can Dragons hurt Murder Wraiths with their claws?

[Axelmania]

I was reading Juicer Uprising and it says Supernatural Beings can hurt them (giving a dragon as an example) but it doesn't say anything about Creatures of Magic (like Fairies) being able to.

Recently some have advocated thinking of dragons as not being Supernatural Beings anymore. Does that mean some people here think that Dragons no longer have the ability to bite/claw a Murder Wraith to hurt them?

[Blue_Lion]

As I understand it the ability to hurt creatures is linked to snps. The spell supernatural strength allows mortals to gain snps and damage the vampire.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I was reading Juicer Uprising and it says Supernatural Beings can hurt them (giving a dragon as an example) but it doesn't say anything about Creatures of Magic (like Fairies) being able to.

Recently some have advocated thinking of dragons as not being Supernatural Beings anymore. Does that mean some people here think that Dragons no longer have the ability to bite/claw a Murder Wraith to hurt them?

Vampire Kingdoms specifically says that dragons count as supernatural beings for the purposes of hand to hand attacks while also being creatures of magic.

This notation is as old as the Unrevised vampire kingdoms, so right from the start of the game.

They are creatures of magic, but cut through invunerability like they were supernatural beings.

This is why they are noted a lot as being catagorized as supernatural beings in terms of vunerabilities or cutting through beings who are invunerable or with limited invunerability, because for all purposes of damage, they count as Supernatural beings, even though they are creatures of magic.

[Axelmania]

As I understand it the ability to hurt creatures is linked to snps. The spell supernatural strength allows mortals to gain snps and damage the vampire.

This thread is about Murder Wraiths, not Vampires. Murder Wraiths don't say that just anyone with SNPS can hurt them. If that were the case you'd just need to grab your local Titan Juicer for the job.

Vampire Kingdoms specifically says that dragons count as supernatural beings for the purposes of hand to hand attacks while also being creatures of magic.

This notation is as old as the Unrevised vampire kingdoms, so right from the start of the game.

They are creatures of magic, but cut through invunerability like they were supernatural beings.

This is why they are noted a lot as being catagorized as supernatural beings in terms of vunerabilities or cutting through beings who are invunerable or with limited invunerability, because for all purposes of damage, they count as Supernatural beings, even though they are creatures of magic.

Are you sure these notes aren't just for hurting vampires? What exact quote in Vampire Kingdom Revised says they count as supernatural for hurting Murder Wraiths?

[Blue_Lion]

As I understand it the ability to hurt creatures is linked to snps. The spell supernatural strength allows mortals to gain snps and damage the vampire.

This thread is about Murder Wraiths, not Vampires. Murder Wraiths don't say that just anyone with SNPS can hurt them. If that were the case you'd just need to grab your local Titan Juicer for the job.

Vampire Kingdoms specifically says that dragons count as supernatural beings for the purposes of hand to hand attacks while also being creatures of magic.

This notation is as old as the Unrevised vampire kingdoms, so right from the start of the game.

They are creatures of magic, but cut through invunerability like they were supernatural beings.

This is why they are noted a lot as being catagorized as supernatural beings in terms of vunerabilities or cutting through beings who are invunerable or with limited invunerability, because for all purposes of damage, they count as Supernatural beings, even though they are creatures of magic.

Are you sure these notes aren't just for hurting vampires? What exact quote in Vampire Kingdom Revised says they count as supernatural for hurting Murder Wraiths?

The quote that says they can is not in vampire kingdoms it is in murder wrath right up in juicer uprising. You are asking for quotes to prove they can hurt murder wraths, the quote is in the juicer uprising.

The wording of snps in rue talks about it as sn creature, so it could be that snps damage is treated as though it was a sn creature doing it. Sre titan juicers more common or easier to find than SN creatures? Is it this possible that this statement is treating com as sn? Or that the dragon rule from the unrevised book was in play that they damage as sn creatures? -Look for a way rules are true and not attempt to disprove them.(You seam to be looking to say the book is wrong and not looking for a way for the book to be correct.)

He was just a quote that existed when juicer uprising was written to explain why they where treated as SN when they are a CoM. You specifically attempted to remove the book that he said made the statement. It was found in the unrevised.

[Axelmania]

The quote that says they can is not in vampire kingdoms it is in murder wrath right up in juicer uprising. You are asking for quotes to prove they can hurt murder wraths, the quote is in the juicer uprising.

Reproduce the quote you're referring to?

The one I created the thread about only referred to supernatural beings, and then listed dragons as an example.

2nd half of your post is presently illegible to me.

[Blue_Lion]

Ok here is a quote from you.

I was reading Juicer Uprising and it says Supernatural Beings can hurt them (giving a dragon as an example) but it doesn't say anything about Creatures of Magic (like Fairies) being able to.

So it gave a dragon as an example of a creature that can hurt them. Meaning a dragon can hurt them, based on your own statement.

Nekira sundance was looking at broader rules to see why they where listed as SN hurting them when dragons are com, or to find consistency in the rules.
There where looking for a in text reason why the book was calling them SN.

[Axelmania]

Ok here is a quote from you.

I was reading Juicer Uprising and it says Supernatural Beings can hurt them (giving a dragon as an example) but it doesn't say anything about Creatures of Magic (like Fairies) being able to.

So it gave a dragon as an example of a creature that can hurt them. Meaning a dragon can hurt them, based on your own statement.

My statement means supernatural beings can hurt them, so long as dragons are supernatural beings.

Page 52 "Hand to hand attacks from supernatural beings like vampires, dragons, etc. as well as magic weapons and magic spells , inflict hit point damage equivalents to their MD damage"

There is no mention of creatures of magic who are not supernatural beings being able to harm them. If CoM attacks always counted as 'magic weapons' then they wouldn't bother mentioning dragons since they are already established as CoM.

There's no mention of SNPS alone being adequate either (Titan Juicers).

[Trooper Jim]

The quote that says they can is not in vampire kingdoms it is in murder wrath right up in juicer uprising. You are asking for quotes to prove they can hurt murder wraths, the quote is in the juicer uprising.

Reproduce the quote you're referring to?

The one I created the thread about only referred to supernatural beings, and then listed dragons as an example.

2nd half of your post is presently illegible to me.

Page 53 of The Juicer Uprising, says.

"Vulnerabilities/Penalties:
1. Silver and Magical Weapons: Weapons made of or coated with silver do full damage. Mega-damage magic and magic weapons also do full damage. Hand to hand attacks from supernatural beings like vampires, dragons, etc., as well as magic weapons and magic spells, inflict hit point damage equivalents to their M.D. damage (i.e., one point of M.D. damage will inflict one hit point to the Murder-Wraith). S.D.C. magical attacks do half damage. Holy weapons and rune weapons that do extra damage to vampires do double damage (or the damage bonus against vampires/undead, whichever is higher)."

[dreicunan]

Just to remind everyone who it is that "advocated thinking" that Dragons are Creatures of Magic and not Supernatural Beings, his name is Kevin Siembieda, and you can read what he wrote on p. 276 of RUE where Creatures of Magic are defined. Those are the rules now. That wasn't the case when Juicer Uprising was written. What one does now is a GM call.

In light of the example of how vampires take damage in VK Revised, my suggestion is that anyone with Supernatural PS damages a Murder Wraith. Since Murder Wraiths also take full damage from magic weapons, I'd say that Creatures of Magic should inflict full damage regardless of supernatural strength.

[Axelmania]

Page 53 of The Juicer Uprising, says.

"Vulnerabilities/Penalties:
1. Silver and Magical Weapons: Weapons made of or coated with silver do full damage. Mega-damage magic and magic weapons also do full damage. Hand to hand attacks from supernatural beings like vampires, dragons, etc., as well as magic weapons and magic spells, inflict hit point damage equivalents to their M.D. damage (i.e., one point of M.D. damage will inflict one hit point to the Murder-Wraith). S.D.C. magical attacks do half damage. Holy weapons and rune weapons that do extra damage to vampires do double damage (or the damage bonus against vampires/undead, whichever is higher)."

I'm not sure why you're quoting what I already quoted.

The point is that "vampires, dragons, etc." are merely given examples of the root statement: supernatural beings. Otherwise "etc" wouldn't make sense.

Just to remind everyone who it is that "advocated thinking" that Dragons are Creatures of Magic and not Supernatural Beings, his name is Kevin Siembieda, and you can read what he wrote on p. 276 of RUE where Creatures of Magic are defined. Those are the rules now. That wasn't the case when Juicer Uprising was written. What one does now is a GM call.

Creatures of Magic and Supernatural Beings have always meant different things.

They were never mutually exclusive things to begin with, and they still aren't.

RUE 276 when defining Creatures of Magic talks about there being a distinction between the terms, and that people get the concepts confused, but not that you can't be either.

All that RUE 277 jibber jabber about "not even part of our plane of existence" is just about the God/Demon variants of Supernatural Beings. SBs as a whole have no glossary entry.

In light of the example of how vampires take damage in VK Revised, my suggestion is that anyone with Supernatural PS damages a Murder Wraith. Since Murder Wraiths also take full damage from magic weapons, I'd say that Creatures of Magic should inflict full damage regardless of supernatural strength.

Well that's just a disheartening nerf. Murder Wraiths are explicitly less vulnerable than vampires, so what applies to them shouldn't also apply to the Wraiths.

[dreicunan]

Just to remind everyone who it is that "advocated thinking" that Dragons are Creatures of Magic and not Supernatural Beings, his name is Kevin Siembieda, and you can read what he wrote on p. 276 of RUE where Creatures of Magic are defined. Those are the rules now. That wasn't the case when Juicer Uprising was written. What one does now is a GM call.

Creatures of Magic and Supernatural Beings have always meant different things.

They were never mutually exclusive things to begin with, and they still aren't.

RUE 276 when defining Creatures of Magic talks about there being a distinction between the terms, and that people get the concepts confused, but not that you can't be either.

All that RUE 277 jibber jabber about "not even part of our plane of existence" is just about the God/Demon variants of Supernatural Beings. SBs as a whole have no glossary entry.

First, you meant to say "but not that you can't be both." Second, you can't be both short of, maybe, deific interference. The entire point of the creature of magic entry is to show that they are distinct from supernatural beings.

Also, you seriously have to be the least consistent taker of positions on this board. You've cited that very entry in the past in attempts to prove that the definition of Supernatural Beings had changed due to some creatures classified as Supernatural Beings have life-spans (something about which you were also wrong) and thus the definitions of Creature of Magic and Supernatural Beings were thus no longer mutually exclusive (notice how you used to think that you actually needed to prove a change since as written in RUE they were mutually exclusive?). Now you claim that the entry in a section titled "Notable Game & Rifts Terms" - a section that is full of definitions of terms - is somehow not defining the term? Please, enlighten us as to what other definitions of terms aren't definitions of terms in your mind!

In light of the example of how vampires take damage in VK Revised, my suggestion is that anyone with Supernatural PS damages a Murder Wraith. Since Murder Wraiths also take full damage from magic weapons, I'd say that Creatures of Magic should inflict full damage regardless of supernatural strength.

Well that's just a disheartening nerf. Murder Wraiths are explicitly less vulnerable than vampires, so what applies to them shouldn't also apply to the Wraiths.

That is in no way a nerf (and even if it were, how it could be disheartening to you is beyond me). Murder Wraiths are not explicitly stated to be less vulnerable than vampires. Murder Wraiths are explicitly "harder to kill than vampires." That is objectively true for a number of reasons, some of which do relate to vulnerabilities that vampires have and murder wraiths don't. For example, as unlike vampires they don't have to fear squirt guns, are inconvenienced but not damaged by sunlight, and you can't improvise weapons against them by breaking the legs off of wooden chairs or wrapping your hands in duck-tape and plunging them into a tub of wooden toothpicks. However, they could share all the same vulnerabilities as a vampire and still be harder to kill by virture of their huge amount of HP and still having their Juicer bonuses.

Also, I'd say that using vampires as a guide is quite appropriate, given that they explicitly take double damage from holy and rune weapons that do extra damage to vampires OR the damage bonus against vampires/undead, whichever is higher. Keep in mind that this means that it is possible for a weapon which does extra damage to vampires to be MORE damaging to a Murder Wraith than to a Vampire. So much for them being even implicitly less vulnerable than a vampire, because they are explicitly shown to be just as or more vulnerable to weapons designed to inflict extra damage to vampires than a vampire itself is!

[Axelmania]

First, you meant to say "but not that you can't be both."

Yup!

Second, you can't be both short of, maybe, deific interference. The entire point of the creature of magic entry is to show that they are distinct from supernatural beings.

Bakers are distinct from butchers, people with giantism are distinct from people with autism, but you can still have overlap between separately defined things.

Also, you seriously have to be the least consistent taker of positions on this board. You've cited that very entry in the past in attempts to prove that the definition of Supernatural Beings had changed due to some creatures classified as Supernatural Beings have life-spans (something about which you were also wrong) and thus the definitions of Creature of Magic and Supernatural Beings were thus no longer mutually exclusive (notice how you used to think that you actually needed to prove a change since as written in RUE they were mutually exclusive?).

Actually, when you look closely at the RUE glossary, they're never defined as mutually exclusive. People simply assumed that due to mortal/immortal definitions even though it's only God/Demon SBs who are defined as immortal cross-dimensional reincarnators (as there is no general glossary for other SBs)

Now you claim that the entry in a section titled "Notable Game & Rifts Terms" - a section that is full of definitions of terms - is somehow not defining the term? Please, enlighten us as to what other definitions of terms aren't definitions of terms in your mind!

The entry is defining the term in respect to gods and demons.

Murder Wraiths are not explicitly stated to be less vulnerable than vampires. Murder Wraiths are explicitly "harder to kill than vampires." That is objectively true for a number of reasons, some of which do relate to vulnerabilities that vampires have and murder wraiths don't.

"Harder to kill" and "less vulnerable" sound like synonymous phrases to me.

Also, I'd say that using vampires as a guide is quite appropriate, given that they explicitly take double damage from holy and rune weapons that do extra damage to vampires OR the damage bonus against vampires/undead, whichever is higher. Keep in mind that this means that it is possible for a weapon which does extra damage to vampires to be MORE damaging to a Murder Wraith than to a Vampire. So much for them being even implicitly less vulnerable than a vampire, because they are explicitly shown to be just as or more vulnerable to weapons designed to inflict extra damage to vampires than a vampire itself is!

That's only for weapons, not natural attacks of supernatural beings.

[dreicunan]

Second, you can't be both short of, maybe, deific interference. The entire point of the creature of magic entry is to show that they are distinct from supernatural beings.

Bakers are distinct from butchers, people with giantism are distinct from people with autism, but you can still have overlap between separately defined things.

You never can get your analogies correct. The better one would be that dogs can have narcolepsy and humans can have narcolepsy. That doesn't mean that you can be both a dog and a human. Seriously, see the note, yet again, about dragons snarling at the suggestion of them having more in common with supernatural beings than with humans on p. 276. The entire last paragraph goes out of its way to point out that Creatures of Magic and Supernatural Beings can do a bunch of the same things, but are not the same thing. That you can read that and then go "but you can be both" is mind-boggling.

Also, you seriously have to be the least consistent taker of positions on this board. You've cited that very entry in the past in attempts to prove that the definition of Supernatural Beings had changed due to some creatures classified as Supernatural Beings have life-spans (something about which you were also wrong) and thus the definitions of Creature of Magic and Supernatural Beings were thus no longer mutually exclusive (notice how you used to think that you actually needed to prove a change since as written in RUE they were mutually exclusive?).

Actually, when you look closely at the RUE glossary, they're never defined as mutually exclusive. People simply assumed that due to mortal/immortal definitions even though it's only God/Demon SBs who are defined as immortal cross-dimensional reincarnators (as there is no general glossary for other SBs)

See above. Also, once again, the whole "mortal/immortal definitions" (you've abandoned "dichotomy" now, apparently) is mentioned as a main difference, not the only difference. Even if there is a mortal supernatural being, it does not follow that this eliminates all other differences and the categories are no longer mutually exclusive.

Now you claim that the entry in a section titled "Notable Game & Rifts Terms" - a section that is full of definitions of terms - is somehow not defining the term? Please, enlighten us as to what other definitions of terms aren't definitions of terms in your mind!

The entry is defining the term in respect to gods and demons.

No, it is defining the term in respect to Demons, Gods, and Supernatural Beings. It is right in the bloody title and referenced again in the body text. That it may not conform to how some of the creatures given the label of supernatural being seem to function does not change the fact that the entry on supernatural beings is defining supernatural beings!

Murder Wraiths are not explicitly stated to be less vulnerable than vampires. Murder Wraiths are explicitly "harder to kill than vampires." That is objectively true for a number of reasons, some of which do relate to vulnerabilities that vampires have and murder wraiths don't.

"Harder to kill" and "less vulnerable" sound like synonymous phrases to me.

That they sound like synonymous phrases to you does not make it so. Had you included the full quote, you'd have included the text where I noted some vulnerabilities that they don't share with vampires before noting that even if they did, they would still be harder to kill, thus demonstrating how the phrases are not synonymous in this case.

Also, I'd say that using vampires as a guide is quite appropriate, given that they explicitly take double damage from holy and rune weapons that do extra damage to vampires OR the damage bonus against vampires/undead, whichever is higher. Keep in mind that this means that it is possible for a weapon which does extra damage to vampires to be MORE damaging to a Murder Wraith than to a Vampire. So much for them being even implicitly less vulnerable than a vampire, because they are explicitly shown to be just as or more vulnerable to weapons designed to inflict extra damage to vampires than a vampire itself is!

That's only for weapons, not natural attacks of supernatural beings.

And? Seriously, what's your point? We already know how to deal with the natural attacks of supernatural creatures. How, specifically, does what you said relate in any way, shape, or form to the appropriateness of using vampires as a guideline for if creatures of magic should be able to damageMurder Wraiths?

[Axelmania]

see the note, yet again, about dragons snarling at the suggestion of them having more in common with supernatural beings than with humans on p. 276.

Irrelevant, they are irrational emotional creatures who are hostile to their own young.

The entire last paragraph goes out of its way to point out that Creatures of Magic and Supernatural Beings can do a bunch of the same things, but are not the same thing. That you can read that and then go "but you can be both" is mind-boggling.

Someone who is just a genius is different from someone who is just a wrestler. But you can be a genius and a wrestler.

the whole "mortal/immortal definitions" (you've abandoned "dichotomy" now, apparently) is mentioned as a main difference, not the only difference. Even if there is a mortal supernatural being, it does not follow that this eliminates all other differences and the categories are no longer mutually exclusive.

The other difference, keeping in mind that this section is only about SBs who are demons and gods, is that if they come to Rifts Earth from another dimension and die, they'll reincarnate in their home dimension.

I don't get the impression that this would happen to Royal Kreeghor if they invaded Rifts Earth. We've only been told about this happening to gods/demons.

it is defining the term in respect to Demons, Gods, and Supernatural Beings. It is right in the bloody title and referenced again in the body text. That it may not conform to how some of the creatures given the label of supernatural being seem to function does not change the fact that the entry on supernatural beings is defining supernatural beings!

SOME of them, not all of them. If I write an article about "footballers, basketballers and athletes" it would be wrong to assume that such an article is about ALL athletes.

We already know how to deal with the natural attacks of supernatural creatures. How, specifically, does what you said relate in any way, shape, or form to the appropriateness of using vampires as a guideline for if creatures of magic should be able to damageMurder Wraiths?

The problem with that is there's no mention about Murder Wraiths being vulnerable to Creatures of Magic, nor any mention that natural attacks from Creatures of Magic always qualify as magic weapons.

The closest match you might find to that is the Zavor, but I don't think that makes it a universal rule.

[Blue_Lion]

Ok here is a quote from you.

I was reading Juicer Uprising and it says Supernatural Beings can hurt them (giving a dragon as an example) but it doesn't say anything about Creatures of Magic (like Fairies) being able to.

So it gave a dragon as an example of a creature that can hurt them. Meaning a dragon can hurt them, based on your own statement.

My statement means supernatural beings can hurt them, so long as dragons are supernatural beings.

Page 52 "Hand to hand attacks from supernatural beings like vampires, dragons, etc. as well as magic weapons and magic spells , inflict hit point damage equivalents to their MD damage"

There is no mention of creatures of magic who are not supernatural beings being able to harm them. If CoM attacks always counted as 'magic weapons' then they wouldn't bother mentioning dragons since they are already established as CoM.

There's no mention of SNPS alone being adequate either (Titan Juicers).

Supernatural beings like..... dragons.

So they say beings like dragons can hurt them. There are many similarities between com and sn. So beings like dragons according to the book can hurt them.

The rules in rue about SNPS talk about creatures with it as SN.
So there are two possible conclusions that do not require the rules being wrong.
1 CoM can hurt them.
2 any creature with snps is treated as sn for purposes of damage.

So then you look to other books for to see if there is a pattern to support one or the other.

[eliakon]

Honestly...
The rules are so hazy and contradictory that attempting to make a ridged claim of One True Canon is pretty pointless.
This is, yet another, area where the GM is going to have to just make some calls and move on.

[Axelmania]

The rules in rue about SNPS talk about creatures with it as SN.
So there are two possible conclusions that do not require the rules being wrong.
1 CoM can hurt them.
2 any creature with snps is treated as sn for purposes of damage.

So then you look to other books for to see if there is a pattern to support one or the other.

Exact quotes for places which imply anyone with SNPS qualifies as a supernatural being when assessing their damage.

[Blue_Lion]

The rules in rue about SNPS talk about creatures with it as SN.
So there are two possible conclusions that do not require the rules being wrong.
1 CoM can hurt them.
2 any creature with snps is treated as sn for purposes of damage.

So then you look to other books for to see if there is a pattern to support one or the other.

Exact quotes for places which imply anyone with SNPS qualifies as a supernatural being when assessing their damage.

Page 285 Supernatural strength and damage.
Reading thogh the whole section it is clearly primarly refering to supernatual creatures, in is description of what SN PS is.
here is a simplification summery of SNPS from the book.
"Simply put, supernatural beings are NOT human. They are something else. Creatures that defy the laws of physics and draw upon arcane forces and energies (like magic) as part of their innate essence. Their supernatural aspect gives them Mega-Damage strength and endurance, and makes them natural M.D.C. creatures (i.e. flesh like Mega-Damage steel)."


By itself it does not imply anything but when in context of the description of Supernatural Strength and Damage it implies they are talking about SNPS as SN creatures. It is a context thing read the section and you will see they are addressing supernatural creatures in what they tell us is SNPS.

[Axelmania]

That's irrelevant background material explaining the usual underlying cause of gaining supernatural PS. It doesn't mean that anyone with SNPS is MDC (Titan Juicers clearly disprove that, they remain SDC) or that anyone with SNPS is supernatural.

[Blue_Lion]

That's irrelevant background material explaining the usual underlying cause of gaining supernatural PS. It doesn't mean that anyone with SNPS is MDC (Titan Juicers clearly disprove that, they remain SDC) or that anyone with SNPS is supernatural.

Wait how the book describes SNPS is irrelvent?
Does an exception to a rule disprove the rule? (nope it does not)

You asked for what implies SNPS is SN I provided it to you. You then call it irrelevant because it does not fit your idea that there is a problem in the murder wrath write up. How SNPS is defined is very relevant to this issue. Also does it ever say a titian juicer can not hurt them?


Would having a SN quality not make you a SN in a certian way even if you are not a true SN creature. Also on the next page the damage from SNPS is referd to as SN when it talks about mellee weapo damage.

[Axelmania]

It's not a description of SNPS, it's a foreword about beings who commonly have it.

Sort of like how magic spells have forewords about how some people learn magic that is not an absolute requirement you must have to learn it.

[keir451]

Short answer is: "Yes they can", this also means that Sea Titans can hurt Murder Wraiths as well as they are Supernatural beings too.

[Blue_Lion]

It's not a description of SNPS, it's a foreword about beings who commonly have it.

Sort of like how magic spells have forewords about how some people learn magic that is not an absolute requirement you must have to learn it.

Who used the word requirement we are talking about something that is implied, not something stated as a requirement. So demanding a requirement statement when asking about where something is implied seams rather lopsided way to hold a debate.

A statement about people learning a spell implies it is learned, that is not a requirement for it to be learned. Just something that is implied.

I do not think foreword is the right word for what you are referring to. The text you are dismissing as foreword in this case is the bulk of the text on snps kind of odd for the interduction to be the bulk. It contues after the listing of several mechanical values. Again that sort of rules out it being a foreword.


However it is not written as a mechincal value so, flavor text would be more accurate refence.

[Axelmania]

I prefer foreword, not flavor text. The latter is a heavily abused phrase.

[Blue_Lion]

I prefer foreword, not flavor text. The latter is a heavily abused phrase.

Foreword as you are using it is incorrect.(foreword Brief intro typicallly to a book usally by some one other than the author. That means the bulk of the text in question can not be a foreword. Less so when the text you are calling foreword is in both the beginning and end so it is not a intro to a topic.)

Flavor text is more accaurate because it referse to text that describes things without adding mechanical value.

Flavor text is not a heavely abused phrase it is used to distigish between mechanics and non mechanics.

[guardiandashi]

I prefer foreword, not flavor text. The latter is a heavily abused phrase.

Foreword as you are using it is incorrect.(foreword Brief intro typicallly to a book usally by some one other than the author. That means the bulk of the text in question can not be a foreword. Less so when the text you are calling foreword is in both the beginning and end so it is not a intro to a topic.)

Flavor text is more accaurate because it referse to text that describes things without adding mechanical value.

Flavor text is not a heavely abused phrase it is used to distigish between mechanics and non mechanics.

there is a reason I tend to mostly ignore Axelmania at this point if it doesn't fit his narrative he comes up with creative ways to "bend fold and spindle" the facts to try to get it to fit his narrative

Warning: Please keep your comments to the discussion at hand, and avoid personal comments. Mack

[Axelmania]

BL, "foreword" can be in respect to a section, it doesn't need to be just at the start of books.

[Blue_Lion]

BL, "foreword" can be in respect to a section, it doesn't need to be just at the start of books.

I never claimed it had to be just the start of the book just that typically is what it is. However brief intro-does kind prevent the text in question because it is not brief but makes up over half the text on the topic. It is not a intro but talking about SNPS. It wraps around the mechanical value in front and behind. It is impossible for the text to be seen as a brief intro.

Simply you misused your word of the day.

[Axelmania]

I never claimed it had to be just the start of the book just that typically is what it is.

You did however, use this description of typicality to call my usage incorrect.

However brief intro-does kind prevent the text in question because it is not brief but makes up over half the text on the topic.

This wouldn't be the first time that a Palladium author spends the majority of space that's supposed to be about something, talking about something else. Remember Psyscape?

It is not a intro but talking about SNPS. It wraps around the mechanical value in front and behind. It is impossible for the text to be seen as a brief intro. Simply you misused your word of the day.

RUE 285 opens with:

Demons and other supernatural creatures inflict Mega-Damage from their punches, kicks and bites.

Nothing about this implies that other creatures who inflict MD from their attacks (even if due to having supernatural PS) are considered supernatural beings.

It's merely the most well known examples of SNPS.

[Blue_Lion]

I never claimed it had to be just the start of the book just that typically is what it is.

You did however, use this description of typicality to call my usage incorrect.

However brief intro-does kind prevent the text in question because it is not brief but makes up over half the text on the topic.

This wouldn't be the first time that a Palladium author spends the majority of space that's supposed to be about something, talking about something else. Remember Psyscape?

It is not a intro but talking about SNPS. It wraps around the mechanical value in front and behind. It is impossible for the text to be seen as a brief intro. Simply you misused your word of the day.

RUE 285 opens with:

Demons and other supernatural creatures inflict Mega-Damage from their punches, kicks and bites.

Nothing about this implies that other creatures who inflict MD from their attacks (even if due to having supernatural PS) are considered supernatural beings.

It's merely the most well known examples of SNPS.

No I used the definition to say your use age was incorrect. My focus was not the typically part but that it was not a introduction but the bulk of the text. I even stated that the section the bulk of the text. So I did not state or even imply that it had to be the intro to the book. Just that the text is not a introduction to the topic, but the topic itself. (Is there perhaps a comprehension problem at play here?)

Cherry picking and removing the context removes the implication. The section as a whole defining SNPS only adresses SN creatures. That is what implies it. I even said it is the context that implies it not the statement by itself.

So in a vacume no statement implies it but the context and section as a whole does imply they are adressing SNPS as SN creature.

Context is the section of the book telling us what SNPS is, and they only discus SNC even though the only creature in the book with SNPS is not a SN creature. (So the context implies they are treating SNPS and SNC as the same.)

[Axelmania]

Blue Lion, you are imagining an implication where there is none. This is purely speculation. Nothing here mentions anything about hits from non-supernatural beings with supernatural PS being counted as supernatural beings.

[Blue_Lion]

Blue Lion, you are imagining an implication where there is none. This is purely speculation. Nothing here mentions anything about hits from non-supernatural beings with supernatural PS being counted as supernatural beings.

If it mentioned it then it would be statement, not something that is implied.
If something is implied then it is not said directly.

Are you unfamiliar with the meaning of imply? (It is a rather abstracted concept in English.)

After all this started because you asked for where it implies that any one with snps is treated as SN in response to a statement about two possible ways for the books to be right about dragons hurting murder wraths.

[Axelmania]

Implications are still statements of a sort. There is neither a literal statement nor any statement which is an implication.

[Blue_Lion]

Implications are still statements of a sort. There is neither a literal statement nor any statement which is an implication.

Again you seam to be lacking an understanding of imply.
It is not something said, it comes from the context. It comes from the text as a whole.

If the are telling you what Supernatural strength but only talk about supernatural creatures and how they break physics, even though lots of non supernatural creatures have supernatural strength that implies that those with the SNPS are being treated as SN for the context of SNPS. It even implies the damage is supernatural damage.

RUE pg 286 "Supernatural Damage and Hand Weapons: When wielding a hand weapon, such as swords, clubs and knives, supernatural beings inflict either the weapon damage plus P.S. damage bonus (in S.D.C.), or their own P.S. damage as per Supernatural Strength, whichever is greater. "


See they are talking about damage from supernatural strength as super natural damage.

So the implication is there you just refuse to acknowledge it because it is out side of the narrative that you are pushing. Demanding a statement that states something that is implied as you have done is illogical.


An implied message is not sufficient evidence to change how things are done in RAW, but it is still implied by text.

(I would be surprised if there was not more creatures with snps that do not meet the currant definition of supernatural creature than those that are supernatural creature.)

**The real issue is***
Dragons in rifts have always been CoM so the refence to them as an example of SN to damage the murder wrath is treating them as super natural. That leads to a few logical conclusions that do not require the book to be wrong. 1 the murder wrath treats CoM as supernatural. 2 The murder wrath treats CoM with SNPS as SN. 3 The damage of all SNPS creatures is SN.

[Axelmania]

implies that those with the SNPS are being treated as SN for the context of SNPS

It really doesn't. I mean, it goes on to say:

Their supernatural aspects gives them Mega-Damage strength and endurance, and makes them natural MDC creatures"

So I suppose I should just declare that anyone with supernatural PS turns MDC as well. After all, it's implied!

I can acknowledge that you have a speculation about a perceived implication, but I do not have to "acknowledge" your perception/speculation as legitimate, because it doesn't seem like that to me.

Dragons in rifts have always been CoM

Actually they've been dual-category CoM/SBs for over a decade.

[dreicunan]

Dragons in rifts have always been CoM

Actually they've been dual-category CoM/SBs for over a decade.

They aren't and you know that. They are only creatures of magic per RUE. For anyone late to the thread, see my previous posts on the matter.

[Blue_Lion]

implies that those with the SNPS are being treated as SN for the context of SNPS

It really doesn't. I mean, it goes on to say:

Their supernatural aspects gives them Mega-Damage strength and endurance, and makes them natural MDC creatures"

So I suppose I should just declare that anyone with supernatural PS turns MDC as well. After all, it's implied!

I can acknowledge that you have a speculation about a perceived implication, but I do not have to "acknowledge" your perception/speculation as legitimate, because it doesn't seem like that to me.

Dragons in rifts have always been CoM

Actually they've been dual-category CoM/SBs for over a decade.

That seam like you are trying to erect another straw man to knock down. A vast majority are MDC those that are not could be seen as an exception to the rule about being MDC. A creatures stats can be different than general rules. (Just because something is implied does not make it true.)

All statements about SN before rue was printed would be subject to change found in RUE. Currant defintion of SN does not allow dragons to be SN. But as the rule books says people often get creature of magic and Supernatural creatures confused because they often share some of the same categories.


I guess it is fair that you acknowledge you can not see my perspective after all you have demonstrated an perception of the rules that I find illogical on more than one occasion.

[Axelmania]

Actually they've been dual-category CoM/SBs for over a decade.

They aren't and you know that. They are only creatures of magic per RUE. For anyone late to the thread, see my previous posts on the matter.

RUE was 2005. 1990>2005 is 15 years, thus "over a decade". Also I don't agree that RUE fully establishes they aren't supernatural beings, because the glossary entry is only talking about gods+demons.

That seam like you are trying to erect another straw man to knock down. A vast majority are MDC those that are not could be seen as an exception to the rule about being MDC.

There is no "rule" to except. The description of Supernatural PS never has any ruling about being MDC or operating like a supernatural being. It is simply providing background information about creatures which commonly have it. There are no implications.

Currant defintion of SN does not allow dragons to be SN.

a 2005 definition (now 13 years old) is hardly "current", and it has clearly been taken out of context because it's only talking about greater supernatural beings: demons and gods.

But as the rule books says people often get creature of magic and Supernatural creatures confused because they often share some of the same categories.

I guess it is fair that you acknowledge you can not see my perspective after all you have demonstrated an perception of the rules that I find illogical on more than one occasion.

This doesn't shatter my confidence.

[Blue_Lion]

Tense you said been that implies that is how they are so you whole rant is wrong.

Being 13 years old does no mean it is not the currant one used.

Nothing in the context indicates it was referring to just greater Supernatural beings. That is just a unsupported theory.

[Axelmania]

Tense you said been that implies that is how they are so you whole rant is wrong.

Can anyone translate this for me?

Nothing in the context indicates it was referring to just greater Supernatural beings. That is just a unsupported theory.

277 refers to things which are "Demons, Gods & Supernatural Beings" and only describes "all supernatural beings, be they gods or demons".

If I say "all fruits, be they apples or oranges" I think whether or not that includes pears can be argued.

The 2nd paragraph says "one way for great supernatural beings". The "great" refers to the "demons or gods" previously established. Pears simply are not great.

The 1st paragraph insists "They are not creatures of our Earth". This proves the section is not about ALL supernatural beings, because there ARE supernatural beings who ARE creatures of our Earth. Captain Nemo, for example, is a native of Earth.

[Blue_Lion]

it has been brought to my attention that you have a problem understanding that been is a statement that reflect a present tense.
When you say something has been a way for a decade, that means you are saying that it that way now starting a decade.
If you say some was that way for decade that does not include he present tense.


Context makes your apples or oranges statement seam bizarre, it almost seams you are arguing against yourself as you pointed out it can include pears. As it was used it shows examples of extremes polar opposites but does not mean it is limited to that.


Like if I say all men, be they saint or felon are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect.
The context does not exclude some who is neither saint or felon.

Also the title of the section is Demons, Gods & Supernatural Beings.(so that says there is more to it than just gods and demons oh my.)

The first paragraph by context is a general statement that used demons and gods as examples of extremes. The second paragraph is talking about great supernatural beings like alien intelligence as it specifies great supernatural beings. The third paragraph is talking about lesser and greater demons, dyvlans and other supernatural beings. (so again not limiting to just greater SN) The forth and final is talking about demons and other supernatural beings.

Basically only one paragraph is talking about great supernatural beings. The rest as written do not have any contextual limit to just greater supernatural.

[dreicunan]

Actually they've been dual-category CoM/SBs for over a decade.

They aren't and you know that. They are only creatures of magic per RUE. For anyone late to the thread, see my previous posts on the matter.

RUE was 2005. 1990>2005 is 15 years, thus "over a decade". Also I don't agree that RUE fully establishes they aren't supernatural beings, because the glossary entry is only talking about gods+demons.

For those who aren't aware, this is Axel's new take on the situation, as he most definitely recognized in the past that RUE was clear on the matter when he was trying to argue that the error in DB10 listing for Gargoyles invalidated what he termed in the past as the "mortality dichotomy" he claims was a necessary distinction between creatures of magic and supernatural creatures (failing to,understand that "main difference" does not mean "only difference"). Had he believed that it didn't apply to dragons, he'd never have needed to make that argument. After that argument repeatedly failed him, rather than admitting error, he's continuously attempted to reshape it. This is the latest manifestation. Note how,he conveniently ignores the definition of creatures of magic from RUE p. 276n which makes it clear that dragons are creatures of magic and not supernatural beings.