So someone casts Firequake on some ATVs...

[HWalsh]

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

I explained how something would not work.

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

Don't argue realism for RPG mechanics.

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

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

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

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

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

No, I was replying specifically to one post. You could make an MDC grenade. An MDC frag grenade? Realistically? No.

It's a game though. We have them because we don't worry about it. Which is the point. When people cite, it's only realistically that a grenade damages all parts of something someone needs to point out what happens if we go realistic.

[eliakon]

Spoiler:

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

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

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

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

For guns. Ranged combat. Mines are neither.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are only 3 combat rule sets/kinds of combat.
Melee, ranged, missile
All of them say that damage goes to the body.
Therefore unless a fourth kind of combat is created by another rule set someplace any attack of any sort will have to follow the rules for one of them.

The Hand to Hand section is arguably the "all combat unless other wise noted" section since regardless of the header it is laid out and described as the example of combat AND because all other sections refer to it AND the H2H bonuses and skills are used to modify most other forms of combat... Meaning that it appears that the other kinds of combat modify the H2H section not straight up replace it.
So once again, you need to have a rule that says that you deal damage in a different way than printed.

There is not a 'mine combat' section so unless you can point to such a section in any book anyplace your claim that mines are some how special and follow a special rule is false on its face as you are making a claim that is provably false...
...specifically you are claiming that a nonexistent rule applies for them. The rule is nonexistent as there is no "mine combat" rule to be applied.
And no, your personal fanon is not a rule.

[Blue_Lion]

He is claiming a descriptions (flavor text) that provides no mechanics is a rule providing a special case for mines.
As the mine does not have any rules for how it damages the target it would use the default all damage to the main body.

It is really irreverent to the original post thou.

[Axelmania]

Mines aren't necessarily "combat", they are traps.

There are rules for whether or not you trigger a trap: you fail perception to avoid noticing it, and you step on it. A GM would probably roll % chance if every square foot of a floor wasn't trapped to see if you took a lucky or unlucky step.

In that sense, robot feet could be better off than wheels since wheels depress a continous line and so can't accidentally or intentionally step over a mine, only swerve around it.

Vehicle combat exists and mines damaging feet/tires is a rule mechanic. Weapon descriptions are rule mechanics.

The relevance to the original post is that firequakes are bottom>up attacks, like mines. It makes complete sense for them to damage an exposed undercarriage.

There is no rule preventing that and every reason for a GM to make the ruling. It would be irrational not to, as wheels are directly on the ground.

This isn't like an Earthquake where you could argue for an exception since wheels are meant to be shock absorbers so it should be the main body that gets rattled. This is FIRE.

[Greepnak]

It can make doing anything but called shots pointless if not abstracted to some degree.

In some ways I think the palladium system would be better from a smooth play pov if there were no individual hit-point totals per body part.

[Blue_Lion]

Mines aren't necessarily "combat", they are traps.

There are rules for whether or not you trigger a trap: you fail perception to avoid noticing it, and you step on it. A GM would probably roll % chance if every square foot of a floor wasn't trapped to see if you took a lucky or unlucky step.

In that sense, robot feet could be better off than wheels since wheels depress a continous line and so can't accidentally or intentionally step over a mine, only swerve around it.

Vehicle combat exists and mines damaging feet/tires is a rule mechanic. Weapon descriptions are rule mechanics.

The relevance to the original post is that firequakes are bottom>up attacks, like mines. It makes complete sense for them to damage an exposed undercarriage.

There is no rule preventing that and every reason for a GM to make the ruling. It would be irrational not to, as wheels are directly on the ground.

This isn't like an Earthquake where you could argue for an exception since wheels are meant to be shock absorbers so it should be the main body that gets rattled. This is FIRE.

Logic flaw it is not combat, but it is an attack.
If something attacks then it is combat not all combat is between two living things.

As you have been told the flavor text is only a vague reference it does not state the damage is done to the tires.

It says it is ideal for blowing out tires and feet of robots. But never states it does damage. Ideal is not a mechanical value but a flavor.

The default mode for this mine is not contact dentition but radio dentition. So the line in question could very well be using the radio link to blow it with a called shot. The line does not say and does not prove that mines (or any bottom up attack) by default damage the tires. Also the mine is never contact detonated it is either command detonated (an attack that would require a strike roll to make sure the moving target is in range) or proximity detonated 30-70 feet away. That means the only way for it to blow up under a tire and damage the tire would be called shot with radio detonation.

As it is combat the standard combat rules apply.

If your assertion that the attack is not combat but a trap and combat default rules did not apply was true,(but at this point no evidence that it is) that would make it irrelevant to spell that is a combat attack.
The assertion that it is not covered by combat rules must be proven. No evidence has been provided to prove that it is not covered by combat rules or that by default the mine targets the tires without a called shot.(Sorry no back door it is not combat so combat rules do not apply but it changes combat rules.)

*Basically if it is not using combat rules it has no bearing on combat rules (but you must prove that it is not combat) makes it irreverent to the topic of a spell casting that is part of combat, or combat rules apply and it requires a called shot making it so it does not change how the spell does damage. So it does appear to be totally irrelevant to the spell and original topic.

(the called shot rules from the original book allow any attack to be called shot if the player calls it ahead of time. So the flavor text is reflecting the state of rules at the time it was written.)

[Axelmania]

Where is a mine described as an attack?

[eliakon]

Where is a mine described as an attack?

When it does damage.
That is the attack.

[Blue_Lion]

Where is a mine described as an attack?

By You right after you said it was not part of combat later in the same attack said it was a type of bottom up attack.

The mine is listed as a weapon, it does damage there for it is an attack.(the mine question is also primary command detonated.)
Quit the stupid word games. You do not get to classify it as a bottom attack then ask where it is classified as an attack.

Damage can only be sustained two ways.
Accidents like crashes and falls and attacks some thing deliberate to cause damage.
As mines are placed to do damage they would not be accidental damage.

Not all attacks are direct attacks.

[HWalsh]

Certain posters don't like that fact being pointed out... About indirect attacks being attacks...

This is kind of like... The same people who would claim... If the CS created a mine field and then drove a bunch of D-Bees to enter it... Well the CS didn't attack them... Mines aren't attacks... The victims shouldn't have stepped on them...

But yes, a mine is an indirect attack... Any trap is.

[Axelmania]

A hole is not an attack. I am not interested in personal opinion, show me where the books say all traps are attacks.

The books have narrower uses for some words than we may see elsewhere.

It being a shortening of "attack per melee" for example. The process of hitting. Not indirect attacks like poisoning a water supply (can poison only damage the main body?)

, it does damage there for it is an attack

By this logic falling off a ladder is an attack.

[Blue_Lion]

A hole is not an attack. I am not interested in personal opinion, show me where the books say all traps are attacks.

The books have narrower uses for some words than we may see elsewhere.

It being a shortening of "attack per melee" for example. The process of hitting. Not indirect attacks like poisoning a water supply (can poison only damage the main body?)

, it does damage there for it is an attack

By this logic falling off a ladder is an attack.

As I said there are two sources of damage in RAW accident and attacks.

Accidents are untended damage such as unplanned falls and crashes.

Attacks are something that has a intent to do damage. (arranging for some one to fall off a latter would be an attack.)

Now then a trap is placed with intent to do damage that makes it an attack. There are no special rules for traps doing damage as it is a type of attack. You even called the mine a bottom up attack. Where does the books say that damage from a trap is not an attack?

The mine in question, is listed as a weapon and has a rate of fire 1 and is used to inflict damage on a target by default when it is directed to by the operator. (That sounds like a attack to me.) That means you are claiming the use of a weapon to do damage is not an attack.

If a mine is not an attack it would be irrelevant to this topic.

So let me ask you this how is the mine relevant to the topic of damage from an AOE attack?

(Multiple people including you have called it an attack so you need to prove that it is not an attack. Why should we prove it is already what you called it.)

By default poison damage would be taken off the main body. It is a type of attack that is not a called shot. (Any time some one attempts to damage another it is an attack.)

**By the way Attack is not sort for attack per melee, attacks per melee is a mechanic to determine the number of actions you have in combat. Attacks per melee is how many times you can use an action/attack per melee pg 344 RUE**

[Axelmania]

An "attack per melee" has been abbreviated as "attack" in the books. I think you know this. Will you accept it or do I need to dig up proof?

The rate of fire for the mine-launching weapon is for setting the mine. The mine itself doesn't have an RoF.

Your accidents/attacks is a false dichotomy. Please stick to book terminology. I can accidentally fall into a hole an enemy purposefully left to cause accidents. This is a gray issue.

As for firequake, you can cast it in an area to simply act as a deterrent. There need not be someone directly targeted by it. So it is not inherently an attack.

The aspect in question would be the "jets of flame" which shoot up from the ground.

What number is a successful Dodge certainly does need to be clarified. Since you have to dodge, it must be enough to hit, so I would probably go with a 5 minimum. Perhaps 1d20+4 ?

The jets of flames shoot up, so they could hit anything with a surface facing down.

Whether that is the main body or some other location facing down like a foot or wheel would largely be up to GM judgement. A good use of random hit locations.

That said, the higher damage which vehicles take probably assumes multiple points of contact to the main body, so based in that probability I would house rule not tripling the damage if a hit to a small location was rolled.

[Blue_Lion]

Attack is not in any way shape or form short for attacks per melee. (Attacks per melee is described as the number of attacks you get so the single for attacks can not be short for something talking about the number of attacks you get.)

Where is an attack defined as short for number of attackers per melee? Where is a trap defined as not an attack?

A mine being placed by a device is like a device launching a mini missile the only difference is you travel to a mine. The affect is the same. Rifts mercenaries page 101 calls NG anti vehicle mines weapons.

If you fall in a hole that a enemy placed to inflict damage it is not an accident but you falling victim to a indirect attack. It is only an accident if there was no intent to cause harm how ever there was intent to do harm.

I can shoot a gun as a warning shot but shooting a gun is considered an attack same as the spell. You really just creating a false defense unrelated to the topic was casting a damaging spell on a ATV that would constitute an attack.

Now then do you have any quote that says a trap is not an attack as most people seam to think it is?

[Axelmania]

Attack is not in any way shape or form short for attacks per melee. (Attacks per melee is described as the number of attacks you get so the single for attacks can not be short for something talking about the number of attacks you get.)

Where is an attack defined as short for number of attackers per melee?

Not every single term Palladium uses is defined in a glossary. Some types of shorthand you simply come to know by observing. It is how a term can be used. For example under the Demon Familiar on page 12 of Vampire Kingdoms the power lunch "counts as two attacks." The term "attacks" is referring to two "melee attacks" or "attacks per melee" as we have seen else where. It is a shortening.

This doesn't mean every instance of attack/attacks refers to APM but it does mean this is a possibility worth considering.

Where is a trap defined as not an attack?

Things are not generally defined by what they are not. For example, I could ask you where it defines Karl Prosek as "not a dragon". If you want to argue it is an attack to lay a trap, I await your proof. To me traps are often more of a defense.

A mine being placed by a device is like a device launching a mini missile the only difference is you travel to a mine. The affect is the same. Rifts mercenaries page 101 calls NG anti vehicle mines weapons.

The ToC also lists the NG-S2 Basic Survival Pack under weapons. It does include a pocket knife and hatchet which could be used that way but they are primarily tools.

The difference of traveling to a target and them traveling to you is significant. If a SAMAS flies and pu cues me it is attacking. If I fly up to SAMAS and headbutt it in the arm it isn't attacking me.

If you fall in a hole that a enemy placed to inflict damage it is not an accident but you falling victim to a indirect attack. It is only an accident if there was no intent to cause harm how ever there was intent to do harm.

interesting philosophy, now where do the books call pit traps an attack?

Dont get me wrong, some traps are described that way. CWC63 Trap Construction: Swinging Log "for attacking groups" for example. But that is something which moves towards a victim (-3 to dodge...not sure what you need to beat, I usually figure 14 if nothing else is given) but I haven't heard of dodging mine/snare traps that you move toward.

Traps which are reactive defenses don't generally.get.described that way. For example punching a suit of vibro armor vs a suitof VibroSword armor punching you.

I can shoot a gun as a warning shot but shooting a gun is considered an attack same as the spell. You really just creating a false defense unrelated to the topic was casting a damaging spell on a ATV that would constitute an attack.

Firequake is not a damaging spell. It destabilizes an area. The jets of flame are simply danger it creates as a side effect. This would be like calling creating a ley line storm an attack or summoning a demon an attack. There is a broad sense and then there is the narrow sense which Palladium uses when discussing combat rules.

Now then do you have any quote that says a trap is not an attack as most people seam to think it is?

There is no "most people" and I'm wondering why we are discussing attacks when it still defies explanation as to why you are using "gun terms" statements to define how non-guns work.

[rem1093]

The problem with the, every attack hit the main body rule, is that it doesn't always work for every type of attack. If I cast River of Lava on a 30ft. tall Bot. By the rules, the main body takes damage, but not the 5 to 10 ft. of leg that are submerged in the lava. For me that just don't make any sense, sorta takes me out of the game. It's just that some things have to work close to way they do in the WW. You grab a hot pan it burns/attacks your hand, not your body, same with putting your foot in lava or standing on a mine.

[eliakon]

The problem with the, every attack hit the main body rule, is that it doesn't always work for every type of attack. If I cast River of Lava on a 30ft. tall Bot. By the rules, the main body takes damage, but not the 5 to 10 ft. of leg that are submerged in the lava. For me that just don't make any sense, sorta takes me out of the game. It's just that some things have to work close to way they do in the WW. You grab a hot pan it burns/attacks your hand, not your body, same with putting your foot in lava or standing on a mine.

True.
And of course this is why you have a GM.
Who can make calls on the fly as needed.
The flip side to the argument of course is the totally separate discussion on just how lethal you want your particular game. River of Lava for instance goes from "truly nasty" to "I win level instant death" if it does hit location damage.
*shrug* its a judgement call there, and the group will need to make that call.
But the rules as written go a certain way. That doesn't mean its the most realistic way, just the canon way.

[Axelmania]

The problem with the, every attack hit the main body rule, is that it doesn't always work for every type of attack. If I cast River of Lava on a 30ft. tall Bot. By the rules, the main body takes damage, but not the 5 to 10 ft. of leg that are submerged in the lava. For me that just don't make any sense, sorta takes me out of the game. It's just that some things have to work close to way they do in the WW. You grab a hot pan it burns/attacks your hand, not your body, same with putting your foot in lava or standing on a mine.

The rule on needing called shots to hit legs is for guns, not rivers of lava.

But the rules as written go a certain way. That doesn't mean its the most realistic way, just the canon way.

The rules "as written" pertain to guns. Thus "gun terms". Applying the called shot rules outside that is a house rule.

[guardiandashi]

The problem with the, every attack hit the main body rule, is that it doesn't always work for every type of attack. If I cast River of Lava on a 30ft. tall Bot. By the rules, the main body takes damage, but not the 5 to 10 ft. of leg that are submerged in the lava. For me that just don't make any sense, sorta takes me out of the game. It's just that some things have to work close to way they do in the WW. You grab a hot pan it burns/attacks your hand, not your body, same with putting your foot in lava or standing on a mine.

The rule on needing called shots to hit legs is for guns, not rivers of lava.

But the rules as written go a certain way. That doesn't mean its the most realistic way, just the canon way.

The rules "as written" pertain to guns. Thus "gun terms". Applying the called shot rules outside that is a house rule.

NO that is YOUR house rule NOT RAW. quit trying to insist that your house rules are what the rules say.

[Axelmania]

Gun Terms is the title of the section people are quoting "called shot" rules from.

Mines go boom, they don't take shots. Nor do gouts of fire erupting from the ground.

No evidence has been supplied that all sources of damage need to obey these gun rules.

The stance that it does is clearly some attempt to cause many things to become immune to a variety of attacks since there is no WP Magic Spell (though strangely there is a QuickDraw)

[boring7]

I recall somewhere (NG book?) having the OPTION of mines hitting wheels instead of main body, because mine. But I don't recall.

Missiles can only hit main body (RUE 362) which makes the Glitterboy Killer all the more amusing. It's primary tactic is to use the missile launcher that it doesn't have statted up (except its hp) to attack the Glitterboy's boom cannon (because explosions can't do called shots) before engaging with blasters.

As I recall the main reason explosions always hit main body is less "simplicity" and more "there is armor with AR ratings, and blowing up someone's head is an issue."

[guardiandashi]

I recall somewhere (NG book?) having the OPTION of mines hitting wheels instead of main body, because mine. But I don't recall.

Missiles can only hit main body (RUE 362) which makes the Glitterboy Killer all the more amusing. It's primary tactic is to use the missile launcher that it doesn't have statted up (except its hp) to attack the Glitterboy's boom cannon (because explosions can't do called shots) before engaging with blasters.

As I recall the main reason explosions always hit main body is less "simplicity" and more "there is armor with AR ratings, and blowing up someone's head is an issue."

its not so much that as a couple issues note part of this is an interpretation but...

the "main body" is both the biggest most likely to be struck location on a unit (in most cases) but especially for explosions it is also essentially a way of "spreading" the damage across the whole unit, IE the discrete locations are partially summed into the main body. so rather than having a fire blast from the firequake ONLY blow off the movement aspects of the unit (like axel wants to do) it instead attacks the main body, reflecting that the drive systems along with other parts are damaged, but not destroyed. essentially its like ig you were in a collision in a car, the damage as a whole went to the main body of the car, but when you get out and look at the car it might be concentrated at the front end, like in the wreck I was in a couple years ago, the car I was in got the hood, headlights, bumper, bumper cover, radiator supports and similar parts damaged, and while the car was actually completely drivable, there was extensive damage. Axel for "reasons" wants to skip all that and just pick and choose what gets damaged, when the rules as written don't apply the damage that way. its like his whole you can shoot the main body of a gun because its, its own thing and just happens to be listed under the unit for "convenience" when that is not at all what the rules say.

what the rules say is damage always applies to the main body unless a called shot is made. period full stop.

[Blue_Lion]

I recall somewhere (NG book?) having the OPTION of mines hitting wheels instead of main body, because mine. But I don't recall.

Missiles can only hit main body (RUE 362) which makes the Glitterboy Killer all the more amusing. It's primary tactic is to use the missile launcher that it doesn't have statted up (except its hp) to attack the Glitterboy's boom cannon (because explosions can't do called shots) before engaging with blasters.

As I recall the main reason explosions always hit main body is less "simplicity" and more "there is armor with AR ratings, and blowing up someone's head is an issue."

there is a radio controlled mine on a vehicle that says it is ideal for blowing out wheels and feet of bots. If you read the whole thread you would see he is basing it off that flavor text. the thing is as the mine is radio controlled it can be used to do a called shot (in the rules at the time it was written)by blowing it when it is the right position. The other way it blows up is proximity based, when the vehicle is within X distance of it.

[Blue_Lion]

Axelman do you have any quote that says a trap is not an attack or is it just something you are making up? (the majority seam to think it is an attack you called it an attack.)
(fire quake is a spell used to create a damaging affect so is a damaging spell.)


**YOu are completely wrong on the short hand for attacks. Attacks per melee is defined as the number of actions/attacks you get in a melee. So attacks are not short hand for number of attacks per melee. Attacks per melee is a way to know how many actions you get, meaning attacks per melee is a way to know how many attacks you can make in a set time. An action that cost two attacks is not two attacks per melee but when used consumes two of the users available attacks. What you are saying is like claiming dollar is short hand for 12 dollars per hour.***

[Axelmania]

I recall somewhere (NG book?) having the OPTION of mines hitting wheels instead of main body, because mine. But I don't recall.

Missiles can only hit main body (RUE 362) which makes the Glitterboy Killer all the more amusing. It's primary tactic is to use the missile launcher that it doesn't have statted up (except its hp) to attack the Glitterboy's boom cannon (because explosions can't do called shots) before engaging with blasters.

As I recall the main reason explosions always hit main body is less "simplicity" and more "there is armor with AR ratings, and blowing up someone's head is an issue."

The rate of fire for the GBK was.added in Xiticix Invasion. WP Heavy MD applies to mini missile launchers and standard called shot rules apply for human pilots. The statement about the main body is a default for AIs that is overrode by human choice.

what the rules say is damage always applies to the main body unless a called shot is made. period full stop.

For guns. Pay attention to where you are reading things.

there is a radio controlled mine on a vehicle that says it is ideal for blowing out wheels and feet of bots. If you read the whole thread you would see he is basing it off that flavor text. the thing is as the mine is radio controlled it can be used to do a called shot (in the rules at the time it was written)by blowing it when it is the right position. The other way it blows up is proximity based, when the vehicle is within X distance of it.

That isn't flavor text, its the rules. Everything Kevin writes is official.

Naruni Bullet mines also explicitly blow off the feet of bots and they are pressure triggers not radio controlled so that kills your theory.

Axelman do you have any quote that says a trap is not an attack or is it just something you are making up? (the majority seam to think it is an attack you called it an attack.)
(fire quake is a spell used to create a damaging affect so is a damaging spell.)

Your constant appeal to majority is annoying, if your arguments held water you would not rush to head counts.

I pointed out an example of one trap (swinging log) described as being used to attack. That doesn't mean every trap should be perceived that way. I can attack with a vibro-axe but I can do other things as well.

**YOu are completely wrong on the short hand for attacks. Attacks per melee is defined as the number of actions/attacks you get in a melee. So attacks are not short hand for number of attacks per melee.

I am 100% right because I proved it using the Demon Familiar. You are opting to ignore evidence from the books and relying on an unsubstantiated opinion.

Attacks per melee is a way to know how many actions you get, meaning attacks per melee is a way to know how many attacks you can make in a set time. An action that cost two attacks is not two attacks per melee but when used consumes two of the users available attacks. What you are saying is like claiming dollar is short hand for 12 dollars per hour.***

No, you aren't making sense.

+1 attack, +1 melee attack, +1 attack per melee and +1 attack per melee round are equivalent expressions.

I am simply proving that a rererence to "attack" can be referring to the game idea of "melee attack" rather than a broad sense like "he attacked the thesis of my paper".

[jaymz]

Wow...just wow......the trolling word games in this thread is....just wow.

Apparently some people cannot use common sense to see how it works. The wish to word play and be anal abut the wording of things.

So to fix this issue.....guess what, you cannot cast a spell while engaged in combat by the rules....why? under combat there is NO option to do anything but roll a d20 when it is your turn...don't believe me? Go read the combat section and how the melee round works. After reading that ask yourself how are you to do a piloting maneuver, cast a spell, use a psionic power, or do anything there but roll a d20 because AS WRITTEN you cannot do ANYTHING but roll a d20 to "attack" on your turn.

So how about those being phallic symbols about how "well it's not a missile so that rule doesn't apply" stop being a phallic symbol and understand Palladium is not a literal rule set and never has been which is THE BLOODY PROBLEM with the ruleset in the first place...it is pisspoorly written and explained which causes these sorts of arguments between mostly reasonable people who understand rules as intended and phallic symbols trying to rules lawyer the literal writings their way to get some "advantage" for themselves.

[Blue_Lion]

I recall somewhere (NG book?) having the OPTION of mines hitting wheels instead of main body, because mine. But I don't recall.

Missiles can only hit main body (RUE 362) which makes the Glitterboy Killer all the more amusing. It's primary tactic is to use the missile launcher that it doesn't have statted up (except its hp) to attack the Glitterboy's boom cannon (because explosions can't do called shots) before engaging with blasters.

As I recall the main reason explosions always hit main body is less "simplicity" and more "there is armor with AR ratings, and blowing up someone's head is an issue."

The rate of fire for the GBK was.added in Xiticix Invasion. WP Heavy MD applies to mini missile launchers and standard called shot rules apply for human pilots. The statement about the main body is a default for AIs that is overrode by human choice.

what the rules say is damage always applies to the main body unless a called shot is made. period full stop.

For guns. Pay attention to where you are reading things.

there is a radio controlled mine on a vehicle that says it is ideal for blowing out wheels and feet of bots. If you read the whole thread you would see he is basing it off that flavor text. the thing is as the mine is radio controlled it can be used to do a called shot (in the rules at the time it was written)by blowing it when it is the right position. The other way it blows up is proximity based, when the vehicle is within X distance of it.

That isn't flavor text, its the rules. Everything Kevin writes is official.

Naruni Bullet mines also explicitly blow off the feet of bots and they are pressure triggers not radio controlled so that kills your theory.

Axelman do you have any quote that says a trap is not an attack or is it just something you are making up? (the majority seam to think it is an attack you called it an attack.)
(fire quake is a spell used to create a damaging affect so is a damaging spell.)

Your constant appeal to majority is annoying, if your arguments held water you would not rush to head counts.

I pointed out an example of one trap (swinging log) described as being used to attack. That doesn't mean every trap should be perceived that way. I can attack with a vibro-axe but I can do other things as well.

**YOu are completely wrong on the short hand for attacks. Attacks per melee is defined as the number of actions/attacks you get in a melee. So attacks are not short hand for number of attacks per melee.

I am 100% right because I proved it using the Demon Familiar. You are opting to ignore evidence from the books and relying on an unsubstantiated opinion.

Attacks per melee is a way to know how many actions you get, meaning attacks per melee is a way to know how many attacks you can make in a set time. An action that cost two attacks is not two attacks per melee but when used consumes two of the users available attacks. What you are saying is like claiming dollar is short hand for 12 dollars per hour.***

No, you aren't making sense.

+1 attack, +1 melee attack, +1 attack per melee and +1 attack per melee round are equivalent expressions.

I am simply proving that a rererence to "attack" can be referring to the game idea of "melee attack" rather than a broad sense like "he attacked the thesis of my paper".

Got it your a troll that is claiming that a dollar is short for dollars per hour is how the English language works.

The reason I am pointing out the majority called it an attack including you is point out you need to prove that a trap is not part of combat. The fact you lack any quote that supports your claim that a trap is not part of combat and I have provided you why it would be. and you counter with petty word games means your are the one that lacks support. You need to prove your claim that you introduced that it is not part of combat more so when you yourself called the mine a bottom up attack. For your theory to over ride the standard that every one including you needs supporting book to provide true. (A mine is a weapon used to inflict damage so its use would then be an attack your counter is a trolling word game.)

An attack being able to be a melee attack is not the same as claiming that attack is short for attacks per melee.

An attack is a combat action.
Attack per melee rounds is the number of attacks you get in a set time. Saying you get an extra attack may equate to an extra attack per time period but that does not mean that an attack is short for attack per melee. This is such and illogical word game that violates a basic rule of English that is clear you can not be seriously debating but trolling.

Attacks per melee is the number of times you can attack in 1 melee round. It is a statement of number of verbs done in a time frame.

What you are doing is like saying mile is short for miles per hour, or dollar is short for dollars per hour. It lacks any common sense.

I am through your whole stance has been disproven the only thing left are your troll word games and I am done feeding the troll.

[Greepnak]

I recall somewhere (NG book?) having the OPTION of mines hitting wheels instead of main body, because mine. But I don't recall.

Missiles can only hit main body (RUE 362) which makes the Glitterboy Killer all the more amusing. It's primary tactic is to use the missile launcher that it doesn't have statted up (except its hp) to attack the Glitterboy's boom cannon (because explosions can't do called shots) before engaging with blasters.

As I recall the main reason explosions always hit main body is less "simplicity" and more "there is armor with AR ratings, and blowing up someone's head is an issue."

its not so much that as a couple issues note part of this is an interpretation but...

the "main body" is both the biggest most likely to be struck location on a unit (in most cases) but especially for explosions it is also essentially a way of "spreading" the damage across the whole unit, IE the discrete locations are partially summed into the main body. so rather than having a fire blast from the firequake ONLY blow off the movement aspects of the unit (like axel wants to do) it instead attacks the main body, reflecting that the drive systems along with other parts are damaged, but not destroyed. essentially its like ig you were in a collision in a car, the damage as a whole went to the main body of the car, but when you get out and look at the car it might be concentrated at the front end, like in the wreck I was in a couple years ago, the car I was in got the hood, headlights, bumper, bumper cover, radiator supports and similar parts damaged, and while the car was actually completely drivable, there was extensive damage. Axel for "reasons" wants to skip all that and just pick and choose what gets damaged, when the rules as written don't apply the damage that way. its like his whole you can shoot the main body of a gun because its, its own thing and just happens to be listed under the unit for "convenience" when that is not at all what the rules say.

what the rules say is damage always applies to the main body unless a called shot is made. period full stop.

This is honestly the way I like it better too... "main body" is everything (heads, arms, legs etc) but spread out. Maybe Palladium would be well served by just eliminating separate MDC/SDC/AR for individual body parts and sticking to a single HP pool, while called shots apply a damage modifier or condition track (shoot kneecaps to hobble, shoot head to stun/possibly deathblow?)

The River of Lava bit is truly apt.. that spell becomes the atomic bomb of the game if taken literally.

[Greepnak]

Wow...just wow......the trolling word games in this thread is....just wow.

It's the way people like to argue here sometimes. Certain personality types go very hard on the letter of the law, and disregard the spirit of the law. I deal with it at work a lot.

[jaymz]

Oh I know....this thread just seems to have some more over the top of it than usual.

[eliakon]

I recall somewhere (NG book?) having the OPTION of mines hitting wheels instead of main body, because mine. But I don't recall.

Missiles can only hit main body (RUE 362) which makes the Glitterboy Killer all the more amusing. It's primary tactic is to use the missile launcher that it doesn't have statted up (except its hp) to attack the Glitterboy's boom cannon (because explosions can't do called shots) before engaging with blasters.

As I recall the main reason explosions always hit main body is less "simplicity" and more "there is armor with AR ratings, and blowing up someone's head is an issue."

its not so much that as a couple issues note part of this is an interpretation but...

the "main body" is both the biggest most likely to be struck location on a unit (in most cases) but especially for explosions it is also essentially a way of "spreading" the damage across the whole unit, IE the discrete locations are partially summed into the main body. so rather than having a fire blast from the firequake ONLY blow off the movement aspects of the unit (like axel wants to do) it instead attacks the main body, reflecting that the drive systems along with other parts are damaged, but not destroyed. essentially its like ig you were in a collision in a car, the damage as a whole went to the main body of the car, but when you get out and look at the car it might be concentrated at the front end, like in the wreck I was in a couple years ago, the car I was in got the hood, headlights, bumper, bumper cover, radiator supports and similar parts damaged, and while the car was actually completely drivable, there was extensive damage. Axel for "reasons" wants to skip all that and just pick and choose what gets damaged, when the rules as written don't apply the damage that way. its like his whole you can shoot the main body of a gun because its, its own thing and just happens to be listed under the unit for "convenience" when that is not at all what the rules say.

what the rules say is damage always applies to the main body unless a called shot is made. period full stop.

This is honestly the way I like it better too... "main body" is everything (heads, arms, legs etc) but spread out. Maybe Palladium would be well served by just eliminating separate MDC/SDC/AR for individual body parts and sticking to a single HP pool, while called shots apply a damage modifier or condition track (shoot kneecaps to hobble, shoot head to stun/possibly deathblow?)

The River of Lava bit is truly apt.. that spell becomes the atomic bomb of the game if taken literally.

Originally this was how the system worked actually.
Everything had one "damage pool"
But then people wanted hit locations to allow for you to do stuff like shooting out a spotlight, or shooting out tires, or what have you.
The locational system is still basically set up with that as the main intent. You disable a location to inflict a penalty of some sort.
But some people instead want to use hit-locations to allow them to make it easier to one-shot their foes by reducing their damage pools into smaller totals that they then can deplete faster and thus wipe out the enemy faster.
Its basically the old "called shot to the neck" problem all over again. Same munchy trick, new "rationales" and "justifications" for the same goal.

[Greepnak]

Originally this was how the system worked actually.
Everything had one "damage pool"
But then people wanted hit locations to allow for you to do stuff like shooting out a spotlight, or shooting out tires, or what have you.
The locational system is still basically set up with that as the main intent. You disable a location to inflict a penalty of some sort.
But some people instead want to use hit-locations to allow them to make it easier to one-shot their foes by reducing their damage pools into smaller totals that they then can deplete faster and thus wipe out the enemy faster.
Its basically the old "called shot to the neck" problem all over again. Same munchy trick, new "rationales" and "justifications" for the same goal.

Funny you mention that, the called shot to the neck thing actually did happen in our game a few weeks ago.

[jaymz]

The system in general started that way. Rifts always had MDC by location for bots, pa, etc. Only body armour had one number at first.

[HWalsh]

Originally this was how the system worked actually.
Everything had one "damage pool"
But then people wanted hit locations to allow for you to do stuff like shooting out a spotlight, or shooting out tires, or what have you.
The locational system is still basically set up with that as the main intent. You disable a location to inflict a penalty of some sort.
But some people instead want to use hit-locations to allow them to make it easier to one-shot their foes by reducing their damage pools into smaller totals that they then can deplete faster and thus wipe out the enemy faster.
Its basically the old "called shot to the neck" problem all over again. Same munchy trick, new "rationales" and "justifications" for the same goal.

Funny you mention that, the called shot to the neck thing actually did happen in our game a few weeks ago.

Whenever someone pulls the, "I want to called shot it to the neck..."

Bit on a human-sized target I use "Vampire Rules"

"That requires a called shot, you must make a natural 20 or a 24 after bonuses." to cut down on munchism.

[boring7]

there is a radio controlled mine on a vehicle that says it is ideal for blowing out wheels and feet of bots. If you read the whole thread you would see he is basing it off that flavor text. the thing is as the mine is radio controlled it can be used to do a called shot (in the rules at the time it was written)by blowing it when it is the right position. The other way it blows up is proximity based, when the vehicle is within X distance of it.

I thought there was something more official-sounding somewhere.

I could be mistaken. One thing I'm finding fascinating is how seriously people will take flavor text in a system that openly and regularly contradicts itself or retcons both rules and fluff.

Good grief, there's a section where it says the NGR doesn't vote for president (because European-style parliament) and then on the same page it's explaining D-bees are second class citizens because (among other things) "they can vote for local offices, but not for president."

[Axelmania]

Got it your a troll that is claiming that a dollar is short for dollars per hour is how the English language works.

I have avoided calling you a troll for disagreeing with me, I expect you to extend the same courtesy. If you persist in name calling I'll report you for it.

No, I'm quoting an example where "attacks" is used instead of "melee attacks" or "attacks per melee". Page 12 of Vampire Kingdoms under the Demon Familiar, page 12, "counts as two attacks."

Vampire Kingdoms revised page 17 has a similar example "Five attacks per melee round to start, + 1 attack at levels"

The reason I am pointing out the majority called it an attack including you is point out you need to prove that a trap is not part of combat.

I don't recall arguing it was not part of combat. Please try to keep closer to rebutting what I am actually saying.

Many things are part of combat which are not attacks, such as a dodge, or building a wall, or laying a spike strip.

The fact you lack any quote that supports your claim that a trap is not part of combat and I have provided you why it would be.

You're presently arguing a straw man here because I never said mines were not part of combat.

You need to prove your claim that you introduced that it is not part of combat

You must improve your reading comprehension.

What I said was this:

Mines aren't necessarily "combat"

This did not mean that mines can't be part of combat (they often are) but that they could also be part of non-combat. You can lay a mine field as a deterrent without expecting anyone will ever step in it. Just having it there can keep people away from dangerous they can't perceive by putting forth a danger they can perceive.

more so when you yourself called the mine a bottom up attack.

When I wrote "firequakes are bottom>up attacks, like mines" that was speaking casually, not embodying Palladium's sometimes more-pointed use of terms like 'attack'.

What I meant was bottom-up damage. Damage originating from the ground.

For your theory to over ride the standard that every one including you needs supporting book to provide true. (A mine is a weapon used to inflict damage so its use would then be an attack your counter is a trolling word game.)

Not everything used to inflict damage counts as an attack.

For example if I cast the spell 'Circle of Fire' it is not an 'attack' if someone then walks into that fire.

I could, for example, cast a Circle of Fire, then cast Invisibility Superior, and my invisibility would not be lost if someone walked into my fire.

What would trigger or not trigger Invisibility: Superior to fail is a good thing for you to think about when you're considering what is or isn't an attack.

It is not an attack to lay a trap. If I lay caltrops on the floor, I am not attacking, even if someone steps on them, but I would be attacking if I threw caltrops directly at someone's face.

An attack being able to be a melee attack is not the same as claiming that attack is short for attacks per melee.

I didn't say IS, rather I said CAN BE.

Do you understand this distinction between absoluteness and opportunity?

An attack is a combat action.
Attack per melee rounds is the number of attacks you get in a set time.
Saying you get an extra attack may equate to an extra attack per time period but that does not mean that an attack is short for attack per melee.

It doesn't mean that it MUST be, but it does mean that it CAN be.

This is such and illogical word game that violates a basic rule of English that is clear you can not be seriously debating but trolling.

This is the last post where I will tolerate you calling me a troll, I'll report it if you keep doing it.

This is not a troll, and your so-called "basic rules" do not override Palladium's usage, which is sometimes to use "attack" as a short-form for melee attacks.

You complain as if I'm saying it's always short for it though, and I'm not.

Attacks per melee is the number of times you can attack in 1 melee round. It is a statement of number of verbs done in a time frame.

That is false. Attacks are nouns. You don't necessarily do 1 thing per attack. Paired weapons lets you do 2 things per attack, Power punches let you do 1 thing per 2 attacks.

What you are doing is like saying mile is short for miles per hour, or dollar is short for dollars per hour. It lacks any common sense.

I am through your whole stance has been disproven the only thing left are your troll word games and I am done feeding the troll.

I was going to report this post but I can see someone has already done that. Your bullying behavior should not be tolerated. People should not be accused of disingenuous motivation for disagreeing with you.

[Axelmania]

I could be mistaken. One thing I'm finding fascinating is how seriously people will take flavor text in a system that openly and regularly contradicts itself or retcons both rules and fluff.

Good grief, there's a section where it says the NGR doesn't vote for president (because European-style parliament) and then on the same page it's explaining D-bees are second class citizens because (among other things) "they can vote for local offices, but not for president."

When Kevin Siembieda explicitly defines how weapon systems and traps work, those are combat mechanics, not flavor text.

"Flavor text" is when he includes personal notes about "WAIT AND SEE FOR MY UPCOMING BOOK" or "X and Y would make a cute couple".

Do you recall what pages these presidency statements were from? Would like to examine.

some people instead want to use hit-locations to allow them to make it easier to one-shot their foes by reducing their damage pools into smaller totals that they then can deplete faster and thus wipe out the enemy faster.
Its basically the old "called shot to the neck" problem all over again. Same munchy trick, new "rationales" and "justifications" for the same goal.

It's not exactly a "trick" to use the existing canon's statements about how mines work and apply that to other damaging ground.

I'd do exactly the same thing with River of Lava. Not a trick, but basic common sense GMs are expected to apply.

[Blue_Lion]

Mines aren't necessarily "combat", they are traps.

So you are saying you did not claim mines where not part of combat, and that is not what you have been debating is what you are saying now?
(I am saying it is part of combat when you use a mine for damage and you are not saying it not part of combat.)

Got it they are part of combat and thus subject to the rules of combat that all damage goes to the main body unless you do called shot or roll 20. Debate over.(There is no rule that says they do damage to the tire only that when a weapon wit control detonation there is flavor text saying it is ideal for not a mechanic saying it does damage to. Descriptions are flavor rules are this is how things work. Ideal is a flavor word, as are words like rare that have no mechanical value. At the time it was written it could with a command denotation meet the requirements for a called shot.)

[Axelmania]

Blue Lion there is simply no such thing as a rule which applies to every conceivable scenario which requires a called shot to be made for things other than the main body to suffer damage.

For example: a CS grunt climbs a volcano, removes his helmet, and tosses it in the lava.

Do you think the lava needs to make a called shot?

Damage sources don't need to strike at all if targets are jumping right in top of them.

Firequake and River of Lava certainly do have differences we should explore though.

Lava is always going to melt those wheels because the damage is everywhere.

The jets of fire in the other hand, may be rather narrow. They hit randomly as far as I can tell, but the chances if hitting the underside if the vehicle (this is often the main body but can be a separate location for some vehicles) vs wheels is going to probably depend on relative surface area.

I could see a GM who is lenient saying that even a failed dodge manages to shift a wheel out if the way and the fire spout hits a larger undercarriage instead.

[Blue_Lion]

Blue Lion there is simply no such thing as a rule which applies to every conceivable scenario which requires a called shot to be made for things other than the main body to suffer damage.

For example: a CS grunt climbs a volcano, removes his helmet, and tosses it in the lava.

Do you think the lava needs to make a called shot?

Damage sources don't need to strike at all if targets are jumping right in top of them.

Firequake and River of Lava certainly do have differences we should explore though.

Lava is always going to melt those wheels because the damage is everywhere.

The jets of fire in the other hand, may be rather narrow. They hit randomly as far as I can tell, but the chances if hitting the underside if the vehicle (this is often the main body but can be a separate location for some vehicles) vs wheels is going to probably depend on relative surface area.

I could see a GM who is lenient saying that even a failed dodge manages to shift a wheel out if the way and the fire spout hits a larger undercarriage instead.

In the case of helmet not attached to something larger the helmet becomes the largest area making it by itself its own main body. Nice straw man but the rules do cover that so no dice. A so a tire in a field does not require a called shot to hit because the tire is the main body(largest area) but place the same tire on a ATV and you need a called shot to hit it. That is how the rules work.
(That is part of the description of main body, the largest area, while the helmet when part of an armor is not the main body the helmet by itself would be its own main body.)

The rule is to hit some where other than a main body requires a called shot or natural 20. So there is 0 chance of tires attached to a vehicle taking damage from the spell fire quake or river of lava. If the tire was by itself then the tire would take damage. How damage is done is irreverent to it damaging the main body unless you do a called shot or roll a nat 20 by RAW.(you can house rule it different but the default is all damage to the main body.)

[jaymz]

Um....care to enlighten us as to how a natural 20 let's you hit any target you wish that is not the main body as per raw?

Natural 20 is only two things. An automatic success and a critical hit as far as I've ever read.

[Axelmania]

In the case of helmet not attached to something larger the helmet becomes the largest area making it by itself its own main body. Nice straw man but the rules do cover that so no dice.

That's not what a straw man argument is.

Fine, alternate example: I keep my helmet on and dunk my helmet into the lava to try and see where the rune ring that I dropped into the lava went.

Does the lava need to make a called shot to hit my helmet when I opt to dunk my helmet into the lava while still wearing it?

A so a tire in a field does not require a called shot to hit because the tire is the main body(largest area) but place the same tire on a ATV and you need a called shot to hit it. That is how the rules work.

You keep saying that, but I've only seen that stated in rules for shooting things with guns, it isn't intended to apply for things like driving into a pool of lava or stepping onto a mine.

there is 0 chance of tires attached to a vehicle taking damage from the spell fire quake or river of lava.

The basis for your concluding this is flawed because you are applying rules for hitting things other than the main body from gunfire to all potential sources of damage.

There isn't a roll to hit in the first place if you drive into lava, because the target is coming to you.

RUE 208's "the damage is always identical" and "the same damage in the same location" is an example, if you did a called shot to your enemy's helmet, your helmet would take the same damage.

The necessity of making called shots is situation, not absolute. Which is why it is introduced in the modern weapons' rules, not in the general rules.

If you are right on top of an explosion, the explosion doesn't roll to hit you. That's why if you shoot a missile the second it's launched from a Mark IX (Mercs 148) the launcher simply takes the damage. No roll to hit from the missile. No called shot from the missile. The launcher is just damaged. The only called shot involved is to strike the missile being shot in the first place, but not to strike the launcher from the missile's explosion.

Um....care to enlighten us as to how a natural 20 let's you hit any target you wish that is not the main body as per raw?

Natural 20 is only two things. An automatic success and a critical hit as far as I've ever read.

This is a note under "Gun Terms: Main Body" on RUE 362. It is part of the "Ranged Combat" section directly before the "Missile Combat" description begins.

I believe in Rifts, much like the necessity of making called shots to SHOOT things other than the main body, it is unique to ranged combat with guns.

In games like dead reign they do expand Called Shots to be something you can do with punches/kicks but ONLY to zombies, it isn't allowed vs humans.

Area effect attacks are up to the GM, they've never explicitly been denied the ability to hit locations other than the torso, and there's several examples of explosives destroying other parts, so when they can (and how hard that would be) would be up to the GM, since the rules basically don't cover it.

[Blue_Lion]

Got it you are saying rules do not mean what they say. And each rule set is in its own vacuum and affects nothing beyond itself. So when they define main body in modern weapons the rule on how it works only applies to that part of combat(even though that is the only time they define it.)

The way the combat rules are written to Strike(damage) anything other than the main body requires a called shot, why because the rules flat out say that. It does not matter what part of combat says it just that the rules say it. So by the rules a mine damages the main body as does a grenade that lands at your feet because only called shots and natural 20 can strike/damage anything else.(That means dealing damage to any other location would be a house rule as we have a rule saying to damage other than the main body requires X.)

Your claim is well they say it in this part of combat but driving in a lava is immune to damage is poor rules lawyer attempt. (Dead rein was made after RUE and if it does not conflict importing its rules is fair game.) The only rule that allows damage to something other than the main body is the called shot rule and it specifies you can not do Strike(damage) to other areas without it in the definition of main body.

The rules are written for simplicity not realism you are free to house rule them more complex and realistic if you want but that does not change the rules.

What you are doing is rules layering in an attempt to make mines and certain spells more deadly other parts of combat. The way the definition of main body is written there is 0 chance of the fire from the spell Firequake to strike anything other than the main body of a ATV. (Same with the spell river of lava, this may be unrealistic but it is to keep the rules simple and makes tracking damage easier as only special actions like called shot require anything beyond a general pool of MDC to be tracked.)

[Axelmania]

Rules mean what they say in the context in which they are said. Main body can exist as a general concept but the requirement of WP to make called shots, or called shots taking 2 attacks, is explicitly for modern weapons. For guns.

I am not making mines more deadly. They already are. They damage feet and wheels. Kev instructs us that they do this. It isn't a house rule or rules lawyering. It is following the rules as written.

You are attempting to ignore what Kev told us about mines by insulting his writing as "flavor text" and then claiming the gun rules for called shooting for some reason apply to explosives planted as traps.

[Blue_Lion]

The only definition in the rules for main body says it takes a called shot to hit any where else so it is the default requirement to hit any where else.(doing a called shot with melee weapons could be called a GM call, so if only modern weapons allow called shots it would be the only area that would need rules for what is the main body.)

Please provide the quote of a rule where Keven says apply mine damage to the foot?

Because ideal for from a weapon at the time could have met the requirements for a called shot does not equal does damage to.

"Ideal for" is a descriptive/flavor statement not a mechanical rule. You are showing a lack of understanding of the difference between mechanics(rules) and descriptive text (flavor text). Only text that tells you how the game works is rules or mechanics every thing else is flavor text.

[Axelmania]

Its in Coalition War Campaign, under the traps skill. Prior to that in NGR the Super Trooper could attach explosive charges to robot limbs.

Aside Siembieda there is the mines laid by one of Carmella's vehicles in Juicer Uprising.

[Blue_Lion]

Its in Coalition War Campaign, under the traps skill. Prior to that in NGR the Super Trooper could attach explosive charges to robot limbs.

Aside Siembieda there is the mines laid by one of Carmella's vehicles in Juicer Uprising.

Basically statements you have already tried to use that do not say does damage to. And are descriptive not mechanical text?


Got it no statement exist that says "mines do damage to the feet or wheels."

[guardiandashi]

Its in Coalition War Campaign, under the traps skill. Prior to that in NGR the Super Trooper could attach explosive charges to robot limbs.

Aside Siembieda there is the mines laid by one of Carmella's vehicles in Juicer Uprising.

Basically statements you have already tried to use that do not say does damage to. And are descriptive not mechanical text?


Got it no statement exist that says "mines do damage to the feet or wheels."

well Axel is good at reading what he wants into things. I just reread the cwc entry on traps and the ONLY one that says it damages the foot is the Naruni "bullet mine" trap, which is basically a shotgun mine where you have a shotgun shell in a "trap" where when you step on the device it triggers the shell to be fired upward into whatever put the triggering weight on it, which then says it does damage to the foot, however that is more of a flavor text than an actual mechanical rule, UNLESS you consider that stepping on the trap constitutes effectively making a called shot to the foot when triggering it.

still does NOT apply in any way to the firequake spell unless you are axel, because its an aoe effect not a step on and trigger "mine"
additionally all the other mines say they use things like optical / proximity triggers to decide when to detonate.

[Axelmania]

The Naruni Bullet mine is enough. This is definitely a mechanical rule directly from Kevin Siembieda about mines being able to damage feet directly.

This tactic of calling anything you disagree with "flavor text" is getting old and ought to be banned.

[eliakon]

The Naruni Bullet mine is enough. This is definitely a mechanical rule directly from Kevin Siembieda about mines being able to damage feet directly.

This tactic of calling anything you disagree with "flavor text" is getting old and ought to be banned.

Well, since you are quite literally the only person to argue this line of reasoning, or state that there is no such thing as 'flavor text' and that everything is a rule, unless it contradicts your stances BUT that all rules are only applicable in utter vacuum... again unless you, and you alone, decide that they are applicable to something else...
Your not only calling the kettle black here
It sort of suggests that perhaps, your personal Head-Canon is not the One True Way that must be enforced by ban.