Shadowrun

Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Typhus on <10-06-21/0122:14>

Title: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Typhus on <10-06-21/0122:14>
Someone used a "their" instead of a "they're" somewhere too.  Haven't gone back to look at where i found it though.

Overall, I'm finding it a mixed bag so far.  Noticing a fair amount of places where concept > execution.  The Motor Pool Quality is a standout example of something I personally advocated for around here, but the way it was executed is really under-powered for what I'd want from it as a GM or player.  Saw the title and got excited, then I read the text.  Boo. 
   A couple other Qualities were really sketchy in terms of usefulness, like Affinity for Transit and Silver Lining.  A couple of the Negative Qualities can derail your entire game session (ex. Bermuda Gremlins and Fuzz Magnet) if you don't save them for a dramatically appropriate occasion.  They are funny ideas, but oof.  Driving mishaps derailed several of my games years ago even before Qualities were even a thing.  (My SR2 years would make the CLUE Files blush.)

Some of the thresholds look prohibitively high on certain things, like you'd need a 12+ dice pool for some things, or else spend Edge, but without that kind of build these options are not really for you.  Foot chases stand out as an Adept/Samurai/Troll only thing.  Your skinny mage and Decker won't be having these anytime soon, unless the people chasing you are equally low on dice.  Be careful throwing in foot chases.  Gang of mooks?  Sure.  Security forces?  Mmmmaaaaybe not for every group.  Just check the dice pools in advance, is all I'm saying to GMs.

Chase combat is another mixed bag.  The Step One and Step Two sections are clear enough, but then they restate all the same chase combat rules in a disjointed, non-procedural (rule by rule) way right after.  It's not clear where the Step Two section ends and the recap/rewrite part begins.  That actually make this section more confusing.  Especially since the second write up is not as easy to follow the wording on.  The Positional Advantage section is particularly vague (who is supposed to be the "you"?  Presumably the players?).  This section needed another run through an editor's hand for better clarity. 

Passenger actions during Chases felt like an afterthought.  Could have put in some fun specific Edge actions for them too, for both the GM and the players to draw inspiration from.  Really this is just "tell me what you are rolling to grant Edge to the driver".  Mechanically uninspiring sitting next to  all the Chase Edge Actions.

Upsides so far: Some fun and funny Negative Qualities (probably the best thing I've run across so far).  Looks like there will be some interesting vehicles available, though why we need stats for a container ship or battleships I do not know. Well, they are there if you want them I guess.  I haven't delved into the vehicles much yet.

I like that there are a number of things that are included that aren't just for riggers (and not even for vehicle combat at in some cases).  There's also a few fixes for weaker rules from the CRB scattered around.  I think we're up to 2002 uses for Edge now. 

Some odd stuff: Some drones have higher Accel and Speed Intervals than their top speeds.  I guess this is because you can mod the top speeds, etc?

One major knock I have to give this book is that is has very few pictures of the vehicles themselves.  Like maybe six of each for land, sea, and air.  Haven't recounted but it's very small.  Some of the more exotic vehicles would really benefit from pictures, as would the product overall.  Art adds flavor and this is largely devoid of a sense of that from the low amount of art.  I will say, if you ever thought the Hornet helo was undergunned, the absurdly improbable amount of firepower it is depicted with is worth a look.  That's a flying war crime right there. 

So far it's a 2.5 out of 5 from me.  The now-standard low quality of Catalyst's SR products remains unchanged, but there are some solid things to salvage from this one.  Some inspirational material, but as with all things 6e, adjustment and tinkering will be required.  I may change my thoughts after I take a look at the vehicle concepts, but as an old school players I recognize a lot of returning options converted to 6e.  I'd imagine this would let you resurrect riggers from prior editions successfully now.     
   Chase rules are just okay, could be clearer and made into more player and GM friendly products.  As it is, the GM would have to make their own Chase Combat player aids, tokens etc.  Still no rules for using drones for fire support in foot combat, but I think if you default to Accel as their base "walk" rate and maybe 2x that for a "run" rate, that would be close enough.  The CRB actually doesn't say what the action cost is for piloting or for drones moving on their own, so that's a rules gap still needing closure.  We can infer it's a major action to pilot things (I think this book may make that explicit), but it's not stated that I can find in any printing of the CRB I've seen.  All that is to say that drone combat feels overlooked in this book in a way so far. 

To wrap up my thoughts on a more positive note, I will say however, if anyone ends up doing a jetpack chase scene through downtown anywhere, I either want in or I want a link to the video of how that goes.  Done right, that would be epic madness.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Banshee on <10-06-21/0939:53>
Still no rules for using drones for fire support in foot combat, but I think if you default to Accel as their base "walk" rate and maybe 2x that for a "run" rate, that would be close enough.  The CRB actually doesn't say what the action cost is for piloting or for drones moving on their own, so that's a rules gap still needing closure.  We can infer it's a major action to pilot things (I think this book may make that explicit), but it's not stated that I can find in any printing of the CRB I've seen.  All that is to say that drone combat feels overlooked in this book in a way so far. 

Ok, 1st off not replying to target you at all but was just having a conversation concerning this very topic with one of my playtesters about seeing the same complaint on Reddit, and it bugs me that people are seeing it this way.

Vehicle is movement (speed) is listed in metters per combat turn so they use the same movement scale as characters. We did that on purpose. A vehicle uses the same action economy as a character... so just moving is a minor Move Action. Only the distance moved is different. Piloting varies ... just "driving from Point A to Point B doesn't require a skill check so it's a move Action. Trying to do a 180 bootleg at 50mph ... well that a skill check obviously... so it uses the Use Skill major Action.

So in summary... we didn't make new rules for vehicles engaging in combat with characters because they are not needed. They use the same rules as already present.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Finstersang on <10-06-21/1016:00>
One thing I just noticed: I couldnīt find any new rules or clarification for autonomous Drones earning Edge.

So, can Drones earn and use Edge?


Can somebody please deny or confirm that conspicion? Maybe I just overlooked something    ::)
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Banshee on <10-06-21/1033:16>
One thing I just noticed: I couldnīt find any new rules or clarification for autonomous Drones earning Edge.

So, can Drones earn and use Edge?

  • On one hand, a Drone obviously doesnīt have an Edge Attribute, so one could argue that they also canīt earn and use Edge.
  • On the other hand, this would make a lot of stats useless for playing or interacting with drones, because they would be cut off from the core mechanic that governs them. An autonomous Steel lynx suddenly couldnīt profit from its high Defense Rating. Same for high Attack ratings, sensor enhancements and other perks and quirks. Not to mention all the important Edge Actions. It would obviously be the worst possible solution.
  • On a third, grossly disfigured cronenbergian mutant hand emerging from my lower abdomen, the authors of this book also came up with Attribute Mastery (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=32982.0), so the argument that itīs the "worst possible solution" might actually be an argument that this is, in fact, absolutely RAI.   ;D

Can somebody please deny or confirm that conspicion? Maybe I just overlooked something    ::)

Ok, so 1st ... Attribute Mastery (and that entire chapter was a different author than any of the drone rules in any of the books so please don't confer any correlation. 😉

As for drones earning edge, Hjal and I have been discussing that lately (to address in a hopefully official FAQ) and while it is inferred but never explicitly said the intent is that they can earn edge but since they don't have an edge Attribute they can't bank it beyond the active scene.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Aria on <10-06-21/1058:26>
There are summary tables for aircraft but none for ground craft, boats and drones that I can find?!?  Any chance they are lurking somewhere and could be released in pdf format?!
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Finstersang on <10-06-21/1102:13>
One thing I just noticed: I couldnīt find any new rules or clarification for autonomous Drones earning Edge.

So, can Drones earn and use Edge?

  • On one hand, a Drone obviously doesnīt have an Edge Attribute, so one could argue that they also canīt earn and use Edge.
  • On the other hand, this would make a lot of stats useless for playing or interacting with drones, because they would be cut off from the core mechanic that governs them. An autonomous Steel lynx suddenly couldnīt profit from its high Defense Rating. Same for high Attack ratings, sensor enhancements and other perks and quirks. Not to mention all the important Edge Actions. It would obviously be the worst possible solution.
  • On a third, grossly disfigured cronenbergian mutant hand emerging from my lower abdomen, the authors of this book also came up with Attribute Mastery (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=32982.0), so the argument that itīs the "worst possible solution" might actually be an argument that this is, in fact, absolutely RAI.   ;D

Can somebody please deny or confirm that conspicion? Maybe I just overlooked something    ::)

Ok, so 1st ... Attribute Mastery (and that entire chapter was a different author than any of the drone rules in any of the books so please don't confer any correlation. 😉

Iīm aware of that, but should have made that more clearly ;)
TBH, even that stinker just one issue that can be easily ignored and forgotten.

But hell, even rest of that chapter is pretty neat. The Quality that fills up you Edge Attribute on a critical glitch seems a bit exploitable with lower dice pools, but then again, you also have to endure the effect of the glitch. Cheesable, but I doubt that players will really play that way. The Signature Moves are also very interesting and flavorfull.

As for drones earning edge, Hjal and I have been discussing that lately (to address in a hopefully official FAQ) and while it is inferred but never explicitly said the intent is that they can earn edge but since they don't have an edge Attribute they can't bank it beyond the active scene.

Now thatīs a relief  ;)

Thatīs pretty much how I houseruled it, but with a little twist: Unless they are slaved to an RCC, droneīs canīt bank Edge at all and always have to use it right away when they earn it. However, if they are slaved to an RCC, they can also deposit the Edge in a shared pool for all the drones in the network; pretty much like tacnets Mtocs or the new chase pool.

Goes a little bit beyond the scope of Errata/Clarification, but maybe itīs worth considering. Itīs a bit easier to track just one pool.

Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Typhus on <10-06-21/1112:01>
Quote
Vehicle is movement (speed) is listed in metters per combat turn so they use the same movement scale as characters. We did that on purpose. A vehicle uses the same action economy as a character... so just moving is a minor Move Action. Only the distance moved is different. Piloting varies ... just "driving from Point A to Point B doesn't require a skill check so it's a move Action. Trying to do a 180 bootleg at 50mph ... well that a skill check obviously... so it uses the Use Skill major Action.

So in summary... we didn't make new rules for vehicles engaging in combat with characters because they are not needed. They use the same rules as already present.

I totally don't take it personally, I am trying to understand the rule.

I understand the idea that the vehicle move in m/ct.  That's obvious.  However here's the question I need answered:

"When I spend the minor action to move my drone, how far can it move?  What number in the stat array am I looking at to tell me that?"

That's what the rules don't make clear.   

(Edit: Assuming I start from speed 0 that is)


Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Banshee on <10-06-21/1136:18>
Quote
Vehicle is movement (speed) is listed in metters per combat turn so they use the same movement scale as characters. We did that on purpose. A vehicle uses the same action economy as a character... so just moving is a minor Move Action. Only the distance moved is different. Piloting varies ... just "driving from Point A to Point B doesn't require a skill check so it's a move Action. Trying to do a 180 bootleg at 50mph ... well that a skill check obviously... so it uses the Use Skill major Action.

So in summary... we didn't make new rules for vehicles engaging in combat with characters because they are not needed. They use the same rules as already present.

I totally don't take it personally, I am trying to understand the rule.

I understand the idea that the vehicle move in m/ct.  That's obvious.  However here's the question I need answered:

"When I spend the minor action to move my drone, how far can it move?  What number in the stat array am I looking at to tell me that?"

That's what the rules don't make clear.   

(Edit: Assuming I start from speed 0 that is)

In increments of its Accel up to its max movement at its Top Speed.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <10-06-21/1312:12>
I broke this line of discussion out into its own thread.  Carry on :)  (and I lack the full phenomenal cosmic powers to move to general discussion... FastJack should be helping us out with that soon!)
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: MercilessMing on <10-06-21/1356:45>
I haven't come up with some mock numbers to run a chase yet, but my gut feeling is that there are so many ways for players to put their finger on the scale that vehicle chases pose no challenge when you have a rigger.  Like, over in 3 rounds and the outcome was never in question.
Anyone kick the tires on this yet?
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Typhus on <10-06-21/1424:56>
Quote
In increments of its Accel up to its max movement at its Top Speed.

So sorry.  I'm really trying here.

So, since I can only do one Movement action per turn, if I start the drone at Speed 0, and spend 1 Minor action, are you saying it can move up to it's Accel rate in meters (not to exceed it's Top Speed if A>TS)? 
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Banshee on <10-06-21/1433:54>
Quote
In increments of its Accel up to its max movement at its Top Speed.

So sorry.  I'm really trying here.

So, since I can only do one Movement action per turn, if I start the drone at Speed 0, and spend 1 Minor action, are you saying it can move up to it's Accel rate in meters (not to exceed it's Top Speed if A>TS)?

Yes...
Example Ford Americar has Accel of 9... starting from 0 it can move 9 the first turn, then assuming it keeps moving 18 on its second, 27 on its third... etc until it gets to it's top speed.

Honestly it such a cludgy fun hog that I don't even bother to track it, often times a vehicles movement so outpaces a characters movement that they can quickly cover any distance with a character scale environment that I don't even track it unless it's a vehicle vs vehicle situation.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Typhus on <10-06-21/1501:16>
Actually the rule in the book says the vehicle travels half the Accel distance, which makes for even more math.

p.199: "Distance traveled in a combat round = Speed at beginning of turn - 1/2 acceleration
rate (if any)."

So, meaning no disrespect to you as one of the authors, what's in the book is not aligned with what you are saying here (kinda like the Hacking situation).  As usual, I like your take on the rules better of course. 

However, you also seem to have just proved my main point that a better set of rules is needed for this case.  Even you don't want to use them.  So, how else would people take this situation other than the way I am taking it?  "Just ignore the rules" seems to be the consistent take I get on this forum to this topic.  Why not write a more usable rule?

I mean, fixes are possible and simple to make without major rewrites: "Treat the Drone's Accel rating as it's walking movement if it is moving more tactically.  Drones cannot take the Sprint action." two sentences to squeeze in somewhere.   My point was only ever that the vehicle rules as written do not work reasonably for drone support combat, and DC was the opportunity to address this issue.  It wasn't taken.

Not blaming you for that choice, I wouldn't know who made the call.  It's a disappointing choice is all. 
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Banshee on <10-06-21/1521:10>
Ok, yeah I missed the x1/2 when reviewing but that only cones into pkayvwhen accelerating or decelerating. Current speed is the meters per turn. Which actually reinforces my point..  when intermingling vehicle movement rates with character movement the vehicle moves going to far outpace the characters to the point where they either need to slow down to the characters approximate movement or quickly take themselves out of range. The whole math Olympics is only worth doing when it involves multiple vehicles... therefore I suggest just hand waving the math and have fun with the encounter by just treating the vehicles like characters (other than calculating variable distance per movement action they are the same anyway).
Its not that the rules aren't usable... it's just too much detail that doesn't add to the story at that level.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Typhus on <10-06-21/1534:34>
So, just to clarify, I'm not talking about passenger vehicles moving at travel speeds vs character speeds.  That situation speaks for itself, as you point out. 

I'm talking specifically about one use case which is drone use at character speeds, which it seems you have again just said the rules don't support well/at all and should be disregarded (which the RAW do not have a statement about doing, or suggestions on what to do instead).  Thus the rules as provided to players are not functional for this use case. In my mind, that's a pretty essential use case to just shrug off.

Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Banshee on <10-06-21/1540:53>
Drones are vehicles that don't carry passengers... so they all use the same rules. It's not that the rules don't cover it, because they do. It's that when you slow it down to the character level it just isn't worth doing the math 98% percent of the time.

For example a Steel Lynx at its lowest Speed Interval has a movement rate of 15 meters per turn putting at 50% faster than the metatypes. So why worry about doing any math beyond that unless it needs to engage something faster?
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Typhus on <10-06-21/1624:16>
Quote
Drones are vehicles that don't carry passengers... so they all use the same rules.

Their use cases are completely different for travel vs tactical.  It would make more sense to treat them differently mechanically. 

Quote
It's not that the rules don't cover it, because they do. It's that when you slow it down to the character level it just isn't worth doing the math 98% percent of the time.

So put that statement in the book.  Any book.  Instruct people.  In a rulebook.

Quote
For example a Steel Lynx at its lowest Speed Interval has a movement rate of 15 meters per turn putting at 50% faster than the metatypes. So why worry about doing any math beyond that unless it needs to engage something faster?

Because the rule book doesn't say that's how Accel or Speed Intervals work.  It only provides one use case and no exceptions.  I'm not sure how else I can say that what's in your head is not in the rulebook and makes people have to stop and scratch their heads and fake it instead of following what could be a two sentence rule.
That's a pretty unfortunate state of affairs for what (in my experience) is a pretty quintessential function of being a rigger.

Sorry, I don't think we agree that there's a problem here, and I'm not sure what we're going to accomplish carrying on further.  Happy to talk more, but I can't think of how else to state it, not any benefit to continuing to try.  Your solution is fine "Use Accel as the walk rate".  Simple, easy.  Not disputing that.  Just asking for it to be published somewhere so people can use it.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <10-06-21/1848:19>
Your solution is fine "Use Accel as the walk rate".  Simple, easy.  Not disputing that.  Just asking for it to be published somewhere so people can use it.

I'm in the works on making that wish come true.

And in the meantime, you *know* via your participation in this discussion that's the intent of how to use drones and pedestrians on the same battle map.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Typhus on <10-06-21/1940:56>
I do now, yes.  I appreciate the pending publication for clarification and making it official.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Banshee on <10-06-21/1949:42>
Well just to be clear for your interpretation... acceleration is not walking speed. Vehicles do not have walk/sprint values.
A Vehicle's movement (using a Move Action) is equal to its current Speed per the calculation on page 199 CRB.

My only suggested "alteration" to RAW is that most of the time you do not need to do that calculation because even at the slowest rate most combat drones are capable of moving fast enough to outpace any character on the "map"
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Xenon on <10-08-21/0250:03>
Some drones have higher Accel ... than their top speeds. 
Its only odd if Accel have a value that is more than twice as high as top speed.

An Accel that is twice as high as top speed just mean that the drone can have a travel distance of 0 in one combat turn and then travel its top seed distance in the next combat turn. Not sure why this is odd.

Although the rules are different it is still similar to how characters move. Characters in this edition have a top speed of 10 meters per combat turn and for argument sake you could say that they have an accel of 20. This mean that they can move 0 meters in one combat turn and 10 meters (up to half of their acceleration) in the very next combat turn. Since they are at their top speed they will still not move more than 10 meters the combat turn after that.

Nissan Jackrabbit also have an accel of 20. Which mean it can stand still (move 0 meters) in one combat turn. And then move 10 meters (half its accel) in the next combat turn (perfectly keep up with a character that is not sprinting). Combat turn after that the car can leave the character in the dust. Or keep same speed or reduce speed to perfectly match the distance that the character will move.

The math is a bit over complicated perhaps (everything else in this edition got simplified but this got super complex in comparison for some reason) but at the same time its also not really rocket science...
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: KarmaInferno on <10-08-21/1333:01>
Under Build Your Dream p 151, for "Improved Size", does the Size Class increase also increase the Length, Weight, and Cargo Capacity as per the Size Class table? If so, why would you ever spend Build Points on this when you could just start with the larger size?
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Banshee on <10-08-21/1944:53>
Under Build Your Dream p 151, for "Improved Size", does the Size Class increase also increase the Length, Weight, and Cargo Capacity as per the Size Class table? If so, why would you ever spend Build Points on this when you could just start with the larger size?

Because the chassis determines the initial size class and you don't just pick a size class. So 1st you pick the chassis then cam choose to make it bigger if you need it.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: KarmaInferno on <10-09-21/0521:45>
So you'd likely never use Improved Size for drones unless it's already Large.

Because just picking the next drone chassis size up is 2 BP more, whereas Improved Size is 4 BP.

Wait, did Huge size drones go away as a category?
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Banshee on <10-09-21/0808:41>
So you'd likely never use Improved Size for drones unless it's already Large.

Because just picking the next drone chassis size up is 2 BP more, whereas Improved Size is 4 BP.

Wait, did Huge size drones go away as a category?

Correct.
yes "huge" drones would just be large with Improved Size
Mechanically I stuck with the sizes that were provided in the CRB and built from there, also there not much difference in functionality other than size at that point. Stuff like that and cargo ships is what drove me to create the size class rules.. well that and j always hated using Body to determine size.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: KarmaInferno on <10-13-21/0829:06>
Hmm... Is there a reason Gun Ports consume valuble Mod Slots? (Actually, do they? They have a "rating" of 0.5 where other mods have the mod slot cost.)

A CF cost would have seemed more appropriate given that mechanically they are just holes, maybe with a hatch cover. They would have more impact on passenger space than structural.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Banshee on <10-13-21/0843:07>
Hmm... Is there a reason Gun Ports consume valuble Mod Slots? (Actually, do they? They have a "rating" of 0.5 where other mods have the mod slot cost.)

A CF cost would have seemed more appropriate given that mechanically they are just holes, maybe with a hatch cover. They would have more impact on passenger space than structural.

Good catch... need to review for errata. There is definitely information missing.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: KarmaInferno on <10-14-21/1852:18>
I have discovered a grievous oversight!

Actually it's one that has been an issue with all previous Rigger books that I can recall.

There's no option to make a car a convertible.

Fail.

 ;D

(There's Open Construction, but that's permanent, not something that can be closed with a button press.)


-k
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: cantrip on <10-14-21/2349:41>
My players tend to use rocket launchers to make convertibles  ;D
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: FastJack on <10-15-21/0640:47>
From inside the car? Must be distracting to the other passengers...
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Hobbes on <10-15-21/1049:28>
Keeps it toasty so you don't have to wait for the heater to kick in.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: cantrip on <10-22-21/1129:10>
From inside the car? Must be distracting to the other passengers...
That would be!  :)
Lucky for them they are working from the outside in......

Keeps it toasty so you don't have to wait for the heater to kick in.
LOL!


I just want this to happen in my game sometime! (https://www.zoom-comics.com/archives/7924/deadpool-dodges-a-rocket/) ;D
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Beta on <10-25-21/1427:03>

I just want this to happen in my game sometime! (https://www.zoom-comics.com/archives/7924/deadpool-dodges-a-rocket/) ;D

If someone burned edge to dodge a missile then for sure you want to describe it in as epic a way as possible.  They are out a lot of karma, they can at least get a good story in return :)

Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: KarmaInferno on <10-29-21/0910:07>
Should vans (and maybe SUVs) be included in "trucks" for the +4 CF bonus? I find it odd by strict reading they are not.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: KarmaInferno on <10-29-21/2259:03>
Also tricking out the Opossum II drone to make it a shiva cyberarm backpack is just amusing.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: KarmaInferno on <11-08-21/2112:55>
Not exactly an errata, but...

The SK Aerospace Blitz MkII is described in Double Clutch as "The fastest unmanned air vehicle in production", yet it's actually the second SLOWEST aerial Large Drone in the game, only beaten out for last place by the Dalmatian.
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: KarmaInferno on <12-12-21/2023:14>
So, is the flying wing thing the rigger is standing atop on the back cover of Double Clutch just an artist's interpretation of the AA personal glider, or meant to be another vehicle entirely?
Title: Re: Double Clutch Discussion
Post by: Voran on <04-03-22/1348:04>
I'm always glad for rigger stuff, though I do wish at times there were some more pictures to get a sense of what things look like.  I mean sure, with the given stats you don't really need to know what something looks like, and theory wise you can compare stuff to real world, like, "Hm Ares Warmaster must be bigger then a bradley or stryker due to how many people it can fit, and it says its half-track, so it maybe looks something like the Docwagon variant we had an image for in one of the older books, but yknow...more military."

Or community art, "Oh, this looks like the batmobile tumbler had a baby with the Colonial Marines APC from aliens, I can use that."