Hypothetical Senario: Glitter Boy vs. Three SAMAS

[Dog_O_War]

Why is this thread still going? The Glitterboy wins, hands down. All the math is on the side of the Glitterboy, as is all the logic (well, from sources stemmed in logic anyways).

I mean really, we've got people here claiming that the SAMAS is now a vehicle simply because it has the name 'military' in it and otherwise requires a piloting skill.

But here's the thing; logic and common sense completely disagree with the assertion that a powered armour is also a vehicle, or that it would otherwise be immune to the sonic boom. There are three factors as to why the SAMAS isn't a vehicle;
A; it's listed as power-armour, where the skill to pilot it is called pilot: power-armor and robot vehicles. This differenciates the difference between vehicles (even robotic ones) and powered armour.

B; reinforcing A, there are plenty of military vehicles governed by other piloting skills that are not immune. Unless, that is you think riding a CS-Skycycle makes you immune to the effects of the sonic boom?

C; finalizing the sentiment that PA is not immune is the very clause within the Glitterboys' description; the Glitterboy is immune to the sonic boom effect, yet it lists (by process of elimination) that medium and light robot vehicles, PA and many others are not immune. That it lists CS military vehicles means nothing.

You wouldn't assume that BM-SAMAS is otherwise different than a CS-SAMAS or an FQ-SAMAS as there is nothing to indicate that one is special over the others, so why assume that only the CS-SAMAS is otherwise immune because it has CS and military (by acronym) in its name? Or would you? If that's the case, I'm going to get a knock-off helmet made out of cardboard in the next session I play and have the manufacturer call it the "Most CS-military vehicles" helmet just so that it becomes immune to the effects of the sonic boom simply by word-association

Or, you posters can glean a bit of wisdom here and realize that the SAMAS is not immune to the effects of the sonic boom.

[Dog_O_War]

Thanks Subjugator!

Anyway, So based on this math, I think my technique would result in a pretty solid SAMAS win. Of course, a critical hit to a SAM would definitely screw things all up for the SAMAS.

So... 80 wins out of 100 for team SAMAS, when drawing GB fire to allow the other two SAMAS to score solid hits on the GB, is what I'm thinking.

Why thank him? He gave you bad math. There is no way the wings on that SAM are a "head-sized target" thus gleaning a -3 (where this -4 is coming from...).

For two, the Glitterboy has atleast a +4 before taking into account aiming bonuses and proficiency bonuses.

And there are other inconsistencies and errors in his math - which he refused to correct, instead insisting that he wasn't wrong and that everyone saying otherwise was.

Basically he's only giving information skewed to the advantage of the SAMAS because he didn't bother to properly research the Glitterboys' capablities.

[popscythe]

Well, although it's interesting that you would reply to the thread without reading the current developments (I see why you sign your posts with a facepalm), I really didn't care about the bonus or minus to hit the wings, I just was feeling a little tired and didn't edit the quote down quite as much as I should have.

Thanks for double posting though, we're all solid on those issues now, and we know that you disagree with the minus to hit someone's wing and would adjudicate it differently in your game.

So our GB might have +5 or +6 to strike (according to my calculations) if he really goes for the gusto but has average stats. That really doesn't outweigh the penalties for striking a flying SAMAS, let alone called shots, let alone the high-bonus flying dodge attempt coming after any strike high enough to potentially hit. Even if the SAM isn't moving 300MPH the second he breaks cover and the GB can see him to try to aim for a shot, that's one hell of a skeet shot to land.

[Zer0 Kay]

Nice dodge. Review how this started. You're Either/Or post claimed that enhanced hearing is incompatable with sound filtration. I showed that your logic was wrong. I addressed your logic, not power armor.

I didn't claim Power Armor has enhanced hearing (oddly though you assumed it did in your Either/Or post).

Now then: "please explain how your Either/Or statements do not presume that enhanced hearing is incompatable with sound filtration."

Hey Mack what is the point of Either/Or? I get And/Or but Either/Or seems redundant to me kinda like:
NIC card
PIN number
ATM machine
GUI interface
HIV virus
LCD display
CNN network
please RSVP
SAM missile
COBOL language

[popscythe]

Nice dodge. Review how this started. You're Either/Or post claimed that enhanced hearing is incompatable with sound filtration. I showed that your logic was wrong. I addressed your logic, not power armor.

I didn't claim Power Armor has enhanced hearing (oddly though you assumed it did in your Either/Or post).

Now then: "please explain how your Either/Or statements do not presume that enhanced hearing is incompatable with sound filtration."

Hey Mack what is the point of Either/Or? I get And/Or but Either/Or seems redundant to me kinda like:
NIC card
PIN number
ATM machine
GUI interface
HIV virus
LCD display
CNN network
please RSVP
SAM missile
COBOL language

Howitzer
Energy Discharge
Yugoslavia
Yellow Brick Road
Organic Analysis
Universal Solvent
Geriatric Cyborg
Unusual Circumstances
Yearly Profit Margin
Semi-conductors

[Nomadic]

Forcing the GB to reveal itself by drawing it's fire with one SAM dodging like crazy while the other two shoot the GB will result in a win for the SAMs. Any strategy not employing the SAM's greater maneuverability and ability to run the GB out of attacks is over-complicated and thus, in combat, ineffective.

Even using every attack as a dodge, the crazy Samas is going to be subject to at least 1 (more likely 2) free shots from the Glitterboy which he cannot dodge. It is possible for the Glitterboy to 2-Shot a Samas. That's also not taking into account any shots that may hit the Samas, dodging or not.

Once the distraction is over (I give it less than 2 rounds), the other two Samas are in serious trouble.

I will grant that this is a good tactic; one of the best that's been submitted so far. This probably has the highest chance for success.

The rule this is based on says he is activly dodging, it is one roll and last for the entire round.

[Nomadic]

Thanks Subjugator!

Anyway, So based on this math, I think my technique would result in a pretty solid SAMAS win. Of course, a critical hit to a SAM would definitely screw things all up for the SAMAS.

So... 80 wins out of 100 for team SAMAS, when drawing GB fire to allow the other two SAMAS to score solid hits on the GB, is what I'm thinking.

Why thank him? He gave you bad math. There is no way the wings on that SAM are a "head-sized target" thus gleaning a -3 (where this -4 is coming from...).

For two, the Glitterboy has atleast a +4 before taking into account aiming bonuses and proficiency bonuses.

Where in the world did you get +4 BEFORE aiming and proficiency?
+2 from GB gun... and.... ?

2nd I've always been on the GB's side, but did you see my post about a 120 degree bait rotation?

[popscythe]

Where in the world did you get +4 BEFORE aiming and proficiency?
+2 from GB gun... and.... ?

2nd I've always been on the GB's side, but did you see my post about a 120 degree bait rotation?

Yeah! Sorry I didn't reply directly to that. That's what I was thinking too, rotation-wise. If the SAMs are using their radios, they can coordinate coming out of cover with their buddy the bait, and shoot the GB in the back and flanks where it can't respond.

Also: +2 for laser targeting with boom gun, +1 for being from a line of GB pilots, +1 boxing then +1 WP heavy MDC weapons and whatever else I'm not thinking of off the top of my head, I'm sure there's something that isn't too esoteric. Not that it matters... From my understanding, if the SAM is haulin' and flyin' and dodgin' the GB isn't going to hit jack, most likely. But then again, he might, and just mess everything up for those poor three guys.

[Danger]

My thinking was that the "bait" SAM would only need to make one or two dodges from cover to cover, and of course, if damaged or the GB switches targets, another would play bait.

Good plan, but that isn't what your original post (the one I responded to) said. Your scenario had a single Samas playing the role of bait.

[Danger]

The rule this is based on says he is activly dodging, it is one roll and last for the entire round.

Book and Page No. for this please.

[Nomadic]

The rule this is based on says he is activly dodging, it is one roll and last for the entire round.

Book and Page No. for this please.

Game Masters Guide. 40-41 I think.

[Shark_Force]

i just can't fathom how it would make any sort of sense to assume that NEMA would support their glitter boy army with a power armor that is adversely affected every single time the glitter boy fires the main gun, which means that by the time the enemy gets in range the glitter boy had better have already won, because the SAMAS is not going to be in a good condition to wage war.

"Support" doesn't at all mean "stand within the shockwave radius of". SAMAS are highly maneuverable, flying power armor. To properly support the GB, they would be flying somewhat local to it, not anywhere actually near it from the perspective of someone standing near the GB on the ground, much like similarly utilized military tactics in our real lives. Soldiers supporting a howitzer firing crew don't stand where they will be affected by the howitzer's deadly gas venting when it fires, but yet they provide excellent support nonetheless.

a howitzer also doesn't vent gasses in every direction (including upwards) out to a 300 foot range. you could support the howitzer and be very near it (just as the crew are) without standing right where the gas is vented. you can't be anywhere near the glitterboy and be unaffected by the sonic boom.

[Nomadic]

i just can't fathom how it would make any sort of sense to assume that NEMA would support their glitter boy army with a power armor that is adversely affected every single time the glitter boy fires the main gun, which means that by the time the enemy gets in range the glitter boy had better have already won, because the SAMAS is not going to be in a good condition to wage war.

"Support" doesn't at all mean "stand within the shockwave radius of". SAMAS are highly maneuverable, flying power armor. To properly support the GB, they would be flying somewhat local to it, not anywhere actually near it from the perspective of someone standing near the GB on the ground, much like similarly utilized military tactics in our real lives. Soldiers supporting a howitzer firing crew don't stand where they will be affected by the howitzer's deadly gas venting when it fires, but yet they provide excellent support nonetheless.

a howitzer also doesn't vent gasses in every direction (including upwards) out to a 300 foot range. you could support the howitzer and be very near it (just as the crew are) without standing right where the gas is vented. you can't be anywhere near the glitterboy and be unaffected by the sonic boom.

With Group Troops having a Range of 2-6k ft and RailGuns around 5k feet 200ft is nothing. and very easy to stay out of.

And I don't care what anyone Says, SAMMUS is PA not a Military Vec.

[Shark_Force]

i just can't fathom how it would make any sort of sense to assume that NEMA would support their glitter boy army with a power armor that is adversely affected every single time the glitter boy fires the main gun, which means that by the time the enemy gets in range the glitter boy had better have already won, because the SAMAS is not going to be in a good condition to wage war.

"Support" doesn't at all mean "stand within the shockwave radius of". SAMAS are highly maneuverable, flying power armor. To properly support the GB, they would be flying somewhat local to it, not anywhere actually near it from the perspective of someone standing near the GB on the ground, much like similarly utilized military tactics in our real lives. Soldiers supporting a howitzer firing crew don't stand where they will be affected by the howitzer's deadly gas venting when it fires, but yet they provide excellent support nonetheless.

a howitzer also doesn't vent gasses in every direction (including upwards) out to a 300 foot range. you could support the howitzer and be very near it (just as the crew are) without standing right where the gas is vented. you can't be anywhere near the glitterboy and be unaffected by the sonic boom.

With Group Troops having a Range of 2-6k ft and RailGuns around 5k feet 200ft is nothing. and very easy to stay out of.

And I don't care what anyone Says, SAMMUS is PA not a Military Vec.

except that those close-in ranges are the only place the GB even NEEDS any support. if stuff is 2,000 feet away, the glitterboy doesn't call the SAMAS for support, he shoots it with a gun that does more than three times as much damage as the SAMAS can do. (well, the SAMAS may have a couple of mini-missiles which the glitterboy "only" does triple the damage of instead of doing more than triple the damage, but that's not exactly a good reason to put the SAMAS in their for support)

[Dog_O_War]

Thanks Subjugator!

Anyway, So based on this math, I think my technique would result in a pretty solid SAMAS win. Of course, a critical hit to a SAM would definitely screw things all up for the SAMAS.

So... 80 wins out of 100 for team SAMAS, when drawing GB fire to allow the other two SAMAS to score solid hits on the GB, is what I'm thinking.

Why thank him? He gave you bad math. There is no way the wings on that SAM are a "head-sized target" thus gleaning a -3 (where this -4 is coming from...).

For two, the Glitterboy has atleast a +4 before taking into account aiming bonuses and proficiency bonuses.

Where in the world did you get +4 BEFORE aiming and proficiency?
+2 from GB gun... and.... ?

Robot Combat: Elite (Glitterboy). How you guys missed that is beyond me.

2nd I've always been on the GB's side, but did you see my post about a 120 degree bait rotation?

That only works on an open plain. In a city full of ruins, there are always limited firing paths, thus eliminating multiple-target syndrome for the Glitterboy. And it also helps him from getting jumped.

Otherwise in an open-plain scenario, you're going to have a tough time convincing anyone that SAMAS can win even on a 5:1 ratio. Remember, a Glitterboy can duke it out with a Deaths' Head transport and come out the victor - I don't think forcing a GB to fight weaker opponents is going to tip the odds against him due to this.

[Dog_O_War]

Well, although it's interesting that you would reply to the thread without reading the current developments (I see why you sign your posts with a facepalm), I really didn't care about the bonus or minus to hit the wings, I just was feeling a little tired and didn't edit the quote down quite as much as I should have.

Thanks for double posting though, we're all solid on those issues now, and we know that you disagree with the minus to hit someone's wing and would adjudicate it differently in your game.

It's not that I disagree (though I do), it's that the rules of the game state otherwise. No mention of house-ruling a penalty to hit the wings was specified, only that Subs' poor math would indicate a target atleast 3 times the size (and atleast 5 times the surface-area) would be considered "head-sized" and thus glean a penalty of -3 or possibly greater at -4. Just seemed really percular that an object definitely larger than a head would get a bigger penalty to hit.

But maybe I'm the crazy one here, and that's how it should work

So our GB might have +5 or +6 to strike (according to my calculations) if he really goes for the gusto but has average stats. That really doesn't outweigh the penalties for striking a flying SAMAS, let alone called shots, let alone the high-bonus flying dodge attempt coming after any strike high enough to potentially hit. Even if the SAM isn't moving 300MPH the second he breaks cover and the GB can see him to try to aim for a shot, that's one hell of a skeet shot to land.

It doesn't need to out-weigh the penalties; volume more than makes up for that. If you're doing nothing but dodging, you can never win. If you're shooting, then you're going to be simultaineously struck. If you think that melee is even an option, all that does it make you easier to hit while you spend your 50% chance per-action in an attempt to grapple the Glitterboy - which he will break and shoot you each and every round. It will take more than 30 rounds for 3 SAMAS to even have a hope of disabling a Glitterboys' boomgun with melee attacks, and they really can't use any other weapons. Even if you allowed targeted strikes with the mini-missiles, it only ensures victory for the GB at the cost of destroying the boomgun. At 6 missiles (2 for each SAMAS) that only amounts to 70% hit-ratio (10+2doing 35 avg. damage each (assuming plasma). 70% is 5 missiles (benefit of the doubt) doing 175.

But here's the rub; the Glitterboy can block-sacrifice the missile-damage, negating say 1-2 missile-hits and allowing the boomgun to survive without disabling the arms.

And while making these called shots, the Glitterboy is going to simultaineous-attack you. He only needs to strike a SAMAS 3 times to kill one, so even in a scenario where the SAMAS got to fire off their missiles without recieving incoming fire, they still can't win. In a Grapple-scenario it will take the SAMAS more than 15 rounds of combat to have a chance to destroy the Glitterboy, while over the course of 3 rounds the Glitterboy is assured atleast one SAMAS dies (thanks to even odds of breaking a grapple, and atleast 1 undodgeable attack per round).


That's why I quoted you; you shouldn't base anything off of "that math". It's completely wrong. If you were to always base things off of incorrect math you can ensure that whatever you want to happen is 100% assured.

[Danger]

The rule this is based on says he is activly dodging, it is one roll and last for the entire round.

Book and Page No. for this please.

Game Masters Guide. 40-41 I think.

No books with me atm, as I'm visiting my old stomping grounds this weekend. I'll look into that when I get home and post a rebuttal if possible.

Thanks!

[Danger]

If you're shooting, then you're going to be simultaineously struck.

Much as I would love to agree with you, Simultaneous Strike is a Melee Combat option, just as Called Shots are a Ranged Combat option.

[Shark_Force]

If you're shooting, then you're going to be simultaineously struck.

Much as I would love to agree with you, Simultaneous Strike is a Melee Combat option, just as Called Shots are a Ranged Combat option.

kevin has ruled otherwise. which is rather unfortunate in some people's opinions, but it is official that simultaneous strike works for ranged.

[Danger]

If you're shooting, then you're going to be simultaineously struck.

Much as I would love to agree with you, Simultaneous Strike is a Melee Combat option, just as Called Shots are a Ranged Combat option.

kevin has ruled otherwise. which is rather unfortunate in some people's opinions, but it is official that simultaneous strike works for ranged.

I'm not sure where Kevin has verified this, but by RAW, this is a melee combat option only. Where is this official ruling you are referring to?

[Jefffar]

If you're shooting, then you're going to be simultaineously struck.

Much as I would love to agree with you, Simultaneous Strike is a Melee Combat option, just as Called Shots are a Ranged Combat option.

kevin has ruled otherwise. which is rather unfortunate in some people's opinions, but it is official that simultaneous strike works for ranged.

I'm not sure where Kevin has verified this, but by RAW, this is a melee combat option only. Where is this official ruling you are referring to?

Uhm, where in the RAW is it limited to melee strikes?

[popscythe]

That's why I quoted you; you shouldn't base anything off of "that math". It's completely wrong. If you were to always base things off of incorrect math you can ensure that whatever you want to happen is 100% assured.

The wings really don't have anything to do with the strategy I outlined. The GB can't simul strike people who are simul. striking the GB as the GB attempts to attack the SAMAS who is drawing the GB's fire. The math as pertains to the strategy I outlined is correct.

If you had read what's been posted since you started posting last you'd probably be up to speed. Don't worry though, I realize you have a lot of threads to post in and not as much time as you'd like to read. Happens to everyone who thinks their opinion is really sweet.

[Dog_O_War]

That's why I quoted you; you shouldn't base anything off of "that math". It's completely wrong. If you were to always base things off of incorrect math you can ensure that whatever you want to happen is 100% assured.

The wings really don't have anything to do with the strategy I outlined. The GB can't simul strike people who are simul. striking the GB as the GB attempts to attack the SAMAS who is drawing the GB's fire. The math as pertains to the strategy I outlined is correct.

I'm sorry, did you state that the SAMAS are attempting to simultaineous-strike the Glitterboy?
While moving?
So they're not dodging?
I didn't think they were suicidal, but I'll re-read your post again - carefully (as I missed this "strategy").

If you had read what's been posted since you started posting last you'd probably be up to speed. Don't worry though, I realize you have a lot of threads to post in and not as much time as you'd like to read. Happens to everyone who thinks their opinion is really sweet.

Actually during that time I'm trying to taking a page outta your book and work on very poor zingers.

[Dog_O_War]

Weighing in on this one late seems pretty foolish, but here's my take after spending seemingly forever reading the thread.

1. This whole deal has gotten really far afield, but kudos to those who tried to keep the discussion grounded.
2. I believe that none of the discussions so far have really examined the most tactically sound way for the SAMs to fight the GB: Hit and Run. The GB needs to be able to perceive his target to shoot directly at it, even if he has a fairly specific blip on his radar. With three SAMs, the GB would be exposed to fire from one or more of the SAMs most times it even attempted to find them to fire at them. To be stable to fire the GB needs to have his feet on the ground, so utilizing low cover won't work unless the GM is allowing Limbo shots or some such. The shockwave of the boom gun would (IMO) make hiding from the SAMs impossible (just look for the giant dust cloud in the direction of the boom, after the first shot impacts of course because it is supersonic).

The SAMs are definitely going to want to plink the GB from behind/to the sides, then reposition to new cover, knowing that the GB will be waiting to nail them as soon as they peek out. The GB's best tactic is just that, to brave any shots the SAMs might fire and just nail one of them at any opportunity. In this uphill battle of cat and mouse, the SAMs will need to draw the GB out of cover, dodge it's attack and then reposition to cover again. If played correctly, assuming coordination on the part of the SAM pilots (I don't think they'd be coordinated well enough to all go for a perfect alternating hold-fest without discussing it beforehand, but they would definitely, over their radios, be doing things like "I'm going to draw his fire on 3, you shoot him in the back while I do. 1, 2, 3!" or "He's at 5oclock!" in this type of situation. If the highly mobile SAMs can use their movement speed to make wide circles around the GB to stay behind it and in optimum cover (choosing new cover before you jump out from behind your current cover, etc) and use fancy flying to aid dodge attempts when drawing fire, they could definitely whittle the GB down. In my opinion it would simply take forever for them to win.

What could the GB do to prevent them from using this strategy? Destroy all available cover for them? Theoretically possible. Shoot through their cover? Possible, but unlikely to succeed. However, if the GB nails a SAM, that SAM is definitely in trouble and should probably stay under cover and only take shots when the GB is shooting in a different direction (GB can only fire in the direction it is facing, which gives the SAMs a really easy way of identifying when it a good time to pop out for a free back shot. Knowing when a shot is coming and knowing that someone might take a shot at you sometime is two different things, unless you hear the SAMs behind and to the side of you moving out of cover just before they fire.

Thoughts? Notice I started the SAMs within rail gun range. I don't think there's a question that the GB will win outside the SAMs raingun range, but I'd still bet on the SAMs if I had the opportunity to run them, using aerial antics to hopefully dodge the seven to fourteen "free" shots before they were in range. Going for sheer luck there, but I think the real question on everyone's minds in these discussions is "Is the GB strong enough to defeat the SAMs even if they don't have to muck about outside their own weapon's ranges".

You're assuming the Glitterboy has no cover himself. That makes no sense and would otherwise completely ruin the strategy presented. Even if the SAMAS were allowed to hit the Glitterboy with 10+ attacks, they simply can't kill him. They only do an average of 25 per attack (railgun), amounting to 250 MD; far short of the 770 needed.

So even using your hit-and-run scenario, the Glitterboy can simply stand there and take it; he has the same hit-ratio the SAMAS do, and has about 1/3 the attacks, but more than 3 times the MDC, and kills a SAMAS in three hits. Even going the distance, the SAMAS lasting a full 30 attacks, it still ends up in the lose-column for them because they simply cannot lay out enough fire-power.

So enough with your crappy zingers, let the thread die already. The circumstances of the scenario do not allow for the SAMAS to win.

[Mack]

If you wish a topic to fade away, then don't post on it.

And using phrases like "crappy zingers" is a good way to get an Official Warning.

[popscythe]

Dog, if you read the thread (as I keep asking you to do if you want to talk about the subject at hand and not have to constantly back reference things you haven't caught up on), you'll see it's pretty clear what I'm talking about.

I am advising that the SAMs rotationally draw one attack from the GB, in an event that would look like this:

S1: I fly out of cover, throttle max, dodging around as best I can. I fly directly to the nearest cover in an arc that curves AWAY from S2 and S3's position.
S2 & S3: We wait behind our cover until we see the GB swing the boom gun out from behind his cover to fire, and nail him when he's firing from behind our cover, then crouch behind cover more fully after firing.

The best tactic the GB could use is ignore S1 and attempt to hit S2 or S3 who are behind partial cover relative to the GB (if he knows where they are). If I were S1 and the GB ignored my bait and turned 180 degrees to fire on S2 and S3, I'd hit him as hard as I could in the back, perhaps even with a body block to knock the GB down if the GB's cover allowed. However, I wouldn't remain in melee, I'd immediately get out to cover upon attempting the best hit I could think of. The SAMs just rotate positions around the GB, and if they see the Boom Gun rotating towards them, they do the dodge routine. In any combat situation radio communication is used for the exact purpose of saying things like "S3 he's going for you!" or "He's not buying it, S1, lets wait him out for a few seconds and S2 will try."

I'm not saying that a few good GB hits aren't going to kill a SAM, and I wouldn't suggest pressing the fight once one SAM is destroyed. However, if the GB is pushing +8 to strike and the SAMs are pushing huge negatives to be hit (in the main body, I'm not assuming the GB would try a called shot, but doing so might well be wise) AND great dodge bonuses... Whiff city. The GB is going to miss. A lot. The GB, according to you, needs to be hit 40 times roughly. 8 to 9 attacks per SAM firing equates to 18 or so attacks per melee on the GB cut to ten for dodges and misses (and just because it's a round number) and we're looking at four melees. Can the SAMs survive five turns just to be on the safe side, at 7 shots at them per turn that will most probably miss?

Maybe! (Sounds pretty touch and go to me!) That's what we're here to discuss, right?

[popscythe]

Brilliant. Well then, I'd love to play this out now, sounds like the GB would be grinding his teeth after a few rounds of that.

[Jefffar]

It's not as good a plan as you think - all he has to do is score a couple of hits on one of the airborne ones and it's probably out of the fight, turning it into a 2 on one.

Also, think how this will play but in game, I'll give the SAM's initiative and assume the GB has to move to bring one to bear

SAM 1 Leave cover
SAM 2 Leave Cover
SAM 3 Wait
GB: Swivel in the direction indicated by his combat computer
SAM 1: Shoot - GB takes average of 25 points
SAM 2: Shoot - GB takes average of 25 points
SAM 3: Wait
GB: Shoot SAM 1 SAM1 takes average of 105 points. (GB doesn't have to take an action to sink the pylons by the way, it's automatic)
SAM 1: Take cover
SAM 2: Take cover
SAM 3: Wait
GB: Unset pylons and prepare for next shot.

So for each exchange, assuming everyone hits, the SAMs will do an average of 50 points and take an average of 105 points. If the GB guesses right on which SAM is going to jump (which he will do 2/3 of the time if the SAMs always jump 2 at a time) he gets 2 shots at the SAM for 210 points damage and may score a kill before the SAM has a chance to do his 25.

Also, why can't the GB move to cover, put his back somewhere to reduce the firing arcs he has to cover, etc?

[popscythe]

It's not as good a plan as you think

The GB can move to cover. I'm assuming that he has cover the entire time. But the amount of cover he can utilize and fire from is required to be larger (and thus more rare) than that which the SAMs can use, and they are able to fly, which gives them additional angles of view. Not to mention that every time the GB fires, it's position will become READILY apparent from the giant shock-wave/dust cloud centered on it's position. If the GB was entrenched and unable to be fired at, (I'm a SAM in this hypothetical), First, I'd move behind it's angle of fire. Any cover that complete would highly restrict the rotational axis of the GB. Second, I'd shoot his cover. I can fly to new cover nearly immediately and flying makes me extremely hard to hit. He cannot, he must walk slowly to new cover (if he can find it), leaving him open to attacks by myself or my squad mates.

The key point to this strategy is that the GB will have an extremely difficult time shooting a moving, juking SAMAS, while the GB can't benefit from similar "bonuses" (penalties to hit him, actually).

The SAMs would most probably land 10 hits to one of the GB's, if not more. Which would still put it close, of course.

[Jefffar]

The key point to this strategy is that the GB will have an extremely difficult time shooting a moving, juking SAMAS, while the GB can't benefit from similar "bonuses" (penalties to hit him, actually).

However the SAM is either inking to avoid fire or he is shooting effectively, not both.

So assuming one SAM ducks and dives and the other shoots, that means that each repetition does an average of 25 points to the GB, not 50. The SAMs may get lucky and not take many hits, or they may find their number cut in half after a couple of repetitions.

Also, if the GB can find appropriate cover, the SAMS may know where he is approximately, but still might have problems locating him accurately enough for accurate counter-fire.

Ideally for the GB he'd move into a cover that provided overhead protection and protection across at least a 225 degree arc with a reasonable field of view in the open area. Then, even if the SAMS know where he is exactly, they are forced to advance straight down the field of fire of the Boom gun, meaning the GB won't have to swivel or adjust for each shot. Giving him at least 2 chances at each SAM that pops up or one at both (or giving him an action to decide which is going to jink and which is going to shoot and to go after the easy target). Of course such an ideal circumstance isn't goign to happen without a well prepared battle field.


Instead of the 2 leap approach, I might suggest having 1 or 2 SAMS keep the distraction going while the others sneak in to close range and set up a cross fire with good cover. What way they'd force the GB to keep it's back to at least one of them, and when they opened up, the bait SAM could roar in for the 3 on 1.

[popscythe]

Instead of the 2 leap approach, I might suggest having 1 or 2 SAMS keep the distraction going while the others sneak in to close range and set up a cross fire with good cover. What way they'd force the GB to keep it's back to at least one of them, and when they opened up, the bait SAM could roar in for the 3 on 1.

We've definitely talked about that, see my original theory. While I agree that with absolutely perfect cover, the GB would be hard to hit, MDC mini-missiles would probably clear away that cover pretty quickly. The same can be said for the boom gun, but the SAMAS require far less uncommon cover than the GB, and are at their hardest to hit when in the air, anyway. It was not my intention for the bait SAMAS to be firing, as they will be busy dodging. The tactic being mutable based on the situation is important. If the GB has decided to ignore the pea shooters and concentrate on downing one SAMAS, the others hit him as hard as they can. If GB has decided to take cover, the SAMs use the opportunity to reposition. Given that the GB moving whatsoever will leave him at least partial exposed for far longer than any period of exposure that the SAMs face, the GB will be a sitting duck the majority of the battle, despite the fact that he's firing the boom gun at whoever nearly every turn. Like listed above, the GB's best strategy would actually be to ignore the bait and try to shoot the immobile SAMs, as he has a much higher chance of hitting them, but no matter which action he takes, he's looking at three actions in response, every time. Every time he misses an attack, spends an action moving, etc, the attrition hurts the GB. That's not even taking into account the fact that at the end of every round the GB is out of attacks and all SAMs have at least one more.

[Danger]

If you're shooting, then you're going to be simultaineously struck.

Much as I would love to agree with you, Simultaneous Strike is a Melee Combat option, just as Called Shots are a Ranged Combat option.

kevin has ruled otherwise. which is rather unfortunate in some people's opinions, but it is official that simultaneous strike works for ranged.

I'm not sure where Kevin has verified this, but by RAW, this is a melee combat option only. Where is this official ruling you are referring to?

Uhm, where in the RAW is it limited to melee strikes?

Read the description carefully. R:UE pg. 347.

The mechanics of Simultaneous Strike are clearly intended for melee. It discusses parrying, dodging, and entangling, two of which are clearly Melee-Only defensive options. It then further states that someone with Paired Weapons, again a Melee-Only skill, can engage in a simultaneous strike with one weapon and attack or parry with the other weapon.

Even the descriptive dialogue seems to confirm this: "Go ahead, HIT me; I can take it." Not, "Go ahead, SHOOT me; I can take it."

There is nothing in the description of this maneuver that states it can be used in ranged combat.

Now, perhaps you may think I'm being too literal in my interpretation. I get that. So let's look at the logic of the maneuver.

Logically, how can a person in a suit of Power Armor use Simultaneous Strike when he is 500 yards away from his opponent, who is also in a suit of Power Armor? Do they somehow know the exact moment their opponent is going to hit the button to fire their Mixmaster 5000 Laser Can-Opener?

Does Simultaneous Strike somehow confer the power of telepathy or sixth-sense to all ranged combatants?

It's silly.

[popscythe]

All it takes is the SAMAS using a simple radio link and basic tactics any CS soldier would know.

I completely agree.

It's silly.

It's more like:

GM: SAM 2, it's your turn, what do you do?
SAM 2: Wait for the GB to turn towards SAM 1 and away from me, then shoot him when he fires.
GM: Okay, SAM 3?
SAM 3: Same thing as SAM 2.

They wait to shoot the GB until it's firing. Not at the same instant that the GB fires, but just like in a video game, in that brief time where the person shooting attempts to hold absolutely still (and the GB must, he doesn't have the option of taking a sloppy moving shot). This isn't some complex rules mechanic that prevents the GB from dodging, it's just common sense that if two people delay their action until just as someone is motionless they have the greatest chance to hit and the greatest chance to not be hit in return, especially if they're firing at someone who's drilled into the ground and facing away from them.

[Jefffar]

Read the description carefully. R:UE pg. 347.

The mechanics of Simultaneous Strike are clearly intended for melee. It discusses parrying, dodging, and entangling, two of which are clearly Melee-Only defensive options. It then further states that someone with Paired Weapons, again a Melee-Only skill, can engage in a simultaneous strike with one weapon and attack or parry with the other weapon.

Even the descriptive dialogue seems to confirm this: "Go ahead, HIT me; I can take it." Not, "Go ahead, SHOOT me; I can take it."

There is nothing in the description of this maneuver that states it can be used in ranged combat.

Now, perhaps you may think I'm being too literal in my interpretation. I get that. So let's look at the logic of the maneuver.

Logically, how can a person in a suit of Power Armor use Simultaneous Strike when he is 500 yards away from his opponent, who is also in a suit of Power Armor? Do they somehow know the exact moment their opponent is going to hit the button to fire their Mixmaster 5000 Laser Can-Opener?

Does Simultaneous Strike somehow confer the power of telepathy or sixth-sense to all ranged combatants?

It's silly.

1) Dodging - as you mentioned above - is a defence agaisnt ranged attack. For some characters, so is parrying.

2) You don't need telepathy do do a simultaneous strike, you just choose to attack rather than defend (ie that guy is shooting at me, shooting back).

3) Example of a ranged simultaneous strike in the flavour text on page 189 of new west as a Cyborg shooting a Psi-Slinger even while the rounds are hitting him.

4) Paired weapons applies to ranged weapons as of the New West book.

5) Nothing in the description of the amnouvre explicitly restricts it from ranged combat.

I haven't found it yet, but I am sure I read a rule by rule description of a simultaneous attack between gunfighters. As you can guess from above, I've checked New West, but it may have been in an FAQ or somewhere else. When I can find the page number I'll post it definitively. But IIRC it went kinda like this:

The two gunfighters roll initiative, high roll shoots first, second has the choice of trying to dodge, or taking the hit and shooting back simultaneously so his opponent can't dodge.

[Jefffar]

All it takes is the SAMAS using a simple radio link and basic tactics any CS soldier would know.

Radio transmissions can be intercepted.

[Danger]

Read the description carefully. R:UE pg. 347.

The mechanics of Simultaneous Strike are clearly intended for melee. It discusses parrying, dodging, and entangling, two of which are clearly Melee-Only defensive options. It then further states that someone with Paired Weapons, again a Melee-Only skill, can engage in a simultaneous strike with one weapon and attack or parry with the other weapon.

Even the descriptive dialogue seems to confirm this: "Go ahead, HIT me; I can take it." Not, "Go ahead, SHOOT me; I can take it."

There is nothing in the description of this maneuver that states it can be used in ranged combat.

Now, perhaps you may think I'm being too literal in my interpretation. I get that. So let's look at the logic of the maneuver.

Logically, how can a person in a suit of Power Armor use Simultaneous Strike when he is 500 yards away from his opponent, who is also in a suit of Power Armor? Do they somehow know the exact moment their opponent is going to hit the button to fire their Mixmaster 5000 Laser Can-Opener?

Does Simultaneous Strike somehow confer the power of telepathy or sixth-sense to all ranged combatants?

It's silly.

1) Dodging - as you mentioned above - is a defence agaisnt ranged attack.

It is, but as I read the maneuver, it seems to only imply it is referring to melee attacks. There are no examples provided that suggest it is intended for, or can be used in ranged combat. It is also not included in the rules recap (and additions) in the Ranged Combat section, unlike Critical Strikes for example.

Roll with Impact is also both a melee and ranged defense; it just isn't affected by Simultaneous Strike.

[For some characters, so is parrying.

For such a select few that there is no need to mention it. I had thought that Cyber-Knights could do so with Psi Shield, but I've not been able to find anything to support that. I'm at a loss to think of anyone else who can do so. As such, it is not a standard defense from ranged attacks. I've venture to say that less than 1% of available O.C.C./R.C.C.s have that as an option.

[2) You don't need telepathy do do a simultaneous strike, you just choose to attack rather than defend (ie that guy is shooting at me, shooting back).

What you're describing is simply using your action to attack, rather than spending it to dodge. This isn't a Simultaneous Strike, simply a standard progression of a Combat Round.

[3) Example of a ranged simultaneous strike in the flavour text on page 189 of new west as a Cyborg shooting a Psi-Slinger even while the rounds are hitting him.

Some New West O.C.C.s may have this as an exception, and I'd accept that. However, flavor text isn't necessarily proof of any rule, any more than artwork is.

[4) Paired weapons applies to ranged weapons as of the New West book.

For a select few O.C.C.s, not even the book as a whole.

[5) Nothing in the description of the amnouvre explicitly restricts it from ranged combat.

Nothing in the text says it can be used in ranged combat either, and again, not only does the description of the maneuver seem to be expressly for Melee, but neither the mechanics or the logic support it.

[I haven't found it yet, but I am sure I read a rule by rule description of a simultaneous attack between gunfighters. As you can guess from above, I've checked New West, but it may have been in an FAQ or somewhere else. When I can find the page number I'll post it definitively. But IIRC it went kinda like this:

The two gunfighters roll initiative, high roll shoots first, second has the choice of trying to dodge, or taking the hit and shooting back simultaneously so his opponent can't dodge.

If you can find the book & pg. no. I'd love to check it out.

[Danger]

It's silly.

It's more like:

GM: SAM 2, it's your turn, what do you do?
SAM 2: Wait for the GB to turn towards SAM 1 and away from me, then shoot him when he fires.
GM: Okay, SAM 3?
SAM 3: Same thing as SAM 2.

They wait to shoot the GB until it's firing. Not at the same instant that the GB fires, but just like in a video game, in that brief time where the person shooting attempts to hold absolutely still (and the GB must, he doesn't have the option of taking a sloppy moving shot). This isn't some complex rules mechanic that prevents the GB from dodging, it's just common sense that if two people delay their action until just as someone is motionless they have the greatest chance to hit and the greatest chance to not be hit in return, especially if they're firing at someone who's drilled into the ground and facing away from them.

You're describing a normal combat round, not Simultaneous Strike. The Samas in the above example simply chose to spend their action as an attack, rather than a dodge.

Now, logically I can see how in Melee Combat a Simultaneous Strike would prevent a dodge from either party. What with limbs and/or weapons flying it would pose a difficulty in maneuvering. Opponents would be lacking in the necessary space in order to dodge.

Explain to me how this works in Ranged Combat, exactly?

[popscythe]

Explain to me how this works in Ranged Combat, exactly?

Glitterboy can't move when he's shooting. So, he cannot dodge the attacks (that are probably coming from behind him anyway, but that's not the point) that any SAMs fling at him while he's shooting. The trick here is that instead of trying to get the shot in as quickly as possible the SAMs wait until the GB is firing to assure that he can't whip around and tag them when they are out of cover. So, forget I said anything about simul. strike, what I meant is that the SAMs are striking the GB... simultaneously. Without screwing around with paired weapons or anything like that.

[Nomadic]

I say we game test it.

I've game tested it 4 times now and the Sam always win. And I'll admit I was impressed. I've always been a fan of the GB, but no matter who goes first, cover no cover the SAM always win.

[popscythe]

I think that's how it goes if the SAMs are mobile. They're just hard as hell to hit, and any "hit" can almost certainly be dodged. I am totally in on a game test too, if we can find a good way to run one.

[Nomadic]

I just sat down with my buddies for a mini game of the Fox and the hounds.

We played atleast 10 different games and the SAMS won 9 of them. The one time they didn't was a GB rolled a Nat 20 and nearly max damage early on, then another one near max damage about mid way though. So he 1 shotted 2 samms. The other one made a smart move and bugged out. Called in re-enforments and they wiped the GB out.

[Prysus]

I'm not sure where Kevin has verified this, but by RAW, this is a melee combat option only. Where is this official ruling you are referring to?

Greetings and Salutations. While not in a book, Kevin did address the topic itself. It can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=88950&start=265

He actually double posted, so I just linked to the second one for simplicity. Granted, there were 8 pages of debate, Kevin answered on page 6, then it continued to rage on because that wasn't good enough. Go figure.

Note: I also give my minor tweak/house rule for simultaneous attacks on page 5 of that same topic, but that is neither here nor there.

As for the rest of the topic, I'm too lazy to read it all. Last time I did the math I remember figuring there were going to be a whole lot of misses involved (due to penalties and the 8 or higher needed to hit in ranged combat). I'll just say remember that in the scenario most of the cover was S.D.C. (with only a bit of M.D.C.), and S.D.C. can be broken down pretty easily by M.D. weapons. If there are any large buildings near the cover, it doesn't have to kill you to pin you (or at the very least stall you while you dig yourself out).

All right, that's all for now. I basically only posted to show the post where Kevin addressed Ranged Simultaneous Attacks. Again, I have no real intention of getting caught up in this debate. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys.

[popscythe]

That's essentially what I thought too. There's nothing stopping someone from going "instead of dodging, I'm going to shoot him when he stops moving to shoot". GM's common sense presiding, of course.

[Mack]

Much of this battle will depend on individual actions taken, and how the GM plays out the scenario.

For example, the GB could elect to do head shots on the Sams. Each will cost the GB either two (for a called shot) or three (for a called-aimed shot) actions, but will wipe out the Sam's head in one hit. Balance that against the number of actions consumed and the higher chance of a miss--but it may be worth it.

On the flip side, the Sams could attempt mini-missile called shots against the Boom Gun and run similar risks. (Note - Some GM's don't allow called shots with mini-missiles.) Once upon a time I knew a GM who played out a similar scenario and allowed mini-missile called shots against the GB's hand which prevented the GB from effectively aiming the Boom Gun.

[popscythe]

Mack is there an official word on called shots with missiles?

[Mack]

Mack is there an official word on called shots with missiles?

Not to my knowledge. That's why I included the caveat in my previous post.

That's one of the little details a GM would have to address in this scenario that could alter the outcome.

[popscythe]

I think the entire situation could be clarified by removing the "note: all missiles strike the main body" from RUE and putting after the volley rules "Note: All missiles in a volley strike the main body of their target" as I believe was the intention.

[Shark_Force]

Much of this battle will depend on individual actions taken, and how the GM plays out the scenario.

For example, the GB could elect to do head shots on the Sams. Each will cost the GB either two (for a called shot) or three (for a called-aimed shot) actions, but will wipe out the Sam's head in one hit. Balance that against the number of actions consumed and the higher chance of a miss--but it may be worth it.

On the flip side, the Sams could attempt mini-missile called shots against the Boom Gun and run similar risks. (Note - Some GM's don't allow called shots with mini-missiles.) Once upon a time I knew a GM who played out a similar scenario and allowed mini-missile called shots against the GB's hand which prevented the GB from effectively aiming the Boom Gun.

called shots are 2-3 actions. the shot goes off on the second or third action. all the SAMAS has to do is move into cover where the glitterboy can't even see the main body, let alone the head, and the glitterboy loses his shot.

so yeah, if the glitterboy tries to use called shots to hit in the head, the glitterboy is pretty much screwed. meanwhile, the other two (the ones who don't have a boom gun aimed at their head) will simply keep on hitting him with railgun fire, and let the other guy know when it's safe to come out (while the new target hops back into cover).

[popscythe]

called shots are 2-3 actions. the shot goes off on the second or third action.

To quote a great commercial:
"That's what I was thinking!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWVnPlUCrf8

[Danger]

Much of this battle will depend on individual actions taken, and how the GM plays out the scenario.

For example, the GB could elect to do head shots on the Sams. Each will cost the GB either two (for a called shot) or three (for a called-aimed shot) actions, but will wipe out the Sam's head in one hit. Balance that against the number of actions consumed and the higher chance of a miss--but it may be worth it.

On the flip side, the Sams could attempt mini-missile called shots against the Boom Gun and run similar risks. (Note - Some GM's don't allow called shots with mini-missiles.) Once upon a time I knew a GM who played out a similar scenario and allowed mini-missile called shots against the GB's hand which prevented the GB from effectively aiming the Boom Gun.

called shots are 2-3 actions. the shot goes off on the second or third action. all the SAMAS has to do is move into cover where the glitterboy can't even see the main body, let alone the head, and the glitterboy loses his shot.

so yeah, if the glitterboy tries to use called shots to hit in the head, the glitterboy is pretty much screwed. meanwhile, the other two (the ones who don't have a boom gun aimed at their head) will simply keep on hitting him with railgun fire, and let the other guy know when it's safe to come out (while the new target hops back into cover).

This assumes alot of metagaming on the Samas part.

In reality, the Samas would not know the Glitterboy was about to make a called shot on its head.

I'm not saying the Samas wouldn't take advantage of cover, and maneuver around a lot, but your description above is clearly rules manipulation.