Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

[Killer Cyborg]

My facts are fairly accurate given that the things that do not refer to it are not trained they use instinctual abilities. As the topic is combat training those that are not trained are not related to the topic.

Not sure who you're talking about, but xiticix have WPs, which means that they have combat training.

And I'm pretty sure it'd be easy to come up with a dozen more examples of creatures that have combat training, that don't use the "no HTH skill" chart, and that don't have any HTH skill.

If you honestly think I'm wrong, let me know--I'll grab a book or two.
If you don't think I'm wrong, then acknowledge the point and adjust your premise accordingly.

Typically races that have no hand to hand are not trained to fight but fighting is a natural skill for them.
So they have no training.

a) That's not a yes or a no. Are you trying to say that you think I'm right, or that I'm wrong?
Again, if you think I can't find examples, I'll grab my books.
But commit to your claim that I'm not going to find anything.
b) "Typically" would mean that there are exceptions. Which indicates that you think I'm right, that there are examples out there.
Which leaves me curious why you're so strongly hanging onto your stance that HTH combat is the basis for combat training.

The skill may provide combat training, but that does not magically make them something trained, and as they are some what special cases as they are not trained but fight naturally, they are not relevant to a discussion on what training.

Sounds like you're saying that they have combat training, but they're not combat trained.

[Killer Cyborg]

RAI is not a standard.

Sure it is.

It is a personal opinion at best and subjective headcanon at worst.

Sorry, but the writers intent trumps their typing and writing mistakes.

Especially when claiming that RAI allows one to claim that the RAW is wrong and that the rules don't actually mean what they say.

Who invaded Spain in the 8th century?
a) The Moors
b) The Moops

I am sorry but this post amounts to a claim that what some one thinks the writers intended trumps what is in writing.

No. It's a claim that what the writers intend trumps what is in writing.

The question you put at the end is basically a straw man.

Tell me what you think a "straw man" is, and how it applies to this situation.
Because all I'm doing is addressing the RAI vs RAW argument, and asking you guys if RAW is always correct.

[Prysus]

Here is the problem people are making, they think combat training is training for war. However combat training is really training to fight. A duel is 1 on 1 combat. A bare knuckle bar fight is hand to hand combat. While war may be combat not all combat is war. (In rifts there are several groups that fight with hand to hand tactics a Roman legionary with MDC equipment would be able to fight on the front lines with or against such foes. In Warhammer several units are melee units fighting in a battle with bolters(modern guns) and laser weapons.)

So a Roman Legionary would still have combat training today even if you would not use him in a modern army with his training.

Greetings and Salutations. Not entirely accurate. I think most people here understand that not all combat is war. However, as you say, war is a type of combat. The trick becomes figuring out which version of combat is being discussed. For example, discussing "combat" regarding a militia (such as the case with Juicer Uprising) I would argue that does not generally discuss one on one duels. The fact they include W.P. Energy Pistol and W.P. Energy Rifle also indicates this does not discuss only hand to hand combat, even though that too is a type of combat. So what kind of combat do you think would be referred to if we factor in training a militia in hand to hand, W.P. Energy Pistol, and W.P. Energy Rifle? I'm not going to argue over this, but I'd strongly disagree if you think militia combat is about training for 1 on 1 duels and bare knuckle bar fights. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Blue_Lion]

The way I see it we have 3 basic statements in question being used to form a working definition of combat training.

RUE PG 326. A statement about W.P.
"Note:each W.P. provides combat training with a particular type of weapon."
*That basically means to be considered combat trained with a weapon you need a WP, it does not state the level of training it provides.

RUE PG 347 A statement about what basic combat training does.
"Note: Basic combat training enables a charter to use any basic/common attacks, including Punch, Elebow, Kick, Knee, Disarm, Dodge, entangle, Body Block,/Tackle, Body Flip/throw and pull punch-but no special moves or martial arts attacks such as Automatic doedge, back flip, holds, karate punches, Leap kick or other moves."
*That is saying basic combat training does/allows and places limits on it. (that sounds like a working definition of basic combat training that can be used to sort between different levels of training.)

Then we have the quote from juicer uprising. That ammounts to saying-
*A group with the skills Hand to Hand: basic, WP e-pistol, and WP e-rifle.
(That to me sounds like an example of a group with basic combat training, but people are claiming it is the definition.)
Holding that as a definition to me like saying the US army has elite fighting forces (Green Berets/special forces, and rangers) and then claiming that every army must have Rangers and Green Berets/special forces to have an elite fighting force.

Now then as we now have a minimal requirements of basic combat training in RUE that (it has to enable a charter to do the attacks listed) we can use raw to determine if a set WP is required to meet the requirements put forth.


Can a charter with no W.P. but hand to hand basic make the listed attacks? Yes.
That means to meet the working defintion the writters provided(not the example of a group) you do not need a WP.
However a WP will allow you to make common basic attacks with the weapon, IE aimed shot and called shot.

So the group in question(the example) likely included weapon training so the could arm there troops with weapons and expect them to know how to use them. But I do not see how a claim can be made that a group with and example of training should be used as the defintion when we have something that directly tells us what the training does.

[eliakon]

RAI is not a standard.

Sure it is.

It is a personal opinion at best and subjective headcanon at worst.

Sorry, but the writers intent trumps their typing and writing mistakes.

Especially when claiming that RAI allows one to claim that the RAW is wrong and that the rules don't actually mean what they say.

Who invaded Spain in the 8th century?
a) The Moors
b) The Moops

I am sorry but this post amounts to a claim that what some one thinks the writers intended trumps what is in writing.

No. It's a claim that what the writers intend trumps what is in writing.

The question you put at the end is basically a straw man.

Tell me what you think a "straw man" is, and how it applies to this situation.
Because all I'm doing is addressing the RAI vs RAW argument, and asking you guys if RAW is always correct.

No your not.
Your trying to present a typo as a rule.
This is about the RULES as written. Not blindly every last word as written. There is a difference.
If a rule is presented in a book, then claiming that the rule is, in fact wrong means you have a burden of proof to prove that.
In your example if the only piece of information extant on the 12th century is the one book, then yeah, your going to need some sort of source to say "oops they misspoke" because just because your head-canon is "no, I totally know its these guys the Moors. Never mind that no one has ever heard of them I know its true because I know it"
SO yeah... you want to claim that every single instance of the use of combat training in the book is a typo? Fine be my guest. Provide evidence for it. Because otherwise you are just claiming that your personal head-canon trumps the written canon because you say it does.
And that doesn't fly.

[Blue_Lion]

Here is the problem people are making, they think combat training is training for war. However combat training is really training to fight. A duel is 1 on 1 combat. A bare knuckle bar fight is hand to hand combat. While war may be combat not all combat is war. (In rifts there are several groups that fight with hand to hand tactics a Roman legionary with MDC equipment would be able to fight on the front lines with or against such foes. In Warhammer several units are melee units fighting in a battle with bolters(modern guns) and laser weapons.)

So a Roman Legionary would still have combat training today even if you would not use him in a modern army with his training.

Greetings and Salutations. Not entirely accurate. I think most people here understand that not all combat is war. However, as you say, war is a type of combat. The trick becomes figuring out which version of combat is being discussed. For example, discussing "combat" regarding a militia (such as the case with Juicer Uprising) I would argue that does not generally discuss one on one duels. The fact they include W.P. Energy Pistol and W.P. Energy Rifle also indicates this does not discuss only hand to hand combat, even though that too is a type of combat. So what kind of combat do you think would be referred to if we factor in training a militia in hand to hand, W.P. Energy Pistol, and W.P. Energy Rifle? I'm not going to argue over this, but I'd strongly disagree if you think militia combat is about training for 1 on 1 duels and bare knuckle bar fights. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Look at the statement people are presenting being ready for war as being combat trained and using that say if some one is not ready for the type of war in use at a time as not being combat trained. In the example of the roman legionary he would still be combat trained if he fell through time to today, he may not be trained for modern warfare but he is combat trained.

I was just trying to point out to the one making that claim, that it is incorrect to think of combat as just warfare or that warfare as the standard for combat training.(That is like claiming that only organized armies are trained to fight) Most PC groups will not be in constant large scale encounters with 100s on each side but small groups or gangs of foes will be more common.

[Killer Cyborg]

The way I see it we have 3 basic statements in question being used to form a working definition of combat training.

RUE PG 326. A statement about W.P.
"Note:each W.P. provides combat training with a particular type of weapon."
*That basically means to be considered combat trained with a weapon you need a WP, it does not state the level of training it provides.

Yup.

RUE PG 347 A statement about what basic combat training does.
"Note: Basic combat training enables a charter to use any basic/common attacks, including Punch, Elebow, Kick, Knee, Disarm, Dodge, entangle, Body Block,/Tackle, Body Flip/throw and pull punch-but no special moves or martial arts attacks such as Automatic doedge, back flip, holds, karate punches, Leap kick or other moves."
*That is saying basic combat training does/allows and places limits on it. (that sounds like a working definition of basic combat training that can be used to sort between different levels of training.)

Nope.

Then we have the quote from juicer uprising. That ammounts to saying-
*A group with the skills Hand to Hand: basic, WP e-pistol, and WP e-rifle.
(That to me sounds like an example of a group with basic combat training, but people are claiming it is the definition.)
Holding that as a definition to me like saying the US army has elite fighting forces (Green Berets/special forces, and rangers) and then claiming that every army must have Rangers and Green Berets/special forces to have an elite fighting force.

Notice how in order to "go by RAW," you have to change the wording?
That's not RAW.
Your paraphrasing might sound like an example, but the rules as written do not. Grammatically, they are NOT a list of examples; they are a specific set of three skills.
Now, you can argue that it was intended to be a list, but it's not one as written.

[Killer Cyborg]

RAI is not a standard.

Sure it is.

It is a personal opinion at best and subjective headcanon at worst.

Sorry, but the writers intent trumps their typing and writing mistakes.

Especially when claiming that RAI allows one to claim that the RAW is wrong and that the rules don't actually mean what they say.

Who invaded Spain in the 8th century?
a) The Moors
b) The Moops

I am sorry but this post amounts to a claim that what some one thinks the writers intended trumps what is in writing.

No. It's a claim that what the writers intend trumps what is in writing.

The question you put at the end is basically a straw man.

Tell me what you think a "straw man" is, and how it applies to this situation.
Because all I'm doing is addressing the RAI vs RAW argument, and asking you guys if RAW is always correct.

No your not.
Your trying to present a typo as a rule.
This is about the RULES as written. Not blindly every last word as written. There is a difference.

Nice dodge.

If a rule is presented in a book, then claiming that the rule is, in fact wrong means you have a burden of proof to prove that.

Agreed.

In your example if the only piece of information extant on the 12th century is the one book, then yeah, your going to need some sort of source to say "oops they misspoke" because just because your head-canon is "no, I totally know its these guys the Moors. Never mind that no one has ever heard of them I know its true because I know it"

See? Wasn't that hard to give an answer, was it?

SO yeah... you want to claim that every single instance of the use of combat training in the book is a typo?

Either quote where I said that, or quit saying that I said it, because I haven't.

[Blue_Lion]

RAI is not a standard.

Sure it is.

It is a personal opinion at best and subjective headcanon at worst.

Sorry, but the writers intent trumps their typing and writing mistakes.

Especially when claiming that RAI allows one to claim that the RAW is wrong and that the rules don't actually mean what they say.

Who invaded Spain in the 8th century?
a) The Moors
b) The Moops

I am sorry but this post amounts to a claim that what some one thinks the writers intended trumps what is in writing.

No. It's a claim that what the writers intend trumps what is in writing.

The question you put at the end is basically a straw man.

Tell me what you think a "straw man" is, and how it applies to this situation.
Because all I'm doing is addressing the RAI vs RAW argument, and asking you guys if RAW is always correct.

We can never Know what the writers intended only guess, that makes it subjective and impossible to make a unformed standard. We all have access to RAW, that makes it a uniformed standard, as every one has the same RAW.
(So a uniformed standard trumps some ones guess in rules.)

Your straw man is presenting a clear type-o not related to palladium rules in any way as an example of why you should have what you think the writers intent was trump what is writing as the standard. The straw man is hey some one over here made a type-o as it is unrelated. It did not use anything related to the topic just a clear example of a mistake presented to be easy demonstrated as such. (A unrelated/irrelevant point easily defeated=straw man.)

If you have evidence of a mistake in PB then that evidence allows for a uniformed standard to correct just that mistake not unrelated passages.

[Killer Cyborg]

We can never Know what the writers intended only guess,

So if KS tells us what he meant when he wrote something, that's only a guess?

that makes it subjective and impossible to make a unformed standard.

So...?

We all have access to RAW, that makes it a uniformed standard, as every one has the same RAW.
(So a uniformed standard trumps some ones guess in rules.)

Then explain how it is that you and I disagree about RAW.

The straw man is hey some one over here made a type-o as it is unrelated.

That's not what a straw man is.

It did not use anything related to the topic just a clear example of a mistake presented to be easy demonstrated as such. (A unrelated/irrelevant point easily defeated=straw man.)

I didn't make up an argument that you never said, then attack the argument.
I asked a question.
A question is not a straw man.

[eliakon]

So here is the question.
1) We have the book clearly state that certain things have been labeled as Combat Training.
2) Mages are clearly stated to have some of these things, or have access to them
3) The premise of this thread is that mages are not trained for combat, and thus by definition they can not have combat training.
4) This presents a contradiction. Either the book is right and the premise is wrong. Or the premise is wrong and the book is right.

So what, specifically, is the support for the claim that these are not really Combat Training?
Not some song and dance about Moops
Not some digression about how intent is valuable.
The specific, factual support for the claim that the written material is wrong and that there is thus any difference at all between RAI and RAW in the first place.

[Blue_Lion]

SO yeah... you want to claim that every single instance of the use of combat training in the book is a typo?

Either quote where I said that, or quit saying that I said it, because I haven't.

It is not that you said it but the use of a unrelated type-o to justify going off what you think it should be instead of what is in writing does seam to be the intent of the way you used it.
**If that was not your intent it just shows why we can not use RAI because I came to the same conclusion at what you trying to do.

[Killer Cyborg]

So here is the question.
1) We have the book clearly state that certain things have been labeled as Combat Training.
2) Mages are clearly stated to have some of these things, or have access to them
3) The premise of this thread is that mages are not trained for combat, and thus by definition they can not have combat training.
4) This presents a contradiction. Either the book is right and the premise is wrong. Or the premise is wrong and the book is right.

The premise of this thread is (and I quote directly)
"TL:DR
Mages who aren't combat trained are the exception, not the rule."

So what, specifically, is the support for the claim that these are not really Combat Training?

That depends on who made the claim, and in what context.
At this point, we've just devolved into arguing in which way mages are combat trained.
I say that they're combat trained as a rule because they have WPs as a rule, and Blue Lion seems to be claiming that HTH skills are the basis for combat training.
I don't know what the heck you're trying to say.

Not some song and dance about Moops

Don't try to claim that the written word is always superior to the intent, and I won't bring up moops.

Not some digression about how intent is valuable.

It's not a digression to bring up the only thing that gives RAW any meaning.

The specific, factual support for the claim that the written material is wrong and that there is thus any difference at all between RAI and RAW in the first place.

Huh?

[Killer Cyborg]

SO yeah... you want to claim that every single instance of the use of combat training in the book is a typo?

Either quote where I said that, or quit saying that I said it, because I haven't.

It is not that you said it but the use of a unrelated type-o to justify going off what you think it should be instead of what is in writing does seam to be the intent of the way you used it.
**If that was not your intent it just shows why we can not use RAI because I came to the same conclusion at what you trying to do.

All I was doing was discussing whether the intent of the writer ever takes priority over what is actually written.
I didn't say jack-all about "every single instance of the use of combat training in the books."
That's completely out of left field.

[Blue_Lion]

We can never Know what the writers intended only guess,

So if KS tells us what he meant when he wrote something, that's only a guess?

that makes it subjective and impossible to make a unformed standard.

So...?

We all have access to RAW, that makes it a uniformed standard, as every one has the same RAW.
(So a uniformed standard trumps some ones guess in rules.)

Then explain how it is that you and I disagree about RAW.

The straw man is hey some one over here made a type-o as it is unrelated.

That's not what a straw man is.

It did not use anything related to the topic just a clear example of a mistake presented to be easy demonstrated as such. (A unrelated/irrelevant point easily defeated=straw man.)

I didn't make up an argument that you never said, then attack the argument.
I asked a question.
A question is not a straw man.

Just becuase you worded your straw man as a question does not mean it is not a straw man.

Oh look a new straw man-If the writter clearly says what the intent was on a topic and places it writing(or other shared medium) then we as a group can know what he said it was(this typically should be like an errata or fix to a mistake). As KS typically does not do that we can only guess, as there is no clear stated intent on this topic any RAI is just some ones guess. Typically we are not told the intent of an exact passage so we can only guess at the intent so RAI is not a unifomred standard can not trump a stated uniformed standard.

(Odd, you claimed the debate was no longer about a subjective meaning but about a book definition but are putting allot of effort to drag it into the subjective field again.)

[Prysus]

Look at the statement people are presenting being ready for war as being combat trained and using that say if some one is not ready for the type of war in use at a time as not being combat trained. In the example of the roman legionary he would still be combat trained if he fell through time to today, he may not be trained for modern warfare but he is combat trained.

I was just trying to point out to the one making that claim, that it is incorrect to think of combat as just warfare or that warfare as the standard for combat training.(That is like claiming that only organized armies are trained to fight) Most PC groups will not be in constant large scale encounters with 100s on each side but small groups or gangs of foes will be more common.

Greetings and Salutations. That person being me, while I was responding to someone else referring to combat in context of it military O.C.C. and it being a military thing, which then got a segment quoted by someone else, then quoted by you. So when discussing combat in regards to militias and the military, I think war is more fitting than bar room fights and one on one duels. Note, war and combat are also synonyms (look it up if you doubt me). While combat can mean other things, using it to mean war is not necessarily incorrect. Even if you feel using combat to mean war isn't the clearest use of the word (and I'm not going to argue that point either), that does not make it wrong.

For example, in this discussion: RUE refers to Hand to Hand as combat training, which is true in regards to fighting in hand to hand. RUE refers to W.P. as combat training, which is true in regards to fighting with that weapon. Juicer Uprising refers to combat training (listing three skills) in regards to a militia. RUE does not necessarily contradict or negate Juicer Uprising, especially if the "combat" within Juicer Uprising is in usage for military/war (which seems fitting since it's discussing a militia). Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Blue_Lion]

So here is the question.
1) We have the book clearly state that certain things have been labeled as Combat Training.
2) Mages are clearly stated to have some of these things, or have access to them
3) The premise of this thread is that mages are not trained for combat, and thus by definition they can not have combat training.
4) This presents a contradiction. Either the book is right and the premise is wrong. Or the premise is wrong and the book is right.

The premise of this thread is (and I quote directly)
"TL:DR
Mages who aren't combat trained are the exception, not the rule."

So what, specifically, is the support for the claim that these are not really Combat Training?

That depends on who made the claim, and in what context.
At this point, we've just devolved into arguing in which way mages are combat trained.
I say that they're combat trained as a rule because they have WPs as a rule, and Blue Lion seems to be claiming that HTH skills are the basis for combat training.
I don't know what the heck you're trying to say.

Not some song and dance about Moops

Don't try to claim that the written word is always superior to the intent, and I won't bring up moops.

Not some digression about how intent is valuable.

It's not a digression to bring up the only thing that gives RAW any meaning.

The specific, factual support for the claim that the written material is wrong and that there is thus any difference at all between RAI and RAW in the first place.

Huh?

Yes hand to hand is the basis of what levels of combat training are because they say what it is at different levels.
The book in hand to hand says basic combat training is/does X.
Then hand to hand is telling you what basic combat training is. It is not an example of something with basic combat training but the book telling what basic combat training is/does that makes the text in hand to hand the basis for what is combat training.

[Blue_Lion]

Look at the statement people are presenting being ready for war as being combat trained and using that say if some one is not ready for the type of war in use at a time as not being combat trained. In the example of the roman legionary he would still be combat trained if he fell through time to today, he may not be trained for modern warfare but he is combat trained.

I was just trying to point out to the one making that claim, that it is incorrect to think of combat as just warfare or that warfare as the standard for combat training.(That is like claiming that only organized armies are trained to fight) Most PC groups will not be in constant large scale encounters with 100s on each side but small groups or gangs of foes will be more common.

Greetings and Salutations. That person being me, while I was responding to someone else referring to combat in context of it military O.C.C. and it being a military thing, which then got a segment quoted by someone else, then quoted by you. So when discussing combat in regards to militias and the military, I think war is more fitting than bar room fights and one on one duels. Note, war and combat are also synonyms (look it up if you doubt me). While combat can mean other things, using it to mean war is not necessarily incorrect. Even if you feel using combat to mean war isn't the clearest use of the word (and I'm not going to argue that point either), that does not make it wrong.

For example, in this discussion: RUE refers to Hand to Hand as combat training, which is true in regards to fighting in hand to hand. RUE refers to W.P. as combat training, which is true in regards to fighting with that weapon. Juicer Uprising refers to combat training (listing three skills) in regards to a militia. RUE does not necessarily contradict or negate Juicer Uprising, especially if the "combat" within Juicer Uprising is in usage for military/war (which seems fitting since it's discussing a militia). Farewell and safe journeys for now.

If we are trying to find out what the book says combat training is what you think it is or should be is irrelevant.
People keep talking (it may be you now but others made the same claim earlier) like warfare is the only standard for combat training. But as I understand it large scale open warfare is less common type of combat for most PCs, what you are doing is like making a special type of something the standard for all of it. To me it is something like saying alcohol X is made with grain so all alcohol should be made from grain or it is not alcohol.

[Killer Cyborg]

Just becuase you worded your straw man as a question does not mean it is not a straw man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

A straw man is a form of argument.
A question is NOT an argument.
Ergo a question can NOT be a strawman.

Oh look a new straw man-If the writter clearly says what the intent was on a topic and places it writing(or other shared medium) then we as a group can know what he said it was(this typically should be like an errata or fix to a mistake).

The argument I was refuting was this:
"We can never Know what the writers intended only guess"

Note the word "never," because it does NOT mean "atypically."

It's not a straw man when you make a false claim, and I point out that it is false.

(Odd, you claimed the debate was no longer about a subjective meaning but about a book definition but are putting allot of effort to drag it into the subjective field again.)

This is a separate argument ongoing at the same time.
I admit that I did not fully cover every current discussion during my recap.
The root of the RAI vs. RAW thing is that it's pretty clear to me that the writers were using shorthand for "basic hand to hand combat training" in the "Basic Hand to Hand Combat" section, NOT trying to define an overall standard for basic combat across the board.
The rebuttal has seemed to be (paraphrased) but you can't KNOW that; RAW is all we should use.
Which is off-base for a number of reasons, starting with RAI being ultimately more important in many cases than RAW, and ending with any and every interpretation of RAW being necessarily an assumption of RAI (or Rules As Received), with "the game doesn't work RAW" somewhere in the middle.

[Killer Cyborg]

Yes hand to hand is the basis of what levels of combat training are because they say what it is at different levels.
The book in hand to hand says basic combat training is/does X.
Then hand to hand is telling you what basic combat training is. It is not an example of something with basic combat training but the book telling what basic combat training is/does that makes the text in hand to hand the basis for what is combat training.

And Commando Combat Training is what's listed under HTH Commando, and Assassin Combat Training is what's listed under HTH Assassin.
You can keep repeating it, but it still doesn't make sense.

And it doesn't make the competing definition into a list of examples.

Edit:
BTW, let me ask you flat-out:
If a mage has a WP, but does not have any HTH training, would you consider the mage to be "combat trained?"

[Prysus]

If we are trying to find out what the book says combat training is what you think it is or should be is irrelevant.

Greetings and Salutations. Agreed, my opinion on the matter should be irrelevant. However, which "combat" the book is using is relevant. And we can only determine that by guessing. For example ...

A: Hand to Hand Combat is "combat training." I'd guess that specifies to the type you would do in melee range.
B: W.P. provide "combat training." I'd guess that would mean when using the specific type of weapon.
C: Militia members have "combat training." This type of "combat training" includes both A & B. Because it's referring to a militia, and contains elements from two other types of "combat training," I feel confident this is NOT combat training in a bar fight. Based on the context, I'd guess this is referring to more military type training.

You can guess that all of those uses (even the ones that would appear to contradict) mean only apply to things like one on one duels, but that is a guess. Alternately, you can argue Hand to Hand means you're ready to go to war. Unless the author tells us which definition they were using, we can only guess and make logical deductions based upon the context in which they're used. Note: I took the time to explain why the Juicer Uprising combat training would likely refer to the military usage. Do you have any logical justification for feeling it does NOT mean that?

People keep talking (it may be you now but others made the same claim earlier) like warfare is the only standard for combat training.

Meh, semi-true. I'm sure some have. Though I'd say most have admitted that in the general usage of "combat" mages are included. However, in the context of the original statement, "combat" meant something else. So we can't prove the original statements true or false until we address the specific type of combat being used. So while you can argue it's false from one standpoint, that doesn't mean it's false from all standpoints. The English language sucks like that.

But as I understand it large scale open warfare is less common type of combat for most PCs,

I'd agree with that. However, I don't think the Player Characters should be used to represent the "common" type of anything either. I'm fairly sure (though I'd rather not find a quote unless I have to) that Palladium refers to the player characters as outside of the norm, that they're exceptional. As a result, they'd probably make the worst example of common.

Note: I'll agree that the average citizen probably also isn't trained for warfare. Of course, this would only lead credence to the stance that the average mage isn't trained in that way, if that was the type of combat being used.

what you are doing is like making a special type of something the standard for all of it. To me it is something like saying alcohol X is made with grain so all alcohol should be made from grain or it is not alcohol.

What I am doing is addressing very specific quotes at the moment. One is addressing the Juicer Uprising section about a militia, and the other is addressing how I specifically used it in regards to the conversation. Trying to claim I'm apply it as the standard is false. I'm saying combat can be used (correctly) in that way, and before you can dismiss the claim you need to know which usage is in use. Whether or not that's the "standard" usage is irrelevant to whether or not that's how it was being used in a particular instance. As an individual, I don't really care much about the specifics of the topic. I've (mostly) posted to add clarifications or book citations where needed. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Blue_Lion]

Yes hand to hand is the basis of what levels of combat training are because they say what it is at different levels.
The book in hand to hand says basic combat training is/does X.
Then hand to hand is telling you what basic combat training is. It is not an example of something with basic combat training but the book telling what basic combat training is/does that makes the text in hand to hand the basis for what is combat training.

And Commando Combat Training is what's listed under HTH Commando, and Assassin Combat Training is what's listed under HTH Assassin.
You can keep repeating it, but it still doesn't make sense.

And it doesn't make the competing definition into a list of examples.

Edit:
BTW, let me ask you flat-out:
If a mage has a WP, but does not have any HTH training, would you consider the mage to be "combat trained?"

Looks at earlier post where I said he has a undetermined level of combat training. Looks at another post where I said it does not matter if it makes sense it is RAW. Hmmm it appears I already covered your whole post.

I do not care if it makes sense to you if it is in writing it is the rules.

(Odd that some one got upset when I said I stopped posting when it was clear it was not about the what the book said but a subjective thing, makes a claim that it is no longer about a subjective but how the book defines is is now trying to make it all subjective again.)

RAW is what is in writhing RAW is a uniformed standard as we can all have access to it. What people think about the rules is an opinion and irrelevant to RAW.

RAW is the standard it trumps what people think the writers intended, heck once it is in writing it even trumps what the writers intended unless they post errata to fix it.

[Blue_Lion]

Just becuase you worded your straw man as a question does not mean it is not a straw man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

A straw man is a form of argument.
A question is NOT an argument.
Ergo a question can NOT be a strawman.

Oh look a new straw man-If the writter clearly says what the intent was on a topic and places it writing(or other shared medium) then we as a group can know what he said it was(this typically should be like an errata or fix to a mistake).

The argument I was refuting was this:
"We can never Know what the writers intended only guess"

Note the word "never," because it does NOT mean "atypically."

It's not a straw man when you make a false claim, and I point out that it is false.

(Odd, you claimed the debate was no longer about a subjective meaning but about a book definition but are putting allot of effort to drag it into the subjective field again.)

This is a separate argument ongoing at the same time.
I admit that I did not fully cover every current discussion during my recap.
The root of the RAI vs. RAW thing is that it's pretty clear to me that the writers were using shorthand for "basic hand to hand combat training" in the "Basic Hand to Hand Combat" section, NOT trying to define an overall standard for basic combat across the board.
The rebuttal has seemed to be (paraphrased) but you can't KNOW that; RAW is all we should use.
Which is off-base for a number of reasons, starting with RAI being ultimately more important in many cases than RAW, and ending with any and every interpretation of RAW being necessarily an assumption of RAI (or Rules As Received), with "the game doesn't work RAW" somewhere in the middle.

A question used as part of an augment is a form of augment. Quit playing your petty word games. You used a question as part of a counter to make it look like you had counted the topic without acutally countering the topic. Then claim because you worded it as a question it can not be a straw man. It is a straw man as you used a question to make it look like you counted something you never countered.

The question did not point out incorrect information.

As I said typcially we do know the intent only guess, even if the writer public admits a intent we only know what is said if it is provided. We know what they claim the intent was, but that is not the same as known what the intent really was(some times people do not remember their intent correctly or their opinion changed or they have a political motive to saying something). As we do not have the ability to time travel and read minds we can only go off what is said every thing else is just a guess.

So in this case we do not know the writers intent, some one is guessing what they think it is and then saying that the guess trumps what is in writing. So my point still stands we do not truely know the intent only guess what it is, and that guess can not trump RAW.(You in no way countered this point or even addressed it just played word games and used a straw-man to make it look like you counted a point that you never did.

[Killer Cyborg]

A question used as part of an augment is a form of augment.

A question cannot be used as part of a logical argument.
The ANSWER could be, if one was provided, but not the question itself.

Quit playing your petty word games.

I'm not playing games. I'm using words the way that they actually work, and I'm urging others to do the same.
If you call a cat a "dog," then it's not word games when I correct you.
If you call a question a "straw man," then it's still not word games when I correct you.
It's just words, what they mean and what they don't mean.

You used a question as part of a counter to make it look like you had counted the topic without acutally countering the topic.

Not from my point of view, no.
I asked a question. I don't see how asking that question would make it look like I had countered a topic.
Do YOU think that it looked like I had countered a topic?

Then claim because you worded it as a question it can not be a straw man. It is a straw man as you used a question to make it look like you counted something you never countered.

I've already demonstrated that a question can not be a straw man.
It's not my fault that you keep using the term incorrectly, and it's not my fault when I provide you with the correct definition.

As I said typcially we do know the intent only guess,

You said, "We can never Know what the writers intended only guess."
I disagreed with that statement.
You're disagreeing with it NOW, by changing your claim to "typically" instead of never.

even if the writer public admits a intent we only know what is said if it is provided.
We know what they claim the intent was, but that is not the same as known what the intent really was(some times people do not remember their intent correctly or their opinion changed or they have a political motive to saying something). As we do not have the ability to time travel and read minds we can only go off what is said every thing else is just a guess.

If you get down to it, the only thing that any of us truly knows is the fact of our own existence.
BUT in general, "know" simply means "be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information."

So in this case we do not know the writers intent, some one is guessing what they think it is and then saying that the guess trumps what is in writing.

Absolutely, yes.
Because without any guessing, then the writing has no meaning.
You're taking your own guesses at what the meaning is, after all.

[Blue_Lion]

The question was worded in such a way as to create a set reply that to make it look like you addressed the topic. That makes the question part of how you are arguing your case making it part of your argument. If you use a question to set up evidence of your point the question is part of how you argue your point.

I amended my statement because you are using petty word games to make it look like because in 1 case my statement might be wrong(in reguards to the topic we do not know what the intent was only guesses) that it has to be absolutely wrong in all cases.(But in the case of the topic on hand we can not know what the intent is because we are not told what it is, even when we are we only know what we are told it was.) Are you saying I can not amend my statements to make my intent more clear?(See I just used a question as part of an augment.) Your petty word game does not address the topic at hand but is merely a misdirection attack.

Note: basic combat training is the training the basics of how to fight, Commando combat training is training to fight like a commando, ninja combat training is training to fight like a ninja and assassin combat training is training to fight like a assassin.(But because in your narrow view they do not make sense as worded you think them illogical, but weather or not you agree with those types of training they exist in RAW.)

At this point this debate has no meaning, I find your claim that without guessing writing has no meaning inherently false as words have meaning and RAW is what is in writing. While RAI is what you guess the rules should be. It is not needed to guess at the intent to have RAW. The idea that RAI by default trumps RAW is as the standard is well beyond adsorb as we do not truly know the intent of every line of text and we never will.


I am done, fill free to keep your petty attacks up. But as this debate is far beyond what is writing and in the subjective relm it getting close to people trolling each other.

[Killer Cyborg]

The question was worded in such a way as to create a set reply that to make it look like you addressed the topic.

a) No. The question was worded in a simple way, to make a simple point, and to allow for a simple answer.
You guys could have picked A, or you could have picked B.
You could have explained your answer at length.
YOU might think that any of those options would "make it look like I addressed the topic," but I don't.

b) What you're describing is not a straw man.
A strawman is an argument, and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
A question is not an argument.
"Addressing the topic" is not "refuting an opponent's argument."
Asking a question does not make a false argument.
Asking a question does not strike down said false argument.

I amended my statement because you are using petty word games

You are arguing that the written text is more important than the intended message, because we have no way of knowing what the intended message is--we can only guess.
EVEN if the person who wrote the text tells us what they meant, there's no way to TRULY know.
Simultaneously, when I take your own writing at its words, you are calling that a "petty word game."

You said "never."
That means "never."
My correcting you isn't a petty word game.
It's me looking at what you wrote, taking it as it was written, and correcting you.
That's not any kind of game.
If you can't write what you mean, that's not my fault.

to make it look like because in 1 case my statement might be wrong

If you use the word "never" (and you did), then one exception does in fact make you wrong.
That's what the word "never" means.
If you don't believe me, then look the word up.

But so what?
Everybody is wrong sometimes. You said something that wasn't true, and I pointed it out.
So admit you were wrong, amend your statement, and we can move on from there.
Trying to pretend that you were right, and that I'm in the wrong for correcting you, doesn't do anybody any good. It just spams up the thread with even more pointless back-and-forth, all because you apparently can't bring yourself to admit a simple mistake for some reason.
I don't care that you were wrong. I'm not going to taunt or tease you about it.
So why the resistance?
Why not just say, "Okay, you're right--it's not 'never.' It's just often. My bad."...?

You said something incorrect.
I corrected you.
Why make that your Alamo?

(But in the case of the topic on hand we can not know what the intent is because we are not told what it is, even when we are we only know what we are told it was.)

Have you tried asking?

Are you saying I can not amend my statements to make my intent more clear?

Absolutely not.
All I'm saying is that your initial statement was incorrect, and that it should be easy for you to a) see that, b) agree, and c) amend your statement to something more accurate.
I WANT you to amend your statement... as long as you don't pretend that I'm the bad guy, or that I'm "playing petty word games" by pointing out that your initial statement was incorrect.
A simple, "Okay, I was wrong, how about this..." would have worked just fine.
Attacking ME for YOUR mistake is not fine.

(See I just used a question as part of an augment.)

No, you didn't.
You just used a question as part of a conversation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.

A question can NOT be part of an argument, not in the context of logic, which is the context required for any claims about the presence of any logical fallacy.

Your petty word game does not address the topic at hand but is merely a misdirection attack.

Telling you what words mean isn't a game.

Note: basic combat training is the training the basics of how to fight, Commando combat training is training to fight like a commando, ninja combat training is training to fight like a ninja and assassin combat training is training to fight like a assassin.(But because in your narrow view they do not make sense as worded you think them illogical, but weather or not you agree with those types of training they exist in RAW.)

It reduces all combat down to hand to hand. Commandos and ninjas receive much more combat training than just their HTH skills.
"Assassin" is a broad enough term that an assassin could use any form of HTH combat, and any number of forms of ranged combat.

At this point this debate has no meaning,

Well, we can agree to that.

I find your claim that without guessing writing has no meaning inherently false as words have meaning and RAW is what is in writing.

Words have no inherent meaning.
A word without a reader to interpret it means nothing, and with a reader, it must still be interpreted.
Interpreting involves guesswork.
If it didn't, then everybody would always agree on what the RAW meant, but they don't.

While RAI is what you guess the rules should be.

Incorrct.
RAI is what the authors intended the rules to be.

The idea that RAI by default trumps RAW is as the standard is well beyond adsorb as we do not truly know the intent of every line of text and we never will.

We don't have to truly know the intent of every line of text in order to debate any one line of text, or any sets of lines of text.

I am done, fill free to keep your petty attacks up. But as this debate is far beyond what is writing and in the subjective relm it getting close to people trolling each other.

I think it's good that we shut this down.
When you make an incorrect claim, I correct you, then you repeatedly lash out and call my correction a "petty word game," that is indeed a good time to quit.
When you claim that what is written is more important than intent, but attack me for taking you at what you wrote instead of at what you meant, that is a good time to quit.

One thing that you and I can agree on at this point is that further debate is pointless, even if we disagree about why, and about where the fault lies.

[Saitou Hajime]

The Concept of RAI not normally default over RAW, is alien to me, the only time I even see people back RAW over RAI is because it give an advanage to do so that way, usually complete again the overall rules set. it usually a jarring advantage as well.

[42dragon]

I think what is missing here is what is "normal" or "non-adventurer"? Does every adult (person/D-bee) have an OCC/RCC? Is every farmer a vagabond? Is every factory worker an operator? Is every librarian or elementary school teacher a rogue scholar? Is there such a thing as a generic "mage" who knows some spells and uses/sells them in their normal non-adventuring life?

If we accept that perhaps OCC/RCC's are only for heroic adventurers, and that normal people don't have these (is advanced or maybe exceptional the right word) character classes. Then perhaps the in game fluff that mages are not combat trained makes sense.

Relating back to the original locked thread, a bad guy NPC mage would probably fall into the advanced/exceptional OCC/RCC and therefore most likely have combat training (H-to-H, WP, or both) and IMO would be unlikely to have poor voice control during any type of combat.
While the curio shop owner who happens to be a generic non-adventuring mage would not be combat trained and would likely panic and have trouble casting spells in any type of combat situation and likely has no spells related to offense of defense at all.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

I think what is missing here is what is "normal" or "non-adventurer"? Does every adult (person/D-bee) have an OCC/RCC?

Yes, they do, but maybe not the ones detailed in the books. However A LOT of them provably do have the same OCCs that PCs use. (Up to 3/4 of the population in some areas).

Is every farmer a vagabond?

No, in fact, theyre probably more skilled than a Vagabond.

Is every factory worker an operator?

No. But they may be a Technical Officer, or other skilled OCC as well.

Is every librarian or elementary school teacher a rogue scholar?

Who knows? To have enough skills to be a general teacher (at least as we think of it today) you'd almost have to be.

Is there such a thing as a generic "mage" who knows some spells and uses/sells them in their normal non-adventuring life?

Nope. LLW is the "stock" mage.

If we accept that perhaps OCC/RCC's are only for heroic adventurers, and that normal people don't have these (is advanced or maybe exceptional the right word) character classes.

Except it's provably not true. You can go look at the population breakdowns i did earlier in the thread. Half or more of the population has PC-level OCCs in most places.

Then perhaps the in game fluff that mages are not combat trained makes sense.

Trust me, i've tried to make a lot of the fluff for Rifts make sense, and it just doesn't. The entire setting is flawed at its very core. Most of the fluff is directly contradicted (a lot of times, just a few pages later in the same book).

[Axelmania]

Technical Officer is a Coalition Military OCC, I don't see grounds for assuming this is a factory worker skillset. I could see some being factor managers perhaps, but the average worker probably just does assembly.

[guardiandashi]

Technical Officer is a Coalition Military OCC, I don't see grounds for assuming this is a factory worker skillset. I could see some being factor managers perhaps, but the average worker probably just does assembly.

if you start from the tech officer and strip out a lot of the "military officer" parts and replace them with more "factory worker/technical" skills then its not unreasonable.

you could also go to heroes unlimited /ninjas and superspies and look for "relatively" low skill non military educations to approximate it as well.

[Axelmania]

Except the CS doesn't necessarily promote or allow that level of education in its factories. Could work for NGR or Ishpeming.

[dreicunan]

The in-game fluff for "mages are not combat trained" makes sense if the term was being used in a broader sense than "trained in some kind of combat," as has been mentioned before. I earlier gave the example of two friends, one a black belt and hunter who would certainly have a hand-to-hand and multiple WPs based on his skill level, and another a former Marine who qualified as a pistol and rifle expert during his service. The former would not be considered "combat trained" in the same way that the latter would be. Most mages classes in Rifts could probably be considered "combat trained" in the same way that the hunter friend would be, but not in the way that the former Marine would be, and based on the context of the quote it makes more sense that it was the latter sense in which it was being used.

[Axelmania]

There are two magic NPCs somewhere without any combat training. Surely. We can find them.

Good thing it wasn't "all mages".

[eliakon]

Just to add to this I was looking in Arnzo and noticed something very interesting.
Some of the NPCs in that book, explicitly have an entry labeled "Combat Training".
Now I may be going out on a limb here... but I am going to suggest that something that the books list in a statistic not just fluff as "Combat Training" is probably a pretty good indication of what is, or is not combat trained

Examples include
"Hand to Hand: Martial Arts, Boxing, Fencing, and Kick Boxing" (Prince Onra page 70)
"Supernatural and instinctive" (Vampires page 135 and 138)
"None" (of relevance as the character has a W.P. but no H2H) (Casca page 137)
"Hand to Hand: Basic" (fascinating again because the character in question has W.Ps) (High Father Suthue page 147)
"Hand to Hand: Martial Arts, Fencing, and Cyber-Knight Zen Combat" (Sir Jude page 150)
"Hand to Hand: Martial Arts, Wrestling, and Cyber-Knight Zen Combat" (Sir Lunais page 152)
"Hand to Hand: Martial Arts, and Cyber-Knight Zen Combat" (Sir Trey page 155, Sir John page 158, Lady Night Runner page 160)

All of which starts to point to canon setting the threshold at "possesses a Hand to Hand combat skill of some sort, or the instinctive equivalent to the same"

[Killer Cyborg]

Just to add to this I was looking in Arnzo and noticed something very interesting.
Some of the NPCs in that book, explicitly have an entry labeled "Combat Training".
Now I may be going out on a limb here... but I am going to suggest that something that the books list in a statistic not just fluff as "Combat Training" is probably a pretty good indication of what is, or is not combat trained

Seems like a reasonable premise.

Examples include
"Hand to Hand: Martial Arts, Boxing, Fencing, and Kick Boxing" (Prince Onra page 70)
"Supernatural and instinctive" (Vampires page 135 and 138)
"None" (of relevance as the character has a W.P. but no H2H) (Casca page 137)
"Hand to Hand: Basic" (fascinating again because the character in question has W.Ps) (High Father Suthue page 147)
"Hand to Hand: Martial Arts, Fencing, and Cyber-Knight Zen Combat" (Sir Jude page 150)
"Hand to Hand: Martial Arts, Wrestling, and Cyber-Knight Zen Combat" (Sir Lunais page 152)
"Hand to Hand: Martial Arts, and Cyber-Knight Zen Combat" (Sir Trey page 155, Sir John page 158, Lady Night Runner page 160)

All of which starts to point to canon setting the threshold at "possesses a Hand to Hand combat skill of some sort, or the instinctive equivalent to the same"

Boxing, Fencing, and Kick Boxing are not HTH Combat Skills, so that goes against the idea that HTH Combat Skills are the standard.

The idea that instinctive combat skills are "combat training" is something that people have argued against earlier in this thread, so that's interesting.

One thing that stands out is that Fencing is listed as "combat training," even though WP Sword wouldn't qualify. This oddity could be explained by Fencing being defined as "the formal art of fighting with a sword and dagger," meaning that it is in itself combat training, while Weapon Proficiencies (as I have pointed out) are not combat training in their own right--they merely provide combat training.

A larger oddity is in your example of Cana the Blind, who is listed as having Weapon Proficiency: Blunt, but whom is described under "Weapons of Note" as not being allowed to carry weapons, and "does not really know how to use any anyway."
The implication there is that having a Weapon Proficiency doesn't mean that you "really know how" to use the weapon, which seems to go against the nature and description of WPs.

[Killer Cyborg]

The in-game fluff for "mages are not combat trained" makes sense if the term was being used in a broader sense than "trained in some kind of combat," as has been mentioned before. I earlier gave the example of two friends, one a black belt and hunter who would certainly have a hand-to-hand and multiple WPs based on his skill level, and another a former Marine who qualified as a pistol and rifle expert during his service. The former would not be considered "combat trained" in the same way that the latter would be. Most mages classes in Rifts could probably be considered "combat trained" in the same way that the hunter friend would be, but not in the way that the former Marine would be, and based on the context of the quote it makes more sense that it was the latter sense in which it was being used.

Right. It's all about the context.

[lather]

I have always seen the physical skills as more sport than combat training, but they do provide useful skills when in combat using one's combat training from Hand to Hand Combat. The ancient weapon proficiencies are just a part of that training, which is how they've always been. And basically how it works in life. The modern weapon proficiencies are strange in that they, too, are just a part of a character's Hand to Hand Combat.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Technical Officer is a Coalition Military OCC, I don't see grounds for assuming this is a factory worker skillset. I could see some being factor managers perhaps, but the average worker probably just does assembly.

Its also one of the most frequently called out as "make a Technical Officer equivalent" for a lot of races/areas that aren't the CS. Grunt being about equal in that regard.

It (actually, all of the three basic Coalition OCCs - RPA Elite, Grunt, and Tech Officer) has always been used as a catch all for "make a character just like this only it ISNT a CS military character" since the very first books after RMB.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

The modern weapon proficiencies are strange in that they, too, are just a part of a character's Hand to Hand Combat.

This is an artifact of the Palladium Copypasta Content Creation method.

The "H2H" skills should LONG ago have been renamed into "Combat Training" or something similar, as ALL combat revolves around them, even combat that has nothing to do with H2H. Its just bad naming nomenclature that is perpetuated by rampant Copypasta.

The entire Palladium system is in dire need of an overhaul/new edition/total rewrite with no copy/paste allowed.

[lather]

The modern weapon proficiencies are strange in that they, too, are just a part of a character's Hand to Hand Combat.

This is an artifact of the Palladium Copypasta Content Creation method.

The "H2H" skills should LONG ago have been renamed into "Combat Training" or something similar, as ALL combat revolves around them, even combat that has nothing to do with H2H. Its just bad naming nomenclature that is perpetuated by rampant Copypasta.

The entire Palladium system is in dire need of an overhaul/new edition/total rewrite with no copy/paste allowed.

It has made for a messy system and I would like to see it fixed, too. This quirky fact, let's say, of the Palladium system was brought up a few pages back. The idea that weapon proficiencies are not independent components of a character's characters combat training was not universally well received.

[eliakon]

Just to add to this I was looking in Arnzo and noticed something very interesting.
Some of the NPCs in that book, explicitly have an entry labeled "Combat Training".
Now I may be going out on a limb here... but I am going to suggest that something that the books list in a statistic not just fluff as "Combat Training" is probably a pretty good indication of what is, or is not combat trained

Seems like a reasonable premise.

Examples include
"Hand to Hand: Martial Arts, Boxing, Fencing, and Kick Boxing" (Prince Onra page 70)
"Supernatural and instinctive" (Vampires page 135 and 138)
"None" (of relevance as the character has a W.P. but no H2H) (Casca page 137)
"Hand to Hand: Basic" (fascinating again because the character in question has W.Ps) (High Father Suthue page 147)
"Hand to Hand: Martial Arts, Fencing, and Cyber-Knight Zen Combat" (Sir Jude page 150)
"Hand to Hand: Martial Arts, Wrestling, and Cyber-Knight Zen Combat" (Sir Lunais page 152)
"Hand to Hand: Martial Arts, and Cyber-Knight Zen Combat" (Sir Trey page 155, Sir John page 158, Lady Night Runner page 160)

All of which starts to point to canon setting the threshold at "possesses a Hand to Hand combat skill of some sort, or the instinctive equivalent to the same"

Boxing, Fencing, and Kick Boxing are not HTH Combat Skills, so that goes against the idea that HTH Combat Skills are the standard.

The idea that instinctive combat skills are "combat training" is something that people have argued against earlier in this thread, so that's interesting.

One thing that stands out is that Fencing is listed as "combat training," even though WP Sword wouldn't qualify. This oddity could be explained by Fencing being defined as "the formal art of fighting with a sword and dagger," meaning that it is in itself combat training, while Weapon Proficiencies (as I have pointed out) are not combat training in their own right--they merely provide combat training.

A larger oddity is in your example of Cana the Blind, who is listed as having Weapon Proficiency: Blunt, but whom is described under "Weapons of Note" as not being allowed to carry weapons, and "does not really know how to use any anyway."
The implication there is that having a Weapon Proficiency doesn't mean that you "really know how" to use the weapon, which seems to go against the nature and description of WPs.

Note, that every one of the people that has a "Combat Training" has Hand to Hand: <something or other>, or the equivalent. They can have other abilities as well yes, but the one person with such an entry and no hand to hand skill gets listed as "none".
Thus H2H Combat Skills do seem to be the standard. You need, at a minimum a H2H skill to qualify for Combat Training. You can add on other skills and abilities to that such as Boxing, Fencing, Wrestling, Zen, etc... but with out the initial H2H skill your at "none"

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

The modern weapon proficiencies are strange in that they, too, are just a part of a character's Hand to Hand Combat.

This is an artifact of the Palladium Copypasta Content Creation method.

The "H2H" skills should LONG ago have been renamed into "Combat Training" or something similar, as ALL combat revolves around them, even combat that has nothing to do with H2H. Its just bad naming nomenclature that is perpetuated by rampant Copypasta.

The entire Palladium system is in dire need of an overhaul/new edition/total rewrite with no copy/paste allowed.

It has made for a messy system and I would like to see it fixed, too. This quirky fact, let's say, of the Palladium system was brought up a few pages back. The idea that weapon proficiencies are not independent components of a character's characters combat training was not universally well received.

To provide a bit of anecdotal real-life experience to W.P.s not necessarily being depending on "H2H" skill.

I have no particular training in any kind of non-weapon based martial arts. I HAVE done medieval re-enactment and LARPing for about 25 years now, and have been seriously studying HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) for about 2 years. (HEMA focuses mainly on historically correct weapon fighting techniques, not so much unarmed fighting).

I would hazard that i have a pretty good aproximation of Palladium's View of:

W.P. Sword
W.P. Polearm (i am particularly fond of Halberds, Glaives, and the Lochaber Axe)
W.P Blunt (Maces, Warhammers)
W.P Staff
W.P. Shield

At the very least. Some of them with 20+ years of training. I'm fairly competent with a sword.

I couldn't win a fight against a trained martial artists in hand to hand to save my life. Even someone who only has a few years of basic judo or karate training wo uld probably beat me like a drum.

Give me even a piece of rattan that is vaguely sword-length, and ill probably hospitalize them in seconds.

So i'd say BOTH are combat training, but for different purposes and with different methods, and they dont really have to work together. Some martial arts incorporate weapons, but a lot dont, and using that weapon is/should be considered a different "martial art".

Palladium's rules badly reflect the reality of combat training, i guess is my TLDR here.

[lather]

The modern weapon proficiencies are strange in that they, too, are just a part of a character's Hand to Hand Combat.

This is an artifact of the Palladium Copypasta Content Creation method.

The "H2H" skills should LONG ago have been renamed into "Combat Training" or something similar, as ALL combat revolves around them, even combat that has nothing to do with H2H. Its just bad naming nomenclature that is perpetuated by rampant Copypasta.

The entire Palladium system is in dire need of an overhaul/new edition/total rewrite with no copy/paste allowed.

It has made for a messy system and I would like to see it fixed, too. This quirky fact, let's say, of the Palladium system was brought up a few pages back. The idea that weapon proficiencies are not independent components of a character's characters combat training was not universally well received.

To provide a bit of anecdotal real-life experience to W.P.s not necessarily being depending on "H2H" skill.

I have no particular training in any kind of non-weapon based martial arts. I HAVE done medieval re-enactment and LARPing for about 25 years now, and have been seriously studying HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) for about 2 years. (HEMA focuses mainly on historically correct weapon fighting techniques, not so much unarmed fighting).

I would hazard that i have a pretty good aproximation of Palladium's View of:

W.P. Sword
W.P. Polearm (i am particularly fond of Halberds, Glaives, and the Lochaber Axe)
W.P Blunt (Maces, Warhammers)
W.P Staff
W.P. Shield

At the very least. Some of them with 20+ years of training. I'm fairly competent with a sword.

I couldn't win a fight against a trained martial artists in hand to hand to save my life. Even someone who only has a few years of basic judo or karate training wo uld probably beat me like a drum.

Give me even a piece of rattan that is vaguely sword-length, and ill probably hospitalize them in seconds.

So i'd say BOTH are combat training, but for different purposes and with different methods, and they dont really have to work together. Some martial arts incorporate weapons, but a lot dont, and using that weapon is/should be considered a different "martial art".

Palladium's rules badly reflect the reality of combat training, i guess is my TLDR here.

When you break it down, though, you find a lot H2H underpinnings and aspects the weapons training relies upon. The most obvious, perhaps, being movement.

[Axelmania]

.

One thing that stands out is that Fencing is listed as "combat training," even though WP Sword wouldn't qualify. This oddity could be explained by Fencing being defined as "the formal art of fighting with a sword and dagger," meaning that it is in itself combat training, while Weapon Proficiencies (as I have pointed out) are not combat training in their own right--they merely provide combat training.

A larger oddity is in your example of Cana the Blind, who is listed as having Weapon Proficiency: Blunt, but whom is described under "Weapons of Note" as not being allowed to carry weapons, and "does not really know how to use any anyway."
The implication there is that having a Weapon Proficiency doesn't mean that you "really know how" to use the weapon, which seems to go against the nature and description of WPs.

Proficiencies don't train people, they are the training. The separate listing of WP outside Combat Training doesn't necessarily declare WP not to he combat training.

Sort if like if I list Equipment then Weapons. Weapons are still a form of equipment. Giving them a different heading doesn't change that.

WP Blunt could mean Cana has experience fighting with non weapons, like brooms.

[42dragon]

Trust me, i've tried to make a lot of the fluff for Rifts make sense, and it just doesn't. The entire setting is flawed at its very core. Most of the fluff is directly contradicted (a lot of times, just a few pages later in the same book).

Oh, I completely agree with you. I was just trying to posit another perspective. IMO any mage you come across in game is very, very likely combat trained. Which means in actual combat they will not likely be drawing attention to themselves that will make them a target. They will NOT have poor voice control, and will NOT be gesturing wildly while trying to cast spells. At least not until their side is in control of the fight and their mystical protections are all in place and they then feel the need to taunt their opponents that are no threat to them.

[eliakon]

Trust me, i've tried to make a lot of the fluff for Rifts make sense, and it just doesn't. The entire setting is flawed at its very core. Most of the fluff is directly contradicted (a lot of times, just a few pages later in the same book).

Oh, I completely agree with you. I was just trying to posit another perspective. IMO any mage you come across in game is very, very likely combat trained. Which means in actual combat they will not likely be drawing attention to themselves that will make them a target. They will NOT have poor voice control, and will NOT be gesturing wildly while trying to cast spells. At least not until their side is in control of the fight and their mystical protections are all in place and they then feel the need to taunt their opponents that are no threat to them.

^this^
If the claim is that a mage is not "combat trained" and thus is going to engage in such behavior it becomes inherent on the claiments to prove that
1) such behavior even exists
2) that such behavior is a symptom of not being combat trained
3) that the mages are, in fact, not combat trained.

So far no one has been able to show the first two in any form other than the fiat statement that 'it must be"
And Arnzo seems to demolish the third.

[Killer Cyborg]

Trust me, i've tried to make a lot of the fluff for Rifts make sense, and it just doesn't. The entire setting is flawed at its very core. Most of the fluff is directly contradicted (a lot of times, just a few pages later in the same book).

Oh, I completely agree with you. I was just trying to posit another perspective. IMO any mage you come across in game is very, very likely combat trained. Which means in actual combat they will not likely be drawing attention to themselves that will make them a target. They will NOT have poor voice control, and will NOT be gesturing wildly while trying to cast spells. At least not until their side is in control of the fight and their mystical protections are all in place and they then feel the need to taunt their opponents that are no threat to them.

^this^
If the claim is that a mage is not "combat trained" and thus is going to engage in such behavior it becomes inherent on the claiments to prove that
1) such behavior even exists

You want it to be proved that people don't always have 100% control of their voice...?

2) that such behavior is a symptom of not being combat trained

You need it to be proved that people who have been combat trained by the military are more likely keep calm during firefights than civilians?

3) that the mages are, in fact, not combat trained.

Well, that's been thoroughly established insofar as the original context goes.
Mages are not as a rule military trained, nor the equivalent. There are some exceptions, but as a rule the average mage hasn't gone through basic training.

[Natasha]

What does "gone through basic training" mean?

[Killer Cyborg]

What does "gone through basic training" mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Tra ... y_Training