Cyber Knights and Fencing

[Killer Cyborg]

Tor, I'm asking this because I think it will help everyone in this thread in debating with each other...

Do you have a hardline stance that you hate any, and all, retcons and wish to avoid them at any cost?

He didn't used to, but now it's always been that way.

[Blue_Lion]

Name me a piece of military equipment that doesn't have a different nomenclature.

Are you asking for a piece of military equipment that did not change its ID when they changed it? If so MRE is where to look. The changed the several MREs that have the same name as old ones such as ham and cheese omelet. In addition to changes in the recipe changes to what is included have happened. So an old chili mac had a small bottle of tabasco sauce the new one does not have a tiny bottle.

[Tor]

Name me a piece of military equipment that doesn't have a different nomenclature.

Naruni weapons ARE military equipment. Not sure what you're asking for here.

I can see it...

General: "Send a squad equipped with C-228's to the battlefield. Have them take up positions at 2,000 feet and open fire."
Sergeant: "General, I..."
General: "Just do it!"
Sergeant: "Yes sir!"

Hours later...

General: "Where is the fire from the C-228's?!?"
Sergeant: "I tried to tell you, we only have the second version of the C-228's, and they only have a range of 1,800 feet... The old C-228's had a range of 2,000 feet and better ammunition capacity."

That's a plausible situation, yes. It could lead to the CS re-examining its stockpiles and later on seeing a necessity to sub-classify their equipment based on performance irregularities.

Situations like this occur in real life. Sometimes people skimp on quality in producing something to save on manufacturing cost. Other times mistakes happen and a batch is produced that malfunctions and there are recalls.

The CS was trying to quickly outfit millions of soldiers in the SoT conflict, if cutting 200 feet on range helped them produce extra rifles and equip more boots on the ground, they`d probably do it.

This could also explain why weapons which were earlier burst-capable (like the C-10 laser pistol) no longer have this in newer versions. Perhaps it cost more to build that ability in and manufacturing costs went down when they only enabled it to single-shot. This would also help conserve ammunition.

Do you have a hardline stance that you hate any, and all, retcons and wish to avoid them at any cost?

Nope, I love the new OCC abilities in RUE, though I think the Mystic got shafted.

I just think changes should be done in a way where they can supplement previous games without contradicting them.

Anyway, let's keep on topic now.

MRE is where to look.
In addition to changes in the recipe changes to what is included have happened.
So an old chili mac had a small bottle of tabasco sauce the new one does not have a tiny bottle.

huh??? is wrong with America, they are risking the force which drives a soldier`s fight, Obama will answer for this.

Unless you mean they got a larger bottle of Tobasco, in which case I will rescind mine criticism.

[Killer Cyborg]

I just think changes should be done in a way where they can supplement previous games without contradicting them.

That's a great wish for something that isn't actually happening in the real world.
It's a poor basis for any kind of rational argument when it comes to the rules of the game, though.

The fact is, sometimes Palladium changes stats. Sometimes they make typos and other mistakes.
Sometimes they state a rule one way in one book, even though they state the rule another way in another book.

How you think things should be does not affect how things are.

[Tor]

In this case we are not talking about the rules of the game, we are talking about the statistics of specific things like items or skills, where multiple versions of the same name can co-exist.

I answered how I thought things should be because I was asked. That is not the same as supporting your unvoiced accusations that my thoughts of how things should be are determining how I think they are.

My arguments for why things are what they are are different, and have been explained, addressed those.

I probably should not have answered HWalsh`s question, I knew it was a segway into this kind of nonsensical ad hominem derailment.

Address the evidence that already exists about multiple versions of same-named things co-existing if you wish to make some kind of argument that sharing a name means that new-printed stuff of name replaces rather than adds to old-printed stuff of name.

Baseline rules are a whole other issue. Stuff like RUE adding the option to spend next-melee attacks on dodging, for example. That doesn`t even bother me since it`s just an addition, and though it changes things, doesn`t mess with mechanics in any unrecoverable way.

[Killer Cyborg]

In this case we are not talking about the rules of the game, we are talking about the statistics of specific things like items or skills, where multiple versions of the same name can co-exist.

The statistics are rules.
Try again.

Address the evidence that already exists about multiple versions of same-named things co-existing if you wish to make some kind of argument that sharing a name means that new-printed stuff of name replaces rather than adds to old-printed stuff of name.

Okay: it's irrelevant.
If you bothered to read the RGMG (p. 204), then you'd see that the PA-06-A SAMAS entry there directs you to RMB 193 and CWC 113 as the original sources for that armor.
Because it's the same armor, not a variant.

Stuff like RUE adding the option to spend next-melee attacks on dodging, for example. That doesn`t even bother me since it`s just an addition, and though it changes things, doesn`t mess with mechanics in any unrecoverable way.

Are you referring to the rule on RGMG p. 32, where a character who has used up all of his attacks can still dodge by borrowing attacks from the next melee round?
Because that rule was around long before RUE, and (iirc) long before the RGMG.

[HWalsh]

That's a plausible situation, yes. It could lead to the CS re-examining its stockpiles and later on seeing a necessity to sub-classify their equipment based on performance irregularities.

No. It isn't. No military force would EVER risk that. They would have named the C228-A, or the C229, they would NEVER have two weapons with different capabilities with the same name. That would be royally stupid.

Situations like this occur in real life. Sometimes people skimp on quality in producing something to save on manufacturing cost. Other times mistakes happen and a batch is produced that malfunctions and there are recalls.

We aren't talking about a mistake. We are talking about two weapons with the exact same designation. It is important that we establish this though because when we discuss with someone we need to understand their POV on things.

The CS was trying to quickly outfit millions of soldiers in the SoT conflict, if cutting 200 feet on range helped them produce extra rifles and equip more boots on the ground, they`d probably do it.

No. They wouldn't. They'd rename it.

This could also explain why weapons which were earlier burst-capable (like the C-10 laser pistol) no longer have this in newer versions. Perhaps it cost more to build that ability in and manufacturing costs went down when they only enabled it to single-shot. This would also help conserve ammunition.

Sorry Tor, but no. Those weapons, by the retcon, were never burst capable. The C-10 can't fire bursts. If you had a C-10 before the change, it could, after the change? Nope. Even if it is the same C-10. It was a rules change for the purposes of game balance.

Do you have a hardline stance that you hate any, and all, retcons and wish to avoid them at any cost?

Nope, I love the new OCC abilities in RUE, though I think the Mystic got shafted.

I just think changes should be done in a way where they can supplement previous games without contradicting them.

Anyway, let's keep on topic now.

This is on topic Tor. We are seeing your bias come through a bit. You want things to work a certain way, and as such you flavor your arguments to that end. You look for things that support it, and deem anything that doesn't as inconsequential. Which is fine, a lot of people do it, but it is important to note. Just like the fencing topic, you are stating that the Splicers and the RUE are different because Splicers contains a section of info that RUE doesn't regardless of the fact that that additional section not conflicting with the RUE text save for a rule that you claim is a precedent (when it isn't due to Palladium's rampant inconsistency) because you, personally, want there to be a precedent because that is how you like viewing things.

Disclaimer: The above is my opinion regarding your thought process only.

Though it again, ignores the elephant in the room, KC was correct, unless there is a conflict the megaversal system states that they work the same regardless of printing. Splicers has the same statements that you claim creates a precedent that damage additives are S.D.C. unless otherwise specified yet that Fencing clarifies the statement. The RUE version lacks the clarified statement but doesn't directly contradict it. Thus, under the Megaversal System we have to assume that the Splicers text addition applies to RUE fencing AND applies also to Robotech fencing.

Just because they didn't explicitly state it, doesn't mean that they didn't mean it, and nobody has produced a spot where they directly contradict.

The only way that you have been able to defend the stance that the damage from Fencing is S.D.C. only is by using something that is not an actual precedent because Palladium is too inconsistent to have such precedents.

[Blue_Lion]

Name me a piece of military equipment that doesn't have a different nomenclature.

Naruni weapons ARE military equipment. Not sure what you're asking for here.

I can see it...

General: "Send a squad equipped with C-228's to the battlefield. Have them take up positions at 2,000 feet and open fire."
Sergeant: "General, I..."
General: "Just do it!"
Sergeant: "Yes sir!"

Hours later...

General: "Where is the fire from the C-228's?!?"
Sergeant: "I tried to tell you, we only have the second version of the C-228's, and they only have a range of 1,800 feet... The old C-228's had a range of 2,000 feet and better ammunition capacity."

That's a plausible situation, yes. It could lead to the CS re-examining its stockpiles and later on seeing a necessity to sub-classify their equipment based on performance irregularities.

Situations like this occur in real life. Sometimes people skimp on quality in producing something to save on manufacturing cost. Other times mistakes happen and a batch is produced that malfunctions and there are recalls.

The CS was trying to quickly outfit millions of soldiers in the SoT conflict, if cutting 200 feet on range helped them produce extra rifles and equip more boots on the ground, they`d probably do it.

This could also explain why weapons which were earlier burst-capable (like the C-10 laser pistol) no longer have this in newer versions. Perhaps it cost more to build that ability in and manufacturing costs went down when they only enabled it to single-shot. This would also help conserve ammunition.

Do you have a hardline stance that you hate any, and all, retcons and wish to avoid them at any cost?

Nope, I love the new OCC abilities in RUE, though I think the Mystic got shafted.

I just think changes should be done in a way where they can supplement previous games without contradicting them.

Anyway, let's keep on topic now.

MRE is where to look.
In addition to changes in the recipe changes to what is included have happened.
So an old chili mac had a small bottle of tabasco sauce the new one does not have a tiny bottle.

huh??? is wrong with America, they are risking the force which drives a soldier`s fight, Obama will answer for this.

Unless you mean they got a larger bottle of Tobasco, in which case I will rescind mine criticism.

The removed the bottle.

By the way Nurni weapons are not military weapons by default.

Allow me to explain. When a weapon is adopted by a military it is given a military ID then for then for that military it is a military weapon. However a civilian company can produce the same weapons for others under a different name. Example the civilian version of the M16 is known as a AR-15. Nurni is a corporation so although it makes hardware that many militaries use it does not produce hardware exclusively for a military. So it is a weapons manufacture but it sells its weapons in private sector not just to militaries.

[Shark_Force]

my understanding is that the AR-15 is in fact not exactly the same weapon as an M-16 (though it uses so many of the same parts that it's fairly easy to convert into an M-16, in relative terms; i would imagine someone who doesn't know what they're doing would still find it quite difficult).

[Blue_Lion]

my understanding is that the AR-15 is in fact not exactly the same weapon as an M-16 (though it uses so many of the same parts that it's fairly easy to convert into an M-16, in relative terms; i would imagine someone who doesn't know what they're doing would still find it quite difficult).

The AR-15 was developed by the company Armralight and was adopted by the US army under the name M-16 after colt acquired the rights to it. Do to US laws to sell it civilian populace colt reconfigured it to fire semi-auto only in the Civilian line. So originally the M-16 was a AR-15 and is still sold under that name modified to meet civilian fire arm requirements.

[ShadowLogan]

Name me a piece of military equipment that doesn't have a different nomenclature.

I can see it...

General: "Send a squad equipped with C-228's to the battlefield. Have them take up positions at 2,000 feet and open fire."
Sergeant: "General, I..."
General: "Just do it!"
Sergeant: "Yes sir!"

Hours later...

General: "Where is the fire from the C-228's?!?"
Sergeant: "I tried to tell you, we only have the second version of the C-228's, and they only have a range of 1,800 feet... The old C-228's had a range of 2,000 feet and better ammunition capacity."

Not to quibble or anything, but this example doesn't work by the rules as you can fire a weapon outside of its listed range by 30% with penalties to strike (RUE, and I know it is in RMB, and even older publications), which means even the 1,800ft weapon should still be able to reach 2,000ft as an extra 30% of 1,800ft would be 540ft for a total of 2,340ft.

[Tor]

In this case we are not talking about the rules of the game, we are talking about the statistics of specific things like items or skills, where multiple versions of the same name can co-exist.

The statistics are rules. Try again.

No, statistics are properties of objects in the game. Rules are how those objects interact. Both are canonical game data.

You did not address everything you quote. My point is that 2 things sharing the same name. "Lilith is a Nightlord" does not contradict and over-write "Lilith is a Darota" just as 2 versions of a same-name Naruni weapon and 2 versions of a same-name SAMAS do not contradict one another.

I mean heck look at the Cyber-Knight body armor in SoT4, there isn't even a fixed amount of MDC it necessarily has to have. Many things can vary in stats due to things like customization or variations in production while still having the same name.

Such as in that guy's example with the hot sauce in the army lunches.

Also hasn't the recipe for things like Coke changed with time? If Coca Cola and the US army and Palladium Books can subtly change their products without changing the names, I don't see why you resist the idea of the Coalition States doing so.

If you bothered to read the RGMG (p. 204), then you'd see that the PA-06-A SAMAS entry there directs you to RMB 193 and CWC 113 as the original sources for that armor. Because it's the same armor, not a variant.

I didn't bother until now, but now I am comparing all 3.

The direction to the other 2 books is a parenthesis after mentioning that the manufacturer is the Coalition States. All this means is that we can look in those other books to see that the CS also produced the 2 other versions.

It may interest you to know that the Old-Style "Death's Head" SAMAS in Rifts 193 and CWC 113 are NOT the same power-armor. Like some of the missiles, the SAMAS in CWC is a different version.

We can see this by looking at:
1) the Shoulder Wings. The CWC version has more MDC and even has in parenthesis next to it "improved MDC".
2) the ammo drum, CWC boosted its MDC by 40%
3) the Sensor bonuses. The classic version has a better targetting system, getting an additional +1 to strike
4) the cruising range: the new CWC version can maintain an additional 4 hours of flight at cruising speed before getting hot and needing to cool, perhaps due to relying on stronger wings

Your GMG version doesn't even have the same code as these two. They use "PA-06A" while GMG uses "PA-06-A".

Based on the targetting bonuses, I think the GMG version may be more similar to the RMB version than the CWC version. Since only the max-speed flight-range is given (a consistent 10 hours for all 3 versions) and since the wing/ammo hit locations are not given, I don't have anything else to go on, so I'm not totaly sure which GMG differences you're talking about.

The GMG not including every hit location is forgiveable since it is just doing a summarization.

Are you referring to the rule on RGMG p. 32, where a character who has used up all of his attacks can still dodge by borrowing attacks from the next melee round? Because that rule was around long before RUE, and (iirc) long before the RGMG.

Yes that one, I sometimes forget exactly when new rules are introduced, I meant in regard to absent-in-RMB present-in-RUE, ignoring intermediary rule-revision in intermediate things.

To get overly specific I believe the next-melee dodging was first introduced in a Rifter FAQ and that many of those Rifter FAQs then got compiled into the GMG a year or two later.

No. It isn't. No military force would EVER risk that. They would have named the C228-A, or the C229, they would NEVER have two weapons with different capabilities with the same name. That would be royally stupid.

The CS is capable of being stupid. Furthermore, this is not necessarily an approved-of variation.

When corporations produce a bad batch of cars or drugs, that is not necessarily a top-down decision. It can happen due to some middle management cutting corners or making an experimental tweak and not informing the higher-ups about it, so the change is not noted.

It's possible that the army is not even necessarily aware of small differences like a 10% range tweak. For them to find that out would require extensive testing. Range is when accuracy begins to degrade, not when shots magically stop, so it can't be easily found out.

We aren't talking about a mistake. We are talking about two weapons with the exact same designation. It is important that we establish this though because when we discuss with someone we need to understand their POV on things.

Sharing a designation does not mean the stats of 2 items will be utterly identical, IRL or in-game.

They wouldn't. They'd rename it.

Perhaps... if they knew about the difference in performance. By the time they found out about it, it might already be circulated. When rushing to mass-produce weapons, there isn't time to pre-test each new batch.

Those weapons, by the retcon, were never burst capable. The C-10 can't fire bursts. If you had a C-10 before the change, it could, after the change? Nope. Even if it is the same C-10. It was a rules change for the purposes of game balance.

That's one approach, but your approach does not hold any more validity than mine.

Where does it say to go back and change the stats of existing items? It doesn't.

It provides new stats for new items in a new game.

An old SAMAS whose wing was blown off by a 30 MD gun-blast does not suddenly regrow his wing with 20/50 remaining. A SAMAS who had his ammo barrel shot off does not suddenly get it back because the blast shouldn't have been enough to blow it off. But enough de-winged and ammo-exploded SAMAS probably lead the CS to reinforce the wings of surviving models and incorporate it into the design of new ones, even if most of their new production is now dedicated to the Super/Special/Light variants.

Just how much of their stockpile is the original vs the reinforced-wing is not clear, up to the GM.

We are seeing your bias come through a bit. You want things to work a certain way, and as such you flavor your arguments to that end.

I could equally accuse you of this. I don't see the argument progressing in a good way if either of us resorts to this sort of argument.

Instead of analyzing hypothetical emotional motives I think we should focus on the validity of the arguments themselves, since those can actually be tested.

You look for things that support it, and deem anything that doesn't as inconsequential. Which is fine, a lot of people do it

Like you? Or would you ask for proof in defense of what you think actually motivates your arguments? I expect the same.

it is important to note. Just like the fencing topic

Which is where we still are, though I almost forgot

you are stating that the Splicers and the RUE are different because Splicers contains a section of info that RUE doesn't

Right, and it being a separate game, in a separate dimension, and Palladium having a pattern of different rules (and different versions of skills and monsters) existing in different games/dimensions.

regardless of the fact that that additional section not conflicting with the RUE text

It did conflict, it added a new ability which Rifts and Robotech did not recognize.

save for a rule that you claim is a precedent (when it isn't due to Palladium's rampant inconsistency)

Palladium is more consistent about undefined damage referring to SDC damage than it is to any sort of 'undefined damage added to MD becomes MD' pattern you guys seem to be arguing for.

because you, personally, want there to be a precedent because that is how you like viewing things.

Wrong, as explained before I think fencing boosting MD with vibro-blades would be cool. Just like I think adding supernatural punch damage to vibro-blades is cool. I would house-rule both of those, just like I would house-rule adding the damage bonus from even normal strength to them.

STOP MAKING THINGS UP.

You're wrong, you do not know my motives. You do not know what I like. Stop speaking as if you're a telepath, you're not, you're delusional and arguing with a fake version of me that you are imagining.

You accuse me of mis-perceiving things because I want to see things a certain way. Look in the mirror. This is what you are doing to me. You are seeing me as a type of opponent who is wrongly motivated.

The motives you ascribe to me are false. You are arguing from delusion. If you want to avoid these errors, quit speculating about other people's motives (you can't test them, you are not a mind-reader) and focus on discusison of the rules, which is what we are here to do, not attack each other.

Disclaimer: The above is my opinion regarding your thought process only.

Right, quit it. It is not appropriate to do this. If you do, the mirror stares back at you.

Though it again, ignores the elephant in the room

A cheap source of ivory for Summoners wanting to help Techno-Wizards make efficient Necromancy devices.

KC was correct, unless there is a conflict
the megaversal system states that they work the same regardless of printing.

You mean like what the Megaversal System would state about the meaning of 'damage', which illuminates that there IS a conflict?

The megaversal system is about rules, not equivalent stats for same-named skills.

Hand to Hand: Assassin gives a bonus to strike with GUNS in the Dead Reign game. Do you think this applies to Hand to Hand Assassin selected by a character created in Palladium Fantasy?

It doesn't. There are different versions of Hand to Hand: Asssassin, born in different dimensions. The stats do not change based on which dimension you visit. If you want gun-boosting Assassin then you have to go learn it somewhere other than PF.

If someone wants MD-boosting fencing, they have to go to Splicers to learn it, or at LEAST get someone who learned it there to teach it to them elsewhere.

Splicers has the same statements that you claim creates a precedent that damage additives are S.D.C. unless otherwise specified yet that Fencing clarifies the statement.

Wrong, Splicers contradicts default assumptions by affixing an additional note that says the damage bonus can be upgraded to MD in specific circumstances.

The RUE version lacks the clarified statement but doesn't directly contradict it.

Contradicting it is required, it is a unique attribute of a unique setting's skill, just like gun-boosting Assassin.

under the Megaversal System we have to assume that the Splicers text addition applies to RUE fencing AND applies also to Robotech fencing.

Wrong, they can co-exist as different versions, kind of like how HtHassassin giving a bonus to thrown weapons in N&SS can co-exist with gun-boosting one.

Just because they didn't explicitly state it, doesn't mean that they didn't mean it, and nobody has produced a spot where they directly contradict.

Speculation as to meaning seems pointless here, we ought to go on RAW.

I can equally argue there is no evidence that Rifts or Robotech (first or later editions) ever intended an MD-boosting fencing. There is no evidence that Kev directly introduced this skill variation or that he actually paid attention to it in editing.

If Kev can overlook PE in hours when he wanted PE in minutes, he can also overlook this.

The only way that you have been able to defend the stance that the damage from Fencing is S.D.C. only is by using something that is not an actual precedent because Palladium is too inconsistent to have such precedents.

Palladium is heavily consistent about precidents, the majority of its games have a very clear meaning of what undefined damage refers to.

Even MDC settings like Rifts are littered with examples that are clearly discussing basic SDC combat and not introducing some new MD-inflicting ability.

The GMG that KC brought up earlier, oddly in reading this it sounds like PS damage bonuses get added as MD to death blows made by MDC beings against other MDC beings.. strange. Plus you have NPCs like Galahad in Rifts England who have an MD bonus that seems to match strength. Or MDC beings inflicting MD without supernatural strength, although that does solve what some see as a Wormwood dilemma. Although I think Kittani and Kydians inflicting damage as if they had supernatural PS and being able to mist each other if unarmored seems even more problematic...

Nurni weapons are not military weapons by default.

Allow me to explain. When a weapon is adopted by a military it is given a military ID then for then for that military it is a military weapon. However a civilian company can produce the same weapons for others under a different name. Example the civilian version of the M16 is known as a AR-15. Nurni is a corporation so although it makes hardware that many militaries use it does not produce hardware exclusively for a military. So it is a weapons manufacture but it sells its weapons in private sector not just to militaries.

Military or not, I do not think we should assume CS policies will match the infrastructure of our modern-age militaries.

Plus as pointed out, a Tobasco bottle-less lunch is a different lunch so by your logic it should have a different name. But it seems the difference was considered too minor to bother with. If a CS soldier strapped a bayonet to his rifle I don't think there's going to be a big huff about having to give the weapon a new number.

[Killer Cyborg]

Rule- one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

The damage stat regulates damage.
The range stat regulates the range.
And so forth.

[Blue_Lion]

Nurni weapons are not military weapons by default.

Allow me to explain. When a weapon is adopted by a military it is given a military ID then for then for that military it is a military weapon. However a civilian company can produce the same weapons for others under a different name. Example the civilian version of the M16 is known as a AR-15. Nurni is a corporation so although it makes hardware that many militaries use it does not produce hardware exclusively for a military. So it is a weapons manufacture but it sells its weapons in private sector not just to militaries.

Military or not, I do not think we should assume CS policies will match the infrastructure of our modern-age militaries.

Plus as pointed out, a Tobasco bottle-less lunch is a different lunch so by your logic it should have a different name. But it seems the difference was considered too minor to bother with. If a CS soldier strapped a bayonet to his rifle I don't think there's going to be a big huff about having to give the weapon a new number.

I was replying to a comment that stated Nurni weapons are military weapons. They are military grade but are only military weapons when a military is using them.

The MRE was an example of a change in military gear that did not change the name. The bayonet is a temporary attachment not a long term change, like say adding a grenade launcher. So for a temporary state the name does not change but adding lasting reconfiguration such as a grenade launcher being mounted on it does give it a new name.

I am lost at what your point was in addressing my statement.

[Killer Cyborg]

My point is that 2 things sharing the same name. "Lilith is a Nightlord" does not contradict and over-write "Lilith is a Darota" just as 2 versions of a same-name Naruni weapon and 2 versions of a same-name SAMAS do not contradict one another.

Agreed, it does not.
The thing is, what everybody other than you seems to realize, is that what really happened is that the stats have changed for out-of-game reasons, not for in-game reasons.
It's not that anybody in-game made a new version, it's that the writers decided to retcon stuff.

The GMG not including every hit location is forgiveable since it is just doing a summarization.

What if I was to counter with:

Wrong.
If a later version of earlier canon leaves out part of the original version, then it must be a deliberate omission due to that part no longer applying.
So when the RGMG version of the SAMAS lists only the main body MDC, that necessarily means that the RGMG version is a different version from previous or later versions, and that the RGMG version has 250 MDC to the main body, and no MDC to any other body part or hit location.
An omission is necessarily a change in the rules/stats being reprinted.

[HWalsh]

My point is that 2 things sharing the same name. "Lilith is a Nightlord" does not contradict and over-write "Lilith is a Darota" just as 2 versions of a same-name Naruni weapon and 2 versions of a same-name SAMAS do not contradict one another.

Agreed, it does not.
The thing is, what everybody other than you seems to realize, is that what really happened is that the stats have changed for out-of-game reasons, not for in-game reasons.
It's not that anybody in-game made a new version, it's that the writers decided to retcon stuff.

The GMG not including every hit location is forgiveable since it is just doing a summarization.

What if I was to counter with:

Wrong.
If a later version of earlier canon leaves out part of the original version, then it must be a deliberate omission due to that part no longer applying.
So when the RGMG version of the SAMAS lists only the main body MDC, that necessarily means that the RGMG version is a different version from previous or later versions, and that the RGMG version has 250 MDC to the main body, and no MDC to any other body part or hit location.
An omission is necessarily a change in the rules/stats being reprinted.

Game. Set. Match. Methinks.

[Brayon]

This topic has had one serious derailment. From Asking about Cyber-Knights and the Fencing Skill, to talk about Real World Weapons, Military Grade vrs Civilian Grade listings, and MREs.

[Nightmask]

This topic has had one serious derailment. From Asking about Cyber-Knights and the Fencing Skill, to talk about Real World Weapons, Military Grade vrs Civilian Grade listings, and MREs.

Well the original topic became a dead horse by page 2 or 3 and went down a tangent that no one felt a need to start a separate thread for.

[Blue_Lion]

My point is that 2 things sharing the same name. "Lilith is a Nightlord" does not contradict and over-write "Lilith is a Darota" just as 2 versions of a same-name Naruni weapon and 2 versions of a same-name SAMAS do not contradict one another.

Agreed, it does not.
The thing is, what everybody other than you seems to realize, is that what really happened is that the stats have changed for out-of-game reasons, not for in-game reasons.
It's not that anybody in-game made a new version, it's that the writers decided to retcon stuff.

The GMG not including every hit location is forgiveable since it is just doing a summarization.

What if I was to counter with:

Wrong.
If a later version of earlier canon leaves out part of the original version, then it must be a deliberate omission due to that part no longer applying.
So when the RGMG version of the SAMAS lists only the main body MDC, that necessarily means that the RGMG version is a different version from previous or later versions, and that the RGMG version has 250 MDC to the main body, and no MDC to any other body part or hit location.
An omission is necessarily a change in the rules/stats being reprinted.

Game. Set. Match. Methinks.

I am not so sure about them needing to list every thing when they summaries for quick look up. With the amount of stuff they crammed in there something had to hit the floor. So it is likely that if the book was intended for quick reference and was getting to bulky they may have removed stats that the game designer felt was optional, or not nectary for a quick look up. But as the hit locations are back for it in R:UE this seams to be the case.

[Blue_Lion]

This topic has had one serious derailment. From Asking about Cyber-Knights and the Fencing Skill, to talk about Real World Weapons, Military Grade vrs Civilian Grade listings, and MREs.

Some time debates can be fluid changing to topics that are relevant when the original topic is done.

[Nightmask]

This topic has had one serious derailment. From Asking about Cyber-Knights and the Fencing Skill, to talk about Real World Weapons, Military Grade vrs Civilian Grade listings, and MREs.

Some time debates can be fluid changing to topics that are relevant when the original topic is done.

Although that makes it difficult for people to find previous discussions on a topic when it's buried in effectively another topic you wouldn't think to look for (hence why the mods tend to encourage people splitting off such discussions into properly labeled topics).

[Blue_Lion]

This topic has had one serious derailment. From Asking about Cyber-Knights and the Fencing Skill, to talk about Real World Weapons, Military Grade vrs Civilian Grade listings, and MREs.

Some time debates can be fluid changing to topics that are relevant when the original topic is done.

Although that makes it difficult for people to find previous discussions on a topic when it's buried in effectively another topic you wouldn't think to look for (hence why the mods tend to encourage people splitting off such discussions into properly labeled topics).

The first topic was done so the progression just went into a sub topic not really worth its own thread.

[Mack]

This has gone on long enough.

Topic Locked.