Iron Maiden APC, GAW A-10 and the silliness of APRJ

[say652]

Back to the original post.

Why not take the APRJ round and just apply the standard burst rules to it?

[Alrik Vas]

That's essentially what came out of my head, say. The auto cannon would do about 3d6x2/x5/x10/x20 per barrel squeezing on the amount of actions you spent or accuracy sacrificed.

Blue, KC, there's a railgun that uses e-clips instead of a supply pack. NG R-50. In merc ops and the NG books.

[Killer Cyborg]

Blue, KC, there's a railgun that uses e-clips instead of a supply pack. NG R-50. In merc ops and the NG books.

One came out in the New West as well. Power creep happens.

Even still, judging by the ones in Merc Ops (p. 93), they're still not impressive compared to energy weapons:
NG-R50: 25 lbs, 4d6 MD per shot, 1500' range, and 14 shots from a standard e-clip or 24 rounds from a long e-clip, all for just CR 30,000.
NG-303 1d4 per round, 5d6 per burst of 10 rounds, weighs 27 lbs, 2000' range, and costs CR 58,000.

Both guns have penalties if the user isn't abnormally strong for a human.

Even with the railgun power creep moving in (or in-game technology progressing over time) railguns have a lot of catching up to do with energy weapons when it comes to efficiency.
Accelerated metal just doesn't compare to accelerated particles in a lot of ways.

Don't think that I'm dissing railguns and other slugthrowers, btw. They certainly have their times and places, and they do have their advantages over energy weapons in areas other than just efficiency.

[Unfortunate Son]

Except when you remember that a munition several kilos does the same damage as an ion pistol,

Energy weapons do more damage than kinetic weapons as a rule in Rifts.
It's always been that way--energy is more efficient.
You're talking about a setting where a standard low-end RMB laser pistol inflicts as much damage as 10-20 sticks of dynamite.

Hence the general face palming.

Why?

Because the damage rating makes zero dang sense. Very little jives with any reality ojn weapons, until we get naval weapons.

Sadly I give up hope that we may ever see sense in Rifts weapons, or even a equalling of the scales.

[Alrik Vas]

Totally, KC. I help railguns by applying the Armor Piercing quality (soft critical on mod 17+), if you're a skilled gunner they're not half bad and are a huge help vs enemies with magic support (that pesky impervious to energy...)

[Killer Cyborg]

Totally, KC. I help railguns by applying the Armor Piercing quality (soft critical on mod 17+), if you're a skilled gunner they're not half bad and are a huge help vs enemies with magic support (that pesky impervious to energy...)

I've also considered applying the Armor Piercing rule to rail guns.
In addition to the mechanical advantages, it'd add significant flavor.

[Killer Cyborg]

Except when you remember that a munition several kilos does the same damage as an ion pistol,

Energy weapons do more damage than kinetic weapons as a rule in Rifts.
It's always been that way--energy is more efficient.
You're talking about a setting where a standard low-end RMB laser pistol inflicts as much damage as 10-20 sticks of dynamite.

Hence the general face palming.

Why?

Because the damage rating makes zero dang sense. Very little jives with any reality ojn weapons, until we get naval weapons.

Sadly I give up hope that we may ever see sense in Rifts weapons, or even a equalling of the scales.

Still not following your complaints.

For me, when a fantasy sci-fi game describes an imaginary futuristic weapon as having a certain level of power, I don't have much issue accepting it.
When I see a phaser in Star Trek disintegrate a large Boulder, I accept that as within the power levels of the weapon unless there is canon setting info that contradicts it.
When I see the Death Star in Star Wars blow up an entire planet, same deal--I accept that as the weapon's power level.
Same with Rifts.

Sure, we don't currently have handheld lasers that are that powerful, but we also only have present-day technology.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Back to the original post.

Why not take the APRJ round and just apply the standard burst rules to it?

Balance reasons, for one thing. The gun as presented is already in the top 5% of weapons damage wise (barring Phase World/Starship weapons), with an impressive range, as well.

I know a lot of people scoff at game balance in Rifts/Palladium, but it *is* a thing, however poorly implemented it sometimes is (largely due to lack of consistent oversight). Just because balance isn't the best, is not a good reason to have a totally cheesedick weapon that can obliterate an MBT or giant robot in two attacks.

[eliakon]

That's essentially what came out of my head, say. The auto cannon would do about 3d6x2/x5/x10/x20 per barrel squeezing on the amount of actions you spent or accuracy sacrificed.

Blue, KC, there's a railgun that uses e-clips instead of a supply pack. NG R-50. In merc ops and the NG books.

I am not following....
Are you saying that a 5 barrel auto cannon would do 3d6x100 damage?

[Alrik Vas]

By Palladium logic, yes. But Palladium logic would also say each barrel has to be fired separately...

[eliakon]

By Palladium logic, yes. But Palladium logic would also say each barrel has to be fired separately...

How is your house rule Palladium logic?
Or am I missing some bit of canon someplace?

[Alrik Vas]

Machine gun burst rules from RMB. It's a twin barrel gun, not a revolving 5 barrel. Technically not canon anymore, so no you didn't miss anything important. That's what we were talking about.

[eliakon]

Machine gun burst rules from RMB. It's a twin barrel gun, not a revolving 5 barrel. Technically not canon anymore, so no you didn't miss anything important. That's what we were talking about.

Well its rather important since the claim was that palladium allowed multiple barrels to be fired at once to ratchet up the damage.
If they did, then it can be properly called palladium logic that is totally cool.
If they never did then its someone trying to pass of their own house rule, and the effects, off on Palladium and then blame them for the consequences. That though is Uncool. VERY Uncool.
so...I am curious now. Where did the books allow multiple barrels of a machine gun be fired and added for damage multiplication?

[Blue_Lion]

Machine gun burst rules from RMB. It's a twin barrel gun, not a revolving 5 barrel. Technically not canon anymore, so no you didn't miss anything important. That's what we were talking about.

Well its rather important since the claim was that palladium allowed multiple barrels to be fired at once to ratchet up the damage.
If they did, then it can be properly called palladium logic that is totally cool.
If they never did then its someone trying to pass of their own house rule, and the effects, off on Palladium and then blame them for the consequences. That though is Uncool. VERY Uncool.
so...I am curious now. Where did the books allow multiple barrels of a machine gun be fired and added for damage multiplication?

PB does have a tendency to double damage for shooting two weapons at the same time. You just have to look at a spider skull walker to see it.

[eliakon]

Machine gun burst rules from RMB. It's a twin barrel gun, not a revolving 5 barrel. Technically not canon anymore, so no you didn't miss anything important. That's what we were talking about.

Well its rather important since the claim was that palladium allowed multiple barrels to be fired at once to ratchet up the damage.
If they did, then it can be properly called palladium logic that is totally cool.
If they never did then its someone trying to pass of their own house rule, and the effects, off on Palladium and then blame them for the consequences. That though is Uncool. VERY Uncool.
so...I am curious now. Where did the books allow multiple barrels of a machine gun be fired and added for damage multiplication?

PB does have a tendency to double damage for shooting two weapons at the same time. You just have to look at a spider skull walker to see it.

That is still a long way from allowing x5 for five barrels on an auto-cannon

[Blue_Lion]

Machine gun burst rules from RMB. It's a twin barrel gun, not a revolving 5 barrel. Technically not canon anymore, so no you didn't miss anything important. That's what we were talking about.

Well its rather important since the claim was that palladium allowed multiple barrels to be fired at once to ratchet up the damage.
If they did, then it can be properly called palladium logic that is totally cool.
If they never did then its someone trying to pass of their own house rule, and the effects, off on Palladium and then blame them for the consequences. That though is Uncool. VERY Uncool.
so...I am curious now. Where did the books allow multiple barrels of a machine gun be fired and added for damage multiplication?

PB does have a tendency to double damage for shooting two weapons at the same time. You just have to look at a spider skull walker to see it.

That is still a long way from allowing x5 for five barrels on an auto-cannon

I was just stating the tendency, but rotating barrels are treated as a single weapon, not linked weapons. Asking for an exact snow flake to prove it seams setting up near impossible requirements. We just know that it fallows standard PB logic tendency that link separate weapons multiply damage, but as it is not a weapon on the books either way is a GM call.

[eliakon]

Machine gun burst rules from RMB. It's a twin barrel gun, not a revolving 5 barrel. Technically not canon anymore, so no you didn't miss anything important. That's what we were talking about.

Well its rather important since the claim was that palladium allowed multiple barrels to be fired at once to ratchet up the damage.
If they did, then it can be properly called palladium logic that is totally cool.
If they never did then its someone trying to pass of their own house rule, and the effects, off on Palladium and then blame them for the consequences. That though is Uncool. VERY Uncool.
so...I am curious now. Where did the books allow multiple barrels of a machine gun be fired and added for damage multiplication?

PB does have a tendency to double damage for shooting two weapons at the same time. You just have to look at a spider skull walker to see it.

That is still a long way from allowing x5 for five barrels on an auto-cannon

I was just stating the tendency, but rotating barrels are treated as a single weapon, not linked weapons. Asking for an exact snow flake to prove it seams setting up near impossible requirements. We just know that it fallows standard PB logic tendency that link separate weapons multiply damage, but as it is not a weapon on the books either way is a GM call.

That's the point. Palladium DOESNT do that.
Rotating canons simply do machine gun damage. AFAIK, nothing, ever, anywhere has ever said, or even implied that you can multiply damage by the number of barrels.
Which is why making that statement and then dismissing the stupidity of it as "Palladium Logic" is utterly unacceptable. It is falsely attributing something to Palladium solely so that it can be held up to ridicule.

[Blue_Lion]

Lets be clear on what multiplies the damage.
It is separate weapons systems linked together that multiple weapons. Rotating barrels is a single weapon system that would fallow more closely the burst rules.

[eliakon]

Lets be clear on what multiplies the damage.
It is separate weapons systems linked together that multiple weapons. Rotating barrels is a single weapon system that would fallow more closely the burst rules.

Which would be fine....
...if the poster can actually find a statement to that anywhere rather than simply putting words in Palladiums mouth and then holding it up to ridicule.
And that is what I asked them to do.
They made the claim that, I wanted proof. Proof I might add that has not been forth coming other than a "well, duh its obvious" but its not. Palladium does not always double the damage for two canons on a weapon system (unless again, explicit proof to that effect can be cited). And when ships have even more barrels....well yeah.
So....

[Blue_Lion]

Lets be clear on what multiplies the damage.
It is separate weapons systems linked together that multiple weapons. Rotating barrels is a single weapon system that would fallow more closely the burst rules.

Which would be fine....
...if the poster can actually find a statement to that anywhere rather than simply putting words in Palladiums mouth and then holding it up to ridicule.
And that is what I asked them to do.
They made the claim that, I wanted proof. Proof I might add that has not been forth coming other than a "well, duh its obvious" but its not. Palladium does not always double the damage for two canons on a weapon system (unless again, explicit proof to that effect can be cited). And when ships have even more barrels....well yeah.
So....

Is there an example of a link weapon systems firing two at once that does not double the damage?

The double boom gun on the fat man, the lasers on a spider skull walker, show a tendency of two weapons linked doubling damage for two separate weapon systems. So as we have examples of the tendency we now need to disprove it.

This is a case of no clear rule saying it is one way instead it is noticing a pattern and making a claim(that can be seen as similar to two weapons in hand to hand). So now we have the pattern now we need to look for what breaks the pattern as that is what the issue is, not a rule on books but a pattern. It is logically to say two separate weapons(weapons not barrels) double the damage, fallowing that pattern. Now we must look for what disproves the pattern and see if it holds up or not.

Think of it like Dr.S Cat it is both alive and dead until we can prove one way or another. If you lack proof it is dead but you demand prof that it is alive is that fair?

[eliakon]

Lets be clear on what multiplies the damage.
It is separate weapons systems linked together that multiple weapons. Rotating barrels is a single weapon system that would fallow more closely the burst rules.

Which would be fine....
...if the poster can actually find a statement to that anywhere rather than simply putting words in Palladiums mouth and then holding it up to ridicule.
And that is what I asked them to do.
They made the claim that, I wanted proof. Proof I might add that has not been forth coming other than a "well, duh its obvious" but its not. Palladium does not always double the damage for two canons on a weapon system (unless again, explicit proof to that effect can be cited). And when ships have even more barrels....well yeah.
So....

Is there an example of a link weapon systems firing two at once that does not double the damage?

The double boom gun on the fat man, the lasers on a spider skull walker, show a tendency of two weapons linked doubling damage for two separate weapon systems. So as we have examples of the tendency we now need to disprove it.

This is a case of no clear rule saying it is one way instead it is noticing a pattern and making a claim(that can be seen as similar to two weapons in hand to hand). So now we have the pattern now we need to look for what breaks the pattern as that is what the issue is, not a rule on books but a pattern. It is logically to say two separate weapons(weapons not barrels) double the damage, fallowing that pattern. Now we must look for what disproves the pattern and see if it holds up or not.

Think of it like Dr.S Cat it is both alive and dead until we can prove one way or another. If you lack proof it is dead but you demand prof that it is alive is that fair?

No, I am saying that making a specific claim that something is the OFFICIAL POLICY needs a pretty high standard of proof.
ESPECIALLY when that claim is used to make aspersions of the companies design decisions.
An no "well I have noticed that a bunch of dual weapons seem to double the damage" is not that proof. Now if someone is willing to go through and provide cited evidence of every singe multi-barrel weapon system. Ever printed, in any book by Palladium. Then you are starting to get closer.
I will also note that the original claim was not for someone having five auto cannons.
It was for a five barreled autocanon.
(moving the goal posts and all)
Thus this is not like a spider skull walker (although I am not convinced that every single example of a multiple barrel weapon system in the game does always do scaled damage either with out evidence. It may or may not, but a positive claim that it always does means that the person saying it does is required to provide absolute proof.)

<edit>
I grabed the first book of my shelf (Merc Ops)
the first robot I looked at (TR-004 Titan page 82) has a dual barrel weapon. Lets see
On blast 4d6. Dual blast 1d4x10....
Hmmm, looks like that doesn't follow the proposed 'rule' of number of barrelsx2
Admittedly the other dual weapon (the laser on the Sky Bunker does) but that is 50/50.
So already we can discard the idea that it is a 'rule'

[guardiandashi]

this may be my interpretation but...

the highest number of linked weapons I was able to find (quickly) was the head lasers on the vf-1 veritechs in robotech. which did 1d4 per laser so the 1 laser version does 1d4, the 2 laser versions do 2d4, and the 4 laser version (the s) does 4d4.

in palladium as far as I can tell each weapon system regardless of the number of barrels, is treated as 1 weapon, so a 1 barrel, 2 barrel (except for shotguns) 3-10+ barrel weapon would have a designed damage regardless of the number of barrels designed into it.

linking multiple weapons together seems to be (additive) the one case that is a sort of violation of this "rule" is the double barreled shotgun which is treated as 2 separate shotguns strapped together.

[Blue_Lion]

Lets be clear on what multiplies the damage.
It is separate weapons systems linked together that multiple weapons. Rotating barrels is a single weapon system that would fallow more closely the burst rules.

Which would be fine....
...if the poster can actually find a statement to that anywhere rather than simply putting words in Palladiums mouth and then holding it up to ridicule.
And that is what I asked them to do.
They made the claim that, I wanted proof. Proof I might add that has not been forth coming other than a "well, duh its obvious" but its not. Palladium does not always double the damage for two canons on a weapon system (unless again, explicit proof to that effect can be cited). And when ships have even more barrels....well yeah.
So....

Is there an example of a link weapon systems firing two at once that does not double the damage?

The double boom gun on the fat man, the lasers on a spider skull walker, show a tendency of two weapons linked doubling damage for two separate weapon systems. So as we have examples of the tendency we now need to disprove it.

This is a case of no clear rule saying it is one way instead it is noticing a pattern and making a claim(that can be seen as similar to two weapons in hand to hand). So now we have the pattern now we need to look for what breaks the pattern as that is what the issue is, not a rule on books but a pattern. It is logically to say two separate weapons(weapons not barrels) double the damage, fallowing that pattern. Now we must look for what disproves the pattern and see if it holds up or not.

Think of it like Dr.S Cat it is both alive and dead until we can prove one way or another. If you lack proof it is dead but you demand prof that it is alive is that fair?

No, I am saying that making a specific claim that something is the OFFICIAL POLICY needs a pretty high standard of proof.
ESPECIALLY when that claim is used to make aspersions of the companies design decisions.
An no "well I have noticed that a bunch of dual weapons seem to double the damage" is not that proof. Now if someone is willing to go through and provide cited evidence of every singe multi-barrel weapon system. Ever printed, in any book by Palladium. Then you are starting to get closer.
I will also note that the original claim was not for someone having five auto cannons.
It was for a five barreled autocanon.
(moving the goal posts and all)
Thus this is not like a spider skull walker (although I am not convinced that every single example of a multiple barrel weapon system in the game does always do scaled damage either with out evidence. It may or may not, but a positive claim that it always does means that the person saying it does is required to provide absolute proof.)

<edit>
I grabed the first book of my shelf (Merc Ops)
the first robot I looked at (TR-004 Titan page 82) has a dual barrel weapon. Lets see
On blast 4d6. Dual blast 1d4x10....
Hmmm, looks like that doesn't follow the proposed 'rule' of number of barrelsx2
Admittedly the other dual weapon (the laser on the Sky Bunker does) but that is 50/50.
So already we can discard the idea that it is a 'rule'

I am not saying a five barrel cannon thing the other poster but the multi weapon I even specified that the tendency is weapon systems not barrels it the tendency. The use of Vulcan style or double barrel weapons does not generate the multiplier with any consistency but multi weapon systems do.


It is weapon system not barrels as i said. A double barrel weapon is not two weapon systems but one weapon weapon system with more than one barrel much like how a chain gun may have more than one barrel but be just one weapon. So in this case you are using a straw man defense. If you look at the same robot it has a pair of chest lasers that do 2d6 MD per single or 4d6 per double simultaneous blast. So you did not disprove that weapon systems linked together but did prove that multi barrel weapons do not use the same formula.

So you created a straw man using a double barrel, not disprove two separate weapon systems linked would double the damage. You still have yet to disprove it, and made a false 50/50 claim as I listed 2 the robot also had 1 dual weapon system on it as well.(The sky bunker only has damage for dual blast so we do not know what the non dual blast is unless they added it latter.) So we now have 3 examples when it is treated as two separate weapons firing at the same target doubling the damage, your double barrel weapon is in a separate category, as it is weapon systems not barrels that double the damage. (sticking to the same book daul ng 404 rail gun on the dragon fly shows the trend as does the belly gun on the titan foot man. Making it 3 examples of the pattern in the same book but no disapproval yet.)

(I am saying as we have noted a tendency then disproving that tendency requires the same level of prof you require, failure to do so at best places it in the GM call at best. You can't expect one side to provide the highest level of prof while the other side does not need prof in a debate as that is a double standard. It is not about an official policy but how things work)

[Killer Cyborg]

It's a twin barrel gun, not a revolving 5 barrel.

...That is still a long way from allowing x5 for five barrels on an auto-cannon...
...Rotating canons simply do machine gun damage.

Wait... are you guys talking about different, or am I missing something?

Alrik seemed to say that he was talking about a twin-barrel gun, NOT a rotating gun.
But you seem to be arguing against rotating guns doing damage from all barrels.

[eliakon]

Lets be clear on what multiplies the damage.
It is separate weapons systems linked together that multiple weapons. Rotating barrels is a single weapon system that would fallow more closely the burst rules.

Which would be fine....
...if the poster can actually find a statement to that anywhere rather than simply putting words in Palladiums mouth and then holding it up to ridicule.
And that is what I asked them to do.
They made the claim that, I wanted proof. Proof I might add that has not been forth coming other than a "well, duh its obvious" but its not. Palladium does not always double the damage for two canons on a weapon system (unless again, explicit proof to that effect can be cited). And when ships have even more barrels....well yeah.
So....

Is there an example of a link weapon systems firing two at once that does not double the damage?

The double boom gun on the fat man, the lasers on a spider skull walker, show a tendency of two weapons linked doubling damage for two separate weapon systems. So as we have examples of the tendency we now need to disprove it.

This is a case of no clear rule saying it is one way instead it is noticing a pattern and making a claim(that can be seen as similar to two weapons in hand to hand). So now we have the pattern now we need to look for what breaks the pattern as that is what the issue is, not a rule on books but a pattern. It is logically to say two separate weapons(weapons not barrels) double the damage, fallowing that pattern. Now we must look for what disproves the pattern and see if it holds up or not.

Think of it like Dr.S Cat it is both alive and dead until we can prove one way or another. If you lack proof it is dead but you demand prof that it is alive is that fair?

No, I am saying that making a specific claim that something is the OFFICIAL POLICY needs a pretty high standard of proof.
ESPECIALLY when that claim is used to make aspersions of the companies design decisions.
An no "well I have noticed that a bunch of dual weapons seem to double the damage" is not that proof. Now if someone is willing to go through and provide cited evidence of every singe multi-barrel weapon system. Ever printed, in any book by Palladium. Then you are starting to get closer.
I will also note that the original claim was not for someone having five auto cannons.
It was for a five barreled autocanon.
(moving the goal posts and all)
Thus this is not like a spider skull walker (although I am not convinced that every single example of a multiple barrel weapon system in the game does always do scaled damage either with out evidence. It may or may not, but a positive claim that it always does means that the person saying it does is required to provide absolute proof.)

<edit>
I grabed the first book of my shelf (Merc Ops)
the first robot I looked at (TR-004 Titan page 82) has a dual barrel weapon. Lets see
On blast 4d6. Dual blast 1d4x10....
Hmmm, looks like that doesn't follow the proposed 'rule' of number of barrelsx2
Admittedly the other dual weapon (the laser on the Sky Bunker does) but that is 50/50.
So already we can discard the idea that it is a 'rule'

I am not saying a five barrel cannon thing the other poster but the multi weapon I even specified that the tendency is weapon systems not barrels it the tendency. The use of Vulcan style or double barrel weapons does not generate the multiplier with any consistency but multi weapon systems do.


It is weapon system not barrels as i said. A double barrel weapon is not two weapon systems but one weapon weapon system with more than one barrel much like how a chain gun may have more than one barrel but be just one weapon. So in this case you are using a straw man defense. If you look at the same robot it has a pair of chest lasers that do 2d6 MD per single or 4d6 per double simultaneous blast. So you did not disprove that weapon systems linked together but did prove that multi barrel weapons do not use the same formula.

So you created a straw man using a double barrel, not disprove two separate weapon systems linked would double the damage. You still have yet to disprove it, and made a false 50/50 claim as I listed 2 the robot also had 1 dual weapon system on it as well.(The sky bunker only has damage for dual blast so we do not know what the non dual blast is unless they added it latter.) So we now have 3 examples when it is treated as two separate weapons firing at the same target doubling the damage, your double barrel weapon is in a separate category, as it is weapon systems not barrels that double the damage. (sticking to the same book daul ng 404 rail gun on the dragon fly shows the trend as does the belly gun on the titan foot man. Making it 3 examples of the pattern in the same book but no disapproval yet.)

(I am saying as we have noted a tendency then disproving that tendency requires the same level of prof you require, failure to do so at best places it in the GM call at best. You can't expect one side to provide the highest level of prof while the other side does not need prof in a debate as that is a double standard. It is not about an official policy but how things work)

ummmmmm wrong. Yes I can.
No seriously.
This wasn't about 'interpreting something. It was making an EXPLICIT CLAIM that Palladium had something AS THEIR POLICY. When Alrik Vas made that claim that this was Palladiums rule. HE was the one that said that he has proof. I don't have to provide his proof, I can however ask to see it. If this had been simply about interpreting a claim that it seems that in Palladium you just multiply the damage of one gun to get damage then sure, that would have been a fair thing to say. But that wasn't what was said. What was said that a five barrel autocanon would do 3d6x100 damage "because that's Palladium logic"
Since that can be show to be explicitly FALSE. It is false since we can show that
1) there is no listed rule anywhere that says you multiply gun damage
2) the 'implied rule' that people want to use keeps running into exceptions. And exceptions to a hypothetical unstated rule make it really hard to defend the claim that the rule exists....or if it is simply wishful thinking and cherry picking.

This is because if your claiming that there is a "Rule" that can be interpreted out of the game stats and that this rule is the more guns the more damage by a straight liner form then that "rule" has to hold in ALL CASES, not just the ones where it is convenient
You don't get to pick and choose which times two barrels do x2 damage

BUT for kicks and shiggles.....
-ZBR-02-Mk.IV Officers Battlepod (Marines 117) its HPC-90 does 1d8x10+10 or 2d8x10 when both are fired at the same target (one per arm, so it is exactly like your spider walker)

-NE-NS74 "Quadwing" (Wave two81) has four (4) lasers, one per wings. the damage is 2d6/4d6/6d6/6d6+8

-XM-279 Earth Lifter (Triax 2 161) forward particle beam canon (one on each side) does 1d6x10+10 for one canon or 2d6x10+10 for two.

-CS Mark VII "Slayer" (Coalition War Campaign 150) has two turrents per side. each does 4d6 each or 1d4x10+8 combined

-"Hawkeye" Glitterboy (Japan 140) five barrel laser can fire 2/4/5 barrels for 4d6/1d4x10+8/1d6x10

-CS Stingray Mini-Sub (Navy 78) has four sets of forward laser turrents 3d6/6d6/1d6x102d4x10

I am sure we could go on....
But there are seven book, spanning most of the companies history, ALL of which have examples of "no, lets have multiple barrels do other stuff"
Which should thoroughly debunk the claim that it is Palladiums stance that multiple barrels are always multiplied.

[Blue_Lion]

Eliakon you might want to fact check because your post if full off errors**

You say there is no rule any where about weapon multiplying weapon damage. Have you read the burst rules or natural 20 rules? They seam to say that you can multiply gun damage so now you just out right lied or failed to check rules.

Warning: Like failing to check the forum rules about flaming other posters? Keep it about the topic rather than the poster.

Second I never said it was per barrel it was for linked weapon systems so multi barrel weapon systems such as Vulcan do not count .

now then lets look at some of the other numbers.

CS mark saving does 4d6 per weapon for a range of 4-24 the double that would be a range of 8-48 the double damage is 1d4X10+8 for a range of 18-48 (looks like an attempt to reduce diced rolled. So that just debunked on of your examples as it fallows the pattern.

hawk eye (should ignore it because it is multi barrel and not what I said. you listed double barrel damage as 4d6 and the quad at 1d4X10+8 (so that is effectively double damage with simplified dice to not roll 8d6s) quin barrel does 1d6X10 now then looking at the double barrel damage of 4d6 if that was 2d6 per barrel that would be 10d6 or simplified 1d6X10. So again this example fallows the pattern.

The mini-sub first two clearly shows it the 3rd weapon would have been 9d6 but was rounded up 1d6X10 (most likely to reduce number of dice) 4 would be 12d6 so a range of 12-72 but does 2d4X10 (range 2-80) so more than the damage and again rounded up to reduce the dice. So again it fallows the pattern.

The earth lifter and battle pod not sure should be +20 not +10 may be a type-o (wich i had the book to check your stats for accuracy.)

The nurnie quad wing does seam odd but is average rolls rounded up on 2d6 may be do to a cap on dice pool of around 6d6(all d6 above this are converted to some other formula to fall within the range, is a shown tendency).

So of your 7 examples to debunk per weapon system linked increases the damage by number of weapon systems fired 4 supported, 1 is within the range that would be rolled if you did multiply it by weapons systems fired and two may be type-os or acceptations.

****If your going to debate against my stance debate my stance of per linked weapon system and not the straw man of per barrel. How hard is it if you quote and debate with me to address what I said my point was and not some one person stance. Again because you seem to have trouble my stance is --The standard PB pattern is when multiple weapon systems are fired at the same target the damage is multiplied by the number of weapon systems used and it reasonable to assume this is the standard rule of thumb. (some cases rounding makes it better damage.)
(But congrats on failing to debunk it despite your claims, so it stands the standard pattern of PB is multiple weapon systems linked firing together do number of weapon systems in damage.)

[eliakon]

Eliakon you might want to fact check because your post if full off errors**

You say there is no rule any where about weapon multiplying weapon damage. Have you read the burst rules or natural 20 rules? They seam to say that you can multiply gun damage so now you just out right lied or failed to check rules.

Since this entire discussion is about multiple barrels then no I didn't lie. But thank you for the attempt at a red herring to distract the discussion
-I would also like an apology for the insinuation against my character.

Second I never said it was per barrel it was for linked weapon systems so multi barrel weapon systems such as Vulcan do not count .

Your moving of the goal posts after the discussion was started is noted.

now then lets look at some of the other numbers.

CS mark saving does 4d6 per weapon for a range of 4-24 the double that would be a range of 8-48 the double damage is 1d4X10+8 for a range of 18-48 (looks like an attempt to reduce diced rolled. So that just debunked on of your examples as it fallows the pattern.

hawk eye (should ignore it because it is multi barrel and not what I said. you listed double barrel damage as 4d6 and the quad at 1d4X10+8 (so that is effectively double damage with simplified dice to not roll 8d6s) quin barrel does 1d6X10 now then looking at the double barrel damage of 4d6 if that was 2d6 per barrel that would be 10d6 or simplified 1d6X10. So again this example fallows the pattern.

The mini-sub first two clearly shows it the 3rd weapon would have been 9d6 but was rounded up 1d6X10 (most likely to reduce number of dice) 4 would be 12d6 so a range of 12-72 but does 2d4X10 (range 2-80) so more than the damage and again rounded up to reduce the dice. So again it fallows the pattern.

The earth lifter and battle pod not sure should be +20 not +10 may be a type-o (wich i had the book to check your stats for accuracy.)

The nurnie quad wing does seam odd but is average rolls rounded up on 2d6 may be do to a cap on dice pool of around 6d6(all d6 above this are converted to some other formula to fall within the range, is a shown tendency).

So of your 7 examples to debunk per weapon system linked increases the damage by number of weapon systems fired 4 supported, 1 is within the range that would be rolled if you did multiply it by weapons systems fired and two may be type-os or acceptations.

****If your going to debate against my stance debate my stance of per linked weapon system and not the straw man of per barrel.
(But congrats on failing to debunk it despite your claims, so it stands the standard pattern of PB is multiple weapon systems linked firing together do number of weapon systems in damage.)

You don't get to move the goal posts after the discussion is started, sorry.
And simply playing games with numbers and saying "well its close" is still not the same as saying there is an explicit rule that damage is multiplied.
AND gee how generous. You are writing off every single counter claim as a typo, 'well its close enough'.....
Sounds like your stance is "well as long as it is somewhat close to what we said, its proves our claim exactly" which is not how it works.
But even if it did.
EVEN TWO WEAPONS proves that the rule is not hard and fast.
But hey, since you have already said you have no intention of actually discussing the topic and want to go argue your moved goal posts then I don't really see an issue.

My statement still stands. The post I quoted was rude and insulting to Palladium and was attempting to pass of a house rule as 'palladium logic' for the sole purpose of attacking palladium.

[Blue_Lion]

You said there was no rule any where that said to multiply gun damage.
This is not a red hearing but what you said. So I will not apologize because the statement as worded is false making it a lie if you are aware of such rule and failure to check facts if you are not.

I did not move goals I set the goal I was addressing when I started I said it was weapon system not barrels. You are defaulting to a discussion with some one else while talking to me so you are in error as you are not addressing what I am talking about. Just because some one else said something before me does not mean I am locked in to only debate some one else point.

I did not write off every counter claim as a type-o. Two I could not check and was not sure why they where different I said so, i did say it may be a type-o but never said they where. I said I did not know why.

I never said it was an explicit rule, I said general pattern that can be expected so again you are not arguing my point but a straw man you keep bringing in. I never said it was a rule as it is not in writing but it is a pattern that PB does seam to fallow. If you are going to debate with me debate what I say my point is and not what you can disprove.

[Alrik Vas]

My statement was merely an observation of tenancy in armored and robot vehicle weapons when they have more than one independently firing barrel.

I never made a claim that a revolving 5 barrel auto-cannon would do x5 damage of one.

My only claim was that if a machine gun fired 3d6 md round, then by it's burst fire it could do x3/x5/x10/x20 damage depending on amount of actions spent on the attack. If you fire linked 2 of them, by the tenancy some have observed, a dual, simultaneous burst would deal double the damage.

I made the crack at Palladium not allowing that and forcing some double barreled weapons to fire their shots independently, rather than simultaneously.

[say652]

Its always the same group of post trolls that start these arguments to get people banned.
Obviously the establishment has no problem with dame six or seven jerks constantly getting people kicked off the site.

Warning: This is the second such post I've warned you for tonight. Are you trying to make this a self fulfilling prophecy?

Keep it on topic and discuss the posts, not the posters.

[Alrik Vas]

Its always the same group of post trolls that start these arguments to get people banned.
Obviously the establishment has no problem with dame six or seven jerks constantly getting people kicked off the site.

Hey, I ain't even mad. Simple misunderstanding. I said "Not canon", they say "show me in canon where it says that!"

Could happen to anyone.

[Blue_Lion]

Its always the same group of post trolls that start these arguments to get people banned.
Obviously the establishment has no problem with dame six or seven jerks constantly getting people kicked off the site.

My intent is not to troll but he keeps shifting the goal to a straw man he can disprove instead of what my stance is. He then makes a statement that is out right incorrect. He then fallows up with a list of numbers to prove his point half of which do not prove his point at all he even early misquoted stats on a vehicle skybunker in a earler post, saying that it showed double barrel damage when it never listed a single barrel damage so can neither prove or disprove. So the person I am debating with is changing the goals and making claims that do not seem to be accurate, and I have reached the point where I am calling the BS on what he is saying. If he wants to report me he can but I am just calling it like I see it.


Edit-Reading back through the post no one made the statement of a hard fast rule multiplying damage by barrels(just people noticing the tendency of double weapons increasing damage with two weapon or more weapons). So it seams the one shifting the goals is the one demanding every one who talks about the subject proves something that no one made a claim of as all people that talked about it happen was talking about a tendency or pattern not a rule. So no one needs to prove a hard fast rule because that claim was never made.(Funny when he is the one saying I was shifting goals, when looking back through the post it was him.)

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Going to nitpick a bit here, 'cause you got a couple of these wrong. However, they DO support your "there is no consistent approach" contention just fine.

BUT for kicks and shiggles.....
-ZBR-02-Mk.IV Officers Battlepod (Marines 117) its HPC-90 does 1d8x10+10 or 2d8x10 when both are fired at the same target (one per arm, so it is exactly like your spider walker)

-NE-NS74 "Quadwing" (Wave two81) has four (4) lasers, one per wings. the damage is 2d6/4d6/6d6/6d6+8

-XM-279 Earth Lifter (Triax 2 161) forward particle beam canon (one on each side) does 1d6x10+10 for one canon or 2d6x10+10 for two.

-CS Mark VII "Slayer" (Coalition War Campaign 150) has two turrents per side. each does 4d6 each or 1d4x10+8 combined

Umm... 1d4x10+8 IS equal to 8d6. (max of 48) If you look through various books, almost every time 4d6MD is doubled/fire-linked, its as 1d4x10+8

-"Hawkeye" Glitterboy (Japan 140) five barrel laser can fire 2/4/5 barrels for 4d6/1d4x10+8/1d6x10

This is correct; if two barrels are 4d6, that implies that one barrel is 2d6; so four barrels (8d6) DOES equal 1d4x10+8 (as noted above), and all five WOULD be 10d6/1d6x10.

-CS Stingray Mini-Sub (Navy 78) has four sets of forward laser turrents 3d6/6d6/1d6x102d4x10

I am sure we could go on....
But there are seven book, spanning most of the companies history, ALL of which have examples of "no, lets have multiple barrels do other stuff"
Which should thoroughly debunk the claim that it is Palladiums stance that multiple barrels are always multiplied.

Like i said, i think your point still stands. Its not consistent. At all.

[ShadowLogan]

My statement was merely an observation of tenancy in armored and robot vehicle weapons when they have more than one independently firing barrel.

I never made a claim that a revolving 5 barrel auto-cannon would do x5 damage of one.

My only claim was that if a machine gun fired 3d6 md round, then by it's burst fire it could do x3/x5/x10/x20 damage depending on amount of actions spent on the attack. If you fire linked 2 of them, by the tenancy some have observed, a dual, simultaneous burst would deal double the damage.

I made the crack at Palladium not allowing that and forcing some double barreled weapons to fire their shots independently, rather than simultaneously.

I would agree with the observation that Palladium is not consistent, one can find examples of multi-gun and multi-barrel configurations that do proportional damage, but you can also find examples that don't (ex, the HRG-140 in RT:TSC is a double barrel version of the HRG-70, though looking at the stats there is no difference, unlike a CS Warbird Rocket Cycle w/3 C-42 railguns that stack barrels). Even in terms of burst volume there is no consistency in terms of damage, even on similar scaling weapons, or even modifiers used (if we used the generic ones any time anyone does x10 burst it should take all their attacks that melee but it doesn't). Ultimately Palladium has always had an issue with scale in the MDC-verses (1E RT, Rifts, Macross 2, 2E RT) on both the give/take angle.