Forums of the Megaverse®

Killer Cyborg wrote:You can't simo-attack unless somebody's attacking you.

I can and I have. Besides, the guy with initiative feinting is not covered in the rules. I get to decide what I can and can't do in that situation. I choose to reflect reality. Simultaneous attack is an attack simultaneously occuring with the guy with initiative's action. If the guy with initiative isn't doing anything, I am still attacking him simultaneously as he feints or stares me down - inaction uses up his attack, so it's treated as an action. Dodge, parry, and entangle also occur simultaneously as the guy with initiative acts (which includes stands still).

Killer Cyborg wrote:

*Edit: All this assumes you can simultaneously attack shooters, which I don't think you can in the first place, according to the rule as I read it.

Then reread the thread.
I've already addressed that.

I know what you've said. Doesn't change anything.

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:You can't simo-attack unless somebody's attacking you.

I can and I have.

Okay, I'll try again:
You can do whatever the hell you like, but if you simo-attack somebody who isn't attacking you, then you're not playing by the official rules of the game.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

*Edit: All this assumes you can simultaneously attack shooters, which I don't think you can in the first place, according to the rule as I read it.

Then reread the thread.
I've already addressed that.

I know what you've said. Doesn't change anything.

So you acknowledge that there's nothing in the books to indicate that you can't make ranged simo-attack, and you acknowledge that Kev himself doesn't see any reason why you can't, but you still insist that it's against the rules to make ranged simo-attacks?

You get a few points for originality, but not as many as you lose for being wrong.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:You can't simo-attack unless somebody's attacking you.

I can and I have.

Okay, I'll try again:
You can do whatever the hell you like, but if you simo-attack somebody who isn't attacking you, then you're not playing by the official rules of the game.

Hehe. That's exactly what I said. There are no rules dealing with feinting when you have the initiative (or even when you don't have it). So if you feint you're not playing by the official rules of the game.

If every time I say "this is how I do it" then I wonder why you even bother telling me what you think the official rules are.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

*Edit: All this assumes you can simultaneously attack shooters, which I don't think you can in the first place, according to the rule as I read it.

Then reread the thread.
I've already addressed that.

I know what you've said. Doesn't change anything.

So you acknowledge that there's nothing in the books to indicate that you can't make ranged simo-attack, and you acknowledge that Kev himself doesn't see any reason why you can't, but you still insist that it's against the rules to make ranged simo-attacks?

Well I don't have all "the books". Currently I have just Systems Failure and R:UE. SF is clear it's not ranged attack. R:UE isn't clear one way or another. So when I play Rifts, I have a decision to make regarding clearing up the vagueness. I happen to like SF's rule, so I drop that in Rifts and voila it's no longer vague.

I acknowledge that at least one book indicates that I can't make ranged simultaneous attacks. I acknowledge that Rifts: Ultimate Edition doesn't indicate I can make ranged simultaneous attacks. I acknowledge that Rifts: Ultimate Edition doesn't indicate I can't make ranged simultaneous attacks. I acknowledge that Kev advocates making your own rules regardless of what the he or Killer Cyborg says, and still be right to do so.

I do NOT insist that it's against the rules to make ranged simultaneous attacks in Rifts: Ultimate Edition. I make the rule against ranged simultaneous attacks, but I'm not insisting everybody does that, too.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You get a few points for originality, but not as many as you lose for being wrong.

Darn it, I was so hopi..... No. Wait. Still, nothing's changed. Hopefully you feel good though.

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:You can't simo-attack unless somebody's attacking you.

I can and I have.

Okay, I'll try again:
You can do whatever the hell you like, but if you simo-attack somebody who isn't attacking you, then you're not playing by the official rules of the game.

Hehe. That's exactly what I said. There are no rules dealing with feinting when you have the initiative (or even when you don't have it). So if you feint you're not playing by the official rules of the game.
If every time I say "this is how I do it" then I wonder why you even bother telling me what you think the official rules are.

Because in a discussion about what the rules are, it's assumed that people are discussing what they believe the rules are, unless otherwise specified.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

*Edit: All this assumes you can simultaneously attack shooters, which I don't think you can in the first place, according to the rule as I read it.

Then reread the thread.
I've already addressed that.

I know what you've said. Doesn't change anything.

So you acknowledge that there's nothing in the books to indicate that you can't make ranged simo-attack, and you acknowledge that Kev himself doesn't see any reason why you can't, but you still insist that it's against the rules to make ranged simo-attacks?

Well I don't have all "the books". Currently I have just Systems Failure and R:UE. SF is clear it's not ranged attack. R:UE isn't clear one way or another. So when I play Rifts, I have a decision to make regarding clearing up the vagueness. I happen to like SF's rule, so I drop that in Rifts and voila it's no longer vague. I acknowledge that at least one book indicates that I can't make ranged simultaneous attacks.

What part of Systems Failure says that it doesn't apply to ranged attacks?

I acknowledge that Rifts: Ultimate Edition doesn't indicate I can make ranged simultaneous attacks.

It's indicated because there's no indication otherwise. It's just a general combat move, like dodging.

I acknowledge that Rifts: Ultimate Edition doesn't indicate I can't make ranged simultaneous attacks. I acknowledge that Kev advocates making your own rules regardless of what the he or Killer Cyborg says, and still be right to do so.

Making your own rules is fine.
As long as you recognize that they're not official, and as long as you point to people that they're house rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:You can't simo-attack unless somebody's attacking you.

I can and I have.

Okay, I'll try again:
You can do whatever the hell you like, but if you simo-attack somebody who isn't attacking you, then you're not playing by the official rules of the game.

Hehe. That's exactly what I said. There are no rules dealing with feinting when you have the initiative (or even when you don't have it). So if you feint you're not playing by the official rules of the game.
If every time I say "this is how I do it" then I wonder why you even bother telling me what you think the official rules are.

Because in a discussion about what the rules are, it's assumed that people are discussing what they believe the rules are, unless otherwise specified.

I said as much that I believe the official rules are not clear and offered a couple possible clarifications.

Killer Cyborg wrote:What part of Systems Failure says that it doesn't apply to ranged attacks?

I didn't say SF says; I says it indicates. Here's the rule on simultaneous attack:

p. 46 wrote:Combatants can parry or dodge each others attacks or they can forfeit any type of defensive maneuvers (probably by taking damage from the opponent's strike) and strike back simultaneously. The advantage of a simultaneous strike is that, while opening oneself to damage, it deprives one's opponent from parrying or dodging the counterstrike. The reason the attacker loses his opportunity to parry when the defender attacks simultaneously is that he cannot both attack and defend at the same time. Thus, both combatants may take damage from each others blows. The tactic can be used by any character, regardless of their combat training (or lack thereof).

You can't parry lasers so you can't forfeit a parry that's not yours to forfeit. The phrase "damage from each others blows" does not indicate anybody's shooting bullets but rather some striking in a way that HTH combat is going on.

And then:

p. 44 wrote:Combat Terms & Moves
Note: The following combat maneuvers are applicable to many forms of hand to hand combat and martial arts. A specific move like Disarm or Jump Kick will be indicated under the particular hand to hand skill description and may not be available until higher levels.

Simultaneous attack is listed here in the section of hand to hand combat moves. On page 48, the Modern Weapon Combat section begins and says nothing about simultaneous attack.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

I acknowledge that Rifts: Ultimate Edition doesn't indicate I can make ranged simultaneous attacks.

It's indicated because there's no indication otherwise. It's just a general combat move, like dodging.

Or parrying. Which can't be done against ranged attackers. I'd say it doesn't clearly indicate anything. You read it how you want. I'll read it how I want. We both can be right.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

I acknowledge that Rifts: Ultimate Edition doesn't indicate I can't make ranged simultaneous attacks. I acknowledge that Kev advocates making your own rules regardless of what the he or Killer Cyborg says, and still be right to do so.

Making your own rules is fine.
As long as you recognize that they're not official, and as long as you point to people that they're house rules.

Which I did.

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:If every time I say "this is how I do it" then I wonder why you even bother telling me what you think the official rules are.

Because in a discussion about what the rules are, it's assumed that people are discussing what they believe the rules are, unless otherwise specified.

I said as much that I believe the official rules are not clear and offered a couple possible clarifications.

No, you said:

All this assumes you can simultaneously attack shooters, which I don't think you can in the first place, according to the rule as I read it.

Which means that the rules, as you interpret them, are that you cannot make ranged simo-attacks.
And you posted no further clarifications.

Killer Cyborg wrote:What part of Systems Failure says that it doesn't apply to ranged attacks?

I didn't say SF says; I says it indicates. Here's the rule on simultaneous attack:

p. 46 wrote:Combatants can parry or dodge each others attacks or they can forfeit any type of defensive maneuvers (probably by taking damage from the opponent's strike) and strike back simultaneously. The advantage of a simultaneous strike is that, while opening oneself to damage, it deprives one's opponent from parrying or dodging the counterstrike. The reason the attacker loses his opportunity to parry when the defender attacks simultaneously is that he cannot both attack and defend at the same time. Thus, both combatants may take damage from each others blows. The tactic can be used by any character, regardless of their combat training (or lack thereof).

You can't parry lasers so you can't forfeit a parry that's not yours to forfeit.

Actually, you can parry lasers, under certain circumstances.
But that doesn't matter, because you can dodge the lasers.

The phrase "damage from each others blows" does not indicate anybody's shooting bullets but rather some striking in a way that HTH combat is going on.

True, but irrelevant. It was just an example, and they could just as easily gone with "shot" instead, in which case somebody out there would be claiming that you can't simo in melee.

And then:

p. 44 wrote:Combat Terms & Moves
Note: The following combat maneuvers are applicable to many forms of hand to hand combat and martial arts. A specific move like Disarm or Jump Kick will be indicated under the particular hand to hand skill description and may not be available until higher levels.

Simultaneous attack is listed here in the section of hand to hand combat moves. On page 48, the Modern Weapon Combat section begins and says nothing about simultaneous attack.

That's probably because it was already described.
Does the Modern Weapon Combat section detail Dodging? Roll with Impact?
I'm guessing not.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

I acknowledge that Rifts: Ultimate Edition doesn't indicate I can make ranged simultaneous attacks.

It's indicated because there's no indication otherwise. It's just a general combat move, like dodging.

Or parrying. Which can't be done against ranged attackers. I'd say it doesn't clearly indicate anything. You read it how you want. I'll read it how I want.

Again, it's indicated because there's no indication otherwise.

We both can be right.

No, not really.
You can think that, but that just makes you wrong twice.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

I acknowledge that Rifts: Ultimate Edition doesn't indicate I can't make ranged simultaneous attacks. I acknowledge that Kev advocates making your own rules regardless of what the he or Killer Cyborg says, and still be right to do so.

Making your own rules is fine.
As long as you recognize that they're not official, and as long as you point to people that they're house rules.

Which I did.

Not in the post that sparked the argument between us.
All you said was:

All this assumes you can simultaneously attack shooters, which I don't think you can in the first place, according to the rule as I read it.

Which means that the rules, as you interpret them, are that you cannot make ranged simo-attacks.
And you posted no further clarifications.

While I was looking up stuff I saw the following:

Pg 32, RGMG wrote: One of the players in my group & I were having a disagreement about Simultaneous Attacks. My friend thinks that if he is fighting something with more attacks per round than himself he can call simultaneous and attack the same way he would be able to parry.
No. Doing a Simultaneous Attack still counts as one attack and will use the character's attack up like normal. All he is doing is skipping any opportunity to parry his opponent's attack and to strike the same time his attack is.What this does is enable the character who would normally be the defender to be the aggressor at the same instant. The advantage is, unless he rolls a 1-4 to strike, his attack will hit, becasue the attacker is busy attacking and can NOT dodge. But then, neither can he!
The combat continues as normal. The aggresive defender can continue to simultaneously attack, each combatant hammering away at each other without parrying or dodging, or he can try to parry and counterstrike. However, this does NOT give the defender extra attacks. When all of his attacks are used up, and his attacker still has a few attacks left, the attacker continues to strike, and all the other character can do is parry or dodge. A parry does not use up an attack. A dodge will use up attacks the defending character would have the next melee round.

Also, I'm leaning toward this being for melee combat only. It is expressly stated as an option for melee combat like dodging or parrying.
In the ranged combat sections however, it revisits what options are available (dodging and parrying) and at what penalty, but makes no mention of simultaneous attacks being an option.
Also in context, no matter what book you look at, the examples given are always melee combat ones.

Of course, there is no black and white rule stating you CAN'T use a simultaneous attack for ranged combat. So, I'd say, if you can in your games without it ruining anything, then use it. If you can't then don't. Meh.

Kryzbyn wrote:Also, I'm leaning toward this being for melee combat only. It is expressly stated as an option for melee combat like dodging or parrying.
In the ranged combat sections however, it revisits what options are available (dodging and parrying) and at what penalty, but makes no mention of simultaneous attacks being an option.

That's because there's no penalty.
Just like Rolling with Impact and other moves that apply in both ranged and melee combat.

Also in context, no matter what book you look at, the examples given are always melee combat ones.

Unfortunate, but it doesn't mean anything.

Of course, there is no black and white rule stating you CAN'T use a simultaneous attack for ranged combat.

That's what it comes down to:
-There are no rules anywhere that anybody can find that state that it cannot be done in ranged combat.
-The author of the game says that it can be done in ranged combat.

I think that should add up to a pretty clear conclusion, no matter what people want to believe.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:Also, I'm leaning toward this being for melee combat only. It is expressly stated as an option for melee combat like dodging or parrying.
In the ranged combat sections however, it revisits what options are available (dodging and parrying) and at what penalty, but makes no mention of simultaneous attacks being an option.

That's because there's no penalty.
Just like Rolling with Impact and other moves that apply in both ranged and melee combat.

Also in context, no matter what book you look at, the examples given are always melee combat ones.

Unfortunate, but it doesn't mean anything.

Of course, there is no black and white rule stating you CAN'T use a simultaneous attack for ranged combat.

That's what it comes down to:
-There are no rules anywhere that anybody can find that state that it cannot be done in ranged combat.
-The author of the game says that it can be done in ranged combat.

I think that should add up to a pretty clear conclusion, no matter what people want to believe.

Oh yeah, I forgot you said that Kev stated it could be done ranged. That's good enough for me.
I'm back where I was in the "Ranged Simo is good" camp

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:Entangle comes with it's own bonuses in the various hand to hand skills, as do flips. And there's nothing in the hand to hand skills that require a weapon to deliver a Death Blow, so why insist that TK ranged attacks need one?

Last I knew, Death Blow was a specific ability handed out by HTH Assassin, and other HTH forms, at certain levels. But it's been a while since I brushed up on this.

As does entangle and the sweep move in other HtH skill sets, but you didn't have any problem in translating them over to TK, nor did you have any problems with the Death Blow when a weapon was being teleknietically manipulated. So which is it? Make up your mind.

You're getting pretty far off-topic here, since simo-attacks aren't psychic combat.

No, I'm making a point. It is your contention that even though there is no mention of Simultaneous Attacks in the ranged combat section of any book,

I'm sorry: hold up a sec.
What "ranged combat sections" are you referring to?

RUE pg. 360.

it's still OK to use it with guns just because it's listed in the general Combat Terms & Moves elsewhere. I'm saying, IF that's true, then there's nothing to stop people from using the same general list and applying its contents to others sections, like the one for Psychic Combat (RUE 366).

Except that psychic combat still isn't the same as ranged combat.

And melee combat isn't the same as ranged, yet you still insist that a move clearly made expressly for melee combat be applicable to ranged. By extension of the same logic, (your logic), then through the power Telekinesis, melee maneuvers listed in the same general section that Simo is listed under should be applicable in psychic combat.

I'm not necessarily advocating the use of this reach of logic, but I am saying if one is true, then so must be the other.

You are saying that, but you are wrong.

Quit playing dumb, because I know you aren't. The point of my TK melee case to to show how ridiculous it is to take things that are obviously meant for one form of combat and apply them to another where they clearly don't fit just because the move in question is found in a general list of moves. But on the same token, by you insisting that Simultaneous Attack is usable in ranged combat, you're also inadvertently saying that all the other moves are applicable to other areas where they don't belong, like Death Blows in psychic combat.

All I'm saying is each section for the respective kinds of combat detail what is and isn't permissible. Simo is NOT even alluded to in the ranged combat section. Ergo, by the book, it must not be permissible. If you know of any section or example that shows Simos and ranged weapons of any sort being used in conjunction, by all means, quote it. But till then the lines seem pretty darn clear.

Now what was the simo defined as again? I believe it was tanking a defensive action "instead of defending with a parry, dodge, or entangle..." (RUE 347) So for all intents and purposes, Simo is effectively just like a dodge in terms of being a hastily made move since the two are so interchangeable.

So... because it's something that's NOT a dodge, it should suffer the same penalties that you get if you're dodging?

I disagree.

Also, I'll point out that shooting while Dodging doesn't give you penalties because it's a hasty action, but rather because you're trying to do two things at once: shoot and move.

You said it yourself. Dodge and Simo are interchangeable. In one case you're reacting in a split second (either well before your initiative or rushing your next action) to evade an attack. In the other case you're reacting in a split second (either well before your initiative or rushing your next action) to counter an attack. In either case you're rushing both mind and body. How could that be anything OTHER than a Wild Shot?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

K20A2_S wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
That's all the Glitterboy ever had to do.
But even without Simo-Attack, a lone SAMAS never stood a chance against a GB, not by the rules.

Not true, even a old school Sam with Missle Rifle who has a EOD specialist buddy rework his plasma missles that now do 2d4x10 by the CWC book, fires a volley of 4, average damage of 200 MDC, boom gun only has 175 MDC...

Did you find some rules somewhere allowing called shots with missile volleys?

Yes. Read the Missile Called Shot thread. Only "Aimed" shots have to be single shots, and the CTT-M20 uses mini-missiles, so they don't alwasy go for the main body. However it still would take the SAMAS two melee attacks per try, so that could bite him in the ass if the first volley missed.

K20A2_S wrote:You don't need a called shot to shoot the rail gun, the rail gun is the target, there is no minuses to aim for the gun, no astrisk next to it in the book or anything.

Sorry, but yea, a Called Shot is needed to hit anything other than the Main Body. Them's the rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote: In that melee scenario the victim samurai may be able to use his wakizashi to parry the Simo counter if he has the Paired Weapon's skill or ability. No such defense exists in melee combat, going back to one of my earlier arguments as to why it's unbalancing in ranged combat. Especially since it's all but impossible to parry bullets and lasers.

But if the Samurai doesn't have Paired Weapons, then it works out just the same as with ranged weapons.
Which, if you are going to be consistent, means that you think simo-attacks are "unbalanced" in melee combat where the participants don't have paired weapons.

Not true in the slightest. The very fact that Paired Weapons is electable as a skill at ANY level, having to defend against this attack is just a matter of long-term preparation. You don't blame the Wilk's 457 for killing someone just because he didn't bother to put on his armor that day... same line of thought.

As of RUE (if not before), Paired Weapons is only available to Men-At-Arms OCCs.

And besides that, your argument is essentially that anybody who doesn't use paired weapons for melee is an idiot.

Firstly, I'm 99.999% sure the Samurai qualifies as a Men-At-Arms OCC. Secondly, even Cyber-Docs and Vagabonds can eventually get Paired Weapons if they bother to get a Hand to Hand skill better than Basic (again, going towards long-term preparedness). As for the rest who can't get it as a skill or in Hand to Hand, serves them right for being so lame.

Dog_O_War wrote:Whoa, bud. I never said that it was fair. I never said I liked it (infact, I said quite the opposite). I also never said that it made sense as written, but you seem to have confused me with someone else that has. I sympathize with your position and from a personal stand-point completely agree with you.

Sorry about that then. Chalk it up as a "friendly fire mishap".

...we are telling you how it is.

Really? Mind backing that claim up with a quote and page number then? Is that too much to ask for? Any quote from any book written in the past 18 years since the introduction of Rifts (hell, let's expand that to all of Palladium's print-history if need be!) that either says Simo is usable with ranged weapons or that Simo isn't limited to melee combat. That's all I need, people.

Dog_O_War wrote:"Hold on Jim, that 12 year-old parapalegic kids' got a knife! Your Super-human stature, reflexes, strength, and toughness are nothing!"

It's only funny because it's true.

Oh, and you get 25 geek Points for using a Star Trek reference in a clever way.

Natasha wrote:

Systems Failure p. 44 wrote:Combat Terms & Moves Note: The following combat maneuvers are applicable to many forms of hand to hand combat and martial arts. A specific move like Disarm or Jump Kick will be indicated under the particular hand to hand skill description and may not be available until higher levels.

Simultaneous attack is listed here in the section of hand to hand combat moves. On page 48, the Modern Weapon Combat section begins and says nothing about simultaneous attack.

At last ! A quote! ... I now officially love you.

Here we have it, thanks to Natasha. Hard rules that put Simultaneous Attack strictly in the domain of Hand to Hand. Kind of hard to blow that one off or disregard it as someone trying to bend things towards their particular style of play or house rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Does the Modern Weapon Combat section detail Dodging? Roll with Impact?
I'm guessing not.

Guess again

Raged Combat Section - RUE
"Dodging Bullets & Energy Blasts" sub-section, pg. 361

Missile Combat - RUE
"Roll with impact to reduce damage", pg. 362

Kryzbyn wrote:While I was looking up stuff I saw the following:

Pg 32, RGMG wrote: One of the players in my group & I were having a disagreement about Simultaneous Attacks. My friend thinks that if he is fighting something with more attacks per round than himself he can call simultaneous and attack the same way he would be able to parry.
No. Doing a Simultaneous Attack still counts as one attack and will use the character's attack up like normal. All he is doing is skipping any opportunity to parry his opponent's attack and to strike the same time his attack is.What this does is enable the character who would normally be the defender to be the aggressor at the same instant. The advantage is, unless he rolls a 1-4 to strike, his attack will hit, becasue the attacker is busy attacking and can NOT dodge. But then, neither can he!

Yes! Another good quote! (You I only "like" because I don't swing that way ) Note the bolded part that says "Rolls a 1-4 to strike" (I looked it up so I know it's not a type-o). In ranged combat you miss on a 1-7. It's only in Melee Combat where you miss on a 1-4! Further CANON proof that Simo was never intended to be used in ranged combat.

Thank you Kryzbyn for the good find.

Killer Cyborg wrote:That's what it comes down to:
-There are no rules anywhere that anybody can find that state that it cannot be done in ranged combat.

... just like there's nothing saying that cannot use TK to deliver a Death Blow at range, but that doesn't mean anyone should get away with it.

-The author of the game says that it can be done in ranged combat.

Awesome! Could you give a page number where we can see that in print? Or since you have a closer relationship with Kev, maybe you could PM him and persuade him to post here and weigh in one way or the other on the whole Simo issue once and for all.

Dead Boy wrote:As does entangle and the sweep move in other HtH skill sets, but you didn't have any problem in translating them over to TK, nor did you have any problems with the Death Blow when a weapon was being teleknietically manipulated. So which is it? Make up your mind.

I've made up my mind.
TK by itself doesn't do any damage, and you need to do damage in order to do a death blow.

No, I'm making a point. It is your contention that even though there is no mention of Simultaneous Attacks in the ranged combat section of any book,

I'm sorry: hold up a sec.
What "ranged combat sections" are you referring to?

RUE pg. 360.[/quote]

Okay, I'm looking at it.
I don't see any glossary there.
P. 360 describes Modern Weapon Proficiencies. No combat maneuvers at all.

And melee combat isn't the same as ranged, yet you still insist that a move clearly made expressly for melee combat be applicable to ranged.

Actually, melee combat pretty much IS the same as ranged combat.
The only difference is distance.

By extension of the same logic, (your logic), then through the power Telekinesis, melee maneuvers listed in the same general section that Simo is listed under should be applicable in psychic combat.

I'm ignoring your bizarre insistence in trying to make this about psychic combat somehow.

I'm not necessarily advocating the use of this reach of logic, but I am saying if one is true, then so must be the other.

You are saying that, but you are wrong.

Quit playing dumb, because I know you aren't.

I'm not playing anything; YOU ARE JUST WRONG.
You are making zero sense.
You are grasping at straws, but there aren't even any there.
This does not equate to me playing dumb; it just equates to you not knowing when to give up.

The point of my TK melee case to to show how ridiculous it is to take things that are obviously meant for one form of combat and apply them to another where they clearly don't fit just because the move in question is found in a general list of moves.

Right.
And it utterly fails, because it's a bad example that has jack to do with the topic.
So try something different, something that makes sense.

So... because it's something that's NOT a dodge, it should suffer the same penalties that you get if you're dodging?

I disagree.

Also, I'll point out that shooting while Dodging doesn't give you penalties because it's a hasty action, but rather because you're trying to do two things at once: shoot and move.

You said it yourself. Dodge and Simo are interchangeable.

When did I say that?

In one case you're reacting in a split second (either well before your initiative or rushing your next action) to evade an attack. In the other case you're reacting in a split second (either well before your initiative or rushing your next action) to counter an attack. In either case you're rushing both mind and body. How could that be anything OTHER than a Wild Shot?

Because it meets none of the criteria for being a Wild shot.
It's not like you have to make a "Wild" dodge or anything either.
The only penalty is that you don't have time to aim.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Did you find some rules somewhere allowing called shots with missile volleys?

Yes. Read the Missile Called Shot thread. Only "Aimed" shots have to be single shots, and the CTT-M20 uses mini-missiles, so they don't alwasy go for the main body. However it still would take the SAMAS two melee attacks per try, so that could bite him in the ass if the first volley missed.

There's a whole thread about this where I point out the flaws in that arguement.

[

Killer Cyborg wrote:As of RUE (if not before), Paired Weapons is only available to Men-At-Arms OCCs.

And besides that, your argument is essentially that anybody who doesn't use paired weapons for melee is an idiot.

Firstly, I'm 99.999% sure the Samurai qualifies as a Men-At-Arms OCC.

Well, okay. You got me there.

Secondly, even Cyber-Docs and Vagabonds can eventually get Paired Weapons if they bother to get a Hand to Hand skill better than Basic (again, going towards long-term preparedness). As for the rest who can't get it as a skill or in Hand to Hand, serves them right for being so lame.

So it's fair for melee combat to be unfair for most characters (at least until high level)?

Mind backing that claim up with a quote and page number then? Is that too much to ask for? Any quote from any book written in the past 18 years since the introduction of Rifts (hell, let's expand that to all of Palladium's print-history if need be!) that either says Simo is usable with ranged weapons or that Simo isn't limited to melee combat. That's all I need, people.

Same challenge applies to you in reverse.
Find me ANYTHING saying that it isn't.
Heck, find ANY strong indication that it isn't.

Here we have it, thanks to Natasha. Hard rules that put Simultaneous Attack strictly in the domain of Hand to Hand. Kind of hard to blow that one off or disregard it as someone trying to bend things towards their particular style of play or house rules.

I addressed it.
You're grasping at straws again.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Does the Modern Weapon Combat section detail Dodging? Roll with Impact?
I'm guessing not.

Guess again

Raged Combat Section - RUE
"Dodging Bullets & Energy Blasts" sub-section, pg. 361

Wrong.
It doesn't detail Dodge there Dodge has already been described.
Why's it talk about Dodge on that page?
Because dodging modern weapons currently provides penalties to dodge.
The section isn't describing the Dodge maneuver; it's describing the penalties to Dodge firearms.
Which is why the original Rifts book never mentioned Dodge in the modern combat section.
And it's why they don't discuss simo-attacks in that part of RUE: there aren't any penalties for doing it. (BTW, IF simo-attacking was a Wild shot, THEN it would be mentioned there... but it's not, so it's not.)

Missile Combat - RUE
"Roll with impact to reduce damage", pg. 362

Again, doesn't detail Roll With Impact, just says how it can apply to being caught in an explosion.
Simo-Attack doesn't help you there, so there's no reason to mention it there.

The only way that simo-attack would be applicable to being shot with missiles (other than the obvious, normal use) is in shooting down enemy missiles, which is described.

Kryzbyn wrote:Yes! Another good quote! (You I only "like" because I don't swing that way ) Note the bolded part that says "Rolls a 1-4 to strike" (I looked it up so I know it's not a type-o). In ranged combat you miss on a 1-7. It's only in Melee Combat where you miss on a 1-4! Further CANON proof that Simo was never intended to be used in ranged combat.

RGMG came out before RUE.

Killer Cyborg wrote:That's what it comes down to:
-There are no rules anywhere that anybody can find that state that it cannot be done in ranged combat.

... just like there's nothing saying that cannot use TK to deliver a Death Blow at range, but that doesn't mean anyone should get away with it.

-The author of the game says that it can be done in ranged combat.

Awesome! Could you give a page number where we can see that in print?

Nope.
But if you look around for it, you could find the first time I mention this. I asked it at the first Open House, IIRC.

Or since you have a closer relationship with Kev, maybe you could PM him and persuade him to post here and weigh in one way or the other on the whole Simo issue once and for all.

I try not to bug him with trivia, and he doesn't always answer my PMs, AND I don't believe I have seen him actually post in a rules-question thread before.
But sure, I can ask.

Dead Boy wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:Entangle comes with it's own bonuses in the various hand to hand skills, as do flips. And there's nothing in the hand to hand skills that require a weapon to deliver a Death Blow, so why insist that TK ranged attacks need one?

Last I knew, Death Blow was a specific ability handed out by HTH Assassin, and other HTH forms, at certain levels. But it's been a while since I brushed up on this.

As does entangle and the sweep move in other HtH skill sets, but you didn't have any problem in translating them over to TK, nor did you have any problems with the Death Blow when a weapon was being teleknietically manipulated. So which is it? Make up your mind.

You're getting pretty far off-topic here, since simo-attacks aren't psychic combat.

No, I'm making a point. It is your contention that even though there is no mention of Simultaneous Attacks in the ranged combat section of any book,

I'm sorry: hold up a sec.
What "ranged combat sections" are you referring to?

RUE pg. 360.

it's still OK to use it with guns just because it's listed in the general Combat Terms & Moves elsewhere. I'm saying, IF that's true, then there's nothing to stop people from using the same general list and applying its contents to others sections, like the one for Psychic Combat (RUE 366).

Except that psychic combat still isn't the same as ranged combat.

And melee combat isn't the same as ranged, yet you still insist that a move clearly made expressly for melee combat be applicable to ranged. By extension of the same logic, (your logic), then through the power Telekinesis, melee maneuvers listed in the same general section that Simo is listed under should be applicable in psychic combat.

I'm not necessarily advocating the use of this reach of logic, but I am saying if one is true, then so must be the other.

You are saying that, but you are wrong.

Quit playing dumb, because I know you aren't. The point of my TK melee case to to show how ridiculous it is to take things that are obviously meant for one form of combat and apply them to another where they clearly don't fit just because the move in question is found in a general list of moves. But on the same token, by you insisting that Simultaneous Attack is usable in ranged combat, you're also inadvertently saying that all the other moves are applicable to other areas where they don't belong, like Death Blows in psychic combat.

All I'm saying is each section for the respective kinds of combat detail what is and isn't permissible. Simo is NOT even alluded to in the ranged combat section. Ergo, by the book, it must not be permissible. If you know of any section or example that shows Simos and ranged weapons of any sort being used in conjunction, by all means, quote it. But till then the lines seem pretty darn clear.

Now what was the simo defined as again? I believe it was tanking a defensive action "instead of defending with a parry, dodge, or entangle..." (RUE 347) So for all intents and purposes, Simo is effectively just like a dodge in terms of being a hastily made move since the two are so interchangeable.

So... because it's something that's NOT a dodge, it should suffer the same penalties that you get if you're dodging?

I disagree.

Also, I'll point out that shooting while Dodging doesn't give you penalties because it's a hasty action, but rather because you're trying to do two things at once: shoot and move.

You said it yourself. Dodge and Simo are interchangeable. In one case you're reacting in a split second (either well before your initiative or rushing your next action) to evade an attack. In the other case you're reacting in a split second (either well before your initiative or rushing your next action) to counter an attack. In either case you're rushing both mind and body. How could that be anything OTHER than a Wild Shot?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

K20A2_S wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
That's all the Glitterboy ever had to do.
But even without Simo-Attack, a lone SAMAS never stood a chance against a GB, not by the rules.

Not true, even a old school Sam with Missle Rifle who has a EOD specialist buddy rework his plasma missles that now do 2d4x10 by the CWC book, fires a volley of 4, average damage of 200 MDC, boom gun only has 175 MDC...

Did you find some rules somewhere allowing called shots with missile volleys?

Yes. Read the Missile Called Shot thread. Only "Aimed" shots have to be single shots, and the CTT-M20 uses mini-missiles, so they don't alwasy go for the main body. However it still would take the SAMAS two melee attacks per try, so that could bite him in the ass if the first volley missed.

K20A2_S wrote:You don't need a called shot to shoot the rail gun, the rail gun is the target, there is no minuses to aim for the gun, no astrisk next to it in the book or anything.

Sorry, but yea, a Called Shot is needed to hit anything other than the Main Body. Them's the rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote: In that melee scenario the victim samurai may be able to use his wakizashi to parry the Simo counter if he has the Paired Weapon's skill or ability. No such defense exists in melee combat, going back to one of my earlier arguments as to why it's unbalancing in ranged combat. Especially since it's all but impossible to parry bullets and lasers.

But if the Samurai doesn't have Paired Weapons, then it works out just the same as with ranged weapons.
Which, if you are going to be consistent, means that you think simo-attacks are "unbalanced" in melee combat where the participants don't have paired weapons.

Not true in the slightest. The very fact that Paired Weapons is electable as a skill at ANY level, having to defend against this attack is just a matter of long-term preparation. You don't blame the Wilk's 457 for killing someone just because he didn't bother to put on his armor that day... same line of thought.

As of RUE (if not before), Paired Weapons is only available to Men-At-Arms OCCs.

And besides that, your argument is essentially that anybody who doesn't use paired weapons for melee is an idiot.

Firstly, I'm 99.999% sure the Samurai qualifies as a Men-At-Arms OCC. Secondly, even Cyber-Docs and Vagabonds can eventually get Paired Weapons if they bother to get a Hand to Hand skill better than Basic (again, going towards long-term preparedness). As for the rest who can't get it as a skill or in Hand to Hand, serves them right for being so lame.

Dog_O_War wrote:Whoa, bud. I never said that it was fair. I never said I liked it (infact, I said quite the opposite). I also never said that it made sense as written, but you seem to have confused me with someone else that has. I sympathize with your position and from a personal stand-point completely agree with you.

Sorry about that then. Chalk it up as a "friendly fire mishap".

...we are telling you how it is.

Really? Mind backing that claim up with a quote and page number then? Is that too much to ask for? Any quote from any book written in the past 18 years since the introduction of Rifts (hell, let's expand that to all of Palladium's print-history if need be!) that either says Simo is usable with ranged weapons or that Simo isn't limited to melee combat. That's all I need, people.

Dog_O_War wrote:"Hold on Jim, that 12 year-old parapalegic kids' got a knife! Your Super-human stature, reflexes, strength, and toughness are nothing!"

It's only funny because it's true.

Oh, and you get 25 geek Points for using a Star Trek reference in a clever way.

Natasha wrote:

Systems Failure p. 44 wrote:Combat Terms & Moves Note: The following combat maneuvers are applicable to many forms of hand to hand combat and martial arts. A specific move like Disarm or Jump Kick will be indicated under the particular hand to hand skill description and may not be available until higher levels.

Simultaneous attack is listed here in the section of hand to hand combat moves. On page 48, the Modern Weapon Combat section begins and says nothing about simultaneous attack.

At last ! A quote! ... I now officially love you.

Here we have it, thanks to Natasha. Hard rules that put Simultaneous Attack strictly in the domain of Hand to Hand. Kind of hard to blow that one off or disregard it as someone trying to bend things towards their particular style of play or house rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Does the Modern Weapon Combat section detail Dodging? Roll with Impact?
I'm guessing not.

Guess again

Raged Combat Section - RUE
"Dodging Bullets & Energy Blasts" sub-section, pg. 361

Missile Combat - RUE
"Roll with impact to reduce damage", pg. 362

Kryzbyn wrote:While I was looking up stuff I saw the following:

Pg 32, RGMG wrote: One of the players in my group & I were having a disagreement about Simultaneous Attacks. My friend thinks that if he is fighting something with more attacks per round than himself he can call simultaneous and attack the same way he would be able to parry.
No. Doing a Simultaneous Attack still counts as one attack and will use the character's attack up like normal. All he is doing is skipping any opportunity to parry his opponent's attack and to strike the same time his attack is.What this does is enable the character who would normally be the defender to be the aggressor at the same instant. The advantage is, unless he rolls a 1-4 to strike, his attack will hit, becasue the attacker is busy attacking and can NOT dodge. But then, neither can he!

Yes! Another good quote! (You I only "like" because I don't swing that way ) Note the bolded part that says "Rolls a 1-4 to strike" (I looked it up so I know it's not a type-o). In ranged combat you miss on a 1-7. It's only in Melee Combat where you miss on a 1-4! Further CANON proof that Simo was never intended to be used in ranged combat.

Thank you Kryzbyn for the good find.

Killer Cyborg wrote:That's what it comes down to:
-There are no rules anywhere that anybody can find that state that it cannot be done in ranged combat.

... just like there's nothing saying that cannot use TK to deliver a Death Blow at range, but that doesn't mean anyone should get away with it.

-The author of the game says that it can be done in ranged combat.

Awesome! Could you give a page number where we can see that in print? Or since you have a closer relationship with Kev, maybe you could PM him and persuade him to post here and weigh in one way or the other on the whole Simo issue once and for all.

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
- Gin Rummy, Boondocks

macksting wrote:I'm still trying to figure out how this argument continues when the writers of the game have already answered it. A little vague, the answer was, with no attempt to justify it except "we don't understand why you're asking. We always played it that way."
How is that not precedent?

That's what I thought...

Kryzbyn wrote:Silly me. I figured this thread would end shortly after the FAQ was posted.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Not in the post that sparked the argument between us.

I didn't spark an argument. That's something you seem to be going for, though. You're not a big deal, so you telling me something doesn't matter. Because now I no longer will interact with you. Your behaviour is completely unnecessary and uncalled for. Just like ApocalypseZero's at the start of the thread. I don't know why you became unduly abrasive with me. Had I been a ***** or abrasive with you, I'd understand and even expect it. But that's not what happened. I tried to initiate a discussion with you and all you did was respond with abrasion and baseless accusations of trying to pick a fight. I'm through with you.

Kryzbyn wrote:

macksting wrote:I'm still trying to figure out how this argument continues when the writers of the game have already answered it. A little vague, the answer was, with no attempt to justify it except "we don't understand why you're asking. We always played it that way."
How is that not precedent?

That's what I thought...

Kryzbyn wrote:Silly me. I figured this thread would end shortly after the FAQ was posted.

I even tried to sink it with Godwin.

Dead Boy wrote:At last ! A quote! ... I now officially love you.

Aw, that's so sweet.

Dead Boy wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Whoa, bud. I never said that it was fair. I never said I liked it (infact, I said quite the opposite). I also never said that it made sense as written, but you seem to have confused me with someone else that has. I sympathize with your position and from a personal stand-point completely agree with you.

Sorry about that then. Chalk it up as a "friendly fire mishap".

...we are telling you how it is.

Really? Mind backing that claim up with a quote and page number then? Is that too much to ask for? Any quote from any book written in the past 18 years since the introduction of Rifts (hell, let's expand that to all of Palladium's print-history if need be!) that either says Simo is usable with ranged weapons or that Simo isn't limited to melee combat. That's all I need, people.

It's in the prose of the text for simoltaineous attack, "instead of making a parry or a dodge you may instead sacrifice these options to make an attack that your opponent may not dodge or parry". It never states what range this attack has to occur at, only that you sacrifice your dodge and parry options to do so. And before you jump the gun and say "well parry can only be done in melee!" That is a lie. Under the rules for shields it offers that you may parry ranged attacks (including modern ranged attacks such as energy blasts), but at a substancial penalty. All indications show that you may simo-attack at any range; the incoming attack and the weapons involved do not matter.

And to add logic to this - nothing stops a player from using a pistol in melee combat; you may simo-attack said player with a pistol of your own in response to his attack. Melee does not matter, neither do the weapons.

I will note that the above is not a direct quote from the book, as I haven't read your post until today, at work (where they frown on me bringing in books and reading them while I should be working) but have a fairly good memory for RPG rules (I currently am storing 5 different games in my head right now, as well as the complete workings of the fallout videogame (remarkably similar to D&D 3rd Ed.) and the framework of a from scratch home-brewed RPG system and setting). I will post again the exact passages and page numbers if you so require.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Whoa, bud. I never said that it was fair. I never said I liked it (infact, I said quite the opposite). I also never said that it made sense as written, but you seem to have confused me with someone else that has. I sympathize with your position and from a personal stand-point completely agree with you.

Sorry about that then. Chalk it up as a "friendly fire mishap".

...we are telling you how it is.

Really? Mind backing that claim up with a quote and page number then? Is that too much to ask for? Any quote from any book written in the past 18 years since the introduction of Rifts (hell, let's expand that to all of Palladium's print-history if need be!) that either says Simo is usable with ranged weapons or that Simo isn't limited to melee combat. That's all I need, people.

It's in the prose of the text for simoltaineous attack, "instead of making a parry or a dodge you may instead sacrifice these options to make an attack that your opponent may not dodge or parry". It never states what range this attack has to occur at, only that you sacrifice your dodge and parry options to do so. And before you jump the gun and say "well parry can only be done in melee!" That is a lie. Under the rules for shields it offers that you may parry ranged attacks (including modern ranged attacks such as energy blasts), but at a substancial penalty. All indications show that you may simo-attack at any range; the incoming attack and the weapons involved do not matter.

Can you parry lasers with your gun? There are times you can't parry ranged attacks. So there's no parry to sacrifice in favour of simultaneous attack. You can dodge it, but that's just another defense option such as entangle, which is clearly a melee defense. So you have one defense that can be used against ranged attacks unequivocally; you have one that requires very special circumstances; and you one that can't be used at all. Claiming that you're giving up your dodge is just pointless semantics. Because nowhere is simultaneous attack given as a defense against ranged attacks. There are two defenses listed against ranged attacks. Is either one simultaneous attack?

By the way, can I call a knockout/stun attack and then shoot somebody down the street with a bullet?

I don't have to agree it's in the prose. Because it isn't.

Systems Failure combat rules gives the defender his options when under ranged attack. Simultaneous attack isn't one of them. It further puts simultaneous attack squarely in hand to hand to combat.

Dog_O_War wrote:And to add logic to this - nothing stops a player from using a pistol in melee combat; you may simo-attack said player with a pistol of your own in response to his attack. Melee does not matter, neither do the weapons.

But using a pistol isn't hand to hand combat. Unless you're pistol-whipping the bastard, the defender can only dodge, maybe parry.

Dog_O_War wrote:I will note that the above is not a direct quote from the book, as I haven't read your post until today, at work (where they frown on me bringing in books and reading them while I should be working) but have a fairly good memory for RPG rules (I currently am storing 5 different games in my head right now, as well as the complete workings of the fallout videogame (remarkably similar to D&D 3rd Ed.) and the framework of a from scratch home-brewed RPG system and setting). I will post again the exact passages and page numbers if you so require.

You're not going to find it written that simultaneous attacks apply to ranged attacks.

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Not in the post that sparked the argument between us.

I didn't spark an argument. That's something you seem to be going for, though. You're not a big deal, so you telling me something doesn't matter.

You said something that was wrong.
I corrected you.
I didn't want it to turn into an argument, and I didn't expect it to turn into one since you are pretty clearly wrong.

Because now I no longer will interact with you.

Your behaviour is completely unnecessary and uncalled for.

Hey, back atcha.
Your attitude pretty much sucks.

Had I been a ***** or abrasive with you, I'd understand and even expect it.

You were, but apparently you didn't notice.

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Whoa, bud. I never said that it was fair. I never said I liked it (infact, I said quite the opposite). I also never said that it made sense as written, but you seem to have confused me with someone else that has. I sympathize with your position and from a personal stand-point completely agree with you.

Sorry about that then. Chalk it up as a "friendly fire mishap".

...we are telling you how it is.

Really? Mind backing that claim up with a quote and page number then? Is that too much to ask for? Any quote from any book written in the past 18 years since the introduction of Rifts (hell, let's expand that to all of Palladium's print-history if need be!) that either says Simo is usable with ranged weapons or that Simo isn't limited to melee combat. That's all I need, people.

It's in the prose of the text for simoltaineous attack, "instead of making a parry or a dodge you may instead sacrifice these options to make an attack that your opponent may not dodge or parry". It never states what range this attack has to occur at, only that you sacrifice your dodge and parry options to do so. And before you jump the gun and say "well parry can only be done in melee!" That is a lie. Under the rules for shields it offers that you may parry ranged attacks (including modern ranged attacks such as energy blasts), but at a substancial penalty. All indications show that you may simo-attack at any range; the incoming attack and the weapons involved do not matter.

Can you parry lasers with your gun? There are times you can't parry ranged attacks. So there's no parry to sacrifice in favour of simultaneous attack.

You're right, but there is still the dodge. Which you can choose to use at any range, which you can still sacrifice to use a simoltaineous attack for. If you can't dodge, then you most certainly can't parry, which means you don't really get a defense at all.

Natasha wrote:You can dodge it, but that's just another defense option such as entangle, which is clearly a melee defense. So you have one defense that can be used against ranged attacks unequivocally; you have one that requires very special circumstances; and you one that can't be used at all.

Claiming that you're giving up your dodge is just pointless semantics.

It isn't though, it says that you may sacrifice your ability to parry or dodge (parry and dodge both being mentioned because they can be auto and not normally take up an action) to perform an action simoltaineously with your opponent. You are sacrificing potentially automatic defenses for the option of bumping up your attack regime.

Natasha wrote:By the way, can I call a knockout/stun attack and then shoot somebody down the street with a bullet?

I dunno. Sure? No? I'd have to look that up - but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Natasha wrote:I don't have to agree it's in the prose. Because it isn't.

Okay, I'll have to post a direct quote then when I get home to show you that it is.

Natasha wrote:Systems Failure combat rules gives the defender his options when under ranged attack. Simultaneous attack isn't one of them. It further puts simultaneous attack squarely in hand to hand to combat.

System Failure is also not R:UE. "That's like saying the Old book says it's this!" when it has clearly been given an update.

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:And to add logic to this - nothing stops a player from using a pistol in melee combat; you may simo-attack said player with a pistol of your own in response to his attack. Melee does not matter, neither do the weapons.

But using a pistol isn't hand to hand combat. Unless you're pistol-whipping the bastard, the defender can only dodge, maybe parry.

The book says you can't parry energy blasts (except with a shield); it never mentioned anything about not being able to parry the gun itself. Preventing targeting resolution is a hazy spot, but as I just said, the book states weapons themselves can be parried.

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I will note that the above is not a direct quote from the book, as I haven't read your post until today, at work (where they frown on me bringing in books and reading them while I should be working) but have a fairly good memory for RPG rules (I currently am storing 5 different games in my head right now, as well as the complete workings of the fallout videogame (remarkably similar to D&D 3rd Ed.) and the framework of a from scratch home-brewed RPG system and setting). I will post again the exact passages and page numbers if you so require.

You're not going to find it written that simultaneous attacks apply to ranged attacks.

You're right; I won't find that in there. I will find that the book says that it applies to attacks with no other specification. Since nothing had been specified, and I can make attacks at range, it will apply to ranged attacks.

Dog_O_War wrote:And to add logic to this - nothing stops a player from using a pistol in melee combat; you may simo-attack said player with a pistol of your own in response to his attack. Melee does not matter, neither do the weapons.

Excellent point!

If you can't simo-with ranged attacks, then it creates a situation (when you're using a gun in melee combat) where somebody tries to stab you, and you can't shoot them with a simo-attack, but you can club them with your gun.

Or where you can stab somebody with your knife, but you can't throw it at them.
Or where you can bash somebody with a rock, but you can't chuck it at them.

Dog_O_War wrote:You're right, but there is still the dodge.

The defenses that can be forfeit for simultaneous attack have only one thing in common; they're all defenses against hand to hand attacks. Removing the context of the paragraph and focusing strictly on dodge is a sophism.

It's fair if you don't accept what SF says when playing Rifts, but the request was for any book. But even if we disregard Systems Failure, the point remains. Simultaneous attack is described in a hand to hand context and it is not detailed whatsoever in the ranged combat section, although other defenses are.

The point about calling knockout/stun is that just because a combat move is defined in a general combat section, it doesn't mean we can just say it applies to all combat.

Dog_O_War wrote:You're right; I won't find that in there. I will find that the book says that it applies to attacks with no other specification. Since nothing had been specified, and I can make attacks at range, it will apply to ranged attacks.

Only if you remove the context provided by the defenses that can be used instead of.

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:You're right, but there is still the dodge.

The defenses that can be forfeit for simultaneous attack have only one thing in common; they're all defenses against hand to hand attacks. Removing the context of the paragraph and focusing strictly on dodge is a sophism.

Actually, as proven multiple times now, they are all defenses against attacks, both ranged and melee. It never mentions that you can sacrifice your entangle option to simoltaineously attack because entangle itself is an attack.

Natasha wrote:It's fair if you don't accept what SF says when playing Rifts, but the request was for any book. But even if we disregard Systems Failure, the point remains. Simultaneous attack is described in a hand to hand context and it is not detailed whatsoever in the ranged combat section, although other defenses are.

The description they give for parry is also described for melee combat, yet I've proven that you can parry ranged attacks as well (right in the description for WP shield). I fail to see how the lack of situational uses provided by the book is a good indicator of what is and is not applicable to a particular range of combat. I mean Rifts is famous for it's iron-clad and super-clear rules descriptions

Natasha wrote:The point about calling knockout/stun is that just because a combat move is defined in a general combat section, it doesn't mean we can just say it applies to all combat.

As I said, I'd have to comb the book about that one; I never gave you a for sure, but I have combed the book about simo-attacks and could find nothing preventing you from using them in ranged combat. And as I said before, the prose of the paragraph describing simo-attack leaves it more than open for it to be used in a fire-fight.

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:You're right; I won't find that in there. I will find that the book says that it applies to attacks with no other specification. Since nothing had been specified, and I can make attacks at range, it will apply to ranged attacks.

Only if you remove the context provided by the defenses that can be used instead of.

The context of the defenses are applicable to both melee and ranged combat; If I were to remove their context, I would be removing them all together.

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:You're right, but there is still the dodge.

The defenses that can be forfeit for simultaneous attack have only one thing in common; they're all defenses against hand to hand attacks.

Since there are no basic defenses that apply ONLY to ranged combat, that doesn't mean anything.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:You're right, but there is still the dodge.

The defenses that can be forfeit for simultaneous attack have only one thing in common; they're all defenses against hand to hand attacks. Removing the context of the paragraph and focusing strictly on dodge is a sophism.

Actually, as proven multiple times now, they are all defenses against attacks, both ranged and melee.

Proven? Not really. We're just making claims.

Dog_O_War wrote:It never mentions that you can sacrifice your entangle option to simoltaineously attack because entangle itself is an attack.

Wrong.
"Simultaneous attack: Instead of defending with a parry, dodge, or entangle, a character can shoose to do a simultaneous attack."

Dog_O_War wrote:

Natasha wrote:It's fair if you don't accept what SF says when playing Rifts, but the request was for any book. But even if we disregard Systems Failure, the point remains. Simultaneous attack is described in a hand to hand context and it is not detailed whatsoever in the ranged combat section, although other defenses are.

The description they give for parry is also described for melee combat, yet I've proven that you can parry ranged attacks as well (right in the description for WP shield). I fail to see how the lack of situational uses provided by the book is a good indicator of what is and is not applicable to a particular range of combat. I mean Rifts is famous for it's iron-clad and super-clear rules descriptions

Yes, and so is the description for dodge in a HTH context, until it's given a specific context in a following section. If the contexts are the same, one wouldn't have a penalty.

If it's not super-clear, then why are you adamant?

Dog_O_War wrote:

Natasha wrote:The point about calling knockout/stun is that just because a combat move is defined in a general combat section, it doesn't mean we can just say it applies to all combat.

As I said, I'd have to comb the book about that one; I never gave you a for sure, but I have combed the book about simo-attacks and could find nothing preventing you from using them in ranged combat. And as I said before, the prose of the paragraph describing simo-attack leaves it more than open for it to be used in a fire-fight.

Too open to call. That's my claim. That's all I'm saying. I interpret the rule as too open to call. I use the rule from another game, because I agree that it's how things should be done. I'm rationalising my decision, but I'm not telling you that you're wrong for using simultaneous attacks in ranged combat; I clarified myself as much earlier this week when I said "IF you're going to....". The rules for simultaneous attack are too open to say "you're wrong" without making an ass out of yourself.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:You're right; I won't find that in there. I will find that the book says that it applies to attacks with no other specification. Since nothing had been specified, and I can make attacks at range, it will apply to ranged attacks.

Only if you remove the context provided by the defenses that can be used instead of.

The context of the defenses are applicable to both melee and ranged combat; If I were to remove their context, I would be removing them all together.

Again, entangle is a HTH defense exclusively. So, no, the context of the defenses are not applicable to both combat types.

Champion? No. That'd require I gave a damn. I'm doing what I should have done all the way back on Monday. I'm quitting this topic.

If you want to discuss anything with me, click on the PM button at the bottom of this post.

Dead Boy wrote:If you know of any section or example that shows Simos and ranged weapons of any sort being used in conjunction, by all means, quote it. But till then the lines seem pretty darn clear.

Because it really needs repeating.

Dr. Doom III wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:If you know of any section or example that shows Simos and ranged weapons of any sort being used in conjunction, by all means, quote it. But till then the lines seem pretty darn clear.

Because it really needs repeating.

Then I guess I need to repeat my response:

If you know of any section in the book saying (or indicating) that it can't be done, then quote it. Until the, the line just seems do be something that you made up.

I would have to say I'm getting a little frustrated by this "prove it's for ranged attacks" BS.
KC has said that Kevin told him that it did apply to ranged attacks, and the FAQ said that it applys to ranged attacks.
SO by continuing to argue, you're either:
1) Saying that KC is a liar, Kevin said no such thing, and the folks who answer the FAQ's are blowing smoke up our arses; or
2) Arguing for no apparent reason other than to hear yourselves.

if this offends, I'm most sorry, but damn.

K20A2_S wrote:

macksting wrote:So this siting of conjunctive use won't do it for ya?

Question: Simultaneous attacks. Ah, sweet little dear that answered the paired weapons question.
Now:
1. Does it apply to ranged attacks? And if it does (god help us!), are there any restrictions at all?
2. Are there any restrictions on it that off set it's negative side.
3. Can a simo attack negate an autododge?
4. Is it listed in a book somewhere that each simo attack uses up one of that guys attacks, or has this just been agreed to by group consensus? Not arguing, just asking.
5. Does it say anywhere you can't simo a sneak attack? Or is it group net consensus again.
Answer: 1. This is something that has been much debated, but never adequately resolved. Many people assume that Simo-attacks are for melee combat only, but I have no idea where they got that assumption. As far as I know none of the books have said or implied that simo-attacks are not to be used with ranged weapons. My group has always (since 1991) played with ranged simo-attacks and have noticed no real downside to it.
2. As for restrictions, some GMs only allow it if the character has the initiative, but the only really restrictions are, you have to have attacks left in that melee round to use it, and you'll take damage (mostly) without a chance to defend.
3. Yes. The defender and the attack both lose the ability to defend, unless they've got special circumstances like paired weapons (or several of the N&S moves, but we really don't need to cover that).
4. Not per se, however Simultaneous Attack isn't listed as an automatic move, so by default it costs an attack.
5. Again, not specifically, but a Simultaneous Attack can only be used in place of a dodge, parry, entangle, etc. and since you can't do those against a Sneak Attack (without special abilities at least), you wouldn't be able to perform a Simultaneous Attack.



Like I said from teh get go, I know and knew for a fact that it can be done for ranged. I just think it stinks....lol...........and nobody can say it's b/c it won't benefit me.........I usually play power armor PC's who fight magic ect., so simo. is basically a mages worst nightmare b/c they would never be able to finish off a spell by constantly being interrupted.

My other main battle is that is should have been written that the person that declares it, should do it before they see what the person who won initiative is going to do b/c it favors the defender..............but that's my personal opinion and we'll leave it at that.

So its number 2 then...

Killer Cyborg wrote:

K20A2_S wrote:PC X wins initiative, PC Y says he wants to do a simultaneous attack.......

Should the GM let PC Y know what PC X is going to do?? Considering he wants to attack at the same time.

For instance normally if PC X is going to attack PC Y, the GM will tell PC Y, "PC X is aiming his gun at you, what do you want to do?"............then PC Y can decide to dodge, parry, ect.

So should somebody who is going to do a simulatneous attack have the privilege of knowing what the person attacking them is going to do???

It works the same way as it does with Dodge or any defensive move.
RUE, p. 347
"Instead of defending with a parry, dodge or entangle, a character can choose to do a simultaneous attack. In this case the character does not defend... and simply attacks in response."

You can't respond to something that hasn't happened (or isn't happening).

In my opinion I don't think they should know, b/c otherwise they truly aren't doing a simulataneous attack but rather waiting to do a defensive maneuver if any(dodge, parrry, roll ect).........

You have to do the same thing with a defensive maneuver.
You can't wait for the bullet to come at you before you start moving; you have to start getting the hell out of the way before the actual attack is made.
Same with a simo-attack. You see them starting to bring their gun to bear on you, you try to shoot them, the shots go off more or less at the same time.

Second question not part of the poll
Do you think simulataneous attack should be available only in HtH?

No.

I think it would only make sense in HtH combat b/c ranged combat is just too fast with energy blasts and rounds hitting basically instantaneously,

That's why you start attacking at the same time they start attacking.
Your beam might not hit them at the same nano-second that their beam hits you, but if that's what you're looking for then you're taking "simultaneous" WAY too literally.
And the same applies to melee attacks; you're not going to stab each other at the exact same nano-second either. Just roughly at the same time, within the same "attack" phase.

and if it's available to ranged combat then doesn't that kind of take the point of initiative away??

1. How so more in ranged combat than in melee?
2. In one-on-one combat, where all the people are doing is attacking each other, then it kind of does... but in one-on-one combat, where all the people are doing is attacking each other, init doesn't matter a heck of a lot to begin with.
In combat with multiple combatants, it doesn't negate init for everybody, just for the two people involved in the simo-attack. Everybody else performs init as normal.

KC, you just always say just what I want to, but first. Pretty much took the argument and reasoning right out of my mouth.

The only other thing I thought i would respond to/add is about the comment about 2 juicers w/ 11 attacks each actually attacking each other 22 times b/c of simul attack. I could possibly be wrong here (but I very very seriously doubt it), but just like a dodge, a simul attack takes an action too. That may have been addressed, but I don't have time to read over 100 posts to find it.

Also, on the "prove it applies to simul attacks" thing: disregarding the SF thing (since this is the Rifts forum and all), where did it say that it only applies to H2H? Besides that use a little logic -- which takes longer: pulling a trigger, or swinging a sword or something else in your hand? Obvious answer: swinging your melee weapon. So, when someone is pointing a gun at you at point blank, and you have a gun in one hand pointed at the guy also, and a sword in the other (lets asume you're ambidexterous) the argument that simul attacks don't apply to ranged responses is like saying that you're allowed and have time to swing our sword at him but you don't have time or aren't allowed to shoot the gun at him even though it's quicker and makes more sense.

This should solve the debate on this.

Flip to page 362 in R:UE.
Under gun terms it lists attacks per melee. the Direct quote is;

R:UE wrote:Attacks per Melee: each individual shot fired counts as one melee attack.

It says that shots fired count as a melee attack, there by taking up a melee attack and allowing anything a melee attack can do. Really this whole debate is pretty dumb once you realize that it is all just semantics.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Then I guess I need to repeat my response:

If you know of any section in the book saying (or indicating) that it can't be done, then quote it. Until the, the line just seems do be something that you made up.

Does anything say you can't use a jump kick in ranged combat?
Perhaps they assume some common sense will be used?

Dr. Doom III wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Then I guess I need to repeat my response:

If you know of any section in the book saying (or indicating) that it can't be done, then quote it. Until the, the line just seems do be something that you made up.

Does anything say you can't use a jump kick in ranged combat?

The fact that it's a kick.

Perhaps they assume some common sense will be used?

Of course they do.
Let me know when you feel like living up to their assumption and admitting that there's no reason why anybody couldn't make a ranged simo-attack.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Of course they do.
Let me know when you feel like living up to their assumption and admitting that there's no reason why anybody couldn't make a ranged simo-attack.

Speed.

Bullets and lasers fly much faster than punches and stabs.

Dr. Doom III wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Of course they do.
Let me know when you feel like living up to their assumption and admitting that there's no reason why anybody couldn't make a ranged simo-attack.

Speed.

Bullets and lasers fly much faster than punches and stabs.

All the more reason why it's possible to do.
If you have time to punch somebody who's attacking you, you certainly have time to shoot them.

Killer Cyborg wrote:All the more reason why it's possible to do.
If you have time to punch somebody who's attacking you, you certainly have time to shoot them.

Really?
You must be watching to many DBZ episodes if you think punches are as fast as bullets.

Yes I know you're trying to muddy the waters by mixing melee and ranged combat but I choose not to bite.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:RUE pg. 360.

Okay, I'm looking at it.
I don't see any glossary there.
P. 360 describes Modern Weapon Proficiencies. No combat maneuvers at all.

So you'll only accept sections with fully detailed descriptions, hu? Well, I just so happened to notice that you intentionally glossed over Natasha's contribution from Systems Failure... the one I put in giant, bolded, yellow letters. Let me repost it for you in case you somehow missed it the first two times.

Systems Failure p. 44 - Combat Terms & Moves Note:
"The following combat maneuvers are applicable to many forms of hand to hand combat and martial arts."

If I'm not mistaken, this section too is the only place in the book where Simo can be found... expressly under Hand to Hand Combat.

I could continue and push my parallel comparison with using crap in Psychic Combat that doesn't belong either, and I could respond to all your other rebuttals, but it's not necessary at this juncture. We have it right there, in an OFFICIAL and current Palladium book that uses the same combat rules as RUE, there in black and white for all to see.

Simultaneous Attack is for melee combat only. Period, end of report. Any use of it with ranged weapons is strictly in the domain of house rules and individual tastes.

EDIT: Out of curiosity I decided to look this up in Heroes Unlimited ... and guess what I found.
"The following combat maneuvers are applicable to many forms of hand to hand combat and martial arts." (HU 66)

Now since Kev has ALWAYS said that Palladium Books uses one big happy universal system, if this is true in Systems Failure AND Heroes Unlimited, by extension simo is limited to melee on ALL Palladium systems. ... I'm going to see if I can find some of my other books.[/EDIT]

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Did you find some rules somewhere allowing called shots with missile volleys?

Yes. Read the Missile Called Shot thread. Only "Aimed" shots have to be single shots, and the CTT-M20 uses mini-missiles, so they don't alwasy go for the main body. However it still would take the SAMAS two melee attacks per try, so that could bite him in the ass if the first volley missed.

There's a whole thread about this where I point out the flaws in that arguement.

I read your counter argument, and to say the least it was flawed. But let's bicker over that on that thread for the sake of keeping things straight.

Dead Boy wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:RUE pg. 360.

Okay, I'm looking at it.
I don't see any glossary there.
P. 360 describes Modern Weapon Proficiencies. No combat maneuvers at all.

So you'll only accept sections with fully detailed descriptions, hu?

It's not that I'll only accept sections with fully detailed descriptions, it's that your argument makes absolutely no sense unless:
-there are two glossaries, one for ranged/modern, and one for melee,
-Simo Attack is ONLY defined under melee.
-Dodge, Parry and/or Roll are defined under both.

Well, I just so happened to notice that you intentionally glossed over Natasha's contribution from Systems Failure... the one I put in giant, bolded, yellow letters. Let me repost it for you in case you somehow missed it the first two times.

I didn't gloss it over; I just don't have that book and I don't believe her contribution to be meaningful.

Systems Failure p. 44 - Combat Terms & Moves Note:
"The following combat maneuvers are applicable to many forms of hand to hand combat and martial arts."

If I'm not mistaken, this section too is the only place in the book where Simo can be found... expressly under Hand to Hand Combat.

So my questions are:
Is there a glossary for ranged combat (or modern combat)?
If so, does it define "dodge" in the list of terms there?

If you can't answer "yes" to both of these questions, then you haven't found anything important.

We have it right there, in an OFFICIAL and current Palladium book that uses the same combat rules as RUE, there in black and white for all to see.

What you have is a one-shot novelty game releases 8 years ago, and it still doesn't seem to back you up.

EDIT: Out of curiosity I decided to look this up in Heroes Unlimited ... and guess what I found.
"The following combat maneuvers are applicable to many forms of hand to hand combat and martial arts." (HU 66)

Let me elaborate on what that doesn't mean anything to our conversation.

-Dodge is a combat maneuver that is applicable to many forms of hth combat and martial arts.
-Roll With Impact is a combat maneuver that is applicable to many forms of hth combat and martial arts.

Without looking, I'm going to be that they're described in the section that you're quoting.

Does this mean that these moves are ONLY applicable in HTH combat?
No.

And it doesn't mean that for Simo-Attack either.

As I posted earlier, the book says that shots fired count as melee attacks. No matter how you look at it when a rifle fires a shot, it is a melee attack. Even if it occurs 2000 feet from the target.

Dog_O_War wrote:As I posted earlier, the book says that shots fired count as melee attacks. No matter how you look at it when a rifle fires a shot, it is a melee attack. Even if it occurs 2000 feet from the target.

That means nothing other than the term Melee attack is used in the game to describe an attack made durring a melee round. If it said Hand to Hand attack or ranged attack you might be making a valid point.

Dr. Doom III wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:As I posted earlier, the book says that shots fired count as melee attacks. No matter how you look at it when a rifle fires a shot, it is a melee attack. Even if it occurs 2000 feet from the target.

That means nothing other than the term Melee attack is used in the game to describe an attack made durring a melee round. If it said Hand to Hand attack or ranged attack you might be making a valid point.

Even melee attacks aren't called "hand to hand attacks". They are listed as attacks you make in hand to hand combat. Under hand to hand (any skill) it lists the amount of melee attacks you get; these are attacks, straight up. As the book lists melee weapons using melee attacks, and ranged weapons using melee attacks, and defensive manuevers such as dodge, parry, entangle, and finally simoltaineous attack all being able to take the place of a melee attack (and with no range stipulation listed anywhere)

Ranged weapons use melee attacks, which means you may simoltaineous attack with ranged weapons.

Alejandro wrote:You know a thread is longer worth visiting when the

Statement

Statement

Your statement is wrong

Statement

Your statement is wrong

No, your statement is wrong

Statement

Your statement is wrong

No, your statement is wrong

No, YOUR statement is wrong

posts end up being entire page lengths themselves. By this time it has long ceased to be an argument and more of a competition to see who can deluge the other person and make them concede defeat not by merit of argument but by sheer overdose of multi-quotes.

A more proper example would be a statement followed by a statement saying that the original was wrong with evidence why it's wrong provided. Followed again by a “no you're wrong” statement with no evidence instating on a declaration from a book as support. Followed by a restatement of the evidence and asking for a declaration from the book that their conclusion is wrong.

Since there are no such statements in any book all that can be done is find evidence to support one theory or the other. So far I've see evidence to support the theory that Simultaneous Attacks should not be used in ranged combat but none to support the contrary opinion.

Dog_O_War wrote:Even melee attacks aren't called "hand to hand attacks". They are listed as attacks you make in hand to hand combat. Under hand to hand (any skill) it lists the amount of melee attacks you get; these are attacks, straight up. As the book lists melee weapons using melee attacks, and ranged weapons using melee attacks, and defensive manuevers such as dodge, parry, entangle, and finally simoltaineous attack all being able to take the place of a melee attack (and with no range stipulation listed anywhere)

Ranged weapons use melee attacks, which means you may simoltaineous attack with ranged weapons.

They are attacks you make in combat. That's all they are.
Trying to use that as some sort of evidence for ranged Simultaneous Attacks is no better than if I were to postulate that an entangle can be used in ranged combat for the same reason.

Ranged weapons use melee attacks, which means you may entangle with ranged weapons?

Dr. Doom III wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Even melee attacks aren't called "hand to hand attacks". They are listed as attacks you make in hand to hand combat. Under hand to hand (any skill) it lists the amount of melee attacks you get; these are attacks, straight up. As the book lists melee weapons using melee attacks, and ranged weapons using melee attacks, and defensive manuevers such as dodge, parry, entangle, and finally simoltaineous attack all being able to take the place of a melee attack (and with no range stipulation listed anywhere)

Ranged weapons use melee attacks, which means you may simoltaineous attack with ranged weapons.

They are attacks you make in combat. That's all they are.
Trying to use that as some sort of evidence for ranged Simultaneous Attacks is no better than if I were to postulate that an entangle can be used in ranged combat for the same reason.

Ranged weapons use melee attacks, which means you may entangle with ranged weapons?

???
I left a page number and an exact quote from the book.

Dog_O_War wrote:This should solve the debate on this.

Flip to page 362 in R:UE.
Under gun terms it lists attacks per melee. the Direct quote is;

R:UE wrote:Attacks per Melee: each individual shot fired counts as one melee attack.

It says that shots fired count as a melee attack, there by taking up a melee attack and allowing anything a melee attack can do. Really this whole debate is pretty dumb once you realize that it is all just semantics.

It states that both the shooter is considered to be "in melee", and that his shots count as melee attacks. Simoltaineous attacks require that the defender be in melee, and that he have a melee attack available for use.
Now if you wanted to get real technical, it doesn't list a range for entangle beyond that of "melee combat", which people using guns are considered to be in. Obviously we know that the range of our arms is far less than that of the range of a gun, so clearly such a defense will not work.

Entangle clearly requires that you "tye up an opponents" arms, which is hard to do unless you are close enough to rope or otherwise... well "entangle" your opponent. This has no ranged stipulation, just as simoltaineous attack has none.

macksting wrote:Correct. So stop being intellectually lazy and address our points. Or stop being snotty and leaving me openings, take your pick.

Deadboy has addressed my points. Not restating them is not being intellectually lazy that's just being regular lazy.

And snotty is Doom's posting style. You'd think in 4 or so years here you'd have gotten used to it by now.

Dog_O_War wrote:???
I left a page number and an exact quote from the book.

Dog_O_War wrote:This should solve the debate on this.

Flip to page 362 in R:UE.
Under gun terms it lists attacks per melee. the Direct quote is;

R:UE wrote:Attacks per Melee: each individual shot fired counts as one melee attack.

It says that shots fired count as a melee attack, there by taking up a melee attack and allowing anything a melee attack can do. Really this whole debate is pretty dumb once you realize that it is all just semantics.

It states that both the shooter is considered to be "in melee", and that his shots count as melee attacks. Simoltaineous attacks require that the defender be in melee, and that he have a melee attack available for use.
Now if you wanted to get real technical, it doesn't list a range for entangle beyond that of "melee combat", which people using guns are considered to be in. Obviously we know that the range of our arms is far less than that of the range of a gun, so clearly such a defense will not work.

Entangle clearly requires that you "tye up an opponents" arms, which is hard to do unless you are close enough to rope or otherwise... well "entangle" your opponent. This has no ranged stipulation, just as simoltaineous attack has none.

Yeah and as I said a melee attack is just a term.
A melee attack is one attack in a melee round.

Yep it has no ranged stipulation, just as Simultaneous Attack has none and the use of the term Melee Attack isn't evidence otherwise either.