Paired Weapons, Automatic Parry and Simultaneous Attack.

[Dog_O_War]

Dog, the issue of "out of attacks" and "borrowing" in relation to "you can only parry" then saying "may opt to dodge" does not invalidate.

No, I'm saying that the rule contradicts itself in the very same paragraph; "you can only parry" "may opt to dodge"
So you can only parry, except when you are dodging (a real iron-clad rule)


Which brings us to this next point; you may "opt to dodge, but each dodge will take away one of his attacks from the next melee round", but "instead of defending with a parry, dodge or entangle, a character can choose to do a simultaneous attack".

Which you may be thinking that the above is 'not the same kind of example' of a contradicting rule telling us that we can in-fact do stuff the rules literally tell us we otherwise can't do, so then I must refer you to STEP 3; the Defender may Parry, Dodge, or Entangle. It doesn't say "simultaneous attack" in there, but we know we can do it because simultaneous attack says we can.

Just like the combat note says we can use up attacks from next round, this round.

[Alrik Vas]

Actually, "You can only parry unless you're dodging" isn't strictly contradictory, it's making an exception. The difference exists because we understand how parry works, in that it's an automatic action if you have combat training. It says in Paried Weapons where it states you can't auto parry when you twin strike, they then says you can dodge, but it would take an attack. This is a similar exception to the rule.

[Tor]

It's worth noting folks that in N&SS there's a special kata that gives you BOTH a dodge AND a parry in response to attacks.

Of course when you're using it, you can't attack that melee.

Which brings us to this next point; you may "opt to dodge, but each dodge will take away one of his attacks from the next melee round", but "instead of defending with a parry, dodge or entangle, a character can choose to do a simultaneous attack".

Once you've opted to dodge, you can't opt to simultaneous attack.

Once you've opted to simultaneous attack, you can't opt to dodge.

The borrowing condition is dodge. If you opt to dodge then you can't opt to discard your dodge.

[Balabanto]

it is a knee jerk reactionary response to a proposed problem that ignores the underlying design elements of the active defense. (it cheapens the dodge/auto-dodge abilities).
It makes combat monsters better by actively eliminating the need for dodges in combat.
Why should I bother with dodging (unless its a ranged attack) when I can just preform free actions until I run out of actions then I can use dodge for free (even if my class/hth doesnt allow for auto-dodge).

Because if an attack deals tons of damage, and you know it's coming, you may wish to dodge it! Many people in my games do not actually WANT their characters to be hit by things like TW Annihilate Grenades, the area of a medium range missile fired by a forager battlebot, or one of those horrible antitank weapons from South America. Heck, a Coalition recon squad, through sheer number of attacks, can easily eat the actions of a small group of PCs. Heck, a Wilks 457 laser rifle can put out 50 or 60 on a good roll. Armor in Rifts is made of metaphorical tofu. Concentrated firepower kills characters whether they take cover or not. God forbid you should be playing a coalition only campaign and have extremely limited armor repair.

In general, the best defense is not being there. Even cover only limits their fire, and massed fire still makes you not particularly lucky if there's a bunch of them, whoever they are. 13 years of playtesting tells me that this is the most effective way to solve the simultaneous attack problem.

[Alrik Vas]

Well, Balabanto, to be honest...when you are attacked by concentrated fire, you tend to no care because you're invulnerable, you have a place to hide where you will not be hit, or you die very quickly. This is why people tend to put their hands up when surrounded by coalition soldiers.

[Dog_O_War]

Actually, "You can only parry unless you're dodging" isn't strictly contradictory, it's making an exception. The difference exists because we understand how parry works, in that it's an automatic action if you have combat training. It says in Paried Weapons where it states you can't auto parry when you twin strike, they then says you can dodge, but it would take an attack. This is a similar exception to the rule.

Saying you can only do one thing and then saying that you can also do another thing is the exact definition of contradictory.
only
contradiction

[Dog_O_War]

It's worth noting folks that in N&SS there's a special kata that gives you BOTH a dodge AND a parry in response to attacks.

Of course when you're using it, you can't attack that melee.

Which brings us to this next point; you may "opt to dodge, but each dodge will take away one of his attacks from the next melee round", but "instead of defending with a parry, dodge or entangle, a character can choose to do a simultaneous attack".

Once you've opted to dodge, you can't opt to simultaneous attack.

Once you've opted to simultaneous attack, you can't opt to dodge.

The borrowing condition is dodge. If you opt to dodge then you can't opt to discard your dodge.

That's the thing though; you aren't "opting to dodge". Dodge is an option, so when dodging is an option, simultaneous attack is an option.
And the rules show us that it is completely and utterly possible to use attacks from the next round in the current round.

[Dog_O_War]

it is a knee jerk reactionary response to a proposed problem that ignores the underlying design elements of the active defense. (it cheapens the dodge/auto-dodge abilities).
It makes combat monsters better by actively eliminating the need for dodges in combat.
Why should I bother with dodging (unless its a ranged attack) when I can just preform free actions until I run out of actions then I can use dodge for free (even if my class/hth doesnt allow for auto-dodge).

Because if an attack deals tons of damage, and you know it's coming, you may wish to dodge it! Many people in my games do not actually WANT their characters to be hit by things like TW Annihilate Grenades, the area of a medium range missile fired by a forager battlebot, or one of those horrible antitank weapons from South America. Heck, a Coalition recon squad, through sheer number of attacks, can easily eat the actions of a small group of PCs. Heck, a Wilks 457 laser rifle can put out 50 or 60 on a good roll. Armor in Rifts is made of metaphorical tofu. Concentrated firepower kills characters whether they take cover or not. God forbid you should be playing a coalition only campaign and have extremely limited armor repair.

In general, the best defense is not being there. Even cover only limits their fire, and massed fire still makes you not particularly lucky if there's a bunch of them, whoever they are. 13 years of playtesting tells me that this is the most effective way to solve the simultaneous attack problem.

What are you talking about?

Your method only makes it worse. Now a full 'borg and the like can duke it out with ten soldiers with even greater ease. He simultaneous attacks them with area weapons, either hitting them (the over-all goal) or forcing them to dodge, but either way he eats up their attacks and lives like a blender, and then when he's out of attacks, he gets to dodge for free like a Juicer, except he's got about 3-400 MDC on a Juicer.

Meanwhile the fragile characters are still receiving maximum disadvantage and the tough characters are now even more deadly, all thanks to being able to dodge for free (making them even tougher).

[Alrik Vas]

Actually, "You can only parry unless you're dodging" isn't strictly contradictory, it's making an exception. The difference exists because we understand how parry works, in that it's an automatic action if you have combat training. It says in Paried Weapons where it states you can't auto parry when you twin strike, they then says you can dodge, but it would take an attack. This is a similar exception to the rule.

Saying you can only do one thing and then saying that you can also do another thing is the exact definition of contradictory.
only
contradiction

Regardless of contradiction (and well pointed out by definition /conceed to dictionary.com), my argument that it's a listed exception is more than valid. Arguing the little bits and pieces only gets us off track and into wacky mode again.

And for the record, the ability to dodge in of itself does not allow a simultaneous attack. Having an attack per melee to spend any way you like does, however. Borrowing an action from a future melee doesn't give you an action, it gives you a dodge. It's so clearly stated i don't see why we're having this argument still. If you can't see that for what it is, i don't know what else to tell you.

[Dog_O_War]

Regardless of contradiction (and well pointed out by definition /conceed to dictionary.com), my argument that it's a listed exception is more than valid. Arguing the little bits and pieces only gets us off track and into wacky mode again.

And for the record, the ability to dodge in of itself does not allow a simultaneous attack. Having an attack per melee to spend any way you like does, however. Borrowing an action from a future melee doesn't give you an action, it gives you a dodge. It's so clearly stated i don't see why we're having this argument still. If you can't see that for what it is, i don't know what else to tell you.

I never said that the ability to dodge allows a simultaneous attack; that isn't something I said. I said that having the option to dodge gives way to the option of a simultaneous attack.

Basically, I don't understand the point of this post of yours; you're refuting things I never said.

Besides this; I am not sure who I originally said it to in this thread, but "borrow" is a bit of a misnomer, though it is the operative word.

See, you're not really borrowing the action; you are using it; you are taking it and using it and not "putting it back". You use the action this turn, meaning it's unavailable for next turn.


EDIT: missing word

[Tor]

That's the thing though; you aren't "opting to dodge". Dodge is an option, so when dodging is an option, simultaneous attack is an option.
And the rules show us that it is completely and utterly possible to use attacks from the next round in the current round.

The rules allow an exception, to dodge when you are out of attacks, but only dodge.

You are "opting to dodge" because that is EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS.

SA is not an option because it explicitly says when you are out of attacks, you can do nothing except the 2 things mentioned.

I never said that the ability to dodge allows a simultaneous attack; that isn't something I said. I said that having the option to dodge gives way to the option of a simultaneous attack.

I'm having trouble understanding the distinction between these statements.

Whether it's "allows" or "gives way", your logic is not supported to the text. "Instead of" still requires SAs to use an attack, and it can't be done when you're out of them, period.

[Prysus]

The answer to all of those is no. So either Attacks per Melee as a whole don't exist, or the book doesn't state what you can't do very often.

That is a fair premise. See below as to my response.

Greetings and Salutations. I quoted this to see we at least agree on this matter. I'm going to avoid a lot of other responses because it's mainly nitpicking back and forth, and then repeating the same quotes over and over again. So instead, I'll try to keep this one brief.

Or rather; your question is loaded.

For the record, when someone demands a 'yes' or 'no' answer only and doesn't want any discussion, the questions are almost always loaded, like the questions you asked which I was responding to.

It is a fair and proper assumption that when you are discussing rules, that you are discussing the most up to date rules, unless otherwise noted.

That is completely fair. Of course, that's NOT the reason you dismissed RGMG. Your reasons at the time were ...

At this point, I would like to discredit the RGMG due to Palladium's copy-pasta technique and history of poor editing regarding consistency.

The reasoning here is due to the company's method for publishing books, which discounts all their books, including RUE (also riddled with copy-paste). I'll address them both at the same time though.

1: Focusing only on new books and ignoring the old. Nice in theory, but doesn't work well with Palladium. By that logic, humans can no longer jump. They used to be able to in RMB (12th Printing or higher), but since RUE doesn't have the rules that means all humans have lost their ability to jump (with a few exceptions such as juicers). So the real question is: Has the newer book actually changed anything on the subject? On the subject of jumping, it has not. So there's nothing invalidating the rules of jumping from the older editions. On the subject of Simultaneous Attacks, let's see ...

2: The definition of Simultaneous Attacks and Dodges remain virtually unchanged, the ability to "borrow" (I'll agree not the best term, but we've used it so much the term is clear even if not 100% accurate) is also in both books. So what is it you feel has changed (on this specific subject)? We're not arguing the -10 to dodge rule that's changed. So unless you can actually show something that's changed (on this specific subject of Simultaneous Attack and "borrowing" attacks), there's no reason to invalidate something that's remained the same.

3: As for the copy-paste issue, I still challenge you to find another official Rifts book that contains that information. If you can't, then dismissing it for copy-paste loses its validity. Note: I did say "Rifts," as Tor pointed out another location where this rule can be found. But as you've stated, this is the Rifts forum and non-Rifts books don't apply (hence dismissing references such as those from N&S).

4: Speaking of copy-paste issues though, let's look at the Simultaneous Attack definition! That same definition can be found in RMB, RGMG, and again in RUE. So the whole definition of Simultaneous Attack is a major offender of the copy-paste complaint. If we're discrediting copy-paste jobs, then discredit the entire definition (there are several other parts of RUE that'll get removed as well ... and not sure if Simultaneous Attacks will still exist after you remove all the copy-paste).

5: Let's also talk about "the most up to date rules" and follow history.

- RMB came out in 1990. The definition of Simultaneous Attack existed then, and has remained more or less unchanged for 23 years.
- Somewhere in this time the defintion of Simultaneous Attack caused confusion and debate.
- Sept 2001 RGMG is released, and clarifies the confusion. This clarification mostly consists of what you can NOT do with Simultaneous Attacks (and we agreed above that they more often tell you what you can than what you can't). Note: For Tor, I'll mention that Rifter #16 was released Oct 2001, meaning it came out after the RGMG. I just thought you might find that interesting.
- Sept 2005 RUE is released, reprinting the same definition that caused the initial confusion and didn't include the part that clarified the rule by stating what you can't do with it (which we agreed Palladium doesn't include often).

So is the 23 year old definition or the 12 year old clarification more up to date?

I merely discredited the RGMG because of some valid reasons. Those reasons being that if I wanted to discuss rules, I will read the rule book, not the guide to the rule book.

That's a new reason, and I'm not entirely sure I get this one. The Guide to the rules isn't valid in regards to rules? Did clarification and expanding on something became a bad thing? Did that make sense to anyone else? I'm not even being sarcastic ... I seriously can't follow that logic.

All right, I think that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Dog_O_War]

Or rather; your question is loaded.

For the record, when someone demands a 'yes' or 'no' answer only and doesn't want any discussion, the questions are almost always loaded, like the questions you asked which I was responding to.

The questions I asked were not. All I did was ask if the material you and others are building an argument on was actually present within the quoted sections.

That isn't a loaded question; that was asking for proof regarding the subject matter.

Your question was off-topic and would have required me to effectively admit fault to what you have described below as being a "completely fair" premise for this particular section of the boards; the Rifts forum.

That is the difference.

It is a fair and proper assumption that when you are discussing rules, that you are discussing the most up to date rules, unless otherwise noted.

That is completely fair. Of course, that's NOT the reason you dismissed RGMG. Your reasons at the time were ...

At this point, I would like to discredit the RGMG due to Palladium's copy-pasta technique and history of poor editing regarding consistency.

The reasoning here is due to the company's method for publishing books, which discounts all their books, including RUE (also riddled with copy-paste). I'll address them both at the same time though.

Except now you're being "choosy" with my quotes. I also said to you in response to your previous question regarding the exact same thing;

If you think it's Rifts forum (and not the latter), then why do you think only RUE is an applicable source and no other Rifts book is valid for a Rifts discussion?

I don't. I merely discredited the RGMG because of some valid reasons. Those reasons being that if I wanted to discuss rules, I will read the rule book, not the guide to the rule book.

So now your above response confuses me; what is wrong with my premise? I am taking the rules that the RGMG defers to from the book it references (R:UE) as the most factual and up-to-date piece of information available.

And on top of that there is the question that every poster must ask themselves; is this the old rule, or the new rule?

AND given the context of those two words, 'old' and 'new', which SHOULD a person consider to be the most up to date? (that is rhetorical).

1: Focusing only on new books and ignoring the old. Nice in theory, but doesn't work well with Palladium. By that logic, humans can no longer jump. They used to be able to in RMB (12th Printing or higher), but since RUE doesn't have the rules that means all humans have lost their ability to jump (with a few exceptions such as juicers). So the real question is: Has the newer book actually changed anything on the subject? On the subject of jumping, it has not. So there's nothing invalidating the rules of jumping from the older editions. On the subject of Simultaneous Attacks, let's see ...

Yeah that's nice. I already stated that "I don't" ignore the old. You even quoted a section of the post that contained my answer to this question.

So now I must ask, are you actually reading what I wrote? Because this blurb you've written here leads me to believe you aren't.

2: The definition of Simultaneous Attacks and Dodges remain virtually unchanged, the ability to "borrow" (I'll agree not the best term, but we've used it so much the term is clear even if not 100% accurate) is also in both books. So what is it you feel has changed (on this specific subject)? We're not arguing the -10 to dodge rule that's changed. So unless you can actually show something that's changed (on this specific subject of Simultaneous Attack and "borrowing" attacks), there's no reason to invalidate something that's remained the same.

Now I have to ask if you are even understanding what I have written. You quoted me as saying that I would like to discredit the RGMG; I did not say "ignore", "invalidate" or anything else to that effect.

So what you're posting here is a non-point.

What I have asked is that we use the relevant ruleset; if R:UE has a rule or rules change that is different than [the RGMG] or another book from another setting of Palladiums', I asked that we default to R:UE due to it being the most up-to-date source of the very rules we are discussing.

3: As for the copy-paste issue, I still challenge you to find another official Rifts book that contains that information. If you can't, then dismissing it for copy-paste loses its validity. Note: I did say "Rifts," as Tor pointed out another location where this rule can be found. But as you've stated, this is the Rifts forum and non-Rifts books don't apply (hence dismissing references such as those from N&S).

I don't need to; I have a ruling from the R:UE; Tor's premise was that there were other defences besides dodge, parry, and entangle, yet I stated that in R:UE, the ruleset we are discussing, only parry, dodge, and entangle are stated as being options open to the Defender, initially.

I did note that there are other defensive actions, but they aren't the three the Defender has available to them initially in STEP 3 of combat, now are they?

So what I'm saying here is that because we have an official ruling regarding combat for this ruleset, it's irrelevant for me to dissect the wording of the N&SS steps of combat (if any), because this is Rifts, and Rifts has a list of combat steps which lists clearly what three defences are initially available to the Defender, within the relevant ruleset.

Basically, it really doesn't matter if N&SS had a "simultaneous attack while dodging and parrying all attacks on one action" rule, because in R:UE, only Parry, Dodge, and Entangle are initially available to a Defender. All other defensive options are dependent upon the availability of those three in R:UE.

4: Speaking of copy-paste issues though, let's look at the Simultaneous Attack definition! That same definition can be found in RMB, RGMG, and again in RUE. So the whole definition of Simultaneous Attack is a major offender of the copy-paste complaint. If we're discrediting copy-paste jobs, then discredit the entire definition (there are several other parts of RUE that'll get removed as well ... and not sure if Simultaneous Attacks will still exist after you remove all the copy-paste).

It's not the definition's fault it was copy-pasta'd. Your argument here is without premise.

5: Let's also talk about "the most up to date rules" and follow history.

- RMB came out in 1990. The definition of Simultaneous Attack existed then, and has remained more or less unchanged for 23 years.
- Somewhere in this time the defintion of Simultaneous Attack caused confusion and debate.
- Sept 2001 RGMG is released, and clarifies the confusion. This clarification mostly consists of what you can NOT do with Simultaneous Attacks (and we agreed above that they more often tell you what you can than what you can't). Note: For Tor, I'll mention that Rifter #16 was released Oct 2001, meaning it came out after the RGMG. I just thought you might find that interesting.
- Sept 2005 RUE is released, reprinting the same definition that caused the initial confusion and didn't include the part that clarified the rule by stating what you can't do with it (which we agreed Palladium doesn't include often).

So is the 23 year old definition or the 12 year old clarification more up to date?

Well, I will answer your question with something I did about two weeks ago.
I work in a law office. I had to update the Rules of Court for a lawyer I was working for. I actually did a previous update for this very same lawyer a few months back.
In the first update I did (months back), I added about a dozen pages to a section within the book.
In the most current update I did, I took out those pages.

So now I will ask you, is the addition and then subtraction of a rule (or portion thereof) considered an update? Because my profession sure as hell considers it as one.

I merely discredited the RGMG because of some valid reasons. Those reasons being that if I wanted to discuss rules, I will read the rule book, not the guide to the rule book.

That's a new reason, and I'm not entirely sure I get this one. The Guide to the rules isn't valid in regards to rules? Did clarification and expanding on something became a bad thing? Did that make sense to anyone else? I'm not even being sarcastic ... I seriously can't follow that logic.

I will break down then; the RGMG is the guide to Rifts, right? Sort-of. It's the guide to the RMB, as it came out before R:UE; you can't really write a guide (with any sort of accuracy and credibility) to another book that has yet to be written, now can you?

So then which book should I pull rules from, the guide book, which was either somehow written for R:UE before R:UE came out, or R:UE, which came out after the guide book?

The hidden sub-text here is that the RMB and the R:UE are both Rifts, for sure. But the R:UE is the updated version, while the RGMG was written for the RMB and not the updated version thereof.

It's like having a guide book of New York from the year 2000 and expecting it to be accurate to a map of New York from 2013. There is a lot of accurate stuff that will be there, for sure, and they are both for New York.

But the current map will show the old guide-books' faults as plain as day.
(as an aside; I don't mean to stir up any possible old wounds; yes, this is a reference to the World Trade Center not being there anymore, which was the only example I could think of that everyone would know, or should know)

[Dog_O_War]

That's the thing though; you aren't "opting to dodge". Dodge is an option, so when dodging is an option, simultaneous attack is an option.
And the rules show us that it is completely and utterly possible to use attacks from the next round in the current round.

The rules allow an exception, to dodge when you are out of attacks, but only dodge.

No.
The rules allow you to parry only; dodging is the exception to the "parry only" rule.

SA is not an option because it explicitly says when you are out of attacks, you can do nothing except the 2 things mentioned.

Tor, guy, simultaneous attack is the exception to the "Defender may parry, dodge, or entangle" rule.

It's the exception to the exception.

I never said that the ability to dodge allows a simultaneous attack; that isn't something I said. I said that having the option to dodge gives way to the option of a simultaneous attack.

I'm having trouble understanding the distinction between these statements.

Well, for example, a Juicer armed with a knife and has a hand to hand skill has the ability to dodge, automatically even.

Another man shoots this knife wielding Juicer from 50 feet away. So the Juicer has the ability to dodge, AND the option to.

He then sprints up and attacks the gun guy, but the gun guy simultaneous attacks.
So while dodging is an ability the Juicer possesses, the option to do so has been removed.

That is the difference.

Whether it's "allows" or "gives way", your logic is not supported to the text. "Instead of" still requires SAs to use an attack, and it can't be done when you're out of them, period.

Oh, and when are you "out" of attacks? When it's not your turn? When the round is over? When the combat is over? What attack then is simultaneous attack using? Your current one, or your next one?

Because reading the rules of combat there, a defender doesn't have a "current attack". He can only possibly have a "next available attack".

Which we have been shown that your "next available attack" can, in-fact, pull from the next round.

[Alrik Vas]

And this is where I bow out again. There's nothing I can say to convince you that you can't Simultaneous Attack with an action from the next melee round, so I'll just leave it alone. Sorry for getting involved again, but the round and round in circles we go is really starting to get to me.

[Dog_O_War]

And this is where I bow out again. There's nothing I can say to convince you that you can't Simultaneous Attack with an action from the next melee round, so I'll just leave it alone. Sorry for getting involved again, but the round and round in circles we go is really starting to get to me.

Wait, before you get out completely, I want you to consider something as to why you couldn't convince me.

I posted entries from the rules, and using those entries, showed how the language was poorly thought-out, written, and vague.

You didn't. You didn't post concrete rules entries to support your claim (which was opposite of my own assertion).

It's why you were not able to convince me; you had no evidence to the contrary. Prysus, whom you appear to agree with on his interpretations, said that the book rarely, if ever states what you cannot do.

I see that as a problem. And, as you will note, the book doesn't say you cannot pull actions from the next round.

I just want you to consider this. For next time. Evidence should be required to change one's point of view.

[Damian Magecraft]

So any system that does not say what you cannot do is poorly written? Does White Wolf, Wotc, Chaosiam, Iron crown, et al know this?

[Dog_O_War]

So any system that does not say what you cannot do is poorly written? Does White Wolf, Wotc, Chaosiam, Iron crown, et al know this?

Did I say that "any system that does not say what you cannot do is poorly written"?

Or did I say, that, "that the book rarely, if ever states what you cannot do. I see that as a problem"?

Additionally, did I say, as a separate thought, "I posted entries from the rules, and using those entries, showed how the language was poorly thought-out, written, and vague"?

So then I have to ask, how you went from reading two separate thoughts of mine to the catch-all statement, "So any system that does not say what you cannot do is poorly written?"?

[Damian Magecraft]

Where did I get that? From the statements. "The rarely tells you what you CANNOT do. I see that as a problem."
The logical conclusion is if a game does not tell you expictly what you cannot do you see it as problem with that game as well.
(Or is it a double standard?)

[Alrik Vas]

And this is where I bow out again. There's nothing I can say to convince you that you can't Simultaneous Attack with an action from the next melee round, so I'll just leave it alone. Sorry for getting involved again, but the round and round in circles we go is really starting to get to me.

Wait, before you get out completely, I want you to consider something as to why you couldn't convince me.

I posted entries from the rules, and using those entries, showed how the language was poorly thought-out, written, and vague.

You didn't. You didn't post concrete rules entries to support your claim (which was opposite of my own assertion).

It's why you were not able to convince me; you had no evidence to the contrary. Prysus, whom you appear to agree with on his interpretations, said that the book rarely, if ever states what you cannot do.

I see that as a problem. And, as you will note, the book doesn't say you cannot pull actions from the next round.

I just want you to consider this. For next time. Evidence should be required to change one's point of view.

The reason we don't agree is because of what you just stated, they are vague. Interpretation is the divide, not fact.

Please, in a single sentence, state your position so i can know what kind of facts about it you've stated. I know what the rules say, i can figure it out from there.

[Tor]

Tor, guy, simultaneous attack is the exception to the "Defender may parry, dodge, or entangle" rule.

It's the exception to the exception.

No, it isn't an exception. You'll notice that the description of combat does not say "defender may ONLY dodge, entangle or parry"

Therefore it is merely giving examples of things you may do, not a final say.

SAing is not an exception to any rule, it's just an option not listed in the basic combat outline because it's not considered a primarily favoured option to be listed.

SAing is also an option which can only be done when you have attacks remaining.

Nothing about the SA description says you can do it when your'e out of attacks, and RUE clearly states you may not do ANYTHING when you're out of attacks except auto-parry and debt-dodge.

[Dog_O_War]

Where did I get that? From the statements. "The rarely tells you what you CANNOT do. I see that as a problem."
The logical conclusion is if a game does not tell you expictly what you cannot do you see it as problem with that game as well.
(Or is it a double standard?)

That's not a logical conclusion; it's an oddly paraphrased version of what I wrote

No, for this game, I have stated (in the post you quoted no-less) that the language was poorly thought-out, written, and vague.

I then made a comment on another posters' observation on these rules, which are vague and poorly thought-out; that thought was that not stating what you cannot do is a problem I can see.

So, in context to the above; is it logical to assume that ALL rulesets that do not state what you cannot do is a visible problem?

OR is it logical to assume that when a ruleset is vague and poorly written, that stating what you cannot do is a problem that becomes visible?

[Dog_O_War]

Please, in a single sentence, state your position so i can know what kind of facts about it you've stated. I know what the rules say, i can figure it out from there.

I will try.

My position is this:
The rules are so poorly worded as to allow many loopholes to exist and simultaneous attack is the most obvious and heinous offender; that, with simple cross-referencing and manipulation of the English language, we can render other rules, from who goes first to the basic ability to defend ones' self, completely and utterly inert.

[so it is my position to expose the atrocity that is 'simultaneous attack']

[Balabanto]

it is a knee jerk reactionary response to a proposed problem that ignores the underlying design elements of the active defense. (it cheapens the dodge/auto-dodge abilities).
It makes combat monsters better by actively eliminating the need for dodges in combat.
Why should I bother with dodging (unless its a ranged attack) when I can just preform free actions until I run out of actions then I can use dodge for free (even if my class/hth doesnt allow for auto-dodge).

Because if an attack deals tons of damage, and you know it's coming, you may wish to dodge it! Many people in my games do not actually WANT their characters to be hit by things like TW Annihilate Grenades, the area of a medium range missile fired by a forager battlebot, or one of those horrible antitank weapons from South America. Heck, a Coalition recon squad, through sheer number of attacks, can easily eat the actions of a small group of PCs. Heck, a Wilks 457 laser rifle can put out 50 or 60 on a good roll. Armor in Rifts is made of metaphorical tofu. Concentrated firepower kills characters whether they take cover or not. God forbid you should be playing a coalition only campaign and have extremely limited armor repair.

In general, the best defense is not being there. Even cover only limits their fire, and massed fire still makes you not particularly lucky if there's a bunch of them, whoever they are. 13 years of playtesting tells me that this is the most effective way to solve the simultaneous attack problem.

What are you talking about?

Your method only makes it worse. Now a full 'borg and the like can duke it out with ten soldiers with even greater ease. He simultaneous attacks them with area weapons, either hitting them (the over-all goal) or forcing them to dodge, but either way he eats up their attacks and lives like a blender, and then when he's out of attacks, he gets to dodge for free like a Juicer, except he's got about 3-400 MDC on a Juicer.

Meanwhile the fragile characters are still receiving maximum disadvantage and the tough characters are now even more deadly, all thanks to being able to dodge for free (making them even tougher).

You can't simultaneous attack with ranged fire. You can only simultaneously attack in Hand to Hand. Guns follow different rules. Simultaneous Attack isn't included under ranged combat.

[Damian Magecraft]

it is a knee jerk reactionary response to a proposed problem that ignores the underlying design elements of the active defense. (it cheapens the dodge/auto-dodge abilities).
It makes combat monsters better by actively eliminating the need for dodges in combat.
Why should I bother with dodging (unless its a ranged attack) when I can just preform free actions until I run out of actions then I can use dodge for free (even if my class/hth doesnt allow for auto-dodge).

Because if an attack deals tons of damage, and you know it's coming, you may wish to dodge it! Many people in my games do not actually WANT their characters to be hit by things like TW Annihilate Grenades, the area of a medium range missile fired by a forager battlebot, or one of those horrible antitank weapons from South America. Heck, a Coalition recon squad, through sheer number of attacks, can easily eat the actions of a small group of PCs. Heck, a Wilks 457 laser rifle can put out 50 or 60 on a good roll. Armor in Rifts is made of metaphorical tofu. Concentrated firepower kills characters whether they take cover or not. God forbid you should be playing a coalition only campaign and have extremely limited armor repair.

In general, the best defense is not being there. Even cover only limits their fire, and massed fire still makes you not particularly lucky if there's a bunch of them, whoever they are. 13 years of playtesting tells me that this is the most effective way to solve the simultaneous attack problem.

What are you talking about?

Your method only makes it worse. Now a full 'borg and the like can duke it out with ten soldiers with even greater ease. He simultaneous attacks them with area weapons, either hitting them (the over-all goal) or forcing them to dodge, but either way he eats up their attacks and lives like a blender, and then when he's out of attacks, he gets to dodge for free like a Juicer, except he's got about 3-400 MDC on a Juicer.

Meanwhile the fragile characters are still receiving maximum disadvantage and the tough characters are now even more deadly, all thanks to being able to dodge for free (making them even tougher).

You can't simultaneous attack with ranged fire. You can only simultaneously attack in Hand to Hand. Guns follow different rules. Simultaneous Attack isn't included under ranged combat.

actually you can Simo ranged attacks.
Kevin has confirmed this.

[Balabanto]

That is shockingly stupid. Why would you create an exception based rules system and then eliminate the one exception that makes it function?

[Damian Magecraft]

I fail to see how that one "exception" makes the system function.
Or even how it causes the system fail.
The system is designed around more than one rule.

[Dog_O_War]

You can't simultaneous attack with ranged fire. You can only simultaneously attack in Hand to Hand. Guns follow different rules. Simultaneous Attack isn't included under ranged combat.

I have a very simple, straight-forward question for you;

Under the section for Hand to Hand Combat, in the paragraph following STEP 1: Determine Initiative, it says that "...A successful Sneak Attack or Long-Range Attack will always have initiative..."

I would like for you to please tell me which long-range attacks the rules are referencing here, seeing as how these hand-to-hand rules are the ones that are otherwise including the use of simultaneous attack, of which you asserted cannot be used with "ranged fire".

[Tor]

state your position so i can know what kind of facts about it you've stated.

The rules are so poorly worded as to allow many loopholes to exist and simultaneous attack is the most obvious and heinous offender

I don't think you understood what Alrik meant about stating a position.

We don't want your evasive paraphrasing, we want actual book statements put together and how your interpret them. You've done this all over the place so I think he wanted you to basically consolidate your branching argument into a cohesive argument, so that we might poke holes in it in a more orderly manner.

You can't simultaneous attack with ranged fire. You can only simultaneously attack in Hand to Hand. Guns follow different rules. Simultaneous Attack isn't included under ranged combat.

Interesting argument... I'm not sure I hold a strong stance for or against it. I think part of the problem is that sometimes RC and HtHC are not mutually exclusive situations, like if you are shooting a guy trying to stab you 5ft away, or if an archer is firing arrows at a boom gun.

actually you can Simo ranged attacks. Kevin has confirmed this.

I believe you but I'm curious where.

Under the section for Hand to Hand Combat, in the paragraph following STEP 1: Determine Initiative, it says that "...A successful Sneak Attack or Long-Range Attack will always have initiative..." I would like for you to please tell me which long-range attacks the rules are referencing here, seeing as how these hand-to-hand rules are the ones that are otherwise including the use of simultaneous attack, of which you asserted cannot be used with "ranged fire".

The "ranged combat" section is generally about guns, as far as I can tell. Ignoring weapons, a jump kick, flying jump kick or leap attack is generally classified as a 'long range attack'. The difference between Grappling/Combat/Long Range is elaborated on in page 128 of N&SS.

I imagine it would also cover stuff like thrown weapons or firing an arrow.

I would also apply it to guns and other modern WPs which get described under Ranged Combat (badly named IMO).

[Dog_O_War]

state your position so i can know what kind of facts about it you've stated.

The rules are so poorly worded as to allow many loopholes to exist and simultaneous attack is the most obvious and heinous offender

I don't think you understood what Alrik meant about stating a position.

We don't want your evasive paraphrasing, we want actual book statements put together and how your interpret them. You've done this all over the place so I think he wanted you to basically consolidate your branching argument into a cohesive argument, so that we might poke holes in it in a more orderly manner.

I don't think YOU even read what Alrik wrote.
"Please, in a single sentence, state your position so I can know what kind of facts about it you've stated. I know what the rules say, I can figure it out from there."
If he wanted actual book statements, then he wouldn't have said he knew what the rules said.

If he didn't want paraphrasing, then he would not have asked for a single sentence.

And finally, you; you clearly did not read my entire post on page three, doing exactly what you have just asked. It's about half-way; you have portions of it quoted in later posts, but you also have Prysus quoted in that same post, which leads me to believe you are only quoting him quoting me; not the actual post itself.

Under the section for Hand to Hand Combat, in the paragraph following STEP 1: Determine Initiative, it says that "...A successful Sneak Attack or Long-Range Attack will always have initiative..." I would like for you to please tell me which long-range attacks the rules are referencing here, seeing as how these hand-to-hand rules are the ones that are otherwise including the use of simultaneous attack, of which you asserted cannot be used with "ranged fire".

The "ranged combat" section is generally about guns, as far as I can tell. Ignoring weapons, a jump kick, flying jump kick or leap attack is generally classified as a 'long range attack'. The difference between Grappling/Combat/Long Range is elaborated on in page 128 of N&SS.

Funny that, in R:UE, in the RMB, and in the RGMG, I cannot find reference to jump kicks, flying jump kicks, or leap attacks as being classified as 'long range attacks'. Please point out a relevant section for me in any of the above books, will you?

I imagine it would also cover stuff like thrown weapons or firing an arrow.

Actually, those too would be under Balabanto's, "ranged fire" definition.

[Damian Magecraft]

I have to side with Dog on this...
You cannot use N&S for reference to rules in Rifts.
For one thing N&S pre-dates Rifts and RUE the rules have under gone heavy revision since its printing.

[Tor]

You cannot use N&S for reference to rules in Rifts. For one thing N&S pre-dates Rifts and RUE the rules have under gone heavy revision since its printing.

I can, there's a N&SS char in Rifts Mercenaries, it's a Megaverse. Favouring RUE over RMB over N&SS is find when there are contradictions, but if we're clarifying an existing concept that just didn't get mentioned, there's no problem here. But hey, let's play this game...

in R:UE, in the RMB, and in the RGMG, I cannot find reference to jump kicks, flying jump kicks, or leap attacks as being classified as 'long range attacks'. Please point out a relevant section for me in any of the above books, will you?

I was getting it from N&SS saying 'long range', but in RMBpg36 the LRA entry starts 'by using a long range weapon from a distance' so yeah I am left thinking in this case that Rifts is using the phrasing entirely differently. Of course how far is 'from a distance' (technically 6 centimetres is a distance =/ ) is pretty vague.

Of course since this is printed in the HtH combat section, I think ancient weapons (and not just the modern weapons addressed in 'Ranged Combat') like bows and thrown would qualify here. Possibly even long weapons like polearms or lances. Depends on how one interprets 'long' I guess.

I concede that RMB does not appear to support leap/jump attacks being long range as N&SS does though, if that's what you want.

I am left wondering though, what happens when Kinoshi (Mercs58) uses the jump kick or leap attack which Ninjutsu (N&SSpg99) provides which its sourcebook describes as long range.

We could perhaps rule that only combat maneuvers from N&SS work by N&SS rules (and all the advantages) while maneuvers of the same name from Rifts HtHs work by Rifts rules. Considering how nerfed the N&SS guys got on attacks, and the whole need for katas to stack WP on HtH bonuses, I think it's a fair prize.

[Dog_O_War]

You cannot use N&S for reference to rules in Rifts. For one thing N&S pre-dates Rifts and RUE the rules have under gone heavy revision since its printing.

I can, there's a N&SS char in Rifts Mercenaries, it's a Megaverse. Favouring RUE over RMB over N&SS is find when there are contradictions, but if we're clarifying an existing concept that just didn't get mentioned, there's no problem here. But hey, let's play this game...

in R:UE, in the RMB, and in the RGMG, I cannot find reference to jump kicks, flying jump kicks, or leap attacks as being classified as 'long range attacks'. Please point out a relevant section for me in any of the above books, will you?

I was getting it from N&SS saying 'long range', but in RMBpg36 the LRA entry starts 'by using a long range weapon from a distance' so yeah I am left thinking in this case that Rifts is using the phrasing entirely differently. Of course how far is 'from a distance' (technically 6 centimetres is a distance =/ ) is pretty vague.

Of course since this is printed in the HtH combat section, I think ancient weapons (and not just the modern weapons addressed in 'Ranged Combat') like bows and thrown would qualify here. Possibly even long weapons like polearms or lances. Depends on how one interprets 'long' I guess.

Why would the word 'long' matter when considering polearms and lances? They have reach, but not 'range'.

As for 'long-range attacks' yes, that is vague. 100 yards is long range for a sling-shot, but for a rifle, that is short range.
So really, that portion is pretty open for interpretation.

I concede that RMB does not appear to support leap/jump attacks being long range as N&SS does though, if that's what you want.

I am left wondering though, what happens when Kinoshi (Mercs58) uses the jump kick or leap attack which Ninjutsu (N&SSpg99) provides which its sourcebook describes as long range.

The answer to your question is an answer we can take from real life;

Do Canadian laws apply to Canadians travelling in the 'States, or do American laws apply?

One then would draw a relevant parallel to Kinoshi being governed by Rifts Earth rules when travelling Rifts Earth.

[Damian Magecraft]

Also the ranges you reference in N&S are listed as optional.
And since not everyone who plays Rifts owns N&S/MC the rules quotes from there are your word only.

[Damian Magecraft]

Conversely no Rifts book still in print can be dismissed just becauae one does not like the answers they provide.

[Alrik Vas]

Please, in a single sentence, state your position so i can know what kind of facts about it you've stated. I know what the rules say, i can figure it out from there.

I will try.

My position is this:
The rules are so poorly worded as to allow many loopholes to exist and simultaneous attack is the most obvious and heinous offender; that, with simple cross-referencing and manipulation of the English language, we can render other rules, from who goes first to the basic ability to defend ones' self, completely and utterly inert.

[so it is my position to expose the atrocity that is 'simultaneous attack']

I get what you're saying here, and considering this argument has gone on long enough without me going "LALALALALALAL CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA" it means that I also think the loopholes exist, at least, to some extent.

However, loopholes themselves are the product of interpretation, and often used thus: a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law (definition 3 of loophole on dictionary.com). Essentially, people who create and exploit loopholes escape reality with success until rules are changed, but even they know it's a load of crap.

In any event, we're talking about solving the same problem, only i'm stating that the rules are translatable to defeat the loophole, where as, from what i can glean, you maintain that the RAW invites this sort of skullduggery with it's vagueness.

Understandable. I don't really agree, but I totally follow the line of thinking as the wording can be interpreted the way you say.

So now that i've got all my ducks in a row, I really am bowing out this time, especially since I'm more or less satisfied with my own conclusions.

[Tor]

Why would the word 'long' matter when considering polearms and lances? They have reach, but not 'range'.

I'm not sure what 'range' means to you here. Range is simply a synonym for distance. Reach is how long a range you can... well, reach to. Part of the problem is we need to establish what vague terms like ranged mean, I guess.

I think CB1 or something had various strike roll requirements depending on various distances, this could be a place to look I guess.

The answer to your question is an answer we can take from real life; Do Canadian laws apply to Canadians travelling in the 'States, or do American laws apply? One then would draw a relevant parallel to Kinoshi being governed by Rifts Earth rules when travelling Rifts Earth.

I don't find that a good example because we're talking about natural laws, not artificial ones.

I could easily ask "can French people speak French in Norway?" because language is a skill, just like HtH.

If we were talking about something affected by natural properties (like for example spells boosting to inflict MD) I can agree with changing it, but we're talking about how HtH skills operate here.

To use auto-dodge as another example, if someone who gets auto-dodge from N&SS came to Rifts Earth, I would not give them the Rifts version of auto-dodge, I would have them retain the N&SS version of it, because that's the version it was designed to work with.

Sharing the same name doesn't mean something from another setting necessarily becomes something with that name in Rifts. If a Necrophim visits Psyscape they're not going to grow Soul Worms.

the ranges you reference in N&S are listed as optional.

Doesn't affect me much, they're still canon. So-called "optional" stuff gets referenced all the time. There are "optional player characters" out there too.

since not everyone who plays Rifts owns N&S/MC the rules quotes from there are your word only.

Not everyone who plays Rifts owns all the Rifts books either, what's your point? Heck if you cite RUE or SB1 or CB1 someone may not have that book either. We operate on our word to some degree but provide things like book/page/edition so that others with the material are free to check and to come and contradict it if it's wrongly cited.

no Rifts book still in print can be dismissed just becauae one does not like the answers they provide.

I don't think books that go out of print should be dismissed either. Forever Canon

[Dog_O_War]

I get what you're saying here, and considering this argument has gone on long enough without me going "LALALALALALAL CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA" it means that I also think the loopholes exist, at least, to some extent.

However, loopholes themselves are the product of interpretation,

No.
Simultaneous attack contains built-in loopholes.
The rule renders your initiative number pointless and invalid in numerous and common situations, such as when a fight breaks out and initiative is called for.
That right there is an example of the loophole on 'how to render going first a disadvantage'.

It also allows you to negate extremely dodgy characters.

Next, the rule is only to the advantage of the toughest person; that makes it a biased rule as well.

Finally, when combined with other rules, like paired weapons or body-flip, you can take 4 attacks and be as effective (if not more so) as a guy with 8 attacks.

In any event, we're talking about solving the same problem, only i'm stating that the rules are translatable to defeat the loophole, where as, from what i can glean, you maintain that the RAW invites this sort of skullduggery with it's vagueness.

The above example-problems cannot be "translated away"; they are a clear part of the rule itself (well, simultaneous attack being the advantage of the tough is a happenstance).

The initiative thing is actually what probably offends me the most. I mean, being able to warp time and all really just breaks the suspension of disbelief, but the clear-cut ability to say,"hey guy with a +100 to initiative and the ability to move at the speed of light, I'ma go at the exact same time as you if you attack me!"

Understandable. I don't really agree, but I totally follow the line of thinking as the wording can be interpreted the way you say.

So now that i've got all my ducks in a row, I really am bowing out this time, especially since I'm more or less satisfied with my own conclusions.

*tips hat (this board needs a tip hat emoticon)

[Dog_O_War]

Why would the word 'long' matter when considering polearms and lances? They have reach, but not 'range'.

I'm not sure what 'range' means to you here. Range is simply a synonym for distance. Reach is how long a range you can... well, reach to. Part of the problem is we need to establish what vague terms like ranged mean, I guess.

I'm taking the dictionary definition on it to mean what it says.

I think CB1 or something had various strike roll requirements depending on various distances, this could be a place to look I guess.

On another note, I believe that there is a range increments chart or blurb somewhere; I will have to look for it. It would help define the terms.

The answer to your question is an answer we can take from real life; Do Canadian laws apply to Canadians travelling in the 'States, or do American laws apply? One then would draw a relevant parallel to Kinoshi being governed by Rifts Earth rules when travelling Rifts Earth.

I don't find that a good example because we're talking about natural laws, not artificial ones.

I could easily ask "can French people speak French in Norway?" because language is a skill, just like HtH.

Okay then; we will default to something more basic to the game.
Does MDC still act like MDC in Heroes Unlimited?
Or does MDC become SDC when it goes there?

Same thing applies to Kinoshi.

To use auto-dodge as another example, if someone who gets auto-dodge from N&SS came to Rifts Earth, I would not give them the Rifts version of auto-dodge, I would have them retain the N&SS version of it, because that's the version it was designed to work with.

"to use MDC as another example, if someone who gets MDC from Rifts Earth came to Heroes Unlimited, I would not give them the Heroes Unlimited version of MDC, I would have them retain the Rifts version of it, because that's the version it was designed to work with"

Sharing the same name doesn't mean something from another setting necessarily becomes something with that name in Rifts. If a Necrophim visits Psyscape they're not going to grow Soul Worms.

We aren't talking about things from another setting here; we are talking about rules from another setting.

the ranges you reference in N&S are listed as optional.

Doesn't affect me much, they're still canon. So-called "optional" stuff gets referenced all the time. There are "optional player characters" out there too.

Do you know the difference between a rule you cannot disregard and a rule you can?

since not everyone who plays Rifts owns N&S/MC the rules quotes from there are your word only.

Not everyone who plays Rifts owns all the Rifts books either, what's your point? Heck if you cite RUE or SB1 or CB1 someone may not have that book either. We operate on our word to some degree but provide things like book/page/edition so that others with the material are free to check and to come and contradict it if it's wrongly cited.

What he's driving at here is that this is the Rifts forum, where we have come to discuss Rifts, not Ninjas & Super Spies.
Effectively, you are citing rules for a different game (albeit, one that has a majority of the rules the same) as if they applied to this game.

Or, to use a contextual example, if you were on the WotC boards and sited 3.0 rules when talking about D&D, people would tell you, "wrong game bud, your rules don't apply here. You need to go to the older editions section of the board." (but in a less courteous manner as those boards are rough).

I mean, if you want a direct ruling on N&SS in Rifts; then I ask you, what does the conversion book say when converting a N&SS character to Rifts? Does it say that you take N&SS rules along with you?
Basically, that is the final word of it. The rules for converting a N&SS do not say that you 'take the other setting's game rules with you', so you don't. Period.

[Balabanto]

Actually, I do it the opposite way. If it doesn't say you can, you can't. In fact, as far as this game is concerned, unless I put in a house rule to the contrary, if there's any doubt at all, the answer should be "no."

[Damian Magecraft]

Actually, I do it the opposite way. If it doesn't say you can, you can't. In fact, as far as this game is concerned, unless I put in a house rule to the contrary, if there's any doubt at all, the answer should be "no."

Considering this is how all RPG systems write their rules to assume the opposite approach with palladium smacks of hypocrisy.
Or a double standard at the least.

[Balabanto]

Actually, that is exactly how D+D 3.5/pathfinder works, how Champions works, and how rifts works. Unless the GM uses the power of rule zero, assume the strictest interpretation applies.

[Tor]

The rules are so poorly worded as to allow many loopholes to exist

Sometimes, but not here.

Simultaneous attack contains built-in loopholes.

True, the ability to win initiative, attack a guy, and then upon being targetted by 3 guys, SAing all of them, expending 4 attacks in the turn it takes them to do 1, comes to mind. But the ability to continue SAing when out of actions is not one of these holes, since it can't be done. You haven't made a case for bypassing the RUE declaration that prevents anything but auto-defenses and 1 single cost-defense from being done when out of attacks.

I'm taking the dictionary definition on it to mean what it says.

Which one? The page you linked to has 23. You can be within range of a gun but you can also be in range of a punch.

Also there is no such thing as the dictionary. The way you turn plurals into singulars is fascinating.

we will default to something more basic to the game. Does MDC still act like MDC in Heroes Unlimited? Or does MDC become SDC when it goes there? Same thing applies to Kinoshi.

MDC has specific rules that govern whether or not it exists in other dimensions. I'm unsure where specficially, but confident that there have been notes that MDC things brought to SDC dimensions become SDC.

That is not the case for hand to hand forms or their techniques, however.

"to use MDC as another example, if someone who gets MDC from Rifts Earth came to Heroes Unlimited, I would not give them the Heroes Unlimited version of MDC, I would have them retain the Rifts version of it, because that's the version it was designed to work with"

MDC isn't a skill, I reject it being used as an example.

We aren't talking about things from another setting here; we are talking about rules from another setting.

No, we're talking about skills, about techniques. Names for them. Sharing a name doesn't mean you share the same rules. HU wizards and PFRPG wizards are different. Nightbane and Rifts have different Necrophim and Zombies. I view the techniques like that.

Do you know the difference between a rule you cannot disregard and a rule you can?

There probably isn't one, as I'm sure somewhere in a Palladium Book that Kev has said GMs can change anything. That's part of the problem with the various 'optional' stuff.

What he's driving at here is that this is the Rifts forum, where we have come to discuss Rifts, not Ninjas & Super Spies. Effectively, you are citing rules for a different game (albeit, one that has a majority of the rules the same) as if they applied to this game.

We're also on the "Palladium Megaverse" web site, meaning that while forums FOCUS on a particular game, we can still cite elements of other games in discussions where relevant, such as when N&SS martial art forms are used in Rifts.

I'm not at all say that N&SS rules for techniques should apply to techniques of the same name acquired through a Rifts style HtH.

Rift doesn't even have rules for a lot of the techniques in N&SS, so it's easier just to use that book whenever someone has an art for that book. Or can Kinoshi no longer use "roll" as knockdown attack because in Rifts, roll is only a defensive action that requires an action to use?

I mean, if you want a direct ruling on N&SS in Rifts; then I ask you, what does the conversion book say when converting a N&SS character to Rifts? Does it say that you take N&SS rules along with you?

The implication of CB1 is that you only make the changes you are listed to make. There is no mention of N&SS rules for moves being changed to Rifts rules for moves.

Basically, that is the final word of it. The rules for converting a N&SS do not say that you 'take the other setting's game rules with you', so you don't. Period.

You are saying that the LACK of word on it is "the final word"? Odd phrasing.

If you had N&SS style auto-dodge, you need to spend an action (usually your first) to activate the ability. That requirement isn't suddenly going to evaporate if you go to Rifts earth. Nor would the requirement to use a kata to be able to add HtH bonuses while using weapons. Otherwise the point of many abilities is lost. There is no basis for doing that. Rifts combat notes were designed for Rifts HtH tables, and N&SS combat notes for N&SS systems.

Anyway this might be getting a bit off topic.

[Balabanto]

You can't simultaneous attack with ranged fire. You can only simultaneously attack in Hand to Hand. Guns follow different rules. Simultaneous Attack isn't included under ranged combat.

I have a very simple, straight-forward question for you;

Under the section for Hand to Hand Combat, in the paragraph following STEP 1: Determine Initiative, it says that "...A successful Sneak Attack or Long-Range Attack will always have initiative..."

I would like for you to please tell me which long-range attacks the rules are referencing here, seeing as how these hand-to-hand rules are the ones that are otherwise including the use of simultaneous attack, of which you asserted cannot be used with "ranged fire".

Exactly. Ranged fire follows different rules, including the rules for Modern Weapons. If we admit that guns have different rules, you can't simultaneous attack with ranged weapons. You roll an initiative die. Find a way to break ties. (We usually use either the initiative modifier and break ties with a series of questions like "Did someone pay for Quickdraw? Who has a higher init mod? Does anyone have sharpshooting?") We're pretty good at getting this down to a science. A true tie is very, very rare. So rare that we rarely have to adjucate it. Let's look at sneak attack. If you're being sneak attacked, you are unaware of your attacker. You cannot declare simultaneous attack. People can't just walk around battlefields declaring simultaneous attacks against hidden opponents. That's fake, and should be discouraged.

Clearly what this means is "A ranged attack has initiative over a melee attack." There are exceptions to this, but not many. By your interpretation (And this is even more cracked), if two people declare simultaneous attack on each other with ranged weapons and have sharpshooting, despite the fact that they can't dodge according to you, they still can, AND SHOOT AGAIN. (See dodge, roll, and come up shooting) Regardless of what Kevin says, it has to be this way. Occham's razor, my friend. Occham's razor.

When I run Rifts combat, it runs in passes. You want to do something that takes more than one action, you get skipped that pass and your action is consumed. Actions come off the bottom, not off the top. Otherwise, your first dodge is likely to initiate a sequence of dodges until your opponent runs out of actions or until you win initiative in a melee round.

Exception based rules systems are like this. The problem is that Rifts is written in such a way that people think there are different exceptions.

[Dog_O_War]

Simultaneous attack contains built-in loopholes.

True, the ability to win initiative, attack a guy, and then upon being targetted by 3 guys, SAing all of them, expending 4 attacks in the turn it takes them to do 1, comes to mind. But the ability to continue SAing when out of actions is not one of these holes, since it can't be done. You haven't made a case for bypassing the RUE declaration that prevents anything but auto-defenses and 1 single cost-defense from being done when out of attacks.

The rule says "only parry"; is that true?

I'm taking the dictionary definition on it to mean what it says.

Which one? The page you linked to has 23. You can be within range of a gun but you can also be in range of a punch.

Also there is no such thing as the dictionary. The way you turn plurals into singulars is fascinating.

There were more than 23. It also specifically mentions firearms under the definition. It also mentions the distance of a weapon to the target; is "a punch" a weapon? Or is the fist?/rhetorical

Also, "dictionary" would be for Dictionary.com, a singular noun.

we will default to something more basic to the game. Does MDC still act like MDC in Heroes Unlimited? Or does MDC become SDC when it goes there? Same thing applies to Kinoshi.

MDC has specific rules that govern whether or not it exists in other dimensions. I'm unsure where specficially, but confident that there have been notes that MDC things brought to SDC dimensions become SDC.

That is not the case for hand to hand forms or their techniques, however.

Can you provide a [any] book quote as to whether or not that is the case for hand to hand forms, or is that conjecture?

"to use MDC as another example, if someone who gets MDC from Rifts Earth came to Heroes Unlimited, I would not give them the Heroes Unlimited version of MDC, I would have them retain the Rifts version of it, because that's the version it was designed to work with"

MDC isn't a skill, I reject it being used as an example.

Oh, I didn't realize that we were restricted to only skills when we were talking about rules from one setting to another

We aren't talking about things from another setting here; we are talking about rules from another setting.

No, we're talking about skills, about techniques. Names for them. Sharing a name doesn't mean you share the same rules. HU wizards and PFRPG wizards are different. Nightbane and Rifts have different Necrophim and Zombies. I view the techniques like that.

Tor, guy; this entire discussion has been about rules. At no point has the topic changed from rules to skills, and even then, of those techniques, we have been talking about the rules that govern them.

Your premise is flawed and your rebuttal is irrelevant.

Do you know the difference between a rule you cannot disregard and a rule you can?

There probably isn't one, as I'm sure somewhere in a Palladium Book that Kev has said GMs can change anything. That's part of the problem with the various 'optional' stuff.

You could have just said "I don't know"; rules you cannot disregard are not "'optional' stuff".

What he's driving at here is that this is the Rifts forum, where we have come to discuss Rifts, not Ninjas & Super Spies. Effectively, you are citing rules for a different game (albeit, one that has a majority of the rules the same) as if they applied to this game.

We're also on the "Palladium Megaverse" web site, meaning that while forums FOCUS on a particular game, we can still cite elements of other games in discussions where relevant, such as when N&SS martial art forms are used in Rifts.

Your response does not address my statement; I said that you were citing rules for a different game as if they applied to the one being discussed.

Your response was "we can still cite elements of other games in discussions where relevant". But you missed the point; you are citing rules for a different game as if they apply to the one being discussed.

I'm not at all say that N&SS rules for techniques should apply to techniques of the same name acquired through a Rifts style HtH.

Rift doesn't even have rules for a lot of the techniques in N&SS, so it's easier just to use that book whenever someone has an art for that book. Or can Kinoshi no longer use "roll" as knockdown attack because in Rifts, roll is only a defensive action that requires an action to use?

Does the conversion book say that rules or manouevres from other settings apply to Rifts [or other settings]?

I mean, if you want a direct ruling on N&SS in Rifts; then I ask you, what does the conversion book say when converting a N&SS character to Rifts? Does it say that you take N&SS rules along with you?

The implication of CB1 is that you only make the changes you are listed to make. There is no mention of N&SS rules for moves being changed to Rifts rules for moves.

"The implication"

That is a matter of RAI versus RAW; do we follow the RAI or the RAW when determining which takes precedence?/rhetorical.

Basically, that is the final word of it. The rules for converting a N&SS do not say that you 'take the other setting's game rules with you', so you don't. Period.

You are saying that the LACK of word on it is "the final word"? Odd phrasing.

No.
You agreed with Prysus's notion that the rule book does not say what you cannot do, but instead says what you can do.
So it is not I that said the lack of word on said rules is "the final word"; Prysus did.
And you agreed with him.

I only pointed out that the book did not say you took another setting's rules and applied them to whatever other setting you so chose when it suited your personal interests; I only pointed out that when you referenced a rule that you didn't just take whatever version of the rule that existed for whatever period of time and applied it to suit your needs.

So I will ask you then; is it okay when discussing a topic that we do this?
Or is it instead proper to mention how something works elsewhere as a purpose of comparison?

I'm asking because I need to know how to properly respond to your claims.

If you had N&SS style auto-dodge, you need to spend an action (usually your first) to activate the ability. That requirement isn't suddenly going to evaporate if you go to Rifts earth. Nor would the requirement to use a kata to be able to add HtH bonuses while using weapons. Otherwise the point of many abilities is lost. There is no basis for doing that.

Anyway this might be getting a bit off topic.

Can you provide a book and page number for that ruling?

Because the rules sure seem to be clear that your ability to ignore 1-99 points of SD with MDC evaporate when you go to Heroes Unlimited from an MDC setting.

Rifts combat notes were designed for Rifts HtH tables, and N&SS combat notes for N&SS systems.

Yes they were, so let's stick to the relevant rules that are up for discussion then, instead of talking about a ruleset that is not [up for discussion here].


EDIT: fixed formatting.

[Dog_O_War]

You can't simultaneous attack with ranged fire. You can only simultaneously attack in Hand to Hand. Guns follow different rules. Simultaneous Attack isn't included under ranged combat.

I have a very simple, straight-forward question for you;

Under the section for Hand to Hand Combat, in the paragraph following STEP 1: Determine Initiative, it says that "...A successful Sneak Attack or Long-Range Attack will always have initiative..."

I would like for you to please tell me which long-range attacks the rules are referencing here, seeing as how these hand-to-hand rules are the ones that are otherwise including the use of simultaneous attack, of which you asserted cannot be used with "ranged fire".

Exactly. Ranged fire follows different rules, including the rules for Modern Weapons.

The section I was quoting from is for "hand to hand combat".

If we admit that guns have different rules,

They don't.
And besides this, all references to simultaneous attack only ever mention the word "attack", making any useage of it doable with any attack made against the Defender.

you can't simultaneous attack with ranged weapons. You roll an initiative die. Find a way to break ties. (We usually use either the initiative modifier and break ties with a series of questions like "Did someone pay for Quickdraw? Who has a higher init mod? Does anyone have sharpshooting?") We're pretty good at getting this down to a science. A true tie is very, very rare. So rare that we rarely have to adjucate it.

We only have to adjudicate it because someone couldn't write a one sentence rule regarding them. Do not mistake rarity for importance.

Let's look at sneak attack. If you're being sneak attacked, you are unaware of your attacker. You cannot declare simultaneous attack. People can't just walk around battlefields declaring simultaneous attacks against hidden opponents. That's fake, and should be discouraged.

People don't and can't unless they have an ability that says they are otherwise aware of surprise/hidden opponents.

Clearly what this means is "A ranged attack has initiative over a melee attack." There are exceptions to this, but not many.

No. If my initiative is higher, I can swing my sword at any opponent I so choose before any and all others, regardless of what weapon they wield.

However, the term "long-range attack" does have initiative. Whatever "long-range attack" means.

By your interpretation (And this is even more cracked), if two people declare simultaneous attack on each other with ranged weapons and have sharpshooting, despite the fact that they can't dodge according to you, they still can, AND SHOOT AGAIN. (See dodge, roll, and come up shooting) Regardless of what Kevin says, it has to be this way. Occham's razor, my friend. Occham's razor.

No.
By declaring that the defender is performing a simultaneous attack rather than a dodge [roll, and coming up shooting], he bars himself from the latter. That said, while the attack from dodge, roll and come up shooting does happen fast, it does not happen before his opponents' shot.


EDIT: wrong word used

[Tor]

Simultaneous attack contains built-in loopholes.

True, the ability to win initiative, attack a guy, and then upon being targetted by 3 guys, SAing all of them, expending 4 attacks in the turn it takes them to do 1, comes to mind. But the ability to continue SAing when out of actions is not one of these holes, since it can't be done. You haven't made a case for bypassing the RUE declaration that prevents anything but auto-defenses and 1 single cost-defense from being done when out of attacks.

The rule says "only parry"; is that true?

Page 342 does say that, but we should keep in mind the context of it. It is part of an example "Combat Sequence" from page 341. The lack of mention for other automatic defenses is reasonably because most characters lack any automatic defense except auto-parry.

Heck, I was wondering about the automatic body flip that HTH Commando gives, but it appears that the RUE version of commando lacks this valuable skill, while it was present in CWC.

I'm not sure how to take that. I guess the version of HtH Command known to the CS Military is a superior version than the one available to RUE classes. Much like how the version of Ninjutsu in N&SS differs from the version in TMNT. Or how N&SS has two different kinds of Jujitsu and TKD.

I do seem to vaguely recall a statement SOMEWHERE that other auto-defenses besides auto-parry can be done while out of actions, but I'm not sure I can produce it.

I'm taking the dictionary definition on it to mean what it says.

Which one? The page you linked to has 23. You can be within range of a gun but you can also be in range of a punch. It also specifically mentions firearms under the definition.

Until we have specified a single definition we are talking about, please don't use 'the', use 'a'.

It also mentions the distance of a weapon to the target; is "a punch" a weapon? Or is the fist?/rhetorical

I believe so. Weapon also has broad usage.

Also, "dictionary" would be for Dictionary.com, a singular noun.

Dictionary.com and dictionary are not synonyms. There are many dictionaries and that site is certainly not 'the' one.

Can you provide a [any] book quote as to whether or not that is the case for hand to hand forms, or is that conjecture?

Unless the books say something changes, it is reasonable conjecture that they do not. Conversion notes for characters from other systems say nothing about "and make sure to change their hand to hand moves to fit those listed under rifts, your original combat rules no longer apply". There aren't any rules about not having to change your IQ when you move between dimensions either. Conversion Books list what changes, and if something is not listed, it does not change.

I didn't realize that we were restricted to only skills when we were talking about rules from one setting to another

If you have a citation showing that skills change by going across dimensions, you're free to supply them. Your statement is disconnected from mine. I did not say we were 'restricted to only skills' as you have replied. If anything, it's closer to the opposite. I'm saying skills do not change simply because you cross dimensions.

In some cases, the base and per-level percentage for identically named skills in different settings are actually different. That doesn't mean that your percentage changes to the 'rifts version' when you move to Rifts. Like HtH, it would stay the same, because you have the skill from your home dimension, not the new ones.

Any NEW skills you learn on Rifts (which there are rules for) would obviously use Rifts percentiles though.

this entire discussion has been about rules. At no point has the topic changed from rules to skills

Skills are an area of the game covered by rules. Why are you speaking as if these are discrete concepts?

of those techniques, we have been talking about the rules that govern them.

Rules govern skills (and techniques) differently in different settings. Conversion notes do not suggest we should switch to Rifts versions of other games when a character visits.

Your premise is flawed and your rebuttal is irrelevant.

Incorrect, you were asserting that N&SS skills/techniques no longer exist in Rifts (or are at least replaced by same-named Rifts versions) and YOUR premise is flawed, because conversion notes have never supported that.

rules you cannot disregard are not "'optional' stuff".

Part of the problem is some statements Kev has made essentially make ALL the rules 'optional stuff' because he has talked later about disregarding rules he previously never labelled as optional.

Back in FoM for example, on page 127, KS mentions GMs can opt to extend 1-6 to 1-9 and 7-10 to 10-12 and narrow 11-15 to 13-15. These options were not alluded to in the RMB at all, as I recall.

No doubt there are also generic statements about GMs being able to change whatever they want. Does that need to be looked up? When Kev says 'optional' he's giving suggestions of cool ways GMs can deviate from rules, not listing their ONLY options.

What he's driving at here is that this is the Rifts forum, where we have come to discuss Rifts, not Ninjas & Super Spies. Effectively, you are citing rules for a different game (albeit, one that has a majority of the rules the same) as if they applied to this game.

We're also on the "Palladium Megaverse" web site, meaning that while forums FOCUS on a particular game, we can still cite elements of other games in discussions where relevant, such as when N&SS martial art forms are used in Rifts.

Your response does not address my statement; I said that you were citing rules for a different game as if they applied to the one being discussed.

My response DID address your statement, though perhaps not the part you wanted focus on. Rules for content from other games do apply to that content when in Rifts unless otherwise indicated in conversion notes. Otherwise a note like "please use the rifts version of auto dodge and not the N&SS auto-dodge tactic" would've been included.

Your response was "we can still cite elements of other games in discussions where relevant". But you missed the point; you are citing rules for a different game as if they apply to the one being discussed.

I do that because they DO apply to Rifts when brought here.

Does the conversion book say that rules or manouevres from other settings apply to Rifts [or other settings]?

They don't need to. Conversion books are for listing what CHANGES, not what stays the same. For example if you look at the conversion notes for superabilities from HU, a lot of them are not listed because they don't change, and for the ones that are listed, a lot of text is left out, rather than reprinting everything they only list what changed to MD, basically. It's the same with N&SS.

The conversion notes for N&SS only listed what changed about the abilities. Anything left out is still there, it just isn't altered. Anything that is there is only altered as far as it is described as being altered.

That is a matter of RAI versus RAW; do we follow the RAI or the RAW when determining which takes precedence?/rhetorical.

Can't reply here, I missed the 'what is RAI what is RAW' clarification. I don't know what the acronyms stand for.

Basically, that is the final word of it. The rules for converting a N&SS do not say that you 'take the other setting's game rules with you', so you don't. Period.

You are saying that the LACK of word on it is "the final word"? Odd phrasing.

No. You agreed with Prysus's notion that the rule book does not say what you cannot do, but instead says what you can do. So it is not I that said the lack of word on said rules is "the final word"; Prysus did. And you agreed with him.

Let me rephrase this. You said "that is the final word". To what were you referring?

I didn't say you were the FIRST to use the phrase 'final word'. But you did use it. So I am asking: why does it seem like you are saying a lack of word is word?

Since you hunger for words though, CB1pg49 "suffers none of the usual conversion/transition skill penalties". That's the closest we get to any word on the issue. There's no reason to think that N&SS forms would not use N&SS rules in other dimensions.

I only pointed out that the book did not say you took another setting's rules and applied them to whatever other setting you so chose when it suited your personal interests

It doesn't have to. We only apply the rule A to setting B when person from setting A has travelled to setting B.

I only pointed out that when you referenced a rule that you didn't just take whatever version of the rule that existed for whatever period of time and applied it to suit your needs.

I'm not sure what you mean by period of time. N&SS arts work by N&SS rules. They are modified in Rifts only by how we are told they are modified. The techniques are not described as changing based on how Rifts rules work for techniquies in Rifts HtH skills.

is it okay when discussing a topic that we do this?

I don't understand what you're asking about, TBH. I think you are describing a more generic concept which I'm not getting my mind around.

is it instead proper to mention how something works elsewhere as a purpose of comparison?

When discussing skills from that setting, yes. Or when discussing situations that exist in other settings but which are not addressed in Rifts.

For example, if I was playing a game of HU and I didn't have rules for what happens to people when they get cold, consulting Rifts Canada would be fine.

If you had N&SS style auto-dodge, you need to spend an action (usually your first) to activate the ability. That requirement isn't suddenly going to evaporate if you go to Rifts

Can you provide a book and page number for that ruling?

It's not necessary, but sure, CB1pg49. The burden is actually on you to say that the martial arts forms in N&SS change when someone goes to Rifts, because that is what you are suggesting.

Because the rules sure seem to be clear that your ability to ignore 1-99 points of SD with MDC evaporate when you go to Heroes Unlimited from an MDC setting.

Yes: because it SAYS that happens. If you can prove to me that MDC changes to SDC going from Rifts to HU, you are also supplying proof that this change only happens as a result of that statement.

If not for the notes specifying that sometimes SDC stuff becomes MDC when crossing dimensions, and that sometimes (always?) MDC stuff becomes SDC, we would indeed be right to assume that we retain MDC in other dimensions. If we don't, it is because of explicit rules that alter it.

There are no explicit rules altering the automatic dodge supplied by N&SS style martial arts. The combat notes for auto-dodge in RUE apply to RUE-originated (and perhaps other Rifts) combat and hand to hand skills.

let's stick to the relevant rules that are up for discussion then, instead of talking about a ruleset that is not

Australia and Mercs made it up for discussion, DWI.

[Dog_O_War]

Simultaneous attack contains built-in loopholes.

True, the ability to win initiative, attack a guy, and then upon being targetted by 3 guys, SAing all of them, expending 4 attacks in the turn it takes them to do 1, comes to mind. But the ability to continue SAing when out of actions is not one of these holes, since it can't be done. You haven't made a case for bypassing the RUE declaration that prevents anything but auto-defenses and 1 single cost-defense from being done when out of attacks.

The rule says "only parry"; is that true?

Page 342 does say that,

So you say it is true?

but we should keep in mind the context of it. It is part of an example "Combat Sequence" from page 341. The lack of mention for other automatic defenses is reasonably because most characters lack any automatic defense except auto-parry.

What context should we keep in-mind? Something is either true or it isn't. I didn't ask you a 'yes or no' question here, I asked you to confirm a fact.

One you still haven't done.

Heck, I was wondering about the automatic body flip that HTH Commando gives, but it appears that the RUE version of commando lacks this valuable skill, while it was present in CWC.

Older books apparently had a "mental illness" table as well, but they did not reprint that in later editions.

I'm not sure how to take that. I guess the version of HtH Command known to the CS Military is a superior version than the one available to RUE classes. Much like how the version of Ninjutsu in N&SS differs from the version in TMNT. Or how N&SS has two different kinds of Jujitsu and TKD.

Well, given that when they reprint something in a later edition and something from the reprint is gone, I'd take it as an edit; HtH Commando no longer has the skill you speak of.

I mean, palladium has actually done an edit or two in the past; the Adrenaline Rush power for Heroes Unlimited being an extreme editing example of such.

I do seem to vaguely recall a statement SOMEWHERE that other auto-defenses besides auto-parry can be done while out of actions, but I'm not sure I can produce it.

Then I recommend you not state it as factual until you can.

I'm taking the dictionary definition on it to mean what it says.

Which one? The page you linked to has 23. You can be within range of a gun but you can also be in range of a punch. It also specifically mentions firearms under the definition.

Until we have specified a single definition we are talking about, please don't use 'the', use 'a'.

Perhaps some context? You are responding to yourself, instead of responding to what I had said;

...There were more than 23. It also specifically mentions firearms under the definition. It also mentions the distance of a weapon to the target...

We have definitions; they do not include the length of the weapon itself anywhere in it.

It also mentions the distance of a weapon to the target; is "a punch" a weapon? Or is the fist?/rhetorical

I believe so. Weapon also has broad usage.

I say, is "a punch" a weapon? Or is the fist?
Your response is, "I believe so".
Two questions were asked, and you answered neither.
What you just did there is the equivalent to a waiter asking you if you would like a soup or salad, with you replying, "yes".

Also, "dictionary" would be for Dictionary.com, a singular noun.

Dictionary.com and dictionary are not synonyms. There are many dictionaries and that site is certainly not 'the' one.

And which site did I link when I said, "the dictionary"?

Can you provide a [any] book quote as to whether or not that is the case for hand to hand forms, or is that conjecture?

Unless the books say something changes, it is reasonable conjecture that they do not.

it is reasonable conjecture

conjecture

So you cannot provide a [any] book quote then, and are using conjecture.

Conversion notes for characters from other systems say nothing about "and make sure to change their hand to hand moves to fit those listed under rifts, your original combat rules no longer apply". There aren't any rules about not having to change your IQ when you move between dimensions either. Conversion Books list what changes, and if something is not listed, it does not change.

Actually, the conversion books state how to convert your character to a different setting. It would not be up to them to state what rules you then use; if you are playing Rifts, then guess what? You are using the Rifts rules system.

I didn't realize that we were restricted to only skills when we were talking about rules from one setting to another

If you have a citation showing that skills change by going across dimensions, you're free to supply them. Your statement is disconnected from mine.

MDC isn't a skill, I reject it being used as an example.

I did not say we were 'restricted to only skills' as you have replied. If anything, it's closer to the opposite. I'm saying skills do not change simply because you cross dimensions.

MDC isn't a skill, I reject it being used as an example.

this entire discussion has been about rules. At no point has the topic changed from rules to skills

Skills are an area of the game covered by rules. Why are you speaking as if these are discrete concepts?

MDC isn't a skill, I reject it being used as an example.

of those techniques, we have been talking about the rules that govern them.

Rules govern skills (and techniques) differently in different settings. Conversion notes do not suggest we should switch to Rifts versions of other games when a character visits.

And yet, we are switching to the Rifts rules.

Rules govern skills (and techniques) differently in different settings.

Rules govern skills

Funny that, you seem to be saying here that rules govern skills differently in different settings; but you also said,

I'm saying skills do not change simply because you cross dimensions.

So while the skill may not have changed, the rules governing them may have. That is what you have said; well from dimension to dimension, stuff like back flip has been defined. It is clear that a N&SS back flip is still back flip, because that is what they called it.
And the rules govern stuff like "back flip".
So from one dimension to another, the skill exists, but the rules for it change.

Your words, not mine.

Your premise is flawed and your rebuttal is irrelevant.

Incorrect, you were asserting that N&SS skills/techniques no longer exist in Rifts (or are at least replaced by same-named Rifts versions) and YOUR premise is flawed, because conversion notes have never supported that.

I'm saying skills do not change simply because you cross dimensions.

Rules govern skills (and techniques) differently in different settings.

rules you cannot disregard are not "'optional' stuff".

Part of the problem is some statements Kev has made essentially make ALL the rules 'optional stuff' because he has talked later about disregarding rules he previously never labelled as optional.

Kev has also said that he house-rules his own game, making anything he says a house-rule; only what he writes is canon.

Besides this, my statement exists outside of the Palladium system; you cannot disregard non-optional life rules, such as gravity, taxes, or the superior taste of coke over pepsi.

Back in FoM for example, on page 127, KS mentions GMs can opt to extend 1-6 to 1-9 and 7-10 to 10-12 and narrow 11-15 to 13-15. These options were not alluded to in the RMB at all, as I recall.

So what you're saying is that either Kev was stating another one of his house-rules, or that he rescinded his original, official ruling on the matter as he edits almost all of palladiums' works, including the RMB.

No doubt there are also generic statements about GMs being able to change whatever they want. Does that need to be looked up? When Kev says 'optional' he's giving suggestions of cool ways GMs can deviate from rules, not listing their ONLY options.

Well, I will ask you this;
Is a rule official because a rule-maker says it without putting it in writing?
Or is it just idea generation of how you might change the game?

Your response does not address my statement; I said that you were citing rules for a different game as if they applied to the one being discussed.

My response DID address your statement, though perhaps not the part you wanted focus on. Rules for content from other games do apply to that content when in Rifts unless otherwise indicated in conversion notes. Otherwise a note like "please use the rifts version of auto dodge and not the N&SS auto-dodge tactic" would've been included.

Effectively, you are citing rules for a different game (albeit, one that has a majority of the rules the same) as if they applied to this game.

Well then let's start quoting D&D 3.5 for how anti-magic works, okay? I mean, there is no note within the conversion book on how it wouldn't apply, despite being a different game and all
Or maybe you didn't actually address what I said.
You are citing rules from other games as if they applied to this one. Honestly, it does not matter what sub-category this forum is in, it is about Rifts and not Ninjas & Super Spies.

Your response was "we can still cite elements of other games in discussions where relevant". But you missed the point; you are citing rules for a different game as if they apply to the one being discussed.

I do that because they DO apply to Rifts when brought here.

Rules govern skills (and techniques) differently in different settings.

Does the conversion book say that rules or manouevres from other settings apply to Rifts [or other settings]?

They don't need to. Conversion books are for listing what CHANGES, not what stays the same.

Rules govern skills (and techniques) differently in different settings.

The conversion notes for N&SS only listed what changed about the abilities. Anything left out is still there, it just isn't altered. Anything that is there is only altered as far as it is described as being altered.

Rules govern skills (and techniques) differently in different settings.

That is a matter of RAI versus RAW; do we follow the RAI or the RAW when determining which takes precedence?/rhetorical.

Can't reply here, I missed the 'what is RAI what is RAW' clarification. I don't know what the acronyms stand for.

RAI = Rules As Intented
RAW = Rules As Written

Let me rephrase this. You said "that is the final word". To what were you referring?

The Conversion book does not say that you take rules that previously governed your character in another setting with you when converting to a different setting, such as Rifts.
Therefore, you do not. I even have a quote of you stating as much, which I've used a few times thus far;

Rules govern skills (and techniques) differently in different settings.

I didn't say you were the FIRST to use the phrase 'final word'. But you did use it. So I am asking: why does it seem like you are saying a lack of word is word?

I'm not; I am merely repeating what Prysus said.

...the book doesn't state what you can't do very often. It doesn't tell you that a Grackle Tooth can't fly, or that a Butter Troll can't snap his fingers and automatically deal 3D6x1,000,000 M.D.C. and the target gets no save or dodge. What it does is tell you what you can do...

Since you hunger for words though, CB1pg49 "suffers none of the usual conversion/transition skill penalties". That's the closest we get to any word on the issue. There's no reason to think that N&SS forms would not use N&SS rules in other dimensions.

Well, given that what you just posted is in reference to something specific, re: conversion/transition skill penalties, then it would be a point to note that the rules have still never stated that you would use N&SS rules. Here's your quote agreeing with me on this;

Rules govern skills (and techniques) differently in different settings.

I only pointed out that the book did not say you took another setting's rules and applied them to whatever other setting you so chose when it suited your personal interests

It doesn't have to. We only apply the rule A to setting B when person from setting A has travelled to setting B.

Except when;

Rules govern skills (and techniques) differently in different settings.

I only pointed out that when you referenced a rule that you didn't just take whatever version of the rule that existed for whatever period of time and applied it to suit your needs.

I'm not sure what you mean by period of time.

That was a jab at Prysus, who seemed to think that you could just site an old rule if and when it was removed in a new edition.

N&SS arts work by N&SS rules.

Except when;

Rules govern skills (and techniques) differently in different settings.

They are modified in Rifts only by how we are told they are modified.

Exactly! Like when;

Rules govern skills (and techniques) differently in different settings.

is it okay when discussing a topic that we do this?

I don't understand what you're asking about, TBH. I think you are describing a more generic concept which I'm not getting my mind around.

I was asking whether or not it was okay to just reference a rule from any edition or any setting as if it held precedence over the current edition when talking about a specific setting.
It the above something that is okay to do?

is it instead proper to mention how something works elsewhere as a purpose of comparison?

When discussing skills from that setting, yes. Or when discussing situations that exist in other settings but which are not addressed in Rifts.

So Rifts doesn't address what an Attacker and a Defender can do in hand to hand combat?

If you had N&SS style auto-dodge, you need to spend an action (usually your first) to activate the ability. That requirement isn't suddenly going to evaporate if you go to Rifts

Can you provide a book and page number for that ruling?

It's not necessary, but sure, CB1pg49. The burden is actually on you to say that the martial arts forms in N&SS change when someone goes to Rifts, because that is what you are suggesting.

No, I am asking you to site your sources; to back up your "facts".
As to proving a change when someone goes to Rifts, well;

Rules govern skills (and techniques) differently in different settings.

Because the rules sure seem to be clear that your ability to ignore 1-99 points of SD with MDC evaporate when you go to Heroes Unlimited from an MDC setting.

Yes: because it SAYS that happens. If you can prove to me that MDC changes to SDC going from Rifts to HU, you are also supplying proof that this change only happens as a result of that statement.

Exactly. So when I say that Rifts has a defined Hand to Hand system, techniques, etc. and that stuff like auto-dodge as it exists in N&SS has a different definition and mechanic in Rifts, and then provide the definition on how it works, with book and page number, like I did on page three of this thread, then there is no way of denying that the rules you're quoting simply do not apply in this setting. Or, to sum it up;

Rules govern skills (and techniques) differently in different settings.

There are no explicit rules altering the automatic dodge supplied by N&SS style martial arts.

Automatic Dodge (pg.344) : "Certain characters and creatures are able to automatically dodge an attack without using up a melee attack/action. it is purely a defensive move... ...Roll for a dodge as normal... ...An automatic dodge works just like a (automatic) parry in that the act of dodging does not use up any attacks to perform..."

The combat notes for auto-dodge in RUE apply to RUE-originated (and perhaps other Rifts) combat and hand to hand skills.

Rules govern skills (and techniques) differently in different settings.

[Prysus]

I didn't say you were the FIRST to use the phrase 'final word'. But you did use it. So I am asking: why does it seem like you are saying a lack of word is word?

I'm not; I am merely repeating what Prysus said.

...the book doesn't state what you can't do very often. It doesn't tell you that a Grackle Tooth can't fly, or that a Butter Troll can't snap his fingers and automatically deal 3D6x1,000,000 M.D.C. and the target gets no save or dodge. What it does is tell you what you can do...

Greetings and Salutations. If you're going to quote me, at least read what I said and what you said.

Basically, that is the final word of it. The rules for converting a N&SS do not say that you 'take the other setting's game rules with you', so you don't. Period.

You are saying that the LACK of word on it is "the final word"? Odd phrasing.

No. You agreed with Prysus's notion that the rule book does not say what you cannot do, but instead says what you can do. So it is not I that said the lack of word on said rules is "the final word"; Prysus did. And you agreed with him.

Let me rephrase this. You said "that is the final word". To what were you referring?

I didn't say you were the FIRST to use the phrase 'final word'. But you did use it. So I am asking: why does it seem like you are saying a lack of word is word?

Okay ... I see the phrase "final word" repeated many times there, and yet you never once see my use of the phrase (and you quoted me, but apparently didn't read it) until this post. It's put in quotes four times (not counting the original time you said it) in the quotes I provided between you and Tor, so don't claim I said something I didn't. That's called lying.

For note: This doesn't mean I disagree with what I said, but since someone is falsely claiming I used the term "final word" when I did not, it's lying.

As for the matter of N&S being converted ... read Conversion Book One (I'll use Revised for page numbers). On page 39 it mentions skills will progress per "the originating RPG." Ergo, not Rifts. On page 51 regarding Worldly Martial Artists and Dedicated Martial Artists, it mentions "largely unchanged" (then includes the exception). Then for powers it mentions the "essence of most are unchanged" and says "unchanged" repeatedly in the powers (and this is just at a glance). For those who have trouble understanding the word, here's the defintion for unchanged.

Also, if you're going to use the argument that if it doesn't say you can then you can't ... then you're shooting down you're whole argument that you can simultaneous attack by using attacks from next round because it doesn't say you can't. That means you're actually arguing against your own point (sadly not the first time, and yet I still find it amusing).

As for Tor ...

Can't reply here, I missed the 'what is RAI what is RAW' clarification. I don't know what the acronyms stand for.

RAW is Rules As Written.
RAI is Rules As Intended/Interpreted (though "Imagined" also seems appropriate at times).

So, for example, if someone claims Simultaneous Attack uses up your next melee attack, if they provide a book quote that actually says that (or a quote that says it applies to ALL actions taken by a Defender), then it's RAW because it's actually written. If the person's only support is that they think it makes sense, then it's RAI (no matter how much they try to claim otherwise).

Another example: The books says that if you Simultaneous Attack, "neither opponent can parry, dodge, or entangle." Earlier in the passage it says "the character does not defend." Note: "the character" in the second quote refers to the character performing the simultaneous attack. As such, we have a quote saying they don't defend, and this thereby removes defense options, even if not listed.

RAW = The original attacker cannot parry, dodge, or entangle, but can use other defenses not listed.
RAI = The original attacker cannot defend at all. ((Note: This "Intent" can be further gleamed by reading the passage of Simultaneous Attack in RGMG that I quoted, in part, earlier. It discusses how unless you fail your roll to strike, you "will" hit. However, it's never explicitly stated due to the choice of words.))

Anyways, that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Dog_O_War]

For note: This doesn't mean I disagree with what I said, but since someone is falsely claiming I used the term "final word" when I did not, it's lying.

That is a miscommunication.
Tor called it "the final word".
I said that it was a statement you made, and that he agreed with it, so "the final word" was in reference to the portion I quoted you saying.
You didn't actually say, "final word", I defined it as the portion I quoted you on the matter, and thus saying "the final word" was in reference to the defined text (ie: your quote).

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

As for the matter of N&S being converted ... read Conversion Book One (I'll use Revised for page numbers). On page 39 it mentions skills will progress per "the originating RPG." Ergo, not Rifts. On page 51 regarding Worldly Martial Artists and Dedicated Martial Artists, it mentions "largely unchanged" (then includes the exception). Then for powers it mentions the "essence of most are unchanged" and says "unchanged" repeatedly in the powers (and this is just at a glance).

That was easy, wasn't it? To just go to the book and produce facts? I don't understand why some people have such a tough time doing this.

That said, does this book at all reference Rifts: Ultimate Edition? I want people to consider that when putting forth a fact; the date of the source.

Also, if you're going to use the argument that if it doesn't say you can then you can't ... then you're shooting down you're whole argument that you can simultaneous attack by using attacks from next round because it doesn't say you can't. That means you're actually arguing against your own point (sadly not the first time, and yet I still find it amusing).

I know what portion of the text you're [not?] referring to; the unsaid portion.
Here's the thing; Defenders do not have a "current attack" to use, and yet they are able to attack.

That is unsaid text then, which would be their next available attack. My argument does not contradict itself. I even mentioned this earlier, but it was a portion that no one paid attention to and simply glossed over. It's funny how people do that when they are arguing something.

And to complete this thought, you said, "the book doesn't state what you can't do very often... ...What it does is tell you what you can do"
Does not mean that you can only do what the book tells you.

I mean, the book doesn't say that I can rig 15 JA-9s to a single trigger and tie it in to a nuclear power-source for a gun that does 3d6x10MD with unlimited shots at a range comparable to most railguns, but weighs marginally less. Or that you can be a robot, wear powered armour and pilot a robot for attacks-stacking. Yet those examples are legitimate and completely possible.

So, for example, if someone claims Simultaneous Attack uses up your next melee attack, if they provide a book quote that actually says that (or a quote that says it applies to ALL actions taken by a Defender), then it's RAW because it's actually written. If the person's only support is that they think it makes sense, then it's RAI (no matter how much they try to claim otherwise).

I will just address this here instead of waiting for Tor to say it;
Does a Defender have a current attack? Book and page number where it says they do./rhetorical.
Given that they don't, well then guess what? if they are attacking, then it must be their next available attack they are using.

Or would you rather I fall in with the notion that it could also be free, since defenders do not otherwise have a current attack to use?

Really, it's up to you to decide which road to take here.

Another example: The books says that if you Simultaneous Attack, "neither opponent can parry, dodge, or entangle." Earlier in the passage it says "the character does not defend." Note: "the character" in the second quote refers to the character performing the simultaneous attack. As such, we have a quote saying they don't defend, and this thereby removes defense options, even if not listed.

RAW = The original attacker cannot parry, dodge, or entangle, but can use other defenses not listed.

Quick question; what does Step 3 of the Combat section say a Defender can do?/rhetorical

If you're going to post a fact, make sure it's well, factual. Because as it stands, your 'fact' is a figment of your own imagination. The RAW states that a Defender can parry, dodge, or entangle. Simultaneous Attack says that they cannot under its circumstance criteria, with a noted exception. At no point does the RAW state that the attacker "can use other defences not listed".