Disarm v Boomgun

[Zer0 Kay]

I disagree that EBA is actually tougher and more dense.

The great thing about facts is that they are true even if you dont believe in them. And you can't disagree with them. Fact: you're wrong.

If it was, everyone would be using that material for protection on their platforms.

Except, being more dense (and therefore heavy), none of those platforms would be able to move.

Or we might even see EBAs made into "coats" for everything else. We do not.

Right, because a SAMAS with the same density of armor as EBA would weigh about six times what it does now and couldn't move.

What we see is that Palladium has "inflated" (and in some cases "deflated") statistics for the sake of "playability" for mechanical reasons.

What we see here is you imagining things.

Enjoy ignore.

Awww, Shadow Logan your on the same list as me. High five.

[Zer0 Kay]

I know someone said it but I can't find it. Who said that the impalement still needed a to hit roll? If anything it would like grapple the stomp would have to be rolled and then maybe, maybe a contested PS roll taking into account the GB's weight. If it is a fail then every time the GB fires at something the pylon attacks. Now I wonder if it gets thrown back if one of the pylons isn't anchored?

[Damian Magecraft]

I disagree that EBA is actually tougher and more dense.

The great thing about facts is that they are true even if you dont believe in them. And you can't disagree with them. Fact: you're wrong.

If it was, everyone would be using that material for protection on their platforms.

Except, being more dense (and therefore heavy), none of those platforms would be able to move.

Or we might even see EBAs made into "coats" for everything else. We do not.

Right, because a SAMAS with the same density of armor as EBA would weigh about six times what it does now and couldn't move.

What we see is that Palladium has "inflated" (and in some cases "deflated") statistics for the sake of "playability" for mechanical reasons.

What we see here is you imagining things.

Enjoy ignore.

Awww, Shadow Logan your on the same list as me. High five.

If he keeps putting people who "dare" to disagree with him (especially when he can't back his "facts" up with book data) he will soon be a very lonely fella.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

I disagree that EBA is actually tougher and more dense.

The great thing about facts is that they are true even if you dont believe in them. And you can't disagree with them. Fact: you're wrong.

If it was, everyone would be using that material for protection on their platforms.

Except, being more dense (and therefore heavy), none of those platforms would be able to move.

Or we might even see EBAs made into "coats" for everything else. We do not.

Right, because a SAMAS with the same density of armor as EBA would weigh about six times what it does now and couldn't move.

What we see is that Palladium has "inflated" (and in some cases "deflated") statistics for the sake of "playability" for mechanical reasons.

What we see here is you imagining things.

Enjoy ignore.

Awww, Shadow Logan your on the same list as me. High five.

If he keeps putting people who "dare" to disagree with him (especially when he can't back his "facts" up with book data) he will soon be a very lonely fella.

Id rather be lonely than surrounded by people who cant understand simple logic or read at a 5th grade level.

You can join them.

[ShadowLogan]

Except, being more dense (and therefore heavy), none of those platforms would be able to move.

You are so wrong it is not even funny.

Several years ago (2011, search "Implications of Total MDC to Mass Ratio", I put it in the RT forums, but the data pool includes Rifts) I did a comparison with the ratio of the TOTAL MDC of a given item/creature versus it's mass (all having been converted to the same units) out of all the books I had access to at the time. What you will find is that when it comes to hardware Body Armor (including PA) and personal gear (hand weapons, jetpacks) and similar sized items ('borgs and 'bots) end up with a ratio >=1.0, but heavy vehicles and 'bots had a ratio of <1.0. Creatures are all over the place, but I did not "categorize" them any farther (CB1r's Nymph for example per kg can't be beaten providing over 1000MDC per kg, and Farie/Pixie/Sprites aren't any slouches either numbering into the hundreds of MDC per kg, but then you have creatures with less than 0.00# values).

It should be noted that Body armor had a better average ratio than power armor, and personal weapon categories outscored body armor in the amount of protection they provide per unit of mass.

So if these materials in EBA (for example) really do offer more protection per kg, we should see vehicles and giant robots made out of the same materials (or given "coats" made out of them for the other platforms to use), which would give them better ratings. So yes Palladium can be shown to have inflated or deflated protective values and no using it won't require making the unit heavier to get more protection or make it thicker if they really did offer that much extra protection.

[Damian Magecraft]

Except, being more dense (and therefore heavy), none of those platforms would be able to move.

You are so wrong it is not even funny.

Several years ago (2011, search "Implications of Total MDC to Mass Ratio", I put it in the RT forums, but the data pool includes Rifts) I did a comparison with the ratio of the TOTAL MDC of a given item/creature versus it's mass (all having been converted to the same units) out of all the books I had access to at the time. What you will find is that when it comes to hardware Body Armor (including PA) and personal gear (hand weapons, jetpacks) and similar sized items ('borgs and 'bots) end up with a ratio >=1.0, but heavy vehicles and 'bots had a ratio of <1.0. Creatures are all over the place, but I did not "categorize" them any farther (CB1r's Nymph for example per kg can't be beaten providing over 1000MDC per kg, and Farie/Pixie/Sprites aren't any slouches either numbering into the hundreds of MDC per kg, but then you have creatures with less than 0.00# values).

It should be noted that Body armor had a better average ratio than power armor, and personal weapon categories outscored body armor in the amount of protection they provide per unit of mass.

So if these materials in EBA (for example) really do offer more protection per kg, we should see vehicles and giant robots made out of the same materials (or given "coats" made out of them for the other platforms to use), which would give them better ratings. So yes Palladium can be shown to have inflated or deflated protective values and no using it won't require making the unit heavier to get more protection or make it thicker if they really did offer that much extra protection.

I remember that discussion.
But personally I want Tetsyua to cite his source for his "fact" until then it is just him (as usual) stating opinion as fact.

But alas I too have been placed on his "ignore" list (no big loss really).

[HWalsh]

Now there is the "GI. Joe" rule in RUE, but even that is meaningless here given that the drill is a one-two punch essentially (laser drill AND the telescoping tube AND the deployment of the "PRONGS", possibly even the force of bringing the foot down into position before the drill even starts). The attack is really no different than a "Deathblow" IMHO.

Okay now I am forced to straight up ask...

Are you seriously advocating that, the pylon extension, something that mechanically only does 1d6 MD, something that the book states is not very useful in combat. Should be the most devastating move in all of Rifts because anyone in any kind of MD armor that is an SDC creature should be able to be "one shotted" because the Pylon would go through them and kill them outright, no matter what, simply because the pylon can be used to anchor them to hulls after 4-5 tries?

[guardiandashi]

Now there is the "GI. Joe" rule in RUE, but even that is meaningless here given that the drill is a one-two punch essentially (laser drill AND the telescoping tube AND the deployment of the "PRONGS", possibly even the force of bringing the foot down into position before the drill even starts). The attack is really no different than a "Deathblow" IMHO.

Okay now I am forced to straight up ask...

Are you seriously advocating that, the pylon extension, something that mechanically only does 1d6 MD, something that the book states is not very useful in combat. Should be the most devastating move in all of Rifts because anyone in any kind of MD armor that is an SDC creature should be able to be "one shotted" because the Pylon would go through them and kill them outright, no matter what, simply because the pylon can be used to anchor them to hulls after 4-5 tries?

No or rather not unless the pylon hits a vital organ.
I was more considering it doing minor damage to the armor, punching through and doing some SDC damage, and possible a few HP's unless it scores a critical such as putting the pilon through the heart, a lung, the head or similar.

[HWalsh]

Now there is the "GI. Joe" rule in RUE, but even that is meaningless here given that the drill is a one-two punch essentially (laser drill AND the telescoping tube AND the deployment of the "PRONGS", possibly even the force of bringing the foot down into position before the drill even starts). The attack is really no different than a "Deathblow" IMHO.

Okay now I am forced to straight up ask...

Are you seriously advocating that, the pylon extension, something that mechanically only does 1d6 MD, something that the book states is not very useful in combat. Should be the most devastating move in all of Rifts because anyone in any kind of MD armor that is an SDC creature should be able to be "one shotted" because the Pylon would go through them and kill them outright, no matter what, simply because the pylon can be used to anchor them to hulls after 4-5 tries?

No or rather not unless the pylon hits a vital organ.
I was more considering it doing minor damage to the armor, punching through and doing some SDC damage, and possible a few HP's unless it scores a critical such as putting the pilon through the heart, a lung, the head or similar.

But that isn't how damage in Rifts works. MD is MD. If it penetrates, it is an MD weapon. Even 1 point of MD kills 90% of people. Not only that, but you *are* advocating giving the Glitterboy, already possessing one of the most potent ranged weapons in the game a melee weapon that can ignore armor. Don't you see a fundamental problem with that?

Now, lets take this further. If there was this invincible melee weapon, someone else would snipe it, as it isn't anywhere near as hard to construct a pylon extender as it is a whole Glitterboy. I can see it already, someone makes something that looks like a rocket attached to a pylon shaft that shoots at enemies, attaches with a claw, then deploys a pylon or even a pylon attached to some kind of punching Juicer or Cyborg weapon suddenly even Glitterboys ain't a challenge. Just run up and Pylon punch to the place where the Pilot's head is, after all, they can go through (by your logic) anything, instantly.

Forget your epic rune weapon, give me a Glitterboy pylon!

[Daniel Stoker]

This seems to go back to the issue with grenades and area damage, yeah in theory going with the logical look, a grenade should be able to kill most people in armor as it blows through the hand or foot etc and then does MD to the person inside the armor who is then turned into goo.... So yeah the pylon would probably go straight through most armor but that's not the style of play Palladium pushes.


Daniel Stoker

[Zer0 Kay]

This seems to go back to the issue with grenades and area damage, yeah in theory going with the logical look, a grenade should be able to kill most people in armor as it blows through the hand or foot etc and then does MD to the person inside the armor who is then turned into goo.... So yeah the pylon would probably go straight through most armor but that's not the style of play Palladium pushes.


Daniel Stoker

You sure RGMG says if a person jumps on a grenade no matter what they're dead. Iirc I think the same goes for a point blank shot to the head.

[Zer0 Kay]

Except, being more dense (and therefore heavy), none of those platforms would be able to move.

You are so wrong it is not even funny.

Several years ago (2011, search "Implications of Total MDC to Mass Ratio", I put it in the RT forums, but the data pool includes Rifts) I did a comparison with the ratio of the TOTAL MDC of a given item/creature versus it's mass (all having been converted to the same units) out of all the books I had access to at the time. What you will find is that when it comes to hardware Body Armor (including PA) and personal gear (hand weapons, jetpacks) and similar sized items ('borgs and 'bots) end up with a ratio >=1.0, but heavy vehicles and 'bots had a ratio of <1.0. Creatures are all over the place, but I did not "categorize" them any farther (CB1r's Nymph for example per kg can't be beaten providing over 1000MDC per kg, and Farie/Pixie/Sprites aren't any slouches either numbering into the hundreds of MDC per kg, but then you have creatures with less than 0.00# values).

It should be noted that Body armor had a better average ratio than power armor, and personal weapon categories outscored body armor in the amount of protection they provide per unit of mass.

So if these materials in EBA (for example) really do offer more protection per kg, we should see vehicles and giant robots made out of the same materials (or given "coats" made out of them for the other platforms to use), which would give them better ratings. So yes Palladium can be shown to have inflated or deflated protective values and no using it won't require making the unit heavier to get more protection or make it thicker if they really did offer that much extra protection.

I remember that discussion.
But personally I want Tetsyua to cite his source for his "fact" until then it is just him (as usual) stating opinion as fact.

But alas I too have been placed on his "ignore" list (no big loss really).

LOL. Wow, so he has essentially surrounded himself with only people who agree with him and puts everyone else in his foeyes list? What a booking person.

[HWalsh]

This seems to go back to the issue with grenades and area damage, yeah in theory going with the logical look, a grenade should be able to kill most people in armor as it blows through the hand or foot etc and then does MD to the person inside the armor who is then turned into goo.... So yeah the pylon would probably go straight through most armor but that's not the style of play Palladium pushes.


Daniel Stoker

You sure RGMG says if a person jumps on a grenade no matter what they're dead. Iirc I think the same goes for a point blank shot to the head.

The statement about the point blank shot to the head was in response to characters who were voluntarily taking the shot to the head to prove "how tough they were" or were otherwise not able to/not trying to prevent it. The same for falling on the grenade. A person who cannot/does not prevent the damage or who intentionally attempts to absorb it.

Normally, by the rules, diving on a grenade wouldn't stop the damage to others either.

Those are special case scenarios that are backed up in the canon. The deploying pylon, in the canon, is a bad weapon. Thus it makes no sense to write specialized house rules to make something that we are told is bad, into something that is good.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

This seems to go back to the issue with grenades and area damage, yeah in theory going with the logical look, a grenade should be able to kill most people in armor as it blows through the hand or foot etc and then does MD to the person inside the armor who is then turned into goo....

Except that area damage doesn't affect every part of armor - just the main body.

Also, the grenade example is an unarmored person. There's no example of what happens if you attempt to smother a grenade while wearing, say, EBA. EBA is obviously amazing at stopping kinetic transfer and overpressure (otherwise getting hit with a railgun round would turn you into goo inside your armor) so you can jump on a grenade in EBA all day. Wont kill you (well, unless it totals your armor. Then you might be in for a rough day.)

If you're saying "that isn't realistic" - umm... we have body armor now that can survive smothering a grenade blast and protect the guy wearing it from being liquified. They did an episode of. i want to say Future Weapons (on Discovery) where they were showing off advanced body armor. The Dragon Skin armor, worn on a test dummy (one of those advanced ones with breakable ribs and sensors and stuff) was put over a grenade - and "survived". The armor wasn't breached, and the guy, while he was definitely not a happy man with six or seven cracked ribs and massive bruising - was very much "alive". No joke. No part of him covered by the armor took enough pressure/shock to be fatal. His legs and arms got brutalized, but thats because they were unarmored.

So yeah the pylon would probably go straight through most armor but that's not the style of play Palladium pushes.

Not only is that not the style, but that's now how "armor" works. Armor and Structures are treated differently by the rules (and always have been even back in the SDC days). You can shoot holes in an MDC door or wall (and it will still have MDC remaining/be an effective barrier, but you DO have holes you can look through now); you cant do that to armor. If you fire a Wilks 457 at an MDC door with 100 MDC and do 30 points of damage, itll have some holes in it. If there's a Dead Boy standing in that doorway and you shoot HIM for 30 points of damage.. his armor does NOT have holes in it (nor does he).

[Daniel Stoker]

You sure RGMG says if a person jumps on a grenade no matter what they're dead. Iirc I think the same goes for a point blank shot to the head.

Ok? I'm not quite sure how that relates since I wasn't talking about jumping on one, just one going off and the person being in the area of effect and this GB thing didn't seem to be on the head as it's kinda hard to miss organs which was what guardiandashi mentioned earlier.


Daniel Stoker

[HWalsh]

Ok, let's turn this on its head.

If you think the pylon should go through, if we're using this, "breach rule" idea. Then... How about this.

I'm playing a 6th level Cyber-Knight and I'm fighting you, and you're in a Glitterboy. I have 2 more attacks per round than you do for whatever reason and I go last to boot, so I get 3 attacks all at once.

Under your "Breach Rule" then I can kill you. Right through your armor.

Action 1: Stab Psi-Sword into main body, where I know the pilot is.

Action 2: Since, under your interpretation, I put a hole in it and since I'm still holding it, I expend an action to increase the length of the blade. Damaging, and under your rule, breaching the reinforced pilot compartment.

Action 3: I, in the final action, extend it further. Skewering the pilot. Killing him.

Would you, as a GB pilot feel that was kosher?

[Daniel Stoker]

Except that area damage doesn't affect every part of armor - just the main body.

Yeah, that's my point, it just effects the main body when in reality it should effect everything in the area of effect which is going to be most of the body if it's hitting the main body. But Palladium doesn't do that because that would kill someone as it breaks through the weakest part and the MD then kills the squishy person inside. For the record I didn't say smother, I'm talking about them throwing a grenade and it landing in front of the person.

Not only is that not the style, but that's now how "armor" works. Armor and Structures are treated differently by the rules (and always have been even back in the SDC days). You can shoot holes in an MDC door or wall (and it will still have MDC remaining/be an effective barrier, but you DO have holes you can look through now); you cant do that to armor. If you fire a Wilks 457 at an MDC door with 100 MDC and do 30 points of damage, itll have some holes in it. If there's a Dead Boy standing in that doorway and you shoot HIM for 30 points of damage.. his armor does NOT have holes in it (nor does he).

That's also my point.... Palladium's system isn't set to be realistic like that when it comes to damage and people as it's not meant to be that lethal or else area weapons would be weapons of choice of pretty much everyone.


Daniel Stoker

[The Beast]

Except, being more dense (and therefore heavy), none of those platforms would be able to move.

You are so wrong it is not even funny.

Several years ago (2011, search "Implications of Total MDC to Mass Ratio", I put it in the RT forums, but the data pool includes Rifts) I did a comparison with the ratio of the TOTAL MDC of a given item/creature versus it's mass (all having been converted to the same units) out of all the books I had access to at the time. What you will find is that when it comes to hardware Body Armor (including PA) and personal gear (hand weapons, jetpacks) and similar sized items ('borgs and 'bots) end up with a ratio >=1.0, but heavy vehicles and 'bots had a ratio of <1.0. Creatures are all over the place, but I did not "categorize" them any farther (CB1r's Nymph for example per kg can't be beaten providing over 1000MDC per kg, and Farie/Pixie/Sprites aren't any slouches either numbering into the hundreds of MDC per kg, but then you have creatures with less than 0.00# values).

It should be noted that Body armor had a better average ratio than power armor, and personal weapon categories outscored body armor in the amount of protection they provide per unit of mass.

So if these materials in EBA (for example) really do offer more protection per kg, we should see vehicles and giant robots made out of the same materials (or given "coats" made out of them for the other platforms to use), which would give them better ratings. So yes Palladium can be shown to have inflated or deflated protective values and no using it won't require making the unit heavier to get more protection or make it thicker if they really did offer that much extra protection.

I remember that discussion.
But personally I want Tetsyua to cite his source for his "fact" until then it is just him (as usual) stating opinion as fact.

But alas I too have been placed on his "ignore" list (no big loss really).

LOL. Wow, so he has essentially surrounded himself with only people who agree with him and puts everyone else in his foeyes list? What a booking person.

Careful. You'll end up on his list.

[HWalsh]

Careful. You'll end up on his list.

If I may wax diplomatic, "What purpose does it serve to openly mock someone?"

[Damian Magecraft]

Careful. You'll end up on his list.

If I may wax diplomatic, "What purpose does it serve to openly mock someone?"

what purpose? Shadenfreud (sp?)
By actively stating he is placing us on ignore he attempts to "shame" us into taking his side (or at the least discredit us in future debates).
By mocking his actions we show we are neither shamed by it; nor did his attempt at discrediting succeed.

[Damian Magecraft]

Careful. You'll end up on his list.

pretty sure Zero was the first to be placed on the list this time around.

[Zer0 Kay]

Careful. You'll end up on his list.

If I may wax diplomatic, "What purpose does it serve to openly mock someone?"

I do not negotiate with terrorist whether it be an attempt to hold my opinion hostage or otherwise.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Careful. You'll end up on his list.

If I may wax diplomatic, "What purpose does it serve to openly mock someone?"

It easily identifies people that aren't worth having discussions with. Such as the people on my ignore list.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

You are so wrong it is not even funny.

Oh, the irony.

Several years ago (2011, search "Implications of Total MDC to Mass Ratio", I put it in the RT forums, but the data pool includes Rifts) I did a comparison with the ratio of the TOTAL MDC of a given item/creature versus it's mass (all having been converted to the same units) out of all the books I had access to at the time. What you will find is that when it comes to hardware Body Armor (including PA) and personal gear (hand weapons, jetpacks) and similar sized items ('borgs and 'bots) end up with a ratio >=1.0, but heavy vehicles and 'bots had a ratio of <1.0. Creatures are all over the place, but I did not "categorize" them any farther (CB1r's Nymph for example per kg can't be beaten providing over 1000MDC per kg, and Farie/Pixie/Sprites aren't any slouches either numbering into the hundreds of MDC per kg, but then you have creatures with less than 0.00# values).

It should be noted that Body armor had a better average ratio than power armor, and personal weapon categories outscored body armor in the amount of protection they provide per unit of mass.

So if these materials in EBA (for example) really do offer more protection per kg, we should see vehicles and giant robots made out of the same materials (or given "coats" made out of them for the other platforms to use), which would give them better ratings. So yes Palladium can be shown to have inflated or deflated protective values and no using it won't require making the unit heavier to get more protection or make it thicker if they really did offer that much extra protection.

This entire theory is flawed. Entirely. You pre-suppose that the entire weight of the vehicle is armor. You failed before you started. That isn't how military vehicles (and armor) work. You create the vehicle to do what you want, and then add as much armor as you can without affecting the required performance. Thats why tanks dont have, say, 40000MDC. You have to get all the parts of the tank in there first, and then you add the armor you can and still get the tank to perform like you want. All that other stuff is freaking heavy.

LOL. Wow, so he has essentially surrounded himself with only people who agree with him and puts everyone else in his foeyes list? What a booking person.

No, i've simply put a bunch of people on ignore (6) who cant use logic or common sense in their arguments and whose idea of winning an argument is to just repeat their initial, debunked, flawed premise over and over as if it is true, and then resort to the internet equivalent of pounding their fists on the ground saying "is so! is so! is so!" over and over again when theyre proven wrong like a five year old throwing a tantrum. I dont have time in my life to bother with that crap anymore, so to the ignore pile they go. It's not like im missing out on anything profound.

There are plenty of people i dont agree with. I rarely, if ever, agree with Killer Cyborg, but he can almost always provide a logical and concise argument to support his position, and if he's right, i tell him he's right and we move on. That'd be the difference.

[ShadowLogan]

Okay now I am forced to straight up ask...

Are you seriously advocating that, the pylon extension, something that mechanically only does 1d6 MD, something that the book states is not very useful in combat. Should be the most devastating move in all of Rifts because anyone in any kind of MD armor that is an SDC creature should be able to be "one shotted" because the Pylon would go through them and kill them outright, no matter what, simply because the pylon can be used to anchor them to hulls after 4-5 tries?

Yes I am advocating that, and I am not alone.

It should be noted that:
-the 1d6MD is for an undefined "pylon impalement", we are speculating that the book's "pylon impalement" manuever is the same one being considered. This is especially noteworthy because on pg72 in the Underwater Capabilities block for the GB it mentions the pylons sinking into the hull doing 1d4MD AND NOT 1d6MD, so in the span of 2 pages the DIE code has changed (and is not addressed in the Errata PDF)
-to anchor to the hull of a ship takes 1d4+1, or 2-5, tries NOT 4-5
-the anchor to the hull of a ship is an overly specific circumstance and may not apply to the body armor situation, even if they are MDC
-even if the person inside the armor is hit by the pylon, there are ways to handle it so it isn't necessarily an instant kill since even by the rules an SDC/HP creature can survive a MD attack. Could also have it only pass a small amount of damage to the squishy as it passes through, but cause bleeding (so Blood loss rules).
-WB20 Canana on pg118 mentions that in relation to 'bots and PA that (as an example) "that a knee joint has minimal M.D.C. and blow it away to slow and impair the machine", so you can do minimal damage and have a larger impact without depeleting the entire MDC. Body armor has joints, so it is possible that the pylon can deploy over a joint.
-also pg63 of CWC (also in NW) under the Punji Sticks Trap description mentions: "As noted previously, vibro blades and other mega-damage materials may be used, but are not as effective; vibro-blades tend to hum, tipping off their location, and M.D.C. materials scrape but seldom puncture M.D.C armor unless the victim falls on or drives across them with some force." Note this trap does mention that you can PUNCTURE MDC armor with sufficient force, something the GB's plyon system can be seen to replicate, and if the armor is punctured IMHO that means whatever is inside the armor takes damage (now the armor might absorb the bulk of the damage, but some has to pass through).

There are ways to get one shot kills, or as good as one-shot kills in various ways that ignore the MDC of the body armor. They are still vulnerable to holds and other attacks that can bypass the armor's protectiveness. There are traps that are detailed in New West and Coalition War Campaign WBs (copy & pasted) that can bypass the armor's MD and otherwise do damage to the person inside (one does 6d6 SDC to the person INSIDE armor).

If you think the pylon should go through, if we're using this, "breach rule" idea. Then... How about this.

I'm playing a 6th level Cyber-Knight and I'm fighting you, and you're in a Glitterboy. I have 2 more attacks per round than you do for whatever reason and I go last to boot, so I get 3 attacks all at once...

The only way a CK can have more actions than a GB pilot is if they are a significantly higher level (a 1st Level GB pilot has 7-8 actions, a CK 5-6 at 1st) and requires they use the Zen Combat ability they gain at Level 4 to impose a -2 penalty to the GB pilot.

I would have to say no this isn't an application of the "breach" technique that the GB is utilizing. You want to use a sword in place of a DRILL. It is the DRILL nature of the pylon system that is what I see as allowing this to happen in the first place and that is often overlooked by the nah-sayers. Do you expect a sword/melee-weapon or blast/projectile to behave the same as a drill when it comes to making a hole in the same material?

Nor do I do see the CK's Psi-weapon necessarily penetrating the armor, given the nature of their Psi-Weapon I think it is questionable weather the Psi-weapon can even expand INTO solid matter (we know the pylon system can). There is nothing in the description to make me think the Psi-Weapon can expand into solid matter (fluids like air/water sure).

[The Beast]

Careful. You'll end up on his list.

If I may wax diplomatic, "What purpose does it serve to openly mock someone?"

It's pretty much what Damian said.

[ShadowLogan]

This entire theory is flawed. Entirely. You pre-suppose that the entire weight of the vehicle is armor. You failed before you started. That isn't how military vehicles (and armor) work. You create the vehicle to do what you want, and then add as much armor as you can without affecting the required performance. Thats why tanks dont have, say, 40000MDC. You have to get all the parts of the tank in there first, and then you add the armor you can and still get the tank to perform like you want. All that other stuff is freaking heavy.

Not it isn't. I do not consider the entire weight of the vehicle to be armor, but I do consider the entire weight of the vehicle to act in a protective manner. We know from various examples in the rules (RUE pg353 for example) that if you take enough damage you start to see system failure. So MDC (and SDC) values are not actually a reflection of just the "armor", but rather include the "health" of an item/creature and even a dose of plot shields.

I am aware of the mechanical complexity of vehicles and what goes into the design. However your argument falls apart when you look at actual examples based on Cyber-Armor (non-CK version, I'm using the Bionics SB version) it is described as:
-the material is <= 1/8" (approx 254mm=1inch) thick
-doesn't really have any 'extra' features like we see in EBA
-has a mass of 9kg
-only covers specific regions of the human body (50 MDC total RMB/Bionic SB version, if using CK version for multiple locations the total is 146).

If the same material that goes into the Cyber Armor is used to replace the armor of an M1A1 tank in the same thickness (which is a couple of inches IINM) you end up with 50*8=400MDC per inch for less than human sized area on the hull, and a penalty of 72kg per inch for that area. The TOTAL MDC of the M1A3's by GAW in Merc Ops (an improved version of the M1A1) has less than 300MDC in the main body. The Megaversal Legion's version of the M1A3 has a TOTAL MDC in the main body of less than 900. I think we can agree that these M1A3 variants have more area than a human body in the main body area.

Then there is the GAW M113 APC in Merc Ops. Wikipedia lists the armor thickness between ~.5" to 1.5". Merc Ops states less than 175MDC total in the main body. At ~.5" thick Cyber Armor would offer 50*4 = 200MDC protection to a less than human sized area, at 1.5" thick 600MDC. I think we can agree that the Main Body Area of an M113 is more than that of a human body.

The Urban Warrior EBA (RUE pg268) has 50MDC in the main body (or RMB era, 177MDC total protection if we add up locations) and comes in at 5kg with more secondary features. And it isn't the only EBA, the Bushman EBA (RUE pg268) at 7.6kg is no different, nor are the two CS EBA on pg261 at 8.1kg and 4kg respectively. Dogboy Riot Armor even though it is 3.6kg and doesn't have extra features has more MDC per kg than Cyber Armor. Plastic Man EBA has a better MDC to kg ratio than Cyber Armor, while offering EBA features, and the Huntsman isn't any different in that it offers more MDC per kg than Cyber Armor. That is just looking at RUE.

Now we don't know the thickness of the armor in various platforms in Rifts. However what we can see clearly is that the protective value that gets assigned has little to do with the mass or thickness of the item, because if it did we'd see MDC values portrayed differently than what we do. I'm not saying that Tanks would/should have 40,000MDC, but they should certainly have values that reflect their size in relation to other items.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Wait there's a list.

Am I on this one??

[Zer0 Kay]

Wait there's a list.

Am I on this one??

Yes... wait which list do you want to be on? I can't put you on Col. Sanders but I'd be more than happy to add you to either randomer item list. OR if you really want I can put you on my foe list... then again it isn't like that matters since I use that like the spoiler function so I don't have to let my brain explode from particular people who like posting LOOOOOONG post's, no names (points up). I still read everyone I cab only take them in doses. So to me the foes list is a control valve... except for the few I just can't stand to read at all because all they do is be contrary and provide fallacies as evidence. Essentially adding nothing to any conversation. There HAS TO BE at least two sides to a conversation or it is boring.

[Damian Magecraft]

This entire theory is flawed. Entirely. You pre-suppose that the entire weight of the vehicle is armor. You failed before you started. That isn't how military vehicles (and armor) work. You create the vehicle to do what you want, and then add as much armor as you can without affecting the required performance. Thats why tanks dont have, say, 40000MDC. You have to get all the parts of the tank in there first, and then you add the armor you can and still get the tank to perform like you want. All that other stuff is freaking heavy.

Not it isn't. I do not consider the entire weight of the vehicle to be armor, but I do consider the entire weight of the vehicle to act in a protective manner. We know from various examples in the rules (RUE pg353 for example) that if you take enough damage you start to see system failure. So MDC (and SDC) values are not actually a reflection of just the "armor", but rather include the "health" of an item/creature and even a dose of plot shields.

I am aware of the mechanical complexity of vehicles and what goes into the design. However your argument falls apart when you look at actual examples based on Cyber-Armor (non-CK version, I'm using the Bionics SB version) it is described as:
-the material is <= 1/8" (approx 254mm=1inch) thick
-doesn't really have any 'extra' features like we see in EBA
-has a mass of 9kg
-only covers specific regions of the human body (50 MDC total RMB/Bionic SB version, if using CK version for multiple locations the total is 146).

If the same material that goes into the Cyber Armor is used to replace the armor of an M1A1 tank in the same thickness (which is a couple of inches IINM) you end up with 50*8=400MDC per inch for less than human sized area on the hull, and a penalty of 72kg per inch for that area. The TOTAL MDC of the M1A3's by GAW in Merc Ops (an improved version of the M1A1) has less than 300MDC in the main body. The Megaversal Legion's version of the M1A3 has a TOTAL MDC in the main body of less than 900. I think we can agree that these M1A3 variants have more area than a human body in the main body area.

Then there is the GAW M113 APC in Merc Ops. Wikipedia lists the armor thickness between ~.5" to 1.5". Merc Ops states less than 175MDC total in the main body. At ~.5" thick Cyber Armor would offer 50*4 = 200MDC protection to a less than human sized area, at 1.5" thick 600MDC. I think we can agree that the Main Body Area of an M113 is more than that of a human body.

The Urban Warrior EBA (RUE pg268) has 50MDC in the main body (or RMB era, 177MDC total protection if we add up locations) and comes in at 5kg with more secondary features. And it isn't the only EBA, the Bushman EBA (RUE pg268) at 7.6kg is no different, nor are the two CS EBA on pg261 at 8.1kg and 4kg respectively. Dogboy Riot Armor even though it is 3.6kg and doesn't have extra features has more MDC per kg than Cyber Armor. Plastic Man EBA has a better MDC to kg ratio than Cyber Armor, while offering EBA features, and the Huntsman isn't any different in that it offers more MDC per kg than Cyber Armor. That is just looking at RUE.

Now we don't know the thickness of the armor in various platforms in Rifts. However what we can see clearly is that the protective value that gets assigned has little to do with the mass or thickness of the item, because if it did we'd see MDC values portrayed differently than what we do. I'm not saying that Tanks would/should have 40,000MDC, but they should certainly have values that reflect their size in relation to other items.

huh...
so much for it being "too dense"...
of course one would think that if the EBA armor is denser argument is correct that eba weights would be much higher. (But what do I know? I apparently cannot use logic according to some posters.)

[HWalsh]

If you think the pylon should go through, if we're using this, "breach rule" idea. Then... How about this.

I'm playing a 6th level Cyber-Knight and I'm fighting you, and you're in a Glitterboy. I have 2 more attacks per round than you do for whatever reason and I go last to boot, so I get 3 attacks all at once...

The only way a CK can have more actions than a GB pilot is if they are a significantly higher level (a 1st Level GB pilot has 7-8 actions, a CK 5-6 at 1st) and requires they use the Zen Combat ability they gain at Level 4 to impose a -2 penalty to the GB pilot.

Level 6 Glitterboy Pilot has: 10 (+1 for being in a GB, +3 for HtH CE: GB, +5 HtH Basic, +1 Boxing)
Level 6 Cyber-Knight has: 7 (+5 HtH Martial Arts, +1 Cyber-Knight, +1 Boxing)

Then the Glitterboy loses 2 from Zen Combat: Basic Combat Awareness (RUE pg 66)
If they were lower level (3 or less) they would lose 2 more

But this puts the GB at 8 Attacks per round, and the CK at 7 - For this to happen, all it would take would be a few things to happen. Remember your Glitterboy *does not know* about Zen Combat so you don't know he's auto-dodging *or* that you are down 2 attacks/round.

Then initiative could be:
GB 1. GB Tries to fix his sensors
CK 1. CK, Super Psionic (Psychic Body Field) (GB 7, CK 6)
GB 2. GB-Boom Gun Aimed Shot, CK Auto-dodge (GB 5, CK 6)
CK 2. Closes to melee (GB 5, CK 5)
GB 3. GB-Boom Gun Aimed Shot, CK Auto-dodge (GB 3, CK 5)
CK 3. CK-Psi-Sword for main body, GB attempts simultaneous strike, CK parries with off-hand Psi-Sword (GB 2, CK 4)
GB 3. GB-Boom Gun, CK Auto-Dodge (GB 1, CK 4)
CK 3. Uses Psi-Sword for main body (GB 2, CK 3)
GB 4. GB fires boom gun at annoying CK, assuming that he has to be out of actions (remember, doesn't know about the auto-dodge) goes for a head shot, CK auto-Dodges (GB 0, CK 3)
CK 4. Goes for the kill with 3 remaining actions.
GB 4. Prepares to take an action, GM tells him he is out of actions.

This is also assuming the GB doesn't lose an additional attack trying to fix his sensors (The GB will have 70% barring intelligence bonuses, but will lose 40%, so has a 30% chance of getting these bonuses back. Thus, for this, we will assume that since he most likely would fail to do so, we will assume his sensors are off-line.

Before you tell me that it would be impossible for the CK to do this many successful auto-dodges: (And yes, the CK has proper ear protection)

My current CK (at level 5) has an Auto-Dodge of +12 (+8 from PP, +4 Auto-Dodge)
A GB, with the Boom Gun level 6 has +8 to hit with the BG (+1 from GB OCC, +2 from HtH:GB, +2 Advanced Laser Targeting, +1 Laser Targeting, +2 from WP) though since there is a 70% chance his sensors are down that gives him only a +5, meaning that the GB has to beat the CK's roll (ties go to defender after all) by at least 8 thus for the CK to get 4 successful Auto-Dodges off is highly possible.

(And yes, I just logged into roll 20 and rolled it and no the GB wasn't able to hit, he got close, but no cigar, and that wasn't even including evasive maneuvering or anything which the CK can do while fighting at no penalty.)

So yeah. It is VERY possible for it to happen. Heck, since the CK cuts the GB down to 7 just from Zen Combat it just means that the GB had to dodge or do something else that fight.

I would have to say no this isn't an application of the "breach" technique that the GB is utilizing. You want to use a sword in place of a DRILL. It is the DRILL nature of the pylon system that is what I see as allowing this to happen in the first place and that is often overlooked by the nah-sayers. Do you expect a sword/melee-weapon or blast/projectile to behave the same as a drill when it comes to making a hole in the same material?

If a 1d6 MD Drill can do it then a 6d6 (w/fencing) or 11d6 (psyscape) Psi-Sword can do it. Remember the weapon hits with 6 times to 11 times the force.

Nor do I do see the CK's Psi-weapon necessarily penetrating the armor, given the nature of their Psi-Weapon I think it is questionable weather the Psi-weapon can even expand INTO solid matter (we know the pylon system can). There is nothing in the description to make me think the Psi-Weapon can expand into solid matter (fluids like air/water sure).

It doesn't need to expand into the matter, it just needs to push through the hole while accompanied by a thrust. There is also nothing that indicates it can't. It is a psionic construct that does many factors more damage than the GB's drill could ever dream of doing. So yes. Under your logic, the GB is vulnerable to an easy kill from a Cyber-Knight if we use your logic.

I kind of am getting the feeling that you play a lot of Glitterboys, judging from your reaction here, and that you really aren't liking this idea. That is good. That is how the rest of us feel about GBs being given an attack, not supported in the rules, that can be used to auto-kill people through their armor.

[Zer0 Kay]

+9 you forgot weapon systems.

[ShadowLogan]

This is also assuming the GB doesn't lose an additional attack trying to fix his sensors (The GB will have 70% barring intelligence bonuses, but will lose 40%, so has a 30% chance of getting these bonuses back. Thus, for this, we will assume that since he most likely would fail to do so, we will assume his sensors are off-line.

In your example did you forgot to include the penalties for the Boomgun being fired on the CK? I ask because I don't see any mention of them. The CK will incur those penalties regardless if the BG hits him/her or not unless they have proper protection (which isn't even mentioned), the sonic boom can shake a building so I can see it knocking someone down.

I'm not sure if the GB pilot's use of the BG in melee range is necessarily the best choice either. They should engage in either HTH or move to with drawl (they can more likely than not out run a CK on foot as their Spd attribute is effectively 88 cross referencing pg71 and pg281 in RUE, so a GB can choose to enter melee or not).

It doesn't need to expand into the matter, it just needs to push through the hole while accompanied by a thrust. There is also nothing that indicates it can't. It is a psionic construct that does many factors more damage than the GB's drill could ever dream of doing. So yes. Under your logic, the GB is vulnerable to an easy kill from a Cyber-Knight if we use your logic.

Yes actually it will need to expand into matter if the CK has the blade inside the GB already. While the CK could cause the blade to expand backward to push in, but they can not it seems expand the blade forward into something to form it. If they could it would be noted somewhere and it isn't.

When the CK plunges their Psi-Sword into the GB, they are going to meet resistance from the material the GB is made of (which is MDC) so their ability to "plunge" it deeper is likely to be based on their strength, they might not have the actual PS to drive it in any deeper. Contrast that to the automated drill, with is laser and hydraulics, and I think the force pushing it in has minimal impact on how deep you can and more to do with the size of the shaft (at least based on my experience using drills).

The GB's armor might also be strong enough to deflect the blow from a stabbing attack so it can't enter. Really the CK would have better luck I think attacking the (minimal value per WB20) joints than trying to stab the GB's pilot inside his reinforce pilot's compartment.

kind of am getting the feeling that you play a lot of Glitterboys, judging from your reaction here, and that you really aren't liking this idea. That is good. That is how the rest of us feel about GBs being given an attack, not supported in the rules, that can be used to auto-kill people through their armor.

Actually I've played more (RMB era) Cyber-Knights than (RMB era) Glitterboys.

This type of attack is supported by the rules actually as I've had the basic idea since RMB-era (where it would not take 1d4+1 actions to sink into a thick hull until MiO and later FQ) since it falls under the "common sense" preview since RMB did not say anything about the pylon limitations (text in diagrams state it "can eat through rock, sand, dirt, & metal").

[Zer0 Kay]

GB realizing CK somehow went from anti evil monster to anti all machine knows he has a better chance to grab the punk up close so let's him close. The first swing he takes the GB does a simultaneous strike and grabs his arm with his off hand. The GB places the CK face down on the ground and steps on the hand of the captured with hus heel. With his free hands the GB gains positive controll of the CK'somehow torso and works his way to the other arm. The GB spreads out that arm and steps on that hand. The GB stEpson on the other hand with his other foot. The GB stands and deploys the BG, drops the barrel and fires point blank at the CK, anchoring through his hands or at the very least against his hands and blesses him with a baptism of Lorentz accelerated steel... TO THE FACE.

[HWalsh]

This is also assuming the GB doesn't lose an additional attack trying to fix his sensors (The GB will have 70% barring intelligence bonuses, but will lose 40%, so has a 30% chance of getting these bonuses back. Thus, for this, we will assume that since he most likely would fail to do so, we will assume his sensors are off-line.

In your example did you forgot to include the penalties for the Boomgun being fired on the CK? I ask because I don't see any mention of them. The CK will incur those penalties regardless if the BG hits him/her or not unless they have proper protection (which isn't even mentioned), the sonic boom can shake a building so I can see it knocking someone down.

Yeah. I mentioned it actually.

Before you tell me that it would be impossible for the CK to do this many successful auto-dodges: (And yes, the CK has proper ear protection)

I'm not sure if the GB pilot's use of the BG in melee range is necessarily the best choice either. They should engage in either HTH or move to with drawl (they can more likely than not out run a CK on foot as their Spd attribute is effectively 88 cross referencing pg71 and pg281 in RUE, so a GB can choose to enter melee or not).

Yes and no. The GB exiting melee range is actually a boon for the CK. Unless he keeps indefinitely backing away (which is a HILARIOUS mental image of a GB literally running away from a lone Cyber-Knight) or the CK engages in ranged combat (which gives the GB the advantage, but could also end badly if it can't hit, because the CK can dodge forever, moving while suffering no penalties, and the GB isn't going to be successfully dodging him 9 out of 10 times). So the GB is going to be suffering even MORE penalties to hit.

Yes actually it will need to expand into matter if the CK has the blade inside the GB already. While the CK could cause the blade to expand backward to push in, but they can not it seems expand the blade forward into something to form it. If they could it would be noted somewhere and it isn't.

Actually, again, you are incorrect. And that is the thing, okay, lets assume it doesn't have to enter into matter. The CK could just keep the Psi-Sword in the thrust hole and keep forcing it through. The GB isn't that thick. An average length longsword would reach the pilot.

When the CK plunges their Psi-Sword into the GB, they are going to meet resistance from the material the GB is made of (which is MDC) so their ability to "plunge" it deeper is likely to be based on their strength, they might not have the actual PS to drive it in any deeper. Contrast that to the automated drill, with is laser and hydraulics, and I think the force pushing it in has minimal impact on how deep you can and more to do with the size of the shaft (at least based on my experience using drills).

Actually no. It is a laser drill, so really force behind it doesn't matter. The Drill clears the hole by doing 1d6 MD to everything in front of it. The Psi-Sword will go through anything that Pylon goes through much easier. This is why your assumption that it can rip through *anything* is folly. If it can do it *anything* can do it that does comparable damage. So a Psi-Sword would do it, and do it much better.

The GB's armor might also be strong enough to deflect the blow from a stabbing attack so it can't enter. Really the CK would have better luck I think attacking the (minimal value per WB20) joints than trying to stab the GB's pilot inside his reinforce pilot's compartment.

Under normal rules yes. Under your breach rules? No.

This type of attack is supported by the rules actually as I've had the basic idea since RMB-era (where it would not take 1d4+1 actions to sink into a thick hull until MiO and later FQ) since it falls under the "common sense" preview since RMB did not say anything about the pylon limitations (text in diagrams state it "can eat through rock, sand, dirt, & metal").

The books give us the damage it (the pylon) does, and tells us it is a terrible weapon.

[HWalsh]

GB realizing CK somehow went from anti evil monster to anti all machine knows he has a better chance to grab the punk up close so let's him close. The first swing he takes the GB does a simultaneous strike and grabs his arm with his off hand.

The CK parries with the off-hand blade. The CK didn't double strike. The GB fails.

[Zer0 Kay]

GB realizing CK somehow went from anti evil monster to anti all machine knows he has a better chance to grab the punk up close so let's him close. The first swing he takes the GB does a simultaneous strike and grabs his arm with his off hand.

The CK parries with the off-hand blade. The CK didn't double strike. The GB fails.

I didn't see that the CK had paired weapons so he doesn't otherwise I get to inject that the GB does as well and the GB double simultaneous first gets parried second lands and proceeded as previous.

[HWalsh]

GB realizing CK somehow went from anti evil monster to anti all machine knows he has a better chance to grab the punk up close so let's him close. The first swing he takes the GB does a simultaneous strike and grabs his arm with his off hand.

The CK parries with the off-hand blade. The CK didn't double strike. The GB fails.

I didn't see that the CK had paired weapons so he doesn't otherwise I get to inject that the GB does as well and the GB double simultaneous first gets parried second lands and proceeded as previous.

I doubt that every GB pilot has paired weapons, every Cyber-Knight does.

Regardless Zero K, I think you are missing the point I was making.

When we allow things that aren't in the book (IE the Pylon as the ultimate melee weapon ever) then we open the door to other ridiculous things (such as the Cyber-Knight extendo-blade of death) and that is why the game doesn't allow such things. And we can keep playing the pronoun game if we want to. In my example, I was showing a legitimate way it *could* happen not a fool-proof way it could. Maybe the GB Pilot doesn't have Boxing. Maybe the Cyber-Knight doesn't have arms. Regardless the point was about using something that was never intended to be used in a way to show how it could "realistically" be abused.

This is also Rifts, the same game where Kevin says, in the RUE that if you have an attacker with an MD weapon jump an SDC PC to have the attacker miss with the first shot specifically to, "Give them a chance" or to have a robot use a poor battle strategy against an SDC target to give the SDC target a chance.

So the idea that the pylon is an insta kill on a called shot? No.

[Zer0 Kay]

Oh... nah, I was just countering your CK vs GB. Yeah I don't think it should be instagib, like jumping on a grenade. One is players choice.

[HWalsh]

Oh... nah, I was just countering your CK vs GB. Yeah I don't think it should be instagib, like jumping on a grenade. One is players choice.

Right, like I said, I was just pointing out the other things that could happen once we start trying to apply "realism" to a game.

Back to the original topic though... Yes, the Boom Gun couldn't be disarmed, or at least doing so wouldn't accomplish anything since it doesn't require an action to "ready" on the Power Armor.

Your best bet, if you have to deal with a Glitterboy, is to hit them from distant range and/or find some way to disable the armor. Telemechanic Possession is a good one. I am also expecting a Magic attack in a future book that shuts down technology. Much like there is an Anti-Magic Cloud.

[ShadowLogan]

Yes and no. The GB exiting melee range is actually a boon for the CK. Unless he keeps indefinitely backing away (which is a HILARIOUS mental image of a GB literally running away from a lone Cyber-Knight) or the CK engages in ranged combat (which gives the GB the advantage, but could also end badly if it can't hit, because the CK can dodge forever, moving while suffering no penalties, and the GB isn't going to be successfully dodging him 9 out of 10 times). So the GB is going to be suffering even MORE penalties to hit.

I do think you had the GB acting with less intelligence.

A GB can engage in a simultaneous attack with the CK which means no parries/dodges (and reasonably auto-dodge) granted the CK can still parry because of the WP Paired Weapons ability. Nothing indicates that Simultaneous Attack requires WP: Paired Weapons. The GB could use that with the BG to negate the CK's agility technically. In melee they could use it to hold a CK at range or take other actions to impair their ability to attack.

Actually, again, you are incorrect. And that is the thing, okay, lets assume it doesn't have to enter into matter. The CK could just keep the Psi-Sword in the thrust hole and keep forcing it through. The GB isn't that thick. An average length longsword would reach the pilot.

Actually no I am correct. I do not see any room for the Psi-Sword to expand into while going deeper into the GB's armor, nothing in the text indicates the Psi-Sword can form inside solid matter, if it could that would be even more powerful than a Glitterboy's pylon system.

Yes an average sword could reach the pilot, but only if it can penetrate the material into the reinforced pilot's compartment. But that presupposes that the Psi-Sword can be driven into GB that deep that quickly, there is no text that says the stabbing/thrusting attack of a psi-sword (or vibroblade) can penetrate material that deep in one hit or even pushed in that deep with multiple actions (rules like that don't even exist for SDC combat). We do have text that indicates the pylon drill can go 4.5ft into various materials in under 1 action though, and a specific circumstance where it takes longer.

So no, I do not see the Psi-Sword as an instant gib weapon.

The books give us the damage it (the pylon) does, and tells us it is a terrible weapon.

The books don't give us damage until MiO, which gets revised in FQ and later used in RUE, which also expands it. It is also questionable if the "pylon impalement" stated out is the same type of "pylon impalement" we are considering. For all we know RUE's Pylon Impalement has the telescoping pylon already deployed and isn't considering the laser drill at all.

The books also state that "Punji Sticks" aren't as effective when using Vibro-Blades, but people still use them. And falling on them is enough to puncture the MDC armor.

[HWalsh]

I decided to edit and delete this post. I got annoyed with the overall discussion. So I'm bowing out of this one. It's not worth the high blood pressure.

If you want a mega melee ignores all armor weapon and can talk your GM into it that is your prerogative. As long as it stays away from any game I'm a part of then no skin off my nose.

[Zer0 Kay]

Oh... nah, I was just countering your CK vs GB. Yeah I don't think it should be instagib, like jumping on a grenade. One is players choice.

Right, like I said, I was just pointing out the other things that could happen once we start trying to apply "realism" to a game.

Back to the original topic though... Yes, the Boom Gun couldn't be disarmed, or at least doing so wouldn't accomplish anything since it doesn't require an action to "ready" on the Power Armor.

Your best bet, if you have to deal with a Glitterboy, is to hit them from distant range and/or find some way to disable the armor. Telemechanic Possession is a good one. I am also expecting a Magic attack in a future book that shuts down technology. Much like there is an Anti-Magic Cloud.

There already is in the BoM but it only disappointed less a single component. I always figure the power coupler or the cooling system for the fusion power supply

[Shark_Force]

well, i'll be the first to admit that palladium doesn't have a reputation for great editing or including all relevant information at all, let alone in one place.

but it seems like "and also the person inside whatever you impale is probably dead or at least in a coma and requiring immediate medical attention to survive" or "and the target is no longer environmentally sealed" is a rather implausible piece of information to overlook including in the impale attack.

certainly it *could* have just been forgotten. but i would need to see a direct statement from the author to believe they intended glitter boy stability pylons to be the ultimate melee weapon.

[eliakon]

Oh... nah, I was just countering your CK vs GB. Yeah I don't think it should be instagib, like jumping on a grenade. One is players choice.

Right, like I said, I was just pointing out the other things that could happen once we start trying to apply "realism" to a game.

Back to the original topic though... Yes, the Boom Gun couldn't be disarmed, or at least doing so wouldn't accomplish anything since it doesn't require an action to "ready" on the Power Armor.

Your best bet, if you have to deal with a Glitterboy, is to hit them from distant range and/or find some way to disable the armor. Telemechanic Possession is a good one. I am also expecting a Magic attack in a future book that shuts down technology. Much like there is an Anti-Magic Cloud.

There already is in the BoM but it only disappointed less a single component. I always figure the power coupler or the cooling system for the fusion power supply

Electro-Magnetic Attack from Mercenary Adventures. Ranged, AoE spell that makes technology make a save or be shut down...

[Blue_Lion]

Shadowlogan what page in FQ updates the damage of the pylons I did not find damage when I looked in the book.

To me there is nothing in the books to over rule how armor normally works and allow the pylon to go through body armor without breaching its MDC. That is the point of the GI Joe rule to say you can't damage some one until the armor is destroyed.

[Nightmask]

Shadowlogan what page in FQ updates the damage of the pylons I did not find damage when I looked in the book.

To me there is nothing in the books to over rule how armor normally works and allow the pylon to go through body armor without breaching its MDC. That is the point of the GI Joe rule to say you can't damage some one until the armor is destroyed.

Mutants in Orbit, Rifts section, notes that the pylons for a glitter boy deal 1 point of mega-damage to things like hulls and other MDC surfaces.

[ShadowLogan]

History of the USA-G10 in print (AFAIK):
RMB (silver hardcover) pg218-223, no pylon damage stat
Mutants in Orbit pg67-8 in the RG-14 text description (this is for the USA-G13 actually but it is there) on pg67 has pylon damage stat
WB8 Japan pg136-7, no pylon damage stat (basically a C&P from Rifts)
WB22 FQ pg82-84, pylon damage stat IS NOT in the HTH blocks, IT IS in the Underwater Capabilities on pg82 about 1/2 way through (within the Bolded Note that is contained in parenthesis). This is also when the RG-14 gets rectoned into having a velocity of Mach 5 and not Mach 2 found in other sources, and also called the RG-15 (variants refer to it as the RG-14 or RG-15?)
RUE (hardcover) pg71-74, pylon damage stat IS IN BOTH the HTH (pg73) block AND the underwater capabilities section (pg72) with similar placement to WB22, the two values DO NOT AGREE

WB5, WB9 also have Glitterboy Variants, but neither discuss the pylon system other than to mention it is present (WB5) or not (WB9, it also the RG-14 mounts it to a platform that doesn't need the pylon system). WB8 also has additional G10 variants, but neither are mentioned to use the Pylon system as an option (and don't mention the pylon system). WB7 mentions the Glitterboy being stationed on the Tico, but not anything else IIRC. WB22 has GB variants, some do and some do not have pylons (one lacks the pylons but as another countermeasure that causes it to stagger/stumble back 1d4 steps), WB31 (Triax2) has GB variants I know, but can't check details (IIRC they also mount the RG-14 elsewhere) and Black market (don't have the book).

As for it being able to puncture EBA/BA the only time they call out the pylon system having troubles is with a common sense much thicker hull/deck of a ship, not something as thin as EBA/BA is likely to be. I see no reason to continue this tangent discussion.

[eliakon]

*Proposes that Pylons be split into its own thread*

[Zer0 Kay]

*Proposes that Pylons be split into its own thread*

Seconded