Questions on robot and PA combat

[Tor]

Altara don't have force fields. They have talismans of Armor of Ithan. This summons a suit of invisible armor. A suit that has AR 18 in AR worlds but that AR is ignored in MD worlds......

Right, so this could mean that Armor of Ithan protects you from area-effect stuff in MD worlds (being a strengthened version of the spell) but not in SDC worlds where it has a bypassable AR.

The havoc here is making an arbitrary statement "this armor covers 99% of your body, but only has AR 18 so you die. But this one here covers about 40% but since it doesn't have an AR your fine........

What two cases of armor are we told about where we are told what pecentage of the body armor covered?

I do see havoc in someone taking 1/2 damage regardless of wearing something with AR 18 or AR 7 though. Even if you think both should take damage, it seems like the AR 18 should take a lower % of damage than the AR 7 guy. Just not sure how to mechanic it.

Today I rethink this, and see it can be possible to have a bypassable AR (say the possibility of sliding a dagger under overlapping plates) which doesn't actually expose the chink in the armor to a direct line of force.

That's the rub. Something like a low-AR "I'm wearing MDC vest" NGR-clothing situation should not protect your legs or arms or head from a fragmentation missile.

But something like platemail, visor being down, where its high AR represents slamming a dagger in from the side into the armpit or something, that probably should protect from an explosion.

This word your using? I do not think it means what you think it means.....

Are you talking about "location"? If you want to use catch phrases to put-down my vocab, least be specific? The bigger prob I think is when is a thing a thing weirdness.

Considering that for NGR cyborgs, their rail guns are listed as a hit location and are distinct objects, we do know that a hit location can be a distinct thing rather than a non-separate part. Kinda weird that a rail gun set on the ground would be damaged by an explosion but one held in the hand wouldn't be.

maybe the rules work like the book implies

If we judge rules based on the combat example, then we should ignore what the book says about penalties to hit moving or fast-moving enemies since the combat example ignored them.

getting hit by the missile does NOT instantly take out the SAMAS by taking out all its sub-locations.

I think that mis-represents the example, it was three (of four, 1 shot down) missiles, and they were short-range missiles, which is the second-strongest missile the UAR-1 carries and the 2nd-strongest usable tier of missile in RMB, and since nothing in RMB even fired LRMs. Most cases of getting hit by a missile would be mini-missiles fired by a rocket launcher or the arm of a SAMAS.

if we go by the RAW then the example isn't messed up in the slightest.......

Except for not everything getting hit (the things other than the main body, including the hand-held rail gun) which violates the rule about everything getting hit. Or the example ignoring moving-enemy strike penalties.

But the hand and foot are part of the same thing, they are components not individual items

Then why does sourcebook 1 allow you to buy them separately?

If they were spare parts on the ground, they would take damage individually, but attach them to a robot's main body and suddenly they're immune?

Better for GMs to use common sense. A 30-foot tall robot shot in the head with a 20ft blast radius missile shouldn't take damage to their feet, but a 40ft radius missile might, depending on how long their feet are and if they tent to run heel-first, if they're moving.

Shouldn't be strict rules, GMs should house-rule based on design and how the robot's postured what other parts take damage. Stuff that doesn't make sense they should say doesn't take damage, even though the rules say everything does, cover-benefit.

a person is getting hit multiple times (magically the fragments are homing in on every single component that makes up the larger thing, equally unrealistic as just mainbody).

As magically as a fragment homes in on every single person or non-attached object in a blast radius? Funny how the rules are realistic when applied how you like them and 'magical' when applied how you don't agree with.

By the standards being argued everything in the blast radius with lower DC would be destroyed - every blade of grass

That's correct, unless we're told elsewhere that this doesn't happen.

GMs can apply a bit of common sense though. A plasma or nuclear missile should burn all the grass but an AP or fragmentation missile should just rip up some chunks and litter the grass with shrapnel.

every tree and every branch on each tree etc etc you would have completely razed areas because "Everything" is hit.

Are you introducing some kind of house rule to allow normal SDC trees to survive being in a MD blast radius? Most except the biggest would lack the SDC needed for this.

The idea was (IMHO) that the blast/fragments would hit whats in the blast radius

Which is what I'm talking about.

not that AoE would be an uber-weapon (using a hyper-literal interpretation makes some weapons overly lethal, a burst from a grenade launcher is more deadly than a heavy railgun or plasma cannon etc etc)

That was already the case. That's probably why Kev removed the burst mode from the grenade launchers in RMB when he put them in RUE.

After one or two combats every person in the party would be needing cyber/bionic hands and feet if not whole arms and legs.

Yeah, this wasn't a problem in RMB since we didn't have those locations, it's a complication that arose with RUE assigning them.

Since the actual rules are brutal like this, I do something like this as a house rule: total up all the MDC, then divide a location's MDC by the total to figure out what % of the total it is, and then divide the blast radius damage among those percentages.

RUEp267 using the Gladiator as an example, it totals 255 so an arm is roughly 10% and the main body roughly 27%, so say you got hit in the chest with a 50 MD explosion, the main body would take 13.5 and the arm would take 5.

More so if the armor is obviously not full coverage (like juicer plate, mystic knight standard suit, Altara swimsuit etc) and hiding behind something (by RAW) won't help.

Not really, since we don't have any rules in these things' stats to reflect what the art shows of them.

RUE 362
Getting caught in a blast radius does half damage. Your companion standing 10' away is hit by a high explosive missile with a 30' blast radius. He takes full damage from a direct hit, but your character is also caught in the blast radius. Fortunately, distance buys your character some luck and he takes half the MD since he was not caught directly in the blast.

No mention of "every damage pool that your character has" or "every part of your character's armor" or anything else like that.
Just "he takes half damage."
NO mention of the primary target's other body parts taking any damage other than his main body.

Wasn't this passage just a reprint from RMB when body armor only had 1 damage pool? Separate damage locations only came up for PA/bots back then, which would be non-standard examples since they are rare.

Even on p. 363, where it says "everyone and everything," it then goes on to elaborate:
Note that the concussive force of an explosive blast may not damage or seriously hurt grass, tiny items and other flexible or resilient SDC materials. However, people, animals, buildings, etc., all suffer the blast radius damage.

Again, there is ZERO mention of body parts or anything else taking damage.
What takes damage is the specific target: A person, a building, an animal.
NOT "each part of each person, each part of each building, and each part of each animal."

Nor does it specify that only a specific part (main body) would take damage. Traditionally most things only had 1 damage pool representing everything, these generic statements are tailored to that past reality before we started getting helmet MDC for all the head-shotters and then legs/arms and then feet/hands and similar.

the bit about the "companion standing 10' away" was taken from RMB 41, in the section on Combat Rules for High-Tech War Machines, so it's not about two unarmored MDC beings with only one damage pool. It's about robots and/or people in body armor.

Back then body armor had only one damage pool, and it's under high-tech war machines because those were the things that fired missiles. Only one hand-held weapon could fire a (mini) missile (the coalition missile launcher) so it made sense to put the missile rules along with PA/Bots.

Moreover, in the sample combat on RMB 43, there is this passage describing what happens when a SAMAS is struck by three short-range missiles:
The damage is 3d4x10 (three fragmentation missiles) inflicting a total of 90 mega-damage points on the SAMAS (that hurts).

I already brought this up pre-emptively =/ Pointed out how this already ignores a rule in one place, so it ignoring mechanics in another doesn't say anything.

IF the blast radius inflicted half damage to every hit location on a target, then that SAMAS would not only take the 90 to his main body, he would take 45 MD to each other hit location, which would destroy his:
-2 shoulder wings
-lower maneuvering jets
-ammo drum

And yet none of that stuff is mentioned, and that SAMAS is still depicted as being able to engage in combat, firing his ammo-drumless gun at the Enforcer on his next attack.

The ammo drum and wings and jets are in the back, so it would make sense for the GM to rule they do not take damage, since the SAMAS was facing the Enforcer at the time.

All the SAMAS in question does in this combat example is fire his rail gun, which he does not need his wings/jets to do.

In fact, we have no indication at all that this SAMAS is in flight, so it wouldn't affect the combat. In the first turn under "second person to act" the dressed SAMAS is described "On his first attack he stands and opens up with a rail gun burst". So he is standing, not flying.

When he attacks a 2nd time, he is again described as "He stands his ground, lets loose with a battle cry and another burst". So he's still standing. If this SAMAS guy wants to stand around then why would his wings/jets getting wrecked matter?

The destruction of the ammo drum would not immediately deprive the rail gun of ammo. The belt feed leading from the drum to the gun would have some rounds. There may have been just enough left for 1 final burst, which is all he fires.

A burst is 40 rounds and if we look at the illustration, assuming each segment is a round, I can see 12 segments from the gun to when it goes behind the elbow, which seems around 1/3 of the length of the belt (hard to get perfect since it curves weirdly) so I can feasibly see 1 burst being left.

But still: a GM using common sense, the main body is going to shield the rear drum from an explosion at the front the same way that a guy standing behind a wall will be shielded from an explosion.

Part of my house rule, which incorporates blast radius hitting multiple locations within its blast radius, involves some GM common sense that needs to be applied. For example, if the blast goes off 5 feet (say 12 ft blast radius) on the left side of the character, only the left arm, left leg, and head would take the splash damage (perhaps even the main body)...assuming all those would be small enough to fit in the blast radius.

Makes excellent sense, I think GMs are expected to use discretion and judgement in cases like this. The same way they would figure how who was where on the map.

Even if the other locations also take damage, the highlighted portion shows that the maximum amount of damage you would take is half the MD of the initial blast. Meaning, when combined, the total damage when added up wouldn't exceed half of the total damage.

Wrong, it says "the character", nothing about his gear. Characters have generally had singular damage pools, only later weirdness with monsters getting called hit locations has deviated from this.

[Alrik Vas]

Tor, there is argument for default to the main body in text. Combat section says all attacks not made as a called shot, and even failed called shots, strike main body if they would hit otherwise, by default.

You don't make called shots with missiles, so damage is directed at the main body. Makes.little sense, but there it is.

[Mechghost]

a person is getting hit multiple times (magically the fragments are homing in on every single component that makes up the larger thing, equally unrealistic as just mainbody).

As magically as a fragment homes in on every single person or non-attached object in a blast radius? Funny how the rules are realistic when applied how you like them and 'magical' when applied how you don't agree with.

Tor, I never claimed the rules were realistic, don't put words in my mouth, I said it was main body hit FOR EASE OF PLAY, never said it was realistic. I use a house rule for multiple locations being hit, not every location and not all the time. But that's a house rule, I also use random hit location charts I made because every shot always hitting the main body is unrealistic. The method of the blast from an AoE hitting the Main Body is to simplify the GM's job of tracking damage - imagine you have a mixed group of Deadboys, dogboys, a couple different PAs etc and a LRM Frag hits them, if you have say 23 targets getting splashed with damage and have different armors etc The work adds up and eats into play time, and some GMs may feel it takes away from the fun of playing. I only use my charts in real life gaming because its faster than playing in chat.

And to argue common sense in regards of line of impact and if the blast would have been blocked, if you're arguing it "Everything" RAW then common sense doesn't play a part in it, the sphere of the AoE is complete and hits everything, unless you're saying to use GM's judgement and implement a house rule.

PS I've seen a forested area hit by HE shells and somehow there were some trees still standing (of varying sizes) not a sphere of stumps mowed off at ground level.

[Tor]

I think you can make called shots with 1 or 2 missiles, they were aimed strikes in RMB it was only a 'burst' if it was 3+.

Combat section says all attacks not made as a called shot strike main body

Nope it says all 'strikes' not attacks. Area effect is not a strike. Only the direct hit is.

You need to make a called shot to direct-hit something with AoA stuff but not proximity-hit it.

I never claimed the rules were realistic, don't put words in my mouth, I said it was main body hit FOR EASE OF PLAY, never said it was realistic.

My comments are on realism are in response to your 'magically'. You were deriding parts of a bot automatically being hit by shrapnel as 'magical' even though a fairy who could be far smaller than a robot's foot is going to be hit.

I use a house rule for multiple locations being hit, not every location and not all the time. But that's a house rule

Not having everything hit all the time is a great house rule, I would use it too, it's a natural application of cover principles.

to argue common sense in regards of line of impact and if the blast would have been blocked, if you're arguing it "Everything" RAW then common sense doesn't play a part in it

RAW says everything, yes. Common sense says we should limit stuff with impeded line-of-force.

[quote=Mechghost"]I've seen a forested area hit by HE shells and somehow there were some trees still standing (of varying sizes) not a sphere of stumps mowed off at ground level.[/quote]
Not sure how this relates unless you know our modern HE shells inflict MD.

[Alrik Vas]

Foul, splitting hairs. 10 yard penalty. First first down, Alrik.

The AE damage isn't considered by the rules to be important unless there are multiple individual targets. It's pretty easy to figure out, but since there are no explicit rules to cover this, do it however you want.

Also, how do you explain how mega-damage explosions hit any and all in the radius like a sphere? Doesn't make much sense. Artillery, for instance, can flatten a lot of materiel, but it can also surprisingly leave a lot of foliage intact.

[Mechghost]

[quote=Mechghost"]I've seen a forested area hit by HE shells and somehow there were some trees still standing (of varying sizes) not a sphere of stumps mowed off at ground level.

Not sure how this relates unless you know our modern HE shells inflict MD.[/quote]

It relates in respect to the fact that frag patterns are not going to hit everything, regardless of the materiel the fragments are made of. There are only so many fragments (or whatever) to go around, I would put a 50/50% chance of getting hit in an AoE (I had a buddy in Afghanistan who had a grenade go off 5ft from him and miss him but the guy standing next to him caught one, so no guarantees) , just like I let it hit -randomly- 1D4 parts of a Bot, or 1D3 parts of a PA (Unless its a Mini AP, the blast is just to small to bother with). If we're using common sense the RAW (using Main Body hits or every part) are flawed and can be played with, just like something on the other side of a wall wouldn't get hit.

[eliakon]

Altara don't have force fields. They have talismans of Armor of Ithan. This summons a suit of invisible armor. A suit that has AR 18 in AR worlds but that AR is ignored in MD worlds......

Right, so this could mean that Armor of Ithan protects you from area-effect stuff in MD worlds (being a strengthened version of the spell) but not in SDC worlds where it has a bypassable AR.

Except of course that now we are back to 'some armor has AR and some doesn't.....even though they have identical coverage'

The havoc here is making an arbitrary statement "this armor covers 99% of your body, but only has AR 18 so you die. But this one here covers about 40% but since it doesn't have an AR your fine........

What two cases of armor are we told about where we are told what pecentage of the body armor covered?

How about the HGR Tuxedo with cape that covers everything but the face but has an AR. And the Altara swimsuits that have a skimpy one piece swim suit, a helmet....but no AR...

I do see havoc in someone taking 1/2 damage regardless of wearing something with AR 18 or AR 7 though. Even if you think both should take damage, it seems like the AR 18 should take a lower % of damage than the AR 7 guy. Just not sure how to mechanic it.

Sure we could totally house rule up a completely new armor and damage system.....but I am playing the game as written not trying to write a new one....

Today I rethink this, and see it can be possible to have a bypassable AR (say the possibility of sliding a dagger under overlapping plates) which doesn't actually expose the chink in the armor to a direct line of force.

That's the rub. Something like a low-AR "I'm wearing MDC vest" NGR-clothing situation should not protect your legs or arms or head from a fragmentation missile.

But something like platemail, visor being down, where its high AR represents slamming a dagger in from the side into the armpit or something, that probably should protect from an explosion.

But they are both penalized equally here..... and it REALLY gets wonky when you have stuff like armored clothing.....

This word your using? I do not think it means what you think it means.....

Are you talking about "location"? If you want to use catch phrases to put-down my vocab, least be specific? The bigger prob I think is when is a thing a thing weirdness.

The problem with quoting people out of context is that you lose the context of the quote......
If you had copied the entire quote and what I was quoting it should be obvious. I was discussing the word 'thing' (and I offered more than just a catch phrase, but an actual discussion of it.)

Considering that for NGR cyborgs, their rail guns are listed as a hit location and are distinct objects, we do know that a hit location can be a distinct thing rather than a non-separate part. Kinda weird that a rail gun set on the ground would be damaged by an explosion but one held in the hand wouldn't be.

Yeah the rules as written are bizzare.
You can shoot that railgun with no penalty on the ground, but if its being held now its a called shot with a penalty. The rules are meant to be easy ways to play a game, not a detailed reality simulation.

maybe the rules work like the book implies

If we judge rules based on the combat example, then we should ignore what the book says about penalties to hit moving or fast-moving enemies since the combat example ignored them.

Except for the minor details that RMB didn't have those rules in play so they would not have applied at that time.....
One can not expect a rule that does not exist at the time to be applied. However we CAN assume that the rules that DID exist at the time WOULD be applied....

getting hit by the missile does NOT instantly take out the SAMAS by taking out all its sub-locations.

I think that mis-represents the example, it was three (of four, 1 shot down) missiles, and they were short-range missiles, which is the second-strongest missile the UAR-1 carries and the 2nd-strongest usable tier of missile in RMB, and since nothing in RMB even fired LRMs. Most cases of getting hit by a missile would be mini-missiles fired by a rocket launcher or the arm of a SAMAS.
And the SAMAS takes 90 points of damage.
RAW the head has 70, the Rail gun has 50, the wings 30, the jets 60.....If anything had been disabled then I think it would have been mentioned in a detailed example of combat instead of ignored.

if we go by the RAW then the example isn't messed up in the slightest.......

Except for not everything getting hit (the things other than the main body, including the hand-held rail gun) which violates the rule about everything getting hit. Or the example ignoring moving-enemy strike penalties.

Page number of the speed rule in the RMB?
And that is my point. The RAW doesn't say that everything gets hit does it. It says that all damage goes to the main body. If we follow the ACTUAL WRITTEN RULE then the damage works. Its only when we try to interpret the rules to say things different than what is written that the example breaks down. The SAMAS gets damaged yes. And if there was anything else in the blast radius it too would take 45damage to its main body. But RAW the wings, are not destroyed......

[say652]

Foul, splitting hairs. 10 yard penalty. First first down, Alrik.

The AE damage isn't considered by the rules to be important unless there are multiple individual targets. It's pretty easy to figure out, but since there are no explicit rules to cover this, do it however you want.

Also, how do you explain how mega-damage explosions hit any and all in the radius like a sphere? Doesn't make much sense. Artillery, for instance, can flatten a lot of materiel, but it can also surprisingly leave a lot of foliage intact.

Foilage is +6 roll with impact vs area effect

[Blue_Lion]

Altara don't have force fields. They have talismans of Armor of Ithan. This summons a suit of invisible armor. A suit that has AR 18 in AR worlds but that AR is ignored in MD worlds......

Right, so this could mean that Armor of Ithan protects you from area-effect stuff in MD worlds (being a strengthened version of the spell) but not in SDC worlds where it has a bypassable AR.

Except of course that now we are back to 'some armor has AR and some doesn't.....even though they have identical coverage'

The havoc here is making an arbitrary statement "this armor covers 99% of your body, but only has AR 18 so you die. But this one here covers about 40% but since it doesn't have an AR your fine........

What two cases of armor are we told about where we are told what pecentage of the body armor covered?

How about the HGR Tuxedo with cape that covers everything but the face but has an AR. And the Altara swimsuits that have a skimpy one piece swim suit, a helmet....but no AR...

I do see havoc in someone taking 1/2 damage regardless of wearing something with AR 18 or AR 7 though. Even if you think both should take damage, it seems like the AR 18 should take a lower % of damage than the AR 7 guy. Just not sure how to mechanic it.

Sure we could totally house rule up a completely new armor and damage system.....but I am playing the game as written not trying to write a new one....

Today I rethink this, and see it can be possible to have a bypassable AR (say the possibility of sliding a dagger under overlapping plates) which doesn't actually expose the chink in the armor to a direct line of force.

That's the rub. Something like a low-AR "I'm wearing MDC vest" NGR-clothing situation should not protect your legs or arms or head from a fragmentation missile.

But something like platemail, visor being down, where its high AR represents slamming a dagger in from the side into the armpit or something, that probably should protect from an explosion.

But they are both penalized equally here..... and it REALLY gets wonky when you have stuff like armored clothing.....

This word your using? I do not think it means what you think it means.....

Are you talking about "location"? If you want to use catch phrases to put-down my vocab, least be specific? The bigger prob I think is when is a thing a thing weirdness.

The problem with quoting people out of context is that you lose the context of the quote......
If you had copied the entire quote and what I was quoting it should be obvious. I was discussing the word 'thing' (and I offered more than just a catch phrase, but an actual discussion of it.)

Considering that for NGR cyborgs, their rail guns are listed as a hit location and are distinct objects, we do know that a hit location can be a distinct thing rather than a non-separate part. Kinda weird that a rail gun set on the ground would be damaged by an explosion but one held in the hand wouldn't be.

Yeah the rules as written are bizzare.
You can shoot that railgun with no penalty on the ground, but if its being held now its a called shot with a penalty. The rules are meant to be easy ways to play a game, not a detailed reality simulation.

maybe the rules work like the book implies

If we judge rules based on the combat example, then we should ignore what the book says about penalties to hit moving or fast-moving enemies since the combat example ignored them.

Except for the minor details that RMB didn't have those rules in play so they would not have applied at that time.....
One can not expect a rule that does not exist at the time to be applied. However we CAN assume that the rules that DID exist at the time WOULD be applied....

getting hit by the missile does NOT instantly take out the SAMAS by taking out all its sub-locations.

I think that mis-represents the example, it was three (of four, 1 shot down) missiles, and they were short-range missiles, which is the second-strongest missile the UAR-1 carries and the 2nd-strongest usable tier of missile in RMB, and since nothing in RMB even fired LRMs. Most cases of getting hit by a missile would be mini-missiles fired by a rocket launcher or the arm of a SAMAS.
And the SAMAS takes 90 points of damage.
RAW the head has 70, the Rail gun has 50, the wings 30, the jets 60.....If anything had been disabled then I think it would have been mentioned in a detailed example of combat instead of ignored.

if we go by the RAW then the example isn't messed up in the slightest.......

Except for not everything getting hit (the things other than the main body, including the hand-held rail gun) which violates the rule about everything getting hit. Or the example ignoring moving-enemy strike penalties.

Page number of the speed rule in the RMB?
And that is my point. The RAW doesn't say that everything gets hit does it. It says that all damage goes to the main body. If we follow the ACTUAL WRITTEN RULE then the damage works. Its only when we try to interpret the rules to say things different than what is written that the example breaks down. The SAMAS gets damaged yes. And if there was anything else in the blast radius it too would take 45damage to its main body. But RAW the wings, are not destroyed......

His whole stance is based on one line of text, and claiming other things are wrong or ignoring them.
If every thing in the blast radius was intended to take half damage that would include the person inside the armor taking 45 MD. So we can already prove that it is not literally every thing just with that. Unless no one survives MD explosions in body armor.

If it means literally every thing the guy in armor dies to a AOE half MD then the rules are broken.
If a guy in armor does not die to AOE half damage then we know it is not literally every thing and the combat examples approach is the most correct way to do it by RAW.

[Killer Cyborg]

RUE 362
Getting caught in a blast radius does half damage. Your companion standing 10' away is hit by a high explosive missile with a 30' blast radius. He takes full damage from a direct hit, but your character is also caught in the blast radius. Fortunately, distance buys your character some luck and he takes half the MD since he was not caught directly in the blast.

No mention of "every damage pool that your character has" or "every part of your character's armor" or anything else like that.
Just "he takes half damage."
NO mention of the primary target's other body parts taking any damage other than his main body.

Wasn't this passage just a reprint from RMB when body armor only had 1 damage pool? Separate damage locations only came up for PA/bots back then, which would be non-standard examples since they are rare.

It's from RMB 41, in the "Combat Rules for High-Tech War Machines" section, which starts on p. 38 with the following description:
The following are the rules that are used when playing characters who operate power armor or robot vehicles.

So the context of that quote is specifically for people who are in power armor or robot vehicles, all of which have hit locations in the RMB.

Even on p. 363, where it says "everyone and everything," it then goes on to elaborate:
Note that the concussive force of an explosive blast may not damage or seriously hurt grass, tiny items and other flexible or resilient SDC materials. However, people, animals, buildings, etc., all suffer the blast radius damage.

Again, there is ZERO mention of body parts or anything else taking damage.
What takes damage is the specific target: A person, a building, an animal.
NOT "each part of each person, each part of each building, and each part of each animal."

Nor does it specify that only a specific part (main body) would take damage.

The default needs no specification. That's what makes it the default.

Traditionally most things only had 1 damage pool representing everything

Untrue.
Even if a person is in RMB EBA which only has one damage pool, that person also as a rule has equipment. Unless you're positing a scenario where a missile striking a person's main body does 1/2 damage to each of their arms, 1/2 damage to each of their legs, 1/2 damage to their helmet, but ZERO damage to the gun in their hand, the knife strapped to their leg, or any of the other gear that they're carrying, then it's safe to assume that everybody has more than one damage pool that would be affected by an explosion IF explosions actually did hit anything other than the main body.

Moreover, in the sample combat on RMB 43, there is this passage describing what happens when a SAMAS is struck by three short-range missiles:
The damage is 3d4x10 (three fragmentation missiles) inflicting a total of 90 mega-damage points on the SAMAS (that hurts).

I already brought this up pre-emptively =/ Pointed out how this already ignores a rule in one place, so it ignoring mechanics in another doesn't say anything.

a) Which rule is ignored?
b) Making one mistake doesn't mean that other mistakes should be assumed. If it did, then very little of the game would be safe.

IF the blast radius inflicted half damage to every hit location on a target, then that SAMAS would not only take the 90 to his main body, he would take 45 MD to each other hit location, which would destroy his:
-2 shoulder wings
-lower maneuvering jets
-ammo drum

And yet none of that stuff is mentioned, and that SAMAS is still depicted as being able to engage in combat, firing his ammo-drumless gun at the Enforcer on his next attack.

The ammo drum and wings and jets are in the back, so it would make sense for the GM to rule they do not take damage, since the SAMAS was facing the Enforcer at the time.

Yet in this sample combat that exists to demonstrate the rules, there is absolutely no mention of any of that stuff.

The destruction of the ammo drum would not immediately deprive the rail gun of ammo.

Source?

The belt feed leading from the drum to the gun would have some rounds. There may have been just enough left for 1 final burst, which is all he fires.

With absolutely no mention that the SAMAS is now out of ammunition.

But still: a GM using common sense, the main body is going to shield the rear drum from an explosion at the front the same way that a guy standing behind a wall will be shielded from an explosion.

What happened to "everybody and everything in the blast radius"....?
Your argument hinges on taking that literally, and now you're abandoning the literal interpretation?

[Tor]

It relates in respect to the fact that frag patterns are not going to hit everything, regardless of the materiel the fragments are made of. There are only so many fragments (or whatever) to go around, I would put a 50/50% chance of getting hit in an AoE

I agree with your viewpoints on this, we just don't have mechanics in the rules to reflect there being a limited amount of shrapnel. Everything just gets hit.

If numerical limitations prevented a pair of 5-foot long robot feet from getting damaged by a frag missile then they should also prevent a pair of 4 foot gnomes from both being hit. Yet both gnomes, and both feet, are hit, everything is. GMs can house rule some things not getting hit, but that's up to them to interpret, a deviation from standard.

now we are back to 'some armor has AR and some doesn't.....even though they have identical coverage'

AoI in Rifts may have more coverage than it does in SDC worlds.

the Altara swimsuits that have a skimpy one piece swim suit, a helmet....but no AR...

How do we know that what seems like a skimpy uncovered part in the artwork isn't actually a transparent MDC covering? Or that it's not enchanted magically somehow to protect those areas it doesn't cover, like Millenium Leaf armor may do?

I agree that artwork suggests that Altara clothing should have less AR than most NGR MDC clothing does, but sadly RAW, the Altara armor beats the NGR stuff, even though it's skimpier, so we gotta work with it or alter it.

Sure we could totally house rule up a completely new armor and damage system.....but I am playing the game as written not trying to write a new one....

In that case, you'll just have to accept that the parts not covered by your MDC-with-AR inferior stuff are going to get damaged by the explosion, regardless of whether it's a hand or an arm or a torso that's exposed.

If you had copied the entire quote and what I was quoting it should be obvious. I was discussing the word 'thing'

I read everything even though I do not copy it all. In this case, I believe I overlooked thing because it was not done in quotation marks to separate it, and because word>term between the two sentences.

Moving forward I do agree that "thing" is imprecise and very inclusive, which is why I include everything and leave it to GMs to judge exceptions.

I offered more than just a catch phrase

True, but it was made a distracting focus. Looking back I do realize what you were talking about though. Just didn't jump out on the first pass.

RMB didn't have those rules in play so they would not have applied at that time.....
One can not expect a rule that does not exist at the time to be applied.
Page number of the speed rule in the RMB?

Actually they DID, they were just weirdly hidden on page 243. You could take the stance that their placement implies only revolvers suffer penalties hitting moving targets and that everything else (automatic pistols, sub-machineguns,. rifles, shotguns, heavy weapons, energy weapons, etc) doesn't suffer them.

I personally saw it as a matter of misplacing the header (it belonged after 'strike bonus' and before ".22 or .25 Revolver") and that effective range penalties, moving target penalties, and strike bonus restrictions, were about all modern weapons. In the case of effective range, maybe for ranged weapons too. In the case of moving targets, possibly to everyone.

Interestingly, the rules on page 243 of RMB rule out using your PP strike bonus with modern weapons, while the rules on page 33 did not (only combat skill / hand to hand are forbidden)

the SAMAS takes 90 points of damage. RAW the head has 70, the Rail gun has 50, the wings 30, the jets 60.....If anything had been disabled then I think it would have been mentioned in a detailed example of combat instead of ignored.

There would be no point in mentioning it if it did not affect the combat.

The SAMAS was not in flight, it was standing around like a goof, so the destruction of its wings/jets did not matter. Kev probably assumed we were reasonably enough to figure out that the ammo drum wasn't in the direct line of the explosion and that it wasn't damaged, or maybe it was damaged but the belt was intact and had enough rounds for one last burst, which is all we saw from that SAMAS.

The RAW doesn't say that everything gets hit does it. It says that all damage goes to the main body.

RUEp363 clearly says "everything else in the blast radius", not 'every other main body in the blast radius'.

RUEp362's bit about the main body is under 'gun terms' and is discussing how to shoot things other than the main body with called shots, it isn't discussing radius damage.

It's basically a corrupted carryover from RMBp41 which said "any shot which is not called will strike what is identified as the main body"

An explosion is not a shot. The missile itself can be considered one, but not the explosion. Explosions are not limited in what they hit like shots over. Explosions just do called shots on everything.

RAW the wings, are not destroyed......

Excepting wings from damage is a violation of 'everything else in the blast radius'. Wings are things in the blast radius, just like the main body. GMs can make exceptions where reasonable.

If I was going to say anything at all was protected, it would be the heads of a lot of PA, which have statements like "it can only be hit when a character makes a called shot". I could see that as overriding the rule of an explosion hitting everything. The SAMAS gets that due to being 'shielded by exhaust tubes and weapon drum'. Although oddly the exhaust tubes don't have MDC assigned, so they must be considered part of the main body?

His whole stance is based on one line of text, and claiming other things are wrong or ignoring them.

The line of text explaining how radius damage works, yes. My stance is based on Kevin telling us that everything is damaged. I believe to ignore that, we must be told otherwise, and I do not believe statements about called shots with guns and main bodies are applicable here. Those rules were not for explosions, they were for non-radius attacks.

If every thing in the blast radius was intended to take half damage that would include the person inside the armor taking 45 MD. So we can already prove that it is not literally every thing just with that. Unless no one survives MD explosions in body armor.

I agree, but in this case our example of a person surviving a MD radius attack is someone dressed in environmental power armor. So the standard is "completely surrounded", something that parts of a SAMAS do not enjoy in the same way as the pilot.

the combat examples approach is the most correct way to do it by RAW.

The combat example does not cover all the bases, it actually skims over a lot of details. That the wings and jets could've been destroyed is another.

I mean heck, these were black market SAMAS, for all we know they had Invulnerability or high-level Armor of Ithan TW upgrades installed

The default needs no specification. That's what makes it the default.

The main body being the default target of single-target attacks (like a gunshot) does not make it the sole thing damaged in area-effect attacks. Explosions aren't shots.

Even if a person is in RMB EBA which only has one damage pool, that person also as a rule has equipment. Unless you're positing a scenario where a missile striking a person's main body does 1/2 damage to each of their arms, 1/2 damage to each of their legs, 1/2 damage to their helmet, but ZERO damage to the gun in their hand, the knife strapped to their leg, or any of the other gear that they're carrying, then it's safe to assume that everybody has more than one damage pool that would be affected by an explosion IF explosions actually did hit anything other than the main body.

The gun and knife and other gear would also take damage, I don't see any rules about your gear being immune to explosions. That's up to GMs to hand-wave if they want to spare characters some suffering.

a) Which rule is ignored?

The strike penalty to hit a moving target, in this cast the higher penalty to hit a fast-moving one. When a pair of medium missiles are fired at the speeding hover jet, we're told it's 11+3 making 14 and that the 12 to dodge is a fail. No penalties are described being applied.

This happens again at the end when the UAR-1 enforcer tries to swat the SAMAS flying past his head. It was a moving arget yet the '18 to strike with bonuses' is not described as being subject to penalties.

b) Making one mistake doesn't mean that other mistakes should be assumed. If it did, then very little of the game would be safe.

The interesting thing is: there's actually no evidence of there being a mistake in the case of not announcing the destruction of the SAMAS' hoverjets and wings.

For example in "Combat continues. Fourth Attack." we are just told "rolls 1d20 to strike, hits, and rolls damage as usual". It glosses over how much damage and what the SAMAS aimed at.

Also, fun notation: on Fifth attack, both SAMAS are described as being out of attacks, yet one was able to attempt a dodge. This may mean the bandit piloting the SAMAS was a juicer (evidence that you can maintain your auto-dodge OCC ability in power armor) or perhaps what inspired the later "you can dodge when out of attacks" rule in the GMG/Rifter/RUE, even though CB1 explicitly said you can't do it.

this sample combat that exists to demonstrate the rules, there is absolutely no mention of any of that stuff.

Not every rule. GMs are expected to make some stuff up. Like how many attacks it took the SAMAS to complete suiting up as he got shot at, or that he could still somehow roll a dodge even though he was only "half dressed" in power armor.

Come to think of it... if you can go from half to fully dressed in 1 or 2 melee attacks, that conflicts with the rules we later got in NGR for it taking several melee rounds to don body or power armor.

Anyway, in the case of coverage, GMs are just supposed to visualize that stuff and make judgement calls on stuff like cover. Like 'does this wall I'm hiding behind protect me from the explosion' or 'does the chest of the SAMAS protect the drum from the explosion'.

Parts of a PA not in use (like the jets/wings on a non-flying SAMAS) getting destroyed are not noteworthy occurances if you plan to halt the example before the person attempts flight.

The destruction of the ammo drum would not immediately deprive the rail gun of ammo.

Source?

There is a belt leading from the drum to the gun, the belt contains rounds. As for how many rounds: that's something we could argue about. I just manually counted what I could see in the pic and approximated you could probably manage 1 final burst. RMBp226 mentions a belt having 400 rounds (10 bursts) in machine-gun version, so I think I'm being pretty conservative going by the bulky-looking picture.

With absolutely no mention that the SAMAS is now out of ammunition.

Why would that matter? The example ended at the final of the first melee when they were out of attacks.

For all I know, the 4 short-range missiles fired by the UAR-1 could've been his last 4 instead of his first 4. We don't have to be filled in on a detail unless it's going to come into play later.

What happened to "everybody and everything in the blast radius"....?
Your argument hinges on taking that literally, and now you're abandoning the literal interpretation?

GMs are already encouraged to abandon literal interpretations with stuff like grass and small items surviving explosions.

I have no problem with house-ruling, particularly when it's made for common-sense reasons.

Excepting stuff in a direct line of force from a missile boom from damage doesn't make sense to me. Excepting stuff behind other stuff seems fine. Cutting damage to much smaller amounts for much smaller targets also seems fine.

More shrapnel is probably going to hit a UAR-1 than a SAMAS, based on their profiles, so the UAR-1 should take more damage. The rules don't reflect this probability so there's zero problem with the GM house-ruling a SAMAS takes less or a UAR-1 takes more.

RAW is certainly 'everything', even to the point of absurdity, but GMs are also encouraged to make personal rulings to combat absurdity.

[Blue_Lion]

So let me get this straight you say that the rule is every thing in the blast radius takes damage. You then say a person in armor in a blast radius does not take damage because he is surrounded by armor.

Does the rule say every thing in the blast radius not protected or every thing in the blast radius takes damage?

You are saying we have to have every thing take damage because the rule says so but are giving acceptation to certain things that are not stated in the rules. Seams like you are saying to do something accept when you think we should not.

Given that
1. the combat example does not apply damage like you say it is (as has been pointed out)
2. that you admit in this that the guy in armor does not take half MD even though you say that every thing in the blast radius does.

that leaves us with two choices.
A you are wrong that every thing in the blast radius takes damage.
B you are wrong and the man in the armor takes damage. (as nothing in the stated AOErules applies immunity for being inside armor.)

giving the general scope of the game I would favor A over B. (unless you can provide a rule that says the guy in armor is immune to the aoe even though he is the blast radius those are the only two choices.)

[Tor]

you say that the rule is every thing in the blast radius takes damage.
You then say a person in armor in a blast radius does not take damage because he is surrounded by armor.

Correct. First is RAW, second is a common-sense GM exception by applying 'cover' judgments. GMs pretty much always have to wing it when it comes to judging cover.

Does the rule say every thing in the blast radius not protected or every thing in the blast radius takes damage?

The statement does not except protected things from damage, I think we're supposed to understand that this happens.

You are saying we have to have every thing take damage because the rule says so

Not really, if a GM wants to house-rule that body parts are immune to blast radius damage, they're free to do that, it just doesn't make sense to me. Deviating from the RAW to prevent SOME body parts from damage does make sense (like an ammo drum not being hit by an explosion hitting the chest of a SAMAS) but deviating raw to prevent other body parts from damage (like the legs or arms or gun) don't make sense to me.

giving acceptation to certain things that are not stated in the rules.
Seams like you are saying to do something accept when you think we should not.

I think GMs and players should puzzle out when it makes sense to ignore the rule about everything taking damage, like when something is shielded by something else. I can see the front of a main body shielding an ammo pack hidden directly behind it the same way I can see a wall shielding a person behind it. Even more people can see how environmental body armor should do this so long as it's not breached. I can even see how some kinds of non-environmental body armor could protect someone (moreso the ones with indirect ventilation).

the combat example does not apply damage like you say it is (as has been pointed out)

It also doesn't apply appropriate strike penalties and skips over other details like strike/damage rolls in the last attacks.

you admit in this that the guy in armor does not take half MD even though you say that every thing in the blast radius does.

Making a logical exception to exclude someone completely covered in armor is not the same as making an exception to exclude a body part which is not covered by protection.

A you are wrong that every thing in the blast radius takes damage.
I would favor A over B.

How can I be wrong when this is what the book says?

RUEp363 "everyone and everything in the blast radius suffers half damage"

It probably says somewhere else about armor protecting people from damage, which we could view as an override for that statement.

However I don't know of any override about something protecting specific locations on PA or bots from damage.

Explosions are not shots, so the called shot rules doesn't apply, since it is about making direct hits.

[Mechghost]

If the AoE hits every single part of a 'Bot, does it get to Roll with Impact for every single part? Or is it take take multiple hits with only 1 chance to reduce the damage from lets say, 4 hits? 8 hits? 14 hits? How does that work for very small parts (the ones with penalties to hit on called shots) are they less likely to be hit or does a piece of shrapnel find them unerringly? Does every brick in a wall get hit? Or does just 1 piece of shrapnel hit the wall?

[Alrik Vas]

Think 1 roll would cover the whole explosion if you're taking it that far.

[SpiritInterface]

If the AoE hits every single part of a 'Bot, does it get to Roll with Impact for every single part? Or is it take take multiple hits with only 1 chance to reduce the damage from lets say, 4 hits? 8 hits? 14 hits? How does that work for very small parts (the ones with penalties to hit on called shots) are they less likely to be hit or does a piece of shrapnel find them unerringly? Does every brick in a wall get hit? Or does just 1 piece of shrapnel hit the wall?

Well since you only make one roll to hit multiple opponents, I would say that only one roll was needed to cover the entire Mech.

[Killer Cyborg]

The default needs no specification. That's what makes it the default.

The main body being the default target of single-target attacks (like a gunshot) does not make it the sole thing damaged in area-effect attacks.

Untrue. There is no differentiation between the two in that way in the game, therefore the default remains the default.
Explosions are not a stated exception to the rule, therefore the rule remains.

Even if a person is in RMB EBA which only has one damage pool, that person also as a rule has equipment. Unless you're positing a scenario where a missile striking a person's main body does 1/2 damage to each of their arms, 1/2 damage to each of their legs, 1/2 damage to their helmet, but ZERO damage to the gun in their hand, the knife strapped to their leg, or any of the other gear that they're carrying, then it's safe to assume that everybody has more than one damage pool that would be affected by an explosion IF explosions actually did hit anything other than the main body.

The gun and knife and other gear would also take damage, I don't see any rules about your gear being immune to explosions.

And yet it's something that is never addressed or demonstrated in any combat descriptions, specific rules, or sample combats.

a) Which rule is ignored?

The strike penalty to hit a moving target, in this cast the higher penalty to hit a fast-moving one. When a pair of medium missiles are fired at the speeding hover jet, we're told it's 11+3 making 14 and that the 12 to dodge is a fail. No penalties are described being applied.

Care to refresh my memory on where that rule is located?

b) Making one mistake doesn't mean that other mistakes should be assumed. If it did, then very little of the game would be safe.

The interesting thing is: there's actually no evidence of there being a mistake in the case of not announcing the destruction of the SAMAS' hoverjets and wings.

The purpose of a sample combat is to show how the combat system works. IF the combat system was supposed to work in such a way that body parts other than the main body were damaged by explosions, then sample combats would need to reflect that as part of the damage calculation. The damage to each body part would need to be tallied right along with the main body damage, because the sample combat is specifically "how it all works in an actually combat."
NOT showing the other damages goes directly against the purpose of demonstrating "how it all works."
In this case, the explosion is shown to only damage one body part. That's how it works.

this sample combat that exists to demonstrate the rules, there is absolutely no mention of any of that stuff.

Not every rule.

Every rule that applies to the scenario in question, yes. Especially basic stuff like applying damage to armor.

The destruction of the ammo drum would not immediately deprive the rail gun of ammo.

Source?

There is a belt leading from the drum to the gun, the belt contains rounds. As for how many rounds: that's something we could argue about. I just manually counted what I could see in the pic and approximated you could probably manage 1 final burst. RMBp226 mentions a belt having 400 rounds (10 bursts) in machine-gun version, so I think I'm being pretty conservative going by the bulky-looking picture.[/quote]

Guesswork noted.
Going with your guesswork, though, there is still no note of "the ammo drum was destroyed, leaving the SAMAS with enough ammo for only one more burst," which would fall under the banner of "how it all works," if it did in fact work that way.

What happened to "everybody and everything in the blast radius"....?
Your argument hinges on taking that literally, and now you're abandoning the literal interpretation?

GMs are already encouraged to abandon literal interpretations with stuff like grass and small items surviving explosions.

I have no problem with house-ruling, particularly when it's made for common-sense reasons.

We're not talking about house-rules.

[Killer Cyborg]

How can I be wrong when this is what the book says?

RUEp363 "everyone and everything in the blast radius suffers half damage"

You could be wrong because the passage you quote has a number of possible meanings.
It could mean quite literally everything takes 1/2 damage, but you've already agreed that interpretation doesn't make sense.
It could mean "every person and ever non-living target such as vehicles or walls" take damage to their main body.
It could mean "every listed hit location on every target," which is your interpretation, but that conflicts with what we see in sample combats, as well as with other rules in the game.

You're picking an interpretation that doesn't make sense given what we know of the rest of the game, instead of picking an interpretation that does make sense given what we know of the rest of the game.
THAT is how you could be wrong.

Explosions are not shots, so the called shot rules doesn't apply, since it is about making direct hits

Nonetheless, we have demonstrations in the rule book that treats them the same way.
-If you're caught in a blast radius, you make a dodge against the attack roll that launched the missile, not against a new attack roll for the blast radius. They're considered the same attack.
-The example of blast radius damage on RMB 41 describes the person getting hit by a HE missile as taking "full damage," and the person standing too close to him "takes half damage." Which shows us that only the main body takes damage from explosions, because otherwise the person getting struck by the missile would take "full damage to his Main Body, and half damage to his other hit locations."
-The SAMAS/UAR-1 battle we're already discussing above.

[Mechghost]

How can I be wrong when this is what the book says?

RUEp363 "everyone and everything in the blast radius suffers half damage"

You could be wrong because the passage you quote has a number of possible meanings.
It could mean quite literally everything takes 1/2 damage, but you've already agreed that interpretation doesn't make sense.
It could mean "every person and ever non-living target such as vehicles or walls" take damage to their main body.
It could mean "every listed hit location on every target," which is your interpretation, but that conflicts with what we see in sample combats, as well as with other rules in the game.

You're picking an interpretation that doesn't make sense given what we know of the rest of the game, instead of picking an interpretation that does make sense given what we know of the rest of the game.
THAT is how you could be wrong.

Explosions are not shots, so the called shot rules doesn't apply, since it is about making direct hits

Nonetheless, we have demonstrations in the rule book that treats them the same way.
-If you're caught in a blast radius, you make a dodge against the attack roll that launched the missile, not against a new attack roll for the blast radius. They're considered the same attack.
-The example of blast radius damage on RMB 41 describes the person getting hit by a HE missile as taking "full damage," and the person standing too close to him "takes half damage." Which shows us that only the main body takes damage from explosions, because otherwise the person getting struck by the missile would take "full damage to his Main Body, and half damage to his other hit locations."
-The SAMAS/UAR-1 battle we're already discussing above.

Personally I'll take your second interpretation

[Tor]

The default needs no specification. That's what makes it the default.

The main body being the default target of single-target attacks (like a gunshot) does not make it the sole thing damaged in area-effect attacks.

Untrue. There is no differentiation between the two in that way in the game, therefore the default remains the default.
Explosions are not a stated exception to the rule, therefore the rule remains.

Are you basing this on something other than the 'Gun Terms' discussion of main body on RUEp262? The whole bit derived from the "any shot which is not called" rule on RMBp41 ?

If it's the 'Damage to Weapons: Weapons only take damage when an attacker is deliberately trying to damage or destroy it' then I would point out that this would technically mean that if you accidentally drop your gun in a volcano, the lava cannot damage it, because lava is not an attacker with deliberation. You have to understand the context of the entry, it is talking about gunshots, single-target things. Not explosions, not lava, not anything else.

Same thing with called shots and main bodies. A nuclear explosion doesn't have to make a called shot any more than lava does, it just hits everything in a space, damages everything. GMs should make logical exceptions but some exceptions are more logical than others.

Guns by default are not area effect attacks, this restriction about the main body is talking about single-target weaponry. You can't just declare a strike on non-main things, you must make it a called shot. But that only pertains to the direct-hit targets of area effect attacks.

You do not make strike rolls against things other than your main target. They automatically get hit unless their dodge/leap/teleport (or whatev) manages to take them outside the blast radius, or if they are covered by armor or force fields or something.

"To strike something other than" is only restricting strikes.

Per RUEp363 the Direct Hit is the 'actual target struck' and the Radius Damage is different than the full amount taken by "the target it strikes".

If we look back to the right column of RUEp362, it's noted that the multiplier for critical hits for AP missiles is not applied to things in the blast radius.

The gun and knife and other gear would also take damage, I don't see any rules about your gear being immune to explosions.

And yet it's something that is never addressed or demonstrated in any combat descriptions, specific rules, or sample combats.

"Everything" addresses it. If we have to give explicit examples of what 'every' covers, that's going to fill up a hundred pages. Combat examples skim on details to keep it streamlined and simple.

a) Which rule is ignored?

The strike penalty to hit a moving target, in this cast the higher penalty to hit a fast-moving one. When a pair of medium missiles are fired at the speeding hover jet, we're told it's 11+3 making 14 and that the 12 to dodge is a fail. No penalties are described being applied.

Care to refresh my memory on where that rule is located?

Did above, but to repeat, RMBp243. Even though the 'Revolvers' heading was misplaced above it, it is discussing general rules for modern weapons. These were altered in RUEp361 where they became gradually larger as speed increased (-1 if moving, -1 if evasively, -1 per 50mph over 20mph) instead of a -3/-6 moving/40+ two-tier system. This initially makes the penalty to hit moving targets lower, but once you get to 350mph it becomes higher.

The same thing happened with shooting beyond effective range. It changed from a cumulative -4 to strike per 25feet beyond max range to a -5 to strike for up to 30% extra range.

The purpose of a sample combat is to show how the combat system works. IF the combat system was supposed to work in such a way that body parts other than the main body were damaged by explosions, then sample combats would need to reflect that as part of the damage calculation.

It wouldn't have to, no. Examples do not include all details. The author skims over what he doesn't think is necessary to mention. This happens with some of the damage rolls both in RMB's and RCB's examples.

The damage to each body part would need to be tallied right along with the main body damage, because the sample combat is specifically "how it all works in an actually combat."

In actual combat you don't declare "damage as usual" without noting the damage, yet this is exactly what happens at the end of the example, so it is not an all-inclusive example.

Furthermore: the example doesn't mention that nobody is within 20feet of the SAMAS when it is hit to be excepted from the blast radius, that is something that a GM would also consider.

NOT showing the other damages goes directly against the purpose of demonstrating "how it all works."

In this case, the explosion is shown to only damage one body part. That's how it works.

Actually it doesn't mention only a specific part, it mentions damage being inflicted on the SAMAS. It doesn't even specify the main body. That could mean we're supposed to assume 1/2 to the other locations, or maybe it means the main took 30 and the gun, left arm and both legs each took 15. GM could've excepted the rest of the stuff based on shielding.

Every rule that applies to the scenario in question, yes. Especially basic stuff like applying damage to armor.

Nope, it ommitted a strike penalty and it omitted actual strike and damage rolls.

there is still no note of "the ammo drum was destroyed, leaving the SAMAS with enough ammo for only one more burst," which would fall under the banner of "how it all works," if it did in fact work that way.

The amount of ammunition remaining is not noted when the Enforcer fires volleys of missiles or when the SAMAS fires bursts, so why would it be noted if the ammo drum is destroyed?

This is kind of pointless though, the ammo drum hides behind a SAMAS like a person hides behind a wall. I can't see the drum from the front in the illustration, so I believe Kev expected us to understand a GM would not let it be damaged from a frontal area-effect attack. Thus the 'rear' notation under the PA. If the SAMAS were shot from the back, or maybe the sides/top, that'd be a different story.

We're not talking about house-rules.

In that case, everything in a blast radius takes damage, even the poor shmuck behind a wall, even if the wall is actually larger than the blast radius. Apparently the damage can just pass through an indestructible wall to hit someone on the other side. No matter how big the wall or how small the explosion. At least that's how it was going RAW in RMB.

I am talking about house rules though, because I think we're expected to understand that GMs rule on exceptions to it. This is why walls and armor can protect people if they cover enough.

Specific statements under certain things may provide exceptions to this. The main-body/called-shot stuff doesn't.

"everyone and everything in the blast radius suffers half damage"

You could be wrong because the passage you quote has a number of possible meanings.
It could mean quite literally everything takes 1/2 damage, but you've already agreed that interpretation doesn't make sense.

Yes, it could mean what it says. If author didn't mean 'every' they could have wrote 'most'.

RAW not making sense would mean that if something else says something different then we can favor that other thing as a rules-override.

Force fields protecting things from explosions being a good example. A leg not being the main body not being a good example.

Think about this: I am an Archon piloting a Ghost Wasp hovering 400 miles directly above a Spider-Skull walker and I fire a long-range heavy fragmentatation missile down and hit the top of the robot's head with it. The 80-foot blast radius (a 160 foot blast diameter) is bigger than the 15-foot wide skull. The legs are 20 feet wide so thats 2.5 feet on either side they're exposed.

Logically they should be hit. By the rules they are hit, since everything is hit.

If you make an exception for them: are you going to make an exception if a CS grunt in Dead Boy armor is standing underneath the legs?

If so, why?

He is not part of the Spider-Skull Walker so your called-shot / main body considerations do not protect him.

Yet he can stand more directly underneath the skull of the Spider-Walker than the legs can, so he should be more protected than they are.

So why would the legs be more protected than he is? Look how huge they are! Look at the shadow they cast on the ground compared to the shadow the grunt casts in the picture on RMBp197.

GMs are expected to make judgement calls like this. It would make sense for a GM to except the laser turret under the chin of the Spider-Walker from this frag damage, but it would not make sense to except the one on top of the skull's rear.

RMBp199. Look at the size of the top rear rail gun turret. Even though it's behind the grunt, it's at least as big as he is. If I Wasp-Fragged the top of the Mark V APC it wouldn't make sense to inflict half damage to that grunt standing outside the door and no damage to the rail gun.

It could mean "every person and ever non-living target such as vehicles or walls" take damage to their main body.

If it only meant main bodies it would've said that.

It could mean "every listed hit location on every target," which is your interpretation, but that conflicts with what we see in sample combats, as well as with other rules in the game.

Omission is not conflict. Like with attacks per melee, we don't need to be told every possible source of an attack bonus when being told where they could come from. Things do not need to be included in general introductions to count if they are included elsewhere.

You're picking an interpretation that doesn't make sense given what we know of the rest of the game

What rest of the game? The combat example doesn't say anything about other parts of the SAMAS and their NOT being damaged, it just ignores irrelevant details. Unless you're trying to fly, damaged flying bits don't matter. Unless you run out of missiles, how many missiles you have left doesn't matter. Unless you're trying to fire, your being out of bullets doesn't matter (and I think the rail gun survives to being in the rear and the SAMAS getting hit in the front, GMs would think of this and except it from the radius)

I mean yeah, to players, keeping track of this stuff is important, but to a game designer giving a basic overview, it doesn't, so he doesn't mention it.

picking an interpretation that does make sense given what we know of the rest of the game.

Rest of the game sounds so plural when it seems like the only counter-argument is based on a generalized combat example.

Do you maybe know of any artwork showing a missile hitting a guy in the chest and every other bit besides the chest surviving unscathed?

Explosions are not shots, so the called shot rules doesn't apply, since it is about making direct hits

Nonetheless, we have demonstrations in the rule book that treats them the same way.

The combat example doesn't do that, it just doesn't go into every minor detail.

When the SAMAS is hit by frag missiles, he is standing on the ground. The combat example doesn't describe the ground or anything else around getting damaged. It is passed over, it doesn't cover every eventuality, only the critical ones.

If you're caught in a blast radius, you make a dodge against the attack roll that launched the missile, not against a new attack roll for the blast radius. They're considered the same attack.

Do you have a source supporting the idea that you can dodge a blast radius?

The only person I see being allowed a dodge in this situation is the person being targetted.

Everyone else, it only talks about rolling with impact.

Everyone else, they basically already dodged it by merit of not being a Direct Hit.

Since radius-victims being able to dodge is a house rule (unless someone can find data otherwise) if a GM does allow a dodge (which I think is a great house rule, if a directly-targetted juicer gets a chance to dodge-jump out of range then an indirect victim should get that chance) what the dodge opposes is up to their judgment.

Since there is nothing saying you dodge the opponent's strike roll (which makes no sense since the strike roll was not made against radius victims) the GM could instead assign a fixed number of difficulty.

This kind of situation comes up in CWCp63 for the Trap Construction skill (I think this got left out of RUE, could not find in Military/Wilderness sections) for the Punji-Stick Drop-Fall Trap, the Swinging Log, and the Rock Slide/Log Fall. It mentions being able to make a dodge at a penalty, but nothing about what strike roll you oppose. Based on the Crossbow Trap on the next page, it seems like you may just roll an unmodified D20 without any bonuses.

As for roll with impact, you would do (per RUEp362) a 14+ since a strike roll is not available. Even when a strike roll is made against the direct-hit target, that roll is not available to others because it was not made in respect to them.

The example of blast radius damage on RMB 41 describes the person getting hit by a HE missile as taking "full damage," and the person standing too close to him "takes half damage." Which shows us that only the main body takes damage from explosions, because otherwise the person getting struck by the missile would take "full damage to his Main Body, and half damage to his other hit locations."

Excepting an example is not ruling out an example. Plus body armor (which most people had, PA/bots being rare) only had a single assigned MDC for the whole thing (no other locations), so this didn't come up.

[eliakon]

You can dodge a blast radius because it is an attack, it has a strike roll and the rules under combat explicitly state that you can attempt to dodge any successful attack.

[Mechghost]

It is possible to take something to literally.

My position is the RAW statement of everything was referring to individual units (Bodies, PAs Bots etc) as an everything ,thus being hit once by default in the Main Body, and not going through hoops assigning half damage to every single part of every single component and every single item in the blast, down to the individual bullets in a player's bandoleer, and shoelaces. IMHO the game isn't to kill and cripple the party as quick as possible but to have fun.

I respect others' ideas on how literal they care to be and what they consider fun, even if I don't agree.

Enjoy your games everyone.

[Tor]

You can dodge a blast radius because it is an attack, it has a strike roll and the rules under combat explicitly state that you can attempt to dodge any successful attack.

You referring to RUEp340's step 3 of hand to hand combat?

This section is a guideline but not a rule when applying to modern weaponry. You can't for example, entangle a laser beam shot at you from 1000 feet. You can sometimes parry missiles, per the Deflection spell, though that may just be about preventing a direct hit (like a dodge) as opposed to preventing the 1/2 from being a radius victim.

Since "any time an attacker rolls a successful strike, the defender can choose to .. entangle" is not universally true, I don't see why that should be the case for other maneuvers.

The successful strike is a roll made against a particular target that a person chooses. Until I see some proof that this is the number that blast radius targets resist, I see no reason to assume that, since the roll was not made to hit them.

Applying strike penalties due to speed/invisibility to people adjacent to fast/invisible characters doesn't make sense =/

It is possible to take something to literally.

True. Which is why I don't. I believe KS intended reasonable exceptions. Guy behind wall being protected, ammo drum and rear jets behind SAMAS chest being protected, I find these reasonable.

SAMAS' gun being protected when a missile hits him in the chest? Unreasonable. Legs? Unreasonable.

Arms? Half yes. Other half maybe. The gun might protect the outstretched arm holding it if held straight (similar to block sacrifice). You could hold the other hand behind your back, but it seems at least part of the arm would be exposed unless you tried to dislocate like a kimura. That said, due to depth issues, the chest might jut out forward further than the arms and protect and arm held at the side. Also if you had the left outstretched (perhaps to try and shoot down a volley headed with your way using a mini-missile... guessing the bandit was out or didn't know to do this) then the mini-missle launcher might shield the left hand. I'm not sure since I can't recall having seen a pic of a SAMAS shooting missiles from the left arm.

Wings? Maybe, hard to tell from the front angle but if you weren't flying, they might tuck behind the arms. If outstretched for flight I can't see them being protected though.

Lower Maneuvering jets? I'm a bit unclear from the pic exactly where these were. If they were on the soles of the feet then I would say yes, if you were standing, like the one in the combat example.

My position is the RAW statement of everything was referring to individual units (Bodies, PAs Bots etc) as an everything ,thus being hit once by default in the Main Body, and not going through hoops assigning half damage to every single part of every single component and every single item in the blast, down to the individual bullets in a player's bandoleer, and shoelaces.

Doing that isn't necessary. If the GM wants to take a blatent RAW 'everything' approach you'd only have to keep track of 1 pool of half damage, and only do something once it exceeded the capacity of a part. Separate tracking would only be required if the person had already taken called shot damage to certain locations.

GMs can and should also ignore this when something is clearly protected from a direct line of force by another part. Missile to the front of the SAM not damaging rear drum/jets being a logical exclusion.

IMHO the game isn't to kill and cripple the party as quick as possible but to have fun.

In that case don't throw grenades/missiles at them. Just because something is deadly and players wouldn't like getting killed by it is no reason to nerf it, just don't encounter it.

Or, have people try to shoot down missiles instead of dodging them. You can avoid the 1/2 that way.

[eliakon]

You can dodge a blast radius because it is an attack, it has a strike roll and the rules under combat explicitly state that you can attempt to dodge any successful attack.

You referring to RUEp340's step 3 of hand to hand combat?

This section is a guideline but not a rule when applying to modern weaponry. You can't for example, entangle a laser beam shot at you from 1000 feet. You can sometimes parry missiles, per the Deflection spell, though that may just be about preventing a direct hit (like a dodge) as opposed to preventing the 1/2 from being a radius victim.

Actually your making some unfounded assumptions here.
You can't entangle a laser beam because it doesn't have a duration or physical substance, not because its a modern weapon. Also note entangle is technically against the weapon or person not its ammunition. Similarly there is nothing in the rules that says you can NOT parry a missile (and since there is in fact rules on parrying high speed projectiles......)

Since "any time an attacker rolls a successful strike, the defender can choose to .. entangle" is not universally true, I don't see why that should be the case for other maneuvers.

And as I just showed it is actually true.

The successful strike is a roll made against a particular target that a person chooses. Until I see some proof that this is the number that blast radius targets resist, I see no reason to assume that, since the roll was not made to hit them.

Applying strike penalties due to speed/invisibility to people adjacent to fast/invisible characters doesn't make sense =/

Just because you don't like the rule doesn't mean that is not what the RAW is.
You roll a strike to hit with a missile.
Anyone hit by an attack that has a strike may attempt to dodge (or roll with blow....)
Therefor anyone may choose to roll with blow or dodge the explosion. They use your strike roll for this.
If you have a specific statement from any book saying that explosions or other AoE attacks are exempt from the rule please feel free to share it. Otherwise the rules apply. You need evidence to make exceptions to rules not to apply them.

[Mechghost]

You can dodge a blast radius because it is an attack, it has a strike roll and the rules under combat explicitly state that you can attempt to dodge any successful attack.

You referring to RUEp340's step 3 of hand to hand combat?

This section is a guideline but not a rule when applying to modern weaponry. You can't for example, entangle a laser beam shot at you from 1000 feet. You can sometimes parry missiles, per the Deflection spell, though that may just be about preventing a direct hit (like a dodge) as opposed to preventing the 1/2 from being a radius victim.

Since "any time an attacker rolls a successful strike, the defender can choose to .. entangle" is not universally true, I don't see why that should be the case for other maneuvers.

The successful strike is a roll made against a particular target that a person chooses. Until I see some proof that this is the number that blast radius targets resist, I see no reason to assume that, since the roll was not made to hit them.

Applying strike penalties due to speed/invisibility to people adjacent to fast/invisible characters doesn't make sense =/

It is possible to take something to literally.

True. Which is why I don't. I believe KS intended reasonable exceptions. Guy behind wall being protected, ammo drum and rear jets behind SAMAS chest being protected, I find these reasonable.

SAMAS' gun being protected when a missile hits him in the chest? Unreasonable. Legs? Unreasonable.

Arms? Half yes. Other half maybe. The gun might protect the outstretched arm holding it if held straight (similar to block sacrifice). You could hold the other hand behind your back, but it seems at least part of the arm would be exposed unless you tried to dislocate like a kimura. That said, due to depth issues, the chest might jut out forward further than the arms and protect and arm held at the side. Also if you had the left outstretched (perhaps to try and shoot down a volley headed with your way using a mini-missile... guessing the bandit was out or didn't know to do this) then the mini-missle launcher might shield the left hand. I'm not sure since I can't recall having seen a pic of a SAMAS shooting missiles from the left arm.

Wings? Maybe, hard to tell from the front angle but if you weren't flying, they might tuck behind the arms. If outstretched for flight I can't see them being protected though.

Lower Maneuvering jets? I'm a bit unclear from the pic exactly where these were. If they were on the soles of the feet then I would say yes, if you were standing, like the one in the combat example.

My position is the RAW statement of everything was referring to individual units (Bodies, PAs Bots etc) as an everything ,thus being hit once by default in the Main Body, and not going through hoops assigning half damage to every single part of every single component and every single item in the blast, down to the individual bullets in a player's bandoleer, and shoelaces.

Doing that isn't necessary. If the GM wants to take a blatent RAW 'everything' approach you'd only have to keep track of 1 pool of half damage, and only do something once it exceeded the capacity of a part. Separate tracking would only be required if the person had already taken called shot damage to certain locations.

GMs can and should also ignore this when something is clearly protected from a direct line of force by another part. Missile to the front of the SAM not damaging rear drum/jets being a logical exclusion.

IMHO the game isn't to kill and cripple the party as quick as possible but to have fun.

In that case don't throw grenades/missiles at them. Just because something is deadly and players wouldn't like getting killed by it is no reason to nerf it, just don't encounter it.

Or, have people try to shoot down missiles instead of dodging them. You can avoid the 1/2 that way.

I'm not the one making a "Blatant" RAW approach, that's what I'm not doing, your interpretation is the one that approaches this. I actually use (as stated) house rules which include random hit locations and possibilities of multiple hits for the Main Target (only) to make combat more realistic and not using them but the RAW when time is a factor (mass battles).

So how am I nerfing if I follow the RAW as I understand them? Seems making missiles and grenades vanish or the troops armed with them to stupid to use them as nerfing. My players have never had a problem (even with the house rules I gave earlier) surviving, well mostly surviving, combat against similar or sometimes superior foes.

My players are aware of the rules to shoot down missiles and use them when they can, but that's a players' call not for the GM to tell them what to do.

Your assumption that your interpretation of the RAW is the only correct way to play and I'm nerfing or have to dumb down my my game because I don't agree with it is insulting. I've already stated I respect your choice to play with your interpretation of RAW and your house rules etc, don't belittle me (and my players) for my interpretation differing from yours.

[Blue_Lion]

So let me get this strait for you say every part takes damage because we have to go with literal every thing from the text every thing takes damage but common sense says the guy in armor does not take damage.

Seams like a hypocritical stanse to be arguing to use the exact text to support you and common sense when it is Covent to you.

Given that if a every thing takes damage the guy in armor shoul die in the blast common sense says it is not literally e very thing. So to determine how to handle it use the combat example as a guideline. This also stays consitnt with all non called shots hit the main body. That would be the more logical approach to resolving it than you saying aoe is inconstant with every thing else and only common sense let's some one live. After all common sense is not common.

[Tor]

You can't entangle a laser beam because it doesn't have a duration or physical substance

It must have some duration, even if rather brief. Photons also have some minor amount of mass, I thought.

entangle is technically against the weapon or person not its ammunition.

Fine for guns/beams or rifles/bullets or bows/arrows, but what about a thrown spear?

there is nothing in the rules that says you can NOT parry a missile (and since there is in fact rules on parrying high speed projectiles......)

I like where you're going here, I want to second-guess my assumption here. Also, using automatic body flip/throw against missiles.

as I just showed it is actually true.

By saying you can't entangle a laser beam I thought you showed it wasn't true.

Just because you don't like the rule doesn't mean that is not what the RAW is.

Except I'm disputing it is RAW. Just because strike rolls are made does not mean they exist unconditionally for all to defy. I believe when a strike roll is made against target A, it effectively does not exist in respect to target B.

You roll a strike to hit with a missile. Anyone hit by an attack that has a strike may attempt to dodge (or roll with blow....)

Nope, doesn't apply if you get simultaneously attacked or if you jump in front of orphan billy. We've been explicitly told of a situation where you can roll against a roll not intended for you (trying to get in its path before it hits something else) but we aren't told explicitly to do this regarding roll with impact.

Therefor anyone may choose to roll with blow or dodge the explosion. They use your strike roll for this.

I see only the direct target is mentioned as getting a chance to dodge the missile.

Where does it mention that radius victims get to roll a dodge?

They don't need to dodge the missile, they're already not hit by it.

The dodge is against the missile, not the explosion.

If you have a specific statement from any book saying that explosions or other AoE attacks are exempt from the rule please feel free to share it.

Already cited, you use 14+ is a strike roll is not available. I'm saying it isn't available to those it isn't made against. It is only available to the target of the strike.

I'm not the one making a "Blatant" RAW approach, that's what I'm not doing, your interpretation is the one that approaches this.

Neither of us are making RAW approaches, I think both of us deviate from it enough in different ways that neither is blatant. It seems like we agree about other parts getting hit, and the approach differs in that you like the random hit tables and I like puzzling out weird angles. There are advantages to both. Yours allows for faster combat without micro-managing details or arguing about who is facing where and is inclined at what angle with limbs at what place. Mine allows for taking apart stuff where this stuff happens to be micro-managed (like examples talking about SAMAS standing or facing and shooting) or where things like Carpet of Adhesion will lock someone in place. I can see either as preferable in different situations. Random tables in more mobile ones, applying GM judgment in less mobile ones.

how am I nerfing if I follow the RAW as I understand them? Seems making missiles and grenades vanish or the troops armed with them to stupid to use them as nerfing.

It could be as simple as these guys not wanting to waste expensive ammo on non-profitable threats, not being aggressive with people who can destroy you, using cover. More ways to avoid confrontation than to disappear opponents.

My players have never had a problem (even with the house rules I gave earlier) surviving, well mostly surviving, combat against similar or sometimes superior foes.

Probably because a random location getting winged is less hurty than multiple locations getting winged.

My players are aware of the rules to shoot down missiles and use them when they can, but that's a players' call not for the GM to tell them what to do.

If it's the player's call then have them be accountable if they provoke missile-wielders, even if they suffer. It's dangerous, like provoking a glitter boy.

Your assumption that your interpretation of the RAW is the only correct way to play and I'm nerfing or have to dumb down my my game because I don't agree with it is insulting. I've already stated I respect your choice to play with your interpretation of RAW and your house rules etc, don't belittle me (and my players) for my interpretation differing from yours.

My criticism here is because you objected on the grounds of fun and avoiding crippling/killing. This detracts from criticism on the basis of text. If it is focused on text interpretation then talking about the balance/fun effect of a conclusion distracts from this narrative.

So let me get this strait for you say every part takes damage because we have to go with literal every thing from the text every thing takes damage

No, you don't have to go with every literal thing the text says, GMs have the power to make judgment calls and override everythings and nothings, particularly when there are logical grounds for doing that. No standing behind a guy whose back is against the wall. A lot of terrain calls by GMs are just location judgments and do not involve blatant declarations of fact.

but common sense says the guy in armor does not take damage.

Right, we're expected to make judgment calls on exceptions like this.

Seams like a hypocritical stanse to be arguing to use the exact text to support you and common sense when it is Covent to you.

What I am arguing is that the rule is everything is hit and we need to provide logical reasons for why something in the radius is not hit. As in why you would be shielded from the force of an explosion.

to determine how to handle it use the combat example as a guideline.

We can't, it only discussed the basic effect of the missile, the direct hit damage, not the secondary blast radius damage. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that it didn't do anything important enough to affect the remainder of the melee.

This also stays consitnt with all non called shots hit the main body.

Right: shots. Not explosions. Explosions are not shots. The missile itself is a shot, the explosion that results when the missile shot hits is not a shot.

That would be the more logical approach to resolving it than you saying aoe is inconstant with every thing else and only common sense let's some one live. After all common sense is not common.

Your alternative is simply ignoring what blast radius says and making it up as you go?

Either you default to everything getting hit with you making judgement calls about what to except....

Or you default to nothing getting hit with you making judgment calls about what to include.

Either way, judgment calls get made. Since we're told everything, I favor an 'in until you're out' approach over an 'out until you're in' one.

[Blue_Lion]

Ok Tor if we do not have to go by every thing the text says when discussing RAW what do we go by pixie dust?
Your argument that every part takes damage stems on the basis of the text says every thing, I point out that it includes the guy in the armor and suddenly you are saying use common sense.

My logic does not ignore what the text on blast radius says but also includes use of combat examples and general consistency of rules in combat. To determine that it is more likely not to be every thing in the blast radius as that would include the person inside the armor, but instead likely every legitimate non-called shot target in range applied as damage is normally applied. So to determine how the writers intended to use the text you look at the combat example, and that holds consistent with all non called shots damage going to main body.

On contrast your logic comes across as saying you have to damage every thing accept where "your" common sense says not to. That clearly is not based on RAW.
So fine my common sense says not to apply it to every part of every thing because A-that does not match the combat example and B-is inconstant with the rest of combat rules presented in the same book.

[Tor]

We do go by everything it says when discussing RAW, but we're also expected to deviate from RAW in usual situations that lead to absurdities.

Your argument that every part takes damage stems on the basis of the text says every thing

My argument is that this is what the RAW say, though I believe we're expected to deviate from it when something is in range but is covered by something else.

includes use of combat examples and general consistency of rules in combat.

Plural. Aside from the 3 short frags hitting the SAMAS, what other example? What is this general consistency thing you're talking about?

instead likely every legitimate non-called shot target in range

I don't see a basis for excepting something from damage just because you normally make a called shot to hit it. That's about things which are hard to aim at. You don't aim at things in an area effect, they're just there. The explosion aims for you. It aims everywhere.

The combat example doesn't specify only the main body took the damage. Since the shot wasn't called, that's going to be the direct hit. It doesn't go into any details about radius effect.

your logic comes across as saying you have to damage every thing accept where "your" common sense says not to. That clearly is not based on RAW.

Will this require finding statements KS has made about GMs needing to make calls?

Excepting anything, even people in armor, is not RAW. Combat examples are not RAW, they are basic overviews and can contain fast-forwarding over irrelevant details.

my common sense says not to apply it to every part of every thing because A-that does not match the combat example

Declaring only the main body of the SAMAS is damaged also does not match the combat example.

As the example does not restrict it to that.

inconstant with the rest of combat rules presented in the same book.

It isn't. RMB's called/main stuff is about shots, not explosions. RUE's called/main stuff is about guns and strikes, not radius victims. You have to pay attention to context and not generalize.

[Blue_Lion]

You keep saying disregard RAW in a debate about RAW? So we can toss out your whole first sentence as midsection as it does not apply.

You then say we are not suppose to damage every thing in range when you think you should not even though you claim that is what is RAW. (seams like you are using flawed logic here as we are discussing what is RAW not your opinion so your second line is irrelevant, as it is about your opinion not RAW.)

The basis for exempting something in range from damage is that it says it take a called shot to strike/hit which equals damage. In addition the combat example does not do so. In addition doing so makes even light AOE attacks and or deadly. Because if we read the one line you cling to litteraly the person in the armor dies. So as we know from the combat example and basic logic that not every part of target takes damage (armor is treated as part of a person in combat example on damage) as that would be instant kill and out of line with the example and other damage rules. Logically it makes the most sense to fallow the example of how to apply damage from aoe instead of rules lawyering it to crippling levels.

But hey lets take a look at the context you base your entire idea off the AOE text so lets see what it says.

Blast radius Damage. As noted previously, every one and every thing else in the blast radius suffers half damage. So a grenade or mini-missile blast does 5d6 MD inflicts the full 5d6 MD to the target it strikes (or lands at the feet of) and everything else within the blast radius area suffers half damage.

Now then I can already see that is out of context as it is referring to an earlier rule for establish precedence of how AOES work. That is the first part I did in bold. IN addition they are treating a blast landing at feet as a direct hit.

So then what is the area that it is referring to, that appears to be the area under the heading of Damage from a missile strike, this includes the sub headings direct hits, blast radius roll with impact and the note. The sub heading of damage from a Missile strike blast radius is setting the precedence, but not this is part of damage from a Missile strike. Meaning the AOE is part of a strike so the only strikes main body note applies to AOE as well if we include the context. So the context does seam to be placing missile AOE as part of a missile strike by the way it is set up. (This also is consistent with the general takes a called shot to hit/damage anything other than main body.)
There is a third instance of blast radius under missile terms which does lack the reference to the first two times it appears, but in my book is only two sentences and is some what of a grammar editing night mare. But as the context includes the first two which seam to place the damage as a strike that only hits the main body and that aligns with combat example not applying it to every part of the samas so as a whole it does not appear to be saying every part as parts do seam to be treated as having special references to protection.


I never said that GMs are not intilaled to make calls but calls are not part of RAW which is what we are discussing. The fact that others read the same rules and do not take it as every part of every thing taking damage does not need a GM call to be not broken but your literally every thing takes damage stance requires a call to not be broken as it would kill the pilot of the SAMAS.

**So if we have two possible meaning of the RAW in this case, one requiring a GM call to not be broken and one not requiring a call to unbroken the one not requiring a call is the most likely one to be correct.**

[Kagashi]

I do think Palladium just didnt think things through when it says "everything" and they could have worded the line differently. Why give DC by Location values, and only mean the Main Body? It does seem confusing. But the combat examples obviously only mean the main body. Palladium stated what they meant, then clarified with a more specific example. I still think they should have been more specific than "everything".

However, I think the "hits all main bodies in the blast radius" clarification (which is what they meant by "everything") is stupid and unrealistic. If we are playing with -10 rules to induces realism into the game, hitting more than just the main body is more realistic. That's why I house rule Damage Locations for organic targets and more than just the main bodies are hit in a blast radius.

[Killer Cyborg]

the combat examples obviously only mean the main body.

Agreed.

Palladium stated what they meant, then clarified with a more specific example. I still think they should have been more specific than "everything".

Apparently.
Palladium's pretty big on assuming that people will just know what they mean, and they're often wrong.

However, I think the "hits all main bodies in the blast radius" clarification (which is what they meant by "everything") is stupid and unrealistic.

Ultimately, yeah, it kind of is.
It would mean that if a missile obliterates a group of armored soldiers, there would be a bunch of arms, legs, and helmets lying around with only the torsos vaporized.
But going the other way has problems too.
If you allow the blast radius to hit every hit location on the target, then creatures with only one damage pool become vastly more resistant to explosions.
A dragon hit by a grenade for 10 MD would take 10 MD.
A CS Grunt hit by a grenade for 10 MD would take 35+ MD (10 to the main body, 5 to the head, 5 to the left arm, 5 to the right arm, 5 to the left leg, 5 to the right leg, not to mention damage to weapons and gear).
And that's pretty messed up.

In order to balance that out, you'd need to come up with MDC by location for each and every creature in the game, which is a lot of work.
And every time an explosion went off, you'd have to mark down damage for each location, which is also a lot of work.
Ultimately, I can see why Palladium compromised realism for playability in this case, although it might be fun to play in a world where every time a grenade was chucked, armored PCs had a good chance of losing their arms and legs.

[Killer Cyborg]

There is no differentiation between the two in that way in the game, therefore the default remains the default.
Explosions are not a stated exception to the rule, therefore the rule remains.

Are you basing this on something other than the 'Gun Terms' discussion of main body on RUEp262? The whole bit derived from the "any shot which is not called" rule on RMBp41 ?

I'm basing this on there being no differentiation between the two that way in the game, therefore the default remains.
Explosions are not a stated exception to the rule, therefore the rule remains.

The gun and knife and other gear would also take damage, I don't see any rules about your gear being immune to explosions.

And yet it's something that is never addressed or demonstrated in any combat descriptions, specific rules, or sample combats.

"Everything" addresses it.

Incorrect.
"Everything" might address it under one overly-strict interpretation of the word that is never supported in any of the other rules, combat examples, or game descriptions, but that is not the only interpretation of that word.
Another interpretation is simply that every "target" is hit on its main body (or sole damage pool) as per the usual rules. This interpretation fits with the rest of the game. Your interpretation is not.

Did above, but to repeat, RMBp243. Even though the 'Revolvers' heading was misplaced above it, it is discussing general rules for modern weapons. These were altered in RUEp361 where they became gradually larger as speed increased (-1 if moving, -1 if evasively, -1 per 50mph over 20mph) instead of a -3/-6 moving/40+ two-tier system. This initially makes the penalty to hit moving targets lower, but once you get to 350mph it becomes higher.

The same thing happened with shooting beyond effective range. It changed from a cumulative -4 to strike per 25feet beyond max range to a -5 to strike for up to 30% extra range.

So we're back to "one mistake does not mean that other mistakes were made."
OR it's possible that robots/PA don't suffer the same strike penalties against moving targets that foot soldiers do.

The purpose of a sample combat is to show how the combat system works. IF the combat system was supposed to work in such a way that body parts other than the main body were damaged by explosions, then sample combats would need to reflect that as part of the damage calculation.

It wouldn't have to, no. Examples do not include all details.

RMB 42
let's see how it all works in an actually combat

Sounds like you think that "everything" must mean "everything," but that "all" must mean "not all."

The damage to each body part would need to be tallied right along with the main body damage, because the sample combat is specifically "how it all works in an actually combat."

In actual combat you don't declare "damage as usual" without noting the damage, yet this is exactly what happens at the end of the example, so it is not an all-inclusive example.

"Damage as usual" had already been established at that point. Nothing new was to be gained at that point by listing the damage.
Cutting down on repetition is not the same as neglecting to mention an important rule as to how explosive damage is distributed, and neglecting to apply it in the sample combat.

Furthermore: the example doesn't mention that nobody is within 20feet of the SAMAS when it is hit to be excepted from the blast radius, that is something that a GM would also consider.

Not mentioning when something doesn't happen isn't necessary.
A veritably infinite number of things don't happen in combat. They can't all be mentioned.

NOT showing the other damages goes directly against the purpose of demonstrating "how it all works."

In this case, the explosion is shown to only damage one body part. That's how it works.

Actually it doesn't mention only a specific part, it mentions damage being inflicted on the SAMAS. It doesn't even specify the main body.

It's the Main Body, and no Called Shot was made. As per the rules, we know where the shot landed.

That could mean we're supposed to assume 1/2 to the other locations, or maybe it means the main took 30 and the gun, left arm and both legs each took 15. GM could've excepted the rest of the stuff based on shielding.

I'd like you to take a nice, long think about how likely any of that actually is.

there is still no note of "the ammo drum was destroyed, leaving the SAMAS with enough ammo for only one more burst," which would fall under the banner of "how it all works," if it did in fact work that way.

The amount of ammunition remaining is not noted when the Enforcer fires volleys of missiles or when the SAMAS fires bursts, so why would it be noted if the ammo drum is destroyed?

Because there's a difference between normal consumption of ammunition that's not about to run out, and in an enemy attack eliminating your ammunition supply.

This is kind of pointless though, the ammo drum hides behind a SAMAS like a person hides behind a wall. I can't see the drum from the front in the illustration, so I believe Kev expected us to understand a GM would not let it be damaged from a frontal area-effect attack. Thus the 'rear' notation under the PA. If the SAMAS were shot from the back, or maybe the sides/top, that'd be a different story.

Because "Everything" doesn't mean "Everything.

We're not talking about house-rules.

In that case, everything in a blast radius takes damage, even the poor shmuck behind a wall, even if the wall is actually larger than the blast radius. Apparently the damage can just pass through an indestructible wall to hit someone on the other side. No matter how big the wall or how small the explosion. At least that's how it was going RAW in RMB.

Not at all.
Interpreting "everything" to mean "quite literally everything in the blast area" is one interpretation of RAW... but it's not the only one.
Interpreting "everything" to mean "the main body of every viable target" is also a logical interpretation of RAW. Considering that this interpretation works in accordance with all other rules and combat examples, it is also the most logical interpretation.

RAW not making sense would mean that if something else says something different then we can favor that other thing as a rules-override.

When both interpretations are RAW, there is no logical reason to pick the interpretation that creates conflict in favor of the interpretation that does not create conflict.

Think about this: I am an Archon piloting a Ghost Wasp hovering 400 miles directly above a Spider-Skull walker and I fire a long-range heavy fragmentatation missile down and hit the top of the robot's head with it. The 80-foot blast radius (a 160 foot blast diameter) is bigger than the 15-foot wide skull. The legs are 20 feet wide so thats 2.5 feet on either side they're exposed.

Logically they should be hit.

Logically, if that same strike hit a dragon, the dragon's legs would be hit, and the dragon's tail would be hit, and the dragon's horns would be hit.
But the blast radius doesn't actually hit any of those things according to the rules.
The rules are not always fully logical.

By the rules they are hit, since everything is hit.

No. By your personal interpretation of one rule--and interpretation that is never supported elsewhere, and that conflicts with other parts of the book--they would be hit.
By other interpretations that do not cause such conflict, and that do have support, they would not be hit.

If you make an exception for them: are you going to make an exception if a CS grunt in Dead Boy armor is standing underneath the legs?

If so, why?

The blast radius hits "everybody and everything" in the zone.
[The Spider Skull Walker] is a thing. It is hit by the missile already, so [The Spider Skull Walker] is not also hit by the blast radius.
[The CS Grunt] is a person. It was not hit by the missile, but it is in the blast radius, so it is hit by the blast radius.

GMs are expected to make judgement calls like this.

It would not be unreasonable for a GM to decide that the Grunt is protected by the body of the Walker in this case, choosing to ignore/alter the actual rules in favor of "common sense."

It could mean "every person and ever non-living target such as vehicles or walls" take damage to their main body.

If it only meant main bodies it would've said that.

There is no logical basis for that claim.

It could mean "every listed hit location on every target," which is your interpretation, but that conflicts with what we see in sample combats, as well as with other rules in the game.

Omission is not conflict.

In this case, it is.
We have a sample combat with the stated purpose of showing us "how it all works," and that sample omits any reference that would support your personal interpretation.
We have the RMB rule describing how blast area damage works, and it likewise omits any reference that would support your personal interpretation.
We have book after book after book that contain various rules, sample combats, combat descriptions, and so forth, and none of them support your personal interpretation.
Very quickly in this case, absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence.

Like with attacks per melee, we don't need to be told every possible source of an attack bonus when being told where they could come from. Things do not need to be included in general introductions to count if they are included elsewhere.

And in this case, your rule is not included elsewhere.
All you have to go on is your one mis-interpretation of one word of text in one rule in one book, and nothing else anywhere in any book lends that interpretation ANY support.

You're picking an interpretation that doesn't make sense given what we know of the rest of the game

What rest of the game? The combat example doesn't say anything about other parts of the SAMAS and their NOT being damaged, it just ignores irrelevant details.

The nature of damage distribution is not an irrelevant detail.
That's why we're having this discussion in the first place.

picking an interpretation that does make sense given what we know of the rest of the game.

Rest of the game sounds so plural when it seems like the only counter-argument is based on a generalized combat example.

A combat example that has the stated purpose of showing us "how it all works," and the example under the blast radius rule itself, and the various rules that a Called Shot is required to strike anything other than the Main Body, and the example combat on p. 11 of RMB,
I suppose I could go over the rest of all the books and find other examples, but I don't see much point when you don't have anything other than your own personal interpretation of one line of text.

Do you maybe know of any artwork showing a missile hitting a guy in the chest and every other bit besides the chest surviving unscathed?

Doesn't matter. Artwork isn't canon.

Explosions are not shots, so the called shot rules doesn't apply, since it is about making direct hits

Nonetheless, we have demonstrations in the rule book that treats them the same way.

The combat example doesn't do that, it just doesn't go into every minor detail.

Damage distribution is not minor.

If you're caught in a blast radius, you make a dodge against the attack roll that launched the missile, not against a new attack roll for the blast radius. They're considered the same attack.

Do you have a source supporting the idea that you can dodge a blast radius?

First and foremost, there is the absence of any indication that you cannot dodge a blast radius. It's stated numerous times that people in the blast radius can Roll With Impact, and it's stated (RMB 41) that Rolling against missile damage means "The player must roll 1d20 and match or better the roll to strike." Logically, if a target in the blast radius can Roll against the strike number, they Dodge against that same number.

Secondly, RUE 364 states:
A small blast radius under 12' can be escaped with a single dodge action.

As for roll with impact, you would do (per RUEp362) a 14+ since a strike roll is not available.

Except that a strike roll IS available, and the RUE rule that you're pulling in didn't exist when the RMB was written.

The example of blast radius damage on RMB 41 describes the person getting hit by a HE missile as taking "full damage," and the person standing too close to him "takes half damage." Which shows us that only the main body takes damage from explosions, because otherwise the person getting struck by the missile would take "full damage to his Main Body, and half damage to his other hit locations."

Excepting an example is not ruling out an example. Plus body armor (which most people had, PA/bots being rare) only had a single assigned MDC for the whole thing (no other locations), so this didn't come up.

As I have already pointed out, this section is not about body armor.
Again, the "Combat Rules For High-Tech War Machines" section starts off by clearly stating:
The following are the rules that are used when playing characters who operate power armor or robot vehicles.
All robots and power armor in the RMB had MDC by location, and the section that describes blast radius damage is in the section discussing specifically combat for robots and power armor, therefore it is an example for robots and power armor, NOT for guys in EBA.

[Kagashi]

If you allow the blast radius to hit every hit location on the target, then creatures with only one damage pool become vastly more resistant to explosions.
A dragon hit by a grenade for 10 MD would take 10 MD.
A CS Grunt hit by a grenade for 10 MD would take 35+ MD (10 to the main body, 5 to the head, 5 to the left arm, 5 to the right arm, 5 to the left leg, 5 to the right leg, not to mention damage to weapons and gear).
And that's pretty messed up.

In order to balance that out, you'd need to come up with MDC by location for each and every creature in the game, which is a lot of work.
And every time an explosion went off, you'd have to mark down damage for each location, which is also a lot of work.
Ultimately, I can see why Palladium compromised realism for playability in this case, although it might be fun to play in a world where every time a grenade was chucked, armored PCs had a good chance of losing their arms and legs.

Thats exactly what I do. Got the rules (with tweaks) from Palladium Compendium of Contemporary Weapons.

- Main Body: 100% of the base HP/SDC or MDC value
- Head: 50%
- Leg: 25%
- Foot: 10%
- Arm or Tentacle: 15%
- Hand: 10%
- Tail: 25%
- Wings: 50%

Or something like that. Ive been messing with the values. Its either that, or add up all the MDC values for tech items and only have one single value and run things like you normally would by the book. Either way, all targets should be treated the same IMHO.

[The Beast]

...But going the other way has problems too.
If you allow the blast radius to hit every hit location on the target, then creatures with only one damage pool become vastly more resistant to explosions.
A dragon hit by a grenade for 10 MD would take 10 MD.
A CS Grunt hit by a grenade for 10 MD would take 35+ MD (10 to the main body, 5 to the head, 5 to the left arm, 5 to the right arm, 5 to the left leg, 5 to the right leg, not to mention damage to weapons and gear).
And that's pretty messed up...

I was just about to make the same point myself...

[Killer Cyborg]

If you allow the blast radius to hit every hit location on the target, then creatures with only one damage pool become vastly more resistant to explosions.
A dragon hit by a grenade for 10 MD would take 10 MD.
A CS Grunt hit by a grenade for 10 MD would take 35+ MD (10 to the main body, 5 to the head, 5 to the left arm, 5 to the right arm, 5 to the left leg, 5 to the right leg, not to mention damage to weapons and gear).
And that's pretty messed up.

In order to balance that out, you'd need to come up with MDC by location for each and every creature in the game, which is a lot of work.
And every time an explosion went off, you'd have to mark down damage for each location, which is also a lot of work.
Ultimately, I can see why Palladium compromised realism for playability in this case, although it might be fun to play in a world where every time a grenade was chucked, armored PCs had a good chance of losing their arms and legs.

Thats exactly what I do. Got the rules (with tweaks) from Palladium Compendium of Contemporary Weapons.

- Main Body: 100% of the base HP/SDC or MDC value
- Head: 50%
- Leg: 25%
- Foot: 10%
- Arm or Tentacle: 15%
- Hand: 10%
- Tail: 25%
- Wings: 50%

Or something like that. Ive been messing with the values. Its either that, or add up all the MDC values for tech items and only have one single value and run things like you normally would by the book. Either way, all targets should be treated the same IMHO.

Points for going that extra mile, but I prefer the less mathy way of doing things, even if your solution is more elegant than what Palladium's done.

[Tor]

You keep saying disregard RAW in a debate about RAW? So we can toss out your whole first sentence as midsection as it does not apply.

It's more about other statements I didn't want to go to the bother of finding over-riding the RAW policy of 'everything'.

Page 355 for example (GI Joe rule) talks about armor absorbing all the damage of the final blast, explicitly telling us the person inside doesn't take damage. I'll have to keep looking for a statement about armor protecting people from damage in general, but I think it's reasonable enough to understand that, prior to the final destruction of the armor, the person is also protected as well.

You then say we are not suppose to damage every thing in range when you think you should not even though you claim that is what is RAW. (seams like you are using flawed logic here as we are discussing what is RAW not your opinion so your second line is irrelevant, as it is about your opinion not RAW.)

I claim it's RAW because it is, that much is very clear.

Yes it is clear we are meant to make exceptions in the case of people covered in armor.

In the combat example, the guy in the SAMAS armor hit by the 3 short-range frag missiles is able to keep fighting after being hit, so that's one clear exception.

He doesn't fire more than one burst, he doesn't take flight, so those are aspects we can't rely on to contract the RAW.

The basis for exempting something in range from damage is that it says it take a called shot to strike/hit which equals damage.

RUEp362's "Gun Terms" (if this is what you're talking about) is talking about strikes with guns, which are single-target things. It is not talking about explosions.

It is impossible to make called shots with explosions. If this was actually a rule, then stepping on a Naruni-Bullet-Mine could not blow up your foot, because the bullet-mine can't make a called shot.

The requirement of making a called shot could only apply to making a body part a direct-hit target of a missile or grenade. It is not talking about the 1/2 damage done to other things in the radius. That is not a gun-shot, it does not full under the scope of that section's topic.

Explosions do not make strike rolls against secondary targets. It is impossible to side-step them. It is impossible to parry them. They're everywhere. The only possible avoidance is to get something in the way or to get out of the radius.

In addition the combat example does not do so.

It doesn't do a lot of things, something being passed over in a combat example is not the same thing as saying it didn't happen.

In addition doing so makes even light AOE attacks and or deadly.

Missiles and grenades are deadly things.

Because if we read the one line you cling to litteraly the person in the armor dies.

I figure people understand that there is more to imply that some MDC armor protects people from explosions (I'm not sure about cyber-armor or NGR clothes with ARs) than there is to imply the immunity of weapons and limbs and sensors and high-beams to area-effect damage.

we know from the combat example and basic logic that not every part of target takes damage

Wrong, we do not know this. RMB actually has 2 examples of SAMAS being hit by missile volleys so I will bring up both.

Page 11 has 2 mini-missiles inflict a total of 27 MD. Not sure which type, but we can say frag for simplicity. At least one has to be frag or HE based on the lack of 0 on the end of it.
Page 42 has 3 short-missiles inflict a total of 90 MD. They are frag missiles.

In both cases the "total of 27" and "total of 90" is talking about adding together the rolls for 2 or 3 missiles. I see no basis for thinking this is meant to exclude damage being inflicted to non-main locations.

The first case would not be enough damage (13? I assume we round down) to destroy anything which is why it can basically be ignored past this point.

In the second case, 45 MD is enough damage to destroy the lower maneuvering jets. Much like a man behind a wall or a man within armor, it should be possible for LMJs to be shielded from an explosion depending on the posture of the SAM (are they standing on ground? are jets on bottom of feet?) or if the SAM might be behind cover. In this case, we know the SAMAS is not in flight, he's standing on the ground.

The second case is also enough damage to destroy the ammo drum, which has the same MDC as the LMJs. Had the SAMAS fired more than once burst then I would be inclined to think it survived. I strongly believe that there would be enough rounds remaining in the expanse between the drum and the gun to fire 1 last burst after the drum's destruction.

Even without this though, I believe the drum survived because the drum hides behind the main body (chest) of the SAMAS the way a man might hide behind the wall to avoid an explosion. In the image of the SAMAS from the front (RMBp194), I do not see the ammo drum projecting from behind it. I can only see what appears to be the drum on RMBp43's image which shows the SAMAS from an angle of above and his left side facing.

In the combat example, the SAMAS "stands his ground" and fired 2 bursts at the Enforcer and at one of the missiles the Enforcer fires. It could have done this facing the Enforcer directly, which would have shielded the Ammo drum behind the head and exhaust jets (part of main body).

There is an illustration showing the back of a SAMAS on RMBp39 (looks like two of them battling a Gargoyle or Balrog or something) which shows the ammo belt in full. By looking at this, I can count 27 segments exposed. Those segments do not look bullet-shaped though. If you look at the narrow opening of the gun, I would wager that at least 2 shots could be stored in each segment, so that would be 52 rounds to work with, enough to fire a final 40-round burst even if the drum did get damaged by an explosion, and I do not think explosions directly to the front of the main body WOULD damage an ammo drum because it's clearly utterly shielded by the main body from frontal attacks, like a man behind a wall would be.

The explosion was also enough to destroy the wings. Yes, that's not explicitly mentioned, but it doesn't seem necessary to do that. The SAMAS isn't in flight, so it's not as if the destruction of the wings would have had any immediate effect. The SAMAS is still able to hover in place or make jet-assisted leaps using his main thrusters in the back, so he's not crippled or anything.

Also something odd about the example: isn't a frag missile the type you can roll with impact to reduce the damage from?

How come the SAMAS is not mentioned as doing this or passing up the opportunity to do this?

Is there some rule I'm forgetting where if you try to shoot down a volley, this means forgoing the ability to roll with impact?

It doesn't seem like spending an action to dodge prohibits this so I don't see why spending one to fire a shot would.

Another thing: having shot down 1 missile, he has reduced the volley to 3, which is dodgeable. Is there a rule prohibiting doing a dodge after having shot at a volley? Why is the SAMAS not mentioned as doing this or passing up the opportunity to do it?

armor is treated as part of a person in combat example on damage

I'm not understanding this conclusion. I think it is treated as something which protects a person, not part of them, unless a cybernetic implant.

Something does not have to be treated as part of you to protect you from damage. A wall is not treated as part of you if you are hiding behind it. Nor is a force field. It's just something in the way that blocks a hit to you.

it makes the most sense to fallow the example of how to apply damage from aoe instead of rules lawyering it to crippling levels.

Gosh forbid a grenade or missile be crippling.

Is it the worst thing in the world if a plasma mini-missile is able to harm a suit of PA worse than a NG-E12 Heavy Plasma Ejector as a merit of it's area-effect attribute? Is it wrong that a fragmentation grenade can inflict more trauma to a SAMAS than a shot from a C-18 does?

Considering the awful range that thrown grenades have (admittedly, bonus for grenade launchers, particularly back when many could do bursts) and considering the huge expense of missiles, it doesn't seem bad at all. If anything it helps to explain why their costs can be so high.

lets take a look at the context you base your entire idea off the AOE text so lets see what it says.

Blast radius Damage. As noted previously, every one and every thing else in the blast radius suffers half damage. So a grenade or mini-missile blast does 5d6 MD inflicts the full 5d6 MD to the target it strikes (or lands at the feet of) and everything else within the blast radius area suffers half damage.

The 'feet of' thing is a weird but, and in conflict with other statements about non-called shots hitting the main body and missiles hitting the main body.

Especially in the case of a grenade landing at your feet, your feet should get damaged.

I suppose the distinction with a Naruni Bullet Mine is that you step ON it, as opposed to be standing in front of it.

I think "lands at the feet of" is a way of saying 'lands very close to'. It is in parenthesis so it is not the main idea, it is presented as an elaboration of what striking a target can be approximated as meaning. I believe it is intended to describe grenades, since a grenade may not always be timed to explode on direct contact when thrown, but might bounce off the chest and land directly below you and then explode.

I can already see that is out of context as it is referring to an earlier rule for establish precedence of how AOEs work.

Agreed, I think it relates to the previous portion mentioning that someone struck by a grenade or missile is at the epicenter. You can still be at the epicentre of an explosion even if a grenade drops down.

I'm inclined to think that a grenade between the big toes is going to be more likely to damage the feet than a missile to the chest, and both of those more likely than a missile to the head.

they are treating a blast landing at feet as a direct hit.

I hate to write this off as flavor text, but that sorta seems like what it is, since I don't even know if we have rules to determine a situation when something lands "at" (I assume this means in front of?) your feet.

what is the area that it is referring to, that appears to be the area under the heading of Damage from a missile strike

Took me a moment to realize to rewind a page back to 362 to find this heading

Interesting note under plasma missiles about there usually being no salvageable evidence or supplies, making positive ID impossible. If a volley of plasmas to the main body of PA left everything else of the PA undamaged, that sounds like something salvageable and identifiable to me.

this includes the sub headings direct hits, blast radius roll with impact and the note.
The sub heading of damage from a Missile strike blast radius is setting the precedence, but not this is part of damage from a Missile strike.

A missile strike results in an explosion, which then hits things other than that which the missile struck.

The guy hit by the missile is the target of the missile strike. The guy 10 feet away is not a victim of the missile strike, he is a victim of the explosion resulting from the missile striking his nearby friend.

the AOE is part of a strike so the only strikes main body note applies to AOE as well if we include the context.

You are misquoting it. The idea that ONLY the main body is damaged by an explosion is disproven by the ability of Glitter Boy Killers to use mini-missiles to destroy Boom Guns.

The 'always strike' bit seems to be discrediting the idea of being able to do called shots with missiles.

I believe it is there to reflect that guided missiles will always home in on a main body and that you cannot direct them (or the more sophisticated smart missiles) to target anything other than a main body, since they home on the center of mass in a heat signature.

I think there is reason to think that you can do called shots with the rare un-guided mini-missiles though.

If GMs don't want to allow even that, it's fine though, I guess it conforms to RAW.

In which case: Glitter Boy Killers must destroy the boom gun by firing missiles at the main body, with the boom gun taking half damage.

So if anything, this 'always hits main' + 'missiles destroy boom gun' actually supports my argument of missiles hitting the main body and being able to destroy locations on power armor other than the main body, like a giant unshielded gun.

I'd probably house-rule that a GBK could called-shot 1 or 2 missiles (but no larger volleys) at the gun though. It seems fair.

After all, in HU2, you need to make a called shot to shoot down a missile, and you can shoot down missiles with other missles, so you can certainly do called shots with some missiles in HU2. A called shot isn't required to shoot down missiles in Rifts though so I can't rely on this

So the context does seam to be placing missile AOE as part of a missile strike by the way it is set up.

I see missile strike as referring to the initial strike on the target, the direct hit. The explosion that happens is a secondary effect and simply succeeds. That's why people in the blast radius can't just dodge it like the main target can. Allowing them an action to run/leap and see if they can go far enough to escape the radius seems reasonable though.

(This also is consistent with the general takes a called shot to hit/damage anything other than main body.)

As above: this isn't a general rule, it applies to gunshots. It isn't referring to missiles. I mean heck, I'm not even sure if it applies to hand to hand combat. Megaversally when looking at Dead Reign, it appears you need called shot to hit non-main zombie locations when using guns, but it's not clear that you require a called shot to hit that location in HtH.

This could well mean that if I wanted to punch a SAMAS in the head, I could simply do so, rather than hits its main body, without having to spend an action to make a called shot.

This could be why called shot is listed on RUEp361 under Ranged Combat. It could also be why it is called a called "SHOT" rather than a called "STRIKE".

Even if we view an explosion as striking something, explosions do not shoot people.

There is a third instance of blast radius under missile terms which does lack the reference to the first two times it appears, but in my book is only two sentences and is some what of a grammar editing night mare.

I'm having some trouble locating this third instance, may need some help to be able to examine it.

But as the context includes the first two which seam to place the damage as a strike that only hits the main body and that aligns with combat example not applying it to every part of the samas so as a whole it does not appear to be saying every part as parts do seam to be treated as having special references to protection.

The combat example simply just doesn't cover everything.

For example, when the Enforcer shoots down the hoverjet, the people in the hoverjet should've taken fall damage or crash damage or something like that, but it doesn't bother to tell us about it. It just skips forward. I see the SAMAS+missiles thing as the same. There was no point going into further detail as it didn't alter the remainder of the example. If KS had planned to describe a 2nd melee where the SAMAS took an attack depleting the final 5 MDC remaining in his rail gun, then it would've made sense to describe how the explosion damaged the rail gun, but since it didn't go that far, he didn't have to.

I never said that GMs are not intilaled to make calls but calls are not part of RAW which is what we are discussing.

Technically, combat examples aren't examples of RAW either. They give an overview of how people can apply rules but do not necessarily include the application of every single one.

Per RAW, everything is hit to excepted. As for this proposed situation of a phase-explosion where environmental body armor or even power armor won't protect someone: I think somewhere in RMB or RUE there is something that talks about armor protecting people from stuff, so we probably just have to find that.

I mean heck: unless we do find a rule saying that armor protects people, wouldn't that mean that only things with AR can do it? Otherwise you'd need a statement saying that the non-AR stuff cannot by bypassed or whatev.

The fact that others read the same rules and do not take it as every part of every thing taking damage does not need a GM call to be not broken

This triple-negative is confusing me.

I believe a GM call is needed to break the hits-everything rule, and some people do not interpret it that way because they ignore the RAW, if that simplifies things.

your literally every thing takes damage stance requires a call to not be broken as it would kill the pilot of the SAMAS.

I believe an "armor protects the person inside" type statement would protect the SAMAS pilot. Off-hand I do not know where to find that, I've just come to understand that an armor without an AR allowing it to be bypassed cannot by bypassed. With perhaps an exception for drowning/gaseous attacks vs non-AR non-environmental armors.

if we have two possible meaning of the RAW in this case,
one requiring a GM call to not be broken
and one not requiring a call to unbroken
the one not requiring a call is the most likely one to be correct.

[/quote]
I don't understand why requiring a GM judgment call means a rule is not likely to be correct.

What about: the meaning supported by the text saying 'everything' is the correct default which we make exceptions to?

A dragon hit by a grenade for 10 MD would take 10 MD.
A CS Grunt hit by a grenade for 10 MD would take 35+ MD (10 to the main body, 5 to the head, 5 to the left arm, 5 to the right arm, 5 to the left leg, 5 to the right leg, not to mention damage to weapons and gear).
And that's pretty messed up.

Nothing is messed up about this. If the GM is going to make dragons vulnerable to things like head shots and wants to assign MDC to the location, they can do that. We already see that done for a lot of monsters. Although maybe some monsters have MDC-by-location while dragons and other more-magical guys can simply allocate their MDC everywhere as some kind of mystic property, I dunno.

The CS grunt in your example is still only taking 10 to his main body. This doesn't affect how much damage his main body will take to be wrecked. It just means that realistically, an explosion is gonna mess up his helm/gauntlet/leggins as well, and leave them more easily wrecked by future called shots or missiles.

It also means that a missile can do something like blow off an arm or a leg but leave you alive, which I think KS has talked about in flavor text too.

In order to balance that out, you'd need to come up with MDC by location for each and every creature in the game, which is a lot of work.

Naw, wasn't there some rule on assigning %s ? Seems easily. Plus dragons are magic and don't need to be limited by our physics, maybe their bodies are like forcefields.

every time an explosion went off, you'd have to mark down damage for each location, which is also a lot of work.

You wouldn't have to do that, you would just have to make a general note "all my non-main things are down X damage" assuming everything gets hit. If the GM starts to make judgements calls on some things being excepted ("the fury beetle was sucking on your tail when the missile hits you so its face takes the MD intended for your tail") then you can still just make a note about it being excepted.

Individual updates would not have to be made for every single component for every single attack. If a GM is playing a squad of 20 grunts in heavy DB armor who get hit by a 20 MD explosion at the start of combat, you really think the GM is going to bother manually altering each pool? It's a waste of time. Instead he'd just make a note about them all being down 20 and only start doing individual adjustments as individual differences cropped up later.

it might be fun to play in a world where every time a grenade was chucked, armored PCs had a good chance of losing their arms and legs.

It so would

[Tor]

I'm basing this on there being no differentiation between the two that way in the game, therefore the default remains.
Explosions are not a stated exception to the rule, therefore the rule remains.

When a rule is made specifically about boomerangs, you do not need an exception about it not applying to knives. Same with when a rule is made about shots from guns, you don't need a rule to except it from applying to explosions from missiles. Context is everything.

"Everything" might address it under one overly-strict interpretation of the word

Thinking "every" means "every" doesn't seem overly strict. Sides, I acknowledge that statements elsewhere of stuff being protected by armor (wherever it talks about armor protecting people from attacks in general) would override this, the same way "a laser will vapourize your flesh" would be overrided by armor's protective ability.

never supported in any of the other rules, combat examples, or game descriptions

Game descriptions of the Glitter Boy Killer and the Super Trooper, both of which discuss the ability of explosions to destroy portions of power armor or robots other than the main body, support the viewpoint that more than the main body can be damaged.

that is not the only interpretation of that word.

I could interpret 'everything' to mean 'some things' or 'most things' I guess. Although it seems unfaithful to the prefix.

Another interpretation is simply that every "target" is hit on its main body (or sole damage pool) as per the usual rules. This interpretation fits with the rest of the game. Your interpretation is not.

Main bodies are only some things, not everything.

I really still am not getting how you think other aspects of the game don't fit. Omission isn't outlaw, combat examples are generic and skimp on details, doesn't mean squat.

So we're back to "one mistake does not mean that other mistakes were made."

It does however prove that combat examples cannot be relied upon to include all rules.

Come to think of it, the -10 to dodge projectiles (including bullets) is not applied when the guy half-dressed in the SAMAS armor tries to dodge the rail gun burst from the Enforcer, either. Oddly, he seems to go from half-dressed to fully-dressed in a couple of attacks even though NGR says it takes melees.

Furthermore, to call it a "mistake" implies there is actually something in there contradicting my interpretation, when there is not.

If the SAMAS rail gun only had 45 MDC or if the explosion did 100 MD then THAT would be a contradiction to my interpretation, because I fully believe the explosion did damage the railgun (if nothing else) and if the half the explosion's damage was enough to deplete the rail gun and it still fired the next attack then THAT would have contradicted me.

it's possible that robots/PA don't suffer the same strike penalties against moving targets that foot soldiers do.

RMB didn't go into particulars about only specific people suffering these penalties, and I don't think RUE did either.

RMB 42 let's see how it all works in an actually combat

Sounds like you think that "everything" must mean "everything," but that "all" must mean "not all."

What 'all' refers to is not clarified. It may only refer to basic principles and not extensive ones.

It clearly is not referring to every single detail of combat because:

(a) it ignores strike penalties to moving targets
(b) it ignores dodge penalties against gunfire
(c) it neglects to highlight the option to roll with impact when struck with explosion
(d) in the fourth attack we are not told what the strike roll or damage is for the SAMAS or Enforcer rail gun bursts
(e) in 5th attack the SAMAS should not have been able to dodge the Enforcer's punch since he was out of actions, per CB1 you could not dodge when out of attacks, this ability was only added in GMG/Rifters/RUE. Instead this should've been an auto-parry, even though the idea of a small PA parrying a huge bot seems weird.

"Damage as usual" had already been established at that point. Nothing new was to be gained at that point by listing the damage.

Rolling damage as usual does not mean that nothing new was to be gained. Knowing how close the struck SAMAS is to destruction is useful knowledge.

Cutting down on repetition is not the same as neglecting to mention an important rule as to how explosive damage is distributed, and neglecting to apply it in the sample combat.

It's not important if nothing of note was destroyed.

We are also not told how damage is distributed to the occupants of the hover jet when it crashes. Nor are we told of what SDC damage the SAMAS pilot takes when hit by missiles. Per RMBp12 a 90MD explosion should have inflicted 9 SDC to the SAMAS pilot. We are not always told every aspect of damage. That doesn't mean the rules no longer apply just because an example left it out.

Not mentioning when something doesn't happen isn't necessary. A veritably infinite number of things don't happen in combat. They can't all be mentioned.

It is necessary to mention something does not happen if it contradicts rules saying it does though.

Otherwise, mere omission of rules in an example doesn't mean they never existed. SAMAS pilots still take SDC from explosions, and everything vulnerable to the explosion is still damaged.

It's the Main Body, and no Called Shot was made. As per the rules, we know where the shot landed.

Agreed, per the rules this means that the missile hit the main body and did full damage (90 MD) to it. Everything else (which would include things like the rail gun) would have taken 45 MD from the explosion. Explosions aren't shots, and they aren't restricted from gun rules any more than HtH is.

RMBp41 says "any shot which is not called" not "any strike which is not called", and doesn't say anything about explosions.

That could mean we're supposed to assume 1/2 to the other locations, or maybe it means the main took 30 and the gun, left arm and both legs each took 15. GM could've excepted the rest of the stuff based on shielding.

I'd like you to take a nice, long think about how likely any of that actually is.

I did before I posted. I personally think it is more likely that KS meant 90 MD to main and 45 MD to any locations the GM figures would be hit. The rail gun was the only other location I 100% think would be hit. I could come up excuses for all the other locations in RMB at the time. The 'legs' location added in CWC are ones I think would've also been hit. If we're considering that too then it's worth noting the wings got enough MDC in the update to resist the explosion. If the new 'arms' location was damaged, it would've also survive. I believe the gun would protect the firing hand and a fencing pose while firing 1-handed could protect the other hand and the missile launcher on it.

there's a difference between normal consumption of ammunition that's not about to run out, and in an enemy attack eliminating your ammunition supply.

There is no difference if the melee ends before it comes into play.

You can speculate that the rear drum got vaped if you like. I except it because it's hiding behind the main body, it's not in the line of fire.

Fun fact: even though you can theoretically called-shot anything, a GM is free to judge that a PC is unable to called-shot a SAMAS' rear drum if they judge that it is not a viable target based on the way the SAMAS is facing and if the PC is unable to maneuver around (say, a narrow hallway) to get a clear bead on it.

In the same way, looking at the APC on RMBp199, if the dude in the pic wanted to make a called shot on the pair of side-laser-turrets on the right side of the APC, I would say no, because where he's standing, he could only shoot at the pair on the left side.

This is kind of pointless though, the ammo drum hides behind a SAMAS like a person hides behind a wall. I can't see the drum from the front in the illustration, so I believe Kev expected us to understand a GM would not let it be damaged from a frontal area-effect attack. Thus the 'rear' notation under the PA. If the SAMAS were shot from the back, or maybe the sides/top, that'd be a different story.

Because "Everything" doesn't mean "Everything.

It means everything until there is a logical reason to exclude it. Coverage is a logical reason.

You exclude something from explosion damage if it's under cover the same way you would exclude it as an option to make a called shot on if it was under cover.

Interpreting "everything" to mean "quite literally everything in the blast area" is one interpretation of RAW... but it's not the only one.
Interpreting "everything" to mean "the main body of every viable target" is also a logical interpretation of RAW. Considering that this interpretation works in accordance with all other rules and combat examples, it is also the most logical interpretation.

"Every viable target" is logical, thinking only main bodies are the only viable targets for explosions is not logical. It is contradicted by examples of non-main locations being destroyed in PA descriptions. The combat example does not accord with either of our interpretations since it doesn't explicitly include or exclude any locations, even the main body.

When both interpretations are RAW, there is no logical reason to pick the interpretation that creates conflict in favor of the interpretation that does not create conflict.

Both interpretations are not RAW though. The RAW is that the default status is 'everything'.

How about this for grounds for an exception? RUEp361's "Shooting at Someone Behind Cover" says there is no hope of hitting unless part is exposed.

This is under "Weapon Modifiers" (following WP Heavy Mega-Damage weapons AKA Heavy Energy Weapons, which includes grenade launchers, rocket launchers, rail guns and mini-missile launchers.

It is a broader rule and not specific to a gun like the "main body" thing is.

Inevitably you probably could find some kind of missile-gun out there, but that would still only refer to the missile itself, not the explosion. A missile gun would fire a missile, and it is the direct hit of the missile which fires an explosion.

Logically, if that same strike hit a dragon, the dragon's legs would be hit, and the dragon's tail would be hit, and the dragon's horns would be hit.
But the blast radius doesn't actually hit any of those things according to the rules.
The rules are not always fully logical.

Where does it say that the legs/tail/horns are not hit by an explosion?

I believe that the dragon's MDC just reflects these collective parts, unless the GM wants to assign hit locations allowing them to be killed faster. Dragons may not need them since they're weird supernatural creatures of magic with metamorphosis powers. Having location-locked MDC makes more sense for more normal non-morphing creatures like Brodkil. Sure, they may be invisible-turning sub-demons with regen, but they can't grow tail/wings outta nowhere when returning from human shape in a strange mutability issue.

By the rules they are hit, since everything is hit.

No. By your personal interpretation of one rule--and interpretation that is never supported elsewhere

RUE:
Page 362 left "getting caught in a blast radius does half damage"
Page 362 right (Plasma) "there is usually no salvageable evidence or supplies after this attack, making any positive ID of its victims impossible"
Page 363 "as noted previously, everyone and everything in the blast radius suffers half damage"
Page 364 "all else in the blast radius takes half damage"

It appears at least 4 times. I guess if you want you can simplify it as 'one rule', but it's one very important rule. I mean, I guess "defenders win ties" is also merely one rule.

Do you expect multiple rules to be made to address a single issue? I don't understand why that would be necessary.

conflicts with other parts of the book--they would be hit.

There is no conflict with the 2 examples of SAMAS being hit with missiles (2 minis and 3 shorts) as the omission of further details in both is not proof of non-existence any more than the omission of explosion/crash damage from the example (or strike/dodge penalties) is proof of those rules not applying.

In fact, it seems like other parts of the book conflict with your interpretation. Page 358 under "Surviving Mega-Damage Attacks" under Mega-Damage Explosives it mentions that those in the blast radius hit with shrapnel could destroy one or more body parts, rather than instantly killing them. Does that sound like only taking damage to the main body and none to the limbs?

By other interpretations that do not cause such conflict, and that do have support, they would not be hit.

They cause conflict and they do not have support.

The blast radius hits "everybody and everything" in the zone.
[The Spider Skull Walker] is a thing. It is hit by the missile already, so [The Spider Skull Walker] is not also hit by the blast radius.
[The CS Grunt] is a person. It was not hit by the missile, but it is in the blast radius, so it is hit by the blast radius.

The main body and legs are treated as separate things, that's why they have separate damage pools.

An Enforcer's individual fingers might be detachable but they are not given separate damage pools so you do not damage them separately.

It would not be unreasonable for a GM to decide that the Grunt is protected by the body of the Walker in this case, choosing to ignore/alter the actual rules in favor of "common sense."

Considering RUE finally introduced rules on cover though, it wouldn't be ignoring the rules, it'd be applying them

Since RMB apparently didn't have any rules on cover, yeah, I guess it'd be ignoring them. Can't remember if those got introduced in GMG maybe.

It could mean "every person and ever non-living target such as vehicles or walls" take damage to their main body.

If it only meant main bodies it would've said that.

There is no logical basis for that claim.

There is no logical basis for you to restrict 'everything' to main bodies for explosions by referring to a restriction about the individual singular targets of aimed gunfire.

Explosions aren't restricted any more than lava is, because they are not shots.

It could mean "every listed hit location on every target," which is your interpretation, but that conflicts with what we see in sample combats, as well as with other rules in the game.

Omission is not conflict.

In this case, it is.
We have a sample combat with the stated purpose of showing us "how it all works," and that sample omits any reference that would support your personal interpretation.

All of what? You have not provided evidence of what group 'all' refers to. It does not necessarily refer to 'all of the rules'.

Since strike/dodge penalties and explosion/crash damage are not applied, I have disproven your assumption that this refers to 'all of the rules'.

It clearly refers to 'all' of some other group, perhaps basic rules or basic concepts, popular mechanics not extended mechanics.

Since I have proven the example omits at least FIVE rules (penalty to dodge a rail gun, SDC damage to pilot from SAMAS being hit by missile, penalty to strike a a speeding hover jet, SDC damage to hover jet occupants from missile hit, SDC damage to hover jet occupants from resulting crash) we know it does not apply all rules. We know it does not qualify as an 'all rules in play' example, so we know that a rule not being applied here (such as everything taking damage from a blast radius) does not argue against a rule's existence.

We have the RMB rule describing how blast area damage works, and it likewise omits any reference that would support your personal interpretation.

RMB agrees with me the same way RUE does. RMBp41 "near misses do half damage. The First is by being within the blast radius of the target struck by a direct hit".

Nothing about near misses only applying to main bodies of things.

"Called shots" is only a restriction to "any SHOT". It is not about explosions, which are not shots.

We have book after book after book that contain various rules, sample combats, combat descriptions, and so forth, and none of them support your personal interpretation.

I am not sure what other books you are referring to. Do they contain missiles used in combat? I love the combat examples in TMNT and N&SS but they don't contain missiles...

All I can think to do is look to HU, Robotech or Splicers, since these settings have missiles. But do their combat examples?

Splicers 217 a rocket launcher "to everything in a 15 foot radius". No main bodies? Page 219 mentions them under 'Gun Terms' but again, that's not about explosions. Page 221 includes 'all else' same as RUE.

Very quickly in this case, absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence.

Doesn't work that way, any more than RMB's combat example somehow negates the -10 to dodge, -6 to strike, 9 SDC or 18 SDC. KS not including a detail is not evidence we shouldn't.

your rule is not included elsewhere.

Sure it is, I list 4 places it's included above. Everything, all else. It's the default. Cover is an exception since it's a general rule. Called shots are not an exception because they are a gun-specific rule.

All you have to go on is your one mis-interpretation of one word of text in one rule in one book, and nothing else anywhere in any book lends that interpretation ANY support.

I am not misinterpreting "every" or "all", they are very simple to understand words. You're just interpreting that we should ignore them.

The nature of damage distribution is not an irrelevant detail.
That's why we're having this discussion in the first place.

Relevance is subjective. You and I believe it is relevant because we understance its importance in actual combat, which tends to go the distance and have lasting effects.

This does not mean it is relevant to KS' throwaway combat scenario which ends forever at the end of a melee round.

A combat example that has the stated purpose of showing us "how it all works,"

All of something, but not all of the rules. We 100% know it doesn't include how all the rules work since it doesn't apply a required dodge penalty, a required explosion SDC damage, a required strike penalty, and another required explosion damage.

the example under the blast radius rule itself

The example made when body armor only had 1 MDC pool thus there being no other locations to damage?

the various rules that a Called Shot is required to strike anything other than the Main Body, and the example combat on p. 11 of RMB

For shots to strike. Gunshots. I'll extend that to say for a missile to hit directly.

It is not a rule that applies to explosions. It is a rule for when you choose a specific target. Where you have to aim. Explosions don't work that way.

I suppose I could go over the rest of all the books and find other examples, but I don't see much point when you don't have anything other than your own personal interpretation of one line of text.

It's more than one lines, above I quote four, it is a recurring way of describing something very inclusively.

How about the Annihilate spell (FoMp158) ? "everything in a 10 foot radius is struck" .. "if the "things" within the radius of affect have less MDC than the damage inflicted, they are completely vaporized!" .. "only a circle of barren earth (and those with great MDC) remains"

This seems to me to operate very much like a missile.

It also doesn't seem like the description of "a robot blown apart with perfectly intact arms and legs and guns and head and wings and sensors".

Do you maybe know of any artwork showing a missile hitting a guy in the chest and every other bit besides the chest surviving unscathed?

Doesn't matter. Artwork isn't canon.

Source? Everything in the books is canon until directly contradicted. Canon is the default, only other canon can override it.

To your benefit: if you found such a picture, I would let it prove your point. But similarly, if I can find a pic of a missile hitting a chest and damaging other stuff, that should prove mine.

Damage distribution is not minor.

What we perceive as major and minor is subjective. You and I may not have the same scope of things' importance as KS does in the context of a "the universe is one melee round long" combat example where he already is skimping on details like pilot damage, roll penalization, needing an action to dodge, and actual strike or damage rolls.

there is the absence of any indication that you cannot dodge a blast radius. It's stated numerous times that people in the blast radius can Roll With Impact, and it's stated (RMB 41) that Rolling against missile damage means "The player must roll 1d20 and match or better the roll to strike." Logically, if a target in the blast radius can Roll against the strike number, they Dodge against that same number.

Being able to roll with impact doesn't necessarily mean one is able to dodge.

It also does not say that you roll with impact against the strike roll if you are not the direct target. That strike roll pertains to the direct target, it doesn't pertain to others, so I judge they make a 14+ generalized roll if they are not the main target.

Secondly, RUE 364 states:
A small blast radius under 12' can be escaped with a single dodge action.

True, but it only mentions the main target being able to make a dodge. I fully agree with you that others should be able to maneuver similar 12-foot multiples but I cannot find text to support it. I would say that rather than a 'dodge' this would just be a case of one of those 'you spend your melee attack to cover a distance' issues.

Oddly... with even acrobats being limited to 5-foot leaps at first level, I begin to wonder how one dodges 12 feet in an action unless one's wearing PA or something to get sweet jumps. Perhaps a dodge can mean more than a single leap, and refer to a staggering action of several steps?

In this case, it's up to the GM to decide how much other targets can move in an action.

Something else to take into consideration: unless you're actually paying attention to an attacker in combat, wouldn't any attack they made be a surprise attack? It's safe to assume you're focused on an Enforcer firing rail guns or missiles at you, but you might not be focused on one that is attacking your friend, if you happened to be engaged in fighting someone else. Perception rolls throughout combat for this kinda thing would be interesting.

As for roll with impact, you would do (per RUEp362) a 14+ since a strike roll is not available.

Except that a strike roll IS available, and the RUE rule that you're pulling in didn't exist when the RMB was written.

Available to the direct target, who the roll is made against.

Fusion Blocks existed, what did you roll against when those exploded?

Blast radius was a lot like fusion blocks, maybe back then a specific number wasn't given, but you could opt to use the 14 for falls or just roll an unmodified d20 as the strike as a GM judgment.

As I have already pointed out, this section is not about body armor.

Again, the "Combat Rules For High-Tech War Machines" section starts off by clearly stating:

The following are the rules that are used when playing characters who operate power armor or robot vehicles.

Since war machines like PA/bots are common implements of firing missiles, it is a convenient place to put missile rules.

Note that "used when playing characters who operate PA or bots" is not "used only when".

RMBp199 the Mark V APC has forward mini-missile launchers, it is not power armor or robot.

RMBp200 the Death's Head has Medium Range missile launchers, it is not power armor or robot.

RMBp201 the Sky Cycle has mini-missile launchers, not PA, not a bot.

RMBp204 the CR-1 Rocket Launcher is not a PA or bot.

RMBp226 the ATV Speedster Hover Cycle can have mini-missle launchers added. Not PA or bot.

RMBp228 the Sky King can fire pairs of mini-missiles. Not a PA or a bot.

Just because PA and Bots commonly fire missiles does not mean that the targets of a missile fired in an example should be assumed to be a robot or power armor with hit locations. They may be a guy in body armor wielding a CR-1, or maybe not even wield missiles at all.

Their role in the example is the target of a missile, not the launcher of a missile.

All robots and power armor in the RMB had MDC by location, and the section that describes blast radius damage is in the section discussing specifically combat for robots and power armor, therefore it is an example for robots and power armor, NOT for guys in EBA.

Nope, the nature of the targets is not elaborated upon.

It merely talks about 'your companion' and that you are standing close together.

It's the person shooting a missile at them who might be a PA or bot. Or, y'know, just a guy with a rocket launcher or a vehicle with missle launchers attached to it.

But hey, if you want to think this must just apply to PA and Bots, does that mean that non-main locations take damage so long as the vehicle isn't a robot one, and so long as the armor is not power?

[Blue_Lion]

I'm basing this on there being no differentiation between the two that way in the game, therefore the default remains.
Explosions are not a stated exception to the rule, therefore the rule remains.

When a rule is made specifically about boomerangs, you do not need an exception about it not applying to knives. Same with when a rule is made about shots from guns, you don't need a rule to except it from applying to explosions from missiles. Context is everything.

"Everything" might address it under one overly-strict interpretation of the word

Thinking "every" means "every" doesn't seem overly strict. Sides, I acknowledge that statements elsewhere of stuff being protected by armor (wherever it talks about armor protecting people from attacks in general) would override this, the same way "a laser will vapourize your flesh" would be overrided by armor's protective ability.

never supported in any of the other rules, combat examples, or game descriptions

Game descriptions of the Glitter Boy Killer and the Super Trooper, both of which discuss the ability of explosions to destroy portions of power armor or robots other than the main body, support the viewpoint that more than the main body can be damaged.

that is not the only interpretation of that word.

I could interpret 'everything' to mean 'some things' or 'most things' I guess. Although it seems unfaithful to the prefix.

Another interpretation is simply that every "target" is hit on its main body (or sole damage pool) as per the usual rules. This interpretation fits with the rest of the game. Your interpretation is not.

Main bodies are only some things, not everything.

I really still am not getting how you think other aspects of the game don't fit. Omission isn't outlaw, combat examples are generic and skimp on details, doesn't mean squat.

So we're back to "one mistake does not mean that other mistakes were made."

It does however prove that combat examples cannot be relied upon to include all rules.

Come to think of it, the -10 to dodge projectiles (including bullets) is not applied when the guy half-dressed in the SAMAS armor tries to dodge the rail gun burst from the Enforcer, either. Oddly, he seems to go from half-dressed to fully-dressed in a couple of attacks even though NGR says it takes melees.

Furthermore, to call it a "mistake" implies there is actually something in there contradicting my interpretation, when there is not.

If the SAMAS rail gun only had 45 MDC or if the explosion did 100 MD then THAT would be a contradiction to my interpretation, because I fully believe the explosion did damage the railgun (if nothing else) and if the half the explosion's damage was enough to deplete the rail gun and it still fired the next attack then THAT would have contradicted me.

it's possible that robots/PA don't suffer the same strike penalties against moving targets that foot soldiers do.

RMB didn't go into particulars about only specific people suffering these penalties, and I don't think RUE did either.

RMB 42 let's see how it all works in an actually combat

Sounds like you think that "everything" must mean "everything," but that "all" must mean "not all."

What 'all' refers to is not clarified. It may only refer to basic principles and not extensive ones.

It clearly is not referring to every single detail of combat because:

(a) it ignores strike penalties to moving targets
(b) it ignores dodge penalties against gunfire
(c) it neglects to highlight the option to roll with impact when struck with explosion
(d) in the fourth attack we are not told what the strike roll or damage is for the SAMAS or Enforcer rail gun bursts
(e) in 5th attack the SAMAS should not have been able to dodge the Enforcer's punch since he was out of actions, per CB1 you could not dodge when out of attacks, this ability was only added in GMG/Rifters/RUE. Instead this should've been an auto-parry, even though the idea of a small PA parrying a huge bot seems weird.

"Damage as usual" had already been established at that point. Nothing new was to be gained at that point by listing the damage.

Rolling damage as usual does not mean that nothing new was to be gained. Knowing how close the struck SAMAS is to destruction is useful knowledge.

Cutting down on repetition is not the same as neglecting to mention an important rule as to how explosive damage is distributed, and neglecting to apply it in the sample combat.

It's not important if nothing of note was destroyed.

We are also not told how damage is distributed to the occupants of the hover jet when it crashes. Nor are we told of what SDC damage the SAMAS pilot takes when hit by missiles. Per RMBp12 a 90MD explosion should have inflicted 9 SDC to the SAMAS pilot. We are not always told every aspect of damage. That doesn't mean the rules no longer apply just because an example left it out.

Not mentioning when something doesn't happen isn't necessary. A veritably infinite number of things don't happen in combat. They can't all be mentioned.

It is necessary to mention something does not happen if it contradicts rules saying it does though.

Otherwise, mere omission of rules in an example doesn't mean they never existed. SAMAS pilots still take SDC from explosions, and everything vulnerable to the explosion is still damaged.

It's the Main Body, and no Called Shot was made. As per the rules, we know where the shot landed.

Agreed, per the rules this means that the missile hit the main body and did full damage (90 MD) to it. Everything else (which would include things like the rail gun) would have taken 45 MD from the explosion. Explosions aren't shots, and they aren't restricted from gun rules any more than HtH is.

RMBp41 says "any shot which is not called" not "any strike which is not called", and doesn't say anything about explosions.

That could mean we're supposed to assume 1/2 to the other locations, or maybe it means the main took 30 and the gun, left arm and both legs each took 15. GM could've excepted the rest of the stuff based on shielding.

I'd like you to take a nice, long think about how likely any of that actually is.

I did before I posted. I personally think it is more likely that KS meant 90 MD to main and 45 MD to any locations the GM figures would be hit. The rail gun was the only other location I 100% think would be hit. I could come up excuses for all the other locations in RMB at the time. The 'legs' location added in CWC are ones I think would've also been hit. If we're considering that too then it's worth noting the wings got enough MDC in the update to resist the explosion. If the new 'arms' location was damaged, it would've also survive. I believe the gun would protect the firing hand and a fencing pose while firing 1-handed could protect the other hand and the missile launcher on it.

there's a difference between normal consumption of ammunition that's not about to run out, and in an enemy attack eliminating your ammunition supply.

There is no difference if the melee ends before it comes into play.

You can speculate that the rear drum got vaped if you like. I except it because it's hiding behind the main body, it's not in the line of fire.

Fun fact: even though you can theoretically called-shot anything, a GM is free to judge that a PC is unable to called-shot a SAMAS' rear drum if they judge that it is not a viable target based on the way the SAMAS is facing and if the PC is unable to maneuver around (say, a narrow hallway) to get a clear bead on it.

In the same way, looking at the APC on RMBp199, if the dude in the pic wanted to make a called shot on the pair of side-laser-turrets on the right side of the APC, I would say no, because where he's standing, he could only shoot at the pair on the left side.

This is kind of pointless though, the ammo drum hides behind a SAMAS like a person hides behind a wall. I can't see the drum from the front in the illustration, so I believe Kev expected us to understand a GM would not let it be damaged from a frontal area-effect attack. Thus the 'rear' notation under the PA. If the SAMAS were shot from the back, or maybe the sides/top, that'd be a different story.

Because "Everything" doesn't mean "Everything.

It means everything until there is a logical reason to exclude it. Coverage is a logical reason.

You exclude something from explosion damage if it's under cover the same way you would exclude it as an option to make a called shot on if it was under cover.

Interpreting "everything" to mean "quite literally everything in the blast area" is one interpretation of RAW... but it's not the only one.
Interpreting "everything" to mean "the main body of every viable target" is also a logical interpretation of RAW. Considering that this interpretation works in accordance with all other rules and combat examples, it is also the most logical interpretation.

"Every viable target" is logical, thinking only main bodies are the only viable targets for explosions is not logical. It is contradicted by examples of non-main locations being destroyed in PA descriptions. The combat example does not accord with either of our interpretations since it doesn't explicitly include or exclude any locations, even the main body.

When both interpretations are RAW, there is no logical reason to pick the interpretation that creates conflict in favor of the interpretation that does not create conflict.

Both interpretations are not RAW though. The RAW is that the default status is 'everything'.

How about this for grounds for an exception? RUEp361's "Shooting at Someone Behind Cover" says there is no hope of hitting unless part is exposed.

This is under "Weapon Modifiers" (following WP Heavy Mega-Damage weapons AKA Heavy Energy Weapons, which includes grenade launchers, rocket launchers, rail guns and mini-missile launchers.

It is a broader rule and not specific to a gun like the "main body" thing is.

Inevitably you probably could find some kind of missile-gun out there, but that would still only refer to the missile itself, not the explosion. A missile gun would fire a missile, and it is the direct hit of the missile which fires an explosion.

Logically, if that same strike hit a dragon, the dragon's legs would be hit, and the dragon's tail would be hit, and the dragon's horns would be hit.
But the blast radius doesn't actually hit any of those things according to the rules.
The rules are not always fully logical.

Where does it say that the legs/tail/horns are not hit by an explosion?

I believe that the dragon's MDC just reflects these collective parts, unless the GM wants to assign hit locations allowing them to be killed faster. Dragons may not need them since they're weird supernatural creatures of magic with metamorphosis powers. Having location-locked MDC makes more sense for more normal non-morphing creatures like Brodkil. Sure, they may be invisible-turning sub-demons with regen, but they can't grow tail/wings outta nowhere when returning from human shape in a strange mutability issue.

By the rules they are hit, since everything is hit.

No. By your personal interpretation of one rule--and interpretation that is never supported elsewhere

RUE:
Page 362 left "getting caught in a blast radius does half damage"
Page 362 right (Plasma) "there is usually no salvageable evidence or supplies after this attack, making any positive ID of its victims impossible"
Page 363 "as noted previously, everyone and everything in the blast radius suffers half damage"
Page 364 "all else in the blast radius takes half damage"

It appears at least 4 times. I guess if you want you can simplify it as 'one rule', but it's one very important rule. I mean, I guess "defenders win ties" is also merely one rule.

Do you expect multiple rules to be made to address a single issue? I don't understand why that would be necessary.

conflicts with other parts of the book--they would be hit.

There is no conflict with the 2 examples of SAMAS being hit with missiles (2 minis and 3 shorts) as the omission of further details in both is not proof of non-existence any more than the omission of explosion/crash damage from the example (or strike/dodge penalties) is proof of those rules not applying.

In fact, it seems like other parts of the book conflict with your interpretation. Page 358 under "Surviving Mega-Damage Attacks" under Mega-Damage Explosives it mentions that those in the blast radius hit with shrapnel could destroy one or more body parts, rather than instantly killing them. Does that sound like only taking damage to the main body and none to the limbs?

By other interpretations that do not cause such conflict, and that do have support, they would not be hit.

They cause conflict and they do not have support.

The blast radius hits "everybody and everything" in the zone.
[The Spider Skull Walker] is a thing. It is hit by the missile already, so [The Spider Skull Walker] is not also hit by the blast radius.
[The CS Grunt] is a person. It was not hit by the missile, but it is in the blast radius, so it is hit by the blast radius.

The main body and legs are treated as separate things, that's why they have separate damage pools.

An Enforcer's individual fingers might be detachable but they are not given separate damage pools so you do not damage them separately.

It would not be unreasonable for a GM to decide that the Grunt is protected by the body of the Walker in this case, choosing to ignore/alter the actual rules in favor of "common sense."

Considering RUE finally introduced rules on cover though, it wouldn't be ignoring the rules, it'd be applying them

Since RMB apparently didn't have any rules on cover, yeah, I guess it'd be ignoring them. Can't remember if those got introduced in GMG maybe.

It could mean "every person and ever non-living target such as vehicles or walls" take damage to their main body.

If it only meant main bodies it would've said that.

There is no logical basis for that claim.

There is no logical basis for you to restrict 'everything' to main bodies for explosions by referring to a restriction about the individual singular targets of aimed gunfire.

Explosions aren't restricted any more than lava is, because they are not shots.

It could mean "every listed hit location on every target," which is your interpretation, but that conflicts with what we see in sample combats, as well as with other rules in the game.

Omission is not conflict.

In this case, it is.
We have a sample combat with the stated purpose of showing us "how it all works," and that sample omits any reference that would support your personal interpretation.

All of what? You have not provided evidence of what group 'all' refers to. It does not necessarily refer to 'all of the rules'.

Since strike/dodge penalties and explosion/crash damage are not applied, I have disproven your assumption that this refers to 'all of the rules'.

It clearly refers to 'all' of some other group, perhaps basic rules or basic concepts, popular mechanics not extended mechanics.

Since I have proven the example omits at least FIVE rules (penalty to dodge a rail gun, SDC damage to pilot from SAMAS being hit by missile, penalty to strike a a speeding hover jet, SDC damage to hover jet occupants from missile hit, SDC damage to hover jet occupants from resulting crash) we know it does not apply all rules. We know it does not qualify as an 'all rules in play' example, so we know that a rule not being applied here (such as everything taking damage from a blast radius) does not argue against a rule's existence.

We have the RMB rule describing how blast area damage works, and it likewise omits any reference that would support your personal interpretation.

RMB agrees with me the same way RUE does. RMBp41 "near misses do half damage. The First is by being within the blast radius of the target struck by a direct hit".

Nothing about near misses only applying to main bodies of things.

"Called shots" is only a restriction to "any SHOT". It is not about explosions, which are not shots.

We have book after book after book that contain various rules, sample combats, combat descriptions, and so forth, and none of them support your personal interpretation.

I am not sure what other books you are referring to. Do they contain missiles used in combat? I love the combat examples in TMNT and N&SS but they don't contain missiles...

All I can think to do is look to HU, Robotech or Splicers, since these settings have missiles. But do their combat examples?

Splicers 217 a rocket launcher "to everything in a 15 foot radius". No main bodies? Page 219 mentions them under 'Gun Terms' but again, that's not about explosions. Page 221 includes 'all else' same as RUE.

Very quickly in this case, absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence.

Doesn't work that way, any more than RMB's combat example somehow negates the -10 to dodge, -6 to strike, 9 SDC or 18 SDC. KS not including a detail is not evidence we shouldn't.

your rule is not included elsewhere.

Sure it is, I list 4 places it's included above. Everything, all else. It's the default. Cover is an exception since it's a general rule. Called shots are not an exception because they are a gun-specific rule.

All you have to go on is your one mis-interpretation of one word of text in one rule in one book, and nothing else anywhere in any book lends that interpretation ANY support.

I am not misinterpreting "every" or "all", they are very simple to understand words. You're just interpreting that we should ignore them.

The nature of damage distribution is not an irrelevant detail.
That's why we're having this discussion in the first place.

Relevance is subjective. You and I believe it is relevant because we understance its importance in actual combat, which tends to go the distance and have lasting effects.

This does not mean it is relevant to KS' throwaway combat scenario which ends forever at the end of a melee round.

A combat example that has the stated purpose of showing us "how it all works,"

All of something, but not all of the rules. We 100% know it doesn't include how all the rules work since it doesn't apply a required dodge penalty, a required explosion SDC damage, a required strike penalty, and another required explosion damage.

the example under the blast radius rule itself

The example made when body armor only had 1 MDC pool thus there being no other locations to damage?

the various rules that a Called Shot is required to strike anything other than the Main Body, and the example combat on p. 11 of RMB

For shots to strike. Gunshots. I'll extend that to say for a missile to hit directly.

It is not a rule that applies to explosions. It is a rule for when you choose a specific target. Where you have to aim. Explosions don't work that way.

I suppose I could go over the rest of all the books and find other examples, but I don't see much point when you don't have anything other than your own personal interpretation of one line of text.

It's more than one lines, above I quote four, it is a recurring way of describing something very inclusively.

How about the Annihilate spell (FoMp158) ? "everything in a 10 foot radius is struck" .. "if the "things" within the radius of affect have less MDC than the damage inflicted, they are completely vaporized!" .. "only a circle of barren earth (and those with great MDC) remains"

This seems to me to operate very much like a missile.

It also doesn't seem like the description of "a robot blown apart with perfectly intact arms and legs and guns and head and wings and sensors".

Do you maybe know of any artwork showing a missile hitting a guy in the chest and every other bit besides the chest surviving unscathed?

Doesn't matter. Artwork isn't canon.

Source? Everything in the books is canon until directly contradicted. Canon is the default, only other canon can override it.

To your benefit: if you found such a picture, I would let it prove your point. But similarly, if I can find a pic of a missile hitting a chest and damaging other stuff, that should prove mine.

Damage distribution is not minor.

What we perceive as major and minor is subjective. You and I may not have the same scope of things' importance as KS does in the context of a "the universe is one melee round long" combat example where he already is skimping on details like pilot damage, roll penalization, needing an action to dodge, and actual strike or damage rolls.

there is the absence of any indication that you cannot dodge a blast radius. It's stated numerous times that people in the blast radius can Roll With Impact, and it's stated (RMB 41) that Rolling against missile damage means "The player must roll 1d20 and match or better the roll to strike." Logically, if a target in the blast radius can Roll against the strike number, they Dodge against that same number.

Being able to roll with impact doesn't necessarily mean one is able to dodge.

It also does not say that you roll with impact against the strike roll if you are not the direct target. That strike roll pertains to the direct target, it doesn't pertain to others, so I judge they make a 14+ generalized roll if they are not the main target.

Secondly, RUE 364 states:
A small blast radius under 12' can be escaped with a single dodge action.

True, but it only mentions the main target being able to make a dodge. I fully agree with you that others should be able to maneuver similar 12-foot multiples but I cannot find text to support it. I would say that rather than a 'dodge' this would just be a case of one of those 'you spend your melee attack to cover a distance' issues.

Oddly... with even acrobats being limited to 5-foot leaps at first level, I begin to wonder how one dodges 12 feet in an action unless one's wearing PA or something to get sweet jumps. Perhaps a dodge can mean more than a single leap, and refer to a staggering action of several steps?

In this case, it's up to the GM to decide how much other targets can move in an action.

Something else to take into consideration: unless you're actually paying attention to an attacker in combat, wouldn't any attack they made be a surprise attack? It's safe to assume you're focused on an Enforcer firing rail guns or missiles at you, but you might not be focused on one that is attacking your friend, if you happened to be engaged in fighting someone else. Perception rolls throughout combat for this kinda thing would be interesting.

As for roll with impact, you would do (per RUEp362) a 14+ since a strike roll is not available.

Except that a strike roll IS available, and the RUE rule that you're pulling in didn't exist when the RMB was written.

Available to the direct target, who the roll is made against.

Fusion Blocks existed, what did you roll against when those exploded?

Blast radius was a lot like fusion blocks, maybe back then a specific number wasn't given, but you could opt to use the 14 for falls or just roll an unmodified d20 as the strike as a GM judgment.

As I have already pointed out, this section is not about body armor.

Again, the "Combat Rules For High-Tech War Machines" section starts off by clearly stating:

The following are the rules that are used when playing characters who operate power armor or robot vehicles.

Since war machines like PA/bots are common implements of firing missiles, it is a convenient place to put missile rules.

Note that "used when playing characters who operate PA or bots" is not "used only when".

RMBp199 the Mark V APC has forward mini-missile launchers, it is not power armor or robot.

RMBp200 the Death's Head has Medium Range missile launchers, it is not power armor or robot.

RMBp201 the Sky Cycle has mini-missile launchers, not PA, not a bot.

RMBp204 the CR-1 Rocket Launcher is not a PA or bot.

RMBp226 the ATV Speedster Hover Cycle can have mini-missle launchers added. Not PA or bot.

RMBp228 the Sky King can fire pairs of mini-missiles. Not a PA or a bot.

Just because PA and Bots commonly fire missiles does not mean that the targets of a missile fired in an example should be assumed to be a robot or power armor with hit locations. They may be a guy in body armor wielding a CR-1, or maybe not even wield missiles at all.

Their role in the example is the target of a missile, not the launcher of a missile.

All robots and power armor in the RMB had MDC by location, and the section that describes blast radius damage is in the section discussing specifically combat for robots and power armor, therefore it is an example for robots and power armor, NOT for guys in EBA.

Nope, the nature of the targets is not elaborated upon.

It merely talks about 'your companion' and that you are standing close together.

It's the person shooting a missile at them who might be a PA or bot. Or, y'know, just a guy with a rocket launcher or a vehicle with missle launchers attached to it.

But hey, if you want to think this must just apply to PA and Bots, does that mean that non-main locations take damage so long as the vehicle isn't a robot one, and so long as the armor is not power?

Lets start at the bottom. It clearly states on pg 43 the target of the missiles was a samas. So nice try, but as it was pointed out that this was not a case of shooting at some one in EBA. He was referring to that combat example not the one in RUE.

Above that you are arguing with the books text most this section has direct reference to robot pilots so while there may be missiels are other vehicles it does not change the focus of that section.

The roll with impact was in reference to missiles where a strike was not fusion blocks so your post is miss direction.

If you are in combat with some one why would you not expect them to attack you? I am not sure how you think any attack once the fight starts is a surprise attack if you know they are the enemy.

The GB killer and super trooper seamed to be me talking about called shots and if it was common for parts to be destroyed from aoes why does it only appear on two units. Seams to be more of a special case than general rule. (also pre RUE mini where not treated as missiles and could do called shots.)

Nothing in your post actually presents any thing other than misdirection or in some cases blatant errors.

[Blue_Lion]

THE way I see it there are two sides to this debate as I pointed out your every thing means every thing means the guy in armor would die, it is only by a gm call that something over rides the every thing that he lives. So that is case of the rule being broaken without a GM call.

So we have as I said two possible options.
Option A every thing means every thing. (it does not say every thing not protected.
Option B every thing means that every it is the main body of targets taken damage as described in other parts and combat examples on how it is done.

As interoperation A requires a gm call not to have the guy in the blast radius take damage it is less likely than option B which is the main damage takes that does not need a call to over ride the every thing.
Option B is also more inline with combat examples and the needs a called shot to hit other areas of the target.(not to mention more balanced against targets with only one damage pool.)

**Looking at the posts no one other than Tor seams to post that they think RAW means it is every part of every thing. So if 6 people read the rule one way one person is claiming it is something else I would think majority wins.**

[Tor]

It clearly states on pg 43 the target of the missiles was a samas. So nice try, but as it was pointed out that this was not a case of shooting at some one in EBA. He was referring to that combat example not the one in RUE.

I think you are unintentionally strawmanning due to a mix-up here. The response you are addressing was in regard to page 41 under discussion of the near miss.

Above that you are arguing with the books text most this section has direct reference to robot pilots so while there may be missiels are other vehicles it does not change the focus of that section.

The focus of the section is missiles, and it happens to be included under high-tech war machines because those are the predominant firers of missiles. This does not mean that the targets in the example are robots or power armor.

The roll with impact was in reference to missiles where a strike was not fusion blocks so your post is miss direction.

Incorrect, it is an appropriate thing to bring up because fusion blocks also lack a strike roll made at the victim so there is no target number to resist.

If you are in combat with some one why would you not expect them to attack you? I am not sure how you think any attack once the fight starts is a surprise attack if you know they are the enemy.

Friendly fire would be a good example. If I was a SAMAS in a fight with a dragon and my UAR-1 Enforcer buddy fired a missile at the dragon which caught me in the blast radius, I might not expect that to come from him without warning even though I am aware he is engaged in combat. Usually I think allies would radio each other before doing stuff like that, but communications errors might prevent the warning.

The GB killer and super trooper seamed to be me talking about called shots and if it was common for parts to be destroyed from aoes why does it only appear on two units. Seams to be more of a special case than general rule. (also pre RUE mini where not treated as missiles and could do called shots.)

Minis were still missiles but I think they could do called shots too, due to being unguided. RMBp41 the 'all missiles always strike the main body' was a note under smart bombs, supporting this interpretation.

Nothing in your post actually presents any thing other than misdirection or in some cases blatant errors.

I don't agree with your assessment.

When I point out how the text in 4 places says that everything is hit, how is this a misdirection or an error?

THE way I see it there are two sides to this debate

This is what we call a "false dichotomy".

your every thing means every thing means the guy in armor would die, it is only by a gm call that something over rides the every thing that he lives.

Correct, the GM must call into play the common-sense understanding that someone wearing environmental or power armor is essentially 'behind cover' and cannot be hit since he is not exposed.

It is completely reasonable since RUE has a statement about cover.

Prior to statements about cover, I could stand directly behind the center of a 1 mile by 1 mile indestructible wall 6 feet deep, and still be harmed by a fragmentation missile hitting the other side.

That is, unless the GM applied the powers they are expected to apply in situations like that, and realize it wouldn't work.

GMs are always supposed to do stuff like that when the rules don't go far enough. Like for example: telling you when you are unable to eat more food without vomiting. There aren't rules for that. It doesn't mean you can eat infinite food. Nor does there not being a rule preventing phase-explosions does not mean that 'hits everything' means explosions can now phase through indestructible walls.

Any rule in place in the game only applies so far as it is reasonable and the GM can over-ride an ability of something (like an explosion) when the ability does not make sense in the context of a certain event.

So we have as I said two possible options.
Option A every thing means every thing. (it does not say every thing not protected.
Option B every thing means that every it is the main body of targets taken damage as described in other parts and combat examples on how it is done.

I reject your false dichotomy. How about Option C: everything except things behind cover (ie guy behind the cover of armor he is wearing, or a wall) or immune to the damage (ie fire elementals and plasma missiles)

Also to reiterate: the combat examples do NOT describe the main bodies of the targets taking damage, they describe the SAMAS taking damage and do not specify the main body.

I agree that in the case of the 3 short-range missiles, it would be to the main body. I am not so sure about the pair of mini-missiles. A pair of missiles can be an aimed shot, and if these were unguided minis, they could have been a called shot. Page 11 does not specify it is a called shot, but it doesn't specify it is a normal one either. "only a scratch" suggests main body though, 27 MD to any other area would be more than a scratch. Although even with the main body, doing over 10% of your damage capacity still seems more than a scratch =/

As interoperation A requires a gm call not to have the guy in the blast radius take damage it is less likely than option B which is the main damage takes that does not need a call to over ride the every thing.

Do you realize that your 'main body only' houserule does not actually prevent a guy hiding behind a wall from taking damage from a missile hitting the center of the wall whose radius is less than the wall's width or height?

Option B is also more inline with combat examples and the needs a called shot to hit other areas of the target.(not to mention more balanced against targets with only one damage pool.)

The necessity of needing a called shot to hit other areas does apply: to the missile itself, the direct hit. You need to make a called shot to directly hit any area other than the main body with a missile or two, I can embrace that.

Explosions don't work that way.

I believe I brought this up before, but the Coalition Mark IX Missile Launcher Vehicle (mercs 148) also contradicts these assumptions. If you destroy missile while it is being launched (called shot with penalty) the explosion will damage the launcher. There is no note about it also damaging the main body. I am inclined to think (due to the main body being behind cover of the launcher) that this would only occur if the launcher exploded in which case the main body (and other components) would be in the 'entire area' which is hit by the explosion.

Looking at the posts no one other than Tor seams to post that they think RAW means it is every part of every thing. So if 6 people read the rule one way one person is claiming it is something else I would think majority wins.**

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

Since I just provided direct evidence of a missile explosion damaging a part other than the main body WITHOUT a called shot being made, I think the burden is on you to provide an example of something explicitly being unharmed elsewhere, if you want to have people believe that.

[Kagashi]

If you allow the blast radius to hit every hit location on the target, then creatures with only one damage pool become vastly more resistant to explosions.
A dragon hit by a grenade for 10 MD would take 10 MD.
A CS Grunt hit by a grenade for 10 MD would take 35+ MD (10 to the main body, 5 to the head, 5 to the left arm, 5 to the right arm, 5 to the left leg, 5 to the right leg, not to mention damage to weapons and gear).
And that's pretty messed up.

In order to balance that out, you'd need to come up with MDC by location for each and every creature in the game, which is a lot of work.
And every time an explosion went off, you'd have to mark down damage for each location, which is also a lot of work.
Ultimately, I can see why Palladium compromised realism for playability in this case, although it might be fun to play in a world where every time a grenade was chucked, armored PCs had a good chance of losing their arms and legs.

Thats exactly what I do. Got the rules (with tweaks) from Palladium Compendium of Contemporary Weapons.

- Main Body: 100% of the base HP/SDC or MDC value
- Head: 50%
- Leg: 25%
- Foot: 10%
- Arm or Tentacle: 15%
- Hand: 10%
- Tail: 25%
- Wings: 50%

Or something like that. Ive been messing with the values. Its either that, or add up all the MDC values for tech items and only have one single value and run things like you normally would by the book. Either way, all targets should be treated the same IMHO.

Points for going that extra mile, but I prefer the less mathy way of doing things, even if your solution is more elegant than what Palladium's done.

*shrug* I dont really think its all that cosmic. Body Armor used to be a static value, but Palladium canonized it by RUE with MDC by Location. Some Bio targets already have MDC by Location statted out already as well. I just want to see everything playing by the same rules. Going with the less mathy route and either using the main body value, or adding up the MDC of all the locations (like the MDC to SDC conversion suggestion in CB1) into one static value works too...as long as all targets are using the same system. Thats what matters and thats whats jacked up with Palladiums current game mechanics. If you are going to do something right (or wrong), just be consistent.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. I'm going to try and avoid getting tangled into this mess of a debate, but ... just a few things that I'm not sure if were brought up yet or not.

Direct Hit: The actual target struck by a grenade or missile is at the epicenter of the explosion and takes full damage from a direct hit.

Radius Damage: [snip] So a grenade or mini-missile that does 5D6 M.D. inflicts the full 5D6 M.D. to the target it strikes (or lands at the feet of) ...

Note: All missiles always strike the main body.

So the book tells us that if the missiles land at your feet, it'll still be a Direct Hit to the Main Body (and this is the "epicenter"). By the ruling that all limbs also take half damage, that means that a missile landing at someone's feet will inflict full damage to the main body, and then reduce damage to only half for the feet and head. That also means the focal point of the blast is very selective, as it'll jump to the main body for a human-sized character before spreading out ... and yet decide to jump more than twice that distance to hit the main body of a robot, and each missiles will know this exact location ... every time.

Direct hits are when the missiles impact directly on the player character (or his robot, power armor, vehicle, etc.). A direct hit does full damage.

So a direct hit does full damage to the target. So let's say I'm the target. Are my hands part of me? Are my legs part of me? Is my head part of me? If the answer is yes, then I'd say at best you can argue that all those parts take full damage (since I'm the target, and all those limbs are a part of me), or that damage is only dealt to the main body (as the book tells us that missiles hit the main body). Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[Blue_Lion]

It clearly states on pg 43 the target of the missiles was a samas. So nice try, but as it was pointed out that this was not a case of shooting at some one in EBA. He was referring to that combat example not the one in RUE.

I think you are unintentionally strawmanning due to a mix-up here. The response you are addressing was in regard to page 41 under discussion of the near miss.

Above that you are arguing with the books text most this section has direct reference to robot pilots so while there may be missiels are other vehicles it does not change the focus of that section.

The focus of the section is missiles, and it happens to be included under high-tech war machines because those are the predominant firers of missiles. This does not mean that the targets in the example are robots or power armor.

The roll with impact was in reference to missiles where a strike was not fusion blocks so your post is miss direction.

Incorrect, it is an appropriate thing to bring up because fusion blocks also lack a strike roll made at the victim so there is no target number to resist.

If you are in combat with some one why would you not expect them to attack you? I am not sure how you think any attack once the fight starts is a surprise attack if you know they are the enemy.

Friendly fire would be a good example. If I was a SAMAS in a fight with a dragon and my UAR-1 Enforcer buddy fired a missile at the dragon which caught me in the blast radius, I might not expect that to come from him without warning even though I am aware he is engaged in combat. Usually I think allies would radio each other before doing stuff like that, but communications errors might prevent the warning.

The GB killer and super trooper seamed to be me talking about called shots and if it was common for parts to be destroyed from aoes why does it only appear on two units. Seams to be more of a special case than general rule. (also pre RUE mini where not treated as missiles and could do called shots.)

Minis were still missiles but I think they could do called shots too, due to being unguided. RMBp41 the 'all missiles always strike the main body' was a note under smart bombs, supporting this interpretation.

Nothing in your post actually presents any thing other than misdirection or in some cases blatant errors.

I don't agree with your assessment.

When I point out how the text in 4 places says that everything is hit, how is this a misdirection or an error?

THE way I see it there are two sides to this debate

This is what we call a "false dichotomy".

your every thing means every thing means the guy in armor would die, it is only by a gm call that something over rides the every thing that he lives.

Correct, the GM must call into play the common-sense understanding that someone wearing environmental or power armor is essentially 'behind cover' and cannot be hit since he is not exposed.

It is completely reasonable since RUE has a statement about cover.

Prior to statements about cover, I could stand directly behind the center of a 1 mile by 1 mile indestructible wall 6 feet deep, and still be harmed by a fragmentation missile hitting the other side.

That is, unless the GM applied the powers they are expected to apply in situations like that, and realize it wouldn't work.

GMs are always supposed to do stuff like that when the rules don't go far enough. Like for example: telling you when you are unable to eat more food without vomiting. There aren't rules for that. It doesn't mean you can eat infinite food. Nor does there not being a rule preventing phase-explosions does not mean that 'hits everything' means explosions can now phase through indestructible walls.

Any rule in place in the game only applies so far as it is reasonable and the GM can over-ride an ability of something (like an explosion) when the ability does not make sense in the context of a certain event.

So we have as I said two possible options.
Option A every thing means every thing. (it does not say every thing not protected.
Option B every thing means that every it is the main body of targets taken damage as described in other parts and combat examples on how it is done.

I reject your false dichotomy. How about Option C: everything except things behind cover (ie guy behind the cover of armor he is wearing, or a wall) or immune to the damage (ie fire elementals and plasma missiles)

Also to reiterate: the combat examples do NOT describe the main bodies of the targets taking damage, they describe the SAMAS taking damage and do not specify the main body.

I agree that in the case of the 3 short-range missiles, it would be to the main body. I am not so sure about the pair of mini-missiles. A pair of missiles can be an aimed shot, and if these were unguided minis, they could have been a called shot. Page 11 does not specify it is a called shot, but it doesn't specify it is a normal one either. "only a scratch" suggests main body though, 27 MD to any other area would be more than a scratch. Although even with the main body, doing over 10% of your damage capacity still seems more than a scratch =/

As interoperation A requires a gm call not to have the guy in the blast radius take damage it is less likely than option B which is the main damage takes that does not need a call to over ride the every thing.

Do you realize that your 'main body only' houserule does not actually prevent a guy hiding behind a wall from taking damage from a missile hitting the center of the wall whose radius is less than the wall's width or height?

Option B is also more inline with combat examples and the needs a called shot to hit other areas of the target.(not to mention more balanced against targets with only one damage pool.)

The necessity of needing a called shot to hit other areas does apply: to the missile itself, the direct hit. You need to make a called shot to directly hit any area other than the main body with a missile or two, I can embrace that.

Explosions don't work that way.

I believe I brought this up before, but the Coalition Mark IX Missile Launcher Vehicle (mercs 148) also contradicts these assumptions. If you destroy missile while it is being launched (called shot with penalty) the explosion will damage the launcher. There is no note about it also damaging the main body. I am inclined to think (due to the main body being behind cover of the launcher) that this would only occur if the launcher exploded in which case the main body (and other components) would be in the 'entire area' which is hit by the explosion.

Looking at the posts no one other than Tor seams to post that they think RAW means it is every part of every thing. So if 6 people read the rule one way one person is claiming it is something else I would think majority wins.**

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

Since I just provided direct evidence of a missile explosion damaging a part other than the main body WITHOUT a called shot being made, I think the burden is on you to provide an example of something explicitly being unharmed elsewhere, if you want to have people believe that.

From the top nothing in KC post was about pg 43 of raw he was addressing the combat example in RMB so you are straw manning here.

Under that you make the false statement about RMB with a misdirect again the combat example list the target as a samas for the missels and the area did state as KC pointed out that it was for A and B.

I disagree that missiles aoe lacks a strike roll because the missile has a strike roll. So bringing in something with no associated strike role as a argument is to me irrelevant.

This part about all combat attacks being surprise seams kind of irrelevant to the debate is it even relevant or is it just misdirect.

There where changes to the rules over time and at one point minis could do called shots as I require. But then remember that you found two PA in the entire game that have a line that does supports your view if it was common why would they point out that those two could do it?

I saw nothing in your post that showed that you said four places it says X it was mostly midsection of KC post and even some parts where you where in error like where you said the target from the RMB was not specified.

So let me get this straight you say that aoes hit every part by RAW other people say that it does not by raw but it is false dichotomy to say that there are two sides? So then how many stances are there?

You admit that your statement requires what you call common sense understanding to house rule to fix how "you" think RUE works.

Option C is inventing new text not in the every thing and every one takes damage ruling and is Appling a GM call to create. So is as I put out part of option A. your part about the man behind a wall is not conceded a standard combat situation and in no way justifies option A seams more of straw man GMS call affect but as RAW it does say he is range and takes damage.

You then claim that the most common interpolation of the text is house rule and use a straw man assault to undermine it. We are discussing RAW not GM calls.

Explosions do not work that way in real life but as people have pointed out the game does not always work the way real life does for several reason.

And hey look trying to use another rare note to prove standard could it be destroying the missile in this case is treated as destroying the launcher because the person that wrote that saw it as a special case?

So let me get this straight in a debate over interoperation if only one thinks it is X and every one else thinks it Y bringing that up is false logic.

Nope what you did was provide a possible acceptation to the rule that still required a called shot. And have a false statement of no called shot being made as it required a called shot to destroy a missile as it is being fired.

But hey keep throwing out fancy terms to try and look smart, instead of presenting real evidence. (This seams to be more of a misdirect in it self to make yourself look smart and the person you are debating with look dumb to undermine there point.)

Reminds me of when a poster use to frequently misapply a scientific principle occums razor in debates but would ignore key points.

[Tor]

So the book tells us that if the missiles land at your feet, it'll still be a Direct Hit to the Main Body (and this is the "epicenter").

No, it merely tells us that landing at the feet of can count as a direct hit strike. It doesn't specify to the main body. I'd wager a missile landing at the feet of is more along the lines of a called shot to the feet, which could be done with 1-2 unguided missiles in RMB via the Heavy Weapons skill.

By the ruling that all limbs also take half damage, that means that a missile landing at someone's feet will inflict full damage to the main body, and then reduce damage to only half for the feet and head.

Only if one supposes that a strike-via-foot-landing is a direct hit to the main body and not something else lower down.

That also means the focal point of the blast is very selective, as it'll jump to the main body for a human-sized character before spreading out ... and yet decide to jump more than twice that distance to hit the main body of a robot, and each missiles will know this exact location ... every time.

Does seem odd, which is why I'd pick the lowest location if I wanted to roleplay something about missile-at-foot, which we actually have no roles to reflect, far as I know.

a direct hit does full damage to the target. So let's say I'm the target. Are my hands part of me? Are my legs part of me? Is my head part of me? If the answer is yes, then I'd say at best you can argue that all those parts take full damage (since I'm the target, and all those limbs are a part of me), or that damage is only dealt to the main body (as the book tells us that missiles hit the main body).

Everything in the radius takes damage, but just because your main body (trunk) and legs are attached doesn't mean they would have to take the same amount of damage, or no damage at all. If an uncalled missile strike defaults to hit the main body then the parts not hit (non-trunk) would follow the 'half' stuff.

From the top nothing in KC post was about pg 43 of raw he was addressing the combat example in RMB so you are straw manning here.

Let me reiterate the flow of conversation for you here:

The example of blast radius damage on RMB 41 describes the person getting hit by a HE missile as taking "full damage," and the person standing too close to him "takes half damage."

body armor (which most people had, PA/bots being rare) only had a single assigned MDC for the whole thing (no other locations), so this didn't come up.

All robots and power armor in the RMB had MDC by location, and the section that describes blast radius damage is in the section discussing specifically combat for robots and power armor, therefore it is an example for robots and power armor, NOT for guys in EBA.

Nope, the nature of the targets is not elaborated upon.

Do you understand your mistake?

Both KC and I easily understand that there are 2 combat examples of a SAMAS being fired upon by missiles. The part I'm saying may not go into detail about hit locations due to being EBA does not specify a power armor type, or PA at all.

Under that you make the false statement about RMB with a misdirect again the combat example list the target as a samas for the missels and the area did state as KC pointed out that it was for A and B.

It is not a misdirect, KC and I have been talking about both the brief example about 2 friends 10 feet away on RMBp41 and the lengthly example of Enforcer vs 2 SAMAS on RMBp43. You have confused a response to the former as one to the latter.

I disagree that missiles aoe lacks a strike roll because the missile has a strike roll. So bringing in something with no associated strike role as a argument is to me irrelevant.

The relevance is this: RMB lacking a target number to match/beat to roll with the impact of a fusion block blast establishes a precident that RMB contained situations where you lack a target number to roll against.

This makes it feasible that this was the same situation for rolling with the impact of a missile you're not targeted with.

This part about all combat attacks being surprise seams kind of irrelevant to the debate is it even relevant or is it just misdirect.

I didn't say ALL were surprise, I was exploring that they might often be. It is related (so not irrelevant) but not a core of my argument. Sometimes being in 100% argument mode is boring and debates bring ideas to mind which are interesting to discuss. It doesn't make it a misdirect, since I am clearly just going free-flow mode and not trying to use this to support an argument.

There where changes to the rules over time and at one point minis could do called shots as I require. But then remember that you found two PA in the entire game that have a line that does supports your view if it was common why would they point out that those two could do it?

They were not pointed out as unique abilities or anything, they were mentioned as tactics utilized by armor explicitly designed to destroy other armor. GBKs are mentioned as using mini-missiles to destroy Boom Guns, but they are not described as the only way of doing this with mini-missiles.

In RMB, any missile could do a called shot so long as it followed the requirement of being an aimed shot, which was 1 or 2 missiles, we are told that a volley of 3 or more was a 'burst'.

'Always hits the main body' was a line that only applied to smart missiles, since they had independent targetting and redirection.

I saw nothing in your post that showed that you said four places it says X it was mostly midsection of KC post

I'll repost the RUE citations for you so that you can search for portions and find them above if you like.

Page 362 left "getting caught in a blast radius does half damage"
Page 362 right (Plasma) "there is usually no salvageable evidence or supplies after this attack, making any positive ID of its victims impossible"
Page 363 "as noted previously, everyone and everything in the blast radius suffers half damage"
Page 364 "all else in the blast radius takes half damage"

some parts where you where in error like where you said the target from the RMB was not specified.

This was not an error. In the page 11 example we are not told which part of the SAMAS is hit, and it was possible to do an aimed (thus called) shot with 2 missiles. In the case of the later example, a volley of 3 missiles could only hit the main body, so even though the main body was not specified as the target, I accept that by default it must have been.

you say that aoes hit every part by RAW
other people say that it does not by raw
but it is false dichotomy to say that there are two sides?
So then how many stances are there?

"AOE hits every part" is only the first portion of the RAW.

"Cover protects things" is part 2. This is what modifies my stance from "everything is hit" to "everything is hit except those things behind cover".

RUE has statements about cover, I am not aware of RMB having them, although I think even at the time of RMB, GMs were expected to have enough imagination to account for things like cover even if not explicitly told to do so. Otherwise you could just throw an HE grenade with a blast area of a mere 6 feet at the center of a 20x20 wall and still kill people hiding behind it.

You admit that your statement requires what you call common sense understanding to house rule to fix how "you" think RUE works.

This isn't a matter of what I think, this is the truth, both RMB and RUE say 'every' and 'all' for blast radius. This is a blatant fact.

I think it everything until excepted, whether you except it by other text or by logical GM judgments.

The stance "well every is not every and all is not all" simply ignores the very language used in the book.

'All' and 'Every' are meant, but we are also meant to over-ride general rules in situations that warrant them.

For example, the level 1 magic spell blinding flash says "blinding everyone in its ten foot radius". The word "everyone" DOES mean everyone. However, it is over-ride by the later statement "those who successfully save vs magic are not blinded".

Area effect is the same. Everything means everything. But rules about cover in RUE over-ride that, meaning that things which are not exposed are not damaged.

Option C is inventing new text not in the every thing and every one takes damage ruling and is Appling a GM call to create.

Referencing the entry about cover in RUE is not inventing new text.

So is as I put out part of option A. your part about the man behind a wall is not conceded a standard combat situation and in no way justifies option A seams more of straw man GMS call affect but as RAW it does say he is range and takes damage.

I don't entirely understand what you're saying here. Per strict RAW, unless we can locate some allusion to cover-rules in RMB, yes a guy behind a wall would take damage. As of RUE this is no longer the case since we have a rule about cover.

I guess without a strict rule allowing it, prior to RUE introducing cover rules, you can't even smother an explosion ("catch a grenade for you" as the Bruno Mars song goes) by jumping on it. I seriously do think GMs were supposed to make rulings and exceptions in exceptional situations like this though, judging when it is appropriate to protect certain things in a radius from an explosion due to their being adequate barriers to impede an explosion.

No, GM common sense might not have been RAW, but it was still there.

You then claim that the most common interpolation of the text is house rule and use a straw man assault to undermine it. We are discussing RAW not GM calls.

RAW as of RUE includes the rule for cover. Unexposed targets cannot be damaged.

This happens to be a rule which requires a GM ruling for what is exposed and what is not exposed.

Some GMs might say a SAMAS' ammo drum is exposed, others may not. They could both be right, since the orientation of the SAMAS and where an explosion is happening could influence whether or not something is exposed.

And hey look trying to use another rare note to prove standard could it be destroying the missile in this case is treated as destroying the launcher because the person that wrote that saw it as a special case?

It wasn't described as a special case violating any rule. There isn't a rule about only main bodies getting damaged from explosions. Main bodies were just the only targets of smart bombs and then RUE took the 'only hits the main' text out of smart bombs and made it a more general statement. If that prevents called shots on other locations then this means that since GBKs destroy boom guns, hits on the main body of a glitter boy can damage the boom gun.

in a debate over interoperation if only one thinks it is X and every one else thinks it Y bringing that up is false logic.

Simply bringing it up is suspicious, but not inherently a problem.

You don't merely bring it up though, you say this:

"if 6 people read the rule one way one person is claiming it is something else I would think majority wins"

as Wikipedia puts it:

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

You didn't just bring up your perception that more people disagree with me, you appear to build on that as a reason to think they are right.

Nope what you did was provide a possible acceptation to the rule that still required a called shot.

I find what you are saying here to be misleading. So far it appears people are arguing that you need to make a called shot with a launched missile to have that missile hit something other than the main body.

In this case: a called shot is made by some other weapon (let's say a laser, great range) to damage and destroy a missile as it exits the launcher. The called shot is not necessarily being made with a missile.

The exploding missile's strike roll doesn't appear to matter at all if it is destroyed. The exploding missile will damage the launcher even if it rolls a natural 1. The exploding missile is not making a called shot on the launcher, it makes a strike roll at whatever you intended to launch it at before it was intercepted.

have a false statement of no called shot being made as it required a called shot to destroy a missile as it is being fired.

I'm the one who brought up needing a called shot to hit the missile mid-launch.

The called shot is not to hit the launcher, it is to hit the missile, so it does not fall in line with any rules about needing to make a called shot to hit an area.

But hey keep throwing out fancy terms to try and look smart, instead of presenting real evidence. (This seams to be more of a misdirect in it self to make yourself look smart and the person you are debating with look dumb to undermine there point.)

This edges on what is called an 'ad hominem' attack.

I rely on fancy terms because they are established fallacies. It is easier to do that then try to rely on my own words to define a pre-existing problem.

I do not believe someone should be accused of trying to look smart when they point out problems in others' reasoning.

I want to focus on text but when you bring up things like me being outnumbered as if it was in any way relevant, yes, I'll dig out the "fancy" stuff.

I have presented real evidence, which I have talked about above, feel free to review it.

Reminds me of when a poster use to frequently misapply a scientific principle occums razor in debates but would ignore key points.

Please focus on discussing the specifics of the debate instead of making generalized insults against me, I don't see this going anywhere fruitful and do not wish for it to degrade into something I feel compelled to report to resolve.

[SpiritInterface]

So the book tells us that if the missiles land at your feet, it'll still be a Direct Hit to the Main Body (and this is the "epicenter").

No, it merely tells us that landing at the feet of can count as a direct hit strike. It doesn't specify to the main body. I'd wager a missile landing at the feet of is more along the lines of a called shot to the feet, which could be done with 1-2 unguided missiles in RMB via the Heavy Weapons skill.

By the ruling that all limbs also take half damage, that means that a missile landing at someone's feet will inflict full damage to the main body, and then reduce damage to only half for the feet and head.

Only if one supposes that a strike-via-foot-landing is a direct hit to the main body and not something else lower down.

Unless specifically targeting a foot, any AoE that hits the ground at someones feet does only half damage since the ground is the main target.

The rules state that any AoE shot at a person or vehicle that is not specifically targeted at an area other than the main body always strikes the main body, since the ground was targeted it takes full damage only, and everything else takes half damage.

The only way above posts are related to the main topic is whether just the main body of the PA/Robot/Vehicle takes half damage or whether the main body and all the other peripheral areas take half damage.

Alot of the posts in this thread have gone way far afield...

1) it is stated in the rules in Rifts that body armor stops all damage unless specifically stated in the Body armor description.

2) The rules do not address Cover and Blast Shadows so those would be left up to the GM to adjudicate.

[Blue_Lion]

This debate is really getting no where there are only two possible choices.
A most people misunderstand RAW in this case or 1 person misunderstands RAW in this case. Which of the two is more likely to be right? (you might see it as a false logic but it does lead to the question why is it you see the rule as different than every one else. If the purpose of debate is to prove a point then who ever has the most support at the end would seam to be one way to determine a winner, and without a non bias judge I know of no other way.)

As I understand your point was every thing literally means every thing but you then apply a judgment call to say things behind cover do not take damage. You even admit this is a judgment call.
Tor-"My argument is that this is what the RAW say, though I believe we're expected to deviate from it when something is in range but is covered by something else."-in that you are saying that a judgment call is being made.
Most other posters that say to them the every thing means the main body of every thing in the blast radius.-no blanket house rule needed.

You have used a example of a special combat situation of a wall needing a judgment call to justify a interoperation that requires a blanket house rule. That was a straw man to me.

You also took KC post tore it apart to take part of it out of context of him addressing the RMB section to say that he was wrong and no target was listed when the example he was addressing was clear from his context and did name a samas. You then say I misunderstand a what you where talking about when you quote him talking about the rifts main book example where he states it was not talking about EBA. So if I am confused it is by your addressing something other than the part you posted your reply directly underneath.(which logically to me is what you address.)

By the way your wager about a missile landing at the feet being a called shot to the feed is undermined by the always strikes the main body note. Making it a long shot as the text about it landing at the feet is from AOE text in RUE. (I do know that some preRUE missiles could make a called shot but that is not the case in RUE. Unless there is some post RUE text that changes it back.)

I see no evidence presented that says damage was ever presented from a AOE as hitting every part of a target. No combat example and only 2 known cases of special PA notes about missiles with called shots and one about a called shot on a missile leaving a launcher being a special situation that damages the launcher of the M-5.

I am though as you have not presented any compelling evidence and nothing meaningful is being presented.

I do apologies if you think my opinion about what you where doing felt like a unspecified attack but I was mealy stating my opinion of how I prevised your debate and tactics. I am merely stating how it looks to me when you start using terms that not part of commonly used langue to defeat issue.

[Killer Cyborg]

Prysus demonstrated that--according to the rules--an explosive that goes off at your feet still strikes the main body.

[Alrik Vas]

According to RAW, sure. But honestly, whatever got hit by a mass of high explosive should be well above hosed anyway, no matter where the brunt of it hit.

[eliakon]

According to RAW, sure. But honestly, whatever got hit by a mass of high explosive should be well above hosed anyway, no matter where the brunt of it hit.

The question is 'how hosed'
If you want to run a game where AoE weapons are automatic "I Win, Your Dead" buttons with super high lethality then that's cool. But the default setting seems to be more of 'cinematic rule of cool battles' where guns and grenades are not instant death.