Should PB give Official Canon answers more often

[DBX]

copy/paste of message posted in PB FB page

Palladium Books Inc.

Great Question Jennifer. Ultimately, I always feel the G.M. can restrict or modify or decide on a rule as he or she deems best for their game. That having been said, yes, Chiang Ku are immune to the negative effects of having more than 7 tattoos. They do NOT lose all their magic powers. You can consider that "official." James, loved your answer. Dead on. -- Kevin Siembieda (secretly a Chaing Ku Dragon)[/

excellent PB/KS. appreciated

I think PB should regularly give official canon answers to vexing questions that gamers raise over and over again, as they have done so above. IMO the above answer should be printed in their next rifts release.


They did something along these lines in CB1, and then seemed to forget about it. IMO the rifter or an e-rifter seems an ideal place to clarify a few of these issues that regularly cause confusion among their players/fanbase. Or a murmur every few months could be used to answer some of the fans questions. That may get more fans to contact KS and also give their feedback

Errata, clarifications for continuity changes,rules confusion,exceptions etc should be made available somewhere that gamers see as an official canon source. On this website PB have an errata page, yet it is rarely updated even though fans continually highlight issues that they want some clarification for in newer books. I think this errata section should be highlighted/promoted by PB as the place to go to get some answers. if they don't use it then they may as well get rid of it.

[Anthar]

They used to print some in the Rifters, but that practice was stopped before they reached Rifter #10 I believe.

[keir451]

Yeah, I remember that he added a few rules clarifications back when he printed the first Sourcebook, nowadays it seems like he doesn't give a damn. "Rules? Oh I don't follow those even though I wrote them my self."
So I vote "Yea!" on official update on rules & other subjects.

[jaymz]

Yeah they had official questions and answers for a while in the rifters.

[Balabanto]

As far as events and characters are concerned, no. Let the GM tell the stories he wants.

As far as mechanics and "What the rules mean" they should be far more vocal.

[The Beast]

As far as events and characters are concerned, no. Let the GM tell the stories he wants.

As far as mechanics and "What the rules mean" they should be far more vocal.

Seconded.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I would say 'No', because of the likelihood that any posted answers will conflict with the published canon answers that are in the books.

There are a good portion of answers in the books, "somewhere", you might just not have the books that they are in.

To give an example, there are canon class changing rules in the high seas book, but a good portion of the peeps don't have said book because those peeps only buy the cash cow books. Therefor they keep asking questions about changing class here, when they could just get the High Seas book and get their answers right from the source.

[jaymz]

I would say 'No', because of the likelihood that any posted answers will conflict with the published canon answers that are in the books.

There are a good portion of answers in the books, "somewhere", you might just not have the books that they are in.

To give an example, there are canon class changing rules in the high seas book, but a good portion of the peeps don't have said book because those peeps only buy the cash cow books. Therefor they keep asking questions about changing class here, when they could just get the High Seas book and get their answers right from the source.

Another good reason to have "core set of rules" provided in a single book maybe?

[Jefffar]

I edited the OP to add a poll question.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I would say 'No', because of the likelihood that any posted answers will conflict with the published canon answers that are in the books.

There are a good portion of answers in the books, "somewhere", you might just not have the books that they are in.

To give an example, there are canon class changing rules in the high seas book, but a good portion of the peeps don't have said book because those peeps only buy the cash cow books. Therefor they keep asking questions about changing class here, when they could just get the High Seas book and get their answers right from the source.

Another good reason to have "core set of rules" provided in a single book maybe?

They do have that, one fore each setting.

Unfortunately, most of the time what is in question is about the details of the rules, and the main books mostly only cover the basics.

[Cinos]

I'm not sure if I want to say yes or "No, that would be an Oxymoron."

[keir451]

I would say 'No', because of the likelihood that any posted answers will conflict with the published canon answers that are in the books.

There are a good portion of answers in the books, "somewhere", you might just not have the books that they are in.

To give an example, there are canon class changing rules in the high seas book, but a good portion of the peeps don't have said book because those peeps only buy the cash cow books. Therefor they keep asking questions about changing class here, when they could just get the High Seas book and get their answers right from the source.

Another good reason to have "core set of rules" provided in a single book maybe?

They do have that, one fore each setting.

Unfortunately, most of the time what is in question is about the details of the rules, and the main books mostly only cover the basics.

Isn't that why they printed a "Conversion Book"? To supposedly answer the questions of transferring from another Palladium realm to Rifts? As such shouldn't that have also included the question of adding dual classed characters from Palladium to Rifts or even allowing the possibility of dual classing at all?

[drewkitty ~..~]

There are canon answers to some more common questions in the RCB1, and in multiple rifters, and the RGMG, and the HU GMG, & the RBoM.
So you might want to ask for a compilation of all the canon answers that have already been given in all the books.

[cornholioprime]

NO.

HELL NO.

Kevin and company already work hard enough at keeping Palladium's head above water.

I'd like to see such a thing, but not at the expense of depriving these guys of even more sleep/leisure time/family time.

(And I am also of the mind that we don't need these guys doing their 9-to-5 or 8-to-5 or 9-to-9, then coming in here after a long day's work. The potential for errors made by the creators themselves would almost certainly skyrocket.)

[Dog_O_War]

I voted 'other' for this reason:


They can't.

If they were to answer officially more questions, it will invariably come to a negative response/feedback loop for the company (see example below).


Example:

Q: Why do I roll initiative?
A: To see if you go first for things such as combat.

Q: When can I enact a simultaneous strike?
A: When your opponent attacks you in combat.

Q: When I perform that simultaneous strike, when do I hit my opponent?
A: At the same time.

Q: So if my opponent rolls a total of 20 for his initiative and attacks me, and I rolled a total of 3 for my initiative and decide to simultaneous strike him, it happens at the same time?
A: Yes.

Q: What good is initiative in combat then?
A: I... we... it's... THIS INTERVIEW IS OVER.


People are typically seeking official answers to broken rules; as noted above, Palladium cannot answer this kind of question because it puts a negative view on the company; they either cannot answer (meaning you have an unhappy customer), or the answer provided is akin to "because our product is bad and poorly thought out". Saying nothing allows for us to draw an inverse conclusion, and hearing the answer provided (crappy product) is not good for business.


So while I would like them to answer official canon questions, they cannot.

Not without the above occuring.

[Cinos]

I voted 'other' for this reason:


They can't.

If they were to answer officially more questions, it will invariably come to a negative response/feedback loop for the company (see example below).


Example:

Q: Why do I roll initiative?
A: To see if you go first for things such as combat.

Q: When can I enact a simultaneous strike?
A: When your opponent attacks you in combat.

Q: When I perform that simultaneous strike, when do I hit my opponent?
A: At the same time.

Q: So if my opponent rolls a total of 20 for his initiative and attacks me, and I rolled a total of 3 for my initiative and decide to simultaneous strike him, it happens at the same time?
A: Yes.

Q: What good is initiative in combat then?
A: I... we... it's... THIS INTERVIEW IS OVER.


People are typically seeking official answers to broken rules; as noted above, Palladium cannot answer this kind of question because it puts a negative view on the company; they either cannot answer (meaning you have an unhappy customer), or the answer provided is akin to "because our product is bad and poorly thought out". Saying nothing allows for us to draw an inverse conclusion, and hearing the answer provided (crappy product) is not good for business.


So while I would like them to answer official canon questions, they cannot.

Not without the above occuring.

Or the person asking the question just laughs at their flustered attempt to change the subject and chides them for having their rules being a mess and goes to buy a game who has the capability or chanonies to stand by their own writing even at the expense of annoying people. People will always gripe about a ruling, but they generally keep playing.

[slade the sniper]

Never thought I would write this, but...

The clunky, wacked out, broken rules are sort of fun in a huh????!? sort of way...hear me out. I started playing when I was 13, with ROBOTECH and TMNT, then branched out into BattleTech and never played D&D until about 6 years later. What I have discovered is that PB, with their broken incomprehensible bizzare rules was FUN.

As a GM you could make stuff up, and as a player, you could always wait for the next supplement to come out to uber munchkin your way power and glory...especially, and seminally portrayed in RIFTS. If you want game balance go play GURPS or HERO, if you want whiney angst play WoD, if you want "hard sci-fi" there is Traveller and if you want mecha that are not as retarded, you've got Mekton and BattleTech (with all the supplements, it isn't too bad) and if you want RULES RULES RULES, try D&D 4th Edition where there 2 GM guides and if you want derivative works, well there are tons of interpretations for Star Wars, Star Trek, Warhammer 40K, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, etc...

But if you want silly classes, retarded mecha, huh??? rules, interesting settings and most importantly FUN...play Palladium. It makes you stupid, but it is fun!

-STS

[Dog_O_War]

Or the person asking the question just laughs at their flustered attempt to change the subject and chides them for having their rules being a mess and goes to buy a game who has the capability or chanonies to stand by their own writing even at the expense of annoying people. People will always gripe about a ruling, but they generally keep playing.

Not really.

My group (for example) got incredibly sick of Palladium products and antics a while back, and were not buying or playing anything related to the game at all. That stood for a good 6 years, during which time I had taken up the endeavor (with the help of one other friend) to fix the rules, because for all the faults, the setting was good. My other friends (those whom do not have either the mind or the patience for rules creation and modification) had been content to not play a Palladium game ever again.

The only reason they play them now (they still haven't bought a new product in forever) is because I run it. I have one other friend that took the setting [RIFTS] and runs it in GURPS; that only sorta works because GURPS has a horribly (and by horribly I mean too balanced to be any sort of fun) rules set. We were going to run it in d20 modern, but I wasn't willing to put in the work for that at the time.


Besides my own experience; if you look at places such as RPG.net, they basically give the rules system an "avoid at all costs" critique, with a decent score for the setting. That says to most people (of which their community is large), DO NOT PLAY.

Pretty much, the only place you're going to find an over-all positive sentiment for a Palladium product is here on these boards; and we are small fish in comparison to other sites and the over-all gaming community as a whole.

That doesn't scream to me, "people will generally keep playing" when the image outside this bubble is incredibly negative.

[Killer Cyborg]

I voted 'other' for this reason:


They can't.

If they were to answer officially more questions, it will invariably come to a negative response/feedback loop for the company (see example below).


Example:

Q: Why do I roll initiative?
A: To see if you go first for things such as combat.

Q: When can I enact a simultaneous strike?
A: When your opponent attacks you in combat.

Q: When I perform that simultaneous strike, when do I hit my opponent?
A: At the same time.

Q: So if my opponent rolls a total of 20 for his initiative and attacks me, and I rolled a total of 3 for my initiative and decide to simultaneous strike him, it happens at the same time?
A: Yes.

Q: What good is initiative in combat then?
A: I... we... it's... THIS INTERVIEW IS OVER.

Dude, that's not exactly a stumper of a question.
Initiative is good any time your combat consists of more than just two combatants who don't care if they get hit, hitting each other until one drops.
Do you really make simo attacks every time your turn comes up in combat, and can you really not think of any reason why anybody would do anything else?

[Dog_O_War]

Dude, that's not exactly a stumper of a question.
Initiative is good any time your combat consists of more than just two combatants who don't care if they get hit, hitting each other until one drops.
Do you really make simo attacks every time your turn comes up in combat, and can you really not think of any reason why anybody would do anything else?

It renders pointless an entire theme within one of the books; New West. When you perform a showdown between two gun fighters, the toughest one is going to win, as it doesn't even matter who drew first. Flipside is samurai iaijutsu duels; no point in those either.

And that (in combat) is like taking away any amount of cinematic cool there could have been.

The other side of it is that it exists, and is the sole advantage of a tough character. It also renders useless quick characters who rely on stuff like auto-dodge to continue to live in the highly dangerous world of mega-damage combat.

And you know this.


EDIT: and it's not that I can't think of a situation where a person would choose a dodge or parry over simo, it's that simo offends my sense of logic and rules mechanics; it's effectively a 'hack' for a table-top game.

[Balabanto]

Dude, that's not exactly a stumper of a question.
Initiative is good any time your combat consists of more than just two combatants who don't care if they get hit, hitting each other until one drops.
Do you really make simo attacks every time your turn comes up in combat, and can you really not think of any reason why anybody would do anything else?

It renders pointless an entire theme within one of the books; New West. When you perform a showdown between two gun fighters, the toughest one is going to win, as it doesn't even matter who drew first. Flipside is samurai iaijutsu duels; no point in those either.

And that (in combat) is like taking away any amount of cinematic cool there could have been.

The other side of it is that it exists, and is the sole advantage of a tough character. It also renders useless quick characters who rely on stuff like auto-dodge to continue to live in the highly dangerous world of mega-damage combat.

And you know this.


EDIT: and it's not that I can't think of a situation where a person would choose a dodge or parry over simo, it's that simo offends my sense of logic and rules mechanics; it's effectively a 'hack' for a table-top game.

Because declaring simultaneous attack means that unless you have more actions than everyone out there, you will be out of actions and parrying while people back off and gun you down. This only works in melee combat. The moment someone sees you use this tactic all the time, you'll be fighting dozens of ranged opponents. Plus, depending on who you are, simul attack is not always that useful. If you're a cyberknight fighting to save refugees in Tolkeen, better save a couple actions to put force fields around the D-bees you're trying to escort out of the fire zone, or the Coalition will gun them down and leave you standing there weeping. If you aren't a man at arms OCC, and that means you, Mystic Knights, Battle Magi, and other hybrid caster/fighters, you have to wait until 7th level to gain this ability, unless you took a more advanced martial art, which sometimes means sooner, later, or not at all, unless you want to sacrifice a body hardening technique or something like that for a WP. Simul attack is generally a waste of time, because once they see you use it, the correct answer is, don't engage this person in melee. Just gun them down from a distance.

[Dog_O_War]

Because declaring simultaneous attack means that unless you have more actions than everyone out there, you will be out of actions and parrying while people back off and gun you down. This only works in melee combat. The moment someone sees you use this tactic all the time, you'll be fighting dozens of ranged opponents.

'Melee' combat includes gunfire at any range. Your argument is invalid. It's in the rules, but I'm not near my book, so I can't give you the direct quote. If you would like it, When I get home I'll point it out.

Plus, depending on who you are, simul attack is not always that useful. If you're a cyberknight fighting to save refugees in Tolkeen, better save a couple actions to put force fields around the D-bees you're trying to escort out of the fire zone, or the Coalition will gun them down and leave you standing there weeping.

I know that there are other situations where a simo isn't going to be your best option. As I said before, it's the fact that simo offends my sense of logic and rules mechanics; it's effectively a 'hack' for a table-top game.

If you aren't a man at arms OCC, and that means you, Mystic Knights, Battle Magi, and other hybrid caster/fighters, you have to wait until 7th level to gain this ability, unless you took a more advanced martial art, which sometimes means sooner, later, or not at all,

Anyone and everyone can perform a simultaneous attack, regardless of skill level. Where are you getting the misinformation?

[ZorValachan]

'Melee' combat includes gunfire at any range. Your argument is invalid. It's in the rules, but I'm not near my book, so I can't give you the direct quote. If you would like it, When I get home I'll point it out.

R:UE separates Hand to Hand combat (up close and personal) from Ranged Combat. HTH starts on pg 339 and describes everything for fighting up close and personal (swords, knives, fists, etc.). It has BIG Letter heading type for Hand to Hand Combat. In this section the HTH terms are listed and simo attacks are explained. After this section is one on HP/SDC and MDC, where they are explained and after that healing and surviving MDC damage section. After that section on page 360 there is a BIG letter heading type for Ranged Combat. This section explains all the rules for ranged combat (guns and missiles each have their own sub-section). It states that these Ranged rules were made in Splicers and BTS-2 and now imported into Rifts. The Ranged Combat has a list of terms also, some (such as Attacks per Melee) are repeated. Simo attacks is NOT repeated. This can be taken that simo attacks are for HTH up close and personal combat and not for Ranged Combat.

[Balabanto]

Because declaring simultaneous attack means that unless you have more actions than everyone out there, you will be out of actions and parrying while people back off and gun you down. This only works in melee combat. The moment someone sees you use this tactic all the time, you'll be fighting dozens of ranged opponents.

'Melee' combat includes gunfire at any range. Your argument is invalid. It's in the rules, but I'm not near my book, so I can't give you the direct quote. If you would like it, When I get home I'll point it out.

Plus, depending on who you are, simul attack is not always that useful. If you're a cyberknight fighting to save refugees in Tolkeen, better save a couple actions to put force fields around the D-bees you're trying to escort out of the fire zone, or the Coalition will gun them down and leave you standing there weeping.

I know that there are other situations where a simo isn't going to be your best option. As I said before, it's the fact that simo offends my sense of logic and rules mechanics; it's effectively a 'hack' for a table-top game.

If you aren't a man at arms OCC, and that means you, Mystic Knights, Battle Magi, and other hybrid caster/fighters, you have to wait until 7th level to gain this ability, unless you took a more advanced martial art, which sometimes means sooner, later, or not at all,

Anyone and everyone can perform a simultaneous attack, regardless of skill level. Where are you getting the misinformation?

Simo attacks aren't worth it unless YOU have paired weapons. If YOU do, and he doesn't, you can parry his incoming attack while you smack him for free. The key to winning combats in Rifts, because damage values are so absurd, isn't damage dealing. It's action denial or making other people WASTE actions. It's not misinformation. It's tactical analysis. Sorry to burst your bubble, but damage trade-offs where you think you can take more damage than him are wasteful in Rifts, because armor repair is expensive and parrying isn't. Even if the other guy has paired weapons also, unless he's a monster of the midway and better than a PC, and you'll find that out in the first exchange, it's worth it to take the risk under those conditions.

Flat Damage tradeoffs, unless you're sure you do more damage than the other guy, are a colossal waste. Every thing that hits you costs you money unless you've got big...force fields, or you have a ton of regeneration. In general, we learned as a group that simul attack really only works for a guy who has two good weapons, like a cyberknight, and the ability to use them. For everyone else, it was a swift trip to the armor shop.

[Cinos]

Not really.

My group (for example) got incredibly sick of Palladium products and antics a while back, and were not buying or playing anything related to the game at all. That stood for a good 6 years, during which time I had taken up the endeavor (with the help of one other friend) to fix the rules, because for all the faults, the setting was good. My other friends (those whom do not have either the mind or the patience for rules creation and modification) had been content to not play a Palladium game ever again.

The only reason they play them now (they still haven't bought a new product in forever) is because I run it. I have one other friend that took the setting [RIFTS] and runs it in GURPS; that only sorta works because GURPS has a horribly (and by horribly I mean too balanced to be any sort of fun) rules set. We were going to run it in d20 modern, but I wasn't willing to put in the work for that at the time.


Besides my own experience; if you look at places such as RPG.net, they basically give the rules system an "avoid at all costs" critique, with a decent score for the setting. That says to most people (of which their community is large), DO NOT PLAY.

Pretty much, the only place you're going to find an over-all positive sentiment for a Palladium product is here on these boards; and we are small fish in comparison to other sites and the over-all gaming community as a whole.

That doesn't scream to me, "people will generally keep playing" when the image outside this bubble is incredibly negative.

You're talking to the wrong person about rule re-writes.

First understand that I think their rules are among the worst of any of the big name brands out there.

Second, that's still no reason for them not to actually try to stand by rulings. It'd be no different then D&D standing by a ruling. It means everyone would be playing by the same rules. People like us who are playing our own game would be unaffected because we're not playing that game any more, we'd see it and ignore it, incorporate it, or have already fixed the problem.

[Dog_O_War]

R:UE separates Hand to Hand combat (up close and personal) from Ranged Combat. HTH starts on pg 339 and describes everything for fighting up close and personal (swords, knives, fists, etc.). It has BIG Letter heading type for Hand to Hand Combat. In this section the HTH terms are listed and simo attacks are explained. After this section is one on HP/SDC and MDC, where they are explained and after that healing and surviving MDC damage section. After that section on page 360 there is a BIG letter heading type for Ranged Combat. This section explains all the rules for ranged combat (guns and missiles each have their own sub-section). It states that these Ranged rules were made in Splicers and BTS-2 and now imported into Rifts. The Ranged Combat has a list of terms also, some (such as Attacks per Melee) are repeated. Simo attacks is NOT repeated. This can be taken that simo attacks are for HTH up close and personal combat and not for Ranged Combat.

I agree with your interpretation.

I also probably wouldn't allow simultaneous attacks on the first attack of a melee round (because I think the argument about initiative, above, is well taken), on sneak/surprise attacks, or on attacks from behind.

Simo attacks aren't worth it unless YOU have paired weapons. If YOU do, and he doesn't, you can parry his incoming attack while you smack him for free. The key to winning combats in Rifts, because damage values are so absurd, isn't damage dealing. It's action denial or making other people WASTE actions. It's not misinformation. It's tactical analysis. Sorry to burst your bubble, but damage trade-offs where you think you can take more damage than him are wasteful in Rifts, because armor repair is expensive and parrying isn't. Even if the other guy has paired weapons also, unless he's a monster of the midway and better than a PC, and you'll find that out in the first exchange, it's worth it to take the risk under those conditions.

Flat Damage tradeoffs, unless you're sure you do more damage than the other guy, are a colossal waste. Every thing that hits you costs you money unless you've got big...force fields, or you have a ton of regeneration. In general, we learned as a group that simul attack really only works for a guy who has two good weapons, like a cyberknight, and the ability to use them. For everyone else, it was a swift trip to the armor shop.

This is for all three of you;

R:UE pg. 362 "GUN TERMS - Attacks per Melee: Each individual shot/counts as one melee attack." We now have a basis here; these count as melee attacks. That alone qualifies them for anything a close-up melee attack can be used for, but I will go further.

R:UE pg. 348 "Hand to Hand: Assassin ...Level 8: +1 to strike with guns... ...Level 11: +1 to strike with guns... ...Level 15: +1 to strike with guns..." This is a hand-to-hand skill, and it gives bonuses to ranged combat. Or rather; melee combat.

R:UE pg. 347 "Simultaneous Attack: Instead of defending with a parry, dodge..." Both parry and dodge can be performed against ranged attacks. This clearly states that you can perform a simultaneous attack instead of those other two options. It also holds no disclaimer that you must be holding a traditional 'melee' weapon such as a sword, club, or knife, etc.

R:UE pg. 346 "Melee or Melee Round" This is all there is. There is no 'ranged round', which infers that all combat is melee - which it is.

Etc...

Simultaneous attack is available to gunfire in all cases as far as the rules are concerned in Rifts. Given the possibility for abuse, I'm hoping your senses of logic and rules mechanics are as offended as my own.

[Dog_O_War]

This I must address further.

Simo attacks aren't worth it unless YOU have paired weapons. If YOU do, and he doesn't, you can parry his incoming attack while you smack him for free. The key to winning combats in Rifts, because damage values are so absurd, isn't damage dealing. It's action denial or making other people WASTE actions. It's not misinformation. It's tactical analysis. Sorry to burst your bubble, but damage trade-offs where you think you can take more damage than him are wasteful in Rifts, because armor repair is expensive and parrying isn't. Even if the other guy has paired weapons also, unless he's a monster of the midway and better than a PC, and you'll find that out in the first exchange, it's worth it to take the risk under those conditions.

Uh, no. The best option for a tough character in Rifts is to literally do nothing, and wait for the other side to attack. He knows he can simply endure their attacks, but can they endure his?

Take a full-conversion borg for example; level 1, and pit him against say a 10th level hyperion Juicer; the ultra-quick juicer whose' bread n' butter is speed, lots of attacks, and auto-dodge.

The borg has hundreds of MDC, but likely less than half the amount of attacks the hyperion has. He strong, so he can carry big weapons; like missile-launchers and railguns.
The hyperion attacks, so the borg simos him which denies the hyperion his dodge. He's likely only got personal armour and maybe a force-field on, neither of which will stand up to 1d6x10 attacks very long. The borg on the other hand can stand up to that kind of punishment far longer than the juicer could.

And the example holds true at any scale because the tougher guy will always have the advantage of endurance.

Flat Damage tradeoffs, unless you're sure you do more damage than the other guy, are a colossal waste. Every thing that hits you costs you money unless you've got big...force fields, or you have a ton of regeneration. In general, we learned as a group that simul attack really only works for a guy who has two good weapons, like a cyberknight, and the ability to use them. For everyone else, it was a swift trip to the armor shop.

Survival is not a colossal waste. If I have to choose between my life and my wallet, guess which I'm going to pick?

[Shark_Force]

Simo attacks aren't worth it unless YOU have paired weapons. If YOU do, and he doesn't, you can parry his incoming attack while you smack him for free. The key to winning combats in Rifts, because damage values are so absurd, isn't damage dealing. It's action denial or making other people WASTE actions. It's not misinformation. It's tactical analysis. Sorry to burst your bubble, but damage trade-offs where you think you can take more damage than him are wasteful in Rifts, because armor repair is expensive and parrying isn't. Even if the other guy has paired weapons also, unless he's a monster of the midway and better than a PC, and you'll find that out in the first exchange, it's worth it to take the risk under those conditions.

Flat Damage tradeoffs, unless you're sure you do more damage than the other guy, are a colossal waste. Every thing that hits you costs you money unless you've got big...force fields, or you have a ton of regeneration. In general, we learned as a group that simul attack really only works for a guy who has two good weapons, like a cyberknight, and the ability to use them. For everyone else, it was a swift trip to the armor shop.

indeed. of course, this makes abilities like defensive body flip/throw *very* nice in melee

[Balabanto]

Simo attacks aren't worth it unless YOU have paired weapons. If YOU do, and he doesn't, you can parry his incoming attack while you smack him for free. The key to winning combats in Rifts, because damage values are so absurd, isn't damage dealing. It's action denial or making other people WASTE actions. It's not misinformation. It's tactical analysis. Sorry to burst your bubble, but damage trade-offs where you think you can take more damage than him are wasteful in Rifts, because armor repair is expensive and parrying isn't. Even if the other guy has paired weapons also, unless he's a monster of the midway and better than a PC, and you'll find that out in the first exchange, it's worth it to take the risk under those conditions.

Flat Damage tradeoffs, unless you're sure you do more damage than the other guy, are a colossal waste. Every thing that hits you costs you money unless you've got big...force fields, or you have a ton of regeneration. In general, we learned as a group that simul attack really only works for a guy who has two good weapons, like a cyberknight, and the ability to use them. For everyone else, it was a swift trip to the armor shop.

indeed. of course, this makes abilities like defensive body flip/throw *very* nice in melee

Yes, they do. Now you get two actions before he goes again, unless he doesn't want to stand up. This is why if someone declares simultaneous attack on certain characters, that cheesy little Chi-Gung Martial arts from Rifter #3 is very useful. "I declare simulataneous attack."/"Bring it. Auto-Body/Flip Throw." Now THAT trade-off is worth it.

As for Dog of War's comments about damage dealing, technically, they're irrelevant. The reason why is that as far as damage resistance is concerned, it assumes that melee damage is all created equal. For a frail character versus a tough one, parrying is still more survival efficient than simultaneous attack, because any failed parry equals death anyway. His logic only works if the tough character has access to enough resources to fix himself. Generally, this won't happen right away. People don't have engagements only when they feel like it. They have multiple engagements in a day that consume key resources. MDC is just the most important one.

[ZorValachan]

R:UE separates Hand to Hand combat (up close and personal) from Ranged Combat. HTH starts on pg 339 and describes everything for fighting up close and personal (swords, knives, fists, etc.). It has BIG Letter heading type for Hand to Hand Combat. In this section the HTH terms are listed and simo attacks are explained. After this section is one on HP/SDC and MDC, where they are explained and after that healing and surviving MDC damage section. After that section on page 360 there is a BIG letter heading type for Ranged Combat. This section explains all the rules for ranged combat (guns and missiles each have their own sub-section). It states that these Ranged rules were made in Splicers and BTS-2 and now imported into Rifts. The Ranged Combat has a list of terms also, some (such as Attacks per Melee) are repeated. Simo attacks is NOT repeated. This can be taken that simo attacks are for HTH up close and personal combat and not for Ranged Combat.

I agree with your interpretation.

I also probably wouldn't allow simultaneous attacks on the first attack of a melee round (because I think the argument about initiative, above, is well taken), on sneak/surprise attacks, or on attacks from behind.

Simo attacks aren't worth it unless YOU have paired weapons. If YOU do, and he doesn't, you can parry his incoming attack while you smack him for free. The key to winning combats in Rifts, because damage values are so absurd, isn't damage dealing. It's action denial or making other people WASTE actions. It's not misinformation. It's tactical analysis. Sorry to burst your bubble, but damage trade-offs where you think you can take more damage than him are wasteful in Rifts, because armor repair is expensive and parrying isn't. Even if the other guy has paired weapons also, unless he's a monster of the midway and better than a PC, and you'll find that out in the first exchange, it's worth it to take the risk under those conditions.

Flat Damage tradeoffs, unless you're sure you do more damage than the other guy, are a colossal waste. Every thing that hits you costs you money unless you've got big...force fields, or you have a ton of regeneration. In general, we learned as a group that simul attack really only works for a guy who has two good weapons, like a cyberknight, and the ability to use them. For everyone else, it was a swift trip to the armor shop.

This is for all three of you;

R:UE pg. 362 "GUN TERMS - Attacks per Melee: Each individual shot/counts as one melee attack." We now have a basis here; these count as melee attacks. That alone qualifies them for anything a close-up melee attack can be used for, but I will go further.

R:UE pg. 348 "Hand to Hand: Assassin ...Level 8: +1 to strike with guns... ...Level 11: +1 to strike with guns... ...Level 15: +1 to strike with guns..." This is a hand-to-hand skill, and it gives bonuses to ranged combat. Or rather; melee combat.

R:UE pg. 347 "Simultaneous Attack: Instead of defending with a parry, dodge..." Both parry and dodge can be performed against ranged attacks. This clearly states that you can perform a simultaneous attack instead of those other two options. It also holds no disclaimer that you must be holding a traditional 'melee' weapon such as a sword, club, or knife, etc.

R:UE pg. 346 "Melee or Melee Round" This is all there is. There is no 'ranged round', which infers that all combat is melee - which it is.

Etc...

Simultaneous attack is available to gunfire in all cases as far as the rules are concerned in Rifts. Given the possibility for abuse, I'm hoping your senses of logic and rules mechanics are as offended as my own.

Please, read what I wrote, don;t change things and also you are reading more into the rules than stated.

I never said ranged was not in melee rounds. I said R:UE separates hand to hand up close and personal attacks from ranged combat.

Both ranged and up close and personal attacks normally count as an attack per melee round. That is all it means.

The hand to hand quote you gave is under the HTH Skills section, whic is a list of what all hth skills do per each level. It is the section after terms and before damage recovery

The simo entry is in a list of up close and personal terms, talking about that type of fighting. Just because parry and dodges can be used also in ranged combat (where in that section it specifically states this as well), doesn't automatically add simo attacks to the list. you're view adds simo to this list, mine does not.

Again, never said there is a melee vs ranged round, only that there are different types of things that a person does by not reading anything extra into the rules that they each have their sub rules. PB uses a term melee to mean 15 seconds of time. All combat takes place in these 15 second slices of time. Just because a lot of people also use melee as a term to mean up close and personal fighting/hand to hand combat (which other RPGs do use it in this way) does not invalidate their stance.

I was defining up close and personal combat as with fists/swords/etc. so people reading would understand I was not refering to melee rounds of time and only a sub-section of combat listed under the Hand to Hand combat section of R:UE

On Topic, I for one think every rule should have a clear example of what it means as well as any needed examples for when 'strange things' happen

[keir451]

I understand that the guys at palladium have alot on their tables yet, for some reason they still cannot get their rules to agree, nor can they get many of their books to come out on time. So at the very least they could ask one person to dedicate some time to going over rules and posts, sorting out what works and what doesn't. THEN that person could bring his/her results up at a meeting and suggest the appropiate changes. Oh wait we already did that, it's called the R:UE!

[Dog_O_War]

Please, read what I wrote, don;t change things and also you are reading more into the rules than stated.

I did; nothing in the HtH combat section indicates that it is "fists, swords, and knives, etc." only. They even give under step 4 a ranged weapon for a damage example. I am reading the rules exactly as they are stated.

I never said ranged was not in melee rounds. I said R:UE separates hand to hand up close and personal attacks from ranged combat.

The only separation that occurs is where you draw your bonuses from; the various bonuses to strike, and what bonuses you may claim on a dodge are the only variations.

Both ranged and up close and personal attacks normally count as an attack per melee round. That is all it means.

Yes; I said that. Ranged and 'up close' attacks are considered melee attacks; simultaneous strike requires that you use up a melee attack to perform an attack, of which it does not specify 'up close'.

The hand to hand quote you gave is under the HTH Skills section, whic is a list of what all hth skills do per each level. It is the section after terms and before damage recovery

The point of it was to highlight that under the hand to hand section, you typically have a hand to hand skill; within the hand to hand skills they list 'ranged combat' bonuses. That stands to say that ranged combat is completely governed by hand to hand combat rules.

The simo entry is in a list of up close and personal terms, talking about that type of fighting.

No, it's the definition of simultaneous attack and how it may be used. It's listed with all the other combat definitions, including ranged attack ones.

Just because parry and dodges can be used also in ranged combat (where in that section it specifically states this as well), doesn't automatically add simo attacks to the list. you're view adds simo to this list, mine does not.

Then yours is an opinion;

Mine is not.

[Athos]

Palladium should get an editor that actually plays the game of Rifts, and have that person collect the inconsistencies and get them resolved...

That would be wonderful, wouldn't it ?

But hey, as a GM, I am going to make the game work, that is my job. I like Rifts more for the setting than the mechanics, even though I try my best to use the mechanics as close to book as possible, I will make changes where I feel necessary. But then, I do that with all games I run, not just palladium's...

[Xar]

I've never understood why some people get so passionate about something that they dislike so much. Is it a quixotic tilting at windmills that they think will actually make a difference, or is it that they just desperately want someone to agree with them and say "yes, the rules stink," before they can move along.

Furthermore, I wonder if some people are never satisfied with anything and must only feel joy in tearing down the accomplishments of others.

[Dog_O_War]

I've never understood why some people get so passionate about something that they dislike so much. Is it a quixotic tilting at windmills that they think will actually make a difference, or is it that they just desperately want someone to agree with them and say "yes, the rules stink," before they can move along.

Furthermore, I wonder if some people are never satisfied with anything and must only feel joy in tearing down the accomplishments of others.

I never understood how people could be fed sh*t, but told it was "good", and then they just continue to eat it

[Athos]

I've never understood why some people get so passionate about something that they dislike so much. Is it a quixotic tilting at windmills that they think will actually make a difference, or is it that they just desperately want someone to agree with them and say "yes, the rules stink," before they can move along.

Furthermore, I wonder if some people are never satisfied with anything and must only feel joy in tearing down the accomplishments of others.

I never understood how people could be fed sh*t, but told it was "good", and then they just continue to eat it

LMAO...

While I don't think the rules are currently feces; this is a good point. People have the right to dislike things they don't agree with.

If they disliked the game as a whole though, I seriously doubt they would play it and be on this forum. I think people love the game and want to improve it, but aren't sure how sometimes and this is frustrating to them. It isn't tilting at windmills to like something and want to make it better. Give me a player or GM that has passion for the game any day over a person that is apathetic towards the game.

[Cinos]

I've never understood why some people get so passionate about something that they dislike so much. Is it a quixotic tilting at windmills that they think will actually make a difference, or is it that they just desperately want someone to agree with them and say "yes, the rules stink," before they can move along.

Furthermore, I wonder if some people are never satisfied with anything and must only feel joy in tearing down the accomplishments of others.

Or they want to see the game continue to have new material, but every time they demo the game, they hear "man these rules suck." for one of a dozen reasons and the person doing the demo knows it too. I got rather sick of hearing it when I did demos at my LGS and stopped because of it. That became a complete waste of time.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I never understood how people could be fed sh*t, but told it was "good", and then they just continue to eat it

Uhhh... humm sounds like what both major political parties do all the time.
Part of it is the culture that trains our young to believe all that they are taught is true, and that every "official" announcements are the truth. So the people can park their brains in neutral while they sit in front of the hypno tubes. (TV and the Comp)
For christens it is not surprising because part of the warning of the 'end times' is that people will call 'good->evil' and 'evil->good.'(not going to give any examples for this to keep out of those topics that people have swallowed the hook whole would get all offended about them.)

I for one am not so lazy that can't just make up my own rulings while a GM'ing for those things that are not covered by the "canon" rules.

The only thing I can see that would need any specific canon rulings would be in the area of char creation. This because those of use who make chars for games online where the players and GM are scattered over the whole of the USA. While a it might be easier to post them, due the changing nature of the game because of each and every new book. I for one like the physical books, where I can browse through them w/o having to turn on the comp.

[Jorel]

Anyone who says no to the OP, is clearly not thinking about the question. It is like asking, "Would you like clean drinking water?" Why wouldn't we all like a little more clarification in an already muddled rule set?

[Killer Cyborg]

I've never understood why some people get so passionate about something that they dislike so much.

Because disliking something intensely IS a kind of passion, so the two are inexorably linked?

That's kind of like saying, "I don't see why people get emotional when they're in love."

[Killer Cyborg]

Palladium should get an editor that actually plays the game of Rifts, and have that person collect the inconsistencies and get them resolved...

That would be wonderful, wouldn't it ?

Yes.

[Xar]

I've never understood why some people get so passionate about something that they dislike so much. Is it a quixotic tilting at windmills that they think will actually make a difference, or is it that they just desperately want someone to agree with them and say "yes, the rules stink," before they can move along.

Furthermore, I wonder if some people are never satisfied with anything and must only feel joy in tearing down the accomplishments of others.

I never understood how people could be fed sh*t, but told it was "good", and then they just continue to eat it

LMAO...

While I don't think the rules are currently feces; this is a good point. People have the right to dislike things they don't agree with.

If they disliked the game as a whole though, I seriously doubt they would play it and be on this forum. I think people love the game and want to improve it, but aren't sure how sometimes and this is frustrating to them. It isn't tilting at windmills to like something and want to make it better. Give me a player or GM that has passion for the game any day over a person that is apathetic towards the game.

There's a difference between apathy and diminished margin of return. If something bothered me to the point that others express their dislike, I'd have left it in the dust long ago. I don't have time in my life to deal with things to that extent. If it doesn't work for me, sayonara. I have my own issues with the game, to be sure...but if things were worse, I've got my 3.5 books still. I could just move on. It doesn't bother me to that extent.

[Dead Boy]

I edited the OP to add a poll question.

And thank you for doing so.

I voted Yes, but ultimately I don't think Kev would really have to put in as much work as he thinks it will. I suspect he doesn't want to answer more questions because he feels too pressed for time. Though I sympathize with the man, I think there's a solution he's overlooking. The man owns his own web site! Why not have a read-only board where he can periodically post questions from others and his answers, there for posterity for others to see and review. That way he wouldn't have to waste time repeating himself. If he answered even just ONE answer a WEEK, over the course of a year he would amass a sizable library of common and uncommon Q&As. In addition to poster submitted questions, the mods could take the uber-string debates that have no resolution in sight, summarize the meat of the problem into a question for Kev, and he could on occasion proactively hit the burning issues. Once enough Q&As have been collected, the mods could even organize them by category like the FAQ Archive, or maybe directly into the existing one.

Why go through all this fuss? Because it's one thing to get an answer form Kev, it's another to refer others to immediately, months or even years later when by then the other party only has your word to take for it. If only he'd post on his own message board, a lot of squabbling would vanish.

[Hannibal]

In my opinion, since Palladium has several significant conflicting rules, timelines, substantive material, etc, they do owe canon answers to sort out the issues. It can be fun for some GMs to work out the issues themselves, but I don't think dumping it on GMs is a long-term sustainable solution.

[Blue_Lion]

I can think of several issues that go over by people over the rules (TW item use and what not.) Maybe a offical thing that takes priorty over every thing else in the books for games X. covering Combat, TW items, magic psi. But with a line that gives the GMS the right to change them for there games to the play stile of them and the players. A general convertion guide to update OCC and RCC from old books to RUE, maybe even a big book off OCCS. Also linking and making an offical player and GM map whould be nice. (player map lacks secret or not generaly known locations like the city of brass. While the GMs has every thing.) You could probaly sell Offical rifts map posters.