Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 5:14 am**

I don't see any reason that doesn't actually support how shooting the boom gun properly requires more than a single action including pegging itself in, it just means that the Glitterboy must stop, effectively rooting itse;f to the ground, and aim before firing.

Just like pretty much anyone firing a gun should do. With the exception of things like ofther power amours, especially flying ones, which can actually move WHILE shooting, not just move between shooting.

Your first quote doesn't invalidate the fact that the pylons are synchronized to the gun. Nothing about it stops the GB from moving, stopping, firing, moving, stopping, firing, and on, and on.

And yeah, the Pylons shoot out 'just before' as they are synchronized with the gun. If they had to be deployed sometime in advance, which would take actions, before the pilot could start firing, it would say so. Instead, it says they are deployed 'just before'.

None of those indicate the recoil supression/resistance system takes actions to set up.

HOWEVER, even if you don't agree, consider.

The Rifts Main Book printed the GB, and even if you are right, never mentioned this extra attack/action of 'setting' oneself. Understandable.

The Conversion Book, while detailing the downsides of the GB never mentioned this 'extra' mechanic. Alright, possible.

Free Quebec, a book FULL of Glitter Boys, never mentions this 'extra' mechanic.

The RIFTS UE: Rulebook never mentions this 'extra' mechanic.

So, either your interpretation is correct, and we have to assume that in what, 20 years, that no one has EVER remembered to put this mechanic into the game, the Glitterboy Description, or anywhere else...

OR....

It doesn't work that way.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:39 am**

I'm with Subjugator on this one. I've been playing Rifts since it hit the shelves and NO-ONE I've encountered has ever done the "action to deploy pylons". The stabilisation system deploys automatically when the Boom Gun is fired. Does that really make your way of handling the GB wrong? No, not really, as it's your game so you can handle it how you want.

If Rifts were truly "dead" there'd've been no more books at all. While I lament the errors and slowness of PB inn their publishing of books and I don't always like what soem of the current crop of Free lancers are doing I still enjoy and play Rifts and look forward to supporting the comapny by once more purchasing books (once I'm financially stable again, that is!).

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:20 am**

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote: it's open to interpretation.

No, it's really, really, really not.
And since I've pointed out why and how, I guess I can leave it at that.

And yet, I read it differently than you do, so it really really is, even if you don't agree. I've played rifts since the week it came out. I've been in dozens of games over the decades. I've never played in a game where it did NOT Take one action to stop and plant pylons and toeclips before fireing.

So there is evidence, with me alone, that some people read it differently. Thus open to interpretation. You interpret it differently. That's cool. But you can't just wave your hand and say "Nope didn't happen." When I'm telling you I've seen/played it that way dozens of times.

lol
Dude, people interpreting things wrong doesn't make something "open to interpretation," except in the loosest, most meaningless sense of ther term.
Just because you've seen people playing it wrong doesn't make them right.

And yet the books themselves say "Their maximum speed is 60 mph (96 km) and they must stop, effectively root themselves to the ground, and aim before firing their, albeit powerful, Boom Gun."

Okay.
How would YOU do it?
Keep running at 60 mph, fire your boom gun without stopping, causing your pylons to sink into the ground while you're at a full mile-per-minute run...?
I mean, it might work as emergency brakes in a really unusual situation... but no.
For the most part, in order to fire the boom gun, you have to stop running first.
Which is pretty obvious.
That's the first part.
Next up...

You find this under "GB Weaknesses and Vulnerabilities" Page 74. Free Quebec. Please note how it says they must stop. "And" aim.... --before-- firing their boom gun.

I've covered "stop," although I shouldn't have to.
Now let's look at "aim."
I think that the use of "must" here is pretty obviously NOT literal, because it is possible to make Wild (i.e., unaimed) shots with the Boom Gun- we know that from CB1.
So it's assuming that the GB would have to take the time to make an Aimed Shot, simply because it's assuming that's what the GB would want to do.
Either way, we know that when the RMB was written, it didn't take any actions to Aim; you could aim and fire in a single action.

Stop. Root. Aim. -Before- Firing.

So now we get to "root."
While I do see where you're coming from, you seem to be missing something: "rooting yourself to the ground" might well NOT be referring to the pylons at all.
It might be talking about the fact that you're taking your 1.2 ton robot, and stopping, standing stationary in order to aim, since you can't aim while running at 60 mph.

BUT yes... I can see how you interpret that sentence that way.
However, since that sentence conflicts with the rest of the facts we're given for how the weapon fires, IF it's interpreted your way instead of another way, I think it's pretty clear that your interpretation is incorrect.

Not pull the trigger while instantaneously being rooted with an action that bores pylons into the ground faster than you or anyone else in the world can pull a trigger.

Page 222 of the RMB has an illustration of the pylons in question with an explanation beside it. "Anti-sway pylons and toe hook are activated just before the gun is to be fired"

You know what has to happen before a revolver is fired?
The hammer has to spring forward and hit the cartridge.
That doesn't mean that it happens after you squeeze the trigger.

The original RMB, and later in WB22 that indicate my way of thinking, instead of yours.

It can be read both ways. You going 'You're wrong' is just your opinion, based on how you read it.

Not really. I'm basing it on...
-The fact that the sentences that I listed cannot be interpreted to work in conjunction with your interpretation.
-The fact that the sentences that you listed can be interpreted to work in conjunction with my interpretation.
-The complete absence of any mention, anywhere, of a GB needing to use an attack to sink the pylons, even if your interpretation of those passages is otherwise accurate.
-The fact that I recently had a conversation with Kevin (at the Unofficial Open House tour) where I was talking about how the rules are vague, and I used Glitter Boys as an example, referring back to the old "GB Vs...." threads, and the fact that those threads always devolved into arguments because the question of who would win was always dependent entirely on how different people interpreted the rules of the game.
As an example, I used "Some people think that every time before a GB can shoot, he has to spend an attack sinking his pylons" as one example, specifically the old claims that GBs were easy to defeat because you could spend one attack moving behind them, and they'd have to spend TWO attacks to turn around (one to withdraw the pylons, and one to turn around).
Kevin's reaction to the "GBs have to spend an attack sinking pylons" theory was a headshaking and vague disbelief, IIRC.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:26 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
And yet the books themselves say "Their maximum speed is 60 mph (96 km) and they must stop, effectively root themselves to the ground, and aim before firing their, albeit powerful, Boom Gun."

Okay.
How would YOU do it?
Keep running at 60 mph, fire your boom gun without stopping, causing your pylons to sink into the ground while you're at a full mile-per-minute run...?

That's the thing. All the other power armors/robots can do such, and usually faster. Heck the one previewed from NG's entire concept is built around bouncing around and shooting on the run. Samus and that entire branch of power armor is built around doing it on the fly. The others don't generally have to stop, deploy 4 feet of securing anchor into the ground before the gun can shoot. The GB Does. The post says they have to stop. Root themselves and aim. -Before- they fire. KC You're one of the people that point out words MEAN things. In this case it says you have to stop and root before ya shoot. Not 'As' you shoot.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
I mean, it might work as emergency brakes in a really unusual situation... but no.
For the most part, in order to fire the boom gun, you have to stop running first.

Right, which is part of the point. Other bots can shoot their weaponry while running and leaping, diving and commando rolling. Flying at many 100mph for some of them. the GB must come to a full stop, sink a pair, of 4.5 foot anchors into the ground, then shoot. If pulling a trigger, an action that's moving a lever less than an inch takes up a full melee action, how can shooting boring pylons 4 and a half feet into the ground which, have to bore through the ground with their lasers. Take LESS Time... than pulling that trigger less than an inch?

How does one justify that physics?

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Which is pretty obvious.
That's the first part.
Next up...

Well the only thing you really said was 'Well duh. they have to stop' which really hasn't been in question. The disagreement comes after they've stoped, if they have to spend a single action rooting themselves, or if Glitter boys, for some reason get two actions per action when firing their boom guns, unlike most other OCCs. (( I won't say all. I'm sure there's another OOC out there that gets two actions per action somewhere. lol)

Killer Cyborg wrote:

You find this under "GB Weaknesses and Vulnerabilities" Page 74. Free Quebec. Please note how it says they must stop. "And" aim.... --before-- firing their boom gun.

I've covered "stop," although I shouldn't have to.
Now let's look at "aim."
I think that the use of "must" here is pretty obviously NOT literal, because it is possible to make Wild (i.e., unaimed) shots with the Boom Gun- we know that from CB1.

My point is that it's a chain of events that are requires to fire the boom gun. One, then the other, then the other. It's listed off as a chain. Not things that happen all at once. Not hat every shot is going to be precision aimed. Though, considering the range and damage of the boom gun, it might very well be -intended- to be literal. Firing off wild shots with a boom gun is one of the more irresponsible things one can imagine with weaponry.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
So it's assuming that the GB would have to take the time to make an Aimed Shot, simply because it's assuming that's what the GB would want to do.

And assuming that the Boom gun is the equivalent of the 'next level' of tank weapon. Even a 1D4md laser pistol is equal or better than a modern tank, but the boom gun is that metaphorical 'next step up'. Can you imagine a tank driver just firing off indiscriminately with his main battery in battle? How horrific it'd be to see someone doing that? Same sort of thing, multiplied by a GB pilot firing off with out aiming. "Could" you do it? Yeah, I don't think there's a mechanism in there that makes you paint your target and like... three Microsoft mouse clicks confirming you really really really want to shoot. I think it's the implied "This thing can fly through 5 city blocks worth of houses with out slowing down and rip every single person in the line of fire in half. I gotta watch where I shoot.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Either way, we know that when the RMB was written, it didn't take any actions to Aim; you could aim and fire in a single action.

Stop. Root. Aim. -Before- Firing.

So now we get to "root."
While I do see where you're coming from, you seem to be missing something: "rooting yourself to the ground" might well NOT be referring to the pylons at all.
It might be talking about the fact that you're taking your 1.2 ton robot, and stopping, standing stationary in order to aim, since you can't aim while running at 60 mph.

That's a stretch considering the item being discussed though. Where it a normal bot, perhaps, but in a bot that has a specific mechanism to shoot anchoring pylons and toe clips into the ground to help keep itself from being flung backwards, it's pretty clear what they meant by rooting in that phrase. And again, to my knowledge it's the only bot(the GB and it's variants) That has to do such.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
BUT yes... I can see how you interpret that sentence that way.
However, since that sentence conflicts with the rest of the facts we're given for how the weapon fires, IF it's interpreted your way instead of another way, I think it's pretty clear that your interpretation is incorrect.

That's the thing. It doesn't conflict with the rest. If you read the explanation of the intended use of the GB in the FQ book, it goes into detail about their faults. Their slow speed, the fact that they -do- have to stop, root, then shoot, how they're vulnerable to missile fire and fast moving bogies. These things are specificly addressed, that they are faults, but ones that were intended to be addressed by the fact that GB were not 'built' to be used in single person combat, but instead were indeed meant to be deployed by the 100s or 1000s, with tactics used to beat back those faults, including using your own samus analogs to keep other Samus from ripping you up, including 30% or better of your force on specific "Anti missile duty" That half of your force could be advancing, leap frog style while the other half is rooted to shoot.

The fact that you do have to stop root and shoot is I think the second vulnerability they go to in that section?

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Not pull the trigger while instantaneously being rooted with an action that bores pylons into the ground faster than you or anyone else in the world can pull a trigger.

Page 222 of the RMB has an illustration of the pylons in question with an explanation beside it. "Anti-sway pylons and toe hook are activated just before the gun is to be fired"

You know what has to happen before a revolver is fired?
The hammer has to spring forward and hit the cartridge.
That doesn't mean that it happens after you squeeze the trigger.

That's in the same mechanism of firing the gun. You pull the trigger, the hammer goes back, hits the point where it then springs forward at the release.

In this case, in "Rifts" and "Palladium" Game system, Pulling a trigger and firing a weapon is one action.
How does one justify two different pylons boring into the earth and click out anchoring barbs, to take less time and less of an action than simply pulling a trigger? More over, that it's so much less of an action to bury twin pylons 4.5 feet into the ground, that doing so is so incredibly fast that you can do it, AND pull the trigger and fire the gun, in the same amount of time the guy standing beside you in a NG robot pulls the trigger on his gun. I get it that the things are hydrolic, but bullets/plasma/lasers are wicked fast when they shoot out. Pulling a trigger an inch takes one action but shooting metal anchors into the ground 4.5 feet, is so much less than pulling the trigger that inch, that it can be done WHILE pulling a trigger and not slow you down?

Killer Cyborg wrote:
The original RMB, and later in WB22 that indicate my way of thinking, instead of yours.

It can be read both ways. You going 'You're wrong' is just your opinion, based on how you read it.

Not really. I'm basing it on...
-The fact that the sentences that I listed cannot be interpreted to work in conjunction with your interpretation.

That proves that it can be read and interpreted your way, as well. I never said that it couldn't. My point was that it could be either way, depending on how you read it. I can see where you're coming from. The timing and logistics just don't make sense to me. Yes it's science fiction. Not everything will, but in this case, to me, it's extremely easy to make sense out of it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
-The fact that the sentences that you listed can be interpreted to work in conjunction with my interpretation.
-The complete absence of any mention, anywhere, of a GB needing to use an attack to sink the pylons, even if your interpretation of those passages is otherwise accurate.

I think it's just a given. The fact you have to stop and anchor, is a given that it takes an action to do. Then you can fire all you want till you want to reposition, where in you pull up stakes and move to a new position to fire. It's not that --every shot-- takes two actions. It's one action to deploy, shoot till you either run out of shells or need to move, then you retract, move and redeploy before you start blasting again. It's not even "One action per melee" if you're not moving. It's that one action -before- you shoot to get anchored. then shoot and shoot and shoot. Moving at 60 MPH in a bot battle or pa battle is effectively a crawl. You can and often will need to move, but with the GB it is going to be heavily weighed against "Moving and redeploying anchors, or getting more shoots out of the boom gun if I can." Which is directly addressed in the "How the GB's are MEANT to be used" Section of FQ. They're not meant to be sent out alone. But as part of a lager overall force and fight in tandem with 100s if not 1000s of others. Doesn't mean they can't be used alone, but htey wern't -designed- for that -type- of battle as their primary usage. They really are meant to be used like walking artillery. If you read it, it's almost revolutionary war type lines of these things opening up on foes. A bit starteling to me as a tactic but with the MD armor and flying over-watch etc I could see how it'd work. If nothing the other side could even dent you and you have 100s or 1000s of BB focusing their fire.. wow.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

-The fact that I recently had a conversation with Kevin (at the Unofficial Open House tour) where I was talking about how the rules are vague, and I used Glitter Boys as an example, referring back to the old "GB Vs...." threads, and the fact that those threads always devolved into arguments because the question of who would win was always dependent entirely on how different people interpreted the rules of the game.
As an example, I used "Some people think that every time before a GB can shoot, he has to spend an attack sinking his pylons" as one example, specifically the old claims that GBs were easy to defeat because you could spend one attack moving behind them, and they'd have to spend TWO attacks to turn around (one to withdraw the pylons, and one to turn around).
Kevin's reaction to the "GBs have to spend an attack sinking pylons" theory was a headshaking and vague disbelief, IIRC.

Well that's a very convenient conversation to have had, popping up a few posts down in the thread. Your first few replies didn't say "Dude I talked to Kevin about this exact thing a few weeks ago"....

But you KC, are -not- one of the ones that I've witnessed making up things, in my limited interactions with you on here. So I trust you did indeed speak with him. As I pointed out above, you don't have to shoot pylons every sink pylons "Every time". They position, sink pylons and shoot and shoot and shoot. Yes if they have to reposition they're going to have to withdraw them and shoot again. Heck there's even art of GB's cavorting and twisting with their pylons sunk. The art showing cracks on the ground around the GB's feet. The bots do move and such. They have a range of motion at the hips. Now, shooting 100% directly behind them is going to be problematic considering the gun is on a shoulder mount, but it's not like they have a narrow range of fire in the front of only 90degrees. It's going to be something better than 180, just twisting at the hips.

I will say that Kevin's vague head shaking doesn't give a difinative answer to the query. The bots can twist and such. I still maintain that there is evidence as written that they need to stop, anchor then shoot. He could have been vagely disbeleiving of the general premise. That a gb isnt equal to the task. A few shots from the boom gun will put a real bummer on anyone's day, so even if you miss quite a few times, the ones that hit will leave an impression. It may have been that Kevin, as the writer, knew that GB aren't meant to fight alone, and if you have one in the party, it's doing it's job, part of the other characters in the party is to fill that 'void'. I.E. don't let the enemy get behind the GB in the battle and if something DOES get back there, the other members of the party need to clear that space, so the full utility of that boom gun is used.

One could look at the addition of the left arm weapons (I forget the technical names. Like I said, I don't usually drive the things. lol)) As facing up to the severe limitations of the GB's utility when trying to use the Boom gun. By adding the secondary weapon systems it allows the GB to run and position and shoot and pitch in, in a normal fight, with out having to take that time to stop, anchor and fire. You use the secondary weapon systems to get into position, or while re-positioning to a point where it's advantageous to be locked in and firing the main cannon. If you think about it, it's pretty limiting. Even our modern tanks can fire on the move. (I don't know how bad their percentage of targets hit while moving is. I just know that they can shoot while scooting.))

To be honest it's not a huge deal in the games I've played. If you're playing a shiny walking howitzer, you anchor before you shoot, and shoot till you want to move. The GB isn't built to be a terrain hopper, bouncing all over the field like a grass hopper as it fights. You an TRY to, but that's not it's 'intended function'. It's intended function is to stand shoulder to shoulder with 100s or 1000s of other units and just vaporize massed forces or parts of cities in concentrated MD Railgun fire.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 5:54 pm**

Honestly though, for it to work the way you want, you have to assume that in all of the many times they have printed and talked about the GB, they have just always FORGOTTEN to put that rules system into the game. Does that REALLY sound reasonable?

-EDIT-

Ha! Almost forgot why I opened this thread up to begin with!

As another thread on here talked about, some time ago I ventured to a few cities on a Toronto-Kingston trip, looking to see if I could find anywhere that sold Palladium Games books, RIFTS specifically. My experiences are chronicled in said other thread, but one thing that was suggested to me was to check out The Hairy Tarantula in Toronto, a store which (actually!) has and sells Palladium books, and one of the only ones in Toronto (it was claimed a half dozen did by one poster, but as far as I know he never checked back in to explain to anyone where these other locations were). Well, today on a tour through the gaming and comic shops of T.O. with a friend of mine and our two ladies, we stopped off at the Hairy T and had a look around, and by the gods, they were there!

Rifts books! On a shelf! For sale! I was impressed. They even had things I was looking for. Early Rifter copies, a new (old, pre-UE) Vampire Kingdoms (mine is apparantly lost to the ages), a copy of Juicer Uprising (mine is post UE upgrade and I would like to have an old style one), and several other pretty neat choices, from Fantasy to Nightbane. Which is pretty much when it hit me that, yeah, Palladium was on the shelves with the rest of the RPGs up front in the store, but considering the PB library, or even the RIFTS library, a dozen or two books wasn't a very big stock, and the newest book there was Dinosaur Swamp, which is okay, but the second newest was a Siege on Tolkeen book. Nothing else. Nothing New. There was even a new copy of the old silver and black Special Edition rulebook.

Well, thee went my hope to look through a few of the newer titles. When an employee saw myself and my friend flipping through them, he directed us to the back, where the used books were, and there I found a solid trove of everything RIFTS, sourcebooks 1-3, NGR, just a lot of good, good condition, EARLY books.

And while I was there, two things happened. One was that a pair of girls commented on the Rifts books (new ones in front) WHILE I was flipping through them, about them not looking nice like (insert whatever other RPGs they were talking about/looking at) or looking very nice at all (colour, pictures, ect). I was a bit surprised, but whatever, they are doing their thing and just talking and comparing. The other was that, after I had looked through the used books, two guys in the back noticed them and had a short conversation about 'remember this? It was RIFTS?' The whole conversation between them lasted about 20 seconds, and after the beggining it did not get more complementary towards RIFTS.

I thought this experience would do well in the 'Is Rifts Dead?' thread, because, though it was just two small, anecdotal experiences, it pretty much summed up everything i have seen before that (and in less than 20 minutes combined, I was shocked), which is that 1. New entrants into the RPG market don't see RIFTS as a viable contender to the major titles, or even the newer ones, at best as 'one of those old' games, and 2. Most of the people actually familiar with it don't see RIFTS as a viable contender to new/major titles, and is at best lovingly seen as an old/zanny game.

This experience though, along with this threads discussions, HAVE encouraged me to get a copy of the R:UE rulebook, since I think it will help me in convincing other people to pick up the game or stick with me while playing it. I love the old RIFTS game and rules, but if I am to have any hope of playing it into the future, AT LEAST a new rulebook is going to be needed to convince new people that it's a viable game that's worth playing, and can compete with the modern market.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:51 pm**

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
And yet the books themselves say "Their maximum speed is 60 mph (96 km) and they must stop, effectively root themselves to the ground, and aim before firing their, albeit powerful, Boom Gun."

Okay.
How would YOU do it?
Keep running at 60 mph, fire your boom gun without stopping, causing your pylons to sink into the ground while you're at a full mile-per-minute run...?

That's the thing. All the other power armors/robots can do such, and usually faster.

All the other power armor/robots can sink their pylons into the ground while running at 60 mph, usually faster...?
:-?

The post says they have to stop. Root themselves and aim. -Before- they fire. KC You're one of the people that point out words MEAN things. In this case it says you have to stop and root before ya shoot. Not 'As' you shoot.

Because the pylons sink before the flechettes fire from the gun, not as the flechettes fire from the gun.
You pull the trigger, the pylons sink, and a fraction of a second later, the gun fires.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I mean, it might work as emergency brakes in a really unusual situation... but no.
For the most part, in order to fire the boom gun, you have to stop running first.

Right, which is part of the point. Other bots can shoot their weaponry while running and leaping, diving and commando rolling. Flying at many 100mph for some of them. the GB must come to a full stop, sink a pair, of 4.5 foot anchors into the ground, then shoot.

I have no idea why that would be part of the point.

If pulling a trigger, an action that's moving a lever less than an inch takes up a full melee action, how can shooting boring pylons 4 and a half feet into the ground which, have to bore through the ground with their lasers. Take LESS Time... than pulling that trigger less than an inch?

Pulling a trigger once doesn't take up a full melee action. Attacking takes up the full melee action.
You can pull a trigger multiple times in one melee action, in the cast of burst fire with semi-automatic weapons.
So you're starting off with a false premise there, and it's leading you to false conclusions.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Which is pretty obvious.
That's the first part.
Next up...

Well the only thing you really said was 'Well duh. they have to stop' which really hasn't been in question.

Good. Glad that we're in agreement that THAT part doesn't really mean anything important to the conversation.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
You find this under "GB Weaknesses and Vulnerabilities" Page 74. Free Quebec. Please note how it says they must stop. "And" aim.... --before-- firing their boom gun.

I've covered "stop," although I shouldn't have to.
Now let's look at "aim."
I think that the use of "must" here is pretty obviously NOT literal, because it is possible to make Wild (i.e., unaimed) shots with the Boom Gun- we know that from CB1.

My point is that it's a chain of events that are requires to fire the boom gun.

My point is that it's not literal, and not required.
For example, if the GB is NOT running, if the GB is already standing still, then he doesn't need to "stop."
Likewise, I've demonstrated that the GB doesn't actually need to "Aim" either.
So two out of three of your chain of events aren't actually required in order to fire the Boom Gun.
Yet you're acting as if being lumped in with those other two events somehow means that the third option IS required.

So now we get to "root."
While I do see where you're coming from, you seem to be missing something: "rooting yourself to the ground" might well NOT be referring to the pylons at all.
It might be talking about the fact that you're taking your 1.2 ton robot, and stopping, standing stationary in order to aim, since you can't aim while running at 60 mph.

That's a stretch considering the item being discussed though.

In a vacuum, perhaps. But since your concept conflicts with the other, harder evidence that we have, the possibility that you're misinterpreting the word is something that should be considered.

Where it a normal bot, perhaps, but in a bot that has a specific mechanism to shoot anchoring pylons and toe clips into the ground to help keep itself from being flung backwards, it's pretty clear what they meant by rooting in that phrase.

If you saw that phrasing with any other bot, would you insist so strongly that the "rooting" must take up a full melee action in its own right?
Probably not. You'd probably just figure that they meant that the bot would have to "plant" itself in one spot in order to accurately fire their artillery. Much like actual artillery does.
But because that phrase happens to be associated with a bot that has pylons, you assume that the phrase is a direct reference TO the pylons... and that the reference indicates spending an entire melee attack "rooting" to the ground, even though the passage in question never says anything about spending an attack doing that.
(Just like it never says anything about spending an attack to "stop running," or about spending an attack "aiming.")

Killer Cyborg wrote:BUT yes... I can see how you interpret that sentence that way.
However, since that sentence conflicts with the rest of the facts we're given for how the weapon fires, IF it's interpreted your way instead of another way, I think it's pretty clear that your interpretation is incorrect.

That's the thing. It doesn't conflict with the rest.

How does your interpretation of "the GB must spend an attack sinking his pylons BEFORE he can fire the gun" not conflict with:
"The pylons and the jets fly into action the moment the Boom Gun is fired."

The idea that you MUST sink the pylons before the gun is fired seems to directly conflict with the idea (clearly stated in the books) that the pylons engage WHEN the gun is fired.

The fact that you do have to stop root and shoot is I think the second vulnerability they go to in that section?

Reread that section, only this time skip over the "root" part and see if it still makes sense.
Personally, I think the inability to fire on the move is the weakness, NOT having to spend an attack that's never mentioned needing to be spent, in addition to having to fire from a stationary position.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Page 222 of the RMB has an illustration of the pylons in question with an explanation beside it. "Anti-sway pylons and toe hook are activated just before the gun is to be fired"

You know what has to happen before a revolver is fired?
The hammer has to spring forward and hit the cartridge.
That doesn't mean that it happens after you squeeze the trigger.

That's in the same mechanism of firing the gun. You pull the trigger, the hammer goes back, hits the point where it then springs forward at the release.

Bingo.
You pull the trigger, the pylons and thrusters engage, and you fire. All part of the mechanism of firing the gun.
All one action.

To illustrate this point, let's leave the pylons OUT of the equation for a moment. Let's focus on the thrusters.
Do you think that the GB needs to have those thrusters firing BEFORE he fires the boom gun? That he takes a moment to turn them on, THEN he pulls the trigger on the gun?
Probably not, because the thrusters fire the same moment that the weapon does.

How does one justify two different pylons boring into the earth and click out anchoring barbs, to take less time and less of an action than simply pulling a trigger?

Wait... are you saying that you think that the pylons have to be engage one at a time...?
Like the pilot flips one switch, and the right leg pylon sinks into the ground, THEN he flips another switch, and the left leg pylon sinks into the ground?
If not, why try to highlight the fact that there are two pylons?
I mean you can sink a HUNDRED pylons if they're all sinking at the same time... simultaneous actions don't take up any more time than one action, if they're all the same action.

More over, that it's so much less of an action to bury twin pylons 4.5 feet into the ground, that doing so is so incredibly fast that you can do it, AND pull the trigger and fire the gun, in the same amount of time the guy standing beside you in a NG robot pulls the trigger on his gun. I get it that the things are hydrolic, but bullets/plasma/lasers are wicked fast when they shoot out. Pulling a trigger an inch takes one action but shooting metal anchors into the ground 4.5 feet, is so much less than pulling the trigger that inch, that it can be done WHILE pulling a trigger and not slow you down?

Of course.
The pylons inflict 1d4-1d6 MD per pylon. How much MDC do you soil has?

As for the timing, Boom Gun flechettes travel 11,000' in one melee attack, even back when they only traveled Mach 2... which is only about 2200 feet per second.
Timing, in the fluid system of Palladium's combat rules, is often odd.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
-The fact that I recently had a conversation with Kevin (at the Unofficial Open House tour) where I was talking about how the rules are vague, and I used Glitter Boys as an example, referring back to the old "GB Vs...." threads, and the fact that those threads always devolved into arguments because the question of who would win was always dependent entirely on how different people interpreted the rules of the game.
As an example, I used "Some people think that every time before a GB can shoot, he has to spend an attack sinking his pylons" as one example, specifically the old claims that GBs were easy to defeat because you could spend one attack moving behind them, and they'd have to spend TWO attacks to turn around (one to withdraw the pylons, and one to turn around).
Kevin's reaction to the "GBs have to spend an attack sinking pylons" theory was a headshaking and vague disbelief, IIRC.

Well that's a very convenient conversation to have had, popping up a few posts down in the thread. Your first few replies didn't say "Dude I talked to Kevin about this exact thing a few weeks ago"....

I don't like to rest arguments on that kind of claim, for a number of reasons.
My point in mentioning it isn't that you should instantly change your view based on what I claim that Kevin said... it's that I count that as one of my personal reasons for believing that I'm correct in this case.
For you, it's heresay.
For me, it's not.
So it is reasonable for the incident to have little weight with you, but to have significant weight to me.

But you KC, are -not- one of the ones that I've witnessed making up things, in my limited interactions with you on here. So I trust you did indeed speak with him.

Thank you. :ok:

As I pointed out above, you don't have to shoot pylons every sink pylons "Every time".

Oh, I get that.
In the combat example I was describing, the GB would have had to, because the attacker moving behind him constantly would theoretically make the GB have to reposition himself constantly.

I will say that Kevin's vague head shaking doesn't give a difinative answer to the query.

Agreed.
Which is why I only mention it in passing.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:55 pm**

OK, that's enough. There's only one way to settle this.

Dance off.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:51 pm**

But... Do I have to spend attacks to re-set between each move if I change my foot position mid-dance?

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:07 pm**

OK, that made me laugh. :lol:

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:36 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
And yet the books themselves say "Their maximum speed is 60 mph (96 km) and they must stop, effectively root themselves to the ground, and aim before firing their, albeit powerful, Boom Gun."

Okay.
How would YOU do it?
Keep running at 60 mph, fire your boom gun without stopping, causing your pylons to sink into the ground while you're at a full mile-per-minute run...?

That's the thing. All the other power armors/robots can do such, and usually faster.

All the other power armor/robots can sink their pylons into the ground while running at 60 mph, usually faster...?

Cute, but no. Thew other armor/bots can keep running, firing with out stopping while at a full mile per hour run, or flying 100s of miles per hour. The GB cannot.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
The post says they have to stop. Root themselves and aim. -Before- they fire. KC You're one of the people that point out words MEAN things. In this case it says you have to stop and root before ya shoot. Not 'As' you shoot.

Because the pylons sink before the flechettes fire from the gun, not as the flechettes fire from the gun.
You pull the trigger, the pylons sink, and a fraction of a second later, the gun fires.

So here you agree that the pylons sink ---before--- the gun fires.

Now. Please explain to me how they sink into the ground, 4.5 feet and spring open, in less time than it takes for the other oocs in the world to pull a trigger.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:I mean, it might work as emergency brakes in a really unusual situation... but no.
For the most part, in order to fire the boom gun, you have to stop running first.

Right, which is part of the point. Other bots can shoot their weaponry while running and leaping, diving and commando rolling. Flying at many 100mph for some of them. the GB must come to a full stop, sink a pair, of 4.5 foot anchors into the ground, then shoot.

I have no idea why that would be part of the point.

It's part of the point because GB can't fire the boomgun while moving. They have to stop and sink the pylons. If the pylons are just magically sunk any time the GB fires and are as fast as being made out, they practically COULD fire them running as they're moving into the ground to secure the GB faster than anyone else can pull a trigger or perform any action. So by that logic they'd be able to sink mid stride, fire and retract. They're 'that fast'. If they're fast enough to go in the 100th of a second between trigger break and the round being fired.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
If pulling a trigger, an action that's moving a lever less than an inch takes up a full melee action, how can shooting boring pylons 4 and a half feet into the ground which, have to bore through the ground with their lasers. Take LESS Time... than pulling that trigger less than an inch?

Pulling a trigger once doesn't take up a full melee action. Attacking takes up the full melee action.

Pulling a trigger is an 'attack' when using a fire arm

Killer Cyborg wrote:
You can pull a trigger multiple times in one melee action, in the cast of burst fire with semi-automatic weapons.

Burst fire, you pull the trigger once, and the weapon shoots a burst. Semi-automatic weapons shoot one bullet per pull of the trigger. One shot is an attack. If you want to shoot 5 times per round you pull the trigger five times. You don't pull it 5 times in one attack.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

So you're starting off with a false premise there, and it's leading you to false conclusions.

No, guns just don't work that way, as per palladium's combat system.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Which is pretty obvious.
That's the first part.
Next up...

Well the only thing you really said was 'Well duh. they have to stop' which really hasn't been in question.

Good. Glad that we're in agreement that THAT part doesn't really mean anything important to the conversation.

It does, in that it's part of a chain of events that need to occur before the GB fires it's main gun

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
You find this under "GB Weaknesses and Vulnerabilities" Page 74. Free Quebec. Please note how it says they must stop. "And" aim.... --before-- firing their boom gun.

I've covered "stop," although I shouldn't have to.
Now let's look at "aim."
I think that the use of "must" here is pretty obviously NOT literal, because it is possible to make Wild (i.e., unaimed) shots with the Boom Gun- we know that from CB1.

My point is that it's a chain of events that are requires to fire the boom gun.

My point is that it's not literal, and not required.

You -do- have to stop. As for aiming, yes, it's theoretically possible to just fire a boom gun in random directions. That being said to put railgun rounds on target you gotta aim it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
For example, if the GB is NOT running, if the GB is already standing still, then he doesn't need to "stop."

It has already stopped, thus, already carried out that event in the chain

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Likewise, I've demonstrated that the GB doesn't actually need to "Aim" either.

only in so much that you can shoot a gun with your eyes closed or with out looking. Not that a weapon doesn't need to be aimed to hit what you're shooting at

Killer Cyborg wrote:
So two out of three of your chain of events aren't actually required in order to fire the Boom Gun.
Yet you're acting as if being lumped in with those other two events somehow means that the third option IS required.

It's in the chain. You can't say stopping isn't required because if you're standing still you don't need to stop. You've already stopped. lol "Well if I've already aimed I don't need to aim!" well.. you've already done it. lol

Killer Cyborg wrote:
So now we get to "root."
While I do see where you're coming from, you seem to be missing something: "rooting yourself to the ground" might well NOT be referring to the pylons at all.
It might be talking about the fact that you're taking your 1.2 ton robot, and stopping, standing stationary in order to aim, since you can't aim while running at 60 mph.

That's a stretch considering the item being discussed though.

In a vacuum, perhaps.

No. No vacuum. We're discussing a robot that roots itself to the ground with laser pylons. lol It's the object of discussion.

Killer Cyborg wrote: But since your concept conflicts with the other, harder evidence that we have, the possibility that you're misinterpreting the word is something that should be considered.

It's not 'harder evidence' it's 'other evidence'. Not the first time that Palladium's contradicted itself.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Where it a normal bot, perhaps, but in a bot that has a specific mechanism to shoot anchoring pylons and toe clips into the ground to help keep itself from being flung backwards, it's pretty clear what they meant by rooting in that phrase.

If you saw that phrasing with any other bot, would you insist so strongly that the "rooting" must take up a full melee action in its own right?

I can't, off the top of my head, think of other bots that have to sink pylons into the ground to fire. So it wouldn't be used to describe them. If there is another robot that needs to do so, rooting itself to the ground would be the same thing.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Probably not. You'd probably just figure that they meant that the bot would have to "plant" itself in one spot in order to accurately fire their artillery. Much like actual artillery does.

Many 'actual' artillery puts down stabilization arms and stuff. They do root in, in their own ways. Not with laser pylons but.. well give us a few years.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
But because that phrase happens to be associated with a bot that has pylons, you assume that the phrase is a direct reference TO the pylons

No.. I assume because the phrase happens with a bot that has pylons, that's what they're talking about. Please show me it used in a book with a bot that doesn't have them.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
... and that the reference indicates spending an entire melee attack "rooting" to the ground, even though the passage in question never says anything about spending an attack doing that.

It doesn't say anything about attacks at all. By that logic it doesn't say that the weapons take one attack each time they're fired either.

Killer Cyborg wrote: (Just like it never says anything about spending an attack to "stop running," or about spending an attack "aiming.")

Killer Cyborg wrote:BUT yes... I can see how you interpret that sentence that way.
However, since that sentence conflicts with the rest of the facts we're given for how the weapon fires, IF it's interpreted your way instead of another way, I think it's pretty clear that your interpretation is incorrect.

That's the thing. It doesn't conflict with the rest.

How does your interpretation of "the GB must spend an attack sinking his pylons BEFORE he can fire the gun" not conflict with:
"The pylons and the jets fly into action the moment the Boom Gun is fired."

Because, as you pointed out above, in your own words, the Pylons sink before the flacettes are fired from the gun. Not as they are fired. *points up* Your own words say so.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

The idea that you MUST sink the pylons before the gun is fired seems to directly conflict with the idea (clearly stated in the books) that the pylons engage WHEN the gun is fired.

The fact that you do have to stop root and shoot is I think the second vulnerability they go to in that section?

Reread that section, only this time skip over the "root" part and see if it still makes sense.
Personally, I think the inability to fire on the move is the weakness, NOT having to spend an attack that's never mentioned needing to be spent, in addition to having to fire from a stationary position.

Not moving due to the pylons being sunk. Stationary due to the pylons being sunk. Having to sink the pylons is a part of that.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Page 222 of the RMB has an illustration of the pylons in question with an explanation beside it. "Anti-sway pylons and toe hook are activated just before the gun is to be fired"

You know what has to happen before a revolver is fired?
The hammer has to spring forward and hit the cartridge.
That doesn't mean that it happens after you squeeze the trigger.

That's in the same mechanism of firing the gun. You pull the trigger, the hammer goes back, hits the point where it then springs forward at the release.

Bingo.
You pull the trigger, the pylons and thrusters engage, and you fire. All part of the mechanism of firing the gun.
All one action.

So we're back to the glitter boy's feet pylons being faster than every other trigger on the planet. That they can bore down and depoy in the ground in less time than it takes one to pull the trigger? Infact, so fast that if you start pulling the trigger, they're fast enough to be fully deployed before your finger can complete the trigger pull? Not only do the pylons start to bore down, firing lasers before them into the earth, they telescope down into the newly formed hole, and pop out spikes, in less time than one can pull a trigger, so much less so that it some how doesn't take any time (Action) For them to be engaged? How fast are these things moving in your mind?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

To illustrate this point, let's leave the pylons OUT of the equation for a moment. Let's focus on the thrusters.
Do you think that the GB needs to have those thrusters firing BEFORE he fires the boom gun? That he takes a moment to turn them on, THEN he pulls the trigger on the gun?
Probably not, because the thrusters fire the same moment that the weapon does.

Right, but the thrusters syncing up with the gun directly counter one another. So if they fire at the same time it's akin to firing one way with the gun and the other way with the thrusters. Pylons need to be sunk and set -before- the gun fires, to keep the bot anchored. if they fire at the same time they'd still be drilling down as the rail gun fired, thus would be partially useful or not at all depending on how far down they managed to get before the mach 5 round leaves the chamber.

So you're saying the Pylons are moving in excess of mach five into the ground? The pylons deploy down, at over 3806mph?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

How does one justify two different pylons boring into the earth and click out anchoring barbs, to take less time and less of an action than simply pulling a trigger?

Wait... are you saying that you think that the pylons have to be engage one at a time...?

No. I'm saying that deploying both was cited as needed prior to the gun's firing.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Like the pilot flips one switch, and the right leg pylon sinks into the ground, THEN he flips another switch, and the left leg pylon sinks into the ground?
If not, why try to highlight the fact that there are two pylons?

Nope. Just pointing out that they both need to be down for the gun to shoot. As another limitation of the gun. I think they both shoot down at the same time. The same flick of the switch.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

I mean you can sink a HUNDRED pylons if they're all sinking at the same time... simultaneous actions don't take up any more time than one action, if they're all the same action.

More over, that it's so much less of an action to bury twin pylons 4.5 feet into the ground, that doing so is so incredibly fast that you can do it, AND pull the trigger and fire the gun, in the same amount of time the guy standing beside you in a NG robot pulls the trigger on his gun. I get it that the things are hydrolic, but bullets/plasma/lasers are wicked fast when they shoot out. Pulling a trigger an inch takes one action but shooting metal anchors into the ground 4.5 feet, is so much less than pulling the trigger that inch, that it can be done WHILE pulling a trigger and not slow you down?

Of course.
The pylons inflict 1d4-1d6 MD per pylon. How much MDC do you soil has?

It's not a matter of pure MDC. It's that it's shooting and telescoping in, and deploying the anchorhooks, all in a milisecond before the trigger break of the railgun.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
As for the timing, Boom Gun flechettes travel 11,000' in one melee attack, even back when they only traveled Mach 2... which is only about 2200 feet per second.
Timing, in the fluid system of Palladium's combat rules, is often odd.

I totally agree that the timing is often odd. I just don't see why the GB gets the extra 'stuff' going on in their pull of the trigger that noone else would. For it to work the way you say, in that fraction of a second between starting the trigger pull and the trigger break, some lasers are firing into the ground, metal rods are telescoping down. Blades are springing out, toe clips are clamping down, enough to hold a 12 foot tall robot in place, and that happens before the trigger can be fully pulled. Every time.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
-The fact that I recently had a conversation with Kevin (at the Unofficial Open House tour) where I was talking about how the rules are vague, and I used Glitter Boys as an example, referring back to the old "GB Vs...." threads, and the fact that those threads always devolved into arguments because the question of who would win was always dependent entirely on how different people interpreted the rules of the game.
As an example, I used "Some people think that every time before a GB can shoot, he has to spend an attack sinking his pylons" as one example, specifically the old claims that GBs were easy to defeat because you could spend one attack moving behind them, and they'd have to spend TWO attacks to turn around (one to withdraw the pylons, and one to turn around).
Kevin's reaction to the "GBs have to spend an attack sinking pylons" theory was a headshaking and vague disbelief, IIRC.

Well that's a very convenient conversation to have had, popping up a few posts down in the thread. Your first few replies didn't say "Dude I talked to Kevin about this exact thing a few weeks ago"....

I don't like to rest arguments on that kind of claim, for a number of reasons.
My point in mentioning it isn't that you should instantly change your view based on what I claim that Kevin said... it's that I count that as one of my personal reasons for believing that I'm correct in this case.
For you, it's heresay.
For me, it's not.
So it is reasonable for the incident to have little weight with you, but to have significant weight to me.

But you KC, are -not- one of the ones that I've witnessed making up things, in my limited interactions with you on here. So I trust you did indeed speak with him.

Thank you.

I respect ya man. Your opinions. You are extremely knowledgeable in palladium stuff. I just happen to disagree with you on this.

I don't think we're going to come to a consensus though. So I'll agree that we play it differently and if I ever play in a game with you, we'll see if we use your way or mine before we start :ok:

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:48 pm**

You want someone to explain how a hydraulic driver with a mega damage laser drill tip can extend faster than a person can pull a trigger? I am going to go with either good engineering, or game design.

Also, you never answered. If it works your way, why do you think it has NEVER been stated to work with those mechanics, despite decades of RIFTS and many chances to add that rule in? Isn't the simpler answere that it just DOESN'T work that way?

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:50 pm**

I have to chime in on the side of it not needing an action. In almost every case (I dare IN every case) where an additional action is needed for a weapon to be used, it states as such and nowhere in any book in Rifts or otherwise has it ever stated such. Fluff description or not, for all intents and purposes that is all it is....fluff and it has no effect on game mechanics at all.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:04 pm**

Yeah, and the fluff argument is not like it is solidly on the side of contradicting game mechanics either. But I don't think this extremely simple argument is going to win over any hearts and minds. Most likely the response is 'it has always been intended to work that way so they never needed to explain it', or 'eventually it became clear it doesn't take an action, but in the beggining...'.

Posted: **Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:07 am**

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
And yet the books themselves say "Their maximum speed is 60 mph (96 km) and they must stop, effectively root themselves to the ground, and aim before firing their, albeit powerful, Boom Gun."

Okay.
How would YOU do it?
Keep running at 60 mph, fire your boom gun without stopping, causing your pylons to sink into the ground while you're at a full mile-per-minute run...?

That's the thing. All the other power armors/robots can do such, and usually faster.

All the other power armor/robots can sink their pylons into the ground while running at 60 mph, usually faster...?

Cute, but no.

Then your response has nothing to do with what I said.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
The post says they have to stop. Root themselves and aim. -Before- they fire. KC You're one of the people that point out words MEAN things. In this case it says you have to stop and root before ya shoot. Not 'As' you shoot.

Because the pylons sink before the flechettes fire from the gun, not as the flechettes fire from the gun.
You pull the trigger, the pylons sink, and a fraction of a second later, the gun fires.

So here you agree that the pylons sink ---before--- the gun fires.

After you pull the trigger, and before the flechettes leave the barrel.
All during the "moment that you fire the weapon."
When you're trying to break down a weapon firing into a timeline, things happen very fast.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:I mean, it might work as emergency brakes in a really unusual situation... but no.
For the most part, in order to fire the boom gun, you have to stop running first.

Right, which is part of the point. Other bots can shoot their weaponry while running and leaping, diving and commando rolling. Flying at many 100mph for some of them. the GB must come to a full stop, sink a pair, of 4.5 foot anchors into the ground, then shoot.

I have no idea why that would be part of the point.

It's part of the point because GB can't fire the boomgun while moving. They have to stop and sink the pylons.

That has jack-all to do with other robots.

If the pylons are just magically sunk any time the GB fires and are as fast as being made out, they practically COULD fire them running as they're moving into the ground to secure the GB faster than anyone else can pull a trigger or perform any action. So by that logic they'd be able to sink mid stride, fire and retract. They're 'that fast'. If they're fast enough to go in the 100th of a second between trigger break and the round being fired.

uhh... no.
See, when a person is running, their legs are in motion.
If their feet suddenly sprout pylons, securing them to the ground, that interferes with their legs moving.
:-?

Killer Cyborg wrote:
If pulling a trigger, an action that's moving a lever less than an inch takes up a full melee action, how can shooting boring pylons 4 and a half feet into the ground which, have to bore through the ground with their lasers. Take LESS Time... than pulling that trigger less than an inch?

Pulling a trigger once doesn't take up a full melee action. Attacking takes up the full melee action.
Pulling a trigger is an 'attack' when using a fire arm

You're going to come back to this one, and I'm going to ignore it later, because I'll just spell it all out for you now:

Rifts 34
A burst is the shooting of several rounds, immediately one after another. Aim is more hasty and the recoil moves the weapon with each shot, reducing the accuracy. Semiautomatic/automatic weapons, machineguns and sub-machineguns, are designed for burst firing.

Semi-automatic weapons are designed for burst firing, according to the rules of Rifts.
Semi-automatic weapons fire one round each time the trigger is pulled.
Therefore, if you're firing a burst with a semi-automatic weapon, which you can do as per the rules of Rifts, you are pulling the trigger multiple times in one attack.

CB1 8
A burst is fired whenever somebody fires a pulse weapon, rail gun, or a rapid succession of blasts from a semiautomatic or automatic weapon (bullet or energy).

CB1 9
Automatic and semiautomatic weapons... generally every burst of two to ten rounds/energy blasts counts as one attack.

When you are firing a burst from a semiautomatic weapon, you can generally fire up to 10 rounds in one attack.
Each round still requires a separate pull of the trigger. That's what semi-automatic means.

These rules apply to automatic energy weapons, as well as conventional, bullet-shooting, automatic and SEMIAUTOMATIC weapons.

If you want to argue about this one more, start a new thread on it, but it's spelled out very clearly, and repeatedly.
You can burst fire with semi-automatic weapons.
You can burst fire with weapons where each round must be fired by a separate pull on the trigger.

Killer Cyborg wrote: Glad that we're in agreement that THAT part doesn't really mean anything important to the conversation.

It does, in that it's part of a chain of events that need to occur before the GB fires it's main gun

No, it doesn't NEED to happen.
A GB who isn't running anywhere doesn't NEED to stop.
It isn't something that NEEDS to occur before the GB fires its main gun.
Except in certain circumstances.

You -do- have to stop.

Okay, you're GMing, and the party's GB is standing still, with his gun raised.
An enemy appears.
Everybody rolls for initiative.
The GB wins initiative, and the GB's player says, "I fire my gun at the enemy!"
And you say....
"You can't do that yet. First, you NEED to STOP."

Right....?

Because if NOT, if that's NOT what you say, then very obviously a GB doesn't always literally need to STOP before he starts shooting.
ONLY if he's running somewhere, and only because he can't fire his weapon without also firing his pylons, which would cause all sorts of problems when he running.

As for aiming, yes, it's theoretically possible to just fire a boom gun in random directions. That being said to put railgun rounds on target you gotta aim it.

Firing Wild is only a -6 penalty.
That's not random directions, and you CAN put rounds on a target that way.

Killer Cyborg wrote: For example, if the GB is NOT running, if the GB is already standing still, then he doesn't need to "stop."

It has already stopped, thus, already carried out that event in the chain

lol
Or maybe he simply wasn't moving to begin with.
Remember, the example in the book is talking about a GB who's running.
That's the only reason why it even mentions stopping, aiming, and staying in one spot.
It's all about lack of mobility, not about spending an action sinking pylons.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Likewise, I've demonstrated that the GB doesn't actually need to "Aim" either.

only in so much that you can shoot a gun with your eyes closed or with out looking. Not that a weapon doesn't need to be aimed to hit what you're shooting at

Look up "Shooting Wild" in the rules, since you seem unfamiliar with the concept.
An Aimed shot is one where you have to take aim.
A Wild Shot is one where you fire more inaccurately... but your eyes don't have to be closed, and you can still hit what you're shooting at.
Hell, for that matter, according to the rules in RUE, you can make a standard attack without penalty, and without aiming.
If you DO want to aim, then that requires that you spend an attack to Aim.
Which, if aiming is part of a necessary chain of events that must take place before the Boom Gun can be fired, would mean that a GB would always have to spend an attack Aiming before he fires his Boom Gun.
In addition to your attack sinking pylons, that'd be 3 attacks per shot for a GB in your games, I guess.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
So now we get to "root."
While I do see where you're coming from, you seem to be missing something: "rooting yourself to the ground" might well NOT be referring to the pylons at all.
It might be talking about the fact that you're taking your 1.2 ton robot, and stopping, standing stationary in order to aim, since you can't aim while running at 60 mph.

That's a stretch considering the item being discussed though.

In a vacuum, perhaps.

No. No vacuum. We're discussing a robot that roots itself to the ground with laser pylons. lol It's the object of discussion.

Then I guess that your claim that it's a stretch doesn't matter.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Where it a normal bot, perhaps, but in a bot that has a specific mechanism to shoot anchoring pylons and toe clips into the ground to help keep itself from being flung backwards, it's pretty clear what they meant by rooting in that phrase.

If you saw that phrasing with any other bot, would you insist so strongly that the "rooting" must take up a full melee action in its own right?

I can't, off the top of my head, think of other bots that have to sink pylons into the ground to fire.

Forget the pylons.
If there was a bot that had to STOP RUNNING, and to AIM, in order to accurately fire its main gun, would you require it to spend an attack to "stop running and to aim," pre-RUE?

Killer Cyborg wrote: Probably not. You'd probably just figure that they meant that the bot would have to "plant" itself in one spot in order to accurately fire their artillery. Much like actual artillery does.

Many 'actual' artillery puts down stabilization arms and stuff. They do root in, in their own ways. Not with laser pylons but.. well give us a few years.

Many don't.

Killer Cyborg wrote: But because that phrase happens to be associated with a bot that has pylons, you assume that the phrase is a direct reference TO the pylons

No.. I assume because the phrase happens with a bot that has pylons, that's what they're talking about. Please show me it used in a book with a bot that doesn't have them.

It doesn't, that I know of.
For that matter, it isn't used anywhere else that I know of... even with other Glitterboy models, or with the Stabilizing Anchors for Borgs.

Killer Cyborg wrote: ... and that the reference indicates spending an entire melee attack "rooting" to the ground, even though the passage in question never says anything about spending an attack doing that.

It doesn't say anything about attacks at all. By that logic it doesn't say that the weapons take one attack each time they're fired either.

Except that the books DO say elsewhere that attacking uses up an attack.
The books say nowhere that sinking pylons takes an attack.

Killer Cyborg wrote: How does your interpretation of "the GB must spend an attack sinking his pylons BEFORE he can fire the gun" not conflict with:
"The pylons and the jets fly into action the moment the Boom Gun is fired."

Because, as you pointed out above, in your own words, the Pylons sink before the flacettes are fired from the gun. Not as they are fired. *points up* Your own words say so.

That doesn't even make sense.
For one thing, you're trying to use my words to overrule the books, and I don't have that kind of authority.
For another thing, you're mistaking my words.
Again, you pull the trigger, the pylons fire, the gun fires. All in the same moment.

To illustrate this point, let's leave the pylons OUT of the equation for a moment. Let's focus on the thrusters.
Do you think that the GB needs to have those thrusters firing BEFORE he fires the boom gun? That he takes a moment to turn them on, THEN he pulls the trigger on the gun?
Probably not, because the thrusters fire the same moment that the weapon does.

Right, but the thrusters syncing up with the gun directly counter one another. So if they fire at the same time it's akin to firing one way with the gun and the other way with the thrusters. Pylons need to be sunk and set -before- the gun fires, to keep the bot anchored. if they fire at the same time they'd still be drilling down as the rail gun fired, thus would be partially useful or not at all depending on how far down they managed to get before the mach 5 round leaves the chamber. [/quote]

There's a difference between the pylons being fired "in the same moment" and the pylons being fired "absolutely simultaneously" as the weapon fires its flechettes.
A "moment" isn't a specific measurement- there's leeway there for a timeline.
Such as:
You pull the trigger.
The pylons fire.
The gun and thrusters fire.

All in the same moment.

So you're saying the Pylons are moving in excess of mach five into the ground? The pylons deploy down, at over 3806mph?

4.5' is a LOT shorter than 11,000'.
They don't have to move at mach 5... they're only going 4.5'.

The only speed they need to do the job is "less than 2-3 seconds, minus the time it takes to pull a trigger."
And since you can pull a trigger 15 times in one attack according to the rules, that's a LOT of time.

IF the pylons are only moving at 2.7273 miles per hour, that happens to be 4.5' per second.
So it would only take 1 second for the pylons to deploy. Granted that's a LOT slower than I've been discussing, and would be impractical. That's just to give you the gist.
If the pylons are moving at 27.273 mph, then it would only take .1 seconds to deploy them
If the pylons are moving at 272.73 mph, then it would only take .01 seconds to deploy them.
And so forth.
Doesn't have to be going anywhere near any kind of mach speed.

Killer Cyborg wrote: The pylons inflict 1d4-1d6 MD per pylon. How much MDC do you soil has?

It's not a matter of pure MDC. It's that it's shooting and telescoping in, and deploying the anchorhooks, all in a milisecond before the trigger break of the railgun.

No... not a millisecond.
A millisecond is 1/1,000th of a second. That's WAY less time than we're talking about.
It takes 300-400 milliseconds just to blink.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
As for the timing, Boom Gun flechettes travel 11,000' in one melee attack, even back when they only traveled Mach 2... which is only about 2200 feet per second.
Timing, in the fluid system of Palladium's combat rules, is often odd.

I totally agree that the timing is often odd. I just don't see why the GB gets the extra 'stuff' going on in their pull of the trigger that noone else would.

They don't.

For it to work the way you say, in that fraction of a second between starting the trigger pull and the trigger break, some lasers are firing into the ground, metal rods are telescoping down. Blades are springing out, toe clips are clamping down, enough to hold a 12 foot tall robot in place, and that happens before the trigger can be fully pulled. Every time.

I have no idea why that is so hard for you to believe.
I'm not getting what you're not getting.

Again, it's not like these thing have to happen all one at a time. There's a lot of overlap.
Also, you forgot the thruster jets.
And I'm not sure what "blades are springing out."

I don't think we're going to come to a consensus though. So I'll agree that we play it differently and if I ever play in a game with you, we'll see if we use your way or mine before we start

Eh.
It's not like this argument hasn't come up before, and like it won't come up again.
When the mole shows its face, I whack at it until it goes back down.
Then I wait, with my hammer.

Posted: **Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:39 am**

I've been playing rifts sense it came out when I was 12, and I'm 34. 22 years I've followed and played this game. I want to see it keep going. But you know lately I've been playing pathfinder.

Posted: **Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:15 am**

Bood Samel wrote:I've been playing rifts sense it came out when I was 12, and I'm 34. 22 years I've followed and played this game. I want to see it keep going. But you know lately I've been playing pathfinder.

Is that because you prefer pathfinder or it's the only game you can find?

--flatline

Posted: **Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:19 am**

Maybe more correctly, 'is it because you prefer pathfinder, or because you can't find a game of/other players for RIFTS?'

I can find several other games, it's not like Pathfinder is the only one in town, it's just that RIFTS isn't one of those ones.

Posted: **Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:01 am**

flatline wrote:
Bood Samel wrote:I've been playing rifts sense it came out when I was 12, and I'm 34. 22 years I've followed and played this game. I want to see it keep going. But you know lately I've been playing pathfinder.

Is that because you prefer pathfinder or it's the only game you can find?

--flatline

It's almost certainly easier to find a game of Pathfinder.

Posted: **Sun Jun 09, 2013 11:01 am**

The pulling of a trigger can make more than one thing occur at the same time.

That nobody here but one person has ever seen it happen this way, that Kev has specifically said this is not how the rules work, and that a very good point about the mystery of the rules not EVER mentioning this little tidbit leans the argument strongly in favor of the point of view that says, '1 firing of the boom gun, one action.'

/Sub

Posted: **Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:34 am**

Arguments regarding pylon deployment by glitterboys contribute in my mind to the arguments about Rift's unfriendliness to noobs

Posted: **Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:38 pm**

I would really hate to see it die, but that being said you can really see that the quality of the books has slowly (but steadily) declined over the decades. I got my first copy of the core book for Christmas of '88 or '89 (it was the first year it came out), and have pretty much purchased every book they've printed as they were released. I've been disappointed by the quality of the books over the past 7-years. The writing is not at the same level as before, which is actual only a minor detractor to me (and most of the freelancers get better with time), and its not unusual to see information that out right contridicts what has been presented in earlier books. Contridictions that are constantly explained away by with phrases like "the world of Rifts is a fragmented one with poor lines of communications between communities. What was presented in a previous book was incorrect because of this". The other thing that really bothers me is writers referencing other books they have obviously never read, something I see the most when using O.C.C.s and equipment from the WB: 16 Federation of Magic, the Atlantis books, and books from the Phase World setting. All these thing happen in their other lines as well, but the shear volume of Rifts material makes it seem overwhelming.

I personally feel what is holding the entire company back is its organization. It appears that everything must go through one person (K.S.) who is trying to do the job of editor, writter, and run the company all at the same time. Other companies of similar size usually have an editor who is dedicated to one or two of their product lines, and is responsible and trusted by the head of the company of overseeing that line(s) creative arch and to convey that to freelancers. But what do I know.

Posted: **Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:12 pm**

MaxxSterling wrote:As far as I can tell, Rifts is dead. No stores anywhere near me carry books at all. Most gamers at conventions, laugh at the mention of it and some don't even know what it is... They look at me and say, "Oh, you mean GURPS?" When you're company has to use kickstarter to fund projects and you're not a start up company... that right there should tell you something. I agree with the first post, but the players have been saying this stuff for years, with no fix. It's always a problem with small businesses, lack of vision, owner thinks they are god, believe it's their way or the high, cavalier attitude, poor representation... I wish this game was more, but it's not and after all these years, I don't suspect it'll ever be more than a little game that some of us are willing look past much to try to enjoy.

I have a friend who runs one of the 5 gaming stores in Winnipeg. I asked him why he is not carrying rpg books like the old days. His response is that yes paizo is out there and there are other rpgs as well. But most people are moving back into card based games(dominion, magic, etc) or moving towards minis (Star wars minis from FFG). He sees the table top rpg slowly dying all around. Now having said that he will more than gladly get me any palladium book I request from his suppliers.(although sometimes he gets the wrong one for me and I have to whack him across the head)

It is not dying, it is in recession.

Posted: **Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:41 am**

Blastaar wrote:It is not dying, it is in recession.

Agreed. For me it's not dying it's surviving.

Posted: **Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:15 am**

JTwig wrote:I would really hate to see it die, but that being said you can really see that the quality of the books has slowly (but steadily) declined over the decades. I got my first copy of the core book for Christmas of '88 or '89 (it was the first year it came out), and have pretty much purchased every book they've printed as they were released. I've been disappointed by the quality of the books over the past 7-years. The writing is not at the same level as before, which is actual only a minor detractor to me (and most of the freelancers get better with time), and its not unusual to see information that out right contridicts what has been presented in earlier books.

Too be fair, you might be fondly remembering something that isn't real. The original RIFTS core book/RMB, though it is my favourite RPG book of all time, with an incredibly interesting concept, great art, ect and near infinite playable possibilities, was really poor quality in a lot of aspects. The Insanity section is clearly just copy/pasted from BTS, even going so far as to say your characters are Psychic Investigators, the Modern Weapons section pretty much as a whole with no explanation of what 'modern' MD weapons count as and which ones can burst/spray, ect, the Robot and Power Armour section referring to things in 'Battloid' mode, spells being wrong, printed multiple times, leaving out starting gear/abilities, ect ect. It's not a bad book by any sense, but a lot of it is just pasted together and terribly proof read.

After that, the early books may or may not be the best written, depending on who you ask, but it's hard to draw a line and choose a place where 'early' books stop. Maybe in South America? Coalition War Campaign? Xiticyx Invasion?

The Writing has always been very inconsistant. Erin Tarn early on using ancient earth (basically our, or late 80's) slang like 'perks' and then explaining it, as it has been well pointed out the entirety of the history of the human race has been lost and english as a written language all but forgotten, and then soon after every book is full of in-universe references with (our) modern slang and concepts. More than anything, that's what has slowly killed it for me, the loss of the character of the setting and it basically just becoming 'our' world overlayed with a bunch of zany super-heroics.

On the subject of contradictory information, that literally started with World Book One, right out of the gate the World Books, pretty much every one of them, conflicted with what the rulebook set down (in Erin Tarn's/the narrators explanations), which is fine, it's neat to expand, but with apparantly no general guidelines, lot's of REALLY contradictory/out of character stuff slips through.

Posted: **Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:02 pm**

Eashamahel wrote:After that, the early books may or may not be the best written, depending on who you ask, but it's hard to draw a line and choose a place where 'early' books stop. Maybe in South America? Coalition War Campaign? Xiticyx Invasion?

As a personal aside, I tend to divide Rifts up into 4-5 eras. The Mostly Kevin Era, the Kevin and Carella Era, the Post-Carella through Coffin era, the Richards and co. Era (which seems mostly finished now, or at least their submissions are getting backburnered into eternity), and as that era seems to be winding to a close, we're moving into a new Mostly Kevin Era.

So for me, the early books stop with Carella's departure; ymmv.

Posted: **Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:13 pm**

Marrowlight wrote:
Eashamahel wrote:After that, the early books may or may not be the best written, depending on who you ask, but it's hard to draw a line and choose a place where 'early' books stop. Maybe in South America? Coalition War Campaign? Xiticyx Invasion?

As a personal aside, I tend to divide Rifts up into 4-5 eras. The Mostly Kevin Era, the Kevin and Carella Era, the Post-Carella through Coffin era, the Richards and co. Era (which seems mostly finished now, or at least their submissions are getting backburnered into eternity), and as that era seems to be winding to a close, we're moving into a new Mostly Kevin Era.

So for me, the early books stop with Carella's departure; ymmv.

Well, the previous "Mostly Kevin" era was my favorite, so if we're moving into a new one, I'll be optimistic about that.

Posted: **Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:31 pm**

Your 'Era' breakdown seems about perfect Marrowlight.

And the original Kevin era was my favourite as well.

Posted: **Sat Jun 22, 2013 1:18 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:...And I'm not sure what "blades are springing out."...

Look at the picture in the RMB. The pylons have little prongs that come out when the gun is fired.

Posted: **Sat Jun 22, 2013 8:28 pm**

Yeah, for the effort you are putting in to make that HU game work, you could be developing your own super-powers and alternate identity. Or at least working on a costume.

Just sayin'.

Posted: **Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:25 am**

...Are?

I've added new players as well, got new groups of people to play, ect. None of that changes the fact that RIFTS is no where near as popular as it was, nor anywhere near the top of the heap. Anecdotal evidence aside, as many people have pointed out in this thread, RIFTS is, effectively 'dead' in many areas/'locations' and with many game groups.

Posted: **Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:40 am**

Eashamahel wrote:...Are?

I've added new players as well, got new groups of people to play, ect. None of that changes the fact that RIFTS is no where near as popular as it was, nor anywhere near the top of the heap. Anecdotal evidence aside, as many people have pointed out in this thread, RIFTS is, effectively 'dead' in many areas/'locations' and with many game groups.

As long as Palladium continues to sell enough books to keep the doors open and keep generating new material, does it really matter one way or another if Rifts isn't the most popular game around?

--flatline

Posted: **Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:56 am**

Not at all. Also, even AFTER they go out of business, many or most of us will continue to play the game, new players will be introduced, and new games played. RIFTS will continue to be my favourite game regardless of the future.

Posted: **Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:01 pm**

We've had to incorporate modern tech - we have a 3-way Skype game now.

GM
married couple w/ 3 y/o
my house - me, son, a couple, and soon one of my boyfriends

We've been doing this for about a year, and until recently went great. Of late though, I think there's a problem in bandwidth between my area & Skype's servers - calls r getting dropped while the other 2 users aren't having any problem. We're all in the same "town", just different parts.

Posted: **Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:38 pm**

Let me weigh in on the d20 issue.

I wrote a LOT of material for d20. Over 30 books, that's not counting free stuff, blog stuff, and stuff like that.

Mechs and d20? Oh man, talk about a Charlie Foxtrot. I ended up rewriting the entire ruleset for mechs in general and power armor. Sure, I could have gone with frames and gadgets, or used the d20 Future Rules (God, those were a mess. The books went out without the playtesting information paid any attention to, editing problems, spelling errors, mis-placed artwork, all of that, it was terrible) and modded them, but when you got right down to it, they really didn't... fit the feeling of mech combat.

And Pathfinder? For something modern? Don't make me laugh. The ruleset is good, but the last few years I've watched martial characters get dumped for caster supremacy (a known d20 issue) and monks and rogues actually blasted as "useless" by some core designers.

THe closest we ever got to a working MDC system was the "HVAC/HAR" system that was tacked on, but one thing I can tell with you game design is you want as few extra "currencies" as you can get away with.

Then you have the problem of feat chains and feat bloat. Those get real bad, real fast. Then you're going to need PrC's (PF/d20 Fantasy) or PrC's and AdC's (d20 Modern/Future) and that gets bloated even faster. Then everyone wants to redo their favorite OCC as a character class, resulting in class bloat. Then you have the RCC problem, which is where the arguments between "Racial Classes" and templates will come into being.

Now you have weaponry. Oh, God, balancing the weaponry. To stick with the standard you'd want to do "Light, Medium, Heavy Energy" and "Light, Medium, Heavy Kinetic" then you run the risk of what we found in d20 Future where you'd be better off launching 4th level barbarians at an enemy starship.

Not to mention that PF has a LOT of faults, that most of the designers know about, but nobody seems interesting in doing a "pull to code" fix of. During the PF 3 year playtest the problems with caster superiority and spell imbalance was pointed out time and time again, but rather than it being fixed, it just got worse. So we'll have , right off the bat, caster problems.

Then we move to modern ranges. I know I got in HUGE arguments with 2 of the designers of d20 Modern over weapon ranges, one of whom should have known better, but because they were a C-DAT they forgot their firearm training, which led to the final "slap down" of "It's no fun to have realistic ranges" and the crap you hear about "90% of combat takes place at less than 20 feet" that everyone always blathers that isn't even true. (Data from the CALL shows that there are 4 types of combat, and only 2 take place at less than 20 feet)

Man, just from the base you'd have to start looking at the stats. How do you make them applicable, do you do the Gamma World/Boot Hill to AD&D conversion types. Rifts has 8 stats, 7 if you ditch Speed, which means either you drop a stat, or you add another. Then what is applicable to what? What stat do you use for Mental Affinity, should you use Wisdom, a combo of Wisdom and Int?

Then you have skills? The Skill system needed a complete overhaul already, now it is going to be real obvious.

Yeah, you can rewrite Palladium, but d20 is NOT the way to go.

They have their own system, with no Open Gaming License to worry about. It would be quicker and easier to just redo the existing system.

Posted: **Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:30 pm**

Yes Heroes Unlimited IS a better place, thats after a decade of RIFTS and just discovering H.U.

Posted: **Sun Jun 23, 2013 7:11 pm**

T-Willard wrote:Yeah, you can rewrite Palladium, but d20 is NOT the way to go.

GURPS has the best magic system that I'm aware of and, while the rules may be clunky at times, it handles ultra-tech decently. I would love to see a Rifts-like setting book for GURPS. The flavor would be different and some things that are possible in Rifts now wouldn't be possible in GURPS (mostly because Rifts magic and psionics are arbitrary lists of powers rather than designed progressions of effects), but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just different.

Most notably, there would be no reason to create MD since GURPS already has mechanisms for handling different scales of damage.

--flatline

Posted: **Sun Jun 23, 2013 7:17 pm**

flatline wrote:
T-Willard wrote:Yeah, you can rewrite Palladium, but d20 is NOT the way to go.

GURPS has the best magic system that I'm aware of and, while the rules may be clunky at times, it handles ultra-tech decently. I would love to see a Rifts-like setting book for GURPS. The flavor would be different and some things that are possible in Rifts now wouldn't be possible in GURPS (mostly because Rifts magic and psionics are arbitrary lists of powers rather than designed progressions of effects), but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just different.

Most notably, there would be no reason to create MD since GURPS already has mechanisms for handling different scales of damage.

--flatline

Sell out rifts sucks unless you get to make a 400 point character. TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted: **Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:01 pm**

That's another thing that badly needs done.

Psionic and spell power progressions. Combine with the fact it uses non-vancian casting but then you have spell levels (huh???? One or the other, not both) and the fact that at times the rules are wildly inconsistent and early and easy spells can be game breaking.

I mean, it's doable. Just looking at the "Core Three" books you could pull everything apart, rewrite it, and have done with it.

And no offense to KS or anyone who's ever worked there, but PP not being part of firearms is the biggest load of crap in the books. ESPECIALLY in combat. Your kinesthetic abilities need to be good, hell, excellent, or you're nothing more than a corpse waiting to happen.

But the combat rules are workable, they can be repaired.

First thing to do is fix the stupid MDC creatures, make them MDC by location, because I refuse to believe that a dragon's toenail has the same MDC as his body.

Posted: **Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:26 pm**

T-Willard wrote:First thing to do is fix the stupid MDC creatures, make them MDC by location, because I refuse to believe that a dragon's toenail has the same MDC as his body.

I admit it's been a while since I looked up the official rules since I made my own an eternity ago...but haven't there been guidelines/option rules for determining MDC by location since SB1 or CB1?

Posted: **Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:10 pm**

gurps is only good if you study chambara combat spend your points on dex and weaponskill other than that.....yawn.....game sucks. Gurps=loserville.

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:26 pm**

say652 wrote:gurps is only good if you study chambara combat spend your points on dex and weaponskill other than that.....yawn.....game sucks. Gurps=loserville.

Let's not insult our fellow gamers who might prefer another system.

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 5:02 pm**

Sorry but comparing Palladium to S.L.U.R.P.S. is like comparing stagnant swamp water to an ice cold beer. IMHO

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 5:17 pm**

...

The fact that you are holding the Palladium Rule system (or part of it, magic in this instance) in that high of regard against ANY other system (and I have never played GURPS) pretty much says everything that needs to be said.

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 5:27 pm**

I have played several systems too many to list, and Palladium is my favorite. yes rulings are wonky sometimes but overall the best all around universal system, well at least universal between sdc to sdc or mdc to mdc, the wonky comes in converting sdc to mdc or mdc to sdc.

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 6:42 pm**

In my opinion Rifts has some very stiff competition in the science-fiction/ fantasy horror genre that it holds onto:

Warhammer 40k RPG - Easy game mechanics, gorgeous books, and support from one of the premier gaming companies known to man, Games Workshop.

Shadowrun - Even in its 5th incarnation this game proves that it's OK to admit when something isn't working. Plenty of support and loads of people of who play the game.

Chtulutech - Small company that somehow manages to publish books worthy of being placed on the coffee table. Almost all of their book are hardcover and full color. Mechanics, once again, are simple yet give leeway for both Storyteller (GM) and players.

Eclipse Phase - Another small company but publishes some really cool gaming material. I think this game has pushed the gaming genre forward when it comes to science-fiction role-playing.

Now if I were to place any one of the books above next to the latest Rifts book which one do you think someone new to gaming would choose? I'm not saying Rifts is dead, but it needs some serious work to compete with the new generation of games. For a long time Rifts had this genre on lock which is why I feel Kevin never felt it necessary to change or enhance the game. The only competition he had was Shadowrun which was pretty much dead in the mid to late 90s.

Now here comes 2013 and the genre that Rifts once owned has some serious players in it. For me it's gotten to the point of frustration because the game I loved for decades has taken a steep decline. To add salt to the wound, every month now we get told that kick-starter books that funded a year ago are still in production with no real drop date to speak of. I tip my hat off to those of you who still continue to defend this company and to those who think the game is perfect as is; you have the patience of Job.

The sad part is I can't convince ANYONE who has experience with role-playing games to give Rifts a try. I'm serious when I say this; not one person in the metro area that I live in wishes to play Rifts. I know this because there are 4 game stores within 10-15 miles of me and not one person has responded to my Rifts adverts (this includes Meetup groups). Not only that my gaming group refuses to touch the game, even when our regular game falls through.

If Rifts dead? Well it depends on how you define 'dead'. The company still publishes books, well sort of; they do published but you really never know when. They support their products, will kind of I guess; you can always buy the Rifter as least it comes out on time, most of the time.

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:47 pm**

NO offense Rap but simple does not equal dumbed down.

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:41 pm**

jaymz wrote:NO offense Rap but simple does not equal dumbed down.

This.

If I want a game that defines in great detail everything that I'm allowed to do, I'd be playing a tactical war game rather than an RPG. I like simple and elegant game mechanics because nothing ruins the mood like having to pull out a book to look up a rule or a chart.

--flatline

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:46 am**

earthhawk wrote:In my opinion Rifts has some very stiff competition in the science-fiction/ fantasy horror genre that it holds onto:

Warhammer 40k RPG - Easy game mechanics, gorgeous books, and support from one of the premier gaming companies known to man, Games Workshop.

Oh this one killed me. When that game came out, Deathwatch and the Inquisition books, I thought cool, looks neat, probably going to be one to own, read through, play a few times and let it go. And instead, it's going strong, putting out more and more books, and after picking up and flipping through the new Imperial Guard one (forget what it's called) I flashed back to a half a year ago when I was thinking of starting a Palladium Fantasy game and trying to compare those books to Warhammer Fantasy's line. Just great examples of beautiful books done right. And not just that, but done right FOR A SPECIFIC FAN BASE. I have no doubt that GW hopes to sell those books to non-Warhammer miniature gamers (and attract them to their miniature games), but they are going to sell a ton of them to their fans. GW makes an RPG book, they go all out. Palladium... Is still at it.

earthhawk wrote:Now if I were to place any one of the books above next to the latest Rifts book which one do you think someone new to gaming would choose? I'm not saying Rifts is dead, but it needs some serious work to compete with the new generation of games.

Just showing someone new to gaming their options, and they will often think that RIFTS books are much older than their other choices. Now, sometimes they are, but sometimes my copy of Worldbook X is just a little beat up, and that, combined with the fact that it looks the exact same inside as my copy of Worldbook X-10+ years and the competition looks ever more amazing.

earthhawk wrote:For me it's gotten to the point of frustration because the game I loved for decades has taken a steep decline.

I don't think this is accurate. The problem isn't that RIFTS is in 'steep decline', generally speaking, the books aren't in 'decline' at all. The ones being made now are every bit as good as the ones that were made when the game first started. It's just that if you stand still for 20 years, in ANY industry, you are going to get mowed down by competition.

earthhawk wrote:Is Rifts dead? Well it depends on how you define 'dead'. The company still publishes books, well sort of; they do published but you really never know when. They support their products, will kind of I guess; you can always buy the Rifter as least it comes out on time, most of the time.

And so it goes. I don't think any big change is going to be coming anytime though. Palladium is what it is, they don't have the ability to expand their production or improve on their product, they can continue to produce their product and hopefully continue along. The things that they can be improving upon are non-production, namely consumer interaction, brand awareness, image marketing, ect. This was all really well spelled out in another thread recently, and hopefully some of it will come to pass.

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:24 am**

Rappanui wrote:and then there are those of us who enjoy the gratuitous Granularity that heavy customization brings (And Look at games like Milleniums End , Battelords, Runequest with Glee and abandon...

Customization does not have to equate to complex and difficult to play Rap.

You can have simple and still have customization.

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:56 pm**

That is your opinion and you are of course welcome to it. I find the interlock/fuzion system as well as the old (well not old since they did re-release it as generic games as well) West End Games Star Wars d6 system to be both simple and easily customizable.

Forums of the Megaverse®

Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?

Re: Is Rifts dead?