Questions on robot and PA combat

[SpiritInterface]

Prysus demonstrated that--according to the rules--an explosive that goes off at your feet still strikes the main body.

True for half damage. That is part of the problem with the MDC/SDC system.

[SpiritInterface]

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.

Well yes and no. The dynamics of blast effects are very interesting.

One of stories I read about Korean war was about a M4 easy eight Sherman that caught a Russian 105mm mortar on the front glacis. All it did was ring the bell of the crew, ruin some vision blocks, blow a track off and snuffed the engine. The part that took the longest to fix was the track, the engine restarted on the first try, and they swapped vision blocks. It is one of the things that got me thinking about blast damage on secondary areas.

One of the other players pointed out that there are no true HEAT rounds in Rifts, that everything is essentially a high explosive rounds.

[Killer Cyborg]

Prysus demonstrated that--according to the rules--an explosive that goes off at your feet still strikes the main body.

True for half damage. That is part of the problem with the MDC/SDC system.

For full damage, according to the rules.

As he pointed out, RUE 363 states:
(emphasis NOT added)
Radius Damage: As noted previously, everyone and everything else in the blast radius suffers half damage. 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), and everything else within the rest of the blast area sufers [u]half the Mega-Damage rolled for the explosion.


The interesting part that I never noticed until Prysus pointed it out was this part:
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)

What that's saying is that if a 5d6 MD grenade or missile lands at the feet of the target, then that target takes the full 5d6 MD.
We know that "the target" is NOT "the feet" in this case, because otherwise the text would be saying "...to the feet that it strikes or lands at the feet of," which wouldn't make any sense. A missile/grenade cannot land at the feet of feet.
The "target" in question is "the person/creature who owns those feet," and it is "the target" that takes "the full 5d6 MD" from the blast.

What this section of the rules is saying is that a missile striking at the feet of the target is the same as the missile striking the target, and that "the target" is the individual being shot at, NOT at any of their body parts.

As Prysus further pointed out, RUE 326 clearly states:
"All missiles always strike the main body."

Which even further drives home the point: a missile that lands at your feet will still be considered a Direct Hit* to the Main Body.



*RUE 362: "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."

[Killer Cyborg]

:ok:

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.

It's not cosmic at all, just more mathy.

[Killer Cyborg]

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.

The rule never says anything about being strictly for guns.
Also, expansion on the rule demonstrates that Called Shots are necessary to hit anything other than the Main Body. If it's any kind of attack other than a Called Shot, it cannot hit a specific body part.

SB1 7
Question: Does a character have to make a called shot to hit a specific area other than the main body?
Answer: Yes. A called shot must be made to hit a specific target or area such as a hand, head, foot, weapon, antenna, etc.

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

Thinking "every" means "every" doesn't seem overly strict. [/quote]

And yet YOU have repeatedly agreed that "everything" doesn't mean literally "everything."
Pick a stance and stick with it.
If "everything" means "every literal thing," then stick with that.
If "everything" means "every viable target," then stick with THAT.
Quit swapping your position back and forth depending on whether you think it helps you.

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.

So not literally everything, then, only viable targets.

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.

AFAIK, you're talking about flavor text there, not game description.

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.

You've already been repeatedly unfaithful to that prefix.
Either be faithful without exception, or quit pretending that you're being faithful.

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.

Bodies inside of armor are things. Fingers are things. Toes are things. Molecules are things. Words are things. Sounds are things. Light is a thing.
You and I both know that "everything" doesn't mean literally "every thing."

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.

We're back to pretending that "everything" necessarily meaning "everything," but "all" necessarily doesn't mean "all."

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.

Agreed. However, there is a difference between "not including all rules" and "conspicuously neglecting to mention rules that should have been demonstrated."
The damages for missile attacks are described, and that's a single flat damage. There is no mention of blast radius damage because no viable targets are in the blast area.

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.

That rule didn't exist when the passage was written.

Oddly, he seems to go from half-dressed to fully-dressed in a couple of attacks even though NGR says it takes melees.

That rule didn't exist when the passage was written.

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

Damage for the missile is described in that passage. It is not described in the way that you claim that it should be.
Which contradicts your claim.

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.

True. Palladium sometimes does have odd rules like that are never explicitly stated, but that one has to intuit.
That IS the basis for your claim here, in fact--that Palladium has this rule that explosions damage body parts, they just never bothered to mention it specifically, so we have to intuit the rule from picking the "right" interpretation of "everything" in a passage or two, picking the right definition of "shot" in another number of passages, and so forth.

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.

What "everything" refers to is not clarified. It may refer only to viable targets (i.e., the Main Body if no Called Shots are made)

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.

But it DOES describe the damage dealt, and it does NOT describe that damage being dealt to anything other than the Main Body.

"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.

No new basic principles were to be gained. How damage works was already covered.

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.

How damage is dealt is very important. That's why this thread (and others) have been so preoccupied with that very question.

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.

But the rule has to exist in the first place, and your rule doesn't.
There is a clear rule describing SDC damage to people in MDC armor.
There is a clear rule describing damage from crashes and falls.
There is NOT any kind of clear rule describing damage being dealt to body parts by explosions.
THIS combat description would be the place to make such a thing clear, IF it existed... but it doesn't exist, and the conspicuous lack of such a rule in this place demonstrates it.

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.

There is no rule saying that "everything" includes things like rail guns and body parts.
There are rules stating that body parts and guns cannot be hit unless a Called Shot is made.

Explosions aren't shots

Do you have a source to support your claim that explosions from missiles are NOT considered shots or parts of shots?

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

A "shot" is defined as "an action of shooting."
When you shoot somebody with an arrow, that arrow hitting the target and damaging the target is all part of the "shot."
When you shoot somebody with a railgun, the railgun rounds hitting the target and damaging the target is all part of the "shot."
When you shoot somebody with a missile, the missile striking the target, and the damage being dealt is all part of the "shot."

Regardless, SB1 specifies that a Called Shot is the only way to hit a specific area other than the Main Body.

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.[/quote]

As is the fact that you have to make a Called Shot to hit anything other than the Main Body.
The rule that a Called Shot is required to hit anything other than the Main Body--even if the missile itself strikes the ground at your feet--overrides the possibility of anything other than the Main Body being hit by a blast radius.

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.

I agree with the bolded, but disagree with the rest.

It is contradicted by examples of non-main locations being destroyed in PA descriptions.

For example?

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.

The Main Body is the default. It doesn't need to be explicitly included. When damage is dealt to a target, it is dealt as a rule to the Main Body, unless a Called Shot is made.
No Called Shot was made, ergo the damage was dealt to 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'.

With "everything" meaning "every viable target."
The point of interpretation is what exactly constitutes a "viable target."

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.

Correct. "After."
As in "in a new section that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with that specific part of the previous section."

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.

Do you believe that the MDC for Deadboy armor in the RMB reflects all the collective parts of the armor?

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.

Do you believe that all creatures similar in that way to Brodkil have MDC statted out by location?

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"

Right... A PERSON (or creature, or vehicle) who gets caught in the blast radius takes half damage to their Main Body.
Nothing about this quoted passage indicates anything about any body parts getting damaged.
It doesn't say "somebody's arm getting caught in a blast radius..."
It doesn't say "somebody's leg getting caught in a blast radius..."
What it DOES go on to say is "Your companion standing 10' away is hit by a HE missile with a 30' blast radius. He takes full damage from a direct hit, but your character is also caught in the blast radius."
VERY clearly talking about individuals, NOT about body parts.
HE takes full damage, not "His Main Body takes full damage."
YOUR CHARACTER is also caught in the blast radius, NOT "His arms, legs, and head, as well as your character's Main Body, Arms, Legs, and Head...."
It talks only about entire people, NOT about body parts, because that's what the rule is discussing.
Quoting that passage does not support your view in any way, shape, or form.

Page 362 right (Plasma) "there is usually no salvageable evidence or supplies after this attack, making any positive ID of its victims impossible"

In the context of "...the intensity of the heat is so great and incinerates SDC materials so fast..." and "Any SDC materials (including HP and SDC living beings) caught in the blast radius of MD plasma or MS fire are incinerated...", which are special rules for how MD plasma affects SDC targets, NOT for how explosions affect body parts.

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"

Okay, you've found two times where the same rule is repeated, and you take the same interpretation.
"Everyone and everything" and "all else" refer to "all viable targets," not to literally "all else" and "everything."

There is nothing stating that body parts are viable targets for explosions, and there are rules stating that body parts can only be hit by Called Shots.

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?

Note the intro to that section:
The following guidelines are provided to give player characters a chance, however slight, to survive a MD energy blast that would normally kill or vaporize the character. If the GM agrees, the character can survive a Mega-Damage intensity wound as long as a trained medic, doctor, or psychic healer makes a successful Field Surgery or Medical skill roll.

The section you're turning to is about a GM's option to alter the normal rules of the game in order to help a character survive, say by having a MD attack that would normally kill the character instead damage the character and perhaps remove some limbs.
It's a section of optional rules.

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.[/quote]

It sounds like you're now claiming that a lack of support for an interpretation counts as conflict with that interpretation.
Is that correct?

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.

No. They have separate damage pools because they are treated as separate sections of the same thing.

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

It sounds like you're saying that it's impossible for an Enforcer's fingers to be damaged without damaging the entire hand.

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.

That's not what I'm doing.
I'm restricting "everything" to "all viable targets," which we agree on at this point (I believe).
And I'm pointing out that as per the rules, "A called shot must be made to hit a specific target or area such as a hand, head, foot, weapon, antenna, etc." (SB1 7)
That's a blanket rule that is not restricted to guns, or even to ranged attacks.

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'.

You have provided evidence that not all rules were considered, not that all rules were not intended to be considered.

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.

Nothing about near misses applying to anything OTHER than Main Bodies of things.
Again, Main Bodies are the default. They don't have to be specified.
Anything other than the Main Body is an exception. Exceptions have to be specified.

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...

I'm simply discussing Rifts at this point.

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.

"Throwaway"...?
It's a combat example designed to demonstrate how the rules work, and it's one that specifically demonstrates how damage from a missile is dealt.
That's not throwaway.
That's the exact time and place to show that missiles damage body parts... IF in fact they did.
Instead, all that is shown is that missile inflict damage to the Main Body.

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 example made for giant robots and power armor, which all had multiple damage locations.

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.

Agreed.
And there is NO mention of body parts getting vaporized.

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".

That's the thing about the word "thing:" it's open for some interpretation.
One GM might rule that the spell vaporizes the Main Body of a robot, and another GM might rule that because the Main Body was destroyed, the "thing" that is the entire robot is vaporized.
As far as I can tell, either one would be valid.

If you have a CS Grunt riding on the back of an Enforcer, and the front of the Enforcer is Annihilated, what happens to that Grunt? Is he vaporized because the Enforcer is vaporized? Or does he fall to the ground?

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?

The fact that artwork regularly contradicts the actual rules of the game, as well as other artwork.

Everything in the books is canon until directly contradicted.

Source?

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.

Artwork is only worth anything in a vacuum, and even then it's not worth very much at all.
And we're not operating in a vacuum.

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 indicates it, all else being equal.

It also does not say that you roll with impact against the strike roll if you are not the direct target.

The strike roll is the default. No exception to the default is specified, therefore the default remains and need not be specified.

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.

Actually, it doesn't mention anything about the main target in that section.

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.

Do you know of any rules limiting the roll to ONLY the main target, not to secondary or tertiary targets?
I don't.

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

The strike roll of whomever threw it.
If it was a placed explosive, then I'd roll a general strike roll for it.

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.

Do you know of any rule allowing for a GM to use the 14 for falls as a default for explosives?

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".

BUT that's the context, and when the context is "power armor and robots," then it is illogical (and even disingenuous) to claim that the example for blast radius damage would be for foot-soldiers in standard EBA.
It's a section about robots and power armor, and that's the default assumption for that section unless otherwise specified.

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

False division in this case.
The context is: "The following are the rules that are used when playing characters who operate power armor or robot vehicles"
The text is: "Your companion standing 10' away is hit by a high explosive missile with a 30' blast area. He takes full damage from a direct hit, but you are also caught in the blast because you were standing too close together. Fortunately, your character takes half damage since he was not caught directly in the blast."

When a section is describing rules for Player Characters in robots and power armor, and that section addressed the reader, then it is describing what happens when Player Characters are hit by missiles, then the Player Characters are assumed to be in robots or power armor unless otherwise specified.

[Killer Cyborg]

For ease of reference:

RMB 41
Any shot which is not called will strike what is identified as the Main Body of the robot or vehicle.

SB1 7
Question: Does a character have to make a called shot to hit a specific area other than the main body?
Answer: Yes. A called shot must be made to hit a specific target or area such as a hand, head, foot, weapon, antenna, etc.

CB1 12
Under: Where Damage is Inflicted
The Main Body
To strike something other than the main body, the attacker must make an Aimed, Called shot, or roll a natural twenty.

CB1 14
Since you can shoot a weapon out of somebody's hand or, in some instances, use the weapon to parry an MDC attack, it may be necessary to know the MDC of weapons.
(Called Shots are considered as a reason why a weapon might be damaged. Blast area is not.)

RGMG 31
Without the Called Shot, strikes are presumed to hit the main body

RGMG 32
...if two warriors are facing off against each other, and one attempts to rip the magical amulet from the other's neck using his hand, the GM might rule that a Called Shot and a -3 or -4 penalty to strike might be required.
(This demonstrates that a Called Shot is not just for guns, or even just for ranged weapons.)

RGMG 40
To strike something other than the Main Body, the attacker must make an Aimed, Called shot, or roll a natural twenty.
It is as streamlined and simple as that.

RUE 362
To strike something other than the Main Body, the attacker must make a Called Shot, or roll a Natural Twenty.

RUE 362
Damage to Weapons: Weapons only take damage when an attacker is deliberately trying to damage or destroy it. A Called Shot is required when trying to hit a weapon in a character's hand or a small or moving target.
(emphasis added)

[Avighna]

The technically correct answers are listed above. Here I will merely add my house rules I have been using for about two decades now.

1. All robots, vehicles, PAs, or persons etc are a single object for targeting purposes.

2. All objects take the AoE damage of being the target or in the blast radius, but not both.

3. All objects that have multiple targetable points are potentially susceptible to splash damage consisting of part of the already determined damage (not extra damage).

4. For all human shaped objects within the blast radius I use a generic formula of 10% of dealt damage goes to each limb. 5% to the head, and 5% to any other extraneous parts.

5. If a target is larger than the blast radius but it's main body is smaller then I do a random area damage roll to assign damage splash. Splash of this type I tend to play loose with based on the ratio of main body to blast radius but never more than 1/3 of the damage splashes.

6. Dodging is alllowed if cover is available or if a dodge could move the player or NPC out of the blast zone.

7. Armor with obvious exposure such as juicer armor does NOT protect from blast effects. This is not always fatal as I do not use the "MD attacks instantly kill" rule (I find it totally unecessary as MD converted to SD is almost always a kill anyhow).

This may seem like a lot of caveats but it takes virtually no extra time to implement. All percentages are rounded to the main body damage pool. I implemented these originally to be more realistic about area damage, but found that it created more dynamic combat because players saw an arm or leg get within striking distance of being blown away after an aoe randomly dealt damage there. It also tends to dampen alpha striking in general without nerfing it into the ground. On some targets like say a Death's Head transport there is no need unless true AA artillery is being used. Anyway there they are, use 'em if you want 'em.

[Tor]

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.

That's how I'd play it personally, but Blue Lion is correct that "lands at the feet of" is about direct hits. The only question is determining what exactly "at the feet" means. Like on the feet, an unidentified distance in front of them, between them? I postulate it's to cover the 'my grenade bounced off your chest plate and landed a step ahead of you' type situation so that a GM doesn't have to say "the grenade explodes on contact with chest plate" all the time, which doesn't make sense if they are time-based rather than impact-based grenades, as some are bound to be.

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.

However as Blue Lion pointed out, in the context of 'land at the feet of', the direct hit target is still presumably the owner of the feet, not the ground.

As opposed to simply saying "I am rolling to strike the ground" which seems like an easy way to avoid speed/invisibility penalties. If you are trying to aim at ground within range of an invisible or speeding target I think there should still be a penalty in regard to whether you chose the right patch of ground.

1) it is stated in the rules in Rifts that body armor stops all damage unless specifically stated in the Body armor description.

I'm sure it probably does, but the problem is, I actually have not been able to successfully locate a statement along these lines to back up my "there's probably an exception under the rules" theory.

When it comes to what I think are common-sense non-controversial stuff like 'armor protects you and takes damage before you do' one would not be prone to commit to memory where the text was located since discussion of it would not often come up.

I believe RUE's rules on cover do successfully cover this area, but since the argument traces back to RMB, I've been unable to find proper RMB text to support the 'armor protects you' theory.

2) The rules do not address Cover and Blast Shadows so those would be left up to the GM to adjudicate.

RUE does mention cover (you need to be able to see something to damage it).

I'd make an exception with some kinds of weapons that can attack in arcs, like arrows or grenades. You could in theory fire these over walls, although in that situation it would seem more like a blind/wild shot since you presumably would not be able to see someone protected from direct attacks from the wall.

Exceptions could exist if you had some kind of super ability to see through walls, or if it was a transparent wall.

Always gonna be situations where GM judgment's needed.

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?

So basically "minorities are not likely to be right, don't listen to them" then? Sorry Galileo.

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.

I would wager: because I am judging words like 'every' and 'all' for what they mean, when reading text to establish a default ruling for things, for which we then find exceptions.

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.

That's one way, sure.

Another might be how Wikipedia defines a consensus:

a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions.
Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority.

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.

I admit that it is a rule (RUE's rules for cover) which requires a GM judgment call on where everything is and what is and is not behind cover.

Kind of like it requires a GM judgment call to know whether or not foilage is thick enough to provide cover, or what kind of perception rolls are needed in undefined situations.

Requiring a judgment call isn't the same as 'house rules', if that's what you're thinking. Some aspects of the game are just not purely numbered out for us, and cover is one of them.

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.

Right, a judgment call of when to apply RUE's RULE about COVER. Cover is not a house rule as of RUE, it's an actual (albeit vague) game mechanic.

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.

They have failed to provide an explosion-specific text supporting this viewpoint, limitations on called shots and damaging non-main body are specific to gunfire (ie non-area-effect), not explosions.

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.

The cover rules don't suddenly become house rules just because it's a SAMAS' ammo drum hiding behind a SAMAS' main body instead of a dragon hiding behind a brick wall.

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.

Here I still maintain you are speaking a falsehood. KC can speak up for himself if he thinks I took something out of context. Three things in RMB generate this confusion for you:

page 11 (MDC vs SDC number 4) example 5 paragraphs long of a SAMAS being hit by 2 mini-missiles
page 41 (Damage From Missile Strike) example 3 sentences long of "your companion" (a he) and you standing 10 feet apart.
pages 42-44 (An Example of Combat) example about 2 pages long of 2 SAMAS, one of whom gets hit with 3 medium-range missiles

The quote you are talking about was about page 41, it was not about page 11 or page 43.

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.)

KC was essentially arguing that because the "Missiles" (and subsection "Damage From Missile Strikes") was part of "Combat Rules for High-Tech War Machines" (which opens saying "used when playing characters who operate power armor or robot vehicles") that I should assume the target of the missile in the 3-sentence example on page 41 was a PA or a bot, and that the lack of notation for non-main-body stuff is conspicuous.

Open to comment from KC on this if you want to voice any disagreement or agreement on this assessment.

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.

You mean the note that was part of Smart Bombs in RMB and got shifted out of it as some kind of general rule in RUE?

Whatever RUE might have changed, CWC said Glitter-Boy Killers destroy boom guns with mini-missiles. This means one of three things, far as I can reckon:

1) RUE has retconned GBKs using missiles to destroy boom guns, they can no longer do this, CWC text is wrong.
2) GBKs destroy boom guns by hitting the main body of the Glitter Boy and doing half damage to the boom gun
3) Always hitting the body is merely the default state of missiles (like any other shot) and you can still override this default state by making a called shot to hit other locations.
4) By understanding its original context in RMB, the Direct-Hit target always being the main body can be perceived as a 'most missiles' property. As in, applying to smart bombs, as it did originally, and perhaps all guided missiles, but not to unguided mini-missiles, which can still make called shots since they rely on the pilot's targetting and not automated guidance systems.
**I seem to remember some book saying something about mini-missiles not being 'true' missiles anyway, this ring a bell for anyone? I won't enter it as an official part of my argument until I can find supporting text, if I'm remembering right.

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.)

Always striking the main body does not mean you can't make called shots. Thinking it does presumes that an attack can only have a single target. Big bulky attacks don't necessarily do that. Think of a starship firing some big 20-ft wide beam for example, they might hit 2 robots if they were side-by-side holding hands. Would make for an odd strike-roll situation though. Luckily not a problem when you're talking about hitting 2 targets on the same bot.

If I shoot a big wide missile into a robot's armpit, the barrier of the missile can make simultaneous contact with both the arm and the main body. Same with hitting both the leg and the pelvic (main body) region of a bot if I shoot it in the hip joint or groin.

Even when a called shot thing is not directly connected to the main body via a single joint (say gun>hand>forearm>upper arm>torso) this could still happen since a lot of distal regions are mobile, so a missile might hit a gun held by the bot and it's momentum pushes the gun into contact with the torso and then explodes at that point.

So all this would really mean is that missiles hit (and do full direct-hit damage) to the main body, even when you make a called shot with them.

Only if this rule explicitly replaced hitting the called location with the main body, which it doesn't, so it can be viewed as a supplemental 2nd target instead of a replacement.

I see no evidence presented that says damage was ever presented from a AOE as hitting every part of a target. No combat example

'All else' and 'everything' are enough for me. They're different enough of a thing to get a separate damage pool and to have a separate replacement cost from repairs to the main body in sourcebook one.

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 don't recall the GBK or the Super Trooper specifying whether it required a called shot or not. You could take it whatever way you like, whether it's a direct-hit called shot or an area-effect. My bet is on called, but if you want to say called can't be done by interpreting RUE as above then you can choose area-effect. It's ambiguous enough to be taken either way.

I am though as you have not presented any compelling evidence and nothing meaningful is being presented.

"All" and "every" are words that hold meaning. I don't see people being uncompelled by the meaning of simple words as a fault of mine.

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.

That's the thing, the terms I am using are not being used to defeat any of the issues.

They are being used to defeat your argument tactics.

False dichotomies, ad hominem attacks and argumentum ad populum logic are not part of the issues, they are addressing distraction tactics you introduced.

FD refers to you being sorta "only 2 options" and me being "possibly 3rd".
AH refers to you being sorta "FD sounds elitist" and me being "oh well, that's off topic".
AAP refers to you being sorta "I think more people agree with me than with you, let's talk about this instead of what we're discussing" and me being "no, let's discuss the topic".

Prysus demonstrated that--according to the rules--an explosive that goes off at your feet still strikes the main body.

Y'know, it doesn't actually specify main body there:

the target it strikes (or lands at the feet of)

So really, it does full damage to a target it lands at the feet of (which is effectively a strike).

But who is the target that owns the feet?

Does the main body own the feet? Or does the entire robot own the feet?

Does this mean if the legs get blown off an Enforcer that since it is now footless, grenades must now directly hit it to do damage?

Or is 'at the feet of' more of a general expression to indicate "the GM can describe explosives landing incredibly close but maybe not explode-on-impact with perfect timing".

Do we even have rules for "I'm going to lob my grenade at the foot of X" as being different than "I lob my grenade at X" ? When would this distinction even come up? Sounds like the parenthesis is merely acknowledging GM's flavoring the situation with "your grenade explodes a second after you bean the perverted bikini-ogling Sphinx in the eye as it lands on his paw"

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.

Considering a lot of body armor comes with helmets with as much MDC as the main body, I'm not seeing how half damage to other locations is instant death.

What body armors are we discussing here?

A missile/grenade cannot land at the feet of feet.

It is incredibly different to figure out what search terms will find me a picture of a giant foot-shaped monster with smaller feet growing out of it. I'm sure it must exist on the internet but this is no easy task.

As Prysus further pointed out, RUE 326 clearly states: "All missiles always strike the main body." Which even further drives home the point: a missile that lands at your feet will still be considered a Direct Hit* to the Main Body.

Perhaps this is a distinction between "the missile explodes as it hits your big toe" and "the missle explodes a foot in front of you, with the ground diminishing some of the force coming at your feet" or something?

Will respond to rest later, Batteground is on.

[Killer Cyborg]

Prysus demonstrated that--according to the rules--an explosive that goes off at your feet still strikes the main body.

Y'know, it doesn't actually specify main body there

It doesn't have to.
To strike something other than the Main Body, the attacker must make a Called Shot.

No Called Shot was made, therefore the attack necessarily hit the main body.

Do we even have rules for "I'm going to lob my grenade at the foot of X" as being different than "I lob my grenade at X" ? When would this distinction even come up?

The distinction would come up in discussions where people try to claim that anything other than the area hit directly with a grenade/missile takes half damage.
One argument that I've seen repeatedly is essentially, "If you lob a grenade at somebody's feet, then logically their legs are going to take the damage, not the Main Body."
This clearly negates that argument, demonstrating that even if the explosion is closer to the legs than to the Main Body, it's the Main Body that takes the damage.

A missile/grenade cannot land at the feet of feet.

It is incredibly different to figure out what search terms will find me a picture of a giant foot-shaped monster with smaller feet growing out of it. I'm sure it must exist on the internet but this is no easy task.

It'd probably be some kind of porn.

As Prysus further pointed out, RUE 326 clearly states: "All missiles always strike the main body." Which even further drives home the point: a missile that lands at your feet will still be considered a Direct Hit* to the Main Body.

Perhaps this is a distinction between "the missile explodes as it hits your big toe" and "the missle explodes a foot in front of you, with the ground diminishing some of the force coming at your feet" or something?

The example is:
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), and everything else within the rest of the blast area suffers half the Mega-Damage rolled for the explosion.

The grenade here doesn't hit the big toe.
The full force of the grenade hits the Main Body of the target... but not the feet/legs.

[Tor]

The rule never says anything about being strictly for guns.

"Gun Terms" is clear enough.

Also, expansion on the rule demonstrates that Called Shots are necessary to hit anything other than the Main Body. If it's any kind of attack other than a Called Shot, it cannot hit a specific body part.

SB1 7
Question: Does a character have to make a called shot to hit a specific area other than the main body?
Answer: Yes. A called shot must be made to hit a specific target or area such as a hand, head, foot, weapon, antenna, etc.

It is still talking about "shots", ie ranged attacks.

Things that were not modern weapons could not do aimed shots and could not do called shots.

Later books I believe did introduce a new kind of "called shot" (which really wasn't a 'shot' at all, more like a bad choice of words for a called strike) that could also be done with hand to hand attacks.

But called shots being expanded to include other stuff like HtH blows doesn't suddenly mean that called shot limits also apply to explosions.

If you look at the other questions about called shots on the same page of the (unrevised) Rifts Sourcebook, you can see the recurring terms like 'shot' or 'blast' to be about gunfire:

"Presumably the shot hits the main body"
"if.. the shot misses completely. Whether the blast hits something nearby.."
"pluses or minuses may apply to the called shot depending on whether the attack is an aimed, burst or wild shot"
"Is one's PP bonus applied to aimed shots .. ?" .. "PP bonuses count only in hand to hand combat and weapons like .. and also apply to thrown weapons"

KC you are quoting from the unrevised sourcebook, in line with RMB, where Called Shots could only be Aimed Shots. Aimed Shots were things done with modern weapons.

Thinking "every" means "every" doesn't seem overly strict.

And yet YOU have repeatedly agreed that "everything" doesn't mean literally "everything."
Pick a stance and stick with it.

If "everything" means "every literal thing," then stick with that.
If "everything" means "every viable target," then stick with THAT.
Quit swapping your position back and forth depending on whether you think it helps you.

"Everything" or "all else" is establishing what a viable target is.

This isn't swapping. This is a case of 'things work this way until overrided'.

It would not be the first case of where we are initially told an all-inclusive rule, and then later have it over-rided.

To use the Phase World books as an example: DB3p85 the Spinnerette Interceptor's first Weapon System the "Energy Blaster" (fires 'beams of energy') do 'full damage to ships, robots, and characters enchanted with the spell: invulnerable to energy'.

If we can agree that this is a misquote of either or both of the spells Invulnerability ("the magic makes the individual impervious to fire and all energy attacks") and Impervious to Energy ("the arcanist can make himself impervious to all forms of energy") we cab see that the word "all" DOES mean "all"... until elsewhere we are told there is an exception.

You still require an explicit exception, text to tell us when we should ignore an 'all' to make something a non-viable target.

Gunshot requirements for called shots to hit things do not make such an exception, because missiles do damage to more than just what they hit. Grenades do not have to hit things to damage them either, something just needs to be in the blast area or radius. Called shots is about hitting and damage results from hitting, limitations on hitting to not affect things which do not need to hit to inflict damage.

not literally everything, then, only viable targets.

Everything until we're told it is unviable, sure. Which we are only told for cover, not for non-mains. Same as with cosmo-knights getting hit or being in blast radius of a plasma missile, their immunity overrides the damage, just as hiding behind or in the body of an adequately large cosmo-knight (like that Cosmo-Whale that one guy made) would also protect you from the plasma missile due to cover exceptions.

AFAIK, you're talking about flavor text there, not game description.

The concept of flavor text is fancruft, not canon. Entries in Erin Tarn's diary could be dismissed as inaccuracies, word-of-god descriptions from KS about the world are not just 'flavor'.

You've already been repeatedly unfaithful to that prefix. Either be faithful without exception, or quit pretending that you're being faithful.

There's such a thing as being faithful until there is a justified exception.

For example, if your spouse says "do not kiss other people" and you agree and are faithful to that promise but then later your spouse says "I changed my mind, you may kiss other people, but only on Labour Day" then you are still being faithful if you kiss someone else on labour day.

This is why the cover-rule protecting people in a blast radius does not mean we utterly ignore the everything/all-else rule, we just layer it on top. The same way that Intruders' bypass layers on Inv/ItE's 'no pass'.

Bodies inside of armor are things. Fingers are things. Toes are things. Molecules are things. Words are things. Sounds are things. Light is a thing. You and I both know that "everything" doesn't mean literally "every thing."

It means everything until we make exceptions.

Bodies inside of armor are excepted due to cover rules RUE finally introduced because I guess players/GMS were hassling one or the other over wanting to apply this common sense principle or not.

Sound isn't a physical thing, it's commonly vibrating air and air does get moved by explosions and re-arranged. If we bothered to assign damage capacity to a given arrangement of air, I'm sure an explosion could destroy it. It certainly bothers Air Elementals but they appear flexible enough that the re-arrangement doesn't bother them. The damage does determine for them (or APS Mist/Smoke from HU) if they get dispersed though.

Regarding fingers/molecules, their thinginess is essentially determined by if the author opts to give it a damage pool. It seems unfair, but so is the main body of an Enforcer taking as much shrapnel as the main body of a SAMAS, so we're gonn ahave unfairness no matter what =/

We're back to pretending that "everything" necessarily meaning "everything," but "all" necessarily doesn't mean "all."

I'm more an 'every until A' and 'all until A' kinda guy, A being an exception, and thinking your B of called shots is not equal to A.

there is a difference between "not including all rules" and "conspicuously neglecting to mention rules that should have been demonstrated."
The damages for missile attacks are described, and that's a single flat damage. There is no mention of blast radius damage because no viable targets are in the blast area.

We hold a different view of what 'should' have been demonstrated then.

The only part of the SAMAS other than the main body that I'm 100% sure was not protected by cover was the rail gun, and it did not suffer enough damage to be destroyed, so was no necessity to mention it taking damage.

In contrast, applying the dodge penalty when the half-dressed bandit was donning a SAMAS would have resulted in his death. He only managed to tie the strike roll, with the -10 he would've been 4 to dodge against 14 to strike.

In contrast, applying the penalty to strike against the speeding hoverjet could have resulted in them dodging the Enforcer's pair of missiles. Even a -3 to strike would've lowered the roll to 11, which would've allowed the 12 to dodge to succeed.

In contrast, applying the penalty to strike against the newly-dressed flying SAMAS when trying to punch him, would've allowed the dodge to tie and succeed.

The rules I point out this example ignoring are critical and would have altered the flow of combat. Simply mentioning that the railgun took damage would not have altered anything since it didn't take additional damage or get destroyed later. If the wings got wrecked too then it wouldn't have mattered since he didn't take flight in the example.

That rule didn't exist when the passage was written.

If I buy this, can you say the same of the -3/-6 strike rule?

That rule didn't exist when the passage was written.

Kev wrote both RMB and NGR, by having NGR's power-armor-suitup-time conflict with the example, perhaps that's a way of throwing it out.

Perhaps the example is no longer relevant? Kind of like how the original conversion book's example isn't relevant either since it says you can't dodge when out of actions and now people can?

Damage for the missile is described in that passage. It is not described in the way that you claim that it should be. Which contradicts your claim.

Omission of detail isn't contradiction, it is ambivalent and leaves an open door to either of our theories, leaving us to look elsewhere to resolve it.

That IS the basis for your claim here, in fact--that Palladium has this rule that explosions damage body parts, they just never bothered to mention it specifically, so we have to intuit the rule from picking the "right" interpretation of "everything" in a passage or two, picking the right definition of "shot" in another number of passages, and so forth.

Eh no, I never said they had a specific rule that other hit locations get damaged, that just seems like a natural extension of everything else getting damaged.

I'm all for excepting body parts under cover but don't see a basis for excepting things not having grounds for exception due to cover or invulnerabilities.

What "everything" refers to is not clarified. It may refer only to viable targets (i.e., the Main Body if no Called Shots are made)

That is not the basis of explosion viability, it is the basis of gunshot viability.

If there's a grey area to discuss it'd be guns that do area effect by themself, not ones that lauch explosives, because then gunshot rules apply to the hitting of the explosive container, not the resulting explosion.

But it DOES describe the damage dealt, and it does NOT describe that damage being dealt to anything other than the Main Body.

It doesn't describe it going to the main body either. You can assume that due to lack of a called shot, just as I will also assume that everything else in the blast radius not under cover will take damage. Both of our assumptions would be well-founded since the rules support them both.

No new basic principles were to be gained. How damage works was already covered.

'How it all works' doesn't allow you to skim over details, you have to show ALL of them, right?

Plus, if it wasn't necessary to explain how it works, why did they go back to doing it in the last turn?

How damage is dealt is very important. That's why this thread (and others) have been so preoccupied with that very question.

Important to us, but not important to Kev's basic combat example, which ended before it became relevant.

Kind of like how eating is important, but not enough time had passed for the potential starvation of the SAMAS bandits to be relevant.

Dodge and strike penalties are also extremely relevant but no incorporated. If Kev thought having all major details in the example were important, he would've included them when the book did.

There is a clear rule describing SDC damage to people in MDC armor.
There is a clear rule describing damage from crashes and falls.

So, you agree with me that the example leaves out critical details.

the rule has to exist in the first place, and your rule doesn't.
There is NOT any kind of clear rule describing damage being dealt to body parts by explosions.

There is not any kind of clear rule telling us that ELVEN WOMEN who pilot SAMAS body armor will be damaged by explosions or crashes.

I mean, do you see anywhere it specifying this? Nope. However since they are 'characters', we can understand that this rule applies to them. In the same way, blast radius damages 'all else' and 'everything' in range, so we know this applies to body parts, since they are things, since they are part of the all.

Cover rules do over-ride that, but being a non-main-body does not mean you are under cover, though you certainly can be, but it's an individual GM call, like I'd say the ammo drum is under cover in the example.

THIS combat description would be the place to make such a thing clear, IF it existed... but it doesn't exist, and the conspicuous lack of such a rule in this place demonstrates it.

The conspicuous lack of SDC damage to the SAMAS pilot must also demonstrate that the Impact Damage Rules on RMBp12 do not exist then, I guess?

The combat example forgetting to apply a rule does not mean the rule does not exist, it's silly to rely on this reasoning.

There is no rule saying that "everything" includes things like..

I'd call it the rule of language, "All of a countable group, without exception." as Wiktionary puts it.

Essentially "by default until excluded".

There are rules stating that body parts and guns cannot be hit unless a Called Shot is made.

The rule for guns, which are generally narrow arcs of force that can't attack a bunch of stuff at once. Even when you do a spray, it's very few targets who get hit.

These rules are not for explosions and there has never been any grounds for applying them to explosions or any other area effect attacks.

I don't even think they were intended for melee attacks. Natural 20 knockouts from boxing, anyone? Are we thinking this is meant to be a punch to the main body? It's an uncalled punch to the head, obv.

Explosions aren't shots

Do you have a source to support your claim that explosions from missiles are NOT considered shots or parts of shots?

I think the English language would be enough.

Do you see people saying stuff like "the suicide bomber shot a bunch of people by hitting the trigger on his bomb vest" or something?

Or "I shot the mine with TNT"?

Explosives can certainly propel a shot (gunpowder, launching a firecracker, shooting a missile) but an explosive projectile exploding upon impact with something else it not itself a shot.

As mentioned with the Sourcebook 1 quotes, it makes a distinction showing Shot to refer to acts with Modern Weaponry, talking about Aim/Burst.

A "shot" is defined as "an action of shooting."
When you shoot somebody with an arrow, that arrow hitting the target and damaging the target is all part of the "shot."
When you shoot somebody with a railgun, the railgun rounds hitting the target and damaging the target is all part of the "shot."
When you shoot somebody with a missile, the missile striking the target, and the damage being dealt is all part of the "shot."

The first two are right because that is a result of the shot itself. In the case of the missile (or also, an exploding arrow) this would be wrong, because the explosion is a separate action, it happens after you shoot the source of the explosion to its destination, it is not an act of the shot itself.

Regardless, SB1 specifies that a Called Shot is the only way to hit a specific area other than the Main Body.

In the context of discussing gunshots from modern weapons, not a general rule for any combat whatsoever, which is why it was introduced in the modern weapons section and not the basic combat section.

As is the fact that you have to make a Called Shot to hit anything other than the Main Body.

Right.

But explosions don't have to, they're not people.

Thinking that non-main locations are damage-free from explosions also violates all the examples I've given of remains being unidentifiable. Completely intact helmets and limbs and sensors and all that are not unidentifiable.

The rule that a Called Shot is required to hit anything other than the Main Body--even if the missile itself strikes the ground at your feet--overrides the possibility of anything other than the Main Body being hit by a blast radius.

Striking at the feet is essentially flavour text, which is why it was in parenthesis. It was not describing a separate idea, that would have been done with a comma. It allows GMs to describe a strike as near-enough contact, there is not actually a mechanic for aiming at ground in front of someone's feet instead of them.

Otherwise everyone would just use that as a loophole to avoid penalties.

"I don't have to take a strike penalty because your Samson is running fast and is invisible, I'm aiming at the ground in front of the Samson's feet, and it is not moving, and it is not invisible. But it still directly hits your Samson."

I agree with the bolded, but disagree with the rest.

Basically all targets are viable but any target can be made non-viable by other statements.

Pretty much everything comes with an air of "do as I say until I say not to" or "rock beats everything until paper shows up". That doesn't mean we ignore what the words say. Every/All is clearcut. Coverage is clearcut. Things not covered but being protected because they're not the biggest part of a thing even though these parts are bigger than the biggest part of other small things which get damaged?

It is contradicted by examples of non-main locations being destroyed in PA descriptions.

For example?

Boom gun via GBK, arms/legs via Super-Trooper.

The Main Body is the default. It doesn't need to be explicitly included.

Damaging everything is the default, it also does not need to be explicitly included.

When damage is dealt to a target, it is dealt as a rule to the Main Body, unless a Called Shot is made. No Called Shot was made, ergo the damage was dealt to the Main Body.

Shooting rules are for shooting.

Can I suddenly do a short burst or a spray with sword swings or arrows now?

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.

Correct. "After." As in "in a new section that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with that specific part of the previous section."

The table of contents on RUEp6 shows that "Weapon Modifiers" is a subsection of "Modern Weapon Proficiencies".

Just as "Modern Weapon Proficiencies" and "Missile Combat" and "Surviving an Aircraft Crash-Landing" are 3 distinct separate subsections of "Ranged Weapon Combat".

"Gun Terms" doesn't show up in the ToC but it appears to be on the same tier as "Dodging Bullets" which like Weapon Modifiers is a subsection of Modern Weapon Proficiencies.

Do you believe that the MDC for Deadboy armor in the RMB reflects all the collective parts of the armor?

I believe it did, but then this was ret-conned over time by assigning progressively more hit locations to things.

Do you believe that all creatures similar in that way to Brodkil have MDC statted out by location?

I know too little of their biologies to say.

If they don't, the GM can just make some if the issue comes up. They could well have more than 50% of their MDC in other locations, making them able to survive any explosions the main body takes.

RUE: Page 362 left "getting caught in a blast radius does half damage"

Right... A PERSON (or creature, or vehicle) who gets caught in the blast radius takes half damage to their Main Body.
Nothing about this quoted passage indicates anything about any body parts getting damaged.

Nothing in what I quoted specifies creature/person/vehicle, it just mentions an ambiguous subject 'getting caught'. It uses 'your companion' as an example, and most living beings had a single damage pool when this was written (and heck, even in RUE, I'd say most PC-intended races still do) so saying your companion is enough. No mention is made of the companion having separate pools due to armor or other gear, but if they did, you could judge that as needed.

It doesn't say "somebody's arm getting caught in a blast radius..."
It doesn't say "somebody's leg getting caught in a blast radius..."
What it DOES go on to say is "Your companion standing 10' away is hit by a HE missile with a 30' blast radius. He takes full damage from a direct hit, but your character is also caught in the blast radius."
VERY clearly talking about individuals, NOT about body parts.

Right, because people were not, and still mostly are not, broken into body parts.

If GMs play that way then they can do the extra work. In standard rules though, characters for the most part had a single damage pool, as did your basic armor.

Just because KS did not update the example to make mention of some races having different hit locations, or of some armor (assuming the guys in the example even had any armor on) doesn't mean things are suddenly immune to explosions when they're in a blast radius.

HE takes full damage, not "His Main Body takes full damage."

People generally were not assigned main bodies when this was written, and assigning damage capcity to other locations is still unusual, even if we have seen it done for some optional player character monster races.

YOUR CHARACTER is also caught in the blast radius, NOT "His arms, legs, and head, as well as your character's Main Body, Arms, Legs, and Head...."

They're all in the blast radius. It doesn't say only your char's main body either. In b4 misplacing more gun rules for bombs.

It talks only about entire people, NOT about body parts, because that's what the rule is discussing.
Quoting that passage does not support your view in any way, shape, or form.

Except 2 companions are only being used in an example. The preceding text, the rule itself, simply mentions that getting caught in the radius means damage.

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"

Okay, you've found two times where the same rule is repeated, and you take the same interpretation.
"Everyone and everything" and "all else" refer to "all viable targets," not to literally "all else" and "everything."

All else and everything are viable targets until they are made inviable by other text.

Called shot rules for guns don't affect the viability of things to be hit by the blast radius of an explosion. Bombs aren't guns. You don't aim an explosion. You can place the epicenter of one, but it aims everywhere.

There is nothing stating that body parts are viable targets for explosions

Except of course for the explosion of a Naruni Bullet Mine being able to blow off a foot.

Or a Super Trooper's MAYSIES being able to blow up the arms and legs of robots.

normally kill or vaporize the character

Hm... if attacks normally vaporize "the character" rather than "the character's main body", it sounds to me like everything gets damaged. Point made about the context of optionality, but here it is used to describe a normality in conflict with your 'two companions' analysis.

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.

It sounds like you're now claiming that a lack of support for an interpretation counts as conflict with that interpretation. Is that correct?

Incorrect, I said "do not have support" and "cause conflict" not "do not have support... this causes conflict". Conditions A and B, not A thus B.

They have separate damage pools because they are treated as separate sections of the same thing.

The human species is also a thing. But our separate damage pools allow us to be damaged separately.

How about this for consideration: Vampire Kingdoms page 144, the Mutant Siamese Twins "Psi-Fi", Sylvia and Fiona. They are two separate sections of the same thing, a unified physical entity. Yet they have their own SDCs and HPs.

PU1, if you use the power to detach your limbs, they can attack enemies wielding explosives with impunity because they aren't your main body? Just walk through walls of fire and pits of lava because no called shot?

It sounds like you're saying that it's impossible for an Enforcer's fingers to be damaged without damaging the entire hand.

I'm saying that when you damage the fingers, it is counted as part of the enforcer's hand pool. MDC is not assigned to the fingers so without GM making rule-calls (kind of like with cover) you can't actually destroy or sever a finger without destroying the hold hand's entire capacity.

I'm restricting "everything" to "all viable targets," which we agree on at this point (I believe).

So long as you agree that this is by default everything until it is ruled out.

And I'm pointing out that as per the rules, "A called shot must be made to hit a specific target or area such as a hand, head, foot, weapon, antenna, etc." (SB1 7) That's a blanket rule that is not restricted to guns, or even to ranged attacks.

You do realize that SB1p6, the example directly preceding this, completely contradicts your interpretation right?

The implied context about needing a called shot is that it is about modern weapons. It is not presented as a general rule, despite the ambiguous language.

Just look at the previous page. "Example number 2". It talks about a dragon trying to slap a guy and knock him out, and he hits him in the head, but no mention of making a called shot, because called shots were things you did with modern weapons.

The Conversion Book made this clear on page 12 with 'A called shot is an aimed shot' and 'Aimed Shots Only' under the called shot for the sharpshooter as well.

This is a restriction on attackers who have to aim, it isn't a restriction on non-aiming non-attackers, forces of nature like explosions and lava which just hit everything in a given area. Called shot rules are about small areas which you can miss. Explosions don't hit or miss by rolls to strike, they simply envelope a 3D area the same way lava covers a 2D one.

You have provided evidence that not all rules were considered, not that all rules were not intended to be considered.

Disproving the competency is all that is necessary since I'm countering an 'absence of evidence' type reasoning.

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

Or applying to main bodies. Main bodies being prime targets is default and area effect hitting everything is default. Defaults get ignored, goes both ways.

Nothing about near misses applying to anything OTHER than Main Bodies of things.
Again, Main Bodies are the default. They don't have to be specified.
Anything other than the Main Body is an exception. Exceptions have to be specified.

I'm simply discussing Rifts at this point.

Fair enough, so what :book after book after book" has sample combats with explosives? There are 2 sample combats in RMB that have explosives, and the one in CB doesn't have one. At this point I don't need a sample combat to support me, you need one to support you, like if the explosion had been 100 MD then I'd drop my case since he shouldn't have been able to fire a destroyed rail gun.

"Throwaway"...? It's a combat example designed to demonstrate how the rules work, and it's one that specifically demonstrates how damage from a missile is dealt. That's not throwaway.

It also demonstrates how to dodge a rail gun burst, how explosion damage affects someone in power armor, how to fire at a speeding hoverjet, how to dodge a pair of faster-than-Mach medium missiles, and how to punch a moving SAMAS.

Proper mechanics are ignored for all of these, so proper mechanics being ignored for missile blast radius means nothing.

That's the exact time and place to show that missiles damage body parts... IF in fact they did. Instead, all that is shown is that missile inflict damage to the Main Body.

That's the exact time and place to show that explosions damage the SDC of a power armor pilot. IF in fact they did. Instead, all that is shown is that missile inflict damage.

Not to the main body though, since they never say that:
*You assume it's to the main body because it says elsewhere that it's the default target.
*I assume it's also to everything else at half the amount, because it says elsewhere that everything else takes damage.
**I guess neither of us are actually assuming though, we're deducing this based on what we're told elsewhere, even though the data is not specified in the combat example. Probably because we're expected to fill in the blanks.

The example made for giant robots and power armor, which all had multiple damage locations.

The 2 companions 10 feet apart are not specified to be robots or in any sort of armor. Based on the language, I can even assume they are naked.

Are you harkening back to when this appeared in Robotech or something? Even then, Veritechs and stuff were not the sole targets of missile strikes, they could also hit armored humans or naked ones.

there is NO mention of body parts getting vaporized.

How is that not covered under "they are completely vapourized"? It's not "their main body is completely vapourized" or "their torso is completely vapourized".

One GM might rule that the spell vaporizes the Main Body of a robot, and another GM might rule that because the Main Body was destroyed, the "thing" that is the entire robot is vaporized. As far as I can tell, either one would be valid.

That would depend on if the robot had only one damage pool (like say, a Machine Person from Phase World) or if they had multiple ones.

If you have a CS Grunt riding on the back of an Enforcer, and the front of the Enforcer is Annihilated, what happens to that Grunt? Is he vaporized because the Enforcer is vaporized? Or does he fall to the ground?

No simple answer, would have to consider some issues. Like: is any part of the Grunt peeping out, or is he completely covered?

I would probably do it like I would a wall (albeit this ignoring the GI Joe rule which further complicates... if it even applies to walls/cover instead of just armor).

If you shot a 20 MD armor-piercing missile at a guy covered by a completely transparent wall with 10 MDC, I would say it inflicts the first 10 MD to the wall, then the remaining 10 MD to the guy.

But I guess in your face, do you mean like the Enforcer takes the 2d4x100 to the main and then, what amount of the 3d6x10 does the guy behind him take?

That's the weird bit then, since it's different amounts, a dilemma you don't often have with missiles. I'm not sure I have an answer there. Nor would I have an easy answer if a missile inflicted exactly 250 MD to a SAMAS main body, how much of that 125MD radius-damage would go on to hurt the ammo drum. It seems like a question we'd often ignore due to irrelevance but I can see how it comes up in the Enforcer/Grunt situation.

artwork regularly contradicts the actual rules of the game, as well as other artwork.

Counterpoint: text regularly does this too, so it is not grounds to ignore something just because conflicts arise.

Plus: illusions and custom mods explain everything.

Everything in the books is canon until directly contradicted.

Source?

Your source for "text in books is canon" first. Unless you take a "what is in this book is canon" stance by default, you're going to be lost, as KS doesn't remind us with every sentence 'this is canon'. Existing and not being de-canonized is self-canonization both for text and imagery.

We can of course, discuss the CONTEXT of a canon image and whether or not the image should be interpreted as matching up with a given text. I don't believe the Mercs image of the Iron Bolt is a non-custom or non-illusion depiction of what is in the stats.

Artwork is only worth anything in a vacuum, and even then it's not worth very much at all.

Art has universal worth regardless of other things.

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

It indicates it, all else being equal.

Aren't there some legless guys who can't dodge but aren't described as unable to roll? I'll have to keep an eye out.

The strike roll is the default. No exception to the default is specified, therefore the default remains and need not be specified.

Based on RUEp362:

The number that must be matched or overcome is:
a) the attacker's roll to strike
-or-
b) if a strike roll is not available, a 14 or higher must be made

It sounds like there is not a default. It sounds like you choose what is appropriate.

I argue it's not appropriate to roll a defense against an attack made against you. The strike roll is 'not available' to someone the roll is not targetting. It is available to the targetted.

it doesn't mention anything about the main target in that section.

It mentions getting out of the "direct line of impact (maximum damage)" so that's clearly what's being discussed. Non-main targets don't have to do this, they're already out.

I shouldn't put effort into arguing something we agree about houseruling though =/ If the main target can possibly spend 2 targets to get out then others getting 1 dodge to put distance is fine, I'd give them 2 as well, or even 4 if speedsters like in HU.

Do you know of any rules limiting the roll to ONLY the main target, not to secondary or tertiary targets? I don't.

The roll is about the missile, that's what's being dodged, and the placement of the missile's what's being rolled with.

How about this compromise: instead of 14, the explosion (since the missile is gone) should have to make a separate roll against everyone in the radius, to represent random chance of difficulty of avoidance, and to avoid "it's so much easier to roll with the nuke when it hits my invisible friend standing next to me" problems.

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

The strike roll of whomever threw it. If it was a placed explosive, then I'd roll a general strike roll for it.

So let's roll a general strike roll for all explosions

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.

Do you know of any rule allowing for a GM to use the 14 for falls as a default for explosives?

Nope, but there wasn't one for doing a general strike roll with placed explosives either. The point of this exercise was to identify that holes existed in the rules for rolling with explosions.

when the context is "power armor and robots," then it is illogical (and even disingenuous) to claim that the example for blast radius damage would be for foot-soldiers in standard EBA.

Right: I won't even assume that. I'll assume it is 2 naked companions.

It mentions companions getting hit and taking damage, not equipment. Not body armor, not power armor, not robots. Companions.

It's a section about robots and power armor, and that's the default assumption for that section unless otherwise specified.

Nope, sentient robots didn't exist in RMB so it couldn't have been talking about robots when it said companions, it was talking about people. Naked people.

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

False division in this case.
The context is: "The following are the rules that are used when playing characters who operate power armor or robot vehicles"
The text is: "Your companion standing 10' away is hit by a high explosive missile with a 30' blast area. He takes full damage from a direct hit, but you are also caught in the blast because you were standing too close together. Fortunately, your character takes half damage since he was not caught directly in the blast."

But not "used only when".

Also: it is "characters who operate" not "characters while operating" or "characters while in and operating".

So if you want to dig overly much into this opening statement: it is about characters, not PA or bots. If a section were about "characters who eat spinach" I would not necessarily assume that a character in the example was eating spinach at that very moment.

The 10ft-apart-companions are not required to be in PA or a bot. If this is a rule or something then that would mean people in standard body armor are immune to explosions and called shots.

When a section is describing rules for Player Characters in robots and power armor

"Characters who operate" not "characters in".

Also 'used for' not 'only used for'.

Player Characters are assumed to be in robots or power armor unless otherwise specified.

Except this is in the missile subsection which effectively does a role-reversal since in the earlier section it's focusing on PA/bots launching missiles.

How about : since the characters aren't specified as having ANYTHING, I will assume they are naked. Or that whatever they're wearing, people can figure that out according to the rules.

To strike something other than the Main Body, the attacker must make a Called Shot.

Explosions are not attackers, they are not limited by attacker limits any more than a lava flow. If I throw a SAMAS into the sun, the sun doesn't have to make a called shot. If I throw it into an acid pool, the acid doesn't have to make a called shot. If I throw an explosion over it, the explosion doesn't have to either. It's not a gun, it's not an attacker.

No Called Shot was made, therefore the attack necessarily hit the main body.

Do we even have rules for "I'm going to lob my grenade at the foot of X" as being different than "I lob my grenade at X" ? When would this distinction even come up?

The distinction would come up in discussions where people try to claim that anything other than the area hit directly with a grenade/missile takes half damage.

The bit about landing at the feet doesn't actually protect other parts from taking damage though.

One argument that I've seen repeatedly is essentially, "If you lob a grenade at somebody's feet, then logically their legs are going to take the damage, not the Main Body."
This clearly negates that argument, demonstrating that even if the explosion is closer to the legs than to the Main Body, it's the Main Body that takes the damage.

These are slightly different arguments. Lobbing a grenade at the feet, the explosion would center directly on the feet, taking direct-hit damage.

Landing at the feet may be closer, but it is not directly on.

So all this 'at the feet' thing shows is that all bets are off once you're not in direct contact.

Which won't actually come up because we don't have rules for shooting things at people's feet.

The example is:
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), and everything else within the rest of the blast area suffers half the Mega-Damage rolled for the explosion.

The grenade here doesn't hit the big toe.
The full force of the grenade hits the Main Body of the target... but not the feet/legs.

Doesn't actually say "not the feet/legs" though, just that landing close enough to the main body ("at the feet of") can still be described as a direct hit to the target (default main body) if you want to flavor-text a grenade bouncing off some guy before it explodes.

Your problematic counter-example is stepping on the Naruni Bullet Mine with a 3ft blast radius. How does this harm the main body if your torso is more than 3 feet off the ground?

[Killer Cyborg]

Accidental post.
Ignore.

[Killer Cyborg]

Back and forth with Tor:

Spoiler:

The rule never says anything about being strictly for guns.

"Gun Terms" is clear enough.

Also, expansion on the rule demonstrates that Called Shots are necessary to hit anything other than the Main Body. If it's any kind of attack other than a Called Shot, it cannot hit a specific body part.

SB1 7
Question: Does a character have to make a called shot to hit a specific area other than the main body?
Answer: Yes. A called shot must be made to hit a specific target or area such as a hand, head, foot, weapon, antenna, etc.

It is still talking about "shots", ie ranged attacks.

Called "Shots" can be made in melee, using a hand, as I also pointed out below.
Sometimes it's good to read the whole post before responding.

Things that were not modern weapons could not do aimed shots and could not do called shots.

Source?

Later books I believe did introduce a new kind of "called shot" (which really wasn't a 'shot' at all, more like a bad choice of words for a called strike) that could also be done with hand to hand attacks.

Later books referred to the already-existing fact that a "Called Shot" need not be made with a gun.

But called shots being expanded to include other stuff like HtH blows doesn't suddenly mean that called shot limits also apply to explosions.

A Called Shot isn't a limit; it's a privilege.
The rule is that a Called Shot is necessary to hit anything other than the Main Body. That's a blanket statement which forbids any other kind of attack from hitting anything other than the main body.
If Called Shots could only be made with guns, then that would mean that only guns could hit anything other than the Main Body.
The rule is not--and was never--that Called Shots are the only way for guns to hit anything other than the main body, but that any other weapons can do it all they like.

If you look at the other questions about called shots on the same page of the (unrevised) Rifts Sourcebook, you can see the recurring terms like 'shot' or 'blast' to be about gunfire:

"Presumably the shot hits the main body"
"if.. the shot misses completely. Whether the blast hits something nearby.."
"pluses or minuses may apply to the called shot depending on whether the attack is an aimed, burst or wild shot"
"Is one's PP bonus applied to aimed shots .. ?" .. "PP bonuses count only in hand to hand combat and weapons like .. and also apply to thrown weapons"

SB1 generalized in some places, using "shots" and "blasts" as terms instead of "strikes."
But not in others.
Just like the official Combat Rules section talks about melee combat, but the rules still apply to ranged weapons.
In either case, "blast" and "shot" are terms that can and do apply to things other than modern firearms.

KC you are quoting from the unrevised sourcebook, in line with RMB, where Called Shots could only be Aimed Shots. Aimed Shots were things done with modern weapons

Aimed Shots were not a requirement.
SB1 7
Note: Pluses or minuses may apply to the Called Shot depending on whether the attack is an Aimed, Burst, or Wild shot, and depending on the size and/or protection of the target.

There is no rule forbidding the use of a single arrow shot from being a Called Shot, nor a thrown dagger, nor a punch.

Thinking "every" means "every" doesn't seem overly strict.

And yet YOU have repeatedly agreed that "everything" doesn't mean literally "everything."
Pick a stance and stick with it.

If "everything" means "every literal thing," then stick with that.
If "everything" means "every viable target," then stick with THAT.
Quit swapping your position back and forth depending on whether you think it helps you.

"Everything" or "all else" is establishing what a viable target is.

This isn't swapping. This is a case of 'things work this way until overrided'.[/quote]

Okay.
What rule overrides explosions damaging photons, molecules, colors, names, and so forth?

Gunshot requirements for called shots to hit things do not make such an exception, because missiles do damage to more than just what they hit. Grenades do not have to hit things to damage them either, something just needs to be in the blast area or radius. Called shots is about hitting and damage results from hitting, limitations on hitting to not affect things which do not need to hit to inflict damage.

The explosive blast still has to hit the target.

not literally everything, then, only viable targets.

Everything until we're told it is unviable, sure.

We're told that a Called Shot is a necessary requirement for anything other than the Main Body to be hit. That makes anything other than the Main Body unviable for anything other than a Called Shot.

AFAIK, you're talking about flavor text there, not game description.

The concept of flavor text is fancruft, not canon.

We're fans, not canons.

Entries in Erin Tarn's diary could be dismissed as inaccuracies, word-of-god descriptions from KS about the world are not just 'flavor'.

And they frequently are, whenever they conflict with more official material.

You've already been repeatedly unfaithful to that prefix. Either be faithful without exception, or quit pretending that you're being faithful.

There's such a thing as being faithful until there is a justified exception.

But that's not what you're doing.

Bodies inside of armor are things. Fingers are things. Toes are things. Molecules are things. Words are things. Sounds are things. Light is a thing. You and I both know that "everything" doesn't mean literally "every thing."

It means everything until we make exceptions.

Bodies inside of armor are excepted due to cover rules RUE finally introduced because I guess players/GMS were hassling one or the other over wanting to apply this common sense principle or not.

So... pre-RUE, explosions would hit people inside of armor?

Sound isn't a physical thing, it's commonly vibrating air and air does get moved by explosions and re-arranged.

Weere is the rule that states that sound is an exception?

If we bothered to assign damage capacity to a given arrangement of air, I'm sure an explosion could destroy it.

Just like with the patch of ground that a grenade lands on.

Regarding fingers/molecules, their thinginess is essentially determined by if the author opts to give it a damage pool.

Where is the rule that only things with damage pools get damaged?

there is a difference between "not including all rules" and "conspicuously neglecting to mention rules that should have been demonstrated."
The damages for missile attacks are described, and that's a single flat damage. There is no mention of blast radius damage because no viable targets are in the blast area.

We hold a different view of what 'should' have been demonstrated then.

You don't think that blast radius damage should have been demonstrated? That in an example which is showing players and GMs how ranged combat between robots and power armor "all works," that there is absolutely zero need for the missile damage to be shown to affect anything other than the main body?
That would seem incredibly sloppy to me, because readers being shown only one damage being inflicted to one pool would get the impression that's how things worked.

That rule didn't exist when the passage was written.

If I buy this, can you say the same of the -3/-6 strike rule?

Why wouldn't you buy it? The -10 rule was introduced in Rifts Japan.
Regardless, no, the -3/-6 rule would seem to be in effect in the combat, and mistakenly left out of the combat example.
Again, that does not mean that other mistakes were necessarily made, and again such a mistake is a lot more obscure than missing something such as "every time an explosion goes off, every part of power armor gets damaged."

That rule didn't exist when the passage was written.

Kev wrote both RMB and NGR, by having NGR's power-armor-suitup-time conflict with the example, perhaps that's a way of throwing it out.

All that the new suitup time would conflict with is one part of the example, and that's the only part that would be no longer valid.

But, okay... let's look at this part closer.
The scene opens with (RMB 45):
The UAR-1 Enforcer walks into a small group of high-tech bandits buying stolen Coalition SAMAS power armor from a black marketeer on the outskirts of the Burbs. The deal has just been concluded and the seller of the stolen armor is taking off in his hover jet. The bandits know that they are in trouble and move to attack. One bandit is already in SAMAS armor, another is frantically hurrying to finish putting on the rest of his armor.

"The rest of his armor."

The bandit had an undisclosed amount of time prior to combat in which he put on some undisclosed amount of his armor.
That doesn't seem to conflict with the rules in NGR, considering we're dealing with two unspecified variables here.
In x amount of time, he put on y amount of armor, THEN combat started, and once combat starts, he only spends 1 attack putting on the rest of his armor. For all we know, "the rest" of his armor could have been the helmet, or a glove, or two gloves, or a glove and a boot, or a helmet and a boot, or whatever, depending on how the armor is put on.

I'm not seeing any conflict.

Damage for the missile is described in that passage. It is not described in the way that you claim that it should be. Which contradicts your claim.

Omission of detail isn't contradiction, it is ambivalent and leaves an open door to either of our theories, leaving us to look elsewhere to resolve it.

When the omission is a demonstration of the rules, and an alleged rule is conspicuously left out, that's a conflict.

That IS the basis for your claim here, in fact--that Palladium has this rule that explosions damage body parts, they just never bothered to mention it specifically, so we have to intuit the rule from picking the "right" interpretation of "everything" in a passage or two, picking the right definition of "shot" in another number of passages, and so forth.

Eh no, I never said they had a specific rule that other hit locations get damaged, that just seems like a natural extension of everything else getting damaged.

So there is no rule that allows for body parts other than the Main Body to get damaged by explosions?

I'm all for excepting body parts under cover but don't see a basis for excepting things not having grounds for exception due to cover or invulnerabilities.

A Called Shot is necessary to hit anything other than the Main Body.

What "everything" refers to is not clarified. It may refer only to viable targets (i.e., the Main Body if no Called Shots are made)

That is not the basis of explosion viability, it is the basis of gunshot viability.

There is no such distinction in the rules of the game.

But it DOES describe the damage dealt, and it does NOT describe that damage being dealt to anything other than the Main Body.

It doesn't describe it going to the main body either. You can assume that due to lack of a called shot, just as I will also assume that everything else in the blast radius not under cover will take damage. Both of our assumptions would be well-founded since the rules support them both.

The rules do not support your assumption. The rules contradict your assumption.
Unless a Called Shot is made, nothing other than the Main Body can be hit. The rules are specific and clear on this.

No new basic principles were to be gained. How damage works was already covered.

'How it all works' doesn't allow you to skim over details, you have to show ALL of them, right?

How damage works was already shown.

Plus, if it wasn't necessary to explain how it works, why did they go back to doing it in the last turn?

Because they're allowed to do unnecessary writing in their own books if they feel like it.

How damage is dealt is very important. That's why this thread (and others) have been so preoccupied with that very question.

Important to us, but not important to Kev's basic combat example, which ended before it became relevant.

The damage to the SAMAS was relevant, because it was showing how damage works.
"How damage works" does not appear to be "explosions damage parts other than the Main Body."

There is a clear rule describing SDC damage to people in MDC armor.
There is a clear rule describing damage from crashes and falls.

So, you agree with me that the example leaves out critical details.

No. I agree that the example leaves out peripheral details that were mistakenly overlooked.

the rule has to exist in the first place, and your rule doesn't.
There is NOT any kind of clear rule describing damage being dealt to body parts by explosions.

There is not any kind of clear rule telling us that ELVEN WOMEN who pilot SAMAS body armor will be damaged by explosions or crashes.

I mean, do you see anywhere it specifying this? Nope. However since they are 'characters', we can understand that this rule applies to them. In the same way, blast radius damages 'all else' and 'everything' in range, so we know this applies to body parts, since they are things, since they are part of the all.

Cover rules do over-ride that, but being a non-main-body does not mean you are under cover, though you certainly can be, but it's an individual GM call, like I'd say the ammo drum is under cover in the example.

Again, you and I both know (and have said) that "everything" does not mean "literally every thing" in this case.

THIS combat description would be the place to make such a thing clear, IF it existed... but it doesn't exist, and the conspicuous lack of such a rule in this place demonstrates it.

The conspicuous lack of SDC damage to the SAMAS pilot must also demonstrate that the Impact Damage Rules on RMBp12 do not exist then, I guess?

That's not conspicuous.
The SDC damage rules are typically unimportant, and not part of the basics of combat the way that explosive damage is.

The combat example forgetting to apply a rule does not mean the rule does not exist, it's silly to rely on this reasoning.

The combat example forgetting to apply a rule does not mean that the rule does note exist.
The rule not existing means that the rule does not exist, and the combat example simply underlines it.
("The rule" in this case being your personal interpretation of "everything" as including every (non-protected) hit location on every target, instead of including the Main Body of every target.)

There is no rule saying that "everything" includes things like..

I'd call it the rule of language, "All of a countable group, without exception." as Wiktionary puts it.

Essentially "by default until excluded".

Let me know when you find a rule excluding "thoughts" from "everything".

Explosions aren't shots

Do you have a source to support your claim that explosions from missiles are NOT considered shots or parts of shots?

I think the English language would be enough.

You would be incorrect.

Do you see people saying stuff like "the suicide bomber shot a bunch of people by hitting the trigger on his bomb vest" or something?

But we do see people talking about targets being shot by missiles as including the explosive damage from the missile as part of the damage.
I'm not saying that all explosions are considered to be parts of shots, only that when explosives are shot at somebody the explosion itself is considered to be part of the shooting process.
When you fire an explosive bullet at a target in Rifts, for example, the damage from the explosion is considered to be the damage caused by being shot.
When a cannon fires an explosive round at a target, people don't say or think, "That [building, tank, plane, whatever] got shot by a cannon AND damaged by an explosion!"
They accept the explosion as part of the shooting process when explosive rounds are fired.

As mentioned with the Sourcebook 1 quotes, it makes a distinction showing Shot to refer to acts with Modern Weaponry, talking about Aim/Burst.

SB1 refers to Called Shots being able to be made with Aimed Shots and Bursts.
I don't recall it mentioning that those are the only possible kinds of Called Shots.

Regardless, SB1 specifies that a Called Shot is the only way to hit a specific area other than the Main Body.

In the context of discussing gunshots from modern weapons, not a general rule for any combat whatsoever, which is why it was introduced in the modern weapons section and not the basic combat section.

When and where Palladium introduces rules is often irrelevant to the rules' nature.

As is the fact that you have to make a Called Shot to hit anything other than the Main Body.

Right.

But explosions don't have to, they're not people.

But they are attacks, and they must strike the target--which they cannot do unless they're a Called Shot, a natural 20, or firing at the Main Body.

Thinking that non-main locations are damage-free from explosions also violates all the examples I've given of remains being unidentifiable. Completely intact helmets and limbs and sensors and all that are not unidentifiable.

IIRC, those examples were of SDC targets.
If not, by all means pick which examples I neglected to address.

The rule that a Called Shot is required to hit anything other than the Main Body--even if the missile itself strikes the ground at your feet--overrides the possibility of anything other than the Main Body being hit by a blast radius.

Striking at the feet is essentially flavour text, which is why it was in parenthesis.

NOW you're dismissive of "flavor text"...?

It was not describing a separate idea, that would have been done with a comma. It allows GMs to describe a strike as near-enough contact, there is not actually a mechanic for aiming at ground in front of someone's feet instead of them.

Sure there is; the same rules for attacking anything else.

Otherwise everyone would just use that as a loophole to avoid penalties.

The penalty would be inflicting half damage instead of full damage, but yes, people would, and traditionally have tried to do so.
And yes, it wasn't describing a separate idea. It was stating that even if the missile doesn't hit the Main Body, it still nets out as if it did.
Which supports the RUE rule that all missiles always hit the Main Body.

But if a missile striking the ground hits the Main Body for full damage (with no mention of any other part of the body being damaged at all), that goes against the idea that a missile hitting a target's leg would inflict full damage to the leg, and no damage to the Main Body.

It is contradicted by examples of non-main locations being destroyed in PA descriptions.

For example?

Boom gun via GBK, arms/legs via Super-Trooper.

IIRC, the GBK came out before RUE, when mini-missiles were allowed to make Called Shots.

The Main Body is the default. It doesn't need to be explicitly included.

Damaging everything is the default, it also does not need to be explicitly included.

Damaging everything is not the default.
CB1 12
Under: Where Damage is Inflicted
The Main Body
To strike something other than the main body, the attacker must make an Aimed, Called shot, or roll a natural twenty.

The table of contents on RUEp6 shows that "Weapon Modifiers" is a subsection of "Modern Weapon Proficiencies".

Correct.
It is NOT a subsection of WP Heavy Mega-Damage Weapons.

Do you believe that the MDC for Deadboy armor in the RMB reflects all the collective parts of the armor?

I believe it did, but then this was ret-conned over time by assigning progressively more hit locations to things.

Do you believe that if Palladium were to stat out dragons more fully, the same as they did with EBA, that the total MDC that a dragon currently has would be divided throughout its body?

Do you believe that all creatures similar in that way to Brodkil have MDC statted out by location?

I know too little of their biologies to say.

You don't have to know about their biology. We weren't talking about biology.

RUE: Page 362 left "getting caught in a blast radius does half damage"

Right... A PERSON (or creature, or vehicle) who gets caught in the blast radius takes half damage to their Main Body.
Nothing about this quoted passage indicates anything about any body parts getting damaged.

Nothing in what I quoted specifies creature/person/vehicle, it just mentions an ambiguous subject 'getting caught'.

It doesn't need to. Ambiguous subjects are people in this context, not objects or body parts.

It uses 'your companion' as an example, and most living beings had a single damage pool when this was written

The section was written for and about PCs in power armor or robots, and you're deliberately ignoring the context.

YOUR CHARACTER is also caught in the blast radius, NOT "His arms, legs, and head, as well as your character's Main Body, Arms, Legs, and Head...."

They're all in the blast radius.

Then why doesn't the book mention body parts when it comes to the blast radius?
Not just for "you," but for your companion, who was hit in the Main Body with a missile? Would his limbs and head be in the blast radius, or in the blast?
If they'd be in the blast radius, then why wouldn't it be mentioned that his limbs take half damage?
This is THE place for that kind of thing to be spelled out; after all, it's spelling out that another person standing in the blast radius would take half damage.

It talks only about entire people, NOT about body parts, because that's what the rule is discussing.
Quoting that passage does not support your view in any way, shape, or form.

Except 2 companions are only being used in an example. The preceding text, the rule itself, simply mentions that getting caught in the radius means damage.

On the scale of "people," not on the scale of "body parts."
The passage does nothing to support your argument.

Okay, you've found two times where the same rule is repeated, and you take the same interpretation.
"Everyone and everything" and "all else" refer to "all viable targets," not to literally "all else" and "everything."

All else and everything are viable targets until they are made inviable by other text.

Such as a rule that only Called Shots can hit targets other than the main body.

There is nothing stating that body parts are viable targets for explosions

Except of course for the explosion of a Naruni Bullet Mine being able to blow off a foot.

That's not an explosion.
CWC 64
When someone steps on the slat, the cartridge is pressed down on the firing pin, triggering a plasma blast that inflicts 1d4x10 MD to the victim's foot.

Or a Super Trooper's MAYSIES being able to blow up the arms and legs of robots.

I thought Super Troopers just drank a lot of maple syrup.
Did you mean "Terror Trooper" or "Super SAMAS" or something...?

normally kill or vaporize the character

Hm... if attacks normally vaporize "the character" rather than "the character's main body", it sounds to me like everything gets damaged.

No, it sounds like everything gets vaporized when the main damage pool is destroyed.

Incorrect, I said "do not have support" and "cause conflict" not "do not have support... this causes conflict". Conditions A and B, not A thus B.

Then by all means fully restate your premise here.

They have separate damage pools because they are treated as separate sections of the same thing.

The human species is also a thing. But our separate damage pools allow us to be damaged separately.

How about this for consideration: Vampire Kingdoms page 144, the Mutant Siamese Twins "Psi-Fi", Sylvia and Fiona. They are two separate sections of the same thing, a unified physical entity. Yet they have their own SDCs and HPs.

No, they are two separate things that are conjoined.

PU1, if you use the power to detach your limbs, they can attack enemies wielding explosives with impunity because they aren't your main body?

Once they're detached, then they're their own main body, because they're the largest mass of that individual target.

It sounds like you're saying that it's impossible for an Enforcer's fingers to be damaged without damaging the entire hand.

I'm saying that when you damage the fingers, it is counted as part of the enforcer's hand pool. MDC is not assigned to the fingers so without GM making rule-calls (kind of like with cover) you can't actually destroy or sever a finger without destroying the hold hand's entire capacity.

It sounds like you're saying that it's impossible for an Enforcer's fingers to be damaged without damaging the entire hand.

I'm restricting "everything" to "all viable targets," which we agree on at this point (I believe).

So long as you agree that this is by default everything until it is ruled out.

I can't agree to that, because "everything" is too large of a category by itself, and some level of common sense must be used, or we'll be damaging intangible concepts every time a grenade goes off.

And I'm pointing out that as per the rules, "A called shot must be made to hit a specific target or area such as a hand, head, foot, weapon, antenna, etc." (SB1 7) That's a blanket rule that is not restricted to guns, or even to ranged attacks.

You do realize that SB1p6, the example directly preceding this, completely contradicts your interpretation right?

Nope.

The implied context about needing a called shot is that it is about modern weapons. It is not presented as a general rule, despite the ambiguous language.

The context is:
"Does a character have to make a Called Shot to hit a specific area other than the Main Body?"
And the answer is "Yes."

Just look at the previous page. "Example number 2". It talks about a dragon trying to slap a guy and knock him out, and he hits him in the head, but no mention of making a called shot, because called shots were things you did with modern weapons.

CB1 12
The Called Shot also applies to knock-out/stun attacks.

The Conversion Book made this clear on page 12 with 'A called shot is an aimed shot' and 'Aimed Shots Only' under the called shot for the sharpshooter as well.

THAT is in the context of modern firearms. Obviously if you're using a weapon that is incapable of making Aimed Shots, then the "A Called Shot is an Aimed Shot" does not apply, and the Called Shot is something else.
Like a knock-out/stun attack, or a grab for an amulet, or whatever you'd do when trying to shoot somebody in the arm with an arrow.

You have provided evidence that not all rules were considered, not that all rules were not intended to be considered.

Disproving the competency is all that is necessary since I'm countering an 'absence of evidence' type reasoning.

You have not disproven basic competency, only disproven competency with peripherals.

I'm simply discussing Rifts at this point.

Fair enough, so what :book after book after book" has sample combats with explosives?

Perhaps you should reread what I claimed:
"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."

"Throwaway"...? It's a combat example designed to demonstrate how the rules work, and it's one that specifically demonstrates how damage from a missile is dealt. That's not throwaway.

It also demonstrates how to dodge a rail gun burst, how explosion damage affects someone in power armor, how to fire at a speeding hoverjet, how to dodge a pair of faster-than-Mach medium missiles, and how to punch a moving SAMAS.

Proper mechanics are ignored for all of these, so proper mechanics being ignored for missile blast radius means nothing.

The basic mechanics are not ignored-- peripheral rules rules are neglected.
But something like "explosions damage all parts of the target" is basic, not peripheral.

That's the exact time and place to show that missiles damage body parts... IF in fact they did. Instead, all that is shown is that missile inflict damage to the Main Body.

That's the exact time and place to show that explosions damage the SDC of a power armor pilot.

How do you figure...?

The example made for giant robots and power armor, which all had multiple damage locations.

The 2 companions 10 feet apart are not specified to be robots or in any sort of armor. Based on the language, I can even assume they are naked.

Only if you completely ignore the context.

Are you harkening back to when this appeared in Robotech or something?

I'm harkening back to (as I have said) the fact that the section introduces itself as being specifically for PCs in robots and power armor, and the combat example addressing "you" (the player) as one of the characters in the example.

One GM might rule that the spell vaporizes the Main Body of a robot, and another GM might rule that because the Main Body was destroyed, the "thing" that is the entire robot is vaporized. As far as I can tell, either one would be valid.

That would depend on if the robot had only one damage pool (like say, a Machine Person from Phase World) or if they had multiple ones.

No, it wouldn't.

If you have a CS Grunt riding on the back of an Enforcer, and the front of the Enforcer is Annihilated, what happens to that Grunt? Is he vaporized because the Enforcer is vaporized? Or does he fall to the ground?

No simple answer, would have to consider some issues. Like: is any part of the Grunt peeping out, or is he completely covered?

I would probably do it like I would a wall (albeit this ignoring the GI Joe rule which further complicates... if it even applies to walls/cover instead of just armor).

So you would consider the Grunt to be part of the Enforcer if he wasn't fully behind cover?

But I guess in your face, do you mean like the Enforcer takes the 2d4x100 to the main and then, what amount of the 3d6x10 does the guy behind him take?

No, I mean "When the Annihilation sphere hits, two things happen. First, the actual target (whatever it hits) takes 2d4x100 MD! If the damage exceeds the target's MDC, it is completely vaporized!"
If the Annihilation sphere hits the Enforcer's Main Body, inflicting enough damage to vaporize "the target," does that vaporize the Grunt as well?
If not, then why would it vaporize the Enforcer's arms, legs, and head and such?
The Main Body is "whatever it hits," not an arm, leg, or head.
The damage being exceeded is the Main Body's MDC, not the combined MDC of the entire bot and any passengers.
Ignoring the secondary damage, how do you think this would play out?

artwork regularly contradicts the actual rules of the game, as well as other artwork.

Counterpoint: text regularly does this too, so it is not grounds to ignore something just because conflicts arise.

Nowhere near as regularly.
If you want to discuss whether artwork is canon, start a new topic. I'm not going to discuss it here, because it's not worth discussing.

Plus: illusions and custom mods explain everything.

That would also negate everything, because anything we find in the artwork could be dismissed as "illusion" or a "custom mod."

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

It indicates it, all else being equal.

Aren't there some legless guys who can't dodge but aren't described as unable to roll? I'll have to keep an eye out.

See bolded.

The strike roll is the default. No exception to the default is specified, therefore the default remains and need not be specified.

Based on RUEp362:

The number that must be matched or overcome is:
a) the attacker's roll to strike
-or-
b) if a strike roll is not available, a 14 or higher must be made

It sounds like there is not a default. It sounds like you choose what is appropriate.

The fuller quote is:
If a strike number is not available (say from a booby trap, mine, or automated system), a 14 or higher must be made

Since the context of this quote is specifically damage from missile strikes, and the context of "a strike number is not available" does NOT include blast radii from normal missile attacks, I'd hold this up as evidence that blast radii use the same strike roll as the attack--the strike roll that IS available.

it doesn't mention anything about the main target in that section.

It mentions getting out of the "direct line of impact (maximum damage)" so that's clearly what's being discussed. Non-main targets don't have to do this, they're already out.

Not necessarily, no. There are a number of situations in which a shot fired at one person might have to be dodge by somebody else.

Do you know of any rules limiting the roll to ONLY the main target, not to secondary or tertiary targets? I don't.

The roll is about the missile, that's what's being dodged, and the placement of the missile's what's being rolled with.

So you do not know of any rules limiting the roll to ONLY the main target, not to secondary or tertiary targets.

How about this compromise: instead of 14, the explosion (since the missile is gone) should have to make a separate roll against everyone in the radius, to represent random chance of difficulty of avoidance, and to avoid "it's so much easier to roll with the nuke when it hits my invisible friend standing next to me" problems.

No. With the passage that you quoted from RUE, it's clearer than ever before that the primary strike roll is the roll that is dodged, and that only in cases where there is no primary strike roll would the 14 (or any other number) come into play.

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

The strike roll of whomever threw it. If it was a placed explosive, then I'd roll a general strike roll for it.

So let's roll a general strike roll for all explosions

No need; there is already a strike roll in place.

when the context is "power armor and robots," then it is illogical (and even disingenuous) to claim that the example for blast radius damage would be for foot-soldiers in standard EBA.

Right: I won't even assume that. I'll assume it is 2 naked companions.

It mentions companions getting hit and taking damage, not equipment. Not body armor, not power armor, not robots. Companions.

Deliberately ignoring the context only weakens your arguments.

To strike something other than the Main Body, the attacker must make a Called Shot.

Explosions are not attackers

Of course not. They are attacks.
And in order for an attack to strike anything other than the Main Body, the attacker must make a Called Shot.

If I throw a SAMAS into the sun, the sun doesn't have to make a called shot. If I throw it into an acid pool, the acid doesn't have to make a called shot.

Source?

Do we even have rules for "I'm going to lob my grenade at the foot of X" as being different than "I lob my grenade at X" ? When would this distinction even come up?

The distinction would come up in discussions where people try to claim that anything other than the area hit directly with a grenade/missile takes half damage.

The bit about landing at the feet doesn't actually protect other parts from taking damage though.[/quote]

By describing the full damage as hitting The Target, it demonstrates that the Main Body takes full damage even if the attack lands closer to the feet/legs.

The example is:
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), and everything else within the rest of the blast area suffers half the Mega-Damage rolled for the explosion.

The grenade here doesn't hit the big toe.

It might--that would be "at the feet of."

The full force of the grenade hits the Main Body of the target... but not the feet/legs.

Doesn't actually say "not the feet/legs" though, just that landing close enough to the main body ("at the feet of") can still be described as a direct hit to the target (default main body) if you want to flavor-text a grenade bouncing off some guy before it explodes.

Are you saying that you believe that both the feet and the main body would take full damage?
Or what?

[Kagashi]

okay guys, if you have to reply to *each* sentence the other guy said, perhaps you should take it to PM. Nobody is reading what you are writing.

[Killer Cyborg]

okay guys, if you have to reply to *each* sentence the other guy said, perhaps you should take it to PM. Nobody is reading what you are writing.

We're sifting down, actually.
If you prefer, I'd be happy to put my future posts in spoiler tags for easier skipping.
I suppose we could drop it, or move the conversation into another topic, but there doesn't seem to be much other discussion going on here.

[eliakon]

okay guys, if you have to reply to *each* sentence the other guy said, perhaps you should take it to PM. Nobody is reading what you are writing.

We're sifting down, actually.
If you prefer, I'd be happy to put my future posts in spoiler tags for easier skipping.
I suppose we could drop it, or move the conversation into another topic, but there doesn't seem to be much other discussion going on here.

As I do read the discussion, but get somewhat frustrated trying to skip down to the current ones I would love spoiler tags of the long posts if you wouldn't mind.

[Killer Cyborg]

okay guys, if you have to reply to *each* sentence the other guy said, perhaps you should take it to PM. Nobody is reading what you are writing.

We're sifting down, actually.
If you prefer, I'd be happy to put my future posts in spoiler tags for easier skipping.
I suppose we could drop it, or move the conversation into another topic, but there doesn't seem to be much other discussion going on here.

As I do read the discussion, but get somewhat frustrated trying to skip down to the current ones I would love spoiler tags of the long posts if you wouldn't mind.

[Tor]

okay guys, if you have to reply to *each* sentence the other guy said, perhaps you should take it to PM.

I'd rather not, inboxes have storage limits and you can't have long-term records of a discussion if you have to empty yours. Plus it prevents others from benefitting from reading it now or later if they wish.

Nobody is reading what you are writing.

Kagashi: voice of the public.

I'd be happy to put my future posts in spoiler tags for easier skipping.

Ew no

This kinda sucks for responding because then there isn't yellow/grey color differentiation between what you're quoting/replying to and your spoiler'd responses, it's all yellow.'

If I started doing it too (no plans to!) then I think you'd see what I mean.

Makes me wonder if it's possible to get a different color for these somehow with the phpBB skin preferences or if it could be suggested as a possible feature for the board. Spoiler tag indents would be more workable if there was such a difference.

Even in that case though, it still creates the problem of using the 'Find' function. Sometimes when issues arise regarding who said what, what led up to a convo, searching for words helps to backtrace the evolution of the thread. Find can't find stuff when it is removed from display via the spoiler tag. For example try searching "can be made in melee". It won't show up unless you open your tag.

In terms of loading: pretty sure browsers still DL spoiler'd data, so it doesn't make the thread load any faster. It's also super-easy to skip past long posts via the page-down button, or if you really want, pressing the 'end' button and then scrolling up until you reach the end of it.

[Killer Cyborg]

okay guys, if you have to reply to *each* sentence the other guy said, perhaps you should take it to PM.

I'd rather not, inboxes have storage limits and you can't have long-term records of a discussion if you have to empty yours. Plus it prevents others from benefitting from reading it now or later if they wish.

Agreed on both counts.
My inbox is pretty much full, and every time I get new PMs, I have to delete some old ones.

I'd be happy to put my future posts in spoiler tags for easier skipping.

Ew no

This kinda sucks for responding because then there isn't yellow/grey color differentiation between what you're quoting/replying to and your spoiler'd responses, it's all yellow.'

If I started doing it too (no plans to!) then I think you'd see what I mean.

Makes me wonder if it's possible to get a different color for these somehow with the phpBB skin preferences or if it could be suggested as a possible feature for the board. Spoiler tag indents would be more workable if there was such a difference.

Even in that case though, it still creates the problem of using the 'Find' function. Sometimes when issues arise regarding who said what, what led up to a convo, searching for words helps to backtrace the evolution of the thread. Find can't find stuff when it is removed from display via the spoiler tag. For example try searching "can be made in melee". It won't show up unless you open your tag.

In terms of loading: pretty sure browsers still DL spoiler'd data, so it doesn't make the thread load any faster. It's also super-easy to skip past long posts via the page-down button, or if you really want, pressing the 'end' button and then scrolling up until you reach the end of it.

I feel like we're starting to circle around a handful of points.
When you respond, feel free to condense things a bit, cutting down on repetition, sticking to the handful of points instead of addressing everything.
If not, I'll try to do that when I respond again.

[Tor]

Anywho KC I may make a stab at your recent reply later, very sleep-deprived right now, particularly to tackle the yellow mass.

I will bring up some examples I remember coming across last night though:

WB10/JUp85 ("Rolling Thunder") Weapon System 3: Mobile Mine Deployment System - Mega-Damage: .. "ideal for blowing out tires and damaging the feet of robots". Mines are passive (sadly no Starcraft Dimension Book for Spider-Mines), they don't shoot and certainly can't make called shots.

WB11/CWCp65 (Trap Construction skill - Naruni Bullet Mine) "inflicts .. MD to the victim's foot"

Mercs 101: Northern Gun Mines (the basic kind, sensor kind, or anti-vehicle kind) one can reasonably assume work the same way. It doesn't explicitly say to the foot or to the tires, but based on how the aforementioned world books talk about mines working, I think we should judge that it does.

I think this establishes a clear difference between a contact-explosion being able to damage a specific location (stepping on a mine, or actually having a missile hit your foot) and the concept of "landing at the feet" (the word "at" being kinda vague and not necessarily meaning contact) possibly being different to that, doing full damage to the target which possesses the feet rather than the feet itself.

It may be worth exploring though: the possessor of the feet need not necessarily be the main body. You can land "at the feet" of the legs of a robot, for example.

NGR for example, if you rolled a High Explosive Grenade (anti-armor) from page 149 (6ft area) at the feet of a Triax Devastator (page 79, 50 feet from feet to head) it's pretty clear that (unless we imagine this bot having ridiculously stubby legs that contradict the picture) the explosion wouldn't reach high enough to damage the torso.

This shouldn't mean that grenades rolled up to a Devastator don't do anything though. Even if you want a rolled/bounced grenade "at the feet" not to do full damage to the feet (saving that privilege for mines and called shots) it should have some kind of target to take the direct damage. The owner of the feet in this case should probably be the legs.

I think it'd still be reasonable to apply 1/2 damage to the feet in this situation. At least if it's in front of the feet. Behind, I'm not so sure, when I look at the pic it seems like the design of the leg may actually shield the foot from rear attacks.

Maybe also the leg spotlights, long range missile launches or leg searchlights too. That's harder to say since I'm not perfectly sure how high the knees are, I figure around 12.5 feet which may still put those things out of range of a 6ft blast radius. It's tougher to say for a 12ft area grenade like the plasma though. I'd say plasma definitely still couldn't reach the main body if exploding from ground level. As for 30ft radius fraggers, that should be enough to hit the main body.

[Kagashi]

Kagashi: voice of the public.

Not sure where it says "the public", pretty sure its just got my handle as the origin of the post.

I just find it overbearingly rude (However, I admit Ive done it in the past myself). If you feel you have to speak to every sentence and write a paragraph to defend yourself, I have found you end up 1) repeating yourself, and 2) end up writing from emotion. If you cannot get across what you want to say in a paragraph, its most likely not worth the post. Go back and look at locked topics and tell me the theme before it gets locked. The majority of the overly emotional and repeating posts are are Quote, response, quote, response, quote, response. That's when I stop paying attention. Its a problem Ive seen on these boards for a while, apologies if you felt I was singling you out. That was not my intention.

[Tor]

Repetition often happens in response to repetition. What emotions?

[Killer Cyborg]

Anywho KC I may make a stab at your recent reply later, very sleep-deprived right now, particularly to tackle the yellow mass.

I will bring up some examples I remember coming across last night though:

WB10/JUp85 ("Rolling Thunder") Weapon System 3: Mobile Mine Deployment System - Mega-Damage: .. "ideal for blowing out tires and damaging the feet of robots". Mines are passive (sadly no Starcraft Dimension Book for Spider-Mines), they don't shoot and certainly can't make called shots.

WB11/CWCp65 (Trap Construction skill - Naruni Bullet Mine) "inflicts .. MD to the victim's foot"

Mercs 101: Northern Gun Mines (the basic kind, sensor kind, or anti-vehicle kind) one can reasonably assume work the same way. It doesn't explicitly say to the foot or to the tires, but based on how the aforementioned world books talk about mines working, I think we should judge that it does.

I think this establishes a clear difference between a contact-explosion being able to damage a specific location (stepping on a mine, or actually having a missile hit your foot) and the concept of "landing at the feet" (the word "at" being kinda vague and not necessarily meaning contact) possibly being different to that, doing full damage to the target which possesses the feet rather than the feet itself.

I think that might establish a possible rule that mines count as being effectively Called Shots at the foot of the target, which doesn't address whether or not blast radii hit anything other than the Main Body.
Offhand, you might look in SB2. I can't find my copy right now, but IIRC Hagan Lonovich's power armor or robot could shoot Fusion Blocks into the ground to act as mines. There might be something of interest there.

It may be worth exploring though: the possessor of the feet need not necessarily be the main body. You can land "at the feet" of the legs of a robot, for example.

I think it's pretty clear from the context that they were using "target" to mean "person being targeted."

NGR for example, if you rolled a High Explosive Grenade (anti-armor) from page 149 (6ft area) at the feet of a Triax Devastator (page 79, 50 feet from feet to head) it's pretty clear that (unless we imagine this bot having ridiculously stubby legs that contradict the picture) the explosion wouldn't reach high enough to damage the torso.

Technically, yes.
That would still be a Called Shot to the leg, oddly enough, because Palladium's rules don't really take size into account. And it wouldn't mean that the blast radius hits anything other than the Main Body of any target in range.

[Tor]

Guess the way I see it is mines are proof that these 'need called shot to damage' rules are for guns, not other weapons, such as area-affecting explosions.

[Killer Cyborg]

Keep in mind that the Naruni Plasma Mine IS such a weapon. It's the same plasma blast the comes out of a Naruni gun, not an area affect.

[Tor]

Right, so you need to make a called shot when firing a plasma blast from the gun but not when using it otherwise as an explosive.

No idea why I said 3ft earlier, I can't find any distance limits, must've been thinking of something else.

[Alrik Vas]

Tor, I think the rules on mines are an exception dictated by necessity to reproduce the effects of land mines in the game world. The fact that they hit the legs doesn't necessitate a larger supposition about the general mechanics of the game.

That's what exceptions are for, even if it creates a separate category for the rules.

[Tor]

Doesn't seem like an exception, seems like a natural application of 'full damage to what you're in contact with'.

Did notice a diff between the JU mines which I assume are touch-triggered and some of the Northern Gun ones. You can get low-cost pressure-trigger ones, or if you spend more, get ones with sensors that explode when something is aways away. Those distance-trigger mines I don't think would do full damage to the wheels, probably just half, like to the main body. Possibly not even the wheels if the main body appears to protect the wheels from frontal attacks in some way.

[eliakon]

Doesn't seem like an exception, seems like a natural application of 'full damage to what you're in contact with'.

Did notice a diff between the JU mines which I assume are touch-triggered and some of the Northern Gun ones. You can get low-cost pressure-trigger ones, or if you spend more, get ones with sensors that explode when something is aways away. Those distance-trigger mines I don't think would do full damage to the wheels, probably just half, like to the main body. Possibly not even the wheels if the main body appears to protect the wheels from frontal attacks in some way.

I see the mines as providing an exception to the rules. An exception that in fact they spelled out several times by explicitly stating that they do damage to the foot. This is actually important since otherwise by the rules they do damage to the main body........

[Killer Cyborg]

Right, so you need to make a called shot when firing a plasma blast from the gun but not when using it otherwise as an explosive.

Well, that's my point; it doesn't seem to work as an explosive. It seems to work as a normal plasma beam.

[Tor]

I see the mines as providing an exception to the rules. An exception that in fact they spelled out several times by explicitly stating that they do damage to the foot. This is actually important since otherwise by the rules they do damage to the main body........

The rules do not state that, talking about "landing at the foot" is not the same as being UNDER foot.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/foot definitions 4-5 "base or bottom" probably applies since not all bots with bottoms would necessarily have feet Like "foot of the stairs" or "foot of the table".