Talismans and Body Armor

Diabolists, Techno-Wizards & Psionicists, Oh my! All things that are Magics and Psionics in all Palladium Games.

Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones

User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

Dude, You are taking this way to personally that I won't bend over and bow down to you saying that you are right in ALL THINGS.
The one point you did make that was relevant, I did acknowledge

ALL your concerns were responded to before your latest post. So I will assume that your tenacity in trying to prolong the argument is to feed your ego. And not to settle anything.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Dude, You are taking this way to personally that I won't bend over and bow down to you saying that you are right in ALL THINGS.


No.
I'm getting kinda annoyed that you keep pretending I've said things that I haven't, and refusing to directly and succinctly address the two very simple and straightforward points that I have actually made, instead choosing weird, inaccurate, encrypted ramblings that don't really address what I've said.
But I've spun my wheels and repeated my points to no real effect long enough that I don't really care anymore, and don't see much point in continuing the conversation.

The one point you did make that was relevant, I did acknowledge


Not sure what point you're talking about or when, but sure.
Whatever man.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

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

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Dude, You are taking this way to personally that I won't bend over and bow down to you saying that you are right in ALL THINGS.

I was talking about your 'actions' not what you 'said'.

Because your 'actions' of contenuing this with just recycling your objections even thou I responded to them, you did comunicate that you would not acccept anything but absolut surrender through your contenued objecting to the same thing over and over again. And This Happened even though I told you you would not change my mind over the opinion you were objecting to.

Yes, I CLARIFIED that it was an opinion in a later post due to my understanding of the words used, but you KEPT going back multiple times to the original post you objected to keep objecting to it.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Dude, You are taking this way to personally that I won't bend over and bow down to you saying that you are right in ALL THINGS.

I was talking about your 'actions' not what you 'said'.


Sure.
But my actions here are "not bending over and bowing down to you, saying you're right when you're clearly wrong."

Because [u]your 'actions' of contenuing this with just recycling your objections even thou I responded to them


The **** you did respond to them.
At least, not in any way that made any kind of sense.
Mostly, you couldn't even manage to frame my stance correctly, and kept fighting strawmen.
Once you accused me of ignoring a RCB1 passage you never bothered to quote to me.
Other times you've spouted gibberish.

IF you feel you actually managed to address something I said with a facts-based, logical response, and you truly want me to see it, by all means link me to that post.
But if it's another "In the quote i quoted about the previous quote about the thing" ramble, don't bother; that's not any of the bolded.

As far as I can tell, we're still at the point where:
a) You claimed in the context of "magic penetrating the skin" that power armor counts as a vehicle
b) the book clearly states that power armor counts the same as body armor in this contect
c) You claimed that if power armor counted as a vehicle, then magic couldn't penetrate
d) The books repeatedly and clearly show magic penetrating vehicles in a variety of ways

If you think any of those points are incorrect, feel free to let me know which one and why/how you think so.
OR JUST DON'T.

Really, I don't see any point in us continuing this conversation at all, because so far all we've managed to do is annoy each other, instead of actually communicating.
Do you see any reason to...?
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

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

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
ITWastrel
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:49 pm

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by ITWastrel »

Killer Cyborg wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Dude, You are taking this way to personally that I won't bend over and bow down to you saying that you are right in ALL THINGS.

I was talking about your 'actions' not what you 'said'.


Sure.
But my actions here are "not bending over and bowing down to you, saying you're right when you're clearly wrong."

Because [u]your 'actions' of contenuing this with just recycling your objections even thou I responded to them


The **** you did respond to them.
At least, not in any way that made any kind of sense.
Mostly, you couldn't even manage to frame my stance correctly, and kept fighting strawmen.
Once you accused me of ignoring a RCB1 passage you never bothered to quote to me.
Other times you've spouted gibberish.

IF you feel you actually managed to address something I said with a facts-based, logical response, and you truly want me to see it, by all means link me to that post.
But if it's another "In the quote i quoted about the previous quote about the thing" ramble, don't bother; that's not any of the bolded.

As far as I can tell, we're still at the point where:
a) You claimed in the context of "magic penetrating the skin" that power armor counts as a vehicle
b) the book clearly states that power armor counts the same as body armor in this contect
c) You claimed that if power armor counted as a vehicle, then magic couldn't penetrate
d) The books repeatedly and clearly show magic penetrating vehicles in a variety of ways

If you think any of those points are incorrect, feel free to let me know which one and why/how you think so.
OR JUST DON'T.

Really, I don't see any point in us continuing this conversation at all, because so far all we've managed to do is annoy each other, instead of actually communicating.
Do you see any reason to...?




You're fighting a war of logic with a troll, KC. Kitty only does this to get these reactions, and he's good at it.

DK is just looking to make the same claims over and over, even though he's absolutely wrong and unsupported by anything even remotely akin to facts or game rules. Continuing to keep this thread alive is just feeding the troll.
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

You continue to recycle your objections I have already responded to by bringing them up even after I've responded to them multiple times, and now you recycle them yet again even though I have warned you that I'm not going to play that game anymore.

Responding to the objections you brought up does not need to be a withdraw of the things said. As you think it should be. I did say I would not be changing my opinions about which rules are stupid and wouldn't be followed in games I might GM. Nor would I be changing my opinion about whether or not someone else's house rules would violate an older canon rule or not.

As to a finle responce...

a) Power Armors in an objective meaning of their basic concept are vehicles. (That they are very compact and form fitting vehicles does not discount that they are vehicles.) As such when taken in conjunction with the RBoM rule about magic not penetrating the hulls of vehicles, magic wouldn't penetrate to the insides of any power armors. With that logic chain, Mack's home rules do not violate the RBoM's rule about magic not penetrating vehicles.
Your objection about this seams to steam from I didn't reference the RUE rules in sterad of the RBoM one's when commenting on mack's home rules.

b) well since where this started was about a home rule about where Mack would make the divide between what magic could penetrate or not....I don't see how your objections about "it not canon' really matter when talking about home rules.

c) I covered this in 'a' because it is the same thing worded differently.

d) well since where this started was about a home rule about where Mack would make the divide between what magic could penetrate or not....I don't see how your objections about "it not canon' really matter when talking about home rules.

There, you have my finale responses to your objections. As before, they may not be what you wanted to hear, but I did respond to your objections.
- If you have new ones that are just the old ones reworded or rephrased, do everyone a favor and keep them to yourself.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
Kraynic
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:01 pm
Location: Montana

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Kraynic »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:You continue to recycle your objections I have already responded to by bringing them up even after I've responded to them multiple times, and now you recycle them yet again even though I have warned you that I'm not going to play that game anymore.


If that is what this is, then it seems that the pot has certainly encountered the kettle.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Prysus »

Greetings and Salutations. In general, I try to avoid talking with certain posters, primarily those who can never admit fault and/or believe their personal feelings trump what's written in the books. However, I just want to point out some of the plain falsehoods, because I want to help point out the history for anyone who hasn't been following as closely.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:a) Power Armors in an objective meaning of their basic concept are vehicles. (That they are very compact and form fitting vehicles does not discount that they are vehicles.) As such when taken in conjunction with the RBoM rule about magic not penetrating the hulls of vehicles, magic wouldn't penetrate to the insides of any power armors. With that logic chain, Mack's home rules do not violate the RBoM's rule about magic not penetrating vehicles.
Your objection about this seams to steam from I didn't reference the RUE rules in sterad of the RBoM one's when commenting on mack's home rules.

True and false. Power armor can have an objective meaning that includes it as a vehicle within Rifts. However, it is false that this ruling a power armor a vehicle in the context of magic casting rules does "not violate the RBoM's rule about magic."

Rifts Book of Magic (First Printing), page 18, final sentence on the page ...

Note: The same considerations and penalties apply to power armor, which practitioners of magic won't know how to operate/pilot.

This is attached to the "Wearing Body armor" topic, and the vehicle topic follows, same as in RUE (except RUE made part of the next paragraph bold to help highlight the change in topic). So whether the RUE or BoM rules were used, it doesn't matter since both them associate power armor to body armor in the context of casting magic.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:b) well since where this started was about a home rule about where Mack would make the divide between what magic could penetrate or not....I don't see how your objections about "it not canon' really matter when talking about home rules.

That would have some basis, if you had stayed consistent with it being a home rule. For a refresher to anyone curious ...

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Mack wrote:
Personally, I'd draw a line between body armor and power armor.

Power Armor is a vehicle.
So the above is in line with the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull.

This was the original post. The first sentence of your reply is "Power Armor is a vehicle." And in Rifts, sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. There's also nothing in this section passing your response off as "home rules." This statement, in itself, is not a big issue to me. Inaccurate, but not a big deal. I included it for reference, as the follow up is the important part ...

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:So...
Having read the text on Page 188 of RUE...My org. Assessment is correct.
And my assessment of Mack's GM ruling is correct too.

Your response is that page 188 of RUE confirms your original response, that power armor is a vehicle and will follow the vehicle rules for casting magic. The problem with this is that RUE page 188 (same as BoM page 18 that I quoted above) associates Power Armor with Body Armor, not Vehicles, despite your claims to the contrary.

Furthermore, this proves your claim in "A" false, where you stated you had used BoM instead of RUE ... except as quoted above you used RUE and also said it supported your claim. It wasn't until after Killer Cyborg quoted part of BoM that you tried to switch references here ...

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Since this talk about magic passing through vehicles bodies when I said that Mack's post about How He Would Rule On This In His Games, that is would not violate the no magic in or out of vehicles. The RBoM rule is what was being referenced. There is also that in any game I Would GM that would be the same rubicon line I would put down because In The Real World (and most fiction) vehicles are what Power Armors are. Put it down to me being OCD about words/ideas. You arguing with me will not change my Opinion. An Opinion that has been FULLY Proclaimed as my opinion.

You state that you full proclaimed it as your opinion, except I've already quoted above where you clearly did NOT do that in previous posts. Instead, you had previously claimed that after reading RUE that your statement was correct. I won't go into detail about points C and D, since I consider that topic more of a tangent brought up by Killer Cyborg in the first place (and I've already had my talk with him).

Anyways, I don't expect this actually change anyone's opinion. I just didn't like the revisionist history (especially one that BoM doesn't make this any more true than RUE from what I've seen, though I'm willing to read a particular quote if someone believes I'm mistaken), and wanted to help clarify for anyone coming into this thread late. Thank you all and have a great day. Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:You continue to recycle your objections I have already responded to by bringing them up even after I've responded to them multiple times, and now you recycle them yet again even though I have warned you that I'm not going to play that game anymore.


The bolded portion is a lie.
Or, giving you all benefit of doubt, a serious delusion that quite simply does not match reality.
Attacking strawmen is not an actual response to an argument.

Responding to the objections you brought up does not need to be a withdraw of the things said. As you think it should be.


Acknowledging you were wrong about something is not the same as withdrawing what was said.
Once again you're attacking weird strawmen.
I never said anything about you withdrawing anything, AFAIK.

I did say I would not be changing my opinions about which rules are stupid


I have never once asked you to.
So this is a weird stance to take.

You can think the rules are stupid.
All I'm doing is asking you to acknowledge and understand what the rules actually ARE, and that your description of them was incorrect.

As to a finle responce...

a) Power Armors in an objective meaning of their basic concept are vehicles. (That they are very compact and form fitting vehicles does not discount that they are vehicles.) As such when taken in conjunction with the RBoM rule about magic not penetrating the hulls of vehicles, magic wouldn't penetrate to the insides of any power armors. With that logic chain, Mack's home rules do not violate the RBoM's rule about magic not penetrating vehicles.
Your objection about this seams to steam from I didn't reference the RUE rules in sterad of the RBoM one's when commenting on mack's home rules.


My objections--yet again--are:
1. "Power armor are vehicles" is only true contextually, and in the context of magic penetration the Book of Magic clearly categorizes them as Body Armor, NOT Vehicles.
and
2. Because we have a plethora of examples of magic penetrating the skin of vehicles, we know that the BoM reference to magic not being able to "penetrate the skin of vehicles" is NOT a hard rule, and that "this is a vehicle" does not actually constitute any legitimate reason to claim that magic can in no way penetrate it.

I have a lot of trouble believing that you still cannot understanding either of these points, so your insistence on making up strange objections and motivations and projecting them onto me--instead of just reading and comprehending the words I'm actually typing--is not only annoying, but is making me increasingly concerned for your mental health.

My objections have zero to do with you citing the BoM instead of RUE, and I have no idea what you're talking about there, nor any idea of why.

b) well since where this started was about a home rule about where Mack would make the divide between what magic could penetrate or not....I don't see how your objections about "it not canon' really matter when talking about home rules.


I have no objections to Mack making a house rule.
My objection--as I have stated--is that you made the claim that the official rules said things that they do not actually say, and that they mean things that they do not actually mean.
Unless YOU were talking about house rules when you claimed that power armor count as vehicles, and also when you claimed that magic cannot penetrate the skin of vehicles, then Mack talking about house rules has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation I'm having with you.
The context in which you made false claims about the canon rules does not change the fact that you made false claims about the canon rules.

...but I did respond to your objections.


Not in any coherent way that addresses any actual points I've made.
Attacking strawmen is specifically NOT responding to a point, but rather a way of avoiding responding to a point, and all you've done here so far is to attack strawmen.
As of the very post I'm responding to, you have not yet even shown any understanding of what my objections even are, much less made any response to them, regardless of how clear I keep making my position.

As I said, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.
IF you're done, I'm done.
So there's no need for you to respond.
Last edited by Killer Cyborg on Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

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

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Prysus wrote:[justify]Greetings and Salutations. In general, I try to avoid talking with certain posters, primarily those who can never admit fault and/or believe their personal feelings trump what's written in the books. However, I just want to point out some of the plain falsehoods, because I want to help point out the history for anyone who hasn't been following as closely.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:a) Power Armors in an objective meaning of their basic concept are vehicles. (That they are very compact and form fitting vehicles does not discount that they are vehicles.) As such when taken in conjunction with the RBoM rule about magic not penetrating the hulls of vehicles, magic wouldn't penetrate to the insides of any power armors. With that logic chain, Mack's home rules do not violate the RBoM's rule about magic not penetrating vehicles.
Your objection about this seams to steam from I didn't reference the RUE rules in sterad of the RBoM one's when commenting on mack's home rules.

True and false. Power armor can have an objective meaning that includes it as a vehicle within Rifts. However, it is false that this ruling a power armor a vehicle in the context of magic casting rules does "not violate the RBoM's rule about magic."

Rifts Book of Magic (First Printing), page 18, final sentence on the page ...

Note: The same considerations and penalties apply to power armor, which practitioners of magic won't know how to operate/pilot.

This is attached to the "Wearing Body armor" topic, and the vehicle topic follows, same as in RUE (except RUE made part of the next paragraph bold to help highlight the change in topic). So whether the RUE or BoM rules were used, it doesn't matter since both them associate power armor to body armor in the context of casting magic.


Exactly.
What he's doing is a form of the equivocation fallacy, where a person uses the same word in two different ways--but pretends that they're being used in the same way--in order to come to an incorrect conclusion.

His argument here is basically:
P1: Power armor counts as a vehicle.
P2: Vehicles cannot be penetrated by magic.
Conclusion: Power armor cannot be penetrated by magic.

But he is (as you know) relying on two different contexts of the word "vehicle," the first being a general category of equipment, and the second being an object that interferes with magic.
Power armor is a vehicle in the first sense, but not the latter, and the books make this clear in the passages we've both quoted.

It's basically the same as arguing:
P1: Lady Gaga is a star.
P2: A star is a flaming ball of gas
Conclusion: Lady Gaga is literally a flaming ball of gas.

He's using the same word in two different contexts, but acting as if the context was the same.

Thank you for your usual logic and thoroughness in this conversation; your breakdown of his argument is spot on.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

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

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

Killer Cyborg wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:You continue to recycle your objections I have already responded to by bringing them up even after I've responded to them multiple times, and now you recycle them yet again even though I have warned you that I'm not going to play that game anymore.


The bolded portion is a lie.
Or, giving you all benefit of doubt, a serious delusion that quite simply does not match reality.
Attacking strawmen is not an actual response to an argument.

You kept bringing up your objections even though I responded to them. Whether or not your agree with or even like my responces to your objections, is irrelevent. You kept bringing up your objections. And now you are calling me a lier when I call you up on your recycling of your objections.

You objections are: you don't like me calling power armor what they objectively are....vehicles. So what you have brought this up several times. and I responded to it several times. If you didn't reconize the reponses to be reponces to your objections because it was in conflict with your ideas about what things should be... So What! What you were objecting to was very much in the realm of House Rules. If they were not said so right off the bat, that was clarified to you in later posts. Since you are objecting to a talk about House Rules as a talk about House Rules,I don't know why you are objecting after it was claiffied that it was about house rules.

End Note: I said that power armor are objectively vehicles. Not ...NOT...that that was how the Rifts Game defines PA as vehicles. I in fact acknowledged that the RIFTS Game didn't treat all PAs as vehicles when talking about Magic interactions. And I told you I did after your recycled your objections yet again after I made that responce. :fl: :crane:
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:You continue to recycle your objections I have already responded to by bringing them up even after I've responded to them multiple times, and now you recycle them yet again even though I have warned you that I'm not going to play that game anymore.


The bolded portion is a lie.
Or, giving you all benefit of doubt, a serious delusion that quite simply does not match reality.
Attacking strawmen is not an actual response to an argument.

You kept bringing up your objections even though I responded to them.



:roll:

Here's the conversation:
Drew: (said two incorrect things)
KC: (corrected Drew)
Drew: (attacks a bunch of strawmen)
KC: (Responds thoroughly to anything that might be a legitimate point)
Drew: (Refuses to advance the conversation because "he's already responded," even though he's been rebutted)

That's all that's happening in this thread.

You objections are: you don't like me calling power armor what they objectively are....vehicles.


That is a strawman; it's not actually my argument.
As I've repeatedly pointed out to you before.
Which is why I tell you that you've not yet addressed my points; you have NOT.
You keep arguing against things I've never said and positions I've never held, and it's boring as well as useless.

Until you actually address my points, my points stand.

That's how things work.

If you say "The Earth is flat," and I say "No..." and explain all the evidence that it's round,
then you say "The Earth isn't a triangle!"
Then you have NOT addressed my point.

When I say that Power Armor is NOT a vehicle in the context of magic penetration, and I quote the book(s) saying the same thing, then you saying that I'm upset "you don't like me calling power armor what they objectively are" is a strawman.
And, in fact, a lie.
I've already clarified this point REPEATEDLY, almost ad nauseum.

As I've said; I don't care if you call power armor a "vehicle" in contexts where it's true.
But you called power armor a "vehicle" in a context where it's not only false, but demonstrably false.
The falsity has in fact been demonstrated repeatedly here, by myself, Prysus, and possibly others.

What you're doing here is the equivocation fallacy; you're trying to use two different usages of the same word interchangeably, in order to support a false conclusion.
As I've also pointed out.
If you and I are talking about somebody who's a bricklayer,
and you say "Every Mason believes in a supreme being, so this guy believes in a supreme being,"
then I point out that he's only a mason in the sense that he's a bricklayer, NOT in the sense that he's a freemason,"
and you yammer on for pages about how mean I am for holding fast to my point,
And you say crap like "you don't like me calling this guy what he objectively is....a Mason,"
Then you're not actually presenting anything like a reasonable, intelligent, or logical argument.
You're just repeating your false claim, your equivocation, in the face of proof that you're incorrect.
You're being about as clever as a flat-earther who can't understand why people don't back down and just let him say what he wants to say, without people telling him he's wrong.

What you were objecting to was very much in the realm of House Rules.


Incorrect.
This has been ALSO been addressed.
You keep repeating debunked claims.
Quit it.

End Note: I said that power armor are objectively vehicles. Not ...NOT...that that was how the Rifts Game defines PA as vehicles.


And you THEN used the claim "Power Armor is a vehicle" to interpret how the Rifts game would treat them, by saying that magic could not penetrate them.
But it's not a vehicle in that sense or context, so you're incorrect.
You used the out-of-game context to make claims about how the rules would work in-game, and that's equivocation in this case, because the rules of the game specify that things work differently.

You're basically trying to use Google Maps and real world information about Park Place Avenue in a discussion about Monopoly rules.
That's the problem.
Repeating yourself doesn't make the problem go away; it just repeats the problem.

I in fact acknowledged that the RIFTS Game didn't treat all PAs as vehicles when talking about Magic interactions.


So you know your claim was wrong.
Why all the dancing around that fact?
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

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

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

Killer Cyborg wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:You continue to recycle your objections I have already responded to by bringing them up even after I've responded to them multiple times, and now you recycle them yet again even though I have warned you that I'm not going to play that game anymore.


The bolded portion is a lie.
Or, giving you all benefit of doubt, a serious delusion that quite simply does not match reality.
Attacking strawmen is not an actual response to an argument.

You kept bringing up your objections even though I responded to them.



:roll:

Here's the conversation:
Drew: (said two incorrect things)
KC: (corrected Drew)
Drew: (attacks a bunch of strawmen)
KC: (Responds thoroughly to anything that might be a legitimate point)
Drew: (Refuses to advance the conversation because "he's already responded," even though he's been rebutted)

That's all that's happening in this thread.

I didn't say any incorrect things when talking about Mack's house rule.
--Power armor are vehicles in the objective sense of the idea, and the is a rule in the RBoM that makes it impossible to cast magic that effects the insides of vehicles. As such I did say that Mack's house ruling didn't violate the RBoM rule.
--KC's objection was that I didn't comment using rules within RUE, a book I have never fully read. And then he kept recycling these same objection even though he was told that I was referencing the RBom rules not RUEs rules. then he was told that 'arguing with me' would not change my mind about my comment about Mack's house ruling and how it didn't conflict with the RBoM's rule, Even while I acknowledged that RUE had different rules.

In other words Killer Cyborg....I responded to your objections, without changing my mind about thing you objected to. AND because I was talking about Mack's House ruling and I did Clarify that I was referencing the RBoM's (yes the RIFTS Book of Magic, not the Book of Magic) rule, I was not """incorrect""".

I will state it once again, you will not change my mind about whether or not Power Armor/Power Suits/etc.. They are Vehicles in the objective sense of the idea. (<-- see that nuanced defining) Arguing that "in game" they are otherwise is not 'in line' with talking about house rules/rulings, except maybe to bring it up ONCE. Not over and over and over ad nauseam.... That is not 'Discussing things" to a resolution. That is trying to beat the other into abject submition. That is worthless in the case when the other person has stated they are unpersuadable on that particular idea.


Requests the Mods lock this topic.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:You continue to recycle your objections I have already responded to by bringing them up even after I've responded to them multiple times, and now you recycle them yet again even though I have warned you that I'm not going to play that game anymore.


The bolded portion is a lie.
Or, giving you all benefit of doubt, a serious delusion that quite simply does not match reality.
Attacking strawmen is not an actual response to an argument.

You kept bringing up your objections even though I responded to them.



:roll:

Here's the conversation:
Drew: (said two incorrect things)
KC: (corrected Drew)
Drew: (attacks a bunch of strawmen)
KC: (Responds thoroughly to anything that might be a legitimate point)
Drew: (Refuses to advance the conversation because "he's already responded," even though he's been rebutted)

That's all that's happening in this thread.

I didn't say any incorrect things when talking about Mack's house rule.
--Power armor are vehicles in the objective sense of the idea, and the is a rule in the RBoM that makes it impossible to cast magic that effects the insides of vehicles. As such I did say that Mack's house ruling didn't violate the RBoM rule.


Which is incorrect, because the RBOM rule clearly states--as quoted multiple times in this conversation--that power armor counts as body armor, allowing magic to pass through.
Mack's house rule does violated the RBoM rules.
(Which doesn't matter; it's a house rule.
This discussion is purely about your claim that it doesn't violate the canon rules, when it very clearly does.)

Which you should know by now, since it's been explained a dozen ways in a dozen times.

--KC's objection was that I didn't comment using rules within RUE


Incorrect to the point of being delusional, and you've been corrected on this already. REPEATEDLY.
This is the strawman stuff I was talking about; you make up weird stuff out of nothing, ascribe it to me, then try to rebut it.
That's a strawman.
Just pay attention to my actual stance instead.

RBoM p. 21
The same considerationst hat apply to body armor applyt o power armor, requiring more PPE to be used, and the roll on the same table

The only thing RUE has to do with anything is that it has the exact same rules and phrasing as the RBoM.
I, and Prysus, and iirc others, have quoted to you the rule in the RBoM that's directly above the rule you originally referred to, the one tat states magic cannot penetrate vehicles.
The Book of Magic tells us two relevant things there:
1. Power armor uses the rules for body armor and spellcasting
and :badbad:
2. Vehicles use different rules.

Ergo, power armor is not considered a vehicle in this context, and the rules for magic penetrating vehicles do not apply.


And FYI, you don't have to ask the mods to lock down the thread.
Just. Quit. Posting.
You stop claiming you weren't wrong, I'll stop correcting you.
The world will know that you aren't admitting fault if you just stop talking; it's seen you go to the wall repeatedly over this hill you're apparently willing to die on.
Last edited by Killer Cyborg on Fri Feb 25, 2022 3:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

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

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
ITWastrel
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:49 pm

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by ITWastrel »

What we've got here is, failure to communicate.

One side is making excellent arguments based on rules and backed by text, and the other is a single troll screaming "But it's uh vee-hickle!".

You're never going to win here, KC. His arguments are both stupid and unsupportable, but he's enjoying making everyone hate him more than he cares about being right.

That's both sad and sick, but that's just my opinion.
User avatar
taalismn
Priest
Posts: 47908
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:19 pm
Location: Somewhere between Heaven, Hell, and New England

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by taalismn »

Time for a cookie break, everybody.
-------------
"Trouble rather the Tiger in his Lair,
Than the Sage among his Books,
For all the Empires and Kingdoms,
The Armies and Works that you hold Dear,
Are to him but the Playthings of the Moment,
To be turned over with the Flick of a Finger,
And the Turning of a Page"

--------Rudyard Kipling
------------
Locked

Return to “Guild of Magic & Psionics”