Raoul's railgun

[Tor]

Vampire Kingdoms (unrevised) page 107 mentions the NG-202 Super rail gun of the Samson that Raoul uses is loaded with wood flechettes. We are told that it does 1d4 MD on a burst and 3d6x10 SDC/HP to vampires.

I at first assumed this meant 3d6x10 HP per burst... but it mentions a called shot is needed to strike a vampire in the heart and RMB didn't let you make called shots with a burst, so could that actually be 3d6x10 HP per round? But then it says 50% shoot through the body so I figure it meant a burst...

Since these rail guns could all fire single shots, knowing the damage of a single rail gun round would be interesting I think, as I think some people might prefer to do that. Damage doesn't exactly matter for staking, after all.

Anyway, there's a problem... this is the SUPER rail gun. It should be better!

If we look earlier in Vampire Kingdoms on page 30, the top of the right column has notes for the NG-101 while the bottom of the left column has notes for the Samas C-40R and NG-202. I believe these are all a reference to page 226 of RMB since all 3 of these rail guns are listed together.

The problem though... is that the rail gun used by the SAMSON is different. While the C-40R on page 226 has the same damage per round/burst as the one with the SAMAS power armor on page 194, the same cannot be said of the NG-202.

The "NG-202 Rail Gun" on 226 is inferior to the "NG-202 Super Rail Gun" on page 212. The Samson's "Super" does more damage per single round and first a burst with 50% more shots (though still only getting x10 damage) so it can inflict more damage per burst while using up more ammo (less efficient) but it makes up for that because the Samson has big drums.

Another big difference is the weight. The non-PA version is 198lbs while the PA version is 210lbs. The PA version can store 6000 rounds in a 300lb drum while the non-PA version would require 20 belts (weighing 700 pounds) to have that many shots.

If the normal NG-202 does 1d4x10 per burst of 40 and the Samson's SUPER version of the NG-202 (different numbers would have been less confusing...) does 1d6x10 per burst of 60, then how come both do the same 3d6x10 HP to vampires with wood? I think the Samson should do more. Following the example of bumping up a die to the next level, I'd say 3d8x10 would be fair (improving d6 to d8 is actually less of a % jump compared to bumping d4 to d6, so this is conservative). The same should apply to the MD done to non-vampires as well. If the standard NG-202 does 1d4 MD per burst (identical to its single-round normal damage) then I think the SUPER should do 1d6 MD per wood burst, just like its single shot.

As for calculating single-shot... it's a bit tricky but it might be approximated based on the burstMetalMD>burstWoodHP ratio somehow.

If 6d6 becomes 2d4x10 while 1d4x10 becomes 3d6x10 then it might be easier to think in terms of...
6d6 > 20d4
10d4 > 30d6

Er... or maybe I'll just look at the min/avg/max for some kind of pattern in one.

6/21/36 > 20/50/80
10/25/40 > 30/105/180

So as a rough guideline, the minimum damage should at least triple, the average and maximum damage should at least double...

Actually it seems like the NG-101 got a raw deal here, the boost was nowhere near the same...

So anyway, maybe just be something like 3d4 HP per round?

[flatline]

Rifts railguns are so conceptually broken that I've never tried to fix them. I'm not certain where I'd even start.

Trying to compare railguns looking for a pattern is pretty pointless since the numbers are clearly set arbitrarily at the whim of the author.

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

have to agree with Flatline, here.
if you want to go through the trouble, I'd do whatever you like, the authors set that example.

[Slight001]

Rifts railguns are so conceptually broken that I've never tried to fix them. I'm not certain where I'd even start.

Trying to compare railguns looking for a pattern is pretty pointless since the numbers are clearly set arbitrarily at the whim of the author.

--flatline

Totally agree. concept wise they appear to be just unnecessarily heavy and stupidly inaccurate/efficient... your lucky if even a 1/4 of your ammo hits...

Personally when physical damage is viable I use the NG-R50 (4d6 and 1500 feet with a single round.) and NG-303 (4d6 (was 5d6 before NG-1) and 2000 feet at the cost of 10 rounds.) rail guns.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I would be fine with the stupidly innacurate ammo if you got to use the spray rules with every burst. that is, all rail guns that fire big bursts did their damage 2d4 targets within a radius. that would make them quite useful. You are trading off high damage at high accuracy for middling damage to an area.

[Killer Cyborg]

Since these rail guns could all fire single shots, knowing the damage of a single rail gun round would be interesting I think, as I think some people might prefer to do that.

Rail guns as a rule can only fire bursts, unless they're specifically stated to have a single-shot setting (not just where they list the damage for a single round for informational purposes).

[Alrik Vas]

Yah, my first thought on the wood rounds for bursting was they used the railgun to put the vamp down, then you stake it after.

[glitterboy2098]

Totally agree. concept wise they appear to be just unnecessarily heavy and stupidly inaccurate/efficient... your lucky if even a 1/4 of your ammo hits...

personally i've always interpreted the dynamic between the single shot damage and the burst damage as being different fire modes, not a measure of how many hit.

so instead of only 1 in 4 hitting, the majority of the burst is hitting, and each slug just has like 1/4th the energy imparted to it than the single shot mode does..

effectively, single shot mode is a 'sniper' mode that uses a lot of energy to propel a single projectile, while in burst mode, since your having several projectiles moving through the barrel at the same time (allowing bursts to happen in as brief a time as possible) the weapon uses less for each.
under this set up, if you were to try to get every round to do the single shot damage, you'd use 4x or more power per burst.. (which would cause a lot of power issues for PA, bots, borgs, etc)
and if you rigged up the burst setting to fire only one projectile, that projectile would only be doing like 1 md.

[Killer Cyborg]

VKr 102
Furthermore, the tiny projectile travels at such a velocity that there is a 01-50% chance the bullet from a handgun goes right through the vampire and a 01-70% chance for rifle calibers. This is especially true of machine-gun and rail gun rounds, which are almost certain (01-99% chance) to punch right through a vampire.

VKr 103
A Called Shot is not possible as rail guns fire bursts and control and targeting is imprecise.

[Tor]

Rail guns as a rule can only fire bursts, unless they're specifically stated to have a single-shot setting (not just where they list the damage for a single round for informational purposes).

Listing the damage for a single round means it has a single-shot setting, rail guns have traditionally had "can only fire bursts" text and avoid listing the damage for a single shot when that happens.

If they added this disclaimer in RUE, I take it only to apply to cases where a single shot is not mentioned but they forget to add the "can only fire bursts" disclaimer.

VKr 103
A Called Shot is not possible as rail guns fire bursts and control and targeting is imprecise.

I believe this only refers to rail guns used in burst mode, not as some statement that you can only fire bursts with rail guns. The Samson's rail gun has a single shot setting which would explain why Raoul could explicitly use it to make called shots, the only problem is they only converted the burst damage for wood/silver to MD/HP.

To see this is nonsense we can also look at the boom-gun: it fires single shots, not bursts, and is a rail gun.

[Killer Cyborg]

Rail guns as a rule can only fire bursts, unless they're specifically stated to have a single-shot setting (not just where they list the damage for a single round for informational purposes).

Listing the damage for a single round means it has a single-shot setting,

No, it does not.
That's why some of the railguns specify that the individual damage listing is for informational purposes.
With the rest, they assume that you'll know the rule by then, that rail guns fire bursts unless they state specifically that they're capable of single-shot firing.

VKr 103
A Called Shot is not possible as rail guns fire bursts and control and targeting is imprecise.

I believe this only refers to rail guns used in burst mode, not as some statement that you can only fire bursts with rail guns.

You believe wrong.
There's no mention of any single-shot mode, because most railguns don't have a single-shot mode.
It just says "rail guns fire bursts," because the rule is that rail guns fire bursts unless a single-shot setting is specified.

Also, CB1 9
The rail gun is a machine-gun-like weapon designed to fire controlled and predesignated bursts.
and
The damage listing for an individual round is given for informational purposes only.

To see this is nonsense we can also look at the boom-gun: it fires single shots, not bursts, and is a rail gun.

Somehow, pointing out a railgun that specifies that it fires single shots doesn't disprove the rule that railguns are only capable of firing single rounds if the weapon description specifically states it.
Do I really need to explain why...?

[Tor]

I can't see why we would assume single shot damage did not mean single-shot capability. I think it should explicitly say under the gun 'informational only' (IE it is giving you an idea of how many rounds hit and how many missed)

I can't recall seeing it in RMB... *reads the weird CB1 statement* does RUE elaborate on this or reference it in some way? Is it retained in CBrevised?

Would this qualify as a CB1 rules change? Still not remembering 'informational only' text in RMB.

Aside from the IO statement in CB1 is there anything else stating 'must state single shot' or something?

This is a rather huge change snuck into CB1 if we take it this way.

Just what qualifies as explicit single-shot data then? All the RMB rail guns just say "burst does X MD, single shot does Y MD" never anything about informational stuff...

Are rail guns treated this way in other settings like HU or Robotech which include them?

A big problem here is even if CB1 is a change to RMB, I think WB5 came out after CB1 yet the rail guns in Triax+NGR do not seem to reflect any acknowledgement of this. Like just compare:
*page 69 (VX-180) "a burst is X" + "can only fire bursts"
*page 147 (TX-250 or TX-500) "full damage burst does X" + "short burst does Y" + "single round does Z"
*page 213 (WR-200) "a full damage burst does X" + "a short burst does Y" + "single shots are not possible"

The pattern, post-CB, is that we are explicitly told if single shots are not possible or if you can only fire bursts (effectively the same meaning) although if all rail guns were this as a default, it would seem odd to do.

Where you would need such a disclaimer MORE would be if we were told single shot damage for mere informational purposes, since being told the damage is most likely to lead someone to think you can inflict that damage by doing a single shot.

It raises the question, if the CB1 statement were actually in effect, why we are not told the damage of a single round 'for informational purposes' for these burst-only (no-single) guns, and why we are not told "burst only" for these "informational only" round damages.

[Alrik Vas]

because Palladium, Tor. The logical explanation is that the writers aren't a uniform group and put things different ways, as well as implement them differently.

[Tor]

Except that Kevin Siembieda wrote RMB, CB1 and WB5 so this is not a different-writers situation.

[Killer Cyborg]

It's not a change. It's a clarification.
Same page that explains that yes, energy weapons can use the burst/spray rules.
It was there to help clarify stuff that people were confused about.

[Alrik Vas]

Except that Kevin Siembieda wrote RMB, CB1 and WB5 so this is not a different-writers situation.

according to some in this forum, the author changes the rules of his have during live play to fit a situation. take that into account and nothing can really be trusted, I guess, but I think its relevant.

[Killer Cyborg]

If WB 5 came out after CB1, I'd assume that he understood by that point that listing people were confused by how the guns were described before.
Of he just forgot how he did things before.
Or one of the editors changed it for some reason.

[Tor]

It's not a change. It's a clarification. Same page that explains that yes, energy weapons can use the burst/spray rules.

Clarifications elaborate on things already legal under the established text, which I think energy-bursting already was.

Unless you can show where in RMB it says that rail guns could not fire a single round though, saying they can't IS a change.

If WB 5 came out after CB1, I'd assume that he understood by that point that listing people were confused by how the guns were described before.

This still would not explain why disclaimers are present where not needed ("cannot fire a single round" present where no single round damage is given) and absent where needed (when single round damage is presented and tempts to be used).

The 'editors change' could apply to the IO statement as well, discrediting it

Since the bursting rules for energy got ret-conned out of CBrevised I now wanna check to see if this weird rail-ly statement did as well.

[Killer Cyborg]

It's not a change. It's a clarification. Same page that explains that yes, energy weapons can use the burst/spray rules.

Clarifications elaborate on things already legal under the established text, which I think energy-bursting already was.

Where in the RMB did it specify that energy weapons could as a rule use the burst/spray rules?

Unless you can show where in RMB it says that rail guns could not fire a single round though, saying they can't IS a change.

Not at all.
Because there's nothing in the RMB stating that railguns can as a rule fire single shots, so the CB1 clarification doesn't contradict anything in the RMB, only in your own personal assumptions about why the damage for one round was included.
Notice that there are absolutely NO references to railguns actually firing single shots, only to them firing bursts. (excluding the Boom Gun, of course, but we've covered that).
There are no mentions of railguns being used as sniping weapons, only as "machineguns."
That's because they were burst-only weapons.

If WB 5 came out after CB1, I'd assume that he understood by that point that listing people were confused by how the guns were described before.

This still would not explain why disclaimers are present where not needed ("cannot fire a single round" present where no single round damage is given) and absent where needed (when single round damage is presented and tempts to be used).[/quote]

We don't always get explanations in Palladium.

The 'editors change' could apply to the IO statement as well, discrediting it

Not really.
For one thing, it's not a change, as mentioned. It's a clarification on previous information.
We were told the damage of a single round, but we were never told that the rail guns were capable of firing a single round.
Then we were told that the single-round damage was only for informational purposes.
Then we were told later (in VKr) that railguns only fire bursts.
That's pretty clear and consistent by Palladium standards.

Since the bursting rules for energy got ret-conned out of CBrevised I now wanna check to see if this weird rail-ly statement did as well.

Doesn't really matter, since it's referred to in VKr. Twice.

[Killer Cyborg]

Oh, and look in RUE.

P. 240
C-40R
"Mega-Damage: A burst is 40 rounds and inflicts 1d4x10 MD, one round does 1d4 MD."
Just like in the main book.

But they got the ROF fixed from "Standard" (which was never defined) to "Each BURST counts as one attack."
Period.
No mention of single shots, because there aren't any.
Same with the C-50R on p. 249.
Same with the C-100R on p. 251.
Same with the C-40r on the Mark V on p. 251.
Same with the C-200DH on p. 253.
Same with the NG-101 on p. 270-201.
Same with the NG-202 Super on p. 271.
Same with the T-001 Rapid-Fire Rail Gun on p. 273-274.

Each weapon lists the damage for a single round.
Each ROF only and specifically mentions bursts.

[Tor]

I do wonder why not just say "10 shots hit" or something along those lines. In terms of variance, 10d4 and 1d4x10 are not identical either. 1in4 chance of 1-shotting something with 40 MDC versus 1in16, same with the chance of something with 11 MDC surviving.

Since single shots obviously always take 1 attack it doesn't need to be mentioned that this is so. Bursts taking 1 attack is to clarify that it doesn't take more, since sometimes they do take more attacks, like 'full' bursts which took 2 for small payloads and a full round for larger ones.

If there 'aren't any' single shots then saying "one round does" suggests it.

If someone only picked up RUE and did not have CB1, is there anything actually denying single-round shooting in RUE? Where is the 'for informational use only' (or IO for InfoOnly for ease of ref) in RUE?

Plus how did Raoul make his called shots to hit the heart with his wooden-covered rail rounds?

[Killer Cyborg]

I do wonder why not just say "10 shots hit" or something along those lines. In terms of variance, 10d4 and 1d4x10 are not identical either. 1in4 chance of 1-shotting something with 40 MDC versus 1in16, same with the chance of something with 11 MDC surviving.

Unfortunately, Palladium isn't too precise with their math a lot of the time.
They figure that 1d4x10 is faster, and close enough.
There IS a difference, though, and I'd rather see it taken into account.
But it's not.

Since single shots obviously always take 1 attack it doesn't need to be mentioned that this is so. Bursts taking 1 attack is to clarify that it doesn't take more, since sometimes they do take more attacks, like 'full' bursts which took 2 for small payloads and a full round for larger ones.

Except that the C-18 has a ROF of "Each laser blast counts as one melee attack," for example, so apparently it DOES need to be mentioned.
And it is, for any number of weapons.

The C-12, for example, which can fire either single shots or bursts, has a ROF of "Each laser blast or burst counts as one melee attack."

And, really, it's just as obvious to anybody who knows the rules that a Burst just as obviously takes 1 attack as a rule as a single-shot does.
So a burst taking 1 attack wouldn't need to be mentioned either, if a single shot taking 1 attack didn't.

If there 'aren't any' single shots then saying "one round does" suggests it.

In a vacuum.
But we're not in a vacuum.

If someone only picked up RUE and did not have CB1, is there anything actually denying single-round shooting in RUE? Where is the 'for informational use only' (or IO for InfoOnly for ease of ref) in RUE?

Not mentioned in RUE, just as it wasn't mentioned in the RMB.
Palladium leaves out a lot of stuff that should be mentioned, just assuming that people will understand what they mean.
Again, they left out the definition to ROF Standard in the RMB, and they never, ever defined it.

Plus how did Raoul make his called shots to hit the heart with his wooden-covered rail rounds?

I don't see any evidence that he did.
VK 107 mentions that Raoul has NG Samson Power Armor, and that special ammunition is available for that weapon, and that the damage is 1d4 MD per burst of 60 to normal targets, and that the damage is 3d6x10 HP to vampires, and that a Called Shot is needed to hit the heart, but I don't see anything stating that a Called Shot is possible with that weapon, only a statement that the weapons can inflict severe damage to a vampire by taking off a head, arm, or leg, and that 50% of the flechettes pass right through the body.
Given the context, it seems far more likely that the reference to a Called Shot being needed to hit the heart is a reminder that this weapon is incapable of doing so, than that it's saying that this weapon ever fired a single shot and hit a vampire's heart.

VK 30, in the description for the wood railgun rounds, phrases it "A called shot is still needed to strike a vampire in the heart and immobilize him."
Again, knowing that railguns only fire bursts as a rule, that seems more like a poorly-phrased reminder that the weapons are incapable of doing it, than anything else.
And in each case, again you have the railgun's attacks being described ONLY in terms of bursts, never in terms of single shots.

[Tor]

Surely if rail guns could not single-shot then you would simply say "it can't make called shots, it can't hit the heart" rather than "a called shot is needed".

Moving on, aside from the boom gun, do you recall any other rail guns that you think fit your criteria of single-shot?

Going back to NGR I notice the TX-250's description on 146 and then again under the Jager on page 57 mentions "It can fire one bullet" in the intro. The MD has the same 'a single round does X' phrasing as the TX-50 although that lacks such a description in the intro.

It also says "one of the unique features of the TX-240 is that it has 3 damage settings" and "few railguns are so versatile". The TX-50 I thought only had 2, but the TX-500 has 3 damages listed just like the TX-250.

Looking at some rail guns in Warlords 179 on, more "only fires bursts" stuff under RoF. Still following the pattern of 'no single' or 'only burst' disclaimers and absent of single-shot damage which should be completely unnecessary if single shots are not the norm.

The problem with the IO statement is that it is worded absolutely: meaning that the Boom Gun and TX-250 both disprove it as true.

What I would propose is: use in single shot damage calculation IS an informational purpose, so this doesn't qualify as any kind of 'no single shots' rule.

Or perhaps it is "informal" because high-damaging bursts are the FORMAL use of rail guns while single shots are non-formal.

[Killer Cyborg]

Surely if rail guns could not single-shot then you would simply say "it can't make called shots, it can't hit the heart" rather than "a called shot is needed".

I would, yeah.
But I'd do a lot of stuff differently than Palladium does.

Moving on, aside from the boom gun, do you recall any other rail guns that you think fit your criteria of single-shot?

IIRC, there's some stuff in the New West.

Going back to NGR I notice the TX-250's description on 146 and then again under the Jager on page 57 mentions "It can fire one bullet" in the intro. The MD has the same 'a single round does X' phrasing as the TX-50 although that lacks such a description in the intro.

If it mentions that it can fire one bullet, then it can. If not, then the rule is that it can't.

The problem with the IO statement is that it is worded absolutely: meaning that the Boom Gun and TX-250 both disprove it as true.

It's a general rule that is true. There are stated exceptions, but that doesn't make the rule false.
IF somebody says "Dogs have 4 legs," finding a 3-legged dog doesn't mean that they were wrong, or that their claim was untrue. It just means that there's an exception to the norm.

[guardiandashi]

I do have a kind of flaky explanation on why they include the damage for single rounds for railguns that are burst only.
explanation 1 you only have a single round available for it to shoot
explanation 2 (more likely IMO) someone is spraying /or firing wildly, and manages to only hit with 1 round
etc.

as far as "special" railguns I know of 2 that are a weird hybrid weapon, and they are the boomgun, and shemarian railgun, both fire a round that is a flechette round with 200 submunitions, but the gun itself is semi auto but fires one (1) "cartridge/round" each time the trigger is pulled, unlike most rail guns which are more like a machine gun that fires a "burst" every time the trigger is pulled

[Alrik Vas]

NG R-50 is a single shot rail gun rifle. its in merc ops.

[Killer Cyborg]

I do have a kind of flaky explanation on why they include the damage for single rounds for railguns that are burst only.
explanation 1 you only have a single round available for it to shoot
explanation 2 (more likely IMO) someone is spraying /or firing wildly, and manages to only hit with 1 round
etc.

Huh.
I guess if you only loaded one round, only one round would fire.

Rail guns couldn't really spray, though, so I don't think that Explanation 2 pans out.
Not that either is a great explanation for why they'd do things that way, but there isn't really a great explanation in any case.

as far as "special" railguns I know of 2 that are a weird hybrid weapon, and they are the boomgun, and shemarian railgun, both fire a round that is a flechette round with 200 submunitions, but the gun itself is semi auto but fires one (1) "cartridge/round" each time the trigger is pulled, unlike most rail guns which are more like a machine gun that fires a "burst" every time the trigger is pulled

Doh!
Should have remembered the Shemarrian Rail Gun.
It's one of my favorites.

[Alrik Vas]

I never liked the Sham-wow, really. not because its too buff, or that Archie never really made good use of the design...

...but that everyone's twink from back in the day had one, always claimed they got it in a previous game, and it was never true.

[guardiandashi]

I never liked the Sham-wow, really. not because its too buff, or that Archie never really made good use of the design...

...but that everyone's twink from back in the day had one, always claimed they got it in a previous game, and it was never true.

well I did have a char that had one, that the gm gave it (and some other gear to) as part of her background.

[Alrik Vas]

that's a little different, the GM flat out gave it to you.

on another note, I believe the ulti-max uses a single shot railgun as well.

[Killer Cyborg]

that's a little different, the GM flat out gave it to you.

on another note, I believe the ulti-max uses a single shot railgun as well.

Nope.
The VX-180 Maxi-Rail Gun fires 40-round bursts.

[Alrik Vas]

that's...terrible. I hate all these bursting rail guns that don't spray fire...seriously, suppressive fire is an effective part of urban combat, which a great deal of happens in rifts...but nothing does great damage unless its overkill on a single shot, and entire bursts hit the same target. its really frustrating

[flatline]

Not allowing bursts is an arbitrary limitation in the software of the weapon's control system. If it can be programmed to fire 40 rounds in a burst, there's no reason that you couldn't create another burst setting in the software for 20 rounds or 1 round.

Chalk this up to the Authors not thinking things through.

Of course, the idea of railguns shooting bursts is already beyond stupid. They should be shooting single heavy projectiles of varying sophistication. But I've already ranted on that in other threads.

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

Yeah, I'm complaining, but honestly I run it the way I want anyway. most weapons have variable select fire, most "railgun" weapons are single fire weapons. bursting is used, but spray options still exist. I'm even toying with a system that judges how many rounds actually hit based off attack roll, so look at single round damage and multiply by the number of actual hits based off skill.

[Tor]

If it mentions that it can fire one bullet, then it can. If not, then the rule is that it can't.

There isn't any 'unless otherwise indicated' or 'by default' wording in this passing phrase lurking in CB1 (perhaps ONLY there?) so because it's worded so absolutely, 2 exceptions disprove it as any kind of rule, showing it to be more of a mistake.

IF somebody says "Dogs have 4 legs," finding a 3-legged dog doesn't mean that they were wrong, or that their claim was untrue. It just means that there's an exception to the norm.

Saying 'dogs have 4 legs' doesn't even necessarily mean you're describing a norm, just that there are 2 dogs who have 4.

explanation 1 you only have a single round available for it to shoot

So basically it's not possible to terminate the firing mechanism, but if you were in the middle of reloading it and had an odd-numbered amount? In that case if I wanted to snipe I'd just keep an empty rail gun and feed it one round at a time.

explanation 2 (more likely IMO) someone is spraying /or firing wildly, and manages to only hit with 1 round etc.

Sadly no actual rules for this, even though there were spray rules for machine guns I don't recall seeing them for railguns.

NG R-50 is a single shot rail gun rifle. its in merc ops.

Awesome, will go look up. I am prone to seeking out explicit examples like this or the TX-250 to avoid the headache of arguing about it.

The VX-180 Maxi-Rail Gun fires 40-round bursts.

Yup and has that (I think necessary) "only bursts" text and no notation for single round damage.

Odd how the 'no single' or 'burst only' text always seems to coincide with no listing of single round damage.

Can you find a single example of a rail gun that both lists the damage of a single round and explicitly says 'no single rounds' or 'bursts only'? Wonderin'. Would deprive me of confidence to see it.

Not allowing bursts is an arbitrary limitation in the software of the weapon's control system. If it can be programmed to fire 40 rounds in a burst, there's no reason that you couldn't create another burst setting in the software for 20 rounds or 1 round.

I figure it was intentionally designed this way for some guns due to psychology of the designers. Like the gargoyle empire "you're not a wussy sniper, we want you to inflict massive damage, gargoyle horde" so they tell the kittani to not allow single-shot, to remove the confusing option.

Although this doesn't explain why the Ulti-Max can't single-shot, I wouldn't think the NGR to have such a silly-minded philosophy.

[eliakon]

If it mentions that it can fire one bullet, then it can. If not, then the rule is that it can't.

There isn't any 'unless otherwise indicated' or 'by default' wording in this passing phrase lurking in CB1 (perhaps ONLY there?) so because it's worded so absolutely, 2 exceptions disprove it as any kind of rule, showing it to be more of a mistake.

Exceptions to the rule are, by definition exceptions.
The burden is on the exception to show its NOT covered by the regular rule.
The CB1 passage puts forth that this is the rule. Thus, it is the rule.
Exceptions to that rule can exist, but unless something is said to be an exception, it is not an exception and follows the rule.
that is how rules work.....

[Tor]

CB1 passage doesn't use the term rule, it mentions a vague idea of 'for informational purposes only' which doesn't actually mean anything specific. Where else have we seen this expression used by Palladium?

A boom gun's damage is also an informational purpose. What about it is non-informational? Still not an explicit 'can't fire a single'. I see it as best as some oddly phrased "this won't come up much, people tend to burst to get decent damage that can compete" thing.

[Killer Cyborg]

The boom gun's damage is for use.
That's different from "informational purposes only.

[Tor]

How do we know that? If rail gun single shots are for info-only this would include the boom gun.

[Killer Cyborg]

How do we know that? If rail gun single shots are for info-only this would include the boom gun.

[eliakon]

How do we know that? If rail gun single shots are for info-only this would include the boom gun.

Because the Boom-Gun is pretty explicitly stated out to be an exception. It has its rate of fire listed as being single shot. This means that it explicitly does NOT follow the rule on pg9 of the CB1.
Ergo it is an EXCEPTION to the rules. That is what the word exception means, that the normal rule does not apply to this special snowflake.
But exceptions are, by their definition, something that is not the norm. That means that unless a rail gun says that it is an exception to the rules that it follows the rule.

[Tor]

The boom gun is never called an "exception". Nor has there ever been a rule saying "rail guns cannot normally fire single shots". I think the problem here is the assumption "for informational purposes only" necessarily means "cannot fire a single shot".

To understand the meaning, we have to explore: what is a NON-informational purpose? I would argue that the declaration of damage for any kind of attack is all informational.

Not having a burst mode does not mean that 'individual rounds are for informational purposes only' does not apply to your single-round damage.

[eliakon]

The boom gun is never called an "exception". Nor has there ever been a rule saying "rail guns cannot normally fire single shots". I think the problem here is the assumption "for informational purposes only" necessarily means "cannot fire a single shot".

To understand the meaning, we have to explore: what is a NON-informational purpose? I would argue that the declaration of damage for any kind of attack is all informational.

Not having a burst mode does not mean that 'individual rounds are for informational purposes only' does not apply to your single-round damage.

It doesn't have to say "this is an exception" it says "This is the rule" Thus any rail gun that does not explicitly say it has a single shot rate of fire...does not have a single shot rate of fire.
But wait, we go look at the Boom gun....and what do we see? do we lo and behold, we see Rate of Fire: Each blast is one action bursts and sprays are not possible.
Okay then. so
1) unlike Rauls railgun the damage is not 'that of one round' but 'that of one shot'
2) it says that it can not fire bursts.
3) it says that it can only fire single shots
Thus it is not a normal CB1 railgun but a special snowflake. That is how this works.
Raoul's railgun though does NOT have anything that says it can fire single shots. It simply has the damage for a single round which CB1 says is for informational purposes only. Thus with out a statement that it can fire single shots, it can not fire single shots. Because CB1 says it can not fire single shots.

And how much clearer can CB1 be than saying that railguns are burst firing weapons
and informational purposes is 'this is background/color information but the damage the gun can do is the burst damage' this is made clear by the full sentence that says just that.

[Tor]

I'm going to dissect the paragraph in question here (CBp9) sentence-by-sentence to point out the complete thought that is being missed:

The rail gun is a machinegun-like weapon designed to fire controlled and predesignated bursts.

From the get-go, we know this paragraph is not talking about ALL rail guns, but rather, what is common with them. We know there was already a rail gun in existence (the boom gun) which did not fire bursts, so this paragraph is not a rule about rail guns, but rather, a generalization about them. It is not introducing any rules about them or any defaults.

Typically, a burst fires 30 to 40 rounds every one shot.

The term 'typically' is also worth noting here. It elaborates that this paragraph is discussing trends, not rules. It also arguably could paint all the following statements with the 'typically' escape from any "this is a rule" interpretation.

Thus, a character with five attacks per melee can shoot 5 bursts for a total of 150 to 200 rounds.

The term "thus" indicates a continuation of the previous thoughts. We are still only discussing a generalized railgun, not any rules about rail guns. Some rail guns fire 20-round bursts or 60-round bursts. That this example is building upon the "30 to 40" in the previous sentence is not indicating any advanced rate of fire for the 20-round guns or slowed rate of fire for the 60-round guns.

The damage listing for an individual round is given for informational purposes only

Finally we get to the bread and butter. Although not prefixed by a glaring 'thus', one still gets the impression that this is only discussing an undefined 'typical' situation, but it is not explicitly introducing any kind of rule.

"Informational purposes only" is TYPICALLY why it is listed, because firing single shots is unusual, because people are power gamers who like to inflict a lot of damage.

Listing single rounds atypically has a non-informational purposes when players find single rounds advantageous to fire.

it says "This is the rule"

Let's be careful with the quotation marks...

Because CB1 says it can not fire single shots.

No, CB1 has a statement about 'informational purposes' which some here are interpreting to mean that.

[eliakon]

If you want to ignore the published rules, so that you can use a house rule that lets you do something that is not allowed by the actual game books that's fine that is your prerogative.
But the rules books don't support the stance. That is why you would need a house rule to do it.
You can disagree with the rule book, you can decide that you don't want it to apply....but when they say that things work a certain way that is how they work, in canon. You can amend that how ever you want in Houserules, but that is still just an amendment/house rule.

[Tor]

RMB utterly presents the ability to do single shots with the rail guns, and I have discredited RCBp9 as being a universal railgun statement or a clear statement at all. This is not a house rule.

Everywhere 'burst only' or 'no single' is present on a rail gun, the single round damage is not listed.

Everywhere the single round damage is listed, there are no 'burst only' or 'no single' notes.

This overwhelming pattern is a preponderance of evidence, it means something.