where does it say that? pg196 says that armor protects from damage at 1/2 its rating not full rating, also 2ndary efect is not damadge. Nothing says that the object must be damadge to be efectyed by the 2ndary efects. The closest thing to that would be the force being 1/2 the objects restence rating, and sence 2ndary efect are OR test armor has no efect.

so a OR base 10(highly procesed object) +2 (for a serious damage spell) is a TN of 12
now I do have a question about the 2d6 that is roled for 2ndary efects. is that 2d6 and add the result? or 1d6(rule of 6) *2?

ok so the modified OR for the drone would be (base OR+body+(1/2 armor)
force requierd =1/2 OR
so
Doberman Hitech object OR 8+2body +3 /armor=13or+2 for Serious damage spell=15/2=force 7
now thats giving the binifit of a dout and the dobermen is just a hitech not highly proses object.

yeap might not work.

but
a force 6 lightning would stil efect a dobermen becouse the lightning is not directly cast on the dobermen so..It has already manifest and is being treated as damage not magic.

F 6M lightnig(fetished) Drain (3D eww) -3 for armor=TN3 for resisting damadge
so even if you could not get a secondary efect on the doberman you would stil get a minumum Moderat wound on it becous it could only get 2 sucsese with its body.

may not take the drone down but defently harm it.

Not a new idea. And I don't agree that the sensors are located behind the armor, but whatever. Not only that, the drone still can't break out of a freeze foam coating, its wheels will be locked.

I'm betting it was an M242 Bushmaster 25mm automatic cannon, not a .50 (HMG). You need to keep firing at a concrete, brick or stone structure for a really long time with an M2 to make it collapse. There's a world of difference between the terminal effect of the two... Plus TV networks have been showing a lot of videos of buildings in Falluja being fired with the autocannons because it's very flashy, quite unlike MG fire.

Bringing in the Bradleys (or similar AFVs) isn't always a possibility. Vehicles of that class are extremely expensive pieces of equipment and difficult to get into several places. Using a small, relatively inexpensive drone to neutralize the enemy with accurate small arms fire is a much preferred option when possible. I think we'd see this development taken to an extreme with SR technology, especially against low-tech opponents (when there's little risk of MIJI, for example).

The Doberman has a microturret and a firmpoint. You ain't gonna be doing serious structural damage with any weaponry you can mount on those.

Aaah no. The spell is not antivehicular. If the spell was force 6 Serious and cast at a vehicle with 3 armor then the force is divided by two, and the power is reduced by one, just like *all* attacks against vehicles. This makes it a 3m before armor, and the armor reduces it to absolutely nothing. That's with only 3 points of armor.

I'd say the drone would lose the -3tn bonus it revieves from having direct LOS, but that's about it. Drones default target numbers already assume the drone cannot directly see the target, they get a bonus if it can. "blinding" it puts it back to default target numbers.

You ended up with the right number, but only by accident. Page 150: if the force of the spell does not exceed the armor rating, the spell has no effect. Thus if a vehicle has an armor rating of 6, the average mage's combat spells will bounce off.

Sorry, it won't hurt it at all. Page 150: Elemental manipulations are counted as weapons. Their damage level is reduced by one and their power is halved. If the modified power does not exceed the armor rating the spell bounces. A force 6 lightning bolt is a looong way away from being able to hurt a drone with 6 armor.

ok so i dont know a .50 from a 25mm by visual inspection. and the amount of time shown was about 10 seconds or so (focused on the building, not the gun).

my comment about the afv was not so much about useing a heavy vehicle for the job as spraying the target from the outside rather then going inside, so why are they sending the drone into harms way (outside it can be coverd by a second drone, probably airborne, and maybe troops). this is allso gangers, not partisans, so why bring in the drone at all? pop some neuro-stun or teargas tru any opening and wait. then maybe send in the drone to look around.

then there is the question of what kind of building they have occupied. again, if we are talking a gang on their home turf then we are most likely talking a building marked for demolition or similar abandoned strucuture. how knows what state its in? maybe the walls are weak allready? yes you cant pack a big deal of firepower into a firmpoint but its the amount of holes thats the problem, not the size of them. drill enough holes in any weight carrying beam and it will break. and with other holes weakening the surrounding structure your looking at a collapse waiting to happen. sure bigger holes means you need less of them and the walls can be stronger.

still, if we are looking at a building made of reinforced concrete or similar then why have they not turned it into a bunker. complete with guards at the door and hopefully as so heavy a door as they can get their hands on. and keep it closed at all times when not in use. if the drone cant get in, a lot of the problems are gone.

there is to many unknowns in this thread to say either or. if the drone is allready in, go for sensory overload/confusion and then split. sound detection can be taken out simple by makeing noice all over the place (ultrasound is the diffrent beast). visuals? cover the drone with spray paint, get some smoke going or direct some sharp lights at it. ir? bonfires acts nicely as glare. radar? never underestimate the effect moveing metal objects can have on the radar reflections. hell, chaff is still just strips of metal foil. at worst you increase the noice ratio. but if you see any sign that the drone is confused, get the hell out via any exit available.

if the drone is not in, make every effort to keep it out and to keep a heavy wall or similar between it and you. you may be pinned down but if the drone cant get to you, you can hang around until either reinforcements comes along (for you and/or it) or it have to return for recharge

Whoa...I think I misunderstood this the first time I read it. You're looking for ways a GM can damage a Doberman?? The world's your oyster, brother. You can use almost anything you want.

If you want to keep it "even" (or make it easy for the PCs), just send NPC Rigger with a Doberman to go head to head with the PCs.

Your NPCs can be as advanced or as weak as needed to provide a challenge to your players.

James, straighten me out here if I'm reading this wrong but did you just ask us to help you (as GM) whack your PCs drone? If so, you do know that any idea we threw up here, at least one of your players saw, right? In fact, it was SBF that sent this thread into the "Gangers vs. the Doberman" spin.

Please tell me I've got this wrong.

I don't doubt that.

Okay, that adds a lot of perspective. My appologies if either of you took any offense.

Your crew makes it difficult to maintain a balance.

Brother, you have got to get a screen. Even if you suscribe to the "I never lie to/cheat my players even if it works in their favor" theory of GMing, there are still a bunch of advantages. At the very least, your PCs don't know how many dice your rolling. Use some cardboard and tape pictures of hot babes to the outside. That'll help distract them.

Post threads. We'll help.

Killing people who are inside a structure with small arms fire from the outside is all but impossible, unless we're talking about a very small structure with plastic/cardboard/sheet metal/wooden walls. That's why I noted the fact that the US forces in Falluja used 25mm autocannons for this -- nothing smaller will do the trick.

In metropolitan areas, most structures are made of concrete, reinforced or not, and whatever replacement materials (plascrete?) are available in the 2060s will be just as hard to break through. 8"/20cm of reinforced concrete, rather common for an outer wall of any large urban structure, takes 35 rounds from a 5.56x45mm (assault rifles, LMGs) to achieve any penetration, or about a dozen from a 7.62x51mm (MMG).

To riddle a concrete building of any size, then, would require tens of thousands of rounds from small arms. A small drone won't deliver that kind of firepower. Dunno what "neighborhood housing" stands for though -- if those are mostly wooden (or plastic in the 2060s) houses, putting the buildings full of holes might work. As might gas in the first CTs when the gangers still don't know what hit them, but that won't last for long.

Why would they? Why would the fortify a concrete building any better than a wooden building? In fact, it would make sense to fortify the wooden building better, since it's far more difficult to defend against any kind of intrusion to begin with.

OK, massively off topic:

Where would people get the plastic to make these buildings? Even today plastic would not be economic for a building material, and after oil starts running out it will get a lot worse.

Maybe one of the megas biomodified a plant to produce cheap plastic, and it uses so much of the field space formerly used for crops that everyone eats soy?

Beats me, but obviously plastics are supposed to be used for such things in SR. At least "Plastisteel" is supposed to be a rather common building material.

True enough. If a building is made out of concrete, it's going to be concrete reinforced with metal rods, what, 99+% of the time? Which only further proves that causing any large buildings in urban areas to collapse is all but impossible with small arms.

How thick was the brick facing? Doesn't strike me as strange, pistol rounds will tend to perform better at close ranges against such objects than, say, assault rifles. US Army Field Manual 90-10-1 AN INFANTRYMAN'S GUIDE TO COMBAT IN BUILT-UP AREAS says a brick veneer is sufficient protection against 5.56x45mm FMJs (standard assault rifle ammunition) at less than 50 meters.

A 23cm thick double brick wall will take ~70 rounds from an assault rifle or a LMG to achieve initial penetration through, a 30cm thick cinder block wall with a brick veneer will take around 60 rounds. Producing a 20cm diameter hole in the former will take around 120 rounds, while producing a 60cm diameter hole in the latter will take around 250 rounds -- and that's when you're specifically trying to put a big hole in the wall.

The M2 .50BMG heavy machine gun will make short work of the above materials with only a dozen or so rounds, but even it is pretty helpless against concrete buildings. Against 25cm of concrete, it'll take 50 rounds to produce a 30cm diameter hole, 100 rounds for a 60cm hole. In a 30cm thick triple brick wall it takes 15 rounds for a 20cm hole, 50 rounds for a 65cm hole. Against a 30cm thick wall made of a brick veneer and concrete blocks, it takes 25 .50 BMG rounds to produce a 25cm hole, 45 rounds for a 84cm hole.

So, to reduce to rubble the face of a 10 meters wide by 2.5 meters tall building the outer wall of which is made of 25cm thick reinforced concrete, you need to blast it with at least ~7000 rounds from a heavy machine gun or more than 20000 rounds with a MMG. Sounds like a fun way to spend an afternoon... Admittedly I don't know enough about engineering to figure out if the face of the building might collapse some time before that.