ATL-7 modified

[Hawk258]

The ATL-7 (South America 2 pg 166) is a powerful laser, however it is power hungry (eating up full e-clips in 1 shot)
As well as put out lots of heat.

Most of the issues can solve each others.

First was power, which are addressed in 3 ways to get the most out of it.

1: dedicated to vehicle/power armor/cyborg/robots
For any that have nuclear power plants this is ideal, however power demand is still high as is heat.

2: thermo-electic generators are added to increase cooling and recycle waste heat into energy. Increasing the rate of fire and lower demand for power from the reactor and allowing it to be marginally lighter.

3: select fire options, the ATL-7m offers adjustable firing options. 6d6 md /1d6x10 md /3d6x10+20 md.

This allows for increased rate of fire. However maximum setting is limited to 3 shots per round

These improvements will allow the weapon system to be more flexible and effective in combat. But it is still recommended to have a secondary weapon.

[RockJock]

I like keeping the ATL-7 as is because it isn't meant to be a PA long arm, or an assault rifle. The ATL-7 is an anti armor weapon. The single shot nature of the laser is a game balance, but one that makes sense for what it is designed to do.

For the record, I don't think what you suggested is overpowered or anything, especially if it is meant to be mounted on a tank or something. Just my two cents.

[Hawk258]

I like keeping the ATL-7 as is because it isn't meant to be a PA long arm, or an assault rifle. The ATL-7 is an anti armor weapon. The single shot nature of the laser is a game balance, but one that makes sense for what it is designed to do.

For the record, I don't think what you suggested is overpowered or anything, especially if it is meant to be mounted on a tank or something. Just my two cents.

Well considering naruni, truax, NG, Coalition all got upgrades I think this fits and makes sense. Honestly I think I gave it some flexibility and gave it a bit more long term function.

Admittedly it does give less experienced characters an edge without it being over powered for individuals with high numbers of actions per round.

It is still largely an anti-tank weapon but flexible enough to be a "stand alone weapon" in a pinch. And considering cost, availability and damage options may be ideal for "low dollar" power armor" characters.

It does not replace the ATL-7 just adds an optional modified version.

[dreicunan]

Hooking it up to a nuclear source means that the original can already fire as many times a melee round as the gunner has attacks. Once you have that, the lower-powered options might be nice once in a very rare while, but if I were going to try to add versatility I'd focus on giving it something like grenades or mini-missile options as to add versatility to its damage capabilities.

[Hawk258]

Hooking it up to a nuclear source means that the original can already fire as many times a melee round as the gunner has attacks. Once you have that, the lower-powered options might be nice once in a very rare while, but if I were going to try to add versatility I'd focus on giving it something like grenades or mini-missile options as to add versatility to its damage capabilities.

You have to account for the heat issue which is why I limited it to 3 attacks per round.

[dreicunan]

Hooking it up to a nuclear source means that the original can already fire as many times a melee round as the gunner has attacks. Once you have that, the lower-powered options might be nice once in a very rare while, but if I were going to try to add versatility I'd focus on giving it something like grenades or mini-missile options as to add versatility to its damage capabilities.

You have to account for the heat issue which is why I limited it to 3 attacks per round.

I'm not sure where you are getting that idea from. The heat issue is why it has heavy insulation and accounts for its weight. In other words, it is already dealt with. There is nothing on p. 166 that indicates that the weapon is at risk of overheating due to insufficient time between shots.

[Hawk258]

Hooking it up to a nuclear source means that the original can already fire as many times a melee round as the gunner has attacks. Once you have that, the lower-powered options might be nice once in a very rare while, but if I were going to try to add versatility I'd focus on giving it something like grenades or mini-missile options as to add versatility to its damage capabilities.

You have to account for the heat issue which is why I limited it to 3 attacks per round.

I'm not sure where you are getting that idea from. The heat issue is why it has heavy insulation and accounts for its weight. In other words, it is already dealt with. There is nothing on p. 166 that indicates that the weapon is at risk of overheating due to insufficient time between shots.

Well you are welcome to ignore it. I mean there are many ways to address this.

I chose to "apply" a limitation. You are welcome to adjust accordingly.

There is a "functional description" limit in regards to reloading and ability to carry the ammo needed.

So instead of attacks per round (which can grow) I added a "thermal" based limit for rate of fire.

[Warshield73]

The ATL-7 (South America 2 pg 166) is a powerful laser, however it is power hungry (eating up full e-clips in 1 shot)
As well as put out lots of heat.

Most of the issues can solve each others.

First was power, which are addressed in 3 ways to get the most out of it.

1: dedicated to vehicle/power armor/cyborg/robots
For any that have nuclear power plants this is ideal, however power demand is still high as is heat.

2: thermo-electic generators are added to increase cooling and recycle waste heat into energy. Increasing the rate of fire and lower demand for power from the reactor and allowing it to be marginally lighter.

3: select fire options, the ATL-7m offers adjustable firing options. 6d6 md /1d6x10 md /3d6x10+20 md.

This allows for increased rate of fire. However maximum setting is limited to 3 shots per round

These improvements will allow the weapon system to be more flexible and effective in combat. But it is still recommended to have a secondary weapon.

I had a player running an Operator and he did something very similar with the ATL. It had only a 1D6X10 or 3D6X10 settings and he mounted it as the as the passanger gun on a hover vehicle. I also limited the number of max power shots to 3 per melee.

[dreicunan]

Hooking it up to a nuclear source means that the original can already fire as many times a melee round as the gunner has attacks. Once you have that, the lower-powered options might be nice once in a very rare while, but if I were going to try to add versatility I'd focus on giving it something like grenades or mini-missile options as to add versatility to its damage capabilities.

You have to account for the heat issue which is why I limited it to 3 attacks per round.

I'm not sure where you are getting that idea from. The heat issue is why it has heavy insulation and accounts for its weight. In other words, it is already dealt with. There is nothing on p. 166 that indicates that the weapon is at risk of overheating due to insufficient time between shots.

Well you are welcome to ignore it. I mean there are many ways to address this.

I chose to "apply" a limitation. You are welcome to adjust accordingly.

There is a "functional description" limit in regards to reloading and ability to carry the ammo needed.

So instead of attacks per round (which can grow) I added a "thermal" based limit for rate of fire.

I'm curious how you conclude that my citing that the canon text for the weapon already mentions the consequence of the heat translates to my ignoring something for you. Or did you mean that I should feel free to ignore the limitation that you had proposed?

[Hawk258]

Hooking it up to a nuclear source means that the original can already fire as many times a melee round as the gunner has attacks. Once you have that, the lower-powered options might be nice once in a very rare while, but if I were going to try to add versatility I'd focus on giving it something like grenades or mini-missile options as to add versatility to its damage capabilities.

You have to account for the heat issue which is why I limited it to 3 attacks per round.

I'm not sure where you are getting that idea from. The heat issue is why it has heavy insulation and accounts for its weight. In other words, it is already dealt with. There is nothing on p. 166 that indicates that the weapon is at risk of overheating due to insufficient time between shots.

Well you are welcome to ignore it. I mean there are many ways to address this.

I chose to "apply" a limitation. You are welcome to adjust accordingly.

There is a "functional description" limit in regards to reloading and ability to carry the ammo needed.

So instead of attacks per round (which can grow) I added a "thermal" based limit for rate of fire.

I'm curious how you conclude that my citing that the canon text for the weapon already mentions the consequence of the heat translates to my ignoring something for you. Or did you mean that I should feel free to ignore the limitation that you had proposed?

You are welcome to ignore the whole idea.

But as it is "insulated" its holding heat in to prevent burning sdc beings. Which with increased rates of fire has potential to harm the internal components of the weapon.

Which is why I added the limitation.

[DD The Shmey]

I like keeping the ATL-7 as is because it isn't meant to be a PA long arm, or an assault rifle. The ATL-7 is an anti armor weapon. The single shot nature of the laser is a game balance, but one that makes sense for what it is designed to do.

For the record, I don't think what you suggested is overpowered or anything, especially if it is meant to be mounted on a tank or something. Just my two cents.

I second this sentiment. What you are describing does not fit the spirit of the original weapon. Having a one shot anti-tank energy weapon added a special flavor to the portfolio of equipment available that the changes you described would tarnish.

Likewise, if you had an operator that wanted to add a new weapon system to a robot vehicle and had him take apart an ATL-7 and try to modify and integrate it into a larger vehicle, then I can certainly see this as a valid path forward for creating a large powerful energy weapon.

It does not replace the ATL-7 just adds an optional modified version.

All of the changes you described are flat improvements over the original weapon, with no drawbacks. There is literally no reason for the original ATL-7 to be produced if manufacturers were able to make such an upgraded version that eclipse the original.

Well considering naruni, truax, NG, Coalition all got upgrades I think this fits and makes sense.

I think that saying that all of these factions all got an upgrade is somewhat of a mischaracterization. You seem to be oversimplifying the existence of additional published material of these factions as evidence of unilateral power creep that ought to be applied to everything in universe. While there are certainly examples of equipment in newer books that are improvements over older versions (like the Predator 2 in WB31 Triax 2), these improvements are all accompanied and supported by fictional positioning. There is an in-universe story behind the Coalition States spending decades of research and development for their secret army before they launched the equipment of the new "Coalition War Machine" in World Book 11. There are also plenty of examples of new equipment of these factions that really wasn't any improvement over old equipment, or even was worse that previous equipment.

I don't feel that you have presented enough fictional background behind your creation to justify it's existence in universe. For one it is based on a pre-Rifts design that would be difficult to improve upon. It is well established with a few exceptions that the technology of pre-Rifts is greater than modern Rifts nations.

Now I really should give you the benefit of the doubt here, since you you may still be working on a back story for the equipment. Maybe it was developed in a secret well funded lab in Argentina populated by scientists who have been experimenting with power couplers and energy weapons for years. However, until you come up with a better reason for why this upgrade exists other than "because everybodies equipment is getting better", this lack of a background is going to be a flaw in the idea.

I also don't like the idea of buffing a weapon out of South America 2 either. That book is infamous for its power creep as it is. So much so that Kevin published an apology in one of the books (i forget where it was printed) and recommended that game masters tone down the damage and effectiveness of things in that book by something like 30%. Why you would choose to upgrade a weapon from this book is beyond me.

[Hawk258]

Then ignore it.

I added limitations that I felt fit.

Drawbacks are either its attached to a nuclear power plant, max damage is limited to 3 shots per round. Or you are limited to using it as written and limited on e-clips/capacity while disconnected from the power plant.

I did not remove the anti-tank ability, just added a bit of flex to it. You don't have to like it.

If an operator can modify it why wouldn't a group selling or creating it?

I don't believe this "is a vast improvement" it is modified for different issues, but I don't believe it is vastly improved, in fact depending on who has the weapon it could actually do better unmodified for someone that can use it more than 3 times per round. Which I neglected to point out that when using a standard e-clip 6d6 md gets 5 shots, 1d6x10 get 3 shots

The weapon is also a pre-rifts design, there are plenty of items that have been improved since because there was an issue that exists in rifts today that did not exist before.

1: manpower. Many men were used in combat, in rifts there are fewer men, resources so you need more flexibility.
You don't always get to have supplies readily available in combat in the game (unless you are free Quebec or the NGR, or CS.

I think that south America has technology and weapons that would drive the makers of the ATL-7 to add these options, with the Inertia Cannons, tri-beans ect there is room to want to compete.

I don't need to explain the why any more than that.

[Killer Cyborg]

Or just go with this!


viewtopic.php?p=2600480&sid=b34df805196d353b19a54f4b516d0a37#p2600480

PCA-ATL7G
A gatling-gun version of the ATL-7, which uses 6 ATL-7s mounted in a device that ejects spent E-clips, and reloads each gun as they rotate through the circuit. If the weapon is not mounted on a vehicle or stable platform, carrying and firing it requires a PS of 30, a Robotic PS of 24, or a Supernatural PS of 20.
Weight: 350 lbs
Damage: 3d6x10+20 MD per single shot, 2d6x100 MD per short burst (6 shots, counts as one attack).
Range: 3,000'
Ammunition: Either a special belt that can be loaded with conventional E-Clips (CR 1,000 per 100 clips of length), or a nuclear power supply that can power each gun (CR 1 million, 2 year life)
Cost: CR 1 million

[dreicunan]

You are welcome to ignore the whole idea.

But as it is "insulated" its holding heat in to prevent burning sdc beings. Which with increased rates of fire has potential to harm the internal components of the weapon.

Which is why I added the limitation.

There is no evidence that the increased rate of fire would harm the internal components of the weapon. That is something you've inserted. Thus, I'll accept your invitation to ignore your solution to an invented need.

[dreicunan]

Or just go with this!


https://palladiumbooks.com/forums/viewt ... 7#p2600480

PCA-ATL7G
A gatling-gun version of the ATL-7, which uses 6 ATL-7s mounted in a device that ejects spent E-clips, and reloads each gun as they rotate through the circuit. If the weapon is not mounted on a vehicle or stable platform, carrying and firing it requires a PS of 30, a Robotic PS of 24, or a Supernatural PS of 20.
Weight: 350 lbs
Damage: 3d6x10+20 MD per single shot, 2d6x100 MD per short burst (6 shots, counts as one attack).
Range: 3,000'
Ammunition: Either a special belt that can be loaded with conventional E-Clips (CR 1,000 per 100 clips of length), or a nuclear power supply that can power each gun (CR 1 million, 2 year life)
Cost: CR 1 million

Works for me!

[Hawk258]

You are welcome to ignore the whole idea.

But as it is "insulated" its holding heat in to prevent burning sdc beings. Which with increased rates of fire has potential to harm the internal components of the weapon.

Which is why I added the limitation.

There is no evidence that the increased rate of fire would harm the internal components of the weapon. That is something you've inserted. Thus, I'll accept your invitation to ignore your solution to an invented need.

Well there is no evidence it won't overheat either.

However the heat issue has been pointed put as a possibility by others in conversation about this weapon.

And most agree a rate of fire limit fit if powered by a nuclear power plant.

I am also not the only person that believes there could be a heat issue with an increase in rate of fire.

I want to offer a means to give the weapon flexibility as to keep it from being dead weight.

It is extremely limited in what it can do. I just made it a bit more worthwhile for a gaming aspect.

Personally the ATL-7 is pretty much junk unaltered and only effective in specific situations. I just made it a bit less worthless.

Also it's not like I increased the damage or rate of fire, or added a variable frequency system or blue green lazer to it.

Just added 2 lower settings and be a PA's main gun without breaking the game.

Because if a gm gave me the unaltered Atl-7 I would crush it. It isn't worth the scrap I could salvage from it as it is.

You can't plan well enough to make this a long term effective weapon.

You would need lots of E-clips, a primary weapon that is easily accessible, and you need to plan the most practical use of the weapon before hand and get 1 or 2 good shots in.

Which when all factored together, it is worthless in general combat.

My modified version at least allows for a much broader usage.

[Killer Cyborg]

You are welcome to ignore the whole idea.

But as it is "insulated" its holding heat in to prevent burning sdc beings. Which with increased rates of fire has potential to harm the internal components of the weapon.

Which is why I added the limitation.

There is no evidence that the increased rate of fire would harm the internal components of the weapon. That is something you've inserted. Thus, I'll accept your invitation to ignore your solution to an invented need.

Well there is no evidence it won't overheat either.

However the heat issue has been pointed put as a possibility by others in conversation about this weapon.

Yeah... but you could also go with "the trigger malfunctions if you fire too fast," or "the recoil knocks the lens loose," or pretty much anything else that would be equally unsupported by the books.
I'm not saying don't DO what you're doing.
I think it makes sense to put a limit on this broken weapon.

Just don't argue that it's supported or implied by canon, unless you have some good specific quotes to pull in support of that idea.

And most agree a rate of fire limit fit if powered by a nuclear power plant.

For most general campaigns, yes.

Then again, the weapon was broken from the start, and already needs to be nerfed in most campaigns.

It is extremely limited in what it can do. I just made it a bit more worthwhile for a gaming aspect.

Personally the ATL-7 is pretty much junk unaltered and only effective in specific situations.

How do you figure?

Also it's not like I increased the damage or rate of fire, or added a variable frequency system or blue green lazer to it.

Just added 2 lower settings and be a PA's main gun without breaking the game.

Of the various ATL-7 mods I've seen, yours is arguably the most reasonable.

You would need lots of E-clips, a primary weapon that is easily accessible, and you need to plan the most practical use of the weapon before hand and get 1 or 2 good shots in.

The simplest way to use the weapon is to fire it once, drop it, and pull out your backup weapon, the same way you'd use a CR-1 or other hand-held missile launcher... only this thing is one heck of a lot cheaper to fire (although it also doesn't have the range) and it does more damage.

Or better still, if you're strong enough to use the thing, and you want to modify it, give it an over-under setup with another laser built in, and switch to that other laser without spending an attack to drop a weapon and draw a new one.

Or give it a rune bayonet, and charge in to melee.

Which when all factored together, it is worthless in general combat.

See, I don't think so.
You're talking about a one-shot-kill weapon against most infantry. That's a pretty big deal, unless you're facing so many guys that no gun is really going to help you out.

As long as it's not your ONLY gun, it's a fine weapon. Overpowered, really.
Even if it IS your only gun, it'll still work great for most one-on-one combat. Like I said, it's a one-shot-kill most of the time: average damage is 135 MDC, enough to take out even new style Heavy Deadlboy armor in a single hit.
(Okay, if you use the GI Joe rule, then it might take 2 shots... one to destroy their armor, and then another shot to kill the person. But heck, once the armor is gone, a WIlk's Laser Wand could deliver the death blow. Also, the GI Joe rule was meant to be used with "common sense," and the ATL-7 does enough damage that it should still be a one-shot-kill against most EBAs and average enemies.)

[Hawk258]

You are welcome to ignore the whole idea.

But as it is "insulated" its holding heat in to prevent burning sdc beings. Which with increased rates of fire has potential to harm the internal components of the weapon.

Which is why I added the limitation.

There is no evidence that the increased rate of fire would harm the internal components of the weapon. That is something you've inserted. Thus, I'll accept your invitation to ignore your solution to an invented need.

Well there is no evidence it won't overheat either.

However the heat issue has been pointed put as a possibility by others in conversation about this weapon.

Yeah... but you could also go with "the trigger malfunctions if you fire too fast," or "the recoil knocks the lens loose," or pretty much anything else that would be equally unsupported by the books.
I'm not saying don't DO what you're doing.
I think it makes sense to put a limit on this broken weapon.

Just don't argue that it's supported or implied by canon, unless you have some good specific quotes to pull in support of that idea.

And most agree a rate of fire limit fit if powered by a nuclear power plant.

For most general campaigns, yes.

Then again, the weapon was broken from the start, and already needs to be nerfed in most campaigns.

It is extremely limited in what it can do. I just made it a bit more worthwhile for a gaming aspect.

Personally the ATL-7 is pretty much junk unaltered and only effective in specific situations.

How do you figure?

Also it's not like I increased the damage or rate of fire, or added a variable frequency system or blue green lazer to it.

Just added 2 lower settings and be a PA's main gun without breaking the game.

Of the various ATL-7 mods I've seen, yours is arguably the most reasonable.

You would need lots of E-clips, a primary weapon that is easily accessible, and you need to plan the most practical use of the weapon before hand and get 1 or 2 good shots in.

The simplest way to use the weapon is to fire it once, drop it, and pull out your backup weapon, the same way you'd use a CR-1 or other hand-held missile launcher... only this thing is one heck of a lot cheaper to fire (although it also doesn't have the range) and it does more damage.

Or better still, if you're strong enough to use the thing, and you want to modify it, give it an over-under setup with another laser built in, and switch to that other laser without spending an attack to drop a weapon and draw a new one.

Or give it a rune bayonet, and charge in to melee.

Which when all factored together, it is worthless in general combat.

See, I don't think so.
You're talking about a one-shot-kill weapon against most infantry. That's a pretty big deal, unless you're facing so many guys that no gun is really going to help you out.

As long as it's not your ONLY gun, it's a fine weapon. Overpowered, really.
Even if it IS your only gun, it'll still work great for most one-on-one combat. Like I said, it's a one-shot-kill most of the time: average damage is 135 MDC, enough to take out even new style Heavy Deadlboy armor in a single hit.
(Okay, if you use the GI Joe rule, then it might take 2 shots... one to destroy their armor, and then another shot to kill the person. But heck, once the armor is gone, a WIlk's Laser Wand could deliver the death blow. Also, the GI Joe rule was meant to be used with "common sense," and the ATL-7 does enough damage that it should still be a one-shot-kill against most EBAs and average enemies.)

Lakers don't have recoil.

I say that because it costs 5 attacks to fire it twice. Which for a low level player is near suicide. (Use up all actions and unless you have auto dodge screws the player) and is generally only useful for a few situations where it is planned out well. Plus you couldn't pack enough e-clips to feed it. Making it dead weight you have to pack.

It states (page 166 SA2) that the barrel is insulated to protect the user from heat. Which implies it gets damn hot. If the rate of fire is increased beyond 1 shot per 3 actions (the base rate of fire) then it "could" cause issues with internal workings. As it was deemed necessary to insulate the barrel for a 1:3 rate of fire. If that became a 1:1 it stands to reason heating is not a quantum leap.

I don't believe in "FOF" at 100,000 credits..

At 150,000 I could get an AT-1200 rail gun that is more functional . (Japan WB page 127)

But again the ATL-7 is worthless

[Killer Cyborg]

Lakers don't have recoil.

Everything has recoil.
The question is how much.

Just like everything overheats, even MDC weapons that would require 100 SDC of fire/heat damage to lose 1 point of MDC.
The question is what's it take to overheat it.

Both are arbitrary guesses, most of the time.
The main difference is that there are a zillion was to make a weapon impervious to heat/fire in Rifts.

I say that because it costs 5 attacks to fire it twice.

So don't fire it twice.
Or fire it once, then duck behind cover while you reload.

Which for a low level player is near suicide. (Use up all actions and unless you have auto dodge screws the player) and is generally only useful for a few situations where it is planned out well.

I don't consider "fire once, then drop it" or "fire once, then duck behind cover" to be "few situations where it is planned out well."

I mean heck, I'm not even suggesting you try firing from behind cover in the first place, only maybe duck behind cover after shooting.
I'm not suggesting that you use it as a sniper weapon, to fire unseen, leaving the enemy to waste attacks looking to even SEE you while you reload.
I'm not suggesting that you have three or more different ATL-7s, and a few hirelings to reload them for you, so you can fire, spend one attack to swap weapons, then fire again, and repeat this as long as your reloading crew is alive.

I'm just saying fire the thing once, then swap weapons and fire something else.
Pretty much the same way that a lot of single-shot anti-armor weapons are used, only this one does more damage than most.

Plus you couldn't pack enough e-clips to feed it. Making it dead weight you have to pack.

So just fire it once, then drop it.
One shot, one kill. Then swap weapons and go 3-4 shots per kill as usual (or whatever).

It states (page 166 SA2) that the barrel is insulated to protect the user from heat. Which implies it gets damn hot. If the rate of fire is increased beyond 1 shot per 3 actions (the base rate of fire) then it "could" cause issues with internal workings. As it was deemed necessary to insulate the barrel for a 1:3 rate of fire. If that became a 1:1 it stands to reason heating is not a quantum leap.

Sure, it's a "could."
Then again, there's a big difference between "hot enough to hurt a human hand" and "hot enough to damage the machine itself."

I have a steam iron with an insulated grip.
Haven't seen the thing overheat once.

I don't believe in "FOF" at 100,000 credits..

Fast Old Farts?
Full of Fail?
Found on Floor?
Fear of Flying....?

Help me out here.

At 150,000 I could get an AT-1200 rail gun that is more functional . (Japan WB page 127)

Sure... if you shop at a store that's in both South America AND Japan.

But again the ATL-7 is worthless

Sure.
Who could possibly figure out a use for a one-shot kill energy weapon with that kind of range?
Life is a mystery!

[Hawk258]

Let's do the math
ATL-7
1d6x10+7 per attack/action and needs reloaded every shot

The AT-1200 1d6x10 per action where as 10 shots per reload

The guy with the AT-1200 is going to chew up the guy with the ATL-7 with the same number of attacks.

[Hawk258]

Lakers don't have recoil.

Everything has recoil.
The question is how much.

Just like everything overheats, even MDC weapons that would require 100 SDC of fire/heat damage to lose 1 point of MDC.
The question is what's it take to overheat it.

Both are arbitrary guesses, most of the time.
The main difference is that there are a zillion was to make a weapon impervious to heat/fire in Rifts.

I say that because it costs 5 attacks to fire it twice.

So don't fire it twice.
Or fire it once, then duck behind cover while you reload.

Which for a low level player is near suicide. (Use up all actions and unless you have auto dodge screws the player) and is generally only useful for a few situations where it is planned out well.

I don't consider "fire once, then drop it" or "fire once, then duck behind cover" to be "few situations where it is planned out well."

I mean heck, I'm not even suggesting you try firing from behind cover in the first place, only maybe duck behind cover after shooting.
I'm not suggesting that you use it as a sniper weapon, to fire unseen, leaving the enemy to waste attacks looking to even SEE you while you reload.
I'm not suggesting that you have three or more different ATL-7s, and a few hirelings to reload them for you, so you can fire, spend one attack to swap weapons, then fire again, and repeat this as long as your reloading crew is alive.

I'm just saying fire the thing once, then swap weapons and fire something else.
Pretty much the same way that a lot of single-shot anti-armor weapons are used, only this one does more damage than most.

Plus you couldn't pack enough e-clips to feed it. Making it dead weight you have to pack.

So just fire it once, then drop it.
One shot, one kill. Then swap weapons and go 3-4 shots per kill as usual (or whatever).

It states (page 166 SA2) that the barrel is insulated to protect the user from heat. Which implies it gets damn hot. If the rate of fire is increased beyond 1 shot per 3 actions (the base rate of fire) then it "could" cause issues with internal workings. As it was deemed necessary to insulate the barrel for a 1:3 rate of fire. If that became a 1:1 it stands to reason heating is not a quantum leap.

Sure, it's a "could."
Then again, there's a big difference between "hot enough to hurt a human hand" and "hot enough to damage the machine itself."

I have a steam iron with an insulated grip.
Haven't seen the thing overheat once.

I don't believe in "FOF" at 100,000 credits..

Fast Old Farts?
Full of Fail?
Found on Floor?
Fear of Flying....?

Help me out here.

At 150,000 I could get an AT-1200 rail gun that is more functional . (Japan WB page 127)

Sure... if you shop at a store that's in both South America AND Japan.

But again the ATL-7 is worthless

Sure.
Who could possibly figure out a use for a one-shot kill energy weapon with that kind of range?
Life is a mystery!

Sorry meant FAF = fire and forget.

You can say lazers do... but I disagree as does the creator.

Sure if you want to plan it and throw away 100,000 or pack deadweight till you find a use.

[Killer Cyborg]

Let's do the math
ATL-7
1d6x10+7 per attack/action and needs reloaded every shot

No, the math is 3d6x10+20 MD in ONE attack.
Then there's a second attack to switch to another weapon.

How'd you come up with 1d6x10+7?
That a typo, or are you using Kevin's suggestion that the weapon's official, original stats are TOO POWERFUL as-is, and nerfing it accordingly?

The AT-1200 1d6x10 per action where as 10 shots per reload

The guy with the AT-1200 is going to chew up the guy with the ATL-7 with the same number of attacks.

Sure... IF they each brought only one gun to the firefight.
And depending on what armor they're wearing, and how long the fight lasts.

I mean, if they're in armor with 100 MDC or less, and the guy with the ATL-7 gets of ONE average hit before the other guy hits him, it's game over.
That other guy doesn't get to shoot at all.

Likewise, if instead of fighting each other, those guys were each against a guy in 100 MDC EBA or less, armed with a 6d6 MD energy weapon, then what'd most likely happen (in an open-range showdown) is:

ATL Guy wins init? He shoots, he hits, the fight is over. The other guy is dead.
ATL Guy loses init? He gets shot for 21 MD, which isn't enough to break through even Plastic Man armor.
Then he shoots back, and kills the other guy.

The AT-1200 guy wins init?
He fires for 35 MD, then gets hit for 21 MD.
He fires for 35 MD, then gets hit for 21 MD.
He fires for 35 MD, killing the guy... but he's lost 41 MDC off his armor, compared to the 0 MDC lost by the ATL guy who wins init, and compared to only 21 MDC gone if the ATL guy LOSES init.

The AT-1200 guy loses init?
He gets hit for 21 MD, then shoots back for 35 MD.
He gets hit for 21 MD, then shoots back for 35 MD.
He gets hit for 21 MD, then shoots back for 35 MD, killing the other guy. But he's lost 63 MDC off his armor.

If they're up against TWO guys?
Well, the ATL-7 guy is in trouble IF he's only got the one gun... but I've only rarely seen any PCs who carry only one gun (or comparable weapon).
But let's look at that trouble:

Guy with the ATL-7 wins init...
He kills half of his opponents in a single shot.
Then he's hit for 21 MD.
Then he's hit for 21 MD as he starts to reload.
Then he's hit for 21 MD as he finishes reloading.
Then he kills the other half of his opposition.

If he loses initiative, he get hit for 42 MD that first set of attacks, then he kills one of the guys, and takes 21 MD for the next two attacks as he reloaded. Then he kills the second guy.
That's a total of 63 MDC lost if he wins initiative,
and 84 MDC lost if he loses initiative.
But assuming he has armor with 100+ MDC, he's going to survive.

Guy with the AT-1200 wins initiative...
He fires for 35 MD, then gets hit for 42 MD
He fires for 35 MD, then get **** for 42 MD
He fires for 35 MD, killing one enemy, then gets hit for 21 MD, killing HIM.

Guy with the AT-1200 loses initiative...
He gets hit for 42 MD, then fires back for 35 MD.
He gets hit for 42 MD, then fires back for 35 MD.
He gets hit for 42 MD, killing him before he can drop either oponent.

[Killer Cyborg]

You can say lazers do... but I disagree as does the creator.

He also likes his lasers to be visible, IIRC, like in the movies.
But fine... if you want to go official, scrap the recoil option, and just go with "the trigger takes a long time to get back into firing position," or "the quantum torque fluctuates, delaying firing again," or any number of other made-up problems that the gun isn't stated to have.
(And that can't be resolved with a simple spell, psychic power, magic item, ward, and so forth!)

Sure if you want to plan it and throw away 100,000 or pack deadweight till you find a use.

Do you throw your guns away every time you can't immediately load them?
I don't.
I've run out of ammo before, and I just kinda hang onto the gun until I get more ammo.

And hey... here's a weird idea!
Maybe somebody in Rifts could just reload it AFTER the battle, and have it fresh and ready for the next battle?
Then it's a loaded one-hit-kill weapon again, and not just "deadweight."

[Hawk258]

You can say lazers do... but I disagree as does the creator.

He also likes his lasers to be visible, IIRC, like in the movies.
But fine... if you want to go official, scrap the recoil option, and just go with "the trigger takes a long time to get back into firing position," or "the quantum torque fluctuates, delaying firing again," or any number of other made-up problems that the gun isn't stated to have.
(And that can't be resolved with a simple spell, psychic power, magic item, ward, and so forth!)

Sure if you want to plan it and throw away 100,000 or pack deadweight till you find a use.

Do you throw your guns away every time you can't immediately load them?
I don't.
I've run out of ammo before, and I just kinda hang onto the gun until I get more ammo.

And hey... here's a weird idea!
Maybe somebody in Rifts could just reload it AFTER the battle, and have it fresh and ready for the next battle?
Then it's a loaded one-hit-kill weapon again, and not just "deadweight."

You were the one so said "fire and drop it"

[Hawk258]

You can say lazers do... but I disagree as does the creator.

He also likes his lasers to be visible, IIRC, like in the movies.
But fine... if you want to go official, scrap the recoil option, and just go with "the trigger takes a long time to get back into firing position," or "the quantum torque fluctuates, delaying firing again," or any number of other made-up problems that the gun isn't stated to have.
(And that can't be resolved with a simple spell, psychic power, magic item, ward, and so forth!)

Sure if you want to plan it and throw away 100,000 or pack deadweight till you find a use.

Do you throw your guns away every time you can't immediately load them?
I don't.
I've run out of ammo before, and I just kinda hang onto the gun until I get more ammo.

And hey... here's a weird idea!
Maybe somebody in Rifts could just reload it AFTER the battle, and have it fresh and ready for the next battle?
Then it's a loaded one-hit-kill weapon again, and not just "deadweight."

True. And I don't agree with everything KS say.

[Hawk258]

Let's do the math
ATL-7
1d6x10+7 per attack/action and needs reloaded every shot

No, the math is 3d6x10+20 MD in ONE attack.
Then there's a second attack to switch to another weapon.

How'd you come up with 1d6x10+7?
That a typo, or are you using Kevin's suggestion that the weapon's official, original stats are TOO POWERFUL as-is, and nerfing it accordingly?

The AT-1200 1d6x10 per action where as 10 shots per reload

The guy with the AT-1200 is going to chew up the guy with the ATL-7 with the same number of attacks.

Sure... IF they each brought only one gun to the firefight.
And depending on what armor they're wearing, and how long the fight lasts.

I mean, if they're in armor with 100 MDC or less, and the guy with the ATL-7 gets of ONE average hit before the other guy hits him, it's game over.
That other guy doesn't get to shoot at all.

Likewise, if instead of fighting each other, those guys were each against a guy in 100 MDC EBA or less, armed with a 6d6 MD energy weapon, then what'd most likely happen (in an open-range showdown) is:

ATL Guy wins init? He shoots, he hits, the fight is over. The other guy is dead.
ATL Guy loses init? He gets shot for 21 MD, which isn't enough to break through even Plastic Man armor.
Then he shoots back, and kills the other guy.

The AT-1200 guy wins init?
He fires for 35 MD, then gets hit for 21 MD.
He fires for 35 MD, then gets hit for 21 MD.
He fires for 35 MD, killing the guy... but he's lost 41 MDC off his armor, compared to the 0 MDC lost by the ATL guy who wins init, and compared to only 21 MDC gone if the ATL guy LOSES init.

The AT-1200 guy loses init?
He gets hit for 21 MD, then shoots back for 35 MD.
He gets hit for 21 MD, then shoots back for 35 MD.
He gets hit for 21 MD, then shoots back for 35 MD, killing the other guy. But he's lost 63 MDC off his armor.

If they're up against TWO guys?
Well, the ATL-7 guy is in trouble IF he's only got the one gun... but I've only rarely seen any PCs who carry only one gun (or comparable weapon).
But let's look at that trouble:

Guy with the ATL-7 wins init...
He kills half of his opponents in a single shot.
Then he's hit for 21 MD.
Then he's hit for 21 MD as he starts to reload.
Then he's hit for 21 MD as he finishes reloading.
Then he kills the other half of his opposition.

If he loses initiative, he get hit for 42 MD that first set of attacks, then he kills one of the guys, and takes 21 MD for the next two attacks as he reloaded. Then he kills the second guy.
That's a total of 63 MDC lost if he wins initiative,
and 84 MDC lost if he loses initiative.
But assuming he has armor with 100+ MDC, he's going to survive.

Guy with the AT-1200 wins initiative...
He fires for 35 MD, then gets hit for 42 MD
He fires for 35 MD, then get **** for 42 MD
He fires for 35 MD, killing one enemy, then gets hit for 21 MD, killing HIM.

Guy with the AT-1200 loses initiative...
He gets hit for 42 MD, then fires back for 35 MD.
He gets hit for 42 MD, then fires back for 35 MD.
He gets hit for 42 MD, killing him before he can drop either oponent.

You are banking alot on 1 shot still.

At 3 attacks per round a beginner has 1 shot with an ATL-7

At 3 attacks per round at-1200 gets 3, or a possibility to dodge and 2.

Pound per pound unmodified the ATL-7 is worthless. You have lots of things against you. And again you must plan it right and not waste a shot.

Not worth 100,000 as a 1 shot or 2 per combat.

[Killer Cyborg]

You are banking alot on 1 shot still.

I'm playing averages.
You need 8 or better to hit with a ranged weapon these days, but the ATL-7 can make Aimed shots, so that's around +3 to strike right off the bat.
Add a scope to it, it's another +1. Spring for a laser targeting system, that's +3.
It's not hard to get +6 or more to strike with an Aimed Shot in Rifts.
So that drops the strike roll to essentially a sure thing. Yes, they can try to dodge... but the -10 rule makes that usually futile.

So almost every time, you're going to hit.
And when you hit, the average damage is going to be 135 MD, which is more than 133% of the damage needed to take out high-end heavy EBA.
Sure, you can always roll a Natural 1, or you can roll three 1s for damage and only do 50 MD.
But it's not the way to bet. On average, you're going to hit, and against normal infantry, you're going to kill.

At 3 attacks per round a beginner has 1 shot with an ATL-7

Who has 3 attacks to start any more?
4's the standard, 5 with boxing.

At 3 attacks per round at-1200 gets 3, or a possibility to dodge and 2.

Who dodges any more?
Usually not worth it, with the -10 rule.
In situations where the AT-1200 guy is going up against enemies with 25 MDC or less, those 3 attacks might well mean that he kills 3 guys! In that situation, he's got an advantage over the ATL guy.
But against three guys with 60+ MDC, the guy with the ATL is going to have the advantage.

Each weapon has its situations where it's better than the other.
Which means that the ATL-7 is more useful in a lot of situations.
Which means that it's hardly useless garbage.

Pound per pound unmodified the ATL-7 is worthless. You have lots of things against you. And again you must plan it right and not waste a shot.

I've addressed those things.
Let me know if you come up with rebuttals.

Not worth 100,000 as a 1 shot or 2 per combat.

Not even when it saves your life?
Seriously, DO THE MATH.

Say you've got a guy with an ATL-7 and a weapon that does 1d6x10 MD per attack.
Put him up against two guys like before: 100 MDC, 6d6 MD attacks.

If he wins init:
First attack, he kills one of the two guys. Then he gets shot for 21 MD.
He swaps weapons, and gets shot for 21 MD.
He fires for 35 MD, and gets shot for 21 MD.
He fires for 35 MD, and gets shot for 21 MD.
He fires for 35 MD, and kills that other guy.

If he loses init... well, he dies. But he does kill one guy first, and damage the other.

Compare that to a guy with just the 1d6x10 MD rifle, and no ATL:
He fires for 35 MD, then gets hit for 42 MD
He fires for 35 MD, then get **** for 42 MD
He fires for 35 MD, killing one enemy, then gets hit for 21 MD, killing HIM.

If he loses initiative...
He gets hit for 42 MD, then fires back for 35 MD.
He gets hit for 42 MD, then fires back for 35 MD.
He gets hit for 42 MD, killing him before he can drop either oponent.

Having an ATL-7 can save your life sometimes.
Or, at the least, it can make sure you take at least ONE bad guy with you.

Is that worth CR 100,000?
I guess that depends on how much money you have, and what else is in stock where you shop.

[Hawk258]

Yeah well you say that but damage to cost not worth the effort unmodified IN MY OPINION.

It is junk that I wouldn't wish on anyone. But then again, there are a few people that think its overpowered.

[ShadowLogan]

The ATL-7 (South America 2 pg 166) is a powerful laser, however it is power hungry (eating up full e-clips in 1 shot)
As well as put out lots of heat.

Powerful in terms of one-shot damage? Yes. Power Hungry in terms of E-Clips?... Not really. I looked at non-critical max damage for a single shot multiplied by the payload for all the weapons in the original RMB (CS and Market), plus the ATL-7. RMB energy weapons (laser, ion, particle, plasma) have a total capacity of between 80 and 480 MD worth of energy in a standard Eclip (not Long or Cell), and the ATL-7 comes in at 200 MD. Not the most efficient use, but not the worst either.

Now the weapons all have different ranges, sizes, rates of fire, and energy type. But in terms of useful energy (ie damaging) derived from an Eclip, the ATL-7 is not unusual and hardly power hungry.

3: select fire options, the ATL-7m offers adjustable firing options. 6d6 md /1d6x10 md /3d6x10+20 md.

Given the role the ATL-7 is in it hardly needs variable fire options. There are more efficient ways to deal these damage values to for a given 'bot/PA/'borg/vehicle. And while the ATL-7 range is not common, it is not unheard of either. You are more likely to find a laser weapon that comes up short or out performs it in terms of range.

The only real advantage this would offer is that you could apply the higher Aimed Shot Strike Bonus instead of Burst Strike Bonus, but then you are now using up more actions per melee for a single attack.

If you are looking to increase the ROF for the baseline ATL-7, the simplest method would be to have an "E-Clip Magazine" or "E-Clip Cylinder" that moves a new Eclip into position or moves the connectors to a new Eclip.

This allows for increased rate of fire. However maximum setting is limited to 3 shots per round

I can see limiting the ATL-7's ROF when hooked up to nuclear power plant since you are likely going to need to use a capacitor(s) to hold enough energy to fire an ATL-7 on demand, and those capacitors are going to take time to charge and most nuclear plants probably arent' going to be delivering that kind of power on demand (even from a bank of energy weapons is practically unheard of).

Well considering naruni, truax, NG, Coalition all got upgrades I think this fits and makes sense

Who is Truax? These guys all received upgrades due to timeline advancements.

It really doesn't make sense or fit either. The ATL-7 was designed for a specific role (Anti-Armor), giving it variable output settings doesn't make much sense. Variable settings are pretty uncommon in Rifts once you move past the main book. Far more weapon use bursts (or pulses) to achieve the same end.

[Killer Cyborg]

Yeah well you say that but damage to cost not worth the effort unmodified IN MY OPINION.

It is junk that I wouldn't wish on anyone. But then again, there are a few people that think its overpowered.

I've showed you the math.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not all opinions are equal.
And very few are equal to math.

[Hawk258]

The ATL-7 (South America 2 pg 166) is a powerful laser, however it is power hungry (eating up full e-clips in 1 shot)
As well as put out lots of heat.

Powerful in terms of one-shot damage? Yes. Power Hungry in terms of E-Clips?... Not really. I looked at non-critical max damage for a single shot multiplied by the payload for all the weapons in the original RMB (CS and Market), plus the ATL-7. RMB energy weapons (laser, ion, particle, plasma) have a total capacity of between 80 and 480 MD worth of energy in a standard Eclip (not Long or Cell), and the ATL-7 comes in at 200 MD. Not the most efficient use, but not the worst either.

Now the weapons all have different ranges, sizes, rates of fire, and energy type. But in terms of useful energy (ie damaging) derived from an Eclip, the ATL-7 is not unusual and hardly power hungry.

3: select fire options, the ATL-7m offers adjustable firing options. 6d6 md /1d6x10 md /3d6x10+20 md.

Given the role the ATL-7 is in it hardly needs variable fire options. There are more efficient ways to deal these damage values to for a given 'bot/PA/'borg/vehicle. And while the ATL-7 range is not common, it is not unheard of either. You are more likely to find a laser weapon that comes up short or out performs it in terms of range.

The only real advantage this would offer is that you could apply the higher Aimed Shot Strike Bonus instead of Burst Strike Bonus, but then you are now using up more actions per melee for a single attack.

If you are looking to increase the ROF for the baseline ATL-7, the simplest method would be to have an "E-Clip Magazine" or "E-Clip Cylinder" that moves a new Eclip into position or moves the connectors to a new Eclip.

This allows for increased rate of fire. However maximum setting is limited to 3 shots per round

I can see limiting the ATL-7's ROF when hooked up to nuclear power plant since you are likely going to need to use a capacitor(s) to hold enough energy to fire an ATL-7 on demand, and those capacitors are going to take time to charge and most nuclear plants probably arent' going to be delivering that kind of power on demand (even from a bank of energy weapons is practically unheard of).

Well considering naruni, truax, NG, Coalition all got upgrades I think this fits and makes sense

Who is Truax? These guys all received upgrades due to timeline advancements.

It really doesn't make sense or fit either. The ATL-7 was designed for a specific role (Anti-Armor), giving it variable output settings doesn't make much sense. Variable settings are pretty uncommon in Rifts once you move past the main book. Far more weapon use bursts (or pulses) to achieve the same end.

[Hawk258]

The ATL-7 (South America 2 pg 166) is a powerful laser, however it is power hungry (eating up full e-clips in 1 shot)
As well as put out lots of heat.

Powerful in terms of one-shot damage? Yes. Power Hungry in terms of E-Clips?... Not really. I looked at non-critical max damage for a single shot multiplied by the payload for all the weapons in the original RMB (CS and Market), plus the ATL-7. RMB energy weapons (laser, ion, particle, plasma) have a total capacity of between 80 and 480 MD worth of energy in a standard Eclip (not Long or Cell), and the ATL-7 comes in at 200 MD. Not the most efficient use, but not the worst either.

Now the weapons all have different ranges, sizes, rates of fire, and energy type. But in terms of useful energy (ie damaging) derived from an Eclip, the ATL-7 is not unusual and hardly power hungry.

3: select fire options, the ATL-7m offers adjustable firing options. 6d6 md /1d6x10 md /3d6x10+20 md.

Given the role the ATL-7 is in it hardly needs variable fire options. There are more efficient ways to deal these damage values to for a given 'bot/PA/'borg/vehicle. And while the ATL-7 range is not common, it is not unheard of either. You are more likely to find a laser weapon that comes up short or out performs it in terms of range.

The only real advantage this would offer is that you could apply the higher Aimed Shot Strike Bonus instead of Burst Strike Bonus, but then you are now using up more actions per melee for a single attack.

If you are looking to increase the ROF for the baseline ATL-7, the simplest method would be to have an "E-Clip Magazine" or "E-Clip Cylinder" that moves a new Eclip into position or moves the connectors to a new Eclip.

This allows for increased rate of fire. However maximum setting is limited to 3 shots per round

I can see limiting the ATL-7's ROF when hooked up to nuclear power plant since you are likely going to need to use a capacitor(s) to hold enough energy to fire an ATL-7 on demand, and those capacitors are going to take time to charge and most nuclear plants probably arent' going to be delivering that kind of power on demand (even from a bank of energy weapons is practically unheard of).

Well considering naruni, truax, NG, Coalition all got upgrades I think this fits and makes sense

Who is Truax? These guys all received upgrades due to timeline advancements.

It really doesn't make sense or fit either. The ATL-7 was designed for a specific role (Anti-Armor), giving it variable output settings doesn't make much sense. Variable settings are pretty uncommon in Rifts once you move past the main book. Far more weapon use bursts (or pulses) to achieve the same end.

First your opinion was already noted in the power creep thread and addressed with thermal generators and 3 Attacks per round.

And triax. Truax is a real life company my phone auto corrected for...

[Hawk258]

Yeah well you say that but damage to cost not worth the effort unmodified IN MY OPINION.

It is junk that I wouldn't wish on anyone. But then again, there are a few people that think its overpowered.

I've showed you the math.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not all opinions are equal.
And very few are equal to math.

Your math lacks many aspects.
Granted "average" looks good on paper but in actual gaming that won't necessarily pan out when the dice are actually rolled.

But I digress for me... I don't like the unaltered version.

As stated the damage per action cost makes it less effective than a rail gun with a 400 round magazine, (10 bursts per magazine) vs ATL-7 1 shot to 4x damage.

That is a ratio of 1:4 vs 1:10 at 1d6x10
1 magazine to damage.

The AT-1200 doesn't "need" a secondary weapon to match that.

The modified ATL-7 gives you 3 max settings per round
Which in an the hands of a low level characters hands is pretty solid.

However once a character builds their attacks per round up becomes a hindrance again. And keeps it on par with a player with an unmodified and a high amount of attacks per round.

The At-1200 in the hands of an individual with a high amount of attacks per round will still be more effective vs the same player with an unmodified ATL-7.

The 2 lower settings gives flexibility (still lose 1 action changing settings) but allows for less weight to be packed around, and greater effectiveness in combat equal to similar weapons in game.

At 7 attacks per round that works out to 3 shots the first round, 2 shots for the second and third round and 3 on the forth. 3:2:2:3.

With the AT-1200 that's 7:5:5:7

Which is 4:5:5:4 wasted attacks per round
Vs
0:2:2:0 wasted attacks

Meaning in 4 rounds is 18 attacks lost at 1d6x10+20
Vs
4 lost to the AT-1200 using magazines at 1d6x10 hiting you 14 more times

Or 0 wasted attacks and 18 shots if using a 4000 round drum for 100 attacks between reloads

In 4 rounds
ATL-7 1250 MDC average
AT-1200 840 MDC Average with magazines
AT-1200 is 980 MDC average with drum

That doesn't account for bad day with dice, misses or other game mechanic.

And "yes" the average damage is higher for the ATL-7, with a far lower rate of fire. Leaving lots of things to go wrong that may not necessarily effect the AT-1200. Like energy and laser resistance.

With the modified ATL-7 and 7 attacks per round average 1920 MDC in 4 rounds.

[TechnoGothic]

The ATL-7 is far from useless.
Inflicting 3d6x10+20 mdc...
50mdc(100crit) to 200mdc(400crit) is worth it imho.
Aimed Shot. Heat Shot. Most targets instantly taken out.

[Killer Cyborg]

Yeah well you say that but damage to cost not worth the effort unmodified IN MY OPINION.

It is junk that I wouldn't wish on anyone. But then again, there are a few people that think its overpowered.

I've showed you the math.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not all opinions are equal.
And very few are equal to math.

Your math lacks many aspects.
Granted "average" looks good on paper but in actual gaming that won't necessarily pan out when the dice are actually rolled.

It will on average.

But I digress for me... I don't like the unaltered version.

See, that's cool.
I don't either, for different reasons.

But "I don't like it" is a WHOLE different ball of beans than "it's garbage" or "it's useless."

As stated the damage per action cost makes it less effective than a rail gun with a 400 round magazine, (10 bursts per magazine) vs ATL-7 1 shot to 4x damage.

As I've shown, that depends entirely on the scenario in question.
And as I've mentioned, your claim there hinges on a the false dilemma that it's either/or, not BOTH.

That is a ratio of 1:4 vs 1:10 at 1d6x10
1 magazine to damage.

The At-1200 in the hands of an individual with a high amount of attacks per round will still be more effective vs the same player with an unmodified ATL-7.

Sometimes.
Maybe reread the scenarios I laid out in previous posts.

And "yes" the average damage is higher for the ATL-7, with a far lower rate of fire. Leaving lots of things to go wrong that may not necessarily effect the AT-1200. Like energy and laser resistance.

Sure. Or maybe the target is impervious to kinetic attacks, and the railgun is useless.
This is Rifts: we could come up with "what if..." scenarios all day and all night.

There are certainly times when the AT-1200 would be the better weapon.
BUT there are times (as I've shown) where the ATL-7 would be the better weapon.

Being able to one-shot-kill an enemy is a significant advantage in a heck of a lot of very common situations.
You don't have to like the gun.
Feel free to modify a home-brew version all you like!

But denying the original weapon's raw power and utility is silly.

[Killer Cyborg]

The ATL-7 is far from useless.
Inflicting 3d6x10+20 mdc...
50mdc(100crit) to 200mdc(400crit) is worth it imho.
Aimed Shot. Heat Shot. Most targets instantly taken out.

Yeah, just the fact that it's able to make Called Shots makes it even more powerful.
Being able to take out a target's gun, or head, or ankle, or whatever, is pretty useful.

I mean, it takes extra attacks... but you know what?
I think as a GM, I'd allow the guy holding the ATL-7 to spend two attacks Aiming & Calling as shot while somebody else reloads for him.
Especially if they'd practiced the maneuver.

[Hawk258]

The ATL-7 is far from useless.
Inflicting 3d6x10+20 mdc...
50mdc(100crit) to 200mdc(400crit) is worth it imho.
Aimed Shot. Heat Shot. Most targets instantly taken out.

Well you have 2 or 3 opportunities to roll a critical
Vs
5 to 7 chances with most everything else.

[Mack]

Don't dismiss the effect on role-playing the ATL-7 brings to the table. Anyone (PC or NPC) that recognizes it in their opponent's hands is going to behave differently.

And now *you* understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all... your fault, my fault, nobody's fault... it won't matter - I'm gonna blow your head off. No matter what else happens, no matter who gets killed I'm gonna blow your head off.

[Hawk258]

Don't dismiss the effect on role-playing the ATL-7 brings to the table. Anyone (PC or NPC) that recognizes it in their opponent's hands is going to behave differently.

And now *you* understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all... your fault, my fault, nobody's fault... it won't matter - I'm gonna blow your head off. No matter what else happens, no matter who gets killed I'm gonna blow your head off.

You mean "kill him first? He's a sitting duck?" Or "these suckers might have something worth taking those ATL-7 aren't cheap to feed"

"Pin that one down, don't let him get a shot off, but even if he does he can't get all of us"

"Stay out of range and pick him off"

[Hawk258]

It's kinda like going in to a fight with one of these https://cdn.myshoptet.com/usr/www.kentaurguns.com/user/shop/big/7701_double-barrel-percussion-pistol-great-gun-derringer--54--4-.jpg?59ef93ae against a revolver. Or worse a browning .50.

It gives you all the negative aspects that accompany a powerful weapon without the benefits.

Rate of fire 1 shot 3 actions
Range: 3000 feet
Ammo supply: limited
Weight: 30 lb
Cost: 100,000 credits plus E-clip cost 5000 to 6000.
Notable heavy weapon.

[dreicunan]

This is hilarious, Hawk. Your proposal was to attach the thing to nuclear power source, then you argue against the original weapon without hooking it up to a nuclear power source? You cost out e-clips at 5k to 6k, ignoring that unlike missiles the e-clip is reusable, and potentially rechargeable at a zero-credit cost to the user? Heck, mystc knights can recharge a standard e-clip for 12 ppe, so they would LOVE having access to one of these things.

The ATL-7 is an awesome weapon when used for its designed purpose, especially when you look at it the way that an actual person in universe would and not treat it as your only weapon!

[Hawk258]

This is hilarious, Hawk. Your proposal was to attach the thing to nuclear power source, then you argue against the original weapon without hooking it up to a nuclear power source? You cost out e-clips at 5k to 6k, ignoring that unlike missiles the e-clip is reusable, and potentially rechargeable at a zero-credit cost to the user? Heck, mystc knights can recharge a standard e-clip for 12 ppe, so they would LOVE having access to one of these things.

The ATL-7 is an awesome weapon when used for its designed purpose, especially when you look at it the way that an actual person in universe would and not treat it as your only weapon!

Right, and at 5000-6000 an e-clip
1 shot at 3d6x10+20 or 50-200 md to a "possible" critical 100-400 md damage per e-clip

Vs

A magazine/e-clip for a 1d6x10 weapon with 10 shot payload
1d6x10 md x10 or 100-600 md per e-clip (not included possible criticals)

Damage per payload
Shot per action
Doesn't even compare.

[Hawk258]

For gitts and shiggles I decided to roll the dice
1 roll 3d6x10+20
8 = 100 md

3 rolls of 1d6x10
6=60
4=40
6=60
Total 160 md

Again
12 = 140 (3d6x10+20)

1d6x10
2=20
3=30
5=50
100

In 6 attacks
3d6x10+20=240
1d6x10 = 260

I really don't see much advantage

Let's flip those and the differences shift... but dice are fickle
300 MD 3d6x10+20
200 MD 1d6x10

Did 30 rolls for 1d6x10
1070 total

And 10 3d6x10+20 rolls
1020 total.

On average it appears the edge is marginal due to the fact that 1d6 has equal opportunity to roll high as low

Where as 3d6 is stuck in the middle, even with the extra 20 doesn't help it much.

In 100 rolls the ATL-7 will do max damage oncemaybe twice

But at 1d6x10 will get 17 max damage in the same 100 rolls

1:6 vs 1:18

And get through 100 rolls 3 times faster.

[Hawk258]

In fact let's make things more interesting.

Instead of 3D6x10+20 50 to 200 mdc
Maybe we should make it 2d10x10

I mean you are Getting 2d10 damage guaranteed with the first one right?

I think I like that better 1:20 odds of max damage
110 damage average
20 md to 200 md range

Would that appease the audience?

And 3 max shots per round.

Though a 1d20x10 might be more interesting

Though 4d6x10-40 would suck right? 0-200?

But 1d10x20 wouldn't be so bad right?

Though personally I kinda like 1d6x30+20 still 50-200 md right?

But for gitts and shiggles how about we just flip a coin, tails 100 heads 200?

Or 2 coins
Both heads 200
Both tails 100
1 each 50

[dreicunan]

1d6x10 averages 35. 3d6x10+20 averages 125. So if you hook up both the atl-7 and any 1d6x10 laser to a nuclear generator, even if we say that it takes 3 actions per shot for the atl-7 the way you do it, the atl-7 always wins. The only metric by which it doesn't is damage per e-clip, which is ignoring the point. The weapon is meant to be an anti-armor weapon delivering as much power as possible in a single shot. It isn't trying to be efficient with the e-clip!

Also, for the "overpowered" atl-7 arguments, let's not forget the burst rules that existed when it was published, and any weapon with standard rate of fire could burn through an entire clip or magazine to get x10 damage. So the C-27 could do 6d6x10 on a full clip burst (and only two actions), or 6d6x5 on a long burst (only one attack). The C-12 could do 4d6x10 on a full clip burst. The NG-P7 could do 1d4x100 by the rules as written (it had rate of fire standard). And of course the infamous JA-11, doing 4d6x10 out to 4000 ft with a full clip burst (use short clips. The advantage of an atl-7 was always entirely in its ability to do 3d6x10+20 on an aimed (or especially aimed and called) shot and the extra bonuses to strike that allowed. It'a economy of action at the time was actually identical to the economy of action you got got using 2 action full clip bursta and then taking one action to reload.

[Mack]

Don't dismiss the effect on role-playing the ATL-7 brings to the table. Anyone (PC or NPC) that recognizes it in their opponent's hands is going to behave differently.

And now *you* understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all... your fault, my fault, nobody's fault... it won't matter - I'm gonna blow your head off. No matter what else happens, no matter who gets killed I'm gonna blow your head off.

You mean "kill him first? He's a sitting duck?" Or "these suckers might have something worth taking those ATL-7 aren't cheap to feed"

"Pin that one down, don't let him get a shot off, but even if he does he can't get all of us"

"Stay out of range and pick him off"

Exactly. It’s mere presence forces an opponent to change.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Hawk258]

1d6x10 averages 35. 3d6x10+20 averages 125. So if you hook up both the atl-7 and any 1d6x10 laser to a nuclear generator, even if we say that it takes 3 actions per shot for the atl-7 the way you do it, the atl-7 always wins. The only metric by which it doesn't is damage per e-clip, which is ignoring the point. The weapon is meant to be an anti-armor weapon delivering as much power as possible in a single shot. It isn't trying to be efficient with the e-clip!

Also, for the "overpowered" atl-7 arguments, let's not forget the burst rules that existed when it was published, and any weapon with standard rate of fire could burn through an entire clip or magazine to get x10 damage. So the C-27 could do 6d6x10 on a full clip burst (and only two actions), or 6d6x5 on a long burst (only one attack). The C-12 could do 4d6x10 on a full clip burst. The NG-P7 could do 1d4x100 by the rules as written (it had rate of fire standard). And of course the infamous JA-11, doing 4d6x10 out to 4000 ft with a full clip burst (use short clips. The advantage of an atl-7 was always entirely in its ability to do 3d6x10+20 on an aimed (or especially aimed and called) shot and the extra bonuses to strike that allowed. It'a economy of action at the time was actually identical to the economy of action you got got using 2 action full clip bursta and then taking one action to reload.

You forget at 3d6x10+20 is stuck at average you have a 1 in 18 odds of rolling 18. Meaning 60% of your rolls are stuck between 8 through 13.



Where as 1d6x10 has 1 in 6 to roll anything. Meaning 66% of the time it will roll equal to or greater than average.

1's and 2's 33% 3's and 4's 33% 5's and 6's 33%

Meaning I am going to meet or beat your roll 66% of the time.

Also I am rolling 3 times faster, while the laws of average "will" balance out" it does change that I will hit 180 md more often than 3d6x10+20

Action cost per damage 1d6 can hit max damage more often.

If you take the aimed/called shot you go for 1 shot 3 actions (1d6x10+6.6) to 1 shot 4 actions at about 1d4.5x10+5

And that's not accounting for what your target is.

Sure great against squishy things but not great against other Power armor or anything with more that 300 mdc

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

[dreicunan]

1d6x10 averages 35. 3d6x10+20 averages 125. So if you hook up both the atl-7 and any 1d6x10 laser to a nuclear generator, even if we say that it takes 3 actions per shot for the atl-7 the way you do it, the atl-7 always wins. The only metric by which it doesn't is damage per e-clip, which is ignoring the point. The weapon is meant to be an anti-armor weapon delivering as much power as possible in a single shot. It isn't trying to be efficient with the e-clip!

Also, for the "overpowered" atl-7 arguments, let's not forget the burst rules that existed when it was published, and any weapon with standard rate of fire could burn through an entire clip or magazine to get x10 damage. So the C-27 could do 6d6x10 on a full clip burst (and only two actions), or 6d6x5 on a long burst (only one attack). The C-12 could do 4d6x10 on a full clip burst. The NG-P7 could do 1d4x100 by the rules as written (it had rate of fire standard). And of course the infamous JA-11, doing 4d6x10 out to 4000 ft with a full clip burst (use short clips. The advantage of an atl-7 was always entirely in its ability to do 3d6x10+20 on an aimed (or especially aimed and called) shot and the extra bonuses to strike that allowed. It'a economy of action at the time was actually identical to the economy of action you got got using 2 action full clip bursta and then taking one action to reload.

You forget at 3d6x10+20 is stuck at average you have a 1 in 18 odds of rolling 18. Meaning 60% of your rolls are stuck between 8 through 13.



Where as 1d6x10 has 1 in 6 to roll anything. Meaning 66% of the time it will roll equal to or greater than average.

1's and 2's 33% 3's and 4's 33% 5's and 6's 33%

Meaning I am going to meet or beat your roll 66% of the time.

Also I am rolling 3 times faster, while the laws of average "will" balance out" it does change that I will hit 180 md more often than 3d6x10+20

Action cost per damage 1d6 can hit max damage more often.

If you take the aimed/called shot you go for 1 shot 3 actions (1d6x10+6.6) to 1 shot 4 actions at about 1d4.5x10+5

And that's not accounting for what your target is.

Sure great against squishy things but not great against other Power armor or anything with more that 300 mdc

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

1d6 three times is mathematically the same as 3d6 one time. 1d6 will also not roll equal to or greater than its average 66% of the time. The average is 3.5, so it will roll the average 0% of the time. It will roll greater than average 50% of the time and lesser than average 50% of the time. The math on this is quite clear.

Also, get your economy of action costs correct. If you are aiming your shot for a 1d6x10 weapon, that means that you give up actions for each shot as well. So to get to 3d6x10 with aimed shots from a 1d6x10 weapon takes SIX actions, while it only takes 4 to fire and reload an atl-7. Aimed and called takes 5 actions to fire and reload, while the 1d6x10 weapon takes NINE actions.

The only metric it beats the ATL-7 is damage per e-clip. In all other anaylysis it loses out.

[Hawk258]

1d6x10 averages 35. 3d6x10+20 averages 125. So if you hook up both the atl-7 and any 1d6x10 laser to a nuclear generator, even if we say that it takes 3 actions per shot for the atl-7 the way you do it, the atl-7 always wins. The only metric by which it doesn't is damage per e-clip, which is ignoring the point. The weapon is meant to be an anti-armor weapon delivering as much power as possible in a single shot. It isn't trying to be efficient with the e-clip!

Also, for the "overpowered" atl-7 arguments, let's not forget the burst rules that existed when it was published, and any weapon with standard rate of fire could burn through an entire clip or magazine to get x10 damage. So the C-27 could do 6d6x10 on a full clip burst (and only two actions), or 6d6x5 on a long burst (only one attack). The C-12 could do 4d6x10 on a full clip burst. The NG-P7 could do 1d4x100 by the rules as written (it had rate of fire standard). And of course the infamous JA-11, doing 4d6x10 out to 4000 ft with a full clip burst (use short clips. The advantage of an atl-7 was always entirely in its ability to do 3d6x10+20 on an aimed (or especially aimed and called) shot and the extra bonuses to strike that allowed. It'a economy of action at the time was actually identical to the economy of action you got got using 2 action full clip bursta and then taking one action to reload.

You forget at 3d6x10+20 is stuck at average you have a 1 in 18 odds of rolling 18. Meaning 60% of your rolls are stuck between 8 through 13.



Where as 1d6x10 has 1 in 6 to roll anything. Meaning 66% of the time it will roll equal to or greater than average.

1's and 2's 33% 3's and 4's 33% 5's and 6's 33%

Meaning I am going to meet or beat your roll 66% of the time.

Also I am rolling 3 times faster, while the laws of average "will" balance out" it does change that I will hit 180 md more often than 3d6x10+20

Action cost per damage 1d6 can hit max damage more often.

If you take the aimed/called shot you go for 1 shot 3 actions (1d6x10+6.6) to 1 shot 4 actions at about 1d4.5x10+5

And that's not accounting for what your target is.

Sure great against squishy things but not great against other Power armor or anything with more that 300 mdc

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

1d6 three times is mathematically the same as 3d6 one time. 1d6 will also not roll equal to or greater than its average 66% of the time. The average is 3.5, so it will roll the average 0% of the time. It will roll greater than average 50% of the time and lesser than average 50% of the time. The math on this is quite clear.

Also, get your economy of action costs correct. If you are aiming your shot for a 1d6x10 weapon, that means that you give up actions for each shot as well. So to get to 3d6x10 with aimed shots from a 1d6x10 weapon takes SIX actions, while it only takes 4 to fire and reload an atl-7. Aimed and called takes 5 actions to fire and reload, while the 1d6x10 weapon takes NINE actions.

The only metric it beats the ATL-7 is damage per e-clip. In all other anaylysis it loses out.

Okay you have studied odds in school right?
Now follow a long.

You have 3d6. There is only 1 in 18 ways in a "single roll" to roll 18.

I have 1D6. I have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6.

Then I have another roll with 1 in 6

And another roll with 1 in 6.

My odds of rolling three 6's in 3 rolls is better than you rolling 3 6's in 1.

You have 1 in 18 possible combinations of rolling 18 in a single roll.

I have 3 rolls at 1 in 6 each.

Rolling a single die 3 time for effect is better than 3 dice once

With this I do have a 33% chance of rolling lower or higher.

But because I am rolling 1 die 3 time it effects the odds
Vs 3 dice once.

Here is 10 rolls of 3d6
 5, 13, 9, 10, 13, 12, 10, 13, 7, 17

Here is 30 rolls of 1d6
1, 4, 6,~ 5, 4, 3, ~1, 5, 5, ~1, 6, 3, ~1, 6, 5~, 3, 2, 5, ~5, 4, 5,~ 5, 4, 2,~ 6, 4, 4, ~6, 4, 5

Here is the break down 1 vs 3.

3d6. 1d6
5. 11
13. 12
9. 11
10. 10
13. 12
12. 10
10. 14
13. 11
7. 14
17. 15
Total. Total
109. 120

If we account for the x10+20 / x10

You out damage me by 10 md per attack or 90 md in 10 rolls and 30 actions.

Not really much of a difference. Because the edge of +20 goes out the window when the odds of 16/17/18 bring rolled drops.

If you take and make called shots/aimed you would lose 3 attacks in 10 possible shots in 30 actions lowering that number greatly.

And why I say it is worthless.

Because you are "only" shooting the average, if you have a good day with the dice or a bad one you are less likely to notice with 3d6.

Where as 1d6 I can have a great day with the dice, a crappy day with the dice or a mediocre day, but I will see it.

Because you are shooting average vs me playing the odds

You have 16 possible outcomes and 18 combinations.

I have 6 possible out comes and only 1 way to reach that outcome.

You are averaging every roll

I am on a running average over all rolls.

Warning: "Okay you have studied odds in school right? Now follow a long." Warning issued for condescending insults. Mack

[Hawk258]

Okay let's try it like this then. If 1d6 and 3d6 will be averaged over time anyway then let's take 2 ATL-7s with all the limitations (reload every shot) no nuclear power or difference in settings.

1 will base its damage on 1d6x30+20 (50 md to 200 md)

And

1 will be 3d6x10+20 (50 me to 200 md)

If the law of average rules you won't mind right?

We will have the same average for damage right?

3 rolls

3d6 rolls
14/5/12
160/70/140 damage
Total damage: 370
1d6 rolls
6/4/4
180/140/140
Total damage: 460

That's not saying I "can't" do worse.

But 3d6 can't do much better than average.

Because 1 roll of 3d6 is 1 in 18
But 3 rolls of 1d6 is 3 in 18