Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

[Blue_Lion]

(I would think the TW would be combat trained but I could not fully rule out a logically augment against them if it was done right.)

The reason I say hand to hand is the basis of combat training is all other combat skills are affected by it. Making it the basis of combat and combat training.
In RUE number of attacks are all linked to hand to hand even for use of WPs.

Other combat skills may be combat training but the basis of the training, is hand to hand as it always applies weather or not you have hand to hand always matters but you can use a weapon without the skill.
WP are combat training that is limited to just the weapon it covers. So while it provides combat training it is more specialized.


I never said we had a definition I just said that some things are called combat training.

You are the one that keeps bringing up a claim of a definition not me. Look at my post I never said we have definition I said we have citation of things being called combat training not we have a definition.

This seams to be a case of a augment based off a misunderstanding of what is being claimed.
My first post today I said the book was calling hand to hand combat training and WP combat training.(the WP says provides it but to me it amounts to it being combat training.)

As I said when I stopped posting it was clear that you people where not debating how the books defined it but a subjective level.
Because at the time we had people making claims like only organized military are combat trained or that you have to disprove context X.
It may have changed latter but at the time it was not about what was in the books.

I never made a the claim today that the books defined the term. Over all to me it appears Kevin S only defines something when it is needed for the mechanics, and even then they are not always the best worded definitions. So expected an required definition is outside his normal writing style making a demand for such a thing an impossible standard. He describes things more than defines them in general.

[Prysus]

General combat training would be training in multiple contexts, not just a single context such as Hand to Hand.
Dreicunan's post, if accurate, would demonstrate this.

Greetings and Salutations. I'm guessing you don't have your books, and whether or not his reference will be considered valid or not will be based upon the reader. So I'll try to quote the most relevant parts, and aid you in making a determination.

The Magic Militia
[snip #1]
Every single member is a sorcerer trained in basic combat (W.P. Energy Pistol, W.P. Energy Rifle and Hand to Hand: Basic). Ley Line Walkers, Shifters, and any magician who can learn spells are taught the following combat spells ...
[snip #2]
Additionally, magicians are taught to fight in teams and in concert with "mundane" soldiers.
[snip #3]
The sorcerers are taught to use their powers to surprise the enemy, support infantry soldiers, and to act as medics, long-range artillery, shock troops, spies and special forces.
[snip #4]

Snip #1: A little flavor text on the militia and stating it's all practitioners of magic.
Snip #2: A list of spells, and then talking about classes like Warlocks and Mystics being encouraged to "acquire" combat spells.
Snip #3: Talk of maneuvers with other forces.
Snip #4: A % breakdown of O.C.C. within the forces.

If we do accept: W.P. Energy Pistol, W.P. Energy Rifle, and Hand to Hand: Basic as the definition of combat training (and I'm not saying it is), the following classes will be considered combat trained in RUE:

Glitter Boy
Juicer
Merc Soldier
Dog Boy
Psi-Stalker
Coalition Grunt
Coalition SAMAS Pilot
CS SPecialist
CS Technical Officer

Various other O.C.C. (Men at Arms in particular, but there might be one or two other classes) can easily qualify depending on O.C.C. Skill selections (lines like "W.P. Five of choice, but at least three modern energy weapons" for the Headhunter), and almost anyone (which includes Practitioners of Magic) can qualify if we include O.C.C. Related Skills. Hope some of that helps. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Blue_Lion]

General combat training would be training in multiple contexts, not just a single context such as Hand to Hand.
Dreicunan's post, if accurate, would demonstrate this.

Greetings and Salutations. I'm guessing you don't have your books, and whether or not his reference will be considered valid or not will be based upon the reader. So I'll try to quote the most relevant parts, and aid you in making a determination.

The Magic Militia
[snip #1]
Every single member is a sorcerer trained in basic combat (W.P. Energy Pistol, W.P. Energy Rifle and Hand to Hand: Basic). Ley Line Walkers, Shifters, and any magician who can learn spells are taught the following combat spells ...
[snip #2]
Additionally, magicians are taught to fight in teams and in concert with "mundane" soldiers.
[snip #3]
The sorcerers are taught to use their powers to surprise the enemy, support infantry soldiers, and to act as medics, long-range artillery, shock troops, spies and special forces.
[snip #4]

Snip #1: A little flavor text on the militia and stating it's all practitioners of magic.
Snip #2: A list of spells, and then talking about classes like Warlocks and Mystics being encouraged to "acquire" combat spells.
Snip #3: Talk of maneuvers with other forces.
Snip #4: A % breakdown of O.C.C. within the forces.

If we do accept: W.P. Energy Pistol, W.P. Energy Rifle, and Hand to Hand: Basic as the definition of combat training (and I'm not saying it is), the following classes will be considered combat trained in RUE:

Glitter Boy
Juicer
Merc Soldier
Dog Boy
Psi-Stalker
Coalition Grunt
Coalition SAMAS Pilot
CS SPecialist
CS Technical Officer

Various other O.C.C. (Men at Arms in particular, but there might be one or two other classes) can easily qualify depending on O.C.C. Skill selections (lines like "W.P. Five of choice, but at least three modern energy weapons" for the Headhunter), and almost anyone (which includes Practitioners of Magic) can qualify if we include O.C.C. Related Skills. Hope some of that helps. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

That quote is not a definition but a list of things that can be called combat training.
The fact that the Power armor pilot and cyber-Knight even though they are combat it is a combat class implies that it not what makes some one combat trained.(If those skills where the requirement then every combat class would have them as base skill.)

[dreicunan]

I should note that I certainly wouldn't argue that every character has to have exactly those two WPs to be considered combat trained (heck, if I were running that militia, one of those WPs would have been for a non-energy weapon; you'd think magic users would remember that a whole bunch of potential enemies out these can be immune to some or all energy weapons and so knowing how to use a slug thrower can be useful).

As I think on it again, I actually think that the most significant parts of the passage are the parts about the magic users being taught to operate in teams and the specific ways to use their powers. The fact that the members of the militia would have to be taught those things (all things I that I think would be part of a reasonable definition of a combat trained mage) would lend credence to the idea that most magic users are not "combat trained" in a broad sense.

As an example, take a friend of mine who was a black belt in Karate and an experienced hunter. He was a very good shot with a rifle and a pistol, either revolver or semi-auto; he also knew his way around a shotgun. In fact, he was as good a shot with an AR-15 as another friend, a former Marine who was a rifle and pistol expert when he was in the service. In Palladium terms, that would definitely qualify him for a hand-to-hand skill and three or four WPs. However, he was not "combat trained" in the same way that the former Marine was "combat trained."

[Eagle]

As I think on it again, I actually think that the most significant parts of the passage are the parts about the magic users being taught to operate in teams and the specific ways to use their powers. The fact that the members of the militia would have to be taught those things (all things I that I think would be part of a reasonable definition of a combat trained mage) would lend credence to the idea that most magic users are not "combat trained" in a broad sense.

As an example, take a friend of mine who was a black belt in Karate and an experienced hunter. He was a very good shot with a rifle and a pistol, either revolver or semi-auto; he also knew his way around a shotgun. In fact, he was as good a shot with an AR-15 as another friend, a former Marine who was a rifle and pistol expert when he was in the service. In Palladium terms, that would definitely qualify him for a hand-to-hand skill and three or four WPs. However, he was not "combat trained" in the same way that the former Marine was "combat trained."

Yeah, that's how I'd define it.

You average LLW may know how to fight, but he isn't a military man. This would mean that they are more likely to fall for ambushes, make mistakes when fighting against groups using military tactics, etc. This is usually more than balanced out by their amazing powers. When you can turn invisible, teleport around the battlefield, meld into the shadows, and control your enemy's mind, knowing the right way to sweep a room just doesn't seem that important. And a lot of conventional military tactics aren't going to work against you.

But every once in a while, a mage will kick open a door, stride confidently into the room while crackling with energy, not check his blind spot, and get shot in the back of the head.

[Axelmania]

IIRC, it's called "hand to hand combat training," which is not the same as "combat training."

This sounds like saying "melee weapons" isn't the same as "weapons".

If you have melee weapons, you have weapons.

If you have anti-giraffe combat training, you have combat training.

[Axelmania]

average LLW may know how to fight, but he isn't a military man. This would mean that they are more likely to fall for ambushes, make mistakes when fighting against groups using military tactics, etc.

We have a skill called Detect Ambush. This is classified as Espionage rather than Military. Checking RMB...

The CS Grunt is a military man and doesn't have this skill. He actually can't even get it. Nor can the RPA or Technical Officer.

From the get go, among the military OCCs, only the Military Specialist could get it as a related skill, and it wasn't mandatory.

Everyone is equally vulnerable to ambushes unless they have this skill.

Where it was automatic was the headhunter OCC.

As for mistakes against tactics, closest would be the Intelligence skill, also Espionage. The military specialist did start with this. It was also equally off limits to grunts/RPA/techs.

Being military trained doesn't guarantee having these skills. Combat training could be as simple as knowing how to follow the orders if a commander who dies have these skills.

[Blue_Lion]

Combat training is about knowing how to hit he other guy or fight. You know the stuff that is classified as combat.
Military is not the only source of combat training. The cyber knight has combat training but is not part of a military. Gun slinger is combat trained but not part of a military. People keep thinking of combat as military but that is not always the case. Not all combat is war, not all that are trained for combat get it from a military in rifts in rifts.

[Killer Cyborg]

IIRC, it's called "hand to hand combat training," which is not the same as "combat training."

This sounds like saying "melee weapons" isn't the same as "weapons".

It's not. It's a subset.

If you have melee weapons, you have weapons.

If you have a missile launcher, you have a weapon.
But you don't have a melee weapon.

If you have anti-giraffe combat training, you have combat training.

You have a limited form of combat training, yes. You have combat training in the specific context of giraffe combat.
But not in other contexts.

[Killer Cyborg]

The reason I say hand to hand is the basis of combat training is all other combat skills are affected by it. Making it the basis of combat and combat training.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/basis
Basis:
1. the bottom or base of anything; the part on which something stands or rests.
2. anything upon which something is based; fundamental principle; groundwork.
3. the principal constituent; fundamental ingredient.

None of those definitions is "is affected by."

In RUE number of attacks are all linked to hand to hand even for use of WPs.

Yes.
And if you wanted to claim that HTH combat training is the basis for the number of attacks a character gets, then I'd be closer to agreeing with you.
Although even then, it simply is not true for all characters--many characters have attacks with no HTH combat training.

WP are combat training that is limited to just the weapon it covers. So while it provides combat training it is more specialized.

I agree that WPs are specialized combat training.

I never said we had a definition I just said that some things are called combat training.

Without reviewing the whole thread, I'll take you at your word on this, and I'll agree that there is a semantic difference between the two.

You are the one that keeps bringing up a claim of a definition not me.

Eliakon has repeatedly insisted that there is a book definition, and after this thread lay dormant for however long, when the conversation picked up, I had you two mentally blurred together.

As I said when I stopped posting it was clear that you people where not debating how the books defined it but a subjective level.

We people were often arguing whether or not the books defined it, and we were sometimes arguing about what the term means in a general everyday context, which is as you say a subjective level, and doesn't have anything to do with game rules.

[Killer Cyborg]

Combat training is about knowing how to hit he other guy or fight. You know the stuff that is classified as combat.
Military is not the only source of combat training. The cyber knight has combat training but is not part of a military. Gun slinger is combat trained but not part of a military. People keep thinking of combat as military but that is not always the case. Not all combat is war, not all that are trained for combat get it from a military in rifts in rifts.

Agreed.
But while all Man-At-Arms OCCs that I can think of would fit the general definition of "combat trained," very few non-Man-At-Arms OCCs do fit that definition.
(although militia, military, or similarly trained individuals of non-Man-At-Arms OCCs would.)

[Killer Cyborg]

average LLW may know how to fight, but he isn't a military man. This would mean that they are more likely to fall for ambushes, make mistakes when fighting against groups using military tactics, etc.

We have a skill called Detect Ambush.

We DO have that skill, but it does not detect ambushes.

[Killer Cyborg]

That quote is not a definition but a list of things that can be called combat training.

Every single member is a sorcerer trained in basic combat (W.P. Energy Pistol, W.P. Energy Rifle and Hand to Hand: Basic).

Actually, this looks like it might well be the definition we've been looking for. Or close to it.
The passage states that every member is "trained in basic combat," NOT "trained in basic forms of combat."
It refers to "basic combat" as a singular noun, then parenthetically lists three different things. This structure makes the most sense if it is intended to provide a list of things that combine to constitute a general "basic combat."

This would not negate the facts that "WPs provide combat training" and that "Hand to Hand combat training" is a form of combat training.
What it does is to provide us with a definition of "basic combat training."
While not exactly the same as providing us with a definition of "combat training," it's pretty close.

Where it would leave us is that while mages as a rule "have some combat training," they do not have "basic combat training."

The fact that the Power armor pilot and cyber-Knight even though they are combat it is a combat class implies that it not what makes some one combat trained.(If those skills where the requirement then every combat class would have them as base skill.)

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

That quote is not a definition but a list of things that can be called combat training.

Every single member is a sorcerer trained in basic combat (W.P. Energy Pistol, W.P. Energy Rifle and Hand to Hand: Basic).

Actually, this looks like it might well be the definition we've been looking for. Or close to it.
The passage states that every member is "trained in basic combat," NOT "trained in basic forms of combat."
It refers to "basic combat" as a singular noun, then parenthetically lists three different things. This structure makes the most sense if it is intended to provide a list of things that combine to constitute a general "basic combat."

This would not negate the facts that "WPs provide combat training" and that "Hand to Hand combat training" is a form of combat training.
What it does is to provide us with a definition of "basic combat training."
While not exactly the same as providing us with a definition of "combat training," it's pretty close.

Where it would leave us is that while mages as a rule "have some combat training," they do not have "basic combat training."

I'd generalize to "A H2H skill + 2 W.P.s" as a good compromise.

Most of the RUE Magic Users dont qualify, but a LOT of the later classes do.

[Killer Cyborg]

That quote is not a definition but a list of things that can be called combat training.

Every single member is a sorcerer trained in basic combat (W.P. Energy Pistol, W.P. Energy Rifle and Hand to Hand: Basic).

Actually, this looks like it might well be the definition we've been looking for. Or close to it.
The passage states that every member is "trained in basic combat," NOT "trained in basic forms of combat."
It refers to "basic combat" as a singular noun, then parenthetically lists three different things. This structure makes the most sense if it is intended to provide a list of things that combine to constitute a general "basic combat."

This would not negate the facts that "WPs provide combat training" and that "Hand to Hand combat training" is a form of combat training.
What it does is to provide us with a definition of "basic combat training."
While not exactly the same as providing us with a definition of "combat training," it's pretty close.

Where it would leave us is that while mages as a rule "have some combat training," they do not have "basic combat training."

I'd generalize to "A H2H skill + 2 W.P.s" as a good compromise.

Most of the RUE Magic Users dont qualify, but a LOT of the later classes do.

IF I was trying to generalize, I'd go more with "HTH Skill + 2 WPs that are militarily appropriate for the society in question."
That way a guy with WP Spear and WP Yo-Yo has "basic combat training" in a society there that's what the military uses, but not so much in a world where they use laser weapons.

[eliakon]

That quote is not a definition but a list of things that can be called combat training.

Every single member is a sorcerer trained in basic combat (W.P. Energy Pistol, W.P. Energy Rifle and Hand to Hand: Basic).

Actually, this looks like it might well be the definition we've been looking for. Or close to it.
The passage states that every member is "trained in basic combat," NOT "trained in basic forms of combat."
It refers to "basic combat" as a singular noun, then parenthetically lists three different things. This structure makes the most sense if it is intended to provide a list of things that combine to constitute a general "basic combat."

This would not negate the facts that "WPs provide combat training" and that "Hand to Hand combat training" is a form of combat training.
What it does is to provide us with a definition of "basic combat training."
While not exactly the same as providing us with a definition of "combat training," it's pretty close.

Where it would leave us is that while mages as a rule "have some combat training," they do not have "basic combat training."

I'd generalize to "A H2H skill + 2 W.P.s" as a good compromise.

Most of the RUE Magic Users dont qualify, but a LOT of the later classes do.

IF I was trying to generalize, I'd go more with "HTH Skill + 2 WPs that are militarily appropriate for the society in question."
That way a guy with WP Spear and WP Yo-Yo has "basic combat training" in a society there that's what the military uses, but not so much in a world where they use laser weapons.

That sounds like a good way to just be walking back the argument back to the "Well lets make it all subjective again"
Unless there is some actual definition of 'military appropriate' then that is totally subjective and not any sort of valid criterion for a general definition.
So H2H +2 WP is fine (and seems to fit the books)
H2H +2 WP that fit a personal headcanon is not fine.

[Killer Cyborg]

That quote is not a definition but a list of things that can be called combat training.

Every single member is a sorcerer trained in basic combat (W.P. Energy Pistol, W.P. Energy Rifle and Hand to Hand: Basic).

Actually, this looks like it might well be the definition we've been looking for. Or close to it.
The passage states that every member is "trained in basic combat," NOT "trained in basic forms of combat."
It refers to "basic combat" as a singular noun, then parenthetically lists three different things. This structure makes the most sense if it is intended to provide a list of things that combine to constitute a general "basic combat."

This would not negate the facts that "WPs provide combat training" and that "Hand to Hand combat training" is a form of combat training.
What it does is to provide us with a definition of "basic combat training."
While not exactly the same as providing us with a definition of "combat training," it's pretty close.

Where it would leave us is that while mages as a rule "have some combat training," they do not have "basic combat training."

I'd generalize to "A H2H skill + 2 W.P.s" as a good compromise.

Most of the RUE Magic Users dont qualify, but a LOT of the later classes do.

IF I was trying to generalize, I'd go more with "HTH Skill + 2 WPs that are militarily appropriate for the society in question."
That way a guy with WP Spear and WP Yo-Yo has "basic combat training" in a society there that's what the military uses, but not so much in a world where they use laser weapons.

That sounds like a good way to just be walking back the argument back to the "Well lets make it all subjective again"
Unless there is some actual definition of 'military appropriate' then that is totally subjective and not any sort of valid criterion for a general definition.
So H2H +2 WP is fine (and seems to fit the books)
H2H +2 WP that fit a personal headcanon is not fine.

If you want to fit the books, then it's "HTH, WP Energy Pistol, and WP Energy Rifle."
The moment you depart from that, yeah, we're back in the land of house rules, the land of the subjective.
If you don't like my house rule, that's cool; make your own, like Tetsuya did. Or just use his house rule, like you're saying.
But don't pretend that it "seems to fit the books."

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Actually, KCs "WPs appropriate to the area" is something i had just assumed in my head, because its sensible. So i'd agree with that.

[Killer Cyborg]

Actually, KCs "WPs appropriate to the area" is something i had just assumed in my head, because its sensible. So i'd agree with that.

Cool.

[lather]

What if no W.P.s are appropriate?

[Killer Cyborg]

What if no W.P.s are appropriate?

The you're dealing with a pre-stone-age society, and I'm not sure if "basic combat training" is really appropriate.

[eliakon]

I'd generalize to "A H2H skill + 2 W.P.s" as a good compromise.

Most of the RUE Magic Users dont qualify, but a LOT of the later classes do.

IF I was trying to generalize, I'd go more with "HTH Skill + 2 WPs that are militarily appropriate for the society in question."
That way a guy with WP Spear and WP Yo-Yo has "basic combat training" in a society there that's what the military uses, but not so much in a world where they use laser weapons.

That sounds like a good way to just be walking back the argument back to the "Well lets make it all subjective again"
Unless there is some actual definition of 'military appropriate' then that is totally subjective and not any sort of valid criterion for a general definition.
So H2H +2 WP is fine (and seems to fit the books)
H2H +2 WP that fit a personal headcanon is not fine.

If you want to fit the books, then it's "HTH, WP Energy Pistol, and WP Energy Rifle."
The moment you depart from that, yeah, we're back in the land of house rules, the land of the subjective.
If you don't like my house rule, that's cool; make your own, like Tetsuya did. Or just use his house rule, like you're saying.
But don't pretend that it "seems to fit the books."

No, actually its not 'subjective'
The book provides an example of two WPs that are chosen. It does not say that those two and those two only make a person combat trained (especially since it would mean that no one was ever combat trained until the late 21st century which is demonstrably false)
Now sure, you can make the most narrow possible interpretation that really, combat training was not invented until the late 21st century sure...
...but I am going to suspect that no one else is going to agree that this is true.
Especially since it leaves the vast majority of military OCCs quite possible to not be combat trained if they pick the 'wrong' WPs
That leaves us with the far more logical conclusion that the list is that you pick 2 WPs, and that this particular force is selecting which two you get.

Now sure, if you want to make up some sort of argument that combat training is not a military thing sure go right ahead.
But if you want to say that your personal headcanon is the final arbiter of what WPs are sufficiently military or not... yeah, no.

[Killer Cyborg]

If you want to fit the books, then it's "HTH, WP Energy Pistol, and WP Energy Rifle."
The moment you depart from that, yeah, we're back in the land of house rules, the land of the subjective.
If you don't like my house rule, that's cool; make your own, like Tetsuya did. Or just use his house rule, like you're saying.
But don't pretend that it "seems to fit the books."

No, actually its not 'subjective'
The book provides an example of two WPs that are chosen. It does not say that those two and those two only make a person combat trained

No. The book defines "basic combat training" as being a combination of three listed skills.

(especially since it would mean that no one was ever combat trained until the late 21st century which is demonstrably false)

The game defines "basic combat training" as being a combination of three specific skills.
Whether or not that makes sense does not affect canon.

[lather]

What if no W.P.s are appropriate?

The you're dealing with a pre-stone-age society, and I'm not sure if "basic combat training" is really appropriate.

Cosmo-knights are a pre-stone age society?

[Killer Cyborg]

What if no W.P.s are appropriate?

The you're dealing with a pre-stone-age society, and I'm not sure if "basic combat training" is really appropriate.

Cosmo-knights are a pre-stone age society?

They have:
a) <2 WPs?
b) "basic combat training?"

[Prysus]

The book provides an example of two WPs that are chosen.

Greetings and Salutations. Actually, the book lists two specific W.P., not just two examples. If they were examples, they would be listed as examples in some format (using words like "such as," "e.g.," "example," etc.).

It does not say that those two and those two only make a person combat trained ...

This is true. The book does not say that, nor does it say you can select others either. What it provides is two specific W.P., and anything else is not what's written. If you really wanted to try and support this with the book, the best way would be to find another such blurb with different W.P. Then you'd have an actual case by the book.

(especially since it would mean that no one was ever combat trained until the late 21st century which is demonstrably false)
Now sure, you can make the most narrow possible interpretation that really, combat training was not invented until the late 21st century sure...
...but I am going to suspect that no one else is going to agree that this is true.

That's actually NOT what it would mean. What it would mean is: 21st century combat training wasn't invented until the 21st century.

Let's look at this a different way. Let's take a Roman Legionary from the 1st century and put him into modern times. Would you consider him ready to go out and fight in a modern war as long as he has W.P. Spear and W.P. Shield? He could've fought in many wars, but that doesn't mean war hasn't changed since that time. The same is true here. War continues to change, and if you want to continue being trained for it you need to be trained in the tools of the time.

Note: Discussing training in Mega-Damage technology is especially important if we view it in the context of the original statement, maintaining composure in an M.D. firefight.

Especially since it leaves the vast majority of military OCCs quite possible to not be combat trained if they pick the 'wrong' WPs
That leaves us with the far more logical conclusion that the list is that you pick 2 WPs, and that this particular force is selecting which two you get.

Meh, while I'm not sure I agree with it being limited to solely those two W.P. (or if that even for sure constitutes as the definition of combat training), in my opinion your interpretation leaves it just as ridiculous in the opposite direction (as it would mean the Legionary is logically ready to fight in a modern day war). Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[lather]

What if no W.P.s are appropriate?

The you're dealing with a pre-stone-age society, and I'm not sure if "basic combat training" is really appropriate.

Cosmo-knights are a pre-stone age society?

They have:
a) <2 WPs?
b) "basic combat training?"

They have 1 W.P. and Martial Arts.

[Killer Cyborg]

What if no W.P.s are appropriate?

The you're dealing with a pre-stone-age society, and I'm not sure if "basic combat training" is really appropriate.

Cosmo-knights are a pre-stone age society?

They have:
a) <2 WPs?
b) "basic combat training?"

They have 1 W.P. and Martial Arts.

If they have a WP, then they're at least stone age.

[Blue_Lion]

That quote is not a definition but a list of things that can be called combat training.

Every single member is a sorcerer trained in basic combat (W.P. Energy Pistol, W.P. Energy Rifle and Hand to Hand: Basic).

Actually, this looks like it might well be the definition we've been looking for. Or close to it.
The passage states that every member is "trained in basic combat," NOT "trained in basic forms of combat."
It refers to "basic combat" as a singular noun, then parenthetically lists three different things. This structure makes the most sense if it is intended to provide a list of things that combine to constitute a general "basic combat."

This would not negate the facts that "WPs provide combat training" and that "Hand to Hand combat training" is a form of combat training.
What it does is to provide us with a definition of "basic combat training."
While not exactly the same as providing us with a definition of "combat training," it's pretty close.

Where it would leave us is that while mages as a rule "have some combat training," they do not have "basic combat training."

The fact that the Power armor pilot and cyber-Knight even though they are combat it is a combat class implies that it not what makes some one combat trained.(If those skills where the requirement then every combat class would have them as base skill.)

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Points to the note earlier from basic hand to hand that said it was basic combat training.
Having hand to hand basic is basic combat training, the inclusion of WP in the list of skills they trained in does not make it the definition of basic combat training. Just a list of things that at least part of counts as basic combat training.

RUE calls basic hand to hand in the note basic combat training, so yes if every member of the militia had basic hand to hand then they would all have basic combat training. As hand to hand basic is basic combat training. They would have something called basic combat training even if they did not have WP as the hand to hand is called basic combat training.

So no it is not a definition of basic combat training just a list that includes one thing called basic combat training.

The part you do not understand was is that his claim was that you had to have basic hand to hand+WP e-pistol+WP e-rifle to be combat trained. Not number of skills but specific skills I was pointing out that some primary combat occs do not have the exact skills he said was the definition of basic combat training.

With hand to hand being refereed to in the notes as the same level of combat training imply that basic hand to hand = basic combat training. Making it a closer definition than his quote from juicer uprising.

*******RUE PG 347, under basic hand to hand***********
"Note: Basic combat training enables the charter to use any basic/common attacks ...."
That is closest we have to a definition of combat training. It is training that enables the charter to use basic/common attacks. The list was common hand to hand moves. For ranged weapons that would likely be aimed shot, and called shot.

This makes hand to hand the basis for deciding combat training as it tells you what basic combat training enables the charter to do, use any basic/common attacks.

Can a WP enable you to make a basic/common attack with that weapon? yes
Can you make a basic common attack with hand to hand? yes
Can you make a basic common attack without a WP? yes
Can you make a basic common attack without any skill? yes
(that is the problem the closest we have to a definition of basic combat training can be done without any skills.)

[Blue_Lion]

The book says basic combat training enables a charter to make basic/common attacks.(RUE 347 in the note for basic hand to hand.)

Going with that can the average mage make basic/common attacks?

(That does appear to be something of a working definition Basic combat training is something that enables a charter to make a basic/common attack.)

[Killer Cyborg]

The fact that the Power armor pilot and cyber-Knight even though they are combat it is a combat class implies that it not what makes some one combat trained.(If those skills where the requirement then every combat class would have them as base skill.)

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Points to the note earlier from basic hand to hand that said it was basic combat training.[/quote]

Points to place earlier where I said that the writers were being lazy and just shortened "basic hand to hand combat training" to "basic combat training."
Kind of like how on RUE 348, the writers shorten "Hand To Hand: Expert combat training enables the character to..." into "Expert combat training enables the character to..."
And a LOT like how also on RUE 348 they shorten "Hand to Hand: Martial Arts combat training" to "Martial Arts combat training."
Not dissimilar is how they shorten "Hand to Hand: Assassin combat training" to "Assassin combat training."
If you squint real hard, and take a couple shots of tequila, then all this starts to look a lot like how the writers also shorten "Hand to Hand: Commando combat training" to just plain old "Commando combat training."

Having hand to hand basic is basic combat training,

If you go strict RAW, then sure.
Also, basic combat training is WP Energy Rifle, WP Energy Pistol, and HTH Basic.
Therefore, If you take HTH Basic, then you get basic combat training with it, so you automatically get WP Energy Rifle, WP Energy Pistol, and HTH Basic.
Which gives you HTH Basic again, which gives you basic combat training again, which gives you WP Energy Rifle, WP Energy Pistol, and HTH Basic.
Which gives you HTH Basic again...

the inclusion of WP in the list of skills they trained in does not make it the definition of basic combat training. Just a list of things that at least part of counts as basic combat training.

Already addressed.
Unless you come up with something new, that angle has been covered.

[Blue_Lion]

Got it youre post is presenting it is the author is lazy and shortened it and not something is what the book says as written. Seam a bit hypocritical logic thread to me. You want a definition from the book but are justify not using something part of RAW based on a bias of what your logic says the writer did and not something in writing. Did I understand your logic correctly there? (Unless you have a quote saying the shortened it that is just an unsupported claim to counter something in writting and is rejected as an irrelevant unsupported claim.)

And your circlar regranting counter has a flaw.

If basic hand to hand is basic combat training.
Then giving them basic hand to hand is basic training however the magical militia also gets a few WP as part of the training. That does not make the WP as part of definition of basic combat training just something giving in addition to. It is an example of something that has basic combat training not the definition of combat training.(It does not say that those skills are required for basic combat training just that a group with basic combat training has them. RUE states that basic combat training enables a charter to make a basic/common attack and while a group with those skills do fit the bill that does not make them the definition. given that rules have changed we must first look to the books with the most currant rules for a definition of combat trained, out of juicer uprising and RUE-Rue takes priory in defining in game things.)

(the closest we have to a definition of basic combat training is that it enables a charter to do basic/common attacks.)

Again to the part you did not understand I was addressing his claim that X+Y+Z was combat trained not your claim that X+(Y<2). The fact you addressed it, while deviating more from the text does not mean the part of the post you seam to be having trouble with was directed at you.(Basically i was addressing some one else point not something you said so the fact you think it was addressed is irrelevant to the point of my post.

Looking I am having a hard time of seeing where the claim I was addressing is addressed between his post and where I made my post. In fact you say departing from his X+Y+Z is departing back in the subjective area/house rule. My point was that we have combat classes that do not meet his claim of a definition of combat trained shows that it may not be the definition of combat trained.

(Going by RAW anything that lets a charter make a common/basic attack is combat trained. While weapon skills can help with that they are not required. What you are trying to hold up as a definition of combat training is an example of not a definition of.)

Basic combat training is stated in RUE as enabling a charter to make a basic/common attack.
That means any training to make a basic common attack is combat training. Skills that fall under this would be hand to hand, WPs, robot/PA combat, weapon system, boxing, wresting kickboxing and sniper. All skills some how affect some part of a combat or fight even if in currant society the skill is primary a sport like wresting and boxing they where originally developed for combat(fighting).

[Killer Cyborg]

Got it youre post is presenting it is the author is lazy and shortened it and not something is what the book says as written. Seam a bit hypocritical logic thread to me. You want a definition from the book but are justify not using something part of RAW based on a bias of what your logic says the writer did and not something in writing. Did I understand your logic correctly there? (Unless you have a quote saying the shortened it that is just an unsupported claim to counter something in writting and is rejected as an irrelevant unsupported claim.)

Oh, no. I completely buy that in the respective HTH combat skill sections, the writers were truly attempting to describe "Basic Combat Training," "Expert Combat Training," "Martial Arts Combat Training," "Assassin Combat Training," and "Commando Combat Training" as overall concepts well and beyond the hand to hand aspect.
Totally plausible.

If basic hand to hand is basic combat training.

It's not.
HTH: Basic is 1/3 of basic combat training.

(the closest we have to a definition of basic combat training is that it enables a charter to do basic/common attacks.)

...basic/common attacks including Punch, Elbow, Kick, Knee, Disarm, Dodge, Entangle, Body Block/Tackle, Body Flip Throw, Roll with Impact, Power Punch (but not a Power Kick) and Pull Punch, but no special moves or martial arts attacks.

(Going by RAW anything that lets a charter make a common/basic attack is combat trained.

Anything that makes lets a person make basic attacks including the ones I just listed, yes.
Simultaneously, basic combat training is the combination of HTH Basic, WP Energy Pistol, and WP Energy Rifle.

And anything that lets a character "use any common/basic attacks and even many martial arts moves" is "Commando Combat Training," apparently.

[Blue_Lion]

Weather or not something is plausable does not change what is in writting. The fact they have diffrent idea of what levels of combat training are and tied them to a name.

If we are looking for a definition from writing then you can not use subjective counters.

So they refer to basic hand to hand as basic hand to hand combat training or basic combat training. You are then saying it is only 1/3 of basic combat training because you want to go with a quote from an older book instead of the newer book.


***The way I see it we have two view points in this case. Looking at them I see two possibilities of RAW not house rule but RAW.

A. If RUE is correct and basic hand to hand is correctly referred to as basic combat training then the earlier quote from juicer up rising is not wrong but the magical militia gets some extra skills not required to be basic combat training.

B. If the juicer uprising sets the definition then RUE would be wrong when it refers to basic hand to hand as basic combat training as it is only 1/3 of combat training.

**Going by the the industry standard that when two books have conflicting rules the book written last wins, would mean that RUE can not be the one that is wrong in the definition.

(Well commando combat training could be what ever the writers says it is you trying to make it in to a defense logic by holding it up as illogical but unless we are subjective grounds it is what is in writing regardless if that makes sense.It is a fiction setting so what ever they say something is what it is.)

[Killer Cyborg]

Weather or not something is plausable does not change what is in writting.

True.
Which is why I, when the writing is nonsense, look at RAI instead of RAW.

The fact they have diffrent idea of what levels of combat training are and tied them to a name.

That's not a whole sentence.

If we are looking for a definition from writing then you can not use subjective counters.

I'm not looking for a definition only from writing. Writing is a medium that the game-makers use to convey the rules to the readers. Writing is not the rules themselves.

So they refer to basic hand to hand as basic hand to hand combat training or basic combat training. You are then saying it is only 1/3 of basic combat training because you want to go with a quote from an older book instead of the newer book.

Actually, looking just at RAW, I went with both of them.
Because if we're going RAW, neither rule states that the other rule is negated.

***The way I see it we have two view points in this case. Looking at them I see two possibilities of RAW not house rule but RAW.

A. If RUE is correct and basic hand to hand is correctly referred to as basic combat training then the earlier quote from juicer up rising is not wrong but the magical militia gets some extra skills not required to be basic combat training.

RAW, the (basic combat training) is (HTH Basic, WP Energy Pistol, and WP Energy Rifle).

B. If the juicer uprising sets the definition then RUE would be wrong when it refers to basic hand to hand as basic combat training as it is only 1/3.

RAW would be that both are true.

**Going by the the industry standard that when two books have conflicting rules the book written last wins, would mean that RUE can not be the one that is wrong in the definition.

That industry standard is not written anywhere in the rules.
It is not RAW.

[Blue_Lion]

Got it you want to use RUI which amounts to rules as you think they should be and not RAW.


We have three statments in RAW one found in Juicer uprising that says group X gets basic combat training then list some skills and spells.
The second found in RUE calls basic hand to hand basic combat training.
The third says WP grand combat training.

So if basic hand to hand is basic combat training any training regardless of the number of skills that includes it is basic combat training.

So by RAW a group with hand to hand basic WP energy rifle and pistol has basic combat training. But by raw a person with only hand to hand basic also has something called basic combat training. And a person with just a WP has something that grants combat training.

What you are doing is looking at one of three statements and saying it has to meet this one. However by RAW it only has to meet any of the three to be said the charter has combat training.

What we know is the writers called basic hand to hand basic combat training, and all combat refers back to the level of hand to hand training a charter has in some way even if it is just the number of actions. So that would imply a intent of having combat training based off hand to hand. However any one says about intent is just a guess based off the persons own opinion.

Think of it this way a word can have multiple meanings. The word can be applied if any of the multiple meanings is meeting a defintion. So in this case we could say combat training has the fallowing meanings in Rifts.
(Based off text)
Combat training-
A. something granted by a WP.
B. A reference to a level of hand to hand skill.(ie hand to hand basic is basic combat training and hand to hand commando is commando combat training.)

Basic combat training-
A. Hand to hand basic
B. Something that enables a charter to make a common/basic attack
C. hand to and basic combined with WP e-pistol and e-rifle.

Note that A and C in the last one have the same base, and A can be met when C is not.(to me this almost makes C an example of something that is combat trained.)

This applied to classes defaults
CS grunt- has Expert level combat training.
Merc pg 82 basic level of combat training.
The Cyber knight has a martial art(warlike art) level of combat training for him combat is like a art.
Mystic-has no combat training.
TW-has a undetermined level of combat training.
Ley line walker has a basic level of combat training.
Mysic knight has a expert level of combat training.
CS commando has a commando level of combat training.
CS SF has a commando level of combat training.
Battle Magus has a martial arts(warlike art form, or art of fighting) level of combat training.

So in that context while the idea of commando combat training alone might seam illogical applied to OCCs it does kind of make sense.

I am willing to bet you are going to find more men at arms classes have a higher level of combat training than mages. Not only that but several of the better trained combat Men at arms have access to a level of training not possible for the best magical forces. (I do not know of any mage that has access to commando.)

[Killer Cyborg]

Got it you want to use RUI which amounts to rules as you think they should be and not RAW.

No. I want to use RAI in this discussion, which is rules as the authors intended.

We have three statments in RAW one found in Juicer uprising that says group X gets basic combat training then list some skills and spells.

Yes. And the way that passage is written, along with the list being in parentheses, means that that list IS basic combat training.

The second found in RUE calls basic hand to hand basic combat training.

Yup.

The third says WP grand combat training.

As an aside, would you like me to take your posts as they are written, or as they are intended?

So if basic hand to hand is basic combat training any training regardless of the number of skills that includes it is basic combat training.

So by RAW a group with hand to hand basic WP energy rifle and pistol has basic combat training.

Yes, because HTH Basic is Basic Combat Training, RAW.
And since Basic Combat Training is WP Energy Rifle, WP Energy Pistol, and HTH Basic, that person also gets WP Energy Pistol.

But by raw a person with only hand to hand basic also has something called basic combat training. And a person with just a WP has something that grants combat training.

What you are doing is looking at one of three statements and saying it has to meet this one. However by RAW it only has to meet any of the three to be said the charter has combat training.

No, I'm looking at all three statements.
RAW, the combination means that anybody with HTH Basic also gets WP energy Rifle and WP Energy Pistol.

What we know is the writers called basic hand to hand basic combat training, and all combat refers back to the level of hand to hand training a charter has in some way even if it is just the number of actions.

Incorrect.
Characters without any HTH training still have various attacks or actions.

[Blue_Lion]

You might want to check your facts before you say I am incorrect. One of the levels of hand to hand is no hand to hand skill. Any combat for a charter with no hand to hand would refer to the level for no hand to hand skill. (none could be said to be level 0.) See page 347 in rue no hand to hand skill is the first listed level of hand to hand.


Now then let me see if I understand the debate.

You are saying that RAW means all statements trigger each other.
So when a mystic takes basic hand to hand for 1 skill it gives him 3 skills that in turn grant him the same three skills and repeat.

My logic-multiple meanings being used for basic combat training.
So when a mystic takes basic for 1 he would have basic combat training but only gain 1 skill.


So then we have two possibilities one creating a self feeding logic loop, the other avoids the loop while still having all text be treated as valid.

So lets look at precedence for words with multiple meaning.
Fair
to save space here is a link.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair

notice that 5 and 10 are direct contradictions.
That shows that not all definitions of a word or phase need to used at the same time for its use to be valid.

So given the two options of logic I would think the one with no loop would make more sense.

[Killer Cyborg]

You might want to check your facts before you say I am incorrect. One of the levels of hand to hand is no hand to hand skill. Any combat for a charter with no hand to hand would refer to the level for no hand to hand skill. (none could be said to be level 0.) See page 347 in rue no hand to hand skill is the first listed level of hand to hand.

You might want to check your own facts:
Golems, Zombies, Xiticix, and countless other creatures lack HTH skills, but do not refer to that passage.

Now then let me see if I understand the debate.

You are saying that RAW means all statements trigger each other.
So when a mystic takes basic hand to hand for 1 skill it gives him 3 skills that in turn grant him the same three skills and repeat.

The "repeat" part doesn't actually happen, because (IIRC) the rules state somewhere that the same skill cannot be taken twice (unless otherwise noted).

My logic-multiple meanings being used for basic combat training.
So when a mystic takes basic for 1 he would have basic combat training but only gain 1 skill.

So the question to "do mages have basic combat training?" would be "Maybe, depending on how which definition of "basic combat training" you're using.

notice that 5 and 10 are direct contradictions.
That shows that not all definitions of a word or phase need to used at the same time for its use to be valid.

So given the two options of logic I would think the one with no loop would make more sense.

Making sense is not a factor with RAW, only with RAI.

[eliakon]

RAI is not a standard.
It is a personal opinion at best and subjective headcanon at worst.
Especially when claiming that RAI allows one to claim that the RAW is wrong and that the rules don't actually mean what they say.
If you have the books saying that they have defined combat training a certain way, then claiming that the authors didn't really mean that is going to need some serious support.

[Blue_Lion]

You might want to check your facts before you say I am incorrect. One of the levels of hand to hand is no hand to hand skill. Any combat for a charter with no hand to hand would refer to the level for no hand to hand skill. (none could be said to be level 0.) See page 347 in rue no hand to hand skill is the first listed level of hand to hand.

You might want to check your own facts:
Golems, Zombies, Xiticix, and countless other creatures lack HTH skills, but do not refer to that passage.

Now then let me see if I understand the debate.

You are saying that RAW means all statements trigger each other.
So when a mystic takes basic hand to hand for 1 skill it gives him 3 skills that in turn grant him the same three skills and repeat.

The "repeat" part doesn't actually happen, because (IIRC) the rules state somewhere that the same skill cannot be taken twice (unless otherwise noted).

My logic-multiple meanings being used for basic combat training.
So when a mystic takes basic for 1 he would have basic combat training but only gain 1 skill.

So the question to "do mages have basic combat training?" would be "Maybe, depending on how which definition of "basic combat training" you're using.

notice that 5 and 10 are direct contradictions.
That shows that not all definitions of a word or phase need to used at the same time for its use to be valid.

So given the two options of logic I would think the one with no loop would make more sense.

Making sense is not a factor with RAW, only with RAI.

My facts are fairly accurate given that the things that do not refer to it are not trained they use instinctual abilities. As the topic is combat training those that are not trained are not related to the topic.

[Blue_Lion]

RAI is not a standard.
It is a personal opinion at best and subjective headcanon at worst.
Especially when claiming that RAI allows one to claim that the RAW is wrong and that the rules don't actually mean what they say.
If you have the books saying that they have defined combat training a certain way, then claiming that the authors didn't really mean that is going to need some serious support.

Well we have a book than when talking about a cities defense written years ago saying they have magical millita with basic combat training then list 3 skills in (brackets). If I recall right that section was more flavor text than mechanical rules.

Later a book put out to revise the rules refers hand to hand basic,basic combat training and states that basic combat training enables a charter to make common/basic attacks then list a bunch of common hand to hand attacks. This is done in the rules section of the new book.

The older book does not say that those listed skills are required to be combat trained but people with them are combat trained.

The newer book that changed the rules states what basic combat training is, it enables you to make basic common attacks.

So we have the rules calling one of the three skills listed in the earlier book basic combat training.

The idea that you have to have those three skills to be called combat trained seams flawed when you look and see combat classes like the cyber knight do not have them.

The idea that a older book has higher priority on the rules than a book that changed the rules seams flawed. (The known industry standard is the newer book replaces the older, that is how you determine RAW with change in rules. Some one is claiming that is not the case and basically RAW is you have to use every version of a rule for something.)

So here is what I know is in print.
A-a group with hand to hand basic, WP e-pistol and e rifle is considered to have basic combat training.
B-basic combat training enables a charter to make common/basic attacks....
C-the notes in the vagarious level of hand to hand refer to a matching level of training.
D-Hand to hand is called (type) hand to hand combat training.
E-WP provide combat training with that specific weapon.

So as written the rules are calling the levels of hand to hand combat training, and says that combat training X allows you to make attacks Y. They also say WP provide combat training with that specific weapon. That means that the older book is listing some one as having combat training basic and combat training with two weapons as having basic combat training. The book does not say you need those three skills to be combat trained but people with those three skills are combat trained.

Now then is WP needed to make the attacks listed as what basic combat training enables a character to do? (no)

Are we identifying the different levels of combat training or how the book clearly defines combat training?(the closeness to a clear definition is when the notes say what the levels of combat training enable.)

Quite frankly I see the combat training Y enables a charter to do X a working definition of combat training, listing skills that 1 group that is combat trained has is an example not a defintion.

[Saitou Hajime]

(especially since it would mean that no one was ever combat trained until the late 21st century which is demonstrably false)
Now sure, you can make the most narrow possible interpretation that really, combat training was not invented until the late 21st century sure...
...but I am going to suspect that no one else is going to agree that this is true.

That's actually NOT what it would mean. What it would mean is: 21st century combat training wasn't invented until the 21st century.

Let's look at this a different way. Let's take a Roman Legionary from the 1st century and put him into modern times. Would you consider him ready to go out and fight in a modern war as long as he has W.P. Spear and W.P. Shield? He could've fought in many wars, but that doesn't mean war hasn't changed since that time. The same is true here. War continues to change, and if you want to continue being trained for it you need to be trained in the tools of the time.

Note: Discussing training in Mega-Damage technology is especially important if we view it in the context of the original statement, maintaining composure in an M.D. firefight.

Ron Perlman's voice "War. War never changes."

[Killer Cyborg]

My facts are fairly accurate given that the things that do not refer to it are not trained they use instinctual abilities. As the topic is combat training those that are not trained are not related to the topic.

Not sure who you're talking about, but xiticix have WPs, which means that they have combat training.

And I'm pretty sure it'd be easy to come up with a dozen more examples of creatures that have combat training, that don't use the "no HTH skill" chart, and that don't have any HTH skill.

If you honestly think I'm wrong, let me know--I'll grab a book or two.
If you don't think I'm wrong, then acknowledge the point and adjust your premise accordingly.

[Killer Cyborg]

RAI is not a standard.

Sure it is.

It is a personal opinion at best and subjective headcanon at worst.

Sorry, but the writers intent trumps their typing and writing mistakes.

Especially when claiming that RAI allows one to claim that the RAW is wrong and that the rules don't actually mean what they say.

Who invaded Spain in the 8th century?
a) The Moors
b) The Moops

[Blue_Lion]

(especially since it would mean that no one was ever combat trained until the late 21st century which is demonstrably false)
Now sure, you can make the most narrow possible interpretation that really, combat training was not invented until the late 21st century sure...
...but I am going to suspect that no one else is going to agree that this is true.

That's actually NOT what it would mean. What it would mean is: 21st century combat training wasn't invented until the 21st century.

Let's look at this a different way. Let's take a Roman Legionary from the 1st century and put him into modern times. Would you consider him ready to go out and fight in a modern war as long as he has W.P. Spear and W.P. Shield? He could've fought in many wars, but that doesn't mean war hasn't changed since that time. The same is true here. War continues to change, and if you want to continue being trained for it you need to be trained in the tools of the time.

Note: Discussing training in Mega-Damage technology is especially important if we view it in the context of the original statement, maintaining composure in an M.D. firefight.

Ron Perlman's voice "War. War never changes."

Here is the problem people are making, they think combat training is training for war. However combat training is really training to fight. A duel is 1 on 1 combat. A bare knuckle bar fight is hand to hand combat. While war may be combat not all combat is war. (In rifts there are several groups that fight with hand to hand tactics a Roman legionary with MDC equipment would be able to fight on the front lines with or against such foes. In Warhammer several units are melee units fighting in a battle with bolters(modern guns) and laser weapons.)

So a Roman Legionary would still have combat training today even if you would not use him in a modern army with his training.

[Blue_Lion]

RAI is not a standard.

Sure it is.

It is a personal opinion at best and subjective headcanon at worst.

Sorry, but the writers intent trumps their typing and writing mistakes.

Especially when claiming that RAI allows one to claim that the RAW is wrong and that the rules don't actually mean what they say.

Who invaded Spain in the 8th century?
a) The Moors
b) The Moops

I am sorry but this post amounts to a claim that what some one thinks the writers intended trumps what is in writing. But as it is about what some one things it is subjective and can not be used as a standard for every one.

The question you put at the end is basically a straw man.

[eliakon]

RAI is not a standard.

Sure it is.

No, its not a "standard"
It has no measurable criteria other than "My personal opinion is that this is what they really meant"

It is a personal opinion at best and subjective headcanon at worst.

Sorry, but the writers intent trumps their typing and writing mistakes.

Which would work for a typo or mistake that is not what your doing here. You are stating that everything written on the subject, in every book, is wrong and that your personal head canon on it is actually what they meant to say.
That is not a "mistake" and if it is you have a huge burden of proof to support that it was a mistake.

Especially when claiming that RAI allows one to claim that the RAW is wrong and that the rules don't actually mean what they say.

Who invaded Spain in the 8th century?
a) The Moors
b) The Moops

That's a false equivalency and you know it.
A typo is not the same thing sorry. Its a nice strawman though.
This is not, and never has been about typos.
This is about taking every single instance of the use of the word "trained for combat" and claiming that it doesn't really mean that it provides combat training. That is not a 'typo' and using an example of a typo as proof to support your claim does nothing to help your cause. In fact it just undercuts your cause by demonstrating that your stance seems to have no logical support and requires fallacies to be defended.

[Blue_Lion]

My facts are fairly accurate given that the things that do not refer to it are not trained they use instinctual abilities. As the topic is combat training those that are not trained are not related to the topic.

Not sure who you're talking about, but xiticix have WPs, which means that they have combat training.

And I'm pretty sure it'd be easy to come up with a dozen more examples of creatures that have combat training, that don't use the "no HTH skill" chart, and that don't have any HTH skill.

If you honestly think I'm wrong, let me know--I'll grab a book or two.
If you don't think I'm wrong, then acknowledge the point and adjust your premise accordingly.

Typically races that have no hand to hand are not trained to fight but fighting is a natural skill for them.
So they have no training.
The skill may provide combat training, but that does not magically make them something trained, and as they are some what special cases as they are not trained but fight naturally, they are not relevant to a discussion on what training.

So yes you are wrong in thinking a creature that is not trained but uses natural aptitude is relevant on what training is.

[Killer Cyborg]

RAI is not a standard.

Sure it is.

No, its not a "standard"
It has no measurable criteria other than "My personal opinion is that this is what they really meant"

Actually, the writer explaining their intention is a pretty clear and measurable criteria.
Now, that's not always available, but it's often pretty clear when a person's opinion goes way off the charts, like if somebody insists that the writers intended to say that humans roll 10d6 for attributes instead of 3d6: there is nothing in the books supporting that viewpoint.
Not all opinions are equal.

Also, any interpretation of RAW is necessarily an interpretation of RAI.

It is a personal opinion at best and subjective headcanon at worst.

Sorry, but the writers intent trumps their typing and writing mistakes.

Which would work for a typo or mistake that is not what your doing here. You are stating that everything written on the subject, in every book, is wrong and that your personal head canon on it is actually what they meant to say.
That is not a "mistake" and if it is you have a huge burden of proof to support that it was a mistake.

The bolded has no basis in fact, to the point that I'm really don't know what conversation you're even in.
Most recently, I've been saying that RAI would be that HTH or WPs individually provide combat training, and that by RAW WPs provide combat training, and HTH Combat and (HTH Basic, WP Energy Pistol, and WP Energy Rifle) each are defined as "basic combat training."
I've been specifically addressing what the books say.
So... the only one here with headcanon is you, making up crazy crap and claiming that other people have said it.

Especially when claiming that RAI allows one to claim that the RAW is wrong and that the rules don't actually mean what they say.

Who invaded Spain in the 8th century?
a) The Moors
b) The Moops

That's a false equivalency and you know it.

It's not any kind of equivalence. It's a question.
Which answer is correct?
A is RAI.
B is RAW.

Neither answer has a direct correlation to this conversation. The only reason why I bring it up is because people (you) keep trying to hold up RAW as if it was superior to RAI, but it's not.
RAW, you get moops.

This is about taking every single instance of the use of the word "trained for combat" and claiming that it doesn't really mean that it provides combat training.

So it's about your headcanon version of the conversation.
Got it.