Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

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

jburkett
Wanderer
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:44 pm

Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by jburkett »

Hello, RUE pg 364 states that one option for avoiding getting hit by a volley of missiles is to shoot at them but it doesn't state what Strike roll is needed. Is this a simple "beat the attacker's roll" or is it more difficult than that? A called shot? It also says that, GM's discretion, a defender can have up to two attempts so, would that mean the defender needs four available attacks (because a called shot is two attacks)? Any input would be much appreciated on this one. Thanks!
guardiandashi
Hero
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:21 am

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by guardiandashi »

jburkett wrote:Hello, RUE pg 364 states that one option for avoiding getting hit by a volley of missiles is to shoot at them but it doesn't state what Strike roll is needed. Is this a simple "beat the attacker's roll" or is it more difficult than that? A called shot? It also says that, GM's discretion, a defender can have up to two attempts so, would that mean the defender needs four available attacks (because a called shot is two attacks)? Any input would be much appreciated on this one. Thanks!


it depends on the type of missiles. if it isn't a "smart bomb" the missiles don't dodge, so it should be relatively easy to hit them.

technically the user never rolls strike and dodge rolls for missiles, they should be rolling their own strike and dodge if applicable.

I don't believe you actually need to make a called shot to hit incoming missiles. I believe the to hit roll would be a relatively simple ranged attack, possibly with a size modifier, and or speed modifier.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

guardiandashi wrote:
jburkett wrote:Hello, RUE pg 364 states that one option for avoiding getting hit by a volley of missiles is to shoot at them but it doesn't state what Strike roll is needed. Is this a simple "beat the attacker's roll" or is it more difficult than that? A called shot? It also says that, GM's discretion, a defender can have up to two attempts so, would that mean the defender needs four available attacks (because a called shot is two attacks)? Any input would be much appreciated on this one. Thanks!


it depends on the type of missiles. if it isn't a "smart bomb" the missiles don't dodge, so it should be relatively easy to hit them.

technically the user never rolls strike and dodge rolls for missiles, they should be rolling their own strike and dodge if applicable.

I don't believe you actually need to make a called shot to hit incoming missiles. I believe the to hit roll would be a relatively simple ranged attack, possibly with a size modifier, and or speed modifier.

Where does it say a user never rolls strike rolls for missiles. I would think dumb fire missiles the user would be the one that determines if they strike.
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.
guardiandashi
Hero
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:21 am

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by guardiandashi »

RUE pg 364 under missile strikes
although it was more clear in the phrasing in RMB where only minimissiles were unguided and all the other missiles were self guided with typically a +3 or +5 to strike which represented the MISSILES inherent guidance
User avatar
ShadowLogan
Palladin
Posts: 7401
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Location: WI

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by ShadowLogan »

jburkett wrote:Hello, RUE pg 364 states that one option for avoiding getting hit by a volley of missiles is to shoot at them but it doesn't state what Strike roll is needed. Is this a simple "beat the attacker's roll" or is it more difficult than that? A called shot? It also says that, GM's discretion, a defender can have up to two attempts so, would that mean the defender needs four available attacks (because a called shot is two attacks)? Any input would be much appreciated on this one. Thanks!

AFAIK its always been a regular strike roll to target incoming missiles.

I think the number of available attempts would depend on the speed of the missile and the distance between shooter and target (for example at maximum range to target an SRM would take between 12-36sec to reach its target, which would allow for a lot more than 1 or 2 actions). However considering the range of most guns, a second attempt seems unlikely unless the first was with missiles at beyond the gun range.

guardiandashi wrote: I believe the to hit roll would be a relatively simple ranged attack, possibly with a size modifier, and or speed modifier.

You DO NOT want to apply a speed modifier. A Ranged attack would require an 8 to hit, -1 for moving and then -1per 50mph over 20mph. That works out to a -11 to strike (rounding up) for some of the slower missiles (@500mph), never mind some of the faster ones (@1200mph you'd be looking at -25 to strike).

In the combat example in RMB has an example of shooting down missile attempt, and it's a D20 roll and doesn't mention penalty to strike due to the missiles moving.

guardiandashi wrote:RUE pg 364 under missile strikes
although it was more clear in the phrasing in RMB where only minimissiles were unguided and all the other missiles were self guided with typically a +3 or +5 to strike which represented the MISSILES inherent guidance

The Bold Heading Section titled "Missile Strikes"?

It flat out states "As usual, a D20 is roll to determine wheater a missile hits or misses." EVEN RMB (pg41 under "Strikes: Guided Missiles" states "Rolls to strike are made on the usual twenty-sided die." Even RMB's combat example has D20 rolls for missile attacks.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

guardiandashi wrote:RUE pg 364 under missile strikes
although it was more clear in the phrasing in RMB where only minimissiles were unguided and all the other missiles were self guided with typically a +3 or +5 to strike which represented the MISSILES inherent guidance

The wording in page 364 does not indicate that it is the missile that is rolling to strike and not the PC. The wording in it does say to roll to see if the missile hits or misses but does not indicate it is the missile making the roll just that a roll is made. By default most missile are unguided. And when you read that launchers may provide a bonus to strike indicates success may be triggered at the time that is launched with some 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.
jburkett
Wanderer
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:44 pm

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by jburkett »

ShadowLogan wrote:
jburkett wrote:Hello, RUE pg 364 states that one option for avoiding getting hit by a volley of missiles is to shoot at them but it doesn't state what Strike roll is needed. Is this a simple "beat the attacker's roll" or is it more difficult than that? A called shot? It also says that, GM's discretion, a defender can have up to two attempts so, would that mean the defender needs four available attacks (because a called shot is two attacks)? Any input would be much appreciated on this one. Thanks!

AFAIK its always been a regular strike roll to target incoming missiles.

I think the number of available attempts would depend on the speed of the missile and the distance between shooter and target (for example at maximum range to target an SRM would take between 12-36sec to reach its target, which would allow for a lot more than 1 or 2 actions). However considering the range of most guns, a second attempt seems unlikely unless the first was with missiles at beyond the gun range.

guardiandashi wrote: I believe the to hit roll would be a relatively simple ranged attack, possibly with a size modifier, and or speed modifier.

You DO NOT want to apply a speed modifier. A Ranged attack would require an 8 to hit, -1 for moving and then -1per 50mph over 20mph. That works out to a -11 to strike (rounding up) for some of the slower missiles (@500mph), never mind some of the faster ones (@1200mph you'd be looking at -25 to strike).

In the combat example in RMB has an example of shooting down missile attempt, and it's a D20 roll and doesn't mention penalty to strike due to the missiles moving.

guardiandashi wrote:RUE pg 364 under missile strikes
although it was more clear in the phrasing in RMB where only minimissiles were unguided and all the other missiles were self guided with typically a +3 or +5 to strike which represented the MISSILES inherent guidance

The Bold Heading Section titled "Missile Strikes"?

It flat out states "As usual, a D20 is roll to determine wheater a missile hits or misses." EVEN RMB (pg41 under "Strikes: Guided Missiles" states "Rolls to strike are made on the usual twenty-sided die." Even RMB's combat example has D20 rolls for missile attacks.

Thanks ShadowLogan. The standard Ranged Attack against missiles makes sense to me. I had forgot about the -1 per 50 mph over 20 mph but that also makes sense. Cheers!
User avatar
Proseksword
Adventurer
Posts: 719
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:20 pm
Location: Chi-Town, IL
Contact:

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Proseksword »

Blue_Lion wrote:
guardiandashi wrote:RUE pg 364 under missile strikes
although it was more clear in the phrasing in RMB where only minimissiles were unguided and all the other missiles were self guided with typically a +3 or +5 to strike which represented the MISSILES inherent guidance

The wording in page 364 does not indicate that it is the missile that is rolling to strike and not the PC. The wording in it does say to roll to see if the missile hits or misses but does not indicate it is the missile making the roll just that a roll is made. By default most missile are unguided. And when you read that launchers may provide a bonus to strike indicates success may be triggered at the time that is launched with some missiles.


Page 364 indicates they gain no bonus to strike from your weapon proficiency or other bonuses other than missile guidance systems unless the missile fired is a mini-missile. Whether view that as the missile having only a crude guidance system or the missile launcher being a weapon impossible to aim is your choice I guess, but it seems logical to me that nobody's aiming iron sights at a target multiple kilometers away & it must have some form of rudimentary guidance.
guardiandashi
Hero
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:21 am

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by guardiandashi »

Proseksword wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:
guardiandashi wrote:RUE pg 364 under missile strikes
although it was more clear in the phrasing in RMB where only minimissiles were unguided and all the other missiles were self guided with typically a +3 or +5 to strike which represented the MISSILES inherent guidance

The wording in page 364 does not indicate that it is the missile that is rolling to strike and not the PC. The wording in it does say to roll to see if the missile hits or misses but does not indicate it is the missile making the roll just that a roll is made. By default most missile are unguided. And when you read that launchers may provide a bonus to strike indicates success may be triggered at the time that is launched with some missiles.


Page 364 indicates they gain no bonus to strike from your weapon proficiency or other bonuses other than missile guidance systems unless the missile fired is a mini-missile. Whether view that as the missile having only a crude guidance system or the missile launcher being a weapon impossible to aim is your choice I guess, but it seems logical to me that nobody's aiming iron sights at a target multiple kilometers away & it must have some form of rudimentary guidance.

I'm also old school enough that i reject the RUE retcon that made the vast majority of missiles and not just mini missiles unguided.
In the old days, robotech, Macross, rifts, etc. All short range missiles and above had a +3 strike bonus, unless they were reflex, or smart bombs, which had a +5 strike bonus and could dodge. It was only the mini missiles that were unguided (other than some guided ones in Macross II )
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

guardiandashi wrote:
Proseksword wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:
guardiandashi wrote:RUE pg 364 under missile strikes
although it was more clear in the phrasing in RMB where only minimissiles were unguided and all the other missiles were self guided with typically a +3 or +5 to strike which represented the MISSILES inherent guidance

The wording in page 364 does not indicate that it is the missile that is rolling to strike and not the PC. The wording in it does say to roll to see if the missile hits or misses but does not indicate it is the missile making the roll just that a roll is made. By default most missile are unguided. And when you read that launchers may provide a bonus to strike indicates success may be triggered at the time that is launched with some missiles.


Page 364 indicates they gain no bonus to strike from your weapon proficiency or other bonuses other than missile guidance systems unless the missile fired is a mini-missile. Whether view that as the missile having only a crude guidance system or the missile launcher being a weapon impossible to aim is your choice I guess, but it seems logical to me that nobody's aiming iron sights at a target multiple kilometers away & it must have some form of rudimentary guidance.

I'm also old school enough that i reject the RUE retcon that made the vast majority of missiles and not just mini missiles unguided.
In the old days, robotech, Macross, rifts, etc. All short range missiles and above had a +3 strike bonus, unless they were reflex, or smart bombs, which had a +5 strike bonus and could dodge. It was only the mini missiles that were unguided (other than some guided ones in Macross II )

Then you're statements about how the game works by default are irrelevant as you are ignoring current rules. Thanks for clearing up the issue.
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.
guardiandashi
Hero
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:21 am

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by guardiandashi »

Blue_Lion wrote:Then you're statements about how the game works by default are irrelevant as you are ignoring current rules. Thanks for clearing up the issue.

no I disagree with 1 specific rule, not the overall rules.
and what I said is still accurate, while the player may roll the strike roll for their missile, technically the person launching the missiles only designates the target, slaps the missiles on the butt and tells them to go get it (so to speak) the missile itself does the terminalattack on its own.

with all other attacks the character is doing the aim and strike, its why their strike bonuses factor in. but with the possible exception of mini-missiles the characters NEVER factor in to the strike roll for the missiles.

I will also say that is more clearly written out in the original robotech, rpg but it doesn't invalidate what I said.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

guardiandashi wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:Then you're statements about how the game works by default are irrelevant as you are ignoring current rules. Thanks for clearing up the issue.

no I disagree with 1 specific rule, not the overall rules.
and what I said is still accurate, while the player may roll the strike roll for their missile, technically the person launching the missiles only designates the target, slaps the missiles on the butt and tells them to go get it (so to speak) the missile itself does the terminalattack on its own.

with all other attacks the character is doing the aim and strike, its why their strike bonuses factor in. but with the possible exception of mini-missiles the characters NEVER factor in to the strike roll for the missiles.

I will also say that is more clearly written out in the original robotech, rpg but it doesn't invalidate what I said.

You disagree with and ignore the rule most relevant to your statement.

I could say all the player does is slap the rail gun round on the but and tells it to go get it, the does the round it self travels to the designated target same as missile. As most missiles as of RUE are unguided, something you choose to ignore it would be the same thing.


Your opinion is unsupported on this. Nothing says it is the missile and not the charter that makes all attacks by default. Infact the currant rule is most missile are unguided.(basically currant rules invalidate what you say.)
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: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by eliakon »

As far as I know only smart missiles have a statement that the missile makes the attack roll.
Not that it is going to matter all that much since you can't get much in the way of bonuses for missiles anyway. Which is why they obviously do not have you take in speed penalties (with a maximum of +3 or so from skills, and a minimum speed penalty of -11 to -20 or more from speed).
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: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Axelmania »

ShadowLogan wrote:You DO NOT want to apply a speed modifier. A Ranged attack would require an 8 to hit, -1 for moving and then -1per 50mph over 20mph. That works out to a -11 to strike (rounding up) for some of the slower missiles (@500mph), never mind some of the faster ones (@1200mph you'd be looking at -25 to strike).

:heart: this just makes me want to apply the speed penalties more.
User avatar
ShadowLogan
Palladin
Posts: 7401
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Location: WI

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by ShadowLogan »

Axelmania wrote:
ShadowLogan wrote:You DO NOT want to apply a speed modifier. A Ranged attack would require an 8 to hit, -1 for moving and then -1per 50mph over 20mph. That works out to a -11 to strike (rounding up) for some of the slower missiles (@500mph), never mind some of the faster ones (@1200mph you'd be looking at -25 to strike).

:heart: this just makes me want to apply the speed penalties more.

That would be a house rule though given combat examples in RMB (I don't think RUE even has a combat example) did not apply a penalty (and IINM other lines aren't much different).

Under RUE though this means to strike an incoming missile at 500mph you would need a strike roll (D20 w/bonuses) of 19. With a 1200mph missile you'd need a Nat 20 or a strike roll of 33.

Since missiles all have varying speeds you'd also have to pre-figure the penalty, then if you take into account the launch platforms speed (more applicable to aircraft/spacecraft) the speed goes up and so does the penalty, but since launch platforms are going to have variable speed (and ability to pick their speed) it makes prefiguring even more difficult.

Really if you are looking to make missiles more difficult to defend there is an easier way... determine the distance at which it becomes impossible to react for a given missile (A Plasma mini missile has a range of 1mile and a speed of 1200mph, it would only take the missile 3seconds for it to cover 1mile. A character would need to have an action duration of at least 3seconds to respond in this case (15/APM). Now if the Plasma missile was fired from 1/2 a mile away they would need at least 1.5seconds to react, at 1/4 mile they would have less than 1second to respond.)
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Prysus »

ShadowLogan wrote:That would be a house rule though given combat examples in RMB (I don't think RUE even has a combat example) did not apply a penalty (and IINM other lines aren't much different).

Greetings and Salutations. Except, as far as I'm aware, RMB did not have penalties to strike based on speed. So, naturally, a RMB example would not use a rule that did not exist at that time.

RUE, to my knowledge, introduced the rule to Rifts. It did not list any exceptions. While I don't think the penalties are intended to apply to shooting down penalties, from what I cam tell it"s technically a house rule to NOT apply them.

On a personal note, though I don't play Rifts, I thought an interesting ruling on this (as a house rule) would be to apply the penalty unless you made a successful Weapon Systems check (or maybe Read Sesnory Equipment?) so that the computer could offset the penalty. This would make it near impossible for some random character in light armor, but someone in a Robot or PA could reasonably do so. Just a thought. Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Prysus wrote:
ShadowLogan wrote:That would be a house rule though given combat examples in RMB (I don't think RUE even has a combat example) did not apply a penalty (and IINM other lines aren't much different).

Greetings and Salutations. Except, as far as I'm aware, RMB did not have penalties to strike based on speed. So, naturally, a RMB example would not use a rule that did not exist at that time.

RUE, to my knowledge, introduced the rule to Rifts. It did not list any exceptions. While I don't think the penalties are intended to apply to shooting down penalties, from what I cam tell it"s technically a house rule to NOT apply them.

On a personal note, though I don't play Rifts, I thought an interesting ruling on this (as a house rule) would be to apply the penalty unless you made a successful Weapon Systems check (or maybe Read Sesnory Equipment?) so that the computer could offset the penalty. This would make it near impossible for some random character in light armor, but someone in a Robot or PA could reasonably do so. Just a thought. Farewell and safe journeys.

Umm.. partial credit. With modern weapon proficiency you get a penalty for shooting at a moving target regardless of the target. Missile combat is worded differently and uses different rules. We are never told that the penalties for shooting modern weapons apply to missiles.

*Rue(328)
The next step is for the first attacker to roll a twenty-sided die. If the result is a four or less (counting bonuses), the attacker misses. Any roll above a four will hit the opponent, unless the defender can parry or dodge the attack.

*rue(361)
To shoot something the attacker must roll 1d20 and needs an 8 or higher to strike. HOWEVER, the shooter may also have bonuses to hit from Weapon Proficiency skills and penalties from conditions and circumstances.

*Rue(364)
Missile Strikes- As usual, a D20 is rolled to determine whether a missile hits or misses. Any roll above a four (5-20) hits unless the defender/target can dodge or shoot the missile down before it hits.

Only the rules for modern weapons proficiny say to include penalties, applying penalties any where else is a house rule. This would make missiles beter than other ranged weapons at shooting down air craft or missiles.

That means with most ranged weapons you need a 8 including all penalties and bonuses. Missiles you need a roll above a four (5-20).

The lack of note on bonuses to strike and the specified range 5-20 does to me imply an unmodified range as all strikes indicate there are bonuses do not state an exact range. (2 of the 3 strike in the rule for how to strike.)
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
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Prysus »

Blue_Lion wrote:Umm.. partial credit. With modern weapon proficiency you get a penalty for shooting at a moving target regardless of the target. Missile combat is worded differently and uses different rules.
[snip]
Only the rules for modern weapons proficiny say to include penalties. So appling penalities to missiles is a house rule as you are never told they apply this would make missiles beter than other weapons at shooting down air craft or missiles.

Greetings and Salutations. Partial credit to us both then. You're right, using (most*) missiles to shoot down other missiles would be the most effective. I had forgotten that part.

*Mini-Missile Launchers technically fall under W.P. Heavy Mega-Damage Weapons. This is a Modern Weapon Proficiency. So, if using this particular method of firing mini-missiles, then you'd have to roll a 4 after bonuses and penalties. This would, of course, probably still be better as you only need a 5+ to hit instead of the usual 8+. But, I'm willing to concede the point about missiles in general.

However, missiles are not the only way to shoot down missiles. RUE page 364, Shooting Missiles, #2 has two paragraphs. The second is regarding shooting them down with missiles. The first paragraph (the one I was thinking of) is referring to shooting them down with other weapons. So if attempting to shoot down missiles using the first method (or the first paragraph), then the penalties should still apply. Using the second method (or the second paragraph), the penalties would not (for the most part). Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
ShadowLogan
Palladin
Posts: 7401
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Location: WI

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by ShadowLogan »

Prysus wrote:
ShadowLogan wrote:That would be a house rule though given combat examples in RMB (I don't think RUE even has a combat example) did not apply a penalty (and IINM other lines aren't much different).

Greetings and Salutations. Except, as far as I'm aware, RMB did not have penalties to strike based on speed. So, naturally, a RMB example would not use a rule that did not exist at that time.

RUE, to my knowledge, introduced the rule to Rifts. It did not list any exceptions. While I don't think the penalties are intended to apply to shooting down penalties, from what I cam tell it"s technically a house rule to NOT apply them.

On a personal note, though I don't play Rifts, I thought an interesting ruling on this (as a house rule) would be to apply the penalty unless you made a successful Weapon Systems check (or maybe Read Sesnory Equipment?) so that the computer could offset the penalty. This would make it near impossible for some random character in light armor, but someone in a Robot or PA could reasonably do so. Just a thought. Farewell and safe journeys.

RMB does have strike penalties based on speed (Black Silver Print Hardcover Aug '95 print, possibly earlier but I don't have any prints from before this), they are on pg243 ("It is a lot harder to hi tsomeone while they are moving. -3 to strike at moving, running or leaping targets. -6 to strike anything speeding 40mph or more."), this is C&Pied from an 11th printing of the 1E Robotech Main RPG I have (megaversally speaking).

There is also Rifts Conversion Book 1 Revised (1st print 2002) where on pg18 "...Moreover, the rules state that only a roll to strike that is 12 or higher (12-20) hits a moving target...". Now I will admit I am not sure where the rules state this prior to RCB1R, but this source also predates RUE.

Megaversally speaking I checked the old Macross 2 Main RPG and Heroes Unlimited 2E concerning shooting missiles. Macross 2 is basically a C&P of RT/Rifts-Main in regard to how to handle shooting missiles. HU2E on the other hand (pg80) states you need to make a called shot and are -3 to strike due to size/speed (this is when the system did not require multiple actions to make a called shot), which is new (it post-dates Rifts/RT/M2, but predates RUE IINM).
User avatar
The Beast
Demon Lord Extraordinaire
Posts: 5956
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:28 pm
Comment: You probably think this comment is about you, don't you?
Location: Apocrypha

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by The Beast »

ShadowLogan wrote:There is also Rifts Conversion Book 1 Revised (1st print 2002) where on pg18 "...Moreover, the rules state that only a roll to strike that is 12 or higher (12-20) hits a moving target...". Now I will admit I am not sure where the rules state this prior to RCB1R, but this source also predates RUE.


AFAIK the rules never stated that before then. Even if you factored in the -6 penalty from the RMB you'd get needing either a 10 or better to strike if the target was 60 ft or less away from you, or a 14 or better to strike a target if it was farther than that (via page 9 of the original CB1). But then again with the pisspoor job of editing Palladium does it's possible that the rule was always there, just in a section no one bothered looking in because the section it's in isn't directly related to the rule. Case in point: in HU2 attacks against unprotected heads do damage direct to hit points. Now go on and try guessing where that rule is found before clicking on the spoiler tab to see if you're right.

Spoiler:
Page 205, at the end of the first paragraph. I don't know about you, but in HU I don't remember anyone I've played with having a robot vehicle. Most of the people I've played with were mutants. If they weren't that then they were either mages, aliens (with superpowers), super soldiers (again, with superpowers), or ancient masters. So if it wasn't for someone on Facebook pointing out the rule recently I for one would never know about it because I wouldn't go looking for a rule on headshots in the section for building a robot vehicle.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Prysus wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:Umm.. partial credit. With modern weapon proficiency you get a penalty for shooting at a moving target regardless of the target. Missile combat is worded differently and uses different rules.
[snip]
Only the rules for modern weapons proficiny say to include penalties. So appling penalities to missiles is a house rule as you are never told they apply this would make missiles beter than other weapons at shooting down air craft or missiles.

Greetings and Salutations. Partial credit to us both then. You're right, using (most*) missiles to shoot down other missiles would be the most effective. I had forgotten that part.

*Mini-Missile Launchers technically fall under W.P. Heavy Mega-Damage Weapons. This is a Modern Weapon Proficiency. So, if using this particular method of firing mini-missiles, then you'd have to roll a 4 after bonuses and penalties. This would, of course, probably still be better as you only need a 5+ to hit instead of the usual 8+. But, I'm willing to concede the point about missiles in general.

However, missiles are not the only way to shoot down missiles. RUE page 364, Shooting Missiles, #2 has two paragraphs. The second is regarding shooting them down with missiles. The first paragraph (the one I was thinking of) is referring to shooting them down with other weapons. So if attempting to shoot down missiles using the first method (or the first paragraph), then the penalties should still apply. Using the second method (or the second paragraph), the penalties would not (for the most part). Farewell and safe journeys.

Nope-mini get a bonus from the WP but use the rules for striking with missiles and not the rules for modern weapon proficiency. That is addressed in the rules for striking with missiles when it says they get a strike bonus from the skill-in the paragraph that starts with No bonus to strike with missiles:(a possible sub heading). It says they get a bonus to strike when fired from the skill and is a the only refence of any wp skill.


I will give you the missile strike rules are poorly written. The rule on how to strike is worded to imply a straight die roll, it then says no bonus to strike then list all aplicible bonuses. My theory on this is that the bonus to strike are intended for when people dodge missiles, raising the target number to dodge.-

So I am correct, the rule for striking with missiles is the only strike rule without any mention of bonuses in the roll. It ended the paragraph the rule for striking with no mention of bonuses being added to the strike roll, every other strike rule tells you in the same paragraph to add bonuses.-Basically while it lists bonuses to strike with missiels you are never told to add any bonus to the roll to deterime if you hit with missiles, doing so while logical is a house rule.
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
ShadowLogan
Palladin
Posts: 7401
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Location: WI

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by ShadowLogan »

The Beast wrote:
ShadowLogan wrote:There is also Rifts Conversion Book 1 Revised (1st print 2002) where on pg18 "...Moreover, the rules state that only a roll to strike that is 12 or higher (12-20) hits a moving target...". Now I will admit I am not sure where the rules state this prior to RCB1R, but this source also predates RUE.


AFAIK the rules never stated that before then. Even if you factored in the -6 penalty from the RMB you'd get needing either a 10 or better to strike if the target was 60 ft or less away from you, or a 14 or better to strike a target if it was farther than that (via page 9 of the original CB1). But then again with the pisspoor job of editing Palladium does it's possible that the rule was always there, just in a section no one bothered looking in because the section it's in isn't directly related to the rule. Case in point: in HU2 attacks against unprotected heads do damage direct to hit points. Now go on and try guessing where that rule is found before clicking on the spoiler tab to see if you're right.

Spoiler:
Page 205, at the end of the first paragraph. I don't know about you, but in HU I don't remember anyone I've played with having a robot vehicle. Most of the people I've played with were mutants. If they weren't that then they were either mages, aliens (with superpowers), super soldiers (again, with superpowers), or ancient masters. So if it wasn't for someone on Facebook pointing out the rule recently I for one would never know about it because I wouldn't go looking for a rule on headshots in the section for building a robot vehicle.

Nice to know I'm not the only one.
Colonel_Tetsuya
Champion
Posts: 2172
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:22 am

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Colonel_Tetsuya »

I actually have him blocked so i had to pull out the other quote to go over this.

Blue_Lion wrote:Only the rules for modern weapons proficiny say to include penalties. So appling penalities to missiles is a house rule as you are never told they apply this would make missiles beter than other weapons at shooting down air craft or missiles.


Incorrect. The rules for Weapon Proficiencies are on page are on pages 328 and 329 (Modern) and say nothing about penalties of any kind.

Page 339 starts the "Combat Rules" section of the book. It's big, titled, and everything.

Ranged Combat starts on 360.

"Weapon modifiers" is it's own sub-heading. Not "Weapon Proficiency Modifiers". Just weapons.

Missiles are weapons.

Penalties is also its own sub-heading. Says nothing about "with weapons that have a W.P.".

Missile Combat (a sub-section of 'Ranged Combat') begins on 362.

Rules in this sub-section only invalidate other rules if they say they do. (like missiles needing a 5 to hit base instead of 8). Nothing in this section says not to apply penalties to strike.

Prysus wrote:Greetings and Salutations. Partial credit to us both then. You're right, using (most*) missiles to shoot down other missiles would be the most effective. I had forgotten that part.

*Mini-Missile Launchers technically fall under W.P. Heavy Mega-Damage Weapons. This is a Modern Weapon Proficiency. So, if using this particular method of firing mini-missiles, then you'd have to roll a 4 after bonuses and penalties. This would, of course, probably still be better as you only need a 5+ to hit instead of the usual 8+. But, I'm willing to concede the point about missiles in general.

However, missiles are not the only way to shoot down missiles. RUE page 364, Shooting Missiles, #2 has two paragraphs. The second is regarding shooting them down with missiles. The first paragraph (the one I was thinking of) is referring to shooting them down with other weapons. So if attempting to shoot down missiles using the first method (or the first paragraph), then the penalties should still apply. Using the second method (or the second paragraph), the penalties would not (for the most part). Farewell and safe journeys.[/justify]


The penalties should -always- apply.

Now, i ignore this entire thing totally because the "hitting-moving-objects" penalties only make sense if you're a guy with a gun on the ground and no sensors, etc. Its just another example of Kevin slap-dashing rules "fixes" on top of existing rules and never figuring out what any given "fix" will break elsewhere.

As written, its basically impossible to shoot down anything other than SRMs with any regularity. LRMs? Forget it. You'd need a natural 20.
Im loving the Foes list; it's the only thing keeping me from tearing out my eyes from the dumb.
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Axelmania »

ShadowLogan wrote:That would be a house rule though given combat examples in RMB (I don't think RUE even has a combat example) did not apply a penalty (and IINM other lines aren't much different).

How do we know RMB did not apply appropriate moving target penalties in its examples?

I'm not sure it would constitute a "house rule" so much as serve as evidence that combat examples might be incomplete representations of the full rule set which do not utilize all possibile modifiers to allow simpler understanding.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:As written, its basically impossible to shoot down anything other than SRMs with any regularity. LRMs? Forget it. You'd need a natural 20.

Shooting down nukes shouldn't really be easy. The way you would do it is by utilizing mach fighters, since what matters is relative speed (otherwise the 1000mph speed of the earth's rotation would make everyone very hard to strike) so you could lower the relative speed of missiles by traveling in the same direction they are.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Axelmania wrote:
ShadowLogan wrote:That would be a house rule though given combat examples in RMB (I don't think RUE even has a combat example) did not apply a penalty (and IINM other lines aren't much different).

How do we know RMB did not apply appropriate moving target penalties in its examples?

I'm not sure it would constitute a "house rule" so much as serve as evidence that combat examples might be incomplete representations of the full rule set which do not utilize all possibile modifiers to allow simpler understanding.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:As written, its basically impossible to shoot down anything other than SRMs with any regularity. LRMs? Forget it. You'd need a natural 20.

Shooting down nukes shouldn't really be easy. The way you would do it is by utilizing mach fighters, since what matters is relative speed (otherwise the 1000mph speed of the earth's rotation would make everyone very hard to strike) so you could lower the relative speed of missiles by traveling in the same direction they are.

1 Because it never said it did so as written it did not as I recall the right speed penalties where not originally part of the book.

2 Relative speed is a house rule, the book never says it is relative speed it just says the target is moving.
As the rules are written it would be no easier to shoot down a missile from a high speed fighter.
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
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:I actually have him blocked so i had to pull out the other quote to go over this.

Blue_Lion wrote:Only the rules for modern weapons proficiny say to include penalties. So appling penalities to missiles is a house rule as you are never told they apply this would make missiles beter than other weapons at shooting down air craft or missiles.


Incorrect. The rules for Weapon Proficiencies are on page are on pages 328 and 329 (Modern) and say nothing about penalties of any kind.

Page 339 starts the "Combat Rules" section of the book. It's big, titled, and everything.

Ranged Combat starts on 360.

"Weapon modifiers" is it's own sub-heading. Not "Weapon Proficiency Modifiers". Just weapons.

Missiles are weapons.

Penalties is also its own sub-heading. Says nothing about "with weapons that have a W.P.".

Missile Combat (a sub-section of 'Ranged Combat') begins on 362.

Rules in this sub-section only invalidate other rules if they say they do. (like missiles needing a 5 to hit base instead of 8). Nothing in this section says not to apply penalties to strike.

Prysus wrote:Greetings and Salutations. Partial credit to us both then. You're right, using (most*) missiles to shoot down other missiles would be the most effective. I had forgotten that part.

*Mini-Missile Launchers technically fall under W.P. Heavy Mega-Damage Weapons. This is a Modern Weapon Proficiency. So, if using this particular method of firing mini-missiles, then you'd have to roll a 4 after bonuses and penalties. This would, of course, probably still be better as you only need a 5+ to hit instead of the usual 8+. But, I'm willing to concede the point about missiles in general.

However, missiles are not the only way to shoot down missiles. RUE page 364, Shooting Missiles, #2 has two paragraphs. The second is regarding shooting them down with missiles. The first paragraph (the one I was thinking of) is referring to shooting them down with other weapons. So if attempting to shoot down missiles using the first method (or the first paragraph), then the penalties should still apply. Using the second method (or the second paragraph), the penalties would not (for the most part). Farewell and safe journeys.[/justify]


The penalties should -always- apply.

Now, i ignore this entire thing totally because the "hitting-moving-objects" penalties only make sense if you're a guy with a gun on the ground and no sensors, etc. Its just another example of Kevin slap-dashing rules "fixes" on top of existing rules and never figuring out what any given "fix" will break elsewhere.

As written, its basically impossible to shoot down anything other than SRMs with any regularity. LRMs? Forget it. You'd need a natural 20.

Let me be clear.
The exact section that says it applies penalty is combat-ranged combat, modern weapons proficiency that starts on page 360 ending on page 362.( based on page 6 of the table of contents-weapon penalties fall in that subsection) If you bothered fallowing the tread and exact quotes I posted earlier you would have seen that. The rules for striking are part of that subsection as are the penalties. The first line of penalties is talking about a charter with a WP. submachine gun.


We are only told in 1 of the 3 strike rules to apply penalties, there are two rules in ranged combat to a specify them by name when I post them to avoid confusion. The one in general combat covers melee combat and does mention applying bonuses but not penalties, the one in ranged combat modern weapon proficiency mentions both bonuses and penalties, the one in ranged combat missiles mentions neither bonuses or penalties.

So while it may seam logical as I said applying them to anything strike roll you are not instructed to is a house rule as you where not told to apply them. (To me it seams your whole post shows a complete lack of understanding of what I actually posted. Quoting people you have blocked to try and counter part of their points out of context is not a debate, because you are not aware of my post or counter. Basically you attacked my points with out the ability to see my posts, and have no interest in seeing a rebuttal. Basically you calling me wrong or attacking me with no interest in debating the topic. Hopefully some one quotes this so you can see it, and know that I think he should not attack my points unless he is willing to debate the topic with me.)
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
ShadowLogan
Palladin
Posts: 7401
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Location: WI

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by ShadowLogan »

Axelmania wrote:
ShadowLogan wrote:That would be a house rule though given combat examples in RMB (I don't think RUE even has a combat example) did not apply a penalty (and IINM other lines aren't much different).

How do we know RMB did not apply appropriate moving target penalties in its examples?

I'm not sure it would constitute a "house rule" so much as serve as evidence that combat examples might be incomplete representations of the full rule set which do not utilize all possibile modifiers to allow simpler understanding.

We know RMB did not apply the penalties because they are not mentioned at any point (and stuff does get explained). They are showing how the rules work, which would mean that the movement penalties would be mentioned at some point. It isn't just the missile shoot down that speed penalties would apply, it would also apply to the missile attack on the hoverjet that was speeding away from the UAR-1.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Prysus »

ShadowLogan wrote:RMB does have strike penalties based on speed (Black Silver Print Hardcover Aug '95 print, possibly earlier but I don't have any prints from before this), they are on pg243 ("It is a lot harder to hi tsomeone while they are moving. -3 to strike at moving, running or leaping targets. -6 to strike anything speeding 40mph or more."), this is C&Pied from an 11th printing of the 1E Robotech Main RPG I have (megaversally speaking).

Greetings and Salutations. Ah, under the Revolver write-up. Don't know why I didn't find that a natural place to look. >_< But I do stand corrected. RMB (I also checked a 3rd Printing of May 1991, as that's the earliest Printing I have) has that rule there. Always happy to learn something new. Thanks. On the other hand, I've also had a chance to look over the combat example ...

ShadowLogan wrote:We know RMB did not apply the penalties because they are not mentioned at any point (and stuff does get explained). They are showing how the rules work, which would mean that the movement penalties would be mentioned at some point. It isn't just the missile shoot down that speed penalties would apply, it would also apply to the missile attack on the hoverjet that was speeding away from the UAR-1.

A lot of this is guesswork. For example, with the SAMAS shooting down missiles, it doesn't state penalties or bonuses, only the final result. We can guess speed penalties weren't applied since they didn't mention it.

When the Enforcer fires missiles at a speeding target, we know they didn't apply because they tell us the roll, the bonuses, and the final result.

When the Enforcer "swats" at a flying SAMAS there's no mention of penalties (but they do mention bonuses). I'm guessing this was a melee attack, so they didn't apply moving penalties here either.

So we have three different situations of attacks at moving targets, and none of them involve speed penalties. We can guess the SAMAS didn't have penalties when firing because they weren't specifically mentioned even though they didn't mention bonuses either, we can guess that based on our last guess that movement penalties dosn't apply when shooting at missiles (because missiles somehow stop moving and stay still if you shoot at them?), we can guess it doesn't apply to firing missiles at moving targets (or can we guess only Guided missiles? Or only Guided Missiles and better?), we can guess that when the Enforcer went to "swat" the SAMAS it was melee, we can guess it doesn't apply to melee combat (and then guess how this might interact with the RCB1 original rule of close combat, within 60 feet, has different strike requirements for ranged weapons?), we can guess Palladium was extremely diligent in making sure to include every rule in their example and then purposefully included situations where movement penalties do NOT apply while going out of their way to NOT show movement penalties in action. To be fair, some of those are fairly safe guesses. However, some of them are also predicated solely on Palladium going out of its way to show examples of speed penalties NOT applying, while never once addressing these are exceptions, and while never showing those rules in action, and never even mentioning them at all on purpose. Honestly, I'd say the example doesn't take movement penalties into account at all, but I'm just guessing. :)

Anyways, I do appreciate you informing me RMB did have movement penalties. However, using the RMB combat example involves too many guesses for me to consider it solid proof (not even in a strict RAW type of way). Note, I stand by applying the penalties to shooting missiles wasn't the intent (even if it might be the technical RAW). Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
Colonel_Tetsuya
Champion
Posts: 2172
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:22 am

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Colonel_Tetsuya »

the combat examples are essentially worthless. The ones in SB1 and CB1 also dont correctly use the rules. (Which, since Kevin doesn't use his own rules, is par for the course, really).
Im loving the Foes list; it's the only thing keeping me from tearing out my eyes from the dumb.
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: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:the combat examples are essentially worthless. The ones in SB1 and CB1 also dont correctly use the rules. (Which, since Kevin doesn't use his own rules, is par for the course, really).


Which rules do you believe they got wrong?
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
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Prysus »

Blue_Lion wrote:Nope-mini get a bonus from the WP but use the rules for striking with missiles and not the rules for modern weapon proficiency. That is addressed in the rules for striking with missiles when it says they get a strike bonus from the skill-in the paragraph that starts with No bonus to strike with missiles:(a possible sub heading).

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, there seems to be some bad logic in this response, but I'll see if you can actually justify any of it in a logical way.

So missiles do not get a natural bonus (unless it's Smart or Guided). We're in agreement on this. The C-18 (page 257) does not have a bonus, nor does the NG-P7 NG Particle Beam Rifle (page 270) also does not have a bonus.

Now, the heading you're referring to does NOT say what you claim. Your claim: "No bonus to strike with missiles:" The actual heading: "No Missile Bonus to Strike:"

While the words are nearly identical (you added a "with" in it), they do not mean the same thing when you arrange the words. That states the missile does not have a bonus. It does NOT say you can't add bonuses to strike when using missiles. Do you feel if something negates your bonuses that you can no longer take any penalties? If so, what gives you that impression? If not, why make that claim with missiles?

Blue_Lion wrote:With modern weapon proficiency you get a penalty for shooting at a moving target regardless of the target.
Blue_Lion wrote:It says they get a bonus to strike when fired from the skill and is a the only refence of any wp skill.

So you agree the penalties apply with a Modern W.P. And you agree that mini-missiles use a Modern W.P.

So what makes you think that you get the benefits of a Modern W.P. but ignore all other rules about the Modern W.P.?

Blue_Lion wrote:I will give you the missile strike rules are poorly written. The rule on how to strike is worded to imply a straight die roll, it then says no bonus to strike then list all aplicible bonuses. My theory on this is that the bonus to strike are intended for when people dodge missiles, raising the target number to dodge.-

The wording for strike is nearly identical to most other uses of the term "roll" in the book.

So, let's start with page 364, "Missile Strikes" heading.

"As usual, a D20 is rolled to determine whether a missiles hits or misses. Any roll above a four (5-20) hits unless the defender/target can dodge or shoot the missile down before it hits."

Well, it doesn't mention any bonuses (there), but it also does say "as usual." Then the very next paragraph specifically talks about bonuses.

Page 361, Weapon Modifiers heading.

"To shoot something the attack must roll 1D20 and needs 8 or higher to strike."

Then later it talks about bonuses (so, not in the initial sentence, but after the initial sentence, similar to missiles discussing bonuses later). Page 339, Step 2: Attacker Rolls to Strike

"The next step is for the first attacker to roll a twenty-sided deice. If the result is four or less (counting bonuses), the attacker misses. The roll above a four will hit the opponent, unless the defender can parry or dodge the attack."

This is the establishment of rolling to strike, and mentions "counting bonuses." However, whenever they use the term "roll" after they don't include that note again. So, further in that same section, same page and the next, under the S.D.C. Body Armor heading.

"the attack roll - the roll to strike - must be higher than the A.R. to hit the actual character protected by armor."
"A roll of 1-4 is always a miss; that's true in both and to hand and long-range combat."
"A roll of 1-4 to strike is always a miss."
*There are several more, similar lines, but I don't want to copy them all for space purposes and I'm getting bored.

This help as establish the "as usual" line. The "as usual" line tells us this would follow the same rules. Do you have some reference that NOT adding bonuses is the usual method to strike?

For note, this similar wording is also found in other combat moves such as defense and rolling with impact.

Page 339, under Step 1.

"Otherwise, whoever rolls highest on a twenty-sided die will attack first."

Page 341, under Step 5.

"In order to roll with the impact, the defender must roll 1D20 and match or better the attacker's roll to strike."

Page 345, under Combat Terms, under Dodge.

"To dodge, the defender must roll equal to or higher than the attacker's strike roll on a twenty-sided die."
*Interestingly, they don't seem to discuss rolls at all in Step 3.

Page 346, under Combat Terms, under Pull Punch.

"A character must declare a pulled punch, and the player must roll 11 or better on a twenty-sided die (1D20) to successfully pull his punch."

Notice these last few don't mention bonuses at all. Are you taking the stance that we don't apply bonuses to any of these and only straight die rolls matter? That has some grounds in RAW from what I can tell, but only if we start to ignore that Palladium establishes "roll" as "counting bonuses" early on (though they only repeat it sporadically after). Does something make you think that this similar wording applies bonuses to everything except missiles? If so, what gives you that impression?

Blue_Lion wrote:So I am correct, the rule for striking with missiles is the only strike rule without any mention of bonuses in the roll.

You mean except for the section that talked about bonuses included in the section you think discounts their addition? You acknowledged this earlier. Why do you feel it must be in the same paragraph even if the same section talks about bonuses? Do you feel that since there's a new paragraph the second paragraph is invalid?

And it tells you, "as usual." You state there are 3 sections on strike rules. You acknowledge 2 of the 3 include bonuses. The third states "as usual." So why do you feel the "usual" is not including bonuses (even though the ONLY other 2 examples you provide include bonuses)?

Blue_Lion wrote:It ended the paragraph the rule for striking with no mention of bonuses being added to the strike roll, every other strike rule tells you in the same paragraph to add bonuses.-Basically while it lists bonuses to strike with missiels you are never told to add any bonus to the roll to deterime if you hit with missiles, doing so while logical is a house rule.

There are rules all over the place that don't mention adding in bonuses. Is there something that makes you feel special rules are required with Strike to require a statement when other do not?
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Prysus wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:Nope-mini get a bonus from the WP but use the rules for striking with missiles and not the rules for modern weapon proficiency. That is addressed in the rules for striking with missiles when it says they get a strike bonus from the skill-in the paragraph that starts with No bonus to strike with missiles:(a possible sub heading).

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, there seems to be some bad logic in this response, but I'll see if you can actually justify any of it in a logical way.

So missiles do not get a natural bonus (unless it's Smart or Guided). We're in agreement on this. The C-18 (page 257) does not have a bonus, nor does the NG-P7 NG Particle Beam Rifle (page 270) also does not have a bonus.

Now, the heading you're referring to does NOT say what you claim. Your claim: "No bonus to strike with missiles:" The actual heading: "No Missile Bonus to Strike:"

While the words are nearly identical (you added a "with" in it), they do not mean the same thing when you arrange the words. That states the missile does not have a bonus. It does NOT say you can't add bonuses to strike when using missiles. Do you feel if something negates your bonuses that you can no longer take any penalties? If so, what gives you that impression? If not, why make that claim with missiles?

Blue_Lion wrote:With modern weapon proficiency you get a penalty for shooting at a moving target regardless of the target.
Blue_Lion wrote:It says they get a bonus to strike when fired from the skill and is a the only refence of any wp skill.

So you agree the penalties apply with a Modern W.P. And you agree that mini-missiles use a Modern W.P.

So what makes you think that you get the benefits of a Modern W.P. but ignore all other rules about the Modern W.P.?

Blue_Lion wrote:I will give you the missile strike rules are poorly written. The rule on how to strike is worded to imply a straight die roll, it then says no bonus to strike then list all aplicible bonuses. My theory on this is that the bonus to strike are intended for when people dodge missiles, raising the target number to dodge.-

The wording for strike is nearly identical to most other uses of the term "roll" in the book.

So, let's start with page 364, "Missile Strikes" heading.

"As usual, a D20 is rolled to determine whether a missiles hits or misses. Any roll above a four (5-20) hits unless the defender/target can dodge or shoot the missile down before it hits."

Well, it doesn't mention any bonuses (there), but it also does say "as usual." Then the very next paragraph specifically talks about bonuses.

Page 361, Weapon Modifiers heading.

"To shoot something the attack must roll 1D20 and needs 8 or higher to strike."

Then later it talks about bonuses (so, not in the initial sentence, but after the initial sentence, similar to missiles discussing bonuses later). Page 339, Step 2: Attacker Rolls to Strike

"The next step is for the first attacker to roll a twenty-sided deice. If the result is four or less (counting bonuses), the attacker misses. The roll above a four will hit the opponent, unless the defender can parry or dodge the attack."

This is the establishment of rolling to strike, and mentions "counting bonuses." However, whenever they use the term "roll" after they don't include that note again. So, further in that same section, same page and the next, under the S.D.C. Body Armor heading.

"the attack roll - the roll to strike - must be higher than the A.R. to hit the actual character protected by armor."
"A roll of 1-4 is always a miss; that's true in both and to hand and long-range combat."
"A roll of 1-4 to strike is always a miss."
*There are several more, similar lines, but I don't want to copy them all for space purposes and I'm getting bored.

This help as establish the "as usual" line. The "as usual" line tells us this would follow the same rules. Do you have some reference that NOT adding bonuses is the usual method to strike?

For note, this similar wording is also found in other combat moves such as defense and rolling with impact.

Page 339, under Step 1.

"Otherwise, whoever rolls highest on a twenty-sided die will attack first."

Page 341, under Step 5.

"In order to roll with the impact, the defender must roll 1D20 and match or better the attacker's roll to strike."

Page 345, under Combat Terms, under Dodge.

"To dodge, the defender must roll equal to or higher than the attacker's strike roll on a twenty-sided die."
*Interestingly, they don't seem to discuss rolls at all in Step 3.

Page 346, under Combat Terms, under Pull Punch.

"A character must declare a pulled punch, and the player must roll 11 or better on a twenty-sided die (1D20) to successfully pull his punch."

Notice these last few don't mention bonuses at all. Are you taking the stance that we don't apply bonuses to any of these and only straight die rolls matter? That has some grounds in RAW from what I can tell, but only if we start to ignore that Palladium establishes "roll" as "counting bonuses" early on (though they only repeat it sporadically after). Does something make you think that this similar wording applies bonuses to everything except missiles? If so, what gives you that impression?

Blue_Lion wrote:So I am correct, the rule for striking with missiles is the only strike rule without any mention of bonuses in the roll.

You mean except for the section that talked about bonuses included in the section you think discounts their addition? You acknowledged this earlier. Why do you feel it must be in the same paragraph even if the same section talks about bonuses? Do you feel that since there's a new paragraph the second paragraph is invalid?

And it tells you, "as usual." You state there are 3 sections on strike rules. You acknowledge 2 of the 3 include bonuses. The third states "as usual." So why do you feel the "usual" is not including bonuses (even though the ONLY other 2 examples you provide include bonuses)?

Blue_Lion wrote:It ended the paragraph the rule for striking with no mention of bonuses being added to the strike roll, every other strike rule tells you in the same paragraph to add bonuses.-Basically while it lists bonuses to strike with missiels you are never told to add any bonus to the roll to deterime if you hit with missiles, doing so while logical is a house rule.

There are rules all over the place that don't mention adding in bonuses. Is there something that makes you feel special rules are required with Strike to require a statement when other do not?

When two of three rules on how to strike mention bonus in the same paragraph, and the one that does not calls out a unmodified range, while the other two just say above X. Combined that over all indicates a implied unmodified roll to strike. If two rules for strike tell you to add bonuses in the paragraph and one does not(and is fallowed by statement no bonuses to strike) adding a bonus to strike to the one you are not told to is a house rule, plane and simple.

As usual roll a D20 means you roll a D20 just like every other time. This does not as written include any reference to bonuses, so the as usual does indicate anything about bonuses.

There are two key things 1 it is the only strike rule with no direct refence to bonuses, and 2 it list a unmodified range while every other time just says any roll above X. That means the rule as written does not adress any bonuses, adding them requires a gm call making them a house rule.

(the with instead of to was a typo, not a major deal i worded it more like how I talk. A slip of the keyboard.)


With the way missilel combat is worded, not telling us to add a bonus to strike, listing a unmodified range and making a statement no misile bonus to strike, that means that logically we are being told not to modifie the roll. All bonuses/modifiers to strike that apear before that line in the book are negated. Bonuses listed after could be deamed a change to the no bonus to strike. But the way it is written requires a judgment call to add them, as you are not only not told to add them but told not to add any bonuses to strike. (so bonuses with missiles are a house rule, it may be logical.)


To be clear doing anything that RAW does not tell you to do no mater how logical is a house rule. (house rule is doing something that RAW does not tell you to do)

But you really are arguing what I said it implied to me and not the original point. Original point was nothing says the penalties from ranged combat- modern weapon proficiency applies to anything other than its sub-heading of combat shooting guns (including energy weapons)-it specifically calls out conditional bonuses and penalties.
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: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by eliakon »

I would like to point out also that technically... by the rules there is nothing in the book to say that you add penalties (say for speed, or size or what have you) to the roll for missiles. At least not that I am aware of. As they are not a bonus...
RAW you do not add either penalties or bonuses straight roll (more or less)
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
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

eliakon wrote:I would like to point out also that technically... by the rules there is nothing in the book to say that you add penalties (say for speed, or size or what have you) to the roll for missiles. At least not that I am aware of. As they are not a bonus...
RAW you do not add either penalties or bonuses straight roll (more or less)

That is kind of been my point.
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: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by eliakon »

Blue_Lion wrote:
eliakon wrote:I would like to point out also that technically... by the rules there is nothing in the book to say that you add penalties (say for speed, or size or what have you) to the roll for missiles. At least not that I am aware of. As they are not a bonus...
RAW you do not add either penalties or bonuses straight roll (more or less)

That is kind of been my point.

The "More or less" though is where you and the others differ. You are in the "more" camp and they are in the "less" camp :P
Basically we know that RAW you do not subtract penalties. The question then is "what bonuses, if any, apply" to which the debate then becomes "none" or "some small subset of the array of normal bonuses" or "all bonuses"
(FYI, I'm in the "small subset camp)
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
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

eliakon wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:
eliakon wrote:I would like to point out also that technically... by the rules there is nothing in the book to say that you add penalties (say for speed, or size or what have you) to the roll for missiles. At least not that I am aware of. As they are not a bonus...
RAW you do not add either penalties or bonuses straight roll (more or less)

That is kind of been my point.

The "More or less" though is where you and the others differ. You are in the "more" camp and they are in the "less" camp :P
Basically we know that RAW you do not subtract penalties. The question then is "what bonuses, if any, apply" to which the debate then becomes "none" or "some small subset of the array of normal bonuses" or "all bonuses"
(FYI, I'm in the "small subset camp)

Honestly I think the intent was for the bonuses listed in the subheading-no missile bonus to strike- to apply. But the way the wrote the strike rules for missiles implies a straight die roll(to me). Making it a mater of GM call/house rule, to do something you are not told to do to get from RAW to intent. (the weirdest way I came up to reconcile this without saying the book is wrong is that a straight die roll determines if it hits then you add the bonuses to the roll to determine the target number for defensive actions like dodge or blocking with a shield. But that would clearly be a house rule.)


While we have rules that lots bonuses exist for lots of things but for many bonuses we are not told to add them to the die roll, so adding them to the roll while it is the the intent doing so then becomes a house rule. Based on the presidence of strike rolls telling you to add bonus to the roll.(but then again that is kind of like the impervious to energy debate)
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: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Axelmania »

Blue_Lion wrote:2 Relative speed is a house rule, the book never says it is relative speed it just says the target is moving.
As the rules are written it would be no easier to shoot down a missile from a high speed fighter.

Speed it inherently relative, so it is not a house rule, it's simply a property of how speed works, what speed is. Velocity is a change in position, but position only exists as a concept because we measure it relative to other things. Unless we are given a specific frame of reference (ie "speed in relation to earth's core, speed in relation to sun, speed in relation to bearskin rug") the only logical frame of reference is the other object.

Otherwise, see above point about earth's rotational speed, orbit speed, our solar system's speed, our galaxy's rotation, etc. There is no such thing as absolute speed without context. Speed is the rate at which you are moving in relation to another frame of reference.

ShadowLogan wrote:We know RMB did not apply the penalties because they are not mentioned at any point (and stuff does get explained). They are showing how the rules work, which would mean that the movement penalties would be mentioned at some point. It isn't just the missile shoot down that speed penalties would apply, it would also apply to the missile attack on the hoverjet that was speeding away from the UAR-1.

I think a reasonable explanation here, if Blue Lion is right about speed penalties not being an original part of the book, is that when they were added, they forgot to update the combat example.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Axelmania wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:2 Relative speed is a house rule, the book never says it is relative speed it just says the target is moving.
As the rules are written it would be no easier to shoot down a missile from a high speed fighter.

Speed it inherently relative, so it is not a house rule, it's simply a property of how speed works, what speed is. Velocity is a change in position, but position only exists as a concept because we measure it relative to other things. Unless we are given a specific frame of reference (ie "speed in relation to earth's core, speed in relation to sun, speed in relation to bearskin rug") the only logical frame of reference is the other object.

Otherwise, see above point about earth's rotational speed, orbit speed, our solar system's speed, our galaxy's rotation, etc. There is no such thing as absolute speed without context. Speed is the rate at which you are moving in relation to another frame of reference.

ShadowLogan wrote:We know RMB did not apply the penalties because they are not mentioned at any point (and stuff does get explained). They are showing how the rules work, which would mean that the movement penalties would be mentioned at some point. It isn't just the missile shoot down that speed penalties would apply, it would also apply to the missile attack on the hoverjet that was speeding away from the UAR-1.

I think a reasonable explanation here, if Blue Lion is right about speed penalties not being an original part of the book, is that when they were added, they forgot to update the combat example.

Nice theoritical rant here is the problem.

It says the target is moving at X speed. Not speed releitive to your speed or percpetive.

Speed by itself when referring to objects on earth is a measurement of rate of movement from a starting point, typically movement within a celestial body does not include the movement of the body . Relative speed in common use refers to the rate at which distance between two objects changes. So the two are not the same thing. So a jet traveling at a speed of 500 mph that is chased by a jet traveling at 400 MPH is still traveling at 500 MPH even though its relative speed to jet chasing it would be 100 MPH.


As I said as the rule is written how fast you are moving does not affect how fast the target is moving. Nothing in its wording as written hints at it being movement relative to your position. Just a statement about speed.

So yes using the difrence between the speed of the target and yourself is a house rule and not RAW.
Your rules lawyering does not make a refence to speed reltive speed.
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: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Axelmania »

Blue_Lion wrote:It says the target is moving at X speed. Not speed releitive to your speed or percpetive.

Doesn't matter, relativity is an inherent aspect of speed.

Blue_Lion wrote:Speed by itself when referring to objects on earth is a measurement of rate of movement from a starting point, typically movement within a celestial body does not include the movement of the body . Relative speed in common use refers to the rate at which distance between two objects changes. So the two are not the same thing.

Speed relative to the surface of the earth is still relative speed.

Blue_Lion wrote:So a jet traveling at a speed of 500 mph that is chased by a jet traveling at 400 MPH is still traveling at 500 MPH even though its relative speed to jet chasing it would be 100 MPH.

The jet is traveling at BOTH speeds. It's traveling at one speed relative to the Earth and at a slower speed relative to the jet also moving relative to the Earth in the same direction.

The question to "relative to what" should make sense from context, and there is no reason to assume the surface of the Earth as being that context unless the Earth or someone on the surface of the Earth is making the attack.

Blue_Lion wrote:As I said as the rule is written how fast you are moving does not affect how fast the target is moving. Nothing in its wording as written hints at it being movement relative to your position. Just a statement about speed.

This doesn't matter, because speed cannot exist without a 2nd object for comparison.

Blue_Lion wrote:So yes using the difrence between the speed of the target and yourself is a house rule and not RAW.
Your rules lawyering does not make a refence to speed reltive speed.

This isn't a house rule, because speed is always relative, you can't have non-relative speed.

That you think the frame of reference MUST be the Earth (which part of it? how does this affect battles on the moon?) is the house rule.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Sigh.

Your lame rules lawyering is tiresome.


As I said using coming use of English the only speed that matters is the speed the target is moving(the movement of the earth is irrelevant to how fast a car jet or boat is traveling in common usage of speed).

Nope the jet is traveling at 500 mph, 100 mph is the difference in speed of the two jets and not the speed the first jet is traveling at.

The way the rule is written is the speed the target is traveling at. As stated speed on planet is measured without taking into account any movement of the planet.

The use of the difference of speed between yourself and the target (what is commonly called relative speed) is a house rule. No amount of rules lawyering will change that.(you rely to much on trying to not use common use of the English language.)
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
Natasha
Champion
Posts: 3161
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:26 pm
Comment: Doomed to crumble unless we grow, and strengthen our communication.

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Natasha »

Blue_Lion is correct. The rules only care about the speed of an object with respect to the surface and don't give a hoot about the speed of the third object with respect to anything. Which isn't realistic but is nevertheless the rule.
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Axelmania »

Blue_Lion wrote:Sigh. Your lame rules lawyering is tiresome. As I said using coming use of English the only speed that matters is the speed the target is moving(the movement of the earth is irrelevant to how fast a car jet or boat is traveling in common usage of speed).

You need a physics refresher friend. Try http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics ... Speed.html for example:
Speeds are Relative

Whenever you measure speed, you have to "stand somewhere" to make the measurements. In other words, you must consider some object (the one you are standing on, probably) to be at rest, and measure the speed of other objects relative to it - that is, as if it were at rest.

When we measure speeds, we commonly stand on the Earth (or something attached to the Earth) to make the measurements. A physicist would say that the speed is measured relative to the Earth or in the Earth frame of reference. Notice that it is quite useful and consistent to treat the Earth as if it were at rest - even though we know that it really isn't at rest at all!


Blue_Lion wrote:Nope the jet is traveling at 500 mph, 100 mph is the difference in speed of the two jets and not the speed the first jet is traveling at.

If 2 jets are traveling in the same direction, they move 500mph and 400mph relative to their starting positions and 100mph relative to each other.

Blue_Lion wrote:The way the rule is written is the speed the target is traveling at. As stated speed on planet is measured without taking into account any movement of the planet.

When you measure MPH of flight, you are measuring the distanced traveled from a starting point divided by the time it took you to get there.

You can have smaller vectors which add up to larger vectors as speed changes throughout journey due to acceleration and deceleration.

Blue_Lion wrote:The use of the difference of speed between yourself and the target (what is commonly called relative speed) is a house rule.

There is no such thing as non-relative speed to those who understand physics. To measure speed you must establish what it is relative to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed "the magnitude of its velocity"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity "the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference"

Any choice for FoR other than the attacker has no basis.

Natasha wrote:The rules only care about the speed of an object with respect to the surface and don't give a hoot about the speed of the third object with respect to anything.

"The surface" of what? Surely you can see the problems this can create in Three Galaxies space battles.

How would you resolve battles between Guardians' Voidships in the Astral Plane?

The rules don't actually say "surface" anywhere as a frame of reference. Whether there is an Earth nearby to measure your speed in respect to doesn't matter in the rules.

The only logical frame of reference to measure target speed by is the attacker, because the attacker is the only other frame of reference GUARANTEED to be there.

The main problem we encounter when considering this logically is that in measuring SPEED:
*the highest would be in moving directly toward or directly away from the attacker
*the lowest would be moving in a line perpendicular from such a line, keeping equidistant (circling)

Despite this though, in terms of needing to rotate your aim and "lead" a target, it is the circlers who I think would be harder to aim at, not the people traveling right at you.

Which of course is why DISTANCE should always play a strong factor, to compensate for that problem.
User avatar
Natasha
Champion
Posts: 3161
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:26 pm
Comment: Doomed to crumble unless we grow, and strengthen our communication.

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Natasha »

So, you omitted the part I agreed with you that the rules aren't realistic from a physics perspective (a number of the rules are not).

Axelmania wrote:"The surface" of what? Surely you can see the problems this can create in Three Galaxies space battles.

I said "surface" because that's the example you gave. You can just as well use "free space" as the inertial frame of reference for space battles.

Axelmania wrote:The main problem we encounter when considering this logically is that in measuring SPEED:

The rules do not consider this logically. The rules give all speeds w.r.t. the inertial frames I've described. None of them gives speeds w.r.t. the shooter or the target. If one of them is "at rest", the object "at rest" is just a fixed part of the inertial reference frame.
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Axelmania »

Natasha wrote:you omitted the part I agreed with you

The reply focused on disagreement.

Natasha wrote:I said "surface" because that's the example you gave.
You can just as well use "free space" as the inertial frame of reference for space battles.

I don't understand what you mean by free space.

Natasha wrote:
Axelmania wrote:The main problem we encounter when considering this logically is that in measuring SPEED:

The rules do not consider this logically. The rules give all speeds w.r.t. the inertial frames I've described. None of them gives speeds w.r.t. the shooter or the target. If one of them is "at rest", the object "at rest" is just a fixed part of the inertial reference frame.

Where do the rules mention WRT? Please give an example.
User avatar
Natasha
Champion
Posts: 3161
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:26 pm
Comment: Doomed to crumble unless we grow, and strengthen our communication.

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Natasha »

Axelmania wrote:
Natasha wrote:I said "surface" because that's the example you gave.
You can just as well use "free space" as the inertial frame of reference for space battles.

I don't understand what you mean by free space.

Free space is an inertial frame because there is zero net force. Where there is zero net force there is an inertial reference frame. Where there is an inertial frame, Newton's laws of motion are correct. Battles in outer space are faught in space free of external forces. That isn't strictly true since gravitation has infinite reach but it's also an inverse square law so you can ignore it for a motion problem such as a space battle.

Axelmania wrote:
Natasha wrote:
Axelmania wrote:The main problem we encounter when considering this logically is that in measuring SPEED:

The rules do not consider this logically. The rules give all speeds w.r.t. the inertial frames I've described. None of them gives speeds w.r.t. the shooter or the target. If one of them is "at rest", the object "at rest" is just a fixed part of the inertial reference frame.

Where do the rules mention WRT? Please give an example.

Not playing the word game with you. The rules don't say "with respect to" nor do they mention any "frames of reference" or "relative motion". So neither of us have a leg to stand on in that respect.

Now, to address the point. All speeds given are how fast a character can run or a vehicle can drive or a missile can fly from point A to point B. There is only one reference frame where those rules are always true and it's the inertial frame. It's Charlie in the example you gave in the link. Charlie might be the attacker; in that case, yes, using the attacker makes sense but there is no difference between saying "w.r.t. to the attacker" and "w.r.t. to the surface" in that case. They are precisely the same frame. If Abe is the attacker and measures the missile to be 500 mph (as listed in the rules explicitly for the benefit of the player), then it's impossible to get "an idea of how fast the missiles travel" (RUE, p. 364) because Abe's speed can be anything.
guardiandashi
Hero
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:21 am

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by guardiandashi »

Natasha wrote:
Axelmania wrote:
Natasha wrote:I said "surface" because that's the example you gave.
You can just as well use "free space" as the inertial frame of reference for space battles.

I don't understand what you mean by free space.

Free space is an inertial frame because there is zero net force. Where there is zero net force there is an inertial reference frame. Where there is an inertial frame, Newton's laws of motion are correct. Battles in outer space are faught in space free of external forces. That isn't strictly true since gravitation has infinite reach but it's also an inverse square law so you can ignore it for a motion problem such as a space battle.

Axelmania wrote:
Natasha wrote:
Axelmania wrote:The main problem we encounter when considering this logically is that in measuring SPEED:

The rules do not consider this logically. The rules give all speeds w.r.t. the inertial frames I've described. None of them gives speeds w.r.t. the shooter or the target. If one of them is "at rest", the object "at rest" is just a fixed part of the inertial reference frame.

Where do the rules mention WRT? Please give an example.

Not playing the word game with you. The rules don't say "with respect to" nor do they mention any "frames of reference" or "relative motion". So neither of us have a leg to stand on in that respect.

Now, to address the point. All speeds given are how fast a character can run or a vehicle can drive or a missile can fly from point A to point B. There is only one reference frame where those rules are always true and it's the inertial frame. It's Charlie in the example you gave in the link. Charlie might be the attacker; in that case, yes, using the attacker makes sense but there is no difference between saying "w.r.t. to the attacker" and "w.r.t. to the surface" in that case. They are precisely the same frame. If Abe is the attacker and measures the missile to be 500 mph (as listed in the rules explicitly for the benefit of the player), then it's impossible to get "an idea of how fast the missiles travel" (RUE, p. 364) because Abe's speed can be anything.

I believe Natasha is using W.R.T. as With Relation To...
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

@Axlemania-I do not need a physics refresher, suggesting I do is a personal attack. This is not a matter of advanced physics but common usage of English(a understanding of physics is not needed to understand the text). When some one says an object is traveling at X mph, or the object is traveling at X speed, or the speed is X mph the common usage of English is the speed relative to its starting point.

example- If I say a car is traveling at 50 MPH. That has a standard value in common usage that the vehicle is traveling along the surface of the earth at X speed. If I say a car has a relative speed of 50 MPH that means the cars speed is affected by a variable.


Now then the rule has a set value text. It calls out speed the target is traveling at. As written in common usage it has a set meaning of the speed from the a starting point or relation to the earth. As written in common usage it can not indicate the speed relative to the movement of the target.


You are attempting rules lawyering to change the meaning of text way beyond what would be considered common use. To the point your stance actually becomes unreasonable for the average reading of the text.


I would point out the link you listed even tells you the common way to measure speed is relative to earth. So your augment is trying to ignore the common way we measure speed.
http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics ... Speed.html
When we measure speeds, we commonly stand on the Earth (or something attached to the Earth) to make the measurements. A physicist would say that the speed is measured relative to the Earth or in the Earth frame of reference.

So the commonly used measurement of speed is relative to earth-oh wait that is what I have been saying the common usage is.
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: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Axelmania »

Natasha wrote:Free space is an inertial frame because there is zero net force. Where there is zero net force there is an inertial reference frame. Where there is an inertial frame, Newton's laws of motion are correct. Battles in outer space are faught in space free of external forces. That isn't strictly true since gravitation has infinite reach but it's also an inverse square law so you can ignore it for a motion problem such as a space battle.


So-called "free" space probably assumes a lot of things. Like if you're fighting in the space near the Earth and the Moon, you might manage to be far enough from either that their gravitational pulls become less noticeable, but you're still probably taking for granted the circular momentum you inherited from your point of orbit which keeps you in Earth's orbital path around its star, our sun Sol.

Even those free of that, are still probably taking for granted the momentum which keeps us within Sol's respective path within its larger galaxy.

Natasha wrote:Not playing the word game with you. The rules don't say "with respect to" nor do they mention any "frames of reference" or "relative motion". So neither of us have a leg to stand on in that respect.

I don't mean in respect to. You said "rules give all speeds w.r.t. the inertial frames I've described".

My stance is that rules generally do not give context (no overt stance one way or the other) so it's up to us to make a reasonable conclusion about what the WRT refers to.

Why would you assume that Rifts assumes a Galilean reference frame in its rules? Kind of an outdated concept.

Natasha wrote:Now, to address the point. All speeds given are how fast a character can run or a vehicle can drive or a missile can fly from point A to point B. There is only one reference frame where those rules are always true and it's the inertial frame.

The speeds given determine how long it takes to get from A to B.

What if B is a moving point though? Suddenly it takes longer to get there if it's moving away from A, or less time if it's moving toward A.

If a missile is traveling toward B at 500mph and B is moving away from the missile at 500mph, in respect to each other there is no movement at all, because they are traveling in the same direction.

This is why we have the concept of "rest" within our own world, because even though we're all rotating at crazy speeds, we do it together. But we're all still moving in respect to something not rotating like the Earth is.

Could you explain your stance by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout_(play) ?

Blue_Lion wrote:This is not a matter of advanced physics but common usage of English(a understanding of physics is not needed to understand the text). When some one says an object is traveling at X mph, or the object is traveling at X speed, or the speed is X mph the common usage of English is the speed relative to its starting point.

example- If I say a car is traveling at 50 MPH. That has a standard value in common usage that the vehicle is traveling along the surface of the earth at X speed. If I say a car has a relative speed of 50 MPH that means the cars speed is affected by a variable.

I completely agree with you.

But the problem is: combat doesn't have a "starting point". It's not an A>B journey, it's not in a straight line.

"Starting point" only exists as one arbitrarily defined position at a fixed point in time. MPH/speed can be used to create a "travel time" in a straight line between two points, but to know when you are at one point using this, you must first know when you are at the other point.

Blue_Lion wrote:Now then the rule has a set value text. It calls out speed the target is traveling at. As written in common usage it has a set meaning of the speed from the a starting point or relation to the earth. As written in common usage it can not indicate the speed relative to the movement of the target.

There is no "the a starting point" specified, or any logical one to choose. Starting point WHEN? Where you were 1 second ago? 15 seconds ago?

"The earth" is actually not a fixed point either. Are you referring to change in distance with respect to the centre of the earth? A point on the surface?

Blue_Lion wrote:You are attempting rules lawyering to change the meaning of text way beyond what would be considered common use. To the point your stance actually becomes unreasonable for the average reading of the text.

I'm not changing anything here. Speed is inherently relative.

Take walking along the top of a car of a train chugging along at 100mph for example. In respect to the subway, you might be walking 5mph away from the middle of the car behind you and 5mph toward the middle of the car ahead of you, but in respect to someone standing on the tracks behind or ahead of the train, you could be moving toward/away at 95mph or 105mph depending on whether you were walking the direction the train was travelling.

(that of course, is just imagining a straight track, real tracks generally curve over distances, either left/right or up/down, and there's also the gradual curve of the earth.)

Blue_Lion wrote:I would point out the link you listed even tells you the common way to measure speed is relative to earth. So your augment is trying to ignore the common way we measure speed.

Is that how you would measure speed on Wormwood? The Moon? Mars? Phase World? The Astral Plane? Asteroid Belts? Binary suns?

None of these things are guaranteed to exist in combat. The only things guaranteed to exist are the target and the shooter. The barrel of your gun and the point you're aiming for.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

sigh still doing the lame rules lawyering rather than actually addressing the point.

Every thing in combat has a starting point, where it was at the start of combat. Lots of things that are not a straight lines have starting points. A trail that winds through a mountain has start point. I used the word start point because as your statement about relative to the earth shows is outside your illogical stance, even though it is commonly known concept.


Why is it you seam to have a problem understanding how speed is commonly measured? Is understanding what is intended when some one says a vehicle can travel 100 MPH or when some one says something is traveling 100 MPH beyond on you? (because that seams to be what you are arguing.) Do you think this augment would work in court if you traveling faster than the speed limit in a school zone?

Well the same would be true on any planetary body as earth you measure speed relative to it.


The extremes you are going to try and prove a commonly known concept of how people commonly talk about and measure speed is not something that can be resonably be known is beyond absurd. It makes it look like you are creating an augment for the sake of auguring
(trolling).
**The way the rule is written the only thing that matters is the common usage of traveling at speed, all these advance physics that you are trying to misapply to the statment are irrelevent. The speed the attacker traveling at is Irrelevent. The only thing that matters is the speed the target is traveling at as it would be measured bassed off a fixed point of the planets surface.(I have tried difrent ways to explain this to you but you seam unable to understand the common usage and keep trying to bring in irrelvent word games.)
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.
jburkett
Wanderer
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:44 pm

Re: Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

Unread post by jburkett »

Blue_Lion wrote:sigh still doing the lame rules lawyering rather than actually addressing the point.

Every thing in combat has a starting point, where it was at the start of combat. Lots of things that are not a straight lines have starting points. A trail that winds through a mountain has start point. I used the word start point because as your statement about relative to the earth shows is outside your illogical stance, even though it is commonly known concept.


Why is it you seam to have a problem understanding how speed is commonly measured? Is understanding what is intended when some one says a vehicle can travel 100 MPH or when some one says something is traveling 100 MPH beyond on you? (because that seams to be what you are arguing.) Do you think this augment would work in court if you traveling faster than the speed limit in a school zone?

Well the same would be true on any planetary body as earth you measure speed relative to it.


The extremes you are going to try and prove a commonly known concept of how people commonly talk about and measure speed is not something that can be resonably be known is beyond absurd. It makes it look like you are creating an augment for the sake of auguring
(trolling).
**The way the rule is written the only thing that matters is the common usage of traveling at speed, all these advance physics that you are trying to misapply to the statment are irrelevent. The speed the attacker traveling at is Irrelevent. The only thing that matters is the speed the target is traveling at as it would be measured bassed off a fixed point of the planets surface.(I have tried difrent ways to explain this to you but you seam unable to understand the common usage and keep trying to bring in irrelvent word games.)

So, given your interpretation of how the rules are written for moving targets what kind of penalties would you apply to the following situation:
Two characters are on opposite ends of a dining car on a bullet train traveling at 200 mph. A shoot out begins between the two characters each with an energy weapon (a pistol let's say). Now, if I am to understand your interpretation correctly, both characters would be firing with a penalty because, as targets, they are traveling at 200 mph (in relation to a fixed point on the planet's surface). Am I correct in this assumption? Thanks! This has been an invigorating argument.
Post Reply

Return to “Rifts®”