Death Attacks: when and where to use.....

[slade2501]

Most rpg have a concept of a death attack, a mechanic that ignores scads of HP or penetrates armor, walls, etc. Hyper-velocity weapons, vorpal blades, death spells, exploding volcanoes, meteor strikes, etc. Most of Rifts bypasses death attacks due to the MDC/SDC itself being a death attack via 100x overkill math.

As both a player and a GM, I firmly believe that situational y, certain circumstances warrant the use of a "death attack" rule or result, beyond the usual mega damage to an SDC target.

Explosions are deadly. highly deadly. There are confirmed reports of vehicle crews killed from close explosions that did not greatly damage the vehicle for example.

Snipers are by nature a death attack. A head shot is a straight up kill. On large monsters, eye shots are crippling or deadly, depending on size or eye location.

Mass Trauma, such as 40% or more MDC/sdc loss in a single round, save vs death. roll a 16 or higher, with only the PE bonus to help.

[HWalsh]

Most rpg have a concept of a death attack, a mechanic that ignores scads of HP or penetrates armor, walls, etc. Hyper-velocity weapons, vorpal blades, death spells, exploding volcanoes, meteor strikes, etc. Most of Rifts bypasses death attacks due to the MDC/SDC itself being a death attack via 100x overkill math.

As both a player and a GM, I firmly believe that situational y, certain circumstances warrant the use of a "death attack" rule or result, beyond the usual mega damage to an SDC target.

Explosions are deadly. highly deadly. There are confirmed reports of vehicle crews killed from close explosions that did not greatly damage the vehicle for example.

Snipers are by nature a death attack. A head shot is a straight up kill. On large monsters, eye shots are crippling or deadly, depending on size or eye location.

Mass Trauma, such as 40% or more MDC/sdc loss in a single round, save vs death. roll a 16 or higher, with only the PE bonus to help.

I wouldn't go in on this. We're dealing with advanced tech. Vehicles have extra protection that (we know) dampens vibrations. EBA also does. So explosions would be far less deadly.

Snipers, in Rifts, are not as deadly IF someone has a helmet on. You CANNOT one shot people through armor. MD weapons have a perfect transfer of force. It does NOT penetrate MD materials to hit the squishy person beneath it.

A headshot on an armored target is just a shot to a lower armored location. This is not Call of Duty.

ND Weapons in rifts transfer 100% of their force to the first MDC target they strike or the second SDC target. That is how a pistol can damage vehicle armor. Take a 9mm to a piece of tank plating. Shoot it 100 times. You won't scratch it. Take an MD Ion pistol to it and in 100 shots you'll destroy the whole vehicle.

We can't use our world's weapons as a good comparison.

[Axelmania]

You CANNOT one shot people through armor. MD weapons have a perfect transfer of force. It does NOT penetrate MD materials to hit the squishy person beneath it.

RUE 288's LOAB (Last Bit Of Armor) rule

I'm for some reason getting some deja vu as if I remember recently reading a rule similar to this predating RUE but I can't put a finger on where...

Not FoMp144's special propert of Invincible Armor, but something else...

Ah! It was Conversion Book Revised page 46 notes for APS (all):
at the moment the altered character is reduced to zero, any additional damage that might otherwise be inflicted is harm­lessly blown off

This was out in 2002, so at that point it was Invincible Armor and APS powers which had the GI Joe rule. RUE made them a little bit special by giving it to all armor

I guess technically they're still special in that it doesn't exactly explicitly apply to other spells which provide MDC unless it explicitly provides "Armor" (so Ithan/Bizarre are in, but Invulnerability/Giant are probably out) or other super powers which give MDC.

The rule about needing 12 MDC left is pretty neat, but it talks about SDC becoming MDC rather than getting a separate pool of MDC which is pretty confusing.

Metal/Stone has this weird property of "regenerates lost M.D.C. three times faster than normal in human or altered form" whereas in the original version I think it was 1D4x10 MDC/minute in altered form. So they sped up healing in human form (even when not using power) but slowed it down in altered form? Strangeness.


In HU, it never helped your healing in human form, and I'm not sure but I thought I remembered some errata giving APS 4d6/10 minutes but in just the book I don't think there even was any faster healing rates.

ND Weapons in rifts transfer 100% of their force to the first MDC target they strike or the second SDC target.

Not sure I understand the SDC target thing, is that something like if there's 2 paper walls, the 3rd paper wall is fine?

[HWalsh]

Not sure I understand the SDC target thing, is that something like if there's 2 paper walls, the 3rd paper wall is fine?

Yes.

RUE 358
"Lasers, ion, and particle beam weapons"

"If a beam goes goes all the way through an SDC structure it stops upon hitting whatever is behind the first target. The same is true of MD projectiles such as rail guns."

If there are two thin objects between you and your target you CANNOT hit them. Period.

This is explained by perfect transfer of energy, and is why a small round can deal MD. It shouldn't be possible. Unless there is a perfect transfer of force.

This means the bullet completely stops on hitting an object dealing ALL of the built up force instantly into the target. I cannot stress how, if you did this in real life, outright devastating this would be.

I mean hitting a person would literally make them explode. Not put a hole in them. They would be turned into goo.

Exactly what RUE says happens.

[Axelmania]

So in a way... these MD attacks might actually be safer for bystanders/hostages than SDC bullets, because if you shot through a wall to hit a hostage-taker in the back you wouldn't need to worry about it coming out his chest and hitting the hostage like you would with an SDC round.

Aside from these MD beams though, would this apply to other MD attacks like rail guns or plasma?

[Shark_Force]

So in a way... these MD attacks might actually be safer for bystanders/hostages than SDC bullets, because if you shot through a wall to hit a hostage-taker in the back you wouldn't need to worry about it coming out his chest and hitting the hostage like you would with an SDC round.

Aside from these MD beams though, would this apply to other MD attacks like rail guns or plasma?

it literally explicitly says that in the quote he provided. i'll repeat it with some emphasis such that you can't possibly miss it if you're at all trying.

RUE 358
"Lasers, ion, and particle beam weapons"

"If a beam goes goes all the way through an SDC structure it stops upon hitting whatever is behind the first target. The same is true of MD projectiles such as rail guns."

[Axelmania]

Ah true, missed that last part. That answers railguns. Is plasma a projectile?

[Shark_Force]

plasma is a form of matter. as i understand it, generally speaking the assumption is that it is being propelled using magnetic fields, much like a gauss gun/coil gun (which is probably what rifts railguns actually are, based on their descriptions).

so pretty much yes, although it feels really weird to describe an amorphous blob of superheated ionized gas the same way you would a solid steel slug.

[HWalsh]

Ah true, missed that last part. That answers railguns. Is plasma a projectile?

Yes. Plasma is a projectile.

Plasma is ionized gas. Gas is a state of matter (Solid, Liquid, Gas) a plasma discharge thus is a form of physical projectile.

This also, interestingly, explains the "GI Joe" rule. Namely, because the force cannot penetrate MDC (or 2 SDC objects) you wouldn't be able to breach MDC armor with any amount of force.

[Axelmania]

I have to wonder how that works in regards to bursts though... I mean presumably if one bullet depleted the MDC the following should be able to get past it, but we can't really replicate that with one roll.

[HWalsh]

I have to wonder how that works in regards to bursts though... I mean presumably if one bullet depleted the MDC the following should be able to get past it, but we can't really replicate that with one roll.

The burst hits the structure too fast for the structure to break down, so a burst wouldn't be able to penetrate either.

[Axelmania]

I guess that's one reason to fire missiles one at a time instead of in volleys.

Makes me wonder if you could instruct a smart missile volley to have one intentionally miss (as if dodged) so it could circle back.

[HWalsh]

I guess that's one reason to fire missiles one at a time instead of in volleys.

Makes me wonder if you could instruct a smart missile volley to have one intentionally miss (as if dodged) so it could circle back.

By the rules? No.

[HWalsh]

The rule is there for a reason. Thus any attempt to circumvent the rule should be an automatic, "No you can't do that."

[eliakon]

Most rpg have a concept of a death attack, a mechanic that ignores scads of HP or penetrates armor, walls, etc. Hyper-velocity weapons, vorpal blades, death spells, exploding volcanoes, meteor strikes, etc. Most of Rifts bypasses death attacks due to the MDC/SDC itself being a death attack via 100x overkill math.

As both a player and a GM, I firmly believe that situational y, certain circumstances warrant the use of a "death attack" rule or result, beyond the usual mega damage to an SDC target.

Explosions are deadly. highly deadly. There are confirmed reports of vehicle crews killed from close explosions that did not greatly damage the vehicle for example.

Snipers are by nature a death attack. A head shot is a straight up kill. On large monsters, eye shots are crippling or deadly, depending on size or eye location.

Mass Trauma, such as 40% or more MDC/sdc loss in a single round, save vs death. roll a 16 or higher, with only the PE bonus to help.

If you want snipers head shots to be automatic kills just use the rules in the Compendium of Weapons for brain shots.
-5 to strike (on top of size). If you hit its x4 damage, automatic unconsciousness, bleeding, and death in 1d6 minutes unless trauma team level surgery is applied.

As for the rest... most of the reason to ignore "auto kill" attacks in game are two fold.
1) because as the GM saying "Rocks fall everyone dies" isn't really satisfying to anyone. I control everything in the world so setting up instant death for the players just doesn't seem cricket.
2) your players will expect to be allowed to use the same back. And then your game quickly turns into a series of inescapable deathtraps to wipe out major targets. If that's the game you want of course more power to you.

Thus my rules for "auto death" are much more lenient.
Noble Sacrifice is always fatal. And pretty much always works.
HUGE explosions can kill you through the knock-through damage
There is stuff that bypasses armor, but it isn't usually routine.
As for the rest... I tend to give warnings and it doesn't come up much. There aren't many games where the mechanics of "how much damage does being immersed in lava do" is going to even come up, let alone be something I will need to make a ruling on.
I don't have a lot of headshots in my games due to my Gander Rule. My players don't break out the headshots and neck shots every time... and thus I don't either.

But I am not really swayed by what is fatal in the real world. In the real world many of the things that Palladium gives damage to would be instant death. If I wanted to run a game full of crunchy people in a super lethal world I would be using GURPS or the like. Palladium is a highly cinematic system and it is, frankly, designed to play like an action movie.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Most rpg have a concept of a death attack, a mechanic that ignores scads of HP or penetrates armor, walls, etc. Hyper-velocity weapons, vorpal blades, death spells, exploding volcanoes, meteor strikes, etc. Most of Rifts bypasses death attacks due to the MDC/SDC itself being a death attack via 100x overkill math.

As both a player and a GM, I firmly believe that situational y, certain circumstances warrant the use of a "death attack" rule or result, beyond the usual mega damage to an SDC target.

Explosions are deadly. highly deadly. There are confirmed reports of vehicle crews killed from close explosions that did not greatly damage the vehicle for example.

Snipers are by nature a death attack. A head shot is a straight up kill. On large monsters, eye shots are crippling or deadly, depending on size or eye location.

Mass Trauma, such as 40% or more MDC/sdc loss in a single round, save vs death. roll a 16 or higher, with only the PE bonus to help.

How broad is the headshot is straight up kill ruling? Many creatures have MDC by location, so I don't think it makes sense to always rule a headshot is a kill when your helmet has 100 MDC by itself.

[Axelmania]

plasma is a form of matter. as i understand it, generally speaking the assumption is that it is being propelled using magnetic fields, much like a gauss gun/coil gun (which is probably what rifts railguns actually are, based on their descriptions).

so pretty much yes, although it feels really weird to describe an amorphous blob of superheated ionized gas the same way you would a solid steel slug.

Another question would be if the GI Joe rule's wording protects against MD melee attacks. They are not "projectiles", after all. Maybe this limitation only inhibits ranged weapons?

[HWalsh]

Can we stop calling it the GI Joe rule?

That sounds denigrating and belittling toward it.

It is just THE rule.

Period. Full stop.

[eliakon]

Can we stop calling it the GI Joe rule?

That sounds denigrating and belittling toward it.

It is just THE rule.

Period. Full stop.

So what would you use to refer to "the rule that states that damage does not penetrate armor and instead that the last point of armor absorbs the entire last attack"
Its a bit of an unwieldy name there...
So we need something to call it so that we can discuss if it is being used or not or if it has limits or how to modify it. I agree that the name is rather silly... but as I don't currently have a better suggestion I go along with the current trend.

[HWalsh]

Can we stop calling it the GI Joe rule?

That sounds denigrating and belittling toward it.

It is just THE rule.

Period. Full stop.

So what would you use to refer to "the rule that states that damage does not penetrate armor and instead that the last point of armor absorbs the entire last attack"
Its a bit of an unwieldy name there...
So we need something to call it so that we can discuss if it is being used or not or if it has limits or how to modify it. I agree that the name is rather silly... but as I don't currently have a better suggestion I go along with the current trend.

The MD Armor Rule vs The GI Joe Rule

Only 1 extra syllable.

[eliakon]

Can we stop calling it the GI Joe rule?

That sounds denigrating and belittling toward it.

It is just THE rule.

Period. Full stop.

So what would you use to refer to "the rule that states that damage does not penetrate armor and instead that the last point of armor absorbs the entire last attack"
Its a bit of an unwieldy name there...
So we need something to call it so that we can discuss if it is being used or not or if it has limits or how to modify it. I agree that the name is rather silly... but as I don't currently have a better suggestion I go along with the current trend.

The MD Armor Rule vs The GI Joe Rule

Only 1 extra syllable.

There are a number of MD Armor Rules though.
Is it the "MDC armor that is reduced to zero is still viable as nAR 7 SDC armor" rule?
Is it the "You can take SDC damage while MDC armor the following ways" optional rule rule?
Is it the "last attack on MDC armor damage" rule?
Is it the "EBA loses seal when it is down to somewhere around 10% to 20% of total MDC, but is viable before then" rule?
Is it the "MD Armor and its effects on spell casting" rule?
Is it the "if you wear your MD armor to long you can get penalties" rule?
Is it yet some other rule?
Which MD Armor Rule?

I guess we could call it the "last bit of armor protection" rule...but getting everyone to abandon a much shorter nickname for the subheading is probably a loosing proposition.

[HWalsh]

Can we stop calling it the GI Joe rule?

That sounds denigrating and belittling toward it.

It is just THE rule.

Period. Full stop.

So what would you use to refer to "the rule that states that damage does not penetrate armor and instead that the last point of armor absorbs the entire last attack"
Its a bit of an unwieldy name there...
So we need something to call it so that we can discuss if it is being used or not or if it has limits or how to modify it. I agree that the name is rather silly... but as I don't currently have a better suggestion I go along with the current trend.

The MD Armor Rule vs The GI Joe Rule

Only 1 extra syllable.

There are a number of MD Armor Rules though.
Is it the "MDC armor that is reduced to zero is still viable as nAR 7 SDC armor" rule?
Is it the "You can take SDC damage while MDC armor the following ways" optional rule rule?
Is it the "last attack on MDC armor damage" rule?
Is it the "EBA loses seal when it is down to somewhere around 10% to 20% of total MDC, but is viable before then" rule?
Is it the "MD Armor and its effects on spell casting" rule?
Is it the "if you wear your MD armor to long you can get penalties" rule?
Is it yet some other rule?
Which MD Armor Rule?

I guess we could call it the "last bit of armor protection" rule...but getting everyone to abandon a much shorter nickname for the subheading is probably a loosing proposition.

The 1 MD Armor rule
Vs
The GI Joe Rule

Still 1 syllables. The GI Joe rule is clearly an attempt to denigrate and insult the rule. It sounds like it's a joke

[Curbludgeon]

Fourteen years of traction speaks to a non-hate speech term in use among limited numbers being unlikely to change. And while I would never have the gall to define inexplicably perceived group identities like We/Us, much less dare to speak for them, I personally find phrases like "Full Stop." to be exponentially more belittling. If, however, one's inner neologist is champin' at the bit, there are at least fun options.

There were a couple of things I liked from a previous thread on the subject. One is the notion of any MDC damage spillover during the last hit an armor can withstand being converted to SDC at a 1:10 exchange. I additionally like how one poster called the general idea "overblast", in that it evokes the early-90's(just before EXTREME marketing began) kitchen sink take on an 80's anime-influenced 70's-style van painting which this game largely is. Conversely, if overblast is spillover damage, then a similarly goofy word for damage which ignores certain types of materials (e.g. armor-piercing ammunition, phase weapons) could be coined "underpunch". When game terminology reflects its milieu it heightens immersion, and concepts that sound like Kung Fury character names is in keeping with such. If one wants to instead rename the concept as it is without altering it, while emphasizing the chance for an action before getting vaporized, I'd go with jisei, or Tears in Rain if you're cheeky. If ease/concision is most important, then just go with spillover/overflow.

[eliakon]

Can we stop calling it the GI Joe rule?

That sounds denigrating and belittling toward it.

It is just THE rule.

Period. Full stop.

So what would you use to refer to "the rule that states that damage does not penetrate armor and instead that the last point of armor absorbs the entire last attack"
Its a bit of an unwieldy name there...
So we need something to call it so that we can discuss if it is being used or not or if it has limits or how to modify it. I agree that the name is rather silly... but as I don't currently have a better suggestion I go along with the current trend.

The MD Armor Rule vs The GI Joe Rule

Only 1 extra syllable.

There are a number of MD Armor Rules though.
Is it the "MDC armor that is reduced to zero is still viable as nAR 7 SDC armor" rule?
Is it the "You can take SDC damage while MDC armor the following ways" optional rule rule?
Is it the "last attack on MDC armor damage" rule?
Is it the "EBA loses seal when it is down to somewhere around 10% to 20% of total MDC, but is viable before then" rule?
Is it the "MD Armor and its effects on spell casting" rule?
Is it the "if you wear your MD armor to long you can get penalties" rule?
Is it yet some other rule?
Which MD Armor Rule?

I guess we could call it the "last bit of armor protection" rule...but getting everyone to abandon a much shorter nickname for the subheading is probably a loosing proposition.

The 1 MD Armor rule
Vs
The GI Joe Rule

Still 1 syllables. The GI Joe rule is clearly an attempt to denigrate and insult the rule. It sounds like it's a joke

First off demeaning and insulting? I find it to be rather that it simply is explanatory. Almost all of the gamers of the original Rifts generation grew up watching GI Joe. They all know about how the vehicles blew up leaving who ever was driving it standing there totally unscathed to continue on...
Hence when the game implemented a rule that did exactly the same thing... it seemed only natural to name the rule after the widely known phenomenon that most of the gamers already knew and could visualize.

Secondly
I am sorry, but your new rule name is rejected out of hand as inappropriate and misleading again.
You see it isn't a rule about 1 MD. It is the rule about last MD protection But only artificial ones from armor or vehicles (or possibly similar sources like buildings or other artificial sources).
So your 1 MD Armor rule is incorrect because it applies to 2MD armor, and 3MD vehicles and...
Oh and remember it ISN'T a rule that is just about body armor. It is also a rule about Vehicles. So using the word "armor" in the rule is likely to be confusing to people who will think it just applies to armor and not to armor and vehicles like the real rule does.
So care to try again?
I mean your the one that is claiming that there is a better way... which means that the burden is on you to provide the better way.
That is how it works
The person making the affirmative claim "The rule should be renamed" has the burden of proof "there is a better name"
It is not up to us to come up with a better name for your claim... that is totally on you. If you can't do that then your claim fails its premia facia burden and is obviously wrong... since you will be demonstrating that there isn't a better name.

So by all means, please tell us the better name that encompasses the entire rule. Both clearly and succinctly in a way that almost anyone can understand and that can be quickly explained to those who have not seen GI Joe by simply explaining that shows explosions.

[HWalsh]

It explicitly applies to body armor. Not just vehicles.

[eliakon]

It explicitly applies to body armor. Not just vehicles.

I said "And" and "also" in every one of my examples.
I thought I was pretty clear that the rule applies to both body armor and vehicles (and maybe other artificial sources)

"You see it isn't a rule about 1 MD. It is the rule about last MD protection But only artificial ones from armor or vehicles (or possibly similar sources like buildings or other artificial sources).

So your 1 MD Armor rule is incorrect because it applies to 2MD armor, and 3MD vehicles and..."
I thought that was clear enough?
If not I will be more clear here.
The rule applies to body armor
The rule applies to vehicles
The rule seems to apply to Power Armor
The rule may even apply to other sources of artificial MDC protection.

[RockJock]

Time to bring up the cardboard Chipwells?

[Axelmania]

Can we stop calling it the GI Joe rule?

That sounds denigrating and belittling toward it.

It is just THE rule.

Period. Full stop.

I did try LOAB rule ("last bit of armor" is a phrase used in the book) but forgot it the last day and my mind reverted to GI Joe L

Part of that might have to be with how I was momentarily dyslexic, that should've been LBOA which is not the most acronymous initialism.

The bolded The last bit of armor protection if we focus on the last 4 words we could call it "BOAP" the "Bit Of Armor Protection" rule. I don't think we need to say "last" since it's sort of implied by only having a "bit" left. I don't think we'd assume it was the "first bit of armor protection" rule if we omitted that, because LBOAP doesn't really flow too well.

I'm all for using BOAP rule instead of "GI Joe rule" if it catches on and people can remember it, it's a question of it being as catchy I guess.

may even apply to other sources of artificial MDC protection.

We could use DB3 as a precedent for saying it doesn't apply to force fields, since it has rules for force fields diminishing the damage (rather than ignoring it entirely) of a missile that explodes depleting it, before applying it to the hull beyond.

I'd say explicitly we should look for the term 'armor' to apply it, so auras/fields should be out.

I want to give Invincible Armor some kind of new benefit to compensate for losing this monopoly. I would suggest borrowing that new feature that the Invulnerability Magic Power Tattoo got in SOTA: that you continue to retain protection against SDC attacks until the duration expires, even after the MDC is depleted.

[HWalsh]

Can we stop calling it the GI Joe rule?

That sounds denigrating and belittling toward it.

It is just THE rule.

Period. Full stop.

I did try LOAB rule ("last bit of armor" is a phrase used in the book) but forgot it the last day and my mind reverted to GI Joe L

Part of that might have to be with how I was momentarily dyslexic, that should've been LBOA which is not the most acronymous initialism.

The bolded The last bit of armor protection if we focus on the last 4 words we could call it "BOAP" the "Bit Of Armor Protection" rule. I don't think we need to say "last" since it's sort of implied by only having a "bit" left. I don't think we'd assume it was the "first bit of armor protection" rule if we omitted that, because LBOAP doesn't really flow too well.

I'm all for using BOAP rule instead of "GI Joe rule" if it catches on and people can remember it, it's a question of it being as catchy I guess.

may even apply to other sources of artificial MDC protection.

We could use DB3 as a precedent for saying it doesn't apply to force fields, since it has rules for force fields diminishing the damage (rather than ignoring it entirely) of a missile that explodes depleting it, before applying it to the hull beyond.

I'd say explicitly we should look for the term 'armor' to apply it, so auras/fields should be out.

I want to give Invincible Armor some kind of new benefit to compensate for losing this monopoly. I would suggest borrowing that new feature that the Invulnerability Magic Power Tattoo got in SOTA: that you continue to retain protection against SDC attacks until the duration expires, even after the MDC is depleted.

An interesting bit is Psychic Body Field. That creates an MDC structure, which is different from armor, but stops damage from passing through from projectiles. As per the "How MD Weapons Work" section of RUE.