Spam in a Can, "Squishie" Blender (Fun with SN Str

[Devari]

It's obvious to me that comtemporary tanks in Rifts use the M.D.C. rules, for reasons I've posted several times. I think this is also obvious to the majority of Rifts and Robotech players based on the responses to these threads. If I was playing a Rifts game where someome tried telling me contemporary tanks aren't M.D.C. and that they could damage a main battle tank with a machinegun, I'd just start laughing. Anyone who still wants to try claiming that tanks are S.D.C. should watch the video of the stolen tank driving right through cars and R.V.s, the tank just drives straight through them (I'm not sure what show it was from, but the video is pretty common). If you still think tanks are S.D.C. after watching that, you really need to start using some common sense.

[Devari]

Damage to M.D.C. structures from collisions is really a separate issue that depends on several factors. For example, dropping a suit of M.D.C. body armour off a building isn't going to do much to it - the armour simply isn't going to hit the ground fast enough. But M.D.C. power armour or an M.D.C. aircraft that hits the ground at several hundred kph is likely going to be wrecked, because the structure simply isn't designed to handle that type of force.

The fact that it is a mega-damage structure indicates that it CAN handle that kind of force.

No, being an M.D.C. structure indicates that it can handle a certain amount of weapon and impact damage, not that it can crash into a planet. You can throw power armour or robots through S.D.C. structures like buildings without harming them, and can probably drop them from a considerable height, but you can't crash one into the ground at Mach 1 and expect it to survive.

Regarding your point about some parts of a tank or other M.D.C. structure not being M.D.C., I think that has more to do with the design of armour, which is meant to stop attacks and damage from the outside of the vehicle.
<snip>
... take an M.D.C. vehicle and damage it in a way it isn't designed to handle, such as a high-speed impact or a internal explosion, and it will often get completely totalled. It's really something that a GM needs to decide based on common sense even if the collision rules indicate relatively low damage.

Sure, if the GM wants to ignore the existing rules in favor of more realistic house rules.
But the existing rules don't allow for normal falling damage to hurt MDC structures.

First, some people have quoted falling rules from Rifts books that indicate that M.D.C. damage can occur in falls at sufficient speeds or heights. Secondly, isn't a realistic way to handle M.D.C. collisions exactly what we're taking about? In Sourcebook 1 KS describes how some Rifts players allow a character with 50 S.D.C. to take gunshot wounds to the head, which is totally retarded and according to KS is not how the rules were intended to be used. The same is true when M.D.C. objects are involved in high-speed impacts with the ground. You need to use some degree of common sense when you apply the rules, or else the game is totally idiotic.

[Killer Cyborg]

It's obvious to me that comtemporary tanks in Rifts use the M.D.C. rules, for reasons I've posted several times. I think this is also obvious to the majority of Rifts and Robotech players based on the responses to these threads. If I was playing a Rifts game where someome tried telling me contemporary tanks aren't M.D.C. and that they could damage a main battle tank with a machinegun, I'd just start laughing. Anyone who still wants to try claiming that tanks are S.D.C. should watch the video of the stolen tank driving right through cars and R.V.s, the tank just drives straight through them (I'm not sure what show it was from, but the video is pretty common). If you still think tanks are S.D.C. after watching that, you really need to start using some common sense.

Let's look at our options for a moment.

Option 1:
Modern Tanks are MDC structures.
LAW rockets do 1d6 MD to MD structures.
Therefore, a LAW will always damage a modern tank.

Option 2:
Modern Tanks are SDC structures with a high AR.
Law Rockets do 1d6x100 SDC against SDC structures, if they bypass the AR.
Therefore, a LAW will usually not damage a modern tank.

[Killer Cyborg]

Damage to M.D.C. structures from collisions is really a separate issue that depends on several factors. For example, dropping a suit of M.D.C. body armour off a building isn't going to do much to it - the armour simply isn't going to hit the ground fast enough. But M.D.C. power armour or an M.D.C. aircraft that hits the ground at several hundred kph is likely going to be wrecked, because the structure simply isn't designed to handle that type of force.

The fact that it is a mega-damage structure indicates that it CAN handle that kind of force.

No, being an M.D.C. structure indicates that it can handle a certain amount of weapon and impact damage, not that it can crash into a planet. You can throw power armour or robots through S.D.C. structures like buildings without harming them, and can probably drop them from a considerable height, but you can't crash one into the ground at Mach 1 and expect it to survive.

I have looked at the High Speed Crash rules and calculated the damages.
You don't seem to have done the same thing.

Regarding your point about some parts of a tank or other M.D.C. structure not being M.D.C., I think that has more to do with the design of armour, which is meant to stop attacks and damage from the outside of the vehicle.
<snip>
... take an M.D.C. vehicle and damage it in a way it isn't designed to handle, such as a high-speed impact or a internal explosion, and it will often get completely totalled. It's really something that a GM needs to decide based on common sense even if the collision rules indicate relatively low damage.

Sure, if the GM wants to ignore the existing rules in favor of more realistic house rules.
But the existing rules don't allow for normal falling damage to hurt MDC structures.

First, some people have quoted falling rules from Rifts books that indicate that M.D.C. damage can occur in falls at sufficient speeds or heights.

Who? Where did the rule come from?
Nobody has made any verifiable claims to that effect. If you can actually find anything in the rules to back this up, great!
If not, then have fun with your house rules.

Secondly, isn't a realistic way to handle M.D.C. collisions exactly what we're taking about? In Sourcebook 1 KS describes how some Rifts players allow a character with 50 S.D.C. to take gunshot wounds to the head, which is totally retarded and according to KS is not how the rules were intended to be used. The same is true when M.D.C. objects are involved in high-speed impacts with the ground. You need to use some degree of common sense when you apply the rules, or else the game is totally idiotic.

Yes.
And common sense says that an MDC structure will take 1 point of damage for every 100 SDC points of crash damage that it sustains.
I agree that anything else is totally idiotic.

[Killer Cyborg]

I got ahold of a copy of The Compendium of Contempory Weapons.

Points of Interest:

Back Cover:
"Directly compatible with RECON, Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas & Superspies, Beyond the Supernatural and the entire Palladium Books Megaverse"
(No mention of needing to convert the stats for MDC worlds.)

p. 156
"SDC of the average tank: Main body: 800 to 1200"
(Key phrase being "Average Tank." This is how Palladium saw any of the standard contemporary tanks of the day; SDC vehicles.)

p. 156 (Intro to the "Tanks & Armored Vehicles" section)
"The SDC number can be used directly with the Palladium RPG System, but may have to be adjusted for other game systems."

p. 169
Bibliography lists a number of books, the most likely candidate for their tank info is Jane's Armor and Artillery 1988-1989
This is what the writers apparently based their view of "modern" tanks from.

[Subjugator]

Damage to M.D.C. structures from collisions is really a separate issue that depends on several factors. For example, dropping a suit of M.D.C. body armour off a building isn't going to do much to it - the armour simply isn't going to hit the ground fast enough. But M.D.C. power armour or an M.D.C. aircraft that hits the ground at several hundred kph is likely going to be wrecked, because the structure simply isn't designed to handle that type of force.

The fact that it is a mega-damage structure indicates that it CAN handle that kind of force.

Regarding your point about some parts of a tank or other M.D.C. structure not being M.D.C., I think that has more to do with the design of armour, which is meant to stop attacks and damage from the outside of the vehicle.
<snip>
... take an M.D.C. vehicle and damage it in a way it isn't designed to handle, such as a high-speed impact or a internal explosion, and it will often get completely totalled. It's really something that a GM needs to decide based on common sense even if the collision rules indicate relatively low damage.

Sure, if the GM wants to ignore the existing rules in favor of more realistic house rules.
But the existing rules don't allow for normal falling damage to hurt MDC structures.

I don't remember if I said this or not in the beginning (too far back), but in this post or another, I attributed the damage due to impact being the result of reason (thought) on the part of the GM.

[Subjugator]

2. It is being used as a basis for comparison and not a metaphor.

In the same manner that "He's as strong as an ox" is a basis for comparison...

I think that this is the primary basis of our disagreement. The problem is that you completely fail to address the damage of a fuel air bomb, which does a LOT more damage than some piddling SDC and yet will still not destroy a battleship's main body.

Consider it this way - only something that will do more than 100 SDC in a single punch can damage battleship armor. That is, by definition, MDC.

3. Following your logic, battleship armor is tougher than that of...say...a Brodkil.

Well, a brodkil has 250 MDC.
A Battleship likely has more than 25000 SDC...

So you still think that enough .50 caliber machine guns could take out a battleship?

I'm quoting the damages from the book YOU were using. Specifically: Mercenaries.

you used the Palladium explosive damage as a basis for a theory.
That's never good to do.

They're one of the primary bases for MDC. They do lots of damage in one punch. This addresses why some LAW rocket launchers and hand grenades wouldn't so much as SCRATCH battleship armor, whereas others could actually damage it.

It lists the stats for the explosives I was talking about. If you don't like them, say that the books are wrong again why don't you.

The books aren't wrong about what the stats for that weapon are; by definition, the books can't be wrong.
They CAN be stupid, though... and these stats seem pretty stupid.

Hm - while I tend to agree with you, I don't think that this position helps your argument. It requires an MDC weapon to hurt an MDC structure. These weapons are clearly MD in construction or they'd never hurt the armor they're supposed to damage.

The damage for a LAW is:
1d6x100 SDC according to Ninjas & Superspies (p. 152) $1,000
1d6x100 SDC or 1d6 MD according to Rifts, p. 245 1,000 Credits.
1d6x100 SDC according to BtS, p. 239 $1000

1d4x10 or 1d6x10 SDC or 1d6 MD according to GMG, p. 129 2000-2500 credits for the SDC, and 15,000 Credits for the MD version.

They nerfed the damage for a LAW in the GMG, simultaneously deciding that there were three different versions of it: two SDC and 1 MD.
But when the main book was written, there was only the one type. It did 1d6x100 SDC, 1d6 MD to MDC structures.

It doesn't matter if it was nerfed. Per canon, the latest entry in the latest book is the rule.

Again - this does not support your argument. Disliking the rules and thinking they're stupid doesn't mean that your dislike makes them wrong.

Sub

[Subjugator]

No. The only official definition of Mega-Damage is in Sentinels.

Actually, there are official definitions in Sentinels, RMB, GMG, and probably Splicers, Chaos Earth, and others (no time to check...very tired and just got net access for home back (stupid router failure).

Or, if you're looking for the official Rifts example, it's on p. 11 of them main book:
"It is a structural damage capacity that reflects the staggering advances in science and technology. A technology that has created new super-tough alloys, miicronized and even nano-size circuits, parts, batteries, and weapons with more power, precision, and range than anything we can manufacture in the 20th Century."

So you like this definition, but don't like the more up-to-date one from the GMG?

Which is roughly the same as the official definition of Mega-Damage that is given in Sentinels.

Furthermore, at the bottom of the page, it goes on to describe exactly what Mega-Damage applies to:

"-All high-tech military vehicles including tanks, APCs, robots, aircraft, and all Coalition War Machines"

It lists other stuff, but this is our primary concern at the moment.
You will, no doubt, zoom in on the part that says "tanks" and declare that it proves you right.
It doesn't; here's why.

Notice the first part of the sentence:
"All high-tech military vehicles"
In the world of Rifts, a modern tank is NOT considered "high-tech."

It's written in the present tense, not from the perspective of a person in the Rifts world. Many things that are extremely low tech are MD in Rifts world (there is mention of MDC concrete for example).

No doubt you will argue with that, so let's move on to the rest of the sentence:
"APCs, robots, aircraft, and all Coaltion war machines."

-How many modern APCs can you think of that you would seriously qualify as Mega-Damage?

Granted. That said; what is up for discussion here is tanks and battleships (and other major seagoing vessels).

-Turn to P. 42 of CB1 and notice that Robots from 20th Century Earth are considered SDC structures. Even though they are far more advanced than anything we currently have in our own world, they are still not considered "high-tech" enough to be MDC.

I'll have to take a look. I'd also tend to agree with this though. I'd go so far as to call them LOW SDC structures. They're made for function, not durability.

--How many modern aircraft would you consider to be MDC? (Before you answer, look at p. 98 of Mercenaries and notice that they list the typical SDC of their aircraft as 400-600.)

Not only would I not consider most modern aircraft to be MDC, I think that 400-600 is HIGH for them. I've touched modern aircraft, and were I in a modern combat jet, I'd fear a punk kid with a powerful slingshot.

Plain and simple, that passage is NOT talking about anything from the 20th Century. It's talking about military vehicles from the Golden Age or later.

...and what is the GMG talking about? That said; this is a good point...but it's OLD information.

Mercenaries, p. 95 (Emphasis added)
"Before the eruption of the ley lines and the coming of the Rifts, 21st Century Earth was producing devastating Mega-Damage weapons and armor like the Glitterboy."

Note that it does NOT say "21st Century and 20th Century."
That's because 20th Century tech is considered SDC:

No. You're inferring that. Earth is CURRENTLY producing mega-damage weapons (RPGs and nukes). It's just not making ones that are as devastating.

"Still, most countries relied on 20th Century equivilant equipment. Even in North America, Federal and private armies still had stockpiles of conventional SDC weapons and vehicles."

There you go.
MDC is 21st Century technology. 20th Century technology is SDC.

Another inference.

Also on p. 95
"Any of the weapons, explosives, and [u]armored vehicles described in Palladium's Compendium of Contemporary Weapons can be found, as well as 21st Century items such as Glitterboys and mega-damage tanks and aircraft (rare)."

A 21st century tank being MDC does not mean that a 20th century one is SDC. Regardless, the M1A2 is a 21st century tank.

The fact that it later refers to a 20th Century tank as having MDC is contradictory to the above, but it is also easily explained by Palladium's longstanding tradition of simplifying structures with massive amounts of SDC by rounding it off into approximate MDC:

Show me ONE other case where they do so without saying they've done so. I can't find one.

[i]Mercenaries, p. 97
Under the M48A3 Main Battle Tank, "The original SDC of the main body was 1200 points (equal to 12 MDC)."
Under the Bradley, "the original main body has 950 SDC or 10 MDC"
Under armored cars, "The original SDC of the main body is typically 500 to 600 points (equal to 5 or 6 MDC)."
Under Large Trucks, "The original SDC of the main body is typically 400 to 600 points (equal to 4 to 6 MDC)
Under small and medium trucks, "the original SDC of the main body is typically 200 to 400 points (equal to 2 to 4 MDC)."
(P. 98 )
Under Automobiles and Jeeps, "The original SDC of the main body is typically 200 to 300 points (equal to 2 or 3 MDC)."
under Motorcycles, "The original SDC of the main body is typically 100 to 200 points (equal to 1 or 2 MDC)."
Under aircraft, "The original SDC of the main body is typically 400 to 600 points (equal to 4 to 6 MDC)."
(p. 145)
Under the Chipwell CAI-100 Warmonger
"MDC by location: Note: This suit is made up of SDC alloys, so even SDC weapons can damage it.
Arms (2)- 5 each (500 SDC)
Legs (2)- 8 each (800 SDC)
Head - 10 (1000 SDC)
Main Body- 40 (4000 SDC)

Yup. Now show me one other example where they do so without mentioning it. This is a pretty big reach...they do it dozens of other times, but not on these?

Please.

Rifts Conversion Book 1, p. 42
Under Cyborgs, "Many have armor with hundreds of SDC, which means that the bot may be able to survive minor mega-damage (every 100 SDC equals 1 MD point)."
Under Robots, "Many have armor with hundreds of SDC, which means that the bot may be able to survive minor mega-damage (every 100 SDC equals 1 MD point)."

p. 95
Under Cyclops, "SDC 3d6x100 on Rifts Earth plus those gained from OCCs and physical skills, making the giant an equivilant mega-damage creature with limited MD (every 100 SDC equals one MDC)."


On with more flavor text...

Mercenaries, p. 97
"A few models of mega-damage tanks have appearted on Rifts Earth. Some are relics from the [u]21st Century, others are old SDC tanks rebuilt with MDC armor."

Notice the utter lack of mention of any MDC tanks from the 20th Century.

The lack of mention doesn't mean the lack of existence.

p. 96
"Retrofitting Pre-Rifts Vehicles:
Armored vehicles can easily be transformed into MDC vehicles..."

Notice the implication that "Pre-Rifts armored vehicles" are assumed to be SDC. We know that there were some MDC armored vehicles produced in the Golden Age of the 21st Century, but they are (according to p. 95) "Rare."

THIS is your best point ever. Worth considering.

GMG, p. 11 (in a passage you've quoted)
"Handguns, body armor and vehicles with the firepower of a 21st Century tank."

Not "20th Century."

(There's likely more out there, that I have posted and stuff I haven't found yet. But I'm tired...)

You have game stats for an item that is not being discussed. It's a tank from the 50's for cripes sake, using old metals and old technology...you can consider that to be modern if you like, but it's quite frankly unacceptable. Metallurgy and polymers have come far since then.

Yes, they have.
But there's no need to toss those older tanks out yet, because I still have two solid points about them:
1. They were likely considered "modern" or "contemporary" by the Palladium writers at the time. This is likely why they posted stats on those tanks, and NOT on newer tanks, and it also likely considering the fact that Palladium is usually far behind the cutting edge (see their computer stats in Rifts and other games).
2. Those older tanks would still hold up to the entire demonstration that they use to describe MDC. They would hold up to a ball, a bat, a .357, and an M-16 without being damaged.
(An AK-47 has much better penetration power than an M-16, so the fact that an AK might penetrate the armor doesn't matter for the purposes of the test)[/quote]

Why in the WORLD would they be considered modern? You might as well spell it 'moderne' at that point (archaic spelling of modern). It's ANCIENT. As far as computer stats go - let's just say they've apologized.

Ummm...the M16 has a greater effective range than the AK-47.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, the books don't seem to have rules for throwing light objects farther than their maximum distance.
It isn't always true in real life either... I can throw a baseball a lot farther than I can throw a penny.

Ever held a Penny between your thumb and middle finger, with its edge up agaisnt your index finger and whipped your arm in such a way that it spins?

Those damn things fly pretty freaking far if spun right, like little metal frisbees of doom.

[Subjugator]

OK - I'm whittling this down some - it's getting too wordy.

YOU THINK NUKES ARE SDC BUT THAT A ROCKET LAUNCHER IS MDC?

No. A Rocket Launcher is also SDC, technically.
But both are explosive damage, which means that if the damage is high enough then it counts as an MD weapon against MDC targets.

The very fact that you think nukes are SDC stretches credibility. I promise you that anything that heats up past 50,000,000c at its epicenter is an MD weapon.

The rules for MDC include examples of what I'm describing.

How so?

Without context, I'm not sure what you or I are referring to.

Have you ever actually READ Occam's Razor? You're introducing assumptions to reach your conclusion. My only assumption is that they mean what they say.

Not true.
You are assuming that the passages you like are valid, and mine are not.
I'm assuming that the passages I like are valid, and yours are not.

We both have our reasons for believing as we do, and that's why we're having this discussion.

Actually, no. I think the passages that you quote are valid, when you quote ones relevant to the discussion. I'm asking about the M1A2. You're quoting that ancient POS from the 50s.

As far as the rest, I assume that the latest books describe the current state of the rules.

What's the most modern think in there?

Whatever it is should give you an idea of what the writers considered to be modern when they wrote the book... whether or not they were right about it.
It's the Compendium of MODERN Weapons.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OK - point taken there, but nothing in there is very up-to-date.

It ABSOLUTELY matters. How can you possibly think this? OLD TECHNOLOGY IS NOT COMPARABLE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY.

Of course it's not.
But for the context of this argument it doesn't matter what tank technology actually IS, it matters what Palladium thought it was when they wrote the books.

So what was modern when the GMG was written?

They are NOT modern vehicles.

Let's keep using cars as an example...
http://www.cybersteering.com/trimain/history/fcars.html

So following your preferred definition, we could include ironclads as being in the same defensive class as modern day aircraft carriers. We could also include a horseless carriage in a race against a Mercedes CLK GTR.

...but I'll tell you what, I'm going to bet on the GTR.

It's...modern.

And you're ignoring the rest of the stuff that I've posted that shows that Palladium considers 20th Century tanks to be SDC and 21st Century tanks to be MDC.

Actually, you've had a total of one post that had a good point showing that 20th century tanks are SDC...and even then I'm not sure I'd count a tank as an armored vehicle. I'd tend to call it mobile artillery or the like.

You're defining "Modern" as "'90s on," in a discussion primarily about a passage written in the '80s!?

The GMG was written in either the 90s or post 2000.

So show me where it says the MDC armor has been added. In every single other instance of it, such is specified. In that instance, it's not said.

I forget which subs we're talking about.

CSS Shark-Class says (CS Navy, p. 74) "the only alteration to the basic design was the addition of lightweight, mega-damage plastic composite armor around the hull and vital spaces."

Defiance-Class Refitted Ohio says (p. 73) "refortified with modern MDC materials"

Let me know if I missed the one you were talking about.

I'll have to check...lemme get back to you.

[Subjugator]

The old Soviet tanks in Iraq were DEMOLISHED by our new ones - this isn't due to armor thickness but because the armor is superior.

Three things on this,

First: Iraqs old Soviet Tanks were not beat because US Tanks have superior Armor, they were beat because of Superior firepower and Accuracy.

And Second: We were talking about the MDC of Structures, which makes this a mute point.

And of course third: Everyone is still using RL to compare to a Fantasy World. And that does not work.

Umm...Iraq's old Soviet tanks sucked because our firepower could penetrate their armor and theirs could not penetrate ours.

So it's because of BOTH.

[Subjugator]

I'll abandon Occam's Razor...it's now Subjugator's Razor:

I'm WAY smarter than you, so I am POSITIVELY right!



OK IT IS A JOKE! DO NOT MODERATE ME!

[Mack]

Being smarter on means you're more likely to think you're right, not actually be right.

[Killer Cyborg]

2. It is being used as a basis for comparison and not a metaphor.

In the same manner that "He's as strong as an ox" is a basis for comparison...

I think that this is the primary basis of our disagreement. The problem is that you completely fail to address the damage of a fuel air bomb, which does a LOT more damage than some piddling SDC and yet will still not destroy a battleship's main body.

A fuel-air bomb is explosive damage.
This means that there is no effective difference between it being MDC or SDC.
Either way it can damage MDC structures.

Consider it this way - only something that will do more than 100 SDC in a single punch can damage battleship armor. That is, by definition, MDC.

Circular argument.
You're only saying that it takes 100 SDC in a single punch in order to damage battlehip armor because you're starting with the assumption that it is a megadamage structure.

3. Following your logic, battleship armor is tougher than that of...say...a Brodkil.

Well, a brodkil has 250 MDC.
A Battleship likely has more than 25000 SDC...

So you still think that enough .50 caliber machine guns could take out a battleship?

Absolutely NOT.
The PV for a .50 cal machinegun is not high enough to penetrate battleship armor.

It requires an MDC weapon to hurt an MDC structure. These weapons are clearly MD in construction or they'd never hurt the armor they're supposed to damage.

Not with explosives.
Rifts, p. 11
"Typically, only a mega-damage weapon can harm an SDC structure. SDC missiles and explosives that can inflict over 100 SDC points of damage do inflict the equivilant of mega-damage."

The damage for a LAW is:
1d6x100 SDC according to Ninjas & Superspies (p. 152) $1,000
1d6x100 SDC or 1d6 MD according to Rifts, p. 245 1,000 Credits.
1d6x100 SDC according to BtS, p. 239 $1000

1d4x10 or 1d6x10 SDC or 1d6 MD according to GMG, p. 129 2000-2500 credits for the SDC, and 15,000 Credits for the MD version.

They nerfed the damage for a LAW in the GMG, simultaneously deciding that there were three different versions of it: two SDC and 1 MD.
But when the main book was written, there was only the one type. It did 1d6x100 SDC, 1d6 MD to MDC structures.

It doesn't matter if it was nerfed. Per canon, the latest entry in the latest book is the rule.

I forget exactly why we were talking about this.

[Subjugator]

A fuel-air bomb is explosive damage.
This means that there is no effective difference between it being MDC or SDC.
Either way it can damage MDC structures.

Ahh. but there is! An SDC explosion will have damage rounded down when hitting an MDC construction, whereas an MDC will not. Admittedly, there's no real way to confirm this in RL, but it's a difference.

Consider it this way - only something that will do more than 100 SDC in a single punch can damage battleship armor. That is, by definition, MDC.

Circular argument.
You're only saying that it takes 100 SDC in a single punch in order to damage battlehip armor because you're starting with the assumption that it is a megadamage structure.

No - actually I'm saying that it is obvious by the damage required to hurt the armor that it is MDC, and am using an estimate that it'd require something as significant as an explosion of above 100 SDC to actually damage the battleship armor.

So you still think that enough .50 caliber machine guns could take out a battleship?

Absolutely NOT.
The PV for a .50 cal machinegun is not high enough to penetrate battleship armor.

So where is the PV for these weapons listed in the Compendium or any Rifts book? I've been playing this game for a LONG time and have never heard mention of it until you brought it up.

It requires an MDC weapon to hurt an MDC structure. These weapons are clearly MD in construction or they'd never hurt the armor they're supposed to damage.

Not with explosives.
Rifts, p. 11
"Typically, only a mega-damage weapon can harm an SDC structure. SDC missiles and explosives that can inflict over 100 SDC points of damage do inflict the equivilant of mega-damage."

Let me rephrase it - were they not MD weapons, they would be listed as doing MD equivalent. As it is, they're not. They do MD *only*. No rounding, no dropped damage.

I forget exactly why we were talking about this.

Actually, so do I.

Anyway, we absolutely have MD weapons these days. It's foolhardiness to say that fuel air bombs and nukes are SDC in construction.

[Subjugator]

Being smarter on means you're more likely to think you're right, not actually be right.

No, that's being prouder, not smarter.

Pride frequently indicates someone who is not as smart as they wish. Since I'm smarter than everyone in the world, I know this.

[Killer Cyborg]

No. The only official definition of Mega-Damage is in Sentinels.

Actually, there are official definitions in Sentinels, RMB, GMG, and probably Splicers, Chaos Earth, and others (no time to check...very tired and just got net access for home back (stupid router failure).

Yup.
I mispoke.

Or, if you're looking for the official Rifts example, it's on p. 11 of them main book:
"It is a structural damage capacity that reflects the staggering advances in science and technology. A technology that has created new super-tough alloys, miicronized and even nano-size circuits, parts, batteries, and weapons with more power, precision, and range than anything we can manufacture in the 20th Century."

So you like this definition, but don't like the more up-to-date one from the GMG?

The one from the GMG (p.11) (emphasis added):
"In the Rifts setting, humans and most D-Bees are Hit Point/SDC, but they weild such advanced technology and/or powerful magic, that they have weapons and armor that is measured in Mega-Damage. Handguns, body armor and vehicles with the firepower of a 21st Century tank."

First of all, this definition doesn't replace or change the one in the main book.
Second of all, it once again states that mega-damage is the result of advanced technology. What kind of advanced technology?
The 21st Century kind.

"Likewise, supernatural beings, creatures of magic, and some D-Bees are mega-damage beings with skin like the armor of a battleship and supernatural strength."

And you're not likely to agree with me any more this time than you did last time, but it looks like a figure of speech to me.
"Skin like the armor of a battleship" is NOT a phrase to take literally.
Their skin is not metal.
It's not battleship grey.
It doesn't have any port-holes or barnacles...

It's written in the present tense, not from the perspective of a person in the Rifts world. Many things that are extremely low tech are MD in Rifts world (there is mention of MDC concrete for example).

It's not written from the perspective of today.
That's made clear by references to Coalition War Machines, robots, etc. and by the fact that none of the things they mention are MDC in today's world.
APCs? Nope.
Robots? Nope.
Aircraft? Nope.

-Turn to P. 42 of CB1 and notice that Robots from 20th Century Earth are considered SDC structures. Even though they are far more advanced than anything we currently have in our own world, they are still not considered "high-tech" enough to be MDC.

I'll have to take a look. I'd also tend to agree with this though. I'd go so far as to call them LOW SDC structures. They're made for function, not durability.

HU robots and robot vehicles are the 20th Century version of Rifts robots and robot vehicles. They serve the same purpose; combat.
Take for instance the "Tank Style" main body for robot vehicles.
It is described as resembling "a tank or armored personnel carrier."
It provides 800 SDC (same as the low-average tank from the Compendium), and can be raised up to 1600 SDC (more than any of the listed tanks in the Compendium), with an AR of up to 17.

And they STAY SDC in Rifts.

Plain and simple, that passage is NOT talking about anything from the 20th Century. It's talking about military vehicles from the Golden Age or later.

...and what is the GMG talking about? That said; this is a good point...but it's OLD information.

The GMG description of mega-damage doesn't negate this definition.
Even if it DID, you'd have to change your argument from "Modern Tanks are MDC in Rifts" to "Modern Tanks haven't always been MDC in Rifts, but as of the GMG they suddenly are MDC"

Mercenaries, p. 95 (Emphasis added)
"Before the eruption of the ley lines and the coming of the Rifts, 21st Century Earth was producing devastating Mega-Damage weapons and armor like the Glitterboy."

Note that it does NOT say "21st Century and 20th Century."
That's because 20th Century tech is considered SDC:

No. You're inferring that. Earth is CURRENTLY producing mega-damage weapons (RPGs and nukes). It's just not making ones that are as devastating.

1. The key word in the sentence is "Armor," "like the Glitterboy."
2. The only real MD weapons being produced today are explosives, which means that it doesn't really matter if they're MD or SDC; either way, they can still hurt MD structures.

"Still, most countries relied on 20th Century equivilant equipment. Even in North America, Federal and private armies still had stockpiles of conventional SDC weapons and vehicles."

There you go.
MDC is 21st Century technology. 20th Century technology is SDC.

Another inference.

Do you seriously think that it is an unfounded one?

Also on p. 95
"Any of the weapons, explosives, and [u]armored vehicles described in Palladium's Compendium of Contemporary Weapons can be found, as well as 21st Century items such as Glitterboys and mega-damage tanks and aircraft (rare)."

A 21st century tank being MDC does not mean that a 20th century one is SDC.

The fact that they state specifically "21st Century" indicates the specific time period that Mega-damage began to be made.
If it included 20th Century stuff as well, they would likely have just said "Pre-Rifts."

Regardless, the M1A2 is a 21st century tank.

As I said; we can debate that after we conclude the discussion of whether or not 20th Century stuff is Mega-damage.

The fact that it later refers to a 20th Century tank as having MDC is contradictory to the above, but it is also easily explained by Palladium's longstanding tradition of simplifying structures with massive amounts of SDC by rounding it off into approximate MDC:

Show me ONE other case where they do so without saying they've done so. I can't find one.[/quote]

So you want me to find an example in the books where they list an SDC structure as MDC without specifying that the structure is SDC...?
Why bother? You'll just claim that it must be MDC since it doesn't specify that the structure is SDC...

Mercenaries, p. 97
Under the M48A3 Main Battle Tank, "The original SDC of the main body was 1200 points (equal to 12 MDC)."
Under the Bradley, "the original main body has 950 SDC or 10 MDC"
Under armored cars, "The original SDC of the main body is typically 500 to 600 points (equal to 5 or 6 MDC)."
Under Large Trucks, "The original SDC of the main body is typically 400 to 600 points (equal to 4 to 6 MDC)
Under small and medium trucks, "the original SDC of the main body is typically 200 to 400 points (equal to 2 to 4 MDC)."
(P. 98 )
Under Automobiles and Jeeps, "The original SDC of the main body is typically 200 to 300 points (equal to 2 or 3 MDC)."
under Motorcycles, "The original SDC of the main body is typically 100 to 200 points (equal to 1 or 2 MDC)."
Under aircraft, "The original SDC of the main body is typically 400 to 600 points (equal to 4 to 6 MDC)."
(p. 145)
Under the Chipwell CAI-100 Warmonger
"MDC by location: Note: This suit is made up of SDC alloys, so even SDC weapons can damage it.
Arms (2)- 5 each (500 SDC)
Legs (2)- 8 each (800 SDC)
Head - 10 (1000 SDC)
Main Body- 40 (4000 SDC)

Yup. Now show me one other example where they do so without mentioning it. This is a pretty big reach...they do it dozens of other times, but not on these?

They figured that you'd get the point by now.
And, unlike in the rest of these examples, it's not like they were quoting specific game stats.

Rifts Conversion Book 1, p. 42
Under Cyborgs, "Many have armor with hundreds of SDC, which means that the bot may be able to survive minor mega-damage (every 100 SDC equals 1 MD point)."
Under Robots, "Many have armor with hundreds of SDC, which means that the bot may be able to survive minor mega-damage (every 100 SDC equals 1 MD point)."

p. 95
Under Cyclops, "SDC 3d6x100 on Rifts Earth plus those gained from OCCs and physical skills, making the giant an equivilant mega-damage creature with limited MD (every 100 SDC equals one MDC)."


On with more flavor text...

Mercenaries, p. 97
"A few models of mega-damage tanks have appearted on Rifts Earth. Some are relics from the [u]21st Century, others are old SDC tanks rebuilt with MDC armor."

Notice the utter lack of mention of any MDC tanks from the 20th Century.

The lack of mention doesn't mean the lack of existence.

It says that there are two types of MDC tanks:
1. Relics from the 21st Century.
2. Rebuilt SDC tanks with added armor.

The fact that it doesn't mention other types of MDC tank indicates that there are no other types.

p. 96
"Retrofitting Pre-Rifts Vehicles:
Armored vehicles can easily be transformed into MDC vehicles..."

Notice the implication that "Pre-Rifts armored vehicles" are assumed to be SDC. We know that there were some MDC armored vehicles produced in the Golden Age of the 21st Century, but they are (according to p. 95) "Rare."

THIS is your best point ever. Worth considering.

Thanks.

GMG, p. 11 (in a passage you've quoted)
"Handguns, body armor and vehicles with the firepower of a 21st Century tank."

Not "20th Century."

there's no need to toss those older tanks out yet, because I still have two solid points about them:
1. They were likely considered "modern" or "contemporary" by the Palladium writers at the time. This is likely why they posted stats on those tanks, and NOT on newer tanks, and it also likely considering the fact that Palladium is usually far behind the cutting edge (see their computer stats in Rifts and other games).
2. Those older tanks would still hold up to the entire demonstration that they use to describe MDC. They would hold up to a ball, a bat, a .357, and an M-16 without being damaged.
(An AK-47 has much better penetration power than an M-16, so the fact that an AK might penetrate the armor doesn't matter for the purposes of the test)

Why in the WORLD would they be considered modern?

Because we're not talking about what WE consider modern.
We're talking about what Palladium considers modern.
And these old tanks are in Palladium's Compendium of Contemporary Weapons.

(And not the Compendium of "Modern" Weapons, as we've been calling it... But it nets out the same, as "Contemporary" means "belonging to the present day"...)

Ummm...the M16 has a greater effective range than the AK-47.

Doesn't mean that they had better penetration power.
The M-16 rounds are glorified .22s.
The AK-47s use 7.62mm rounds that have enough mass and power to penetrate further.

[Killer Cyborg]

Unfortunately, the books don't seem to have rules for throwing light objects farther than their maximum distance.
It isn't always true in real life either... I can throw a baseball a lot farther than I can throw a penny.

Ever held a Penny between your thumb and middle finger, with its edge up agaisnt your index finger and whipped your arm in such a way that it spins?

Those damn things fly pretty freaking far if spun right, like little metal frisbees of doom.

True...
But I can still throw a baseball farther.

[Killer Cyborg]

So what was modern when the GMG was written?

As far as Palladium is concerned, they probably still think that the stuff in the Compendium is "modern."
Notice that both the tanks in Mercenaries are also in the Compendium. Rather than look up anything newer, they just referred to the Compendium and grabbed a couple of tanks out of it.

And you're ignoring the rest of the stuff that I've posted that shows that Palladium considers 20th Century tanks to be SDC and 21st Century tanks to be MDC.

Actually, you've had a total of one post that had a good point showing that 20th century tanks are SDC...and even then I'm not sure I'd count a tank as an armored vehicle. I'd tend to call it mobile artillery or the like.

Most people consider a tank to be an armored vehicle.
That's why tanks are reffered to as "Armored Cavalry."

You're defining "Modern" as "'90s on," in a discussion primarily about a passage written in the '80s!?

The GMG was written in either the 90s or post 2000.

My bad... I though we were still talking about the main book passage.
What passage in the GMG are we talking about that uses the word "Modern"?

[Subjugator]

So what was modern when the GMG was written?

As far as Palladium is concerned, they probably still think that the stuff in the Compendium is "modern."
Notice that both the tanks in Mercenaries are also in the Compendium. Rather than look up anything newer, they just referred to the Compendium and grabbed a couple of tanks out of it.

Hmm...perhaps. I'll tell you what though, I'll take ONE M1A2 to five to ten M48A3s. In the Gulf, we had a couple of BRADLEYS take out some T72s at a 2-1 ratio (and AFAIK, the Bradleys didn't get nailed). As the Bradley cannot hold a candle to the M1A2, I daresay it's got a lot better ratio. AFAIK, the T-72 is about the same generation of tank (if not newer) than the M48A3

Most people consider a tank to be an armored vehicle.
That's why tanks are reffered to as "Armored Cavalry."

I'd really like a quote on this. I've always thought of them as mobile artillery. Armored vehicles to me are armored cars, APCs, and the little four wheeled contraption in the Compendium.

My bad... I though we were still talking about the main book passage. What passage in the GMG are we talking about that uses the word "Modern"?

I was thinking of the descriptions that are comparative to tanks and battleships.

The reason I kept bringing up the word 'modern' is because I think the M1A2 is a modern tank, which is a 21st century vehicle (it's manufactured and used today).

Sub

[Guest]

Unfortunately, the books don't seem to have rules for throwing light objects farther than their maximum distance.
It isn't always true in real life either... I can throw a baseball a lot farther than I can throw a penny.

Ever held a Penny between your thumb and middle finger, with its edge up agaisnt your index finger and whipped your arm in such a way that it spins?

Those damn things fly pretty freaking far if spun right, like little metal frisbees of doom.

True...
But I can still throw a baseball farther.

I'm sure there is some sort of threshold size/weight ratio where air resistance comes into play more, wheres one of the math geeks.

You could probably hurl a penny weight ball bearing further than if you took a frisbee weighing about what a baseball does and just chucked it through the air without spinning it.

[Subjugator]

I'm sure there is some sort of threshold size/weight ratio where air resistance comes into play more, wheres one of the math geeks.

You could probably hurl a penny weight ball bearing further than if you took a frisbee weighing about what a baseball does and just chucked it through the air without spinning it.

But my girlfriends always spend hours *assuring* me that size doesn't matter!

[Thinyser]

A ball is an easy object for anyone to throw but this is not to say that others cannot throw other shaped object just as far or farther with proper technique....take for example that dude that can throw playing cards...I dont know the exact distances but they are wicked far... like a hundred yards or some such. The edge of the card when thrown with a stabilizing spin, has less drag than a baseball and even though it has much less mass it can travel just as far.

[Killer Cyborg]

So what was modern when the GMG was written?

As far as Palladium is concerned, they probably still think that the stuff in the Compendium is "modern."
Notice that both the tanks in Mercenaries are also in the Compendium. Rather than look up anything newer, they just referred to the Compendium and grabbed a couple of tanks out of it.

Hmm...perhaps. I'll tell you what though, I'll take ONE M1A2 to five to ten M48A3s. In the Gulf, we had a couple of BRADLEYS take out some T72s at a 2-1 ratio (and AFAIK, the Bradleys didn't get nailed). As the Bradley cannot hold a candle to the M1A2, I daresay it's got a lot better ratio. AFAIK, the T-72 is about the same generation of tank (if not newer) than the M48A3

Most people consider a tank to be an armored vehicle.
That's why tanks are reffered to as "Armored Cavalry."

I'd really like a quote on this. I've always thought of them as mobile artillery. Armored vehicles to me are armored cars, APCs, and the little four wheeled contraption in the Compendium.

From what I've heard, Mussolini had the same theory and he told Hitler that he had X number of "Armored Divisions."
Hitler, on the other hand, assumed Mussilini meant tanks.
Much wackiness ensued in the way of troop deployment...

My bad... I though we were still talking about the main book passage. What passage in the GMG are we talking about that uses the word "Modern"?

I was thinking of the descriptions that are comparative to tanks and battleships.

The reason I kept bringing up the word 'modern' is because I think the M1A2 is a modern tank, which is a 21st century vehicle (it's manufactured and used today).

Sub

It was also made and used in the 20th Century.
Wouldn't that make it a 20th Century vehicle...?

[Killer Cyborg]

In any case, I have recieved some fairly official response on the matter.

From: Wayne_Breaux
To: Killer Cyborg
Posted: 26 Apr 2005 14:20
Subject: Re: Modern Tanks?
Hi, sorry I don't have time for a lengthy discussion, so right to the point:

Modern tanks in a Rifts or other MDC setting would be minor MDC structures, much like the old tanks presented in some of the Robotech books, but in an SDC setting like Heroes Unlimited, they would be SDC structures with special armor rules like those presented in the section on tanks in the HU GM's guide. Small arms and other light rounds would simply bounce off while large, anti-vehicle weapons, including .50 calibers, would use the normal vehicle armor rules for damaging them.

To nitpick, I don't know for sure what he means by "modern" and I believe the Robotech tanks were more than "minor" MDC, but I'll take this as Palladium's official stance on the subject.

On the other hand, this doesn't help much with the original topic...
It just means that I think it would be harder for a fall to damage a modern tank on Rifts Earth than it would be in a modern day setting.

[Killer Cyborg]

Oh, and after talking to somebody who has done a lot of shooting with both guns, I have to reverse my position on AK-47s haveing better penetration.
I don't remember who told me that, but they were apparently wrong; the M-16 is actually a bit better.

[Jefffar]

My understanding is that, firing standard ammunition, the M-16 does have higher penetration than the AK-47 . . . but the heavier bullet of the AK-47 is more likely to retain its lethal qualities after penetrating and is less likely to be deflected by angled cover.

[Subjugator]

So what was modern when the GMG was written?

As far as Palladium is concerned, they probably still think that the stuff in the Compendium is "modern."
Notice that both the tanks in Mercenaries are also in the Compendium. Rather than look up anything newer, they just referred to the Compendium and grabbed a couple of tanks out of it.

Hmm...perhaps. I'll tell you what though, I'll take ONE M1A2 to five to ten M48A3s. In the Gulf, we had a couple of BRADLEYS take out some T72s at a 2-1 ratio (and AFAIK, the Bradleys didn't get nailed). As the Bradley cannot hold a candle to the M1A2, I daresay it's got a lot better ratio. AFAIK, the T-72 is about the same generation of tank (if not newer) than the M48A3

Most people consider a tank to be an armored vehicle.
That's why tanks are reffered to as "Armored Cavalry."

I'd really like a quote on this. I've always thought of them as mobile artillery. Armored vehicles to me are armored cars, APCs, and the little four wheeled contraption in the Compendium.

From what I've heard, Mussolini had the same theory and he told Hitler that he had X number of "Armored Divisions."
Hitler, on the other hand, assumed Mussilini meant tanks.
Much wackiness ensued in the way of troop deployment...

My bad... I though we were still talking about the main book passage. What passage in the GMG are we talking about that uses the word "Modern"?

I was thinking of the descriptions that are comparative to tanks and battleships.

The reason I kept bringing up the word 'modern' is because I think the M1A2 is a modern tank, which is a 21st century vehicle (it's manufactured and used today).

Sub

It was also made and used in the 20th Century.
Wouldn't that make it a 20th Century vehicle...?

I'd say it could rightly be classified as both.

[Subjugator]

In any case, I have recieved some fairly official response on the matter.

From: Wayne_Breaux
To: Killer Cyborg
Posted: 26 Apr 2005 14:20
Subject: Re: Modern Tanks?
Hi, sorry I don't have time for a lengthy discussion, so right to the point:

Modern tanks in a Rifts or other MDC setting would be minor MDC structures, much like the old tanks presented in some of the Robotech books, but in an SDC setting like Heroes Unlimited, they would be SDC structures with special armor rules like those presented in the section on tanks in the HU GM's guide. Small arms and other light rounds would simply bounce off while large, anti-vehicle weapons, including .50 calibers, would use the normal vehicle armor rules for damaging them.

To nitpick, I don't know for sure what he means by "modern" and I believe the Robotech tanks were more than "minor" MDC, but I'll take this as Palladium's official stance on the subject.

On the other hand, this doesn't help much with the original topic...
It just means that I think it would be harder for a fall to damage a modern tank on Rifts Earth than it would be in a modern day setting.

I guess the real question for THIS aspect of it would be:

Do MDC structures take damage when falling?

I say they do, because of the aforementioned internal stresses from it essentially running into itself. Oddly, the heavier (and therefore more heavily armored) something is, the more likely it is to suffer damage from a short fall.

Man, there's no justice - I get over a sore throat and end up with a new cold that makes my eyes ache and my nose run.

Pretty cool that you have Wayne Breaux's email address. Sounds like he agrees with me though about the tanks (given that it's doubtful that he'd refer to 'modern' Rifts tanks without context calling them that).

[Killer Cyborg]

My understanding is that, firing standard ammunition, the M-16 does have higher penetration than the AK-47 . . . but the heavier bullet of the AK-47 is more likely to retain its lethal qualities after penetrating and is less likely to be deflected by angled cover.

Makes sense to me.

[Subjugator]

My understanding is that, firing standard ammunition, the M-16 does have higher penetration than the AK-47 . . . but the heavier bullet of the AK-47 is more likely to retain its lethal qualities after penetrating and is less likely to be deflected by angled cover.

So what's the pentration like on the AK-74?

[Killer Cyborg]

To put another nail in the coffin of S.D.C. tanks in Rifts, here's an entry from the original F.A.Q. (the official one that was answered directly by Palladium) that you can check yourself if you want:

22: If you are wearing MDC Armor and get punched by a MDC punch do you take any sdc damage. The reason that I ask this is because one of my gamers got kicked by a demon, flew a good 50ft and fell a good 100ft off a small cliff. His armor took the MDC of the kick but what about the rest?!

Answer: Yes, damage would be inflicted. Figure that if a M-60 tank (a MDC vehicle) drove off a cliff, its driver would still suffer from the impact (which is SDC based). The rules for this are on page 12 of the Rifts Main Book under "Physical Damage While Inside a M.D.C. Structure."

I don't accept the FAQ a canon, so I don't expect anybody else to.

But I would like to point out that there is no mention in this example of the tank being damaged...

[Jesterzzn]

To put another nail in the coffin of S.D.C. tanks in Rifts, here's an entry from the original F.A.Q. (the official one that was answered directly by Palladium) that you can check yourself if you want:

22: If you are wearing MDC Armor and get punched by a MDC punch do you take any sdc damage. The reason that I ask this is because one of my gamers got kicked by a demon, flew a good 50ft and fell a good 100ft off a small cliff. His armor took the MDC of the kick but what about the rest?!

Answer: Yes, damage would be inflicted. Figure that if a M-60 tank (a MDC vehicle) drove off a cliff, its driver would still suffer from the impact (which is SDC based). The rules for this are on page 12 of the Rifts Main Book under "Physical Damage While Inside a M.D.C. Structure."

I don't accept the FAQ a canon, so I don't expect anybody else to.

But I would like to point out that there is no mention in this example of the tank being damaged...

I didn't know there was an official FAQ that was answered directly by Palladium. Where is it so that I can go read it?

[Killer Cyborg]

I guess the real question for THIS aspect of it would be:

Do MDC structures take damage when falling?

And I still say the same thing... that they can, but it takes one heck of a big fall.

I say they do, because of the aforementioned internal stresses from it essentially running into itself. Oddly, the heavier (and therefore more heavily armored) something is, the more likely it is to suffer damage from a short fall.

Most of the MDC stuff in Rifts is a lot lighter than the modern equivilant material. Less metals, more ceramics and plastics (along with lightweight alloys like Titanium).

I still think that calculating the speed it's going when it hits, then calculating the SDC damage from that type of crash is the best way to go.

Man, there's no justice - I get over a sore throat and end up with a new cold that makes my eyes ache and my nose run.

Yeah. I don't know if it's allergies or what, but every year around this time I get a bad cough for a few months... bad enough that I pretty much have to keep a cough drop in my mouth at all times or I cough so bad that I puke.
I went to the doctor today and got some anti-allergy meds... hopefully they'll do the trick.

Pretty cool that you have Wayne Breaux's email address. Sounds like he agrees with me though about the tanks (given that it's doubtful that he'd refer to 'modern' Rifts tanks without context calling them that).

I just found a post of his online and PMed him.

I try not to do it often, as he seems like a really busy guy and I don't want to bug him, but I figured that this thread wasn't going anywhere fast.
(And I was right... I PMed him quite a few pages ago...)

Still, it's been an interesting argument.

[Killer Cyborg]

To put another nail in the coffin of S.D.C. tanks in Rifts, here's an entry from the original F.A.Q. ([bthe official one that was answered directly by Palladium[/b]) that you can check yourself if you want:

22: If you are wearing MDC Armor and get punched by a MDC punch do you take any sdc damage. The reason that I ask this is because one of my gamers got kicked by a demon, flew a good 50ft and fell a good 100ft off a small cliff. His armor took the MDC of the kick but what about the rest?!

Answer: Yes, damage would be inflicted. Figure that if a M-60 tank (a MDC vehicle) drove off a cliff, its driver would still suffer from the impact (which is SDC based). The rules for this are on page 12 of the Rifts Main Book under "Physical Damage While Inside a M.D.C. Structure."

I don't accept the FAQ a canon, so I don't expect anybody else to.

But I would like to point out that there is no mention in this example of the tank being damaged...

I didn't know there was an official FAQ that was anaswered directly by Palladium. Where is it so that I can go readi it?

It's the old FAQ online here... the Q&A section replaced it because the old FAQ was all too often wrong.
It wasn't answered by Palladium... just a couple of guys.

[Jesterzzn]

To put another nail in the coffin of S.D.C. tanks in Rifts, here's an entry from the original F.A.Q. ([bthe official one that was answered directly by Palladium[/b]) that you can check yourself if you want:

22: If you are wearing MDC Armor and get punched by a MDC punch do you take any sdc damage. The reason that I ask this is because one of my gamers got kicked by a demon, flew a good 50ft and fell a good 100ft off a small cliff. His armor took the MDC of the kick but what about the rest?!

Answer: Yes, damage would be inflicted. Figure that if a M-60 tank (a MDC vehicle) drove off a cliff, its driver would still suffer from the impact (which is SDC based). The rules for this are on page 12 of the Rifts Main Book under "Physical Damage While Inside a M.D.C. Structure."

I don't accept the FAQ a canon, so I don't expect anybody else to.

But I would like to point out that there is no mention in this example of the tank being damaged...

I didn't know there was an official FAQ that was anaswered directly by Palladium. Where is it so that I can go readi it?

It's the old FAQ online here... the Q&A section replaced it because the old FAQ was all too often wrong.
It wasn't answered by Palladium... just a couple of guys.

That's what I figured. Oh, well. For a minute I was starting to get excited.

[Devari]

That's good that we have an official answer about contemporary M.D.C. tanks from Wayne Breaux.

Regarding falling damage to M.D.C. structures, according to the rules they would take minor damage from most types of impact with S.D.C. structures. But a high-speed crash into the ground is really an unusual case, because the vehicle has to wistand a sudden impact. Saying that a vehicle couldn't be destroyed in a crash because it "only took a few points of M.D.C. damage" is like saying a character that just took a 0.45 caliber bullet to the head is OK becuase he "only took a few points of S.D.C. damage." The damage rules provide a simple, abstract game mechanic to measure damage, they don't try to represent physical limits that apply under all circumstances.

[Killer Cyborg]

That's good that we have an official answer about contemporary M.D.C. tanks from Wayne Breaux.

Regarding falling damage to M.D.C. structures, according to the rules they would take minor damage from most types of impact with S.D.C. structures. But a high-speed crash into the ground is really an unusual case, because the vehicle has to wistand a sudden impact. Saying that a vehicle couldn't be destroyed in a crash because it "only took a few points of M.D.C. damage" is like saying a character that just took a 0.45 caliber bullet to the head is OK becuase he "only took a few points of S.D.C. damage." The damage rules provide a simple, abstract game mechanic to measure damage, they don't try to represent physical limits that apply under all circumstances.

A bullet to the head will kill the person, not destroy the person's body.
I can see an analogous call being made with a vehicle crashing and declaring that the internal components got knocked around enough that the thing will no longer work (not without some repairs), but there's no reason why the body of the vehicle wouldn't stay intact.

[Devari]

A bullet to the head will kill the person, not destroy the person's body.
I can see an analogous call being made with a vehicle crashing and declaring that the internal components got knocked around enough that the thing will no longer work (not without some repairs), but there's no reason why the body of the vehicle wouldn't stay intact.

I agree that since an M.D.C. structure can withstand considerable damage it often wouldn't be totally demolished from a crash, and in many cases the vehicle could be repaired or rebuilt if enough of the vehicle is still intact. I think that in most cases however it wouldn't simply continue flying after a crash, and if the impact was severe enough there would still be the potential to cause serious structural damage.

[Subjugator]

I guess the real question for THIS aspect of it would be:

Do MDC structures take damage when falling?

And I still say the same thing... that they can, but it takes one heck of a big fall.

OK - so I was wrong - the real question is how far must they fall/how fast must they be going before significant damage takes place?

Let's use the Mark V APC as a sample vehicle. It's 18 tons fully loaded (dunno if that includes personnel, but I doubt it.

When it slams into the ground at say...200mph...its superstructure is effectively being hit by a 200mph punch from an MD structure (itself). The reason it doesn't take that kind of damage constantly is because under ordinary circumstances, there's no time for it to gather velocity (it falls a few feet (say...10-20' max) in a fall. In this case, it'd be falling the equivalent of 293' before impact (200mph is 293fps).

The reason I think that this would do more damage than the SDC calculation is because...well...it's an MD structure hitting an MD structure. I bet that the best robots can't do a 200MPH power punch, and they do more than the few measly MD that the falling rules predict.

I say they do, because of the aforementioned internal stresses from it essentially running into itself. Oddly, the heavier (and therefore more heavily armored) something is, the more likely it is to suffer damage from a short fall.

Most of the MDC stuff in Rifts is a lot lighter than the modern equivilant material. Less metals, more ceramics and plastics (along with lightweight alloys like Titanium).
[/quote]

The Mark V weighs 18 tons. The UAR-1 weighs 28 tons. They're heavy, just not *as* heavy.

I still think that calculating the speed it's going when it hits, then calculating the SDC damage from that type of crash is the best way to go.

It doesn't add up to very much at *all* though. I personally liked the post that said to treat it like TK damage. I'm going to search the GMG for that and see if it's really in there.

Sub

[Killer Cyborg]

I guess the real question for THIS aspect of it would be:

Do MDC structures take damage when falling?

And I still say the same thing... that they can, but it takes one heck of a big fall.

OK - so I was wrong - the real question is how far must they fall/how fast must they be going before significant damage takes place?

Let's use the Mark V APC as a sample vehicle. It's 18 tons fully loaded (dunno if that includes personnel, but I doubt it.

When it slams into the ground at say...200mph...its superstructure is effectively being hit by a 200mph punch from an MD structure (itself). The reason it doesn't take that kind of damage constantly is because under ordinary circumstances, there's no time for it to gather velocity (it falls a few feet (say...10-20' max) in a fall. In this case, it'd be falling the equivalent of 293' before impact (200mph is 293fps).

The reason I think that this would do more damage than the SDC calculation is because...well...it's an MD structure hitting an MD structure. I bet that the best robots can't do a 200MPH power punch, and they do more than the few measly MD that the falling rules predict.

According to CB1, p. 48, a character with sonic speed can throw a "sonic speed punch or kick" for 4d6 SDC, and a "sonic speed power punch or kick" for 2d6 MD. A sonic speed body block/ram does 4d6 MD.

And Sonic Flight lets you do 4d6 MD with a body block if you are going over 400 mph.

I say they do, because of the aforementioned internal stresses from it essentially running into itself. Oddly, the heavier (and therefore more heavily armored) something is, the more likely it is to suffer damage from a short fall.

Most of the MDC stuff in Rifts is a lot lighter than the modern equivilant material. Less metals, more ceramics and plastics (along with lightweight alloys like Titanium).

The Mark V weighs 18 tons. The UAR-1 weighs 28 tons. They're heavy, just not *as* heavy.

Yup.
Just pointing out that it's lighter than steel... not saying that it's light...

I still think that calculating the speed it's going when it hits, then calculating the SDC damage from that type of crash is the best way to go.

It doesn't add up to very much at *all* though.

Yes.
And I don't think that it should add up to much.
I mean, even 8-10 MD is one heck of a lot of damage.
Really that would completely destroy most of the tanks in the Compendium.

I personally liked the post that said to treat it like TK damage. I'm going to search the GMG for that and see if it's really in there.

Sub

If you really want to go that route, you have several options.

1. CB1, p. 47 lists the damage for throwing large objects using Gravity Manipulation to make them lighter (presumably the weight is increased again before the object hits).
500 lbs does 2d6 MD
1000 lbs does 4d6 MD
2000 lbs does 1d6x10 MD
3000 lbs does 2d4x10+10 MD
So a Mark V transport would take/inflict something like 18d6x10 MD in a fall; a range of 180-1080 MD.

2. GMG, p. 104 has the TK Super damage by weight... 1d4 MD per 100 lbs.
In this case, a Mark V would take/inflict 360d4 MD from a fall; a range of 360-1440 MD.

3. GMG, p. 26 has the listed damage for thrown objects using supernatural strength: 1d6 plus another 1d6 per 20 lbs.
So a Mark V would take/inflict 1801d6 SDC, a range of roughly 18-108 MD.


Of course, there is a problem with these methods; the damage is absurdly high.
Look at the CS Mark VII APC.
It weighs 42 tons and can travel at speeds of up to 80 mph.
It does 2d4x10 MD on a high-speed ram... not bad, but not the same the 42d6x10 it would inflict from being thrown at somebody using Gravity Manipulation, or the 840d4 MD it would do from being telekinetically thrown. The damage from Supernatural Strength throwing is closer with its projected damage of 4201d6 SDC... a range of 42-252... But not very close; it still does more than triple the damage from an 80 mph Ram.

For that matter, look at the smaller scale end of things.
A Glitterboy weighs 1.2 tons (2400 lbs). If you used these damage rates, then a Glitterboy should be able to make a flying tackle at somebody (or a body slam) for around 1d6x10+6 MD using the Gravity Manipulation rules, and 24d4 MD using the TK rules!

Using the supernatural strength tables, he should still be able to belly-flop onto a guy for 121d6 SDC, approximately 1-7 MD.
Which is actually extremely close to the 1d6 MD that a pilot can do with a ram using Power Armor Elite training (although basic training only allows for 1d4 MD from a ram).

[Subjugator]

According to CB1, p. 48, a character with sonic speed can throw a "sonic speed punch or kick" for 4d6 SDC, and a "sonic speed power punch or kick" for 2d6 MD. A sonic speed body block/ram does 4d6 MD.

And Sonic Flight lets you do 4d6 MD with a body block if you are going over 400 mph.

Would the person with 'Sonic Speed' be an MD structure? I don't know and can't check right now. My point is that the MD structure would be essentially impacting the MD structure.

Yes.
And I don't think that it should add up to much.
I mean, even 8-10 MD is one heck of a lot of damage.
Really that would completely destroy most of the tanks in the Compendium.

Complete destruction of compendium tanks would be about right. Massive damage to other tanks would also be acceptable.

If you really want to go that route, you have several options.

1. CB1, p. 47 lists the damage for throwing large objects using Gravity Manipulation to make them lighter (presumably the weight is increased again before the object hits).
500 lbs does 2d6 MD
1000 lbs does 4d6 MD
2000 lbs does 1d6x10 MD
3000 lbs does 2d4x10+10 MD
So a Mark V transport would take/inflict something like 18d6x10 MD in a fall; a range of 180-1080 MD.

I might use something like this with declining marginal returns on weight.

For example:
4,000lbs would do 2d4x10+20 MD
8,000lbs would do 2d6x10+40 MD
...and so on...

A Mark V in a fall in my world, if falling say...200'...would take 4d4x10 MD or thereabouts. The electronics inside would be TRASHED...I'd give it a 10% chance of being even partially functional without repairs (though there'd be a field radio in a padded compartment that should be OK).

2. GMG, p. 104 has the TK Super damage by weight... 1d4 MD per 100 lbs.
In this case, a Mark V would take/inflict 360d4 MD from a fall; a range of 360-1440 MD.

OK - I wouldn't use this.

3. GMG, p. 26 has the listed damage for thrown objects using supernatural strength: 1d6 plus another 1d6 per 20 lbs.
So a Mark V would take/inflict 1801d6 SDC, a range of roughly 18-108 MD.

This is the one I would most likely use. 18-108 MD is pretty close to what I'd figure it to be.

Of course, there is a problem with these methods; the damage is absurdly high.
Look at the CS Mark VII APC.
It weighs 42 tons and can travel at speeds of up to 80 mph.
It does 2d4x10 MD on a high-speed ram... not bad, but not the same the 42d6x10 it would inflict from being thrown at somebody using Gravity Manipulation, or the 840d4 MD it would do from being telekinetically thrown. The damage from Supernatural Strength throwing is closer with its projected damage of 4201d6 SDC... a range of 42-252... But not very close; it still does more than triple the damage from an 80 mph Ram.

In all likelyhood it'd be travelling FAR faster than 80mph if it fell. It's 32' per second per second, so a fall that took say...six seconds would have the APC travelling at 192fps, or 130mph. Damage increases dramatically with higher speeds, so it's not too much of a stretch to see the damage increasing as much as it does. Also remember that a simple ram is not going to be as devastating as the crushing halt that landing on the ground gives. Landing on the ground is immediate. A ram will knock you aside.

For that matter, look at the smaller scale end of things.
A Glitterboy weighs 1.2 tons (2400 lbs). If you used these damage rates, then a Glitterboy should be able to make a flying tackle at somebody (or a body slam) for around 1d6x10+6 MD using the Gravity Manipulation rules, and 24d4 MD using the TK rules!

Using the supernatural strength tables, he should still be able to belly-flop onto a guy for 121d6 SDC, approximately 1-7 MD.
Which is actually extremely close to the 1d6 MD that a pilot can do with a ram using Power Armor Elite training (although basic training only allows for 1d4 MD from a ram).

As stated above, a ram is different than a harsh landing. That said, the belly flop that you're quoting is much like a harsh landing and does predictable damage.

[Killer Cyborg]

According to CB1, p. 48, a character with sonic speed can throw a "sonic speed punch or kick" for 4d6 SDC, and a "sonic speed power punch or kick" for 2d6 MD. A sonic speed body block/ram does 4d6 MD.

And Sonic Flight lets you do 4d6 MD with a body block if you are going over 400 mph.

Would the person with 'Sonic Speed' be an MD structure? I don't know and can't check right now. My point is that the MD structure would be essentially impacting the MD structure.

Stupidly enough, yes.
The Sonic Speed power gives the person with it 1d4x10+40 MDC.
Sonic Flight only gives 1d4x10+20 MDC.

Yes.
And I don't think that it should add up to much.
I mean, even 8-10 MD is one heck of a lot of damage.
Really that would completely destroy most of the tanks in the Compendium.

Complete destruction of compendium tanks would be about right. Massive damage to other tanks would also be acceptable.

Well, say an M1 has something like 2000 SDC... 8-10 MD would half kill it.
And if you put the damage primarily on the treads, then the thing wouldn't be moving at all.

Of course, there is a problem with these methods; the damage is absurdly high.
Look at the CS Mark VII APC.
It weighs 42 tons and can travel at speeds of up to 80 mph.
It does 2d4x10 MD on a high-speed ram... not bad, but not the same the 42d6x10 it would inflict from being thrown at somebody using Gravity Manipulation, or the 840d4 MD it would do from being telekinetically thrown. The damage from Supernatural Strength throwing is closer with its projected damage of 4201d6 SDC... a range of 42-252... But not very close; it still does more than triple the damage from an 80 mph Ram.

In all likelyhood it'd be travelling FAR faster than 80mph if it fell. It's 32' per second per second, so a fall that took say...six seconds would have the APC travelling at 192fps, or 130mph. Damage increases dramatically with higher speeds, so it's not too much of a stretch to see the damage increasing as much as it does. Also remember that a simple ram is not going to be as devastating as the crushing halt that landing on the ground gives. Landing on the ground is immediate. A ram will knock you aside.

A ram won't knock you aside if you're standing with your back to a wall...

[Subjugator]

Stupidly enough, yes.
The Sonic Speed power gives the person with it 1d4x10+40 MDC.
Sonic Flight only gives 1d4x10+20 MDC.

That's just sad.

Well, say an M1 has something like 2000 SDC... 8-10 MD would half kill it.
And if you put the damage primarily on the treads, then the thing wouldn't be moving at all.

When I say destroy, I'm thinking of its capacity to function, not just the armor. 8-10MD to it and a ton of damage to everything inside would be sufficient to total it.

A ram won't knock you aside if you're standing with your back to a wall...

Any GM with an ounce of scientific knowledge would make that a double-impact to both parties...so unless you had the Incredible Hulk as the meat in the sandwich, whomever it is...is dead.

[Killer Cyborg]

Stupidly enough, yes.
The Sonic Speed power gives the person with it 1d4x10+40 MDC.
Sonic Flight only gives 1d4x10+20 MDC.

That's just sad.

Agreed.

[Gomen_Nagai]

You people who are against super powers in rifts Need to go burn all your juicers, SA1, Phaseworld, Skraypers characters. Rifts is Science fiction, and not in any way shaped on reality.

[Subjugator]

You people who are against super powers in rifts Need to go burn all your juicers, SA1, Phaseworld, Skraypers characters. Rifts is Science fiction, and not in any way shaped on reality.

Um...do you have a clue?

I'm not against super powers in Rifts. I don't care what powers someone has. I just think that being fast should not make one an MD structure.

I don't even care if you combine powers in strange or illegal ways. That's just not a logical combo.

[Killer Cyborg]

You people who are against super powers in rifts Need to go burn all your juicers, SA1, Phaseworld, Skraypers characters. Rifts is Science fiction, and not in any way shaped on reality.

Um...do you have a clue?

I've read a number of this guy's posts.

No, he does not have a clue.

[Devari]

I've found something directly relevant to the discussion of crashing M.D.C. targets into the ground at high speed. In the Macross II RPG (published in 1994) there are "optional rules applicable to all types of aircraft including Valkyries and power armour". The "Aircraft Loss of Control Table" has an entry that deals with crash landings on p. 42:

"Engine and/or vehicle damaged beyond repair; crash inevitable. Character must parachute to safety or ride out a deadly crash. Optional: The pilot can direct the aircraft on a suicide crash into an immediate target (-25% to strike). A crash of a jet fighter type craft will cause 2D4x100 M.D. to a 40 foot (12 m) radius. The pilot and passengers only have a 2% chance of survival (roll for each) and even then they will be seriously injured (reduce hit points and S.D.C. to two points)."

So according to the Macross II RPG, a high-speed crash of an M.D.C. vehicle will likely destroy the vehicle as well as the target. This seems appropriate for a high-speed impact with the ground, since these vehicles aren't designed to survive that type of impact despite being an M.D.C. structure. So the rules for S.D.C. falling damage clearly wouldn't apply to an M.D.C. vehicle involved in a high-speed crash.

[Killer Cyborg]

I've found something directly relevant to the discussion of crashing M.D.C. targets into the ground at high speed. In the Macross II RPG (published in 1994) there are "optional rules applicable to all types of aircraft including Valkyries and power armour". The "Aircraft Loss of Control Table" has an entry that deals with crash landings on p. 42:

"Engine and/or vehicle damaged beyond repair; crash inevitable. Character must parachute to safety or ride out a deadly crash. Optional: The pilot can direct the aircraft on a suicide crash into an immediate target (-25% to strike). A crash of a jet fighter type craft will cause 2D4x100 M.D. to a 40 foot (12 m) radius. The pilot and passengers only have a 2% chance of survival (roll for each) and even then they will be seriously injured (reduce hit points and S.D.C. to two points)."

So according to the Macross II RPG, a high-speed crash of an M.D.C. vehicle will likely destroy the vehicle as well as the target. This seems appropriate for a high-speed impact with the ground, since these vehicles aren't designed to survive that type of impact despite being an M.D.C. structure. So the rules for S.D.C. falling damage clearly wouldn't apply to an M.D.C. vehicle involved in a high-speed crash.

Hmm.
Good find... but since it's optional, I'll option against using it.
I don't see any reason why there would be that kind of damage without some sort of explosion or some REALLY high speed (more than power armor is capable of).
What's the speed of the typical jet fighter type vehicle in Macross II?