Of course, the non-bastardized original english is a bastardized and heavily mutilated version of the scandinavian and germanic languages, with most of its scientific terms imported from latin and many economic and political terms derived from french.
Critias
Mar 4 2005, 08:20 AM
QUOTE (hahnsoo) |
I'm still a fan of the Walther PB-120, despite the 6L damage code. The conceal of 8 is just high enough to make it worth it. Concealable Quickdraw holster plus a Ulysses Line Greatcoat makes it a TN of 15 to detect, or you can just stick it in your pocket for a base 8 to conceal. |
Yeah. It's a fine back up gun. But I wouldn't wanna wander through the Barrens (much less an actual job) with just that on me -- not when there's heavy pistols out there, just as available and affordable, and using the same skill.
torzzzzz
Mar 4 2005, 09:18 AM
QUOTE (Arethusa) |
QUOTE (Fortune @ Mar 3 2005, 06:35 PM) | QUOTE (Arethusa @ Mar 4 2005, 09:32 AM) | incorreclt |
What's this word? |
A typo. Sieg heil!
|
Not just me then??
torz
Fortune
Mar 4 2005, 11:02 AM
QUOTE (Weredigo) |
Lessons resume. American English is a bastardization of about half a dozen or more different languages. Old Country English, spanish, Latin, Italian, Gaelic, German, French, to name a few... |
Enlighten us as to just how this differs from the 'British' version of the english language.
Xirces
Mar 4 2005, 11:11 AM
Actually, whilst we're on the subject of spelling, grammar and differences between languages I've got a question/comment.
I was reading the Underworld sourceboook and noticed the use of the word leftenant - has anyone /ever/ seen this word used? I've always used leiutenant... and remember being confused about how "leiu" could ever be pronounced as "left"

Of course I'm old enough (and sad enough) to remember a Dempsey and Makepeace episode in which Dempsey made that exact point.
Critias
Mar 4 2005, 11:13 AM
I beleive it's just an older rank that was sort of "phased out" by the lieu variant instead.
Drain Brain
Mar 4 2005, 12:18 PM
I'm a great subscriber to the old axiom of "Pistols are for fighting your way back to your gun" and, as such, feel that a light pistol is more than adequate to that task.
Now, if you're a criminal (read: Shadowrunner) who doesn't have a "gun" in that sense, then the way forward is definately a heavy pistol.
But remember, of course, that if you're stealthy and clever enough, you should be able to do the ol' "Splinter Cell" trick and grab your opponents in a great ninja-HO! fashion, placing your silenced hold-out right by the temple and thereby ensuring a kill.
Failing that, you could always get them to tell you stuff, use retinal scanners, or shake so much they drop their dog-tags...
No, wait... I'm mixing my game-a-phores...
Kagetenshi
Mar 4 2005, 02:20 PM
QUOTE (Xirces) |
I was reading the Underworld sourceboook and noticed the use of the word leftenant - has anyone /ever/ seen this word used? I've always used leiutenant... and remember being confused about how "leiu" could ever be pronounced as "left" |
I've both heard it used and used it myself. Moreover, if I remember correctly according to one BBC radio drama it actually is pronounced differently.
More or less every language is a bastardization of some other language until you get back quite a few thousand years ago.
And keep in mind that the difference between TN 7 and TN 8, while certainly IMO not big enough, is still nontrivial.
~J
Fortune
Mar 4 2005, 02:45 PM
The spelling is lieutenant in either case. In England and its colonies like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, it is pronounced leftenant, wheras in America it is said as lootenant.
Austere Emancipator
Mar 4 2005, 02:58 PM
What Fortune said, although especially in the armed forces I suppose just "l'tenant" is as or more common than "loutenant".
RunnerPaul
Mar 4 2005, 02:59 PM
QUOTE (Drain Brain) |
But remember, of course, that if you're stealthy and clever enough, you should be able to do the ol' "Splinter Cell" trick and grab your opponents in a great ninja-HO! fashion, placing your silenced hold-out right by the temple and thereby ensuring a kill. |
Given that by the 2060s, they seem to have largely solved the reliability issue, I'd expect biometric trigger-locks to be a lot more commonplace among police and security forces. Just something to keep in mind while world designing.
Fortune
Mar 4 2005, 02:52 PM
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
What Fortune said, although especially in the armed forces I suppose just "l'tenant" is as or more common than "loutenant". |
Or just 'el-tee' or even 'louie'.
Kagetenshi
Mar 4 2005, 02:53 PM
QUOTE (Fortune) |
The spelling is lieutenant in either case. In England and its colonies like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, it is pronounced leftenant, wheras in America it is said as lootenant. |
IIRC, Tolkein disagrees with you.
~J
Fortune
Mar 4 2005, 03:06 PM
In what way?
DrJest
Mar 4 2005, 04:22 PM
QUOTE (RunnerPaul) |
QUOTE (Smiley @ Mar 3 2005, 11:22 PM) | You peoples with your chips and your biscuits and your LIFTS... |
Not to mention their suspenders and their pickups.
|
Classic warning handed out to a Brit taking a trip to California.
Your vest and pants go on the outside.
<jedi wave> There is no ground floor.
Never ask for a fag.
Never accept a bite of someone's buns.
Drive on the pavement.
Kagetenshi
Mar 4 2005, 08:10 PM
QUOTE (Fortune @ Mar 4 2005, 10:06 AM) |
In what way? |
About the spelling being lieutenant either way.
Warning to Irish tourguides: never tell the young ladies on your tour that you're going to come around to knock them up in the morning.
~J
Weredigo
Mar 4 2005, 08:21 PM
QUOTE |
Enlighten us as to just how this differs from the 'British' version of the english language. |
IMHO not one fargin bit, the "british" version is where it started, and it just continued in the America's...
Fortune
Mar 4 2005, 10:59 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Mar 5 2005, 07:10 AM) |
About the spelling being lieutenant either way. |
Well, Dictionary.com has no listing for leftenant in any of its accumulated texts. Google has only 7,550 hits on a search using that spelling, while using the correct spelling of lieutenant produces 4,610,000 results. Having been exposed to the word in all of the countries I listed, I can safely say that the correct way to spell it is as I stated previously.
Tolkien may have been a language professor, but his dealings in regards to the english language were almost exclusively with the older variants.
Fortune
Mar 4 2005, 10:53 PM
QUOTE (Weredigo) |
QUOTE | Enlighten us as to just how this differs from the 'British' version of the english language. |
IMHO not one fargin bit, the "british" version is where it started, and it just continued in the America's...
|
Then why the need to qualify your prior post about english with the label 'American'? It is misleading, and can be taken the wrong way.
torzzzzz
Mar 5 2005, 12:02 AM
Chill, we all speak it and write it..... or in my case try, and there are many variants of it.
torz
Fortune
Mar 5 2005, 12:32 AM
QUOTE (torzzzzz) |
Chill, we all speak it and write it..... or in my case try, and there are many variants of it. |
Chill? Why? He was spouting shit (as usual), and I called him on it. English is most definitely a bastard language, but that fact is not limited only to the American version of the language.
torzzzzz
Mar 5 2005, 01:05 AM
QUOTE (Fortune) |
QUOTE (torzzzzz @ Mar 5 2005, 11:02 AM) | Chill, we all speak it and write it..... or in my case try, and there are many variants of it. |
Chill? Why? He was spouting shit (as usual), and I called him on it. English is most definitely a bastard language, but that fact is not limited only to the American version of the language.
|
Ok, fair point........ But i was trying to point out that there is no point getting worked up about it?
torz x
Fortune
Mar 5 2005, 01:13 AM
It's cool. I wasn't really getting worked up as much as just tired of reading his half-witted, ill-informed crap.
torzzzzz
Mar 5 2005, 01:15 AM
too true
yawn off to be now..... been a long week!
torz

P.S Sorry about the Mail i just sent you!! i meant to send it to someone else and hit the wrong name! erm...... I need sleep
Fortune
Mar 5 2005, 02:13 AM
No problem. I was bored, so I responded to it anyway.
Critias
Mar 5 2005, 08:06 AM
QUOTE (Fortune) |
It's cool. I wasn't really getting worked up as much as just tired of reading his half-witted, ill-informed crap. |
Second.
torzzzzz
Mar 5 2005, 03:00 PM
So back to my original post, i Just had another thought that will proberly get me into trouble........ Advantages and disadvantages to burst fire and fully auto, which is better. I just hate the fact that even with a smartlink 2 I have to take more and more minuses (for recoil) when firing on Fully auto, Anything i can do about it?
Before you all shout I am not just going on about pistols.
torz
Fortune
Mar 5 2005, 04:04 PM
Pretty much the only thing you can do to lower the TN due to recoil when using Full Auto is to get better Recoil Compensation.
hahnsoo
Mar 5 2005, 07:32 PM
Or use suppressive fire instead.
Wounded Ronin
Mar 6 2005, 05:20 AM
Suppressive fire is more fun when you dual wield.
tisoz
Mar 6 2005, 07:39 AM
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
Suppressive fire is more fun when you dual wield. |
Firing FA requires a complex action, so some GMs may limit it to one weapon.
Need to also remember, one can only dual wield pistol or SMG class weapons.
Tarantula
Mar 6 2005, 07:56 AM
Unless your a troll metatype.
Capt. Dave
Mar 6 2005, 08:44 AM
You can get an SMG with FA or even a heavy pistol with FA, although the latter requires a BF-capable heavy pistol that is modified to fire SA/FA (pg. 82, CC). The problem with that is you lose BF and a point of RC.
Fortune
Mar 6 2005, 09:19 AM
Or you can just use a couple of machine pistols. The Steyr TMP comes standard with all three fire modes.
hahnsoo
Mar 6 2005, 09:27 AM
QUOTE (tisoz) |
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Mar 5 2005, 11:20 PM) | Suppressive fire is more fun when you dual wield. |
Firing FA requires a complex action, so some GMs may limit it to one weapon.
Need to also remember, one can only dual wield pistol or SMG class weapons.
|
Yeah, according to the dual-wielding rules, you can fire both weapons at the same time as long as they take the same type of action to perform the attack. So two fully-automatic one-handed weapons would work.
However, it states in the suppressive fire rules that you must take a Complex Action with a fully-automatic firearm to use suppressive fire. Ah, semantics. It's unclear as to whether it is legal to use a pair of weapons for suppressive fire, other than common sense.
The question I have is the attack test... would the +2 for having a 2nd firearm apply in suppressive fire? According the suppressive fire rules, only the attacker's wounds, the Target's cover, and the +2 for suppressive fire apply.
Capt. Dave
Mar 6 2005, 09:43 AM
QUOTE (Fortune) |
Or you can just use a couple of machine pistols. The Steyr TMP comes standard with all three fire modes. |
Well yes, I just figured machine pistols were a given. I meant to say "heavy" pistol. I'll edit accordingly.
for some real fun, make a heavy pistol with burst-fire, and then modify it to fire full-auto.
and, no, the +2 for dual-wielding doesn't apply to suppression.
tisoz
Mar 6 2005, 10:02 AM
QUOTE (Tarantula) |
Unless your a troll metatype. |
With troll size (adapted)weapons.
QUOTE (Capt. Dave) |
You can get an SMG with FA or even a heavy pistol with FA, although the latter requires a BF-capable heavy pistol that is modified to fire SA/FA (pg. 82, CC). The problem with that is you lose BF and a point of RC. |
I never implied otherwise.
QUOTE (Fortune) |
Or you can just use a couple of machine pistols. The Steyr TMP comes standard with all three fire modes. |
That's one of the reasons some of my character's use it. The problem is that only successes stage damage, and you don't get to add combat pool to the success test. No Power or Damage level increase due to extra bullets. So it is kind of hard to actually inflict damage. My guys usually use capsule rounds with pepper punch.
Roleplaying the fear factor of having that much lead flying around is fun.
Critias
Mar 6 2005, 11:11 AM
Suppressive fire is actually just usefull with more than one player doing it. Get three or four guys with AR's (or heavier, depending on the game) all suppressing the same area, and you'll see it work like it's supposed to. One guy doing it, no one's especially scared of -- it's a single shot's worth of basic 7M or so damage that anyone worth suppressing can soak.
When someone's facing that three or four times, though, with one extra PC (or NPC, or whatever) left over to pick off survivors with aimed bursts? That's when it gets nasty.
toturi
Mar 6 2005, 11:15 AM
Suppressive fire on an invisible fellow. It works even if it is just 1 guy doing it.
DrJest
Mar 6 2005, 11:25 AM
QUOTE (toturi) |
Suppressive fire on an invisible fellow. It works even if it is just 1 guy doing it. |
Hell yeah.
Player: How the hell did he hit me? I'm invisible!
GM: It's an automatic shotgun. It turns large areas into flying hamburger.
Player: ...oh yeah.
Crusher Bob
Mar 6 2005, 12:34 PM
And when its a cyberzombie with a bunch of dedicated gun arms doing the supressing... Or a sam/rigger with a bunch of drones in captain's chair mode, you don't even need to bring any firends along.
torzzzzz
Mar 7 2005, 01:16 PM
yeah, sounds cool! might be an option for my next charter!
torz x
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.