Crash Damage in Rifts

[psam_rage]

This week's game's BS:

An mdc Abrams Tank slams in to an mdc wall at 60 mph.

I tried to argue that they should each take SDC damage as per HU 2nd Ed.
The party and gm believed that since each object was MDC they should take said crash damage as MDC...

Result: Tank traveling at 60 mph explodes.

So being made of MDC multiplies damage by 100? Please tell me there are MDC crash rules or some official fix for this.

[Nekira Sudacne]

In Rifts main book and ultimate all crash damage is SDC, however going really really fast can cause minor MDC. so say your going NASCAR fast and crash you might take something like 30d6 SDC, which might deal a point or two of MD to the vehicle.

[dragonfett]

It seems to me that the rules for crashing seems to assume the object being crashed into is SDC and not unyielding like MDC. In the case of an MDC vehicle moving at a high rate of speed ramming into an immovable MDC structure, I would say that vehicle that should be seriously damaged, if not out right destroyed.

But those are merely my opinions.

[Gamer]

Back in the mid 90's there was a training accident between two Abrams, they had crashed into each other at about 35 mph each and both lost their turrets, and crew members had been killed/injured, was amazed it didn't kill all the crew in the turrets.
It wasn't unheard of seeing Abrams in Germany who had hit a overpass pylon or other solid object/another tank at night in a road march -you try a few dozen and see how mistake free you are- and seriously damaging itself, lost skirting, main gun damaged, turret popped.

An MDC on MDC accident at 60 mph should still cause some decent damage, blowing the tank up is too extreme though.

Crash damage as seen in RMB and RUE pertains to passenger damage in MDC not dealing with vehicle damage itself, Even then not all crash damage is sdc as RUE: 365 shows.

[flatline]

Back in the mid 90's there was a training accident between two Abrams, they had crashed into each other at about 35 mph each and both lost their turrets, and crew members had been killed/injured, was amazed it didn't kill all the crew in the turrets.
It wasn't unheard of seeing Abrams in Germany who had hit a overpass pylon or other solid object/another tank at night in a road march -you try a few dozen and see how mistake free you are- and seriously damaging itself, lost skirting, main gun damaged, turret popped.

An MDC on MDC accident at 60 mph should still cause some decent damage, blowing the tank up is too extreme though.

Crash damage as seen in RMB and RUE pertains to passenger damage in MDC not dealing with vehicle damage itself, Even then not all crash damage is sdc as RUE: 365 shows.

Crash damage is hard to model in a generic way. An example from a previous thread was flying power armor crashing head on into a force field. Even if the PA and force field were only marginally damaged, the pilot would be history. Of course, the rules don't do this justice and there were others who were arguing that somehow undescribed super technology protects the pilot from impact.

--flatline

[psam_rage]

The problem isn't what the pilot's should take but what should happen to the vehicle itself.

Following the logic that if two MDC objects slam into each other mean MDC damage (by dint of being MDC and not there respective speeds), your foot should shatter when you jump just like an egg that fell the same distance would.

The amount of Force exerted on the two objects is the same regardless of whether or not the objects are suddenly 100 times as durable. Its basic physics that are neither acknowledged or ignored in the rules (I.E. - There seem to be no crash damage rules, outside of aircraft crash rules [The latter helps my character but not this instance])

[Nekira Sudacne]

MDC object to MDC object is still SDC crash damage, the fact that both things are MDC dosn't change the rules. New rules for MDC on MDC arn't given because no new rules are needed. a crash at high speeds will deal enough damage to cause MDC, at 1 MDC per 100 SDC in crash damage. that is more than sufficent.

[glitterboy2098]

that statement, while logical, has a problem in that RUE added alternate falling damage for MDC things that inflicts MDC. since falling and crashing are functionally the same in terms of kintetic energy transfer, if falling will inflict extra damage to MDC objects, then crashing should too. and the MD damage to MDC objects in RUE's falling rules occurs at all heights.

[dragonfett]

I think what some people are failing to think of is that if a MDC tank runs into an MDC wall, the wall will not break. This means that the multi-ton MDC tank is stopping on a dime. Now think of Newton's Laws of motion (specifically an object in motion tends to stay in motion and for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) and let that sink in. Trains can take up to a mile and a half or more to come to a full stop, and semi-trucks that stop to fast will jack knife.

In my opinion, Palladium's crash damage to people inside of MDC vehicles is complete BS. If anything people should be taking more damage. If the vehicle that they are in doesn't take damage because it's made from MDC materials should transfer that damage directly the people inside. It's not just bumps, bruising,and scrapes that people can suffer in a crash but internal damage from compression when the internal organs try to continue moving after the body comes to a stop.

[flatline]

I think what some people are failing to think of is that if a MDC tank runs into an MDC wall, the wall will not break. This means that the multi-ton MDC tank is stopping on a dime. Now think of Newton's Laws of motion (specifically an object in motion tends to stay in motion and for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) and let that sink in. Trains can take up to a mile and a half or more to come to a full stop, and semi-trucks that stop to fast will jack knife.

In my opinion, Palladium's crash damage to people inside of MDC vehicles is complete BS. If anything people should be taking more damage. If the vehicle that they are in doesn't take damage because it's made from MDC materials should transfer that damage directly the people inside. It's not just bumps, bruising,and scrapes that people can suffer in a crash but internal damage from compression when the internal organs try to continue moving after the body comes to a stop.

I totally agree with this. Crumple zones protect the people inside because they extend the duration of the impact to the people inside. If MDC vehicles don't have a mechanism for doing this, then the people inside will experience the impact in all its bone-crunching, organ-smashing glory.

--flatline

[Nekira Sudacne]

I think what some people are failing to think of is that if a MDC tank runs into an MDC wall, the wall will not break. This means that the multi-ton MDC tank is stopping on a dime.

This is true, however, MDC may mean 100x the damage capacity but NOT 100x the mass. meaning while the wall will not break...neither will the tank.

If I throw a steel ball at a steel wall with a cannon, neither will break.

If I throw a MDC ball at an MDC wall with a cannon, neither will still break.

All that kenetic force is recoiled into the tank, yes, it's just that the tank is tough enough to take the kenetic force without significant impairment, and I think you are overlooking that.

Now think of Newton's Laws of motion (specifically an object in motion tends to stay in motion and for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) and let that sink in. Trains can take up to a mile and a half or more to come to a full stop, and semi-trucks that stop to fast will jack knife.

An MDC tank does not have much more mass than an SUV, I would think, and far better breaks.

In my opinion, Palladium's crash damage to people inside of MDC vehicles is complete BS. If anything people should be taking more damage. If the vehicle that they are in doesn't take damage because it's made from MDC materials should transfer that damage directly the people inside. It's not just bumps, bruising,and scrapes that people can suffer in a crash but internal damage from compression when the internal organs try to continue moving after the body comes to a stop.

Ecept that the tank DOES take the energy, it's just that that energy dosn't cause significant damage to it.

Is that so hard to understand? We're not saying "MDC makes all that kenetic force magically go away", we're saying "MDC means all that force does damage, but it's so tough that amount of kenetic force does not significantly impair it"

as far as people go, The crash damage rules for people inside are not ment to be realistic, rather, in previous books they are specifically ment to be cinematic where the players are action heros who dispite the massive crash still get out of the plane/train/truck wreakage with only minor injuries.

It dosn't represent physics, it represents deliberate plot protection. Kevin conciously decided that a PC flying a jet liner should be able to survive a failed roll and crashing because that makes for a more interesting game, and has stated such in the past.

[dragonfett]

First off hello everyone, I'm psam_rage's GM. Second, rules aside for the moment I pancaked that Abrams for two reasons. It sounded cool at the time & I was attempting to control the amount of loot the party would collect. I have to be careful with my party as they tend to be dangerously clever. They came out of that encounter with a pair of refited Golden Age Abrams and a knock off of a Triax hover tank.

Now as for MDC crash rules, let me see if I get what you guys are saying. Some say I just dismiss all crash damage as SD. Others contend that MDC on MDC collision results in MD damage. Lastly there has be mention of applying SDC crash damage to the crew as if it were a normal crash. Dose that all sound about right?

Pretty much. I sent a pm to Prince Artemis asking about MD vehicle crashes, because it was one topic that I didn't see listed in a thread that he started to compile references of every rule in Rifts.

[Gamer]

It dosn't represent physics, it represents deliberate plot protection. Kevin conciously decided that a PC flying a jet liner should be able to survive a failed roll and crashing because that makes for a more interesting game, and has stated such in the past.

So he made such crashes MDC as a conscience decision to allow players to survive?
SEE RUE page 365:
"a successful crash-landing means troops and/or cargo inside the aircraft suffer only 1D4x10 M.D. each
Those inside M.D.C. body armor, power armor. giant robot or vehicle being transported as cargo or passengers see the M.D. applied to their armor"

"An unsuccessful crash-landing means everything and everyone inside the doomed aircraft takes 3D4x10+30 MD. from the crash!"

The only crash damage I have seen in RMB and RUE that do SDC is impact damage to people INSIDE mega armor.

an MDC tank does not have much more mass than an SUV, I would think, and far better breaks.

What SUV anywhere weighs 40+ tons?
A 40+ ton MDC tank hittting an MDC wall at 60mph -one hell of a thump- IS NOT going to just go 'plink' and bounce off like nothing happened.
That may sound good in a my little pony universe but it don't jive in Rifts.

[Nekira Sudacne]

First off hello everyone, I'm psam_rage's GM. Second, rules aside for the moment I pancaked that Abrams for two reasons. It sounded cool at the time & I was attempting to control the amount of loot the party would collect. I have to be careful with my party as they tend to be dangerously clever. They came out of that encounter with a pair of refited Golden Age Abrams and a knock off of a Triax hover tank.

Now as for MDC crash rules, let me see if I get what you guys are saying. Some say I just dismiss all crash damage as SD. Others contend that MDC on MDC collision results in MD damage. Lastly there has be mention of applying SDC crash damage to the crew as if it were a normal crash. Dose that all sound about right?

No, you don't "Dismiss all crash damage as SD", remember that SDC damage does MD in incirments of 100

Accordingly, a high speed SDC crash WILL damage an MDC vehicle. It's just that there's a difference between "No damage" and "totaled", such as the very large range of "damaged but still moving"

[Killer Cyborg]

Back in the mid 90's there was a training accident between two Abrams, they had crashed into each other at about 35 mph each and both lost their turrets, and crew members had been killed/injured, was amazed it didn't kill all the crew in the turrets.
It wasn't unheard of seeing Abrams in Germany who had hit a overpass pylon or other solid object/another tank at night in a road march -you try a few dozen and see how mistake free you are- and seriously damaging itself, lost skirting, main gun damaged, turret popped.

An MDC on MDC accident at 60 mph should still cause some decent damage, blowing the tank up is too extreme though.

Crash damage as seen in RMB and RUE pertains to passenger damage in MDC not dealing with vehicle damage itself, Even then not all crash damage is sdc as RUE: 365 shows.

Crash damage is hard to model in a generic way. An example from a previous thread was flying power armor crashing head on into a force field. Even if the PA and force field were only marginally damaged, the pilot would be history. Of course, the rules don't do this justice and there were others who were arguing that somehow undescribed super technology protects the pilot from impact.

--flatline

Why do you feel that the rules don't do that kind of thing justice?

[Killer Cyborg]

that statement, while logical, has a problem in that RUE added alternate falling damage for MDC things that inflicts MDC.

Care to quote RUE on that?

[flatline]

Back in the mid 90's there was a training accident between two Abrams, they had crashed into each other at about 35 mph each and both lost their turrets, and crew members had been killed/injured, was amazed it didn't kill all the crew in the turrets.
It wasn't unheard of seeing Abrams in Germany who had hit a overpass pylon or other solid object/another tank at night in a road march -you try a few dozen and see how mistake free you are- and seriously damaging itself, lost skirting, main gun damaged, turret popped.

An MDC on MDC accident at 60 mph should still cause some decent damage, blowing the tank up is too extreme though.

Crash damage as seen in RMB and RUE pertains to passenger damage in MDC not dealing with vehicle damage itself, Even then not all crash damage is sdc as RUE: 365 shows.

Crash damage is hard to model in a generic way. An example from a previous thread was flying power armor crashing head on into a force field. Even if the PA and force field were only marginally damaged, the pilot would be history. Of course, the rules don't do this justice and there were others who were arguing that somehow undescribed super technology protects the pilot from impact.

--flatline

Why do you feel that the rules don't do that kind of thing justice?

Power Armor flying at any reasonable speed crashing into something significant would be fatal to the pilot. Let's play with some pessimistic numbers that should vastly underestimate the forces involved.

Let's assume an airspeed of 45 m/s (about 100 mph) and even though we know this is impossible, let's assume that there is a full meter of ideal padding inside the power armor to cushion the pilot during the impact.

The average speed during the impact will be 22.5 m/s (45/2) and so the duration of the impact will be 1 m / 22.5 m/s which equals about 0.045 seconds. A 45 m/s deceleration over 0.045 seconds is a 1000 m/s/s deceleration which is roughly 100Gs which is 100% fatal to the human (or similar) body. And that's with a full meter of padding!

If you had a more reasonable (but still impossible) 10cm of padding, the pilot would experience 1000G's.

Yet the rules potentially allow the pilot to walk away from such a crash. That's why I feel the rules don't do justice to the situation.

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

Back in the mid 90's there was a training accident between two Abrams, they had crashed into each other at about 35 mph each and both lost their turrets, and crew members had been killed/injured, was amazed it didn't kill all the crew in the turrets.
It wasn't unheard of seeing Abrams in Germany who had hit a overpass pylon or other solid object/another tank at night in a road march -you try a few dozen and see how mistake free you are- and seriously damaging itself, lost skirting, main gun damaged, turret popped.

An MDC on MDC accident at 60 mph should still cause some decent damage, blowing the tank up is too extreme though.

Crash damage as seen in RMB and RUE pertains to passenger damage in MDC not dealing with vehicle damage itself, Even then not all crash damage is sdc as RUE: 365 shows.

Crash damage is hard to model in a generic way. An example from a previous thread was flying power armor crashing head on into a force field. Even if the PA and force field were only marginally damaged, the pilot would be history. Of course, the rules don't do this justice and there were others who were arguing that somehow undescribed super technology protects the pilot from impact.

--flatline

Why do you feel that the rules don't do that kind of thing justice?

Power Armor flying at any reasonable speed crashing into something significant would be fatal to the pilot. Let's play with some pessimistic numbers that should vastly underestimate the forces involved.

Let's assume an airspeed of 45 m/s (about 100 mph) and even though we know this is impossible, let's assume that there is a full meter of ideal padding inside the power armor to cushion the pilot during the impact.

The average speed during the impact will be 22.5 m/s (45/2) and so the duration of the impact will be 1 m / 22.5 m/s which equals about 0.045 seconds. A 45 m/s deceleration over 0.045 seconds is a 1000 m/s/s deceleration which is roughly 100Gs which is 100% fatal to the human (or similar) body. And that's with a full meter of padding!

If you had a more reasonable (but still impossible) 10cm of padding, the pilot would experience 1000G's.

Yet the rules potentially allow the pilot to walk away from such a crash. That's why I feel the rules don't do justice to the situation.

--flatline

Hm.
It's actually worse than "potentially" allowing the pilot to walk away from the crash, looking things over.
Not only does RUE have the rules for impact damage hurting people in MDC armor downgraded to "optional," they also nerfed the rules to where the pilot in your scenario would only take 2d4 SDC damage.
That probably wouldn't kill a Smurf.*

By the original rules, though, the pilot would take 1d4 SDC for every 10 mph over 30 mph, which would be 7d4 SDC in this case, for an average of 17.5 SDC damage.

I'm not as picky as you about the physics; I can chalk a lot of the damage resistance up to super padding, inertial dampening fields even, whatever.
But I have to agree that there should be more damage than there is.


*(Though we can't say for certain, because that'd be a conversion)

[flatline]

Back in the mid 90's there was a training accident between two Abrams, they had crashed into each other at about 35 mph each and both lost their turrets, and crew members had been killed/injured, was amazed it didn't kill all the crew in the turrets.
It wasn't unheard of seeing Abrams in Germany who had hit a overpass pylon or other solid object/another tank at night in a road march -you try a few dozen and see how mistake free you are- and seriously damaging itself, lost skirting, main gun damaged, turret popped.

An MDC on MDC accident at 60 mph should still cause some decent damage, blowing the tank up is too extreme though.

Crash damage as seen in RMB and RUE pertains to passenger damage in MDC not dealing with vehicle damage itself, Even then not all crash damage is sdc as RUE: 365 shows.

Crash damage is hard to model in a generic way. An example from a previous thread was flying power armor crashing head on into a force field. Even if the PA and force field were only marginally damaged, the pilot would be history. Of course, the rules don't do this justice and there were others who were arguing that somehow undescribed super technology protects the pilot from impact.

--flatline

Why do you feel that the rules don't do that kind of thing justice?

Power Armor flying at any reasonable speed crashing into something significant would be fatal to the pilot. Let's play with some pessimistic numbers that should vastly underestimate the forces involved.

Let's assume an airspeed of 45 m/s (about 100 mph) and even though we know this is impossible, let's assume that there is a full meter of ideal padding inside the power armor to cushion the pilot during the impact.

The average speed during the impact will be 22.5 m/s (45/2) and so the duration of the impact will be 1 m / 22.5 m/s which equals about 0.045 seconds. A 45 m/s deceleration over 0.045 seconds is a 1000 m/s/s deceleration which is roughly 100Gs which is 100% fatal to the human (or similar) body. And that's with a full meter of padding!

If you had a more reasonable (but still impossible) 10cm of padding, the pilot would experience 1000G's.

Yet the rules potentially allow the pilot to walk away from such a crash. That's why I feel the rules don't do justice to the situation.

--flatline

Hm.
It's actually worse than "potentially" allowing the pilot to walk away from the crash, looking things over.
Not only does RUE have the rules for impact damage hurting people in MDC armor downgraded to "optional," they also nerfed the rules to where the pilot in your scenario would only take 2d4 SDC damage.
That probably wouldn't kill a Smurf.*

By the original rules, though, the pilot would take 1d4 SDC for every 10 mph over 30 mph, which would be 7d4 SDC in this case, for an average of 17.5 SDC damage.

I'm not as picky as you about the physics; I can chalk a lot of the damage resistance up to super padding, inertial dampening fields even, whatever.
But I have to agree that there should be more damage than there is.


*(Though we can't say for certain, because that'd be a conversion)

If the Rifts Setting had artificial gravity, then we could use that as an explanation since one of the applications of artificial gravity would be as "inertial dampening". So I don't really have this complaint in the phase world setting, at least not for PA that have grav systems built in.

--flatline

[Akashic Soldier]

In my R:UE collision damage is listed as "damage" and it does not explicitly say its S.D.C. or M.D.C. so I have to assume its just "damage" and does both S.D.C./M.D.C. as per a fall.

[drewkitty ~..~]

This week's game's BS:

An mdc Abrams Tank slams in to an mdc wall at 60 mph.

I tried to argue that they should each take SDC damage as per HU 2nd Ed.
The party and gm believed that since each object was MDC they should take said crash damage as MDC...

Result: Tank traveling at 60 mph explodes.

So being made of MDC multiplies damage by 100? Please tell me there are MDC crash rules or some official fix for this.

There is one problem with your example. The Abrams top speed is 40 mph.

While the numbers might not support it in the game mechanics, I would say that it would all depend on how the wall was constructed. cause if it was just sheet paneling then I (as the GM) would have the tank going right through the wall no matter how much the nominal xDC value was.

If the wall was a 10' berm (or backed by a 10' berm) then I would have the tank be stopped by the wall. with only the SD crash damage to the tank.

So the way I would do it depends more on the construction of the wall then the tank itself.

[glitterboy2098]

abrams can hit 70mph+ with the govenor on the engine disabled. with it active the tank tops out around 40mph. disabled, it can basically speed up until it's treads literally fly off. the engine is governed because at speeds above 40mph the vehicle wears out quicker, and is more likely to throw a track.

[Killer Cyborg]

In my R:UE collision damage is listed as "damage" and it does not explicitly say its S.D.C. or M.D.C. so I have to assume its just "damage" and does both S.D.C./M.D.C. as per a fall.

That's not how falling damage works.

Any time the books say "damage," that's SDC/HP damage, because SDC/HP is the default.
Mega-Damage is the exception, and as such requires notation or indication.
Since there is no exception noted for MDC vehicles crashing vs. SDC vehicles crashing, there is no reason to assume that the damage listed for crashing would be boosted by 100x just because the material involved in the crash is 100x stronger.
If that logic was applicable, then a normal human punch should also inflict mega-damage vs. MDC materials. But it doesn't, because the damage inflicted by an attack or event doesn't change depending on whether the target is MDC or SDC, unless the attack/event description specifies such.

[dragonfett]

Ok, going this route, from what height or at what speed should MD materials start to take damage?

[Killer Cyborg]

Ok, going this route, from what height or at what speed should MD materials start to take damage?

Falling damage is actually fairly clear, based on the rules in Xiticix Kingdom.
viewtopic.php?p=1383754#p1383754

My best estimate is that MDC creatures take about 1 M.D. per 100 foot that they fall.

The only known passage describing MDC creatures and falling damage is in Xiticix Invasion, p. 16.
It rules that MDC creatures that fall off of one of the Xiticix bridges takes 1 MD per every three stories (8-14', usually 10') that they fall.
Of course, this isn't a normal fall; it does more damage, presumably because of the spiky resin that covers the ground at the base of the towers.
The damage for a normal SDC character falling is 1d6 MD per 10', but if a normal SDC being falls off of one of these bridges, they take 3d6 SDC damage per story that they fall.
Which is 3x the normal amount of damage.
Which indicates that the 1 MD/3 story rule for MD beings is likely to be 3x their normal falling damage.
Which means that that distance should triple if you're just falling onto normal ground, to a ratio of 1 MD/9 story.
Which easily rounds off to 100, since a story is likely to be about 10'-12' high.

High Speed crashes are a different scenario, because the rules are kind of all over the place.
There are rules in RUE for aircraft crashes inflicting scores or hundreds of MDC to the crashing object, but IIRC there is no real standard for speed or mass. So a MDC jetfighter traveling at mach 5 would make a huge explosion... but so would a guy in a jetpack, travelling 30 MPH.
And it seems to me that the crash damage there is assuming some kind of exploding fuel source, whether or not that actually makes sense in the game setting.

At the same time, there are rules for SDC beings in MDC armor and power armor taking drastically reduced damage from a crash. As of RUE, these rules are optional, indicating that the standard is actually that if you're in MDC armor, YOU take no damage at all from crashes, unless the GM decides to use the optional rules.
And by the optional rules, the SDC damage you take from a crash is negligible.

I'm away from my books right now, but when I get back home, and get a chance, I'll try to go over all this more thoroughly.

It might be reasonable to apply the same SDC:MDC damage ratio from the falling rules to crash rules. Not sure what that would work out as.

[hawkeye97q]

1D6 sdc per mph here is why I came to that conclusion. According to the climbing skill you take 1d6 per 10 feet. You reach terminal velocity at 1500 feet which is 150 mph. So at 150 mph you take a max of 9 mdc.

If we're talking about mdc ship that fly at Mac speeds and they collide with each other they will take damage. To simplify I would use 1d12 mdc per 150 mph. But I would still roll collision damage from pg 365 rifts main book. But a ship flying at Mac 1 into a ship that's stationary would be 1D12X5. Mac 2 is 2D12X5

You could also use 1d10X5 but I prefer to use a d12 because if you risk dealing low damage for a bad roll you should be rewarded for a high roll.

[13eowulf]

Topic locked due to thread necromancy. 8 years between posts.