Forums of the Megaverse®

glitterboy2098 wrote:actually, i was pointing out our claims, our side of the debate, is valid. it is the issue of who is correct that is in debate.

so you cannot say our claims are false, since our claims are quite true.

Actually, I said that your claims were unfounded in the new edition of the rules - which makes your claims invalid. You cannot say "Glitterboys have only 100 rounds" without a context of time, because when you do people assume (correctly) that you mean in the hear-and-now. This makes those claims invalid and false. I posted times and dates and editions to which I spoke, you did not.

glitterboy2098 wrote:as for big and quantity, yes they are two different things, but in this case they are linked. by canon, glitterboy slugs are still listed as 7 inches long and shown t be 2inches wide. and yet it is also listed as somehow packing 1000 of them, a feat not possible considering the size and mass listed for both the shells and the GB itself.

As posted by Talavar, which is more correct; a 20 year-old drawing or a 4 year-old text?

glitterboy2098 wrote:so the issue become: do we ignore 18 years of ancillary evidence as to the size and mass of the round, or do we ignore the single segment listing a payload not physically possible given the other evidence?

The issue does not change; it remains the same. Do we trust current or old information?

glitterboy2098 wrote:as for the artwork, some variation in porportions are to be expected. but the appearance of that borg has not changed. the appearance is canon.

The appearance of the 'borg did change; as I stated these are three different drawing of the same thing. Done by different artists with different styles and interpretations - personally I'll take the cover-art of the bionics source book or Ramon Perezs' work over (I think) Appolos' drawing.

glitterboy2098 wrote:the glitterboy has had the same appearance for almost twenty years. if art was not canon, you'd see more variation in design of the USA-G10.

The art used is almost 20 years old, so of course the same peice of work will look the same no matter which day of the year, or year of the century you look at it.
You'll note the art detailing glitterboys changes its colour as well; from a brassy-gold to a silvery-grey.
Also, you'll note that the original Glitterboy picture shows no sign of the remorsky upgrade done to the left arm, yet this is a canon modification.

glitterboy2098 wrote:as for reason and logic....wrong. it does have a place in RIFTs. Kevin himself has said so. (Gateway to the megaverse podcast #38).

He also doesn't even use his own printed rules and house-rules often. This makes the creator of the game an unreliable resource.
Logic would dictate that if the creator doesn't use the RAW, then how can we trust his word?

Max™ wrote:Ignoring possible packing mechanics problems, 1000 3.5" x .4" FLECHETTES should fit in the same space as 100 7" x 2" of the original rounds (2 stacks of 5 flechettes in the space of 1 old round) but you'd have to up the velocity quite a bit to keep the damage.

Heh, like from mach 2 to mach 5?

I think "realistically" the boom gun should fire rounds much, much faster - Mach 20, or some such. To get the kind of damage it puts out, the speed should be really off the chain.

I should remeber this as I used to fire the things but it got to go a whole lot faster than a sabot round on a abrhams

A lot of detail went into making 3 full pages of highly detailed drawings and crossections of the GB and its components in the old RMB.
If it was not accurate, they would have not been put in there in the first place, or else it would have been 'edited'.
Chances are, Kevin is the one who developed all of those written details that were listed in the first place, and not the artist (Long?).

I own Free Quebec, it lists the GB as having only 100 rounds, each with 200 flechettes.
Although it also lists nonsense of a GB flying back many times farther in water (600 times denser than air) than if on land when firing without the recoil compensation systems.

The original GB has plenty of ammo at 100 shots. The average tank has maybe 40+ rounds for its cannon, more than enough in any combat situation.
Seriously, though, it can deliver the hitting power of an LRM (minus the blast) onto a target, 100 rounds is plenty, 1,000 is just plain crazy, like how the M1 Abrams apparently carries 15,000 rounds of MG ammo... for 2 MGs...

For the BG rounds, the slugs do not have to be able to react to magnets. They are held in a cartridge, it should be simple to have a simple bit of ferrous metal in a thin sabot like sheath or in part of the cartridge itself. Or even just a very thin layer of magnetic material layered on the slugs. Pushing something that pushes the rounds should work just as well as pushing the rounds themselves.
Scare the heck out of the enemy when they toss up some magnetism spell/super power to see the bullets 'shed' paper thin shreds of metal to reveal something like a high density slug that itself is not ferrous, such as tungsten, DU, wood, ceramic, or whatever else could be crammed in the cartridge...

Being a rapid acceleration electromagnetic systems mass driver, the boom gun is packing a little to much bang, no 'explosive' proppellant should mean it shouldn't be as loud.

On a side note, I don't even own RUE.
After SoT, hearing that they 'tossed out' and replaced some of the stuff for the GB was a final straw for me, I stuck with the original RMB... besides, it makes me wary that RUE has such a large errata list...

The way I feel is probably the same as W40k players back when an entire race was retconed right out of that game.

Max™ wrote:Ignoring possible packing mechanics problems, 1000 3.5" x .4" FLECHETTES should fit in the same space as 100 7" x 2" of the original rounds (2 stacks of 5 flechettes in the space of 1 old round) but you'd have to up the velocity quite a bit to keep the damage.

Excuse me?
3.5 inch by 0.4 inch?
That sounds more like the right size for the SAMAS Rail Gun, not the Boom Gun.
Is that actually listed in RUE as the Boom Gun round size?
And it still does 3D6x10 MD?
You could probably fit 5,000 rounds of that size in place of the original GB rounds.
Does it at least still fire a cluster of 'slugs' at once or is it just another burst firing rail gun now?

R Ditto wrote:On a side note, I don't even own RUE.
After SoT, hearing that they 'tossed out' and replaced some of the stuff for the GB was a final straw for me, I stuck with the original RMB... besides, it makes me wary that RUE has such a large errata list...

The way I feel is probably the same as W40k players back when an entire race was retconed right out of that game.

What, Squats? They were removed, NOT ret-conned out. They make mention of them in many books - all updated to within the last edition. That and the Squats line was discontinued because they were unispired and nobody liked them.

As for not using a book because it contains errata; that's what we call "selective rules use", or cheating.


I mean, c'mon people; If any of you had done actual measuring, you'd have realized that if the GB had a hundred-round ammo load instead of 1000, that based on the belt the backpack housing the ammo would only be 2/3 full, if that even.

Why would they offer a drawing that either had too much ammo, or didn't use up the space designated for the ammo many of you think it should have? Either way it makes no sense, so personally I'd forget measurements and speeds and crap as back when the Glitterboy was created for the game, KS didn't have Wiki or the internet to pull all sorts of theoretical information and calculations from. He just made crap up that sounded good. Like how the boomgun only fired at mach 2; we have planes that can out-run those railgun rounds. That and the term "railgun" itself was obviously chosen due to popularity, not scientific mechanics. It has been pointed out that these guns are "coilguns", yet we all call them railguns.

Why then is it so hard to believe that the measurements given don't add up to the possible ammo capacity? Seriously, the thing can definitely hold atleast 200 rounds at the previous size, why then would they say that it held only 100? That and the ammo drum was never a typo; it is the same now as it was 20 years ago, so clearly the mistake was on the main boxes' capacity.

did some research using my library.


Book: Rifts main book
Date: 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990
my Printing: Sixth printing 1993
Proofreader: Alex Marciniszyn, Thom Bartold
Page #: 218-223
Glitterboy ammo supply: Primary- 100 Secondary- 40
Other Information: Large Technical detail chart. specifies 7inch long projectiles.

Book: Mutants in orbit
Date: 1992
my Printing: First printing 1992
Proofreader: Maryann Siembieda
Page #: 67-68
Glitterboy ammo supply: Primary- 100 Secondary- 40
other information: RG-14 used on USA-G13 Glitterboy.

Book: World Book 5: Triax and the NGR
Date: 1994
my Printing: third printing 1996
Proofreader: Alex Marciniszyn, James A. Osten, Thom Bartold
Page #: 45-48
Glitterboy ammo supply: Primary- 100 Secondary - no secondary
other information: only T-550 listed, using a Triax duplication of the RG-14 system.

Book: World Book 8: Japan
Date: 1995
my Printing: Fourth printing 2000
Proofreader: Alex Marciniszyn, James A. Osten, Kevin Kirsten, Jlius Rosenstein
Page #: 136
Glitterboy ammo supply: Primary- 100 Secondary- 40
other information:

Book: World book 22: Free Quebec
Date: 2000
my Printing: second printing 2001
Proofreader: Julius Rosenstein
Page #: 82-84
Glitterboy ammo supply: Primary- 100 Secondary- 400
other information: mach velocity of shell increased to mach 5. underwater capabilities added to write up. T-550 included on Pg 84-87. ammo supply of duplicate boomgun is 100 rounds.

Book: Chaos earth
Date: 2003
my Printing: first printing 2003
Proofreader: Julius Rosenstein
Page #: 88-91
Glitterboy ammo supply: Primary- 1000 Secondary- 400
other information: aside from alteration to primary ammo supply and removal of Rimouski weapon package, this entry is a copy of the GB entry from WB22.


Book: Rifts ultimate edition
Date: 2005
my Printing: first printing 2005
Proofreader: Julius Rosenstein
Page #: 71-74
Glitterboy ammo supply: Primary-1000 Secondary- 400
other information: Technical diagrams included on pg73, specifies 7inch long shells, also specifies a 100 round drum. stats are copy of entry from CE.



note the single point of fault. WB22 second printing establishes the GB as having 100 rounds, and 400 rounds in the secondary drum. as the writer of this book is not the same person proofreading and errataing (Kevin S and Julius R respectively), it seems highly probable that during the updating of the GB entry a typo occured increasing the secondary drum amount by an extra zero, and that in later printings the amounts were errattad by a well meaning proofreader who failed to double check previous books to determain the actual error made.

note also that leaves 6 entries on the USAG10 and T-550 (which use the same RG14 weapon) as having 100 rounds in it's main ammo bin, and only two (both cut and pastes of the erratad WB22) listing more than 100.

i have not listed examples from WB22 and others with glitterboys packing standard railguns that use 1000+ slugs or fletechettes individually in bursts, and not the shotgun like RG14. though these indicate that GB ammo cannot be smaller, since otherwise there would be no advantage to using individual slugs doing one dice of MD each fired in large bursts.

also note that there have been two instances of the technical diagram (one in RMB, one in RUE), which indicate 7 inch long shells and 100 round drums.



would those with first printings of WB22 like to chime in with the ammo amount there, and would those with third printing or higher like to chime in?

glitterboy2098 wrote:note the single point of fault. WB22 second printing establishes the GB as having 100 rounds, and 400 rounds in the secondary drum. as the writer of this book is not the same person proofreading and errataing (Kevin S and Julius R respectively), it seems highly probable that during the updating of the GB entry a typo occured increasing the secondary drum amount by an extra zero, and that in later printings the amounts were errattad by a well meaning proofreader who failed to double check previous books to determain the actual error made.

Finally, some hard facts from you!
Yes, I will admit that this does add weight to your claim.

But I would like you to note that it lists a manual reload time in some of those entries; 40 rounds in 15 minutes. This has been reprinted atleast twice (once in FQ, once in R:UE), so perhaps the instances of 40 rounds were part of the blurb on how fast they could manually reload the Glitterboy.

Realistically you have list all the most current texts as stating 1000 rounds, and 400 round drums respectively. This goes from typo at this point to no mere coincidence that three books, all most current beyond the previous ones have listed as 1000 rounds of ammunition.

Maybe the previous editions were not typos, but the current edition certainly isn't either since they have the same information in three updated books.

and the catholic church had hundreds of documents in their Canon saying the sun orbited the earth.

didn't make them anyless wrong about the nature of the solar system.

as for evidence, i've been giving oyu evidence this whole time. so have others. so far the best you have done is repeat the line about recent books and claim our arguments don't matter. [which i've pointed out above, are reprints of an inaccurately corrected typo.] do you have any evidence of your own? (besides taking RUE as some sort of Gospel, which it most certainly is not, as the multi dozen page errata thread attested to...)

Drakenred®™© wrote:by comparison a GB can be hidden in the bed of a large pick up truck by a tarp. and can walk into my garage at home without taking out the center suport between the doors.

Heck it could probably walk in through my front door!

Grab a tape measure sometime. A GB is 10.5 ft tall. I'm just over 6ft tall and when I reach up, I can't hit 10ft without jumping. I can't tell you the last time I walked through a door I couldn't touch the top of by just walking through it. It's been years, definitely. It's been a while since I've entered a garage, but I can't guess the garage door is taller than 8ft. IIRC the standard ceiling in American rooms is 9.5-10ft. Take a look at how much space is above the doors in your house.

So you must have a mutant sized front door.

a GB though could bend over to get through those low entrances. a GB could sidle in to deal with narrow entrances. and baring that, a GB could just bash through the non-loadbearing walls. "Oh Yeah!"

glitterboy2098 wrote:and the catholic church had hundreds of documents in their Canon saying the sun orbited the earth.

didn't make them anyless wrong about the nature of the solar system.

as for evidence, i've been giving oyu evidence this whole time. so have others. so far the best you have done is repeat the line about recent books and claim our arguments don't matter. [which i've pointed out above, are reprints of an inaccurately corrected typo.]

Think about that. Why would they change the text of a reprint? Everything that remains the same hasn't been changed, and the other typos and such are still there. So why would they suddenly claim that the previous texts - which you pointed out were reprinted 6 times - are wrong? They reprinted the mach 2 speed 6 times, and that wasn't correct; it was ret-conned to mach 5.
Also, your example presented weighs in my favor, not yours. You'll note that those "canon" documents printed by the Catholic church are old texts; they know better now thanks to new information.

glitterboy2098 wrote:do you have any evidence of your own? (besides taking RUE as some sort of Gospel, which it most certainly is not, as the multi dozen page errata thread attested to...)

First, I've read the errata thread, and I cannot find a single offical stamp of approval anywhere - it appears to be forum-goers like you and I.
Secondly, the evidence is in your example above; old texts tend to have non-current or misinformed information.

Beyond this, I don't have additional evidence because I laid it all down right away. Current texts; multiple texts; ret-cons on the original texts; proof that pictures may not be a true depiction; lack of officiality on the errata posted for current texts.

You've posted that multiple old texts all say the same thing.
I posted that current texts say differently, and that they say old-text info is wrong.

Really, what more proof do you need? I can't get the creator to state one way or the other, and if that is what you need you'll not get it. At this point you're arguing an illogical stand-point; that the newest edition is wrong because it differs from the older edition.

And I can't argue with crazy.

Dog_O_War wrote:

glitterboy2098 wrote:and the catholic church had hundreds of documents in their Canon saying the sun orbited the earth.

didn't make them anyless wrong about the nature of the solar system.

as for evidence, i've been giving oyu evidence this whole time. so have others. so far the best you have done is repeat the line about recent books and claim our arguments don't matter. [which i've pointed out above, are reprints of an inaccurately corrected typo.]

Think about that. Why would they change the text of a reprint? Everything that remains the same hasn't been changed, and the other typos and such are still there. So why would they suddenly claim that the previous texts - which you pointed out were reprinted 6 times - are wrong? They reprinted the mach 2 speed 6 times, and that wasn't correct; it was ret-conned to mach 5.

your assuming palladium maintains a team of fact checkers to ensure continuity. your assuming that palladium's staff has memorized the stats to things like the glitterboy and would be able ot tell what needed correcting.

i assume palladium's fact checking was as rigorus as previous books have shown. IE: all but non-existant. i'm assuming that the editors have not memorized the stats to everything they worked on, and are fallible. (i've talked to many of them on the podcast, most have less an idea of the fine details of the stuff in the books than us fans)

so my claim that the CE and RUE entry is an error is based on:
hard evidence that the larger amount is the result of an error in printing continued on in later books.
an understanding of palladium business policies and practises.
mathmatical evidence that the suit cannot carry so much ammunition by mass or volume, based on canonical information.

and you have...the belief that RUE represents some perfect representation of what the writer intended
assumptions that the ammunition is smaller than listed, based entirely on the assumption that 1000 rounds is correct, with no canonical evidence.

glitterboy2098 wrote:your assuming palladium maintains a team of fact checkers to ensure continuity. your assuming that palladium's staff has memorized the stats to things like the glitterboy and would be able ot tell what needed correcting.

Wrong. I assume they copy/paste a file over and only change what they feel is neccessary. That is why I see the same errors in all the copy/pasted works.
Like the Glitterboy picture in R:UE. Same picture in the original book; they don't change the art unless they have the artists' permission to do so.

glitterboy2098 wrote:so my claim that the CE and RUE entry is an error is based on:
hard evidence that the larger amount is the result of an error in printing continued on in later books.

Which I have shown to be intentional changes and not errors.

glitterboy2098 wrote:an understanding of palladium business policies and practises.

I have an understanding of them too, but here's the thing; neither you nor I are running the company, or have a say in what goes on there. So that makes any and all "facts" about the company circumstancial and biased, which means it is not valid proof.

glitterboy2098 wrote:mathmatical evidence that the suit cannot carry so much ammunition by mass or volume, based on canonical information.

Run the math again and find out how many rounds it can actually hold; you'll find that the math supports more than is listed. So why would they posit that it only holds X amount, when it can clearly hold Y?
Additionally, did you run the math on the new ammo size?

glitterboy2098 wrote:and you have...the belief that RUE represents some perfect representation of what the writer intended
assumptions that the ammunition is smaller than listed, based entirely on the assumption that 1000 rounds is correct, with no canonical evidence.

Wrong; I've posted my sources - all more current than yours, and all are canon.

new ammo size...new ammo size....oh right, it's here in RUE. seven inches long. roughly two inches wide.

completely unchanged.

you have merely assumed the size changed. but the listed size has not. nor has the listed ammo bin size found in the same source.

only the text is changed, and as i have shown, that is after a misprint in one book. copy and paste with a failure to fact check gave us the currently oversized ammo load.

your assumption that it was an intentional change is wrong.

every other entry states 100 rounds. every other use of the weapon on a different suit says 100 rounds. every picture and ancillary entry follows 100 rounds. the physical dimensions follow 100 rounds.

what doesn't? two sentances spread over two books.

the 'canon' is incorrect.

of course, your the only one that takes canon as some sort of infinite truth.

frankly, i am more concerned with Continuity. continuity says the GB has 100 shots. any thing larger is a Continiuty error, and incorrect. as i have shown.

canon is never a concern for RPG's. it is merely what has been printed. Continuity is the big thing, and CE and RUE are not within continuity.

I have no new evidence, and you are talking-crazy, stating that the canon is wrong.

I won't post any more on this particular subject, as it is a stalemate.


I'll let the other posters weigh the facts for themselves.

canon is merely a collection of texts defining a body of work. it has no integral truth or falsehood. it is quite possible for a work that is canonical to be incorrect.

which is why i pointed out the bit about the church and geocentrism.

this is why continuity is so important. continuity does define truth or falsehood within a work. it keeps it coherant.

RUE was not a reboot. it was not a retcon. it was merely an error in continuity. such errors have to be fixed. either PB has to go back and add an extra zero to every GB entry using a RG-14, redraw multiple peices of art, edit the technical specs reprinted in serveral books to indicate a smaller ammo size, and alter the fluff of multiple USA-G10 glitterboy entires to match (which they have not done, despite reprinting many of the books in question), or they need to remove the extra zero's from CE and RUE (which they also have not done.)

glitterboy2098 wrote:canon is merely a collection of texts defining a body of work. it has no integral truth or falsehood. it is quite possible for a work that is canonical to be incorrect.

which is why i pointed out the bit about the church and geocentrism.

this is why continuity is so important. continuity does define truth or falsehood within a work. it keeps it coherant.

You want continuity?
The idea and "fact" that the earth is flat has held "truth" longer than that of the world being round; it would continuity to continue to believe so. As shown continuity has nothing to do with factual information. It is like saying that if you punch a wall 1000 times with your bare fist and it has not broken yet, that the next 1000 punches to the wall will not break your fist either; because that is what "fact" and continuity have told you thus far.


Also, canon is fact despite conflicts with logic. It is true despite the inherent errors it contains. Canon is fact, even when it is wrong.

glitterboy2098 wrote:canon is merely a collection of texts defining a body of work. it has no integral truth or falsehood. it is quite possible for a work that is canonical to be incorrect.

which is why i pointed out the bit about the church and geocentrism.

this is why continuity is so important. continuity does define truth or falsehood within a work. it keeps it coherant.

RUE was not a reboot. it was not a retcon. it was merely an error in continuity. such errors have to be fixed. either PB has to go back and add an extra zero to every GB entry using a RG-14, redraw multiple peices of art, edit the technical specs reprinted in serveral books to indicate a smaller ammo size, and alter the fluff of multiple USA-G10 glitterboy entires to match (which they have not done, despite reprinting many of the books in question), or they need to remove the extra zero's from CE and RUE (which they also have not done.)

I disagree with that statment when discusing literture written from a gods eye prespective.

The orginal book wasn't written from someones presepctive it was written as the thruth of rifts earth.

THe earth is flat was theory professed as true by many that is much different

Here, we have a closed universe were the auhtor is speaking to us saying this is how things are.

When RUE says psi stalkers become MDC that is a retcon as the auhtor knew all the details of his world and has decided to change them. If it was written as Erin Tarn's description of the world then you culd argue the psi stalker (as an example) was not ret coned


If I said today that blackacre resides in the state of colombia in my fictional world I have created

and tommorow I saw blackacre is a small part of green acre would that not be a retconn?

actually it has been known that the earth was round since the 4th century BCE. no educated person from the 3rd century BCE. onward ever beleived the earth was flat. heck, even before the 4th century few did. (largely because few cared, but even back in the early days of civilization it was generally known the earth was not flat.) Pythagoras was one of the first to commit the concept to writing, in 570 BCE.

Eratosthenes calculated the circumference to within ten percent margin of error back in 240 BCE.

it was common knowledge by the start of the common era (1'AD'), and passed on preserved in greek and roman writings into the early church, where it became widely dissiminated due to the practises of the time.

glitterboy2098 wrote:actually it has been known that the earth was round since the 4th century BCE. no educated person from the 3rd century BCE. onward ever beleived the earth was flat. heck, even before the 4th century few did. Pythagoras was one of the first to commit the concept to writing, in 570 BCE.

Eratosthenes calculated the circumference to within ten percent margin of error back in 240 BCE.

it was common knowledge by the start of the common era (1'AD'), and passed on preserved in greek and roman writings into the early church, where it became widely dissiminated due to the practises of the time.

Sure I am aware of that he calculated it by studing shadows in relationship to the movmement of the sun

That is beisde the point I simply sated it was a thoery that was professed to be true by many people in the real world.
In literture we have the benefit of knowing all the laws if the auhtor decides that is how he wants to tell his story there we know its true we don't need to test and observe nor can we

glitterboy2098 wrote:actually it has been known that the earth was round since the 4th century BCE. no educated person from the 3rd century BCE. onward ever beleived the earth was flat. heck, even before the 4th century few did. (largely because few cared, but even back in the early days of civilization it was generally known the earth was not flat.) Pythagoras was one of the first to commit the concept to writing, in 570 BCE.

Eratosthenes calculated the circumference to within ten percent margin of error back in 240 BCE.

it was common knowledge by the start of the common era (1'AD'), and passed on preserved in greek and roman writings into the early church, where it became widely dissiminated due to the practises of the time.

So the writings of one man who only theorized the truth are more accurate and offer more continuity than 1500 years and 90% of the worlds' population claiming different? As well as a greater portion of the population, and numerous theocracies, which were the educated and powerful back then.
I mean c'mon, people believed that man would never be able to fly either, and that idea has had more continuity than anything, and that people believed that god would strike them down if they tried.
Continuity does not equal fact. Ask the writers of Marvel on this one.

the onlytime our universe has to worry about continuity will be if somebody invents a timemachine.

the earth has always been round. or universe has never failed to preserve continuity with itself. it has never presented information inconsistant with that continuity.

the only thing that changed is our understanding of that continuity.

the understanding of our society is based on observations of the world and creating theories to explain those observations. there are no retcons, merely blanks that have been filled with fact instead of rumor.

in an RPG continuity is also important. though it somewhat more malleable than the universe. but consistancy is important.

the Psistalkers were specifically mentioned to be a retcon. the glitterboy was not. the GB ammo listing was inconsistant Within RUE itself, as they reprinted the technical diagrams that said 100 rounds at 7 inches long.

given that every other book prior to RUE and CE said 100 rounds, and RUE itself said 100 rounds save for one line, consistancy says it's 100 rounds.

Dog_O_War wrote:

R Ditto wrote:On a side note, I don't even own RUE.
After SoT, hearing that they 'tossed out' and replaced some of the stuff for the GB was a final straw for me, I stuck with the original RMB... besides, it makes me wary that RUE has such a large errata list...

The way I feel is probably the same as W40k players back when an entire race was retconed right out of that game.

What, Squats? They were removed, NOT ret-conned out. They make mention of them in many books - all updated to within the last edition. That and the Squats line was discontinued because they were unispired and nobody liked them.

As for not using a book because it contains errata; that's what we call "selective rules use", or cheating.

I said the RUE book has a large errata list due to tons of mistakes, and that is one of the reasons I never bought it in the first place.
A lack of sign of good quality control is a big turn off to me.

And as glitterboy2098 said, new stuff does not fit with the continuity of the older things.
That is a partial factor as to why I didn't bother to get the RUE.


As for the W40k it, one little thing I read was from an apparently upset person who said they retcon the squats about the same way the CS tries to get rid of legit history books, toss them out and refuse to talk about it.

Dog_O_War wrote:I mean, c'mon people; If any of you had done actual measuring, you'd have realized that if the GB had a hundred-round ammo load instead of 1000, that based on the belt the backpack housing the ammo would only be 2/3 full, if that even.

Meaure? Yeah, I did, with metric, finding ratios between length and width of rounds in picturings, figuring out if the round was w long and x high, and that w = 7in, that x equalled roughly 2in. Similar for the flechettes, if a round was y long and z high, and y was 1in, that z was 1/5th of an inch.
Also trying to estimate the size of the GB by comparing its height with the 'scale' of the ammo drum, and figuring out the size is about right.
The belt is NOT a factor with ammo, the ammo is in the drum alone, and doesn't actually feed into the belt unless it happens to be attached to the Boom Gun via said belt. It is absurd to think that every ammo drum is going to be having a feed belt stuck to it, it makes a weak point in that the end attatched to the weapon would be easy to undo, especially from damage, while if it connected at the drum, then the entire GB 'covers' the connection point from frontal attack.

Myself and several others jammed an entire thread, several pages at least, with discussions of the size of the rounds, the weight of the rounds, the materials likely used in the flechettes, etc.

Dog_O_War wrote:Why would they offer a drawing that either had too much ammo, or didn't use up the space designated for the ammo many of you think it should have? Either way it makes no sense, so personally I'd forget measurements and speeds and crap as back when the Glitterboy was created for the game, KS didn't have Wiki or the internet to pull all sorts of theoretical information and calculations from. He just made crap up that sounded good. Like how the boomgun only fired at mach 2; we have planes that can out-run those railgun rounds. That and the term "railgun" itself was obviously chosen due to popularity, not scientific mechanics. It has been pointed out that these guns are "coilguns", yet we all call them railguns.

Why then is it so hard to believe that the measurements given don't add up to the possible ammo capacity? Seriously, the thing can definitely hold atleast 200 rounds at the previous size, why then would they say that it held only 100? That and the ammo drum was never a typo; it is the same now as it was 20 years ago, so clearly the mistake was on the main boxes' capacity.

Check the Compendium of Contemporary Weapons, done by Maryann Siembieda, check one of the back pages and you see the big list books, including books from "Jane's" series of books, and other books on weapons and firearms.

As I have stated, I can draw a connection between the 5.56mm round of the then (and still) standard Assault Rifle of the US military used for reffeence for guns in the CoCW, and of the flechettes of the Boom Gun based on the data from the original RMB. Just take one of the heavier hitting 5.56mm rounds, double the base muzzle velocity, increase mass 50% (due to extra length), multiply by 200, and you got BG damage on the dot.

Dog_O_War wrote:Like the Glitterboy picture in R:UE. Same picture in the original book; they don't change the art unless they have the artists' permission to do so.

Last I checked, the original artist is NOT the holder of the IP relating to the GB and Rifts.
Long is not the only artist who does stuff relating to the GB, the holder of the IP (Palladium/KS) can just as easily have another artist whip up new technical drawings, or baring that, just get permission from Long to edit the text in the old tech drawings.



Other notes:
WB22 (April 2000, first printing) 100 main ammo, 40 secondary.

The RG-14 has a total mass 867 pounds, including 100 rounds of ammo. As is, math shows that ammo at roughly 350 pounds total, leaving 517 pounds for the gun itself, maybe a little removed to account for ammo drum weight.

And now...
The MATH!

Pulling out my old RMB and a calculator, and redo stuff right here and now...
Lets redo my measurements, right here, right now...
Using a ruler, metric side for better accuracy...

GB: 167mm tall

Ammo Drum: 17mm tall, 40mm wide

Since the GB is listed as 3.1m tall, that comes out to 18.5 to 1 scale.

Ammo Drum estimates.
Estimated 31cm diameter, estimated 2.5cm thickness for armor material (based on cross sections, the armor is only 2.5cm/1 inch thick, not bad considering it is likely 100 stronger than steel and likely equal to over 8ft thick armor plate steel), which puts 5cm of diameter as being accounted for by armor, allowing for 26cm internal diameter.
Estimated length is 74cm, estimated 69cm internal length accounting for 5cm thickness in the ammo drum wall.

Estimated internal volume is 36,634 cubic cm, (or 2235.5 cubic inches.)
Volume of a 50mm (2in) diameter and 177.8mm (7in) long cylinder comes to 360.37 cubic cm (21.99 cubic inches), multiplied by 100 comes to 36037 cubic cm (2199 cubic inches) which is VERY close to the estimated internal volume of the ammo drum.

Looking at the ammo itself.
30-180 MD, 200 flechettes, that's only 15-90 SDC per individual fletchette, 200 mankillers per shot
The flechettes are comparable in size fo a 5.56mm round.
Looking into CoCW, and trying to find the heavy hitters of the 5.56mm rounds...
5.56mm rounds have muzzle velocities apparently from mach 2.5-3.3
Damage for rifles and such is 3D6-5D6 (1D6 for weak SMG type weapons)
Accounting for AP rounds increases damage, high density materials likely would also increase damge due to extra hitting power.

Although, taking not at some of the guns, I noticed it was not +50% mass and +100% speed, but the other way around, +100% mass and +50% speed.

A baseline is a 5.56mm round that does 5D6, muzzle velocity of mach 3.3 (1,000m/s). Old notes show an average mass of a 5.56mm round of 4 grams.
Doubling the mass of the 5.56mm will effectively double the to 10D6 damage, increasing the muzzle velocity by 50% brings it from mach 3.3 to mach 5 (1,500m/s), upping damage again, to 15D6 damage.
The doubled mass comes to 8 grams, same as the old estimates for the mass of a BG fletchette (if it used a good AP material such as tungsten or DU for the basis of the flechette).
Same result as before, 15-90 damage, same as the indivudual damage of a single BG fletchette.

This helps to further backup that the original 100 shot capacity is accurate.



With that math stuff done...

Now, seriously, how the heck is the old stuff wrong and the new nonsensical absurd stuff right?
KS apparently knew VERY WELL what he was doing when it came to the original details of the GB.


New is NOT better.
Example, the M1 Abrams, the older M60 is a better tank in different ways... many modern rifled 105mm guns can outperform a 120mm smoothbore in assorted ways, and thanks to the US Military, the M1 Abrams is one of the best tank killers out there... which apparently causes problems for the 95% of ground threats that aren't tanks/heavy armored... and the gas turbine apparently makes the Abrams stick out like a soar thumb on thermal imagers, and they apparently are NOT allowed to carry any sort of tank gun ammo useful against other targets, except the canister shot, which is redundant with a 7.62mm MG packing 11k rounds and a .50 cal HMG packing almost 4k rounds...
Or the the M16... they 'new and improved' version of the original, which they released for full production in the Vietnam War, sucked... they new and improved it into a very unreliable weapon... at least little has changed since they got it right the second time around...
Heck, the GB itself falls into this trend, with only one ammo type and no backup weapons, giving it a purpose that is very specific and not very flexible... a perfect example of what the American generals would likely choose in the future... something that does its (single specified) job great, looks great on paper, and which does little else right, although it still does 'good' on other things, just not as well as it 'could' do if properly designed and equipped for more than mowing down infantry targets (soldiers, borgs, pa, juicers, crazies, etc) at long range...

Probably why I love the GB as much as I hate parts the design...
(glitter armor compromises ability to be unseen at distance, only has fletchette rounds, no backup weapons unless you use the secondary ammo drum mounting spot for a rail gun ammo drum for a hand held PA/Borg scale rail gun like the SAMAS rail gun, unaccounted 3in of BG cartridge space apparently used for the worlds loudest flashbang...)

dear god i created a monster.

Also, my copy of Free Quebec says 1000 rounds and 400 round extra.

RUE was most certainly a retcon, a term which is short for retro-active continuity. For those unfamiliar with the term, popularized especially in superhero comics, it means when a change is made in a fictional universe that is then pretended to have always been that way.

A lot of things got retconned in RUE: psi-stalkers, cyber-knights, ley line walkers, shifters, glitter-boys, the whole 2 attacks for living thing, -10 to dodge gun fire, the GI Joe armour rule, etc. Some of these changes had first appeared in other books, but in RUE they were grouped and put in place of the original versions - a retcon. Continuity changed - glitter boys hold more ammo, and Superman no longer fought during World War II.

and my own house rules reguarding the GB having Solid shot and flechet and "payload" rounds is just that..

basicaly I see them as being 30mm rounds without the need for the propelant wich is why the system can hold so many rounds.

glitterboy2098 wrote:no educated person from the 3rd century BCE. onward ever beleived the earth was flat.

There are people still today that believe the Earth is flat and the round Earth theory is an elaborate hoax...or something like that. I couldn't read much without dismissing them as idiots, although some claim to be educated. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

R Ditto wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Like the Glitterboy picture in R:UE. Same picture in the original book; they don't change the art unless they have the artists' permission to do so.

Last I checked, the original artist is NOT the holder of the IP relating to the GB and Rifts.
Long is not the only artist who does stuff relating to the GB, the holder of the IP (Palladium/KS) can just as easily have another artist whip up new technical drawings, or baring that, just get permission from Long to edit the text in the old tech drawings.

IP has nothing to do with art. I can draw a picture of any and every copy-writed book ever written, and that gives those writers with the IP no say on what and how I draw these materials.
And they can't change them either because they do not have my permission.
Really, a person commissions artists to create works of art; artists do not ask permission to draw. I can draw bugs bunny all I like, but I cannot write a story about him - just as I can't alter an original drawing of bugs bunny and claim it is mine.

R Ditto wrote:Other notes:
WB22 (April 2000, first printing) 100 main ammo, 40 secondary.

The RG-14 has a total mass 867 pounds, including 100 rounds of ammo. As is, math shows that ammo at roughly 350 pounds total, leaving 517 pounds for the gun itself, maybe a little removed to account for ammo drum weight.

Wow, the Glitterboy doesn't use this gun.
Says here in my updated book that it is using the RG-15.

R Ditto wrote:And now...
The MATH!
*snip*

Yay, you forgot about the most important part of what has a bullet causing damage to soft and hard targets.

You never factored into your damage that a 5.56mm round changes shape and flies in an arc with a speed that slows down considerably faster due to change in shape while in flight. I see you also decided to use a real-world metal instead of the actual product; this is the equivalent of saying bronze and iron swords are the same.
You also miss-measured the area it takes up. 50 slugs takes up an area 3.16 inches square (or closer to 3.5 inches in diameter due to the round shape). These fleshette-style slugs are in a housing that is nearly twice the size you claimed them to be.
Your math is incorrect, as you forgot several variables (including use of the wrong material), and you have placed them into an object far smaller than is possible.


Also, I'm only posting this because the information you laid out in an effort to "counter" what I've said - is wrong.

I'll let the other posters weigh the facts for themselves.

Well in that case I vote for 100 rounds ammo capacity for the main gun. It makes more sense due to the size of the armor compared to the cartridge. It makes more sense given Palladium's history of cut/paste and lack of error correction. And it just makes the game a bit more balanced to have 100 rounds in the armor.

The evidence and facts speak for them selves. The GB has 100 rounds ammo capacity.

And the more I read about RUE the less likely I am to purchase this book.

funny, the RG-15 in the GMG 2004 lists 100 rounds...

thats more up to date than CE's entry.

justicar5 wrote:

LostOne wrote:

glitterboy2098 wrote:no educated person from the 3rd century BCE. onward ever beleived the earth was flat.

There are people still today that believe the Earth is flat and the round Earth theory is an elaborate hoax...or something like that. I couldn't read much without dismissing them as idiots, although some claim to be educated. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

can't really answer that apart from

but seriously, the 'earth is flat' was never put up as an arguement against Columbus, on he other hand , 'the earth is to damn big' was, there was a belief that you would have to sail over a near endless (for people in sail powered ships's) ocean and would eventually, probably along time after you died of thirst, wash up in japan or india.

their was a letter between the Cardnals at the time where they more or less agreed that any exploration to the west should assume that the world was (in modern terms) anywhere from 45,000km to about 65,000 KM thus the and plan accordingly (the earth is about 46,000 KM)(the confusion was on who you belive had the right mesurments at the time and how they translated the measurements from the ancient sources)

the Irony is they already had a way to measure the earths circumferance ready at hand in their sailing ships, just build a tower on the coast and then see how far away you have to be to no longer see it

The problem was that they had no sure idea as to how they should have converting the measurments of thoes days since the whole Idea of standardised measurements realy did not exist when thoes measurments were taken, which lead to a bit of insain logic of accepting the "Historical" measurements as fact when no one could agree with eachother as to what thoes old measurements ment in modern terms. what was worse was that many of thoes "Anchient sources" managed to not agree with eachother for whatever reason.

This seems oddly familiar...

Dog_O_War wrote:IP has nothing to do with art. *snip*

Looks like I get to quote my own posts...

R Ditto wrote:Long is not the only artist who does stuff relating to the GB

Other artist draw the GB, it would be easy have one of them come up with new technical drawings.

R Ditto wrote:just get permission from Long to edit the text in the old tech drawings

Like you said, I had already said, getting the artist's persmission (in this case, Long) is another option.

There is also the off chance Long only did the art, and that Palladium had permission 'edit' it in the form of adding text, or that he was given the details ahead of time and added in the wording himself.

Whatever it is, I have already mentioned the two (easy) options Palladium has as far as what to do with the technical drawings...

Although...
There is also this bit.

glitterboy2098 wrote:the GB ammo listing was inconsistant Within RUE itself, as they reprinted the technical diagrams that said 100 rounds at 7 inches long.

So it seems that RUE still has the very same technical diagrams that were in the old RMB, the diagrams I used in my estimates, which means they are still canon techical diagrams, so I am still taking measurements from canon technical diagrams.

glitterboy2098 wrote:funny, the RG-15 in the GMG 2004 lists 100 rounds...

thats more up to date than CE's entry.

The GB's ammo capacity is all over the place like a drunk driver is all over the road...
but I will still go for 100 rounds.
They can't even ret con right it seems, or else someone didn't get the note of the ret con and left as it used to be in the GMG.

Dog_O_War wrote:Wow, the Glitterboy doesn't use this gun.
Says here in my updated book that it is using the RG-15.

I double checked my FQ book, it does say RG-15.
A minor error on my part, as I am so used to it being called the RG-14 from all the other books the GB is listed in, and since the RG-15 is more or less a cut and past of the RG-14, except with minor changes (such as the mach 5 speed and nice little mention that others 'mistakingly catalogued' it as mach 2), and changes to the description such as added stuff for underwater firing. (firing underwater unanchored, which is, by far much more absurd than 1000 BG rounds...)

On a side note, I used to dislike the Boom Gun until they actually gave it a 'realistic' muzzle velocity of mach 5 (and the nice mention that to explain why it was mach 5 and not mach 2). Damage is just right for mach 5 based on the old ammo details.

With mach 2, only flechettes using handwavium (or insanely dense rounds) could explain how it did so much damage.

Dog_O_War wrote:

R Ditto wrote:And now...
The MATH!
*snip*

Yay, you forgot about the most important part of what has a bullet causing damage to soft and hard targets.

You never factored into your damage that a 5.56mm round changes shape and flies in an arc with a speed that slows down considerably faster due to change in shape while in flight.

Irrelevant.
Such factors are not even accounted for within the Palladium rules.
Gun does x damage be it at 10 ft from target or 4,000ft from target.
That is what counts in the rules.
5.56mm NATO round is used as a comparison and a baseline for estimates, that is all.
I am not saying the Boom Gun uses actual 5.56mm NATO type rounds for fletchettes.

Dog_O_War wrote:I see you also decided to use a real-world metal instead of the actual product; this is the equivalent of saying bronze and iron swords are the same.

Depleted Uranium is a real world material, and it is used in Rifts.
DU rounds in rail guns adds a +25% bonus to damage, with no other penalties due to the stuff being so dense/heavy.
Tungsten is superior to DU in several ways, not to mention less of an environmental hazard. It holds together better, and is equivilent density.

How good is tungsten?
The US Navy uses Tungsten in their Phalanx CIWS guns. They actually used tungsten based APDS rounds to replace Depleted Uranium based APDS rounds they used to use.

To use your sword comparison, I basically tossed out the bronze and added in the iron.

There is no solid mention of of 'what' the boom gun flechettes are made of, other than it needs to be something a magnet can 'grab'.
Tungsten is still an excellent choice for AP projectiles, be it a APFSDS round or as the core of a FMJ round, or used flechettes in a canister type round.
On the subject of FMJ rounds, a likely case (if it is not the sabot like shell itself that is used to move the flechettes), is that the flechettes could have a high density core, such as tungsten, with a thin shell of ferrous material, or on the flip side, a tungsten round with a small 'needle' of ferrous metal at the core, either one used for the EM fields to 'grab' the round. Be it a 'jacket' or a 'needle' in the center (with rear exposed), it provides a secondary effect of a defensive EM field stopping the ferrous parts (jacket peels off, needle gets 'pulled' out the rear), allowing for the bulk of the (non-ferrous) slug to keep going.
Rail gun rounds that can't be stopped by magnetic fields, now that would probably scare someone...

Dog_O_War wrote:You also miss-measured the area it takes up. 50 slugs takes up an area 3.16 inches square (or closer to 3.5 inches in diameter due to the round shape). These fleshette-style slugs are in a housing that is nearly twice the size you claimed them to be.

I used an online program for calculating and converting assorted measurements and units of measure.

Then let me redo the math, using metric, since it's more accurate (and because the conversion tool I am using online doesn't like values below 1).
5mm(0.2in) diameter fletchettes, area of 19
50mm(2 inch) diameter cartridge, based on the drawing, and the 'thickness' in the picture (13mm exterior, 11mm interior), gives it an interior diameter of 42mm, which comes out with an area of 1385.
Trying to estimate space usage of round objects in a circle (70-80% of space used, had to use some diagram of 7 circles in a larger circle for a baseline of how much space round items take up in a round space).
50 x 19 = 950
70% of 1385 = 969.5
It seems there is roughly enough 'space' there than is needed for 50 x 5mm diameter fletchettes.

Again, it seems the technical diagrams, their measurements, and the math, still makes sense.

Redoing some math, calculating GB height to the top of the crown instead of the stowed Boom Gun.
In such a case, the the scale changes to 21.2 to 1.
In this case, the ammo drum becomes 36cm diameter and 85cm long.
Sticking with the basic idea the walls are 2.5cm thick, there is a new interior space of 31cm diameter and 80cm long.
The new internal volume becomes 60,000 cubic cm, or roughly 42,000 that could be used up by ammo using the 'circles in a circle' estimate. This also actually leaves enough space for internal systems that help to feed the ammo into the ammo belt that feeds ammo to the BG. If 8,000 cubic cm was used for ammo feed systems, it leaves 52,000 cubic cm, which is roughly enough for 36,000 cubic cm of cylindrical BG rounds (100 rounds total).
SoP will likely have the ammo belt empty until it is time to activate the weapon, so debris and other stuff can't have a chance to get in and gum up rounds sitting in the ammo belt for weeks at a time.

Your math is incorrect, as you forgot several variables (including use of the wrong material), and you have placed them into an object far smaller than is possible.Also, I'm only posting this because the information you laid out in an effort to "counter" what I've said - is wrong.

Redoing figures seems to yield no real changes in results (except for the change of scale due to measuring the GB to the top of the 'crown' instead of to the top of the stowed BG).

Overall, you seem to be having a very hard time convincing me that I am wrong, especially when concerning a ret con with no explaination beyond a hand wave.

All I have to say is that, overall, I am not going to accept a 10 time increase in BG ammo.
I have been into Rifts for well over a decade, for many years, it seemed the powerful BG had plenty of ammo (one shot kill on most targets, even a tank won't last long, and that stuff like a 40mm AGL could technically be taken from a GB pilot from start for even more firepower for the GB), just to suddenly find out one day a ret con says it now has more ammo than an average tank has for a main gun (biggest being 80-100 rounds), perhaps as much ammo as navy ship usually carries its larger bore guns.
If I ever get CE or RUE, my first action will be to break out a permanent marker and black out a pair of 0's.

On another note, when is a GB even going to need more than 100 rounds?
It is not likely a GB will need to go for a 40 round backup drum unless it is stuck in the field for an extended period of time.
Heaven and Hell have mercy on any GB that is in a situation where that is not enough ammo, because chances are, the GB won't last long enough to be able to fire off even the original ammo payload if it got into a situation needing that much ammo.

justicar5 wrote:http://forums.palladium-megaverse.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=59899&hilit=boom+gun+1000

1000 rounds is canon. see linky above.

I know, my search for old info on GBs came across this.

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=68487

Mostly of interest in that thread, and one reason I am so against the GB having 1000 rounds.

Shawn Merrow wrote:Actually it started in Spokane, WA back in 98 at Incon where a fan made an argument to Kevin that based on the picture it should hold more ammo. It eventually made it into the books. So yes the greater rounds was done on purpose and is not a typo.

Shawn Merrow wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:I wonder if it's possible to convince Kevin to change it back then? Or let's go really crazy and multiply all the other rail gun's ammo supply by a factor of 10 as well.

(I would like to know why/how that fan thought it should hold more though)

I belive it was based on the size of the ammo belt.

So, apparently, we have 1000 rounds because apparently someone argued with Kevin in person that the ammo belt could make it hold more ammo...

That right there makes me even more against the ret con of increasing the GB's ammo...
I can figure out how to fit 26 extra rounds in due to filling the ammo feed belt also (not exactly a wise move in some ways, and military people might say such an action is probably not advisable), but adding 26 more rounds is one thing, adding 900 more rounds is so far out there it isn't funny.
It makes as much sense as giving the ATL-7 new e-clips that hold 10 shots each (or 200-300 shots for the average energy weapon...)
Or a Tommy Gun with 1,000 round drum magazine when the ammo drum is still the same size as the 100 round drum...
It makes no sense to me.
It's unbalanced, like taking a scale, putting someone with plastic man armor and a laser pistol on one end and a Triax Devestator on the other end.
The only thing more far out and unbalanced that I could think of is like using a .22 pistol with rounds packing a milligram of anti-matter so it can do explosive damage equal to 40 tons of TNT...
(altough Rifts doesn't need any more of a Noisy Cricket factor, as far as I am concerned...)

So what you're saying is that because of a ret-con, you're mad, and I'm wrong because I stated contrary to you that this is what the rules currently say the boomgun holds for ammunition?

I never once stated that I liked the fact that the boomgun held 1000 rounds; I've said everything but. I don't like the Glitterboy because it is over-powered in every way. Just as I don't like the Palladium rules because they do not work as written.

But when arguing facts, I don't use what I believe should be true; I use what is true, regardless of my personal feelings of it. This is why I tend not to back down - I don't care what should be, I only concern myself with what is, which often puts me in the position of being right (which cheeses alot of people off).

I do agree with you that it should only be 100 rounds (well, maybe 150-200) but as-is I didn't write this version of the rules.

Guys all I have to say is

WHAT THE HELL DOES IT MATER HOW MANY FREAKING ROUNDS THE GB CARRIES?


I AM THE BLOODY GM OF MY GAMES.

If a GB is the big bloody Damage Dealing Tank in your group. the odds are quite good that if I need the GB to stop shootnig then im going to have my NPCs shut it down and cut it down to size even if they have to start vollying LRMs at it

the odds are also quite good that the XP it gets for Easy kills is not going to be all that mutch compared to the groups sammas pilot.

and honestly, how long do you think 100 shots will last a compitent GB pilot. or 140, or 500 or 1000 or 1400.

I am the Bloody GM. I want the GB to stop fireing its boomgun I get my Spell slinging mutant badguy to teliport behind it and cast negate mechaics to hit the ammo feed.

and the odds are also good that if I need the GB to keep fireing its boomgun then if i bloody have to I can have a Semi load from FQ drop out of the Trans dimentional rift that just opend overhead and rain down thousands of freshly loaded GB gun ammo backpacks just looking for a Boomgun to link to.

for that matter what are the odds that the GB pilot actualy marked off every bloody round fired by the Boomgun?

Glitterboys are not all that. Give a juicer in decent armor a phase sword and you'll have a dead glitterboy pilot. Once they're in melee range, the GB is kinda screwed, they'll probably have trouble hitting the juicer in melee and the boomgun is too long to aim at the juicer. Plus if the GB is aiming down, their thrusters won't do any good and all that stress is on the pylons, you might just cripple the GB's pylons by getting them shooting at that downward angle.

And for anyone that cries "No Phase World tech on Rifts Earth", give that same juicer a decent magic melee weapon like a Deathbringer or Battle Fury Blade and it'll just take longer.

Actually, the Juicer will still turn into a stain on pavement assuming all other factors, including XP, are equal, but that's neither here nor there.

Rifts is not a game for the reckless. If you foolishly charge into combat with a GB, then you'll die. If you park it on a hill 2 miles away, that juicer is a stain on the pavement before he ever gets there. Tactics and intelligence rule the day. The higher level your PC's get, the more they know about you and who you are. When they recon you, and you recon them, a GB is hard to hide, and they're already making plans to deal with you.

It'll take a lot longer with the melee weapon, btw, unless you're playing "No eardrums man."

Doesn't matter. That stuff only reduces the effect by HALF. More than enough time to turn the poor sound protected shmoe into a smear. Now if a mage casts SILENCE on him, it's a done deal. No noise=no noise.

GB's thrusters and 'where' they aim.
Aiming the gun down won't be a problem.
Afaik, the recoil compensation thrusters adjust angle based on where the gun aims.
Also, pylons are 'anti-sway' pylons according to the old tech diagrams, they only apparently are their for the GB to keep its footing/stability. The thrusters are what appear to deal with the majority of the recoil.
iirc, at least the old Conversion Books had rules for firing without anchoring.


Using Juciers to 'get close' to a GB (with a phase sword).
At a good distance, minimal adjustment is needed to aim at a 'fast' target.
Like how 'slow' a 500mph jet looks when it flies by high in the sky.

Thermal has a range of 4,000ft, if the GB looks in the right direction at the right time, the juicer is going to have a rude awakening if trying to make a stealthy approach.
'Real' thermal imagers could probably spot someone a lot farther away than just 4,000ft, perhas several miles out...
Also, a juicer (with a higher metabolism) might be 'hotter' than a typical person might be, and be easier to spot on thermal, perhaps even be spotted at a greater distance than a normal person.

There is also the case of the GB's strength, and any backup weapons it might have, such as a heavy infantry or borg/PA scale weapon held in the off hand. Juicer without a phase weapon will at least have a minor challenge, one wrong move or a lucky swat and the juicer might have a problem.

And if the Juicer comes from behind... just fire the gun if alerted to his presence.
If the GB will fly back 30ft without the recoil compensation system, what kind of thrust/force is going to be dumped out the GB's back when it fires the BG?
Heck, disengage the recoil compensation system in general, see what a 1.2 ton GB flying backwards 30ft does to someone that doesn't get out of the way fast enough.

Anyways, I don't see much point in bringing up phase weapons, a vagabond with a phase weapon of some sort could technically take out just about any sort of PA or robot vehicle with ease, without needing to use his candy to lure the pilot out.

Sound filters and GBs.
I think I also recall somewhere that there was supposed to be sound filter based stuff in Rifts. I tried checking the 'reload team' OCC in WB 22 FQ, and their reload vehicle, but saw no mention of any there.
Seeing the Reload Teams are supposed to service GBs in battle, since they are 'at best' have 'only' EBA, and that they will likely be servicing a GB in battle with other GBs nearby firing like crazy... I wonder 'how' the Reload Teams aren't turned to mush by exposure of possibly dozens of sonic booms per minute.

Back to sound filters.
Existing sound filter tech is used for stuff like on helicopters, so crew can talk without their voices being drowned out by the engine/rotor noise.
Filtering out sounds like cannon or machinegun fire, certain other 'specific' noise, perhaps even specific voices, should be quite possible.

In Rifts, the potential for such tech should be even greater.
A GB pilot could probably hold a normal verbal conversation with another GB pilot even if both were firing like crazy and communicating via audio and not radio. They'd likely hear a mild 'thump' sound where the boom of the boom gun was filtered out. (any 'less noisy' weapon might not even be as noticable when using a sound filter)

So at the very least, stuff like PA and vehicles could be made to not have trouble with the noise of a Boom Gun.
Heck, even EBA should provide some sort of protection.

The main problem is that the BG causes an absurd shock wave/sonic boom, even people in EBA being deafened for several minutes, and shattering windows within 300ft? Simple ear protection isn't going to do much against that kind of crazy sonic boom... but EBA should offer much more protection against such things.
It's like the BG has a Noisy Cricket factor going on, in terms of noise and recoil, both being way to much for a weapon that size...

Back to whether GBs should be allowed or not...
GB pilots should be a perfectly acceptable OCC to use either way.
Allowing them to actually start with a GB... that is another matter... they have robot combat basic (iirc) and some good starting weapons... let them 'earn' their GB... or at least some other much cheaper and much less devestating PA that won't cripple the entire party with a single shot...

There is a much easier way to control the Glitter Boy power level. Ready?

Run one adventure in three where you just CAN'T use it.

Ways to do this:

1) The glitter boy can't go there. Ways you can do this: 1) The environment won't permit it. 2) The law won't permit you to drive a powered armor suit around town. 3) For whatever reason, locals have a rivalry/dislike of GBs. The culture won't permit it.

2) Run an urban adventure. Can't take your glitterboy into a bar and pump someone for information. Well, you CAN...but the bar won't be standing, you'll have to answer a million law enforcement questions, and you won't own that GB when the dust settles.

3) Glitterboy pilots are the stuff of legend. If you're high enough level, everyone knows who you are. Sometimes, as the character rises in level, you'll need to leave the GB behind in order to infiltrate someplace or some group.

4) You should probably only do this ONCE in the course of a game. Someone steals it. Now you have to get it back, since you can't use it at the same time as someone else.

I'm sure there are others, but those are just the basics. Use roleplaying as your weapon.

Actualy considering I usualy had 3 heavy hitters in my rifts campain my droping a flaming cow from outer space would have just had one of the Dragons going Hey! Who ordered lunch! you forgot the Coleslaw.

no im not kidding.

Yeah I never had problems with glitter boys, and often do start them off w/o the robot. Its kinda more fun if you earn it, and then use it to kick the bid bad's butt

My groups never had problems with glitterboys. Good tactics can keep you out of harms way while you close in and flank it. And if there's ever a player playing a GB that becomes a huge problem, arm some enemies with a few phase beamers/swords.

But we hated the sonic boom causing so much problems. I'm not even sure todays tanks cause that much problems when they fire if infantry is close (I have no military experience, so don't know for sure). But we said if you're in environmental armor or have the cybernetic hearing enhancement that protects against loud noises, you take no penalties.

The sonic boom is an issue, but you know, people tend to shoot at the GB. So just run a few adventures while the GB is IN THE SHOP. If a Glitter Boy takes 420 MDC, it takes a long time to repair all of it. When the GB is active, it's a battlefield star. When the GB is in the shop, it's a hunk of metal while you're somewhere else.

I allow them in my games. I just don't let any player use one as a character. In the wrong hands that OCC can just overshadow everyone imo. I do change certain things. For example I just ignore the section of RUE Page 84where it says that Robot pilots consider the GB antiquated and the penalties associated with that. It makes no sense. Sure they may say that yet which robot pilot in his right mind is going to say no to a GB. It may not be a versatile as other power armors yet it's a status symbol on rifts Earth. Not to mention the sheer knowledge of a GB in a group is enough to make some enemies run away. No one wants to be hit by the Boom Gun.

Sureshot wrote:I allow them in my games. I just don't let any player use one as a character. In the wrong hands that OCC can just overshadow everyone imo. I do change certain things. For example I just ignore the section of RUE Page 84where it says that Robot pilots consider the GB antiquated and the penalties associated with that. It makes no sense. Sure they may say that yet which robot pilot in his right mind is going to say no to a GB. It may not be a versatile as other power armors yet it's a status symbol on rifts Earth. Not to mention the sheer knowledge of a GB in a group is enough to make some enemies run away. No one wants to be hit by the Boom Gun.

The Triax Glitter Boy is a lot better. Its got a few missiles and a back-up laser mounted on it for times when you need to not use the boom-gun.


Also, Power Armor pilots get 2 suits. 1 is usually the Samson, the other one they get to pick that fits the setting.

I've never had much of a problem including Glitterboys in my game.

In one game I remember the powergamer who was playing the Glitterboy saw it go from pristine condition to a junk pile in their first adventure. And the group simply didn't have the funds to replace it. The character went from the most powerful to least powerful just like that.

They sold the boom gun that survived more or less intact and the scrap which the pilot used to buy a cheaper powerarmor and it took some time for them to get a new Glitterboy (or rather a reconditioned one).

It's a big shiny piece of kit that lots of people want to play but it's not a win button.