Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

[Blue_Lion]

Um Combat is a fighting between two groups or forces.
So combat is fighting.
Unarmed combat is fighting without weapon.

So training to fight is also training for combat.

Basically training to fight is always training for combat.

Wrong. Otherwise one could take Basic training anywhere.

I am afraid your statement is not only unsupported but fundamentally flawed.
Basic combat training can be taken any where, it only requires some one to teach it.
To save cost the US concentrates its basic training at a few posts. That is about funding not a inability to do basic training anywhere you are mistaken politics with actual combat training restrictions.

Lol. So you are saying I didn't have to go to Paris Island to learn LINE? I could have walked into any McDojo anywhere and become a Marine?

The answer to both of those questions is, no.

You can learn combat training any where some one is available to teach you.

The reason you can not walk into a McDojo to be a marine is not because you can not learn to be a marine any where but because to save cost and not have to run 100s of training camps they chose to limit the places they offer training. So it is not a restriction based on inability to train any where but a choice to train marines in just one place to keep the cost down. (Not that being a Marine is required to be combat trained.)

One of the main jobs of army SF is to provide combat training anywhere to other nations.

Your statement was based on lack of understanding of the diffrence between where one can be trained and why only certain places offer the training and the misconception that only people that go through formal training have combat training. I could teach people to fight in combat in a clearing in the woods, I could teach them to be effective but it would not be formal combat training like you would get at basic.

[Blue_Lion]

Your making an imaginary equivocation there.
1) Is that "LINE" (and ONLY LINE) is what makes a Marine.
2) You are making the false argument that LINE is some how mystically tied to Paris Island.
3) you are making the false equivocation between basic training facilities and 'McDojo'

All of which basically shows that your entire argument is a logical fallacy built on a logical fallacy.
A marine is more than just their close quarters combat training. To even pretend otherwise is an insult to every Marine ever.
Next up is that YES a qualified instructor for LINE could teach you LINE anywhere. There is nothing magical about teaching it at Paris Island. Heck the MARINES train Line in San Diego
Now if the Marines wanted to they could make more training facilities. But they 1) don't want to 2) don't need to. But they could if they wished.

ALL of which though is beside the point...
...a Marine is not a Marine because they have LINE training. Nor is LINE training the one, unique factor that makes them consider themselves 'trained for combat' Which means that trying to deflect to LINE training is, on top of everything else... a Strawman.

Now I'm confused. You have been saying that if someone is professionally trained in hand to hand fighting (LINE) and has a weapon proficiency (rifle) then they are by definition combat trained (Marine). Now you are claiming that is not the case? There must be some other unique additional factors... (Hint: I told you what they were above.)

No he saying your statement that it is not LINE that makes you are marine and that LINE training could be ofered any where if Uncle Sams Misguided Children wanted to.
You are now making a false statement that only marines are combat trained by making a Marine the implied definition of combat trained. However the Marine is just one kind of War fighter and one of the least common formal Military members we have. So uncommon it does not even have its own branch, but is part of the navy. A person does not need to be a Marine to be combat trained, a person does not need to be a soldier to be combat trained, they just need to be trained how to fight in combat.

So it is not him changing what he said but pointing out there is more to a Marine than you implying.

As we are addressing the claim that you can only be combat trained in certain places your defense is flawed based on a straw man.
I did not need to go to a marine training camp to be combat trained. I took my basic training at Ft Sill OK then later got some advanced training in Georgia later. In addition I have done more combat training on every base I have ever been on.

I have provided combat training to thousands of people, and not always was the place I gave it a formal training location or even to US troops.

[Ed]

Um Combat is a fighting between two groups or forces.
So combat is fighting.
Unarmed combat is fighting without weapon.

So training to fight is also training for combat.

Basically training to fight is always training for combat.

Wrong. Otherwise one could take Basic training anywhere.

I am afraid your statement is not only unsupported but fundamentally flawed.
Basic combat training can be taken any where, it only requires some one to teach it.
To save cost the US concentrates its basic training at a few posts. That is about funding not a inability to do basic training anywhere you are mistaken politics with actual combat training restrictions.

Lol. So you are saying I didn't have to go to Paris Island to learn LINE? I could have walked into any McDojo anywhere and become a Marine?

The answer to both of those questions is, no.

You can learn combat training any where some one is available to teach you.

Wrong. I could learn to fight anywhere some one is available to teach me.

The reason you can not walk into a McDojo to be a marine is not because you can not learn to be a marine any where but because to save cost and not have to run 100s of training camps they chose to limit the places they offer training. So it is not a restriction based on inability to train any where but a choice to train marines in just one place to keep the cost down. (Not that being a Marine is required to be combat trained.)

Wrong. There are more important reasons than cost why the number of training centers is closely restricted. The psychological impact of separation from the familar is far more important than the cost savings. Put another way, someone could come to your house and teach you martial arts, riflery, and rock climbing; they're not training you for combat.

One of the main jobs of army SF is to provide combat training anywhere to other nations.

Go Army?

Your statement was based on lack of understanding of the diffrence between where one can be trained and why only certain places offer the training and the misconception that only people that go through formal training have combat training. I could teach people to fight in combat in a clearing in the woods, I could teach them to be effective but it would not be formal combat training like you would get at basic.

You are correct, you could teach someone to fight in a clearing in the woods. The problem is there is a difference between being trained to fight and being trained for combat.

[Ed]

I never said there where not SOPs but there is no universal specifications to fallowing orders in a fight. Sure we may have stanards of how you operate but there is no universal specifcations. And sure you do not need formal retraining when you take a experienced mortar man from one unit to another, but there is a training period when a new soldier gets to a unit before they fully integrate to the team they are on. They need to learn the flow of the team and their place in it. (A e-4 is typically an expericed member of the military in rifts terms they would likely be some where around level 4.) The average new soldier straight out of basic takes longer to become part of the team because well he has no experience to help him.

The Standard part of Standard Operating Procedures means universal, or doing things the Army way.

Lets try a little thought experiment. Suppose tomorrow you were being deployed into an active warzone and your squad was one man short for some reason. Luckily there are two potential replacements available for you to chose. One is the vat-grown love child of Chesty Puller and Audie Murphy, who was raised in a Shaolin Temple and trained in hand to hand combat by Chuck Norris and the ghost of Bruce Lee. The other is a 19 year old recruit who just graduated Basic last week. Who do you pick? Even an Army NCO would pick the 19 year old recruit, no matter how wet behind the ears he is. Why? Because you know what he can and can't do. Universal specifications.

Formal military training is not he only way to be combat trained and not every one that is trained for combat is good at it. Being combat trained and combat effective are two different things.

I suppose some people could be born with the ability, but training is still the best way to get it.

[Ed]

[
...because they are actual fighters. Not soldiers true... but fighters. It is a deadly mistake to confuse the two and imagine that only soldiers can fight.

It's an even deadlier mistake to assume the reverse. That just because someone can fight, they're ready for combat.

[eliakon]

I never said there where not SOPs but there is no universal specifications to fallowing orders in a fight. Sure we may have stanards of how you operate but there is no universal specifcations. And sure you do not need formal retraining when you take a experienced mortar man from one unit to another, but there is a training period when a new soldier gets to a unit before they fully integrate to the team they are on. They need to learn the flow of the team and their place in it. (A e-4 is typically an expericed member of the military in rifts terms they would likely be some where around level 4.) The average new soldier straight out of basic takes longer to become part of the team because well he has no experience to help him.

The Standard part of Standard Operating Procedures means universal, or doing things the Army way.

Lets try a little thought experiment. Suppose tomorrow you were being deployed into an active warzone and your squad was one man short for some reason. Luckily there are two potential replacements available for you to chose. One is the vat-grown love child of Chesty Puller and Audie Murphy, who was raised in a Shaolin Temple and trained in hand to hand combat by Chuck Norris and the ghost of Bruce Lee. The other is a 19 year old recruit who just graduated Basic last week. Who do you pick? Even an Army NCO would pick the 19 year old recruit, no matter how wet behind the ears he is. Why? Because you know what he can and can't do. Universal specifications.

Your still making the mistake of assuming that the US way is the One True Way and that if you are not trained to operate as a cog in the US machine you are useless.
That is so false its not funny.
We take that squad and drop it in Rome and they are going to be considered worthless scrubs by every military on the planet?
Why? They have no CLUE how to hold a sword or shield or javelin.
No one knows how to use a bow, or ride a chariot
They have no clue of any sort of tactical doctrine and they keep separating when they try to fight.
Do we now say that suddenly your squad of marines is no longer combat trained?
They wont fit in the local military so they must not be right?

To sum up You are confusing "Combat trained" with "a professional soldier in a professional military"
The one is not the other and the second is not a requirement for the first.

Formal military training is not he only way to be combat trained and not every one that is trained for combat is good at it. Being combat trained and combat effective are two different things.

I suppose some people could be born with the ability, but training is still the best way to get it.

And that training is separate from being a soldier.
Or put it another way...
...in Rifts the average adventuring group will never encounter a situation where they are going to be in a 'unit' larger than 4-10 people...
...that does not mean that since they do not know how to operate at the company level that none of them are combat trained.
In Rifts people come from various professional combat backgrounds... that may not EVER involve organized formal militaries (Gunslingers, Juicer, Cyber-Knight, Mystic-Knight, Battle Magus, Assassins, ect)
But in Rifts those people would still be considered 'combat trained'
We might not say that they are not military but that doesn't mean that they are not combat trained.
Unless you want to define NO ONE as being combat trained. And I mean NO ONE. Because NO ONE is able to operate as a plug-and-play component of every military force everywhere throughout all of space and time. And unless we are picking a specific force as the sole standard and saying all other forces are not valid... then the claim of plug-and-play has to be everyone or no one... so which is it?

[eliakon]

Your making the imaginary claim that only professional soldiers in professional armies are combat trained and everyone else is just pretending.
I would say that since the real world disagrees with you there (hmmm, lets start with the Winter War? Or Vietnam? Afghanistan? ISIS? The American Revolution? Want to go on?)
Combat training is OBVIOUSLY not the sole provence of people who are in military units.
The idea is a nice conceit of the military yes...
...but it is utterly not true. My command was pretty clear on trying to quash that falsehood every time it reared its ugly head in our unit.

Now lets address the idea that your 'mind is being retrained'
Hmmmm. Once again that is H2H skill (Any)...
...you know the skill that lets you operate under fire four times as effectively as someone who doesn't have the training?

As for "boot camp" = "Combat Training"
Sorry, that fails on its head.
Again, yes its a nice conceit to pretend that successfully completing boot camp is the requirement for being combat trained.
Its utterly false but its a nice conceit for the professional soldier to pretend that they alone are trained.
Its a an illusion that will get them killed in the real world though.
Because in the Real World you run into people who have combat training that is not from formal boot camps... and where they don't care about marching in formation, or bayonet training, or knowing the chain of command or the army song.... they might not even care if you can put on MOPP gear in 15 seconds or pass a first aid test...
...because they are actual fighters. Not soldiers true... but fighters. It is a deadly mistake to confuse the two and imagine that only soldiers can fight.

(and just for kicks and giggles... go look at the boot camp in Mercenary Adventures... now go and tell me with a straight face that every single military OCC can honestly claim, by RAW to be equal to having passed that?)

people with a poor excuse for combat training can be a threat. heck, people with absolutely no training at all can be a threat. a person who picks up a gun for the first time in their life and has only ever seen it used from a distance or in movies can be a threat.

that doesn't mean they're trained for combat.

and true, boot camp is not the only way to get combat trained. but if your training environment hasn't included the kinds of things you see in boot camp - ie changing you from someone who generally isn't prepared to charge into danger when needed, and who knows how to recognize when it is needed - you aren't combat trained. i don't mean you need a drill sergeant screaming at you specifically - someone who's managed to survive through a few combats out of sheer luck may develop many of the things that are trained in boot camp. some rare few people may even just do many of the things that are trained in boot camp on their own. as you said, they probably don't know much about marching or inspections. and you're right, those things don't make a person combat trained.

but seriously, it sounds like you didn't read the article about boot camp that KC posted at all. it doesn't talk about the skills you learn. the purpose of boot camp is to change regular civilians into people who don't act like normal people do in the middle of combat.

combat training isn't about knowing how to fire a rifle. any idiot can do that. it isn't even about being able to fire a rifle well.

and the funny thing about your examples... let's have a look at them:

lets

the winter war: ar you implying the soviets didn't have combat training, or the finns? because frankly, if you're trying to argue that the finns didn't have combat training but held out, have you really *looked* at the other side? the soviets had literally killed or imprisoned most of their officer corps just before the entire debacle. and not only were the remaining officers (most of whom had not been properly trained for their new responsibilities) not trained in general, but they displayed an absolutely appalling lack of understanding for what fighting a war in finland in particular would be like. furthermore, the finns did in fact have a military, it wasn't just civilians fighting. if, on the other hand, you mean the russians won and had poor combat training, then i have to point out that their lack of combat training of the officers caused them to bungle almost every aspect of the invasion for months. this war demonstrates that a comparatively small and poorly equipped group can fight a larger and better equipped group... if the larger and better equipped group has collectively no idea what they're doing. or, in other words... if the larger and better equipped group has inadequate training.

Irelivent.
If they had to be formally trained in a military with full training on unit SOPs and the like to be considered combatants...
...then obviously neither the Finn irregulars OR the Soviet military were combat trained.

the vietnam war: if you look at the history, it turns out one of the major problems is poor training. short tours of duty and shortened training of the troops combined with leaders inexperienced in fighting a defensive war led to difficulties. later on, however, when the war shifted to offensive, the US was actually winning battles... and then lost public support, which in a democracy eventually means that (winning or not) you lose the war. as time went on, and the US withdrew (having lost public support), the poorly trained local militaries proceeded to demonstrate that combat training makes a difference, by suffering major defeats as a result of their lack of it.

And again the irregulars that were fighting were NOT formally trained soldiers.
They did NOT know SOPs or how to act as plug-and-play components...
But the US soldiers DID
...which belies the claim that such is both a necessary component of and the defining characteristic of 'trained'

Afghanistan: did you actually look at what happened when coalition forces actually got to fight in pitched battle? it wasn't even close. to this day, nobody in afghanistan thinks it's a good idea to try that again. they're certainly still dangerous - as i said, people with *no* training whatsoever can be dangerous. if you think they're even remotely close to being near as dangerous as the US forces would be in a similar situation, then i have to question where you're getting your information. again, the problem here is not the military, which is in fact so much more dangerous in a fight than their opposition that the opposition does everything they can to avoid an actual fight, but US public support. well, that and the poorly trained local military and corruption in the region.

Sorry, my bad. I meant the Soviet trained military against the untrained rebels...
...who they never defeated.
And were NOT a formal military
Again suggesting that 'formal military training as the defining characteristic of being combat trained' is just a mythical conceit.
But even TODAY the non-formal forces do pretty well...
...almost as if they were combat trained. And when they are not at a huge technological disadvantage they are devastating.

ISIS: there isn't a ton of combat, last i checked. but when the US actually does manage to find a target and initiate combat, well... i don't seem to recall hearing much about how well ISIS actually does in those situations. certainly, they still kill people (including killing and wounding some US soldiers). but in terms of being an effective fighting force? just like the previous two, the only chance they have of winning is eroding public support. which they may very well do... the US lately isn't looking much like they care about anyone except themselves. but again, if this fight is lost (which it probably will be, the US public hasn't got a good track record of supporting wars that can't be quickly decisively won lately), it isn't because ISIS is anywhere remotely close to being as effective as the US military in a fight.

Ignore the US. The US is two or three tech generations ahead.
Look at when ISIS fighters fight the Iraqi army, or the Syrian army... they win.
Odd, irregulars beating a formal army.
One would almost think that being through basic and a member of a formal military had less than zero to do with if you were combat trained.
ohhh wait...

the american revolution: uhhh... you *have* heard of valley forge, right? and how critical it was in turning a group of people into soldiers? you do realize that before valley forge, washington and his poorly trained troops generally didn't do so well, right? (with one exception where they caught an opponent completely by surprise as a result of their opponents failing harder at paying attention to their surroundings than the US army did at executing their own plan)? that the US army was repeatedly saved by events beyond their control as they repeatedly retreated? that a major turning point came when the french got involved with their very much trained navy?

Valley Forge was NOT a "basic training" center.
Sorry revisionism doesn't prove anything... it was still informally trained people beating formally trained ones.
Again it was demonstrating that combat training and "boot camp" have nothing to do with each other.

now, a poorly trained force *can* defeat a better trained one... with a lot of luck, or some major advantages, or colossal mistakes by the other side. but it requires some pretty exceptional circumstances, it isn't common, and it isn't because knowing how to use a weapon is remotely close to being as effective as actual combat training.

Odd if you look at history I don't have problems finding hundreds of examples of forces that never were part of a formal military, never went to some 'basic training camp' and yet still were good enough combatants to win.
It is only when one makes the imaginary distinction that the only 'combat' that matters is a major war and that nothing else matters that you get into problems.
Too bad that this was not about "Who is trained to fight major wars"
Its not "who are professional soldiers in professional armies"
It is "combat trained"
That is why a Sioux warrior would be considered combat trained... even though they never went through a formal basic training program, have no chain of command, no formal order structure, ect...
That is why a Samurai is combat trained. Or a Cyber-knight, or a militia member, or a Juicer, or a Mystic Knight, or a Battle Magus, or a Larhold Barbarian, or...

[Ed]

Your still making the mistake of assuming that the US way is the One True Way and that if you are not trained to operate as a cog in the US machine you are useless.

Not useless. Qualitatively inferior in almost every aspect.

We take that squad and drop it in Rome and they are going to be considered worthless scrubs by every military on the planet?
Why? They have no CLUE how to hold a sword or shield or javelin.
No one knows how to use a bow, or ride a chariot
They have no clue of any sort of tactical doctrine and they keep separating when they try to fight.
Do we now say that suddenly your squad of marines is no longer combat trained?
They wont fit in the local military so they must not be right?

ROFLMMFAO!!! A squad of US Marines would be the most kick ass legionaries in the history of Rome. They wouldn't fit into the local military, they'd be running the local military! They'd be bigger, stronger, faster, healthier, have better teeth, and be immune to most diseases of the day. They all would know more basic sanitation, personal hygene, first aid, and the germ theory of disease than the Emperor's personal physicians. They can all READ! They know basic land navigation and construction techniques. They can march calvary into the ground carrying insane amounts of gear and equipment. Because they paid attention in high school, they know the ingredients and composition of black powder; they couldn't make rifles, but they'd damn sure have grenades. Crossbows too. Marines are trained with knives and bayonets. Bayonets aren't that much different from spears they couldn't make enough for everyone to have two or three. And a good bayonet man will purely kick a swordsman's ass. Those triangular points make wounds that never heal properly. Marines may separate when they go to fight, but that's just so while you're focused on one, another slips up and shoves a kabar through your liver or cuts your throat. Marines also fight at night, something the Romans never did.

And that training is separate from being a soldier.

No that training is central to being a soldier. As opposed to a pistol carrying mountain climber who takes karate at the YMCA.

Or put it another way...
...in Rifts the average adventuring group will never encounter a situation where they are going to be in a 'unit' larger than 4-10 people...
...that does not mean that since they do not know how to operate at the company level that none of them are combat trained.
In Rifts people come from various professional combat backgrounds... that may not EVER involve organized formal militaries (Gunslingers, Juicer, Cyber-Knight, Mystic-Knight, Battle Magus, Assassins, ect)
But in Rifts those people would still be considered 'combat trained'

Wrong. They are trained to fight, shoot, mystic knight, battle magus, or etc. Not trained for combat.

We might not say that they are not military but that doesn't mean that they are not combat trained.
Unless you want to define NO ONE as being combat trained. And I mean NO ONE. Because NO ONE is able to operate as a plug-and-play component of every military force everywhere throughout all of space and time. And unless we are picking a specific force as the sole standard and saying all other forces are not valid... then the claim of plug-and-play has to be everyone or no one... so which is it?

I provided a definition of combat training earlier. Go back and read it. While you're at it read the article KC posted. Your question has been anwsered.

[Shark_Force]

(whole lot of stuff i'm not going to quote because this post doesn't need to be 5 pages long

the fact that poorly trained vs poorly trained can be won doesn't mean poorly trained is equal to well trained. nor does doing pretty well (as long as they avoid all combat situations or have massive advantages) mean that proper combat training is not a major advantage.

where those wars were won by the army that was not trained for combat (or that was poorly trained for combat), it wasn't because of their combat effectiveness, it was because the side with the superior forces lost public support.

if your best examples of how actual combat training is not a major advantage have to use people without proper combat training facing people without proper combat training, then your examples have a problem.

[eliakon]

(whole lot of stuff i'm not going to quote because this post doesn't need to be 5 pages long

the fact that poorly trained vs poorly trained can be won doesn't mean poorly trained is equal to well trained. nor does doing pretty well (as long as they avoid all combat situations or have massive advantages) mean that proper combat training is not a major advantage.

where those wars were won by the army that was not trained for combat (or that was poorly trained for combat), it wasn't because of their combat effectiveness, it was because the side with the superior forces lost public support.

if your best examples of how actual combat training is not a major advantage have to use people without proper combat training facing people without proper combat training, then your examples have a problem.

Go back and read the examples.
The forces in question are often NOT 'poorly trained' just one was trained formally by a military and has all the little bells and whistles...
...and one was not a formal military and doesn't have those bells and whistles.
But the claim that some how all those bells and whistles are required to be defined as combat trained is ludicrous... especially when we can see time and time again that forces with OUT them are considered to be valid combatants...

[eliakon]

Your still making the mistake of assuming that the US way is the One True Way and that if you are not trained to operate as a cog in the US machine you are useless.

Not useless. Qualitatively inferior in almost every aspect.

thank you for making my point.
Your mistaking the US way as the One True Way with actual training.

We take that squad and drop it in Rome and they are going to be considered worthless scrubs by every military on the planet?
Why? They have no CLUE how to hold a sword or shield or javelin.
No one knows how to use a bow, or ride a chariot
They have no clue of any sort of tactical doctrine and they keep separating when they try to fight.
Do we now say that suddenly your squad of marines is no longer combat trained?
They wont fit in the local military so they must not be right?

ROFLMMFAO!!! A squad of US Marines would be the most kick ass legionaries in the history of Rome.

they would die pretty quick unless they have all their cool toys.

They wouldn't fit into the local military, they'd be running the local military! They'd be bigger, stronger, faster, healthier, have better teeth, and be immune to most diseases of the day. They all would know more basic sanitation, personal hygene, first aid, and the germ theory of disease than the Emperor's personal physicians. They can all READ! They know basic land navigation and construction techniques. They can march calvary into the ground carrying insane amounts of gear and equipment. Because they paid attention in high school, they know the ingredients and composition of black powder; they couldn't make rifles, but they'd damn sure have grenades. Crossbows too. Marines are trained with knives and bayonets. Bayonets aren't that much different from spears they couldn't make enough for everyone to have two or three. And a good bayonet man will purely kick a swordsman's ass. Those triangular points make wounds that never heal properly. Marines may separate when they go to fight, but that's just so while you're focused on one, another slips up and shoves a kabar through your liver or cuts your throat. Marines also fight at night, something the Romans never did.

Maybe.
Oddly though every single advantage you just described?
Yep not a single bit of it was part of your 'combat training'
Bizare huh.
That the same things that you claim would make them the best soldiers of all time would make the collage football team ALSO the best soldiers on the planet.
Guess that means that your definition of combat training is bunk...

And that training is separate from being a soldier.

No that training is central to being a soldier. As opposed to a pistol carrying mountain climber who takes karate at the YMCA.

Again your making the mistake of thinking that only professional soldiers can fight.
I know its one of the things that they try to beat into Marines that "only we know how to do war" and stuff...
...but its not true.
Strangely enough there have been people fighting battles for thousands of years...
...and yet professional armies are just a couple centuries old.
SO I guess that all of those people, in all of history didn't know how to fight right?
I guess the Sioux Indians were just hobbyists
I guess the Samurai were hobbyists
I guess the Vietcong were hobbyists
I guess the US Colonial Army was hobbyists
and none of them knew how to fight...
...or perhaps you might want to stop pretending that everyone that is not a professional soldier is this scrub that took a few classes at the YMCA. because the truth is that there are a lot of perfectly qualified combatants that have never been to basic (or even heard of the concept)

Or put it another way...
...in Rifts the average adventuring group will never encounter a situation where they are going to be in a 'unit' larger than 4-10 people...
...that does not mean that since they do not know how to operate at the company level that none of them are combat trained.
In Rifts people come from various professional combat backgrounds... that may not EVER involve organized formal militaries (Gunslingers, Juicer, Cyber-Knight, Mystic-Knight, Battle Magus, Assassins, ect)
But in Rifts those people would still be considered 'combat trained'

Wrong. They are trained to fight, shoot, mystic knight, battle magus, or etc. Not trained for combat.

Riiiiiggghhht
Some of the top military classes in the game, cores of their national militaries are not trained for combat... because they didn't go to basic training.
I think we can pretty much discard your argument right there
Because once again your confusing "combat" with "Fighting a war in the style of the modern US military"
And that is not what combat is.
Unless of course we are just going to pretend that there was no combat on earth until around the 1700s...

We might not say that they are not military but that doesn't mean that they are not combat trained.
Unless you want to define NO ONE as being combat trained. And I mean NO ONE. Because NO ONE is able to operate as a plug-and-play component of every military force everywhere throughout all of space and time. And unless we are picking a specific force as the sole standard and saying all other forces are not valid... then the claim of plug-and-play has to be everyone or no one... so which is it?

I provided a definition of combat training earlier. Go back and read it. While you're at it read the article KC posted. Your question has been anwsered.

Yes a definition that is demonstrably false and doesn't work
Combat is not "Fighting wars in the style of the US military" because there was combat before the 1700's or so when the modern military traditions started to form.
...so um right there that invalidates the definition.
Next?

[Nightmask]

I think some people need to take a break and really think about what they're saying, because their arguments are getting VERY headshake worthy. They're almost getting to the point of someone I once saw insist that the German troops in the homeland of Germany during WWII were basically pushovers because the 'real' soldiers were off fighting elsewhere for no other reason than he was a Batman fanboy and was trying to tear down Captain America's fighting skills by insisting German soldiers were wimps. When you start reaching the point you're downplaying RL examples because you're trying to build support for something fictional it's a good idea to take a deep breathe and really think about what you're saying.

[Killer Cyborg]

Your still making the mistake of assuming that the US way is the One True Way and that if you are not trained to operate as a cog in the US machine you are useless.

Not useless. Qualitatively inferior in almost every aspect.

thank you for making my point.
Your mistaking the US way as the One True Way with actual training.

We take that squad and drop it in Rome and they are going to be considered worthless scrubs by every military on the planet?
Why? They have no CLUE how to hold a sword or shield or javelin.
No one knows how to use a bow, or ride a chariot
They have no clue of any sort of tactical doctrine and they keep separating when they try to fight.
Do we now say that suddenly your squad of marines is no longer combat trained?
They wont fit in the local military so they must not be right?

ROFLMMFAO!!! A squad of US Marines would be the most kick ass legionaries in the history of Rome.

they would die pretty quick unless they have all their cool toys.

They wouldn't fit into the local military, they'd be running the local military! They'd be bigger, stronger, faster, healthier, have better teeth, and be immune to most diseases of the day. They all would know more basic sanitation, personal hygene, first aid, and the germ theory of disease than the Emperor's personal physicians. They can all READ! They know basic land navigation and construction techniques. They can march calvary into the ground carrying insane amounts of gear and equipment. Because they paid attention in high school, they know the ingredients and composition of black powder; they couldn't make rifles, but they'd damn sure have grenades. Crossbows too. Marines are trained with knives and bayonets. Bayonets aren't that much different from spears they couldn't make enough for everyone to have two or three. And a good bayonet man will purely kick a swordsman's ass. Those triangular points make wounds that never heal properly. Marines may separate when they go to fight, but that's just so while you're focused on one, another slips up and shoves a kabar through your liver or cuts your throat. Marines also fight at night, something the Romans never did.

Maybe.
Oddly though every single advantage you just described?
Yep not a single bit of it was part of your 'combat training'
Bizare huh.
That the same things that you claim would make them the best soldiers of all time would make the collage football team ALSO the best soldiers on the planet.
Guess that means that your definition of combat training is bunk...

And that training is separate from being a soldier.

No that training is central to being a soldier. As opposed to a pistol carrying mountain climber who takes karate at the YMCA.

Again your making the mistake of thinking that only professional soldiers can fight.
I know its one of the things that they try to beat into Marines that "only we know how to do war" and stuff...
...but its not true.
Strangely enough there have been people fighting battles for thousands of years...
...and yet professional armies are just a couple centuries old.
SO I guess that all of those people, in all of history didn't know how to fight right?
I guess the Sioux Indians were just hobbyists
I guess the Samurai were hobbyists
I guess the Vietcong were hobbyists
I guess the US Colonial Army was hobbyists
and none of them knew how to fight...
...or perhaps you might want to stop pretending that everyone that is not a professional soldier is this scrub that took a few classes at the YMCA. because the truth is that there are a lot of perfectly qualified combatants that have never been to basic (or even heard of the concept)

Or put it another way...
...in Rifts the average adventuring group will never encounter a situation where they are going to be in a 'unit' larger than 4-10 people...
...that does not mean that since they do not know how to operate at the company level that none of them are combat trained.
In Rifts people come from various professional combat backgrounds... that may not EVER involve organized formal militaries (Gunslingers, Juicer, Cyber-Knight, Mystic-Knight, Battle Magus, Assassins, ect)
But in Rifts those people would still be considered 'combat trained'

Wrong. They are trained to fight, shoot, mystic knight, battle magus, or etc. Not trained for combat.

Riiiiiggghhht
Some of the top military classes in the game, cores of their national militaries are not trained for combat... because they didn't go to basic training.
I think we can pretty much discard your argument right there
Because once again your confusing "combat" with "Fighting a war in the style of the modern US military"
And that is not what combat is.
Unless of course we are just going to pretend that there was no combat on earth until around the 1700s...

We might not say that they are not military but that doesn't mean that they are not combat trained.
Unless you want to define NO ONE as being combat trained. And I mean NO ONE. Because NO ONE is able to operate as a plug-and-play component of every military force everywhere throughout all of space and time. And unless we are picking a specific force as the sole standard and saying all other forces are not valid... then the claim of plug-and-play has to be everyone or no one... so which is it?

I provided a definition of combat training earlier. Go back and read it. While you're at it read the article KC posted. Your question has been anwsered.

Yes a definition that is demonstrably false and doesn't work
Combat is not "Fighting wars in the style of the US military" because there was combat before the 1700's or so when the modern military traditions started to form.
...so um right there that invalidates the definition.
Next?

Next, maybe read that article.

After that, maybe address it...?

[eliakon]

Your still making the mistake of assuming that the US way is the One True Way and that if you are not trained to operate as a cog in the US machine you are useless.

Not useless. Qualitatively inferior in almost every aspect.

thank you for making my point.
Your mistaking the US way as the One True Way with actual training.

We take that squad and drop it in Rome and they are going to be considered worthless scrubs by every military on the planet?
Why? They have no CLUE how to hold a sword or shield or javelin.
No one knows how to use a bow, or ride a chariot
They have no clue of any sort of tactical doctrine and they keep separating when they try to fight.
Do we now say that suddenly your squad of marines is no longer combat trained?
They wont fit in the local military so they must not be right?

ROFLMMFAO!!! A squad of US Marines would be the most kick ass legionaries in the history of Rome.

they would die pretty quick unless they have all their cool toys.

They wouldn't fit into the local military, they'd be running the local military! They'd be bigger, stronger, faster, healthier, have better teeth, and be immune to most diseases of the day. They all would know more basic sanitation, personal hygene, first aid, and the germ theory of disease than the Emperor's personal physicians. They can all READ! They know basic land navigation and construction techniques. They can march calvary into the ground carrying insane amounts of gear and equipment. Because they paid attention in high school, they know the ingredients and composition of black powder; they couldn't make rifles, but they'd damn sure have grenades. Crossbows too. Marines are trained with knives and bayonets. Bayonets aren't that much different from spears they couldn't make enough for everyone to have two or three. And a good bayonet man will purely kick a swordsman's ass. Those triangular points make wounds that never heal properly. Marines may separate when they go to fight, but that's just so while you're focused on one, another slips up and shoves a kabar through your liver or cuts your throat. Marines also fight at night, something the Romans never did.

Maybe.
Oddly though every single advantage you just described?
Yep not a single bit of it was part of your 'combat training'
Bizare huh.
That the same things that you claim would make them the best soldiers of all time would make the collage football team ALSO the best soldiers on the planet.
Guess that means that your definition of combat training is bunk...

And that training is separate from being a soldier.

No that training is central to being a soldier. As opposed to a pistol carrying mountain climber who takes karate at the YMCA.

Again your making the mistake of thinking that only professional soldiers can fight.
I know its one of the things that they try to beat into Marines that "only we know how to do war" and stuff...
...but its not true.
Strangely enough there have been people fighting battles for thousands of years...
...and yet professional armies are just a couple centuries old.
SO I guess that all of those people, in all of history didn't know how to fight right?
I guess the Sioux Indians were just hobbyists
I guess the Samurai were hobbyists
I guess the Vietcong were hobbyists
I guess the US Colonial Army was hobbyists
and none of them knew how to fight...
...or perhaps you might want to stop pretending that everyone that is not a professional soldier is this scrub that took a few classes at the YMCA. because the truth is that there are a lot of perfectly qualified combatants that have never been to basic (or even heard of the concept)

Or put it another way...
...in Rifts the average adventuring group will never encounter a situation where they are going to be in a 'unit' larger than 4-10 people...
...that does not mean that since they do not know how to operate at the company level that none of them are combat trained.
In Rifts people come from various professional combat backgrounds... that may not EVER involve organized formal militaries (Gunslingers, Juicer, Cyber-Knight, Mystic-Knight, Battle Magus, Assassins, ect)
But in Rifts those people would still be considered 'combat trained'

Wrong. They are trained to fight, shoot, mystic knight, battle magus, or etc. Not trained for combat.

Riiiiiggghhht
Some of the top military classes in the game, cores of their national militaries are not trained for combat... because they didn't go to basic training.
I think we can pretty much discard your argument right there
Because once again your confusing "combat" with "Fighting a war in the style of the modern US military"
And that is not what combat is.
Unless of course we are just going to pretend that there was no combat on earth until around the 1700s...

We might not say that they are not military but that doesn't mean that they are not combat trained.
Unless you want to define NO ONE as being combat trained. And I mean NO ONE. Because NO ONE is able to operate as a plug-and-play component of every military force everywhere throughout all of space and time. And unless we are picking a specific force as the sole standard and saying all other forces are not valid... then the claim of plug-and-play has to be everyone or no one... so which is it?

I provided a definition of combat training earlier. Go back and read it. While you're at it read the article KC posted. Your question has been anwsered.

Yes a definition that is demonstrably false and doesn't work
Combat is not "Fighting wars in the style of the US military" because there was combat before the 1700's or so when the modern military traditions started to form.
...so um right there that invalidates the definition.
Next?

Next, maybe read that article.

After that, maybe address it...?

Ummm why? The article is utterly, totally, completely irrelevant.
No seriously it is irrelevant.
Unless we are back to provably false claim that only people that have gone through basic training are capable of combat.
Basic is great at being ONE way to instill the desired training in people sure.
It is not the ONLY way and it sure as heck is not the base line as to defining if someone is capable of being a combatant.

[Killer Cyborg]

Next, maybe read that article.

After that, maybe address it...?

Ummm why? The article is utterly, totally, completely irrelevant.
No seriously it is irrelevant.

I believe that you're serious.
But I also believe that means that you don't understand what you're arguing against.

Unless we are back to provably false claim that only people that have gone through basic training are capable of combat.

Who made that claim?
As far as I know, it was you, as a strawman.

The issue at this point in the conversation is whether or not military basic training provides anything useful in a combat situation other than the specific skills of climbing, shooting, etc. that are listed on the website that somebody quoted earlier.

The article that I'd like you to read explains the kinds of things that one learns in boot camp that one does not typically learn in civilian training classes.

[VictoryWeaver]

snip

This right here, all of this. This made me very sad. Seriously, open a history book. Oh, and they stopped teaching LINE ten years ago, they us MCMAP. Learn about things before using them to (not) prove a point.

[eliakon]

Next, maybe read that article.

After that, maybe address it...?

Ummm why? The article is utterly, totally, completely irrelevant.
No seriously it is irrelevant.

I believe that you're serious.
But I also believe that means that you don't understand what you're arguing against.

Unless we are back to provably false claim that only people that have gone through basic training are capable of combat.

Who made that claim?
As far as I know, it was you, as a strawman.

The issue at this point in the conversation is whether or not military basic training provides anything useful in a combat situation other than the specific skills of climbing, shooting, etc. that are listed on the website that somebody quoted earlier.

The article that I'd like you to read explains the kinds of things that one learns in boot camp that one does not typically learn in civilian training classes.

I know that.
But its not RELIVENT
The discussion is not "Have all mages gone to boot camp"
Because Boot Camp, while nice, and while it teaches a huge number of things... is not the be all and end all of training.
The problem here is that people are making the utterly false claim that if you do NOT go to boot camp then your training is inherently some sort of lesser civilian training class
Its not.
THAT is the false argument that is the problem
THAT is why the article is utterly irrelevant.
There are plenty of ways to get training that are NEITHER boot camp NOR civilian training classes. Its not a binary situation.
The Spartans never went to Boot Camp. The Sioux never went to Boot Camp. The Continental Army never went to Boot Camp. No Samurai or Ninja went to Boot Camp. No Aztec went to Boot Camp. No Zulu went to Boot Camp. We could go on for days and pages on people who DIDN'T go to boot camp...
...but some how all of them managed to get trained. And that training was not from a civilian training class either.
Strange that. It would seem to suggest that some how people manage to get proper combat training with OUT going to boot camp.
Which in turn suggests that boot camp is totally, utterly, completely irrelevant to the discussion except as one of the myriad ways that someone can get trained.

[Killer Cyborg]

The issue at this point in the conversation is whether or not military basic training provides anything useful in a combat situation other than the specific skills of climbing, shooting, etc. that are listed on the website that somebody quoted earlier.

The article that I'd like you to read explains the kinds of things that one learns in boot camp that one does not typically learn in civilian training classes.

I know that.

Do you?

But its not RELIVENT

I disagree.

The discussion is not "Have all mages gone to boot camp"
Because Boot Camp, while nice, and while it teaches a huge number of things... is not the be all and end all of training.

It IS the sort of training that is necessary in order to be "combat trained" by certain standards, the kind of thing that would help with maintaining discipline and self-control during combat.

Are there other ways?

Sure. Combat experience, for one. But in gaming context, that's something that would happen as one levels up.

The problem here is that people are making the utterly false claim that if you do NOT go to boot camp then your training is inherently some sort of lesser civilian training class

Who made that claim? Where?

Its not.
THAT is the false argument that is the problem
THAT is why the article is utterly irrelevant.
There are plenty of ways to get training that are NEITHER boot camp NOR civilian training classes. Its not a binary situation.
The Spartans never went to Boot Camp.

The Spartans essentially lived in military boot camp

Pretty much the same with the rest of your list--they all had some of the best military training available at the time, for their place and culture. They weren't just civilians.
They had training that provided them with the same kind of intense experiences that happen in Boot Camp, the kind of training that prepares one somewhat for real combat.

Which in turn suggests that boot camp is totally, utterly, completely irrelevant to the discussion except as one of the myriad ways that someone can get trained.

And which of the myriad do you believe that LLWs as a rule undergo?
Because I don't know of ANY, and I don't believe that you've proposed any, except as a hypothetical "well, some of them might be in militias..." sort of thing.

And sure, SOME of them are almost definitely in militias at 1st level.
And SOME of them might have an unusual background that nets out as being the equivalent of basic training, something that gives them the kind of combat training that was originally being discussed.
But that'd be the exception, not the rule.

Meanwhile, every single Man-At-Arms OCC that I'm aware of does have that kind of training. They're either soldiers, mercenaries, knights, or some direct equivalent.

[eliakon]

The issue at this point in the conversation is whether or not military basic training provides anything useful in a combat situation other than the specific skills of climbing, shooting, etc. that are listed on the website that somebody quoted earlier.

The article that I'd like you to read explains the kinds of things that one learns in boot camp that one does not typically learn in civilian training classes.

I know that.

Do you?

yes.

But its not RELIVENT

I disagree.

then explain, exactly, why it IS relevant.

The discussion is not "Have all mages gone to boot camp"
Because Boot Camp, while nice, and while it teaches a huge number of things... is not the be all and end all of training.

It IS the sort of training that is necessary in order to be "combat trained" by certain standards, the kind of thing that would help with maintaining discipline and self-control during combat.

again, that is a wonderful example of a circular definition.
You are claiming that training that provides self control is combat training... but only if that training is from the source that you say provides combat training
And then that the combat training is considered combat training because it provides the self control...
circular.
I don't see anything that says "this discipline, it can only be gained in military basic training and not in any other training. Oh, especially not in magical training which we are going to define by fiat as being not sufficiently rigorous to instill self control"

Are there other ways?

Sure. Combat experience, for one. But in gaming context, that's something that would happen as one levels up.

again your defining "military boot camp" as the only valid source of training... by circularly linking the source and effect.
I disagree with that sorry.
Now if you can back it up then maybe...
...but right now your "proof" is your assertion that it is true.

The problem here is that people are making the utterly false claim that if you do NOT go to boot camp then your training is inherently some sort of lesser civilian training class

Who made that claim? Where?

Well you just did.
You just said that if you don't go to formal military training then you have to get the same training through combat experience...
that is kind of exactly my point.
That people are defining "boot camp" as the only source of training. Which is bunk.

Its not.
THAT is the false argument that is the problem
THAT is why the article is utterly irrelevant.
There are plenty of ways to get training that are NEITHER boot camp NOR civilian training classes. Its not a binary situation.
The Spartans never went to Boot Camp.

The Spartans essentially lived in military boot camp

Pretty much the same with the rest of your list--they all had some of the best military training available at the time, for their place and culture. They weren't just civilians.
They had training that provided them with the same kind of intense experiences that happen in Boot Camp, the kind of training that prepares one somewhat for real combat.

Bzzt
sorry.
Back up
Lets see...
Hmmm, odd
Nope sorry.
American Colonial Army? Nope, not 'the best training"
As for the rest. Again the claim being presented is that if you don't go to FORMAL training it doesn't count.
Because as I am trying to point out... the warriors used as examples? didn't have 'the best training available' many didn't go through 'intense formal training' and they CERTAINLY did not go through formal military camps...
...which makes the argument that a mage DOES have to do that pure bunk.
If a Zulu or a Souix can be a warrior just by being in their culture... then why cant a mage from those cultures?
And if THEY can then I want to know, exactly, why no society or place on Rifts Earth trains anyone to be warriors (other than formal military training)

Which in turn suggests that boot camp is totally, utterly, completely irrelevant to the discussion except as one of the myriad ways that someone can get trained.

And which of the myriad do you believe that LLWs as a rule undergo?
Because I don't know of ANY, and I don't believe that you've proposed any, except as a hypothetical "well, some of them might be in militias..." sort of thing.

We don't know.
I wasn't aware that there was a book description on the full background training of mages.
I wasn't aware that the book description of it, in describing how they get their training in hand to hand and weapons explicitly rules out that it was because they were in any form of training that might instill confidance and discipline (because we know that all mages are undisciplined and terrified rabble... oh wait, they are MORE disciplined than most soldiers... hrmmm)

And sure, SOME of them are almost definitely in militias at 1st level.
And SOME of them might have an unusual background that nets out as being the equivalent of basic training, something that gives them the kind of combat training that was originally being discussed.
But that'd be the exception, not the rule.

Source?
No seriously source that says that's the exception?
Because that sounds suspiciously like your head canon being passed off as a fact.

Meanwhile, every single Man-At-Arms OCC that I'm aware of does have that kind of training. They're either soldiers, mercenaries, knights, or some direct equivalent.

But may or may not have gone to boot camp.
That's the point.
The artificial distinction that some how a formal place called "boot camp" is what makes you a man-at-arms...even though you might not actually go to one.
it doesn't.
What DOES matter is if you have the training, not where that training came from.
The claim that some how mages, and only mages, need to account for exactly where and how they got trained is, to me absurd.
ESPECIALLY in a game that doesn't track that for anyone else.
We don't track what specifically about their back ground automatically makes every juicer a man-at-arms... we just roll with it.
But some how a mage is automatically NOT combat trained... because they are a mage?
Its basically defining combat training as "what a mage doesn't have"
or in this case "if you went to boot camp" but only for mages. No one else has to go to boot camp, anyone else can just say "we trained m'kay"... but mages... nope, they some how need to get this special imaginary training that doesn't have any rules, and is not described in any book and seems to only exist in certain peoples head canon that only certain people can get... that certain people being "anyone who is not a mage" apparently.

Or put bluntly.
I am waiting for someone to use something other than their personal head canon to explain why a mages skills can not be considered to be valid training but a man-at-arms with the IDENTICAL skills is.
Because there is nothing in the book that I am aware of that describes where that training took place so right there the claim that 'well the mages didn't get it in the right place' is automatically head canon as it requires inserting a house rule on OCC training.
A house rule that seems to be predicated on the idea that the only valid source of combat training is military basic and that thus only military personal are considered combat trained.
Similarly a claim that mages training was not sufficiently rigorous to instill the 'right kind' of discipline, again, sounds exactly like a house rule.
So does the claim that some how every mercenary, bandit, juicer, assassin, etc.... DID manage to get exactly that training... regardless of THEIR background.

Its a great house rule... for those peoples games.
I am however not interested in their house rules.

[Killer Cyborg]

The issue at this point in the conversation is whether or not military basic training provides anything useful in a combat situation other than the specific skills of climbing, shooting, etc. that are listed on the website that somebody quoted earlier.

The article that I'd like you to read explains the kinds of things that one learns in boot camp that one does not typically learn in civilian training classes.

I know that.

Do you?

yes.

But its not RELIVENT

I disagree.

then explain, exactly, why it IS relevant.

The discussion is not "Have all mages gone to boot camp"
Because Boot Camp, while nice, and while it teaches a huge number of things... is not the be all and end all of training.

It IS the sort of training that is necessary in order to be "combat trained" by certain standards, the kind of thing that would help with maintaining discipline and self-control during combat.

again, that is a wonderful example of a circular definition.
You are claiming that training that provides self control is combat training...

Nope.
Not once have I claimed that.
Try again.

Are there other ways?

Sure. Combat experience, for one. But in gaming context, that's something that would happen as one levels up.

again your defining "military boot camp" as the only valid source of training...

So... by saying that there are other ways, I'm saying that military boot camp is the only valid way...?

The problem here is that people are making the utterly false claim that if you do NOT go to boot camp then your training is inherently some sort of lesser civilian training class

Who made that claim? Where?

Well you just did.

Nope.

You just said that if you don't go to formal military training then you have to get the same training through combat experience...

I'm guessing that you don't know what "for one" means...?

The Spartans essentially lived in military boot camp

Pretty much the same with the rest of your list--they all had some of the best military training available at the time, for their place and culture. They weren't just civilians.
They had training that provided them with the same kind of intense experiences that happen in Boot Camp, the kind of training that prepares one somewhat for real combat.

Bzzt
sorry.
Back up
Lets see...
Hmmm, odd
Nope sorry.
American Colonial Army? Nope, not 'the best training"

Yeah, they're the exception. They kind of sucked, and only managed to hold on long enough for foreign militiaries to save them.
I don't know why they were in your group, so I overlooked it.

Again the claim being presented is that if you don't go to FORMAL training it doesn't count.

That IS the claim that you keep presenting.
I'm not sure why, since you also keep arguing against it.

If a Zulu or a Souix can be a warrior just by being in their culture... then why cant a mage from those cultures?

You have a Zulu or Sioux mage specifically in mind...?
Do you think that the average LLW is a Sioux or a Zulu...?

Which in turn suggests that boot camp is totally, utterly, completely irrelevant to the discussion except as one of the myriad ways that someone can get trained.

And which of the myriad do you believe that LLWs as a rule undergo?
Because I don't know of ANY, and I don't believe that you've proposed any, except as a hypothetical "well, some of them might be /in militias..." sort of thing.

We don't know.
I wasn't aware that there was a book description on the full background training of mages.
I wasn't aware that the book description of it, in describing how they get their training in hand to hand and weapons explicitly rules out that it was because they were in any form of training that might instill confidance and discipline (because we know that all mages are undisciplined and terrified rabble... oh wait, they are MORE disciplined than most soldiers... hrmmm)

There isn't a full description of it.
All we have is that they're "not good at combat," that they're "scholars," that they're NOT "Combat OCCs," that they "use their magic to explore, observe, and learn," that if they try to cast a spell in combat after taking any physical action they have to spend an attack or two to catch his breath, and that "most can handle themselves in a fight, but they're not warriors, they just aren't."

Which part of that says to you, "These guys are probably typically as combat trained as Zulu warriors, Sioux Warriors, or soldiers?"

And sure, SOME of them are almost definitely in militias at 1st level.
And SOME of them might have an unusual background that nets out as being the equivalent of basic training, something that gives them the kind of combat training that was originally being discussed.
But that'd be the exception, not the rule.

Source?[/quote]

See above.
Although I can get you more if you need it, partly by looking back in this very thread at all the stuff I've already posted.

Meanwhile, every single Man-At-Arms OCC that I'm aware of does have that kind of training. They're either soldiers, mercenaries, knights, or some direct equivalent.

But may or may not have gone to boot camp.
That's the point.
The artificial distinction that some how a formal place called "boot camp" is what makes you a man-at-arms...even though you might not actually go to one.
it doesn't.
What DOES matter is if you have the training, not where that training came from.

Well, you've clearly defeated THAT strawman.

NOW try to prove that mages DO have that training.

The claim that some how mages, and only mages, need to account for exactly where and how they got trained is, to me absurd.

Yeah. It's like a lot of the other claims that you're arguing against, that only you have ever said.

You think anybody here's claimed that scholars never lose complete voice control during a firefight?
Or that psychics never do?
That it's ONLY mages?
Quote 'em.

Because nobody's ever said that.
Except for you, in order to argue against it.

[Natasha]

Sounds like a question for the player and Game Master to work out for the character. In typical Palladium fashion, the guidance nets out to be whatever the player and Game Master think about the character. Sweeping generalisations don't really apply to character creation.

[eliakon]

Sounds like a question for the player and Game Master to work out for the character. In typical Palladium fashion, the guidance nets out to be whatever the player and Game Master think about the character. Sweeping generalisations don't really apply to character creation.

^this^ 100%

[Saitou Hajime]

Sounds like a question for the player and Game Master to work out for the character. In typical Palladium fashion, the guidance nets out to be whatever the player and Game Master think about the character. Sweeping generalisations don't really apply to character creation.

One of the more sensible post in the topic.

[VictoryWeaver]

ITT we confuse combat trained with combat ready AND combat proven.

If you have been trained in anyway for combat, regardless of quality of training, you are combat trained. To say someone who has been trined in a form of combat is not combat trained is not only empirically false, it is asinine. It is the same as saying someone with a license to drive from the US does not know how to drive because Germany has higher standards. It's a moronic argument to make.

Also, no, combat experience does not make you combat trained. Only actual training makes you combat trained. Words mean things.

[eliakon]

ITT we confuse combat trained with combat ready AND combat proven.

If you have been trained in anyway for combat, regardless of quality of training, you are combat trained. To say someone who has been trined in a form of combat is not combat trained is not only empirically false, it is asinine. It is the same as saying someone with a license to drive from the US does not know how to drive because Germany has higher standards. It's a moronic argument to make.

Also, no, combat experience does not make you combat trained. Only actual training makes you combat trained. Words mean things.

Thank you.
You managed to put in your six lines what I struggled (and failed miserably) to put in my rambling hundreds)
you too get a This 100% and a "I think you managed to pretty much sum up the entire thread"

[Shark_Force]

ITT we confuse combat trained with combat ready AND combat proven.

If you have been trained in anyway for combat, regardless of quality of training, you are combat trained. To say someone who has been trined in a form of combat is not combat trained is not only empirically false, it is asinine. It is the same as saying someone with a license to drive from the US does not know how to drive because Germany has higher standards. It's a moronic argument to make.

Also, no, combat experience does not make you combat trained. Only actual training makes you combat trained. Words mean things.

so someone who drove one of those electric kid's cars when they were 4 knows how to drive, and because they know how to drive something therefore it is the same as any other kind of knowing how to drive?

i mean, i once went to a class where i learned the basics (and i mean VERY basics) of boxing, i believe it was. as in, i learned what a jab, a cross, and a hook were, and i spent probably 30 minutes practicing those with someone else. so i guess now i'm combat trained and it isn't meaningfully different in any way from someone who's spent months learning a variety of skills to train them for combat, because hey, now i'm in the same category, so it *must* be the same.

or at least, that seems to be what everyone wants to claim. since i've received any form of combat training at all, i must be the same as a US marine or a Spartan warrior or any other form of warrior that has ever existed anywhere (as well as anyone who has spent any time at all wrestling, or punching, or taken an archery class, or even watched a video that gives any advice on how to do any of those things, etc).

or, alternately, if that isn't your position, i'm afraid you're just going to have to accept that not all training is the same, even if it is for the same general category of things.

[Axelmania]

Shark you are arguing a straw man. Nobody has argued they are the same. In a general category, sure. Bears and dolphins are in the same general category of mammalian but acknowledging that isn't arguing they are equally capable.

Yes even 30 minutes of boxing drills is technically combat training. In the games we speak of things with tangible results though, like getting the skill and its bonuses, which would generally take longer depending on how generous the GM is with XP.

Being a beginner in combat training isn't saying you are the same as an expert in combat training like a SEAL. Nobody argued that. I can make spaghetti so I can technically a cook but calling myself a cook isn't calling myself a master chef.

[Shark_Force]

Shark you are arguing a straw man. Nobody has argued they are the same. In a general category, sure. Bears and dolphins are in the same general category of mammalian but acknowledging that isn't arguing they are equally capable.

Yes even 30 minutes of boxing drills is technically combat training. In the games we speak of things with tangible results though, like getting the skill and its bonuses, which would generally take longer depending on how generous the GM is with XP.

Being a beginner in combat training isn't saying you are the same as an expert in combat training like a SEAL. Nobody argued that. I can make spaghetti so I can technically a cook but calling myself a cook isn't calling myself a master chef.

*sigh*

i am not combat trained. i am not even close to combat trained, unless nearly everyone in the entire world is combat trained as a result of having played around wrestling as a kid, or for that matter getting into real fights for many or even most people. this definition of combat trained that you are using ("has ever received even the tiniest amount of combat training of any form") is completely useless and ridiculous. there is no way i would ever expect someone looking for a person with combat training to be pleased if i were to present myself as being in any way combat trained.

it is absurd to suppose that when someone uses the phrase "combat trained" in general conversation that they might ever mean that even the tiniest amount of combat training counts in the same way as actual training intended to prepare you for actual combat. otherwise the much more reasonable distinction would be to check who has been paralyzed from birth, because everyone else is (apparently) combat trained, because at some point in their life they have almost assuredly hit or grabbed at *something* and those are the very basic elements of unarmed combat, and since they've practiced it at least once by this insane definition they must therefore be combat trained.

and if there is a definitive difference between my level of combat training and someone who has actually completed training in a YMCA martial arts course or who has been part of a high school wrestling team, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there is also a difference between those people and a marine or a spartan or a roman soldier or any number of other groups of people who have prepared for actual fighting as opposed to sport fighting where you aren't trying to kill your opponent and your opponent isn't trying to kill you, and where there is frankly a lot less chaos and confusion.

[Axelmania]

You say "close to" as if there were actually an established standard for what combat training is, but there isn't. It is a word with very broad and flexible definitions. That is why it is useful to append other terms like "modern US military combat training" to explain what is intended.

So yeah, even rasslin' around counts. Palladium does slightly narrow the definition, RUE 317 the Wrestling skill says "more of a sport than a combat skill" so you don't have to worry about that. HTH and WP are clearly described as combat skills though.

this definition of combat trained that you are using ("has ever received even the tiniest amount of combat training of any form") is completely useless and ridiculous.

It is neither. That's like saying words like 'skill' or 'trained' are useless or ridiculous. On their own they don't communicate much, true, that is the case for many words. But they do help us form descriptive expressions which have more information.

there is no way i would ever expect someone looking for a person with combat training to be pleased if i were to present myself as being in any way combat trained.

Someone who knows what they're looking for will be able to describe it more specifically. For example "gun combat" or "forest combat".

it is absurd to suppose that when someone uses the phrase "combat trained" in general conversation that they might ever mean that even the tiniest amount of combat training counts in the same way as actual training intended to prepare you for actual combat.

Less absurd than assuming they mean Navy SEAL training or whatever it is you think is the common meaning.

otherwise the much more reasonable distinction would be to check who has been paralyzed from birth, because everyone else is (apparently) combat trained, because at some point in their life they have almost assuredly hit or grabbed at *something* and those are the very basic elements of unarmed combat, and since they've practiced it at least once by this insane definition they must therefore be combat trained.

We should look more at the implications of "train". Like, meaning instructed by someone.

While basic skills like grabbing/hitting are good, I wouldn't call them "combat" training unless someone had learned to apply them to combat situations, like grabbing a wrist or hitting something humanoid.

This is not an "insane" definition. The majority of dictionaries use 'combat' in this broad manner. Military applications are tertiary and are presented in a context where it's clear that military combat is meant.

and if there is a definitive difference between my level of combat training and someone who has actually completed training in a YMCA martial arts course or who has been part of a high school wrestling team, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there is also a difference between those people and a marine or a spartan or a roman soldier or any number of other groups of people who have prepared for actual fighting as opposed to sport fighting where you aren't trying to kill your opponent and your opponent isn't trying to kill you, and where there is frankly a lot less chaos and confusion.

You're arguing with air here SF, nobody has said there isn't a difference. The difference of opinion is on the appropriate word to describe those differences. "Combat" is a broad concept and a broad term and there's no clear place to draw the line, if you want to draw lines it should be done with add-ons.

For example: if anyone asked if anyone had any medical training, even though first-aid/CPR is the bottom rung of that, it would not be wrong to say you had that.

Even if all you'd ever done was hit a heavy bag and done roadwork, explaining that to someone asking for 'combat' training would not be wrong, they might still find some supportive use for you on the sidelines.

[Killer Cyborg]

there is no way i would ever expect someone looking for a person with combat training to be pleased if i were to present myself as being in any way combat trained.

Someone who knows what they're looking for will be able to describe it more specifically. For example "gun combat" or "forest combat".

And zero burden is on the person presenting themself as "combat trained" to have any understanding of context?

it is absurd to suppose that when someone uses the phrase "combat trained" in general conversation that they might ever mean that even the tiniest amount of combat training counts in the same way as actual training intended to prepare you for actual combat.

Less absurd than assuming they mean Navy SEAL training or whatever it is you think is the common meaning.

You apparently think that basic training is the same as Navy SEAL training.
Which is incorrect.

The majority of dictionaries use 'combat' in this broad manner. Military applications are tertiary and are presented in a context where it's clear that military combat is meant.

Well, let's test that theory.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/combat
"noun
3. Military. active, armed fighting with enemy forces.
4. a fight, struggle, or controversy, as between two persons, teams, or ideas."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/combat
1: a fight or contest between individuals or groups
2: conflict, controversy
3: active fighting in a war : action casualties suffered in combat

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/combat
1 Fighting between armed forces.
1.1 Non-violent conflict or opposition.
‘electoral combat’

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/combat
n. (kŏm′băt′)
1. Fighting, especially with weapons: naval combat.
2. Contention or strife: rhetorical combat.

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/d ... n/combat_1
1 [UNCOUNTABLE] fighting during a war

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dict ... ish/combat
fighting during a time of war:
[ U ] a combat jacket/zone/casualty
[ U ] No one knew how many troops had died in combat.
​
Combat is also a fight between two people or things:
[ C ] The film explores the combat between good and evil.

There are more dictionaries, of course, but that gives us a decent sample size.

You're arguing with air here SF, nobody has said there isn't a difference. The difference of opinion is on the appropriate word to describe those differences. "Combat" is a broad concept and a broad term and there's no clear place to draw the line, if you want to draw lines it should be done with add-ons.

For example: if anyone asked if anyone had any medical training, even though first-aid/CPR is the bottom rung of that, it would not be wrong to say you had that.

Hm.
What makes you certain that first-aid/CPR is the bottom rung of that?
For that matter, what if it's a side-ways rung? Like if somebody's vomiting, and they ask if anybody has medical training, and you're a phlebotomist?

[Axelmania]

Blood-drawers? Well I'm not sure about first-aid, just a general example. Your contradicting the assumption only helps to prove there's no clear lines or bottom level.

[Killer Cyborg]

If you have been trained in anyway for combat, regardless of quality of training, you are combat trained. To say someone who has been trined in a form of combat is not combat trained is not only empirically false, it is asinine.

Here is your argument:
If you have been trained in any way for X, regardless of quality of training, you are X trained.

Let's test that logic.

If you have been trained to read your own name, even if you don't do it well, then you are literate.
If you have been trained to drive a go-cart, even if you don't do it well, then you are "a trained driver."
If you have been trained to fish, even if you never catch anything, then you are an athlete.
If you are trained in tic-tac-toe, even if you have never won, then you are a trained gamer.

I'm not seeing it as making much sense, except in a strange technical sense that ignores all standard connotations of the key terms.

It is the same as saying someone with a license to drive from the US does not know how to drive because Germany has higher standards.

Not really. You're talking about geography and law; we're discussing degree and depth.

In both of your cases, the person in question can drive a car.
But in our case, we're discussing stuff like "if you're only trained in one narrow area of combat, you are 'trained in combat'."

So a more accurate analogy would be:
It's the same as saying someone with a license to drive a motorcycle (but who cannot drive a car) "does not know how to drive."
Such a statement would be true in a situation where cars/trucks were the context, but it would be untrue in a situation where motorcycles were the context.

If that person and a friend are going to take a motorcycle ride somewhere, and the friend asks "Can you drive?"
The person could accurately and honestly say "yes" because they can drive a motorcycle.
If that person and a friend were going to take a car somewhere, and the friend asks "Can you drive?"
The person could NOT honestly or accurately answer "Yes" to the question, because they can not drive a car.

In some contexts, they can drive.
In other contexts, they can not drive.
The ability to drive in one limited context does not mean that "they can drive" in general.

Also, no, combat experience does not make you combat trained. Only actual training makes you combat trained.

Combat makes for pretty good combat training exercise.
Kind of like how driving experience is pretty good training for driving.
Engaging in an activity is generally pretty good training for that activity.

Words mean things.

Indeed.

[Natasha]

What's wrong with using the Rifts definition of combat trained? It's about as straight forward as checking the character sheet for rope works when a character is trying to tie a knot.

[Killer Cyborg]

What's wrong with using the Rifts definition of combat trained? It's about as straight forward as checking the character sheet for rope works when a character is trying to tie a knot.

There is no Rifts definition of "combat trained."
Beyond that, there's nothing wrong with doing so, depending on the context of the usage and the context of the conversation.

[Natasha]

What's wrong with using the Rifts definition of combat trained? It's about as straight forward as checking the character sheet for rope works when a character is trying to tie a knot.

There is no Rifts definition of "combat trained."
Beyond that, there's nothing wrong with doing so, depending on the context of the usage and the context of the conversation.

Attacks per melee gives a definition.

What context beyond the game itself should we consider instead?

[Killer Cyborg]

What's wrong with using the Rifts definition of combat trained? It's about as straight forward as checking the character sheet for rope works when a character is trying to tie a knot.

There is no Rifts definition of "combat trained."
Beyond that, there's nothing wrong with doing so, depending on the context of the usage and the context of the conversation.

Attacks per melee gives a definition.

No.
"Attacks per melee" describes how many attacks per melee characters with no hand to hand combat training get.

What context beyond the game itself should we consider instead?

That would depend on the conversation.
As I've said before, if the conversation is about "what are the minimum requirements the game establishes for being 'combat trained'?" then poring over the game for such criteria is appropriate.
If the conversation (or any part of the conversation) is instead about "what kind of training would a person need to have in order to prepare them to maintain strong discipline and self-control during a mega-damage firefight," then we should look at what kind of training that would entail.
(Such as the kind of mental hardening that comes through boot camp and military training)

[Natasha]

Attacks per melee: Characters with any kind of formal hand to hand combat training (basic, expert, ...).

Hand to hand: basic: This is an elementary form of hand to hand combat training.

Hand to hand: expert: This is the fighting style taught to ...

And so on.

It's defined. The minimum amount is defined by hand to hand: basic. Horror factor covers horrific situations. Discipline and self-control are covered by the 1D20 (with bonuses/penalties) results.

[Killer Cyborg]

Attacks per melee: Characters with any kind of formal hand to hand combat training (basic, expert, ...).

Hand to hand: basic: This is an elementary form of hand to hand combat training.

Hand to hand: expert: This is the fighting style taught to ...

And so on.

It's defined. The minimum amount is defined by hand to hand: basic.

1. No, it's not defined.
What you have found are examples of things that provide hand to hand combat training.
Examples are not definitions.
"Poodles, Dobermans, and pit bulls" is NOT a definition of "dog." It is a list of examples.
"Hand to Hand Basic, Hand to Hand Expert, and Hand to Hand Martial Arts" is NOT a definition of "Hand to Hand Combat." It is a list of examples.

A definition is a statement expressing the essential nature of something.
Palladium does not have a definition of "combat training."
(Not that has been so far produced, anyway)

2. The key phrase here is hand to hand.
Not all combat is hand to hand combat, but all of your examples ARE of hand to hand combat.
Your non-definition isn't even about "combat training." It's about Hand to Hand Combat training.
[Hand to hand combat training] is a subset of the larger set of [combat training].
A subset cannot serve as a definition of a larger set that it belongs to.

3. As has already been established multiple times in this thread, Weapon Proficiencies by definition provide "combat training" with the weapon type, and yet no Weapon Proficiency provides the hand to hand combat training that you're trying to use as a definition.
Even if the set [hand to hand combat training] was equal to the set [combat training], then we'd be left with a direct conflict, because we're told that WPs provide combat training, and yet WPs are NOT forms of [hand to hand combat training].

Horror factor covers horrific situations. Discipline and self-control are covered by the 1D20 (with bonuses/penalties) results.

Horror factor covers certain horrific situations, but only a very limited number of them.
You as a Game Master might, when running your own games at your own table, require a Horror Factor check when deciding if somebody speaks louder than intended during a mega-damage firefight, due to the various emotions that can occur during combat, but that would be a house rule, not anything official.

Horror Factor covers situations where the specific result of failure means (RUE 367) "the character is so overwhelmed that he is temporarily stunned. In game terms this means the character loses initiative (or doesn't even roll for it), loses one attack/melee action, and cannot defend himself (no parry or dodge) against the creature's first attack of that melee round."
That's a different situation than "does not speak completely carefully and quietly."
A failed HF check would not mechanically affect voice control, except in that if the GM requires speech to take up an attack, the speech would be delayed by the lost melee attack.

[eliakon]

What's wrong with using the Rifts definition of combat trained? It's about as straight forward as checking the character sheet for rope works when a character is trying to tie a knot.

Based on the pages of argument so far...
...it seems that "what is wrong with it" is that it doesn't support the central thesis some people have.
Which requires defining combat training as something that mages don't have.

[Natasha]

Attacks per melee: Characters with any kind of formal hand to hand combat training (basic, expert, ...).

Hand to hand: basic: This is an elementary form of hand to hand combat training.

Hand to hand: expert: This is the fighting style taught to ...

And so on.

It's defined. The minimum amount is defined by hand to hand: basic. Horror factor covers horrific situations. Discipline and self-control are covered by the 1D20 (with bonuses/penalties) results.

1. No, it's not defined.
What you have found are examples of things that provide hand to hand combat training.
Examples are not definitions.
"Poodles, Dobermans, and pit bulls" is NOT a definition of "dog." It is a list of examples.
"Hand to Hand Basic, Hand to Hand Expert, and Hand to Hand Martial Arts" is NOT a definition of "Hand to Hand Combat." It is a list of examples.

A definition is a statement expressing the essential nature of something.
Palladium does not have a definition of "combat training."
(Not that has been so far produced, anyway)

2. The key phrase here is hand to hand.
Not all combat is hand to hand combat, but all of your examples ARE of hand to hand combat.
Your non-definition isn't even about "combat training." It's about Hand to Hand Combat training.
[Hand to hand combat training] is a subset of the larger set of [combat training].
A subset cannot serve as a definition of a larger set that it belongs to.

3. As has already been established multiple times in this thread, Weapon Proficiencies by definition provide "combat training" with the weapon type, and yet no Weapon Proficiency provides the hand to hand combat training that you're trying to use as a definition.
Even if the set [hand to hand combat training] was equal to the set [combat training], then we'd be left with a direct conflict, because we're told that WPs provide combat training, and yet WPs are NOT forms of [hand to hand combat training].

The hand to hand skills are not examples. They're degrees.

In any case, the hand to hand combat skills are the basis for hand to hand and modern combat in the context of the game. This is odd, sure, but it's the game. Modern combat is just a set of rules bolted on to the original hand to hand rules. If modern combat was a thing a part, a character's hand to hand combat training would have no bearing on it.

[Killer Cyborg]

What's wrong with using the Rifts definition of combat trained? It's about as straight forward as checking the character sheet for rope works when a character is trying to tie a knot.

Based on the pages of argument so far...
...it seems that "what is wrong with it" is that it doesn't support the central thesis some people have.
Which requires defining combat training as something that mages don't have.

The main problem is that Palladium has never defined the term "combat training."

Which has been explained multiple times.

[Killer Cyborg]

Attacks per melee: Characters with any kind of formal hand to hand combat training (basic, expert, ...).

Hand to hand: basic: This is an elementary form of hand to hand combat training.

Hand to hand: expert: This is the fighting style taught to ...

And so on.

It's defined. The minimum amount is defined by hand to hand: basic. Horror factor covers horrific situations. Discipline and self-control are covered by the 1D20 (with bonuses/penalties) results.

1. No, it's not defined.
What you have found are examples of things that provide hand to hand combat training.
Examples are not definitions.
"Poodles, Dobermans, and pit bulls" is NOT a definition of "dog." It is a list of examples.
"Hand to Hand Basic, Hand to Hand Expert, and Hand to Hand Martial Arts" is NOT a definition of "Hand to Hand Combat." It is a list of examples.

A definition is a statement expressing the essential nature of something.
Palladium does not have a definition of "combat training."
(Not that has been so far produced, anyway)

2. The key phrase here is hand to hand.
Not all combat is hand to hand combat, but all of your examples ARE of hand to hand combat.
Your non-definition isn't even about "combat training." It's about Hand to Hand Combat training.
[Hand to hand combat training] is a subset of the larger set of [combat training].
A subset cannot serve as a definition of a larger set that it belongs to.

3. As has already been established multiple times in this thread, Weapon Proficiencies by definition provide "combat training" with the weapon type, and yet no Weapon Proficiency provides the hand to hand combat training that you're trying to use as a definition.
Even if the set [hand to hand combat training] was equal to the set [combat training], then we'd be left with a direct conflict, because we're told that WPs provide combat training, and yet WPs are NOT forms of [hand to hand combat training].

The hand to hand skills are not examples. They're degrees.

As long as we agree that they're not definitions then I don't see much point in arguing further semantics.

In any case, the hand to hand combat skills are the basis for hand to hand and modern combat in the context of the game. This is odd, sure, but it's the game. Modern combat is just a set of rules bolted on to the original hand to hand rules. If modern combat was a thing a part, a character's hand to hand combat training would have no bearing on it.

None of this changes anything that I said.

Edit:
(Oh, and I did edit my previous post to address Horror Factor, in case you missed that)

[eliakon]

What's wrong with using the Rifts definition of combat trained? It's about as straight forward as checking the character sheet for rope works when a character is trying to tie a knot.

Based on the pages of argument so far...
...it seems that "what is wrong with it" is that it doesn't support the central thesis some people have.
Which requires defining combat training as something that mages don't have.

The main problem is that Palladium has never defined the term "combat training."

Which has been explained multiple times.

No, what has been explained is that lots of people do not like what Palladium has presented and instead want to present a personal "better" definition.
The books call certain skills as 'trained in combat" but for some reason, that is seen as not being combat training... For Reasons.

<edit> And yes, I am aware of the argument that "well its all just subsets"
Which is, IMHO pure bunk because when the argument ends up dismissing some of the subsets as being in the category itself... then the argument is inherently flawed since it is disagreeing with canon.
And in any conflict between the RAW and peoples Head Canon, the rules win.

[Killer Cyborg]

What's wrong with using the Rifts definition of combat trained? It's about as straight forward as checking the character sheet for rope works when a character is trying to tie a knot.

Based on the pages of argument so far...
...it seems that "what is wrong with it" is that it doesn't support the central thesis some people have.
Which requires defining combat training as something that mages don't have.

The main problem is that Palladium has never defined the term "combat training."

Which has been explained multiple times.

No, what has been explained is that lots of people do not like what Palladium has presented and instead want to present a personal "better" definition.
The books call certain skills as 'trained in combat" but for some reason, that is seen as not being combat training... For Reasons.

The book does say that certain skills provide or constitute various forms of combat training.
As I pointed out to Natasha, that is a list of examples (she says "degrees") but it is not a definition.

<edit> And yes, I am aware of the argument that "well its all just subsets"
Which is, IMHO pure bunk because when the argument ends up dismissing some of the subsets as being in the category itself... then the argument is inherently flawed since it is disagreeing with canon.
And in any conflict between the RAW and peoples Head Canon, the rules win.

I have no idea what the bolded portion of your post is intending to say.

Regardless, I linked to the dictionary definition of definition:
"a statement expressing the essential nature of something"

If you can find a statement that Palladium made that expresses the essential nature of "combat training," then let me know.
If not, then you quite literally cannot find a definition any Palladium definition of "combat training."
Period.

Words mean things.

[Natasha]

Attacks per melee: Characters with any kind of formal hand to hand combat training (basic, expert, ...).

Hand to hand: basic: This is an elementary form of hand to hand combat training.

Hand to hand: expert: This is the fighting style taught to ...

And so on.

It's defined. The minimum amount is defined by hand to hand: basic. Horror factor covers horrific situations. Discipline and self-control are covered by the 1D20 (with bonuses/penalties) results.

1. No, it's not defined.
What you have found are examples of things that provide hand to hand combat training.
Examples are not definitions.
"Poodles, Dobermans, and pit bulls" is NOT a definition of "dog." It is a list of examples.
"Hand to Hand Basic, Hand to Hand Expert, and Hand to Hand Martial Arts" is NOT a definition of "Hand to Hand Combat." It is a list of examples.

A definition is a statement expressing the essential nature of something.
Palladium does not have a definition of "combat training."
(Not that has been so far produced, anyway)

2. The key phrase here is hand to hand.
Not all combat is hand to hand combat, but all of your examples ARE of hand to hand combat.
Your non-definition isn't even about "combat training." It's about Hand to Hand Combat training.
[Hand to hand combat training] is a subset of the larger set of [combat training].
A subset cannot serve as a definition of a larger set that it belongs to.

3. As has already been established multiple times in this thread, Weapon Proficiencies by definition provide "combat training" with the weapon type, and yet no Weapon Proficiency provides the hand to hand combat training that you're trying to use as a definition.
Even if the set [hand to hand combat training] was equal to the set [combat training], then we'd be left with a direct conflict, because we're told that WPs provide combat training, and yet WPs are NOT forms of [hand to hand combat training].

The hand to hand skills are not examples. They're degrees.

As long as we agree that they're not definitions then I don't see much point in arguing further semantics.

In any case, the hand to hand combat skills are the basis for hand to hand and modern combat in the context of the game. This is odd, sure, but it's the game. Modern combat is just a set of rules bolted on to the original hand to hand rules. If modern combat was a thing a part, a character's hand to hand combat training would have no bearing on it.

None of this changes anything that I said.

Edit:
(Oh, and I did edit my previous post to address Horror Factor, in case you missed that)

Hand to hand: basic is the definition. It is elementary. There are varying degrees of skill after that.

I'm fine with nothing I say changing anything you say. It just means you're talking about House Rules.

[Shark_Force]

Hand to hand: basic is the definition. It is elementary. There are varying degrees of skill after that.

I'm fine with nothing I say changing anything you say. It just means you're talking about House Rules.

it really isn't a definition. it's stating that hand to hand basic is a kind of combat training. it's written the same way you might write, for example, "a house is a building". is "a house" the definition of "a building"? i would hope you're not convinced that it is, but at this point i'm starting to have doubts.

hand to hand is an elementary form of combat. counting is an elementary form of math. if someone is looking for a mathematician, do you suppose they're going to be happy with a 5 year old child? because i, for one, suspect they're going to be looking for someone who *at least* has taken university level math, and more probably someone who has graduated with a degree in math of some kind.

[Natasha]

Hand to hand: basic is the definition. It is elementary. There are varying degrees of skill after that.

I'm fine with nothing I say changing anything you say. It just means you're talking about House Rules.

it really isn't a definition. it's stating that hand to hand basic is a kind of combat training. it's written the same way you might write, for example, "a house is a building". is "a house" the definition of "a building"? i would hope you're not convinced that it is, but at this point i'm starting to have doubts.

hand to hand is an elementary form of combat. counting is an elementary form of math. if someone is looking for a mathematician, do you suppose they're going to be happy with a 5 year old child? because i, for one, suspect they're going to be looking for someone who *at least* has taken university level math, and more probably someone who has graduated with a degree in math of some kind.

It's not written that way. It's written that hth: basic is an elementary form. So you would have to say "a house is an elementary form of a building".

After O.O.C. Skills and before O.C.C. Related Skills are selected: how many times can a LLW shoot a gun? How many times can a CS Grunt? If the LLW is not combat trained, then neither is the grunt.

Anything else is just House Ruling.

It is not a House Rule to apply Horror Factor to any situation or environment the Game Master determines appropriate. It's following the rule exactly as written in the rule book.

EDIT: About mathematicians. So they might be looking for an "expert"?

[Shark_Force]

Hand to hand: basic is the definition. It is elementary. There are varying degrees of skill after that.

I'm fine with nothing I say changing anything you say. It just means you're talking about House Rules.

it really isn't a definition. it's stating that hand to hand basic is a kind of combat training. it's written the same way you might write, for example, "a house is a building". is "a house" the definition of "a building"? i would hope you're not convinced that it is, but at this point i'm starting to have doubts.

hand to hand is an elementary form of combat. counting is an elementary form of math. if someone is looking for a mathematician, do you suppose they're going to be happy with a 5 year old child? because i, for one, suspect they're going to be looking for someone who *at least* has taken university level math, and more probably someone who has graduated with a degree in math of some kind.

It's not written that way. It's written that hth: basic is an elementary form. So you would have to say "a house is an elementary form of a building".

After O.O.C. Skills and before O.C.C. Related Skills are selected: how many times can a LLW shoot a gun? How many times can a CS Grunt? If the LLW is not combat trained, then neither is the grunt.

Anything else is just House Ruling.

It is not a House Rule to apply Horror Factor to any situation or environment the Game Master determines appropriate. It's following the rule exactly as written in the rule book.

EDIT: About mathematicians. So they might be looking for an "expert"?

you can put in an adjective if you want. "a hut is a small kind of building" doesn't mean a hut is the definition of a building.

and here, for example, we have you inventing your own definition that isn't even *vaguely* backed by the rules in any way, and insisting that any other way of ruling is a house rule. nowhere is "combat training" defined by the number of melee actions you get. a level 1 character with hand to hand assassin has only 3 attacks. do we need to conclude that they're never combat trained because they don't have as many attacks as someone with hand to hand basic? a d-bee could have several extra attacks per round because they have extra arms. does that mean every single member of that species is combat trained, even ones that have no hand to hand combat skill at all? what about a high level character with no hand to hand skill (but 3 attacks per melee just from no hand to hand) and a bonus attack per melee from somewhere (for the sake of argument, they're a slave 'borg with a bionic modification that gives an extra attack per round). does that extra attack suddenly grant them combat training too?

you can't even stick to the definition you're insisting is how you determine combat training (presence or absence of a hand to hand combat skill). and you're still trying to pretend like context is utterly meaningless. if someone posts a job on a job search website looking for a mathematician, do you really think they would need to specify "we need you to be able to do more math than just counting"? if a high school dropout applies and doesn't get hired, do you think there's a court in the entire country that would uphold a charge of discrimination against the potential employer for not hiring that individual?

[Killer Cyborg]

I'm fine with nothing I say changing anything you say. It just means you're talking about House Rules.

Unless there are official rules somewhere for what level of volume mages speak at under various circumstances, then it's all house rules.

[Killer Cyborg]

Hand to hand: basic is the definition. It is elementary. There are varying degrees of skill after that.

I'm fine with nothing I say changing anything you say. It just means you're talking about House Rules.

it really isn't a definition. it's stating that hand to hand basic is a kind of combat training. it's written the same way you might write, for example, "a house is a building". is "a house" the definition of "a building"? i would hope you're not convinced that it is, but at this point i'm starting to have doubts.

hand to hand is an elementary form of combat. counting is an elementary form of math. if someone is looking for a mathematician, do you suppose they're going to be happy with a 5 year old child? because i, for one, suspect they're going to be looking for someone who *at least* has taken university level math, and more probably someone who has graduated with a degree in math of some kind.

It's not written that way. It's written that hth: basic is an elementary form. So you would have to say "a house is an elementary form of a building".

"Hand to Hand Basic" is not a statement expressing the essential nature of "combat training."
Repeating the claim that it IS does not change the facts.

It also still ends up with a situation where a person who has combat training with rifles, but who does not have combat training with hand to hand combat, is "not combat trained."
Which might make sense to you, but probably not to anybody else.

It is not a House Rule to apply Horror Factor to any situation or environment the Game Master determines appropriate. It's following the rule exactly as written in the rule book.

GMs can apply HF to what they please according to the rules.
But I don't know of any rules that allow GMs to change the result of a failed roll.