combating vampires with undead amulet

Ley Line walkers, Juicers, Coalition Troops, Samas, Tolkeen, & The Federation Of Magic. Come together here to discuss all things Rifts®.

Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones

dreicunan
Hero
Posts: 1344
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am

Re: combating vampires with undead amulet

Unread post by dreicunan »

@axelmania: If you are going to read "gloves and fabric" that way, with the ludicrous position that the lack of "all" necessarily means "not all," then I'm surprised that you aren't insisting that touch spells require gloves to be worn to work through fabric.

The best interpretation that I can think of is the same interpretation that a good parent would use with their children: If I tell you not to touch your sister and you try to get around it by claiming that you were just touching her shirt sleeve, you are still in trouble (and doubly so for clearly being a weasel about it). If you have hold of your sister's shirt, and I tell you to let her go, and you say, "I'm not holding her, I'm holding her shirt," then you're in trouble for disobedience and for deliberately misunderstanding how language is commonly used.

In short, vampires, mummies, and zombies don't get to grapple you just because you aren't naked.
Axelmania wrote:You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.
Declared the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not by Axelmania on 5.11.19.
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: combating vampires with undead amulet

Unread post by Axelmania »

dreicunan wrote:the ludicrous position that the lack of "all" necessarily means "not all,"

:bandit: el bandito's hat resembles the wide brimmed hat stereotypical of scarecrows, who are filled with straw. I think I am going to start using it whenever I feel strawmanned.

That isn't my position. A lack of all doesn't mean all, but it doesn't exclude it either.

My argument for "not all" is because thinking any amount/distance of fabric can channel touch magic..

1) is never explicitly stated

2) is ludicrous, doesn't appear authors intended it

dreicunan wrote:surprised that you aren't insisting that touch spells require gloves to be worn to work through fabric.

You mean because it says "gloves and fabric" instead of "gloves or fabric" ? I suppose there's a few ways to take that.

1) it works through fabric and gloves collectively, but not either in isolation (not sure why you'd imagine I'd think that)

2) it works through just fabric, or it works through just gloves, but not both at the same time

3) it works through fabric and it works through gloves, either in isolation or combination.

I would tend toward thinking 3, though I don't know if that's the correct way grammatically.

dreicunan wrote:The best interpretation that I can think of is the same interpretation that a good parent would use with their children: If I tell you not to touch your sister and you try to get around it by claiming that you were just touching her shirt sleeve, you are still in trouble (and doubly so for clearly being a weasel about it).

So double effects if you touch a sleeve then?

But what if you touch the tip of a sleeve like this or even THIS ?

dreicunan wrote:If you have hold of your sister's shirt, and I tell you to let her go, and you say, "I'm not holding her, I'm holding her shirt," then you're in trouble for disobedience and for deliberately misunderstanding how language is commonly used.

What if the shirt is so long that it becomes a dress...

and the dress extends 6 feet or even 2 miles long?

If fabric attached to you use pulled taught, it can influence your movements, but that shouldn't necessarily mean that this can be used to make "touch" the longest possible range ever.

Some kind of realistic cap needs to be put on it. Maybe something like your flesh must come within 1/10 the target's height of the target's flesh. A 5 ft tall person is 60 inches, so that would be a 6 inch distance you need to be from their flesh. That seems like a reasonable amount.

I really don't think my super-long scarf or super-long bridal train is going to be protected from vampires just because I'm wearing it and it's attached to me. Nor do I think my allies safely a mile away can use touch-buff spells on me because they're technically touching fabric that I'm wearing.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: combating vampires with undead amulet

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Axelmania wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:But not, in your mind, the only example?
Like "fire from propane" might not hurt the person, but "fire from wood" might?
Or "blue fire" doesn't hurt the person" but "green fire" does?

I'm not aware of those being examples but they're certainly within the realm of possibility. We know 'fire' doesn't mean 'all fire' since there are things which harm those 'impervious to fire'. The GM creating additional things wouldn't contradict that.


"Fire" doesn't mean "all fire."
It means "all fire unless otherwise specified.
A GM otherwise specifying things that canon doesn't otherwise specify would be house-rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:more things are impervious to energy than just things affected by that spell.

What're we referring to? That would help me know if there's examples of things harming that thing as a natural ability.


Various creatures and a number of super powers.

Killer Cyborg wrote:We know that lasers categorically do half damage, unless we are told otherwise in specific instances.

Source?


The description of the GB states that lasers do 1/2 damage. That's the rule.
It can be over-ruled by other rules, but it's a rule in its own right.

Killer Cyborg wrote:No need to fear; that wouldn't be "touching" the target.

Source?


My understanding of what "touching" is, and how it works.

I'm not literally touching an ally if I touch their shirt, I'm touching the shirt.

If "touch' extends through worn fabrics (clothing) then how much of it?


Until the fabric is so thick that it would no longer be true that you are touching the target through the fabric.
I'd say that point would be where the toucher can no longer feel the target, only the fabric.

The best interpretation I can think of is "transference of force" IE if it deforms when I touch clothing and someone can FEEL my touch, I'm touching them, which would rule out MDC armor unless it was flexible and didn't harden in response to kinetic impacts. But in that case, a vampire could certainly punch and damage your armor because he's touching the hardened armor and not transferring that impact to you. He couldn't punch someone in a silk undershirt though, because that wouldn't harden and transfer the kinetic impact.


Seems pretty reasonable.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: combating vampires with undead amulet

Unread post by Axelmania »

Killer Cyborg wrote:"Fire" doesn't mean "all fire." It means "all fire unless otherwise specified. A GM otherwise specifying things that canon doesn't otherwise specify would be house-rules.

Where in the book does it say "all X unless otherwise specified" is intended by using a noun?

If a book says "you can buy food at the inn" does that mean you can buy ALL food there?

Or does it mean that the GM has to judge what it ought to cover?

Killer Cyborg wrote:Various creatures and a number of super powers.

Since you're not being specified, I'm going to pick a couple examples from CB Revised.
*45 Impervious to Fire and Heat: "impervious to all forms of fire and heat"
*47 Control Elemental Force: Fire: "impervious to fire including Mega-Damage and magic flame"

So in the first case, "all" is included, but in the second case, it is not. All we know explicitly is that mega-damage flames and magic flames are included.

So it is feasible that there is some form of non-MD non-magic fire which can hurt someone with CEF: Fire. That would be up to the GM to decide.

I personally see that as an advantage because they can still have a bloody wound cauterized if that is the case, a healing benefit which someone with Impervious to Fire and Heat can't enjoy.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The description of the GB states that lasers do 1/2 damage. That's the rule.
It can be over-ruled by other rules, but it's a rule in its own right.

It's a rule that at least some lasers do half, it isn't a rule that ALL lasers do half.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Until the fabric is so thick that it would no longer be true that you are touching the target through the fabric.
I'd say that point would be where the toucher can no longer feel the target, only the fabric.

Since some people's sense of touch can vary, I might define it as where pushing on the clothing exerts pressure on the flesh, regardless of whether or not the mage or target can feel it.

"Pushing" explicitly, since you can pull a long scarf and have someone feel it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
The best interpretation I can think of is "transference of force" IE if it deforms when I touch clothing and someone can FEEL my touch, I'm touching them, which would rule out MDC armor unless it was flexible and didn't harden in response to kinetic impacts. But in that case, a vampire could certainly punch and damage your armor because he's touching the hardened armor and not transferring that impact to you. He couldn't punch someone in a silk undershirt though, because that wouldn't harden and transfer the kinetic impact.


Seems pretty reasonable.

At first, though at second glance my instinct of going for 'feel' is short-sighted and ignores some beings with no sense of touch.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: combating vampires with undead amulet

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Axelmania wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:"Fire" doesn't mean "all fire." It means "all fire unless otherwise specified. A GM otherwise specifying things that canon doesn't otherwise specify would be house-rules.

Where in the book does it say "all X unless otherwise specified" is intended by using a noun?


The book doesn't say it.
The English language just works that way.

If a book says "you can buy food at the inn" does that mean you can buy ALL food there?


Nope.
But if a book says "you can't buy food at the inn," that does mean ALL food.

Or does it mean that the GM has to judge what it ought to cover?


Nope.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Various creatures and a number of super powers.

Since you're not being specified, I'm going to pick a couple examples from CB Revised.


Have a ball.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The description of the GB states that lasers do 1/2 damage. That's the rule.
It can be over-ruled by other rules, but it's a rule in its own right.


It's a rule that at least some lasers do half, it isn't a rule that ALL lasers do half.


It's a rule that the entire category of "lasers" does 1/2 damage.
Other rules (like for VF lasers) over-rule the rule in their case.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Until the fabric is so thick that it would no longer be true that you are touching the target through the fabric.
I'd say that point would be where the toucher can no longer feel the target, only the fabric.

Since some people's sense of touch can vary, I might define it as where pushing on the clothing exerts pressure on the flesh, regardless of whether or not the mage or target can feel it.

"Pushing" explicitly, since you can pull a long scarf and have someone feel it.


Whatever floats your boat.
Seems fairly reasonable.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
The best interpretation I can think of is "transference of force" IE if it deforms when I touch clothing and someone can FEEL my touch, I'm touching them, which would rule out MDC armor unless it was flexible and didn't harden in response to kinetic impacts. But in that case, a vampire could certainly punch and damage your armor because he's touching the hardened armor and not transferring that impact to you. He couldn't punch someone in a silk undershirt though, because that wouldn't harden and transfer the kinetic impact.


Seems pretty reasonable.

At first, though at second glance my instinct of going for 'feel' is short-sighted and ignores some beings with no sense of touch.


In those cases, just default to what human standards would be. Rifts is a human-centric setting in most ways.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
dreicunan
Hero
Posts: 1344
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am

Re: combating vampires with undead amulet

Unread post by dreicunan »

Axelmania wrote:
dreicunan wrote:the ludicrous position that the lack of "all" necessarily means "not all,"

:bandit: el bandito's hat resembles the wide brimmed hat stereotypical of scarecrows, who are filled with straw. I think I am going to start using it whenever I feel strawmanned.

That isn't my position. A lack of all doesn't mean all, but it doesn't exclude it either.

My argument for "not all" is because thinking any amount/distance of fabric can channel touch magic..

1) is never explicitly stated

2) is ludicrous, doesn't appear authors intended it

Fabric is fabric. If you aren't arguing that fabric doesn't mean fabric, well, then why do you keep arguing that fabric doesn't mean fabric? Because for fabric to mean fabric, all fabric has to be a given in this context. If you are arguing otherwise, then you necessarily must be claiming that the lack of all means "not all." Your feelings on the point are irrelevant; in this context you can't make the argument that "a lack of all doesn't mean all, but it doesn't exclude it either," because either "fabric" means "fabric" or it doesn't.

I never previously would have thought that touch spells were transferable through fabric at the distances that you brought up, but after looking at RUE again that certainly would appear to be a possible interpretation (it is clearly a poorly worded section of the book). Come up with whatever limits you want. My point regarding my interpretation wasn't really directed towards touch spells, but to the effects of the amulet; perhaps I should have made that more clear, as I don't see the two as intrinsically linked.
Axelmania wrote:You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.
Declared the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not by Axelmania on 5.11.19.
Locked

Return to “Rifts®”