Would Glitter Boy Killers still use Plasma missiles or AP?

[Axelmania]

The modifications a god performs on something to make it useful is not "normal"

The boom guns that Anhur and Sebek have are not described as being modified. What skills do you think they have to enact that?

Anhur has advanced math, the appropriate WP, pilot hover vehicle, radio scrambler and computer operation. He doesn't have any listed mechanical or electrical skills. These would certainly be 'of note' if they allowed him to better work with Rifts' Earth's technology. At best he could be expected to know how to reload the weapon and keep track of its payload.

When Anhur has a MODIFIED weapon, that is actually stated. This is the case for his 4th weapon a "Modified Mini-Missile Launcher". It was also the case for his 5th weapon, "specifically built for Anhur". This is not the case for his 3rd weapon. It is not a "Modified Boom Gun" it is simply a "Boom Gun", and it doesn't mention anywhere that it was "modified" or "specially-designed" or "specifically-built" for him.

Given that Siembieda repeatedly goes to the trouble of telling us when Anhur's weapons were modified, him not doing so for the Boom Gun is a strong indication that it was not modified in any way. There is certainly no grounds for saying it was modified when absolutely no text supports that.

It does note matter if the Called shot rules reference the location charts. The location charts provide the rule for location charts.
And the Location charts provide the rule that all listed locations require called shots.
Ergo, they require called shots.

The MbL lists (where does the vernacular 'location' chart come from?) do sometimes state rules. They do that with asterisks and tell us in some specific cases a called shot is needed to hit something.

That doesn't always mean the thing is necessarily part of the main body, it could also be because the thing is small.

This seems to me like a red herring, since there is no asterisk for the boom gun.

I'm not sure how many examples I'll have to give of MbL charts until realization dawns that even if they do most often discuss parts, they do often include non-parts as well.

World Book 9 page 60, the Naza Power Armor "adequate protection until the magic of the suit can be activated and the armor's mega-damage capacity is dramatically increased".

If you look at the MdL list, you'll notice two things which are not increased: the Rocket Rifle/Machinegun and the Missile Launcher on the back torso. They have a constant MDC not increased.

Why not? Obviously because they aren't part of the suit, they are simply extra weapons, 1 held and 1 mounted. If they were parts of the suit, they would fall under the 'capacity is dramatically increased' benefit, but they don't.

getting technical on what "part" does or does not mean still does not change the written rule about called shots.

The word part is integral to the written rules about called shot, whether or not you correctly understand the called shot rules relies on your understanding of how Kevin Siembieda uses the word 'part'.

You have been provided the citation, numerous times, that the Hit Location rules themselves provide the rule. They are an extension of the Called Shot rules if you will

M.D.C. by Location lists are a collection of damage capacity values, they are not rules. Rules govern how we interpret that data.

Rules are sometimes added adjacent to an M.D.C. by Location list via one (*) or two (**) asterisks with explanatory statements following the list.

Any of those which say 'require a called shot' I agree with. Doesn't say it for the boom gun.

In many cases small things are said to need called shots due to being small, not due to being parts.

What you view them as does not change the written rules. the book says that a hit location defines what is the main body... and what is not. And that anything that is listed as a hit location, and is not the main body needs a called shot.

Proof supporting your claim has not been presented in this thread. Are you still relying on this gem I've already responded to?

Main Body: The "main body" of vehicles and giant creatures is typically the largest area of body mass offered by the target. On people/humanoid creatures that is the part of the upper torso (chest and waist). The main body of an automobile is the large body mass that covers the frame. Parts not considered to be part of the main body include the tires/wheels, legs, arms, hands, sensor cluster, headlights, etc. To strike something other than the main body, the attacker must make a "Called Shot," or roll a Natural Twenty. (A Natural 20 always hits its mark, unless an opponent attempting to dodge also rolls a Natural 20.)

If I guessed wrong then please refresh me on the page you're relying on when you make your 'the book' claims.

Where are your 'hit location' statements from? Where does HL appear in the books to support your argument.

It's not an absent phrase from Palladium, I managed to find it on page 333 of Shadow Chronicles under some optional random tables. The examples given are Hands, Arms, Legs, and Main Body. I am comfortable calling those things hit locations.

I don't see any evidence of the phrase applying to everything that's ever been listed on an "M.D.C. by Location" list though.

Where's your response to the issue of force fields?

Do you think force fields must be hit locations on robots and need called shots to be hit? They're on the MbL lists, so they must fall in line, right?

Force Fields, for example, are not parts, and are often listed under the MbL. They do not require a called shot to hit, they in fact protect the main body and other parts (not necessarily all of them) and maybe even non-parts like hand-held weapons.

A false example as Force Fields have specific rules that govern them. Thus they are, by definition, an exception.
Boom guns do NOT have specific text saying that they protect and do NOT get this exception.

Boom guns don't have any specific text saying they're part of the power armor instead of merely an attached weapon system.

Whatever uncertainly may have been present from the main book to Africa was cleared up by World Book 5 when we're explicitly told the Triax version's weight is different because it's built into the power armor, something the classic boomgun obviously isn't since it lacks that 'but' text.

You are--for some reason--fixated on this idea that you've made up that a thing need necessarily be physically attached in some specific way to the target in order to be targeted by a Called Shot. That's your idea, and yours alone.
It's not our idea.
It's not Palladium's idea.
It's just you.

False, as you can see above (and which I have stated before, and which I think you acknowledged) there are other situations which call for called shots aside from being part of a larger target, like being a small target, a moving target, or being behind cover.

Again, your trying to deflect the subject by misinterpreting what is said.
Your argument has been repeatedly that unless a weapon is built into an armor, in a specific way that you have defined, then it does not require a called shot. THAT is your idea and yours alone.

KC stated that I argued something needs to be attached in order to be targeted by a called shot. That is miles away from any argument I've ever made and KC knows that. I was rightly requesting that the sentence be phrased in a way that made sense, like you have done, perhaps having a better insight into KC's thinking than I do.

Although your rewrite is better, it still falls short of the truth though. I have never argued that discreteness = never called shots. I pointed out you could still need them due to smallness, movement or cover.

I'll stop objecting once you correctly frame my argument and stop misrepresenting it.

Its discussed several times in explaining how the Hit Location charts work...

Cool, where? Somewhere else? On this thread guardiandashi mentioned September 10 "I avoid random hit location tables" and then you used the phrase September 18 saying "This is because it is listed as a hit location of the power armor." I've searched after that and still found no association of a page number with the phrase, like I just did above.

Can you find any use of it outside 'random hit location' which, whever I've seen it, is talking about body parts and not guns?

Mbll lists do not dictate target collectivity, as we can see from force fields, missiles and completely detached weapons.

I must as Mbl?
And when the rules say a thing, it sort of does mean a thing.

You keep saying rules but not providing page numbers showing the rules. You are reading MbL narrowly as a 'parts' list and I'm reading it broadly as an 'associated values' list. If you want to support the narrow interpretation you'll need to back it.

Okay, as the books that Kevin Siembieda wrote say "Its that simple"
And its not being "ignored" its is not a thing.
It is your personal house rule that has not a shred of canon support other than your personal house rules that require ignoring the canon hit location rules and the canon called shot rules.

Kevin Siembieda's statements about parts and weight applicability in Shadow Chronicles (and similar vein earlier in Triax) are most definitely a thing.

These are not house rules. Siembieda told us weight is not applicable to state for a gun that's part of a bot. Ergo: if a weight is stated for a gun, it's not part of the bot. Not a house rule, it's very simply reading what Kevin tells us about parts and weight.

Incorrect
All hit locations are, by definition hit locations
It is an axiom All A are A

I'll request everyone here stop using the "hit location" slang unless they can support it in the book.

Glitter Boys have an "M.D.C. by Location" list, please use that. It's long which is why I abbreviate it to MbL. "Hit location" is not an acceptable abbreviation of this concept, it tries to wiggle in new meanings.

As stated above, Force Fields are a red herring because they explicitly have special rules (i.e. by definition Force Fields protect)

They are examples, not red herrings, that MbL lists are not limited to parts of armor and do not universally require called shots to hit everything on them not called 'main'.

Force fields are one of many examples which annihilate this argument and show that judgment has to be used on each item in an MbL list.

and again what is a MbL? I know what a HLC (Hit Location Chart) is but I have no idea what an MbL is

If you're not playing ignorant then this is evidence you haven't read the whole thread, I explained before that MbL is shorthand for M.D.C. by Location, the actual phrase used in the Glitter Boy and many other vehicles we're discussing.

Where is Hit Location Chart used in the books that you're relying on?

I can find 'hit location' in some places in Rifts for you, but it's not doing you any favors.

Game Master Guide page 42 gives "hit location and damage tables" and they are: hands, arms, legs, main body. That's the only place I could find it in that book, and guns aren't mentioned. It's a phrase associated with limbs and optional tables.

Sounds like you're saying that the rules for Called Shots give guns as an example of something which can be considered to be part of a larger target.

That's right, they CAN be. Possibility does not support obligation. Citizens of the United States CAN be president, but that doesn't mean that if a human is a citizen of the US that they ARE a president.

Which means that unless we have any counter-example which shows them NOT being considered to be part of a larger target, then guns can be considered to be part of the larger target.
(Especially since they're listed as a location on the larger target)

"on" isn't something inherent to MbL, and no, saying that guns can be parts of larger targets is not the same as saying guns are parts of larger targets until we're told otherwise, that's unbacked speculation.

And there is no counter-example. There is nothing anywhere in the books that shows that guns--for the purposes of Called Shots--are NOT considered to be part of the larger target.
Nothing.
Nada.

A counter-example isn't needed, things can be considered non-parts until they are explicitly parts. Palladium is sorely lacking in combat examples in its books so I'm not sure what you expect, the closest I can remember is in teh conversion book some Grunt and Cyberknight and one tried to shoot the other in the hand.

And with gun or radio, it's NOT literally talking about part of your body.

Yes it is, guns and radios can be parts of the body, this is Rifts. It's talking about parts of the target so obviously this only means guns and radios which are part of you, not simply held by you.

Same with armor.
But guess what?
Being literally part of the body doesn't matter when it comes to Called Shots.
That's a criteria that you've invented out.

If you'd like to argue target/body as separate concepts that's fine but I'd like to see examples to support the premise.

So... when the RGMG talks about shooting a gun out of somebody's hand using a Called Shot, you think that's talking about a gun that's a part of them...?

No, it's talking about a disarm attack, which like shooting moving objects, shooting small objects, and shooting objects behind cover, are all other examples where called shot comes into play when not hitting parts of larger targets.

That's why guns that aren't physically attached are still listed as hit locations.

M.D.C. by Location lists have never stated that the locations are all part of a unified body or that they present a collective target.

Yeah, they do.
That's why it's listed as "Glitter Boy Power Armor MDC By Location."
The list of locations is necessarily considered to be part of the Glitter Boy Power Armor.

This is fiction you have invented and which the text does not support.

When it says "Model Type: USA-G10," would you argue that it doesn't necessarily refer to the Glitter Boy's model type?

It refers to the Glitter Boy. The Boom Gun has its own model type, the RG-14. As I already showed (WB5p121) with the XM-140's Long Range Missile's presence in MbL, a weapon being listed there doesn't make the weapon system a part of the vehicle, just an associated value because it's a weapon used by the vehicle.

Just like the C-200 isn't part of the FASSAR-30 Skelebot, it's just a weapon it holds and shoots.

When it says "Crew: One pilot," would you argue that it doesn't necessarily refer to the Glitter Boy's crew?
When it says "Speed: Running: 60 mph," would you argue that it doesn't necessarily refer to the Glitter Boy's running speed?
When it says lists the height, width, length, and weight, would you argue that it doesn't necessarily refer to the Glitter Boy's height, width, length, and weight?

You're certainly 'manning the fort today.

When it says "Physical Strenth: Equal to Robot PS of 30," would you argue that it doesn't necessarily refer to the Glitter Boy's Physical Strength?

I would say it refers to the hands not the gun.

When it says "MDC By Location," what the heck would make you think that it's referring to anything other than the Glitter Boy's MDC by location?

MDC amounts in locations relevant to the Glitter Boy.

And having made that last argument, that "MDC by location" does NOT necessarily refer to the Glitter Boy's MDC by location, where does that leave you?
Are you going to then say that MDC By Location is a sole exception for some reason, that everything else in the armor stats does necessarily belong to the Glitter Boy, but that MDC By Location for some reason does not?

Your premise doesn't make any sense. Boom Guns do not run, they do not leap, they aren't armor, they aren't a robot.

Or are you going to double down on your argument, and instead claim that no, none of the things listed as the GB's stats are necessarily actually the GB's?

That wasn't my argument to begin with. Take a step back and re-assess the closeness of this line of thought to what I've written.

I've always viewed it to mean associated locations.

Oh, sure.
And the Physical Strength is just the PS of people standing near the GB, not actually of the GB.
Oh, hey!! Maybe the model type is the just the name of toy models that are associated with the GB, but not actually the GB's model type!
That makes sense.

As I point out above, weapon systems have their own model names, USA-G10 refers to the suit, not the boomgun. That's wise, for example, ever since the main book, it was 15 million 'rebuilt or without gun'. The boom gun makes the power armor "complete" as they are part of a set designed to work together in symetry. That doesn't make it a PART though.

Force Fields, for example, are not parts, and are often listed under the MbL. They do not require a called shot to hit, they in fact protect the main body and other parts (not necessarily all of them) and maybe even non-parts like hand-held weapons.

A thing need not require a Called Shot in order to be a hit location on a larger target.

You might want to talk to eliakon about that. I may be carrying on 2 slightly different avenues of argument, if you could resolve the differences and consolidate both of yours into 1 that would be fairer.

You are--for some reason--fixated on this idea that you've made up that a thing need necessarily be physically attached in some specific way to the target in order to be targeted by a Called Shot. That's your idea, and yours alone.
It's not our idea.
It's not Palladium's idea.
It's just you.

False, as you can see above (and which I have stated before, and which I think you acknowledged) there are other situations which call for called shots aside from being part of a larger target, like being a small target, a moving target, or being behind cover.

That's not a counter-argument.
That's just so many more examples of things NOT necessarily needing to be attached to the main target in a specific way in order to be hit with a Called Shot.

I offer counter-arguments to arguments. You may have intended an honest argument but you phrased it as a falsehood, saying I made up the idea that something needs to be attached to be targeted by a called shot. I was disputing this falsehood, not counter-arguing.

Rephrase your summary so it accurately reflects the views I've expressed and then we can talk about potential counter-arguing.

MbL lists do not dictate target collectivity, as we can see from force fields, missiles and completely detached weapons.

Wrong.
It's the other way around.
The existence of such things on the list of hit locations means that they're considered to be part of the larger target when it comes to incoming attacks.

There is no "list of hit locations".

"Hit Location" is a completely separate idea we see in optional damage tables for hand/arm/foot/leg/main which excludes guns.

There is "M.D.C. by Location" or MbL for convenience. I guess DCbL or MDCbDL could also work but I was going for brevity.

A robot's force field is (surprise, surprise) considered to be part of the robot in the context of incoming attacks. The existence of the things you list demonstrates that they are considered part of the larger target, nothing else.

Force Fields are NOT considered to be part of a vehicle. DB3p108 makes this obvious "If a missile strike penetrates a force field, divide its damage by TEN before applying it to the ship's hulls and components"

This obviously means the force field is not considered a ship component. Or more simply "the ship is no longer protected by the force field".

If the force field were considered to be part of the ship it would not be talked about separately like this.

Force Fields, like guns, are additional items that vehicles sometimes have grouped with them.

This grouping-presentation is standard for Palladium. Using Africa again, on page 4 under the Table of Contents is a header called "Gods of Darkness" beginning on page 38 and lasting until Gods of Light begins on page 47.

That doesn't necessarily mean that everything listed in these 9 pages is a 'god of darkness'.

'Gods of Darkness' is simply the main topic, just as the Glitter Boy Power Armor is the main topic of a body of statements.

Page 40 lists 2 rune weapons for Set. That doesn't make his Impaler a 'God of Darkness' nor are these weapons part of Set just because they're listed under a section entitled Set: God of Darkness.

This is a basic example that you can't simply assume a heading to apply to every single thing listed in a description.

He's made it quite clear that weapons which are 'part' of a robot don't normally get a stated weight.

Weight has exactly two things to do with Called Shots:
1. Jack.
2. All.

Called Shots aren't the central argument here, we were discussing whether or not a main body restriction applies.

completely detached guns like the C-200 are considered to be locations of the power armor/bot in question when it comes to incoming attacks.

No, MDC by Location only necessarily means that it pertains to, not that it is part of.

It's part of a set WITH the power armor, not a part of it. They compliment each other. Like how I might list Set's allies without them being part of him.

[eliakon]

Axle. Lets try this again.

We start with Glitter Boy yes?

RUE Page 71
M.D.C. by Location
Rail gun (a.k.a. Boom Gun) - 175
Head
Hands (2)
Arms (2)
Legs (2)
Reinforced Pilot's Compartment
** Main Body - 770

Note that the Boom Gun is not the Main Body?


Now we go to page 40 of the GMG
"The Main Body: The main body is typically the largest area of body mas offered by the target. On people that is the upper torso. The main body of an automobile is the large body mass that covers the frame. Parts not considered to be the main body include the tires/wheels, legs, arms, hands, sensor cluster, mirrors, headlights, radiator grille, weapon turrets, hover jets, and so on. Each full description of 'bots and vehicles indicates what is the main body and what is not. To strike something other than the main body, the attacker must make an aimed, "Called Shot," or roll a natural twenty"

There are some important bits here

Lets see. We have 10 locations listed. The main body and 9 others. Since they are NOT the main body they are, thus by process of elimination "something other than the main body" And that means that the rule that they need a called shot to hit applies.

There can be exceptions to this yes. But those exceptions would be, by their nature exceptions. Exceptions to rules are done on a basis of "rules apply unless there is a reason to provide an exception" There is, to the best of my knowledge, no excpetion provided for the Boom Gun. In the absence of that exception then the rule stands.

The rule does not care about weights. Only if it is the Main Body or not
The rule does not care just how built in or not an item is. Only if it is the Main Body or not
The rule does not care if an item has its own power supply or not. Only if it is the Main Body or not.
The rule, literally only cares about one thing. Is it the Main Body? That is the ONLY thing that applies.

Arguing about weights, or parts, or power supplies are irrelevant red herrings because they do not apply to the actual rule.

[Blue_Lion]

Axelmaina you need to address the quote from page 40 of the rGMG that has been made repeatably. You ignore it and make statements in direct contradiction.

Now we go to page 40 of the GMG
"The Main Body: The main body is typically the largest area of body mas offered by the target. On people that is the upper torso. The main body of an automobile is the large body mass that covers the frame. Parts not considered to be the main body include the tires/wheels, legs, arms, hands, sensor cluster, mirrors, headlights, radiator grille, weapon turrets, hover jets, and so on. Each full description of 'bots and vehicles indicates what is the main body and what is not. To strike something other than the main body, the attacker must make an aimed, "Called Shot," or roll a natural twenty"

That is a book statement that says what is and is not the main body.

The statement -"each full description of 'bots and vehicles indicates what is the main body and what is not."-
does under mine you whole stance. The boom gun is not indicated as a main body in the full description of the gb that makes it not the main body and thus by the rules requires a called shot or a natural 20 to hit when it is being used by a glitter boy.

[guardiandashi]

Axelmaina you need to address the quote from page 40 of the rGMG that has been made repeatably. You ignore it and make statements in direct contradiction.

Now we go to page 40 of the GMG
"The Main Body: The main body is typically the largest area of body mas offered by the target. On people that is the upper torso. The main body of an automobile is the large body mass that covers the frame. Parts not considered to be the main body include the tires/wheels, legs, arms, hands, sensor cluster, mirrors, headlights, radiator grille, weapon turrets, hover jets, and so on. Each full description of 'bots and vehicles indicates what is the main body and what is not. To strike something other than the main body, the attacker must make an aimed, "Called Shot," or roll a natural twenty"

That is a book statement that says what is and is not the main body.

The statement -"each full description of 'bots and vehicles indicates what is the main body and what is not."-
does under mine you whole stance. The boom gun is not indicated as a main body in the full description of the gb that makes it not the main body and thus by the rules requires a called shot or a natural 20 to hit when it is being used by a glitter boy.

in addition when its listing damage capacity by location EVERY SINGLE CASE where it has * ** *** or similar will say something like:
* is a small or difficult target to strike, Requiring the attacker to make a "called shot," but even then the attacker is at -4 to strike ( example super SAMAS coalition war campaign pg 118) referenced locations are: shoulder wings (2) lower maneuvering jets (3) rear, ammo drum (1: hip mounted) rail gun (1) forearm - Vibro-Blades (6) Forearm Grenade launchers (2) Hands (2)

the point is there are some locations like the legs, rear main thrusters etc. that do not have the note adding the "special case targeting modifier" indicated by the single *
this does NOT mean that they do NOT require a called shot to hit (that is the standard rule ALWAYS APPLIED) but that they do not have an additional specific hit penalty in addition to the normal called shot requirement.

[Blue_Lion]

The only thing that matters is we have a rule pg 40 gmg stating that the write up will tell us what is a main body and what is not. It then says to strike something other than the main body requires a called shot or natural 20 to be hit.

This means we can use a simply flow chart to determine if it takes a called shot to hit the boom gun on a GB.

Step 1 Is it in the write up of the GB? (Yes-run a check on step 2 and 3) (No-this rule does not apply.)
Step 2 Is it listed as a main body in the full write up? (Yes- no called shot needed default hit location) (No-Called shot or a natural required to hit it.)

Another one can be used for missiles; do to the always hits the main body clause in RUE.
Step 3 Is it in the write up of the GB as main body? (yes-missiles can hit it.) (No-missiles can not hit it as it is not the units main body.)

[Axelmania]

Axelmaina you need to address the quote from page 40 of the rGMG that has been made repeatably. You ignore it and make statements in direct contradiction.

Page 40 was first referenced in this thread September 19 by Killer Cyborg. I got burned-out replying to eliakon, put off and then forgot to reply to it.

It's still only talking about what is and isn't the main body of a bot or vehicle, which is a continuance of the discussion of "specific part" from page 39.

"Parts not considered to be part of the main body include the tires/wheels, legs, arms, hands, sensor cluster, mirrors, headlights, radiator grille, weapon turrets, hover jets" is a pretty decent argument supporting a view of turrets as parts, but it doesn't help merely with hand-held weapons, even ones which you shoulder-mount or stabilize with a ball-joint.

The fact remains that being included on a MbL listing doesn't make something a "part" of the topic, it only means pertainment.

WB5p84 for example, 5 MDC is listed for the TX-30 Ion Pulse Rifle (probably a typo with accidental ommission of a 0, since page 14 of CB1 says the typical Triax Rifle has 50 MDC) under the M.D.C. by Location: list for the Triax DV-15 Sentry-Bot.

This is just some gun the bot is carrying, it still is an entirely distinct body, it doesn't share a body with the DV-15 just because he's carrying it.

The statement -"each full description of 'bots and vehicles indicates what is the main body and what is not."-
does under mine you whole stance. The boom gun is not indicated as a main body in the full description of the gb that makes it not the main body and thus by the rules requires a called shot or a natural 20 to hit when it is being used by a glitter boy.

Separate bodies sometimes have MDC listed for convenience under MbL, when viewing 40 in the context of a continuation of parts-discussion from 39 it is only relevant to the MDC of things which are already established as being parts of the bot/PA

in addition when its listing damage capacity by location EVERY SINGLE CASE where it has * ** *** or similar will say something like:
* is a small or difficult target to strike, Requiring the attacker to make a "called shot," but even then the attacker is at -4 to strike ( example super SAMAS coalition war campaign pg 118) referenced locations are: shoulder wings (2) lower maneuvering jets (3) rear, ammo drum (1: hip mounted) rail gun (1) forearm - Vibro-Blades (6) Forearm Grenade launchers (2) Hands (2)

the point is there are some locations like the legs, rear main thrusters etc. that do not have the note adding the "special case targeting modifier" indicated by the single *
this does NOT mean that they do NOT require a called shot to hit (that is the standard rule ALWAYS APPLIED) but that they do not have an additional specific hit penalty in addition to the normal called shot requirement.

I wouldn't rely on that to support your argument. If called shots were automatically necessary for anything not 'main body' on an MbL then there would be no purpose in stating "can only be hit on a called shot" because that would already be understood.

You would simply give the penalty to hit.

The only thing that matters is we have a rule pg 40 gmg stating that the write up will tell us what is a main body and what is not. It then says to strike something other than the main body requires a called shot or natural 20 to be hit.

Which certainly applies to any PART of the PA. Not anything on an MbL list included for convenience (like a TX-30 rifle, or a long range missile) which is clearly not a part of the bot/vehicle.

Another one can be used for missiles; do to the always hits the main body clause in RUE.
Step 3 Is it in the write up of the GB as main body? (yes-missiles can hit it.) (No-missiles can not hit it as it is not the units main body.)

Missiles aren't very good sharp-shooters because they don't have a WP skill and can't make called shots, that's why if I wanted to hit something with a missile I'd let a missileer strike instead of the missile itself. Luckily there is no 'missileers always hit the main body" statement out there.

[Blue_Lion]

Axelmaina you need to address the quote from page 40 of the rGMG that has been made repeatably. You ignore it and make statements in direct contradiction.

Page 40 was first referenced in this thread September 19 by Killer Cyborg. I got burned-out replying to eliakon, put off and then forgot to reply to it.

It's still only talking about what is and isn't the main body of a bot or vehicle, which is a continuance of the discussion of "specific part" from page 39.

"Parts not considered to be part of the main body include the tires/wheels, legs, arms, hands, sensor cluster, mirrors, headlights, radiator grille, weapon turrets, hover jets" is a pretty decent argument supporting a view of turrets as parts, but it doesn't help merely with hand-held weapons, even ones which you shoulder-mount or stabilize with a ball-joint.

The fact remains that being included on a MbL listing doesn't make something a "part" of the topic, it only means pertainment.

WB5p84 for example, 5 MDC is listed for the TX-30 Ion Pulse Rifle (probably a typo with accidental ommission of a 0, since page 14 of CB1 says the typical Triax Rifle has 50 MDC) under the M.D.C. by Location: list for the Triax DV-15 Sentry-Bot.

This is just some gun the bot is carrying, it still is an entirely distinct body, it doesn't share a body with the DV-15 just because he's carrying it.

The statement -"each full description of 'bots and vehicles indicates what is the main body and what is not."-
does under mine you whole stance. The boom gun is not indicated as a main body in the full description of the gb that makes it not the main body and thus by the rules requires a called shot or a natural 20 to hit when it is being used by a glitter boy.

Separate bodies sometimes have MDC listed for convenience under MbL, when viewing 40 in the context of a continuation of parts-discussion from 39 it is only relevant to the MDC of things which are already established as being parts of the bot/PA

in addition when its listing damage capacity by location EVERY SINGLE CASE where it has * ** *** or similar will say something like:
* is a small or difficult target to strike, Requiring the attacker to make a "called shot," but even then the attacker is at -4 to strike ( example super SAMAS coalition war campaign pg 118) referenced locations are: shoulder wings (2) lower maneuvering jets (3) rear, ammo drum (1: hip mounted) rail gun (1) forearm - Vibro-Blades (6) Forearm Grenade launchers (2) Hands (2)

the point is there are some locations like the legs, rear main thrusters etc. that do not have the note adding the "special case targeting modifier" indicated by the single *
this does NOT mean that they do NOT require a called shot to hit (that is the standard rule ALWAYS APPLIED) but that they do not have an additional specific hit penalty in addition to the normal called shot requirement.

I wouldn't rely on that to support your argument. If called shots were automatically necessary for anything not 'main body' on an MbL then there would be no purpose in stating "can only be hit on a called shot" because that would already be understood.

You would simply give the penalty to hit.

The only thing that matters is we have a rule pg 40 gmg stating that the write up will tell us what is a main body and what is not. It then says to strike something other than the main body requires a called shot or natural 20 to be hit.

Which certainly applies to any PART of the PA. Not anything on an MbL list included for convenience (like a TX-30 rifle, or a long range missile) which is clearly not a part of the bot/vehicle.

Another one can be used for missiles; do to the always hits the main body clause in RUE.
Step 3 Is it in the write up of the GB as main body? (yes-missiles can hit it.) (No-missiles can not hit it as it is not the units main body.)

Missiles aren't very good sharp-shooters because they don't have a WP skill and can't make called shots, that's why if I wanted to hit something with a missile I'd let a missileer strike instead of the missile itself. Luckily there is no 'missileers always hit the main body" statement out there.

DO YOU HAVE A QUOTE THAT SAYS THINGS ARE INCLUDED ON THE LIST FOR CONVINCE AND THE RULE THAT WAS QUOTED DOES NOT APPLY OR ARE YOU COUNTERING A RULE WITH YOUR OPINION?
Basically you are using your opinion to argue agaisnt rules with support for your opinion not rules. Unless you can provide rules to support your entire last post was countering a rule with your opinion and basically just trolling. Until you can post a clear rule supporting your statements do not post your opinion as fact. (Really they said they would tell us what is the main body and the words main body appear, so everything else is not he main body as it says in the rule, if the boom gun had a main body for combat it would have its own listing in the write up.)



Sure there is not missileer always strike the main body, so he could in theory walk up hit/hit it any where. How ever any missile he shoots has to strike the main body. The rule is covering the type of weapon used not some made up special case you want to use in house rules.

I do not care what you think if it is not a rule it does not matter in discussions of RAW like this.

[Killer Cyborg]

Sounds like you're saying that the rules for Called Shots give guns as an example of something which can be considered to be part of a larger target.

That's right, they CAN be. Possibility does not support obligation. Citizens of the United States CAN be president, but that doesn't mean that if a human is a citizen of the US that they ARE a president.

And it sounds like you have zero examples of guns NOT being able to be hit by Called Shots.

Which means that unless we have any counter-example which shows them NOT being considered to be part of a larger target, then guns can be considered to be part of the larger target.
(Especially since they're listed as a location on the larger target)

"on" isn't something inherent to MbL,

You're delving into pointless semantics here.
The point is that the locations listed are the Glitter Boy's locations.
That's why they're listed as part of the Glitter Boy's stats.
Just like the GB's weight is necessarily the GB's weight.
Just like the GB's running speed is necessarily the GB's running speed.
Just like the Glitter Boy's PS is necessarily the Glitter Boy's PS, and so forth.

The stats of a suit of power armor are necessarily the stats of that suit of power armor.
A=A.
It is a truism.

And there is no counter-example. There is nothing anywhere in the books that shows that guns--for the purposes of Called Shots--are NOT considered to be part of the larger target.
Nothing.
Nada.

A counter-example isn't needed,

Yeah, it is, in order for your claim to make any sense (which it still doesn't).

The RGMG twice lists guns as being able to be targeted as part of the larger body.
No book ever mentions guns NOT being able to be targeted as part of the larger body.
In order for you to make the claim that guns are NOT able to be targeted as part of the larger body, you need to come up with direct support.
Your made-up theory about things needing to be attached in a certain way is not support.

things can be considered non-parts until they are explicitly parts.

When something is listed as one of a power armor's locations, then it is explicitly considered part of that power armor.
That's why the rules specify that anything other than the main body needs a Called Shot to strike. The MDC by location section describes what constitutes the Main Body. The MDC by location section also describes all parts of the power armor that are NOT considered to be the Main Body.

And with gun or radio, it's NOT literally talking about part of your body.

Yes it is, guns and radios can be parts of the body, this is Rifts.

Can be, yes.
But are not parts of the body as a default.

It's talking about parts of the target so obviously this only means guns and radios which are part of you, not simply held by you.

Incorrect.
The gun--or any other object held in the hand--is considered to be part of the larger target.
This is why guns that are not physically attached to the larger target are still listed as a location of the larger target.

So... when the RGMG talks about shooting a gun out of somebody's hand using a Called Shot, you think that's talking about a gun that's a part of them...?

No, it's talking about a disarm attack, which like shooting moving objects, shooting small objects, and shooting objects behind cover, are all other examples where called shot comes into play when not hitting parts of larger targets.

No. Disarm is a specifically different maneuver than a Called Shot, and this section specifies a Called Shot when discussing shooting the gun out of somebody's hand.
Read the rules.

RGMG 39
In the Called Shot section:
To make a called Shot, the player must "call" or "announce" his character's intension [sic]; i.e., "I'm going to shoot the gun from his hand."

Disarm is is an entirely different combat maneuver. It is described on p. 29 of the RGMG, and it does not include nor require a Called Shot.

The list of locations is necessarily considered to be part of the Glitter Boy Power Armor.

This is fiction you have invented and which the text does not support.

Keep telling yourself that, but it's the exact meaning of the words.
The list of locations are necessarily--by the very meaning of the words on the page--the Glitter Boy's locations.
That's why they're "Locations" listed as part of "The Glitter Boy's" stats.
They are quite literally "The Glitter Boy's Locations."
There is no other way to interpret the words that conforms to the nature of the English language (nor any other language with which I am familiar).

When it says "Model Type: USA-G10," would you argue that it doesn't necessarily refer to the Glitter Boy's model type?

It refers to the Glitter Boy.

Wait...
How do you know that it's not just a model type that's associated with the Glitter Boy...?
I mean, if the MDC By Locations are only "associated" with the GB, but they don't actually belong to the GB, how can you be certain of any of the GB's other stats?

Can it be that you know that the Model Type necessarily describes the GB--not just some unnamed thing that is associated with the GB--because the model type is part of the GB's stats?

If so, then great!
You're at least halfway to an understanding that because the MDC by location section is part of the GB's stats, that it necessarily describes the GB's locations.
Just like the model type describes the GB's model type, because it is likewise part of the GB's stats.

When it says "Crew: One pilot," would you argue that it doesn't necessarily refer to the Glitter Boy's crew?
When it says "Speed: Running: 60 mph," would you argue that it doesn't necessarily refer to the Glitter Boy's running speed?
When it says lists the height, width, length, and weight, would you argue that it doesn't necessarily refer to the Glitter Boy's height, width, length, and weight?

You're certainly 'manning the fort today.

You're dodging the point.

When it says "Physical Strenth: Equal to Robot PS of 30," would you argue that it doesn't necessarily refer to the Glitter Boy's Physical Strength?

I would say it refers to the hands not the gun.

First off, this quote is not about the gun.
This quote is about your idea that the stats of a power armor describe things "associated" with the power armor, instead of describing the power armor itself.
Is the Physical Strength listed:
a) The GB's physical strength
or
b) A physical Strength that is NOT the GB's, but is only associated with the GB?

Second off, the PS stat doesn't refer only to the hands. It refers also the the arms, legs, and any other part of the power armor where the PS score is applicable.
This is just a side note. The real point here is that the PS listed is the GB's PS, not a PS that is merely somehow "associated" with the GB.

When it says "MDC By Location," what the heck would make you think that it's referring to anything other than the Glitter Boy's MDC by location?

MDC amounts in locations relevant to the Glitter Boy.

Nope.
The stats necessarily describe what is being statted.
The PS listed? That's the GB's PS. It is not "PS that is relevant to the GB, but that does not belong to the GB."
The weight listed? That's the GB's weight. It is not "weight that is relevant to the GB, but that does not belong to the GB."
That running speed? That's the GB's running speed. It is not "running speed that is relevant to the GB, but does not belong to the GB."

See the pattern?

The stats necessarily describe what is being statted.
A power armor's stats are the power armor's stats.
They are NOT stats that are associated with the power armor, but which do not belong to the power armor.
The stats describe subsets of the larger set.
The Glitter Boy has x PS.
The Glitter Boy has y speed.
The Glitter Boy has MDC in locations a, b, c, d, etc.

That's how stats work.

And having made that last argument, that "MDC by location" does NOT necessarily refer to the Glitter Boy's MDC by location, where does that leave you?
Are you going to then say that MDC By Location is a sole exception for some reason, that everything else in the armor stats does necessarily belong to the Glitter Boy, but that MDC By Location for some reason does not?

Your premise doesn't make any sense. Boom Guns do not run, they do not leap, they aren't armor, they aren't a robot.

My premise in this point doesn't have anything to do directly with the boom gun, which is why I didn't mention the boom gun.
Since you have missed my premise, I will again clarify for you:

You argued that the MDC By Location stats under the Glitter Boy are not necessarily stats that belong to the Glitter Boy, but are instead stats that are merely "associated" with the Glitter Boy.
What I'm doing in the part that you have quoted is showing you in detail that your claim is absurd, that the stats of a power armor (or bot, or vehicle, or whatever) are necessarily belonging TO that power armor ( or bot, or vehicle, or whatever).
In this case, I'm pointing at running speed (not the boom gun), and I'm directly asking you if you would ever on a sane and sober day even attempt to claim that the Running Speed stat listed under the Glitter Boy does not necessarily belong to the Glitter Boy, but that it instead is only "associated" with the Glitter Boy.
I am not mentioning the Boom gun here.
I am not saying anything about the Running Speed stat belonging to the Boom Gun.
I am simply asking you this:
Do you see ANY basis to claim that the Running Speed stat belongs to anything other than the Glitter Boy itself, or that it is only "associated" with the Glitter Boy, instead of belonging TO the Glitter Boy?
Yes or no?

Or are you going to double down on your argument, and instead claim that no, none of the things listed as the GB's stats are necessarily actually the GB's?

That wasn't my argument to begin with. Take a step back and re-assess the closeness of this line of thought to what I've written.

Fair enough.
Your argument is actually (correct me if I'm wrong) that even though all the stats of a Glitter Boy (running speed, PS, etc.) ARE necessarily belonging to the Glitter Boy, and even though all the MDC By Location stats are as a rule belonging to the Glitter Boy, and even though the gun is never stated to be any kind of exception to this standard rule of how stats work, that the gun is NOT a location belonging to the Glitter Boy?

it was 15 million 'rebuilt or without gun'. The boom gun makes the power armor "complete" as they are part of a set designed to work together in symetry. That doesn't make it a PART though.

You could likewise purchase a used GB suit without a leg.
Or you could purchase a GB leg without the rest of the suit.
That doesn't mean that the leg is not part of the suit.

You are--for some reason--fixated on this idea that you've made up that a thing need necessarily be physically attached in some specific way to the target in order to be targeted by a Called Shot. That's your idea, and yours alone.
It's not our idea.
It's not Palladium's idea.
It's just you...

...You may have intended an honest argument but you phrased it as a falsehood, saying I made up the idea that something needs to be attached to be targeted by a called shot. I was disputing this falsehood, not counter-arguing.

Rephrase your summary so it accurately reflects the views I've expressed and then we can talk about potential counter-arguing.

I'll quote you directly:

You still have to verify that something is a part of a larger target before requiring a called shot to hit it, or that the thing is its main body.

called shot rules only apply to parts or things within larger targets

Called shot rules only apply to things on those lists which are parts.

Boom guns don't have any specific text saying they're part of the power armor instead of merely an attached weapon system.

Whatever uncertainly may have been present from the main book to Africa was cleared up by World Book 5 when we're explicitly told the Triax version's weight is different because it's built into the power armor, something the classic boomgun obviously isn't since it lacks that 'but' text.

You claim that a weapon needs to be specifically "built in" to power armor or a vehicle in order to be "part of the larger target," and that a weapon needs to be "part of the larger target" in order to be hit with a Called Shot.
But your standard of needing to be built in in some particular way, up to some particular standard in your head, is something that you've made up, that exists only within your head.
It means nothing to any of the rest of us.
It means nothing to Palladium.

For the purposes of the game, it's very clear that guns are considered to be part of power armor (in the context of Called Shots) whether or not they're "built in."
That's why they're listed in the MDC by location section: they're considered locations of the power armor that have MDC.
That's why the rules state that "guns" ("guns" with no qualifiers: not "built-in guns," not "guns which are physically attached in some specific way," etc.) are able to be hit by Called Shots, in the context of shooting at parts of the larger target.
That's why the rules for Called Shots ( not the rules for Disarm) specifically discuss shooting guns out of the hands of the larger target using Called Shots, something which wouldn't be possible as a rule if the gun was Built In (or whatever other imaginary standard you have in your head).

MbL lists do not dictate target collectivity, as we can see from force fields, missiles and completely detached weapons.

Wrong.
It's the other way around.
The existence of such things on the list of hit locations means that they're considered to be part of the larger target when it comes to incoming attacks.

There is no "list of hit locations".

"Hit Location" is a completely separate idea we see in optional damage tables for hand/arm/foot/leg/main which excludes guns.

There is "M.D.C. by Location" or MbL for convenience. I guess DCbL or MDCbDL could also work but I was going for brevity.

...And when your semantic tap-dance routine is over, we're still looking at this:
The existence of such things on the "MDC by location" list means that they're considered to be part of the larger target when it comes to incoming attacks.

A robot's force field is (surprise, surprise) considered to be part of the robot in the context of incoming attacks. The existence of the things you list demonstrates that they are considered part of the larger target, nothing else.

Force Fields are NOT considered to be part of a vehicle. DB3p108 makes this obvious "If a missile strike penetrates a force field, divide its damage by TEN before applying it to the ship's hulls and components"

That does not state that a force field is not considered to be part of the vehicle.

That doesn't necessarily mean that everything listed in these 9 pages is a 'god of darkness'.

'Gods of Darkness' is simply the main topic, just as the Glitter Boy Power Armor is the main topic of a body of statements.

Chapter headings don't work the same as equipment stats.
But hey, you've found your argument for claiming that the PS score listed under GB is NOT the GB's PS score, but is only "associated" with the GB.
Congrats, and have fun riding that one into the ground.

He's made it quite clear that weapons which are 'part' of a robot don't normally get a stated weight.

Weight has exactly two things to do with Called Shots:
1. Jack.
2. All.

Called Shots aren't the central argument here, we were discussing whether or not a main body restriction applies.[/quote]

In the context of Called Shots, NOT in the context of encumberance.
So skip trying to talk about weights.

[Killer Cyborg]

What a lot of this comes down to is simple plausibility.

We have on one hand, the scenario that:
Kevin wrote the Called Shot rules with guns in mind, which is why guns are listed as locations, and which is why guns are used as examples of the kind of thing that Called Shots are intended for.

We have on the other hand, the scenario that:
Kevin wrote the Called Shots rule with body parts in mind, and that...
-when he lists guns as locations, we are intended to look at the gun's weight and/or how the gun is attached before knowing whether a Called Shot is applicable to the gun.
-when he lists guns as being able to be targeted by Called Shots (as part of the larger target) he intends for us to understand that he doesn't mean guns in their most typical form, that of un-attached accessories, but rather he means a narrow section of guns which are built-in to the larger target in certain ways.
-When he was writing up the Called Shots rules, and he describes needing a Called Shot in order to shoot the gun out of somebody's hand, he's really switched topics to the Disarm maneuver without telling us, and is for some reason still talking about making a Called Shot.

One of these scenarios is simple and plausible, and it fits with Kevin's simple style of GMing and RPG design.
The other of these scenario is not simple, is not plausible, and does not fit.

That's what it all really comes down to, and we all know it.
So if I don't bother to respond further to this thread, it's simply because no further response is necessary.

(Indeed, no further response has been necessary for quite some time, but at this point even the vague and dubious joys of arguing semantics and pointing out logical fallacies has run pretty dry.)

[Blue_Lion]

Seams how his augment seams to lack any real support, and he ignored a key point(for 8 days even though it was listed multiple times) until I called him out on ignoring it, I am willing to bet he is creating an argument for the sake of arguing. To me appears to be trolling us using semantic tap dancing and not rule support.

Warning: Don't get personal. Mack

[eliakon]

Seams how his augment seams to lack any real support, and he ignored a key point(for 8 days even though it was listed multiple times) until I called him out on ignoring it, I am willing to bet he is creating an argument for the sake of arguing. To me appears to be trolling us using semantic tap dancing and not rule support.

Or a desire to 'have the last word'
So he will just continue to repeat the same discredited statements over and over until no one bothers to call him on it, and he can then 'win' by having the last word
Its a pretty common behavior in forums I have seen.

Warning: Don't get personal. Mack