Rigger Cocoons are for riggers not for mounted vehicular weaponry piloted by a gunnery adept.

"Rigger" cocoons are nicknamed after the people who are usually in them. There's nothing stopping you from tossing the VIP you're extracting into it to keep them safe from stray gunfire (and prevent them from escaping at the same time).

In fact, sticking your gunnery adept teammate in there to handle the guns while you focus on driving is a fantastic idea! Not only can you each specialize in your roles harder, if somebody forces a crash test, you don't lose an action's worth of return fire trying to stay on the road.

It's all about the combinations, as I said. A normal driver in a normal car, that's fine. When it's a pixie in a cocoon in a motorcycle (arguably!) converted into a tank mech, *that's* an issue.

Neraph, it will never be relevant to argue 'the rules allow it'. And the logical *extremes* of game rules tend to be problematic, because rules aren't perfect.

Disagree. We can start another thread on it if you want.


Eh, that's why you Bind it. Then it works like you think it does.

Except that encumberance only applies to worn armor. You add the vehicle's armor to yours, but you're not wearing the vehicle.

EDIT:
He started it. Kind of.

@Neraph

There is nothing to discuss. Once it is the modified DV, the other time it is not. I really no not see any room for a RAW-discussion here. (RAI there is, granted)

Well, it is never stated like that.

The vehicle is " wearing" the armor, and guess what it is limited by.

RAW discussions with you are impossible in my experience. You go from "I am right, show me where the rules say I am wrong, explicitly".
Meaning you shift the burden of prove to the other side and expect them to prove a negativ. Thats like proving you did not do something. Mostly it is impossible if you did not plan for it ahead.
It is useless to have a discussion like that, because you could argue that adding red strips to an car makes it go faster. I could not prove the rules say it does not.

Before calling it superior or even tactics, you should define the objective. What good does a minitank do to a runner? I don't want to run with someone who cannot climb stairs, fit through the side exits, hide in the blind spot of the corridor cameras,...

With non-lethal weapons instead of an LMG, it could make a nice riot control tool, though. Much more flexible than a Citymaster.

The Walker Mode mod handles stairs just fine. As for hiding, this is a "big guns" sort of setup. You wouldn't bring it with you unless you were expecting to break out the Heavy Weapons dice.


Instead? What's this "instead" business? They make gel rounds for machine guns, too. Nice, big ones with powder charges that still lower their targets' armor ratings.

Just so you know, Gel Rounds are NOT Non-Lethal, they are just Less Lethal. Especially when fired from "Nice Big Machine Guns with Powder Charges that still lower their Target's Armor Ratings."

You're just as likely to die from a taser hit, or a bunch of flash-bangs, or anything else that does a whole mess of Stun damage at once.

Yes, you are... Which was the point. Non-Lethal is a Myth.

SR4 has freeze foam for such circumstances.

True, forgot about that...

Stairs still exist in 2070? I thought it was all elevators now.

They do indeed... The corps did not tear down all the slums to provide Elevators to the SINless after all.

Fire code.

Is it, though?



Precisely. ShadowRun isn't a game of winning. It's a game of losing as slowly as possible.

And while a tank wins combat, it isn't the best for not losing.

I fail to see any reason for them not exist. People, even in 2072, are still people. Ladder wells, or stairways , are more than just functional in some cases they are aesthetically pleasing in some cases.

Why else would you need 30 armor?

Stairs existed for over 2000 years now, I guess this won't change to 2070.
If you have legs, stairs are just a great invention.

I assume he was joking. You guys are silly. Personally, all my characters have Hydraulic Jacks; they just leap to their 3rd floor flat.

Cuts down on the walking anyways. Also good for leaving as well; just step off the landing onto the sidewalk.

Pfft, hydraulics are so last year. Every place worth living in has a lighter-than-air leather chair out front.

Good point. Our Walker tank should definitely have hydraulic jacks and 9 strength in its cyberlegs, for maximum jumping capability.

Totally. Except walker mode isn't cyberlegs. Vehicles can only take arms, AFAIK.

Are you sure? I was under the impression Walker Mode granted the equivalent of cyberlegs, just like Mechanical Arm granted the equivalent of cyberarms.

It doesn't say anything about that. And it'd be pretty overpowering if so: 4, 6, god knows how many cyberlegs for free, with free room to mod? Minidrones with minicyberlegs?

Fire codes would still exist in 2070, I think. In case of power-outage/fire, there needs to be an alternative method of getting up & down floors for people.

Or, for runners, in case the hacker loses his grasp on the building security...

Clearly in order to survive a shot from any ordinance pointed in your general direction.

Think of it this way:
If all the players are arming up and armoring up in expectation of the GM hitting them with a giant hammer, you build to survive the giant hammer.
Yes. Every run is going to be a guns blazing run, but that's apparently how TJ's games go: if we do any guns blazing, it won't be any fun because the only tactically viable solution is to be able to survive thor shots, therefor every run is not a guns blazing run.

And RAW discussions with you are impossible because where I actually quote rules sections in my argument, you always simply say "No." I'm not shifting the burden of proof to you - the burden of proof is on yourself for disagreeing with me in the first place, especially when I quote rules.

For example: if someone were to say that all guns shot fish in SR and you said that they do not, the way to "win" this is not to simply yell back and forth at each other but to quote a place where guns are loaded with bullets and not fish. I'm not asking you to prove me wrong, I'm asking you to prove yourself right.

EDIT:

It does not, although I think it's a fair (if used properly) House Rule.

Honestly, I can't think of any relevant mods or useful effects of treating vehicle legs like cyberlegs. Gecko tips and things are already available. For *real* anthroforms, sure.

@Neraph

Who quoted rules here? I did.
Who just handwaved them? You did.


And thats where you are wrong. You have to provide at least hints, that the guns are shooting fish.
Thats exactly what shifting the burden of proof means.

And again. "Master of RAW" vs. "Master of RAI".....Fight!!!!

I Am really curious how you got the impression that our games are centered around Blazing Guns and Characters with 30 Armor. I have never said that in the least. On the Pink Mohawk, we have our Primary GM, who centers around a 2 or so on the scale. With our current GM (Primary is taking a small break), the Scale slides to a 9. This is a rarity. And we still do not have 30 points of Armor. *Shakes Head*

Where did you get that impression from Draco18s? Maybe you are thinking of Hermit, Cain, or Neraph.

At our table, Average Skill ratings are in the 2-3 range, Armor at about 10, and the Dice Pools for Primary abilities are about 14; even in the Current Campaign we are running with our Pink Mohawk GM. I am just flabbergasted that you think we are all about the Guns Blazing. I tend to prefer, even in a PM Game, that we accomplish our goals with as little "Guns Blazing" as possible, and generally only as a last option.

Reread.

But, this is what you said...



Which is what I don't understand. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it seems like you think (directly from your quote above) that our games are continuous run and gun, which is not the case, at all.

No worries though...

Yes, you selectively quoted rules, taking them out of context. Yes, I "handwaived" rules (you mean paraphrased, right?) by stating the same information using my own words. I'm not going to start it up here, since this is supposed to be about Concealment (a couple pages ago it was, too).


All you need is an idea to assert a claim. You need to quote rules to try and prove your side. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. Whenever one disagrees with someone else, the person in disagreement should quote rules or bring proof that their idea is valid. That is the very nature of the burden of proof.

I meant it in the way that due to the way you present your opinions and interpretations of the rules that if your group plays a Guns blazing game, everyone will be rolling around in virtual tanks, so you guys don't.

Ahhh... Now I understand. No Worries.