Rules on climbing with pure-energy weapons

[Tor]

It says you can parry light, OR that you can make a bubble that automatically bends all light.
It does not say that you can make a ranged parry.

You're reading HU2 which added the separate "in the alternative" phrasing for the bubble. The phrasing in Rifts CB1 (and presumably HU1) has the necessity of a parry roll apply to both. Much like HU2 has you roll a parry to throw up Create Force Field in time.

If a bubble bypassed the need for a parry, I imagine most people would just do that, the exception being if your allies were trying to laser-blast an enemy within 10ft of you, in which case you might risk the failed parry to assure you don't protect them in the process of protecting yourself.

[drewkitty ~..~]

There is some ambiguity about how the Amaki TW Psi-Blade works. While Tor is definitely talking the depiction on page 165, however...... on page 156 the picture shows it projecting the blade of Psi-energy from just the hilt as a physical component.
The easy explanation for the differences would be that different Amaki (Psi) Gizmoteers build their Psi-Sword Enhancers differently and thus both depictions are correct and saying 'this one way only' in this case is not completely correct.

That would be citing a picture as canon; clearly it wouldn't matter how it was drawn since none of the drawings are accurate.

Tor use a picture as the base for the statements in his arguments not the text. All I did was point at another picture to say that his statement was not entirely correct.

I know - I didn't mean to single you out; you just happened to best high-light the basis on which the premise was flawed. Or at least, one of the premises (premisi?) of the question.

Then there is the picture that Tor used to base his opinion....how does he know that the blade shown is a physical blade, opposed to a psi-blade projected from the hilt. He can't know.

From day one, the text, to me, said that it was a hilt that projected a enhanced psi-blade from it.
*shrugs* It was not till Tor posted his interpretation of the picture there was no doubt in my mind.
The only pictures I would take as canon are the color ones in the RMB. Especially the one from which my avatar is taken from.

Otherwise there are all too many pictures in the books that are not anything in the text of the books for any of them to be counted as "Canon".

[Tor]

You do know taking a post out of context is against the board rules, do you not?

If you'd like to cite the rules, please reference them verbatim.

It's considered trolling/baiting. You ask a mod, or you can choose to continue to take posts out of context.

Baiting and trolling are intentional actions. Taking a post out of context can be done unintentionally due to communication or comprehension problems. I think you mean that INTENTIONALLY taking a post out of context is against the rules, to which I would agree, and argue that I have no such intention. You are welcome to point out where you think I am making an error (and please keep to yourself your hypotheses on whether or not it's an honest mistake or a malicious misdirection, you fail at it) and I will address such direct claims.

If you'd prefer to correct it, then respond to the whole sentence, not just part of it.

No, sentences are long, I respond to the portions I think relevant to reproduce. When I do so, I believe I am keeping faithful to context.

Here, I'll give you an example of taking a post of of context; I'll quote your above quote, but like you did, I am not going to quote the entire thing (for science):

I am doubtful it is possible to take a post out of context without any malicious intentions. I irked you intentionally. I know how to interpret your post in proper context.

So I've done what you did; I cut out part of your paragraph, the portion I am choosing to ignore and instead responding only to the idea I've now created

What you have done here does not resemble what I do. When I omit portions, I include a " .. " to show that parts are omitted. I often do this to abbreviate long lists, or omit discussions of other topics, to focus in on the statements pertaining to the topic to which I am responding.

You create an illusion of smoothness whereas I intentionally make quotes with removed parts look choppy to make it clear that they are distinct portions.

If you wish to make a case for me doing what you just did, you must provide an equivalent example. I do not agree that what you did here resembles what I do.

that is one of you admitting that you did it on purpose and maliciously. Which is baiting and trolling, because you're changing the idea/statement the poster put forth and responding to it as if it were its new intention. Whether "on-purpose" or not, it's still trolling.

I have never made any so-called "admissions" of malicious intent.

There is no such thing as accidental trolling, if something is not said to make you mad, then your getting mad at it does not make that thing a troll.

I believe you are alleging that I have straw-man'd you, and I may have accidentally done so in which case I invite you to point out what I read wrongly and to correct my interpretation of your writing.

Vague complaints don't help anything. You're spending time attacking me instead of spending time achieving a consensus where we can agree on what ideas are being put forth.

I wasn't stating (nor is anyone else for that matter) that the pictures contained within are not works of Palladium's

By this, I take it you think I was portraying you as declaring the pictures are non-Palladium works?

If you were not, then your post would constitute spam, as it would explain nothing (which is against the board rules).

I'm having trouble following the meaning of your responses here. Let's take a look at the ideas here:

An idea is presented "stating that the pictures contained within are not works of Palladium's".

You posted to say that you were not doing that.

By doing so, the impression is conveyed that I was saying you were doing that.

What I am asking you is which post (and where within it) did I say you were doing that?

Please answer and explain why you made this denial.

Your quoted portion is a prime example on where I am getting this impression.

The quoted portion contained 2 sentences:
*Pictures are inherently canonical, just as the words are inherently canonical.
*They prove themselves by being there.

Which of these two sentences gives the impression that I accuse you of stating pictures are non-Palladium?

I posted a fact, and you spouted belief without proof; I said that there was no label, blurb, statement, etc. ("entry") anywhere within the books stating that the pictures constituted an interpretable rule ("rule-worthy"). You then simply state without providing proof that they are "inherently canonical".

The proof is in the logic of authority.

Even if text says "X is canon" within a Palladium Book, how does that text hold the authority to make that data canonical?

The answer to me is: because it is within a Palladium Book.

In which case: art is also within a Palladium Book, and holds the same inherent authority.

I think you'll find the vast majority of information in these books do not have accompanying 'this is authority' type statements to support them. Could you give an example of what you consider a disclaimer that gives authority to a written statement exclusively?

Either you still do not understand the context canon is used here (an official rule, or "rules-canon"), or you're positing without proof (that's called "conjecture") that they are rules-canon, which in a debate-form (given that you didn't provide proof) amounts to you going, "nuh-uh!"

Tell me what your standard of proof is for text to be canon, and I will then examine what my standard of proof is for a picture to be canon.

I was stating that they aren't rules canon. Which they aren't.

Could you explain the basis by which you determine what rulebook content is 'rules canon' and which is not? Also I'm not sure how 'rules' creeped in, I thought we were discussing the broader concept of canonicity.

I explained very succinctly above how 'rules' crept in. And the basis is the rules section of any and every Palladium book.

So only 1 section of the book is canon, and everything else is fluff? Canon is more than just rules. "Erin Tarn is a woman" is not a rule.

As well as common sense.

So common sense is okay for you to rely on, but not me?

Does that mean that art is a true representation of reality?

Art and reality do not have the same relationship as illustrations accompanying a role-playing game.

You might as well argue that the illustrations in comic books don't necessarily represent what the text in the comic book is referring to.

That art otherwise conveys rules and laws of our real-world? Naming your child "Emperor of Earth" does not make him his namesake, any more than calling a picture "Iron Bolt Missile Vehicle" makes it its namesake.

and I'll ignore this because you're clearly off on a straw-man tangent, but I'll quote it to make you happy

either you're stating emphatically that pictures are rules-worthy canon (which you've offered no proof of, and which there is plenty of proof against), or you were assuming that when someone said "canon" they were referring to whether or not such a picture was the work of Palladiums'. Or is there some other explanation you'd care to entertain us with?

Yes, option 3 is I believe 'rules' to have a Venn diagram relation with 'canon'. There's some overlap, but each can refer to things that don't fall under the scope of the other. Random alien/world/AI generation tables for example are rules, but they present no canon in and of themself since they are rules for generating random things to supplement the canon with.

Conversely, many things are just written descriptions of the environment and not actually presented as rules. What Erin writes in Traversing are her opinions about the world, but not necessarily rules on how the world works, and the closest to a 'rule' that would be is 'this is what one given edition of Erin's book says'

You brought up common sense: common sense dictates that the picture of the lady next to Erin Tarn's stats is how she looks. Common sense is that the diagram of a Glitter Boy is actually showing us what a Glitter Boy looks like. I take the stance that pictures are canon until contradicted by text, at which point I re-interpret an image using alternative explanations to understand the mis-match.

OR You're willingly violating the board's code of conduct by purposefully taking people's posts out of context.

So far the most likely candidate for that seems to be you.

Given that I quote and respond to all points, it's unlikely.

Responding to something and quoting what you're responding to does not mean you are interpreting what you quote in context.

Reading comprehension is not a game of reproduction.

Please ascertain for me where this the pictures contained within are not works of Palladium idea originated from.

From the word 'canon', taken in the context of whether or not something was a Palladium creation.

Our disagreeing over what 'canon' encompasses is not the same as me accusing you of labelling images non-Palladium.

I never implied the idea came from you, I asked you to which context you were adhering to with regards to canon.

Your question was stated defensively as if I was accusing you of something, in a suggestive manner. Moving on, the context is answered above when I mention Venn.

Armour Bizarre has more than one possible descriptor; the spell does not always look like that

Descriptors are statements within the written portion mentioning how it looks, do you mean it can appear different ways? In which case yeah, there's the slime/worm option besides tentacles.

making the picture at best, an interpretation only meant to give an idea of what the real thing might look like.

I think it is more specifically what the spell does look like when cast on this particular NPC in this particular instance.

I don't think I was arguing a spell always looks that way... I mean, it's not as if a Sloucher Zombie always looks like example-Sloucher.

we are not viewing any of these pictures in a void.

Are you saying that my introduction of a void-less example (Armor Bizarre) contrasts with us arguing about a void-ish image?

TBH already forgot what particular image we were discussing. Was it the Amaki swords? If that's the case I figured which sword is which, so we can move on.

your previous statement implied real-world 'magical illusions' exist.

I'd be curious to see you point out how you got that impression, it was not intended and I don't think I wrote it that way.

You said that because Rifts contains illusions, "...we have know way of knowing if a picture we see is an actual representation of a real thing..." which directly implies that the pictures in the Rifts books may possibly be "an actual representation of a real thing". The bloody foreword of the books state that it's fantasy. Which is why I stated you (you've quoted it below) were either delusional or trolling. You eliminated all the other options.

Ah, okay, I figured out the disconnect in our conversation DOW.

When I used "real" there, I meant in regard to Palladium-canon, how a fictional thing "really" looks. As opposed to an illusion.

In the wider IRL-perspective of things, all Palladium games are illusions because they are fantasy games, since non are real.

Being well aware of this though, when we discuss "illusion" and "reality" side-by-side on our game forums here, we mean within the context of canon being reality and illusion being mere appearances. The 'illusion within the illusion'.

So this is basically your taking my "real" out of my context (canon-reality) and putting it within your own (IRL reality).

Rather than speculate whether or not you did so intentionally or not, seeing such disputes as fruitless, I will instead request you acknowledge this misunderstanding so we can put it behind us. Perhaps I could've stated things more clearly, perhaps you could have read things more imaginatively, perhaps both, doesn't matter.

Through our interaction, my Q and your A, we have discerned why you made that statement about me, and I have now clarified the context of my statement, making your criticisms no longer applicable to my actual meaning.

I was talking about regarding in-book illustrations depicting illusions, which can be caused by magic or psionics.

No. You posted no form of context or clarity; you made a direct statement, with no implications that it would be a character viewing the pictures within the books, etc. or any other explanation.

So when someone mentions "illusions" on a Palladium books forum, you assume they are talking about real illusions and not illusion-class events (usually magic) within Palladium games?

Do you also think this when people talk about magic?

If I said "Brahma is real" would you assume I was proselyzing for IRL Hinduism rather than discussing the Pantheons NPC?

Unless we're talking on non-Palladium boards (like Sound Off) I think it would favour you to default to considering that people mean the in-game application of common terms.

If I were to start a post wherein I stated "I murder people on a regular basis" with not clarification or explanation, and the thread's topic was "stuff you do in real life" (which provides a context), then that statement would be me saying quite literally that I am a murderer.

Murder is a real and common thing, and you are not a conveyance of fiction like a Palladium book is. So your example doesn't pan out.

That I am saying Kev hires artists who enchant the pages to create magic illusions in my mind is a very odd first impression to get when I talk about a picture of an illusion.

The parallel here is that we were talking about a real company, their works, and how game rules were applied, with regards to pictures. That provides us a context that we are firmly talking from our own perspectives, not that of a character. Your statement indicates nothing about seeing things from a characters' perspective, and you even referenced a real-world object (not a fictional one) in that very statement.

DOW, re-read where I first wrote about illusions:

You: in the case of pictures, a reader must err on the side of caution.
Me: Rifts is a world full of illusions (spells create them) so we have no way of knowing if a picture we see is an actual representation of a real thing, or merely an illusion spell.

Do I really need to write "an artist's depiction of the results of an illusion spell" to prevent you from thinking I am talking about a real thing?

Your instinct is to think that I believe Wayne Breaux and Ramon Perez are literal Diabolists able to imbue magic into their imagery?

You ought to understand "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" as a given. If I say "there's a dragon on page 5" I am not claiming that a dragon has landed on my open book.

I'll flag your post as you intentionally taking mine out of context, citing this portion of your post here as proof you're doubting there is a penalty for doing such.

That would be a lie, dog. I am saying I don't think there is a rule against UNINTENTIONALLY taking posts out of context.

I understand there is a rule against INTENTIONALLY taking posts out of context.

But you did not initially say intentionally. You only said 'taking posts out of context' which includes intended/unintended happenings.

I do not believe I take your posts out of context. If I do, I default to thinking it your fault for not expressing yourself well. If I am wrong on one or both counts, if miscomprehension exists and the fault is mine, that is still not malice and I think it wrong for you to declare that malice is my intention.

posts are like rules; there is the post as written, and the post as intended. We are not here to discuss what you intended to write, only to discuss what you wrote. So if you can't write what you intend, then you have the option simply to abstain.

There is also what people read, and what they intend to perceive in what they read.

Consider two scenarios that may result in miscommunication:
*words match intentions, comprehension does not match words
*words do not match intentions, comprehension matches words

We actually ARE here to discuss what people intend to write Dog, this is a meeting of the minds.

If you or I screw up and don't put the right words to our thoughts, it's acceptable to address that and correct it later.

It's also not a purely 2-dimensional issue since an expression can be correct, but still not ideal, and might be improved upon by a superior statement. People can improve the communication without admitting fault, in recognition of what works better for mutual needs.

you mis-quoting me as you saying what I wrote.

If you are going to make those accusations, provide the evidence every time you do it. Don't expect me to know what you refer to. There's limits to my use of the search function to trawl and see what you're referring to, and I can't do that without key words.

That's called plagiarism. But I'll let it pass.

Flame-bait requires intention. My forgetting to close a quote bracket is an obvious accident.

Rules are their own declaration; they are defined that way. Pictures are not defined the same as rules, which means that there needs to be something else to go along with a picture to define their validity.

I don't agree with this perspective. To me, both have a "here I am, I am this universe" existence. What we have here is a philosophical stand-off.

What this means (and it would help if you quoted the portion of you stating that drawings are not always accurate) because your statement provides that "something else" to go along with pictures to state that they don't hold the same authority as a rule does, with examples. Basically, it's evidence against your stance by your own admission.

I believe you're taking my stance wrong.

I think drawings are always accurate, but that drawings may not match up with text.

In the case of the Iron Bolt Missile Vehicle, I simply know that something (probably related to the IBMV) looks like this.

It could be a prototype of the vehicle, it could be a custom-made alteration to the vehicle, it could be the vehicle's image twisted slightly by an illusion spell, etc. What specifically, I don't know. I still believe the image to be related to and mostly represent the IBMV even if the tube count is off.

You mentioned earlier that "It will only ever be an "interpretation" of it, not the actual product."

We can say the same thing of our own sense of seeing things in real life. We can even say it of the text we think we are reading, and what we think the text communicates to us.

Subjectivity of viewer is always a factor in any medium, it cannot invalidate the weight of the material or else nothing can be valid.

Have you ever even looked at the definition of the word "rule"? This is an earnest question because you're apparently guessing "at the basis by which I assign authority to varying presentations of book information."

I refuse to be baited by your insults DOW.

The introduction of the word "rule" into this discussion is you shifting the goal-posts.

Backtracing to page 1, this is what initiated the exchange:

Tor is definitely talking the depiction on page 165, however...... on page 156 the picture shows it projecting the blade of Psi-energy from just the hilt as a physical component.

That would be citing a picture as canon

My bold for emphasis.

So since you said "canon", stop substituting "rule". You're changing the argument when you begin to lose it.

science only exists if scientists exist.

No.Science is defined as systematic knowledge of facts or truths. It honestly does not matter who the person is doing the study.

I consider anyone doing science to be a scientist. You misunderstood and thought I was referring to credentials. I'm saying that for there to be a process, there must be a processor. For science to exist, someone has to be doing the science, it can't exist on its own. Light may exist without eyes, but sight (in the traditional sense) requires eyes (broadly referring to photo receptors here) to exist.

Canon is the same way, people must interpret symbols for them to be letters or words or sentences or rules or stories, otherwise they are just ink stains.

I've observed you as having difficulty with parallels.

I suppose if we must tangent upon interpersonal speculation, that I perceive you having difficulties in thinking non-synonyms are synonymous, and perceiving subtle differences. Perhaps there is truth to both of our perceptions. I think the only way to discover the veracity is to analyze the text and not to make declarations about each other though. It strays into ad hominem distraction.

I am pointing out that interpretation of canon, just like interpretation of nature, does exist in a person-dependent state even if the raw source is inflexible and impersonal.

I'm saying it does not, and I've provided both proof and examples of such. I've noted that you've done no such thing.

The very concept of 'proof' or 'example' are person-dependent, with our assigning meaning to those words. I've a feeling of disconnect in this section of exchange, that we may be having our own distinct arguments with straw men and not understanding each other's points, it may be valuable to rephrase or move on.

You brought up who decides what is canon: the authority is the source, but the deciders of interpreting the source are all of us.

Interpretation does not equal authority.

Actually it does, because even if we assign authority to other people (say, Kevin Siembieda) the conveyance of that external authority to influence our individual beliefs is dependent upon our ability to interpret those statements coming from the Authority.

and now you have me thinking of Triple H and Stephanie McMahon.

You said I don't get to decide more, but I may, if someone held my interpretation higher. Just as I would have less comparative say if someone held me in lower regard.

You don't seem to understand; your interpretation is not in, nor will it ever be in the same category as "authority on the matter".[/quote]

I was discussing the subjectivity of authority, and of authority regress.

For example, within religions debates, you have "god" as a top authority (ie Siembieda) and then you have various authorities on how to translate old languages into new languages, and how to derive meanings from languages.

In addition to Kev determining what the Megaverse is, the Palladium fans' own idea of language and their beliefs about the meaning of words are authorities that control how they absorb that message. It is the most basic authority there is, because it directly influences the results, what things end up being.

Your interpretation could be held in the highest regard, but if the book says the Iron Bolt Missile Vehicle has two rows of six launchers, then at no point will the picture next to it factually be an IBMV. It will only ever be an "interpretation" of it, not the actual product.

You are misunderstanding my argument. You and I both agree that the basic design of the IBMV is 2x6.

I am however thinking there is a weird IBMV out there (depicted in the picture) which doesn't fit that basic design. We may be seeing a custom-IBMV.

Souped-up vehicles are still called their basic names. A Techno-Wizard attachment to a UAR-1 would not prevent you from calling your bot an Enforcer.

There's nothing to interpret

There is EVERYTHING to interpret. Interpretation is inherent to reading, which is how we absorb the books and form our understandings of canon.

Amazingly (okay, not so), you've taken my statement out of context. Canon (again, "rules-canon") is the authority; the authority dictates what is, which is why there is nothing to interpret.

Dictation is mere noise without interpretation of the listener.

Robert Jordan dictates 'what is' in his Wheel of Time epic. But there is definitely reader interpretation happening. The same applies to Palladium Books.

your basic premise of questioning is flawed and your sources are bad.

That is a completely different accusation.

It is the same accusation I've been laying out since the beginning, only summarized.

I entertain the possibility that you think this, but I perceived something lost in translation, or at least a disconnect with your preceding sentences.

An exception to the general rule does not disprove the rule.

It proves the rule to be non-absolute. What 'rule' are we talking about here anyway? Has a parry ever actually been spelled out as requiring physical contact? Let's read what a parry is described as being:

HU2p63 "a parry blocks the attacker's strike, preventing damage from being inflicted"

I think you'll agree the 2nd half is loose enough (dodges do the same thing, broad description of defense) so it probably comes down to how we perceive "block".

Does the verb block mean you actually have to make physical contact with something? Consider how on the internet people are "blocked" from certain forums or wikis. Is physical contact being made with them?

Grabbing two transitive uses off Wiktionary:
>To prevent (something or someone) from passing.
>"You're blocking the road – I can't get through."

If I "block" a car from driving past me on the road, I am not necessarily making physical contact with that car, but rather, my presence is for whatever reason, causing it to not pass me.

>To prevent (something from happening or someone from doing something).
>"His plan to take over the business was blocked by the boss."

So really, it just vaguely means to prevent a strike in some way, not to make physical contact with the striking implement.

the inverse of your "proof" is also true; you can use solid objects to parry 'intangible', energy attacks.

True, but that could be interpreted as solid objects being energized in some way. Solid things carry energetic properties, I'm not sure if all Palladium energies have physical properties though.

That seems to indicate that it doesn't matter, or at the very least, is on a case-by-case basis, making a "hard" rule non-existent in regards to a blanket statement on whether or not you could use an object made out of energy to climb with.

You did not specify PS giving a bonus to climb. You said "PS has nothing to do with your ability to climb".

I'm not. That thing, that ";" is known as a "semi-colon". It's used to separate things like ideas in a sentence, but not to the point that they are unrelated to on-another.
My sentence,"PS has nothing to do with your ability to climb; you need a high IQ in order to have a better climb skill." is one such instance of this phenomena. You certainly didn't bother to address the portion of the sentence where I stated that you need a high IQ to have a better skill.

I didn't address the IQ bonus claim because that is a correct claim. I tend to focus on things I disagree with. I am pointing out that "ability to climb" and "climb skill" are different ideas.

That's great; you're still responding to a quote taken out of context.
[/quote]

please cite the rule in any book which states a PS score is required to climb.
Or that the ability to lift objects will otherwise adversely affect one's ability to climb.
Or that an energy weapons' ability to parry solid objects is tied to its ability to climb solid objects.

No, those statements are not required.

Perhaps I can communicate this more broadly:
*I consider the ability to run while carrying a 300 pound man to be an aspect of running ability
*I consider the ability to climb while carrying 300 pounds to be an aspect of climbing ability

Does this clarify my meaning?

You will not find particular statements, but by looking at the fundamentals, they support my viewpoint.

There is a section called "Different Applications of Physical Strength" in the rules. Pertaining to 'carrying' and 'lifting'.

If we're to have an argument, it should be over whether climbing is carrying or lifting.

As best I can understand it in relation to IRL lifts, 'lifting' refers to deadlifting and 'carrying' refers to the farmer's walk, or something along those lines.

People can't usually chin as much as they deadlift, we can see this because the world records for C/D is something like 400/1200. Since the limiting factor in the chin isn't grip strength, it's either in the elbow flexors or the shoulder extensors. I'm more prone to think 'carry' would be the climb limit while 'lift' would be the dead-hang limit. IE you can hang on to the edge of the cliff, but not climb back up over it.

For example, a character could have climbing at 98% and then a Gurgoyle eats both his arms and legs. They would still have a "climb skill", but they would not have an "ability to climb", unless they had some kind of super-jaw or tentacles or whatever to substitute.

That was not the context I used "ability to climb" in; you're arguing (yes people, I'm going to say it) semantics.

By mentioning things like your own context, you too are arguing semantics, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Please clarify how our interpretations of climbing-skill-context have lapsed in your view.

you're taking a post out of context, yet again. Have I mentioned that doing so is against board policy?

I'm not taking something out of context, I am pointing out that you are falsely representing your ideas with wrong statements.

Quote the passage under the climb skill and see if I'm "falsely representing my ideas with 'wrong statements'".

I was referring to a denial statement you made, not a rules-presentation.

You mentioned "I was talking about whether or not PS otherwise gives you a bonus to your climb skill."

That summary makes you sound more particular than you actually were, because you originally said:

"PS has nothing to do with your ability to climb"

You (perhaps mistakenly) misrepresented the context of your statement. Ability to do something and skill percentage are not equivalent ideas.

PS does have something to do with climbing

Please provide proof of your claim.

The internet is full of articles and books about the relationship between climbing and strength. You might as well ask me what the relationship is between legs and running. Some relationships are so basic that they don't need to be spelled out, and so generic that even if there were dozens of statements in the book emphasizing this relation with descriptions, there's no obvious place to start looking for them.

it does not require a PS score to climb, nor is there a limb requirement for that matter. Only the skill is the requirement to climb, and IQ is inherently tied to that as a known factor regarding both ability and skill in the matter.'

The climbing skill utilizes the verb 'grip'.

I suppose if not using limbs, we might envision someone climbing through using their teeth to pull and their pelvis to push...

It fuels the imagination for Dead Reign games, certainly.

But even a Crawler has a PS attribute, even if for some reason the PS damage bonus applies to head-butts and not bites.

there is no logic you can apply to these rules. They are without logic. Even when I make a statement based on logic, it is only conjecture as the rules themselves often contradict what's logical.

I feel like we're on a closer wavelength here. I would more conservatively say that not enough reality is applied to the rules, rather than a contradiction. Room is left for GM interpretation of common-sense stuff like the relationship between climbing and strength. IE you can't swing the sword you can't lift, no matter how high your WP skill.

*is now picturing a Rogue Scholar surfing the Atlas Robot's giant rune-sword down a snowy hill to do a disarm on a Cyclops*

It's why I brought it up; this is the primary reason any discussion on the subject matter that is not fact-based will grind to a halt. When you start spouting what you view as "logical", you're going to collide with what others view as logical, and that is conflict.

Conflict is a risk of any discussion, fact-based or not. There are the facts of this game, and the facts of the reality many of the game's concepts are built upon.

Instead, I've posted facts regarding the premise; these facts state that strength does not play a part in climbing (sorta), that you cannot discount an object's material or use when determining whether or not you can climb with it, and you cannot under any circumstances "logic" your way out of a situation in regards to Palladium games.

I would disagree so far as, failing to point out the importance of strength differs from overtly stating it plays no part in it. I think omission from a skill description or percentile is not the same as outlawing.

There is no such thing as a "reasonable lack of proof" in an argument. Unless you're admitting that you're wrong or otherwise cannot provide proof to counter factual claims.

You did not establish an explicit disconnection between climbing and strength as factual, though.

You simply argue that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

While conveniently ignoring the clear evidence that PBgames are written using English, which communicates common ideas through words like 'climb' which we readily understand to involve the application of force, relating it to strength.

Palladium doesn't cover every single bit of common sense under the rules.

Palladium didn't even cover reasonable rules. But that's not what is in-question here; see further.

I await with baited breath because... I do really think the lack of coverage is being used as fuel for barricading my relation of strength to climbing.

Why do I need an ice-pick to climb an ice wall when I have a dandelion? The capacity to convey physical force.

A dandelion can convey more physical force than an intangible energy sword.

there are the rules as intended, and the rules as written.

RAW includes the meaning of words used in the language the book is written in, and also the importing of cultural meaning to things.

For example, we also 'climb' stairs but barring particularly steep ones, a climbing skill roll would not be involved.

Skills represent extraordinary stuff and so climbing clearly refers to hand-climbing, a skill not everyone can do, something more advanced than raw locomotion.

Kind of like how everyone can "run" but the 'running' skill endows the ability to do a harder variation of the basic verb.

We can posit on the rules as intended all day as much as we like, but at the end of the day we must deal with the rules as written.

This isn't so much a reading of intention as an analysis that we do affix certain meanings to words, and whether to take a meaning broadly or narrowly does rely on understanding that culture.

I know for a fact that strength was meant to play some sort of factor in regards to skills like climb, but I also know for a fact that this intent was not written into the rules. Do you understand this difference?

I understand the percentile to not be strength-based. But I perceive climbing ability to be beyond a percentile, and still subject to PS-based rules on carrying and lifting (and climbing is a bit of both...waters are muddied when we take out the legs). So I don't see the non-PS percentile as excluding PS from playing a factor in the wider scope of rules pertaining to climbing.

you're readily admitting then that creatures like ancient dragons cannot climb? Because that's what the rules indicate

I find your statement too broad. A swatch of dragons can fly, and clearly anything that can fly can supplement climbing ability with wing power and get themselves up.

I do think that yes, a flightless dragon in its natural form (keeping in mind many can simply morph into a smaller shape and lower their weight) might be incapable of climbing if they lacked strength to affix themselves to a surface and pull themselves up to it, whether we deem that lifting or carrying.

I'll whip out DaG if you want an example.

You build the strongest ancient dragon you can; assume maximum rolls for your strength score. Then look at how much you can lift, and look at the weight of the monster.

There are a lot of species, tell me if you object to my example. Basically I'm going to try and recreate the problem you predict, using Adults.

Basilisk+Cockatrice both weigh 800lbs, max PS is 34, so they might carry twice their weight, lift 4x as much.
Chaing-ku weighs 1000lbs, max PS is 30, not as well off, but they can manage, and morph into something lighter if they can't.
Fire/Horned/Ice/Kukulcan/Lo-Dox/Stalker are all fliers so any PS-related climbing problems are irrelevant, they have wing-assisted climbing capacity
Serpent of the Wind weighs ton (2000lbs) max PS is 30, so they could lift their weight, but not carry it. I take this to mean they could grab a cliff but not pull themselves up over it. These guys know air warlock spells like levitate/float/footman which could easily compensate their weakness, so no problem exists IMO.
Thunder Lizards are fatties, they can't lift themselves, but even Hatchlings know the 'Weightlessness' and 'Levitation' spells (and 'Climb' for that matter) so there is actually no need for them to have the strength, since they can compensate using their magic.
Ultucan are lighter than Thunders but could still experience difficulties, luckily they have the same required spell knowledge to compensate for their weight.

So far I don't see any problems. About the only point of debate I can see here are the stupid (no spells) non-flying non-morphing dragon duo: Woolies and Hydras.

Is there really any problem if these guys are a little anchored? A climbing skill for such bulkysome creatures is odd, but being possibly applicable doesn't mean we should think it's necessarily applicable. You can't use seduce if there's nobody around to seduce, you can't climb if there's nothing to climb, and I think you also can't climb if you've not the required tools to climb with.

I mean... if we look at the evil millenium tree in Mindwerks... the Hydra lives at the bottom, up a very easy path. Have we ever seen any examples of Hydras having climbed difficult surfaces, lurking at the top of a mountain, for example? Anything that would require a skill roll?

creatures can eliminate their ability to perform said skills simply by existing

What do you mean by this part?

the logical assumption that strength was involved in the process
invalid answer
because logical answers in this game are shown to be consistently wrong.

Logic-fails and logic stumbles doesn't mean to ditch logic altogether.

I just see a climbing skill for a fat-weak creature to mean it can't use it at a certain point unless you weight-reduce or strength-enhance them somehow.

Kind of like how my WP targetting +10 isn't worth beans if a Gurgoyle eats my arms unless I chop off his with a plasma axe and get a necromancer to attach them to me so I can throw my baseball.

most everything else with a climb skill that weighs in at 5ish+ tons?

Yup, if the surface is difficult enough that it requires arm strength. Just like a de-limbed torso can't climb even if possessing the skill. Just like how a guy without legs can't run, and a guy without arms can't box. You need the required tools. Can we bring up some particular examples of creatures who would not be able to purchase certain areas?

Even with a 50 supernatural strength, heavy creatures cannot lift their own weight because their body mass is simply too high. If you are required to factor in one's own weight when determining the ability to perform tasks, these creatures should for all intents and purposes be considered paralyzed because they don't have the strength typically to even drag their own body mass.

The distinction here:
*I require weight to be factored in when climbing
*I do not require weight to be factored in when deadlifting

The basic lift/carry stats refer to external objects, self-propulsion is a given there.

I do not perceive self-propulsion as a given for the climbing skill though.

I basic this on common/odd dichotomy. Percentage of population who can walk vs. percentage who can do a chinup. Relative difficulty. It's easier for a 150lb guy to deadlift 50 pounds off the ground than it is for him to do a chin-up with 50 pounds tethered to his ankles.

You cannot lift your own weight in addition to the listed amount.
From a factual stand-point, it does not state this.
From a real-world stand-point, a typical person cannot do this.

Average human PS of 10 allows 100lb carry, 200lb deadlift. That seems like an accurate enough amount for an active average adult human male.

People who live sedentary lifestyles should obviously suffer penalties like one would if you stayed in a Glitter-Boy suit for too long.

It is evidence that females should get PS penalties like children/elderly though. Human women are unduly strong in Palladium. I attribute this to evolving to survive couplings with Ogres in their recent past, something our IRL humans haven't had to deal with. Even if we count the Neanderthals, that's way far back and I'm not sure they're Ogre-level in threat level.

the picture that Tor used to base his opinion....how does he know that the blade shown is a physical blade, opposed to a psi-blade projected from the hilt. He can't know.

Actually I can. I took a second look on a fresher day and figured things out for us.

Read the description of the blast sword, particularly about the handle.

The handle and blade are not parallel for the blast sword. It looks kinda like this, it's at an angle.

Since the image we are shown (the one with a visible core inside the blade edges) has a parallel blade and handle, we must conclude that this is not the blast sword, it is instead, the Psi-Sword enhancer.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Sorry but how do you know that the lines outside the core are not just lines to show it is glowing? Much line how other Psi-Melee weapons do. Glow that is. You Don't...and since other people see those outside lines as the blade's glow and the core as the psi-blade that picture cannot be taken as canon.

[eliakon]

It says you can parry light, OR that you can make a bubble that automatically bends all light.
It does not say that you can make a ranged parry.

You're reading HU2 which added the separate "in the alternative" phrasing for the bubble. The phrasing in Rifts CB1 (and presumably HU1) has the necessity of a parry roll apply to both. Much like HU2 has you roll a parry to throw up Create Force Field in time.

If a bubble bypassed the need for a parry, I imagine most people would just do that, the exception being if your allies were trying to laser-blast an enemy within 10ft of you, in which case you might risk the failed parry to assure you don't protect them in the process of protecting yourself.

Again that's not the same thing
If you need to make a parry roll that is NOT the same thing as a parry. Only a parry is a parry. Just as a stunner, while making you save against poison, is an energy blast, it does not turn into a poison attack simply because it uses the poison save.

[Dog_O_War]

Tor, you don't understand.
I've attempted to explain it to you, but you don't "get it".

I have plainly stated that when people here say "canon" they mean "the rules and how they work within a Palladium game".

So when people say "pictures are not canon" they mean that pictures do not hold the same authority as a rule. That they are not themselves 'rules', and that they should not be considered under any circumstances, something with which to override the rules contained within the books.

But you just don't get that; I got maybe 1/3 the way through your post above, (about the section where I stated that canon = rules) and it was immediately and abundantly apparent that you do not understand this very simple concept/definition.

So until you do understand, and can prove you do, it's a waste of time even attempting to explain it to you further.

To give you a hint on where to begin, do some reading on localized/area-specific (alternate)definitions.

[eliakon]

Just a side note here. The pictures in question are not labeled. So its PURE conjecture as to what they are pictures OF. So basically people are saying that based on an unlabeled picture of something, that may or may not be one object, that the object must be a certain way, based on one interpretation of what that picture means?
Just throwing this out there....the pictures are TOTALLY useless for this discussion.

[Tor]

Sorry but how do you know that the lines outside the core are not just lines to show it is glowing? Much line how other Psi-Melee weapons do. Glow that is.

That's a good point, I did not consider the idea of it being a glow and the "core" actually being a super-thin psi-weapon. I guess it could be a super-bright psi-foil or something along those lines.

If that's the case, the glow sure is a heck of a lot bigger of an aura then I recall seeing in other cases of psi-sword illustrations though. Is this the biggest glow we have ever seen? What's the next biggest candidate?

since other people see those outside lines as the blade's glow and the core as the psi-blade that picture cannot be taken as canon.

Wrong, the picture can be taken as canon (and should) but you have pointed out that there are different ways to interpret the image, just like they can be different ways to interpret text, which is fine.

If you need to make a parry roll that is NOT the same thing as a parry. Only a parry is a parry. Just as a stunner, while making you save against poison, is an energy blast, it does not turn into a poison attack simply because it uses the poison save.

Provoking commentary, but let me remind you of the exact text in question on CB1p43

"parries lasers"

"roll just like a normal parry"

So it's not just a roll like a parry, but per the title of the sub-ability, it is a parry.

I have plainly stated that when people here say "canon" they mean "the rules and how they work within a Palladium game".

You do not speak for everyone else Dog. I do not agree that your statement summarizes all people's opinions.

I ask that if you are talking about rules to say rules, and respect that in the English language, canon has a different meaning.

I am not forced to entertain your abuse of words.

when people say "pictures are not canon" they mean that pictures do not hold the same authority as a rule.

Speak for yourself DOW.

Anyway, I view pictures and rules and flowery prose to all be part of collective canon and hold equal authority.

Pictures are more prone to interpretation than text is, usually, so it's easier to re-interpret that when it's most obvious meaning comes into conflict with text, since that's less flexible.

they are not themselves 'rules', and that they should not be considered under any circumstances, something with which to override the rules contained within the books.

Have I at some point claimed that images override rules?

I believe my stance has been that they supplement and compliment them creating a collective canon.

it was immediately and abundantly apparent that you do not understand this very simple concept/definition.

I understand the argument you're making, I'm just conciously opposing it and asking you to stop using non-synonyms interchangeably.

do some reading on localized/area-specific (alternate)definitions.

Point me to what you want me to read and then tell me why it should influence me to tailor my use of language to your confusing use of it, and I'll entertain that.

Just a side note here. The pictures in question are not labeled. So its PURE conjecture as to what they are pictures OF.

An image being placed adjacent to a person or item is effectively as clear as a label.

There are situations where an image can be adjacent to 2 things, in which case we might not be clear on which it applies to.

This was the case with the SA2 equipment section blast-sword vs psi-blade, which is why I used the text to rule out one of them.

[eliakon]

If you need to make a parry roll that is NOT the same thing as a parry. Only a parry is a parry. Just as a stunner, while making you save against poison, is an energy blast, it does not turn into a poison attack simply because it uses the poison save.

Provoking commentary, but let me remind you of the exact text in question on CB1p43

"parries lasers"

"roll just like a normal parry"

So it's not just a roll like a parry, but per the title of the sub-ability, it is a parry.

The EXACT text though does NOT say you can parry 10' away.
2. Parries Lasers and other forms of light beams ... by bending the light around him, or a 10' area, to deflect the beam. Roll just like a normal parry....
I read this as saying you can EITHER parry, OR set up an area that automatically bends light. I do not read this as saying you can make a parry at range.
I will admit that it is not clear, and that it could be read as allowing a parry at range. THOUGH even if it DOES allow a ranged parry, its still just intangible parrying intangible, which does not help the idea that things can parry tangible objects even if they themselves are not tangible.

[eliakon]

Just a side note here. The pictures in question are not labeled. So its PURE conjecture as to what they are pictures OF.

An image being placed adjacent to a person or item is effectively as clear as a label.

There are situations where an image can be adjacent to 2 things, in which case we might not be clear on which it applies to.

This was the case with the SA2 equipment section blast-sword vs psi-blade, which is why I used the text to rule out one of them.

Not really. There are many pictures in the books, that are next to things that don't have anything to do with what is being talked about. The most commonly cited example of course is picture on page 111 of Mercenaries. Which while being next to the Iron Bolt, is actually, not in fact, and Iron Bolt.
The simple fact that there is therefor at least one example of a picture by text not being an illustration of the text proves that not all illustrations are the item in discussion. There is therefor no reason to assume that this is not another example of the same thing at work. This is why, unlabeled pictures are just that...Unlabeled, and there fore conjectural as to what they represent. Unless of course you have a citable source that says to the contrary?

[Tor]

The EXACT text though does NOT say you can parry 10' away.

Yes it does, the entire phrasing is under the bold heading 'parry lasers'.

"Roll just like a normal parry...." I read this as saying you can EITHER parry, OR set up an area that automatically bends light. I do not read this as saying you can make a parry at range.

It's a parry, if it wasn't, it would be listed as a separate ability like 'light deflection field' and not be under a bold "parry" header.

even if it DOES allow a ranged parry, its still just intangible parrying intangible, which does not help the idea that things can parry tangible objects even if they themselves are not tangible.

I initially brought it up because you said:
"you would have to have something physical to parry with"
"if you can parry there is something physically there to do the parry"
"if you can parry, then there is an actual blade"

I personally think people can parry regardless of how cohesive a blade is, but that the effect can be a bit different.

Something incorporeal like a Wilk's laser sword apparently has no 'whack' to it (resorting to slang).

If I threw a Rifts England Stone Ball Bug at some guy and he parried with a wilk's laser sword, I get the impression his sword would scorch the bug but unless he reduced its MDC to 0 (vapourizing? *shrug*) the ball-bug would continue through the blade and whack the guy for whatever SDC damage one assumes the ball-bug would inflict for its weight.

If I threw a ball-bug at a Cyber-Knight or Psi-Warrior or something like that and they parried with a psi-sword... I'm not really sure. One gets the impression these psi-weapons can parry vibro-blades or rune weapons or Larhold weapons or various other clearly-tangible things, although I'm not remembering where in particular I got the impression.

DOW also mentioned:

"If an entry states that an energy weapon is solid enough to parry with, then it is only logical that such a specific weapon is also solid enough to do other things with."

Which in relation to your point, I would think that an ability to parry (which might just be for parrying other energy attacks) doesn't necessarily mean the ability to parry physical things in regard to actually deflecting their path from a target, though it could prevent that path through destroying it or interfering with an energy component of a weapon.

In regard to a psi-sword, since it's an energy weapon, perhaps it could stop the energy aura surrounding vibro-weapons, or the magical aura surrounding rune swords, rather than actually repelling the core of those weapons?

Although in that case I would wonder why the energy aspect of a Wilks Laser Sword can't do the same thing. Or how it's possible to parry one of those things if they can't parry stuff. I would figure a parry-incapable laser sword would be un-parryable like that spirit blade in Bletherad.

There are many pictures in the books, that are next to things that don't have anything to do with what is being talked about.

True, but in cases where we can clearly tell there's a relation, we can make that association.

We can even do this when stuff isn't adjacent, like how in CB1 there isn't a picture of a Dragon Wolf where its stats are, but we can find a pic lurking in the Table of Contents.

The most commonly cited example of course is picture on page 111 of Mercenaries. Which while being next to the Iron Bolt, is actually, not in fact, and Iron Bolt.

I don't consider that to be an example, I consider that to be a modified Iron Bolt.

The simple fact that there is therefor at least one example of a picture by text not being an illustration of the text proves that not all illustrations are the item in discussion.

I don't think I ever claimed it's always the case, just that we can frequently discern what a picture is of. Adjacency is only one factor, correlation of description and image being another one.

There is therefor no reason to assume that this is not another example of the same thing at work.

If a picture resembles something adjacent being talked about then there is certainly a reason to think it's an example of that thing. It's not as if I'm saying a picture of an axe must be how the sword looks like.

Unless of course you have a citable source that says to the contrary?

Not necessary, there's no basis for requiring text as an authority, there is no basis for giving it more authority than others.

Sometimes you have to look for logical associations outside blatent words. Like for example, when Between the Shadows talks about Necrophim, even if it doesn't every time reiterate "the necrophim on page XX who can enter the dreamstream" I don't think they might be talking about Psyscape-style Necrophim instead.

[eliakon]

Breaking up Tors massive post into discrete chunks to allow separate ideas to be examined separately.

There are many pictures in the books, that are next to things that don't have anything to do with what is being talked about.

True, but in cases where we can clearly tell there's a relation, we can make that association.
We can even do this when stuff isn't adjacent, like how in CB1 there isn't a picture of a Dragon Wolf where its stats are, but we can find a pic lurking in the Table of Contents.

Which again shows that a picture of something might be located separate from the text about it. Which supports the notion that unlabeled pictures may not be about what's around them, but in-fact be something else. A sword on one page may actually be a picture of something on another page......

The most commonly cited example of course is picture on page 111 of Mercenaries. Which while being next to the Iron Bolt, is actually, not in fact, and Iron Bolt.

I don't consider that to be an example, I consider that to be a modified Iron Bolt.

Your opinion is irrelevant. What ever it is it is NOT the object being talked about in the text that surrounds the picture. Ergo, this picture proves that not all pictures correspond to the text around them. In fact your view that a picture can be of a VARIENT of an object would seem to make it MORE likely that a picture can not be used to determine some things capabilities by a picture....since it can be unclear if the picture is of the 'normal' version of something, or its variant.

The simple fact that there is therefor at least one example of a picture by text not being an illustration of the text proves that not all illustrations are the item in discussion.

I don't think I ever claimed it's always the case, just that we can frequently discern what a picture is of. Adjacency is only one factor, correlation of description and image being another one.

If personal opinion are required to determine if something is or is not an object, then that becomes, by definition subjective. If the identity of a picture is subjective then it can not ALSO be canon, which is by definition objective.

There is therefor no reason to assume that this is not another example of the same thing at work.

If a picture resembles something adjacent being talked about then there is certainly a reason to think it's an example of that thing. It's not as if I'm saying a picture of an axe must be how the sword looks like.

Actually that's exactly what your doing. Your stating that this object must be a TW sword, and that thus it must mean that TW swords have a physical component. You don't know that its not (for instance to use your defense of the iron bolt a modified blast sword). Or that its just one optional version of the TW sword. Your taking your subjective opinion "This is what I think all TW swords look like" and trying to make it a universal objective statement. "All people must accept that this is what all TW Swords look like."

Unless of course you have a citable source that says to the contrary?

Not necessary, there's no basis for requiring text as an authority, there is no basis for giving it more authority than others.

This is the problem with taking peoples comments out of context....you lose the meaning of the question.
I ask

This is why, unlabeled pictures are just that...Unlabeled, and there fore conjectural as to what they represent. Unless of course you have a citable source that says to the contrary?

Note the highlighted part that you ignored. That is the statement that I am asking for a source to defend. I am stating that the identity of what a picture is of is conjecture. You are stating it is NOT conjecture. I am asking for a source that would say that labels are not needed.

Sometimes you have to look for logical associations outside blatent words. Like for example, when Between the Shadows talks about Necrophim, even if it doesn't every time reiterate "the necrophim on page XX who can enter the dreamstream" I don't think they might be talking about Psyscape-style Necrophim instead.

Irrelevant and off topic. There is no relation to the idea that a picture next to something may not be that thing, and that two books may use different terms to talk about different things. (if anything that would seem to SUPPORT the idea that 'things can be different, please check labels and don't make assumptions.")

[eliakon]

Breaking up Tors massive post into separate ideas, to allow for each to be examined in specific.

The EXACT text though does NOT say you can parry 10' away.

Yes it does, the entire phrasing is under the bold heading 'parry lasers'.

"Roll just like a normal parry...." I read this as saying you can EITHER parry, OR set up an area that automatically bends light. I do not read this as saying you can make a parry at range.

It's a parry, if it wasn't, it would be listed as a separate ability like 'light deflection field' and not be under a bold "parry" header.

even if it DOES allow a ranged parry, its still just intangible parrying intangible, which does not help the idea that things can parry tangible objects even if they themselves are not tangible.

I initially brought it up because you said:
"you would have to have something physical to parry with"
"if you can parry there is something physically there to do the parry"
"if you can parry, then there is an actual blade"

Okay, so lets, for the sake of discussion, grant that Bend Light, does allow for a parry, and it allows for said parry at range.
What does that get us for this discussion?
Or more importantly We have the possibility of performing a parry against energy with energy. Good. Now do we have any examples of performing a parry against a physical object with a non-physical object? If there IS such a thing, then it could be used to advance the idea that psi-swords are non-physical.
Now, lets run with your idea shall we?

I personally think people can parry regardless of how cohesive a blade is, but that the effect can be a bit different.

The term 'parry' in Palladium has a specific defined meaning. Thus if something does not in fact perform that action, it is not, in fact the action in question.

Something incorporeal like a Wilk's laser sword apparently has no 'whack' to it (resorting to slang).

Which is why it is specifically called out to be unable to parry.

If I threw a Rifts England Stone Ball Bug at some guy and he parried with a wilk's laser sword, I get the impression his sword would scorch the bug but unless he reduced its MDC to 0 (vapourizing? *shrug*) the ball-bug would continue through the blade and whack the guy for whatever SDC damage one assumes the ball-bug would inflict for its weight.

Which means that he did not, in fact parry the bug, but instead performed a simultaneous attack. Since by definition he can not parry with a Wilks laser Sword.

If I threw a ball-bug at a Cyber-Knight or Psi-Warrior or something like that and they parried with a psi-sword... I'm not really sure. One gets the impression these psi-weapons can parry vibro-blades or rune weapons or Larhold weapons or various other clearly-tangible things, although I'm not remembering where in particular I got the impression.

That would probably be because they are defined as being able to parry, and with out any limitation on that parry, they are thus able to perform any parry? That said though, I will look to see if there is an explicit mention of the ability of a psi-sword to parry non-energy attacks.

DOW also mentioned:

"If an entry states that an energy weapon is solid enough to parry with, then it is only logical that such a specific weapon is also solid enough to do other things with."

Which in relation to your point, I would think that an ability to parry (which might just be for parrying other energy attacks) doesn't necessarily mean the ability to parry physical things in regard to actually deflecting their path from a target, though it could prevent that path through destroying it or interfering with an energy component of a weapon.

Except that in palladium the term parry has a specific meaning of "blocking the attacker's blow"

In regard to a psi-sword, since it's an energy weapon, perhaps it could stop the energy aura surrounding vibro-weapons, or the magical aura surrounding rune swords, rather than actually repelling the core of those weapons?
Although in that case I would wonder why the energy aspect of a Wilks Laser Sword can't do the same thing. Or how it's possible to parry one of those things if they can't parry stuff. I would figure a parry-incapable laser sword would be un-parryable like that spirit blade in Bletherad.

[Dog_O_War]

I have plainly stated that when people here say "canon" they mean "the rules and how they work within a Palladium game".

You do not speak for everyone else Dog. I do not agree that your statement summarizes all people's opinions.

Look, you can believe that, but it doesn't make your assessment correct. I have PMs from people (not naming names) stating or otherwise agreeing with both my statement and my assessment of you.

I ask that if you are talking about rules to say rules, and respect that in the English language, canon has a different meaning.

I am not forced to entertain your abuse of words.

It's not even an abuse. It's well within the purview of English.

when people say "pictures are not canon" they mean that pictures do not hold the same authority as a rule.

Speak for yourself DOW.

Anyway, I view pictures and rules and flowery prose to all be part of collective canon and hold equal authority.

Ah. Well then.
This whole conversation would've been a lot easier and you could have saved everyone involved a ton of time by stating this from the beginning, because it gives people like myself a clear view-point on your now proven lack of comprehension and understanding. Basically, we (I) could have just not responded and we'd be in the same place we were when this thread began; you looking for an official ruling on something that doesn't exist, based on a premise of a picture you saw within a book that does not hold sway on the rules within said book, and nobody getting through to you in the near month it's been since you started this thread.

Pictures are more prone to interpretation than text is, usually, so it's easier to re-interpret that when it's most obvious meaning comes into conflict with text, since that's less flexible.

Yeah, so here's a quick question that answers all your questions; what is the definition of a picture, and is that definition the same or even remotely synonymous with the definition of the word 'rule'?

they are not themselves 'rules', and that they should not be considered under any circumstances, something with which to override the rules contained within the books.

Have I at some point claimed that images override rules?

Yes.

I believe my stance has been that they supplement and compliment them creating a collective canon.

You also believe that they're on equal footing as the rules when concerning [the rules]. It doesn't make that belief true.

it was immediately and abundantly apparent that you do not understand this very simple concept/definition.

I understand the argument you're making, I'm just conciously opposing it and asking you to stop using non-synonyms interchangeably.

So you were being obstinate the entire time on purpose?
Yeah, I'm gonna post this quote in every future thread I see you post in as a warning to others so they know what they're dealing with. Not that I didn't know from the beginning, it's just that you don't often get a poster who admits he's doing what he does on purpose.

do some reading on localized/area-specific (alternate)definitions.

Point me to what you want me to read and then tell me why it should influence me to tailor my use of language to your confusing use of it, and I'll entertain that.

Man, you can't even identify that what you've quoted is also me doing exactly what you just asked.
But just so we're clear and you know I've responded with an answer;
do some reading on localized/area-specific (alternate)definitions.