Glitter Boy Killer Mini-Missile Question

[Axelmania]

Axel since you don't seem to "get it" I will try to explain step by step the issue with your insistence on your view of the glitterboy killers minimissiles and why NO ONE who has posted agrees with you.

I agree with him in principle, the rules exists within RAW (BOTH RMB & RUE) to allow for it. So it isn't "NO ONE".

Missiles in general under RMB-era where not subject to specific WP classification (IINM), but Mini-Missile description in RMB had a description that basically worked as a WP since they where not guided, unlike the rest.

Under RUE, missiles in general are now all unguided unless specified (and retroactively to). However Mini-Missiles are now subject to WP bonuses, unlike other missile types. And WP rules allow for additional bonuses to be gained depending on the type of shot being taken as they (WP rules) don't make an exception for not applying to specific weapons that they cover (in this case mini-missiles because regular missiles aren't subject to WP bonuses).

And saying that "missiles always hit the main body" is really redundant, because IINM all attacks hit the Main Body by Default mechanically speaking. And you can't make a called shot per the rules without a WP.

I think people's big worry is what happens if short/medium/long range missiles could also do called shots, mini-missiles are the only ones explicitly identified under WP so while the others could also conceivable (as weapons on military vehicles) since they aren't explicitly identified (and some make the argument that only missiles should get the rub since they are singled out) I understand GMs who want to rule no called shots with the Sh/Me/Lo ones.

Which retroactively (since originally you didn't need WP to do called shots) would explain why the natural choice of a short-range missile against the Glitter Boy (5 mile armor piercing missiles can fire outside the Boomgun's range) wasn't taken, an inability to do called shots against the boomgun, the primary tactic. If you simply wanted to pelt the main body with short range missiles a Flying Titan is a better choice.

[eliakon]

Axel since you don't seem to "get it" I will try to explain step by step the issue with your insistence on your view of the glitterboy killers minimissiles and why NO ONE who has posted agrees with you.

I agree with him in principle, the rules exists within RAW (BOTH RMB & RUE) to allow for it. So it isn't "NO ONE".

Missiles in general under RMB-era where not subject to specific WP classification (IINM), but Mini-Missile description in RMB had a description that basically worked as a WP since they where not guided, unlike the rest.

Under RUE, missiles in general are now all unguided unless specified (and retroactively to). However Mini-Missiles are now subject to WP bonuses, unlike other missile types. And WP rules allow for additional bonuses to be gained depending on the type of shot being taken as they (WP rules) don't make an exception for not applying to specific weapons that they cover (in this case mini-missiles because regular missiles aren't subject to WP bonuses).

And saying that "missiles always hit the main body" is really redundant, because IINM all attacks hit the Main Body by Default mechanically speaking. And you can't make a called shot per the rules without a WP.

Its not redundant though because while other weapons are "Always hits the main body unless its a called shot" for missiles it is "Always hits the main body" with no option of "...unless its a called shot"

Or put more simply
The rules have been changed and what was legal in RMB days have been made illegal in RUE days.
That is why they called it RUE and not just "tenth printing" or some such.
They changed the rules.

[HWalsh]

Axel since you don't seem to "get it" I will try to explain step by step the issue with your insistence on your view of the glitterboy killers minimissiles and why NO ONE who has posted agrees with you.

I agree with him in principle, the rules exists within RAW (BOTH RMB & RUE) to allow for it. So it isn't "NO ONE".

Missiles in general under RMB-era where not subject to specific WP classification (IINM), but Mini-Missile description in RMB had a description that basically worked as a WP since they where not guided, unlike the rest.

Under RUE, missiles in general are now all unguided unless specified (and retroactively to). However Mini-Missiles are now subject to WP bonuses, unlike other missile types. And WP rules allow for additional bonuses to be gained depending on the type of shot being taken as they (WP rules) don't make an exception for not applying to specific weapons that they cover (in this case mini-missiles because regular missiles aren't subject to WP bonuses).

And saying that "missiles always hit the main body" is really redundant, because IINM all attacks hit the Main Body by Default mechanically speaking. And you can't make a called shot per the rules without a WP.

I think people's big worry is what happens if short/medium/long range missiles could also do called shots, mini-missiles are the only ones explicitly identified under WP so while the others could also conceivable (as weapons on military vehicles) since they aren't explicitly identified (and some make the argument that only missiles should get the rub since they are singled out) I understand GMs who want to rule no called shots with the Sh/Me/Lo ones.

Which retroactively (since originally you didn't need WP to do called shots) would explain why the natural choice of a short-range missile against the Glitter Boy (5 mile armor piercing missiles can fire outside the Boomgun's range) wasn't taken, an inability to do called shots against the boomgun, the primary tactic. If you simply wanted to pelt the main body with short range missiles a Flying Titan is a better choice.

The rules say that ALL missiles ALWAYS hit the main body. Period. ALL missiles.

[Zer0 Kay]

Mini missiles have never been able to make called shots. Since their creation in RT when it would have been beneficial and in canon with source material for called shots to the invid eye.

[Axelmania]

Its not redundant though because while other weapons are "Always hits the main body unless its a called shot" for missiles it is "Always hits the main body" with no option of "...unless its a called shot"

I usually use single quotes 'like this' for paraphrasing. Mini missiles have the same WP rules for called shot as all the other modern weapons.

The rules have been changed and what was legal in RMB days have been made illegal in RUE days.
That is why they called it RUE and not just "tenth printing" or some such.
They changed the rules.

Some rules certainly did change, like needing a WP skill AND an extra melee attack to make called shots.

Others didn't, like the ability of called shots allowing mini-missiles to hit giant railguns larger than the average human

The rules say that ALL missiles ALWAYS hit the main body. Period. ALL missiles.

In the context of missiles being the active agent doing the hitting.

If cats always hit dogs, that doesn't mean I can't throw a cat at a bear and have the cat hit the bear.

"Always" obviously isn't "can only". To derive any meaning from the statement, it has to be a reasonable one.

363 clearly informs us:

Mini-Missiles are NOT guided missiles. That's why they require a roll to strike.

This means guided missiles do not require a roll to strike (from the pilot) because they make their own.

Mini-missiles require a roll to strike (from the GBK pilot) and he has no limitations. 361 and 365 clearly show that WP Heavy MD applies in full to mini-missiles.

Reading 362's note must be done in consideration of 363's note about strike roll requirement differences. If you choose to ignore 363 while embracing 362, it seems like hypocrisy.

Mini missiles have never been able to make called shots. Since their creation in RT when it would have been beneficial

Book 1: Macross page 36 introducing called shots, I don't see anything about being unable to do them with certain weapons.

If anything, it appears to be even broader. While Rifts said called shots had to be aimed shots, I don't see that here, meaning you could probably do them with bursts!

Missiles are introduced on page 37 and I'm not seeing where it says you can't choose to do a called shot with them. Could you point out where?

"All missiles always strike the main body." is mentioned for Reflex Missiles on 38. It doesn't explicitly clarify if that means this is the only target it will ATTEMPT to strike, or if it means you don't have to bother to roll if the target is the main body.

This statement could also be a consideration for the optional random damage tables on page 40, indicating that it is an exception to damage being randomly distributed. Fact is, it's never been a very specific statement. I always took it to mean that reflex/smart missile AI which had to choose its actions, when it wasn't choose to dodge attacks targeting itself, would choose to keep targeting the main body of its initially designated target, because targetting other locations via called shots was too complex for the reflex/smartbomb AI.

Shifty-wifty messiness doesn't negate this only making sense in the case of something which is an independent actor.

and in canon with source material for called shots to the invid eye.

Where in the source material does it say mini-missiles can't be used to hit invid eyes? Which episode/minute?

[RockJock]

I didn't mean for this to be a discussion on missile mechanics, just a simple answer on a missing piece of information.

RAW is a funny thing with games, especially Palladium games. The fact that I started this question regarding an entirely missing block of text is a perfect example of why you need to use common sense, and make up table rules. More then most games PB encourages, almost requires every table to play a slightly different game.

[Axelmania]

Until we got lucky with Xiticix Invasion I imagine GMs would've made the call for the RoF, true. I probably would've gone with 1 or a volley of 2 at maximum. I was very surprised that it could launch a 10 missile volley. That's 1D6x100 MD if you can't stop it.

[Blue_Lion]

Axel since you don't seem to "get it" I will try to explain step by step the issue with your insistence on your view of the glitterboy killers minimissiles and why NO ONE who has posted agrees with you.

I agree with him in principle, the rules exists within RAW (BOTH RMB & RUE) to allow for it. So it isn't "NO ONE".

Missiles in general under RMB-era where not subject to specific WP classification (IINM), but Mini-Missile description in RMB had a description that basically worked as a WP since they where not guided, unlike the rest.

Under RUE, missiles in general are now all unguided unless specified (and retroactively to). However Mini-Missiles are now subject to WP bonuses, unlike other missile types. And WP rules allow for additional bonuses to be gained depending on the type of shot being taken as they (WP rules) don't make an exception for not applying to specific weapons that they cover (in this case mini-missiles because regular missiles aren't subject to WP bonuses).

And saying that "missiles always hit the main body" is really redundant, because IINM all attacks hit the Main Body by Default mechanically speaking. And you can't make a called shot per the rules without a WP.

I think people's big worry is what happens if short/medium/long range missiles could also do called shots, mini-missiles are the only ones explicitly identified under WP so while the others could also conceivable (as weapons on military vehicles) since they aren't explicitly identified (and some make the argument that only missiles should get the rub since they are singled out) I understand GMs who want to rule no called shots with the Sh/Me/Lo ones.

Which retroactively (since originally you didn't need WP to do called shots) would explain why the natural choice of a short-range missile against the Glitter Boy (5 mile armor piercing missiles can fire outside the Boomgun's range) wasn't taken, an inability to do called shots against the boomgun, the primary tactic. If you simply wanted to pelt the main body with short range missiles a Flying Titan is a better choice.

I worry more about mini missiles because A they are more common and B there are vehicles that launch large vollies of them.

The rule is all missiles always strike the main body. Mini missiles are a missile so they always strike the main body it is really that simple.

Now can you do a called shot with a mini missile-sure to hit what is listed as the main body as we have at least 1 vehicle on the books with a main body that requires a called shot to hit, shows that you can do a called shot to the main body.
The boom gun is not listed as a main body on the GB so a missile by the rules can not shoot the GB boom gun.

[ShadowLogan]

Mini missiles have never been able to make called shots. Since their creation in RT when it would have been beneficial and in canon with source material for called shots to the invid eye.

Text in RT2:Sen and Bk5:Invid Invasion (both 1E titles) is basically identical to what appear in RMB. So if you can do it under RMB, you could do it under 1E RT (Macross 2 is of course a bit different given even Mini-Missiles are guided).

I worry more about mini missiles because A they are more common and B there are vehicles that launch large vollies of them.

I do not see how this is an issue under RUE (RMB is different).

PER RUE text they are [restricted to single shots regardless of called shot type (Aimed Called Shot or Called Shot). All found in RUE pg361 References:
-"Note: An "Aimed shot" can only be tried with a single 'sniper-style' shot, not a burst or when shooting wild" (found at the end of Aimed Shot Bonus paragraph)
-"Note: A 'Called Shot' can only be tried with a single 'sniper-style' shot, not a burst or when shooting wild" (found at the end of the Penalties on a Called Shot paragraph, just before the Rapid-Fire Pulse)

Unless of course you think that a volley of missiles (even mini-missiles) does not equate to a burst (which it DID under RMB-rules in multiple places, so historically speaking that seems to be PB's viewpoint).

[Mack]

Until we got lucky with Xiticix Invasion I imagine GMs would've made the call for the RoF, true. I probably would've gone with 1 or a volley of 2 at maximum. I was very surprised that it could launch a 10 missile volley. That's 1D6x100 MD if you can't stop it.

No, that's 10D6x10.

The odds of inflicting 600 MD with 10D6x10 is 1/60,466,176 (or one-sixth to the 10th power: 0.0000000165...).
The odds of inflicting 600 MD with 1D6x100 is a simple 1/6 (or 0.166...).

There's a massive difference in potential outcomes.

[Axelmania]

The boom gun is not listed as a main body on the GB so a missile by the rules can not shoot the GB boom gun.

Always hitting (ie never missing) the main body doesn't mean you can't hit other places, you just don't always hit them, you are capable of missing.

PER RUE text they are [restricted to single shots regardless of called shot type (Aimed Called Shot or Called Shot). All found in RUE pg361 References:
-"Note: An "Aimed shot" can only be tried with a single 'sniper-style' shot, not a burst or when shooting wild" (found at the end of Aimed Shot Bonus paragraph)
-"Note: A 'Called Shot' can only be tried with a single 'sniper-style' shot, not a burst or when shooting wild" (found at the end of the Penalties on a Called Shot paragraph, just before the Rapid-Fire Pulse)

I'm wondering if 'single shot' might be 'per gun'. For example: a gunslinger making a paired weapon shot (2 wilks laser pistols in 1 action) as a called shot to hit a grunt who is riding a Sky Cycle (which requires a called shot to hit the pilot)

It isn't technically a burst, but a single shot per weapon.

In the case of missiles... if you had 1 launcher then a volley from that launcher is burstlike, but if you had 2 launchers and fired 1 missile from each simultaneously as a 2-missile volley, isn't that basically a single shot?

This could be a key difference between the SAMAS (RUE240) CM-2 Rocket Launcher (RUE249) and something like the Samson's Forearm Rocket Launcher (RUE271). Both can fire 1 or 2 at a time, but in the case of the SAMAS you know that means 2 from the same launcher while with the Samson it might mean 1 from each launcher instead.

I don't suppose anyone has picture of a Samson launching a volley which might answer that?

Until we got lucky with Xiticix Invasion I imagine GMs would've made the call for the RoF, true. I probably would've gone with 1 or a volley of 2 at maximum. I was very surprised that it could launch a 10 missile volley. That's 1D6x100 MD if you can't stop it.

No, that's 10D6x10.

The odds of inflicting 600 MD with 10D6x10 is 1/60,466,176 (or one-sixth to the 10th power: 0.0000000165...).
The odds of inflicting 600 MD with 1D6x100 is a simple 1/6 (or 0.166...).

There's a massive difference in potential outcomes.

I agree, if you do roll them separately. RMB had a combat example which did it that way twice (43: 3D4x10 for 3 frag, not 1D4x30; 44: 4D6x10 for 2 medium missiles, not 2D6x20) but the FAQ appeared to add the option for some more flexibility, probably for situations like this.

For damage you may roll for one missile and multiply by the number of missiles in the volley, or roll each damage separately.

Doesn't really clarify if it's player's or GM's choice though...

DB3 p 106 gives a similar suggestion (calls rolling 21 separate times for each energy cannon boring) of just rolling once and then multiplying by instances. Pg 108 specifically gives the example of a volley of 10 anti-matter cruise missiles doing 4D6x1000 (rather than 40D6x100) implying double-digits is probably a good point to stop rolling individually.

[guardiandashi]

I know the old rules (RMB and Robotech) allowed for called shots with mini-missiles when firing 1 or 2 at a time more than that was automatically a volley that could not be aimed at a specific location.

the justification was actually from Robotech, specifically "Scott Bernard" and his battler cyclone where in the anime he aims the forearm mini-missiles and hits an Invid in the "sensor eye" with both missiles basically instantly killing it.

now granted this is "Scott Bernard, master of "stupid overkill" doing it" but that was the root reason for adding that capability into the RPG rules.

now IMO If you are going to continue using RMB era rules for "aimed shots with mini-missiles" I would generally use a house rule that you would have to fire them from a "launcher" that allows for direct fire, and only 1 or 2 missiles fired at a time.

so for me under those restrictions and using the cyclone as the example. the 2 mini missiles on the left, or right forearm shield/launcher would work. the chest mounted twin 6 pack launchers IMO wouldn't be able to do it.

the Samson I would probably say both off 1 forearm as 1 "aimed" attack and treat each forearm as a separate attack because of the lack of the "can fire from both arms as 1 attack" phrasing.
a flying titan could do it firing 1-2 of the mini missiles off the wings.
the samas I would also allow for it. and the CTT-M20 missile launcher rifle, because it is specifically noted as being a 2 barreled launcher with 10 mini missiles in each tube.

[HWalsh]

The boom gun is not listed as a main body on the GB so a missile by the rules can not shoot the GB boom gun.

Always hitting (ie never missing) the main body doesn't mean you can't hit other places, you just don't always hit them, you are capable of missing.

All missiles always hit the main body...

Why is this even in contention with you?

If you miss you the main body you handle the normal AoE rules. Either way, you ain't touching the Boom Gun.

[Zer0 Kay]

I know the old rules (RMB and Robotech) allowed for called shots with mini-missiles when firing 1 or 2 at a time more than that was automatically a volley that could not be aimed at a specific location.

the justification was actually from Robotech, specifically "Scott Bernard" and his battler cyclone where in the anime he aims the forearm mini-missiles and hits an Invid in the "sensor eye" with both missiles basically instantly killing it.

now granted this is "Scott Bernard, master of "stupid overkill" doing it" but that was the root reason for adding that capability into the RPG rules.

now IMO If you are going to continue using RMB era rules for "aimed shots with mini-missiles" I would generally use a house rule that you would have to fire them from a "launcher" that allows for direct fire, and only 1 or 2 missiles fired at a time.

so for me under those restrictions and using the cyclone as the example. the 2 mini missiles on the left, or right forearm shield/launcher would work. the chest mounted twin 6 pack launchers IMO wouldn't be able to do it.

the Samson I would probably say both off 1 forearm as 1 "aimed" attack and treat each forearm as a separate attack because of the lack of the "can fire from both arms as 1 attack" phrasing.
a flying titan could do it firing 1-2 of the mini missiles off the wings.
the samas I would also allow for it. and the CTT-M20 missile launcher rifle, because it is specifically noted as being a 2 barreled launcher with 10 mini missiles in each tube.

Page in RT1E?

[Zer0 Kay]

Until we got lucky with Xiticix Invasion I imagine GMs would've made the call for the RoF, true. I probably would've gone with 1 or a volley of 2 at maximum. I was very surprised that it could launch a 10 missile volley. That's 1D6x100 MD if you can't stop it.

No, that's 10D6x10.

The odds of inflicting 600 MD with 10D6x10 is 1/60,466,176 (or one-sixth to the 10th power: 0.0000000165...).
The odds of inflicting 600 MD with 1D6x100 is a simple 1/6 (or 0.166...).

There's a massive difference in potential outcomes.

That is true and more accurate but IIRC RAW has always stated multiply the damage of one missile by the number in a volley. NOT roll for each missile fired and then multiply it by the missiles damage multiplier.

[Axelmania]

the justification was actually from Robotech, specifically "Scott Bernard" and his battler cyclone where in the anime he aims the forearm mini-missiles and hits an Invid in the "sensor eye" with both missiles basically instantly killing it.

Glad to finally have a name associated with this... so this is from the 3rd Robotech series "New Generation" adapted from Genesis Climber MOSPEADA... originally named Stick Bernard.

Military Operation Soldier Protection Emergency Aviation Dive Armor had 25 episodes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_R ... Generation says they're numbered 61 to 85 in the Robotech dub...

Would anyone happen to know which # episode in either case that the Bernard Cyclone v. Invid eye scene happens? Or a minute mark? I'd like to take a look

I'm trying to find Scott Bernard's stats.. the New Generation sourcebook has "characters of note" on pg 86 to 93 but I only see Rand / Rook / Lancer / Lunk / Mint / Sera / Corg ... does that mean he never got stats?

In that case... I must find this "battler cyclone" you mention to inspect its abilities...

A "Battler Cyclone emergency vehicle" is mentioned on Shadow Chronicles 91 "Veritech fighter with VR-052 Battler
Cyclone emergency vehicle" and 303 "a few VR-052 Battler Cyclones in their band" ... searching that code also finds "standard VR-052 Cyclone emergency vehicle" on 81 and "emergency VR-052T Cyclone" on 129... ah okay page 134 is the Cyclone overviews... VR-050 Series Cyclone begins on 152... VR-052 Infantry Cyclone aka "The Battler" on 154...

I never paid much attention the Cyclones but they're pretty awesome...

I think it must be the "VR-O52F Heavy Assault Cyclone" on 157 since there's a mini-missile delivery system... 1 launcher per arm, 2 tubes per launcher... minis are guided by the cyclone's combat computer.

Due to called shots now requiring a WP, I guess we could figure that the combat computer has the WP?

"volleys of 2 or all" makes it sound like you could do a volley of 4 if you wanted!

I would generally use a house rule that you would have to fire them from a "launcher" that allows for direct fire, and only 1 or 2 missiles fired at a time.

I wouldn't, but in situations like that I'd be for allowing PP bonuses to strike since you're aiming your arm, kind of like firing a pistol-crossbow.

so for me under those restrictions and using the cyclone as the example. the 2 mini missiles on the left, or right forearm shield/launcher would work. the chest mounted twin 6 pack launchers IMO wouldn't be able to do it.

If the combat computer is the one guiding the missiles I'm not sure whether it would matter if there was direct fire or not.

Is it possible that Scott Bernard had some way of over-riding this guidance system and doing manual aiming? I'm hoping watching a video clip of this would provide insight.

the CTT-M20 missile launcher rifle, because it is specifically noted as being a 2 barreled launcher with 10 mini missiles in each tube.

Hadn't noticed the 2-barrel thing before, so you could do +3 to hit for 2 minis or +1 to hit for a volley of 4 that can't be dodged.

*is happy there is no "can't be parried" rule, so you can use the Deflect spell against 4 missile volleys*

If you miss you the main body you handle the normal AoE rules. Either way, you ain't touching the Boom Gun.

How is it possible to miss the main body if missiles "always hit" it?

IIRC RAW has always stated multiply the damage of one missile by the number in a volley. NOT roll for each missile fired and then multiply it by the missiles damage multiplier.

Where's the earliest you can find that? I thought I had seen something like that too but came up empty except for DB3.

[guardiandashi]

the justification was actually from Robotech, specifically "Scott Bernard" and his battler cyclone where in the anime he aims the forearm mini-missiles and hits an Invid in the "sensor eye" with both missiles basically instantly killing it.

Glad to finally have a name associated with this... so this is from the 3rd Robotech series "New Generation" adapted from Genesis Climber MOSPEADA... originally named Stick Bernard.

Military Operation Soldier Protection Emergency Aviation Dive Armor had 25 episodes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_R ... Generation says they're numbered 61 to 85 in the Robotech dub...

Would anyone happen to know which # episode in either case that the Bernard Cyclone v. Invid eye scene happens? Or a minute mark? I'd like to take a look

I'm trying to find Scott Bernard's stats.. the New Generation sourcebook has "characters of note" on pg 86 to 93 but I only see Rand / Rook / Lancer / Lunk / Mint / Sera / Corg ... does that mean he never got stats?

In that case... I must find this "battler cyclone" you mention to inspect its abilities...

A "Battler Cyclone emergency vehicle" is mentioned on Shadow Chronicles 91 "Veritech fighter with VR-052 Battler
Cyclone emergency vehicle" and 303 "a few VR-052 Battler Cyclones in their band" ... searching that code also finds "standard VR-052 Cyclone emergency vehicle" on 81 and "emergency VR-052T Cyclone" on 129... ah okay page 134 is the Cyclone overviews... VR-050 Series Cyclone begins on 152... VR-052 Infantry Cyclone aka "The Battler" on 154...

I never paid much attention the Cyclones but they're pretty awesome...

I think it must be the "VR-O52F Heavy Assault Cyclone" on 157 since there's a mini-missile delivery system... 1 launcher per arm, 2 tubes per launcher... minis are guided by the cyclone's combat computer.

Due to called shots now requiring a WP, I guess we could figure that the combat computer has the WP?

"volleys of 2 or all" makes it sound like you could do a volley of 4 if you wanted!

I would generally use a house rule that you would have to fire them from a "launcher" that allows for direct fire, and only 1 or 2 missiles fired at a time.

I wouldn't, but in situations like that I'd be for allowing PP bonuses to strike since you're aiming your arm, kind of like firing a pistol-crossbow.

so for me under those restrictions and using the cyclone as the example. the 2 mini missiles on the left, or right forearm shield/launcher would work. the chest mounted twin 6 pack launchers IMO wouldn't be able to do it.

If the combat computer is the one guiding the missiles I'm not sure whether it would matter if there was direct fire or not.

Is it possible that Scott Bernard had some way of over-riding this guidance system and doing manual aiming? I'm hoping watching a video clip of this would provide insight.

the CTT-M20 missile launcher rifle, because it is specifically noted as being a 2 barreled launcher with 10 mini missiles in each tube.

Hadn't noticed the 2-barrel thing before, so you could do +3 to hit for 2 minis or +1 to hit for a volley of 4 that can't be dodged.

*is happy there is no "can't be parried" rule, so you can use the Deflect spell against 4 missile volleys*

If you miss you the main body you handle the normal AoE rules. Either way, you ain't touching the Boom Gun.

How is it possible to miss the main body if missiles "always hit" it?

IIRC RAW has always stated multiply the damage of one missile by the number in a volley. NOT roll for each missile fired and then multiply it by the missiles damage multiplier.

Where's the earliest you can find that? I thought I had seen something like that too but came up empty except for DB3.

its actually listed as roll 1 and multiply by # in robotech 1st edition (I was looking at my copy earlier today)

[eliakon]

"Always hits the main body" is not the same as "Always hits"
The first tells you grammatically that "If <object> does <action> then it does <action> in/to <location>"
The second tells you that "<object> always performs <action>"
That is why you have to read sentences in their entirety. All the words in a sentence are important since they all modify the others in various ways.
This is also why they have a name for just reading part of a sentence. In logic it is called "Cherry Picking" and is a logical fallacy.

[Axelmania]

"Always hits the main body" is not the same as "Always hits"
The first tells you grammatically that "If <object> does <action> then it does <action> in/to <location>"
The second tells you that "<object> always performs <action>"
That is why you have to read sentences in their entirety. All the words in a sentence are important since they all modify the others in various ways.
This is also why they have a name for just reading part of a sentence. In logic it is called "Cherry Picking" and is a logical fallacy.

The entire sentence is "All missiles always hit the main body." I did not exclude any "if" statements from the sentence.

Referring to 2 key words of a sentence is called summarizing, not cherry picking. We both have it memorized at this point so thee is no need for me to type it in full every single time.

[eliakon]

"Always hits the main body" is not the same as "Always hits"
The first tells you grammatically that "If <object> does <action> then it does <action> in/to <location>"
The second tells you that "<object> always performs <action>"
That is why you have to read sentences in their entirety. All the words in a sentence are important since they all modify the others in various ways.
This is also why they have a name for just reading part of a sentence. In logic it is called "Cherry Picking" and is a logical fallacy.

The entire sentence is "All missiles always hit the main body." I did not exclude any "if" statements from the sentence.

Referring to 2 key words of a sentence is called summarizing, not cherry picking. We both have it memorized at this point so thee is no need for me to type it in full every single time.

its pretty simple
It means "all missiles always hit the main body"
That means: All members of class <missile> always hit location class <main body>
Its pretty simple.
Since it is in a section that explicitly is talking about making rolls to determine if you make hits AND since every other combat section goes to pains to explain that all hits are to the main body unless they are a called shot it is pretty basic.
There is no implication that some how this line really means that it just applies to some missiles, it applies to all missiles.
Nor is there any reason to assume that some how this means that missiles do not actually need to make the strike rolls that were just set forth in these same rules and that they inescapably hit.
All it does is tell us that if you roll a successful hit, then you will hit (and therefor damage) the main body.

[HWalsh]

All it does is tell us that if you roll a successful hit, then you will hit (and therefor damage) the main body.

The problem with that is admitting the truth would stop GBKs... Who canonically are not good at fighting GBs... At being good at fighting GBs.

It would stop PCs who pilot GBs from being good against the CS because the CS is a benevolent kingdom whose only flaw is that they love their people too much...

They'd never make a mistake like, you know, making a bad Power Armor that sucks at its primary purpose.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

It's an OK power armor.

It's just not good at it's stated purpose.

Though, all-in-all, ill take the Terror Trooper if you're going to put in a CS infantry PA.

[eliakon]

All it does is tell us that if you roll a successful hit, then you will hit (and therefor damage) the main body.

The problem with that is admitting the truth would stop GBKs... Who canonically are not good at fighting GBs... At being good at fighting GBs.

It would stop PCs who pilot GBs from being good against the CS because the CS is a benevolent kingdom whose only flaw is that they love their people too much...

They'd never make a mistake like, you know, making a bad Power Armor that sucks at its primary purpose.

Its pretty typical in the real world
Tank Destroyers in WWII tended to be pretty lousy at actually destroying tanks.

[Blue_Lion]

All it does is tell us that if you roll a successful hit, then you will hit (and therefor damage) the main body.

The problem with that is admitting the truth would stop GBKs... Who canonically are not good at fighting GBs... At being good at fighting GBs.

It would stop PCs who pilot GBs from being good against the CS because the CS is a benevolent kingdom whose only flaw is that they love their people too much...

They'd never make a mistake like, you know, making a bad Power Armor that sucks at its primary purpose.

GBK two to one like the book says are fairly good at fighting GB if you include the mini missiles.
Average damage from both them on a full payload of missiles is 700 mdc.(with a 80% hit chance) an almost dead GB meaning they have about 3-4 rounds(time it will take a gb on average to kill one) to do another 70MDC to win.(or 7-8 before the second gbk is killed.)

With missile called shots to the boom gun from missiles 1 GBK could win against GBs that is not in line with the books saying that they need to fight 2 to 1 to win in most engagements.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

All it does is tell us that if you roll a successful hit, then you will hit (and therefor damage) the main body.

The problem with that is admitting the truth would stop GBKs... Who canonically are not good at fighting GBs... At being good at fighting GBs.

It would stop PCs who pilot GBs from being good against the CS because the CS is a benevolent kingdom whose only flaw is that they love their people too much...

They'd never make a mistake like, you know, making a bad Power Armor that sucks at its primary purpose.

GBK two to one like the book says are fairly good at fighting GB if you include the mini missiles.
Average damage from both them on a full payload of missiles is 700 mdc.(with a 80% hit chance) an almost dead GB meaning they have about 3-4 rounds(time it will take a gb on average to kill one) to do another 70MDC to win.(or 7-8 before the second gbk is killed.)

With missile called shots to the boom gun from missiles 1 GBK could win against GBs that is not in line with the books saying that they need to fight 2 to 1 to win in most engagements.

Keep in mind they have to get in range to even fire those mini-missiles, crossing about 6000ft where they are succeptible to being killed and can literally do NOTHING to fight back. And that the GB can shoot down missiles (if they open fire from max mini-missile range, he's not costing himself anything, really, to shoot at missiles because nothing ELSE they have can hit him yet); for a decent portion of FQs USAG10 Glitterboys (Half-ish) they dont even need to waste BG rounds to do it (as they have the upgrade package with the laser and vibro-sword), and a significant portion (something like ~40% of their "vanilla" GB force) is made up of TX-550 GBs, which have 12 mini-missiles of their own for counter-missile fire, and an anti-personnel laser and vibro sword built in (that does an impressive for its size 5D6 MD). AND they are also usually issued a hand-weapon, since they dont need to use their hands to fire the Boom Gun - typically a TX-50 or other hand-held railgun. (The reason i bring up Free Quebec when discussing the GBK is because it was developed specifically to fight Quebec's Glitterboys, so their armaments and additional countermeasures over a typical GB are worth considering in how good of a "Killer" of GBs it really is).

It's really not a bad infantry power armor. It's just not well suited to doing the job it was named for. Now, give that thing to a Special Forces platoon and watch them wreak havoc behind enemy lines where it's speed and maneuverability and powerful vibro-weapons would let it do lots of raids on positions behind the lines, dice up a some troops, vehicles, and other material and then sprint away.

[ShadowLogan]

Would anyone happen to know which # episode in either case that the Bernard Cyclone v. Invid eye scene happens? Or a minute mark? I'd like to take a look

Bernard isn't a heavy Cyclone combatant once he gets the Alpha. Not to mention when he uses the Cyclone he is much more judicious with missile use as compared to the Alpha.
Ep61 (GR-98), Ep62 (maybe GR-98 and RL-6), Ep66 & Ep68 (Rook's RL-6 mini-missile launcher instead of Scott's GR-98), Ep69 (GR-98). Maybe even Ep75 (Scott) and Ep81 (Rook).

I'm trying to find Scott Bernard's stats.. the New Generation sourcebook has "characters of note" on pg 86 to 93 but I only see Rand / Rook / Lancer / Lunk / Mint / Sera / Corg ... does that mean he never got stats?

1E line he can be found in Bk#5 Invid Invasion. In 2E line he can be found in the TSC Main Book in the character section NOT THE New Gen. SB, they did not bother to reprint NG characters that appeared in TSC.

I never paid much attention the Cyclones but they're pretty awesome...

Not really awesome IMHO. That's for another place though.

Due to called shots now requiring a WP, I guess we could figure that the combat computer has the WP?

Why would anyone figure that? The computer isn't listed as granting the user a WP, just a bonus to strike.

[Axelmania]

its pretty simple
It means "all missiles always hit the main body"

Your repeating the phrase here is pointless.

That means: All members of class <missile> always hit location class <main body>
Its pretty simple.

I understand that's one possible take on that.

Other possible takes:
1. missing never happens if you aim at the main body.
2. the main body is the default location

it is in a section that explicitly is talking about making rolls to determine if you make hits

Which could be for the purposes of resolving hits to other locations besides the main body.

every other combat section goes to pains to explain that all hits are to the main body unless they are a called shot

Where do you see that happening?

The only place I see that mentioned is under Called Shot itself, a maneuver which is open to missiles.

There is no implication that some how this line really means that it just applies to some missiles, it applies to all missiles.

It applies to all missiles in the context that they are striking.

If it applied to all missiles all the time, even when they were not striking, then missiles would simply start impacting main bodies at random even without firing them.

To be the active subject of the verb 'strike', to be the roller, the chooser of targets, you must be a 'self'.

Self-guided missiles have a self. Unguided missiles do not have a self.

Passive missiles do not strike, they are not doers, the statement isn't about them, because they never strike, they are used to strike with by GBK Pilots.

Nor is there any reason to assume that some how this means that missiles do not actually need to make the strike rolls that were just set forth in these same rules and that they inescapably hit.

Actually there is. I pointed this out to you earlier.

RUE 363 "Mini-Missiles are NOT guided missiles. That's why they require a roll to strike"

You voiced a concern about cherry-picking. Choosing that 362's "Note: All missiles always hit the main body" is meaningful while choosing that 363 is insignificant seems like cherry-picking.

All it does is tell us that if you roll a successful hit, then you will hit (and therefor damage) the main body.

"Always hit" is not "if they hit".

The problem with that is admitting the truth would stop GBKs... Who canonically are not good at fighting GBs... At being good at fighting GBs.

The truth per CWC is "The standard tactic of the Glitter Boy Killer is to target and destroy the Boom Gun, first with missiles".

While it is theoretically possible for the CS to have an impossible tactic (to target the untargetable) it is not a credible theory. The CS would only adopt a tactic which had at least a slim possibility of success. If it were known that it was impossible for missiles to touch boomguns, they would not make missiles v boomgun a tactic.

The reason they don't do that so well alone is clearly because boom guns have a better range than mini-missiles.

They'd never make a mistake like, you know, making a bad Power Armor that sucks at its primary purpose.

GBs beat GBKs 75% of the time when they're attacked on open terrain from 2640 feet or further away. Keep in mind that you're talking a 25 million PA vs a 12.6 million PA though.

When GBKs attack in pairs, they win over 75% of the time.

The IAR-4 Hellraiser (CWC 142) is the better GBK because it has short-range missiles, whose 5 mile range is better than the boom gun. This costs 47 million though, you can buy 3.7 GBKs for that cost.

With missile called shots to the boom gun from missiles 1 GBK could win against GBs that is not in line with the books saying that they need to fight 2 to 1 to win in most engagements.

A single GBK does win against a Glitter Boy 25% of the time when they attack from beyond 2640 feet on open terrain. Being able to survive long enough to destroy the boomgun with missiles is the only conceivable way they could win at all.

At 2640 feet, the only weapons which can hit besides mini-missiles (5280ft) are the railguns (4000ft) which only do 4D6. They need to close to 2000 ft to use the tripe-barrel laser (6D6, cut in half to 3D6 against GBs), 1600 feet to use the plasma (6D6 per single laser blast... wut) or 1200 feet to use the plasma/ion combo for 1D6x10, or volleys of 2 micro-fusion grenades (12D6)

On open terrain, the 11,000 foot railgun has a progressive advantage the further off it starts, so since the GBs odds increase so much more the further off the GBK begins the attack, the inverse necessity of this is that the GBK actually wins a heck of a lot more than 25% of the fights in the 2640-5280 range, since they should be winning less than 25% of the fights in the 5280-11,000 range.

When a single GBK attacks from closer than 2640 feet, or on non-open terrain, they presumably win even MORE often than 25%, probably because if some of their missiles fail (being shot down, missing) to destroy the boomgun, they are within range to use alternative weapons to destroy the boomgun.

2 to 1 is just to increase the odds of success from 25% to 75%. It isn't mandatory to win.

the GB can shoot down missiles (if they open fire from max mini-missile range, he's not costing himself anything, really, to shoot at missiles because nothing ELSE they have can hit him yet);

You're costing an opportunity to hit the GBK itself. If the Boom Gun is capable of making called shots (something unclear to me, since the conversion book called it a 'burst', though I could've sworn I read about 'called bursts' too somewhere) 100 MD can destroy one of the GBK's feet, reducing its ability to close distance.

Given the high speed missiles travel at (strike penalties!) shooting them down is tough, so I'd only do that when dodging isn't an option. Dodge bonuses are often easier to find than Strike bonuses too.

for a decent portion of FQs USAG10 Glitterboys (Half-ish) they dont even need to waste BG rounds to do it (as they have the upgrade package with the laser and vibro-sword), and a significant portion (something like ~40% of their "vanilla" GB force) is made up of TX-550 GBs, which have 12 mini-missiles of their own for counter-missile fire, and an anti-personnel laser and vibro sword built in (that does an impressive for its size 5D6 MD).

I do like the idea of the 5 foot vibro sword slicing a mini-missile before it hits, pretty cinematic.

Do you think that it would prevent the missile from exploding and damaging the vibro-sword in the process?

[HWalsh]

The only place I see that mentioned is under Called Shot itself, a maneuver which is open to missiles.

Okay. Time for me to put a nail in this coffin once and for all...

You *can not* make a called shot with a mini-missile, or any missile, for that matter.

I present the following statement:

Nowhere in missiles does it say you can make a called shot. RUE 362-365.
The only called shot rules in RUE fall under the "Ranged Combat" section of the book. RUE 360-362.

I postulate that the abilities of the "Ranged Combat" section apply only to ranged non-missile weapons.

Supporting evidence:
1. Hand to Hand Combat, Ranged Combat, and Missile Combat are three separate sections of the book. These each have their own rules and each have their own glossary of terms.

2. Missiles do not follow the rules as laid our in Ranged Combat.
[*]Ranged Combat calls for a strike roll of 8. (RUE 361)
[*]Missile Combat calls for a strike roll of 5-20 (RUE 364)
[*]The line, "All missiles always strike the main body." (RUE 362)

Now, allow me to debunk some of the claims being made by the defendant.

Axelmania has postulated the claim that that line, "All missiles always strike the main body." Is false. He claims that if we take that line at its value then it means a missile can never miss. He uses the word strike synonymous with "hit" however in the context of that phrasing, he would only be correct if we did not have a similar qualifying statement in the same section of the book. We do.

RUE page 364 states, and I quote:

"A volley of four or more missiles will strike every time (as long as the attack was successful), with each and every missile in the volley hitting its target and inflicting damage."

So that line that, "Strike means it never misses." Is clearly incorrect.

So we must assume, based on context and content, that the line:

"All missiles always strike the main body" is also subject to the caveat that (as long as the attack was successful).

Meaning, a successful strike will always deal damage only to the main body and not to a location targeted. The only exception to this is in the case of the missile defense option of 'block sacrifice."

Now I will further postulate that the damage from the missile does not come from the impact site. Indeed, even if a missile does directly strike a target, but from the explosion. Meaning it would not be subject to the rules for a traditional called shot anyway. Thus, we must assume based on all of the evidence, that as of RUE you can no longer make a called shot with any missile of any kind.

The state rests your honor.

[Zer0 Kay]

the justification was actually from Robotech, specifically "Scott Bernard" and his battler cyclone where in the anime he aims the forearm mini-missiles and hits an Invid in the "sensor eye" with both missiles basically instantly killing it.

Glad to finally have a name associated with this... so this is from the 3rd Robotech series "New Generation" adapted from Genesis Climber MOSPEADA... originally named Stick Bernard.

Military Operation Soldier Protection Emergency Aviation Dive Armor had 25 episodes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_R ... Generation says they're numbered 61 to 85 in the Robotech dub...

Would anyone happen to know which # episode in either case that the Bernard Cyclone v. Invid eye scene happens? Or a minute mark? I'd like to take a look

I'm trying to find Scott Bernard's stats.. the New Generation sourcebook has "characters of note" on pg 86 to 93 but I only see Rand / Rook / Lancer / Lunk / Mint / Sera / Corg ... does that mean he never got stats?

In that case... I must find this "battler cyclone" you mention to inspect its abilities...

A "Battler Cyclone emergency vehicle" is mentioned on Shadow Chronicles 91 "Veritech fighter with VR-052 Battler
Cyclone emergency vehicle" and 303 "a few VR-052 Battler Cyclones in their band" ... searching that code also finds "standard VR-052 Cyclone emergency vehicle" on 81 and "emergency VR-052T Cyclone" on 129... ah okay page 134 is the Cyclone overviews... VR-050 Series Cyclone begins on 152... VR-052 Infantry Cyclone aka "The Battler" on 154...

I never paid much attention the Cyclones but they're pretty awesome...

I think it must be the "VR-O52F Heavy Assault Cyclone" on 157 since there's a mini-missile delivery system... 1 launcher per arm, 2 tubes per launcher... minis are guided by the cyclone's combat computer.

Due to called shots now requiring a WP, I guess we could figure that the combat computer has the WP?

"volleys of 2 or all" makes it sound like you could do a volley of 4 if you wanted!

I would generally use a house rule that you would have to fire them from a "launcher" that allows for direct fire, and only 1 or 2 missiles fired at a time.

I wouldn't, but in situations like that I'd be for allowing PP bonuses to strike since you're aiming your arm, kind of like firing a pistol-crossbow.

so for me under those restrictions and using the cyclone as the example. the 2 mini missiles on the left, or right forearm shield/launcher would work. the chest mounted twin 6 pack launchers IMO wouldn't be able to do it.

If the combat computer is the one guiding the missiles I'm not sure whether it would matter if there was direct fire or not.

Is it possible that Scott Bernard had some way of over-riding this guidance system and doing manual aiming? I'm hoping watching a video clip of this would provide insight.

the CTT-M20 missile launcher rifle, because it is specifically noted as being a 2 barreled launcher with 10 mini missiles in each tube.

Hadn't noticed the 2-barrel thing before, so you could do +3 to hit for 2 minis or +1 to hit for a volley of 4 that can't be dodged.

*is happy there is no "can't be parried" rule, so you can use the Deflect spell against 4 missile volleys*

If you miss you the main body you handle the normal AoE rules. Either way, you ain't touching the Boom Gun.

How is it possible to miss the main body if missiles "always hit" it?

IIRC RAW has always stated multiply the damage of one missile by the number in a volley. NOT roll for each missile fired and then multiply it by the missiles damage multiplier.

Where's the earliest you can find that? I thought I had seen something like that too but came up empty except for DB3.

Lol on the Scott Bernard override and yet... yes same way Roy Folker had over a 98% in a skill.

[guardiandashi]

I think Axels big hangup is confusion about rules precedent.

He is trying to claim that the "fluff" tactic for the GBK using its minimissiles overrides the RMB rule for all missiles always striking the main body. because its a "rule"
a tactic is NOT! a "rule"
the other issue as has been pointed out numerous times to him. that the tactic worked, under RMB RAW for missiles because the minimissiles were "unguided" which basically means... under RMB rules (which pertained as of the writing of CWC) that you could aim minimissiles because they didn't have the "brains/guidance" to attempt to correct your targeting. )
under RMB all missiles "bigger" than minimissiles were self guided (unless stated otherwise) which essentially meant that the pilot never actually attacked with the missiles they just "designated a target, and essentially told the missiles to 'go get it' "
under RUE that changed now ALL missiles always do damage to the main body, weather they are guided or not. which means at its simplest level, that the "tactic" is no longer valid, because it can't be done according to RAW.

my research on the Robotech introduction of minimissiles is a little murkier, they take great pains to explicitly note that minimissiles are unguided, unlike all other missiles, so they follow a preplotted course (or go in a straight line) depending on how they are fired/aimed, it doesn't explicitly say they CAN'T make called shots, but it doesn't actually say they can either, IT does however state that they can make AIMED shots as long as they are fired 1-2 at a time, volleys of more than 2 are considered a "normal shot/volley and may not be aimed. one of the prerequisites however of called shots at the time was that only aimed shot attacks could be designated as called shots however.

[HWalsh]

I think Axels big hangup is confusion about rules precedent.

He is trying to claim that the "fluff" tactic for the GBK using its minimissiles overrides the RMB rule for all missiles always striking the main body. because its a "rule"
a tactic is NOT! a "rule"
the other issue as has been pointed out numerous times to him. that the tactic worked, under RMB RAW for missiles because the minimissiles were "unguided" which basically means... under RMB rules (which pertained as of the writing of CWC) that you could aim minimissiles because they didn't have the "brains/guidance" to attempt to correct your targeting. )
under RMB all missiles "bigger" than minimissiles were self guided (unless stated otherwise) which essentially meant that the pilot never actually attacked with the missiles they just "designated a target, and essentially told the missiles to 'go get it' "
under RUE that changed now ALL missiles always do damage to the main body, weather they are guided or not. which means at its simplest level, that the "tactic" is no longer valid, because it can't be done according to RAW.

my research on the Robotech introduction of minimissiles is a little murkier, they take great pains to explicitly note that minimissiles are unguided, unlike all other missiles, so they follow a preplotted course (or go in a straight line) depending on how they are fired/aimed, it doesn't explicitly say they CAN'T make called shots, but it doesn't actually say they can either, IT does however state that they can make AIMED shots as long as they are fired 1-2 at a time, volleys of more than 2 are considered a "normal shot/volley and may not be aimed. one of the prerequisites however of called shots at the time was that only aimed shot attacks could be designated as called shots however.

RUE overrides RMB. In Rifts RUE overrides Robotech because Robotech is not part of the Rifts Megaverse. So discussing if it can happen in Robotech doesn't matter because that is a game in a different line with different rules due to that line.

[Axelmania]

You *can not* make a called shot with a mini-missile, or any missile, for that matter.

I present the following statement:

Nowhere in missiles does it say you can make a called shot. RUE 362-365.

The only called shot rules in RUE fall under the "Ranged Combat" section of the book. RUE 360-362.

That isn't a statement, you're just demanding special emphasis when this wouldn't be needed for anything else.

I postulate that the abilities of the "Ranged Combat" section apply only to ranged non-missile weapons. Supporting evidence:

1. Hand to Hand Combat, Ranged Combat, and Missile Combat are three separate sections of the book. These each have their own rules and each have their own glossary of terms.

2. Missiles do not follow the rules as laid our in Ranged Combat.
[*]Ranged Combat calls for a strike roll of 8. (RUE 361)
[*]Missile Combat calls for a strike roll of 5-20 (RUE 364)
[*]The line, "All missiles always strike the main body." (RUE 362)

Mini-missile combat is explicitly part of ranged combat. You quoted 361 and the very start of it specifies mini-missile launchers under WP. Heavy MD.

364's "above a 4" statement is to determine whether a missile hits or misses, not a GBK Pilot shooting a mini-missile launcher, they would still have roll 8+ because they are not a missile.

362/363/364 work together when you realize there's a difference between self-guided (including smart) missiles making their own strike rolls, and unguided mini-missiles which require a strike roll from the pilot because they can't make their own rolls.

363 also mentioned 'always hits its mark, including called shots' in a section about missiles making natural 20s.

Now, allow me to debunk some of the claims being made by the defendant.

Axelmania has postulated the claim that that line, "All missiles always strike the main body." Is false.

This is incorrect. We are simply interpreting it different ways.

He claims that if we take that line at its value then it means a missile can never miss.

I'm saying that's another way you could read it. When there's many ways to read it, it is inconsistent, and we need to give weight to whichever interpretation works with other materials.

RUE page 364 states, and I quote:

"A volley of four or more missiles will strike every time (as long as the attack was successful), with each and every missile in the volley hitting its target and inflicting damage."

So that line that, "Strike means it never misses." Is clearly incorrect.

"Strike every time (as long as)" is isn't the same as "strike every time (no qualifiers)".

This statement is referring to an inability to dodge 4+ volleys.

It has limited accuracy because it ignores other ways to avoid a successful volley attack: shooting it down, block sacrifice, and Deflect parrying.

So we must assume, based on context and content, that the line:

"All missiles always strike the main body" is also subject to the caveat that (as long as the attack was successful).

No, there is no obligation to assume that. The parenthesized caveat is discussing volleys of 4 or more, not all missile attacks.

Meaning, a successful strike will always deal damage only to the main body and not to a location targeted. The only exception to this is in the case of the missile defense option of 'block sacrifice."

I understand this is your viewpoint. I also understand the text makes no such "the only exception" claims.

Now I will further postulate that the damage from the missile does not come from the impact site. Indeed, even if a missile does directly strike a target, but from the explosion.

I would agree that making house rules for this in the case of explosive/plasma/fragmentation would make a lot of sense. But if you're going down the path of house rules, it would make sense to apply 1/2 damage all hit locations besides the main body.

After all, you need a called shot to target things besides the main body, but you don't actually target things in the blast radius.

This is an alternate explanation to how GBKs could operate: they may opt to directly target the main body (easier hit) and by extension, indirectly target the boom gun, suffering 1/2 damage from the blast radius. Since it isn't a called shot, this would allow their 10-missile volley to do 1D6x50 to the boom gun in 1 attack instead of 1D6x10, which could be a better tactic.

My main concern here is Armor-Piercing missiles. Those are clearly not meant to be big wavy explosions. They have a very limited blast radius and if we had to limit called shots to 1 mini-missile, they would be the natural choice. They even get a higher critical in RUE now.

AP wasn't initially a concern (GBK outfit was plasma) until Xiticix Invasion where it was mentioned as an alternate option.

The 2 basic tactics a GBK can use against a GB:
1) called shots with AP missiles to hit the gun
2) uncalled shots with plasma volleys to hit the main body, damaging the gun indirectly

Both appear allowable under RUE.

Meaning it would not be subject to the rules for a traditional called shot anyway. Thus, we must assume based on all of the evidence, that as of RUE you can no longer make a called shot with any missile of any kind. The state rests your honor.

Except there's no evidence, WP Heavy MD explicitly covers mini-missile launchers, making them subject to all Ranged Combat rules, including the capability of performing Called Shots.

This also conflicts with another Palladium game, Heroes Unlimited, where you need to make called shots to hit missiles and you can shoot down missiles with mini-missiles, meaning you must be able to perform called shots with mini-missiles.

Such a glaring conflict should lead you to question these assumptions and take a closer look at 361 in its entirety.

I think Axels big hangup is confusion about rules precedent.

He is trying to claim that the "fluff" tactic for the GBK using its minimissiles overrides the RMB rule for all missiles always striking the main body.

Fluff/Crunch is a false dichotomy which Palladium has never recognized.

Also I am not claiming any such over-ride: I believe the statement only makes sense talking about missiles making rolls, so I believe it does limit any Self-Guided Mini-Missiles, assuming the GBK could get their hands on any (CS doesn't use them, Naruni makes them, unlikely)

I don't believe it limits Un-Guided Mini-Missiles because they do not make rolls, the pilot rolls. You would need a statement saying "all power armor pilots always hit the main body when using missiles" to forbid this.

because its a "rule"
a tactic is NOT! a "rule"

Whether you call it 'reality' or 'rule', we are talking about canonical facts about Rifts Earth as Kevin Siembieda set them out.

the other issue as has been pointed out numerous times to him. that the tactic worked, under RMB RAW for missiles because the minimissiles were "unguided" which basically means... under RMB rules (which pertained as of the writing of CWC) that you could aim minimissiles because they didn't have the "brains/guidance" to attempt to correct your targeting. )
under RMB all missiles "bigger" than minimissiles were self guided (unless stated otherwise) which essentially meant that the pilot never actually attacked with the missiles they just "designated a target, and essentially told the missiles to 'go get it' "
under RUE that changed now ALL missiles always do damage to the main body, weather they are guided or not. which means at its simplest level, that the "tactic" is no longer valid, because it can't be done according to RAW.

You altered the verb from "hit" to "damage" in your rephrase.

The tactic still works, because this text does not limit what pilots can hit while using their weapon systems.

Only unpiloted missiles (self-guided ones) do their own hitting.

[Blue_Lion]

Wait you now saying that a special emphasis is not needed to state a missile can do called shots when we have a rule that says they always strike the main body?

Seams to me the rule to always strike the main body means a called shot for missiles would explicectly need something sayin a missile can do a called shot.

(Note always striking the main body is not the same as always striking when a rule after it says any roll above a 4 (5-20) strikes any roll 4 or below missis.)

The state ment does not have the limited accuacty you claim it does as the other ways avoid it are covered separately. Treating them like special cases to change the default, so the default has no reason.

The only place a mini missile could do a called shot to would be the main body, there are times that you need a called shot to hit the main body. One of the main bodies on the CS fling base can only be hit with a called shot to the main body. given the only place a missile can strike is the main body any successful strike is to the main body, shooting it down and block sacrifice are special cases with rules just for them, not the norm.

By the rules the GBK can not shoot the boom gun of the GB, that is a conflict with a rule written later. (as was pointed out it was never a rule but a tactic or flavor text and never changed the rules but was a reference to something from an obsolete rule. Just because text in a old book references a out dated rule does not change the currant rules.)


Unless you have something from RUE or later that says mini-missiles can do called shots or strike other areas than the main body they can only hit the main body in currant rules.

******So let me ask you straight up does any text say mini-missiles can be used to do called shots to locations other than the main body?(We have text that says missile strikes are always to the main body so you would need something to counter that text.)

[HWalsh]

This is an alternate explanation to how GBKs could operate: they may opt to directly target the main body (easier hit) and by extension, indirectly target the boom gun, suffering 1/2 damage from the blast radius. Since it isn't a called shot, this would allow their 10-missile volley to do 1D6x50 to the boom gun in 1 attack instead of 1D6x10, which could be a better tactic.

As a house rule a GM could rule this (I'd leave the game if they did and offer to run for the players if they would leave the GM's table because he doesn't understand the unbalancing nature of allowing that) but by the standard rules this can never be ruled as such as it violates RUE as well as the FAQ on the matter.

[HWalsh]

Also, to state that Palladium never differentiates fluff and flavor text from rules is not correct. Even Seimbiada has said, for example, that Psi-Shields are great for blocking energy blasts... Even though Psi-Shields cannot do this as of RUE.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

This is an alternate explanation to how GBKs could operate: they may opt to directly target the main body (easier hit) and by extension, indirectly target the boom gun, suffering 1/2 damage from the blast radius. Since it isn't a called shot, this would allow their 10-missile volley to do 1D6x50 to the boom gun in 1 attack instead of 1D6x10, which could be a better tactic.

As a house rule a GM could rule this (I'd leave the game if they did and offer to run for the players if they would leave the GM's table because he doesn't understand the unbalancing nature of allowing that) but by the standard rules this can never be ruled as such as it violates RUE as well as the FAQ on the matter.

It straight up says that only the main body takes damage from missiles, no other hit locations take damage. (Supporting HW here)... im starting to suspect that Axel lives in an alternate world where words mean different things and things that are clearly stated magically aren't in the copies of the books he's reading.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Also, to state that Palladium never differentiates fluff and flavor text from rules is not correct. Even Seimbiada has said, for example, that Psi-Shields are great for blocking energy blasts... Even though Psi-Shields cannot do this as of RUE.

... eh, sorta.

Depends on how you use shields in your game. IMO, people who have shields rolling to parry to defend against attacks is.... eh, not how shields work.

Shields, even smaller ones, are heavy. You dont move them around a lot. You position them to cover your most vulnerable parts and by and large leave them there. You adjust for incoming attacks usually by just pivoting your hips, if they are off-angle and might make it past your shield.

Shields should provide cover. If you want to hit the guy behind the shield, you make a called shot and have to beat his cover.

Now, im saying this not having the slightest clue how shields are actually handled in game. But if you're trying to roll to parry to block an energy blast with a shield - yeah, no. They dont move that fast. That's not how shields work.

[HWalsh]

Also, to state that Palladium never differentiates fluff and flavor text from rules is not correct. Even Seimbiada has said, for example, that Psi-Shields are great for blocking energy blasts... Even though Psi-Shields cannot do this as of RUE.

... eh, sorta.

Depends on how you use shields in your game. IMO, people who have shields rolling to parry to defend against attacks is.... eh, not how shields work.

Shields, even smaller ones, are heavy. You dont move them around a lot. You position them to cover your most vulnerable parts and by and large leave them there. You adjust for incoming attacks usually by just pivoting your hips, if they are off-angle and might make it past your shield.

Shields should provide cover. If you want to hit the guy behind the shield, you make a called shot and have to beat his cover.

Now, im saying this not having the slightest clue how shields are actually handled in game. But if you're trying to roll to parry to block an energy blast with a shield - yeah, no. They dont move that fast. That's not how shields work.

Actually... In old RMB days, when CB1 was in effect, Cyber-Knights totally could.

They were one of the classes labeled specifically fast enough to do it.

From CB1 Page 10

The Crazies, Juicer, Borg, Simvan Warrior, Cyber-Knight, Dragon and those operating power armor or hots (excluding the Glitter Boy) can attempt to parry a bullet or single energy blast if they have a suitable item/shield with which to parry. The Cyber-Knight, Mind Melter and Master Psionic who can create a psi-sword or psi-shield can also attempt to parry mega-damage energy attacks. Likewise, practitioners of magic who have a magic sword or magic shield can try to parry energy attacks.

Notice it outright says that they can?

Under Psi-Shield RUE pg. 180 it specifically says that a Psi-Shield cannot be used to parry energy blasts or projectiles.
Under RUE pg. 346 it specifically states under Parry that energy blasts and bullets cannot be parried as a rule.

If Axelmania's statements were true, then, in this case, there would be no conflict. This isn't an optional rule and it specifically calls out certain OCCs. Under the argument that previous fluff and flavor text and previous rules both Psi-Shields and Psi-Swords can, in fact, parry energy blasts. Cyber-Knights can just do it period as long as they have a suitable item with which to do so.

Axel's interpretation, however, isn't very widely accepted. I'm pretty sure it is incorrect.

Heck, if we go onto page CB1 page 11 the CK parries an energy blast with his bonuses intact:

Antagonist X, a cyber-knight, attempts to parry the blast and rolls a 14 (bonuses included). The defender always wins ties, so he successfully parries the blast with his vibro-blade. The blade takes all the damage from the energy blast.

Would I love for my CK to be able to parry energy blasts without penalties or spending an action to dodge with an indestructible Psi-Sword? HECK YES I WOULD! However the rules don't allow that. Much like, as nice as it would be for a GBK to be able to aimed shot a Boom Gun with a missile from outside of BG range, it ain't happening because it ain't allowed.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Also, to state that Palladium never differentiates fluff and flavor text from rules is not correct. Even Seimbiada has said, for example, that Psi-Shields are great for blocking energy blasts... Even though Psi-Shields cannot do this as of RUE.

... eh, sorta.

Depends on how you use shields in your game. IMO, people who have shields rolling to parry to defend against attacks is.... eh, not how shields work.

Shields, even smaller ones, are heavy. You dont move them around a lot. You position them to cover your most vulnerable parts and by and large leave them there. You adjust for incoming attacks usually by just pivoting your hips, if they are off-angle and might make it past your shield.

Shields should provide cover. If you want to hit the guy behind the shield, you make a called shot and have to beat his cover.

Now, im saying this not having the slightest clue how shields are actually handled in game. But if you're trying to roll to parry to block an energy blast with a shield - yeah, no. They dont move that fast. That's not how shields work.

Actually... In old RMB days, when CB1 was in effect, Cyber-Knights totally could.

They were one of the classes labeled specifically fast enough to do it.

From CB1 Page 10

The Crazies, Juicer, Borg, Simvan Warrior, Cyber-Knight, Dragon and those operating power armor or hots (excluding the Glitter Boy) can attempt to parry a bullet or single energy blast if they have a suitable item/shield with which to parry. The Cyber-Knight, Mind Melter and Master Psionic who can create a psi-sword or psi-shield can also attempt to parry mega-damage energy attacks. Likewise, practitioners of magic who have a magic sword or magic shield can try to parry energy attacks.

Notice it outright says that they can?

Under Psi-Shield RUE pg. 180 it specifically says that a Psi-Shield cannot be used to parry energy blasts or projectiles.
Under RUE pg. 346 it specifically states under Parry that energy blasts and bullets cannot be parried as a rule.

If Axelmania's statements were true, then, in this case, there would be no conflict. This isn't an optional rule and it specifically calls out certain OCCs. Under the argument that previous fluff and flavor text and previous rules both Psi-Shields and Psi-Swords can, in fact, parry energy blasts. Cyber-Knights can just do it period as long as they have a suitable item with which to do so.

Axel's interpretation, however, isn't very widely accepted. I'm pretty sure it is incorrect.

Heck, if we go onto page CB1 page 11 the CK parries an energy blast with his bonuses intact:

Antagonist X, a cyber-knight, attempts to parry the blast and rolls a 14 (bonuses included). The defender always wins ties, so he successfully parries the blast with his vibro-blade. The blade takes all the damage from the energy blast.

Would I love for my CK to be able to parry energy blasts without penalties or spending an action to dodge with an indestructible Psi-Sword? HECK YES I WOULD! However the rules don't allow that. Much like, as nice as it would be for a GBK to be able to aimed shot a Boom Gun with a missile from outside of BG range, it ain't happening because it ain't allowed.

Im not even sure what this entire post is referring to. I never said i was supporting Axel in any way.

Youll see i clearly say im not up on how shields actually work rules-wise in game, merely stating an opinion that, as a guy who actually carries and uses real shields, i think Palladium probably handles it wrong by having you "parry" attacks with your shield, which is NOT how a shield is actually used (other than a buckler). You dont move a shield into the way of an attack. Ever. You place your shield so that it covers a decent portion of your body from being attacked, and you "move" it by generaly moving your entire torso or changing your footing to keep the shield rim/face (depending on what kind of shield you're using - most shields you dont hold flat against your body, but instead at an angle with the rim pointed towards the enemy) on-line with the enemy, thereby keeping your body covered.

Now a weightless psi-shield, sure. You can move that around all you like - its probably a lot more akin to buckler fighting/defense. But a regular, full-sized shield (anything that basically covers your entire torso)? No way.

Now, it may very well work the way you describe (i have no reason to believe you're wrong and im still away from my books, out of town) in the current rules, but i'd chalk that up to a totally incoherent idea from Kev on how shields work. (And no blame here, he's not a HEMA or re-enactment expert).

[RockJock]

I think I'm going to just break the launcher on the GBK and call it a day.

[eliakon]

Also, to state that Palladium never differentiates fluff and flavor text from rules is not correct. Even Seimbiada has said, for example, that Psi-Shields are great for blocking energy blasts... Even though Psi-Shields cannot do this as of RUE.

... eh, sorta.

Depends on how you use shields in your game. IMO, people who have shields rolling to parry to defend against attacks is.... eh, not how shields work.

Shields, even smaller ones, are heavy. You dont move them around a lot. You position them to cover your most vulnerable parts and by and large leave them there. You adjust for incoming attacks usually by just pivoting your hips, if they are off-angle and might make it past your shield.

Shields should provide cover. If you want to hit the guy behind the shield, you make a called shot and have to beat his cover.

Now, im saying this not having the slightest clue how shields are actually handled in game. But if you're trying to roll to parry to block an energy blast with a shield - yeah, no. They dont move that fast. That's not how shields work.

Actually... In old RMB days, when CB1 was in effect, Cyber-Knights totally could.

They were one of the classes labeled specifically fast enough to do it.

From CB1 Page 10

The Crazies, Juicer, Borg, Simvan Warrior, Cyber-Knight, Dragon and those operating power armor or hots (excluding the Glitter Boy) can attempt to parry a bullet or single energy blast if they have a suitable item/shield with which to parry. The Cyber-Knight, Mind Melter and Master Psionic who can create a psi-sword or psi-shield can also attempt to parry mega-damage energy attacks. Likewise, practitioners of magic who have a magic sword or magic shield can try to parry energy attacks.

Notice it outright says that they can?

Under Psi-Shield RUE pg. 180 it specifically says that a Psi-Shield cannot be used to parry energy blasts or projectiles.
Under RUE pg. 346 it specifically states under Parry that energy blasts and bullets cannot be parried as a rule.

If Axelmania's statements were true, then, in this case, there would be no conflict. This isn't an optional rule and it specifically calls out certain OCCs. Under the argument that previous fluff and flavor text and previous rules both Psi-Shields and Psi-Swords can, in fact, parry energy blasts. Cyber-Knights can just do it period as long as they have a suitable item with which to do so.

Axel's interpretation, however, isn't very widely accepted. I'm pretty sure it is incorrect.

Heck, if we go onto page CB1 page 11 the CK parries an energy blast with his bonuses intact:

Antagonist X, a cyber-knight, attempts to parry the blast and rolls a 14 (bonuses included). The defender always wins ties, so he successfully parries the blast with his vibro-blade. The blade takes all the damage from the energy blast.

Would I love for my CK to be able to parry energy blasts without penalties or spending an action to dodge with an indestructible Psi-Sword? HECK YES I WOULD! However the rules don't allow that. Much like, as nice as it would be for a GBK to be able to aimed shot a Boom Gun with a missile from outside of BG range, it ain't happening because it ain't allowed.

Im not even sure what this entire post is referring to. I never said i was supporting Axel in any way.

Youll see i clearly say im not up on how shields actually work rules-wise in game, merely stating an opinion that, as a guy who actually carries and uses real shields, i think Palladium probably handles it wrong by having you "parry" attacks with your shield, which is NOT how a shield is actually used (other than a buckler). You dont move a shield into the way of an attack. Ever. You place your shield so that it covers a decent portion of your body from being attacked, and you "move" it by generaly moving your entire torso or changing your footing to keep the shield rim/face (depending on what kind of shield you're using - most shields you dont hold flat against your body, but instead at an angle with the rim pointed towards the enemy) on-line with the enemy, thereby keeping your body covered.

Now a weightless psi-shield, sure. You can move that around all you like - its probably a lot more akin to buckler fighting/defense. But a regular, full-sized shield (anything that basically covers your entire torso)? No way.

Now, it may very well work the way you describe (i have no reason to believe you're wrong and im still away from my books, out of town) in the current rules, but i'd chalk that up to a totally incoherent idea from Kev on how shields work. (And no blame here, he's not a HEMA or re-enactment expert).

Considering that the entire combat section is unrealistic from the ground up I would ask "so"?
No really so?
The entire "parry" system doesn't represent how parries work in the real world
The entire "strike" system is utterly abstracted and doesn't represent the real world
Dodges? Yep, not like the real world
Called shots (or the entire fire arms section? Or how explosions work? Or missile combat? Multiple Attackers? Multiple Parries? I could go on all day here...) yep totally unrealistic
So basically trying to pretend that one tiny bit of a highly abstract system that doesn't even pretend to be a reality simulation is "broken" because it does not conform to your opinion of how you think that something works based on the specific form of how you use it in your not-actually-combat re-enactment says less than nothing about how broken it is. Just that you dislike the system.
And before people jump in with the "But HEMA or SCA or <fill in the Re-Enactment/LARP/Recreationist/Enthusiast group of your choice> is really just like real world combat training..." argument.
...I look at the number of fatalities in your training.
The number of deaths in your 'wars'
And say "Nope, sorry your a sport that is as to combat training as sport fencing is to duels to the death"
Its a nice, fairly compatible simulation that is somewhat similar and may be fun as a hobby. But it is not the same.
Which is especially important to get across when people try to argue that "well my group doesn't do it that way so that is The One True Way and you/your game is not so that's wrong" because I HAVE watched people running around with full shields in moving them around to intercept hand weapons in one-on-one fights...
...the way you use a shield (or sword, or axe, or rifle, or lance... or most any weapon in fact) is utterly different if you are fighting one-on-one, small group, or mass combat. It is also totally different depending on the size and shape of your shield, or even how it is held/supported. Wall shields are used totally differently than small shields which are totally different than bucklers which are totally different than...
In the real world you need to train differently for those. Just like in the real world you train differently if you are using a buckler, a small round shield, or a wall shield... but in the game there is just one WP Shield

Oh yeah, and on the cover issues?
There is nothing that says you CAN'T use a shield as cover too. That is, in fact how cover works. You find it, put it between you and the person and then if the cover in question does, in fact, cause difficulty hitting you then it is working. Since the user of the shield, the shield and the attacker are moving constantly there is really no way to assign a flat "Shields provide X level of cover". Its more of the GM looking at the situation and, like every other situation involving cover, making a call based on the particulars of that specific case at that particular time.

[Axelmania]

Wait you now saying that a special emphasis is not needed to state a missile can do called shots when we have a rule that says they always strike the main body?

"all missiles always hit" only makes sense if referring to strike attempts, as missing/dodged/parried/blocked/shot missiles don't damage the main body.

Seams to me the rule to always strike the main body means a called shot for missiles would explicectly need something sayin a missile can do a called shot.

The restriction is for missiles which make strike rolls, not missiles which NEED strike rolls from a pilot, like unguided mini-missiles. For those who are unclear about what 362 initially meant, 363 clarifies it by re-affirming missiles can make called shots and that mini-missiles need strike rolls (they don't make them, others do).

(Note always striking the main body is not the same as always striking when a rule after it says any roll above a 4 (5-20) strikes any roll 4 or below missis.)

That rule is for missiles acting on their own, since what they ram into isn't ranged combat. The 8+ replaces when someone else is using the missile to do the striking.

The state ment does not have the limited accuacty you claim it does as the other ways avoid it are covered separately. Treating them like special cases to change the default, so the default has no reason.

I'm having difficulty understanding this part, may work better if rephrased with reminders as to which item is which.

The only place a mini missile could do a called shot to would be the main body, there are times that you need a called shot to hit the main body. One of the main bodies on the CS fling base can only be hit with a called shot to the main body. given the only place a missile can strike is the main body any successful strike is to the main body,

There is no rule saying that missiles can ONLY strike the main body.

The text is "always hit the main body".

shooting it down and block sacrifice are special cases with rules just for them, not the norm.

Are you arguing that "all" and "always" are referring to norms and not to absolutes?

I can dig that.

In which case: hitting the main body is indeed the norm and called shots are also special cases with rules just for them.

By the rules the GBK can not shoot the boom gun of the GB, that is a conflict with a rule written later.

There is no conflict. There is no inability to make called shots with mini-missiles. There is no stated inability for those called shots to hit things that are not the main body.

The 'all missiles always hit the main body' is ambiguous, capable of being read multiple ways. Ways which conflict with game canon (GBK plasmaing boomguns) are disqualified interpretations.

(as was pointed out it was never a rule but a tactic or flavor text and never changed the rules but was a reference to something from an obsolete rule. Just because text in a old book references a out dated rule does not change the currant rules.)

A canonical tactic is a game reality. It is unacceptable for you to arbitrarily classify any canon you dislike as 'flavor text' and ignore its relevance when evaluating the world.

Unless you have something from RUE or later that says mini-missiles can do called shots or strike other areas than the main body they can only hit the main body in currant rules.

What are your opinions on torpedos and called shots?

******So let me ask you straight up does any text say mini-missiles can be used to do called shots to locations other than the main body?(We have text that says missile strikes are always to the main body so you would need something to counter that text.)

The 'missile strikes' as you put them, is describing strikes made by missiles.

The Ranged Combat rules say that a WP allows you to make a called shot and hit things besides the main body. That is all you need.

If KS had intended any exceptions to this for mini-missiles, we would've seen that there, given that he had just finished discussing mini-missiles on the final WP above it on the page's left column.

As a house rule a GM could rule this (I'd leave the game if they did and offer to run for the players if they would leave the GM's table because he doesn't understand the unbalancing nature of allowing that) but by the standard rules this can never be ruled as such as it violates RUE as well as the FAQ on the matter.

It does violate the FAQ, but that doesn't have the most stellar reputation. Aren't there places where RUE violates the FAQ?

I don't see anywhere in RUE it mentions that things besides the main body don't take damage from area effect attacks.

It's not hugely unbalancing: if a 10-missile volley was shot down by the GB it wouldn't be any worse, most GB will try that anyway to avoid the massive damage to the main body which would take a ridiculous amount of money and time to repair.

to state that Palladium never differentiates fluff and flavor text from rules is not correct. Even Seimbiada has said, for example, that Psi-Shields are great for blocking energy blasts... Even though Psi-Shields cannot do this as of RUE.

You are referring to RUE 180's "The shield can not be use to parry energy blasts or projectiles".

There is no "as of RUE". This sentence was always there. Check RMB p 126.

Verb conjugation problems in the 2nd-last sentence aside, note the plurality of "blasts" and "projectiles". It doesn't contradict the "Dodging and Parrying Energy Blasts" rule on page 10 of the Conversion Book (19 of revised) which clarifies that this sentence is only referring to bursts, which cannot be parried.

Under Psi-Shield RUE pg. 180 it specifically says that a Psi-Shield cannot be used to parry energy blasts or projectiles.
Under RUE pg. 346 it specifically states under Parry that energy blasts and bullets cannot be parried as a rule.

RUE 346 is also not anything new. RMB p 35: "NOTE: Bullets and energy attacks cannot be parried"

This is still plural, and still only referring to stopping multiple shots in a single parry. You can't parry an entire burst, only an individual shot.

There has never been a conflict between RMB+Conversion or RUE+Revised:

RMB 35/126 says you can't parry energy and psi-shields can't parry energy blasts
Conversion Book 10 says the psi-shield can parry an individual shot
Conversion Book Revised 19 repeats, though alters a bit
RUE 180/346 basically just reprints the RMB text, it exists in the same synergy with the conversion books.

The conversion books have always clarified that the core book restrictions do not apply to individual shots, they are a restriction against bursts and other cases of multiple shots coming at you simultaneously (like for example, two 3D6 lasers hitting for 6D6, like you see on some bots)

If Axelmania's statements were true, then, in this case, there would be no conflict. This isn't an optional rule and it specifically calls out certain OCCs. Under the argument that previous fluff and flavor text and previous rules both Psi-Shields and Psi-Swords can, in fact, parry energy blasts. Cyber-Knights can just do it period as long as they have a suitable item with which to do so.

Axel's interpretation, however, isn't very widely accepted. I'm pretty sure it is incorrect.

The sureness is misplaced, you can't arbitrarily throw out the Conversion Books' clarification just because they disagree with your misinterpretation about the text restricting energy blasts' parrying, yet do not restrict the parrying of singular blasts in any way.

Heck, if we go onto page CB1 page 11 the CK parries an energy blast with his bonuses intact:

Antagonist X, a cyber-knight, attempts to parry the blast and rolls a 14 (bonuses included).

I'm not seeing the problem here with bonuses being intact. I don't recall the original conversion book having any bonus-nullification (or even a penalty) to parry bullets or energy blasts.

Pg 19 of the revised conversion book did introduce a massive penalty as well as bonus nullification, but then introduced a list of exceptions to the latter limitation who kept their bonuses, which included the cyber-knight.

Would I love for my CK to be able to parry energy blasts without penalties or spending an action to dodge with an indestructible Psi-Sword? HECK YES I WOULD! However the rules don't allow that.

Sure they do, there is no rule preventing parrying a singular bullet or energy blast. Page 19 of the revised conversion book explicitly explains you can do it, in case people came away with the core books with the wrong impression.

Much like, as nice as it would be for a GBK to be able to aimed shot a Boom Gun with a missile from outside of BG range, it ain't happening because it ain't allowed.

Of course that isn't happening, Boom guns have a range of 11,000 feet. Mini-missiles have a range of 5280 feet.

Unless the 30% beyond max range = -4 to strike thing is possibly cumulative (-8 to strike for 80% beyond?) this wouldn't be possible.

Well... actually if you had a Gizmoteer from South America 2 they can increase missile range by 5% per level, so if you had one who could increase it 110%, you could fire them 11,088 feet. Although no XP requirements are given for level 22.

A more realistic approach would be having a psi-tech modify the GBK, increasing its missile launcher range by 10%. A level 16 Gizmoteer can boost missile to 9504, x 1.1 = 10454 ... not quite there, but if you allow the +30% range for -4 to strike rule to apply to missiles (they seem like a possible exception, max range representing running out of fuel) it could get you there.

I think I'm going to just break the launcher on the GBK and call it a day.

All 10 of them? Each has its own individual launcher

[dreicunan]

After reading through the missile section again, it is more of a hot mess than I remembered (we never really had missiles come up in our games with any frequency, for some reason). For example, Smart Bombs are apparently actually Smart Missiles. The Mini-missile entry under damage notes claims that the reason all in a volley hit or miss is because mini-missiles are unguided, implying that others would be guided and that some in a volley could hit and some could miss (i.e. more than one strike roll), but then volley rules apply it to all missiles. It repeatedly emphasizes that guided missiles of any kind are rare and that unguided missiles get no bonus to strike, except for when they do.

So we are supposed to seriously believe that medium range missiles with ranges of 40 to 60 miles (multi-warhead medium range missiles have 80 miles, but multi-warhead missiles are called out as normally being guided) have no guidance system to get them to their target?

After reading through it all, I think that Axel's interpretation probably comes closest to an approach that makes sense (whether it is actually canon or not). I'd say that Unguided missiles need an 8+ to hit, not 4+. If it is an unguided missile, I'd allow an attempt at a called shot so long as you can direct fire the missile (which involves actually being able to see what you are aiming at).

[Blue_Lion]

This is an alternate explanation to how GBKs could operate: they may opt to directly target the main body (easier hit) and by extension, indirectly target the boom gun, suffering 1/2 damage from the blast radius. Since it isn't a called shot, this would allow their 10-missile volley to do 1D6x50 to the boom gun in 1 attack instead of 1D6x10, which could be a better tactic.

As a house rule a GM could rule this (I'd leave the game if they did and offer to run for the players if they would leave the GM's table because he doesn't understand the unbalancing nature of allowing that) but by the standard rules this can never be ruled as such as it violates RUE as well as the FAQ on the matter.

It straight up says that only the main body takes damage from missiles, no other hit locations take damage. (Supporting HW here)... im starting to suspect that Axel lives in an alternate world where words mean different things and things that are clearly stated magically aren't in the copies of the books he's reading.

As I under stand his stance we are just expected to know that missile rules do not apply to most missiles. Not because a statement in the book but because his claim that strike can only be applied to an attacker.(The idea that you should just know it only means self guided is flawed expectation and at this point not the standard placing the burden of evidence on his claim.)

I have seen no evidence that supports his claim, when asked for a quote at best you get misdirection.

[Blue_Lion]

After reading through the missile section again, it is more of a hot mess than I remembered (we never really had missiles come up in our games with any frequency, for some reason). For example, Smart Bombs are apparently actually Smart Missiles. The Mini-missile entry under damage notes claims that the reason all in a volley hit or miss is because mini-missiles are unguided, implying that others would be guided and that some in a volley could hit and some could miss (i.e. more than one strike roll), but then volley rules apply it to all missiles. It repeatedly emphasizes that guided missiles of any kind are rare and that unguided missiles get no bonus to strike, except for when they do.

So we are supposed to seriously believe that medium range missiles with ranges of 40 to 60 miles (multi-warhead medium range missiles have 80 miles, but multi-warhead missiles are called out as normally being guided) have no guidance system to get them to their target?

After reading through it all, I think that Axel's interpretation probably comes closest to an approach that makes sense (whether it is actually canon or not). I'd say that Unguided missiles need an 8+ to hit, not 4+. If it is an unguided missile, I'd allow an attempt at a called shot so long as you can direct fire the missile (which involves actually being able to see what you are aiming at).

Wait ignoring a rule that says all missiles always strike the main body is what makes the most sense?

Please explain why it makes more sense to allow called shots than fallow a rule that says they hit the main body.

[Axelmania]

Does anyone find it curious that RUE 362's famous note is a followup to discussing the ramifications of being hit by a blast radius or near miss, and rolling with impact to lessen damage?

Almost as if statements about the main body may be intended only for this context?

The Mini-missile entry under damage notes claims that the reason all in a volley hit or miss is because mini-missiles are unguided, implying that others would be guided and that some in a volley could hit and some could miss (i.e. more than one strike roll), but then volley rules apply it to all missiles.

You are correct about what 363LEFT implies, 364RIGHT also does this:

Roll to strike only one time for the entire volley. It doesn't matter if there are two missiles or 62 missiles in the volley, either they all hit or they all miss. This speeds up combat and makes sense, since most missiles are not guided.

The approach of rolling 1 time for an entire volley is based on the assumption of it being an unguided volley. It is simlpy a time-saver, much like rolling damage for 1 missile and multiplying it for the number of missiles.

It repeatedly emphasizes that guided missiles of any kind are rare and that unguided missiles get no bonus to strike, except for when they do.

When 364 talks about no bonuses, it includes an 'unless indicated otherwise' caveat.

This 'missile strikes' section also includes an interesting bit:

The rare guided missiles are +3 to strike, and smart bombs are +5 to strike

Note that it isn't "to strike with", indicating they do not add to another person's roll, but rather, they are making their own rolls, just like you wouldn't add the +4 to dodge smart bombs have to the dodge bonuses of the pilot who initially designates its path.

So we are supposed to seriously believe that medium range missiles with ranges of 40 to 60 miles (multi-warhead medium range missiles have 80 miles, but multi-warhead missiles are called out as normally being guided) have no guidance system to get them to their target?

I think it was proposed before that "long-range missiles" (lowercase, hyphen) may not exclusively refer to "Long Range Missiles" (uppercase, no hyphen) but may collectively refer to both Medium Range Missiles and Long Range Missiles, since they are all longer in range than mini (1) or short (5).

After reading through it all, I think that Axel's interpretation probably comes closest to an approach that makes sense (whether it is actually canon or not). I'd say that Unguided missiles need an 8+ to hit, not 4+.

Missiles that make their own rolls would require 5+ (above a 4).

If it is an unguided missile, I'd allow an attempt at a called shot so long as you can direct fire the missile (which involves actually being able to see what you are aiming at).

You can hit things you can't see at -10 to strike (blind) per RUE 361.

This makes me wonder about the sight ranges of power armor vs their radar and stuff. RUE 271 gives PA a 40-mile radar, 10 mile targeting computer, but I can't actually see anything about telescopic vision amplification. RUE 264 mentions a 2000-6000 ft range for Telescopic Scopes, so I imagine the effective range of sight for humans it that or less. 265's laser targeting operates somewhere in the middle at 4000 ft, no mention of any telescoping involved (it mentions you can combine with telescope, implying otherwise) so allowing unaided humans to make non-blind called shots at 4000 feet seems to be implied...

I'm more interested in what happens beyond that though, like unaided vision ant making shots at 5280 feet (mini missile launchers).

It straight up says that only the main body takes damage from missiles,
no other hit locations take damage.
(Supporting HW here)

This isn't the first instance of the FAQ saying something which conflicts with RUE, which in this case says "everything" takes damage. Boomguns are things

... im starting to suspect that Axel lives in an alternate world where words mean different things and things that are clearly stated magically aren't in the copies of the books he's reading.

FAQ is on the web, not in a book.

As to what is in RUE, I tend to quote the line verbatim more often than others, showing I'm very aware of what's in it.

As I under stand his stance we are just expected to know that missile rules do not apply to most missiles.

You're expected to understand that only rare guided missiles and smart bombs make strike rolls:

363 Mini-Missiles are NOT guided missiles. That's why they require a roll to strike
364 The rare guided missiles are +3 to strike, and smart bombs are +5 to strike

Limitations on what missiles roll to strike (mini-missiles do not roll to strike, they require Glitter Boy Killers to roll for them) do not apply when the missile isn't rolling.

Not because a statement in the book but because his claim that strike can only be applied to an attacker.(The idea that you should just know it only means self guided is flawed expectation and at this point not the standard placing the burden of evidence on his claim.)

I have seen no evidence that supports his claim, when asked for a quote at best you get misdirection.

2 key pieces of evidence are quoted above supporting guided missiles making their own rolls, from 363/364 of RUE. Admittedly, this carryover into RUE isn't repeated enough to make it as clear as it used to be, but it's still there.

Wait ignoring a rule that says all missiles always strike the main body is what makes the most sense?

Please explain why it makes more sense to allow called shots than fallow a rule that says they hit the main body.

This is a straw man argument. I am not ignoring any rule here. I am completely accepting the "Note: All missiles always strike the main body." text on RUE 363.

I'm simply reaching different conclusions about what it means than you are.

Given it takes a WP skill now to hit things not of the main body, and given the expense of an AI program to instill a WP skill, expecting a missile AI to be programmed with a WP skill so it can make called shots would be unrealistic. It makes more sense to have a living being (or skelebot AI) directing an unguided missile and using its WP to call shots.

Sourcebook 1 Revised pg 20 lists WP Heavy MD Weapons as an option for the Standard Robot Military Combat Skill Program, which costs 425,000. While the CS could theoretically install that on a mini-missile, it would seem like a huge waste of money. If they installed it on an LRM smart missile it might make more sense, but then we encounter the debate on whether WP Heavy MD Weapons even benefits missiles besides mini-missiles.

[HWalsh]

This isn't the first instance of the FAQ saying something which conflicts with RUE, which in this case says "everything" takes damage. Boomguns are things

Not really. Everything is each viable target. Since the main bodies of objects cannot be targets they are exempted by the fault. Which the FAQ supports. You are just incorrect and aren't wanting to accept that.

You're expected to understand that only rare guided missiles and smart bombs make strike rolls:

363 Mini-Missiles are NOT guided missiles. That's why they require a roll to strike
364 The rare guided missiles are +3 to strike, and smart bombs are +5 to strike

Since there are no canonical rules, right now, regarding guided missiles and they aren't mentioned in the RUE and the RUE says all missiles, that includes guided and unguided. Because ALL means all. Right now, as per the rules of rules in Rifts, the only rule we have is that ALL MISSILES ALWAYS STRIKE THE MAIN BODY meaning all missiles. Any book printed before RUE that has options otherwise are in conflict with this line. As such they are null and void. So please show me guided missile rules written AFTER RUE that support your theory. Thank you. If you cannot, you have no choice but to concede the case.

Given it takes a WP skill now to hit things not of the main body, and given the expense of an AI program to instill a WP skill, expecting a missile AI to be programmed with a WP skill so it can make called shots would be unrealistic. It makes more sense to have a living being (or skelebot AI) directing an unguided missile and using its WP to call shots.

Again. Nice theory. Show us the proof. Post RUE.

Sourcebook 1 Revised pg 20 lists WP Heavy MD Weapons as an option for the Standard Robot Military Combat Skill Program, which costs 425,000. While the CS could theoretically install that on a mini-missile, it would seem like a huge waste of money. If they installed it on an LRM smart missile it might make more sense, but then we encounter the debate on whether WP Heavy MD Weapons even benefits missiles besides mini-missiles.

Again. Theory. Show us proof. Show us a spot in a book written AFTER RUE that shows something do a called shot with an unguided missile. Until you do, then we have no choice but to concede that all such rules are null and void as they conflict with the rule IN RUE.

[Axelmania]

The heavy pops up with guys rocket launcher, has time to aim and call his shot with an armor piercing mini-missile. Boom, surprise crit, AP triggers, dead hover jet or tread.

Using armor piercing mini-missiles to tank out tank treads with called shots is a tactic I think sounds pretty cool! Using 1 missile at a time with the sniper skill for surgical aimed called shot strikes! A good use of resources.

Not really. Everything is each viable target. Since the main bodies of objects cannot be targets they are exempted by the fault. Which the FAQ supports. You are just incorrect and aren't wanting to accept that.

"everyone and everything", I don't see anything about some targets not being viable.

You're expected to understand that only rare guided missiles and smart bombs make strike rolls:

363 Mini-Missiles are NOT guided missiles. That's why they require a roll to strike
364 The rare guided missiles are +3 to strike, and smart bombs are +5 to strike

there are no canonical rules, right now, regarding guided missiles and they aren't mentioned in the RUE

Yes there is, I just showed you, 364 explains that guided missiles strike and 363 explains that mini-missiles require a roll to strike since they are not guided.

the RUE says all missiles, that includes guided and unguided.

All missiles that strike. Unguided missiles do not strike, they require a pilot to make a strike roll. A statement about taking double damage from all missiles obviously wouldn't apply to missiles that don't do damage (like smoke missiles) so a statement applying to 'all' missiles doesn't necessarily apply to every missile if the topic is one which a particular missile isn't a part of.

Because ALL means all.

If I said "all missiles will opt to spend their attacks dodging instead of saving the attacks to make strikes" that wouldn't necessarily mean that all missiles are capable of dodging, it would still only apply to smart missiles.

Right now, as per the rules of rules in Rifts, the only rule we have is that ALL MISSILES ALWAYS STRIKE THE MAIN BODY meaning all missiles.

Yet not meaning all GBK pilots.

They're the ones doing the striking with un-guided mini-missiles. This statement is not about them.

Any book printed before RUE that has options otherwise are in conflict with this line. As such they are null and void.

The option is within RUE. WP Heavy MD applies to mini-missiles, all modern WP allow you to make called shots if it is a single shot. Called shots allow you to target things other than the main body.

So please show me guided missile rules written AFTER RUE that support your theory. Thank you. If you cannot, you have no choice but to concede the case.

The guided missile rules are within RUE itself, you are opting to ignore 364's significant "guided missiles are +3 to strike" which proves that guided missiles make a strike roll, and 363's "are NOT guided missiles. That's why they require a roll to strike" which proves that guided missiles do not require a roll to strike.

This established context must be kept in mind when weighing the many different possible ways to interpret "missiles always strike".

Given it takes a WP skill now to hit things not of the main body, and given the expense of an AI program to instill a WP skill, expecting a missile AI to be programmed with a WP skill so it can make called shots would be unrealistic. It makes more sense to have a living being (or skelebot AI) directing an unguided missile and using its WP to call shots.

Again. Nice theory. Show us the proof. Post RUE.

There is no need for post-RUE evidence when the evidence is within RUE, the Ranged Combat rules clearly say what Called Shots are capable of.

Sourcebook 1 Revised pg 20 lists WP Heavy MD Weapons as an option for the Standard Robot Military Combat Skill Program, which costs 425,000. While the CS could theoretically install that on a mini-missile, it would seem like a huge waste of money. If they installed it on an LRM smart missile it might make more sense, but then we encounter the debate on whether WP Heavy MD Weapons even benefits missiles besides mini-missiles.

Again. Theory. Show us proof. Show us a spot in a book written AFTER RUE that shows something do a called shot with an unguided missile. Until you do, then we have no choice but to concede that all such rules are null and void as they conflict with the rule IN RUE.

You act as if WB5/11 never got reprints after RUE and their power armor don't matter, even though if KS intended to change anything, he'd go back and fix PA designed around tactics affected by the alleged change.

I don't need outside books, because the ranged combat rules in RUE clearly allow you to hit things other than the main body with called shots if you have a WP, and people can have a WP with a mini-missile launcher.

[Blue_Lion]

Axleman I do not know how to say this any clearer.

Your idea that you are just expected to magically know the rules only apply to missile X when they are the only missiles that makes strike rolls.
1 Has not been supported. (no statement says the rules only apply when the missile makes the attack and missile strike rules directly talk about unguided missiles making them the default.)
2 The idea that you are just expecting people to know to exclude something without being told to is unreasonable assumption.

Your whole theory is based off a unsupported idea that requires an abstract concept to be just known.

Yes all mini-missiles are unguided and require a strike roll to hit however all guided missiles still require a strike roll to hit. It does not mean that mini missiles can do called shots.
Yes all guided missiles are +3 to stike that does not mean they do not use the same strike rules, it was a counter the earlier blanket statement that "No missile bonus to trike: Unless indicated otherwise in a specific, robot, vehicle or launcher description, mini-missiles and most types of missiles are NOT guided and do not get a bonus to strike."

Wait that just said that unguided missiles strike to not get a bonus to something you have to do it in the first place. Damn that kind of blows the only guided missiles strike idea out the water. Now then if logically missile strike rules did not cover unguided missiles they would have said so in that sentence when they addressed it, instead of leaving it as something unstated that you should just know.

Nothing you provided means that minni-missiles or any missile is not part of the all missiles, or uses the missile strike rule.


It is not a matter of if the book got a reprint or not it is a matter of when the books was orignally printed as the book was never officially stated as revised or changed it still represents the rules when it was originally printed not the last time the placed it on a photo copier.(yes I know they do not make them on the copier my point was reprinting something old does not mean the reprint takes precedence over a change after it.) The book reprint is a straw man as it does not truly address anything.

[HWalsh]

Axleman I do not know how to say this any clearer.

Your idea that you are just expected to magically know the rules only apply to missile X when they are the only missiles that makes strike rolls.
1 Has not been supported. (no statement says the rules only apply when the missile makes the attack and missile strike rules directly talk about unguided missiles making them the default.)
2 The idea that you are just expecting people to know to exclude something without being told to is unreasonable assumption.

Your whole theory is based off a unsupported idea that requires an abstract concept to be just known.

Yes all mini-missiles are unguided and require a strike roll to hit however all guided missiles still require a strike roll to hit. It does not mean that mini missiles can do called shots.
Yes all guided missiles are +3 to stike that does not mean they do not use the same strike rules, it was a counter the earlier blanket statement that "No missile bonus to trike: Unless indicated otherwise in a specific, robot, vehicle or launcher description, mini-missiles and most types of missiles are NOT guided and do not get a bonus to strike."

Wait that just said that unguided missiles strike to not get a bonus to something you have to do it in the first place. Damn that kind of blows the only guided missiles strike idea out the water. Now then if logically missile strike rules did not cover unguided missiles they would have said so in that sentence when they addressed it, instead of leaving it as something unstated that you should just know.

Nothing you provided means that minni-missiles or any missile is not part of the all missiles, or uses the missile strike rule.


It is not a matter of if the book got a reprint or not it is a matter of when the books was orignally printed as the book was never officially stated as revised or changed it still represents the rules when it was originally printed not the last time the placed it on a photo copier.(yes I know they do not make them on the copier my point was reprinting something old does not mean the reprint takes precedence over a change after it.) The book reprint is a straw man as it does not truly address anything.

Part of the argument (that I find odd) is that Axel is insinuating that the strike, he is referring to, is when the missile makes the strike roll rather than when the person shooting makes the strike roll.

The logic that he is using is basically that mini-missiles are fired by the shooter. As such he can make a called shot with it because his character is aiming it. Normal missiles, even unguided ones, he postulates, make the attack themselves rather than the user. He postulates that, because his W.P. Heavy Megadamage Weapons applies that the Mini-Missiles use the Ranged Strike rules rather than the Missile Strike rules.

I think that requires an odd leap of logic and I have never seen a RUE GM, or player, use. I do not believe that is as intended and is a weird bit of mental gymnastics.