So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Ley Line walkers, Juicers, Coalition Troops, Samas, Tolkeen, & The Federation Of Magic. Come together here to discuss all things Rifts®.

Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones

User avatar
Greepnak
Explorer
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:23 pm

So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Greepnak »

So abstraction vs logic here. A spell like Firequake or any area of effect attack would logically hit all the wheels on an ATV and yet I am finding any damage to wheels/tracks is utterly disabling to vehicles as a general rule. How have other people handled the use of vehicles in their games? I suppose robots have the same issue. Attack the ankle, boo.
HWalsh
Hero
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:36 am

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by HWalsh »

Greepnak wrote:So abstraction vs logic here. A spell like Firequake or any area of effect attack would logically hit all the wheels on an ATV and yet I am finding any damage to wheels/tracks is utterly disabling to vehicles as a general rule. How have other people handled the use of vehicles in their games? I suppose robots have the same issue. Attack the ankle, boo.


Area effects only damage main body, just like missiles. So Firequake damages the main body, not each part of the vehicle.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

HWalsh wrote:
Greepnak wrote:So abstraction vs logic here. A spell like Firequake or any area of effect attack would logically hit all the wheels on an ATV and yet I am finding any damage to wheels/tracks is utterly disabling to vehicles as a general rule. How have other people handled the use of vehicles in their games? I suppose robots have the same issue. Attack the ankle, boo.


Area effects only damage main body, just like missiles. So Firequake damages the main body, not each part of the vehicle.


Yup. That's the official rule.
You need a Called Shot or a Natural 20 to hit anything other than the Main Body, and you can't generally make a Called Shot with a spell.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Killer Cyborg wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Greepnak wrote:So abstraction vs logic here. A spell like Firequake or any area of effect attack would logically hit all the wheels on an ATV and yet I am finding any damage to wheels/tracks is utterly disabling to vehicles as a general rule. How have other people handled the use of vehicles in their games? I suppose robots have the same issue. Attack the ankle, boo.


Area effects only damage main body, just like missiles. So Firequake damages the main body, not each part of the vehicle.


Yup. That's the official rule.
You need a Called Shot or a Natural 20 to hit anything other than the Main Body, and you can't generally make a Called Shot with a spell.

Yep,
Remember the rules where written for simplicity not realism. So RAW can do some things that seem illogical, that does not mean RAW does not mean what it says just that it can be illogical do to its simplicity. You as a GM are free to make things more complex and realistic if you want.

Like if a untrained shooter stood on a tanks turret pointed his weapon straight down and pulled the trigger he would not hit the turret he was standing on but the main body below it.
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.

Master of Type-O and the obvios.

Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......

I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Axelmania »

HWalsh wrote:Area effects only damage main body, just like missiles. So Firequake damages the main body, not each part of the vehicle.


If that is a rule somewhere, you could show us, right?

I seem to recall Juicer Uprising having a vehicle which drops explosive mines and those explosions damaging wheels of pursuing vehicles.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Yup. That's the official rule.
You need a Called Shot or a Natural 20 to hit anything other than the Main Body, and you can't generally make a Called Shot with a spell.

I believe that rule is for guns, modern WP.

Where does it say this rule applies to spells or explosives? Neither are guns.

A spell like Fireblast (4th level, FoM 133) which say "Everything in its path will take damage" or Sonic Blast (7th level, FoM 142) which says "Everything in the area, including friends, will suffer from the attack unles they are touching the spellcaster" are things I take literally. Everything! Wheels, guns, sensors, you name it.

Pg 158 lvl 14 Annihilate is also a good example. "everything in a 10 foot radius is struck .. If the "things" within the radius of affect have less MDC than the damage inflicted, they are completely vaporized! Only a circle of barren earth (and those with great M.D.C.) remains"

That thing is clearly capable of damaging and vaporizing wheels and boom guns. Annihilate doesn't need to make called shots. Area effect spells hit it all.

FoM 141 Breaux depicts the Targeted Defleciton spell as redirecting a gunshot into a helmet of CS armor, not the main body, and you can't exactly do a called SHOT with a parry roll.

FoM 143 the 7th level spell Sub-Particle Acceleration can be directed at E-clips, which if you had to shoot those with GUNS would almost definitely be a called shot.
User avatar
ShadowLogan
Palladin
Posts: 7401
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Location: WI

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by ShadowLogan »

Greepnak wrote:So abstraction vs logic here. A spell like Firequake or any area of effect attack would logically hit all the wheels on an ATV and yet I am finding any damage to wheels/tracks is utterly disabling to vehicles as a general rule. How have other people handled the use of vehicles in their games? I suppose robots have the same issue. Attack the ankle, boo.

By RAW damage would go to the Main Body without a called shot (missiles or not, unless you are using random hit tables). However, mines in previous Palladium books (I know its in 1E RT, but not sure if it ever made it into a Rifts title off hand) goes with the main body, but suggests the attack should do damage to the legs first (as a GM Note for essentially optional rules). So if it makes more sense that damage should go to another location first do it that way.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Axelmania wrote:
HWalsh wrote:Area effects only damage main body, just like missiles. So Firequake damages the main body, not each part of the vehicle.


If that is a rule somewhere, you could show us, right?

I seem to recall Juicer Uprising having a vehicle which drops explosive mines and those explosions damaging wheels of pursuing vehicles.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Yup. That's the official rule.
You need a Called Shot or a Natural 20 to hit anything other than the Main Body, and you can't generally make a Called Shot with a spell.

I believe that rule is for guns, modern WP.

Where does it say this rule applies to spells or explosives? Neither are guns.

A spell like Fireblast (4th level, FoM 133) which say "Everything in its path will take damage" or Sonic Blast (7th level, FoM 142) which says "Everything in the area, including friends, will suffer from the attack unles they are touching the spellcaster" are things I take literally. Everything! Wheels, guns, sensors, you name it.

Pg 158 lvl 14 Annihilate is also a good example. "everything in a 10 foot radius is struck .. If the "things" within the radius of affect have less MDC than the damage inflicted, they are completely vaporized! Only a circle of barren earth (and those with great M.D.C.) remains"

That thing is clearly capable of damaging and vaporizing wheels and boom guns. Annihilate doesn't need to make called shots. Area effect spells hit it all.

FoM 141 Breaux depicts the Targeted Defleciton spell as redirecting a gunshot into a helmet of CS armor, not the main body, and you can't exactly do a called SHOT with a parry roll.

FoM 143 the 7th level spell Sub-Particle Acceleration can be directed at E-clips, which if you had to shoot those with GUNS would almost definitely be a called shot.

You mean something besides RUE PG 362.
To strike something other than the main body , the attacker must make a called shot or roll a natural 20.

Seams to say that attacking/damaging anything other than the main body requires a called shot.

I would also think if the spell was damaging tires instead of main body on people it would damage the boots/feet of armor, kind of worth mentioning if you ask me.

I know of no vehicle listed in Juicer uprising that states it drops mines that damages the tires of a vehicle.
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.

Master of Type-O and the obvios.

Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......

I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.
Eagle
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:31 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Eagle »

"Main Body" is probably just an abstraction for game mechanics only.

An area effect blast probably would not do the same amount of damage to a robot's hand that it does to the robot's torso. There's much less surface area (so it's absorbing much less of the blast), it's shaped differently. It is more likely to be shielded by the arm or the body. It is more flexible and can bend out of the way. Explosions also aren't entirely uniform (they normally aren't like the Ultima spell from Final Fantasy where it's a nice big evenly-glowing ball of energy).

So as a result, you just declare it taking "main body" damage. That accounts for an average distribution of damage and a decent amount of GM handwavium. Let's say a Glitterboy shoots a SAMAS and crits. Rolls a total of 320 damage. The SAMAS vaporizes. Now you could come up with whatever explanation you wanted. Perhaps you just happened to tag him dead center with every single submunition. Perhaps he was doing a midair inverted high-speed turn, and you shot him in the top of the head, the blast going right through the crown of his helmet and out the crotch of the armor. Perhaps you hit the nuclear reactor and he went boom. Doesn't matter what the description is, it's all "main body" damage.

Same thing if you shoot somebody with area effect damage. You shoot a plasma missile at somebody, 50 MD. The guy is wearing old style Dead Boy armor, 80 MDC. He's engulfed in flames. Description-wise, there's damage all over the armor. The helmet is kinda melty-looking. There are places were joints are starting to fuse together. There are scorch marks on the arms. It's not pretty. But as far as game mechanics go, it's all just main body damage. The armor is gonna hold out until that 80th point of mega damage, however it happens to be dealt.

As far as Firequake goes, I'd say a vent opens up beneath the vehicle. Most of the blast goes into the body. Unless the thing has such giant monster truck tires (like the Mountaineer ATV picture, or maybe even bigger) that that there's nowhere to hit but tire, I'd just say it hits main body. Same with robots walking through lava or something. Cinematically they're just really tough, and they come out of it glowing red, but still functional.
User avatar
Greepnak
Explorer
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Greepnak »

Thanks all I appreciate it. I think I am going to go with the main body idea... I'm running a very high powered campaign and dont want people dying to an Annihilate they could have survived just because their helmet has 150 mdc only and would be logically in the death zone.
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Axelmania »

Blue_Lion wrote:You mean something besides RUE PG 362.
To strike something other than the main body , the attacker must make a called shot or roll a natural 20.

Seams to say that attacking/damaging anything other than the main body requires a called shot.

I would also think if the spell was damaging tires instead of main body on people it would damage the boots/feet of armor, kind of worth mentioning if you ask me.

I know of no vehicle listed in Juicer uprising that states it drops mines that damages the tires of a vehicle.

Yes besides 362 because that is "gun terms", it is in the ranged combat section for modern weapons. These aren't rules for spells.

JU p 84, Rolling Thunder, Mobile Mine Deployment System, "ideal for blowing out tires and damaging the feet of robots".

Also CWC p 64, Naruni Bullet Mine, "MD to the victim's foot"

No rules exist for requiring explosions to make called shots to damage stuff besides the main body.
HWalsh
Hero
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:36 am

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by HWalsh »

Axelmania wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:You mean something besides RUE PG 362.
To strike something other than the main body , the attacker must make a called shot or roll a natural 20.

Seams to say that attacking/damaging anything other than the main body requires a called shot.

I would also think if the spell was damaging tires instead of main body on people it would damage the boots/feet of armor, kind of worth mentioning if you ask me.

I know of no vehicle listed in Juicer uprising that states it drops mines that damages the tires of a vehicle.

Yes besides 362 because that is "gun terms", it is in the ranged combat section for modern weapons. These aren't rules for spells.

JU p 84, Rolling Thunder, Mobile Mine Deployment System, "ideal for blowing out tires and damaging the feet of robots".

Also CWC p 64, Naruni Bullet Mine, "MD to the victim's foot"

No rules exist for requiring explosions to make called shots to damage stuff besides the main body.


You're quoting flavor text as rules.

Much like, "Psi-Shields are great for parrying energy blasts."

It isn't possible.

As far as we know, area effects only hit main body.

Also the text doesn't indicate that it is an area effect on the target hit. It states if a dodge is failed the target takes X damage not an area of X around the target takes X. From a gout of flame shooting up. There is nothing to indicate that this is AoE damage and nothing to indicate that this damages multiple areas of one target.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Axelmania wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:You mean something besides RUE PG 362.
To strike something other than the main body , the attacker must make a called shot or roll a natural 20.

Seams to say that attacking/damaging anything other than the main body requires a called shot.

I would also think if the spell was damaging tires instead of main body on people it would damage the boots/feet of armor, kind of worth mentioning if you ask me.

I know of no vehicle listed in Juicer uprising that states it drops mines that damages the tires of a vehicle.

Yes besides 362 because that is "gun terms", it is in the ranged combat section for modern weapons. These aren't rules for spells.

JU p 84, Rolling Thunder, Mobile Mine Deployment System, "ideal for blowing out tires and damaging the feet of robots".

Also CWC p 64, Naruni Bullet Mine, "MD to the victim's foot"

No rules exist for requiring explosions to make called shots to damage stuff besides the main body.

Does the rolling thunder provide any mechicnal details on that or is just flavor fluff?
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.

Master of Type-O and the obvios.

Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......

I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Axelmania »

HWalsh wrote:
Axelmania wrote:JU p 84, Rolling Thunder, Mobile Mine Deployment System, "ideal for blowing out tires and damaging the feet of robots".

Also CWC p 64, Naruni Bullet Mine, "MD to the victim's foot"

No rules exist for requiring explosions to make called shots to damage stuff besides the main body.


You're quoting flavor text as rules.

Rules you don't like don't become "flavor text".

HWalsh wrote:Much like, "Psi-Shields are great for parrying energy blasts."

Where does it say this?

HWalsh wrote:It isn't possible.

The note in the power was clarified in the conversion book as meaning they can't parry MULTIPLE energy blasts simultaneously, ie a pulse or a burst.

It is possible to parry individual blasts. The combat example has a cyber-knight doing that.

Psi-Warriors are also explicitly listed as being able to do it with their shields, at penalty.

HWalsh wrote:As far as we know, area effects only hit main body.

According to what? The rules for guns? Guns aren't the only things which can make area-effect attacks.

Blue_Lion wrote:Does the rolling thunder provide any mechicnal details on that or is just flavor fluff?

The mechanical detail, much like the Naruni Bullet Mine, is it can damage tires and feet, like it says.

As far as how you would deal with the chances of stepping on a mine while walking or in a vehicular chase, this wouldn't be the first situation which may be unclear how to GM in Palladium.

This applies to a lot of 'trap' type weapons. For example "I lay a caltrop in the halway, does the goblin chasing me step on it?"

I expect a combination of Perception rolls and Dodges (if you were already in motion and had to alter your path) would be needed to be introduced for this type of combat.

Hazy mechanics don't negate the reality that it can be done though. There is certainly no "mines can't damage tires and feet" rule, and extrapolating Gun Terms "Main Body" rule to non-guns is a house rule.

At best I could see this limiting a TW Cannon which shot Firequakes, but no the raw spell itself.
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by eliakon »

Axelmania wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Axelmania wrote:JU p 84, Rolling Thunder, Mobile Mine Deployment System, "ideal for blowing out tires and damaging the feet of robots".

Also CWC p 64, Naruni Bullet Mine, "MD to the victim's foot"

No rules exist for requiring explosions to make called shots to damage stuff besides the main body.


You're quoting flavor text as rules.

Rules you don't like don't become "flavor text".

No, statements that do not have rules with them are flavor text.
Not everything in the book is a "rule"
The rules are the things that say "this is how the game works" like a statement that all damage is done to the main body.
A flavor text is a descriptive statement in a passage. Sometimes those flavor texts are in conflict with the rules...
...in which case the rule, being the actual rule, trumps the flavor text.

Since there are rules on damaging targets, and those rules state that all damage is done to the main body, then...
...damage is done to the main body.
Unless something contains a specific statement that it changes this rule, it is just flavor text... because you can talk about things that sound cool... but are rules wise mechanically impossible.
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Axelmania »

The rules are for GUNs damaging targets. You want that to apply elsewhere, find a place where it is more broadly worded.

World books 10 and 11 tell you how mines work. That isn't flavor text. They are weapon descriptions.
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

Axelmania wrote:The rules are for GUNs damaging targets. You want that to apply elsewhere, find a place where it is more broadly worded.

World books 10 and 11 tell you how mines work. That isn't flavor text. They are weapon descriptions.

Axe, what was being talked about was explosions. Why are you bringing smallarms rules into the discussion? Please, Stick to the topic being discussed without trying to confuse things by bringing up irrelevant rules sets. So if you are going to quote rules quote ones that apply to explosions. Maybe say where those rules are with said quote.

As a GM would I do damage to the body or vehicle part that has come in contact with a land mine? Yes, but that would be my GM ruling.
Last edited by drewkitty ~..~ on Tue May 30, 2017 11:29 am, edited 3 times in total.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Axelmania »

What explosion rules are you talking about? I am hoping this isn't a seance of channeling text about missiles into mines.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Axelmania wrote:What explosion rules are you talking about? I am hoping this isn't a seance of channeling text about missiles into mines.

The AOE(blast radius) rules are found in missiles but they clearly address more than missiles. PG 363.
"As noted previously, every one and everything in the blast radius suffers half damage. So a grenade or mni-missile that does 5d6 to the target it strikes(or lands at the feet of) and end every thing else within the rest of the blast radius suffers half the Mega-damage."

So yea the AOE rules are written in missiles but talk about blast radius in general not just for missiles.
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.

Master of Type-O and the obvios.

Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......

I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.
HWalsh
Hero
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:36 am

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by HWalsh »

Blue_Lion wrote:
Axelmania wrote:What explosion rules are you talking about? I am hoping this isn't a seance of channeling text about missiles into mines.

The AOE(blast radius) rules are found in missiles but they clearly address more than missiles. PG 363.
"As noted previously, every one and everything in the blast radius suffers half damage. So a grenade or mni-missile that does 5d6 to the target it strikes(or lands at the feet of) and end every thing else within the rest of the blast radius suffers half the Mega-damage."

So yea the AOE rules are written in missiles but talk about blast radius in general not just for missiles.


Good find for the non-specific segment. I will remember that for when this topic inevitably comes up. Much better than having to infer it.
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Axelmania »

That could be intended for rocket a propelled grenades, since mini-missiles are rockets.

Including another ranged explosive doesn't make this a statement about all explosives. Certainly not non-ranged things like mines.
User avatar
Greepnak
Explorer
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Greepnak »

Palladium really could use a second edition, hehehe.

Ok let me reframe the question then. Firequake under a pair of CS Mark IV APCs... if I treat that as literally as possible since their speed would be hampered by the firequake's effects and their tires/underbelly would take damage logically from the effect, how do I appropriately anticipate and address that as GM? Just more APCS?

I'm liking the idea of just aoes hit main body, because it keeps combat fast paced... imagine a grenade 1d6x10 vs someone in heavy bushman 80mdc. Sure the chest can absorb that 60 hit, but the head, legs, helmet, arms, etc are all gone and I'm not using any GI joe rules. Treating it as anything other than "main body only" abstraction makes Area Effect attacks the ultimate weapon bar none and thats not what I think serves my game well.
guardiandashi
Hero
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:21 am

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by guardiandashi »

Greepnak wrote:Palladium really could use a second edition, hehehe.

Ok let me reframe the question then. Firequake under a pair of CS Mark IV APCs... if I treat that as literally as possible since their speed would be hampered by the firequake's effects and their tires/underbelly would take damage logically from the effect, how do I appropriately anticipate and address that as GM? Just more APCS?

I'm liking the idea of just aoes hit main body, because it keeps combat fast paced... imagine a grenade 1d6x10 vs someone in heavy bushman 80mdc. Sure the chest can absorb that 60 hit, but the head, legs, helmet, arms, etc are all gone and I'm not using any GI joe rules. Treating it as anything other than "main body only" abstraction makes Area Effect attacks the ultimate weapon bar none and thats not what I think serves my game well.

see the problem really comes down to is palladium "realistic" or cinematic, and in a lot of ways it plays a lot better if you treat it as cinematic, because of issues exactly like this.

if you look at it from a "realistic" point of view what would most likely happen is the lower portions of a vehicle will take 5d6 or 15d6 MDC.

the problem is a lot of vehicles have wheels that are only ~5-10 MDC each, so if you only applied the damage to the wheels, many/all of the wheels would be destroyed and the vehicle immobilized and possibly destroyed if the effects last long enough.

if you go by RAW it is one of those AoE attacks that would do "general" IE MAIN body damage because the spell doesn't actually strike to hit, therefore it CANNOT make a called shot, the damage would automatically go to the main body.

the problem is that the spell doesn't make an attack it just automatically damages anything in the area unless they make a "dodge" except.... there is no dodge target listed so how can a person successfully dodge?

anyways as a cinematic effect you could have 1 (or more) of the wheels damaged /destroyed, (even though the damage is "actually subtracted from the Main Body" ) and have the vehicle damaged and slowed down, until repaired.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Axelmania wrote:That could be intended for rocket a propelled grenades, since mini-missiles are rockets.

Including another ranged explosive doesn't make this a statement about all explosives. Certainly not non-ranged things like mines.

Does a mine have a blast radius?
Is there any other rule to cover blast radius?

It is the only rule for blast radius so it applies to all blast radius unless you have another rule for blast radius.
It could also be intended to be a thrown or even a dropped grenade more so with the comment that it lands at the feet of. The fact a Mini-missile is rocket makes the distinction that includes Grenadines more important not less.

I find the idea that they could be talking about something else means that the only blast radius rule does not apply all blast radius some what flawed concept.
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.

Master of Type-O and the obvios.

Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......

I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by eliakon »

And at the risk of starting one of the perennial threads...
...the AOE rules do not say explicitly that every part/location of everything take the half damage.
It just says that the main target takes full damage and everyone/everything else takes half.
This can mean
A) that the main target takes full damage to its main body and all other targets take half damage to their main body
or
B) the main target takes full damage to its main body, and every other possible sub-target, area and object in the area takes half damage.

A IMHO follows the games other rules pretty well
B gets into the issue of basically making any AOE weapon instant death because you can basically argue that they do infinite damage since you can just keep sub-dividing everything it to yet more and more hit-locations...
Either way the GM will want to make a ruling based on how they want AOE weapons to work in their game and move on.
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Axelmania »

guardiandashi wrote:the problem is a lot of vehicles have wheels that are only ~5-10 MDC each, so if you only applied the damage to the wheels, many/all of the wheels would be destroyed and the vehicle immobilized and possibly destroyed if the effects last long enough.

That's no a problem, it's awesome.

guardiandashi wrote:if you go by RAW it is one of those AoE attacks that would do "general" IE MAIN body damage because the spell doesn't actually strike to hit, therefore it CANNOT make a called shot, the damage would automatically go to the main body.

That isn't going by the RAW, because no evidence has been provided showing that called shots are needed for magic spells to damage things which are not the main body. That is unbacked house rule speculation.

Blue_Lion wrote:Does a mine have a blast radius?
Is there any other rule to cover blast radius?

It is the only rule for blast radius so it applies to all blast radius unless you have another rule for blast radius.

Missiles do full damage to a direct hit and 1/2 damage to other things in the blast radius.

Other explosives do not use those rules. Many do the same base damage to everything in the radius.

The very wording of other area effect weapons' damage proves they do not abide by missile radius rules.

eliakon wrote:And at the risk of starting one of the perennial threads...
...the AOE rules do not say explicitly that every part/location of everything take the half damage.
It just says that the main target takes full damage and everyone/everything else takes half.
This can mean
A) that the main target takes full damage to its main body and all other targets take half damage to their main body
or
B) the main target takes full damage to its main body, and every other possible sub-target, area and object in the area takes half damage.


The missile rules (not AOE rules, not all AOE work that way) are indeed pretty ambiguous, I agree.

The online FAQ seems to favor A over B, though I frown at people relying on that when they are glad to discard the FAQ in other circumstances.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Axelmania wrote:
guardiandashi wrote:the problem is a lot of vehicles have wheels that are only ~5-10 MDC each, so if you only applied the damage to the wheels, many/all of the wheels would be destroyed and the vehicle immobilized and possibly destroyed if the effects last long enough.

That's no a problem, it's awesome.

guardiandashi wrote:if you go by RAW it is one of those AoE attacks that would do "general" IE MAIN body damage because the spell doesn't actually strike to hit, therefore it CANNOT make a called shot, the damage would automatically go to the main body.

That isn't going by the RAW, because no evidence has been provided showing that called shots are needed for magic spells to damage things which are not the main body. That is unbacked house rule speculation.

Blue_Lion wrote:Does a mine have a blast radius?
Is there any other rule to cover blast radius?

It is the only rule for blast radius so it applies to all blast radius unless you have another rule for blast radius.

Missiles do full damage to a direct hit and 1/2 damage to other things in the blast radius.

Other explosives do not use those rules. Many do the same base damage to everything in the radius.

The very wording of other area effect weapons' damage proves they do not abide by missile radius rules.

eliakon wrote:And at the risk of starting one of the perennial threads...
...the AOE rules do not say explicitly that every part/location of everything take the half damage.
It just says that the main target takes full damage and everyone/everything else takes half.
This can mean
A) that the main target takes full damage to its main body and all other targets take half damage to their main body
or
B) the main target takes full damage to its main body, and every other possible sub-target, area and object in the area takes half damage.


The missile rules (not AOE rules, not all AOE work that way) are indeed pretty ambiguous, I agree.

The online FAQ seems to favor A over B, though I frown at people relying on that when they are glad to discard the FAQ in other circumstances.

How is the PC having to walk every where after a minor AoE damage awesome?

Do you have a quote that says the blast radius rules do not apply to all blast radius? The fact that they mention non missile in the blast radius shows the rule applies to more than just missiles.

The rule specifies grenades, grenades do X to a blast radius/area of Y, or X to a Y area.(your assertion that they are talking about RPGs is seams illogical with no support, such as RPGs being in RUE.)
Fusion blocks have a damage and said to be contained to a blast radius of 10'.
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.

Master of Type-O and the obvios.

Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......

I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.
HWalsh
Hero
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:36 am

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by HWalsh »

Okay, here is why Palladium made the rule that AoEs only hit the main body.

You're a new player.
You just spent 5-6 hours figuring out how to make a character.
This requires you pretty much to go through 3-5 books and probably you are already annoyed.

Cool.

You get into game with your Heavy Mega-Damage Armor.

Main Body: 95
Helmet: 50
Arms: 30
Legs: 50

They get caught in a 2d6x10 area attack. This could be missiles, this could be grenades, this could be whatever... Doesn't matter...

They take average damage a 3 and a 4.

They take half damage:
35 MD to each location...

Well their arms are exposed.

Another area attack? Oops. You're dead. Make a new character.
You're GM doesn't use the so-called "GI Joe Rule" either? Sucks to be you, you died on the first attack.

Of course Palladium doesn't do that.

Why? Because then new players would quit, they'd not play again, and Palladium would lose customer base because THAT is bad game design. Instead Palladium made it all go to the main body. So in this case the PC takes a hit to his chest, he still has 60 M.D. on the main body and his arms, legs, and head are fine. The game can continue on.
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Axelmania »

Blue_Lion wrote:How is the PC having to walk every where after a minor AoE damage awesome?

I was thinking they would kill the mage who did the firequake (the range on the spell isn't THAT great) and then spend a bit of time changing in a spare tire.

If it's an APC or something there's certainly room in there to carry spare tires.

Blue_Lion wrote:Do you have a quote that says the blast radius rules do not apply to all blast radius? The fact that they mention non missile in the blast radius shows the rule applies to more than just missiles.

Given that this was in the missile section, your so-called "blast radius rules" presumably refers to grenades which are also missiles: RPGs.

Descriptions of other area-effect damage do not imply any half damage for others.

An example would be in WB31 p 138 the auto-cannon of the Rainmaker:
    A dual shot has a 5 foot (1.5 m) blast radius, a burst has a 15 foot (4.6 m) blast radius (everything in the radius takes damage).

RUE p 216 the Shockwave spell is another good example. The damage is "inflicted to everything in the radius". There's no 1/2 damage if someone didn't aim it directly at you.

Half damage for being a secondary target is a thing unique to the missile section. At best there's some flexibility to some degree of grenades, but not to any other explosives such as mines.

The idea of called shots is the difficulty of making contact with something. Things like mines do not need to make called shots because they are ALREADY in contact with something, the contact is what makes them go off.

Unless a robot trips and falls, it is their foot contacting the mine that sets it off. It doesn't have to roll to hit, because it was already hit. It is the wheel which rolls onto a mine and sets it off, contact is already present. Placed charges do not make strike rolls, hitting is automatic.

HWalsh wrote:Okay, here is why Palladium made the rule that AoEs only hit the main body.

There's no such rule.

HWalsh wrote:Well their arms are exposed.

Another area attack? Oops. You're dead. Make a new character.

Pretty sure that just means you lose the arm, using the guidelines on 358/359.

Sounds like the MDC of the arms is greater than the main body MDC of some other suits of armor. It's all relative. Explosions being scary isn't a bad thing at all. A good reason to use cover or not be in the radius.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Axelmania wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:How is the PC having to walk every where after a minor AoE damage awesome?

I was thinking they would kill the mage who did the firequake (the range on the spell isn't THAT great) and then spend a bit of time changing in a spare tire.

If it's an APC or something there's certainly room in there to carry spare tires.

Blue_Lion wrote:Do you have a quote that says the blast radius rules do not apply to all blast radius? The fact that they mention non missile in the blast radius shows the rule applies to more than just missiles.

Given that this was in the missile section, your so-called "blast radius rules" presumably refers to grenades which are also missiles: RPGs.

Descriptions of other area-effect damage do not imply any half damage for others.

An example would be in WB31 p 138 the auto-cannon of the Rainmaker:
    A dual shot has a 5 foot (1.5 m) blast radius, a burst has a 15 foot (4.6 m) blast radius (everything in the radius takes damage).

RUE p 216 the Shockwave spell is another good example. The damage is "inflicted to everything in the radius". There's no 1/2 damage if someone didn't aim it directly at you.

Half damage for being a secondary target is a thing unique to the missile section. At best there's some flexibility to some degree of grenades, but not to any other explosives such as mines.

The idea of called shots is the difficulty of making contact with something. Things like mines do not need to make called shots because they are ALREADY in contact with something, the contact is what makes them go off.

Unless a robot trips and falls, it is their foot contacting the mine that sets it off. It doesn't have to roll to hit, because it was already hit. It is the wheel which rolls onto a mine and sets it off, contact is already present. Placed charges do not make strike rolls, hitting is automatic.

HWalsh wrote:Okay, here is why Palladium made the rule that AoEs only hit the main body.

There's no such rule.

HWalsh wrote:Well their arms are exposed.

Another area attack? Oops. You're dead. Make a new character.

Pretty sure that just means you lose the arm, using the guidelines on 358/359.

Sounds like the MDC of the arms is greater than the main body MDC of some other suits of armor. It's all relative. Explosions being scary isn't a bad thing at all. A good reason to use cover or not be in the radius.

So your counter to them lising grenades is they are talking about a grenade that counts as a missile that is not found in the book?
That we know this not because they tell us rocket propelled grenade but just grenade and we are just suppose to magically know it is a rocket propelled grenade.

That is to many abstract assumptions to be the standard.

Got it your totally talking out your rear in attempt to rules lawyer in some none existent separate blast radius rule for other explosives.
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.

Master of Type-O and the obvios.

Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......

I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.
rem1093
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 12:03 am
Contact:

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by rem1093 »

eliakon wrote:And at the risk of starting one of the perennial threads...
...the AOE rules do not say explicitly that every part/location of everything take the half damage.
It just says that the main target takes full damage and everyone/everything else takes half.
This can mean
A) that the main target takes full damage to its main body and all other targets take half damage to their main body
or
B) the main target takes full damage to its main body, and every other possible sub-target, area and object in the area takes half damage.

A IMHO follows the games other rules pretty well
B gets into the issue of basically making any AOE weapon instant death because you can basically argue that they do infinite damage since you can just keep sub-dividing everything it to yet more and more hit-locations...
Either way the GM will want to make a ruling based on how they want AOE weapons to work in their game and move on.


The problem I have with this is that some types of explosives can't work that way. For instance, all Frag. based explosives do damage not from the blast itself but from the fragmentation and it wouldn't matter if the fragments hit your arm or chest the damage would be the same it everything in the blast radius.

Now as for the spell you should have to take into account the fact the the damage is coming from the ground up. So the damage would have to hit the bottom of the ATV, and everything under it first.
HWalsh
Hero
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:36 am

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by HWalsh »

rem1093 wrote:
eliakon wrote:And at the risk of starting one of the perennial threads...
...the AOE rules do not say explicitly that every part/location of everything take the half damage.
It just says that the main target takes full damage and everyone/everything else takes half.
This can mean
A) that the main target takes full damage to its main body and all other targets take half damage to their main body
or
B) the main target takes full damage to its main body, and every other possible sub-target, area and object in the area takes half damage.

A IMHO follows the games other rules pretty well
B gets into the issue of basically making any AOE weapon instant death because you can basically argue that they do infinite damage since you can just keep sub-dividing everything it to yet more and more hit-locations...
Either way the GM will want to make a ruling based on how they want AOE weapons to work in their game and move on.


The problem I have with this is that some types of explosives can't work that way. For instance, all Frag. based explosives do damage not from the blast itself but from the fragmentation and it wouldn't matter if the fragments hit your arm or chest the damage would be the same it everything in the blast radius.

Now as for the spell you should have to take into account the fact the the damage is coming from the ground up. So the damage would have to hit the bottom of the ATV, and everything under it first.


It is a game... Not real life.

We can't try to make "realistic" comparisons. We just can't. It won't work.

Okay... Lets do this realistically... You make a grenade. It has an explosive in it. It explodes and sends fragmentation shards out... Right...

Congrats, "realistically" you just did SD. You "realistically" can't do MD with a fragmentation grenade. Wait? What? This isn't like the craptacular logic in the Wolverine movies... Where you know, Adamantium can cut through Adamantium... That isn't how physics work. If you have an Adamantium Shield, and I have an Adamantium Sword, it doesn't matter that they are made from the same metal, because I can't generate enough force to cut through your shield. Period. So... How are you making an MD frag grenade? Well you are putting an explosive in... What? An MD shell? Cool it can't explode. Okay, you are putting an MD explosive inside of an MD shell? Congratulations, the relative force of the explosion, by the rules of how MD works, causes the shell to be completely destroyed and thus you have no fragmentation. Even if you somehow altered the metal so that it was designed to break apart then you are talking about shards of MD material traveling at shockwave speeds... Wait... Shockwave speeds? Yes. That is how explosions work. Meaning that you are limited by how shockwaves work... So... You STILL aren't getting MD with it because physics says no.

Why? Well we know that in order to propel a projectile fast enough to do MD damage you need to apply directed propellant... These are called big bore weapons... Also meaning, if you want to make Rifts "Realistic" then fragmentation weapons do 1 M.D. to each target in the blast radius.

Okay, lets do a few more... So... You know how lasers in Rifts are "silent" unless you apply a sound/light generator?

Yeah. No.

See what would happen is you would fire, and the air between you and the target would be cooked along the line instantly which would cause an implosion of the air and that would in turn rip back into the weapon you fired and the sheer force of that would rip the weapon out of your hands.

You want to fire a plasma weapon? Congratulations, you just did MD to yourself for firing it. Plasma has a lot of radiant heat and the heat output of Rifts plasma would be such that firing the weapon would cook you and everyone around you. Toasty!

The lesson here is simple... Don't apply "realism" to Rifts. Or any other RPG. They aren't realistic.
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Axelmania »

Blue_Lion wrote:That we know this not because they tell us rocket propelled grenade but just grenade and we are just suppose to magically know it is a rocket propelled grenade.

There's nothing magical about this, it is in a section about missiles, these are rules about missiles.

If someone was playing a simple CS Grunt without access to a missile launcher, and no reason at all to read the missile section, and he had some grenades from page 260, if he reads "2D6 MD to a 20 foot area" he isn't directed in any way to think "2D6 to one specific target, 1D6 (or 2D6/2) to everyone else".

Not dividing by half should obviously be the case for bombs which don't even have a strike roll and thus can't make a roll to strike anything in particular.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Axelmania wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:That we know this not because they tell us rocket propelled grenade but just grenade and we are just suppose to magically know it is a rocket propelled grenade.

There's nothing magical about this, it is in a section about missiles, these are rules about missiles.

If someone was playing a simple CS Grunt without access to a missile launcher, and no reason at all to read the missile section, and he had some grenades from page 260, if he reads "2D6 MD to a 20 foot area" he isn't directed in any way to think "2D6 to one specific target, 1D6 (or 2D6/2) to everyone else".

Not dividing by half should obviously be the case for bombs which don't even have a strike roll and thus can't make a roll to strike anything in particular.

You read it because it is part of the rules to the game.

There are no grenades in RUE that are treated as missiles. I would also point out while missiles are rockets not all rockets are missiles. You basically saying you should just know that they mean a unlisted grenade being treated like a missile. There is nothing in the text that talks about a grenade being treated as a missile so it is a unsupported theory.
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.

Master of Type-O and the obvios.

Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......

I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Axelmania »

An example of an RPG does not need to be present in RUE.

Rifts Underseas pg 116 has the LAWS-3 which fires RPGs.

These are certainly the kind of rockets we know to be synonymous with mini-missile.
rem1093
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 12:03 am
Contact:

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by rem1093 »

HWalsh wrote:
rem1093 wrote:
eliakon wrote:And at the risk of starting one of the perennial threads...
...the AOE rules do not say explicitly that every part/location of everything take the half damage.
It just says that the main target takes full damage and everyone/everything else takes half.
This can mean
A) that the main target takes full damage to its main body and all other targets take half damage to their main body
or
B) the main target takes full damage to its main body, and every other possible sub-target, area and object in the area takes half damage.

A IMHO follows the games other rules pretty well
B gets into the issue of basically making any AOE weapon instant death because you can basically argue that they do infinite damage since you can just keep sub-dividing everything it to yet more and more hit-locations...
Either way the GM will want to make a ruling based on how they want AOE weapons to work in their game and move on.


The problem I have with this is that some types of explosives can't work that way. For instance, all Frag. based explosives do damage not from the blast itself but from the fragmentation and it wouldn't matter if the fragments hit your arm or chest the damage would be the same it everything in the blast radius.

Now as for the spell you should have to take into account the fact the the damage is coming from the ground up. So the damage would have to hit the bottom of the ATV, and everything under it first.


It is a game... Not real life.

We can't try to make "realistic" comparisons. We just can't. It won't work.

Okay... Lets do this realistically... You make a grenade. It has an explosive in it. It explodes and sends fragmentation shards out... Right...

Congrats, "realistically" you just did SD. You "realistically" can't do MD with a fragmentation grenade. Wait? What? This isn't like the craptacular logic in the Wolverine movies... Where you know, Adamantium can cut through Adamantium... That isn't how physics work. If you have an Adamantium Shield, and I have an Adamantium Sword, it doesn't matter that they are made from the same metal, because I can't generate enough force to cut through your shield. Period. So... How are you making an MD frag grenade? Well you are putting an explosive in... What? An MD shell? Cool it can't explode. Okay, you are putting an MD explosive inside of an MD shell? Congratulations, the relative force of the explosion, by the rules of how MD works, causes the shell to be completely destroyed and thus you have no fragmentation. Even if you somehow altered the metal so that it was designed to break apart then you are talking about shards of MD material traveling at shockwave speeds... Wait... Shockwave speeds? Yes. That is how explosions work. Meaning that you are limited by how shockwaves work... So... You STILL aren't getting MD with it because physics says no.

Why? Well we know that in order to propel a projectile fast enough to do MD damage you need to apply directed propellant... These are called big bore weapons... Also meaning, if you want to make Rifts "Realistic" then fragmentation weapons do 1 M.D. to each target in the blast radius.

Okay, lets do a few more... So... You know how lasers in Rifts are "silent" unless you apply a sound/light generator?

Yeah. No.

See what would happen is you would fire, and the air between you and the target would be cooked along the line instantly which would cause an implosion of the air and that would in turn rip back into the weapon you fired and the sheer force of that would rip the weapon out of your hands.

You want to fire a plasma weapon? Congratulations, you just did MD to yourself for firing it. Plasma has a lot of radiant heat and the heat output of Rifts plasma would be such that firing the weapon would cook you and everyone around you. Toasty!

The lesson here is simple... Don't apply "realism" to Rifts. Or any other RPG. They aren't realistic.


If its shrapnel based it would work, using MD balls inside a SD shell. Also when you think about it, depending on what you use as the shrapnel, these type of explosives could be really good anti supernatural weapons.
HWalsh
Hero
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:36 am

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by HWalsh »

rem1093 wrote: If its shrapnel based it would work, using MD balls inside a SD shell. Also when you think about it, depending on what you use as the shrapnel, these type of explosives could be really good anti supernatural weapons.


Wouldn't work.

If you used an SD shell the explosion would vaporize the shell rather than fragment it. It would be so fast that it would happen before the shockwave hits the bearings (balls) and the bearings would be driven outward at lower than conventional speeds due to the shockwave contending with the air displacement that an explosion at MD levels would cause.

Basically there would be a counterforce pulling the ball bearings back inward at the point of detonation which would blunt the speed and drop them back to SD levels of velocity.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Axelmania wrote:An example of an RPG does not need to be present in RUE.

Rifts Underseas pg 116 has the LAWS-3 which fires RPGs.

These are certainly the kind of rockets we know to be synonymous with mini-missile.

(honestly not worth the effort to check some obscure weapon to see if what is written as a general grenade reference could possibly be an obscure special case.)
At this point you are just being foolish as listing two synonyms as examples makes no sense. Thanks for disproving your they are referring to some special grenade that counts as a missile theory.

Just because it can possible(although highly unlikely) be something special does not mean it is not by default all that fallows under the name.

There is no reason by the way the text is written to think it is revering to some obscure reference. It is more logical to assume in that case that they are talking about blast radius in general as they did not specify RPGs.
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.

Master of Type-O and the obvios.

Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......

I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Axelmania »

They are talking about missiles. Even if we did extend this to thrown grenades it would not mean this justifies applying this to all explosions.

Anyway wasn't this your roundabout way of segwaying into arguing that all explosions need called shots to damage parts?

The word on mines is in. They don't. Nor do shaped explosives, the MAESIES used by the super trooper PA to blow up limbs never required any 12 to hit. It wasn't a gun.
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by eliakon »

Axelmania wrote:They are talking about missiles. Even if we did extend this to thrown grenades it would not mean this justifies applying this to all explosions.

Anyway wasn't this your roundabout way of segwaying into arguing that all explosions need called shots to damage parts?

The word on mines is in. They don't. Nor do shaped explosives, the MAESIES used by the super trooper PA to blow up limbs never required any 12 to hit. It wasn't a gun.

You are aware of the fact that rules hold in all cases that are not an exception?
So, if you have a rule, like say... "all damage goes to the Main Body" and then you have an exception come along "This weapon here does damage to tires"
Then...
...that weapon does damage to tires.
Maybe even that class of weapon does damage to tires.
It does not mean that the rule has been invalidated.
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
rem1093
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 12:03 am
Contact:

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by rem1093 »

HWalsh wrote:
rem1093 wrote: If its shrapnel based it would work, using MD balls inside a SD shell. Also when you think about it, depending on what you use as the shrapnel, these type of explosives could be really good anti supernatural weapons.


Wouldn't work.

If you used an SD shell the explosion would vaporize the shell rather than fragment it. It would be so fast that it would happen before the shockwave hits the bearings (balls) and the bearings would be driven outward at lower than conventional speeds due to the shockwave contending with the air displacement that an explosion at MD levels would cause.

Basically there would be a counterforce pulling the ball bearings back inward at the point of detonation which would blunt the speed and drop them back to SD levels of velocity.


But that's what I want. The shell doesn't mater, its the MD balls inside the shell and rapped around the explosive, that do all the damage. As for the explosive itself, there is not reason that it has to be MD, its not there to damage but to push the shrapnel/balls, so it can be SD.

The thing is that there is already shrapnel and frag. weapons in the game. Shot guns, Flak guns, and the Boom gun are all shrapnel based and as for Frag. you got the missiles and grenades. What my original post was trying to get is that these types of weapons shouldn't be lumped in with other other types of explosives, because they don't work the same way, and shouldn't follow the same rules. Its like saying that all the energy weapon in the game have to work just like a normal laser, even though its a plasma, partial, phase, ext, type weapon.
HWalsh
Hero
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:36 am

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by HWalsh »

rem1093 wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
rem1093 wrote: If its shrapnel based it would work, using MD balls inside a SD shell. Also when you think about it, depending on what you use as the shrapnel, these type of explosives could be really good anti supernatural weapons.


Wouldn't work.

If you used an SD shell the explosion would vaporize the shell rather than fragment it. It would be so fast that it would happen before the shockwave hits the bearings (balls) and the bearings would be driven outward at lower than conventional speeds due to the shockwave contending with the air displacement that an explosion at MD levels would cause.

Basically there would be a counterforce pulling the ball bearings back inward at the point of detonation which would blunt the speed and drop them back to SD levels of velocity.


But that's what I want. The shell doesn't mater, its the MD balls inside the shell and rapped around the explosive, that do all the damage. As for the explosive itself, there is not reason that it has to be MD, its not there to damage but to push the shrapnel/balls, so it can be SD.

The thing is that there is already shrapnel and frag. weapons in the game. Shot guns, Flak guns, and the Boom gun are all shrapnel based and as for Frag. you got the missiles and grenades. What my original post was trying to get is that these types of weapons shouldn't be lumped in with other other types of explosives, because they don't work the same way, and shouldn't follow the same rules. Its like saying that all the energy weapon in the game have to work just like a normal laser, even though its a plasma, partial, phase, ext, type weapon.


No, you don't understand.

You have the balls wrapped around the explosive. The explosion, being MD would cause a massive displacement. This would force air to rush in to fill the area. This is an equal counterforce. This implosion stops the balls from flying out.

This happens in real life if the explosive in a a grenade is too powerful. An explosive of MD force would stop the balls from moving.

It's basically the Rayleigh-Taylor instability. You can't make an MD fragmentation grenade.
rem1093
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 12:03 am
Contact:

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by rem1093 »

HWalsh wrote:
rem1093 wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
rem1093 wrote: If its shrapnel based it would work, using MD balls inside a SD shell. Also when you think about it, depending on what you use as the shrapnel, these type of explosives could be really good anti supernatural weapons.


Wouldn't work.

If you used an SD shell the explosion would vaporize the shell rather than fragment it. It would be so fast that it would happen before the shockwave hits the bearings (balls) and the bearings would be driven outward at lower than conventional speeds due to the shockwave contending with the air displacement that an explosion at MD levels would cause.

Basically there would be a counterforce pulling the ball bearings back inward at the point of detonation which would blunt the speed and drop them back to SD levels of velocity.


But that's what I want. The shell doesn't mater, its the MD balls inside the shell and rapped around the explosive, that do all the damage. As for the explosive itself, there is not reason that it has to be MD, its not there to damage but to push the shrapnel/balls, so it can be SD.

The thing is that there is already shrapnel and frag. weapons in the game. Shot guns, Flak guns, and the Boom gun are all shrapnel based and as for Frag. you got the missiles and grenades. What my original post was trying to get is that these types of weapons shouldn't be lumped in with other other types of explosives, because they don't work the same way, and shouldn't follow the same rules. Its like saying that all the energy weapon in the game have to work just like a normal laser, even though its a plasma, partial, phase, ext, type weapon.


No, you don't understand.

You have the balls wrapped around the explosive. The explosion, being MD would cause a massive displacement. This would force air to rush in to fill the area. This is an equal counterforce. This implosion stops the balls from flying out.

This happens in real life if the explosive in a a grenade is too powerful. An explosive of MD force would stop the balls from moving.

It's basically the Rayleigh-Taylor instability. You can't make an MD fragmentation grenade.


But the the explosive material isn't MD just the Balls. Like ramjet rounds the fuel is not some MD jet fuel, but the bullet itself is. Also there is already MD Frag grenades and missiles in the game.
Eagle
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:31 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Eagle »

HWalsh wrote:
rem1093 wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
rem1093 wrote: If its shrapnel based it would work, using MD balls inside a SD shell. Also when you think about it, depending on what you use as the shrapnel, these type of explosives could be really good anti supernatural weapons.


Wouldn't work.

If you used an SD shell the explosion would vaporize the shell rather than fragment it. It would be so fast that it would happen before the shockwave hits the bearings (balls) and the bearings would be driven outward at lower than conventional speeds due to the shockwave contending with the air displacement that an explosion at MD levels would cause.

Basically there would be a counterforce pulling the ball bearings back inward at the point of detonation which would blunt the speed and drop them back to SD levels of velocity.


But that's what I want. The shell doesn't mater, its the MD balls inside the shell and rapped around the explosive, that do all the damage. As for the explosive itself, there is not reason that it has to be MD, its not there to damage but to push the shrapnel/balls, so it can be SD.

The thing is that there is already shrapnel and frag. weapons in the game. Shot guns, Flak guns, and the Boom gun are all shrapnel based and as for Frag. you got the missiles and grenades. What my original post was trying to get is that these types of weapons shouldn't be lumped in with other other types of explosives, because they don't work the same way, and shouldn't follow the same rules. Its like saying that all the energy weapon in the game have to work just like a normal laser, even though its a plasma, partial, phase, ext, type weapon.


No, you don't understand.

You have the balls wrapped around the explosive. The explosion, being MD would cause a massive displacement. This would force air to rush in to fill the area. This is an equal counterforce. This implosion stops the balls from flying out.

This happens in real life if the explosive in a a grenade is too powerful. An explosive of MD force would stop the balls from moving.

It's basically the Rayleigh-Taylor instability. You can't make an MD fragmentation grenade.



You could have a mega-damage frag grenade pretty easily. Yeah, it's powerful, but there are conventional explosives today that are way more powerful than a mere 100x super-grenade.

The old pineapple grenades in WW2 used a variety of different explosives, but one of the standard ones was 1.85 ounces of TNT. So to make it mega-damage, it seems easy enough that we just use 185 ounces of TNT (100 times as much). That's about 11 lbs, not that much in terms of bombs. You may have to modify the design of your grenade, but it shouldn't be that hard.

Now, that's 11 lbs of TNT if you're getting a frag grenade that's 100 times as powerful as a normal SDC grenade. But that's not actually what we're getting. A normal frag grenade does between D6x10 and 2D4x10 damage (according to the Compendium of Modern Weapons). An old-style Coalition frag grenade does 2D6 Mega-Damage. So that's only 20 times more powerful. So let's divide that 11 lbs of TNT by 5, and so you get just over 2 lbs of TNT. That's really not that much.
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Axelmania »

eliakon wrote:You are aware of the fact that rules hold in all cases that are not an exception?
So, if you have a rule, like say... "all damage goes to the Main Body" and then you have an exception come along "This weapon here does damage to tires"
Then...
...that weapon does damage to tires.
Maybe even that class of weapon does damage to tires.
It does not mean that the rule has been invalidated.

There aren't any rules about all the damage of mines going to the main body.
guardiandashi
Hero
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:21 am

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by guardiandashi »

Axelmania wrote:
eliakon wrote:You are aware of the fact that rules hold in all cases that are not an exception?
So, if you have a rule, like say... "all damage goes to the Main Body" and then you have an exception come along "This weapon here does damage to tires"
Then...
...that weapon does damage to tires.
Maybe even that class of weapon does damage to tires.
It does not mean that the rule has been invalidated.

There aren't any rules about all the damage of mines going to the main body.

yes there are, they just aren't under mines.

the rule is: ALL damage is done to the main body, UNLESS a called shot is made.
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by eliakon »

Axelmania wrote:
eliakon wrote:You are aware of the fact that rules hold in all cases that are not an exception?
So, if you have a rule, like say... "all damage goes to the Main Body" and then you have an exception come along "This weapon here does damage to tires"
Then...
...that weapon does damage to tires.
Maybe even that class of weapon does damage to tires.
It does not mean that the rule has been invalidated.

There aren't any rules about all the damage of mines going to the main body.

Unless there is another rule that specifically says that mines damage anything else then yes there is.
Because the rules state that all damage goes to the main body.
And since all means all, even and including everything... then yes it includes all damage.
That is sort of how rules work.
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Axelmania »

guardiandashi wrote:
Axelmania wrote:
eliakon wrote:You are aware of the fact that rules hold in all cases that are not an exception?
So, if you have a rule, like say... "all damage goes to the Main Body" and then you have an exception come along "This weapon here does damage to tires"
Then...
...that weapon does damage to tires.
Maybe even that class of weapon does damage to tires.
It does not mean that the rule has been invalidated.

There aren't any rules about all the damage of mines going to the main body.


yes there are, they just aren't under mines.

the rule is: ALL damage is done to the main body, UNLESS a called shot is made.

For guns. Ranged combat. Mines are neither.

eliakon wrote:
Axelmania wrote:
eliakon wrote:You are aware of the fact that rules hold in all cases that are not an exception?
So, if you have a rule, like say... "all damage goes to the Main Body" and then you have an exception come along "This weapon here does damage to tires"
Then...
...that weapon does damage to tires.
Maybe even that class of weapon does damage to tires.
It does not mean that the rule has been invalidated.

There aren't any rules about all the damage of mines going to the main body.

Unless there is another rule that specifically says that mines damage anything else then yes there is.
Because the rules state that all damage goes to the main body.
And since all means all, even and including everything... then yes it includes all damage.
That is sort of how rules work.


The rules for ranged combat. For direct hits. Not for explosives.

I have provided 3 examples of mines damaging the extremities they are in contact with. These are all weapon descriptions. None of them are worded like exceptions.

You make it sound like if I wrapped a Devastator's foot in plastique I can't blow it up. Your house rules completely contradict the actual in book rulings on how mines and other placed explosives function and how the rules were intended.

How about to support your argument you find a single example of a mine being stepped in and it explicitly damaging the main body and not the foot.
HWalsh
Hero
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:36 am

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by HWalsh »

Eagle wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
rem1093 wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
rem1093 wrote: If its shrapnel based it would work, using MD balls inside a SD shell. Also when you think about it, depending on what you use as the shrapnel, these type of explosives could be really good anti supernatural weapons.


Wouldn't work.

If you used an SD shell the explosion would vaporize the shell rather than fragment it. It would be so fast that it would happen before the shockwave hits the bearings (balls) and the bearings would be driven outward at lower than conventional speeds due to the shockwave contending with the air displacement that an explosion at MD levels would cause.

Basically there would be a counterforce pulling the ball bearings back inward at the point of detonation which would blunt the speed and drop them back to SD levels of velocity.


But that's what I want. The shell doesn't mater, its the MD balls inside the shell and rapped around the explosive, that do all the damage. As for the explosive itself, there is not reason that it has to be MD, its not there to damage but to push the shrapnel/balls, so it can be SD.

The thing is that there is already shrapnel and frag. weapons in the game. Shot guns, Flak guns, and the Boom gun are all shrapnel based and as for Frag. you got the missiles and grenades. What my original post was trying to get is that these types of weapons shouldn't be lumped in with other other types of explosives, because they don't work the same way, and shouldn't follow the same rules. Its like saying that all the energy weapon in the game have to work just like a normal laser, even though its a plasma, partial, phase, ext, type weapon.


No, you don't understand.

You have the balls wrapped around the explosive. The explosion, being MD would cause a massive displacement. This would force air to rush in to fill the area. This is an equal counterforce. This implosion stops the balls from flying out.

This happens in real life if the explosive in a a grenade is too powerful. An explosive of MD force would stop the balls from moving.

It's basically the Rayleigh-Taylor instability. You can't make an MD fragmentation grenade.



You could have a mega-damage frag grenade pretty easily. Yeah, it's powerful, but there are conventional explosives today that are way more powerful than a mere 100x super-grenade.

The old pineapple grenades in WW2 used a variety of different explosives, but one of the standard ones was 1.85 ounces of TNT. So to make it mega-damage, it seems easy enough that we just use 185 ounces of TNT (100 times as much). That's about 11 lbs, not that much in terms of bombs. You may have to modify the design of your grenade, but it shouldn't be that hard.

Now, that's 11 lbs of TNT if you're getting a frag grenade that's 100 times as powerful as a normal SDC grenade. But that's not actually what we're getting. A normal frag grenade does between D6x10 and 2D4x10 damage (according to the Compendium of Modern Weapons). An old-style Coalition frag grenade does 2D6 Mega-Damage. So that's only 20 times more powerful. So let's divide that 11 lbs of TNT by 5, and so you get just over 2 lbs of TNT. That's really not that much.


That's not how explosives work. You can't just increase the amount and assume it increases the force proportionally. You wanted to argue that grenades only hurting the main body was unrealistic.

I explained how something would not work.

You don't understand the physics behind these things. Clearly. So again... No your idea wouldn't work.

Don't argue realism for RPG mechanics.
guardiandashi
Hero
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:21 am

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by guardiandashi »

Axelmania wrote:
guardiandashi wrote:
Axelmania wrote:
eliakon wrote:You are aware of the fact that rules hold in all cases that are not an exception?
So, if you have a rule, like say... "all damage goes to the Main Body" and then you have an exception come along "This weapon here does damage to tires"
Then...
...that weapon does damage to tires.
Maybe even that class of weapon does damage to tires.
It does not mean that the rule has been invalidated.

There aren't any rules about all the damage of mines going to the main body.


yes there are, they just aren't under mines.

the rule is: ALL damage is done to the main body, UNLESS a called shot is made.

For guns. Ranged combat. Mines are neither.

eliakon wrote:
Axelmania wrote:
eliakon wrote:You are aware of the fact that rules hold in all cases that are not an exception?
So, if you have a rule, like say... "all damage goes to the Main Body" and then you have an exception come along "This weapon here does damage to tires"
Then...
...that weapon does damage to tires.
Maybe even that class of weapon does damage to tires.
It does not mean that the rule has been invalidated.

There aren't any rules about all the damage of mines going to the main body.

Unless there is another rule that specifically says that mines damage anything else then yes there is.
Because the rules state that all damage goes to the main body.
And since all means all, even and including everything... then yes it includes all damage.
That is sort of how rules work.


The rules for ranged combat. For direct hits. Not for explosives.

I have provided 3 examples of mines damaging the extremities they are in contact with. These are all weapon descriptions. None of them are worded like exceptions.

You make it sound like if I wrapped a Devastator's foot in plastique I can't blow it up. Your house rules completely contradict the actual in book rulings on how mines and other placed explosives function and how the rules were intended.

How about to support your argument you find a single example of a mine being stepped in and it explicitly damaging the main body and not the foot.

ok I looked up your examples, and AGAIN axel you are making stuff up and inserting YOUR house rules.

Triax and NGR "maisies" are intended for use as PLACED demolition charges. as in you roll a placement roll (AKA a called shot) to put them where you want them to do damage, OTHERWISE they default to main body.

Rifts Mercenaries NG land mines AOE EXPLOSIVES attack main body, would require a called shot (oh wait it is a landmine and just explodes when triggered EXACTLY LIKE ANY OTHER missile or explosive) no "special rule listed causing it to automatically attack locations such as wheel foot or track"

your strawman argument claiming I said if you wrap explosives around the foot of the devastator means you can't blow up the foot. I never said that, because that is you "GASP" carefully placing your charge on the exact place you want to damage which is .... EFFECTIVELY A CALLED SHOT TO THE LOCATION! except it takes TIME to set your explosives like that. which is why you have to ROLL your demolitions roll to make sure it is set correctly.

anyway the whole land mines is again a strawman argument because you were originally talking about the firequake spell, which is an AOE attack, and thus falls under the general rule of explosions, and "all damage goes to the main body, UNLESS a called shot is made!!"
Eagle
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:31 pm

Re: So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

Unread post by Eagle »

HWalsh wrote:
That's not how explosives work. You can't just increase the amount and assume it increases the force proportionally. You wanted to argue that grenades only hurting the main body was unrealistic.

I explained how something would not work.

You don't understand the physics behind these things. Clearly. So again... No your idea wouldn't work.

Don't argue realism for RPG mechanics.


Of course I can just increase the amount of explosives. That's as good as anything else. You are wrong, by the way, about not being able to make a super-frag grenade.

Also, you are clearly confused as to who you're responding to. I never argued that grenades only hitting main body was unrealistic. If you look at my earlier posts in this thread you'll see that.

Now let's get right down to it. The idea of "damage points" is unrealistic. It's a game convention, and doesn't have anything to do with how explosives or other weapons actually work. A sword does its damage differently than a bullet does. And a bullet operates differently than an explosion. Guys are always trying to compare them to joules and that just doesn't work. Generic "damage points" in a role-playing game is just something for ease of play. It has no direct correlation to any kind of real world physics at all.

So when you make the statement that you "physics doesn't let you make a real world MDC grenade", that's a worthless statement. Because "MDC" doesn't exist. A weapon that does "a hundred times as much damage" is not using real world math, because in the real world we can't boil everything down to just a set number of hit points. Now, since we can't reduce it to a single range of numbers, and we have no real equivalent for what mega-damage is (and this is the important part), it can be anything we want.

A hundred times as much explosives? Sure, that fits with the very non-technical definition of MDC in the game books. 100 times the joules? Sure. 100 times the PSI at the impact point? Sure. 100 times the penetration against RHA? Fine. All these measurements can fit the book definition of "a hundred times as powerful". But they are all very different from one another. Since we don't know which one (if any) mega-damage is supposed to be, it can be any of them.
Post Reply

Return to “Rifts®”