Forums of the Megaverse®

Okay, I've finally become convinced that the way I've been using the C-12 for the past 10+ years has been wrong.
Originally, I paid attention to the ROF of Aimed, Burst, Wild and ignored the 5-shot burst mentioned in the gun description. I figured it was a typo.
Then the CS War Campaign book came out and the new ROF was "Equal to the number of combined hand to hand attacks of its user".
Okay, so then I decided that it was like a prototype of a pulse-rifle... it could only fire single shots or 5-shot bursts.
No problem, except that I was annoyed that they never listed the burst damage.
Then somebody online argued with me and a bunch of other people, claiming that the 4d6 setting was actually the burst setting.
We argued back and forth, and eventually the thread died.

I'm finally convinced that they were right.


Last time I debated the ROF of the C-12, the main flaw in the argument that the 4d6 setting was the burst setting was that the text states:
"The C-12 has three settings, one SDC and two MDC. The rifle can also be set to fire a single shot or a burst of five."
The key word seems to be "also".
It indicated to me that there were two dials (or levers or whatever) on the gun; one to adjust the rate of fire (single shot or burst) and one to adjust the power of the blast (6d6 SDC, 2d6 MD, or 4d6 MD).
It seems logical.

But I recently looked up the C-12 to compare it to it's replacement, the CP-40 and here is what I found:
The CP-40 text is almost exactly the same as the C-12... "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 MD damage for the CP-40 is listed as "2d6 per single laser blast or 6d6 MD per rapid-fire pulse"
Those are the two settings; single shot or pulse.
Which indicates that it's the same situation with the C-12... that the 2d6 MD setting is for single shot and the 4d6 setting is for bursts.

Which drops the C-12 from being one of the best rifles in the entire game to being one of the dumbest rifles in the entire games.
Part of the reason why I was resistant to the idea that the 4d6 setting was a burst setting is because if the rifle does 2d6 on a single shot, how is it any different from the C-10?
Only in ammo capacity and a specific burst setting.

It's fairly plausible, though.
The CS makes a light laser rifle (the C-10) and finds that their troops fire on full auto too often and that they run out of ammo too fast.
So they tinker with the design a bit and come up with the C-12.
Essentially the same gun with an E-cannister in addition to the clip, and a specific burst setting instead of fully automatic firing.

I can see why the CS might do that, but in the world of Rifts I'd prefer a gun that allows me to empty my entire clip into whatever huge demon or monster was about to eat me.
Meaning I find the C-10 to be the better of the two guns.

Then Kevin Siembieda's "Optional Quick & Dirty Rules for modern combat" come into play.

Under the new optional rules, any weapon with an ROF of Standard or "Aimed, burst, wild" can be presumed to be able to fire a "two pulse burst" for double the damage of a normal shot.
Since the C-10 still has a listed ROF of "Aimed, burst, or wild", it can fire a single 2d6 shot or a 4d6 double-tap. No more ripping off a whole clip under the new rules, but that's okay because nobody can anymore.
Now look at what the rule does to the C-12.
The C-12 can fire a single shot for 2d6 MD, or a burst of 5 shots for 4d6 MD.
It takes the C-12 5 shots to do the same damage the C-10 does in 2.
Which kind of negates the whole point of that E-cannister.
The C-10 can hold 30 shots in a long clip, that's 15 4d6 double-taps.
The C-12 can hold 60 shots between a long clip and the E-cannister, that's 12 4d6 bursts of five shots.
The only edge the C-12 had, ammo capacity, is now gone.

So what can be done about this?
These thoughts come to mind.

1. Just ignore the C-12 and move on to the CP-40. This is obviously what KS wants.
2. Just play the C-12 like you have always played it.
3. Just play it as is; the gun is worthless.

The problem with idea #1 is that I like the C-12. It's old school. It looks cool. I've grown fond of it.
The problem with #2 is that I have a strong desire to make things fit. Why would the CS come out with the CP-40 if the C-12 is a superior gun?
The problems with #3 are the same problems with #1 and #2... I like the C-12 and want to keep using it. Also, it doesn't fit that the CS would use such a poor rifle. Even the L-20 pulse rifle is better, and it's a fairly generic weapon.

The C-12 seems to have been a prototype pulse weapon. It is the only energy weapon I know of that has a listed burst setting, but isn't actually a pulse weapon. The difference between a pulse and a burst is that in a burst most of the shots miss and in a pulse, all of the shots miss or hit together.
So here's my idea:
Make the C-12 into an actual pulse rifle.
It has two settings: A single shot for 2d6 MD, or a five-shot pulse for 1d6x10 MD.
Granted I'm biased, but I like this idea.
It still uses up a lot of ammo, so I can see the CS deciding to replace it with a more conventional 3-shot pulse rifle... the C-12 would get 12 5-shot pulses, but the newer CP-40 gets 10 3-shot pulses from the long clip alone, and an additional 20 pulses from the hip/backpack cannister.
Little less firepower, but way more ammo.
The CP-40 remains a good new gun.
The C-12 remains a good old gun.
The C-10 is less powerful than the C-12 because it is only capable of burst firing instead of pulse firing (or only capable of a 2-shot pulse instead of a 5-shot pulse... either way it's a decent gun, but less powerful than the C-12).

So anyway, thoughts? Reactions?
Criticisms? Comments?
Haikus?

I must admit that I always regarded the burst of five as the typo.

it is clearly stated that the rifle has a single/burst/wild RoF as per the rules for normal weapons, and also that the 3 settings are definitely separate from said burst ability.

Since the burst of five (25% of clip) does not match any of the standard burst types mentioned in the basic rules, and has no damage listed for it ... well, why use it when the basic rules seem to apply seamlessly and at least give proper data?

And I'm pretty sure that the 4D6 MD setting is quite distinct from the burst ability... at least that's how I understand the descriptive text, in all 3 (RMB, CWC & GMG).

Then again, the obvious contradiction between the CP 40's flavor text and given stats (again mention of 2 settings each SDC and MDC, and mention of "has also a pulse capability" but figuring the 2nd setting to be the pulse in the damage section) gives powerful logic to your proposal.

What bothers me with that interpretation is that, then, the Wilk's 447 rifle, or L20 rifle, with their 6D6 MD short bust cabability, and for 4 shots instead of 5 make them already quite superior to the C12... while the CS is supposed to be the top tech dog in NA ... and I'm not even mentioning the Wilk's 457, from SB1... but you' ve covered that in quite less words.

(of course, by the RMB rulez, the NG P7 particle beam rifle would have been burst capable... and doing more damage from a burst than it actually fired shots...and even in the GMG it's RoF is listed as "standard" where I don't remember any official sources redefining "standard" Rof as being different from the classic "single/burst/wild)

Your defense for the reasoning behind the "revised" C12 is good... but still doesn't explain how the best technological power around comes up (and adopts) a rifle that is less efficient (both in damage and power consumption) than what is also on the market... Of course, I don't really see the CS giving army contracts to the Black Market (for the L20) or even to Wilk's (for the 447 or 457), but they could very well have gotten a few, reverse engineered and knocked them off, and the dead boys are better equipped...

BTW ... in your summary of 3 possibilities, I find flaws in possibilities 1 and 3
1) move on to the CP 40, fine, except that the old workhorse C12 is said to be well loved and still in wide use, if being phased out.
3) take the gun as it is : worthless. Actually, it *is not* worthless in the meaning that it is a cruddy design and has always been. It *has been made* cruddy by KS in his #@%&µ§# rewriting of rules that were working quite fine without further fiddling, and silly modification of a design previously considered fine, and which, to my knowledge had never drawn criticism in the 10 years that preceded the revision.

But yes... without being quite superior... the C12, played the old fashioned way, is hardly inferior to the CP40.

Your idea has merit... a 10D6 pulse for 5 shots, as compared to the previous 8D6 for 4 or 5 (depending on short or long clip) *is better* ... and not so unbalancing as that ... of course I'll miss the 20D6 long bursts...

The gun is basically a human version of the CV-212. The difference is the messed up description was fixed for the 212 in War Campaign. The 4D6 rating and 5 shot burst disappeared to be replaced by a pulse doing more damage. The C-12 was replaced so fixing the description was overlooked.

Here we go again. Sigh.

For all the reasons KC listed (along with a few others) I've never bought the "4D6 is the burst setting" arguement. I use it as it's written: 3 damage settings, 2 volume settings.

1 SDC setting. a light MD setting, and a heavy MD setting.

it can normal, short, long full clip, and spray bursts.

all of the above requires too much thinking for no benift for changing it.

the CP-12 isn't broken. don't fix it.

Mack wrote:Here we go again. Sigh.

For all the reasons KC listed (along with a few others) I've never bought the "4D6 is the burst setting" arguement. I use it as it's written: 3 damage settings, 2 volume settings.

Hey, I'm all ears if you have more info to convince me that the 4d6 setting isn't a burst setting...

One possibility that I don't believe I mentioned above is that whoever wrote the stats for the CP-40 based them on their mistaken interpretation of how the C-12 worked, not how it actually works.

Dr. Doom III wrote:The gun is basically a human version of the CV-212. The difference is the messed up description was fixed for the 212 in War Campaign. The 4D6 rating and 5 shot burst disappeared to be replaced by a pulse doing more damage. The C-12 was replaced so fixing the description was overlooked.

So you'd recommend doing the same for the C-12; giving it a damage of 2d6 per single shot, 6d6 for a triple pulse, and scrap the "burst of five" bit?

Personally, I have always used the C-12 in the same way as mentioned by MacK above; a single S.D.C. setting (which elevates the rifle to Supreme Utility Weapon, right alongside the CV-212, IMNSHO), a light M.D. setting for 2D6, and a heavy M.D. setting for 4D6.

I've never paid any attention to the mention of the 5-shot burst, simply because it's highly likely that given the limited resources at the early Coalition's disposal, along with the already superior qualities of the laser focusing and acceleration arrays within the rifle (4D6 for a single laser pulse is considerable, given the time frame and the Rifts setting in general, where the Laser is generally the lightest "payload" energy beam), the designers didn't consider it neccessary; less shots expended = less drain on potentially limited resources, and with a squad of 4-5 highly trained soldiers blasting away at a foe, the high damage of the rifle would equate to an efficient kill anyways.

That, and 20D6 M.D. (or 2D6x10 M.D., using the shortening rules) is too much for me to stomach from any man-portable energy beam. "Why won't the barrel melt?!" would be one response, though I gave up on applying something even approaching physics to Rifts a long time ago.

As it stands, the way I have always applied the C-12 has kept it in a special, respected place within my own personal Rifts lexicon. Good damage, balanced, and superbly utilitarian. A prime example of the way Rifts should be, not the way it has gone. Any weapon with a damage multiplier should *not* be easily man-portable.*

-Juicer-

* The C-40R does not count as man-portable for this purpose. At most, 1D4x10 for heavy, limited shot anti-armour rifles such as the NG-P7. Carella may have though single shot (pulse) kills were more realistic, but it's a pain when A) Weapons start exceeding the damage levels of tank main guns. Why not just equip a battalion of soldiers with good armour and weapons for the same price as the tanks?! And B) When having a character take *one hit* suddenly neccessitates a retreat. Lethal, yes. Conducive to classic adventuring, or indeed, *any* regard towards physics? Not on your life. Tone down the power in the (*insane, despairing laughter*) revision, guys. Please?

"Why is it, not 10 minutes after they put the £$%&@*! straightjacket on, my nuts start to itch?!"
- Unknown

"Oh sad is the world...but I have Kavorkian scarf...'round my neck."
- Pilz-E

"I'm going to come round your house and vomit on your children."
- -Juicer-

Killer Cyborg wrote:
But I recently looked up the C-12 to compare it to it's replacement, the CP-40 and here is what I found:
The CP-40 text is almost exactly the same as the C-12... "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 MD damage for the CP-40 is listed as "2d6 per single laser blast or 6d6 MD per rapid-fire pulse"
Those are the two settings; single shot or pulse.
Which indicates that it's the same situation with the C-12... that the 2d6 MD setting is for single shot and the 4d6 setting is for bursts.

I can see how it looks like a logical conclusiuon, but there is one major thing you're overlooking. You're comparing text from books published seven years apart! The gap in their writing is probably even greater. As such, when it comes to deciphering the ROF of the C-12, you can only really compare it to weapons from the same time frame. As such, let's take a gander at a few other Main Book weapons.

The NG-57 Heavy Duty Ion Blaster (pg. 224) ~ Here we have a weapon that has two different damage settings; a 2D4 and a 3D6. Like the C-12 it is not listed as being a pulse weapon. The NG's ROF is just "Standard". Are you going tell me that it too is a pulse weapon that was improperly labled?

The JA-11 JUicer Rifle (pg. 225) ~ The laser on this weapon is clearly designed to be a single shot sniper's gun. It's ROF confirms this in language that is more concise that what we're used to for Palladium. And yet this weapon too has two damage settings; a 2D6 and a 4D6, just like the C-12! But this is clearly NOT at boost of damage through a multi-shot pulse. It says it's a "single shot only" weapon right there in the thing's description and stats.

The Laser Utility Finger (pg. 239) ~ Though not an MD weapon, this too has multiple power settings; a 1D6 and a 3D6. However, given the lomited ROF of "Up to 4 per melee", it is extremely unlikely that this weapon gets it's higher damage from a pulse.

When taken only in the context that the original rifle was written, it's pretty plane to me that the two MD power settings are independant of the weapon's ability to also fire a 5 shot burst. By comparing it to the CP-40 you are trying to mesh two different lines of thought into one cohesive concept of consistancy, which frankly doesn't exist! By the time CWC was written, Kev was trying to get away from his old bursting rules and go to a stright dice system. This new philosophy was carried over into his most recent "Optional Quick and Dirty Rules" where all major multiples and calculated depletions of ammo are reduced to "two shot, double damage" as the rules apply to all the old weapons that used the more powerful but more complicatred burst rules.

But if you must compare, compare ALL the similar weapons in CWC to get the big picture. You surely saw that the CV-212 was converted into a striaght pulse laser, but did you bother to look at the CV-213 on page 126? The new version of the Skelebot rifle lost its "Aim, Burst, Wild" ROF which was replaced by a "Equal to the number of hand to hand attacks", just like the C-12 was in that very book. In addition to that it also lost it's ability to fire a five-shot burst AND it's EC-Clip, limiting it's payload to 20 shots when not plugged into the droid. This degree of change and editing clearly show that the weapon was not overlook and at lest some thoght was put into the re-write. But what's this? The rifle has two damage settings; a 2D6 and a 4D6. It can't use it's old five shot burst but it can still do a 4D6 MD blast! I offer this to you as proof positive that the C-12's 4D6 setting was NEVER intended to reppresent the weapons's burst, but insted was meant to stack to produce a 4D6x2 MD burst.

The CS makes a light laser rifle (the C-10) and finds that their troops fire on full auto too often and that they run out of ammo too fast.
So they tinker with the design a bit and come up with the C-12.
Essentially the same gun with an E-cannister in addition to the clip, and a specific burst setting instead of fully automatic firing.

I can see why the CS might do that, but in the world of Rifts I'd prefer a gun that allows me to empty my entire clip into whatever huge demon or monster was about to eat me.
Meaning I find the C-10 to be the better of the two guns.

There's another thing you've overlooked, KC. The C-10 is listed as a "Light Assault Rifle" where as the C-12 is a "Heavy". Why make that distinction if they do the same base damage and the C-10 is actually capable of producing even MORE damage on larger burst? Other than the difference in the damage settings, the C-12 is also 2 pounds (0.9 kg) heavier, but if you discount the ability to do more damage in a single shot, the only thing that remains to explain this away is the addition of the EC-Clip in the butt. When you also factor in that the C-12 lacks the bigger and surely heftier scope of the C-10, that doesn't add up at all. If the C-10 is suposed to be a ligher weapon than the C-12 in weight only, then they would have called it a Carbien and not a Rifle. But since it says that the later is just a beafed up version of the other, there's only one logical explanation. The C-12 is a "Heavy" rifle becuse it inflicts more damage. And to do that it has to have a more powerful laser that can be bursted.

But if you're still wondering how the C-10 and C-12 fit in with each other, this is how I've come to see things. After reviewing the books, I noticed something quite significant. The older C-10, which has a base 2D6 MD attack (fully burstable by the way), only has one power source. Unlike the C-12 which has two (a conventional E-Clip and a reserve EC-Clip in the shoulder stock) the older of the two weapons has half the power reserve. Now what would be a good reason to double the available power of a next generation weapon like the C-12 is to the C-10? Maybe because the power demands went up by a factor of two and the designers didn't want to half the available number of shots available to the grunt at the improved base-damage setting.

With this in mind, one can start to see the evolution of the Coalition's weapons as it relates to their policy in combat. At first we have the C-10 which was a good weapon made to be reliable, but could also lay down the fire with medium, long and full bursts. This made it a good all around weapon suitable for aggressive offence and conservative defense. Next we have the C-12 which popped up when the Coalition became notably more aggressive around 75 PA. This weapon was made to lay down the firepower first and foremost. At the same time, with its double reserve of ammo and limited bursts, it ensured that the soldiers didn't blow off all their ammo in one or two attacks (something the older C-10 has to do to inflict heavy damage). With the C-12's arrangement of to two power reserves working in union, it was capable of putting the hurt on the bad guys in a hurry, but at the cost of making the soldier vulnerable during his frequent reloads. However, given the CS's use of small unit tactics at this time the majority of their fights didn't last too long, so this wasn't a problem. Not too much later we see the emergence of the C-14, which was more of an infantry support weapon than a laser weapon given it's ability to saturate the area with grenades, (an ability they nerfed in recent books). This too was typical of the Coalition's tactical doctrine in this more aggressive era. The CV-212 prototype (as originally seen in source Book 1, PA 102) was the first weapon produced made to fight a war. It was really just an adaptation of the C-12 and shared it's endurance problem. As a result it wasn't distributed all that widely beyond Chi-Town. With war on the horizon, the Coalition R&D had to come up with a weapon with firepower near that of the C-12, but was still cheap to mass-produce. Enter the CP-40 & 50, as well as the final version of the CV-212. Though 25% less powerful, this family of weapons have better than three times the staying power of the brutish but short-winded C-12, making them much more suitable for large scale war operations where troops will have to remain in the field and combat zone for extended periods of time.

Dr. Doom III wrote:The gun is basically a human version of the CV-212. The difference is the messed up description was fixed for the 212 in War Campaign. The 4D6 rating and 5 shot burst disappeared to be replaced by a pulse doing more damage. The C-12 was replaced so fixing the description was overlooked.

Oh bull crud. Given how Cut & Paste happy Kev is, if he considered the CWC's revised CV-212 to be the the "fixed" version of what that laser rifle should have been all along, then he would have just slapped a copy of that on the C-12 in Book 11 as well and made a few quick edits to make it fit. But he didn't do that. He let the old C-12 remain as is with a slight re-titling of it's ROF. And for those of you who bothered to read the Errata in the Cutting Room Floor section of this very website, written by Kev him self, you will cleearly see that "Aim, Burst, Wild" and "Equal to the number of hand to hand attacks" are actually one in the same!

Here's a Cut and Paste from it for those of you who don't believe me.
Rate of Fire equal to number of Hand-to-Hand attacks means that the character can fire an aimed shot or burst for each action that he would normally get. Thus, a character with 3 attacks per round may take 3 aimed shots or bursts (not 9).

Killer Cyborg wrote:So you'd recommend doing the same for the C-12; giving it a damage of 2d6 per single shot, 6d6 for a triple pulse, and scrap the "burst of five" bit?

If you want to. But since it is supposed to be an outdated weapon the stats as is are fine for that. Which is I suspect is a reason for it not being fixed like the CV-212. There is always the CV-313 but it looks like the CV-212 not the C-12.

Old weapon with inefficient 5 shot burst replaced with new efficient weapon with a more damaging three shot pulse.

Dead Boy wrote:
I can see how it looks like a logical conclusiuon, but there is one major thing you're overlooking. You're comparing text from books published seven years apart! The gap in their writing is probably even greater. As such, when it comes to deciphering the ROF of the C-12, you can only really compare it to weapons from the same time frame. As such, let's take a gander at a few other Main Book weapons.

I did actually take that into consideration but, like I said, I feel a need to make things fit.
It's possible that the CP-40 stats were written by somebody who misunderstood the original stats for the C-12.
Or that Palladium deliberately decided to nerf the C-12.
But that doesn't make things fit well.

The NG-57 Heavy Duty Ion Blaster (pg. 224) ~ Here we have a weapon that has two different damage settings; a 2D4 and a 3D6. Like the C-12 it is not listed as being a pulse weapon. The NG's ROF is just "Standard". Are you going tell me that it too is a pulse weapon that was improperly labled?

The JA-11 JUicer Rifle (pg. 225) ~ The laser on this weapon is clearly designed to be a single shot sniper's gun. It's ROF confirms this in language that is more concise that what we're used to for Palladium. And yet this weapon too has two damage settings; a 2D6 and a 4D6, just like the C-12! But this is clearly NOT at boost of damage through a multi-shot pulse. It says it's a "single shot only" weapon right there in the thing's description and stats.

The Laser Utility Finger (pg. 239) ~ Though not an MD weapon, this too has multiple power settings; a 1D6 and a 3D6. However, given the lomited ROF of "Up to 4 per melee", it is extremely unlikely that this weapon gets it's higher damage from a pulse.
When taken only in the context that the original rifle was written, it's pretty plane to me that the two MD power settings are independant of the weapon's ability to also fire a 5 shot burst.

Yup. Good call on those weapons!
In the context of the main book, it makes a strong argument that the C-12 was originally designed to be used the way I used it; with a single shot 2d6 setting and a single shot 4d6 setting.

....you are trying to mesh two different lines of thought into one cohesive concept of consistancy, which frankly doesn't exist!

Pretty well describes my 12+ years of playing Rifts.

By the time CWC was written, Kev was trying to get away from his old bursting rules and go to a stright dice system. This new philosophy was carried over into his most recent "Optional Quick and Dirty Rules" where all major multiples and calculated depletions of ammo are reduced to "two shot, double damage" as the rules apply to all the old weapons that used the more powerful but more complicatred burst rules.

Yes.
And that's half the problem with the C-12.
The other half is that the gun description wasn't properly worded in the first place. There's no real way to get all the factors to fit.

But if you must compare, compare ALL the similar weapons in CWC to get the big picture. You surely saw that the CV-212 was converted into a striaght pulse laser, but did you bother to look at the CV-213 on page 126? The new version of the Skelebot rifle lost its "Aim, Burst, Wild" ROF which was replaced by a "Equal to the number of hand to hand attacks", just like the C-12 was in that very book. In addition to that it also lost it's ability to fire a five-shot burst AND it's EC-Clip, limiting it's payload to 20 shots when not plugged into the droid. This degree of change and editing clearly show that the weapon was not overlook and at lest some thoght was put into the re-write. But what's this? The rifle has two damage settings; a 2D6 and a 4D6. It can't use it's old five shot burst but it can still do a 4D6 MD blast! I offer this to you as proof positive that the C-12's 4D6 setting was NEVER intended to reppresent the weapons's burst, but insted was meant to stack to produce a 4D6x2 MD burst.

I can see that interpretation of things, and maybe you're right.
On the other hand, I could also see the CV-213 stats, which are printed as part of the Skelebot stats, as being cut down a bit to save space or something.
The gun could have 2 settings; a 2d6 MD single shot or a 4d6 MD burst... just like the C-12 and the original CV-212.
The fact that the ROF is "equal to the number of hand to hand attacks" means that you get one squeeze of the trigger for each attack/action.
This squeeze could produce a single shot (2d6) or a burst of five (4d6) depending on the setting of the gun.
The fact that the gun no longer specifically states that it has a 5-shot burst setting is interesting but not conclusive of anything.

There's another thing you've overlooked, KC. The C-10 is listed as a "Light Assault Rifle" where as the C-12 is a "Heavy". Why make that distinction if they do the same base damage and the C-10 is actually capable of producing even MORE damage on larger burst? Other than the difference in the damage settings, the C-12 is also 2 pounds (0.9 kg) heavier, but if you discount the ability to do more damage in a single shot, the only thing that remains to explain this away is the addition of the EC-Clip in the butt. When you also factor in that the C-12 lacks the bigger and surely heftier scope of the C-10, that doesn't add up at all.

I didn't overlook that, but I may not have mentioned it in detail.
I agree that it is stupid to have a "light" laser rifle that does the same damage as a "heavy" laser rifle.
But that's the way it looks like they wrote things.
The fact that the C-12 is a "heavy" laser rifle seems to stem solely from the fact that it has a greater ammo capacity.

If the C-10 is suposed to be a ligher weapon than the C-12 in weight only, then they would have called it a Carbien and not a Rifle.

I agree that they should have called it a carbine, but Palladium hasn't shown a tremendous amount of insight into guns or military terminology.

But since it says that the later is just a beafed up version of the other, there's only one logical explanation. The C-12 is a "Heavy" rifle becuse it inflicts more damage. And to do that it has to have a more powerful laser that can be bursted.

Again, I agree that is the most logical conclusion.
Unfortunatly, that in no way means that is what Palladium intended.
All too often the reverse is true...

But if you're still wondering how the C-10 and C-12 fit in with each other, this is how I've come to see things. After reviewing the books, I noticed something quite significant. The older C-10, which has a base 2D6 MD attack (fully burstable by the way), only has one power source. Unlike the C-12 which has two (a conventional E-Clip and a reserve EC-Clip in the shoulder stock) the older of the two weapons has half the power reserve. Now what would be a good reason to double the available power of a next generation weapon like the C-12 is to the C-10? Maybe because the power demands went up by a factor of two and the designers didn't want to half the available number of shots available to the grunt at the improved base-damage setting.

That would make some sense, if the C-12's 4d6 setting IS a single shot setting and if each 4d6 shot counts as two shots as far as draining the clip.

Given how Cut & Paste happy Kev is, if he considered the CWC's revised CV-212 to be the the "fixed" version of what that laser rifle should have been all along, then he would have just slapped a copy of that on the C-12 in Book 11 as well and made a few quick edits to make it fit. But he didn't do that. He let the old C-12 remain as is with a slight re-titling of it's ROF.

Unfortunately, I can't agree.
KS is extremely inconsistant when it comes to fixing things.

And for those of you who bothered to read the Errata in the Cutting Room Floor section of this very website, written by Kev him self, you will cleearly see that "Aim, Burst, Wild" and "Equal to the number of hand to hand attacks" are actually one in the same!

Here's a Cut and Paste from it for those of you who don't believe me.
Rate of Fire equal to number of Hand-to-Hand attacks means that the character can fire an aimed shot or burst for each action that he would normally get. Thus, a character with 3 attacks per round may take 3 aimed shots or bursts (not 9).

I see why you interpret it that way, but I think you are wrong.
It's poor phrasing, but I believe that it actually means
"Rate of Fire equal to number of Hand-to-Hand attacks means that the character can fire an aimed shot or burst (if firing a burst or pulse weapon) for each action that he would normally get."

In essense, what that ROF means is "each pull of the trigger takes 1 attack".

This is different from "ROF: Standard" because Standard is semi-automatic fire; which means that you pull squeeze the trigger a number of times for each attack if you choose (meaning that you can fire bursts and sprays as per p.34 of the main rifts book).

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Mack wrote:Here we go again. Sigh.

For all the reasons KC listed (along with a few others) I've never bought the "4D6 is the burst setting" arguement. I use it as it's written: 3 damage settings, 2 volume settings.

Hey, I'm all ears if you have more info to convince me that the 4d6 setting isn't a burst setting...

*Looks at post's length in this thread.

Sorry, I lack the endurance to actually contribute to this debate. Plus I knew that Dead Boy would be along (although I don't agree with all of his reasoning either).

I might put some concise thoughts together, and cut/paste them here, but probably not.

Ok, KC, you're talking yourself in into circles trying to justify this change in heart. You agree with nearly everything I say, and yet its still not good enough for you. You want the percise text form books written a decade apart, (probably by different writers at that) to perfectly mesh, but you're reading into other things that may or may not be true and rewording canon rules to make them fit into your jumbled new theory. And even when something does work perfectly well for you, (like the Errata ROF clairification, which is canon), you're still unwilling to accept it for what it is.

Dude, this isn't you. The KC I've come to know isn't this... for the lack of a better word... flaky. I'm begining to get concerned over here. You OK? Seriously, are you?

Anyhoo, it's kind of late. If you don't change your mind by tomorrow I'll bang on this drum then. Nite nite.

Dead Boy wrote:Ok, KC, you're talking yourself in into circles trying to justify this change in heart. You agree with nearly everything I say, and yet its still not good enough for you. You want the percise text form books written a decade apart, (probably by different writers at that) to perfectly mesh, but you're reading into other things that may or may not be true and rewording canon rules to make them fit into your jumbled new theory. And even when something does work perfectly well for you, (like the Errata ROF clairification, which is canon), you're still unwilling to accept it for what it is.

Dude, this isn't you. The KC I've come to know isn't this... for the lack of a better word... flaky. I'm begining to get concerned over here. You OK? Seriously, are you?

Anyhoo, it's kind of late. If you don't change your mind by tomorrow I'll bang on this drum then. Nite nite.

I'm fine.
Here's the thing; Rifts is rife with typos and mistakes.
Also, Palladium has a penchant for changing rules and claiming that they have always been that way.
It's a tough job trying to figure out how the game is actually supposed to be played.

So when you post more, here are some things to get you started:

1. what canon rules did I rewrite?
2. The Errata doesn't change anything. Sure, it says you can fire 1 burst or pulse per attack, but that doesn't mean much. Like I said, my take on that is not the same as yours.
Look at it this way:
In the main book, which weapons have that ROF?
-The laser on the JA-11 (single shot only)
-The Boom Gun (Single shot only)
-The UAR-1's C-50R (Burst only)
-The UAR-1's CR-2T Laser Turrets *
-The Spider Skull Walker's C-100R (Burst only. The damage for a single shot IS listed, but it is mentioned in other places that the single shot damage for railguns is for informational purposes only)
-The Skull Walker's CR-4T laser turrets *
-The Mark V's C-40R (burst only)
-The Death's Head's C-200DH (Bursts only, though the damage for a single shot IS listed)
-The Death's Head's CR-6T laser turrets *
-The Sky Cycle's CR-4T laser turrets *

*No mention of burst capabilities. Under your interpretation, I guess they would be burst capable. Under my interpretation, they wouldn't.

Since the laser turrets go along with either interpretation of the rule, let's set them aside and look at what's left.

Hmm. Only thing left are weapons that fire only single shots or only bursts.
That seems to back my interpretation of the rule, not yours.
Anyway, as you say it's late.
See ya tomorrow...

Since KC asked, here are my C-12 thoughts.

Just to reiterate, I use 3 damage settings (1 SDC, 2 MDC) with 2 volume settings (single or 5-round burst that inflicts x2). BTW, I’m working from memory here, so don’t crucify me if I’m a little off on a reference.

1. I ignore comparisons to other books. My reason? Given other inconsistencies we see, trying to draw this kind of connection is too tenuous for consideration. The question is how the C-12 was intended to be used. Using info from years after its publication only clouds the issue; it does not clarify author’s original intent (for that matter, the author may have changed his mind). Furthermore, other weapons are just that, other weapons.

2. I do not speculate as to why CS weapon designers would incorporate “this” feature or “that” feature as time progressed based on some development philosophy. There are no CS weapon designers, just a writer who doesn’t proof-read well.

3. From a macro view of power level, CS technology is more advanced than anything else in the Rifts Main Book. Therefore the C-12 should be more advanced than the other standard rifles presented. For example, both the Wilk’s W-447 and the Northern Gun NG-L5 would out perform the C-12 if it had only the 2D6 MD setting which conflicts with the rest of the setting.

4. I don’t see a conflict between the “burst of five” sentence and the listed ROF. The sentence is simply providing more detail than the standard ROF wording. In my little world, the C-12 can not fire a long burst. It may fire a single shot or a burst of 5. Alternatively, one could say that the C-12 can fire a long burst, and the “burst of five” is just some fluff text. Either way, doesn’t matter.

5. The “burst of five” is not a pulse. If the author intended for it to be a pulse weapon, he would have said so (such as the L-20, which is explicit). Therefore the original burst rule applies, inflicting x2 damage (not that I’m crazy about the burst rules in Rifts).

6. If the 4D6 MD in the damage section actually referred to the burst, there would be a corresponding entry for the SDC burst, such as “Setting Four: 12D6 SDC.” There isn’t. Nor are there any implications the SDC setting is single shot only.

7. No other weapon description “slips in” a burst damage listing in this fashion. Burst damage is always specifically labeled, including the number of rounds fired.

Combined with the rather explicit sentence description, that’s why I use the C-12 as I stated.

EDIT: I forgot one item. Since there isn't any data to the contrary, and the payload text says "20 MD blasts," both the 4D6 and 2D6 options use the same amount of energy from the e-clip. The 2D6 is simply less efficient.

Zylo wrote:I see it a little differently. Since any pulse is just multiple shots with a single squeeze of the trigger, having a five shot setting sure implies that you sqeeze the trigger and get five shots...which is a pulse.

At least that is how I see it...IMHO.

That would mean any burst is a pulse? To include the C-10 and the JA-11's ion beam?

Killer Cyborg wrote: 1. what canon rules did I rewrite?

This one, right here.

Here's a Cut and Paste from it for those of you who don't believe me.
Rate of Fire equal to number of Hand-to-Hand attacks means that the character can fire an aimed shot or burst for each action that he would normally get. Thus, a character with 3 attacks per round may take 3 aimed shots or bursts (not 9).

I see why you interpret it that way, but I think you are wrong.
It's poor phrasing, but I believe that it actually means
"Rate of Fire equal to number of Hand-to-Hand attacks means that the character can fire an aimed shot or burst (if firing a burst or pulse weapon) for each action that he would normally get."

That little interjection of "if firing a burst or pulse weapon" add a new level of complication that wasn't there before. The very fact that weapon X has the Equal to hand to hand ROF makes it a bursting or pulse weapon by default. No additional text is needed in the rest of a weapon's descrption to make it a burst/pulse weapon. It's the same as if its ROF was listed as Aim, Burst, Wild or Standard for that matter.

As this applies to the C-12, it was originally listed as an Aim, Burst, Wild weapon and later changed to the more ambigious Equal to HtH. But its underlying mecahics remained unchanged. That means that it functions now as it functioned then doing a burstable 4D6 high-beam blast. If Kev honestly wanted to retool the thing to fire a standardized 2D6 laser, making the 4D6 the damage for the short burst, then he would have rewritten it that way in no uncertain terms. How do we know this for a fact? Because he went to great lengths rewriting the CV-212, turning it into an entirely different creature that isn't a true pulse weapon, but instead a times three damage, three shot burster. Lacking any direct evidence to his lazyness, we have to assume it was published exactly as intended.

2. The Errata doesn't change anything. Sure, it says you can fire 1 burst or pulse per attack, but that doesn't mean much. Like I said, my take on that is not the same as yours.
*snip snip*
*No mention of burst capabilities. Under your interpretation, I guess they would be burst capable. Under my interpretation, they wouldn't.

Since the laser turrets go along with either interpretation of the rule, let's set them aside and look at what's left.

Hmm. Only thing left are weapons that fire only single shots or only bursts.
That seems to back my interpretation of the rule, not yours.

You above most shoud know that the rules are not laid out in a linear patteren making it easy to see and interpret. But if you need a reminder, I'm more than happy enough to provide. Remember that never ending debate of exactly what "Standard" was? Most of the weapons in the books have just that ROF, but no one was realy sure exactly what that was. It was you who took the stand that it was a direct reference to the burst and spray rules elsewhere in the book, but few were willing to take your word for it. It wasn't till the release of the Revised Conversion Book that your interpretation was vindicated. That took, what, 7 or so years? The moral to the story is all the information and capabilities of what a weapon is capable of in terms of ROF is frequently warped up in a simple convoluded term. As it turned out, Standard ment burst capable for rifles, and single shot for everything else. Now we have this "Equal to number of hand to hand attacks" one, and the ONLY source that tells us what that is is the Errata. And according to the Errata it means single shots or bursts with no additional conditional terms. So those other weapon systems don't need any other indications of whether then can burst or not because the listed ROF says that they can. In fact, where it goes into greater details of what their specific thing is, that's a case specific clairification for that particular weapon, and that weapon alone. That's why rail guns can have the "Equal to..." ROF and listing of what they do in terms of damage on a burst, just as it's done for pulse weapons. Those addition notes are not there to help clairify the listed ROF. They're there to show that that partucular weapons uses a variation of the normal ROF as listed. They are the exceptions to the broad ROF, not the norm that all others with the same ROF are to be judged by.

Again, going back to the C-12, as it was written in the Main Book, CWC, and even the RGMG, it was made to produce a 4D6x2 MD burst of five shots. Both descriptions of it's Rates of Fire allow it to do the exact same thing. And if it were true that the 4D6 was the burst (retroactively or originally) then that opens up far more contradictions than it explains away. Not the least of which is the line in the RGMG that says that "it remains an favorite infantry workhorse". If this thing is still the favorite when compared to a weapon that uses half the ammo and does 50% more damage, then something is seriously wrong. If the C-12 worked as you now claim it dose, then why aren't the troops tossing them into a massive trash heap infavor of the new CP-40's? Trust me, when something better comes along soldiers in a fantasy setting and reality alike will take the new and improved over the old and busted every time, sentiment be damned. But that one little line alone says that this isn't happening, so the soldiers must not be all that impressed with the shinny new toy.

One more thing before I call it quits for today. I still think the Skelebot's CV-213 is the missing key to your delema. It has been reworked and updated for CWC, meaning it is exactly what it was ment to be. With its listed ROF of "Equal to..." it can fire any size of bursts out there. But if the listed damage was suposed to represen the single-shot blast and five-shot burst, then where's the listed damage for long burts or full bursts for that matter? If it's how you say it is, then where's the 6D6 long burst or 14D6 full burst? With no five-shot limiter there to stop it, then where are they? The answer has to be, because the 4D6 damage listing is not a burst at all, but instead a higher power level on a single shot.

Think that one over for a while and get back to me, same bat-time, same bat-channel.

Nagisawa Takumi wrote:Uh, I have a question.

If the 2d6 setting takes one clip shot/'bullet', and the 4d6 takes one clip shot/'bullet... What's the point of the 2d6? Especially with the toughness of the average armour, either natural or artificial.

It's always been assumed, and supported by the old FAQ that weapos like that (and there are others) use two shots worth of power on the higher setting. So in the Case of the C-12, while doing a full powered burst, not only is it buring though five shots, but each shot is also suing twice the power. That measn if you're using a standard e-clip, you can burn through that thing in two melee attacks. That's why the C-12 was given that secondary EC-Clip, so troops aren't blowing every thrid attack reloading their guns.

Also when ou have a rifle that does 2d6x10 on a 5 shot burst with is equal to a single light tank round, what's the point of buying the tank? After all E-clips are lighter on both mass and the budget, and armies work on a tight budget.

2D6x10 is an extreme that only one guy here came up with. KC originally suggested a 1D6x10 MD qin-pulse, which really is farily reasonable. Even so, there are many vehicles that can't even do that much, and you're right in thinking it's a problem. Unfortunately that one goes all the way to Kev's doorstep, and he ain't talking to us, (at least not here on the message boards).

Nagisawa Takumi wrote:Uh, I have a question.

If the 2d6 setting takes one clip shot/'bullet', and the 4d6 takes one clip shot/'bullet... What's the point of the 2d6? Especially with the toughness of the average armour, either natural or artificial.

Because the 4D6 is a short burst (damage times 2 and 5 shots) of the 2D6 shot.

Also when ou have a rifle that does 2d6x10 on a 5 shot burst with is equal to a single light tank round, what's the point of buying the tank? After all E-clips are lighter on both mass and the budget, and armies work on a tight budget.

No reason at all. There sure is no reason to replace the gun with something less effective.

Most original robot weapons didn't shoot further than an average rifle if I rememer correctly. They tried to correct that in later books, namely CWC, but it really hasn't worked.

hey Doom nice to still see you are kicking around.

Dead boy i see you made you Dead boy banner better, nothing else has changed.

As fot the topic at hand i always played the C-12 4d6 setting as being a heavy setting. Further I have always use the 2d6 as the base line for the Clip which ment when it was set on heavy [4d6] that it half many shots.

Deadboy, here's a more concise statment of my views on "ROF: Equal the the number of combined melee attacks"

What it means is "each time you pull the trigger counts as one attack".
Why didn't Palladium specify?
Because they're lousy at clarity; they probably thought that they did.

Pretend for a moment that I'm right in my take on the rule and that the writer was trying to decide how to put it into words.

If they said:
"the character can fire an aimed shot for each action that he would normally get."

then everybody would say:
"What? So all those railguns with that ROF can only fire aimed shots!?"

If they said:
"the character can fire a burst for each action that he would normally get."

then everybody would say:
"What? So all those laser turrets fire burst? Why doesn't it mention that?"

So they settled like they often do on a sentence that can be interpreted several different ways.

I doubt that your interpretation is accurate because it would mean that when they wrote the main Rifts book they had three Rates of Fire
-Standard
-Aimed, Burst, or Wild
-Equal to the number of combined melee attacks
and they ALL meant the exact same thing!

While this is not entirely out of the realm of possibility with Palladium, I doubt that is what happened.

If your interpretation is correct, why didn't the eratta just say
"...means the same thing as rate of fire: standard"?

Dead Boy wrote:Remember that never ending debate of exactly what "Standard" was? Most of the weapons in the books have just that ROF, but no one was realy sure exactly what that was. It was you who took the stand that it was a direct reference to the burst and spray rules elsewhere in the book, but few were willing to take your word for it. It wasn't till the release of the Revised Conversion Book that your interpretation was vindicated. That took, what, 7 or so years? The moral to the story is all the information and capabilities of what a weapon is capable of in terms of ROF is frequently warped up in a simple convoluded term. As it turned out, Standard ment burst capable for rifles, and single shot for everything else.

I remember that debate, but I always used the original Conversion Book 1 as a source... since KS spend several pages explaining what ROF: Standard meant and had a sample combat showing a CS grunt firing a burst from his C-18.
I never bought the revised version...
It says pistols can't fire bursts?
Bah.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I doubt that your interpretation is accurate because it would mean that when they wrote the main Rifts book they had three Rates of Fire
-Standard
-Aimed, Burst, or Wild
-Equal to the number of combined melee attacks
and they ALL meant the exact same thing!

While this is not entirely out of the realm of possibility with Palladium, I doubt that is what happened.

If your interpretation is correct, why didn't the eratta just say
"...means the same thing as rate of fire: standard"?

There are two other ROFs you omitted. "Aimed Shots Only" and "Each Shot Counts As One Melee Attack". So flip that coin on its other side and ask yourself this. If "Equal to..." means only one shot per melee action for every weapon that doesn't have some kind of burst or pulse effect deliberately mentioned in its description, then why bother to make a ROF the speciffically says "Each shot counts as 1 melee attack"?

Again, I think you're over analyzing this and reading too much into the Errata Rule. It was written not to be a massive catch-all that can mean eight different things. It was ment to be simple and clear,

"Rate of Fire equal to number of Hand-to-Hand attacks means that the character can fire an aimed shot or burst for each action that he would normally get. Thus, a character with 3 attacks per round may take 3 aimed shots or bursts (not 9)."

It's only when you get into the special cases when the Errata Rule requires further text to clairify exactly how that particular weapon works. Great example, the Q1-02 "Stopper Ion Pistol from the Free Quebec book. It's lsited as a "Equal to the hand to hand attacks". But that's not enough. Because the author specifficaly wanted it to be a true single-shot weapon the additional text of "Semi-Automatic" and "Each shot counts as one melee attack" were added. Why do this if "Equal to..." was suposed to cover this anyways? The answer is simple... because it wasn't. The added text is there to show that the normal rules applicable to "Equal to..." have been altered for this specific case. Otherwise, why have it in there at all?

This same line of though can be applied to any weapon with the "Equal to..." ROF. You mentioned Rail Guns as a prime example of why this doesn't work. Well, allow me to use the same as to why it does. Check out the C-40R as it originally appeared on pg. 194 in the Main Book. There its listed ROF is the all too familar "Equal to...". So where's the case specific text? Right there in the Damage listing. It is to be treated special because its burst rules ignore the norm. Instead of having it do a 1D4x2 for using 10% or less of its ammo in the shortest burst listed in the normal rules, it does a special 1D4x10. The ROF says that it can burst, the Damage says how this is different from the norm of "Equal to...". This exact phylosophy can be seen even in the latest rail guns of today in the more recent books like WB22 Free Quebec.

Now, some might say, "if the rail gun was ment to burst, then why not give it a ROF of either Standard or Aim, Burst, Wild?". Standard only allows normal sized rifles to fire burst, otherwise it would have to fire single shots. And "Aim Burst Wild" directly implies that it must use the nomral bursting rules, which don't fit in with what they were intended to do. The only option was to go with the "Equal to..." ROF and clairify how it's different from all the others with that ROF in the damage section. There is a consistent logic behind all this, even if it's hard to see at times.

Now, back the C-12 where this discussion began. As it stands today it is a rifle that has a listed ROF of "Equal to...". But being a noral sized rifle, if it were ment to burst then either a "Standard" or "Aim, Burst, Wild" ROF would do the job just fine. Either one would allow the thing to function as you interpret it; doing 4D6 for its 5-shot burst. No change in its ROF would be needed to keep it in line of thought and application. But they did change it so it would be more uniform with the rest of the Palladim-verse. By making it an "Equal to...", it makes the "can also be set to fire a single shot or a burst of five" line fall into place as a clairifyer and not a normal mechanic. As such it can fire a beam on one of three settings, a 6D6 SDC, a 2D6 MD and a 4D6 MD, all of which can be fired in a single shot or a burst of five. And besides which, if the 4D6 is ment to represent a burst of the lower MD setting, then where is the 12D6 for the burst on the SDC setting? What, the thing can fire a burst in the more energy taxing MD mode but not in the more economical SDC one? If true that's messed up and a contradiction of its own descriptive text. There is no addition to that line that says, "can also be set to fire a single shot or a burst of five, but only in the megadamage mode of fire." If the 4D6 it the MD burst, then where is the SDC's?

Beatleguise wrote:Single standard 2d6 , 5 round Burst 1d6 x 10
Single Max 4d6 , 5 round burst 2d6 x 10

Why is this a problem for anyone? It uses up Ammo fast, and it is hardly over powering. There are plenty of weapons that do this kind of damage, and plenty that do even more, typically while using a lot less energy.

Our group has used it as written since release, and it has never been an issue. In fact it is quite nice, as it typically is only used by the enemy.

Basically, it's no problem so long as you use only the RMB

If you try to base yourself on CWC or the GMG... it starts being fishy ... (which is of course normal as KS's rules rewrites have all been like sole 3 monthes out of water without a damn fridge)

Dead Boy wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I doubt that your interpretation is accurate because it would mean that when they wrote the main Rifts book they had three Rates of Fire
-Standard
-Aimed, Burst, or Wild
-Equal to the number of combined melee attacks
and they ALL meant the exact same thing!

While this is not entirely out of the realm of possibility with Palladium, I doubt that is what happened.

If your interpretation is correct, why didn't the eratta just say
"...means the same thing as rate of fire: standard"?

There are two other ROFs you omitted. "Aimed Shots Only" and "Each Shot Counts As One Melee Attack". So flip that coin on its other side and ask yourself this. If "Equal to..." means only one shot per melee action for every weapon that doesn't have some kind of burst or pulse effect deliberately mentioned in its description, then why bother to make a ROF the speciffically says "Each shot counts as 1 melee attack"?

I didn't find either of those anywhere in the main book.
Did I miss them somewhere...?

Again, I think you're over analyzing this and reading too much into the Errata Rule. It was written not to be a massive catch-all that can mean eight different things. It was ment to be simple and clear,

"Rate of Fire equal to number of Hand-to-Hand attacks means that the character can fire an aimed shot or burst for each action that he would normally get. Thus, a character with 3 attacks per round may take 3 aimed shots or bursts (not 9)."

Yes.
And I think that it simply and cleary means one thing; you think that it simply and clearly means another thing.
Which kind of makes it seem not so simple and not so clear.

It's only when you get into the special cases when the Errata Rule requires further text to clairify exactly how that particular weapon works. Great example, the Q1-02 "Stopper Ion Pistol from the Free Quebec book. It's lsited as a "Equal to the hand to hand attacks". But that's not enough. Because the author specifficaly wanted it to be a true single-shot weapon the additional text of "Semi-Automatic" and "Each shot counts as one melee attack" were added. Why do this if "Equal to..." was suposed to cover this anyways? The answer is simple... because it wasn't. The added text is there to show that the normal rules applicable to "Equal to..." have been altered for this specific case. Otherwise, why have it in there at all?

Short answer:
Because Palladium books are rife with inconsistancies and typos.

I don't have the Free Quebec book (who wrote that, btw?), so I had to look it up in my GM's guide and it has the same stats.

Any way you slice it, the ROF is nonsensical.
"Semi-automatic" means that the weapon can fire bursts/sprays.
"Equal to the hand to hand attacks of the shooter" is what we're debating.
"Each shot counts as 1 melee attack" means no bursts.
Also, under "mega-damage", it states "Can not fire bursts".

So what we have is a mixed message.
The way you see things, they are saying twice ("semi-automatic" and "Equal to HTH attacks") that the weapon is burst capable and saying twice ("each shot counts as 1 melee attack" and "can not fire bursts) that the weapon is single shot only.
What explanation is there for that?

The likely explanation is that they were trying to clarify things (which almost always works poorly for Palladium, bless their hearts) because some people get confused over the ROFs.

With my definition, things are a bit clearer because then they are saying 3 times that the weapon can only fire single shots. The only anomaly is the "semi-automatic" mention, but that is likely because the author was ignorant of how the original burst rules worked.

This same line of though can be applied to any weapon with the "Equal to..." ROF. You mentioned Rail Guns as a prime example of why this doesn't work. Well, allow me to use the same as to why it does. Check out the C-40R as it originally appeared on pg. 194 in the Main Book. There its listed ROF is the all too familar "Equal to...". So where's the case specific text? Right there in the Damage listing. It is to be treated special because its burst rules ignore the norm. Instead of having it do a 1D4x2 for using 10% or less of its ammo in the shortest burst listed in the normal rules, it does a special 1D4x10. The ROF says that it can burst, the Damage says how this is different from the norm of "Equal to...". This exact phylosophy can be seen even in the latest rail guns of today in the more recent books like WB22 Free Quebec.

Not buying it.

Now, some might say, "if the rail gun was ment to burst, then why not give it a ROF of either Standard or Aim, Burst, Wild?". Standard only allows normal sized rifles to fire burst, otherwise it would have to fire single shots.

This only complicates things further, but the C-40R SAMAS railgun DOES have an ROF of "Standard"... on p. 226 of the main book.
On p. 194 it has a ROF of "Equal to the combined number of hand to hand attacks).
Wacky, huh?

And "Aim Burst Wild" directly implies that it must use the nomral bursting rules, which don't fit in with what they were intended to do. The only option was to go with the "Equal to..." ROF and clairify how it's different from all the others with that ROF in the damage section. There is a consistent logic behind all this, even if it's hard to see at times.

In the main book, ROF "Standard" was applied to pulse rifles and non-vehicle railguns.
In those cases, it seems to have meant that each pull of the trigger counts as 1 attack.
Same thing as "equal to the combined number of hand to hand attacks"

Now, back the C-12 where this discussion began. As it stands today it is a rifle that has a listed ROF of "Equal to...". But being a noral sized rifle, if it were ment to burst then either a "Standard" or "Aim, Burst, Wild" ROF would do the job just fine. Either one would allow the thing to function as you interpret it; doing 4D6 for its 5-shot burst.

No.
Aimed, Burst, or Wild signifies that the weapon can use the rules on p. 34 of the main Rifts book.
Which doesn't include a specific setting for a burst of five.
What the five-shot burst setting does is make it impossible for the weapon to fire a full-clip burst or a long burst.
So "Aimed, burst, or Wild" is out.

"Standard" WOULD work, because it was used for pulse weapons and railguns. "Standard" for a pulse weapon or railgun is that you can pull the trigger once per attack.
This would work for the C-12.
Set it to "burst" and each burst takes 1 attack, or set it to "single shot" and each shot takes 1 attack.

But in CWC and later books, Palladium is getting away from using ROF: Standard for pulse weapons... probably because of all the confusion over it... and the new ROF for pulse weapons is "Equal to the number of combined hand to hand attacks".
Which backs my theory.
Check it out:
C-18: Not a pulse weapon, has ROF Standard.
C-20: Not a pulse weapon, has ROF Standard.
CP-30: Pulse weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-10: Not a pulse weapon, has ROF Standard.
CP-40: Pulse weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
CP-50: Pulse weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-27: Single Shot weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-29: Single Shot weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
CTT-P40: Single Shot weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-200: Burst weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-12: Has ROF: Equal to HTH

All the weapons that are free to use the Burst rules on p. 34 of the main book have ROF: Standard.
All the weapons with a preset number of shots (either bursts or single shots) have ROF: Equal to HTH.

As such it can fire a beam on one of three settings, a 6D6 SDC, a 2D6 MD and a 4D6 MD, all of which can be fired in a single shot or a burst of five. And besides which, if the 4D6 is ment to represent a burst of the lower MD setting, then where is the 12D6 for the burst on the SDC setting? What, the thing can fire a burst in the more energy taxing MD mode but not in the more economical SDC one? If true that's messed up and a contradiction of its own descriptive text. There is no addition to that line that says, "can also be set to fire a single shot or a burst of five, but only in the megadamage mode of fire." If the 4D6 it the MD burst, then where is the SDC's?

I agree that it is messed up.
Good question, but I'd chalk it up to the fact that the entire weapon is poorly written and poorly described.

Here's my 2 cents worth. The mind melter's psi sword can be controlled to do less damage, why? Why wouldn't you always do maximum MD? Doesn't make sense but there it is. KS did the same thing here. I can see the SDC setting, but why two MD settings? Like the psi sword, it doesn't make sense but that is what he did. Why anyone would use the less powerful setting is beyond me, but it clearly states there are 3 settings, SDC, 2d6 and 4d6 MD. So, I would have to say that you could fire a burst of shots, each of which would individually do 4d6 MD.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I doubt that your interpretation is accurate because it would mean that when they wrote the main Rifts book they had three Rates of Fire
-Standard
-Aimed, Burst, or Wild
-Equal to the number of combined melee attacks
and they ALL meant the exact same thing!

While this is not entirely out of the realm of possibility with Palladium, I doubt that is what happened.

If your interpretation is correct, why didn't the eratta just say
"...means the same thing as rate of fire: standard"?

There are two other ROFs you omitted. "Aimed Shots Only" and "Each Shot Counts As One Melee Attack". So flip that coin on its other side and ask yourself this. If "Equal to..." means only one shot per melee action for every weapon that doesn't have some kind of burst or pulse effect deliberately mentioned in its description, then why bother to make a ROF the speciffically says "Each shot counts as 1 melee attack"?

I didn't find either of those anywhere in the main book.
Did I miss them somewhere...?

Hey, you're the one who opened things up to the rest of the books when you made your case from the get-go. If you want the ROFs form the Main Book to and through CWC to jibe, ya got to look at the big picture

I bet you're wondering why I included the other quotes as well here. As I was reading though your reply I noticed something. You previously contended that the three ROF's in question weren't the same thing, but in a way, you kind of proved yourself wrong. Follow along and lets see if I can put something together, (or if it's just too late at night and my brain is playing tricks on me )

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:It's only when you get into the special cases when the Errata Rule requires further text to clairify exactly how that particular weapon works. Great example, the Q1-02 "Stopper Ion Pistol from the Free Quebec book. It's lsited as a "Equal to the hand to hand attacks". But that's not enough. Because the author specifficaly wanted it to be a true single-shot weapon the additional text of "Semi-Automatic" and "Each shot counts as one melee attack" were added. Why do this if "Equal to..." was suposed to cover this anyways? The answer is simple... because it wasn't. The added text is there to show that the normal rules applicable to "Equal to..." have been altered for this specific case. Otherwise, why have it in there at all?

Short answer:
Because Palladium books are rife with inconsistancies and typos.

Note: And yet you're still trying to make them into one cohesive rule like the ever elusive Unified Field Theory. I admire you for that. [/Note]

I don't have the Free Quebec book (who wrote that, btw?), so I had to look it up in my GM's guide and it has the same stats.

Any way you slice it, the ROF is nonsensical.
"Semi-automatic" means that the weapon can fire bursts/sprays.
"Equal to the hand to hand attacks of the shooter" is what we're debating.
"Each shot counts as 1 melee attack" means no bursts.
Also, under "mega-damage", it states "Can not fire bursts".

So what we have is a mixed message.
The way you see things, they are saying twice ("semi-automatic" and "Equal to HTH attacks") that the weapon is burst capable and saying twice ("each shot counts as 1 melee attack" and "can not fire bursts) that the weapon is single shot only.
What explanation is there for that?

Firstly, Free Quebec was written by Francois DesRochers... by no coincidence a Quebecios himself. What are the odds...

Sedondly, that definition of Seim-Automatic of yours is just that, Yours. As best as I can tell, though I know of at least one other weapon in Book 7 where that ROF was listed, as far as the official rules are concerned, no such puppy exists. I can't find it anywhere. So call it what you like, but you can't say exactly what it does as far as the game mechanics are concerned. If you know where to find it in the books, Please, I'd love to see a page number on that for future reference.

With that said, the Stopper once again becomes a prime example of what I'm talking about. Since it was listed with the "Equal to..." ROF, and the author wanted it to be a single shot weapon, additional text was required to over-rule the "Equal to..." ROF and restrict it to one shot per attack. Why they didn't just cut to the chase and call it a "Single Shots Only" or even the usual "Standard", I'll never know since those two do that with less fuss. But fortunatrely for us they didn't, otherwise we wouldn't have this prime example to draw upon.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:Now, some might say, "if the rail gun was ment to burst, then why not give it a ROF of either Standard or Aim, Burst, Wild?". Standard only allows normal sized rifles to fire burst, otherwise it would have to fire single shots.

This only complicates things further, but the C-40R SAMAS railgun DOES have an ROF of "Standard"... on p. 226 of the main book.
On p. 194 it has a ROF of "Equal to the combined number of hand to hand attacks).
Wacky, huh?

Wacky? Absolutely not! You, sir, stumbled upon one of the BEST arguments for the Unified ROF Theory!!! What we have here is a weapon where everyone knows what it does. In this case it fires specialized bursts. That should earn it a ROF of "Aim, Burst, Wild", and yet it is listed as Standard on pg. 226. That right there says that the weapon is a burster AND it has a ROF of Standard. Ergo Standard must be synomanous with "Burst capable" at the very least. But what's this. The same weapon is listed with a ROF of "Equal to the number of hand to hand attacks" on pg. 194. So if the "Equal to..." has the same function as Standard for this particular weapon, and Standar refers to a weapon that procuces Bursts, then the loop of rates of fire is finally closed. And the sole reason why it doesn't use the damage multiples of the Aim, Burst, Wild ROF is because of the special damage in that particular listing, (e.g. the textual noted exception to the "Equal to..." ROF I was talking about earlier).

So what you said in jest, I say with all sincerity
Standard... Aimed, Burst, or Wild... Equal to the number of melee attacks... they ALL meant the exact same thing!

And then again there are some differences. like how Standard only allows bursts for assault rifles. Nothing's perfect.

In the main book, ROF "Standard" was applied to pulse rifles and non-vehicle railguns.
In those cases, it seems to have meant that each pull of the trigger counts as 1 attack.
Same thing as "equal to the combined number of hand to hand attacks"

Frankly that can be explained away by the Unified ROF Theory. Pulses were considered to be a form of specialized burst, which is why they got the same +1 bonus to hit as an Uzi would get. Rail guns also use a specialized burst and are pretty much treated the same. As such, the ROF of Standard would allow them to fire a burst, which is exactly what they do in their own special ways. However, as you have pointed out, this was back in the day when Kev was allowing ANY weapon with a Standard ROF to fire bursts, like the C-18 pistol in his example. If it was a Standard weapon, it was producing a burst of some kind. If it didn't use the normal Aim, Burst, Wild rules, then it had a specialized damage in its listing that defies that normal catch-all rule.

Now here's where this applies to the C-12. If the 4D6 blast is the five shot burst, then it doesn't belong there. In fact it should have never been written! Why? Because it's not a specialized burst at all. Using a standard 20-shot e-clip, five shots is exactly equal to 25% of its payload, and thus a five shot burtst of its 2D6 laser would do 4D6, (technically it's be 2D6x2, but let's overlook that for now). They only list special damage levels that violate the normal bursting rules on page 34 of the Main Book. But this isn't a violation at all. It's exactly what it would be if the lower MD setting were given a short burst. So if it's not a special damage that goes against the normal rules, then it has to be something else. And the only other thing that can be is a higher single-shot damage setting. It can't be anything else.

But in CWC and later books, Palladium is getting away from using ROF: Standard for pulse weapons... probably because of all the confusion over it... and the new ROF for pulse weapons is "Equal to the number of combined hand to hand attacks".
Which backs my theory.
Check it out:
C-18: Not a pulse weapon, has ROF Standard.
C-20: Not a pulse weapon, has ROF Standard.
CP-30: Pulse weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-10: Not a pulse weapon, has ROF Standard.
CP-40: Pulse weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
CP-50: Pulse weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-27: Single Shot weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-29: Single Shot weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
CTT-P40: Single Shot weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-200: Burst weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-12: Has ROF: Equal to HTH

All the weapons that are free to use the Burst rules on p. 34 of the main book have ROF: Standard.
All the weapons with a preset number of shots (either bursts or single shots) have ROF: Equal to HTH.

Three problems with this;
Firstly: The Conversion Book (Revised Edition) clearly says that the only weapons with the Standard ROF that can produce a Burst are assault rifles. That's why the C-10 was changed from it's previous "Aim, Burst, Wild" to its present "Standard".

Secondly: In the cases of the C-27 and the C-29 you down-played a key element that supports my argument and interpretation of the Errata Rule on the "Equal to..." ROF. In both cases it also incudes the line "each blast counts as one melee action/attack". This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. The "Equal to..." ROF allows a weapon to fire aimed shots or bursts as normal unless there is an additional limitation thrown in there that says otherwise. In the case of the rail guns and pulse weapons, that's typically a specialized damage. In this case it's a limit prohibiting the use of bursts and a viloation of the normal percentage based ammo consumption rules.

Thirdly: I couldn't help but to notice that the C-14 wasn't on that list. Now unfortunately I don't have my CWC on hand, (lent it to a friend for a few days), but I do have my Lone Star book handy which should have the same stats in it, if not the same text. Now before in the Main Book it was listed with a ROF of Standard. That would allow it to fire unrestricted bursts as per the normal rules, (now and then). But in Lone Star (and I presume CWC as well) it has been given the ROF of "Equal to...". And unlike the C-27 and C-29 it has no single shot limitation on it spelled out in black & white. Ergo we have a bursting capable weapon that also has the "Equal to..." ROF, not too unlike the C-12. The only substantial difference between the two is that the C-12 has that five shot limiter on it. And all that really does is it allows a person to get an additional two five-shot short-bursts out of a long e-clip and its EC-clip drum, making it less wastefull in comparison to the rest of the bursting guns.

danboals wrote:Here's my 2 cents worth. The mind melter's psi sword can be controlled to do less damage, why? Why wouldn't you always do maximum MD? Doesn't make sense but there it is. KS did the same thing here. I can see the SDC setting, but why two MD settings? Like the psi sword, it doesn't make sense but that is what he did. Why anyone would use the less powerful setting is beyond me, but it clearly states there are 3 settings, SDC, 2d6 and 4d6 MD. So, I would have to say that you could fire a burst of shots, each of which would individually do 4d6 MD.

Thaks for the vote of support, Dan. Maybe you're the one with the fresh, clear perspective and we've all been debating this too long. Maybe it was Kev's way to allow the GM's to tone the damage down for the PC's when they're on the receiving end of things and the higher 4D6 MD setting is for the players to enjoy and give their characters the upper hand in the game. I admit, it's possible.

Mack wrote:Since KC asked, here are my C-12 thoughts.

Just to reiterate, I use 3 damage settings (1 SDC, 2 MDC) with 2 volume settings (single or 5-round burst that inflicts x2). BTW, I’m working from memory here, so don’t crucify me if I’m a little off on a reference.

4. I don’t see a conflict between the “burst of five” sentence and the listed ROF. The sentence is simply providing more detail than the standard ROF wording. In my little world, the C-12 can not fire a long burst. It may fire a single shot or a burst of 5. Alternatively, one could say that the C-12 can fire a long burst, and the “burst of five” is just some fluff text. Either way, doesn’t matter.

5. The “burst of five” is not a pulse. If the author intended for it to be a pulse weapon, he would have said so (such as the L-20, which is explicit). Therefore the original burst rule applies, inflicting x2 damage (not that I’m crazy about the burst rules in Rifts).

6. If the 4D6 MD in the damage section actually referred to the burst, there would be a corresponding entry for the SDC burst, such as “Setting Four: 12D6 SDC.” There isn’t. Nor are there any implications the SDC setting is single shot only.

7. No other weapon description “slips in” a burst damage listing in this fashion. Burst damage is always specifically labeled, including the number of rounds fired.

Combined with the rather explicit sentence description, that’s why I use the C-12 as I stated.

EDIT: I forgot one item. Since there isn't any data to the contrary, and the payload text says "20 MD blasts," both the 4D6 and 2D6 options use the same amount of energy from the e-clip. The 2D6 is simply less efficient.

I have always used the C-12 as Mack has here.

Dead Boy wrote: that definition of Seim-Automatic of yours is just that, Yours. As best as I can tell, though I know of at least one other weapon in Book 7 where that ROF was listed, as far as the official rules are concerned, no such puppy exists. I can't find it anywhere. So call it what you like, but you can't say exactly what it does as far as the game mechanics are concerned. If you know where to find it in the books, Please, I'd love to see a page number on that for future reference.

Conversion Book 1 (unrevised), p.8, during KS's explanations of the modern weapon combat system:

A semi-automatic weapon will fire a bullet or an energy blast every time the trigger is depressed/squeezed and released and depressed again. Thus, it can fire as quickly as the person can pull the trigger. Not quite as fast as an automatic weapon, but the shooter can usually squeeze off an entire 20 round clip in six to eight seconds.

Also on p.8

Firing Bursts
A burst is fired whenever somebody fires a pulse weapon, rail gun, or a rapid succession of blasts from a semiautomatic or automatic weapon (bullets or energy).

p. 9

Automatic and Semiautomatic Weapons (energy and conventional projectiles types): Generally, every burst of two to ten rounds/energy blasts counts as one melee attack.

next paragraph down:

See the data and explanations under Bursts or Sprays from automatic weapons and sub-machineguns in Rifts, p. 34. These rules apply to automatic energy weapons, as well as conventional, bullet shooting, automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

Good enough?'
I didn't list the page numbers because I assumed that everybody already knew that.

Dead Boy wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:Now, some might say, "if the rail gun was ment to burst, then why not give it a ROF of either Standard or Aim, Burst, Wild?". Standard only allows normal sized rifles to fire burst, otherwise it would have to fire single shots.

This only complicates things further, but the C-40R SAMAS railgun DOES have an ROF of "Standard"... on p. 226 of the main book.
On p. 194 it has a ROF of "Equal to the combined number of hand to hand attacks).
Wacky, huh?

Wacky? Absolutely not! You, sir, stumbled upon one of the BEST arguments for the Unified ROF Theory!!! What we have here is a weapon where everyone knows what it does. In this case it fires specialized bursts. That should earn it a ROF of "Aim, Burst, Wild", and yet it is listed as Standard on pg. 226.

Wrong.
SAMAS railguns cannot fire aimed shots, only bursts.
You'll notice if you look through the main book that pule rifles and burst only railguns have a ROF of Standard a lot of the time.
This is because Standard means "Each time you pull the trigger, the gun fires".
If the weapon is a burst weapon, then each time you pull the trigger you fire off a burst.
If the weapon is a single shot weapon, then each time you pull the trigger the weapon fires off a single shot.

So how do Standard weapons fire bursts and sprays as per p. 34 of the main book?
Because you can pull the trigger multiple times per attack with ROF: Standard.
UNLESS the weapon is already a burst/pulse weapon.

Confused?
This is why they phased out ROF Standard for burst/pulse weapons in CWC and replaced it with "equal to HTH attacks".

Dead Boy wrote:Now here's where this applies to the C-12. If the 4D6 blast is the five shot burst, then it doesn't belong there. In fact it should have never been written! Why? Because it's not a specialized burst at all. Using a standard 20-shot e-clip, five shots is exactly equal to 25% of its payload, and thus a five shot burtst of its 2D6 laser would do 4D6, (technically it's be 2D6x2, but let's overlook that for now). They only list special damage levels that violate the normal bursting rules on page 34 of the Main Book. But this isn't a violation at all. It's exactly what it would be if the lower MD setting were given a short burst. So if it's not a special damage that goes against the normal rules, then it has to be something else. And the only other thing that can be is a higher single-shot damage setting. It can't be anything else.

While I agree that the gun should never have been written that way, that it is an infinitely superior weapon the way you interpret things and the way I played for years, it was written that way.

It IS a special case, here's why:
It cannot fire full auto.. only single shots (2d6) and bursts specifically of 5 shots (4d6).
Without that 5-shot burst setting, then the gun could have ROF: Standard and be able to fire a full-clip burst or spray.
With that 5-shot burst setting, if the weapon has ROF: Standard than it can only fire single shots (2d6) or a burst of 5 (4d6).
The weapon was listed as ROF "aimed, burst, wild"... which was technically true:
-You could fire aimed shots.
-You could fire bursts (of 5 shots)
-You could fire wild (really, all weapons can be fired Wild...)

But that wasn't the appropriate ROF listing for the weapon because it implied the weapon could fire a long burst or a full clip burst when it was never supposed to be able to do such things.
This is why they fixed that ROF in CWC and changed it to the same ROF that all the other burst/pulse weapons incapable of using the rules on p. 34 of the main book.

Dead Boy wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:But in CWC and later books, Palladium is getting away from using ROF: Standard for pulse weapons... probably because of all the confusion over it... and the new ROF for pulse weapons is "Equal to the number of combined hand to hand attacks".
Which backs my theory.
Check it out:
C-18: Not a pulse weapon, has ROF Standard.
C-20: Not a pulse weapon, has ROF Standard.
CP-30: Pulse weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-10: Not a pulse weapon, has ROF Standard.
CP-40: Pulse weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
CP-50: Pulse weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-27: Single Shot weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-29: Single Shot weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
CTT-P40: Single Shot weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-200: Burst weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-12: Has ROF: Equal to HTH

All the weapons that are free to use the Burst rules on p. 34 of the main book have ROF: Standard.
All the weapons with a preset number of shots (either bursts or single shots) have ROF: Equal to HTH.

Three problems with this;
Firstly: The Conversion Book (Revised Edition) clearly says that the only weapons with the Standard ROF that can produce a Burst are assault rifles. That's why the C-10 was changed from it's previous "Aim, Burst, Wild" to its present "Standard".

The rules in the Revised Conversion book were not there when CWC was written, so they do not apply.

Secondly: In the cases of the C-27 and the C-29 you down-played a key element that supports my argument and interpretation of the Errata Rule on the "Equal to..." ROF. In both cases it also incudes the line "each blast counts as one melee action/attack". This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. The "Equal to..." ROF allows a weapon to fire aimed shots or bursts as normal unless there is an additional limitation thrown in there that says otherwise. In the case of the rail guns and pulse weapons, that's typically a specialized damage. In this case it's a limit prohibiting the use of bursts and a viloation of the normal percentage based ammo consumption rules.

The reason why it specifies the number of shots with those two weapons is this:
The C-27 was listed in the main book with ROF: Standard.
Which led many to believe that it was capable of following the rules on p.34 of the main book and could fire bursts and sprays.
How do we know?
Because it is not an energy pistol or energy rifle, it is a Heavy Energy weapon. Only pistols and rifles can fire bursts/sprays.
But people were confused, so they put extra emphasis on the fact that the weapon can only fire single shots as well as updating the ROF.

"ROF: Equal to the combined number of hand to hand attacks" and "Each blast counts as one melee attack/action" mean the exact same thing.

Thirdly: I couldn't help but to notice that the C-14 wasn't on that list. ..

See new Topic...

Killer Cyborg wrote:You'll notice if you look through the main book that pule rifles and burst only railguns have a ROF of Standard a lot of the time.
This is because Standard means "Each time you pull the trigger, the gun fires".
If the weapon is a burst weapon, then each time you pull the trigger you fire off a burst.
If the weapon is a single shot weapon, then each time you pull the trigger the weapon fires off a single shot.

You know, this is exactly how you described the ROF of "Equal to...". Seems to me that somewhere in that confused head of yours you are finally getting it, that "Standard" and "Equal to..." are the same thing with only slight differences. Standard allows rifles to fire bursts. Equal To also allows for bursts as well but is used when ther is an element that goes contrary to the usual bursting rules. As a result the vast majority of the ROFs for rail guns and pulse wapons use the "Equal to..." rate because their damage goes against the normal bursting damage. The big plasma guns like the C-27 and C-29 can not burst at all, and as you pointed out, since people were tinking its Standard ROF allowed it to do that they changed it to "Equal to.." WITH the limiting line of "each shot counts as one melee attack", thus negating the new ROF's usual ability to burst.

So how do Standard weapons fire bursts and sprays as per p. 34 of the main book?
Because you can pull the trigger multiple times per attack with ROF: Standard.
UNLESS the weapon is already a burst/pulse weapon.

Confused?
This is why they phased out ROF Standard for burst/pulse weapons in CWC and replaced it with "equal to HTH attacks".

No they didn't. As you yourself posted, a good number of the small arms still have the Standard ROF. Mainly those that were intended to be Single shot guns like the pistols. However, weapons like the C-12 and C-14 were elevated to a different ROF, "Equal to...". Historically these have always been bursting weapons and the changed ROF helps seperate them from the Standard single shot guns that can not fire bursts.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:Now here's where this applies to the C-12. If the 4D6 blast is the five shot burst, then it doesn't belong there. In fact it should have never been written! Why? Because it's not a specialized burst at all. Using a standard 20-shot e-clip, five shots is exactly equal to 25% of its payload, and thus a five shot burtst of its 2D6 laser would do 4D6, (technically it's be 2D6x2, but let's overlook that for now). They only list special damage levels that violate the normal bursting rules on page 34 of the Main Book. But this isn't a violation at all. It's exactly what it would be if the lower MD setting were given a short burst. So if it's not a special damage that goes against the normal rules, then it has to be something else. And the only other thing that can be is a higher single-shot damage setting. It can't be anything else.

While I agree that the gun should never have been written that way, that it is an infinitely superior weapon the way you interpret things and the way I played for years, it was written that way.

It IS a special case, here's why:
It cannot fire full auto.. only single shots (2d6) and bursts specifically of 5 shots (4d6).
Without that 5-shot burst setting, then the gun could have ROF: Standard and be able to fire a full-clip burst or spray.
With that 5-shot burst setting, if the weapon has ROF: Standard than it can only fire single shots (2d6) or a burst of 5 (4d6).
The weapon was listed as ROF "aimed, burst, wild"... which was technically true:
-You could fire aimed shots.
-You could fire bursts (of 5 shots)
-You could fire wild (really, all weapons can be fired Wild...)

But that wasn't the appropriate ROF listing for the weapon because it implied the weapon could fire a long burst or a full clip burst when it was never supposed to be able to do such things.
This is why they fixed that ROF in CWC and changed it to the same ROF that all the other burst/pulse weapons incapable of using the rules on p. 34 of the main book.

Oh, I see it now. It is a special case because it fires a special short burst that does 4D6, instead of a firing a short burst that would do 4D6.... What the....? Dude, put the crack pipe down and seek help, (j/k).

What you said there makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. IF the 2D6 setting is its only true single shot MD setting, then there would be no need to change it from its previous Aim, Burst, Wild to get the thing to produce a 4D6 short burst. And with the five-shot limiter on it, there is no confusing it for a weapon that could do a long of full burst. It just doesn't make any sense your way. No other weapon in all of the books list the damage multiples of what the damage would be using the noral short, long, and/or full burst unless they deviate from the norm. What they have there is no deviation from the norm, so it must be something else like a higher damageing single-shot setting.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:But in CWC and later books, Palladium is getting away from using ROF: Standard for pulse weapons... probably because of all the confusion over it... and the new ROF for pulse weapons is "Equal to the number of combined hand to hand attacks".
Which backs my theory.
Check it out:
C-18: Not a pulse weapon, has ROF Standard.
C-20: Not a pulse weapon, has ROF Standard.
CP-30: Pulse weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-10: Not a pulse weapon, has ROF Standard.
CP-40: Pulse weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
CP-50: Pulse weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-27: Single Shot weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-29: Single Shot weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
CTT-P40: Single Shot weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-200: Burst weapon, has ROF Equal to HTH
C-12: Has ROF: Equal to HTH

All the weapons that are free to use the Burst rules on p. 34 of the main book have ROF: Standard.
All the weapons with a preset number of shots (either bursts or single shots) have ROF: Equal to HTH.

Three problems with this;
Firstly: The Conversion Book (Revised Edition) clearly says that the only weapons with the Standard ROF that can produce a Burst are assault rifles. That's why the C-10 was changed from it's previous "Aim, Burst, Wild" to its present "Standard".

The rules in the Revised Conversion book were not there when CWC was written, so they do not apply.

Maybe not, but they do back-up the fist part of the Errata Rule which says this;

"Rate of Fire for modern weapons, "Aimed, burst, wild" means that the weapon may be fired in single shots OR in varying bursts; "Standard" weapons may only be fired in single shots (unless noted otherwise). See Rifts RPG, pg. 33-34 for full details but, generally, figure that energy rifles can fire bursts unless it specifically says that particular weapon cannot. Pulse rifles (like the Wilks 457) can NOT fire bursts on the single shot setting, but must be set for a burst. Plasma ejectors (like the NG-12) are not usually burst weapons."

This can easliy be extended to the other part of the Errata Rule as it applies to the "Equal to..." ROF's ability to burst. Generally figure that weapon with that ROF can fire bursts unless it specifically says that particular weapon cannot. When it comes to rates of fire, what isn't said is equal important was what is said.

Dead Boy wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:So how do Standard weapons fire bursts and sprays as per p. 34 of the main book?
Because you can pull the trigger multiple times per attack with ROF: Standard.
UNLESS the weapon is already a burst/pulse weapon.

Confused?
This is why they phased out ROF Standard for burst/pulse weapons in CWC and replaced it with "equal to HTH attacks".

No they didn't. As you yourself posted, a good number of the small arms still have the Standard ROF. Mainly those that were intended to be Single shot guns like the pistols. However, weapons like the C-12 and C-14 were elevated to a different ROF, "Equal to...". Historically these have always been bursting weapons and the changed ROF helps seperate them from the Standard single shot guns that can not fire bursts.

This seems to be one of the sources of your confusion, so I'll try to clear it up.
The fact that those weapons still have ROF: Standard was a big part of my point. If you didn't get that, then it's no wonder you didn't get the rest.

In the main book, any weapon with ROF: Standard that was not a Heavy Energy weapon, a Pulse Weapon, or a railgun, could fire bursts and sprays as per p. 34.
This includes pistols.
The C-18 is burst capable.
The new C-20 in CWC is burst capable.
All the weapons I listed in CWC with ROF: Standard were burst capable.

Any weapon that can use the rules on p.34 of the main book was listed in CWC as ROF: Standard (or Aimed, Burst, Wild in the case of the C-10).
Any weapon that was not capable of using the burst rule on p.34 of the main book, whether it shot single shots, pulses, or other preset bursts, was changed to "Equal to the combined number of HTH attacks".

That's the pattern. Check it out for yourself.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:So how do Standard weapons fire bursts and sprays as per p. 34 of the main book?
Because you can pull the trigger multiple times per attack with ROF: Standard.
UNLESS the weapon is already a burst/pulse weapon.

Confused?
This is why they phased out ROF Standard for burst/pulse weapons in CWC and replaced it with "equal to HTH attacks".

No they didn't. As you yourself posted, a good number of the small arms still have the Standard ROF. Mainly those that were intended to be Single shot guns like the pistols. However, weapons like the C-12 and C-14 were elevated to a different ROF, "Equal to...". Historically these have always been bursting weapons and the changed ROF helps seperate them from the Standard single shot guns that can not fire bursts.

This seems to be one of the sources of your confusion, so I'll try to clear it up.
The fact that those weapons still have ROF: Standard was a big part of my point. If you didn't get that, then it's no wonder you didn't get the rest.

In the main book, any weapon with ROF: Standard that was not a Heavy Energy weapon, a Pulse Weapon, or a railgun, could fire bursts and sprays as per p. 34.
This includes pistols.
The C-18 is burst capable.
The new C-20 in CWC is burst capable.
All the weapons I listed in CWC with ROF: Standard were burst capable.

Any weapon that can use the rules on p.34 of the main book was listed in CWC as ROF: Standard (or Aimed, Burst, Wild in the case of the C-10).
Any weapon that was not capable of using the burst rule on p.34 of the main book, whether it shot single shots, pulses, or other preset bursts, was changed to "Equal to the combined number of HTH attacks".

That's the pattern. Check it out for yourself.

But even you yourself pointed out that this has not been the case for over a decade now over on the "What is Standard ROF" thread. Yes, Kev originally allowed the C-18 and like weapons to fire bursts as will, but shortly there after recinded that. So all the weapons in CWC (which is still out on loan, so forgive me if I make the occasional boo boo here) that have the Standard ROF can not use bursts at all. They can only fire a single shot per melee attack. That's why the C-12 and C-14 were given updated ROF's, so they can maintain their previous bursting capabilities.

And another point, IF it's true that all the Standard ROF weapons are still burst capable, and they are still true to the original rules, then why change the C-14 to something that is less capable than before? Why make it so a C-20 could do 2d6x2 on a short burst, but make a main battle rifle like the C-14 a quarter less powerful? Under that line of thought, in a five-melee attack sequence a guy with a C-20 laser pistol could get off the equiv. of 16D6 in damage and reload, where as the guy with the rifle that's four times the size of the pistol can only get off 15D6, almost catching up on that melee action where the other guy is reloading, but not quite. That makes no sense whatsoever! No, dude. For this and the other stated reasons, I have to say that you are dead wrong. If it works the way you claim then the C-14 and C-12 just became the two most useless guns in the game, and I refuse to believe that incapabel of being able to out-gun even a basic sidearm.

Personally, I'm sticking with my Unified FOR Theory where "Standard", "Aim, burst, wild", and "Equal to the numbmber of hand to hand attacks" are essentially the same thing with only a few minor differences. It's the only one that makes sesnse when taking into account the big picture.

Oh, BTW. While flipping through New West just now, (following up on a stray thought), I noticed something that might help your Standard ROF argument. As of Book 14, it appears that Standard still allowed energy Pistols to fire bursts. Check out the Wilk's 320 on pg. 204.

Dead Boy wrote:
But even you yourself pointed out that this has not been the case for over a decade now over on the "What is Standard ROF" thread. Yes, Kev originally allowed the C-18 and like weapons to fire bursts as will, but shortly there after recinded that. So all the weapons in CWC (which is still out on loan, so forgive me if I make the occasional boo boo here) that have the Standard ROF can not use bursts at all. They can only fire a single shot per melee attack. That's why the C-12 and C-14 were given updated ROF's, so they can maintain their previous bursting capabilities.

I don't remember saying that.
As far as I'm concerned, Standard is still the same as it always was. Even in Kev's Quick & Dirty optional rules, ROF: Standard means you can double-tap, just like A,B,W.
If it was changed, then where?
The GM's Guide?
Revised CB1?
Both of those came out WAY after CWC.
As of CWC, Standard Still meant you could use the rules on p.34 of the main book.

And another point, IF it's true that all the Standard ROF weapons are still burst capable, and they are still true to the original rules, then why change the C-14 to something that is less capable than before?

That is a very good question.
I believe that the answer is this:
Palladium doesn't know what they're doing.
Either the original ROF of the C-14 was a typo or the revision was, or they decided to change the ROF for bizarre reasons of their own.

Why make it so a C-20 could do 2d6x2 on a short burst, but make a main battle rifle like the C-14 a quarter less powerful? Under that line of thought, in a five-melee attack sequence a guy with a C-20 laser pistol could get off the equiv. of 16D6 in damage and reload, where as the guy with the rifle that's four times the size of the pistol can only get off 15D6, almost catching up on that melee action where the other guy is reloading, but not quite. That makes no sense whatsoever! No, dude. For this and the other stated reasons, I have to say that you are dead wrong.

Well, that has always been one of the flaws with the Burst/Spray rules; they never took clip size into account.
Technically, a single shot clip in a weapon with Burst capabilities could do a full-clip burst for x7 damage.
The C-18 only has 10 shots, so it should logically do a lot less damage than a large rifle with a lot more ammo.
But the burst rules are flawed.

If it works the way you claim then the C-14 and C-12 just became the two most useless guns in the game, and I refuse to believe that incapabel of being able to out-gun even a basic sidearm.

I know. It ticks me off too.

Personally, I'm sticking with my Unified FOR Theory where "Standard", "Aim, burst, wild", and "Equal to the numbmber of hand to hand attacks" are essentially the same thing with only a few minor differences. It's the only one that makes sesnse when taking into account the big picture.

Hey, if it works then it's probably better than the official rules...

Which is why I am adopting the 5-shot pulse doing 1d6x10 MD.

Oh, BTW. While flipping through New West just now, (following up on a stray thought), I noticed something that might help your Standard ROF argument. As of Book 14, it appears that Standard still allowed energy Pistols to fire bursts. Check out the Wilk's 320 on pg. 204.

Alas, I don't have the New West book.
One of my players did, but he moved away.

I looked it up in the GMG, though...

"ROF: Standard, aimed, burst, wild"

Hey, KC. Sorry I disappeared on ya there. Got a nasty Starup Virus that required me to take my machine into the shop for a little professional work. Lost everything on my C Drive to boot. Anyhoo, though I have to take it back in for a little touch-up, I can put that off till Monday.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:

But even you yourself pointed out that this has not been the case for over a decade now over on the "What is Standard ROF" thread. Yes, Kev originally allowed the C-18 and like weapons to fire bursts as will, but shortly there after recinded that. So all the weapons in CWC (which is still out on loan, so forgive me if I make the occasional boo boo here) that have the Standard ROF can not use bursts at all. They can only fire a single shot per melee attack. That's why the C-12 and C-14 were given updated ROF's, so they can maintain their previous bursting capabilities.

I don't remember saying that.
As far as I'm concerned, Standard is still the same as it always was. Even in Kev's Quick & Dirty optional rules, ROF: Standard means you can double-tap, just like A,B,W.
If it was changed, then where?
The GM's Guide?
Revised CB1?
Both of those came out WAY after CWC.
As of CWC, Standard Still meant you could use the rules on p.34 of the main book.

That's in RGMG pg. 39-40. Not all in one nice neat spot, of course. That would make things clear and concise, and we can't have that! Regardless the gist of what the overall message says backs up the Errata ROF Rule... the part of it that we do agree on ( I think).

Well, that has always been one of the flaws with the Burst/Spray rules; they never took clip size into account.
Technically, a single shot clip in a weapon with Burst capabilities could do a full-clip burst for x7 damage.
The C-18 only has 10 shots, so it should logically do a lot less damage than a large rifle with a lot more ammo.
But the burst rules are flawed.

That's one of the reasons why I always felt that the C-12 was such an improvement over many of the other rifles out there. Unlike them it had a set defined number of shots assigned to its burst, which is a break from the normal rules of Standard and Aim, Burst, Wild. Which goes back to my argument of why I felt that the "Equal to..." ROF worked the way I see it.

Hey, if it works then it's probably better than the official rules...

Which is why I am adopting the 5-shot pulse doing 1d6x10 MD.

I have no problem with you doing an uber-pulse with the C-12 at your table. In fact the math on that looks perfect. My problem is it's justified on reasoning that emasculates its canon mechanics. And it is that canon butchering that I can not abide.

Deadboy,

Hey, there you are!
I was wondering...

Unfortunatly, I've lost track of where exactly we were...

What, at this point, do we agree on and what do we still disagree on?

Killer Cyborg wrote:Deadboy,

Hey, there you are!
I was wondering...

Unfortunatly, I've lost track of where exactly we were...

What, at this point, do we agree on and what do we still disagree on?

Well, let's see here. We both agree that the C-12 was originally intended to be able to burst that 4D6 MD setting, though you contend that that has been retroactively changed and I don't, in spite of the ROF change.

We both agree that the books are a train wreck full of conflicting material, making it possible for either one of us to be right, and yet that can't be.

And we both agree on the fact that it's about friggin' time that sham of a law called the '94 Assault Weapons Ban got flushed down the toilet where it belongs, (though that has nothing to do with the C-12).

Beyond that, I haven't been able to budge you off your position despite my best efforts, nor you I. Our differing interpretations of the rules allow us to see different qualities in the same weapons in question. Ergo, we're kind of at an impass. That's pretty much were we are now.

Dead Boy wrote:Well, let's see here. We both agree that the C-12 was originally intended to be able to burst that 4D6 MD setting, though you contend that that has been retroactively changed and I don't, in spite of the ROF change.

Too bad you're both wrong.

Dead Boy wrote:Well, let's see here. We both agree that the C-12 was originally intended to be able to burst that 4D6 MD setting, though you contend that that has been retroactively changed and I don't, in spite of the ROF change.

Well, I don't know if I agree with that.
I originally thought that the C-12 could fire a 2d6 shot or a 4d6 shot, and could fire aimed, burst, or wild.
But now I see a LOT of evidence that the 4d6 setting was the burst setting.
CS War Campaign was supposedly written by KS, who wrote the main book, so it seems like the CP-40 stats reflect the way the C-12 stats were supposed to be; 2d6 single shot setting, and a burst setting.

But another theory that I am being led to is this:
The C-12 has always been a broken weapon that KS never really decided how it was supposed to work.

We both agree that the books are a train wreck full of conflicting material, making it possible for either one of us to be right, and yet that can't be.

Yup.

And we both agree on the fact that it's about friggin' time that sham of a law called the '94 Assault Weapons Ban got flushed down the toilet where it belongs, (though that has nothing to do with the C-12).

Yup.

Beyond that, I haven't been able to budge you off your position despite my best efforts, nor you I. Our differing interpretations of the rules allow us to see different qualities in the same weapons in question. Ergo, we're kind of at an impass. That's pretty much were we are now.

And that is Palladium's biggest weakness; everybody sees the rules in different ways and there is no clarification. The rules are poorly phrased and contradictory, and any effort the writers make to clarify things only makes things worse and leads to more contradictions, because even the writers don't agree on their interpretations of the rules.

It is also Palladium's biggest strength as a company.
Everybody sees what they want to see when they look at the rules, so everybody is happy with their own game... except for those of us who want the company to print a coherent set of consistant rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:Well, let's see here. We both agree that the C-12 was originally intended to be able to burst that 4D6 MD setting, though you contend that that has been retroactively changed and I don't, in spite of the ROF change.

Well, I don't know if I agree with that.
I originally thought that the C-12 could fire a 2d6 shot or a 4d6 shot, and could fire aimed, burst, or wild.
But now I see a LOT of evidence that the 4d6 setting was the burst setting.
CS War Campaign was supposedly written by KS, who wrote the main book, so it seems like the CP-40 stats reflect the way the C-12 stats were supposed to be; 2d6 single shot setting, and a burst setting.

And here we are. *sigh* Full circle. Ok, dude. I know that is your primary piece of evidence that lead you down this dark trail, so look at it this way. You yourself has pointed out Kev's and Palladium's annoying habit of rectroactivly changing the rules and then saying it was always like that to us fan-boys that cry foul. Right? So I ask you, what is more likely?
A: Kev made the C-12 unlike any other weapon that had appeard in the series of books for, (what ?), 6 years, and then gave it a companion in CWC that also uses the exact same general rules, despite the fact that it's actually quite dofferent.
OR
B: In yet another of his long strings of ret-con B.S. changes he used the same phrasing from the C-12 in the CP-40 to make it look like the older one could be construded into working more like the new.
OR
C: Kev and/or whoever it was who wrote the text on the CP-40 referenced the C-12's wording and didn't even realize what a horrible mess he was making at the time.
Personally, I'd have to go with B or C, because before Book 22: Quebec came out, there was previously no such thing at a weapon that had its damage listed for more than one shot unless it was a rail gun or pulse weapon. No... Such... Thing! And even in the CWC's modified repring that thing has always been a bursting weapon, just using a different ammo burn rate as all the others that were forced to use the percentage system in the Main Book.

(Open Disclosure Note in the Name of Fairness: There is one exception to this that comes to mind, and that is the CV-212 as changed for CWC. It fires a three shot burst, not a pulse, and has a set damage listed for the burst.)

Dr. Doom III wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:Well, let's see here. We both agree that the C-12 was originally intended to be able to burst that 4D6 MD setting, though you contend that that has been retroactively changed and I don't, in spite of the ROF change.

Too bad you're both wrong.

Unless you're going to contribute something to back such statements up with a well though out rebuttal, complete with reasoning, page numbers and collaborating evidence to reference, then shush, you.

Didn't I already do this 4D6/2D6 thing with doom before? I remember it because its where he asked if I'd learnt any maths in school, "since 4D6 is just like a X2 short burst". His idea was that 2D6x2 is just the same as 4D6 (thus 4D6 is a short burst mode) and I didn't know enough math to see that.

Erm, of course 2D6x2 is different from 4D6. Try rolling a 5 with 2D6x2, for example.

Anyway, I'll give a reminder: The NG-57 can do 2D4 or 3D6 MD. It's just a ten round ion pistol, not some big clip machine gun.

There's no burst involved by jut having two settings. There's just an added on weaker setting (for urban use? Who can say?).

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.

Dead Boy wrote:Personally, I'd have to go with B or C, because before Book 22: Quebec came out, there was previously no such thing at a weapon that had its damage listed for more than one shot unless it was a rail gun or pulse weapon. No... Such... Thing!

CV-212

Dr. Doom III wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:Personally, I'd have to go with B or C, because before Book 22: Quebec came out, there was previously no such thing at a weapon that had its damage listed for more than one shot unless it was a rail gun or pulse weapon. No... Such... Thing!

CV-212

A: That was freely disclosed in my post, emphasized in italics, so no points for you.

B: I'm sure you've selectively forgotten this, but I'm the one who pointed that out to you last time you and I went around on this, so you don't even get points for being observant.

C: What did I say to you about using complete sentineces, stating page numbers, and presenting evidence? Some peope never learn.

Dead Boy wrote:A: That was freely disclosed in my post, emphasized in italics, so no points for you.

B: I'm sure you've selectively forgotten this, but I'm the one who pointed that out to you last time you and I went around on this, so you don't even get points for being observant.

C: What did I say to you about using complete sentineces, stating page numbers, and presenting evidence? Some peope never learn.

The CV-212 had the same description as the C-12 pre CWC the only difference in the weapons are how they look and the variable laser in the CV-212. They are effectively the same weapon.
The fact that the 4D6 5 shot burst on the CV-212 disappeared to be replaced by a 3 shot pulse doing more damage proves the 4D6 is the 5 shot short burst of the 2D6 blast.
An inefficient burst setting was replaced by a more efficient pulse in the CV-212.
The C-12 was not fixed since the gun was replaced.

Dr. Doom III wrote: The CV-212 had the same description as the C-12 pre CWC the only difference in the weapons are how they look and the variable laser in the CV-212. They are effectively the same weapon.
The fact that the 4D6 5 shot burst on the CV-212 disappeared to be replaced by a 3 shot pulse doing more damage proves the 4D6 is the 5 shot short burst of the 2D6 blast.
An inefficient burst setting was replaced by a more efficient pulse in the CV-212.
The C-12 was not fixed since the gun was replaced.

Firstly, that argument is inmaterial to the dissucssion at hand. The main point of discussion is whether the 4D6 is the 5 shot burst and how it relates the listed ROF, as well as how this affects all the other similarly or dissimlarly listed weapon work. Secondly, sice the CV-212 was so drastically changed in CWC from it's original more C-12ish for in SB:1, it can hardly be pointed to as evidence of how the C-12 is suposed to function now. It's an entierly different weapon complete with a new triple pulse like burst and an entierly aletred power configuration. And thirdly, the C-12 was not replaced. It is in the process of being replaced. CWC clearly says that the C-12 remains a favorite of soldiers and will remain in service for another 10 or so years, so it wasn't Kev's intention to just includeit in the books as a space filler. It was ment to remain in normal use, and thus if it was going to be "fixed", as you claim the C-212 was, then Kev would have done just that and given us something new to quible over.

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.

Dead Boy wrote:Firstly, that argument is inmaterial to the dissucssion at hand. The main point of discussion is whether the 4D6 is the 5 shot burst and how it relates the listed ROF, as well as how this affects all the other similarly or dissimlarly listed weapon work. Secondly, sice the CV-212 was so drastically changed in CWC from it's original more C-12ish for in SB:1, it can hardly be pointed to as evidence of how the C-12 is suposed to function now. It's an entierly different weapon complete with a new triple pulse like burst and an entierly aletred power configuration. And thirdly, the C-12 was not replaced. It is in the process of being replaced. CWC clearly says that the C-12 remains a favorite of soldiers and will remain in service for another 10 or so years, so it wasn't Kev's intention to just includeit in the books as a space filler. It was ment to remain in normal use, and thus if it was going to be "fixed", as you claim the C-212 was, then Kev would have done just that and given us something new to quible over.

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.