Ion Pulse Particle Beam Weapon

[Sohisohi]

"Ion"
"Pulse"
"Particle"
In terms of RIFTS, what do these weapons labels mean. I was under the impression that Ion and Pulse were the same thing (dealing electric based damage), but I'm not so sure anymore. Just asking for definitions, or where I can find them.

[kronos]

"Ion"
"Pulse"
"Particle"
In terms of RIFTS, what do these weapons labels mean. I was under the impression that Ion and Pulse were the same thing (dealing electric based damage), but I'm not so sure anymore. Just asking for definitions, or where I can find them.

Ion and particle are types of energy weapons. Ion being mid range, decent power, kind of electricity, good above and below water. Particle are short range, high damage, also slow fire rate weapons, firing high energy particles (neutrons, positron, radion, others).
Pulse is the weapon's function to fire multiple pulses rapidly in a single attack. Think burst fire in ballistic weapons.. each pull of the trigger fires multiple pulses at once for increased damage.
Sometimes pulse doesn't mean this, and means just fires a "pulse" of energy, but typically if you call something an XX pulse rifle, it's the rapid fire version of XX, so a Laser Pulse Rifle can fire multiple shots at once.

[The Beast]

"Ion"
"Pulse"
"Particle"
In terms of RIFTS, what do these weapons labels mean. I was under the impression that Ion and Pulse were the same thing (dealing electric based damage), but I'm not so sure anymore. Just asking for definitions, or where I can find them.

RUE gives basic definitions on what each of these weapons are/do, though I don't know the page off the top of my head.

[89er]

It was page 358, I checked and it talks about what the effects on human tissues are. In short people become mist, pulp or char without protection.

[Sohisohi]

Many thanks for the assistance

[drewkitty ~..~]

Ion means it fires a beam of ions, this might mean they fire electrons or ionized gasses.

Pulse means that (using read world understanding) that each pulse of the weapon does not use up all of the ready capacitor charge so it can fire more times from the same capacitor...thus these energy weapons can fire a three burst.

Particle.....using real world understanding this is an Ion beam. However, the 1st usage was in the RT1 books under the heading of heavy Particle weapons. so maybe they use heavier atoms to use as their ion source. PB also seams to be used as a substitute to avoid using the 'Plasma Beam' descriptor. And since PB's ""PLASMA"" warheads are not really the plasma that is meant when talking about 'states of matter'.
Fun Fact: Plasma is overall electorally neutral in charge.

[Warshield73]

Ion means it fires a beam of ions, this might mean they fire electrons or ionized gasses.

Pulse means that (using read world understanding) that each pulse of the weapon does not use up all of the ready capacitor charge so it can fire more times from the same capacitor...thus these energy weapons can fire a three burst.

Particle.....using real world understanding this is an Ion beam. However, the 1st usage was in the RT1 books under the heading of heavy Particle weapons. so maybe they use heavier atoms to use as their ion source. PB also seams to be used as a substitute to avoid using the 'Plasma Beam' descriptor. And since PB's ""PLASMA"" warheads are not really the plasma that is meant when talking about 'states of matter'.
Fun Fact: Plasma is overall electorally neutral in charge.

This is an artifact of most sci-fi of the 20th century. Most weapons are poorly defined and the ones that are defined usually don't make sense.

[guardiandashi]

My interpetation,
Ion blasters are charged particle weapons that shoot a beam (or bolt) of mostly electrons so in some ways you could describe them as essentially lightning guns.

The particle beam weapons are different they are either neutral particle beams, or positive charged particle beams basically, the positive beams fire out electron stripped matter.

The difference between particle beams and plasma ejectors, has to do with the amount of matter, and how fast its moving.

A particle beam fires relatively small amounts of material really fast, (I'm thinking 80+% of the speed of light ) wheras a plasma ejector fires a lot more plasma at a relatively low speed say - 20 to 40 percent of the speed of light.

Or put another way the particle beam is more like shooting a beam weapon that takes a noticeable amount of time to to its damage,
The plasma ejector throws a really evil version of a water balloon at something.

[Orin J.]

pulse is easy, pulse weapons are simply built to autofire multiple times very rapidly, the burst-fire of energy weapons. "Pi-pi-piew!" vs. "Pew! Pew! Pew!" it's a firing mechinism rather than a damage type in palladium settings.

To the best of my understanding reading the RPG itself ion and particle beams are:

Ion weapons are charged energy beams, apparently electrically based in some way (judging from the technowizard versions) that use an ionized beam with a strong negative or positive charge to direct damage. any actual physical particles in the blast are incidental, unlike what current real-world theories would suggest will work. generally decent damage, but less focused and so shorter ranged than lasers.

Particle beams are directed beams of highly charged particles that inflict damage by the physical particles violently transferring their energy charge on contact. the beams are not ionically charged apparently, or are somehow functionally neutrally charged in overall result. it might be that the charged particles are undergoing nuclear fusion on impact, which would explain their heavy damage.

[Hotrod]

Don't think about it in terms of actual physics. Here's how I view them:

Plasma weapons shoot crazy-hot fireballs. "Fwew!"
Ion weapons are like Star Wars blasters. "Pew!"
Lasers are like really intense strobelights. They're either silent, or they make a *snap* noise.
Particle beam weapons are like Star Trek phasers. "Ssheww!"

Some ion and laser weapons can fire pulses. As Orin J. says, they shoot like "Pi-pi-pew!"

In general, particle beam weapons and plasma weapons only fire single shots.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Ion means it fires a beam of ions, this might mean they fire electrons or ionized gasses.

Pulse means that (using read world understanding) that each pulse of the weapon does not use up all of the ready capacitor charge so it can fire more times from the same capacitor...thus these energy weapons can fire a three burst.

Particle.....using real world understanding this is an Ion beam. However, the 1st usage was in the RT1 books under the heading of heavy Particle weapons. so maybe they use heavier atoms to use as their ion source. PB also seams to be used as a substitute to avoid using the 'Plasma Beam' descriptor. And since PB's ""PLASMA"" warheads are not really the plasma that is meant when talking about 'states of matter'.
Fun Fact: Plasma is overall electorally neutral in charge.

This is an artifact of most sci-fi of the 20th century. Most weapons are poorly defined and the ones that are defined usually don't make sense.

I don't see why you are responding to my post with this. I would understand you making a stand alone post with that post.

[Fenris2020]

Most should make a hissing or cracking noise; super-heated air, and all that.
I had one player whose Wilk's Chameleon rifle had a voice that said, "Pew! Pew! Pew! 'Merica!" every time he fired it on three-round burst.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

Most should make a hissing or cracking noise; super-heated air, and all that.
I had one player whose Wilk's Chameleon rifle had a voice that said, "Pew! Pew! Pew! 'Merica!" every time he fired it on three-round burst.

I've always joked about having one that had the radio sleep setting noises.

"Juicer fires off a quick succession of pulse laser blasts* *soothing night forest noises can be heard*

[taalismn]

[

I've always joked about having one that had the radio sleep setting noises.

"Juicer fires off a quick succession of pulse laser blasts* *soothing night forest noises can be heard*

And you thought cellphone ringtones were bad?
(Now I can see some Crazy programming his gun to make those noises....and out of sheer annoyance EVERYBODY targets him FIRST)

[Mack]

[

I've always joked about having one that had the radio sleep setting noises.

"Juicer fires off a quick succession of pulse laser blasts* *soothing night forest noises can be heard*

And you thought cellphone ringtones were bad?
(Now I can see some Crazy programming his gun to make those noises....and out of sheer annoyance EVERYBODY targets him FIRST)

Or every trigger pull produces a "Yo mama so fat" joke.

[The Beast]

[

I've always joked about having one that had the radio sleep setting noises.

"Juicer fires off a quick succession of pulse laser blasts* *soothing night forest noises can be heard*

And you thought cellphone ringtones were bad?
(Now I can see some Crazy programming his gun to make those noises....and out of sheer annoyance EVERYBODY targets him FIRST)

Or every trigger pull produces a "Yo mama so fat" joke.

Incorrect sir. For that you need the TW weapons that were co-produced with the help of a ludicrous mage.

[Fenris2020]

[

I've always joked about having one that had the radio sleep setting noises.

"Juicer fires off a quick succession of pulse laser blasts* *soothing night forest noises can be heard*

And you thought cellphone ringtones were bad?
(Now I can see some Crazy programming his gun to make those noises....and out of sheer annoyance EVERYBODY targets him FIRST)

Or every trigger pull produces a "Yo mama so fat" joke.

Or a Chuck Norris joke, with a Chuck Norris voice.

[Rallan]

"Ion"
"Pulse"
"Particle"
In terms of RIFTS, what do these weapons labels mean. I was under the impression that Ion and Pulse were the same thing (dealing electric based damage), but I'm not so sure anymore. Just asking for definitions, or where I can find them.

In terms of Rifts the distinction between different kinds of energy weapon mean virtually diddly squat. There might have originally been plans to differentiate them so your choice of energy weapon would be a meaningful tactical choice, but if there was it was never followed up on.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

"Ion"
"Pulse"
"Particle"
In terms of RIFTS, what do these weapons labels mean. I was under the impression that Ion and Pulse were the same thing (dealing electric based damage), but I'm not so sure anymore. Just asking for definitions, or where I can find them.

In terms of Rifts the distinction between different kinds of energy weapon mean virtually diddly squat. There might have originally been plans to differentiate them so your choice of energy weapon would be a meaningful tactical choice, but if there was it was never followed up on.

Err?

Ion weapons suffer no penalties under or shooting into water.

Particle Beams (generally, some were missed or printed before this re-became a thing) have a higher crit range and do additional crit damage; also, some forms of Impervious to Energy still take partial damage from them.

Plasma does extremely heavy damage per shot, but is easiest to resist (as there are more ways to be impervious to fire).

Lasers are the "default", but have the most weaknesses by default (laser resistant armor, poor underwater performance by default, etc)

Theyre distinct enough, IMO.

[Nekira Sudacne]

"Ion"
"Pulse"
"Particle"
In terms of RIFTS, what do these weapons labels mean. I was under the impression that Ion and Pulse were the same thing (dealing electric based damage), but I'm not so sure anymore. Just asking for definitions, or where I can find them.

In terms of Rifts the distinction between different kinds of energy weapon mean virtually diddly squat. There might have originally been plans to differentiate them so your choice of energy weapon would be a meaningful tactical choice, but if there was it was never followed up on.

Err?

Ion weapons suffer no penalties under or shooting into water.

Particle Beams (generally, some were missed or printed before this re-became a thing) have a higher crit range and do additional crit damage; also, some forms of Impervious to Energy still take partial damage from them.

Plasma does extremely heavy damage per shot, but is easiest to resist (as there are more ways to be impervious to fire).

Lasers are the "default", but have the most weaknesses by default (laser resistant armor, poor underwater performance by default, etc)

Theyre distinct enough, IMO.

Partical beams doing partial damage to some kinds of impervious to energy is the result of a game of Telephone on these forums I actually watched happen in slow motion over the years.

In Heroes Unlimited, particle beams do half damage to the super power of Invunerability, which is otherwise impervious to all forms of nonmagical attacks.

No version of particle beam ever printed does any damage to Impervious to Energy.

Thus the game of Telephone. Those with the Super power of Invunerability are not said to be Impervious to Energy, they simply take no damage from them. Still, saying they are "Impervious to Energy" is not wrong, the same way saying they are "Impervious to Bullets" is not wrong--as a Discriptor, but not as a catagory.

So someone shortens "Invunerability takes no damage from energy" to "They are Impervious to Energy". So someone else sees the entry about them doing half damage to Invunerable characters in Aliens Unlimited and go "Wait, so does this get through Impervious to Energy as well, becasue they are both Impervious to energy".

The answer is actually no, Invunerability does not grant Impervious to Energy, it simply protects one from all nonmagical/nonpsionic/nonsupernatural forms of damage. It also says they are immune to magical forms of energy.

But none of this, when you actually read the references, in any way implys that particle beams can harm any kind of magical impervious to energy, or even any other kind of damage resistance Other than the superpower of invunerability. It gets through no other form of energy resistance/immunity/damage resistance whatsoever. It's just an exception to make that one power slightly less broken. Nothing more.

[The Beast]

"Ion"
"Pulse"
"Particle"
In terms of RIFTS, what do these weapons labels mean. I was under the impression that Ion and Pulse were the same thing (dealing electric based damage), but I'm not so sure anymore. Just asking for definitions, or where I can find them.

In terms of Rifts the distinction between different kinds of energy weapon mean virtually diddly squat. There might have originally been plans to differentiate them so your choice of energy weapon would be a meaningful tactical choice, but if there was it was never followed up on.

Err?

Ion weapons suffer no penalties under or shooting into water.

Particle Beams (generally, some were missed or printed before this re-became a thing) have a higher crit range and do additional crit damage; also, some forms of Impervious to Energy still take partial damage from them.

Plasma does extremely heavy damage per shot, but is easiest to resist (as there are more ways to be impervious to fire).

Lasers are the "default", but have the most weaknesses by default (laser resistant armor, poor underwater performance by default, etc)

Theyre distinct enough, IMO.

Partical beams doing partial damage to some kinds of impervious to energy is the result of a game of Telephone on these forums I actually watched happen in slow motion over the years.

In Heroes Unlimited, particle beams do half damage to the super power of Invunerability, which is otherwise impervious to all forms of nonmagical attacks.

No version of particle beam ever printed does any damage to Impervious to Energy.

Thus the game of Telephone. Those with the Super power of Invunerability are not said to be Impervious to Energy, they simply take no damage from them. Still, saying they are "Impervious to Energy" is not wrong, the same way saying they are "Impervious to Bullets" is not wrong--as a Discriptor, but not as a catagory.

So someone shortens "Invunerability takes no damage from energy" to "They are Impervious to Energy". So someone else sees the entry about them doing half damage to Invunerable characters in Aliens Unlimited and go "Wait, so does this get through Impervious to Energy as well, becasue they are both Impervious to energy".

The answer is actually no, Invunerability does not grant Impervious to Energy, it simply protects one from all nonmagical/nonpsionic/nonsupernatural forms of damage. It also says they are immune to magical forms of energy.

But none of this, when you actually read the references, in any way implys that particle beams can harm any kind of magical impervious to energy, or even any other kind of damage resistance Other than the superpower of invunerability. It gets through no other form of energy resistance/immunity/damage resistance whatsoever. It's just an exception to make that one power slightly less broken. Nothing more.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Partical beams doing partial damage to some kinds of impervious to energy is the result of a game of Telephone on these forums I actually watched happen in slow motion over the years.

100% incorrect:

Impervious to Energy
An invisible magic aura surrounds the vehicle to protect it from most forms of energy, including most forms of S.D.C. and M.D.C. energy blasts, weapons, plasma, fire, heat and electricity/lightning (does no damage). Note: Provides no protection against projectile weapons (i.e. arrows, bullets, rail gns, etc, as well as punches and kicks) and particle beam weapons inflict 1d6 M.D. damage (or roughly 15% of normal).

So, care to retract that?

(edited for emphasis)

[Nekira Sudacne]

Partical beams doing partial damage to some kinds of impervious to energy is the result of a game of Telephone on these forums I actually watched happen in slow motion over the years.

100% incorrect:

Impervious to Energy
An invisible magic aura surrounds the vehicle to protect it from most forms of energy, including most forms of S.D.C. and M.D.C. energy blasts, weapons, plasma, fire, heat and electricity/lightning (does no damage). Note: Provides no protection against projectile weapons (i.e. arrows, bullets, rail gns, etc, as well as punches and kicks) and particle beam weapons inflict 1d6 M.D. damage (or roughly 15% of normal).

So, care to retract that?

(edited for emphasis)

Okay, so there is one form that takes damage i'm aware of.

That's not the spell, but from a section on TW augmentations to Vehicles, many of which alter the default rules of their given spells. Indeed, the very next one shows that Impervious to fire has a "Mystic air conditioning" setting that provides no protection--something the regular spell cannot do--and indeed the rules for making TW devices say that the TW often has the option to trade down effect for cost or mess with things. So this cannot be read as a general rule for Impervious to Energy. Especially as the same enchantment.

Actually given how many of the TW Vehicle mods on that page and that section work differently from their spells, removing or adding features or altering them willy nilly, i'm not even convinced it's a rule that all TW Impervious to Energy vehicles have this limitation. it doesn't appear to be a rule for anything but that exact system.

So unless you think Chameleon makes you invisible to thermal sensors (The system in the same section on the book you reference does, even though the spell says explictly the character IS vunerable to thermal sensor detection) and that the chance to see a stationary target is less the closer you get to the caster of Chameleon (indeed, the 15% chance to see someone 20 or more feet away is LESS than the 90% the spell gives), Impervious to Fire can also be cast for 5 PPE to give air conditioning but no resistance to fire (nothing says this), Fly as the eagle makes you fly slower if the caster is more than 10 feet tall (nothing indicates this), then the most likely answer is that like the rest in the section, these TW enhancements to vehicles were given special features and special limitations to make them suitable as vehicle augmentations and not modifications to the spells themselves because if you want to say the rule there was meant to also apply to the spell itself, you have to modify basically all the spells used in that section in one way or another (including dramatically increased weight limits!)

Or maybe just admit that the section on TW enhanced vehicles only applys to those particular TW enhanced vehicles and not modifications to the underlying spells. Can you justify why you think we need to likewise modify chameleon, fly as the eagle, impervious to fire, ect.

Or....Care to retract that?

[dreicunan]

Partical beams doing partial damage to some kinds of impervious to energy is the result of a game of Telephone on these forums I actually watched happen in slow motion over the years.

100% incorrect:

Impervious to Energy
An invisible magic aura surrounds the vehicle to protect it from most forms of energy, including most forms of S.D.C. and M.D.C. energy blasts, weapons, plasma, fire, heat and electricity/lightning (does no damage). Note: Provides no protection against projectile weapons (i.e. arrows, bullets, rail gns, etc, as well as punches and kicks) and particle beam weapons inflict 1d6 M.D. damage (or roughly 15% of normal).

So, care to retract that?

(edited for emphasis)

Okay, so there is one form that takes damage i'm aware of.

That's not the spell, but from a section on TW augmentations to Vehicles, many of which alter the default rules of their given spells. Indeed, the very next one shows that Impervious to fire has a "Mystic air conditioning" setting that provides no protection--something the regular spell cannot do--and indeed the rules for making TW devices say that the TW often has the option to trade down effect for cost or mess with things. So this cannot be read as a general rule for Impervious to Energy. Especially as the same enchantment.

Actually given how many of the TW Vehicle mods on that page and that section work differently from their spells, removing or adding features or altering them willy nilly, i'm not even convinced it's a rule that all TW Impervious to Energy vehicles have this limitation. it doesn't appear to be a rule for anything but that exact system.

So unless you think Chameleon makes you invisible to thermal sensors (The system in the same section on the book you reference does, even though the spell says explictly the character IS vunerable to thermal sensor detection) and that the chance to see a stationary target is less the closer you get to the caster of Chameleon (indeed, the 15% chance to see someone 20 or more feet away is LESS than the 90% the spell gives), Impervious to Fire can also be cast for 5 PPE to give air conditioning but no resistance to fire (nothing says this), Fly as the eagle makes you fly slower if the caster is more than 10 feet tall (nothing indicates this), then the most likely answer is that like the rest in the section, these TW enhancements to vehicles were given special features and special limitations to make them suitable as vehicle augmentations and not modifications to the spells themselves because if you want to say the rule there was meant to also apply to the spell itself, you have to modify basically all the spells used in that section in one way or another (including dramatically increased weight limits!)

Or maybe just admit that the section on TW enhanced vehicles only applys to those particular TW enhanced vehicles. Can you justfy why you think we need to likewise modify chamelion, fly as the eagle, impervious to fire, ect.

Or....Care to retract that statement?

Nekira, you're moving the goalposts now. You made the statement that it got through "no other form of energy resistance/immunity/damage resistance whatsoever," and as Colonel_Tetsuya demonstrated that claim was false. You can't then minimize it because it wasn't the spell, as you yourself didn't limit it to the spell. You also then constructed a massive strawman arguement, because Colonel_Tetsuya never claimed that anything needed to be modified, and thus your concluding question to him is especially poor form. He can't retract a statement that he didn't make!

[Nekira Sudacne]

Partical beams doing partial damage to some kinds of impervious to energy is the result of a game of Telephone on these forums I actually watched happen in slow motion over the years.

100% incorrect:

Impervious to Energy
An invisible magic aura surrounds the vehicle to protect it from most forms of energy, including most forms of S.D.C. and M.D.C. energy blasts, weapons, plasma, fire, heat and electricity/lightning (does no damage). Note: Provides no protection against projectile weapons (i.e. arrows, bullets, rail gns, etc, as well as punches and kicks) and particle beam weapons inflict 1d6 M.D. damage (or roughly 15% of normal).

So, care to retract that?

(edited for emphasis)

Okay, so there is one form that takes damage i'm aware of.

That's not the spell, but from a section on TW augmentations to Vehicles, many of which alter the default rules of their given spells. Indeed, the very next one shows that Impervious to fire has a "Mystic air conditioning" setting that provides no protection--something the regular spell cannot do--and indeed the rules for making TW devices say that the TW often has the option to trade down effect for cost or mess with things. So this cannot be read as a general rule for Impervious to Energy. Especially as the same enchantment.

Actually given how many of the TW Vehicle mods on that page and that section work differently from their spells, removing or adding features or altering them willy nilly, i'm not even convinced it's a rule that all TW Impervious to Energy vehicles have this limitation. it doesn't appear to be a rule for anything but that exact system.

So unless you think Chameleon makes you invisible to thermal sensors (The system in the same section on the book you reference does, even though the spell says explictly the character IS vunerable to thermal sensor detection) and that the chance to see a stationary target is less the closer you get to the caster of Chameleon (indeed, the 15% chance to see someone 20 or more feet away is LESS than the 90% the spell gives), Impervious to Fire can also be cast for 5 PPE to give air conditioning but no resistance to fire (nothing says this), Fly as the eagle makes you fly slower if the caster is more than 10 feet tall (nothing indicates this), then the most likely answer is that like the rest in the section, these TW enhancements to vehicles were given special features and special limitations to make them suitable as vehicle augmentations and not modifications to the spells themselves because if you want to say the rule there was meant to also apply to the spell itself, you have to modify basically all the spells used in that section in one way or another (including dramatically increased weight limits!)

Or maybe just admit that the section on TW enhanced vehicles only applys to those particular TW enhanced vehicles. Can you justfy why you think we need to likewise modify chamelion, fly as the eagle, impervious to fire, ect.

Or....Care to retract that statement?

Nekira, you're moving the goalposts now. You made the statement that it got through "no other form of energy resistance/immunity/damage resistance whatsoever," and as Colonel_Tetsuya demonstrated that claim was false. You can't then minimize it because it wasn't the spell, as you yourself didn't limit it to the spell. You also then constructed a massive strawman arguement, because Colonel_Tetsuya never claimed that anything needed to be modified, and thus your concluding question to him is especially poor form. He can't retract a statement that he didn't make!

That was one statement I made, yes, it was not the only statement: I made a number in support of my overall position, and in fact, I explictly acknowleged it, you yourself quoted that I started by saying "Okay, so there is one form that takes damage i'm aware of. ".

That's not moving the goalpost, that's acknowleging that particular statement was wrong, while defending the position that it is not a general rule. So instead of only the superpower of invunerability, it's the superpower of invunerability, plus that system. How does explictly admiting that particular statement was wrong move the goalpost?

[dreicunan]

Partical beams doing partial damage to some kinds of impervious to energy is the result of a game of Telephone on these forums I actually watched happen in slow motion over the years.

100% incorrect:

Impervious to Energy
An invisible magic aura surrounds the vehicle to protect it from most forms of energy, including most forms of S.D.C. and M.D.C. energy blasts, weapons, plasma, fire, heat and electricity/lightning (does no damage). Note: Provides no protection against projectile weapons (i.e. arrows, bullets, rail gns, etc, as well as punches and kicks) and particle beam weapons inflict 1d6 M.D. damage (or roughly 15% of normal).

So, care to retract that?

(edited for emphasis)

Okay, so there is one form that takes damage i'm aware of.

That's not the spell, but from a section on TW augmentations to Vehicles, many of which alter the default rules of their given spells. Indeed, the very next one shows that Impervious to fire has a "Mystic air conditioning" setting that provides no protection--something the regular spell cannot do--and indeed the rules for making TW devices say that the TW often has the option to trade down effect for cost or mess with things. So this cannot be read as a general rule for Impervious to Energy. Especially as the same enchantment.

Actually given how many of the TW Vehicle mods on that page and that section work differently from their spells, removing or adding features or altering them willy nilly, i'm not even convinced it's a rule that all TW Impervious to Energy vehicles have this limitation. it doesn't appear to be a rule for anything but that exact system.

So unless you think Chameleon makes you invisible to thermal sensors (The system in the same section on the book you reference does, even though the spell says explictly the character IS vunerable to thermal sensor detection) and that the chance to see a stationary target is less the closer you get to the caster of Chameleon (indeed, the 15% chance to see someone 20 or more feet away is LESS than the 90% the spell gives), Impervious to Fire can also be cast for 5 PPE to give air conditioning but no resistance to fire (nothing says this), Fly as the eagle makes you fly slower if the caster is more than 10 feet tall (nothing indicates this), then the most likely answer is that like the rest in the section, these TW enhancements to vehicles were given special features and special limitations to make them suitable as vehicle augmentations and not modifications to the spells themselves because if you want to say the rule there was meant to also apply to the spell itself, you have to modify basically all the spells used in that section in one way or another (including dramatically increased weight limits!)

Or maybe just admit that the section on TW enhanced vehicles only applys to those particular TW enhanced vehicles. Can you justfy why you think we need to likewise modify chamelion, fly as the eagle, impervious to fire, ect.

Or....Care to retract that statement?

Nekira, you're moving the goalposts now. You made the statement that it got through "no other form of energy resistance/immunity/damage resistance whatsoever," and as Colonel_Tetsuya demonstrated that claim was false. You can't then minimize it because it wasn't the spell, as you yourself didn't limit it to the spell. You also then constructed a massive strawman arguement, because Colonel_Tetsuya never claimed that anything needed to be modified, and thus your concluding question to him is especially poor form. He can't retract a statement that he didn't make!

That was one statement I made, yes, it was not the only statement: I made a number in support of my overall position, and in fact, I explictly acknowleged it, you yourself quoted that I started by saying "
Okay, so there is one form that takes damage i'm aware of. ". That's not moving the goalpost, that's acknowleging that particular statement was wrong, while defending the position that it is not a general rule. So instead of only the superpower of invunerability, it's the superpower of invunerability, plus that system. How does explictly admiting that particular statement was wrong move the goalpost?

Acting as though it matters at all whether it is the spell or a TW modification is moving the goalposts. You acknowledge it, and then spend a whole bunch of words trying to claim that he made an argument that he didn't make.

He didn't claim that it was a general rule. He pointed out that your statement that the idea that particle beams can do partial damage to some kinds of impervious to energy was the product of a game of telephone on the forums was wrong, and he backed up that assertion by quoting from Coalition War Book 1, which features a kind of impervious to energy through which particle beams inflict partial damage. Suggesting that he said anything beyond that is just putting words in his mouth and constructing a strawman large enough to start a festival and set it on fire.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Okay, so there is one form that takes damage i'm aware of.

That's not the spell, but from a section on TW augmentations to Vehicles, many of which alter the default rules of their given spells. Indeed, the very next one shows that Impervious to fire has a "Mystic air conditioning" setting that provides no protection--something the regular spell cannot do--and indeed the rules for making TW devices say that the TW often has the option to trade down effect for cost or mess with things. So this cannot be read as a general rule for Impervious to Energy. Especially as the same enchantment.

Actually given how many of the TW Vehicle mods on that page and that section work differently from their spells, removing or adding features or altering them willy nilly, i'm not even convinced it's a rule that all TW Impervious to Energy vehicles have this limitation. it doesn't appear to be a rule for anything but that exact system.

So unless you think Chameleon makes you invisible to thermal sensors (The system in the same section on the book you reference does, even though the spell says explictly the character IS vunerable to thermal sensor detection) and that the chance to see a stationary target is less the closer you get to the caster of Chameleon (indeed, the 15% chance to see someone 20 or more feet away is LESS than the 90% the spell gives), Impervious to Fire can also be cast for 5 PPE to give air conditioning but no resistance to fire (nothing says this), Fly as the eagle makes you fly slower if the caster is more than 10 feet tall (nothing indicates this), then the most likely answer is that like the rest in the section, these TW enhancements to vehicles were given special features and special limitations to make them suitable as vehicle augmentations and not modifications to the spells themselves because if you want to say the rule there was meant to also apply to the spell itself, you have to modify basically all the spells used in that section in one way or another (including dramatically increased weight limits!)

Or maybe just admit that the section on TW enhanced vehicles only applys to those particular TW enhanced vehicles. Can you justfy why you think we need to likewise modify chamelion, fly as the eagle, impervious to fire, ect.

Or....Care to retract that statement?

Nekira, you're moving the goalposts now. You made the statement that it got through "no other form of energy resistance/immunity/damage resistance whatsoever," and as Colonel_Tetsuya demonstrated that claim was false. You can't then minimize it because it wasn't the spell, as you yourself didn't limit it to the spell. You also then constructed a massive strawman arguement, because Colonel_Tetsuya never claimed that anything needed to be modified, and thus your concluding question to him is especially poor form. He can't retract a statement that he didn't make!

That was one statement I made, yes, it was not the only statement: I made a number in support of my overall position, and in fact, I explictly acknowleged it, you yourself quoted that I started by saying "
Okay, so there is one form that takes damage i'm aware of. ". That's not moving the goalpost, that's acknowleging that particular statement was wrong, while defending the position that it is not a general rule. So instead of only the superpower of invunerability, it's the superpower of invunerability, plus that system. How does explictly admiting that particular statement was wrong move the goalpost?

Acting as though it matters at all whether it is the spell or a TW modification is moving the goalposts. You acknowledge it, and then spend a whole bunch of words trying to claim that he made an argument that he didn't make.

He didn't claim that it was a general rule. He pointed out that your statement that the idea that particle beams can do partial damage to some kinds of impervious to energy was the product of a game of telephone on the forums was wrong, and he backed up that assertion by quoting from Coalition War Book 1, which features a kind of impervious to energy through which particle beams inflict partial damage. Suggesting that he said anything beyond that is just putting words in his mouth and constructing a strawman large enough to start a festival and set it on fire.

*double checks*

No, actually, I just plain missed he said "some kinds" of Impervious to Energy and just saw "Impervious to Energy".

That said, cut the attitude: Misunderstandings happen. Attributing some kind of deliberate malice or strawmanning on my part is just rude on your part. Don't be so quick to assume everyone arguing in bad faith. Sometimes mistakes just happen. I've been more than happy to admit i'm wrong when i'm wrong, I'm far less willing to take condencation. Colonal_Tetsuya asked me a smug question, I responded in kind, it's all in good fun and humor, even when my smugness was in vain.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

also, some forms of Impervious to Energy still take partial damage from them.

Partical beams doing partial damage to some kinds of impervious to energy is the result of a game of Telephone on these forums I actually watched happen in slow motion over the years.

Impervious to Energy
An invisible magic aura surrounds the vehicle to protect it from most forms of energy, including most forms of S.D.C. and M.D.C. energy blasts, weapons, plasma, fire, heat and electricity/lightning (does no damage). Note: Provides no protection against projectile weapons (i.e. arrows, bullets, rail gns, etc, as well as punches and kicks) and particle beam weapons inflict 1d6 M.D. damage (or roughly 15% of normal).

Goalpost shifts don't work on me.

What i said is 100% accurate.

[Nekira Sudacne]

*Points up to the post directly above yours*

It's always so annoying when the person your trying to post to posts right after the post your trying to make. Do you just point to the origional post or repeat yourself....

Oh well, lets go for both

*double checks*

No, actually, I just plain missed he said "some kinds" of Impervious to Energy and just saw "Impervious to Energy".

Not a goalpost shift, just me being blind. Mea Cupla.

[dreicunan]

*double checks*

No, actually, I just plain missed he said "some kinds" of Impervious to Energy and just saw "Impervious to Energy".

That said, cut the attitude: Misunderstandings happen. Attributing some kind of deliberate malice or strawmanning on my part is just rude on your part. Don't be so quick to assume everyone arguing in bad faith. Sometimes mistakes just happen. I've been more than happy to admit i'm wrong when i'm wrong, I'm far less willing to take condencation. Colonal_Tetsuya asked me a smug question, I responded in kind, it's all in good fun and humor, even when my smugness was in vain.

Nekira, while Colonel_Tetsuya used it first, the "some kinds" that I was referencing is from your post. Colonel_Tetsuya quoted it in his original response to you pointing out that your statement was incorrect. How can you claim to have been unaware of it when you wrote the same words in your post responding to him? In light of that, how can it be rude for me to point out that, based on what you wrote, you certainly appear to have put words in his mouth?

That said, I never wish to be unnecessarily rude. At this point would you consider it more polite for me to chalk this up to incompetence rather than malice?

[Blue_Lion]

also, some forms of Impervious to Energy still take partial damage from them.

Partical beams doing partial damage to some kinds of impervious to energy is the result of a game of Telephone on these forums I actually watched happen in slow motion over the years.

Impervious to Energy
An invisible magic aura surrounds the vehicle to protect it from most forms of energy, including most forms of S.D.C. and M.D.C. energy blasts, weapons, plasma, fire, heat and electricity/lightning (does no damage). Note: Provides no protection against projectile weapons (i.e. arrows, bullets, rail gns, etc, as well as punches and kicks) and particle beam weapons inflict 1d6 M.D. damage (or roughly 15% of normal).

Goalpost shifts don't work on me.

What i said is 100% accurate.

I can see where the misunderstanding comes from. Most people who quote special damage to particle weapons in this forums are quoting the GM guide to HU. So likely that is what Nekira sunacne was referring to.

This is the first time I recall ever seen any one use the quote you did. (Most times I recall seeing the TW feature described as being the same as the spell so the difference seams odd.)-I often play TW and was unaware of that quote so I can see how Nekia Sunance was unaware and the poster admitted the error. People can make mistakes it happens at least this poster admits to the error so no reason to further attack them.

[Blue_Lion]

*double checks*

No, actually, I just plain missed he said "some kinds" of Impervious to Energy and just saw "Impervious to Energy".

That said, cut the attitude: Misunderstandings happen. Attributing some kind of deliberate malice or strawmanning on my part is just rude on your part. Don't be so quick to assume everyone arguing in bad faith. Sometimes mistakes just happen. I've been more than happy to admit i'm wrong when i'm wrong, I'm far less willing to take condencation. Colonal_Tetsuya asked me a smug question, I responded in kind, it's all in good fun and humor, even when my smugness was in vain.

Nekira, while Colonel_Tetsuya used it first, the "some kinds" that I was referencing is from your post. Colonel_Tetsuya quoted it in his original response to you pointing out that your statement was incorrect. How can you claim to have been unaware of it when you wrote the same words in your post responding to him? In light of that, how can it be rude for me to point out that, based on what you wrote, you certainly appear to have put words in his mouth?

That said, I never wish to be unnecessarily rude. At this point would you consider it more polite for me to chalk this up to incompetence rather than malice?

Simple there is a Power in HU gm guide that was referenced to often when people talk about particle weapons doing damage in rifts that is what the reference. However that is not a rifts text and has been debated quite a bit. So as I explained it I can understand the misunderstanding.

[Nekira Sudacne]

*double checks*

No, actually, I just plain missed he said "some kinds" of Impervious to Energy and just saw "Impervious to Energy".

That said, cut the attitude: Misunderstandings happen. Attributing some kind of deliberate malice or strawmanning on my part is just rude on your part. Don't be so quick to assume everyone arguing in bad faith. Sometimes mistakes just happen. I've been more than happy to admit i'm wrong when i'm wrong, I'm far less willing to take condencation. Colonal_Tetsuya asked me a smug question, I responded in kind, it's all in good fun and humor, even when my smugness was in vain.

Nekira, while Colonel_Tetsuya used it first, the "some kinds" that I was referencing is from your post. Colonel_Tetsuya quoted it in his original response to you pointing out that your statement was incorrect. How can you claim to have been unaware of it when you wrote the same words in your post responding to him? In light of that, how can it be rude for me to point out that, based on what you wrote, you certainly appear to have put words in his mouth?

That said, I never wish to be unnecessarily rude. At this point would you consider it more polite for me to chalk this up to incompetence rather than malice?

Pretty much, I've never been particuarlly good at english, and am more than happy to admit that sometimes I just plain misunderstand a sentance that going back simply does not say what I thought it said. I don't mind admiting that I am wrong, I object to the fact you assumed I was deliberately putting words in his mouth, when the simpler explination is I just thought he said something other than what he actually said. Copy-paste makes it all to easy to copy and paste words without having to actually read/think about them again, alas.