The fact that you have to ask this just amazes me, Neraph. SLot costs are still the same, you just follow the rules for Body Limits, as established in the SR4(A) books. Since I can answer that with words other than "NO" the standard rules for Body Limits work.

The Arsenal descriptive text is wrong (They used the word "Up" insteadof the word "Down" which indicates that they were unfamiliar with the already established rules), as far as the Body limits go. Someone thought they would be clever, and did not take the rule into account. And the Proofreader missed it. So, Use the rule (Body/3, Round Down) amd move on. The FACT that is is the same reading in the Original SR4 book is a good indicator of what it should be. It is moronically stupid to allow a weapon on something the size of your pinky finger, which is what the Arsenal text would allow. Just go with the basic rule in the basic book (as far as what the body limits are), and you will be fine.

The reason I asked that question is because you are, by your own argument, saying that the text in SR4A supersedes the text in Arsenal. My contention is that it does not, as SR4A has no rules on slots; therefore, the rules in Arsenal in regard to slots supersedes the SR4A rules on weapon mount limits. It was not my intent to say that the two could not be read together - rather, that where they disagree, the rules in the book that expands on those mechanics supersedes those in the core book.

Also, you didn't answer my question (which does follow the exact same logic you are using): can I put R6 Fire, Cold, Electricity, Chemical, and Thermal protections on my Armor Vest? SR4A says I can, but the Maximum Armor Modification system in Arsenal says you can't. Which one takes precedence?

Well, I abbreviated it and spelled 'muscle' wrong, but I thought it was pretty clear which augmentation I was talking about. Mea culpa

Anyway, unaugmented dude with Strength maxed, Muscle Density Augmentation 3, Muscle replacement 2, and Unarmed 4 (Spec: Subdual Combat), a smattering of atheltics, longarms, dodge, perception, the works, a PPP-stacked Urban Explorer and a scoped Remington 990, extendable baton, HE grenades and Neurostun grenads. Probably going to throw in a cheap respirator as well.

Also, to go with the "I threw ye heathen bank director off the Sears Tower" kind of craziness he has going, perhaps he should have some B&E gear and competence as well? It would fit well with his logic-impaired "find shortest route to sinner, kill sinner" attitude. Also, I probably will have to give him Jazz or Cram, since his concept, neat as it is, will still be colossally destroyed by opposition with multiple IPs.

Lets see if I can address this adequately.

The Basic Rules (In SR4A) do indeed supersede Arsenal, to the degree in that the Rules are what Arsenal takes as a baseline. Slot Capacities are an addition to the rules that do not supersede the main rule. It is an instance of the Advanced Rule appending to the already existant Main Rule. In this case, Slots provide a LIMIT to what you can do to the vehicle. The slot cost of a Weapon Mount is in no way impeded by the Body Limit for Weapon Mounts. In this case, some yahoo put in the wrong calculation for Arsenal Body Limits (the word "up" vs. the word "down"). This is obviously wrong, as it then allows you (Common Sense aside) to put a LMG on a Flyspy, so it should be discarded as an error in the rules, defaulting back to the rule in SR4(A).

Answer to your question. It does not folloow the exact logic. If you use the base rule, you can do what you indicated (Armor Mods ad infinitum). IF YOU USE the Arsenal Rules, THEY PROVIDE LIMITS to an otherwise wide-open rule. It adds limits to the armor modification rules, it does not remove them (as the Body limit calculation in Arsenal radically does). So, since it provides a limit to the base rule, you can do either. Since Arsenal removes a rather hefty limit for vehicles (in error, I believe), resulting in an issue that makes absolutley no sense (LMG's on Flyspy's), that rule should be ignored as an Error in writing (due to improper research, bad proofreading, etc.).

You may think that is an arbitrary decision/distinction, but it really is not. And before someone says that the extant Weapon Mounts on other drones show the intent, I would disagree. You can do a LOT of things in a Base Design/Prototyping/Roll-out that a Future Enhancement/Modification cannot accomplish, simply because the design does not allow it (which is the result of the Base Body/3, Round Down Limit). Since this is not Engineering and Prototyping, the lack of a good ruleset to design and create your own Vehicles is irrelevant. Maybe one day we will get rules for such things. Personally, I do not really care. As a GM, I do not need it, and as a Player, well, I do not really need it.

I was probably a bit incoherent there, but it has been a long week, with little sleep. Apologies if I ramble a bit.

Also: Dicks.
I think somebody managed to cram like 60 into one character . . and no, not female, and no, not into two holes either . .

Call me curious... How can you POSSIBLY declare that the character is Unaugmented, when he is sporting a hefty set of Augmentations?
2.0 Essence worth of Muscle Replacement (+2 Strength and +2 Agility)
0.9 Essence worth of Bone (Nopt Muscle) Density Augmentation (+3 Dice to resist Damage, Unarmed Attacks deal Physical Damage).

That is almost half of your Essence Allotment. That is a hell of a lot of aumentations. Not to mention that Drugs are a form of Augmentation all themselves.

Just Curious on your rationale for the Unaugmented declaration.

Indeed...
What the hell is that all about, anyways? I still do not understand the reference from which the concept was initially pulled from.

No idea.
Probably something from Urutsukidoji or something like that . .
And no, i would not google that, were i in your place right now . .

Have no fear... I have no desire to use any Brain Bleach, anytime soon.

It's rather simple for a reason for I didn't state, and as such it might not be as apparent to you as it is to me Here goes:

Max Bax in Bloodnet is a murderous mountain of a man, with 95 strength (modified basic 0-100% attribute system), easily able to melee vampires and destroy cyborgs in close combat without being augmented.

This, however, can't fly in Shadowrun, so over the course of the debate in this very thread, I decided against obvious augmentations, so he looks unaugmented but packing augmented offensive and defensive enhancements!

(I just neglected to tell any of you, sorry about that!)

125 dicks, and La Blue Girl. Don't google that at work.

I have seen enough Hentai to know where that went.

I believe I was the first to poineer it, although UmaroVI definitely picked up where I stopped. I simply took the full cyberlimb replacement parts and noticed that the Cyber Penis had a capacity cost in addition to the Essence cost, then mathematically deduced. I think a male character ended up with like 85 - 84 cyber, 1 natural. We (my gaming group) call him Scrotax, the Impregnator, and joke around about how he can lie on the ground and by DNI cause his own movement phallically, almost like a millipede.

I mostly just find it funny that SR has really open-ended abstract rules for some things, but then really, really specific rules for things like how much capacity your cyberdick takes up and that pheremone scanners get a bonus to detect menstruating women.

No. The SR4A rules are the baseline. Arsenal, in expanding upon the baseline, supercedes SR4A.

If SR4A superceded Arsenal on that point, then no vehicle couldhave more than one, sole and singular, weaponmount ... even though Arsenal specifically discusses multiple weapon mounts on the same vehicle or drone. The entire PURPOSE of Arsenal is to expand upon and change h



Actually no - as was pointed out, my actual error was installing a [Standard] modification into a Minidrone - that rule precludes the hyperbolic example you've given here.

The Arsenal rewording of the rule for Weapon Mounts- vs Body, is specifically intended to allow putting weapons on Small drones (typically, body 2 ... though some are Body 1, and especially rugged ones might have Body 3). It's precisely due to arguments like this, that D&D 3.X had a "Primary Source" rule: when a supplement contradicts the core rules, or another supplement, you should look at both to determine which is primarily dealing with that area. In this case, Arsenal is the source that primarily (almost exclusively, in fact) deals with "modifying vehicles and drones", especially in the aftermarket sense of things.

See, that actually makes a lot of sense. Why would you need clear rules for talking to a woman (or anyone for that matter) if you can just use a scanner to determine if she's menstruating? If she is, you can just skip to the combat rules and you don't need social interaction rules. (Yes, I know the thing about mood swings is probably a cultural phenomena.)

The one that I love is that they have prices for 3 different qualities of paying for sex and a list of drinks and prices for them. It's easier to calculate the cost of a night on the town than to figure out how much it costs to fix the bullet holes in your favorite drone.

What you are failing to grasp is that the Arsenal rewording of the Rule for weapon mounts is an Error. Everything else works fine (The Slot costs, etc which Neraph brought up). And if you want a Body 2 Drone with a Weapon Mount, YOU DESIGN IT, PROTOTYPE IT, AND THEN MANUFACTURE IT. All of which is WAY outside the scope of Shadowrun. So, Stock Drones that have it (and only have a Body of 2 or lower) are okay, becasue they were DESIGNED that way. Any drone that does not come standard with it (a weapon mount) cannot have it added UNLESS the Body is 3+.

No worries, though.

Got a source to cite? Because otherwse ... no, it's not.

It's not called out as such in the official errata, nor mentioned at all. There's no mention of it anywhere in an official source - including the SR4 "changes" PDF, which I just re-downloaded to check and be sure of.

So: cite it, or you're wrong. Because your opinion doesn't trump mine, until it's backed by an official source.

Hardly.

Mister know it all needs to read the Size and Type Terminology in arsenal for his mods.

Most people forget that weapon mount is actually Weapon Mount (Standard).

You can't actually put it on every drone. Just most.


As for the SECOND arguement....





I would point out that Round Up and Round Half Up are NOT the same. Most people confuse the terms.

I leave for a handful of weeks to deal with real life stuff, and all you guys forget how to quote the rules you're referencing, and just spout out your opinion in it's place?
For Shame!

I've already had that pointed out to me, and posted a mea culpa about it. Nice of you to be so kind and civil in your version, though.

It wouldn't be included in the changes doc, as the SR4A BBB matches the SR4 BBB.

Well, I don't have a pre-Anniversary edition rulebook to check anymore.

And, that would simply mean that either:

(a) the SR4A wording is a cut-and-paste error,
--or--
(b) the SR4A rule is meant to be used "unless you own Arsenal".

Personally, I favor (b).

Or c) Arsenal is wrong (typo).

or it's not so.

And no, wanting it to be that way, is not proof.

I'll just throw that back at you.

Fine, I'll prove b ... because my PDF copy of Arsenal was updated, by Catalyst Games, to specifically state exactly that.

Don't just take my word for it, look at the page yourself:



(( http://s19.postimage.org/po55fo6wj/sr_proof_2.jpg ))

Take careful note of the paragraph in the red box. Take careful note that this rule specifically says that it replaces the rules on page 348 of the SR4 Anniversary Edition rulebook.





Slam. Fraggin'. DUNK.

Guys, seriously.. Take up knitting or something. Arguing the letter of the rules in a system whose rules it is generally agreed upon are labyrinthine and confusing as written; is generally kvetching for the sake of kvetching, no?

Take a look at my crazy monk strangler character and offer some suggestions, instead.

Normally I'd agree, Tias. But after some of the comments directed my way, I must admit an unholy glee at having finally (after sufficient prodding) checked my book and discovered 110% vindication.

I don't really care about this debate, but it does raise an interesting question of how much a drone can carry. As far as I know, this is never explicitly spelled out, but there are enough random hints that we can extrapolate.

Starting assumptions (which seem reasonable, but is not explicitly stated)-
A drones carrying capacity is directly linked to its body.
A flying drone can lift off with 1/3 of the carrying capacity of what a ground based drone can carry. (based upon a character being able to lift over their head 1/3 of their maximum carrying capacity, pg. 138 SR4A)
The carrying capacity of a drone does vary with size as well as body, overwise the statements in the rules don't work out.

Things we know-
Page 102 Arsenal- A medium sized drone cannot carry a metahuman, but it might be able to carry a small dwarf. They have a body of 3. (with some exceptions)
Page 102 Arsenal- A large sized drone can carry a metahuman adult riding on it, but not a troll. They have a body of 4 (with some exceptions)
Page 72 SR4A- An average dwarf ways 54 kg. So we have an upper bound on a medium sized drones carrying capacity. I will further assume that a "small" dwarf ways 45 kg, because it makes calculations easier, but 50 kg might be a better approximation.
Page 72 SR4A- An average orc weighs 128 kg, so a large drone can carry at least this much. A troll weighs 300 kg, so a large drone cannot carry 300 kg. I will guess that it's maximum carrying capacity is 160 kg (again for ease of calculation).

This means that a medium drone can carry 15 kg/per point of body and a large drone can carry 40 kg/per point of body. We'll have to extrapolate down for smaller drones, but we know that it should be less than 15 kg/per point of body. To make numbers easy, I would guess 10 kg/per point of body for small, 5 kg/per point of body mini and a fixed value of 1 kg (or less) for a microdrone. These are of course open for debate.

This means that a Fly-Spy for example could carry 5 kilograms with it while grounded and take off with about 2 kg. There are no weighs listed for guns, but I think it's safe to assume that just based on lifting capacity a fly spy is not getting off the ground with anything heavier than a light hand gun. Of course it would probably end up with a lot of the penalties from a misfit weapon size (pg. 84 arsenal) and probably at a minus much larger than the -2 suggested for dwarfs firing human sized weapons.

Suspension type should matter too. Just for ground-mobile drones (and larger vehicles): walkers would carry theleast; wheeled drones would carry moderate amounts (modified by number of wheels "within reason"), and tracked crawlers would carry the most.


You might consider a formula based on "Body squared". Maybe with diffrent kg amounts for diffrent suspension types (i.e.: fliers, walkers, wheeled, or tracked - 10, 10, 15, and 20 seem reasomable to me, respectively). Nice, neat formulae are always useful, IMO.


Probably not more than a holdout. IF that. (Then again, a Fly Spy is too small for a Weapon Mount anyway, as I was reminded upthread).

Eh. Gecko tape. Problem solved.





-k

No no, that's mounting a flyspy to your gun, not the other way around.

Jesus christ, no.
It does not matter HOW you mount anything on anything. The rules give the outline, which has to be followed. The rest is FLUFF.

If geckotape a gun to your drone, it is still a weapon mount and it works like a weapon mount. (Well you have to connect it to be able to fire it anyway)

It all works the same it is just the looks you are going for.

It also does not matter how you armor your car. You may tape bullet prove vest around it or you can go "professional" or total A-Team. Just your flavor, the rules are the same for everybody. (If you have certain materials for free, it can cut back on cost but NOTHING ELSE)

@thorya
Does not really work, because they broke their own rules. So not all medium drones have a body of 3 or even 4.
If you only go with the body, you might end up with really silly results...

@_Pax._

Unfortunatly, that is not true. Only true if the "input-data" is not all over the place... Which it is...
So to make it work, you would need to revisit the drone stats.

Per the weight of handguns and flying drones carrying them, coincidentally I had to look up the weight of a common handgun for geekish purposes not related to Shadowrun. Turns out a Glock weighs just about 1kg. So I can't imagine any of the standard pistols weighing more than 2.

*shrug*

~Umidori

Yep... 110% Vindication that the Text in Arsenal is Wrong... Congratulations.

So, you're saying the people who wrote the rules of the game are wrong, and in fact have now been wrong twice in the same book (the pre-SR4A publication of Arsenal and the updated post-SR4A PDF publication of Arsenal) .... but somehow your personal preferences and opinions are magically "right" ...?

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ....!!!

Enough.

Discussion is welcome, however, it must be civil.

I'm sorry. The ludicrousness of that sort of (apparent) claim momentarily overwhelmed my sense of decorum. I'll go back and shorten the laughter-block (but not remove it; that would IMO be dishonest of me), so it's a little less in-your-face rude.

And I do find it ludicrous to sugest that a rule which is plainly and explicitly worded to replace a prior rule, is wrong because it is different from what it replaces.

If someone says "I don't like it, and in my home games I don't use that rule from Arsenal" ... hey, fine, the whole book is optional after all. But to suggest it is objectively wrong, even when Arsenal isin use? That makes me want to laugh. And laugh. And laugh.

I am saying that the people who wrote Arsenal did not take into account the rules in the base book for Body Limits for Weapon Mounts, which had ALREADY BEEN ESTABISHED, as was re-iterated in a Book Pyblished Years after Arsenal was.... And the error was further compounded by the Arsenal Proofreaders, who did not catch and correct it. The fact that it is in not 1, not 2, but 3 Print Runs of the Arsenal Printing notwithstandfing. No one bothered to catch and correct it, as is so often the case with CGL Products. This has been an ongoing complaint from many. So there really is no need for you, _Pax_, to get so high and mighty about my stance. They made an error, and have refused to correct it. What else is new?

The vast majority of additional rules presented in the books serve to place limits on rules already in existance. For a Rule to be removed, with absolutely no reason, is a step backwards, and I see it as an error. I am not unique in that regard (though I may be so in this partiuclar case).

Have a nice day. I am off to play some NWOD.

Okay, look buddy. Go back and read the page I posted above. I want you to actually read it this time.

Because, here's a big thing you missed: the page I posted, is AFTER updating the book for the Anniversary Edition. Specifically, it says:

Core Rules Vehicle Modifications
The rigger adaptation and weapon mount vehicle modifications
from the core rules (p. 348, SR4A) are replaced by the
modifications of the same name described in this list.

See that big blue bit? That's important.


You don't have to like it.

But you should not tell people they are wrong when they *gasp* actually follow the rules as written. Any deviation from those rules is a House Rule, and your house rules do not trump the RAW. And as written, Arsenal's "round down" replaces the core books "round up". Not just by accident, either. Nor just a proofreading error. That entire paragraph makes it an INTENTIONAL change.

The paragraph cited would never have been included, if it was not an intentional change - a change that did take the core rulebook's wording into account, and then decided to change it.

Again, you don't have tolike it. But when discussing RAW legality? Or playing/GMing in a RAW environment - for example, official Shadowrun Missions events at a convention? You do have to follow it.

Rules are often removed if an additional book goes into more details...
Best example here is Runners Companion. If you choose to take the Karma generation system, you REPLACE the BP generation system.

It has to be handled that way sometimes, because easy and short rules do not always fit into the extended versions.
(And honestly: It is most of the time a MUCH better Idea to consider writing NEW rules, than to try to make it fit. There are lot of cases, when they just tried to add and created a lot of confusion and bad rules. WAR! is an example of this as is Runners Companion (Free Spirit/Infected rules/Lifestyle is not really optimal neither))

That big blue bit, that you so painstakingly indicated, is irrelevant if the text is wrong to start with. I read it and still think they did not do their homework, and that it is wrong. Making an assumption that I am illiterate and a moron does not become you. And that is exactly how you are coming across (at least to me)... Grow up... This is a Discussion/debate, not a penis waving contest.

As for the INTENTIONAL Change? I disagree, I see someone not doing their homework, and when writing up the detail for Size, chose to use the word "up" instead of the word "down" in direct contravention of the General rule already in place. The Rule is wrong, because the writer had a less than perfect understanding of the General rule already in place. And I believe that it is wrong. Insulting me is not going to win you any arguments.

Here is the quote to show you...


Now, you can assume that was an intentional change. I do not. The books are so rife with these types of errors, that I have to immediately question this one. It is a FUNDAMENTAL Change to the General Rule already in place. Here, let me show you that one....



It is quite funny, actually, in that when Draco18s challenged you to PROVE that it was not an error (as you claim), you trot out the very book, and the very text, that is claimed to be in error. That is not proof, and I think that you know it. If the assertion is that the book is in error, you cannot refer to the same book called into question to settle the debate. Instead, you should probably look elsewhere to find that proof. Amazingly enough, there is a book that has a rule in place to see what the intent is.

But since we are not going to agree here, it is probably a waste of our time to continue this debate, unless you are willing to be civil about it. So, I think I am done here. Have a great day.

No Doubt, but this is not a case of needing to write new rules to make this fit. You have a Body limit already in place. Anything with a Body of less than 3 cannot have a weapon mount added through Modification. Why, exactly, should this be contravened? There is absolutely no need for such, and when it changes, you have to ask yourself why?

The main rules (SR4(A) already have Body 1 Production Drones with Weapons on them (The Lonestar I-Ball is a prime example), so you do not need to add rules to allow production models with weapons on them. There is no need for that, as they are already allowed. Changing the rules, in this case, is not necessary. And adding a weapon to something that is not designed to allow for that addition is ludicrous, because it is not designed for that. Thus the original Body 3+ Restriction (Providing enough possible excess room for a Weapon mount). So, the only reason to allow such things in a new book is because either someone did not know the rules already, or they think they need some new functionality (to add a weapon mount to something that was never intended to be space for). Since the functionality (Weapons on Drones smaller than Body 3) is ALREADY THERE for production models (for those that have allowed such in their design), then you cannot use that as an excuse. You are only left with the writer's being unfamiliar with the nuances of the rules.

Or you know, maybe they wanted to allow 2 weapon mounts(or one reinforced) on vehicles with Body of 4+ and 3(or 1+1) on vehicles with with 7+ Body and so on.

The problem is that you're now talking about how YOU think the rules should be.

Not about how the rules ARE.

This isn't even a discussion on a questionable wording or grey area. The text is black and white. That you disagree with it is a separate discussion and not especially moot in a conversation on min-maxing.

Min-maxing discussions rely on commonly understood sets of rules, which most often manifest as RAW. Theoretical discussions on the intent of the designers is well and interesting, but ultimately subjective and imprecise.

If this WERE a thread on the nature of rules intent or the like, sure. But it's not.



-k

To make it worse, the ferret is a prime example of a drone with a lower body than "should" be allowed to utilize weapon mounts being told it usually has them - in direct violation of TJ's theoretical House-Rule. You can explain it away using mental gymnastics, but the easier way to explain it is that the rules for vehicle mods in Arsenal supersede those in SR4A, like it says on page 131 of Arsenal.

Did I miss something with the Ferret? I thought that RAW they actually can't mount weapons by Arsenal's rules because they're minidrones, and that you have to give them a special exception based on the fluff.

I just re-read weapon mounts and didn't find what you're referring.

Ferrets are Minidrones (Arsenal 117)

Weapon Mount is a Standard type modification (Arsenal 146)

Minidrones can only have Microdrone and Minidrone type modifications (Arsenal 131)

Therefore the Ferret can only take a weapon mount if you rule that the fluff on it counts as a rule saying it's an exception to the general way things work.

Which is indeed where I started, KarmaInferno. I always (Pretty sure, I can go back and verify that) conteded that it was my opinion, and my belief, that the text ("Up" vs. "Down") in Arsenal was wrong.

EDIT: Seems as if I danced around actually SAYING it was my opinion for a while, and it was not until post 89 that it was clarified at as an opinion. I see I used the word FACT at one point, so I can see the confusion, and I apologize. The point remains, however. And I still stand by it. I believe that the Arsenal Rounding text is indeed wrong. BUT, That only matters when it comes to actually modding out a Production Drone. Equipment that comes standard does not have to follow any such conventions.