Psi-Stalker Power Question.

[Nekira Sudacne]

As for capture....

1. You aren't captured if you can still kick and punch your attacker.
2. You aren't captured if you can still pull a weapon on your attacker.
3. You aren't captured simply because an attacker made a "tackle" roll on you.
4. A successful Grapple check would count the person captured for as long as the grapple checks kept being made.
5. If you can cast spells then you aren't captured.

well, I certiantly disagree with your definition of captured.

you confuse captured with "helpless"

they ARE two different words you know.

[Temporalmage]

The move Sneak Attack doesn't work that way. According to the RGMG the only real benifits the Stalker will get out of it is that, assuming the Psi Stalker can use his Prowl skill successfully to get on top if his intended victim in the first place, he automatically gets the initiative and the mage can not parry or dodge the attack. It says nothing about the suprise attack being denied an attack in return.

So if I sneek up behind someone and attempt to slit thier throat, before I get to make my attack roll, we have to roll initiative?? LOL

What we have here is a conflict in terms. "Instantaneous" means virtually without any time passing, and yet in the very same line the PPE Suck is quantified as an action requiring "about 5 seconds" of time. Five seconds is not instantaneous, nor can an action that happens instantaneously take five seconds to happen. So given the conflict we have to go with the more conservative estimate of 5 seconds to finish the PPE drain.

The only reason we "have to go with the more conservative estimate" is because it fits your cause. I am as justified to state that we should go with the instantanious statement, as it's stated first in the sentance.

And people accuse me of being liberal with the rules. Dude, page 80 details the W.P. Paired Weapons skill, and its description damns your argument far more than it helps it. It outright says that the skill is limited to the use of one-handed melee weapons and has a short listing of the possible combination of moves it permits. And even if expanding this to hand to hand moves were allowed, (which I actually have no problem with), the limitation of each dual move being handicapped to a single hand still applies. The Body Block/Tackle move, (as described on pg. 28 of the RGMG) uses more than just one hand. It requires the total commitment of one's whole body, not a single hand! I think that omits it as an option of actions for use with the Paired Weapons skill.

Two things: First off you seem to forget that two actions does not have to be defined as two attacks. Those same two simultanious actions could be to open a door and stab with a sword. Or parry with a shield as you pick up a weapon you dropped previously. They don't neccessarily HAVE to be attacks.
Second thing is your telling me that a grab manouver is one action that takes your full body to perform? (A tackle is defined as a type of grab by the way, that's why its so well defined under wrestling skill.) Wow, thats a relief. So if someone grabs me I would have an action before they SIMULTANIOUSLY put a knife to my throat. If you've ever taken a self defense class of any sort you'll understand what I'm talking about. A grab and stab, or tackle and stab, are both very common street fighting tecniques. Heck they show up in the movies about every day!!

:neutral: You can't be serious. Let's just overlook the fact that the Tackle maneuver alone gets the Psi Stalker automatic initiative for now and focus on the flagrant abuse of this Simultaneous Attack issue. IF the Mage still had initiative and opted to cast a spell, there is no way in hell the Stalker could Simultaneous Attack that with his PPE Drain power. In fact there's no way he could simultaneous that in the first place. The SA move is a defensive maneuver against hand to hand attacks, period. It doesn't work against ranged weapons, it doesn't work against psychic attacks, and it most certainly doesn't work against a mage casting a spell that won't go off for another two melee actions. And even if it did, you can't counter with a special power like the drain, (nor a shot from ranged weapon neither). SA is all about forfeiting a defensive maneuver in Hand to Hand to deliver an Hand to Hand attack in return. All other powers and abilities are not permissible.

Gee, the wild west was sure full of dead guys that shot each other at the same time. IE simultaniously!! And just out of curiosity, you seem to state yourself with total asuradness but you havn't gave me one page number of one book. It DOES NOT state anything youve stated in the above quote under simultanious on page 31 of the RGMG!!! Everything you've stated is conjecture and lacking any credibility. If you believe these things then please admit that it's only a house rule that you use. There are those that read these posts that may believe your drivle to be book rules and would be dead wrong.

[Temporalmage]

Well in that case the mage doesn't have much to worry about as the POLICE in the town will shortly be showing up to beat the living heck out of the psi-stalker for attacking and stabbing one of their citizens.

Um, this is Rifts, the police, if there are any around, would probably understand and fine the stalker. Why would he really care? Everyone else has to pay for dinner, why not him??

As for capture....

1. You aren't captured if you can still kick and punch your attacker.
2. You aren't captured if you can still pull a weapon on your attacker.
3. You aren't captured simply because an attacker made a "tackle" roll on you.
4. A successful Grapple check would count the person captured for as long as the grapple checks kept being made.
5. If you can cast spells then you aren't captured.

A mage that is tackled can attempt to cast spells, and without additional action from the tackler they will go off successfully.

See Nekira Sudacne's post, as he pretty much took the words out of my mouth. Thanks Nekira!

I would suggest you re-read the paired weapon skill as well. A knife and a human body does not count as paired weapons.

Paired weapons are matched weapons, that when used together give you the ability to attack 2 times a round with the weapons. Page 36 of rifts main book should clear that up for you.

Read my above post. It should clear that up for YOU!

[Nekira Sudacne]

As for capture....

1. You aren't captured if you can still kick and punch your attacker.
2. You aren't captured if you can still pull a weapon on your attacker.
3. You aren't captured simply because an attacker made a "tackle" roll on you.
4. A successful Grapple check would count the person captured for as long as the grapple checks kept being made.
5. If you can cast spells then you aren't captured.

well, I certiantly disagree with your definition of captured.

you confuse captured with "helpless"

they ARE two different words you know.

You are confusing captured with grabbed... tackled.... touched......

Captured means CAPTURED. Not grabbed... not tackled... not touched... it means CAPTURED.

which dosn't mean helpless.

let's take a look at captured shall we (Dictionary.com)

To take captive, as by force or craft; seize.

To gain possession or control of, as in a game or contest: capture the queen in chess; captured the liberal vote.

To attract and hold: tales of adventure that capture the imagination.

To succeed in preserving in lasting form: capture a likeness in a painting.


The act of catching, taking, or winning, as by force or skill.

One that has been seized, caught, or won; a catch or prize.

seems to me that "catching" is all that's required. tackeling counts as catching in my book.

[Svartalf]

which dosn't mean helpless.

let's take a look at captured shall we (Dictionary.com)

To take captive, as by force or craft; seize.

To gain possession or control of, as in a game or contest: capture the queen in chess; captured the liberal vote.

To attract and hold: tales of adventure that capture the imagination.

To succeed in preserving in [s]lasting[/s] form: capture a likeness in a painting.


The act of catching, taking, or winning, as by force or skill.

[b]One that has been seized, caught, or won[b]; a catch or prize.

seems to me that "catching" is all that's required. tackeling counts as catching in my book.

You seem to conveniently forget that the notion of "capture" implies the notion of retaining, holding captive.

Simply catching or tackling a target that is still capable of effective resistance or quick escape just doesn't fit the verb capture.

[Nekira Sudacne]

which dosn't mean helpless.

let's take a look at captured shall we (Dictionary.com)

To take captive, as by force or craft; seize.

To gain possession or control of, as in a game or contest: capture the queen in chess; captured the liberal vote.

To attract and hold: tales of adventure that capture the imagination.

To succeed in preserving in [s]lasting[/s] form: capture a likeness in a painting.


The act of catching, taking, or winning, as by force or skill.

[b]One that has been seized, caught, or won[b]; a catch or prize.

seems to me that "catching" is all that's required. tackeling counts as catching in my book.

You seem to conveniently forget that the notion of "capture" implies the notion of retaining, holding captive.

Simply catching or tackling a target that is still capable of effective resistance or quick escape just doesn't fit the verb capture.

it also dosn't specify a timeframe. you can "capture" somebody pretty easily. how well you can stop them from escaping is another matter entirely.

otherwise it'd be all but impossible to "truely" capture somebody as you'd need a 100% foolproof way to keep them forever.

also take a look at the ones you bolded IN CONTEXT. "captured" as in captured the likeness of someone in a pitcure and "captured" the queen in chess.

[Svartalf]

Side note: Where does it say you can't wear MDC armor in Lazlo?

Answer : nowhere official that I know of.
Counter question : why ask that in this particulat thread?

[Nekira Sudacne]

Side note: Where does it say you can't wear MDC armor in Lazlo?

it's generally assumed that most major cities don't allow MDC tech in the city, for obvious reasons that they can walk over anyone who dosn't.

though the police certainly have it.

not offical, but it's extreamly common.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Side note: Where does it say you can't wear MDC armor in Lazlo?

it's generally assumed that most major cities don't allow MDC tech in the city, for obvious reasons that they can walk over anyone who dosn't.

though the police certainly have it.

not offical, but it's extreamly common.

Kinda pointless to do when you have DRAGONS walking down the street.


"Sorry sir, that 45 MDC armor isn't allowed.... nor that 1D6 MDC gun...."

"What about that 8,000 MDC dragon that can do 1D6X10 mdc in combat?"

"Uh... no the gun and armor are dangerous.. he's.. uh... not????"

Really... I mean... doesn't that seem.. abit.. uh.. stupid?

ahem, I never said I agreed with it

I thought of that myself, which is my I generally just have them charge a nominal fee for registration, just so they know you have it and can track you down.

[Dead Boy]

So if I sneek up behind someone and attempt to slit thier throat, before I get to make my attack roll, we have to roll initiative?? LOL

Do you even bother to read other people's posts or just start thinking up smart-ass replies two words in? As I said in the first place, Sneak Attack automatically gives the attacker the initiative.

Two things: First off you seem to forget that two actions does not have to be defined as two attacks. Those same two simultanious actions could be to open a door and stab with a sword. Or parry with a shield as you pick up a weapon you dropped previously. They don't neccessarily HAVE to be attacks.
Second thing is your telling me that a grab manouver is one action that takes your full body to perform? (A tackle is defined as a type of grab by the way, that's why its so well defined under wrestling skill.) Wow, thats a relief. So if someone grabs me I would have an action before they SIMULTANIOUSLY put a knife to my throat. If you've ever taken a self defense class of any sort you'll understand what I'm talking about. A grab and stab, or tackle and stab, are both very common street fighting tecniques. Heck they show up in the movies about every day!!

What part of the term "Body Block" makes you think that's a one handed maneuver. It's a friggin' Body Block! You run towards a guy at full steam ahead and blast him with your shoulder with all your weight and speed behind it. Wrap your arms around him and it turns into a Tackle. And yea, the guy might hit you with a Simultaneous Attack of some kind. It is a hand to hand vs hand to hand maneuver. See, you're starting to get it after all.

Gee, the wild west was sure full of dead guys that shot each other at the same time. IE simultaniously!! And just out of curiosity, you seem to state yourself with total asuradness but you havn't gave me one page number of one book. It DOES NOT state anything youve stated in the above quote under simultanious on page 31 of the RGMG!!! Everything you've stated is conjecture and lacking any credibility. If you believe these things then please admit that it's only a house rule that you use. There are those that read these posts that may believe your drivle to be book rules and would be dead wrong.

Dude, its right there for anybody to see if they're interested in actaully reading the text for what it is.

"Instead of defending with a parry, dodge, or entangle..."

Let's stop right there. This is from the RGMG. The book that reinforces the God auful "-10/ No Bonus" dodge rule. How likely is it someone is going to dodge or parry a ranged attack? Unless we're talking about a Juicer, a Quick Flex, or Samurai, not much. And what about Engangle? How in the fudge can you Engangle a laser coming right at your chest? You can't. That alone right ther should tell you this is a hand to hand maneuver. But let's continue anyways since I'm sure you still convinced you're infallable.

"... the defender does not defend ("Go ahead, hit me, I can take it")..."

The operative word here is "hit". Not shoot me, not hex me, not even a generaic hurt me. No, it's HIT me, as in with a fist, a kick, or even a knife. Need more? Then let's look at one more part.

"An opponent with paired weapons can entangel in simultaneous attack (with one weapon) AND parry (with the other)."

Hey! There's a defense to a Simultaneous Attack. If I have Paired Weapons I can Parry or Entangle the maneuver, and yet these are only defenses against hand to hand melee combat moves. And if that's not enough for you, then tell me why the SA move is listed among the Hand to Hand actions and not mentioned once in the Ranged Combat section... not even once?

As a side note.... All of this is not really what my question was about in the first place... and that was to see if people actually followed the rule of capture.

Sure I do. I follow the rule to the letter. But the problem here is that we read the same rule differently because the author failed to spell the important procedure out to exacting detail. I mean, why bother with a nice descriptive paragraph when three words ought to sufice?

After all, we had some people suggesting that psi-stalkers could drain a mage who t-ported into chi-town... which is pretty silly considering if they could capture them in the first place, draining them of ppe wouldn't be the first choice to handle the situation.

Now that's just plain silly. You can't teleport inside Chi-Town. The whole thing is environmentally shielded up the wazzo, just like a super-sized robot vehicle! Magic can't penetrate its walls. In fact, it may note even be possible to teleport from one locale inside to another also inside.

[Svartalf]

Now that's just plain silly. You can't teleport inside Chi-Town. The whole thing is environmentally shielded up the wazzo, just like a super-sized robot vehicle! Magic can't penetrate its walls. In fact, it may note even be possible to teleport from one locale inside to another also inside.

Expect in the books it lists monsters as teleporting into the chi-town depths all the time. Which is why chi-town has a set defense force to stop them from doing so. Demons and the like show up all the time.

I concur. Just what kind of mundane defence could shield a place from teleportation?

Of course, the usefulness of Teleport, greater, is dampened by the fact that you need some mental image of just where you are going... just saying chi town, level x won't be enough ... and opening a rift to the place is asking for so much trouble it's tantamount to suicide.

[Svartalf]

Dead Boy is right however in one aspect.

T-Porting into an environmentally sealed robot, power armor, or Vehicle is impossible.

Which means that Chi-Town is not an environmentally sealed robot, power armor, or vehicle.

Which makes lazlo, and other enemies of the CS very much relieved.

Actually not.
If the mage is sufficiently familiar with the interior of the robot or armor, and its location, and there is room for him in there, there is just no reason he couldn't Tport in.

[Temporalmage]

oooKkk, we've gotten way off subject a bit!!

My comment about citys that don't allow MDC armor OR weapons is straight from the books. Hope, outlined in the New West book, specificly states that they do not allow armor or weapons into the city. Yet it's the western capital of TW, and mages would be abundent. In Juicers it outlines the city of Los Alamo, and it also does not allow MDC weapons or armor inside the city. These are just two examples straight from the books of citys that don't allow armor. I do know there are more citys in the books that do the same. I would assume that since Hope is stated as being the "Lazlo of the west" as the book states, then PERHAPS it operates similarly to the actual Lazlo, or New Lazlo in what they allow inside thier city walls.

Irrigardless this is NOT the point of this discusion and it's obvious by Technomancer jumping on this one point that he's just being argumentative. So Technomancer, I have a question for you, if you dare!
How would you have a psi-stalker capture a mage with the least ammount of trouble and danger to the stalker. Give us an example as I did on a previous page. Lets see how YOU would "Capture" a mage!!

[Temporalmage]

Do you even bother to read other people's posts or just start thinking up smart-ass replies two words in?

Pot, kettle, black.

[Temporalmage]

The book of magic states this is impossible.

No magic cast outside of a power armor robot or vehicle can affect anything inside of it.

No magic cast inside of a power armor robot or vehicle can affect anything outside of it.

Teleporting an object into or even yourself into something like that is certainly having the spell effect going into from outside.. and as such is not allowed. ((Book of Magic page quote will be provided if you really need it.....))

Correct See! I'm not against you TechnoMancer, just some of your opinions!

[Dead Boy]

Now that's just plain silly. You can't teleport inside Chi-Town. The whole thing is environmentally shielded up the wazzo, just like a super-sized robot vehicle! Magic can't penetrate its walls. In fact, it may note even be possible to teleport from one locale inside to another also inside.

Expect in the books it lists monsters as teleporting into the chi-town depths all the time. Which is why chi-town has a set defense force to stop them from doing so. Demons and the like show up all the time.

Well Crap! There it is on the top of page 186, (you really should provide your own page refrences, by the way). That's just bad writing on their part. Logic dictates that Chi-Town, as well as every CS fortress city, has to be environmentally shielded for this very purpose. Other wise, given the number of magic using enemies the Coalition has, some mad man would have teleported a few hundred super nukes in there and reduced the city to a pile of rubble. Given that was in fluff text, I really have to write that off as the author typing before he though things through or a probable type-o.

Do you even bother to read other people's posts or just start thinking up smart-ass replies two words in?

Pot, kettle, black.

So you admit your guilt.

And besides, I'm not the one who completely ignored a clearly writen answer just to throw back a so-so come back.

[Temporalmage]

I'd say that Chi-Town, as well as other high tech mega complex style cities, ARE invironmentaly sealed. It was probably built that way to protect the peaple in the event of an attack. And after the first war with the Federation of Magic, so many years ago, the place was purposly built to keep out everything, including teleporting mages. But with all things there are a small number of holes in the security. Thats why the book says that things teleport into the basement all the time. Cause that's the place with all the holes in the environmental sealing. I'd imagine that Chi Town could seal off a level if they needed to. Like huge blast doors shuting and electromagneticly locking in place. But for normal day to day stuff all the interior blast doors would be open so that the citizens could wander about doing thier day to day shoping, working, whatever.
As for the Center...with the thousands of portals that are in operation inside the place already I'd say that pretty much negates any idea's that the place was built to keep peaple out.

[Svartalf]

T-Porting into an environmentally sealed robot, power armor, or Vehicle is impossible.

Which means that Chi-Town is not an environmentally sealed robot, power armor, or vehicle.

Which makes lazlo, and other enemies of the CS very much relieved.

Actually not.
If the mage is sufficiently familiar with the interior of the robot or armor, and its location, and there is room for him in there, there is just no reason he couldn't Tport in.

The book of magic states this is impossible.

No magic cast outside of a power armor robot or vehicle can affect anything inside of it.

No magic cast inside of a power armor robot or vehicle can affect anything outside of it.

Teleporting an object into or even yourself into something like that is certainly having the spell effect going into from outside.. and as such is not allowed. ((Book of Magic page quote will be provided if you really need it.....))

Sorry... the BoM (and the initial RMB) statement to that effect means that a mage in a bot or power armor cannot cast spells out of the shell (actually, would have trouble casting at all, this is one case where I'd apply the casting penalties for wearing armor), nor can he cast a spell at the pilot of a bot or PA suit. The restriction if of the order that prohibits casting a fireball through a wall, not something that says that the effect itself cannot cross such barriers.

Teleporting, however, is another thing altogether. If you can teleport from/into a CS fortress city and basically through all manners of physical barrieres, such as from/into a cave deep under mountains, there's nothing so special about a bot or PA that would prevent the move. it's just another location. Basically, the spell, at the time you cast it, does not cross the barrier, as you cas it at a nearby item or yourself ... the spell does not cross such a barrier in going from the mage to its target. However, the effect itself, in the case of a Teleport, is specially geared to cross physical obstacles... there's just nothing so special about bots and PA as to restrict the use of such a spell.

I speak from what I read in RMB, and welcome page quote from BoM, though I am fairly confident this would be essentially the same and would not change my interpretation.

BTW ... where does it say that sealed environment is useful in preventing teleportation?

[Nekira Sudacne]

T-Porting into an environmentally sealed robot, power armor, or Vehicle is impossible.

Which means that Chi-Town is not an environmentally sealed robot, power armor, or vehicle.

Which makes lazlo, and other enemies of the CS very much relieved.

Actually not.
If the mage is sufficiently familiar with the interior of the robot or armor, and its location, and there is room for him in there, there is just no reason he couldn't Tport in.

The book of magic states this is impossible.

No magic cast outside of a power armor robot or vehicle can affect anything inside of it.

No magic cast inside of a power armor robot or vehicle can affect anything outside of it.

Teleporting an object into or even yourself into something like that is certainly having the spell effect going into from outside.. and as such is not allowed. ((Book of Magic page quote will be provided if you really need it.....))

Sorry... the BoM (and the initial RMB) statement to that effect means that a mage in a bot or power armor cannot cast spells out of the shell (actually, would have trouble casting at all, this is one case where I'd apply the casting penalties for wearing armor), nor can he cast a spell at the pilot of a bot or PA suit. The restriction if of the order that prohibits casting a fireball through a wall, not something that says that the effect itself cannot cross such barriers.

Teleporting, however, is another thing altogether. If you can teleport from/into a CS fortress city and basically through all manners of physical barrieres, such as from/into a cave deep under mountains, there's nothing so special about a bot or PA that would prevent the move. it's just another location. Basically, the spell, at the time you cast it, does not cross the barrier, as you cas it at a nearby item or yourself ... the spell does not cross such a barrier in going from the mage to its target. However, the effect itself, in the case of a Teleport, is specially geared to cross physical obstacles... there's just nothing so special about bots and PA as to restrict the use of such a spell.

I speak from what I read in RMB, and welcome page quote from BoM, though I am fairly confident this would be essentially the same and would not change my interpretation.

no, the book of magic clarified the rule. the one in RMB didn't sufficently cover it and so it was an added restriction.

[Temporalmage]

So you admit your guilt.
And besides, I'm not the one who completely ignored a clearly writen answer just to throw back a so-so come back

"sigh" Temporalmage wrote:
In my previous example the psi-stalkers attack is a surprise attack. Therfore it happens before initiative is even rolled, therfore is a free attack that does not count towards the psi-stalkers total for the round.

The move Sneak Attack doesn't work that way. According to the RGMG the only real benifits the Stalker will get out of it is that, assuming the Psi Stalker can use his Prowl skill successfully to get on top if his intended victim in the first place, he automatically gets the initiative and the mage can not parry or dodge the attack. It says nothing about the suprise attack being denied an attack in return.

The way normal combat works is both party know they are in combat, both partys roll initiative...go from there. What was discussed was a preemptive strike. The stalker attacks before the mage knows what's going on. So there is NO initiative roll, the stalker just attacks. The mage, totally surprised wouldn't be able to defend at all. (As it says in the book, that you so lovingly pointed out.) Then initiative would be rolled, and combat continue as normal. The stalkers first action does not count against his normal number of attacks per melee round because it happens BEFORE the melee round even began. This is what I stated. If you can not parry or dodge a sneak attack then how do you think you could attack in return??? This is perposterous, and lacks any logic or thought on your part. I didn't bother to reply with any attempt at tact or honest effort due to its inept and outright blatent stupidity. But if you would like to continue the conversation then so be it. So you see, I DO read the entire post, and even previous posts that are relevent to the issue, and perhaps a book or two BEFORE I formulate my smart ass replies.

[Svartalf]

[

no, the book of magic clarified the rule. the one in RMB didn't sufficently cover it and so it was an added restriction.

Thanks Nek, just thanks ... since the classical RMB rule has apparently been modified (wonder if the rule is good or useful, but I better study it anyway, just to see) ... would it be too much to ask just where in the book that is?

[Temporalmage]

Side note... ((Back on Topic sort of...)) The GM guide relists Paired weapons... and it states that when you attack with paired weapons and you go for a double strike((With the weapons!))... BOTH weapons hit and you roll 1 dice to determine if they both strike. It doesn't allow you to do a Kick and a sword strike... or to change an eclip and stab with a blade.

Interesting. But I still believe my previous example would work for the stalker. He attacks from hiding, tackling the mage. Now he's on top, (as long as he rolled above a 5 of course ), and initiative would be rolled. Logically, at least the way I see it, the mage would probably want the stalker off of him so he could get up himself. This would at least partially indicate that the mage needs to try hand to hand combat stuff like wrestling or at least a good old fasioned head butt. The stalker knows he needs to be quick so ignores whatever the mage is doing and concentrates on sticking him with a knife. (Side note: couldn't the stalker just bite him on exposed flesh? After all some of them are canabilistic, and the book states that they only need to do 1D6 points of damage, so a 1 point bite should do it shouldnt' it??) Even if the mage wanted to cast a spell instead, it's going to take him two actions to finish. And if he takes damage during that time he would lose the spell as he say's "Ouch" in a loud voice. For the first action the stalker just goes on his own initiative, or simultaniously, whichever would be better for the stalker. On the stalkers next action he does the same as his next action would be to drain the mage of PPE.
Honestly I do believe that everyone is too hung up on three little words in parenthasis that don't mean anything. "(about 5 seconds)" I mean come on guys and gals....right before that it states it as instantanious, and directly after that it tells us that once the proccess has started it can't be stopped. So what's the big deal here?? What is it that you don't understand?? Really??

[Dead Boy]

"sigh" Temporalmage wrote:
In my previous example the psi-stalkers attack is a surprise attack. Therfore it happens before initiative is even rolled, therfore is a free attack that does not count towards the psi-stalkers total for the round.

The move Sneak Attack doesn't work that way. According to the RGMG the only real benifits the Stalker will get out of it is that, assuming the Psi Stalker can use his Prowl skill successfully to get on top if his intended victim in the first place, he automatically gets the initiative and the mage can not parry or dodge the attack. It says nothing about the suprise attack being denied an attack in return.

Can't you even keep track of your own quotes? That explanation for Sneak Attacks was in reply the THIS quip:

So if I sneek up behind someone and attempt to slit thier throat, before I get to make my attack roll, we have to roll initiative?? LOL

That's why these boards flow in cronological order. So people don't reply to things posted two days in the future or something out of context three posts back.

As for your more recent err in game mechanics...

What was discussed was a preemptive strike. The stalker attacks before the mage knows what's going on. So there is NO initiative roll, the stalker just attacks. The mage, totally surprised wouldn't be able to defend at all. (As it says in the book, that you so lovingly pointed out.) Then initiative would be rolled, and combat continue as normal. The stalkers first action does not count against his normal number of attacks per melee round because it happens BEFORE the melee round even began. This is what I stated. If you can not parry or dodge a sneak attack then how do you think you could attack in return???

Your interpetation of Palladium's current game machanics is a bit flawed. Here's the way Sneak Attack works under the most recent rules. The Stalker delcairs that he is about to attempt a Sneak Attack on Mage X. To successfully pull it off he must first make a Prowl Skill check while on the approach. If the skill check is blown, both parties roll initiative and continue as nomral from there. If the skill check is made, then the Sneak Attack may commence. With a successful Sneak Attack the agressor automatcially gets the initiative. Not just for the initial attack, but for the entire melee round. The first attack, the Sneak Attack, may not be blocked, parried, or defended against in any way. This first attack IS part of the normal melee round sequence, using the attacker's first melee action. However, the difference between this and a normal attack is that the defencer may not use his first melee action out of order of initiative to preform a defensive action as nomral, such as a dodge, entangle, parry, or simultaneous attack. After the Sneak Attack has been used, whether it hit or missed, then the defender may use his first melee action for the round, be it a movement, attack, or preperations for a defensive action for his second melee action. No initiative roll is made untill the NEXT melee round begins.

THAT'S how it works.

[Temporalmage]

Your interpetation of Palladium's current game machanics is a bit flawed. Here's the way Sneak Attack works under the most recent rules. The Stalker delcairs that he is about to attempt a Sneak Attack on Mage X. To successfully pull it off he must first make a Prowl Skill check while on the approach. If the skill check is blown, both parties roll initiative and continue as nomral from there. If the skill check is made, then the Sneak Attack may commence. With a successful Sneak Attack the agressor automatcially gets the initiative. Not just for the initial attack, but for the entire melee round. The first attack, the Sneak Attack, may not be blocked, parried, or defended against in any way. This first attack IS part of the normal melee round sequence, using the attacker's first melee action. However, the difference between this and a normal attack is that the defencer may not use his first melee action out of order of initiative to preform a defensive action as nomral, such as a dodge, entangle, parry, or simultaneous attack. After the Sneak Attack has been used, whether it hit or missed, then the defender may use his first melee action for the round, be it a movement, attack, or preperations for a defensive action for his second melee action. No initiative roll is made untill the NEXT melee round begins.

THAT'S how it works.

Your interpetation of Palladium's current game machanics is a bit flawed. Logic dictates that if you can not dodge, parry, or even know that an attack has just happened....as in you just got shot, stabbed, or whatever... how are you sopposed to be able to imediatly attack back? If someone just blindsided you from surprise you don't even know if it's a friend or foe in that short time span. For all you know it could very easily be a friend that just saved you from a landmine, or swooping dragon, etc. Yet you say they can attack immediatly without even knowing who is attacking or even where the attack is coming from? I mean seriously!! Also remember that the victem of a tackle looses thier next action. So once again...how are they going to attack anyway??

[Temporalmage]

Any society with Johny Cochran in it. After all with him on your side you can get away with murder.

[Dead Boy]

Your interpetation of Palladium's current game machanics is a bit flawed. Here's the way Sneak Attack works under the most recent rules. The Stalker delcairs that he is about to attempt a Sneak Attack on Mage X. To successfully pull it off he must first make a Prowl Skill check while on the approach. If the skill check is blown, both parties roll initiative and continue as nomral from there. If the skill check is made, then the Sneak Attack may commence. With a successful Sneak Attack the agressor automatcially gets the initiative. Not just for the initial attack, but for the entire melee round. The first attack, the Sneak Attack, may not be blocked, parried, or defended against in any way. This first attack IS part of the normal melee round sequence, using the attacker's first melee action. However, the difference between this and a normal attack is that the defencer may not use his first melee action out of order of initiative to preform a defensive action as nomral, such as a dodge, entangle, parry, or simultaneous attack. After the Sneak Attack has been used, whether it hit or missed, then the defender may use his first melee action for the round, be it a movement, attack, or preperations for a defensive action for his second melee action. No initiative roll is made untill the NEXT melee round begins.

THAT'S how it works.

Your interpetation of Palladium's current game machanics is a bit flawed. Logic dictates that if you can not dodge, parry, or even know that an attack has just happened....as in you just got shot, stabbed, or whatever... how are you sopposed to be able to imediatly attack back? If someone just blindsided you from surprise you don't even know if it's a friend or foe in that short time span. For all you know it could very easily be a friend that just saved you from a landmine, or swooping dragon, etc. Yet you say they can attack immediatly without even knowing who is attacking or even where the attack is coming from? I mean seriously!! Also remember that the victem of a tackle looses thier next action. So once again...how are they going to attack anyway??

Logic dictates...? Since when dose logic trump canon game mechanics? House Rule it any way you like at your table, but here when to comes to by-the-book disscussions, sometimes you have to just leave logic back at home where it won't get beat on like stick-boy third-grader with lunch money jingling in his pocket.

[Temporalmage]

Ok bigshot. Lets see you explain it. The book states that a psi-stalker takes out mages all the time. The book also states that the act of draining is instantanious. And the book also states that they can drain a mage without killing him/her. You can give reason after reason on why they can't do it. Lets see you give one that say's they can. Lets play a little devils advocate. Nekira Sudacne can play along too. Your both very up to date on the rules, so lets see how well you do. Or is that too tough for ya?

How would YOU play a stalker that successfully attacks a mage and drains thier PPE without killing/harming the mage aside from the 1D6 SDC.

I swear some of the idiots on these boards just like to argue for arguments sake without a decent inovative thought in their head.

(By the way the above comment does NOT count against Dead Boy or TechnoMancer. I've argued at various times with both of you gentleman, and while I may not always agree with the two of you, and vice versa, at least you've managed to stay more adult than juvinile name calling. Thank you for that gentleman.)

[Nekira Sudacne]

Ok bigshot. Lets see you explain it. The book states that a psi-stalker takes out mages all the time. The book also states that the act of draining is instantanious. And the book also states that they can drain a mage without killing him/her. You can give reason after reason on why they can't do it. Lets see you give one that say's they can. Lets play a little devils advocate. Nekira Sudacne can play along too. Your both very up to date on the rules, so lets see how well you do. Or is that too tough for ya?

How would YOU play a stalker that successfully attacks a mage and drains thier PPE without killing/harming the mage aside from the 1D6 SDC.

I swear some of the idiots on these boards just like to argue for arguments sake without a decent inovative thought in their head.

(By the way the above comment does NOT count against Dead Boy or TechnoMancer. I've argued at various times with both of you gentleman, and while I may not always agree with the two of you, and vice versa, at least you've managed to stay more adult than juvinile name calling. Thank you for that gentleman.)

1. Deadboy pretty much has been saying what I think. it mearly got to the point where I'd finished saying what I had to say.

2. sinse when have I been calling people names?

[Borast]

(Side note: couldn't the stalker just bite him on exposed flesh? After all some of them are canabilistic, and the book states that they only need to do 1D6 points of damage, so a 1 point bite should do it shouldnt' it??)

Logically...any wound that draws blood would work.

Also... in what society is assault with a deadly weapon give you a fine????

Go visit court more often...you might be suprised. I've heard of some guys in US courts receiving "disturbing the peace" convictions for hospitalising, crippling, and all-but killing some poor schmuck. Some of them with handguns!

[Temporalmage]

The problem that caused me to start this thread is that many people on this board seem to be in favor of psi-stalkers using their draining ability as some sort of giant hover vacume of ppe stealing where they drain mages hundreds of yards away just because the mage had a shaving cut on him from the morning.... and that's crazy. Draining without killing was never meant to be a MORE effective way of draining mages and certainly not as some sort of anti-mage offensive weapon. It's a harder way for the stalker to drain, when he can't kill because of restrictions of his team mates or laws of the area he's in.

This is true. I believe that draining PPE without killing is much more difficult. Though very possible.

For total ease of feeding a psi-stalker can be fullfilled by just walking up to a ley line and eating.. even if it tastes bad... it's safer, faster, and far easier to do then going to the problem of capturing a mage.

Unfortunatly I'm not sure I could agree with you on this point. The book does say that ley line energy "tastse" like sour milk. I'm not sure if I could force myself to drink sour milk personally. At least not on purpose. And the one or two times in my life that I did taste it I imediatly spat it out. I think I'd have to be very near starvation or death by dehydration to even contemplate such an act. Yuck does not even begin to touch it.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Hehe.. ever watch fear factor? Compared to what those people eat sour milk would be great.

Better question....

Would you drink sour milk.... or kill somebody and eat them?

depends on the person. . . .

[dark brandon]

Hehe.. ever watch fear factor? Compared to what those people eat sour milk would be great.

Better question....

Would you drink sour milk.... or kill somebody and eat them?

arn't there biological problems to cannabalism?

[Svartalf]

Hehe.. ever watch fear factor? Compared to what those people eat sour milk would be great.

Better question....

Would you drink sour milk.... or kill somebody and eat them?

arn't there biological problems to cannabalism?

Stricly speaking, no ... it's meat like any other, actually even more easy to digest than most, as all the proteins are already compatible with the human physiology and don't have to be broken down.

now, there's the fact that a species that practices cannibalism is actually reducing its numbers, and thus its chance of staying very long in the food chain.

The worst must be the psychological problems/evil mentality that go with the practic by humans, but that would be too long.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Hehe.. ever watch fear factor? Compared to what those people eat sour milk would be great.

Better question....

Would you drink sour milk.... or kill somebody and eat them?

arn't there biological problems to cannabalism?

now, there's the fact that a species that practices cannibalism is actually reducing its numbers, and thus its chance of staying very long in the food chain.

not necessarily. if they ritually sacrafice members for comsumption, yes.

but if they only eat those that die anyway, well. . . they're already dead, and are edible, so. . .

[Temporalmage]

Hehe.. ever watch fear factor? Compared to what those people eat sour milk would be great.

Better question....

Would you drink sour milk.... or kill somebody and eat them?

Kill someone and eat them. Actually the only reason I won't do it now is due to politicaly and socially dictated morals of the common masses.

[
arn't there biological problems to cannabalism?

Only if that's the biggest part of your diet. Kinda like eating liver, real good for you but you should only include liver in your diet like once a month. So to remain healthy just be a part-time cannibal!!

[Temporalmage]

Now that we've gone WAY off topic...
Those peaple on Fear Factor are conciously making themselves eat stuff that is totally disgusting. The concious mind of an educated person that knows that it won't really kill them, its just gross. But the reason that we have a "gag" factor in the first place is so we don't go around eating dirt and mud, or putrid meat. It tastes nasty so we automatically spit it out. Kind of like a built in poison detector. I just don't see too many Psi-stalkers making themselves gag and drinking the "Sour Milk" taste of ley lines.

Now don't get me wrong...the book DOES say they can do it, and I have allowed starving stalkers to do just that on occasion. But deffinatly as a last ditch effort when as a GM I've forgotten to give them food during a week long adventure. (I won't punish the player's stalker just because I didn't provide food for them.)

[Dead Boy]

Ok bigshot. Lets see you explain it. The book states that a psi-stalker takes out mages all the time. The book also states that the act of draining is instantanious. And the book also states that they can drain a mage without killing him/her. You can give reason after reason on why they can't do it. Lets see you give one that say's they can. Lets play a little devils advocate. Nekira Sudacne can play along too. Your both very up to date on the rules, so lets see how well you do. Or is that too tough for ya?

Sorry I took so long in getting to this. Reality keeps intruding in on my free time.

It is, and always has been, my contention that Psi Stalkers can perform the non-lethal form of their PPE Drain with only some difficulty, depending on who they're attempting to make a quick meal out of. As I pointed out in great detail, the act of physically capturing a Mage without the use of a Neural Mace (and even that would probably take more time than he has) is damn near impossible by the rules as they stand in the books. It just can't be done.

But let's take a closer look at this. Why is it necessary to "Physically Capture" the mage in the first place? Some have speculated that it was part of some kind of ritual in breaking down his mental defense, but the book makes no mention of anything like this. All it says is capture and inflict 1D6SDC with knife. The way I see it, (and this is just my interpretation of the same vague line that Techno Mancer sees differently), the only reason why you have to get so close is because the example has the Stalker using a knife, a weapon with no range. And the reason why they use the term "capture" is because Rifts is an Mega Damage universe, meaning that the mage is guaranteed to have some kind of MDC armor, meaning that any attack that is going to draw blood is one where you get to choose exactly where on the mage's person the SDC knife cuts, like maybe a nice exposed part of arm not covered by the armor's vambraces. So if the procedure of capturing the Spell Caster is only just a function of getting him in the position of where the knife can make the 1D6 SDC cut, then the whole aim is to just to get him bleeding with an equivalent attack.

Back when the Rifts Main Book first came out, there were no rules on how to deal with those in partial armor, like Dog Boy CA-0DMP for example. It wasn't till the RGMG came out that the issue was even addressed. Kev gave two solutions for those that wished to take advantage of the uncovered areas. The first, (and the one I personally endorse), is to require the attacker make a Called Shot to hit the unprotected area, possibly with a few minuses to hit. The second requires some poor GM to go through all the books and assign an AR to every suit of partial armor. So, in tying this to the issue at hand, Mages can no longer wear armor that fully covers their body, which is a rule made official as of WB:16 Fed of Magic, (though they claim it was always supposed to be like this). That means that between the two rules it is now possible to make a Called Shot with a ranged weapon and strike them at a vulnerable exposed area that lacks MDC cover.

So, if the main prerequisite of the Stalker's non-lethal form of the PPE Drain is to inflict 1D6 SDC, presumably to get the blood flowing, thanks to the current rules is should now be possible to use something like a .22 pistol and use it solely to make Called Shots at the soft spots in magic users' defenses. A .22 Ruger will inflict 1D6SDC directly to the Hit Points, and thus making the victim bleed. If this can be done a range, then given that the Stalker can fed on the dying a range (up to 300 meters!) then he should be able to conduct this drain at range as well so long as he has a bloody spot so suck the mystic energy from.

Now another area in which we have clashed is the duration it takes to perform this particular action. You, Temproalmage, focus more on the part that says "instantaneously" where as I and others are more drawn to the more quantified "about 5 seconds" part. Well, here's something you might not have considered. Maybe we're BOTH right! When a Stalker kills his target he has little time to partake of the bounty of PPEx2 before it dissipates. On the other hand, when he rends the PPE from a still living victim there could be a little resistance on the part of the PPE lunch box... er... mage. Have you stopped to consider that maybe that when the Stalker kills his target, he can suck down the PPE instantaneously, but when he has to pull it out by force, it might take a while.... say about 5 seconds.? It could be the answer to this little impasse we have here.

How would YOU play a stalker that successfully attacks a mage and drains their PPE without killing/harming the mage aside from the 1D6 SDC.

In the midst of a larger fight a Mage and a Psi Stalker cross paths. Though the Stalker would like to kill him and gorge on a feast of fresh soul, (mmmmm.... fresh soul ), the smart thing to do would be to neutralize him and come back for the caster later after more dangerous foes have been delt with. The Mage has a 4th level Armor of Ithan spell up over his partial plastic armor and is ready to rumble with his TW Firebolt Musket (pg. 124, CS Navy book). The Stalker is in CA-4 Dead Boy armor and is armed with a C-29 Hellfire Plasma Cannon. Both combatants are Level 4.

Melee Action 1: The Mage won the initiative and puts a good sized pock-mark right in the Stalker's chest (25 MD). In return the Stalker shoots back and obliterates his Armor of Ithan (40 MD).

Melee Action 2: The Mage, not wanting to waste half his melee actions to get another AoI up, opts to put another mini-fireball in the Stalker's chest doing 21 MD this time. In response the Stalker pulls his .22 Ruger from it's holster and makes a Called Shot to the mage's exposed arm, (a 12 or better base compounded by a +3 aim bonus, +1 from WP Pistol and +2 from Sniper skill... so he really needs a 6 or better to make the shot). With only a 25% chance of missing, the bullet found its mark and delt 3 pts of SDC to the Caster.

Melee Action 3: Seeing blood running down his arm and that hungry gleam in the Psi Stalker's eye, the Mage knew exactly what was going to happen next. Not wanting to become defenseless, wanting to retain the ability to reload his TW rifle with PPE when it runs out of shots in the next few attacks, he runs for cover and prays that the Stalker needs a line of sight. Meanwhile, the Stalker focuses his thoughts on the crimson trail trickling down the caster's limb and begins to draw the precious PPE from his person.

Melee Action 4: The mage finds a big chunk of debris... might have been a tank of some kind a few minutes ago... and jumps behind it. And just for good measure, as he does so he turns in mid air and blasts off a Wild Shot from his rifle. To both the mage's and Stalker’s amazement the shot hits the Stalker again, but only does 16 MD. The Stalker isn't happy about his armor being weaken that much more, but with this being his second melee action devoted to the PPE Drain he know that should the mage survive the next few minutes, he'll have a useless weapon and no means of bolstering his defenses. Tying to run for cover was a good idea on the mage's part, but unfortunately for him, once any Psi Stalker starts to feed the process can not be stopped, even by the Stalker, shy of killing him of course.


That's how I would play out a successful attack. And I believe that it is well within the confines of the canon rules.

I swear some of the idiots on these boards just like to argue for arguments sake without a decent inovative thought in their head.

I only do that when I'm mad, and that rarely happens.

(By the way the above comment does NOT count against Dead Boy or TechnoMancer. I've argued at various times with both of you gentleman, and while I may not always agree with the two of you, and vice versa, at least you've managed to stay more adult than juvinile name calling. Thank you for that gentleman.)

Really? I thought I was kind of getting a little insulting with you. Guess my internal censor in my brain is more fine tuned than I though.

[Mack]

In response the Stalker pulls his .22 Ruger from it's holster and makes a Called Shot to the mage's exposed arm, (a 12 or better base compounded by a +3 aim bonus, +1 from WP Pistol and +2 from Sniper skill... so he really needs a 6 or better to make the shot).

One nitpiking question DB, are you sure Sniper can be applied a pistol? I don't have my book in front of me, but I thought it was restricted to only certain rifles.

[Nekira Sudacne]

In response the Stalker pulls his .22 Ruger from it's holster and makes a Called Shot to the mage's exposed arm, (a 12 or better base compounded by a +3 aim bonus, +1 from WP Pistol and +2 from Sniper skill... so he really needs a 6 or better to make the shot).

One nitpiking question DB, are you sure Sniper can be applied a pistol? I don't have my book in front of me, but I thought it was restricted to only certain rifles.

technically, yes, it is restricted to only rifles that can fire single shots.

personally, I allow it to be applied to pistols though. the art of aiming is the art of aiming.

[Borast]

Hehe.. ever watch fear factor? Compared to what those people eat sour milk would be great.

Better question....

Would you drink sour milk.... or kill somebody and eat them?

arn't there biological problems to cannabalism?

Stricly speaking, no ... it's meat like any other, actually even more easy to digest than most, as all the proteins are already compatible with the human physiology and don't have to be broken down.

now, there's the fact that a species that practices cannibalism is actually reducing its numbers, and thus its chance of staying very long in the food chain.

The worst must be the psychological problems/evil mentality that go with the practic by humans, but that would be too long.

Biologically, yes there is a "problem"...consumption of human neural tissue results in some problems, JKD for one. This was noted in one of the anthropology courses I took in University. While I can't remember all of the details, I do remember there are definite problems. And, no, I'm not going to flip through all those texts to find one detail...

Canibalism, while by definition, means consumption of one's own species, is generally practiced between, and not within tribes. Combine this with the fact that most tribes victimised by canibalism did not practice it. Generally, it was used as a terror method, not actual normal dietary practice. Literally, "do as I say, or this will happen to you."

However, there are certain cultures where it was more of a cerimonial nature, and / or revolved around respect for one's enemies. The Aztec kingdoms and many of the practicing cultures in the South Pacific come to mind. There is in fact one modern "canibal" culture alive and well in the modern world. The dichotamy of this society is that it is a mark of respect, and only occurs in certain situations, but it is also disliked by the practicioners. They do it when a respected family member dies...no one likes it, but they do it anyway, because to do anything else would be a mark of extreme disrespect to the dearly departed...

Finally, when practiced ritually, canibalism is not evil - it dealt with respect.

[Dead Boy]

Except you totally ignored the capture part... so why follow any part of the rules?

Capture doesn't seem to be vague, it's in all 3 rules printed to date that deal with psi-stalkers... even after the change in allowing you to go for exposed parts, so it clearly wasn't put in to do that.

I'm just no sure there is any room for debate when somebody says "Capture really means get close and make a called shot."

Are you kidding me?!?! I though I made my case abundantly clear in that very long winded post! Ok, let me show it in a different light, (hopefully in just a paragraph or two this time ). When the original rules were writen for the non-lethal version of the PPE Drain and published way back in 1990, it more or less had to include the "Physicaly Capture" line, (it's not even a section, it's just a small line), because of the Mega Damage system and the fact that there was no way for a person to inflict an SDC wound on another in head-to-toe full EBA. The rules simply did not exist back then to allow it. The only way it could happen is if the mage were captured. That way he could be stripped of his protctive armor and the 1D6 knife cut could be inflicted, allowing the all-important blood to flow and be seen by the Stalker.

But things have changed in the past 15 years since that rule was written. Practicioners of Magic now have to wear non-environmental, non-conventional, partial armor or suffer possible spell failures. And on top of that there are now rules speciffically dealing with circumventing partial armors, enabeling an agressor to hit the vulnerable unprotected parts of said armor with a Called Shot. But though the general rules evolved to the state they are in today, the specific rules as written for the Psi Stalker's non-letahal version of the PPE Drain have been overlooked and left behind. The same outmoted rule has been and cut & pasted into other books completely unadulterated as they appeared 15 years ago despite the existance of newer rules that make it an obsolete dinosaur.

Consequently we have to examine and disect the original reason and intent behind the ancient "Physically Capture" rule as I believe I have above and before. With out that there is no knowing "why?" it was the way it was. Once you know the "why" of the rule, it's a simple mater of applying the current and appropriate rules as they stand today, not as they did 15 years ago.

[Svartalf]

Biologically, yes there is a "problem"...consumption of human neural tissue results in some problems, JKD for one. This was noted in one of the anthropology courses I took in University. While I can't remember all of the details, I do remember there are definite problems. And, no, I'm not going to flip through all those texts to find one detail...

Canibalism, while by definition, means consumption of one's own species, is generally practiced between, and not within tribes. Combine this with the fact that most tribes victimised by canibalism did not practice it. Generally, it was used as a terror method, not actual normal dietary practice. Literally, "do as I say, or this will happen to you."

However, there are certain cultures where it was more of a cerimonial nature, and / or revolved around respect for one's enemies. The Aztec kingdoms and many of the practicing cultures in the South Pacific come to mind. There is in fact one modern "canibal" culture alive and well in the modern world. The dichotamy of this society is that it is a mark of respect, and only occurs in certain situations, but it is also disliked by the practicioners. They do it when a respected family member dies...no one likes it, but they do it anyway, because to do anything else would be a mark of extreme disrespect to the dearly departed...

Finally, when practiced ritually, canibalism is not evil - it dealt with respect.

JKD? what's that? when I search the net all I get is Jeet Kune Do ... obviously you're referring to some other disease. Is it that disease some pacific islanders got because of eating the brains of their dead relatives?

And let me nit pick : consumption of *ANY* diseased tissue, especially nervous tissue, is bad. I was mostly referring to human meaty tissues, and assuming nobody would be stupid enough to eat the body of a sick person.

I don't quite agree with your interpretation. a) as mentioned above, there is some intratribal cannibalism, esp when consuming the flesh of the dead is part of funeral practices. b) South American cannibalistic practices, such as done by the ancient caribs, or amazonian tribes like the Tupi usually was fully reciprocated between enemy tribes. but yes, it was a terror weapon : "don't get captured or else..."

[Svartalf]

Sorry, Dead Boy, but I must side with Technomancer.

The reason why a stalker has to do his PPE drain up, close, and personal is not that the example has him using a knife (yes, the "physically capture" part may be difficult, but it must still be met). If drain by gunshot wound were an option, I do think such a thing would be said in the text, more explicitly BTW, knive DO have a range, many can be thrown, still the example insists on the stalker using it by hand). Also there's the fact that vampires, including PPE vampires, usually need close physical proximity to their victim to feed. The object of the cutting is more like the proverbial "salt on the tail" in capturing bird than the actual bleeding... it's a breach in the food's integrity, not draining the blood (which the stalker doesn't care about).

Your proposal of drain by gunshot could be correct IF the mage is "captured" AAND the shot is delivered point blank. As has already been mentioned several times, the 300m range is ONLY for feeding on the dying, doing the same on the still living is another kettle of fish altogether. The stalker can feed on death PPE at a range because death has made it "free" , on the other hand, that of a living mage is firmly anchored to him, and generally protected from hostile takeover... the stalker exception to that rule is a grave one, and it's application is a rather strict procedure.

[Temporalmage]

Sorry I took so long in getting to this. Reality keeps intruding in on my free time.

Happens to me all the time.

It is, and always has been, my contention that Psi Stalkers can perform the non-lethal form of their PPE Drain with only some difficulty, depending on who they're attempting to make a quick meal out of. As I pointed out in great detail, the act of physically capturing a Mage without the use of a Neural Mace (and even that would probably take more time than he has) is damn near impossible by the rules as they stand in the books. It just can't be done.

But let's take a closer look at this. Why is it necessary to "Physically Capture" the mage in the first place? Some have speculated that it was part of some kind of ritual in breaking down his mental defense, but the book makes no mention of anything like this. All it says is capture and inflict 1D6SDC with knife. The way I see it, (and this is just my interpretation of the same vague line that Techno Mancer sees differently), the only reason why you have to get so close is because the example has the Stalker using a knife, a weapon with no range. And the reason why they use the term "capture" is because Rifts is an Mega Damage universe, meaning that the mage is guaranteed to have some kind of MDC armor, meaning that any attack that is going to draw blood is one where you get to choose exactly where on the mage's person the SDC knife cuts, like maybe a nice exposed part of arm not covered by the armor's vambraces. So if the procedure of capturing the Spell Caster is only just a function of getting him in the position of where the knife can make the 1D6 SDC cut, then the whole aim is to just to get him bleeding with an equivalent attack.

Back when the Rifts Main Book first came out, there were no rules on how to deal with those in partial armor, like Dog Boy CA-0DMP for example. It wasn't till the RGMG came out that the issue was even addressed. Kev gave two solutions for those that wished to take advantage of the uncovered areas. The first, (and the one I personally endorse), is to require the attacker make a Called Shot to hit the unprotected area, possibly with a few minuses to hit. The second requires some poor GM to go through all the books and assign an AR to every suit of partial armor. So, in tying this to the issue at hand, Mages can no longer wear armor that fully covers their body, which is a rule made official as of WB:16 Fed of Magic, (though they claim it was always supposed to be like this). That means that between the two rules it is now possible to make a Called Shot with a ranged weapon and strike them at a vulnerable exposed area that lacks MDC cover.

So, if the main prerequisite of the Stalker's non-lethal form of the PPE Drain is to inflict 1D6 SDC, presumably to get the blood flowing, thanks to the current rules is should now be possible to use something like a .22 pistol and use it solely to make Called Shots at the soft spots in magic users' defenses. A .22 Ruger will inflict 1D6SDC directly to the Hit Points, and thus making the victim bleed. If this can be done a range, then given that the Stalker can fed on the dying a range (up to 300 meters!) then he should be able to conduct this drain at range as well so long as he has a bloody spot so suck the mystic energy from.

Interesting theory... No offense but you have zero book rules to back this little theory of yours up with. Basicly your trying to rewrite your own version of "capture" so that it makes you happy. I personally have no problem if you play it that way in your game...I mean house rules kinda adds flavor to Rifts if you ask me...but by the book this is Not how a stalker would be able to drain a mage without killing him first!!

Now another area in which we have clashed is the duration it takes to perform this particular action. You, Temproalmage, focus more on the part that says "instantaneously" where as I and others are more drawn to the more quantified "about 5 seconds" part. Well, here's something you might not have considered. Maybe we're BOTH right! When a Stalker kills his target he has little time to partake of the bounty of PPEx2 before it dissipates. On the other hand, when he rends the PPE from a still living victim there could be a little resistance on the part of the PPE lunch box... er... mage. Have you stopped to consider that maybe that when the Stalker kills his target, he can suck down the PPE instantaneously, but when he has to pull it out by force, it might take a while.... say about 5 seconds.? It could be the answer to this little impasse we have here.

Could be, I'll concede that you make a good argument. But personally I don't see it that way. This is one area that we will just have to agree to disagree on. The reason I feel that the "Instantanious" part of that sentance has more merit is because it's actually stated in the sentance. The "About 5 seconds" part is listed in "()" parenthasis as if added as an afterthought. Because the 5 seconds does not match the instantanious used directly before it I go with the sentace structure and ignore it. I believe if the writer wanted the process to take 5 seconds he would have wrote the following: "The absorption process takes about 5 seconds." Instead he wrote: "The absorption process is instantaneous." Can ya see the differance??

In the midst of a larger fight a Mage and a Psi Stalker cross paths. Though the Stalker would like to kill him and gorge on a feast of fresh soul, (mmmmm.... fresh soul ), the smart thing to do would be to neutralize him and come back for the caster later after more dangerous foes have been delt with. The Mage has a 4th level Armor of Ithan spell up over his partial plastic armor and is ready to rumble with his TW Firebolt Musket (pg. 124, CS Navy book). The Stalker is in CA-4 Dead Boy armor and is armed with a C-29 Hellfire Plasma Cannon. Both combatants are Level 4.

Melee Action 1: The Mage won the initiative and puts a good sized pock-mark right in the Stalker's chest (25 MD). In return the Stalker shoots back and obliterates his Armor of Ithan (40 MD).

Melee Action 2: The Mage, not wanting to waste half his melee actions to get another AoI up, opts to put another mini-fireball in the Stalker's chest doing 21 MD this time. In response the Stalker pulls his .22 Ruger from it's holster and makes a Called Shot to the mage's exposed arm, (a 12 or better base compounded by a +3 aim bonus, +1 from WP Pistol and +2 from Sniper skill... so he really needs a 6 or better to make the shot). With only a 25% chance of missing, the bullet found its mark and delt 3 pts of SDC to the Caster.

The rules do specifically state that this skill is only usable with single shot rifles. If your using Palladium Fantasy then bows can be combined with sniper also. If you open the door and allow pistols to be used with sniping then why not machineguns? Or rocket launchers?

Melee Action 3: Seeing blood running down his arm and that hungry gleam in the Psi Stalker's eye, the Mage knew exactly what was going to happen next. Not wanting to become defenseless, wanting to retain the ability to reload his TW rifle with PPE when it runs out of shots in the next few attacks, he runs for cover and prays that the Stalker needs a line of sight. Meanwhile, the Stalker focuses his thoughts on the crimson trail trickling down the caster's limb and begins to draw the precious PPE from his person.

Melee Action 4: The mage finds a big chunk of debris... might have been a tank of some kind a few minutes ago... and jumps behind it. And just for good measure, as he does so he turns in mid air and blasts off a Wild Shot from his rifle. To both the mage's and Stalker’s amazement the shot hits the Stalker again, but only does 16 MD. The Stalker isn't happy about his armor being weaken that much more, but with this being his second melee action devoted to the PPE Drain he know that should the mage survive the next few minutes, he'll have a useless weapon and no means of bolstering his defenses. Tying to run for cover was a good idea on the mage's part, but unfortunately for him, once any Psi Stalker starts to feed the process can not be stopped, even by the Stalker, shy of killing him of course.


That's how I would play out a successful attack. And I believe that it is well within the confines of the canon rules.

Wow.....(that bears repeating) WOW!!! So..um...well within cannon rules means to break existing rules that were never in argument before, and rewrite your own Rifts book to make your example work??? And everyone tore MY example to shreds!!! ROFLMAO

I swear some of the idiots on these boards just like to argue for arguments sake without a decent inovative thought in their head.

I only do that when I'm mad, and that rarely happens.

(By the way the above comment does NOT count against Dead Boy or TechnoMancer. I've argued at various times with both of you gentleman, and while I may not always agree with the two of you, and vice versa, at least you've managed to stay more adult than juvinile name calling. Thank you for that gentleman.)

Really? I thought I was kind of getting a little insulting with you. Guess my internal censor in my brain is more fine tuned than I though.

Nah...I'm pretty tough skined except when it comes to morons and idiots. Then I loose my patience. God may love simpletons...but I don't!!

[Temporalmage]

Ok bigshot. Lets see you explain it. The book states that a psi-stalker takes out mages all the time. The book also states that the act of draining is instantanious. And the book also states that they can drain a mage without killing him/her. You can give reason after reason on why they can't do it. Lets see you give one that say's they can. Lets play a little devils advocate. Nekira Sudacne can play along too. Your both very up to date on the rules, so lets see how well you do. Or is that too tough for ya?

How would YOU play a stalker that successfully attacks a mage and drains thier PPE without killing/harming the mage aside from the 1D6 SDC.

1. Deadboy pretty much has been saying what I think. it mearly got to the point where I'd finished saying what I had to say.

That's a cop out and you know it. I specifically challanged you to flex your mental muscles instead of your smart ass wisecracks and you know it. Challange issued...and you dropped the ball. You would have been better off just saying you didn't have a clue instead of making excuses!!

[Nekira Sudacne]

Ok bigshot. Lets see you explain it. The book states that a psi-stalker takes out mages all the time. The book also states that the act of draining is instantanious. And the book also states that they can drain a mage without killing him/her. You can give reason after reason on why they can't do it. Lets see you give one that say's they can. Lets play a little devils advocate. Nekira Sudacne can play along too. Your both very up to date on the rules, so lets see how well you do. Or is that too tough for ya?

How would YOU play a stalker that successfully attacks a mage and drains thier PPE without killing/harming the mage aside from the 1D6 SDC.

1. Deadboy pretty much has been saying what I think. it mearly got to the point where I'd finished saying what I had to say.

That's a cop out and you know it. I specifically challanged you to flex your mental muscles instead of your smart ass wisecracks and you know it. Challange issued...and you dropped the ball. You would have been better off just saying you didn't have a clue instead of making excuses!!

There's a difference between not having a clue and not really caring about some online argument about some game.

I post for fun. when an argument gets boring I usually drop it unless there's something I really want to reply to later on.

I'm not here to show you two the light of logic.

[Dead Boy]

That's simply not true at all.

As early as the conversion book they had rules for people in armor being knocked down and stunned. As early as the first atlantis book they had ways of stunning people in armor that weren't power armor. NGR had stun attacks for even MDC monsters and I believe people in power armor.

Neither of which have a thing to do with dealing with Partial Armor in MD combat and hitting exposed areas.

Lone Star and Bug Invasion came out after all of those books, including the conversion book which I believe included rules for mage armor and the like ((I think it did at least)).

Actually, that change occurred in WB: 16 Federation of Magic

So the fact is the rule was published with the CURRENT rule set in 2001? OR so.. which allowed many ways of capturing people in full enviro armor as well as called shotting parts of them... So your arguement doesn't hold water... they could have changed it, and instead kept the rule. It's a nice house rule that you use, and if it works for your game, GREAT! I have a ton myself.... however to argue that "capture" means "make a called shot" is just silly.

How can you call something that was written 15 years ago and then cut & paste in another book without the slightest change, that ignores some major revisions to the overall rules, "Current"? It's just poor editing. Nothing more. What I have presented here is not a "House Rule" but instead a different interpretation of the rules as published based on the latest information, not dated material. Just because you see the same vague line differently does not make my look on it any less valid than yours, nor any less canon tell Kev himself writes something that directly states the contrary.

Besides even when only the first book was published a part could grapple... pin.. and rip somebody out of armor.

... and rip people out of their armor? In what universe is that possible, because I reread the Wrestling skill saw nothing that so much as hints at such a capability. IF a person could have the armor rended off of his person with such a common as dirt maneuver, there wouldn't be a Human or SDC D-Bee left alive on the planet! So unless you have a page number to back that claim up...

Lets use Occum Razor on this situation.

1. Capture means capture and that's how it was supposed to be.

2. Capture really means make a called shot to hit with a blade or gun shot, which explains why Palladium has been late so often.... they were all in the hospital recovering from hundreds of stab wounds and gun shot wounds they all receieved at the team building "Capture the Flag" game that happened just before rifts was to be released..... or that at the last second some editor refused to publish the main 200+ page book unless it was 3 words shorter, so they changed "make a called shot" to "Capture".... and for some odd reason have left that in for 2 additional publishings of the very same rule.

How many times must I write it before it sinks in? The sole reason the line "capture'" was written was because at the time of its writing there were no rules for circumventing partial armor. In fact at the time of the "capture" line's writing, the new armor restrictions for mage types were nearly a decade away from being written! Capture was simply the way the Psi Stalker got under the Magic User's protective shell. Was… NOW we have newer rules that allow the Stalker to do this by other means. The Called Shot is just that to a vulnerable spot. An alternate means to the same end made possible thanks to more current rules for the game.

So get it clear. What I’m saying is NOT that “Capture” is synominous with “Called Shot”. I’m saying that Capture is no longer an absolute requirement because the more current rules allow for alternatives.

I also have to side with Technomancer on this one.

I think it's important to look at the name of the RCC and take it to heart... they are Psi-Stalkers. They stalk mages and ambush them when it's best, just like any predator, they choose the best time, when their prey is vulnerable. And, since a mage don't have enough PPE to always have defensive magic up, and can't cast alot of spells through EBA (either it penetrates or it doesn't... consistency needs to be satisfied), there's alot of vulnerable time for a mage... which is probably why they have other little gimmicks to help them in handly little ways.

I see Psi-stalkers as similar to great cats or wolves when they hunt. They use group tactics, ambushes and wait until a mage is alone or vulnerable for an easy kill/capture.

Good point. I'm sure that they do use such tactics. But in keeping with the great cats, though the mighty Lion will take the weak and unsuspecting, as well as scavenge off of the kills of others, it can and does take its foes on head on. And as such, it should be possible for the Psi Stalker to do the same. The only question here is whether or not he can use non-lethal tactics or not.

Interesting theory... No offense but you have zero book rules to back this little theory of yours up with. Basicly your trying to rewrite your own version of "capture" so that it makes you happy. I personally have no problem if you play it that way in your game...I mean house rules kinda adds flavor to Rifts if you ask me...but by the book this is Not how a stalker would be able to drain a mage without killing him first!!

Ok, First off, you asked me how what I was proposing would play out. That I did. Secondly, in the many posts leading up to that example I stated all the canon rule foundation I based my interpretation of the drain rule on. If you chose to ignore at least that much, then it is not I who has a problem discerning house rule from canon rule.

Could be, I'll concede that you make a good argument. But personally I don't see it that way. This is one area that we will just have to agree to disagree on. The reason I feel that the "Instantanious" part of that sentance has more merit is because it's actually stated in the sentance. The "About 5 seconds" part is listed in "()" parenthasis as if added as an afterthought. Because the 5 seconds does not match the instantanious used directly before it I go with the sentace structure and ignore it. I believe if the writer wanted the process to take 5 seconds he would have wrote the following: "The absorption process takes about 5 seconds." Instead he wrote: "The absorption process is instantaneous." Can ya see the differance??

Dude, you do know that all information in brackets "( )" is not there as an afterthought, but is actually a clarification, don't you? Don't take this personal or a flame of any sort, but given that this is the net I have to ask, is English/American your first language?

The rules do specifically state that this skill is only usable with single shot rifles. If your using Palladium Fantasy then bows can be combined with sniper also. If you open the door and allow pistols to be used with sniping then why not machineguns? Or rocket launchers?

Oops! Ya got me there guys. So to rectify that, in the example change all references of the .22 pistol to a stout .22 rifle/carbine on a sling easily assessable by just reaching around his back and bring it up to his shoulder, not too dissimilar to how the Russians equipped their soldiers' AK-47/74's.

There, problem solved.

Wow.....(that bears repeating) WOW!!! So..um...well within cannon rules means to break existing rules that were never in argument before, and rewrite your own Rifts book to make your example work??? And everyone tore MY example to shreds!!! ROFLMAO

What.... Other than that sniping with a pistol boo boo (recognized and rectified above), and our difference of opinions on the Stalker's non-lethal PPE Drain (which was the whole point of the example), just what do you find wrong with what I wrote in the example? If you're going to call me incompetent then you damn well better say just what you're accusing me of.

I gotta agree with Temp on this one... what game was that from? It was kinda like Palladium... but um... not.

Et tu, TM? If you have a grievance with what I wrote, be specific. Otherwise you’re not being constructive, but instead just another gawking rubber-necker and part of the problem.

[Temporalmage]

How many times must I write it before it sinks in? The sole reason the line "capture'" was written was because at the time of its writing there were no rules for circumventing partial armor. In fact at the time of the "capture" line's writing, the new armor restrictions for mage types were nearly a decade away from being written! Capture was simply the way the Psi Stalker got under the Magic User's protective shell. Was… NOW we have newer rules that allow the Stalker to do this by other means. The Called Shot is just that to a vulnerable spot. An alternate means to the same end made possible thanks to more current rules for the game.

So get it clear. What I’m saying is NOT that “Capture” is synominous with “Called Shot”. I’m saying that Capture is no longer an absolute requirement because the more current rules allow for alternatives.

Well that "would" be a good argument...except for the fact that the psi-stalker has been rewritten since those restrictions on mages came out, and they didn't change the stalker. So that seems to indicate that the "Old Ones" of Palladium did indeed mean capture...not something else involving called shots. Also how exactly to you "know" what the "sole reason" behind anything written by Palladium is??? Admit it...your geussing just like the rest of us!!

Interesting theory... No offense but you have zero book rules to back this little theory of yours up with. Basicly your trying to rewrite your own version of "capture" so that it makes you happy. I personally have no problem if you play it that way in your game...I mean house rules kinda adds flavor to Rifts if you ask me...but by the book this is Not how a stalker would be able to drain a mage without killing him first!!

Ok, First off, you asked me how what I was proposing would play out. That I did. Secondly, in the many posts leading up to that example I stated all the canon rule foundation I based my interpretation of the drain rule on. If you chose to ignore at least that much, then it is not I who has a problem discerning house rule from canon rule.

You are correct sir. I did indeed challange someone to come up with a better way for a stalker to take out a mage. I also stated "by the book". Not "by the house rules". So no offense but your "interpretation" just doesnt play out as cannon. Hence my previous post stating as much.

Dude, you do know that all information in brackets "( )" is not there as an afterthought, but is actually a clarification, don't you? Don't take this personal or a flame of any sort, but given that this is the net I have to ask, is English/American your first language?

Nope...bad english is! Or if ya ask my woman...redneckese! So how about you?? After all you seemed to miss the part where I said "The reason I feel that ..." I was giving ya'all my reasoning...not cannon rules or even an english lesson...just my reasoning.

Wow.....(that bears repeating) WOW!!! So..um...well within cannon rules means to break existing rules that were never in argument before, and rewrite your own Rifts book to make your example work??? And everyone tore MY example to shreds!!! ROFLMAO

What.... Other than that sniping with a pistol boo boo (recognized and rectified above), and our difference of opinions on the Stalker's non-lethal PPE Drain (which was the whole point of the example), just what do you find wrong with what I wrote in the example? If you're going to call me incompetent then you damn well better say just what you're accusing me of.

I gotta agree with Temp on this one... what game was that from? It was kinda like Palladium... but um... not.

Et tu, TM? If you have a grievance with what I wrote, be specific. Otherwise you’re not being constructive, but instead just another gawking rubber-necker and part of the problem.

Good point. No offense but perhaps a bit of your own medicine is in order..hmm??

I'll do some thinking on this subject, and will try to get back to you on Sunday with some constructive critisism, and my personal ideas on this subject. I do so love bouncing ideas off of peaple!

[Nekira Sudacne]

How many times must I write it before it sinks in? The sole reason the line "capture'" was written was because at the time of its writing there were no rules for circumventing partial armor. In fact at the time of the "capture" line's writing, the new armor restrictions for mage types were nearly a decade away from being written! Capture was simply the way the Psi Stalker got under the Magic User's protective shell. Was… NOW we have newer rules that allow the Stalker to do this by other means. The Called Shot is just that to a vulnerable spot. An alternate means to the same end made possible thanks to more current rules for the game.

So get it clear. What I’m saying is NOT that “Capture” is synominous with “Called Shot”. I’m saying that Capture is no longer an absolute requirement because the more current rules allow for alternatives.

Well that "would" be a good argument...except for the fact that the psi-stalker has been rewritten since those restrictions on mages came out, and they didn't change the stalker. So that seems to indicate that the "Old Ones" of Palladium did indeed mean capture...not something else involving called shots. Also how exactly to you "know" what the "sole reason" behind anything written by Palladium is??? Admit it...your geussing just like the rest of us!!

copy/past with something new added is not rewritten.

your argument would hold more weight. . . IF Palladium books had anything resembling a good track record editing.

[Temporalmage]

copy/past with something new added is not rewritten.

your argument would hold more weight. . . IF Palladium books had anything resembling a good track record editing.

FINALLY!!!! Something we can BOTH agree on!!!

Yet it is STILL cannon material. Weither we like it or not, (even weither it makes sense or not unfortunatly)