The Loss Of A Tech Advantage

[HWalsh]

You're using the wrong word. If what you were saying was true, water bottles and watermelons wouldn't explode when you shoot them with bullets.

Well... A lot of that has little to do with the item actually "exploding" and more to do with the fact that the structural integrity fails in such a way that the pieces pull apart rapidly from the pressure wave. They appear to explode, but that isn't what is happening. I'll let someone who understands this better explain it so, to quote:

"It's hydrostatic shock. The fast-moving projectile creates a wave of pressure that moves through the fluid-filled tissues of the watermelon. When the wave reaches the hard rind, it presses it outward until it bursts.

Something similar can happen with people -- it's called temporary wound cavitation -- the movement of the bullet causes the fulid-filled tissues to move rapidly away from the impact site, causing a temporary wound channel. The tissue reverts back to shape once the bullet passes through, but there is considerable damage done to the soft tissues that were distorted by the pressure wave."

To add a little to this...

Basically that only happens because you have a hard outer shell, in the case of the bottle or the water melon, those items shatter when their integrity fails and thus the shock forces them to move in all directions creating what looks like an explosion. As he points out this can happen with people, but usually with people, this only happens if the round hits something like "the head" or a bone, if a bone is missed, then the effect is far less effective.

[Natasha]

You're using the wrong word. If what you were saying was true, water bottles and watermelons wouldn't explode when you shoot them with bullets.

Well... A lot of that has little to do with the item actually "exploding" and more to do with the fact that the structural integrity fails in such a way that the pieces pull apart rapidly from the pressure wave. They appear to explode, but that isn't what is happening. I'll let someone who understands this better explain it so, to quote:

"It's hydrostatic shock. The fast-moving projectile creates a wave of pressure that moves through the fluid-filled tissues of the watermelon. When the wave reaches the hard rind, it presses it outward until it bursts.

Something similar can happen with people -- it's called temporary wound cavitation -- the movement of the bullet causes the fulid-filled tissues to move rapidly away from the impact site, causing a temporary wound channel. The tissue reverts back to shape once the bullet passes through, but there is considerable damage done to the soft tissues that were distorted by the pressure wave."

To add a little to this...

Basically that only happens because you have a hard outer shell, in the case of the bottle or the water melon, those items shatter when their integrity fails and thus the shock forces them to move in all directions creating what looks like an explosion. As he points out this can happen with people, but usually with people, this only happens if the round hits something like "the head" or a bone, if a bone is missed, then the effect is far less effective.

So you just argued against penetration and damage being mutually exclusive and quoted a source that says they are not mutually exclusive.

Also, I can be more specific, if you need me to be. I am talking about a mechanical explosion. Which is what happens when structural integrity fails in such a way that the pieces pull apart rapidly from the pressure wave.

Also, I already brought up hydrostatic shock. It's a part of why exit wounds are messier than entry wounds. It's why penetration and damage are not mutually exclusive. The pressure wave damages the internal organs. Shattered bone can cause damage as well. It's why your explanation is not using real world physics. The harder a round hits the more hydrostatic shock there is because water is incomprehensible. You most certainly can have penetration and damage.

Finally, there are not many places on the body that aren't support by a bone. It's easier to hit a bone than to miss one.

[Axelmania]

You see this in ranges. While a gun with a range of miles is something we can accept, they don't have any spells that have ranges that long

Sure there is, if you dig deep enough. Major Elementals used to cast spells at 100x the range of a 1st level warlock, that could pass 5280 feet.

High level Controllers or Lord Magi with their range-doubling casting on a ley line or near a nexus could probably also get there.

Does a single leaf have SDC would be the question.

It costs a Psi-Druid 2 ISP to heal 20% of the HP and SDC of a small plant, like a small flower. This is plurally described as "blighted leaves" being one condition it restores, so I could split that to mean that a flower with 2 leaves each have 10% of the life of the flower and requires 1 ISP to heal.

Clothing, for example, would function like armor (more or less) which, when worn, adds SDC and by the rules counts as part of the person (which is why spells that target the person can hit them even through armor) thus it wouldn't matter how many layers of clothing you added as you're just adding SDC to an SDC structure.

Being able to hit a person through clothing doesn't mean that the clothing counts as part of the person. If I use 'Death Word' to damage a person it doesn't damage his clothes, for example.

you'recourse its going to get poked fun at.

So you were just trying to mock it. Which is trolling. Please don't do that.

Wrong, making fun of a silly rule is not trolling. Trolling is when you misrepresent your intentions to upset people, and I've been open about my intentions.

I am not 'just' trying to mock the rule though. Mockery is actually a tool used to explore ideas, as Shakespearean fools have done.

As to saying it's "against the spirit of Rifts" I disagree.

The sad part is, it's actually the most realistic part of Rifts.

Did you know, otherwise, it would be impossible to deal MD damage to an SD target?

Physics wouldn't allow it save for in the case of an explosion.

So you get stuck between a rock and a hard place:

Either

A: MD targets have amazing penitration (which is against the rules of the game) and thus deal very little damage to SD targets.

... Or...

B: MD weapons can perfectly transfer force, which greatly reduces penitration but allows tremendous damage against SD targets.

You literally cannot have both excessive penitration and excessive damage unless the blast is sufficiently large enough to blast a full basketball sized hole through the target which is possible for plasma or a laser (though the weapons would NOT have traditional sized barrels that Rifts art shows) but not for a rail gun.

If an MD laser had extreme penitration, at the size we are shown the barrels are, then they'd be almost never lethal on a human (or any other) target unless a vital organ were hit and even then it would be far less lethal than a conventional bullet.

So either they somehow transfer the force, at which point the GI Joe rule, the two SD structure rule, the 100 SD per point of MD rules all work (remarkably well actually) or they have the extreme penitration the rules say they don't have and they'd be far less damaging weapons.

If the initial force is high enough (as it seems to be with MD) it can have adequate damage and adequate penetration and get a bit of the best of both worlds.

The passage KC quoted implies MD can penetrate several things for a long area. That's not necessarily 'perfect' penetration but enough that it doesn't need perfect force transfer and can leave some force in the hole to kill other stuff behind the initial thing struck.

In the real world bullets tend to do more damage then fists.
In the real world hitting a person with a baseball bat and a battle axe will have radically different results

A lot of punches have more force than gunshots, and they probably have better force transfer too. The full force of the punch is going to transfer to a torso it punches but a bullet that passes through the other side and kept going didn't keep all it's force.

Bullets are deadlier because of the damage being focuses to a narrower area. That's also part of why an axe or sword would traumatize a bare torso more than a club of equal weight.

We have that sort of represented with the 'monomolecular edge' weapons that do MD (I think in AU) but in the case of energy weapons, I think that's more due to having several car batteries powering your gun.

[HWalsh]

You're using the wrong word. If what you were saying was true, water bottles and watermelons wouldn't explode when you shoot them with bullets.

Well... A lot of that has little to do with the item actually "exploding" and more to do with the fact that the structural integrity fails in such a way that the pieces pull apart rapidly from the pressure wave. They appear to explode, but that isn't what is happening. I'll let someone who understands this better explain it so, to quote:

"It's hydrostatic shock. The fast-moving projectile creates a wave of pressure that moves through the fluid-filled tissues of the watermelon. When the wave reaches the hard rind, it presses it outward until it bursts.

Something similar can happen with people -- it's called temporary wound cavitation -- the movement of the bullet causes the fulid-filled tissues to move rapidly away from the impact site, causing a temporary wound channel. The tissue reverts back to shape once the bullet passes through, but there is considerable damage done to the soft tissues that were distorted by the pressure wave."

To add a little to this...

Basically that only happens because you have a hard outer shell, in the case of the bottle or the water melon, those items shatter when their integrity fails and thus the shock forces them to move in all directions creating what looks like an explosion. As he points out this can happen with people, but usually with people, this only happens if the round hits something like "the head" or a bone, if a bone is missed, then the effect is far less effective.

So you just argued against penetration and damage being mutually exclusive and quoted a source that says they are not mutually exclusive.

Also, I can be more specific, if you need me to be. I am talking about a mechanical explosion. Which is what happens when structural integrity fails in such a way that the pieces pull apart rapidly from the pressure wave.

Also, I already brought up hydrostatic shock. It's a part of why exit wounds are messier than entry wounds. It's why penetration and damage are not mutually exclusive. The pressure wave damages the internal organs. Shattered bone can cause damage as well. It's why your explanation is not using real world physics. The harder a round hits the more hydrostatic shock there is because water is incomprehensible. You most certainly can have penetration and damage.

Finally, there are not many places on the body that aren't support by a bone. It's easier to hit a bone than to miss one.

No you're misunderstanding what the cause of damage is.

Okay, easy way to explain it.

You cause more damage with a round that bounces around inside of a target than one that goes through. You have a much higher chance of surviving the latter.

There is a huge difference between "doing no damage" and doing less damage. You wouldn't see the effects described from a mega damage weapon from a weapon that penetrates like people expect. (Ie blowing through whole buildings)

There is a reason over penitration in real life is considered non-optimal.

"Overpenetration is when a bullet passes through its target and out of the other side, risking damaging something or someone else beyond and preventing the bullet from leaving all its energy inside the intended target."

Going to point out the second part:

"Preventing the bullet from leaving all its energy inside the intended target."

Generations of real world gun manufacturers aren't wrong. To impart maximum damage, ie stopping power, to a target you want the bullet to stop inside the target.

It's not complicated really.

But hey, let's ditch the real world explanation that works and works within the boundaries of the rules of the game.

The other option is ditching the game rules. Which can totally be someone's house rules to make MD weapons even more powerful.

[Natasha]

You're using the wrong word. If what you were saying was true, water bottles and watermelons wouldn't explode when you shoot them with bullets.

Well... A lot of that has little to do with the item actually "exploding" and more to do with the fact that the structural integrity fails in such a way that the pieces pull apart rapidly from the pressure wave. They appear to explode, but that isn't what is happening. I'll let someone who understands this better explain it so, to quote:

"It's hydrostatic shock. The fast-moving projectile creates a wave of pressure that moves through the fluid-filled tissues of the watermelon. When the wave reaches the hard rind, it presses it outward until it bursts.

Something similar can happen with people -- it's called temporary wound cavitation -- the movement of the bullet causes the fulid-filled tissues to move rapidly away from the impact site, causing a temporary wound channel. The tissue reverts back to shape once the bullet passes through, but there is considerable damage done to the soft tissues that were distorted by the pressure wave."

To add a little to this...

Basically that only happens because you have a hard outer shell, in the case of the bottle or the water melon, those items shatter when their integrity fails and thus the shock forces them to move in all directions creating what looks like an explosion. As he points out this can happen with people, but usually with people, this only happens if the round hits something like "the head" or a bone, if a bone is missed, then the effect is far less effective.

So you just argued against penetration and damage being mutually exclusive and quoted a source that says they are not mutually exclusive.

Also, I can be more specific, if you need me to be. I am talking about a mechanical explosion. Which is what happens when structural integrity fails in such a way that the pieces pull apart rapidly from the pressure wave.

Also, I already brought up hydrostatic shock. It's a part of why exit wounds are messier than entry wounds. It's why penetration and damage are not mutually exclusive. The pressure wave damages the internal organs. Shattered bone can cause damage as well. It's why your explanation is not using real world physics. The harder a round hits the more hydrostatic shock there is because water is incomprehensible. You most certainly can have penetration and damage.

Finally, there are not many places on the body that aren't support by a bone. It's easier to hit a bone than to miss one.

No you're misunderstanding what the cause of damage is.

Okay, easy way to explain it.

You cause more damage with a round that bounces around inside of a target than one that goes through. You have a much higher chance of surviving the latter.

There is a huge difference between "doing no damage" and doing less damage. You wouldn't see the effects described from a mega damage weapon from a weapon that penetrates like people expect. (Ie blowing through whole buildings)

There is a reason over penitration in real life is considered non-optimal.

"Overpenetration is when a bullet passes through its target and out of the other side, risking damaging something or someone else beyond and preventing the bullet from leaving all its energy inside the intended target."

Going to point out the second part:

"Preventing the bullet from leaving all its energy inside the intended target."

Generations of real world gun manufacturers aren't wrong. To impart maximum damage, ie stopping power, to a target you want the bullet to stop inside the target.

It's not complicated really.

But hey, let's ditch the real world explanation that works and works within the boundaries of the rules of the game.

The other option is ditching the game rules. Which can totally be someone's house rules to make MD weapons even more powerful.

It's odd that you say I misunderstand the cause of damage because I gave it and then you provided a source that backed me up. I am not the one misunderstanding anything.

You don't have to leave all the energy in the target if you put enough energy in to scramble the target to death on the way through. Such rounds exist today and are considered overkill. Whether it's a .308 on a prairie dog or a .50 on a human.

But you're correct about one thing: it's not complicated.

For some reason you seem intent on arguing against your own sources, though.

Maybe I just need to write a book or make a website....

[HWalsh]

You don't have to leave all the energy in the target if you put enough energy in to scramble the target to death on the way through. Such rounds exist today and are considered overkill. Whether it's a .308 on a prairie dog or a .50 on a human.

Which would be great *if* we didn't have rules that tell us specifically that's not how MD weapons work.

So.

Since the reasoning I came up with isn't acceptable, what is your explanation in-universe to reconcile a weapon that can turn a human to jello but isn't able to penetrate 2 0.5 inch thick wooden signs that are spaced 2 feet apart?

Also can you explain why these weapons, on striking any MDC structure are unable, regardless of how weakened the MDC is, to penetrate to the person or object behind or inside the structure?

My explanation is the perfect transfer of force/energy. That, as an explanation, works as far as the physics would be concerned.

[Natasha]

You don't have to leave all the energy in the target if you put enough energy in to scramble the target to death on the way through. Such rounds exist today and are considered overkill. Whether it's a .308 on a prairie dog or a .50 on a human.

Which would be great *if* we didn't have rules that tell us specifically that's not how MD weapons work.

So.

Since the reasoning I came up with isn't acceptable, what is your explanation in-universe to reconcile a weapon that can turn a human to jello but isn't able to penetrate 2 0.5 inch thick wooden signs that are spaced 2 feet apart?

Also can you explain why these weapons, on striking any MDC structure are unable, regardless of how weakened the MDC is, to penetrate to the person or object behind or inside the structure?

My explanation is the perfect transfer of force/energy. That, as an explanation, works as far as the physics would be concerned.

I think we lost each other somewhere along the way. I never said your explanation is unacceptable. I said it's not consistent with real world physics. It doesn't have to be anyway because a lot in Rifts isn't. A SAMAS has a rocket propulsion system, but no apparent propellant. It just goes on like that.

So the most honest answer that I can give you and I'm sorry if it disappoints is that there is no in-universe explanation that is consistent with real world physics. In the real world we have conservation of energy and momentum, but in Rifts we have the rule of cool. The reason M.D. weapons do not penetrate M.D. materials is because of the way the damage system is written. There can be no armour rating because the weakest strike will instagib the average non-M.D.C. character. Yet, somehow, these same materials when brought to a S.D.C. world gain armour ratings.

I disagree that your explanation works as far as the physics would be concerned. (First, don't say "transfer of force"; it doesn't happen, because of Newton's third law.) You seem to be thinking of the difference between jabbing an ice pick through a block of gelatin versus smashing your fist into it when you say penetration and damage are mutually exclusive (the difference between a small pressure and a large pressure). And that might be true in those scenarios. Although it's apparent the harder you jab the ice pick the more the gelatin will wobble, indicating adding more energy to be conserved doesn't reduce the amount of kinetic energy the gelatin has to dissipate, which doesn't look good for your explanation from a physical perspective. Either road, it seems to me that neither scenario is representative (although the more energetic ice pick one is indicative) of what happens when you shoot a bullet into the block of gelatin; i.e, produce hydrostatic shock and possibly mechanical explosion.

You're correct that modern ammunition designers design bullets to remain within the target; this is to take full advantage of the round's kinetic energy. But when there exists more energetic ammunition that blows people apart then the explanation that maximum damage occurs when there is no exit seems kind of difficult to apply to even more energetic weapons like rail guns, doesn't it?

[Killer Cyborg]

Otherwise there would actually be a maximum SDC damage an MD hit could do to the body. IE that rebar hit to the head? That's the most possible damage that any weapon that can't more efficiently transfer force can do.

There isn't a maximum SDC damage that an attack can inflict to the body either.
If you're shot in the chest or head for 360 SDC?
Dead.

Assuming that you have <360 (PE+HP+SDC), anyway.

Because of the non-penitration. If you take 360 SDC to the head that translates to the bullet bouncing around and turning the gray matter into a tossed salad.

A GM could interpret it that way, but in the real world an armor piercing .50 BMG round, for example, doesn't bounce much when it goes through a person's head or chest.

The point is that you make an argument that appears to be:
-SDC attacks can penetrate a person completely without killing them.
-MD attacks cannot penetrate a person completely without killing them.
-The only possible explanation is that force is transferred more efficiently than SDC attacks, "Otherwise there would actually be a maximum SDC damage an MD hit could do to the body"

But there is no maximum SDC damage that an SDC hit can do to the body.
Why would a lack of maximum damage that an attack can inflict upon a body have different implications for MD attacks than for SDC attacks?

Furthermore, look at what RUE states:
Note that most blasts and beams stop upon hitting their target, and if a beam goes all the way through an SDC structure, it stops upon hitting whatever is behind the first target. The same is true of M.D. projectiles such as rail gun rounds.

"Most blasts and beams" stop upon hitting their target. That's not the same as "all blasts and beams."
Without knowing which blasts/beams do or do not stop upon hitting their target, we cannot say for certain whether the beams that stop at the first target are lethal or not; they may well include beams that are not lethal. It may well be possible for MD attacks to penetrate a person completely without killing them--there is nothing barring that concept.

[guardiandashi]

Penetration and Energy transfer/Damage are related but dissimilar properties.

Penetration is best described as how well something punches into/through targets. it takes into account a number of factors like speed, shape "sharpness" force, force per area... etc.

Energy transfer has more to do with the energy bound up in the "attack" and how well it transfers it to the "target"

Damage frankly is a rather nebulous concept that relates to how well or poorly the object struck deals with the energy transfer it receives.

[Killer Cyborg]

Damage frankly is a rather nebulous concept that relates to how well or poorly the object struck deals with the energy transfer it receives.

Also, with hit location within the target, as well as sometimes the amount of force in the attack to begin with.

[Supergyro]

Damage frankly is a rather nebulous concept that relates to how well or poorly the object struck deals with the energy transfer it receives.

Hear hear!

Imagine a beam that cuts through *anything* with a 1 mm in diameter beam. This could damage glitter boy armor, but it it hit a person in the shoulder, go straight through, creating a wound, but doing minimal damage. There is no read way to 'model' this in the Rifts system. It's powerful enough to put holes in MDC structures but can hit a person and leave them with only minor wound.

Damage is an incredibly nebulous concept, so talking about it as if it's concrete becomes silly.

[Axelmania]

look at what RUE states:
Note that most blasts and beams stop upon hitting their target, and if a beam goes all the way through an SDC structure, it stops upon hitting whatever is behind the first target. The same is true of M.D. projectiles such as rail gun rounds.

Most blasts and beams stop upon hitting my sweater, and if a beam goes all the way through my sweater, it stops upon hitting the tank top I wear underneath it. The same is true of MD projectiles such as rail gun rounds.

Am I wrong?

[HWalsh]

look at what RUE states:
Note that most blasts and beams stop upon hitting their target, and if a beam goes all the way through an SDC structure, it stops upon hitting whatever is behind the first target. The same is true of M.D. projectiles such as rail gun rounds.

Most blasts and beams stop upon hitting my sweater, and if a beam goes all the way through my sweater, it stops upon hitting the tank top I wear underneath it. The same is true of MD projectiles such as rail gun rounds.

Am I wrong?

Actually yes, you are wrong.

Here is why:

When an attack is made against your character your clothing is not taken into account. Even armor only counts as an additive. Armor and clothing are not treated as separate pieces of the character or as secondary structures.

You already admitted, in this thread, that you are only mocking it because you find the rule silly. This is the second time I've mentioned that this is inappropriate and is only baiting which is against the TOS of this board.

Stop.

Thank you.

[Killer Cyborg]

When an attack is made against your character your clothing is not taken into account. Even armor only counts as an additive. Armor and clothing are not treated as separate pieces of the character or as secondary structures.

I agree.

[HWalsh]

When an attack is made against your character your clothing is not taken into account. Even armor only counts as an additive. Armor and clothing are not treated as separate pieces of the character or as secondary structures.

I agree.

I do need to amend that only pertains to SDC armor. MDC armor actually DOES count differently. (Which is why MD weapons don't penetrate.)

[Killer Cyborg]

When an attack is made against your character your clothing is not taken into account. Even armor only counts as an additive. Armor and clothing are not treated as separate pieces of the character or as secondary structures.

I agree.

I do need to amend that only pertains to SDC armor. MDC armor actually DOES count differently. (Which is why MD weapons don't penetrate.)

Ah.
Well, we had that beautiful moment, at least.

[HWalsh]

When an attack is made against your character your clothing is not taken into account. Even armor only counts as an additive. Armor and clothing are not treated as separate pieces of the character or as secondary structures.

I agree.

I do need to amend that only pertains to SDC armor. MDC armor actually DOES count differently. (Which is why MD weapons don't penetrate.)

Ah.
Well, we had that beautiful moment, at least.

Hey man, I didn't write the rules. We know that even 1 MD will stop the rest from transferring through.

[Axelmania]

Actually yes, you are wrong.

Here is why:

When an attack is made against your character your clothing is not taken into account.

Source?

We may not have statistics for a lot of clothing, but that doesn't mean they don't have potential stats to take into account.

I always treated normal clothing as "padded" body armor, because cloth is a form of padding.

Even armor only counts as an additive.

I'm not sure what you mean by additiv.

Armor and clothing are not treated as separate pieces of the character or as secondary structures.

Wrong: spells which affect the self such as 'impervious to fire' or 'invisibility simple' have phrases like "no damage to the person or to anything he is wearing" or "the spell caster and anything he is wearing" clearly showing that worn things like clothing are not considered to be part of the person.

You already admitted, in this thread, that you are only mocking it because you find the rule silly. This is the second time I've mentioned that this is inappropriate and is only baiting which is against the TOS of this board. Stop. Thank you.

I'm getting sick of these false accusations Walsh. You are misrepresenting an earlier comment I made. I don't appreciate you painting me as a flame-baiter based on your own inaccurate speculations. Since you keep bringing up this ad hominem attack and trying to derail the thread, I will review the issue and hopefully you will let it rest upon understanding it better.

Here is what I said:

The point is that the book doesn't actually give us guidelines on when to consider it separate structures. Really as KC pointed out, the third thing being undamaged is out of Rifts spirit anyway. It is a new Ultimate weirdness like the GI Joe rule so of course its going to get poked fun at. Not sure why you're so serious about it.

Poking fun at the vague wording of a rule could be seen as mockery, but if so that would be "also" mockery, not "only" mockery. Your responses to this have taken an all-or-nothing interpretation which mis-characterize my motivations.

Axel is simply trying to mock the idea.

You are trying to mock and derail.

you'recourse its going to get poked fun at.

So you were just trying to mock it. Which is trolling.

The only mention of trolling I can find on the rules thread is viewtopic.php?p=2737595&f=1#p2737595 which makes a promise of explaining it in 2013 but which hasn't shown up yet. So please restrict your use of terminology to terms such as "baiting" which have actually been explained.

This is discussed at viewtopic.php?p=2024109&f=1#p2024109 under 2. Flaming/Harassment

"Egging someone on to provoke them into lashing back with a flame post is called "flame-baiting" and is also not welcomed."

So I would not be breaking a rule against flame-baiting unless I flamed you to begin with, which I do not think I have.

I am not being malicious (it is not with malice I make my posts) and I am not attempting to harass or insult you.

I like the idea of people surviving MD attacks so I'm reading the RAW which talks about targets behind targets being safe and taking it to the extreme conclusion which its vague text allow.

Are protective sweaters over undershirts or hammer pants over long johns absurd? Sure, but absurd examples are the best way to show the end result of absurd ruling for a rule.

My 'poking fun' was merely using fun examples because everyone is talking about shooting through flags which itself seemed more absurd since worn barriers would actually be more practical, even if the worn barriers were goofy-looking.

I am not mocking you, and really I'm not mocking the rule either, because the 'energy transfer' discussions were pretty interesting about how MD could operate differently in RUE.

Fun-poking, which you call mockery, would be about the situation created by these rules unless we can find explanations to avoid those situations.

You are attempting to do that by offering arguments about clothing being considered part of a person or something along those lines, which is fine. I do understand where you're coming from (a lot of GMs hand-waive the idea of clothing) but still respectfully disagree because I believe there are too many examples of it being addressed separately from the 'self' (Impervious to Fire and Invisibility: Simple, both mentioned above, being 2 good examples) to accept the premise of your argument.

Even if clothing is not always considered armor, it is considered a separate thing, which is why it gets mentioned apart from the self under supernatural abilities.

My being goofy in the examples I use to illustrate a word's ruling does not mean my arguments do not hold weight. It does not mean I have ill will behind the arguments I offer.

So please drop the ad hominem attacks against me and playing a victim and just keep on the topic, which is what I will now proceed to do...

When an attack is made against your character your clothing is not taken into account. Even armor only counts as an additive. Armor and clothing are not treated as separate pieces of the character or as secondary structures.

I agree.

Clothing is treated as a separate piece apart from the character, as a secondary structure, by merit of it being addressed separately from the spellcaster in Impervious to Fire and Invisibility Simple.

I do need to amend that only pertains to SDC armor. MDC armor actually DOES count differently. (Which is why MD weapons don't penetrate.)

SDC armor is even more distinctly a separate structure than SDC clothing. I'm going to re-quote your excellent find from page 1 which is a great observation that I never noticed before until you brought it up.

page 358 of the RUE.

"Note that most blasts and beams stop upon hitting their target, and if a beam goes all the way through an SDC structure, it stops upon hitting whatever is behind the first target. The same is true of M.D. projectiles such as rail gun rounds."

Found in the first paragraph after the warning paragraph explaining, "How M.D. Weapons Work."

-----

Thus this means that my statement was correct. Two SDC signs cannot be shot through.

That having been said, this would mean a thin secondary cover inside of a tent system would also prevent MD rounds from hitting targets.

Amusingly enough they will NOT stop an SDC round in the same situation, meaning that you are better off with these sniper tactics utilizing a high powered SDC rifle rather than the latest MD gadget.

"It stops upon hitting whatever is behind the first target" seems quite universal to me.

Hammer pants and longjohns are separate things. Sweaters and undershirts are separate things.

Humans are even more distinctly not longjohns or undershirts.

You give the example of a secondary cover inside a tent protecting campers. How is a bit of webbing or mosquito netting any different than some clothing? Seems about the same thickness.

I think earlier the issue of proximity was brought up, like clothing laying against flesh. I don't really think that matters since even if you lay against something you are still a separate thing.

But even with that argument: what if I was leaning my head against the side of the tent?

This would press the 2 layers of the tent together and my head would be against it.

Do you think I would still be protected or would doing that allow the MD shot to pop my head?

[HWalsh]

This would press the 2 layers of the tent together and my head would be against it.

Do you think I would still be protected or would doing that allow the MD shot to pop my head?

A tent SYSTEM is not a "tent" it is an system of tents (this is done by a number of real world organizations in harsh environments) where they will have a very large over tent then, inside of that large overtent, they have a series of smaller tents inside (usually that are flimsier and less able to weather the conditions. It is a tent inside of a tent, for lack of a better term.

In order to count these tents would have to have an actual SDC value. Clothing does not. Clothing also does not have an AR so it can be bypassed, technically, at will nor do they provide cover. The tents are actual structures, providing they have an SDC value, which also means they would have to be constructed from heavy enough material (kevlar weave would be perfect in this case.)

So, do Hammer Pants work as protection?

If you want to try to argue for rules absurdity, then... Yes. Yes they do. Providing of course you find Hammer Pants with an actual SDC rating. Also, at that point, you have to find out their AR. At which point they become armor. At which point you run into the problem of layering armor under armor which isn't allowed. Your other option would be to try to convince a GM that your hammer pants count as cover, which is a GM I wouldn't recommend playing under, which would allow them to circumvent with a called shot.

Then there is the argument of actual authorial intention.

I find shooting through two separate signs (as described earlier wood or aluminum structures) to be impossible (but blowing a hole through/destroying both) to be both fair (by the rules) and cinematic. That is the stated intention of the Palladium rules, to be cinematic (which it actually says in the RUE). I think having a tent structure system when in the field to help protect soldiers from the first shot of a sniper (remember, once the blast hits, both structures have their SDC depleted so it only stops 1 shot because after that the structures are "destroyed") to be perfectly fine. Not only from a cinematic standpoint, but also just from a basic game play standpoint, as a GM I can tell you Sniper characters, who focus on just sniping, are annoying to deal with and absolutely less than fun, as a player I can tell you that when people try it they are usually going for "easy mode" and also don't take into account how the rest of the team factors into such.

Note:
When Palladium says, "Cinematic" they specifically call out "Action Movie" in the area.

[Axelmania]

The AR that clothing would have in terms of coverage could be approximated from the values certain things are given in Triax, except it wouldn't be MDC. I think it was something like AR 10 for a vest. Of course, NGR clothing might be more-covering than normal clothing but I doubt it since it would be contrast of the spirit of not standing out as armor, looking elegant and stuff.

Requiring an SDC of at least 1 would be a good house rule to cut down on abuse but it doesn't seem to be an actual requirement of the text, just sayin'. Even then I think a pair of pants would have at least 1 SDC.

Are we ever explicitly told we can't layer armor under armor? If someone can wear cyber-armor underneath environmental body armor then wearing a trench coat overtop a vest shouldn't be that hard. I can see how 2 suits of armor (moreso the environmental ones) would usually interfere with each other (chainmail under plate wouldn't be a problem but that's probably the intention of 'plate and chain') but it's probably a GM call whether stacking would make sense or not. No matter how much armor someone wears it's usually going to be a pain to repair so it doesn't change the overall balance much which is a cost issue, it just lets the cheap armor guys compete better with power armor by stacking some stuff.

[flatline]

Asking if we've ever been explicitly told that we can't do something indicates broken thinking. This isn't a video game where we're constrained by the rules that someone coded up.

What you should be asking is if it makes sense to do so.

Sadly, whether or not something makes sense can often run afoul of the rules because some of the rules do not make sense. It is best to correct or throw away such rules.

--flatline

[Axelmania]

I agree, it's a judgment call whether 2 armors would get in each other's way. Billoughy MDC trenchcoat overtop skintight MDC spandex would be fine. Wearing a plastic-man on top of a bush-man, that's asking for problems.

Given how body armor can vary a great deal in size (tailored for a 4ft dwarf vs an 8 ft ogre) you could possibly fit a small suit inside a large suit but mobility would be very very compromised and a GM could invent all kinds of appropriate penalties for pulling a Joey like running 1/2 speed, minus 2 attacks per melee, -5 to initiative, -4 to parry, -6 to dodge, -3 to strike... (just pulling figures out of air)

They would have to be very high penalties (particularly if to attacks instead of d20 rolls) to make me stop attempting it though. Given how crippled stuff like dodging is anyway, in expectation of simultaneous attack exchanges I'd be trying for maximum MDC protection.

[flatline]

I agree, it's a judgment call whether 2 armors would get in each other's way. Billoughy MDC trenchcoat overtop skintight MDC spandex would be fine. Wearing a plastic-man on top of a bush-man, that's asking for problems.

Given how body armor can vary a great deal in size (tailored for a 4ft dwarf vs an 8 ft ogre) you could possibly fit a small suit inside a large suit but mobility would be very very compromised and a GM could invent all kinds of appropriate penalties for pulling a Joey like running 1/2 speed, minus 2 attacks per melee, -5 to initiative, -4 to parry, -6 to dodge, -3 to strike... (just pulling figures out of air)

They would have to be very high penalties (particularly if to attacks instead of d20 rolls) to make me stop attempting it though. Given how crippled stuff like dodging is anyway, in expectation of simultaneous attack exchanges I'd be trying for maximum MDC protection.

Player: I put X EBA on over my Y EBA.
GM: your joints bind making it very difficult to do anything. You can't get the second helmet on over the first. Same with the gloves. You decide it's a bad idea.

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

I agree, it's a judgment call whether 2 armors would get in each other's way. Billoughy MDC trenchcoat overtop skintight MDC spandex would be fine. Wearing a plastic-man on top of a bush-man, that's asking for problems.

Given how body armor can vary a great deal in size (tailored for a 4ft dwarf vs an 8 ft ogre) you could possibly fit a small suit inside a large suit but mobility would be very very compromised and a GM could invent all kinds of appropriate penalties for pulling a Joey like running 1/2 speed, minus 2 attacks per melee, -5 to initiative, -4 to parry, -6 to dodge, -3 to strike... (just pulling figures out of air)

They would have to be very high penalties (particularly if to attacks instead of d20 rolls) to make me stop attempting it though. Given how crippled stuff like dodging is anyway, in expectation of simultaneous attack exchanges I'd be trying for maximum MDC protection.

Player: I put X EBA on over my Y EBA.
GM: your joints bind making it very difficult to do anything. You can't get the second helmet on over the first. Same with the gloves. You decide it's a bad idea.

--flatline

You can legally wear an armored trenchcoat over EBA over cyber-armor, while piloting a suit of power armor or a robot that is wearing dragon-skin armor.

[flatline]

I agree, it's a judgment call whether 2 armors would get in each other's way. Billoughy MDC trenchcoat overtop skintight MDC spandex would be fine. Wearing a plastic-man on top of a bush-man, that's asking for problems.

Given how body armor can vary a great deal in size (tailored for a 4ft dwarf vs an 8 ft ogre) you could possibly fit a small suit inside a large suit but mobility would be very very compromised and a GM could invent all kinds of appropriate penalties for pulling a Joey like running 1/2 speed, minus 2 attacks per melee, -5 to initiative, -4 to parry, -6 to dodge, -3 to strike... (just pulling figures out of air)

They would have to be very high penalties (particularly if to attacks instead of d20 rolls) to make me stop attempting it though. Given how crippled stuff like dodging is anyway, in expectation of simultaneous attack exchanges I'd be trying for maximum MDC protection.

Player: I put X EBA on over my Y EBA.
GM: your joints bind making it very difficult to do anything. You can't get the second helmet on over the first. Same with the gloves. You decide it's a bad idea.

--flatline

You can legally wear an armored trenchcoat over EBA over cyber-armor, while piloting a suit of power armor or a robot that is wearing dragon-skin armor.

Perhaps, but I don't see how that's relevant to my post.

--flatline

[Marcethus]

I agree, it's a judgment call whether 2 armors would get in each other's way. Billoughy MDC trenchcoat overtop skintight MDC spandex would be fine. Wearing a plastic-man on top of a bush-man, that's asking for problems.

Given how body armor can vary a great deal in size (tailored for a 4ft dwarf vs an 8 ft ogre) you could possibly fit a small suit inside a large suit but mobility would be very very compromised and a GM could invent all kinds of appropriate penalties for pulling a Joey like running 1/2 speed, minus 2 attacks per melee, -5 to initiative, -4 to parry, -6 to dodge, -3 to strike... (just pulling figures out of air)

They would have to be very high penalties (particularly if to attacks instead of d20 rolls) to make me stop attempting it though. Given how crippled stuff like dodging is anyway, in expectation of simultaneous attack exchanges I'd be trying for maximum MDC protection.

Player: I put X EBA on over my Y EBA.
GM: your joints bind making it very difficult to do anything. You can't get the second helmet on over the first. Same with the gloves. You decide it's a bad idea.

--flatline

You can legally wear an armored trenchcoat over EBA over cyber-armor, while piloting a suit of power armor or a robot that is wearing dragon-skin armor.

Why in the name of the gods would I want to wrinkle up my trenchcoat by doing that?

[HWalsh]

The AR that clothing would have in terms of coverage could be approximated from the values certain things are given in Triax, except it wouldn't be MDC. I think it was something like AR 10 for a vest. Of course, NGR clothing might be more-covering than normal clothing but I doubt it since it would be contrast of the spirit of not standing out as armor, looking elegant and stuff.

Requiring an SDC of at least 1 would be a good house rule to cut down on abuse but it doesn't seem to be an actual requirement of the text, just sayin'. Even then I think a pair of pants would have at least 1 SDC.

Are we ever explicitly told we can't layer armor under armor? If someone can wear cyber-armor underneath environmental body armor then wearing a trench coat overtop a vest shouldn't be that hard. I can see how 2 suits of armor (moreso the environmental ones) would usually interfere with each other (chainmail under plate wouldn't be a problem but that's probably the intention of 'plate and chain') but it's probably a GM call whether stacking would make sense or not. No matter how much armor someone wears it's usually going to be a pain to repair so it doesn't change the overall balance much which is a cost issue, it just lets the cheap armor guys compete better with power armor by stacking some stuff.

Using cyber armor isn't a good example as that is an implant by the rules and is worn specifically for the purposes of a breach of armor. If you could just wear armor under armor then cyber armor would have little value.

[Killer Cyborg]

You can legally wear an armored trenchcoat over EBA over cyber-armor, while piloting a suit of power armor or a robot that is wearing dragon-skin armor.

Why in the name of the gods would I want to wrinkle up my trenchcoat by doing that?

Can't think of a good reason.

[Marcethus]

Neither can I.

[Axelmania]

If you could just wear armor under armor then cyber armor would have little value.

Cyber-armor is probably less restrictive than a lot of armor compared to the protection it provides.

The closest equivalent in 'doesn't interfere' would be those skintight MDC jumpsuits that show up with 5-20 MDC, much less protection.

[eliakon]

You can legally wear an armored trenchcoat over EBA over cyber-armor, while piloting a suit of power armor or a robot that is wearing dragon-skin armor.

Why in the name of the gods would I want to wrinkle up my trenchcoat by doing that?

Can't think of a good reason.

Well if you smoke and wear a fedora you could be going for the Film Noir look?

[Marcethus]

Not sure if I would look good in a fedora, may have to try it one of these days.

[Svartalf]

The Sniper is going to take a single well aimed shot with a Naruni plasma rifle from a mile away and pick off the boom gun of the Glitterboy just before the combat team rushes the motor pool.

there IS a naruni plasma rifle with such a range ?

[Marcethus]

The Sniper is going to take a single well aimed shot with a Naruni plasma rifle from a mile away and pick off the boom gun of the Glitterboy just before the combat team rushes the motor pool.

there IS a naruni plasma rifle with such a range ?

NE-75H Shoulder Cannon. Range: 6000ft. First appeared in Phaseworld Sourcebook. Also listed in the Rifts GMG. Don't know if they have another listed in Naruni Wave 2 as I haven't yet acquired that one.

Unfortunately unless the sniper crits he's not going to be able to take out the Boom Gun with it. Max Damage is 100 MDC at 2d4x10+20. Boom Gun has more than 100 MDC.

[Axelmania]

GB has pretty long range sensors too, he might know opponents are in range due to radar or other stuff and pick them off first. 11 000 feet beats 6000 feet.

[Killer Cyborg]

The Sniper is going to take a single well aimed shot with a Naruni plasma rifle from a mile away and pick off the boom gun of the Glitterboy just before the combat team rushes the motor pool.

there IS a naruni plasma rifle with such a range ?

NE-75H Shoulder Cannon. Range: 6000ft. First appeared in Phaseworld Sourcebook. Also listed in the Rifts GMG. Don't know if they have another listed in Naruni Wave 2 as I haven't yet acquired that one.

Unfortunately unless the sniper crits he's not going to be able to take out the Boom Gun with it. Max Damage is 100 MDC at 2d4x10+20. Boom Gun has more than 100 MDC.

The point of sniping is to fire at the enemy from a concealed position.
If a sniper is doing his job of concealment, then he should be able to get more than one shot off before being discovered.

[Svartalf]

GB has pretty long range sensors too, he might know opponents are in range due to radar or other stuff and pick them off first. 11 000 feet beats 6000 feet.

yeah, but using a boom gun vs an infantry soldier type of opponent is like using a Barrett .50 to swat a fly.

[Axelmania]

Easier to aim at though, and boom gun rounds are cheap compared to the cost of repairing your armor.

How many boom gun could you buy for the price of paying an Operator to repair 1 MDC to your main body?

[eliakon]

If a sniper is doing their job though...
... well part of that job is making sure that they are not spotted. digging in as it were. That is why in Rifts I would imagine things like Naruni Camo sheets, Ghillie Suits, spoofers, and all sorts of TW/Talismans (Shadow Meld, Invisibility: Simple, Invisibility to Sensors, Chameleon, etc) are all going to be very popular.
Because the goal here is to be able to take people by surprise. You cant do that if your noticed and they are expecting your attack.

[Killer Cyborg]

If a sniper is doing their job though...
... well part of that job is making sure that they are not spotted. digging in as it were. That is why in Rifts I would imagine things like Naruni Camo sheets, Ghillie Suits, spoofers, and all sorts of TW/Talismans (Shadow Meld, Invisibility: Simple, Invisibility to Sensors, Chameleon, etc) are all going to be very popular.
Because the goal here is to be able to take people by surprise. You cant do that if your noticed and they are expecting your attack.

Word.

[Axelmania]

Of course, if the Glitter Boy has that pygmy talisman I recommended for scarecrows, assuming that power armor falls under the scope of things you're wearing that would be protected by Impervious to Fire, that should protect him from plasma snipers.

Would a Burster wearing a suit of Glitter Boy be able to surround it in his flame aura so it takes 1/10 damage from plasma? Or maybe that was just body armor not power...

[flatline]

Of course, if the Glitter Boy has that pygmy talisman I recommended for scarecrows, assuming that power armor falls under the scope of things you're wearing that would be protected by Impervious to Fire, that should protect him from plasma snipers.

Would a Burster wearing a suit of Glitter Boy be able to surround it in his flame aura so it takes 1/10 damage from plasma? Or maybe that was just body armor not power...

My house rule is that such things apply to armor, but not power armor. If you want AoI or Impervious to Energy to apply to power armor, you need to engage the services of a technowizard.

I assume that my house rule is the same as canon, but don't actually know for certain. And don't care enough to look through the books for it (I really don't care one way or another what the canon interpretation is once I've made up my mind how I want to play it).

--flatline

[Axelmania]

It shouldn't apply to vehicles and you pilot PA.