Disarm v Boomgun

[Blue_Lion]

Use of BG in melee does make sense. Unless the GB is being grappled or entangled why the hell is it going to stand still in melee? The opponent advances into melee range and attacks what is keeping the GB from hopping back six feet and firing six feet is still in melee range. The same can be said for someone using a pole arm or greatsword yet no one argues those can't be used in melee. Kicking ones opponent back before shooting them or holding them out to the side at the end of the left arm and shoot them sideways.

Can the GB fire on the move or kick and shoot in one action.dunnoh, is the pilot a regular GB pilot or is he from N&S with some sort of martial art that has a combo move?
Kicking some one back would be an attack so you can not kick them back and shoot them.
If the GB has more actions than whoever is attacking him doesn't matter if they happen at the same time kick one action, oh your opponent doesn't have one, shoot second action.
The GB needs to fire stabilizer pylons in the ground to shoot not some thing you can do on the move.
Actually it is. The GB can be running and as soon as the BG fires the pylons deploy and it'd come to a complete stop. The next action, within 3.5 seconds IF the GB only has two attacks even less if it has more
Use of a boom gun in melee is nothing like a greate sword or polearm in melee(both of wich are melee weapons. A great sword may be 5-6 feet long but all most the whole length of is capable of cutting. yes it is. If you are up against a person with a pole arm or greatsword close the gap. The polearm head can't reach you and the greatsword can't be swung enough to gain momentum. Traditionally the greatswords weren't as sharp as normal swords relying on their weight an narrow edge the essentially act as a mace focusing the strike into a narrow area to cause concussive damage as the heavy plate of the day didn't get cutSome pole arms are not effective at sword range. Niether the pole arm or great sword require the use of stabilizing pylongs.yeah i here the most effective use of the pike was to spin it around wrather than bracing yourself and jamming it again the inside of your boot and those greatsword weilder after they were dismounted used to do acrobatics and even spin two of them around like a blender. For a boom gun to shoot you you need to be infront of its barrel Giving the scale of the boom gun some one fighting with a sword or knife would be in to close to shoot them. With the recoil sysem hopping and shooting is unlikely. No it isn't, they're deployed and retractied in the same action the gun is fired.
People keep saying the sytem does not say you can't shoot in melee but it never says you can. It also does not say you can't shoot something hugging your face with a boom gun. In other words the mecanics neither allow or disallow such actions but require a GM to say when a normal action can not be done. Logically there is no reason to allow a 9 foot tall robot to shoot some one with a gun that goes down to its knees when they are standing right next to it.
how about this one your basing your arguent off of nothing. Nowhere, does it state the length of the boomgun in text. All of the art is non-can

So until some one can find a quote that says you can shoot some one in melee range with a boom gun stop making unsupported statements that the mechanics say you can.
(There are many statements on books about the weakness of a GB is closing in on it supports a weakness. With nothing saying you can shoot the boom gun at targets in mellee range. Heck I do not think the rules say you can't shoot some one buttoned up inside a tank are you going to argue that you can.)

what IS melee range to you? You just stated that a polearm and greatsword are melee weapons a pike is about 12' long a greatsword 6' so the GB can't fire within 12' or does it depend on what weapon the person happens to be using?

Melee range is the range you can strike with melee weapons normally 3-6' some melee weapons may have greater reach. But in the case of the GB people are talking about close melee range inside the Boom guns reach. Simply the great sword and pole arm are just a straw man some one tried to use.

Do you have a quote that says a GB can be running and fire the pylons. Seams it would require both feet be contact with the ground.

The timing is the pylons deploy before the gun shoots even if it is in the same action it has to happen before the gun shoots to work. So if you tried hopping and shooting they would not work right.

For the record no martial art alloys you to kick and shoot a heavy weapon at the same time even if you are using ones from NS&S.
It is not mute even if you have more actions than the person they have a better chance defending against your kick and may not be nocked back so you can shoot. If it was not there last action they can still close on there action.

by the way replying inside a quote of me like you did is annoying and can be seen as you quoting me as saying something I did not. I almost missed the fact you did that.

[Zer0 Kay]

Use of BG in melee does make sense. Unless the GB is being grappled or entangled why the hell is it going to stand still in melee? The opponent advances into melee range and attacks what is keeping the GB from hopping back six feet and firing six feet is still in melee range. The same can be said for someone using a pole arm or greatsword yet no one argues those can't be used in melee. Kicking ones opponent back before shooting them or holding them out to the side at the end of the left arm and shoot them sideways.

Can the GB fire on the move or kick and shoot in one action.dunnoh, is the pilot a regular GB pilot or is he from N&S with some sort of martial art that has a combo move?
Kicking some one back would be an attack so you can not kick them back and shoot them.
If the GB has more actions than whoever is attacking him doesn't matter if they happen at the same time kick one action, oh your opponent doesn't have one, shoot second action.
The GB needs to fire stabilizer pylons in the ground to shoot not some thing you can do on the move.
Actually it is. The GB can be running and as soon as the BG fires the pylons deploy and it'd come to a complete stop. The next action, within 3.5 seconds IF the GB only has two attacks even less if it has more
Use of a boom gun in melee is nothing like a greate sword or polearm in melee(both of wich are melee weapons. A great sword may be 5-6 feet long but all most the whole length of is capable of cutting. yes it is. If you are up against a person with a pole arm or greatsword close the gap. The polearm head can't reach you and the greatsword can't be swung enough to gain momentum. Traditionally the greatswords weren't as sharp as normal swords relying on their weight an narrow edge the essentially act as a mace focusing the strike into a narrow area to cause concussive damage as the heavy plate of the day didn't get cutSome pole arms are not effective at sword range. Niether the pole arm or great sword require the use of stabilizing pylongs.yeah i here the most effective use of the pike was to spin it around wrather than bracing yourself and jamming it again the inside of your boot and those greatsword weilder after they were dismounted used to do acrobatics and even spin two of them around like a blender. For a boom gun to shoot you you need to be infront of its barrel Giving the scale of the boom gun some one fighting with a sword or knife would be in to close to shoot them. With the recoil sysem hopping and shooting is unlikely. No it isn't, they're deployed and retractied in the same action the gun is fired.
People keep saying the sytem does not say you can't shoot in melee but it never says you can. It also does not say you can't shoot something hugging your face with a boom gun. In other words the mecanics neither allow or disallow such actions but require a GM to say when a normal action can not be done. Logically there is no reason to allow a 9 foot tall robot to shoot some one with a gun that goes down to its knees when they are standing right next to it.
how about this one your basing your arguent off of nothing. Nowhere, does it state the length of the boomgun in text. All of the art is non-can

So until some one can find a quote that says you can shoot some one in melee range with a boom gun stop making unsupported statements that the mechanics say you can.
(There are many statements on books about the weakness of a GB is closing in on it supports a weakness. With nothing saying you can shoot the boom gun at targets in mellee range. Heck I do not think the rules say you can't shoot some one buttoned up inside a tank are you going to argue that you can.)

what IS melee range to you? You just stated that a polearm and greatsword are melee weapons a pike is about 12' long a greatsword 6' so the GB can't fire within 12' or does it depend on what weapon the person happens to be using?

Melee range is the range you can strike with melee weapons normally 3-6' some melee weapons may have greater reach. But in the case of the GB people are talking about close melee range inside the Boom guns reach. Simply the great sword and pole arm are just a straw man some one tried to use.

Do you have a quote that says a GB can be running and fire the pylons. Seams it would require both feet be contact with the ground.

The timing is the pylons deploy before the gun shoots even if it is in the same action it has to happen before the gun shoots to work. So if you tried hopping and shooting they would not work right.

For the record no martial art alloys you to kick and shoot a heavy weapon at the same time even if you are using ones from NS&S.
It is not mute even if you have more actions than the person they have a better chance defending against your kick and may not be nocked back so you can shoot. If it was not there last action they can still close on there action.

by the way replying inside a quote of me like you did is annoying and can be seen as you quoting me as saying something I did not. I almost missed the fact you did that.

Hey, those are my straw men and they weren't straw men they are melee weapons meaning it is melee range. But obviously a GB's BG can fire within those ranges. So stop using melee range as the excuse. What if the opponent closed to within 4 feet with a railgun? Not melee range is it? Just give the distance.

We'll use the same argument show me a quote that says it cant run, plant both feet and fire. I see it doing one of those stomping stops that they teach football players to do before they change direction. Heck run do a jet assisted leap and plant both feet shooting at the target you already designated while you were running. No that doesn't mean you just spent four actions. Game mechanics don't replicate the order things happen IRL.
RL
M1 Abrams
-commander: Target bearing 27
-gunner: Traversing, gun on target
-commander: Driver continue course flank target
-driver: on course maintaining speed
-tank: Vroooom
-commander: Load inert projectile. Gunner!?
-gunner: On target
-commander: fire, fire, fire
-tank: Bang
-target: Boom
Note: Sorry tankers I know it is way different but I'm trying to make the poin that you guys don't simply point and shoot and using a team rather than an individual just emphasizes all the little steps the individual has to do.

IG
M1 Abrams
Commander... What do we need one of those for... Loader, nobody is going to play that so there is only really gunner and driver if even.
Player 1: Lets take out that one first
Player 2: Okay I'll. Flank him (action taken)
GM: Rolls
Player 1: I fire (take action and roll)
GM: BLAH, BLAH, BLAH you hit.
Player 1:rolls damage
Player 2: Just driving sucks they need to gov the pilot some weapons or make this tank a one person tank.
Strange how target lock doesn't take an action or bringing the weapon to bear...bare... whatever.
IRL: acknowledge, acquire, lock, confirm, fire
IG: I shoot at...

No the pylons do not have to be engaged to fire, otherwise they wouldn't give what happens when they're not. A GB can jump and fire and get thrown back if the want.

No, no, no. It is moot. Forget the kick if the GB allows the melee attacker to plink away and use up all his actions. Even if he only has two left he doesn't have to kick he can simply step back and the opponent cant advance on him... Because movement requires actions, and then point blank whatever it is, if he has three actions left point blank called shot to the head.

Hmm... I can see how you can see that but that is your assumption. And isn't again any rules of the board. Sorry your easily annoyed. If anyone questions it they can look back at a previous version. If it realm annoys you quote it and put in my box that highlights in original text are mine.

[Zer0 Kay]

to be completely honest one of the most LETHAL attacks a glitterboy might have against an opponent in melee (thinking human even with body armor) might not be the boom gun itself. It might be the pylons.

Here's my thought some stupid person comes running up to melee the glitter boy, said glitter boy punches kicks or otherwise attacks them with a flip or throw type attack intended to knock them down, then deliberately Steps on them before firing the boomgun at someone NOT in melee combat with the glitter boy, the anti sway pylon engages, drills a small hole in their chest (or whatever body part the foot is on, then rams an ~3-6 foot telescoping pole into the ground THROUGH the person the glitterboy is standing on. and if the first attempt doesn't cause a mortal wound reposition slightly and try again.

I've always thought that since they supposedly, instantly drill 3' into MDC material... But they gave it damage at 1MD IIRC so apparently a 3' deep, what maybe 2" diameter hole is only 1 MD no matter what material OR no matter how deep the pylon gets with 1MD is enough to anchor the GB. Then the funny thought. If there is a six by six play that is two inches think and a 1"x 2" diameter hole is 1MD... When the GB anchors on it and fires does it somehow give enough support or does the plate and the GB go sliding backwards

The pylons are not to drill into MDC material but the ground which is SDC. If they only do 1 MD then they can not drill through most MD surfaces. Most lasers are smaller than 2" inches dimater so it is not 1MD regardless of material.

Here is what I see happing if a GB tried that his recoil comp did not fully deploy like it should as you did not breach the armor and the GB goes flying back the person you stepped on is just fine.

Incorrect per MiO the GB is perfectly capable of anchoring on the exterior of hulls. Shows me they don't have to fully deploy as then there would also be a note about hull breaches in space.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Use of BG in melee does make sense. Unless the GB is being grappled or entangled why the hell is it going to stand still in melee? The opponent advances into melee range and attacks what is keeping the GB from hopping back six feet and firing six feet is still in melee range. The same can be said for someone using a pole arm or greatsword yet no one argues those can't be used in melee. Kicking ones opponent back before shooting them or holding them out to the side at the end of the left arm and shoot them sideways.

Can the GB fire on the move or kick and shoot in one action.dunnoh, is the pilot a regular GB pilot or is he from N&S with some sort of martial art that has a combo move?
Kicking some one back would be an attack so you can not kick them back and shoot them.
If the GB has more actions than whoever is attacking him doesn't matter if they happen at the same time kick one action, oh your opponent doesn't have one, shoot second action.
The GB needs to fire stabilizer pylons in the ground to shoot not some thing you can do on the move.
Actually it is. The GB can be running and as soon as the BG fires the pylons deploy and it'd come to a complete stop. The next action, within 3.5 seconds IF the GB only has two attacks even less if it has more
Use of a boom gun in melee is nothing like a greate sword or polearm in melee(both of wich are melee weapons. A great sword may be 5-6 feet long but all most the whole length of is capable of cutting. yes it is. If you are up against a person with a pole arm or greatsword close the gap. The polearm head can't reach you and the greatsword can't be swung enough to gain momentum. Traditionally the greatswords weren't as sharp as normal swords relying on their weight an narrow edge the essentially act as a mace focusing the strike into a narrow area to cause concussive damage as the heavy plate of the day didn't get cutSome pole arms are not effective at sword range. Niether the pole arm or great sword require the use of stabilizing pylongs.yeah i here the most effective use of the pike was to spin it around wrather than bracing yourself and jamming it again the inside of your boot and those greatsword weilder after they were dismounted used to do acrobatics and even spin two of them around like a blender. For a boom gun to shoot you you need to be infront of its barrel Giving the scale of the boom gun some one fighting with a sword or knife would be in to close to shoot them. With the recoil sysem hopping and shooting is unlikely. No it isn't, they're deployed and retractied in the same action the gun is fired.
People keep saying the sytem does not say you can't shoot in melee but it never says you can. It also does not say you can't shoot something hugging your face with a boom gun. In other words the mecanics neither allow or disallow such actions but require a GM to say when a normal action can not be done. Logically there is no reason to allow a 9 foot tall robot to shoot some one with a gun that goes down to its knees when they are standing right next to it.
how about this one your basing your arguent off of nothing. Nowhere, does it state the length of the boomgun in text. All of the art is non-can

So until some one can find a quote that says you can shoot some one in melee range with a boom gun stop making unsupported statements that the mechanics say you can.
(There are many statements on books about the weakness of a GB is closing in on it supports a weakness. With nothing saying you can shoot the boom gun at targets in mellee range. Heck I do not think the rules say you can't shoot some one buttoned up inside a tank are you going to argue that you can.)

what IS melee range to you? You just stated that a polearm and greatsword are melee weapons a pike is about 12' long a greatsword 6' so the GB can't fire within 12' or does it depend on what weapon the person happens to be using?

Melee range is the range you can strike with melee weapons normally 3-6' some melee weapons may have greater reach. But in the case of the GB people are talking about close melee range inside the Boom guns reach. Simply the great sword and pole arm are just a straw man some one tried to use.

Do you have a quote that says a GB can be running and fire the pylons. Seams it would require both feet be contact with the ground.

The timing is the pylons deploy before the gun shoots even if it is in the same action it has to happen before the gun shoots to work. So if you tried hopping and shooting they would not work right.

For the record no martial art alloys you to kick and shoot a heavy weapon at the same time even if you are using ones from NS&S.
It is not mute even if you have more actions than the person they have a better chance defending against your kick and may not be nocked back so you can shoot. If it was not there last action they can still close on there action.

by the way replying inside a quote of me like you did is annoying and can be seen as you quoting me as saying something I did not. I almost missed the fact you did that.

Hey, those are my straw men and they weren't straw men they are melee weapons meaning it is melee range. But obviously a GB's BG can fire within those ranges. So stop using melee range as the excuse. What if the opponent closed to within 4 feet with a railgun? Not melee range is it? Just give the distance.

We'll use the same argument show me a quote that says it cant run, plant both feet and fire. I see it doing one of those stomping stops that they teach football players to do before they change direction. Heck run do a jet assisted leap and plant both feet shooting at the target you already designated while you were running. No that doesn't mean you just spent four actions. Game mechanics don't replicate the order things happen IRL.
RL
M1 Abrams
-commander: Target bearing 27
-gunner: Traversing, gun on target
-commander: Driver continue course flank target
-driver: on course maintaining speed
-tank: Vroooom
-commander: Load inert projectile. Gunner!?
-gunner: On target
-commander: fire, fire, fire
-tank: Bang
-target: Boom
Note: Sorry tankers I know it is way different but I'm trying to make the poin that you guys don't simply point and shoot and using a team rather than an individual just emphasizes all the little steps the individual has to do.

IG
M1 Abrams
Commander... What do we need one of those for... Loader, nobody is going to play that so there is only really gunner and driver if even.
Player 1: Lets take out that one first
Player 2: Okay I'll. Flank him (action taken)
GM: Rolls
Player 1: I fire (take action and roll)
GM: BLAH, BLAH, BLAH you hit.
Player 1:rolls damage
Player 2: Just driving sucks they need to gov the pilot some weapons or make this tank a one person tank.
Strange how target lock doesn't take an action or bringing the weapon to bear...bare... whatever.
IRL: acknowledge, acquire, lock, confirm, fire
IG: I shoot at...

No the pylons do not have to be engaged to fire, otherwise they wouldn't give what happens when they're not. A GB can jump and fire and get thrown back if the want.

No, no, no. It is moot. Forget the kick if the GB allows the melee attacker to plink away and use up all his actions. Even if he only has two left he doesn't have to kick he can simply step back and the opponent cant advance on him... Because movement requires actions, and then point blank whatever it is, if he has three actions left point blank called shot to the head.

Hmm... I can see how you can see that but that is your assumption. And isn't again any rules of the board. Sorry your easily annoyed. If anyone questions it they can look back at a previous version. If it realm annoys you quote it and put in my box that highlights in original text are mine.

Entire Tank analogy goes out the window:

Tank has a separate driver, gunner, and commander.

The driver can drive while the shooter shoots.

The GB has one dude.

edited:

No the pylons do not have to be engaged to fire, otherwise they wouldn't give what happens when they're not. A GB can jump and fire and get thrown back if the want.

Actually, it doesn't say that anywhere. It details what happens if the pylons aren't engaged because there are times when the pylons CANT engage (but will still try). They're automated. You pull the trigger on the BG, and they automatically attempt to fire. If you're not standing correctly, or are on a surface they cant penetrate, you go flying. But there's nothing anywhere that says you can just disable the pylons at a whim. A little computer hacking and computer programming would allow you to alter the program, maybe. Good luck on those rolls.

Even if he only has two left he doesn't have to kick he can simply step back and the opponent cant advance on him... Because movement requires actions, and then point blank whatever it is, if he has three actions left point blank called shot to the head.

If he uses his action to move (step back), he can't fire. Then the opponent goes, and closes back in. (since you assert that movement means you cant attack, because it requires actions). And even if he has the free actions, and he attempts to make a called shot to the head - that takes 2-3 actions (depending), and doesn't go off until the last action, meaning the opponent has 2-3 actions to step back in "under the gun".

There's a reason that both forces that deploy the GB in a serious fashion (Free Quebec and the NGR) have both "upgraded" their GBs to have close-combat weapons. (The Rom-u-something upgrade package for FQ-GBs and the included vibro-blade, mini-missiles and laser in the basic NGR model, in addition to it's hands being smaller so it can use hand-held rifles, which it carries standard). Because guys closing on you and getting in 'under your gun' is a serious issue.

[Alrik Vas]

As an aside, I played a long campaign of FFG's Only War (you play the Imperial Guard in 40k) and when we did vehicles we all had separate jobs like loader, gunner, driver ava commander. It was fun for the whole family because we all depended on each other.

I throw the argument out because of that alone.

[ShadowLogan]

Melee range is the range you can strike with melee weapons normally 3-6' some melee weapons may have greater reach. But in the case of the GB people are talking about close melee range inside the Boom guns reach. Simply the great sword and pole arm are just a straw man some one tried to use.

Well a Glitterboy could fire their BG w/n melee reach provided optimal positioning, like if the GB opponent is on their back and then took aim.

Alternatively the GB could also use the sonic boom as an indirect attack (assuming the melee attackers did not common prepared), which would be one potential way to use the BG in melee. The target(s) is now disorientated and takes penalties to initiative, dodge and parry. Plus if the pylons are off-line, they go flying out of melee range.

Do you have a quote that says a GB can be running and fire the pylons. Seams it would require both feet be contact with the ground.

Well if the automatic stabilization system is disabled/offline, for whatever reason, then yes a GB can theoretically fire. Text in RUE concerning underwater use mentions w/o stable support that the unit will go flying, so it would appear that it isn't just enough to have the pylons go off, but you also need to have stable ground for them to sink into. It also notes that it can take several attempts to sink into the hull of a ship (though FQ's Sky Hawk doesn't have any restriction), and HTH does provide for "Pylon Impalement" (pg73 RUE) at 1d6MD, so some level of "manual" control exists.

In the alternative, if the GB has been modified w/secondary weapons that don't require the pylons, then yes they could run and gun (I'd do it at penalty though).

For the record no martial art alloys you to kick and shoot a heavy weapon at the same time even if you are using ones from NS&S.

Paired Weapons Skill/Ability might allow for it though with GM flexibility in Rifts. The BG is one-handed after all by all indications, so by the rules would be applicable.

The big sticking point, and subject to POV, is if the kick attack qualifies as using a weapon (limb) and HTH skills qualify as a "WP" for the "weapon" in question.

A GM might also want to consider the type of kick, the speed of the kick, and the position of the enemies in addition to the above if they are going to allow it.

Incorrect per MiO the GB is perfectly capable of anchoring on the exterior of hulls. Shows me they don't have to fully deploy as then there would also be a note about hull breaches in space.

Free Quebec's Sky Hawk GB Transport (WB22 pg57-60) has two platform with pre-drilled holes (support 4GBs in total, plus a railing for support), and there is no way the platforms are 4.5ft thick. Now this might be a special case, but it does show 4.5ft of material (per diagram text in RMB pg222, not sure where people are getting 3ft/3') is not required.

to be completely honest one of the most LETHAL attacks a glitterboy might have against an opponent in melee (thinking human even with body armor) might not be the boom gun itself. It might be the pylons.

Here's my thought some stupid person comes running up to melee the glitter boy, said glitter boy punches kicks or otherwise attacks them with a flip or throw type attack intended to knock them down, then deliberately Steps on them before firing the boomgun at someone NOT in melee combat with the glitter boy, the anti sway pylon engages, drills a small hole in their chest (or whatever body part the foot is on, then rams an ~3-6 foot telescoping pole into the ground THROUGH the person the glitterboy is standing on. and if the first attempt doesn't cause a mortal wound reposition slightly and try again.

They don't even need to fire the boomgun, they can engage the pylon manually, per RUE (pg73), as an attack. But yes, that is likely one of those "common sense" implementations that should be used.

Though I could see others taking the GB pylon technology and producing it for melee combat in various roles. Why stop at just stomp/impalement? Why not go for punch, or bear hug, or "grab a hold".

[eliakon]

My thought here.
There is a reason that games involve GMs. So that someone can make rulings on stuff like "Does the store have watermelon bubblegum?" "How much does a puppy cost?" "How soon can they get me three tons of kitty litter?" "Can I shoot the crazy spray painting my chest with my boom gun?" "How many pizzas do the girls on the team eat? And how much does it cost me?"
You know... All the stuff that isn't spelled out in black and white in the books as being yes or no.

If everything was 'rule A on page B of Book C says D" then you wouldn't really need a GM, you would just be playing a complex co-op choose-your-own-adventure or maybe just writing a group fanfic.

That is my two cents on it.

[Zer0 Kay]

Can the GB fire on the move or kick and shoot in one action.dunnoh, is the pilot a regular GB pilot or is he from N&S with some sort of martial art that has a combo move?
Kicking some one back would be an attack so you can not kick them back and shoot them.
If the GB has more actions than whoever is attacking him doesn't matter if they happen at the same time kick one action, oh your opponent doesn't have one, shoot second action.
The GB needs to fire stabilizer pylons in the ground to shoot not some thing you can do on the move.
Actually it is. The GB can be running and as soon as the BG fires the pylons deploy and it'd come to a complete stop. The next action, within 3.5 seconds IF the GB only has two attacks even less if it has more
Use of a boom gun in melee is nothing like a greate sword or polearm in melee(both of wich are melee weapons. A great sword may be 5-6 feet long but all most the whole length of is capable of cutting. yes it is. If you are up against a person with a pole arm or greatsword close the gap. The polearm head can't reach you and the greatsword can't be swung enough to gain momentum. Traditionally the greatswords weren't as sharp as normal swords relying on their weight an narrow edge the essentially act as a mace focusing the strike into a narrow area to cause concussive damage as the heavy plate of the day didn't get cutSome pole arms are not effective at sword range. Niether the pole arm or great sword require the use of stabilizing pylongs.yeah i here the most effective use of the pike was to spin it around wrather than bracing yourself and jamming it again the inside of your boot and those greatsword weilder after they were dismounted used to do acrobatics and even spin two of them around like a blender. For a boom gun to shoot you you need to be infront of its barrel Giving the scale of the boom gun some one fighting with a sword or knife would be in to close to shoot them. With the recoil sysem hopping and shooting is unlikely. No it isn't, they're deployed and retractied in the same action the gun is fired.
People keep saying the sytem does not say you can't shoot in melee but it never says you can. It also does not say you can't shoot something hugging your face with a boom gun. In other words the mecanics neither allow or disallow such actions but require a GM to say when a normal action can not be done. Logically there is no reason to allow a 9 foot tall robot to shoot some one with a gun that goes down to its knees when they are standing right next to it.
how about this one your basing your arguent off of nothing. Nowhere, does it state the length of the boomgun in text. All of the art is non-can

So until some one can find a quote that says you can shoot some one in melee range with a boom gun stop making unsupported statements that the mechanics say you can.
(There are many statements on books about the weakness of a GB is closing in on it supports a weakness. With nothing saying you can shoot the boom gun at targets in mellee range. Heck I do not think the rules say you can't shoot some one buttoned up inside a tank are you going to argue that you can.)

what IS melee range to you? You just stated that a polearm and greatsword are melee weapons a pike is about 12' long a greatsword 6' so the GB can't fire within 12' or does it depend on what weapon the person happens to be using?

Melee range is the range you can strike with melee weapons normally 3-6' some melee weapons may have greater reach. But in the case of the GB people are talking about close melee range inside the Boom guns reach. Simply the great sword and pole arm are just a straw man some one tried to use.

Do you have a quote that says a GB can be running and fire the pylons. Seams it would require both feet be contact with the ground.

The timing is the pylons deploy before the gun shoots even if it is in the same action it has to happen before the gun shoots to work. So if you tried hopping and shooting they would not work right.

For the record no martial art alloys you to kick and shoot a heavy weapon at the same time even if you are using ones from NS&S.
It is not mute even if you have more actions than the person they have a better chance defending against your kick and may not be nocked back so you can shoot. If it was not there last action they can still close on there action.

by the way replying inside a quote of me like you did is annoying and can be seen as you quoting me as saying something I did not. I almost missed the fact you did that.

Hey, those are my straw men and they weren't straw men they are melee weapons meaning it is melee range. But obviously a GB's BG can fire within those ranges. So stop using melee range as the excuse. What if the opponent closed to within 4 feet with a railgun? Not melee range is it? Just give the distance.

We'll use the same argument show me a quote that says it cant run, plant both feet and fire. I see it doing one of those stomping stops that they teach football players to do before they change direction. Heck run do a jet assisted leap and plant both feet shooting at the target you already designated while you were running. No that doesn't mean you just spent four actions. Game mechanics don't replicate the order things happen IRL.
RL
M1 Abrams
-commander: Target bearing 27
-gunner: Traversing, gun on target
-commander: Driver continue course flank target
-driver: on course maintaining speed
-tank: Vroooom
-commander: Load inert projectile. Gunner!?
-gunner: On target
-commander: fire, fire, fire
-tank: Bang
-target: Boom
Note: Sorry tankers I know it is way different but I'm trying to make the poin that you guys don't simply point and shoot and using a team rather than an individual just emphasizes all the little steps the individual has to do.

IG
M1 Abrams
Commander... What do we need one of those for... Loader, nobody is going to play that so there is only really gunner and driver if even.
Player 1: Lets take out that one first
Player 2: Okay I'll. Flank him (action taken)
GM: Rolls
Player 1: I fire (take action and roll)
GM: BLAH, BLAH, BLAH you hit.
Player 1:rolls damage
Player 2: Just driving sucks they need to gov the pilot some weapons or make this tank a one person tank.
Strange how target lock doesn't take an action or bringing the weapon to bear...bare... whatever.
IRL: acknowledge, acquire, lock, confirm, fire
IG: I shoot at...

No the pylons do not have to be engaged to fire, otherwise they wouldn't give what happens when they're not. A GB can jump and fire and get thrown back if the want.

No, no, no. It is moot. Forget the kick if the GB allows the melee attacker to plink away and use up all his actions. Even if he only has two left he doesn't have to kick he can simply step back and the opponent cant advance on him... Because movement requires actions, and then point blank whatever it is, if he has three actions left point blank called shot to the head.

Hmm... I can see how you can see that but that is your assumption. And isn't again any rules of the board. Sorry your easily annoyed. If anyone questions it they can look back at a previous version. If it realm annoys you quote it and put in my box that highlights in original text are mine.

Entire Tank analogy goes out the window:

Tank has a separate driver, gunner, and commander.

The driver can drive while the shooter shoots.

The GB has one dude.

edited:

No the pylons do not have to be engaged to fire, otherwise they wouldn't give what happens when they're not. A GB can jump and fire and get thrown back if the want.

Actually, it doesn't say that anywhere. It details what happens if the pylons aren't engaged because there are times when the pylons CANT engage (but will still try). They're automated. You pull the trigger on the BG, and they automatically attempt to fire. If you're not standing correctly, or are on a surface they cant penetrate, you go flying. But there's nothing anywhere that says you can just disable the pylons at a whim. A little computer hacking and computer programming would allow you to alter the program, maybe. Good luck on those rolls.

Even if he only has two left he doesn't have to kick he can simply step back and the opponent cant advance on him... Because movement requires actions, and then point blank whatever it is, if he has three actions left point blank called shot to the head.

If he uses his action to move (step back), he can't fire. Then the opponent goes, and closes back in. (since you assert that movement means you cant attack, because it requires actions). And even if he has the free actions, and he attempts to make a called shot to the head - that takes 2-3 actions (depending), and doesn't go off until the last action, meaning the opponent has 2-3 actions to step back in "under the gun".

There's a reason that both forces that deploy the GB in a serious fashion (Free Quebec and the NGR) have both "upgraded" their GBs to have close-combat weapons. (The Rom-u-something upgrade package for FQ-GBs and the included vibro-blade, mini-missiles and laser in the basic NGR model, in addition to it's hands being smaller so it can use hand-held rifles, which it carries standard). Because guys closing on you and getting in 'under your gun' is a serious issue.

1. No the tank analogy is not because it is simply pulling out more detail of what an individual does themselves. The person still acquires, aims and fires at a target and many times after finding the target a player will either maneuver to get closer or get a better shot. All the tank analogy does is split all the jobs an individual in PA has to do on his own and yet shooting isn't four actions and e interrupted by moving and still only takes one action.

2. Uh... I didn't say the pylons needed to be disabled. I said the GB could Jump and shoot in the air. The pylons would still engage they just wouldn't anchor. Blue Lion essentially inferred that the pylons cant deploy while jumping. I think he thinks there is some sort of safety sensor that will not allow the BG to fire unless the anchor has possitive contact. Any sort of equipment like that in a military vehicle has a way to disable the safety feature, just incase it MUST be done.

3. Edit (oops forgot this one). Sorry you misunderstood. When I say has two left I mean when his opponent has used all his attacks. If his opponent has no attacks left and the GB has only two he can step back for free and shoot point blank. If he has four he can step back and make a point blank called shot to the head.

Real lesson if you manage to close on a GB and all he is doing is soaking your attacks, spend your last few finding cover cuz he probably planning on perforating your face.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Zer0 Kay just made the point I was going to make. Combat mechanics are abstract, just because someone closes to "melee range" doesn't mean both combatants are just standing there an arm's length apart and not moving. If the GB were a tank or some sort of less-mobile vehicle it would be one thing, but the length of the gun on a basically man-sized, highly mobile suit of power armor isn't really a factor in my mind.

Gee even an Abrams can go full speed backwards to bring its cannon to bear

An Abrams doesn't have to sink pylons 6 feet in the ground to fire though.

[Blue_Lion]

I was referring to them not working properly or them not preventing the going flying that is different from them not working at all. To use the Boom gun without going flying you would need to set before you shoot. Getting knocked around by your main gun while shooting wild is not much fun, and would have low chance of hitting.

Normally you can shoot and move(makes it a wild shot) or charge and strike with a sword or knife in melee range. The GB is special that its main weapon requires that the user sets up for the attack to avoid getting knocked around. Most GB pilots trained to do it the point where it is muscle memory to do it, he is typically going to do it at a almost at a subconscious level. He may be able to fire without it but he will not like it and Shooting and moving is a wild shot(More so when the movement is caused by firing the weapon) unless it is a vehicle mounted weapon. PA are classified as armor not vehicles and the GB is counted as PA despite its size.

To make matters worse a knock down causes you to loose your next attack even if you caused it by shooting your boom gun without proper recoil comp.

(Do not have Mutants in orbit or have any interest in that line so can't speak about what is in that book.)

The tank analogy in this case really is a waste of time, as it is not related to a GB and combat movement.

(As I was talking about melee range inside the sweep of the boom gun I can still use it, even though some weapons strike from further away in melee.)

We now have damage for use of the pylons as weapons and it is not the most dangerous attack a GB can do.

Note by default paired weapon does not allow the use of a gun and kick in the same attack it requires you to be holding two(or more) weapons and using both the in combat.

(My personal opinion would be the makers of GBs would install a safety sensor to detect that the pylons deployed correctly and that safety would need some sort of override when the GB pilots wishes to get knocked around. But that is not supported by RAW.)

[Zer0 Kay]

Zer0 Kay just made the point I was going to make. Combat mechanics are abstract, just because someone closes to "melee range" doesn't mean both combatants are just standing there an arm's length apart and not moving. If the GB were a tank or some sort of less-mobile vehicle it would be one thing, but the length of the gun on a basically man-sized, highly mobile suit of power armor isn't really a factor in my mind.

Gee even an Abrams can go full speed backwards to bring its cannon to bear

An Abrams doesn't have to sink pylons 6 feet in the ground to fire though.

No and my point wasn't about pylons it was an analogy of how RL events and even RP events don't coincide with game mechanic events.

RL move acquire, target and fire all at the same time
RP move, GM input, acquire, target, move? GM input, fire, GM input, move
Mechanic move action, move action?, attack, move action

In the attack action is when the pylons would be extended and retracted. They are automatic, the character would KNOW that is what happens but it wouldn't effect him any expecially if the character is trained which would include always planting your feet before firing it would be muscle memory unless your an untrained pilot and the character should automatically do it everytime. Of anything it should only require to be stated if the character does something... Out of character like I dunnoh jumping and firing causing his GB to be thrown back.

[Alrik Vas]

Forget melee a second. Gunslinger types have a ranged disarm. Mr. Cowboy with a Wilks laser pistol declares disarm and hits. GB sees laser firing at him and disregards the attack because chrome lolz.

Mechanically, what occurs? What is the result if you are the GM?

[Zer0 Kay]

I was referring to them not working properly or them not preventing the going flying that is different from them not working at all. To use the Boom gun without going flying you would need to set before you shoot. Getting knocked around by your main gun while shooting wild is not much fun, and would have low chance of hitting.

Normally you can shoot and move(makes it a wild shot) or charge and strike with a sword or knife in melee range. The GB is special that its main weapon requires that the user sets up for the attack to avoid getting knocked around. Most GB pilots trained to do it the point where it is muscle memory to do it, he is typically going to do it at a almost at a subconscious level. He may be able to fire without it but he will not like it and Shooting and moving is a wild shot(More so when the movement is caused by firing the weapon) unless it is a vehicle mounted weapon. PA are classified as armor not vehicles and the GB is counted as PA despite its size.

To make matters worse a knock down causes you to loose your next attack even if you caused it by shooting your boom gun without proper recoil comp.

(Do not have Mutants in orbit or have any interest in that line so can't speak about what is in that book.)

The tank analogy in this case really is a waste of time, as it is not related to a GB and combat movement.

(As I was talking about melee range inside the sweep of the boom gun I can still use it, even though some weapons strike from further away in melee.)

We now have damage for use of the pylons as weapons and it is not the most dangerous attack a GB can do.

Note by default paired weapon does not allow the use of a gun and kick in the same attack it requires you to be holding two(or more) weapons and using both the in combat.

(My personal opinion would be the makers of GBs would install a safety sensor to detect that the pylons deployed correctly and that safety would need some sort of override when the GB pilots wishes to get knocked around. But that is not supported by RAW.)

1. Uh, k. But saying that it cant shoot without them being engaged is incorrect no where does it state that and in fact states what happens when the pylons don't work properly showing that it can be done. It isn't shooting wild, unless your talking about firing while jumping. Failure to deploy wouldn't effect aiming at all... For the first shot.

The tank, car with a dude shooting out the window, seige tower with a dude with a crossbow on top or a motorcycle with a guy with a gun. Doesn't matter which one I use or how many are in it. Point is RP is between RL and mechanics and RP and mechanics clash.
RL a trained combatant can move find his target take aim, while still moving (not running) and then choose to fire and regularly hit.
RP a trained combatant PC is narrated as assuming the weaver stance and advance. The GM tells him he sees someone. The PC says he aims at the target and approaches and when he has decided that it is an enemy he fires.
RAW take an action an move if it gets you close enough shoot, oh but it isn't aimed and is instead a wild shot, if not close enough spend another action.

RP tries to imitate RL but gets kicked in the gonads by RAW. RAW flips RL the bird behind RL's back because RL can burn RAW and all RAW can do to RL besides frustrating it is maybe give it a paper cut.

[Zer0 Kay]

Forget melee a second. Gunslinger types have a ranged disarm. Mr. Cowboy with a Wilks laser pistol declares disarm and hits. GB sees laser firing at him and disregards the attack because chrome lolz.

Mechanically, what occurs? What is the result if you are the GM?

Lol

Only one problem. You can't see a laser coming. If you SEE the laser it is already there... Unless you mean the GB see the weapon and recognizes it as a laser so ignores it.

Heck if I was in a GB and believed all the hype I'd ignore any incoming attack from a man portable weapon. Chances are you shoot me I get scratched. I'll shoot too so you get dead.

I'd assume the gunslinger dissarm is like in the movies where your gun is shot out of your hand. Well those scenes usuall also include the disarmed holding his hand in pain. It was the pain that caused the release of the weapon. To disarm something that doesn't feel pain it would have to be hard enough to beat the PS of the target which is another mechanic that would have to be made up. The same should essentially go for any disarm a person should be able to resist a disarm attempt and a lack of pain should factor in GREATLY, PS should too but to a lesser extent. That being said with the gun trick a physical round should be required IF the target cant feel pain. A laser may heat up the hand or weapon but unless the hand can feel pain or it is destroyed it is more like that the gun will be damaged. Same for PBs, Plasma and Ion. More likely the weapon or hand will be destroyed than the weapon will just be flung out of or dropped from the hand, if there are no pain receptors.

[ShadowLogan]

@Alrik Vas
Mechanically (IMHO) defence trumps offence (as ties go to the defender), so the GB's chrome neutralizes the wilk's laser's ability to disarm since you can't be "1/2 disarmed".

We now have damage for use of the pylons as weapons and it is not the most dangerous attack a GB can do.

That depends on how you play it out though. The way the system is described to work makes it deadly when you carry things through, while the over all damage may not be much, it just drilled a 4.5ft deep hole and put a telescoping metal rod into it. If we just stick to the crunchie bit, nothing to worry about true, but if we extrapolate out to everything that was damaged to make that 4.5ft shaft it can be positively lethal.

I'm reminded of several bits of text:
-RMB pg36 for the "S.D.C. Table (Basic)" that reads as such: "Game masters should exercise common sense in applying these values. For example, a normal human cannot break through a vault door with bare fits, no matter how many times natural twenties are rolled."
-RMB pg10 with the [b]"A NOTE TO THE GAME MASTER" I think also applies and is KS's response to a complaint about the system and how door can be in perfect condition until all its SDC is depleted, his answer was that it wasn't and gives several examples one of which is: "Your sub-machinegun riddles the wood door with a dozen holes (something the player can look through), but the door is still locked and holding strong."

This to me reads that while the Pylon doesn't do much damage in the mechanic sense, in an operational sense the pylon is absolutely devestating under the proper circumstances. Consider the side effects from a A GB's pylon drill deploying:
-ontop of the chest cavity of a EBA clad solider. Even if the EBA only takes 1d6 damage it will have two holes in it and one going through the person inside even if the suit was at 100% when the drill deployed
-on top of a robot limb, you could see system damage from the laser drilling a 4.5ft deep shaft into it damaging other devices/components
-into the engine block of a vehicle, there is a good chance the laser drill will hit something and possibly destroy component(s) unless the pilot is being careful not to
-into the body of a Dragon (or dinosaur, or a host of other creatures), the creature will likely experience pain, and depending on the location you might end up "staking" a vital organ (heart or brain). It will also have to deal with cauterization side effects (RUE's discussion on MD energy weapons on SDC bodies), though the telescoping pylon might cause additional injuries causing blood loss.

Note by default paired weapon does not allow the use of a gun and kick in the same attack it requires you to be holding two(or more) weapons and using both the in combat.

I agree, that is why I said a flexible GM and subject to some POV. I do think though that Hand Strikes are probably more applicable than a kick.

There might be another way to pull it off, but it requires stacking abilities and POV interpretation on: Drop Kick ability (WB8pg191) "This is the combination of falling to the ground, a dodge and a kick", combined with the Trick Shooting Option (#5) that allows you to "Dodge, roll or somersault and come up shooting (normally a wild shot)" (WB14pg81). Basically the GB would have to execute a Drop Kick and come up shooting. IINM a Glitterboy pilot can have these abilities.

[Alrik Vas]

Can't be one half disarmed...I like that

[Blue_Lion]

@Alrik Vas
Mechanically (IMHO) defence trumps offence (as ties go to the defender), so the GB's chrome neutralizes the wilk's laser's ability to disarm since you can't be "1/2 disarmed".

We now have damage for use of the pylons as weapons and it is not the most dangerous attack a GB can do.

That depends on how you play it out though. The way the system is described to work makes it deadly when you carry things through, while the over all damage may not be much, it just drilled a 4.5ft deep hole and put a telescoping metal rod into it. If we just stick to the crunchie bit, nothing to worry about true, but if we extrapolate out to everything that was damaged to make that 4.5ft shaft it can be positively lethal.

I'm reminded of several bits of text:
-RMB pg36 for the "S.D.C. Table (Basic)" that reads as such: "Game masters should exercise common sense in applying these values. For example, a normal human cannot break through a vault door with bare fits, no matter how many times natural twenties are rolled."
-RMB pg10 with the [b]"A NOTE TO THE GAME MASTER" I think also applies and is KS's response to a complaint about the system and how door can be in perfect condition until all its SDC is depleted, his answer was that it wasn't and gives several examples one of which is: "Your sub-machinegun riddles the wood door with a dozen holes (something the player can look through), but the door is still locked and holding strong."

This to me reads that while the Pylon doesn't do much damage in the mechanic sense, in an operational sense the pylon is absolutely devestating under the proper circumstances. Consider the side effects from a A GB's pylon drill deploying:
-ontop of the chest cavity of a EBA clad solider. Even if the EBA only takes 1d6 damage it will have two holes in it and one going through the person inside even if the suit was at 100% when the drill deployed
-on top of a robot limb, you could see system damage from the laser drilling a 4.5ft deep shaft into it damaging other devices/components
-into the engine block of a vehicle, there is a good chance the laser drill will hit something and possibly destroy component(s) unless the pilot is being careful not to
-into the body of a Dragon (or dinosaur, or a host of other creatures), the creature will likely experience pain, and depending on the location you might end up "staking" a vital organ (heart or brain). It will also have to deal with cauterization side effects (RUE's discussion on MD energy weapons on SDC bodies), though the telescoping pylon might cause additional injuries causing blood loss.

Note by default paired weapon does not allow the use of a gun and kick in the same attack it requires you to be holding two(or more) weapons and using both the in combat.

I agree, that is why I said a flexible GM and subject to some POV. I do think though that Hand Strikes are probably more applicable than a kick.

There might be another way to pull it off, but it requires stacking abilities and POV interpretation on: Drop Kick ability (WB8pg191) "This is the combination of falling to the ground, a dodge and a kick", combined with the Trick Shooting Option (#5) that allows you to "Dodge, roll or somersault and come up shooting (normally a wild shot)" (WB14pg81). Basically the GB would have to execute a Drop Kick and come up shooting. IINM a Glitterboy pilot can have these abilities.

The way the pylon works is it deals 1d6MD to drill through an object(the ground being sdc means it works good on that, but if the object has more MDC than it can drill through it will not drill a whole through them. (any description about it drilling through the ground was most likely referring to the SDC ground) when used as a weapon pylon impalement does 1d6MD page 73 RUE. In other words your statement that it just drills through and does not do normal damage is incorrect as the attempt to drill through does 1d6MD. Making it a rather weak MD attack for the GB.
The proper circumstances are use on a the ground SDC then it then it is devastating but against MD surfaces it would need to create more damage than the surface can handle to pierce it so by RAW use of the pylons as a weapon is weak way to attack.

Nice work on incorrect use of the use common sense rules. Common sense is it can not drill a 3 inch hole in a person and body armor if it did not destroy the armor. The armor may have visible damage but not a hole in both sides. The reason is all piercing(rail guns) and laser weapons are attempting to drill a hole through an object and if it an attempt to drill a hole through MD armor put a hole in both side of the armor the armor even if it did not destroy the armor then the armor would not protect against any ranged attack. To harm a person in armor you must first destroy the armor is the common sense in this case.

(Are you really trying to get me to argue against a possible GM ruling instead of RAW?)

[Shark_Force]

can't be 1/2 disarmed?

there are those who might disagree

that individual has *clearly* been 1/2 disarmed. your move!

[wyrmraker]

As for disarming the boom gun of a Glitter Boy (and I am only referring to the USA-G10 in this example), various groups of mine have made several attempts over the years. The usual method was for a called shot to the shoulder mount where the boom gun is attached. We usually called that to be a value of 50 MDC, and called for a Called Shot at -4 due to how difficult the shot would be.

A second method used was to target the actual aiming handle on the boom gun itself, which we called 15 MDC, and a called shot at -6 for the extremely small target.

A third method was aiming for the ammunition belt, but I allowed for 2D6 rounds to be remaining in the pre-load chamber.

The fourth method was to destroy the aiming hand on the Glitter Boy itself. No hand, no aiming.

Lastly (and not for a disarm) I have personally annoyed GMs to no end by using paint grenades to cover the head of Glitter Boys, causing them to have to fight blind.

Just a few examples of how I've seen it managed over the years, due to the description in the artwork and the write-up on the Glitter Boy itself.

[ShadowLogan]

can't be 1/2 disarmed?

there are those who might disagree

that individual has *clearly* been 1/2 disarmed. your move!

Well there are two types of "disarmed" though:
-lose your weapon without losing a limb (game mechanically that was the example), which is temporary and the one being discussed.
-lose your part of your limb, which is likely permanent (unless you count implants or have a higher level of regeneration)

Nice work on incorrect use of the use common sense rules. Common sense is it can not drill a 3 inch hole in a person and body armor if it did not destroy the armor. The armor may have visible damage but not a hole in both sides. The reason is all piercing(rail guns) and laser weapons are attempting to drill a hole through an object and if it an attempt to drill a hole through MD armor put a hole in both side of the armor the armor even if it did not destroy the armor then the armor would not protect against any ranged attack. To harm a person in armor you must first destroy the armor is the common sense in this case.

No Common sense is that the drill will create the 4.5ft shaft, which common sense would have it going through the body armor and individual inside just like if the character jumped on a grenade (which is another example, RCB1r pg20), it doesn't matter what the MD of the grenade result is vs the MDC of the armor: the guy/gal is dead by common sense. So common sense would also apply to having a 4.5ft deep shaft drilled into an EBA clad person.

We know the armor doesn't have to be destroyed since the GB can use the pylons to plant them self on the deck/hull of a ship (RUE, MiO), a the deck/hull of a ship is going to be far thicker than EBA. It is also worth noting that there are bleed through damages from actions, even if they don't deplete the EBA's MDC. And RUE does state (pg355): "Mega-Damage Capacity (M.D.C.) works the same as S.D.C. only it represents a level of technology so advanced that M.D.C materials are better", later on the same page it notes "and body armor is so battered and full of holes that it is only effective against S.D.C. weapon." when it discuses the state of MDC EBA that is depleted, so it is clear that MDC damage still creates holes and other battered looks as it is depleted, just like an SDC door examples mentioned previously.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

No Common sense is that the drill will create the 4.5ft shaft, which common sense would have it going through the body armor and individual inside just like if the character jumped on a grenade (which is another example, RCB1r pg20),

Except this is an SDC example and the guy isn't armored. Common sense is that the drill tries to create a shaft by inflicing 1d6MD, and if that isn't enough to penetrate, it fails. There's a reason that the Free Quebec Glitter Boy Transport has specific holes set up for GB's to anchor to.

it doesn't matter what the MD of the grenade result is vs the MDC of the armor: the guy/gal is dead by common sense.

Nope, not how MDC armor works, actually. It's quite literally NEVER presented that way. Otherwise, getting hit at close range with a Mini-missile (which inflicts a lot more damage than most grenades) would instagib you too. Or getting hit with a rail gun blast at close range. The kinetic transfer would liquify the guy inside the armor. But in Rifts Physics, it doesn't. In fact, you dont even have to have rigid armor. It seems that a common property of MDC armor of any kind (even non-rigid clothing) is to GREATLY dissipate kinetic transfer so as to be almost 100% survivable 100% of the time.

So common sense would also apply to having a 4.5ft deep shaft drilled into an EBA clad person.

Except that that is not how MDC body armor, power armor, or armored vehicles smaller than large ships (space or water-going) and buildings/fortifications are handled in Rifts.. ever. You cant penetrate MDC body armor until you fully deplete the MDC, otherwise, the first time you got shot, your EBA would be worthless and no one would bother making EBA. You dont penetrate the armor unless you reduce the armor to zero. That's a pretty solid concept throughout Rifts.

We know the armor doesn't have to be destroyed since the GB can use the pylons to plant them self on the deck/hull of a ship (RUE, MiO), a the deck/hull of a ship is going to be far thicker than EBA.

But not necessarily stronger in aggregate. It might have more MDC and be thicker, but any given section of Starship hull has less MDC than a suit of medium-weight body armor. So, yeah, it's MDC material, but it isn't nearly as strong as the highly advanced composites used in Body Armor. If you tried to coat a ship in that higher-grade armor, it would be so heavy/massive it couldn't move.

Additionally, the reason we can see GB's use pylons on ship hulls/etc, is because there are specific, separate rules regarding ship hulls and large fortifications being breachable without depleting the "main body" of the ship/fortification that do not apply to anything else. That's why you can inflict 100 MDC to a 10x10 section of starship hull in Phase World and cause a breach, but you DONT deduct that damage from the total MDC of the main body of the ship. It's handled completely differently.

It is also worth noting that there are bleed through damages from actions, even if they don't deplete the EBA's MDC. And RUE does state (pg355): "Mega-Damage Capacity (M.D.C.) works the same as S.D.C. only it represents a level of technology so advanced that M.D.C materials are better", later on the same page it notes "and body armor is so battered and full of holes that it is only effective against S.D.C. weapon." when it discuses the state of MDC EBA that is depleted, so it is clear that MDC damage still creates holes and other battered looks as it is depleted, just like an SDC door examples mentioned previously.

No, it is clear that when FULLY DEPLETED, MDC EBA has holes in it, and only protects against SDC weapons.

Not until it is fully depleted, though. EBA with even 1MDC is still airtight.

Your SDC door example also fails because that is a door - not armor. SDC armor is treated exactly the same as MDC armor. You dont shoot holes in it, until it is depleted (its not like the AR of SDC armor gets reduced as it takes damage). Structures != Armor.

[Blue_Lion]

Correct.
Also all laser weapons try to produce holes in thins so if the laser drill on pylons went through armor then all lasers would.

Common sense is to put a hole in something you need the force to penetrate it. As pointed out armor is in rifts requires it to be completely depleted to be pentatraited/have a hole in it other wise anything that is suppose to make holes would put a hole in it. It may have signs of damage but would not be fully breached by an attack that lacks the power to destroy it.

Ruling needs to be consistent that means it is either-
1 if the pylons laser drill can make holes clean through armor without depleting the MDC then anything made to put holes in armor puts holes clean through armor even if the armor is does not deplete the MDC-that includes all lasers weapons, rail guns, sdc guns and stabing blades.
2 armor can only gets a hole through it when the MDC is reduced to 0.

PB clearly states it is 2 other wise armor would be useless.

Modern body armor is designed to protect against piercing attacks by not allowing them to breach or make a hole through it and spreading out kinetic force of the attack, guns are piercing attacks. Expulsive attacks at close range kill by crushing with a high pressure wave, the force is already spread out so the armor offers no protection against such attacks. So an attack from a drill works more like a bullet than explosive making it what he armor is made to protect against.

[Damian Magecraft]

Correct.
Also all laser weapons try to produce holes in thins so if the laser drill on pylons went through armor then all lasers would.

Common sense is to put a hole in something you need the force to penetrate it. As pointed out armor is in rifts requires it to be completely depleted to be pentatraited/have a hole in it other wise anything that is suppose to make holes would put a hole in it. It may have signs of damage but would not be fully breached by an attack that lacks the power to destroy it.

Ruling needs to be consistent that means it is either-
1 if the pylons laser drill can make holes clean through armor without depleting the MDC then anything made to put holes in armor puts holes clean through armor even if the armor is does not deplete the MDC-that includes all lasers weapons, rail guns, sdc guns and stabing blades.
2 armor can only gets a hole through it when the MDC is reduced to 0.

PB clearly states it is 2 other wise armor would be useless.

How does that reconcile with MiO stating that the pylons can penetrate hull armor that is clearly listed as MDC Armor?

[Blue_Lion]

Correct.
Also all laser weapons try to produce holes in thins so if the laser drill on pylons went through armor then all lasers would.

Common sense is to put a hole in something you need the force to penetrate it. As pointed out armor is in rifts requires it to be completely depleted to be pentatraited/have a hole in it other wise anything that is suppose to make holes would put a hole in it. It may have signs of damage but would not be fully breached by an attack that lacks the power to destroy it.

Ruling needs to be consistent that means it is either-
1 if the pylons laser drill can make holes clean through armor without depleting the MDC then anything made to put holes in armor puts holes clean through armor even if the armor is does not deplete the MDC-that includes all lasers weapons, rail guns, sdc guns and stabing blades.
2 armor can only gets a hole through it when the MDC is reduced to 0.

PB clearly states it is 2 other wise armor would be useless.

How does that reconcile with MiO stating that the pylons can penetrate hull armor that is clearly listed as MDC Armor?

That was covered by the person above me. when Colonel Tetsuya said,-

"But not necessarily stronger in aggregate. It might have more MDC and be thicker, but any given section of Starship hull has less MDC than a suit of medium-weight body armor. So, yeah, it's MDC material, but it isn't nearly as strong as the highly advanced composites used in Body Armor. If you tried to coat a ship in that higher-grade armor, it would be so heavy/massive it couldn't move.

Additionally, the reason we can see GB's use pylons on ship hulls/etc, is because there are specific, separate rules regarding ship hulls and large fortifications being breachable without depleting the "main body" of the ship/fortification that do not apply to anything else. That's why you can inflict 100 MDC to a 10x10 section of starship hull in Phase World and cause a breach, but you DONT deduct that damage from the total MDC of the main body of the ship. It's handled completely differently."

I said I earlier I do not have mutants in orbit so will not make comments on it or its contents as I can not check the accuracy of information presented. So I will only quote the person above me, because it appears you did not bother to read his or my earlier post.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Ill have to get to it later, but i can find the hull-breaching rules, im sure. I just read them not too long ago, in a Phase World book (might have been Fleets, or the PW Sourcebook?). Doing housework atm, ill have to get to it later

[Blue_Lion]

Might be worth doing research for when the Pylons got damage assigned to them and when Mutants in orbit came out. If the damage was assigned latter combined with the change of how MDC works it might represent a change in rules not reflected in the other game line.
Lets see GB 10 appears in Rifts RPG, notes in conversion book 1, NGR traix, one of the south Americas, japan, FQ and rue. Will look through those when I get a chance to see if I can find when the damage was added.

Went through the books up to FQ could not find any reference to pylon doing damage. So at the time Of MiO the GB may have just atomically deployed the pylons through anything but current rules changed that. So I think it is safe to say reference to them attaching the ships in mutant in orbit do not reflect current rules.
If mutant in orbits conflicts with current rules(as it appears to) then it is outdated rule in another setting and not relevant to RAW in rifts.

[ShadowLogan]

Nope, not how MDC armor works, actually. It's quite literally NEVER presented that way. Otherwise, getting hit at close range with a Mini-missile (which inflicts a lot more damage than most grenades) would instagib you too. Or getting hit with a rail gun blast at close range. The kinetic transfer would liquify the guy inside the armor. But in Rifts Physics, it doesn't. In fact, you dont even have to have rigid armor. It seems that a common property of MDC armor of any kind (even non-rigid clothing) is to GREATLY dissipate kinetic transfer so as to be almost 100% survivable 100% of the time.

The explosion from a missile though is not quite the same as the example: the target is not trying to contain the explosion with their body. That is a big difference between just getting struck by the missile and leaping on a grenade.

I would also point out that there are rules for bleed through from explosions for MD EBA BA (RMB pg12 more lethal rules compared to RUE pg356)

Also all laser weapons try to produce holes in thins so if the laser drill on pylons went through armor then all lasers would.

Yes they would, and the way MDC works is just like SDC. When you inflict damage of any amount, there is going to be a change in the material (holes, dents, etc). Damage is not supposed to be like in a video game where aside from the readout everything looks fine even when you are basically redlining. We know this because at roughly 10-20% of original MDC (they state 15MDC) environmental systems begin to fail (RUE pg355, IINM its in RMB-era to somewhere though off hand I'm not sure where specifically).

We also can't be sure of the scenario for the Pylon Impaling mentioned in RUE. It might or might not be the scenario we are discussing where an opponent is already trapped under the foot.

We are also assuming that the EBA is at full health (and it doesn't have to be), we are also assuming that the pylon is deployed into the main body and not a weaker section (by common sense if the GB's foot is over say the arm, then the laser drill will attack the arm and not the main body).

Common sense is to put a hole in something you need the force to penetrate it. As pointed out armor is in rifts requires it to be completely depleted to be pentatraited/have a hole in it other wise anything that is suppose to make holes would put a hole in it. It may have signs of damage but would not be fully breached by an attack that lacks the power to destroy it.

And the laser has put a hole into it otherwise there wouldn't be any damage from it.

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.

[Blue_Lion]

Wow completely wrong shadow logan. just inflicting damage does not create a hole clean through. There will be structural damage but not a hole clean through. you get dents (holes part the way through) melted sections but not hole through one side let alone both sides. Any attack that puts a hole clean through one side of armor will inflict damage on the person that is in the armor. So by default no attack can put a hole clean through armor that has any DC left.

Rules from the RMB are no longer valid if the conflict with the rules in RUE.

THE GI JOE rule says that as long as the armor has 1 MD left it can stop any MD attack from hurting the person in the armor. So yes it does apply.

Here is a video showing that although body armor took damage it did not get a hole all the way through the body armor. towards the end of the video they cut open the body armor and look at how are the rounds penetrated it. You can see signs of damage from rounds that did not fully breach the armor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p13q4LY0_rQ

Lets say every layer of armor they peal away represents X sdc. The layers not breached are the remaining SDC, when all sdc is reduced the attacks can go through the last layer and hit the person. It is at the point of 0DC that there is no protective layer left.

Here is all the damage you can do, stomp 1 action 1d6MD use of the pylons as a weapon 1 action 1d6MD(so two actions to do both), so no it is not a death blow your logic is fundamentally flawed as Appling that logic a crossed the board means any one hit by any MD weapon that does MD and makes holes would die regardless of armor.

I realise it is your opinion but by RAW it is completely wrong.

[HWalsh]

If we want to get technical...

The laser drill would fire, be unable to penetrate fully and then the pylon would withdraw. This would be necessary as a safety feature or the pylon would damage itself and the glitterboy the first time it attempted to deploy on a substance it couldn't penetrate.

Otherwise the pylon would result in risking tripping the GB when it forced full extension without a shaft to offset the height.

The poster is applying the idea of a door but that assumes that the damage is significant enough to make a hole.on most armor 1-6 pts of damage is a gouge at best.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Nope, not how MDC armor works, actually. It's quite literally NEVER presented that way. Otherwise, getting hit at close range with a Mini-missile (which inflicts a lot more damage than most grenades) would instagib you too. Or getting hit with a rail gun blast at close range. The kinetic transfer would liquify the guy inside the armor. But in Rifts Physics, it doesn't. In fact, you dont even have to have rigid armor. It seems that a common property of MDC armor of any kind (even non-rigid clothing) is to GREATLY dissipate kinetic transfer so as to be almost 100% survivable 100% of the time.

The explosion from a missile though is not quite the same as the example: the target is not trying to contain the explosion with their body. That is a big difference between just getting struck by the missile and leaping on a grenade.

And, again, the guy in the example is not armored.

I would also point out that there are rules for bleed through from explosions for MD EBA BA (RMB pg12 more lethal rules compared to RUE pg356)

Which has literally nothing to do with this argument, as that is about being battered about so much that you still take some damage - not "some of the shot breached your armor and hurt you".

Also all laser weapons try to produce holes in thins so if the laser drill on pylons went through armor then all lasers would.

Yes they would,

Except, they dont. If i walk up to you, place the barrel of my Wilks 457 against your armor, and pull the trigger, your armor takes 3d6+2 MD and there is no hole bored through you and your armor

and the way MDC works is just like SDC. When you inflict damage of any amount, there is going to be a change in the material (holes, dents, etc). Damage is not supposed to be like in a video game where aside from the readout everything looks fine even when you are basically redlining. We know this because at roughly 10-20% of original MDC (they state 15MDC) environmental systems begin to fail (RUE pg355, IINM its in RMB-era to somewhere though off hand I'm not sure where specifically).

What you're confusing is the way that damage affects different things. Damage affects buildings, structures, and extremely large vehicles (that are basically structures) differently than it affects body armor, power armor, borgs, tanks, robots, jets, et al.

If you shoot a door, you "shoot holes in the door" that you can look through (according to the example), but because the door is still largely intact (stil has SDC/MDC), its still an effective barrier. This is explicitly NOT how body armor works. When you shoot a guy in body armor (SDC -or- MDC) you dont riddle his body armor (and therefore his body) with holes you can look through. Or he'd be dead and armor would be 100% grade-A useless. It doesn't change the effect of his armor (except a line about possibly finally losing EBA integrity when very low - that doesn't mechanically affect much since a lot of characters dont wear EBA anyway) - SDC armor doesn't lose AR as it loses SDC, for instance. You're not "shooting holes in it" and 'blowing chunks off'. That's your head-canon and explicitly NOT how the rules work.

We also can't be sure of the scenario for the Pylon Impaling mentioned in RUE. It might or might not be the scenario we are discussing where an opponent is already trapped under the foot.

We are also assuming that the EBA is at full health (and it doesn't have to be), we are also assuming that the pylon is deployed into the main body and not a weaker section (by common sense if the GB's foot is over say the arm, then the laser drill will attack the arm and not the main body).

Whoa whoa whoa.... bring those goalposts back here. End of the day - the pylon inflicts 1d6MD. If it cant breach the armor, it cant punch a hole through it. That's how armor works. Structures (the ground, a wall, ship hull, door, gate) are, and always have been, handled differently. Welcome to Palladium Physics. The Pylon cant be used to cheap-shot kill anyone unless their armor is absurdly low on MDC. End of story.

Common sense is to put a hole in something you need the force to penetrate it. As pointed out armor is in rifts requires it to be completely depleted to be pentatraited/have a hole in it other wise anything that is suppose to make holes would put a hole in it. It may have signs of damage but would not be fully breached by an attack that lacks the power to destroy it.

And the laser has put a hole into it otherwise there wouldn't be any damage from it.

Uh.. no, the laser has damaged it, just like any other laser that hits the armor but does not destroy it. Damage != "put a hole through".

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.

The GI Joe rule would only apply if the pylon did the last bit of MDC the armor had remaining.

The attack is completely different from a deathblow. Its useless on anyone with an average of 3MDC remaining on their armor, for one thing... or an MDC or supernatural creature. How about a were-creature?

If we want to get technical...

The laser drill would fire, be unable to penetrate fully and then the pylon would withdraw. This would be necessary as a safety feature or the pylon would damage itself and the glitterboy the first time it attempted to deploy on a substance it couldn't penetrate.

Otherwise the pylon would result in risking tripping the GB when it forced full extension without a shaft to offset the height.

The poster is applying the idea of a door but that assumes that the damage is significant enough to make a hole.on most armor 1-6 pts of damage is a gouge at best.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

[HWalsh]

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

Woo hoo! I am the winner! Do I get a prize?

Seriously though, this is just common sense.

My Cyber-Knight, Adam the Quick, wears a suit of Heavy Environmental Armor called Plate and Banded Mail

The main body MDC of this armor is 90 MDC. If you tried to Pylon the main armor, you would do an average of 3-4 MDC. 4 MDC is only between 4-5% of the armor's total capacity. That wouldn't put a hole even if the theory was true. If we assume that the armor is 1/2 inch thick that is only 0.15 of an inch worth of penetration. That is a scratch at best.

Now, you might argue, that the 90 MDC being depleted would mean all of the armor is gone... BUT... We know that isn't how it works. In Siege on Tolkeen: Book 4: Cyber-Knights there is a fiction insert which describes a Cyber-Knight destroying a Glitterboy Killer and a group of CS troops. His armor is depicted as fine until a blast burns a soccer ball sized hole in it, and the Cyber-Knight survives by the grace of his Cyber Armor. The Cyber-Knight then tells Erin's apprentice to help him remove his armor because it is useless.

So, for armor, by the canon, it remains fully intact, with no holes, until the point that it actually fails.

[Alrik Vas]

Ok. So this point of argument more or less settled, how can we then address the main point?

[HWalsh]

Ok. So this point of argument more or less settled, how can we then address the main point?

Sorry.

As far as disarm goes... I doubt it. Every depiction of the GB shows the weapon on a swivel-type mount. Since it doesn't take a GB an action to ready it disarming would do little good.

Palladium is, after all, one of the few systems that advocates common sense over RAW.

Entangling it though... I could see it. If you were strong enough you could, theoretically, grab the Boom Gun and stop it from getting into fire position. That could be very effective.

That could be a nightmare scenario for a Glitterboy.

Part of a great way for the CS to deal with them. Send a group of Skeletons at full tilt to entangle the GB pin the boom gun then slice it apart.

[ShadowLogan]

just inflicting damage does not create a hole clean through. There will be structural damage but not a hole clean through. you get dents (holes part the way through) melted sections but not hole through one side let alone both sides. Any attack that puts a hole clean through one side of armor will inflict damage on the person that is in the armor. So by default no attack can put a hole clean through armor that has any DC left.

I am not saying damage inflicted has to create a clean hole every time (I am assuming when we mean clean hole we mean an entrance and exit, where a regular hole doesn't have an exit), regardless of the source (be it laser drill, projectile, etc). I am saying that the laser drill because of its nature will however given that it can drill 4.5ft as part of one melee action (though it can take as much as 5 depending on the material). Off hand I don't recall seeing anything when it comes to penetration depth for various actual weapons so if they are fired into the ground: how deep a shaft will it create in one action (or up to 5 actions)?

The text for the pylon operation doesn't indicate that the pylons will stop before reaching maximum depth for any reason. They do mention it might take a few tries when sinking into the hull of ship but it still happens, it creates two holes in the hull without depleting the MDC of the hull or even a section (I looked at WB7 Underseas, both the Tico and NGR carrier are the only ones I saw with per area of hull of 40ft^2: 80-90 MDC. Per description in RUE it does 1d4MD and takes 1d4+1 tries, so there is no way that a GB pylon can even deplete the section of hull in 2-5 tries since you don't get to roll for strike, so no criticals). That sets precedent for creating a deep hole without requiring to deplete the entire MDC of the object.

MD energy/solid projectiles in RUE pg358: "Note that most blasts and beams stop upon hitting their target, and if a beam goes all the way through an S.D.C. structure it stops upon hitting whatever is behind the first target. The same is true of M.D. projectiles such as rail gun rounds.". Mechanically then that indicates why the attacks stop and don't keep going and probably don't create as deep a "hole" as a drill.

Rules from the RMB are no longer valid if the conflict with the rules in RUE.

I agree with this, however it is worth noting for two reasons: 1. Historical context (its been around for a while in some form) and 2. Not everyone may use/have access to RUE.

THE GI JOE rule says that as long as the armor has 1 MD left it can stop any MD attack from hurting the person in the armor. So yes it does apply.

I agree that is what it says, but as the pylon impalement is a multi-step process and a multi-step process is not something the rule itself addresses. Nor is it considering a highly localized event like the Pylon Impalement, and is geared more toward general attacks. So there are certainly reasons to avoid using the rule in this situation, but it is still has to be considered.

Whoa whoa whoa.... bring those goalposts back here. End of the day - the pylon inflicts 1d6MD. If it cant breach the armor, it cant punch a hole through it. That's how armor works. Structures (the ground, a wall, ship hull, door, gate) are, and always have been, handled differently. Welcome to Palladium Physics. The Pylon cant be used to cheap-shot kill anyone unless their armor is absurdly low on MDC. End of story.

I am not moving the goalpost. What I am doing is identifying various assumptions that are going in to the scenario. Assumptions that could be wrong especially when you consider that the Pylon Impalement does 1d6MD, BUT text in the underwater section of the speed block indicates 1d4MD. So we have the pylons doing their thing with two separate damage ratings (3 if we count MiO that says 1MD). So asking if the Pylon Impalement is the correct stat to look at, and assumptions about the armor status/location are perfectly valid since if we make the wrong assumptions the conclusion can also be wrong.

And per RUE AND MiO a GB can breach the hull of a ship to plant pylons without depleting the location, so unless EBA is thicker than ship deck/hull plating there will now be a shaft going through the armor without depleting the armor itself.

Ok. So this point of argument more or less settled, how can we then address the main point?

Getting back to the main point. Yes a Glitterboy can be "disarmed" in the sense that they can be forced to let go of the boomgun satisfying the criteria of disarming as it is described in the combat terms in RUE on pg345 "The disarm move is a strike, hold or grappling maneuver that causes an opponent to drop is weapon or whatever he is holding... True, the item is forced out of the victim's grasp, but it is either knocked away or falls to the ground."

So basically when a disarm move is performed, the GB lets go of the boomgun and the boom gun itself is (possibly) knocked around on its swivel mount. The GB then has to spend an attack to "pickup" the BG, just like anyone else would if they are disarmed.

Easier to destroy the hand used to fire the Boomgun

Except it isn't really. To attack the hands requires making a called shot and you are at -4 to strike. Called shots in RUE take 2 actions now (RMB they took 1 and had a minimum target number). This means you aren't attacking as often, and likely to miss the intended target more. It also requires an attack that the GB can't roll with (like physical blows, though bullets don't count), or is otherwise resistant to (laser), and a called shot can't be used with a burst attack (which likely means a weaker attack).

So the hands may be weak in terms of MDC, but they are not necessarily easier to destroy.

[Zer0 Kay]

Ok. So this point of argument more or less settled, how can we then address the main point?

Who says it is closed. Tetsuya and HWalsh agreeing that it is closed is like Bidden saying that Clinton is right about a republican being evil or Cruz actually agreeing that a democrat is the anti-Christ. Doesn't count when one person on one side of an argument is acknowledged as the winner by someone else on the same side.

Show me ANYWHERE where it says that the pylons do that... let me be more specific for smart @$$3$ ANYWHERE in a canon Palladium Book that is pre printed by Palladiums printer (i.e. not Tetsuya's pen or HWalshes marker).

It doesn't, ANYWHERE. So the safer assumption is that what ever it is drilling into regardless of being at full deployment or an inch into the material after 1MD the pylon is into the material enough to anchor the GB.

So on a ships hull it only needs to be in an inch because that inch of material is strong enough to support it. While on normal soil in order to support it that 1MD of damage allows the pylon to fully deploy and is required to anchor the GB because it is weaker than the ships hull.

Now that being more likely the case we can infer some weird stuff like if there is a piece of MD foil worth 1/2 an MD when it is penetrated the laser only has enough power to drill through half as much soil, so then the GB should become unanchored when it fires. BUT can you do half an MD? According to the books, no. If the laser drill did SDC then yes but it does 1MD one of the books, GM's guide IIRC states that SDC under 100 does absolutely no MD but MD will eliminate SDC unless it equals 100. Using the example of a car with 150 SDC being hit by a weapon that only manages to do 1MD will destroy the car because the weapon did 1MD but less than 2MD if it was 199 doing 1 MD would still destroy the car. This goes against the GI Joe optional rule where those 50 or 99 extra points may well be the reason for surviving that shot.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

I am not saying damage inflicted has to create a clean hole every time (I am assuming when we mean clean hole we mean an entrance and exit, where a regular hole doesn't have an exit), regardless of the source (be it laser drill, projectile, etc). I am saying that the laser drill because of its nature will however given that it can drill 4.5ft as part of one melee action (though it can take as much as 5 depending on the material). Off hand I don't recall seeing anything when it comes to penetration depth for various actual weapons so if they are fired into the ground: how deep a shaft will it create in one action (or up to 5 actions)?

It can drill up to 4.5ft in a single melee action of the damage it inflicts allows it to do so. If you're shooting pylons into SDC dirt, no problemo. If you're shooting into MDC concrete, probably still not an issue (as i've covered about a half a dozen times and you've consistently ignored) because you dont have to deplete the MDC of a structure to pu nch holes in it. Probably even light MDC deck plating. While MDC, not all MDC materials are created equally (the GB being the prime example, with it's weird Chromium Alloy being MUCH more dense (damage absorbing) while not being a great deal heavier than other MDC armor plating (or lighter?)) and that used in structures is obviously less dense than that use for body/vehicle armor.

The text for the pylon operation doesn't indicate that the pylons will stop before reaching maximum depth for any reason. They do mention it might take a few tries when sinking into the hull of ship but it still happens, it creates two holes in the hull without depleting the MDC of the hull or even a section (I looked at WB7 Underseas, both the Tico and NGR carrier are the only ones I saw with per area of hull of 40ft^2: 80-90 MDC. Per description in RUE it does 1d4MD and takes 1d4+1 tries, so there is no way that a GB pylon can even deplete the section of hull in 2-5 tries since you don't get to roll for strike, so no criticals). That sets precedent for creating a deep hole without requiring to deplete the entire MDC of the object.

No, it's not setting a precedent at all. We already know that you can punch holes in structures without depleting their MDC. That isn't up to debate. It's covered in several places, including Fleets of the Three Galaxies. We also already know that structures and body/vehicle armor are treated differently.

I can stand across from a door that has 100 MDC and hose it down with fire from my Wilks 457. The rules (hell, the example) show that it will have "holes i can se through" in it, but it is still an intact barrier as it has MDC remaining.

You can now put a CS Grunt in 100MDC armor in that doorway, and i can hose him down with fire from my Wilks 457. At no point do i shoot him full of holes i can look through. His armor protects him until its MDC is fully depleted.

MD energy/solid projectiles in RUE pg358: "Note that most blasts and beams stop upon hitting their target, and if a beam goes all the way through an S.D.C. structure it stops upon hitting whatever is behind the first target. The same is true of M.D. projectiles such as rail gun rounds.". Mechanically then that indicates why the attacks stop and don't keep going and probably don't create as deep a "hole" as a drill.

This is talking about SDC structures and not MDC structures or armor. Brings precisely nothing to the argument.

Whoa whoa whoa.... bring those goalposts back here. End of the day - the pylon inflicts 1d6MD. If it cant breach the armor, it cant punch a hole through it. That's how armor works. Structures (the ground, a wall, ship hull, door, gate) are, and always have been, handled differently. Welcome to Palladium Physics. The Pylon cant be used to cheap-shot kill anyone unless their armor is absurdly low on MDC. End of story.

I am not moving the goalpost.

Dude, you were flying the goalposts around on a jet. First it was "the drill always works", then it was "most of the time", then "well that's not precisely what it says", "well, it can take up to 5 tries.."

What I am doing is identifying various assumptions that are going in to the scenario. Assumptions that could be wrong especially when you consider that the Pylon Impalement does 1d6MD, BUT text in the underwater section of the speed block indicates 1d4MD. So we have the pylons doing their thing with two separate damage ratings (3 if we count MiO that says 1MD). So asking if the Pylon Impalement is the correct stat to look at, and assumptions about the armor status/location are perfectly valid since if we make the wrong assumptions the conclusion can also be wrong.

And per RUE AND MiO a GB can breach the hull of a ship to plant pylons without depleting the location, so unless EBA is thicker than ship deck/hull plating there will now be a shaft going through the armor without depleting the armor itself.

EBA is quite a bit tougher than ship hulls, actually. Thicker? No, not necessarily. More protective? Yes. You made that point y ourself - the Ticonderoga has 90 MDC for a 40x40 hull section. A guy in CS standard armor has more MDC. And he's not 40x40. Why? Because the highly dense weaves used for Body Armor would make the TIconderoga sink like a stone if they tried to cover her hull in it. Not all MDC materials are created equally. And, again, there are, and always have been, different rules for structures vs body/vehicle armor. You can shoot holes in structures without depleting their MDC fully. You cannot shoot holes into armor without depleting it fully.

Ok. So this point of argument more or less settled, how can we then address the main point?

Getting back to the main point. Yes a Glitterboy can be "disarmed" in the sense that they can be forced to let go of the boomgun satisfying the criteria of disarming as it is described in the combat terms in RUE on pg345 "The disarm move is a strike, hold or grappling maneuver that causes an opponent to drop is weapon or whatever he is holding... True, the item is forced out of the victim's grasp, but it is either knocked away or falls to the ground."

So basically when a disarm move is performed, the GB lets go of the boomgun and the boom gun itself is (possibly) knocked around on its swivel mount. The GB then has to spend an attack to "pickup" the BG, just like anyone else would if they are disarmed.

Easier to destroy the hand used to fire the Boomgun

Except it isn't really. To attack the hands requires making a called shot and you are at -4 to strike. Called shots in RUE take 2 actions now (RMB they took 1 and had a minimum target number). This means you aren't attacking as often, and likely to miss the intended target more. It also requires an attack that the GB can't roll with (like physical blows, though bullets don't count), or is otherwise resistant to (laser), and a called shot can't be used with a burst attack (which likely means a weaker attack).

So the hands may be weak in terms of MDC, but they are not necessarily easier to destroy.

This is why there are anti-armor weapons. Bring a C-29 to bear on that hand. Itll be gone in no time. Not that i'd be targeting the hand, given the penalty. Just shoot the gun off. Doesn't take a lot more hits (i think the BG has maybe 2x the MDC of the hand?) and isn't penalized.

Ok. So this point of argument more or less settled, how can we then address the main point?

Who says it is closed. Tetsuya and HWalsh agreeing that it is closed is like Bidden saying that Clinton is right about a republican being evil or Cruz actually agreeing that a democrat is the anti-Christ. Doesn't count when one person on one side of an argument is acknowledged as the winner by someone else on the same side.

I wasn't aware Alrik had joined a "side". But hey, guess who got themselves added to my ignore list?

Show me ANYWHERE where it says that the pylons do that... let me be more specific for smart @$$3$ ANYWHERE in a canon Palladium Book that is pre printed by Palladiums printer (i.e. not Tetsuya's pen or HWalshes marker).

It doesn't, ANYWHERE. So the safer assumption is that what ever it is drilling into regardless of being at full deployment or an inch into the material after 1MD the pylon is into the material enough to anchor the GB.

So on a ships hull it only needs to be in an inch because that inch of material is strong enough to support it. While on normal soil in order to support it that 1MD of damage allows the pylon to fully deploy and is required to anchor the GB because it is weaker than the ships hull.

Now that being more likely the case we can infer some weird stuff like if there is a piece of MD foil worth 1/2 an MD when it is penetrated the laser only has enough power to drill through half as much soil, so then the GB should become unanchored when it fires. BUT can you do half an MD? According to the books, no. If the laser drill did SDC then yes but it does 1MD one of the books, GM's guide IIRC states that SDC under 100 does absolutely no MD but MD will eliminate SDC unless it equals 100. Using the example of a car with 150 SDC being hit by a weapon that only manages to do 1MD will destroy the car because the weapon did 1MD but less than 2MD if it was 199 doing 1 MD would still destroy the car. This goes against the GI Joe optional rule where those 50 or 99 extra points may well be the reason for surviving that shot.

[/quote][/quote]

... you managed to say a great deal of nothing of relevance with a lot of words.

We KNOW the pylons can fail to deploy (because we have rules for what happens when they dont engage).
We KNOW the pylons only do 1d6 MD
We KNOW the pylons can take up to 5 shots to anchor to a ship's hull.
We KNOW that there are different rules for how structures sustain damage vs how armor sustains damage (lots of sources)
We KNOW that armor isn't breached/ineffective until it is destroyed.
We KNOW that one of the only forces to field Glitter Boys puts dedicated spots to anchor on their transports.

The Pylons can't fire through people in body armor/power armor/giant robots/large vehicles. It's that simple. Structures (which includes hull segments on ships/large vehicles) CAN have holes blasted into/through them without depleting their full MDC. Ergo, the pylons CAN fire into a ship hull, MDC concrete wall, or light MDC floor plating.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Forget melee a second. Gunslinger types have a ranged disarm. Mr. Cowboy with a Wilks laser pistol declares disarm and hits. GB sees laser firing at him and disregards the attack because chrome lolz.

Mechanically, what occurs? What is the result if you are the GM?

How does a gb see a laser?

[Pepsi Jedi]

Can someone point me to a page number that gives damage for the GB's pylon laser? I don't remember it being equivalent of a pistol in the foot.

[PigLickJF]

I don't have a pg. number at the moment, but it's listed in the melee section of the Glitterboy entry in RUE.

[HWalsh]

I don't have a pg. number at the moment, but it's listed in the melee section of the Glitterboy entry in RUE.

RUE - Pg. 73

"Pylon Impalement: 1D6 M.D., not very useful in most combat situations."

[Daniel Stoker]

Pylon Impalement: 1D6 M.D., not very useful in most combat situations.

Daniel Stoker

[Daniel Stoker]

Nevermind me.... 2 minutes slow.


Daniel Stoker

[HWalsh]

Nevermind me.... 2 minutes slow.


Daniel Stoker

Don't feel bad. I invested in W.P. Forum Quick Draw.

[Zer0 Kay]

Forget melee a second. Gunslinger types have a ranged disarm. Mr. Cowboy with a Wilks laser pistol declares disarm and hits. GB sees laser firing at him and disregards the attack because chrome lolz.

Mechanically, what occurs? What is the result if you are the GM?

How does a gb see a laser?

What? Don't you know even with visible light spectrum lasers if you see the light coming you can dodge them never mind that it is the exact light that your seeing that does the damage.

[Zer0 Kay]

I am not saying damage inflicted has to create a clean hole every time (I am assuming when we mean clean hole we mean an entrance and exit, where a regular hole doesn't have an exit), regardless of the source (be it laser drill, projectile, etc). I am saying that the laser drill because of its nature will however given that it can drill 4.5ft as part of one melee action (though it can take as much as 5 depending on the material). Off hand I don't recall seeing anything when it comes to penetration depth for various actual weapons so if they are fired into the ground: how deep a shaft will it create in one action (or up to 5 actions)?

It can drill up to 4.5ft in a single melee action of the damage it inflicts allows it to do so. If you're shooting pylons into SDC dirt, no problemo. If you're shooting into MDC concrete, probably still not an issue (as i've covered about a half a dozen times and you've consistently ignored) because you dont have to deplete the MDC of a structure to pu nch holes in it. Probably even light MDC deck plating. While MDC, not all MDC materials are created equally (the GB being the prime example, with it's weird Chromium Alloy being MUCH more dense (damage absorbing) while not being a great deal heavier than other MDC armor plating (or lighter?)) and that used in structures is obviously less dense than that use for body/vehicle armor.

The text for the pylon operation doesn't indicate that the pylons will stop before reaching maximum depth for any reason. They do mention it might take a few tries when sinking into the hull of ship but it still happens, it creates two holes in the hull without depleting the MDC of the hull or even a section (I looked at WB7 Underseas, both the Tico and NGR carrier are the only ones I saw with per area of hull of 40ft^2: 80-90 MDC. Per description in RUE it does 1d4MD and takes 1d4+1 tries, so there is no way that a GB pylon can even deplete the section of hull in 2-5 tries since you don't get to roll for strike, so no criticals). That sets precedent for creating a deep hole without requiring to deplete the entire MDC of the object.

No, it's not setting a precedent at all. We already know that you can punch holes in structures without depleting their MDC. That isn't up to debate. It's covered in several places, including Fleets of the Three Galaxies. We also already know that structures and body/vehicle armor are treated differently.

I can stand across from a door that has 100 MDC and hose it down with fire from my Wilks 457. The rules (hell, the example) show that it will have "holes i can se through" in it, but it is still an intact barrier as it has MDC remaining.

You can now put a CS Grunt in 100MDC armor in that doorway, and i can hose him down with fire from my Wilks 457. At no point do i shoot him full of holes i can look through. His armor protects him until its MDC is fully depleted.

MD energy/solid projectiles in RUE pg358: "Note that most blasts and beams stop upon hitting their target, and if a beam goes all the way through an S.D.C. structure it stops upon hitting whatever is behind the first target. The same is true of M.D. projectiles such as rail gun rounds.". Mechanically then that indicates why the attacks stop and don't keep going and probably don't create as deep a "hole" as a drill.

This is talking about SDC structures and not MDC structures or armor. Brings precisely nothing to the argument.

Whoa whoa whoa.... bring those goalposts back here. End of the day - the pylon inflicts 1d6MD. If it cant breach the armor, it cant punch a hole through it. That's how armor works. Structures (the ground, a wall, ship hull, door, gate) are, and always have been, handled differently. Welcome to Palladium Physics. The Pylon cant be used to cheap-shot kill anyone unless their armor is absurdly low on MDC. End of story.

I am not moving the goalpost.

Dude, you were flying the goalposts around on a jet. First it was "the drill always works", then it was "most of the time", then "well that's not precisely what it says", "well, it can take up to 5 tries.."

What I am doing is identifying various assumptions that are going in to the scenario. Assumptions that could be wrong especially when you consider that the Pylon Impalement does 1d6MD, BUT text in the underwater section of the speed block indicates 1d4MD. So we have the pylons doing their thing with two separate damage ratings (3 if we count MiO that says 1MD). So asking if the Pylon Impalement is the correct stat to look at, and assumptions about the armor status/location are perfectly valid since if we make the wrong assumptions the conclusion can also be wrong.

And per RUE AND MiO a GB can breach the hull of a ship to plant pylons without depleting the location, so unless EBA is thicker than ship deck/hull plating there will now be a shaft going through the armor without depleting the armor itself.

EBA is quite a bit tougher than ship hulls, actually. Thicker? No, not necessarily. More protective? Yes. You made that point y ourself - the Ticonderoga has 90 MDC for a 40x40 hull section. A guy in CS standard armor has more MDC. And he's not 40x40. Why? Because the highly dense weaves used for Body Armor would make the TIconderoga sink like a stone if they tried to cover her hull in it. Not all MDC materials are created equally. And, again, there are, and always have been, different rules for structures vs body/vehicle armor. You can shoot holes in structures without depleting their MDC fully. You cannot shoot holes into armor without depleting it fully.

Ok. So this point of argument more or less settled, how can we then address the main point?

Getting back to the main point. Yes a Glitterboy can be "disarmed" in the sense that they can be forced to let go of the boomgun satisfying the criteria of disarming as it is described in the combat terms in RUE on pg345 "The disarm move is a strike, hold or grappling maneuver that causes an opponent to drop is weapon or whatever he is holding... True, the item is forced out of the victim's grasp, but it is either knocked away or falls to the ground."

So basically when a disarm move is performed, the GB lets go of the boomgun and the boom gun itself is (possibly) knocked around on its swivel mount. The GB then has to spend an attack to "pickup" the BG, just like anyone else would if they are disarmed.

Easier to destroy the hand used to fire the Boomgun

Except it isn't really. To attack the hands requires making a called shot and you are at -4 to strike. Called shots in RUE take 2 actions now (RMB they took 1 and had a minimum target number). This means you aren't attacking as often, and likely to miss the intended target more. It also requires an attack that the GB can't roll with (like physical blows, though bullets don't count), or is otherwise resistant to (laser), and a called shot can't be used with a burst attack (which likely means a weaker attack).

So the hands may be weak in terms of MDC, but they are not necessarily easier to destroy.

This is why there are anti-armor weapons. Bring a C-29 to bear on that hand. Itll be gone in no time. Not that i'd be targeting the hand, given the penalty. Just shoot the gun off. Doesn't take a lot more hits (i think the BG has maybe 2x the MDC of the hand?) and isn't penalized.

Ok. So this point of argument more or less settled, how can we then address the main point?

Who says it is closed. Tetsuya and HWalsh agreeing that it is closed is like Bidden saying that Clinton is right about a republican being evil or Cruz actually agreeing that a democrat is the anti-Christ. Doesn't count when one person on one side of an argument is acknowledged as the winner by someone else on the same side.

I wasn't aware Alrik had joined a "side". But hey, guess who got themselves added to my ignore list?

Show me ANYWHERE where it says that the pylons do that... let me be more specific for smart @$$3$ ANYWHERE in a canon Palladium Book that is pre printed by Palladiums printer (i.e. not Tetsuya's pen or HWalshes marker).

It doesn't, ANYWHERE. So the safer assumption is that what ever it is drilling into regardless of being at full deployment or an inch into the material after 1MD the pylon is into the material enough to anchor the GB.

So on a ships hull it only needs to be in an inch because that inch of material is strong enough to support it. While on normal soil in order to support it that 1MD of damage allows the pylon to fully deploy and is required to anchor the GB because it is weaker than the ships hull.

Now that being more likely the case we can infer some weird stuff like if there is a piece of MD foil worth 1/2 an MD when it is penetrated the laser only has enough power to drill through half as much soil, so then the GB should become unanchored when it fires. BUT can you do half an MD? According to the books, no. If the laser drill did SDC then yes but it does 1MD one of the books, GM's guide IIRC states that SDC under 100 does absolutely no MD but MD will eliminate SDC unless it equals 100. Using the example of a car with 150 SDC being hit by a weapon that only manages to do 1MD will destroy the car because the weapon did 1MD but less than 2MD if it was 199 doing 1 MD would still destroy the car. This goes against the GI Joe optional rule where those 50 or 99 extra points may well be the reason for surviving that shot.

[/quote]

... you managed to say a great deal of nothing of relevance with a lot of words.

We KNOW the pylons can fail to deploy (because we have rules for what happens when they dont engage).
We KNOW the pylons only do 1d6 MD
We KNOW the pylons can take up to 5 shots to anchor to a ship's hull.
We KNOW that there are different rules for how structures sustain damage vs how armor sustains damage (lots of sources)
We KNOW that armor isn't breached/ineffective until it is destroyed.
We KNOW that one of the only forces to field Glitter Boys puts dedicated spots to anchor on their transports.

The Pylons can't fire through people in body armor/power armor/giant robots/large vehicles. It's that simple. Structures (which includes hull segments on ships/large vehicles) CAN have holes blasted into/through them without depleting their full MDC. Ergo, the pylons CAN fire into a ship hull, MDC concrete wall, or light MDC floor plating.[/quote]

Alrik didn't take sides, the sides I was speaking of are you and HWalsh. One of you claiming the other is a winner is like two people in a democratic party declares their person the winner over the other party. It doesn't matter, it is a hollow and biased decleration

Awww. I'm on someone's foe list Oh wait, I don't care. If you can't handle me calling Shenanigans on you I don't care if you see my posts, Just means I can make funny faces at you behind your back

Far from a lot of nothing the average human body has 2m[sup]2[/sup] of surface area if we apply the MDC of a CA-4 armor to it that is 3.69 MDC per square inch, JUST above average damage for the laser drill on the pylon. That last part there about the foil and the car and all that... yeah that was pointless. Oh yeah you can't see this so Wow that is strangely liberating.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Well with the page number and damage for the pylons, it gets treated as any other damage dealing item. A strike roll, then a damage roll. (If using them in combat)

Actually impaling someone in armor will be impossible by Palladium rules. As the GI Joe rule would save anyone in armor even if it was damaged down far enough for the 1D6 to breach it. The 'breach' would be effected by the GI Joe rule and the person would surive.

Now, an unarmored target, would take damage from a pylon in that manner, and it'd be pretty gnarly, but... would you need it? A stomp does the same amount of damage, but I guess there's a limit. If you can't stomp them logic is going to dictate you can't pylon them either.. but... other than that a kick is actually stronger at 2D4.

So.. you can stomp for the same damage or kick for 'more' damage. Trying to Pylon through someone seems unneeded and 'harder'. And then you got saomething stuck to your foot. (Literally)

[ShadowLogan]

While MDC, not all MDC materials are created equally (the GB being the prime example, with it's weird Chromium Alloy being MUCH more dense (damage absorbing) while not being a great deal heavier than other MDC armor plating (or lighter?)) and that used in structures is obviously less dense than that use for body/vehicle armor.

I agree not all MDC materials are created equally, but those special properties are called out by Palladium. A target with laser resistant properties I could see holding up to the laser drill, but without that property or note in the GB (or even EBA notes) EBA isn't going to slow down the pylon's laser drill any better than any other MDC object that it can drill into without difficulty regardless of how much MDC it has.

No, it's not setting a precedent at all. We already know that you can punch holes in structures without depleting their MDC. That isn't up to debate. It's covered in several places,

Which is no different that punching a hole into body armor (be in non-EBA, EBA, or PA), it is a MDC structure. So it does not require that the MDC be depleted for the GB to deploy its pylon(s) into it. Since the body armor is going to be to thin to reasonably secure itself into, then it must drill through the body armor and into the ground below it.

The question really is what type of hole the pylons will create into the body armor. A hole does not have to go clear through the target. I can see and understand that a MD energy/solid projectile will only create a non-exiting hole requiring MDC depletion to breach. However I see no reason that the Laser Drill can not create an exiting hole in body armor, the thing is designed to DRILL into materials quickly and deeply to secure the GB (it might take extra actions, but it can be done w/o depleting the MDC of the armor location).

This is talking about SDC structures and not MDC structures or armor. Brings precisely nothing to the argument.

I disagree because when taken with the "(M.D.C.) works the same as S.D.C." on pg355, it doesn't really matter if the target is MDC or SDC, the MD blast is stopped cold.

EBA is quite a bit tougher than ship hulls, actually. Thicker? No, not necessarily. More protective? Yes. You made that point y ourself - the Ticonderoga has 90 MDC for a 40x40 hull section. A guy in CS standard armor has more MDC. And he's not 40x40. Why? Because the highly dense weaves used for Body Armor would make the TIconderoga sink like a stone if they tried to cover her hull in it. Not all MDC materials are created equally. And, again, there are, and always have been, different rules for structures vs body/vehicle armor. You can shoot holes in structures without depleting their MDC fully. You cannot shoot holes into armor without depleting it fully.

I disagree that EBA is actually tougher and more dense. If it was, everyone would be using that material for protection on their platforms. Or we might even see EBAs made into "coats" for everything else. We do not. What we see is that Palladium has "inflated" (and in some cases "deflated") statistics for the sake of "playability" for mechanical reasons.

We KNOW the pylons only do 1d6 MD

Actually this is only partially true. We KNOW the pylons doing an impalement attack can do 1d6MD, but we also know when it sinks into a hull of a ship it does 1d4MD (or 1MD in MiO). We also do not know what the author means by impalement, it is possible they are envisioning something different than what is being considered, but both are "impalement" attacks.

We KNOW that armor isn't breached/ineffective until it is destroyed.

INCORRECT. We know that when (Environmental) Body Armor reaches 15MDC (or between 10-20% of it's original MDC) its environmental systems begin to fail. If the Environmental systems have begun to fail, that means the armor isn't sealed anymore and vulnerable to environmental based attacks.

[guardiandashi]

One Point that I would like to make is that I consider the laser drill on the anti sway pylons to be different than a "weapon" attack while in some ways a weapon attack is "meaner" than the drill I still consider the drill to have better armor penetrating properties simply because it operates in close proximity, and doesn't tend to "scatter"

for example the "railgun" argument when you really stop and look at the railguns every single one of them falls into 2 general categories, machine gun, or shotgun that do their damage through lots of individual hits that are going to tend to scatter IE putting multiple railgun rounds on the same exact point on a target is going to be so rare that you can pretty much ignore it.

with directed energy weapons they are more likely to drag (conventional) beams or multiple "energy bullets" pulse weapons, again not likely to put continuous energy on 1 specific point.

the drill on the other hand is a tool not a weapon. its designed to put repeated energy exactly where you want it to over and over so its not going to blow a car in half even though it has the energy release to do so, its going to punch a hole in the car.

[Zer0 Kay]

Well with the page number and damage for the pylons, it gets treated as any other damage dealing item. A strike roll, then a damage roll. (If using them in combat)

Actually impaling someone in armor will be impossible by Palladium rules. As the GI Joe rule would save anyone in armor even if it was damaged down far enough for the 1D6 to breach it. The 'breach' would be effected by the GI Joe rule and the person would surive.

Now, an unarmored target, would take damage from a pylon in that manner, and it'd be pretty gnarly, but... would you need it? A stomp does the same amount of damage, but I guess there's a limit. If you can't stomp them logic is going to dictate you can't pylon them either.. but... other than that a kick is actually stronger at 2D4.

So.. you can stomp for the same damage or kick for 'more' damage. Trying to Pylon through someone seems unneeded and 'harder'. And then you got saomething stuck to your foot. (Literally)

You mean the OPTIONAL G.I. Joe rule?

[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.