Damage From heavy Heaved Objects?

[taalismn]

Okay, feeling a little dumb here; I've seen the rules under WP Targeting for relative damage from thrown objects, but any rules of thumb for really BIG objects(500_ lbs range) being tossed around. Like, say, engine blocks, girders, or small cars thrown by a giant robot, dragon, or giant monster?
The best I could find was in the Ancient Weapons Compendium, and even that speaks only in relative terms of how many big catapulted rocks to bash through a fortification.

[Looonatic]

Generally speaking, damage is 1d4 mdc per 100lbs.

[Killer Cyborg]

Okay, feeling a little dumb here; I've seen the rules under WP Targeting for relative damage from thrown objects, but any rules of thumb for really BIG objects(500_ lbs range) being tossed around. Like, say, engine blocks, girders, or small cars thrown by a giant robot, dragon, or giant monster?
The best I could find was in the Ancient Weapons Compendium, and even that speaks only in relative terms of how many big catapulted rocks to bash through a fortification.

There are a lot of rules, unfortunately.
You might want to read through This Thread, where we discuss the various rules for throwing heavy objects.
I initially go with the Gravity Manipulation rules as being the most reasonable, but IIRC somebody later makes a good argument that one should just use the rules from the RGMG (p. 26): 1d6 damage, plus 1d6 more damage per 20 lbs of weight.
So a 500 lb object would inflict 26d6 SDC, for an average of 91 SDC.

All the other rules, from Super TK to Gravity Manipulation to whatever, seem to make it far too easy to inflict mega-damage with a hurled object.

[Looonatic]

Okay, feeling a little dumb here; I've seen the rules under WP Targeting for relative damage from thrown objects, but any rules of thumb for really BIG objects(500_ lbs range) being tossed around. Like, say, engine blocks, girders, or small cars thrown by a giant robot, dragon, or giant monster?
The best I could find was in the Ancient Weapons Compendium, and even that speaks only in relative terms of how many big catapulted rocks to bash through a fortification.

There are a lot of rules, unfortunately.
You might want to read through This Thread, where we discuss the various rules for throwing heavy objects.
I initially go with the Gravity Manipulation rules as being the most reasonable, but IIRC somebody later makes a good argument that one should just use the rules from the RGMG (p. 26): 1d6 damage, plus 1d6 more damage per 20 lbs of weight.
So a 500 lb object would inflict 26d6 SDC, for an average of 91 SDC.

All the other rules, from Super TK to Gravity Manipulation to whatever, seem to make it far too easy to inflict mega-damage with a hurled object.

Easy? I dunno. Maybe it's me, but if I hit a guy wearing mega damage body armor with a motorcycle thrown fastball style, I expect it to do a little more than scratch the paint job. Know what I mean?

[Nightmask]

Okay, feeling a little dumb here; I've seen the rules under WP Targeting for relative damage from thrown objects, but any rules of thumb for really BIG objects(500_ lbs range) being tossed around. Like, say, engine blocks, girders, or small cars thrown by a giant robot, dragon, or giant monster?
The best I could find was in the Ancient Weapons Compendium, and even that speaks only in relative terms of how many big catapulted rocks to bash through a fortification.

There are a lot of rules, unfortunately.
You might want to read through This Thread, where we discuss the various rules for throwing heavy objects.
I initially go with the Gravity Manipulation rules as being the most reasonable, but IIRC somebody later makes a good argument that one should just use the rules from the RGMG (p. 26): 1d6 damage, plus 1d6 more damage per 20 lbs of weight.
So a 500 lb object would inflict 26d6 SDC, for an average of 91 SDC.

All the other rules, from Super TK to Gravity Manipulation to whatever, seem to make it far too easy to inflict mega-damage with a hurled object.

Easy? I dunno. Maybe it's me, but if I hit a guy wearing mega damage body armor with a motorcycle thrown fastball style, I expect it to do a little more than scratch the paint job. Know what I mean?

Sometimes the reality of things falls short of expectations, so while you expect the thrown motorcycle to do real damage instead it just scratches the pain job.

[Killer Cyborg]

Okay, feeling a little dumb here; I've seen the rules under WP Targeting for relative damage from thrown objects, but any rules of thumb for really BIG objects(500_ lbs range) being tossed around. Like, say, engine blocks, girders, or small cars thrown by a giant robot, dragon, or giant monster?
The best I could find was in the Ancient Weapons Compendium, and even that speaks only in relative terms of how many big catapulted rocks to bash through a fortification.

There are a lot of rules, unfortunately.
You might want to read through This Thread, where we discuss the various rules for throwing heavy objects.
I initially go with the Gravity Manipulation rules as being the most reasonable, but IIRC somebody later makes a good argument that one should just use the rules from the RGMG (p. 26): 1d6 damage, plus 1d6 more damage per 20 lbs of weight.
So a 500 lb object would inflict 26d6 SDC, for an average of 91 SDC.

All the other rules, from Super TK to Gravity Manipulation to whatever, seem to make it far too easy to inflict mega-damage with a hurled object.

Easy? I dunno. Maybe it's me, but if I hit a guy wearing mega damage body armor with a motorcycle thrown fastball style, I expect it to do a little more than scratch the paint job. Know what I mean?

10 sticks of dynamite would do little more than scratch the paint job, so I don't know that chucking a bike should do more to the armor.

(The guy inside is another story, but that's why I use the rules for damaging people inside of their armor)

[taalismn]

Well, gotta figure in the motorcycle example, depending on the angle and speed of the thrown mass. if he's a regular mook wearing just normal EBA, he could be knocked off his feet on a flat trajectory hit, or slapped to the ground in a drop from above.

I'll have to take a look at that thread, but yeah, I can see how it can vary; I already started getting headaches trying to consider original launching PS, mass of projectile, and angle of strike(flat versus high ballistic).

[Giant2005]

Okay, feeling a little dumb here; I've seen the rules under WP Targeting for relative damage from thrown objects, but any rules of thumb for really BIG objects(500_ lbs range) being tossed around. Like, say, engine blocks, girders, or small cars thrown by a giant robot, dragon, or giant monster?
The best I could find was in the Ancient Weapons Compendium, and even that speaks only in relative terms of how many big catapulted rocks to bash through a fortification.

RUE page 345: Thrown/Dropped Large Objects: 3D6 per 100 lbs (45 kg) +10 per 40 feet (12.2 m).

[taalismn]

Okay, feeling a little dumb here; I've seen the rules under WP Targeting for relative damage from thrown objects, but any rules of thumb for really BIG objects(500_ lbs range) being tossed around. Like, say, engine blocks, girders, or small cars thrown by a giant robot, dragon, or giant monster?
The best I could find was in the Ancient Weapons Compendium, and even that speaks only in relative terms of how many big catapulted rocks to bash through a fortification.

RUE page 345: Thrown/Dropped Large Objects: 3D6 per 100 lbs (45 kg) +10 per 40 feet (12.2 m).

Thank you, and I'll wing the MD.

[dragonfett]

Okay, feeling a little dumb here; I've seen the rules under WP Targeting for relative damage from thrown objects, but any rules of thumb for really BIG objects(500_ lbs range) being tossed around. Like, say, engine blocks, girders, or small cars thrown by a giant robot, dragon, or giant monster?
The best I could find was in the Ancient Weapons Compendium, and even that speaks only in relative terms of how many big catapulted rocks to bash through a fortification.

There are a lot of rules, unfortunately.
You might want to read through This Thread, where we discuss the various rules for throwing heavy objects.
I initially go with the Gravity Manipulation rules as being the most reasonable, but IIRC somebody later makes a good argument that one should just use the rules from the RGMG (p. 26): 1d6 damage, plus 1d6 more damage per 20 lbs of weight.
So a 500 lb object would inflict 26d6 SDC, for an average of 91 SDC.

All the other rules, from Super TK to Gravity Manipulation to whatever, seem to make it far too easy to inflict mega-damage with a hurled object.

Easy? I dunno. Maybe it's me, but if I hit a guy wearing mega damage body armor with a motorcycle thrown fastball style, I expect it to do a little more than scratch the paint job. Know what I mean?

10 sticks of dynamite would do little more than scratch the paint job, so I don't know that chucking a bike should do more to the armor.

(The guy inside is another story, but that's why I use the rules for damaging people inside of their armor)

How much damage would you say that a motorcycle would do to an Abrams M-1 Tank if thrown a similar way, as that one of the closest objects that we have in real life that has stats in Rifts.

[eliakon]

Okay, feeling a little dumb here; I've seen the rules under WP Targeting for relative damage from thrown objects, but any rules of thumb for really BIG objects(500_ lbs range) being tossed around. Like, say, engine blocks, girders, or small cars thrown by a giant robot, dragon, or giant monster?
The best I could find was in the Ancient Weapons Compendium, and even that speaks only in relative terms of how many big catapulted rocks to bash through a fortification.

There are a lot of rules, unfortunately.
You might want to read through This Thread, where we discuss the various rules for throwing heavy objects.
I initially go with the Gravity Manipulation rules as being the most reasonable, but IIRC somebody later makes a good argument that one should just use the rules from the RGMG (p. 26): 1d6 damage, plus 1d6 more damage per 20 lbs of weight.
So a 500 lb object would inflict 26d6 SDC, for an average of 91 SDC.

All the other rules, from Super TK to Gravity Manipulation to whatever, seem to make it far too easy to inflict mega-damage with a hurled object.

Easy? I dunno. Maybe it's me, but if I hit a guy wearing mega damage body armor with a motorcycle thrown fastball style, I expect it to do a little more than scratch the paint job. Know what I mean?

10 sticks of dynamite would do little more than scratch the paint job, so I don't know that chucking a bike should do more to the armor.

(The guy inside is another story, but that's why I use the rules for damaging people inside of their armor)

How much damage would you say that a motorcycle would do to an Abrams M-1 Tank if thrown a similar way, as that one of the closest objects that we have in real life that has stats in Rifts.

Depends on where you hit it, if you get the main armor glacis (what palladium likes to call main body)? paint scuff, might crack some of the bolts on the armor. If you hit some other part you might shear off something like the machinegun, or spot light or other light mostly cosmetic damage.

[MaxxSterling]

Giant2005 gave the answer. I have characters in my game that are super strong and routinely throw mdc vehicles at stuff to the tune of 30d6 to 100d6 worth of damage... Much fun to see NPC's get crushed by dump trucks and stuff.

[Nightmask]

Giant2005 gave the answer. I have characters in my game that are super strong and routinely throw mdc vehicles at stuff to the tune of 30d6 to 100d6 worth of damage... Much fun to see NPC's get crushed by dump trucks and stuff.

Uh no, unless you're dropping like a skyscraper's worth of mass on something there's no way you're going to deal that kind of damage. Even a full cement truck isn't going to deal mega-damage like that, not even close. Not unless you were dropping it from orbit.

[eliakon]

Giant2005 gave the answer. I have characters in my game that are super strong and routinely throw mdc vehicles at stuff to the tune of 30d6 to 100d6 worth of damage... Much fun to see NPC's get crushed by dump trucks and stuff.

Uh no, unless you're dropping like a skyscraper's worth of mass on something there's no way you're going to deal that kind of damage. Even a full cement truck isn't going to deal mega-damage like that, not even close. Not unless you were dropping it from orbit.

as written though a 1000lb object would do 30d6 *shrugs* not saying the rule is logical, but it IS what is written.

[Nightmask]

Giant2005 gave the answer. I have characters in my game that are super strong and routinely throw mdc vehicles at stuff to the tune of 30d6 to 100d6 worth of damage... Much fun to see NPC's get crushed by dump trucks and stuff.

Uh no, unless you're dropping like a skyscraper's worth of mass on something there's no way you're going to deal that kind of damage. Even a full cement truck isn't going to deal mega-damage like that, not even close. Not unless you were dropping it from orbit.

as written though a 1000lb object would do 30d6 *shrugs* not saying the rule is logical, but it IS what is written.

Definitely not logical, Palladium clearly tacked mega-damage values onto things that shouldn't deal mega-damage or absurdly high levels of mega-damage simply because 'well everything ought to deal mega-damage even though it shouldn't'.

[eliakon]

Giant2005 gave the answer. I have characters in my game that are super strong and routinely throw mdc vehicles at stuff to the tune of 30d6 to 100d6 worth of damage... Much fun to see NPC's get crushed by dump trucks and stuff.

Uh no, unless you're dropping like a skyscraper's worth of mass on something there's no way you're going to deal that kind of damage. Even a full cement truck isn't going to deal mega-damage like that, not even close. Not unless you were dropping it from orbit.

as written though a 1000lb object would do 30d6 *shrugs* not saying the rule is logical, but it IS what is written.

Definitely not logical, Palladium clearly tacked mega-damage values onto things that shouldn't deal mega-damage or absurdly high levels of mega-damage simply because 'well everything ought to deal mega-damage even though it shouldn't'.

that's 30d6...SDC. which means 30-180..or call it one md
5 ton object? that's 150d6....do now its 150-900 SDC (1-9MD)
so yah HUGE objects to damage to MD objects...

[Natasha]

Or very small objects to damage M.D.C. objects!

[Looonatic]

Now a little physics: What is the difference in kinetic energy transferred between getting struck by a 500 pound object(like a motorcycle) traveling at 100mph and a 5lb object(like say a Boom Gun flechette round) traveling at 10,000mph(About Mach 14, several times faster than normal)? The answer ought to be none. This suggests that a motorcycle thrown with fastball speeds should transfer several times as much kinetic energy as a boom gun round.

That being said, 1d4MD per 100lbs is reasonable. Hell, it's considerably less than it ought to be.

Perhaps dynamite ought to be revisited as well.

[eliakon]

Now a little physics: What is the difference in kinetic energy transferred between getting struck by a 500 pound object(like a motorcycle) traveling at 100mph and a 5lb object(like say a Boom Gun flechette round) traveling at 10,000mph(About Mach 14, several times faster than normal)? The answer ought to be none. This suggests that a motorcycle thrown with fastball speeds should transfer several times as much kinetic energy as a boom gun round.

The difference is....This is palladium and thus "Our physics works different" applies

[Looonatic]

Now a little physics: What is the difference in kinetic energy transferred between getting struck by a 500 pound object(like a motorcycle) traveling at 100mph and a 5lb object(like say a Boom Gun flechette round) traveling at 10,000mph(About Mach 14, several times faster than normal)? The answer ought to be none. This suggests that a motorcycle thrown with fastball speeds should transfer several times as much kinetic energy as a boom gun round.

The difference is....This is palladium and thus "Our physics works different" applies

They just fear my Light-speed Muffin Attack!

[eliakon]

Now a little physics: What is the difference in kinetic energy transferred between getting struck by a 500 pound object(like a motorcycle) traveling at 100mph and a 5lb object(like say a Boom Gun flechette round) traveling at 10,000mph(About Mach 14, several times faster than normal)? The answer ought to be none. This suggests that a motorcycle thrown with fastball speeds should transfer several times as much kinetic energy as a boom gun round.

The difference is....This is palladium and thus "Our physics works different" applies

They just fear my Light-speed Muffin Attack!

Bah why stop at Muffins. Slap them with across the face with a Halibut doing .999c. Now THAT will show them.

[Natasha]

Now a little physics: What is the difference in kinetic energy transferred between getting struck by a 500 pound object(like a motorcycle) traveling at 100mph and a 5lb object(like say a Boom Gun flechette round) traveling at 10,000mph(About Mach 14, several times faster than normal)? The answer ought to be none. This suggests that a motorcycle thrown with fastball speeds should transfer several times as much kinetic energy as a boom gun round.

That being said, 1d4MD per 100lbs is reasonable. Hell, it's considerably less than it ought to be.

Perhaps dynamite ought to be revisited as well.

No because velocity is squared which makes its increase far more significant than the decrease in mass.

Which makes scaling by mass unrealistic, but a whole lot easier.

[Looonatic]

Now a little physics: What is the difference in kinetic energy transferred between getting struck by a 500 pound object(like a motorcycle) traveling at 100mph and a 5lb object(like say a Boom Gun flechette round) traveling at 10,000mph(About Mach 14, several times faster than normal)? The answer ought to be none. This suggests that a motorcycle thrown with fastball speeds should transfer several times as much kinetic energy as a boom gun round.

That being said, 1d4MD per 100lbs is reasonable. Hell, it's considerably less than it ought to be.

Perhaps dynamite ought to be revisited as well.

No because velocity is squared which makes its increase far more significant than the decrease in mass.

Which makes scaling by mass unrealistic, but a whole lot easier.

You are mistaking force and energy for momentum. It requires a certain amount of force(measured in Newtons) to a certain velocity thus giving it a certain amount of energy(measured in Joules).

The objects in my examples already assume that the necessary energy is imparted on an object for it to reach certain momentums. It's only when that object strikes another(the target) that momentum becomes force transferred as energy to the target. Assuming the acceleration as the object transfers it's energy into the target remains constant regardless of the type of object, then the relationship between momentum and energy transferred remains a direct proportion.


...corn muffins make the best near-light speed projectiles because of their dense consistency.

[Natasha]

Now a little physics: What is the difference in kinetic energy transferred between getting struck by a 500 pound object(like a motorcycle) traveling at 100mph and a 5lb object(like say a Boom Gun flechette round) traveling at 10,000mph(About Mach 14, several times faster than normal)? The answer ought to be none. This suggests that a motorcycle thrown with fastball speeds should transfer several times as much kinetic energy as a boom gun round.

That being said, 1d4MD per 100lbs is reasonable. Hell, it's considerably less than it ought to be.

Perhaps dynamite ought to be revisited as well.

No because velocity is squared which makes its increase far more significant than the decrease in mass.

Which makes scaling by mass unrealistic, but a whole lot easier.

You are mistaking force and energy for momentum. It requires a certain amount of force(measured in Newtons) to a certain velocity thus giving it a certain amount of energy(measured in Joules).

The objects in my examples already assume that the necessary energy is imparted on an object for it to reach certain momentums. It's only when that object strikes another(the target) that momentum becomes force transferred as energy to the target. Assuming the acceleration as the object transfers it's energy into the target remains constant regardless of the type of object, then the relationship between momentum and energy transferred remains a direct proportion.

Momentum is just mass times acceleration. You asked the difference in kinetic energy between a 500 pound object at 100 mph and a 5 pound object at 10,000 mph and said there is none. The reason that halving one and doubling the other does not cancel because velocity in kinetic energy calculations is squared.
The kinetic energy of the first object is: .5(226.796)(44.704^2) = 226,619.962759
The kinetic energy of the second object is: .5(2.26796)(4,470.4^2) = 22,661,996.2759
The smaller object has 100 times the kinetic energy of the larger object.

As for your second point, that's wrong, too. Energy does not does not make the objects move. Force makes the object move. Momentum is the change in acceleration and unless mass changes, has nothing to do with either energy or force. Energy is conserved and so some is transferred upon collision. Momentum is also conserved in the collision. However, they are rarely in direct proportion, only if velocity is zero or one are they in proportion. Again this is because velocity is squared in energy calculations.
p = mv
e = .5mv^2

[Looonatic]

Now a little physics: What is the difference in kinetic energy transferred between getting struck by a 500 pound object(like a motorcycle) traveling at 100mph and a 5lb object(like say a Boom Gun flechette round) traveling at 10,000mph(About Mach 14, several times faster than normal)? The answer ought to be none. This suggests that a motorcycle thrown with fastball speeds should transfer several times as much kinetic energy as a boom gun round.

That being said, 1d4MD per 100lbs is reasonable. Hell, it's considerably less than it ought to be.

Perhaps dynamite ought to be revisited as well.

No because velocity is squared which makes its increase far more significant than the decrease in mass.

Which makes scaling by mass unrealistic, but a whole lot easier.

You are mistaking force and energy for momentum. It requires a certain amount of force(measured in Newtons) to a certain velocity thus giving it a certain amount of energy(measured in Joules).

The objects in my examples already assume that the necessary energy is imparted on an object for it to reach certain momentums. It's only when that object strikes another(the target) that momentum becomes force transferred as energy to the target. Assuming the acceleration as the object transfers it's energy into the target remains constant regardless of the type of object, then the relationship between momentum and energy transferred remains a direct proportion.

Momentum is just mass times acceleration. You asked the difference in kinetic energy between a 500 pound object at 100 mph and a 5 pound object at 10,000 mph and said there is none. The reason that halving one and doubling the other does not cancel because velocity in kinetic energy calculations is squared.
The kinetic energy of the first object is: .5(226.796)(44.704^2) = 226,619.962759
The kinetic energy of the second object is: .5(2.26796)(4,470.4^2) = 22,661,996.2759
The smaller object has 100 times the kinetic energy of the larger object.

You're right. I mis-used the term kinetic energy in my original example. I was looking at it less from the perspective of placing the object in motion and more at the force the object places on it's target upon impact. That caused me to make a mistake of terminology. Sorry about that.

As for your second point, that's wrong, too. Energy does not does not make the objects move. Force makes the object move. Momentum is the change in acceleration and unless mass changes, has nothing to do with either energy or force. Energy is conserved and so some is transferred upon collision. Momentum is also conserved in the collision. However, they are rarely in direct proportion, only if velocity is zero or one are they in proportion. Again this is because velocity is squared in energy calculations.
p = mv
e = .5mv^2

Again, I was thinking of force as in F=MA where A equals the sudden change in velocity upon impact. Assuming the time necessary to accelerate to zero remains constant, then Force should be a direct proportion to mass and original velocity. If I confused my terminology, I apologize. My mind is on baked goods.

[Natasha]

no worries, mate

[42dragon]

One other thing to consider with thrown or dropped heavy objects is their size. So far above we have shown that a 500lb motorcycle thrown at 100mph will hit with 100 times less kinetic energy than a 5lb slug traveling at 10,000mph. But really the size of the object has to come into play as well.

We are told in the books that one way MDC is so strong is that it is bonded at the molecular level. So therefore in order to damage it you have to impart enough energy to break that molecular bond. This means that the energy needs to be as focused as possible otherwise the damage is spread out and the force is not high enough in any one spot to break that bond.

From above if we assume the motorcycle contacts the target area with say 2 square feet of surface contact, all the kinetic energy above (226k units) is spread out over 288 square inches, so each square inch is really only seeing roughly 785 units of kinetic energy. While the slug we will say is small and hits in one square inch area, this area is still seeing the full 22.6M units of kinetic energy. Which makes the slug really almost 29,000 times more powerful than the thrown motorcycle. When compared to the damage done to any one spot. Which spot is more likely to have its (MDC) molecular bonds broken?

This is what makes guns so much more effective than a baseball bat or dropping a big rock on something.

[Natasha]

I agree completely that a rail gun round shot into a M.D.C. armour should do a lot more damage than a motorcycle thrown into or a rock dropped upon a M.D.C. armour.

I am not even convinced throwing a motorcycle into a M.D.C. armour ought to do more than scratch it, unless you really put some velocity behind it.

It is hard to say without experimentation just how durable is M.D.C. to high heat transfers and since that is impossible then it is left up to the Game Master to decide for his or her game what are the rules. Personally I would make those huge D6 damage rolls be S.D.C. rolls and even cap them off at some point to account for things like terminal velocity and whatnot.