Doesn't this wonder vehicle break several rules and include several new 'wonder' mods? And for cheap (value-wise).

Doesn't 'hover' mean 'not moving 150 m/turn'?

sorry, it means that I like it and that it'll be used in my game. Saw the picture and went "want!"

As far as I know, it doesn't break any rules. And I actually got the price by totaling up the cost of all of its' mods, doubling that figure and rounding down a little.

None of its mods are 'wonder,' either. The 'rigger cockpit' seems to be a bit of one, but really it's just making a normal rigger cocoon bigger and putting the manual flight controls inside. This may seem excessive, but I'm basing this off of the emotional crash of a craft of this type piloted by Faridah Malik (with Adam Jensen in the back; he bailed out ahead of time.) Not only does she survive reasonably intact, but she can actually survive up to a minute of sustained fire from a squad of bad guys as long as Jensen is in the pitched fight and drawing some fire. Even if left alone, it'll hold out against a determined assault with milspec weapons for a surprising amount of time. That says "Rigger Cocoon" to me. The fact that she recovers enough to fly it away says "Valkyrie Module" - hence making it an "enhanced" RC, and that the craft itself recovers from a nearly-uncontrolled crash and can fly away and this is specifically stated to the work of self-repair systems justifies its existence.




There's some wiggle room there, such as when the jets aren't just keeping you over one spot but letting you maneuver, without going into full-fledged forward flight mode. You know, up, down, forward, back, sideways, and such. That's still 'hovering', in my opinion. But if you push the jets too far forward, you're shifting to forward flight, not simply "slipping" forward quicker.




I know, right? It's so frigging Shadowrun. That whole damn game is.

I think the (base) mods add up to over 725k, but I haven't compared that to the other LAVs in the book yet. Yeah, the cocoon-cockpit seems like having your cake and eating it, too. (Always bad.) Basically, the whole write-up sounds like that: all the good, no bad. At least it's slightly slower than competitors.

Re: hovering, I think you're basically just talking about 'combat speeds', which is automatically limited the Walk/Run speeds already.

Why? It can't have failed to occur to someone for this long that a jack-in rigger with a cocoon enjoys an incredible level of protection from problematic events (like gunfire and Dumpshock) that traditional cockpits don't offer.... And then ask "why can't a traditional cockpit offer it?"

Really, it's just a fancy way of saying "for this one guy alone, he gets the benefits of a Valkyrie module, Personal Armor 20, Personal Protection 8, and a handy place to jack into the vehicle." If you're already going to physically isolate the cockpit from the rest of the aircraft, why not just make it like that?

And in game terms, I see no reason to make it any different. It's just a rigger cocoon that happens to have been built into the vehicle from the ground-up with the intention of making it large enough so a pilot who doesn't have a VCR but is otherwise really good - such as an adept - can use it.




There's nothing really spectacular about it. It just has a big pile of "standard upgrades." But if you think about many of the others, - like the Gulfstream Luxe V - they literally couldn't be what they're clearly intended to be without those standard upgrades. Any aircraft or long range vehicle has to have an additional fuel tank, you'd think most higher-end vehicles in the 2070s would have Enhanced Image Screens. Interior cameras - honestly, why the hell is this even a god-damn upgrade? I'd think any large vehicle would have these as a matter of having a fucking Sensor rating. Life support? Any aircraft that plans to do any distance flying at all has to have this - that, or every single passenger is going to need cyber or life-support gear. Metahuman bodies don't take kindly to unpressurized cabins. Satellite Communication is also a given for any large or transoceanic aircraft.

So really, the only ones that stand out as unusual for any vehicle with its range and mission profile are Improved Economy (It's specifically called out as having semi-miraculous engines,) the Rigger Cocoon which contains "manual" controls (for some values of the word manual, anyway,) and Self-Repair. All of which I put in as a matter of the Bee being an unashamed attempt to port the VTOL used in Deus Ex: Human Revolution to Shadowrun as completely as possible, and we see it using all of those features: It flies from Detroit to Hengsha (in friggin' China) and from Hengsha to Montreal, Montreal back to Detroit, and Detroit back to friggin' China again. Even if they stopped for fuel when they hit the west coast of the United States, that's still a long damn flight. The Rigger Cocoon was the best way to explain the fact that the cockpit stands up to a pitched battle with military weapons if Jensen acts quickly enough, and it's specifically said to have self-repair capabilities, evidenced by (if Jensen wins the fight) the damn thing actually flying off after being EMP'd down, crashing, and being subjected to a pitched battle in which it becomes target practice at close range for military hardware, aimed at the cockpit.




Well, it is possible that the poor thing could wind up in a fight with attack helicoptors/rotordrones and jet fighters where determining whether it's in hovering motion and can pull back to slip between buildings, or going all-out in forward flight, is an issue. But yeah, the game rules don't actually take that into account, so that's mainly there as fluff.

I didn't mean that anything was hopelessly wrong or broken. The special quick-change Amenities seems like a new rule to me, for example. Minor things. Technically, LAVs shouldn't be able to 'cruise' as you describe, either, but the SR4 rules don't really stop them. That's the other half of my 'wonder vehicle' comment. It has the stats of an LAV, but it sounds like something arbitrarily better. So… if it's *not* an LAV, I'd change the stats.

I don't think it hasn't occurred to people that any passenger (not just the driver; the whole vehicle!) would enjoy enhanced cocoon protection. But the cocoon is a tradeoff, in terms of convenience, size, and cost. If you're removing the tradeoffs, it should be bigger and cost more. Clearly, one large enough to use manual controls in *is* bigger.

None of these are really important, but I don't see internal cameras as being an obvious standard, but they're pretty cheap anyway; the same goes for your other examples, which are nice optionals, and cheap anyway. One issue is that anything 'standard' represents free 'opportunity' slots, so that's good to remember. I don't see any of them as mandatory except (obviously) VTOL and basic life support.

Right: my point is that anything described as '(semi-)miraculous' is a bad sign. So is 'it's so obvious, why didn't anyone else think of it?' So is porting things from other settings, but I wasn't saying 'don't do that'. I was saying, 'be careful'. There's no great reason, for example, that SR4 has to accommodate the fact that in some videogame, the thing flew from Detroit to China; that's basically silly, especially for a LAV.

Actually, the quick-change amenities are straight out of Arsenal, straight off the Skytrain, which was designed as a military transport and thus can swap quickly between passenger kit and cargo tie-downs or what have you.



Light Armored Vehicle... Leisure Activity Vehicle? I don't think I understand your use of "LAV," but from the context I'm guessing it's an objection to this thing being able to shift between moving like a helicopter and moving like an aircraft?



You're already eating it in the cost of the vehicle, and it's something that would be nigh-impossible to retrofit onto an existing vehicle. That's the trade-off. It's a simple innovation, nothing more. As for the rest of the passengers, they can enjoy the same amount of protection. There's two ways to do it. First is to add Obvious Armor 20 and Personal Protection 8 to everybody and install Valkyrie Modules for everyone to sit in. Second is probably more practical and just install Rigger Cocoons for everyone.




The problem I have with internal cameras isn't their cost, it's that they take up a mod slot. They're frigging micro-cameras. Anything you could rig up without requiring mod spots with basic Runner gear doesn't deserve a mod slot. As for the others, they really should be mandatory. Life Support 2 is not optional for anything planning to go transoceanic, or even transcontinental.




Change and innovation have to come somewhere, somewhen. Federated Boeing beat Ares and Saeeder-Krupp to the punch this time with the improved economy jet engines and the rigger cocoon with manual controls, but that's not to mean that they won't both be spitting out crap using the same ideas in short order.

I guess the thing about tbirds is that they've never really been thoroughly explained. That is, there are a few different versions of what they are, and some quite different vehicles are described using the same term. In some cases, they're described as VTOL (such as SR4E), which would fit with the low fuel economy idea. In others, they're described as ground effect/wing-in-ground vehicles... but these have VERY VERY GOOD fuel economy, due to getting lift from their low altitude. In addition, many of the images do not match GEV/WIG designs at all (but hey, that's art in general, yah?).

Perhaps we shouldn't talk about Tbirds as a single group, but split them up into the VTOLs and the GEVs (which seem to have been termed Low-Altitude Vehicle, or LAV, in various supplements... again without explaining the term or what it means). I can see some crossover, perhaps -- can't see any reason why a 2070s LAV couldn't have a VTOL option. Personally, I really like the concept of the GEV, and think it's under-explored in Shadowrun. The way it works, the bigger it is the better it works. Boeing unfortunately never got the build its Pelican. That's one nice transport right there.

This is my point. There are already (expensive) ways to do what this novel mod does.

If you don't know what a LAV is, you shouldn't be porting videogame VOTLs into SR4. They're big armored bricks that fly using vec-thrust and have terrible fuel economy.

Yeah, and why would you do that when the point isn't to let every passenger enjoy that level of protection, it's only to let the pilot enjoy that level of protection.

Really, dude. It's just a rigger cocoon that a non-rigger can use to pilot the damn aircraft. No need to get bent out of shape over it.



Well, that would make sense if this was an LAV. It's very clearly not, what with having lift-generating wings and a forward flight mode, so it bears no relevance on this line of thought.

Actually, Rigger 3 describes all that: LAV is the official name for T-birds, they get some measure of aerodynamic lift (from auxiliary wings and lifting body designs) but most lift is provided by engine power. Therefore they are technically SVTOL planes, liftoff is possible both from a runway or with raw engine power.

No one is out of shape. I'm just pointing out that there's an obvious reason the rigger cocoon works the way it does: a bigger cocoon takes up more space and more armoring. My point about all passengers was an extended example. In the existing rules, getting a manual-pilot rigger cocoon equivalent is bigger and more expensive. Are the manual controls standard, or are they a special system devised to work in the necessarily close and soft confines of the cocoon (that's why it's intended for non-manual use, after all)? I'd hate to get smashed against the steering wheel or control panel *inside* my armored shell.

As I explained, your Bee has LAV stats (Body, armor, speed, accel, price) and LAV propulsion; that makes it an LAV. In a thread about T-birds. That's the problem. SVTOL fighter-bombers also exist in the book, but that's very different (in all these stats, and in 100% vec-thrust). Helicopters also exist, but they're not vec-thrust (and nowhere near as fast, long-ranged, etc.). So, yes, that's exactly my point: your Bee (which definitely is in the LAV category) is clearly not an LAV… it's 'better' (especially for magical transglobal range), and that's wrong.

And again, I specifically said it's not critically wrong. I thought I'd help you out by pointing out the rough edges of your conversion-to-SR4. Sorry.

--
Yeah, Sengir. T-bird/LAV are not GEV/WIG, they're vec-thrust bricks: flying tanks and APCs. (Presumably they can and do use the ground effect to save fuel, though, when they're low; no rules for this.) If anyone's interested, there was a good thread about this a fair while back, so we might be able to find it. … Got it: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=34575

It still only takes one person; as far as I see, it's not significantly deviating from a standard rigger cocoon enough to need anything else, especially if it's the kind of thing that can only come as a standard, not an upgrade.



Have you seen the cockpits of, say, a fighter jet? They're tiny and cramped. That's what I'm thinking. As for the wheel, you don't need one - sticks are on your chair's arms, control panels are all holographic, and you're tucked in with a five-point crash harness and your helmet is manually linked to the back of your seat.




It's not an LAV, it's a tiltjet aircraft. I was looking back and forth between the Hawker Skytrain and the Gulfstream Luxe V for the stats to throw it in-between. It's not an LAV, stop calling it one. It may be able to MOVE like one, if need be, but it's also able to move like a jet.




Not really. The Gulfstream Luxe V is definitely a transoceanic aircraft (and the Skytrain is probably the same,) and both of those can do the same thing. As for LAVs being crap... Well, technology can only be crap for so long before it improved. Why can't Federated Boeing be the ones to improve it?



See, thing is, I don't see them as rough edges. I specifically set out to say "Remember that sweet-ass pimp aircraft that Faridah Malik flies Adam Jensen all over the world in? Wouldn't it be cool if your corp ops team or Shadowrunners can do that in that aircraft? Here you go." If that means making something that is revolutionarily better than existing aircraft in the setting, so be it. Come 2073, Ares, Saeder-Krupp and the rest will all be making similar vehicles, probably manifestly better with more precisely-defined roles, and the setting will be enriched by it.

Because birds like this are just plain cool.

I was joking about the wheel. My point was that a rigger cocoon is presumably a whole-body *cocoon*, not just a tight seat. Again, this was a minor issue; I'd just expect this 'Large Enhanced Rigger Cocoon' to be more cost and maybe 1 slot more (given Enhanced is 1 slot more than normal).

If it's a tiltjet/tilt-wing, it (basically) can't do 'semi-hover' maneuvers at all. That's what LAVs are *for* (and rotorcraft, at much lower speeds). VTOL airplanes can (basically) just hover stationary, and perform VTOLs. The Luxe V and the Skytrain certainly can't 'skirmish', for example. LAVs (and my understanding of your description) can freely move around within their Run/Walk envelopes. So, maybe I misread your suggestion. In the T-bird thread.

'Revolutionarily better' is not okay, no, when you're getting all the benefits of LAVs *and* jet-wing, and rotorcraft, no drawbacks. If you take out *either* the 'hover skirmish' ability, or the global range, then it fits the setting much better.

I don't think it's important, but the Skytrain is regional range, and gigantic.

Well, yes and no....
Yes they are GEV because according to R3, up to a certain height T-birds can use vector trust alone due to some hover effect, above that limit they need to generate additional lift (and because they only have small wings require high speeds to do so).
No they are totally different from GEV because the altitude limit for that hover effect is stated to be 75 m, which is obviously a lot more than the envelope of any known ground effect. At least as far as I know, hovering at 50 m should require the same downward trust as hovering at 100 m...

That's a good point, I was being overly simplistic. I meant that they're not ekranoplanes.

Not to derail a railless topic, how big do you think the tundra 9 seaplanes are. My current character has one modded for VTOL and I was wondering if ground vehicles could be stored in it?

In the art it looks like it's about the size of a bus with wings, and it has the same Body score as a light jet, which certainly cannot carry ground vehicles, so I'd probably say no without some serious modding. You could get a motorbike and some drones into it no problem, but a rigger van would be an entirely different prospect.

That said, this sort of thing is really up for interpretation.

It looks like a very small jet. Like he said, same Body as the Piper Brat, and (always risky to go by art) the cockpit is about 25-33% of the whole thing. I'd agree: smaller drones and motorcycles, maybe. It might not even have a 'cargo' door.

Yeah, I know it's bad form to go by art (the Ruger Super Warhawk is not a revolver at all, but Robocop's machine pistol, apparently), but carrying capacity is one of those things with just NO support in the official rules, aside from a rough guideline in the core book. It makes it tricky for GMs to figure out just what exactly could fit in a given vehicle.

Totally. We all pine for Rigger 3. Or even just a distinction between Body and size.

OK, now I'm thinking, are the Super Beavers and Turbo Beavers still in operation?

Sorry, they started out life as "de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver" planes, and have been extensively modified from there, and, despite being out of production since the '60s, and still used in a lot of areas. (I've heard of them being used to get emergency supplies to Northern Communities in Canada due to the problems we've had with the Ice Roads.).

One hundred and nineteen Ford Trimotors were made between 1925 and 1933.

It is nearly one-hundred years after this plane's introduction, and six are still flying.

So, yeah. It seems reasonable that a small handful of Super/Turbo Beavers might still be flying.