Korentin_Black wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote:"Impervious to Fire" makes you impervious to fire.
Just like the title says.
The rules elaborate on it, but the function of the power is right there in the title.
Unfortunately, that's flat-out wrong, as I already showed you. Oh wait, that's right, you didn't read that bit. Let's go over it again...
Lets.
RUE : P202 'Impervious to Fire'
(actually does what it says on the tin)
Gee, almost as if the name of the ability has something to do with how the power works.
Shock!
RUE : P168 'Impervious to Fire'
(except magic fire).
Right.
Once again, the power makes the person IMPERVIOUS TO FIRE, just like the name says. The only exception being noted below.
Kind of like how vampires are invulnerable, except as limited specifically in the text below.
Rifts RPG : P102 'Impervious to Fire & Heat'
(oops, one-tenth from MD flames, oh well)
IIRC, the 1/10th damage is from the
impact of the flame that they are quite impervious to (just like the power name says).
This idea was later discarded.
Oh, and in case you were thinking of pointing out 'but those are exceptions' - well, yes but since that's rather my point in bit, it won't help much.
It's my point as well, if you remember.
My premise here being that the name of the power describes the power, with exceptions and elaborations described in the text below.
Like how vampires are Invulnerable as a default, with specific exceptions listed below.
Hence, "Limited Invulnerability".
Killer Cyborg wrote:Actually, this is the first time you've said that.
You have previously claimed:
-That the authors deliberately left things open, which they did not.
-That vampires have always been vulnerable to Urandium, which they have not.
Yes, I think we established already that you don't read what I post very carefully and have some real difficulty with interpreting my writing and some of the material in the books. Go back to some of the first posts and try again.
Sorry about that.
I'm not fully fluent in Gibberish, having only taken a 1 semester class in it in high school; I can sometimes understand that language when spoken, but not so much when it is "written".
It's been a LONG time since you last posted, so I can't say for sure, but as far as I remember my claim has been that the "vampires are vulnerable to Uranium" rule is a change.
This is validated by the books, because pre-Triax they weren't vulnerable to it, but post-Triax they are.
That's a change.
Yes, sorry about that - RL has been an absolute pain in the backside lately...
I hear ya.
But the basic argument as I've always seen it is that I've been arguing that the OOC addition to the rules didn't invalidate anything that went before, whereas you've been claiming that it does.
Everything else has just been window-dressing.
Agreed.
Ever wonder why we've spent this much time and energy on it?
Killer Cyborg wrote:You believe a lot of things, but unfortunately your belief does not seem to have any correlation with whether those things are true.
At this point, I don't even remember what claim I was asking you to prove, but I'll point out that lack of proof against a claim does not constitute proof
for the claim.
No, but as the one making a claim you're generally expected to have some in the first place, you know how it is - that dead Occam dude again.
Okay; what claim was I making?
Killer Cyborg wrote:Uh, you just quoted the part that I'm talking about.
Your claim is essentially, "X is not listed as something that vampires are invulnerable to, therefore it's not inconsistant for X to be later listed as a vulnerabilty."
YOU are making the claim about uranium, but IF the claim holds any validity then it logically follows that the same claim could be made about ANYTHING not listed in the book.
Which it obviously cannot.
what I am describing, as I have described before is the idea that, because the rules as written are (perhaps) deliberately incomplete, they leave room for new materials, techniques and magics to deal death or damage to their subject.
Right; I get all that.
That's what I'm addressing.
IF the writers are "leaving thing open" with Uranium, then the same logic would apply to
anything that the writers later chose to retcon into being a weakness for vampires.
IF a writer decided to add into the books that vampires are vulnerable to tire irons, THEN this would fit your theory perfectly well, as you have stated it so far.
Something that I find to be a rather absurd length to go to just to avoid the idea that the writers have made a (gasp)
change in the rules.
Where this new 'whammy' is plausably something that has not been tried before, or has not previously existed (uranium, a new magic) it maintains consistancy. Where is is not (such as your example of the tire iron), it would not.
What makes you think:
a. That it's not likely for somebody to have used uranium as a weapon on vampires before Triax?
b. That it's likely that somebody has used a tire iron against vampires?
Killer Cyborg wrote::lol:
Help me!?
Good one.
If you really want to help, then:
1. Take some classes in basic logic and reasoning.
2. Use what you learn there.
3. Read the rules of the book.
4. Figure out the difference between in-game and out-of-game.
5. Make clear arguments.
6. Don't change your arguments mid-argument.
7. Quit with the constant, inaccurate personal attacks and bizarrely random claims of victory.
8. Learn when to give up.
Well, let's see...
1-2, actually not an issue - I admit to not having taken the classes, but I was never into remedial studies.
You really should try to catch up sometime.
3, well - I have. I appear to be the only one of the two of us who has though.
Rubber... Glue... you know the drill.
4, heh, you keep banging on this drum, when of course the two are rather intimately connected - well, as far as the OOC rules and the IC description are concerned.
Almost interesting.
Feel free to elaborate.
5, Guilty I suppose, though sheer repetition has dulled the edge of several of these points.
6, My core point has remained fairly consistant, we've just randomly wandered.
Well, since I've forgotten where we were, we can always go back to the core point...
7, I didn't start with them... or, come to that (as I see it), start them. That said, each of us obviously reads the same text differently.
That we do.
But either way, I'll lighten up on the condescention and sarcasm if you drop the insults and such.
8, I cannot belive *you* just wrote that. ^_^
Guilty.