Forums of the Megaverse®

Ok I've givin a couple of options .. but I wanna hear more specifically what do you all think would constitute a Power Amor'ed suit vrs say Robot Armor ?

Where do you guys draw the line ?

Personally I think that anything (size not limiting ) you sit in like a Jet i.e. cockpit like is a Robot ..Regaurdless of the size ...

Anything that represents where your arms legs head an torso are actually at is what I personally think is a Power Armor .

shape and number of passengers.

If running doesn't tire the operator, it's a robot.

The book.

Seriously, calling a board sensus is weak when it literally tells you flat out; "this is a powered armour", "this is a giant robot" right in the book.

Dog_O_War wrote:The book.

Seriously, calling a board sensus is weak when it literally tells you flat out; "this is a powered armour", "this is a giant robot" right in the book.

Then dont Vote .. I am not making you vote .. I would like to know what others personally think of as Power Armor ..since there are Power Armors in the Books that plain flat out state this is the blurry line that one cant really tell is a power armor ... or a robot ...

GB Killer being one ....produced by the CS ... IS it a PA or a Robot ?

Lenwen wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:The book.

Seriously, calling a board sensus is weak when it literally tells you flat out; "this is a powered armour", "this is a giant robot" right in the book.

Then dont Vote .. I am not making you vote .. I would like to know what others personally think of as Power Armor ..since there are Power Armors in the Books that plain flat out state this is the blurry line that one cant really tell is a power armor ... or a robot ...

GB Killer being one ....produced by the CS ... IS it a PA or a Robot ?

I voted already. I'm the only one (so far) to choose "other".

And the book does not state that. It states that these powered armours begin to blur the line between PA and robot.

Ulti-max is another one of those... pilot in a compartment, but size is small enough to be PA...
I personally consider it a small robot vehicle.

Sir Blayse wrote:Ulti-max is another one of those... pilot in a compartment, but size is small enough to be PA...
I personally consider it a small robot vehicle.

Then we go to ...a KNOWN Coalition supporter to the Nth Degree ... who then goes on to verify exactly what I have been saying ...

K20A2_S wrote:Well page 105 of CWC states that GB killer and the Terror trooper are armors that make the line b/w power armors and robots fuzzy...........but they list them under the Power Armor section and not the Robot section...........so it would make them more PA's than Robots.

And who was it saying something about there not being any blurry lines about Power Armor and Robots again ??

Dog_O_War wrote:And the book does not state that. It states that these powered armours begin to blur the line between PA and robot.

Sir Blayse wrote:Ulti-max is another one of those... pilot in a compartment, but size is small enough to be PA...
I personally consider it a small robot vehicle.

IIRC, the descriptions of this unit call them robots as well, despite being lumped in with PA in terms of book layout. i'd say they count as robots as well.


in terms of the GB-killer, visually it looks to be PA type legs, but the arm placement has to be robot type mechanical appendages. so it would be sort of a hybrid. youd move your legs PA style to make it walk/run, but you'd be manipulating joysticks or some other form of controls to move the arms.

It's how you sit in it.

Powered Armor is enhanced armor, you wear it, crew of one.

The combat robots in this game are like vehicles, you sit in them, buckle a seatbelt or restraint harness, etc.

The Triax Hunter/Jager is classified a robot vehicle however you stand in it, not sit (pg 163 Triax and NGR), plus un-modded it's only 12 feet tall.

is there a conceivable situation where this matters?

rat_bastard wrote:is there a conceivable situation where this matters?

You mean outside the game context or inside the game context ..

Other then curiosity ...

No

rat_bastard wrote:is there a conceivable situation where this matters?

Rules wise? No.

Theoretically, yes. The idea is that power armor will be more responsive and agile than robot vehicles. Power armor moves with the pilot, so the pilot can react instinctively (jumping out of the way of a missile, all the pilot does is jump like they were unarmed). With a robot vehicle, there's a few milliseconds of delay as they convert their instinctive desire to move out of the way into the hand movements needed to get the robot to jump or sidestep or whatever.

Look at the movie Transformers, how they fight at the end. All of their movements would be easily done by a power armor pilot, they're all instinctively moving their own bodies, that type of thing. Someone piloting a robot vehicle with joysticks and buttons would be hard pressed to pull of half of the maneuvers seen there.

LostOne wrote:

rat_bastard wrote:is there a conceivable situation where this matters?

Rules wise? No.

Theoretically, yes. The idea is that power armor will be more responsive and agile than robot vehicles. Power armor moves with the pilot, so the pilot can react instinctively (jumping out of the way of a missile, all the pilot does is jump like they were unarmed). With a robot vehicle, there's a few milliseconds of delay as they convert their instinctive desire to move out of the way into the hand movements needed to get the robot to jump or sidestep or whatever.

Look at the movie Transformers, how they fight at the end. All of their movements would be easily done by a power armor pilot, they're all instinctively moving their own bodies, that type of thing. Someone piloting a robot vehicle with joysticks and buttons would be hard pressed to pull of half of the maneuvers seen there.

why do you think they are doing it with joysticks and buttons? I think that would be the least likely method of controlling them.

I voted how you sit because it matches the closest to my own definitions. Sure, PB may say this one is a bot, and that one is a PA, but they are not really consistent. Plus they DO blur the lines quite often. I for one think of the Glitter Boy and Ulti Max are small Robots, rather than Power Armors, no mater what section the GMG puts them in.

I personally define:

-A robot as a non-tracked, hovering, or wheeled vehicle, typically of organic shape in which the pilot (or crew) sits in a Reinforced Pilots Compartment.

-Power Armor is worn like a suit of body armor, powered by an unlimited energy source, in which the pilot wears over his personal body (void of a RPC). It is impossible for a power armor to have a crew more than one.

-Exo-skeletons (or Exo-suits) are suits of armor, powered by a limited power source (batteries most likely) that augment (add to) the wearers abilities as opposed to having it's own set of statistics (like Power Armor or Robots have).

-Body Armor is simply a suit of armor worn for protection. It can be EBA (Environmental Body Armor) or Non-EAB.

Had to vote "Other", because as with so many other things the answer is "Marketing".

Engineering: Look at this great idea we just came up with, it'll be our best power armor ever!
Marketing: Well, we have a hole in our product line in the form of small combat robots, so we'll market it as one.
Engineering: Whatever you want, but the project is green-lit, right?
CEO: Sounds good to me. Let's do it.

I'll invoke the rule someone else here came up the last time this was debated: The Nose Pick Rule. If you can pick your nose while piloting it, it's a robot.

Mack wrote:I'll invoke the rule someone else here came up the last time this was debated: The Nose Pick Rule. If you can pick your nose while piloting it, it's a robot.

That's not a bad rule of thumb... errr... index finger, I suppose...

Mack wrote:I'll invoke the rule someone else here came up the last time this was debated: The Nose Pick Rule. If you can pick your nose while piloting it, it's a robot.

Brilliant!

The rule of index!

5 points to anyone who can honestly tell me where the "rule of thumb" came from without looking it up elsewhere.

macksting wrote:

LostOne wrote:

rat_bastard wrote:is there a conceivable situation where this matters?

Rules wise? No.

Theoretically, yes. The idea is that power armor will be more responsive and agile than robot vehicles. Power armor moves with the pilot, so the pilot can react instinctively (jumping out of the way of a missile, all the pilot does is jump like they were unarmed). With a robot vehicle, there's a few milliseconds of delay as they convert their instinctive desire to move out of the way into the hand movements needed to get the robot to jump or sidestep or whatever.

Look at the movie Transformers, how they fight at the end. All of their movements would be easily done by a power armor pilot, they're all instinctively moving their own bodies, that type of thing. Someone piloting a robot vehicle with joysticks and buttons would be hard pressed to pull of half of the maneuvers seen there.

I'm generally inclined to agree, but are there canon indications that martial arts moves can be used by a mecha pilot while in the cockpit? Seems the number of attacks and such can be derived from martial arts, certainly.
What I mean to say is, being that bipedal robots and such are generally derived from anime (the anime influence is obvious even in Rifts, much less the venerable Robotech RPG), this does seem to be a carryover of anime mechanics. As such, the available moves and reaction time (TMF, as Wujcik called it) would seem not to be limited by the interface.

Oh, you can definately use martial arts moves while in the cockpit of a robot, you just might feel abit foolish doing them...

I vote for 'its how you sit in it'

Power armour is worn, and limbs are in the limbs of the suit (SAMAS, GB, Kittani serpent* etc) also they only have one pilot

Robots have automated limbs that the wearer(s)/pilot(s) controls from a centralised positon (Ulti-Max, Terror Trooper)

the hybrids are the more difficult to work with -Jaeger/super Jaeger (Pilots Legs are in the legs of the suit, yet arms are controlled from the torso), Blood lizard/Kittani raptor (fully automated suit, yet far too small to be considered a robot), Kittani Equestrian (upper body worn like power armour, lower body in automated section) and so on

*The serpents pilot may not actually have a serpents tail, but his legs are in the locomotion section, as if it had legs

Alejandro wrote:
You could put the person in a giant robot and situate the cockpit in a fashion like Robot Jox and by the control scheme concept it would still count as power armor.

Pretty much what he said.

In a nutshell, Power Armors generally tire out their operator over time because he has to physically move his body to maneuver the chassis, while robots require very little more than punching a few buttons and pulling a few levers.

Apart from the means of transmitting commands to the unit, there appear to be no other substantial differences between the two types of armor.

Sir Neil wrote:If running doesn't tire the operator, it's a robot.

Lenwen wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:The book.

Seriously, calling a board sensus is weak when it literally tells you flat out; "this is a powered armour", "this is a giant robot" right in the book.

Then dont Vote .. I am not making you vote .. I would like to know what others personally think of as Power Armor ..since there are Power Armors in the Books that plain flat out state this is the blurry line that one cant really tell is a power armor ... or a robot ...

GB Killer being one ....produced by the CS ... IS it a PA or a Robot ?

Technically, it classifies as Power Armor even though the Flavor Text says that the line is blurred; the operator has to move the body of the chassis when doing things like swimming (don't ask me why Kevin thought that it would make sense for the Operator to have to move the chassis' legs when swimming but NOT when running on land).

Sir Blayse wrote:Ulti-max is another one of those... pilot in a compartment, but size is small enough to be PA...
I personally consider it a small robot vehicle.

Size doesn't determine the designation.

The means of working the machine does.

I don't remember; does the Ulti-max run itself or does the operator have to literally go through the motions??

macksting wrote:To me, how you sit in the vehicle defines much of the difference. This includes not only how you sit, but where you sit. If the limbs are occupied by your limbs, rather than simply slaved (if they follow your movements) or controlled by joysticks and such, it's powered armor.

"Operator's Arms/Legs needing to be placed within the Machine's Arms/Legs" is not the defining distinction (although most PAs do indeed follow that pattern).

How the machine is made to move by the operator is.

To paraphrase what Alejandro said in an earlier Posting, one could be in a giant-sized Devastator 'bot, be contained in some sort of gyroscopic sphere wherein he moves his arms and legs, and according to the base definition on the bottom of page 105 of Rifts: Coalition War Campaign, that Devastator would be classified as a Power Armor.

LostOne wrote:

Mack wrote:I'll invoke the rule someone else here came up the last time this was debated: The Nose Pick Rule. If you can pick your nose while piloting it, it's a robot.

Brilliant!

The rule of index!

5 points to anyone who can honestly tell me where the "rule of thumb" came from without looking it up elsewhere.

Dude, just the other day we were discussing where that came from.

And today of all days, when I could have earned 5 Geek Points, I forgot.

Now, my life no longer has meaning.

If you don't wear it, it's not power armor: it's a robot.

Killer Cyborg wrote:If you don't wear it, it's not power armor: it's a robot.

The basic entry on the bottom of page 105 of Coalition War Campaign 'disagrees' with you.

Page 105 of Rifts: Coalition War Campaign wrote:.....The accepted standard is that any humanoid shaped robot constrruct that is manned by a single pilot, utilizes pedals and leg movement [emphasis mine] and is under 15 feet tall, is a suit of power armor.

Thus, it is understandable for canon to state that Armors such as the Glitter Boy Killer and the Terror Trooper are "...examples where the line between Power Armor and Robot become unclear."

(Both of those Armors utilize a reinforced compartment where a single pilot sits -as opposed to having their arms and legs fit into the arms and legs of the chassis -but that operator still has to use motion-mimicry controls to move the Armor.)

cornholioprime wrote:

LostOne wrote:5 points to anyone who can honestly tell me where the "rule of thumb" came from without looking it up elsewhere.

Dude, just the other day we were discussing where that came from.

And today of all days, when I could have earned 5 Geek Points, I forgot.

Well they actually aren't 100% sure. The popular one has been discredited: A British Judge was alleged to have pronounced that a man could legally beat his wife as long as he used a stick no thicker than his thumb.

Canon doesnt really matter in this thread. Lenwen simply asked where we all individually draw the line

Kagashi wrote:Canon doesnt really matter in this thread. Lenwen simply asked where we all individually draw the line

Your 100% right not looking for cannon refrences but if they help your side of the debat by all means use them .

I am however curious about all your personal opinions on the subject so you get three thumbs up for stayin on target

I personally believe anything that hugs your body close enough to that Your body is in each respective place to the limbs arms torso of the machine that it is a Power Armor ..

If you sit in a cockpit at all then it is a robot .. that is to include the Jagers where your not 100% limb for limb but rather stand in it with your legs an use joysticks for the arms ... basically its a robot in my eyes .

If you wear it, it's power armor, if you sit in a cockpit, it's a robot/mecha.

Some of the earliest examples of power armors: Quaduluun Rau and Nosjaduel Ger from Macross, The Cyclone from Mospeada/Robotech, the hard suits and K suits from Bubblegum crisis. It if doesn't seem like something would fit into a category with those, then it's not power armor.

Jerell wrote:If you wear it, it's power armor, if you sit in a cockpit, it's a robot/mecha.

Some of the earliest examples of power armors: Quaduluun Rau and Nosjaduel Ger from Macross, The Cyclone from Mospeada/Robotech, the hard suits and K suits from Bubblegum crisis. It if doesn't seem like something would fit into a category with those, then it's not power armor.

Ummm.....going to and referencing war machines from other Gaming Universes doesn't really have any reference to a discussion of the war machines in this one.

Just saying.

(And to point it out once again, you are already given a basic definition of what constitutes what on the lower part of page 105, Rifts: Coalition War Campaign. Why are we going around in circles about what is what when, for once, Palladium has already put forth a clear definition/ruling on something?? What next, do we ask if Swords are melee or Ranged Weapons, or if Palladium Zombies are actually Undead?? )

A power armor can be a 'bot, but a 'bot can't be a PA.

Vrykolas2k wrote:A power armor can be a 'bot, but a 'bot can't be a PA.

No way. Apples and Oranges might both be fruit, but an apple will never be an orange and an orange will never be an apple.

cornholioprime wrote:
And to point it out once again, you are already given a basic definition of what constitutes what on the lower part of page 105, Rifts: Coalition War Campaign. Why are we going around in circles about what is what when, for once, Palladium has already put forth a clear definition/ruling on something??

Because thats not what the topic of the thread is about.

cornholioprime wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:If you don't wear it, it's not power armor: it's a robot.

The basic entry on the bottom of page 105 of Coalition War Campaign 'disagrees' with you.

Page 105 of Rifts: Coalition War Campaign wrote:.....The accepted standard is that any humanoid shaped robot constrruct that is manned by a single pilot, utilizes pedals and leg movement [emphasis mine] and is under 15 feet tall, is a suit of power armor.

I don't see how that is supposed to disagree with me.

Thus, it is understandable for canon to state that Armors such as the Glitter Boy Killer and the Terror Trooper are "...examples where the line between Power Armor and Robot become unclear."

(Both of those Armors utilize a reinforced compartment where a single pilot sits -as opposed to having their arms and legs fit into the arms and legs of the chassis -but that operator still has to use motion-mimicry controls to move the Armor.)

What you're describing are the "so-called 'suits' of power armor" that are actually one-man robots.

Killer Cyborg wrote:What you're describing are the "so-called 'suits' of power armor" that are actually one-man robots.

If you see fit to disagree with the classifications given to them by the Books (and they were classified as Power Armors because the Pilot has to move his body/legs in order to get the armors to move at least in certain situations), then I don't see how we can proceed farther than this.


Even the book doesn't mandate that the Pilot has to physically wear the Armor in question in order for it to be a Power Armor.

If someone wants to argue that a non-humanoid armor, or larger-than-15-foot armor, or even a form-fitting but completely automated armor suit, is not a Power Armor, then they have a leg to stand on.......but unless you find a different definition from that in the Book, then it is what it is, at least in Canon.

cornholioprime wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:What you're describing are the "so-called 'suits' of power armor" that are actually one-man robots.

If you see fit to disagree with the classifications given to them by the Books (and they were classified as Power Armors because the Pilot has to move his body/legs in order to get the armors to move at least in certain situations), then I don't see how we can proceed farther than this.

If you're going to ignore the rest of what the book has to say, I don't either.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

cornholioprime wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:What you're describing are the "so-called 'suits' of power armor" that are actually one-man robots.

If you see fit to disagree with the classifications given to them by the Books (and they were classified as Power Armors because the Pilot has to move his body/legs in order to get the armors to move at least in certain situations), then I don't see how we can proceed farther than this.

If you're going to ignore the rest of what the book has to say, I don't either.

You mean the parts about

• Humanoid
• Less than 15' tall
• Single Occupant
• Actuated in part or in whole by the character's leg motions
• WAS traditionally worn the same way that '...knights of old...' wore, but now doesn't strictly follow that pattern.

and where it furthermore says that

..anything not humanoid in appearance, fully automated, seats more than one, and/or is larger than 15 feet is considered a robot vehicle.

ALL of the Armors listed and designated as Power Armors, including the Glitter Boy Killer and the Terror Trooper, satisfy ALL of the requirements listed, including the need for the operator to partially or totally control the robot chassis by leg movement.

The sources for my side of the argument are found on pages 105 (at the bottom), 109 (in the middle), and page 112 (at the top) of Rifts: Coalition Campaign; where is the proof for the arguments that you put forth??

cornholioprime wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

cornholioprime wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:What you're describing are the "so-called 'suits' of power armor" that are actually one-man robots.

If you see fit to disagree with the classifications given to them by the Books (and they were classified as Power Armors because the Pilot has to move his body/legs in order to get the armors to move at least in certain situations), then I don't see how we can proceed farther than this.

If you're going to ignore the rest of what the book has to say, I don't either.

You mean the parts about

• Humanoid
• Less than 15' tall
• Single Occupant
• Actuated in part or in whole by the character's leg motions
• WAS traditionally worn the same way that '...knights of old...' wore, but now doesn't strictly follow that pattern.

Nope.
The part that I already referred to, that says:
So-called "suits" of power armor are frequently small, one-man robots in which the "wearer" is a pilot who sits inside the armor.

Which sets the tone for the rest of your passages by showing that such one-man robots are referred to as "power armor," even though they're technically just robots.

The description of actual power armor is at the very start of the Power Armor section on p. 105:
Power armor might be thought as a sort of super-suit of body armor that protects its wearer completely, but is also an exoskeleton that enhances the abilities of the wearer and offers an array of weapons. It is a form of mechanical augmentation that does not require the user to submit to any physical alteration. The armor is basically a robot suit.

and where it furthermore says that

..anything not humanoid in appearance, fully automated, seats more than one, and/or is larger than 15 feet is considered a robot vehicle.

Nah, I saw that part.
I just also read the part that you left out, that says:
"The accepted standard is..."
Which is to say that the people of Rifts Earth tend to categorize things the way you describe, even if they're not being accurate when they do so.

ALL of the Armors listed and designated as Power Armors, including the Glitter Boy Killer and the Terror Trooper, satisfy ALL of the requirements listed, including the need for the operator to partially or totally control the robot chassis by leg movement.

I don't consider "operated by hand and foot controls" to be the same as "leg movement."

And notice what you said there: "robot chassis."

The sources for my side of the argument are found on pages 105 (at the bottom), 109 (in the middle), and page 112 (at the top) of Rifts: Coalition Campaign; where is the proof for the arguments that you put forth??

Same pages.
I figured that since you read them, you would get what I was talking about.
My bad.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

cornholioprime wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

cornholioprime wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:What you're describing are the "so-called 'suits' of power armor" that are actually one-man robots.

If you see fit to disagree with the classifications given to them by the Books (and they were classified as Power Armors because the Pilot has to move his body/legs in order to get the armors to move at least in certain situations), then I don't see how we can proceed farther than this.

If you're going to ignore the rest of what the book has to say, I don't either.

You mean the parts about

• Humanoid
• Less than 15' tall
• Single Occupant
• Actuated in part or in whole by the character's leg motions
• WAS traditionally worn the same way that '...knights of old...' wore, but now doesn't strictly follow that pattern.

Nope.
The part that I already referred to, that says:
So-called "suits" of power armor are frequently small, one-man robots in which the "wearer" is a pilot who sits inside the armor.

Not an effective argument.

In the context of the Article, the Author interchanges the words "robot" and "power armor" in such a way as to say, in roundabout fashion, "all Power Armors are Robotic Chassis, but not all Robotic Chassis are Power Armors."

Which sets the tone for the rest of your passages by showing that such one-man robots are referred to as "power armor," even though they're technically just robots.

Already explained above; ALL Power Armors are Robotic Chassis, but not all Robotic Chassis are Power Armors.

The description of actual power armor is at the very start of the Power Armor section on p. 105:
Power armor might be thought as a sort of super-suit of body armor that protects its wearer completely, but is also an exoskeleton that enhances the abilities of the wearer and offers an array of weapons. It is a form of mechanical augmentation that does not require the user to submit to any physical alteration. The armor is basically a robot suit.

NEITHER Definition, in terms of how Palladium defines the term, requires the Pilot to actually wear the suit in order to meet the definition of what is, in Palladium called Power Armor.

And yes, if the wearer's movements are duplicated by the Power Armor (particularly the leg motions), as opposed to being fully automated motions, then the robotic chassis in question IS enhancing "...the abilities of the wearer."

In fact, to point it out once again, the Author tells you that Power Armor used to have to be worn like a suit of clothes, but not anymore "...due to improvements in robotics and nanotechnology."

and where it furthermore says that

..anything not humanoid in appearance, fully automated, seats more than one, and/or is larger than 15 feet is considered a robot vehicle.

Nah, I saw that part.
I just also read the part that you left out, that says:
"The accepted standard is..."
Which is to say that the people of Rifts Earth tend to categorize things the way you describe, even if they're not being accurate when they do so.

Except that the Author, in describing the various Armors in the Books, isn't speaking from the POV of the humans of Rifts Earth but from his (omniscient) Bird's eye view; in fact, there are passages where he points out that the NPCs are wrong in their classification of the armor in question; one notable example: the Triax Ulti-Max in Rifts: Triax and the NGR, in which he points out that most of the people of Rifts Earth think of it as a Power Armor, but it really is a robot (fully automated motions).

ALL of the Armors listed and designated as Power Armors, including the Glitter Boy Killer and the Terror Trooper, satisfy ALL of the requirements listed, including the need for the operator to partially or totally control the robot chassis by leg movement.

I don't consider "operated by hand and foot controls" to be the same as "leg movement."

You don't have to; you DO, however, have to consider phrases such as (paraphrased) "the operator can make the Armor swim by using the same paddling and leg movements as a human" and/or the ever-reliable "the act of running DOES tire out the operator, but at 1/4 the normal rate."

EVERY Armor listed of the Power Armor variety requires one or both of those conditions to exist, aka Leg Movements, aka one of the prerequisites for what is a Power Armor.

And notice what you said there: "robot chassis."

Covered previously.

cornholioprime wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:The part that I already referred to, that says:
So-called "suits" of power armor are frequently small, one-man robots in which the "wearer" is a pilot who sits inside the armor.

Not an effective argument.

In the context of the Article, the Author interchanges the words "robot" and "power armor" in such a way as to say, in roundabout fashion, "all Power Armors are Robotic Chassis, but not all Robotic Chassis are Power Armors."

Wrong.
Note the word "frequently" in the bolded passage.

The description of actual power armor is at the very start of the Power Armor section on p. 105:
Power armor might be thought as a sort of super-suit of body armor that protects its wearer completely, but is also an exoskeleton that enhances the abilities of the wearer and offers an array of weapons. It is a form of mechanical augmentation that does not require the user to submit to any physical alteration. The armor is basically a robot suit.

NEITHER Definition, in terms of how Palladium defines the term, requires the Pilot to actually wear the suit in order to meet the definition of what is, in Palladium called Power Armor.

An exoskeleton, in this sense, is a mechanical suit that conforms to the human body, that has the same joints in the same places as the wearer.
That's what makes it an exoskeleton instead of just a funky vehicle.

And yes, if the wearer's movements are duplicated by the Power Armor (particularly the leg motions), as opposed to being fully automated motions, then the robotic chassis in question IS enhancing "...the abilities of the wearer."

Using pedals to make a robot move around does not constitute "the wearer's movements being dublicated by the power armor."

In fact, to point it out once again, the Author tells you that Power Armor used to have to be worn like a suit of clothes, but not anymore "...due to improvements in robotics and nanotechnology."

I believe that you're leaving out some important information there; I'll check my books when I get home.

I just also read the part that you left out, that says:
"The accepted standard is..."
Which is to say that the people of Rifts Earth tend to categorize things the way you describe, even if they're not being accurate when they do so.

Except that the Author, in describing the various Armors in the Books, isn't speaking from the POV of the humans of Rifts Earth but from his (omniscient) Bird's eye view; in fact, there are passages where he points out that the NPCs are wrong in their classification of the armor in question; one notable example: the Triax Ulti-Max in Rifts: Triax and the NGR, in which he points out that most of the people of Rifts Earth think of it as a Power Armor, but it really is a robot (fully automated motions).

Again, I'll address this one when I have access to my books.

I don't consider "operated by hand and foot controls" to be the same as "leg movement."

You don't have to; you DO, however, have to consider phrases such as (paraphrased) "the operator can make the Armor swim by using the same paddling and leg movements as a human"

Not really.
All that means is that the armor can swim by using the same paddling and leg movements as a human.
Unless you want to believe that the operator, while sitting down, uses pedals to walk, but uses kicking motions to swim..?

and/or the ever-reliable "the act of running DOES tire out the operator, but at 1/4 the normal rate."

Which of the two armors we're discussing says that?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

The description of actual power armor is at the very start of the Power Armor section on p. 105:
Power armor might be thought as a sort of super-suit of body armor that protects its wearer completely, but is also an exoskeleton that enhances the abilities of the wearer and offers an array of weapons. It is a form of mechanical augmentation that does not require the user to submit to any physical alteration. The armor is basically a robot suit.

NEITHER Definition, in terms of how Palladium defines the term, requires the Pilot to actually wear the suit in order to meet the definition of what is, in Palladium called Power Armor.

An exoskeleton, in this sense, is a mechanical suit that conforms to the human body, that has the same joints in the same places as the wearer.
That's what makes it an exoskeleton instead of just a funky vehicle.

Incorrect.

Since almost NONE of the Armors specifically listed as Power Armors, in ALL of the Rifts Books, requires the Operator to also wear the Power Armor in the arms as well (some exceptions such as some of the T-series Armors like the Terrain Hopper in Rifts: Triax and the NGR and probably some Chipwell Armaments suits), your strong implication that Power Armors MUST be true exoskeletons in order to be classified as Power Armor is incorrect, at least as Palladium canon defines the term Power Armor.

Rather, the common denominator for most is "Operator's Legs fit somewhat inside the legs, and the arms are controlled by other unrevealed means." And what that means is, you can't have it both ways: you can't (logically) say that a Power Armor has to be a True Exoskeleton in order to be classified as such but the Operator's Arms don't have to fit inside the Arms."

(And in case you're wondering, in all but the smallest Power Armors, their physical dimensions are far too large to have the pilot's arms fit into the arms of the chassis.)

And yes, if the wearer's movements are duplicated by the Power Armor (particularly the leg motions), as opposed to being fully automated motions, then the robotic chassis in question IS enhancing "...the abilities of the wearer."

In fact, to point it out once again, the Author tells you that Power Armor used to have to be worn like a suit of clothes, but not anymore "...due to improvements in robotics and nanotechnology."

I believe that you're leaving out some important information there; I'll check my books when I get home.

Phraseology clearly worded as "it used to be the case that Power Armors were that way, but not (necessarily) anymore" -page 105, Rifts: Coalition War Campaign, bottom of page.

I just also read the part that you left out, that says:
"The accepted standard is..."
Which is to say that the people of Rifts Earth tend to categorize things the way you describe, even if they're not being accurate when they do so.

Except that the Author, in describing the various Armors in the Books, isn't speaking from the POV of the humans of Rifts Earth but from his (omniscient) Bird's eye view; in fact, there are passages where he points out that the NPCs are wrong in their classification of the armor in question; one notable example: the Triax Ulti-Max in Rifts: Triax and the NGR, in which he points out that most of the people of Rifts Earth think of it as a Power Armor, but it really is a robot (fully automated motions).

Again, I'll address this one when I have access to my books.

Also clearly worded in Rifts: Triax and the NGR.

To paraphrase the author in the opening paragraph: "The customers of this Armor [[The Ulti-Max]] almost all call it a Power Armor because it's so small and seats only one passenger, but it's piloted like a Robot, with fully automated movement."