Called shot... with a tank!

[Mack]

I was in a class today (not paying attention, of course) when the Iron Hammer Main Battle Tank (Mercs, p107-8) crossed my mind. The main cannon has a limited rate of fire; only twice per round. Normally I'd assumed that for the gunner's remaining actions he'd fire the co-axle rail gun, but the random thought occurred to me that depending on the situation, he may be better off to spend all his actions on those two attacks. He could attempt a couple of Called Shots (or Aimed-Called Shots) instead.

Against something like a SAMAS, he could be better off to make a called shot at the head and possibly end the fight right there.

For some reason, I'd never considered this with a tank cannon before. Especially with the limited rate of fire of the Iron Hammer, this could easily become a preferred tactic.

[Killer Cyborg]

Hm.
Don't think I'd thought of it either, but it sounds like a viable strategy in some cases.

[Alrik Vas]

tanks always aim and make called shots. that's how you jack-in-the-box, sir.

[glitterboy2098]

sounds good to me. nothing like legging an enemy robot or blinding it with a headshot..

[Svartalf]

except that I doubt a slow weapon like a tank gun can make a called shot against a highly mobile one like a samas, I don't see much wrong with the notion of tank gun called shots.

[Blue_Lion]

except that I doubt a slow weapon like a tank gun can make a called shot against a highly mobile one like a samas, I don't see much wrong with the notion of tank gun called shots.

Why don't you google the speed of the M1a2 Abrams main gun. the rounds are almost as fast as a boom gun so the round is faster than the Samas.

If you can antispate where the target will be unless it dodges then you can call shot with a slow weapon hitting where it will be when the round gets there.

[Slight001]

Abrams has a 40°/sec horizontal (360°) and 25°/sec vertical (+20° to -10°) traverse rate on its turret... seems fairly fast too me.

[Svartalf]

except that I doubt a slow weapon like a tank gun can make a called shot against a highly mobile one like a samas, I don't see much wrong with the notion of tank gun called shots.

Why don't you google the speed of the M1a2 Abrams main gun. the rounds are almost as fast as a boom gun so the round is faster than the Samas.

If you can antispate where the target will be unless it dodges then you can call shot with a slow weapon hitting where it will be when the round gets there.

I mean slow to aim, not the speed of the projectile... plus, if you have to lead the target, by definition, you can't properly aim for a called shot, you're lucky (or just a good shot) to have a body shot

[kaid]

Abrams has a 40°/sec horizontal (360°) and 25°/sec vertical (+20° to -10°) traverse rate on its turret... seems fairly fast too me.

And at any sort of distance a small degree of movement of the turret is a much bigger movement of where the shot will end up down range. If a samas gets up next to the tank it will not be able to do it but at range there is no reason it would not be able to do so. The current era main battle tanks guns are very very accurate and could easily do a called shot although for the most part its not largely necessary as against most of our recent opponents one shot pretty much anywhere on the target will do the job.

[Mechghost]

except that I doubt a slow weapon like a tank gun can make a called shot against a highly mobile one like a samas, I don't see much wrong with the notion of tank gun called shots.

Why don't you google the speed of the M1a2 Abrams main gun. the rounds are almost as fast as a boom gun so the round is faster than the Samas.

If you can antispate where the target will be unless it dodges then you can call shot with a slow weapon hitting where it will be when the round gets there.

I mean slow to aim, not the speed of the projectile... plus, if you have to lead the target, by definition, you can't properly aim for a called shot, you're lucky (or just a good shot) to have a body shot

you can aim a called shot at a moving target, leading the target is how you aim at it. If you know what you're doing you will be able to make the shot. A sniper can headshot a moving target, a stationary target is just easier. I've hit moving rabbits in the head at 50 feet, and I'm not a trained combat class like a rifts character, just a regular hunter.

[Blue_Lion]

Yes at any sort of range the main gun can easy track and shoot a samas. (most likely the full speed of a samas is only in a straight line.) at danger close range it might be hard to track so but the samas has to fly in first and odds are the tank will be able to get 1-2 shots off before that happens(and odds are would require the samas to not be fling fast to stay at that range and the secondary cupla(mini) will likely traverse much faster). Of course that is assuming that rifts tech does not make the turret spin 360 in less than one action.

I would like to point out that even with todays tech we can make an armored vehicle with a turret similar to a tanks that can shoot down air craft. Typically the easiest ones to shoot down are slow moving air craft like helicopters which last time I checked is the about the same speed as a samas.

[Slight001]

Abrams has a 40°/sec horizontal (360°) and 25°/sec vertical (+20° to -10°) traverse rate on its turret... seems fairly fast too me.

And at any sort of distance a small degree of movement of the turret is a much bigger movement of where the shot will end up down range. If a samas gets up next to the tank it will not be able to do it but at range there is no reason it would not be able to do so. The current era main battle tanks guns are very very accurate and could easily do a called shot although for the most part its not largely necessary as against most of our recent opponents one shot pretty much anywhere on the target will do the job.

If a SAMAS gets up next to anyone its a whole different set of situations... also tanks are not built for that kind of combat so if the SAMAS gets that close your plan is already screwed up and all kinds of failed.

[Alrik Vas]

hey...we're talking about a rifts tank here, not a real tank. lets keep the nonsense focused on things like radar that detects ground targets through rocks, gentlemen.

[Blue_Lion]

Abrams has a 40°/sec horizontal (360°) and 25°/sec vertical (+20° to -10°) traverse rate on its turret... seems fairly fast too me.

And at any sort of distance a small degree of movement of the turret is a much bigger movement of where the shot will end up down range. If a samas gets up next to the tank it will not be able to do it but at range there is no reason it would not be able to do so. The current era main battle tanks guns are very very accurate and could easily do a called shot although for the most part its not largely necessary as against most of our recent opponents one shot pretty much anywhere on the target will do the job.

If a SAMAS gets up next to anyone its a whole different set of situations... also tanks are not built for that kind of combat so if the SAMAS gets that close your plan is already screwed up and all kinds of failed.

The person post that started it said the tank was to slow to do a called shot on a fast moving samas. If the samas is staying in close it is not fast moving. This is a false defense on weather or not a tank can do called shot on a samas as now you are trying to place the samas in to close for the main gun. Totally different then weather or not a tank can do a called shot on a samas. It is reasonable to assume that at a distance the tank can snipe off a samas or two with called shots.

[Blue_Lion]

hey...we're talking about a rifts tank here, not a real tank. lets keep the nonsense focused on things like radar that detects ground targets through rocks, gentlemen.

If I recall right rifts radar by default only detects air. Can't remember off the top of my head witch book I read it in think it was the gmg.

[ShadowLogan]

I was in a class today (not paying attention, of course) when the Iron Hammer Main Battle Tank (Mercs, p107-8) crossed my mind. The main cannon has a limited rate of fire; only twice per round. Normally I'd assumed that for the gunner's remaining actions he'd fire the co-axle rail gun, but the random thought occurred to me that depending on the situation, he may be better off to spend all his actions on those two attacks. He could attempt a couple of Called Shots (or Aimed-Called Shots) instead.

Against something like a SAMAS, he could be better off to make a called shot at the head and possibly end the fight right there.

For some reason, I'd never considered this with a tank cannon before. Especially with the limited rate of fire of the Iron Hammer, this could easily become a preferred tactic.

Why hadn't you considered that with a tank cannon before? Given the location breakdown in MDC worlds, it would make sense that they could make called/aimed shots.

RMB era Rule characters though really don't have the extra actions to do more unless they have some bonus attacks from Level/Class/Natural/Enhancement/Skills. Then again Called or Aimed shots don't take 1+ actions either. So a ROF of 2 doesn't seem out of place. (Note this assumes +2 for Living is not in play).

RUE era Rule Characters do have those extra actions to begin with for just living, so the ROF of 2 is far more restrictive. And it works out nice to use up extra actions for aimed or called shots, that result in a ROF of 2.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I was in a class today (not paying attention, of course) when the Iron Hammer Main Battle Tank (Mercs, p107-8) crossed my mind. The main cannon has a limited rate of fire; only twice per round. Normally I'd assumed that for the gunner's remaining actions he'd fire the co-axle rail gun, but the random thought occurred to me that depending on the situation, he may be better off to spend all his actions on those two attacks. He could attempt a couple of Called Shots (or Aimed-Called Shots) instead.

Against something like a SAMAS, he could be better off to make a called shot at the head and possibly end the fight right there.

For some reason, I'd never considered this with a tank cannon before. Especially with the limited rate of fire of the Iron Hammer, this could easily become a preferred tactic.

Makes sense. It's always faster to take out a PA's head than the main body, if you can hit it.

[Tor]

Called shots would be a good investment for those vehicles that have limited rates of fire, agreed. Often a factor in putting pooled melee attacks to use with robots as well.

[Braden Campbell]

It's a game set in a world where magic is real, dogs can talk and use guns, and where the average street punk has enough firepower hidden in his jacket to hull a current-day battle ship.

Enjoy your called shots with a tank.

[masslegion]

It will be difficult for a tank to hit a SAMAS, just like it is difficult for anyone to hit a SAMAS if it is flying fast enough.

Target is Moving: -1 to strike, -1 additional per 50 mph (80km) beyond 20 mph (32km), and -1 for evasive action.

An Aimed Called shot taking three attacks will be +2 to help offset this somewhat.

If in you're game you want to add some additional sense of realism, you can add additional penalties if the SAMAS flies within a certain range. Looking for inspiration I would do the opposite of the Dodging penalties so: -10 to strike a flying SAMAS at point blank range; within 10 feet of the shooter

-5 to strike at close range, within 50-100 feet of the shooter/tank, and -4 from 101-200 feet, -3 from 201-300 feet, -2 from 301-400 feet, and -1 from 401-500 feet.
In Summary, a SAMAS flying at 100 mph at 500 feet away from the tank would be -1 for distance and -4 for its flying attack speed for a total of -5.

If the SAMAS is flying at 200 mph and is within 201-300 feet then it would be -3 from the range and -8 from the speed for a total of -11. In this later example I can only see the SAMAS being able to have this speed on an initial strafing run. Heck even the 100 mph seems very unlikely. Cruising speed for a SAMAS is 150 mph and I would rule that effective combat against a ground target should be half that speed so 75 mph. at this point the speed factor is limited. I'd also say that in close combat exceeding 75 mph the SAMAS would be incur penalties to strike unless it flew far enough away from the tank. When the combat radius starts increasing the penalties for the tank to strike start going down and allowing the Iron Hammer to Strike with its main Gun while the SAMAS is lining up for its strafing run just before the SAMAS can fire its rail gun, 6,000 feet vs. 4,000 feet.

As commented above. Trying to add realism adds to much bulk to a game like this, but do as you may. If you do add more realism, make sure to add it in an unbiased way.

For instance you could also house rule that the HE round with the 30 foot blast radius has a proximity sensor like the used in WWII and then the target will more regularly take blast radius damage.

[Alrik Vas]

weapon systems, targeting system bonuses, wp heavy, any additional tech for accuracy the gunner has. actually kinda hard to not force a dodge attempt.

[Slight001]

GM - You want to do a high speed attack run?
PC - yep, I can force the enemy to eat a -11 to strike.
GM - Ok... you start your attack run... roll to strike, but don't forget that -11 in your strike rolls.
PC - What? I shouldn't have a -11 to strike. The tank isn't moving.
GM - You are, however, and relative to your perception that tank is moving damn fast. So roll to strike at -11.
PC - ... this is ********.

[Alrik Vas]

when you shoot at them from half a mile away with computer assisted targeting, perspective is a little different...

[eliakon]

GM - You want to do a high speed attack run?
PC - yep, I can force the enemy to eat a -11 to strike.
GM - Ok... you start your attack run... roll to strike, but don't forget that -11 in your strike rolls.
PC - What? I shouldn't have a -11 to strike. The tank isn't moving.
GM - You are, however, and relative to your perception that tank is moving damn fast. So roll to strike at -11.
PC - ... this is ********.

^this^

[glitterboy2098]

i only allow relative movement to only reduce the penalties, not increase them. on the principle a targeting system can more easily correct for the movement of the vehicle it is on.
and when shooting a stationary target, this means you basically have no penalties from movement.

it also means the best way to shoot down an aircraft is another aircraft, but i'm still working on getting stuff into place to return AA guns and point defense to viability.
(mostly by saying that dedicated AA and point defense/anti-missile systems (weapons with this role as their primary purpose) ignore movement penalties when shooting at aircraft and missiles..)

[Tor]

Several tanks I've seen use rail guns as their main weapon, that could cause some called shot issues per KC's objections.

Course some of them have guns not explicitly rail and called other stuff like 'cannon' or whatev so they should be fine.

[Blue_Lion]

Several tanks I've seen use rail guns as their main weapon, that could cause some called shot issues per KC's objections.

Course some of them have guns not explicitly rail and called other stuff like 'cannon' or whatev so they should be fine.

I think they main debate was on cannons of the tank not rail gun. The one that inspired it was the Iron hammer tank with its two attacks per round.

[Blue_Lion]

GM - You want to do a high speed attack run?
PC - yep, I can force the enemy to eat a -11 to strike.
GM - Ok... you start your attack run... roll to strike, but don't forget that -11 in your strike rolls.
PC - What? I shouldn't have a -11 to strike. The tank isn't moving.
GM - You are, however, and relative to your perception that tank is moving damn fast. So roll to strike at -11.
PC - ... this is ********.

^this^

The problem I have with that is the samas should have the same strike penalty for moving that fast, as well as firing wild for shooting while moving. In addition you can not move at top speed and take evasive action as that would slow down your speed.

Something seams off with the math here. If a samas has a top speed of 300-20=280. 280/50=5.6 so that would be -6 as you have not the 6th 50 mph and it does not say round up. Evasive action involves changing your course top speed is straight line so the two should not be possible together.

Now then +2 for a aimed called shot +1 for weapon systems +1 for heavy weapon. That gives a tank a +4 -6 or a strike roll of -2 at first level without any targeting assistance If you are in the iron heart tanks have +2 targeting assistance from laser lights and computer so that would be a straight die roll.

So yea the math says it is so hard to do a aimed called shot I mean really a straight die roll what is the chances of hitting it?

[Alrik Vas]

Shooting while moving was only -3 I thought. Wild is -6.

Though the whole relative speed thing, i suppose. In any case, a SAM isn't going to engage in combat at top speed. It might draw fire at that speed, but I doubt the pilot would waste ammunition on top-speed strafes.

[Blue_Lion]

Shooting while moving was only -3 I thought. Wild is -6.

Though the whole relative speed thing, i suppose. In any case, a SAM isn't going to engage in combat at top speed. It might draw fire at that speed, but I doubt the pilot would waste ammunition on top-speed strafes.

Acording to the book RUE pg 361.
Shooting wild shooting includes shooting from a moving vehicle/platform/horseback. So that would include samas thrusters as they a moving vehicle. It also includes running, dodging, falling, or hanging upside down. So tell me where did you get the -3 for moving?

Oh and lets not forget the -3 for shooting a burst from the rail gun.(That would unless I missed something make shooting a burst from the rail gun -9 for a moving samas. Plus any relative movement penalties. That would be off set by the weapon heavy the targeting system and laser sights to give it +3 at level 1 so that would be a total of -6 to shoot from a samas.)

You know the more I look at the math I gotta think I am missing something as the Samas would kinda suck in a fire fight.

[Alrik Vas]

the SAMAS isn't shooting from a moving vehicle, it is the moving vehicle. There is a distinct difference there. It's between a guy hanging out the side of swerving car with a rifle using open sights and a guy in a body fitting suit of armor stabilized to fly through the air with computer assisted targeting. Think of a SAMAS as an Apache firing it's 30mm...that's not exactly shooting wild.

Pretty big difference.

Not only that, but the arms of the SAMAS are strong enough to deal with recoil. Yes, I'm aware there are no rules for this as it's been discussed before, but it's a power armor weapon system by definition, not a hand held rifle.

the -3 is from JU in the section on Murderthon and a few other things, that's where I was directed to for penalties for combat while moving a while back.

[Killer Cyborg]

The person wearing the SAMAS is shooting from a moving vehicle.
So's a guy shooting out the window of a train that's traveling perfectly straight on a flat plain.

[Blue_Lion]

the SAMAS isn't shooting from a moving vehicle, it is the moving vehicle. There is a distinct difference there. It's between a guy hanging out the side of swerving car with a rifle using open sights and a guy in a body fitting suit of armor stabilized to fly through the air with computer assisted targeting. Think of a SAMAS as an Apache firing it's 30mm...that's not exactly shooting wild.

Pretty big difference.

Not only that, but the arms of the SAMAS are strong enough to deal with recoil. Yes, I'm aware there are no rules for this as it's been discussed before, but it's a power armor weapon system by definition, not a hand held rifle.

the -3 is from JU in the section on Murderthon and a few other things, that's where I was directed to for penalties for combat while moving a while back.

Nope the SAMAS is not what is shooting it is the guy inside it so yes he is shooting from a moving vehicle with a hand held rail gun.
If that is the case I would say it would be the penalty for walking as RUE says running is shooting wild.(In the murderthon it was thrown weapons not shooting so that may be a base for a stance for running.)

So let me get this strait you think the SAMAS should have no penalty to shoot just because it is a SAMAS but you are fine with a tank with a targeting system having penalties. I am sorry but that is a fairly weak stand point what is good for the goose is good for the gander. As the tank has a computer assisted targeting system linked to its radar I could use similar logic to say it has no penalty to shoot the SAMAS.(But that is as unsupported as your stance.)

[Alrik Vas]

did I say the tank would have penalties? if I did it was in error. I'm not seeing how the penalty applies to a flying power armor there is a significant difference in the amount of variables contributing to a difficult shot between running on foot and flying steady with no wind in your face. so either the bonuses for weapon systems should be higher to deal with the penalties so that fire from a bursting weapon is more accurate at combat speeds or the penalty shouldn't apply.

[flatline]

Hmm...I think the SAMAS would have penalties for flying, but not as bad as someone shooting at the SAMAS. Gyroscopes or similar accelerometer/servo mechanisms could automatically compensate for the SAMAS' own motion to help steady the weapon and reduce or remove any penalties. Modern tanks have similar systems that let them make accurate shots whilst moving over bumpy terrain.

So while the SAMAS could, in theory, have systems to automatically help compensate for the SAMAS' own motion, it seems unlikely that someone shooting at the SAMAS would have a way of automatically compensating for the (erratic?) motion of the SAMAS.

--flatline

[Tor]

The conversion book mentions that the 'wild shot' penalty does not apply to built-in weapons systems, but the question is whether or not the rail gun is 'built in' (like we might agree the mini-missile launcher is) or whether it's a hand-held weapon that's simply got a power and ammo belt connection to the main unit.

[Blue_Lion]

Hmm...I think the SAMAS would have penalties for flying, but not as bad as someone shooting at the SAMAS. Gyroscopes or similar accelerometer/servo mechanisms could automatically compensate for the SAMAS' own motion to help steady the weapon and reduce or remove any penalties. Modern tanks have similar systems that let them make accurate shots whilst moving over bumpy terrain.

So while the SAMAS could, in theory, have systems to automatically help compensate for the SAMAS' own motion, it seems unlikely that someone shooting at the SAMAS would have a way of automatically compensating for the (erratic?) motion of the SAMAS.

--flatline

I thought the idea of PA was to enhance the operators ability to move heavy loads and move quickly, not to override his own movements. It is a worn suit of armor with servos to enhance his PS and PE, not a robot that he pilots from a control console.

If the samas was fling erratic it would have a hard time compensating for its own eratic movement as the movement would keep changing, thus the shooting wild penalty. While the penalty for the guy shooting the PA is simple math. Typically attack aircraft may move erratic wile traveling but attempt to fly straight and level as they attack.

The way the rules are written in rue without adding outside elements of opinion the samas would have a greater penalty for movement at high speed than some one trying to shoot down a samas while being stationary.

[Blue_Lion]

The conversion book mentions that the 'wild shot' penalty does not apply to built-in weapons systems, but the question is whether or not the rail gun is 'built in' (like we might agree the mini-missile launcher is) or whether it's a hand-held weapon that's simply got a power and ammo belt connection to the main unit.

(We could also question the relevance of a book originally written to the old combat system giving the combat strike over hall done in RUE.) THE rail gun of a PA seams to be more of the hand held variety than built in like you would find on a giant robot or tank. IN addition the CS war campaign has examples of the rail gun being replaced by other hand held weapons. Replacing a built in weapon would be major Hassel to do compared to replacing hand held weapon. (In addition there are some PA that can holster there rail guns.)

[Tor]

I thought the idea of PA was to enhance the operators ability to move heavy loads and move quickly, not to override his own movements. It is a worn suit of armor with servos to enhance his PS and PE, not a robot that he pilots from a control console.

It technically replaces the PS, and for the average human this is an improvement, but I would save strict 'enhance' for stuff like the CAN Hard Armor in Mutants in Orbit where it adds a bonus. Oddly one of the GB suits even gives a PP attribute.

The way the rules are written in rue without adding outside elements of opinion the samas would have a greater penalty for movement at high speed than some one trying to shoot down a samas while being stationary.

That sounds fine to me Course I would not apply that penalty if using guided mini-missiles since those have their own strike roll (unguided would suffer the penalty though)

relevance of a book originally written to the old combat system giving the combat strike over hall done in RUE.

True, if playing in the future RUE setting it would make sense to prioritize what it says about wild shots. So lesse, RUEp361 Penalties... "Shooting Wild" says "applies when .. shooting from a moving vehicle" so I think it still covers piloting flying PA. It applies while 'running' so it seems rough on guys like the Samson that they get a penalty while travelling at their max speed but we wouldn't apply it to other PA just because they happened to be using flight. It's wild if you are 'off balance' and I don't know if flying PA would always be balanced or not.

[The Galactus Kid]

It's a game set in a world where magic is real, dogs can talk and use guns, and where the average street punk has enough firepower hidden in his jacket to hull a current-day battle ship.

Enjoy your called shots with a tank.

This is my new favorite thing.

[slade the sniper]

the SAMAS isn't shooting from a moving vehicle, it is the moving vehicle. There is a distinct difference there. It's between a guy hanging out the side of swerving car with a rifle using open sights and a guy in a body fitting suit of armor stabilized to fly through the air with computer assisted targeting. Think of a SAMAS as an Apache firing it's 30mm...that's not exactly shooting wild.

Pretty big difference.

Not only that, but the arms of the SAMAS are strong enough to deal with recoil. Yes, I'm aware there are no rules for this as it's been discussed before, but it's a power armor weapon system by definition, not a hand held rifle.

the -3 is from JU in the section on Murderthon and a few other things, that's where I was directed to for penalties for combat while moving a while back.

Yeah, Apache's doing high speed gun runs is pretty much shooting wild...speed affects the firer as well. All the bonuses from the powered armor itself and from the Power Armor Elite skill is the mechanical codification of all the ballistic computers, training and experience that the pilot/machine has.

-STS

[Alrik Vas]

ok, someone have a flintof all applicable bonuses a SAMAS would have at level 1?

so far I'm only seeing +4 (WP+ Weapon Systems +PA targeting).

and Slade, even Apaches, with their highly specialized and accurate targeters, don't do full speed runs. I'm talking about shooting while cruising at fastest. already stated that a PA pilot wouldn't waste ammunition on a full speed strafe.

[Blue_Lion]

ok, someone have a flintof all applicable bonuses a SAMAS would have at level 1?

so far I'm only seeing +4 (WP+ Weapon Systems +PA targeting).

and Slade, even Apaches, with their highly specialized and accurate targeters, don't do full speed runs. I'm talking about shooting while cruising at fastest. already stated that a PA pilot wouldn't waste ammunition on a full speed strafe.

Lets see samas bonus while fling at a cruise would still be shooting wild so all bonuses lvl 1 would be +3(if it applies to shooting wild) -6-speed modifier=>-3 for the rail gun not sure where the rule for built in weapons not having the penalty. According to the rules for missiles in RUE at most the mini missiles would have no bonus to strike as it does not say that they do in the launcher and a bonus to strike. Note that for mini misiles that is uncommon so only bonus to strike is +1 from WP heavy no other bonus applies. Weather or not strike penalty for moving may be a subject to debate do to how the missile section does seam removed with separate rules than other ranged weapons. (RUE PG 361 for bonuses. pg 364 for missiles.)

The samas rail gun can easily be swapped out so is not a built in weapon but a standard weapon. It is held in the hands of the PA, in CS war there was an alternate weapon that could be used and there are examples PA on the books talking about holstering there rail guns. So this seams to point out that the rail gun is not hard mounted to the arms but something carried in the hand. So for the rail gun weapon system does not apply as it is more of a hand carried weapon than a built in weapon of the PA.

[guardiandashi]

ok, someone have a flintof all applicable bonuses a SAMAS would have at level 1?

so far I'm only seeing +4 (WP+ Weapon Systems +PA targeting).

and Slade, even Apaches, with their highly specialized and accurate targeters, don't do full speed runs. I'm talking about shooting while cruising at fastest. already stated that a PA pilot wouldn't waste ammunition on a full speed strafe.

Lets see samas bonus while fling at a cruise would still be shooting wild so all bonuses lvl 1 would be +3(if it applies to shooting wild) -6-speed modifier=>-3 for the rail gun not sure where the rule for built in weapons not having the penalty. According to the rules for missiles in RUE at most the mini missiles would have no bonus to strike as it does not say that they do in the launcher and a bonus to strike. Note that for mini misiles that is uncommon so only bonus to strike is +1 from WP heavy no other bonus applies. Weather or not strike penalty for moving may be a subject to debate do to how the missile section does seam removed with separate rules than other ranged weapons. (RUE PG 361 for bonuses. pg 364 for missiles.)

The samas rail gun can easily be swapped out so is not a built in weapon but a standard weapon. It is held in the hands of the PA, in CS war there was an alternate weapon that could be used and there are examples PA on the books talking about holstering there rail guns. So this seams to point out that the rail gun is not hard mounted to the arms but something carried in the hand. So for the rail gun weapon system does not apply as it is more of a hand carried weapon than a built in weapon of the PA.

see I actually disagree with the samas rail gun being considered a "hand held weapon so weapon systems doesn't apply"

the way I consider it, is that and I may be pulling junk out of nowhere, but I consider the railgun on power armor to be "considered an integrated weapon even if it is hand held."

here is my argument, it is obvious that there is some kind of sensor /scope on the top of the weapon (consider the image RUE pg 234 and others) so I consider the samas to have the equivalent of a shadowrun "smart gun link" or to visualize it from a movie "Robocop's HUD targeting" and because of that the pilot can "see" where the gun is pointing

[glitterboy2098]

and just because it can be replaced with some other PA weapons does not mean it isn't part of the vehicle.. plug-and-play modularity is not unheard of.

and honestly, it isn't much different from the various gunpods used by bots and PA across the setting and PB's other games.

[Blue_Lion]

and just because it can be replaced with some other PA weapons does not mean it isn't part of the vehicle.. plug-and-play modularity is not unheard of.

and honestly, it isn't much different from the various gunpods used by bots and PA across the setting and PB's other games.

So you are claiming something held in the hand of a suit of armor is built in to the armor?
That is the difference is it is a hand held weapon that can be changed out. Unless you are now claiming that it is hard wired to the hand of and arm of the Samas.

That does not quite match up with RUE PG 249 alternative hand held weapons. So in order for hand held weapons to be alternative to weapon then there has to be one hand held weapon to start with. PG 240 list the rail gun as standard equipment. So no it is not built in but standard equipment issued with. Such as robot tank or apc said it comes with a weapons locker with a standard of X weapons they are not built in to the weapon but come with it.

[Alrik Vas]

Hard wired to the hand? What's the difference with the robot PS. The joints should be able to lock. Look, there are some things you have to see as game mechanics or you're going to have too much "yes, this, but only if that" kind of nonsense.

And the weapon is absolutely linked to the power armor's targeting system. It's directly reflected in the bonus you get from using ranged weapons in elite training. if it were just like a human using a rifle while flying, those bonuses wouldn't apply.

[Blue_Lion]

Hard wired to the hand? What's the difference with the robot PS. The joints should be able to lock. Look, there are some things you have to see as game mechanics or you're going to have too much "yes, this, but only if that" kind of nonsense.

And the weapon is absolutely linked to the power armor's targeting system. It's directly reflected in the bonus you get from using ranged weapons in elite training. if it were just like a human using a rifle while flying, those bonuses wouldn't apply.

So it provides bonus to strike so does a scope and guess wheat a scope does not require special skill to get the bonus.

So now you are using "game mechanics" to say that any weapon held by PA count as built in for a bonus. (If that rule is even still relevant.) I am calling BS on that, it is deliberately trying to circumvent the game mechanics as written to give a peace of gear more power than it should have. PA may have a heads up display and servos to help with the heavy lifting but is still a suit of armor and armor that locks it joints and over rides the users movements is not augmenting but replacing the user. That is not the spirit or the intent PA.(the human is suppose to be in charge of movement not the computer.) It will allow you to hold a heaver weapon on target but should not be overriding the operators movement. What you are describing is more how a manned robot should act. PA is a powered exoskeleton that responds to the users movements not a computer controlled infantryman. (by the way locking the joints would increase the penalty of a moving vehicle the main gun of the M1A1 abrams is able to shoot acuratly on move because it has a floating mount to adjust to changes even in a straight and level flight there would be some variations from the air and locking the joints removes the operators ability to correct.)

(Wow we really got off topic, perhaps a nature of PA thread might be more appropriate. But then how my schedule is I am not likely to be on line for a few days.

[Alrik Vas]

I don't understand why a power armor that's based off golden age tech can't have the same benefit as a modern day tank for targeting, if not better. sounds like I'm not the only one using game mechanics to explain my position.

I'm prepared to agree to disagree on this because its clear we won't be able to convince each other.