Forums of the Megaverse®

Noon wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:

Noon wrote:Didn't I already do this 4D6/2D6 thing with doom before? ...
There's no burst involved by jut having two settings. There's just an added on weaker setting (for urban use? Who can say?).

Hi, Noon! Though Doomie is popping in on this particular debate now and then, this similar thread is slightly different. Read through KC's starting post (page 1, post 1) to get the basis of his contention which, though I disagree with it, it is much more logically founded than Doom's old blanket proclomations. In a nut shell, this debate is less so based on the dice being thrown than the interpretations of the various Rates Of Fire.

Hiya Dead Boy!

I can't read that first post, it harms my eyes! I just noticed it had sort of come down to 'Hey, why would a gun have two MD settings? Surely one must be some special burst mode!'. I thought I'd just note the NG-57 has two shot strengths listed, but isn't some automatic weapon.

Not really.
Compare and contrast the CP-40 in CWC and let me know what you think the deal is.

And I'm starting to (god help me) think that it is possible that the NG-57's 3d6 rating IS a burst setting (2d6 is approximately 2d4x2, or close enough for Palladium Math).
There are typoes and mistakes any way you look at it, so it's possible that the NG-57 was supposed to fire bursts, they just left out the mention of that in the flavor text.
(But I'm not about to proclaim that I believe this theory... just that it is an unfortunate hypothesis that has arisen in my mind. Don't focus on this, focus on the CP-40 first.)

Dr. Doom III wrote:
You call it immaterial because you reject it however it is material.
The change is the proof.
The change is not drastic. A pulse replaced a burst. Sounds simple to me.
Why fix a weapon that is being replaced? No reason. The CV-212 however is still around and not being replaced so it was fixed.

Okay, that makes sense...
But (as Deadboy asked earlier), what about the CV-213?
It no longer mentions any burst capabilities, has ROF: Equal to HTH attacks, and does 2d6 or 4d6 md?

Again, there is so much conflicting evidence that SOME of it has to be outright mistaken... so maybe this is a typo...

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Noon wrote:I can't read that first post, it harms my eyes! I just noticed it had sort of come down to 'Hey, why would a gun have two MD settings? Surely one must be some special burst mode!'. I thought I'd just note the NG-57 has two shot strengths listed, but isn't some automatic weapon.

Not really.
Compare and contrast the CP-40 in CWC and let me know what you think the deal is.

Wow. I thought you wanted to use the C-12 in context to what its intent of use was when written. That's what your trying to discover, yeah?

How can you find that out from a latter book? Kev doesn't remain consistant for much more than ten minutes at a stretch.

Do you want the way he meant for it to work when he wrote it? Or do you want indicators of how he's decided it works now? Sort of like how rifts was written to work...then at some point he decided -10 applies to all that.

So, do you want what he meant when he wrote it or what he means now?

And I'm starting to (god help me) think that it is possible that the NG-57's 3d6 rating IS a burst setting (2d6 is approximately 2d4x2, or close enough for Palladium Math).
There are typoes and mistakes any way you look at it, so it's possible that the NG-57 was supposed to fire bursts, they just left out the mention of that in the flavor text.
(But I'm not about to proclaim that I believe this theory... just that it is an unfortunate hypothesis that has arisen in my mind. Don't focus on this, focus on the CP-40 first.)

Before you believe anything, I think your going to have to decide if you want what Kev intended in the past or what he's thinking now.

If you want what he meant when he wrote it, I don't think his plan was that a book to be released years latter would vaguely explain how one RMB gun works.

If you want what he thinks now, look for what he's said/written about the c-12 directly. Failing that (I imagine there's nothing) try to establish some logic Kev is now using with weapons which can retroactively be applied to the C-12. First, I think it'd have to be established Kevin uses a standardised logic.

Dr. Doom III wrote:The change is the proof.
The change is not drastic. A pulse replaced a burst. Sounds simple to me.
Why fix a weapon that is being replaced? No reason. The CV-212 however is still around and not being replaced so it was fixed.

On the same token, a lack of change is also proof. The CV-213 has bit of a make over as well, and yet its damage value has not been change in the slightest. It can still do a 2D6 or 4D6 MD blast, but does not burst any more. This is telling of what it, and the C-12 by relation, could originally do before any bursting multiples are applied.

And again, in case you missed, the C-12 is in the slow process of being replaced with the CP-40. But it will still be on the battle field for 10-15 more years to come. If it was considered to be a problem, and if it is going to remain in use, then why not "fix" the problem. The only answer has to be, there never was a problem.

Killer Cyborg wrote:And I'm starting to (god help me) think that it is possible that the NG-57's 3d6 rating IS a burst setting (2d6 is approximately 2d4x2, or close enough for Palladium Math).
There are typoes and mistakes any way you look at it, so it's possible that the NG-57 was supposed to fire bursts, they just left out the mention of that in the flavor text.

YES!!! Glory be to God! You're fianlly coiming back to see the light. You're staring to see the critical fault in your previous reasoning. Let's suppose for a moment that the 57 is a bursting weapon, (again, I'm flying without half my books, so as far as I know, it really is), and that Kev decided to list its burst damage. 3D6 is a close equivelent to twice that of 2D4, so that part pans out. But what about the rest? Unlike the C-12 and first generation CV-212 in SB:1, the NG-57 has no limiter on it confining its bursts to five shots. So if it's true that the 3D6 is its short burst, then where's its long burst rating? Or how about its Full Magazine burst? Where's its stated damage for that? In the absence of a limiter then the weapon can fire the full range of bursts. So if it has a listing for a single shot, and one for a short burst, then where's the other two?

The answer is *drum roll please* they aren't there because the 3D6 isn't a burst at all, but instead a higher power setting that uses twice the power of a 2D4 single. Just like the laser on a JA-11... just like the current Skelebot's CV-213... just like the C-12.

Noon wrote:Wow. I thought you wanted to use the C-12 in context to what its intent of use was when written. That's what your trying to discover, yeah?

How can you find that out from a latter book? Kev doesn't remain consistant for much more than ten minutes at a stretch.

That's what I told him two pages and a dozen posts ago.

Any way you slice it, there were mistakes made.
There is too much conflicting data.

It comes down to which conflicting piece of info you believe was the mistake.

The CP-40 is described to work the exact same way as the C-12.
The C-12 is vague about how it works, but the CP-40 is crystal clear.
Both guns were apparently written by KS.

It comes down to whether you believe that KS was trying to change the nature of the C-12, or if you think that he was trying to clarify the nature of the C-12.

And it could go either way.

Dead Boy wrote: Let's suppose for a moment that the 57 is a bursting weapon, (again, I'm flying without half my books, so as far as I know, it really is), and that Kev decided to list its burst damage. 3D6 is a close equivelent to twice that of 2D4, so that part pans out. But what about the rest? Unlike the C-12 and first generation CV-212 in SB:1, the NG-57 has no limiter on it confining its bursts to five shots. So if it's true that the 3D6 is its short burst, then where's its long burst rating? Or how about its Full Magazine burst? Where's its stated damage for that? In the absence of a limiter then the weapon can fire the full range of bursts. So if it has a listing for a single shot, and one for a short burst, then where's the other two?

The answer is *drum roll please* they aren't there because the 3D6 isn't a burst at all, but instead a higher power setting that uses twice the power of a 2D4 single. Just like the laser on a JA-11... just like the current Skelebot's CV-213... just like the C-12.

If you really insist, I can argue about the NG-57 and how it might be a burst weapon.

But really, the JA-11 makes the point pretty solidly that lasers can have two settings for single-shot damage.
I'll concede that point.

Unfortunately, it doesn't mean that the C-12 is one of those weapons.

Noon wrote:
Before you believe anything, I think your going to have to decide if you want what Kev intended in the past or what he's thinking now.

I have no strong indication that those are seperate things.

If you want what he meant when he wrote it, I don't think his plan was that a book to be released years latter would vaguely explain how one RMB gun works.

No, I'm sure that he thought the function of the gun was obvious.
He was wrong.
Just like he was wrong about a LOT of things in the main book that he thought were worded clearly, but that only caused confusion.

In CWC, it appears that he designed the CP-40 to be a newer version of the C-12. The only difference appears to be that it is a pulse rifle instead of whatever the C-12 was.

The damage listing for the CP-40 indicates how the C-12 is supposed to work... unless you believe that
a) KS forgot how the C-12 was supposed to work, which I sincerely hope isn't the case. I think he's more on the ball than that.
b) KS decided to change the way the C-12 was supposed to work by writing the CP-40 in the way he did.
I don't think this was the case. Usually when he tries to clarify things, he writes a brief essay trying to explain things. If he was trying to retroactively change the nature of the C-12, he would likely have spelled it out and claimed that it was always like that.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The damage listing for the CP-40 indicates how the C-12 is supposed to work... unless you believe that
a) KS forgot how the C-12 was supposed to work, which I sincerely hope isn't the case. I think he's more on the ball than that.
b) KS decided to change the way the C-12 was supposed to work by writing the CP-40 in the way he did.

or c) the two weapons sharre an unfortunate similarity in their descriptive wording that was never intended to tie the two together mechanically speaking.

The root of the problem falls back to the mixing of apples and oranges. A Rifts book published in 1990 was never intended to be used rectroactively in an unadulterated form based on newer rules, weapons, of fluf text. You said it your self. If something is to be clairified, changed or become ret-con, Kev makes a big production out of it. If the C-12 was so drastiically changed or clairified as to be an entierly different weapon than what it was percieved to be before, then where't the big production? Surely a section in "Kev's Quick And Dirty Rules" would have been the perfect place to make such a presentation. But instead there is nothing to this effect anywhere... not even in any of the Rifters (I think). Again, you just proved yourself wrong here, buddy.

Now normally I'd go on for another six paragraphs or so, (today I might have expanded on the NG-57 argument), but I have a mountain of homework to do tonight. Friday will be better for me to do this. And who knows, maybe I might even have my friggin' books by then.

Dead Boy wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:The damage listing for the CP-40 indicates how the C-12 is supposed to work... unless you believe that
a) KS forgot how the C-12 was supposed to work, which I sincerely hope isn't the case. I think he's more on the ball than that.
b) KS decided to change the way the C-12 was supposed to work by writing the CP-40 in the way he did.

or c) the two weapons sharre an unfortunate similarity in their descriptive wording that was never intended to tie the two together mechanically speaking.

It's a bit much to be coincidence.

The root of the problem falls back to the mixing of apples and oranges. A Rifts book published in 1990 was never intended to be used rectroactively in an unadulterated form based on newer rules, weapons, of fluf text.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

You said it your self. If something is to be clairified, changed or become ret-con, Kev makes a big production out of it. If the C-12 was so drastiically changed or clairified as to be an entierly different weapon than what it was percieved to be before, then where't the big production?

KS doesn't make a big production every time he fixes a typo or other mistake. Usually, he seems to just quietly insert the fix.

Surely a section in "Kev's Quick And Dirty Rules" would have been the perfect place to make such a presentation.

That's GM's Guide, not CWC, so it wouldn't affect things.

Now normally I'd go on for another six paragraphs or so, (today I might have expanded on the NG-57 argument), but I have a mountain of homework to do tonight. Friday will be better for me to do this. And who knows, maybe I might even have my friggin' books by then.

I hear ya on the homework front.
It's killing me!

Hello everyone, been a long time...

I am alive if you weren't sure, just been too busy to even lurk, let alone post. The wife and SOn are out of town for the day, so here I am to toss in my two cents...


I went through most of the first page, but there was just to much to catch up on, so I will just post how I see it...


First off, the C-12 has three single shot settings, all of which can be fired as a five shot burst doing x2 damage. I doo believe the word "also" makes it clear in the description that the 4D6 MD setting is not a burst.

The Payload would have contradicted this if it weren't for the fact that many other multi-setting weapons specified to be single shot also neglected to mentioned that the higher setting use more power.

The Rate of fire was originally "Aimed, burst, wild", which doesn't cause any conflict as the rifle could indeed fire single shots and bursts, the description only made the weapon more limited in its burst capabilities.

CWC only changed one thing, yet the weapons wasn't really changed at all. It specifically states that it can fire a five shot burst, and the "equal to... attacks..." doesn't contradict this. The five shot burst only takes one pull of the triger as the description states that the weapon can be set to fire like that, as opposed to a traditional burst that requires multiple trigger pulls. The reason why it isn't a pulse weapon is because the burst setting just doesn't fire the blasts fast enough to get 100% precision. The cyclic rate causes most of the burst to miss.

The CP40/50 are superior in efficiency, not in damage. The CS High Command are the ones who wan't the CP-40/50 to take over. And here is why...

C-10 is a light rifle because it's max damage is 2D6, but it can bust. Unfortunately, it's limited payload make it very costly to be firing large bursts. A 4 shot burst would do 2D6x2 MD, it is less accurat, and cost twice as much energy as the C-12's single shot 4D6 MD setting. Even with a long clip, the C-10 has only half the ammo of the C-12.

The C-12 though losing some precision, is a better weapon. The 2D6 MD setting allows for energy conservation, while the 4D6 Md setting allows for superior damage. True, it takes twice the energy, but that's why the weapon has an E-Canister built in. The restricted burst makes the weapon more effective over all, though less efficient. A five shot 4D6 MD burt only does 8D6 MD and costs the equivalent of 10 shots while the C-10 can do 1D6x10 MD and uses the same 10 shots. the C-10 will only get 2 of 3 of these before having to reload, but the limited burst of the C-12 gives it 5 to 6 busrts before needing to be reloaded.

The CP-40/50 are the kings of efficiency. They get 100% precision,a nd can still dish out a decent amount of damage, though not as impressive as the burst settings of the older weapons. On pulse, the CP-40/50 get 7 to 10 6D6 MD pulses before needing to be reloaded.

A weapon doesn't need to be superior damage wise to be better.

It's a logical progression from the C-10 to the CP-40.

The RGMG screwed things up royally with the double-tap rule, but it's silly to think that KS is capable of making a quick fix rule that doesn't cause any conflicts. the reason why the rule crews things up is because it is optional. KS isn't going to give an optional rule and then go and change every weapon in the game so that there is no conflict. It his optional rules were meant to be the replacement rules, we would have see editing to all the older weapons that get modified by it. So for anyone who uses the double-tap rule from RGMG, I suggest to tak it upon yourself to make the necessary changes to the weapons rather than complain about how the C-12 is useless compared to the C-10. (suggestion: eliminate the five shot burst doing x2 and make it a double tap doing 8D6 MD and burning 4 shots from the payload. the C-10 remains as a 4D6 Md double tap burning two shots from the payload, and the world makes sense again.)


Revised Conversion book is not something I own, but my personal preference has always been that all pistols and rifles can fire bursts unless it says otherwise or gives specific burst setting like the Railguns and the pulse rifles. Heavy energy weapns are alwasy single shot unless there is one good goddam reasonfor it to do otherwise.

ROF Standard is the same as A, b, w: a weapon can fire single shots and or bursts.

ROF Equal to... : is generally used for weapons that are given specific damage values for single shots and or bursts/pulses. The CWC C-12 doesn't violate this because it specifically says that it can fire a burst, the description neglects to give a specific burst damage and it is up to the GM to use the standard rules.

Hey! Welcome Back, Shiva! You alwasy were my favorite Canook. I agree with everything you said with the exception of the following, (a minor thing really).

Shiva7 wrote:...while the C-10 can do 1D6x10 MD and uses the same 10 shots.

You can only get that kind of efficiency if you use the old "X5 damage for a long burst" rule, which hasn't been in effect since early 1991. Since then, as of the original edition of CB:1 it was reduced to X3, so instead a C-10 would do a 6D6 burst burning through 10 shots (assuming a standard e-clip were being used).

ROF Equal to... : is generally used for weapons that are given specific damage values for single shots and or bursts/pulses. The CWC C-12 doesn't violate this because it specifically says that it can fire a burst, the description neglects to give a specific burst damage and it is up to the GM to use the standard rules.

Whether you realize it or not, you just hit the core of the debate right there. CK's contention is that the 4D6 MD is the speciffically listed damage for the burst while I contend otherwise. His basis for thinking that is the similar wording used in the CP-40's text to describe its functionings. That's it. In a nutshell, I just saved you 3 pages worth of reading, (unless you want to review the back and forth arguments).

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:The root of the problem falls back to the mixing of apples and oranges. A Rifts book published in 1990 was never intended to be used rectroactively in an unadulterated form based on newer rules, weapons, of fluf text.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Allow me to rephrase. The original Core Book had the C-12 listed as an A,B,W ROF weapon with two different listings for its MD setting. Unlike the L-20 pulse rifle or NG-101 rail gun which had specific listings for their particualr special attacks, the C-12 has several companion example weapons that also had multiple settings but did not burst, like the NG-57 and JA-11. Everything made sense and the logical layout of the book was pretty much self-conained to that book. At the time Kev didnt' really figure on writing a whole lot of other companion books, so all future writers were given a certain latitude. Six years and better than a dozen books later, CWC was slated to come out. By this point Kev must have seen a growing chaos in his simple game and set out to start rectifying things. He had to distinguish how some weapons used the normal bursting rules as printed in the Core Book, verbatum, and those that didn't. The answer of just how to do this came form his second book in the Rifts series, Source Book 1 that introduced the Triax TX-11, to my knowlege the first small-arm ever to be given the "Equal to..." ROF. There he had a rifle that used it's own particular mode of fire that went against the Standard ROF. It was a rifle that could not burst, and thus was given that ROF with an added note of "...; aimed shots only. Can not fire bursts.". Thus he used the groundwork from that to form the basis of all future "Equal to..." weapons, where if there is even the slightest thing that makes its ROF different form Standard-Aim Burst Wild, it got that. When it came to the editing of the C-12 in CWC, for the sake of consistency he had to give it the "Equal to..." ROF simply because it has that special five shot limiter for a short burst. If it retained its A,B,W (same as Standard) ROF, then by all rights it should have to use the perecentage-of-shots-used system from the Main Book. But it didn't, so it's ROF had to refelct this somehow.

Now, IF you're right and the CP-40's description was intentionally made to clairify how the C-12 was suposed to work, and the C-12's ROF was changed to further make the connection, then answer me this. While Kev was editing the C-12 for CWC, why didn't he add a few words after the 4D6MD setting saying "for a burst of five" or the like? The CP-40 in Lone Star and I assume CWC as well, (yea, I still don't have the bulk of my books ), I see that its 6D6 MD setting is followed by the key words "... per rapid-fire pulse". I even see that the C-27 recieved the line "per blast" after its damage listning. So if Kev wanted to make such an important clarification, then why no tag line after the 4D6 damage? If it was important enough for him to make the CP-40 an example of how the C-12 was suposed to work, then I think he would have added those few words after the damage to make things crystal clear. But he didn't, meaning that there is not hidden clairifictaion in the CP-40 aluding to the 12. It's all in you overworked head.[/i]

Dead Boy wrote:Hey! Welcome Back, Shiva! You alwasy were my favorite Canook. I agree with everything you said with the exception of the following, (a minor thing really).

Alas, it is but for a breif moment in history that I have returned, but while I am here, I might as well have fun...

You can only get that kind of efficiency if you use the old "X5 damage for a long burst" rule, which hasn't been in effect since early 1991. Since then, as of the original edition of CB:1 it was reduced to X3, so instead a C-10 would do a 6D6 burst burning through 10 shots (assuming a standard e-clip were being used).

True, I forgot the CB changed the burst rules (which I like better than the x2/x5/x10 anyhow). Indeed, the x2/x3/x7 rule even further supports the Idea that the C-12 is a superior weapon than the C-10. Personally though, I still prefer using x4 for the long burst inplace of x3.

Whether you realize it or not, you just hit the core of the debate right there. CK's contention is that the 4D6 MD is the speciffically listed damage for the burst while I contend otherwise. His basis for thinking that is the similar wording used in the CP-40's text to describe its functionings. That's it. In a nutshell, I just saved you 3 pages worth of reading, (unless you want to review the back and forth arguments).

I still think the also in the description makes it quite clear that the 4D6 MD blast is for a single shot and not a burst of 5.

Shiva7 wrote:I still think the also in the description makes it quite clear that the 4D6 MD blast is for a single shot and not a burst of 5.

I used to think so too, but check out the CP-40(CWC, P. 92):

"The CP-40 has four settings, two SDC and two MD. The rifle can also be set to fire a single shot or a pulse of three nearly simultaneous blasts."

The text is exactly the same as the C-12 text, except for the following:
-The CP-40 has 2 SDC settings, the C-12 only has 1.
-The CP-40 fires a 3-shot pulse instead of a 5-shot burst.

Neither of these things should directly affect what we both see as the key phrase; "The rifle can also be set..."

So, by reading just the text of the CP-40 it looks as though the CP-40 has two MDC single shot settings, two SDC single shot settings, and also can select between a single shot or a pulse on any of these settings.
But slide on down to the damage listing:
"2d6 MD per single laser blast or 6d6 MD per rapid-fire pulse"

The text of the CP-40 obviously doesn't mean what we would think it does just by looking at it.
Ergo, the practically identical text of the C-12 also probably doesn't mean what we would think it does just by looking at it.
It, unfortunately, backs Doom's theory that the C-12's 4d6 setting is actually the 5-shot burst setting.

Dead Boy wrote:Now, IF you're right and the CP-40's description was intentionally made to clairify how the C-12 was suposed to work, and the C-12's ROF was changed to further make the connection,

Well, I don't necessarily think it went down like that.
The way I picture it is KS thinking "People seem to be confused over the C-12, so I'll be extra specific with the CP-40 so people won't make the same mistake with it."

then answer me this. While Kev was editing the C-12 for CWC, why didn't he add a few words after the 4D6MD setting saying "for a burst of five" or the like? The CP-40 in Lone Star and I assume CWC as well, (yea, I still don't have the bulk of my books ), I see that its 6D6 MD setting is followed by the key words "... per rapid-fire pulse". I even see that the C-27 recieved the line "per blast" after its damage listning. So if Kev wanted to make such an important clarification, then why no tag line after the 4D6 damage?

All valid questions that I have no answer for.
But that isn't exactly conclusive of anything.
To toss a question back at you, if you are right about the 4d6 setting being a single shot, "Why didn't he update the C-12 to say "4d6 MD per blast"?

Any way you slice it, he updated some things, changed some things, and left some things alone.
Unfortunately, we can only speculate on his motives.

Killer Cyborg wrote:All valid questions that I have no answer for.

That's what I like about you, dude. You're honest.

To toss a question back at you, if you are right about the 4d6 setting being a single shot, "Why didn't he update the C-12 to say "4d6 MD per blast"?

It certainly would have been helpful to this debate if he did. However, there are more weapons that only list the damage for a single blast that are burstable than there aren't, by a great many. But that isn't much to go on really. Ok, Time for something new.

I've tried pretty much every argument for my case imaginable... it's time to break out the Big Guns. A while back I wrote in to the Old Palladium FAQ while it was being run by Rodney Stott. Now we both know that his answers weren't always 100% on the stick, so to speak, (like the time he said that, A: a TX-5 Pump Pistol could fire bursts, and B: that since it only had a 5-round magazine it could fire a short burst of a single shot (20% of the mag) and do X2 damage... a bad call he later corrected himself on after I made fun of it on the forums), but much of what he wrote on behalf of Kev and Palladium were fair and balanced answers. Overall he did a pretty good job. Anyhoo, I wrote him with a couple of questions regarding the C-12 based on issues that arose on the boards. The following in italics is a complete copy of my question with his answers in bold...

> Comments: Hey hey, Rod! Got a question for ya. The goold ol' Coalition C-12 laser assault rifle has two MD damage settings; a 2D6 MD and a 4D6 MD. However, despite the addition of several books that repeat and revise things there has never been one that has expanded on this in terms of payload. Basically what I'm asking is, when firing in the full power 4D6 MD mode does the C-12 use twice the power (2 shots worth), effectively cutting the payload in half, or is the opposite true and the 2D6 MD uses only half the power effectively doubeling the payload? Or is neither true and does it somehow uses the exact amount of power no better what MD setting it's on, (that would be wierd)?

The 4D6 shot counts as 2 blasts.

> Oh and while I'm at it, I have another C-12 related question. In the new
Rifts GM's Guide, Kev da man changed the definition of Rate of Fire. Since
the C-12 can fire up to a five shot burst, can it fire then new double-tap
double-damge form of burst or does it still have to fire a five shot shrot
burst for the X2? And if the double-tap is an option, how much damage does a five shot burt do these days?

It is still a 5 round limited burst.

Rodney Stott
Palladium Books

Now, with this information from as much of a canon sorce as we have access to, (since Kev never frequents these boards... or at least never posts), we can derive two things beyond the shadow of a doubt.

1. Since Stott says the the 4D6 setting uses twice the power of a 2D6 shot, it can not be a burst of 5 rounds
2. Since it can't use the Double Tap, the 4D6 can not be that neither.
3. If the C-12 is incapable of firing a Double Tap a la Kev's quick and dirty rules because of the specific set-up of its ROF and still limited to doing 5-round bursts, then that 4D6 setting can be doubled on that burst to produce a 4D6x2 attack at the cost of 10 shots' worth of power.

Come to think of it, I should have pulled this one out much earlier. But then again, maybe not since the debate thus far has been a bit of a thinker, making both of us see the possabilities of the case for the other side a little bit better.

Unfortunately, I consider FAQ responses to be circumstancial evidence at best.

Still interesting, though.

Ignoring the complicated rules & trying to simplify, I use:

C10: 2d6, 5 shot burst*3md,2APM=10shots*5md, melee= 20shots*10md
C12: 4d6, 5 shot burst*3md, (2d6md uses 1/2 the energy)
CP40: 4d6, 3 shot pulse*3md, energy efficent (2d6md uses 1/2 the energy)

C14: 3d6, mostly used for the grenades
CP50: 2d6/pulse of 3=6d6; a nice improvement on the C14

Review:
-short burst of 5 *3 damage
-long burst of 10 *5 damage, two attacks
-melee burst of 20 *10 damage, entire melee

Commentary:
->shorter bursts are more accurate.
->I ignore double tapping (and most other new rules), it would make the C14 better than the CP50; double tap for 6d6 vs. 3 shot pulse for 6d6.
-the CP40 says it has 2md functions but doesnt mention 4d6
->The CP40=the C12 with a pulse function instead of burst function.

Didn't we already talk about this?

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:Didn't we already talk about this?

It was never resolved... and I begining to think it might never be unless Kev actualy chimes in, which he won't. And quite frankly I don't blame the man for not posting on this site. If he did start answering questions, not only would he have time for anything else, but he'd also make three more questions for every one he answers.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I used to think so too, but check out the CP-40(CWC, P. 92):

"The CP-40 has four settings, two SDC and two MD. The rifle can also be set to fire a single shot or a pulse of three nearly simultaneous blasts."

The text is exactly the same as the C-12 text, except for the following:
-The CP-40 has 2 SDC settings, the C-12 only has 1.
-The CP-40 fires a 3-shot pulse instead of a 5-shot burst.

KC, if you read both descriptions carefully and keep them two weapons seperate, which seems to have the gramatical error...


- There are three settings, one SDC and two MDC. In addition (also), the weapon can fire a single shot or a burst of five.

- There are four settings, two SDC and two MDC. In addition (also), the weapon can fire a single shot or a rapid pulse of three.

Only the damage for the C-12 fits the description properly, the CP-40 doesn't. So I belive the CP-40 has the typo. I could believe KS made the mistake of checking the description of the C-12 as a basis for designing the CP-40, but slipped up and put in the also by mistake. That is far more plausible that him making two gramaticall errors that change the description enough to cause this level of confusion.


Neither of these things should directly affect what we both see as the key phrase; "The rifle can also be set..."

So, by reading just the text of the CP-40 it looks as though the CP-40 has two MDC single shot settings, two SDC single shot settings, and also can select between a single shot or a pulse on any of these settings.
But slide on down to the damage listing:
"2d6 MD per single laser blast or 6d6 MD per rapid-fire pulse"

The text of the CP-40 obviously doesn't mean what we would think it does just by looking at it.
Ergo, the practically identical text of the C-12 also probably doesn't mean what we would think it does just by looking at it.
It, unfortunately, backs Doom's theory that the C-12's 4d6 setting is actually the 5-shot burst setting.[/quote]

Shiva7 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I used to think so too, but check out the CP-40(CWC, P. 92):

"The CP-40 has four settings, two SDC and two MD. The rifle can also be set to fire a single shot or a pulse of three nearly simultaneous blasts."

The text is exactly the same as the C-12 text, except for the following:
-The CP-40 has 2 SDC settings, the C-12 only has 1.
-The CP-40 fires a 3-shot pulse instead of a 5-shot burst.

KC, if you read both descriptions carefully and keep them two weapons seperate, which seems to have the gramatical error...


- There are three settings, one SDC and two MDC. In addition (also), the weapon can fire a single shot or a burst of five.

- There are four settings, two SDC and two MDC. In addition (also), the weapon can fire a single shot or a rapid pulse of three.

Only the damage for the C-12 fits the description properly, the CP-40 doesn't. So I belive the CP-40 has the typo. I could believe KS made the mistake of checking the description of the C-12 as a basis for designing the CP-40, but slipped up and put in the also by mistake. That is far more plausible that him making two gramaticall errors that change the description enough to cause this level of confusion.

If you remove or ignore the word "also", then both weapons make sense.
If you leave it in, then only the C-12 does... and even that's up for debate.

I find it more plausible that the word "also" has no meaning in either of the weapon descriptions, that it shouldn't have been there in the first place and was cut and pasted to the CP-40's text.
That seems more in line with Palladium's editing.