Cyber Knights and Fencing

[Killer Cyborg]

cybernetics come at the cost of humanity my butt. Until they integrate a system like cyberpunk, where your PC can go Cyberpsycho, your humanity is under no rule based threat. You can still be the caring guy in a new metal skin that takes care of bunnies.
Pfffth loss of humanity.

Well in the Six Million Dollar Man series they did have one cyborg who had trouble adapting, the race car driver who was more bionic than Steve as he required all 4 limbs be replaced, and even Steve had some time getting used to the 'Hand? That's not really my hand.' deal. But psychologically speaking it's not something all cyborgs should be angsting over, or most probably, particularly if they got good psychological therapy initially to adapt to it (and of course those nuts who just want it for a quick path to power likely aren't going to be bothered by what they've given up).

89% of Full Conversion Borgs adjust to life as a machine.
But it's still life as a machine.

[Nightmask]

Sad how common that attitude is: that everything just has to have a trade-off/downside/blessedwithsuck associated with it or it's munchkin/twinkish/over-powered.

It was an essential theme of the original game.

Not really, some things were shown with trade-offs even if that concept (like cybernetic enhancement to induce psychic powers) is as often shown without as with such but it certainly wasn't an essential theme of the game originally or now.

Yes, really.
RMB 7
One of the central themes of Rifts is human augmentation. You will see over and over again, man's (fictional) attempts to make himself better; stronger, faster, smarter, more powerful. Sometimes this would be done with artificial implants. Other times it would be through the use of chemicals or genetic mutation. Under the most extreme circumstances, man would completely re-create himself. Not always for the better.

The human augmentation in the RMB always has a downside. Cybernetics/bionics come at the cost of your humanity. Juicers die. Crazies go crazy.
Power came at a price.

What you quote refers to human augmentation as being a central theme, not an essential theme and it certainly doesn't say it does or should always come at a price. You choose to think it to be essential because you think power should always have a price even when it doesn't or shouldn't but there are too many things where one clearly gets power without a price to think that to be true.

They don't, most things don't have such issues or they have fairly minor downsides to where people don't really think of them as downsides, and no they didn't munchkinize Cyber-Knights with the Siege updated material nor did they do it for the sake of being munchkin, they did it because like many classes in the original Rifts book they'd become less competitive with many of the new classes and races that had come out since then and had to be updated to meet that new level that became common for the setting since it was created.

In other words, "They did it to keep up with power creep."
NOT better.
And not exactly a "not munchy" reason.

That's not a munchkin thing, munchkin is a disruptive play style and you can't even remotely call game designers updating a character class to be more in keeping with a new median point as being munchkin. It's a revision to bring the class more into alignment with a new standard and nothing more.

"Munchkin" can mean a lot of things, and as a rule those things have to do with immature players who can't stand not being the most powerful thing in the room, who want to dominate their enemies easily and consistently.
And that's where Power Creep comes from- every new thing has to be just a bit better than the best old thing. Last year's BEST is this year's starting point.
Because otherwise, you can't dominate.

Yes munchkin has certainly become a catch-all derogatory term for anything someone doesn't like, but it still isn't munchkin when game designers release more powerful classes or update older classes/things to be more powerful. They're the game designers and they're adapting the game to what the players are either complaining about or demanding, and when newer stuff comes out that's more powerful it's got nothing to do with wanting to dominate (indeed how can that even make sense when they're the game DESIGNERS they aren't some player in your game and they certainly aren't dominating anything with the updates/changes).

What we see in the creep is generally a result of 'well this is supposed to be a world filled with fantastic creatures and powerful and deadly threats so what I put in I want it to be a challenge over what's already out there', then the next guy wants to make sure HIS contribution is a challenge to the last guy's, and so on. You get an arms race of trying to top the last guy which again isn't munchkin it's just general human nature.

the crappy new powers made the class completely uninteresting to me.
Instead of being a champion humans, they were superhumans.
That changes their nature, and not for the better.

Cyber-knights have always been super-humans, since I shouldn't have to point out the whole 'psychic powers including cool mega-damage inflicting psychic sword and implanted cybernetic armor' which makes them clearly NOT normal humans nor does having that make them not champion humans. Not like you're required to use the new write-ups for them either, nothing prevents you from using the classic version if that's what most appeals to you.

They weren't normal human... but they were humans.
Anybody can get cyber-armor. That's nothing special on Rifts Earth. City Rats can start with it.
The Psi-Sword was a pretty cool power... but nothing huge. A single psychic power doesn't really make you cross the line from "human" to "not human."
Granted, in modern day, the psi-sword could make you a super-hero... but you'd still just be a human with a single psychic weapon. You'd bleed like anybody else, and you'd tire as fast as anybody else, and you'd still just be a guy with a fancy sword.
The new CKs aren't just guys with one or two fancy tricks, though. They only bleed if you can get through the living armor grafted onto them. Zen Combat means that they don't move like normal humans, though. They're faster. They have super powers, not just one fancy weapon.
They get for free the kind of powers that Juicers die for, whereas before, they were only marginally more powerful than a CS Grunt or anybody else with decent armor and weapons.

Yes, there wasn't really anything to differentiate a Cyber-Knight of the classic sort from anyone else was there? Basically they weren't anything special as you describe them and a Rogue Scholar with a vibro-blade and cyber-armor could be just like a Cyber-Knight if he wanted. But like I said, if you don't like the changes you don't have to use them, or consider there to be two separate types of Cyber-Knights.

[Nightmask]

cybernetics come at the cost of humanity my butt. Until they integrate a system like cyberpunk, where your PC can go Cyberpsycho, your humanity is under no rule based threat. You can still be the caring guy in a new metal skin that takes care of bunnies.
Pfffth loss of humanity.

Well in the Six Million Dollar Man series they did have one cyborg who had trouble adapting, the race car driver who was more bionic than Steve as he required all 4 limbs be replaced, and even Steve had some time getting used to the 'Hand? That's not really my hand.' deal. But psychologically speaking it's not something all cyborgs should be angsting over, or most probably, particularly if they got good psychological therapy initially to adapt to it (and of course those nuts who just want it for a quick path to power likely aren't going to be bothered by what they've given up).

89% of Full Conversion Borgs adjust to life as a machine.
But it's still life as a machine.

No, it would be life as a human being with machine replacements for parts of their bodies, not life as a machine because they aren't machines they're humans with varying amounts of machinery replacing parts of their body.

[Shark_Force]

i'd say a full conversion 'borg is giving up plenty. for example, they no longer eat. every time someone enjoys a chocolate bar or their favourite meal, they're doing something that a full conversion 'borg can never do again. they will also have no sense of smell. their sense of touch is limited, as has been mentioned. they will never have sex, and will never have children. they can't kiss another person in most cases, and any sort of physical affection is likely to kill their partner. even if you come to love someone, they are essentially forever beyond your reach... you are constantly stuck inside a machine. every interaction you make is through that machine.

obviously, there isn't exactly a mechanical punishment for that, but then again, most juicers won't ever hit their diminished lifespan in the course of a game either. there is, however, a very significant in-character loss associated with becoming a full conversion 'borg. partial conversion 'borgs don't lose as much, but then, they don't really gain an awful lot either tbh. i mean, they have some MDC limbs, but they still must rely on armour to keep them alive. their limbs can be a bit stronger or faster, but not enough to gain significant benefits. they basically have only a couple of minor tricks, and meanwhile are carrying around hundreds of thousands of credits worth of hardware attached to their body and are not really all that well defended against cyber-snatchers (i would expect it's pretty much suicide for a group of 3-4 desperate people to attack a full conversion 'borg, even a slave miner model with no military grade weapons... but a partial conversion 'borg isn't that much tougher or dangerous than normal).

there's also the fact that they don't heal naturally, and will need to find a cyber-doc to repair any and all damage they take, which is somewhat more rare even than finding someone who can repair armour (think about it... how many towns describe reliable cyber-clinics vs towns that describe a shop that sells weapons and armour?)

'borgs have a cost that they pay. it may not be immediately obvious, but it is there.

[HWalsh]

KC - Since you are talking about the downsides, if you consider the fluff of the 'Borg to be legitimate, then how about the Code of Chivalry for the Cyber-Knight? Isn't that similar. It is restrictive, it isn't so much hard-coded system-based, etc... Doesn't that then, serve as a trade off?

"Oh noes! A gang of thieves is attacking me in a bar with machine guns, I don't have any non-MDC weapons, and I can't use my Psi-Sword..." (Granted Cyber-Armor applies here.)

[Kagashi]

cybernetics come at the cost of humanity my butt. Until they integrate a system like cyberpunk, where your PC can go Cyberpsycho, your humanity is under no rule based threat. You can still be the caring guy in a new metal skin that takes care of bunnies.
Pfffth loss of humanity.

Physical humanity, not emotional concepts. Obviously the brain is what contains the "human".

The Adam Chilson novels captured the loss of physical humanity well with the CS dude whom required full bionic conversion. There was a bit about how he was building up certain types of stress so he went out on the track and tried to blow off some steam like he would prior to the conversion, but he ended up doing nothing more than working the mechanics of his new body and had to find new ways to deal with stress.

Likewise, you can forget about sex, or feeling the breeze of the ocean air, or the tickle of a rouge strand of hair on the back of your neck and so on. That is the price to pay for a full conversion cyborg. Sure the books mention there are artificial feelings and sensations, but at a reduced factor of being a regular human. Again, the Adam Chilson novels captured this beautifully.

Oh, and to stay on topic, Cyber Knights should be able to apply fencing to their MD with the Psi Swords.

[Kagashi]

"Munchkin" can mean a lot of things, and as a rule those things have to do with immature players who can't stand not being the most powerful thing in the room, who want to dominate their enemies easily and consistently.
And that's where Power Creep comes from- every new thing has to be just a bit better than the best old thing. Last year's BEST is this year's starting point.
Because otherwise, you can't dominate.

Agreed. Power Creep, which the post SoT Cyber Knight is a product of, is very much a munchkin aspect. Munchkins care about two things; how much damage can he take, and how much damage can he deal as fast as he can and as often as he can. Thus making post SoT CKs munchy compared to RMB CKs because there really is no downfall to a SoT Cyber Knight (save for having to follow a code I reckon...but you can completely igore it, dont have to follow it, and just become a Fallen Knight complete with all previous powers...just with a bad attitude).

[Athos]

This is getting way off topic, but I think you guys keep throwing around the words "power creep" without having a clue what it means. When you compare the new cyberknights with an original glitterboy or dragon hatchling, they are no where near as powerful. How can they be creeping the power curve forward if they do less damage and are not able to take as much punishment as a glitterboy, the original class of Rifts? I think there is an effort to make other classes "catch-up" to some of the original over powered things like the glitterboy, but the power of the glitterboy was there from day one, so it didn't creep in. Whether balance is a good thing or not, is a whole argument in and of itself, but until something does more than 3d6x10 MD and can take more than 770 MDC, I don't see power creep in Rifts, I see equalization.

[Killer Cyborg]

This is getting way off topic, but I think you guys keep throwing around the words "power creep" without having a clue what it means. When you compare the new cyberknights with an original glitterboy or dragon hatchling, they are no where near as powerful. How can they be creeping the power curve forward if they do less damage and are not able to take as much punishment as a glitterboy, the original class of Rifts? I think there is an effort to make other classes "catch-up" to some of the original over powered things like the glitterboy, but the power of the glitterboy was there from day one, so it didn't creep in. Whether balance is a good thing or not, is a whole argument in and of itself, but until something does more than 3d6x10 MD and can take more than 770 MDC, I don't see power creep in Rifts, I see equalization.

Power creep isn't about comparing the average to the top-tier.
It's about the advancing power of the average.

[Killer Cyborg]

KC - Since you are talking about the downsides, if you consider the fluff of the 'Borg to be legitimate, then how about the Code of Chivalry for the Cyber-Knight? Isn't that similar. It is restrictive, it isn't so much hard-coded system-based, etc... Doesn't that then, serve as a trade off?

"Oh noes! A gang of thieves is attacking me in a bar with machine guns, I don't have any non-MDC weapons, and I can't use my Psi-Sword..." (Granted Cyber-Armor applies here.)

It was enough of a restriction to balance their original power level, but not their new power level.
Also, it's pretty optional.

[eliakon]

Just saying but.....I don't think anyone is going to win an argument on what the 'right' 'feel' for how the game is 'supposed to be played' or what 'limits' or 'balances' are 'appropriate'.....And certainly not in a thread on fencing.....

[Nightmask]

"Munchkin" can mean a lot of things, and as a rule those things have to do with immature players who can't stand not being the most powerful thing in the room, who want to dominate their enemies easily and consistently.
And that's where Power Creep comes from- every new thing has to be just a bit better than the best old thing. Last year's BEST is this year's starting point.
Because otherwise, you can't dominate.

Agreed. Power Creep, which the post SoT Cyber Knight is a product of, is very much a munchkin aspect. Munchkins care about two things; how much damage can he take, and how much damage can he deal as fast as he can and as often as he can. Thus making post SoT CKs munchy compared to RMB CKs because there really is no downfall to a SoT Cyber Knight (save for having to follow a code I reckon...but you can completely igore it, dont have to follow it, and just become a Fallen Knight complete with all previous powers...just with a bad attitude).

Yeah, again, that's not munchkin that's game revision/development to make an UNDER-POWERED class more appealing because people generally like their character to be able to survive and prosper rather than end up dead first game session he's used in or having to gear up like all the rest because he's incapable of actually holding his own by his own abilities like one would think he should be able to do.

[Killer Cyborg]

"Munchkin" can mean a lot of things, and as a rule those things have to do with immature players who can't stand not being the most powerful thing in the room, who want to dominate their enemies easily and consistently.
And that's where Power Creep comes from- every new thing has to be just a bit better than the best old thing. Last year's BEST is this year's starting point.
Because otherwise, you can't dominate.

Agreed. Power Creep, which the post SoT Cyber Knight is a product of, is very much a munchkin aspect. Munchkins care about two things; how much damage can he take, and how much damage can he deal as fast as he can and as often as he can. Thus making post SoT CKs munchy compared to RMB CKs because there really is no downfall to a SoT Cyber Knight (save for having to follow a code I reckon...but you can completely igore it, dont have to follow it, and just become a Fallen Knight complete with all previous powers...just with a bad attitude).

Yeah, again, that's not munchkin that's game revision/development to make an UNDER-POWERED class more appealing because people generally like their character to be able to survive and prosper rather than end up dead first game session he's used in or having to gear up like all the rest because he's incapable of actually holding his own by his own abilities like one would think he should be able to do.

Source?

[Alrik Vas]

Just saying but.....I don't think anyone is going to win an argument on what the 'right' 'feel' for how the game is 'supposed to be played' or what 'limits' or 'balances' are 'appropriate'.....And certainly not in a thread on fencing.....

That's all surprisingly factual for referencing opinion as much as it does. *golf clap*

[Tor]

you can forget about sex, or feeling the breeze of the ocean air, or the tickle of a rouge strand of hair on the back of your neck and so on. That is the price to pay for a full conversion cyborg. Sure the books mention there are artificial feelings and sensations, but at a reduced factor of being a regular human. Again, the Adam Chilson novels captured this beautifully.

Although on the more advanced VR side is the Legends of Dune trilogy where the borg-Titans have crazy better-than-flesh sensory experiments.

Oh, and to stay on topic, Cyber Knights should be able to apply fencing to their MD with the Psi Swords.

They can, a level 1 cyber-knight who buys fencing does 1d6 MD plus 1d6 sdc with it.

This would inflict 2d6 HP to vampires. Or 1d6/2+1d6 sdc to a Promethean.

game revision/development to make an UNDER-POWERED class more appealing because people generally like their character to be able to survive and prosper rather than end up dead first game session he's used in or having to gear up like all the rest because he's incapable of actually holding his own by his own abilities like one would think he should be able to do.

Are Cyber-Knights being called under-powered all of a sudden?

Where's the cool power-enhancement for other main book stuff like the Rogue Scientist?

Most of them even in RUE just got cool unique skills that other classes couldn't select, not a power upgrade.

[HWalsh]

Oh, and to stay on topic, Cyber Knights should be able to apply fencing to their MD with the Psi Swords.

They can, a level 1 cyber-knight who buys fencing does 1d6 MD plus 1d6 sdc with it.

We have debunked that misinformation time and time again Tor. No. The RUE provision pretty clearly states that additional damage of any kind, unless otherwise excepted (such as strength) is of the same damage type as the weapon.

A level 1 Cyber-Knightw ith Fencing does 2d6 M.D. with their Psi-Sword.

Period.

The RUE says it.
The FAQ says it.
The mountains of correlative evidence shows it.

[Killer Cyborg]

Oh, and to stay on topic, Cyber Knights should be able to apply fencing to their MD with the Psi Swords.

They can, a level 1 cyber-knight who buys fencing does 1d6 MD plus 1d6 sdc with it.

We have debunked that misinformation time and time again Tor. No. The RUE provision pretty clearly states that additional damage of any kind, unless otherwise excepted (such as strength) is of the same damage type as the weapon.

A level 1 Cyber-Knightw ith Fencing does 2d6 M.D. with their Psi-Sword.

Period.

The RUE says it.
The FAQ says it.
The mountains of correlative evidence shows it.

Agreed.

[Tor]

KC replies are not for polling, please do more than just agree.

We have debunked that misinformation time and time again Tor. No.

Nobody has. I mean heck, check out the back of Skraypers, there is a clear distinction between 'damage' and MD.

The RUE provision pretty clearly states that additional damage of any kind, unless otherwise excepted (such as strength) is of the same damage type as the weapon.

This is never stated in the book, page?

A level 1 Cyber-Knightw ith Fencing does 2d6 M.D. with their Psi-Sword. Period. The RUE says it.

Where does RUE state that a cyber-knight can do 2d6 MD with a psi-sword before level 3?

Aside from Master Psionics, that is.

mountains of correlative evidence shows it.

Actually correlative evidence shows that damage means SDC damage unless explicitly indicated otherwise, which only happens in Splicers. Rifts and Robotech opt not to include that variation.

[HWalsh]

Oh, and to stay on topic, Cyber Knights should be able to apply fencing to their MD with the Psi Swords.

They can, a level 1 cyber-knight who buys fencing does 1d6 MD plus 1d6 sdc with it.

We have debunked that misinformation time and time again Tor. No. The RUE provision pretty clearly states that additional damage of any kind, unless otherwise excepted (such as strength) is of the same damage type as the weapon.

A level 1 Cyber-Knightw ith Fencing does 2d6 M.D. with their Psi-Sword.

Period.

The RUE says it.
The FAQ says it.
The mountains of correlative evidence shows it.

Agreed.

... Seriously?

Okay... Here I go again...

Rifts: Ultimate Edition page 326

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.)

Okay Tor, so right here, we have a clear line explaining that DAMAGE TYPE is dependent ON THE WEAPON we also clearly have the precedent for the generic term damage to not explicitly refer to S.D.C. (so the theory that "damage" always means S.D.C. is debunked there as well.)

While, you might claim that this doesn't apply to a psi-sword because it is not magical or high-tech I'm pretty sure such a claim is pretty weak. Also since the parenthetical statement doesn't use that distinction in its e.g. then it applies as per standard common parlance English language usage.

So...

Now we go look at Fencing (page 316 of Rifts Ultimate Edition)

Fencing grants "+1D6 to damage with a sword"

This increases the WEAPON'S damage.

As per the previously mentioned parenthetical this means the WEAPON'S DAMAGE goes up. The weapon's damage is dependent on the type of damage the weapon does. The weapon does M.D. therefor this adds to the damage of the weapon, which, in-turn, is M.D.

Thus since the idea that "Damage always means S.D.C." is debunked and since we have a clear statement attributing the damage to the damage type dealt by the weapon and another ability which increases the damage of the weapon then we have to accept that Fencing adds S.D.C. or M.D. depending on the type of damage that is usually dealt out by the weapon itself.

Thus... I rest my case.

Note:
Please don't respond with finger explosives as the reason why damage means S.D.C. because this argument already shows that damage is a non-static term that applies to the normal damage of the weapon.

[Killer Cyborg]

KC replies are not for polling, please do more than just agree.

I didn't ask for your opinion on what replies are for.

[Zer0 Kay]

KC replies are not for polling, please do more than just agree.

I didn't ask for your opinion on what replies are for.

don't you love when people take ownership of their OP... oh wait its not his.

[eliakon]

Oh, and to stay on topic, Cyber Knights should be able to apply fencing to their MD with the Psi Swords.

They can, a level 1 cyber-knight who buys fencing does 1d6 MD plus 1d6 sdc with it.

We have debunked that misinformation time and time again Tor. No. The RUE provision pretty clearly states that additional damage of any kind, unless otherwise excepted (such as strength) is of the same damage type as the weapon.

A level 1 Cyber-Knightw ith Fencing does 2d6 M.D. with their Psi-Sword.

Period.

The RUE says it.
The FAQ says it.
The mountains of correlative evidence shows it.

Agreed.

... Seriously?

Okay... Here I go again...

Rifts: Ultimate Edition page 326

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.)

Okay Tor, so right here, we have a clear line explaining that DAMAGE TYPE is dependent ON THE WEAPON we also clearly have the precedent for the generic term damage to not explicitly refer to S.D.C. (so the theory that "damage" always means S.D.C. is debunked there as well.)

While, you might claim that this doesn't apply to a psi-sword because it is not magical or high-tech I'm pretty sure such a claim is pretty weak. Also since the parenthetical statement doesn't use that distinction in its e.g. then it applies as per standard common parlance English language usage.

So...

Now we go look at Fencing (page 316 of Rifts Ultimate Edition)

Fencing grants "+1D6 to damage with a sword"

This increases the WEAPON'S damage.

As per the previously mentioned parenthetical this means the WEAPON'S DAMAGE goes up. The weapon's damage is dependent on the type of damage the weapon does. The weapon does M.D. therefor this adds to the damage of the weapon, which, in-turn, is M.D.

Thus since the idea that "Damage always means S.D.C." is debunked and since we have a clear statement attributing the damage to the damage type dealt by the weapon and another ability which increases the damage of the weapon then we have to accept that Fencing adds S.D.C. or M.D. depending on the type of damage that is usually dealt out by the weapon itself.

Thus... I rest my case.

Note:
Please don't respond with finger explosives as the reason why damage means S.D.C. because this argument already shows that damage is a non-static term that applies to the normal damage of the weapon.

*nominates this post for the FAQ*

[Zer0 Kay]

We have debunked that misinformation time and time again Tor. No. The RUE provision pretty clearly states that additional damage of any kind, unless otherwise excepted (such as strength) is of the same damage type as the weapon.

A level 1 Cyber-Knightw ith Fencing does 2d6 M.D. with their Psi-Sword.

Period.

The RUE says it.
The FAQ says it.
The mountains of correlative evidence shows it.

Agreed.

... Seriously?

Okay... Here I go again...

Rifts: Ultimate Edition page 326

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.)

Okay Tor, so right here, we have a clear line explaining that DAMAGE TYPE is dependent ON THE WEAPON we also clearly have the precedent for the generic term damage to not explicitly refer to S.D.C. (so the theory that "damage" always means S.D.C. is debunked there as well.)

While, you might claim that this doesn't apply to a psi-sword because it is not magical or high-tech I'm pretty sure such a claim is pretty weak. Also since the parenthetical statement doesn't use that distinction in its e.g. then it applies as per standard common parlance English language usage.

So...

Now we go look at Fencing (page 316 of Rifts Ultimate Edition)

Fencing grants "+1D6 to damage with a sword"

This increases the WEAPON'S damage.

As per the previously mentioned parenthetical this means the WEAPON'S DAMAGE goes up. The weapon's damage is dependent on the type of damage the weapon does. The weapon does M.D. therefor this adds to the damage of the weapon, which, in-turn, is M.D.

Thus since the idea that "Damage always means S.D.C." is debunked and since we have a clear statement attributing the damage to the damage type dealt by the weapon and another ability which increases the damage of the weapon then we have to accept that Fencing adds S.D.C. or M.D. depending on the type of damage that is usually dealt out by the weapon itself.

Thus... I rest my case.

Note:
Please don't respond with finger explosives as the reason why damage means S.D.C. because this argument already shows that damage is a non-static term that applies to the normal damage of the weapon.

*nominates this post for the FAQ*

I second the motion with the stipulation that names must be changed or omitted to protect the not so innocent.

[Tor]

FAQ nominations ought to wait until an argument is adequately resolved. The numerous examples of SDC default get repeatedly ignored.

Agreed.

... Seriously? Okay... Here I go again...

I think you quoted the wrong post

Rifts: Ultimate Edition page 326

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.)

Okay Tor, so right here, we have a clear line explaining that DAMAGE TYPE is dependent ON THE WEAPON we also clearly have the precedent for the generic term damage to not explicitly refer to S.D.C. (so the theory that "damage" always means S.D.C. is debunked there as well.)

This is discussing ancient WP skills, not physical skills like Fencing. Furthermore, it is discussing actual items, specifically "equivalent weapons". It is not even clear what is meant by 'mega damage weapon'. It does not mean weapons that have MDC because the world books have multiple examples of MDC weapons that still only inflict SDC. It's not at all clear what this refers to, but for simplicity we could saw Wormwood Resin or Dweomer-Enchanted ones, basically things which explicitly inflict MD based on normal SDC damage of the weapon. Note that this doesn't in any way indicate MD based on physical skill bonuses.

I request you not misrepresent me: I never say that damage always means SDC, I saw that damage defaults to meaning SDC when lacking context implying otherwise. I do not consider the WP ancient note to indicate proper context.

If we're to continue talking I want you to first acknowledge that you understand what I am explaining to you here, and to please promise to stop improperly summarizing my argument. This has happened before, I have protested it before, but it continues to be done. I have never said 'damage always means SDC', I say it DEFAULTS to meaning SDC when we lack explicit indication that it is commentary on mega-damage.

we go look at Fencing (page 316 of Rifts Ultimate Edition)

Fencing grants "+1D6 to damage with a sword"

This increases the WEAPON'S damage.

Yes, but since it lacks a note about possibly adding MD, that defaults to the SDC standard Palladium uses.

since the idea that "Damage always means S.D.C." is debunked

If you continue to imply I said that by putting it in quotes, I will report you. This is your second warning in this post, stop it.

I never say 'always means'. If you do not recall my exact phrasing, go check my posts. There is a difference between 'round is the default shape of water melon' and 'watermelons are always round'.

since we have a clear statement attributing the damage to the damage type dealt by the weapon

Actually no, you don't have that. The Fencing skill just mentions that damage is added, not that it becomes MD when used with an MD weapon. That is a necessary note.

Please don't respond with finger explosives as the reason why damage means S.D.C. because this argument already shows that damage is a non-static term that applies to the normal damage of the weapon.

I think you are remembering wrongly. My argument was based on the Finger Gun, not the explosives throwaway finger segments. It illustrated that a weapon which can inflict SDC (weakest round) or MD (best round) can have an ambiguous 'damage' statement which common sense tells us (based on cost) that it is SDC. Also check out Skraypers' power section, if you haven't. Damage remains damage (SDC) unless explicitly upgraded to MD.

I didn't ask for your opinion on what replies are for.

I am volunteering my opinion that reading the spam guidelines would be illuminating.

:lol: don't you love when people take ownership of their OP... oh wait its not his.

Forum guidelines apply regardless of whether or not the OP wants them to.

[HWalsh]

This is discussing ancient WP skills, not physical skills like Fencing. Furthermore, it is discussing actual items, specifically "equivalent weapons". It is not even clear what is meant by 'mega damage weapon'. It does not mean weapons that have MDC because the world books have multiple examples of MDC weapons that still only inflict SDC. It's not at all clear what this refers to, but for simplicity we could saw Wormwood Resin or Dweomer-Enchanted ones, basically things which explicitly inflict MD based on normal SDC damage of the weapon. Note that this doesn't in any way indicate MD based on physical skill bonuses.

I request you not misrepresent me: I never say that damage always means SDC, I saw that damage defaults to meaning SDC when lacking context implying otherwise. I do not consider the WP ancient note to indicate proper context.

If we're to continue talking I want you to first acknowledge that you understand what I am explaining to you here, and to please promise to stop improperly summarizing my argument. This has happened before, I have protested it before, but it continues to be done. I have never said 'damage always means SDC', I say it DEFAULTS to meaning SDC when we lack explicit indication that it is commentary on mega-damage.

I am countering your claim that it "Defaults" to meaning S.D.C. Simple as that. I utterly refuse to see any precedent for non-explicitly stated incidents of weapons dealing both S.D.C. and M.D.C. simultaneously. For example, when someone doesn't have Supernatural Strength they don't deal, with a Vibro-Sword, 2D6 M.D.C. + (insert bonus number here) S.D.C. damage.

Damage is always of the main damage type of the attack unless explicitly otherwise stated.

That is my stance.

Since Fencing does NOT explicitly otherwise state that, then it does M.D.C. damage if the weapon normally deals M.D.C. damage and S.D.C. damage if the weapon normally deals S.D.C. damage.

If you continue to imply I said that by putting it in quotes, I will report you. This is your second warning in this post, stop it.

I never say 'always means'. If you do not recall my exact phrasing, go check my posts. There is a difference between 'round is the default shape of water melon' and 'watermelons are always round'.

I then, wish you to stop stating that damage, as a default, is S.D.C. because there are too many examples where it is not.

Actually no, you don't have that. The Fencing skill just mentions that damage is added, not that it becomes MD when used with an MD weapon. That is a necessary note.

No. No it really isn't. The notation on W.P.s is more than enough to prove otherwise. As is the FAQ.

The only evidence that you really have supporting you is that it is how you think it should be.

If we want to go in precedent, then we'd have the fact that in all cases where something doesn't add M.D. to weapon attacks that normally deal M.D. we are specifically told, in the book, that it isn't.

So if you are going to continue this, I need you to point out, in the RUE, where the book specifically and explicitely states:

"The +1D6 damage from fencing is only S.D.C. damage and is not M.D. damage."

Because the ONLY instances we have of damage being added to melee that isn't the same damage as the weapon usually deals out we are specifically told of it.

My take on your stance seems to be that you feel that because Fencing does not specifically state that the damage additive is M.D. then it isn't.

That is an assumption on your part if that indeed is your position.

My counter-position is that in all other cases where damage additives are specifically S.D.C. we are told that they are S.D.C. only. Usually in long paragraph form. The only place we have to go to is in the W.P. section. It indicates that damage is set by the weapon. If, indeed, we were supposed to assume that any non-explicitly assigned damage additives (I am not claiming that you are saying that they are, simply addressing the situation at current) then there would have been no need for Palladium to ever write the rules on Strength specifically not adding M.D. to weapons that deal M.D. save for exceptional cases because the normal S.D.C. would be the default, and it simply is not, as they chose to specifically point out the exception to damage additives.

This means that, by standard inference, the rule is that added damage is of the same kind as of the attack.

I think you are remembering wrongly. My argument was based on the Finger Gun, not the explosives throwaway finger segments. It illustrated that a weapon which can inflict SDC (weakest round) or MD (best round) can have an ambiguous 'damage' statement which common sense tells us (based on cost) that it is SDC. Also check out Skraypers' power section, if you haven't. Damage remains damage (SDC) unless explicitly upgraded to MD.

Why would I, frankly, care what Skraypers' says?

I never made the argument that because X book says Y that it means Y in Z book as well. I pointed out the RUE, the FAQ to the RUE, and used the rest as strictly anecdotal supporting evidence.

So now... I want you, to specifically find me a spot, in a book, by Palladium, that explicitly states that the additive damage from Fencing is strictly and only S.D.C. if not, then I will continue to consider you wrong in regards to the matter.

[Tor]

I am countering your claim that it "Defaults" to meaning S.D.C. Simple as that.

I can accept that as your potential intention, but the wording you chose was more broad, your phrasing countered a straw-man.

I utterly refuse to see any precedent for non-explicitly stated incidents of weapons dealing both S.D.C. and M.D.C. simultaneously. For example, when someone doesn't have Supernatural Strength they don't deal, with a Vibro-Sword, 2D6 M.D.C. + (insert bonus number here) S.D.C. damage.

Well I can agree that the situation here is a refusal to see...

Damage bonuses always get added, unless you can find something stating you should not add it. Official FAQs clearly state to add PS bonuses to vibro-blades since they have a physical core. It never says 'only if it matches the damage type'.

You're effectively arguing that a wooden sword that does d6 sdc will do d6+10 HP to a vamp if wielded by a guy with PS25, but if PS25 guy wields a magic wooden sword that does d6 MD, it will only do d6 HP to a vamp. It's silly. Particularly since in an SDC setting where magic swords inflict SDC you would add that PS when smacking a vamp. Or equiv example with vibro-stuff vs Prometheans. For some reason moving to MDC settings makes stuff that grows more powerful LESS effective?

SDC bonuses get added but we generally ignore them in usual situations due to MD rounding rules of destroying <100 remainders. We can effectively overlook them in most situations and only need to remember them from unique 'I suffer from everything' cases with supernatural creatures.

Damage is always of the main damage type of the attack unless explicitly otherwise stated. That is my stance.

I'm aware of your stance, instead of reminders, I want us to focus on weighing evidence.

Since Fencing does NOT explicitly otherwise state that, then it does M.D.C. damage if the weapon normally deals M.D.C. damage and S.D.C. damage if the weapon normally deals S.D.C. damage.

The rules are MD if indicated, not MD unless otherwise indicated. Even though it may seem like it sometimes, MDC is not the base attribute of matter in the universe.

Let's look at a flip-side here. Instead of discussing what I propose, that it adds SDC to an MD attack, what about adding MD to an SDC attack?

Do you think this can't be done?

If you continue to imply I said that by putting it in quotes, I will report you. I never say 'always means'.

I then, wish you to stop stating that damage, as a default, is S.D.C. because there are too many examples where it is not.

We are not bartering here HWalsh.

I am not obligated to agree with you to get you to stop straw-manning me.

I have explained this before, when discussing amount-introduction (rather than amount-modification) I think damage without context means SDC.

I consider addition and subtraction to be amount introductions. Division and multiplication are amount-modifications. The difference has to do with whether or not a variable is used. 2a*3 versus 2a+3b notice how the first will not have a variable and the second will have one.

The notation on W.P.s is more than enough to prove otherwise. As is the FAQ.

You have misinterpreted the WP generalization (which is discussing items) and the FAQ is often mistaken, at most giving it authority can be accepted as a ret-con to the RAW.

The only evidence that you really have supporting you is that it is how you think it should be.

False, I have provided evidence in RMB and RUE and CB1 and Skraypers, and it is present in other books too, of SDCless damage clearly meaning SDC. Kev and co go out of their way to declare what is MD, it's a big deal. Noting what is SDC is less of a big deal, it sometimes gets overlooked.

in all cases where something doesn't add M.D. to weapon attacks that normally deal M.D. we are specifically told, in the book, that it isn't.

That isn't true, super-powers being a great example.

if you are going to continue this, I need you to point out, in the RUE, where the book specifically and explicitely states:

"The +1D6 damage from fencing is only S.D.C. damage and is not M.D. damage."

The precedent of damage amounts being SDC makes that unnecessary.

the ONLY instances we have of damage being added to melee that isn't the same damage as the weapon usually deals out we are specifically told of it.

That is false, HWalsh. We are told that the damage bonus from high PS is SDC...

Are we told that it is SDC only for damage bonuses attained from hand to hand combat skills, like HtH Assassin for example, which gets them most generously?

By your logic, Assassin would add MD to vibro-stabs.

Yet if we look at NPC stats throughout the Rifts, giving some indication of how rules apply, you will regularly find that damage bonuses from HtH skills and damage bonuses from PS are simply lumped together.

If PS damage bonuses were the sole 'SDC only' bonus, then they would be listed separately and not added together with HtH damage bonuses. Can you find a single instance of this being done?

There are NPCs out there who can inflict MD with weapons or even with their bare hands who have HtH skills high enough to get a 'damage' bonus. Why is this lumped in with their PS bonus instead of being a separate MD bonus?

For easy remembering, I am going to call this the strong-assassin-dilemma, or SAD. Please resolve the SAD issue, as it is a major one.

My take on your stance seems to be that you feel that because Fencing does not specifically state that the damage additive is M.D. then it isn't. That is an assumption on your part if that indeed is your position.

More than a feeling or an assumption, it is an educated conclusion I have reached based on the overwhelming precedent of their being a single kind of 'damage' bonus and that MD bonuses have always been explicitly pointed out as being MD bonuses.

My counter-position is that in all other cases where damage additives are specifically S.D.C. we are told that they are S.D.C. only.

Your counter is a fairy-tale, it doesn't exist. You really want to argue 'all other cases' when a single case counters it? At least be conservative and make some vague 'most cases' claim which would demand such an extensive amount of exampling to disprove that we peter off into a non-falsifiability-by-overwhelming-workload dilemma.

The only place we have to go to is in the W.P. section. It indicates that damage is set by the weapon.

Your argument is that a physical skill, fencing, has 'damage' be mega when added to mega.

Fencing is a rare skill to see in NPCs for us to actually test this theory in practice.

The books are well populated with NPCs who have HtHs at high enough levels to get 'damage' bonuses, however.

I challenge you to find any which note to add this as MD to their attacks.

All I have ever seen is a cumulative sum of PS and HtH shown as either damage or SDC damage. Never has HtH been shown as damage.

PS is not an exception to damage being MD-transformable, it is demonstrating the most common basis of damage meaning SDC damage.

If, indeed, we were supposed to assume that any non-explicitly assigned damage additives (I am not claiming that you are saying that they are, simply addressing the situation at current) then there would have been no need for Palladium to ever write the rules on Strength specifically not adding M.D. to weapons that deal M.D.

That's like saying if Palladium wrote a rule once, they would never have to reprint that rule. Palladium frequently reminds people of what rules mean, sometimes on a random-seeming basis. Reminding people or being more explicit about what rules mean does not make those reminders necessary.

This means that, by standard inference, the rule is that added damage is of the same kind as of the attack.

I could only see such an approach as useful if Palladium ALWAYS specified SDC or MD. Since they do not, we must assign an inherent meaning to damage as a stand-alone, and that is SDC based on all evidence.

Why would I, frankly, care what Skraypers' says?

It is a Rifts sourcebook which, like the Conversion Book, has a dual representation of super abilities inflicting MD or 'damage'.

the FAQ to the RUE

Much as I love citing the webFAQ in a jam, it doesn't hold the kind of weight a RifterFAQ that often gets compiled into GMGs does.

specifically find me a spot, in a book, by Palladium, that explicitly states that the additive damage from Fencing is strictly and only S.D.C. if not, then I will continue to consider you wrong in regards to the matter.

How about first, you find me a statement like that for hand to hand assassin.

[Killer Cyborg]

I didn't ask for your opinion on what replies are for.

I am volunteering my opinion that reading the spam guidelines would be illuminating.

Don't.

[Mack]

I didn't ask for your opinion on what replies are for.

I am volunteering my opinion that reading the spam guidelines would be illuminating.

Don't.

If the two of you can't stay on topic, then take it to PMs.

[eliakon]

I am countering your claim that it "Defaults" to meaning S.D.C. Simple as that.

I can accept that as your potential intention, but the wording you chose was more broad, your phrasing countered a straw-man.

I utterly refuse to see any precedent for non-explicitly stated incidents of weapons dealing both S.D.C. and M.D.C. simultaneously. For example, when someone doesn't have Supernatural Strength they don't deal, with a Vibro-Sword, 2D6 M.D.C. + (insert bonus number here) S.D.C. damage.

Well I can agree that the situation here is a refusal to see...

No need to make insults. Aren't those reportable?

Damage bonuses always get added, unless you can find something stating you should not add it. Official FAQs clearly state to add PS bonuses to vibro-blades since they have a physical core. It never says 'only if it matches the damage type'.

Strawman. The Strength rules explicitly explain that the PS bonus is always SDC your still always adding SDC there....BECAUSE OF THE PS RULE not some universal 'damage is sdc' rule

You're effectively arguing that a wooden sword that does d6 sdc will do d6+10 HP to a vamp if wielded by a guy with PS25, but if PS25 guy wields a magic wooden sword that does d6 MD, it will only do d6 HP to a vamp. It's silly. Particularly since in an SDC setting where magic swords inflict SDC you would add that PS when smacking a vamp. Or equiv example with vibro-stuff vs Prometheans. For some reason moving to MDC settings makes stuff that grows more powerful LESS effective?

Strawman, because of above

SDC bonuses get added but we generally ignore them in usual situations due to MD rounding rules of destroying <100 remainders. We can effectively overlook them in most situations and only need to remember them from unique 'I suffer from everything' cases with supernatural creatures.

Again not relevant

Damage is always of the main damage type of the attack unless explicitly otherwise stated. That is my stance.

I'm aware of your stance, instead of reminders, I want us to focus on weighing evidence.

I think that's what we are trying to do....you know the passages in the book that actually have rules in them

Since Fencing does NOT explicitly otherwise state that, then it does M.D.C. damage if the weapon normally deals M.D.C. damage and S.D.C. damage if the weapon normally deals S.D.C. damage.

The rules are MD if indicated, not MD unless otherwise indicated. Even though it may seem like it sometimes, MDC is not the base attribute of matter in the universe.

DO you have a source for that contention? Because that is stating that the cited RULE IS WRONG so I am going to need a rule to back it up rather than just a 'nuh uh'

Let's look at a flip-side here. Instead of discussing what I propose, that it adds SDC to an MD attack, what about adding MD to an SDC attack?

Do you think this can't be done?

Its not really relevant....but in theory it could be done

If you continue to imply I said that by putting it in quotes, I will report you. I never say 'always means'.

I then, wish you to stop stating that damage, as a default, is S.D.C. because there are too many examples where it is not.

We are not bartering here HWalsh
I am not obligated to agree with you to get you to stop straw-manning me.

Paraphase isn't a straw man, nor is it reportable.

I have explained this before, when discussing amount-introduction (rather than amount-modification) I think damage without context means SDC.

Um wouldn't that mean that that you just said that damage is always sdc unless otherwise....or what you just got mad at him for saying?

I consider addition and subtraction to be amount introductions. Division and multiplication are amount-modifications. The difference has to do with whether or not a variable is used. 2a*3 versus 2a+3b notice how the first will not have a variable and the second will have one.

Sadly, that is not what the book seems to say, and while its a nice house rule....if its not what the book actually says....then its not really relevant is it?

The notation on W.P.s is more than enough to prove otherwise. As is the FAQ.

You have misinterpreted the WP generalization (which is discussing items) and the FAQ is often mistaken, at most giving it authority can be accepted as a ret-con to the RAW.

Its not just about items though, its about weapons. And a psi-sword is a weapon. That means that a discussion about weapons applies to a psi-sword. And there are some Official FAQ questions, but those aside just the simple fact that the RUE book has a black and white rule that damage matches the weapon should be sufficient.

The only evidence that you really have supporting you is that it is how you think it should be.

False, I have provided evidence in RMB and RUE and CB1 and Skraypers, and it is present in other books too, of SDCless damage clearly meaning SDC. Kev and co go out of their way to declare what is MD, it's a big deal. Noting what is SDC is less of a big deal, it sometimes gets overlooked.

Even if there was this concept, it cant be universal if there are exceptions. That's sort of definitional to the words. And if the damage for weapons always matches the weapon type then damage, for weapons, is not always sdc, but instead that of the weapon type. Ergo all damage is not always sdc unless noted. Sometimes is mdc even with out a note.

in all cases where something doesn't add M.D. to weapon attacks that normally deal M.D. we are specifically told, in the book, that it isn't.

That isn't true, super-powers being a great example.

if you are going to continue this, I need you to point out, in the RUE, where the book specifically and explicitely states:

"The +1D6 damage from fencing is only S.D.C. damage and is not M.D. damage."

The precedent of damage amounts being SDC makes that unnecessary.

Except there is no such precedent.

the ONLY instances we have of damage being added to melee that isn't the same damage as the weapon usually deals out we are specifically told of it.

That is false, HWalsh. We are told that the damage bonus from high PS is SDC...

Again strawman. Your arguing that something your explicitly told does NOT apply here, should apply just so you can then prove it doesn't apply.

Are we told that it is SDC only for damage bonuses attained from hand to hand combat skills, like HtH Assassin for example, which gets them most generously?

Strawman incoming! H2H damage bonuses add to hand to hand damage, not the weapon damage explicitly. Yes this is a minor difference, but its an important one. They are NOT the same bonus. Apples and Orange and all that.

By your logic, Assassin would add MD to vibro-stabs.

Yet if we look at NPC stats throughout the Rifts, giving some indication of how rules apply, you will regularly find that damage bonuses from HtH skills and damage bonuses from PS are simply lumped together.

If PS damage bonuses were the sole 'SDC only' bonus, then they would be listed separately and not added together with HtH damage bonuses. Can you find a single instance of this being done?

There are NPCs out there who can inflict MD with weapons or even with their bare hands who have HtH skills high enough to get a 'damage' bonus. Why is this lumped in with their PS bonus instead of being a separate MD bonus?

For easy remembering, I am going to call this the strong-assassin-dilemma, or SAD. Please resolve the SAD issue, as it is a major one.

Yay for strawmen. (And for a huge lack of internal consistency in the game....but that's a different issue)
'

My take on your stance seems to be that you feel that because Fencing does not specifically state that the damage additive is M.D. then it isn't. That is an assumption on your part if that indeed is your position.

More than a feeling or an assumption, it is an educated conclusion I have reached based on the overwhelming precedent of their being a single kind of 'damage' bonus and that MD bonuses have always been explicitly pointed out as being MD bonuses.

'overwhelming precedent' is not the same as 'universal rule' (my word there). And ummmm the rule in RUE is sort of an explicity pointed out bonus......

My counter-position is that in all other cases where damage additives are specifically S.D.C. we are told that they are S.D.C. only.

Your counter is a fairy-tale, it doesn't exist. You really want to argue 'all other cases' when a single case counters it? At least be conservative and make some vague 'most cases' claim which would demand such an extensive amount of exampling to disprove that we peter off into a non-falsifiability-by-overwhelming-workload dilemma.

Both sides have exceptions....which suggests that neither side is based on a 'universal rule' and should instead concentrate on the rules as written

The only place we have to go to is in the W.P. section. It indicates that damage is set by the weapon.

Your argument is that a physical skill, fencing, has 'damage' be mega when added to mega.

Fencing is a rare skill to see in NPCs for us to actually test this theory in practice.

The books are well populated with NPCs who have HtHs at high enough levels to get 'damage' bonuses, however.

Again a strawman
Fencing adds to the weapon damage. Which is explicitly made MD. THe H2H skill adds to the H2H attack, which may or may not add to the weapon damage. They are not the same thing.

I challenge you to find any which note to add this as MD to their attacks.

He has no reason to respond to a challenge to find strawmen for you to fight

All I have ever seen is a cumulative sum of PS and HtH shown as either damage or SDC damage. Never has HtH been shown as damage.

PS is not an exception to damage being MD-transformable, it is demonstrating the most common basis of damage meaning SDC damage.

And? Its not fencing....so its not using the fencing rules....so um....strawman

If, indeed, we were supposed to assume that any non-explicitly assigned damage additives (I am not claiming that you are saying that they are, simply addressing the situation at current) then there would have been no need for Palladium to ever write the rules on Strength specifically not adding M.D. to weapons that deal M.D.

That's like saying if Palladium wrote a rule once, they would never have to reprint that rule. Palladium frequently reminds people of what rules mean, sometimes on a random-seeming basis. Reminding people or being more explicit about what rules mean does not make those reminders necessary.

That's one reason to assign to the rewriting of the rule....but since there is no way to know why it was done....

This means that, by standard inference, the rule is that added damage is of the same kind as of the attack.

I could only see such an approach as useful if Palladium ALWAYS specified SDC or MD. Since they do not, we must assign an inherent meaning to damage as a stand-alone, and that is SDC based on all evidence.

No, we don't have to do any such thing. You can do such if you want, but there is nothing in the books that says that there is such a thing as an 'inherent meaning to damage as a stand-alone'

Why would I, frankly, care what Skraypers' says?

It is a Rifts sourcebook which, like the Conversion Book, has a dual representation of super abilities inflicting MD or 'damage'.

It is also not a RUE book, so the RUE rule set trumps it for RUE discussions (of which this is one)

the FAQ to the RUE

Much as I love citing the webFAQ in a jam, it doesn't hold the kind of weight a RifterFAQ that often gets compiled into GMGs does.

specifically find me a spot, in a book, by Palladium, that explicitly states that the additive damage from Fencing is strictly and only S.D.C. if not, then I will continue to consider you wrong in regards to the matter.

How about first, you find me a statement like that for hand to hand assassin.

[/quote][/quote]
Again that's a strawman.

[Zer0 Kay]

I am countering your claim that it "Defaults" to meaning S.D.C. Simple as that.

I can accept that as your potential intention, but the wording you chose was more broad, your phrasing countered a straw-man.

I utterly refuse to see any precedent for non-explicitly stated incidents of weapons dealing both S.D.C. and M.D.C. simultaneously. For example, when someone doesn't have Supernatural Strength they don't deal, with a Vibro-Sword, 2D6 M.D.C. + (insert bonus number here) S.D.C. damage.

Well I can agree that the situation here is a refusal to see...

No need to make insults. Aren't those reportable?

Damage bonuses always get added, unless you can find something stating you should not add it. Official FAQs clearly state to add PS bonuses to vibro-blades since they have a physical core. It never says 'only if it matches the damage type'.

Strawman. The Strength rules explicitly explain that the PS bonus is always SDC your still always adding SDC there....BECAUSE OF THE PS RULE not some universal 'damage is sdc' rule

You're effectively arguing that a wooden sword that does d6 sdc will do d6+10 HP to a vamp if wielded by a guy with PS25, but if PS25 guy wields a magic wooden sword that does d6 MD, it will only do d6 HP to a vamp. It's silly. Particularly since in an SDC setting where magic swords inflict SDC you would add that PS when smacking a vamp. Or equiv example with vibro-stuff vs Prometheans. For some reason moving to MDC settings makes stuff that grows more powerful LESS effective?

Strawman, because of above

SDC bonuses get added but we generally ignore them in usual situations due to MD rounding rules of destroying <100 remainders. We can effectively overlook them in most situations and only need to remember them from unique 'I suffer from everything' cases with supernatural creatures.

Again not relevant

Damage is always of the main damage type of the attack unless explicitly otherwise stated. That is my stance.

I'm aware of your stance, instead of reminders, I want us to focus on weighing evidence.

I think that's what we are trying to do....you know the passages in the book that actually have rules in them

Since Fencing does NOT explicitly otherwise state that, then it does M.D.C. damage if the weapon normally deals M.D.C. damage and S.D.C. damage if the weapon normally deals S.D.C. damage.

The rules are MD if indicated, not MD unless otherwise indicated. Even though it may seem like it sometimes, MDC is not the base attribute of matter in the universe.

DO you have a source for that contention? Because that is stating that the cited RULE IS WRONG so I am going to need a rule to back it up rather than just a 'nuh uh'

Let's look at a flip-side here. Instead of discussing what I propose, that it adds SDC to an MD attack, what about adding MD to an SDC attack?

Do you think this can't be done?

Its not really relevant....but in theory it could be done

If you continue to imply I said that by putting it in quotes, I will report you. I never say 'always means'.

I then, wish you to stop stating that damage, as a default, is S.D.C. because there are too many examples where it is not.

We are not bartering here HWalsh
I am not obligated to agree with you to get you to stop straw-manning me.

Paraphase isn't a straw man, nor is it reportable.

I have explained this before, when discussing amount-introduction (rather than amount-modification) I think damage without context means SDC.

Um wouldn't that mean that that you just said that damage is always sdc unless otherwise....or what you just got mad at him for saying?

I consider addition and subtraction to be amount introductions. Division and multiplication are amount-modifications. The difference has to do with whether or not a variable is used. 2a*3 versus 2a+3b notice how the first will not have a variable and the second will have one.

Sadly, that is not what the book seems to say, and while its a nice house rule....if its not what the book actually says....then its not really relevant is it?

The notation on W.P.s is more than enough to prove otherwise. As is the FAQ.

You have misinterpreted the WP generalization (which is discussing items) and the FAQ is often mistaken, at most giving it authority can be accepted as a ret-con to the RAW.

Its not just about items though, its about weapons. And a psi-sword is a weapon. That means that a discussion about weapons applies to a psi-sword. And there are some Official FAQ questions, but those aside just the simple fact that the RUE book has a black and white rule that damage matches the weapon should be sufficient.

The only evidence that you really have supporting you is that it is how you think it should be.

False, I have provided evidence in RMB and RUE and CB1 and Skraypers, and it is present in other books too, of SDCless damage clearly meaning SDC. Kev and co go out of their way to declare what is MD, it's a big deal. Noting what is SDC is less of a big deal, it sometimes gets overlooked.

Even if there was this concept, it cant be universal if there are exceptions. That's sort of definitional to the words. And if the damage for weapons always matches the weapon type then damage, for weapons, is not always sdc, but instead that of the weapon type. Ergo all damage is not always sdc unless noted. Sometimes is mdc even with out a note.

in all cases where something doesn't add M.D. to weapon attacks that normally deal M.D. we are specifically told, in the book, that it isn't.

That isn't true, super-powers being a great example.

if you are going to continue this, I need you to point out, in the RUE, where the book specifically and explicitely states:

"The +1D6 damage from fencing is only S.D.C. damage and is not M.D. damage."

The precedent of damage amounts being SDC makes that unnecessary.

Except there is no such precedent.

the ONLY instances we have of damage being added to melee that isn't the same damage as the weapon usually deals out we are specifically told of it.

That is false, HWalsh. We are told that the damage bonus from high PS is SDC...

Again strawman. Your arguing that something your explicitly told does NOT apply here, should apply just so you can then prove it doesn't apply.

Are we told that it is SDC only for damage bonuses attained from hand to hand combat skills, like HtH Assassin for example, which gets them most generously?

Strawman incoming! H2H damage bonuses add to hand to hand damage, not the weapon damage explicitly. Yes this is a minor difference, but its an important one. They are NOT the same bonus. Apples and Orange and all that.

By your logic, Assassin would add MD to vibro-stabs.

Yet if we look at NPC stats throughout the Rifts, giving some indication of how rules apply, you will regularly find that damage bonuses from HtH skills and damage bonuses from PS are simply lumped together.

If PS damage bonuses were the sole 'SDC only' bonus, then they would be listed separately and not added together with HtH damage bonuses. Can you find a single instance of this being done?

There are NPCs out there who can inflict MD with weapons or even with their bare hands who have HtH skills high enough to get a 'damage' bonus. Why is this lumped in with their PS bonus instead of being a separate MD bonus?

For easy remembering, I am going to call this the strong-assassin-dilemma, or SAD. Please resolve the SAD issue, as it is a major one.

Yay for strawmen. (And for a huge lack of internal consistency in the game....but that's a different issue)
'

My take on your stance seems to be that you feel that because Fencing does not specifically state that the damage additive is M.D. then it isn't. That is an assumption on your part if that indeed is your position.

More than a feeling or an assumption, it is an educated conclusion I have reached based on the overwhelming precedent of their being a single kind of 'damage' bonus and that MD bonuses have always been explicitly pointed out as being MD bonuses.

'overwhelming precedent' is not the same as 'universal rule' (my word there). And ummmm the rule in RUE is sort of an explicity pointed out bonus......

My counter-position is that in all other cases where damage additives are specifically S.D.C. we are told that they are S.D.C. only.

Your counter is a fairy-tale, it doesn't exist. You really want to argue 'all other cases' when a single case counters it? At least be conservative and make some vague 'most cases' claim which would demand such an extensive amount of exampling to disprove that we peter off into a non-falsifiability-by-overwhelming-workload dilemma.

Both sides have exceptions....which suggests that neither side is based on a 'universal rule' and should instead concentrate on the rules as written

The only place we have to go to is in the W.P. section. It indicates that damage is set by the weapon.

Your argument is that a physical skill, fencing, has 'damage' be mega when added to mega.

Fencing is a rare skill to see in NPCs for us to actually test this theory in practice.

The books are well populated with NPCs who have HtHs at high enough levels to get 'damage' bonuses, however.

Again a strawman
Fencing adds to the weapon damage. Which is explicitly made MD. THe H2H skill adds to the H2H attack, which may or may not add to the weapon damage. They are not the same thing.

I challenge you to find any which note to add this as MD to their attacks.

He has no reason to respond to a challenge to find strawmen for you to fight

All I have ever seen is a cumulative sum of PS and HtH shown as either damage or SDC damage. Never has HtH been shown as damage.

PS is not an exception to damage being MD-transformable, it is demonstrating the most common basis of damage meaning SDC damage.

And? Its not fencing....so its not using the fencing rules....so um....strawman

If, indeed, we were supposed to assume that any non-explicitly assigned damage additives (I am not claiming that you are saying that they are, simply addressing the situation at current) then there would have been no need for Palladium to ever write the rules on Strength specifically not adding M.D. to weapons that deal M.D.

That's like saying if Palladium wrote a rule once, they would never have to reprint that rule. Palladium frequently reminds people of what rules mean, sometimes on a random-seeming basis. Reminding people or being more explicit about what rules mean does not make those reminders necessary.

That's one reason to assign to the rewriting of the rule....but since there is no way to know why it was done....

This means that, by standard inference, the rule is that added damage is of the same kind as of the attack.

I could only see such an approach as useful if Palladium ALWAYS specified SDC or MD. Since they do not, we must assign an inherent meaning to damage as a stand-alone, and that is SDC based on all evidence.

No, we don't have to do any such thing. You can do such if you want, but there is nothing in the books that says that there is such a thing as an 'inherent meaning to damage as a stand-alone'

Why would I, frankly, care what Skraypers' says?

It is a Rifts sourcebook which, like the Conversion Book, has a dual representation of super abilities inflicting MD or 'damage'.

It is also not a RUE book, so the RUE rule set trumps it for RUE discussions (of which this is one)

the FAQ to the RUE

Much as I love citing the webFAQ in a jam, it doesn't hold the kind of weight a RifterFAQ that often gets compiled into GMGs does.

specifically find me a spot, in a book, by Palladium, that explicitly states that the additive damage from Fencing is strictly and only S.D.C. if not, then I will continue to consider you wrong in regards to the matter.

How about first, you find me a statement like that for hand to hand assassin.

[/quote]
Again that's a strawman.[/quote]
eliakon, an aside, I'm not sure I'm understanding the strawman concept, how is it different than tilting windmills?

[Svartalf]

How about the fact that a psi sword being an energy manifestation, actual fencing just doesn't apply to it. period.

[Zer0 Kay]

How about the fact that a psi sword being an energy manifestation, actual fencing just doesn't apply to it. period.

can you parry, riposte, fient and thrust with it? Is it about the same length as a epee (I know size and shape varies)?

So why wouldn't fencing apply?

If fencing applies to a gladius, katana or zweihander... Which it shouldn't. Then why not psi-swords?

Fencing should only work with light swords, weight not photons, that has a primary attack of thrusting.

Cutlas, saber, epee

With advanced levels allowing the use of an off hand dagger stiletto, tripple dagger or sword breaker.

[Shark_Force]

How about the fact that a psi sword being an energy manifestation, actual fencing just doesn't apply to it. period.

why not? fencing isn't about brute strength. it's about getting past your opponent's defenses and striking a vital point. unless you are fighting an enemy which has no vital points at all (say, if you were attacking an animated sphere of pure iron or something like that), there is no reason why you couldn't inflict more damage as the result of your superior skill in getting past an opponent's defense and precisely striking a weak point.

on an unrelated note, I'm inclined to suggest that there is a certain point where a discussion is no longer profitable, and certain parts of this discussion right now have likely reached that point, in my opinion. I would personally say that if you are unable to carry on a meaningful conversation with a specific person, the logical thing to do is to stop having a conversation with that person at all, because the other option is to have a meaningless conversation with them, which will serve no purpose other than to make you get more and more angry, at which point you will most likely say or do something you may not feel proud of in the future.

your points have been made. let them stand for themselves. by this time, anyone reading will have already made a decision on which points are made with reason, and which are not, so there isn't really even anything to be gained by pointing it out for the benefit of others; if they haven't gotten it by now, they most likely never will.

[eliakon]

Spoiler:

I am countering your claim that it "Defaults" to meaning S.D.C. Simple as that.

I can accept that as your potential intention, but the wording you chose was more broad, your phrasing countered a straw-man.

I utterly refuse to see any precedent for non-explicitly stated incidents of weapons dealing both S.D.C. and M.D.C. simultaneously. For example, when someone doesn't have Supernatural Strength they don't deal, with a Vibro-Sword, 2D6 M.D.C. + (insert bonus number here) S.D.C. damage.

Well I can agree that the situation here is a refusal to see...

No need to make insults. Aren't those reportable?

Damage bonuses always get added, unless you can find something stating you should not add it. Official FAQs clearly state to add PS bonuses to vibro-blades since they have a physical core. It never says 'only if it matches the damage type'.

Strawman. The Strength rules explicitly explain that the PS bonus is always SDC your still always adding SDC there....BECAUSE OF THE PS RULE not some universal 'damage is sdc' rule

You're effectively arguing that a wooden sword that does d6 sdc will do d6+10 HP to a vamp if wielded by a guy with PS25, but if PS25 guy wields a magic wooden sword that does d6 MD, it will only do d6 HP to a vamp. It's silly. Particularly since in an SDC setting where magic swords inflict SDC you would add that PS when smacking a vamp. Or equiv example with vibro-stuff vs Prometheans. For some reason moving to MDC settings makes stuff that grows more powerful LESS effective?

Strawman, because of above

SDC bonuses get added but we generally ignore them in usual situations due to MD rounding rules of destroying <100 remainders. We can effectively overlook them in most situations and only need to remember them from unique 'I suffer from everything' cases with supernatural creatures.

Again not relevant

Damage is always of the main damage type of the attack unless explicitly otherwise stated. That is my stance.

I'm aware of your stance, instead of reminders, I want us to focus on weighing evidence.

I think that's what we are trying to do....you know the passages in the book that actually have rules in them

Since Fencing does NOT explicitly otherwise state that, then it does M.D.C. damage if the weapon normally deals M.D.C. damage and S.D.C. damage if the weapon normally deals S.D.C. damage.

The rules are MD if indicated, not MD unless otherwise indicated. Even though it may seem like it sometimes, MDC is not the base attribute of matter in the universe.

DO you have a source for that contention? Because that is stating that the cited RULE IS WRONG so I am going to need a rule to back it up rather than just a 'nuh uh'

Let's look at a flip-side here. Instead of discussing what I propose, that it adds SDC to an MD attack, what about adding MD to an SDC attack?

Do you think this can't be done?

Its not really relevant....but in theory it could be done

If you continue to imply I said that by putting it in quotes, I will report you. I never say 'always means'.

I then, wish you to stop stating that damage, as a default, is S.D.C. because there are too many examples where it is not.

We are not bartering here HWalsh
I am not obligated to agree with you to get you to stop straw-manning me.

Paraphase isn't a straw man, nor is it reportable.

I have explained this before, when discussing amount-introduction (rather than amount-modification) I think damage without context means SDC.

Um wouldn't that mean that that you just said that damage is always sdc unless otherwise....or what you just got mad at him for saying?

I consider addition and subtraction to be amount introductions. Division and multiplication are amount-modifications. The difference has to do with whether or not a variable is used. 2a*3 versus 2a+3b notice how the first will not have a variable and the second will have one.

Sadly, that is not what the book seems to say, and while its a nice house rule....if its not what the book actually says....then its not really relevant is it?

The notation on W.P.s is more than enough to prove otherwise. As is the FAQ.

You have misinterpreted the WP generalization (which is discussing items) and the FAQ is often mistaken, at most giving it authority can be accepted as a ret-con to the RAW.

Its not just about items though, its about weapons. And a psi-sword is a weapon. That means that a discussion about weapons applies to a psi-sword. And there are some Official FAQ questions, but those aside just the simple fact that the RUE book has a black and white rule that damage matches the weapon should be sufficient.

The only evidence that you really have supporting you is that it is how you think it should be.

False, I have provided evidence in RMB and RUE and CB1 and Skraypers, and it is present in other books too, of SDCless damage clearly meaning SDC. Kev and co go out of their way to declare what is MD, it's a big deal. Noting what is SDC is less of a big deal, it sometimes gets overlooked.

Even if there was this concept, it cant be universal if there are exceptions. That's sort of definitional to the words. And if the damage for weapons always matches the weapon type then damage, for weapons, is not always sdc, but instead that of the weapon type. Ergo all damage is not always sdc unless noted. Sometimes is mdc even with out a note.

in all cases where something doesn't add M.D. to weapon attacks that normally deal M.D. we are specifically told, in the book, that it isn't.

That isn't true, super-powers being a great example.

if you are going to continue this, I need you to point out, in the RUE, where the book specifically and explicitely states:

"The +1D6 damage from fencing is only S.D.C. damage and is not M.D. damage."

The precedent of damage amounts being SDC makes that unnecessary.

Except there is no such precedent.

the ONLY instances we have of damage being added to melee that isn't the same damage as the weapon usually deals out we are specifically told of it.

That is false, HWalsh. We are told that the damage bonus from high PS is SDC...

Again strawman. Your arguing that something your explicitly told does NOT apply here, should apply just so you can then prove it doesn't apply.

Are we told that it is SDC only for damage bonuses attained from hand to hand combat skills, like HtH Assassin for example, which gets them most generously?

Strawman incoming! H2H damage bonuses add to hand to hand damage, not the weapon damage explicitly. Yes this is a minor difference, but its an important one. They are NOT the same bonus. Apples and Orange and all that.

By your logic, Assassin would add MD to vibro-stabs.

Yet if we look at NPC stats throughout the Rifts, giving some indication of how rules apply, you will regularly find that damage bonuses from HtH skills and damage bonuses from PS are simply lumped together.

If PS damage bonuses were the sole 'SDC only' bonus, then they would be listed separately and not added together with HtH damage bonuses. Can you find a single instance of this being done?

There are NPCs out there who can inflict MD with weapons or even with their bare hands who have HtH skills high enough to get a 'damage' bonus. Why is this lumped in with their PS bonus instead of being a separate MD bonus?

For easy remembering, I am going to call this the strong-assassin-dilemma, or SAD. Please resolve the SAD issue, as it is a major one.

Yay for strawmen. (And for a huge lack of internal consistency in the game....but that's a different issue)
'

My take on your stance seems to be that you feel that because Fencing does not specifically state that the damage additive is M.D. then it isn't. That is an assumption on your part if that indeed is your position.

More than a feeling or an assumption, it is an educated conclusion I have reached based on the overwhelming precedent of their being a single kind of 'damage' bonus and that MD bonuses have always been explicitly pointed out as being MD bonuses.

'overwhelming precedent' is not the same as 'universal rule' (my word there). And ummmm the rule in RUE is sort of an explicity pointed out bonus......

My counter-position is that in all other cases where damage additives are specifically S.D.C. we are told that they are S.D.C. only.

Your counter is a fairy-tale, it doesn't exist. You really want to argue 'all other cases' when a single case counters it? At least be conservative and make some vague 'most cases' claim which would demand such an extensive amount of exampling to disprove that we peter off into a non-falsifiability-by-overwhelming-workload dilemma.

Both sides have exceptions....which suggests that neither side is based on a 'universal rule' and should instead concentrate on the rules as written

The only place we have to go to is in the W.P. section. It indicates that damage is set by the weapon.

Your argument is that a physical skill, fencing, has 'damage' be mega when added to mega.

Fencing is a rare skill to see in NPCs for us to actually test this theory in practice.

The books are well populated with NPCs who have HtHs at high enough levels to get 'damage' bonuses, however.

Again a strawman
Fencing adds to the weapon damage. Which is explicitly made MD. THe H2H skill adds to the H2H attack, which may or may not add to the weapon damage. They are not the same thing.

I challenge you to find any which note to add this as MD to their attacks.

He has no reason to respond to a challenge to find strawmen for you to fight

All I have ever seen is a cumulative sum of PS and HtH shown as either damage or SDC damage. Never has HtH been shown as damage.

PS is not an exception to damage being MD-transformable, it is demonstrating the most common basis of damage meaning SDC damage.

And? Its not fencing....so its not using the fencing rules....so um....strawman

If, indeed, we were supposed to assume that any non-explicitly assigned damage additives (I am not claiming that you are saying that they are, simply addressing the situation at current) then there would have been no need for Palladium to ever write the rules on Strength specifically not adding M.D. to weapons that deal M.D.

That's like saying if Palladium wrote a rule once, they would never have to reprint that rule. Palladium frequently reminds people of what rules mean, sometimes on a random-seeming basis. Reminding people or being more explicit about what rules mean does not make those reminders necessary.

That's one reason to assign to the rewriting of the rule....but since there is no way to know why it was done....

This means that, by standard inference, the rule is that added damage is of the same kind as of the attack.

I could only see such an approach as useful if Palladium ALWAYS specified SDC or MD. Since they do not, we must assign an inherent meaning to damage as a stand-alone, and that is SDC based on all evidence.

No, we don't have to do any such thing. You can do such if you want, but there is nothing in the books that says that there is such a thing as an 'inherent meaning to damage as a stand-alone'

Why would I, frankly, care what Skraypers' says?

It is a Rifts sourcebook which, like the Conversion Book, has a dual representation of super abilities inflicting MD or 'damage'.

It is also not a RUE book, so the RUE rule set trumps it for RUE discussions (of which this is one)

the FAQ to the RUE

Much as I love citing the webFAQ in a jam, it doesn't hold the kind of weight a RifterFAQ that often gets compiled into GMGs does.

specifically find me a spot, in a book, by Palladium, that explicitly states that the additive damage from Fencing is strictly and only S.D.C. if not, then I will continue to consider you wrong in regards to the matter.

How about first, you find me a statement like that for hand to hand assassin.

Again that's a strawman.[/quote]

eliakon, an aside, I'm not sure I'm understanding the strawman concept, how is it different than tilting windmills?[/quote]
Because in the strawman he is setting up a false premise (the straw man) that he can then tear down. Then you try to prove the by demolishing the strawman that you have demolished the unrelated actual topic.
Hand to Hand is a strawman for Fencing. The ability to point out the flaws in Hand to Hand does nothing to prove anything about the unrelated Fencing skills. ergo its a strawman.

[Zer0 Kay]

@eliakon while tilting windmills or tilting making an adversary from something that isn't. So while making strawmen is tilting, tilting is not making a strawman as tilting doesn't mean your trying to prove your right. Or Making a strawman is tilting and trying to prove the giants real. Hmm maybe not because I think tilting implies you believe the giant is real, making tilting a misunderstanding and strawmen a misdirection.

[eliakon]

@eliakon while tilting windmills or tilting making an adversary from something that isn't. So while making strawmen is tilting, tilting is not making a strawman as tilting doesn't mean your trying to prove your right. Or Making a strawman is tilting and trying to prove the giants real. Hmm maybe not because I think tilting implies you believe the giant is real, making tilting a misunderstanding and strawmen a misdirection.

Hrmmmm......Tilting at strawgiants?

[grandmaster z0b]

on an unrelated note, I'm inclined to suggest that there is a certain point where a discussion is no longer profitable, and certain parts of this discussion right now have likely reached that point, in my opinion. I would personally say that if you are unable to carry on a meaningful conversation with a specific person, the logical thing to do is to stop having a conversation with that person at all, because the other option is to have a meaningless conversation with them...

Agreed.

This is so often true about arguments on these forums. I really fail to see what people are hoping to achieve, neither side is going to suddenly change their mind. It's just a game, and a game that is notoriously self-contradictory and inconsistent.

[Nightmask]

on an unrelated note, I'm inclined to suggest that there is a certain point where a discussion is no longer profitable, and certain parts of this discussion right now have likely reached that point, in my opinion. I would personally say that if you are unable to carry on a meaningful conversation with a specific person, the logical thing to do is to stop having a conversation with that person at all, because the other option is to have a meaningless conversation with them...

Agreed.

This is so often true about arguments on these forums. I really fail to see what people are hoping to achieve, neither side is going to suddenly change their mind. It's just a game, and a game that is notoriously self-contradictory and inconsistent.

I imagine much of it is simply the idea that you're trying to help the other person since they're 'obviously' mistaken from your perspective and it can only make their gaming experience better once they're doing it the 'correct' way. Plus human nature being what it is people will keep insisting on a point long after they're proven wrong because of the idea that admitting error means you're weak (and error can include simply thinking there is only one possible option in case where that isn't so). Plus to gamers it's as much serious business as sports to a sports fanatic, to them saying 'it's just a game' won't get a 'yeah I guess you're right' response either.

[Killer Cyborg]

on an unrelated note, I'm inclined to suggest that there is a certain point where a discussion is no longer profitable, and certain parts of this discussion right now have likely reached that point, in my opinion. I would personally say that if you are unable to carry on a meaningful conversation with a specific person, the logical thing to do is to stop having a conversation with that person at all, because the other option is to have a meaningless conversation with them...

Agreed.

This is so often true about arguments on these forums. I really fail to see what people are hoping to achieve, neither side is going to suddenly change their mind. It's just a game, and a game that is notoriously self-contradictory and inconsistent.

I imagine much of it is simply the idea that you're trying to help the other person since they're 'obviously' mistaken from your perspective and it can only make their gaming experience better once they're doing it the 'correct' way. Plus human nature being what it is people will keep insisting on a point long after they're proven wrong because of the idea that admitting error means you're weak (and error can include simply thinking there is only one possible option in case where that isn't so). Plus to gamers it's as much serious business as sports to a sports fanatic, to them saying 'it's just a game' won't get a 'yeah I guess you're right' response either.

Pretty much.
Also, sometimes people just like to argue about anything.

[grandmaster z0b]

Well that's all true. At least with a system like Pathfinder the argument isn't futile because you'll find either a definitive answer or someone from the company will actually make an official ruling.

Palladium simply isn't that kind of system, as I said it's notoriously self-contradictory and inconsistent.

[Zer0 Kay]

on an unrelated note, I'm inclined to suggest that there is a certain point where a discussion is no longer profitable, and certain parts of this discussion right now have likely reached that point, in my opinion. I would personally say that if you are unable to carry on a meaningful conversation with a specific person, the logical thing to do is to stop having a conversation with that person at all, because the other option is to have a meaningless conversation with them...

Agreed.

This is so often true about arguments on these forums. I really fail to see what people are hoping to achieve, neither side is going to suddenly change their mind. It's just a game, and a game that is notoriously self-contradictory and inconsistent.

I imagine much of it is simply the idea that you're trying to help the other person since they're 'obviously' mistaken from your perspective and it can only make their gaming experience better once they're doing it the 'correct' way. Plus human nature being what it is people will keep insisting on a point long after they're proven wrong because of the idea that admitting error means you're weak (and error can include simply thinking there is only one possible option in case where that isn't so). Plus to gamers it's as much serious business as sports to a sports fanatic, to them saying 'it's just a game' won't get a 'yeah I guess you're right' response either.

Pretty much.
Also, sometimes people just like to argue about anything.

No I don't I like arguing about nothing too.

[Killer Cyborg]

Also, sometimes people just like to argue about anything.

No I don't I like arguing about nothing too.

No, you don't.

[Mack]

Alright, please bring this back to a Rifts discussion.

[Tor]

Although this issue doesn't appear to be resolved, we are rehashing a lot of issues discussed in prior threads...

May 2011 http://www.palladiumbooks.com/forums/vi ... 8&t=122826
May 2014 http://palladium-megaverse.com/forums/v ... 4&t=143519
and then finally this thread, started in September...

Whether or not it is a Cyber-Knight is pretty inconsequential, since it's an issue pertaining to all Psi-Sword use. Melters wanna know.

Or really... this is a discussion even broader than Psi-Swords. It's an issue that pertains to all MD attacks. Vibro-swording City-Rats wanna know.

I would even argue that this extends beyond fencing and swords. Fencing is not the only physical skill which adds a 'damage' bonus.

Perhaps we should create a new thread on the broader topic of
"do -damage- bonuses add MD to MD attacks?"
or something similar.

That way, we can not just discuss the physical skill of fencing, but also the physical skill of Hand to Hand Assassin. We can go beyond just discussing swords and discuss ALL attacks.

I am wondering what various opposition on this topic over time thinks of this. Do you agree with my proposed title or do you have something you'd rather propose instead?

Am trying to remember everyone... besides Eliakon and HWalsh in prior threads there was Dog_O_War and Giant2005. Drew sounded neutral. Am I missing anyone else who would participate?

countering your claim that it "Defaults" to meaning S.D.C.

the wording you chose was more broad, your phrasing countered a straw-man.

I utterly refuse to see any precedent for non-explicitly stated incidents of weapons dealing both S.D.C. and M.D.C. simultaneously. For example, when someone doesn't have Supernatural Strength they don't deal, with a Vibro-Sword, 2D6 M.D.C. + (insert bonus number here) S.D.C. damage.

Well I can agree that the situation here is a refusal to see...

No need to make insults. Aren't those reportable?

HW stated 'I refuse to see any precedent' and I agreed with him. If what he said is an insult then he insulted himslf. Rather than demean him for saying that, I applaud his honesty

Damage bonuses always get added, unless you can find something stating you should not add it. Official FAQs clearly state to add PS bonuses to vibro-blades since they have a physical core. It never says 'only if it matches the damage type'.

Strawman. The Strength rules explicitly explain that the PS bonus is always SDC your still always adding SDC there....BECAUSE OF THE PS RULE not some universal 'damage is sdc' rule

If the intent of your first sentence was to warn readers that you were about to create a straw-man of my arguments, then I also applaud your honesty. But if you meant to accuse me of engaging in a straw-man argument, then you have used the term incorrectly. Please provide context in the future to be more specific. Straw-man situations have at least 4 necessary elements so far as I know them. Person A making argument A, and person B who claims to represent argument A, and does so by introducing argument B. Something is a valid straw-man situation when B does not accurately represent A.

I really have no clue what you're calling SM here, but let me explain what you are doing wrong in this response.

You exclaim 'the PS rule is not some universal -damage is SDC rule-. I agree with that. I never suggested any such transference. You are mistaken if you think I was.

Rather, my view is moreso: even prior to CB1's specifying that PS damage bonuses are SDC only (I do not recall if this was present in RMB) I believe 'damage' clearly meant MD.

Rather than being a 'unique' rule for physical strength introduced in CB1, my perspective is that this was establishing status quo (damage defaulting to mean SDC when lacking other implications) and using the most prominent example (PS) to represent that.

My point is simply that damage bonuses get added to things, and that if 'damage' on its own meant MD, then other examples of this (such as hand to hand skills) would show ongoing evidence of doing so.

Instead, we see with guys like Karl Prosek, that the 'damage' from his HtH did not enhance his MD-inflicting abilities, since his bonuses did not describe that.

You're effectively arguing that a wooden sword that does d6 sdc will do d6+10 HP to a vamp if wielded by a guy with PS25, but if PS25 guy wields a magic wooden sword that does d6 MD, it will only do d6 HP to a vamp. It's silly. Particularly since in an SDC setting where magic swords inflict SDC you would add that PS when smacking a vamp. Or equiv example with vibro-stuff vs Prometheans. For some reason moving to MDC settings makes stuff that grows more powerful LESS effective?

Strawman, because of above

Your above reasoning did not make any clear sense, and your attempting to apply whatever it was here confuses me further.

The scenario I describe here appears to be a natural consequence of the rules we are discussing.

SDC bonuses get added but we generally ignore them in usual situations due to MD rounding rules of destroying <100 remainders. We can effectively overlook them in most situations and only need to remember them from unique 'I suffer from everything' cases with supernatural creatures.

Again not relevant

I'll leave the relevance of this example up to other readers, I feel a bit ignored here so perhaps you'll listen to others.

Damage is always of the main damage type of the attack unless explicitly otherwise stated. That is my stance.

I'm aware of your stance, instead of reminders, I want us to focus on weighing evidence.

I think that's what we are trying to do....you know the passages in the book that actually have rules in them

Rules like 'this does mega damage' or 'this adds mega damage' perhaps.

rules are MD if indicated, not MD unless otherwise indicated
MDC is not the base attribute of matter in the universe.

DO you have a source for that contention? Because that is stating that the cited RULE IS WRONG so I am going to need a rule to back it up rather than just a 'nuh uh'

You have not actually cited a rule supporting the idea that adding 'damage' will change the added amount into mega-damage.

Let's look at a flip-side here. Instead of discussing what I propose, that it adds SDC to an MD attack, what about adding MD to an SDC attack?

Do you think this can't be done?

Its not really relevant....but in theory it could be done

I'm glad we can agree that it could be done. The relevance here is that if we can add a MD amount to an SDC damage amount, it is possible to have an attack which has 2 distinct damage types hitting simultaneously. So if we can add MD to dmg, we should be able to add damage to mega-damage. They can travel together without influencing each other.

If you continue to imply I said that by putting it in quotes, I will report you. I never say 'always means'.

I then, wish you to stop stating that damage, as a default, is S.D.C. because there are too many examples where it is not.

We are not bartering here HWalsh
I am not obligated to agree with you to get you to stop straw-manning me.

Paraphase isn't a straw man, nor is it reportable.

An alleged paraphrase is not one if you are missing the point and representing a different meaning than the original statement. As I explained in other threads, I can extend the olive leaf of entertaining this is a mistake, and someone can similarly entertain the idea that they read it wrongly and misinterpreted what I wrote.

I think damage without context means SDC.

Um wouldn't that mean that that you just said that damage is always sdc unless otherwise....or what you just got mad at him for saying?

The 'unless otherwise' addition is a step in the right direction, but it is still too loose. The problem I have here is that people keep claiming 'oh, well that means the 'damage' doubled by natural 20s will not enhance MD attacks' or similar which I find disconnected from the discussion. Mega-damage is a type of damage so it gets modified by damage-modifiers, but there must exist a default 'damage' concept since there are default 'damage' declarations. What besides SDC suits this role as defaultD?

I consider addition and subtraction to be amount introductions. Division and multiplication are amount-modifications. The difference has to do with whether or not a variable is used. 2a*3 versus 2a+3b notice how the first will not have a variable and the second will have one.

Sadly, that is not what the book seems to say, and while its a nice house rule....if its not what the book actually says....then its not really relevant is it?

The book says this we have to make sense of. That a kick attack inflicts '1d6 damage' for example. We are given 'damage' amounts without SDC modifiers. We know for a fact 'damage' amounts can exist independently of an SDC reminder or a MD enhancer. This means a default damage must exist. The overwhelming evidence is that this is SDC damage, I have not seen any evidence of this being MD.

If you think it is a variable declaration then there must be some basis for determining what it becomes, but I have not seen any indicators of such variability or how to resolve it when it comes up.

not just about items though, its about weapons. And a psi-sword is a weapon. That means that a discussion about weapons applies to a psi-sword
there are some Official FAQ questions
the RUE book has a black and white rule that damage matches the weapon should be sufficient.

There is no black-and-white rule, you're making it up. Let's read the actual key book statements.

1. The Damage stat indicates the number of damage dice rolled to inflict the appropriate amount of damage for that type of weapon. Damage starts as SDC..

2. Melee weapons that inflict Mega-Damage include...

3. The damage listed with each ancient weapon is SDC..

4. High-tech or magical Mega-Damage equivalent weapons inflict the same number of damage dice only it is MD

The text is actually only describing individual weapons here. There are a class of things that are 'Mega Damage equivalent' which basically means that the MD dice rolled for them matches the damage dice normally rolled for them. Not all MD weapons are MDEs. Some MD weapons inflict more, some MD weapons inflict less. Psi-Swords can fall into both categories since 1d6 less dice than many of the larger swords a CyberK may opt to create, yet it can grow to exceed the base dice of all sword. Psi-swords are not -Mega Damage equivalent- because their dice are not MD mirrors of standard damage dice. That's something we see in a few things like resin weapons.

Beyond this though... the key phrase here is "damage dice" plus the verb 'rolled'. This is discussing the base damage that weapons inflict, the dice rolled. It is not discussing damage bonuses (something that WP Polearm and WP Whip give). Nothing at all is mentioned about upgrading the damage bonus (which is not a die) to MD.

Since we've yet to see any NPC examples of someone getting a MD bonus from fencing, do you have any NPC examples of someone with WP Polearm or WP Whip getting a MD bonus?

cant be universal if there are exceptions
if the damage for weapons always matches the weapon type then damage, for weapons, is not always sdc
but instead that of the weapon type.
Ergo all damage is not always sdc unless noted. Sometimes is mdc even with out a note.

You are using an unevidenced conclusion to support your premise.

I quoted the relevant statements above. None of them support the idea that "damage for weapons always matches the weapon type." Would I be correct in thinking that when you say this you mean 'when -damage- is added to a MD amount, the -damage- becomes MD" ? Do you mean something else?

The precedent of damage amounts being SDC makes that unnecessary.

Except there is no such precedent.

Every other book prior to Rifts, plus Rifts itself, and even RUE, clearly show that this is logically what 'damage' represents. The damage bonus from PS is clearly following precedent and not establishing a unique exception.

the ONLY instances we have of damage being added to melee that isn't the same damage as the weapon usually deals out we are specifically told of it.

That is false, HWalsh. We are told that the damage bonus from high PS is SDC...

Again strawman. Your arguing that something your explicitly told does NOT apply here, should apply just so you can then prove it doesn't apply.

You are not using the phrase -strawman- correctly. I am not convinced you know what it means.

If someone is wrong about what rules apply, or (as you did above) using circular logic, while that would be a form of logical fallacy, that would NOT be a straw-man argument.

Please find a correct term to apply to your criticism of me before levying it. While all straw-man arguments are fallacies, all fallacies are not straw-man arguments.

As for criticism of my reply here, HW describes some kind of 'instance'. Before analyzing this or my reply to it, I'm going to request that this example referenced be provided, because looking back I'm having trouble following the flow of this line of thought and what it was about. Apparently I understood (or thought I did) what HW meant at the time I replied before, but I don't remember what that was anymore. I am hoping providing the -instance- will provide some foundation.

Are we told that it is SDC only for damage bonuses attained from hand to hand combat skills, like HtH Assassin for example, which gets them most generously?

Strawman incoming! H2H damage bonuses add to hand to hand damage, not the weapon damage explicitly. Yes this is a minor difference, but its an important one. They are NOT the same bonus. Apples and Orange and all that.

If this were N&SS and someone was not using a weapon kata I would agree with you, but in Rifts the HtH bonuses are added with ancient WP combat.

and again, I really think you don't understand what straw-manning means.

Unless I am purporting to cite or paraphrase another poster's argument, the context for accusing me of straw-manning another poster is absent. Thus I am very confused why you are accusing me of doing this at moment when I am discussing the rules, yet the accusations are absent when I am purporting to paraphrase HWalsh.

For example if the head of Society of Sages wrote "earth belongs to humans, humans should rule Earth" and I replied "so you're saying we should kill all other species?" I would be straw-manning the SoShead, because the conclusion I am stating is not a natural result of his argument. It is possible for humans to rule earth without killing other species in many other ways. Evicting them, enslaving them, or co-operating with them so long as they are second-class citizens without ruling powers, etc.

By your logic, Assassin would add MD to vibro-stabs. Yet if we look at NPC stats throughout the Rifts, giving some indication of how rules apply, you will regularly find that damage bonuses from HtH skills and damage bonuses from PS are simply lumped together.

If PS damage bonuses were the sole 'SDC only' bonus, then they would be listed separately and not added together with HtH damage bonuses. Can you find a single instance of this being done?

There are NPCs out there who can inflict MD with weapons or even with their bare hands who have HtH skills high enough to get a 'damage' bonus. Why is this lumped in with their PS bonus instead of being a separate MD bonus?

For easy remembering, I am going to call this the strong-assassin-dilemma, or SAD. Please resolve the SAD issue, as it is a major one.

Yay for strawmen. (And for a huge lack of internal consistency in the game....but that's a different issue)

I explained above with a hypothetical reply to Cagliostro Smith what an actual straw-man argument is.

The reason why what I said to HWalsh here is NOT a straw-man is because (so far as I can tell) if a physical skill that adds -damage- adds MD to an attack which inflicts MD as a base, then this would also give Assassin to apply its damage bonus to attacks as well.

If my conclusion is wrong, I would like it if you could explain to me why the damage bonuses from HtHs and Fencing would operate differently.

'overwhelming precedent' is not the same as 'universal rule' (my word there).

The parenthesis is appreciated. When lacking a universal rule, a void must be filled, and overwhelming precedent is the best we have.

If we look at the very basic descriptions of what damage is in PB's core books, it clearly goes to SDC and HP. MD is an addition to the core system, a unique category, it doesn't change the core.

rule in RUE is sort of an explicity pointed out bonus

RUEp326 is addressed above, unless you mean somewhere else. 326 does not refer to bonuses, it refers to base damage dice, and it refers to MDEs, which Psi-Sword is NOT.

Both sides have exceptions....which suggests that neither side is based on a 'universal rule' and should instead concentrate on the rules as written

What exceptions are you talking about?

The issue here is how to treat -damage- written without SDC or MD or similar affixations.

The argument 'it is whatever it is added to' (or however you'd like to phrase your stance, if you find that wanted) does not work because sometimes just "damage" is used for stand-alone amounts rather than additions.

A policy must exist for treating stand-alone amounts, and that policy should be used for treating added amounts.

The only place we have to go to is in the W.P. section. It indicates that damage is set by the weapon.

Your argument is that a physical skill, fencing, has 'damage' be mega when added to mega. Fencing is a rare skill to see in NPCs for us to actually test this theory in practice. The books are well populated with NPCs who have HtHs at high enough levels to get 'damage' bonuses, however.

Again a strawman
Fencing adds to the weapon damage. Which is explicitly made MD. THe H2H skill adds to the H2H attack, which may or may not add to the weapon damage. They are not the same thing.

Fencing (RUEp316) and Hand to Hand skills (RUEp347) are both physical skills. They both add 'damage' to attacks.

Weapon damage nos not 'explicitly made MD' as you claim. The RUEp326 mentions MEWs (how I will abbreviate the phrase 'Mega-damage Equivalent Weapons" which occurs in the damage note preceding Archery) doing the same MD as standard damage dice.

Psi-Swords are not MEWs. You'd have a much easier time trying to make an argument for Vibro-Swords here, I'd suggest you take that path.

When it talks about the 'same number of damage dice' though, it is talking about the weapon itself, not bonuses the weapon receives. It's MD matching the damage the weapon does, not the damage PLUS whatever cool stuff you can add from physical or WP skills.

Even looking at the final part... "a sword that inflicts 2d6 damage does 2d6 HP/SDC if an SDC weapon or 2d6 MD if a MD weapon"

That's how much the SWORD does. Plus this isn't talking about all swords (psi-swords at level 1 would do 1d6 MD even if it is mimicking a sword which should do 2d6 based on size) it is only talking about some of them (Wormwood resin weapons being the most memorable example since they appear to follow that pattern, I think the FoM spell also does damage-as-MD)

I challenge you to find any which note to add this as MD to their attacks.

He has no reason to respond to a challenge to find strawmen for you to fight

The HtHassassin dilemma is not a straw-man argument.

It is an example I am giving of the natural extension of fencing-gives-MD logic. There is no distinction between the damage additions that leads me to think fencing's damage becomes MD while assassin's does not.

All I have ever seen is a cumulative sum of PS and HtH shown as either damage or SDC damage. Never has HtH been shown as damage.

PS is not an exception to damage being MD-transformable, it is demonstrating the most common basis of damage meaning SDC damage.

And? Its not fencing....so its not using the fencing rules....so um....strawman

That's not what straw-manning is, go study the proper terms for fallacies or put it in your own words please.

There is no 'fencing rules'.

HWalsh and yourself appear to be constructing -fencing rules- about the damage becoming MD when added to a MD attack.

The construction of such a rule depends in applying certain logical ideas.

Those logical ideas would apply equally to HtH assassin's damage bonus.

Although this is all a secondary argument since there is no actual basis for converting the damage to MD to begin with.

Maybe I should stop discussing this, doing so makes it seem as if you have a basis to begin with. I just like to argue on multiple fronts when there are numerous contrary examples on multiple fronts, but it may be bad in distracting from the core counter-argument..

That's one reason to assign to the rewriting of the rule....but since there is no way to know why it was done....

I find it misleading to call it a re-writing since damage and MD were distinct entities anyway.

I never once thought prior to CB1 "oh, cool, bonus MD from my PS" because it said damage and not MD. Just like I didn't assume I could inflict MD with my kicks just because kicks said damage instead of SDC damage.

there is nothing in the books that says that there is such a thing as an 'inherent meaning to damage as a stand-alone'

You can also argue that 'there is nothing in the books that says there is such a thing as an 'inherent meaning to Greater Demon'

The exact phrase is not used... but the meaning IS conveyed.

Our entire dispute is because damage is used on its own when defining an amount.

This means, for those parts to make any sense, damage must have an inherent meaning when standing alone.

If it doesn't, you are accusing those portions of being meaningless.

It is also not a RUE book, so the RUE rule set trumps it for RUE discussions (of which this is one)

The RUEleset does not actually contradict the Skraypers example though. RUE itself also contains clear contradictions to the idea of "damage"-flexibility. Damage statements existing on their own and a lack of any support (WP ancient argument is unfounded) for dmg>MD transformation are major wholes in your non-argument.

specifically find me a spot, in a book, by Palladium, that explicitly states that the additive damage from Fencing is strictly and only S.D.C. if not, then I will continue to consider you wrong in regards to the matter.

How about first, you find me a statement like that for hand to hand assassin.

Again that's a strawman.

You ought to be banned from using that word. Since I'm not being listened to, perhaps one day someone will explain to you what straw-man arguments are. Or maybe you do know and are hoping others do not so that your complaints will seem genuine.

Instead of catch phrases, I would prefer if you would explain why you think what I say is a problem. I have been trying to do this lately too instead of using SM on its own to complain, to encourage opposition to do the same.

HWalsh is under some impression that Palladium needs explicit rules outlawing things which were never legal to begin with for them to be outlawed.

If there is no valid grounds (and the ancientWP section is not grounds) then outlawing something never made legal would not be reasonable expected.

Damage statements sometimes exist in telling us an amount without saying MD or SDC. We need a policy on treating that. Based on collectively considering these instances, SDC damage is the most believable default meaning here.

The argument of variability must establish conditions for variability.

Those conditions must be backed by evidence.

The ancient WP section is not evidence. I cut it up. Got anything else?

[Shark_Force]

why would we want to start a new thread to continue an argument with no end?

do you feel that the past few pages of discussion have left anything unexplored that needs to be said? because personally, i stopped reading more than the first few lines of each post (to check if it was going to be anything more than a rehash of the arguments that have already been made a dozen times) a few days ago.

if it's just going to be another thread consisting entirely of two sides who each post the same thing, over and over and over, than i'm going to propose that this thread has already fulfilled any need for an argument relating to the subject of whether or not the bonus damage from fencing is added to a psi-sword.

we already *have* several pages of it in this thread alone (never mind the arguments in previous threads). why would you start a new thread with the specific intent of making more of the same?

[Tor]

scroll to bottom for reply to Shark

How about the fact that a psi sword being an energy manifestation, actual fencing just doesn't apply to it. period.

The damage bonus from physical skills like HtH assassin or Fencing are not necessarily force-based ones like PS bonuses. We only explicitly know not to add PS-based damage to Psi-Swords.

Assassin/Fencing could be based on targetting critical areas, so we should add them unless otherwise indicated.

GMs might rule that fencing damage is force-based (ie the stereotypical lunge maneuver) and opt not to add it, of course. Although not RAW it seems logical enough.

If that interpretation was taken though, I would also not apply the bonus if the feet were fixed in place, like standing on a Carpet of Adhesion, since that would prevent lunging.

But since they are 'damage' and not MD, the addition doesn't matter too much against an MD target unless you have some kind of ability that converts damage into MD, like an Apok or Inquisitor. Useful against HP guys like Prometheans or Vampires though.

if you are unable to carry on a meaningful conversation with a specific person, the logical thing to do is to stop having a conversation with that person at all, because the other option is to have a meaningless conversation with them

I'm not sure this conversation should be called meaningless. Even in the case where one views one's opposition as reaching a wrong conclusion, it does not mean that their thought process is utterly meaningless. Meanings are complex, often multi-faceted, vague things, couched in the flexibility of language.

Even if meaningless is a gutteral 3-syllable put-down that might instinctively come to mind when frustrated with statements others make that confuse us, upon contemplation I do not think we should resort to using them, but instead strive to figure what thoughts motivate what ideas a person express. Truly meaningless statements would be utterly random, and no poster here is thoughtless.

no purpose other than to make you get more and more angry, at which point you will most likely say or do something you may not feel proud of in the future.

Anger is sometimes a reaction when we do not make headway, but I do not buy your argument that this somehow becomes the sole purpose. It is not even a sole result.

Even if all a conflict seemed to do was produce anger in me, it would still teach me to quell my anger and learn to ignore it and focus on the actual points, if I continue to participate in the thread.

Purpose and result go far beyond such a minimum though. It also teaches us to look past other's anger and reach out to them. I do not like a -one or both of us is mad, so this is not worth talking about- kind of idea. That does not better the world. I can admire passion for justice even if what I think is a correct world differs from someone else.

anyone reading will have already made a decision on which points are made with reason, and which are not, so there isn't really even anything to be gained by pointing it out for the benefit of others; if they haven't gotten it by now, they most likely never will.

This would imply that a correct party (supposing one side or the other is correct) is making a perfect argument and can't improve upon it.

I don't see that as likely. Even if someone is right in their stance, they can still be flawed in how they present that stance, or in how they criticize opposition. In the course of clashing opinions, people will inevitably examine their language and how it is reacted to and come up with new ideas on how to improve on it to make it better match both their own and the other person's thoughts.

in the strawman he is setting up a false premise (the straw man) that he can then tear down. Then you try to prove the by demolishing the strawman that you have demolished the unrelated actual topic.
Hand to Hand is a strawman for Fencing. The ability to point out the flaws in Hand to Hand does nothing to prove anything about the unrelated Fencing skills. ergo its a strawman.

Although you present the correct definition for straw-man arguments HERE, I still do not think you are correctly applying that definition to my HtHassassin example.

In fact, when you try to explain how you're doing it right, you are making mistakes about the facts and misinterpreting my argument.

1) you say that the Fencing skill is 'unrelated' to Hand to Hand assassin
*in truth, they are related because they are (1) both physical skills (2) both skills which add -damage- to attacks

2) I am arguing that if damage added from fencing (a damage-adding physical skill) transforms into MD when added to a MD-inflicting weapon, that logically, damage added from HtHassassin (a damage-adding physical skill) should also transform into MD when added to a MD-inflicting weapon.
*This is not a straw-man argument, I am attacking the underlying logic which motivates HWalsh's conclusion about Fencing, by applying the logic equivalently to HtHassassin.

There is no 'flaws in Hand to Hand' here, which you claim I point out. There is only the reality of what the Hand to Hand skills say and what the Fencing skill says.

If there is a critical difference, I have not seen it demonstrated.

I really fail to see what people are hoping to achieve

I understand this. I hope my explanation above will help you see what I hope from it.

neither side is going to suddenly change their mind.

I don't agree with that, changes in perspective sometimes seem almost instantaneous. Even when shifts in perspective are gradual they sometimes occur as a result of a series of micro-revelations.

It's just a game, and a game that is notoriously self-contradictory and inconsistent.

Forum debates are never just about the games, they are about the underpinning laws of language and logic too.

I imagine much of it is simply the idea that you're trying to help the other person since they're 'obviously' mistaken from your perspective

Though that might be the first line of thought that comes to mind (and you do say 'much of it' so I can agree, since you did not say 'all') there is also the effort to help oneself think better, and also to help 3rd-party observers.

it can only make their gaming experience better once they're doing it the 'correct' way.

Nope, I think fencing adding MD to MD weapons would be badass and would opt to use it as a sweet house-rule and probably include it as a mandatory OCC Related skill for cyber-knights and anyone else who starts off with MD swords.

RAW is not always rool-of-cool.

people will keep insisting on a point long after they're proven wrong because of the idea that admitting error means you're weak

That seems a little insulting NM, I would hope most of us here are above that. Admitting error is a strength, it shows someone has grown. Don't you know that parading humility is the new arrogance?

to gamers it's as much serious business as sports to a sports fanatic, to them saying 'it's just a game' won't get a 'yeah I guess you're right' response either.

Utter agreement.

What's better than games anyway? Having opinions about romance? Bout religion? Value-ranking is entirely subjective and it doesn't seem appropriate to preach to others what they ought to be serious about. Plus the core issue is testing the validity of our thinking, I can't think of any higher human calling, regardless of where it is exercised.

sometimes people just like to argue about anything.

I am betting KC can't actually provide any evidence of this, seems like more of a general insult.

People often have some things they like to argue about and other things they do not like to. I would not see any value in arguing 'chocolate tastes better than strawberry' for example. Or 'what is the best power armor'. I believe everyone has standards for what things they like to discuss, and what kinds of different viewpoints are worth arguing about.

*hopes this doesn't precede some kind of fallacious 'you are arguing with me about this therefore you like to argue about everything' rebuttal*

why would we want to start a new thread to continue an argument with no end?

A new thread with a more appropriate title pertaining to the core issue of disagreement helps to get to the point. It also helps hammer home 'no, this is not just about psi-swords' and even 'no, this is not just about swords'.

A big reason why this argument seems endless is because it is prone to being multi-faceted. A thread free of the baggage that psi-swords bring would be useful.

do you feel that the past few pages of discussion have left anything unexplored that needs to be said?

It's certainly possible. It's hard to know whether or not something might be later discovered and stated until one becomes aware of it.

i stopped reading more than the first few lines of each post
another thread consisting entirely of two sides who each post the same thing

If you only read the first lines and see nothing new, that does not mean the entire post contains nothing new.

Progress has been incredibly slow but I have perceived subtle improvements in both my and my opposition's communication. Even if there are some glaring issues which have yet to be resolved and which make those steps forward seem very small.

i'm going to propose that this thread has already fulfilled any need for an argument relating to the subject of whether or not the bonus damage from fencing is added to a psi-sword.

we already *have* several pages of it in this thread alone (never mind the arguments in previous threads). why would you start a new thread with the specific intent of making more of the same?

If you do more than skim, you may realize I was not proposing we create a thread about psi-swords, or even about swords.

The thread title illustrates that I want it to be about whether or not -damage- bonuses from physical skills add MD to already-MD attacks. That discussion is extra-swordal.

If we can answer that question, we can then discuss as a secondary question whether or not fencing/sword would follow that answer or whether or not it would be an exception to it.

[Chronicle]

I feel that bonuses from technique related sources would give their damage bonuses as per weapon type ( fencing hand to hand skills)
str bonuses should not qualify for a higher damage type due to physical limitations.

[Killer Cyborg]

I feel that bonuses from technique related sources would give their damage bonuses as per weapon type ( fencing hand to hand skills)
str bonuses should not qualify for a higher damage type due to physical limitations.

I agree.

BUT Splicers makes it clear that, insofar as the Fencing skill is concerned, the bonuses translate to Mega-Damage.

[Tor]

I feel that bonuses from technique related sources
would give their damage bonuses as per weapon type
fencing
hand to hand skills

For anyone holding this belief, I invite you to stand by your guns (or vibro-knives, as it were) and make a thread titled

-I am a level 7 vagabond with hand to hand basic and inflict 3 MD with my Wilks Laser Wand-
-I am a level 11 vagabond with hand to hand martial arts and inflict 5 MD with my Laser Wand-
-I am a level 4 Headhunter with hand to hand Assassin and inflict 5 MD with my bionic power punch-

Splicers makes it clear that, insofar as the Fencing skill is concerned, the bonuses translate to Mega-Damage.

If you are trained in the Splicers dimension or if you travel to the Splicers dimension, sure.

Otherwise, the more recently published RUE and Shadow Chronicles, which omitted such a translation, could equally be argued to have negated that judgment call.

[Prysus]

Otherwise, the more recently published RUE and Shadow Chronicles, which omitted such a translation, could equally be argued to have negated that judgment call.

Greetings and Salutations. For the record, I agree with the others that this conversation has long since become meaningless. For the record, I'm on the side that that Fencing adds M.D. to M.D. weapons due to the various written rules cited so far (and I do NOT side with the unwritten rule of Tor triumps written rules). The rest of this just seems to be bashing heads into walls (any who are arguing just to argue may find this fun though). With all that said, I'm making a post to specifically address the inaccurate conclusion I quoted above.

The conclusion that an omission of a correction means that it's intentionally negated is just false, bad, wrong, and shows a total lack of knowledge of Palladium. I love Palladium, but I've never tried to make the claim that their editing is top notch and without fault. If you'd like proof of a correction made in other books that didn't find it's way into RUE, I'll bring you to Carpet of Adhesion (because it easily comes to mind as I tracked this one down in the past).

Palladium Fantasy Revised Edition (which is basically 1st Edition): Carpet of Adhesion (a level 2 spell). Range 90 feet. The mention of being able to cast it up to 90 feet away is also mentioned. The same 10x20 (200 square feet) references are also included.
HU Revised Edition (which is basically 1st Edition): Range is listed as 30 feet per level. The note of 90 feet away is included.
Rifts (original) main book & Book of Magic: Range is listed as 30 feet per level. The note of 90 feet away is included in both.
Rifts Ultimate Edition: Range is listed as 30 feet, +10 feet per level. The note of 90 feet away is included.
PF2 & HU2: Range is listed as 30 feet, +10 feet per level of experience. The 90 feet note is missing!
All editions: Mention the carpet can be 10 feet x 20 feet (and mention again 200 square feet limit), so neither of these numbers should apply to the size of the carpet (as that's a constant in all editions).

Note: I can't find the spell listed in BtS or Nightbane (or Through The Glass Darkly). I don't believe Dead Reign, Splicers, Ninjas & Superspies System Failure, or After the Bomb include magic.

My analysis started as a result of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=124590

However, if you follow the research, you can see that Palladium made a correction in both PF2 and HU2, but then missed that correction in RGMG and RUE. All this really helps show is that the Palladium editing system is not flawless (most of us already knew this), and that the omission of a clarification or correction in one system does not indicate the omission was intentional.

Now I have no intentions of continuing this debate as it is fairly pointless by now (and no, sending me a PM won't goad me into it, despite a certain person's efforts to do so in the past). I just figured might as well provide some RUE evidence of how this point is wrong too (as I believe people have left it alone, more or less). Farewell and safe journeys for now.