Aug 10, 09:00 1998

To: Lindharin

From: Froccer

Lindharin,

>Hi,
>
>Sorry for the delay - the last few days have been busy... :)

No prob.

>I'm not sure that any grenade should be ASN, but I'm also not sure
>they shouldn't... :) I think the question is: should a plasma
>grenade do full damage to a tank? Is there a definition of what a
>plasma grenade is? I've tended to think of it as super-napalm, which
>would be more of an anti-personnel weapon, but that could be
>wrong.

I don't think it is indicated in the main rule book, but the
definition of plasma is the fourth phase of matter (next to
solid, liquid, and gas) that corresponds to a super-heated gas
(3000 degrees kelvin and above). The only instances that it would
occur in nature would be in the inside of a star. I believe that
small quantities have also been produced in a lab environment.
The point is that plasma is evil stuff. It could vaporize any
type of material that we could manufacture today.

It is not like super-napalm, in that it is very unstable so it
disperses in a normal environment very quickly (this would
explain its low burst radius in RIFTS). Because of its small
burst radius, I think that it is used against single targets
(such as vehicles). The small burst radius also means that it
will not be as useful against any sized groups of opponents (so
it would not be a very effective anti-personnel weapon). In
general (not compared to other grendades) the lower MD of the
weapon would indicate that it used against smaller vehicles (such
as the "Big Boss" ATVs) and not tanks.

I would be willing to concede that grenades do not do ASN damage,
if it would help to achieve a consensus. My initial reaction,
however, would be that since it has such a small burst radius,
that it would be used against vehicles; thus it should be able to
do ASN damage.

>A related but separate point: If your primary concern is that
>grenades don't have enough impact on the game, one alternative
>ruling that I've been considering is that any explosive always counts
>as beating AR. A "strike" roll doesn't really seem to make sense,
>other than to determine if the grenade landed in the approximate
>area. The "area of effect" nature of the explosive would tend to say
>that it should always find the weak spots in the armor, if there are
>any.

Yes, the low impact of the grenade does concern me. The grenade
has a big impact on conventional warfare that is just not
apparent in the RIFTS system. Besides that, grenades are supossed
to be cool (at least in my opinion)!

I don't agree that grenades should automatically beat AR. In a
conventional sense, grenades are effective because they explode
and send shattered pieces of metal (shrapnel) everywhere. I think
that it is this shrapnel, and not neccessarily the explosive
material in the grenade, that kills most often. This could be
applied to RIFTS by saying that a strike above the AR means that
a piece of shrapnel (or other explosive material) has found a
weak spot and will do damage to the person. If armour was
automatically bypassed, anyone being hit by a series of
explosives (e.g. by a volley of mini-missles), better have an urn
for their ashes because there is no way they are going to
survive. I think that the armour would have at least some
protection. It would be like saying that the bomb squad should
not bother wearing body armour because it offers no protection
anyways.

>Fair enough. I think I can agree with that reasoning. One other
>point, though. Against SN, the rules for unsealed high-tech armor
>say that if the strike roll is LTE AR the suit takes full damage from
>SN and the user takes none, else the opposite applies. However
>sealed environmental armor says that even if the strike roll is GT
>AR, the suit takes 1/2 and the user takes 1/2. Should that apply to
>the above stats for ASN? If the protection from environmentally
>sealed armor was applied in a reduced fashion vs ASN, one end result
>might be:
>
>If the strike roll is LTE AR then the sealed armor would take 3/4 and
>the wearer takes the remaining 1/4. If the strike roll is GT AR,
>sealed armor would take 1/4 and the wearer would take 3/4. Unsealed
>armor (or environmental suits that aren't sealed)would still only
>provide 1/2 protection if LTE AR and no protection if over AR.

I think I can see where you are coming from. This would make ASN
a little more survivable. OK. I have just reviewed your rules for armour
values. I think that the 1/4 vs. 3/4 damage is a good compromise.
I was going to use the arguement of Modern armour vs. SN damage
source, but I see now that total enviromental sealed armour
follows its own rules (i.e. no matter where you hit, the armour
is going to take some of the blast). The case where Modern armour
vs. SN damage source, would apply would be in the case of
Non-environmental armour vs. ASN damage source. How does that
sound?

>Those are all good points. It is true that it really is a matter of
>GM perspective. The rule books present some much data about the bots
>that I, at least, find it easy to fall into the trap of thinking they
>are used for everything. But they are still a limited resource and
>should / will be deployed where they'll do the most good.

Another point is that groups like the Coalition are military
organizations. The party is, well just a bunch of people that
fate has brought together. The Coalition is probably going to
have better resources than the party anyways (meaning that they
can afford to have big robots that kill small bands of armed
huligans).

>This is all true, too. I'm not used to thinking in groups of 6
>though. We've been moving around a lot the last few years and
rarely >have more than 2-3 players.

If you are planning to run into a lot of robots in the future,
NPCs that join the party can do wonders for your total firepower.

>I'll try to dig out my vehicle combat rules sometime this week
and >email it to you for comments.

OK, I'll look forward to it.

I am glad to see that we agree on so many issues. It would be
great to have the same kind of success with the people I play
with.

>>I have a really good story about my character regarding battle
>>tactics, but I don't want this email to be totally monsterous. Maybe
>>I will include it in another email (it is my favorite story to
>>tell).
>
>Sure, I'd love to read it!
>

OK. I will include it in another email (chosing to keep the rules
emails separate from the story telling emails).

Another message coming soon,

Froccer