[SR] Automaton Jock

Information and comments on all Pinnacle licensed Savage Settings. Please note the product with an abbreviation in the Subject line (ex. [SR] for Savage Rifts®, [6G] for The Sixth Gun, [SK] for Solomon Kane, and so on). Note: Licensee settings by 3rd parties are below.

Moderators: PEG Jodi, The Moderators

Message
Author
Brickulos
Veteran
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 2:12 pm

Re: [SR] Automaton Jock

#21 Postby Brickulos » Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:17 pm

ValhallaGH wrote::o :lol:
Okay, then it's a bit confusing in the other direction.

Fair enough. I'll change it. Does the Juggernaut make more sense now?

ValhallaGH
Legendary
Posts: 8293
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:15 pm

Re: [SR] Automaton Jock

#22 Postby ValhallaGH » Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:41 pm

Looks good on both of them.
"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher."
"Not against a Servitor."
"... We're all gonna die."

Brickulos
Veteran
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 2:12 pm

Re: [SR] Automaton Jock

#23 Postby Brickulos » Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:49 pm

I'm considering doing one that flies, but it seems like that might beyond the purview of "Robot Armor, but magic," since I don't think any Robot Armor flies...

ValhallaGH
Legendary
Posts: 8293
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:15 pm

Re: [SR] Automaton Jock

#24 Postby ValhallaGH » Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:33 pm

Plus, the wizard has to ride atop it. And while a big, magical robot Pegasus might be cool, it would be ludicrously easy to hit the controller.
"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher."
"Not against a Servitor."
"... We're all gonna die."

Corwin
Novice
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:38 am

Re: [SR] Automaton Jock

#25 Postby Corwin » Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:23 am

ValhallaGH wrote:Plus, the wizard has to ride atop it. And while a big, magical robot Pegasus might be cool, it would be ludicrously easy to hit the controller.

Why not just use the Exposed Crew rule for hovercycles?

ValhallaGH
Legendary
Posts: 8293
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:15 pm

Re: [SR] Automaton Jock

#26 Postby ValhallaGH » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:14 am

Automatons already have an exposed crew. That's their big limitation compared to Robot Armor.
"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher."
"Not against a Servitor."
"... We're all gonna die."

Corwin
Novice
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:38 am

Re: [SR] Automaton Jock

#27 Postby Corwin » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:32 am

Not sure how that addresses my suggestion WRT your prior post. Maybe you should define "ludicrously easy", first?

ValhallaGH
Legendary
Posts: 8293
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:15 pm

Re: [SR] Automaton Jock

#28 Postby ValhallaGH » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:51 am

Since it's already in play, bringing it up again seems redundantly redundant. :wink:

But you asked. An Automaton usually has some kind of barricade for the caster to hide behind. This can be augmented by the terrain, resulting in as much as -6 to be hit.
Flying automatons don't get the terrain protection (obviously). So, limited to the protection of the barricades. On a Pegasus-style, that's going to be essentially a saddle. At that point, the caster is essentially unprotected from enemy fire (probably a -2 for shooters underneath, within an certain angle).
Being a TN 4 target is easy to hit, and on Rifts Earth that becomes ludicrously easy (+2 from 3RB, do don't Critically Fail).
"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher."
"Not against a Servitor."
"... We're all gonna die."

Corwin
Novice
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:38 am

Re: [SR] Automaton Jock

#29 Postby Corwin » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:59 am

Sorry, no. If it was "already in play", you wouldn't need to add unnecessary additional rules as an exception.

I don't see any reason why someone would need to make it any different than piloting a hovercycle (heck even a wingboard), which coincidentally, still just uses the Exposed Crew rules. Nothing more.

ValhallaGH
Legendary
Posts: 8293
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:15 pm

Re: [SR] Automaton Jock

#30 Postby ValhallaGH » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:30 am

Exposed Crew: On a Crew critical hit, the vehicle’s armor provides no protection.

Unfortunately, the swirling arcane storm of magic within an Automaton makes it impossible for a controller to enjoy its full defenses by riding inside. ... Such controllers need to wear body armor or have some other kind of protection to survive heavy combat.


Automatons don't provide armor to the crew. That's Exposed Crew.
Most of them provide cover, but none provide Armor.
So, no new rules proposed. (Still not sure why you think any new rules were being proposed.)

It's not especially easier than killing a guy on a hovercycle or wingboard (though those are fast enough to impose a speed penalty on getting shot).
"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher."
"Not against a Servitor."
"... We're all gonna die."

Corwin
Novice
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:38 am

Re: [SR] Automaton Jock

#31 Postby Corwin » Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:09 pm

ValhallaGH wrote:So, no new rules proposed. (Still not sure why you think any new rules were being proposed.)

You mean other than the post above where you get into exceptions and special rules differentiating targeting the pilot in this particular case, because its a "magical robot Pegasus"?

I went back and looked at the Highway-Man motorcycle again, and compared it to the two hovercycles offered in the TLPG. No mention of the hovercycle pilot having special targeting exceptions for being in the air vs. the motorcycle. Because, like that automaton pilot, a hovercycle pilots would be in "essentially a saddle" and so "essentially unprotected from enemy fire". Which is somehow different from a ground based motorcycle? For reasons? Are you not seeing the direct correlation here?

Freemage
Veteran
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: [SR] Automaton Jock

#32 Postby Freemage » Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:36 pm

Corwin wrote:
ValhallaGH wrote:So, no new rules proposed. (Still not sure why you think any new rules were being proposed.)

You mean other than the post above where you get into exceptions and special rules differentiating targeting the pilot in this particular case, because its a "magical robot Pegasus"?

I went back and looked at the Highway-Man motorcycle again, and compared it to the two hovercycles offered in the TLPG. No mention of the hovercycle pilot having special targeting exceptions for being in the air vs. the motorcycle. Because, like that automaton pilot, a hovercycle pilots would be in "essentially a saddle" and so "essentially unprotected from enemy fire". Which is somehow different from a ground based motorcycle? For reasons? Are you not seeing the direct correlation here?


I believe that was addressed in the comments about lack of terrain. So a pegasus-rider has all the issues of a motorcycle, PLUS the lack of terrain. This makes them trivially easy to hit, with neither cover nor enhanced armor. So, easier to hit than a motorcycle rider. No 'extra rules', just highlighting the lack of ready defensive options.

That said, personally, if I were a Dweamor mech-maker building such a thing, the FIRST thing I'd do is gear it up with the Deflection Power, because duh.


Return to “SW Pinnacle Licensed Settings”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest