Cyber Knights and Fencing

[alogan]

Fencing states that it adds an extra 1D6 damage to sword attacks. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is SDC only or if it also applies to MDC damage for MDC swords. I'm wondering if a Cyber Knight that takes the fencing skill gets to add the 1D6 MDC to his sword damage. There IS precedent from Horsemanship: Cyber Knight explicitly states that it gives a bonus of +1D6 SDC or MDC while on horseback.

[Secondhand Smoke]

Why wouldn't it apply?

[Mack]

I'd allow it.

I think about it this way: The guy with fencing has spent more time and energy to get the most out of a sword. He's got more practice hitting exactly where he wants to.

[HWalsh]

Fencing states that it adds an extra 1D6 damage to sword attacks. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is SDC only or if it also applies to MDC damage for MDC swords. I'm wondering if a Cyber Knight that takes the fencing skill gets to add the 1D6 MDC to his sword damage. There IS precedent from Horsemanship: Cyber Knight explicitly states that it gives a bonus of +1D6 SDC or MDC while on horseback.

Yes. The damage from fencing does work with the Psi-Sword.

This was "explicity" stated in Splicers, but that left some wiggle room (Does that also apply to Rifts?!) however it was also stated in the FAQ:

viewtopic.php?p=1610031#p1610031

Reposting for Posterity
Question: Does the Fencing skill add a 1D6 damage to Mega-Damage rolls as well? If it does I would assume that would also cover Psi-swords, right?
Answer: Yes and yes. While the RUE version of Fencing leaves some room for debate, the Splicers version specifically states that the damage bonus is either S.D.C. or M.D.C., depending on the weapon. A Psi-Sword benefits from combat bonuses just like any other sword.

It was stated, in the FAQ again later:

Reposting for Posterity
Question: Fencing in RUE: Does the +1d6 damage with swords and knives apply to just sdc weapons or both sdc and mdc(ie vibro weapons and psi-swords)?
Answer: According to RUE, page 326, it applies to both SDC and MDC.

I believe that they are referring to the section detailing "A note about Ancient Weapon Proficiencies" which does not actually state that... Though can be seen to imply that bonuses are universal and always transfer.

In any case... The FAQ clarifies this twice and there have been threads arguing this numerous times... So... The official answer is:

Yes. The damage bonus from the Fencing Skill adds +1d6 of whatever kind of damage (S.D or M.D.) a weapon does to attacks using that weapon.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Fencing states that it adds an extra 1D6 damage to sword attacks. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is SDC only or if it also applies to MDC damage for MDC swords. I'm wondering if a Cyber Knight that takes the fencing skill gets to add the 1D6 MDC to his sword damage. There IS precedent from Horsemanship: Cyber Knight explicitly states that it gives a bonus of +1D6 SDC or MDC while on horseback.

There are two sides to this issue....Those that say they would allow the extra damage to be MD and those who see the extra damage as only SD.

I would guess that those that would allow the skill to be imported to rifts would also allow it to add to the MD.

[Riftmaker]

Its only 1D6 id give it to them

[Killer Cyborg]

Fencing states that it adds an extra 1D6 damage to sword attacks. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is SDC only or if it also applies to MDC damage for MDC swords. I'm wondering if a Cyber Knight that takes the fencing skill gets to add the 1D6 MDC to his sword damage. There IS precedent from Horsemanship: Cyber Knight explicitly states that it gives a bonus of +1D6 SDC or MDC while on horseback.

It officially adds MD to MD attacks.
It's clarified in Splicers.

But people still argue about it.

[HWalsh]

Fencing states that it adds an extra 1D6 damage to sword attacks. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is SDC only or if it also applies to MDC damage for MDC swords. I'm wondering if a Cyber Knight that takes the fencing skill gets to add the 1D6 MDC to his sword damage. There IS precedent from Horsemanship: Cyber Knight explicitly states that it gives a bonus of +1D6 SDC or MDC while on horseback.

It officially adds MD to MD attacks.
It's clarified in Splicers.

But people still argue about it.

Yup. Clarified in Splicers, and the FAQ...

I don't know why people really argue against it... I've really never heard anyone say... "Man those Psi-Swords the Cyber-Knight has need a nerf!"

[eliakon]

Fencing states that it adds an extra 1D6 damage to sword attacks. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is SDC only or if it also applies to MDC damage for MDC swords. I'm wondering if a Cyber Knight that takes the fencing skill gets to add the 1D6 MDC to his sword damage. There IS precedent from Horsemanship: Cyber Knight explicitly states that it gives a bonus of +1D6 SDC or MDC while on horseback.

It officially adds MD to MD attacks.
It's clarified in Splicers.

But people still argue about it.

Yup. Clarified in Splicers, and the FAQ...

I don't know why people really argue against it... I've really never heard anyone say... "Man those Psi-Swords the Cyber-Knight has need a nerf!"

Probably the main reason that people argue against it is that there is still not an official ruling that it works that way in Rifts. The fact that something works one way in one game line does not necessarily mean it works that way in any of the other lines. And the FAQ, while helpful is not, to my knowledge, considered Official/Canon. Which still leaves us in the position of having reasonable doubt. (for disclosures sake I will note that I my self am a +damage means MD person).

[HWalsh]

Fencing states that it adds an extra 1D6 damage to sword attacks. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is SDC only or if it also applies to MDC damage for MDC swords. I'm wondering if a Cyber Knight that takes the fencing skill gets to add the 1D6 MDC to his sword damage. There IS precedent from Horsemanship: Cyber Knight explicitly states that it gives a bonus of +1D6 SDC or MDC while on horseback.

It officially adds MD to MD attacks.
It's clarified in Splicers.

But people still argue about it.

Yup. Clarified in Splicers, and the FAQ...

I don't know why people really argue against it... I've really never heard anyone say... "Man those Psi-Swords the Cyber-Knight has need a nerf!"

Probably the main reason that people argue against it is that there is still not an official ruling that it works that way in Rifts. The fact that something works one way in one game line does not necessarily mean it works that way in any of the other lines. And the FAQ, while helpful is not, to my knowledge, considered Official/Canon. Which still leaves us in the position of having reasonable doubt. (for disclosures sake I will note that I my self am a +damage means MD person).

Well I think RUE 326 spells it out pretty clearly:

Quoting:
"The damage listed with each ancient weapon is S.D.C./Hit Point Damage. However, high-tech, or magical Mega-Damage equivalent weapons inflict the same number of damage dice only it is M.D., not S.D.C. (e.g. a sword that inflicts 2D6 damage does 2D6 Hit Points/S.D.C. damage if an S.D.C. weapon or 2D6 M.D. if a Mega-Damage weapon.)

Fencing says, "1D6 to damage with a sword."

Since it is adding damage to the weapon, as per the quote from the Ancient Weapon Proficiency section, we can extrapolate, on the most literal sense that damage added is converted based on the weapon dealing it out. As such, since it is added TO THE DAMAGE of the sword, it would be based on the damage type the sword throws out. Thus, clearly, Fencing applies M.D. to M.D. weapons and S.D. to S.D. weapons.

[Killer Cyborg]

Fencing states that it adds an extra 1D6 damage to sword attacks. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is SDC only or if it also applies to MDC damage for MDC swords. I'm wondering if a Cyber Knight that takes the fencing skill gets to add the 1D6 MDC to his sword damage. There IS precedent from Horsemanship: Cyber Knight explicitly states that it gives a bonus of +1D6 SDC or MDC while on horseback.

It officially adds MD to MD attacks.
It's clarified in Splicers.

But people still argue about it.

Yup. Clarified in Splicers, and the FAQ...

I don't know why people really argue against it... I've really never heard anyone say... "Man those Psi-Swords the Cyber-Knight has need a nerf!"

Probably the main reason that people argue against it is that there is still not an official ruling that it works that way in Rifts. The fact that something works one way in one game line does not necessarily mean it works that way in any of the other lines. And the FAQ, while helpful is not, to my knowledge, considered Official/Canon. Which still leaves us in the position of having reasonable doubt. (for disclosures sake I will note that I my self am a +damage means MD person).

That's not a legit reason.

[eliakon]

Fencing states that it adds an extra 1D6 damage to sword attacks. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is SDC only or if it also applies to MDC damage for MDC swords. I'm wondering if a Cyber Knight that takes the fencing skill gets to add the 1D6 MDC to his sword damage. There IS precedent from Horsemanship: Cyber Knight explicitly states that it gives a bonus of +1D6 SDC or MDC while on horseback.

It officially adds MD to MD attacks.
It's clarified in Splicers.

But people still argue about it.

Yup. Clarified in Splicers, and the FAQ...

I don't know why people really argue against it... I've really never heard anyone say... "Man those Psi-Swords the Cyber-Knight has need a nerf!"

Probably the main reason that people argue against it is that there is still not an official ruling that it works that way in Rifts. The fact that something works one way in one game line does not necessarily mean it works that way in any of the other lines. And the FAQ, while helpful is not, to my knowledge, considered Official/Canon. Which still leaves us in the position of having reasonable doubt. (for disclosures sake I will note that I my self am a +damage means MD person).

That's not a legit reason.

Which part of "Not an official rule" isn't legit? I know that for those that like to import rules its great...but its not a RIFTS rule so yah importing its a house rule. And some people prefer the actual rules as written as opposed to house rules as interpreted.
(Now HWalsh raises a better argument, but the Splicer one is pretty flimsy)

[drewkitty ~..~]

Fencing states that it adds an extra 1D6 damage to sword attacks. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is SDC only or if it also applies to MDC damage for MDC swords. I'm wondering if a Cyber Knight that takes the fencing skill gets to add the 1D6 MDC to his sword damage. There IS precedent from Horsemanship: Cyber Knight explicitly states that it gives a bonus of +1D6 SDC or MDC while on horseback.

There are two sides to this issue....Those that say they would allow the extra damage to be MD and those who see the extra damage as only SD.

I would guess that those that would allow the skill to be imported to rifts would also allow it to add to the MD.

If answers given in the FAQ are "official", and I would think that they are, then it definitely does add MDC as well as SDC.

Nope
You have too many C's in that statement for it to be true as written.

It officially adds MD to MD attacks.
It's clarified in Splicers.

But people still argue about it.

Yes, that is what is official for Splicers.

Well I think RUE 326 spells it out pretty clearly:

Quoting:
"The damage listed with each ancient weapon is S.D.C./Hit Point Damage. However, high-tech, or magical Mega-Damage equivalent weapons inflict the same number of damage dice only it is M.D., not S.D.C. (e.g. a sword that inflicts 2D6 damage does 2D6 Hit Points/S.D.C. damage if an S.D.C. weapon or 2D6 M.D. if a Mega-Damage weapon.)

Fencing says, "1D6 to damage with a sword."

Since it is adding damage to the weapon, as per the quote from the Ancient Weapon Proficiency section, we can extrapolate, on the most literal sense that damage added is converted based on the weapon dealing it out. As such, since it is added TO THE DAMAGE of the sword, it would be based on the damage type the sword throws out. Thus, clearly, Fencing applies M.D. to M.D. weapons and S.D. to S.D. weapons.

Ah...someone quoting a Rifts source.

However, the way the fencing skill text is written is not specific to say that it adds the die as MD. Which is the central point of arguers of this particular arguments.
This is sort of like the OLD argument that was over whether or not the PS bonus was added as MD. Which there is now specific text in rifts saying that it is only an SD bonus.


Those of you saying that the FAQ or Ettera or the official Q&A's say such and such....please provide ether a link to the particular FAQ you are referencing, and those of you referencing a published book please provide book and page.

[Killer Cyborg]

It officially adds MD to MD attacks.
It's clarified in Splicers.

But people still argue about it.

Yes, that is what is official for Splicers.

And since there's no reason to think that it's NOT official for RUE, the most logical assumption is that it is also official for RUE.

[HWalsh]

Those of you saying that the FAQ or Ettera or the official Q&A's say such and such....please provide ether a link to the particular FAQ you are referencing, and those of you referencing a published book please provide book and page.

Erm... I did provide a link...

[Riftmaker]

I'd like to know how a Psi Sword, a weapon that ONLY does MDC, could possibly even do SDC damage.

step through a rift to heros unlimited earth?

[eliakon]

It officially adds MD to MD attacks.
It's clarified in Splicers.

But people still argue about it.

Yes, that is what is official for Splicers.

And since there's no reason to think that it's NOT official for RUE, the most logical assumption is that it is also official for RUE.

Why would the rules for another game be official for RUE? The rules can, and do vary between game lines. Which means that we can't just assume that the rules from one game apply straight across. The only things we can definitively say are official for RUE are...those things that have been stated as being official for RUE.

[Alrik Vas]

It officially adds MD to MD attacks.
It's clarified in Splicers.

But people still argue about it.

Yes, that is what is official for Splicers.

And since there's no reason to think that it's NOT official for RUE, the most logical assumption is that it is also official for RUE.

Why would the rules for another game be official for RUE? The rules can, and do vary between game lines. Which means that we can't just assume that the rules from one game apply straight across. The only things we can definitively say are official for RUE are...those things that have been stated as being official for RUE.

It's fine to look at it that way, but where is the line between assumption and logic?

[eliakon]

It officially adds MD to MD attacks.
It's clarified in Splicers.

But people still argue about it.

Yes, that is what is official for Splicers.

And since there's no reason to think that it's NOT official for RUE, the most logical assumption is that it is also official for RUE.

Why would the rules for another game be official for RUE? The rules can, and do vary between game lines. Which means that we can't just assume that the rules from one game apply straight across. The only things we can definitively say are official for RUE are...those things that have been stated as being official for RUE.

It's fine to look at it that way, but where is the line between assumption and logic?

Logic is provable, and has well...logical reasons. a =b and b = c thus a = c sort of stuff
Assumptions are if we presume (with no reason, just presume, hence the word assumption, to assume) that A....

[Alrik Vas]

But you don't think that its logical that damage is damage, that it applies to the type the weapon uses? The skill doesn't make reference to SDC.

[HWalsh]

It officially adds MD to MD attacks.
It's clarified in Splicers.

But people still argue about it.

Yes, that is what is official for Splicers.

And since there's no reason to think that it's NOT official for RUE, the most logical assumption is that it is also official for RUE.

Why would the rules for another game be official for RUE? The rules can, and do vary between game lines. Which means that we can't just assume that the rules from one game apply straight across. The only things we can definitively say are official for RUE are...those things that have been stated as being official for RUE.

It's fine to look at it that way, but where is the line between assumption and logic?

Well... Unfortunately, this isn't really an assumption situation...

I pointed out the section (page and excerpt) in RUE that explains that damage added to a weapon is the same kind of damage that weapon normally does... That is in the RUE...

So that is the rule as stated in the book.

Other things, such as "Non-Supernatual Strength does not add to M.D. weapons." Are actually the EXCEPTIONS to the rule. So... As per the RUE... Unless it specifically says it DOESN'T add the damage of the type it adds, then it DOES. That is the Rules As Written.

[Shark_Force]

so we have game line A that has very clear statements regarding how something works.

why do people always insist that game line B (using the same basic rule set), which lacks those very clear statements but has absolutely no compelling reason not to follow the same rule and which has clear statements directing us to use the perfectly clear rule, and other rules that are part of game line B which provide supporting evidence that situations such as the one being discussed work exactly like the rule in game line A... insist that game line B absolutely does not under any circumstances work like that?

i mean, you'd think we were suggesting that we should go murder innocent people or something like that with the amount of rage that seems to come up every time someone suggests that fencing with MD weapons gives bonus MD damage, bearing in mind that melee combat is already a vastly inferior choice 90% of the time and particularly melee combat with a psi-sword is even less likely to be a good decision (i mean, i can understand when you're using some amazing TW weapon that does 1d6x10 damage and doubles your attacks, but even then, would it be that much worse if it was 1d6x10 + 1d6 damage and doubled your attacks?)

were your parents killed by a cyber-knight fencer or something?

[eliakon]

so we have game line A that has very clear statements regarding how something works.

why do people always insist that game line B (using the same basic rule set), which lacks those very clear statements but has absolutely no compelling reason not to follow the same rule and which has clear statements directing us to use the perfectly clear rule, and other rules that are part of game line B which provide supporting evidence that situations such as the one being discussed work exactly like the rule in game line A... insist that game line B absolutely does not under any circumstances work like that?

i mean, you'd think we were suggesting that we should go murder innocent people or something like that with the amount of rage that seems to come up every time someone suggests that fencing with MD weapons gives bonus MD damage, bearing in mind that melee combat is already a vastly inferior choice 90% of the time and particularly melee combat with a psi-sword is even less likely to be a good decision (i mean, i can understand when you're using some amazing TW weapon that does 1d6x10 damage and doubles your attacks, but even then, would it be that much worse if it was 1d6x10 + 1d6 damage and doubled your attacks?)

were your parents killed by a cyber-knight fencer or something?

No. Heck I am personally in favor of it. But the argument that "Its that way in this game over here, so it should be that way in all the games" is not a good one. Its not a good one because its obviously, provably false.
A better, more convincing one is the argument from HWalsh, who points to a RUE rule that states that melee weapon damage is type appropriate. THAT is using a RUE rule to prove a RUE point.
One is logic (use RUE rules to solve RUE questions) one is an assumption (well if we assume that this rule from Splicers applies to RUE then it answers the question...)

[eliakon]

Yes, that is what is official for Splicers.

And since there's no reason to think that it's NOT official for RUE, the most logical assumption is that it is also official for RUE.

Why would the rules for another game be official for RUE? The rules can, and do vary between game lines. Which means that we can't just assume that the rules from one game apply straight across. The only things we can definitively say are official for RUE are...those things that have been stated as being official for RUE.

It's fine to look at it that way, but where is the line between assumption and logic?

Well... Unfortunately, this isn't really an assumption situation...

I pointed out the section (page and excerpt) in RUE that explains that damage added to a weapon is the same kind of damage that weapon normally does... That is in the RUE...

So that is the rule as stated in the book.

Other things, such as "Non-Supernatual Strength does not add to M.D. weapons." Are actually the EXCEPTIONS to the rule. So... As per the RUE... Unless it specifically says it DOESN'T add the damage of the type it adds, then it DOES. That is the Rules As Written.

I am not arguing with you. I am arguing with the idea that a rule from Splicers has any sort of official status in RUE. Quite the contrary your point is excellent and in my mind proves what I have believed, that fencing does add to the damage. But its proving it with a RUE rule, not a rule from another game. That's important because there are differences in rules between the games, sometimes very subtle ones.

[HWalsh]

I am not arguing with you. I am arguing with the idea that a rule from Splicers has any sort of official status in RUE. Quite the contrary your point is excellent and in my mind proves what I have believed, that fencing does add to the damage. But its proving it with a RUE rule, not a rule from another game. That's important because there are differences in rules between the games, sometimes very subtle ones.

Well... I look at this in kind of an "open lens" manner.

1. Rifts Rules Specifically:

-----

The RUE establishes a rule, namely that damage type is dependent solely on the damage type the weapon usually would do.

The RUE then establishes a specific rule, which explains that normal S.D.C. strength does not add to M.D. weapons.

-----

Those are rules specific to Rifts.

Now I move onto "supporting theory."

2. Splicers:

-----

Splicers explicitly states that the damage does apply to M.D. weapons as well as S.D.C. weapons.

-----

This isn't Rifts, and as such, it may not be correct. The problem is, in this case, the counter-argument is that because Splicers explicitly states it, then it must establish a rule within Rifts where it does not. This is an argument certain people put forth that is not really legitimate. Mostly because, as we all agree, one system can differ from another.

Then I move into "Situation-based implications."

3. Unwritten rules.

-----

Some people infer that "damage" whenever stated in a Rifts book unaccompanied by a descriptor of M.D. refers only to S.D.C. and therefore the +1d6 damage must be an S.D.C. only additive. While alternatively anything that is divisive or multiplicative must only refer to the damage type of M.D. or S.D.C. as stated.

-----

This is clearly faulty logic. Rifts plays fast and loose with the word damage quite frequently as it is. To try to claim that it means one thing when used as an additive and another thing when used with multiplication or division is simply illogical. Rifts never actually states that, this is strictly a false inference.

4. Design logic.

-----

When we look at Rifts, we specifically see that S.D.C. is not the game's primary "damage and resistance" as it were. The game is M.D.C. based, so much so that every single M.D. weapon can "one shot" any S.D.C. creature or object with less than 100 S.D.C./H.P. Usually more than that. The game was not designed around players routinely dealing out S.D.C. damage. M.D.C. weapons are not rare, not terribly expensive, and every single class has some way, shape, or form of dealing out M.D.C. damage from creation with either their natural abilities or their standard equipment.

-----

When we look at this logically, it makes little sense that an ability, like Fencing, would be given additive damage without it being intended to apply to M.D. weaponry simply because M.D. weaponry is the game's "default" weaponry.

-----

Thus... My conclusion here... FAQ's say it, logic says it, the RUE states it... So... Ladies and gentlemen of the jury... If the Mega-Damage fits, you must acquit...

[Killer Cyborg]

With the megaversal system, the rules are compatible unless contradicted or changed in the local system rules.

[Shark_Force]

so we have game line A that has very clear statements regarding how something works.

why do people always insist that game line B (using the same basic rule set), which lacks those very clear statements but has absolutely no compelling reason not to follow the same rule and which has clear statements directing us to use the perfectly clear rule, and other rules that are part of game line B which provide supporting evidence that situations such as the one being discussed work exactly like the rule in game line A... insist that game line B absolutely does not under any circumstances work like that?

i mean, you'd think we were suggesting that we should go murder innocent people or something like that with the amount of rage that seems to come up every time someone suggests that fencing with MD weapons gives bonus MD damage, bearing in mind that melee combat is already a vastly inferior choice 90% of the time and particularly melee combat with a psi-sword is even less likely to be a good decision (i mean, i can understand when you're using some amazing TW weapon that does 1d6x10 damage and doubles your attacks, but even then, would it be that much worse if it was 1d6x10 + 1d6 damage and doubled your attacks?)

were your parents killed by a cyber-knight fencer or something?

No. Heck I am personally in favor of it. But the argument that "Its that way in this game over here, so it should be that way in all the games" is not a good one. Its not a good one because its obviously, provably false.
A better, more convincing one is the argument from HWalsh, who points to a RUE rule that states that melee weapon damage is type appropriate. THAT is using a RUE rule to prove a RUE point.
One is logic (use RUE rules to solve RUE questions) one is an assumption (well if we assume that this rule from Splicers applies to RUE then it answers the question...)

except that in addition to the rule being explicit in splicers, various other supporting evidence has been provided. the FAQ directs us to consider the rule official. various other skills in RUE provide similar bonuses that explicitly work with MD. the skill simply straight-up adds damage, with no logical reason for the added damage to be different from the type of the main source of damage. the damage comes from your ability to strike precisely, which should help MD as well as SDC versions.

there's a bunch of stuff that would support the interpretation, and nothing that would support the other interpretation other than the theory that "damage" has an explicit meaning, that being conventional damage and not mega-damage, which is patently absurd.

yes, a rule from another game line is used to note a very specific statement that answers the question. but both game lines use the same rules system, and rifts has plenty of supporting evidence, not list of which is an explicit statement in the FAQ that the rule from splicers is valid for rifts.

[HWalsh]

I think we beat this dead horse so badly it came back to life only for us to beat it into a lumpy puddle of goo. So let us call this myth confirmed and move on.

[Alrik Vas]

So, wait...you are for the ruling, but...wait...why did we even have this discussion?

[eliakon]

So, wait...you are for the ruling, but...wait...why did we even have this discussion?

Because while I support the rule its not correct to cite either Splicers or the FAQ as a canon source for RUE. They are good sources, but they are not RUE canon. I was pointing that out. (which is why the simpler solution of actually using a RUE rule is so elegant...its actually canon.)

[Alrik Vas]

Canon or I disagree on the rule's elegance.

[grandmaster z0b]

I think this rule is deliberately vague so it can be left to GMs discretion, seeking exact rules in Rifts is simply wrong.

[HWalsh]

Canon or I disagree on the rule's elegance.

He does have a point. That was why I quoted the RUE (which I got from the FAQ) because Splicers is, technically anecdotal evidence, where as the RUE text is direct evidence.

[HWalsh]

I think this rule is deliberately vague so it can be left to GMs discretion, seeking exact rules in Rifts is simply wrong.

Its not vague at all.

The RUE tells us that when something adds damage to a weapon it adds damage of the type the weapon does. Its in black and white.

[Kagashi]

As already stated, its official in Splicers and clarified in FAQs. Also, it follows existing game mechanics, like the Boxing skill's +1 Attack. It applies whether you are boxing, shooting a gun, piloting a robot, driving a car, opening an extra door you otherwise wouldn't be able to do in 15 seconds, etc... Taking boxing increases your overall reflexes, not just while throwing punches. Same with wielding a sword and utilizing you fencing skill, it applies no matter what equipment you use to utilize the skill.

Id also allow the extra damage from H2H skills like Assassin and Horsemanship skills to translate to MD for the same reason fencing does (assuming the character had some reason to deal MD like SN Strength, vibro sword, wearing power armor with robotic strength, etc...). The damage is occurring through advanced technique (positioning of the body, hitting critical spots, maximizing body structure at the point of impact, etc...), not through raw power.

So that (squishy) guy using a regular sword would apply +1D6 SD when he hits, but picks up a vibro sword and now does +1D6 MD. The techniques he used with the skills he eared is no different, just the equipment has changed. He shouldnt be penalized for upgrading equipment.

[Killer Cyborg]

So, wait...you are for the ruling, but...wait...why did we even have this discussion?

Because while I support the rule its not correct to cite either Splicers or the FAQ as a canon source for RUE. They are good sources, but they are not RUE canon. I was pointing that out. (which is why the simpler solution of actually using a RUE rule is so elegant...its actually canon.)

Again, the rules for any one Palladium system carry over to any other Palladium system unless contradicted by local rules.
It's all the same "megaversal system" except as otherwise noted.
It's not otherwise noted in this case.

[Alrik Vas]

Yeah, I read ya Treebore. It was a reply to eliakon and forgot to quote him. No trouble.

[SpiritInterface]

Its only 1D6 id give it to them

But it is not just 1D6...

By picking up a cheap skill a 1st level Cyberknight effectively doubles the power of his Psi-Sword.

[alogan]

Well, THAT went on a lot longer than I was expecting. Thanks for the responses to my question. Even if there was no total consensus, at the very least I won't have any residual 'am I being a cheat?' bad feelings by giving my Cyber Knight the extra MDC damage. I swear, sometimes the convoluted Palladium rules system makes me want to junk the whole thing, but the damn setting and background flavor is just too neat to ignore. Rifts is like RPG meth--the concept and characters are such an awesome high, but dealing with the reality of the system itself is like a kick in the teeth.

Yet I keep going back for more.

[HWalsh]

Its only 1D6 id give it to them

But it is not just 1D6...

By picking up a cheap skill a 1st level Cyberknight effectively doubles the power of his Psi-Sword.

A psi-sword that does less damage than almost any other M.D. weapon in the game. Also, again, by the RUE, by every logical interpretation, extrapolation, and explanation is also how the system works. It puts the Cyber-Knight on par with a Vibro-Sword or a Dog Boy's Vibro-Claw...

I think that you'd have a legitimate claim about that being an issue if it continued to double the damage of the Psi-Sword, but the Cyber-Knight's Psi-Sword is monumentally garbage compared to everything else. If you aren't a Major Psychic, and if you don't take Fencing, it is so worthless there is no point in using it unless you are completely unarmed... Note that this weapon is one of the primary symbols of the order too... So... Yeah... Its 1d6...

It doubles it at 1st level, but nothing beyond that, meaning as time goes on it becomes less and less important.

[Shark_Force]

yeah, it's improving one of the least impressive weapons in the game which starts off with extremely large drawbacks (specifically, you must first get into melee range before you can use it, and you have no real tools to prevent "kiting"). you could make the psi-sword start off at 1d6x10 and it would still only be a situational weapon (though at least it would actually be substantially better than the vibro-weapons that millions of dog boys are packing around as a result of a decision to deliberately give only the absolute bare minimum in MD weaponry in civilian areas).

[HWalsh]

yeah, it's improving one of the least impressive weapons in the game which starts off with extremely large drawbacks (specifically, you must first get into melee range before you can use it, and you have no real tools to prevent "kiting"). you could make the psi-sword start off at 1d6x10 and it would still only be a situational weapon (though at least it would actually be substantially better than the vibro-weapons that millions of dog boys are packing around as a result of a decision to deliberately give only the absolute bare minimum in MD weaponry in civilian areas).

Actually... There is a HUGE tool in the game to prevent kiting. Once you get someone in melee range, they can't really get out of melee range unless they have more actions than you.

[HWalsh]

Actually... There is a HUGE tool in the game to prevent kiting. Once you get someone in melee range, they can't really get out of melee range unless they have more actions than you.

To aside this... A lot of players (and GMs) don't realize it but... If someone gets to you in melee range in Rifts (or any Megaverse game) you can't just say, "I back away." That isn't actually allowed. It doesn't matter if you can fly, jump a million feet, or have a speed score of 9,000, you can't simply "back away" from a melee opponent.

First you must sacrifice an attack to use a Backflip Escape (RUE 344)
This removes you from melee combat if successful, at this point, they can close on you in 1 melee action.
Then you instantly gain initiative, if you don't use it to back away, then they can close on you, and you have to backflip away again.

Can't backflip?

Too bad. You either deal with the melee combatant or you ain't going nowhere.

[Shark_Force]

actually, that particular rule is from the ninjas and superspies hand-to-hand rules. if you are using those rules, you actually also have to use special maneuvers to close distance in the first place as i recall, otherwise you can never reach melee. considering that leads to people only being able to punch someone or run away from someone if they have an advanced martial art, i'm inclined to believe those rules aren't strictly the case even for ninjas and superspies actually (those moves are largely to combine closing or increasing distance with something else, or closing or increasing distance more than would usually be possible). the back flip escape, in particular, gives you the initiative, which makes it especially effective as an escape tool more so than an untrained schmuck would be because it is giving you two consecutive actions to increase distance before your opponent gets to try to close.

but that's beside the point. kiting doesn't have to start after the thing you're kiting reaches melee range. if i have a gun with a 1600 foot range, the first thing you have to do is find a way to close the distance between whatever cover there is. now, granted, that's not likely to be 1600 feet unless we're talking about flying, or the guy with the sword is incredibly stupid (although in a very few places in the world it may be the case), but the simple fact is, i can choose to engage while i'm up to 1600 feet away with my gun, and with a sword you're limited to around 3-5 feet pretty much. i *could* be an idiot and wait for you to get to within 3-5 feet, but really, there's no particular reason for me to allow you to do so. so while you try and get close to me, i move farther away. if you try and get away from me, i move closer. if you try to take cover, i try to move around it or just destroy it outright. but the simple fact is, unless you are faster than me, i get to choose whether or not you ever get to even try to fight me. this is particularly problematic because in rifts, getting better mobility than an unassisted human on foot is extremely easy. fast cross-country vehicles, and even vehicles with flight, are available at a relatively low cost and relatively high availability, and do not generally lend themselves well to melee combat even if you do have a melee weapon.

seriously, the vibro-blade was basically put into production because the CS wanted to have an army of mutant dogs as expendable soldiers, but specifically didn't want to give them a weapon that would be useful if they rebelled against their masters. yet at the same time, if they didn't give them a weapon that could inflict MD, they would be useless as soldiers, and therefore not worth the resources to create them. the vibro-blade was literally created as the solution to the problem that there did not exist a sufficiently crappy weapon that you could outfit a slave army and not have to fear an uprising because they would be unable to fight you effectively with them unless they massively outnumber you and are prepared to suffer horrific losses, while still having them effective enough that if they massively outnumber your enemy they have a chance of winning (even if they suffer horrific losses). the psi-sword is about equal at first to those vibro-blades, and eventually grows to become superior. but not by much, because the main problem is not damage... it's range. with a melee weapon, you are essentially completely dependent on pulling off a successful ambush against anyone who is not so limited (which is not impossible, but it is definitely a massive disadvantage).

[eliakon]

Actually... There is a HUGE tool in the game to prevent kiting. Once you get someone in melee range, they can't really get out of melee range unless they have more actions than you.

To aside this... A lot of players (and GMs) don't realize it but... If someone gets to you in melee range in Rifts (or any Megaverse game) you can't just say, "I back away." That isn't actually allowed. It doesn't matter if you can fly, jump a million feet, or have a speed score of 9,000, you can't simply "back away" from a melee opponent.

First you must sacrifice an attack to use a Backflip Escape (RUE 344)
This removes you from melee combat if successful, at this point, they can close on you in 1 melee action.
Then you instantly gain initiative, if you don't use it to back away, then they can close on you, and you have to backflip away again.

Can't backflip?

Too bad. You either deal with the melee combatant or you ain't going nowhere.

While the Backflip Escape is one tool to get away, do you have a specific citation banning any other form of movement in melee? Specifically is there something that explicitly says you can not just walk away? Because I don't see anything that doesn't let me use my (Spdx5)/APM in Yards/Meters per action to actually move. And if you cant keep up....to bad. If you can keep up that's another story of course.

[Kagashi]

Its only 1D6 id give it to them

But it is not just 1D6...

By picking up a cheap skill a 1st level Cyberknight effectively doubles the power of his Psi-Sword.

why is that a bad thing? The character consciously decided to pick up fencing to take advantage of this skill, creating synergy with his other abilities. But at the cost of having one less skill to dedicate to something else.

[HWalsh]

Actually... There is a HUGE tool in the game to prevent kiting. Once you get someone in melee range, they can't really get out of melee range unless they have more actions than you.

To aside this... A lot of players (and GMs) don't realize it but... If someone gets to you in melee range in Rifts (or any Megaverse game) you can't just say, "I back away." That isn't actually allowed. It doesn't matter if you can fly, jump a million feet, or have a speed score of 9,000, you can't simply "back away" from a melee opponent.

First you must sacrifice an attack to use a Backflip Escape (RUE 344)
This removes you from melee combat if successful, at this point, they can close on you in 1 melee action.
Then you instantly gain initiative, if you don't use it to back away, then they can close on you, and you have to backflip away again.

Can't backflip?

Too bad. You either deal with the melee combatant or you ain't going nowhere.

While the Backflip Escape is one tool to get away, do you have a specific citation banning any other form of movement in melee? Specifically is there something that explicitly says you can not just walk away? Because I don't see anything that doesn't let me use my (Spdx5)/APM in Yards/Meters per action to actually move. And if you cant keep up....to bad. If you can keep up that's another story of course.

Specific rule stating it? No.

The fact that the RUE has it listed as a maneuver? That is darn convincing. More to the point, why would they put in a means of escape from melee (backflip escape) that requires expending a combat action, that only moves you backward "by one action" which is decidedly inferior to simply walking away, which, in fact, in order to be truly useful as an escape requires you to spend another action to walk away.

If you could simply disengage from melee by walking away then there is absolutely no reason for the maneuver to exist.

[Shark_Force]

Actually... There is a HUGE tool in the game to prevent kiting. Once you get someone in melee range, they can't really get out of melee range unless they have more actions than you.

To aside this... A lot of players (and GMs) don't realize it but... If someone gets to you in melee range in Rifts (or any Megaverse game) you can't just say, "I back away." That isn't actually allowed. It doesn't matter if you can fly, jump a million feet, or have a speed score of 9,000, you can't simply "back away" from a melee opponent.

First you must sacrifice an attack to use a Backflip Escape (RUE 344)
This removes you from melee combat if successful, at this point, they can close on you in 1 melee action.
Then you instantly gain initiative, if you don't use it to back away, then they can close on you, and you have to backflip away again.

Can't backflip?

Too bad. You either deal with the melee combatant or you ain't going nowhere.

While the Backflip Escape is one tool to get away, do you have a specific citation banning any other form of movement in melee? Specifically is there something that explicitly says you can not just walk away? Because I don't see anything that doesn't let me use my (Spdx5)/APM in Yards/Meters per action to actually move. And if you cant keep up....to bad. If you can keep up that's another story of course.

Specific rule stating it? No.

The fact that the RUE has it listed as a maneuver? That is darn convincing. More to the point, why would they put in a means of escape from melee (backflip escape) that requires expending a combat action, that only moves you backward "by one action" which is decidedly inferior to simply walking away, which, in fact, in order to be truly useful as an escape requires you to spend another action to walk away.

If you could simply disengage from melee by walking away then there is absolutely no reason for the maneuver to exist.

it wins you initiative. it allows 2 actions to back away for those that know the technique. being able to spend 2 actions on getting away is not always a great thing, but it can be.

even the fact that you can use it to back flip escape, make an attack (if you have something ranged), and then after your enemy moves in you can keep moving away with back flip escape is significant, if for example you have more attacks per melee. it takes an action for them to close, no matter how much faster they are than you, so they spend an action getting close, and then you back flip escape until they're out of actions and you have them at your mercy.

it is, therefore, a maneuver that lets you gain an advantage, or escape from a fight that you don't really want to be in after they've gotten into the fight. how is that "no reason for the maneuver to exist"?

[HWalsh]

it wins you initiative. it allows 2 actions to back away for those that know the technique. being able to spend 2 actions on getting away is not always a great thing, but it can be.

even the fact that you can use it to back flip escape, make an attack (if you have something ranged), and then after your enemy moves in you can keep moving away with back flip escape is significant, if for example you have more attacks per melee. it takes an action for them to close, no matter how much faster they are than you, so they spend an action getting close, and then you back flip escape until they're out of actions and you have them at your mercy.

it is, therefore, a maneuver that lets you gain an advantage, or escape from a fight that you don't really want to be in after they've gotten into the fight. how is that "no reason for the maneuver to exist"?

As opposed to: I back away, if I have more movement, you approach, don't reach me, I shoot, you approach, I move away, you approach, don't reach me, I shoot.

Which makes your opponent burn 2 actions just reaching you.

Which, unlike backflip, can't fail on a poor roll

[Zer0 Kay]

it wins you initiative. it allows 2 actions to back away for those that know the technique. being able to spend 2 actions on getting away is not always a great thing, but it can be.

even the fact that you can use it to back flip escape, make an attack (if you have something ranged), and then after your enemy moves in you can keep moving away with back flip escape is significant, if for example you have more attacks per melee. it takes an action for them to close, no matter how much faster they are than you, so they spend an action getting close, and then you back flip escape until they're out of actions and you have them at your mercy.

it is, therefore, a maneuver that lets you gain an advantage, or escape from a fight that you don't really want to be in after they've gotten into the fight. how is that "no reason for the maneuver to exist"?

As opposed to: I back away, if I have more movement, you approach, don't reach me, I shoot, you approach, I move away, you approach, don't reach me, I shoot.

Which makes your opponent burn 2 actions just reaching you.

Which, unlike backflip, can't fail on a poor roll

unless your GM is evil and makes you trip over something as your backing up while keeping your eyes on your enemy, then it is a 100% fail instead of a possible fail. Of course you don't know your GM would do that until he does it... or would you?