Cycles, Passengers and Component Armor

[Hemlock]

Someone started threads about cycle gangs and cycle designs and it got me thinking. So I blame them for this question.

When designing a cycle, you can have a passenger ride behind the driver and the passenger takes up no space, just adds his fat ass ... I mean his weight to the bike. Does this mean that component armor around the cyclist can include the passenger 'inside' the armor ? At no extra cost and weight ?

My god. You can have a ~huge~ cycle gang for just a little bit of money ...

(too bad the bikers still suck in combat)

[Parody]

Originally Posted by Hemlock

When designing a cycle, you can have a passenger ride behind the driver and the passenger takes up no space, just adds his fat ass ... I mean his weight to the bike. Does this mean that component armor around the cyclist can include the passenger 'inside' the armor ? At no extra cost and weight?

Hmm...I don't see any relevant rules/rulings on this one on a quick pass through the various books and documents.

Personally, I would at least make you add a space to the CA size if you want the passenger to be inside the CA. Otherwise I'd consider the passenger outside the CA. (I'd be tempted to say that you have to use one or two spaces on someone if you want to give them vehicular components, the difference being exactly what you want them to have just like they were in a car, but it's probably not that big a deal in this instance.)

[davester64]

Doesn't CA on a cycle rider and/or passenger prevent the person (or people) it's protecting from using hand weapons/grenades?

In a fight, I want my rider to shoot at things, not just sightsee.

[Hemlock]

Originally Posted by davester64

Doesn't CA on a cycle rider and/or passenger prevent the person (or people) it's protecting from using hand weapons/grenades?

In a fight, I want my rider to shoot at things, not just sightsee.

I'm not sure about the CA preventing the use of hand weapons/ grenades. But it would definitely impact on how I arrange things. I, too, would prefer that my bitch, er, I mean, my passenger use weapons/ grenades and not just be 'along for the ride'.

And what about passengers in sidecars ... how does Component Armor effect them ?

A light sidecar (200 lbs) holding a passenger (150 lbs) with a block of CA around him (20 lbs) and a tire (about 20-25 lbs) still leaves 25 lbs for side car armor/ dischargers/ wheelguards/ personal gear.

[Parody]

The ruling in the CWRQ+ODQ is that people in CA can't affect anything outside the vehicle.

[Hemlock]

Originally Posted by Parody

The ruling in the CWRQ+ODQ is that people in CA can't affect anything outside the vehicle.

I take it that applies to both passengers on the bike and passengers in the sidecar ...

Man, if the bikers have to be ~exposed~ to use their hand weapons, they are truly dead meat.

Who would want to be a biker in the CW world ?

[davester64]

Well, Cycles do have windshells available. And they can be armored, and they allow hand weapon use.

[Hemlock]

Originally Posted by davester64

Well, Cycles do have windshells available. And they can be armored, and they allow hand weapon use.

And they are expensive ... but they seem to be the only way to protect the bikers from "I aim my burst effect weapon at the ground near the bike and have the burst effect reach out and smack the exposed biker for 1 die damage".

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by Hemlock

And they are expensive ... but they seem to be the only way to protect the bikers from "I aim my burst effect weapon at the ground near the bike and have the burst effect reach out and smack the exposed biker for 1 die damage".

Personally, I've always felt bikers showed too much the "Orks of _CW_"
nature.

One rule I fiddled with to some small success was to make any shot which
hit the front 180-degrees of counter hit the F armor, and any hitting the
back 180 the B armor. It allowed bikes to survive a bit longer, as it prevented
the maneuver quoted above. They still died like pigs from the usual causes
of Biker Demise -- DF hits, rams, botched control rolls, etc. -- but the more
Munchkin tactics were precluded.

[Hemlock]

Originally Posted by 43Supporter

Personally, I've always felt bikers showed too much the "Orks of _CW_"
nature.

One rule I fiddled with to some small success was to make any shot which
hit the front 180-degrees of counter hit the F armor, and any hitting the
back 180 the B armor. It allowed bikes to survive a bit longer, as it prevented
the maneuver quoted above. They still died like pigs from the usual causes
of Biker Demise -- DF hits, rams, botched control rolls, etc. -- but the more
Munchkin tactics were precluded.

We always used the grenade scatter rules to determine where the round actually impacted ... if the round impacted in the front firing arc, it hit the front of the bike. If the round impacted in the rear firing arc, it hit the Back armor ... and so on.

So even if a you scored a 'hit' against the ground, there was a small chance that round would hit in a firing arc that was protected by armor.

Bikers lasted a little bit longer. But not much. We found a dirty tactic for the MONDO's or any other pedestrian defense force that helped them cream bikers.