Forums of the Megaverse®

Dog_O_War wrote:Which they can't as they have the two types of weapons that disallow called shots; burst weapons and missiles.

1. They can fire single shots with the rail guns.
2. They have six missiles to use on the Boom Gun, which frankly, I'd have them use on the main body doing splash damage to the Boom Gun.
3. They can use melee attacks to destroy the Boom Gun.

Perhaps then you should practice simple math, as it rightfully shows the exact opposite.

What makes you think so? You've ignored the numbers every single time they were presented...like the -12 to hit that the Glitter Boy suffers when they're moving in on him.

Which is completely possible as one is a foot-slogger instead of a flier.

He can move in under cover. That makes it almost impossible to hit him.

Difficult, yes. but if they're closing in, they aren't shooting, and thus the GB isn't suffering attacks. If they are shooting, they do so at a huge penalty for moving and thus aren't likely to hit.
So even once they get there, they still will suffer the same fate; death at the hands of a Glitterboy.

They'll suffer from a hangover after they get drunk because they nailed a Glitterboy.

Yes they do. They send three specialized PAs that are tougher than the SAMAS to combat Glitterboys. And the reason they send three is because they (Glitterboys) are still statistically likely to kill two before they even get there.

You've ignored the math and kept stating your belief repeatedly, as if repetition will count as proof.

So honestly, do you still think that three non-specialized PAs with inferior armour and weapons to the specialized PAs designed for the job will do better?

If played properly, yes. The problem is that you have to actually pay attention to those inconvenient things called 'rules' and 'numbers' when performing the calculations to realize that when intelligently played, the Glitter Boy loses.

/Sub

Rystar wrote:See the thing is the SAMs wouldn't be lined up right next to each other facing him, I assume anyone with half a brain would flank him. Whoever is the unlucky SAMAS that the Boomgun is facing would be using his attacks to dodge. The other two would be around him or out of easy firing angle so he couldn't simply sit back and go shot for shot. They would not even have to have penalties to hit as they would be firing at him almost standing still. There is absolutely no reasonable way (without miracle dice rolls) the GB could win a 3 on 1 if the SAMAS have equal intelligence. Again I did not factor in terrain as both parties could use it equally.

I never thought about that. They could attack the jet thrusters, rendering all of his Boom Gun attacks into wild shots.

/Sub

Subjugator wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Which they can't as they have the two types of weapons that disallow called shots; burst weapons and missiles.

1. They can fire single shots with the rail guns.

CB1, p. 9
The rail gun is a machinegun-like weapon designed to fire controlled and predesignated bursts. Typically, a burst fires 30 to 40 rounds with every one shot. Thus, a character with five attacks per melee can shoot five bursts for a total of 150 to 200 rounds. The damage listing for an individual round is given for informational purposes only.

The RUE stats for the CR-1 Railgun support this because the Rate of Fire lists only bursts, not single shots.

Even if they were capable of single-shots, spending two attacks to inflict 1d4 MD to the Boom Gun wouldn't be the most efficient way of fighting.

2. They have six missiles to use on the Boom Gun, which frankly, I'd have them use on the main body doing splash damage to the Boom Gun.

That's a house rule.

3. They can use melee attacks to destroy the Boom Gun.

If they can get into melee range, that might well be the most effective way to do it.

Which is completely possible as one is a foot-slogger instead of a flier.

He can move in under cover. That makes it almost impossible to hit him.

Depending on the amount of cover, and the durability of it, you are correct.
On the other hand, it might not work out that way at all.
Much of the cover is SDC, and a Boom Gun could blow right through it without any effort at all, hitting the person on the other side (unless the cover is so large that an 8' tall suit of power armor can fit behind it with enough room for the shot to reasonably miss).

I think that the terrain is the deciding factor in this fight.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

2. They have six missiles to use on the Boom Gun, which frankly, I'd have them use on the main body doing splash damage to the Boom Gun.

That's a house rule.

[/quote]

Half damage to all targets in a 10' radius is not a house rule.

Depending on the amount of cover, and the durability of it, you are correct.

Durability is irrelevant. If the GB cannot see his target, he's firing blind. That's a -10 to hit.

I think that the terrain is the deciding factor in this fight.

We agree on that much at least, and since the OP said there was ample cover, that's what clinches it for me.

/Sub

Subjugator wrote:Half damage to all targets in a 10' radius is not a house rule.

Counting body locations and weapons as "targets" IS a house rule.
You can't hit those without a Called Shot, and you can't make a Called Shot with a blast radius.

Depending on the amount of cover, and the durability of it, you are correct.

Durability is irrelevant. If the GB cannot see his target, he's firing blind. That's a -10 to hit.

That's where amount of cover comes in.
If the SAMAS is behind a large wall, then there's a good chance for the shot to miss.
If the SAMAS is behind a SAMAS-sized, SAMAS shaped cardboard cut-out, then there's no realistic chance for the shot to miss once it blasts through.
This is why you're not -10 to strike somebody through their armor, and the damage simply carries over.
That's where the durability of the cover comes into play.

Furthermore, you're not "Shooting Blind" unless you're BLIND (or very close to it).
There's a difference between shooting at a target that you know is in a certain location, even if you can't exactly see it, and in not knowing anything other than a vague direction and not even being able to see for certain where the ground or other objects are.

This is why the Cloak of Darkness spell, which makes shooters unable to see the character inside the 5' diameter area of darkness, only has a penalty of -3 to strike instead of -10.
The level of appropriate penalty in the case of concealment would depend on the size of the concealment, for the reasons listed above.

I think that the terrain is the deciding factor in this fight.

We agree on that much at least, and since the OP said there was ample cover, that's what clinches it for me.
/Sub

Cover works both ways, and the Boom Gun shoots through it easier.

Rystar wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Rystar wrote:Simply math would show that the GB has very little chance of wining this fight.

Perhaps then you should practice simple math, as it rightfully shows the exact opposite.

Really, you are going to go after a typo of mine~

Anyway I am not going to show you any more math then has already been posted on this thread (thanks Sub), it clearly shows the GB is at a disadvantage.

Forgive me for picking on your typo. I don't like to pick on spelling - I think it's a low tactic for debate. That said, I used it to highlight that your math is wrong; as is Subs'. The typo is just a casualty of a metaphor.

Subjugator wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:You've done no such analysis. If you had you would realize that before combat begins for the SAMAS one will be dead.

First of all, don't tell me what I have and have not done. Read the ******* thread and you'll see that I've actually posted the odds of the GB striking, and they're really frickin' bad.

You haven't calculated both the auto-hit and near-assured critical that will occur against the SAMAS within three rounds.

You also haven't calculated in that the first shot will likely be a called shot, thus disabling two SAMAS.

Finally, you haven't calculated in what happens when they finally get to melee and the first attack that happens against a SAMAS is a simultaineous strike when he attempts to entangle (which takes effect, regardless of the results of the entangle).

Lastly, you have shown that your calculations were for a 3-SAMAS doggy-pile, which is shown to be impossible. And I have now read the thread.

Subjugator wrote:

And as the senario dictates, that one is the SAMAS with the busted flight-controls, as it is an arial PA that does not qualify for most of the bonuses you seem to have calculated in the miss-chance of the Glitterboy.

Yes, but he can still jump, which still gives him the +5 to dodge when flying or leaping. As for the rest, again, I'm assuming he's moving in on the ground under cover, so that's not really relevant to the equation. That puts the minuses for the GB to hit him at range to at least -12.

So now the ground-based SAMAS is constantly jumping?

Subjugator wrote:

So they're dodging everything (except one attack per round) and not making any incoming attacks?

While they move in, yes. Also, they're only dodging when they are attacked. He only has 7 or 8 attacks a round. Some of those will flat out miss, and the rest can be dodged.

Just as some of those attacks will be misses, some of those dodges will be failures.
This is something else you didn't calculate.

Subjugator wrote:

Even if they make it to melee combat they can't even out-melee the Glitterboy at that point. Especially since they still suffer the effects (though reduced) of a boomgun going off in their ears. A deafened character makes a terrible melee combatant, and I'm betting that the Glitterboy is going to take every opportunity it has to move and fire close-range (which makes the attacks virtually undodgeable).

1. They'll be hitting the Boom Gun, not the main body.

So the Glitterboy will be concerned for his 175 MDC boomgun around 30 called 1d6MD max-damage attacks from now.

Subjugator wrote:2. Being in CS Power Armor (which is not light PA in any case), they are immune to the effects of the Boom Gun - 'most CS military vehicles are immune to the effects of the Boom Gun'

PA is not a vehicle, robot or otherwise. It simply does not qualify for immunity.

Subjugator wrote:3. He'll not be attacking when he's grappled. When they're up close though, the attack IS virtually undodgeable.

So now you're giving the advantage to completely even odds in melee combat? No wait, it says here that you need a natural 18, 19, or 20 (15% chance) in order to pin/incapacitate the target, which means that the boomgun is unlikely to be tied up any time soon.

Subjugator wrote:

And don't forget that you need to have attacks to make them. It's going to be tough to melee when you've spent the entire time dodging or manuvering.

Only one of them needs to dodge for each action of the Glitter Boy. The others are free to act as they please.

Also, once they've grappled and engaged in melee combat, he's not going to be shooting his Boom Gun.

That's pretty weak betting three lives on a 15% chance; he can shoot and kill atleast two SAMAS in the span of that melee they attempt to grapple.

Subjugator wrote:

When they get to melee simultaineous strikes don't simply disappear, and until you successfully grapple and pin the Glitterboy (which is impossible as it can simply have its firing spikes remain planted) you can and will suffer simultaineous strikes from the boomgun.

If it's leaving its firing spikes planted, it cannot dodge.

I already said that it wouldn't, and that to dodge would be unwise for the Glitterboy to do anyways.

Subjugator wrote:Also, if you do a full speed ram when its spikes are planted, it'll bend at the knees. Besides that, it can be held whether or not it's knocked down.

So now 2d6MD and a 30% chance to be knocked over (reduced to zero thanks to the pitons) are enough to bend a Glitterboy at the knees?

Subjugator wrote:

Actually the SAMAS doesn't. I'm reading the entry right now and there is not a single mention of it having thermo. Nor is it under the "PA has these standard systems" bit. And where does it say that the thermo-imagers don't pick up the massive amounts of heat radiating off the backs of their flying jets? Basically all the GB has to do is see your stink-lines (radiating heat) and fire into your cover.

It has thermo imaging as per page 114, Coalition War Campaign. I've cited this before in this thread...to you I believe.

Oh, I agree that thermo imaging will show the general area where the PA is, but unless you can specifically see it, you're still firing blind.

Yep, you're right. a 60% chance to hit with no chance of a SAMAS dodging sounds pretty good to me.

Subjugator wrote:That means that simply seeing the general area where it is doesn't count - you have to see it. If you had a full heat signature, that'd be one thing, but you won't. You'll see residue...not the actual target.

Besides, I've said...repeatedly...that they'll be moving in on foot, under cover. They will not be using their jets once they're moving in on foot.

So now the Glitterboy has increased time to shoot and kill these constantly jumping, foot-slogging (flying) PAs while they don't shoot back.

You really should re-think your position.

Subjugator wrote:

Did I say that?
Or did I say "I considered all of this".

You said it, but it's evident that you have not. If you had, there wouldn't be the problems in your theory.

The only evidence of non-consideration has been on your part.

You have flying PAs moving in on foot because that is what you would do.
You have flying, combat PAs who do not specialize in melee not shooting, and moving in to basically "box" and wrestle a PA that's three feet bigger and can't be knocked down.
You have flying, combat, non-specialized* PAs moving in on a known killing machine they are very hard-pressed to duke it out with.

*(because the very government that developed them also developed a GB-Killer specialized PA that they send out in threes because that is what is required to even consider a victory against a Glitterboy).

Subjugator wrote:

He doesn't have to, one is a sitting duck on the ground and will be taken out before he can even reach melee. Remember that Glitterboy can match this ones' speed and thus kite him.

He cannot kite when he's knocked down by another SAM. Also, the SAM won't be taken out with a total of -12 to strike and +5 to dodge...and if the GB is moving, it's even worse. Keep ignoring the numbers though, it'll make your side sound much better.

I'm not ignoring anything. When the Glitterboy fires it's always stationary, and he only needs to keep them in the 50-foot range to negate that +5 bonus.

Subjugator wrote:

Which they can't as the firing spikes prevent that.

His knees can bend. Same effect.

See above why this doesn't happen.

Subjugator wrote:

Hampered? No. Even at shooting wild I still hit with more than 50% of my attacks, and you can't dodge any of them because of the incredible penalties for being that close and not flying.

You're shooting BLIND at first. After that, when knocked down, you're shooting wild. They get +5 to dodge when flying OR LEAPING.

See above why this doesn't happen.

Subjugator wrote:

And at 50% per round that's still a dead SAMAS.

That number is WAY off. He has closer to a 15% chance to strike (with bonuses) when they're moving in under cover. THEN they get to dodge at +5, which gives them a minimum of a 20% chance to dodge (on a non-crit roll).

Again, you haven't factored in that you can actually fail a dodge-roll, or even that atleast once per round you don't get one.

Subjugator wrote:

So now they aren't using their primary weapons?
What kind of patrol is this? Oh yeah, this is the "we know the exact best method of combatting a GB" patrol.

This is the one that trained, a fact that you're STILL conveniently ignoring. You're the one suggesting kiting the SAMs. Is this the GB that knows the best method of fighting three SAMs?

Kiting is the best method for the Glitterboy to fight anything. Nothing in the game matches the range*, the damage*, or the accuracy* of the boomgun.

*(barring guns mounted on things like the Firestorm mobile fortress or non-mini-missiles, combi-weapons or incredible energy-drainers like the ATL, or the crappy lasers of Wilks. If you can somehow find a vehicle that has all of these, then you have found a reasonable match for the Glitterboy)

Subjugator wrote:

Every time you shoot at the GB he takes his god-send called simultaineous strike and lays a round into you, cutting your HP by 1/3.

Good thing I've said...repeatedly...that they're not shooting at him. They're moving in for melee combat, where he cannot use his Boom Gun.

/Sub

You forgot to add "...once they've achieved a natural 18, 19, or 20 to properly grapple it, during which there is no penalty for the Glitterboy".

Subjugator wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Subjugator wrote: They have six missiles to use on the Boom Gun, which frankly, I'd have them use on the main body doing splash damage to the Boom Gun.

That's a house rule.

Half damage to all targets in a 10' radius is not a house rule.

1/2 damage to all targets in the blast radius is in fact a house rule.

The actual rule in the books is as it is stated below.

Rue pg 362 Blast Radius or near misses. wrote:Getting caught in the Blast Radius does 1/2 damage.

Rue pg 362 Note wrote:All missles strike the main body of the target.

So if some one is caught in a 10ft blast radius .. the blast radius damage is 1/2 of the total of the damage roll applied directly to the main body of the person caught in the 10ft blast radius ..

Yes, but he can still jump, which still gives him the +5 to dodge when flying or leaping. As for the rest, again, I'm assuming he's moving in on the ground under cover, so that's not really relevant to the equation. That puts the minuses for the GB to hit him at range to at least -12.

Wrong.

Rue pg 361 wrote:Shooting at a moving Target:
-1 : to strike anyone moving (under 20mph)
-1 : to strike for each additional 50mph (Old style samas can not run faster then 60mph)
-1 : to strike if taking evasive action (zig-zag, leaping behind cover, etc..)

Bonases for Shooting at range .
All Ranged Attacks = 8+ to hit.
"Aimed" called shot = +2 to hit.

Therefor it would take a Roll to strike of at LEAST .. 10+ to hit the leaping moving ground based samas, by the Glitter Boy.

1. They'll be hitting the Boom Gun, not the main body.

Every attack leveled directly at the Boom Gun is going to be an "Aimed, Called shot".

Especially when its already in locked position for firing making the profile even smaller then normal.

Which means each attach leveled at the Boom Gun .. is going to take 3 attacks per attack leveled at the boomgun.

In which would negate the only REAL .. valid threat the combined 3 samas have over the Glitterboy .. And that would be total # of attacks ..

Killer Cyborg wrote:Counting body locations and weapons as "targets" IS a house rule.
You can't hit those without a Called Shot, and you can't make a Called Shot with a blast radius.

They are within 10' of the main body. Are you saying that when a long range missile hits a suit of power armor in your game, it only does damage to the main body, despite the fact that the explosion radius is much larger than the PA suit?

That's where amount of cover comes in.
If the SAMAS is behind a large wall, then there's a good chance for the shot to miss.
If the SAMAS is behind a SAMAS-sized, SAMAS shaped cardboard cut-out, then there's no realistic chance for the shot to miss once it blasts through.
This is why you're not -10 to strike somebody through their armor, and the damage simply carries over.
That's where the durability of the cover comes into play.

A (really big) pile of leaves would provide the cover, but not be durable.

Furthermore, you're not "Shooting Blind" unless you're BLIND (or very close to it).

RUE pg 361 - there's a -10 to strike what you cannot see, not *when* you cannot see.

There's a difference between shooting at a target that you know is in a certain location, even if you can't exactly see it, and in not knowing anything other than a vague direction and not even being able to see for certain where the ground or other objects are.

It actually specifies that it includes ground cover, et al.

The level of appropriate penalty in the case of concealment would depend on the size of the concealment, for the reasons listed above.

Since ample cover was stated, I assumed that there was sufficient cover to hide the SAM.

Cover works both ways, and the Boom Gun shoots through it easier.

Shooting through it is irrelevant, so long as the shooter cannot see the target, he's at -10.

/Sub

Dog_O_War wrote:Really, you are going to go after a typo of mine~

Anyway I am not going to show you any more math then has already been posted on this thread (thanks Sub), it clearly shows the GB is at a disadvantage.

Forgive me for picking on your typo. I don't like to pick on spelling - I think it's a low tactic for debate. That said, I used it to highlight that your math is wrong; as is Subs'. The typo is just a casualty of a metaphor.[/quote]

*SHOW* me where my math is wrong. You've largely ignored my math, simply repeating, "I'M RIGHT! I'M RIGHT! I WILL NOT ADDRESS YOUR VALID POINTS! I'M RIGHT!"

/Sub

Subjugator wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote: Cover works both ways, and the Boom Gun shoots through it easier.

Shooting through it is irrelevant, so long as the shooter cannot see the target, he's at -10.

/Sub

The REAL question is is that -10 added to any other penalties ?

If not, then it is still reletivly possible for the GB to hit a Samas who is behind "cover".

For instance a Nat 20 will hit the "Covered" target threw the aformentioned "Pile of leaves".

Dog_O_War wrote:You haven't calculated both the auto-hit and near-assured critical that will occur against the SAMAS within three rounds.

There is no auto-hit. They will be on the ground behind cover before they are in range of the Boom Gun.

You also haven't calculated in that the first shot will likely be a called shot, thus disabling two SAMAS.

You've ignored the use of cover...again.

Finally, you haven't calculated in what happens when they finally get to melee and the first attack that happens against a SAMAS is a simultaineous strike when he attempts to entangle (which takes effect, regardless of the results of the entangle).

OK - there's one thing I've ignored. Damage to a SAM...from one shot. I'll grant 105 damage.

Lastly, you have shown that your calculations were for a 3-SAMAS doggy-pile, which is shown to be impossible. And I have now read the thread.

You have NEVER shown it to be impossible.

So now the ground-based SAMAS is constantly jumping?

When DODGING he is jumping, yes. Are you really incapable of addressing the points as they are made, and not as you wish they had been made? You like to use straw man arguments a lot. It's generally reflective of a weak argument.

Just as some of those attacks will be misses, some of those dodges will be failures.
This is something else you didn't calculate.

Yes, but the vast majority of the attacks will not hit. The one when they are closing for combat stands a VERY good chance of hitting, but other than that, not so much.

So the Glitterboy will be concerned for his 175 MDC boomgun around 30 called 1d6MD max-damage attacks from now.

Don't forget the damage done to it by the mini-missiles.

PA is not a vehicle, robot or otherwise. It simply does not qualify for immunity.

Then why is it consistently listed under vehicles provided?

"Choice of a conventional military vehicle ... for daily use and a SAMAS for field use only."

So now you're giving the advantage to completely even odds in melee combat? No wait, it says here that you need a natural 18, 19, or 20 (15% chance) in order to pin/incapacitate the target, which means that the boomgun is unlikely to be tied up any time soon.

Page numbers? Because HOLDS (not 'pin/incapacitate') do not reflect that.

That's pretty weak betting three lives on a 15% chance; he can shoot and kill atleast two SAMAS in the span of that melee they attempt to grapple.

It is HE who has less than a 15% chance to strike them (far less when the dodge is included). Also, it's ONE ACTION...not a melee round...to attempt grappling.

So now 2d6MD and a 30% chance to be knocked over (reduced to zero thanks to the pitons) are enough to bend a Glitterboy at the knees?

Wrong.

11D6 and a 60% chance to be knocked over (if he takes to the air for the ram attack and hits at full speed as per RUE pg 346 and 352 (the 60% is confirmed by 352)). There are no rules saying that the pitons prevent being knocked over, so that's a house rule...at best.

Yep, you're right. a 60% chance to hit with no chance of a SAMAS dodging sounds pretty good to me.

Let's see...an 8 or better is required to strike in ranged combat.

Target number: 8

Wait! It's -1 because the target is moving!

Target number: 9

Wait! It's -1 because the target is evading!

Target number: 10

Wait! It's -10 because the target cannot be seen!

Target number 20.

Can you see it this time? Can you address the actual number needed to hit and see that it's nowhere NEAR 60%?! It's closer to 15% when one includes the bonuses, and that does NOT include the ability to dodge on the part of the SAMAS.

So now the Glitterboy has increased time to shoot and kill these constantly jumping, foot-slogging (flying) PAs while they don't shoot back.

You really should re-think your position.

At -12 to strike each time.

The only evidence of non-consideration has been on your part.

...and you ignoring the minuses to hit on the part of the GB
...and you ignoring that thermo imaging exists on the SAMAS (as had been stated before)
...and you ignoring that dodges are valuable to the SAMAS, making the GB's already low probability of hitting even lower.

You have flying PAs moving in on foot because that is what you would do.

Because it is the most sensible thing to do.

You have flying, combat PAs who do not specialize in melee not shooting, and moving in to basically "box" and wrestle a PA that's three feet bigger and can't be knocked down.
You have flying, combat, non-specialized* PAs moving in on a known killing machine they are very hard-pressed to duke it out with.

BECAUSE THAT IS THE MOST SENSIBLE THING TO DO.

If you were shooting the big bad monster with your gun and it did nothing, but you found that throwing daisies at it made it scream, you'd throw daisies. Similarly, these PAs would use what would best work - melee with the GB beating its Boom Gun to slag.

*(because the very government that developed them also developed a GB-Killer specialized PA that they send out in threes because that is what is required to even consider a victory against a Glitterboy).

I didn't create the scenario. I just found the best tactics for the SAMs to use within this scenario. They also send the GB-Killer out in PAIRS...not in threes. Read the books before you start talking trash about how I don't know them or you'll look like a complete imbecile.

I'm not ignoring anything. When the Glitterboy fires it's always stationary, and he only needs to keep them in the 50-foot range to negate that +5 bonus.

Then he's not kiting when he's shooting, is he?

See above why this doesn't happen.

You've *NEVER* described why it cannot happen. You've stated why you wish certain things cannot happen, but with ONE exception (the simul attack when they were going in for the hold) you've NEVER given rules for why your position stands. You've ignored the numbers every time you've posted as well.

See above why this doesn't happen.

You've never described why this doesn't happen.

Again, you haven't factored in that you can actually fail a dodge-roll, or even that atleast once per round you don't get one.

You *CAN* fail a dodge roll, but they will only require a dodge roll on 3 out of 20 attacks made by the GB. They will then succeed on their dodge roll approximately 5 out of 20 attempts. That gives them VERY good odds.

Kiting is the best method for the Glitterboy to fight anything. Nothing in the game matches the range*, the damage*, or the accuracy* of the boomgun.

OH! So he's been trained, but they have not. Is that because their having been trained is inconvenient for you?

You forgot to add "...once they've achieved a natural 18, 19, or 20 to properly grapple it, during which there is no penalty for the Glitterboy".

You've not cited a rule that reflects that, and we're talking 'holds' not that to which you are referring. See, HOLDS have different rules that do not mention what you have.

Lenwen wrote:The REAL question is is that -10 added to any other penalties ?

If not, then it is still reletivly possible for the GB to hit a Samas who is behind "cover".

For instance a Nat 20 will hit the "Covered" target threw the aformentioned "Pile of leaves".

A natural 20 will always hit a target that can physically be hit. I'm not arguing that he cannot hit them - just that it's exceedingly unlikely that he will.

/Sub

Lenwen wrote:

Yes, but he can still jump, which still gives him the +5 to dodge when flying or leaping. As for the rest, again, I'm assuming he's moving in on the ground under cover, so that's not really relevant to the equation. That puts the minuses for the GB to hit him at range to at least -12.

Wrong.

Rue pg 361 wrote:Shooting at a moving Target:
-1 : to strike anyone moving (under 20mph)
-1 : to strike for each additional 50mph (Old style samas can not run faster then 60mph)
-1 : to strike if taking evasive action (zig-zag, leaping behind cover, etc..)

Bonases for Shooting at range .
All Ranged Attacks = 8+ to hit.
"Aimed" called shot = +2 to hit.

Therefor it would take a Roll to strike of at LEAST .. 10+ to hit the leaping moving ground based samas, by the Glitter Boy.

-10 to hit a target that you cannot see. That's 20+.

/Sub

Lenwen wrote:Every attack leveled directly at the Boom Gun is going to be an "Aimed, Called shot".

Especially when its already in locked position for firing making the profile even smaller then normal.

Which means each attach leveled at the Boom Gun .. is going to take 3 attacks per attack leveled at the boomgun.

In which would negate the only REAL .. valid threat the combined 3 samas have over the Glitterboy .. And that would be total # of attacks ..

Wrong. It is going to be a called shot, not an aimed called shot. That's two actions per attack.

/Sub

Subjugator wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Yes, but he can still jump, which still gives him the +5 to dodge when flying or leaping. As for the rest, again, I'm assuming he's moving in on the ground under cover, so that's not really relevant to the equation. That puts the minuses for the GB to hit him at range to at least -12.

Wrong.

Rue pg 361 wrote:Shooting at a moving Target:
-1 : to strike anyone moving (under 20mph)
-1 : to strike for each additional 50mph (Old style samas can not run faster then 60mph)
-1 : to strike if taking evasive action (zig-zag, leaping behind cover, etc..)

Bonases for Shooting at range .
All Ranged Attacks = 8+ to hit.
"Aimed" called shot = +2 to hit.

Therefor it would take a Roll to strike of at LEAST .. 10+ to hit the leaping moving ground based samas, by the Glitter Boy.

-10 to hit a target that you cannot see. That's 20+.

/Sub

So then yes or no.

A GB with a to strike bonas of +2 would be able on a natural 20 to hit that samas behind that "Pile of Leaves" ?

Subjugator wrote:

Lenwen wrote:Every attack leveled directly at the Boom Gun is going to be an "Aimed, Called shot".

Especially when its already in locked position for firing making the profile even smaller then normal.

Which means each attach leveled at the Boom Gun .. is going to take 3 attacks per attack leveled at the boomgun.

In which would negate the only REAL .. valid threat the combined 3 samas have over the Glitterboy .. And that would be total # of attacks ..

Wrong. It is going to be a called shot, not an aimed called shot. That's two actions per attack.

/Sub

Ok thats groovy, "Called Shots" get absolutly no Bonas's and end up taking 2 actions. (with out the bonas to strike)

Subjugator wrote:and that does NOT include the ability to dodge on the part of the SAMAS.

In order to dodge any attack (there are exceptions, but the Samas isn't one of them):
They need to know that attack is coming AND They need to see their attacker (pg361 RUE).

A smart GB pilot will look to get a few shots in when the Samas can't dodge by the rules.

Subjugator wrote:You've ignored the use of cover...again.

If the Glitterboy pilot is smart he/she will look for areas with minimal cover that the Samas can exploit on approach to their position, while also looking for high ground to further reduce the impact that cover can provide. Firing at them when they move from cover to cover.

The Glitterboy could also use a portable radio(s) located away from their location to jam the Samas' radio (listed in the ECM: Jamming skill, skill available to the GB OCC and they start with a portable radio transmitter), possibly even a few other decoys. The Samas move in on the position of the jammer/decoy, and the Glitterboy ambushes them when they are exposed. Since the Glitterboy would have a surprise attack, he/she could make an aimed/called shot for that attack with impunity. The Samas also have to take an attack to turn around, possibly another to locate the target, plus the one that was hit is likely on the ground (50MD+) taking even longer to turn around as they need to get up, if the seek out cover from their exposed position that's another attack.

Since the GB likely will do do more than 50MD in any attack that uses the boomgun, the target loses 1 attack as they are knocked on the ground and need to getup. One could apply the Impact Damage Rules applicable to Body & Power Armor rules (both rules on pg 356 RUE) to the Railgun rounds (which the Boom Gun is), that's 31d4 just for Mach 1 (670mph typically given in PB products) going to the pilot (Glitterboy round goes Mach 5) for a high speed crash if one treats the impact as such (essentially the rounds are crashing into the target). If this is applied, the pilot of the Samas is likely dead from one hit, though the suit could still be there.

The Glitterboy's falling into the gray area between Robot and Power Armor might not have anything to fear from these rules as they apply to man-size PA.

Lenwen wrote:A GB with a to strike bonas of +2 would be able on a natural 20 to hit that samas behind that "Pile of Leaves" ?

A GB firing at 15,000 feet and broken sensors might be able to hit the SAMAS with a natural 20, depending on the GM. As per the rules as written, he absolutely could (in other words, yes).

/Sub

Rystar wrote:Again assuming only the GB is using his brains.

Which is why I think it's best to just view the numbers, and leave the element of "brains" out of it.

Subjugator wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Counting body locations and weapons as "targets" IS a house rule.
You can't hit those without a Called Shot, and you can't make a Called Shot with a blast radius.

They are within 10' of the main body. Are you saying that when a long range missile hits a suit of power armor in your game, it only does damage to the main body, despite the fact that the explosion radius is much larger than the PA suit?

I'm saying that these are the rules:
-You cannot hit areas other than the main body without making a Called Shot
-You cannot make a Called Shot with a blast radius.
Therefore, you cannot hit areas other than the main body with a blast radius.

Simple straight-forward logic.
If you have a counter-argument that consists of more than simple incredulity, let me know.

That's where amount of cover comes in.
If the SAMAS is behind a large wall, then there's a good chance for the shot to miss.
If the SAMAS is behind a SAMAS-sized, SAMAS shaped cardboard cut-out, then there's no realistic chance for the shot to miss once it blasts through.
This is why you're not -10 to strike somebody through their armor, and the damage simply carries over.
That's where the durability of the cover comes into play.

A (really big) pile of leaves would provide the cover, but not be durable.

A really big pile of leaves would provide concealment.

RUE pg 361 - there's a -10 to strike what you cannot see, not *when* you cannot see.

Okay, I see that part, and stand corrected (RUE simplified things)...
...but it doesn't clarify the situation much- "ground cover" could be anything from "ground that is used as cover" to "weeds and undergrowth that covers the ground.

In any case, that would still logically apply only if you don't know where the target is behind the cover- getting back to the size of the cover, as explained before.

If there's a guy behind the tree, and you can see well enough to hit the tree, and your weapon has enough power behind it that the tree won't absorb the shot, then when you shoot that tree the guy behind it is going to get hit.
Unless it's a very large tree or a very small person.
You're not going to suddenly get a -10 penalty to strike, causing you to miss the tree entirely.

Likewise, if you run things your way then some smart-alec (me) is going to drape a blanket over an umbrella, so that my character's body is hidden.
That way, everybody's going to have a -10 to hit me, because they can't see past the blanket.
(But use a thin weave, so I can see out fairly well).

Alternatively, you could hold a large kite in front of you as you walk, with a little peephole you can see out of.

Apparently, this would be more than three times as effective than the Cloak of Darkness spell.

The level of appropriate penalty in the case of concealment would depend on the size of the concealment, for the reasons listed above.

Since ample cover was stated, I assumed that there was sufficient cover to hide the SAM.

Not a valid assumption.
"Cover" simply means something big enough to hide behind so that you're not directly shot.
Although Nekira could elaborate on what specifically she meant when she used the term in this case.

Subjugator wrote:

Lenwen wrote:A GB with a to strike bonas of +2 would be able on a natural 20 to hit that samas behind that "Pile of Leaves" ?

A GB firing at 15,000 feet and broken sensors might be able to hit the SAMAS with a natural 20, depending on the GM. As per the rules as written, he absolutely could (in other words, yes).

/Sub

Thanks Sub

Some clarification of the Entangling rules:

What the book says: R:UE pg. 345 does state that It takes 1 attack and a roll to entangle to keep an opponent's arm or weapon entangled every melee round.

What it means: The character initiating the entangle does not have to spend additional attacks per round to maintain an entangle. Once established, unless the entangled character can break free, the entangle continues until the next round.

What the book says: R:UE pg. 345 states In order to get free, the engangled opponent must roll a dodge against the entangle roll.

What it means: The entangled character can break free from the entangle during the round. If his dodge roll equals or exceeds the entangle target number, he breaks free. Logically, if a character can dodge more than once in a round (i.e. has more than one action) then they can attempt to break free at the cost of one action per attempt. The advantage here is, again, that the character initiating the entangle needs to spend no additional actions during this time, and can continue the combat with his remaining actions.

Also keep in mind that an entangle attempt is a defensive action, and costs the character an action per attempt, successful or not, just like dodge. A simultaneous attack negates any chance of dodge, parry, or entangle by either character.

These rules are also considering melee combat. I'm not sure if that applies to an attacker using ranged combat vs a melee defender.

Feel free to debate this, this is of course, my interpretation of the rules as written. I found it hard to believe that entangle was this uber game-breaking move, and after carefully considering the both the text as written and common sense, this is what seemed to be correct.

Danger wrote:Some clarification of the Entangling rules:

What the book says: R:UE pg. 345 does state that It takes 1 attack and a roll to entangle to keep an opponent's arm or weapon entangled every melee round.

What it means: The character initiating the entangle does not have to spend additional attacks per round to maintain an entangle. Once established, unless the entangled character can break free, the entangle continues until the next round.

What the book says: R:UE pg. 345 states In order to get free, the engangled opponent must roll a dodge against the entangle roll.

What it means: The entangled character can break free from the entangle during the round. If his dodge roll equals or exceeds the entangle target number, he breaks free. Logically, if a character can dodge more than once in a round (i.e. has more than one action) then they can attempt to break free at the cost of one action per attempt. The advantage here is, again, that the character initiating the entangle needs to spend no additional actions during this time, and can continue the combat with his remaining actions.

Also keep in mind that an entangle attempt is a defensive action, and costs the character an action per attempt, successful or not, just like dodge. A simultaneous attack negates any chance of dodge, parry, or entangle by either character.

These rules are also considering melee combat. I'm not sure if that applies to an attacker using ranged combat vs a melee defender.

Feel free to debate this, this is of course, my interpretation of the rules as written. I found it hard to believe that entangle was this uber game-breaking move, and after carefully considering the both the text as written and common sense, this is what seemed to be correct.

It specifies that it takes one attack per melee. Not one attack per attempt.

/Sub

Rystar wrote:You are under the assumption that the only person in this scenario with brains is the GB pilot. The SAMAS can Fly and flank, which a smart pilot would use to his advantage. The SAMAS if played correctly shouldn't take a lot of damage getting into range, since they have ample cover and two of them can fly.

I never said the Samas couldn't attempt to dodge (or even roll) and such, but in order for them to dodge by the rules there are conditions that have to be met. If the GB can control the engagement conditions he/she will seek to maximize their advantage and minimize their opponents, just like the Samas would.

Rystar wrote:The SAMs could essentially jam his communications also which they could then potentially sneak within range and even destroy the Boomgun before he gets an attack. Again though the scenario has then both knowing about each other 5 miles out so its a moot point anyway.

They know each other is there starting 5miles out, but they don't know the specifics. Both can move about. I think that jamming the 3 Samas communications will have more effect than jamming the 1 Glitter Boy's.

Rystar wrote:Talk about stacking the deck in favor of the GB, if you use those rules (which are house at best) of course the GB has a much larger advantage. Saying the GB does not fall into this rule is again just stacking it in favor of the GB. Either they both are knocked down from 50 MD or neither are. If they both are then the SAMs chances actually get better as their Railguns combined with the amount of attacks they have per round would have the GB on his back much more then he would have them on their backs.

These aren't house rules. They full discription can be found on pg355-356 of RUE as they apply to body armor and man-size power armor. In the past the GB has been described as being in a gray area between Robot Vehicle and Power Armor due to its size. If it falls into a gray area, would normally applicable rules to power armor apply? The GB does have an RPC, where the Samas and most power armor do not, indicating that impact damages might not apply.

The 50MD rule is by the book and per attack. Something the Samas railgun can not do except on a critical and rolling high for damage. Statistically unlikely on any given attack from a Samas, but more likely with a GB as it doesn't need a critical and can do it with a low damage roll.

The Impact Rule damage is also mentioned, but would be one of those rules interpretation things if they apply to railgun attacks. The rounds are basically crashing into the target. By those same rules the GB pilot would take 1SDC/HP per 20MD from missiles. That's a maximum of 3 per missile (or 18 hardly enough to worry about when compared to the 31+d4 from the GB's Boomgun).

Since Railguns in general lack velocity figures, compare their damage to the Boomgun's? That's 22% of the Boomgun for the Samas. So what ever the final GB figure is, take 22% of it, which would be pretty close to the 31d4? That's if the RPC doesn't prevent the damage from bleeding through.

Subjugator wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:You haven't calculated both the auto-hit and near-assured critical that will occur against the SAMAS within three rounds.

There is no auto-hit. They will be on the ground behind cover before they are in range of the Boom Gun.

So now these SAMAS are constantly in cover, all the way up until they get into melee with the Glitterboy?

Subjugator wrote:

You also haven't calculated in that the first shot will likely be a called shot, thus disabling two SAMAS.

You've ignored the use of cover...again.

So now these SAMAS are constantly in cover, all the way up until they get into melee with the Glitterboy?

Subjugator wrote:

Finally, you haven't calculated in what happens when they finally get to melee and the first attack that happens against a SAMAS is a simultaineous strike when he attempts to entangle (which takes effect, regardless of the results of the entangle).

OK - there's one thing I've ignored. Damage to a SAM...from one shot. I'll grant 105 damage.

Where there's one...

Subjugator wrote:

Lastly, you have shown that your calculations were for a 3-SAMAS doggy-pile, which is shown to be impossible. And I have now read the thread.

You have NEVER shown it to be impossible.

I did when I said, "and the Glitterboy can simply kite the ground-bound one". They move at the same speed, and this one is the first to be eliminated. If it's getting eliminated by shooting, then it cannot be involved in a three-person doggy-pile.

Subjugator wrote:

So now the ground-based SAMAS is constantly jumping?

When DODGING he is jumping, yes. Are you really incapable of addressing the points as they are made, and not as you wish they had been made? You like to use straw man arguments a lot. It's generally reflective of a weak argument.

Maybe you should actually read the rule. When flying or leaping. Not, "after getting shot, I decide to leap into the air to glean a +5 to my dodge bonus".
No, that does not happen. I would have to shoot you mid-leap in order for you to gain that bonus.

Subjugator wrote:

Just as some of those attacks will be misses, some of those dodges will be failures.
This is something else you didn't calculate.

Yes, but the vast majority of the attacks will not hit.

"Yes, but" is an excuse for "I did not calculate that I can still actually be hit".

Subjugator wrote:The one when they are closing for combat stands a VERY good chance of hitting, but other than that, not so much.

So when I unload 8 close-range shots, where do your chances go?

Subjugator wrote:

So the Glitterboy will be concerned for his 175 MDC boomgun around 30 called 1d6MD max-damage attacks from now.

Don't forget the damage done to it by the mini-missiles.

I didn't. The damage is zero.

And don't both to bring up "well you don't have area damage hurt limbs and such?!" because if that's what we're doing, the Glitterboy will just wait until all three are close enough and then drop his two (plasma) grenades, eliminating all the MDC from the hands of the SAMAS suits and killing all three instantly.
This "hand" location is found in the same place as your thermo-vision; the CWC.

Subjugator wrote:

PA is not a vehicle, robot or otherwise. It simply does not qualify for immunity.

Then why is it consistently listed under vehicles provided?

It's not. Check your CWC; it lists it as a PA, and then goes on to list actual robot vehicles, and then actual vehicles.

Subjugator wrote:"Choice of a conventional military vehicle ... for daily use and a SAMAS for field use only."

That's under the OCC. That means that they get a jeep/humvee AND a SAMAS. The SAMAS is only issued though for field use, not going to the store or running around the base.

Again, another calculation error on your part.

Subjugator wrote:

So now you're giving the advantage to completely even odds in melee combat? No wait, it says here that you need a natural 18, 19, or 20 (15% chance) in order to pin/incapacitate the target, which means that the boomgun is unlikely to be tied up any time soon.

Page numbers? Because HOLDS (not 'pin/incapacitate') do not reflect that.

I was looking at wresting. Actual holds only work 50% of the time.
That is, you attempt to hold (roll to strike) and I simultaineous strike you.
Then on my action I roll my even chances (as neither of us have a PP bonus) and break the hold. Two actions from now I break the hold. Then what? You attempt to hold again?
And get shot again?

Subjugator wrote:

So now 2d6MD and a 30% chance to be knocked over (reduced to zero thanks to the pitons) are enough to bend a Glitterboy at the knees?

Wrong.

11D6 and a 60% chance to be knocked over (if he takes to the air for the ram attack and hits at full speed as per RUE pg 346 and 352 (the 60% is confirmed by 352)). There are no rules saying that the pitons prevent being knocked over, so that's a house rule...at best.

Read the whole entry. Any target bigger than the attacker cuts the attackers' chance to be knocked over by half (30%).
And I would like to point out that if the force of the boomgun is capable of flinging the Glitterboy 30 feet every time the pilons are not engaged, I'm willing to bet that they can stop a hit that only has a small percentage to move the Glitterboy.

Subjugator wrote:

Yep, you're right. a 60% chance to hit with no chance of a SAMAS dodging sounds pretty good to me.

Let's see...an 8 or better is required to strike in ranged combat.

Target number: 8

Wait! It's -1 because the target is moving!

Target number: 9

Wait! It's -1 because the target is evading!

What are you evading? You can't even see the target to evade it. And besides this, who says I have to always hit the moving target?

Subjugator wrote:Target number: 10

Wait! It's -10 because the target cannot be seen!

I can see you though. Stink-lines, remember?

Subjugator wrote:Target number 20.

That's a big red pile of bad math.

Subjugator wrote:Can you see it this time? Can you address the actual number needed to hit and see that it's nowhere NEAR 60%?! It's closer to 15% when one includes the bonuses, and that does NOT include the ability to dodge on the part of the SAMAS.

I only see a "I didn't consider this" error on your part.

Subjugator wrote:

So now the Glitterboy has increased time to shoot and kill these constantly jumping, foot-slogging (flying) PAs while they don't shoot back.

You really should re-think your position.

At -12 to strike each time.

Again, you assume too much and only make big red-glaring errors.

Subjugator wrote:

The only evidence of non-consideration has been on your part.

...and you ignoring the minuses to hit on the part of the GB
...and you ignoring that thermo imaging exists on the SAMAS (as had been stated before)

Yes, you're right that I didn't credit the SAMAS with having thermo-vision, as I only looked at my R:UE and not my CWC because I thought my CWC wasn't a revised edition. But it's on the fifth printing.

Subjugator wrote:...and you ignoring that dodges are valuable to the SAMAS, making the GB's already low probability of hitting even lower.

I never ignored this, and your very sentence is wrong. The Glitterboy has a high probability of hitting; just when the SAMAS dodges, it can have a high precentage of evading the hit. Note the word in italics; this is what you're banking off of. Can. Not always or will, but can. Note that the Glitterboy can get undodgeable attacks against stationary SAMAS, but I'm not including such fantasy on part of my half of the debate. Beyond what's reasonable anyways.

Subjugator wrote:

You have flying PAs moving in on foot because that is what you would do.

Because it is the most sensible thing to do.

The sensible thing to do is bug-out with your downed comrade.

Subjugator wrote:

You have flying, combat PAs who do not specialize in melee not shooting, and moving in to basically "box" and wrestle a PA that's three feet bigger and can't be knocked down.
You have flying, combat, non-specialized* PAs moving in on a known killing machine they are very hard-pressed to duke it out with.

BECAUSE THAT IS THE MOST SENSIBLE THING TO DO.

Why? Is there some all-consuming order that prevents what's actually sensible here?

Subjugator wrote:If you were shooting the big bad monster with your gun and it did nothing, but you found that throwing daisies at it made it scream, you'd throw daisies. Similarly, these PAs would use what would best work - melee with the GB beating its Boom Gun to slag.

As I've pointed out, you require over 30 max-damage punches to destroy it. Good luck.

Subjugator wrote:

*(because the very government that developed them also developed a GB-Killer specialized PA that they send out in threes because that is what is required to even consider a victory against a Glitterboy).

I didn't create the scenario. I just found the best tactics for the SAMs to use within this scenario. They also send the GB-Killer out in PAIRS...not in threes. Read the books before you start talking trash about how I don't know them or you'll look like a complete imbecile.

You're right, my bad. It plans to do pairs.
But that aside, I only suggested that you read the entries of the things you quote, as thus far you've proven to be rather in-accurate. This post I'm quoting you on alone has near a 1/2 dozen.
And as far as making myself look like an imbecile, I atleast admit when I'm wrong or put my foot in my mouth. That would make my atleast an imbecile with character.

Subjugator wrote:

I'm not ignoring anything. When the Glitterboy fires it's always stationary, and he only needs to keep them in the 50-foot range to negate that +5 bonus.

Then he's not kiting when he's shooting, is he?

He can do both, and what's great about the Glitterboy is that the pilons make him stationary when he shoots, so regardless of movement on his behalf, he's always stationary when firing.

Subjugator wrote:

See above why this doesn't happen.

You've *NEVER* described why it cannot happen.

I have.

Subjugator wrote:You've stated why you wish certain things cannot happen, but with ONE exception (the simul attack when they were going in for the hold) you've NEVER given rules for why your position stands.

Perhaps it's because I've assumed you've read them (the rules) and have interpreted them correctly. Perhaps I've assumed too much. My bad.

Subjugator wrote:You've ignored the numbers every time you've posted as well.

I've ignored no relevant numbers.

Subjugator wrote:

Again, you haven't factored in that you can actually fail a dodge-roll, or even that atleast once per round you don't get one.

You *CAN* fail a dodge roll, but they will only require a dodge roll on 3 out of 20 attacks made by the GB. They will then succeed on their dodge roll approximately 5 out of 20 attempts. That gives them VERY good odds.

Again, your fantasy takes hold. Please re-read the part of their massive dodge-bonus requiring them to be either in-flight or mid-leap. You have them doing neither.

Subjugator wrote:

Kiting is the best method for the Glitterboy to fight anything. Nothing in the game matches the range*, the damage*, or the accuracy* of the boomgun.

OH! So he's been trained, but they have not. Is that because their having been trained is inconvenient for you?

Trained to partake in a general fight? Yes. Specialty-trained to fight something they have another type of PA to specialty-fight? No.

Subjugator wrote:

You forgot to add "...once they've achieved a natural 18, 19, or 20 to properly grapple it, during which there is no penalty for the Glitterboy".

You've not cited a rule that reflects that, and we're talking 'holds' not that to which you are referring. See, HOLDS have different rules that do not mention what you have.

I was looking at the wrestling rules because you mentioned the word "pin".

Subjugator wrote:

Danger wrote:Some clarification of the Entangling rules:

What the book says: R:UE pg. 345 does state that It takes 1 attack and a roll to entangle to keep an opponent's arm or weapon entangled every melee round.

What it means: The character initiating the entangle does not have to spend additional attacks per round to maintain an entangle. Once established, unless the entangled character can break free, the entangle continues until the next round.

What the book says: R:UE pg. 345 states In order to get free, the engangled opponent must roll a dodge against the entangle roll.

What it means: The entangled character can break free from the entangle during the round. If his dodge roll equals or exceeds the entangle target number, he breaks free. Logically, if a character can dodge more than once in a round (i.e. has more than one action) then they can attempt to break free at the cost of one action per attempt. The advantage here is, again, that the character initiating the entangle needs to spend no additional actions during this time, and can continue the combat with his remaining actions.

Also keep in mind that an entangle attempt is a defensive action, and costs the character an action per attempt, successful or not, just like dodge. A simultaneous attack negates any chance of dodge, parry, or entangle by either character.

These rules are also considering melee combat. I'm not sure if that applies to an attacker using ranged combat vs a melee defender.

Feel free to debate this, this is of course, my interpretation of the rules as written. I found it hard to believe that entangle was this uber game-breaking move, and after carefully considering the both the text as written and common sense, this is what seemed to be correct.

It specifies that it takes one attack per melee. Not one attack per attempt.

/Sub

Wrong. If you attempt an entangle and fail, you have used an attack per melee (just like dodge) - R:UE pg. 340. Therefore it is one attack per entangle attempt, successful or not. You do not get unlimited chances to entangle multiple incoming attacks by spending 1 attack per round.

Dog_O_War wrote:So now these SAMAS are constantly in cover, all the way up until they get into melee with the Glitterboy?

I've been saying that for pages now.

So now these SAMAS are constantly in cover, all the way up until they get into melee with the Glitterboy?

It's not "now" they are. I've said they are moving in under cover for a long time now. You've been busy ignoring me and not reading what I've been saying.

Where there's one...

Yeah. You've ignored a TON of things.

I did when I said, "and the Glitterboy can simply kite the ground-bound one". They move at the same speed, and this one is the first to be eliminated. If it's getting eliminated by shooting, then it cannot be involved in a three-person doggy-pile.

At that point, the others can take him by moving faster than he. He then falls down and the other one catches up.

Maybe you should actually read the rule. When flying or leaping. Not, "after getting shot, I decide to leap into the air to glean a +5 to my dodge bonus".

I am leaping to avoid being shot.

No, that does not happen. I would have to shoot you mid-leap in order for you to gain that bonus.

Yeah, that's what the rule says.

"Yes, but" is an excuse for "I did not calculate that I can still actually be hit".

I've calculated that I can be hit. You've been ignoring the insane penalties to hit from the beginning.

So when I unload 8 close-range shots, where do your chances go?

12.5% per attack. You *MIGHT* hit once per round.

I didn't. The damage is zero.

*shrug*

Assuming that you're correct, they'd make called shots. It'd still be approximately 105MD with three actual strikes.

It's not. Check your CWC; it lists it as a PA, and then goes on to list actual robot vehicles, and then actual vehicles.

Actually, when it lists vehicles under the equipment given to each person it lists it as a vehicle.

It's a vehicle.

That's under the OCC. That means that they get a jeep/humvee AND a SAMAS. The SAMAS is only issued though for field use, not going to the store or running around the base.

They get a Jeep/Humvee and a SAMAS...as a vehicle.

Again, another calculation error on your part.

How on earth is that an error in calculation? Need a dictionary?

I was looking at wresting. Actual holds only work 50% of the time.

What on earth gave you that idea?

That is, you attempt to hold (roll to strike) and I simultaineous strike you.
Then on my action I roll my even chances (as neither of us have a PP bonus) and break the hold. Two actions from now I break the hold. Then what? You attempt to hold again?
And get shot again?

Not at that range I don't. If I'm 18" from you and your Boom Gun is several feet long, it's not shooting me.

Read the whole entry. Any target bigger than the attacker cuts the attackers' chance to be knocked over by half (30%).

If they're twice as big. The GB is not twice as big as the SAMAS.

And I would like to point out that if the force of the boomgun is capable of flinging the Glitterboy 30 feet every time the pilons are not engaged, I'm willing to bet that they can stop a hit that only has a small percentage to move the Glitterboy.

The mass and velocity of a 300mph SAMAS is far greater than the mass and velocity of the Boom Gun round.

What are you evading? You can't even see the target to evade it. And besides this, who says I have to always hit the moving target?

Dodge and weave while moving. You don't have to aim for the moving target, but if you don't want to aim for the moving target, you can't shoot at the SAMs.

I can see you though. Stink-lines, remember?

That isn't seeing ME. That's seeing the heat signature around me. That's not me. The rules are explicit. If you want to openly ignore the rules now, that's fine...you've been doing it for a while now, but the rules say something. Those words have meaning. As written they say that if you cannot see your target (and it says nothing about seeing secondary effects of your target...also, you're operating under the assumption that the jets are in use and that is not stipulated).

That's a big red pile of bad math.

Where is the error in the math? That it's inconvenient for you does not make it incorrect. You have not ONCE shown the flaw in the calculations. What you've done is ignore the rules as they are written, ignore the scenario as presented, and insisted you're right simply because you want to be right with no information or rules to back up your assertion.

I only see a "I didn't consider this" error on your part.

I see. You're refusing to address a point that objectively proves you wrong because you don't want to feel bad because you *ARE* wrong.

Well too bad. You don't like it, go write your own rulebook for your own game, but you're wrong here. The rules as written are explicit. If you cannot see your target...not, "If you cannot see your target or its side effects"...but IF YOU CANNOT SEE YOUR TARGET...then you are at an additional -10 to strike.

You. Lose.

Again, you assume too much and only make big red-glaring errors.

You have not once addressed the FACT that the GB is at -10 to strike. Are you incapable of admitting you're wrong and actually addressing the rules as written?

Yes, you're right that I didn't credit the SAMAS with having thermo-vision, as I only looked at my R:UE and not my CWC because I thought my CWC wasn't a revised edition. But it's on the fifth printing.

...and you're ignoring the additional -10 to strike due to the SAMs being behind cover.

I never ignored this, and your very sentence is wrong. The Glitterboy has a high probability of hitting;

15% chance is not a "high probability of hitting".

just when the SAMAS dodges, it can have a high precentage of evading the hit. Note the word in italics; this is what you're banking off of. Can. Not always or will, but can.

I've never said it always will. I said it will dodge the hit more often than the GB will score a hit that requires a dodge attempt. That's what I've said...and I've said it more than once.

Note that the Glitterboy can get undodgeable attacks against stationary SAMAS, but I'm not including such fantasy on part of my half of the debate. Beyond what's reasonable anyways.

He gets a maximum of one, if he is not known to be present when he takes the first shot. Radar'd get him though.

The sensible thing to do is bug-out with your downed comrade.

Not one of the options presented in the scenario. If you HAVE to fight the GB, then my solution is best.

Why? Is there some all-consuming order that prevents what's actually sensible here?

Yes. The rules of the scenario. The author of the thread created a situation that must be resolved as described by the author. If you want to discuss something entirely different, go make your own thread about, "What do you do when faced with a difficult situation that, if faced will likely mean the death of one or more of your friends?"

As I've pointed out, you require over 30 max-damage punches to destroy it. Good luck.

Holding him down limits his ability to hurt them in return. Also, they can kick for more damage.

But that aside, I only suggested that you read the entries of the things you quote, as thus far you've proven to be rather in-accurate. This post I'm quoting you on alone has near a 1/2 dozen.

Name them and quote the pages and books that contradict what I've said. You keep referring to my errors, but so far as I can tell, they are only errors in your own house rules and nothing in the books. When you argue here, it's to the rules as written unless otherwise stated in the original posts. If it were not such, I could say, "In my world, SAMAS are 2,000 feet tall and immune to anything any GB can ever use against them, so they win by fiat."

And as far as making myself look like an imbecile, I atleast admit when I'm wrong or put my foot in my mouth. That would make my atleast an imbecile with character.

You've continued to ignore the rules that explicitly say you are wrong.

He can do both, and what's great about the Glitterboy is that the pilons make him stationary when he shoots, so regardless of movement on his behalf, he's always stationary when firing.

Yeah, that jerk to a halt isn't going to jar him, is it? At that point, he's still going to be firing wild because when he initiated the firing action, he was moving. You aim, then shoot...you don't shoot and then aim. Aiming is when the firing wild would be a problem.

I have.

Repeat it, and give page numbers and book names please for any future claim that something is or is not true. I have. Why can't you?

Perhaps it's because I've assumed you've read them (the rules) and have interpreted them correctly. Perhaps I've assumed too much. My bad.

Back up your assertion. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. You are making a claim...back it up. I've read the rules. I'm interpreting them far better than you are. You're pulling things out of your hat and calling it canonical without any evidence backing up your terribly weak claims.

I've ignored no relevant numbers.

The -10 is relevant. You cannot provide a single rule that says otherwise. I have provided a rule that establishes that it is relevant. Quod erat demonstrandum, you are proven wrong.

Again, your fantasy takes hold. Please re-read the part of their massive dodge-bonus requiring them to be either in-flight or mid-leap. You have them doing neither.

It doesn't say in mid leap. Show where the rule reflects otherwise and I'll be glad to accede to it. They can leap, and so long as leaping is a part of their dodge attempt, they're good. I'll admit that they have to know they're being shot at, but they're otherwise good.

Trained to partake in a general fight? Yes. Specialty-trained to fight something they have another type of PA to specialty-fight? No.

They're trained to fight ground pounding artillery. Oh...that's a GB. What, you think it's the only tank in North America?

I was looking at the wrestling rules because you mentioned the word "pin".

I also cited the page number and section that mentions holds...many times. It must be something else you've conveniently ignored.

It's amazing how much combat is in your favor when you ignore the rules that say otherwise.

Danger wrote:Wrong. If you attempt an entangle and fail, you have used an attack per melee (just like dodge) - R:UE pg. 340. Therefore it is one attack per entangle attempt, successful or not. You do not get unlimited chances to entangle multiple incoming attacks by spending 1 attack per round.

Unless you can provide errata to the contrary, the rules as written say it is one attack per melee.


/Sub

Subjugator wrote:

Danger wrote:Wrong. If you attempt an entangle and fail, you have used an attack per melee (just like dodge) - R:UE pg. 340. Therefore it is one attack per entangle attempt, successful or not. You do not get unlimited chances to entangle multiple incoming attacks by spending 1 attack per round.

Unless you can provide errata to the contrary, the rules as written say it is one attack per melee.


/Sub

I don't need to provide errata. I provided the actual rule and a page number, where it states dodging and entangling both cost an action.

Subjugator wrote:At that point, the others can take him by moving faster than he. He then falls down and the other one catches up.

Not that it matters. Remember that you did the math and that the Glitterboy can lift two?

Subjugator wrote:

Maybe you should actually read the rule. When flying or leaping. Not, "after getting shot, I decide to leap into the air to glean a +5 to my dodge bonus".

I am leaping to avoid being shot.

Back to this "constantly leaping" bit, are we?

Subjugator wrote:

No, that does not happen. I would have to shoot you mid-leap in order for you to gain that bonus.

Yeah, that's what the rule says.

It does. Maybe if your eyes weren't rolling around in your head you could see that.

Subjugator wrote:

"Yes, but" is an excuse for "I did not calculate that I can still actually be hit".

I've calculated that I can be hit. You've been ignoring the insane penalties to hit from the beginning.

If you had calculated it, then why the "yes, but"?

Subjugator wrote:

So when I unload 8 close-range shots, where do your chances go?

12.5% per attack. You *MIGHT* hit once per round.

So at what point are you not in-cover? That seems terribly stacked. Maybe the Glitterboy is sitting down a corridor (in-cover himself) and there is no cover for atleast 100 feet (nor room to dodge), and the SAMAS have to move single-file.

Seem fair?
See what you're trying to pull, and how it looks to the rest of us?

Subjugator wrote:

I didn't. The damage is zero.

*shrug*

Assuming that you're correct, they'd make called shots. It'd still be approximately 105MD with three actual strikes.

Can't. Missiles can't be used to make called shots.

Subjugator wrote:

It's not. Check your CWC; it lists it as a PA, and then goes on to list actual robot vehicles, and then actual vehicles.

Actually, when it lists vehicles under the equipment given to each person it lists it as a vehicle.

It's a vehicle.

Why are you trying to categorize a suit of PA as a vehicle? Even under other OCCs it'll slump in non-vehicle items simply because they have vehicular movement, like the Juicer and jetpacks.

But when the rules under "boomgun" state that suits of powered armour (which the SAMAS suit is) are affected by the deafening property, then regardless of whether or not another OCC says that it gets a SAMAS as a vehicle doesn't change the fact that it is still a suit of PA, and still affected as per this rule.

Subjugator wrote:

That's under the OCC. That means that they get a jeep/humvee AND a SAMAS. The SAMAS is only issued though for field use, not going to the store or running around the base.

They get a Jeep/Humvee and a SAMAS...as a vehicle.

This is willful ignorance on your part. Basically you've proven here to be unwilling to accept that you can in-fact be wrong.

Subjugator wrote:

Again, another calculation error on your part.

How on earth is that an error in calculation? Need a dictionary?

You factored in the immunity - which I've shown you twice that what you are calculating is non-existant. Which would be a calculation error.

Also, I see you've resorted to cheap-shots. That doesn't help you or your position.

Subjugator wrote:

That is, you attempt to hold (roll to strike) and I simultaineous strike you.
Then on my action I roll my even chances (as neither of us have a PP bonus) and break the hold. Two actions from now I break the hold. Then what? You attempt to hold again?
And get shot again?

Not at that range I don't. If I'm 18" from you and your Boom Gun is several feet long, it's not shooting me.

Book and page number please; I'd like to see where this "your gun is too long!" rule is.

Subjugator wrote:

Read the whole entry. Any target bigger than the attacker cuts the attackers' chance to be knocked over by half (30%).

If they're twice as big. The GB is not twice as big as the SAMAS.

Apparently you are the one in need of the dictionary. The Glitterboys' size is twice as big, thanks to a combination of dimention and weight. I mean really; you didn't think they tacked on nearly 900Lbs extra the Glitterboy has on the SAMAS into the two and a half feet and not increased its overall dimentions somewhat? Or rather, the point of the Glitterboy being twice as big?

Subjugator wrote:

And I would like to point out that if the force of the boomgun is capable of flinging the Glitterboy 30 feet every time the pilons are not engaged, I'm willing to bet that they can stop a hit that only has a small percentage to move the Glitterboy.

The mass and velocity of a 300mph SAMAS is far greater than the mass and velocity of the Boom Gun round.

I'd normally agree, but this is Rifts.

Subjugator wrote:

I can see you though. Stink-lines, remember?

That isn't seeing ME. That's seeing the heat signature around me.

*facepalm*
I know you're serious with this line, and that makes me feel sad.

Subjugator wrote:That's not me. The rules are explicit.

If I can see through cover, does it still count as being blind?
The Rules are explicit, and that would be a big "no" because I can still see you because of those stink-lines.

Subjugator wrote:If you want to openly ignore the rules now, that's fine...you've been doing it for a while now

Ask anyone here; "when I argue with the Dog, does he ignore the rules?"
That is answer enough to how many rules I'm ignoring.

Subjugator wrote:also, you're operating under the assumption that the jets are in use and that is not stipulated).

Actually, I'm operating under the assumption that they didn't run to chicago, and that it takes time for heat to dissipate. And that they flare up whenever a jet-assisted jump is occuring from these constantly-leaping, yet always in-cover SAMAS.

Subjugator wrote:

That's a big red pile of bad math.

Where is the error in the math? That it's inconvenient for you does not make it incorrect.

Sub, think about it. If your math was correct I'd agree with you. I always agree with the math in these arguements. But as far, you have several folks here that typically agree with math-outcomes disagreeing with you.
The errors are as I have been pointing out.

Subjugator wrote:You have not ONCE shown the flaw in the calculations.

I have, more than once. You assume, I do not. I do not assume that the SAMAS will be in constant cover; that is an error in your math right from the start.

Subjugator wrote:What you've done is ignore the rules as they are written, ignore the scenario as presented, and insisted you're right simply because you want to be right with no information or rules to back up your assertion.

The senario as presented does not list that it is possible for the SAMAS to be in constant cover, and even infers that not being able to fly is a hindrance. And yet, no one is flying, and you're assuming constant cover.
And you're also assuming that thermo-vision is still blind-firing.
And you're also assuming that the Glitterboy will only ever land two attacks before the SAMAS can close for melee.
And you're also assuming that your own rules interpretations are correct.

What I've done is show you how and where your assumptions are incorrect. And if you're just going to ask me where, then I suggest you re-read my posts and focus only on what I have written.

Subjugator wrote:

I only see a "I didn't consider this" error on your part.

I see. You're refusing to address a point that objectively proves you wrong because you don't want to feel bad because you *ARE* wrong.

When you consider what you've missed then I'll address the point objectively. Until then I stand by my statement.

Subjugator wrote:Well too bad. You don't like it, go write your own rulebook for your own game, but you're wrong here. The rules as written are explicit. If you cannot see your target...not, "If you cannot see your target or its side effects"...but IF YOU CANNOT SEE YOUR TARGET...then you are at an additional -10 to strike.

I can see you though. We've gone over this; thermo-vision allows for it.

Subjugator wrote:You. Lose.

If all you desired was a winning feeling, then say so. Don't sit there and act like a child with these petty statements. It shows a lack of character.

Subjugator wrote:

I never ignored this, and your very sentence is wrong. The Glitterboy has a high probability of hitting;

15% chance is not a "high probability of hitting".

It's 80% (or 70% if the target is both moving and being evasive).
90%/80% if I aim.

Subjugator wrote:

just when the SAMAS dodges, it can have a high precentage of evading the hit. Note the word in italics; this is what you're banking off of. Can. Not always or will, but can.

I've never said it always will. I said it will dodge the hit more often than the GB will score a hit that requires a dodge attempt. That's what I've said...and I've said it more than once.

I'm saying that the bonus to dodge that you're banking off of is lower, by about 3 points.

Subjugator wrote:

Note that the Glitterboy can get undodgeable attacks against stationary SAMAS, but I'm not including such fantasy on part of my half of the debate. Beyond what's reasonable anyways.

He gets a maximum of one, if he is not known to be present when he takes the first shot. Radar'd get him though.

The radar will get nothing. They are in ruins on the ground remember? If he shoots from a building, then the radar will only register the building because it's radar and not sonar.

Subjugator wrote:

As I've pointed out, you require over 30 max-damage punches to destroy it. Good luck.

Holding him down limits his ability to hurt them in return. Also, they can kick for more damage.

Good luck with that tactic.

Subjugator wrote:

But that aside, I only suggested that you read the entries of the things you quote, as thus far you've proven to be rather in-accurate. This post I'm quoting you on alone has near a 1/2 dozen.

Name them and quote the pages and books that contradict what I've said.

Full-speed ram; R:UE pg.352. Twice as big does not refer strictly to height.
Shooting Blind; R:UE pg.361. Does not specify that a heat-sig. location for a specific target is "not good enough".
Bonus to dodge when flying or leaping; R:UE pg.352. Note that "when" is a present term. If you've been shot, then you leap, that would be a leap after the fact.
Missiles hit the main body; R:UE pg.362.
The SAMAS is a Powered Armour; under section titled, "Power Armor"; CWC pg.105. The entry there is quite helpful indefining what is a suit of PA and what is a robot vehicle. Note that the section stops after the Special Forces SAMAS, and goes on to Skelebots, then Robot Vehicles.

That would be near 1/2 a dozen, as I said.

Subjugator wrote:

And as far as making myself look like an imbecile, I atleast admit when I'm wrong or put my foot in my mouth. That would make my atleast an imbecile with character.

You've continued to ignore the rules that explicitly say you are wrong.

Please point out these rules and tell me how you interpret them.

Subjugator wrote:

He can do both, and what's great about the Glitterboy is that the pilons make him stationary when he shoots, so regardless of movement on his behalf, he's always stationary when firing.

Yeah, that jerk to a halt isn't going to jar him, is it?

Do the rules say it does?

Subjugator wrote:At that point, he's still going to be firing wild because when he initiated the firing action, he was moving.

Actually it says the pilons fire before the shot occurs, there-by making it impossible to be moving when firing.

Subjugator wrote:You aim, then shoot...you don't shoot and then aim. Aiming is when the firing wild would be a problem.

When did I say that these were aimed shots?

Subjugator wrote:

I've ignored no relevant numbers.

The -10 is relevant.

Why would I shoot at something I can't see?
I'm only shooting at targets I know are there.

Subjugator wrote:

Again, your fantasy takes hold. Please re-read the part of their massive dodge-bonus requiring them to be either in-flight or mid-leap. You have them doing neither.

It doesn't say in mid leap.

That last bit on the leap, that "ing" kinda means it does.

Subjugator wrote:

Trained to partake in a general fight? Yes. Specialty-trained to fight something they have another type of PA to specialty-fight? No.

They're trained to fight ground pounding artillery. Oh...that's a GB. What, you think it's the only tank in North America?

The Coalition uses the old-style SAMAS for its police-force. How can you say that is what they are used for?

Subjugator wrote:It's amazing how much combat is in your favor when you ignore the rules that say otherwise.

I have a snappy comeback, but I'll leave the mud-slinging for other people.

Subjugator wrote:

Danger wrote:Wrong. If you attempt an entangle and fail, you have used an attack per melee (just like dodge) - R:UE pg. 340. Therefore it is one attack per entangle attempt, successful or not. You do not get unlimited chances to entangle multiple incoming attacks by spending 1 attack per round.

Unless you can provide errata to the contrary, the rules as written say it is one attack per melee.


/Sub

This Sub, is a cross-wire between the two of you. He is referring to the entangle defensive manuever, which you do only get one attempt per attack.
You are referring to the hold action, which prevents other actions besides "break-hold".

Danger wrote:I don't need to provide errata. I provided the actual rule and a page number, where it states dodging and entangling both cost an action.

You need to re-read the rule. It states explicitly that it uses one attack per round.

/Sub

Dog_O_War wrote:Not that it matters. Remember that you did the math and that the Glitterboy can lift two?

Actually, I did the math and he can lift one.

Back to this "constantly leaping" bit, are we?

SAMAS sees the GB aiming - he leaps. That's a leap dodge.

It does. Maybe if your eyes weren't rolling around in your head you could see that.

The rule says, +5 to dodge when flying or leaping. As one cannot control one's path when in mid leap, one must consider the words used and the context in which they are used. If one cannot or does not leap as a part of the dodge, then one has a lower bonus to dodge. If one can and does leap as a part of the dodge, then one gets a higher bonus to dodge.

If you had calculated it, then why the "yes, but"?

Because it is you that is ignoring the other information. I've stated that they CAN be hit more than once. Again you ignore my words.

So at what point are you not in-cover? That seems terribly stacked. Maybe the Glitterboy is sitting down a corridor (in-cover himself) and there is no cover for atleast 100 feet (nor room to dodge), and the SAMAS have to move single-file.

Then the SAMs don't approach and wait for him to come out.

See what you're trying to pull, and how it looks to the rest of us?

There's an answer to your proposal. He can try and wait it out, but either he's a 'traditional GB', in which case, it's his hiney when the SAMs call for backup, or he's a Quebecois GB, in which case, he has backup coming too. Then it's a wait to see who has the greatest backup.

Can't. Missiles can't be used to make called shots.

I'd forgotten that. Then yep, it'd be a whole lot of attacks to drop the Boom Gun. Like I said, time is on their side if they're keeping him held.

Why are you trying to categorize a suit of PA as a vehicle? Even under other OCCs it'll slump in non-vehicle items simply because they have vehicular movement, like the Juicer and jetpacks.

Maybe it's because the books classify them as vehicles. I know it's a radical assumption to operate under the idea that the books are a canonical source of the rules, but maybe it's me.

But when the rules under "boomgun" state that suits of powered armour (which the SAMAS suit is) are affected by the deafening property, then regardless of whether or not another OCC says that it gets a SAMAS as a vehicle doesn't change the fact that it is still a suit of PA, and still affected as per this rule.

Except when the rules specific to Coalition vehicles explicitly say they are sufficiently padded to be immune, that removes that as a penalty. Why do you like to ignore rules so?

This is willful ignorance on your part. Basically you've proven here to be unwilling to accept that you can in-fact be wrong.

You're right. Looking at the rules and checking to see exactly what they say is willful ignorance. It's not willful ignorance to do as YOU are doing, which is to ignore what the rules explicitly say.

You factored in the immunity - which I've shown you twice that what you are calculating is non-existant. Which would be a calculation error.

You've not 'shown' it to be non-existant. You've claimed it is and provided incorrect evidence to say so.

Also, I see you've resorted to cheap-shots. That doesn't help you or your position.

*shrug*

When you call a disagreement an 'error in calculation', I daresay you're reaching for rather weak arguments yourself.

Book and page number please; I'd like to see where this "your gun is too long!" rule is.

You tempt me to ask Kev for a clarification on this. I won't, but I find myself wishing to do so more than in any other argument. It also doesn't give rules to the effect that you cannot punch someone that is 500' away. Do you still roll strikes and let it happen on a natural 20? If the muzzle of the gun is physically beyond the target at which it would aim, there is no way it can hit it.

Apparently you are the one in need of the dictionary. The Glitterboys' size is twice as big, thanks to a combination of dimention and weight. I mean really; you didn't think they tacked on nearly 900Lbs extra the Glitterboy has on the SAMAS into the two and a half feet and not increased its overall dimentions somewhat? Or rather, the point of the Glitterboy being twice as big?

It doesn't say 'twice as massive', it says, 'twice as big'.

I'd normally agree, but this is Rifts.

Unfortunately for you, the velocity of a GB Boom Gun round can (and has) been calculated. A SAMAS' velocity has not, but that of a late model Chevy pickup has, and the Chevy beats it in velocity. Multiply the speed of the Chevy several times over and you've got even more velocity. Cut the weight of the Chevy by 2/3 and multiply its speed by five and it's got a LOT more velocity than the Boon Gun round.

*facepalm*
I know you're serious with this line, and that makes me feel sad.

Read the words that are written. Those words have meaning. That meaning is objective. You seeing a cloud of heat above me (which presumes that the jets remain hot) is not seeing me.

If I can see through cover, does it still count as being blind?
The Rules are explicit, and that would be a big "no" because I can still see you because of those stink-lines.

You can see ABOVE me. You are otherwise assuming that the cover is thin enough for you to see through.

Ask anyone here; "when I argue with the Dog, does he ignore the rules?"
That is answer enough to how many rules I'm ignoring.

It is evident in your answers.

Actually, I'm operating under the assumption that they didn't run to chicago, and that it takes time for heat to dissipate. And that they flare up whenever a jet-assisted jump is occuring from these constantly-leaping, yet always in-cover SAMAS.

Not IN cover...BEHIND cover. There is rubble in a city of skyscrapers that have been destroyed. Ever looked at the pictures of ground zero of the World Trade Centers? They were rough.

Sub, think about it. If your math was correct I'd agree with you. I always agree with the math in these arguements. But as far, you have several folks here that typically agree with math-outcomes disagreeing with you.
The errors are as I have been pointing out.

SHOW ME THE MATH. BE SPECIFIC. THAT IS ALL I AM OR HAVE ASKED FOR.

You have on what...maybe three occasions...provided a rule for something you believe. You seem to think that thermo imaging can see through infinitely thick levels of cover and are then immediately writing off any other arguments to the contrary, and are only...again, maybe three times...providing a rule to back up your assertions.

I have, more than once. You assume, I do not. I do not assume that the SAMAS will be in constant cover; that is an error in your math right from the start.

How do you define 'ample' cover? Again, time is on their side. They have greater speed and mobility than the GB. It gives them more opportunity to move in as they see fit on their own time.

The senario as presented does not list that it is possible for the SAMAS to be in constant cover, and even infers that not being able to fly is a hindrance. And yet, no one is flying, and you're assuming constant cover.

Ample cover combined with greater mobility allows for better manipulation of the environment on the part of the SAMs.

And you're also assuming that thermo-vision is still blind-firing.

I'm assuming that if you cannot see your actual target (and not simply the 'stink lines' rising above it), that the -10 to strike applies...particularly when the rules explicitly say that this is the case.

And you're also assuming that the Glitterboy will only ever land two attacks before the SAMAS can close for melee.

He *might* land more than two, but it's not likely. As such, he is statistically unlikely to win the fight. It's not that he cannot. It's that he's not likely to.

And you're also assuming that your own rules interpretations are correct.

All I am doing is reading the rules exactly as they are written and applying them. Again, words have objective meanings. So do sentences. When there is a possibility to read a word more than one way, one must read the rule in the context in which it was written. For example, you seem to be operating under the belief that one must be in mid-leap at the time a shot takes place for the additional dodge bonus to apply. I submit that one sees another aiming at them and leaps as a part of the dodge, thereby resulting in greater bonus for the dodge to work as a result of the greater mobility provided by the leap.

What I've done is show you how and where your assumptions are incorrect. And if you're just going to ask me where, then I suggest you re-read my posts and focus only on what I have written.

I have focused on what you have written. With rare exceptions, what you've done is repeatedly tell me that I am wrong without substantiating what makes me wrong. You claim that one must be in mid-leap for the additional bonus to dodge to apply, despite that flying in the face of reason (and being inconsistent with the context in which the statement is written). You claim that thermo imaging can (apparently) virtually always see all the way through cover, despite the fact that there is no rule saying so and that it doesn't function that way in real life. You claim that the Glitter Boy cannot be knocked down when its pylons are in the ground, despite the absence of evidence to support that in the way of rules.

When you consider what you've missed then I'll address the point objectively. Until then I stand by my statement.

For one, you have only now substantiated what you are assuming I'm missing. You've provided no rules to that effect, but have at least substantiated what you believe is incorrect. I've established why I think your beliefs are incorrect. I've substantiated why I think your beliefs are incorrect, citing the exact wording of the rules as my basis for that thought. What do you think overrides the exact wording of the rules?

I can see you though. We've gone over this; thermo-vision allows for it.

It does not grant you the ability to see through 15' thick of collapsed building. Inside a standard house, sure...through piles of rubble and destroyed buildings, not so much.

If all you desired was a winning feeling, then say so. Don't sit there and act like a child with these petty statements. It shows a lack of character.

What shows a lack of character is ignoring the statements of others, ignoring the rules, and not substantiating your points while expecting others to do so for you. If you think the rules say something other than what I've said, cite the page number and rule that says otherwise.

It's 80% (or 70% if the target is both moving and being evasive).
90%/80% if I aim.

It's 15% for a standard shot. He's at -12. He cannot see through a collapsed building using thermo imaging. Views through 6" thick drywall walls are fine. Views through 15' thick of concrete, rebar, I beams, and dryall are not.

I'm saying that the bonus to dodge that you're banking off of is lower, by about 3 points.

You've never provided rules substantiating how this is so.

The radar will get nothing. They are in ruins on the ground remember? If he shoots from a building, then the radar will only register the building because it's radar and not sonar.

His comparative density is far greater than that of the building. Following your logic, they are all three just as likely to get an undodgeable shot at him as he is of them. PARTICULARLY since it is chrome and stands out like a sore thumb.

Good luck with that tactic.

It seems to work pretty well when you follow the rules.

Full-speed ram; R:UE pg.352. Twice as big does not refer strictly to height.

Probably not - dimensions as well. Twice as big though? Not so much.

[url=http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS333US333&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:+big]Define: big on google.com[/quote] wrote:large: above average in size or number or quantity or magnitude or extent

Shooting Blind; R:UE pg.361. Does not specify that a heat-sig. location for a specific target is "not good enough".

You're right. It also doesn't say that being told where the person is even when you cannot see them is "not good enough" either. You're adding to it. Again, we are arguing the RULES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. It says that if you cannot see it, it's not enough. You're talking about 'stink lines', which rise from their source. That'd put them ABOVE the target. Thusly, you'd not SEE THE TARGET. Thusly, you'd get an additional -10 to strike.

Bonus to dodge when flying or leaping; R:UE pg.352. Note that "when" is a present term. If you've been shot, then you leap, that would be a leap after the fact.

You're assuming that the dodge occurs after someone's been hit. It occurs BEFORE someone's been hit. They leap as a part of the dodge.

Missiles hit the main body; R:UE pg.362.

Stipulated.

The SAMAS is a Powered Armour; under section titled, "Power Armor"; CWC pg.105. The entry there is quite helpful indefining what is a suit of PA and what is a robot vehicle. Note that the section stops after the Special Forces SAMAS, and goes on to Skelebots, then Robot Vehicles.

It is also described as a vehicle. Repeatedly. It can be Power Armor AND a vehicle.

A Dodge Grand Caravan is a van. It is also a vehicle. It is also a car.

Funny how that works.

That would be near 1/2 a dozen, as I said.

...and they've been largely refuted.

Please point out these rules and tell me how you interpret them.

I have.

Repeatedly.

Do the rules say it does?

Nope. He does aim and then shoot though, and if he aims and pulls the trigger *BEFORE* the pylons are down, he's firing while moving.

Actually it says the pilons fire before the shot occurs, there-by making it impossible to be moving when firing.

The aiming and pulling of the trigger will occur before the pylons fire. He is firing wild.

When did I say that these were aimed shots?

I'm describing the actions of shooting a gun. I am not calling them aimed shots in the scope of the rules. If he is not aiming in the classic sense though, it's clearly a wild shot. He has to move the gun in the general direction of the target, designating the target and pulling the trigger. That all happens BEFORE the pylons fire. It is a wild shot.

Why would I shoot at something I can't see?
I'm only shooting at targets I know are there.

You know they're there - they just cannot be seen directly. Hell, I'll grant that they're on radar - they're just not seen.

That last bit on the leap, that "ing" kinda means it does.

Leaping being the act of dodging, not leaping and then deciding to dodge while having leapt. Are you honestly suggesting that someone can decide to dodge while in mid leap?

The Coalition uses the old-style SAMAS for its police-force. How can you say that is what they are used for?

They are being used militarily. Thusly, they've trained.

This Sub, is a cross-wire between the two of you. He is referring to the entangle defensive manuever, which you do only get one attempt per attack.
You are referring to the hold action, which prevents other actions besides "break-hold".

Actually, in this case, I'm referring to the entangle defensive maneuver. As written, it explicitly says one per round.

/Sub

By the way: read the description of 'Thermal-Imager' (RUE pg 264 and 265). It does not mention allowing one to see through walls. It says one can see in darkness, shadows, and through smoke. NOTHING about walls.

It does say that it converts the infrared radiation of warm objects into a visible image, but again, the rules as written do not say that it will see through walls. I mention this part though because even if this were to work, the infrared radiation would have to actually pass through the obscuring object. In the case of rubble from a destroyed building, that is unlikely.

The -10 to strike stands.

/Sub

Subjugator wrote:

Danger wrote:I don't need to provide errata. I provided the actual rule and a page number, where it states dodging and entangling both cost an action.

You need to re-read the rule. It states explicitly that it uses one attack per round.

/Sub

You are kidding, right? Did you even read the page I provided?

Page 340 of the R:UE says 'Defending by dodging or entangling means automatically giving up the next melee attack.' I don't see how you can continue to dispute this fact. That is how the system works.

Under the definition of Entangle, it also says 'This is done instead of parrying or dodging, and takes up one attack per melee.' The definition of Dodge also states 'Dodging always takes up one attack/action per melee round.'

As previously stated, each attempt to entangle costs an action.

And actually, now that I read this again, it states it takes [one attack] and [a roll to entangle] to keep an opponent's arm or weapon entangled every melee round. Thus, it actually does cost the entangling character actions to maintain the entangle. To avoid being entangled (again) the other character must dodge, which of course costs him an action. That makes it even more balanced than what I first thought.

Thanks for pointing that out for me.

Subjugator wrote:By the way: read the description of 'Thermal-Imager' (RUE pg 264 and 265). It does not mention allowing one to see through walls. It says one can see in darkness, shadows, and through smoke. NOTHING about walls.

It does say that it converts the infrared radiation of warm objects into a visible image, but again, the rules as written do not say that it will see through walls. I mention this part though because even if this were to work, the infrared radiation would have to actually pass through the obscuring object. In the case of rubble from a destroyed building, that is unlikely.

The -10 to strike stands.

/Sub

as i understand it, thermal actually even has a hard time seeing through *glass*.

in general, thermal is terrible for seeing through objects, as i understand it; in order for someone to see you with thermal through a wall, your body has to be close enough to the wall for long enough to heat that wall above the ambient temperature. likewise, if you're seeing someone's exhaust trail rising, that's not even really going to be directly above the person... especially if they're moving at 60 mph.

Subjugator wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Not that it matters. Remember that you did the math and that the Glitterboy can lift two?

Actually, I did the math and he can lift one.

Right. With pilot and gun it ends up as one.

Subjugator wrote:

Back to this "constantly leaping" bit, are we?

SAMAS sees the GB aiming - he leaps. That's a leap dodge.

No aimed shots, remember? I want the full 8 attacks per round.

Subjugator wrote:

It does. Maybe if your eyes weren't rolling around in your head you could see that.

The rule says, +5 to dodge when flying or leaping. As one cannot control one's path when in mid leap

They can.

Subjugator wrote:, one must consider the words used and the context in which they are used.

FIREBALL!
That is, the context pretains to a game with many fantasy/physics-bending elements. In this game you can control where you leap.

Subjugator wrote:If one cannot or does not leap as a part of the dodge, then one has a lower bonus to dodge.

Wrong.
The rules and the English language disagree with you. The context is that as it is written. When leaping is as clear as glass recently cleaned with windex on a nice day. The rule does not state that you may leap to gain the bonus; it states that while leaping you get the bonus.

Subjugator wrote:

If you had calculated it, then why the "yes, but"?

Because it is you that is ignoring the other information.

So who ignored what first? I responded to your information, and you ignored the rules in the first place. If you hadn't ignored the rules in the first place, then I would have given a different response.

Correct your statement and I'll pay attention to what you say.

Subjugator wrote:I've stated that they CAN be hit more than once. Again you ignore my words.

And what happens when that event occurs?

Subjugator wrote:

So at what point are you not in-cover? That seems terribly stacked. Maybe the Glitterboy is sitting down a corridor (in-cover himself) and there is no cover for atleast 100 feet (nor room to dodge), and the SAMAS have to move single-file.

Then the SAMs don't approach and wait for him to come out.

Meanwhile I'll just sit back and shoot away. I'll take that 15% chance to hit then 'cause apparently I have all day and no fear of melee.

Subjugator wrote:

See what you're trying to pull, and how it looks to the rest of us?

There's an answer to your proposal. He can try and wait it out, but either he's a 'traditional GB', in which case, it's his hiney when the SAMs call for backup, or he's a Quebecois GB, in which case, he has backup coming too. Then it's a wait to see who has the greatest backup.

You're missing the point.

Subjugator wrote:

Can't. Missiles can't be used to make called shots.

I'd forgotten that. Then yep, it'd be a whole lot of attacks to drop the Boom Gun. Like I said, time is on their side if they're keeping him held.

And where there's one...*

Subjugator wrote:

Why are you trying to categorize a suit of PA as a vehicle? Even under other OCCs it'll slump in non-vehicle items simply because they have vehicular movement, like the Juicer and jetpacks.

Maybe it's because the books classify them as vehicles. I know it's a radical assumption to operate under the idea that the books are a canonical source of the rules, but maybe it's me.

It only matters that the Boomgun rules circle suits of PA out. And you'll need to provide a book and page number that state that "unlike regular powered armour, SAMAS suits count as vehicles".

Subjugator wrote:Except when the rules specific to Coalition vehicles explicitly say they are sufficiently padded to be immune, that removes that as a penalty. Why do you like to ignore rules so?

The rules are not specific to CS vehicles, and if they are, please point out this rule that cites CS vehicles as an exception to the rule.

Subjugator wrote:You're right. Looking at the rules and checking to see exactly what they say is willful ignorance. It's not willful ignorance to do as YOU are doing, which is to ignore what the rules explicitly say.

Sub, I gave you book and page numbers, and all you've done is say that I am wrong. You haven't quoted the text in an attempt to explain or anything. That is willful ignorance on your part. I've taken the time to look at your book and page references and have made one of two calls; either you're right and I agree, or I say you're wrong and give a reason why.
You aren't giving reasons, that's called being unreasonable.

Subjugator wrote:

You factored in the immunity - which I've shown you twice that what you are calculating is non-existant. Which would be a calculation error.

You've not 'shown' it to be non-existant. You've claimed it is and provided incorrect evidence to say so.

Book and page numbers are about as correct as it gets here. It exists, and I showed it to you.

Subjugator wrote:

Also, I see you've resorted to cheap-shots. That doesn't help you or your position.

*shrug*

When you call a disagreement an 'error in calculation', I daresay you're reaching for rather weak arguments yourself.

I'm only using a fancy term for "you're wrong, and here's why" when I say that. It's not weak, it's being polite.

Subjugator wrote:

Book and page number please; I'd like to see where this "your gun is too long!" rule is.

You tempt me to ask Kev for a clarification on this. I won't, but I find myself wishing to do so more than in any other argument. It also doesn't give rules to the effect that you cannot punch someone that is 500' away.

You can punch someone from 500ft away as long as your arm has that kind of range.

Subjugator wrote:Do you still roll strikes and let it happen on a natural 20?

Irrelivant.
What I do and what the rules say happens are two completely different subjects. Stay on topic.

Subjugator wrote:If the muzzle of the gun is physically beyond the target at which it would aim, there is no way it can hit it.

And there's no position possible to manuever to get a shot?

Subjugator wrote:

Apparently you are the one in need of the dictionary. The Glitterboys' size is twice as big, thanks to a combination of dimention and weight. I mean really; you didn't think they tacked on nearly 900Lbs extra the Glitterboy has on the SAMAS into the two and a half feet and not increased its overall dimentions somewhat? Or rather, the point of the Glitterboy being twice as big?

It doesn't say 'twice as massive', it says, 'twice as big'.

Read the dictionary; look up "big".

online dictionary wrote:large, as in size, height, width, or amount: a big house; a big quantity.

By my accounts the Glitterboy is twice as big. I mean in weight alone he's nearly 4 times that of the SAMAS, which qualifies the Glitterboy via quantity alone.

Subjugator wrote:

I'd normally agree, but this is Rifts.

Unfortunately for you, the velocity of a GB Boom Gun round can (and has) been calculated. A SAMAS' velocity has not, but that of a late model Chevy pickup has, and the Chevy beats it in velocity. Multiply the speed of the Chevy several times over and you've got even more velocity. Cut the weight of the Chevy by 2/3 and multiply its speed by five and it's got a LOT more velocity than the Boon Gun round.

FIREBALL!
You're bringing real-world physics into a fantasy game.
Besides that, you show me the calculation that states the boomgun has X force to throw a Glitterboy 30 feet, and then the amount of force an object weighing in at around 750lbs. (the SAMAS with gun and pilot) has X force, and then reduce that force by 70% (the chance to knock down an object twice as big), and if that exceeds the force of the boomgun then you have credit.

Don't bring in a chevy and tell me it's comparible. I mean for one that's 4 points of traction versus 1, for two the very shape of the objects alters the amount of force provided.
Basically, if you're going to go real-world, do it properly.
Don't do half the work and expect to be congradulated on a job well done.

Subjugator wrote:

*facepalm*
I know you're serious with this line, and that makes me feel sad.

Read the words that are written. Those words have meaning. That meaning is objective. You seeing a cloud of heat above me (which presumes that the jets remain hot) is not seeing me.

That doesn't change the fact that I know where you are without fail. I don't call that being blind.

If I can see through cover, does it still count as being blind?
The Rules are explicit, and that would be a big "no" because I can still see you because of those stink-lines.

You can see ABOVE me.

Yes, I can. I can also see to the left and right of you as well.

Subjugator wrote:You are otherwise assuming that the cover is thin enough for you to see through.

I assumed nothing. Quote me where I said "I can see you because the cover is thin enough to see through".

Subjugator wrote:

Ask anyone here; "when I argue with the Dog, does he ignore the rules?"
That is answer enough to how many rules I'm ignoring.

It is evident in your answers.

Thanks sub, finally a bit of honesty on your part here. Even if you did mean for it to be sarcastic. I have that problem too; italics help.

Subjugator wrote:

Actually, I'm operating under the assumption that they didn't run to chicago, and that it takes time for heat to dissipate. And that they flare up whenever a jet-assisted jump is occuring from these constantly-leaping, yet always in-cover SAMAS.

Not IN cover...BEHIND cover.

The effect isn't the same. Either you're in-cover, in which case you get the cover bonus, or your not. Which is it?

Subjugator wrote:

Sub, think about it. If your math was correct I'd agree with you. I always agree with the math in these arguements. But as far, you have several folks here that typically agree with math-outcomes disagreeing with you.
The errors are as I have been pointing out.

SHOW ME THE MATH. BE SPECIFIC. THAT IS ALL I AM OR HAVE ASKED FOR.

I have sub, whenever I point out your rules-mistakes; those are math/calculation errors. If those are wrong then your assessment is wrong about the situation, making your position on the outcome invariably wrong.

Subjugator wrote:You have on what...maybe three occasions...provided a rule for something you believe.

Atleast 5. You've quoted the post I listed those 5 in.

Subjugator wrote:You seem to think that thermo imaging can see through infinitely thick levels of cover

What I think and what I wrote are two different things sub. Please stay on-topic.

Subjugator wrote:and are then immediately writing off any other arguments to the contrary, and are only...again, maybe three times...providing a rule to back up your assertions.

Was I right on those "maybe three" times?
If I was right on those, and you were wrong - maybe there is a chance things don't work the way you think they do?
I mean after all, I did say I considered everything, and then you said "no you don't", and then attempted to point out what I never considered, only to find out that I did consider such a thing and that your interpretations where otherwise misguided. And you've since atleast admitted to "maybe three" such instances.
Maybe more?

Subjugator wrote:

I have, more than once. You assume, I do not. I do not assume that the SAMAS will be in constant cover; that is an error in your math right from the start.

How do you define 'ample' cover? Again, time is on their side.

Is it? As far as I could tell the senario had no time limit, nor did it say that back-up for either side would arrive. The Glitterboy has both food, water, and a large oxygen supply.
The SAMAS don't have any of these things.

Subjugator wrote:They have greater speed and mobility than the GB. It gives them more opportunity to move in as they see fit on their own time.

They only do if they're flying. You've already said that they specifically weren't doing that. Which is it?

Subjugator wrote:

The senario as presented does not list that it is possible for the SAMAS to be in constant cover, and even infers that not being able to fly is a hindrance. And yet, no one is flying, and you're assuming constant cover.

Ample cover combined with greater mobility allows for better manipulation of the environment on the part of the SAMs.

So now you're changing tactics?

Subjugator wrote:

And you're also assuming that thermo-vision is still blind-firing.

I'm assuming that if you cannot see your actual target (and not simply the 'stink lines' rising above it), that the -10 to strike applies...particularly when the rules explicitly say that this is the case.

Well then lets just see what the rules have to say on the matter;
The rule says that I get a -10 when I cannot actually see my targets when they're in ground cover (as I have to shoot into). You've already stated that you're not in cover, and that I can actually see the heat they give off, meaning I can actually see them.
As per the cover rules I'd need to make a called shot if I wanted to hit you (or the portion there-of that I can see) as you are behind cover, but I'm not worried about the cover stopping my shot so I won't bother with that penalty.

Subjugator wrote:

And you're also assuming that the Glitterboy will only ever land two attacks before the SAMAS can close for melee.

He *might* land more than two, but it's not likely.

So then I land two, and you close for melee.
I then simultaineous-strike you and you're officially out of the fight. That brings you down to two combatants, which tips the odds in my favor.

Subjugator wrote:As such, he is statistically unlikely to win the fight. It's not that he cannot. It's that he's not likely to.

Do you think that is true when it's two on one?

Subjugator wrote:

And you're also assuming that your own rules interpretations are correct.

All I am doing is reading the rules exactly as they are written and applying them.

You've proven otherwise. You've already admitted to "maybe three" instances of such.

Subjugator wrote:Again, words have objective meanings. So do sentences. When there is a possibility to read a word more than one way, one must read the rule in the context in which it was written. For example, you seem to be operating under the belief that one must be in mid-leap at the time a shot takes place for the additional dodge bonus to apply. I submit that one sees another aiming at them and leaps as a part of the dodge, thereby resulting in greater bonus for the dodge to work as a result of the greater mobility provided by the leap.

You can work it that way in your game, but that's not what the rule says.

Subjugator wrote:

What I've done is show you how and where your assumptions are incorrect. And if you're just going to ask me where, then I suggest you re-read my posts and focus only on what I have written.

I have focused on what you have written.

As per above, you seem to think that absolutes (like leaping) are subjective in terms of time. If you were focused you'd've noted the tense on the word and taken that into account. That word provided does not mean past-tense, as in "having leaped", or even future-tense, as in "about to leap". It means what was written; present-tense, "leaping".

Subjugator wrote:With rare exceptions, what you've done is repeatedly tell me that I am wrong without substantiating what makes me wrong.

In this, you are wrong.
I've always given a reason as to why when speaking to you. If you think otherwise, please quote the instance I haven't and I'll appologize. I'll even give your arguement more credit than I have when I read it for a third time.

Subjugator wrote:You claim that one must be in mid-leap for the additional bonus to dodge to apply, despite that flying in the face of reason

The game itself is unreasonable, and in many instances. Why would I thusly claim the game is what it has proven not to be?

Subjugator wrote:(and being inconsistent with the context in which the statement is written).

The context is present-tense. See above as to why.

Subjugator wrote:You claim that thermo imaging can (apparently) virtually always see all the way through cover,

Here this pops up again; I have made no such claims. As you continue to state this, I can only conclude you are seeing things that aren't there within the text of my words. This does not lend strength to your arguement.

Subjugator wrote:despite the fact that there is no rule saying so and that it doesn't function that way in real life.

I know, that's why I never claimed it did such a thing.

Subjugator wrote:You claim that the Glitter Boy cannot be knocked down when its pylons are in the ground, despite the absence of evidence to support that in the way of rules.

I have rules-evidence, but the support-structure is weak. I really need to find the crash rules to properly construct an arguement pertaining to this.

When you consider what you've missed then I'll address the point objectively. Until then I stand by my statement.

For one, you have only now substantiated what you are assuming I'm missing.

I don't need facts, I have your own admission of fault with that "yes, but". That "yes, but" means that you never calculated properly in the first place, making the rules-work needed to un-muck your side of the arguement entirely on you.

Subjugator wrote:

I can see you though. We've gone over this; thermo-vision allows for it.

It does not grant you the ability to see through 15' thick of collapsed building. Inside a standard house, sure...through piles of rubble and destroyed buildings, not so much.

So you're in a house?
I thought you were running towards me at full speed; which is it?

Subjugator wrote:

If all you desired was a winning feeling, then say so. Don't sit there and act like a child with these petty statements. It shows a lack of character.

What shows a lack of character is ignoring the statements of others,

Yes, that is a character-fault of mine. Beyond you though no one has offered a refutation of what I wrote and has had it hold up.

Subjugator wrote:ignoring the rules,

I've done everything but. See above as to why.

Subjugator wrote:and not substantiating your points while expecting others to do so for you.

I have your admission of fault as far as the rules are concerned. Why would I substanciate what I've written when all I've done is point out that you're wrong for X reasons, and you've thusly admitted to such?
And besides this, when I felt a rules-backing was needed on my behalf (or asked), I've provided as much (except where you've admitted to fault).

Subjugator wrote:If you think the rules say something other than what I've said, cite the page number and rule that says otherwise.

I have. See above as to where (you may need to look at my other posts).

Subjugator wrote:

It's 80% (or 70% if the target is both moving and being evasive).
90%/80% if I aim.

It's 15% for a standard shot. He's at -12. He cannot see through a collapsed building using thermo imaging. Views through 6" thick drywall walls are fine.

That's a house-rule. Please stay on-topic, and please do not throw in your house-rules when its convenient for you.

Subjugator wrote:Views through 15' thick of concrete, rebar, I beams, and dryall are not.

Only you have said that I said this. Please stop making things up.

Subjugator wrote:

I'm saying that the bonus to dodge that you're banking off of is lower, by about 3 points.

You've never provided rules substantiating how this is so.

I did, a few times. Please see above as to where.

Subjugator wrote:

The radar will get nothing. They are in ruins on the ground remember? If he shoots from a building, then the radar will only register the building because it's radar and not sonar.

His comparative density is far greater than that of the building. Following your logic, they are all three just as likely to get an undodgeable shot at him as he is of them. PARTICULARLY since it is chrome and stands out like a sore thumb.

That's great - I don't really care about that since I've already stated that to dodge would be unwise and unsound for this Glitterboy to do.

Subjugator wrote:

Full-speed ram; R:UE pg.352. Twice as big does not refer strictly to height.

Probably not - dimensions as well. Twice as big though? Not so much.

Well, let's see what you've quoted below...

[url=http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS333US333&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:+big]Define: big on google.com[/quote] wrote:large: above average in size or number or quantity or magnitude or extent

Looks here that in pounds my quantity is more than sufficient.

Subjugator wrote:

Shooting Blind; R:UE pg.361. Does not specify that a heat-sig. location for a specific target is "not good enough".

You're right. It also doesn't say that being told where the person is even when you cannot see them is "not good enough" either. You're adding to it.

I'm not adding anything. I've not been told where you are, you have revealed it to me. Via your stink-lines.

Subjugator wrote:Again, we are arguing the RULES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. It says that if you cannot see it, it's not enough.

online dictionary wrote:Sight
1. the power or faculty of seeing; perception of objects by use of the eyes; vision.
2. an act, fact, or instance of seeing.
3. one's range of vision on some specific occasion: Land is in sight.
4. a view; glimpse.
5. mental perception or regard; judgment.

It seems that the definition of sight is fairly broad here. If I can percieve your location, that seems to mean that I can see you via the very definition of the word.

Subjugator wrote:You're talking about 'stink lines', which rise from their source. That'd put them ABOVE the target. Thusly, you'd not SEE THE TARGET. Thusly, you'd get an additional -10 to strike.

Capitol letters do not make your words clearer, only tell me that you wish to shout them. Bolded words are for clarity. Besides that little lesson, read the definition of the word. Ofcourse I'm not taking into account the more ecclectic definitions, such as clairvoyance, but you get my meaning.

Subjugator wrote:

Bonus to dodge when flying or leaping; R:UE pg.352. Note that "when" is a present term. If you've been shot, then you leap, that would be a leap after the fact.

You're assuming that the dodge occurs after someone's been hit. It occurs BEFORE someone's been hit. They leap as a part of the dodge.

Actually no, I'm not assuming anything. R:UE pg.339-340;
Hand to Hand combat
Step one: determine initiative.
Step two: attacker rolls to strike.
Step three: defender may parry, dodge, or entangle.
That would soundly put dodge after someone's been attacked and it has been determined as a hit. A defender cannot defend against an attack that misses, except with a simultaineous strike.

Subjugator wrote:

The SAMAS is a Powered Armour; under section titled, "Power Armor"; CWC pg.105. The entry there is quite helpful indefining what is a suit of PA and what is a robot vehicle. Note that the section stops after the Special Forces SAMAS, and goes on to Skelebots, then Robot Vehicles.

It is also described as a vehicle. Repeatedly. It can be Power Armor AND a vehicle.

A Dodge Grand Caravan is a van. It is also a vehicle. It is also a car.

Funny how that works.

So you didn't read the entry then.

Subjugator wrote:

That would be near 1/2 a dozen, as I said.

...and they've been largely refuted.

I can refute that the Earth is round, but that does not make me correct.
Just like your refutations.

Subjugator wrote:

Please point out these rules and tell me how you interpret them.

I have.

Repeatedly.

Then what you have shown has been interpreted incorrectly.

Subjugator wrote:

Do the rules say it does?

Nope. He does aim and then shoot though, and if he aims and pulls the trigger *BEFORE* the pylons are down, he's firing while moving.

If he's firing while moving then he'd be subject to being unplanted - which I said he wasn't.

Subjugator wrote:

Actually it says the pilons fire before the shot occurs, there-by making it impossible to be moving when firing.

The aiming and pulling of the trigger will occur before the pylons fire. He is firing wild.

Well the stablization system seems to say that it holds the Glitterboy steady while firing. That doesn't sound like it's off-balance, and the pilons plant the Glitterboy solid, so he can't be running while firing. That would again disqualify him from that penalty.

Subjugator wrote:

When did I say that these were aimed shots?

I'm describing the actions of shooting a gun. I am not calling them aimed shots in the scope of the rules.

So I am supposed to know when you are and are not discussing the rules? Why not call them shots then, instead of adding the rules-specific aimed portion?

Subjugator wrote:If he is not aiming in the classic sense though,

How can you tell if he's aiming in the "classic sense"? He doesn't even sight down the barrel of the gun.

Subjugator wrote:it's clearly a wild shot. He has to move the gun in the general direction of the target, designating the target and pulling the trigger. That all happens BEFORE the pylons fire. It is a wild shot.

Actually the action required to shoot wild is present-tense. "Shooting" is again specific to the time-line when determining action. If the shot were fired while he was moving then that would be shooting while running as it's stipulated within the book. If he's not running when the shot goes off then he can't be shooting while running.

Subjugator wrote:

Why would I shoot at something I can't see?
I'm only shooting at targets I know are there.

You know they're there - they just cannot be seen directly. Hell, I'll grant that they're on radar - they're just not seen.

In order for radar to pick up an object, it must be visible to the radio-waves bouncing about. If the waves are blocked on their path to the object, then the object is obscured. This is one of the reasons the US developed that radar-dish on top of helicopters, so it could pop-and-peek, and why it doesn't pick up most ground-targets in places like the forest.

Subjugator wrote:

That last bit on the leap, that "ing" kinda means it does.

Leaping being the act of dodging, not leaping and then deciding to dodge while having leapt. Are you honestly suggesting that someone can decide to dodge while in mid leap?

Yes. Please, tell me that it's physically impossible

This Sub, is a cross-wire between the two of you. He is referring to the entangle defensive manuever, which you do only get one attempt per attack.
You are referring to the hold action, which prevents other actions besides "break-hold".

Actually, in this case, I'm referring to the entangle defensive maneuver. As written, it explicitly says one per round.

/Sub[/quote]
You need to re-read it then. Between R:UE pgs. 340 and 341 I cannot find a single sentence that would allow me to conclude that you can only use it once per round. It says once per attack, and that is it.

*...there will be more...

Danger wrote:You are kidding, right? Did you even read the page I provided?

I did, and have now re-read what you said before. I'm not arguing that you get to entangle as many people as you want using one attack per melee. You get to keep one person entangled using one attack per melee.

/Sub

Dog_O_War wrote:Wrong.
The rules and the English language disagree with you. The context is that as it is written. When leaping is as clear as glass recently cleaned with windex on a nice day. The rule does not state that you may leap to gain the bonus; it states that while leaping you get the bonus.

Actually, the rules and the English language disagree with YOU.

Example: "I am leaping to perform a dodge."

That person IS LEAPING TO DODGE. So when they are leaping, they get a +5 bonus to dodge.

So who ignored what first? I responded to your information, and you ignored the rules in the first place. If you hadn't ignored the rules in the first place, then I would have given a different response.

You responded to what you wish I had said. It is you that is ignoring the rules.

And what happens when that event occurs?

Then they take damage, et al.

Meanwhile I'll just sit back and shoot away. I'll take that 15% chance to hit then 'cause apparently I have all day and no fear of melee.

They'll call in reinforcements at that point.

You're missing the point.

No, I see it. I just don't agree that it's valid.

And where there's one...*

Yeah - who is being snide? Dude, you've ignored the rules conveniently when I've explicitly pointed them out to you. You've not pointed this one out, so I've not addressed it. Bring up a good point and I'll address it.

It only matters that the Boomgun rules circle suits of PA out. And you'll need to provide a book and page number that state that "unlike regular powered armour, SAMAS suits count as vehicles".

Actually, it rules regular suits of PA out, and then the books list the SAMAS as an exception (since it is a CS vehicle). It does not say powered armor is not a vehicle anywhere, and does categorize them as vehicles in some places. That makes it a vehicle.

The rules are not specific to CS vehicles, and if they are, please point out this rule that cites CS vehicles as an exception to the rule.

Page 72 of RUE under 'Effects of the sonic boom', the last line in the first column points out that most CS vehicles are protected against it. I daresay that the most common PA in their military would be included in 'most'.

Sub, I gave you book and page numbers, and all you've done is say that I am wrong. You haven't quoted the text in an attempt to explain or anything. That is willful ignorance on your part. I've taken the time to look at your book and page references and have made one of two calls; either you're right and I agree, or I say you're wrong and give a reason why.
You aren't giving reasons, that's called being unreasonable.

I've not given concrete reasons? I've cited the specific words in the rules that you're ignoring.

Book and page numbers are about as correct as it gets here. It exists, and I showed it to you.

...and I provided the same. See above.

I'm only using a fancy term for "you're wrong, and here's why" when I say that. It's not weak, it's being polite.

Actually, all you did was say, "You're wrong." Until now, you've not said, "and here's why." Now that you have, I've pointed out:

A) Where it calls the SAMs vehicles.
B) Where it says that most CS vehicles are immune to the deleterious effects of the sonic boom.

You can punch someone from 500ft away as long as your arm has that kind of range.

Yes...but the gun is too long to fire at something 18" away from the armor itself. That's the point. You cannot shoot at something that is closer to you than the muzzle of your gun.

Irrelivant.
What I do and what the rules say happens are two completely different subjects. Stay on topic.

The relevance is that you cannot shoot something that is closer to you than the muzzle of your weapon.

And there's no position possible to manuever to get a shot?

Not if the person you're fighting is moving with you and maintaining distance, no.

By my accounts the Glitterboy is twice as big. I mean in weight alone he's nearly 4 times that of the SAMAS, which qualifies the Glitterboy via quantity alone.

Again, it doesn't say four times as massive. It says four times as big. Ignoring the rules again?

You're bringing real-world physics into a fantasy game.
Besides that, you show me the calculation that states the boomgun has X force to throw a Glitterboy 30 feet, and then the amount of force an object weighing in at around 750lbs. (the SAMAS with gun and pilot) has X force, and then reduce that force by 70% (the chance to knock down an object twice as big), and if that exceeds the force of the boomgun then you have credit.

Unless the average SAMAS pilot weighs a paltry 128 pounds (I put them at closer to 200 pounds), they weigh more than 750 pounds. You are again assuming that the GB is twice as big as the SAMAS, which is incorrect.

I can show you the calculation that states that a Boom Gun's flechettes hit with x force and I can then show that a SAMAS flying at 300mph far exceeds the force of a Boom Gun's flechettes. That's all I need to do to prove that it has sufficient force to knock a larger opponent down.

Don't bring in a chevy and tell me it's comparible. I mean for one that's 4 points of traction versus 1, for two the very shape of the objects alters the amount of force provided.

*sigh*

Traction is not a factor when it comes to calculating velocity. Also, we're talking about a jet powered vehicle. Do you think airplanes don't cause damage when they run into things? I'm sure the people in the twin towers would be astonished to hear that if so.

As far as the shape goes, yes, the impact area would be more focused, since the SAMAS is narrower than the Chevy. It's also a harder material without crumple zones, so that would make the impact harder still.

We're talking about measuring the total speed of an object and the expression of its energy upon impact. How many joules of force are expended at the point of impact. That's not effected by traction.

Basically, if you're going to go real-world, do it properly.
Don't do half the work and expect to be congradulated on a job well done.

I am doing it properly. You're counting traction as it relates to velocity. I'm not.

That doesn't change the fact that I know where you are without fail. I don't call that being blind.

Irrelevant to the RULES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN.

The rules as they are written say that if you cannot see ME ('me' being the target at which you are firing)...NOT my heat signature above me...NOT the evidence of my passage...NOT the place below which I stand...you have to see ME. If you could see through walls and could see me, you'd not be firing blind. If you could bend light and see around the rubble, you'd not be firing blind. If you had a probe giving you sight of me through remote sensors, you'd not be firing blind, but as per the rules as they are written, if you cannot see ME, then you are firing blind.

Yes, I can. I can also see to the left and right of you as well.

You can see to the left and right of the rubble (which is inclusive of seeing to the left and right of me), but you cannot see ME. Again, the rules say something. That you do not like what they say does not mean they don't say it.

Read the rules. Look at it. They say if you cannot see your target, you are firing blind at -10 to hit. That's it - end of story. Finis. It doesn't say if you can kinda see where they generally are, you are not firing blind. If you cannot see them then you are firing blind.

I assumed nothing. Quote me where I said "I can see you because the cover is thin enough to see through".

Then you're not seeing me at all, and the rules stand. You kept saying you could see me. If there is a large pile of rubble between you and me and you say you can see me, you can either see through what I am standing behind, you can bend light, or you are not telling the truth.

Thanks sub, finally a bit of honesty on your part here. Even if you did mean for it to be sarcastic. I have that problem too; italics help.

You are ignoring rules here simply because you don't like how they work. You're saying that seeing someone's rough location is the same thing as seeing them. It is not. One involves seeing a person. The other involves seeing their rough location.

The effect isn't the same. Either you're in-cover, in which case you get the cover bonus, or your not. Which is it?

Actually, it is either:

A) You can be seen, and your opponent does not have a penalty for firing blind.
B) You cannot be seen, and your opponent does not have a penalty for firing blind.

Get it right before you try and correct me.

I have sub, whenever I point out your rules-mistakes; those are math/calculation errors. If those are wrong then your assessment is wrong about the situation, making your position on the outcome invariably wrong.

You have not read the rules or are adding language to them that does not exist. The rules state that if you cannot see your target (not your target's general area), you are at a -10 to strike.

Atleast 5. You've quoted the post I listed those 5 in.

You cited rules or you cited why you disagree with me?

What I think and what I wrote are two different things sub. Please stay on-topic.

What you wrote is that you can see me. HOW do you see *ME*? I am not asking how you see where I am. I am asking how you see ME. My direct heat signature would be fine, if, for example, you could actually see *through* the rubble. So...how do you see ME?

Was I right on those "maybe three" times?
If I was right on those, and you were wrong - maybe there is a chance things don't work the way you think they do?
I mean after all, I did say I considered everything, and then you said "no you don't", and then attempted to point out what I never considered, only to find out that I did consider such a thing and that your interpretations where otherwise misguided. And you've since atleast admitted to "maybe three" such instances.
Maybe more?

My 'interpretations' involve reading the rules and asking myself what the words used mean. That you do not like the meanings does not mean they are untrue. You have yet to substantiate how you are seeing your target when it is behind rubble other than to say you can see the heat above it. Seeing the heat above something is not seeing it. As such, you are firing blind if you shoot at it.

Is it? As far as I could tell the senario had no time limit, nor did it say that back-up for either side would arrive. The Glitterboy has both food, water, and a large oxygen supply.
The SAMAS don't have any of these things.

The SAMAS has oxygen. There's no time limit. It's simply a matter of the GB having to kill them fast before they can zerg him. Once they've done that, he's toast.

They only do if they're flying. You've already said that they specifically weren't doing that. Which is it?

So far, they're walking. You've not provided a reason for them to fly. Give one and they may fly.

So now you're changing tactics?

No.

Well then lets just see what the rules have to say on the matter;
The rule says that I get a -10 when I cannot actually see my targets when they're in ground cover (as I have to shoot into). You've already stated that you're not in cover, and that I can actually see the heat they give off, meaning I can actually see them.

This is incorrect and intellectually dishonest.

The rule says that you get -10 to strike what you cannot see. It then goes on to say that such INCLUDES shooting into ground cover. That is not exclusive to ground cover, but is inclusive of ground cover.

Seeing the heat they give off (above them, since you cannot see through the rubble) is not seeing THEM.

Imagine it is night time and very dark outside. You are walking behind a 10' tall wall, but you have an incredibly powerful flashlight pointed upward and strapped to your back. I am looking for you and see the light from the flashlight. Do I see you? No. I see the light from the flashlight. When I am aiming to shoot at you, I am not aiming for the light of the flashlight, but at something below it that I cannot see.

Conversely, if I see you walking and covered in a burka, when I am aiming to shoot at you, do I see you? Yes, because I'm actually aiming for what I see...specifically, the burka (with you inside).

As per the cover rules I'd need to make a called shot if I wanted to hit you (or the portion there-of that I can see) as you are behind cover, but I'm not worried about the cover stopping my shot so I won't bother with that penalty.

You can't see me. The -10 is all I'm calling on the rules for now.

So then I land two, and you close for melee.
I then simultaineous-strike you and you're officially out of the fight. That brings you down to two combatants, which tips the odds in my favor.

The simul-strike was the second one.

Do you think that is true when it's two on one?

I'd have to run that one to see.

You've proven otherwise. You've already admitted to "maybe three" instances of such.

I've not admitted to that. I've admitted to you providing a basis for your beliefs. That doesn't mean I agree with that basis.

You can work it that way in your game, but that's not what the rule says.

Actually, it just says leaping. It doesn't say in mid leap, and can just as easily (and more contextually and likely) be read to say that they are leaping to dodge.

As per above, you seem to think that absolutes (like leaping) are subjective in terms of time. If you were focused you'd've noted the tense on the word and taken that into account. That word provided does not mean past-tense, as in "having leaped", or even future-tense, as in "about to leap". It means what was written; present-tense, "leaping".

Yes, as in, "He sees the GB pointing the Boom Gun at him and leaps to dodge. He is now leaping while dodging."

The game itself is unreasonable, and in many instances. Why would I thusly claim the game is what it has proven not to be?

You're adding to it. You're assuming that the shot has impact and then the dodge takes place. That is untrue. A dodge by its very nature has to take place at or incredibly near the same time as the weapon is fired. Otherwise, the strike is damned near preordained.

The context is present-tense. See above as to why.

Yep. He is leaping as his dodge. Present tense.

Here this pops up again; I have made no such claims. As you continue to state this, I can only conclude you are seeing things that aren't there within the text of my words. This does not lend strength to your arguement.

You say you can see me even when I say I am behind a large pile of rubble that is taller and wider than I am. I can only conclude that you think you can see *through* that rubble, since the otherwise stipulated information is that you can see ABOVE me. That is not seeing me.

I know, that's why I never claimed it did such a thing.

But you have repeatedly claimed you can see me, when the only way you could have done so is by seeing through the rubble.

I have rules-evidence, but the support-structure is weak. I really need to find the crash rules to properly construct an arguement pertaining to this.

You need something beyond what you have.

I don't need facts, I have your own admission of fault with that "yes, but". That "yes, but" means that you never calculated properly in the first place, making the rules-work needed to un-muck your side of the arguement entirely on you.

As in, "Yes, I see the point you are trying to make, but you are wrong."

Go un-muck your own side of the argument and establish how you can see *ME*. Not the heat ABOVE me, but ME. If you can see my direct heat signature that is specifically where I am, I'll grant it, but right now all you've done is establish my general location. You have not seen me.

So you're in a house?
I thought you were running towards me at full speed; which is it?

I am running. I am moving generally toward you. I am doing so in such a way that provides maximum cover.

Are you capable of putting the sentences I've written together in a meaningful manner, and if so, why are you intentionally misconstruing them to mean only what you wish for them to mean?

I've done everything but. See above as to why.

You've ignored the rule that says if you cannot see your target (and not just its general area, but the target itself), you are firing blind.

I have your admission of fault as far as the rules are concerned. Why would I substanciate what I've written when all I've done is point out that you're wrong for X reasons, and you've thusly admitted to such?
And besides this, when I felt a rules-backing was needed on my behalf (or asked), I've provided as much (except where you've admitted to fault).

You've assumed fault where none was accepted.

That's a house-rule. Please stay on-topic, and please do not throw in your house-rules when its convenient for you.

Actually, you seeing through 6" drywall is inconvenient for me. I went back and re-read and they don't allow you to see through ANY walls. Since you cannot see me, you're at -12 to strike.

I did, a few times. Please see above as to where.

You have not. What you've said is that they have to be in mid leap when initiating the dodge, which is not stated anywhere. They can leap as part of the dodge, thereby giving the greater bonus.

Looks here that in pounds my quantity is more than sufficient.

Got the full dimensions on a GB and SAMAS? On an eyeball view, it's not likely to be twice as big.

I'm not adding anything. I've not been told where you are, you have revealed it to me. Via your stink-lines.

Irrelevant. You cannot see me.

1. the power or faculty of seeing; perception of objects by use of the eyes; vision.
2. an act, fact, or instance of seeing.
3. one's range of vision on some specific occasion: Land is in sight.
4. a view; glimpse.
5. mental perception or regard; judgment.

It seems that the definition of sight is fairly broad here. If I can percieve your location, that seems to mean that I can see you via the very definition of the word.[/quote]

I see nothing that shows that you can see something simply if you can perceive its location.

Capitol letters do not make your words clearer, only tell me that you wish to shout them. Bolded words are for clarity. Besides that little lesson, read the definition of the word. Ofcourse I'm not taking into account the more ecclectic definitions, such as clairvoyance, but you get my meaning.

I did. Nothing there says you can see me.

Actually no, I'm not assuming anything. R:UE pg.339-340;
Hand to Hand combat
Step one: determine initiative.
Step two: attacker rolls to strike.
Step three: defender may parry, dodge, or entangle.
That would soundly put dodge after someone's been attacked and it has been determined as a hit. A defender cannot defend against an attack that misses, except with a simultaineous strike.

That means it takes place after the die roll...not after the attack took place. Otherwise, lasers could NEVER be dodged.

So you didn't read the entry then.

Yes, I did. I didn't call it a 'Robot Vehicle.' I called it a vehicle.

I can refute that the Earth is round, but that does not make me correct.
Just like your refutations.

Again, mine follow the rules as written. You don't like those.

Then what you have shown has been interpreted incorrectly.

The words have meaning. You don't like them so you want to make it so that seeing the general area where something is means seeing it. It doesn't.

If he's firing while moving then he'd be subject to being unplanted - which I said he wasn't.

Every time the firing action is initiated, it is done before the pylons are planted unless they are remaining planted before the firing action is initiated. If he's moving while the firing action is initiated, he's firing wild.

Well the stablization system seems to say that it holds the Glitterboy steady while firing. That doesn't sound like it's off-balance, and the pilons plant the Glitterboy solid, so he can't be running while firing. That would again disqualify him from that penalty.

Do the pylons drop before the trigger pull?

No.

He's firing wild.

So I am supposed to know when you are and are not discussing the rules? Why not call them shots then, instead of adding the rules-specific aimed portion?

I was referring to him aiming the gun. If he's not aiming, it's also a wild shot.

How can you tell if he's aiming in the "classic sense"? He doesn't even sight down the barrel of the gun.

He's got a targeting system.

Actually the action required to shoot wild is present-tense. "Shooting" is again specific to the time-line when determining action. If the shot were fired while he was moving then that would be shooting while running as it's stipulated within the book. If he's not running when the shot goes off then he can't be shooting while running.

Yes. The act of shooting is the process of pointing the gun in the direction you wish to shoot and pulling the trigger. That is shooting. It is not defined as when the shot goes off.

In order for radar to pick up an object, it must be visible to the radio-waves bouncing about. If the waves are blocked on their path to the object, then the object is obscured. This is one of the reasons the US developed that radar-dish on top of helicopters, so it could pop-and-peek, and why it doesn't pick up most ground-targets in places like the forest.

It seems to work regardless. This doesn't help your position.

Yes. Please, tell me that it's physically impossible

You can decide all you like, but it won't do nearly as much good as deciding before one is leaping.

/Sub

Subjugator wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Wrong.
The rules and the English language disagree with you. The context is that as it is written. When leaping is as clear as glass recently cleaned with windex on a nice day. The rule does not state that you may leap to gain the bonus; it states that while leaping you get the bonus.

Actually, the rules and the English language disagree with YOU.

Example: "I am leaping to perform a dodge."

That person IS LEAPING TO DODGE. So when they are leaping, they get a +5 bonus to dodge.

The specifics of the language don't count here, it's the intent of the passage.
I believe that the intent of the passage is as Subjugator says- you are supposed to be able to leap as part of your dodge.
That certainly makes more sense than giving people a bonus to dodge when they're in mid-leap.

Page 72 of RUE under 'Effects of the sonic boom', the last line in the first column points out that most CS vehicles are protected against it. I daresay that the most common PA in their military would be included in 'most'.

Good try, but no.
Notice the text:
Characters who are inside environmental body armor, a light MD vehicle OR power armor will have some protection, but are still temporarily deafened...

Key word being OR- it shows that they differentiate between "vehicles" and "power armor" in this context.
Similarly, the RGMG has one section listing the various kinds of "Power Armor," and a different section for "Vehicles."
They're not usually considered to be the same thing.

Also, note that the sentence simply says "a light MD vehicle or power armor," NOT "A light MD vehicle or a light suit of power armor."
"Light" only qualifies "vehicle," NOT "power armor."
That level of protection applies to all forms of power armor, light or heavy.

I can show you the calculation that states that a Boom Gun's flechettes hit with x force and I can then show that a SAMAS flying at 300mph far exceeds the force of a Boom Gun's flechettes. That's all I need to do to prove that it has sufficient force to knock a larger opponent down.

A SAMAS ramming somebody would just count as a bodyblock/tackle.
It would work against a GB if the pylons weren't engaged.

The rules as they are written say that if you cannot see ME ('me' being the target at which you are firing)...NOT my heat signature above me...NOT the evidence of my passage...NOT the place below which I stand...you have to see ME. If you could see through walls and could see me, you'd not be firing blind. If you could bend light and see around the rubble, you'd not be firing blind. If you had a probe giving you sight of me through remote sensors, you'd not be firing blind, but as per the rules as they are written, if you cannot see ME, then you are firing blind.

As I pointed out, Rules as Written a person carrying a large paper shield would count for your -10 strike penalty, simply because you couldn't see them.

Conversely, if I see you walking and covered in a burka, when I am aiming to shoot at you, do I see you? Yes, because I'm actually aiming for what I see...specifically, the burka (with you inside).

Which is specifically why you need to use common sense with cover, like I said.
If you shoot the cover in front of somebody, and there's no reasonable way for the shot to miss them due to their own size vs. the size of the cover, then you're going to hit them.
It would offer no more protection than a burka.
Again, I refer you to the Cloak of Shadows spell.

As per the cover rules I'd need to make a called shot if I wanted to hit you (or the portion there-of that I can see) as you are behind cover, but I'm not worried about the cover stopping my shot so I won't bother with that penalty.

You can't see me. The -10 is all I'm calling on the rules for now.

I see nothing that shows that you can see something simply if you can perceive its location.

It's a situation for common sense.
You guys are arguing as if it's always either -10 or nothing.
Do you really think that Kev would operate that way?
Or do you think he would reduce the -10 penalty due to the shooters ability to pinpoint the target's location (directly seen or not)?
Again, look at Cloak of Shadows.

He's firing wild.

I've lost track of why you're talking about the GB shooting while moving, but I'll point out that a GB firing the Boom Gun without use of the pylons is shooting Wild after the first shot.
That first shot is normal.

In order for radar to pick up an object, it must be visible to the radio-waves bouncing about. If the waves are blocked on their path to the object, then the object is obscured. This is one of the reasons the US developed that radar-dish on top of helicopters, so it could pop-and-peek, and why it doesn't pick up most ground-targets in places like the forest.

It seems to work regardless. This doesn't help your position.

Again, I've lost track of what you guys are arguing about.
If it helps, it has been officially explained (IIRC) that radar in power armor and vehicles only applies to stuff that's flying above a certain height.

The best thing our GM ever did for our Glitter Girl was let her buy a robot horse and 2 robot K9 companions from the new west books. They gave her a secondary vehicle with some much needed cover fire. When not in her GB she was a fair soldier from the Free Quebec training, after she got her bots she was able to hold her own against some big threats, the extra versatility from the bots has really allowed the character to grow from a little girl in power armor which was really one dimensional to a second persona of a cowgirl bounty hunter. The dogs have realistic fur were great accompanying her into town and guarding the campsite at night. Ever GB should look into getting some bots since their unaffected by sonic boom and have so many great uses.
In the CS states its illegal to own certain kinds robots but its also illegal to own a GB so it fit the character well that way too. If the GB from this thread had put some money into a dog or horse robots or a few Reprogrammed Skellbots or NGR combat programed robots would give theses SAMAS a way better fight, double the players attacks & actions, adds lots support, haul cargo and may have a lot of fun as well and best thing about NGR robots can even have a mechanical repair program installed, always nice to have a mechanic running a long side you. Everyone have a great weekend!

WildWalker wrote:....

Pg 341 of Rue.

Step one: Roll initi

Step two: one with the initiative rolls to strike a particular opponent and adds any strike bonuses he may have.

step three: The characer under attack can attempt to roll a parry or dodge. High wins. Defender wins ties.

I'm not seeing how a defender has to declare their action before the strike roll. It seems pretty straight forward.

I do not see the penalty for "actively dodging". Do you mean "-1 for evasive action"? Under the penalties it doesn't say anything about "taking evasive action requires an attack" listed under "shooting at a moving target", just just a type of movement, unless you concider "moving" to be an action.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:This is a deritive of an argument I had with a friend a while ago. Basically, the question was: How many Classic-Style SAMAS would it take to swarm and kill a lone Glitter Boy.

Obviously, Two or Three solid hits from a glitter boy can kill a SAMAS, or even one Nat 20 wiht a high damage roll.

On the other hand, the SAMAS can swarm and flank him, and the GB cannot dodge effectively.

My friend argued that with just a bit of luck the Glitter Boy can pick off the three before his armor is completely drained. I think that the odds of them standing still trading blows is a bit silly.

So here's the Senario: One Glitter Boy gets into a fight with a squad of 3 SAMAS in the ruins of Old Detroid. There's plenty of cover, but only parts of it Mega Damage. And to make things a little more interesting, one of the SAMAS is suffering from a malfunction in it's jet pack and cannot fly.

All 4 suits have full MDC and are fully loaded.

CLASSIC SAMAS = Check
Glitterboy = Which Model ??
*Classic GB ?
*Triax GB ?
*Tarus GB ?
*Silverwolf GB ?
*Glittergirl GB ?
*Sidekick GB ?
*SilverEagle SAMAS GB ?
*GB-7 ?
*Mark IV GB (Particle Beam Weapon - Mutants in Orbit) 4d6x10. Would use the Particle beam rules from HU2/Nightbane. 8-15 is a Nick, does normal damage. 16+ Direct hit does Double damage. Natural 20 Triple damage. Limitation. 20 PB shots, regenerates 1 shot every minute however.

Subjugator wrote:

Danger wrote:You are kidding, right? Did you even read the page I provided?

I did, and have now re-read what you said before. I'm not arguing that you get to entangle as many people as you want using one attack per melee. You get to keep one person entangled using one attack per melee.

/Sub

Which as I have shown by posting the rules is incorrect. You may attempt an entangle using one attack per attempt. Just. Like. Dodge. Every action you wish to dedicate to entangle costs you one attack. Just. Like. Dodge.

What you are suggesting is blatantly defying the combat rules. No manuever (except Auto-Dodge & Parry) can be performed or maintained without spending actions.

I'm getting lost in trying to keep up with some of the arguments.

Subbie, you've made a reference to the Samas doing a flying body block, am I right? Where exactly is this maneuver described? I find no such thing listed in the Flying Power Armor combat list.

I have to agree with Dog. The +5 to dodge while flying or leaping applies to when the Power Armor is traveling. I could even agree with the bonus applying to aerial combat, as you are still in mid-flight. However, this is not the scenario Subbie has painted. The Samas have stopped moving and are engaging in melee combat on the ground. Therefore, the +2 bonus to dodge while on the ground applies. Why have a separate bonus if this is not true? There is a reason for it.

There is no listed maneuver called Leaping Dodge that I am aware of (maybe in Ninja's & Superspies? I don't own that book). If there is, it is not a stated maneuver in the Flying Power Armor combat list.

If the Samas take to the air to maneuver around or escape, or use jet thruster assisted leaps to manuever or escape, then they would once again get their full +5 bonus. This would mean that they are no longer able to engage in melee with the Glitterboy.

Furthermore, the 'grounded' Samas may not even have access to the +5 if his jet thrusters have been damaged enough. (For the sake of the discussion, I'm assuming he has enough thrust to make those jumps and can travel by leaping, just not enough thrust to attain flight.)

TechnoGothic wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:This is a deritive of an argument I had with a friend a while ago. Basically, the question was: How many Classic-Style SAMAS would it take to swarm and kill a lone Glitter Boy.

Obviously, Two or Three solid hits from a glitter boy can kill a SAMAS, or even one Nat 20 wiht a high damage roll.

On the other hand, the SAMAS can swarm and flank him, and the GB cannot dodge effectively.

My friend argued that with just a bit of luck the Glitter Boy can pick off the three before his armor is completely drained. I think that the odds of them standing still trading blows is a bit silly.

So here's the Senario: One Glitter Boy gets into a fight with a squad of 3 SAMAS in the ruins of Old Detroid. There's plenty of cover, but only parts of it Mega Damage. And to make things a little more interesting, one of the SAMAS is suffering from a malfunction in it's jet pack and cannot fly.

All 4 suits have full MDC and are fully loaded.

CLASSIC SAMAS = Check
Glitterboy = Which Model ??
*Classic GB ?
*Triax GB ?
*Tarus GB ?
*Silverwolf GB ?
*Glittergirl GB ?
*Sidekick GB ?
*SilverEagle SAMAS GB ?
*GB-7 ?
*Mark IV GB (Particle Beam Weapon - Mutants in Orbit) 4d6x10. Would use the Particle beam rules from HU2/Nightbane. 8-15 is a Nick, does normal damage. 16+ Direct hit does Double damage. Natural 20 Triple damage. Limitation. 20 PB shots, regenerates 1 shot every minute however.

Classic Glitterboy. Let's not make this fight more embarrasing for the Samas than it already is.

Danger wrote:Classic Glitterboy. Let's not make this fight more embarrasing for the Samas than it already is.

i take it you haven't actually *looked* at any of the variant glitterboys then? because the vast majority of them are worse than the standard glitter boy. in some cases, a lot worse (i can only think of 2 that are even decent, and both of them are not likely to run into a CS SAMAS patrol; the space one, and the south american one)

oh, and once in melee, the glitterboy likely is going to be held after the first shot; either he simultaneous attacks and therefore has no defense (and is entangled) or he doesn't simultaneous attack and has to make 3 successful attempts to evade being entangled. from that point on, the SAMAS pilots just have to try and entangle him any time he comes unentangled and continue beating him up. starting with the gun (and then, once the gun is toast, they just hover 50 feet above him and start raining railgun slugs on his head. will it be extremely fast? probably not. it's going to take a while for them to destroy the boom gun. but every time the glitterboy has a chance, they just re-entangle him, and over time they should win.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:This is a deritive of an argument I had with a friend a while ago. Basically, the question was: How many Classic-Style SAMAS would it take to swarm and kill a lone Glitter Boy.

Obviously, Two or Three solid hits from a glitter boy can kill a SAMAS, or even one Nat 20 wiht a high damage roll.

On the other hand, the SAMAS can swarm and flank him, and the GB cannot dodge effectively.

My friend argued that with just a bit of luck the Glitter Boy can pick off the three before his armor is completely drained. I think that the odds of them standing still trading blows is a bit silly.

So here's the Senario: One Glitter Boy gets into a fight with a squad of 3 SAMAS in the ruins of Old Detroid. There's plenty of cover, but only parts of it Mega Damage. And to make things a little more interesting, one of the SAMAS is suffering from a malfunction in it's jet pack and cannot fly.

All 4 suits have full MDC and are fully loaded.

I have a couple of questions about this first if I may ?

Who spots who first ?

They both spot each-other on Radar about 5 miles out.

Are all 3 Samas flying in tandem ?

That's the question i'm posing you guys. what tactics and stratagies would you employ to try to win. You use whichever method you think has the greatest odds of success.

Which style of Samas ?

That I already Said. the Old style of SAMAS, as in the origional before any others were ever printed?

Ok.
I'll try to answer this Logically.

3 Classic SAMAS spot the GB 5 miles out in the ruins of Old Detriot.
SAM #1 (Leader) Guys you see what I see, Hold up behind that Building to the Left.
(samas swoop Left behind a ruined building)

Lone Classic GB (GB-USA 10 Old School Edition book) (not the updated GB from RUE)
(GB uses Comms) This is Lone Wolf, I have 3 SAMAS at 12 O'clock, requesting Backup.
(Base) Negative Lone Wolf, your on your own. Any backup is 30 minutes away at this time, roger.
(GB responds) ROger. Permission to Engage if Hostile ?
(Base) Roger You are cleared to engage if Hostile, over.
(GB) Roger Base, over and out.

(Sam #1) Ok Boys we know we do not have any GBs in this area at this time. This must be one of those Merc GB "Heroes".
(Sam #2) Lets kick his @$$ Captain.
(Sam #3) (Peeks around corner) He is just standing there Cap.
(Sam #1) Dang it, he must be radioing Help. Ok Lets Take him on. Bart (Sam #2) You fly down Two streets on the Rift. Summers (Sam #3) You do the same on the Left. I'm Going to wait then head head on but I'm going to Buzz him High to gauge his intentions. Lets see if he is even Hostile first. Who knows he may already be damaged and an easy kill for us.
(Sam #3) Cap thats a good plan.
(Sam #1) That why i get payed more Summers.
(All Three Samas fly out as planned)

(The GB see the Samas heading his way. Only 1 Samas is still on the Radar in the city-scape due to building blocking the Radar.)
(GB) Hmm Not good, only one Sam is coming this way. The other two must be sneaking around. Ok I'm not to engage unless attacked first. So lets see if they are Hostile.

(Sam #1 Fly over the GB at full speed taking note this GB is not damaged and not afraid. Then again he is not agressive either, which is weird.)
(Sam #1) Boys land on top of one of the building, but make sure you have my back. I'm going to turn around and see what the guy is doing here. That GB is too Clean to be an adventurer, and he did not attack me. Either is not a threat to us or he has back up around here close, watch out.
(Sam #2/#3) Roger Cap (in stereo)
(sam #1) (swoops around and heads back towards the GB)

(GB) Ready's himself for a possible fight, checking his instruments and gauges.

(Sam #1 to GB on Open Cooms) This is Captain Cornelis Butt of the Coloation State of Chi-Town. State your bussness and Intentions. Failure to respond will be seen as a Hostile act.
(GB to Sam #1 on Open comms) This is Major Tiberius Spock of the Coliation State of Free Quebec. I have clearance to be here. My presence was requested to investate possible Demon sighting.
(Sam #1) (To himself) Dang it. (closed comms to #2/#3) Boy he has clearance to be here. This is the guy we were sent to backup by order of the Emperor himself.
(Sam #3/#2) Ahh man.
(Sam #1) Roger that Major Spock. We have been asigned as your escorts and backup by order of the Emperor himself. Guess you have close ties in High Places buddy.
(GB) Roger that. And yes I do. I studied Miltary History with the Emperor's son on exchange program between our states.
(Sam #1) ROger that. So were are those Demons...

Killer Cyborg wrote:As I pointed out, Rules as Written a person carrying a large paper shield would count for your -10 strike penalty, simply because you couldn't see them.

Frankly, all we can really argue is rules as written, because anything else is a discretionary answer.

It's a situation for common sense.
You guys are arguing as if it's always either -10 or nothing.
Do you really think that Kev would operate that way?
Or do you think he would reduce the -10 penalty due to the shooters ability to pinpoint the target's location (directly seen or not)?
Again, look at Cloak of Shadows.

He would - but again, rules as written.

I've lost track of why you're talking about the GB shooting while moving, but I'll point out that a GB firing the Boom Gun without use of the pylons is shooting Wild after the first shot.
That first shot is normal.

He's saying that, while running, he pulls the trigger to fire the Boom Gun, ignoring the fact that he was moving when the firing action was completed on his part. The fact that the pylons drop after he pulls the trigger doesn't mean that his action of pointing the gun at the target in question and pulling the trigger (thereby firing the gun) was not completed before he stopped. Ergo, when the gun was actually fired, he was moving. Ergo, it was a wild shot. Now, if he'd STOPPED and fired the gun, then yes, it would not be, but as he was running when he fired, it's a wild shot.

Again, I've lost track of what you guys are arguing about.
If it helps, it has been officially explained (IIRC) that radar in power armor and vehicles only applies to stuff that's flying above a certain height.

I've never seen that one. It makes a difference. Except, one would never detect tanks, robot vehicles, or other ground based vehicles, so I really hope that was not explained.

/Sub

Danger wrote:Which as I have shown by posting the rules is incorrect. You may attempt an entangle using one attack per attempt. Just. Like. Dodge. Every action you wish to dedicate to entangle costs you one attack. Just. Like. Dodge.

What you are suggesting is blatantly defying the combat rules. No manuever (except Auto-Dodge & Parry) can be performed or maintained without spending actions.

You have posted the rules, but have NOT shown that to be true.

/Sub