Simultaneous attack

[Dr. Doom III]

You've repeatedly failed to address points, relying on repetition for your argument as much as anything else. I really don't want to have to get used to that, but I do understand it is the nature of the Palladium forums in many ways.

Really?
Since I've only made about 6 or 7 post in this thread (2 of which are responding to you and contain no points on the topic at hand whatsoever) I don't see how I've repeatedly done much of anything.
If anyone made any points I didn't address I'd like to see them since I haven't seen any yet. None made to me anyway and I don't see the need to repeat the points Deadboy already made in posts in which he was responding to points made to him.

[Dr. Doom III]

My vague apologies. I conflated you with others whose rhetoric was easily confused with yours. I'll try not to do so again. It would still be best for you to finally address why you feel that the writers of the game using it, albeit not on paper, as a ranged-inclusive measure doesn't qualify as precedent.

I see no evidence in any book that any "writers of the game" use it in ranged combat. If you are refering to freelancers doing it that way in their own games they are just as prone to being wrong as you or KC.

[Kevin]

Killer Cyborg asked me if a simultaneous attack could take place with long range weapons, and my answer was something like, "Sure, why not, depending on the circumstance.

Both "shooters" would have to see each other and realize they are about to draw on each other. And then, bang, bang.

If you want to get nitpicky about it, you could use the Quick Draw skill and rules in New West the same as an old west show down/shoot out between gunslingers. Likewise, you could go with initiative rolls (as in rerolling at the moment of the simultaneous attack) to see who gets the shot off first.

BUT I have no problem with a simultaneous long range attack, if the shooters see each other, and espeically if they are fairly evenly matched. Of course, ultimately it is up the individual G.M. Use commonsense.

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,
Kevin Siembieda
Game Designer and Gunslinger

[Kevin]

Killer Cyborg asked me if a simultaneous attack could take place with long range weapons, and my answer was something like, "Sure, why not, depending on the circumstance.

Both "shooters" would have to see each other and realize they are about to draw on each other. And then, bang, bang.

If you want to get nitpicky about it, you could use the Quick Draw skill and rules in New West the same as an old west show down/shoot out between gunslingers. Likewise, you could go with initiative rolls (as in rerolling at the moment of the simultaneous attack) to see who gets the shot off first.

BUT I have no problem with a simultaneous long range attack, if the shooters see each other, and espeically if they are fairly evenly matched. Of course, ultimately it is up the individual G.M. Use commonsense.

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,
Kevin Siembieda
Game Designer and Gunslinger

[Kryzbyn]

I really fought the urge to be petty but...

PWNED!!!

Now do you believe?
I think this thread just ended...finally.

Thank you Kevin, and /high five KC.

[Killer Cyborg]

Killer Cyborg asked me if a simultaneous attack could take place with long range weapons, and my answer was something like, "Sure, why not, depending on the circumstance.

Both "shooters" would have to see each other and realize they are about to draw on each other. And then, bang, bang.

If you want to get nitpicky about it, you could use the Quick Draw skill and rules in New West the same as an old west show down/shoot out between gunslingers. Likewise, you could go with initiative rolls (as in rerolling at the moment of the simultaneous attack) to see who gets the shot off first.

BUT I have no problem with a simultaneous long range attack, if the shooters see each other, and espeically if they are fairly evenly matched. Of course, ultimately it is up the individual G.M. Use commonsense.

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,
Kevin Siembieda
Game Designer and Gunslinger

Not just an answer, but a pretty quick response too!

Thanks a billion, Kevin!

[lather]

I acknowledge that Kev advocates making your own rules regardless of what the he or Killer Cyborg says, and still be right to do so.

You get a few points for originality, but not as many as you lose for being wrong.

Of course, ultimately it is up the individual G.M.

[Dr. Doom III]

"Sure, why not, depending on the circumstance."

I don't know about anyone else but that doesn't seem to me to help much. Either it's a standard move anyone can employ at any time since there’s no rules stating what the circumstances may be or it's not.
No offence Kevin but that explanation sounds like a house rule not an explanation of how the rule is supposed to work.

[Killer Cyborg]

I acknowledge that Kev advocates making your own rules regardless of what the he or Killer Cyborg says, and still be right to do so.

You get a few points for originality, but not as many as you lose for being wrong.

Of course, ultimately it is up the individual G.M.

Nice try.

[Killer Cyborg]

"Sure, why not, depending on the circumstance."

I don't know about anyone else but that doesn't seem to me to help much. Either it's a standard move anyone can employ at any time since there’s no rules stating what the circumstances may be or it's not.
No offence Kevin but that explanation sounds like a house rule not an explanation of how the rule is supposed to work.

If only he clarified what sort of circumstances he was talking about.

Like if he said,

Both "shooters" would have to see each other and realize they are about to draw on each other. And then, bang, bang.

That would have been pretty helpful and clear-cut.

[Dr. Doom III]

"Sure, why not, depending on the circumstance."

I don't know about anyone else but that doesn't seem to me to help much. Either it's a standard move anyone can employ at any time since there’s no rules stating what the circumstances may be or it's not.
No offence Kevin but that explanation sounds like a house rule not an explanation of how the rule is supposed to work.

If only he clarified what sort of circumstances he was talking about.

Like if he said,

Both "shooters" would have to see each other and realize they are about to draw on each other. And then, bang, bang.

That would have been pretty helpful and clear-cut.

And if they were already shooting at each other?
He gave one example. I do not think that is the only circumstance that he believes it could be employed and frankly no one else knows that either. So we could have another 1000 post thread in a"what circumstances could you use a Simultaneous Attack in ranged combat" thread. This explanation solves nothing and just opens up a new can of worms.

[Killer Cyborg]

"Sure, why not, depending on the circumstance."

I don't know about anyone else but that doesn't seem to me to help much. Either it's a standard move anyone can employ at any time since there’s no rules stating what the circumstances may be or it's not.
No offence Kevin but that explanation sounds like a house rule not an explanation of how the rule is supposed to work.

If only he clarified what sort of circumstances he was talking about.

Like if he said,

Both "shooters" would have to see each other and realize they are about to draw on each other. And then, bang, bang.

That would have been pretty helpful and clear-cut.

And if they were already shooting at each other?
He gave one example. I do not think that is the only circumstance that he believes it could be employed and frankly no one else knows that either. So we could have another 1000 post thread in a"what circumstances could you use a Simultaneous Attack in ranged combat" thread. This explanation solves nothing and just opens up a new can of worms.

Not really, although you can certainly pretend that it does if you want to.
It's pretty obvious that his concern was just that both combatants saw each other and knew that the other one was about to attack.

There's no more of a can of worms here than with non-ranged simo-attacks.
People can make a 1,000 post thread nit-picking the details of simo-attacks in ranged or melee combat.
Or, for that matter, about the proper pronunciation of "xiticix," or about any other useless issue that they feel like debating.

[lather]

I really fought the urge to be petty but...

PWNED!!!

Now do you believe?
I think this thread just ended...finally.

Thank you Kevin, and /high five KC.

You should have fought harder

[Dr. Doom III]

Not really, although you can certainly pretend that it does if you want to.
It's pretty obvious that his concern was just that both combatants saw each other and knew that the other one was about to attack.

There's no more of a can of worms here than with non-ranged simo-attacks.
People can make a 1,000 post thread nit-picking the details of simo-attacks in ranged or melee combat.
Or, for that matter, about the proper pronunciation of "xiticix," or about any other useless issue that they feel like debating.

Yes really PC+1

Sorry but the equivalent answer of "yeah sure, why not." and "whip up some house rule using quick draw rules or something" isn't the kind of definitive answer I was looking for.
You can accept it but I have higher standards than that.

But it's Palladium and that's what I've come to expect.

[Dead Boy]

So you'll only accept sections with fully detailed descriptions, hu?

It's not that I'll only accept sections with fully detailed descriptions, it's that your argument makes absolutely no sense unless:
-there are two glossaries, one for ranged/modern, and one for melee,
-Simo Attack is ONLY defined under melee.
-Dodge, Parry and/or Roll are defined under both.

You're joking, right? Palladium is NOT going to wast page space reprinting a definition twice when they can do it once and refer back to it latter in places where it's applicable. And that's exactly what they did. They defined Dodge, Parry, Roll with Impact, and, yes, Simo in the general terms section under Hand to Hand. But when it came to writing the Ranged Combat section, while they revered back to Dodge, Parry, and Roll, Simo was nowhere to be seen. If it were going to be officially allowed in Ranged Combat, given how tremendously it affects the game, it would have been at least mentioned. But its conspicuous absence in the Ranged section speaks volumes, clearly showing it was never intended to exit the domain of melee combat. That's why both Systems Failure and Heroes Unlimited show it as being "applicable to many forms of hand to hand combat", and no book lists it as being an option at range

I just don't have that book and I don't believe her contribution to be meaningful.

No, you chose not to ascribe any meaning to Natasha's contribution because it spelled doom to your contention; that there is nothing in any of the books that says Simultaneous Attack was always intended to be limited to hand to hand only. She proved you wrong with Systems Failure, and I confirmed that with Heroes Unlimited. That's two books that says you're wrong. Find me just one that says you're right.

Let me elaborate on what that doesn't mean anything to our conversation.
-Dodge is a combat maneuver that is applicable to many forms of hth combat and martial arts.
-Roll With Impact is a combat maneuver that is applicable to many forms of hth combat and martial arts.
Without looking, I'm going to be that they're described in the section that you're quoting.
Does this mean that these moves are ONLY applicable in HTH combat?
No.
And it doesn't mean that for Simo-Attack either.

And this take me back to my Psychic Combat comparison that uses the exact same logic that you're depending on here, (since you didn't like the Death Blow analogy, well go with KO this time). Since you contend that even though Simo isn't mentioned in the Ranged Combat section it's still applicable, then I counter-contend that even though Knockout/Stun is not mentioned in the Psychic Combat section, it's applicable there on the same grounds. Yep! A psychic with Super TK can lift a 50-pound car door (should be good for a 4D6 SDC smack) and because he took the Boxing skill (and/or took HtH: Expert & is 11th level) Every time he hits someone with it and rolls a natural 20 (or 18-20 via Expert), he also scores a Knockout.

By your logic, is this allowable? YES! By common sense, should it be allowable? NO! But, hey, it's in with the general combat moves and terms, so it must be.

Hey, let's take this down a notch and play with a more direct comparison. In the same Combat Terms & Moves list of definitions it also lists Critical Strike. In the last part of its definition it says that it can be used "with bear hands or with a weapon" (RUE 344). What kind of weapon? It doesn't say, so anything goes apparently. Because my character took Expert and is level 6 or better, does that mean that somehow the character's hand to hand skills enable him to do double damage on a 18-20 with a pulse rifle? It may not make any sense, but if Simo is off the leash, I guess so is this.

As I posted earlier, the book says that shots fired count as melee attacks. No matter how you look at it when a rifle fires a shot, it is a melee attack. Even if it occurs 2000 feet from the target.

But Simo is a defensive response. A reaction taking the place of either a Parry, a Dodge, or Entangle. When used in melee combat these defensive reactions are what they are, getting full benefit of their respective bonuses. But when we look at how they're treated in the Ranged Combat section, Dodge suffers up to a -10 penalty with no skill-gained bonuses at all, Parry is all but impossible suffering a -8 at any range with no bonuses at all for anyone (RUE 327), and Entangle is 100% undoable and isn't listed as an option at all. Given that Ranged Combat places much harsher penalties on defensive reactions used either before one's initiative normally allows, or borrowing from the next attack, why should Simo get a break? The character is hastily spinning to respond to an attack in the exact way as a dodge in a fraction of the time (remember, the other guy's weapon is already pointed and aimed while the guy calling Simo may be reacting cold) to a threat that could just as easily be right in front of him or caught out of the corner of his eye. Sounds like a Wild Shot to me if I ever heard of one.

posts end up being entire page lengths themselves. By this time it has long ceased to be an argument and more of a competition to see who can deluge the other person and make them concede defeat not by merit of argument but by sheer overdose of multi-quotes.

[/quote]

Dude, no one ever win these spats... or at least very rarely. Personally, all I ask for is either a very compelling argument (which I haven't seen here), or a good quote form the book backing up the claim (which doesn't exist on KC's side). But the true evil in all this is, who ever quits first is effectively the loser giving the impression that they lack the evidence to make their case, so the other guy must be right. Which of course the other guy will there on bellow from the hill tops as undisputed canon. And barring surrender or the weight of apathy on one party's side, the other guy may just try to win through sheer number of posts giving the image of your opinion being in the minority while giving the other guy the appearance of an authority figure whom more impressionable posters get behind whether he's right or wrong. It's a vicious circle and an inescapable death spiral that gnaws away at the souls of all who get caught in its crushing gravity. Sucks, don't it?

[SkyeFyre]

It amazes me how everyone on here can argue on and on and on even after Kevin has given his answer. It may just be the way he speaks, or types in this case. I know for the longest time whenever someone would ask me I would give them passive answers. Nothing sure, in stone, YES or NO. That could just very well be his way of saying FRIGGIN YES! NOW STOP ARGUING!

I now open myself up for the endless flaming for stating my opinion.

[lather]

I now open myself up for the endless flaming for stating my opinion.

There there camper.
It's all good.

[Dog_O_War]

As I posted earlier, the book says that shots fired count as melee attacks. No matter how you look at it when a rifle fires a shot, it is a melee attack. Even if it occurs 2000 feet from the target.

But Simo is a defensive response. A reaction taking the place of either a Parry, a Dodge, or Entangle. When used in melee combat these defensive reactions are what they are, getting full benefit of their respective bonuses. But when we look at how they're treated in the Ranged Combat section, Dodge suffers up to a -10 penalty with no skill-gained bonuses at all, Parry is all but impossible suffering a -8 at any range with no bonuses at all for anyone (RUE 327), and Entangle is 100% undoable and isn't listed as an option at all. Given that Ranged Combat places much harsher penalties on defensive reactions used either before one's initiative normally allows, or borrowing from the next attack, why should Simo get a break? The character is hastily spinning to respond to an attack in the exact way as a dodge in a fraction of the time (remember, the other guy's weapon is already pointed and aimed while the guy calling Simo may be reacting cold) to a threat that could just as easily be right in front of him or caught out of the corner of his eye. Sounds like a Wild Shot to me if I ever heard of one.

You are taking a weapon's modifier and applying it to all ranged attacks for ranged combat. Only energy weapons (such as lasers) offer a dodge penalty with special modifiers. Ranged combat itself offers no penalties itself, such as if you were throwing a rock at your opponent. And really, would you give some unjustified penalty to the guy with a gun ready for simo-attacks versus some rock-thowing idiot?

[Killer Cyborg]

Not really, although you can certainly pretend that it does if you want to.
It's pretty obvious that his concern was just that both combatants saw each other and knew that the other one was about to attack.

There's no more of a can of worms here than with non-ranged simo-attacks.
People can make a 1,000 post thread nit-picking the details of simo-attacks in ranged or melee combat.
Or, for that matter, about the proper pronunciation of "xiticix," or about any other useless issue that they feel like debating.

Yes really PC+1

Sorry but the equivalent answer of "yeah sure, why not." and "whip up some house rule using quick draw rules or something" isn't the kind of definitive answer I was looking for.

The author of the game clearly stated that there's no reason why simo-attacks can't be made in ranged combat. Period.
That's pretty darned definitive.

He then elaborated, pointing out that each combatant needs to be aware of the other one, etc.

The only reason why this "isn't the kind of definitive answer you were looking for" is because you're not looking for an answer; you're looking for stuff to complain about.
What puzzles me is why you've focused so hard on the complete non-issue of whether simo-attacks can be made in ranged combat instead of picking an actual problem and complaining about that.

The question was asked.
The question was answered.
Get the hell over it and move on with your life.

[Dog_O_War]

Not really, although you can certainly pretend that it does if you want to.
It's pretty obvious that his concern was just that both combatants saw each other and knew that the other one was about to attack.

There's no more of a can of worms here than with non-ranged simo-attacks.
People can make a 1,000 post thread nit-picking the details of simo-attacks in ranged or melee combat.
Or, for that matter, about the proper pronunciation of "xiticix," or about any other useless issue that they feel like debating.

Yes really PC+1

Sorry but the equivalent answer of "yeah sure, why not." and "whip up some house rule using quick draw rules or something" isn't the kind of definitive answer I was looking for.

The author of the game clearly stated that there's no reason why simo-attacks can't be made in ranged combat. Period.
That's pretty darned definitive.

He then elaborated, pointing out that each combatant needs to be aware of the other one, etc.

The only reason why this "isn't the kind of definitive answer you were looking for" is because you're not looking for an answer; you're looking for stuff to complain about.
What puzzles me is why you've focused so hard on the complete non-issue of whether simo-attacks can be made in ranged combat instead of picking an actual problem and complaining about that.

The question was asked.
The question was answered.
Get the hell over it and move on with your life.

Agreed. I don't even like the simoltaineous attacks rule, but I can see clear as day they would be allowed. Beyond having the ability to off really dumb players (I believe there was a story posted about a guy about to get strafed by airplane guns, to which he called out "simoltaineous attack!" - just so dumb), IMO this rule is better left unused.

[Killer Cyborg]

So you'll only accept sections with fully detailed descriptions, hu?

It's not that I'll only accept sections with fully detailed descriptions, it's that your argument makes absolutely no sense unless:
-there are two glossaries, one for ranged/modern, and one for melee,
-Simo Attack is ONLY defined under melee.
-Dodge, Parry and/or Roll are defined under both.

You're joking, right? Palladium is NOT going to wast page space reprinting a definition twice when they can do it once and refer back to it latter in places where it's applicable.

I agree, which is why your argument is senseless.

And that's exactly what they did. They defined Dodge, Parry, Roll with Impact, and, yes, Simo in the general terms section under Hand to Hand. But when it came to writing the Ranged Combat section, while they revered back to Dodge, Parry, and Roll, Simo was nowhere to be seen.

Because, as I've already pointed out, Dodge, Parry, and Roll all have changes in ranged combat.
Simo-attacks do NOT.

Here's a fun exercise for you:
Look back in the original Rifts book instead of RUE.

Notice:
-Simo attack is detailed in the same section as in RUE, the "Combat Terms" section.
-Dodge is also detailed there.
-In the Modern Weapon Proficiencies section, Simo-attacks are not referred to.
-Neither is Dodge.

Oh, NOES!! That must mean that you couldn't Dodge ranged attacks!!!

If it were going to be officially allowed in Ranged Combat, given how tremendously it affects the game, it would have been at least mentioned. But its conspicuous absence in the Ranged section speaks volumes, clearly showing it was never intended to exit the domain of melee combat. That's why both Systems Failure and Heroes Unlimited show it as being "applicable to many forms of hand to hand combat", and no book lists it as being an option at range

I think it's pretty clear by now how wrong you are.
If you don't like it, write Kevin a letter.

I just don't have that book and I don't believe her contribution to be meaningful.

No, you chose not to ascribe any meaning to Natasha's contribution because it spelled doom to your contention; that there is nothing in any of the books that says Simultaneous Attack was always intended to be limited to hand to hand only. She proved you wrong with Systems Failure, and I confirmed that with Heroes Unlimited. That's two books that says you're wrong. Find me just one that says you're right.

No, I just don't believe that her contribution was meaningful.
I've already explained why.
There are ZERO books that say that I'm wrong, and there's one Kevin Siembieda that says I'm right.

You can keep trying to argue if you want, but you'll just be swimming in denial, and you can do it alone.
I'm not going to bother arguing after I've already won.

Let me elaborate on what that doesn't mean anything to our conversation.
-Dodge is a combat maneuver that is applicable to many forms of hth combat and martial arts.
-Roll With Impact is a combat maneuver that is applicable to many forms of hth combat and martial arts.
Without looking, I'm going to be that they're described in the section that you're quoting.
Does this mean that these moves are ONLY applicable in HTH combat?
No.
And it doesn't mean that for Simo-Attack either.

And this take me back to my Psychic Combat comparison...

No.
Psychic combat has nothing to do with this, and as I've recently turned vegetarian, I refuse to eat red herring.

Hey, let's take this down a notch and play with a more direct comparison. In the same Combat Terms & Moves list of definitions it also lists Critical Strike. In the last part of its definition it says that it can be used "with bear hands or with a weapon" (RUE 344). What kind of weapon? It doesn't say, so anything goes apparently. Because my character took Expert and is level 6 or better, does that mean that somehow the character's hand to hand skills enable him to do double damage on a 18-20 with a pulse rifle? It may not make any sense, but if Simo is off the leash, I guess so is this.

A lot of people play it that way, actually.
Whether or not it actually IS played that way is an argument for another thread.
I've always played that the modified Crits only apply to HTH combat, but I'm not going to bet the farm that I'm right about that. There's not enough information to go on.

Personally, all I ask for is either a very compelling argument (which I haven't seen here), or a good quote form the book backing up the claim (which doesn't exist on KC's side).

Actually, you also asked me to ask Kevin to provide us with the right answer.
To my surprise, he DID.

You going to let things rest now?

[Library Ogre]

Look, we've got an official answer from the head of Palladium so can a mod just lock this thread?

I may completely disagree with the publisher regarding the feasibility of this, and of simo-attack altogether, but seriously this multi-quoting crap where someone quotes 10+ lines (each one already a multi-quote itself) and only responds to each of them with a 4 word sentence has just got to stop.

No one's contributing to anything anymore and it's just a back and forth "nuh uh!!" game. If you just lock the thread than no one can "claim victory" and it saves this precious memory that we've been told is the root necessity of the thread purging after a certain period of time. Every thread like this ends up taking up as much space as 20 regular threads that might have had some actually useful information in them. Right now this one is just a ****ing contest to see who can be the most passive aggressive.

Nuh-uh!

[Lenwen]

If you want to get nitpicky about it, you could use the Quick Draw skill and rules in New West the same as an old west show down/shoot out between gunslingers. Likewise, you could go with initiative rolls (as in rerolling at the moment of the simultaneous attack) to see who gets the shot off first.

BUT I have no problem with a simultaneous long range attack, if the shooters see each other, and espeically if they are fairly evenly matched. Of course, ultimately it is up the individual G.M. Use commonsense.

Difinitively put ..

THAT IS ALL ...

[Dead Boy]

Ranged combat itself offers no penalties itself, such as if you were throwing a rock at your opponent. And really, would you give some unjustified penalty to the guy with a gun ready for simo-attacks versus some rock-thowing idiot?

Why would the person always be ready for a simultaneous attack? You're assuming the two are facing each other like they were in a showdown in the old west, waiting for the other guy to make the first twitch, and paying notice the every detail. In real combat shots are coming in from all directions without warning. Under such fire there's no way any such action couldn't be considered anything other than a Wild Shot.

And who ever told you that there were no penalties for other weapons? The section with the -10 in 10' and -5 in 50' is clearly labeled "Dodging Bullets & Energy Blasts". So it doesn't matter if its a ion beam or a black-powder .56 caliber round-ball. There are penalties to dodge or parry any kind of ranged weapon, and as such when substituting a dodge or parry with a Simo, it stands to reason there should be a penalty for that too, and Wild Shooting fits the build to a tee.

He then elaborated, pointing out that each combatant needs to be aware of the other one, etc.

Assuming your right on all this for the moment, this introduces a whole new wrinkle in the implementation of Ranged Simos. In any scenario where the character isn't 100% focused on one opponent, when it's questionable whether he is aware of exactly what the other is doing at the precise moment the ranged Simo needs to be preformed, then it become quite improbable. So much as blink at the wrong time and you could miss your opening. At the very least a Perception Roll (RUE 367) is needed to determine whether a Simo is even an option, otherwise the character would not be aware of the opponent's actions in that split second. And given how hectic things get while under fire and lives are on the line, I'd say that falls under the category of being "Challenging" requiring a base roll of 14 or better. Add to that, that there is every reason to count a Ranged Simo in such a circumstance as a Wild Shot getting a -6 to hit .

Here's a fun exercise for you:
Look back in the original Rifts book instead of RUE.

Notice:
-Simo attack is detailed in the same section as in RUE, the "Combat Terms" section.
-Dodge is also detailed there.
-In the Modern Weapon Proficiencies section, Simo-attacks are not referred to.
-Neither is Dodge.

Oh, NOES!! That must mean that you couldn't Dodge ranged attacks!!!

Though it looks like we got an official answer, I just want you to know that this strategy was about to horribly backfire in your face.

Combat Rules for High-Tech War Machines: (Rifts Main Book, starting on 38). This section provides ALL of the options that can be done in mechanized combat (including in power armor), as well as detailed definitions (one of your key criteria for validity, if I recall). In it we have only two main defensive maneuvers that can be made, them being Roll With a Punch, Fall, or Impact and The Dodge (pg 41) Nowhere in here is there even an insinuation that Simo is so much as an option. So, if a ranged simultaneous attack doesn't exist for those in power armor (complete with enhanced reflexes, by the way), it stood to reason that it wouldn't for guys just standing around either.

If you don't like it, write Kevin a letter.

He likes you better.

Psychic combat has nothing to do with this, and as I've recently turned vegetarian, I refuse to eat red herring.

No, it's a Straw Man argument. Get it straight.

Actually, you also asked me to ask Kevin to provide us with the right answer.
To my surprise, he DID.

..... AND?!?!? If its in you PM's Inbox, cut and paste that mothersmegger already! (It really is a shame he didn't post directly here in this string... I'm sure everyone would have appreciated that.) Is it the same as the one K29A2_S received and posted, or was it different?

You going to let things rest now?

If the cut & past PM you received clearly reads in your favor (no cheating with an edit in your favor, now ), worst cast scenario I'll continue to argue that it isn't without penalty (Perception Rolls when applicable and Wild Shooting still seem fully warranted to me).

[Killer Cyborg]

In real combat shots are coming in from all directions without warning. Under such fire there's no way any such action couldn't be considered anything other than a Wild Shot.

If you think so, then when you run your games, have every un-aimed shot be a Wild shot.

He then elaborated, pointing out that each combatant needs to be aware of the other one, etc.

Assuming your right on all this for the moment, this introduces a whole new wrinkle in the implementation of Ranged Simos. In any scenario where the character isn't 100% focused on one opponent, when it's questionable whether he is aware of exactly what the other is doing at the precise moment the ranged Simo needs to be preformed, then it become quite improbable.

No more than with any other attack.
As I said, if you want all your attacks to be Wild, have fun with it.

Here's a fun exercise for you:
Look back in the original Rifts book instead of RUE.

Notice:
-Simo attack is detailed in the same section as in RUE, the "Combat Terms" section.
-Dodge is also detailed there.
-In the Modern Weapon Proficiencies section, Simo-attacks are not referred to.
-Neither is Dodge.

Oh, NOES!! That must mean that you couldn't Dodge ranged attacks!!!

Though it looks like we got an official answer, I just want you to know that this strategy was about to horribly backfire in your face.

Combat Rules for High-Tech War Machines: (Rifts Main Book, starting on 38). This section provides ALL of the options that can be done in mechanized combat (including in power armor), as well as detailed definitions (one of your key criteria for validity, if I recall). In it we have only two main defensive maneuvers that can be made, them being Roll With a Punch, Fall, or Impact and The Dodge (pg 41) Nowhere in here is there even an insinuation that Simo is so much as an option. So, if a ranged simultaneous attack doesn't exist for those in power armor (complete with enhanced reflexes, by the way), it stood to reason that it wouldn't for guys just standing around either.

That's the same argument you've kept pulling.
The answer is the same:
Simo-attack was already detailed, so there wasn't any need to detail it again.
(Just like they didn't detail Parry or Entangle again).
Why did they go over Dodge again?
Who knows?
Probably because they figured some people would think that giant robots and such are too big to Dodge.

Psychic combat has nothing to do with this, and as I've recently turned vegetarian, I refuse to eat red herring.

No, it's a Straw Man argument. Get it straight.

Touche.

Actually, you also asked me to ask Kevin to provide us with the right answer.
To my surprise, he DID.

..... AND?!?!? If its in you PM's Inbox, cut and paste that mothersmegger already! (It really is a shame he didn't post directly here in this string... I'm sure everyone would have appreciated that.) Is it the same as the one K29A2_S received and posted, or was it different?

He did post it.
In fact, he double-posted it.
You just seem to have missed it.
viewtopic.php?p=1762637#p1762637

worst cast scenario I'll continue to argue that it isn't without penalty (Perception Rolls when applicable and Wild Shooting still seem fully warranted to me).

House-rule it however you want, but the fact that there aren't any specific penalties listed with simo-attacks in ranged combat (unlike with Dodge and Parry) means that there aren't any.

[Dr. Doom III]

..... AND?!?!? If its in you PM's Inbox, cut and paste that mothersmegger already! (It really is a shame he didn't post directly here in this string... I'm sure everyone would have appreciated that.) Is it the same as the one K29A2_S received and posted, or was it different?

He posted here. You missed it.
It wasn't very helpful.

Killer Cyborg asked me if a simultaneous attack could take place with long range weapons, and my answer was something like, "Sure, why not, depending on the circumstance.

Both "shooters" would have to see each other and realize they are about to draw on each other. And then, bang, bang.

If you want to get nitpicky about it, you could use the Quick Draw skill and rules in New West the same as an old west show down/shoot out between gunslingers. Likewise, you could go with initiative rolls (as in rerolling at the moment of the simultaneous attack) to see who gets the shot off first.

BUT I have no problem with a simultaneous long range attack, if the shooters see each other, and espeically if they are fairly evenly matched. Of course, ultimately it is up the individual G.M. Use commonsense.

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,
Kevin Siembieda
Game Designer and Gunslinger

[Library Ogre]

Waiting an hour and a half doesn't make you a thread-killer.

It makes you a porn-link away from a spam-bot.

[Dead Boy]

Combat Rules for High-Tech War Machines: (Rifts Main Book, starting on 38). This section provides ALL of the options that can be done in mechanized combat (including in power armor), as well as detailed definitions (one of your key criteria for validity, if I recall).

That's the same argument you've kept pulling.

Actually, no. If not for the posting of Kev to support your general position, what was the beginning of your doom. You were the one who kept saying no section is valid without self-containing definitions, and that one had them in spaces.

But no point lingering on the past and what amounts to moot points at this juncture. Now we have new stuff to play with.

... cut and paste that mothersmegger already!

He did post it.
In fact, he double-posted it.
You just seem to have missed it.
viewtopic.php?p=1762637#p1762637

You're right. I TOTALLY missed that. Must have scanned it with one eye, thought for a split second "who is this 'Kevin' guy?" and blew past it as yet another unsupported opinion lacking even a book or page number to back up his claim... Somehow the terms "oops" and "my bad" lack the weight of my embarrassment here.

... this introduces a whole new wrinkle in the implementation of Ranged Simos. In any scenario where the character isn't 100% focused on one opponent, when it's questionable whether he is aware of exactly what the other is doing at the precise moment the ranged Simo needs to be preformed, then it become quite improbable.

No more than with any other attack.
As I said, if you want all your attacks to be Wild, have fun with it.

No, no, no. The hammer has come down on this issue, and it only partly supports what you've been saying. You seem to have missed that it also supports some of what I've been saying too! The ranged Simo is NOT a cart blanche means of returning fire at will when it suits your fancy. To quote Kev da man (and thank you Kev for weighing in on this long standing issue)...

Both "shooters" would have to see each other and realize they are about to draw on each other. And then, bang, bang. ... I have no problem with a simultaneous long range attack, if the shooters see each other, and espeically if they are fairly evenly matched.

The heart of what Kev seems to be saying is about "awareness". Both parties need to be aware of what each other is doing at that precise second before a Simo is permissible. And how do we determine awareness in this game in a fair and unbiased way when there are more than two people engaged in a conflict? Why, that would be with a Perception Roll. At this juncture it's not a matter of whether its appropriate, but exactly when and what degree of difficulty should be ascribed to the roll.

Another issue Kev raised is the fairness of allowing it when characters are not evenly matched. This can be due to circumstances or differing levels of ability. Whether this uneveness comes about from a Vagabond trying to match reflexes with a Juicer, or the defender spying a shooter out of the corner of his eye from the far right with only a split second to respond, the result is the same. The character on the bad end of the mismatch is pressed and either should not be allowed to preform the ranged Simo, or to be kind, at the very least should be stuck with a Wild Shooting penalty.

This no longer a matter of opinion vs opinion. It's a mater of interpretation, and what was written does not support the degree of unrestricted ability that you've been so desperately clinging to before. It is my sincerest of hopes that we all can find some happy middle ground here.

[Kryzbyn]

Combat Rules for High-Tech War Machines: (Rifts Main Book, starting on 38). This section provides ALL of the options that can be done in mechanized combat (including in power armor), as well as detailed definitions (one of your key criteria for validity, if I recall).

That's the same argument you've kept pulling.

Actually, no. If not for the posting of Kev to support your general position, what was the beginning of your doom. You were the one who kept saying no section is valid without self-containing definitions, and that one had them in spaces.

But no point lingering on the past and what amounts to moot points at this juncture. Now we have new stuff to play with.

... cut and paste that mothersmegger already!

He did post it.
In fact, he double-posted it.
You just seem to have missed it.
viewtopic.php?p=1762637#p1762637

You're right. I TOTALLY missed that. Must have scanned it with one eye, thought for a split second "who is this 'Kevin' guy?" and blew past it as yet another unsupported opinion lacking even a book or page number to back up his claim... Somehow the terms "oops" and "my bad" lack the weight of my embarrassment here.

... this introduces a whole new wrinkle in the implementation of Ranged Simos. In any scenario where the character isn't 100% focused on one opponent, when it's questionable whether he is aware of exactly what the other is doing at the precise moment the ranged Simo needs to be preformed, then it become quite improbable.

No more than with any other attack.
As I said, if you want all your attacks to be Wild, have fun with it.

No, no, no. The hammer has come down on this issue, and it only partly supports what you've been saying. You seem to have missed that it also supports some of what I've been saying too! The ranged Simo is NOT a cart blanche means of returning fire at will when it suits your fancy. To quote Kev da man (and thank you Kev for weighing in on this long standing issue)...

Both "shooters" would have to see each other and realize they are about to draw on each other. And then, bang, bang. ... I have no problem with a simultaneous long range attack, if the shooters see each other, and espeically if they are fairly evenly matched.

The heart of what Kev seems to be saying is about "awareness". Both parties need to be aware of what each other is doing at that precise second before a Simo is permissible. And how do we determine awareness in this game in a fair and unbiased way when there are more than two people engaged in a conflict? Why, that would be with a Perception Roll. At this juncture it's not a matter of whether its appropriate, but exactly when and what degree of difficulty should be ascribed to the roll.

Another issue Kev raised is the fairness of allowing it when characters are not evenly matched. This can be due to circumstances or differing levels of ability. Whether this uneveness comes about from a Vagabond trying to match reflexes with a Juicer, or the defender spying a shooter out of the corner of his eye from the far right with only a split second to respond, the result is the same. The character on the bad end of the mismatch is pressed and either should not be allowed to preform the ranged Simo, or to be kind, at the very least should be stuck with a Wild Shooting penalty.

This no longer a matter of opinion vs opinion. It's a mater of interpretation, and what was written does not support the degree of unrestricted ability that you've been so desperately clinging to before. It is my sincerest of hopes that we all can find some happy middle ground here.

Umm. Why do you have to make it more difficult than it is? If its not an ambush (aware of each other) the defender can simo.
If you dont like that, Kevin stated other options to use, like the gunfighting rules.

[Killer Cyborg]

Combat Rules for High-Tech War Machines: (Rifts Main Book, starting on 38). This section provides ALL of the options that can be done in mechanized combat (including in power armor), as well as detailed definitions (one of your key criteria for validity, if I recall).

That's the same argument you've kept pulling.

Actually, no. If not for the posting of Kev to support your general position, what was the beginning of your doom. You were the one who kept saying no section is valid without self-containing definitions, and that one had them in spaces.

That's not what I was saying, actually.
I'd explain it, but there's no point, since the argument is over now anyway.

The hammer has come down on this issue, and it only partly supports what you've been saying. You seem to have missed that it also supports some of what I've been saying too! The ranged Simo is NOT a cart blanche means of returning fire at will when it suits your fancy. To quote Kev da man (and thank you Kev for weighing in on this long standing issue)...

Both "shooters" would have to see each other and realize they are about to draw on each other. And then, bang, bang. ... I have no problem with a simultaneous long range attack, if the shooters see each other, and espeically if they are fairly evenly matched.

The heart of what Kev seems to be saying is about "awareness". Both parties need to be aware of what each other is doing at that precise second before a Simo is permissible.

No ****.
It's pretty tough to shoot somebody (accurately) if you're unaware of them.

And how do we determine awareness in this game in a fair and unbiased way when there are more than two people engaged in a conflict? Why, that would be with a Perception Roll. At this juncture it's not a matter of whether its appropriate, but exactly when and what degree of difficulty should be ascribed to the roll.

We determine awareness however the GMs decide to do it.
If you want to use a Perception check, have fun with that.

Another issue Kev raised is the fairness of allowing it when characters are not evenly matched. This can be due to circumstances or differing levels of ability. Whether this uneveness comes about from a Vagabond trying to match reflexes with a Juicer, or the defender spying a shooter out of the corner of his eye from the far right with only a split second to respond, the result is the same. The character on the bad end of the mismatch is pressed and either should not be allowed to preform the ranged Simo, or to be kind, at the very least should be stuck with a Wild Shooting penalty.

Which part of what he said do you think supports that?

This no longer a matter of opinion vs opinion.

It never was.
I was right.
You were wrong.
It's really that simple.
Man up to it already.

[lather]

House-rule it however you want, but the fact that there aren't any specific penalties listed with simo-attacks in ranged combat (unlike with Dodge and Parry) means that there aren't any.

...because you can't.

Unless there are penalties to stun attacks with a High Explosive grenade somewhere that I missed.

[Dog_O_War]

House-rule it however you want, but the fact that there aren't any specific penalties listed with simo-attacks in ranged combat (unlike with Dodge and Parry) means that there aren't any.

...because you can't.

Unless there are penalties to stun attacks with a High Explosive grenade somewhere that I missed.

All instances and descriptions describing simo only usable in "melee" must apply to ranged weapons because it lists both that a person shooting in combat is "in melee" and that gunfire is considered a "melee attack".

So infact, you can. That and beyond the technical evidence I just presented, KS said so, which means you can (even if I am loathe do agree with the "publisher guy" himself).

[lather]

House-rule it however you want, but the fact that there aren't any specific penalties listed with simo-attacks in ranged combat (unlike with Dodge and Parry) means that there aren't any.

...because you can't.

Unless there are penalties to stun attacks with a High Explosive grenade somewhere that I missed.

All instances and descriptions describing simo only usable in "melee" must apply to ranged weapons because it lists both that a person shooting in combat is "in melee" and that gunfire is considered a "melee attack".

So infact, you can. That and beyond the technical evidence I just presented, KS said so, which means you can (even if I am loathe do agree with the "publisher guy" himself).

Originally I had written "or because you can't". I should have kept it and then been more clear on the thing I'm driving at here.

Kevin's "clarification" was merely a repeat of his consistent message of "it's up to the GM". He offered making a fundamental change to his own published combat system to add initiative to simultaneous attack. Should I do the same with melee combat or just ranged combat? Since it was placed in the modern combat it obviously doesn't apply to HTH combat? Semantic ********.

Furthermore, his "clarification" placed special restrictions on using simultaneous attack; the attackers need to see each other and especially[sic] if they are "fairly evenly matched". How do I know if they are fairly evenly matched? What tells me they are? Experience level? Strike bonus? Physical prowess?

And if simultaneous attack now has special restrictions, does that erode the argument that based on simultaneous attack not having special restrictions?

The only thing Kevin did was reiterate what Natasha predicted he would: advocate doing whatever you want to do.

He didn't anoint a winner because there is no winner. There's just people childishly claiming to be. I remember when I was kid; the other kids pulled that crap all the time.

[Killer Cyborg]

Kevin's "clarification" was merely a repeat of his consistent message of "it's up to the GM".

It was confirmation that he sees no reason why NOT to play that way.
Which puts the kibosh on the "It's not supposed to be played that way" crowd.

Or rather, it puts the kibosh on their argument.
Some of them seem to be sticking around.

[Killer Cyborg]

Simo is broken in so many ways, it begs to be abused and should either be removed or have a whole page dedicated to the rules of simo.

How exactly do you think that it can be abused?

[Dog_O_War]

House-rule it however you want, but the fact that there aren't any specific penalties listed with simo-attacks in ranged combat (unlike with Dodge and Parry) means that there aren't any.

...because you can't.

Unless there are penalties to stun attacks with a High Explosive grenade somewhere that I missed.

All instances and descriptions describing simo only usable in "melee" must apply to ranged weapons because it lists both that a person shooting in combat is "in melee" and that gunfire is considered a "melee attack".

So infact, you can. That and beyond the technical evidence I just presented, KS said so, which means you can (even if I am loathe do agree with the "publisher guy" himself).

Originally I had written "or because you can't". I should have kept it and then been more clear on the thing I'm driving at here.

Kevin's "clarification" was merely a repeat of his consistent message of "it's up to the GM". He offered making a fundamental change to his own published combat system to add initiative to simultaneous attack. Should I do the same with melee combat or just ranged combat? Since it was placed in the modern combat it obviously doesn't apply to HTH combat? Semantic ********.

There lies your problem (high-lighted in bold).
There are rules for "ranged combat" but people 'combatting at range' are considered to be in melee combat. This is right in the book. Ranged combat really only describes the instances and such that weapons with extreme ranges are used, and the bonuses and penalties that govern them. In all cases there is no quote nor phrase that prevents me from entangling an opponent that shoots at me. Because he could be 1 foot away I can entangle him (a traditional "melee" defense used against your supposed "ranged combat" attack), yet by common sense you would not allow me to perform the same action if he were 50 feet away because "my arms just aren't that long". But even then there is nothing stating the reach of my arms, though to assume they were 50ft long would be dumb.

So I fail to see why a guy with a gun is disallowed a manuever such as simoltaineous attack, which has no listed engagement range, and under the very ranged and shooting rules allows guns and gunfire.

Furthermore, his "clarification" placed special restrictions on using simultaneous attack; the attackers need to see each other and especially[sic] if they are "fairly evenly matched". How do I know if they are fairly evenly matched? What tells me they are? Experience level? Strike bonus? Physical prowess?

Like I said, I am loathe to agree with KS, but everything (including my incredibly accute common sense) leans towards allowing ranged simos.

And if simultaneous attack now has special restrictions, does that erode the argument that based on simultaneous attack not having special restrictions?

Personally I take every rules ammendment KS lays out in a post as hypocritical and a gleaming beacon that there is infact both major problems and real cause to update this old dinosaur.
Unfortunately this is no rules ammendment; I have given evidence in the form of page numbers and such that offers both nothing prevents, and that the rules allow for ranged simo. KS's words reinforce what is already written (albiet poorly).

The only thing Kevin did was reiterate what Natasha predicted he would: advocate doing whatever you want to do.

Actually he offered that if you were feeling "nit-picky" about it that maybe some type of roll-off occur. Personally I just toss the rule altogether because it creates more problems and communsim than it's worth.

[Dog_O_War]

Simo is broken in so many ways, it begs to be abused and should either be removed or have a whole page dedicated to the rules of simo.

How exactly do you think that it can be abused?

Makes auto-dodge redundant which means Juicers are easy pickings in both melee and ranged combat. Really, that cyborg doesn't care if you can hit for MD; he can too and he hits harder. And saying that a Juicer could just defend himself via paired weapons is a flawed argument because a Juicer shouldn't have to take another damn skill just to work properly. That and being attacked with paired weapons negates it.

Makes game flaws readily apparent, such as a 14 second "brain-fart" because simoltaineous attack allows a person to use all their attacks in a single second (albiet under special circumstances).

Through a very elaborate series of multi-player coordination you could literally "call down the thunder" by area-nuking the spot a friend is at and completely destroy an enemy without reprisal.

That is; take a magic-user with immune to energy up; he throws an SDC grenade at you and your allies, who all happen to have rocket-launchers with plasma missiles loaded, MD armour on, and are all within the radius of the grenade. This matters because your mage-friend was invisible amoungst the enemies, And since you cannot simo-attack a simo-attack (as you are disallowed defenses when being simo-attacked), they cannot fire back. You've just destroyed your opponent without allowing him a defense, without hurting your friend, and without taking more than a second or two to do it; infact since your buddy is an easy target he is basically impossible to miss as well. All within the rules, all a total abuse of the rules, and all of it pretty damn stupid that the rules would allow this because they were not thought through properly the first (or second!) time(s).

[Killer Cyborg]

Simo is broken in so many ways, it begs to be abused and should either be removed or have a whole page dedicated to the rules of simo.

How exactly do you think that it can be abused?

didn't we list like 20947893 examples throught the thread??

Nope.

here's a quick one.......Juicer with PP of 30 and 15 level, has like +15 to auto doge or whatever, he's 100 ft away from a power armor pilot, once he's gets into hth distance he will dominate, but he won initiative, and the 2-3 turns it takes him to run up the pilot will just simo b/c he can't dodge while simoed....

I say again..............the game loses NOTHING by getting rid of simo, nothing.

The power armor pilot can't simo-attack somebody who's not attacking him.

[Killer Cyborg]

Simo is broken in so many ways, it begs to be abused and should either be removed or have a whole page dedicated to the rules of simo.

How exactly do you think that it can be abused?

Makes auto-dodge redundant which means Juicers are easy pickings in both melee and ranged combat. Really, that cyborg doesn't care if you can hit for MD; he can too and he hits harder.

Not easy pickings, but certainly easier.
Which is how it's meant to be.

Auto-dodge is still useful, because the only person who can simo-attack you is somebody that you're attacking.
In one-on-one combat this means that a juicer has two choices:
-attack normally and risk getting simo-attacked.
-set up the situation (before attacking) to where simo-attacks are not effectively possible.
For example, find some cover before you start shooting.
Or chuck down a smoke grenade or something to impair their visibility (they can't simo-attack if they don't know when you're shooting at them).

Basically, put some thought into things instead of just blindly attacking and assuming that you'll come out on top.

And saying that a Juicer could just defend himself via paired weapons is a flawed argument because a Juicer shouldn't have to take another damn skill just to work properly. That and being attacked with paired weapons negates it.

I agree.

Makes game flaws readily apparent, such as a 14 second "brain-fart" because simoltaineous attack allows a person to use all their attacks in a single second (albiet under special circumstances).

I've already explained why I don't think that interpretation is correct:
You only get one attack per turn, and you use it up simo-attacking.

Can I prove that?
Maybe. If you REALLY want to argue about it, feel free to start another thread.

But for now, it looks like you've fallen into the common trap of picking a bizarre and broken interpretation of the rules, then complaining that the rules suck, even though there is a much more logical and balanced interpretation to be picked.

Through a very elaborate series of multi-player coordination you could literally "call down the thunder" by area-nuking the spot a friend is at and completely destroy an enemy without reprisal.

That is; take a magic-user with immune to energy up; he throws an SDC grenade at you and your allies, who all happen to have rocket-launchers with plasma missiles loaded, MD armour on, and are all within the radius of the grenade. This matters because your mage-friend was invisible amoungst the enemies, And since you cannot simo-attack a simo-attack (as you are disallowed defenses when being simo-attacked), they cannot fire back. You've just destroyed your opponent without allowing him a defense, without hurting your friend, and without taking more than a second or two to do it; infact since your buddy is an easy target he is basically impossible to miss as well. All within the rules, all a total abuse of the rules, and all of it pretty damn stupid that the rules would allow this because they were not thought through properly the first (or second!) time(s).

1. You can only simo-attack somebody who is attacking you, so that would mean attacking the mage. Although other enemies might get caught up in the blast radius.
2. The mage is invisible, so he can't be simo-attacked (except by people who can see the invisible).
3. You raise an interesting question about exactly who can simo-attack at what times. I'd say that only the single person targeted by the grenade could simo-attack. That would be a GM's call, but so would ruling that everybody in the blast radius gets a simo-attack (unless there's something I'm missing that says that they'd all get a dodge under normal circumstances? AFAIK, that's something that they never really said one way or the other).
IF it is a GM's call here, and you're making one that you don't like, that's nobody's fault but your own.

[Killer Cyborg]

here's a quick one.......Juicer with PP of 30 and 15 level, has like +15 to auto doge or whatever, he's 100 ft away from a power armor pilot, once he's gets into hth distance he will dominate, but he won initiative, and the 2-3 turns it takes him to run up the pilot will just simo b/c he can't dodge while simoed....

I say again..............the game loses NOTHING by getting rid of simo, nothing.

The power armor pilot can't simo-attack somebody who's not attacking him.

So if the Juicer while running at the pilot wildly takes shots at him while not aiming whatsoever in order not to effect his balance and ability to dodge can't be simo attacked?? Yes he can b/c he's being "attacked".....

IF the juicer is shooting at the power armor pilot, then yes, the juicer can be simo-attacked.
If he's just running towards the pilot, without shooting, then he cannot be simo-attacked.

Now tell me what's teh diffrence b/w him running up there dodging and not attackign vs him attacking by shooting wildly where it doens't effect his dodging ability??

You can't dodge and shoot effectively at the same time. You have to do one or the other.

or GM tell the pilot PC "juicer runs towards you with his rifle raised and aimed at you".............the pilot says I'm going to simo, GM says you can't b/c he's just aiming at you not firing...........make sense to you?

You can't dodge, parry, roll, or simo-attack unless you're actually attacked.

[lather]

Kevin's "clarification" was merely a repeat of his consistent message of "it's up to the GM".

It was confirmation that he sees no reason why NOT to play that way.
Which puts the kibosh on the "It's not supposed to be played that way" crowd.

Or rather, it puts the kibosh on their argument.
Some of them seem to be sticking around.

But no kibosh on the "it doesn't have to be played that way" argument.

[Killer Cyborg]

Kevin's "clarification" was merely a repeat of his consistent message of "it's up to the GM".

It was confirmation that he sees no reason why NOT to play that way.
Which puts the kibosh on the "It's not supposed to be played that way" crowd.

Or rather, it puts the kibosh on their argument.
Some of them seem to be sticking around.

But no kibosh on the "it doesn't have to be played that way" argument.

That's not an argument, it's a truism.
Nobody HAS to play by the rules.

[lather]

House-rule it however you want, but the fact that there aren't any specific penalties listed with simo-attacks in ranged combat (unlike with Dodge and Parry) means that there aren't any.

...because you can't.

Unless there are penalties to stun attacks with a High Explosive grenade somewhere that I missed.

All instances and descriptions describing simo only usable in "melee" must apply to ranged weapons because it lists both that a person shooting in combat is "in melee" and that gunfire is considered a "melee attack".

So infact, you can. That and beyond the technical evidence I just presented, KS said so, which means you can (even if I am loathe do agree with the "publisher guy" himself).

Originally I had written "or because you can't". I should have kept it and then been more clear on the thing I'm driving at here.

Kevin's "clarification" was merely a repeat of his consistent message of "it's up to the GM". He offered making a fundamental change to his own published combat system to add initiative to simultaneous attack. Should I do the same with melee combat or just ranged combat? Since it was placed in the modern combat it obviously doesn't apply to HTH combat? Semantic ********.

There lies your problem (high-lighted in bold).
There are rules for "ranged combat" but people 'combatting at range' are considered to be in melee combat. This is right in the book. Ranged combat really only describes the instances and such that weapons with extreme ranges are used, and the bonuses and penalties that govern them. In all cases there is no quote nor phrase that prevents me from entangling an opponent that shoots at me. Because he could be 1 foot away I can entangle him (a traditional "melee" defense used against your supposed "ranged combat" attack), yet by common sense you would not allow me to perform the same action if he were 50 feet away because "my arms just aren't that long". But even then there is nothing stating the reach of my arms, though to assume they were 50ft long would be dumb.

This may be another topic altogether.

And my mistake. I carelessly failed to use the term HTH combat - see the question right after the one you followed.

So I fail to see why a guy with a gun is disallowed a manuever such as simoltaineous attack, which has no listed engagement range, and under the very ranged and shooting rules allows guns and gunfire.

There needs to be some clarification though.
Can I simultaneously attack with a called or aimed shot? Is that going to use up one, two, or three of my attacks?

After all, if I'm going to take time to clarify rules for dodging beams of light, I can take the time to clarify returning gunfire, can't I? Is that too much to ask for?

Furthermore, his "clarification" placed special restrictions on using simultaneous attack; the attackers need to see each other and especially[sic] if they are "fairly evenly matched". How do I know if they are fairly evenly matched? What tells me they are? Experience level? Strike bonus? Physical prowess?

Like I said, I am loathe to agree with KS, but everything (including my incredibly accute common sense) leans towards allowing ranged simos.

Still doesn't answer the question.
In other words, still doesn't clarify anything. Especially with the "especially"[sic] modifier.

And if simultaneous attack now has special restrictions, does that erode the argument that based on simultaneous attack not having special restrictions?

Personally I take every rules ammendment KS lays out in a post as hypocritical and a gleaming beacon that there is infact both major problems and real cause to update this old dinosaur.
Unfortunately this is no rules ammendment; I have given evidence in the form of page numbers and such that offers both nothing prevents, and that the rules allow for ranged simo. KS's words reinforce what is already written (albiet poorly).

That's why I just said "erode" not "obliterate"

The only thing Kevin did was reiterate what Natasha predicted he would: advocate doing whatever you want to do.

Actually he offered that if you were feeling "nit-picky" about it that maybe some type of roll-off occur. Personally I just toss the rule altogether because it creates more problems and communsim than it's worth.

You wouldn't say we're not feeling nit-picky if we bother his ass which is quite busy running a business having suffered a major setback?



You don't have to actually answer the questions, by the way. I know the answers already.

[lather]

There needs to be some clarification though.
Can I simultaneously attack with a called or aimed shot? Is that going to use up one, two, or three of my attacks?

I'd have to say "no". Or at least say, "there's no point". With RUE, attacks that require more than 1 melee action have been clarified as "you spend the first action 'winding up' or preparing to complete the attack". Performing a called or aimed shot will still take 2-3 melee actions, & won't actually occur until the 2nd or 3rd action is available to you. So using the simultaneous attack to perform a called/aimed shot provides no extra benefit than if you declare for your turn that you're taking a called/aimed shot. If anything, it actually penalizes you, because you've stated that you're taking no defensive action against the attacker.

What I mean is that these attacks count as two of your available attacks but are actually just one attack. Why do you have to wait until he's done "winding up" to simultaneously attack? A true simultaneous attack would be you attack simultaneously, which means while he's "winding up".

FStill doesn't answer the question.
In other words, still doesn't clarify anything. Especially with the "especially"[sic] modifier.

Not necessarily. To me, at least, he already stated in the beginning of the sentence that he has "no problem" with simultaneous long-range attacks, so the "especially" modifier means the same as the word "particularly": whatever argument you might have in other circumstances, there's no basis for a complaint if the attacker & defender are evenly matched.

It just opens up room to complain what evenly matched means.

But, hey, I get the thrust of the point. I'm just saying it's not very clearly stated and leads to further questions, potentially.

To be honest, though, I thought it was restricted to begin with, at the very least restricted just as parry/dodge/entangle were (i.e. can't be used against surprise attacks).

No arguing that on my part.

[Kryzbyn]

You can't dodge, parry, roll, or simo-attack unless you're actually attacked.

So you can't simo a mage doing a defensive spell/armor ect who is concentrating/speaking/channeling his PPE b/c he's not attacking you, but you can simo somebody who is taking evasive maneuvers but firing wildly at you which takes considerable less concentration and time than to cast a spell..................that makes sense.....lol.....

You don't have to simul a mage who is casting a defensive spell. If it's higher than a certain level you get two or three attacks till its complete.
As far as the other, not even worth addressing. Sometimes I think you're confusing just plain old shootin' back for a simultaneous attack.

[Lenwen]

Why is this thread even continueing ... the GOD of gods in the megaverse has spoketh ... there is 100% no doubt as to how it can be done now ...


I dont understand how this thread is even going with KS himself who already answered it lmao ..

[Natasha]

Not to mention that not only does simo-attack only work if you're being attacked, but defensive actions are part of Step 3 in the combat sequence, which is after it's been determined if the strike roll was successful or not. Whether it's Rifts, HU, N&S, Systems Failure, or what not, Step 2 is where the attacker rolls their strike roll, & it's determined if it's successful or not, before any parry, dodge or other defensive action is taken. A miss by the attacker means there's no defensive action available for the defender, so no simo-attack can occur.

lather pointed this paragraph out to me since it's something we talked about over the weekend and it came up in this thread several days ago in response to how I run combat.

I never knew until now that people ran combat another way.

I'm going to collect my thoughts and post it in the G.M.'s board at some point this week. I hope so anyway.

[Natasha]

Why is this thread even continueing ... the GOD of gods in the megaverse has spoketh ... there is 100% no doubt as to how it can be done now ...


I dont understand how this thread is even going with KS himself who already answered it lmao ..

I guess that nobody's reporting it *ahem*

[Dr. Doom III]

Why is this thread even continueing ... the GOD of gods in the megaverse has spoketh ... there is 100% no doubt as to how it can be done now ...

Yeah Doom posted a while ago.

I dont understand how this thread is even going with KS himself who already answered it lmao ..

Because his answer amounted to "Yeah sure do what you want. Here's what I'd do." He says it can be used under some circumstance and gives one example of being "aware" and "evenly matched". Then he gives another house rule where you basically re-roll initiative. Aware is taken by some to mean anytime your not being surprised you can do it. Of course that wouldn't be a "certain circumstance" that would be virtually all of combat. Then there is evenly matched which is any GM's guess.

Also none of the points made by the "you shouldn't use Simos in ranged combat" posters were addressed. Not surprising since he was responding to a question from the pro side and most likely didn't even see our concerns/points. Frankly It was an answer reminiscent of the old FAQ.

[lather]

Or perhaps it bears too strong a resemblance to the GM's-caveat-intensive Palladium rules as a whole.

Yes, that it does.