Paired Weapons, Automatic Parry and Simultaneous Attack.

[Prysus]

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Greetings and Salutations. It's cool. I'm not here to pick a fight, and glad that's cleared up.

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

If you mean when was RCB1 Revised first released, the answer is November 2002, which means it predates RUE. Figuring that would be your response, I didn't bother posting the references up earlier. However, due to the miscommunication, I was making a post and figured I might as well. Since the topic had been specifically conversions (and that is the most up to date conversions), it is the most applicable source for the topic.

Side Note: Due to legal reasons, Palladium continues to step more and more away from conversions (even within their own settings) to keep their IP separate (the reason for the different dragons in RUE). As such, I'm skeptical if we'll ever see a newer version in the future. Of course, none of this is written in the books, and as such doesn't have much place in this discussion. I just thought it was fun to mention.

Though your topic has brought up an interesting point regarding releases. I actually kind of liked this most recent post of yours, so instead of going further back to poke holes at various comments I'll stay focused on this post. Now I'm curious, does any book actually mention RUE? Does Rifts Lemuria (which definitely came out after) mention RUE by name? I doubt it, but I could be wrong.

Let's also think about something else. You mentioned how RGMG is a guide to the original main book (not bringing up the point to argue so much as to start a train of thought), but does it ever actually state that? We know it's a guide to the rules and setting, but I'm not sure if it ever states which specific rule book. Okay, RUE came out after, so probably unreasonable to think it would specify when there's no need to, right? I can accept that, but right now I'm just going through the train of thought.

All right, now how about RWB2: Atlantis? Definitely before RUE, right? Except, I recall discussions of how a more recent printing was updated to RUE standards (primarily adjusting APM for characters/classes from RMB to RUE). So it's pre-RUE, and yet has been edited post-RUE. Palladium did not make an announcement of these changes, they just kind of ninja-edited them in there. Note: I do not have the updated Atlantis book myself, but there were discussions on these forums at the time, which I recall because someone I knew and respected on these forums walked away from the company due to circumstances surrounding the incident.

Then there's RMB. This book isn't even in print anymore. Why? Because it's been replaced with RUE. So the RMB no longer exists (except for historically, and in DriveThruRPG ... where out of print books are laid out to pasture).

RGMG continues to be reprinted and released as a guide to the rules and setting, even after RUE came out and the original RMB was discontinued. Note: I've also heard (but do not own a copy to confirm) that there have been some changes to it as well, which is to say it contains information/edits not found in my 2002 copy, and that the copy someone else referenced was post RUE. If I can afford a Surprise Package this year, I actually intend to ask for this just to see it myself (nothing to do with this conversation/thread, just something I already planned).

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

No. There's a reason I took offense to stating my claim was "the final word" earlier. For example, the rules don't typically state that humans (or almost any other race) can see, smell, taste, use opposable thumbs, etc. Some of these things we need to base upon reality and common sense. This, of course, creates an entirely separate issue. What does one person consider a reasonable reality compared to the next? Ever hear that common sense isn't that common? Even worse is that you have to apply reality to a game not based in reality, including superhuman characters, magic, psionics, super tech, etc.

Since what's logical to one person is illogical to the next, that's why most of the stuff not covered by the rules is left to the G.M. call, or house rules. House rules, however, are not the same as RAW. They're essential to almost any game system (Palladium perhaps more than some others), but still house rules.

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

Actually, the first (to my knowledge) is completely a house rule to do so. Unless there's an actual example of such in the books, or the rules say you can do so, then that's a G.M. call. I'm fairly sure if you asked if you could do that on these boards, you'd get a variety of answers. I admit Rifts isn't my setting of choice, so I could be wrong, but unless it's actually written ... then it's not RAW.

Though, it could be argued to be based off of the Operator O.C.C., Weapons Engineering skill, and perhaps a few others. As such, you could argue it's covered under the O.C.C./skills/etc., yet how they apply is more up to the G.M. and not explicitly stated in the rules.

For the borg ... I'm not even sure why you used that example. Is the borg a potential character? If the answer is yes, move on. Does that book allow characters to pilot power armor? If the answer is yes, move on. Does the borg fit into the power armor? If yes, move on. Can characters pilot robots? If yes, move on. Can the power armor fit into the robot? If yes, there you go. If yes, the character actually fits perfectly within the rules (though most GM would probably house rule that away).

Actually, the size/fitting rule might be something I added in there. However, this is all within the rules as far as I know. Unless you're trying to say Power Armor and Robots are included but can't be piloted by anyone?

Here's the thing; Defenders do not have a "current attack" to use, and yet they are able to attack.

That is unsaid text then, which would be their next available attack.

Does a Defender have a current attack? Book and page number where it says they do./rhetorical.
Given that they don't, well then guess what? if they are attacking, then it must be their next available attack they are using.

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

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

Defenders must always use an attack to defend (unless the technique is "automatic"). Most of the techniques state this explicitly (even using the word "attack" to describe it). Those that don't will still be covered by the definition of Attacks per Melee, which mentions the number of "attacks/actions" the character gets in a melee round.

What you're left with is asking: "Is it an attack? Is it an action?" If the answer is yes to either of those, then it uses an Attack per Melee (because the rules tell you that's the number of attacks/actions you receive in the 15 second period). Any attacks/actions beyond those listed are not within the scope of these rules. Note: Exceptions are noted, such as "automatic" techniques as well as the ability to use a "dodge" from the next melee round.

The book doesn't really state whether these use the next attack/action, or if they just come out of your overall pool/total. For example, the rule book doesn't really state that a Power Punch must use your current attack and your next attack (at least not that I can recall). I do believe this is cleared up in one of the other books (RSB? RGMG?), but not in the main rule book. So, in theory, by the RAW (using RUE only) you could Power Punch, parry, then Power Punch again your next attack. ((Unless RUE actually did clarify this, but I don't believe it did.))

With the exception of Dodge and Entangle, it doesn't mention using the "next" attack for any of the other techniques. Note: It mentions "next" for Roll with Punch, but only in RGMG and we can't include that unless you include the rest of RGMG with it ... which makes this entire conversation pointless.

As such we have two that state they use the "next" attack, while the others don't say one way or the other. The problem with trying to add in logical rules is that people's logic can differ, yet everyone's logic can't be RAW. That's why RAW needs to be written, and not just logically deduced.

Furthermore, if you ask my logic, then I'll say if you apply a logical rule to fill in a hole, then apply another logical rule to fill in a different gap, another logical rule to fill in something else, and your end conclusion is that your "logical" rules prove what's written is stupid, broken, and illogical ... you've probably done something wrong.

For example:

X+Y+Z = 20.
X*Y*Z = 70.

So if I plug in 3 as X, 6 as Y, and 11 as Z they equal 20. That can appear right at first glance. However, since they don't multiply together to equal 70, I'm not going to blame 70 (even if I hate the number for any other reasons), nor will I blame the problem written. Even though they add up to 20, I still have to figure I'd have done something wrong.

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

If we limit ourselves just to Step 3 ... then you cannot Simultaneous Attack, you cannot Disarm, or any other maneuver. I know, you're probably thinking that you can do that instead of dodging, but that causes its own logic trap.

If you cannot dodge, you cannot Simultaneous Attack. If you Simultaneous Attack you cannot dodge. So by declaring a Simultaneous Attack you'd actually STOP yourself from making a Simultaneous Attack. But now that you're no longer making a Simultaneous Attack you can dodge again, so that means ... wait ... err ...

So if you want to argue that Step 3 actually forbids you from ever making a Disarm or Simultaneous Attack ... that I could get behind. If you want to add techniques such as Simultaneous Attack and Disarm into Step 3, I'm fine with that too, but unfortunately Simultaneous Attack doesn't say that neither can perform Step 3, just those three specific actions.

Now if you really want to break your brain, arguing the inclusion and allowance method ... Player A attacks. Player B declares a Simultaneous Attack! Player A cannot perform a parry, dodge, or entangle. So can Player A attack Player B a second time using Simultaneous Attack as his other defense?

Actually ... wait ... give me a moment. Okay, so Player A attacks. Player B declares a Simultaneous Attack. As such, Player A's attack also becomes a Simultaneous Attack ... by default ... I think. Err ... at least this theory makes my head hurt less. Okay, forget all the theories previously mentioned (which include Tor's, Dog_O_War's, mine, etc.), I'm going with this one. It's the only way I can read RAW without my brain imploding.

*Walks away from the conversation dizzy.* I have some writing to do and deadlines coming up (in addition to other projects, the first of the month is almost here and I have to finish the first scene for Chapter 2 of the Purifier story I'm writing and posting on my site ... I wanted another whole chapter but ... well, that wasn't realistic, so I'm settling for a scene), so if I don't respond again soon ... it's probably because I'm busy and this topic isn't that important to me (I think most people's minds here are pretty made up/settled, and discussion is mostly futile). Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[Dog_O_War]

Side Note: Due to legal reasons, Palladium continues to step more and more away from conversions (even within their own settings) to keep their IP separate (the reason for the different dragons in RUE). As such, I'm skeptical if we'll ever see a newer version in the future. Of course, none of this is written in the books, and as such doesn't have much place in this discussion. I just thought it was fun to mention.

I agree that it is an excellent thing to keep in-mind either way. Even if such a thing falls into the crevasse of "old material" it still serves as a workable guideline for game customization./offtopic

Though your topic has brought up an interesting point regarding releases. I actually kind of liked this most recent post of yours, so instead of going further back to poke holes at various comments I'll stay focused on this post. Now I'm curious, does any book actually mention RUE? Does Rifts Lemuria (which definitely came out after) mention RUE by name? I doubt it, but I could be wrong.

That... is an excellent question. When I get the chance, I will check all the books I own for references to R:UE.

Let's also think about something else. You mentioned how RGMG is a guide to the original main book (not bringing up the point to argue so much as to start a train of thought), but does it ever actually state that? We know it's a guide to the rules and setting, but I'm not sure if it ever states which specific rule book. Okay, RUE came out after, so probably unreasonable to think it would specify when there's no need to, right? I can accept that, but right now I'm just going through the train of thought.

That book references every book that was out when it came out. It could only possibly reference the RMB, since there was no other main book for Rifts at that time.

All right, now how about RWB2: Atlantis? Definitely before RUE, right? Except, I recall discussions of how a more recent printing was updated to RUE standards (primarily adjusting APM for characters/classes from RMB to RUE). So it's pre-RUE, and yet has been edited post-RUE. Palladium did not make an announcement of these changes, they just kind of ninja-edited them in there. Note: I do not have the updated Atlantis book myself, but there were discussions on these forums at the time, which I recall because someone I knew and respected on these forums walked away from the company due to circumstances surrounding the incident.

Well, if that book introduced any new rulings, but did not make reference to R:UE, then it would not supercede conflicting rulings from R:UE. For the RMB; yes.

Then there's RMB. This book isn't even in print anymore. Why? Because it's been replaced with RUE. So the RMB no longer exists (except for historically, and in DriveThruRPG ... where out of print books are laid out to pasture).

RGMG continues to be reprinted and released as a guide to the rules and setting, even after RUE came out and the original RMB was discontinued. Note: I've also heard (but do not own a copy to confirm) that there have been some changes to it as well, which is to say it contains information/edits not found in my 2002 copy, and that the copy someone else referenced was post RUE. If I can afford a Surprise Package this year, I actually intend to ask for this just to see it myself (nothing to do with this conversation/thread, just something I already planned).

As a rule-book, the RGMG isn't the most up-to-date book available. As a guide book, with multi-book references lists though, it is the best (and only) option available. It should remain in print given its use. Besides this, I believe that it may also contain some original content.

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

Actually, the first (to my knowledge) is completely a house rule to do so.

Not exactly.
The book supplies the skills to do this, and the canonical examples of it existing. I simply took what was shown and expanded on it.
The examples presented are every double and triple weapon on any and every vehicle. The Mark V APC has numerous ones on it. There is also that coalition sky cycle with the triple chainguns (with damage varying by the number of chainguns firing at a given time).

Though, it could be argued to be based off of the Operator O.C.C., Weapons Engineering skill, and perhaps a few others. As such, you could argue it's covered under the O.C.C./skills/etc., yet how they apply is more up to the G.M. and not explicitly stated in the rules.

There is a skill whose main detail states specifically that it is used to make and modify weapons. I believe it's field armourer or the munitions' one (the name eludes me right now).

For the borg ... I'm not even sure why you used that example. Is the borg a potential character? If the answer is yes, move on.

Yes.

Does that book allow characters to pilot power armor? If the answer is yes, move on.

Yes.

Does the borg fit into the power armor? If yes, move on.

Yes.

Can characters pilot robots? If yes, move on.

Yes.

Can the power armor fit into the robot? If yes, there you go. If yes, the character actually fits perfectly within the rules (though most GM would probably house rule that away).

This is something that was not considered at the time; otherwise, no one in their right mind would allow a character to simply loophole the rules into allowing them 15ish attacks per round at level one, simply by wearing multiple suits of armour.

Actually, the size/fitting rule might be something I added in there. However, this is all within the rules as far as I know. Unless you're trying to say Power Armor and Robots are included but can't be piloted by anyone?

All I'm saying is that this exists, is possible within the rules as written, yet is likely not what the rules intended.

Here's the thing; Defenders do not have a "current attack" to use, and yet they are able to attack.

That is unsaid text then, which would be their next available attack.

Does a Defender have a current attack? Book and page number where it says they do./rhetorical.
Given that they don't, well then guess what? if they are attacking, then it must be their next available attack they are using.

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

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

Defenders must always use an attack to defend

No.
Defenders can do nothing as a defence for free. It says they May, not they Must.

(unless the technique is "automatic"). Most of the techniques state this explicitly (even using the word "attack" to describe it). Those that don't will still be covered by the definition of Attacks per Melee, which mentions the number of "attacks/actions" the character gets in a melee round.

No, again.
First, a defender has options. They may parry, dodge, or entangle.
Of those options, dodge and entangle specifically state that they automatically give up their next melee attack. Parry only says they lose one, but does not state when. So when does that happen? When is that attack actually lost? At the end of combat? At the end of the round?

I will also point out that while a character has an "attacks per melee round" statistic, all three defences break from the "per melee round" portion. And, simultaneous attack is only available to a Defender.
And Defenders do not otherwise get to attack, because it is not their turn.

The book doesn't really state whether these use the next attack/action

As I posted above, the book specifically states whether these use the next attack/action or not. What the book does not state is that for those actions that do not use the "next attack/action", is what action then is used, and when.

Which, given the possibilities, I would assume then that because we have an example of what normally occurs for some actions (dodge, entangle), then it would logical to follow suit and have the actions that are vague follow the only guideline presented; that they use the next attack/action.

Otherwise, I would always just use the round(s) after combat was over and I no longer needed to act to eat up the non-specific action uses. Which is borken.

With the exception of Dodge and Entangle

If the defender only has three options to begin with, and two of those three options do things one way, then it is not an exception, it is the rule.

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

If we limit ourselves just to Step 3 ... then you cannot Simultaneous Attack, you cannot Disarm, or any other maneuver. I know, you're probably thinking that you can do that instead of dodging, but that causes its own logic trap.

No. See, simultaneous attack says that you do it in-place of a dodge, parry, or entangle; that would place it squarely in a secondary option role. You can't do a simultaneous attack on its lonesome; just as you cannot do a disarm, or the other defence options that otherwise require that another type of defence be available.

To clarify; you must be attacked to dodge, parry, or entangle.

Except that if the attack fills certain criteria, then your option to dodge, parry, or entangle can be removed, such as with a "long-range attack". Well simultaneous attack does not say that you must be attacked, it says that "instead of defending with a dodge, parry, or entangle".

Or in other words, you must be able to enact one of the three defences before simultaneous attack becomes an option.

If you cannot dodge, you cannot Simultaneous Attack. If you Simultaneous Attack you cannot dodge. So by declaring a Simultaneous Attack you'd actually STOP yourself from making a Simultaneous Attack.

No; it says that you "do not defend" not that "you cannot defend".
There is a difference between "do not" and "can not".

[Akashic Soldier]

This is something that was not considered at the time; otherwise, no one in their right mind would allow a character to simply loophole the rules into allowing them 15ish attacks per round at level one, simply by wearing multiple suits of armour.

If most pilots cannot even wear armor in 'Bots than I highly doubt they can wear power armor. The rules for piloting a robot, what the definition of a robot is, and what a robot pilot is are pretty clear about this kind of thing.

Also, you still cannot infinity attack with simultaneous attacks. Its supposed to represent that one instant in time where you shoot/hit someone at the same time they hit you. Its like a tiny fraction of time. You cannot burn up all your attacks from this round and the next when someone swings at you. Nowhere does it imply that within the rules as written regardless of how you MIGHT be able to misinterpret them if you look at them in the wrong light, while upside-down, on a Tuesday.

You get one attack, in place of a defense, to hit them when they attack you. End of the story. That's it. There's nothing more complicated to it than that.

[Dog_O_War]

This is something that was not considered at the time; otherwise, no one in their right mind would allow a character to simply loophole the rules into allowing them 15ish attacks per round at level one, simply by wearing multiple suits of armour.

If most pilots cannot even wear armor in 'Bots than I highly doubt they can wear power armor. The rules for piloting a robot, what the definition of a robot is, and what a robot pilot is are pretty clear about this kind of thing.

A vast number of robots allow the pilot to wear armour within them. I recommend you take another look at the robots that are around. For example, the Titan combat robot is quite large, with more than enough space to accommodate the relatively svelt Flying Titan powered armour.

Or, more pointedly, a Spider-Skull Walker could fit one just as easily, and that would be terrifying.

Remember, there are giant-sized races out there and they have robots and powered armour too.

Also, you still cannot infinity attack with simultaneous attacks.

Oh, you can't? Well I'm glad you came in here to tell us this vital piece of information that we certainly haven't been discussing for 5 pages

Its supposed to represent that one instant in time where you shoot/hit someone at the same time they hit you. Its like a tiny fraction of time. You cannot burn up all your attacks from this round and the next when someone swings at you.

Your lack of knowledge on the subject is showing.

Nowhere does it imply that within the rules as written regardless of how you MIGHT be able to misinterpret them if you look at them in the wrong light, while upside-down, on a Tuesday.

So I have three questions for you; the first two are easy, and you should be able to answer them with minimal outside help. The last one may stump you.
1. Do the rules allow you to use up actions from the next round, during the current round?
2. What are the circumstances which allow you to simultaneous attack? To elaborate, what must you be allowed to do, and what must your opponent do?
3. Which attack does the simultaneous attack use up?

[Akashic Soldier]

So I have three questions for you; the first two are easy, and you should be able to answer them with minimal outside help. The last one may stump you.
1. Do the rules allow you to use up actions from the next round, during the current round?
2. What are the circumstances which allow you to simultaneous attack? To elaborate, what must you be allowed to do, and what must your opponent do?
3. Which attack does the simultaneous attack use up?

Before I start, you have only been discussing it for five pages (five pages that is mostly drivel with no real content mind you) because YOU want to exploit a flaw in the system that does not exist anywhere except in your own mind.

1. Do the rules allow you to use up actions from the next round, during the current round?

Only to perform a dodge when all other attacks/actions have been expended.

2. What are the circumstances which allow you to simultaneous attack? To elaborate, what must you be allowed to do, and what must your opponent do?

You do it in response to an attack in place of a defense.

3. Which attack does the simultaneous attack use up?

Your next attack.

I don't need to argue with any more detail than I have because I already addressed it previously in the thread. I was right then, I am still right now. What your doing is not allowable within the rules. You cannot take all your actions in a single instant (about 1 second of time) just because someone attacks someone else. You can ONLY respond with ONE attack in response to an attack in place of an attack. When you have zero actions (thus, your opportunity to perform a simulations attack has passed) you may then draw ONE action from the next melee round to dodge. Not seven at once, not all of your attack/actions from the next melee all at once. You get to use one attack/action to perform a last-ditch emergency dodge. THAT IS IT.

[Tor]

So you say it is true?

As it applies to that specific stereotypical combat example, yes. As it applies to ALL combat, no.

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

I'm confirming it for the selective context of a usual combat scenario. Some things are true within some (or most) cases but not all, so your all-or-nothing declaration is untrue.

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

Your point? Any characters created and changed by those rules can still exist in the Megaverse. CWC has not been updated. So we have 2 versions of Commando in Rifts.

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

What a load. No Dog, failing to reprint something in a new version of a book does not erase that thing from existence. Or should I suppose that the 4 dragons from the RMB no longer exist?

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

Probably somewhere in N&SS. I'll come across it, but I'll continue to reiterate what I remember as a reminder. Feel free to shame me until then.

Perhaps some context?

I mixed up the quote tags, I was responding to your inappropriate use of definite articles for dictionaries, that much is clear by the reply regardless of my misquote.

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

If you had a key term like 'projectile' then I could discount long melee weapons. 'Ranged' itself isn't clear though.

I say, is "a punch" a weapon? Or is the fist? Your response is, "I believe so". Two questions were asked, and you answered neither.

A punch is no more a weapon than a gunshot. The fist is clearly the object that is the weapon, and the punch is the process of using it. Much like a 'strike' is not a weapon or a 'shot' is not a weapon. I'm not sure why you're asking this.

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

Irrelevant, you should have said 'this' dictionary, not 'the', since you were introducing it.

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

Dog, if you can't provide any book quotes saying things DO change then you would be engaging in conjecture. I used it inappropriately. I am rightly saying that when Palladium establishes the way something works, it works that way until stated otherwise.

The issue here is how we are viewing the context of combat maneuvers. Whether or not we treat a term as if it could apply to different things or not.

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

You use the Rifts rules system for Rifts things. N&SS has unique combat options that Rifts does not cover. The hand to hand forms work differently.

Someone with a Rifts HtH is not going to suddenly lose their HtH strike/parry bonuses when utilizing a weapon, just as katas will not suddenly become useless when a N&SSer comes to Rifts. A juicer from Rifts who visits N&SS is not going to have to suddenly spend an attack at the start of the melee round to activate his auto-dodge, just as a N&SSer who has an art that provides it will still have to spend that action in Rifts.

The reason for that is because the maneuvers of these names referred to by the HtH forms specify those within the N&SS rulebook, not those in the Rifts rulebook.

There is a "Rifts autododge" and a "N&SS autododge". Just as there is a Rifts Necrophim and a Nightbane Necrophim. Having coinciding names does not completely alter hand to hand combat forms. If N&SS rules ceased to apply to N&SS arts in Rifts then the amount of things you could do would tend to be cut in half. Skills do not work that way.

The conversion notes state what we change, you are suggesting changes other than those specified. N&SS arts have N&SS limitations and benefits.

And yet, we are switching to the Rifts rules.

Only where specified in the conversion notes. The notes do not suggest we alter the way N&SS maneuvers work to match Rifts maneuvers.

you seem to be saying here that rules govern skills differently in different settings

Apologies, allow me to clarify: different settings have different VERSIONS of skills. You may find in some cases that a skill from one setting has a different base and advancement than a skill of the same name in Rifts.

That doesn't mean your percentile in that skill alters when you cross the dimensional barrier. What it means is that you learned a different version of the skill.

while the skill may not have changed, the rules governing them may have. That is what you have said

I am attempting to express something and I failed to convey my meaning. What I mean is that skills are defined differently in different settings. They have different statistics and function differently in some cases. As having someone's proficiency alter simply because they step through a portal is absurd, it's easier to just treat that as different versions.

dimension to dimension, stuff like back flip has been defined. It is clear that a N&SS back flip is still back flip, because that is what they called it.
And the rules govern stuff like "back flip". So from one dimension to another, the skill exists, but the rules for it change.

I don't agree. The back flip in Rifts, if it has different rules for it, is a different kind of backflip than the kind you learn from special Martial Arts Forms in N&SS. Much like those forms themselves differ from the one you can get from Acrobatics or Gymnastics.

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

Everything we're talking about here is writing, I'm not listening to him say stuff. It's a matter of context as to the wording of the game.

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

Taxes actually ARE an optional rule (though ignoring them risks the consequence of imprisonment). CM Punk disregards your taste.

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

I'm ignoring this question as you're getting off topic. I have only ever discussed what Kevin has written. I have never heard him speak in person. Though I saw some disturbing photographs of Palladium staff in that first Swimsuit Rifter I wish to forget.

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

Your example is absurd. Palladium repeatedly states that their Megaversal system works in tandem. N&SS has "compatible with Rifts" printed right on the back of it. No such notes exist for D&D. The catch-all title here is "Palladium Books", not "Rifts". Palladium Books is 1 game with multiple universes.

RAI = Rules As Intented RAW = Rules As Written

Thanks for the clarification. I would tend to go with 'written'. I do not assume intentions. But we need to look at the whole picture here. I believe you are ignoring 'Compatible With' and the statement I provided from CB1 about not suffering any conversion skill penalties. If you handicap a N&SS maneuver then you would be penalizing it, and breaking the rules.

The Conversion book does not say that you take rules that previously governed your character in another setting with you when converting to a different setting, such as Rifts.

You bring the skills. The skills work as written in N&SS. "Auto-dodge" in N&SS refers to auto-dodge as written there. Not as written in other settings.

A technique in Rifts sharing the name does not make it the same thing any more than a spell or monster or mystic martial arts abilities sharing the same name does. For example, Rifts China has a lot of same-named techniques, martial arts and powers. But they are different, they function differently. N&SS characters retain their chi and the stats for their powers they had originally (modified by any CB1 notes). They are not utterly replaced by Rifts-native abilities of the same name introduced in Rifts China. Nor does the Rifts autododge replace the N&SS auto-dodge. Nor does the purpose of Weapon Katas become nullified.

what you just posted is in reference to something specific, re: conversion/transition skill penalties, then it would be a point to note that the rules have still never stated that you would use N&SS rules.

They inherently do. The burden is on you to prove that suddenly the Rifts versions of skills or abilities are substituted. You have misinterpreted me as agreeing with you, and the fault there is partly mine for not phrasing it better, as I think I have done so now.

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

It addresses it in the sense of giving examples of what can be done. The example of combat is not giving a final list of all the options in combat you can ever have. Auto bodyflip exists, in spite of not being listed in the combat example in any rule book. ABF exists in Rifts, HU and N&SS, but is not listed in the example scenario.

You interpret the example of how combat generally goes as being the final say on all the options you may ever have in it, and I don't agree with that stance.

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

You are misapplying the definition, there is no basis to conclude that the Rifts description of auto-dodge (intended for applying to Rifts-native things) applies to the skill-based auto-dodges that come from N&SS martial arts forms. They simply share a name. They are not the same thing. A Nightlord's Necrophim doesn't grow a Soul Worm if he visits Psyscape.

I would appreciate it if you stopped spamming the same quote from me over and over again, as if it were an argument. I read it the first time. It was ambiguous you took my meaning wrongly, so I phrased it better.

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

Thank you for re-iterating the pg51 stuff (or pg49 for us orig unrevised CB1 folk). Your Pg39 find is cool and something I overlooked (it appears to be on pg27 lower right in the unrevised CB1, under 'OCCs and Skills').

An example of how this works could be seen, Dog, in the "Prowl" skills. RMB/RUE uses 25/5 for prowl, while N&SS uses 46/4. They share the same name, but they are different, just like the Necrophim.

A level 6 N&SS character with a prowl of 70 (46+24) is not going to suddenly have a prowl of 55 (25+30) when they go to Rifts. Nor is a Rifts character going to spontaneously be a better prowler when they go to N&SS. It is absurd and not supported by anything in the rules.

The content from the original book operates as it always did except where explicitly modified. This includes both skills AND combat maneuvers, including ones like auto-dodge which share a name with similar (yet often different) techniques in RUE.

Defenders must always use an attack to defend

No. Defenders can do nothing as a defence for free. It says they May, not they Must.

"Nothing" isn't a defense, though. So you have disqualified the person from the term 'defender'. I think you're really stretching here by applying the term 'defender' to the person who is being targetted by something.

By your logic, if I a shoot a rock, the rock is also a defender.

This is entirely about how you're reading the sentence.

I think it's pretty clear here that Prysus' "must" is defining a requirement based on the condition "to defend".

You seem to be reading it as if Prysus is saying "if you are targetted by an attack, you must expend an action. That expended action must be on a defense."

He obviously isn't doing that. It's absurd. I think you know you're arguing a strawman here, and I'm guessing it's playing witty games. But we know we're all witty so we can skip that step.

the Titan combat robot is quite large, with more than enough space to accommodate the relatively svelt Flying Titan powered armour. Or, more pointedly, a Spider-Skull Walker could fit one just as easily, and that would be terrifying.

There's a difference between having space to store power armor (and accompanying pilot) inside your cargo bay, and being able to fit that power armor into the cramped pilot's seat without getting in the way of all the knobs and levers pilots deal with.

[Dog_O_War]

So I have three questions for you; the first two are easy, and you should be able to answer them with minimal outside help. The last one may stump you.
1. Do the rules allow you to use up actions from the next round, during the current round?
2. What are the circumstances which allow you to simultaneous attack? To elaborate, what must you be allowed to do, and what must your opponent do?
3. Which attack does the simultaneous attack use up?

Before I start, you have only been discussing it for five pages (five pages that is mostly drivel with no real content mind you) because YOU want to exploit a flaw in the system that does not exist anywhere except in your own mind.

Wrong. I recommend you read the thread.

1. Do the rules allow you to use up actions from the next round, during the current round?

Only to perform a dodge when all other attacks/actions have been expended.

Wrong again. I now highly recommend you read the thread.

2. What are the circumstances which allow you to simultaneous attack? To elaborate, what must you be allowed to do, and what must your opponent do?

You do it in response to an attack in place of a defense.

Correct.

3. Which attack does the simultaneous attack use up?

Your next attack.

Correct again. You appear to know about 50% of the conversed materials.
Is 50% knowledge on a specific subject considered "well versed" where you're from?

I don't need to argue with any more detail than I have because I already addressed it previously in the thread. I was right then, I am still right now.

Opinion and not fact.

What your doing is not allowable within the rules.

Wrong. Your answers above show where your mistake was made.

You cannot take all your actions in a single instant (about 1 second of time) just because someone attacks someone else. You can ONLY respond with ONE attack in response to an attack in place of an attack.

Amazingly, no one has said this, so I don't get why you'd bother to post it; this is not anyone's position.
And if you think it's mine, it's because you failed to comprehend (or possibly simply just did not read) what I said.

When you have zero actions (thus, your opportunity to perform a simulations attack has passed) you may then draw ONE action from the next melee round to dodge.

Wrong again.

Not seven at once,

Again; no one has stated this. Assuming seven to instead mean "multiple".

not all of your attack/actions from the next melee all at once. You get to use one attack/action to perform a last-ditch emergency dodge. THAT IS IT.

Your lack of knowledge on the subject is showing.

[Dog_O_War]

is this the thread where i complain about the stupid and unrealistic rule that a person using one weapon can only parry one weapon against someone using paired weapons?

You could, but your complaint would be unfounded.

Under "Two Against One" in R:UE, the rule is stated as that you can defend against all attacks from up to three opponents; at no point does it say that if your opponent has two melee weapons and you only have one, then you can only parry one of their attacks.

Are you reading from Rifts: Ultimate Edition, or some other book?

[Witchcraft]

The paired weapons mechanic seems rather complex after looking at this thread. A lot more complicated than I used to think it was when I had just read the RUE.

I'm curious why folks are so intent on really pinning this one down. The way we use it in my campaign is pretty simple. Whoever's turn it is -- that's who's interpretation we use. Seems to make combat go considerably quicker. As the GM it's my obligation not to have an interpretation and merely mediate between disparate and varying interpretations when-so-ever they collide.

Anyone else use the K.S. Trademarked, "Whatever works for you..." method of Game Mediation?? (Game Mastering! Pshaw!)

[Dog_O_War]

So you say it is true?

As it applies to that specific stereotypical combat example, yes. As it applies to ALL combat, no.

What I asked you to confirm there was the general rule. Your answer was 'yes'.

And yet, the very next sentence proves otherwise.

So what does that mean to you?

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

I'm confirming it for the selective context of a usual combat scenario. Some things are true within some (or most) cases but not all, so your all-or-nothing declaration is untrue.

"Selective Context"? I was asking you about the combat note; something that applies to all combat.

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

Your point? Any characters created and changed by those rules can still exist in the Megaverse. CWC has not been updated. So we have 2 versions of Commando in Rifts.

My point is that when they reprint books and leave something out, it is as good as an edit; the previous information no longer applies.

I will give you a real-life example; pizza for a very long time was not considered a vegetable by the United States of America. Recently, within the last two years, it has been classified as a vegetable. I am hoping that it has since changed back, but regardless, once they give their heads a shake and change it back, well, pizza will no longer be considered a vegetable there, despite once being one.

Rules changes work much in the same way; when something that was once included is no longer included, it does not mean that there are "two versions" as they exist in the present, it means that there is a new version and an old version; still two versions, but one exists only in the past, while the other represents our present.

As the new hand-to-hand commando represents. And other such rules.

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

What a load. No Dog, failing to reprint something in a new version of a book does not erase that thing from existence. Or should I suppose that the 4 dragons from the RMB no longer exist?

I will answer your question with a real-world example.

Do dinosaurs exist? The answer is no. But we have evidence of them existing once. But no longer. They were wiped out. As to your '4 dragons' comment, I believe Prysus elaborated as to what happened there; it has to do with IP protection. Legally, the 4 dragons in-question are no longer a part of Rifts, yet we all knew they once were. Hell, I adventured with some of them in games I've played.

Basically, as fans, we do not get to choose what makes it into the book and what does not; your wish for auto-flip for commando does not exist in R:UE, just as my wish for simultaneous strike to not exist in R:UE also did not come true. What I need though is everyone on the band-wagon to get the rule officially altered or removed in later editions.

I can't do that if everyone keeps turning a blind eye.

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

Probably somewhere in N&SS. I'll come across it, but I'll continue to reiterate what I remember as a reminder. Feel free to shame me until then.

No shame; it's just easier to keep cool heads when you stick to facts when the discussion is about facts is all.

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

If you had a key term like 'projectile' then I could discount long melee weapons. 'Ranged' itself isn't clear though.

range [reynj] noun, adjective, verb, ranged, rang·ing.
noun
1. the extent to which or the limits between which variation is possible: the range of steel prices; a wide range of styles.
2. the extent or scope of the operation or action of something: within range of vision.
3. the distance to which a projectile is or may be sent by a weapon.

It is under definition three.

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

Irrelevant, you should have said 'this' dictionary, not 'the', since you were introducing it.

Are we here to discuss the semantics of what I said regarding a dictionary, or are we here to discuss paired weapons, automatic parry, and simultaneous attack?/rhetorical.

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

Dog, if you can't provide any book quotes saying things DO change then you would be engaging in conjecture. I used it inappropriately. I am rightly saying that when Palladium establishes the way something works, it works that way until stated otherwise.

And yet I have you as saying this;

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

The issue here is how we are viewing the context of combat maneuvers. Whether or not we treat a term as if it could apply to different things or not.

Well you did say,

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

So while your example of back-flip working differently in N&SS as compared to Rifts, we are talking about how it interacts in Rifts, which you have stated that it would be different in different settings. Effectively, you've stated (above) that back-flip from N&SS works differently in Rifts. And in Rifts, it has a different definition and mechanic.

You use the Rifts rules system for Rifts things. N&SS has unique combat options that Rifts does not cover. The hand to hand forms work differently.

Is that semantics, that they "work differently" in Rifts? Or do they simply not exist in Rifts? Or does Rifts run them differently?

Someone with a Rifts HtH is not going to suddenly lose their HtH strike/parry bonuses when utilizing a weapon, just as katas will not suddenly become useless when a N&SSer comes to Rifts. A juicer from Rifts who visits N&SS is not going to have to suddenly spend an attack at the start of the melee round to activate his auto-dodge, just as a N&SSer who has an art that provides it will still have to spend that action in Rifts.

So quick question; do the katas exist as separate entities for each OCC? Because a Juicer's autododge is unique in the realm of autododges and exists differently under the Juicer entry. Basically, the Juicer has a bundled rule with it, like many other OCCs. I am just wondering if these OCCs you speak of are doing something more than picking a kata from the books' skills section.

The reason for that is because the maneuvers of these names referred to by the HtH forms specify those within the N&SS rulebook, not those in the Rifts rulebook.

So what you're saying then is that when fighting the very rare opponent rifted over from N&SS, who also happens to have technique X, which somehow does not state that: (a) "in place of a dodge/parry/entangle" or (b) "differing from the standard N&SS rule regarding X", that it should be considered as something other than another exception?

There is a "Rifts autododge" and a "N&SS autododge". Just as there is a Rifts Necrophim and a Nightbane Necrophim. Having coinciding names does not completely alter hand to hand combat forms. If N&SS rules ceased to apply to N&SS arts in Rifts then the amount of things you could do would tend to be cut in half. Skills do not work that way.

Not quite. Rifts has an autododge, and Rifts has a Juicer, who has a unique autododge. Rifts also has the hand-to-hand commando skill, which refers to Rifts autododge, but then that would simply be defaulting to the setting's autododge. Can you see where I'm going with this?

Effectively, a "N&SS autododge" is how N&SS governs autododge in that setting. Well when in Rifts, do it as the Rifts locals. Or rather,

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

The conversion notes state what we change, you are suggesting changes other than those specified. N&SS arts have N&SS limitations and benefits.

I will state it plainly here.
Palladium books has many rules systems that are rife with mistakes, loopholes, and blatant contradictions.
Rifts rules, the rules we are discussing, work one way.
If some N&SS rules do not or cannot otherwise mesh with Rifts rules, so when you convert over a N&SS character from that setting, prepare to be let down by Palladium for not meshing Rifts with N&SS, or vise-versa.

And yet, we are switching to the Rifts rules.

Only where specified in the conversion notes. The notes do not suggest we alter the way N&SS maneuvers work to match Rifts maneuvers.

Tell me Tor, when playing Rifts, which rules do you consult? And to specify, I did not say, "playing character X in Rifts", I am asking you that when you play in the Rifts setting, which rules take precedence there; Heroes Unlimited? Splicers? Palladium Fantasy? Robotech? Ninjas & Super Spies?
Or Rifts?

you seem to be saying here that rules govern skills differently in different settings

Apologies, allow me to clarify: different settings have different VERSIONS of skills. You may find in some cases that a skill from one setting has a different base and advancement than a skill of the same name in Rifts.

Does a different base and advancement make the skill different? Or does it make the base and advancement for that skill different?

That doesn't mean your percentile in that skill alters when you cross the dimensional barrier. What it means is that you learned a different version of the skill.

For a minor knowledge/advancement change? Hardly. For instance, citizens of Free Quebec know Math:Basic at a certain fixed percentage.

People who take Gymnastics get Prowl at a fixed percentage.

They do not have a different version of Math:Basic or Prowl. The version is the same; only their knowledge of the skills' workings and the rate it will advance as they do have changed. That is a fact.

while the skill may not have changed, the rules governing them may have. That is what you have said

I am attempting to express something and I failed to convey my meaning. What I mean is that skills are defined differently in different settings.

Yes; exactly. Same skill, different rules and meanings for its use.

They have different statistics and function differently in some cases. As having someone's proficiency alter simply because they step through a portal is absurd, it's easier to just treat that as different versions.

We aren't here to do what's easy. Additionally, it (the conversion book) states that you do not alter the proficiency; that remains the same. What is altered though from setting to setting is how a skill may work; there is a blurb in the conversion book stating that a person not from Rifts acclimates to Rifts (and typically gets skills for doing so). The point though is that you get changed by Rifts; Rifts does not get changed by you.

dimension to dimension, stuff like back flip has been defined. It is clear that a N&SS back flip is still back flip, because that is what they called it.
And the rules govern stuff like "back flip". So from one dimension to another, the skill exists, but the rules for it change.

I don't agree. The back flip in Rifts, if it has different rules for it, is a different kind of backflip than the kind you learn from special Martial Arts Forms in N&SS. Much like those forms themselves differ from the one you can get from Acrobatics or Gymnastics.

Actually, there is a blurb regarding same or similar skills, and it says to use the better bonuses/percentage instead of receiving two separate skills. But more pointedly; there is no difference between the back flip from Acrobatics to Gymnastics, save for their percentage and advancement.

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

Everything we're talking about here is writing, I'm not listening to him say stuff. It's a matter of context as to the wording of the game.

If he wrote it on a napkin, would you consider it "official"? Because I wouldn't. Most wouldn't. In order for something to be official, it needs to be published.

The Conversion book does not say that you take rules that previously governed your character in another setting with you when converting to a different setting, such as Rifts.

You bring the skills. The skills work as written in N&SS. "Auto-dodge" in N&SS refers to auto-dodge as written there. Not as written in other settings.

And why would you assume that because something came from one setting, that it would work the same in another setting?
For instance, when you convert a Heroes unlimited character to Rifts, their powers work differently on Rifts. Effectively, the conversion book states that things work differently in Rifts.
Otherwise they are to work the same as Rifts if there isn't a conversion tip, given that the system is "Megaversal" (your words).

what you just posted is in reference to something specific, re: conversion/transition skill penalties, then it would be a point to note that the rules have still never stated that you would use N&SS rules.

They inherently do. The burden is on you to prove that suddenly the Rifts versions of skills or abilities are substituted.

Okay.
When you play Rifts, which book to you reference rules from?
That is my proof.

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

It addresses it in the sense of giving examples of what can be done.

They are not examples. It clearly states what an attacker and a defender can do. Even the options are defined; it doesn't say, "you could maybe dodge by moving out of the way, maybe?" It states that "a character dodges by moving out of the way". It was never an "example", nor a suggestion.
It is the rule on how it works.

The example of combat is not giving a final list of all the options in combat you can ever have. Auto bodyflip exists, in spite of not being listed in the combat example in any rule book. ABF exists in Rifts, HU and N&SS, but is not listed in the example scenario.

The combat section gives you all the primary options.
In order to auto body-flip, you need to trade a parry. It was never a primary option; it was only ever a secondary option. Just like simultaneous attack. And back-flip. And disarm. etc.

You interpret the example of how combat generally goes as being the final say on all the options you may ever have in it, and I don't agree with that stance.

No.
I stated that they were the first options; the original options; the primary options. The options you must first have in order to have other options.
I have been saying that since the start of the thread.

You are misapplying the definition, there is no basis to conclude that the Rifts description of auto-dodge (intended for applying to Rifts-native things)

No. It was intended to apply to the Rifts game setting. Not to "Rifts-native things". The rules are there to govern the gameplay; not to establish how the natives do it.

applies to the skill-based auto-dodges that come from N&SS martial arts forms. They simply share a name. They are not the same thing. A Nightlord's Necrophim doesn't grow a Soul Worm if he visits Psyscape.

And yet a person with invulnerability turns to MDC when they go to Rifts
Or a Wormwood human turns SDC when on Heroes Unlimited, and back to MDC on Rifts
That said, the concepts of super powers and "MDC" are not OCCs; they are rules that change dependent on the setting they are in.

So while an OCC of the same name as another may not gain the class abilities of the other, their powers and abilities will work differently in different settings.

I would appreciate it if you stopped spamming the same quote from me over and over again, as if it were an argument. I read it the first time. It was ambiguous you took my meaning wrongly, so I phrased it better.

So you're back-tracking now? So you recant saying said quote?
The point of me doing that is that you were being hypocritical; that your position was weak and it showed. That your argument has been unsound, unclear, and unsupported.

Basically, you discredited yourself by stating the opposite of your apparent position.

An example of how this works could be seen, Dog, in the "Prowl" skills. RMB/RUE uses 25/5 for prowl, while N&SS uses 46/4. They share the same name, but they are different, just like the Necrophim.

Rifts addresses the difference between skill percentages; they are the exact same skill, just with different percentages and growth rates; the skill itself "remains largely unchanged". In essence; prowl is still your sneak skill, bud.

A level 6 N&SS character with a prowl of 70 (46+24) is not going to suddenly have a prowl of 55 (25+30) when they go to Rifts. Nor is a Rifts character going to spontaneously be a better prowler when they go to N&SS. It is absurd and not supported by anything in the rules.

I never said it did. I said that the rules in which the skill is governed would change. That would mean that if prowl in Rifts gave you the ability to fly, then fly you shall. How well you fly is only dictated by the percentage your skill level is at.

Defenders must always use an attack to defend

No. Defenders can do nothing as a defence for free. It says they May, not they Must.

"Nothing" isn't a defense, though.

Doing nothing is an option.
Otherwise, you'd be agreeing with me. Either way, you must agree with me here.
Want to see how?

You are attacked. The attack is a sneak attack. You do not get to dodge, parry, or entangle, yet you were attacked, making you a defender. So what do you do?
Nothing.

So you have disqualified the person from the term 'defender'. I think you're really stretching here by applying the term 'defender' to the person who is being targetted by something.

No. Any time you are attacked, you are a defender. Period.

By your logic, if I a shoot a rock, the rock is also a defender.

It isn't "by my logic".

I think it's pretty clear here that Prysus' "must" is defining a requirement based on the condition "to defend".

You're misquoting him; taking what he's said out of context. He is clearly not defining a requirement based on the condition "to defend", he is saying that a defender (note how the word comes before the 'must') "must always use an attack to defend".
That statement just isn't true regardless of what I said about it.

You seem to be reading it as if Prysus is saying "if you are targetted by an attack, you must expend an action. That expended action must be on a defense."

No.
I am reading it how he wrote it; a defender must always use an attack to defend. That isn't true.
And nothing is a defence option that never requires an attack regardless.

the Titan combat robot is quite large, with more than enough space to accommodate the relatively svelt Flying Titan powered armour. Or, more pointedly, a Spider-Skull Walker could fit one just as easily, and that would be terrifying.

There's a difference between having space to store power armor (and accompanying pilot) inside your cargo bay, and being able to fit that power armor into the cramped pilot's seat without getting in the way of all the knobs and levers pilots deal with.

I am talking about the pilot compartment.
Besides this; you're narrowing your scope of view; you seem to believe that the chair the pilot sits on must be there in order for the robot to run. That's like saying your car needs a chair in order for you to drive it.
Well, no, it doesn't need the chair. The Flying Titan doesn't need the wings. etc.
What matters here is that you can fit it inside to gain bonuses from the similar skills.

[Dog_O_War]

The paired weapons mechanic seems rather complex after looking at this thread. A lot more complicated than I used to think it was when I had just read the RUE.

I'm curious why folks are so intent on really pinning this one down.

Alone, the paired weapons mechanic is simple. Most people just gloss over it and never really intake what the rule is saying.

What makes it complex is the multiple attackers rule and the simultaneous attack rule. That is what most people do not understand; is how paired weapons interacts with simultaneous attack and multiple opponents.

[Tor]

Dog, I don't think it's polite of you to insinuate that Akashic Soldier has not read the thread simply because he has a certain impression from it. I don't agree with him calling it 'drivel' (though we could certainly be more efficient and streamlined) but I think he is correct about this flaw existing in your mind rather than in RAW (I'm only going to remember these acronyms if I try to use them).

is this the thread where i complain about the stupid and unrealistic rule that a person using one weapon can only parry one weapon against someone using paired weapons?

Yes, this would seem like an appropriate place.

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

Actually... where does it say that someone can't parry both weapons used in a twin strike? Can't seem to find that bit in N&SS. Is it in other books?

Paired WP mentions an ability to parry 2 different opponents simultaneously, but not 2 attacks from the same opponent, perhaps because you don't need a special ability to do that.

I am confused at how 2 opponents attacking simultaneously would EVER come up though.

Under "Two Against One" in R:UE, the rule is stated as that you can defend against all attacks from up to three opponents; at no point does it say that if your opponent has two melee weapons and you only have one, then you can only parry one of their attacks.

Yeah, I couldn't find anything like that either when I looked. I expected to find it though. I think this is something many of us come to believe by misreading the paired WP entry about parrying attacks from 2 different opponents simultaneously.

Can you figure out what that ability of paired WP even means? I can't even figure out how it would function. Even in rare instances when you can simultaneously time an attack from multiple sources to a single target (the minor power in PU1 of Toy Control comes to mind, since you can have a squad of planes fire simultaneously against your enemy) I'm not sure why someone's auto-parry or auto-dodge couldn't continue to work against all those attacks.

Ideally there SHOULD be some kind of penalty, and paired WP could abate that penalty, but we don't seem to have mechanics for it. Paired WP allowing a double-parry is an ability which I'm not sure serves any purpose I understand.

[Dog_O_War]

Dog, I don't think it's polite of you to insinuate

Insinuate? I did everything short of state he didn't.

that Akashic Soldier has not read the thread simply because he has a certain impression from it.

I don't find it polite for him to dictate my thoughts.

I don't agree with him calling it 'drivel' (though we could certainly be more efficient and streamlined) but I think he is correct about this flaw existing in your mind rather than in RAW (I'm only going to remember these acronyms if I try to use them).

I've pointed out a few flaws with this combat skill. They don't exist in my mind; they are there, clear as day.

I am confused at how 2 opponents attacking simultaneously would EVER come up though.

You twin strike two opponents; they simultaneous attack you back, simultaneously.

I think this is something many of us come to believe by misreading the paired WP entry about parrying attacks from 2 different opponents simultaneously.

Now, I haven't read the old rules in a very long time, but it may have existed there. I am not sure though, but I know it's the "old guard" as it were that often state this as a "fact" and tell the newer players about this when it comes up.

Can you figure out what that ability of paired WP even means? I can't even figure out how it would function.

Paired weapons allows you to attack two opponents at the same time with one action, or one opponent twice with one action. If your opponent can somehow eliminate a parry from you, such as with a disarm or entangle, you are allowed to use your other weapon to parry; effectively you double up on your parries as well. Like in the very rare instance where you do not have a combat skill, but have paired weapons, and are forced to use an attack to parry; well paired weapons would allow you to parry twice per attack instead of just once.
Paired weapons also serves to reduce the penalty for attacking "off-handedly".

Even in rare instances when you can simultaneously time an attack from multiple sources to a single target (the minor power in PU1 of Toy Control comes to mind, since you can have a squad of planes fire simultaneously against your enemy) I'm not sure why someone's auto-parry or auto-dodge couldn't continue to work against all those attacks.

The only time you limit your own options is when you select one thing over another. If 10 opponents attacked you at once, it is not exactly a simultaneous attack because that is a game mechanic [to simultaneous attack]. However, if your response against one was to simultaneously attack, that does not prevent you from defending, unless you chose to twin-strike-simultaneous attack, though dodging the next attack is still an option.

Now if you were to area-affect-attack 10 opponents and they simultaneously attacked you back, well you're screwed.

[Dog_O_War]

is this the thread where i complain about the stupid and unrealistic rule that a person using one weapon can only parry one weapon against someone using paired weapons?

You could, but your complaint would be unfounded.

Under "Two Against One" in R:UE, the rule is stated as that you can defend against all attacks from up to three opponents; at no point does it say that if your opponent has two melee weapons and you only have one, then you can only parry one of their attacks.

Are you reading from Rifts: Ultimate Edition, or some other book?

327 rue under weapon proficiency paired #2 "The defender under attack can only attempt to parry one of the two weapons coming at him for his defensive parry"

So which rule shall we trust?
Multiple Attackers (R:UE pg. 346) : "Takes place when an opponent is faced by more than one attacker. Characters with hand to hand combat skills can attempt to parry any attacks within their line of sight, from up to three attackers."
Paired Weapons (R:UE pg.346) : "...Users of paired weapons can strike and parry simultaneously, con do twin strikes against a single target or against a pair of targets, and can parry two different opponents at the same time. In other words, combatants skilled in Paired Weapons often can do two actions for every one of their melee attacks... ...However, a twin, simultaneous strike with both weapons means losing the automatic parry and leaves the character open to his opponent's next attack without benefit of a parry (dodge is optional but uses op a melee action/attack)..."

The one rule where it says that only one weapon of two can be parried?
Or the one rule where it says that all attacks from three opponents can be parried, and then the other rule governing paired weapons as well stating no such instance of only one weapon being parry-able?

That is, you have parried weapons; two rules contradicting itself, and a third rule stating that all attacks can be parried from up to three attackers.

Effectively, it's 2 versus 1 on rules stating that you can infact parry all your opponent's attacks.

[Dog_O_War]

ok good enough for me like i said i found the unable to parry silly and unrealistic. um on an unrelated question though i doubt it does the bonus damage from fencing apply to mdc weapons like vibroblades? Im getting back into rifts from years of absence and seeing all the new rules is cool lol.

It applies. Vibroblades state that they do not draw on the users' PS, not that they cannot draw from any and all outside sources.

also if in the unlikely event that it does apply would it affect a psi sword?

I quoted you before your edit there;

Yes, fencing does apply to psi sword, but only if the psi sword is in a sword form, using WP sword. Or to a lesser extent, a psi 'knife'.

[Damian Magecraft]

is this the thread where i complain about the stupid and unrealistic rule that a person using one weapon can only parry one weapon against someone using paired weapons?

You could, but your complaint would be unfounded.

Under "Two Against One" in R:UE, the rule is stated as that you can defend against all attacks from up to three opponents; at no point does it say that if your opponent has two melee weapons and you only have one, then you can only parry one of their attacks.

Are you reading from Rifts: Ultimate Edition, or some other book?

327 rue under weapon proficiency paired #2 "The defender under attack can only attempt to parry one of the two weapons coming at him for his defensive parry"

So which rule shall we trust?
Multiple Attackers (R:UE pg. 346) : "Takes place when an opponent is faced by more than one attacker. Characters with hand to hand combat skills can attempt to parry any attacks within their line of sight, from up to three attackers."
Paired Weapons (R:UE pg.346) : "...Users of paired weapons can strike and parry simultaneously, con do twin strikes against a single target or against a pair of targets, and can parry two different opponents at the same time. In other words, combatants skilled in Paired Weapons often can do two actions for every one of their melee attacks... ...However, a twin, simultaneous strike with both weapons means losing the automatic parry and leaves the character open to his opponent's next attack without benefit of a parry (dodge is optional but uses op a melee action/attack)..."

The one rule where it says that only one weapon of two can be parried?
Or the one rule where it says that all attacks from three opponents can be parried, and then the other rule governing paired weapons as well stating no such instance of only one weapon being parry-able?

That is, you have parried weapons; two rules contradicting itself, and a third rule stating that all attacks can be parried from up to three attackers.

Effectively, it's 2 versus 1 on rules stating that you can infact parry all your opponent's attacks.

Also do not forget the paired wp rule that says a twin strike on a single opponent is a single strike roll (an all or nothing proposal if you will).

[Akashic Soldier]

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

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

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

[Damian Magecraft]

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

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

what book is this in?

[Prysus]

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

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

what book is this in?

Greetings and Salutations. Not sure if it's in any other book, but you can find it in Splicers on page 205 (it's one of the skills). I know Splicers isn't necessarily the most applicable to Rifts, but it does answer the question. Hope that helps. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Tor]

here I was assuming reverse stroke to be some fan invention... guess I gotta pick up Splicers solely for this...

Hey Dog I'm going to type up a reply to your post after Witchcraft's in a sec, just trying to keep up with other stuff first since it's big and will take a bit.

Edit: okay done, at bottom

I don't find it polite for him to dictate my thoughts.

Nor do I, assuming this refers to "YOU want to exploit a flaw in the system that does not exist anywhere except in your own mind." It is wrong to assert what others want. Nonetheless, you replied 'wrong, read the thread' (over and over) which didn't exactly express that objection.

I've pointed out a few flaws with this combat skill. They don't exist in my mind; they are there, clear as day.

I figured his comment was directed at your buck-passing SA approach, not our other lines of discussion. Opposition denies buck-passing is RAW.

You twin strike two opponents; they simultaneous attack you back, simultaneously.

Clever, did not think of that, but...

If you did a twin-strike then wouldn't that make you incapable of parrying at all, much less parrying 2 opponents?

Can you figure out what that ability of paired WP even means? I can't even figure out how it would function.

Paired weapons allows you to attack two opponents at the same time with one action, or one opponent twice with one action. If your opponent can somehow eliminate a parry from you, such as with a disarm or entangle, you are allowed to use your other weapon to parry; effectively you double up on your parries as well. Like in the very rare instance where you do not have a combat skill, but have paired weapons, and are forced to use an attack to parry; well paired weapons would allow you to parry twice per attack instead of just once. Paired weapons also serves to reduce the penalty for attacking "off-handedly".

"that ability of paired WP" referred to parrying 2 opponents, one of the abilities paired WP imbues. I'm aware of the other things the paired WP skill does and the various other abilities it gives

If 10 opponents attacked you at once, it is not exactly a simultaneous attack because that is a game mechanic [to simultaneous attack].

It is in the case of that power, the planes make a single strike roll and strike at exactly the same moment.

Simultaneous attack has more than one meaning. In this case, it's a group of enemies simultaneously (in unison) attacking their target. Not a defense-sacrificing counter-attack.

if your response against one was to simultaneously attack, that does not prevent you from defending, unless you chose to twin-strike-simultaneous attack, though dodging the next attack is still an option.

That does seem to be one of the holes in the wording. Ideally reactions to being targetted that cost actions like dodging or SAing or entangling should take a person's next attack rather than their last attack.

if you were to area-affect-attack 10 opponents and they simultaneously attacked you back, well you're screwed.

That is a problem. I wonder if we can at least wiggle out of this problem with missiles by saying 'no, it is the missile that is attacking you'.

327 rue under weapon proficiency paired #2 "The defender under attack can only attempt to parry one of the two weapons coming at him for his defensive parry"

Nice find. I just wish they printed that everywhere Paired WP is discussed and not just one spot. I'm now wondering if this was a RUE addition or if RMB always had it.

Vibroblades state that they do not draw on the users' PS

Was this a retcon or something? Makes it seem like they're treading V-blades as energy weapons rather than a physical weapon that is simply vibrating at a high frequency.

Being faithful to what these weapons are, adding PS/punch or whatever one usually would only makes sense. Sometimes, burn the rules. I get why you wouldn't add PS to a TW flame blade, but Vblades have physical substance. PS is added to the punch of a super-hero with the Major power of Vibration. I don't see any notable difference.

- - -

Edit: added in replies to that thing I initially skipped over to pick up the main convo:

What I asked you to confirm there was the general rule. Your answer was 'yes'.

I sometimes have trouble remembering parts of conversations and need to go look it up. I sometimes use Find to try and locate a text string to figure out what past conversation segments are being referred to. Checked all 5 pages and I only found the "general rule" string in what is quoted above, and Prysus using the page on page 3.

I've kinda lost track of what you're referring to here and need some help re-affirming the issue. Your "you say it is true?" question was in response to my affirming that Page 342 of RUE contains the phrase "only parry". Could you explain how you interpret this as a 'general rule'?

Let's keep in mind that on page 341 this statement is prefaced by "the typical combat situation". Typically parrying is the only automatic defense left. But in atypical situations, other automatic defenses are available.

And yet, the very next sentence proves otherwise. So what does that mean to you?

Clearly "can only try to parry" is not true since it's followed by 'may opt to dodge'. We can take that to mean either "dodging and parrying are the only options ever" or we can take it to mean "parrying is usually the only automatic defense, and thus the only defense people can normally take unless they're willing to sacrifice attacks from the next melee".

"Selective Context"? I was asking you about the combat note; something that applies to all combat.

That part is unclear. It may or may not apply to all combat as it is presented. Pg341 says "typical sequence" which could apply to the "note" that is part of the "Combat Sequence". The CS is merely an example because for example, the 'character with initiative rolls strike'. But that isn't a rule. Someone with initiative could opt to do something else other than strike, such as activate a forcefield, cast a protective spell, forfeit their turn, or do an impressive backflip.

If you're going to rely on something to support 'dodge or parry only when out of attacks' I suggest you go with GameMasterGuidePg32 which is not given in the context of 'typical' and phrased more openly as if it applied to everything. That said, I still think that these rules only apply to Rifts Combat Forms, for which parry is the only automatic action you will ever get.

We have to keep in mind that this example is just talking about a typical situation. It says parrying doesn't use an action and dodge does. This doesn't mean that when someone without a HtH runs out of attacks that they get a magical auto-parry, nor does it mean that a Juicer who is out of attacks loses their auto-dodge.

My point is that when they reprint books and leave something out, it is as good as an edit; the previous information no longer applies.

I don't agree with your stance here, I don't see any justification in that viewpoint. By that logic, the 'Sky King' vanished from the entirety of Rifts Earth simply because RUE didn't reprint it. That's silly.

I will give you a real-life example; pizza for a very long time was not considered a vegetable by the United States of America. Recently, within the last two years, it has been classified as a vegetable. I am hoping that it has since changed back, but regardless, once they give their heads a shake and change it back, well, pizza will no longer be considered a vegetable there, despite once being one.

Example doesn't apply, a pizza is still a pizza however it is classified. New techniques are new techniques.

Rules changes work much in the same way; when something that was once included is no longer included, it does not mean that there are "two versions" as they exist in the present, it means that there is a new version and an old version; still two versions, but one exists only in the past, while the other represents our present.

That applies when it is actually a universal rule, as opposed to a new version of a skill.

As the new hand-to-hand commando represents. And other such rules.

The new HtH Commando sharing the same name as the old HtH Commando does not wipe out the old from existence any more than N&SS Ninjutsu wiped out TMNT Ninjutsu. Nor did Rifts China wipe out the Mystic China art forms. New skills of the same name in new books do not eliminate the old. All remains canon.

Do dinosaurs exist? The answer is no. But we have evidence of them existing once. But no longer. They were wiped out.

I appreciate your effort at providing examples but I do not consider them good discussion because they are too different from what is at hand. Palladium content constantly espouses interchangeability. The answer is those dinosaurs still exist and always will.

As to your '4 dragons' comment, I believe Prysus elaborated as to what happened there; it has to do with IP protection. Legally, the 4 dragons in-question are no longer a part of Rifts, yet we all knew they once were. Hell, I adventured with some of them in games I've played.

That's ridiculous. You are simply wrong about this DOW. Nowhere in RUE does it mention that everything from the RMB not reprinted no longer exists. Where are you getting that?

A couple dragon hatchling NPCs in various world books might want to have a word.

Basically, as fans, we do not get to choose what makes it into the book and what does not; your wish for auto-flip for commando does not exist in R:UE

It doesn't need to, it exists in CWC. The inferior version of Commando in RUE made available to the revamped RUE versions of the RMB OCCs of Crazy, Headhunter, Robot Pilot, Coalition Military Specialist can be selected by them, but the advanced CWC version of it can't. It is explicitly exclusive to the Commando and Special Forces OCC. It was not made available to the main book OCCs. Later I think some other OCCs may also have gotten access to it (I'm thinking Warlords of Russia types) but if the main book OCCs had had access to the ADVANCED version of HtHcommando, then CWC would have said so.

Clearly this new type of inferior HtHcommando is a 'lite' version which classic main book OCCs like the Crazy/Headhunter/MiliSpec can learn.

As further evidence, RUE actually subs the 'Techno-Warrior' type Headhunter (originally seen in Rifts Canada pg 110) instead of the classic Headhunter. Canada came out AFTER the CWC book did. So why weren't Techno-Warriors able to select Commando then?

They WERE able to select Jujitsu though. It doesn't specify which, but presumably that means the version from Rifts Japan.

NewCommando is clearly more on par with Jijitsu than it is with OldCommando. The CS soldiers eventually learn to auto-body-flip (at a high level), the revamped OCCs in RUE do not.

it's just easier to keep cool heads when you stick to facts when the discussion is about facts is all.

Not being able to recall where you saw something doesn't make it non-fact, it means it's in limbo. Like I said, if I come across where I recall seeing that automatic actions can be made at the end of a melee I'll tell you.

If it whets the appetite any, Pg126 of N&SS under -Attack 3 / Initiative Loser Attacks- mentions "he is out of Melee Attacks. All he can do is use automatic defenses!"

Not 'parry or dodge' but 'defenses'. Pg127 says (under 'Automatic') that "characters with this ability just automatically fend off any incoming blows .. includes .. Automatic Body Flip/Throw"

It is under definition three.

I'm well aware, but you have not established why you should be the one who chooses what definition from your favourite web site gets to control Palladium meaning of a vague term. A better way is simply to use the most inclusive definition of a word and not assume more specific definitions without backing.

Are we here to discuss the semantics of what I said regarding a dictionary

I am, if someone's choice of semantics implies undue authority to their argument.

or are we here to discuss paired weapons, automatic parry, and simultaneous attack?/rhetorical.

I love answering rhetorical questions. We're here doing this discussion and you brought dictionaries into the discussion. Since you made inappropriate definite articles part of the discussion, I'll indeed address that portion of it.

I have you as saying this;

I don't care what you "have me saying". I already stated that I rescinded that comment because upon rereading it, it did not represent my viewpoint adequately, and instead I could see (upon a glance the later day) that it was more in line with your viewpoint than my own.

That's called a mistake, and it happens when you're tired. If it's necessary I can go back and edit a strikethrough to remind you that it's off the table.

Is milking a misphrasing going to continue to be the crux of your rebuttals?

I ask you focus on the things I have said recently, and not continue to spam that old comment repeatedly in multiple replies. You had your chance to reply to that, and you said your piece, so please supply fresh responses to me rather than repost a sentence I made in a sleepy state as if it were a rebuttal.

Effectively, you've stated (above) that back-flip from N&SS works differently in Rifts. And in Rifts, it has a different definition and mechanic.

A statement I do not hold to, and never did hold to. Sometimes you think you're writing 1 thing and end up writing something that is more prone to be interpreted differently. Please drop it.

My stance is clear, and you appear to be intentionally ignoring it. The skills remain unchanged. I and others have supplied the text in CB1 which supports that interpretation for N&SS and other settings.

Is that semantics, that they "work differently" in Rifts? Or do they simply not exist in Rifts? Or does Rifts run them differently?

Please do not ask me if something is semantics anymore. Semantics are an unescapable thing inherent to all communication and I do not understand those who object to them.

N&SS arts and their skills and techniques do exist in Rifts, an NPC has come from there, the arts can be learned by Gladiators in Australia, and characters can be converted there (and changing to rifts versions of the techniques is not part of that conversion).

Rifts runs them differently only so far as CB1 says it does. It does not make additional modifications like having N&SS auto-dodge change into a Rifts auto-dodge. They are completely separate versions of a skill of the same name, just as the Prowl skill from both settings is different.

do the katas exist as separate entities for each OCC?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Katas exist as separate entities specific to the martial art that teaches the kata and may only be used with that art.

a Juicer's autododge is unique in the realm of autododges and exists differently under the Juicer entry. Basically, the Juicer has a bundled rule with it, like many other OCCs.

You mean like the Reaver assassin, who gets 'bonuses as usual' unlike that silly new 'autododge bonuses only' stuff for RUE characters who get autododge?

I am just wondering if these OCCs you speak of are doing something more than picking a kata from the books' skills section.

Katas are picked according to the Martial Arts Form that provides them. Not sure what you're asking.

when fighting the very rare opponent rifted over from N&SS, who also happens to have technique X, which somehow does not state that: (a) "in place of a dodge/parry/entangle" or (b) "differing from the standard N&SS rule regarding X", that it should be considered as something other than another exception?

Could you phrase this more clearly? ... "be considered something other than another exception" is confusing me here.

Rifts has an autododge, and Rifts has a Juicer, who has a unique autododge. Rifts also has the hand-to-hand commando skill, which refers to Rifts autododge, but then that would simply be defaulting to the setting's autododge. Can you see where I'm going with this?

RUE Commando refers to RUE autododge. Rifts is both RMB and RUE. Not sure how unique the Juicer's autododge is anymore since Crazies have something similar.

I don't see where you're going, as I don't see how RUE Commando referring to RUE auto-dodge affects CWCommando auto-dodge or Drunken Style auto-dodge.

Effectively, a "N&SS autododge" is how N&SS governs autododge in that setting. Well when in Rifts, do it as the Rifts locals.

N&SS governs autododge for N&SS-born content, Rifts governs autododge for Rifts content. That is my stance, and please stop quoting what I wrote by mistake.

There are times when people have trouble expressing themselves and, in an addled state, err. You are being very rude by continually bringing up a quote I told you not to bring up because I had disavowed it. You are quoting something I am not defending.

Dog, I can understand an initial mixup. But once I made it clear I don't hold to that statement, by continuing to speak as if I hold to it, you are now arguing a straw man. Yes, in spite of my having actually wrote what you are quoting, that is what you are doing, because I have dismissed it. Please understand that past and present selves are different people, and that people often say things they do not mean.

Rifts rules, the rules we are discussing, work one way. If some N&SS rules do not or cannot otherwise mesh with Rifts rules, so when you convert over a N&SS character from that setting, prepare to be let down by Palladium for not meshing Rifts with N&SS, or vise-versa.

I would be let down, if CB1 had not explicitly said we don't change anything except what it says to change, which doesn't include altering the Drunken Auto-Dodge. NASS DADs function normally (for NASS) in RUE, while RUEADs function normally (for RUE) in NASS.

when playing Rifts, which rules do you consult? And to specify, I did not say, "playing character X in Rifts", I am asking you that when you play in the Rifts setting, which rules take precedence there; Heroes Unlimited? Splicers? Palladium Fantasy? Robotech? Ninjas & Super Spies? Or Rifts?

I consult all rules that apply to a situation. Normally that is only Rifts rules. When dealing with content from other settings, those rules are also taken into consideration.

You treat this like an either/or or zero-sum game, and it isn't. These mechanics effect things like action cost and what bonuses apply.

What's next, NASS arts can no longer add their 'leap' bonus to leap attacks because there is no such thing as a leap bonus in Rifts?

Does a different base and advancement make the skill different?

Yes.

Or does it make the base and advancement for that skill different?

Does altering someone's DNA so they can turn into a giant metal man make them different, or does it just make their DNA different?

citizens of Free Quebec know Math:Basic at a certain fixed percentage. People who take Gymnastics get Prowl at a fixed percentage. They do not have a different version of Math:Basic or Prowl. The version is the same; only their knowledge of the skills' workings and the rate it will advance as they do have changed. That is a fact.

No, it isn't a fact. They are different skills. Different mechanics makes for a different skill.

Keep in mind that in arguing about the mechanics of auto-dodge, the issue is whether or not a character must pay their first action to activate it for the melee.

This is simply a mechanic. It's all auto-dodge, and it's all dodging, and it's all defense. Pointing out commonalities in name or in purpose or in outcome does not erase differences in cost or chance at working.

A prowler in Rifts is usually more likely to fail. So is an auto-dodger. The issue of whether or not we have a higher skill % in prowl or whether or not we get standard dodge bonuses to auto-dodge is both a question of mechanics. As is whether or not to pay an action to activate autoD.

Same skill, different rules and meanings for its use.

Same NAMED skill. The 'rules and meanings' are rules for that particular skill from that particular setting.

the conversion book states that you do not alter the proficiency; that remains the same. What is altered though from setting to setting is how a skill may work

True, but ONLY where it says the skill changes. The N&SS conversion notes are clear that the only changes you make are the ones listed.

there is a blurb in the conversion book stating that a person not from Rifts acclimates to Rifts (and typically gets skills for doing so). The point though is that you get changed by Rifts; Rifts does not get changed by you.

That blurb and the 'point' you imagine in it is not related to our conversation. Even for RAI that's a stretch.

there is a blurb regarding same or similar skills, and it says to use the better bonuses/percentage instead of receiving two separate skills.

Those blurbs are required because they only apply in those specific situations. Without a blurb, you do get the separate skills.

there is no difference between the back flip from Acrobatics to Gymnastics, save for their percentage and advancement.

Irrelevant, I was talking about the difference between that and the one gotten from Forms.

If he wrote it on a napkin, would you consider it "official"? Because I wouldn't. Most wouldn't. In order for something to be official, it needs to be published.

I have no clue what tangent you're going off on here, published statements ARE what I am talking about here.

why would you assume that because something came from one setting, that it would work the same in another setting?

It's not an assumption. This is what the books say, over and over, when expressing compatibility between settings. It is what CB1 says. We have shown you where.

when you convert a Heroes unlimited character to Rifts, their powers work differently on Rifts. Effectively, the conversion book states that things work differently in Rifts.

Wrong. The conversion book states THE things that work differently in Rifts. Everything not stated to work differently works the same as before. You can't simply invent new changes not present in CB1 because you wanted it to change more.

they are to work the same as Rifts if there isn't a conversion tip, given that the system is "Megaversal" (your words).

I'm not sure how you see my usage of Megaversal as supporting any argument you are making. 'Megaversal' means N&SS rules can mesh with Rifts rules, and we should strife to find out how they do.

Megaversal has never meant 'ditch the rules of the setting you are not in even if you're from there'.

When you play Rifts, which book to you reference rules from? That is my proof.

A question is not proof. You're assuming an answer. My own playing style isn't particularly relevant here, but essentially what I do is use all books that apply. All the books, all the rules. Rifts takes precedence in Rifts, but only where there is CONFLICT.

No conflict is present here. We simply have two kinds of Necrophim.

They are not examples. It clearly states what an attacker and a defender can do. Even the options are defined; it doesn't say, "you could maybe dodge by moving out of the way, maybe?" It states that "a character dodges by moving out of the way". It was never an "example", nor a suggestion.
It is the rule on how it works.

You're wrong, reread it, it opens with "the typical".

Typically is not 'always'.

The combat section gives you all the primary options.

No, the "Combat Sequence" table on RUEpg341 provides an example of the 'typical sequence'.

In order to auto body-flip, you need to trade a parry.

Please stop using the word 'trade'. Trade is never used in the books related to these matters. It isn't a synonym for 'instead'.

It was never a primary option; it was only ever a secondary option. Just like simultaneous attack. And back-flip. And disarm. etc.

You are inventing this primary/secondary thing. I get what you're trying to express, but that's not what the book does here.

Not only do the books not support your conjecture, but I provided a very simple example of why it fails, using SAs.

Someone with their arms and legs chopped off cannot parry or dodge, generally. If you could only SA by 'trading' a parry or dodge, then someone who has their limbs cut off like this would not be able to SA.

Clearly you could SA with a breath or eye weapon though. There is no logical reason to think that this kind of SA would be disabled by the loss of limbs.

I stated that they were the first options; the original options; the primary options. The options you must first have in order to have other options.
I have been saying that since the start of the thread.

I understand, but you are putting way too much stock in what is simply the usage of core examples.

If losing the ability to parry or dodge made you lose the ability to do other abilities, that would be an important thing and something we would expect to see. Penalties to dodges would apply to back flips. Penalties to parries would apply to body flips. But they don't.

The rules are there to govern the gameplay; not to establish how the natives do it.

That's where our views differ I suppose. I don't see any support for that outlook. Something major like the lack of need for katas would be espoused. It wasn't.

yet a person with invulnerability turns to MDC when they go to Rifts

What's your point? Invulnerability is a power, not a technique.

Or a Wormwood human turns SDC when on Heroes Unlimited, and back to MDC on Rifts

I'm not understanding how your example relates to the talk.

the concepts of super powers and "MDC" are not OCCs; they are rules that change dependent on the setting they are in.

Yes, but they also stay the same unless otherwise noted.

Some of the powers in HU don't change at all. Like those powers, N&SS techniques were not changed except where noted.

So while an OCC of the same name as another may not gain the class abilities of the other, their powers and abilities will work differently in different settings.

But their skills do not, and martial arts forms are skills. Or more accurately: they change where noted, and otherwise stay the same.

You are trying to change something non-noted, and that is against the rules.

I would appreciate it if you stopped spamming the same quote from me over and over again, as if it were an argument. I read it the first time. It was ambiguous you took my meaning wrongly, so I phrased it better.

So you're back-tracking now? So you recant saying said quote?

Now you're getting it.

The point of me doing that is that you were being hypocritical; that your position was weak and it showed. That your argument has been unsound, unclear, and unsupported.

Your purpose was flawed. My misphrasing my stance (likely my tiredness made me think I was quoting you) does nothing to prove that my actual position (the one I've held before, and hold now, and never stopped holding in spite of your claims here) is weak/unsound. My stance is clearly supported by the text, and Prysus has also shown you why that is with ADDITIONAL text.

Basically, you discredited yourself by stating the opposite of your apparent position.

No, I did not. A slip of the tongue in a confused state does not discredit someone. Constantly in this argument we quote each other and rephrase each other's stances, asking if we are rightly interpreting what each other means.

I expect what occurred is my memory of doing that leaked in at an inappropriate moment. I'm beginning to feel like that now, but I'll try and finish up the thread. Weird mental errors occur when people are tired, so please stop bullying me about them and insulting me and my argument because I weirdly (and as far as I can tell, one time only) spoke like you did.

I was not agreeing with you. I was trying to state what I meant and did it in the wrong terms, because my mind was addled. Please stop strawmanning as if that is my actual opinion. It is not, and it never was, and I have explained why.

Rifts addresses the difference between skill percentages; they are the exact same skill, just with different percentages and growth rates; the skill itself "remains largely unchanged". In essence; prowl is still your sneak skill, bud.

Auto-dodge and dodge are the exact same moves, just with different activation costs. The skill itself remains largely unchanged. "Dodge is still your avoid skill, bud"

I said that the rules in which the skill is governed would change. That would mean that if prowl in Rifts gave you the ability to fly, then fly you shall. How well you fly is only dictated by the percentage your skill level is at.

There's no basis for that stance, sorry. Something in Rifts sharing the name as something from another setting does not mean that something else gets the Rifts traits when travelling here if they are clearly different things.

Doing nothing is an option.

Yes, an option, but not a DEFENSE.

Otherwise, you'd be agreeing with me. Either way, you must agree with me here. Want to see how? You are attacked. The attack is a sneak attack. You do not get to dodge, parry, or entangle, yet you were attacked, making you a defender. So what do you do? Nothing.[/quote]That's the problem: being attacked doesn't make you a defender if you do not defend.

Similarly, if it is your turn in the initiative order and you use that turn to turn on your radio, you are not an attacker.

You are wrongly applying the nouns used in the EXAMPLE combat as if attack/defense is applied to people based on their order in the initiative sequence, rather than the actions they are taking, which is absurdity.

Similarly, if it is your turn in the initiative order and you use that turn to turn on your radio, you are not an attacker.

Any time you are attacked, you are a defender. Period.

No, you'll note that the examples say defenders may do DEFENSES. In the section on SAs (RUEpg347) do you ever wonder why the noun chosen is "character" rather than "defender" ?

By your logic, if I a shoot a rock, the rock is also a defender.

It isn't "by my logic".

It isn't? You just said if you're attacked, you're a defender. Well, I'm attacking a rock, so it must be a defender too.

I think it's pretty clear here that Prysus' "must" is defining a requirement based on the condition "to defend".

You're misquoting him; taking what he's said out of context. He is clearly not defining a requirement based on the condition "to defend", he is saying that a defender (note how the word comes before the 'must') "must always use an attack to defend". That statement just isn't true regardless of what I said about it.

Prysus can clarify what it is he meant with subsequent replies. Perhaps we can wait until/if he does so before continuing our analysis of how he phrased things and whether or not we agree with how it represents his opinion. Neither of us appears to think the other is taking what he said in the proper context, and each of us views ourselves as seeing that correct context. It would be simpler to resolve that on Prysus' reply, there's plenty of other lines of convo cluttering things to conclude anyway.

I am reading it how he wrote it; a defender must always use an attack to defend. That isn't true.

nothing is a defence option that never requires an attack regardless.

Yeah... I don't understand what you're writing with so many double negatives, sorry. I might be able to process that later, but it'd be cooler if something were more plainly stated so it can be processed in a wider variety of cognitive states.

I am talking about the pilot compartment.

Mkay, well, could you clarify where the Spider and bigger Titan bots are stated to have pilot compartments that could fit the Flying Titan and their weird bulky wings?

you're narrowing your scope of view; you seem to believe that the chair the pilot sits on must be there in order for the robot to run. That's like saying your car needs a chair in order for you to drive it. Well, no, it doesn't need the chair. The Flying Titan doesn't need the wings. etc. What matters here is that you can fit it inside to gain bonuses from the similar skills.

Interesting plan, I admit I did not think of that.

This is starting to sway a little from the topic, but I would be interested in a thread about this whole Matryoshka doll setup. Could one pilot a PA that pilots a robot that pilots a big robot like a battleram that pilots a starship?

[Slight001]

the newest printing of CWC includes the R:UE version of H2H Commando.

[Dog_O_War]

Dog, I have read the thread. In fact, I read it twice. You're wrong, blatantly wrong. So wrong that the only response at this point is to do as my signature says and just... walk away because NOTHING I can say is going to help you at this point.

You have made no real arguments.
You have made no attempt to prove whatever it is you're claiming to be 'right'.

Your biggest response thus far is 'you're wrong and I am not even gonna bother to tell you where and how!'

Meanwhile, I have posted quotes, facts, books and page numbers.
What have you posted? Opinion, not facts.

You're beyond help on this. Good luck getting ANYONE ELSE in the universe to allow you to use that rule the way you are interpreting it in their game and woe betide the poor players who might have suffer at the hands of it.

I'ma go buy a lottery ticket then, because I've used it many times; it's how I get the rule changed when I play.

[Witchcraft]

Hey, I'm interested in following along but all the posts and quotes are a little disjointed. Is it possible to post a repository of the different opinions or sides of the argument?

Like: Dog_O_War says:
1) an attacker with paired weapons can attack with both weapons, a defender with paired weapons can parry both weapons or parry one and simultaneous attack
2) an attacker with paired weapons can attack with one weapon (saving the other for parry), a defender with paired weapons can parry and simultaneous attack, in this case the attacker may attempt to parry the simultaneous attack

Tor says:
2) an attacker with paired weapons can attack with one weapon (saving the other for parry), a defender with paired weapons can parry and simultaneous attack, in this case the attacker CANNOT attempt to parry the simultaneous attack, but can use his free weapon to defend against any other attacks (since simultaneous attack is technically a defense)

I dunno if this was accurate but I was using it as an example for potential conflicting opinions.

I'm definitely interested in following the discussion as it is something my regular gaming group hashed out "way back when" but only to everyone's supposed satisfaction and not having reached an actual decision as to what the intent behind the rules as written (in a few places) say.

Thanks in advance and keep up the good work!

[Jefffar]

Just a reminder folks, Please avoid discussing each other and keep on the topic at hand. Comments like "Your lack of knowledge on the subject is showing." and "You're beyond help on this." contribute nothing to the topic and are likely to set in motion unnecessary confrontation and resultant warnings and or bannings.

[Tor]

Looking forward to the rebuttals Dog

the newest printing of CWC includes the R:UE version of H2H Commando.

Hm. Relevant info, thanks for the mention. Well... I don't like that. The removal of automatic body flip is a MAJOR change. Arguably as substantial as removing automatic dodge would be (or introducing it).

Palladium should not simply sneak in a critical change like that. It's one thing for new printings to correct typo, add missing information in the errata, but to completely change the capabilities of a hand to hand form is really new-edition material, I think.

If a major thing like that is done, I think it is important for Kevin to include some kind of note. A mention in newer printings of CWC like "this used to provide automatic body flip but we removed it due to balance concerns" and "we decided to make this available to techno-warriors instead of Jujitsu" would've been polite.

Characters who were made using original CWC might've levelled up and acquired an automatic body flip, or NPCs could have been designed who would have that ability. Suddenly they're stripped of it?

Retconning like that is too extreme, so I'm going to treat RUE and new CWC prints as a separate dimension of Rifts from the one established by earlier books. This is fine since we know the Multiverse has multiple versions of worlds with small or large alterations to them. Alternatively, it would be easy enough to treat the old and new kind as different HtH skills and you'd have to pick one or the other.

Hey, I'm interested in following along but all the posts and quotes are a little disjointed. Is it possible to post a repository of the different opinions or sides of the argument?

As best I can tell, the original topic sorta derailed into discussing Dog's theory that someone can SA when out of attacks, based on a dodgy theory about borrowing an attack to buy dodges which he can 'trade' for a simultaneous attack.

I think there was also discussion of side issues like wherether or not a simultaneous strike+parry (differerent from N&SS strike/parry or parry/strike) could only be doing by a target who initiates a SA exchange or whether or not someone initiating an attack could opt to use that as well.

Like: Dog_O_War says:
1) an attacker with paired weapons can attack with both weapons, a defender with paired weapons can parry both weapons or parry one and simultaneous attack
2) an attacker with paired weapons can attack with one weapon (saving the other for parry), a defender with paired weapons can parry and simultaneous attack, in this case the attacker may attempt to parry the simultaneous attack

Tor says:
2) an attacker with paired weapons can attack with one weapon (saving the other for parry), a defender with paired weapons can parry and simultaneous attack, in this case the attacker CANNOT attempt to parry the simultaneous attack, but can use his free weapon to defend against any other attacks (since simultaneous attack is technically a defense)

I dunno if this was accurate but I was using it as an example for potential conflicting opinions.

I imagine number 1 is something we both agree on. I think I recall Dog saying that 'saving the other for parry' could not be done though, something I don't agree with. I think you might have flipped our stances in your example though, the first 2 is more my belief and the second 2 sounds more like Dog's. I do not consider a simultaneous attack 'technically a defense' while I get the impression Dog does. I also think that attackers can parry a simultaneous attack levied at them if they are using paired WP and only attacked with 1.

[Witchcraft]

Thanks for the clarification! I hate to f*dge up the fr*th but how would this translate to using a Rahu or Jeridu?

[Dog_O_War]

Looking forward to the rebuttals Dog

I've been wanting to, but work has really picked up, the same time as my free time has dropped off. I just don't seem to be able to dedicate enough time to properly address this thread lately, but I will when I get the chance.

[Tor]

how would this translate to using a Rahu or Jeridu?

I forget what a Jeridu is (6 arms maybe?) but unless they're expanded on in some PF world book, their CB1 entry just makes them good at parrying. Doesn't even give'm paired WP by default.

As for those who do have it (like Rahu-Men Cyber-Knights) a pair means 2, so it'd function just like any other knight with a bair of bionic or bio-wizard arms attached.

[Killer Cyborg]

As best I can tell, the original topic sorta derailed into discussing Dog's theory that someone can SA when out of attacks, based on a dodgy theory about borrowing an attack to buy dodges which he can 'trade' for a simultaneous attack.

I can see a technical argument for that, but I can't see any reason to believe that it's an intentional part of the rules.

[Damian Magecraft]

how would this translate to using a Rahu or Jeridu?

I forget what a Jeridu is (6 arms maybe?) but unless they're expanded on in some PF world book, their CB1 entry just makes them good at parrying. Doesn't even give'm paired WP by default.

As for those who do have it (like Rahu-Men Cyber-Knights) a pair means 2, so it'd function just like any other knight with a bair of bionic or bio-wizard arms attached.

Paired weps states that beings with multiple limbs don't need to take it for each pair.
And on the Jeridu...
In their write up in PF it states they get paired wp as a racial feature.

[Tor]

can see a technical argument for that, but I can't see any reason to believe that it's an intentional part of the rules.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it was intended (and intentions are boring) but I don't see a technical argument for it. RUE explicitly states that when attacks run out, auto-parrying is all you can do unless you are dodging.

It's one thing to extend that into being able to do other automatic defenses (auto-dodge, maybe auto body flip if it's allowed to exist anymore since CWC retcon) but to be able to borrow attacks to do other action-costing responses (entangle, roll with impact, shooting down missiles, etc) is a stretch.

[Dog_O_War]

(still don't have time for a proper response; this is all I have time for really)

can see a technical argument for that, but I can't see any reason to believe that it's an intentional part of the rules.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it was intended (and intentions are boring) but I don't see a technical argument for it. RUE explicitly states that when attacks run out, auto-parrying is all you can do unless you are dodging.

R:UE explicitly states that Parry (and not just auto-parry) is all you can do.

Then it goes on to say that you can also dodge, rendering any explicit statements void, as it is literally contradicting itself.

That is the key difference to what you're saying there in the quoted portion. Something cannot be explicit (meaning fully and clearly expressed; ie: "only parry") when it lists exceptions ("only parry, except when opting to dodge"), and it certainly loses authority when it does so in the very same sentence.

It's one thing to extend that into being able to do other automatic defenses (auto-dodge, maybe auto body flip if it's allowed to exist anymore since CWC retcon) but to be able to borrow attacks to do other action-costing responses (entangle, roll with impact, shooting down missiles, etc) is a stretch.

Is it a stretch when both aspects of the rule you're quoting allow you to borrow actions? And I will point out that regardless of what that particular portion of the rule states, you can still roll for impact - another "action-costing response".

Honestly, the number of responses a person can do that eat up actions from later in the combat out-weigh the number of responses that do not, making it the standard way of things.

[Tor]

I wouldn't say that the Dodge exception renders the entire restriction void, so much as creating a singular exception to it. Allowing dodges to be done in addition to parries doesn't mean that you can suddenly also entangle (or SA) when out of attacks.

It does leave a grey area like "can I auto-dodge?" though.

I feel like I vaguely remember some combat example of someone auto-dodging when they ran out of attacks buried in a book but I couldn't for the life of me tell you where...

N&SS does mention automatic defenses, which would apply to RUE due to Megaversal rules systems. It overrides 'parry only' since 'you can do X' trumps 'you can only do Y'. Parry is listed because auto-parry is the only auto-defense most people have, and dodge is a special exception with action-costing responses which can be performed.

What you call borrowing for SAs is only from within the same melee round, not from later melees.

That action-costing is the standard way of things is all the more reason to believe that dodging is a unique situation (much like 'defender wins ties') in terms of performing an action when out of them.

[BlueLion]

I do not see anything in the rules that would make me think you can draw actions for any action costing thing other than to dodge. The dodge is a special exemption to help keep people alive. To try to say it allows the use of any other action requiring action to me is a blatant attempt to say the rules say something they do not.

By the way Tor, it would be the other way around as Rue is the most updated rules. However the mechanics of combat in ninjas and super spies can be significantly deferent. Such as spending your first action to activate auto dodge. My recommendation is use the rules for ninjas and super spies for charters using styles from it and make the call on auto defiance a GM thing.

By the way Dog Roll with impact Does not take action.
PG 346 Roll with impact does not state that it requires a action. The sequence of combat places it as a always there option not a action requiring action. So I see nothing to make me think it requires spending an attack.

Your debate seams to be based on a difference that is not there. You are reaching to far on this one. The only action requiring action that can borrow from other rounds actions as I see in RaW is dodge.

[Jefffar]

R:UE is the most up to date rules for Rifts. It's not the most up to date ruleset in Palladium however. Robotech and Dead Reign both came out after it was published.

[Witchcraft]

I'm pretty sure Roll with Punch, Fall, or Impact costs an action -- 16 or better on a 1d20

[Dog_O_War]

By the way Dog Roll with impact Does not take action.
PG 346 Roll with impact does not state that it requires a action. The sequence of combat places it as a always there option not a action requiring action. So I see nothing to make me think it requires spending an attack.

Step 4 of combat states that after a failed parry, the character may roll with impact, but to do so will count as one of his actions/attacks.

[BlueLion]

I'm pretty sure Roll with Punch, Fall, or Impact costs an action -- 16 or better on a 1d20

It is 14 for falls other attacks it higher than attack. The was change to its write up in R:UE.

[BlueLion]

By the way Dog Roll with impact Does not take action.
PG 346 Roll with impact does not state that it requires a action. The sequence of combat places it as a always there option not a action requiring action. So I see nothing to make me think it requires spending an attack.

Step 4 of combat states that after a failed parry, the character may roll with impact, but to do so will count as one of his actions/attacks.

What book and page you reading? Rue pg 341 Step 4 is attacker rolls damage. Step 5 does say it requires a action but your quote is not on the page. Yes it does appear that it takes a action.

Sorry if I missed it where is it written that you can roll with impact by borrowing a action from the next round?
But even so big leap of logic from purely defensive action to a action that is offensive.

The logic you are presenting to me makes no sense.

[BlueLion]

R:UE is the most up to date rules for Rifts. It's not the most up to date ruleset in Palladium however. Robotech and Dead Reign both came out after it was published.

Sorry I was not clear I was talking about out of N&SS and RUE.

[Tor]

I'm pretty sure Roll with Punch, Fall, or Impact costs an action -- 16 or better on a 1d20

For the most part yes, although in N&SS it doesn't mention requiring one and the combat example which has someone do it doesn't show them missing their next turn doing this after a failed parry, like with dodging.

Easiest explanation: N&SS arts get 1 automatic roll per turn, only those with "automatic roll" get unlimited automatic rolls per turn.

Not sure where 16 or better is coming from. Roll with impact has to tie or beat the strike roll. If you're rolling with something that lacks a strike roll (like a fall) I recall reading 14+ somewhere.

[BlueLion]

I'm pretty sure Roll with Punch, Fall, or Impact costs an action -- 16 or better on a 1d20

For the most part yes, although in N&SS it doesn't mention requiring one and the combat example which has someone do it doesn't show them missing their next turn doing this after a failed parry, like with dodging.

Easiest explanation: N&SS arts get 1 automatic roll per turn, only those with "automatic roll" get unlimited automatic rolls per turn.

Not sure where 16 or better is coming from. Roll with impact has to tie or beat the strike roll. If you're rolling with something that lacks a strike roll (like a fall) I recall reading 14+ somewhere.

R:UE pg 346 for target number 14 for falls.

I am a little confused as to why you think it is the next action. Dodge uses the next action as I recall and it can be done after the dodge so the next action is already spent.

Dodge spending the next action and not just costing a action is why it is the exception at being able to draw from the next turn. I am confused at where you guys are getting that other actions use the next action.

[Tor]

By 'next action' I mean the next action after a dodge.

Rifter 16 (first printed October 2001) pg 20 clarifies that rolling, like dodging, costs the next action. I'm assuming an equivalent statement is also present in the GMG. I'm not sure if any statements to that effect are present anywhere prior though.

Same FAQ also mentions that when you are knocked down, the lost action is your next action.

I think some of this is also present in the online FAQ but it's not dated like Rifter/GMG printings are so I don't know when it was added to the site.

[Blue_Lion]

By 'next action' I mean the next action after a dodge.

Rifter 16 (first printed October 2001) pg 20 clarifies that rolling, like dodging, costs the next action. I'm assuming an equivalent statement is also present in the GMG. I'm not sure if any statements to that effect are present anywhere prior though.

Same FAQ also mentions that when you are knocked down, the lost action is your next action.

I think some of this is also present in the online FAQ but it's not dated like Rifter/GMG printings are so I don't know when it was added to the site.

The GMG and most combat rules that where out before it are over written by RUE. RUE was an attempt to update and fix the rule system.

[Dog_O_War]

I finally have the time to respond to at least some of your post.

Clever, did not think of that, but...

If you did a twin-strike then wouldn't that make you incapable of parrying at all, much less parrying 2 opponents?

Does it say that? or does it say on page 346, R:UE, under Paired Weapons that,"...a twin, simultaneous strike with both weapons means losing the automatic parry..."?/rhetorical.

"that ability of paired WP" referred to parrying 2 opponents, one of the abilities paired WP imbues. I'm aware of the other things the paired WP skill does and the various other abilities it gives

"that ability" is detailed under the Multiple Attackers entry on pg. 346 of R:UE.

It is in the case of that power, the planes make a single strike roll and strike at exactly the same moment.

Simultaneous attack has more than one meaning. In this case, it's a group of enemies simultaneously (in unison) attacking their target. Not a defense-sacrificing counter-attack.

No. Simultaneous Attack has been defined by the game, and the game has gone as far as both mechanically and physically preventing other instances of a traditionally defined (ie: not game mechanics) simultaneous attack.

You can only attack in initiative order, therefore, unless a simultaneous attack is called, then the attack is never simultaneous.

if you were to area-affect-attack 10 opponents and they simultaneously attacked you back, well you're screwed.

That is a problem. I wonder if we can at least wiggle out of this problem with missiles by saying 'no, it is the missile that is attacking you'.

Missiles rarely, if ever, attack.

Let's keep in mind that on page 341 this statement is prefaced by "the typical combat situation". Typically parrying is the only automatic defense left.

You keep saying this (the bolded portion); it has nothing do to with "automatic" defences. The rule does not mention them; it only mentions Parry itself, without the automatic part.

Clearly "can only try to parry" is not true since it's followed by 'may opt to dodge'. We can take that to mean either "dodging and parrying are the only options ever" or we can take it to mean "parrying is usually the only automatic defense, and thus the only defense people can normally take unless they're willing to sacrifice attacks from the next melee".

You're eliminating the other options of what it could mean.
I see by your interpretation here that the rules can "never be wrong". That is something you need to let go of; the book is full of mistakes and the like, providing plenty of evidence that they can be wrong. Also, you're using that word, "automatic" again. Does the rule say "automatic"? The answer is, no - it does not.

That part is unclear. It may or may not apply to all combat as it is presented. Pg341 says "typical sequence" which could apply to the "note" that is part of the "Combat Sequence". The CS is merely an example because for example, the 'character with initiative rolls strike'. But that isn't a rule. Someone with initiative could opt to do something else other than strike, such as activate a forcefield, cast a protective spell, forfeit their turn, or do an impressive backflip.

No, it's really not unclear. It's a note under the Combat Sequence and it lays it out pretty plain.

If you're going to rely on something to support 'dodge or parry only when out of attacks' I suggest you go with GameMasterGuidePg32 which is not given in the context of 'typical' and phrased more openly as if it applied to everything. That said, I still think that these rules only apply to Rifts Combat Forms, for which parry is the only automatic action you will ever get.

See, this is where you are wrong then. Rifts does not make the distinction with the word, "automatic".

We have to keep in mind that this example is just talking about a typical situation. It says parrying doesn't use an action and dodge does. This doesn't mean that when someone without a HtH runs out of attacks that they get a magical auto-parry, nor does it mean that a Juicer who is out of attacks loses their auto-dodge.

No, Parry states whether it is automatic or not. The note under Combat Sequence does not discriminate. Nor do most other sections.

My point is that when they reprint books and leave something out, it is as good as an edit; the previous information no longer applies.

I don't agree with your stance here, I don't see any justification in that viewpoint. By that logic, the 'Sky King' vanished from the entirety of Rifts Earth simply because RUE didn't reprint it. That's silly.

That is a standard of doing things across the industry.
It's not "my logic".

Example doesn't apply, a pizza is still a pizza however it is classified. New techniques are new techniques.

Until they're reclassified

Rules changes work much in the same way; when something that was once included is no longer included, it does not mean that there are "two versions" as they exist in the present, it means that there is a new version and an old version; still two versions, but one exists only in the past, while the other represents our present.

That applies when it is actually a universal rule, as opposed to a new version of a skill.

That's the same damn thing.

As the new hand-to-hand commando represents. And other such rules.

The new HtH Commando sharing the same name as the old HtH Commando does not wipe out the old from existence any more than N&SS Ninjutsu wiped out TMNT Ninjutsu. Nor did Rifts China wipe out the Mystic China art forms. New skills of the same name in new books do not eliminate the old. All remains canon.

This theory of yours has been proven wrong by the updated CWC.
Given this information, you need to re-think your whole position; because as it stands, the precedent is that there are not "two versions" there are simply the old version, and the new version which overrides the old one.

As to your '4 dragons' comment, I believe Prysus elaborated as to what happened there; it has to do with IP protection. Legally, the 4 dragons in-question are no longer a part of Rifts, yet we all knew they once were. Hell, I adventured with some of them in games I've played.

That's ridiculous. You are simply wrong about this DOW. Nowhere in RUE does it mention that everything from the RMB not reprinted no longer exists. Where are you getting that?

A couple dragon hatchling NPCs in various world books might want to have a word.

I didn't say it; I am only re-stating what was said. Accuse someone else of being wrong here.

Basically, as fans, we do not get to choose what makes it into the book and what does not; your wish for auto-flip for commando does not exist in R:UE

It doesn't need to, it exists in CWC. The inferior version of Commando in RUE made available to the revamped RUE versions of the RMB OCCs of Crazy, Headhunter, Robot Pilot, Coalition Military Specialist can be selected by them, but the advanced CWC version of it can't. It is explicitly exclusive to the Commando and Special Forces OCC. It was not made available to the main book OCCs. Later I think some other OCCs may also have gotten access to it (I'm thinking Warlords of Russia types) but if the main book OCCs had had access to the ADVANCED version of HtHcommando, then CWC would have said so.

Clearly this new type of inferior HtHcommando is a 'lite' version which classic main book OCCs like the Crazy/Headhunter/MiliSpec can learn.

Clearly you're completely wrong.

As further evidence, RUE actually subs the 'Techno-Warrior' type Headhunter (originally seen in Rifts Canada pg 110) instead of the classic Headhunter. Canada came out AFTER the CWC book did. So why weren't Techno-Warriors able to select Commando then?

It's called an update. In the new book, they decided that techno-warriors should be able to take HtH Commando.

If it whets the appetite any, Pg126 of N&SS under -Attack 3 / Initiative Loser Attacks- mentions "he is out of Melee Attacks. All he can do is use automatic defenses!"

That sounds like it applies only to the realm of N&SS and not the realm of Rifts.

N&SS arts and their skills and techniques do exist in Rifts, an NPC has come from there, the arts can be learned by Gladiators in Australia, and characters can be converted there (and changing to rifts versions of the techniques is not part of that conversion).

Rifts runs them differently only so far as CB1 says it does.

Wrong. We have a precedent of new books, like R:UE doing things differently.

Rifts rules, the rules we are discussing, work one way. If some N&SS rules do not or cannot otherwise mesh with Rifts rules, so when you convert over a N&SS character from that setting, prepare to be let down by Palladium for not meshing Rifts with N&SS, or vise-versa.

I would be let down, if CB1 had not explicitly said we don't change anything except what it says to change, which doesn't include altering the Drunken Auto-Dodge. NASS DADs function normally (for NASS) in RUE, while RUEADs function normally (for RUE) in NASS.

That lacks logic.
That logic being that when you play Rifts, you use Rifts rules. Just as when you play N&SS, you use N&SS rules. You don't use rules from other settings; you take content from settings and apply the rules from the setting you are using.

You treat this like an either/or or zero-sum game, and it isn't. These mechanics effect things like action cost and what bonuses apply.

What's next, NASS arts can no longer add their 'leap' bonus to leap attacks because there is no such thing as a leap bonus in Rifts?

There are leaps in Rifts. Your example is invalid.

Does a different base and advancement make the skill different?

Yes.

Wrong. Pg.299 under Selecting Skills calls them "duplicates", of which may have varying advancements.


I have to cut this short; I will address the rest when I have the chance.

[Tor]

The GMG and most combat rules that where out before it are over written by RUE. RUE was an attempt to update and fix the rule system.

RUE only overwrites RMB and GMG where they contradict each other. RUE's reprinting of 'costs an attack' does not override GMG's "next attack" clarification.

If you did a twin-strike then wouldn't that make you incapable of parrying at all, much less parrying 2 opponents?

Does it say that? or does it say on page 346, R:UE, under Paired Weapons that,"...a twin, simultaneous strike with both weapons means losing the automatic parry..."?/rhetorical.

I don't understand your rhetorical tag, if you don't want me to answer a question then don't ask it. It's possible my Megaversal knowledge of rules is failing to consider RUE's lack of clarification. HU2pg69 under "Paired Weapons" states a twin simultaneous strike with both weapons means losing the automatic parry and leaves the character open to his opponent's next attack without benefit of a parry (dodge is optional but uses up a melee action)

Nor, I suppose one could take "without the benefit of a parry" to mean 'without an auto-parry' although you could take it to mean losing the ability to spend an action to parry as well.

Similarly, the 'dodges uses a melee action' could be taken as a description of standard dodging, or it could be taken to mean that you lose your auto-dodge or that if you use an auto-dodge (perhaps due to higher bonuses) it still costs an action.

The "can only try to parry" part on RUEpg342 is clearly talking about auto-parries, because action-borrowing is only described for dodging, not non-auto parries done by people untrained in combat.

Would it be a huge stretch to allow non-combat people to borrow an attack to parry like they might for dodging? Of course not, as a GM I'd totally allow it, weird panic-defense or whatever it is that allows people to borrow actions from the next melee makes as much sense for parrying as it dodge for dodging. But in terms of hair-splitting I guess it wouldn't be explicitly permitted.

The GMG/RifterFAQ stuff does clarify that any automatic action can be done when out of attacks though. This contradicts any inference one might interpret from RUE that even auto-dodges would suddenly cost an action when out of attacks.

It is in the case of that power, the planes make a single strike roll and strike at exactly the same moment. Simultaneous attack has more than one meaning. In this case, it's a group of enemies simultaneously (in unison) attacking their target. Not a defense-sacrificing counter-attack.

No. Simultaneous Attack has been defined by the game, and the game has gone as far as both mechanically and physically preventing other instances of a traditionally defined (ie: not game mechanics) simultaneous attack. You can only attack in initiative order, therefore, unless a simultaneous attack is called, then the attack is never simultaneous.

You're wrong here Dog. A term being defined one way in general does not mean that is always what the term means.

"Simultaneous" or "simulaneously" does not necessarily mean your specific "simultaneous attack". The use of the phrase "twin simultaneous strike" would be one example of that. The ability of a superhero to coordinate a fleet of toy airplanes to shoot you as a single combined strike is ALSO a simultaneous attack (relative to each other's timing).

Simultaneous simply means happening at the same time, not necessarily ignoring initiative order. The Control Toys guy isn't ignoring initiative order, his toys just attack concurrently.

Missiles rarely, if ever, attack.

Smart missiles do, as they're guided by an AI. If something can dodge independently then it's fair to say it's attacking independently.

HUpg80 "missiles do not enjoy the pilot's combined bonuses to strike. Since they are all self-guided, missiles are launched as separate units with their own bonus of +3 top strike. Mini-missiles are usually unguided". I imagine RUE has similar descriptions.

You keep saying this (the bolded portion); it has nothing do to with "automatic" defences. The rule does not mention them; it only mentions Parry itself, without the automatic part.

I'm failing to see the distinction you're getting at here.

You're eliminating the other options of what it could mean.

I eliminate potentials which are not adequately sourced.

I see by your interpretation here that the rules can "never be wrong". That is something you need to let go of; the book is full of mistakes and the like, providing plenty of evidence that they can be wrong.

Yes, but to classify a rule as wrong you need good backing for it. You paint me as some stubborn guy who can't accept a typo clarified in errata or something. I can, but it needs to be sourced.

Also, you're using that word, "automatic" again. Does the rule say "automatic"? The answer is, no - it does not.

Wrong, the rules do specify that 'automatic' is the key thing here. In spite of what you may think, something does not have to be printed in RUE to be canon. Clarifications from the Rifter FAQs (which were for the most part also in the GMG, sometimes Book of Magic or FoM, etc) are also proper canon.

Rifter16pg19 clarifies that when someone is out of attacks, the smart thing to do is parry since it doesn't cost an attack. It also clarifies that auto-dodging is an option. These are allowed because they are automatic defenses.

You seem to think that RUE's phrasing would disallow automatic body flips when out of actions. That same rationale would also except automatic dodges, since they aren't mention as being possible either (just auto parries and normal dodges).

If there were such a thing as an 'automatic simultaneous attack' then that would also be possible, because you can make automatic (action-free) responses when out of actions. The reason you can't SA is because they have a cost you can't pay. RUE only added a special payment plan for normal dodging. It didn't erase previous clarification that automatic defenses could be done when out of actions.

this is where you are wrong then. Rifts does not make the distinction with the word, "automatic". Parry states whether it is automatic or not. The note under Combat Sequence does not discriminate. Nor do most other sections.

If you mean the part about OOA borrow-dodging, even if it doesn't explicitly say auto-parry, it doesn't give allowance for action-borrowing to pay the cost of parrying for non-combatants so it's still functionally forbidden. Though obviously I think any sensible GM would allow action-borrowing for parrying for those lacking autoparry in the same way it's allowed for dodging.

By that logic, the 'Sky King' vanished from the entirety of Rifts Earth simply because RUE didn't reprint it. That's silly.

That is a standard of doing things across the industry. It's not "my logic".[/quote]If you are ascribing to that logic, it is most definitely your logic. I don't accuse you of being the first to live by that motto, but I find it ridiculous and I don't accept this to be an industry standard, it's absurd. Where in RUE does it say that the ultimate edition erases anything from previous books not reprinted in it.

If we lacked the 'Book of Magic' would that mean that spells from RMB not reprinted in RUE no longer exist? Would the 4 kinds of dragons in RMB cease to exist in RUE if they were not reprinted in CB1/D+G? Do you know how absurd this sounds? There's a difference between new rules or materials overriding previous stuff when they conflict and a lack of reprint meaning something no longer exists in the world of that game. What's next, you think because the traditional Headhunter OCC from Rifts was replaced with a variation of the Techno-Warrior from Rifts Canada that suddenly that OCC doesn't exist either? That every headhunter NPC is suddenly a techno-warrior NPC? Doesn't work that way.

RUE did not erase the Sky King. Space limitations often mean omissions, but omissions in later editions do not erase things from reality unless they explicitly say they're erased.

a universal rule, as opposed to a new version of a skill.

That's the same damn thing.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

This theory of yours has been proven wrong by the updated CWC. Given this information, you need to re-think your whole position; because as it stands, the precedent is that there are not "two versions" there are simply the old version, and the new version which overrides the old one.

CWC printings share the same name. RMB and RUE have different names. So no, it's not a straight-out override. There's also a difference between changing a fundamental rule and simply giving different versions of OCCs or skills. RUE's new dragons didn't erase RMB's old dragons from existence. Nor did the Techno-Warrior erase the traditional headhunter. RUE is a supplement even though it serves as a core rulebook.

As for the different versions of HtH:Commando, I treat that as separate hand to hand skills with the same name. There's a "commando" HtH in N&SS, just like TMNT and N&SS both had "Ninjutsu" with different statistics. A new thing with the same name as an old thing does not erase the old thing. Were this true, Psyscape's Necrophim would've erased Nightbane's Necrophim. D+G's demon/deevil lords would've erased CB1's lords. But that is not the case.

As to your '4 dragons' comment, I believe Prysus elaborated as to what happened there; it has to do with IP protection. Legally, the 4 dragons in-question are no longer a part of Rifts, yet we all knew they once were. Hell, I adventured with some of them in games I've played.

That's ridiculous. You are simply wrong about this DOW. Nowhere in RUE does it mention that everything from the RMB not reprinted no longer exists. Where are you getting that?

I didn't say it; I am only re-stating what was said. Accuse someone else of being wrong here.

You said "Prysus elaborated as to what happened there; it has to do with IP protection. Legally, the 4 dragons in-question are no longer a part of Rifts". If you don't want to be held accountable for your statements it'd be better to directly quote Prysus. By rephrasing what you say Prysus elaborated, you are adding your own weight behind the words. I'll respond to you by what you say, and to him by what he says.

Prysus elaborated as to what happened there; it has to do with IP protection. Legally, the 4 dragons in-question are no longer a part of Rifts

Clearly this new type of inferior HtHcommando is a 'lite' version which classic main book OCCs like the Crazy/Headhunter/MiliSpec can learn.

Clearly you're completely wrong.

Prove it. Two hand to hand forms, much like two races or two skills, sharing the same name, does not mean they can not coexist as separate entities.

New editions of Rifts books are fast-forwarding the timeline. What this means is that with the new post-SoT edition of CWC aligned with RUE, the Coalition is teaching a **** version of Commando. Pre-SoT RMB era, they were teaching a superior form of it, and that's what the NPCs all had in SoT.

It's called an update. In the new book, they decided that techno-warriors should be able to take HtH Commando.

The new version of the Techno-Warrior in RUE (a separate OCC from the version in Rifts Canada, who still exists) can't take Jujutsu but can take the new inferior RUEcommando skill. But they can't take the original pre-SoT CWC version of it.

If it whets the appetite any, Pg126 of N&SS under -Attack 3 / Initiative Loser Attacks- mentions "he is out of Melee Attacks. All he can do is use automatic defenses!"

That sounds like it applies only to the realm of N&SS and not the realm of Rifts.

Wrong, it's a Megaversal rules system. RUE trumps N&SS when there's a conflict but this is merely a compliment.

Rifts runs them differently only so far as CB1 says it does.

Wrong. We have a precedent of new books, like R:UE doing things differently.

RUE only makes differences where it explicitly contradicts things. RUE mentions nothing about the conversion notations in CB1 regarding N&SS as no longer applying, therefore they still apply.

You make it seem like RUE/SoT/Aftermath/Juicer Uprising saying the 4 Horsemen were defeated means that players can no longer fight them.

That logic being that when you play Rifts, you use Rifts rules. Just as when you play N&SS, you use N&SS rules. You don't use rules from other settings; you take content from settings and apply the rules from the setting you are using.

Wrong, it's a megaversal rules system, they are interchangeable. If you're importing N&SS content you can import N&SS rules with it, which is what CB1 describes doing.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying we should apply NASS autododge rules to non-NASS stuff.

What's next, NASS arts can no longer add their 'leap' bonus to leap attacks because there is no such thing as a leap bonus in Rifts?

There are leaps in Rifts. Your example is invalid.

Rifts has a 'leap attack', but as Rifts hand to hand forms lack a 'leap' bonus and lack 'leap' described in the combat section as somethin you can use to change ranges, and also lacks the notation about adding the leap bonus to leap attacks.

That lack doesn't mean the NASS rules about the leap bonus from N&SS forms being added to leap attacks no longer applies.

N&SS describes many moves that RMB/RUE never even mention. Thus we must incorporate NASS rules for NASS content. Your logic of something necessarily being in RUE to apply doesn't count.

a different base and advancement make the skill different

Wrong. Pg.299 under Selecting Skills calls them "duplicates", of which may have varying advancements.

The Acrobatics/Gymnastics note in the left column calls them "similar abilities" before "duplicated skill ability". The abilities are still different, you keep track of them differently. You're making a false analogy here. Different versions of prowl in different game books is not the same as 2 physical skills in the same game book giving different percentiles of rope climbing or whatever.

[Dog_O_War]

The GMG and most combat rules that where out before it are over written by RUE. RUE was an attempt to update and fix the rule system.

RUE only overwrites RMB and GMG where they contradict each other. RUE's reprinting of 'costs an attack' does not override GMG's "next attack" clarification.

That's what an override does

If you did a twin-strike then wouldn't that make you incapable of parrying at all, much less parrying 2 opponents?

Does it say that? or does it say on page 346, R:UE, under Paired Weapons that,"...a twin, simultaneous strike with both weapons means losing the automatic parry..."?/rhetorical.

I don't understand your rhetorical tag, if you don't want me to answer a question then don't ask it.

The tag was there because the answer to this question was the answer to your question. It didn't need answering because I provided the answer in the question.

You're wrong here Dog. A term being defined one way in general does not mean that is always what the term means.

No I am not. The more I read your responses to posts the more I am coming to understand that you simply don't. Understand that is. I say something, to which you don't understand. I try and clarify it for you and you fight the clarification. I put forth a quote (just like above) and you "don't understand". I am literally having to spell everything out for you because you're not getting it.

"Simultaneous" or "simulaneously" does not necessarily mean your specific "simultaneous attack". The use of the phrase "twin simultaneous strike" would be one example of that. The ability of a superhero to coordinate a fleet of toy airplanes to shoot you as a single combined strike is ALSO a simultaneous attack (relative to each other's timing).

Again. Wrong. A Simultaneous Attack in Rifts is one thing and one thing only.
The reason, the fact of this is in the question,"which of the planes will make their roll to strike first?"
The answer being (while it doesn't matter), what matters is that one must be first and one must be last, resulting in the defacto removal of word "simultaneous" from that equation.

Simultaneous simply means happening at the same time, not necessarily ignoring initiative order.

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

Otherwise, one attack happens before the other.

Missiles rarely, if ever, attack.

Smart missiles do, as they're guided by an AI. If something can dodge independently then it's fair to say it's attacking independently.

It's like you didn't read what I said.
Rarely.
Smart missiles are exceptionally rare; and of the smart missiles, very few have weapons beyond themselves running into something.

HUpg80 "missiles do not enjoy the pilot's combined bonuses to strike. Since they are all self-guided, missiles are launched as separate units with their own bonus of +3 top strike. Mini-missiles are usually unguided". I imagine RUE has similar descriptions.

Do you actually know the difference between a guided missile and a smart missile?

You keep saying this (the bolded portion); it has nothing do to with "automatic" defences. The rule does not mention them; it only mentions Parry itself, without the automatic part.

I'm failing to see the distinction you're getting at here.

I know, and it makes me sad.

You're eliminating the other options of what it could mean.

I eliminate potentials which are not adequately sourced.

You keep bringing up examples with the word "automatic" in them; your own source is inadequate because Rifts does not continuously make use of that word.

Yes, but to classify a rule as wrong you need good backing for it. You paint me as some stubborn guy who can't accept a typo clarified in errata or something. I can, but it needs to be sourced.

There has rarely, if ever been an errata officially printed by Palladium concerning rules.
And thus-far, you seem to want to cling to the notion that there are multiple definitions of rules and the like within Rifts, yet you're not producing anything of that nature.

Also, you're using that word, "automatic" again. Does the rule say "automatic"? The answer is, no - it does not.

Wrong, the rules do specify that 'automatic' is the key thing here. In spite of what you may think, something does not have to be printed in RUE to be canon. Clarifications from the Rifter FAQs (which were for the most part also in the GMG, sometimes Book of Magic or FoM, etc) are also proper canon.

If we're talking Rifts it does.
And coincidentally, we are talking Rifts.

Rifter16pg19 clarifies that when someone is out of attacks, the smart thing to do is parry since it doesn't cost an attack. It also clarifies that auto-dodging is an option. These are allowed because they are automatic defenses.

Even your example is wrong. And bad.
All it does it state that "it is the smart thing to do because it's free" which isn't true in all cases, making this a non-clarification.

You seem to think that RUE's phrasing would disallow automatic body flips when out of actions. That same rationale would also except automatic dodges, since they aren't mention as being possible either (just auto parries and normal dodges).

No. I do not think that. At all. I never have stated as such.
Check your facts.

this is where you are wrong then. Rifts does not make the distinction with the word, "automatic". Parry states whether it is automatic or not. The note under Combat Sequence does not discriminate. Nor do most other sections.

If you mean the part about OOA borrow-dodging, even if it doesn't explicitly say auto-parry, it doesn't give allowance for action-borrowing to pay the cost of parrying for non-combatants so it's still functionally forbidden. Though obviously I think any sensible GM would allow action-borrowing for parrying for those lacking autoparry in the same way it's allowed for dodging.

Wrong. The book doesn't say what you can't do very often, remember?

By that logic, the 'Sky King' vanished from the entirety of Rifts Earth simply because RUE didn't reprint it. That's silly.

That is a standard of doing things across the industry. It's not "my logic".

If you are ascribing to that logic, it is most definitely your logic.

It's like you don't know the definition of the word.
If something is an industry standard; then it is in practice and there need not be any logic to it.
For example, the industry standard could be to wear purple on tuesdays, but that does not mean that it has/had a logical reason to it.
Logic is how we make sense of something. I have an idea, a "logic" as to why the industry does what it does, but that does not mean it is the industries' logic, nor that the industries' logic is my own.

If we lacked the 'Book of Magic' would that mean that spells from RMB not reprinted in RUE no longer exist?

Yes.

Would the 4 kinds of dragons in RMB cease to exist in RUE if they were not reprinted in CB1/D+G? Do you know how absurd this sounds?

Yes. But please, tell me how absurd redacts and edits to an evolving game sound.

Simply put; if you want an example of a redact/edit, then ask yourself - how many rounds of boomgun ammo does a Gitterboy have? Therein lies the reason and the proof that they exist within Palladium books.

There's a difference between new rules or materials overriding previous stuff when they conflict and a lack of reprint meaning something no longer exists in the world of that game. What's next, you think because the traditional Headhunter OCC from Rifts was replaced with a variation of the Techno-Warrior from Rifts Canada that suddenly that OCC doesn't exist either? That every headhunter NPC is suddenly a techno-warrior NPC? Doesn't work that way.

Seems to me that you never actually read the Rifts Canada book.
Those are literally labelled as head-hunter variants on the Techno-Warrior.

RUE did not erase the Sky King. Space limitations often mean omissions, but omissions in later editions do not erase things from reality unless they explicitly say they're erased.

Do you even know what an omission is?
For example, if the motor company Ford has a line of trucks called the F150. There are various models throughout the years; there is a 2013 model. There are also older models.
Those older models may not have a colour option that a newer model does.
That is called an edit of old material.
The flip side to this is that the newer model may not have a colour option that an older model had. That is also an edit.

Now say that when they produce their 2014 model, but they forget to include an engine in the thing. The engine is clearly supposed to be there, but for whatever reason, it was omitted.

Now say that when 2015 rolls around, they don't produce an F150 model. That is not an omission; Ford did not "forget" to copy-pasta the F150 into 2015 - they edited it out. Period.

a universal rule, as opposed to a new version of a skill.

That's the same damn thing.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I know.

This theory of yours has been proven wrong by the updated CWC. Given this information, you need to re-think your whole position; because as it stands, the precedent is that there are not "two versions" there are simply the old version, and the new version which overrides the old one.

CWC printings share the same name. RMB and RUE have different names. So no, it's not a straight-out override.

Now you're being obstinate.
It is a simple fact that yes, it is a straight-out override.

There's also a difference between changing a fundamental rule and simply giving different versions of OCCs or skills. RUE's new dragons didn't erase RMB's old dragons from existence. Nor did the Techno-Warrior erase the traditional headhunter. RUE is a supplement even though it serves as a core rulebook.

For one, it's obvious you don't check your facts because the traditional Head-Hunter is the Techno-Warrior.
For two, I never said that R:UE erased them from existance; I said that they existed once, but are no longer a part of Rifts. They are dinosaurs to the modern era; we can see their bones, but they do not live any longer.

For three, you're now saying that a main book is also its own supplement.

As for the different versions of HtH:Commando, I treat that as separate hand to hand skills with the same name.

That's great. I hear that KS encourages people to house-rule their games.

Clearly this new type of inferior HtHcommando is a 'lite' version which classic main book OCCs like the Crazy/Headhunter/MiliSpec can learn.

Clearly you're completely wrong.

Prove it.

It has been proven. The newest version of the CWC shows the evidence. You've already been provided with the evidence by another poster here.
If you cannot accept that fact, then you are not here to discuss, but rather simply to argue.

It's called an update. In the new book, they decided that techno-warriors should be able to take HtH Commando.

The new version of the Techno-Warrior in RUE (a separate OCC from the version in Rifts Canada, who still exists) can't take Jujutsu but can take the new inferior RUEcommando skill. But they can't take the original pre-SoT CWC version of it.

*facepalm*

If it whets the appetite any, Pg126 of N&SS under -Attack 3 / Initiative Loser Attacks- mentions "he is out of Melee Attacks. All he can do is use automatic defenses!"

That sounds like it applies only to the realm of N&SS and not the realm of Rifts.

Wrong, it's a Megaversal rules system. RUE trumps N&SS when there's a conflict but this is merely a compliment.

*facepalm*
There is a conflict; when someone is out of melee attacks, they can do more than just "automatic defences". This would make you wrong. Again.

That logic being that when you play Rifts, you use Rifts rules. Just as when you play N&SS, you use N&SS rules. You don't use rules from other settings; you take content from settings and apply the rules from the setting you are using.

Wrong, it's a megaversal rules system, they are interchangeable. If you're importing N&SS content you can import N&SS rules with it, which is what CB1 describes doing.

No.
You don't even know what a megaversal rules system is, apparently.
A megaversal system is supposed to be one ruleset for all the settings across the megaverse. How you are interpreting it is that "you apply another setting's rules to characters from that setting regardless of whatever setting they are currently in". You are also interpreting older versions of Rifts now as their own setting, what with this "two versions of HtH commando" nonsense.

By your logic, I could create a Rifts character from the old version and have all the rules apply from the old setting because "that's where he's from".
It's a laughable proposition that lacks any factual basis.

a different base and advancement make the skill different

Wrong. Pg.299 under Selecting Skills calls them "duplicates", of which may have varying advancements.

The Acrobatics/Gymnastics note in the left column calls them "similar abilities" before "duplicated skill ability". The abilities are still different, you keep track of them differently. You're making a false analogy here.

No. It quite literally states that you use the better of the two. It does not state that "you keep track of them differently". No false analogy, only a lack of understanding on your part.



Tor, your argues lack both fact and a sound, logical basis. At every turn I am able to provide facts, definitions, and counter-arguments to anything and everything you're saying.

The flip-side to this is that you do not fact-check and often do not understand even the most obvious inferences I make, leaving me to spell out even the simplest of ideas. I am not insulting you here; I am explaining in a straight-forward manner that you need to read more on the topic and the topic's setting before we could even possibly consider continuing here.

It is not for my benefit, but yours.

[Tor]

Edit 1: have to fix up some quote tags, realized I was writing like I was responding to myself near the end there.
Edit 2: forgot to close a quote tag, messy section in middle

Rethinking this, with how extensive the discussion is, perhaps if we're going to keep discussing stuff like Commando, automatic body flips, HtH updates, perhaps it should be in a new thread? The link is there but it seems to be wavering away from the root of the discussion about pairedWP/auto-parry/SA.

That's what an override does

Not a world of difference, not filled with shame over a consonant sound.

The tag was there because the answer to this question was the answer to your question. It didn't need answering because I provided the answer in the question.

Cool. Would've been more concise to just state the contrary then =/

No I am not. The more I read your responses to posts the more I am coming to understand that you simply don't. Understand that is. I say something, to which you don't understand. I try and clarify it for you and you fight the clarification.

A heck of a long way to convey disagreement without supporting your allegation. I've provided numerous examples of same-named things in Palladium which are clearly different, supporting the capacity for coexistence. Where's your evidence of coexistence impossibility?

I put forth a quote (just like above) and you "don't understand". I am literally having to spell everything out for you because you're not getting it.

You're being asked to spell things out because your arguments read like opinions. The term 'simultaneous' (and even descriptions of attacks of that nature) does not merely cover the defense-sacrificing combat maneuver, but other means by which attacks can launch/land at the same moment. It is what occurs if something happens during the same initiative turn. Twin strikes and toy salvos. That's actually the only means I can think off off-hand, so there may only be 3.

A Simultaneous Attack in Rifts is one thing and one thing only.

You're uppercasing the A I take it to be overly specific. You're moving the goalposts here.

Backtracking a bit, I asked you this:

Even in rare instances when you can simultaneously time an attack from multiple sources to a single target (the minor power in PU1 of Toy Control comes to mind, since you can have a squad of planes fire simultaneously against your enemy) I'm not sure why someone's auto-parry or auto-dodge couldn't continue to work against all those attacks.

your reply:

If 10 opponents attacked you at once, it is not exactly a simultaneous attack because that is a game mechanic [to simultaneous attack].

If a toy controller is controlling 10 planes or 10 teddy bears as a unit, they all attack on the controller's initiative but with multiple strike rolls. It isn't 10 opponents, but it IS 10 simultaneous attacks. Much like a volley of missiles is a simultaneous attack from 2 or more exploding projectiles. I suppose we could even look at bursts this way. A twin strike is also a simultaneous attack because the book describes it as one. Whether or not it is uppercased is quite immaterial because outside of the combat glossary (and even within it, looking past the bolded titles) all those moves are otherwise described using lowercase. So I really wish you'd cease the uppercasing for effect, that's just presentation. It's not like "Nostrous Dunscon" where it's an actual name that's uppercased no matter what.

the fact of this is in the question,"which of the planes will make their roll to strike first?" The answer being (while it doesn't matter), what matters is that one must be first and one must be last, resulting in the defacto removal of word "simultaneous" from that equation.

Incorrect, because the same logic applies to someone using the more well known simultaneous attack. Even though the attacks occur at the same time, rolls obviously can't be made at the same time. I guess in some games players might roll dice together, but usually 1 stops rolling first. If you're thinking 2 players can roll together, then 1 player could roll multiple dice simultaneously for 2+ planes.

I don't know if you've read Toy Control but it clearly says "exactly the same move at the same time in unison". That is a simultaneous attack from a team of units controlled by a single mind. I think you're confusing game-time (plane time) with meta-time (ours).

Simultaneous simply means happening at the same time, not necessarily ignoring initiative order.

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

In our (meta) time yes we tend to roll at different times. The game makes it pretty explicit that they happen simultaneously though.

I guess there's 2 ways we could interpret the meaning of that word though. We could take it to mean 'begins and ends at the same times' (exactly the same time) or more broadly 'the times overlap' (some of the same time). Based on how the concept of choice is role-played I can see liking the latter better. In that case though, anything that is the former would also qualify for the latter. The say Toy Control is worded, it would be both former AND latter. Twin striking also seems to be a case of that.

Smart missiles are exceptionally rare; and of the smart missiles, very few have weapons beyond themselves running into something.

Far as I can tell only mini-missiles specifically are not self-targetting, although smart missiles would be a specific kind of superior self-targetter who can also dodge and strike more reliably.

Do you actually know the difference between a guided missile and a smart missile?

Yes, but arguably even a mere self-guided non-smart is still somewhat intelligent if not 'smart' intelligent.

I know, and it makes me sad.

Description of confusion is an invitation to explanation not posturing.

You keep bringing up examples with the word "automatic" in them; your own source is inadequate because Rifts does not continuously make use of that word.

Rifts doesn't need to, Megaversally compatible system.

There has rarely, if ever been an errata officially printed by Palladium concerning rules.

Printed is irrelevant. Errata is official so long as Palladium presents it unless they specify it as non-official. Favouring printing over online when conflicts arise doesn't mean we discard online when no other answer is present.

you seem to want to cling to the notion that there are multiple definitions of rules and the like within Rifts, yet you're not producing anything of that nature.

Within the Megaverse, which Rifts is part of.

you're using that word, "automatic" again. Does the rule say "automatic"? The answer is, no - it does not.

something does not have to be printed in RUE to be canon.

If we're talking Rifts it does. And coincidentally, we are talking Rifts.[/quote]Last I checked, the Rifts Game Master Guide also has 'Rifts' on it.

Also no, something doesn't have to be present in RUE for it to be canon to Rifts. That's silly.

Rifter16pg19 clarifies that when someone is out of attacks, the smart thing to do is parry since it doesn't cost an attack. It also clarifies that auto-dodging is an option. These are allowed because they are automatic defenses.

Even your example is wrong. And bad. All it does it state that "it is the smart thing to do because it's free" which isn't true in all cases, making this a non-clarification.

If using an auto-dodge when you are out of attacks means it is the 'smart thing to do' that means it is possible to use an autododge when you are out of attacks.

Even though RUE only specifies auto-parries and dodges that cost attacks. So either RUE eliminated the option to auto-dodge, or it did not list every possible option. Which is it to you and why?

You seem to think that RUE's phrasing would disallow automatic body flips when out of actions.

No. I do not think that. At all. I never have stated as such. Check your facts.

Odd, well I could've sworn someone was arguing against it.

this is where you are wrong then. Rifts does not make the distinction with the word, "automatic". Parry states whether it is automatic or not. The note under Combat Sequence does not discriminate. Nor do most other sections.

If you mean the part about OOA borrow-dodging, even if it doesn't explicitly say auto-parry, it doesn't give allowance for action-borrowing to pay the cost of parrying for non-combatants so it's still functionally forbidden. Though obviously I think any sensible GM would allow action-borrowing for parrying for those lacking autoparry in the same way it's allowed for dodging.

Wrong. The book doesn't say what you can't do very often, remember?

That is a standard of doing things across the industry. It's not "my logic".

If you are ascribing to that logic, it is most definitely your logic.

It's like you don't know the definition of the word. If something is an industry standard; then it is in practice and there need not be any logic to it.

I'm well aware of the meaning of the phrase 'industry standard'. A standard of doing things has logical components, all policies do. Standards are sets of requirements and instructions which can be broken down into logical expectations.

For example, the industry standard could be to wear purple on tuesdays, but that does not mean that it has/had a logical reason to it.

Wrong, the logical reason behind it (whether or not I agreed with the validity of the logic) would be whatever historical precedents led up to that choice. Are you trying to get at some kind of 'bad logic is no logic' type thing here?

Logic is how we make sense of something. I have an idea, a "logic" as to why the industry does what it does, but that does not mean it is the industries' logic, nor that the industries' logic is my own.

If you state an industry's logic as fact, above and beyond conveying your opinion of what a standard is, then you are embracing the logic as your own. This is what you did when you said "when they reprint books and leave something out, it is as good as an edit; the previous information no longer applies."

If you were merely describing another's belief you would say "according to industry standards as I perceive them" or something. Also unless these are drawn up somewhere, it's merely an approximation what you think the standards are.

If we lacked the 'Book of Magic' would that mean that spells from RMB not reprinted in RUE no longer exist?

Yes.

I really don't know what to say to this. Where does RUE support this outlook of completely erasing all previously printed book materials? Where is this stated to be Palladium's industry standard?

Would the 4 kinds of dragons in RMB cease to exist in RUE if they were not reprinted in CB1/D+G? Do you know how absurd this sounds?

Yes. But please, tell me how absurd redacts and edits to an evolving game sound.

Something between a cough, a whine and a whimper I imagine.

if you want an example of a redact/edit, then ask yourself - how many rounds of boomgun ammo does a Gitterboy have? Therein lies the reason and the proof that they exist within Palladium books.

Operators did it

Seems to me that you never actually read the Rifts Canada book. Those are literally labelled as head-hunter variants on the Techno-Warrior.

I've the first printing, beginning at 107 it collectively describes them as "headhunter OCCs" and techno-warrior as just the most common type. Could you direct me to where it mentions the Assassin/ARS/Hound/Momano are listed as variants of the Warrior? You've got me wondering if this was something added in a later printing or if I missed some flavour text the implied something deviating from the OCC list presentation.

Do you even know what an omission is?

Yes. Omissions can be intentional or accidental. They can occur because you want something out of the game, or simply because you ran out of space and wanted to prioritize presenting other material. I would appreciate less talking-down to opposition here. I see you taking some special meaning from absence, when really absence can mean things other than what you are assuming it means.

For example, if the motor company Ford has a line of trucks called the F150. There are various models throughout the years; there is a 2013 model. There are also older models. Those older models may not have a colour option that a newer model does. That is called an edit of old material. The flip side to this is that the newer model may not have a colour option that an older model had. That is also an edit. Now say that when they produce their 2014 model, but they forget to include an engine in the thing. The engine is clearly supposed to be there, but for whatever reason, it was omitted.

Omissions are not limited to essential components. They can include options too. Limited space to reprint options doesn't mean the options never existed or can't exist in RUEality.

Now say that when 2015 rolls around, they don't produce an F150 model. That is not an omission; Ford did not "forget" to copy-pasta the F150 into 2015 - they edited it out. Period.

not sure what you're saying here.

I know.

In the future must I be more direct and repeat the obviously implied "please explain yourself better" to avoid these useless replies? Should think it obvious I'm not merely communicating this to have it acknowledged. In fact: no, you don't know, your belief that I don't understand you is an assumption depending upon my honesty But in the goodwill of believing in that, extending goodwill to inform is cool.

CWC printings share the same name. RMB and RUE have different names. So no, it's not a straight-out override.

Now you're being obstinate. It is a simple fact that yes, it is a straight-out override.

It can be interpreted both ways. There is no reason why we can't have both versions of Commando. It doesn't interfere with game mechanics to have separate HtH skills with the same name. In fact, to simply retcon reality would upset games more. NPCs who have been played with autoflip suddenly losing it? It's absurd.

it's obvious you don't check your facts because the traditional Head-Hunter is the Techno-Warrior.

No, it isn't. The traditional Headhunter is in RMB. They're altogether suckier than the Techno-Warrior (fewer skills). They could all fly jet packs (some Warriors can opt to hovercycle instead) and could opt to learn 5 ancient weapons and no modern ones (Techno-Warriors must all know modern weapons). The Techno-Warrior's clearly the closest thing to the original Headhunter and obviously based on him with some soup-ups though if that's what you mean.

never said that R:UE erased them from existance; I said that they existed once, but are no longer a part of Rifts. They are dinosaurs to the modern era; we can see their bones, but they do not live any longer.

I thought it clear I mean 'game existence', not sure if you're thinking I meant 'our existence' or not. Are you meaning that there can be non-Techno-Warrior traditional RMB Headhunter NPCs but that playerss can no longer create PCs with that OCC anymore or something?

For three, you're now saying that a main book is also its own supplement.

No, I'm saying RUE is a supplement to the original main book, not that it is a supplement to itself. Supplements can serve as main books. After the Bomb was redesigned as a main rules book, but I still consider it a TMNT supplement, because that's what the setting was and is, even though we can't reprint the TMNT books anymore.

As for the different versions of HtH:Commando, I treat that as separate hand to hand skills with the same name.

That's great. I hear that KS encourages people to house-rule their games.

Not a house rule, nothing in the new CWCs (or RUE) says I can't use the previously printed HtH Commando. There's a difference between correcting a typo and coming out with optional new OCC and skill versions.

It has been proven. The newest version of the CWC shows the evidence. You've already been provided with the evidence by another poster here.

Another poster notified me of the new Commando skill, not any evidence that the old one no longer can be selected.

If you cannot accept that fact, then you are not here to discuss, but rather simply to argue.

Please do not dictate to me the reasons I am communicating with you. Drop what debates you like but that rudeness is inappropriate.

The new version of the Techno-Warrior in RUE (a separate OCC from the version in Rifts Canada, who still exists) can't take Jujutsu but can take the new inferior RUEcommando skill. But they can't take the original pre-SoT CWC version of it.

*facepalm* *facepalm*

Why do you even bother replying at all if you have nothing to add?

There is a conflict; when someone is out of melee attacks, they can do more than just "automatic defences". This would make you wrong. Again.

If you want to make a link to other hypothetical wrongness, be specific. Of course that would still be irrelevant. If you spend more time focusing on proving people wrong and less time on your imagination-tallies, discussion would be more compact.

There is no conflict because dodge-borrowing was an added option, adding options beyond automatic defenses is not a conflict, it's a new ability. There's a difference between adding a new ability and the idea that neglecting to mention old abilities erases their possibility.

No. You don't even know what a megaversal rules system is, apparently.

We have a difference of opinion over what the term means. I think we both get the gist of it, but are quibbling over a minor detail of its implementation. So I don't see the need for your continued broad insults which are incredibly disrespectful of your opponent's obvious knowledge of the product lines.

A megaversal system is supposed to be one ruleset for all the settings across the megaverse. How you are interpreting it is that "you apply another setting's rules to characters from that setting regardless of whatever setting they are currently in".

I'm interpreting that not because of the Megaversal system, but because CB1 has a specific note about carrying over N&SS abilities intact, and because they wouldn't make much sense relative to each other if we simply subbed in Rifts rules.

You are also interpreting older versions of Rifts now as their own setting, what with this "two versions of HtH commando" nonsense.

Not nonsense, they're different skills now. This isn't just a minor adjustment or typo that can be ignored. The original was something Headhunters and Crazies could not have, it was a superior skill. Reality can't simply be retconned. The new version can have always applied to new games that are run from the new system and stats from the get-go, but it can't apply retroactively to campaigns that were run prior to that, or campaigns that begin running on the older source material. Auto-flipping NPCs exist, existed, and they were canon, and must always be canon, for any gaming continuity to exist. Two skills is the only solution to the dilemma. They can either co-exist in 1 reality (evolving or devolving forms) or can be explained away as different realities.

We already know different very similar versions of realities exist (transdimensional TMNT and England make this clear) so what's the problem?

By your logic, I could create a Rifts character from the old version and have all the rules apply from the old setting because "that's where he's from". It's a laughable proposition that lacks any factual basis.

You could, if you treat them as two Earths, which there is a supporting basis for doing. Do you fear it would cause some kind of crisis?

It quite literally states that you use the better of the two. It does not state that "you keep track of them differently".

It doesn't have to, you still have to keep track of them both. Players can lose skills sometimes, and if you lost the one that provided the greater sub-skill you would have to revert to the inferior one.

No false analogy, only a lack of understanding on your part.

Incorrect, you're making a false analogy because the comparisons you're making are too different. Climb provided by Acro/Gym in 1 book isn't the same as 2 Prowl percentiles in 2 different skill lists.

Tor, your argues lack both fact and a sound, logical basis. At every turn I am able to provide facts, definitions, and counter-arguments to anything and everything you're saying.

Not as I see it, I note you spending more time insisting on this than in addressing the criticisms given. The 'protest too much' meme comes to mind.

you do not fact-check and often do not understand even the most obvious inferences I make, leaving me to spell out even the simplest of ideas.

The inferences have to be supported. A lot of the time I understand your ideas but don't think them indicated well enough.

you need to read more on the topic and the topic's setting before we could even possibly consider continuing here. It is not for my benefit, but yours.

By 'read the topic's setting' you mean to imply I don't read Rifts? I've read a lot of Rifts. It is clearly for your benefit to insult your opponent and mislead readers to pretend as if they don't know the material, if the purpose of doing so is to win.

[Damian Magecraft]

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

Otherwise, one attack happens before the other.

you are now trying to argue semantics to support your view.
It does bring your entire stance into question at this point.
It seems as if your entire logic chain hinges on fragile links of this sort.
No wonder you are garnering such vehement opposition.
I see how you could arrive at such a conclusion but it looks to me as if you started with the conclusion (possibly subconsciously but none the less...) and worked towards interpreting the data to arrive at that conclusion.

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

[Tor]

To get back to the basics here, was thumbing through CB1's section (on page 10) preceding its combat example (might be neat to make a cross-Palladium list of all books/pages with combat examples sometime) and it had some neat statements:

"In many cases, one opponent will have a greater number of attacks" .. "This teeter-totter exchange will continue until suddenly, a flurry of blows are swung and/or landed and the guy on the receiving end has no hope of returning the attack" .. "Next melee, the character who has just weathered the flurry of attacks without being able to strike back, regains his composure and is able to strike back" (my bolding for emphasis)

Clearly doesn't sound like something which allows for simultaneous attacks.

This was before dodge-borrowing was instated (the example mentions the cyber-knight only has the option of parrying or taking the hit, not dodging) so I understand the argument here is that the instation of dodge-borrowing is being interpreted as instating SA-borrowing too.

Also interesting is the CK's parry is described as an "automatic combat reflex action". Neat catch-all term alternative. The way it's phrased, it strongly seems like it being an ACRA is the reason why you can parry when out of attacks. Auto-dodge and auto-flips would also be ACRAs.

If we could simply do a SA whenever we could dodge, we could presumably SA without spending attacks by subbing it for an auto-dodge too, though. The counter-argument being that dodge/auto-dodge don't have as much in common (anymore) as parry/auto-parry?

I guess I see RUE's dodge-borrowing thing as some kind of "panic evasion" (if we have to call it something). Presumably they get some burst of speed which allows them to exceed their normal limits in acting (defensively) but it leaves them disoriented, explaining the loss of attacks in the following melee as they compose themselves. Such panic reflex couldn't work in any other capacity (not even parrying or flipping, much less attacking) because those are more complex and less instinctive actions than dodging is.

Dodging being the most instinctive beyond-training action is seen in RUEpg347 where at level 3, it is the first (well, only) maneuver you get a bonus to. That's why it gets the unique treatment and exception to action limitations.