African Rate of Fire

[Tor]

Noticed something odd at http://palladium-megaverse.com/index.ph ... cle&id=243 because http://palladium-megaverse.com/index.ph ... te-of-fire is listed under Rifts Africa but it seems like something meant for the main book. Go to http://palladium-megaverse.com/index.ph ... te-of-fire if you want to vote on it.

Link is "Standard Rate of Fire" with mouse-over of "Standard Rate of Fire Data" though Standard/Data are omitted in the title when you actually visit it.

I'm sure this was put up a good while ago although I'm not sure what date to compare with publications like GMG, presuambly it predates RUE though.

Breaking this into sections it brings some interesting considerations for its time.

"Aimed, burst, wild" means that the weapon may be fired in single shots OR in varying bursts

What I always assumed

"Standard" weapons may only be fired in single shots (unless noted otherwise).

This I found particularly controversial though as on RMBp225 the Ion beam of the JA-11 says "Aimed, burst, or wild as standard" which made it sound they were equivalent or interchangeable.

The best I can figure "as standard" in this case is not referring to standard rate of fire, but rather, that bursting capability is standard for energy rifles.

The JA-11 enigma deepends though as single-shot for the laser is not indicated by "standard" (as it presumably is for the JA-9) but rather by explicitly saying single-shot and out-ruling bursts.

See Rifts RPG, pg. 33-34 for full details but, generally, figure that energy rifles can fire bursts unless it specifically says that particular weapon cannot.

That is an interesting thing to consider, as if we look at the C-10/C-12 they both say "burst". Perhaps the downside to the C-14's superior damage to the C-10 is that it can't fire bursts?

Pulse rifles (like the Wilks 457) can NOT fire bursts on the single shot setting, but must be set for a burst.

\
Presumably this meant that they used their own pulse-rules for the bust damage rather than the general rules.

Plasma ejectors (like the NG-12) are not usually burst weapons.

This would probably (usually?) rule out the C-24 heavy cannon on page 203.

The grey area is the NG-P7 Particle Beam Rifle. It is not a "plasma ejector" so the preceding statement would not effect it. It had 2 competing interpretations:

1) can fire bursts unless it specifically says it cannot
2) standard may only fire single unless noted otherwise

The NG-P7 never explicitly said it cannot burst, but it also doesn't explicitly note that it can, so it fell between both of these. As best I can grasp the logic it seems like 2 overrides 1 though if standard effectively meant single.

Rate of Fire equal to number of Hand-to-Hand attacks means that the character can fire an aimed shot or burst for each action that he would normally get. Thus, a character with 3 attacks per round may take 3 aimed shots or bursts (not 9).

I found this part perplexing though. What is it contradicting? What could possibly lead someone to think you could make 9 aimed shots or bursts?

How would something lacking this "equal to number of hand" (or "combined number of hand" in the case of PA I have seen) have operated differently?

[Mack]

Back in the day... we always played Standard = Single Shot. Even when RMB was the only book.

And in the following statement: "Plasma ejectors (like the NG-12) are not usually burst weapons." I would not put too much emphasis on the term 'Plasma ejector' considering that they did not even get the rifle name correct (NG-E12 vs NG-12).

All of this is caused by a lack of attention to detail.

[Subjugator]

Standard meant different things, depending on what you were reading. IIRC, at one point, standard meant burst capacity excepting items that were pulse weapons.

I'd say at this point that standard means semi-auto firing but no bursts unless specified.

/Sub

[Tor]

"Plasma ejectors (like the NG-12) are not usually burst weapons."
I would not put too much emphasis on the term 'Plasma ejector' considering that they did not even get the rifle name correct (NG-E12 vs NG-12).

I can forgive the omission of a letter, I seem to recall something like that happening in NGR somewhere too.

at this point that standard means semi-auto firing
but no bursts unless specified.

What exactly is semi-auto firing from a functional standpoint if not the capability to do bursts?

Functionally there really isn't any distinction between semi-auto and full-auto in terms of what their bursts do, although some full-auto weapons like machine-guns got better burst rates (with more ammo to waste) and spray function.

[Jefffar]

Here I was thinking this was about the Mozambique Drill (which, incidentally, is not possible in the Palladium ruleset).

The early days of Rifts the communication on Rate of Fire was often unclear (I recall RMB weapons with a rate of fire of 'Standard, Aimed, Burst or Wild.' or similar). The fact that many of the weapons in Rifts don't follow the stated rules and instead have their own rules exceptions just made it harder for folks to keep track of what Standard Rate of Fire was supposed to mean.

[Killer Cyborg]

Noticed something odd at http://palladium-megaverse.com/index.ph ... cle&id=243 because http://palladium-megaverse.com/index.ph ... te-of-fire is listed under Rifts Africa but it seems like something meant for the main book. Go to http://palladium-megaverse.com/index.ph ... te-of-fire if you want to vote on it.

Link is "Standard Rate of Fire" with mouse-over of "Standard Rate of Fire Data" though Standard/Data are omitted in the title when you actually visit it.

I'm sure this was put up a good while ago although I'm not sure what date to compare with publications like GMG, presuambly it predates RUE though.

Breaking this into sections it brings some interesting considerations for its time.

"Aimed, burst, wild" means that the weapon may be fired in single shots OR in varying bursts

What I always assumed

Yup.
The oddity there was the Shemarrian Rail Gun, which had a ROF of "Aimed or Wild (bursts not possible)."
The oddity being that Firing Wild seemed to lean toward firing bursts, which leaves it unclear if the Shemmarian gun could fire wild bursts, but not controlled bursts, or if it could only fire single shots (and just phrased it really oddly).

"Standard" weapons may only be fired in single shots (unless noted otherwise).

This I found particularly controversial though as on RMBp225 the Ion beam of the JA-11 says "Aimed, burst, or wild as standard" which made it sound they were equivalent or interchangeable.

The best I can figure "as standard" in this case is not referring to standard rate of fire, but rather, that bursting capability is standard for energy rifles.

Correct. It simply means "as typical for this rifle" in that case, I believe.
BUT Aimed, Burst, or Wild does seem to mean the same thing as "Standard" for many weapons.

See Rifts RPG, pg. 33-34 for full details but, generally, figure that energy rifles can fire bursts unless it specifically says that particular weapon cannot.

That is an interesting thing to consider, as if we look at the C-10/C-12 they both say "burst". Perhaps the downside to the C-14's superior damage to the C-10 is that it can't fire bursts?

The C-14 could fire bursts. It was an energy rifle that did not specifically say that it could NOT fire bursts.
The C-12 had a preset burst, but was originally mistakenly listed as "Aimed, Burst, or Wild." This lead to much confusion.

Pulse rifles (like the Wilks 457) can NOT fire bursts on the single shot setting, but must be set for a burst.

Presumably this meant that they used their own pulse-rules for the bust damage rather than the general rules.

It means that you can't set a pulse rifle to single shot, then take advantage of the semi-automatic burst rules.

Plasma ejectors (like the NG-12) are not usually burst weapons.

This would probably (usually?) rule out the C-24 heavy cannon on page 203.

The grey area is the NG-P7 Particle Beam Rifle. It is not a "plasma ejector" so the preceding statement would not effect it. It had 2 competing interpretations:

1) can fire bursts unless it specifically says it cannot
2) standard may only fire single unless noted otherwise

The NG-P7 never explicitly said it cannot burst, but it also doesn't explicitly note that it can, so it fell between both of these. As best I can grasp the logic it seems like 2 overrides 1 though if standard effectively meant single.

When I asked Kevin about the NG-P7 at GenCon 2005, he said that it was never intended to fire bursts/sprays.
(IIRC, because it was a Heavy Energy Weapon)

Rate of Fire equal to number of Hand-to-Hand attacks means that the character can fire an aimed shot or burst for each action that he would normally get. Thus, a character with 3 attacks per round may take 3 aimed shots or bursts (not 9).

I found this part perplexing though. What is it contradicting? What could possibly lead someone to think you could make 9 aimed shots or bursts?

I'm guessing that was mentioned for pulse rifles, where some players might get confused into thinking, "If I get three shots on the pulse setting, and I get one shot per HTH attack, and I have three attacks... that's three pulses, for a total of 9 shots?"

How would something lacking this "equal to number of hand" (or "combined number of hand" in the case of PA I have seen) have operated differently?

With ROF: Standard, the trigger could be squeezed multiple times per attack. Hence the Semi-Automatic Burst/Spray rules.
With ROF: Equal To Number of Hand To Hand Attacks," each squeeze of the trigger is one attack. So if you're firing a single-shot weapon, each attack fires a single shot. If you're firing a weapon with a preset burst/pulse, then each squeeze fires a burst/pulse.

[The Beast]

...The oddity there was the Shemarrian Rail Gun, which had a ROF of "Aimed or Wild (bursts not possible)."
The oddity being that Firing Wild seemed to lean toward firing bursts, which leaves it unclear if the Shemmarian gun could fire wild bursts, but not controlled bursts, or if it could only fire single shots (and just phrased it really oddly)...

I took that to mean you could take the time to fire an aimed shot, or you could fire off one shot while on the move (which counts as shooting wild).

[Killer Cyborg]

...The oddity there was the Shemarrian Rail Gun, which had a ROF of "Aimed or Wild (bursts not possible)."
The oddity being that Firing Wild seemed to lean toward firing bursts, which leaves it unclear if the Shemmarian gun could fire wild bursts, but not controlled bursts, or if it could only fire single shots (and just phrased it really oddly)...

I took that to mean you could take the time to fire an aimed shot, or you could fire off one shot while on the move (which counts as shooting wild).

Which would generally be described as "Single Shot Only" or "ROF: Equal To Number of Hand To Hand Attacks."
So we had people who saw it the same way you do, but we also had people who assumed that because this ROF was written differently, it must BE different.

[grandmaster z0b]

Is the NG-P7 really a heavy energy weapon? It says "rifle" in the description, I always thought it was just a powerful rifle. Which WP does it require?

[Killer Cyborg]

Is the NG-P7 really a heavy energy weapon? It says "rifle" in the description, I always thought it was just a powerful rifle. Which WP does it require?

Apparently Heavy.
I always defaulted Plasma & Particle beams to Heavy Energy, with Lasers & Ion as Energy.
Though later plasma/particle pistols were left in a weird place when they came out.

[Tor]

I figured heavy stuff would be called something other than rifle like the plasma "cannon" the CS used.

[grandmaster z0b]

I figured heavy stuff would be called something other than rifle like the plasma "cannon" the CS used.

That's what I figured but I think KCs right, or at least that's how I will play it.

[Mechghost]

I figured heavy stuff would be called something other than rifle like the plasma "cannon" the CS used.

Tor, just because it says rifle doesn't mean its not a heavy weapon, a recoilless rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle ) is a heavy weapon and definitely wouldn't be under the Rifle WP.

[Tor]

The Recoilless Rifle is explicitly put under the "Heavy Weapons" section though, like in Nightbane page 219 between a LAW and a Grenade Launcher. It's 35 pounds.

In contrast RMBp225 didn't have any massive amount of context. It is smack in the middle of a bunch of energy rifles, following the NG-L5 and preceding the L-20. Its 21lbs are only described as being "a bit heavy". While it is the heaviest rifle, it's only 50% heavier than the NG-L5. Compare this to the NG-Super Laser Pistol which is double the weight of the JA-11 Rifle yet you still presumably use WP Energy Pistol for it.

I don't think weight alone should indicate anything because the C-27 Plasma Cannon is actually LIGHTER than an NG-L5 Northern Gun Laser Rifle.

[Jefffar]

There are a lot of weapons referred to as rifles that in reality were not rifles in the sense that the WP uses the term. Real life examples include items ranging from crew-served anti-tank weapons to artillery pieces to nuclear weapons.

In the game, technically WP Energy Rifle is useless as no energy weapon has the defining trait of a rifle, that being a barrel that has grooves cut in it to impart spin to the projectile it fires.

In NG the NG-P7 gets put in the heavy weapons section, along with things like ion pistols...

[Killer Cyborg]

I figured heavy stuff would be called something other than rifle like the plasma "cannon" the CS used.

That would have made sense.
As would a lot of other stuff that Palladium didn't actually do consistently.

[Tor]

What if the secret to MD is that there are grooves in them... and the energy can be spun? Electromagnetic grooves? BRB spinning light.

[Jefffar]

I would like Rifts to adopt the classification for energy weapons that Systems Failure does to be honest. Light vs Heavy, with light covering most individual weapons while heavy covers support weapons. But that would require clear labelling in the stats of the weapons.

[Thinyser]

I personally have treated "standard" for energy weapons as "aimed, burst or wild" as they will cycle as long as you hold down the trigger. The exception being "pulse" weapons who have their own specific rules and will have a selector switch to do pulse (one pull of the trigger results in 2 (or some set number) energy blasts. Regular energy weapons are like full auto machine guns in that to burst you hold down the trigger and it keeps cycling as fast as the electronics will let it (usually 10 shots a second or so) unless you have it set to single fire (default is single shot).
Which leads me to "standard" for slug throwers, I treat it as semi auto, which equates to 1 action per 2 shots (double tap) max, unless they specify they are full auto or select fire.

Railguns are almost always listed as burst capable and notes the damage and how many slugs it uses so interpretation usually does not come into play. The default is burst but can be set to fire one round in some cases.

EDIT: Remember this is just my own use of the terms and what works for me, rather than canon or errata.

[Tor]

I figured heavy stuff would be called something other than rifle like the plasma "cannon" the CS used.

That would have made sense. As would a lot of other stuff that Palladium didn't actually do consistently.

Considering the particle beam rifle used in NGR is clearly a rifle and pretty much on par with the Northern Gun version (actually better minimum, but lower avg/max) it seems balanced enough to consider it a rifle.

[Killer Cyborg]

I figured heavy stuff would be called something other than rifle like the plasma "cannon" the CS used.

That would have made sense. As would a lot of other stuff that Palladium didn't actually do consistently.

Considering the particle beam rifle used in NGR is clearly a rifle and pretty much on par with the Northern Gun version (actually better minimum, but lower avg/max) it seems balanced enough to consider it a rifle.

How is it "clearly a rifle?"

[Tor]

There is a 'Pistols' and 'Rifles' section and it's under 'rifles' and called a rifle.

I guess the waters are muddied because rail guns and as plasma ejector are also under the rifle heading...

But I mean, look at the weight of this thing. The TX-42 is the standard-issue laser rifle of the NGR military and the TX-45 PBrifle weighs the same amount as it, and as the WR-15 Laser Rifle. The WR-17 Wilderness "Double" Rifle is even heavier.

If any 'rifle' was going to be considered 'heavy' aside from the rails/plasma-eject I'd say it should be the TX-16 since it's somehow heavier than even the giant-size laser rifle (TX-41) used by robots (held in right hand of Dyna-Max on cover)

[Killer Cyborg]

There is a 'Pistols' and 'Rifles' section and it's under 'rifles' and called a rifle.

Fair enough.

I guess the waters are muddied because rail guns and as plasma ejector are also under the rifle heading…

Right.
That's the bottom line, I think- two of the Energy WPs seem to be based on the style of gun, but WP Heavy Energy seems to be based off of the energy type, not the physical details of the weapon itself.

Almost as if they had WP Rifle, WP Pistol, and WP .50 BMG.

But I mean, look at the weight of this thing. The TX-42 is the standard-issue laser rifle of the NGR military and the TX-45 PBrifle weighs the same amount as it, and as the WR-15 Laser Rifle. The WR-17 Wilderness "Double" Rifle is even heavier.

If any 'rifle' was going to be considered 'heavy' aside from the rails/plasma-eject I'd say it should be the TX-16 since it's somehow heavier than even the giant-size laser rifle (TX-41) used by robots (held in right hand of Dyna-Max on cover)

I think that you're taking the word "heavy" too literally there.

[Tor]

What should we go by though? Whether something is 'energy rifle' or 'heavy energy' is not merely a matter of whether it is laser/ion versus plasma/particle.

[Jefffar]

I consider role a better determiner than name. For example the ATL-7 is a purpose built anti-tank weapon, making it a heavy weapon, even though its manufacturer claims it is a 'rifle'.

Most plasma ejectors seem to be intended to be lightweight fire support/anti-armour type weapons, so I'd put them generally in the heavy category as well.

Partice Beam Rifles I could see in the heavy category as a sort of short ranged anti-materiel weapon, though I also wonder if they are like the Rifts version of the Elephant gun

[Tor]

I see the particle beam rifle in the main book as a grey area but am confused how the PB rifle in NGR could be considered heavy when it weighs the same as other standard laser rifles.

[Jefffar]

Heavy is a role, not a weight. A grenade launcher or machinegun can actually be quite lightweight, but it is a heavy weapon because of the way it is used.

Of course, the American military indicates the man with the M249 light machinegun is an Automatic Rifleman. So terminology is really variable.

[Killer Cyborg]

What should we go by though? Whether something is 'energy rifle' or 'heavy energy' is not merely a matter of whether it is laser/ion versus plasma/particle.

Source?

[Jefffar]

At the time the passage was mad that the clarification was about, WP Heavy Energy Weapons was defined as including "... plasma ejectors, rail guns and similar high tech, mega-damage weapons." while WP Energy Rifles included ... "all long range energy firing rifles."

So a plasma ejector or rail gun is a heavy weapon regardless of if they weigh more or less than a rifle.

[eliakon]

At the time the passage was mad that the clarification was about, WP Heavy Energy Weapons was defined as including "... plasma ejectors, rail guns and similar high tech, mega-damage weapons." while WP Energy Rifles included ... "all long range energy firing rifles."

So a plasma ejector or rail gun is a heavy weapon regardless of if they weigh more or less than a rifle.

Which begs the question in some ways unfortunately....since "all long range energy firing rifles" in rifts are also "high tech, mega-damage weapons" (well I guess not all of them, there are a couple SD energy weapons out there....but still the point stands that there is significant overlap between the two)

[Killer Cyborg]

At the time the passage was mad that the clarification was about, WP Heavy Energy Weapons was defined as including "... plasma ejectors, rail guns and similar high tech, mega-damage weapons." while WP Energy Rifles included ... "all long range energy firing rifles."

So a plasma ejector or rail gun is a heavy weapon regardless of if they weigh more or less than a rifle.

Which begs the question in some ways unfortunately....since "all long range energy firing rifles" in rifts are also "high tech, mega-damage weapons" (well I guess not all of them, there are a couple SD energy weapons out there....but still the point stands that there is significant overlap between the two)

The key word is "similar."

Of the four types of energy weapons in the RMB, we have:
Lasers
Ion
Plasma
Particle

Laser rifles have ranges from 1600' to 4000'. They carry 20-30 shots per e-clip.
Ion Rifles had a range of 1600' (there was only one, the JA-11). It had 30 shots per e-clip.
Particle Rifles had a range of 1200' (there was only one, the NG-P7) It had 8 shots per e-clip.
Plasma Ejectors had a range of 1600' (there was only one, then C-27). It got 10 shots per E-Cannister (which is about the same as a Long E-Clip).

Laser and ion weapons tend to be cheaper, lighter damage, with more ammo capacity and longer range.
Plasma and Particle weapons tend to be more expensive, with heavier damage, with lower ammo capacity, and with lower maximum ranges.

To me, it always seemed pretty clear that Particle Beams were more similar to plasma weapons than to lasers, so it made sense that they'd be Heavy Energy Weapons.
Because they were "similar high tech, mega-damage weapons" to plasma weapons.

[eliakon]

At the time the passage was mad that the clarification was about, WP Heavy Energy Weapons was defined as including "... plasma ejectors, rail guns and similar high tech, mega-damage weapons." while WP Energy Rifles included ... "all long range energy firing rifles."

So a plasma ejector or rail gun is a heavy weapon regardless of if they weigh more or less than a rifle.

Which begs the question in some ways unfortunately....since "all long range energy firing rifles" in rifts are also "high tech, mega-damage weapons" (well I guess not all of them, there are a couple SD energy weapons out there....but still the point stands that there is significant overlap between the two)

The key word is "similar."

Of the four types of energy weapons in the RMB, we have:
Lasers
Ion
Plasma
Particle

Laser rifles have ranges from 1600' to 4000'. They carry 20-30 shots per e-clip.
Ion Rifles had a range of 1600' (there was only one, the JA-11). It had 30 shots per e-clip.
Particle Rifles had a range of 1200' (there was only one, the NG-P7) It had 8 shots per e-clip.
Plasma Ejectors had a range of 1600' (there was only one, then C-27). It got 10 shots per E-Cannister (which is about the same as a Long E-Clip).

Laser and ion weapons tend to be cheaper, lighter damage, with more ammo capacity and longer range.
Plasma and Particle weapons tend to be more expensive, with heavier damage, with lower ammo capacity, and with lower maximum ranges.

To me, it always seemed pretty clear that Particle Beams were more similar to plasma weapons than to lasers, so it made sense that they'd be Heavy Energy Weapons.
Because they were "similar high tech, mega-damage weapons" to plasma weapons.

Which may have worked...right up until they started providing weapons that were not like that. Meaning that the similarities were forced.
Of course this is probably why they changed the W.P.s now, and as of RUE all portable energy weapons are either pistols or rifles.

[Tor]

What should we go by though? Whether something is 'energy rifle' or 'heavy energy' is not merely a matter of whether it is laser/ion versus plasma/particle.

Source?

I think if that's anyone's stance they should be sourcing it. Otherwise a 'rifle' is an energy rifle if what it expels is energy unless otherwise indicated by some criteria.

At the time the passage was mad that the clarification was about, WP Heavy Energy Weapons was defined as including "... plasma ejectors, rail guns and similar high tech, mega-damage weapons." while WP Energy Rifles included ... "all long range energy firing rifles."

So a plasma ejector or rail gun is a heavy weapon regardless of if they weigh more or less than a rifle.

Key word is "ejector" though. Some plasma weapons are termed ejectors, some are termed other things like 'cannon'. For all other terms I'm pretty much for defaulting to Heavy unless it says 'rifle' in which case, it would have to be excluded by not being "long" range, though I'm not really sure where to draw the line there.

since "all long range energy firing rifles" in rifts are also "high tech, mega-damage weapons" (well I guess not all of them, there are a couple SD energy weapons out there....but still the point stands that there is significant overlap between the two)

Since HTMDWs would include pistols I figure what we focus on is "similar". Although the context of similarity isn't explained. I figure since the term 'heavy' exists that weight is a good primary criteria. Size/unwieldiness or kick could also play in. *not even sure if non-boomguns have kick*

Of the four types of energy weapons in the RMB, we have:
Lasers
Ion
Plasma
Particle

Laser rifles have ranges from 1600' to 4000'. They carry 20-30 shots per e-clip.
Ion Rifles had a range of 1600' (there was only one, the JA-11). It had 30 shots per e-clip.
Particle Rifles had a range of 1200' (there was only one, the NG-P7) It had 8 shots per e-clip.
Plasma Ejectors had a range of 1600' (there was only one, then C-27). It got 10 shots per E-Cannister (which is about the same as a Long E-Clip).

Laser and ion weapons tend to be cheaper, lighter damage, with more ammo capacity and longer range.
Plasma and Particle weapons tend to be more expensive, with heavier damage, with lower ammo capacity, and with lower maximum ranges.

To me, it always seemed pretty clear that Particle Beams were more similar to plasma weapons than to lasers, so it made sense that they'd be Heavy Energy Weapons.
Because they were "similar high tech, mega-damage weapons" to plasma weapons.

The C-27 is a cannon not an ejector Actual plasma ejectors didn't come until NGRp148.

You pointed out that the C-27's plasma had same range as the JA-11's ion so that seems like a similarity right there.

[Killer Cyborg]

What should we go by though? Whether something is 'energy rifle' or 'heavy energy' is not merely a matter of whether it is laser/ion versus plasma/particle.

Source?

I think if that's anyone's stance they should be sourcing it.

I'll take that as "I have no source to support the bolded claim."

Laser and ion weapons tend to be cheaper, lighter damage, with more ammo capacity and longer range.
Plasma and Particle weapons tend to be more expensive, with heavier damage, with lower ammo capacity, and with lower maximum ranges.

To me, it always seemed pretty clear that Particle Beams were more similar to plasma weapons than to lasers, so it made sense that they'd be Heavy Energy Weapons.
Because they were "similar high tech, mega-damage weapons" to plasma weapons.

The C-27 is a cannon not an ejector

Do you believe that being one means that it's necessarily not the other?

You pointed out that the C-27's plasma had same range as the JA-11's ion so that seems like a similarity right there.

Yup.
And if the damage and energy consumption were comparable, there'd be a case that ion beams were also Heavy Energy weapons.
But they're not.

[Tor]

What should we go by though? Whether something is 'energy rifle' or 'heavy energy' is not merely a matter of whether it is laser/ion versus plasma/particle.

Source?

I think if that's anyone's stance they should be sourcing it.

I'll take that as "I have no source to support the bolded claim."

I don't need a source to refute a statement that isn't supported by anything in the first place.

If all that mattered was particle/plasma then what about particle beam pistols?

Do you believe that being one means that it's necessarily not the other?

No but until I know more about any particular implications of 'eject' vs other kinds of release/propulsion I'm not sure how to take it. If it simply means all plasma weapons then why not just say plasma weapons?

Although since there was later stuff like plasma swords perhaps 'eject' is good to restrict it to ranged ones.

Still not sure I like plasma-pistols or plasma wrist launchers all being heavy... does this mean all Naruni cartridge weapons are WP heavy too?

Do we have any NPCs who use naruni weapons yet lack WP heavy? Imma go look.

if the damage and energy consumption were comparable, there'd be a case that ion beams were also Heavy Energy weapons.

So if I find an ion or laser weapon with a similar payload as plasma or particle then it ends?

Going with RMB, the JA-11 actually isn't the only ion weapon in the main book, there's also the NG-57 ion blaster which has the same amount of shots from an e-clip that the coalition's plasma cannon gets, so that's a comparable energy consumption. The Coalition's laser pistol also only gets 10 shots, as does the TX-11 in NGRp144

[Killer Cyborg]

What should we go by though? Whether something is 'energy rifle' or 'heavy energy' is not merely a matter of whether it is laser/ion versus plasma/particle.

Source?

I think if that's anyone's stance they should be sourcing it.

I'll take that as "I have no source to support the bolded claim."

I don't need a source to refute a statement that isn't supported by anything in the first place.

You made a claim.
I asked if you had a source.
You do not.

That's pretty much the end of that part of the conversation.

If all that mattered was particle/plasma then what about particle beam pistols?

There weren't any when the RMB came out. Same with Plasma Pistols.
When those things DID start appearing, there was a lot of, "Golly, it'd be really nice if Palladium would just list which WP is required for a weapon in that weapon's stats" kind of musing, and some arguments about what it all meant.

Do you believe that being one means that it's necessarily not the other?

No but until I know more about any particular implications of 'eject' vs other kinds of release/propulsion I'm not sure how to take it. If it simply means all plasma weapons then why not just say plasma weapons?[/quote]

The choices that Palladium makes when it comes to their phrasing is beyond me.

if the damage and energy consumption were comparable, there'd be a case that ion beams were also Heavy Energy weapons.

So if I find an ion or laser weapon with a similar payload as plasma or particle then it ends?[/quote]

Ion or laser rifle with similar range, payload, and damage, and you might have something.

[Tor]

Why rifle? This isn't just a rifle v. heavy issue, it's also pistol v. heavy, really.

Mercs99 NG-56 ion pistol only gets 6 shots, same as NGRp144's TX-26 which still manages 80% of the range.

If the issue is damage then instead of worrying about laser/ion or particle/plasma maybe we should just set some kind of dice cap for pistols (and a slightly higher for rifles) and anything past that call it heavy? Maybe something like 3d6/4d6?

[Killer Cyborg]

Why rifle? This isn't just a rifle v. heavy issue, it's also pistol v. heavy, really.

Ask Tor.
He was the one who started the "Energy Rifle vs Heavy Energy" conversation.

Mercs99 NG-56 ion pistol only gets 6 shots, same as NGRp144's TX-26 which still manages 80% of the range.

Pistols tend to get less ammo than rifles across the board.
Compare apples to apples, and rifles to rifles.

If the issue is damage then instead of worrying about laser/ion or particle/plasma maybe we should just set some kind of dice cap for pistols (and a slightly higher for rifles) and anything past that call it heavy? Maybe something like 3d6/4d6?

I'm pretty sure that nothing we do today will affect Palladium's standards in 1990.

[Tor]

The TX-26 is a particle beam pistol so I'm comparing a PB pistol to an Ion pistol.

Easiest solution I think is just say pistols are pistols, rifles are rifles, anything else is heavy, upgrade pistol/rifle to 'heavy' if it has a PS requirement or something.

[Killer Cyborg]

The TX-26 is a particle beam pistol so I'm comparing a PB pistol to an Ion pistol.

Easiest solution I think is just say pistols are pistols, rifles are rifles, anything else is heavy, upgrade pistol/rifle to 'heavy' if it has a PS requirement or something.

You're comparing stuff that wasn't around originally.

[eliakon]

Though the stuff he is talking about is still RMB stuff...and thus still comes under the RMB skill breakdown rather than the new RUE one.

[Killer Cyborg]

Though the stuff he is talking about is still RMB stuff...and thus still comes under the RMB skill breakdown rather than the new RUE one.

He's discussing RMB rules, and weapons that came out after the patterns of weapons started to break down.

[drewkitty ~..~]

*shrugs*
always thought "standard" RoF was Aimed, Burst or Wild....cause there were weapons that were specifically stated to be 'single shots only' and every other were labeled as 'standard'.

[eliakon]

Though the stuff he is talking about is still RMB stuff...and thus still comes under the RMB skill breakdown rather than the new RUE one.

He's discussing RMB rules, and weapons that came out after the patterns of weapons started to break down.

And the point there is?
Those weapons were released in RMB, thus presumably they would be used with some RMB W.P.
So logically one should be able to figure out, using the RMB rules, what W.P. applies to the weapon. Even if it is a late addition and doesn't fit the normal pattern (a plasma pistol for instance)

[Jefffar]

I'd say the pattern had already started to break down as both the Ion component of theJA-11 and the NG-P7 can cconceivably both fit under WP Energy Rifle and WP Energy Heavy.

RMB isn't the standard to measure Rifts by. There were inconsistencies already present and the game world was still far from complete (not that its really complete now, but its a lot more fleshed out). Some of the early Rifts books (SB 1 and CB1 for example) contain material originally slated for RMB but left out for space or time limitations. There were already rules fixes being promoted in Conversion Book 1.

If you want a good picture of what the original intent for Rifts was, I think looking at it up to about Worldbook 5 and Sourcebook 2 is a good cut off. Up until then, the series is still very young and virtually every word of it had come from Kevin himself . CJ Carella would jump on for CB 2, WB 6 and Mercenaries, plus his concepts can be seen in SB 3 marking a transition in the way Rifts is presented and interpreted. Sure there would be some mostly pure Kevin books during the CJ era (is Rifts Japan), but Rifts was, and would be, different from there on in, with other new authors branching out from what Kevin and CJ had made.

[Killer Cyborg]

I'd say the pattern had already started to break down as both the Ion component of the JA-11 and the NG-P7 can cconceivably both fit under WP Energy Rifle and WP Energy Heavy.

Different ammo consumption, different damages.
Like the plasma cannon, the NG-P7 does high, single-shot damage, at limited range, and drains huge amounts of energy.

RMB isn't the standard to measure Rifts by.

It's the core book.
I'd say that the core book is the standard.

There were inconsistencies already present and the game world was still far from complete (not that its really complete now, but its a lot more fleshed out). Some of the early Rifts books (SB 1 and CB1 for example) contain material originally slated for RMB but left out for space or time limitations. There were already rules fixes being promoted in Conversion Book 1.

Yup.

If you want a good picture of what the original intent for Rifts was, I think looking at it up to about Worldbook 5 and Sourcebook 2 is a good cut off. Up until then, the series is still very young and virtually every word of it had come from Kevin himself . CJ Carella would jump on for CB 2, WB 6 and Mercenaries, plus his concepts can be seen in SB 3 marking a transition in the way Rifts is presented and interpreted. Sure there would be some mostly pure Kevin books during the CJ era (is Rifts Japan), but Rifts was, and would be, different from there on in, with other new authors branching out from what Kevin and CJ had made.

Things started getting wonky as early as SB1, and CB1 threw everything WAY out of whack.
I agree that the pre-CJ era is purer than the later books, though.

[Killer Cyborg]

Though the stuff he is talking about is still RMB stuff...and thus still comes under the RMB skill breakdown rather than the new RUE one.

He's discussing RMB rules, and weapons that came out after the patterns of weapons started to break down.

And the point there is?
Those weapons were released in RMB, thus presumably they would be used with some RMB W.P.

The TX-26 wasn't in the RMB.
If you mean "it was under RMB rules," then sure.

So logically one should be able to figure out, using the RMB rules, what W.P. applies to the weapon. Even if it is a late addition and doesn't fit the normal pattern (a plasma pistol for instance)

Logically, one should be able to tell what "ROF: Standard" means, for certain, just using the RMB.
Logically, Palladium should have listed the appropriate WP for each weapon under each weapon.
Unfortunately, Palladium isn't always logical.
So I'm not sure what your point is.

[Tor]

Looking at RMB exclusively, the NG's particle beam rifle was WP energy rifle and the CS' plasma cannon was WP heavy energy. *shrug*

[Jefffar]

I'd say the pattern had already started to break down as both the Ion component of the JA-11 and the NG-P7 can cconceivably both fit under WP Energy Rifle and WP Energy Heavy.

Different ammo consumption, different damages.
Like the plasma cannon, the NG-P7 does high, single-shot damage, at limited range, and drains huge amounts of energy.

But very vague wording in the definition for each WP allows both to be considered for each category. Remember, WP Heavy Energy includes weapons that do 1D4 MD per round and have ammo capacities of hundreds of rounds in the Main Book.

Things started getting wonky as early as SB1, and CB1 threw everything WAY out of whack.
I agree that the pre-CJ era is purer than the later books, though.

Things were already wonky, the SB included a number of clarifications to attempt to cut back on the wonkyness. CB1 also included rules mods to make the system work a bit better (or, if preferred, to run it without MDC completely). I forget if WB1 had rules patches in its original form too, but when the first few releases have to change the rules of the game to make it work better, using the first book on its own as the standard to judge the way the rest of the game should work is like deciding to punt after only playing the first down.

[Killer Cyborg]

Looking at RMB exclusively, the NG's particle beam rifle was WP energy rifle and the CS' plasma cannon was WP heavy energy. *shrug*

I can see how one might come to that conclusion.
But it was an incorrect conclusion.