Coalition and Vampires

[Blue_Lion]

Oh wait some one did and only two post before you, people have repeated belittle skill saying knowledge is what is needed belittling skill. They may not have used the assact same words that I did but they have been saying knowledge not skill is what you fight vampires with.

So sub I guess you are the one who is incorrect. Accept and move on.

Here's what was said by others about skill:

Skill is needed but not as needed as knowledge, knowing the enemy and being able to exploit it's weakness is priceless.

. . .

Your whole stance is invalid with out knowledge, No amount of skill is paramount over knowledge of your enemy. I could be the greatest warrior ever but if I don't know how to fight a vampire I won't beat it no matter how skilled I am.

. . .

Skill can not be gained with out knowledge, knowledge is what lets you learn a skill and apply it.

If you do not KNOW how to kill a Vampire, skill is not going to help you.

. . .

What special skill is there to kill a Vampire that anyone with the knowledge on how to do it doesn't have?

. . .

It doesn't take skill to stab a piece of wood into a Vampire, but it takes knowledge to know to do that as well as where to aim.

So can you quote where ANYONE said skill doesn't matter? I can't find it, and I looked pretty hard. In fact, I looked for every instance of the word, 'skill' on pages 2 and 3 and I just don't see what you're describing, so either you're adding to their words to reach a different conclusion (which is what I think is happening) or I cannot find the sentence you're referring to.

/Sub

The exact words no, I was paraphasing using my understanding of what they where saying.
In fact see they verry quote you use dismisses the importants of skill. But even if you have the knowledge that you pierce the heart of a vampire with wood, and know where the heart is, in combat if you have no skill at combat you will be verry unlikly to succeed.

Saying it does not take skill to do it means it does not matter if you have the skill to do it as long as you have the knowledge to do it.
People have been saying the the key is knowledge not skill, even some saying it is just knowledge that has been winning agaist supeir numbers for centuries.



Ninja bunny said-Anything that knows the vampires weakness is great for hunting vampires.

You mean like a dog boy walking by a house and saying there is a vampire in thier in the middle of the day. but fighting vampires takes more than knowledge. It takes skill posibaly numbers and propper supplies.

Ninjabunny- Knowledge has for centuries beaten vast numbers. Skill is needed but not as needed as knowledge, knowing the enemy and being able to exploit it's weakness is priceless.

Then it degraded untell we got to the quote where some one is saying it does not take skill at all. There are many casses where people skill over people with knowledge and numbers.

From 'contractors" in Iraq whos helecopter crashed and where swarmed by hostile forces that knew who and where they where. Before going down the higher level of skill of the ex-SF "contractors' killed well over 200 hostiles before they died. Now saying there was only 4 of them that is allot.

Then there was a 6 man team from a striker unit that whent to clear a biulding that was attacking a causalty collection point. The hostiles in the building saw the infentry aproach, knew where the infetry whould come from. The infetry had no idea where in the building they whould be attacked. The first guy threw the door got grabed by an Iraqi witch led to a 6 on 14 hand to hand combat fight within 2 min SSG Pablo's team skill had the bad guys down and ziped cuffed. Despite the bad guys having better knowlede on the people coming in the skill one the day.

Building skill takes longer than gathering intel/knowledge. So if you need both skill and knowledge the skill is more important to get as you can get knowledge faster and easer. In addtion gathering intel is a skill it is something people do not something they know about. So with a lack of skill you whould have allot harder time than some with it.

[Subjugator]

The exact words no, I was paraphasing using my understanding of what they where saying.

OK - let's see if I understand this correctly.

1. You said that someone said skill doesn't matter.
2. I said nobody said that.
3. You insisted they had.
4. I quoted the words of the people who had addressed skill, and lo and behold, nobody had said that!
5. You agreed, and said it's what you understood them to have said (without them ever having said it).

...so you said they said it, I proved NOBODY said it, and yet I am somehow supposed to accept that *I* am wrong?

Please pardon me if I cry bulldrek, because frankly, that's what it is.

In fact see they verry quote you use dismisses the importants of skill. But even if you have the knowledge that you pierce the heart of a vampire with wood, and know where the heart is, in combat if you have no skill at combat you will be verry unlikly to succeed.

It says that skill is subordinate to knowledge when fighting vampires. That does NOT mean that skill is useless. It means that skill is not as important as the knowledge of how to kill a vampire, and it's correct.

I'll tell you what though. Let's play it out.

No metagaming here - only pure roleplay.

You can play a level 15 Mega Juicer with max strength, endurance, PP, and MD. You have whatever H2H skill you want and you can have it at level 15. You do NOT know ANYTHING about vampires....not a HINT about how to hurt or kill them. You have energy weapons and a rail gun of your choice. You have nothing silver or wooden (you wouldn't know to do so), no crosses, no water other than that used for drinking, no wood, and otherwise nothing that will hurt a vampire.

I'll play a level 1 secondary vampire.

I will DEMOLISH you, because you cannot hurt me.

Saying it does not take skill to do it means it does not matter if you have the skill to do it as long as you have the knowledge to do it.

You. Are. Wrong.

That is your conjecture, but it is not even REMOTELY what they said.

Saying it doesn't REQUIRE skill doesn't mean you won't be more effective if you have skill. It means skill isn't necessary to accomplish the goal. That's it. A person with incredibly poor skill in poker could win a poker tournament. That doesn't mean skill is useless. It simply means that a high level of skill isn't REQUIRED. All that would be REQUIRED is knowledge of the rules of poker.

People have been saying the the key is knowledge not skill, even some saying it is just knowledge that has been winning agaist supeir numbers for centuries.

They have not said it is JUST knowledge. That's you adding to it again. They have said skill is of lesser import than knowledge. That is ALL they have said.

If you do not know what will injure a vampire and you have to fight one, you are going to lose. If you don't run, you will absolutely die (or become a vampire).

/Sub

[Blue_Lion]

[quote="rat_bastardActually if you put a vampire into sufficient negative hit points with water damage you kill it.

Realy page number please.

vampire kingdoms page 28, second paragraph.

Revised? let me check oh wait that is in my non revised ed. Let a friend borrow my revised witch changed it. The revised one changes it. I do not have the book today but it says the only way to kill a vampire is to cut off the head and burn the two in seperate fires. So are you using a rule that has been canceled in the revised ed?

Revised does not change this, it specifically states several ways to kill a Vampire. VK Revised Pg 71 last paragraph.

If you do not KNOW how to kill a Vampire, skill is not going to help you. I can be the most bad*** gunslinger in the world but if I'm not using the proper ammunition on a Vampire then I am going to die a horrible death. Sure skill helps but you have to have knowledge of your enemy.

"Knowing is half the battle."[/quote]
ummmm... nope that page does not say that they can be killed by a squirt gun.

They have to be either decapted and burned, exposed to sunlight, submerged in running water. So your squirt gun can damage a vampire but could never kill it. You may hit it with runnng water but that is not the same as submerging it.
So althou the old vampire kingdom book you could kill it with a squirt gun in the new one you can only hurt it.

world book 1 sparkly creature Kingdoms by kevin Siembieda revised ed page 71
"The most common way to make shure a sparkly creature cannot return to life is to cut off the head, and burn the head and boady seperatly. Gull details are described, below under Fire.
Another is to expose the living, staked or decapitated sparkly creature to sunlight and watch it burn up and turn to dust.
The third is to submerded the corpse under running water and watch it melt away and vanish in a matter minutes."
(note I replaced all V words with sparkly creature in that quote.)

So a squirt gun can not kill a vampire because it will not be submerged under running water for several minutes. Heck even a fire hose could not do that.
Under running water only
Beeing immersed and held down in a river or steam or other source of running water can destroy the monster.j
Every other sorce only list damage.

Now to me immersed in running waters means you shove it compleatly under water, or do you think I missread that. A suirt gun while running water can not immerse the vampire.

[Blue_Lion]

OK - let's see if I understand this correctly.

1. You said that someone said skill doesn't matter.
2. I said nobody said that.
3. You insisted they had.
4. I quoted the words of the people who had addressed skill, and lo and behold, nobody had said that!
5. You agreed, and said it's what you understood them to have said (without them ever having said it).

...so you said they said it, I proved NOBODY said it, and yet I am somehow supposed to accept that *I* am wrong?

Please pardon me if I cry bulldrek, because frankly, that's what it is.

well you got 1 and 2 right but I said at
3 i said not in the exact words and even provided a quote where some one said it does not take skill
4 corect.
5 I said it was my understanding of what he said and even directed a quote and a break down of what I said.

So yes you are wrong
It does not take skill = skill does not mater to me.

[Subjugator]

well you got 1 and 2 right but I said at
3 i said not in the exact words and even provided a quote where some one said it does not take skill
4 corect.
5 I said it was my understanding of what he said and even directed a quote and a break down of what I said.

So yes you are wrong
It does not take skill = skill does not mater to me.

Nice of you to ignore the rest where I illustrated that not needing skill is not the same as skill not mattering. Are you so intent on remaining wrong that you'll ignore the rest?

To put it more concisely for you, since you ignored the long post I made:

1. With knowledge but no skill, it is possible to win a fight with a vampire. Ergo, skill is not required.
2. With skill but no knowledge, it is impossible to win a fight with a vampire. Ergo, knowledge is required.
3. With both skill AND knowledge, you are far more likely to win a fight with a vampire. Ergo, skill is helpful, but it is NOT required.

Q.E.D.

Game. Set. Match.

If you cannot disprove that, you have lost, and lost conclusively.

[Subjugator]

ummmm... nope that page does not say that they can be killed by a squirt gun.

Well:

1. Rat only said, "Actually if you put a vampire into sufficient negative hit points with water damage you kill it."
2. He is correct...even if you assume that the ONLY way you can kill a vampire is immersion in water.

They have to be either decapted and burned, exposed to sunlight, submerged in running water. So your squirt gun can damage a vampire but could never kill it. You may hit it with runnng water but that is not the same as submerging it.
So althou the old vampire kingdom book you could kill it with a squirt gun in the new one you can only hurt it.

It never says that running water won't kill them. Water does damage direct to hit points. Immersion is simply the fastest way to kill them.

world book 1 sparkly creature Kingdoms by kevin Siembieda revised ed page 71
"The most common way to make shure a sparkly creature cannot return to life is to cut off the head, and burn the head and boady seperatly. Gull details are described, below under Fire.
Another is to expose the living, staked or decapitated sparkly creature to sunlight and watch it burn up and turn to dust.
The third is to submerded the corpse under running water and watch it melt away and vanish in a matter minutes."
(note I replaced all V words with sparkly creature in that quote.)

Yep. Those are the COMMON ways to do so. Can you cite where it says those are the ONLY ways? Again, do not add to or subtract from the words to reach a conclusion. Have you ever hard of Occam's Razor? *sigh*

So a squirt gun can not kill a vampire because it will not be submerged under running water for several minutes. Heck even a fire hose could not do that.
Under running water only
Beeing immersed and held down in a river or steam or other source of running water can destroy the monster.j
Every other sorce only list damage.

Now to me immersed in running waters means you shove it compleatly under water, or do you think I missread that. A suirt gun while running water can not immerse the vampire.

You are incorrect. You are adding the word 'only' instead of using the word, 'common', which is actually present in the sentence.

Here's what it says on page 80.

Running water can destroy a vampire.

It goes on to describe SEVERAL types of running water, among them immersion in a river, light rain, medium rain, heavy rain or thunderstorms, and water weapons. The main heading is running water. The other items are all sub-headings given the same value UNDER the words, 'running water can destroy a vampire.'

Do you absolutely insist on remaining wrong in spite of all evidence saying you are wrong? Why don't you just say, "Oh! I was wrong!" and be done with it, instead of having people push it in further and further, grinding your wrongness down again and again? Are you so terrified of being wrong that you simply cannot admit it?

/Sub

[rat_bastard]

Thanks subbie, I am away from that book right now and it drives me crazy to know someone is that wrong on the internet.

[calto40k]

Can't take it urge to say something utterly stupid taking control of hands..... CHIMICHANGAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Killer Cyborg]

Yeah, I have a hard time taking a villain seriously when they can be killed by this.

http://fishgame.com/gunnews/wp-content/ ... pistol.jpg

Anybody can be killed with that.

Yep. Just check out the FBI's statistics for deaths by water pistol. Absolutely lethal weapons.

I didn't say that people commonly ARE killed with that, just that anybody CAN be.
Most objects, if you cram them down somebody's throat, will kill.
With hard plastic objects, you can smash them on somebody's head, then use the shards to slit their throat, or stab into vital areas.

Anybody can be killed with pretty much anything.

In which case you completely missed the point. You can kill vampires with one of those if they're used as intended. Or at the very least you can hurt them badly. And doing so would definitely be a lot easier than if you were to try to jam it down someone's throat. And given that most people aren't supernatural creatures...

I have missed the point.
What's so horrible about a vampire possibly being able to be killed with an object used as intended?
Most things are able to be killed by objects used as intended?

Are you put off by the idea of squirt guns as weapons?
If so, then you'll object to virtually ALL settings with vampires, because vampires in most settings are harmed by holy water, which can be loaded into squirt guns, water balloons, or even condoms.
Or they can be defeated by scattering seeds on the ground.
Or they can be defeated with a Zippo.
Or two crossed sticks.
Or knotted rope.
Or a chopstick.

Unless, of course, you're talking about vampires that don't have any of the typical vulnerabilities that vampires tend to have... in which case, I'll encourage you to base your RPG vampires off of Twilight or Anne Rice's works, where the vampire are much, much more serious creatures than in typical legends and lore.

[Blue_Lion]

ummmm... nope that page does not say that they can be killed by a squirt gun.

Under running water only
Beeing immersed and held down in a river or steam or other source of running water can destroy the monster.j
Every other sorce only list damage.

Now to me immersed in running waters means you shove it compleatly under water, or do you think I missread that. A suirt gun while running water can not immerse the vampire.

You are incorrect. You are adding the word 'only' instead of using the word, 'common', which is actually present in the sentence.

Here's what it says on page 80.

Running water can destroy a vampire.

It goes on to describe SEVERAL types of running water, among them immersion in a river, light rain, medium rain, heavy rain or thunderstorms, and water weapons. The main heading is running water. The other items are all sub-headings given the same value UNDER the words, 'running water can destroy a vampire.'

Do you absolutely insist on remaining wrong in spite of all evidence saying you are wrong? Why don't you just say, "Oh! I was wrong!" and be done with it, instead of having people push it in further and further, grinding your wrongness down again and again? Are you so terrified of being wrong that you simply cannot admit it?

/Sub[/quote]
Lets take a closer work.
Running water can destoy a vampire.
Does not mean all will.
It then says that being immersed and held down in a river or steam or other source of rnning water can destroy the monster.
then it goes into talking about still water-wait that is not running water at all.
Under the heading of running water only 1 subheading says it can destoy a vampire. Others may damage may and do damage the vampire. But only one sub heading says it destoys the vampire.
So as long as one form of running water can destoy the vampire the over setting of it doing so is covered. Also this is the one method that lacks a listed damage.
In other words it only says that water pistols can damage the vampire it never says they will destoy the vampire. If all running water destroyed them why the special note on the fist method. Placing the note on HP reduction on catch all destoying it whould cover all the sub headings instead one subheading mentions destoying the vampire and others only list damage.
So the book never clearly states that water pistols will kill a vampire only hurt it. That is something that you are adding.

[Subjugator]

I've been told to step out of this conversation. G'day folks.

[rat_bastard]

I've been told to step out of this conversation. G'day folks.

The river under this bridge is positively choked with goat bones.

[Cyber-Knight]

There seems to be a strong contingent of mentally deficient posters hanging about here.

[Killer Cyborg]

VKr, 80
Water damage does not heal as quickly as all other forms of water damage. The vampire can regenerate 6d6 points of water damage once every minute (four melee rounds). When Hit Points are 21 below zero, the water-logged monster melts into oblivion.

Squirt guns inflict water damage.
When water damage drops a vampire to -21 HP, the vampire melts into oblivion.
Squirt guns can destroy vampires.

[Nightmask]

There seems to be a strong contingent of mentally deficient posters hanging about here.

It would be prudent not to say such things, that does cross the line with regards to the TOS as it insults the posters rather than simply addressing the post.

[Blue_Lion]

VKr, 80
Water damage does not heal as quickly as all other forms of water damage. The vampire can regenerate 6d6 points of water damage once every minute (four melee rounds). When Hit Points are 21 below zero, the water-logged monster melts into oblivion.

Squirt guns inflict water damage.
When water damage drops a vampire to -21 HP, the vampire melts into oblivion.
Squirt guns can destroy vampires.

the part on the -21 is under the only subheading that says it can destroy a vampire not presented as a overal catch rule. At least that is how I see it.

Simply cannoncaly I see justification for squirt guns not beeing able to kill a vampire because he has to be submerged under a river or stream or other source of running water and reduced to -21 hp. Now while a squirt gun can reduce a vampire to -21 it can not submerge him.

Ok I am done with this. My point was that the way the rules are written it does not clearly say that a squirt gun destroys a vampire.

[Killer Cyborg]

VKr, 80
Water damage does not heal as quickly as all other forms of water damage. The vampire can regenerate 6d6 points of water damage once every minute (four melee rounds). When Hit Points are 21 below zero, the water-logged monster melts into oblivion.

Squirt guns inflict water damage.
When water damage drops a vampire to -21 HP, the vampire melts into oblivion.
Squirt guns can destroy vampires.

the part on the -21 is under the only subheading that says it can destroy a vampire not presented as a overal catch rule. At least that is how I see it.

You see it wrong.
Also, if you notice, the overall heading for that section is "Water."

Simply cannoncaly I see justification for squirt guns not beeing able to kill a vampire because he has to be submerged under a river or stream or other source of running water and reduced to -21 hp. Now while a squirt gun can reduce a vampire to -21 it can not submerge him.

Submersion is not a necessary requirement.
Again, all it talks about is being reduced to -21 HP by "water damage."
Squirt guns shoot water. This damages vampires.
That's water damage.

Ok I am done with this. My point was that the way the rules are written it does not clearly say that a squirt gun destroys a vampire.

VKr, 80
A child's two water pistol or squirt gun takes on a lethal meaning to vampires.

Lethal
/ˈlēTHəl/
Adjective
1. Sufficient to cause death.

[Jorel]

Seems clear to me that water kills vampires.

[lostsoul336]

So i havent gotten the new vampire books yet however i am planning on getting them soon so if this is covered in those books let me know. In my campaign the group is working in the Coalition out of Lonestar and ended up capturing a vampire at which point they (by shear luck) brought it back to lonestar to be studied. I am thinking about what the coalition would do when they found out about this. I am currently thinking that Dr. Bradford will end up not sharing the information and instead create a special elite squad to capture and bring back more vampires to study. What do you think would happen?

1. How'd you capture it?
2. I think that Bradford would most likely have the captured vamps taken to a secret facility outside of Lonestar proper, one specially designed to house vamps, just in case some got loose and/or caused trouble.

They captured it by staking it in the heart. I am using the old rules as i have not had a chance to get the new book yet. Lucky shot for them and they were smart enough to leave it in.

[Tor]

Something randomly came to mind...

If I stabbed a vampire with an icicle or threw an icicle javelin at one, would that count as running water?

It's a bit confusing since it's not moving relative to itself, but relative to space it is...

I am currently thinking that Dr. Bradford will end up not sharing the information and instead create a special elite squad to capture and bring back more vampires to study. What do you think would happen?

I think Bradford's methods would leave us thinking Doc Reid to be someone who respects vampire civil rights by comparison.

Now you have me wondering how Doc Feral would treat vampires. Would they be perceived more like humans or more like mutant animals? He lacks the knowledge of the supernatural Bradford would have.

*sigh* I really wish they'd done away with the whole running water nonsense.

The Dark did this in Nightbane (though made them vulnerable to fire in the process, always, not just when staked) along with trading their misting for teleportation and turning into spiders instead of bats.

Yeah, I have a hard time taking a villain seriously when they can be killed by this.
http://fishgame.com/gunnews/wp-content/ ... pistol.jpg

Anybody can be killed with that.

Imagine what Sub-Zero could do with it.

It's not a unique weakness. Vampires have often had running water as a vulnerability before, in movies and myths. Even in D&D, you could kill them with an Everflowing Bottle.

Interesting to note that PRPG's original stats for vampires (back when they were listed as Greater Demons, which I still like to consider them as, explains why they count in that tier for Summoners instead of the faerie/lesser demon/deevil one) on pg179, they could only by harmed by holy/magic/silver weapons and their regeneration could only be stopped by (1) decapitation+garlic in mouth or (2) stake through heart. Since wood wasn't mentioned as a weapon that could hurt them, I'm assuming it would have to be a holy/magic wooden stake or a silver one. They also had a pretty impressive natural AR to boot. Scary guys. They could animate the dead and summon bats instead of summoning bugs/fog like the VK version (both can summon canines/rats) and could freely pursue the mystic arts. Even accounting for PRPG's overally lower stats, importing this version of vamps to Rifts could be more troubling than the VK versions.

I should point out that a squirt gun/running water can hurt a vampire but it can not kill him. To kill him you have to chop his head off and burn the head and boady sepertaly.

If the water reduces their HP adequately (I assume this means past PE below zero? oh no wait... -21 for some reason) then, like sunlight, it permanently destroys them. The original VK had this on pg28 under 'death by water' and included the phrase "a vampire can be squirted to death by a toy water pistol" and "melts into oblivion" was used. That doesn't sound like someone who comes back within a day. Did VKr remove that part?

The revised one changes it. I do not have the book today but it says the only way to kill a vampire is to cut off the head and burn the two in seperate fires. So are you using a rule that has been canceled in the revised ed?

If you don't have the book at hand to quote I'm hesitant to believe that it explicitly uses the phrase 'only way'. It seems more likely they may have accidentally left out the death by sunlight/water sections. The sections from the original VK would remain valid though.

If the phrasing was changed to deny those former forms, it's yet more fuel that 'Ultimate Rifts' is much like 'Ultimate Marvel': a completely separate dimension from its preceding parent.

I've been told to step out of this conversation. G'day folks.

The river under this bridge is positively choked with goat bones.

There seems to be a strong contingent of mentally deficient posters hanging about here.

Dat drama, lez be on the books 'n not the peeps folks.

would be prudent not to say such things, that does cross the line with regards to the TOS as it insults the posters rather than simply addressing the post.

I know rite? More irksome to come across that stuff in a good vamp thread. It rivals the civil war discussion branchoff in distraction.