Qev wrote:Dead Boy wrote:Oooo... A strike-two concession. Technically bullets transfer heat too, but we call them kinetic based attacks and not thermal or heat based.
While true enough - all the energy transferred to a target by a bullet eventually becomes heat - thermal effects aren't a bullet's primary method of doing damage, but rather physical displacement of the material making up the target (and related effects). I mean, heck, the energy of stabbing someone with a knife winds up as heat in the end, too.
In Physics class, did you ever do that experiment where you took two steel balls and smack them together with a sheet of paper held between them? The kinetic energy is transformed into thermal energy, thus causing a whole to be burned in the paper. Bullets act much the same way. To use an extreme example, it is
technically against the Geneva Convention to use the .50 BMG bullet against human targets because on impact it transfers so much kinetic energy into thermal energy, it doesn't puncture a whole through the human body, but instead
vaporizes a big-ass whole through people instead, making it darn near impossible to surgically repair, (we still use .50 BMGs that way, but technically that's a no-no). Regardless of this effect, in the context of the game, we still count bullets as kinetic-based attacks and not heat-based attacks. That was the basis for my acceptance of the status quo. That being that based on the mechanics of bullets in this regard, attacks that rely on a conversion of one kind of energy into thermal energy, or simply stimulate mater to generate thermal energy in the target, are not truly heat-based attacks because the generation of heat is a secondary effect not inherent to the attack itself, (though I still think the FAQ needs added clarification). Plasma and fire are essentially preheated gasses that are
already in a thermally excited state when they impact the target surface, causing that thermal energy to be directly absorbed by the target as opposed to the heat being created as a secondary effect.
Qev wrote:I'm not sure what's being conceded here, anyway. I thought it was pretty well established that IRL lasers are 'thermal weapons', whereas Rifts lasers - by authorial fiat - are not thermal weapons. I mean, they don't have recoil, and don't make any sound blasting their way through the atmosphere, and don't cook their operators with enormous amounts of waste heat, so why should they do heat damage to the target?
I know, it was a long a winding road, but let's recap for clairity's sake. The original question of this string was, "
Since the Burster's power of being Impervious to Fire & Heat makes them immune to Plasma, napalm, and heat-based attacks in general, regardless if those attacks be MD or SDC in nature, or based in magic or science, would this mean that Bursters should be immune to damage from lasers as well?" And the stated objectives of the string were...
(A) To see if the previously given explanation could be reasonably rationalized by anyone,
(B) To reopen this to discussion, and
(C) Barring a darn good reason to justify the notion of lasers not imparting heat to a target, to possibly overturn this very odd ruling.
Ultimately it came down to whether or not lasers were "heat-based attacks" in and of themselves, not whether the damage they inflict is due to the thermal effects they cause. As shown on other examples, technically powerful kinetic and electrical attacks ultimately cause thermal damage, but that doesn't make them "heat-based attacks". They stimulate heat through energy transformation, (not transference), but neither is "hot" to the touch per se. It's splitting hairs, I know, but that's what the answer to this long-standing question calls for.
So all in all, I think the objectives went pretty well.
(A) It was generally agreed upon that the previous explanation didn't stand up well, mainly because no explanation was given to justify the initial FAQ ruling, (which was the whole problem).
(B) Though there wasn't a unanimous consensus, we can at least agree on the fact that the issue was thoroughly discussed and explored.
(C) At least in my opinion, the rule did not need to be overturned because a darn good explanation did finally emerge that makes at least
some sense. Like I said before, it's an extremely anal, nitpicky explanation that has to cut a distinction between the attack being "initially thermally excited" as opposed to "causing the target to become thermally excited", but it's a pretty good one that we can actually base in science to some extent. Hence why the Answer Accepted stamp of approval was slapped on it.
Even so, for a House Rule, I do see a strong case for lasers doing half damage to Bursters given that they take half damage from Electricity. But as the text is written in the books, there's zero wiggle room for that for a canon ruling. Here, it had to be all or nothing.
Lobo wrote:Dead Boy it's your thread, concede if you want but don't justify it by saying others conceded so you will too. I for one know lasers do damage from heat. PB seems to contradict itself on whether it's heat or not.
Sorry to be a traitor to the cause (so to speak), but this is a key fundamental point that I could not rationalize away, or ignore as fluff or strategic debate maneuvering.
