Paired Weapons, Automatic Parry and Simultaneous Attack.

[Dog_O_War]

Wrong again. It often quite literally means that.
Do you know how rare an actual simultaneous attack is?
It doesn't happen. Ever, basically. The two adversaries would first need the exact same initiative and then attack each-other, but even then one would still need to call a simultaneous attack.

Otherwise, one attack happens before the other.

you are now trying to argue semantics to support your view.

No.
The book states that you must determine who goes when, and that in order for an attack to be simultaneous, it must be called as such.

It's not semantics; it's the rules.

It does bring your entire stance into question at this point.
It seems as if your entire logic chain hinges on fragile links of this sort.
No wonder you are garnering such vehement opposition.

Wrong. What draws my "stance" into question is that I often (too often) assume that the people I am talking with have actually read the rules, or at least read up on the things I claim before responding to them. So I often go from point A straight to point C, leaving out B as a way of saving time and advancing a conversation beyond having to explain all of the rules to one or two people who probably should have just read them in the first place.

I see how you could arrive at such a conclusion but it looks to me as if you started with the conclusion (possibly subconsciously but none the less...) and worked towards interpreting the data to arrive at that conclusion.

That is just me going from A to C without the stop-over at B.

It is well established in Palladium's long history that they are not consistent with use of words having and maintaining only one meaning.
To assume that Simultaneous in this instance means only one thing is defeated by the fact that in every instance (outside of the SA maneuver) it lists the "simultaneous attack/action/strike" as only costing a single action and only requiring a single die roll making the action an all or nothing outcome. And does not reference the SA combat maneuver.

If you're referring to paired weapon strikes; paired weapons has defined that as a "twin strike".

As to the rest of the book; it honestly doesn't matter what the flavour says in regards to the rules (unfortunately), as the rules are what governs our actions within the game.

[Dog_O_War]

You're being asked to spell things out because your arguments read like opinions.

Just this. This is all I am going to address, because I want you to go over everything I've said after you consider this response I am typing here.

Does that matter what they [my arguments] read like?!

If I were to say, "well in my opinion, two plus two equals four", it certainly should not throw into question the validity of 2+2 actually equaling 4.

If this is one of the reasons you're so set on arguement, on questioning what I have put forth, then you need to rethink your approach. Because, and I have stated this previously and it is apparent in my posts, I provide the evidence to back it up. I put forth quotes, page numbers, etc.

On the flip-side to this, I was just reading you attempting to discredit wikipedia in another thread because sometimes 'the links don't work' or that they are links to "books written by individuals". First, that is conjecture; everything ever written will eventually run into a point where the source material has no links and was penned by an individual. So you have to have faith that at some point, one of those "individuals" can in-fact be considered credible.
Second, you yourself often reference material other than the source; that material was in-fact "written by an individual"; but this is the thing - that material was then edited by another. By your thought process, can we trust material that was only edited by one person?


I just want you to consider what you're constantly calling into question, and the reason behind why you're calling it into question.

[Tor]

book states that you must determine who goes when, and that in order for an attack to be simultaneous, it must be called as such.

Where has it ever stated that a SA must be called for an attack to be simultaneous?

Wrong. What draws my "stance" into question is that I often (too often) assume that the people I am talking with have actually read the rules, or at least read up on the things I claim before responding to them.

Dog your veiled insults are getting old. Many of your accusations that people have not read rules are based on strawman arguments you've attributed to us based on misreading our criticisms of your ideas.

It's quite easy to read things and forget the exact wording or placement of what was read, too, so it'd be rightly chivalrous of us to supply pages and such (as both sides have done, here and there) to clarify source material to allow it to be re-consulted.

I often go from point A straight to point C, leaving out B as a way of saving time and advancing a conversation beyond having to explain all of the rules to one or two people who probably should have just read them in the first place.

Once again, getting old. I think you're getting off-topic by this non-distinct talk about others' tendencies when clarification is reached by discussion of the topic.

Or is it most fun to spend time discussing why you shouldn't have to discuss rules than to discuss them? I see it as a means of avoiding particulars.

If you're referring to paired weapon strikes; paired weapons has defined that as a "twin strike".

It also calls that twin strike 'simultaneous' in addition to that. Twin strikes are simultaneous relative to each other (Raphael's right sai can simultaneously attack with his left sai).

"Twin, simultaneous strike" is described in the same way as "strike and parry simultaneously" under paired WP. That's all I mean here. In the case of Toy Control, the group of toys attacking in unison works similarly to a twin strike except they (presumably) get different strike rolls.

Does that matter what they [my arguments] read like?!

"Reads like opinions" means deviating from the source material to me, so yeah. That's what I'm trying to communicate here.

You're becoming prone to exaggeration in your description of opposition, like saying you 'have to explain everything'. Realistically speaking, you are being asked to explain more than you want to explain, but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING.

If I were to say, "well in my opinion, two plus two equals four", it certainly should not throw into question the validity of 2+2 actually equaling 4.

Your example isn't similar to our situation. You're being asked to identify the value of a in a given equation, and being asked to supply the equation and how you simplified it to reach a solution. This isn't basic addition, it's algebra, if we're to metaphor.

If this is one of the reasons you're so set on arguement, on questioning what I have put forth, then you need to rethink your approach.

The reason I'm arguing with you is not because you hold an opinion, it is because the opinion deviates from my interpretation of the rules. So luckily, the thing you are concerned about here is a strawman.

I provide the evidence to back it up. I put forth quotes, page numbers, etc.

Supplying pages and quotes does not necessarily mean that what is being presented is being correctly interpreted. In the cases where this stuff has been supplied, there have been disputes about the meaning of passages. Your opposition has also supplied pages and quotes.

I was just reading you attempting to discredit wikipedia in another thread

Which is completely irrelevant here. Further off-topic ad-hominem distraction tactics.

sometimes 'the links don't work' or that they are links to "books written by individuals". First, that is conjecture; everything ever written will eventually run into a point where the source material has no links and was penned by an individual. So you have to have faith that at some point, one of those "individuals" can in-fact be considered credible.

I'm not sure what you're going on about here. If you can cite a source of a Palladium book which I do not have access to reading then that is fine. I won't say the rule doesn't exist, I'd just say "I gotta bow out since I haven't read that".

I am confused how you think this relates to this thread. What you're referring to is very different, individualized analyst claims about slang terms describing gaming in general, versus canonical 'word of god' type stuff about rules in a specific role-playing game.

you yourself often reference material other than the source; that material was in-fact "written by an individual"; but this is the thing - that material was then edited by another. By your thought process, can we trust material that was only edited by one person?

Please tell me where in this thread I have objected to a rule you have provided on the basis of it being written by an individual. I'm not seeing how this is related to our previous line of argument. I see you spiraling off-topic with vague attacks on my character. Not one have you gotten back to discussing the rules.

You completely avoided what I mentioned in CB1pg10, for example. You've avoided other uses of the word 'simultaneous' that I've provided. You've not provided a source supporting the idea that RUE erases all previous rules, which I think you have alleged discredits the notes about it in GMG/Rifter. For all the talk of skipping from A to C, I'm seeing few As.

[Dog_O_War]

book states that you must determine who goes when, and that in order for an attack to be simultaneous, it must be called as such.

Where has it ever stated that a SA must be called for an attack to be simultaneous?

Under Simultaneous Attack.
Otherwise, the attack can never be simultaneous because of the initiative rules.

Wrong. What draws my "stance" into question is that I often (too often) assume that the people I am talking with have actually read the rules, or at least read up on the things I claim before responding to them.

Dog your veiled insults are getting old. Many of your accusations that people have not read rules are based on strawman arguments you've attributed to us based on misreading our criticisms of your ideas.

Consider that when I post in a subject, it's often not to insert my opinion, but rather, to provide some illumination with facts.
Now consider how completely insulting it is to have facts questioned simply because you said it.
That is what I experience daily here on the boards; it is extremely insulting and you are certainly guilty of it. So if I seem condescending, or if I turn condescending, it's because I too am getting tired of the insults.

It's quite easy to read things and forget the exact wording or placement of what was read, too, so it'd be rightly chivalrous of us to supply pages and such (as both sides have done, here and there) to clarify source material to allow it to be re-consulted.

And yet, when I do this, and ask you what the wording does and does not say, you inject opinion into your responses and rarely, if ever realize the answers to the questions I ask. And those questions? Yeah, they're to help you, and others like you, understand the material.
But I guess that's down-right insulting of me, to try and help you understand.

I often go from point A straight to point C, leaving out B as a way of saving time and advancing a conversation beyond having to explain all of the rules to one or two people who probably should have just read them in the first place.

Once again, getting old. I think you're getting off-topic by this non-distinct talk about others' tendencies when clarification is reached by discussion of the topic.

First, that response wasn't for you; it was for someone who actually noticed the style of posts.

Second, it wasn't me getting off-topic; I was asked the question, and I answered.

Or is it most fun to spend time discussing why you shouldn't have to discuss rules than to discuss them? I see it as a means of avoiding particulars.

That's one person's opinion.

If you're referring to paired weapon strikes; paired weapons has defined that as a "twin strike".

It also calls that twin strike 'simultaneous' in addition to that.

This is exactly one of those instances I was describing above; I try to teach you, but you don't bother to either read the subject matter, or simply doubt what facts I put forth because it came from me.
It does not "also call that twin strike 'simultaneous' in addition to that". It states, separate from the twin strike portion of the entry that "a twin, simultaneous strike with both weapons means losing the automatic parry"
That would be two simultaneous strikes; twinned.

Twin strikes are simultaneous relative to each other (Raphael's right sai can simultaneously attack with his left sai).

And peanut butter is often spread on toast, but let's stick to what's relevant, okay?

"Twin, simultaneous strike" is described in the same way as "strike and parry simultaneously" under paired WP. That's all I mean here. In the case of Toy Control, the group of toys attacking in unison works similarly to a twin strike except they (presumably) get different strike rolls.

You presume too much. All fire-linked attacks work off of one roll; all separately made attack rolls happen at different times, except in the instance of simultaneous attack, and that is only when you are targeting multiple opponents. And in the case of a swarm; they are typically treated as one entity, meaning one attack roll when attacking one target.
There are literally no other rules to govern or contradict what I've said here.

Does that matter what they [my arguments] read like?!

"Reads like opinions" means deviating from the source material to me, so yeah. That's what I'm trying to communicate here.

Having to define what something means to you when the dictionary isn't good enough means to me that a person should work on their communication and comprehension rather than argue about a rule because the guy who said it makes it seem "like opinions".

You're becoming prone to exaggeration in your description of opposition, like saying you 'have to explain everything'. Realistically speaking, you are being asked to explain more than you want to explain, but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING.

Well at least you could tell that was exaggeration

If I were to say, "well in my opinion, two plus two equals four", it certainly should not throw into question the validity of 2+2 actually equaling 4.

Your example isn't similar to our situation.

It's exactly the same as our situation. I literally broke down simultaneous attack, paired weapons, and automatic parry for you, nearly word-for-word, with a direct book quote for each of the entries.
And you still didn't get it.
I pointed out that the rules give us precedents on how things are done, and you give either a false fact, or an opinion on how it is done, which is in direct contradiction to the factual evidence put forth in front of you.

For example, you said that (and this is a paraphrase) 'attacks borrowing from the next round is not the standard way of doing things', to which I showed you direct evidence that it is in-fact how the majority of actions are governed.
And you still argued.
And argued every point I have put forth basically. And the time I caught you contradicting yourself? Well, you had to finally retract one of the contradictory statements, and got huffy and mad because you were having a hard time otherwise forming a credible argument. It was a rare moment in this thread where you admitted that you were wrong in an interpretation and had to adapt an argument.
Well here is a fact of the thread; I have never changed my position once. I have stuck to the same set of facts the entire time.

You're being asked to identify the value of a in a given equation, and being asked to supply the equation and how you simplified it to reach a solution. This isn't basic addition, it's algebra, if we're to metaphor.

No. I have done that.
At this point in time, with the amount you've re-asked the same question, you're asking me to supply the equation in a different language (one that makes sense to you, apparently), to which I have stretched and reached and tried. At some point here, you have to take some responsibility for your own learning; I have given you all the tools, but you have to actually use them to understand.

If this is one of the reasons you're so set on arguement, on questioning what I have put forth, then you need to rethink your approach.

The reason I'm arguing with you is not because you hold an opinion, it is because the opinion deviates from my interpretation of the rules.

At this point I would like to remind you, and everyone else reading this that you Tor, reference the rules to a different game far too often in this thread about Rifts.
In fact, I don't really recall ANY of the references you've made to be factually accurate when concerning R:UE.

I provide the evidence to back it up. I put forth quotes, page numbers, etc.

Supplying pages and quotes does not necessarily mean that what is being presented is being correctly interpreted. In the cases where this stuff has been supplied, there have been disputes about the meaning of passages. Your opposition has also supplied pages and quotes.

From books other than the source-material. That's like stating old documents are as relevant, if not more-so than the most up-to-date source material. Which is a weak position; it's so weak in-fact that it's a non-position. I mean hell, it has been shown that your whole "two versions of hth: commando" position was a sham; that the older books are not accurate concerning the current rules.

I was just reading you attempting to discredit wikipedia in another thread

Which is completely irrelevant here. Further off-topic ad-hominem distraction tactics.

sometimes 'the links don't work' or that they are links to "books written by individuals". First, that is conjecture; everything ever written will eventually run into a point where the source material has no links and was penned by an individual. So you have to have faith that at some point, one of those "individuals" can in-fact be considered credible.

I'm not sure what you're going on about here. If you can cite a source of a Palladium book which I do not have access to reading then that is fine. I won't say the rule doesn't exist, I'd just say "I gotta bow out since I haven't read that".

I know you're not sure what I'm going on about.
The point of me stating this was to show you that you discredit information because "it was written by individuals" when the very books we discuss where otherwise edited by in individual.
It's a contradictory position; one that says that the books we're talking about aren't a credible source because of the number of people who wrote them. I am high-lighting your otherwise apparent thought-pattern on the subject matters' roots. I am pointing out that you lack credibility because of this opinion of yours. Which brings about the question of whether anything you say is credible; I mean, why should I, or anyone believe your interpretations are correct, given the amount of contradictory positions you hold and have held?
That is the point of what I was "going on about".

you yourself often reference material other than the source; that material was in-fact "written by an individual"; but this is the thing - that material was then edited by another. By your thought process, can we trust material that was only edited by one person?

Please tell me where in this thread I have objected to a rule you have provided on the basis of it being written by an individual.

Your position on facts extends beyond that of a single thread, bud.

You completely avoided what I mentioned in CB1pg10, for example. You've avoided other uses of the word 'simultaneous' that I've provided. You've not provided a source supporting the idea that RUE erases all previous rules, which I think you have alleged discredits the notes about it in GMG/Rifter. For all the talk of skipping from A to C, I'm seeing few As.

Tor, I posted a big 'A' on the third page of this thread. Nothing you have provided for 'evidence' could discredit it. You have been arguing for nothing for many pages now and constantly state that you "don't understand".


You don't understand. This means I lose the thread; I honestly do not know how else to explain it to you; you won't listen to the facts I present because read too much like opinion and differ from the interpretive conclusion you have already drawn.



I mean, I find it incredibly futile and a waste of my time to simply join a thread an argue for six pages without someone coming away with something akin to a better understanding of the game, but that's what I'm experiencing here.



I tried to help you understand, but you didn't.

[Blue_Lion]

book states that you must determine who goes when, and that in order for an attack to be simultaneous, it must be called as such.

Where has it ever stated that a SA must be called for an attack to be simultaneous?

Under Simultaneous Attack.
Otherwise, the attack can never be simultaneous because of the initiative rules.

Wrong. What draws my "stance" into question is that I often (too often) assume that the people I am talking with have actually read the rules, or at least read up on the things I claim before responding to them.

Dog your veiled insults are getting old. Many of your accusations that people have not read rules are based on strawman arguments you've attributed to us based on misreading our criticisms of your ideas.

Consider that when I post in a subject, it's often not to insert my opinion, but rather, to provide some illumination with facts.
Now consider how completely insulting it is to have facts questioned simply because you said it.
That is what I experience daily here on the boards; it is extremely insulting and you are certainly guilty of it. So if I seem condescending, or if I turn condescending, it's because I too am getting tired of the insults.

It's quite easy to read things and forget the exact wording or placement of what was read, too, so it'd be rightly chivalrous of us to supply pages and such (as both sides have done, here and there) to clarify source material to allow it to be re-consulted.

And yet, when I do this, and ask you what the wording does and does not say, you inject opinion into your responses and rarely, if ever realize the answers to the questions I ask. And those questions? Yeah, they're to help you, and others like you, understand the material.
But I guess that's down-right insulting of me, to try and help you understand.

I often go from point A straight to point C, leaving out B as a way of saving time and advancing a conversation beyond having to explain all of the rules to one or two people who probably should have just read them in the first place.

Once again, getting old. I think you're getting off-topic by this non-distinct talk about others' tendencies when clarification is reached by discussion of the topic.

First, that response wasn't for you; it was for someone who actually noticed the style of posts.

Second, it wasn't me getting off-topic; I was asked the question, and I answered.

Or is it most fun to spend time discussing why you shouldn't have to discuss rules than to discuss them? I see it as a means of avoiding particulars.

That's one person's opinion.

If you're referring to paired weapon strikes; paired weapons has defined that as a "twin strike".

It also calls that twin strike 'simultaneous' in addition to that.

This is exactly one of those instances I was describing above; I try to teach you, but you don't bother to either read the subject matter, or simply doubt what facts I put forth because it came from me.
It does not "also call that twin strike 'simultaneous' in addition to that". It states, separate from the twin strike portion of the entry that "a twin, simultaneous strike with both weapons means losing the automatic parry"
That would be two simultaneous strikes; twinned.

Twin strikes are simultaneous relative to each other (Raphael's right sai can simultaneously attack with his left sai).

And peanut butter is often spread on toast, but let's stick to what's relevant, okay?

"Twin, simultaneous strike" is described in the same way as "strike and parry simultaneously" under paired WP. That's all I mean here. In the case of Toy Control, the group of toys attacking in unison works similarly to a twin strike except they (presumably) get different strike rolls.

You presume too much. All fire-linked attacks work off of one roll; all separately made attack rolls happen at different times, except in the instance of simultaneous attack, and that is only when you are targeting multiple opponents. And in the case of a swarm; they are typically treated as one entity, meaning one attack roll when attacking one target.
There are literally no other rules to govern or contradict what I've said here.

Does that matter what they [my arguments] read like?!

"Reads like opinions" means deviating from the source material to me, so yeah. That's what I'm trying to communicate here.

Having to define what something means to you when the dictionary isn't good enough means to me that a person should work on their communication and comprehension rather than argue about a rule because the guy who said it makes it seem "like opinions".

You're becoming prone to exaggeration in your description of opposition, like saying you 'have to explain everything'. Realistically speaking, you are being asked to explain more than you want to explain, but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING.

Well at least you could tell that was exaggeration

If I were to say, "well in my opinion, two plus two equals four", it certainly should not throw into question the validity of 2+2 actually equaling 4.

Your example isn't similar to our situation.

It's exactly the same as our situation. I literally broke down simultaneous attack, paired weapons, and automatic parry for you, nearly word-for-word, with a direct book quote for each of the entries.
And you still didn't get it.
I pointed out that the rules give us precedents on how things are done, and you give either a false fact, or an opinion on how it is done, which is in direct contradiction to the factual evidence put forth in front of you.

For example, you said that (and this is a paraphrase) 'attacks borrowing from the next round is not the standard way of doing things', to which I showed you direct evidence that it is in-fact how the majority of actions are governed.
And you still argued.
And argued every point I have put forth basically. And the time I caught you contradicting yourself? Well, you had to finally retract one of the contradictory statements, and got huffy and mad because you were having a hard time otherwise forming a credible argument. It was a rare moment in this thread where you admitted that you were wrong in an interpretation and had to adapt an argument.
Well here is a fact of the thread; I have never changed my position once. I have stuck to the same set of facts the entire time.

You're being asked to identify the value of a in a given equation, and being asked to supply the equation and how you simplified it to reach a solution. This isn't basic addition, it's algebra, if we're to metaphor.

No. I have done that.
At this point in time, with the amount you've re-asked the same question, you're asking me to supply the equation in a different language (one that makes sense to you, apparently), to which I have stretched and reached and tried. At some point here, you have to take some responsibility for your own learning; I have given you all the tools, but you have to actually use them to understand.

If this is one of the reasons you're so set on arguement, on questioning what I have put forth, then you need to rethink your approach.

The reason I'm arguing with you is not because you hold an opinion, it is because the opinion deviates from my interpretation of the rules.

At this point I would like to remind you, and everyone else reading this that you Tor, reference the rules to a different game far too often in this thread about Rifts.
In fact, I don't really recall ANY of the references you've made to be factually accurate when concerning R:UE.

I provide the evidence to back it up. I put forth quotes, page numbers, etc.

Supplying pages and quotes does not necessarily mean that what is being presented is being correctly interpreted. In the cases where this stuff has been supplied, there have been disputes about the meaning of passages. Your opposition has also supplied pages and quotes.

From books other than the source-material. That's like stating old documents are as relevant, if not more-so than the most up-to-date source material. Which is a weak position; it's so weak in-fact that it's a non-position. I mean hell, it has been shown that your whole "two versions of hth: commando" position was a sham; that the older books are not accurate concerning the current rules.

I was just reading you attempting to discredit wikipedia in another thread

Which is completely irrelevant here. Further off-topic ad-hominem distraction tactics.

sometimes 'the links don't work' or that they are links to "books written by individuals". First, that is conjecture; everything ever written will eventually run into a point where the source material has no links and was penned by an individual. So you have to have faith that at some point, one of those "individuals" can in-fact be considered credible.

I'm not sure what you're going on about here. If you can cite a source of a Palladium book which I do not have access to reading then that is fine. I won't say the rule doesn't exist, I'd just say "I gotta bow out since I haven't read that".

I know you're not sure what I'm going on about.
The point of me stating this was to show you that you discredit information because "it was written by individuals" when the very books we discuss where otherwise edited by in individual.
It's a contradictory position; one that says that the books we're talking about aren't a credible source because of the number of people who wrote them. I am high-lighting your otherwise apparent thought-pattern on the subject matters' roots. I am pointing out that you lack credibility because of this opinion of yours. Which brings about the question of whether anything you say is credible; I mean, why should I, or anyone believe your interpretations are correct, given the amount of contradictory positions you hold and have held?
That is the point of what I was "going on about".

you yourself often reference material other than the source; that material was in-fact "written by an individual"; but this is the thing - that material was then edited by another. By your thought process, can we trust material that was only edited by one person?

Please tell me where in this thread I have objected to a rule you have provided on the basis of it being written by an individual.

Your position on facts extends beyond that of a single thread, bud.

You completely avoided what I mentioned in CB1pg10, for example. You've avoided other uses of the word 'simultaneous' that I've provided. You've not provided a source supporting the idea that RUE erases all previous rules, which I think you have alleged discredits the notes about it in GMG/Rifter. For all the talk of skipping from A to C, I'm seeing few As.

Tor, I posted a big 'A' on the third page of this thread. Nothing you have provided for 'evidence' could discredit it. You have been arguing for nothing for many pages now and constantly state that you "don't understand".


You don't understand. This means I lose the thread; I honestly do not know how else to explain it to you; you won't listen to the facts I present because read too much like opinion and differ from the interpretive conclusion you have already drawn.



I mean, I find it incredibly futile and a waste of my time to simply join a thread an argue for six pages without someone coming away with something akin to a better understanding of the game, but that's what I'm experiencing here.



I tried to help you understand, but you didn't.

Umm no every thing you said was all countered on the second page.

To me the second page many of your post included fundmentaly flawed logic, such as changeing words in quotes to allow a difrent meaning that is under the orginal wording. Synomens may have simular meaning but do not mean the same thing, so can not always be used without changing the meaning. In rules you do not use synomens but the text as writen.

If something requires an attack/action you can not do it unless you have a action to spend, unless a specifc ruling says that you can in that special case. So a ruling for to borrow for dodge or roll does not include simo-attack.

[Dog_O_War]

Umm no every thing you said was all countered on the second page.

To me the second page many of your post included fundmentaly flawed logic,

"To me"

such as changeing words in quotes to allow a difrent meaning that is under the orginal wording. Synomens may have simular meaning but do not mean the same thing, so can not always be used without changing the meaning. In rules you do not use synomens but the text as writen.

Yes. And because you didn't understand what I was saying (for at least 4 pages now, apparently), I have been "changeing words in quotes to allow a difrent meaning that is under the orginal wording", or whatever in the hell that means.

If something requires an attack/action you can not do it unless you have a action to spend, unless a specifc ruling says that you can in that special case. So a ruling for to borrow for dodge or roll does not include simo-attack.

Oh, please then. Please point out what part of Simultaneous Attack states that, beyond requiring that you must be able to perform a parry, dodge, or entangle, that you must also have an attack available in the current round.

Because I can't find that clause.

Anywhere.

In any of the books.

Printed at any point during the entire history of Palladium.

But please, show me where that clause is

[J_cobbers]

Gentlemen, I have been reading this thread for about a week and find it an interesting, if at times pedantic back and forth conversation. Dog, I totally understand your logic, and while I disagree with it and your assessment that the rule could (and should) be better written and clarified in RUE I would like to point out something to all parties to the conversation. RUE (1st edition) pg 327 under W.P. Paired Weapons in the notes section second to last paragraph:
"Of course a character with W.P. Paired Weapons can parry and attack and strike simultaneously only if he has attacks left. A character who has already used up his attacks can NOT counterstrike (hit back) until the next melee round begins, but he can parry until then."

The second sentence is of the most interest to me in this debate, as it would put a limit on the use of an SA as it is effectively a counterstrike. Now Dog, I would imagine that you would argue that the meaning of 'counterstrike' only means that a character with paired weapons is only prevented from using a normal attack, not a SA, because a counterstrike is a back and forth, where as a SA is happening at the same time. I don't know that I can persuade you to see any attack action including SA (used in lieu of a defense including an opted for dodge taken from your actions next melee round).

I think that this key sentence from Paired Weapons, really ought to in the general combat section as a stand alone statement. If you read in the context of where it is found in the Paired Weapons section you could argue that it doesn't apply to characters without Paired Weapons, and thus if one were to agree with Dog of War's logic (which I don't but that is neither here nor there), such characters when out of normal melee attacks in a current round could opt to dodge and substitute the SA for that dodge. That to me sounds silly, and I think everyone would agree be very very broken.

I understand that this is a discussion of trying to strictly apply the RAW. That being the case, I would then take this sentence purely on its own regardless of the fact that it is found in the W.P. Paired Weapons section, and apply it to all cases were a character has used up all their available attacks in a given melee round, whether or not the character in question has Paired Weapons.

Here is the order of operations that I think makes sense following your logic.
1) A and B are in combat, both have paired weapons, A has more actions than B and has initiative.
2) After B has used all his actions, A attacks. B's player decided to use the 'opt for dodge' rule and uses up one of his actions coming from the next melee round.
3) B now has a dodge available to him. Using your interpretation of the SA rule, B now has dodge available to him that allows him to activate a SA response to A's last attack this melee round.
4) The paired weapons rule stating "A character who has already used up his attacks can NOT counterstrike (hit back) until the next melee round begins, but he can parry until then." invalidates the option to substitute a SA for dodge being used.
5) B may dodge and use up an attack from the next melee, use an auto parry (if available assuming he did not just use a twin simultaneous strike on his last normal attack or SA) or take the damage.

Touching on a few other subjects in this topic:
If A attacks B (both having Paired Weapons) and B decides to SA, I see no reason why A can't have decided to initially only attack with 1 of his 2 weapons and be ready to parry with his 2nd weapon in case B decided to SA by parrying with his 1st weapon and counter attack with his 2nd weapon. Again pg 327 RUE under W.P. Paired weapons and pg 346 RUE under Paired Weapons, both entries state "Users of paired weapons can strike and parry simultaneously" with out the precondition that they are doing such as part of a SA that they are using as a response to a normal attack. Because no such precondition exists, and the rules explicitly say one can do both, I see no reason why you have to initiate a SA in order to do so. It should work like this:

A attacks B with only 1 of his 2 weapons. B decides to SA by parrying the incoming attack from B and counter-striking with his other weapon simultaneously. A having his 2nd weapon free, decides to use it to parry B's SA. All this happens at the same time i.e. simultaneously within the context of the in game combat, though mechanically, A would roll his attack first, B would then roll his parry and attack as part of his half of the SA, and then A would finish by rolling his parry to B's SA counter attack.

OR B could SA with both his weapons, and take the damage from A's attack, forcing A to only be able to parry one of B's SA and eat the damage from the other (assuming the roll is high enough). In either case I see no where in RUE that says A can't parry 1 of B's attacks.

Going all the way back to the original question (anybody remember that), I think Hotrod had it right initially. If you twin strike and give up your automatic parry, when your opponent attacks you on their action, you may SA, and as part of it while having Paired Weapons you are allowed to parry with out using an additional attack beyond the cost of the SA itself. Here is the order of operations again as I see it. A has paired weapons, B does not.
1) A Attacks B with simultaneous twin strikes and loses his automatic parry. (cost: 1 action)
2) B defends in some matter, likely taking damage from at least one of A's weapons unless he dodged. (cost: possibly 1 action)
3) B on his normal action attacks A back. (cost 1 action)
4) A elects to SA B, and because A has paired weapons, elects to do a strike and parry combination. (cost 1 action because paired weapons allows a 2 for 1).

Well I hope that I make sense and I am interested to see what Dog of War and Tor think of my comments and how I apply the rules as I read them.

Total actions used for this exchange of combat: A:2, B: at least 1, 2 if he dodged.

[Alrik Vas]

I read the first paragraph of your reply, the text you use from RUE was cited by me in the earlier pages (not digging to find it). Dog refuted it, claiming it didn't apply.

[Tor]

Edit: skip to the end for the citations bro.

book states that you must determine who goes when, and that in order for an attack to be simultaneous, it must be called as such.

Where has it ever stated that a SA must be called for an attack to be simultaneous?

Under Simultaneous Attack. Otherwise, the attack can never be simultaneous because of the initiative rules.

Untrue, the SA description on pg347 of RUE has no such limitations. In fact, the term "simultaneous" is used in other contexts. Pg270 mentions the L-20 Pulse Rifle as being able to take "three simultaneous shots", for example.

Unless this is a 3 barrel weapon, what we might take from this is that the phrase means 'occurring on the same melee action'. The adjective 'simultaneous' is used outside the phrase 'simultaneous attack', and even that phrase is used outside the responsive combat maneuver, is all I'm saying here.

Consider that when I post in a subject, it's often not to insert my opinion, but rather, to provide some illumination with facts.

When we attempt to present facts, we do so by presenting our opinion of what the facts are. Illumination is provided through citation of rules people may not remember, not naming possible rules without establishing them.

Now consider how completely insulting it is to have facts questioned simply because you said it.

I think it more likely that we question alleged facts on the basis of our lack of familiarity with them more than who they come from. Were the statements to come from other posters I think people may have similar skeptic reactions.

it is extremely insulting and you are certainly guilty of it.

Incorrect, you're engaging in hypothetical mind-reading here which is not on the mark. Ideally, one should court the idea that objections may come in response to content and not communicator.

it's because I too am getting tired of the insults.

Asking for citation and being upset at complaints and put-downs in response to asking for citation is not an insult to you.

when I do this, and ask you what the wording does and does not say, you inject opinion into your responses

This is a possibility, but if opinions deviate from rules into non-rules then this is something that should be highlighted as each situation arises.

rarely, if ever realize the answers to the questions I ask.

Sometimes people don't realize answers to asked questions, true.

those questions? Yeah, they're to help you, and others like you, understand the material.

While questions can lead to contemplation that results in learning and further understanding, that's more the realm of philosophy than RPG rules.

I guess that's down-right insulting of me, to try and help you understand.

The insulting aspect is when you declare people to have not read something as a result of not remembering it the way you do.

getting off-topic by this non-distinct talk about others' tendencies

response wasn't for you

Who the observation was directed at is immaterial to whether or not it is on-topic.

wasn't me getting off-topic; I was asked the question, and I answered.

Not initiating derailment doesn't disqualify someone from participating in it. In other threads I've used some off-topic things mentioned by others to swerve a thread at an attempt at comedy. It's okay for a slight distraction, but not as an ongoing focus. Especially in big threads with heated opinions and enthusiastic contributors.

I see it as a means of avoiding particulars.

That's one person's opinion.

Thus the lack of 'we'.

This is exactly one of those instances I was describing above; I try to teach you, but you don't bother to either read the subject matter, or simply doubt what facts I put forth because it came from me.

It does not "also call that twin strike 'simultaneous' in addition to that". It states, separate from the twin strike portion of the entry that "a twin, simultaneous strike with both weapons means losing the automatic parry"

That would be two simultaneous strikes; twinned.

I would like to clarify with some examples what you're alleging before commenting further. We have a situation "losing the automatic parry" and we need to determine what results in this outcome, right?

My interpretation was "left sai and right sai stab Shredder at same time" simultaneous means "no parrying Shredder's stick next attack".

I get the impression (but want to confirm in case I misread) that you're taking this to mean "no parrying if Shredder simultaneously attacks with stick" ?

In this case, are you viewing the 'losing automatic parry' portion mentioned under twin strike (paired WP) to be merely a reiteration of the policy of simultaneous attacks not being parry-able, rather than introducing a new situation in which parrying is lost?

In which case, if it is only talking about SAing with a twin strike (or being SAd while twin-striking) do you interpret this to mean that if I double-stab some guy with both swords at once, I can still auto-parry him if he attacks me on his next turn?

I guess my question here is: why would paired WP go out of its way to say you lose auto-parry during SAs if people never have parrying during SAs to begin with?

The only means I'm aware of you can parry during an SA is if you simultaneous strike+parry using paired WP, which someone is not doing when they opt to twin-strike.

Do you view this 'loses parry' mention as a reminder that the ability gained during combo S+P is absent during twin-striking?

I had viewed it as a limitation of twin-striking, giving incentive to paired WP to single-strike because then they would retain an auto-parry against their following attacks. If twin-striking only removes an already-absent auto-parry, is there ANY incentive whatsoever to single-strike if you have paired WP?

If there isn't, I think it's worth exploring that this 'simultaneous' mention within twin striking does not refer to the SA response maneuver, and instead is merely describing the co-inciding striking of both weapons, attacking in the same attack, using the same strike roll, etc.

If I have erred in summing your views please inform me, trying to figure out what the disagreement is about.

Whipping out Nightbane on pg64 when it says "OR, both the paired weapons can be used to strike with NO parry" would you take this to mean that the 'no parry' is only applying to parrying during the SA? Pg63's "BUT, every time they use twin actions they LOSE their automatic parry" left me with the impression that it applied at least to if I was attacked, at least until my next attack, rather than merely to SAing.

I guess the 'time' one is using twin actions has expired by the time it's the next turn?

In common phrase though, if I say "every time I speak, you hear me" wouldn't it be technically false since there's a delay between speaking and sound vibrations and relying in ears? Seems like a case for not taking it overally literally. More a case of "every time you do A, you lose B" rather than "B is gone only in the instant A is being done".

Twin strikes are simultaneous relative to each other (Raphael's right sai can simultaneously attack with his left sai).

And peanut butter is often spread on toast, but let's stick to what's relevant, okay?

I am unclear how you see my example as irrelevant. Could you explain how your metaphor relates to your objection to my use of paired sai as an example?

You presume too much. All fire-linked attacks work off of one roll; all separately made attack rolls happen at different times

Source on where it says separate attack rolls mean separate times? Separate rolls doesn't mean separate initiatives or time, AFAIK.

except in the instance of simultaneous attack, and that is only when you are targeting multiple opponents.

Just to clarify, are we talking about some kind of "I jump and cut off the head of the foot soldier robot on my left and right with both katana" type thing? That uses different strike rolls?

in the case of a swarm; they are typically treated as one entity, meaning one attack roll when attacking one target.

Being that the Toy Control swarm is not necessarily identical, different bonuses could potentially apply. Like if I souped up one aeroplane but not the others.

There are literally no other rules to govern or contradict what I've said here.

Having to define what something means to you when the dictionary isn't good enough means to me that a person should work on their communication and comprehension rather than argue about a rule because the guy who said it makes it seem "like opinions".

There is no 'the dictionary' and the usage of words in Palladium is overridden by Palladium-based usages of terms even if they deviate from synonymousness claimed in dictionaries. This's getting hazy without a link back to the words in question though...

at least you could tell that was exaggeration

This is the sort of rude response I'm talking about here. In a discussion about exact things, inexactness should be avoided. Rather than acknowledge the wrongness of engaging in exaggeration, you express surprise that someone can detect deviation from truth, implying they do not often see it, which is clearly insulting, and not at all constructive to the discussion.

If I were to say, "well in my opinion, two plus two equals four", it certainly should not throw into question the validity of 2+2 actually equaling 4.

Your example isn't similar to our situation.

It's exactly the same as our situation.

No, it is not. 2+2=4 is obviously a much simpler concept.

I literally broke down simultaneous attack, paired weapons, and automatic parry for you, nearly word-for-word, with a direct book quote for each of the entries. And you still didn't get it.

Quoting the books does not mean that you broke down why your interpretation of what it means is better. The ambiguousness of the phrases has been highlighted. I believe I am gradually getting how it is you're interpreting it, in spite of your not clearly conveying your interpretation, but do require your confirmation that my picture of your impression is accurate before going further.

I pointed out that the rules give us precedents on how things are done

A precedent would be a combat example that includes a simultaneous attack. If there's one of these out there I either haven't encountered or have forgotten it. What you (and others, and myself) have pointed out are excerpts from the combat rules glossaries which explain pairedWPs/SAs, with ambiguous enough wording that different interpretations can be taken regarding when defensive maneuvers can be taken.

you give either a false fact, or an opinion on how it is done

We're all giving opinions here. If an opinion of the facts is false, please demonstrate that, or if not possible, demonstrate why yours is true, or a better interpretation of the rule phrasing.

which is in direct contradiction to the factual evidence put forth in front of you.

Incorrect, the glossary is not 'factual evidence' if the meaning of the glossary definition's phrasnig is still being interpreted by both parties, which is what is still occuring here, and which I hope you can participate in.

you said that (and this is a paraphrase) 'attacks borrowing from the next round is not the standard way of doing things', to which I showed you direct evidence that it is in-fact how the majority of actions are governed. And you still argued.

I probably argued because, like now, your statement was not accurate, what you call direct evidence to support your view is not.

For example, you have stated (in your paraphrasing, solid use of single-quotes) that "the majority of actions are governed" + "borrowing from the next round".

Where was (or is?) your evidence that actions are mostly governed by borrowing melee attacks from future melees instead of present melees?

This is not, and never has been, how attacks work in the Palladium combat system. I question this not because it comes from you, but because it detracts completely from the rules as I know them to be.

Rifts (and other systems) have constantly made it clear that you can't borrow attacks from the next melee. The special rule about dodging is a recent addition, and a singular exception, to this rule.

The one single deviation to this idea of 'borrowing' would be simultaneous attacks, and they are a special case where you borrow from the next ATTACK (but NOT from the next ROUND) in exchange for sacrificing defense.

the time I caught you contradicting yourself? Well, you had to finally retract one of the contradictory statements, and got huffy and mad because you were having a hard time otherwise forming a credible argument.

False, I got huffy and mad because you kept bringing it up after I clearly stated that I mistyped. You falsely alleged this to be the core of my argument even though I on one instance got my wires crossed and mistakenly wrote something along the lines of what you were writing rather than my own stance.

It was a rare moment in this thread where you admitted that you were wrong in an interpretation and had to adapt an argument.

I might be remembering a different instance than you are. Problems like this crop up when you keep trying to focus on others' behaviour instead of the points of argument. So for that reason, let it go, plox.

I have never changed my position once[/i]. I have stuck to the same set of facts the entire time.

I can potentially agree to the former, but not the latter, as I dispute your interpretation of facts to be factual. I believe your interpretation of the text inaccurate and in conflict with examples that have been provided and which you have ignored, of how simultaneous attacks work, and how they are not possible when out of attacks in that round.

You're being asked to identify the value of a in a given equation, and being asked to supply the equation and how you simplified it to reach a solution. This isn't basic addition, it's algebra, if we're to metaphor.

No. I have done that.

Confused by this response, don't have a reply, might be referring to some other aspect of my post besides what was quoted?

with the amount you've re-asked the same question, you're asking me to supply the equation in a different language (one that makes sense to you, apparently), to which I have stretched and reached and tried. At some point here, you have to take some responsibility for your own learning; I have given you all the tools, but you have to actually use them to understand.

Dog please cease insulting people just because your arguments don't make sense to them. The burden is moreso on you to make sense to at least 1 person than for everyone to make sense of you.

The invitation is open to anyone who does understand Dog to rephrase it in a way that others might understand, of course.

The reason I'm arguing with you is not because you hold an opinion, it is because the opinion deviates from my interpretation of the rules.

At this point I would like to remind you, and everyone else reading this that you Tor, reference the rules to a different game far too often in this thread about Rifts.

You're sidestepping Dog. I highlighted a strawman argument you made here. Even if I was arguing based on a misinterpretation of Rifts based on Nightbane (or whatever) that still would not mean I was arguing with your views because they came from you.

So if you think it's because of some Megaversal bias, then please apologize for accusing me of having a personal bias. Even if this were because of some Rifts-rejecting Megaverse-mushy feelings (which I dispute) that would have no link to being motivated for personal dislike of your opinions.

I don't really recall ANY of the references you've made to be factually accurate when concerning R:UE.

Since it would take a while to post everything, I'll post a link to one instance where I believe I was factually accurate in referencing RUE. post 2720966 I wrote "RUE page 347 also has a similar concept for characters lacking hand to hand combat skills. They get 1 action they can use as an "attack" and 2 bonus "non-combat" actions." for example.

I have also referred to RUE entries on numerous occasions. If I happen to mention HU or Nightbane it's because that's the main book I happen to have adjacent to my keyboard and I'm too lazy to get up. In cases where those rulebooks work differently than RUE, feel free to correct me, but so far as I'm aware that discrepancy has only come up regarding issues like autododge, weapon katas and similar things not pertinent to whether or not one can borrow-SA or how long you lose a parry for while twin-striking, which I thought was the crux of our argument at this point. You're free to highlight a discrepency as I make it, but there's no use in highlighting one sans-quote after the fact.

From books other than the source-material. That's like stating old documents are as relevant, if not more-so than the most up-to-date source material. Which is a weak position; it's so weak in-fact that it's a non-position.

Untrue, RUE is not the only document considered source material for Rifts. This is an ongoing gameline and setting where only the latest book counts. RUE may override previous books like RMB or CB1 or GMG where there is a CONFLICT, but they compliment each other and coexist where there is not one. I believe you are alleging a false conflict between RUE and preceding books where there isn't one, so as to discount prior clarifications to how things like SA work, to give you greater freedom to interpret it in a looser way based on silly suppositions.

Such as the idea that the option and function of a dodge and a SA is identical.

it has been shown that your whole "two versions of hth: commando" position was a sham; that the older books are not accurate concerning the current rules.

That was never shown. It is no sham. The new versions of the Crazy and Techno-Hunter can select the new Commando, but never the old, that is clearly a new version.

Q: do I add 1d4 to a mental attribute of every ley line walker NPC printed prior to RUE? Or do I just include it when making a new character who is of the new breed of Ley Line Walker? Considering our PWAPSA thread title, perhaps this is a discussion worth hashing out on another thread though.

The phrasing about paired WP and autoparry and SA is something I dont' think has change significantly (if at all) between RMB and RUE (correct me if wrong) the only major change I know of is the borrow-dodge policy. I think we should analyze how much this disagreement relates to the thread, I'm confused at how we got on this tangent to begin with. I feel like I need to be a pathologist to zero in on the topic fork.

The point of me stating this was to show you that you discredit information because "it was written by individuals" when the very books we discuss where otherwise edited by in individual.

I believe you are misrepresenting my position. If you insist on pulling in something you allege I said in another thread, link the post directly along with a quote of the full sentence and I will address it here.

As best as I can understand your objection, I think you are confusing my objection to presenting opinions of individuals as reality as meaning that I object to rules of a fictional reality written by the individual who is its author.

To simplify this, when KS defines Rifts inside a book, it's as its GOD, not its scholar. Therefore it is not treated as an opinion describing a pre-existing reality, because he is actually creating that reality.

This is why your Wikipedia-related criticism is not applicable to our discussion here. Dictionary writers do not create words in the same way that Kevin creates worlds, understand? Dictionary writers are the Erin Tarns of our language. We may tend to have some faith in them, but they can err, and give conflicting reports that deviate from reality. Erin isn't Kevin.

It's a contradictory position; one that says that the books we're talking about aren't a credible source because of the number of people who wrote them. I am high-lighting your otherwise apparent thought-pattern on the subject matters' roots. I am pointing out that you lack credibility because of this opinion of yours. Which brings about the question of whether anything you say is credible; I mean, why should I, or anyone believe your interpretations are correct, given the amount of contradictory positions you hold and have held? That is the point of what I was "going on about".

What you're going on about is called an ad hominem attack. You're bringing up objections to something I allegedly stated on another thread without linking to it, arguing it here rather than there where I can get some idea of what you're going on about, and rather than responding to what I say here, you're attempting to malign my character as an excuse to sidestep my arguments and imply to others that they aren't worth reading.

you yourself often reference material other than the source; that material was in-fact "written by an individual"; but this is the thing - that material was then edited by another. By your thought process, can we trust material that was only edited by one person?

Please tell me where in this thread I have objected to a rule you have provided on the basis of it being written by an individual.

Your position on facts extends beyond that of a single thread, bud.

Cool story bro, link plox. Your generalized character attacks which distract from the subject matter grow increasingly tiresome. Oddly though, that seems largely focused on this thread. It may have extended to other threads and I just forgot about them, hard to say. I have a tendency to forget who people are moments after I reply to them. It tends to occur when one focuses on the words. Senses of who people are do gradually accrue I guess... but by gosh do I strive to resist commenting on it for its inappropriateness and mushy "feels" quality.

I posted a big 'A' on the third page of this thread.

...answer? Might be optimal due to sizes of post and potentially different post-per-page settings to do specific numerical link.

Nothing you have provided for 'evidence' could discredit it.

Assuming your pg3 is also mine (I see 6pgs so far)...

You have been arguing for nothing for many pages now and constantly state that you "don't understand".

Argument is never for nothing, you'll always be wrong if you state such things. You may see inadequate value according to your standards, but that is not nothing.

I'm humble enough to convey to you if I'm not totally clear about what you mean when you write something, yes... is that bad?

You don't understand. This means I lose the thread;

Wrong, it means there's further room to travel together in pursuit of consensus. Your "losing" is by merit of your arguments contradicting source material. Both CB1 and GMG have clarified you can't SA when you're out of attacks. This has been the Palladium way. If you want to promote a new way, you need a better argument for it than 'dodge, so now everything else' essentially.

I honestly do not know how else to explain it to you; you won't listen to the facts I present because read too much like opinion and differ from the interpretive conclusion you have already drawn.

Please cease alleging that people won't listen to you simply because they disagree with you, Dog. I believe you are listening to me in spite of disagreeing with me, so it would be ideal if we could extend one another that mutual courtesy of acknowledging each other's application of literacy.

Language is sometimes a murky thing, and this results in us assuming different "facts" from certain statements. This bit about parry-loss during twin-strikes reminds me of a discussion elsewhere about the dodge/roll+come-up-shooting tactic from sharpshooting and whether it costs 1 attack or 2, for example. A lack of clarity in rule phrasing and lack of example in rule application can lead to numerous believable interpretations of how to take it.

If it helps any, in regard to the loss of parry during twin-strike, I can now see 2 possible ways to interpret that, neither explicitly supported or disproven.

I mean, I find it incredibly futile and a waste of my time to simply join a thread an argue for six pages without someone coming away with something akin to a better understanding of the game, but that's what I'm experiencing here. I tried to help you understand, but you didn't.

If you're saying I am not trying to understand (or not trying to help you understand) please stop that.

It is inappropriate for you to make statements about what others are or are not trying to do. This is not something you know, and not something you should describe as if you know, as that is in error. Example reading on the subject of mind-reading as a cognitive distortion: http://daphne.palomar.edu/jtagg/mind.htm

Please point out what part of Simultaneous Attack states that, beyond requiring that you must be able to perform a parry, dodge, or entangle, that you must also have an attack available in the current round.

Because I can't find that clause.

Anywhere.

In any of the books.

Printed at any point during the entire history of Palladium.

But please, show me where that clause is

1996 - Rifts Conversion Book 5th printing Page 10 - The Combat Sequence - "the guy on the receiving end has no hope of returning the attack" .. "the character who has just weathered the flurry of attacks without being able to strike back"

2001 - Rifts Game Master Guide Page 32:

Q: ".. friend thinks that if he is fighting something with more attacks per round than himself he can call Simultaneous and attack .."

A: "No .. this does not give the defender extra attacks. When all of his attacks are used up, and if his attacker still has a few attacks left, the attacker continues to strike and all the other character can do is parry or dodge. A parry does not use up an attack. A dodge will use up attacks the defender character would have the next melee round."

2005 - RUEpg342 "the one who is out of attacks can only try to parry" + "may opt to dodge"

RUE has no mention of other responses like entangle or SA being options. Your assumption that we can do things like that when the standard D/P response is mentioned is wrong, based on your flawed 'exchange' idea rather than the 'different option' reality.

When the GMG introduced dodge-borrowing, which was incorporated into RUE, it simultaneously introduced the clarification that you could NOT use that feature to engage in simultaneous attacks. It says in the same paragraph that you can borrow to dodge, that you cannot SA while out of attacks. It's been made clear as day. GMG (and the Rifter it was also printed in, under official errata) have both been cited to you in previous threads. The GMG is canon. In no way has RUE's policy on borrow-dodging or simultaneous attacks at all deviated or contradicted from GMG.

It's possible you overlooked this GMG clarification of the action-borrowing due to the immensity of our arguments, perhaps it was buried in the middle. I hope you see it if I leave it at the end of our exchange here Dog.

RUE (1st edition) pg 327 under W.P. Paired Weapons in the notes section second to last paragraph:
"Of course a character with W.P. Paired Weapons can parry and attack and strike simultaneously only if he has attacks left. A character who has already used up his attacks can NOT counterstrike (hit back) until the next melee round begins, but he can parry until then."

This too, nice find, missed it. Perhaps if we accumulate enough denials of this possibility it will sink home.

Dog, I would imagine that you would argue that the meaning of 'counterstrike' only means that a character with paired weapons is only prevented from using a normal attack, not a SA, because a counterstrike is a back and forth, where as a SA is happening at the same time. I don't know that I can persuade you to see any attack action including SA (used in lieu of a defense including an opted for dodge taken from your actions next melee round).

Considering that the context of this sentence is the discussion of parrying while simultaneously attacking the person you are parrying, I think it very clear it is not discussion the next (normal attack) but rather specifically (and only) a simultaneous attack, which is not possible to do when out of attacks. As clarified both here, and in the Game Master Guide, something Kev probably saw as a necesity when he introduced the idea of action-borrowing exclusively for dodging.

I would then take this sentence purely on its own regardless of the fact that it is found in the W.P. Paired Weapons section, and apply it to all cases were a character has used up all their available attacks in a given melee round, whether or not the character in question has Paired Weapons.

As written the sentence is clearly repeating the already existing policy (never violated) of the inability to simultaneously attack in a melee round once out of attacks for that melee round. Nothing in the wording implies that it's some unique inability to strike+parry when out of attacks.

[Dog_O_War]

Gentlemen, I have been reading this thread for about a week and find it an interesting, if at times pedantic back and forth conversation. Dog, I totally understand your logic, and while I disagree with it and your assessment that the rule could (and should) be better written and clarified in RUE I would like to point out something to all parties to the conversation. RUE (1st edition) pg 327 under W.P. Paired Weapons in the notes section second to last paragraph:
"Of course a character with W.P. Paired Weapons can parry and attack and strike simultaneously only if he has attacks left. A character who has already used up his attacks can NOT counterstrike (hit back) until the next melee round begins, but he can parry until then."

The second sentence is of the most interest to me in this debate, as it would put a limit on the use of an SA as it is effectively a counterstrike. Now Dog, I would imagine that you would argue that the meaning of 'counterstrike' only means that a character with paired weapons is only prevented from using a normal attack, not a SA, because a counterstrike is a back and forth, where as a SA is happening at the same time. I don't know that I can persuade you to see any attack action including SA (used in lieu of a defense including an opted for dodge taken from your actions next melee round).

I don't think you quite understand my logic.

I wouldn't argue the meaning of counterstrike for one.

For two, my point has forever been that the wording isn't there.
Yes, that sentence is vague; just as the rules are, because the wording isn't there. When you leaving rules scattered throughout a rule book, and have contradictory rules, that only causes problems.

For instance; you said,

I think that this key sentence from Paired Weapons, really ought to in the general combat section as a stand alone statement.

But here's the problem; it's not.
It is not in the general section. It's smack-dab where the meaning of a simultaneous strike in regards to paired weapons is to strike with both weapons, which in-fact has nothing to do with Simultaneous Attacks.

So what is a guy to infer? That they meant for this portion to be in the general section, and that it was actually supposed to be Simultaneous Attack, and not strike simultaneously, but somehow it's not in the general combat section, and they went with a poorly-worded sentence?

See, I just couldn't do that; I can't fill in the "well this should be better-worded, so therefore I am going to imagine that the wording is actually different than it is and thus believe that the rules say something other than what they're written as saying" blank.

If you read in the context of where it is found in the Paired Weapons section you could argue that it doesn't apply to characters without Paired Weapons, and thus if one were to agree with Dog of War's logic (which I don't but that is neither here nor there), such characters when out of normal melee attacks in a current round could opt to dodge and substitute the SA for that dodge. That to me sounds silly, and I think everyone would agree be very very broken.

See, this is another fundamental flaw people make; they assume I am talking about one thing, but really I am getting wordy with what is there. For instance, the words, "strike" and "attack" hold a big difference for me; people roll to strike, but they must call an attack and not the other way around in this game. See, a person can get a bonus to strike, but not to attack; to attacks, yes, but not the singular. For various, numerous reasons.

I understand that this is a discussion of trying to strictly apply the RAW. That being the case, I would then take this sentence purely on its own regardless of the fact that it is found in the W.P. Paired Weapons section, and apply it to all cases were a character has used up all their available attacks in a given melee round, whether or not the character in question has Paired Weapons.

If you were to take this sentence purely on its own regardless of the fact of where it was found, well maybe the fluff then should work its way into being rules too? I for one would truly like being able to make targeted attacks with missiles, among other things.

Or maybe we should consider where every sentence is placed?

[Alrik Vas]

It's clear as the grey hairs on Kevin's head the GMG, which is canon ruling, has a rule that supports Tor's argument, additionally RUE doesn't refute the rule.

I've said it many times, i get your argument. The language can be vague, but with a broader understanding of the rules, you can see where the ruling lies. You mentioned that you hate SA's because of the position you've been arguing, we've explained that the people who've done this to you and others in games were doing so with a lack of understanding.

[Dog_O_War]

It's clear as the grey hairs on Kevin's head the GMG, which is canon ruling, has a rule that supports Tor's argument, additionally RUE doesn't refute the rule.

That book has been discredited as out of date when compared to newer editions.

The language can be vague,

Normally, I would just see something like this and allow it to pass by unharmed, but given the state of this thread;

Can be? Is it so completely out of the question for you to actually admit and commit to a sentiment?

The language is vague, bub. The language is vague.

but with a broader understanding of the rules, you can see where the ruling lies. You mentioned that you hate SA's because of the position you've been arguing, we've explained that the people who've done this to you and others in games were doing so with a lack of understanding.

You've done no such thing; all you've done is state that "I am reading it wrong" when I have posted direct quotes regarding the words. The way you're describing it is not supported within the book. Period. It may hint at, and allude to, but it does not state that the rules work the way you have described.

I mean really, when I can ask a very simple question, "does it say one thing, or this other thing?" and "this other thing" is a direct quote from the book, and nobody seems to be able to actually say, "it says this other thing" when it's contrary to their position, well that kind of brings the point I'm making across.

For example, I have been reading pages now of Tor saying "well I interpret it this one particular way" and then him arguing and arguing against me, and yet I have him quoted as saying that he's arguing because my interpretation is different from his own. So that only leads me to conclude that he's arguing for argument's sake. Meanwhile, you Alrik seem to think you're multiple people with your "we've" and really, at the end of the day, who is this we?
Are you an alien intelligence collective?
Or is this "we" you're referring to the other posters, who just so happen to be Tor and Prysus, because there is really no one else?

As it's unlikely you're an alien intelligence collective, I'm going with "you and two other guys". Well Prysus hasn't said much in the last two pages and Tor has readily admitted to arguing because "my position differs from his interpretation".

Do these people really represent you? Or is it really just you, and you're inflating your own importance with this "we" bit?

I'ma bet on the latter.


~woof

[Balabanto]

Personally I think Don could use his bo staff to block both of Leo's katana if he was doing some kinda overhead swing.

This is achievable with W.P. Reverse Stroke which is essentially "W.P. Paired Weapons" for two-handed weapons.

Dog, I have read the thread. In fact, I read it twice. You're wrong, blatantly wrong. So wrong that the only response at this point is to do as my signature says and just... walk away because NOTHING I can say is going to help you at this point. You're beyond help on this. Good luck getting ANYONE ELSE in the universe to allow you to use that rule the way you are interpreting it in their game and woe betide the poor players who might have suffer at the hands of it.

Actually, Reverse Stroke doesn't do this. The second swing occurs with the pommel or something of that sort and does like 1d4 damage. You don't actually get a second swing with the weapon.

[Alrik Vas]

~woof

You do know that you're the only one who discredits the GMG, right? I'm not saying that numbered agreement equals correctness, but it certainly is a reason to review your position, just to make sure.

But okay, the language IS vague. I suppose that is why the discussion is still going on. That being said, by your own omission, you're about as right as you claim I am.

[Dog_O_War]

~woof

You do know that you're the only one who discredits the GMG, right?

No; another poster chimed in on this subject regarding HtH commando; the GMG represents the older version, not the newer, updated one. That serves as a discredit to the book.

I'm not saying that numbered agreement equals correctness, but it certainly is a reason to review your position, just to make sure.

No, I get it; I'm used to being asked to provide proof to my claims.

But okay, the language IS vague. I suppose that is why the discussion is still going on. That being said, by your own omission, you're about as right as you claim I am.

Not quite; I have stated that people can't even seem to agree what the wording does and does not say, even when I post direct quotes for it; myself being on the side of the direct quotes.

[Alrik Vas]

You may want to ask yourself, "Is this what they're really trying to say?" Do you honestly think the author would allow action borrowing to produce simultaneous attacks?

[Dog_O_War]

I am only going to address a few key points here.

Edit: skip to the end for the citations bro.

book states that you must determine who goes when, and that in order for an attack to be simultaneous, it must be called as such.

Where has it ever stated that a SA must be called for an attack to be simultaneous?

Under Simultaneous Attack. Otherwise, the attack can never be simultaneous because of the initiative rules.

Untrue, the SA description on pg347 of RUE has no such limitations. In fact, the term "simultaneous" is used in other contexts. Pg270 mentions the L-20 Pulse Rifle as being able to take "three simultaneous shots", for example.

Unless this is a 3 barrel weapon, what we might take from this is that the phrase means 'occurring on the same melee action'. The adjective 'simultaneous' is used outside the phrase 'simultaneous attack', and even that phrase is used outside the responsive combat maneuver, is all I'm saying here.

Do you know why I previously stated that peanutbutter spreads well on toast? Because it held as much relevance to the thread as the last time your interjection of an instance where the word simultaneous was used.

See, are three simultaneous shots from this gun considered one attack, or three?/rhetorical
The answer is one; they are one attack. It [the word simultaneous] has no bearing on how they're described. I'm addressing this point because you seem to think that I asked or challenged you to find it, when I didn't. Or maybe you think it's relevant?
It's not.

Please point out what part of Simultaneous Attack states that, beyond requiring that you must be able to perform a parry, dodge, or entangle, that you must also have an attack available in the current round.

Because I can't find that clause.

Anywhere.

In any of the books.

Printed at any point during the entire history of Palladium.

But please, show me where that clause is

1996 - Rifts Conversion Book 5th printing Page 10 - The Combat Sequence - "the guy on the receiving end has no hope of returning the attack" .. "the character who has just weathered the flurry of attacks without being able to strike back"

"No hope of returning the attack"

2001 - Rifts Game Master Guide Page 32:

Q: ".. friend thinks that if he is fighting something with more attacks per round than himself he can call Simultaneous and attack .."

A: "No .. this does not give the defender extra attacks. When all of his attacks are used up, and if his attacker still has a few attacks left, the attacker continues to strike and all the other character can do is parry or dodge. A parry does not use up an attack. A dodge will use up attacks the defender character would have the next melee round."

Dog, Q: so RGMG, when CAN a person use a simultaneous attack?

RGMG, A: why, whenever they are capable of dodging, parrying, or entangling, but they must have an attack available left in the round.

Dog, Q: does it SAY they must have an attack left available in the round?

RGMG, A: why, no it does not!


Dog, Q: so RGMG, are there any instances where you wouldn't be as up to date on the rules like your new brother, R:UE?

RGMG, A: Nope!

Dog, Q: not even with something like HtH: Commando?

RGMG, A: well, except that. But there can not possibly be any other exceptions or instances!

2005 - RUEpg342 "the one who is out of attacks can only try to parry" + "may opt to dodge"

"can only try to parry" "may opt to dodge"

"can only" "may"

"can only" yeah that statement was true.

RUE has no mention of other responses like entangle or SA being options. Your assumption that we can do things like that when the standard D/P response is mentioned is wrong, based on your flawed 'exchange' idea rather than the 'different option' reality.

Okay then Tor, quote for me then, exactly when a person is able to perform a Simultaneous Attack. Quote it for me.

[Dog_O_War]

You may want to ask yourself, "Is this what they're really trying to say?" Do you honestly think the author would allow action borrowing to produce simultaneous attacks?

No, I don't.

But then again, I honestly don't think that students who write tests, looking for a passing mark, purposefully get questions wrong.

Except that they still get questions wrong.

And you know what? If you gave them the chance to correct their mistakes, especially when they are brought to their attention after the fact, they would take the opportunity to do so.

Well these books aren't a test; Palladium has had the chance to correct these mistakes, but it hasn't. It has had ample opportunity to turn this vague wording clear, but they haven't. I don't know why.

[Alrik Vas]

Just give it to me straight, chief.
Do you think they intended for dodge borrowing to produce simultaneous attacks?

[Dog_O_War]

Just give it to me straight, chief.
Do you think they intended for dodge borrowing to produce simultaneous attacks?

Short answer: no.
(Not as) short answer: the problem with abuse these days is that they make it so easy. That said, the whole "dodge borrowing" thing, is not so much that you're borrowing the dodge, it's that they set up the precedent by allowing a person to borrow from the next round with dodges and parries; the things of which are otherwise the only actual requirement for a simultaneous attack.

[Alrik Vas]

Indeed. hence why i've understood your argument this whole time, just disagreed with it. But thanks for the answer, i appreciate it.

[Jefffar]

Well these books aren't a test; Palladium has had the chance to correct these mistakes, but it hasn't. It has had ample opportunity to turn this vague wording clear, but they haven't. I don't know why.

Have you asked Palladium directly to clarify this? I do mean directly, through the contact procedures you'll find in my signature. Posting on the forums really just means you're discussing it with other fans and hoping someone official stops by.

Until it's confirmed the issue has been brought to their attention there's no reason to believe that they know it exists.

[Dog_O_War]

Well these books aren't a test; Palladium has had the chance to correct these mistakes, but it hasn't. It has had ample opportunity to turn this vague wording clear, but they haven't. I don't know why.

Have you asked Palladium directly to clarify this? I do mean directly, through the contact procedures you'll find in my signature. Posting on the forums really just means you're discussing it with other fans and hoping someone official stops by.

Until it's confirmed the issue has been brought to their attention there's no reason to believe that they know it exists.

The link in your sig. takes me to an error message.

[Daniel Stoker]

Which seems strangely appropriate.


Daniel Stoker

[Jefffar]

That should be fixed now, but the key details are

Palladium Books, Inc.
39074 Webb Court
Westland, MI 48185
Phone: 734-721-2900
Order Line: 734-721-2903
Fax: 734-721-1238

I'd recommend a letter as this is of a non urgent nature.

[J_cobbers]

Gentlemen, I have been reading this thread for about a week and find it an interesting, if at times pedantic back and forth conversation. Dog, I totally understand your logic, and while I disagree with it and your assessment that the rule could (and should) be better written and clarified in RUE I would like to point out something to all parties to the conversation. RUE (1st edition) pg 327 under W.P. Paired Weapons in the notes section second to last paragraph:
"Of course a character with W.P. Paired Weapons can parry and attack and strike simultaneously only if he has attacks left. A character who has already used up his attacks can NOT counterstrike (hit back) until the next melee round begins, but he can parry until then."

The second sentence is of the most interest to me in this debate, as it would put a limit on the use of an SA as it is effectively a counterstrike. Now Dog, I would imagine that you would argue that the meaning of 'counterstrike' only means that a character with paired weapons is only prevented from using a normal attack, not a SA, because a counterstrike is a back and forth, where as a SA is happening at the same time. I don't know that I can persuade you to see any attack action including SA (used in lieu of a defense including an opted for dodge taken from your actions next melee round).

I don't think you quite understand my logic.

I wouldn't argue the meaning of counterstrike for one.

For two, my point has forever been that the wording isn't there.
Yes, that sentence is vague; just as the rules are, because the wording isn't there. When you leaving rules scattered throughout a rule book, and have contradictory rules, that only causes problems.

For instance; you said,

I think that this key sentence from Paired Weapons, really ought to in the general combat section as a stand alone statement.

But here's the problem; it's not.
It is not in the general section. It's smack-dab where the meaning of a simultaneous strike in regards to paired weapons is to strike with both weapons, which in-fact has nothing to do with Simultaneous Attacks.

So what is a guy to infer? That they meant for this portion to be in the general section, and that it was actually supposed to be Simultaneous Attack, and not strike simultaneously, but somehow it's not in the general combat section, and they went with a poorly-worded sentence?

See, I just couldn't do that; I can't fill in the "well this should be better-worded, so therefore I am going to imagine that the wording is actually different than it is and thus believe that the rules say something other than what they're written as saying" blank.

If you read in the context of where it is found in the Paired Weapons section you could argue that it doesn't apply to characters without Paired Weapons, and thus if one were to agree with Dog of War's logic (which I don't but that is neither here nor there), such characters when out of normal melee attacks in a current round could opt to dodge and substitute the SA for that dodge. That to me sounds silly, and I think everyone would agree be very very broken.

See, this is another fundamental flaw people make; they assume I am talking about one thing, but really I am getting wordy with what is there. For instance, the words, "strike" and "attack" hold a big difference for me; people roll to strike, but they must call an attack and not the other way around in this game. See, a person can get a bonus to strike, but not to attack; to attacks, yes, but not the singular. For various, numerous reasons.

I understand that this is a discussion of trying to strictly apply the RAW. That being the case, I would then take this sentence purely on its own regardless of the fact that it is found in the W.P. Paired Weapons section, and apply it to all cases were a character has used up all their available attacks in a given melee round, whether or not the character in question has Paired Weapons.

If you were to take this sentence purely on its own regardless of the fact of where it was found, well maybe the fluff then should work its way into being rules too? I for one would truly like being able to make targeted attacks with missiles, among other things.

Or maybe we should consider where every sentence is placed?

Dog of War:
Oh boy do I agree with you about the vagueness of rules and how they are scattered throughout RUE! I would love a clean re-write which specifically addresses issues like the one in this thread. A more detailed write up of how to apply combat rules is really needed. But we have the RAW and it makes this interesting. And I really do understand your interpretation and what you are trying to argue for, but I think that the rule in WP Paired weapons does actually operate to prevent it.

Please follow me on a more detailed explanation and in any response discuss where you think my version of the mechanics or my logic does not make sense. As far as I believe, I am not imagining how I want the rules to read. I am reading them literally as written and applying a series of steps to order their application, as I did in my first post. It's like applying a regulation where different rules come in during different steps in a process, or like one would in applying a legal test. At each step you ask is x true or is y true? If x proceed to one step, if y proceed to another, and so on.

Given that the sentence in question it is in the paired weapons section, and if one is going to take it in that context exclusively, would you read it to prevent someone with PW who is out of actions, opting to dodge and using the 'borrowed' dodge to SA from doing a twin simultaneous strike as their SA action? What if they only want to strike with one of their 2 weapons? I read the rule as preventing any counter attack via SA.

If one takes the position that since the paired weapons section defines a 'counterstrike' an action where the character 'hits back', and given that a SA happens at the same time as the attack (in game, if not by game mechanics of declaring each character's action and rolling dice) the SA is not technically a 'counterstrike'. Therefore it would valid action to 'borrow' a dodge and allow the SA.

But if one takes the position that a counterstrike is any response attack, to include a SA, then you can't borrow the dodge to SA.

Now you have been arguing for a strict literal interpretation of the RAW, not RAI and have put together your interpretation on a borrowed SA by pulling from one unrelated rule paragraph that does not directly mention SA with in it's own context (opt to dodge by using an action from the next melee RUE pg 342). If you want to consider where every sentence is placed and then to use the opt to dodge rule and combine it with the SA rule which says 'instead of defending with a parry dodge or entangle, a character can choose to do a simultaneous attack,' and not also pull the rule from paired weapons which literally states ' A character who has already used up his attacks can NOT counterstrike (hit back) until the next melee round begins, but he can parry until then,' when you are not going to argue the definition of counterstrike, seems to me inconsistent because you are pulling the opt to dodge rule into the SA rule, and not also pulling in the paired weapons counterstrike prohibition. If you have to pull from one, you should pull from both, especially because the paired weapons counterstrike prohibition as a stand alone sentence does not say it applies only to SA's or only to Paired weapons.

But if you want to consider where each sentence is placed, I would say then that you cannot connect opt to dodge to SA without at least addressing the other directly, because they are in completely different sections of the combat rules. The SA rule does not reference an opted for dodge, the opt for dodge rule doesn't say that a character who is out of attacks can opt to dodge or SA, nor does it say that an opted for dodge can be used for an SA. If context is to be considered they must be read separately. Like wise if you want to consider context, read the entire paragraph that talks about opt to dodge, it is clear that the opt to dodge is not an end-round into a SA when it talks about a faster boxer being able to throw more punches at a slower less experienced opponent (few attacks per round). However considering context, as above just about begs one to make an assumption about intent, as in why was this sentence in this section and not somewhere else, which you said you won't do. I argue that if you consider where each sentence is placed, you have to consider context, and context implies intent of the rules, which derails your interpretation of being able borrow dodge for a SA.

And as for the context of the quote, it is NOT smack dab in the section talking about SA twin strikes as you assert above, it is in fact in the notes section of WP Paired Weapons which is after the listing of the discussion of the 4 different things that you can do with WP PW.

If one argues that counterstrike means only a situation where A attacks B on his turn and the B attacks A back on her turn, then an SA would be an exception as it is not a counterstrike because it happens at the same time on A's turn when B decides to SA. I think in that context your argument for opting to dodge and then SAing instead, may actually have some weight. But you have already said you are not going to argue the definition of 'counterstrike' so I am taking that to mean you agree that an SA is a counterstrike, and this is key.

To Continue, can you show me in any rule in any Rifts rule book where it specifically states that a character without PW who has already used up his attacks can counterstrike before the next melee round? Because WP PW in it's prohibitive sentence does not say it applies only to characters with PW. Other wise it would read something like this: A character with Paired Weapons who has already used up his attacks can NOT counterstrike (hit back) until the next melee round begins, but he can parry until then. Because it is not written that way, it can only be read as a general prohibition on counterattacks when a character has used up all his attacks.

The sentence preceding it is talking about SAs. Specifically it says that a Character with WP PW 'can parry an attack and strike simultaneously only if he still has attacks left.' It does not say that they may strike simultaneously (not attack which you clearly view as different) in place of a dodge. The only time a defending character would parry and strike simultaneously is part of an SA in response to another attack. Read together with the next sentence and the write up on SA it is clear that to strike simultaneously means you have to have an attack available and that to strike simultaneously is covered as a counterstrike. Since you can only strike simultaneously as part of an SA, an SA must also be a counterstrike, and therefore prohibited when the character is out of attacks. An opt to dodge is not an attack, it is a dodge, and a borrowed action. Therefore I again believe this rule operates to preclude an SA in place of a borrowed dodge.

[J_cobbers]

That should be fixed now, but the key details are

Palladium Books, Inc.
39074 Webb Court
Westland, MI 48185
Phone: 734-721-2900
Order Line: 734-721-2903
Fax: 734-721-1238

I'd recommend a letter as this is of a non urgent nature.

This is probably the most practical way to get a clear ruling on how to resolve this dispute. Good thinking.

[Tor]

That book has been discredited as out of date when compared to newer editions.

No, the GMG has not. RUE is more recent, so yes, the most current ruleset would defer to RUE where there are actual contradictions, where RUE rulings conflict with GMG rulings. This doesn't at all mean the GMG is defunct or inapplicable though. RUE did not wipe out all preceding publications. Not even the RMB. RUE created a new reality shaped by its new rules, but it still incorporates the skeleton of all preceding Rifts products that it does not directly contradict.

all you've done is state that "I am reading it wrong" when I have posted direct quotes regarding the words.

Alrik and others (including myself) have not 'just' said you've read it wrong. We've supplied arguments which we believe support that interpretation.

Posting direct quotes is immaterial to whether or not you're reading them right or wrong. We are not saying you are reading different words than are written in the book, but rather that the words (which everyone is reading) are being interpreted as conveying different meanings based on a lack of stand-alone clarity. Due to the lack of stand-alone clarity, we have to piece together and understanding based on numerous sources sometimes and have them collectively make sense. The puzzle pieces are being arranged differently by us disagreeing on where they go, how to turn them, what fits to what, etc.

The way you're describing it is not supported within the book. Period. It may hint at, and allude to, but it does not state that the rules work the way you have described.

Could you clarify which 'way' Alrik described being refuted here?

I mean really, when I can ask a very simple question, "does it say one thing, or this other thing?" and "this other thing" is a direct quote from the book, and nobody seems to be able to actually say, "it says this other thing" when it's contrary to their position, well that kind of brings the point I'm making across.

On the contrary, we've provided 'this other thing' and you've thrown it out.

I suppose to have any discussion of rules, we need to make a list of all books published post-RUE as these are the only ones that exist from now on. I would dare say that a book must have "Rifts Ultimate Edition Compatible" printed on the cover or it can't exist in our argument?

I have been reading pages now of Tor saying "well I interpret it this one particular way" and then him arguing and arguing against me, and yet I have him quoted as saying that he's arguing because my interpretation is different from his own. So that only leads me to conclude that he's arguing for argument's sake.

Could you PM me this quote, or supply it here? I can't help but suspect this is being misinterpreted.

I'm arguing based on what I think is right, and because I want to convince others (including yourself) of it. It is for a plethora of reasons that I debate, none of which are relevant to the actual process of debating. Your interpretation differing is not the sole reason I convey my opinions, that's a bit self-important.

you Alrik seem to think you're multiple people with your "we've" and really, at the end of the day, who is this we? Are you an alien intelligence collective? Or is this "we" you're referring to the other posters, who just so happen to be Tor and Prysus, because there is really no one else?

Probably. In all fairness, it is easier to say 'we'. I often don't keep track of which names are on which sides of various debates and just may remember so far as others chiming in collectively.

Tor has readily admitted to arguing because "my position differs from his interpretation".

Please use single-quotes if you're going to paraphrase, double-quotes are for direct copy+paste. If you'll link to the post in question I'll reread what I wrote to see if the meaning I see in it conforms to your assessment.

I expect it does not and feel somewhat strawmanned here. I do not see the purpose in your ongoing personal attacks. You persist in attacking what you perceive as my motive for voicing disagreement over being attentive to the content of the points brought up in the post.

Do these people really represent you? Or is it really just you, and you're inflating your own importance with this "we" bit?

Using 'we' is not us appointing each other as representatives, but rather merely a recognition that multiple parties have disagreed on the basis of some mutually agreed-upon counterarguments and criticisms.

another poster chimed in on this subject regarding HtH commando; the GMG represents the older version, not the newer, updated one. That serves as a discredit to the book.

Could you clarify where in the GMG that Commando is mentioned, and if you can do that, where a poster has associated GMG with Commando?

I've mentioned HtHcommando in association with CWC, and due to similarities in the initialisms I'm wondering if there might be some kind of mixup between CWC and GMG. I only recall GMG being cited in this thread in relation to simultaneous attacks and dodging.

Do you know why I previously stated that peanutbutter spreads well on toast? Because it held as much relevance to the thread as the last time your interjection of an instance where the word simultaneous was used.

This came up because of your extremist claims about the singular meaning of the word 'simultaneous' which I took issue with.

See, are three simultaneous shots from this gun considered one attack, or three?/rhetorical
The answer is one; they are one attack. It [the word simultaneous] has no bearing on how they're described.

Wrong, the words used to describe things very much have a bearing on how they're described. Words are the core of description. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I'm addressing this point because you seem to think that I asked or challenged you to find it, when I didn't. Or maybe you think it's relevant? It's not.

It appears I'll have to do some backtracking to explain how this got brought up.

We were discussing the abilities imparted by paired WP. I brought up the ability it imparts to parry 2 separate opponents, and what it could mean, since normally you could already parry multiple opponents in a single move. One meaning someone else might've brought up (don't recall) is someone with paired WP who lacks auto-parry (since you can have WP without having a HtH) who might spend an action to parry, could spend that action and get a parry against 2 opponents before having to spend an action to do more. Another idea I brought up is that this could apply as a defense to simultaneous attacks occuring from multiple opponents. I gave the example of Toy Control since they are attacks from different targets but which attack as a unit on a single initiative turn of the Toy Controller.

Are you recalling now how this conversation evolved and how it is related to the thread? Simultaneous Attack may be what we're focusing on, but Paired Weapons and Automatic Parry are also listed in the topic title, so this is very much an on-topic inquiry, so yeah, it's relevant.

1996 - Rifts Conversion Book 5th printing Page 10 - The Combat Sequence - "the guy on the receiving end has no hope of returning the attack" .. "the character who has just weathered the flurry of attacks without being able to strike back"

"No hope of returning the attack"

Yup, that's what I wrote... I'm not picking up on any veiled meanings in repeating it like this, spell it out?

Dog, Q: so RGMG, when CAN a person use a simultaneous attack?

RGMG, A: why, whenever they are capable of dodging, parrying, or entangling, but they must have an attack available left in the round.

Dog, Q: does it SAY they must have an attack left available in the round?

RGMG, A: why, no it does not!

I'm not perceiving how what I assume is an attempt at humor here functions as a criticism of the GMG rulings. It's made quite clear in CB1 and GMG that you can't attack when you run out of attacks in the round, for people who didn't pick up on that obvious bit from the main book, and that obvious bit remains in RUE.

Dog, Q: so RGMG, are there any instances where you wouldn't be as up to date on the rules like your new brother, R:UE?

RGMG, A: Nope!

Dog, Q: not even with something like HtH: Commando?

RGMG, A: well, except that. But there can not possibly be any other exceptions or instances!

I'm failing to understand how your vague Commando-GMG allegations relate to GMG's clarification of combat rules on dodging and simultaneous attacks when out of actions. GMG introduced the borrow-dodge which RUE retained and from the get-go clarified that this was an exclusive tactic, that borrowing could not be done for other maneuvers (because it only mentioned dodge) and it explicitly forbidded SA in case anyone got the wild idea.

2005 - RUEpg342 "the one who is out of attacks can only try to parry" + "may opt to dodge"

"can only try to parry" "may opt to dodge"

"can only" "may"

"can only" yeah that statement was true.

While I am in agreement with you that the the second contradicts the first, that does not mean that the second erases the first. It modifies it to mean "true except in this instance."

Vampire Kingdoms included the statement "energy blasts, electricity, explosives, bullets, blades of steel, acid, radiation, disease, etc. do absolutely NO damage".

This is later contradicted because there are certain energy blasts (like from TW weapons, or a dragon's breath) or electricity (call lightning) or blades of steel (Steel Rain) or bullets (silver) which can harm vampires.

While this does modify the statement to not be universally true, it does not erase it. They coexist and override. It's a "true except when" type case.

"Only parry" is true except when dodging. No such exception was listed for simultaneous attacking (your argument that you can SA whenever you can otherwise defend has been falsified) and beyond that, it has been explicitly forbidden in errata for people who didn't get it the first time for its subtleness.

quote for me then, exactly when a person is able to perform a Simultaneous Attack. Quote it for me.

You're missing the grand scope of combat rules here Dog, which is "so long as the opponents have melee attacks left, the combat continues back and forth" (RMBpg35).

This has been very clear from the outset. Doing a simultaneous attack is continuing combat, it's further 'back and forth'. It is not possible because of the very basis of the APM foundation of melees in the combat rules.

The phrase "instead of defending with a parry/dodge/entangle a character can..." (RMBpg36 and RUEpg347) is one which I insist you are interpreting wrongly. The problem has to do with cost. Cost mechanics work according to each move, they do not transfer to a move you substitute. If you have an automatic parry or an automatic dodge, you are afforded one of those defenses cost-free. This does not extend to mean that your simultaneous attack is cost-free.

In the same way, dodge-borrowing makes a (non-auto) dodge cost-free (for that melee, not in the grand scheme of things) by ignoring that cost until the next melee round.

This ignoring of cost does not extend to simultaneous attack and THAT is why you can not do it. The only way you could possibly do a simultaneous attack when out of melee attacks is if you had an attack that did not cost attacks to perform, an automatic counter-attack. If you can present an instance of that, I would be fine with allowing it in THAT instance, sure. But for the most part, since SAs cost an action, no, you could not do them.

You can't action-borrow for a SA for the same reason you can't for an entangle, because that form of payment is only defined for dodging, it is specific to solely that maneuver.

To be specific: you DO have an opportunity to simultaneous attack when you're out of attacks... but that opportunity is wasted, because you can't pay the piper. It would only be possible if you had an automatic attack (never encountered one) or if the ability to SA when out of attacks was explicitly described on RUEpg342. Only dodging, not entangling or SAing or rolling with impact or defensive disarming or any other responsive maneuver, can be done among the action-costing aggression responses, when one is out of attacks.

Your "may opt to dodge" + 'instead of dodging a character can' combo is clever but it doesn't hold together, because you are only addressing the combat-order mechanism and not the combat-cost mechanism.

the whole "dodge borrowing" thing, is not so much that you're borrowing the dodge, it's that they set up the precedent by allowing a person to borrow from the next round with dodges and parries; the things of which are otherwise the only actual requirement for a simultaneous attack.

It is certainly a precedent for house rules, but it is not a precedent for allowing action-costing things besides dodging to be performed in a melee when out of actions. Were this the case, other maneuvers which were focused on (such as entangles) would have also been listed as a possibility.

Your focus on opportunity ignores that SAs cost what attacks cost (as they are attacks) and they do not cost what dodges cost.

When someone gets a free attack that must be used for dodging, it must be used for that. Just like when someone gets a free attack dedicated solely to attacking, it must be used for an attack.

For example, a Seleniak with 4 attacks + 1 action could punch a Tarlok 4 times and, while not able to punch them again, still make a dodge in that melee, even before GMG dodge-borrowing inclusion.

Similarly, if I'm a bioborg with 4 actions per round and 1 free fire breath attack, if I spent all my attacks punching and some guy with more actions tried to punch me, while I would not be able to simultaneously attack them with a punch, and while I would not be able to entangle them, I WOULD be able to simultaneously attack them with my fire breath attack, since I do have an action left over for attacking with.

Have you asked Palladium directly to clarify this? I do mean directly, through the contact procedures you'll find in my signature. Posting on the forums really just means you're discussing it with other fans and hoping someone official stops by.

Palladium was asked, and someone official stopped by via Rifts Game Master Guide, which already answered it in their 2001 FAQ which also got printed up in the canonical Rifter errata. This is being rejected for unfounded reasons.

inconsistent because you are pulling the opt to dodge rule into the SA rule, and not also pulling in the paired weapons counterstrike prohibition. If you have to pull from one, you should pull from both, especially because the paired weapons counterstrike prohibition as a stand alone sentence does not say it applies only to SA's or only to Paired weapons.

Well said. This was bothering me a bit too at the edge of the mind, but didn't know how to put it into words.

This is probably the most practical way to get a clear ruling on how to resolve this dispute. Good thinking.

I honestly don't think it would resolve anything. If we don't establish to Dog that he's already wrong, Palladium saying he is wrong would be interpreted as a "new rule" and a contradiction or 'update' to current content.

On the flip side, if Palladium supported his interpretation, we would also say that it is a change to rules. Any declaration of what rules are doesn't really settle disputes over what rules were.

[Jefffar]

He may also attempt to dodge, but each dodge will take away from one of his attacks from the next melee round, leaving him in an even worse situations until soon, all he may be able to do is run and dodge which can happen.

Bolded text is my emphasis.

I'd say that's definitive about the intent of the rule by the author. A fighter drawing from his next melee is able to use those actions for trying to avoid getting hit, but potentially leaves himself in a position where he can't generate any offense.

Also, that part of the text also can be found in the Dead Reign and Robotech rule books, both of which were written after RUE.

[Tor]

Well, the newest Robotech anyway (Shadow Chronicles?)

This part has been cited but somehow Dog's wiggled out of it.

Basically I think his argument is that we should ignore it in all cases because it is not absolutely true. Whereas others take the stance that we should abide by it except for cases where it is made untrue by conflicting statements.

We have, fun enough, RUEpg342 both saying that
(1) "the one who is out of attacks can only try to parry"
-and-
(2) "all he may be able to do is run and dodge, which can happen"

I would say 1 trumps 2 due to the "may". The 'can happen' part I think would be a reference to situations where you can not parry. Such as the inability to parry energy weapons that most people have. Or (if we're letting anyone parry energy blasts these days) how energy BURSTS can NEVER be parried (CB1 made that very clear).

Since the ability to dodge followed directly after the 'can only try to parry', it seems like a bad choice of phrase. It feels like an incomplete thought. Like "can only try to parry without spending actions" or something like that.

We have a direct consecutive "can only A, may opt to B" situation. Rather than throw it out completely due to the contradiction, I think the more reasonable response is to interpret that as "can only A or B". Dog's response appears to be to interpret it as "can A or B or C" (and maybe D?) which I'm not siding with.

[Jefffar]

The image repeatedly brought up in Palladium games (including later on page 342) is of a boxing match or similar fight in which one of the fighters is able to deliver a rain of blows while the other is stuck covering up (parrying) and bobbing out of the way (dodging) unable to counter attack until the flurry abates enough for him to get back into the fight.

Something like this, they start off trading blows, but then only one is able to get any sort of offense until the other can get himself some separation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_U9XA_FR98

[Tor]

Since this really is so well established and agreed upon, I think the real argument to move on to is in the N&SS realm, where there is a combination dodge+kick move.

If one can borrow an attack to dodge, can one borrow an attack to dodge and combine it with a kick in the same action? Probably not, but it's fun to tossle about.

[Jefffar]

Can one borrow an attack in Ninjas and Superspies though? It's an older ruleset and was different from the standard ruleset at the time it was created.

[Balabanto]

No, I don't think so, Jeffar.

Really, the issue here is "When do you roll initiative a second time?" AND "When is combat over?"

This is why I allow dodges freely at the end of the round, because "Run and Dodge" is also unclear, and how far someone can move during a melee round is also unclear. Rifts is a game that's open to a lot of interpretation. But what my gaming group also discovered was "It's so easy to die in Rifts that those extra dodges mean NOTHING. The same people still die that would have died if those dodges weren't there." Yes, it makes the game a little more cinematic and a little less realistic.

But...

Fireball!

Or "So what?"

There are other problems, too. Parry includes the word "Automatic." Obviously, Automatic Dodge and Automatic Parry shouldn't mean different things, but according to this whole, long, agonizing thread, they do. That's a big problem. The same word can't mean two different things when used for two different defenses.

It's up to the GM. That's why he's there. And I'm sure that's what Kevin would say, too, as distressing as all of you find this. Would it be better if someone rewrote all the combat rules? Probably. Is someone going to make the effort at Palladium? Probably not.

[Dog_O_War]

I don't have a ton of time for responses right now, but I will respond to a few that serve to highlight my point about the books and their vague text that needs clearing up;

I would say 1 trumps 2 due to the "may". The 'can happen' part I think would be a reference to situations where you can not parry. Such as the inability to parry energy weapons that most people have. Or (if we're letting anyone parry energy blasts these days) how energy BURSTS can NEVER be parried (CB1 made that very clear).

See, R:UE does actually say that you can't parry bullets and energy blasts, and that it is "impossible", and then gives you both rules and the go-ahead for any and everyone to parry bullets and energy blasts. And R:UE wasn't the trend-setter for this rule here either.

The point with things like this is that the book says one thing and then goes ahead and both allows and does the opposite.

That is my point when the rules say you can't; they also say you can. While the book may say that "you can only dodge when you're out of actions", well straight up we already know that isn't true.

So if that isn't true, what else then isn't?

[Dog_O_War]

He may also attempt to dodge, but each dodge will take away from one of his attacks from the next melee round, leaving him in an even worse situations until soon, all he may be able to do is run and dodge which can happen.

Bolded text is my emphasis.

I'd say that's definitive about the intent of the rule by the author. A fighter drawing from his next melee is able to use those actions for trying to avoid getting hit, but potentially leaves himself in a position where he can't generate any offense.

Also, that part of the text also can be found in the Dead Reign and Robotech rule books, both of which were written after RUE.

The problem here though is that we aren't arguing intent; I have stated above that I do not believe that the rules were intended to be [ab]used in the manner I have described here.

But the problem is that how they are written - they allow for it.

[Tor]

Can one borrow an attack in Ninjas and Superspies though? It's an older ruleset and was different from the standard ruleset at the time it was created.

Going by N&SS rules alone, no. Like all games at the time (including Rifts, in the past) it was not possible to dodge when out of attacks (excepting auto-dodge).

Considering the Megaversal interchangeability advertised on Palladium's book covers, it is completely reasonable to apply that borrowing policy introduced in GMG/RUE to other games as well.

I'd only oppose introducing RUE policies when they were in direct conflict with major game elements (like the amount of time it takes to make an Aimed Shot, for example) and the borrow-dodging policy isn't gamebreaking at all, it seems balanced enough.

One thing that should be explored though is just how far ahead you can borrow. Like is a guy with 2 attacks limited to dodging 4 (borrowing 2 from the next melee) or is it unlimited and it just keeps passing on the cost? Just how many melees ahead can one borrow? That hasn't been very clarified.

N&SS somewhat avoids the problem in that a dodge roll applies to all subsequent attacks made against the character in that initiative turn (set of attacks by various characters). This rule could also be extrapolated to RUE and othergames (due to Megaversality) without harming much.

the issue here is "When do you roll initiative a second time?" AND "When is combat over?"

I don't see much of an issue. Initiative is rolled at the start of a new round, and a round ends when everyone is out of attacks and all responses have been resolved.

Parry includes the word "Automatic." Obviously, Automatic Dodge and Automatic Parry shouldn't mean different things, but according to this whole, long, agonizing thread, they do. That's a big problem. The same word can't mean two different things when used for two different defenses.

The two automatic defenses used to operate identically, I think it was somewhere around HU2nd where they made them different sets of bonuses, and this carried over into RUE.

R:UE does actually say that you can't parry bullets and energy blasts, and that it is "impossible", and then gives you both rules and the go-ahead for any and everyone to parry bullets and energy blasts. And R:UE wasn't the trend-setter for this rule here either.

Interesting conflict, would like to read those pages

The point with things like this is that the book says one thing and then goes ahead and both allows and does the opposite.

The can'ts apply except where otherwise indicated. I know in CB1 that only a certain class of people could even attempt to parry energy blasts, though RUE might've opened that to everyone. I recall in particular the combat example where the Cyber-Knight could parry the grunt's laser pistol with his vibro-blade, but the Grunt could not parry the Knight's ion pistol with his vibro-blade.

Then (in pretty sweet tactics) when the Knight was out of attacks (and thus unable to dodge, since this was prior to borrowing) the Grunt did a laser burst with his laser pistol (this was back when the Coalition Laser Pistol COULD burst, RUE removed that ability) which the cyber-knight was unable to auto-parry, so it could not be defended against.

While the book may say that "you can only dodge when you're out of actions", well straight up we already know that isn't true. So if that isn't true, what else then isn't?

Er... did you say within the quotes what you meant to say?

the problem is that how they are written - they allow for it.

Except, y'know, that they don't and we've already shown in numerous different places that they don't. For some reason you're only considering RUE in a bubble as if conversion books and GM guides don't exist. RUE may override previous books in conflicts but it doesn't erase them.