Forums of the Megaverse®

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:It rotates 360 degrees at the waist. It's specifically mentioned.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:The MRM's actually weren't a major factor. And your damage numbers are off.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:The major factor was the fact that mini-missiles from the SAMs were useless (the bot has enough countermissile capacity to simply nullify them) ...

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:and the greater armor. The railguns on the SAMs just dont pack enough punch to bring it down before the heavier weapons on the bot can 86 the SAMs.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:And, again, like i said, it's about combined-arms and using tools for what they are meant for (and actually isn't dissimilar to real life). We have fast-attack vehicles now that mount anti-tank weapons that are fairly cheap (compared to a tank) that have a reasonably good chance to KO a tank (almost a 100% chance against the tanks most of our enemies use). But tanks will stil, by and large, mow infantry down in job lots and crush fortified positions. Not all tools (Giant Robots) are useful in all situations. Power Armors ARE ideal Bot-hunters in a lot of cases, and there's nothing wrong with that. That same bot, however, will absolutely obliterate infantry in job lots, and make short work of fortifications and other large threats, as well as providing interdiction capability to protect your own infantry from giant monsters/other giant robots.

BuzzardB wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Yeah, if you can dig those up when you get a chance that would be great.

RUE 342 Under Two Against One

cosmicfish wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:It rotates 360 degrees at the waist. It's specifically mentioned.

Yes, but I was talking about rotation speed. Is it realistic that it can spin 40 tons or so 180 degrees between attacks?

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:The MRM's actually weren't a major factor. And your damage numbers are off.

I was showing average damage per strike. If any of them are off, please tell me which ones.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:The major factor was the fact that mini-missiles from the SAMs were useless (the bot has enough countermissile capacity to simply nullify them) ...

Why? There are only three ways to "nullify" missiles in this case. The first is to shoot an equal number of missiles back, but the robot can only fire 4 missiles at a time while the SAMAS can each fire 6 per volley - not possible in this scenario. The second is to shoot a smaller number of missiles at the volleys, but an average of 25% (1.5 missiles) will survive each successful attempt, letting 1.5x35 = 52.5 MD through per volley. The third is to shoot them down with guns, but that is even worse, as an average of 2.1 survive, or 73.5 MD per volley. The best case for defending against N simultaneous missile volleys is for the pilot to use the arm guns on one volley and the gunners to use the mini-missile launchers on 2 more, allowing through 2x52.5 + 73.5 + (N-3)x210 MD. For N=4, that is an expected 388.5MD to the robot. I don't see that as useless.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:and the greater armor. The railguns on the SAMs just dont pack enough punch to bring it down before the heavier weapons on the bot can 86 the SAMs.

The total damage output from the four railguns is almost exactly the same as the total capabilities of the robot in the ranges I mentioned.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:And, again, like i said, it's about combined-arms and using tools for what they are meant for (and actually isn't dissimilar to real life). We have fast-attack vehicles now that mount anti-tank weapons that are fairly cheap (compared to a tank) that have a reasonably good chance to KO a tank (almost a 100% chance against the tanks most of our enemies use). But tanks will stil, by and large, mow infantry down in job lots and crush fortified positions. Not all tools (Giant Robots) are useful in all situations. Power Armors ARE ideal Bot-hunters in a lot of cases, and there's nothing wrong with that. That same bot, however, will absolutely obliterate infantry in job lots, and make short work of fortifications and other large threats, as well as providing interdiction capability to protect your own infantry from giant monsters/other giant robots.

I do not disagree, save for one area: In Palladium MD worlds, there is no distinction between anti-tank weapons and infantry weapons - they are one and the same.

If an M4 could chew through a tank with 15-20 strikes, neither tanks nor ant-tank missiles would exist today. If you figure in tactical options available to various systems, I suspect that the ideal options center more around the availability of soldiers than anything else - robots are more powerful per crew member, but far less so per credit, and if you can hire soldiers without depletion of the populace you will have a more effective army sticking with infantry and a small PA reaction force than you will investing in ANY robots.

Dog_O_War wrote:

BuzzardB wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Yeah, if you can dig those up when you get a chance that would be great.

RUE 342 Under Two Against One

Thanks Buzz.

Colonel, this is the multiple attackers rule.

I'll check on the long-range attack one when I get the chance.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Realism? Wat? Sorry, Rifts. Realism left the building back in the 90s. Since it is specifically mentioned that they use the rotation to punch and kick enemies (described as a "whirling dervish" that are large enough like giant monsters, yes, it can spin to face any direction for any given attack.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Except that isnt how the rules work at all when shooting down missiles, even in Rifts: Ultimate Fail Edition. One mini missile will suffice to counter all 6 from a SAM, if they are dumb enough to volley them all like that. And with multiple operators capable of firing the missiles, if i fire the first one to counter your volley and it DOESNT blow the whole volley, my co-pilot simply launches another. Or the gunner. Or the tech officer.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Except as SAM's die, all that damage potential evaporates. And since all the people operating guns in the Skullsmasher aren't stupid, theyll be focusing their efforts on one SAM at a time. In the first two rounds, two of the SAMs are already dead.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Not really. They are *capable* of damaging Armor, but they are not Anti-Armor weapons - they are too suicidally short ranged for that to be the case. To bring them to bear, you have to get the drop on the Armor in question (not an easy task given the sensors mounted on Robots and an alert tech officer) or cross an engagement range that is 4-100 times larger than your own. When said Armor can also obliterate an entire platoon sized force of said infantry with a single attack from a range at which the infantry can not reply or (potentially) even know they are under attack... If you're going to assume for these arguments that everyone is always within range of their weapons, then there is no point to anyone in Rifts Earth fielding anything other gunslingers dual-wielding 6d6 damage pulse pistols.

cosmicfish wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Realism? Wat? Sorry, Rifts. Realism left the building back in the 90s. Since it is specifically mentioned that they use the rotation to punch and kick enemies (described as a "whirling dervish" that are large enough like giant monsters, yes, it can spin to face any direction for any given attack.

I know, which is why I didn't actually figure that into anything.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Except that isnt how the rules work at all when shooting down missiles, even in Rifts: Ultimate Fail Edition. One mini missile will suffice to counter all 6 from a SAM, if they are dumb enough to volley them all like that. And with multiple operators capable of firing the missiles, if i fire the first one to counter your volley and it DOESNT blow the whole volley, my co-pilot simply launches another. Or the gunner. Or the tech officer.

I disagree - I was looking at the rules when I wrote that section. I was using ultimate edition, but in BOTH books there is only ever a chance that blowing up a missile destroys the volley, and I included that chance in the calculations. That is the reason for volleys - it is hard to shoot them all down. And a plasma mini-missile only takes 3 seconds to go from launcher to target 1 mile away - meaning that you are only going to get one attempt per person per volley, and I was giving results for a simultaneous attack (because why wouldn't the PA coordinate their efforts?).

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Except as SAM's die, all that damage potential evaporates. And since all the people operating guns in the Skullsmasher aren't stupid, theyll be focusing their efforts on one SAM at a time. In the first two rounds, two of the SAMs are already dead.

Not if the SAMAS are moving at speed. You need an 8 to strike, and your typical 3-5th level Coalition RPA pilot will have (assuming 4th level) 5 attacks (3 from HTH Expert, 2 from RCE) with a +1 to strike (from RCE). They will be a -6 to hit SAMAS going 300 mph, so they will need to roll at least a 13 (40%) to even have a chance of hitting, meaning that they land, per shooter, 2 strikes per round. Ignoring for the moment the missiles, the guns will do only 202 MD per round combined to all attackers, and that is assuming that the SAMAS are not attempting to either evade or dodge.

Incidentally, SAMAS pilots of the same level will have the same number of attacks and +2 to strike. They will face only a -2 to strike the robot at its full speed of 90mph, so will hit 60% of the time, half again as often. And with +5 to dodge, they will successfully dodge 48% of the time, meaning the average damage to the is only 96 MD per round from gunfire, in best case conditions.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Not really. They are *capable* of damaging Armor, but they are not Anti-Armor weapons - they are too suicidally short ranged for that to be the case. To bring them to bear, you have to get the drop on the Armor in question (not an easy task given the sensors mounted on Robots and an alert tech officer) or cross an engagement range that is 4-100 times larger than your own. When said Armor can also obliterate an entire platoon sized force of said infantry with a single attack from a range at which the infantry can not reply or (potentially) even know they are under attack... If you're going to assume for these arguments that everyone is always within range of their weapons, then there is no point to anyone in Rifts Earth fielding anything other gunslingers dual-wielding 6d6 damage pulse pistols.

Missiles and explosive projectiles are the only really good defense against infantry - lasers and such will only take out one at a time. A couple of dozen base infantry can do a lot of damage, even if they designate a few specifically to shoot down missile attacks. Range is indeed an issue, but even the best robot direct-fire weapons only have an 11,000 ft range, and with terrain and use of even moderate cover (remember that we are not on a featureless plain here) it is not as much of an issue as you seem to think.

Dog_O_War wrote:

BuzzardB wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Yeah, if you can dig those up when you get a chance that would be great.

RUE 342 Under Two Against One

Thanks Buzz.

Colonel, this is the multiple attackers rule.

I'll check on the long-range attack one when I get the chance.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Unsure what part of "please stop hijacking this thread" was difficult for you to fathom,

eliakon wrote:Question? Where is it written that all skelbots weapons only shoot bursts? (I don't really use them much, and when I do I use regular infantry weapons for them so I could easily have missed it.)

eliakon wrote:Question? Where is it written that all skelbots weapons only shoot bursts? (I don't really use them much, and when I do I use regular infantry weapons for them so I could easily have missed it.)

BuzzardB wrote:

eliakon wrote:Question? Where is it written that all skelbots weapons only shoot bursts? (I don't really use them much, and when I do I use regular infantry weapons for them so I could easily have missed it.)

Not sure, from what I saw in CWC it doesn't say its a Burst, just has two settings. 2d6 and 4d6

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

BuzzardB wrote:

eliakon wrote:Question? Where is it written that all skelbots weapons only shoot bursts? (I don't really use them much, and when I do I use regular infantry weapons for them so I could easily have missed it.)

Not sure, from what I saw in CWC it doesn't say its a Burst, just has two settings. 2d6 and 4d6

Known error. It is a variable frequency version of the C-12, and it is a long-known issue that has come straight from the Mouth of Kevin that the 4d6 "setting" is the 5-shot burst described in the fluff text. It's also fluctuated in a couple of books. The CV-212 went to having a 3-shot 6d6 Pulse for no reason in early printings of CWC, and then back, etc.

KC could probably describe it better, as i believe he is the one that directly approached Kevin about it at an Open House a while back.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

cosmicfish wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Realism? Wat? Sorry, Rifts. Realism left the building back in the 90s. Since it is specifically mentioned that they use the rotation to punch and kick enemies (described as a "whirling dervish" that are large enough like giant monsters, yes, it can spin to face any direction for any given attack.

I know, which is why I didn't actually figure that into anything.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Except that isnt how the rules work at all when shooting down missiles, even in Rifts: Ultimate Fail Edition. One mini missile will suffice to counter all 6 from a SAM, if they are dumb enough to volley them all like that. And with multiple operators capable of firing the missiles, if i fire the first one to counter your volley and it DOESNT blow the whole volley, my co-pilot simply launches another. Or the gunner. Or the tech officer.

I disagree - I was looking at the rules when I wrote that section. I was using ultimate edition, but in BOTH books there is only ever a chance that blowing up a missile destroys the volley, and I included that chance in the calculations. That is the reason for volleys - it is hard to shoot them all down. And a plasma mini-missile only takes 3 seconds to go from launcher to target 1 mile away - meaning that you are only going to get one attempt per person per volley, and I was giving results for a simultaneous attack (because why wouldn't the PA coordinate their efforts?).

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Except as SAM's die, all that damage potential evaporates. And since all the people operating guns in the Skullsmasher aren't stupid, theyll be focusing their efforts on one SAM at a time. In the first two rounds, two of the SAMs are already dead.

Not if the SAMAS are moving at speed. You need an 8 to strike, and your typical 3-5th level Coalition RPA pilot will have (assuming 4th level) 5 attacks (3 from HTH Expert, 2 from RCE) with a +1 to strike (from RCE). They will be a -6 to hit SAMAS going 300 mph, so they will need to roll at least a 13 (40%) to even have a chance of hitting, meaning that they land, per shooter, 2 strikes per round. Ignoring for the moment the missiles, the guns will do only 202 MD per round combined to all attackers, and that is assuming that the SAMAS are not attempting to either evade or dodge.

Incidentally, SAMAS pilots of the same level will have the same number of attacks and +2 to strike. They will face only a -2 to strike the robot at its full speed of 90mph, so will hit 60% of the time, half again as often. And with +5 to dodge, they will successfully dodge 48% of the time, meaning the average damage to the is only 96 MD per round from gunfire, in best case conditions.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Not really. They are *capable* of damaging Armor, but they are not Anti-Armor weapons - they are too suicidally short ranged for that to be the case. To bring them to bear, you have to get the drop on the Armor in question (not an easy task given the sensors mounted on Robots and an alert tech officer) or cross an engagement range that is 4-100 times larger than your own. When said Armor can also obliterate an entire platoon sized force of said infantry with a single attack from a range at which the infantry can not reply or (potentially) even know they are under attack... If you're going to assume for these arguments that everyone is always within range of their weapons, then there is no point to anyone in Rifts Earth fielding anything other gunslingers dual-wielding 6d6 damage pulse pistols.

Missiles and explosive projectiles are the only really good defense against infantry - lasers and such will only take out one at a time. A couple of dozen base infantry can do a lot of damage, even if they designate a few specifically to shoot down missile attacks. Range is indeed an issue, but even the best robot direct-fire weapons only have an 11,000 ft range, and with terrain and use of even moderate cover (remember that we are not on a featureless plain here) it is not as much of an issue as you seem to think.

Unsure what part of "please stop hijacking this thread" was difficult for you to fathom, but im not going to reply to this here. New thread started. Reply there. Let this thread get back to the original topic.

eliakon wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

BuzzardB wrote:

eliakon wrote:Question? Where is it written that all skelbots weapons only shoot bursts? (I don't really use them much, and when I do I use regular infantry weapons for them so I could easily have missed it.)

Not sure, from what I saw in CWC it doesn't say its a Burst, just has two settings. 2d6 and 4d6

Known error. It is a variable frequency version of the C-12, and it is a long-known issue that has come straight from the Mouth of Kevin that the 4d6 "setting" is the 5-shot burst described in the fluff text. It's also fluctuated in a couple of books. The CV-212 went to having a 3-shot 6d6 Pulse for no reason in early printings of CWC, and then back, etc.

KC could probably describe it better, as i believe he is the one that directly approached Kevin about it at an Open House a while back.

Okay, I was just checking, since I wanted to know if they can make called shots.
So yes, they can...but at 2d6.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The CV-213 is the same gun as the CV-212 (which is the same as the C-12).
Note that originally (SB1) the ROF was Aimed, Burst, Wild- just like the original C-12 ROF (Rifts), and just like the CV-212's original ROF (SB1).
Unlike the other two, the CV-213 does not specifically mention (that I can find) any preset burst option, but it does mention that it's "the robot modified version of the Coalition's CV-212."
The only differences between the 212 and the 213 that are mentioned in the 213's description are that the VF control is linked to the robot's combat computer instead of controlled manually, and the weapon links to the robot's nuclear power supply.
As written, the weapon was originally a badass terror capable of firing long bursts of 4d6x5 MD every single attack without ever running out of ammunition. That's how I played it, which is one reason why skelebots were universally feared in my games.
But then, other than the unlimited ammo, that's how I played the C-12, and I was wrong.
Because whatever else is going on, it's pretty clear that the original ROF of Aimed, Burst, Wild for the C-12 was a genuine error on Palladium's part: it directly conflicts with the preset burst described, and this was quickly corrected in CWC.
Which is where the CV-213's ROF was also changed (fixed) to "Equal to the number of hand to hand attacks."

My take on all this is that one of two things has gone on with the CV-213:
1. The weapon was always supposed to be a burst-capable weapon with a preset burst option, just like it's brethren. The mention of the 5-shot burst was accidentally eliminated in the description section when the text was altered to include the two changes to the weapon. Even though the weapon should have changed along with the other weapons since CWC, it has been overlooked due to the simple fact that it's in the Skelebot description section instead of the weapons section.
The writers/editors have just done what most other people do: skip the entry assuming that it's the same as the CV-212.
So it's description is essentially a fossil from a previous age, evidence that the C-12's 4d6 setting is a burst setting, because it's still there in the CV-213 as a reminder of the weapons' original descriptions.
If A=B, and B=C, then A=C again: the CV-212 is the same gun as the CV-213, and since the CV-212 clearly mentions having a preset burst option, then the CV-213 also has one, whether it's mentioned or not.
Never in the CV-213's description does it mention anything about only firing single shots: the 4d6 setting is still the burst setting, just like with the other two guns (originally).
To me, this makes the most sense. Overlooking a gun and cutting-and-pasting the description for a couple decades seems perfectly in line with the kind of mistake that Palladium usually makes (cutting and pasting instead of actually rewriting, and constantly failing to update or clarify things).

2. The weapon was different from the outset, always intended to be a single-shot weapon with two single-shot settings, one for 2d6 MD and one for 4d6 MD. That is why the burst setting is never mentioned- it's not there.
The weapon has never been updated since CWC not because it was overlooked, but because it has actually remained the same the entire time.
I think that this option is less likely, simply because the stats look like they were as brief as possible, cribbed from the other weapons with the assumption that we'd look at the 212 if we needed a full description.
But let's say that this option is correct.
In that case, then this weapon has no real bearing on the C-12 or CV-212 at all- it was always intended to work differently. That's why it never mentioned a burst setting but the other two weapons did. That's why it wasn't upgraded to a pulse weapon when the CV-212 was, because it had no burst setting to adapt.
It could be argued that the CV-212 DOES work the same as the other two, and it's the only version that the writers got right, but that would require an assumption that the writers failed to notice that the other two weapons mentioned a burst setting, even though the writers made modification to that rule.

If the CV-212 and 213 are supposed to be the same weapon, then in CWC one of two things happened:
-The writers simply failed to update the 213 for the reasons mentioned.
or
-The writers accidentally updated the CV-212 to have a pul se feature it never should have had, based on a burst feature that it should have never had, based on a burst feature that the C-12 never should have had, AND that this error was not only never noticed by the writers, even though the C-12's burst feature was updated to be a 3-shot burst and the CV-212's stats were put back into place after the RUE 1st printing stat-swapping without the writers noticing that the stats shouldn't have fit that weapon too.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Where do you come up with 78.5?
The GBs damage on average is ((1+2+3+4+5+6)/6)*3*10=105/ attack 5% chance of critical (or does level 5 get crit on 19+?) and 35% chance to miss. So 4 hits, 3 misses and no crits at 105 MD average per SUCCESSFUL attack. Only four skelebots make it and the next four get destroyed as the next turn starts when they engage the GB. What's required to hit roll for point blank per RUE? The first robot rolls to grapple, GB simultaneous strikes with his first attack and destroys the skelebot that jumps at him, same goes for each other one. At a quarter mile a GB has a good chance of taking out 8 FASSAR-20s maybe 10 depending on point blank rules. While the GB would be over run by the FASSAR-30s only being able to kill two at range and not being able to despose of them before they grappled with sumultanious attacks.

Mack wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Where do you come up with 78.5?
The GBs damage on average is ((1+2+3+4+5+6)/6)*3*10=105/ attack 5% chance of critical (or does level 5 get crit on 19+?) and 35% chance to miss. So 4 hits, 3 misses and no crits at 105 MD average per SUCCESSFUL attack. Only four skelebots make it and the next four get destroyed as the next turn starts when they engage the GB. What's required to hit roll for point blank per RUE? The first robot rolls to grapple, GB simultaneous strikes with his first attack and destroys the skelebot that jumps at him, same goes for each other one. At a quarter mile a GB has a good chance of taking out 8 FASSAR-20s maybe 10 depending on point blank rules. While the GB would be over run by the FASSAR-30s only being able to kill two at range and not being able to despose of them before they grappled with sumultanious attacks.

So let's explore that for a moment. I'll be generous and say that of the GB pilot's 7 attacks, 5 will be hits and 2 will miss.
- If charged by 8 original FASSAR-20s (100 MDC) then 5 will be destroyed while closing the gap, and 3 will arrive unharmed. Three skelebots should be enough to gang tackle the GB, but that will largely depend on the individual actions of the GB pilot and whether the Skelebots can get "inside" of the Boomgun's reach.
- If charged by 8 of the newer FASSAR-30s (150 MDC) then only 2 will be destroyed, while 1 damaged and 5 unharmed will arrive. Six skelebots is certainly enough to gang tackle a GB.

(Note - I have a common sense approach to Simultaneous Attacks that limits it to one opponent, not the whole gang. And if someone uses Simultaneous Attack then they lose their ability to "parry up to three attackers" since they are too busy attacking.)

In either case, at the start of the next round sufficient numbers

eliakon wrote:Also the idea that a skelbot will be 'one shot' is presuming that the GB rolls a 10+ on 3d6. Which, is average true, but counting on all 5 hits to be 100MD plus seems...unnaturally optimistic.

Tor wrote:That odd-looking 65.05 percentage is due to natural 20 doubling, I take it?

flatline wrote:Out of curiosity, if 3 skelebots do get into melee range with the GB, how do you expect that to play out?

Mack wrote:

eliakon wrote:Also the idea that a skelbot will be 'one shot' is presuming that the GB rolls a 10+ on 3d6. Which, is average true, but counting on all 5 hits to be 100MD plus seems...unnaturally optimistic.

I don't dispute you, but it will work out on average. Out of the 4,320 possible outcomes (3D6x10, and a 1D20 roll to strike) the GB will get a hit 3,024 times (70%). Of the hits, 1,967 (65.05%) of them will be "one-shot kills. The remainder (34.95%) will injure but not kill a Skelebot.

(Note - this is why in my original post I used an average 78.75 MD, because I calculated all 4,320 outcomes of 3D6x10 and the 1D20 roll to strike.)

I agree that's it's imperfect, but we have to use some generalizations to work through the scenario. I could build a spreadsheet to model the encounter, but the results would be the same over the long run.

Dog_O_War wrote:

BuzzardB wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Yeah, if you can dig those up when you get a chance that would be great.

RUE 342 Under Two Against One

Thanks Buzz.

Colonel, this is the multiple attackers rule.

I'll check on the long-range attack one when I get the chance.

R:UE pg 346 under Long-Range Attack or Ranged Attack wrote:An attack done at a distance using a long-range weapon, magic or power. Provided the attacker is not seen, the defender automatically loses initiative and may not dodge the first attack that melee round from a long-range attack.

eliakon wrote:

Mack wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Where do you come up with 78.5?
The GBs damage on average is ((1+2+3+4+5+6)/6)*3*10=105/ attack 5% chance of critical (or does level 5 get crit on 19+?) and 35% chance to miss. So 4 hits, 3 misses and no crits at 105 MD average per SUCCESSFUL attack. Only four skelebots make it and the next four get destroyed as the next turn starts when they engage the GB. What's required to hit roll for point blank per RUE? The first robot rolls to grapple, GB simultaneous strikes with his first attack and destroys the skelebot that jumps at him, same goes for each other one. At a quarter mile a GB has a good chance of taking out 8 FASSAR-20s maybe 10 depending on point blank rules. While the GB would be over run by the FASSAR-30s only being able to kill two at range and not being able to despose of them before they grappled with sumultanious attacks.

So let's explore that for a moment. I'll be generous and say that of the GB pilot's 7 attacks, 5 will be hits and 2 will miss.
- If charged by 8 original FASSAR-20s (100 MDC) then 5 will be destroyed while closing the gap, and 3 will arrive unharmed. Three skelebots should be enough to gang tackle the GB, but that will largely depend on the individual actions of the GB pilot and whether the Skelebots can get "inside" of the Boomgun's reach.
- If charged by 8 of the newer FASSAR-30s (150 MDC) then only 2 will be destroyed, while 1 damaged and 5 unharmed will arrive. Six skelebots is certainly enough to gang tackle a GB.

(Note - I have a common sense approach to Simultaneous Attacks that limits it to one opponent, not the whole gang. And if someone uses Simultaneous Attack then they lose their ability to "parry up to three attackers" since they are too busy attacking.)

In either case, at the start of the next round sufficient numbers

Also the idea that a skelbot will be 'one shot' is presuming that the GB rolls a 10+ on 3d6. Which, is average true, but counting on all 5 hits to be 100MD plus seems...unnaturally optimistic.
And those 'simo attack defenses?' There is a very good chance that those would be wild shots....and since the GB can not dodge the incoming fire, AND be anchored....he either has to accept all the incoming enemy fire, OR he has to send his fire down range as wild shots. Which suddenly makes the idea of taking out the majority of his foes...less likely.

Mack wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Where do you come up with 78.5?
The GBs damage on average is ((1+2+3+4+5+6)/6)*3*10=105/ attack 5% chance of critical (or does level 5 get crit on 19+?) and 35% chance to miss. So 4 hits, 3 misses and no crits at 105 MD average per SUCCESSFUL attack. Only four skelebots make it and the next four get destroyed as the next turn starts when they engage the GB. What's required to hit roll for point blank per RUE? The first robot rolls to grapple, GB simultaneous strikes with his first attack and destroys the skelebot that jumps at him, same goes for each other one. At a quarter mile a GB has a good chance of taking out 8 FASSAR-20s maybe 10 depending on point blank rules. While the GB would be over run by the FASSAR-30s only being able to kill two at range and not being able to despose of them before they grappled with sumultanious attacks.

So let's explore that for a moment. I'll be generous and say that of the GB pilot's 7 attacks, 5 will be hits and 2 will miss.
- If charged by 8 original FASSAR-20s (100 MDC) then 5 will be destroyed while closing the gap, and 3 will arrive unharmed. Three skelebots should be enough to gang tackle the GB, but that will largely depend on the individual actions of the GB pilot and whether the Skelebots can get "inside" of the Boomgun's reach.
- If charged by 8 of the newer FASSAR-30s (150 MDC) then only 2 will be destroyed, while 1 damaged and 5 unharmed will arrive. Six skelebots is certainly enough to gang tackle a GB.

(Note - I have a common sense approach to Simultaneous Attacks that limits it to one opponent, not the whole gang. And if someone uses Simultaneous Attack then they lose their ability to "parry up to three attackers" since they are too busy attacking.)

In either case, at the start of the next round sufficient numbers arrive in melee range to grapple the GB.

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Mack wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Where do you come up with 78.5?
The GBs damage on average is ((1+2+3+4+5+6)/6)*3*10=105/ attack 5% chance of critical (or does level 5 get crit on 19+?) and 35% chance to miss. So 4 hits, 3 misses and no crits at 105 MD average per SUCCESSFUL attack. Only four skelebots make it and the next four get destroyed as the next turn starts when they engage the GB. What's required to hit roll for point blank per RUE? The first robot rolls to grapple, GB simultaneous strikes with his first attack and destroys the skelebot that jumps at him, same goes for each other one. At a quarter mile a GB has a good chance of taking out 8 FASSAR-20s maybe 10 depending on point blank rules. While the GB would be over run by the FASSAR-30s only being able to kill two at range and not being able to despose of them before they grappled with sumultanious attacks.

So let's explore that for a moment. I'll be generous and say that of the GB pilot's 7 attacks, 5 will be hits and 2 will miss.
- If charged by 8 original FASSAR-20s (100 MDC) then 5 will be destroyed while closing the gap, and 3 will arrive unharmed. Three skelebots should be enough to gang tackle the GB, but that will largely depend on the individual actions of the GB pilot and whether the Skelebots can get "inside" of the Boomgun's reach.
- If charged by 8 of the newer FASSAR-30s (150 MDC) then only 2 will be destroyed, while 1 damaged and 5 unharmed will arrive. Six skelebots is certainly enough to gang tackle a GB.

(Note - I have a common sense approach to Simultaneous Attacks that limits it to one opponent, not the whole gang. And if someone uses Simultaneous Attack then they lose their ability to "parry up to three attackers" since they are too busy attacking.)

In either case, at the start of the next round sufficient numbers arrive in melee range to grapple the GB.

that's nice, but this isn't a conversation of your house rules.

Mack wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Mack wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Where do you come up with 78.5?
The GBs damage on average is ((1+2+3+4+5+6)/6)*3*10=105/ attack 5% chance of critical (or does level 5 get crit on 19+?) and 35% chance to miss. So 4 hits, 3 misses and no crits at 105 MD average per SUCCESSFUL attack. Only four skelebots make it and the next four get destroyed as the next turn starts when they engage the GB. What's required to hit roll for point blank per RUE? The first robot rolls to grapple, GB simultaneous strikes with his first attack and destroys the skelebot that jumps at him, same goes for each other one. At a quarter mile a GB has a good chance of taking out 8 FASSAR-20s maybe 10 depending on point blank rules. While the GB would be over run by the FASSAR-30s only being able to kill two at range and not being able to despose of them before they grappled with sumultanious attacks.

So let's explore that for a moment. I'll be generous and say that of the GB pilot's 7 attacks, 5 will be hits and 2 will miss.
- If charged by 8 original FASSAR-20s (100 MDC) then 5 will be destroyed while closing the gap, and 3 will arrive unharmed. Three skelebots should be enough to gang tackle the GB, but that will largely depend on the individual actions of the GB pilot and whether the Skelebots can get "inside" of the Boomgun's reach.
- If charged by 8 of the newer FASSAR-30s (150 MDC) then only 2 will be destroyed, while 1 damaged and 5 unharmed will arrive. Six skelebots is certainly enough to gang tackle a GB.

(Note - I have a common sense approach to Simultaneous Attacks that limits it to one opponent, not the whole gang. And if someone uses Simultaneous Attack then they lose their ability to "parry up to three attackers" since they are too busy attacking.)

In either case, at the start of the next round sufficient numbers arrive in melee range to grapple the GB.

that's nice, but this isn't a conversation of your house rules.

Good thing I didn't mention any.

Simultaneous Attack is intended for a single opponent, not a gaggle. And using Simultaneous Attack requires the user to forego any parry. (RUE p347)

Dog_O_War wrote:

Mack wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Mack wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Where do you come up with 78.5?
The GBs damage on average is ((1+2+3+4+5+6)/6)*3*10=105/ attack 5% chance of critical (or does level 5 get crit on 19+?) and 35% chance to miss. So 4 hits, 3 misses and no crits at 105 MD average per SUCCESSFUL attack. Only four skelebots make it and the next four get destroyed as the next turn starts when they engage the GB. What's required to hit roll for point blank per RUE? The first robot rolls to grapple, GB simultaneous strikes with his first attack and destroys the skelebot that jumps at him, same goes for each other one. At a quarter mile a GB has a good chance of taking out 8 FASSAR-20s maybe 10 depending on point blank rules. While the GB would be over run by the FASSAR-30s only being able to kill two at range and not being able to despose of them before they grappled with sumultanious attacks.

So let's explore that for a moment. I'll be generous and say that of the GB pilot's 7 attacks, 5 will be hits and 2 will miss.
- If charged by 8 original FASSAR-20s (100 MDC) then 5 will be destroyed while closing the gap, and 3 will arrive unharmed. Three skelebots should be enough to gang tackle the GB, but that will largely depend on the individual actions of the GB pilot and whether the Skelebots can get "inside" of the Boomgun's reach.
- If charged by 8 of the newer FASSAR-30s (150 MDC) then only 2 will be destroyed, while 1 damaged and 5 unharmed will arrive. Six skelebots is certainly enough to gang tackle a GB.

(Note - I have a common sense approach to Simultaneous Attacks that limits it to one opponent, not the whole gang. And if someone uses Simultaneous Attack then they lose their ability to "parry up to three attackers" since they are too busy attacking.)

In either case, at the start of the next round sufficient numbers arrive in melee range to grapple the GB.

that's nice, but this isn't a conversation of your house rules.

Good thing I didn't mention any.

Simultaneous Attack is intended for a single opponent, not a gaggle. And using Simultaneous Attack requires the user to forego any parry. (RUE p347)

Actually, the caveat is that they give up their ability to parry or dodge "the next attack". Only the next person in the round-robin will be able to strike without fear of retaliation.

eliakon wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Actually, the caveat is that they give up their ability to parry or dodge "the next attack". Only the next person in the round-robin will be able to strike without fear of retaliation.

So
Skelbot 1 attacks
GB Simo attacks the bot
Skelbot 2 attacks....GB gets no defense.
Skelbot 3 attacks GB Simos
Skelbot 4 attacks GB again gets no defense
Ect...

Mack wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Actually, the caveat is that they give up their ability to parry or dodge "the next attack". Only the next person in the round-robin will be able to strike without fear of retaliation.

So
Skelbot 1 attacks
GB Simo attacks the bot
Skelbot 2 attacks....GB gets no defense.
Skelbot 3 attacks GB Simos
Skelbot 4 attacks GB again gets no defense
Ect...

I disagree. It would be:

Skelebot 1 attacks
GB Simo attacks in return
Skelebot 2 attacks....GB gets no defense.
Skelebot 3 attacks....GB gets no defense.
Skelebot 4 attacks....GB gets no defense.
etc.

To do otherwise grants the defender (the GB in this case) a ridiculous number of "free" attacks. If he gets attacked by 100 opponents, does he get 50 "free" attacks?

Simultaneous Attack is clearly written for a single opponent, not multiple.

eliakon wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Actually, the caveat is that they give up their ability to parry or dodge "the next attack". Only the next person in the round-robin will be able to strike without fear of retaliation.

So
Skelbot 1 attacks
GB Simo attacks the bot
Skelbot 2 attacks....GB gets no defense.
Skelbot 3 attacks GB Simos
Skelbot 4 attacks GB again gets no defense
Ect...

Mack wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Actually, the caveat is that they give up their ability to parry or dodge "the next attack". Only the next person in the round-robin will be able to strike without fear of retaliation.

So
Skelbot 1 attacks
GB Simo attacks the bot
Skelbot 2 attacks....GB gets no defense.
Skelbot 3 attacks GB Simos
Skelbot 4 attacks GB again gets no defense
Ect...

I disagree. It would be:

Skelebot 1 attacks
GB Simo attacks in return
Skelebot 2 attacks....GB gets no defense.
Skelebot 3 attacks....GB gets no defense.
Skelebot 4 attacks....GB gets no defense.
etc.

To do otherwise grants the defender (the GB in this case) a ridiculous number of "free" attacks. If he gets attacked by 100 opponents, does he get 50 "free" attacks?

Simultaneous Attack is clearly written for a single opponent, not multiple.

Mack wrote:

flatline wrote:Out of curiosity, if 3 skelebots do get into melee range with the GB, how do you expect that to play out?

Here's where I get more speculative... too many variables that a GM and player would have to decide.

All three attempt to climb the Glitterboy and immobilize the Boomgun. The GB may get a shot off and destroy one, and for the sake of this discussion we'll say he does. That leaves two Skelebots that scale up to the Glitterboy's shoulder. Each Skelebot has the same strength as the Glitterboy, so together they should be able to "out-grapple" him and keep the Boomgun pointed in a safe direction. Imagine if one bear-hugs the right-arm and Boomgun. Then they go to work with vibro-blades to disable the Boomgun. After that, it's just a matter of time. The Skelebots maintain their position and keep cutting until it's over.

Now, obviously that doesn't account for any special Kung-Fu moves that the Glitterboy may whip out, but in an average encounter I see that as rather unlikely.

Like I said, there's a fair bit of speculation there, but I figure three to one has a reasonable enough margin to say the Skelebots would win.

Alrik Vas wrote:Dog, it's not a discussion about the rules, but about comparatiive real tactics using skelebots vs a GB. There was another thread for this before and it spent 15 pages literally going nowhere. Let's not do the same thing here.

Dog_O_War wrote:Well it doesn't seem that real of a tactic for 8 people to run a 1/4 mile so they can fist-fight a 2-ton giant.

cosmicfish wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Well it doesn't seem that real of a tactic for 8 people to run a 1/4 mile so they can fist-fight a 2-ton giant.

Skelebots aren't people, no matter what the Campaign for Skelebot Rights tells you. They are soulless killing machines with no sense of self-preservation that would supersede a command or observed advantage in destroying a glitterboy.

Zer0 Kay wrote:True dat. But if they're able to go undetected at 1/4 mile why not just hide until the GB is on top of them to ensure victory?

Dog_O_War wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:Dog, it's not a discussion about the rules, but about comparatiive real tactics using skelebots vs a GB. There was another thread for this before and it spent 15 pages literally going nowhere. Let's not do the same thing here.

Well it doesn't seem that real of a tactic for 8 people to run a 1/4 mile so they can fist-fight a 2-ton giant.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:Dog, it's not a discussion about the rules, but about comparatiive real tactics using skelebots vs a GB. There was another thread for this before and it spent 15 pages literally going nowhere. Let's not do the same thing here.

Well it doesn't seem that real of a tactic for 8 people to run a 1/4 mile so they can fist-fight a 2-ton giant.

Most people can't run 90 mph, and most people aren't as strong as a 2-ton giant.
Most people aren't robots.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:Dog, it's not a discussion about the rules, but about comparatiive real tactics using skelebots vs a GB. There was another thread for this before and it spent 15 pages literally going nowhere. Let's not do the same thing here.

Well it doesn't seem that real of a tactic for 8 people to run a 1/4 mile so they can fist-fight a 2-ton giant.

Most people can't run 90 mph, and most people aren't as strong as a 2-ton giant.
Most people aren't robots.

I know all this. I just said that to put things in perspective and because it sounded kinda funny.

But that doesn't address the matter of guns; they have them and their basic tactic is to use them, not to run at the enemy while not shooting back so they can dog-pile him. That just isn't in the Skelebot-playbook.

The tactic presented just isn't one they possess; CWC says they're reasonably intelligent, but it says nothing about a hive-mind, martyr-like tendencies, or their penchant for not shooting those railguns of theirs; it kinda says that they've been programmed to be nasty to D-Bees, not sacrificial group-tactics against Glitterboys.

So if this is about real tactics, then what was presented, while smart from a purely numbers/cost means nothing perspective, it is not a feasible tactic from most any other perspective. And I was told that this "wasn't about the rules", but that seems to be a bigger issue here; how to avoid getting shot to death from simultaneous attacks. Simultaneous Attacks are purely a function of the rules; in reality, you can't just decide to ignore how fast you are reacting to simply react instantly and shoot your opponent, but that's what simo assumes.

Basically, none of this makes sense; either the rules are the primary concern, or they're not. And if "real tactics" are of a concern, then what is presented is not a real tactic.

Killer Cyborg wrote:How would you know what their play book is?

eliakon wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:Dog, it's not a discussion about the rules, but about comparatiive real tactics using skelebots vs a GB. There was another thread for this before and it spent 15 pages literally going nowhere. Let's not do the same thing here.

Well it doesn't seem that real of a tactic for 8 people to run a 1/4 mile so they can fist-fight a 2-ton giant.

Most people can't run 90 mph, and most people aren't as strong as a 2-ton giant.
Most people aren't robots.

I know all this. I just said that to put things in perspective and because it sounded kinda funny.

But that doesn't address the matter of guns; they have them and their basic tactic is to use them, not to run at the enemy while not shooting back so they can dog-pile him. That just isn't in the Skelebot-playbook.

The tactic presented just isn't one they possess; CWC says they're reasonably intelligent, but it says nothing about a hive-mind, martyr-like tendencies, or their penchant for not shooting those railguns of theirs; it kinda says that they've been programmed to be nasty to D-Bees, not sacrificial group-tactics against Glitterboys.

So if this is about real tactics, then what was presented, while smart from a purely numbers/cost means nothing perspective, it is not a feasible tactic from most any other perspective. And I was told that this "wasn't about the rules", but that seems to be a bigger issue here; how to avoid getting shot to death from simultaneous attacks. Simultaneous Attacks are purely a function of the rules; in reality, you can't just decide to ignore how fast you are reacting to simply react instantly and shoot your opponent, but that's what simo assumes.

Basically, none of this makes sense; either the rules are the primary concern, or they're not. And if "real tactics" are of a concern, then what is presented is not a real tactic.

Two issues.
1) I don't see a reason why skelebots WOULDN'T be self-sacrificing. If the optimal strategy to destroy a GB requires that they sacrifice 4 skelbots. then four skelbots will be sacrificed....its Optimal after all yes?

2) I think the problem with the Simo is that what used to be a H2H maneuver got carried over to ranged combat. I blame the cut and pasting but there it is.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:How would you know what their play book is?

The same way that some one can say "no that makes no sense"
Or the same way that we can deduce what a GB would do, or the CS....we have to make some assumptions. Though I guess we could also just throw up our hands and say "Its all ineffable, we shall never know what anyone shall do."
But considering that the Skelbots in Tolkeen were obviously willing to follow some destructive orders......