Skelebots vs a Glitterboy

[flatline]

The simultaneous attack rules should be thrown out. Both for ranged combat and melee combat.

--flatline

[Zer0 Kay]

The simultaneous attack rules should be thrown out. Both for ranged combat and melee combat.

--flatline

two tanks see each other and turn their turrets... So what now you say they both wouldn't fire or try to and one should instead try "evasive maneuvers"? Wouldn't happen.

Or are you saying that it isn't simultaneous and one fires before the other?

[Dog_O_War]

How would you know what their play book is?

I know a guy who knows a guy.

But seriously; I've read the section several times, forwards and backwards, and not once have I come across the portion where this is listed as a valid tactic. At best it's GM fiat. And it is oddly specific too; you do get groups of Skelebots that roam, but I've never read specifically of groups of 8, who also specifically choose not to seek cover or shoot their weapons and instead decide to perform a sprint in an evasive pattern towards their opponent, as if that is their only opponent, without considering traps or an ambush.

Realistically, this tactic is so specific and requires such omnipotent knowledge that there is only one foe that it becomes utterly disastrous if even a single other combatant is present. A lone grunt with a rocket launcher would literally turn any chance of victory for the skelebots into a 100% success for the Glitterboy - that means this hail-Mary tactic is bad.

Then there are other factors; for a cost-comparison, losing 4+ per one Glitterboy is not cost-effective. From a survival perspective Skelebots are programmed to defend themselves; they have the ability to dodge and parry afterall, so self-sacrifice is a bit of an oxy-moron in this regard. And they still don't have a hive-mind. Their communication abilities are limited; they may be able to understand many words and concepts, but their ability to form a coherent sentence has been severely limited - the book lists what phrases they can say after all, and "sacrificial Glitterboy tactic alpha8" is not among them.

Pretty much, the only way this tactic makes sense if from a meta-perspective, "I bet I could kill a Glitterboy with 8 Skelebots if I did X, knowing that I was only actually fighting just one Glitterboy". It's kind of absurd.

As for Simone attacks, they were NEVER restricted to HTH combat.

The simultaneous attack rules should be thrown out. Both for ranged combat and melee combat.

--flatline

All combat is hand-to-hand, as you've only got hand-to-hand attacks.

[flatline]

The simultaneous attack rules should be thrown out. Both for ranged combat and melee combat.

--flatline

two tanks see each other and turn their turrets... So what now you say they both wouldn't fire or try to and one should instead try "evasive maneuvers"? Wouldn't happen.

Or are you saying that it isn't simultaneous and one fires before the other?

If both tanks have the same initiative, then they could fire at the same time resulting in a simultaneous attack, but if they don't have identical initiative, the first tank to fire will fire and the gunner/commander/whatever of the second tank does not have the ability to go "well, gee, he's shooting us, so let's shoot back at exactly the same time!".

Making simultaneous attacks a conscious decision is what was broken. Sometimes attacks happen at the same time, but that's by coincidence, not design.

--flatline

[Zer0 Kay]

The simultaneous attack rules should be thrown out. Both for ranged combat and melee combat.

--flatline

two tanks see each other and turn their turrets... So what now you say they both wouldn't fire or try to and one should instead try "evasive maneuvers"? Wouldn't happen.

Or are you saying that it isn't simultaneous and one fires before the other?

If both tanks have the same initiative, then they could fire at the same time resulting in a simultaneous attack, but if they don't have identical initiative, the first tank to fire will fire and the gunner/commander/whatever of the second tank does not have the ability to go "well, gee, he's shooting us, so let's shoot back at exactly the same time!".

Making simultaneous attacks a conscious decision is what was broken. Sometimes attacks happen at the same time, but that's by coincidence, not design.

--flatline

So the 'or'.

[Zer0 Kay]

How would you know what their play book is?

I know a guy who knows a guy.

But seriously; I've read the section several times, forwards and backwards, and not once have I come across the portion where this is listed as a valid tactic. At best it's GM fiat. And it is oddly specific too; you do get groups of Skelebots that roam, but I've never read specifically of groups of 8, who also specifically choose not to seek cover or shoot their weapons and instead decide to perform a sprint in an evasive pattern towards their opponent, as if that is their only opponent, without considering traps or an ambush.

Realistically, this tactic is so specific and requires such omnipotent knowledge that there is only one foe that it becomes utterly disastrous if even a single other combatant is present. A lone grunt with a rocket launcher would literally turn any chance of victory for the skelebots into a 100% success for the Glitterboy - that means this hail-Mary tactic is bad.

Then there are other factors; for a cost-comparison, losing 4+ per one Glitterboy is not cost-effective. From a survival perspective Skelebots are programmed to defend themselves; they have the ability to dodge and parry afterall, so self-sacrifice is a bit of an oxy-moron in this regard. And they still don't have a hive-mind. Their communication abilities are limited; they may be able to understand many words and concepts, but their ability to form a coherent sentence has been severely limited - the book lists what phrases they can say after all, and "sacrificial Glitterboy tactic alpha8" is not among them.

Pretty much, the only way this tactic makes sense if from a meta-perspective, "I bet I could kill a Glitterboy with 8 Skelebots if I did X, knowing that I was only actually fighting just one Glitterboy". It's kind of absurd.

As for Simone attacks, they were NEVER restricted to HTH combat.

The simultaneous attack rules should be thrown out. Both for ranged combat and melee combat.

--flatline

All combat is hand-to-hand, as you've only got hand-to-hand attacks.

[Killer Cyborg]

How would you know what their play book is?

I know a guy who knows a guy.

But seriously; I've read the section several times, forwards and backwards, and not once have I come across the portion where this is listed as a valid tactic.
At best it's GM fiat.

Well, let's look...
SB1 31
In addition to various rudimentary combat functions, each is programmed for standard strategic and tactical field maneuvers that are executed with expert efficiency (standard squad maneuvers, assault and defensive actions). The combat computer automatically selects the best action, working as a team, to contain or subdue the enemy. The combat computer is also programmed to recognize over 2000 enemy targets, from vehicles to insignias.

The first sentence lets us know that the bots are familiar with standard tactics. This would seem to support your argument that "run up and grapple the enemy" wouldn't be likely to be in their playbook.
But the second sentence lets us know that the combat computer automatically selects the BEST action, working as a team, to "contain or subdue the enemy."
Sometimes, especially as a team, the best action will be to grapple with the enemy. The projected results of the "run up and grapple" tactic versus the "stand and shoot" tactic indicate that in this case specifically, it would in fact be the best action to run & grapple the GB.
Also note that the combat computer is programmed to recognize over 2000 enemies. In the context of the passage (i.e., describing how Skelebots choose tactics during combat), it seems pretty clear that part of the point of that recognition program is to let the skelebots know what kind of tactics to use. Meaning that their tactics against a Glitter Boy are likely to be different than their tactics against a Behemoth Explorer. Meaning that they pick the best tactics for the specific enemy, NOT the best general tactics.

Another thing to note is the importance of the words "contain or subdue."
Notice the difference between those words and "kill."
Grappling is a common and useful tactic when attempting to contain or subdue an enemy, often preferable to blasting away at the enemy with a gun.

And, of course, we all know what kind of enemy the Skelebots were most specifically designed to fight against, which means that we know the kind of enemy that they'd probably have a a number of specific tactics to deal with...

SB1 33
The government leaders at Free Quebec can not help but be concerned that the skelebots were designed specifically to combat their substantial force of Glitter Boys, should that day come.

And it is oddly specific too; you do get groups of Skelebots that roam, but I've never read specifically of groups of 8, who also specifically choose not to seek cover or shoot their weapons and instead decide to perform a sprint in an evasive pattern towards their opponent, as if that is their only opponent, without considering traps or an ambush.

I've never read specifically about a group of skelebots that specifically choose TO seek cover, or that specifically choose TO shoot their weapons instead of grapple.
If you know of such passages that I've overlooked, please let me know the book and page number, and perhaps quote the relevant passage(s).

Likewise, I've never read specifically that skelebots take elements such as possible traps or ambushes into consideration.
There is very, very little that I've read that skelebots specifically do.

As for the "group of 8," that's just the minimum for Mack's scenario, IIRC, not a specific number required. A standard skelebot squad is 4-8 skelebots. (SB1 33)

Realistically, this tactic is so specific and requires such omnipotent knowledge that there is only one foe that it becomes utterly disastrous if even a single other combatant is present. A lone grunt with a rocket launcher would literally turn any chance of victory for the skelebots into a 100% success for the Glitterboy - that means this hail-Mary tactic is bad.

I'd assume that Skelebots are intelligent enough to change their tactics based on their opponents. It pretty much says so in the book.
So IF there are 8+ skelebots, and IF they're up against more than just one GB, THEN they would use more appropriate tactics.
For that matter, IF they start off using this tactic, then an enemy grunt pops up, THEN they would alter their tactics accordingly.
It's not a hail-mary tactic. It's just a possible tactic.

Then there are other factors; for a cost-comparison, losing 4+ per one Glitterboy is not cost-effective.

It is closer to being cost-effective than if they just stand there, shooting it out with the GB.

From a survival perspective Skelebots are programmed to defend themselves; they have the ability to dodge and parry afterall, so self-sacrifice is a bit of an oxy-moron in this regard. And they still don't have a hive-mind. Their communication abilities are limited; they may be able to understand many words and concepts, but their ability to form a coherent sentence has been severely limited - the book lists what phrases they can say after all, and "sacrificial Glitterboy tactic alpha8" is not among them.

SB1 31
Each bot is programmed to function as a member of a combat team, communicating silently by means of a scrambled radio broadcasted computer code.

That's not exactly a hive-mind, but it's close enough.

The phrases they can SAY are more limited that the phrases they can communicate to each other in computer code.
SB1 35
Communicates via radio transmission rather than out loud. However, the skelebots can say the following commands or statements...

Pretty much, the only way this tactic makes sense if from a meta-perspective, "I bet I could kill a Glitterboy with 8 Skelebots if I did X, knowing that I was only actually fighting just one Glitterboy". It's kind of absurd.

First of all, I'm pretty certain that's the only perspective that the original scenario was really intended to portray.
Second, though, I'd assume that the CS has the resources to perform a variety of test scenarios and wargames in which their bots are pitted against GBs, in order to know the best tactics to program the bots with.

[Killer Cyborg]

The simultaneous attack rules should be thrown out. Both for ranged combat and melee combat.

--flatline

two tanks see each other and turn their turrets... So what now you say they both wouldn't fire or try to and one should instead try "evasive maneuvers"? Wouldn't happen.

Or are you saying that it isn't simultaneous and one fires before the other?

If both tanks have the same initiative, then they could fire at the same time resulting in a simultaneous attack, but if they don't have identical initiative, the first tank to fire will fire and the gunner/commander/whatever of the second tank does not have the ability to go "well, gee, he's shooting us, so let's shoot back at exactly the same time!".

Making simultaneous attacks a conscious decision is what was broken. Sometimes attacks happen at the same time, but that's by coincidence, not design.

--flatline

In the real world, if you were in a fistfight, and you anticipated a punch well enough to parry that punch, or to dodge that punch, it would be impossible for you to choose to punch back instead of parrying or dodging?
Unless you were already planning to throw a punch, and your pre-planned attack only happened to coincide with their attack out of luck?

[flatline]

The simultaneous attack rules should be thrown out. Both for ranged combat and melee combat.

--flatline

two tanks see each other and turn their turrets... So what now you say they both wouldn't fire or try to and one should instead try "evasive maneuvers"? Wouldn't happen.

Or are you saying that it isn't simultaneous and one fires before the other?

If both tanks have the same initiative, then they could fire at the same time resulting in a simultaneous attack, but if they don't have identical initiative, the first tank to fire will fire and the gunner/commander/whatever of the second tank does not have the ability to go "well, gee, he's shooting us, so let's shoot back at exactly the same time!".

Making simultaneous attacks a conscious decision is what was broken. Sometimes attacks happen at the same time, but that's by coincidence, not design.

--flatline

So the 'or'.

Yes.

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

In older versions of the rules, making a simultaneous attack required you to have initiative.

[Dog_O_War]

How would you know what their play book is?

I know a guy who knows a guy.

But seriously; I've read the section several times, forwards and backwards, and not once have I come across the portion where this is listed as a valid tactic.
At best it's GM fiat.

Well, let's look...
SB1 31
In addition to various rudimentary combat functions, each is programmed for standard strategic and tactical field maneuvers that are executed with expert efficiency (standard squad maneuvers, assault and defensive actions). The combat computer automatically selects the best action, working as a team, to contain or subdue the enemy. The combat computer is also programmed to recognize over 2000 enemy targets, from vehicles to insignias.

The first sentence lets us know that the bots are familiar with standard tactics. This would seem to support your argument that "run up and grapple the enemy" wouldn't be likely to be in their playbook.
But the second sentence lets us know that the combat computer automatically selects the BEST action, working as a team, to "contain or subdue the enemy."
Sometimes, especially as a team, the best action will be to grapple with the enemy. The projected results of the "run up and grapple" tactic versus the "stand and shoot" tactic indicate that in this case specifically, it would in fact be the best action to run & grapple the GB.

I don't agree that this is the best tactic, and that really isn't in the purview of any small-unit tactics I've ever heard of (not that it couldn't be). But there is another thing here; it is not best for the team to lose members; a team is stronger the more there are, so sacrificing themselves in such a significant quantity does not scream team-work.

Also note that the combat computer is programmed to recognize over 2000 enemies. In the context of the passage (i.e., describing how Skelebots choose tactics during combat), it seems pretty clear that part of the point of that recognition program is to let the skelebots know what kind of tactics to use. Meaning that their tactics against a Glitter Boy are likely to be different than their tactics against a Behemoth Explorer. Meaning that they pick the best tactics for the specific enemy, NOT the best general tactics.

I'll point out as well that this is a fluff-entry. Do you know what is printed in the Glitterboy Killer fluff entry, the robot (and by default, the pilot) designed to combat Glitterboys? To make called shots with their mini-missiles against the gun. We both know that isn't a possible tactic, but it's written in there. I'm pointing this out because the fluff entries were written with a non-constrictive mindset; most likely, they'd be attempting to make pop-shots at the Glitterboy's boomgun as they moved up in cover; not that this is effective from a mechanical stand-point.

Another thing to note is the importance of the words "contain or subdue."
Notice the difference between those words and "kill."
Grappling is a common and useful tactic when attempting to contain or subdue an enemy, often preferable to blasting away at the enemy with a gun.

We both know how the Coalition "subdues" their enemies.

And, of course, we all know what kind of enemy the Skelebots were most specifically designed to fight against, which means that we know the kind of enemy that they'd probably have a a number of specific tactics to deal with...

SB1 33
The government leaders at Free Quebec can not help but be concerned that the skelebots were designed specifically to combat their substantial force of Glitter Boys, should that day come.

That's because a lot of them were given that variable-frequency Rifle, which from a mechanical stand-point means the thing will become effective right after the Glitterboy kills the skelebot.

And it is oddly specific too; you do get groups of Skelebots that roam, but I've never read specifically of groups of 8, who also specifically choose not to seek cover or shoot their weapons and instead decide to perform a sprint in an evasive pattern towards their opponent, as if that is their only opponent, without considering traps or an ambush.

I've never read specifically about a group of skelebots that specifically choose TO seek cover, or that specifically choose TO shoot their weapons instead of grapple.
If you know of such passages that I've overlooked, please let me know the book and page number, and perhaps quote the relevant passage(s).

You did read it, and even quoted it here, even if it doesn't say it in so many words.

SB1 31
In addition to various rudimentary combat functions, each is programmed for standard strategic and tactical field maneuvers that are executed with expert efficiency (standard squad maneuvers, assault and defensive actions).

A very basic of combat is to seek cover. Skelebots know to do this. A second part of combat is to use the weapons you've been given; Skelebots know to do this too.

Likewise, I've never read specifically that skelebots take elements such as possible traps or ambushes into consideration.
There is very, very little that I've read that skelebots specifically do.

It's pretty standard for combatants to be wary of ambushes, just as the above tactics are pretty standard. Charging head-long into gunfire to overwhelm an opponent however, hasn't been a tactic since trench-warfare.

Realistically, this tactic is so specific and requires such omnipotent knowledge that there is only one foe that it becomes utterly disastrous if even a single other combatant is present. A lone grunt with a rocket launcher would literally turn any chance of victory for the skelebots into a 100% success for the Glitterboy - that means this hail-Mary tactic is bad.

I'd assume that Skelebots are intelligent enough to change their tactics based on their opponents. It pretty much says so in the book.

So do I, but there are limits; it's the fact that a single round will completely end them, not giving them the time to change tactics.

So IF there are 8+ skelebots, and IF they're up against more than just one GB, THEN they would use more appropriate tactics.
For that matter, IF they start off using this tactic, then an enemy grunt pops up, THEN they would alter their tactics accordingly.
It's not a hail-mary tactic. It's just a possible tactic.

A hail-Mary is possible, it's just not favorable.

Then there are other factors; for a cost-comparison, losing 4+ per one Glitterboy is not cost-effective.

It is closer to being cost-effective than if they just stand there, shooting it out with the GB.

"Stand and shoot" is not a tactic I'm advocating.

From a survival perspective Skelebots are programmed to defend themselves; they have the ability to dodge and parry afterall, so self-sacrifice is a bit of an oxy-moron in this regard. And they still don't have a hive-mind. Their communication abilities are limited; they may be able to understand many words and concepts, but their ability to form a coherent sentence has been severely limited - the book lists what phrases they can say after all, and "sacrificial Glitterboy tactic alpha8" is not among them.

SB1 31
[i]Each bot is programmed to function as a member of a combat team, communicating silently by means of a scrambled radio broadcasted computer code.

That's not exactly a hive-mind, but it's close enough.

It still takes time, but I'll give it to them that they have a superior sense of unit-coordination given that they're machines.

Pretty much, the only way this tactic makes sense if from a meta-perspective, "I bet I could kill a Glitterboy with 8 Skelebots if I did X, knowing that I was only actually fighting just one Glitterboy". It's kind of absurd.

First of all, I'm pretty certain that's the only perspective that the original scenario was really intended to portray.
Second, though, I'd assume that the CS has the resources to perform a variety of test scenarios and wargames in which their bots are pitted against GBs, in order to know the best tactics to program the bots with.

They may be able to perform tests, but this isn't the CS running a test; this is a meta-experiment wherein the monsters presented are being used in an A-typical way. If this is the case, then shouldn't the defender be allowed an A-typical method of defence as well?

I mean, he should be allowed to hole-up in a location wherein only one or two opponents can engage him in close-combat at a time, which would be reasonable at the very least.

[Killer Cyborg]

Okay, Dog. To clarify, you seem to be saying that when the skelebots are pitted against a GB who is out of range of their guns, and/or who is running away, that seeking cover is the best tactic.
Correct?

If not, what tactic specifically are you advising?

[Dog_O_War]

Okay, Dog. To clarify, you seem to be saying that when the skelebots are pitted against a GB who is out of range of their guns, and/or who is running away, that seeking cover is the best tactic.
Correct?

If not, what tactic specifically are you advising?

Okay, well we have to look at it from both perspectives - in and out-of-game.

First, I'll say that I'm not here to argue the numbers Mack presented; the Glitterboy will do the average damage listed*, and the Skelebots will approach at the speed listed. The Glitterboy has the opening attack (initiative)*, which I believe it's safe to assume he may have the time to have been aiming from the previous round, which will kill the first skelebot outright (head-shot**) **don't get obsessed about the damage listed.

I would like though to factor in terrain; this works both for and against the Glitterboy, and even with the duality of it, it should not be discounted because we're trying to discuss a reasonable and realistic interpretation of the events.

If this is close to FQ, it's safe to say the terrian is heavily wooded. If outside of FQ, we could say it's a ruined city kind of terrain - both offer cover and have various traits.

The Skelebots would most likely approach at a steady pace (since fear isn't a factor for them) while attempting to lay down fire on the Glitterboy. The distance is only a 1/4 mile (1320 ft), so engagement range isn't a problem for none of the combatants (for the most part).

From the game-perspective, the skelebots are moving from cover to cover, likely in pairs, but stemming out from the starting point to multiple directions in order to create a flanking situation. From a meta-perspective, this creates a defender's blind-spot; there will be attacks the Glitterboy cannot react to because while he is aware the skelebot is there, he doesn't know how and or when they are attacking, with the exception of say, two groups at a time. Not that he cares though; the Glitterboy is relying on MDC and situational cover for protection.

There will be points when the Glitterboy is on the move as well, because a static defender is only good when there are defences to be had.

Thus, expecting the skelebots to reach the Glitterboy in 15 seconds is not very realistic from most stand-points, despite their move-speed; even with the penalty for running flat-out, the Glitterboy is likely to hit them, and if he takes the extra action to aim, well that's a done skelebot.

From a meta-perspective, an aimed shot to the leg (no different than the head) reduces pressure that just straight shooting a skelebot does not quite provide; once the attackers are immobile, he can take his time and kill them.

There is also the additional meta-realization; even if the Glitterboy moves and shoots on his action, because the pylons must plant themselves, he counts as stationary when firing, which means he doesn't suffer a shooting wild penalty, unless he purposefully disengages them.

From a game perspective, the skelebots are going to try and minimize the amount of time they spend in the open; it's the best possible tactic when engaging an enemy that has a high chance of simply killing you out-right with single shot. However, when their opponent is on the move, they too will take this opportunity for rapid advancement.


Honestly, I think that even with a skelebot down right off the bat, there are multiple results to this scenario, based upon movement and choices the Glitterboy pilot makes. If he can get himself in a funnel, he pretty much cannot be beat, but there are multiple scenarios where the skelebots can approach from cover to overwhelm him.

I dunno, just knowing the mechanics available kind of cock-blocks the strategies the skelebots would employ (and under different rules, would be wholly effective), to me does not favour them. And because of this disfavour, I don't see them winning the fight.

[DhAkael]

One thing everyone here is forgetting; Skellebots, even the Marque 2 versions, are imicilic. They are NOT Dynabots, they have only the most limited combat tactical programming and are basicly walking target practice dummies which shoot back.
Sorry, but without reading ANY of the previous posts I can (as both player AND GM) state that even at 10 to 1 odds against the GB, if the GB can get to full strategic range between him/herself and the bots... the SB's are so much chaff.
That being said, if the GB pilot is stupid enough to blunder into a pack of Skel-bawts without detecting them, then well... they're gonna be can-openered as the bawts Zerg-rush the suit.

[Killer Cyborg]

One thing everyone here is forgetting; Skellebots, even the Marque 2 versions, are imicilic. They are NOT Dynabots, they have only the most limited combat tactical programming and are basicly walking target practice dummies which shoot back.

Source?

[Alrik Vas]

I don't think they'd have parry and dodge bonuses if they were just target practice dummies. They do have programmed squad tactics. It doesn't mean they're amazing combatants, but it does push the idea they would coordinate in an attempt to defeat a superior opponent.

Most of their idiotic tactics come from their handlers using them as distractions and shields.

[Killer Cyborg]

I would like though to factor in terrain; this works both for and against the Glitterboy, and even with the duality of it, it should not be discounted because we're trying to discuss a reasonable and realistic interpretation of the events.

In order to factor in terrain, you'd need to have a specific terrain, which we don't.
Or you'd have to discuss how the scenario would work in a wide number of terrains--ranging from a flat, featureless plane to a forest with no real visibility to a desert with dunes to a swampland to whatever else you could come up with.
Which we can't really do effectively without maps and minis.

If this is close to FQ, it's safe to say the terrian is heavily wooded. If outside of FQ, we could say it's a ruined city kind of terrain - both offer cover and have various traits.

Right.
But hiding behinds a tree with maybe a couple hundred SDC isn't cover. It's concealment.
Same with an old brick wall or whatever.

[quote[The Skelebots would most likely approach at a steady pace (since fear isn't a factor for them) while attempting to lay down fire on the Glitterboy. [/quote]

If you're going to pick at the scenario, then you need to start off by determining how they know the GB is there, and vice-versa.

From the game-perspective, the skelebots are moving from cover to cover, likely in pairs, but stemming out from the starting point to multiple directions in order to create a flanking situation.

Okay, so instead of running at 90 mph for his entire attack, the skelebot runs a shorter distance, then gets shot through the tree he's behind.
How is that an improvement?

From a meta-perspective, this creates a defender's blind-spot; there will be attacks the Glitterboy cannot react to because while he is aware the skelebot is there, he doesn't know how and or when they are attacking, with the exception of say, two groups at a time. Not that he cares though; the Glitterboy is relying on MDC and situational cover for protection.

All he needs to know is "hey, there's a skelebot. I'm gonna shoot it."
He does that 8 times, he wins.

There will be points when the Glitterboy is on the move as well, because a static defender is only good when there are defences to be had.

Which would depend on terrain.

Thus, expecting the skelebots to reach the Glitterboy in 15 seconds is not very realistic from most stand-points, despite their move-speed; even with the penalty for running flat-out, the Glitterboy is likely to hit them, and if he takes the extra action to aim, well that's a done skelebot.

You're still assuming that "run flat-out toward him" is NOT the best scenario.
Since you're trying to demonstrate that claim, using that claim IN your demonstration is circular logic.

From a meta-perspective, an aimed shot to the leg (no different than the head) reduces pressure that just straight shooting a skelebot does not quite provide; once the attackers are immobile, he can take his time and kill them.

Leg shots would only be good if the GB is on the move.
He'd probably be better off just going for torso shots.
BTW, are we using RMB rules where a Called Shot takes 1 attack, or RUE rules where it takes 2-3 attacks?

There is also the additional meta-realization; even if the Glitterboy moves and shoots on his action, because the pylons must plant themselves, he counts as stationary when firing, which means he doesn't suffer a shooting wild penalty, unless he purposefully disengages them.

THAT claim is a can of worms in its own right.

From a game perspective, the skelebots are going to try and minimize the amount of time they spend in the open; it's the best possible tactic when engaging an enemy that has a high chance of simply killing you out-right with single shot. However, when their opponent is on the move, they too will take this opportunity for rapid advancement.

That depends entirely on how open it is.
Hiding behind a tree isn't going to help them unless it prevents them from being seen entirely.
For the most part, all that being "not in the open" is going to do for them is to possibly prevent the GB from shooting at all, if he doesn't have line of sight, or to impose some strike penalties... and the strike penalties can be achieved via speed and basic zig-zagging instead.

Honestly, I think that even with a skelebot down right off the bat, there are multiple results to this scenario, based upon movement and choices the Glitterboy pilot makes. If he can get himself in a funnel, he pretty much cannot be beat, but there are multiple scenarios where the skelebots can approach from cover to overwhelm him.

I dunno, just knowing the mechanics available kind of cock-blocks the strategies the skelebots would employ (and under different rules, would be wholly effective), to me does not favour them. And because of this disfavour, I don't see them winning the fight.

Overall, it sounds like you don't have a clear strategy because you don't have a clear concept of the terrain, because there isn't a clear concept of the terrain in this conversation.
But you still want to argue that your unclear strategy is necessarily better than the one that Mack laid out.

I also think that you're making a lot of assumptions about what tactics the bots would employ, even though the books have pointed out that they're programmed to use the "best" tactics for specific enemies.

[Killer Cyborg]

How would you know what their play book is?

I know a guy who knows a guy.

But seriously; I've read the section several times, forwards and backwards, and not once have I come across the portion where this is listed as a valid tactic.
At best it's GM fiat.

Well, let's look...
SB1 31
In addition to various rudimentary combat functions, each is programmed for standard strategic and tactical field maneuvers that are executed with expert efficiency (standard squad maneuvers, assault and defensive actions). The combat computer automatically selects the best action, working as a team, to contain or subdue the enemy. The combat computer is also programmed to recognize over 2000 enemy targets, from vehicles to insignias.

The first sentence lets us know that the bots are familiar with standard tactics. This would seem to support your argument that "run up and grapple the enemy" wouldn't be likely to be in their playbook.
But the second sentence lets us know that the combat computer automatically selects the BEST action, working as a team, to "contain or subdue the enemy."
Sometimes, especially as a team, the best action will be to grapple with the enemy. The projected results of the "run up and grapple" tactic versus the "stand and shoot" tactic indicate that in this case specifically, it would in fact be the best action to run & grapple the GB.

I don't agree that this is the best tactic,

So far as I can see, you have been unable to demonstrate that claim, except in the sense that "it might not always be the best tactic."
But then you seem to be equating "not always the best tactic" to "a hail-mary play."

and that really isn't in the purview of any small-unit tactics I've ever heard of (not that it couldn't be).

That's because you're familiar with real-world small-unit tactics.
In the real world, you're not dealing with bots who can run 90 mph facing off against power armor that can run 60 mph and leap 80' into the air.
In the real world, guns are more effective than grappling.
But Rifts is NOT the real world.
In this scenario, we're dealing with a situation in which immobilizing the enemy quickly actually IS the best way to stop him, and unlike in real-world situations, shooting at the enemy is NOT the best way to immobilize it.

But there is another thing here; it is not best for the team to lose members; a team is stronger the more there are, so sacrificing themselves in such a significant quantity does not scream team-work.

I have no idea why you think that standard tactics would result in a lower death toll in this situation.
A Glitterboy has 770 MDC to its main body.
A skelebot's weapon inflicts 4d6 MD laser damage per hit. Against a Glitter Boy, that's going to do 7 MD per shot for the first melee round, and 14 MD per shot every round after that.
Even assuming that all 8 skelebots hit every time (and that's a significant assumption), their combined damage will be 56 MD on their first combined attack.
Meanwhile, the GB is likely to kill 1 skelebot.
The next round, their damage would be down to 49 MD for their combined attack, and the GB would probably kill another one.
The next round, their damage would be down to 42 MD.
Then down to 35 MD.
Then down to 28 MD.
Then the GB would get two more attacks in.
Even if the GB misses a few times, he's still likely to wipe out half the skelebots in the first round of attacks, and they'll have only inflicted less than 200 MD on him.

I don't see how shooting it out with him is a winning strategy, nor how it's supposed to be a strategy where no skelebots get destroyed.

Also note that the combat computer is programmed to recognize over 2000 enemies. In the context of the passage (i.e., describing how Skelebots choose tactics during combat), it seems pretty clear that part of the point of that recognition program is to let the skelebots know what kind of tactics to use. Meaning that their tactics against a Glitter Boy are likely to be different than their tactics against a Behemoth Explorer. Meaning that they pick the best tactics for the specific enemy, NOT the best general tactics.

I'll point out as well that this is a fluff-entry. Do you know what is printed in the Glitterboy Killer fluff entry, the robot (and by default, the pilot) designed to combat Glitterboys? To make called shots with their mini-missiles against the gun. We both know that isn't a possible tactic, but it's written in there. I'm pointing this out because the fluff entries were written with a non-constrictive mindset; most likely, they'd be attempting to make pop-shots at the Glitterboy's boomgun as they moved up in cover; not that this is effective from a mechanical stand-point.

I'd say that you're comparing a situation where the writers didn't know the rules to a situation where you can't think of any rules to support your claim about skelebot tactics.
The passage I quoted is canon.
It doesn't conflict with other canon, only with your personal opinion on how imaginary robots in the future might behave.

Another thing to note is the importance of the words "contain or subdue."
Notice the difference between those words and "kill."
Grappling is a common and useful tactic when attempting to contain or subdue an enemy, often preferable to blasting away at the enemy with a gun.

We both know how the Coalition "subdues" their enemies.

Yeah, they take them alive.
Otherwise, it'd be "kill."

And, of course, we all know what kind of enemy the Skelebots were most specifically designed to fight against, which means that we know the kind of enemy that they'd probably have a a number of specific tactics to deal with...

SB1 33
The government leaders at Free Quebec can not help but be concerned that the skelebots were designed specifically to combat their substantial force of Glitter Boys, should that day come.

That's because a lot of them were given that variable-frequency Rifle, which from a mechanical stand-point means the thing will become effective right after the Glitterboy kills the skelebot.

Because the CS was designing skelebots to fight Glitterboys.

And it is oddly specific too; you do get groups of Skelebots that roam, but I've never read specifically of groups of 8, who also specifically choose not to seek cover or shoot their weapons and instead decide to perform a sprint in an evasive pattern towards their opponent, as if that is their only opponent, without considering traps or an ambush.

I've never read specifically about a group of skelebots that specifically choose TO seek cover, or that specifically choose TO shoot their weapons instead of grapple.
If you know of such passages that I've overlooked, please let me know the book and page number, and perhaps quote the relevant passage(s).

You did read it, and even quoted it here, even if it doesn't say it in so many words.

SB1 31
[i]In addition to various rudimentary combat functions, each is programmed for standard strategic and tactical field maneuvers that are executed with expert efficiency (standard squad maneuvers, assault and defensive actions).

A very basic of combat is to seek cover.

The ability to sometimes seek over is NOT the same as specifically choosing TO seeking cover.
A very basic function of combat is also to charge at the enemy, yet you held up "I've never read about skelebots specifically choosing to do this" as evidence that they couldn't/wouldn't do it.
I'm applying the same standard to the tactic of seeking cover.

Skelebots know to do this.

Yet it's not possible or likely that they know how to run toward an enemy...?

A second part of combat is to use the weapons you've been given; Skelebots know to do this too.

Agreed.
So skelebots would know how to use their HTH combat skills, and weapons such as "punch," "kick," and "body block."

A third part of combat is choosing which weapon is overall best for the situation. Such as knowing when it's better to try to pull a gun out and start shooting, and knowing when it's better to try for hand to hand combat.

Likewise, I've never read specifically that skelebots take elements such as possible traps or ambushes into consideration.
There is very, very little that I've read that skelebots specifically do.

It's pretty standard for combatants to be wary of ambushes, just as the above tactics are pretty standard.

But you held up the standard of "I've never read about them specifically choosing to do X."
So I'm turning that standard back at you, to show you how logical of a standard it IS.
Or isn't, as the case may be.

Charging head-long into gunfire to overwhelm an opponent however, hasn't been a tactic since trench-warfare.

It was used in WWII as well, actually.
And I'd say that it's still sometimes used today.
But none of that really matters, because we're not talking about modern warfare. We're talking about robots battling it out against power armor that they cannot effectively defeat by simply shooting.

Realistically, this tactic is so specific and requires such omnipotent knowledge that there is only one foe that it becomes utterly disastrous if even a single other combatant is present. A lone grunt with a rocket launcher would literally turn any chance of victory for the skelebots into a 100% success for the Glitterboy - that means this hail-Mary tactic is bad.

I'd assume that Skelebots are intelligent enough to change their tactics based on their opponents. It pretty much says so in the book.

So do I, but there are limits; it's the fact that a single round will completely end them, not giving them the time to change tactics.

You lost me there.
The bots see the GB. They charge. A grunt with a rocket launcher pops up and fires a rocket, and... what?
Are you thinking that the rocket would kill all the bots?
Are you thinking that the bots wouldn't be able to think the binary equivalent of "yikes! let's stop charging and duck for cover?" until the next melee round...?
Or what?

So IF there are 8+ skelebots, and IF they're up against more than just one GB, THEN they would use more appropriate tactics.
For that matter, IF they start off using this tactic, then an enemy grunt pops up, THEN they would alter their tactics accordingly.
It's not a hail-mary tactic. It's just a possible tactic.

A hail-Mary is possible, it's just not favorable.

Calling it a "hail-mary" doesn't establish that it IS one.
It'd only be a "hail mary" if it had a slim chance of success, but from what we've seen in the thread so far, it'd have the BEST chance of success of anything discussed.

Then there are other factors; for a cost-comparison, losing 4+ per one Glitterboy is not cost-effective.

It is closer to being cost-effective than if they just stand there, shooting it out with the GB.

"Stand and shoot" is not a tactic I'm advocating.

"Stand behind a tree and shoot" then?
It nets out the same.

Pretty much, the only way this tactic makes sense if from a meta-perspective, "I bet I could kill a Glitterboy with 8 Skelebots if I did X, knowing that I was only actually fighting just one Glitterboy". It's kind of absurd.

First of all, I'm pretty certain that's the only perspective that the original scenario was really intended to portray.
Second, though, I'd assume that the CS has the resources to perform a variety of test scenarios and wargames in which their bots are pitted against GBs, in order to know the best tactics to program the bots with.

They may be able to perform tests, but this isn't the CS running a test; this is a meta-experiment wherein the monsters presented are being used in an A-typical way.

Without any official standard of typical in this case, Mack's tactic cannot be logically called "atypical."
For all we know, it's exactly typical behavior of skelebots.

Either way, it's the kind of thing that the CS would be perfectly capable of testing on their own, and therefore of programming their bots to DO in applicable situations.

If this is the case, then shouldn't the defender be allowed an A-typical method of defence as well?

I mean, he should be allowed to hole-up in a location wherein only one or two opponents can engage him in close-combat at a time, which would be reasonable at the very least.

Kind of a change in subject, but okay...
If the GB is holed up in some place where only two combatants can engage him at one time, then the bots would likely use a different strategy.
Although I'm not sure what kind of holing-up you're envisioning there.

[Mack]

So do I, but there are limits; it's the fact that a single round will completely end them, not giving them the time to change tactics.

Not quite. Per CWC p125, even the FASSAR-20 model was upgraded to 150 MDC. The Boomgun's raw damage only has a 9.3% chance of meeting/exceeding that. Factor in misses and Nat 20s, and the chances of one-shot destruction are only 9.7%.

Even should we use a pre-CWC FASSER-20 with 100 MDC, the boomgun will meet/exceed it 62.5% of the time (assuming that the hit lands). Factor in misses and Nat 20s, and the chances of one-shot destruction are only 42.5%.

That's because a lot of them were given that variable-frequency Rifle, which from a mechanical stand-point means the thing will become effective right after the Glitterboy kills the skelebot.

Let's clarify that. The FASSAR-20s carry the variable frequency rifle, but the FASSAR-30s carry a rail gun that hits for 4D6 MD.

(Side note - I always found the switch to a rail gun baffling. One of the skelebots great advantages was the weapon link which negated the need to carry ammunition. I would've much rather seen the newer bots equipped with a particle beam or plasma canon powered by the old link.)

[Dog_O_War]

I would like though to factor in terrain; this works both for and against the Glitterboy, and even with the duality of it, it should not be discounted because we're trying to discuss a reasonable and realistic interpretation of the events.

In order to factor in terrain, you'd need to have a specific terrain, which we don't.
Or you'd have to discuss how the scenario would work in a wide number of terrains--ranging from a flat, featureless plane to a forest with no real visibility to a desert with dunes to a swampland to whatever else you could come up with.
Which we can't really do effectively without maps and minis.

If this is close to FQ, it's safe to say the terrian is heavily wooded. If outside of FQ, we could say it's a ruined city kind of terrain - both offer cover and have various traits.

Right.
But hiding behinds a tree with maybe a couple hundred SDC isn't cover. It's concealment.
Same with an old brick wall or whatever.

The Skelebots would most likely approach at a steady pace (since fear isn't a factor for them) while attempting to lay down fire on the Glitterboy.

It's all well and good that MDC completely overwhelms SDC, but that doesn't mean that an MDC attack simply sails through an SDC object. SDC will stop MDC once the MDC is forced to travel through 100 points of it. And these super trees that are apparently covering the planet definitely have somewhere between 50-100 SDC in a given section; it's reasonable to assume that there is enough physical matter for a majority of the approach that the Glitterboy's boomgun will eventually just explode a tree or three and not continue, because there isn't a penetration rule that I'm aware of. There is a GI-Joe rule, however.

If you're going to pick at the scenario, then you need to start off by determining how they know the GB is there, and vice-versa.

Not picking, just expanding; we know that the Glitterboy has initiative, so it's apparent he is aware of the skelebots first, or at the very least, has the faster reaction in a "both are aware" scenario.

From the game-perspective, the skelebots are moving from cover to cover, likely in pairs, but stemming out from the starting point to multiple directions in order to create a flanking situation.

Okay, so instead of running at 90 mph for his entire attack, the skelebot runs a shorter distance, then gets shot through the tree he's behind.
How is that an improvement?

In the scenario, the skelebots were not running at 90 mph, only 60; I'm saying that they'd likely be darting from cover to cover like a proper military machine.

From a meta-perspective, this creates a defender's blind-spot; there will be attacks the Glitterboy cannot react to because while he is aware the skelebot is there, he doesn't know how and or when they are attacking, with the exception of say, two groups at a time. Not that he cares though; the Glitterboy is relying on MDC and situational cover for protection.

All he needs to know is "hey, there's a skelebot. I'm gonna shoot it."
He does that 8 times, he wins.

Pretty much. That's why it's in the skelebot's best interests to create situations whereby the Glitterboy has to go multiple rounds to get those 8 shots off, either through misses or lack of opportunity.

There will be points when the Glitterboy is on the move as well, because a static defender is only good when there are defences to be had.

Which would depend on terrain.

Not really; you either have a defensible location or you don't. It doesn't really matter if you're in the Alps or the Sahara, if you have a defensible spot, then you don't really wanna move from it.

Thus, expecting the skelebots to reach the Glitterboy in 15 seconds is not very realistic from most stand-points, despite their move-speed; even with the penalty for running flat-out, the Glitterboy is likely to hit them, and if he takes the extra action to aim, well that's a done skelebot.

You're still assuming that "run flat-out toward him" is NOT the best scenario.
Since you're trying to demonstrate that claim, using that claim IN your demonstration is circular logic.

I didn't use it; I stated quite clearly that even with the penalty, the Glitterboy will still claim kills and defeat a skelebot rush. I said that instead of a direct approach, it's better for them to use their speed to dart from cover to cover.

From a meta-perspective, an aimed shot to the leg (no different than the head) reduces pressure that just straight shooting a skelebot does not quite provide; once the attackers are immobile, he can take his time and kill them.

Leg shots would only be good if the GB is on the move.
He'd probably be better off just going for torso shots.
BTW, are we using RMB rules where a Called Shot takes 1 attack, or RUE rules where it takes 2-3 attacks?

R:UE. You can get four in that first round, one the fifth, and another with a simultaneous attack, disabling 6 of the 8 skelebots and thus winning Mack's scenario.

There is also the additional meta-realization; even if the Glitterboy moves and shoots on his action, because the pylons must plant themselves, he counts as stationary when firing, which means he doesn't suffer a shooting wild penalty, unless he purposefully disengages them.

THAT claim is a can of worms in its own right.

I know. I wish the rules would address shooting and movement properly, or at the very least, a Glitterboy shooting on the move. As it stands though, there is no penalty listed, though we can both clearly see there should be one for moving at 60mph and then coming to a sudden, abrupt stop.

From a game perspective, the skelebots are going to try and minimize the amount of time they spend in the open; it's the best possible tactic when engaging an enemy that has a high chance of simply killing you out-right with single shot. However, when their opponent is on the move, they too will take this opportunity for rapid advancement.

That depends entirely on how open it is.
Hiding behind a tree isn't going to help them unless it prevents them from being seen entirely.
For the most part, all that being "not in the open" is going to do for them is to possibly prevent the GB from shooting at all, if he doesn't have line of sight, or to impose some strike penalties... and the strike penalties can be achieved via speed and basic zig-zagging instead.

It's reasonable that the trees will hide them; the maples in Quebec are some of the biggest trees in the world, and what with Rifts' apparently "super-growth", it's reasonable to assume the trees are even larger, and skelebots, while big, are not hulking giants.
But beyond this, while cover may only equal speed penalties (as you're stating) cover + speed penalties are better.

Honestly, I think that even with a skelebot down right off the bat, there are multiple results to this scenario, based upon movement and choices the Glitterboy pilot makes. If he can get himself in a funnel, he pretty much cannot be beat, but there are multiple scenarios where the skelebots can approach from cover to overwhelm him.

I dunno, just knowing the mechanics available kind of cock-blocks the strategies the skelebots would employ (and under different rules, would be wholly effective), to me does not favour them. And because of this disfavour, I don't see them winning the fight.

Overall, it sounds like you don't have a clear strategy because you don't have a clear concept of the terrain, because there isn't a clear concept of the terrain in this conversation.
But you still want to argue that your unclear strategy is necessarily better than the one that Mack laid out.

I am assuming this isn't a Call of Duty map that one or both sides know off by heart; that the terrain and engagement is variable, and depending on who notices what in that terrain, or who decides to use the terrain can determine the victor. If neither side bother to use the terrain, the Glitterboy can plow under the skelebots, where if the skelebots decide to use the terrain and the Glitterboy does nothing to counter them, or chooses not to use the terrain himself, then the skelebots can pull off the win. It's otherwise hard to describe a ficticious terrain for a boxed scenario. What I was getting at before is that the terrain has cover, or should have, of varying effectiveness, and it's up to either side to make good decisions regarding the terrain. It's uneccessary to describe how the trees are thick, or that there is an exposed utility tunnel in the ruins of some city that's below eye-level.
I'm just saying that there is cover; use it or don't, but cover works both ways, and also acts as obstacles.

I also think that you're making a lot of assumptions about what tactics the bots would employ, even though the books have pointed out that they're programmed to use the "best" tactics for specific enemies.

It's not an assumption that sprinting towards a target with your entire retinue's combined MDC and a gun that can put you under in a hit or two with a good rate of fire is a bad tactic.

In all seriousness, it's possible that they may attempt to tunnel, given their small(ish) frames and robotic strength, leaving one guy out to act as their eyes. But that seems out of scope because it would be rather unconventional.

[Killer Cyborg]

It's all well and good that MDC completely overwhelms SDC, but that doesn't mean that an MDC attack simply sails through an SDC object. SDC will stop MDC once the MDC is forced to travel through 100 points of it.

If you're saying that 100 SDC absorbs 1 MD, then I agree.
If you're saying that a 70 MD blast is entirely absorbed by 100 SDC, then I don't think you have any basis for the claim.

And these super trees that are apparently covering the planet definitely have somewhere between 50-100 SDC in a given section; it's reasonable to assume that there is enough physical matter for a majority of the approach that the Glitterboy's boomgun will eventually just explode a tree or three and not continue, because there isn't a penetration rule that I'm aware of. There is a GI-Joe rule, however.

The GI-Joe rule applies to armor, and only to a limited degree.

If you want to see how mega-damage works with SDC trees and bushes, all you have to do is read SB1, page 6:
Your character is out in the wilderness. His food supply is exhausted, he goes hunting for food. A jack rabbit leaps out from hiding and the character blasts it with his energy pistol inflicting a mere one point of mega-damage. All that remains of the rabbit is a smear of blood.
Suddenly, a deer, startled by the noise, makes a dash through open ground!
The character whirls around and blasts it with his mega-damage handgun, inflicting two MD! The animal is torn in half by the blast, and the medium size tree behind it is also split in half and falls over toward the character (it barely misses him). Behind the tree is a volleyball-size swath cut through the bushes, some 50 yards long.

If you're going to pick at the scenario, then you need to start off by determining how they know the GB is there, and vice-versa.

Not picking, just expanding; we know that the Glitterboy has initiative, so it's apparent he is aware of the skelebots first, or at the very least, has the faster reaction in a "both are aware" scenario.

Unless he has a surprise attack, they're both aware of each other in the scenario, he just reacts fastest.

Okay, so instead of running at 90 mph for his entire attack, the skelebot runs a shorter distance, then gets shot through the tree he's behind.
How is that an improvement?

In the scenario, the skelebots were not running at 90 mph, only 60; I'm saying that they'd likely be darting from cover to cover like a proper military machine.

You didn't answer the question: How is moving a shorter distance and getting shot through a tree an improvement?

All he needs to know is "hey, there's a skelebot. I'm gonna shoot it."
He does that 8 times, he wins.

Pretty much. That's why it's in the skelebot's best interests to create situations whereby the Glitterboy has to go multiple rounds to get those 8 shots off, either through misses or lack of opportunity.

First of all, hiding behind a tree isn't likely to do that, unless the tree is able to provide complete concealment. Even then, if the skelebots ever shoot at the Glitterboy, he can shoot back and kill them.
Second of all, if the GB misses a few times because of cover/concealment penalties, but it takes the bots twice as long to move any significant distance, then the GB's still going to kill them all. The only "victory" is getting him to use more ammo before they die.
As opposed to if they all charge him and manage to dogpile him, in which case some of them will survive.

There will be points when the Glitterboy is on the move as well, because a static defender is only good when there are defences to be had.

Which would depend on terrain.

Not really; you either have a defensible location or you don't. It doesn't really matter if you're in the Alps or the Sahara, if you have a defensible spot, then you don't really wanna move from it.

Whether you have a defensible spot depends on the terrain.

From a meta-perspective, an aimed shot to the leg (no different than the head) reduces pressure that just straight shooting a skelebot does not quite provide; once the attackers are immobile, he can take his time and kill them.

Leg shots would only be good if the GB is on the move.
He'd probably be better off just going for torso shots.
BTW, are we using RMB rules where a Called Shot takes 1 attack, or RUE rules where it takes 2-3 attacks?

R:UE. You can get four in that first round, one the fifth, and another with a simultaneous attack, disabling 6 of the 8 skelebots and thus winning Mack's scenario.[/quote]

The GB has 7 attacks. If he's making unaimed called shots, that takes 2 attacks, which means he only fires three shots that first round.
If he's firing Aimed Called Shots, that takes 3 attacks, which means he only gets in 2 shots that first round.
I don't see any advantage in not just shooting for the torso, and getting 7 shots off that first round, likely resulting in 7 dead skelebots.

while cover may only equal speed penalties (as you're stating) cover + speed penalties are better.

Strike penalties are better than no strike penalties, all else being equal.
But all else isn't equal if the bots are shooting at the GB from cover instead of closing grown to grapple.

Overall, it sounds like you don't have a clear strategy because you don't have a clear concept of the terrain, because there isn't a clear concept of the terrain in this conversation.
But you still want to argue that your unclear strategy is necessarily better than the one that Mack laid out.

I am assuming this isn't a Call of Duty map that one or both sides know off by heart; that the terrain and engagement is variable, and depending on who notices what in that terrain, or who decides to use the terrain can determine the victor. If neither side bother to use the terrain, the Glitterboy can plow under the skelebots, where if the skelebots decide to use the terrain and the Glitterboy does nothing to counter them, or chooses not to use the terrain himself, then the skelebots can pull off the win.

I haven't seen anything about the Skelebots using the terrain that would let them pull off anything close to a win.
How do you think that could happen?

I also think that you're making a lot of assumptions about what tactics the bots would employ, even though the books have pointed out that they're programmed to use the "best" tactics for specific enemies.

It's not an assumption that sprinting towards a target with your entire retinue's combined MDC and a gun that can put you under in a hit or two with a good rate of fire is a bad tactic.[/quote]

Yeah, it IS exactly an assumption.
And since you've provided no demonstrable benefit in hiding behind trees, and not shown any way for the bots to win using that tactic, I'd say that it's also a BAD assumption.

In all seriousness, it's possible that they may attempt to tunnel, given their small(ish) frames and robotic strength, leaving one guy out to act as their eyes. But that seems out of scope because it would be rather unconventional.

Agreed on that, at least.
I mean, they could be programmed for it... but they're not mining bots, and they don't come with the right skills as standard.

[Zer0 Kay]

How many frequencies do the VFL rifles have?
Is the cable just power or is it data link too?
Do the skelebots have a WiFi between them?

[Dog_O_War]

I don't agree that this is the best tactic,

So far as I can see, you have been unable to demonstrate that claim, except in the sense that "it might not always be the best tactic."
But then you seem to be equating "not always the best tactic" to "a hail-mary play."

and that really isn't in the purview of any small-unit tactics I've ever heard of (not that it couldn't be).

That's because you're familiar with real-world small-unit tactics.
In the real world, you're not dealing with bots who can run 90 mph facing off against power armor that can run 60 mph and leap 80' into the air.
In the real world, guns are more effective than grappling.
But Rifts is NOT the real world.
In this scenario, we're dealing with a situation in which immobilizing the enemy quickly actually IS the best way to stop him, and unlike in real-world situations, shooting at the enemy is NOT the best way to immobilize it.

I'm also familiar with non-real-world tactics, with literally hundreds of different physics/reality models. Taking cover is one of the best things you can do in order to not get shot and die. Charging head-long into the enemy however, is counter to survival.

But there is another thing here; it is not best for the team to lose members; a team is stronger the more there are, so sacrificing themselves in such a significant quantity does not scream team-work.

I have no idea why you think that standard tactics would result in a lower death toll in this situation.
A Glitterboy has 770 MDC to its main body.
A skelebot's weapon inflicts 4d6 MD laser damage per hit. Against a Glitter Boy, that's going to do 7 MD per shot for the first melee round, and 14 MD per shot every round after that.
Even assuming that all 8 skelebots hit every time (and that's a significant assumption), their combined damage will be 56 MD on their first combined attack.
Meanwhile, the GB is likely to kill 1 skelebot.
The next round, their damage would be down to 49 MD for their combined attack, and the GB would probably kill another one.
The next round, their damage would be down to 42 MD.
Then down to 35 MD.
Then down to 28 MD.
Then the GB would get two more attacks in.
Even if the GB misses a few times, he's still likely to wipe out half the skelebots in the first round of attacks, and they'll have only inflicted less than 200 MD on him.

First, If more than half the skelebots live past the first round, it proves the point of the tactic, which cover allows for them to do.

Second, it is not a race to get to the Glitterboy; skelebots do not have a curfew, their mom isn't calling them for dinner, it's not close to quitin' time, etc. they don't need to get to the Glitterboy as fast as possible, they only need to get there as intact as possible.

I don't see how shooting it out with him is a winning strategy, nor how it's supposed to be a strategy where no skelebots get destroyed.

I don't see how losing 4 guys in the first turn is that either.

I'll point out as well that this is a fluff-entry. Do you know what is printed in the Glitterboy Killer fluff entry, the robot (and by default, the pilot) designed to combat Glitterboys? To make called shots with their mini-missiles against the gun. We both know that isn't a possible tactic, but it's written in there. I'm pointing this out because the fluff entries were written with a non-constrictive mindset; most likely, they'd be attempting to make pop-shots at the Glitterboy's boomgun as they moved up in cover; not that this is effective from a mechanical stand-point.

I'd say that you're comparing a situation where the writers didn't know the rules to a situation where you can't think of any rules to support your claim about skelebot tactics.
The passage I quoted is canon.
It doesn't conflict with other canon, only with your personal opinion on how imaginary robots in the future might behave.

Ah, you quoted canon.
Please then quote for me the canon passage where it states how imaginary robots actually behave.
Or the canon passage where it states "the best tactic" is.
Or can we go back to actual discussion? Because you're as able to produce canon passages for those things as I am.

Because the CS was designing skelebots to fight Glitterboys.

A foreign government's claim of concern is as substantial as a conspiracy theorists' claim that "the moon-landings were fake".
Those new skelebots were designed to replace the old ones. That they may have incorporated additional and expanded uses is not "the CS was designing skelebots to fight Glitterboys".

You did read it, and even quoted it here, even if it doesn't say it in so many words.

SB1 31
In addition to various rudimentary combat functions, each is programmed for standard strategic and tactical field maneuvers that are executed with expert efficiency (standard squad maneuvers, assault and defensive actions).

A very basic of combat is to seek cover.

The ability to sometimes seek over is NOT the same as specifically choosing TO seeking cover.
A very basic function of combat is also to charge at the enemy, yet you held up "I've never read about skelebots specifically choosing to do this" as evidence that they couldn't/wouldn't do it.
I'm applying the same standard to the tactic of seeking cover.

Well, let's look at this clinically; if they are being shot at and there is cover available, will they choose to seek it, or choose not to?

Skelebots know to do this.

Yet it's not possible or likely that they know how to run toward an enemy...?

I never stated this.

A second part of combat is to use the weapons you've been given; Skelebots know to do this too.

Agreed.
So skelebots would know how to use their HTH combat skills, and weapons such as "punch," "kick," and "body block."

A third part of combat is choosing which weapon is overall best for the situation. Such as knowing when it's better to try to pull a gun out and start shooting, and knowing when it's better to try for hand to hand combat.

Okay, let's look at this clinically again.
The range to target is 1320 feet.
The range of their guns will do this.
The range of their punches and kicks will not.

Likewise, I've never read specifically that skelebots take elements such as possible traps or ambushes into consideration.
There is very, very little that I've read that skelebots specifically do.

It's pretty standard for combatants to be wary of ambushes, just as the above tactics are pretty standard.

But you held up the standard of "I've never read about them specifically choosing to do X."
So I'm turning that standard back at you, to show you how logical of a standard it IS.
Or isn't, as the case may be.

Well I've read that they know standard tactics; of all the CS's equipment and soldiers, only one is otherwise designed to rush headlong at the enemy, making that tactic rather non-standard, given that 95% of their forces aren't trained nor instructed to do this to Glitterboys. At least, not that I've read.

Charging head-long into gunfire to overwhelm an opponent however, hasn't been a tactic since trench-warfare.

It was used in WWII as well, actually.

WWII had trenches.

And I'd say that it's still sometimes used today.
But none of that really matters, because we're not talking about modern warfare. We're talking about robots battling it out against power armor that they cannot effectively defeat by simply shooting.

You could've just shortened that sentence to "We're talking about robots battling it out against power armor that they cannot effectively defeat".

I'd assume that Skelebots are intelligent enough to change their tactics based on their opponents. It pretty much says so in the book.

So do I, but there are limits; it's the fact that a single round will completely end them, not giving them the time to change tactics.

You lost me there.
The bots see the GB. They charge. A grunt with a rocket launcher pops up and fires a rocket, and... what?
Are you thinking that the rocket would kill all the bots?
Are you thinking that the bots wouldn't be able to think the binary equivalent of "yikes! let's stop charging and duck for cover?" until the next melee round...?
Or what?

I'm thinking that the battle is lost regardless of tactics-change because after the first round you're looking at 6-8 casualties instead of 4-5, and as per Macks' scenario, 3 skelebots need to reach the Glitterboy in order for it to lose, so it wouldn't matter how fast they changed tactics, because it's just not gonna be fast enough.

So IF there are 8+ skelebots, and IF they're up against more than just one GB, THEN they would use more appropriate tactics.
For that matter, IF they start off using this tactic, then an enemy grunt pops up, THEN they would alter their tactics accordingly.
It's not a hail-mary tactic. It's just a possible tactic.

A hail-Mary is possible, it's just not favorable.

Calling it a "hail-mary" doesn't establish that it IS one.
It'd only be a "hail mary" if it had a slim chance of success, but from what we've seen in the thread so far, it'd have the BEST chance of success of anything discussed.

They could not be shot; that sounds at the very least a better tactic.

Then there are other factors; for a cost-comparison, losing 4+ per one Glitterboy is not cost-effective.

It is closer to being cost-effective than if they just stand there, shooting it out with the GB.

"Stand and shoot" is not a tactic I'm advocating.

"Stand behind a tree and shoot" then?
It nets out the same.

I didn't say that either, now did I?
I'm pretty sure I said [para] "approach from multiple angles in cover, until you can create a situation where there is a defender's blind-spot that your opponent can't just simultaneous attack you from".

Pretty much, the only way this tactic makes sense if from a meta-perspective, "I bet I could kill a Glitterboy with 8 Skelebots if I did X, knowing that I was only actually fighting just one Glitterboy". It's kind of absurd.

First of all, I'm pretty certain that's the only perspective that the original scenario was really intended to portray.
Second, though, I'd assume that the CS has the resources to perform a variety of test scenarios and wargames in which their bots are pitted against GBs, in order to know the best tactics to program the bots with.

They may be able to perform tests, but this isn't the CS running a test; this is a meta-experiment wherein the monsters presented are being used in an A-typical way.

Without any official standard of typical in this case, Mack's tactic cannot be logically called "atypical."
For all we know, it's exactly typical behavior of skelebots.

It can't logically be called "typical" either.
Therefore, we have to use our own judgment; would you call rushing a walking tank with 7 colleagues that has a gun that can kill you in a hit without firing back a typical tactic for a military-trained person?

Either way, it's the kind of thing that the CS would be perfectly capable of testing on their own, and therefore of programming their bots to DO in applicable situations.

Yeah, but that is what the whole discussion is about, know isn't it? We don't know if they would or wouldn't, because the Glitterboy has options besides "stand and shoot" and weapons other than the boomgun.

If this is the case, then shouldn't the defender be allowed an A-typical method of defence as well?

I mean, he should be allowed to hole-up in a location wherein only one or two opponents can engage him in close-combat at a time, which would be reasonable at the very least.

Kind of a change in subject, but okay...
If the GB is holed up in some place where only two combatants can engage him at one time, then the bots would likely use a different strategy.
Although I'm not sure what kind of holing-up you're envisioning there.

The kind where [i]only one or two opponents can engage him in close-combat at a time.

It's all well and good that MDC completely overwhelms SDC, but that doesn't mean that an MDC attack simply sails through an SDC object. SDC will stop MDC once the MDC is forced to travel through 100 points of it.

If you're saying that 100 SDC absorbs 1 MD, then I agree.
If you're saying that a 70 MD blast is entirely absorbed by 100 SDC, then I don't think you have any basis for the claim.

Sure I do; the GI-Joe rule is the only reference we have to go off of for damage-stopping, but what we also have is no precedent for damage continuing on past a target that can absorb mega-damage.
I mean, the book made a specific reference to mega-damage continuing on through SDC, then don't you think it would have done so for MDC?

And these super trees that are apparently covering the planet definitely have somewhere between 50-100 SDC in a given section; it's reasonable to assume that there is enough physical matter for a majority of the approach that the Glitterboy's boomgun will eventually just explode a tree or three and not continue, because there isn't a penetration rule that I'm aware of. There is a GI-Joe rule, however.

The GI-Joe rule applies to armor, and only to a limited degree.

If you want to see how mega-damage works with SDC trees and bushes, all you have to do is read SB1, page 6:
Your character is out in the wilderness. His food supply is exhausted, he goes hunting for food. A jack rabbit leaps out from hiding and the character blasts it with his energy pistol inflicting a mere one point of mega-damage. All that remains of the rabbit is a smear of blood.
Suddenly, a deer, startled by the noise, makes a dash through open ground!
The character whirls around and blasts it with his mega-damage handgun, inflicting two MD! The animal is torn in half by the blast, and the medium size tree behind it is also split in half and falls over toward the character (it barely misses him). Behind the tree is a volleyball-size swath cut through the bushes, some 50 yards long.

All we have here is a reference to the fact that MDC travels past SDC, where we have references to the fact that 100 SDC counts as 1 MDC. And what we don't have is SDC totals for these objects, so they all may very well be less than 100 MDC.

EXCEPT, I can't think of a mega-damage pistol that has a low damage range (from 1+) that has a range of only 150 feet; all of the ones I can think of have ten times that range. So what did the shot stop at? It's not listed as striking an MDC object, only SDC ones. That would allude to the damage degrading to the point of stopping against "mere" SDC objects.

If you're going to pick at the scenario, then you need to start off by determining how they know the GB is there, and vice-versa.

Not picking, just expanding; we know that the Glitterboy has initiative, so it's apparent he is aware of the skelebots first, or at the very least, has the faster reaction in a "both are aware" scenario.

Unless he has a surprise attack, they're both aware of each other in the scenario, he just reacts fastest.

Is there an echo in here?

Okay, so instead of running at 90 mph for his entire attack, the skelebot runs a shorter distance, then gets shot through the tree he's behind.
How is that an improvement?

In the scenario, the skelebots were not running at 90 mph, only 60; I'm saying that they'd likely be darting from cover to cover like a proper military machine.

You didn't answer the question: How is moving a shorter distance and getting shot through a tree an improvement?

You're the one saying they "get shot"; well that wouldn't be an improvement. But I'm saying that the chances of being shot are reduced.

All he needs to know is "hey, there's a skelebot. I'm gonna shoot it."
He does that 8 times, he wins.

Pretty much. That's why it's in the skelebot's best interests to create situations whereby the Glitterboy has to go multiple rounds to get those 8 shots off, either through misses or lack of opportunity.

First of all, hiding behind a tree isn't likely to do that, unless the tree is able to provide complete concealment. Even then, if the skelebots ever shoot at the Glitterboy, he can shoot back and kill them.

As opposed to the other scenario where he just shoots and kills them?
Those Quebec maples are pretty large even today; they could hide behind today's 'model', not to mention the super-growth versions that are apparently in Rift's future.

Second of all, if the GB misses a few times because of cover/concealment penalties, but it takes the bots twice as long to move any significant distance, then the GB's still going to kill them all. The only "victory" is getting him to use more ammo before they die.
As opposed to if they all charge him and manage to dogpile him, in which case some of them will survive.

That still results in the same thing as the charge, except in my strategy, the Skelebots lasted twice as long. That would be a clear indication of a better strategy, even if the end result is the same.

From a meta-perspective, an aimed shot to the leg (no different than the head) reduces pressure that just straight shooting a skelebot does not quite provide; once the attackers are immobile, he can take his time and kill them.

Leg shots would only be good if the GB is on the move.
He'd probably be better off just going for torso shots.
BTW, are we using RMB rules where a Called Shot takes 1 attack, or RUE rules where it takes 2-3 attacks?

R:UE. You can get four in that first round, one the fifth, and another with a simultaneous attack, disabling 6 of the 8 skelebots and thus winning Mack's scenario.

The GB has 7 attacks. If he's making unaimed called shots, that takes 2 attacks, which means he only fires three shots that first round.[/quote]
He still nets

If he's firing Aimed Called Shots, that takes 3 attacks, which means he only gets in 2 shots that first round.
I don't see any advantage in not just shooting for the torso, and getting 7 shots off that first round, likely resulting in 7 dead skelebots.

In this scenario, the damage is only averaging out to 78ish per hit. I don't exactly agree with it, but that's what we're working with.
I mean technically the damage should be 105 for four shots, two misses and one doing 210; and then in round two it's only one miss but still one critical, which would net an average of 5 dead skelebots as the reach the Glitterboy, but this assumes the Glitterboy takes the first attack against him and decides to simo-attack, which is a bad move since his parry would serve him better (resulting in no grapples before he kills 6 skelebots).

I also said that it would be more likely that the Glitterboy saw the skelebots first, given that he has an advanced optics suite and 8 targets to detect, whereas the skelebots do not (even if they have 8 chances), resulting in (at the very least) the Glitterboy getting to aim that first round before rolling initiative.

while cover may only equal speed penalties (as you're stating) cover + speed penalties are better.

Strike penalties are better than no strike penalties, all else being equal.
But all else isn't equal if the bots are shooting at the GB from cover instead of closing grown to grapple.

Nobody said they we're still closing.

I am assuming this isn't a Call of Duty map that one or both sides know off by heart; that the terrain and engagement is variable, and depending on who notices what in that terrain, or who decides to use the terrain can determine the victor. If neither side bother to use the terrain, the Glitterboy can plow under the skelebots, where if the skelebots decide to use the terrain and the Glitterboy does nothing to counter them, or chooses not to use the terrain himself, then the skelebots can pull off the win.

I haven't seen anything about the Skelebots using the terrain that would let them pull off anything close to a win.
How do you think that could happen?

How I picture it is that the skelebots periodically use a singular, random spotter, a member with full or the most MDC left to "pop up" as to maintain eyes on the Glitterboy, while the rest move under complete cover, until such time that a charge won't take the entire round, or they have the Glitterboy's back fully exposed, creating a "defender unaware" situation.

I also think that you're making a lot of assumptions about what tactics the bots would employ, even though the books have pointed out that they're programmed to use the "best" tactics for specific enemies.

It's not an assumption that sprinting towards a target with your entire retinue's combined MDC and a gun that can put you under in a hit or two with a good rate of fire is a bad tactic.

Yeah, it IS exactly an assumption.
And since you've provided no demonstrable benefit in hiding behind trees,

Whoa; yes I did. You've even admitted to a "demonstrable benefit" - you yourself have stated that it at the very least may act as concealment, which is a benefit, is it not? Or is concealment now considered not a benefit?

and not shown any way for the bots to win using that tactic, I'd say that it's also a BAD assumption.

I'm not sure how a person is supposed to "show" how an undefined terrain can be used, but I'm taking it that it's not a flat, featureless plain, meaning that there will be angles of approach which can otherwise be considered "full cover/concealment", at least for part of the approach, which can result in a win.

[Dog_O_War]

So do I, but there are limits; it's the fact that a single round will completely end them, not giving them the time to change tactics.

Not quite. Per CWC p125, even the FASSAR-20 model was upgraded to 150 MDC. The Boomgun's raw damage only has a 9.3% chance of meeting/exceeding that. Factor in misses and Nat 20s, and the chances of one-shot destruction are only 9.7%.

Even should we use a pre-CWC FASSER-20 with 100 MDC, the boomgun will meet/exceed it 62.5% of the time (assuming that the hit lands). Factor in misses and Nat 20s, and the chances of one-shot destruction are only 42.5%.

This is under the assumption of an ambush, where a single trooper is able to put a couple of rockets into the skelebots, which will result in their destruction.

That's because a lot of them were given that variable-frequency Rifle, which from a mechanical stand-point means the thing will become effective right after the Glitterboy kills the skelebot.

Let's clarify that. The FASSAR-20s carry the variable frequency rifle, but the FASSAR-30s carry a rail gun that hits for 4D6 MD.

(Side note - I always found the switch to a rail gun baffling. One of the skelebots great advantages was the weapon link which negated the need to carry ammunition. I would've much rather seen the newer bots equipped with a particle beam or plasma canon powered by the old link.)

I believe they were given the railgun to combat the more prevalent supernatural threats, because you can load it with DU rounds.

[Killer Cyborg]

I'm going to break up the Wall O' Text a bit.

I also think that you're making a lot of assumptions about what tactics the bots would employ, even though the books have pointed out that they're programmed to use the "best" tactics for specific enemies.

It's not an assumption that sprinting towards a target with your entire retinue's combined MDC and a gun that can put you under in a hit or two with a good rate of fire is a bad tactic.

Yeah, it IS exactly an assumption.
And since you've provided no demonstrable benefit in hiding behind trees,

Whoa; yes I did. You've even admitted to a "demonstrable benefit" - you yourself have stated that it at the very least may act as concealment, which is a benefit, is it not? Or is concealment now considered not a benefit?

It's only a benefit if it helps you survive.
If it doesn't, then it's just an aesthetic choice for the location of your death.
Right now, all I've seen of your plan is essentially that you think it's better to die hiding behind a big tree than it is to die charging at the enemy.
Aesthetically, I guess I can't really argue against that.
Tactically, there is no advantage, because you're dead either way.

So let's break this down.

First round of attacks, the GB goes first.
He shoots and kills a Skelebot.
Now you have 7 bots left.
So they all jump behind trees.
And...?
What do you envision happening next?

Because all that I envision is the GB shooting a big hole through one of the trees, and the bot behind it.
Then there's 6 bots left.
Then the bots either stay behind cover, or they leave cover to try to find other cover.
Either way, next round there will be 5 bots left.
And so on, and so on, and then there were none.

You seem to be picturing something else, but you haven't really said what.
Do you expect the GB to hold fire?
Do you expect the GB to shoot at the top of the tree instead of the base?
Do you expect the GB's 3d6x10 MD blast to be stopped by a 4d6x10 SDC treetrunk (or even a 100 SDC tree-trunk)?
Do you expect that on the chance that a skelebot can successfully hide his body behind a treetrunk, that the GB will have some kind of massive penalty like -10 to strike?
Or what...?

If you want me to understand your vision, you have to share it with me in detail.
I've already explained how I see it going down: dead tree & dead bot.

[The Beast]

How many frequencies do the VFL rifles have?
Is the cable just power or is it data link too?
Do the skelebots have a WiFi between them?

SB1 states Skelebots communicate via radio. There is no mention of the power cable also being a data cable. I doubt Palladium thought of having it transmit data as well. IRL, it likely would.

As for the frequencies, I don't recall how many the CV-213s had. IIRC, Glitterboys made on Rifts Earth had 13 different frequencies. I'm looking for where I read that right now. If I'm right, that means each bot has a 1 in 13 chance of being on the right frequency with the first shot.

Knowing where you're going with that, IRL, the bots would communicate the right freq to each other once they found it.

EDIT: Upon further reading, the cable does link the weapon to the combat computer, so it does look like the squad would be able to communicate the right freq once they found it. I'm still looking for the other bit.

[guardiandashi]

How many frequencies do the VFL rifles have?
Is the cable just power or is it data link too?
Do the skelebots have a WiFi between them?

SB1 states Skelebots communicate via radio. There is no mention of the power cable also being a data cable. I doubt Palladium thought of having it transmit data as well. IRL, it likely would.

As for the frequencies, I don't recall how many the CV-213s had. IIRC, Glitterboys made on Rifts Earth had 13 different frequencies. I'm looking for where I read that right now. If I'm right, that means each bot has a 1 in 13 chance of being on the right frequency with the first shot.

Knowing where you're going with that, IRL, the bots would communicate the right freq to each other once they found it.

EDIT: Upon further reading, the cable does link the weapon to the combat computer, so it does look like the squad would be able to communicate the right freq once they found it. I'm still looking for the other bit.

for some reason I want to say the vs lasers had 20 or 26 common frequencies preset to try. because while gb's may be the most common laser resistant thing on rifts they aren't the only laser resistant things.
of course when you start adding in other games like the robotech/macross games...
all southern cross body armor, the arm shields of the VHT, and some other things are laser resistant, cvr3 armor is supposed to be laser resistant, but according to the old books (not sure about the new ones) the saber cyclones have pretty much the ultimate in defenses (if you are good at parrying, because of the regenerative barrier shields on their CADS)

[Zer0 Kay]

Dang ya'll gonna make me do some readin.

Hey Killer C, any response on how many freqs skelebot's vflr has?

[Zer0 Kay]

How many frequencies do the VFL rifles have?
Is the cable just power or is it data link too?
Do the skelebots have a WiFi between them?

SB1 states Skelebots communicate via radio. There is no mention of the power cable also being a data cable. I doubt Palladium thought of having it transmit data as well. IRL, it likely would.

As for the frequencies, I don't recall how many the CV-213s had. IIRC, Glitterboys made on Rifts Earth had 13 different frequencies. I'm looking for where I read that right now. If I'm right, that means each bot has a 1 in 13 chance of being on the right frequency with the first shot.

Knowing where you're going with that, IRL, the bots would communicate the right freq to each other once they found it.

EDIT: Upon further reading, the cable does link the weapon to the combat computer, so it does look like the squad would be able to communicate the right freq once they found it. I'm still looking for the other bit.

for some reason I want to say the vs lasers had 20 or 26 common frequencies preset to try. because while gb's may be the most common laser resistant thing on rifts they aren't the only laser resistant things.
of course when you start adding in other games like the robotech/macross games...
all southern cross body armor, the arm shields of the VHT, and some other things are laser resistant, cvr3 armor is supposed to be laser resistant, but according to the old books (not sure about the new ones) the saber cyclones have pretty much the ultimate in defenses (if you are good at parrying, because of the regenerative barrier shields on their CADS)

All robotec laser resistant armor is immune to variable frequency laser abilities. The VF works on GB because the chromium reflects a certain band of light frequencies. Robotech armor doesn't reflect. It is a ceramic composite and absorbs and disperses the heat generated, so it should also be plasma resistant, don't know why it's not.

[Killer Cyborg]

Dang ya'll gonna make me do some readin.

Hey Killer C, any response on how many freqs skelebot's vflr has?

I can probably look that up tonight.

[Zer0 Kay]

Dang ya'll gonna make me do some readin.

Hey Killer C, any response on how many freqs skelebot's vflr has?

I can probably look that up tonight.

I'll try to look to. Are you seeing where I'm going with this train of thought?

[Killer Cyborg]

Dang ya'll gonna make me do some readin.

Hey Killer C, any response on how many freqs skelebot's vflr has?

I can probably look that up tonight.

I'll try to look to. Are you seeing where I'm going with this train of thought?

Each bot starts with a different frequency, and they each change to a different frequency, so they can eliminate frequencies faster?

Edit:
Okay, SB1 57 describes the CV-212. There does not appear to be any specific number of frequencies.
The weapon's computer will automatically find the right frequency after 1 melee round.
If the computer is disabled, the shooter can manually attempt to find the right frequency, and that will take 1d4 melee rounds to find the right frequency.

SB1 34 describes the CV-213.
With the 213, the robot's combat computer does the automatic analyzing of the frequency. This also takes 1 melee round.
But there is an interesting passage (bolding added for emphasis):
...the robot's combat computer will automatically analyze an opponent's armor (if not already preprogrammed into its memory) and after one melee round it will instantly adjust to the light frequency that will inflict maximum damage.

This passage could be read one of two ways:
1. The computer will adjust to maximum damage after 1 melee round when dealing with an unfamiliar armor.
or
2. The computer's adjustment time varies, but it always takes 1 melee round to adjust to maximum damage.

The first option above seems to make the most sense to me.
It is unclear, though, whether the "opponent's armor" part refers to the type/model of armor, OR to the specific armor for the specific combatant wearing it.
As in, it's not clear whether the combat computer saves light frequency information for "Glitter Boy Armor" or for "Bob Jones' Glitter Boy Armor."

Of those two options, I think it makes the most sense that each armor would have its own differences, and that the computer needs to analyze the armor for a particular opponent.
Meaning that if you fight Bob once, long enough to get his number, the next time you fight him, you won't have to recalculate his frequency.

[Zer0 Kay]

Dang ya'll gonna make me do some readin.

Hey Killer C, any response on how many freqs skelebot's vflr has?

I can probably look that up tonight.

I'll try to look to. Are you seeing where I'm going with this train of thought?

Each bot starts with a different frequency, and they each change to a different frequency, so they can eliminate frequencies faster?

Edit:
Okay, SB1 57 describes the CV-212. There does not appear to be any specific number of frequencies.
The weapon's computer will automatically find the right frequency after 1 melee round.
If the computer is disabled, the shooter can manually attempt to find the right frequency, and that will take 1d4 melee rounds to find the right frequency.

SB1 34 describes the CV-213.
With the 213, the robot's combat computer does the automatic analyzing of the frequency. This also takes 1 melee round.
But there is an interesting passage (bolding added for emphasis):
...the robot's combat computer will automatically analyze an opponent's armor (if not already preprogrammed into its memory) and after one melee round it will instantly adjust to the light frequency that will inflict maximum damage.

This passage could be read one of two ways:
1. The computer will adjust to maximum damage after 1 melee round when dealing with an unfamiliar armor.
or
2. The computer's adjustment time varies, but it always takes 1 melee round to adjust to maximum damage.

The first option above seems to make the most sense to me.
It is unclear, though, whether the "opponent's armor" part refers to the type/model of armor, OR to the specific armor for the specific combatant wearing it.
As in, it's not clear whether the combat computer saves light frequency information for "Glitter Boy Armor" or for "Bob Jones' Glitter Boy Armor."

Of those two options, I think it makes the most sense that each armor would have its own differences, and that the computer needs to analyze the armor for a particular opponent.
Meaning that if you fight Bob once, long enough to get his number, the next time you fight him, you won't have to recalculate his frequency.

Yup that is where I was going. Hmm... I thought I saw somewhere that the GB only had a very small number of frequencies, it may have been a rifle. Meh, doesn't matter.

But if the bots are networked and they start on different frequencies even if we don't know the number of frequencies it should reduce the time to determine the best. Of course this would be assuming that KS and the gang would have known about the benefits of networking and distributed processing when they made the bots. Even if they don't do distributed processing it should be faster right? Because I could understand the CS choose not to give the bots greater "thinking" capabilities because they're not human.

Hmm, I dislike the CS but to make them "more" realistic as computers my new house rule will be for each additional bot in a unit a second is shaved off the computation time. So with 15 bots in a unit it takes one second. Next shot definitely max effectiveness.

[Zer0 Kay]

Dang ya'll gonna make me do some readin.

Hey Killer C, any response on how many freqs skelebot's vflr has?

I can probably look that up tonight.

I'll try to look to. Are you seeing where I'm going with this train of thought?

Each bot starts with a different frequency, and they each change to a different frequency, so they can eliminate frequencies faster?

Edit:
Okay, SB1 57 describes the CV-212. There does not appear to be any specific number of frequencies.
The weapon's computer will automatically find the right frequency after 1 melee round.
If the computer is disabled, the shooter can manually attempt to find the right frequency, and that will take 1d4 melee rounds to find the right frequency.

SB1 34 describes the CV-213.
With the 213, the robot's combat computer does the automatic analyzing of the frequency. This also takes 1 melee round.
But there is an interesting passage (bolding added for emphasis):
...the robot's combat computer will automatically analyze an opponent's armor (if not already preprogrammed into its memory) and after one melee round it will instantly adjust to the light frequency that will inflict maximum damage.

This passage could be read one of two ways:
1. The computer will adjust to maximum damage after 1 melee round when dealing with an unfamiliar armor.
or
2. The computer's adjustment time varies, but it always takes 1 melee round to adjust to maximum damage.

The first option above seems to make the most sense to me.
It is unclear, though, whether the "opponent's armor" part refers to the type/model of armor, OR to the specific armor for the specific combatant wearing it.
As in, it's not clear whether the combat computer saves light frequency information for "Glitter Boy Armor" or for "Bob Jones' Glitter Boy Armor."

Of those two options, I think it makes the most sense that each armor would have its own differences, and that the computer needs to analyze the armor for a particular opponent.
Meaning that if you fight Bob once, long enough to get his number, the next time you fight him, you won't have to recalculate his frequency.

Thanks, nice leg work!

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

So do I, but there are limits; it's the fact that a single round will completely end them, not giving them the time to change tactics.

Not quite. Per CWC p125, even the FASSAR-20 model was upgraded to 150 MDC. The Boomgun's raw damage only has a 9.3% chance of meeting/exceeding that. Factor in misses and Nat 20s, and the chances of one-shot destruction are only 9.7%.

Even should we use a pre-CWC FASSER-20 with 100 MDC, the boomgun will meet/exceed it 62.5% of the time (assuming that the hit lands). Factor in misses and Nat 20s, and the chances of one-shot destruction are only 42.5%.

shouldn't the average damage of the boomgun be 105? Which should be enough to destroy the FASSER-20s?

Also, how are you calculating the GB bonus to hit?

[Mack]

So do I, but there are limits; it's the fact that a single round will completely end them, not giving them the time to change tactics.

Not quite. Per CWC p125, even the FASSAR-20 model was upgraded to 150 MDC. The Boomgun's raw damage only has a 9.3% chance of meeting/exceeding that. Factor in misses and Nat 20s, and the chances of one-shot destruction are only 9.7%.

Even should we use a pre-CWC FASSER-20 with 100 MDC, the boomgun will meet/exceed it 62.5% of the time (assuming that the hit lands). Factor in misses and Nat 20s, and the chances of one-shot destruction are only 42.5%.

shouldn't the average damage of the boomgun be 105?

When it hits, yes. Which is why I state that it will one-shot a an original FASSAR-20 62.5% of the time (assuming that the hit lands).

Which should be enough to destroy the FASSER-20s?

An original FASSAR-20, yes. But as I mentioned, per CWC the FASSAR-20s were upgraded to 150 MDC each. So you'd have to find an old "pre-CWC" skelebot to use the 100 MDC figure.

Also, how are you calculating the GB bonus to hit?

Per the original post in this thread, the GB needed to roll a 7 or better including all bonuses/penalties.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

Also, how are you calculating the GB bonus to hit?

Per the original post in this thread, the GB needed to roll a 7 or better including all bonuses/penalties.

yes but the math behind that. What are you figuring for the GBs bonus to hit (it seems you are saying he is +1 to hit, since you just need an 8 in ranged combat) I would like to know how you arrived at that.

I'm just remembering a 3rd level GB I had in a game once and he was like +11 with an shot or something ridiculous like that (it's has been awhile though)

[Dog_O_War]

Also, how are you calculating the GB bonus to hit?

Per the original post in this thread, the GB needed to roll a 7 or better including all bonuses/penalties.

yes but the math behind that. What are you figuring for the GBs bonus to hit (it seems you are saying he is +1 to hit, since you just need an 8 in ranged combat) I would like to know how you arrived at that.

I'm just remembering a 3rd level GB I had in a game once and he was like +11 with an shot or something ridiculous like that (it's has been awhile though)

This is assuming after bonuses and penalties; just moving fast and being evasive is like a -7 or something. That the Glitterboy still has a bonus after everything is being noted here.

[Dog_O_War]

I'm going to break up the Wall O' Text a bit.

I also think that you're making a lot of assumptions about what tactics the bots would employ, even though the books have pointed out that they're programmed to use the "best" tactics for specific enemies.

It's not an assumption that sprinting towards a target with your entire retinue's combined MDC and a gun that can put you under in a hit or two with a good rate of fire is a bad tactic.

Yeah, it IS exactly an assumption.
And since you've provided no demonstrable benefit in hiding behind trees,

Whoa; yes I did. You've even admitted to a "demonstrable benefit" - you yourself have stated that it at the very least may act as concealment, which is a benefit, is it not? Or is concealment now considered not a benefit?

It's only a benefit if it helps you survive.
If it doesn't, then it's just an aesthetic choice for the location of your death.
Right now, all I've seen of your plan is essentially that you think it's better to die hiding behind a big tree than it is to die charging at the enemy.
Aesthetically, I guess I can't really argue against that.
Tactically, there is no advantage, because you're dead either way.

Concealment provides a penalty to hit. So does cover; you can't state without doubt that there are no trees in all of North America that are providing 100+ SDC, or even MDC.

So let's break this down.

First round of attacks, the GB goes first.
He shoots and kills a Skelebot.
Now you have 7 bots left.
So they all jump behind trees.
And...?
What do you envision happening next?

A 1/4 mile belly-crawl, actually. Becoming a smaller target and being able to use the terrain as both cover and concealment is highly useful.

You seem to be picturing something else, but you haven't really said what.
Do you expect the GB to hold fire?
Do you expect the GB to shoot at the top of the tree instead of the base?
Do you expect the GB's 3d6x10 MD blast to be stopped by a 4d6x10 SDC treetrunk (or even a 100 SDC tree-trunk)?

Well first, there is quite a difference between expectations and reality; I expect the boomgun to just sail right through the trees as if they weren't even there, but I also expect the Skelebots to be able to shoot back without being simultaneously struck.
However, in reality, attacks don't just cleave through multiple objects; the rules state that unless he makes a called shot, the attack strikes the cover, which means the attack did not strike the skelebot. And in reality, when the skelebots shoot back, where applicable, the Glitterboy can just snap a shot back at full bonuses, the exact same time and the skelebot cannot defend itself.

So What I'm picturing is the skelebots using the rules to their advantage, and seeking out cover, which will cause the Glitterboy to either miss or use more attacks than intended to shoot past said cover.

Do you expect that on the chance that a skelebot can successfully hide his body behind a treetrunk, that the GB will have some kind of massive penalty like -10 to strike?
Or what...?

Penalty? Huh? You know how cover works, don't be silly.

[Killer Cyborg]

Against a boom gun, a tree isn't cover. It's concealment.

[The Beast]

Against a boom gun, a tree isn't cover. It's concealment.

Hell, against any decent rifle with regular ammo that's all a tree is good for.

[Mack]

Also, how are you calculating the GB bonus to hit?

Per the original post in this thread, the GB needed to roll a 7 or better including all bonuses/penalties.

yes but the math behind that. What are you figuring for the GBs bonus to hit (it seems you are saying he is +1 to hit, since you just need an 8 in ranged combat) I would like to know how you arrived at that.

I'm just remembering a 3rd level GB I had in a game once and he was like +11 with an shot or something ridiculous like that (it's has been awhile though)

Unfortunately I didn't keep notes when I added it up. But I would not claim my answer was sacrosanct--it's possible I missed something. I do recall that I used the assumption that the GB would need to fire rapidly (one action per shot).

[Tor]

Can we use the Biomancer's MDC trees here?

*wonders if permanetly-spelled-MDC is an inherited trait that might eventually cause Rifts Earth to be exclusively populated by them*

[Alrik Vas]

A level one GB pilot should have +3 to strike with his boom gun, unless I'm missing numbers and they have more. Their combat training for the class gives +1, Weapon Systems gives +1 and the WP should give +1.

A skelebot, like the GB itself, would give off heat even behind cover, allowing thermal imaging to target the skelebots even from behind a tree. Just shoot for the center of the partially blocked heat signature. This could be penalty, but if they properly use their equipment, i wouldn't incur a penalty at all.

[The Ruiner]

Can we use the Biomancer's MDC trees here?

*wonders if permanetly-spelled-MDC is an inherited trait that might eventually cause Rifts Earth to be exclusively populated by them*

Be carefull with that line of thought, you run with it too much and you'll have players chucking M.D.C. pinecones and acorns at each other.

[Zer0 Kay]

Can we use the Biomancer's MDC trees here?

*wonders if permanetly-spelled-MDC is an inherited trait that might eventually cause Rifts Earth to be exclusively populated by them*

Be carefull with that line of thought, you run with it too much and you'll have players chucking M.D.C. pinecones and acorns at each other.

Ha ha, tryin ta be funny, cuz if you were serious you'd need to know that those players better be able to chuck at MD speeds, because just being MDC material doesn't mean it does MD. Other wise all those sdc tires would have broken on those MDC hiways nevermind the foot ware and leg broken from stepping onto MDC cement sidwalks. Heck everyone in rifts would be dead from having to touch their MDC armor to put it on. Either bad joke or bad facts.

[The Ruiner]

Yes.....bad joke. It definately sounded better in my head.

[Zer0 Kay]

Yes.....bad joke. It definately sounded better in my head.

now, that is funnier.

[Nightmask]

Can we use the Biomancer's MDC trees here?

*wonders if permanetly-spelled-MDC is an inherited trait that might eventually cause Rifts Earth to be exclusively populated by them*

Be carefull with that line of thought, you run with it too much and you'll have players chucking M.D.C. pinecones and acorns at each other.

Which wouldn't do any more damage than the SDC version, or at worst if they could exist no more damage than a rock the same weight.

[Zer0 Kay]

Can we use the Biomancer's MDC trees here?

*wonders if permanetly-spelled-MDC is an inherited trait that might eventually cause Rifts Earth to be exclusively populated by them*

Be carefull with that line of thought, you run with it too much and you'll have players chucking M.D.C. pinecones and acorns at each other.

Which wouldn't do any more damage than the SDC version, or at worst if they could exist no more damage than a rock the same weight.

Didn't I just say that?