Simultaneous attack

[LostOne]

For fairness it needs to be declared before, otherwise losing initiative becomes a good thing because you can sit back and observe and then decide after you see whether the person hits if you want to do a simultaneous attack.

For example, imagine an enemy using a soul-drinking rune weapon. The player doesn't know of the soul-drinking is activated or not.

"The enemy swings and rolls a natural one."
"Awesome, I'm doing a simultaneous attack."

OR:

"The enemy swings and rolls a high number."
"I'll try to parry."

The point is, the character wouldn't know if that hit would land or not when he decides to attack or parry. So why should the player get the luxury of basing his decisions on actions his character doesn't know yet?

[Natasha]

For fairness it needs to be declared before, otherwise losing initiative becomes a good thing because you can sit back and observe and then decide after you see whether the person hits if you want to do a simultaneous attack.

I agree. So much so that I said it a while back.

[Kryzbyn]

For fairness it needs to be declared before, otherwise losing initiative becomes a good thing because you can sit back and observe and then decide after you see whether the person hits if you want to do a simultaneous attack.

For example, imagine an enemy using a soul-drinking rune weapon. The player doesn't know of the soul-drinking is activated or not.

"The enemy swings and rolls a natural one."
"Awesome, I'm doing a simultaneous attack."

OR:

"The enemy swings and rolls a high number."
"I'll try to parry."

The point is, the character wouldn't know if that hit would land or not when he decides to attack or parry. So why should the player get the luxury of basing his decisions on actions his character doesn't know yet?

I guess it's a difference in GM styles then. I never tell my players the outcome of an enemy's attack until they react.
ME: Ok, looks like the dead boy is gonna fire at you again...what're you gonna do?
Player: I'll dodge out of the way...woohoo nat 20 auto dodge eat that!
ME: yeah, the sudden burst of activity must have riled the dead boy a bit, as the bricks 30 ft away from you disinegrate (he rolled a 2 )
Player: crap I wasted a dodge
ME: Yup MUAHAAHAH...he's firing again...

Am I the only one that runs combat that way?

[Natasha]

Am I the only one that runs combat that way?

You're not.

[Natasha]

But canonly I believe you roll to strike first

I believe, too.

[LostOne]

For fairness it needs to be declared before, otherwise losing initiative becomes a good thing because you can sit back and observe and then decide after you see whether the person hits if you want to do a simultaneous attack.

I agree. So much so that I said it a while back.

I saw that after I posted. I don't read the replies until after I post on these poll threads, lest someone's words sway my decision.

[Natasha]

For fairness it needs to be declared before, otherwise losing initiative becomes a good thing because you can sit back and observe and then decide after you see whether the person hits if you want to do a simultaneous attack.

I agree. So much so that I said it a while back.

I saw that after I posted. I don't read the replies until after I post on these poll threads, lest someone's words sway my decision.

;-)

I wasn't being snippy

[LostOne]

I wasn't being snippy

I know. I was just explaining why I basically repeated you.

[Kryzbyn]

For fairness it needs to be declared before, otherwise losing initiative becomes a good thing because you can sit back and observe and then decide after you see whether the person hits if you want to do a simultaneous attack.

For example, imagine an enemy using a soul-drinking rune weapon. The player doesn't know of the soul-drinking is activated or not.

"The enemy swings and rolls a natural one."
"Awesome, I'm doing a simultaneous attack."

OR:

"The enemy swings and rolls a high number."
"I'll try to parry."

The point is, the character wouldn't know if that hit would land or not when he decides to attack or parry. So why should the player get the luxury of basing his decisions on actions his character doesn't know yet?

I guess it's a difference in GM styles then. I never tell my players the outcome of an enemy's attack until they react.
ME: Ok, looks like the dead boy is gonna fire at you again...what're you gonna do?
Player: I'll dodge out of the way...woohoo nat 20 auto dodge eat that!
ME: yeah, the sudden burst of activity must have riled the dead boy a bit, as the bricks 30 ft away from you disinegrate (he rolled a 2 )
Player: crap I wasted a dodge
ME: Yup MUAHAAHAH...he's firing again...

Am I the only one that runs combat that way?

No, that's how I run it and any other person should run it b/c otherwise you're making everyone a fortune teller.......

But canonly I believe you roll to strike first...........which is dumb and like KS says, modify the game to fit you......

Well then, if you run combat that way simul attacks aren't an issue.

[Kryzbyn]

But canonly I believe you roll to strike first

I believe, too.

I do roll to strike first, they (the players) just don't get to see the result until they've declared their action.

[Natasha]

But canonly I believe you roll to strike first

I believe, too.

I do roll to strike first, they (the players) just don't get to see the result until they've declared their action.

Why not roll simultaneously?

[Killer Cyborg]

That's all the Glitterboy ever had to do.
But even without Simo-Attack, a lone SAMAS never stood a chance against a GB, not by the rules.

Not true, even a old school Sam with Missle Rifle who has a EOD specialist buddy rework his plasma missles that now do 2d4x10 by the CWC book, fires a volley of 4, average damage of 200 MDC, boom gun only has 175 MDC...

Did you find some rules somewhere allowing called shots with missile volleys?

they will take half damage accordin to RUE b/c it's in the blast radius

If any part of RUE says that blast radius damage applies to body parts, not just to other people in the radius, pleas point it out to me.

Wow, now that I think about it this simo attack may benefit the Sam more b/c he can basically disable the GB in one attack while the average damage for the GB boom gun is 100-110 MDC............the GB may knock the Sam so hard he losses a turn or two, but when the GB has no more weapons he's done for. Assuming he hasn't decked out his GB with mini missles galore and what not......

SAMAS wings only have 50 MDC.

[Killer Cyborg]

So why is shooting missiles in response of an attack acceptable, but a simo isn't? Haven't heard anyone argue against that...yet.

You're right, that qualifies for the "natch 20". Seriously; you have to hit four targets moving at 1200mph, with a weapon only capable of single shots. And even then when you shoot a missile it does not go off, it is destroyed.

Read the rules, dude.
When you shoot a missile, there's good chance of detonating it.
And if you detonate it, then it takes out the rest of the volley.

[Killer Cyborg]

For fairness it needs to be declared before, otherwise losing initiative becomes a good thing because you can sit back and observe and then decide after you see whether the person hits if you want to do a simultaneous attack.

For example, imagine an enemy using a soul-drinking rune weapon. The player doesn't know of the soul-drinking is activated or not.

"The enemy swings and rolls a natural one."
"Awesome, I'm doing a simultaneous attack."

OR:

"The enemy swings and rolls a high number."
"I'll try to parry."

The point is, the character wouldn't know if that hit would land or not when he decides to attack or parry. So why should the player get the luxury of basing his decisions on actions his character doesn't know yet?

Exactly.

Simo is broken, and you spelled it out exactly why it is.

Nah, the only thing he points out is that letting the players know what the strike roll is before they respond doesn't work well.
Same applies with dodging: if you know that the enemy is going to miss, then you don't bother to declare a dodge.
If you don't know what the enemies roll is, then you have to think about it a bit.

[Killer Cyborg]

But canonly I believe you roll to strike first

I believe, too.

I do roll to strike first, they (the players) just don't get to see the result until they've declared their action.

Pretty much.

[LostOne]

If any part of RUE says that blast radius damage applies to body parts, not just to other people in the radius, pleas point it out to me.

Cuz it makes sense that 5 people could be in a blast radius and only take damage to their torsos...

Seems like common sense to me that limbs and heads could get involved there...

[Killer Cyborg]

If any part of RUE says that blast radius damage applies to body parts, not just to other people in the radius, pleas point it out to me.

Cuz it makes sense that 5 people could be in a blast radius and only take damage to their torsos...

No, it doesn't make sense.
But that's the way the rules go.

Seems like common sense to me that limbs and heads could get involved there...

Agreed, except....
Not everything has MDC divided by location, so ruling that explosive work that way automatically puts everybody with MDC by location at a disadvantage vs. area attacks.

Take a dragon and a SAMAS, for example.
A grenade is thrown, and the damage roll is 20 MD.

The dragon takes 20 points of damage.

The SAMAS takes 20 MD to his main body,
10 MD to his right wing,
10 MD to his left wing,
10 MD to his left maneuvering jet,
10 MD to his right maneuvering jet,
10 MD to his rail gun
10 MD to his forearm mini-missile launcher,
10 MD to his left hand,
10 MD to his right hand,
10 MD to his left arm,
10 MD to his right arm,
10 MD to his left leg,
10 MD to his right leg,
10 MD to his head.

So the grenade did 20 MD, and the dragon took 20 MD from the blast.
But the same grenade hitting the SAMAS for 20 MD actually inflicts, 150 MD.

Does that really make more sense to you?
The dragon's bigger, he's got more area that should be affected by the explosion, but he takes 130 points less damage from the exact same blast.

Also, that rule would mean that the more information the books give us, the deadlier area effect attacks are.
If a SAMAS Sourcebook comes out, and it decides that the eye-ports on a SAMAS have 10 MDC, then suddenly that grenade does 10 more MDC than it did previously.

In fact, this kind of thing has already happened (or would have, if the rules worked as you believe).

Back in the original Rifts book, all personal body armor only had main body MDC.
Which would mean that a grenade (functioning as you believe) would do less damage to a CS Grunt than to a SAMAS:
The Grunt would lose 20 MD: the SAMAS would still lose 150.
Which would make power armor and Bots even less worthwhile than they already are.

And it would mean that when, in later books, they decided to stat out the other hit locations of body armor, that suddenly that same grenade would inflict 70 MD instead of 20.
(More, really, if anybody is standing next to the Grunt, because each of their statted body parts would also take 10 MD).
Does that seem logical to you?

Like many other game discussions, this has come up before.
And, like many other game discussions, I had an opportunity to ask Kevin Siembieda about it.

Essentially, I asked: "Does the blast radius damage affect other body parts of the main target? Or does it just affect the main body of multiple targets in the same zone?"
(fleshed out with examples of what I meant)

His answer, IIRC (though it's probably posted around here somewhere), was "It depends on how deadly you want your campaign."

So it could be argued that how you rule this one is officially up to each GM to handle.

But you'd have to want a really deadly campaign, because if you play the way that you want to, then anybody in non-environmental armor is going to die from any explosion.
Hell, you wouldn't even need MD grenades; chuck a good SDC grenade at somebody whose torso, legs, and arms are clad in MDC armor, and their head's STILL going to get destroyed.
And their hands and feet.

While that would be interesting, I don't believe that that's the way that the game is designed to be played.

[Killer Cyborg]

You don't need a called shot to shoot the rail gun, the rail gun is the target, there is no minuses to aim for the gun, no astrisk next to it in the book or anything.

RUE, 361

A "Called Shot" target specification. This is a shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target, such as a bull's-eye, an opponent's head, hand, gun, radio, radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, etc., but counts as two melee attacks.

No size requirements.

The body parts rule for Plasma is just my common sense kicking in, so you're right canonly it's not spelled out.

Addressed in another post.

Sam doesn't need wings to stay hovering, he'll be stuck with a huge jet pack so his speed and movements would be impaired, but won't be shot down from the sky necessarily. Now shooting the wings would be a called shot requiring two actions, good luck on that one.

Since you were starting out with a Called Shot, I figured you were playing under the old rules where it only took one attack, because otherwise your SAMAS would get nailed 2-3 times before he launched that volley (not that he can make Called Shots with volleys in the first place).
I now understand that you didn't realize that you were making a Called Shot, so shooting the wing is irrelevant.

[Killer Cyborg]

So why is shooting missiles in response of an attack acceptable, but a simo isn't? Haven't heard anyone argue against that...yet.

You're right, that qualifies for the "natch 20". Seriously; you have to hit four targets moving at 1200mph, with a weapon only capable of single shots. And even then when you shoot a missile it does not go off, it is destroyed.

Read the rules, dude.
When you shoot a missile, there's good chance of detonating it.
And if you detonate it, then it takes out the rest of the volley.

Negative, you roll percentage dice to see how many get detonated from that one that detonates.

True enough.
I mis-remembered the rules, and got confused between shooting down missiles normally, and shooting them down with your own volley of missiles.

So yes, when he shoots that first missile, there is a 60% chance that he only takes out 2 of the 4 missiles, and a 40% chance that he takes out all 4 missiles.

And if two missiles are still coming at him, he can always perform a Block Sacrifice to protect his gun.

(Although personally, all my GBs carry back-up weapons)

[Killer Cyborg]

The RUE rule on called shots for shooting guns assumes normal size guns, not guns the size of human beings or bigger.

And is is assuming the same sort of sensor clusters, spotlights, and tires that humans carry around?

You're skewing that rule, and you know it.

You're skewing that rule and you know it, so we'll leave this alon and we'll play it diffrently.

Why do you always want your PC to be the fastest, most agile, fortune telling crystal balls juicer like beings who can always tell............"wow I'm getting shot at by missles, let me aim my boom gun and blow one up see if they all blow up and if they don't then I"ll block my gun b/c I think he may be aiming for it"........lol.......

You don't need a crystal ball to see missiles coming at you, and you don't need a crystal ball to know that you can shoot them down.
And you don't need one to know the difference between somebody shooting at your gun and at your main body.
And even if you can't tell the difference, it's still usually a good idea to Block Sacrifice instead of taking the hit.

And who said that the GB is "my PC?"
I've only played GBs 2-3 times in over a decade of playing Rifts.
Probably the same number of times I've played SAMASes, and less times than I've played characters who wear SAMAS armor but have a different OCC.

When I make a statement like "A SAMAS doesn't stand a chance against a GB," I'm not playing favorites. I'm just pointing out the facts.
And just in case it comes up, when I say something like "2+2=4," I'm not being biased for the number four, and I'm not being biased against the number five.
It's just how the world works, no matter how much you or I might like the number five.

[Killer Cyborg]

You don't need a called shot to shoot the rail gun, the rail gun is the target, there is no minuses to aim for the gun, no astrisk next to it in the book or anything.

Addressing this a second time, in more detail:

Yes, in RUE there are sections of the Glitter Boy (head and hands) that are marked with an asterisks, indicating that these sections are: "a small and difficult target to strike, requiring the attacker to make a "Called Shot," and even then the assailant is at -4 to strike."

There were no such notes that I'm aware of before RUE, and I'm not sure that they mean what you think that they mean.
There are two qualifications for receiving that asterisk:
1. Requires a called shot
2. Is small enough to instill a strike penalty for the attacker.

It's not an either/or thing; the asterisks only mark the parts of the GB that meet both of these criteria. While the Boom Gun might require a Called Shot, it's certainly not a small and difficult target that instills a strike penalty.

Still, it is possible that you have correctly interpreted things, so if you want to, go ahead and quote this post in a new thread.

Of course, for the purposes of this thread, I'll point out two things you might have overlooked:
1. The only part of the SAMAS armor that has an asterisk is the head, which would mean (by your interpretation of the asterisks) that that's the only part of the SAMAS that requires a Called Shot.
(By my interpretation, that's the only part that requires a Called Shot at a penalty).
2. RUE 362

Note: All missiles always strike the main body.

The Boom Gun is statted as part of the GB armor, NOT as the main body of anything.
You might try to argue that it's the main body of the Boom Gun, but you might as well argue that the arm of the GB is the "main body of the GB's arm."
The only time it would be applicable is if it's away from the GB, lying separated on the ground or something.

[Killer Cyborg]

What are you calling a "block sacrifice"...........talking about parrying the missles with your other arm or what?? B/c RUE states projecties and energy blasts can't be parried

I couldn't find "bock sacrifice" in the combat terms of the RUE.....???....is this an old RMB term?

It's been in the rules since Robotech (at least), and is in the original Rifts book.
The term "Block Sacrifice," AFAIK, didn't show up until RUE.
It's described on p. 364

I don't know how you guys play it, but you only get one defensvie maneuver in my book......

It depends on the circumstances.
For example, I believe that you can Roll With Impact even if you fail a dodge.

.......you either decide to dodge, decide to shoot at teh missles or decide to parry it with some kind of humongous shield I guess if you have something like that...........but if you miss the missles you shouldn't be allowed to then attempt to parry them with some kind of huge shield b/c that's two defensive moves.

I was talking about the arms, but I've often argued that GBs should carry shields.

As for whether or not you can Block Sacrifice if you fail to shoot down all the missiles, I don't believe that there's enough info in the books to say one way or the other.
Personally, I assume that you can.

[Dead Boy]

Silly me. I figured this thread would end shortly after the FAQ was posted.

Why would it? That has to be the least definitive answer I've ever seen from the FAQ.

Are we sure simultaneous attacks are possible outside hand to hand combat?

Yes. And honestly, why wouldn't they be?

Gee, how about the fact that it completely negates initiative, there is no defense in ranged while there is melee situations (paired weapons), the fact that it's never once even alluded to in the Ranged Combat section of any book, and the fact that a character would have to have Juicer-reflexes to be able to recognize an impending attack, aim, and shoot back all in the same split second. You'd think those would be pretty strong reasons to question Simo's usability with ranged weapons.

In that melee scenario the victim samurai may be able to use his wakizashi to parry the Simo counter if he has the Paired Weapon's skill or ability. No such defense exists in melee combat, going back to one of my earlier arguments as to why it's unbalancing in ranged combat. Especially since it's all but impossible to parry bullets and lasers.

But if the Samurai doesn't have Paired Weapons, then it works out just the same as with ranged weapons.
Which, if you are going to be consistent, means that you think simo-attacks are "unbalanced" in melee combat where the participants don't have paired weapons.

Not true in the slightest. The very fact that Paired Weapons is electable as a skill at ANY level, having to defend against this attack is just a matter of long-term preparation. You don't blame the Wilk's 457 for killing someone just because he didn't bother to put on his armor that day... same line of thought.

I'll get back to the rest of your counter-points when I have more time. Got a test tomorrow and I should bother to study for it.

[Kryzbyn]

Should the GM let PC Y know what PC X is going to do?? Considering he wants to attack at the same time.

Unless the character is blind or is otherwise unaware of his attacker, yes.

So should somebody who is going to do a simulatneous attack have the privilege of knowing what the person attacking them is going to do???

Unless the character is blind or is otherwise unaware of his attacker, yes.

Second question not part of the poll
Do you think simulataneous attack should be available only in HtH?

No. FAQ says it is also allowed in ranged combat. (This was a yes or no question, so I don't see how saying no is too vague )

I think it would only make sense in HtH combat b/c ranged combat is just too fast with energy blasts and rounds hitting basically instantaneously, and if it's available to ranged combat then doesn't that kind of take the point of initiative away??

No. The guy the PC is simultaneously attacking still went first or before the PC in the round, or there would be nothing to respond to.

[Killer Cyborg]

In that melee scenario the victim samurai may be able to use his wakizashi to parry the Simo counter if he has the Paired Weapon's skill or ability. No such defense exists in melee combat, going back to one of my earlier arguments as to why it's unbalancing in ranged combat. Especially since it's all but impossible to parry bullets and lasers.

But if the Samurai doesn't have Paired Weapons, then it works out just the same as with ranged weapons.
Which, if you are going to be consistent, means that you think simo-attacks are "unbalanced" in melee combat where the participants don't have paired weapons.

Not true in the slightest. The very fact that Paired Weapons is electable as a skill at ANY level, having to defend against this attack is just a matter of long-term preparation. You don't blame the Wilk's 457 for killing someone just because he didn't bother to put on his armor that day... same line of thought.

As of RUE (if not before), Paired Weapons is only available to Men-At-Arms OCCs.

And besides that, your argument is essentially that anybody who doesn't use paired weapons for melee is an idiot. No one uses two-handed swords in your world, no one-handed weapons, nothing; just a bunch of guys running around with paired weapons?
Nobody ever gets into combat with their bare hands?

I'll get back to the rest of your counter-points when I have more time. Got a test tomorrow and I should bother to study for it.

Good luck.

[Natasha]

Silly me. I figured this thread would end shortly after the FAQ was posted.

FAQs are like Nazis.

If that doesn't end it, nothing will

[Dog_O_War]

Are we sure simultaneous attacks are possible outside hand to hand combat?

Yes. And honestly, why wouldn't they be?

Gee, how about the fact that it completely negates initiative, there is no defense in ranged while there is melee situations (paired weapons), the fact that it's never once even alluded to in the Ranged Combat section of any book, and the fact that a character would have to have Juicer-reflexes to be able to recognize an impending attack, aim, and shoot back all in the same split second. You'd think those would be pretty strong reasons to question Simo's usability with ranged weapons.

Whoa, bud. I never said that it was fair. I never said I liked it (infact, I said quite the opposite). I also never said that it made sense as written, but you seem to have confused me with someone else that has. I sympathize with your position and from a personal stand-point completely agree with you.

Unfortunately the rules and the people I am forced to side with completely disagree with you. You are arguing what should be; we are telling you how it is. I know it is a bunk and unequal rule, and you apparently do too. So intead of crying about it, abuse it until someone with authority is forced to change it. I find abuse changes things faster than almost any other alternative.

[Kryzbyn]

Simo give the person who losses initiative and insight to what the first person is going to do and act accordingly to best benefit him, while initiative by nature is suppose to do the opposite, attack your enemy first without him being able to gather his wits ect......

Simo makes losing initiative a positive thing in many situations, and that should never be the case.

No it doesn't.
If the person being attacked is aware he is being attacked, damn skippy he should be able to simo his ass.
If he's being ambushed, he doesn't get to simo. It's called a suprise round.

[Killer Cyborg]

Simo give the person who losses initiative and insight to what the first person is going to do and act accordingly to best benefit him, while initiative by nature is suppose to do the opposite, attack your enemy first without him being able to gather his wits ect......

Simo makes losing initiative a positive thing in many situations, and that should never be the case.

No it doesn't.
If the person being attacked is aware he is being attacked, damn skippy he should be able to simo his ass.
If he's being ambushed, he doesn't get to simo. It's called a suprise round.

Juicer with no armor says let get down and fight with a 12 year old kid with a vibro knife in hth combat, but full environmental armor.

Juicer has a 20 something for initiative, 12 year old rolls like a 2. Juicer is going to try and disarm the kid, but the kid does a simo attacks and kills the juicer b/c the juicer can't dodge due to the rules of simo...............make sense to you?

Not really, no.
Why did the juicer charge right in where the kid could knife him, instead of waiting for the kid to attack first?
Why's an unarmed, unarmored juicer picking a fight with somebody who's not only wearing MDC armor, but who's also got a weapon that packs as much punch as an anti-tank rocket?
What the hell was he thinking?

Just b/c you're aware you're being attacked does't mean you're fast enough to fire back in the same time frame.

Not in real life, not always.
But the rules never perfectly reflect real life.

And, of course, the same argument you just made applies just as well to melee combat.

Like someone pointed out duels in teh Old West that they reference in the New West book..........wha'ts the point of those duels if all you have to do it simo attack and you always get a shot off???

There's a lot of stupid crap in that book, and the showdowns are a prime example.
But not because of Simo-attacks, because you can't simo-attack if your gun is still holstered.

Well the person doing the attack knows he's shooting at someone that may shoot back, so why can't he dodge??

Because he's too busy shooting.

Simo actually hurts Juicers and the most elite soldiers the most, KS and other writers always write about Juicers doding and shooting, rolling ect killing multiple CS grunts ect................but if all the soldiers just keep simo the juicer, none of that would happen.......

Find me where exactly in the books KS writes about that, because I'm curious.

What does the game lose if you get rid of simo? or make it exclusive just to hth combat?

If you get rid of simo-attacks, then juicers and other auto-dodgers become stupidly powerful, for one thing. Also, the game would end up with a lot more of the "two people stand still, taking turns attacking each other" feel that a lot of other games have.
And it would make for unrealistic situations where you have your gun pointed right at somebody, but they get a higher init, so they can shoot you before you have a chance to squeeze the trigger... even though you still have plenty of time to jump to the side.
And the game would lose one of the aspects that encourages people to actually think before they act, instead of blindly rushing in, blazing away every chance that they get.

If you make it exclusive to HTH combat, then the game loses realism and combat becomes lopsided for no good reason.

[Kryzbyn]

Juicer has a 20 something for initiative, 12 year old rolls like a 2. Juicer is going to try and disarm the kid, but the kid does a simo attacks and kills the juicer b/c the juicer can't dodge due to the rules of simo...............make sense to you?

This example does illustrate your point well, but when would this actually ever happen? Does the Juicer have an IQ of 2? All that military training and he attacks a person with a MD weapon without wearing armor?
How about coming up with an example that might actually happen in a RIFTS game.

[Dog_O_War]

Simo give the person who losses initiative and insight to what the first person is going to do and act accordingly to best benefit him, while initiative by nature is suppose to do the opposite, attack your enemy first without him being able to gather his wits ect......

Simo makes losing initiative a positive thing in many situations, and that should never be the case.

No it doesn't.
If the person being attacked is aware he is being attacked, damn skippy he should be able to simo his ass.
If he's being ambushed, he doesn't get to simo. It's called a suprise round.

Juicer with no armor says let get down and fight with a 12 year old kid with a vibro knife in hth combat, but full environmental armor.

Juicer has a 20 something for initiative, 12 year old rolls like a 2. Juicer is going to try and disarm the kid, but the kid does a simo attacks and kills the juicer b/c the juicer can't dodge due to the rules of simo...............make sense to you?

Not really, no.
Why did the juicer charge right in where the kid could knife him, instead of waiting for the kid to attack first?

That's right! I bet he completely forgot that Juicers were especially known for their patience and cautionary attitudes...

[Natasha]

What does the game lose if you get rid of simo? or make it exclusive just to hth combat?

If you get rid of simo-attacks, then juicers and other auto-dodgers become stupidly powerful, for one thing. Also, the game would end up with a lot more of the "two people stand still, taking turns attacking each other" feel that a lot of other games have.
And it would make for unrealistic situations where you have your gun pointed right at somebody, but they get a higher init, so they can shoot you before you have a chance to squeeze the trigger... even though you still have plenty of time to jump to the side.
And the game would lose one of the aspects that encourages people to actually think before they act, instead of blindly rushing in, blazing away every chance that they get.

If you make it exclusive to HTH combat, then the game loses realism and combat becomes lopsided for no good reason.

I'd agree with the first part - in that simultaneous attacks shouldn't be removed.

However, I don't see why making it exclusive to HTH combat is a negative. I don't think simultaneous attacks is something an untrained fighter would do reflexively and instinctly. If you're untrained fighter chump, then the trained fighter should kick your ass; the trained fighter knows how to attack and cover at the same time such that there is no opening for the chump to attack anyway.

My point is that trained v. untrained should be lopsided because in all my real life experiences, that's the case.

[Killer Cyborg]

And it would make for unrealistic situations where you have your gun pointed right at somebody, but they get a higher init, so they can shoot you before you have a chance to squeeze the trigger... even though you still have plenty of time to jump to the side.
And the game would lose one of the aspects that encourages people to actually think before they act, instead of blindly rushing in, blazing away every chance that they get.

If you make it exclusive to HTH combat, then the game loses realism and combat becomes lopsided for no good reason.

jump to the side? isn't that what a dodge is? .......

Yes.
I was referring to a dodge.

.........I'm not saying getting rid of dodge at all so I don't know where you're going with that one.

My point is that when you're aiming your gun at somebody, it's stupid to claim that you don't have time to shoot him when he shoots you, but that you DO have time to jump to the side (aka "Dodge").
Which is how things would work if you remove simo-attacks for ranged weapons.

Squeezing a trigger takes less time than jumping to the side.

Juicer, borgs, elite warriors are suppose to dominate a battle in where brute strength and speed wins.....

Where's it say that?

.......if you're a psychic or mage or whatever, you use your abilities to hide, blend, ect ect in order to benefit you.

Or just use a gun.

Do you guys actually believe what you type or just backup an idea/rule that benefits the style you play in order to defeat foes?

I adapt my style of play to the rules of the game, not vice versa.

[Killer Cyborg]

Well the person doing the attack knows he's shooting at someone that may shoot back, so why can't he dodge??

Because he's too busy shooting.

OK, so you're saying the person being shot at first whom lost initiative can react fast enough to decide weather he wants to dodge or simo attack, but the person whom is attacking whom won initiative and is looking straight at his enemy who can perfectly see his enemy pulling his gun up .............but he can't dodge.

That actually makes sense to you?

Yes.
What doesn't make sense to me is why you would try to shoot somebody whom you know can shoot back at you, then freak out and try to abandon your attack when they actually do.
If you don't want to attack, then don't start to attack simply to try to dodge when the enemy responds.

[Killer Cyborg]

Why did the juicer charge right in where the kid could knife him, instead of waiting for the kid to attack first?

That's right! I bet he completely forgot that Juicers were especially known for their patience and cautionary attitudes...

Actually, yeah.
You never noticed that their main weapon is a sniper rifle?

But leaving that aside, you seem to be confusing "impatient" with "suicidally stupid."
Granted, some juicers might behave that say, but when they DO, they tend to die.
So I'm not sure where you're going with that.

My point is that juicers are trained combatants, and they're generally supposed to be good at it; they're not typically fumbling spazzes who can't out-think a 12-year-old with a knife.

[Killer Cyborg]

My point is that when you're aiming your gun at somebody, it's stupid to claim that you don't have time to shoot him when he shoots you, but that you DO have time to jump to the side (aka "Dodge").
Which is how things would work if you remove simo-attacks for ranged weapons.

Squeezing a trigger takes less time than jumping to the side.

KC, pulling the trigger takes less time, but bringing the gun up, aiming, and firing does NOT take less time.

Agreed.
Which is why the scenario was a situation where the attacker already has his gun pointed right at the target.

If you lost initiative your gun is not pointed at your target. Your case would only work if it was a Mexican standoff, which is an insanely rare situation. I'm not talking about aiming in on a specific body part, I'm talking aiming enough to even hit the general target. It IS just as easy and quick to sidestep as it is to bring a gun up and fire.

In Rifts, gunfights often last for more than one shot.
If you shoot at somebody with your first attack, then you shoot at them with your second attack, does that mean that you had to bring your gun to bear on them each time?
No; it's still pointed at them from the first attack.

My point is that juicers are trained combatants, and they're generally supposed to be good at it; they're not typically fumbling spazzes who can't out-think a 12-year-old with a knife.

Ok, so the 12 year old gets a gun. Now we're back at square one where no matter how fast you are, no matter how well trained, simo-attack results in anyone, no matter how unskilled, of being easily able to take you down.

Not really.
Because all the Juicer has to do in that circumstance is not attack.

This isn't brain surgery.

If the kid's a non-combatant, then he's only got one attack.
Juicer wins init: does nothing.
Kid's turn, he shoots. (The kid can choose NOT to shoot, but his attack is still used up)
Juicer dodges.
Juicer uses his next 4-5 attacks pounding the crap out of the kid.

[LostOne]

If you shoot at somebody with your first attack, then you shoot at them with your second attack, does that mean that you had to bring your gun to bear on them each time?
No; it's still pointed at them from the first attack.

Wrong. The recoil of the gun may throw your aim off some, or the impact of the hit on your target may make the target move some. In either case, you have to re-aim each time, which is why you have to roll a strike roll every attack. You don't hit once and start rolling damage for all your other attacks because you've "locked on target."

[Killer Cyborg]

If you shoot at somebody with your first attack, then you shoot at them with your second attack, does that mean that you had to bring your gun to bear on them each time?
No; it's still pointed at them from the first attack.

Wrong. The recoil of the gun may throw your aim off some, or the impact of the hit on your target may make the target move some. In either case, you have to re-aim each time, which is why you have to roll a strike roll every attack. You don't hit once and start rolling damage for all your other attacks because you've "locked on target."

Do you seriously think that it takes more time to compensate for recoil than it does to dodge the aim of somebody shooting you?

[Natasha]

Not really.
Because all the Juicer has to do in that circumstance is not attack.

This isn't brain surgery.

If the kid's a non-combatant, then he's only got one attack.
Juicer wins init: does nothing.
Kid's turn, he shoots. (The kid can choose NOT to shoot, but his attack is still used up)
Juicer dodges.
Juicer uses his next 4-5 attacks pounding the crap out of the kid.

Depends upon how you handle combat, and the book isn't clear - well it's not clear to me.

If you are the defender and you declare a dodge but the attacker, the guy with initiative, doesn't attack, you still dodge - you still move. If you are the defender and you declare a simultaneous attack you still move (as in, pull the trigger), even if the guy with initiative doesn't. Now since the attacker can't defend a simultaneous attack, the boy greases the juicer. This is how I'd call it. Call it RECON's influence *shrug*

However, there is another way.

If you are the defender and you declare a dodge but the attacker doesn't attack, then you just kinda weave your head or something but don't lose your attack. The attacker's inaction nullifies your defense. So if you declare simultaneous attack, since there is nothing incoming, your defense is likewise nullified. You don't shoot back and you don't lose an attack.

*Edit: All this assumes you can simultaneously attack shooters, which I don't think you can in the first place, according to the rule as I read it.

[Dog_O_War]

Why did the juicer charge right in where the kid could knife him, instead of waiting for the kid to attack first?

That's right! I bet he completely forgot that Juicers were especially known for their patience and cautionary attitudes...

Actually, yeah.
You never noticed that their main weapon is a sniper rifle?

Actually, the weapon they begin play with is a rifle used for sniping, not a "sniper rifle".

But leaving that aside, you seem to be confusing "impatient" with "suicidally stupid."
Granted, some juicers might behave that say, but when they DO, they tend to die.
So I'm not sure where you're going with that.

"Hold on Jim, that 12 year-old parapalegic kids' got a knife! Your Super-human stature, reflexes, strength, and toughness are nothing!"
Yeah, what you said is true
Obviously the above is a gross example of sarcasm with an extreme situation, but it better illustrates that a Juicer shouldn't consider a twelve year old kid with a knife a "suicidal" challenge. (especially if he's a cripple like in my description)

My point is that juicers are trained combatants, and they're generally supposed to be good at it; they're not typically fumbling spazzes who can't out-think a 12-year-old with a knife.

Yes, but they are also not people who should have to wait in fear of said "fumbling spazzes"; you and I both know that the amount of examples that weigh against this rule being really, really dumb are immense. Really, I think that's all K20A2_S and the others want to hear.

[Killer Cyborg]

If you shoot at somebody with your first attack, then you shoot at them with your second attack, does that mean that you had to bring your gun to bear on them each time?
No; it's still pointed at them from the first attack.

Wrong. The recoil of the gun may throw your aim off some, or the impact of the hit on your target may make the target move some. In either case, you have to re-aim each time, which is why you have to roll a strike roll every attack. You don't hit once and start rolling damage for all your other attacks because you've "locked on target."

Do you seriously think that it takes more time to compensate for recoil than it does to dodge the aim of somebody shooting you?

Depending on the caliber of the weapon, yes.

What about with a laser?

Holding a 9mm pistol on a non-moving target isn't hard if within 5m, shooting at a moving target is a HELL of a lot harder.

That's why there are penalties for shooting at moving targets.

I'm not going to say "ever been shot at by a real pistol" because that's just silly as a comparison. However, anyone who's been paintballing knows that even at close range hitting a moving target is a royal ***** and it's not easy to keep a weapon trained on someone accurately as they move.

And anybody who's played paintball knows that it's sometimes quicker to shoot at somebody than to dodge out of the way.

For the first shot in said Mexican Standoff, sure it's not hard. Soon as the target start moving though yeah, it's a *****.

IF he starts moving, which doesn't always happen.

[Killer Cyborg]

If you shoot at somebody with your first attack, then you shoot at them with your second attack, does that mean that you had to bring your gun to bear on them each time?
No; it's still pointed at them from the first attack.

Wrong. The recoil of the gun may throw your aim off some, or the impact of the hit on your target may make the target move some. In either case, you have to re-aim each time, which is why you have to roll a strike roll every attack. You don't hit once and start rolling damage for all your other attacks because you've "locked on target."

Do you seriously think that it takes more time to compensate for recoil than it does to dodge the aim of somebody shooting you?

If he already shot at you once you already know he's probably going to keep shooting so you're not dodging the laser, but the assumption that he will attempt to shoot you again.

Doesn't really affect the question.

[Killer Cyborg]

Not really.
Because all the Juicer has to do in that circumstance is not attack.

This isn't brain surgery.

If the kid's a non-combatant, then he's only got one attack.
Juicer wins init: does nothing.
Kid's turn, he shoots. (The kid can choose NOT to shoot, but his attack is still used up)
Juicer dodges.
Juicer uses his next 4-5 attacks pounding the crap out of the kid.

Depends upon how you handle combat, and the book isn't clear - well it's not clear to me.

If you are the defender and you declare a dodge but the attacker, the guy with initiative, doesn't attack, you still dodge - you still move. If you are the defender and you declare a simultaneous attack you still move (as in, pull the trigger), even if the guy with initiative doesn't. Now since the attacker can't defend a simultaneous attack, the boy greases the juicer. This is how I'd call it. Call it RECON's influence *shrug*

You can't simo-attack unless somebody's attacking you.

However, there is another way.

If you are the defender and you declare a dodge but the attacker doesn't attack, then...

How can you declare a dodge if nobody attacks?
And why would you?

*Edit: All this assumes you can simultaneously attack shooters, which I don't think you can in the first place, according to the rule as I read it.

Then reread the thread.
I've already addressed that.

[Killer Cyborg]

Why did the juicer charge right in where the kid could knife him, instead of waiting for the kid to attack first?

That's right! I bet he completely forgot that Juicers were especially known for their patience and cautionary attitudes...

Actually, yeah.
You never noticed that their main weapon is a sniper rifle?

Actually, the weapon they begin play with is a rifle used for sniping, not a "sniper rifle".

A rifle that was specifically designed to be used by Juicers.

But leaving that aside, you seem to be confusing "impatient" with "suicidally stupid."
Granted, some juicers might behave that say, but when they DO, they tend to die.
So I'm not sure where you're going with that.

"Hold on Jim, that 12 year-old parapalegic kids' got a knife! Your Super-human stature, reflexes, strength, and toughness are nothing!"
Yeah, what you said is true
Obviously the above is a gross example of sarcasm with an extreme situation, but it better illustrates that a Juicer shouldn't consider a twelve year old kid with a knife a "suicidal" challenge. (especially if he's a cripple like in my description)

A 12 year-old kid with a knife isn't a threat to a juicer.
A 12 year-old kid with a vibro-knife is a threat to any SDC being in reach.

My point is that juicers are trained combatants, and they're generally supposed to be good at it; they're not typically fumbling spazzes who can't out-think a 12-year-old with a knife.

Yes, but they are also not people who should have to wait in fear of said "fumbling spazzes";

Huh?
The "fumbling spaz" mentioned is the idiot who charges in to get stabbed, so I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Although I agree that they're not something to be feared.

you and I both know that the amount of examples that weigh against this rule being really, really dumb are immense. Really, I think that's all K20A2_S and the others want to hear.

That the amount of examples that weigh against the rule being really dumb are immense?
Sure.
But every time I give on, it seems to go over their heads or something.

[Dog_O_War]

you and I both know that the amount of examples that weigh against this rule being really, really dumb are immense. Really, I think that's all K20A2_S and the others want to hear.

That the amount of examples that weigh against the rule being really dumb are immense?
Sure.
But every time I give on, it seems to go over their heads or something.

Dammit. For this rule being really really dumb. You know what I meant. I mean, being able to waste all your attacks in a single second because of it and having to wait frozen for the remaining 14 is a clear indicator that there is a problem with the rule.
As is having a Juicer move in to disarm the kid (still technically an attack) only to get stabbed simoltaineously. There are more broken examples with this rule than there are working pieces.

[Killer Cyborg]

you and I both know that the amount of examples that weigh against this rule being really, really dumb are immense. Really, I think that's all K20A2_S and the others want to hear.

That the amount of examples that weigh against the rule being really dumb are immense?
Sure.
But every time I give on, it seems to go over their heads or something.

Dammit. For this rule being really really dumb. You know what I meant. I mean, being able to waste all your attacks in a single second because of it and having to wait frozen for the remaining 14 is a clear indicator that there is a problem with the rule.

As I've said before, you can't do more than one attack in a given attack phase, just like with normal attacks.
So that's not really a problem.

As is having a Juicer move in to disarm the kid (still technically an attack) only to get stabbed simoltaineously.

Why is that supposed to be stupid?
The kid's standing there, knife drawn, at the ready... and he's really supposed to be unable to move until after the juicer has moved in and grabbed the knife from him?

Have you ever tried to grab a knife away from a kid who's willing to stab you?

There are more broken examples with this rule than there are working pieces.

I haven't seen any examples of it being broken yet.
(though I have seen some broken examples )

[LostOne]

What about with a laser?

The laser vaporizes matter at the point of impact, which causes a small explosion of gases, which causes the target to move the same as if they got shot with a high velocity projectile.

That's why there are penalties for shooting at moving targets.

Unless you're shooting at a plodding slow robot, it should probably be assumed that your targets are all moving, even if they aren't effectively dodging. No one willingly stands there and lets someone shoot them unless they know they are immune to it. Even then, they might have a reflex motion that causes them to move because their body/reflexes doesn't know they're immune.

[Killer Cyborg]

What about with a laser?

The laser vaporizes matter at the point of impact, which causes a small explosion of gases, which causes the target to move the same as if they got shot with a high velocity projectile.

Which doesn't require a significant amount of re-aiming.

That's why there are penalties for shooting at moving targets.

Unless you're shooting at a plodding slow robot, it should probably be assumed that your targets are all moving, even if they aren't effectively dodging.

Not really.
A lot of the time they don't want to shoot Wild, so they hold still.

[Dog_O_War]

you and I both know that the amount of examples that weigh against this rule being really, really dumb are immense. Really, I think that's all K20A2_S and the others want to hear.

That the amount of examples that weigh against the rule being really dumb are immense?
Sure.
But every time I give on, it seems to go over their heads or something.

Dammit. For this rule being really really dumb. You know what I meant. I mean, being able to waste all your attacks in a single second because of it and having to wait frozen for the remaining 14 is a clear indicator that there is a problem with the rule.

As I've said before, you can't do more than one attack in a given attack phase, just like with normal attacks.
So that's not really a problem.

I read that combat is supposed to be all "back and forth" with all participants taking turns, but I do not recall there being an injecture stating that just because you have sacrificed dodge and parry options to simo instead that you cannot do it again when you are inevitably called to make another defensive action. You have yet to perform a regular attack, opting to simo every time - just like your options with dodge. You get one defence per attacker; not one defence per bout of attacks. That is what the book says, and it says that instead of defending you may opt to simo-attack instead - which takes place of your defensive action. It says nothing about how often you may make simoltaineous attacks per round, only that you cannot attack the same opponent twice while he still has attacks.

As is having a Juicer move in to disarm the kid (still technically an attack) only to get stabbed simoltaineously.

Why is that supposed to be stupid?
The kid's standing there, knife drawn, at the ready... and he's really supposed to be unable to move until after the juicer has moved in and grabbed the knife from him?

Have you ever tried to grab a knife away from a kid who's willing to stab you?

No, but have you ever ran at 60mph, jumped 10 feet high from standing without outside/mechanical help, or dodged a bullet you didn't even know was coming for you? So is grabbing a knife from this kid unreasonable? Seems this guy should be able to take the knife away from a kid that is clearly inferior in all aspects of life, yet a single broken rule stands in his way.

There are more broken examples with this rule than there are working pieces.

I haven't seen any examples of it being broken yet.
(though I have seen some broken examples )

All examples posted illustrate how this rule is broken and clearly needs fixing.

[Killer Cyborg]

you and I both know that the amount of examples that weigh against this rule being really, really dumb are immense. Really, I think that's all K20A2_S and the others want to hear.

That the amount of examples that weigh against the rule being really dumb are immense?
Sure.
But every time I give on, it seems to go over their heads or something.

Dammit. For this rule being really really dumb. You know what I meant. I mean, being able to waste all your attacks in a single second because of it and having to wait frozen for the remaining 14 is a clear indicator that there is a problem with the rule.

As I've said before, you can't do more than one attack in a given attack phase, just like with normal attacks.
So that's not really a problem.

I read that combat is supposed to be all "back and forth" with all participants taking turns, but I do not recall there being an injecture stating that just because you have sacrificed dodge and parry options to simo instead that you cannot do it again when you are inevitably called to make another defensive action.

Parry and Dodge both specify that you can do it multiple times per turn; Simo does not.

As is having a Juicer move in to disarm the kid (still technically an attack) only to get stabbed simoltaineously.

Why is that supposed to be stupid?
The kid's standing there, knife drawn, at the ready... and he's really supposed to be unable to move until after the juicer has moved in and grabbed the knife from him?

Have you ever tried to grab a knife away from a kid who's willing to stab you?

No, but have you ever ran at 60mph, jumped 10 feet high from standing without outside/mechanical help, or dodged a bullet you didn't even know was coming for you?

Yeah.
Why?

So is grabbing a knife from this kid unreasonable? Seems this guy should be able to take the knife away from a kid that is clearly inferior in all aspects of life, yet a single broken rule stands in his way.

Why do you think that it seems that way?

There are more broken examples with this rule than there are working pieces.

I haven't seen any examples of it being broken yet.
(though I have seen some broken examples )

All examples posted illustrate how this rule is broken and clearly needs fixing.

Nope.
Not a one of them.