Cyber Knights and Fencing

[Killer Cyborg]

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.

Megaversal rules carry over unless they specifically conflict with local rules.
The rule in Splicers does not conflict, ergo it carries over.

[Blue_Lion]

The damage note on page 326 Rue is the strongest thing I can think of to support it.
Damage Note: Damage listed with each ancient weapon is SDC/hit point damage. However high-tech or magical mega-damage weapons inflict the same number of dice only it is MD, not SDC.

The flip side is that it is neither magical or high tech and it does not apply PS modifiers. Rue did rework damage stacking so that it no longer stacks in MD for the most part. IE do not get both weapon and pouch damage any more. So it could be ruled that unless it stacks on psi-weapons it does not.
So weather or not it works is subject to your GM.

[HWalsh]

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

Not quite. You are playing the "political word game" and made a blatant attack, but now are trying to play it off. That is fine, it is the nature of forum debates, my skin is not so thin as to allow for this to faze me in the least.

I'll clarify:

When I said "I refuse to see any precedent." I was specifically referring to not seeing the item that you put forward as a legitimate precedent. Your item is a false precedent. Kind of like a false bit of logic.

See, you are kind of like saying, "Thunder is a loud noise! This is a loud noise! Thus all loud noises must be thunder!"

When in fact that is not true.

The fact is, to me, and most rational people, Fencing adds +1d6 to the weapon's damage. That is clearly what was intended, it is also in-line with the rules. You are arguing because it doesn't explicitly say it. You are trying to cite a precedent which, at no other point, applies.

The notes on W.Ps not withstanding (in your opinion) the other areas of this are as follows that are of great importance:

Fencing is a physical skill.
All other physical skills that add (or set) damage all add (or set) damage of the same type that would normally be dealt by the attack based on damage type.

You are insinuating that because the skill didn't include it in RUE or RSC, then it automatically is S.D.C.

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.

Again. Petty attack, attempted to be prettied up. Comes off snarky. Does nothing but make people dislike you and disregard any point you may have had.

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.

This belief is incorrect.

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.

I'm going to step in here...

You are aware that Palladium Books quite often does stats for characters incorrectly right?
You can't use the stat blocks of characters as a determination factor for anything.

I'll illustrate this example with SoT4:Cyber-Knights (since i have this handy)

Using just that book, we can see that Minor Psychic Cyber-Knight Psi-Swords (for non-Master Psychics) do:
1d6 M.D. at level 1, 2d6 at 3, 4d6 at 6, 5d6 at 9, 6d6 at 12, and 7d6 at 15

Segaya Cross (SoT4 pg 80)
14th Level Cyber-Knight, Major Psychic, Does 4d6 M.D. with his Psi-Sword

This isn't the only time, mind you, that characters get weird stats. The fact is that Palladium Books isn't exactly the best at checking for errors. So to say, "This character doesn't reflect it in its stat block..." Isn't really a good distinguishing point when we have tons of examples of characters having skills and abilities that they should not have as well as not having skills and abilities that they should have.

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.

Not at all. The reason he is pointing out your strawman argument is the fact that you are trying to use something that has explicit rules to them. Namely Vampires. That fundamentally overrule common rules by their nature and attempting to apply a common rule to a target that explicitly supersedes that rule.

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.

Tor, but you aren't focused on weighing evidence. You ignore anything that possibly contradicts you then create very false precedents. If we want to argue the evidence then we have to start with the reason you are dismissing the RUE WP quote, and explain why you logically feel that doesn't extend to Fencing, in this case to begin with.

Now, if your stance is, "Fencing is not a W.P. and as such that rule shouldn't be considered." That is fine. But then we have to go into the other skills...

This asks odd questions if we go by what is stated rather than intent... For example... If an M.D.C. creature gets Aerobic Athletics, do they gain +2D4 S.D.C? Common understanding is, "No! Of course not!" But by your seemingly (very) rigid stances, they should have their natural MDC but then an amount of S.D.C. due to their skill additive, simply because the skill additive does not explicitly state that this transfers up to M.D.C.

Athletics adds to P.S. it doesn't explicitly say that it adds to supernatural P.S. does this mean that it doesn't add to Supernatural PS and creatures with Supernatural P.S. do not gain a benefit? Or that they have some kind of special floating non-Supernatural P.S. that comes into play in certain settings only?

Or, using what seems to be your interpretation, and note I am using "seems to be" instead of "is" to differentiate between me putting words in your mouth as this is simply my perception of your stance....

So if a creature with Supernatural P.S. takes Gymnastics, since Gymnastics gives an automatic kick attack at first level of 2D4 damage, if we assume that damage means S.D.C and since Kickboxing Explicitly states that damage from Kickboxing can be M.D.C. but no such explicit statement is made in Gymnastics that people who normally deal M.D.C. damage with kicks, only deal S.D.C. damage if they use the Gymnastics kick? The same question applies to the Acrobatics kick. The same questions go over to Wrestling.

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.

Sure we have. It is the same rule from the W.P. section.

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.

It could be done, but we should by no means assume it is some kind of default state. We are told, numerous times, that if a person with non-Supernatural Strength hits a target with an M.D. melee weapon the damage from non-Supernatural strength is ignored save for in very specific circumstances. You are making an assumption here that such double damage dealing is a default state.

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?

The damage that wold normally be dealt by that attack type unless otherwise explicitly stated is a pretty good role of default. Damage additives without an explicit statement are the damage type of the weapon (as per the W.P. statement) and damage multiplication is the same.

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.

You aren't being listened to Tor, because you are wrong.

You ARE making a strawman argument.

I told you, specifically, to find a section for FENCING that supports your stance that applies to Fencing. You obviously cannot. That is fine. You counter by saying "Find me one for Hand-To-Hand Assassin." Which would be fine, if, and only if, I were actually arguing that damage from Hand to Hand Assassin shouldn't transfer up if the normal attack it is applying to wouldn't be M.D. damage. Since I am NOT arguing that, your counter-argument is a strawman argument.

Meanwhile mine ISN'T a strawman argument because you ARE arguing that the damage from Fencing does not scale up based on the weapon type. Do you see the difference now? I am asking you to directly find an explicit rule that applies here, you can't. So to counter that you are asking me to find an explicit rule to something that I'm not arguing.

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

Remember how you got onto me for not using the phrasing "Seems to be..."

HWalsh is, in fact, stating that because of the examples of automatic scaling up to M.D. in all other cases where things scale up to M.D. based on the attack, and the fact that so far all the places where it doesn't scale up (such as human strength) it has been explicitly stated that the precedent has been created.

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

It most certainly is valid grounds.

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.

In your opinion. Which I, and most others, disagree with.

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?

It is evidence. It is clear evidence of design intent if nothing else.

[Blue_Lion]

How about we look at weapons stats for clues on undefined damage. And see what can be derived from it. (Although I do think the damage note in WP ancient does seam a valid issue that should not be dismissed.) But in its wording does apply to psi-sword.

Looking at physical skills they do not specify any type of damage but there is a note on kickboxing about scaling but as it based on PS it may not apply to psi-swords.

I can see justification for both allowing and not allowing placing it in a GM call territory.

I do not see much of a balance issue on adding it to psi-swords as there are swords that do way more damage than them thanks to FoM. So it to me comes down to play style/flavor issue on allowing it.

I do not see it ever clearly being made legal or illegal.

(I am a little confused at why people seam to think you can add SD to md attacks or vise versa-as I understand it you do one or the other not both.)

[Chronicle]

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.

First of all you took my statement slightly out of context. Technique for hand to hand and fencing are purely hand to hand tactics. Maybe i should have clarified. If there were any gun techniques i am sure that knowing when to strike would make a difference. I meant no offence against your opinion in any way. it is just my interpretation of the rules. (damage not being officially clarified as SDC only due to the fact that MDC objects take damage.)

[Tor]

I agree with the others that this conversation has long since become meaningless

I don't care. I view all conversations as meaningful. Find a more realistic and moderate criticism and I might agree with it.

I'm on the side that that Fencing adds M.D. to M.D. weapons due to the various written rules cited so far

Only on written rule exists supporting that, the one in Splicers.

I do NOT side with the unwritten rule of Tor triumps written rules

Lemme correct dat strawman Pry. What damage means is not unwritten. Numerous core books explain to us what damage is, it's right in the basic rules.

It also doesn't trump anything, I just do not view the version of fencing in Splicers to over-write the later-printed versions of Fencing in Rifts and Robotech.

There is a contradiction in using Splicers to argue for a MD bonus while ignoring the clear meaning of damage established in other core books.

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.

That is only one possibility I have explored.

A stronger possibility is that MD-from-fencing was a rule put into Splicers without Siembieda actually noticing it. A hacky editor job.

After all, Kev supposedly approved the PE-in-hours PPE storage statement to, but this was called a 'mistake' and changed to minutes. So we know that he doesn't always catch minor details like that.

Palladium Fantasy Revised Edition (which is basically 1st Edition):

u mean Palladium Role-Playing Game Revised Edition Fantasy was 2nd ed.

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: http://palladium-megaverse.com/forums/v ... 9&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.

Different stats for spells don't matter, as best evidenced by the TTGD Create Zombie ritual, or the triple-lightning bolt Call Lightning in original BtS, sometimes spells share the same name while having different stats.

Megaversal rules carry over unless they specifically conflict with local rules.
The rule in Splicers does not conflict, ergo it carries over.

The Splicers parenthesis is not a rule, it is a special property of the Splicers version of the skill.

Since it does not appear in Rifts or Robotech, this either means it is a special property the skill acquires when used in the Splicers dimension, or else it applies in all dimensions but you need to go to the Splicers world to learn it.

Setting-unique skill variations are well known. Kind of like how you wouldn't add MD to attacks in the HU or Palladium world.

It's funny how you say -megaversal rules carry over- yet the definition of what damage is gets-u rejected and I'm limited to finding 'damage' statements solely from Rifts to prove points.

The damage note on page 326 Rue is the strongest thing I can think of to support it.
Damage Note: Damage listed with each ancient weapon is SDC/hit point damage. However high-tech or magical mega-damage weapons inflict the same number of dice only it is MD, not SDC.

I know people hate the hair-splitting, but the actual phrase is "Mega-Damage equivalent weapons". Or what I opt to call MEWs. This is not a statement about all mega-damage weapons, just -equivalent- class ones, which means the portion of MD weapons which match in MD the damage dice of normal weapons.

do not get both weapon and pouch damage any more. So it could be ruled that unless it stacks on psi-weapons it does not. So weather or not it works is subject to your GM.

Punch damage? Page 286 is clearly a useless PF reprint, it doesn't even mention MD it talks about adding the PS damage bonus to SDC attacks. Seems pointless, a huge amount of Rifts weapons still say to stack with the SNPS punch damage, so either those are now special cases or else it's a general policy.

The official rifter FAQ says that psi-weapons do not benefit from strength since they lack a physical core.

Not quite. You are playing the "political word game" and made a blatant attack, but now are trying to play it off.

You said you refused to see precedent, I agreed. Burden is on statement-initiator.

When I said "I refuse to see any precedent." I was specifically referring to not seeing the item that you put forward as a legitimate precedent. Your item is a false precedent. Kind of like a false bit of logic.

Refuse-to-see and do-not-see are not the same thing.

you are kind of like saying, "Thunder is a loud noise! This is a loud noise! Thus all loud noises must be thunder!"

I do not understand which statement you are saying resembles this, please specify.

to me, and most rational people, Fencing adds +1d6 to the weapon's damage.

This would be closer to an actual attack, since by saying that only a minority of rational people agree with me, you are effectively communicating the idea that I am not a rational person.

The problem here is that how you are communicating here does not resemble the text, RUEp316 says "+1d6 to damage with a sword" not "+1d6 to the sword's damage"

Your so-called summary rewords it in a way that you find more useful for making your argument.

"to the weapon's damage" or "to the sword's damage" do not exist here. There is no reference to the type of damage the weapon inflicts. The damage is added to the attack made WITH one.

That is clearly what was intended, it is also in-line with the rules.

Actually no, if it were intended, it would be made explicit, like the MD bonus in Horsemanship. There are no rules which change -damage- to MD without a statement.

You are arguing because it doesn't explicitly say it. You are trying to cite a precedent which, at no other point, applies.

That's what you're doing. Numerous precedents exist for 'damage' being used to refer to SDC damage. You want it to be MD in this unique situation without addressing the bigger picture of what this means for other 'damage' statements.

Fencing is a physical skill.
All other physical skills that add (or set) damage all add (or set) damage of the same type that would normally be dealt by the attack based on damage type.

No, they just add or set damage. There is no -type- discussion. This is your invention.

You are insinuating that because the skill didn't include it in RUE or RSC, then it automatically is S.D.C.

Yes, like any other undefined 'damage' statement.

Again. Petty attack, attempted to be prettied up. Comes off snarky. Does nothing but make people dislike you and disregard any point you may have had.

Accusing someone of straw-manning you is not a petty attack if it is correct. This is a valid criticism if someone is actually doing it. It is not petty if you explain how it is being done, and what the disconnect in meaning between origin and summary is.

It becomes petty when it is a wrong accusation and not backed by evidence, which is what this other poster had been doing.

Please avoid commenting on how you think others dislike me and stick to the argument topics. It is for others to dictate the impact of what my words have on them. If reading my words does nothing but make you dislike me, then say it, but you are the only person you are qualified to speak for. Such observations are still off-topic though.

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.

This belief is incorrect.

Strong sourcing here.

You are aware that Palladium Books quite often does stats for characters incorrectly right?
You can't use the stat blocks of characters as a determination factor for anything.

NPCs often having mistakes does not mean we can not use them to learn some things.

Like observing the overwhelming trend of damage bonuses from PS and HtH being lumped together.

Minor Psychic Cyber-Knight Psi-Swords (for non-Master Psychics) do:
1d6 M.D. at level 1, 2d6 at 3, 4d6 at 6, 5d6 at 9, 6d6 at 12, and 7d6 at 15

Segaya Cross (SoT4 pg 80)
14th Level Cyber-Knight, Major Psychic, Does 4d6 M.D. with his Psi-Sword

So he does 4 dice instead of 6. Cross is a Hermit, their combat bonuses are halved, maybe it has something to do with the damage bonus the psi-sword receives being considered a damage bonus or something.

Although.. you added 2 dice at level 6, so I think that we should expect him to do 5d6 by standard interpretation, so even if the 4d6 was halved by per my theory that would mean 3d6... so maybe he has one of those Amaki contraptions accounting for the extra d6

When NPCs vary from rules we can invent reasons why but we can still utilize them for pattern recognition.

If Assassin and Fencing both added conditional MD, this would mean every NPC which lumps that in with PS bonuses are some big conspiratorial exception. The more likely explanation is it's all the same.

This isn't the only time, mind you, that characters get weird stats. The fact is that Palladium Books isn't exactly the best at checking for errors. So to say, "This character doesn't reflect it in its stat block..." Isn't really a good distinguishing point when we have tons of examples of characters having skills and abilities that they should not have as well as not having skills and abilities that they should have.

There are mechanisms that exist for losing skills and abilities and gaining new ones, both known and unknown. Those account for oddities, but physPS dmg lumping is a regular trend we observe which evidences their interchangeability.

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.

Not at all. The reason he is pointing out your strawman argument is the fact that you are trying to use something that has explicit rules to them. Namely Vampires. That fundamentally overrule common rules by their nature and attempting to apply a common rule to a target that explicitly supersedes that rule.

You clearly do not understand what Strawman means either. You two might be thinking of 'bad example' or something similar when you accuse me on these grounds.

Become competent in understanding what straw-man means before using it. Call me fallacious if you like, I can take that, it's broad, but you evidence no understanding of what straw-man means when you think it applies when I use vampires as an example.

you aren't focused on weighing evidence. You ignore anything that possibly contradicts you

That is blatently false.

HWalsh I would greatly appreciate it if we could get back to actually discussing the evidence, as both of us have been attempting to do, rather than come up with BS accusations like you thinking you have some insight as to what it is I focus on.

When you propose things you think contradict me, I do not ignore them, I confront them, and I beat them.

If we want to argue the evidence then we have to start with the reason you are dismissing the RUE WP quote, and explain why you logically feel that doesn't extend to Fencing, in this case to begin with.

Yes, and I have done that. The WP quote doesn't even support adding the WP's dmg bonus to polearms and whips to MD-inflicting polearms and whips, because it is discussing the base damage dice, not the bonuses.

Your life-preserver here is sunk before you can even attempt to think it applies to fencing.

if your stance is, "Fencing is not a W.P. and as such that rule shouldn't be considered." That is fine.

There is no WP rule. The things mentioned in the WP discussion are discussing MEWs, not rules.

If an M.D.C. creature gets Aerobic Athletics, do they gain +2D4 S.D.C? Common understanding is, "No! Of course not!" But by your seemingly (very) rigid stances, they should have their natural MDC but then an amount of S.D.C. due to their skill additive, simply because the skill additive does not explicitly state that this transfers up to M.D.C.

Unless otherwise indicated, yes, you would add SDC bonuses as a separate pool from the MDC total of a being. There is nothing preventing someone from having both stats concurrently.

That said, although I don't recall specifically where, I think there probably was a statement out there saying -don't add SDC bonuses from physical skills to MDC beings- or something along those lines.

There are also some statements for certain races which convert those SDC bonuses into MDC bonuses. I don't remember exactly whom.

Athletics adds to P.S. it doesn't explicitly say that it adds to supernatural P.S. does this mean that it doesn't add to Supernatural PS and creatures with Supernatural P.S. do not gain a benefit?

That depends on whether you think the Heroes Unlimited rule for it's Major Power applies Megaversally or not. It does seem unrealistic to expect people who play Rifts to be aware of and enforce such text.

Or that they have some kind of special floating non-Supernatural P.S. that comes into play in certain settings only?

Mega and Supernatural do not have the same status as modifiers. Strength always has an inherent status based on the being, it can't exist discretely like damage.

if a creature with Supernatural P.S. takes Gymnastics, since Gymnastics gives an automatic kick attack at first level of 2D4 damage, if we assume that damage means S.D.C and since Kickboxing Explicitly states that damage from Kickboxing can be M.D.C. but no such explicit statement is made in Gymnastics that people who normally deal M.D.C. damage with kicks, only deal S.D.C. damage if they use the Gymnastics kick? The same question applies to the Acrobatics kick. The same questions go over to Wrestling.

You are forgetting that the enhanced-strength damage tables give their own guidelines for the MD inflicted by kicks and body blocks, this would override the standard damage. These questions also apply to HtH.

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

Sure we have. It is the same rule from the W.P. section.

That isn't a rule, it is a discussion of MEWs. It is not presented like a rule. It is not called a rule.

It could be done, but we should by no means assume it is some kind of default state. We are told, numerous times, that if a person with non-Supernatural Strength hits a target with an M.D. melee weapon the damage from non-Supernatural strength is ignored save for in very specific circumstances. You are making an assumption here that such double damage dealing is a default state.

I believe people are told not to add it because some people for some reason assume the damage bonus becomes mega when added to mega.

Telling people not to add it is generally harmless because in most situations it will simply not matter. 2 MD destroys 299 SDC so +1 to +99 is ignorable in the majority of situations.

The SNPS table does not account for oddities like Prometheans or Vampires where it becomes ridiculously absurd not to add the standard PS damage bonus to MD attacks since those MD attacks convert to HP.

If it is not added, this would lead to silly situations like a vampire secretly improving his opponent's weapons by making them inflict MD so they would inflict LESS damage when wielded by a strong (but not supernatural) foe.

The damage that wold normally be dealt by that attack type unless otherwise explicitly stated is a pretty good role of default. Damage additives without an explicit statement are the damage type of the weapon (as per the W.P. statement) and damage multiplication is the same.

The WP statement about MEWs does not state anything like that, you read it wrongly.

You aren't being listened to Tor, because you are wrong.

That is impossible. To think someone is wrong and react to them based on that belief requires you to listen to them to form the idea of them being wrong.

You ARE making a strawman argument.

No, a strawman argument would be if I misrepresented something you said.

I told you, specifically, to find a section for FENCING that supports your stance that applies to Fencing. You obviously cannot. That is fine. You counter by saying "Find me one for Hand-To-Hand Assassin." Which would be fine, if, and only if, I were actually arguing that damage from Hand to Hand Assassin shouldn't transfer up if the normal attack it is applying to wouldn't be M.D. damage. Since I am NOT arguing that, your counter-argument is a strawman argument.

That is not what straw-man arguments are.

By asking me to find a fencing-section you pretend as if you are correct by default and that I need a statement to disprove you.

As a logical exercise I am taking that stance on Assassin.

I never said you were making any arguments about Assassin.

I am saying that the logic underpinning your fencing argument also applies to Assassin, so your logic creates a greater dilemma than the issue of fencing alone.

I am asking you to confront that greater dilema your logic creates.

Meanwhile mine ISN'T a strawman argument because you ARE arguing that the damage from Fencing does not scale up based on the weapon type.

That statement is not what I was calling straw-man about.

My objection to you previously was the incorrect 'damage only refers to SDC' misquoting.

My objection now is that you are telling people I said you brought up Assassin.

The reality is that I am bringing it up to show the ramifications of your line of thinking and the contradictions to applying it.

I am asking you to directly find an explicit rule that applies here, you can't.

Damage and mega-damage are discretely defined, the burden is on you to prove the existence of a situation-altered damage quantity.

you are asking me to find an explicit rule to something that I'm not arguing.

Underpinning the context of the fencing skill is logic that applies to hand to hand skills. I am proposing you defend the merits of that logic or else exhibit how fencing should be treated differently than HtHs in regard to damage bonuses.

examples of automatic scaling up to M.D. in all other cases where things scale up to M.D. based on the attack

There are no such examples, your WP section statements about MEWs are a red herring. You have not addressed my criticism of your introducing MEWs as part of your argument.

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

It most certainly is valid grounds.

You need to do more than that to try and make a point here.

I quoted the text and explained how MEWs are talking about specific weapons and not any kind of scaling rule.

Try and actually make an argument by citing the text and how you interpret that. We can discuss the linguistics of the ancient WP section in further detail if you like, but I see nothing substantial there, it's effectively discussing Resin/Dweomer weapons and similar EQUIVALENTS, not a damage-multiplier rule.

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.

In your opinion. Which I, and most others, disagree with.

Actually, most others agree with ME. However like you, when I make such a claim, I will provide no evidence backing that statement.

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

It is evidence. It is clear evidence of design intent if nothing else.

I quoted the section before, feel free to quote/bold the sentences or words in there you think are most important.

I don't think we'll actually get anywhere when we both just refer to the section unless we continually take a close look at it. I did so and nobody engaged me over it.

What on page 326 do you think supports you?

-damage starts as SDC- supports me.

Melee weapons that inflict MD are mentioned in a list of examples but it doesn't mention anything about bonus upgrading.

The thing I figure is the source of your dispute is what I call the MEWs statement.

"Mega-Damage equivalent weapons inflict the same amount of damage dice except it is MD not SDC"

MEWs are not all MD-inflicting weapons. Psi-swords are clearly not MEWs because they do not inflict the same amount of damage dice.

Is it something else? That bit about the sword at the end? The phrase "if a Mega-Damage weapon" has no clear meaning here. It can't mean having MDC because there are MDC swords out there which inflict SDC.

The only meaning discernable here is that MD weapons inflict MD.

Nowhere here is any mention of damage bonuses becoming MD bonuses.

I do think the damage note in WP ancient does seam a valid issue that should not be dismissed.

LOL no, it's not as if I dismissed it without reading it. I read it and found nothing supporting the argument people claim is there. Where are the attempts to explain which part of it supports the argument? The attempts to defend such explanations?

in its wording does apply to psi-sword.

LOL no, it refers to MEWs, psi-swords are not MEWs.

I do not see much of a balance issue on adding it to psi-swords as there are swords that do way more damage than them thanks to FoM.

Those cost a lot of money, they can be destroyed or stolen, and they make you the target of thieves and a visible threat in battle. While having lower MD the psi-sword avoids a lot of these concerns.

I do not see it ever clearly being made legal or illegal.

Technically there's nothing explicitly saying "a spinning round-house from a Gnome does 1 million MD" is illegal either. I mean yeah, the rules don't tell us to do it, but hey, if we need disclaimers...

I am a little confused at why people seam to think you can add SD to md attacks or vise versa-as I understand it you do one or the other not both.)

It's usually pointless for most opponents. Some beings have MD>HP transferal powers though, where it would be worthwhile to do so.

First of all you took my statement slightly out of context. Technique for hand to hand and fencing are purely hand to hand tactics.

I dunno man, the damage bonus for HtHasassin does specify just HtH but the bonuses for basic/expert/MA don't say that Course I'm sure there's something that causes us to not stack HtH strike bonuses with modern WP bonuses which might similarly tell us not to add dmg ones too, though I don't recall where.

If there were any gun techniques i am sure that knowing when to strike would make a difference.

Does this refer to initiative or something?

I meant no offence against your opinion in any way. it is just my interpretation of the rules. (damage not being officially clarified as SDC only due to the fact that MDC objects take damage.)

I'm not offended because you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with a strawman constructed to parody me.

MDC objects take damage in the form of mega-damage. Damage does not always mean SDC. But if we are told a quantity of undefined damage, that does default to SDC, because that is the default context that damage has always had.

[Killer Cyborg]

The Splicers parenthesis is not a rule, it is a special property of the Splicers version of the skill.

Right.
Good luck with that.

[Blue_Lion]

MEW? Sorry what is a MEW? are you making up acronyms now?

The damage note specifies it applies to high tech and magical MDC weapons. Doing the listed dice in MD. Nothing in the paragraph or surrounding text can be converted into the acronym MEW. Are you creating a sub category to apply so that you can say it does not fit the bill. The way it is worded if magic was to create a sword of pure magical energy that inflicts MD it would apply. It also applies to energy swords made with technology that inflict MD. So in cases of vibro-blades and magical weapons it would by its wording apply.

Actually you are wrong on you comment about the spinning round house kick from a gnome. In order to do a combat move that inflicts damage it has to be an combat move that is known by the system and all known moves have a damage value defined. So when the gnome attempts a combat move such as a round house you go to the text on the move and use the rules for it.

The issue is we have a undefined variable with no rule in writing saying how to define it. So arguments can be made both for and against by drawing what is in the books.

[Blue_Lion]

The Splicers parenthesis is not a rule, it is a special property of the Splicers version of the skill.

Right.
Good luck with that.

I would like to know where it says the rule only applies in splicers?

[Svartalf]

Because by default a rule applies only in the game for which it was drafted?

This said, in that particular case, I'd say the Splicers rule is just a better written version of the Rifts one and does apply.

[Blue_Lion]

Because by default a rule applies only in the game for which it was drafted?

This said, in that particular case, I'd say the Splicers rule is just a better written version of the Rifts one and does apply.

Ummm sorry but that is not the case. Palladium often requires references to cross games. examples unless you have the old conversion book elementals require a palladium fantasy game book. Palladium has stated for rules on spell creation go to X (think threw the looking glass but not sure of the top of my head) game. If the rule from two games are in direct confrontation then use the one for the game you are playing. If not in conflict and or it covers something not address it can be crossed over. That is how the Palladium Magaversal system works.

[Killer Cyborg]

The Splicers parenthesis is not a rule, it is a special property of the Splicers version of the skill.

Right.
Good luck with that.

I would like to know where it says the rule only applies in splicers?

It doesn't.
It's just that acknowledging that the rule applies to more than just Splicers would conflict with his pet theory.

[Killer Cyborg]

Because by default a rule applies only in the game for which it was drafted?

Not in this case, because we're talking about Palladium's Megaversal System, where rules are shared as a default.

This said, in that particular case, I'd say the Splicers rule is just a better written version of the Rifts one and does apply.

Agreed. It's not really a rule that appears only in Splicers- it's a superior phrasing of a rule that appears in both games.

[Tor]

Right. Good luck with that.

Skills often differ between settings, we know this. Thank you for yet another constructive boost of thine postCount KC.

MEW? Sorry what is a MEW? are you making up acronyms now?

Yes, as I explained earlier, I am going to write this instead of the phrase ``Mega-Damage equivalent weapons`` which appears in the ancient WP section of RUE.

Because I love cats and Pokemon.

The damage note specifies it applies to high tech and magical MDC weapons. Doing the listed dice in MD.

Those descriptors are inconsequential, the key phrase is -equivalent weapons- which can be produced by either tech or magic.

Nothing in the paragraph or surrounding text can be converted into the acronym MEW.

I am not saying MEW is an official copyrighted acronym like MDC or anything.

I am saying that I am creating it and using it here to say on space and typing.

I have reproduced the phrase it represents should you like to consult that. I just don`t want to type it every time, it is long.

Are you creating a sub category to apply so that you can say it does not fit the bill.

No, MEW refers to MDequivWeapons as a whole, or the tech-or-magic descriptors if you necessitate them.

The way it is worded if magic was to create a sword of pure magical energy that inflicts MD it would apply

No, it would not. The MEW class of weapons are equivalents, they have matching damage dice.

A spell like Lightblade, a sword of pure magical energy that inflicts MD, is not a MEW, because it does not match the damage dice, swords do not normally inflict d4x10.

It also applies to energy swords made with technology that inflict MD

It would only apply to tech energy swords if the MD they inflict matches the damage they normally inflict. It is simply describing that these exist.

we have a undefined variable with no rule in writing saying how to define it. So arguments can be made both for and against by drawing what is in the books.

Wrong, we know full well what damage means, it has Megaversal uniformity as a base amount. People are just ignoring the existence of this baseline in MD settings even though we still have examples within those games of its SDC nature being established.

I would like to know where it says the rule only applies in splicers?

There is no rule, there is a skill description.

I'd say the Splicers rule is just a better written version of the Rifts one and does apply.

I say it doesn`t apply.

That said, I am not opposed to house-ruling fencing adding MD to MD attacks, I think that would be cool.

I also think normal PS damage bonuses should benefit MD attacks, and would house-rule that as well.

Supernatural PS would still boost it better since it gets the punch dice added in addition to the fixed numerical bonus.

If the rule from two games are in direct confrontation then use the one for the game you are playing. If not in conflict and or it covers something not address it can be crossed over. That is how the Palladium Magaversal system works.

But there is a conflict: MD is clearly not added in Rifts or Robotech, games with editions printed later by Splicers, which were written by the head of the company. 1 old book by a Freelancer does not retcon the rules of 2 entire game series made by the company owner.

acknowledging that the rule applies to more than just Splicers would conflict with his pet theory.

The idea that a Splicers skill stat should somehow replace the skill stats of games in other settings when it is written by a Freelancer and is not the most recent book PB has published seems like more of a pet theory to me.

This discussion has been around for years. RUE and Robotech have had multiple printings since then.

If the omission of (this can add MD) type stuff was a mistake, we ought to have seen it added by now.

At this point enough time has passed that if it is later added to Rifts, it is clearly a reactive change.

It's not really a rule that appears only in Splicers
it's a superior phrasing of a rule that appears in both games.

No, it is 2 skills with the same name that have different stats in different settings.

We have seen this with stuff like Prowl or Hand to Hand or WP skills.

There is no clear -superior- there is only different stats.

What you personally favour does not gain any authority over the other.

I view written-by-Kevin and in-2-main-games and printed-later as indications of fencing-no-MD-note as being authoritative though.

[Killer Cyborg]

Right. Good luck with that.

Skills often differ between settings, we know this.

Right.
Any time the skill of one setting conflicts with another setting, then the local skill trumps the alternatives.
But in the case of Fencing, there is no conflict.

acknowledging that the rule applies to more than just Splicers would conflict with his pet theory.

The idea that a Splicers skill stat should somehow replace the skill stats of games in other settings when it is written by a Freelancer and is not the most recent book PB has published seems like more of a pet theory to me.

It would be... but the Splicers skill isn't replacing anything.
It's the same skill.

This discussion has been around for years.

So's the Flat Earth theory.

RUE and Robotech have had multiple printings since then.

If the omission of (this can add MD) type stuff was a mistake, we ought to have seen it added by now.

If Palladium was good at editing and fixing mistakes, or even good at clarifying things, then sure.
As it is, though, I'm just glad they edited out Emperor Tromm.

It's not really a rule that appears only in Splicers
it's a superior phrasing of a rule that appears in both games.

No, it is 2 skills with the same name that have different stats in different settings.

Nope.
The stats are the same.
One printing of the skill just elaborates more than the other.

We have seen this with stuff like Prowl or Hand to Hand or WP skills.

I view written-by-Kevin and in-2-main-games and printed-later as indications of fencing-no-MD-note as being authoritative though.

Right.
Because to do otherwise would conflict with your pet theory.

[eliakon]

Much of this seems to be simply a Proof by Verbosity.
At core of this debate seems to be a VERY simple issue. Does the rule on page 326 of RUE apply to Fencing.
It doesn't apply to gnomes
It doesn't apply to the motives of the people posting
It doesn't apply to if splicers is or is not a megaversal book
It doesn't apply to if there is or is not a megaversal system

Just Does pg 326 apply.
And from where I look....it seems that a VAST amount of time and energy is being spent to obfuscate and avoid answering that point.

[HWalsh]

Much of this seems to be simply a Proof by Verbosity.
At core of this debate seems to be a VERY simple issue. Does the rule on page 326 of RUE apply to Fencing.
It doesn't apply to gnomes
It doesn't apply to the motives of the people posting
It doesn't apply to if splicers is or is not a megaversal book
It doesn't apply to if there is or is not a megaversal system

Just Does pg 326 apply.
And from where I look....it seems that a VAST amount of time and energy is being spent to obfuscate and avoid answering that point.

It all comes down to this...

Fencing says:

Bonuses: +1 to strike and parry with a sword or dagger, and +1D6 to damage with a sword.

RUE 326 covers pretty much the fact that a weapon's normal damage type defines what kind of damage it does.

-----

The minority of people seem to believe that the +1D6 to damage, as an undefined additive, is S.D.C. damage.

The majority of people seem to believe that the +1D6 to damage, as an undefined additive, is added as the same kind of damage the weapon usually does.

-----

The FAQ states that the Fencing damage is the type of damage the weapon usually does and cites the RUE 326 rule as the justification.

-----

The reason I believe it is the latter, rather than the former, is because if it was the former it would be a benefit that, in rifts, is largely useless. I cannot see such a thing added by Kevin S. I also believe, as most do, that the 326 rule in the RUE is valid because it establishes a simple system of precedent.

KillerCyborg, is also 100% correct about the Megaversal System...

Skills act the same in the Megaversal System the exact same unless there is a direct conflict. In order for Splicers to be in direct conflict with the RUE definition the RUE definition would have to explicitly state that this additional damage is not MegaDamage.

We can have all of the conspiracy theories we want regarding if undefined damage is S.D.C. or not, but at the end of the day there is absolutely no direct conflict between Splicers and this.

I have started to grow, personally, tired with the debate because of the simple fact:

Pretty much everyone in this entire thread agrees that the damage is M.D. if the weapon usually deals M.D. and S.D. if the weapon usually deals S.D. there is one person who disagrees, possibly two, and that person or persons have very strong beliefs and no amount of discussion will change anyone's mind. The only way, and I daresay this from only the brief arguments here, that this would ever get resolved is if Kevin S. personally, himself, came to this forum and said:

"The damage is M.D. if the weapon usually does M.D."

or

"The damage is S.D.C."

And, to my knowledge, he does not usually grace us with rules clarifications.

[Nightmask]

Much of this seems to be simply a Proof by Verbosity.
At core of this debate seems to be a VERY simple issue. Does the rule on page 326 of RUE apply to Fencing.
It doesn't apply to gnomes
It doesn't apply to the motives of the people posting
It doesn't apply to if splicers is or is not a megaversal book
It doesn't apply to if there is or is not a megaversal system

Just Does pg 326 apply.
And from where I look....it seems that a VAST amount of time and energy is being spent to obfuscate and avoid answering that point.

It all comes down to this...

Fencing says:

Bonuses: +1 to strike and parry with a sword or dagger, and +1D6 to damage with a sword.

RUE 326 covers pretty much the fact that a weapon's normal damage type defines what kind of damage it does.

-----

The minority of people seem to believe that the +1D6 to damage, as an undefined additive, is S.D.C. damage.

The majority of people seem to believe that the +1D6 to damage, as an undefined additive, is added as the same kind of damage the weapon usually does.

-----

The FAQ states that the Fencing damage is the type of damage the weapon usually does and cites the RUE 326 rule as the justification.

-----

The reason I believe it is the latter, rather than the former, is because if it was the former it would be a benefit that, in rifts, is largely useless. I cannot see such a thing added by Kevin S. I also believe, as most do, that the 326 rule in the RUE is valid because it establishes a simple system of precedent.

KillerCyborg, is also 100% correct about the Megaversal System...

Skills act the same in the Megaversal System the exact same unless there is a direct conflict. In order for Splicers to be in direct conflict with the RUE definition the RUE definition would have to explicitly state that this additional damage is not MegaDamage.

We can have all of the conspiracy theories we want regarding if undefined damage is S.D.C. or not, but at the end of the day there is absolutely no direct conflict between Splicers and this.

I have started to grow, personally, tired with the debate because of the simple fact:

Pretty much everyone in this entire thread agrees that the damage is M.D. if the weapon usually deals M.D. and S.D. if the weapon usually deals S.D. there is one person who disagrees, possibly two, and that person or persons have very strong beliefs and no amount of discussion will change anyone's mind. The only way, and I daresay this from only the brief arguments here, that this would ever get resolved is if Kevin S. personally, himself, came to this forum and said:

"The damage is M.D. if the weapon usually does M.D."

or

"The damage is S.D.C."

And, to my knowledge, he does not usually grace us with rules clarifications.

And there are some that even that wouldn't be good enough.

[Blue_Lion]

OK so Tor is saying MEW is Mega-damge Equivalent Weapon. He says Psi-sword is not a Mega-damage equivalent weapon.

The book describes the Psi-sword as sword made out of pure energy that deals MD. It resembles a glowing sword. So if it is a sword of energy that inflicts MD that seams to me that it is a Mega-damage Equivalent of a sword. So reading the work his statement that a Psi-swords is a not Mega-damage equivalent weapon is false statement based on some special requirement he creates to deny it access, and not something in the text of the book.

***But in the end weather or not the skill does MD or SD is in the hands of the GM. I think that is something we can all agree on.

[Prysus]

Much of this seems to be simply a Proof by Verbosity.
At core of this debate seems to be a VERY simple issue. Does the rule on page 326 of RUE apply to Fencing.
It doesn't apply to gnomes
It doesn't apply to the motives of the people posting
It doesn't apply to if splicers is or is not a megaversal book
It doesn't apply to if there is or is not a megaversal system

Just Does pg 326 apply.
And from where I look....it seems that a VAST amount of time and energy is being spent to obfuscate and avoid answering that point.

Greetings and Salutations. Well, I think it's clear where most of us stand on the matter, but I'll just add some extra thoughts.

Does the rule on page 326 (a "note about Ancient Weapon Proficiencies") apply to W.P. Sword (an Ancient Weapon Proficiency)?

Naturally, my answer is yes: The rule on Ancient Weapon Profiencies applies to Ancient Weapon Proficiencies, including W.P. Sword.

From there, I'll direct you to the Fencing skill. Well, Fencing is a Physical skill, so maybe the rule doesn't apply. Of course, Palladium often places more general rules in very odd places (so maybe it does), but this isn't really convincing proof. However, if we look at the Fencing skil, we'll see it requires W.P. Sword, meaning you can NOT use Fencing without using W.P. Sword as well (you might be able to get by with just a Knife, but I think this is meant more as Sword and Dagger than just a dagger alone). So, since Fencing augments the Ancient Weapon Proficiency (Fencing is NOT a stand alone skill), then it would need to follow the same rules by default. The only reason it would not follow the same rules as a result of the connection is if Fencing had a specific rule to override the general rule of the base skill.

Just my thoughts on the matter, since the question was asked. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[HWalsh]

Much of this seems to be simply a Proof by Verbosity.
At core of this debate seems to be a VERY simple issue. Does the rule on page 326 of RUE apply to Fencing.
It doesn't apply to gnomes
It doesn't apply to the motives of the people posting
It doesn't apply to if splicers is or is not a megaversal book
It doesn't apply to if there is or is not a megaversal system

Just Does pg 326 apply.
And from where I look....it seems that a VAST amount of time and energy is being spent to obfuscate and avoid answering that point.

Greetings and Salutations. Well, I think it's clear where most of us stand on the matter, but I'll just add some extra thoughts.

Does the rule on page 326 (a "note about Ancient Weapon Proficiencies") apply to W.P. Sword (an Ancient Weapon Proficiency)?

Naturally, my answer is yes: The rule on Ancient Weapon Profiencies applies to Ancient Weapon Proficiencies, including W.P. Sword.

From there, I'll direct you to the Fencing skill. Well, Fencing is a Physical skill, so maybe the rule doesn't apply. Of course, Palladium often places more general rules in very odd places (so maybe it does), but this isn't really convincing proof. However, if we look at the Fencing skil, we'll see it requires W.P. Sword, meaning you can NOT use Fencing without using W.P. Sword as well (you might be able to get by with just a Knife, but I think this is meant more as Sword and Dagger than just a dagger alone). So, since Fencing augments the Ancient Weapon Proficiency (Fencing is NOT a stand alone skill), then it would need to follow the same rules by default. The only reason it would not follow the same rules as a result of the connection is if Fencing had a specific rule to override the general rule of the base skill.

Just my thoughts on the matter, since the question was asked. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Yes. It has been stated in books before that Psi-Swords use W.P. Sword.

On this FAQ as well:
http://palladiumbooks.com/questions/psionic.html

Number 36

[Zer0 Kay]

OK so Tor is saying MEW is Mega-damge Equivalent Weapon. He says Psi-sword is not a Mega-damage equivalent weapon.

The book describes the Psi-sword as sword made out of pure energy that deals MD. It resembles a glowing sword. So if it is a sword of energy that inflicts MD that seams to me that it is a Mega-damage Equivalent of a sword. So reading the work his statement that a Psi-swords is a not Mega-damage equivalent weapon is false statement based on some special requirement he creates to deny it access, and not something in the text of the book.

***But in the end weather or not the skill does MD or SD is in the hands of the GM. I think that is something we can all agree on.

but in the end everything is decided by the GM so why bother discussing anything?

The skill adds SDC if it added MDC everyone would take it to make their SDC swords do MD. If fencing magically changes from sdc to mdc then why doesn't strength? Is the bonus damage based on technique or practice? Practice like all the other physical skills will be sdc. Technique, has a slim argument for greater damage based on precise hit locations which may increase any damage type.

[Blue_Lion]

OK so Tor is saying MEW is Mega-damge Equivalent Weapon. He says Psi-sword is not a Mega-damage equivalent weapon.

The book describes the Psi-sword as sword made out of pure energy that deals MD. It resembles a glowing sword. So if it is a sword of energy that inflicts MD that seams to me that it is a Mega-damage Equivalent of a sword. So reading the work his statement that a Psi-swords is a not Mega-damage equivalent weapon is false statement based on some special requirement he creates to deny it access, and not something in the text of the book.

***But in the end weather or not the skill does MD or SD is in the hands of the GM. I think that is something we can all agree on.

but in the end everything is decided by the GM so why bother discussing anything?

The skill adds SDC if it added MDC everyone would take it to make their SDC swords do MD. If fencing magically changes from sdc to mdc then why doesn't strength? Is the bonus damage based on technique or practice? Practice like all the other physical skills will be sdc. Technique, has a slim argument for greater damage based on precise hit locations which may increase any damage type.

I think you just missed the whole point the justification was from the wording in the damage note of ancient weapon proficiencies where it says normally weapons do their dice in SD but MD weapons deal their dice in MD. That combined with a undefined 1d6 are what people point was.

So an SDC sword would do +1d6 in the form of SDC.
The debate is would a MD sword do the +1d6 in MD.

I usually debate things to see what the other side can dredge up. Normally they can find things you would not normally find. (That said I find normally the best way to find the prof for something is to argue against it. So that other people find what you are looking for. I may post a open question that I have no opinion on and debate against who ever post to further explore the issue, and understand as many sides to it as I can.)

[Tor]

in the case of Fencing, there is no conflict. the Splicers skill isn't replacing anything. It's the same skill.

No, there are multiple versions of Fencing in different that do different things.

Some only add a strike and parry bonus. Others also add a damage bonus. One conditionally adds a MD bonus.

I'm just glad they edited out Emperor Tromm.

Didn't that name show up in Tarn's book? I view it as canon so far as 'Splugorth the Terrible' ruling Atlantis is, just some rumor she put in, broken telephone. Or a childhood nickname as one Rifter suggested.

The stats are the same. One printing of the skill just elaborates more than the other.

Conditional MD bonuses are an upgrade, not an elaboration.

I view written-by-Kevin and in-2-main-games and printed-later as indications of fencing-no-MD-note as being authoritative though.

Right. Because to do otherwise would conflict with your pet theory.

This seems like an appeal to ignorance. It is rude of you to waste time speculating about other people's motives. You can't prove your speculation and I can't disprove it, both offense and defense are non-falsifiable due to us not being telepaths.

Instead of wasting time on motive-speculation, perhaps address the content of my argument:
1) Siembieda holds more authority than Bellaire
2) Rifts and Robotech are more important settings for defining MD trends, being major series with a long history
3) RUE and Shadow Chronicles came out after Splicers
4) Kev has been stated to edit/overview other author's materials before, material which has later been called mistaken

I have seen no arguments put forth on why Splicers should hold sway over these other books. It is old, it is a stand-alone game, it is by a freelancer, it's ruling is not replicated anywhere else: a trait common to dimension-specific things.

Does the rule on page 326 of RUE apply to Fencing.
It doesn't apply to the motives of the people posting

Thanks for that second part, it is needed.

As for the first, before that question is considered a valid one, the concept of 'rule on page 326' must be clarified.

I see people inventing a rule when there isn't one, just a discussion of MEWs. Or MDEWs for the cat-haters out there.

MEWscussion is not a SDC>MD rule.

Bonuses: +1 to strike and parry with a sword or dagger, and +1D6 to damage with a sword.
RUE 326 covers pretty much the fact that a weapon's normal damage type defines what kind of damage it does.

No, it doesn't, you are treating your strange interpretation of page 326 as for-granted when it is not.

The minority of people seem to believe that the +1D6 to damage, as an undefined additive, is S.D.C. damage.

The majority of people seem to believe that the +1D6 to damage, as an undefined additive, is added as the same kind of damage the weapon usually does.

Minority or majority of WHAT people? People replying on this thread? Or do you speak for all Rifts gamers now?

Why are you even bringing this up? It hints at preparing to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum or something. What is your purpose in declaring this?

The FAQ states that the Fencing damage is the type of damage the weapon usually does and cites the RUE 326 rule as the justification.

Please direct-link to the FAQ page. If you accept this, then fine, I view it as a rules-change, a ret-con. Kind of like making fencing add damage at all, which is also a change to what it originally did.

FAQ interpreting RAW does not mean FAQ is interpreting it competently. FAQ has made mistakes, it must withstand analysis. The FAQ could say that 101 Uses of Earmuffs being on a bookshelf means that people are now +1 to strike muff-wearers, that doesn't mean RAW actually stated to do that.

The reason I believe it is the latter, rather than the former, is because if it was the former it would be a benefit that, in rifts, is largely useless.

Your stance that SDC damage isn't all too useful is noted.

Of course that does contradict statements from KS in RUE that MD is still rare.

I cannot see such a thing added by Kevin S.

You are capable of seeing it. It is there. Read it.

Fencing was not in RMB. It was added to RUE. It was added AFTER the Splicers book was printed.

He copied the version from PF2nd instead of the version from Splicers.

Think about that.

I also believe, as most do, that the 326 rule in the RUE is valid because it establishes a simple system of precedent.

Page 326 does not have a rule.

Your appeal to imaginary majority seems to be a graspy last resort.

In order for Splicers to be in direct conflict with the RUE definition the RUE definition would have to explicitly state that this additional damage is not MegaDamage.

That is not required.

The +damage+SP fencing is a direct contradiction to the +SP fencing even though the latter has no -does not add damage- disclaimer. It is an upgrade.

We can have all of the conspiracy theories we want regarding if undefined damage is S.D.C. or not, but at the end of the day there is absolutely no direct conflict between Splicers and this.

This is not a conspiracy theory, it is the evident usage of damage amounts utilized by Palladium Books. The direct conflict is that Splicers lets you add MD and that other books do not.

Pretty much everyone in this entire thread agrees that the damage is M.D. if the weapon usually deals M.D. and S.D. if the weapon usually deals S.D. there is one person who disagrees, possibly two

Please stop introducing your irrelevant appeals to majority. If you believe that all that matters is how many people think something and not whether evidence supports it, you are welcome to withdraw.

that person or persons have very strong beliefs and no amount of discussion will change anyone's mind.

I do not agree with that view, I believe both of our minds can be changed through adequate discussion.

I may perceive some people as more receptive or resistance to others' input, of course, but there is no need to inflate that to absurd levels.

The only way, and I daresay this from only the brief arguments here, that this would ever get resolved is if Kevin S. personally, himself, came to this forum and said:

"The damage is M.D. if the weapon usually does M.D."

or

"The damage is S.D.C."

And, to my knowledge, he does not usually grace us with rules clarifications.

If he did that, this would resolve what the new rules are, or what KS now wants, since the FAQ isn't often perceived as having authority to do that.

But it would not resolve discussion as to what the rules were prior to such an intervention.

Tor is saying MEW is Mega-damge Equivalent Weapon.
He says Psi-sword is not a Mega-damage equivalent weapon.
The book describes the Psi-sword as sword made out of pure energy that deals MD. It resembles a glowing sword.
So if it is a sword of energy that inflicts MD that seams to me that it is a Mega-damage Equivalent of a sword.
reading the work his statement that a Psi-swords is a not Mega-damage equivalent weapon is false statement
based on some special requirement he creates to deny it access
not something in the text of the book.

There is indeed a special requirement. The requirement is in the text. I did not create it.

Being a MD-inflicting weapon that takes the same shape and uses the same WP skills to use does not make something a MEW.

The text on page 326 clearly states that MDEWs use the same number of damage dice. IE a 2d6 damage sword and a 2d6 MD sword.

By that example (although it is not stated) I believe we can discern that in addition to the same number of dice, this also means the same TYPE of die. As in, a 2d8 MD sword is not a MDEW to a 2d6 MD sword because even though there is the same number of dice (two) the number of faces differs. Hairs can be split over that detail, I don't really care.

A psi-sword CAN be a MDEW, but it will not always be one. A Cyber-Knight's psi-sword starts off doing a LESSER number of damage dice (one) and later ends up doing a GREATER number of damage dice than any normal sword.

So while it may briefly be a MDEW (some swords inflict 2d6 or 3d6 damage) that is a conditional situation.

Resin weapons and vibro weapons and magic weapons are frequently MDEWs but not all MD weapons are.

Even in the case of things which are MDEWs, it is still talking about the damage dice the weapon inflicts and not any damage bonuses which get added from things like physical or WP skills.

Recent games like RUE or DR are basically just merging the ancient WP chart data (dice inflicted) into the WP section for ease.

Does the rule on page 326 (a "note about Ancient Weapon Proficiencies") apply to W.P. Sword (an Ancient Weapon Proficiency)?

What RULE are you talking about Prysus?

ANAAWP has nothing stating MD bonus conversions, the second paragraph is a footnote discussion the stats of SOME of the MD weapons that exist.

since Fencing augments the Ancient Weapon Proficiency (Fencing is NOT a stand alone skill), then it would need to follow the same rules by default.

Not true, having one skill as a prerequisite does not mean you follow the same rules by default.

The medical skill of Forensics has the science skill of Biology as a prerequisite. This does not mean that if I have a magic ring that adds +2% to all science skills that I get this bonus to my Forensics skill.

This discussion is moot though because...

The only reason it would not follow the same rules as a result of the connection is if Fencing had a specific rule to override the general rule of the base skill.

There is no 'same rules' or 'general rules' on page 326.

I don't think people are actually reading the two ANAAWP paragraphs critically. I have repeatedly asked people be particular which parts of this they are thinking a rule exists in and to defend that.

the justification was from the wording in the damage note of ancient weapon proficiencies
it says normally weapons do their dice in SD
but MD weapons deal their dice in MD.

That is not what page 326 says, in your pseudo-paraphrasing you have changed the meaning.

Please reproduce all sentences on that page which you think support your point and present them as a numbered list and make your argument. Feel free to break the sentences into ideas if that will help you.

[Blue_Lion]

in the case of Fencing, there is no conflict. the Splicers skill isn't replacing anything. It's the same skill.

No, there are multiple versions of Fencing in different that do different things.

Some only add a strike and parry bonus. Others also add a damage bonus. One conditionally adds a MD bonus.

I'm just glad they edited out Emperor Tromm.

Didn't that name show up in Tarn's book? I view it as canon so far as 'Splugorth the Terrible' ruling Atlantis is, just some rumor she put in, broken telephone. Or a childhood nickname as one Rifter suggested.

The stats are the same. One printing of the skill just elaborates more than the other.

Conditional MD bonuses are an upgrade, not an elaboration.

I view written-by-Kevin and in-2-main-games and printed-later as indications of fencing-no-MD-note as being authoritative though.

Right. Because to do otherwise would conflict with your pet theory.

This seems like an appeal to ignorance. It is rude of you to waste time speculating about other people's motives. You can't prove your speculation and I can't disprove it, both offense and defense are non-falsifiable due to us not being telepaths.

Instead of wasting time on motive-speculation, perhaps address the content of my argument:
1) Siembieda holds more authority than Bellaire
2) Rifts and Robotech are more important settings for defining MD trends, being major series with a long history
3) RUE and Shadow Chronicles came out after Splicers
4) Kev has been stated to edit/overview other author's materials before, material which has later been called mistaken

I have seen no arguments put forth on why Splicers should hold sway over these other books. It is old, it is a stand-alone game, it is by a freelancer, it's ruling is not replicated anywhere else: a trait common to dimension-specific things.

Does the rule on page 326 of RUE apply to Fencing.
It doesn't apply to the motives of the people posting

Thanks for that second part, it is needed.

As for the first, before that question is considered a valid one, the concept of 'rule on page 326' must be clarified.

I see people inventing a rule when there isn't one, just a discussion of MEWs. Or MDEWs for the cat-haters out there.

MEWscussion is not a SDC>MD rule.

Bonuses: +1 to strike and parry with a sword or dagger, and +1D6 to damage with a sword.
RUE 326 covers pretty much the fact that a weapon's normal damage type defines what kind of damage it does.

No, it doesn't, you are treating your strange interpretation of page 326 as for-granted when it is not.

The minority of people seem to believe that the +1D6 to damage, as an undefined additive, is S.D.C. damage.

The majority of people seem to believe that the +1D6 to damage, as an undefined additive, is added as the same kind of damage the weapon usually does.

Minority or majority of WHAT people? People replying on this thread? Or do you speak for all Rifts gamers now?

Why are you even bringing this up? It hints at preparing to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum or something. What is your purpose in declaring this?

The FAQ states that the Fencing damage is the type of damage the weapon usually does and cites the RUE 326 rule as the justification.

Please direct-link to the FAQ page. If you accept this, then fine, I view it as a rules-change, a ret-con. Kind of like making fencing add damage at all, which is also a change to what it originally did.

FAQ interpreting RAW does not mean FAQ is interpreting it competently. FAQ has made mistakes, it must withstand analysis. The FAQ could say that 101 Uses of Earmuffs being on a bookshelf means that people are now +1 to strike muff-wearers, that doesn't mean RAW actually stated to do that.

The reason I believe it is the latter, rather than the former, is because if it was the former it would be a benefit that, in rifts, is largely useless.

Your stance that SDC damage isn't all too useful is noted.

Of course that does contradict statements from KS in RUE that MD is still rare.

I cannot see such a thing added by Kevin S.

You are capable of seeing it. It is there. Read it.

Fencing was not in RMB. It was added to RUE. It was added AFTER the Splicers book was printed.

He copied the version from PF2nd instead of the version from Splicers.

Think about that.

I also believe, as most do, that the 326 rule in the RUE is valid because it establishes a simple system of precedent.

Page 326 does not have a rule.

Your appeal to imaginary majority seems to be a graspy last resort.

In order for Splicers to be in direct conflict with the RUE definition the RUE definition would have to explicitly state that this additional damage is not MegaDamage.

That is not required.

The +damage+SP fencing is a direct contradiction to the +SP fencing even though the latter has no -does not add damage- disclaimer. It is an upgrade.

We can have all of the conspiracy theories we want regarding if undefined damage is S.D.C. or not, but at the end of the day there is absolutely no direct conflict between Splicers and this.

This is not a conspiracy theory, it is the evident usage of damage amounts utilized by Palladium Books. The direct conflict is that Splicers lets you add MD and that other books do not.

Pretty much everyone in this entire thread agrees that the damage is M.D. if the weapon usually deals M.D. and S.D. if the weapon usually deals S.D. there is one person who disagrees, possibly two

Please stop introducing your irrelevant appeals to majority. If you believe that all that matters is how many people think something and not whether evidence supports it, you are welcome to withdraw.

that person or persons have very strong beliefs and no amount of discussion will change anyone's mind.

I do not agree with that view, I believe both of our minds can be changed through adequate discussion.

I may perceive some people as more receptive or resistance to others' input, of course, but there is no need to inflate that to absurd levels.

The only way, and I daresay this from only the brief arguments here, that this would ever get resolved is if Kevin S. personally, himself, came to this forum and said:

"The damage is M.D. if the weapon usually does M.D."

or

"The damage is S.D.C."

And, to my knowledge, he does not usually grace us with rules clarifications.

If he did that, this would resolve what the new rules are, or what KS now wants, since the FAQ isn't often perceived as having authority to do that.

But it would not resolve discussion as to what the rules were prior to such an intervention.

Tor is saying MEW is Mega-damge Equivalent Weapon.
He says Psi-sword is not a Mega-damage equivalent weapon.
The book describes the Psi-sword as sword made out of pure energy that deals MD. It resembles a glowing sword.
So if it is a sword of energy that inflicts MD that seams to me that it is a Mega-damage Equivalent of a sword.
reading the work his statement that a Psi-swords is a not Mega-damage equivalent weapon is false statement
based on some special requirement he creates to deny it access
not something in the text of the book.

There is indeed a special requirement. The requirement is in the text. I did not create it.

Being a MD-inflicting weapon that takes the same shape and uses the same WP skills to use does not make something a MEW.

The text on page 326 clearly states that MDEWs use the same number of damage dice. IE a 2d6 damage sword and a 2d6 MD sword.

By that example (although it is not stated) I believe we can discern that in addition to the same number of dice, this also means the same TYPE of die. As in, a 2d8 MD sword is not a MDEW to a 2d6 MD sword because even though there is the same number of dice (two) the number of faces differs. Hairs can be split over that detail, I don't really care.

A psi-sword CAN be a MDEW, but it will not always be one. A Cyber-Knight's psi-sword starts off doing a LESSER number of damage dice (one) and later ends up doing a GREATER number of damage dice than any normal sword.

So while it may briefly be a MDEW (some swords inflict 2d6 or 3d6 damage) that is a conditional situation.

Resin weapons and vibro weapons and magic weapons are frequently MDEWs but not all MD weapons are.

Even in the case of things which are MDEWs, it is still talking about the damage dice the weapon inflicts and not any damage bonuses which get added from things like physical or WP skills.

Recent games like RUE or DR are basically just merging the ancient WP chart data (dice inflicted) into the WP section for ease.

Does the rule on page 326 (a "note about Ancient Weapon Proficiencies") apply to W.P. Sword (an Ancient Weapon Proficiency)?

What RULE are you talking about Prysus?

ANAAWP has nothing stating MD bonus conversions, the second paragraph is a footnote discussion the stats of SOME of the MD weapons that exist.

since Fencing augments the Ancient Weapon Proficiency (Fencing is NOT a stand alone skill), then it would need to follow the same rules by default.

Not true, having one skill as a prerequisite does not mean you follow the same rules by default.

The medical skill of Forensics has the science skill of Biology as a prerequisite. This does not mean that if I have a magic ring that adds +2% to all science skills that I get this bonus to my Forensics skill.

This discussion is moot though because...

The only reason it would not follow the same rules as a result of the connection is if Fencing had a specific rule to override the general rule of the base skill.

There is no 'same rules' or 'general rules' on page 326.

I don't think people are actually reading the two ANAAWP paragraphs critically. I have repeatedly asked people be particular which parts of this they are thinking a rule exists in and to defend that.

the justification was from the wording in the damage note of ancient weapon proficiencies
it says normally weapons do their dice in SD
but MD weapons deal their dice in MD.

That is not what page 326 says, in your pseudo-paraphrasing you have changed the meaning.

Please reproduce all sentences on that page which you think support your point and present them as a numbered list and make your argument. Feel free to break the sentences into ideas if that will help you.

My point was not to make an argument but inform some one at what the argument was.

And no leaving out the first few words does not significantly change the meaning I have already posted the entire damage note and used short hand to pass on the relevant part of the debate.

As to MEW debate you are knocking it off because it does different number/type of dice. That is beyond splitting hairs what the damage listed on the weapon take over rides the damage listed the skill but that does not make it not a mega-damage Equivalent Weapon. Or a weapon that is doing mega damage and is the equivalent of the weapon in this case sword. The requirements to be a MEW would be 1 that it does MD 2 that it used like the traditional weapon not the number of dice. So you failed to provide justification for it not applying. (In this I was trying understand why you are saying it is not but you failed to prove it is not.)

Unlike you in your pseudo-quote of me where you cut out most of what I typed to make it look like I was presenting and argument instead of summarizing the arguments that have already been presented. My stance has been stated, I stated that it up to the GM weather or not it is applicable. And contrarily what you think you have not really presented any solid evidence that is not you just reject and attack other peoples arguments but have presented nothing that proves your case. So why should I repost something you failed to properly counter from my earlier post or anyone other person post?

[eliakon]

So....a Rune Sword is not a 'MEW' because it does the wrong number of dice? Or what about a dwarven sword? Since it has +1 damage....does that now mean its not really a sword? I mean its doing different dice than the sword wp skill.....or maybe the skill doesn't require that the weapon do exactly that damage, but instead offers the damage as examples of normal damage totals?
If there is any rule that actually says that weapons can not have damage values different than the normative exemplars with out changing into different weapons I would be fascinated to read it. Otherwise I am going to have to assume that this is something that is being made up.

[Blue_Lion]

So....a Rune Sword is not a 'MEW' because it does the wrong number of dice? Or what about a dwarven sword? Since it has +1 damage....does that now mean its not really a sword? I mean its doing different dice than the sword wp skill.....or maybe the skill doesn't require that the weapon do exactly that damage, but instead offers the damage as examples of normal damage totals?
If there is any rule that actually says that weapons can not have damage values different than the normative exemplars with out changing into different weapons I would be fascinated to read it. Otherwise I am going to have to assume that this is something that is being made up.

He would have a stronger augment if he went with it is not Magical or technological equivalent, as by the text that is what is listed.

[Killer Cyborg]

in the case of Fencing, there is no conflict. the Splicers skill isn't replacing anything. It's the same skill.

No, there are multiple versions of Fencing in different that do different things.

They're worded exactly the same, except Splicers has some added parenthetical clarification.

Some only add a strike and parry bonus. Others also add a damage bonus. One conditionally adds a MD bonus.

Both the RUE and Splicers versions add a conditional MD bonus.
Splicers just spells it out more thoroughly for people unclear on the concept.

I'm just glad they edited out Emperor Tromm.

Didn't that name show up in Tarn's book?

In the section for Glitter Boys, IIRC.

I view written-by-Kevin and in-2-main-games and printed-later as indications of fencing-no-MD-note as being authoritative though.

Right. Because to do otherwise would conflict with your pet theory.

This seems like an appeal to ignorance.

Not at all. Repetition of a claim is not an appeal to ignorance, no matter how little counter-evidence there is about the claim.

1) Siembieda holds more authority than Bellaire
2) Rifts and Robotech are more important settings for defining MD trends, being major series with a long history
3) RUE and Shadow Chronicles came out after Splicers
4) Kev has been stated to edit/overview other author's materials before, material which has later been called mistaken

1. Quit pretending that it's an either/or situation.
2. I do not see any meaning or importance in your sentence
3. Palladium habitually fails to update rules to the latest or clearest version.
3. And?

I have seen no arguments put forth on why Splicers should hold sway over these other books.

Because there is no contradiction.
It's the same definition of the skill, but one version has a clarifying sentence.
In both cases, we have the rule "+1D6 to damage with a sword."
It's the same rule.
Splicers simply explains what that rule means, that yes, it applies to either SDC damage or to mega-damage.

Additional explanation doesn't "hold sway" over a briefer explanation. It simply expands on it.

When the RGMG came out, which were the true stats for the SAMAS power armor?
a) The stats on page 204 of the RGMG?
b) The stats on page 193 of the RMB?

[ShadowLogan]

RUE pg311 Horsemanship skilled Equestrian/Knight: "Inflicts +1D6 to damage when on horseback, depending on the weapon (M.D. weapons like Vibro-Blades get the M.D. bonus, not applicable to ranged weapons like rifles and blasters)." It should be noted that with exception of General (and Exotic) have something similar in the abilities list as "S.D.C or M.D depending on the weapon" in relation to how much bonus damage one can inflict when on horseback with melee weapons (General specifically identifies the damage as SDC only). Giving the wording here is "to damage" just like with Fencing, I would have to say that Fencing's +1d6 does apply to both SDC or MD depending on the weapon, even if it isn't specifically stated due to the precedent in the horsemanship skills (one of the few that actually give a situation bonus to damage, Aerobic Athletics, a few WP, and HTH being the only other ones in RUE)

Horsemanship skills go out of their way to identify damage types under the skill setting precedent in how the issue is handled in terms of skill description. That leads to the conclusion that skills (including HTH) that list "to damage" as a perk does in fact relate to SDC or MD depending on the circumstances of the attack (ex. on horseback, or using a sword, or in HTH, weapon is MD or SD capable) unless damage is specifically spelled out as being of a particular type in the skill.

[Killer Cyborg]

RUE pg311 Horsemanship skilled Equestrian/Knight: "Inflicts +1D6 to damage when on horseback, depending on the weapon (M.D. weapons like Vibro-Blades get the M.D. bonus, not applicable to ranged weapons like rifles and blasters)." It should be noted that with exception of General (and Exotic) have something similar in the abilities list as "S.D.C or M.D depending on the weapon" in relation to how much bonus damage one can inflict when on horseback with melee weapons (General specifically identifies the damage as SDC only). Giving the wording here is "to damage" just like with Fencing, I would have to say that Fencing's +1d6 does apply to both SDC or MD depending on the weapon, even if it isn't specifically stated due to the precedent in the horsemanship skills (one of the few that actually give a situation bonus to damage, Aerobic Athletics, a few WP, and HTH being the only other ones in RUE)

Horsemanship skills go out of their way to identify damage types under the skill setting precedent in how the issue is handled in terms of skill description. That leads to the conclusion that skills (including HTH) that list "to damage" as a perk does in fact relate to SDC or MD depending on the circumstances of the attack (ex. on horseback, or using a sword, or in HTH, weapon is MD or SD capable) unless damage is specifically spelled out as being of a particular type in the skill.

I've brought up the Horsemanship skill myself before, when this argument has come up.

[Kagashi]

Playing Devil's Advocate, PS bonuses for 16+ values provide "Hand to Hand combat: damage". Why doesnt this translate into MD when wielding a Vibro Knife? What about the damage bonus from H2H Combat Skills (Basic, Expert, MA, Assassin, Commando)?

If skills like fencing and horsemanship provide a damage bonus based on the source of damage, why not strength bonus?

Note: Personally, I see strength is strength and normal strength can only generate a magnitude of SD, where as training like Fencing, Horsemanship, and H2H skills provide *technique* which can be applied at a magnitude to the damage source...but RUE doesnt really say one way or another as to what the term "damage" is. If we are treating Fencing and Horsemanship as "damage" to be applied to MD and SD sources, they why not PS bonus? The bonus does after all simply say "H2H Combat: Damage", not "S.D.C. H2H combat damage bonus"

[Blue_Lion]

Playing Devil's Advocate, PS bonuses for 16+ values provide "Hand to Hand combat: damage". Why doesnt this translate into MD when wielding a Vibro Knife? What about the damage bonus from H2H Combat Skills (Basic, Expert, MA, Assassin, Commando)?

If skills like fencing and horsemanship provide a damage bonus based on the source of damage, why not strength bonus?

Note: Personally, I see strength is strength and normal strength can only generate a magnitude of SD, where as training like Fencing, Horsemanship, and H2H skills provide *technique* which can be applied at a magnitude to the damage source...but RUE doesnt really say one way or another as to what the term "damage" is. If we are treating Fencing and Horsemanship as "damage" to be applied to MD and SD sources, they why not PS bonus? The bonus does after all simply say "H2H Combat: Damage", not "S.D.C. H2H combat damage bonus"

I think you just gave the proper counter to your own question.

[Prysus]

Playing Devil's Advocate, PS bonuses for 16+ values provide "Hand to Hand combat: damage". Why doesnt this translate into MD when wielding a Vibro Knife?
[snip]
If skills like fencing and horsemanship provide a damage bonus based on the source of damage, why not strength bonus?
[snip]
If we are treating Fencing and Horsemanship as "damage" to be applied to MD and SD sources, they why not PS bonus? The bonus does after all simply say "H2H Combat: Damage", not "S.D.C. H2H combat damage bonus"

Greetings and Salutations. Well, there's one main problem with that, RUE does state H.P./S.D.C. damage only with the P.S. damage bonus. This can be found in at least two places (that I'm aware of).

RUE; 284: "This strength applies to "ordinary" mortal men and women, so the damage is always Hit Points/S.D.C. damage ..."

Always. But that is talking about mortal strength, so maybe it would change with beings who inflict M.D. normally? That brings us to our next quote.

RUE; 286: "... supernatural beings inflict either the weapon damage plus P.S. damage bonus (S.D.C.) ..."

So even with supernatural beings, the P.S. damage bonus would only be S.D.C. The book tells us, twice, what type of damage it does. However, this is specifically discussing strength. I think you provide the most logical reason in your post.

Note: Personally, I see strength is strength and normal strength can only generate a magnitude of SD, where as training like Fencing, Horsemanship, and H2H skills provide *technique* which can be applied at a magnitude to the damage source

Of course, this is just opinion, but I think provides a sensible explanation behind the rules in the book. Though maybe the P.S. damage bonus does apply to others? Well, RUE doesn't specify except for where it specifies, leaving us to try and figure out the rest. But they did leave us some clues.

The Horsemanship skills, for example. Kick Boxing, as another example. Fencing (in Splicers) would be yet another example. These three (as the quickest examples for me to find and remember off the top of my head) are examples skills (based off of technique instead of strength) apply to H.P./S.D.C. or M.D. as appropriate. Note: Horsemanship: General of course goes the other way, and specifies it only works in S.D.C. damage.

Then there's the section on page 326, a "Damage Note" that discusses M.D. as well as the Combat Term definition of "Damage" on page 344 that also discusses M.D. within it. What we see are examples of Palladium using the term "damage" to mean just S.D.C. damage (such as with the P.S. damage bonus) and more examples of of Palladium using the term "damage" to mean both S.D.C. or M.D., as appropriate. Attempts to claim that "damage" must mean only S.D.C. is just an attempt to force a house rule on everyone (because it's not written in the book, and the book actually gives examples to the contrary).

The evidence, as a whole, leans strongly in Fencing (and I'd argue skills/technique) to apply to the appropriate type of damage (and I'm probably even forgetting a few examples), however it's not definitively stated (within RUE as a stand alone book). P.S. damage, on the other hand, is clarified. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Tor]

KC instead of quoting you again, well, no, no MD note is in Rifts, it's only in Splicers. It was added. Your invisible rule is cool though bro.

I do not know how to constructively resolve our dispute about a note being clarification versus modification. Illumination versus enhancement.

For your interpretation to be true, the premise of damage adding MD must already be true prior to Splicers, and that's what I'm arguing with BL about.

Regarding SAMAS stats, where they differ in stuff like RMB or GMG (or CWC, or RUE.. whatev) we can view as either a ret-con on existing material (which is yucky) or else a slightly different modification sharing the same name (kind of like how CWC missiles have the same names but do more damage in many cases)

My point was not to make an argument but inform some one at what the argument was.

I don't think one was made in the first place.

leaving out the first few words does not significantly change the meaning I have already posted the entire damage note and used short hand to pass on the relevant part of the debate.

Your short-hand is improper, you changed to words that conveyed different meanings, in light of that please entertain going back to the raw text.

As to MEW debate you are knocking it off because it does different number/type of dice.

Yes, because that is what the book says mega-damage equivalent weapons are.

Go look up the "Power Weapon" spell. Notice any familiar phrasing?

That is beyond splitting hairs
what the damage listed on the weapon take over rides the damage listed the skill but that does not make it not a mega-damage Equivalent Weapon.

This sentence is not legible, improve the grammar please.

Mega-Damage equivalent weapons as described in the book are MD weapons which inflict an equivalent number of dice of Mega-Damage as a weapon would normally do.

That is all they are. That is all that section is about.

a weapon that is doing mega damage and is the equivalent of the weapon in this case sword.

The section in question is not talking about this. If it was, it would not specify requiring the same number of dice.

Equivalent refers to the number of dice. It is not referring to any weapon of the same type.

The requirements to be a MEW would be
1 that it does MD
2 that it used like the traditional weapon
not the number of dice

The number of dice are an explicit requirement.

You are blatently ignoring the text by insisting on this.

you failed to provide justification for it not applying.

I was trying understand why you are saying it is not

but you failed to prove it is not.

The MDEW statement explicitly says equivalent damage dice and you are ignoring this. You are ignoring proof.

your pseudo-quote of me where you cut out most of what I typed to make it look like I was presenting and argument

Pseudo-quotes are false quotes. I have not pseudo-quoted you. I focus on the statements I am replying to and space out the formatting a bit for legibility. Please create a new thread or PM me with examples of how you think any meaning has been altered. I do not think it has.

In some cases a statement you make does not appear to make any sense at all to me, in which case sometimes I skip it, rather than constantly call you out on them.

instead of summarizing the arguments that have already been presented.

I am pointing out that the arguments you are summarizing were not supported.

Why would you not include supporting proof in an argument's summary? That's the core of an argument.

My stance has been stated, I stated that it up to the GM weather or not it is applicable.

That is a non-argument. Every facet of the game is up to GMs to control.

you have not really presented any solid evidence that is not
you just reject and attack other peoples arguments but have presented nothing that proves your case
why should I repost something you failed to properly counter from my earlier post or anyone other person post?

You are the one proposing fencing adds MD outside Splicers, the burden of evidence is yours.

I have presented counter-arguments pointing out the holes in your reasons for advocating that position.

You should repost a clear and concise argument with accurate quoting to support your idea, if you so clearly know it.

I believe I did properly counter your earlier posts. They inaccurately paraphrased the ancient WP section regarding MDEWs.

I have competently pointed out that you are blatently ignoring the 'damage dice' equivalency context.

So....a Rune Sword is not a 'MEW' because it does the wrong number of dice? Or what about a dwarven sword? Since it has +1 damage....

If a rune sword of a type that normally did 2d6 inflicted 4d6 MD, then yes, it is not a MEW (or MDEW).

Regarding a dwarven sword, a 2d6+1 MD sword would be a MDEW of a 2d6+1 Dwarf-sharpened sword.

does that now mean its not really a sword? I mean its doing different dice than the sword wp skill

No, being a MDEW and being the same class of weapon are entirelty different concepts.

The dice amounts mentioned in the WP skill guidelines are only examples of the more popular or most common damages. They are not an extensive list of every kind of variant.

maybe
the skill doesn't require that the weapon do exactly that damage
but instead offers the damage as examples of normal damage totals?

That is correct. That is what it does.

Weapons of any kind of damage dice can fall under the skill, even 2d4x100 beast-swords.

If there is any rule that actually says that weapons can not have damage values different than the normative exemplars with out changing into different weapons I would be fascinated to read it. Otherwise I am going to have to assume that this is something that is being made up.

This line of discussion is completely unrelated to the dispute in question. I don't know who you think you're arguing with, but it isn't me.

If you are under the impression I think WP skills only apply to weapons inflicting certain dice amounts, correct that misconception please.

I am simply clarifying what the expression 'Mega-Damage equivalent weapons' means.

This text is unrelated to what weapons the bonuses from WP skills apply to.

We are arguing about whether or not there is evidence suggesting a conversion of damage bonuses into MD bonuses.

There is no such statement.

would have a stronger augment if he went with it is not Magical or technological equivalent, as by the text that is what is listed.

I don't see the point in that. It is possible for a psionic MDEW to exist. Psi-swords can even sometimes be MDEWs depending on how strong they are.

What is and is not a MDEW is not very important though, because nothing in the discussion of the existence of MDEWs says anything about changing damage bonuses into MD bonuses.

Is there someplace else it does?

RUE pg311 Horsemanship skilled Equestrian/Knight

No, this approach has been brought up before. You need a disclaimer like that for it to be MDified.

If this were meant to be a general policy for all 'damage' statements then it would have been spelled out in general policy.

A general policy would lead to absurdities like a PS1 angry-drunk vagabond doing 3 MD with a laser wand while a PS40 sober strongman is still limited to doing 1 MD with it.

I've brought up the Horsemanship skill myself before, when this argument has come up.

and it failed then too, only serving to illustate the necessity of MD-upgrader statements

I see strength is strength and normal strength can only generate a magnitude of SD, where as training like Fencing, Horsemanship, and H2H skills provide *technique* which can be applied at a magnitude to the damage source

Added damage from horseback comes from force: you are swinging your weapon down on an enemy below you. This is also why charging with the horse increases the damage further. Then again, aiming down from above could also mean hitting the top of the head, so who knows.

Fencing could also be viewed as force-based, learning to 'lunge' and throw your weight into a weapon swing, whether with your feet or even with just the torso.

The same could be said of hand to hand skills. We don't know, it is left to imagination whether it comes from force or from hitting a more vulnerable location.

RUE doesnt really say one way or another as to what the term "damage" is.

The meaning is clear enough in Palladium as a whole.

Check out the -damage- inflicted by Nazca Line-Maker drawing-animals, for example. Although it may say SDC damage in some places, in others it just says 'damage'.

Even without overt spelling-out we can clearly see in every example of it being defined on its own that it means to SDC and HP on a 1:1 basis.

The 'damage' inflicted by attacks in RUE's combat section is also clearly SDC, because the MD inflicted by melee techniques is determined by strength tables or robot HtH tables and has different amounts.

Attempts to claim that "damage" must mean only S.D.C. is just an attempt to force a house rule on everyone

There has been no such attempt, please do not introduce straw men into this thread.

There is no 'must mean only'. My stance is 'means unless otherwise indicated'.

In cases where 'damage' is followed by a parenthesis stating MD equivalency, I take no issue with the MD. My issue-taking is with people assuming MD equivalency for cases where that is not specified.

If we assume that for fencing then we must assume it for drug addicts. There is equal grounds if the stance is 'let's assume anything besides strength adds MD' or whatever it is people are advocating.

Rifts has never stated Fencing adds MD. It has never stated this about HtH either, and HtH damage (which has equal grounds as fencing to add MD, none) is lumped together with PS damage for NPC, it is never put on its own, which would be necessary if it operated differently. They operate the same as PS.

[Mechghost]

Tor, with respect, all I see is you arguing that if it does not specify the damage added applies to MD then it must be SD only. So (hypothetically) if a bonus or skill etc says on a natural 18, 19, 20 the character does x3 damage that would only apply to SD? Because it doesn't say it applies to MD?

I admit, reading the Fencing skill as written, I would apply it to any sword, SD or MD, depending on the sword's damage capability.

[Killer Cyborg]

KC instead of quoting you again, well, no, no MD note is in Rifts, it's only in Splicers.

Correct.
Because when they wrote the entry in RUE, they figured that everybody would know what it meant.
With Splicers, they further clarified what the rule (that exists in both books) means.


Again, I ask you:
Which book has the correct stat for the SAMAS, the RMB or the RGMG?

[Kagashi]

Well, there's one main problem with that, RUE does state H.P./S.D.C. damage only with the P.S. damage bonus. This can be found in at least two places (that I'm aware of).

RUE; 284: "This strength applies to "ordinary" mortal men and women, so the damage is always Hit Points/S.D.C. damage ..."

Ah, it was early in the morning I guess. The real answer is the paragraph below your quoted one where it specifically states that the Damage Bonus Continues and says "HP/SDC". If Rifts 2nd edition ever comes out, I think the bonus should just be changed from "Hand to Hand combat damage" to "Hand to Hand S.D.C. damage bonus" on the chart itself to be clear of the damage type.

[Tor]

Tor, with respect, all I see is you arguing that
if it does not specify the damage added applies to MD
then it must be SD only.

Then you're reading wrong. I believe damage added applies to whatever it is added to, whether the other amount of normal or mega.

But the amount added, if described as damage, does not apply AS mega-damage unless we're told it's mega.
[/quote]

(hypothetically) if a bonus or skill etc says on a natural 18, 19, 20 the character does x3 damage that would only apply to SD? Because it doesn't say it applies to MD?

If you read the entire thread (or did it come up in the previous one?), you would know this argument has already been brought up, and it is a red herring, because this is discussing multipliers, not distinct undefined amounts.

You're off when you're saying stuff like "applies to". I am talking about a discrete amount (which bonuses are) which exists independently of the nature of what it is added to.

I admit, reading the Fencing skill as written, I would apply it to any sword, SD or MD, depending on the sword's damage capability.

Okay? Thanks for admitting it?

when they wrote the entry in RUE, they figured that everybody would know what it meant.
With Splicers, they further clarified what the rule (that exists in both books) means.'

You make it sound like Splicers came after RUE or something.

There isn't a 'they' here. Kevin wrote Rifts, Carmen wrote Splicers. You are making assumptions about what Kevin 'figured' people would 'know' even though there is no basis for thinking he believed that.

It is more reasonable to think Kev missed this change in Splicers, or allowed it as a dimension-specific uniqueness. That is the most conservative interpretation.

Kev added MD bonuses to some skills in RUE, we see that in Horsemanships, and even in kickboxing, so they were on his mind.

If Kev figured we would know what things meant, why did he not figure that for the other RUE skills which do have such instructions?

Which book has the correct stat for the SAMAS, the RMB or the RGMG?

It is possible for 2 skills and 2 robots or 2 demons to share the same name and have different stats. Assuming there is only 1 correct set of stats for a SAMAS is like assuming there is only 1 correct damage for nuclear multi-warheads.

[Killer Cyborg]

when they wrote the entry in RUE, they figured that everybody would know what it meant.
With Splicers, they further clarified what the rule (that exists in both books) means.'

You make it sound like Splicers came after RUE or something.

I can rephrase, if you like:

With Splicers, they had extra clarification of what the rule meant.
With RUE, they didn't think that extra clarification was necessary.

There isn't a 'they' here. Kevin wrote Rifts, Carmen wrote Splicers. You are making assumptions about what Kevin 'figured' people would 'know' even though there is no basis for thinking he believed that.

Look on the spine of your Splicers book.
Here's what mine says:
"Bellaire & Siembieda Splicers RPG Palladium Books"

If you have a rare copy that says "Carmen Bellaire Splicers RPG", by all means post a pic of that spine.
I'd love to see it.

It was created by Carmen. It was written by Carmen.
It was edited by Kevin (along with Alex and Wayne Smith), which means that Kevin went over the whole book, adding things and removing things.
It has "additional text, names and concepts" by Kevin.

That's a "They," not a "he."

It is more reasonable to think Kev missed this change in Splicers, or allowed it as a dimension-specific uniqueness. That is the most conservative interpretation.

It's NOT conservative to think that Kevin missed the change instead of thinking that he added it.

Kev added MD bonuses to some skills in RUE, we see that in Horsemanships, and even in kickboxing, so they were on his mind.

If Kev figured we would know what things meant, why did he not figure that for the other RUE skills which do have such instructions?

Because Palladium is always erratic in what they think is or is not "common sense."

Which book has the correct stat for the SAMAS, the RMB or the RGMG?

It is possible for 2 skills and 2 robots or 2 demons to share the same name and have different stats. Assuming there is only 1 correct set of stats for a SAMAS is like assuming there is only 1 correct damage for nuclear multi-warheads.

So you're saying that the SAMAS in the RGMG is a different model than the SAMAS in RMB?

[ShadowLogan]

No, this approach has been brought up before. You need a disclaimer like that for it to be MDified.

If this were meant to be a general policy for all 'damage' statements then it would have been spelled out in general policy.

I do not agree that it needs a disclaimer, the wording in this particular Horsemanship skill establishes precedent that "+#D# to damage" is not the same as "+#D# damage" when it appears elsewhere for skills. Hosemanship skills in general also set precedent that bonus damage would be listed as "SDC or MD" in the description, and without those adjectives present defaults to a situational damage type bonus based on what the weapon/attack is capable of.

A general policy would lead to absurdities like a PS1 angry-drunk vagabond doing 3 MD with a laser wand while a PS40 sober strongman is still limited to doing 1 MD with it.

Your talking about the effects of alcohol (RUE pg 338)? The way it is described though is not a SKILL based increase to damage, but rather a raw PS aspect. They are completely different. Raw PS aspect it would default to "SD/HP" damage, but skill based damage is not PS damage (if it was every skill with bonus damage would give an increase in PS of a particular value to result in said increase in damage, they don't so the damage is not based on raw power, so is not limited to the PS aspect in terms of the damage it can deal).

[Tor]

So you're saying that the SAMAS in the RGMG is a different model than the SAMAS in RMB?

Off-hand I don't know. If you're talking about 2 things with the same model number but different stats, that could very well be 2 distinct items.

There are examples of this happening, just look at this Naruni weapon KC:
*Mercenaries page 118
*Phase World page 123

There are at least 2 versions of the NE-50 Particle Beam Rifle. They both inflict the same damage. The 'unmodified' version has higher range and more shots though.

CJ probably should have given the unMod stats in Phase World though rather than reprinting Mercs since PW would clearly be one of those 'other dimensions' which Merc mentioned as having the higher-quality version for sale.

We could treat the SAMAS the same way if we have different stats for it given in 2 books. It's certainly an optional alternative to a stat-difference introduced in a later book being treated as 'always this way'.

the wording in this particular Horsemanship skill establishes precedent that
"+#D# to damage" is not the same as
"+#D# damage" when it appears elsewhere for skills.

I wouldn't go that far. Anything requiring a skill-specific disclaimer does not set any precedents.

Hosemanship skills in general also set precedent that bonus damage would be listed as "SDC or MD" in the description,
and without those adjectives present defaults to a situational damage type bonus based on what the weapon/attack is capable of.

Wrong, no such precedent is set, there is no mention of situation-based damage based on initial capacity, you're inventing that.

Your talking about the effects of alcohol (RUE pg 338)? The way it is described though is not a SKILL based increase to damage, but rather a raw PS aspect.

Wrong, if it was PS-based it would enhance the PS score. Although the term 'strong' is used, the term 'angry' is also used, and there are kinds of strength other than 'physical' so we can't know it is talking about an attribute. That it doesn't add to that attribute is also telling.

There is no distinction made for 'skill-based' damage in the rulebooks, and damage bonuses from skills are not necessarily any different from PS damage bonuses, because they can be based on added force. This is how PRPG described Horsemanship (the damage came from the added height and speed) and why it's kind of absurd to let that add damage but not let PS add it.

Raw PS aspect it would default to "SD/HP" damage
skill based damage is not PS damage
the damage is not based on raw power

Not being a PS damage bonus does not mean a damage bonus does not come from raw power.

Damage bonuses are added from things like high-speed attacks, those are still force-based.

A damage bonus not from PS could simply mean that force is created without enhancing the ability of a person to lift/carry things.

[Killer Cyborg]

So you're saying that the SAMAS in the RGMG is a different model than the SAMAS in RMB?

Off-hand I don't know. If you're talking about 2 things with the same model number but different stats, that could very well be 2 distinct items.

There are examples of this happening, just look at this Naruni weapon KC:
*Mercenaries page 118
*Phase World page 123

There are at least 2 versions of the NE-50 Particle Beam Rifle. They both inflict the same damage. The 'unmodified' version has higher range and more shots though.

CJ probably should have given the unMod stats in Phase World though rather than reprinting Mercs since PW would clearly be one of those 'other dimensions' which Merc mentioned as having the higher-quality version for sale.

We could treat the SAMAS the same way if we have different stats for it given in 2 books. It's certainly an optional alternative to a stat-difference introduced in a later book being treated as 'always this way'.

...and I rest my case.

If anybody thinks that Tor is making sense, let me know.

Otherwise...

[ShadowLogan]

I wouldn't go that far. Anything requiring a skill-specific disclaimer does not set any precedents.

Outside of a broad categorization I would agree with that, but w/regard to a broad categorization (such as skills) I have to disagree. If Skill A handles things in a given manner, then it sets precedent in how to interpret Skill B if Skill B is less than clear.

There is no distinction made for 'skill-based' damage in the rulebooks, and damage bonuses from skills are not necessarily any different from PS damage bonuses, because they can be based on added force. This is how PRPG described Horsemanship (the damage came from the added height and speed) and why it's kind of absurd to let that add damage but not let PS add it.

Horsemanship skill also allows its bonus damage to work either as SD or MD depending on the specific attack type/weapon type and the specific horsemanship in use. So the skill can list a bonus to MD and SD, and still describe it as an increase to damage. That sets precedent for Fencing and other skills since the damage bonus isn't specified in the Skills themselves to be limited to SD attacks, but Horsemanship goes out of its way to identify if damage is SD or MD and even has an example that sets precedent for other skills that just list a "to damage" bonus w/o specifying if it is SD or MD.

A damage bonus not from PS could simply mean that force is created without enhancing the ability of a person to lift/carry things.

To enhance the force being dealt though takes SKILL to implement not raw power to accomplish. You need the skill to know how to enhance the ability, otherwise by the rules there is no other way to get the bonus.

Ex. A Mind Melter w/o Fencing Skill can't do the extra d6 damage with a sword, like the Cyber-Knight who took the skill and uses the same exact sword (we'll assume everything else that is applicable in this situation is the same/similar enough not to matter). Or substitute being on a horse and the Mind Melter using a melee weapon w/o Horsemanship, but the Cyber Knight does.

[HWalsh]

So you're saying that the SAMAS in the RGMG is a different model than the SAMAS in RMB?

Off-hand I don't know. If you're talking about 2 things with the same model number but different stats, that could very well be 2 distinct items.

There are examples of this happening, just look at this Naruni weapon KC:
*Mercenaries page 118
*Phase World page 123

There are at least 2 versions of the NE-50 Particle Beam Rifle. They both inflict the same damage. The 'unmodified' version has higher range and more shots though.

CJ probably should have given the unMod stats in Phase World though rather than reprinting Mercs since PW would clearly be one of those 'other dimensions' which Merc mentioned as having the higher-quality version for sale.

We could treat the SAMAS the same way if we have different stats for it given in 2 books. It's certainly an optional alternative to a stat-difference introduced in a later book being treated as 'always this way'.

...and I rest my case.

If anybody thinks that Tor is making sense, let me know.

Otherwise...

He's making sense...

I strongly disagree with it, but there is logic there, albeit I feel very incorrect logic.

He's basically saying that every single version of anything, in any book, can be interpreted as being correct, as each time something is printed, it is potentially a different version with the same name...

So if Book A has a weapon called the BFG-2999 and it does 2d6x10 M.D. with a range of 2,000 feet... And Book B has a weapon called the BFG-2999 and it does 2d4x10 M.D. with a range of 2,000 feet then those are possibly 2 different weapons rather than a retcon. Meaning if one of his characters has the 2d6x10 M.D. version then it stays 2d6x10 M.D. as, seemingly, in his opinion that BFG-2999 could be Ver A and the other could be Ver B.

Now, my argument is that defies logic. If they were different versions they'd have different model numbers.

[Killer Cyborg]

And Emperor Tromm "can be" interpreted to be a second CS emperor co-ruling with Prosek.... But it wouldn't be a legitimate interpretation.

[Tor]

my argument is that defies logic. If they were different versions they'd have different model numbers.

The NE-50 defies that assumption. Companies do not always rename something when they come out with a different version of it. Palladium Books itself is evidence of that, as we have seen with covert changes done in later reprints of a book instead of a revised or second edition. A newly printed thing sharing the name of a previously printed thing does not necessarily make it replace the old, the supplement-interpretation is valid too. Palladium even supported this with the Mephisto-as-AI vs Mephisto-as-Dyval-Lord issue.

And Emperor Tromm "can be" interpreted to be a second CS emperor co-ruling with Prosek.... But it wouldn't be a legitimate interpretation.

It could be if the GM opted to, although since there is no other evidence indicating that, the other explanations (Tarn mistake, nickname for Karl per Rifter FAQ) are held in higher regard.

[Zer0 Kay]

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

[HWalsh]

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

I can see it...

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

Hours later...

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

[Killer Cyborg]

my argument is that defies logic. If they were different versions they'd have different model numbers.

The NE-50 defies that assumption. Companies do not always rename something when they come out with a different version of it. Palladium Books itself is evidence of that, as we have seen with covert changes done in later reprints of a book instead of a revised or second edition. A newly printed thing sharing the name of a previously printed thing does not necessarily make it replace the old, the supplement-interpretation is valid too. Palladium even supported this with the Mephisto-as-AI vs Mephisto-as-Dyval-Lord issue.

And Emperor Tromm "can be" interpreted to be a second CS emperor co-ruling with Prosek.... But it wouldn't be a legitimate interpretation.

It could be if the GM opted to, although since there is no other evidence indicating that, the other explanations (Tarn mistake, nickname for Karl per Rifter FAQ) are held in higher regard.

It wasn't Tarn. Ever.
Unless you think that Tarn wrote the Glitter Boy Armor description.

The explanation is that it was an editing mistake on Palladium's part.

[HWalsh]

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

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