So WAR! is bad....i didn´t read all 8 pages of this topic, but even i understood it now.^^

Let's put it like that. There are some very good rules. But their amount is around the volume of an errata.

"War, Nobby. What is it good for?" he said.
"Dunno, sarge. Freeing slaves, maybe?"
"Absol- Well, okay." - Thud!

Ah, Sir Terry Pratchett. We salute you!

Damn straight! Man has a magic sword!

Some points on the slow spell that are being missed regarding being shot at:

1. It has no impact on the physics or kenetic energy of a weapon firing into it (AFB-but I recall it mentioning this caveat).
A. So a mage hiding in a slow spell still takes the full damage of any weapon shot at him that hits. His defense is not improved either---the reaction time he has is canceled by the fact that he is slowed. THE FACT IS IT IS MAGIC-PHYSICS BE DAMNED---move along. All it does is delay the inevitable.
B. A mage behind the slow spell will get some benefit, but does not prevent lobbing grenades around it or casting spells.

2. Isn't the drain F/2+3? You don't cast that willy nilly even at force 1.

Not true. "Movement in the area is limited to one meter per second, enough to mitigate damage from bullets, explosions, or falls."



Depends on the grenade. If it relies on explosions, the spell will stop it. Spells are definitely good-to-go though.



Yep, though no mage I've ever seen would be overly concerned about 4S drain. Casting it at higher forces gets painful fast, and you'll need more than Force 1 if you want to be able to withstand dispelling.

Just remember to tell your GM that your power focus was made using Sangre del Drago bark and you get -1 to drain.

Having read the above description, is the slow spell the "Holtzman shield" from Dune?

Not really, though I suppose it's still possible to shove a knife in someone. It'd be like a slow motion fight sequence. Unfortunately the spell itself is silent on how it reacts with melee, so it's up to the GM.

Okay, I'm reading War! in search for Russian military vehicles. And lo!
Okay, let's skip the usual shit with the name (which is a vaguely Russian-sounding set of letters, translating to something like "Cannon Windou"). Tell me at least, is it a tank or an IFV?
If it's a tank, why does it have gun ports? For the crew to shoot at the opposition while they're not too busy with their direct responsibilities?
If it's an IFV, why is it called a tank repeatedly? Aaaaaargh!

*shrug*. It's tracked and has a heavy turret. I guess the line is blurry.

Nope. The line is not blurry. At all.
All Russian IFVs and APCs have heavy turrets (by SR classification) with autocannons (by SR classification) in them. They are IFVs and APCs, respectively, cause they carry mechanized infantry inside.
Hell, when Ukraine converts old T-72s to carry infantry, making them a meter or so longer, they are classified to be heavy IFVs, not tanks any more.
The line is as clear as it could be.

So, the difference is just that they have more people in them? Doesn't seem very clear, or meaningful. How many people before it stops being a tank? How few before it stops being an IFV?

It sounds like your problem is the gun ports. Couldn't they be for the crew, and rarely intended for use? This seems like a tiny, insignificant detail to hang the tank/IFV definition on. How would it make any difference? Either way, it has X armor, Y firepower, and Z maneuvering ability.

The difference being they have people besides the crew in them. The people they transport around and then drop out, so that those people could fight and die. It doesn't take a genius to comprehend the difference, I am quite surprised that there are people who fail to do that.

Yeah, gun ports could be for the crew (it's an old joke when describing old armour, "Armament: a hole for a gun"), but typically a tank crew should be as protected as possible, and having gun ports kinda contradicts that intent. Moreover, crew members are mostly busy doing their direct responsibilities - like, you know, driving the tank, shooting the gun, reloading it or commanding the whole gig. If he isn't busy enough, he shouldn't be there, to begin with - making tanks as small a target as possible is one of the ways of raising their defense.

Finally, let me remind you that SR stats do not feature the passenger number, and whether Pushka Okne is a tank or a heavy IFV may mean that it seats four as crew, or it seats that plus 8 passengers.

Heh... The world may never know...

Actually the difference lies in the design stage and the tactical employment of the unit in the field. For instance the M113 was designed to transport infantry to the FEBA, at which point they would generally fall back, or remain in a staging area until called forward. Armament was defensive principally LMG, MMG, sometimes an AT missile or two, or even a recoilless rifle. Often these weapons were added as an afterthought. These weapons were mainly there to protect it on the way to the battle field, assist when ambushed, and aid in defensive positions. An IFV is designed as being an offensive part of the mechanized assault disgorging troops as late as the Assault Position or PLD, and providing a base of fire with generally heavier armament up to and including tank cannon in the 90mm+ range, Gatling or Machine Cannon in the 20mm-30mm range, Automatic Grenade Launchers 30mm-40mm, and Multiple LMG, MMG, and HMG combinations. They are fast and lightly armored designed for large scale maneuver warfare. Delivering troops, supporting in the assault, the consolidation, and follow on maneuver to the next target. APC move troops. IFV move troops and kick ass. Hope that helps

In that case, it's a tank with (ill-conceived) gun ports. It calls it a tank, so it's a tank. It doesn't take a genius to comprehend that, I am quite surprised that there are people who fail to do that. You started it, Snarky McSnidepants.

In all seriousness: it's called a tank, and the only evidence against is very weak (gun ports). If it said 'holds 8+crew', that'd be a horse of a different color. Instead, it says it's a tank that kills tanks.

BTRs are supposed to be APCs, but they have automatic cannons and sometimes machine guns to boot.

I'm glad that my repeated explanations have finally let you comprehend the difference. And no, I did not "start it", your arrogant ignorance did.

Now that we're done with personal remarks, the book calls it a tank, then gives it IFV upgrades and stats, and cost times lower than anything remotely tank-related. Doesn't take a genius to tell it wasn't written by a genius, but still I'm kinda lost when writing about it for alt.War. There's nothing preventing an IFV from killing a tank, especially with those flashy ATGM they have. Then again, I can't recall any SR4E books reading "holds 8+crew", it's always guesswork - and it's precisely that guesswork that I aim to eliminate.

All of the BTR series were designed to move troops, with a generally light weapon systems as its primary armament, they are APC's. All of them also had variants with an assortment of roles, and armaments. The design was not built around the idea of it being employed as I stated IFV's are intended to be employed in my previous post. The point is the heavier weapon systems were generally tacked on as an afterthought or to provide a cheap method of filling the IFV role. For instance a BTR 80 converted to and assault platform loses space from the passenger compartment, where as an LAV-25 is already designed as a full on assault and fire support platform. You can stick a giant gun on an APC it is still an APC it has lighter armor, lighter load capacities, and when you add something as an afterthought it takes up space. Anyway hope it helps.

Right, BTR-90 had me confused, apparently...

Honestly now. If you're arguing that the tank/IFV issue is based on armor, etc., then welcome to my original argument (apparently, the arrogantly ignorant one?). So, either you think it has/hasn't 'tank stats'), or you go by the description (which says 'tank'). Pick one, but don't act like it's my fault you asked a silly question. Jeez, you try to help a guy asking for help…

The BTR 90 could still be an APC based on it's employment/deployment. I am not that familiar with current Russian Mechanized Doctrine. By Soviet doctrine it would be an APC, by US Doctrine it would likely be an IFV however ultimately the designation it based on the force it was designed for and how it fits into the order of battle for said force. If you had understood my original post it should have been fairly clear that this was the case.

As to the arrogant ignorance you have accused others of well perhaps you should look in the mirror, everyone is trying to have a discussion, but whether it is intentional or not the tone of your posts fit the moniker perfectly, as exemplified by your latest.

Geez. There are monifilament granades in this book and you are arguing about a tank having gun ports?

A lot of the stats in Arsenal or even the core book make no sense at all.
War! is not an exception.
It is like playing a game with a resolution of 640*480 on a 25 zoll screen.
If you get to close, all you see are pixels.

Same thing here: If you want to much explaination and defination all breaks apart.

So true, Irion. However, Faelan's post was very informative, gun ports or not. He explained that the difference between a tank (which we understand to be a tracked, armored vehicle with a big tank gun on a turret) and an IFV (a tracked, armored vehicle carrying troops, but which could have a 'tank gun') is blurry. 'Tanks' tend to have more armor and bigger guns, while a faster, less armored IFV might not have a 'tank gun' at all.

Lacking any mention of carrying troops, but with multiple references to 'tank', you'd have to assume the vehicle in question is a cheap 'light' tank, in the blurry region. If it were primarily for carrying troops, it'd mention it. This conclusion can certainly be overridden if the stats are overwhelming of the 'light armor, faster' character, of course.

I suppose that IFVs generally get less armor cause they need to remain mobile while having larger inner volume, and the same kind of engines (at least the same in power-per-unit-of-volume sense). The tank (?) in question gets the stats closer to a Citymaster or the APCs from the German Arsenal than to tanks from Milspectech (which, I believe, we can trust more than War!). Same goes for the cost. It is precisely the conflict between the text, the stats, the upgrades and the cost that made me ask the question. If you think that "pick one or the other and act on that" is a sufficient answer, I thank you for your willingness to help.
The ignorance in your original argument, naturally, wasn't pointing out the stats, but the claim that tanks and IFVs are hard to distinguish, or that the difference is the number of people inside (on which you persist).


The 90 had me confused on what the BTR line had for armament, not on the combat role of APCs or IFVs. Or tanks, for that matter.
You can continue stating the obvious about the combat doctrine, if you wish.

I have looked in the mirror, nothing of particular interest could be seen, just as I'm not seeing much of the discussion besides blatantly wrong "IFVs and tanks are hard to distinguish", blatantly obvious "tanks, IFVs and APCs are easy to distinguish since they fulfill different combat roles, but those depend on the military's doctrine" and blatantly uninformative "you take one side of the controversy you've mentioned or the other, and run with that".
I am yet to see anything I said proved false for me to be called ignorant, besides the BTR line armament, which I was the first to admit not being fully correct in describing.


The line between a tracked armoured vehicle with a large-bore cannon and a tracked armoured vehicle with a large-bore cannon carrying troops is not a blurry one.
See my example above - when T-72 tanks are converted for carrying troops in Ukraine, they are reclassified heavy IFVs, despite retaining their armouring, armament and tracks.

Yes, it lacks any mention of carrying troops. However, as I have already said, I suspect gun ports among the standard upgrades to be one, since the crew-operated weapons are usually mounted on the vehicle's weapon mounts, with the gun mounts providing the temporarily passengers a chance to use their firearms in addition to that. The light tank explanation is ruined by the cost of the Ares Ocelot, which is a light tank and costs eight times as much as the YNT product. However, the price of the Pushka seems more or less in order with the cost of the Striker from MilSpecTech.
Which serves to display how War! is full of stuff that doesn't make sense compared to the stuff in other books, Irion's right here.


Okay, that message's incredibly on the grumpy side. I beg pardon from everyone involved, of course disagreeing with my opinions is not a reason for the kind of tone implied.
Guess the whole "have to support the book which makes no sense" deal had me worked up, in addition to staying up well past midnight; however slight an excuse that may make.

You're right. I could've been more helpful, but you really slapped me right off the bat. Sorry.

To conclude, I think you have to go by the stats and the description (meaning 'a very light baby tank'), because if carrying troops is the deciding factor, it would have mentioned troops. Stupid War!, heh.

I've already found and edited a very nice blueprint of a BTR-T, and since I use blueprints for vehicle illustrations (for now at least), I'll go with that. Make it an IFV refit from an old tank, something like T-030 Dikaya Koshka or T-035 Mstitel...

The problem you're tripping over isn't about gunports or grenades or names.

It's that you are assuming that the writers have even the slightest idea about real life military or weapons.

Seriously. It's made up by people that largely put in stats cos they "look good".




-k

We are talking about a game where magazines are called clips, right?

RAY SMASH!!!

Sorry Canray. Didnt mean to make you go into Incredible Hulk mode...

At least you didn't make me flash back into my tech support days...

...

Oh damn, did it to myself. If anyone needs me, I'll be crying in my corner.

Careful, dude. Ok?