Forums of the Megaverse®

Jesterzzn wrote:Don't you guys know that its impossible to prove a positively negative?

I do! I do!

Jesterzzn wrote:Don't you guys know that its impossible to prove a positively negative?

Uhhh...

Brain...melting....

Computational Abilities........impaired....

Speaking.....in...Sentence Fragments.......

(and I STILL want to know what Rimmer's doing in bed with you, Jester...and where one of his hands is....)

Ishtirru wrote:

Dr. Doom v.3.1.2 wrote:

Ishtirru wrote:There are also no evidence to prove that you can't either. Like i've stated in the other post. Its all open to interpretation. Neither one is wrong and more right than the other. Both sides have valid points.

And if you understood, if you even read, what I have been saying then you would know that with no evidence one way or the other the logical conclusion is that it can't.

Of course you can be illogical if you want to.

you would know that with no evidence one way or the other the logical conclusion is that it can't.

You forgot to put "or can" at the end of that.

Only if I want to be wrong.

You guys have that side already covered.

cornholioprime wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Uh, Corny... YOU were the one who started debating the semantics of the term "stacking"...

Like I said, have fun debating Semantics all day long if you want.

We say use the term "Layering" as a more correct term if need be......

Uh, you're doing it again....

Illithid13 wrote:1) Magic is not subject to the laws of physics based upon thdefinitionon of the word "Magic."

I'll get back to you on that.

2) The fact that one spell's affect ioverlappingng another's just means that as soon as the active spell is canceled/depleted/expired/whatever, the other is still there to take its place, unless it too has expired.

Find me some place in the books that states this.

Illithid13 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

2) The fact that one spell's affect ioverlappingng another's just means that as soon as the active spell is canceled/depleted/expired/whatever, the other is still there to take its place, unless it too has expired.

Find me some place in the books that states this.

I'm using Doom's argument of a lack of a positive (example) infers that it doesn't exist; therefore, since it doesn't say that they canceach otherher out, then they don't... That seem's to be you and Doom's major argument, so I'm using a circular argument to counter it, thus rendering your argument significantly weaker.

I know what you're trying to do.
But that still does not mean that spells overlap.

Illithid13 wrote:I'm using Doom's argument of a lack of a positive (example) infers that it doesn't exist; therefore, since it doesn't say that they canceach otherher out, then they don't... That seem's to be you and Doom's major argument, so I'm using a circular argument to counter it, thus rendering your argument significantly weaker.

Actually I'm saying that there is no evidence that they can overlap and as such cannot. Therefore canceling each other out never comes into play.
You must have been reading Corny's posts to have that poor an understanding of what I am saying.

Illithid13 wrote:

Dr. Doom v.3.1.2 wrote:

Illithid13 wrote:I'm using Doom's argument of a lack of a positive (example) infers that it doesn't exist; therefore, since it doesn't say that they canceach otherher out, then they don't... That seem's to be you and Doom's major argument, so I'm using a circular argument to counter it, thus rendering your argument significantly weaker.

Actually I'm saying that there is no evidence that they can overlap and as such cannot. Therefore canceling each other out never comes into play.
You must have been reading Corny's posts to have that poor an understanding of what I am saying.

Implying that they cannot overlap means that either 1, something is physically or mystically preventing you from casting he second one, what is it? deffinatly not something in the spells description... (and I haven't seen evidence of anything stating this is true so again it dosn't hold, by your logic of lack of a positive infers a negative) or 2, the 2nd spell cancels the first, (and again, doesn't hold for lack of proof using the same line of logic).

I'm sorry Doom, but you saying that I do not understand what you are saying is the ostrage's head in the sand approach. I understand fully what you are saying, but it is not holding. Unless you mean something other that "because it doesn't say in the book, you absolutly cannot cast 2 of the same type of spells because having that spell activated already prevents you from casting the other, you cannot do it." I ask you What is stoping you from actualy physically casting the spell and expending the PPE to cast it? because it doesn't say that you can in the description of the spell? that is like saying that you cannot cast ANY spell once you have one spell affecting you, unless it says so in the text that you can. This is just a load of crap, and if you believe this as such, then I have a bridge to sell you, cheep...

Spells cannot be cast on illegal targets.
If a spell has a range of 500', then you cannot cast it on a target that is 600' away.
The books never explain what happens if you try. Maybe the PPE is expended and fizzles, maybe not.

Most spells have common sense areas where the spell will not work.
Magic Net, for example, cannot affect intangible characters (although it does not specifically state that it cannot).

Illithid13 wrote:Implying that they cannot overlap means that either 1, something is physically or mystically preventing you from casting he second one, what is it? deffinatly not something in the spells description... (and I haven't seen evidence of anything stating this is true so again it dosn't hold, by your logic of lack of a positive infers a negative) or 2, the 2nd spell cancels the first, (and again, doesn't hold for lack of proof using the same line of logic).

I could speculate but I don't really have to since there is nothing supporting allowing it. Proving the negative and all.
Personally if I really need a reason I would go with the two objects cannot take up the same space, a magically created object or not.

I'm sorry Doom, but you saying that I do not understand what you are saying is the ostrage's head in the sand approach. I understand fully what you are saying, but it is not holding. Unless you mean something other that "because it doesn't say in the book, you absolutly cannot cast 2 of the same type of spells because having that spell activated already prevents you from casting the other, you cannot do it." I ask you What is stoping you from actualy physically casting the spell and expending the PPE to cast it? because it doesn't say that you can in the description of the spell? that is like saying that you cannot cast ANY spell once you have one spell affecting you, unless it says so in the text that you can. This is just a load of crap, and if you believe this as such, then I have a bridge to sell you, cheep...

I'm only saying that because you are demonstrating it.
Again it doesn't matter what is stopping it because nothing is allowing it to begin with. You have your cart before the horse.
Actually it's not like saying any spell because there is evidence of many different types of spell being used on one person. There is no evidence of multiple spells of the same type being used.
It all comes down to one word.
EVIDENCE.

Illithid13 wrote:Doom, do you even understand the deffinition of the word "Magic"? Look it up... because when you do, hopefully you will realize the absurdity of this statement.

Do you understand the meaning of the word irrelevant?
The game is based on rules. You simply can't just make up stuff because it's "magic".

I'm doing this because you are using a circular arguement (it is to show how week your arguement is.)

No it's as straight as an arrow.

Again, the arguement goes both ways... and by using your logic of the lack of a positive infers a negative, it does matter, because you are implying a positive where one doesn't exist (something stoping your casting it).

No it doesn't. The only thing stopping it is that there is nothing saying that it can be done.
By your bass ackwards "logic" I can shoot fire balls from my eyes while the spell "eyes of Thoth" is cast on me because it's magic and doesn't follow the rules of physics and there is nothing saying you can't nor is there a mechanism to stop it.

unfortunatly I do not have the book, but the quote from the Panthions book seems pretty strong. But then again, Palladium in infamous for contradictions.

You don't need the book. The Shiva quote has been used and shown for what it is in this topic a few times already. Nothing in it says that the same types of spells are used more then once.

I would think that casting the spell over again mearly renew the old one. The MDC of the armor is replenished and the duration is reset.

Since when did everyone stop playing and start became a Lawyer?

I mean, do questions like 'Teleporting inside a Force Field/Robot', 'Borgs: MDC or SDC/HP/, and 'Magic Spell Stacking' ever cause a game to shut down? Why do I feel that all of you just go through the books looking for an inconsistency just to post it and incite the masses or to jump in with your Post Count +1?

From the beginning, I've never had a problem answering most of the questions I see people here go on for months about. Force Fields should stop Teleports, Teleporting in a Robot should have a risk of death (use the chart with the spell!), Borgs are MDC (unless you'd like to handle the nightmarish book keeping and such on that one), and Magic Spells naturally work with other spells.

Any Spell can be used with Any other Spell (unless specifically noted), but the same Spell can not be cast in 'Multiples' for 15 Armor of Ithans, but can be cast for renewing the effects.

I've found that more trouble comes from listen to those on this board about 'Rule Clarifications/Official FAQ's' can cause more trouble for you then what it's worth. If something troubles you, go back and find it in the RIFTS Main Book. It should be the #1 source, the Bible of RIFTS, the Answers to the Questions.

If all else fails, get your ass to a Con with Kevin and ask him yourself. I've found my own thoughts matched his so much that I've put more faith in my own reasonings then I'll ever do here again.

Illithid13 wrote:Now that I have finally cought up on what was one of the mose interesting reads on this forum to date...

Doom, Yes I do know the deffinition of the word irrelevant is, I also know that nowhere in what I have read in Palladium's books is there a rule that states that Magic has to follow the rules of physics. Based upon your arguement, the deffinition of the word magic does apply because it means performing the unexplainable which infers defying the laws of physics, because to me that's pretty unexplainable.

The definition of a circular arguement is one that's path of logic can be used to support both for and against you.

Doom, you are implying that something prevents the spell caster to actually be able to cast another spell of the same kind of affect, but no where does it state this. there is no evidence to back this up. No canon proof on which you are basing your arguement so it DOES MATTER. You are using a negitive, or actually the lack of a positive, to prove a positive. This doesn't work. You are effectivaly saying that by being under the affect of one spell, means that you cannot be affected by any other spell.

I never said that the definition of the word magic over wrights the discription of a spell... I only said that it negates the need for a spell or mutiple spells to follow the laws of physics. Never did I say that by casting one spell, you can produce the affects of anyother spell...

Actually what I am doing is showing that there is no evidence to prove that something can be done.
The only logical conclusion follows that if you can't prove it then it can't be done.
The “laws of physics” are irrelevant.

The game follows rules. Those rules are logical despite what some say.

Illithid13 wrote:

darkbrandon wrote:I would think that casting the spell over again mearly renew the old one. The MDC of the armor is replenished and the duration is reset.

Agreed 100%, but we are not talking about the same spell, but rather 2 spells of the same type.

Hum...Yeah, that sounds about right.

Though, I'm not gonna get deep into it as everyone else, but I've always played it as you can have armor bizzar, AoI ect...on at the same time.

as for rules, I've never seen anything for or against it.

Illithid13 wrote:I'm sorry Doom, but you saying that I do not understand what you are saying is the ostrage's head in the sand approach. I understand fully what you are saying, but it is not holding. Unless you mean something other that "because it doesn't say in the book, you absolutly cannot cast 2 of the same type of spells because having that spell activated already prevents you from casting the other, you cannot do it." I ask you What is stoping you from actualy physically casting the spell and expending the PPE to cast it? because it doesn't say that you can in the description of the spell? that is like saying that you cannot cast ANY spell once you have one spell affecting you, unless it says so in the text that you can. This is just a load of crap, and if you believe this as such, then I have a bridge to sell you, cheep...

You have an excellently reasoned point.

The main trouble, is that the rules don't say nearly enough about how magic interacts with itself for my taste.

The "can't" position on the subject of stacking Magical Armor is, I feel, the one with the fewest assumptions, i.e. Occam's Razor (because we're all making assumptions here). I also prefer it for my previously stated reasons. I also, all along, have acknowledged, fully, that this is my own view for my own purposes.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The books never explain what happens if you try.

And that, my finely reasoning sir, is the problem at the center of all this.

Killer Cyborg wrote:How many people here think that Armor of Ithan can stack with Armor of Ithan?

Why or why not?

Not.

1: Game Balance.

2: No extant examples*.

3: It would be absurd.

*Oh yes, and I still fully equate stacking the exact same spell with stacking spells of the same type.

Spells of different types do not matter, stacking doesn't even enter into it, because the effects from different types of spells are not attempting to "stack/combine".

There, that's it. I've meant this all along, but never really phrased it as such.

Stacking is not the layering of spells alone. It is the layering together of same-type spells (Magical Armor, Attribute Enhancement, Transformation, etc.) with same-type effects that add together (two MDC values, two Saving Throw values, etc.). If any same-type spell's effects add together, they are stacking. IMO, anyway.

Illithid13 wrote:

RainOfSteel wrote:

Unknown Poster wrote:
you can stack an infinate number of 2 dimensional armors on top of each-other

And getting a 3D object as a result:

So, yes I did read the posts, and they did not refer to placing the 2D objects radially (which also doesn't create a third dimension, but only extends dimensions one and two).

Are you contradicting yourself here? Please say that you don't think that stacking an infinate amount of 2D objects creates a 3D one... Please... (yes there are theroies out there that state it as such, but by going strictly on the deffinition of 2D object, it is imposible to get a 3D object.) but from the last part of your post, it sounds like you know that.

No. I'm not contradicting myself at all.

I stated that stacking 2D objects do not create a 3D one.

You responded with a mention of "radial" placement.

I then stated, again, that stacking 2D objects do not create a 3D one, and that radial placement has nothing to do with it.

Placing objects radially is not stacking them, it's placing them laterally.

Malignor wrote:I think it's interesting that when people say "well magic defies physics" they REALLY mean "magic defies physics the way that's most advantageous to me, and in the way that supports my argument".

Nevermind the fact that Doom is absolutely correct - where does it say that person X cast multiple AoI, or stacked AoI with InvArmor? Nowhere. Where does it say that it can be done? Nowhere. Therefore there is absolutely no evidence supporting that armor spells can stack. You pro-stackers are arguing a point that has nothing supporting it, except "well... it's fictional magic so it defies physics" to which I reply "What? Really? You mean all my years of sacrificing my pets to attract myself a syphon entity were spent in vain? ... NO KIDDING. Thanks for the big news."

It took a while to pick myself up off the floor, there.

darkbrandon wrote:I would think that casting the spell over again mearly renew the old one. The MDC of the armor is replenished and the duration is reset.

That is a widely supported assumption of how it works.

But we don't really know.

Illithid13 wrote:Doom, you are implying that something prevents the spell caster to actually be able to cast another spell of the same kind of affect, but no where does it state this. there is no evidence to back this up. No canon proof on which you are basing your arguement so it DOES MATTER. You are using a negitive, or actually the lack of a positive, to prove a positive. This doesn't work. You are effectivaly saying that by being under the affect of one spell, means that you cannot be affected by any other spell.

The difference is that you are using a lack of evidence to infer a capability.

Doom is using a lack of evidence to infer a lack of capability.

It's just that simple.

Tyciol wrote:Guys, if the armour didn't expand to include your person, then you wouldn't be able to wear any armour at all with a magic armour spell. [...]

Where does it say Magical Armor "expands"? Nowhere.

Tyciol wrote:All stack, but you can only have one of the same spell active at once.

Where's it say you can't have armour of ithan over invincible armour over armour bizarre?

Nowhere. And that is one of the central gaps of the Rifts magic system.

I am now getting ready to hesitate to call it a system, since a bazillion house rules and FAQ answers (if you're willing to believe them) are required to understand it.

ApocalypseZero wrote:Since when did everyone stop playing and start became a Lawyer?

[...] Why do I feel that all of you just go through the books looking for an inconsistency [...]

If such topics are displeasing, it is not necessary to read them.

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:From the beginning, I've never had a problem answering most of the questions I see people here go on for months about. [...]

Any Spell [...]

Those are excellent and resonable house-rules. Nothing anywhere in the books actually says those things, one way or the other.

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote: If something troubles you, go back and find it in the RIFTS Main Book. It should be the #1 source, the Bible of RIFTS, the Answers to the Questions.

Except the whole point is that the RMB misses out on lots of stuff, and there's plenty of disagreement on what it says and what it doesn't.

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:If all else fails, get your ass to a Con with Kevin and ask him yourself.

But no one else will believe anything you say about said conversation with KS, that is, if they don't like what it is you say.

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:I've found my own thoughts matched his so much that I've put more faith in my own reasonings then I'll ever do here again.

Yikes!

RainOfSteel wrote:

darkbrandon wrote:I would think that casting the spell over again mearly renew the old one. The MDC of the armor is replenished and the duration is reset.

That is a widely supported assumption of how it works.

But we don't really know.

Hence why I said "I would think" as opposed to making it sound like "I know for a fact".

It can be taken either way. there isn't enough proof for me to say one way or the other.

KC asked if AoI can stack with an AoI. I say no. For me, You can have spells exist in the same place, so in the place AoI would exist you would have 2 existing copies. One stronger than the other for example. Like you would have one AoI with 20 MDC and one with 10 existing in the same place. But the total MDC isn't 30, just 20, after it takes 20 MD of damage, the one with 10 MD is now destoryed/negated.

The benifit would be that you don't have to "renew" a spell before it's duration is up.

I really don't see much of a balance issue with it.

RainOfSteel wrote:

If all else fails, get your ass to a Con with Kevin and ask him yourself.

But no one else will believe anything you say about said conversation with KS, that is, if they don't like what it is you say.

If you do, I suggest posting what you asked him before it comes up.

If you posted it right after con, along with what you asked and his answer, then I could see some credibility establishment.

Personally, I'd be more apt to believe something someone posted about 6 months ago, as opposed to saying "Well, 6 months ago, I talked to kevin..."

RainOfSteel wrote:

Illithid13 wrote:Doom, you are implying that something prevents the spell caster to actually be able to cast another spell of the same kind of affect, but no where does it state this. there is no evidence to back this up. No canon proof on which you are basing your arguement so it DOES MATTER. You are using a negitive, or actually the lack of a positive, to prove a positive. This doesn't work. You are effectivaly saying that by being under the affect of one spell, means that you cannot be affected by any other spell.

The difference is that you are using a lack of evidence to infer a capability.

Doom is using a lack of evidence to infer a lack of capability.

It's just that simple.

Really well put, Rain.
As have been your other posts in this flurry.

Tyciol wrote:Oh, this thing is far too long to read...

Guys, if the armour didn't expand to include your person, then you wouldn't be able to wear any armour at all with a magic armour spell. If you took it completely literally, you would have to be naked.

All stack, but you can only have one of the same spell active at once.

Where's it say you can't have armour of ithan over invincible armour over armour bizarre?

Another voice for the pro layering/stacking side

Let me say I agree 100% but some say that if the books do not say something is/acts a certain way then it is not/does not act in that fashon...I would say this is a fallacy as it could be stated that nowhere is it stated that spells cancel each other or that they prevent the other spell from functioning (spell fizzles) so by that same "logic" the books do not say that is how they function therefore they do not function to cancel another spell or by causing another spell to fizzle.

It is not logic to assume that if something is not said to be true then it is false.

If "A" is specifically stated truth,
& "B" is the lack of "A"

Removing "A" does not change "B" to "the opposite of "A" " it simply leaves the fact that " "B" is the lack of "A" ".

Some assume the opposit...it is a common mistakes for people to make but it is not logical to assume that if something is not known to be true then the opposite must be true.

I don't know that aliens exsist but I also do not know that they don't exsist. If by simply not knowing that something exsisted made the thing cease to exsist (the opposite of exsist) then this "logic" would hold true but that is not how things work.

Now I admit assumptions must be made but to make an assumption does not fit well with logic...Do the stars in Rifts work the same as they do in RL? do they produce heat visable light and all other forms of electro magnetic raditon...maybe It says so somwhere in the books but if it didnt would it be safe to assume that it didn't because the book doesn't say it does?...not in my opinion. We would assume that they functioned the same as ours do and that would be the end of it but this does not make this assumption "logical" either, it is a jump to a conclusion without knowing all the info...maybe in rifts stars dont produce UV radiation(I havent seen rules for sunburns) ....its an assumption and nothing more.

NOW we are talking about MAGIC something that no human can prove to exsist in real life so we have no RL reference for magic as we do for stars...does this mean that we can make the same assumptions that if the book doesnt say we can then we cannot?...sure but its still not logical ...just because we have no real life knowledge does not make that assumption "logical".

RainOfSteel wrote:

Illithid13 wrote:I'm sorry Doom, but you saying that I do not understand what you are saying is the ostrage's head in the sand approach. I understand fully what you are saying, but it is not holding. Unless you mean something other that "because it doesn't say in the book, you absolutly cannot cast 2 of the same type of spells because having that spell activated already prevents you from casting the other, you cannot do it." I ask you What is stoping you from actualy physically casting the spell and expending the PPE to cast it? because it doesn't say that you can in the description of the spell? that is like saying that you cannot cast ANY spell once you have one spell affecting you, unless it says so in the text that you can. This is just a load of crap, and if you believe this as such, then I have a bridge to sell you, cheep...

You have an excellently reasoned point.

The main trouble, is that the rules don't say nearly enough about how magic interacts with itself for my taste.

The "can't" position on the subject of stacking Magical Armor is, I feel, the one with the fewest assumptions, i.e. Occam's Razor (because we're all making assumptions here). I also prefer it for my previously stated reasons. I also, all along, have acknowledged, fully, that this is my own view for my own purposes.

This is the most Valid rational for the "Can't" side yet....But still not enough to sway me... if you feel that fewer assumptions makes you right then there are problems to that "logic" as well...occam's razor is not logic it is a way to eliminate possible explinations...though as a rule of thumb I agree that when multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is usually correct...but not always... sometimes useing occam's razor you eliminate the correct answer because it assumes more than another false answer. It was easy to assume the earth was flat and that the sun went 'round the earth but neither were true though it would be easy to reach those conclusions using occom's razor. Magic is not defined by smplicity either so occom's razor is even less usefull here IMO.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

RainOfSteel wrote:

Illithid13 wrote:Doom, you are implying that something prevents the spell caster to actually be able to cast another spell of the same kind of affect, but no where does it state this. there is no evidence to back this up. No canon proof on which you are basing your arguement so it DOES MATTER. You are using a negitive, or actually the lack of a positive, to prove a positive. This doesn't work. You are effectivaly saying that by being under the affect of one spell, means that you cannot be affected by any other spell.

The difference is that you are using a lack of evidence to infer a capability.

Doom is using a lack of evidence to infer a lack of capability.

It's just that simple.

Really well put, Rain.
As have been your other posts in this flurry.

Hmm the lack of evidence that I found is that the spell descriptions and the magic system never state that the spells cancel each other or that having one active would prevent (cause to fizzle) another spell (of similar type) from being cast...so by having no evidence to say they act this way they must act the opposite!



















NOT!

Thinyser wrote:Now I admit assumptions must be made but to make an assumption does not fit well with logic...Do the stars in Rifts work the same as they do in RL? do they produce heat visable light and all other forms of electro magnetic raditon...maybe It says so somwhere in the books but if it didnt would it be safe to assume that it didn't because the book doesn't say it does?...not in my opinion. We would assume that they functioned the same as ours do and that would be the end of it but this does not make this assumption "logical" either, it is a jump to a conclusion without knowing all the info...maybe in rifts stars dont produce UV radiation(I havent seen rules for sunburns) ....its an assumption and nothing more.

NOW we are talking about MAGIC something that no human can prove to exsist in real life so we have no RL reference for magic as we do for stars...does this mean that we can make the same assumptions that if the book doesnt say we can then we cannot?...sure but its still not logical ...just because we have no real life knowledge does not make that assumption "logical".

No, we're talking about ARMOR.
How many suits of armor do you think can be worn at one time?

Malignor wrote:

Thinyser wrote:Another voice for the pro layering/stacking side

Let me say I agree 100% but some say that if the books do not say something is/acts a certain way then it is not/does not act in that fashon...I would say this is a fallacy as it could be stated that nowhere is it stated that spells cancel each other or that they prevent the other spell from functioning (spell fizzles) so by that same "logic" the books do not say that is how they function therefore they do not function to cancel another spell or by causing another spell to fizzle.

It is not logic to assume that if something is not said to be true then it is false.

If "A" is specifically stated truth,
& "B" is the lack of "A"

Removing "A" does not change "B" to "the opposite of "A" " it simply leaves the fact that " "B" is the lack of "A" ".

Some assume the opposit...it is a common mistakes for people to make but it is not logical to assume that if something is not known to be true then the opposite must be true.

I don't know that aliens exsist but I also do not know that they don't exsist. If by simply not knowing that something exsisted made the thing cease to exsist (the opposite of exsist) then this "logic" would hold true but that is not how things work.

Now I admit assumptions must be made but to make an assumption does not fit well with logic...Do the stars in Rifts work the same as they do in RL? do they produce heat visable light and all other forms of electro magnetic raditon...maybe It says so somwhere in the books but if it didnt would it be safe to assume that it didn't because the book doesn't say it does?...not in my opinion. We would assume that they functioned the same as ours do and that would be the end of it but this does not make this assumption "logical" either, it is a jump to a conclusion without knowing all the info...maybe in rifts stars dont produce UV radiation(I havent seen rules for sunburns) ....its an assumption and nothing more.

NOW we are talking about MAGIC something that no human can prove to exsist in real life so we have no RL reference for magic as we do for stars...does this mean that we can make the same assumptions that if the book doesnt say we can then we cannot?...sure but its still not logical ...just because we have no real life knowledge does not make that assumption "logical".

Beautiful.
See, this is exactly what I see as the only canon truth: nobody knows, and there is no evidence either way. The lack of information does not justify any claim one way or another. Those who argue for the stacking are just blowing smoke. Those who argue against stacking are doing the same. However, those who argue against those who claim one way or another are in the right until further information is available.

In my games: only 1 armor & 1 aura; psionic & magic do not interfere w/ each other; if multiples contend for the same "MDC slot" then take the largest only. I argue this statement for fun, though I'll be the 1st to admit that I just decided it out of hand.

My universal claim: none. I don't care, I don't know. Any claim one way or the other is not logically valid.

I'm glad when one here can agree to disagree....

I see your assumptios as just as rational as mine but Neither are canon...

I happen to think that so long as its not the exact same spell then it would layer/stack even if its two knds of armor or two kinds or aura or two tattoos...so long as it is not the same armor or aura or tattoo. If I were creating spells or tattoos or whatever I would want them to be more effective and layering protection Is a good choice in this regard. The same spell could also stack if you wanted it to but that would be too much in my opinion so I have recasting the same spell reset the orrigional duration and/or damage capacty.

I happen to see it as:
if magical armor can stack over physical armor
and physical armor can stack over physical so long as they don't occupy they same space
then magic armor should be able to stack over magical armor so long as they don't occupy the same space...the only two spells that occupy the same exact space is the spell and itself and this is my rational that only the same spell will reset/overwright of the orrigional. All the others can exsist in hormony

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Thinyser wrote:Now I admit assumptions must be made but to make an assumption does not fit well with logic...Do the stars in Rifts work the same as they do in RL? do they produce heat visable light and all other forms of electro magnetic raditon...maybe It says so somwhere in the books but if it didnt would it be safe to assume that it didn't because the book doesn't say it does?...not in my opinion. We would assume that they functioned the same as ours do and that would be the end of it but this does not make this assumption "logical" either, it is a jump to a conclusion without knowing all the info...maybe in rifts stars dont produce UV radiation(I havent seen rules for sunburns) ....its an assumption and nothing more.

NOW we are talking about MAGIC something that no human can prove to exsist in real life so we have no RL reference for magic as we do for stars...does this mean that we can make the same assumptions that if the book doesnt say we can then we cannot?...sure but its still not logical ...just because we have no real life knowledge does not make that assumption "logical".

No, we're talking about MAGIC ARMOR.

Fixed that for ya ;)

How many suits of armor do you think can be worn at one time?

as many as will fit without space complications...Possibly as follows:

1) NG stealth suit ....12 MDC
under
2) NGR plain clothes....12 MDC
under
3) NGR T-11 enhanced armor 100 MDC
Inside
4) Any robot, vehicle, and some of the larger power armors such as the X-1000 Ultimax (It appears there is a compartment in the main body where the character would sit rather than "wear" it like a glitterboy does...though I admit this is purely speculation...)

So thats 4 layers of physical MDC protection...and this is only due to space restrictions....which I believe magicaly created armor does not suffer from.

I believe the only limitation where magic is concearned would be how many different spells the mage's could develop....the same exact spell is the only one to take up the same exact space so all other different spells would layer...the same spell recast would reset/overwrite the older/damaged spell...but this is just my opinion as are all arguments regarding this topic...if its not in canon that does not mean one can claim the lack of canon = oppisit of what is lacking...

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:How many suits of armor do you think can be worn at one time?

as many as will fit without space complications...Possibly as follows:

1) NG stealth suit ....12 MDC
under
2) NGR plain clothes....12 MDC
under
3) NGR T-11 enhanced armor 100 MDC
Inside
4) Any robot, vehicle, and some of the larger power armors such as the X-1000 Ultimax (It appears there is a compartment in the main body where the character would sit rather than "wear" it like a glitterboy does...though I admit this is purely speculation...)

So thats 4 layers of physical MDC protection...and this is only due to space restrictions....which I believe magicaly created armor does not suffer from.

Let me revise the question:
How many suits of plate armor can you wear at one time?

Thinyser wrote:

Tyciol wrote:Oh, this thing is far too long to read...

Guys, if the armour didn't expand to include your person, then you wouldn't be able to wear any armour at all with a magic armour spell. If you took it completely literally, you would have to be naked.

All stack, but you can only have one of the same spell active at once.

Where's it say you can't have armour of ithan over invincible armour over armour bizarre?

Another voice for the pro layering/stacking side

Really? The lead comment indicates a dismissal of most of the topic, and then a pair of, "Gee, I like it this way, therefore it must be," assertions are made.

I refer you to my other comments related to this post here.

Thinyser wrote:Let me say I agree 100% but some say that if the books do not say something is/acts a certain way then it is not/does not act in that fashon...I would say this is a fallacy as it could be stated that nowhere is it stated that spells cancel each other

That has already been gone over by Illithid13, and he did the best job yet in trying to put forward that argument.

However, I refer you to here for why that doesn't work.

Thinyser wrote:It is not logic to assume that if something is not said to be true then it is false.

See the link immediately above.

(Note: X, in the below cases, is: "Magical Armor Is Stackable".)

The above quote says, when translated: "If X is not stated to be TRUE, then X must be FALSE."

First, there simply isn't any information available to show whether this is true or false.

And second, it should probably read: "If there is no statement that X exists as a capability of spells in the PB magic system, then you may assume that such a statement about X exists," except that when correctly phrased, it shows the whole idea for what it is.

The "can't" side of the discussion is not saying there is any statement, anywhere, that says you "can't" stack Magical Armor. It is saying there there is no need for a "can't" statement in the rules because there is no "can" statement. The lack of a "can" statement does not create the existance of an implied "can't" statement. There is no getting to the implication of a "can't" statement. It never gets there. It doesn't work that way.

As Doom keeps saying, if you accept the lack of a "can't" statement as inferring the existance of a "can" statement, then you can just make up whatever extra rule you want.

A lack of a "can't" statement does not indicate the existance of a capability or rule (see all of Doom's statements and the paragraph above).

Thinyser wrote:Some assume the opposit...it is a common mistakes for people to make but it is not logical to assume that if something is not known to be true then the opposite must be true.

No. The logical thing to do is to assume we don't know what's going on.

The last thing you want to do in a "we don't know what's going on" situation, is to infer the existance of something based on the lack of something else.

Thinyser wrote:I don't know that aliens exsist but I also do not know that they don't exsist. If by simply not knowing that something exsisted made the thing cease to exsist (the opposite of exsist) then this "logic" would hold true but that is not how things work.

"I don't know if A is True and I also don't know if A is False."

Sorry, that doesn't prove anything. I just shows you don't know.

It does not cause things to exist or not exist (the existence of a thing is not dependent on whether you know about it or not).

Thinyser wrote:Now I admit assumptions must be made but to make an assumption does not fit well with logic

Logical discussions make assumptions all the time. They must, however, be supportable.

Thinyser wrote:...Do the stars in Rifts work the same as they do in RL? do they produce heat visable light and all other forms of electro magnetic raditon...maybe It says so somwhere in the books but if it didnt would it be safe to assume that it didn't because the book doesn't say it does?

You're confusing specialized game mechanics for game features with the background setting (stars and how they work and the assumptions made about them are not equivalent to spells and how they work and the assumptions made about them).

The statement: "IF the game-rules-book does not say the stars in the Rifts milieu work like they do in the RW, THEN this proves something about what the game-rules-book doesn't say about other topics . . ." oops, sorry, that statement just self-destructed.

Thinyser wrote:...not in my opinion. We would assume that they functioned the same as ours do and that would be the end of it

If there were a lack of statements, yes, generally, I'd assume that stars in Rifts worked the same as they did in the RW.

(I'm not saying there is or isn't, because I haven't read it all.)

Thinyser wrote:but this does not make this assumption "logical" either, it is a jump to a conclusion without knowing all the info

Yes, it is an assumption. However, basically, it is a reasonable one.

We can examine its reasonability by a simple question:

"What would stars in Rifts be if they didn't work like they do in the RW?"

<Jeapordy Wait Music />

Well, I'm certain some balonium answer can be invented, if someone wanted to bother to do the work.

The simplest answer is that the work like they do in the RW. Occam's Razor. (If we are, somehow, as in this example, forced to consider it all).

Thinyser wrote:...maybe in rifts stars dont produce UV radiation(I havent seen rules for sunburns) ....its an assumption and nothing more.

There it is, the invention of an assertion without a basis. That appeared out of nowhere. It was invented just now for this dicussion. It came from no part of the rules (again, the lack of statements about stars in the rules does not infer the existence of other statements about stars, as this is doing).

Thinyser wrote:occam's razor is not logic

I would just like to point out that Occam's Razor is a foundational feature of logic.

Thinyser wrote:...so by having no evidence to say they act this way they must act the opposite!

NOT!

Oh! Ok. You had me going there for a second.

Killer Cyborg wrote:No, we're talking about ARMOR.
How many suits of armor do you think can be worn at one time?

Physical: It depends on how quickly you expect to move.

Magical: I'd enjoy a definite answer, too bad we don't know*.



*And as much too bad for the PB/Rifts Magic System as for us.

Malignor wrote:My rationale is more based on the result of allowing stacking.
I was running a powergame and put together what can happen if magic armor stacks with magic armor (different spell, same type), and aura stacks with aura. The final values for MDC were absolutely ghastly [...]

I couldn't agree more.

RainOfSteel wrote:

Malignor wrote:My rationale is more based on the result of allowing stacking.
I was running a powergame and put together what can happen if magic armor stacks with magic armor (different spell, same type), and aura stacks with aura. The final values for MDC were absolutely ghastly [...]

I couldn't agree more.

Well said, and believe it or not, I would probably RULE "no, I won't let you" if I were running things (and my GM most definitely would...like Killer, in Rifts he follows the Old Ways and tends to stick to the first few [lower-powered] Books -and Rifts: Phase World, where we are now) ...but mere "cheesy-ness" or "munchkin-icity" are not themselves valid Counter-Arguments to this Discussion, becasue this Discussion is NOT about "How much MDC can I get by layering Magical Armors," but "Is it possible to do so at all??"

cornholioprime wrote:"Is it possible to do so at all??"

And the answer to that question is there is nothing supporting that you can.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:How many suits of armor do you think can be worn at one time?

as many as will fit without space complications...Possibly as follows:

1) NG stealth suit ....12 MDC
under
2) NGR plain clothes....12 MDC
under
3) NGR T-11 enhanced armor 100 MDC
Inside
4) Any robot, vehicle, and some of the larger power armors such as the X-1000 Ultimax (It appears there is a compartment in the main body where the character would sit rather than "wear" it like a glitterboy does...though I admit this is purely speculation...)

So thats 4 layers of physical MDC protection...and this is only due to space restrictions....which I believe magicaly created armor does not suffer from.

Let me revise the question:
How many suits of plate armor can you wear at one time?

The question is irrelevent as the armor we are talking about is magical and only the Invincable Amor spell says it is "plate armor" the others are form fitting so obviously they are not "plate". But the same answer applies "as many as will fit without space complications" there would happen to be space complications on most any plate armor unless it was specifically desinged to fit over another. Magic "armor" does not have a rigid "plate" design if described as simply form fitting, if it is described as plate then an AoI or such should still fit over it no problems as it will fit itself to that form.

RainOfSteel wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Tyciol wrote:Oh, this thing is far too long to read...

Guys, if the armour didn't expand to include your person, then you wouldn't be able to wear any armour at all with a magic armour spell. If you took it completely literally, you would have to be naked.

All stack, but you can only have one of the same spell active at once.

Where's it say you can't have armour of ithan over invincible armour over armour bizarre?

Another voice for the pro layering/stacking side

Really? The lead comment indicates a dismissal of most of the topic, and then a pair of, "Gee, I like it this way, therefore it must be," assertions are made.

I refer you to my other comments related to this post here.

Thinyser wrote:Let me say I agree 100% but some say that if the books do not say something is/acts a certain way then it is not/does not act in that fashon...I would say this is a fallacy as it could be stated that nowhere is it stated that spells cancel each other

That has already been gone over by Illithid13, and he did the best job yet in trying to put forward that argument.

However, I refer you to here for why that doesn't work.

Thinyser wrote:It is not logic to assume that if something is not said to be true then it is false.

See the link immediately above.

(Note: X, in the below cases, is: "Magical Armor Is Stackable".)

The above quote says, when translated: "If X is not stated to be TRUE, then X must be FALSE."

First, there simply isn't any information available to show whether this is true or false.

And second, it should probably read: "If there is no statement that X exists as a capability of spells in the PB magic system, then you may assume that such a statement about X exists," except that when correctly phrased, it shows the whole idea for what it is.

The "can't" side of the discussion is not saying there is any statement, anywhere, that says you "can't" stack Magical Armor. It is saying there there is no need for a "can't" statement in the rules because there is no "can" statement. The lack of a "can" statement does not create the existance of an implied "can't" statement. There is no getting to the implication of a "can't" statement. It never gets there. It doesn't work that way.

As Doom keeps saying, if you accept the lack of a "can't" statement as inferring the existance of a "can" statement, then you can just make up whatever extra rule you want.

A lack of a "can't" statement does not indicate the existance of a capability or rule (see all of Doom's statements and the paragraph above).

Thinyser wrote:Some assume the opposit...it is a common mistakes for people to make but it is not logical to assume that if something is not known to be true then the opposite must be true.

No. The logical thing to do is to assume we don't know what's going on.

The last thing you want to do in a "we don't know what's going on" situation, is to infer the existance of something based on the lack of something else.

Thinyser wrote:I don't know that aliens exsist but I also do not know that they don't exsist. If by simply not knowing that something exsisted made the thing cease to exsist (the opposite of exsist) then this "logic" would hold true but that is not how things work.

"I don't know if A is True and I also don't know if A is False."

Sorry, that doesn't prove anything. I just shows you don't know.

It does not cause things to exist or not exist (the existence of a thing is not dependent on whether you know about it or not).

Thinyser wrote:Now I admit assumptions must be made but to make an assumption does not fit well with logic

Logical discussions make assumptions all the time. They must, however, be supportable.

Thinyser wrote:...Do the stars in Rifts work the same as they do in RL? do they produce heat visable light and all other forms of electro magnetic raditon...maybe It says so somwhere in the books but if it didnt would it be safe to assume that it didn't because the book doesn't say it does?

You're confusing specialized game mechanics for game features with the background setting (stars and how they work and the assumptions made about them are not equivalent to spells and how they work and the assumptions made about them).

The statement: "IF the game-rules-book does not say the stars in the Rifts milieu work like they do in the RW, THEN this proves something about what the game-rules-book doesn't say about other topics . . ." oops, sorry, that statement just self-destructed.

Thinyser wrote:...not in my opinion. We would assume that they functioned the same as ours do and that would be the end of it

If there were a lack of statements, yes, generally, I'd assume that stars in Rifts worked the same as they did in the RW.

(I'm not saying there is or isn't, because I haven't read it all.)

Thinyser wrote:but this does not make this assumption "logical" either, it is a jump to a conclusion without knowing all the info

Yes, it is an assumption. However, basically, it is a reasonable one.

We can examine its reasonability by a simple question:

"What would stars in Rifts be if they didn't work like they do in the RW?"

<Jeapordy Wait Music />

Well, I'm certain some balonium answer can be invented, if someone wanted to bother to do the work.

The simplest answer is that the work like they do in the RW. Occam's Razor. (If we are, somehow, as in this example, forced to consider it all).

Thinyser wrote:...maybe in rifts stars dont produce UV radiation(I havent seen rules for sunburns) ....its an assumption and nothing more.

There it is, the invention of an assertion without a basis. That appeared out of nowhere. It was invented just now for this dicussion. It came from no part of the rules (again, the lack of statements about stars in the rules does not infer the existence of other statements about stars, as this is doing).

Thanks for agreeing with everything I said...even if you didnt know you were doing that!

RainOfSteel wrote:

Thinyser wrote:occam's razor is not logic

I would just like to point out that Occam's Razor is a foundational feature of logic.

No its a way to eliminate assumptions nothing more. Logic is a set of rules that govern arguments....I took a course called "logic" my freshman year in college and as Occoms razor was discussed as a tool that is very usable in many situations it is not a fundamental in true "logic"....it is also net even mentioned in the text we used "The Power of Logic" by C. Stephen Layman.

P.3 of the text defines logic as the "study of methods for evauating weather the premises of an argument adequately support (provide good evidence for) its conclusion."

With Occam's Razor you have not got enough evidence that is why you are making assumptions in the first place...logic gets "messy" when based on assumptions.

A valid argument is defined as an argument "that it is impossible for its conclusion to be false while the premise is true."

The Two premise in this argument is that if the book does not say it can be done then it can't be done and that the book does not say that spells stack. The conclusion that the spells cannot stack....the proble is that first premise is not true so it is labled as a "deductivly unsound argument"...

First off, I'd like to point out that you happened to quote me the entire time, yet you slapped Josh Sinsapaugh's name to it. I understand the Avatar mix up (had to change because I can't find my Line Walker anymore, but I've used Death in the Chat's since it's inception.) I just don't want any confusion here.

RainOfSteel wrote:

ApocalypseZero wrote:Since when did everyone stop playing and start became a Lawyer?

[...] Why do I feel that all of you just go through the books looking for an inconsistency [...]

If such topics are displeasing, it is not necessary to read them.

The topic is not displeasing, it the behavior of the people inside. It seems like most topics like this start as a Clarification but end up a Warzone.

ApocalypseZero wrote:From the beginning, I've never had a problem answering most of the questions I see people here go on for months about. [...]

Any Spell [...]

Those are excellent and resonable house-rules. Nothing anywhere in the books actually says those things, one way or the other.

Show me somewhere in my text above that you quoted where I even explain a rule. I can clearly see you may of mis-quoted my post. No problem. But in reading the RIFTS books (All plus Novels), it reads as if One Spell can be Combined with Other Spells. It also reads that One Spell can not be seperately cast to create Duplicates of itself. Just dig into everything Palladium you have. You'll never see a Spell or Psychic Power used to Duplicate itself, nor will you see any denial of Combo/Stacking. It's the edge Psychics and Mages have over Techs.

ApocalypseZero wrote: If something troubles you, go back and find it in the RIFTS Main Book. It should be the #1 source, the Bible of RIFTS, the Answers to the Questions.

Except the whole point is that the RMB misses out on lots of stuff, and there's plenty of disagreement on what it says and what it doesn't.

I find this to be false. I've never felt empty on the Main Book. It's the basis. It's the foundation. Without it, all other books are meaningless. One common sense rule I've learned (and it's a skill in Warhammer) is that if something new does not clearly define it's omission from the Rules, follow the Original Rules. For Example: Unless the Cyber-Knights of SOT4 clearly says 'use these rules for psychics becoming CK's' you use the Main Book for Psychics becoming CK's (as per Creation Step #4).

I believe that you, along with so many others, have let this forum blind you to the real text. So many here will cry House Rules, Homebrewed, etc. In fact, many here don't even play RIFTS anymore. And still, some may not grasp the rules and fudge something here or there. I will admit that I don't follow everything by the letter, but can you fault me for that when there is evidence that the Creator does so as well?

ApocalypseZero wrote:If all else fails, get your ass to a Con with Kevin and ask him yourself.

But no one else will believe anything you say about said conversation with KS, that is, if they don't like what it is you say.

People don't believe alot of things. Denial is a word in our dictionary because of this. People do tend to see themselves as the truth in the sea of lies. You can even argue that I could be one of them. But sadly, I can't force you to see something any different if you do not wish to see. I used to question so much in the games, but after a talk with Kevin at Gen Con, I don't question everything as much. I feel that he has shown me RIFTS the way he sees it, which wasn't far from the same view I had when I first picked up the Main Book back in '91.

ApocalypseZero wrote:I've found my own thoughts matched his so much that I've put more faith in my own reasonings then I'll ever do here again.

Yikes!

Why do you 'Yikes' me for? It's as if you're calling me crazy. Maybe I am. Maybe you are. Maybe everyone else is. My statement merely says I am secure in my mind about the view I see the game in, and that I'll not listen to what people here seem to call 'official' again, but trusting only in things I see printed by the company.

(Yeah, I am seeing the page odd, I deleted my post hoping it would fix it...didn't though)

Thinyser wrote:No its a way to eliminate assumptions nothing more. Logic is a set of rules that govern arguments....I took a course called "logic" my freshman year in college and as Occoms razor was discussed as a tool that is very usable in many situations it is not a fundamental in true "logic"....it is also net even mentioned in the text we used "The Power of Logic" by C. Stephen Layman.

You are both correct, and incorrect. Occoms Razor is a tool for logic. Simply put, Occom's Razor is just that...a razor, to which you use to remove unnessiary thing from an argument.

One should not increase, beyone what is needed, to explain anything. Occam's razor is especially important for universal models such as the ones developed in General Systems Theory, mathematics or philosophy, because there the subject domain is of an unlimited complexity. (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html) In all honesty, Occam's razor isn't mentioned in alot of logic, philosophy, math books I've read. About the only time I really studied it was during science class, forgot, it was also part of a reasoning class.

With Occam's Razor you have not got enough evidence that is why you are making assumptions in the first place...logic gets "messy" when based on assumptions.

O.R would be used to make sure your logic is sound, on track and "cleans things up". Sometimes you can have "too much" evidence.

But, just to clear things up, O.R. Is very much a part of logic and reasoning.

Illithid13 wrote:Believe it or not, I too fall in this boat with you CHP, In my game I would not allow it, but not because of persuasion of this arguement, but rather because of game ballance... I will however allow for a mage to cast one armor, then when it gets low, cast another as a replacement, asuming that they cancel the other spell. (and this is a known house rule so there is no arguements at my table)

Actually, i'm the opposite. If a player really wanted to, I would allow it. Since it's still costing him PPE (a built in game balance I feel), And since it would only last a few minutes, I probably would.

While I believe more than likely, you can't stack magic armors, I don't see it all that unbalancing, even if you do.

maybe their doing this to punish us for going over 30 pages...the goofy page thing i mean

Illithid13 wrote:Except for the fact that the "Laws of physics" is how you are proving that something cannot be done as logical reasoning in concern to something that is used to discribe happenings that defie logic, I couldn't agree with you more...

That's how you prove something in real life yes.
But this is a game.
In the game we use what is printed and logic.

Quite simply you can't use physics for the same reason you are trying to use it. The game doesn't follow physics.

Illithid13 wrote:Actually I'm not... People are argueing that by casting AoI then casting Armor Bazar, the armor bazar cancels out AoI i.e. causes it to be dispelled if you will. This is exactly what you are accusing me of, Implying that [i]lack of evidence/i] to infer a capability.

What I'm argueing is if a mage casts AoI on himself and then Armor Bazar on himself, then waids into a fight, The Armor bazar will take all of the damage until it is depleated, at which time, if the duration of AoI is not over, it will be taking the damage... My reasoning is simple. there is nothing saying that Armor bazar cancels the affects of AoI when it is cast upon itself; therefore, the two armor spells can stack. It's simple, reasonable, and compleatly ignors physics.

Forget this "canceling out" crap.
Nothing is canceled.

Nothing happens at all.

Illithid13 wrote:The expanding is more of a refference to the phrase "Form Fitting." It forms around you and your personal affects including armor. This is what he means by expanding... poor choice of words on his part, but it's ok.

Where does it say or imply it forms around magical armor?