Flamethrowers

[Matarael]

Hi.

Is there a mundane, read: non TW flamethrower in Rifts that doesn't suck?

IE, that manages at least 5d6 or 6d6 with a single action rather than 3d6?

Thanks.

-M

[Comrade Corsarius]

Rifts Australia.

[Matarael]

Nope, trust me. Just checked. There is one in Rifts: Japan that is 1d4X10 but is aimed shots only, so still have the per action problem.

[taalismn]

Hi.

Is there a mundane, read: non TW flamethrower in Rifts that doesn't suck?

IE, that manages at least 5d6 or 6d6 with a single action rather than 3d6?

Thanks.

-M

We talking SDC or MD fire here? 'Mundane' kinda confuses the issue here.
The Wellington plasma flame throwers do 3d6 MD per burst and 1d4x10+10 MD for a two-attack prolonged burst.
You want extra damage with a regular incendiary fluid flame thrower, just keep playing it over the target allowing enough time for the previous spray to burn off, The larger the target you're spraying, the more surface to burn.
If you're wanting to do massive amounts of hot damage all at ONCE, invest in plasma weaponry, or thermite grenades.
So, I figure you're trying to take out something that has a vulnerability to fire, and not anything else, so you want to do take-down damage as fast as you can in a few hits? Staked vampires maybe?

[Zamion138]

juicer uprising has two diffrent ones, the more costly of the to has a longer burn period, its actualy a great tool for undead and fire weak creatures.
honestly though i have never used one in game play , never seen an npc or baddy with one and yeah.
but honestly i dont see alot of guns i actual game play probaly the same 15 over and over wich is fine just kinda now that i stop to think about it is odd

[kronos]

I agree with Taalismn, if you want higher damage output and rate of fire, go with regular plasma weapons. M.D flamethrowers act just like regular flamethrowers. If I doused you with a short spurt of flame, it wouldn't kill you. It's the continuous burning that would. There is a reason the military rarely employs them anymore. They are very short range, and work best as a clearing tool for rooms and area denial, along with the terror aspect. In Rifts they gain a new role against things vulnerable to fire. They are often as dangerous to the user as the victim. If you want to kill everything now, use a plasma rifle, or everything in an area now, a spray of grenades. Right tool for the job and all that.

I wouldn't call flamethrowers SHORT range.. yes shorter range than many weapons of comparable weight.. but the M2 from WW2 the Americans used had an effective range of 65 feet and a maximum range of 132 feet. Sure, that does start getting you fairly close to a target, but still outside of range of claws and fangs for a little bit still. Plus you can spray a wide area by fanning the stream. Vehicle mounted flamethrowers, like the ones mounted on the M132 (flamethrower version of the M113/A1 APC) had a maximum range of 660 feet.

[Killer Cyborg]

I agree with Taalismn, if you want higher damage output and rate of fire, go with regular plasma weapons. M.D flamethrowers act just like regular flamethrowers. If I doused you with a short spurt of flame, it wouldn't kill you. It's the continuous burning that would. There is a reason the military rarely employs them anymore. They are very short range, and work best as a clearing tool for rooms and area denial, along with the terror aspect. In Rifts they gain a new role against things vulnerable to fire. They are often as dangerous to the user as the victim. If you want to kill everything now, use a plasma rifle, or everything in an area now, a spray of grenades. Right tool for the job and all that.

Yup.

[kronos]

Oooh.. I just had a thought.. What about Dragon's Breath shotgun rounds? They shoot flames up to about 100 feet. And if you can get an automatic shotgun that cycles rounds without using the recoil from the previous round, and it has a drum or large magazine, you've got more 'bursts' of fire than some flamethrowers have. And it's a LOT lighter to carry around several mags or a couple of drums of shotgun rounds than a couple of tanks of fuel that can set you on fire if they're ruptured.

Does Rifts have anything like Dragon's Breath? I don't remember seeing it in R:UE or other books I have, but I'm lacking most of the newest books.

[Killer Cyborg]

Oooh.. I just had a thought.. What about Dragon's Breath shotgun rounds? They shoot flames up to about 100 feet. And if you can get an automatic shotgun that cycles rounds without using the recoil from the previous round, and it has a drum or large magazine, you've got more 'bursts' of fire than some flamethrowers have. And it's a LOT lighter to carry around several mags or a couple of drums of shotgun rounds than a couple of tanks of fuel that can set you on fire if they're ruptured.

Does Rifts have anything like Dragon's Breath? I don't remember seeing it in R:UE or other books I have, but I'm lacking most of the newest books.

Actually, they have plasma rounds for shotguns.
RGMG, p. 112
3d6 MD, 170 credits each.

Actual dragon's breath rounds probably wouldn't do much damage, maybe 1d6 SDC.

[kronos]

Oooh.. I just had a thought.. What about Dragon's Breath shotgun rounds? They shoot flames up to about 100 feet. And if you can get an automatic shotgun that cycles rounds without using the recoil from the previous round, and it has a drum or large magazine, you've got more 'bursts' of fire than some flamethrowers have. And it's a LOT lighter to carry around several mags or a couple of drums of shotgun rounds than a couple of tanks of fuel that can set you on fire if they're ruptured.

Does Rifts have anything like Dragon's Breath? I don't remember seeing it in R:UE or other books I have, but I'm lacking most of the newest books.

Actually, they have plasma rounds for shotguns.
RGMG, p. 112
3d6 MD, 170 credits each.

Actual dragon's breath rounds probably wouldn't do much damage, maybe 1d6 SDC.

That's an explosive round that uses plasma. Not anything similar to Dragon's Breath. Although a normal SDC shotgun wouldn't survive a plasma version of Dragon's breath.
But thanks for pointing out the plasma explosive round though.

[Killer Cyborg]

Oooh.. I just had a thought.. What about Dragon's Breath shotgun rounds? They shoot flames up to about 100 feet. And if you can get an automatic shotgun that cycles rounds without using the recoil from the previous round, and it has a drum or large magazine, you've got more 'bursts' of fire than some flamethrowers have. And it's a LOT lighter to carry around several mags or a couple of drums of shotgun rounds than a couple of tanks of fuel that can set you on fire if they're ruptured.

Does Rifts have anything like Dragon's Breath? I don't remember seeing it in R:UE or other books I have, but I'm lacking most of the newest books.

Actually, they have plasma rounds for shotguns.
RGMG, p. 112
3d6 MD, 170 credits each.

Actual dragon's breath rounds probably wouldn't do much damage, maybe 1d6 SDC.

That's an explosive round that uses plasma. Not anything similar to Dragon's Breath.

Well, yeah. Didn't mean to get your hopes up.

Although a normal SDC shotgun wouldn't survive a plasma version of Dragon's breath.
But thanks for pointing out the plasma explosive round though.

I've heard that even the normal Dragon's Breath rounds, that don't inflict significant damage, can damage a shotgun over time.
I got excited when I first heard about those rounds, but never saw anything impressive online about them.
I found YouTube footage of people using them, but it's such a quick flash that the only thing I've seen people use them for is to ignite stuff that's already soaked in gasoline.
Against normal wood, it doesn't seem to do anything.

[Zamion138]

Oooh.. I just had a thought.. What about Dragon's Breath shotgun rounds? They shoot flames up to about 100 feet. And if you can get an automatic shotgun that cycles rounds without using the recoil from the previous round, and it has a drum or large magazine, you've got more 'bursts' of fire than some flamethrowers have. And it's a LOT lighter to carry around several mags or a couple of drums of shotgun rounds than a couple of tanks of fuel that can set you on fire if they're ruptured.

Does Rifts have anything like Dragon's Breath? I don't remember seeing it in R:UE or other books I have, but I'm lacking most of the newest books.

If your talking the real dragons breath sheels irl , heck no .......ive fired them and you would be better off with buck shot for doing anythign but starting a brush fire.
the plasma shotgun rounds in rifts yeah they are better for hurting things effected by fire but you would also have to carry a saga 12 or the like with you and your long range lasr/ion rifle plus the rest of your gear and food and such Id personaly just assign one player to being mr. fire and give him the plasma gear and the other people carry a normal load .

[Blue_Lion]

The clost i seen to a megadamge flame thrower was juicer upriseing.

[Killer Cyborg]

If you want to use flame throwers in order to inflict heavy damage, then here's what you do:

Get a WI-NFT-1 Napalm-P Flame Thrower.
When in combat, use the concentrated plasma burst that takes two attacks and inflicts 1d4x10+10 MD.
At some point between the first attack and the second attack (the one where damage is rolled), have a Burster use his Super-Fuel Flame ability to increase the size and damage of the fire by 10x, turning the blast into a gout of fire that inflicts 1d4x100+100 MD.

And hope that your GM rules that the size increase is all forward, so that it doesn't engulf the person using the flame thrower, and/or his companions.
(But hey... at least that burster should still be standing!)

[Killer Cyborg]

If you want to use flame throwers in order to inflict heavy damage, then here's what you do:

Get a WI-NFT-1 Napalm-P Flame Thrower.
When in combat, use the concentrated plasma burst that takes two attacks and inflicts 1d4x10+10 MD.
At some point between the first attack and the second attack (the one where damage is rolled), have a Burster use his Super-Fuel Flame ability to increase the size and damage of the fire by 10x, turning the blast into a gout of fire that inflicts 1d4x100+100 MD.

And hope that your GM rules that the size increase is all forward, so that it doesn't engulf the person using the flame thrower, and/or his companions.
(But hey... at least that burster should still be standing!)

Personally, I've never allowed a Burster to use his Super-Fuel flame on plasma for two reasons. 1) Plasma is NOT fire. 2) The ability in it's description (which is probably too short for it's own good), does not specifically mention Plasma.

Agreed.
BUT in this case, Napalm P is a special kind of "long-lived plasma" which is also referred to in the text as "concentrated Mega-Damage fire."
So I could see it as an exception.

But I wouldn't begrudge any GM for nixing the idea.

[Shark_Force]

i suppose it's a matter of perspective.

really, the burster can pull off this stunt (more or less, specific details may vary) in tandem with a mage relatively easily anyways. no sense getting all worked up over the possibility he can do it in tandem with someone who isn't a mage.

[Comrade Corsarius]

Flamethrowers have always been about psychological effect first, anyway. They certainly are terrifying (ask anyone who has ever been up against one).

They were used effectively in WW1 by the Germans, and WW2 by everyone as a demoralising weapon to strike fear into troops, along with an ability to remove dug-in enemies.

So really, the low damage indicates that this weapon will work best when used against fortifications or pillboxes.

Insane RL uses of flamethrowers included the British trying to use them as antiaircraft (and any child who swipes his hand quickly through a candle flame will tell you how effective that one was), or the German use as a rearward-pointing gun in a Dornier bomber. (In that case, rather than scaring off the RAF, they thought the plane was on fire and shot at it MORE to bring it down).

[Zamion138]

The thing with a flamethrower in rifts if the enemy has eba the fact there is no oxeygen is kinda irrelevent, but irl if you were in a bunker and some fire that in there you had to breath, you were in pain and you inhaled...you were inhailing fumes liquad fuel and fire.
Being burned alive is most peoples top 10 worst ways to go, I dont think some one with a good aliment would use these weapons on anything but an ice demon or other such foul beast. Also if covered in flaming plasma for a round id rule it seeps into non enviromental armor and would kill the victim inside.

[taalismn]

The thing with a flamethrower in rifts if the enemy has eba the fact there is no oxeygen is kinda irrelevent, but irl if you were in a bunker and some fire that in there you had to breath, you were in pain and you inhaled...you were inhailing fumes liquad fuel and fire.
Being burned alive is most peoples top 10 worst ways to go, I dont think some one with a good aliment would use these weapons on anything but an ice demon or other such foul beast. Also if covered in flaming plasma for a round id rule it seeps into non enviromental armor and would kill the victim inside.

Plus the fire consumes oxygen; even if a bunkered enemy doesn't inhale fumes or flame, unless their bunker ventilation's got its own separate air supply, suffocation is a real possibility. Not nice at all.
Against property, though, it's an excellent weapon. Great anti-haunted house weapon too(provided the haunting's in a material like wood), or for making sure that evil cultist temple and its accursed tomes and papers goes DOWN.

But flamethrowers tend to be cumbersome, and it's a good idea to armor the tanks(which adds weight). While not every shot that penetrates the tank is going to instantly set it off, flamethrower fuel is volatile enough that you don't want to be anywhere near an uncontrolled burn(David Gerrold in his -War Against the Chtorr- series takes an inordinate interest in flamethrower design and ethics...his flamethrowers are designed for quick-dumping in an emergency so you can run like hell away, and his characters make no excuses but that they're terror weapons which leave no illusion that facing one is anything but gruesome painful death.
Though the terror aspect is lost on the fast-regenerating alien worms the flamethrowers are ultimately turned on...

[glitterboy2098]

The thing with a flamethrower in rifts if the enemy has eba the fact there is no oxeygen is kinda irrelevent, but irl if you were in a bunker and some fire that in there you had to breath, you were in pain and you inhaled...you were inhailing fumes liquad fuel and fire.
Being burned alive is most peoples top 10 worst ways to go, I dont think some one with a good aliment would use these weapons on anything but an ice demon or other such foul beast. Also if covered in flaming plasma for a round id rule it seeps into non enviromental armor and would kill the victim inside.

Plus the fire consumes oxygen; even if a bunkered enemy doesn't inhale fumes or flame, unless their bunker ventilation's got its own separate air supply, suffocation is a real possibility. Not nice at all.
Against property, though, it's an excellent weapon. Great anti-haunted house weapon too(provided the haunting's in a material like wood), or for making sure that evil cultist temple and its accursed tomes and papers goes DOWN.

unless they're followers of Cthugha, at which point your in real trouble..

But flamethrowers tend to be cumbersome, and it's a good idea to armor the tanks(which adds weight). While not every shot that penetrates the tank is going to instantly set it off, flamethrower fuel is volatile enough that you don't want to be anywhere near an uncontrolled burn.

one of the reasons i liked the Incinerator units from Aliens. assault rifle sized. sure it can't carry much fuel, but you can ditch it much faster, and you can afford to lug one around without hyper-specializing that trooper.

[Icefalcon]

The thing with a flamethrower in rifts if the enemy has eba the fact there is no oxeygen is kinda irrelevent

Not really. The insulation on all body armors is listed as good for 300 degrees centigrade (572 degrees F). Napalm, which is what the Jucier Uprising flamethrower is based off of, burns at between 800 and 1200 degrees F (and that is only the normal stuff). It would not take too long for temperatures like that to overwhelm the suits environmental systems (possibly even igniting the oxygen supply) and start affecting the person inside. Heck, it would be even worse considering the heat would be under pressure.

[kaid]

I wouldn't call flamethrowers SHORT range.. yes shorter range than many weapons of comparable weight.. but the M2 from WW2 the Americans used had an effective range of 65 feet and a maximum range of 132 feet. Sure, that does start getting you fairly close to a target, but still outside of range of claws and fangs for a little bit still. Plus you can spray a wide area by fanning the stream. Vehicle mounted flamethrowers, like the ones mounted on the M132 (flamethrower version of the M113/A1 APC) had a maximum range of 660 feet.

I would say they are short range compared to both conventional arms and Rifts tech. About the only shorter range weapons used are hand grenades and bayonets.

In modern warfare 132 feet is very short range it is barely beyond throwing weapon range at that point. They are highly effective in close quarters or bunker assaults but their range is highly limited.

[Greyaxe]

The flamethrowers on the War Chariot in Warlords of Russia has an 800 foot range and does 2d6 md per melee attack with a burst option. So for 3 attacks you could do the 6d6 md you were looking for.

[Zamion138]

The flamethrowers on the War Chariot in Warlords of Russia has an 800 foot range and does 2d6 md per melee attack with a burst option. So for 3 attacks you could do the 6d6 md you were looking for.

So your pc's just have to go to Russia steal a war chariot, find out what powers the flamers, get that back to where ever you are going to use it.
Should be simple hehehehe

[Greyaxe]

The flamethrowers on the War Chariot in Warlords of Russia has an 800 foot range and does 2d6 md per melee attack with a burst option. So for 3 attacks you could do the 6d6 md you were looking for.

So your pc's just have to go to Russia steal a war chariot, find out what powers the flamers, get that back to where ever you are going to use it.
Should be simple hehehehe

Simple as Rifts. LOL.

[flatline]

The thing with a flamethrower in rifts if the enemy has eba the fact there is no oxeygen is kinda irrelevent

Not really. The insulation on all body armors is listed as good for 300 degrees centigrade (572 degrees F). Napalm, which is what the Jucier Uprising flamethrower is based off of, burns at between 800 and 1200 degrees F (and that is only the normal stuff). It would not take too long for temperatures like that to overwhelm the suits environmental systems (possibly even igniting the oxygen supply) and start affecting the person inside. Heck, it would be even worse considering the heat would be under pressure.

Perhaps, but unless you are using the optional armor failure tables, EBA doesn't give way till it's gone. With fortune on your side, (new)Dead Boy armor can withstand Long Range missile strikes of Plasma, Proton and High Explosives without systems failure. While that would be unusual, a mini-missile with a Plasma warhead can affect a 15ft radius, and cannot destroy a Dead Boy on anything less than a critical strike. Plasma weapons would hit temperatures in excess of 17,000 degrees F. The argument could be made for continuous heat damaging systems, but if Plasma alone can't do it(or old version Long Range Nuclear Warheads) I don't imagine Napalm based weapons would do enough damage to systems before the actual armor melted. Not that the melting wouldn't be detrimental in of itself, hard to see out of a melting faceplate and any sensors systems would be overloaded, effectively blinding them(if covered).

Plasma gets hotter, but it's gone in a flash. Napalm sticks to you and burns for a while, transferring far more heat in the process. EBA will be far more effective against plasma than napalm since the amount of energy transferred is less.

--flatline

[glitterboy2098]

odds are the non-plasma MD flame throwers use a chemical compound that behaves like napalm, but burns like thermite. actually, from some quick reseach, it could probably be a thermite-napalm mix.

[Icefalcon]

The thing with a flamethrower in rifts if the enemy has eba the fact there is no oxeygen is kinda irrelevent

Not really. The insulation on all body armors is listed as good for 300 degrees centigrade (572 degrees F). Napalm, which is what the Jucier Uprising flamethrower is based off of, burns at between 800 and 1200 degrees F (and that is only the normal stuff). It would not take too long for temperatures like that to overwhelm the suits environmental systems (possibly even igniting the oxygen supply) and start affecting the person inside. Heck, it would be even worse considering the heat would be under pressure.

Perhaps, but unless you are using the optional armor failure tables, EBA doesn't give way till it's gone. With fortune on your side, (new)Dead Boy armor can withstand Long Range missile strikes of Plasma, Proton and High Explosives without systems failure. While that would be unusual, a mini-missile with a Plasma warhead can affect a 15ft radius, and cannot destroy a Dead Boy on anything less than a critical strike. Plasma weapons would hit temperatures in excess of 17,000 degrees F. The argument could be made for continuous heat damaging systems, but if Plasma alone can't do it(or old version Long Range Nuclear Warheads) I don't imagine Napalm based weapons would do enough damage to systems before the actual armor melted. Not that the melting wouldn't be detrimental in of itself, hard to see out of a melting faceplate and any sensors systems would be overloaded, effectively blinding them(if covered).

That depends on what you mean by supported by the rules.

It is stated in the rules for EBA that the temperature shielding is rated to 300 degrees centigrade. It is stated in other rules what the effects of heat are. Just because there are no rules for what happens when the environmental systems start to fail does not mean that they were not intended. It all depends on how dangerous you want your games to be. That does not even take into account that you could probably blast through at least the lighter parts of most EBA. Just looking at the Bushman armor (one of the heaviest non-Coalition armors in RUE) the arms only have 30 MDC. Looking at the WI-NFT-1, using a concentrated burst the minimum damage is 20 with the average being 30. That would cause the failure of the arm armor and all negation of environmental systems. Even if the armor does not fail in the initial burst, it will continue to burn for up to four minutes. Again, taking averages, you are looking at about 8 rounds of 6 damage each round (for a total of 48 damage). Overall, you are looking at taking an average of 78 MDC from this weapon. I am sorry, but no matter what armor you are using, one of the armor locations is going to fail causing loss of environmental protection.

[glitterboy2098]

except that by the rules as written, except for called shots damage i only taken from the main body. 'splash damage' to other locations in addition to the main body due to areas of effect or blast radii is not part of the official game rules.
it falls under house rules if you use such an approach.

[flatline]

Game mechanics are a first order approximation of game world physics (and metaphysics, as the case may be). You are doing yourself a disservice by trying to model all scenarios using the damage mechanics.

If your EBA suit can safely handle 300 degrees and I put you in a pizza oven at 500 degrees, you would eventually cook even though 500 degrees is insufficient to do any meaningful reduce the MDC of your armor.

If you disagree with that conclusion, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

--flatline

[Icefalcon]

First of all, that 200 degree protection is in Centigrade. It comes out to 392 Fahrenheit.

Now we are talking about flame throwers, not plasma weapons, missiles or even grenades. We are talking a mixture that adheres to the body armor and acts like an oven rather than "instant" damage from a plasma shot or explosives. The temperature of normal Napalm is about 1200 degrees Fahrenheit (648.8 degrees Centigrade) which is three times hotter than the heat tolerance of the armor. Now talking about the super-duper freaking napalm that is presented in Rifts, we are talking at least 3000 degrees Fahrenheit (1648.9 degrees Centigrade). That is 8 and 1/4 times the heat tolerance of the armor. Even the heat shielding on the front of the space shuttle will disintegrate at three times it tolerance and that is without physical damage.

So where your arguments are valid for these views are not completely supported by the rules, I say that I am going to treat the heat tolerance of the armor just like any other armor: start to exceed the tolerance and it is going to bleed over to the person using it.

The upper limit for the cells in your body to start destructing is 122 degrees (50 degrees C). This is enough to cause singed flesh and blisters. When you are exposed to 140 degrees (60 degrees C) you start to cook (much like meat on a grill). At 212 degrees (100 degrees C), the water in your veins would start to boil. Anything higher than that would be like microwaving yourself very quickly. Considering you are going to be in the pressurized environmental armor, your are looking at eventually rupturing like a water balloon once temperature reaches high enough to force the oxygen and your vaporized water molecules to expand (which if you are curious is once the inside of the armor reaches 752 degrees F or 400 degrees C).

[flatline]

As I have said already, I personally agree there should be some sort of pass through damage, but I believe there should be pass through for kinetic(suit padding doesn't save from physics), radiation and electricity as well(makes SDC/HP more relevant). Since there is nothing in the rules for it, you will have to decide whether to up the suits heat resistance to something more appropriate(3,000 C?) or to make your own pass through for every extreme heat source.

I mostly agree with this statement (except for electricity...if the surface of the armor is sufficiently conductive, electric charge will stay on the surface of the suit rather than harm the person inside of it).

There are lots of types of harm that are not modeled well by the damage mechanic provided by the canon system. In fact, I will go so far as to say that no damage is modeled well by the existing damage mechanics provided by the canon system. This is what I meant in my earlier post when I called the current mechanics a first order approximation of game world physics.

--flatline

[flatline]

Even if the fire does not damage the armor, it can overwhelm the suits environmental controls causing them to fail and thereby cook the person inside. Similarly, water or vacuum doesn't damage your armor but you can still suffocate if your oxygen supplies run out. Consider this analogy: If you have a pot of water on the stove and you heat it, the water boils no? Even though the heat is nowhere near enough to even burn the metal, the water inside still suffers the heat exchange. Similarly, if the pot was made of MD material it is safe to assume that the water inside will still boil when heated (as long as the heat is higher than any possible insulation).

It doesn't for NEMA Fire and Rescue Armor. You are working under the assumption that total systems failure will happen before the armor is breached, in other words under 4 minutes, and assuming the victim is standing there not trying to put themselves out. If continuous attacks by lasers, plasma rifles and plasma explosives(grenades and missiles) aren't going to do the job, then why would a fire? Your water or vacuum example would take 5 hours. The damage from the Mega-Damage flames will melt through the armor before environmental controls have a chance to fail. Again, why are you picking environmental controls before joint seals and faceplates? If your finger gets burned through then the environmental system fails anyway.

I think the issue is that you and I are assuming two different types of system failure. I mean that the environmental systems can no longer protect against the high temperatures and the inside of the armor begins to heat up causing the person inside to feel the heat (thereby failing at creating a comfortable, controlled environment inside). I am assuming you mean that the temperature actually causes damage to the environmental control system and causes them to become destroyed and thereby fail. Don't be mistaken, I make no claim that the heat causes any damage to the environmental systems, simply that the insulation is insufficient to compensate for that high of temperatures.

Plasma and lasers also subject to this. However, the heat will simply disperse before the pilot can even feel an effect. Despite the energy transfer being massive the effects of thermal expansion will quickly diffuse any sort of potential damage for the wearer. The case we are talking about here is prolonged exposer to heat above the tolerance of the environmental systems.

To surmize: By "fail" I mean that the heat being applied to the armor is above the heat tolerance of the environmental controls and will result in the pilot inside being subject to the effects of increased temperature. However, this does not mean that any real damage has been done to the armor or the environmental systems (or joint seals, or face plates) and they will immediately restore ideal conditions once the source of heat is removed. My claim is simply this: as the temperature increases beyond the armors insulation, the wearer inside will also begin to feel the change in heat.

Perhaps "overwhelm" would be a better word choice than "fail" in this context since it's a case of heat coming into the armor faster than the environmental system can expel it.

--flatline

[Shark_Force]

it's not weakened. that's pretty much what it says to do.

think of it like a sleeping bag rated to, say, 0 degrees Celsius. you will be warm in that sleeping bag (or at least, reasonably warm) provided the temperature doesn't go below that. if you were to somehow have a really odd weather-related event that dropped the temperature to -40 (same in C or F, btw) for one second, you might feel cold for that moment, but no significant effects will occur. you won't get frostbite, you won't get hypothermia. it's just cold, but there isn't enough time for heat to transfer. but if it was -20 celcius for 5 minutes, you'd actually have a lot more heat transferred. you'd feel a lot colder. it probably wouldn't be enough in that short time to do a lot of damage, but you'd definitely be a lot colder, because even though the sleeping bag is perfectly fine, it's ability to keep you warm has been exceeded.

now, in this case, we're looking at hundreds of degrees in the positive side of temperature scales, and brief fractions of a second for plasma, and a lower (but still significantly above the safe threshold) temperature sustained for a few minutes. the plasma may be very hot, but it can only transfer so much heat in the brief moment it's in contact, and then the armour just radiates the heat away over the next little while (or deals with it via heat sink, or however the environmental systems are supposed to work) in contrast, if you're in a cooler fire for a much longer time, you're constantly going beyond the armour's ability to compensate, and it's going to progressively get worse. the armour itself should be fine. but the temperature inside it is going to get more and more unpleasant. eventually, the person inside will start to suffer the effects of heat.

when it's exceeded by what is frankly an extremely large margin, that likely shouldn't even take terribly long. now, if you were to pass through a fire, you'd be fine... a brief moment where it's hot and uncomfortable, then the systems deal with it and you'd be fine, maybe the equivalent of a sun burn at worst. but when you're just sitting there in it... you're gonna cook.

[Killer Cyborg]

it's not weakened. that's pretty much what it says to do.

think of it like a sleeping bag rated to, say, 0 degrees Celsius. you will be warm in that sleeping bag (or at least, reasonably warm) provided the temperature doesn't go below that. if you were to somehow have a really odd weather-related event that dropped the temperature to -40 (same in C or F, btw) for one second, you might feel cold for that moment, but no significant effects will occur. you won't get frostbite, you won't get hypothermia. it's just cold, but there isn't enough time for heat to transfer. but if it was -20 celcius for 5 minutes, you'd actually have a lot more heat transferred. you'd feel a lot colder. it probably wouldn't be enough in that short time to do a lot of damage, but you'd definitely be a lot colder, because even though the sleeping bag is perfectly fine, it's ability to keep you warm has been exceeded.

now, in this case, we're looking at hundreds of degrees in the positive side of temperature scales, and brief fractions of a second for plasma, and a lower (but still significantly above the safe threshold) temperature sustained for a few minutes. the plasma may be very hot, but it can only transfer so much heat in the brief moment it's in contact, and then the armour just radiates the heat away over the next little while (or deals with it via heat sink, or however the environmental systems are supposed to work) in contrast, if you're in a cooler fire for a much longer time, you're constantly going beyond the armour's ability to compensate, and it's going to progressively get worse. the armour itself should be fine. but the temperature inside it is going to get more and more unpleasant. eventually, the person inside will start to suffer the effects of heat.

when it's exceeded by what is frankly an extremely large margin, that likely shouldn't even take terribly long. now, if you were to pass through a fire, you'd be fine... a brief moment where it's hot and uncomfortable, then the systems deal with it and you'd be fine, maybe the equivalent of a sun burn at worst. but when you're just sitting there in it... you're gonna cook.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[Zamion138]

NEMA Fire and Rescue armor does not say that the occupant is not effected by the heat of the fire. The closest is:
"The suit also takes into consideration the extreme heat conditions it and its user must endure."

IN FACT
The armor lists that heat does 10% less damage than usual.
Now, considering that the armor is immune to the damage of fire and MD fire's do not have a listed heat factor and there are no "heat based attacks" (to my knowledge), why would heat be included as a damaging factor if the wearer was not indeed at risk from being harmed by heat?

its fluff?

[Zamion138]

well if its not fluff its terrible game making as we dont know how much fire does to a pc in normal eba?
id say the armor takes 10% less from plasma and fireballs myself to make the 10% worth something. but thats about it. Id round down too.

[Shark_Force]

Except again, the Wellington flamethrowers are not doing it in fractions of a second, they will do it in bursts of 7 seconds, which apparently it can keep repeating without negative effect to to the victim inside EBA. And NEMA Fire and Rescue Armor is designed to walk through fire all day without effect, and it's 400 degree limit is less than fire. The listing for EBA says that normal fire has no effect, despite those temperatures being higher than it's 200 degree limit. There is nothing in the books to suggest that it has such effects. A Burster can coat you in regular or M.D flame and it will not have any effect until the armor melts off.

ummm... you did notice that there's a "napalm" plasma flamethrower that we're discussing, which coats you in a sticky substance and keeps you cooking for 1d4 minutes, right?

that isn't exactly 7 seconds of being in a fire.

you can walk through a fire if you want. just like a brief period of cold in the air won't generally cause hypothermia. but if you sit in it for a while, such as for example being subjected to several times it's rated temperature for a minute or four, the armour may be absolutely unharmed, but it *will* heat up inside it and eventually, you will suffer the effects of that heat. if that temperature is exceeded by such an extreme amount, i would expect that over time it will reach temperatures inside the armour that will make for a very bad day for any human occupant. it's an environmental system, not a "safely go swimming in lava" system.

[Shark_Force]

ummm... you did notice that there's a "napalm" plasma flamethrower that we're discussing, which coats you in a sticky substance and keeps you cooking for 1d4 minutes, right?

that isn't exactly 7 seconds of being in a fire.

you can walk through a fire if you want. just like a brief period of cold in the air won't generally cause hypothermia. but if you sit in it for a while, such as for example being subjected to several times it's rated temperature for a minute or four, the armour may be absolutely unharmed, but it *will* heat up inside it and eventually, you will suffer the effects of that heat. if that temperature is exceeded by such an extreme amount, i would expect that over time it will reach temperatures inside the armour that will make for a very bad day for any human occupant. it's an environmental system, not a "safely go swimming in lava" system.

Getting blasted by plasma is worse than swimming in lava. It's ten times hotter than lava. Getting blasted for 7 seconds by plasma is worse than the same time spent on the surface of the sun(half as hot). Plasma cutters operate at temperatures of 25,000 degrees centigrade. So the rationale that EBA systems will not fail with repeated blasts of plasma, but will by being next to much weaker flames is silly. It's also still ignoring all the other examples of M.D flame(magic, psionic, alien) that don't have pass through damage and don't impart environmental system fatigue. Again, I'm not saying there should not be pass through damage rules, I've stated several times I'm for them. That still doesn't change there is nothing in the rules for environmental system fatigue of any kind, even radiation from Nuclear Long Range missiles, and trying to change based on the fact that napalm somehow deserves it more than any other M.D heat weapons/magic/psionics/abilities isn't going to help.

to use a (quasi)famous example from 3rd edition D&D, are there any rules that prevent you from getting up and going on your merry way when you die? i haven't noticed any. it's just assumed that you have a brain and are able to figure out what dead means, and that it would prevent your character from continuing to fight, think, act, etc as a result of the fact that being dead is something defined in real life.

likewise, what happens when you exceed the ratings in this case is also based on real life. there are no specific rules for how to deal with it, but that doesn't mean we should just pretend it doesn't exist, any more than we should pretend that being dead has no effect.

palladium does not make rules systems that are designed to be followed to the letter. trying to follow them to the letter is just going to make your experience very very unpleasant. the rules cannot cover every situation in the first place, and frankly, standing around in a fire for several minutes isn't something that should happen a lot.

the armour protects you from sustained heat up to a certain rating. exceed that rating, and the armour cannot protect you. that's what the rules tell us. true, they don't give us the exact effects codified into a chart or table right there, but then again, palladium doesn't spell out a lot of things for us. that doesn't mean nothing happens, it just means the GM needs to make some rulings.

[Killer Cyborg]

ummm... you did notice that there's a "napalm" plasma flamethrower that we're discussing, which coats you in a sticky substance and keeps you cooking for 1d4 minutes, right?

that isn't exactly 7 seconds of being in a fire.

you can walk through a fire if you want. just like a brief period of cold in the air won't generally cause hypothermia. but if you sit in it for a while, such as for example being subjected to several times it's rated temperature for a minute or four, the armour may be absolutely unharmed, but it *will* heat up inside it and eventually, you will suffer the effects of that heat. if that temperature is exceeded by such an extreme amount, i would expect that over time it will reach temperatures inside the armour that will make for a very bad day for any human occupant. it's an environmental system, not a "safely go swimming in lava" system.

Getting blasted by plasma is worse than swimming in lava. It's ten times hotter than lava. Getting blasted for 7 seconds by plasma is worse than the same time spent on the surface of the sun(half as hot). Plasma cutters operate at temperatures of 25,000 degrees centigrade. So the rationale that EBA systems will not fail with repeated blasts of plasma, but will by being next to much weaker flames is silly. It's also still ignoring all the other examples of M.D flame(magic, psionic, alien) that don't have pass through damage and don't impart environmental system fatigue. Again, I'm not saying there should not be pass through damage rules, I've stated several times I'm for them. That still doesn't change there is nothing in the rules for environmental system fatigue of any kind, even radiation from Nuclear Long Range missiles, and trying to change based on the fact that napalm somehow deserves it more than any other M.D heat weapons/magic/psionics/abilities isn't going to help.

It's not an exception for the napalm specifically, it's for anything with a sustained duration, because we're talking about environmental protection systems, and a blast to your chest plate doesn't last long enough to be an environmental concern. A plasma blast or fire bolt is incredibly intense, but it's also brief. In order to be an environmental factor, the heat would need to be sustained.
It's for this reason that we use ovens with relatively low heat (350 degrees F) to cook a turkey over a sustained time period, rather than using brief passes with a propane torch (3623 °F).

So pretty much any attack that can increase the temperatures around the person in EBA for a significant period of time would do the job. This could be the plasma napalm in question, or a Fire Globe, or a Burster's fire eruption, or being hugged by a fire elemental, or any number of other causes, including even SDC effects like being caught in a burning building, or being continuously doused with a conventional flamethrower, or being put inside a giant oven for a long period of time.
Of course, exactly how long it would take would be up to the GM, as it's unspecified.

[Zamion138]

There is no way you can make a game system cover every avanue of life that could happen in a rules set GM fiat and house rules are a must.

[Killer Cyborg]

It's not an exception for the napalm specifically, it's for anything with a sustained duration, because we're talking about environmental protection systems, and a blast to your chest plate doesn't last long enough to be an environmental concern. A plasma blast or fire bolt is incredibly intense, but it's also brief. In order to be an environmental factor, the heat would need to be sustained.
It's for this reason that we use ovens with relatively low heat (350 degrees F) to cook a turkey over a sustained time period, rather than using brief passes with a propane torch (3623 °F).

So pretty much any attack that can increase the temperatures around the person in EBA for a significant period of time would do the job. This could be the plasma napalm in question, or a Fire Globe, or a Burster's fire eruption, or being hugged by a fire elemental, or any number of other causes, including even SDC effects like being caught in a burning building, or being continuously doused with a conventional flamethrower, or being put inside a giant oven for a long period of time.
Of course, exactly how long it would take would be up to the GM, as it's unspecified.

Your "reason for ovens" points out the issue with that. Brief passes with a propane torch could destroy that which would take hours to do on low heat. We cook slow so we don't destroy what's inside.

No; we cook so that we don't destroy what's on outside.
The inside can stay nice and frozen even if the outside is fried to a crisp.

And in the context of the overall discussion, the outside would be the armor itself, which is why it takes damage.

Advocating long term detrimental only is to ignore the rest of the M.D heat weapons. Again, I'm not saying that pass through damage should not occur, I'm for it, but if it does it has to apply to all heat based weapons, and not just the Napalm-P proposed in this thread.

It's not that heat passes through.
It's that the environmental protections are limited, and can be overwhelmed.
And, again, it's not just Napalm P that people are talking about, but all heat-based attacks that have a long enough duration.
Napalm P is just one example.

[Shark_Force]

I know Palladium doesn't cover everything. However when a GM makes their own ruling based on nothing in the books that's called House Ruling. I've been saying all along that it's fine if you want to House Rule it so that there are additional tables for environmental systems fatigue, but saying that a lack of specifics to prevent you from doing something is the same as an okay to do it is silly. I'm sure I don't have to go into a list of reductio ad absurdum examples to show what I can do because there is nothing in the book to say I can't.

A main issue I can see for game purposes is being destroyed without armor fail. As previously stated, I'm for pass through damage, but across the board. Having it so armor systems fatigue only due to slowly imparted(relatively, 4 minutes and under for napalm) heat means that you are okay with characters dying from heat that never harms the armor. You could kill a whole squad of a Coalition troops by anchoring them in place with Carpet of Adhesion and starting a fire, any fire, without the armor taking a scratch(Immune as per RMB/RUE). The same is true for the napalm, where the person inside could be killed before his armor gives out. While across the board damage from overheating would mean anyone bears this burden, your version sees it apply not to every type of Mega Damage heat, but only long burning weak flames.

it isn't based on nothing though. it's based on the fact that the books very explicitly tell us "here's what the environmental systems can handle".

and yes, you could kill a whole squad of CS troopers this way. what's your point? they could do the same to someone else (in fact, given that coalition troopers at least consistently wear environmental armour, unlike many other forces which wear all kinds of random piecemeal armour, i'd say they're better off than most). i'd allow the same for various other situations where i don't feel armour would protect. in fact, i'm pretty sure there's a prime example of that in the rules for traps, where we find out that things like pit traps can harm the person inside but not the armour.

along those same lines, a CS trooper in armour will not be harmed by a trap that dumps a ton of dirt on him... but if you leave him buried for long enough, his air supply will run out, and he will die.

the specific amount of damage you'd take after being in a given temperature for a given amount of time is a house rule that a GM will have to figure out for themselves. it will likely be based on how hot the external temperature is, what your suit is rated for, whether or not you step out of the heat every so often, possible use of the environment for cooling effects (such as throwing water on your suit, or being in rain), how close you are to the fuel, what your cross-sectional area is, and so forth... much of that information is not listed in the books (or indeed can't be), so any rule covering it would have be barely more than a rough guideline anyways.

in contrast, the fact that your environmental body armour has environmental systems which are rated for a certain value and won't offer their full protection in case of a sustained value higher than that rated value is not a house rule. that's a very clearly stated piece of information found in the books.

[Killer Cyborg]

No; we cook so that we don't destroy what's on outside.
The inside can stay nice and frozen even if the outside is fried to a crisp.

You mean like an person staying "nice and frozen" despite the heat outside the armor? Hmmm.

Pretty much.

And in the context of the overall discussion, the outside would be the armor itself, which is why it takes damage.

Except that it doesn't take damage from normal flame.

So?

It's not that heat passes through.
It's that the environmental protections are limited, and can be overwhelmed.

Wait, the environmental systems fail and nothing gets through? What are you arguing for getting through then besides the heat of the fire?

I didn't say that heat doesn't get through.
I said that it's not that heat passes through that's the issue/point.

And, again, it's not just Napalm P that people are talking about, but all heat-based attacks that have a long enough duration.
Napalm P is just one example.

Actually no, the discussion was started by Icefalcon over the Napalm-P of the "Juicer Uprising flamethrower" and it's ability to overwhelm environmental systems, and then again by Flatline. I was the one who suggested that damage from other heat sources should be taken into consideration.

Then you are the one who suggested the obvious, then argued the point against nobody in particular that I can tell.
Unless I've been missing any posts where people have claimed that it's ONLY Napalm P, and NOT other sustained fire/heat attacks, that can overwhelm EBA.

[Icefalcon]

I will agree that some weapons that cause heat-based damage will overwhelm the armor. Not all of them though.

It works on the same principle as welding (and I am a welder). Short bursts of intense heat (about 1 second or so) are not enough to blow through even a 1/4 inch steel plate. However, if you prolong that heat (for about 2-3 seconds) you either start a molten pool of metal (at about 140-160 volts) or you get blowthrough (180+ volts). Considering that body armor in rifts is mostly poly-ceramic plates (according to the RUE), it will react like most ceramics by spreading the heat out over most of the armors surface. With something like a plasma blast or a fire ball or other MDC heat-based attack, when it hits the armor (a 1-2 second reaction) the heat spreads out but causes damage where the high intensity energy burst hits. Repeated blasts may build up heat in the armor but probably not quick enough to transfer enough heat to overwhelm the heat shielding unless there is multiple hits over a 5-6 period.

On the other hand, you have sustained heat sources (like flamethrowers, elementals, Bursters, etc.). These sources will impact the armor at a certain temperature, cling to the armor and then continually increase the temperature the longer they are in contact. The shielding may hold on until the end of the first combat round. It may even hold out for the second. However, by the third round, the heat has climbed so high that it is melting even ceramic. This is why the flamethrower keeps doing damage in each successive round. Sure you can say it is a house rule and I would not disagree. Originally, I was trying to point out what was more realistic about flamethrowers and why they are were so feared when they were in use. Heck, even tanks couldn't stand up to one for long.

Now if you want to test some of this, try the following experiment. Take a ceramic dish and pass a blowtorch over it quickly. Then touch the dish to see how hot it is. Next fill the dish with diesel fuel and light it on fire. Let the fuel burn for about a minute or so and then try touching the dish again if it hasn't already cracked.

[flatline]

Having it so armor systems fatigue only due to slowly imparted(relatively, 4 minutes and under for napalm) heat means that you are okay with characters dying from heat that never harms the armor. You could kill a whole squad of a Coalition troops by anchoring them in place with Carpet of Adhesion and starting a fire, any fire, without the armor taking a scratch(Immune as per RMB/RUE).

I'm totally cool with that.

Fire is a scary thing, even to people wearing EBA.

--flatline

[Icefalcon]

In this case the Wellington plasma flamethrower is going over the "5-6 second period", 7 seconds on a long burst, which could be repeated up to 50 times in a row with a full tank. Also, if the temperature involved is enough to to destroy the armor itself, I think heat transfer is likely. The ceramics on the Space Shuttle(1970s tech) can withstand temperatures of 1650 degrees centigrade for a full 12 minutes without harming the occupants. However, push beyond their shielding capabilities, or create a breach situation(like Columbia) and the whole system blows to pieces. Even if one did not want to assume that Rifts M.D.C ceramics were superior to 1970s ceramics, the fact that the armor can even survive tremendous blasts of heat way beyond it's shielding capabilities would lead me to believe it should be able to withstand substantially lower temperatures for a much longer amount of time. If the heat is enough to vaporize the armors ability to protect itself, it's ability to protect it's occupant should come into question, with all levels of Mega Damage heat.

I will agree. In the games I have run, I have even let the armor last several rounds more of the heat transfer than it should have. I do not like instant kill weapons in any game and therefor I usually allow for players to come up with some way of resisting them to at least a small degree. On the other hand, I do like a small degree of realism and tend to hold the players to it (as well as NPC's).

[Shark_Force]

Oh you mean like when Icefalcon said "Now we are talking about flame throwers, not plasma weapons, missiles or even grenades"? Or when Johnnycat said "Plasma and lasers also subject to this. However, the heat will simply disperse before the pilot can even feel an effect. Despite the energy transfer being massive the effects of thermal expansion will quickly diffuse any sort of potential damage for the wearer"? Or when Shark Force said " the plasma may be very hot, but it can only transfer so much heat in the brief moment it's in contact, and then the armour just radiates the heat away over the next little while (or deals with it via heat sink, or however the environmental systems are supposed to work) in contrast, if you're in a cooler fire for a much longer time, you're constantly going beyond the armour's ability to compensate"? Then yes you have. Thanks for thinking my opinion is so spot it's obvious.

you do realize that you just quoted me saying that a normal fire over an extended period would do more to heat up a suit of EBA in an attempt to prove that i said that only plasma would work, right? and that those other examples you gave are all of people pointing out how a brief plasma/laser/other heat-causing attack won't have the same impact as a sustained increase in heat, even if the sustained increase is lower, and therefore won't deal damage to the person inside?

if you manage to keep a laser on someone for a minute or two, sure, you will start to heat it up. but rifts lasers appear to generally not be the sustained kind, but rather pulse lasers (even the ones that don't fire multiple pulses don't seem to fire a sustained beam, with only a few exceptions like the laser welders)

of course, if you actually managed to keep a laser on someone for that long, you'd probably destroy their armour and kill the person inside anyways, at which point the capacity of the environmental systems is frankly a moot point.

[Killer Cyborg]

No; we cook so that we don't destroy what's on outside.
The inside can stay nice and frozen even if the outside is fried to a crisp.

You mean like an person staying "nice and frozen" despite the heat outside the armor? Hmmm.

Pretty much.

Okay, then your opinion is that no one takes damage inside their armor despite the flame. Gotcha.

You know, if that's what you're getting out of this conversation, it's not worth my time to continue it.

I was the one who suggested that damage from other heat sources should be taken into consideration.

Then you are the one who suggested the obvious, then argued the point against nobody in particular that I can tell.
Unless I've been missing any posts where people have claimed that it's ONLY Napalm P, and NOT other sustained fire/heat attacks, that can overwhelm EBA.

Oh you mean like when Icefalcon said "Now we are talking about flame throwers, not plasma weapons, missiles or even grenades"?

Icefalcon is specifying that we're talking about weapons capable of sustained attack (i.e., attacks that last more than 2-3 seconds), NOT about other kinds of heat attacks.
He's using flamethrowers as his specific example, but the reason he gives is clear; the weapon delivers heat over a prolonged period of time, instead of short bursts.

Or when Johnnycat said "Plasma and lasers also subject to this. However, the heat will simply disperse before the pilot can even feel an effect. Despite the energy transfer being massive the effects of thermal expansion will quickly diffuse any sort of potential damage for the wearer"?

Johnnycat is saying the same thing. Plasma and laser weapons can generate heat, but because they are instant attacks, the heat will disperse before the pilot can feel an effect.
Unlike with sustained attacks.

Or when Shark Force said "the plasma may be very hot, but it can only transfer so much heat in the brief moment it's in contact, and then the armour just radiates the heat away over the next little while (or deals with it via heat sink, or however the environmental systems are supposed to work) in contrast, if you're in a cooler fire for a much longer time, you're constantly going beyond the armour's ability to compensate"?

Yup.
Once again, Shark Force is describing the difference between sustained attacks and instantaneous attacks.

Then yes you have. Thanks for thinking my opinion is so spot it's obvious.

I asked you if there were any posts where people have claimed that it's ONLY Napalm P, and NOT other sustained fire/heat attacks, that can overwhelm EBA.
You quoted three cases where people are describing the difference between a sustained heat attack that lasts long enough to overwhelm the environmental protection of the armor, and in NONE of those quotes did anybody say ANYTHING about it being restricted to just the Napalm P flamethrower.

Meanwhile, Flatine said:

Plasma gets hotter, but it's gone in a flash. Napalm sticks to you and burns for a while, transferring far more heat in the process. EBA will be far more effective against plasma than napalm since the amount of energy transferred is less.
--flatline

Further driving the point home that the reason why Napalm can get past armor, while normal plasma attacks can't, is because of the duration of the attack.

And he said:

Game mechanics are a first order approximation of game world physics (and metaphysics, as the case may be). You are doing yourself a disservice by trying to model all scenarios using the damage mechanics.

If your EBA suit can safely handle 300 degrees and I put you in a pizza oven at 500 degrees, you would eventually cook even though 500 degrees is insufficient to do any meaningful reduce the MDC of your armor.

If you disagree with that conclusion, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

AGAIN pointing out that it's sustained heat that's the issue, not temperature.
Specifying that we're not talking about ONLY Napalm P, but about ANY kind of sustained element/attack that keeps the armor over the temperature threshold for a long enough time.
He even uses the example of a pizza oven, which is a VERY clear example of something other than Napalm P being used to overwhelm the armor's environmental capabilities.
Unless you think that pizza ovens are napalm based...?

You missed the point, and talked about the ARMOR getting damaged, which isn't what anybody else in the conversation was talking about.

Then Johnnycat explained further:

Even if the fire does not damage the armor, it can overwhelm the suits environmental controls causing them to fail and thereby cook the person inside. Similarly, water or vacuum doesn't damage your armor but you can still suffocate if your oxygen supplies run out. Consider this analogy: If you have a pot of water on the stove and you heat it, the water boils no? Even though the heat is nowhere near enough to even burn the metal, the water inside still suffers the heat exchange. Similarly, if the pot was made of MD material it is safe to assume that the water inside will still boil when heated (as long as the heat is higher than any possible insulation).

Notice how he starts off by saying, "Even if the fire does not damage the armor, it can overwhelm the suit's environmental controls"...?
Napalm P damages the armor.
Johnycat is NOT talking about Napalm P; he's talking about even SDC levels of heat that are sustained long enough overwhelm the suit's environmental controls.

And AlexanderD chimes in with

I do believe that exposure to heat beyound what the suit is suposed to handle over time does warent some house rules based on the existing rules for temp cntrol failure. placed in a forest fire for instance where temps can soar into the high 1200s for those caught inside can take some time to escape, and in said situation id bet the system in any bodyarmor would fail after 20 or so minutes of dealing with those furnace level temps. the trick is, what rules to use and how to decide when and how the system fails.

Again, he's talking about a forest fire, NOT Napalm P.
He's talking about "furnace level temps." NOT "Mega-Damage Plasma/Napalm temps."
He's talking about stuff other than Napalm P being able to overwhelm the EBA's temperature regulation.

And I'm going to stop right there, although I could go on.
Over, and over, and over again, people here have been talking about any source of heat that is higher than the suit's maximum threshold being able to overwhelm the suit's thermoregulation capabilities and affect the person inside.
NEVER has anybody here said ANYTHING about ONLY Napalm P being able to do this.
They've discussed everything from pizza ovens to forest fires and SDC flamethrowers being able to do the job IF the heat was sustained over period of time.

So, no, claiming that Napalm P isn't the only heat source that is capable of this kind of effect is not exactly original.
It's the exact topic of conversation, one that you've been seemingly arguing against for most of this thread.

[Killer Cyborg]

So then how does the interior take damage when the exterior doesn't?

I skipped a lot of your last post, because it wasn't making sense.
I caught this part later, though, and figure that it should be addressed:

Something does not need to become damaged in order to become hot.

If you don't believe me, build a good fire in a wood stove.
The stove will become hot.
It will NOT become damaged.
Yet if you touch the undamaged stove, YOU will become damaged.
Because the stove is tougher than you are.

EBA in Rifts is mega-damage as a rule.
It can become VERY hot without becoming at all damaged.
You could heat an entire suit of EBA up to 1,000 degrees F, let it cook for a couple of days, and all that would happen to the suit is that it would become hot.

But if there's a human inside the suit, they're most likely going to die in relatively short order, because the suit can not protect the wearer from environmental temperatures that high.

Just like if you cook something in a pot on the stove, the stuff inside the pot will cook and break down, but the pot will not be harmed.