get a free, no-action Sensor test, how does it know what to lock on to? The example of Sensor Enhanced Gunnery in SR3 p. 153 also suggests that you have to get some form of Sensor Test to know that there's something there, and then you have to make a Complex Action Sensor Test in addition to that in order to lock on. I suppose the wording of the chapter could be taken to mean that multiple lock-ons are possible.

Could someone start a poll on whether, when and what kind of Actions people assume Sensor Tests to take? I doubt I can, yet, because of my crappy ISP still acting up.

The Sensor Test table, however, says that even with that first Sensor Test you can identify the target very accurately (type and model, identify by unique features), as well as getting the usual sensor data: Location, heading, speed. My whole point is, that data should be sufficient for a lock-on without any further fiddling about with the Sensors, never mind 3 seconds of fiddling for a non-wired pilot.

Not to change topics, but I'm highly confused by the way the errata lays out medical clinics in vehicles. The errata changes the people space requirements to 36 CF per patient and 48 per medtech and ups the equipment size for customization to 75 CF.

I frankly don't understand how the doc wagon CM variants work (where are they getting that extra 300 or so CF?), and have to ask the following about a regular roadmaster (80 CF).

As near as I can tell, you could put a 75CF medical facility in the back of one, but because of the lack of people space, it would count as a bad or terrible condition for the first aid modifiers. Is this the best that can be done in an after-market Roadmaster?

That would seem to be the case. I wouldn't be too thrilled about that as a GM, because the vehicle does not then have enough space for even a human corpse. An RV seems the overall best choice for a shadowrunner ambulance chassis. Too bad the Ford-Canada Bison has such a crappy CF rating.

With the DW CM variant, they've simply re-designed the whole thing and used maximum rating Increased Cargo Space. 400 CF, the turret, clinic, etc, it's legal. The DW CM simply adds well over 40 cubic meters of space to the normal CM -- the equivalent of lengthening the vehicle by more than 4 meters at least.

None of the Anti-Ship Missiles have any armor, so I find it extremely unlikely that a Great Dragon would. There are 2 Body 3 missiles, which weigh 495kg and 750kg, and 5 Body 4 missiles and torpedoes which weigh between 750kg and 2250kg. I think Body 1 would be sufficient for the 3kg (!) Great Dragon. That thing's smaller than several RL LAW-rockets. A single shot with a 9mmP could easily swat it down, the problem should be hitting it.

I've been planning on designing Anti-Ship Missiles of my own. The canon ones suck ass. If only one could get a Chemical Rocket power plant on a UAV Drone...

Well, it's the fact that the weapon itself is intended to punch through opposing armor that suggests to me that the missile ought to have some armor... though if the anti-ship ones don't have armor, it sounds like the ATGM might not either.

~J

These weapons are almost always not supposed to physically penetrate any armor while intact. As soon as they hit the target (or indeed before they hit the target) they will explode, and various effects from different kinds of shaped charges take care of things from there on. Remove the explosive charge from one, and it would flatten against a tank like the piece of plastic junk it is.

can I cut in here with a stupid question? Thanks.


Can you rig without a VCR?

My friend made his character with no VCR and only a remote control cranial thingy. I told him that it wrong and you MUST have a VCR in order to rig?


Who is right?

Without a VCR and only a Cranial Remote-Control Deck you can control drones in Captain's Chair Mode, as per p. 154, SR3. Only someone with a VCR can rig drones, ie. jump into them/operate them in primary mode.

Sorry for my lapse in attendance to this thread, look for something tonight things have been pretty hairy here.

Bump

Sorry for my absence in this thread. My workplace load has changed, as has my at home situations. I will try to post something tomorrow. but if I don't get anything out the door tomorrow for you guys. Feel free to take this thing and run with it. I apologize to all those looking for answers, but my free-time is such that I've not gotten much chance to run Shadowrun, let alone research for it

Wishing all you wonderful SR fans well, and here's hoping I can come up with more info for you all tomorrow.

Ok im looking for a thread/ Rigger battle thats was posted here a while back, I think Austere E was the writer of it but im not sure.

The Battle/ Story was about some pirates attcking a Cargo ship that was protected by an SK Attack sub of some sort.

I'm posting this request here cos it explained about rigging and such. Can anybody help??

http://forums-temp.dumpshock.com/index.php...?showtopic=3735

It doesn't really explain a whole lot, it's just a short example of naval combat, and is actually riddled with errors. That and a bit of discussion on robotics in ships, and general stuff about naval combat in the 2060s. And no, I'm not going to continue the example.

Well i remember it being a bloody good read. And thanks.