Stupid Missile... rules

[torjones]

Okay, I literally just got off the phone with Palladium, spoke with someone who identified himself as the editor Al, and if he reads this, I apologize, I didn't quite catch the last name, though he did give it, and I can make guesses.

The rules, as clarified by Al, are that Rifts Ultimate Edition states that it's only the rare guided missiles, not all missiles as I believed, that are unable to be dodged in volleys of four or more.

As this applies to Black Market and pages 147 and 149, Mini-missiles remain unguided, it's just flavor text, not a rules change, refer back to the current edition of the rules as laid out in Rifts Ultimate Edition. The Pepperbox is a special unique weapon, its description applies only to itself. The Skyhammer is likewise a unique weapon, and its description applies only to itself. Neither weapon is intended to change the rules of the game as presented in Rifts Ultimate Edition.

Thank you and good night.

[Killer Cyborg]

Okay, I literally just got off the phone with Palladium, spoke with someone who identified himself as the editor Al, and if he reads this, I apologize, I didn't quite catch the last name, though he did give it, and I can make guesses.

The rules, as clarified by Al, are that Rifts Ultimate Edition states that it's only the rare guided missiles, not all missiles as I believed, that are unable to be dodged in volleys of four or more.

As this applies to Black Market and pages 147 and 149, Mini-missiles remain unguided, it's just flavor text, not a rules change, refer back to the current edition of the rules as laid out in Rifts Ultimate Edition. The Pepperbox is a special unique weapon, its description applies only to itself. The Skyhammer is likewise a unique weapon, and its description applies only to itself. Neither weapon is intended to change the rules of the game as presented in Rifts Ultimate Edition.

Thank you and good night.

[glitterboy2098]

considering that you provide absolutely no corroborating evidence for said conversation, i'm afraid that as evidence that conversation isn't really viable.
and even if you have a recording to prove it actually happened, the fact is that the opinion of a PB staffer asked informally has about as much bearing as I do on the subject.. now if Kevin S. wants to post in here about it in his position as the writer of the rules, or the cutting room floor is updated with said information, you'd have a solid case.

[torjones]

considering that you provide absolutely no corroborating evidence for said conversation, i'm afraid that as evidence that conversation isn't really viable.
and even if you have a recording to prove it actually happened, the fact is that the opinion of a PB staffer asked informally has about as much bearing as I do on the subject.. now if Kevin S. wants to post in here about it in his position as the writer of the rules, or the cutting room floor is updated with said information, you'd have a solid case.

Fortunately, you are under no obligation to take my word for it. You are, I am sure, quite capable of picking up your phone and calling their number just as I have, and ask the same questions and get the same answers. Believe what you will, but If you've been on these boards long enough, you know that KS is NOT going to post on these boards on such a minor issue. If he wanted something posted here, he'd likely send one of the editors who do on occasion make posts and public announcements to do it on his behalf. If you choose not to believe me, make the call yourself and see if you get a different answer. I'm pretty sure that if you skip the chit-chat, you can get the answers in about 10 minutes, maybe 15 on the outside. I'll be interested to hear what results you get, though doubt that you'll get different ones than I did. You'll forgive me for not holding my breath.

I gave you what I had discovered, I have no reason to lie about it, especially not when any fool with a phone or skype account can make the same phone call and get the same answer. Saying that what I've given isn't good enough and the only kind of evidence you'll accept is impossible to provide and is likely never to occur, only paints you as unreasonable.

[dreicunan]

Okay, I literally just got off the phone with Palladium, spoke with someone who identified himself as the editor Al, and if he reads this, I apologize, I didn't quite catch the last name, though he did give it, and I can make guesses.

The rules, as clarified by Al, are that Rifts Ultimate Edition states that it's only the rare guided missiles, not all missiles as I believed, that are unable to be dodged in volleys of four or more.

As this applies to Black Market and pages 147 and 149, Mini-missiles remain unguided, it's just flavor text, not a rules change, refer back to the current edition of the rules as laid out in Rifts Ultimate Edition. The Pepperbox is a special unique weapon, its description applies only to itself. The Skyhammer is likewise a unique weapon, and its description applies only to itself. Neither weapon is intended to change the rules of the game as presented in Rifts Ultimate Edition.

Thank you and good night.

What I would have expected to hear. Now I'd personally house-rule the pepperbox to also need special mini-missiles, not generic ones, to work that way (only work as guided when fired from the pepperbox, dependent on it to work that way).

[Tiree]

And Al is supposed to be a Military and History buff, and knowledgeable of all things weaponry. But this stance is crazy, I can kind of rationalize it, but it's HARD.

All missiles are guided, they have to be. Otherwise they aren't missiles, they are rockets. Now the guidance can be somewhat low tech to extremely high tech. The guidance system can be internally or external, but it needs one such as a Wire, Optical, Laser, IR, or something else. But it needs something.

Now Mini-Missiles were initially designed for Robotech, where the Cyclone used the Mini-Missiles. It had an external targeting device, which allowed them to be 'Uber Cool'. Rifts piggy backed on the advances of Robotech for the Palladium's new RPG line. But how does this history work with today's roleplaying ruleset for Rifts? Well you can say "Only smart missiles get the 4+ undodgeable rule, and the Pepperbox". But why in the hell would the CS be lobbing LRM's at a Juicer so the Black Market can figure this out?

But you did say the "Rare Guided Missiles", let's break this down again: Why in hell would anyone be launching SRM's, MRM's, and LRM's in such a quantity to cause a Juicer and Crazy to be unable to dodge. It's the adage "Let's nuke them from orbit; it's the only way to be sure!" I know the Military likes to waste money, and the CS is no exception. They make their own missiles so they aren't paying market cost, but then again what of their arsenal uses these larger missiles that they can lob them at individuals en masse? So the Coalition has the following Robots with SRM's, MRM's and LRM's: UAR-1 Enforcer, IAR-3 Skull Smasher, IAR-4 Hellrasier, CTX-50 Line Backer, CTX-52 Sky Sweeper.

That's not a whole lot of vehicles with SRM, MRM, or LRM's and would they be fighting a Juicer directly?

[dreicunan]

And Al is supposed to be a Military and History buff, and knowledgeable of all things weaponry. But this stance is crazy, I can kind of rationalize it, but it's HARD.

All missiles are guided, they have to be. Otherwise they aren't missiles, they are rockets. Now the guidance can be somewhat low tech to extremely high tech. The guidance system can be internally or external, but it needs one such as a Wire, Optical, Laser, IR, or something else. But it needs something.

Now Mini-Missiles were initially designed for Robotech, where the Cyclone used the Mini-Missiles. It had an external targeting device, which allowed them to be 'Uber Cool'. Rifts piggy backed on the advances of Robotech for the Palladium's new RPG line. But how does this history work with today's roleplaying ruleset for Rifts? Well you can say "Only smart missiles get the 4+ undodgeable rule, and the Pepperbox". But why in the hell would the CS be lobbing LRM's at a Juicer so the Black Market can figure this out?

But you did say the "Rare Guided Missiles", let's break this down again: Why in hell would anyone be launching SRM's, MRM's, and LRM's in such a quantity to cause a Juicer and Crazy to be unable to dodge. It's the adage "Let's nuke them from orbit; it's the only way to be sure!" I know the Military likes to waste money, and the CS is no exception. They make their own missiles so they aren't paying market cost, but then again what of their arsenal uses these larger missiles that they can lob them at individuals en masse? So the Coalition has the following Robots with SRM's, MRM's and LRM's: UAR-1 Enforcer, IAR-3 Skull Smasher, IAR-4 Hellrasier, CTX-50 Line Backer, CTX-52 Sky Sweeper.

That's not a whole lot of vehicles with SRM, MRM, or LRM's and would they be fighting a Juicer directly?

The origin of the pepperbox is clearly a writer who thought that mini-missiles were guided. I agree with your assessment of how silly the in-world logic for the pepperbox is now.

[Natasha]

Ballistic missiles have guidance to a point. Once the rocket burns out, they become ballistic, guided only by gravity and various other forces like air resistance and wind. To nuke a target from orbit means the selection of the burnout point is critically important. The most straightforward scenario doing the maths by hand is to burnout above the north or south pole at which point it's easy to predict the latitude of the strike, but the longitude is complicated by planetary rotation and atmosphere if there is one. So you'd like your fall to be as vertical as possible—it helps with accuracy.

[Zer0 Kay]

And Al is supposed to be a Military and History buff, and knowledgeable of all things weaponry. But this stance is crazy, I can kind of rationalize it, but it's HARD.

All missiles are guided, they have to be. Otherwise they aren't missiles, they are rockets. Now the guidance can be somewhat low tech to extremely high tech. The guidance system can be internally or external, but it needs one such as a Wire, Optical, Laser, IR, or something else. But it needs something.

Now Mini-Missiles were initially designed for Robotech, where the Cyclone used the Mini-Missiles. It had an external targeting device, which allowed them to be 'Uber Cool'. Rifts piggy backed on the advances of Robotech for the Palladium's new RPG line. But how does this history work with today's roleplaying ruleset for Rifts? Well you can say "Only smart missiles get the 4+ undodgeable rule, and the Pepperbox". But why in the hell would the CS be lobbing LRM's at a Juicer so the Black Market can figure this out?

But you did say the "Rare Guided Missiles", let's break this down again: Why in hell would anyone be launching SRM's, MRM's, and LRM's in such a quantity to cause a Juicer and Crazy to be unable to dodge. It's the adage "Let's nuke them from orbit; it's the only way to be sure!" I know the Military likes to waste money, and the CS is no exception. They make their own missiles so they aren't paying market cost, but then again what of their arsenal uses these larger missiles that they can lob them at individuals en masse? So the Coalition has the following Robots with SRM's, MRM's and LRM's: UAR-1 Enforcer, IAR-3 Skull Smasher, IAR-4 Hellrasier, CTX-50 Line Backer, CTX-52 Sky Sweeper.

That's not a whole lot of vehicles with SRM, MRM, or LRM's and would they be fighting a Juicer directly?

Military does not like to waste money. There are time we are told to disengage because the expenditure of a munition wasnt worth the target. The real reason the military is sited as wasting money is for the same reason the whole Government should be. Unfortunately the way the system is you either use all your money in a given year or the budget is cut. Instead of working from a position of what do you need, here is the money to cover that. The government operates on here is your money. Whatever you dont use this year we'll remove from next years budget and then when stuff starts breaking... oh well, that's your fault for letting your budget shrink.

[eliakon]

And Al is supposed to be a Military and History buff, and knowledgeable of all things weaponry. But this stance is crazy, I can kind of rationalize it, but it's HARD.

All missiles are guided, they have to be. Otherwise they aren't missiles, they are rockets. Now the guidance can be somewhat low tech to extremely high tech. The guidance system can be internally or external, but it needs one such as a Wire, Optical, Laser, IR, or something else. But it needs something.

Now Mini-Missiles were initially designed for Robotech, where the Cyclone used the Mini-Missiles. It had an external targeting device, which allowed them to be 'Uber Cool'. Rifts piggy backed on the advances of Robotech for the Palladium's new RPG line. But how does this history work with today's roleplaying ruleset for Rifts? Well you can say "Only smart missiles get the 4+ undodgeable rule, and the Pepperbox". But why in the hell would the CS be lobbing LRM's at a Juicer so the Black Market can figure this out?

But you did say the "Rare Guided Missiles", let's break this down again: Why in hell would anyone be launching SRM's, MRM's, and LRM's in such a quantity to cause a Juicer and Crazy to be unable to dodge. It's the adage "Let's nuke them from orbit; it's the only way to be sure!" I know the Military likes to waste money, and the CS is no exception. They make their own missiles so they aren't paying market cost, but then again what of their arsenal uses these larger missiles that they can lob them at individuals en masse? So the Coalition has the following Robots with SRM's, MRM's and LRM's: UAR-1 Enforcer, IAR-3 Skull Smasher, IAR-4 Hellrasier, CTX-50 Line Backer, CTX-52 Sky Sweeper.

That's not a whole lot of vehicles with SRM, MRM, or LRM's and would they be fighting a Juicer directly?

The most common user of SRMs vs Juicers would likely be the Flying Titan which can mount either Mini-Missiles or SRMs
As one of the cheapest and most commonly used SRM capable vehicle I would imagine that the utility of SRMs vs infantry targets stems from that.

The other logical example would be Phaeton Juicers and their ability to grant combat vehicles an autododge. At that point it would seem prudent that during the J.U. CS military doctrine would likely end up being "use 4+ guided missiles against any vehicle that may be juicer controlled"

[Tiree]

I'm going to go back to the entry on the Pepperbox Missile Launcher - because it clearly changes how missile rules are utilized based on conjecture here in this thread:

The new MM-16 multiple missile launcher was designed after careful study of battlefield tactics. From eye witness reports and battlefield footage, it is obvious that a mini-missile is not quite as effective as most soldiers believe. Beyond the obvious hazard of the mini-missile being shot down before it can strike its target, it has become clear that if a target is assaulted by one, two or even three mini-missiles, there is a chance that it can simply avoid or dodge the incoming warheads! While this may sound unbelievable, it's true. Bandito Arms has recovered pilot video after pilot video clearly showing the target simply sidestepping an incoming missile and letting it go sailing harmlessly past him. This has been witnessed being done by Juicers, Crazies and Cyber-Knights, as well as power armor, aircraft, dragons and monsters. But if the volley is comprised of four or more of mini-missiles, it appears the target is unable to avoid the volley. A four missile volley is the sweet spot, because five or more missiles don't seem to have any greater ratio of success. So Bandito Arms has created the MM-16 pepperbox mini-missile launcher that only fires in volleys of four mini-missiles.

It is quite clear - that this "Flavor Text" treats all Mini-Missiles AND Missiles the same way - you can't dodge more than 4. Black Market changes the rules! It supersedes RUE unless a second ghost edited printing changes it back. But it's pretty clear - if it's a Missile, you can't dodge more than 4 - and it doesn't matter if it's guided, unguided, or size.

[Tiree]

Military does not like to waste money. There are time we are told to disengage because the expenditure of a munition wasnt worth the target. The real reason the military is sited as wasting money is for the same reason the whole Government should be. Unfortunately the way the system is you either use all your money in a given year or the budget is cut. Instead of working from a position of what do you need, here is the money to cover that. The government operates on here is your money. Whatever you dont use this year we'll remove from next years budget and then when stuff starts breaking... oh well, that's your fault for letting your budget shrink.

I have served, and I currently work for a government agency as well. Now maybe your military unit that you served didn't waste money, mine did. But you are correct, part of it is how the government operates and works its money. But it's also how some folks in the agencies treats the money and source where it comes from, they don't care.

It's okay to say the Military wastes money Even corporations waste money - But in this context, I was talking about the CS is a Military and a Government, and they 'Waste' resources just like every other Agency out there.

[torjones]

I'm going to go back to the entry on the Pepperbox Missile Launcher - because it clearly changes how missile rules are utilized based on conjecture here in this thread:

The new MM-16 multiple missile launcher was designed after careful study of battlefield tactics. From eye witness reports and battlefield footage, it is obvious that a mini-missile is not quite as effective as most soldiers believe. Beyond the obvious hazard of the mini-missile being shot down before it can strike its target, it has become clear that if a target is assaulted by one, two or even three mini-missiles, there is a chance that it can simply avoid or dodge the incoming warheads! While this may sound unbelievable, it's true. Bandito Arms has recovered pilot video after pilot video clearly showing the target simply sidestepping an incoming missile and letting it go sailing harmlessly past him. This has been witnessed being done by Juicers, Crazies and Cyber-Knights, as well as power armor, aircraft, dragons and monsters. But if the volley is comprised of four or more of mini-missiles, it appears the target is unable to avoid the volley. A four missile volley is the sweet spot, because five or more missiles don't seem to have any greater ratio of success. So Bandito Arms has created the MM-16 pepperbox mini-missile launcher that only fires in volleys of four mini-missiles.

It is quite clear - that this "Flavor Text" treats all Mini-Missiles AND Missiles the same way - you can't dodge more than 4. Black Market changes the rules! It supersedes RUE unless a second ghost edited printing changes it back. But it's pretty clear - if it's a Missile, you can't dodge more than 4 - and it doesn't matter if it's guided, unguided, or size.

And if you believe that, feel free to run it that way at your table. If you believe that, feel free to contact PB itself and verify the way it works, as I did, and get confirmation on how it works.

The fact is, that not only does Palladium apparently believe that flavor text isn't a rules change, but there are no gaming systems out there (that I'm aware of) that holds that flavor text on individual items to over-ride printed rules in general. Item text states that this is the way this item interacts with the rules. That's how all gaming systems that I'm aware of work. To say that the MM-16 and/or the mortar actually change the rules, is illogical.

[Axelmania]

Fun fact:

200ft or smaller vessels cannot be hit by a volley of ten or more missiles, unless it is a smart bomb or point-defense systems, including mini-missiles

I'm not sure how to discern when mini-missiles qualify as point-defense or not, perhaps it only applies to using them to shoot incoming missiles?

At which point, using a volley of more than 10 mini-missiles doesn't seem very sensible, even LRMs usually have so little MDC that even a single mini-missile could destroy them.

106 also has a note how vessels over 1000ft can't dodge missiles at all, and can't even shoot them down if they're launched from less than 1 mile away. They have the benefit (pg 108) of taking 1/10 damage to hull from missiles which penetrate force fields though, which doesn't apply to small things <1000ft. Unclear if that refers to the remainder or the initial total.

But if the volley is comprised of four or more of mini-missiles, it appears the target is unable to avoid the volley.

Black Market changes the rules! It supersedes RUE

"Appears" isn't a very strong word.

I do notice that the MM -16 "Coffin" Pepperbox Man-Portable Multiple Mini-Missile Launcher has "Advanced targeting system provides a bonus of+ 3 to strike for the mini-missiles." which sounds like the MM-16's system allows unguided missiles to function as guided ones, as a special situation.

I personally hate "guided" v "unguided". We've seen the term "self-guided" which is far more informative, because really, all shooting is guiding by aiming guns in a certain direction. If a missile is not self-guided then it should be called shooter-guided or launcher-guided, but there should be no such thing as an "unguided" missile except one which isn't in flight.

[eliakon]

I'm going to go back to the entry on the Pepperbox Missile Launcher - because it clearly changes how missile rules are utilized based on conjecture here in this thread:

The new MM-16 multiple missile launcher was designed after careful study of battlefield tactics. From eye witness reports and battlefield footage, it is obvious that a mini-missile is not quite as effective as most soldiers believe. Beyond the obvious hazard of the mini-missile being shot down before it can strike its target, it has become clear that if a target is assaulted by one, two or even three mini-missiles, there is a chance that it can simply avoid or dodge the incoming warheads! While this may sound unbelievable, it's true. Bandito Arms has recovered pilot video after pilot video clearly showing the target simply sidestepping an incoming missile and letting it go sailing harmlessly past him. This has been witnessed being done by Juicers, Crazies and Cyber-Knights, as well as power armor, aircraft, dragons and monsters. But if the volley is comprised of four or more of mini-missiles, it appears the target is unable to avoid the volley. A four missile volley is the sweet spot, because five or more missiles don't seem to have any greater ratio of success. So Bandito Arms has created the MM-16 pepperbox mini-missile launcher that only fires in volleys of four mini-missiles.

It is quite clear - that this "Flavor Text" treats all Mini-Missiles AND Missiles the same way - you can't dodge more than 4. Black Market changes the rules! It supersedes RUE unless a second ghost edited printing changes it back. But it's pretty clear - if it's a Missile, you can't dodge more than 4 - and it doesn't matter if it's guided, unguided, or size.

And if you believe that, feel free to run it that way at your table. If you believe that, feel free to contact PB itself and verify the way it works, as I did, and get confirmation on how it works.

The fact is, that not only does Palladium apparently believe that flavor text isn't a rules change, but there are no gaming systems out there (that I'm aware of) that holds that flavor text on individual items to over-ride printed rules in general. Item text states that this is the way this item interacts with the rules. That's how all gaming systems that I'm aware of work. To say that the MM-16 and/or the mortar actually change the rules, is illogical.

The problem is that there is no such thing as "just flavor text"
Or put another way, one persons flavor text is another persons rules.
Unless there is a discrete official designation on the issue of course (which in Palladium there certainly is not)
Especially since in this case it is not just flavor text, but is a discussion of a rules phenomenon. Yes it is in the description block of the weapon... but that same block is also where, for example, TW weapons will often mention the kind of force used in the weapon. By this logic then if the weapon says "shoots a fireball" in the description block, then immunity to fire wont protect because that is only 'flavor' and only the "3d6 MDC" in the stat block would matter.
MORE it would mean that this weapon has no rules at all... since the 'this particular weapon does X" is not in the stat block but in the quote flavor text unquote.

[torjones]

The problem is that there is no such thing as "just flavor text"
Or put another way, one persons flavor text is another persons rules.
Unless there is a discrete official designation on the issue of course (which in Palladium there certainly is not)
Especially since in this case it is not just flavor text, but is a discussion of a rules phenomenon. Yes it is in the description block of the weapon... but that same block is also where, for example, TW weapons will often mention the kind of force used in the weapon. By this logic then if the weapon says "shoots a fireball" in the description block, then immunity to fire wont protect because that is only 'flavor' and only the "3d6 MDC" in the stat block would matter.
MORE it would mean that this weapon has no rules at all... since the 'this particular weapon does X" is not in the stat block but in the quote flavor text unquote.

My point is that the text of the weapon does not describe the way the rules work in general, but how that individual item interacts with those general rules. If every weapon/item in the game had the capability to change the actual game rules, you would have to know the descriptions of every item in the game in order to know the rules. That's not the way it works, and it's unreasonable in the extreme to suggest that it does or should. We have sections of the books dedicated to covering the rules. If the system worked the way you're suggesting, then there would be no need to have those rules sections because it would be sufficient to just know all the items, since those items covered the rules. Again, such a situation is an untenable proposition. And it's not that this weapon has no rules, only that the weapons in question's text description apply ONLY to those items themselves, not to ALL weapons of that type. I will agree that the items in question are badly in need of errata, something that has been suggested to PB by myself through different means. But such should not truly be necessary as one should have a clear understanding of how rules systems in general work, and the way Palladium's rules system itself works.

[Axelmania]

The problem is that there is no such thing as "just flavor text"
Or put another way, one persons flavor text is another persons rules.
Unless there is a discrete official designation on the issue of course (which in Palladium there certainly is not)
Especially since in this case it is not just flavor text, but is a discussion of a rules phenomenon. Yes it is in the description block of the weapon... but that same block is also where, for example, TW weapons will often mention the kind of force used in the weapon. By this logic then if the weapon says "shoots a fireball" in the description block, then immunity to fire wont protect because that is only 'flavor' and only the "3d6 MDC" in the stat block would matter.
MORE it would mean that this weapon has no rules at all... since the 'this particular weapon does X" is not in the stat block but in the quote flavor text unquote.

I completely agree with you on this, and despise attempts to ignore what text says by calling it "flavor text".

Strangely, something deserving of that label (such as Erin Tarn's letters, which add flavor to the world but only canonically represent something she wrote) often gets treated as word-of-god.

In this case, however, I believe the phrase "it appears" gives us an escape hatch. If it had said "if the volley is comprised of four or more of mini-missiles, the target is unable to avoid the volley." then we would be stuck, but due to IA we can interpret this as canon appearance, not canon function.

In the case of this weapon, it might simply appear unable to avoid because it is HARDER to avoid, due to its +3 to strike you're going to have to dodge that much better to avoid the volley.

[eliakon]

The problem is that there is no such thing as "just flavor text"
Or put another way, one persons flavor text is another persons rules.
Unless there is a discrete official designation on the issue of course (which in Palladium there certainly is not)
Especially since in this case it is not just flavor text, but is a discussion of a rules phenomenon. Yes it is in the description block of the weapon... but that same block is also where, for example, TW weapons will often mention the kind of force used in the weapon. By this logic then if the weapon says "shoots a fireball" in the description block, then immunity to fire wont protect because that is only 'flavor' and only the "3d6 MDC" in the stat block would matter.
MORE it would mean that this weapon has no rules at all... since the 'this particular weapon does X" is not in the stat block but in the quote flavor text unquote.

My point is that the text of the weapon does not describe the way the rules work in general, but how that individual item interacts with those general rules.

I beg to differ.
The text flat out says that you can not dodge four missiles. Not just for this weapon but that in the extensive study that created it that every example of every missile use prior was that way

If every weapon/item in the game had the capability to change the actual game rules, you would have to know the descriptions of every item in the game in order to know the rules. That's not the way it works, and it's unreasonable in the extreme to suggest that it does or should. We have sections of the books dedicated to covering the rules. If the system worked the way you're suggesting, then there would be no need to have those rules sections because it would be sufficient to just know all the items, since those items covered the rules. Again, such a situation is an untenable proposition.

Again your stance is not supported by the way the game works.
The game is repleat with examples of specific rules being found in specific locations.
Yes, in an idealized world all rules would be found in a rules section neatly laid out... but that is not what happens.

And it's not that this weapon has no rules, only that the weapons in question's text description apply ONLY to those items themselves, not to ALL weapons of that type. I will agree that the items in question are badly in need of errata, something that has been suggested to PB by myself through different means. But such should not truly be necessary as one should have a clear understanding of how rules systems in general work, and the way Palladium's rules system itself works.

Again your incorrect.
Your stance is that the rules found in the description are not rules...
...but with out those rules the weapon does not function.
Just like how we have to refer to the description of a specific spell to find out how it works...
Also I will note that the statement in the text is not that THIS weapon functions a specific way. It flat out says that "you can not dodge volleys of four, thus based on this universal rule we did X"
That is MUCH different than a claim that "This weapon does X" which WOULD be an item specific rule.

[torjones]

The problem is that there is no such thing as "just flavor text"
Or put another way, one persons flavor text is another persons rules.
Unless there is a discrete official designation on the issue of course (which in Palladium there certainly is not)
Especially since in this case it is not just flavor text, but is a discussion of a rules phenomenon. Yes it is in the description block of the weapon... but that same block is also where, for example, TW weapons will often mention the kind of force used in the weapon. By this logic then if the weapon says "shoots a fireball" in the description block, then immunity to fire wont protect because that is only 'flavor' and only the "3d6 MDC" in the stat block would matter.
MORE it would mean that this weapon has no rules at all... since the 'this particular weapon does X" is not in the stat block but in the quote flavor text unquote.

My point is that the text of the weapon does not describe the way the rules work in general, but how that individual item interacts with those general rules.

I beg to differ.
The text flat out says that you can not dodge four missiles. Not just for this weapon but that in the extensive study that created it that every example of every missile use prior was that way

If every weapon/item in the game had the capability to change the actual game rules, you would have to know the descriptions of every item in the game in order to know the rules. That's not the way it works, and it's unreasonable in the extreme to suggest that it does or should. We have sections of the books dedicated to covering the rules. If the system worked the way you're suggesting, then there would be no need to have those rules sections because it would be sufficient to just know all the items, since those items covered the rules. Again, such a situation is an untenable proposition.

Again your stance is not supported by the way the game works.
The game is repleat with examples of specific rules being found in specific locations.
Yes, in an idealized world all rules would be found in a rules section neatly laid out... but that is not what happens.

And it's not that this weapon has no rules, only that the weapons in question's text description apply ONLY to those items themselves, not to ALL weapons of that type. I will agree that the items in question are badly in need of errata, something that has been suggested to PB by myself through different means. But such should not truly be necessary as one should have a clear understanding of how rules systems in general work, and the way Palladium's rules system itself works.

Again your incorrect.
Your stance is that the rules found in the description are not rules...
...but with out those rules the weapon does not function.
Just like how we have to refer to the description of a specific spell to find out how it works...
Also I will note that the statement in the text is not that THIS weapon functions a specific way. It flat out says that "you can not dodge volleys of four, thus based on this universal rule we did X"
That is MUCH different than a claim that "This weapon does X" which WOULD be an item specific rule.

That is not what Palladium Books has to say on the subject, that is exactly the opposite to what they have said on the issue. If you disbelieve this, please feel free to contact them yourself for verification.

[Tiree]

Well as we can use Kevin's own words in this matter: Palladium Books is run by amateur game designers and non-professional editors. Therefore we can state that when we call Palladium's office, their answers are: suspect.

And their books kind of prove that, when you have rules contradict themselves throughout.

Now - going back more on topic:

"Appears" isn't a very strong word.

I do notice that the MM -16 "Coffin" Pepperbox Man-Portable Multiple Mini-Missile Launcher has "Advanced targeting system provides a bonus of+ 3 to strike for the mini-missiles." which sounds like the MM-16's system allows unguided missiles to function as guided ones, as a special situation.

I personally hate "guided" v "unguided". We've seen the term "self-guided" which is far more informative, because really, all shooting is guiding by aiming guns in a certain direction. If a missile is not self-guided then it should be called shooter-guided or launcher-guided, but there should be no such thing as an "unguided" missile except one which isn't in flight.

I was thinking about this - and with the light of "Mini-Missiles" being able to be undodgeable, what systems can fire off more than 4 in a volley. The most likely group to be filmed would be the CS, as they are the primary point of conventional firepower. Each time I look at this, I think the writer had it right and state that the mini-missiles are undodgeable. Now I have gone through all the Robot Combat Vehicles, and most of their non-robot vehicles. All of the multiple mini-missile systems can shoot up to volley's of 4 (and some more).

I find this to be very promising that Mini-Missiles are meant to be fired in en-mass. What I find blatantly ridiculous in the flavor text of the Black Market, is that this 4 missile can't dodge thing has only been recently recognized by the Black Market. And that this isn't common knowledge within the Coalition (who do fight against Juicers and Crazies [see Juicer's Uprising] and monster's that move like Juicer's and Crazies).

[Axelmania]

I'm not sure I agree that mini-missiles are meant to be fired en-masse, since there are launchers which can fire one at a time, such as the classic CS rocket launcher. Launching volleys of them are a rich man's game.

If the black market is slow to realize that it APPEARS you can't dodge 4 missiles, that's probably because missiles are expensive and are not regularly fired even solo, much less in volleys, except in desperate situations when you can't afford to pepper over time with renewable nuclear-powered energy weapons, and in such situations it is probably hard to obtain footage.

Missiles also travel so fast that it would be hard to passively keep track of their number unless you are the attacker, and attackers who notice this probably won't want to spread the advantage of their observations. If the CS noticed it, they might push it up the chain of command but try to keep non-CS from benefiting.

Reading RUE 364, initially it appears (bottom of left column) that they're just talking about guided missiles, with "even three guided" (ETG) clarifying "four or more missiles" (FOMM) is referencing four or more GUIDED missiles...

However the top of the right column complicates this a little:

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

This addition to RUE appears to imply that:

1. one single strike roll is used for all missiles in a volley if they are all unguided
2. the rare guided missiles each make individual strike rolls, they do not share a single strike roll as a volley

Furthermore, it also appears to open up the section to consideration of un-guided missiles, in contrast to the opening sentence.

This of course, is a CHANGE, and does not speak of intent of RMB in 2005 for which kinds of big volleys were dodgeable. I believe KC was right in referencing Robotech for intent there.

[guardiandashi]

Well as we can use Kevin's own words in this matter: Palladium Books is run by amateur game designers and non-professional editors. Therefore we can state that when we call Palladium's office, their answers are: suspect.

And their books kind of prove that, when you have rules contradict themselves throughout.

Now - going back more on topic:

"Appears" isn't a very strong word.

I do notice that the MM -16 "Coffin" Pepperbox Man-Portable Multiple Mini-Missile Launcher has "Advanced targeting system provides a bonus of+ 3 to strike for the mini-missiles." which sounds like the MM-16's system allows unguided missiles to function as guided ones, as a special situation.

I personally hate "guided" v "unguided". We've seen the term "self-guided" which is far more informative, because really, all shooting is guiding by aiming guns in a certain direction. If a missile is not self-guided then it should be called shooter-guided or launcher-guided, but there should be no such thing as an "unguided" missile except one which isn't in flight.

I was thinking about this - and with the light of "Mini-Missiles" being able to be undodgeable, what systems can fire off more than 4 in a volley. The most likely group to be filmed would be the CS, as they are the primary point of conventional firepower. Each time I look at this, I think the writer had it right and state that the mini-missiles are undodgeable. Now I have gone through all the Robot Combat Vehicles, and most of their non-robot vehicles. All of the multiple mini-missile systems can shoot up to volley's of 4 (and some more).

I find this to be very promising that Mini-Missiles are meant to be fired in en-mass. What I find blatantly ridiculous in the flavor text of the Black Market, is that this 4 missile can't dodge thing has only been recently recognized by the Black Market. And that this isn't common knowledge within the Coalition (who do fight against Juicers and Crazies [see Juicer's Uprising] and monster's that move like Juicer's and Crazies).

a couple points, you have always rolled 1 strike roll for a volley of missiles, regardless of whether they are guided or not. its 1 strike roll for 1 attack the same as firing single shots, multiple pulse shots, or bursts. 1 attack = 1 strike roll 1 defense, dodge, parry, or other = 1 defense roll.

the only exception to this "rule" is the rare chained actions such as the parry or dodge counter attack where you roll the defense and then the counter attack IF the defense is successful I believe the counter attack automatically fails if the defense fails (but I might be wrong on that)

[Axelmania]

you have always rolled 1 strike roll for a volley of missiles, regardless of whether they are guided or not.

Perhaps before 2005, but RUE is clearly implying here that a volley of guided missiles would be a set of separate rolls.

[Axelmania]

Page 86 says that for Elves, 84 does not for Dwarves, 82 does not for Changelings... might just be a special perk of being an Elf.

[guardiandashi]

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

This addition to RUE appears to imply that:

1. one single strike roll is used for all missiles in a volley if they are all unguided
2. the rare guided missiles each make individual strike rolls, they do not share a single strike roll as a volley

and you messed up the quote so I will correct it.

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

the italicized points are important. granted their actual formatting leaves a bit to be desired but key points

1 you roll only once for the ENTIRE volley. The number of missiles doesn't matter they either ALL hit or they ALL miss. This speeds up [snip]

if you actually read that section the way its written there is 1 key statement in the paragraph, sentence 1 to whit Roll to strike only one time for the entire volley.
sentence 2 and sentence 3 are just clarifying the intent behind the sentance

[torjones]

Well as we can use Kevin's own words in this matter: Palladium Books is run by amateur game designers and non-professional editors. Therefore we can state that when we call Palladium's office, their answers are: suspect.

And their books kind of prove that, when you have rules contradict themselves throughout.

So your contention is that people who have no actual contact with Palladium Books, no contact with the writers, no contact with the editors, possible occasional contact with a freelancer, just like every other forum member, is more official, more likely to be accurate than something that actually comes from an editor at the company itself?

[Tiree]

Well as we can use Kevin's own words in this matter: Palladium Books is run by amateur game designers and non-professional editors. Therefore we can state that when we call Palladium's office, their answers are: suspect.

And their books kind of prove that, when you have rules contradict themselves throughout.

So your contention is that people who have no actual contact with Palladium Books, no contact with the writers, no contact with the editors, possible occasional contact with a freelancer, just like every other forum member, is more official, more likely to be accurate than something that actually comes from an editor at the company itself?

I am not sure how to answer that: Other than to say that questions asked in a vacuum get answers that can and will contradict the way the rules are written. The staff at PB, even though they are awesome folks, are not rules lawyers and know every rule in every book. The Editors should have a bible to go off of, just to make sure they don't contradict what was already written. But we know Palladium doesn't have that since they contradict.

So you can call Alex and get one answer. I can call Alex and get another. We can phrase our questions with the same basic elements and make a compelling argument. But at the end of the day, Alex is not giving you an 'Official Answer'. He is giving you an off the hip answer. He might file it down somewhere in his notes to correct things in later 'Shadow Edits'. But I would never expect that of them. They are busy guys doing busy things, and talking to fans is just a slight highlight to their day.

You'd be better off framing a question (hopefully with the help of the community), and submitting it to Kevin via these boards for an 'Official' answer.

[Proseksword]

There's an inherent humor in the fact that so many of you openly acknowledge that Palladium has no consistency in their rules & that their staff makes gut-check rulings on the fly & yet are still engaged in a three page long rules argument about the same creator's intended interpretation. I think it's pretty safe to say that Mr. Siembieda would tell us all to do whatever we thought was best in our games & has no consistent ruling himself in his own sessions.

[Mack]

And this one has gone on long enough. Everyone has had their say.

Topic locked.