Our Fencing Cyberknight!

[Vrykolas2k]

Pfft. I disagree but, I guess conversion rules and all.
Every game I have ever seen snps+psi sword tge damage adds.
But hey me and only every person I ever gamed with agrees.
Reasoning. Psi swords are an indestructible physical manifestion. Swing that puppy dumb friggin hard (supernatural strength) its gonna hit harder.

#StopNerfinYo

Supernatural Strength doesn't even stack with a purely physical weapon like a Vibro-Blade.

It does according to the older rules, which is what I use.

[say652]

Uh, Say. I think a cosmo knight could take one of those hundred handed guys. Range is a problem, and the speed they can fly at would make them almost impossible to hit if they ever got into range.

Though in melee...yeah. But you'd have to be dumber than a sack of hammers to do that.

If PowerSurge wouldnt do it, its not recommended. Lol.

Cosmo knight bahu. A hundred hand would feed him and love him and call him george. Intergalactic boyscouts are NOT as end all be all as everyone thinks.

[Alrik Vas]

You're right, they aren't, but it was the first and obvious answer.

Maybe I'll have Alrik take on a hundred handed and see how long he lasts...

[say652]

Its the throwing ability. And common sense about how big the objects are. A chunk of sdc earth that inflicts 5D6×10md imo is about 60 feet. Thays area effect in my game.

How are you dodge the state of Rhode island? ?

Sure you could wittle them down and **** em off. Eventually they do get into melee. Always. Since palladium took the original three and made them a race, its not gonna be one on one, they are favored by Zues. Talk all the crap you wish a greater Deity could just Time space teleport you to idk, the planet Mercury. Then have is older brother Hades claim your soul for eternal torture.

Some things you just don't mess with.

[Alrik Vas]

Bah, I'm talking hypothetically. Range for a thrown object vs range of a boom gun,ATL or use of booby traps. Its an interesting challenge. Also, no way they close to melee of you fly. They aren't very smart.

That being said, I once beat a servant of Ahriman. When I took him down he dimensionally teleported me into his master's realm. Took me a year to get out of there.

[say652]

I did a PowerSurge vs Apollo battle, just to see.........I don't wanna talk about it. I did keep it one on one though no meathead beatdown.

I also use evil norse giants as menaces alot, one of the coolest random charts in palladium for racial abilities.

I prefer my creations over book stuff 90% of the time, random charts give me that ability to tweak the beasties to whatever I choose.

Wait until I start throwing in Phaseworld created alien races.......

[Shark_Force]

Its the throwing ability. And common sense about how big the objects are. A chunk of sdc earth that inflicts 5D6×10md imo is about 60 feet. Thays area effect in my game.

How are you dodge the state of Rhode island? ?

cosmo-knights are fast. really really really fast. in atmosphere, their speed is measured in multiples of the speed of sound.

how do you dodge a 60 foot chunk of earth? same way you dodge anything else. by moving out of the way faster than it moves into the way. and cosmo-knights are quite good at moving fast.

(also, *if* we were able to use the super telekinesis power as a guideline, at 100 lbs per 1d6 MD it's not nearly that big. for a mere 5,000 lbs of earth, you're probably not even looking at anything bigger than a four-door sedan).

[say652]

A dodge is a dodge is a dodge.

HHand to hand plus physical prowess plus occ or racial bonuses.

Yes a Cosmoknight is powerful, and a neo human and a mutant dropped one in under a minute, woulda been quicker but our power armor pilot was at the tech show going on across town.

But the mach 95 sonic ram!! Read the power sonic flight, you take damage tooo. But my 80D6×10 cosmic blast. Buha. Lots of things have resistance to energy. I have supernatural strength, very nice. A cosmo knight is prolly stronger than PowerSurge, deals more damage, I'd still whip that boyscout butt six ways to sunday. And a hundred hand. Really?? Reeeeaaaaalllyyy........

[Shark_Force]

not saying cosmo-knights are unbeatable. i am saying that i think a competent one could take down a hundred-handed far more easily than you seem to think.

they don't have the tools to defeat everything, but this particular challenge? not that hard.

[dreicunan]

What CB1 Revised says about converting HU2 powers has no bearing at all here.

Actually it does: it serves as an example that "damage" is not MEGA unless explicitly made mega.

No, it serves as an example that "damage" from HU2 powers mentioned in CB1 Revised is not made MEGA unless explicitly made mega. If you can find a rule that says "in the Paladium Megaverse, damage from skills only means MD when it explicitly states that it is MD" then you'd have support for your position.

If one is going to use something from another game as guidance, it would be the fact that splicers does clearly state that the skill works for either.

Except that Splicers came out before RUE and Robotech, both of which did not say that. Splicers was also done by a third party while RUE/Robotech were done by Kevin.

Kevin signs off on everything that Palladium publishes. If Kevin had wanted to make it clear that the damage were SDC only, he could have done so. He did not.

[say652]

Powers unlimited immortals are a type of megahero.
Mega heroes are supernatural in nature, so in a magic infused world mega heroes in fact deal md.
Added bonus their attacks are considered magical in nature. So things like catyr and other magic resistant creatures can only be hurt by punches/kicks.

PowerSurge blasts a Hawkra with lightning dealing....Zero damage.

PowerSurge blasts a cosmoknight
....deals full damage.

Neat when you think about it. Atlantis is full of beasties that are immune to magic.

[eliakon]

Powers unlimited immortals are a type of megahero.
Mega heroes are supernatural in nature, so in a magic infused world mega heroes in fact deal md.
Added bonus their attacks are considered magical in nature. So things like catyr and other magic resistant creatures can only be hurt by punches/kicks.

PowerSurge blasts a Hawkra with lightning dealing....Zero damage.

PowerSurge blasts a cosmoknight
....deals full damage.

Neat when you think about it. Atlantis is full of beasties that are immune to magic.

Actually no. Just because your supernatural does not inherently mean that all your attacks are now magic.
Supernatural =/= magic
So your lightning attack would could be 'supernatural' (or it could not be...depends) but its not magic. There is a subtle difference in the game, but a very important one.

[say652]

So I can bugzap vamps n werewolves but not cosmoknights.Darn.
I still got kinetic shockwaves for full damage.
Back up for my Back up for my Back up for my Back up just in case.

Memnock brought up a valid point, while able to travel and survive in space PowerSurge doesn't have zero g combat. Gonna have a Cosmoknight take him up and teach him a lil humility now. Lol

[Tor]

Considering they start at 20k MDC and can be as high as 120K MDC they're pretty darn close to invincible (no wonder Zeus used them when he went conquering to become the top god and overthrow his predecessors).

Considering they don't appear to wear armor, MDC is kinda irrelevant if souldrinkers ever come into play, in which case save vs magic is more important.

Regeneration rate is also more critical than total MDC in extended battle, I find.

Also I'm not sure how blood loss rules work in relation to regen. Send a thousand goblins wielding vibro knives at these things who manage to get a shot in before getting stepped on and they'd be losing 1000 MDC per minute after right? If blood loss rate ever exceeds your MDC regen then you can't really out-regen it.

[say652]

Cause goblins are reknown for bravery. Lol

[eliakon]

So shoot it from a distance, preferably from cover. Or drop bombs on it from a high altitude bomber wing, or.....there are lots of ways to deal with things. Lots of MDC and brute strength are impressive, but do not make something 'unkillable'. It might make it harder for say a player to fight...but it wont let you take on large numbers of enemies, especially ones that use tactics, and have access to either high technology, magic, or the like.

[say652]

Cause your players use five or ten characters at a time???

No one player one character. A player character team vs a single hundred hand is minced meat.


But 50,000 troops blah blah blah blah.

By this logic me and two glitterboy battalions could beat a splugorth. Lmfao

[flatline]

Cause your players use five or ten characters at a time???

No one player one character. A player character team vs a single hundred hand is minced meat.


But 50,000 troops blah blah blah blah.

By this logic me and two glitterboy battalions could beat a splugorth. Lmfao

Any character that can maintain distance and do damage faster than the regeneration will eventually win.

--flatline

[say652]

I say thee nay.

[Tor]

ridiculous to suggest that one PB product is more canon than another just because a different author was involved.

Misrepresenting my argument: I'm saying the 2 works that contradict Splicers came later (more recent canon) and were primarily written by the head of the company, not merely approved by him.

Kevin's approved stuff before but it doesn't have the same impact as him writing it.

If we take the Rifter ("PE in hours") to Book of Magic ("PE in minutes") change in PPE storage as an indication, that's an indication that Kev sometimes reviews things and approves them while overlooking minor criteria. Someone adding some kinda "fencing adds MD" rule is on a similar level.

i think a competent one could take down a hundred-handed far more easily than you seem to think.

A big difficulty may be a moral one... the only way I can think to neutralize them long-term is to kill them (since they regenerate limbs) yet with their child-like minds and low IQ, it might be morally necessary to try and talk them down or negotiate with their commander (Zeus or Hades).

If you can find a rule that says "in the Paladium Megaverse, damage from skills only means MD when it explicitly states that it is MD" then you'd have support for your position.

I can't find you a statement saying "damage from weapons is only magical damage if the book explicitly states the weapon is magical" but I'm sure you understand the reality of this.

Mega is a modifier, a multiplier, of standard damage, always has been.

RMBp11 "most conventional weapons do absolutely no damage to a mega-damage structure, even when combined for a total of 100 or more"

100 or more what? Damage! Damage does not harm mega-damage unless it totals 100 or more, most often in a single attack, so how could a 'damage' bonus be mega-damage? Mega-damage bonuses are mega-damage bonuses.

While it's true Rifts does frequently use phrases like 'SDC damage' or 'SDC points of damage', that's just to hammer the point home, not some kind of advocation of 'damage is ambiguous'.

People with the affective disorder 'outraged by violence' get a "damage" bonus. If I stab a car tire with a vibro-knife inflicting 1d6 MD and someone with this insanity gets mad and takes my vibro-blade, do you think he's going to do 3-9 points with it? Same query for people who are mean/hostile/strong when drunk. a 10% chance of tripling the minimum damage of a vibro-knife is pretty decent, almost makes booze a tactical necessity for vibro-knife fighting.

Do you think someone with 4th level hand to hand assassin does 5-10 points of MD with a vibro-knife?

Kevin signs off on everything that Palladium publishes. If Kevin had wanted to make it clear that the damage were SDC only, he could have done so. He did not.

Kevin reprints a lot of material between Palladium's products, fencing is one of those things. He doesn't always update the material to specify 'SDC' or 'MDC'. We know full well that 'damage' is used in SDC settings though. Standard format in MDC settings is to specify MD if it's MD.

Palladium has printed things that do SDC sometimes and MDC other times conditionally, and those thing specifically say that, this is not one of those situations.

So I can bugzap vamps n werewolves but not cosmoknights.Darn.

Just to catch me up to speed, where is this bit about Energy Expulsion: Electricity (which I assume you meant by lightning, unless you mean something like from CEF Air) being able to bypass vamp/were immunity when wielded by a mega-hero?

Cause goblins are reknown for bravery. Lol

In the future when I assume goblin, please assume I am just talking about their body and not that I'm allowing them to retain control of their free will. I should probably say 'skeleton' in the future to avoid this.

Cause your players use five or ten characters at a time???

No one player one character. A player character team vs a single hundred hand is minced meat.

But 50,000 troops blah blah blah blah.

By this logic me and two glitterboy battalions could beat a splugorth. Lmfao

Think deeply about just how many Golems an Amaki High Lord Magus can make.

Any character that can maintain distance and do damage faster than the regeneration will eventually win.

There is also the issue of breaks for sleep. Or that eventually a hundred handed might get mad and pound the earth so hard it shoots up dust making it hard to aim at him.

[dreicunan]

@Tor: RUE p. 288: "Mega-damage is the amount of damage inflicted by a weapon...."

So, either MD = SDC or the word "damage" doesn't always mean sdc in Palladium. Which is it?

[Tor]

Now am curious what happens after the trail-off.

MD is a form of damage, just like magical damage or fire damage is. But it's a modifier.

Palladium has always had a basic "damage" concept, something readily apparent in SDC settings. Mega-Damage is an added feature.

[say652]

Two realms mdc and sdc.
Sdc realms dont support md.
Mdc realms most psionic, magic, super power damage is converted to sdc.

[dreicunan]

Now am curious what happens after the trail-off.

MD is a form of damage, just like magical damage or fire damage is. But it's a modifier.

Palladium has always had a basic "damage" concept, something readily apparent in SDC settings. Mega-Damage is an added feature.

This entire conversation is starting to remind me of how badly the palladium system needs to be spruced up. We really shouldn't need to be debating this. Reminds me of the same issuses coming up with weapons and what kind of WP applies (if I have WP axe and WP Battle Axe, do I get to add both when I use a battle axe? Does WP axe NOT cover the use of a battle axe?).

I know that none of us really NEED that to play the game, we all can make rulings to cover it, but with most other games the majority of house rules are "here's how we role characters" or "I decided to add a fate point mechanic," not "here's the 5 page pdf that covers how we interpret various gray areas."

Inidentally Tor, anyone I've ever played with has always added damage bonuses from hand-to-hand skills to MD melee damage, because it's from a skill, there is nothing that says that it shouldn't be added of which we were aware, and it made sense that superior skill would allow one to inflict superior damage. Same thing with WP bonuses to melee damage.

[Giant2005]

This entire conversation is starting to remind me of how badly the palladium system needs to be spruced up. We really shouldn't need to be debating this.

It isn't Palladium's fault and it doesn't need debated.
Palladium already closed this issue when the clarified within Splicers that the damage does apply to M.D. attacks.
The "debate" only continues through a combination of boredom and a personality quirk that compels one to always seek the contrary path whether there is ground to stand on or not.

[Killer Cyborg]

Palladium already closed this issue when the clarified within Splicers that the damage does apply to M.D. attacks.

Yup.
For that matter, they already granted MD damage bonuses for riding horseback when you're jousting with a MD weapon.
I don't like the idea, but it's not like adding a damage bonus to MD fencing would be out of line with that kind of rule.

[Alrik Vas]

Giant, KC, I could hug you guys. Or at least buy you a beer.

[grandmaster z0b]

Fencing weapons.
Rapier, saber, epee, main guache, buckler.
Expanding this fleet footed deceptive style to include longswords, katana, claymores, or other non fencing weapons is laughable.
So you fence with a battle axe?? Really.

Fencing should only apply to fencing weapons.

I think you're talking about the modern sport of fencing. The word can be used to describe any sword style, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_school_of_fencing. I agree that generally when people say "fencing" they are referring to the sport.

Clearly the skill is written as both the martial art of fighting with swords as well as the olympic sport.

Also can I say that any practitioner of Historical European Martial Arts will tell you that whilst there clearly is a different style when fighting with a rapier and fighting with a longsword, you can be just as "fleet footed" and "deceptive" with a longsword. The main difference is that rapier is completely about thrusting and longsword has both thrusting and cutting attacks.

Personally I GM that you do get a +1d6 with fencing but only against certain enemies, not inanimate objects or giant mechs etc. Sort of like precision damage.

[Tor]

there are many instances in older books where skills added to MD

Which ones other than Splicers did this? In those cases, was it explicit about it?

if I have WP axe and WP Battle Axe, do I get to add both when I use a battle axe? Does WP axe NOT cover the use of a battle axe?

N&SS has a similar WP small sword WP large sword compared to other systems' WP sword. Not to mention Tridents having their own WP, being forked, being spear, or being polearm. Best stacker evar.

I know that none of us really NEED that to play the game, we all can make rulings to cover it, but with most other games the majority of house rules are "here's how we role characters" or "I decided to add a fate point mechanic," not "here's the 5 page pdf that covers how we interpret various gray areas."

anyone I've ever played with has always added damage bonuses from hand-to-hand skills to MD melee damage, because it's from a skill, there is nothing that says that it shouldn't be added of which we were aware, and it made sense that superior skill would allow one to inflict superior damage. Same thing with WP bonuses to melee damage.

The issue at hand is not whether or not damage bonuses get added to MD attacks, it's whether or not those damage bonuses get multiplied into MD bonuses for unexplained reasons.

I have nothing against a vibro-saber doing 2d4 MD + 1d6 SDC.

Damage bonuses normally don't come into play when added to MD attacks unless they help you total +100 in which case you get an extra point of MD.

There are odd cases where they would matter though. Like if you are facing non-MDC opponents (like vampires) or if you had the ability to convert attacks into MD attacks (Apoks/Inquisitors).

If I were battling a vampire with a magical wooden sword that did 1d6 MD and I had fencing, I would inflict 2d6 HP to the vampire, but I would not inflict 2d6 MD to a gargoyle.

Palladium already closed this issue when the clarified within Splicers that the damage does apply to M.D. attacks.

Wrong, since those statements were absent from subsequent MDC setting books' fencing skills (RUE and Robotech Shadow Chronicles) this can be interpreted as a freelancer mistake or a dimension-specific skill.

The "debate" only continues through a combination of boredom and a personality quirk that compels one to always seek the contrary path whether there is ground to stand on or not.

Please cease engaging in personal attacks. I could easily say the same of you. It is pointless to engage in speculation, yours rests upon your assumption that you are right.

they already granted MD damage bonuses for riding horseback when you're jousting with a MD weapon. I don't like the idea, but it's not like adding a damage bonus to MD fencing would be out of line with that kind of rule.

Adding PS bonuses wouldn't be out of line either, yet we don't.

I believe something has to explicitly be MD to be MD. Not sure where this whole 'damage means MD unless otherwise indicated"' -ish perspective is coming from.

[dreicunan]

@Tor: I am equally mystified by your position that the word "damage" always means sdc unless explicitly made MD. If that were the case, then it makes no sense for there to be so many instances in which they make explicit that something does sdc damage. Also, I should have been more clear: everyone with whom I have ever played has interpreted hand-to-hand damage bonuses to apply as appropriate, so someone wielding an MD weapon or who inflicts MD with unarmed attacks add the bonus damage as MD. So if I have +2 to damage from a hand-to-hand skill, and I inflict 1d6 MD with a punch, then I inflict 1d6+2 MD. We do the same with WPs.

[Giant2005]

The "debate" only continues through a combination of boredom and a personality quirk that compels one to always seek the contrary path whether there is ground to stand on or not.

Please cease engaging in personal attacks. I could easily say the same of you. It is pointless to engage in speculation, yours rests upon your assumption that you are right.

Firstly, I don't have to assume I am right because the book declares me right.
Secondly, that wasn't a personal attack. Whether you perceive it as an attack or not is up to you but under no circumstances could it be considered "personal" considering there was no mention of any one person.
Thirdly, if you do find that "personal attack" targeted at you, then maybe you should consider evaluating why you took a generic statement so personally. More-so when you consider that an hour after posting that response, you admitted to intentionally devolving threads into pointless nonsense because you think it makes you "elite". Mentioning a trait that someone proudly boasts as their own can't be considered an "attack".

[Tor]

It takes 100 damage to reduce 1 MDC, the Rifts main book made that clear, as I pointed out. The meaning of 'damage' is well established.

The additional notation of 'SDC' can be viewed as being present to provide redundancy or visual contrast.

Sometimes the contrast/redundancy addition isn't always added, which normally occurs with copy/paste jobs of text from previous SDC publications.

The lack of adding that doesn't suddenly endow new properties to those things.

Your interpretation is flawed from the very outset of Rifts, you need only see RMBp235's "Finger Gun" black market specialty weapon for an ideal example.

We're told that the small calibur .22 bullet (the default ammo for the gun) does "2d6 damage" that explosive shells do "6d6 SDC damage" and that mega-damage shelsl do 1d4 MD.

"damage" is the short-form of "SDC damage" in the same way that "MD" is the short-form of mega-damage (plus additional cuteness like "MD damage" which I recall seeing on occasion).

No book has ever used "SD" in the same fashion refer to "structural damage" for example, because by default, all "damage" IS 'structural damage'.

To clarify this argument: we are not disagreeing on whether or not to add bonuses. We both agree that damage bonuses get added. Our disagreement is on whether 'damage' becomes 'mega-damage' when lacking explicit statements to that nature.

If "damage" can become "mega-damage" then by this logic, buying explosive shells for the finger-gun would not make sense because rather than doing triple the normal damage of a gun, they would only do 1/300th of it.

the book declares me right.

I don't recall the book mentioning you by name, so I think you mean that you believe the book supports your argument better than mine. I believe the same thing, neither of our believes justifies speculation about personality quirks, that is ad hominem.

under no circumstances could it be considered "personal" considering there was no mention of any one person.

Personal attacks do not by necessity have to be directed at a single particular individual, looking at it broadly it can refer to any form of criticism of persons rather than attacking talking points. "Personal" has a 'pertaining to humans' broader meaning aside from individual-based inferences.

if you do find that "personal attack" targeted at you, maybe you should consider evaluating why you took a generic statement so personally.

Trust in one's sense of others' meaning and a sense of those involved in a discussion.

an hour after posting that response, you admitted to intentionally devolving threads into pointless nonsense because you think it makes you "elite"

I don't remember this, please PM or reply with a link to post in question. I would like to evaluate the accuracy of your paraphrasing.

[dreicunan]

Your interpretation is flawed from the very outset of Rifts, you need only see RMBp235's "Finger Gun" black market specialty weapon for an ideal example.

We're told that the small calibur .22 bullet (the default ammo for the gun) does "2d6 damage" that explosive shells do "6d6 SDC damage" and that mega-damage shelsl do 1d4 MD.

"damage" is the short-form of "SDC damage" in the same way that "MD" is the short-form of mega-damage (plus additional cuteness like "MD damage" which I recall seeing on occasion).

No book has ever used "SD" in the same fashion refer to "structural damage" for example, because by default, all "damage" IS 'structural damage'.

To clarify this argument: we are not disagreeing on whether or not to add bonuses. We both agree that damage bonuses get added. Our disagreement is on whether 'damage' becomes 'mega-damage' when lacking explicit statements to that nature.

If "damage" can become "mega-damage" then by this logic, buying explosive shells for the finger-gun would not make sense because rather than doing triple the normal damage of a gun, they would only do 1/300th of it.

Okay, so if "damage" is always the short form of "sdc damage," then mega-damage can't critical: RMB page 36: "Critical strikes do double damage." And again on page 41: "Critical strikes do double damage." If damage always equals "sdc damage," then MD attacks would, by rule, become SDC attacks on a critical hit. Now, you will naturally point to page 44 where the combat sample shows that critical hits do indeed double mega-damage as the enforcer takes 60 MD, at which point I will note that clearly the word damage does not always mean "sdc damage," and thus my interpretation has not been flawed since the very outset of Rifts.

[Tor]

Mega-damage is still a form of damage, just like magical damage is. Any statement pertaining to damage applies to damage variants, such as mega-damage, magical damage, fire damage, etc.

The argument is not that mega-damage is not damage, but that "damage" on its own (without modifiers) means basic (SDC) damage.

[Vrykolas2k]

Fencing weapons.
Rapier, saber, epee, main guache, buckler.
Expanding this fleet footed deceptive style to include longswords, katana, claymores, or other non fencing weapons is laughable.
So you fence with a battle axe?? Really.

Fencing should only apply to fencing weapons.

I think you're talking about the modern sport of fencing. The word can be used to describe any sword style, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_school_of_fencing. I agree that generally when people say "fencing" they are referring to the sport.

Clearly the skill is written as both the martial art of fighting with swords as well as the olympic sport.

Also can I say that any practitioner of Historical European Martial Arts will tell you that whilst there clearly is a different style when fighting with a rapier and fighting with a longsword, you can be just as "fleet footed" and "deceptive" with a longsword. The main difference is that rapier is completely about thrusting and longsword has both thrusting and cutting attacks.

Personally I GM that you do get a +1d6 with fencing but only against certain enemies, not inanimate objects or giant mechs etc. Sort of like precision damage.

Actually, the rapier style of sword-fighting also has cutting attacks.

[rat_bastard]

Fencing weapons.
Rapier, saber, epee, main guache, buckler.
Expanding this fleet footed deceptive style to include longswords, katana, claymores, or other non fencing weapons is laughable.
So you fence with a battle axe?? Really.

Fencing should only apply to fencing weapons.

I think you're talking about the modern sport of fencing. The word can be used to describe any sword style, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_school_of_fencing. I agree that generally when people say "fencing" they are referring to the sport.

Clearly the skill is written as both the martial art of fighting with swords as well as the olympic sport.

Also can I say that any practitioner of Historical European Martial Arts will tell you that whilst there clearly is a different style when fighting with a rapier and fighting with a longsword, you can be just as "fleet footed" and "deceptive" with a longsword. The main difference is that rapier is completely about thrusting and longsword has both thrusting and cutting attacks.

Personally I GM that you do get a +1d6 with fencing but only against certain enemies, not inanimate objects or giant mechs etc. Sort of like precision damage.

Actually, the rapier style of sword-fighting also has cutting attacks.

Fencing. This is the formal art of fighting with a sword and dagger.
This includes not only Olympic style fencing with a foil, epee or saber,
but also Kendo (the use of a samurai katana) and other blades. Swordsmanship
is practiced in many places and is also all the rage, especially
among the nobility, for its flashy looks and for the amount of blood it
can spill.

It applies to all sword styles.

[dreicunan]

Mega-damage is still a form of damage, just like magical damage is. Any statement pertaining to damage applies to damage variants, such as mega-damage, magical damage, fire damage, etc.

The argument is not that mega-damage is not damage, but that "damage" on its own (without modifiers) means basic (SDC) damage.

Those two statements can't be true. If damage always means SDC damage when it is used without a modifier, then it always means SDC damage when it is used without a modifier. That would prevent the term "damage," without modifiers, being used to refer to all forms of damage, since its use without modifiers would mean that it only means SDC damage. That clearly is not the case.

However, the first statement would clearly indicate that the fencing skill, which includes a statement about damage, applies to damage variants, such as mega-damage.

[Tor]

When you mean this is clearly not the case, what do you mean? 'Damage' without modifiers defaulting to mean standard (HP/SDC) damage does not prevent 'damage' discussions from applying to discussions of all damage.

In every instance where 'damage' could mean 'mega-damage' this is generally explicitly spelled out for us, such as in the Bio-Wizardry section of Atlantis (where it tells us the implants are MDC and inflict MD if the creature is MDC).

Barring such mentions, it's very clear that damage will default to mean standard HP/SDC levels. Explicit statements are needed to make 'damage' variable to mean MD.

You're misunderstanding what fencing does. It can certainly add damage to variant damage types, true, but it adds standard damage to them, the damage it adds is not amplified simply because the sword inflicts higher amounts of damage. 1d6 sdc is added to a sword whether it inflicts 1d8 damage or 1d6x10 damage, so why would it suddenly add more because it'd 2d4 MD? It'd be 2d4 MD + 1d6 dmg. Special-flower Splicers excepted, of course.

[dreicunan]

When you mean this is clearly not the case, what do you mean? 'Damage' without modifiers defaulting to mean standard (HP/SDC) damage does not prevent 'damage' discussions from applying to discussions of all damage.

In every instance where 'damage' could mean 'mega-damage' this is generally explicitly spelled out for us, such as in the Bio-Wizardry section of Atlantis (where it tells us the implants are MDC and inflict MD if the creature is MDC).

Barring such mentions, it's very clear that damage will default to mean standard HP/SDC levels. Explicit statements are needed to make 'damage' variable to mean MD.

You're misunderstanding what fencing does. It can certainly add damage to variant damage types, true, but it adds standard damage to them, the damage it adds is not amplified simply because the sword inflicts higher amounts of damage. 1d6 sdc is added to a sword whether it inflicts 1d8 damage or 1d6x10 damage, so why would it suddenly add more because it'd 2d4 MD? It'd be 2d4 MD + 1d6 dmg. Special-flower Splicers excepted, of course.

Words have meanings. If the word "damage" on its own without modifiers always means SDC damage, then it clearly cannot also refer to MD. As I previously demonstrated, the word "damage"on its own without modifiers was used in the RMB to include MD. That example means that "damage" on its own without modifiers clearly does not automatically mean sdc damage.

[Killer Cyborg]

Splicers states that the bonus damage can be mega-damage.

Any further argument beyond that point rests on an assumption that Palladium actively intended Fencing to have a MD bonus in Splicers, but NOT in Rifts.
And how likely is that, really?

Spoiler:

Not Bloody.

[Killer Cyborg]

they already granted MD damage bonuses for riding horseback when you're jousting with a MD weapon. I don't like the idea, but it's not like adding a damage bonus to MD fencing would be out of line with that kind of rule.

Adding PS bonuses wouldn't be out of line either, yet we don't.

Except that we are specifically told that PS damage bonuses are SDC bonuses only, so we know that is not correct.

I believe something has to explicitly be MD to be MD.

Your belief is incorrect.

Not sure where this whole 'damage means MD unless otherwise indicated"' -ish perspective is coming from.

Me either. I've never heard of that one.
Splicers explicitly states that the Fencing damage is MD with MD weapons.
Therefore, the Fencing damage is MD.
Period.
End of story.

But even without Splicers in the mix, the Horsemanship General skill states:
Charge attack (running horse) with a pole-arm or spear: +1d6 damage
If "damage" always meant "SDC damage," then this passage would mean "+1d6 SDC damage."
But we know that's not the case, because the passage elaborates:
(SDC or MD depending on whether the weapon does Mega-Damage or not).
So we know that in at least some cases, a bonus to "damage" can be a mega-damage bonus.

For that matter, RUE 344 describes a Critical Strike as:
A powerful, special or nerve-shattering strike that inflicts double the usual amount of damage.
Again, if "damage" always and only referred to SDC, then critical strikes would NOT be applicable to MD weapons.
Obviously, "damage" sometimes refers to MD attacks, even when it's not spelled out specifically and explicitly.

The Kick Boxing skill (RUE 317) lists a Roundhouse Kick as inflicting "3d6 damage."
Later there is a note that "damage" in that case (as with Horsemanship, and critical strikes, and other places) refers to SDC damage in the case of a character with SDC strength, and to Mega-Damage in the case of a character with supernatural PS.
They just say "damage," but that term is referring to SDC or MD, depending on the source of that damage.
Just like the +1d6 "damage" bonus from fencing refers to SDC damage in the case of SDC weapons, or to Mega-Damage in the case of MD weapons.
Just like the "double damage" aspect of a critical hit refers to "double SDC damage" in the case of SDC attacks, or to "Double Mega-Damage" in the case of MD attacks.

Then there's stuff like spells. Two examples (out of many) where the book uses the term "damage" to refer to MD or SDC, depending on the source of the damage, even though the book doesn't explicitly state that it applies to MD.
-Impervious To Fire (RUE 202):
Normal, magical and Mega-Damage fire do NO damage to the enchanted individual...
Again, they're using "damage" to describe either SDC or MD, depending on the source of the attack.
Because both SDC attacks and MD attacks are damage.
-Armor of Ithan (RUE 202) takes 1/2 "damage" from magic fire, lightning, and cold.
They don't specify that the 1/2 "damage" applies to MD attacks, but that lack of any specificity doesn't mean anything- it clearly does apply to MD attacks (as well as SDC), even though it doesn't specifically say so.

Then there's the combat "Roll With Impact" (RUE 346):
"If the defender is successful, then only half damage is taken from the attack."
Again, "damage" is used to refer to either SDC or MD, depending on the source of damage.

Again, and again, and again, the books use the term "damage" to refer to either/or/both SDC damage and Mega-Damage, depending on the source of the attack.
It is NOT logical to assume that in every case where MD is not explicitly specified as a possible kind of damage being referred to, that MD is excluded from the realm of possible damage types being discussed.
We know for a demonstrable fact that there are many instances where "damage" is used to refer to either SDC or MD, even though it's not explicitly stated.

[Alrik Vas]

Splicers states that the bonus damage can be mega-damage.

Any further argument beyond that point rests on an assumption that Palladium actively intended Fencing to have a MD bonus in Splicers, but NOT in Rifts.
And how likely is that, really?

Spoiler:

Not Bloody.

I fell over laughing. Thanks for that, KC.

[Tor]

Words have meanings. If the word "damage" on its own without modifiers always means SDC damage, then it clearly cannot also refer to MD.

That is false. If the word "cow" on its own usually is meant to indicate a lone cow, and not a cow being ridden by a goblin, saying "all the cows in this pasture are black" would still include a cow being goblin-ridden within the pasture.

As I previously demonstrated, the word "damage"on its own without modifiers was used in the RMB to include MD.

That's because MD is a form of damage, it is damage multiplied. Fire breath is "fire damage" for example, but it is still doubled on a critical because it is "damage". This would not mean that if I got a bonus to damage from my hand to hand skill that it would make the fire damage more effective though.

That example means that "damage" on its own without modifiers clearly does not automatically mean sdc damage.

Yes it does, Palladium has always presented it this way. Where "damage" is flexible and able to be translated into MD is explicitly stated in sections where that is applicable, like Bio-Wizardry or the Splicers dimension.

It was not done in Rifts and Robotech because Kevin clearly did not incorporate the change unique to the Splicers dimension.

Splicers states that the bonus damage can be mega-damage. Any further argument beyond that point rests on an assumption that Palladium actively intended Fencing to have a MD bonus in Splicers, but NOT in Rifts. And how likely is that, really?

Incredibly likely, since Palladium frequently incorporates different rules for different dimensions, like how skilled a mage is at stealing people's PPE, or whether Pyrokinesis and Telekinetic Acceleration Attack are physical or super psionic powers, or whether or not disarm bonuses apply when defending oneself, or whether or not dodge bonuses apply to autododges, or whether or not hand to hand bonuses apply to weapon attacks.

Splicers is the only case I know of, written by a non-authority in the company, which allows the SDC bonus to be applied as MD, and it is contradicted by 2 subsequent books written by the head honcho in two major franchises. The authority is clear. Considering what a big deal +1d6 MD is for mundane vibro-blade combat, this is something that the author would've pointed it out, had he the intention in mind.

Except that we are specifically told that PS damage bonuses are SDC bonuses only, so we know that is not correct.

That happened eventually, but was it like that in the beginning? Did RMB tell us not to add the PS damage bonus as MD to a dragon's claw swipe?

Palladium often adds clarifying data for people who don't understand basic concepts, like that that 'damage' does not become 'mega-damage' even if damage-modifying statements modify MD.

KC where is the earliest place you can find that Palladium clarified that the damage bonus from physical strength is not added as MD to MD attacks? Conversion Book 1 maybe? Do you think this means that prior to CB1 that damage bonus from PS became a MD bonus or something?

Where did RUE even include this disclaimer? Checking page 279 it isn't jumping out at me. Seems to be snuck into 284 when discussing attributes over 30. It's back-applicable but it's hardly an ideal place to set a precedent, people may not even read that if they have normal attributes.

Per 283's penalties, are we to think that people with low PS attributes do less damage with flaming swords and laser swords? After all, only guns do full damage. We may have been told that BONUSES to damage from PS don't count as MD when added to MD melee attacks, but were we told that about penalties?

Are we under the impression here that:
*1 in 10 alcoholics (the hostile/mean kind) can triple the damage output of a Wilk's Laser Wand at it's maximum setting?
*Someone with an Augmented PS of 24 (or Robot PS 16-20, per RUE285) can triple the damage of their power (normal if robot) punch by wearing a slap glove?
*we do not know if physical psionic powers like ectoplasm or telekinetic leap-kick (and telekinesis in RMB prior to RUE) inflict SDC or MDC points because they only say 'damage'
*we do not know if getting boiling water to the face (RUEp179) inflicts SDC or MDC points because it just says 'damage'
*We don't know whether Lifeblast (RUEp209) will slightly damage a mummy/zombie by inflicting SDC damage to them, or whether the vague "damage" might be mega-damage and vapourize them
*We do not know if anyone using Metamorphosis Animal (RUEp213) will inflict SDC or MDC points since it just says "damage"

You must believe all these absurd things if you interpret "damage" to not mean "sdc damage" by default. MD is a form of damage, MDC is a form of SDC, RMB told us it is a sort of super-SDC. Multipliers and dividers apply when 'damage' statements are made. But when we are told something is damage, when we are told to add or subtract damage, Palladium has clearly established that this is SDC unless otherwise indicated, that is what damage is.

The otherwise-indicated situations (Splicers, MD bonuses from horsemanship) are unique situations added later. They are not examples of rules, they are exceptional deviations from standard operations.

Rifts has been clear from the outset that 'damage' and 'mega-damage' are two different things. I already pointed this out, I'll do it again:

Rifts Main Book (1990)

p11right "most convention weapons do absolutely no damage to a mega-damage system, even when combined for a total of 100 ore more"

p35left- "a punch inflicts 1d4 damage" (so what, we're left in limbo to guess what it means? it's SDC)

p35right "Hit Points: This is the number of points of damage a character can take before dying." (oh cool, it doesn't say SDC damage, so this must mean that a human with 10 HP can survive 10 MD blasts)

p36left- "Structural Damage Capacity, which is the amount of damage an object can absorb before breaking." (it doesn't say "the amount of SDC damage an object can absorb", so I guess that means a chair with 30 SDC can survive 30 MD, right?)

It's very clear that without inheriting the "damage = SDC/HP unless otherwise indicated" concept from preceding games that all of these statements become irrational. RUE did not change the crux of any of these, it inherited them all, and all the problems that come with treating any non-prefixed 'damage' statement as ambiguous and unclear.

Rifts Ultimate Edition (2005)

p317left mentions that humans/mortals do SDC/HP with kickboxing and that supernatural PS does it as MD and robots do 1/2 ans MD.

p318right does not mention anything like this for wrestling moves: that means it's not applicable, and that doing MD from wrestling moves must come from another source (like from the damage table of a robot, or an indication of body blocks doing half of punch damage) because it is not a basic rule

p326 is stupid and has statements that spit in the face of Rifts so far (fueling the idea of RUE as a unique dimensional setting untied to preceding books) which has had MDC weapons inflicting SDC. It also ignores that the damage of MDC weapons as MD frequently differs from simply converting the normal damage to MD. It even contradicts RUE itself when we look at the damage of vibro-blades.

p341left clearly shows that 'damage bonuses' all lump together as a single kind of thing. It also uses odd phrasing like "damage bonuses from A and B and Boxing. Boxing doesn't add a damage bonus though, it could only do so by its PS bonus. Clear support that damage bonuses default to SDC damage without explicit statements making them into MDC.

On the bottom of this left column we are told "a normal human punch inflicts 1d4 damage, a normal kick 1d8". Not "SDC damage" just "damage". They're the same thing. Palladium authors just sometimes tack on SDC as a reminder (not a necessary clarifier) and other times they don't. I would dispute that 'normal kick 1d8' thing though, pretty sure kicks default to 1d6 and you need better dechniques to whip out the d8... might be thinking in N&SS terms though. RUE lifts karate kick as 2d6 so it sounds like kicks were boosted in RUE a bit, nice.

Acknowledging that Palladium consistently means SDC damage when saying 'damage' does not mean the 'damage' multipliers and stuff are inapplicable to MD, just that 'damage' amounts do not indicate MD amounts unless explicitly indicated. This has always been the case.

RUE did not change what "damage" meant, it just added further clarification, which appears to have a reverse effect by confusing people into thinking there is actually a NEED for clarification for the basic rules of Palladium to apply in MDC-capable settings. There is not such a requirement in the rules, the authors just perceived a need for clarification to the players. They just went about fixing it in a way that caused some confusion. People caught so caught up in statements like "SDC damage" that they thought it was necessary to say SDC for it to be SDC, it still isn't, RUE still has "damage" statements inherited for basic things like a punch or a kick which we know are SDC unless otherwise indicated. Damage does not exist in limbo if it is not clarified. Limbo, a lack of adjective, means SDC damage.

Splicers explicitly states that the Fencing damage is MD with MD weapons. Therefore, the Fencing damage is MD. Period. End of story.

In the Splicers dimension, yes. Skills often have different percentiles or different bonuses in different settings. A difference in one does not create a difference in others.

But even without Splicers in the mix, the Horsemanship General skill states:
Charge attack (running horse) with a pole-arm or spear: +1d6 damage
If "damage" always meant "SDC damage," then this passage would mean "+1d6 SDC damage."
But we know that's not the case, because the passage elaborates:
(SDC or MD depending on whether the weapon does Mega-Damage or not).
So we know that in at least some cases, a bonus to "damage" can be a mega-damage bonus.

It applies when explicitly stated as doing so. Like it does in Splicers and like it does in SOME versions of horsemanship. When a disclaimer like the one in parenthesis next to horsemanship on page 311 is absent, the damage bonus is not MD.

The PS damage bonus is an example of how damage defaults to SDC damage. It is not an exception where damage uniquely is only SDC damage.

For that matter, RUE 344 describes a Critical Strike as:
A powerful, special or nerve-shattering strike that inflicts double the usual amount of damage.
Again, if "damage" always and only referred to SDC, then critical strikes would NOT be applicable to MD weapons.

This argument is flawed, multipliers are different than fixed amounts.

I have never argued that Mega-damage is not a form of damage, just that 'damage' without added clarification, when discussing static amounts, means SDC damage unless otherwise indicated.

Obviously, "damage" sometimes refers to MD attacks, even when it's not spelled out specifically and explicitly.

When discussing multiplying, yes. SDC damage can be added as SDC damage to MD so there is no reason to think 'damage' (which by default always means SDC damage unless explicitly indicated otherwise) would randomly become MD when we are not told it does so.

The Kick Boxing skill (RUE 317) lists a Roundhouse Kick as inflicting "3d6 damage."
Later there is a note that "damage" in that case (as with Horsemanship, and critical strikes, and other places) refers to SDC damage in the case of a character with SDC strength, and to Mega-Damage in the case of a character with supernatural PS.

Those are rules pertaining to those particular skills, not all instances of 'damage'. Otherwise any case of ambiguous damage (drunk people, slap gloves) would become absurd power-boosters, and there is no basis for forming that assumption.

If you want a general rule, find it under the general rules, not statements pertaining to particular skills.

They just say "damage," but that term is referring to SDC or MD, depending on the source of that damage.

For those skills, yes. Not all 'damage'.

Just like the +1d6 "damage" bonus from fencing refers to SDC damage in the case of SDC weapons, or to Mega-Damage in the case of MD weapons.

This is only the case with Splicers, not Robotech or Rifts.

If this were a general rule, it would be included under general rules, not kickboxing and horsemanship.

A player might design a character who is a fencer but not a kickboxer or an equestrian. We are to assume the book intends for players to go read these other skills and extrapolate "well, kicks and horse-riding sometimes add MD, so I will assume this does"

Just like the "double damage" aspect of a critical hit refers to "double SDC damage" in the case of SDC attacks, or to "Double Mega-Damage" in the case of MD attacks.

Please stop bringing up multipliers, this example is arguing a straw man.

Mega-damage is a type of damage. It's damage x 100 just like magic damage is damage x magic and silver damage is damage x silver.

If I have a super-ability of an energy aura that adds 1d6 damage to my melee attacks, this does not enhance the amount of silver damage a werebeast takes. That's because the damage added from energy does not take on the physical property of silver. Just like damage bonuses do not take on the physical property of MEGA unless we're told that.

Normal, magical and Mega-Damage fire do NO damage to the enchanted individual

You are overlooking that mega-damage inflicts 100 damage.

Again, they're using "damage" to describe either SDC or MD, depending on the source of the attack.

This is unrelated to 'damage' defaulting to mean SDC damage.

You are arguing a straw man, I have never agued that mega-damage is not a form of damage, just that damage does not modify itself to become mega-damage without us being told it does.

Rifts has cases where "damage" is used as a static amount, often a BASELINE amount. This is SDC damage. Authors began to clarify 'SDC damage', but this has never been necessary to do, no rule has ever stated that it is necessary to do that.

We're often told common-sense stuff like "players may dodge" even though common sense dictates you can dodge unless otherwise indicated. Reminders are bonuses, not subtle introduction of necessities.

Armor of Ithan (RUE 202) takes 1/2 "damage" from magic fire, lightning, and cold. They don't specify that the 1/2 "damage" applies to MD attacks, but that lack of any specificity doesn't mean anything- it clearly does apply to MD attacks (as well as SDC), even though it doesn't specifically say so.

All your irrelevant examples are in regard to multipliers or dividers. I am talking about plus or minus here.

There is a Heroes Unlimited power that subtracts 'damage' from attacks. It does not suddenly subtract mega-damage too.

Then there's the combat "Roll With Impact" (RUE 346):
"If the defender is successful, then only half damage is taken from the attack."
Again, "damage" is used to refer to either SDC or MD, depending on the source of damage.

Dividing or multiplying mega-damage is different from adding or subtracting from it.

Multiplication and division explicitly add or subtract a specific amount which is tailored to the original amount. Addition and subtraction do not do this, the amount they modify the original amount by is completely unrelated to the original amount, and depends on what is stated.

Again, and again, and again, the books use the term "damage" to refer to either/or/both SDC damage and Mega-Damage, depending on the source of the attack.

You use 'books' plural. This is completely inconsistent with the vast majority of Rifts which clearly inherited damage meaning to SDC/HP as default. Mega-damage was a new thing, mega-damage was mega-damage and damage was damage.

It is NOT logical to assume that in every case where MD is not explicitly specified as a possible kind of damage being referred to, that MD is excluded from the realm of possible damage types being discussed.

That's not what I'm doing, you're misrepresenting my argument.

I'm saying that when MD is not explicitly specified, a damage amount is SDC damage. If a statement modifies that into MD, fine. Fencing doesn't have that in Rifts and Robotech like it does in Splicers, so it is only modified into MD in splicers.

We know for a demonstrable fact that there are many instances where "damage" is used to refer to either SDC or MD, even though it's not explicitly stated.

Only in the case of multiplying/dividing damage, which is tailored to original amounts. Baseline damage or addition/subtraction don't work like that.

[Giant2005]

Spoiler:

they already granted MD damage bonuses for riding horseback when you're jousting with a MD weapon. I don't like the idea, but it's not like adding a damage bonus to MD fencing would be out of line with that kind of rule.

Adding PS bonuses wouldn't be out of line either, yet we don't.

Except that we are specifically told that PS damage bonuses are SDC bonuses only, so we know that is not correct.

I believe something has to explicitly be MD to be MD.

Your belief is incorrect.

Not sure where this whole 'damage means MD unless otherwise indicated"' -ish perspective is coming from.

Me either. I've never heard of that one.
Splicers explicitly states that the Fencing damage is MD with MD weapons.
Therefore, the Fencing damage is MD.
Period.
End of story.

But even without Splicers in the mix, the Horsemanship General skill states:
Charge attack (running horse) with a pole-arm or spear: +1d6 damage
If "damage" always meant "SDC damage," then this passage would mean "+1d6 SDC damage."
But we know that's not the case, because the passage elaborates:
(SDC or MD depending on whether the weapon does Mega-Damage or not).
So we know that in at least some cases, a bonus to "damage" can be a mega-damage bonus.

For that matter, RUE 344 describes a Critical Strike as:
A powerful, special or nerve-shattering strike that inflicts double the usual amount of damage.
Again, if "damage" always and only referred to SDC, then critical strikes would NOT be applicable to MD weapons.
Obviously, "damage" sometimes refers to MD attacks, even when it's not spelled out specifically and explicitly.

The Kick Boxing skill (RUE 317) lists a Roundhouse Kick as inflicting "3d6 damage."
Later there is a note that "damage" in that case (as with Horsemanship, and critical strikes, and other places) refers to SDC damage in the case of a character with SDC strength, and to Mega-Damage in the case of a character with supernatural PS.
They just say "damage," but that term is referring to SDC or MD, depending on the source of that damage.
Just like the +1d6 "damage" bonus from fencing refers to SDC damage in the case of SDC weapons, or to Mega-Damage in the case of MD weapons.
Just like the "double damage" aspect of a critical hit refers to "double SDC damage" in the case of SDC attacks, or to "Double Mega-Damage" in the case of MD attacks.

Then there's stuff like spells. Two examples (out of many) where the book uses the term "damage" to refer to MD or SDC, depending on the source of the damage, even though the book doesn't explicitly state that it applies to MD.
-Impervious To Fire (RUE 202):
Normal, magical and Mega-Damage fire do NO damage to the enchanted individual...
Again, they're using "damage" to describe either SDC or MD, depending on the source of the attack.
Because both SDC attacks and MD attacks are damage.
-Armor of Ithan (RUE 202) takes 1/2 "damage" from magic fire, lightning, and cold.
They don't specify that the 1/2 "damage" applies to MD attacks, but that lack of any specificity doesn't mean anything- it clearly does apply to MD attacks (as well as SDC), even though it doesn't specifically say so.

Then there's the combat "Roll With Impact" (RUE 346):
"If the defender is successful, then only half damage is taken from the attack."
Again, "damage" is used to refer to either SDC or MD, depending on the source of damage.

Again, and again, and again, the books use the term "damage" to refer to either/or/both SDC damage and Mega-Damage, depending on the source of the attack.
It is NOT logical to assume that in every case where MD is not explicitly specified as a possible kind of damage being referred to, that MD is excluded from the realm of possible damage types being discussed.
We know for a demonstrable fact that there are many instances where "damage" is used to refer to either SDC or MD, even though it's not explicitly stated.

Win.

[Killer Cyborg]

Splicers states that the bonus damage can be mega-damage. Any further argument beyond that point rests on an assumption that Palladium actively intended Fencing to have a MD bonus in Splicers, but NOT in Rifts. And how likely is that, really?

Incredibly likely, since Palladium frequently incorporates different rules for different dimensions, like how skilled a mage is at stealing people's PPE, or whether Pyrokinesis and Telekinetic Acceleration Attack are physical or super psionic powers, or whether or not disarm bonuses apply when defending oneself, or whether or not dodge bonuses apply to autododges, or whether or not hand to hand bonuses apply to weapon attacks.

NONE of which are the same as a skill providing a MD bonus or strictly an SDC bonus.
Not even close.

Splicers is the only case I know of, written by a non-authority in the company, which allows the SDC bonus to be applied as MD, and it is contradicted by 2 subsequent books written by the head honcho in two major franchises.

Except that it's not contradicted by the books, only by your personal assumption of what the books mean.
"Damage" can refer to SDC or MDC- that's shown time and time again.

Considering what a big deal +1d6 MD is for mundane vibro-blade combat, this is something that the author would've pointed it out, had he the intention in mind.

Random, baseless assumption, founded on nothing in particular.
Palladium is chock-full of "well, it's common sense so we didn't feel the need to spell it out specifically" rules and passages.
What's one more?

Except that we are specifically told that PS damage bonuses are SDC bonuses only, so we know that is not correct.

That happened eventually, but was it like that in the beginning? Did RMB tell us not to add the PS damage bonus as MD to a dragon's claw swipe?

Palladium often adds clarifying data for people who don't understand basic concepts, like that that 'damage' does not become 'mega-damage' even if damage-modifying statements modify MD.

And they did that in Splicers, for people who didn't understand the basic concept.
Don't make their words futile- listen to them.

KC where is the earliest place you can find that Palladium clarified that the damage bonus from physical strength is not added as MD to MD attacks? Conversion Book 1 maybe? Do you think this means that prior to CB1 that damage bonus from PS became a MD bonus or something?

SB1, 1st printing, 1991.
p. 5
Does the PS Damage bonus apply to MDC weapons like the vibro-blade?
Answer: No! PS damage is SDC damage and cannot be applied to mega-damage weapons...

Per 283's penalties, are we to think that people with low PS attributes do less damage with flaming swords and laser swords?

Not if we read the rules, no.

After all, only guns do full damage. We may have been told that BONUSES to damage from PS don't count as MD when added to MD melee attacks, but were we told that about penalties?

You must believe all these absurd things if you interpret "damage" to not mean "sdc damage" by default.

Not at all.
You're making things up that have nothing to do with the official rules.

Rifts Main Book (1990)

p11right "most convention weapons do absolutely no damage to a mega-damage system, even when combined for a total of 100 ore more"

Notice what that actually says.
"Do absolutely no DAMAGE."
In that case, it's talking about mega-damage. It's saying that 99 SDC damage doesn't inflict 1 Mega-DAMAGE point.
"Damage" is referring to MDC specifically in that case.
A weapon might do 100+ "SDC damage" but it still might not do any "damage" to the target (aka MD damage).

p35left- "a punch inflicts 1d4 damage" (so what, we're left in limbo to guess what it means? it's SDC)

It IS SDC. Because "damage" refers to SDC as a default... except when it doesn't.
You can point out this kind of thing, but all I have to do is point out the stuff that I pointed out already, places where "damage" refers to SDC or MD, depending on the source of damage.
Since my point is that "damage" can refer to either, depending on context, your examples don't contradict my claim.
Since your claim is that "damage" necessarily refers to SDC ONLY, unless specifically otherwise spelled out, my examples shoot all kinds of swiss-cheese holes in your claim.
End of story.

It's very clear that without inheriting the "damage = SDC/HP unless otherwise indicated"

Really?
Show me how that applies in the examples I listed.
Until you can do THAT, you've got absolutely nothing that contradicts my claim.
And I've got a lot that contradicts YOUR claim.

Splicers explicitly states that the Fencing damage is MD with MD weapons. Therefore, the Fencing damage is MD. Period. End of story.

In the Splicers dimension, yes. Skills often have different percentiles or different bonuses in different settings. A difference in one does not create a difference in others.

Find me ONE other case where a skill allows a mega-damage bonus in one dimension, and only an SDC bonus in another dimension, where both dimensions are MDC compatible.

But even without Splicers in the mix, the Horsemanship General skill states:
Charge attack (running horse) with a pole-arm or spear: +1d6 damage
If "damage" always meant "SDC damage," then this passage would mean "+1d6 SDC damage."
But we know that's not the case, because the passage elaborates:
(SDC or MD depending on whether the weapon does Mega-Damage or not).
So we know that in at least some cases, a bonus to "damage" can be a mega-damage bonus.

It applies when explicitly stated as doing so. Like it does in Splicers and like it does in SOME versions of horsemanship. When a disclaimer like the one in parenthesis next to horsemanship on page 311 is absent, the damage bonus is not MD.

Seriously?

For that matter, RUE 344 describes a Critical Strike as:
A powerful, special or nerve-shattering strike that inflicts double the usual amount of damage.
Again, if "damage" always and only referred to SDC, then critical strikes would NOT be applicable to MD weapons.

This argument is flawed, multipliers are different than fixed amounts.

I have never argued that Mega-damage is not a form of damage, just that 'damage' without added clarification, when discussing static amounts, means SDC damage unless otherwise indicated.

And in the cases that I listed, it is made clear that you are incorrect.

Obviously, "damage" sometimes refers to MD attacks, even when it's not spelled out specifically and explicitly.

When discussing multiplying, yes.

Moving the goalposts.

The Kick Boxing skill (RUE 317) lists a Roundhouse Kick as inflicting "3d6 damage."
Later there is a note that "damage" in that case (as with Horsemanship, and critical strikes, and other places) refers to SDC damage in the case of a character with SDC strength, and to Mega-Damage in the case of a character with supernatural PS.

Those are rules pertaining to those particular skills, not all instances of 'damage'.

It's an example that proves your rule to be incorrect.
That's all that it needs to do.

Otherwise any case of ambiguous damage (drunk people, slap gloves) would become absurd power-boosters, and there is no basis for forming that assumption.

NO.
Because I'm not arguing "In every case where the term 'damage' is unspecified, it necessarily means 'either MD or SDC depending on the source of damage.'"
I'm just pointing out that the term "damage" doesn't necessarily refer strictly to SDC damage as a default. It depends on context.
Do you understand the difference?

Just like the +1d6 "damage" bonus from fencing refers to SDC damage in the case of SDC weapons, or to Mega-Damage in the case of MD weapons.

This is only the case with Splicers, not Robotech or Rifts.

If this were a general rule, it would be included under general rules, not kickboxing and horsemanship.

You place FAR too much faith in the consistency of Palladium, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

If I have a super-ability of an energy aura that adds 1d6 damage to my melee attacks, this does not enhance the amount of silver damage a werebeast takes.

Source?

Normal, magical and Mega-Damage fire do NO damage to the enchanted individual

You are overlooking that mega-damage inflicts 100 damage.

It doesn't, though. The 100:1 ratio is a rough estimate. IF you read the rules, you'll note that 1 MD /= 100 SDC.

Again, they're using "damage" to describe either SDC or MD, depending on the source of the attack.

This is unrelated to 'damage' defaulting to mean SDC damage.

It's exactly related. It's showing that "damage" doesn't always, necessarily default to SDC.

Armor of Ithan (RUE 202) takes 1/2 "damage" from magic fire, lightning, and cold. They don't specify that the 1/2 "damage" applies to MD attacks, but that lack of any specificity doesn't mean anything- it clearly does apply to MD attacks (as well as SDC), even though it doesn't specifically say so.

All your irrelevant examples are in regard to multipliers or dividers. I am talking about plus or minus here.

And...?
Is there a rule somewhere that states, "When dealing with pluses and minuses, the term 'damage' means X, while when dealing with multipliers or dividers, 'damage' means Y"....?
No.
You're just making up random crap to support your inane premise.

There is a Heroes Unlimited power that subtracts 'damage' from attacks. It does not suddenly subtract mega-damage too.

Source?

Then there's the combat "Roll With Impact" (RUE 346):
"If the defender is successful, then only half damage is taken from the attack."
Again, "damage" is used to refer to either SDC or MD, depending on the source of damage.

Dividing or multiplying mega-damage is different from adding or subtracting from it.

Source?

Again, and again, and again, the books use the term "damage" to refer to either/or/both SDC damage and Mega-Damage, depending on the source of the attack.

You use 'books' plural. This is completely inconsistent with the vast majority of Rifts which clearly inherited damage meaning to SDC/HP as default. Mega-damage was a new thing, mega-damage was mega-damage and damage was damage.

Source?

It is NOT logical to assume that in every case where MD is not explicitly specified as a possible kind of damage being referred to, that MD is excluded from the realm of possible damage types being discussed.

That's not what I'm doing, you're misrepresenting my argument.

I'm saying that when MD is not explicitly specified, a damage amount is SDC damage.

That's the same thing that I just said.

We know for a demonstrable fact that there are many instances where "damage" is used to refer to either SDC or MD, even though it's not explicitly stated.

Only in the case of multiplying/dividing damage, which is tailored to original amounts. Baseline damage or addition/subtraction don't work like that.

Quit making stuff up.
Find a source that states that X/ stuff is different from +- stuff, or give up the ghost of your hypothesis.

[rat_bastard]

*KC drops MDC Rune mic, walks away*

[Tor]

Also something I didn't bring up about this before:

Normal, magical and Mega-Damage fire do NO damage

"Normal" stuff is just 'damage'. Mega-Damage is abnormal. So we don't normally assume damage to mean mega-damage. MD is not the norm.

Win.

Wrongly targetted rebuttals are not legitimate victories.

further argument beyond that point rests on an assumption that Palladium actively intended Fencing to have a MD bonus in Splicers, but NOT in Rifts. And how likely is that, really?

Incredibly likely, since Palladium frequently incorporates different rules for different dimensions, like
*how skilled a mage is at stealing people's PPE
*whether Pyrokinesis and Telekinetic Acceleration Attack are physical or super psionic powers
*whether or not disarm bonuses apply when defending oneself, or whether or not dodge bonuses apply to autododges
*whether or not hand to hand bonuses apply to weapon attacks.

NONE of which are the same as a skill providing a MD bonus or strictly an SDC bonus. Not even close.

Arguing straw here, didn't say they were the same. These are 5 different issues. But they are similar, they fall under an umbrella, in that they are all examples of having different rules in different settings.

You speak as if "Palladium" intended something, when clearly we have every book consistently adding damage and only 1 giving it MD flexibility.

it's not contradicted by the books, only by your personal assumption of what the books mean.

RUE and Robotech do contradict Splicers, they do not include its rule that the damage can be MD when used with MD weapons, which is a required disclaimer.

My assessment is no assumption, it is formed from an understanding of what Palladium has always meant by damage, and that has never been MD unless explicitly stated.

"Damage" can refer to SDC or MDC- that's shown time and time again.

It can refer to fire damage or magic damage too. That doesn't mean I assume those properties to be applicable to any 'damage' when not stated.

Considering what a big deal +1d6 MD is for mundane vibro-blade combat, this is something that the author would've pointed it out, had he the intention in mind.

Random, baseless assumption, founded on nothing in particular.

Flinging your inappropriate adjectives about doesn't make it so. There is nothing baseless/random/unfounded about pointing out that Kevin Siembieda opted to not add MD conversion notes for fencing bonuses as he did for horsemanship.

Palladium is chock-full of "well, it's common sense so we didn't feel the need to spell it out specifically" rules and passages.

You mean like how it's common sense that 'damage' is by default SDC damage? As pointed out with the finger-gun in RMB.

they did that in Splicers, for people who didn't understand the basic concept. Don't make their words futile- listen to them.

Please stop using the plural. Fencing adding MD is Gleba's words, there is no collective Palladium entity. If there was, it would be consistent and include that note in subsequent books like RUE and Robotech, which didn't happen.

KC where is the earliest place you can find that Palladium clarified that the damage bonus from physical strength is not added as MD to MD attacks? Conversion Book 1 maybe? Do you think this means that prior to CB1 that damage bonus from PS became a MD bonus or something?

SB1, 1st printing, 1991. p. 5 Does the PS Damage bonus apply to MDC weapons like the vibro-blade?
Answer: No! PS damage is SDC damage and cannot be applied to mega-damage weapons...

Mkay, close enough. Whether SB1 or CB1, this still means that if it wasn't included in RMB, by your interpretation, PS bonuses would have been applied as MD bonuses, and this later errata CHANGED the rule.

Per 283's penalties, are we to think that people with low PS attributes do less damage with flaming swords and laser swords?

Not if we read the rules, no.

What rule tells you that energy melee weapons do full damage when used with low PS?

You must believe all these absurd things if you interpret "damage" to not mean "sdc damage" by default.

Not at all. You're making things up that have nothing to do with the official rules.

I'm not making anything up. I've pointed out examples where, even in RUE, the book still uses "damage" rather than "SDC damage" or "mega-damage"/"MD"

I have no idea how you have the confidence to accuse me of making things up. Do you want the page number of where to find ectoplasm? I provided it for Hydrokinesis.

You are very conveniently ignoring that since boiling water does "damage", by your unspecified-damage argument, we must assume it can inflict MD as readily as SDC just because it lacks additions to 'damage'.

Notice what that actually says. "Do absolutely no DAMAGE." In that case, it's talking about mega-damage. It's saying that 99 SDC damage doesn't inflict 1 Mega-DAMAGE point. "Damage" is referring to MDC specifically in that case.

Wrong, it isn't talking about MD or SDC, it's talking about the overall concept of damage altogether. Much like how natural 20s double damage.

A weapon might do 100+ "SDC damage" but it still might not do any "damage" to the target (aka MD damage).

A gun might do 1d6 damage but not damage a vampire's HP, not seeing what you're at here.

p35left- "a punch inflicts 1d4 damage" (so what, we're left in limbo to guess what it means? it's SDC)

It IS SDC. Because "damage" refers to SDC as a default... except when it doesn't.

lolwut

SDC damage is "normal" damage, it is always the default.

You can point out this kind of thing, but all I have to do is point out the stuff that I pointed out already, places where "damage" refers to SDC or MD, depending on the source of damage.

You haven't pointed that out, you've pointed out situations where Palladium has included explicit notes about variable SDC/MDC points, notes that are required for that to happen.

Since my point is that "damage" can refer to either, depending on context, your examples don't contradict my claim.

The context of normal unspecified damage is SDC damage, always has been.

Since your claim is that "damage" necessarily refers to SDC ONLY, unless specifically otherwise spelled out, my examples shoot all kinds of swiss-cheese holes in your claim. End of story.

You're telling the wrong story, you're misrepresenting my argument.

Damage does not refer to SDC only. But damage does refer to SDC by default. Meaning that when damage is inflicted or damage is added, that's SDC damage. Obviously when mega-damage is critical it's doubled and when mega-damage is rolled with it's halved. This is different from adding or subtracting "damage". Damage added to mega-damage is not by default "mega" damage. We know this is the case because PS damage can be added as SDC to mega-damage. There is no basis for assuming damage being added to mega takes on the 'mega' property. That is a unique case with unique skills.

It's very clear that without inheriting the "damage = SDC/HP unless otherwise indicated"

Really? Show me how that applies in the examples I listed. Until you can do THAT, you've got absolutely nothing that contradicts my claim. And I've got a lot that contradicts YOUR claim.

Looks like the relevant part of my post was snipped there. The statement I want addressed is:

"without inheriting the ".." concept from preceding games that all of these statements become irrational"

The examples I provided support the idea of SDC being the basic default assumption of 'damage' amount statements.

What you're asking me to address is a red herring KC, you're discussing multipliers and dividers, raw numbers applied to something with an already-established context.

Addition and substraction don't work that way, they are not raw numbers, they have contexts of their own.

You're comparing a*2 or a/2 to a+b, it isn't the same thing. Sometimes b=a but other times it doesn't. When we know that a=100b then there's no reason to think them identical unless they're both 0.

Find me ONE other case where a skill allows a mega-damage bonus in one dimension, and only an SDC bonus in another dimension, where both dimensions are MDC compatible.

Ignoring the obvious "Rifts and Splicers" and "Rifts and RUE" since people like to pretend RMB doesn't exist...

For reference aid for readers, physical skill sections are on page 316 of Rifts (Ultimate) page 268 of Robotech (Shadow) and page 196 of Splicers.

One has already been mentioned: Kick Boxing. This is actually a reverse of the situation. Fencing can do MD in Splicers but not in Robotech or Rifts. Kick Boxing can do MD in Rifts and Robotech, but not in Splicers.

A second example has also already been mentioned: Horsemanship (RUEp310, RSCp273, SplicersPg200, alternatively grouped under "horsemanship skills", "pilot skills" or "transportation skills" categories). Horsemanship charging only adds mega-damage in RUE. In Robotech and Splicers it does not add MD.

"SDC or MD depending on whether the weapon does MD or not" is a unique modifying statement, not a default rule.

If it were a default rule, it would be presented in the basic rules. Rules only mentioned under specific skills only pertain to that specific skill.

If any non-PS 'damage' bonus increased MD rather than merely adding SDC damage to it, this would apply to damage bonuses in all the hand-to-hand tables.

So why have we never seen any special note about that? Why do such notes only occasionally appear circumstantially under certain games' printings of fencing or horsemanship?

The answer: they're unique situations, not an example of a universal rule.

Numerous NPCs can be consulted to demonstrate this as so:
*We know that Hand to Hand Combat bonuses inherently apply when using weapons and stack with WP skills in every dimension outside of N&SS (which only does so with katas)
*Hand to Hand Combat skills eventually provide a bonus to "damage" which is not based on physical strength
*Some NPCs are a high enough level to get such a 'damage' (not "SDC damage') bonus from their hand to hand skill
*These are never presented as being MD bonuses, correct me if I'm wrong KC.

Why, if "+damage" situationally meant "+MD" when using a MD attack, would we not see this in any NPC's damages notes?

If PS damage bonuses are always SDC and all other damage bonuses are potentially MD, they would always be listed separately in MDC settings.

It applies when explicitly stated as doing so. Like it does in Splicers and like it does in SOME versions of horsemanship. When a disclaimer like the one in parenthesis next to horsemanship on page 311 is absent, the damage bonus is not MD.

Seriously?

Yup, individual skills should not be mined for phrases that are clearly meant to apply to them and used to hypothesize some kind if megaversal ruling. If "damage is MD when added to MD" were a rule, it would be printed in the main rules, not hidden in some skill statement that's presented as applying to only that skill. Nor hidden in only one book, that's presented as applying to only that book.

Palladium has clearly explained the basic concept of damage to us, and occasionally allows MD bonuses to be added, there has never been any overall rule converting damage bonuses into MD bonuses though.

I have never argued that Mega-damage is not a form of damage, just that 'damage' without added clarification, when discussing static amounts, means SDC damage unless otherwise indicated.

And in the cases that I listed, it is made clear that you are incorrect.

Every case I recall you bringing up, I have presented counter-arguments to which I don't believe have been addressed. This gets a bit nonspecific, I don't expect you to re-write your whole discussion but if we could reference in shorthand (ie if you are referring back to a particular skill, natural 20s, RWI, etc.) this would be helpful.

Obviously, "damage" sometimes refers to MD attacks, even when it's not spelled out specifically and explicitly.

When discussing multiplying, yes.

Moving the goalposts.

I wish I could put words to the clear problem with your logic, I lack the vocabulary to summarize it with a distinct word, I am not intensely familiar with the specific names of fallacies, so I need to go about it in-depth with examples of why this form of thinking is in error.

What you are proposing is basically that (and correct me if wrong) based on fencing "damage" being an MD bonus in Splicers, and based on (some forms of) horse-charging "damage" being an MD bonus in RUE, that we should consider any +damage (aside from the PS attribute) to take on all the properties of what it is added to.

This isn't how damage-adding works though. The base has specific properties and the added amount has specific properties, and they do not inherently carry over. Someone punching with an energy aura would not consider the aura's damage to be physical, nor the fist's damage to be energy. To use SA2p66 as an example, a Cosmo-Knight would clearly ignore the 3d6+6MD while a Scarecrow would clearly only be hurt by that and ignore the 1d6/2d6MD base of a punch/kick.

Summing damage does always transfer properties, so the nature of damage (making it MD) would not happen as a result of the damage inflicted by an attack as some kind of inherent rule. This is a circumstantial rule applying only to select skills in select settings.

It's an example that proves your rule to be incorrect.

No, it's an exception to default policy. Those happen. Like how Nightbane has low-level rituals.

There might be a valid objection to semantics, one I sometimes make to I think Drew. In which case I should say "default policy" rather than "rule". But damage amounts being SDC unless explicitly made MD is definitely Palladium's default policy. The concept of a damage amount (either a base damage, or a damage amount added together in a sum) is different than the overall super-inclusive concept of damage that applies to damage variants, subgroups like mega-damage, magic damage, fire damage or cold damage.

I'm not arguing "In every case where the term 'damage' is unspecified, it necessarily means 'either MD or SDC depending on the source of damage.'"

Hm... okay... it may be that I have misunderstood your stance and have been strawmanning you in the same way I believe you have me. I guess this happens... in which case, apologies, am going to try and grasp what it is we're disagreeing about then...

I'm just pointing out that the term "damage" doesn't necessarily refer strictly to SDC damage as a default. It depends on context. Do you understand the difference?

I do understand what you mean, in the context of doubling or halving, and maybe some others. I should simplify this, I am referring to "damage" referring by default to SDC damage when something is listed as inflicting (or adding) damage without the context of being labelled "MD" or "mega-damage".

You place FAR too much faith in the consistency of Palladium, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This consideration goes both ways: an assumption is being made that other settings will be consistent with having their fencing operate the way Splicers' does.

If I have a super-ability of an energy aura that adds 1d6 damage to my melee attacks, this does not enhance the amount of silver damage a werebeast takes.

Source?

Hypothetical situation: I am playing Weapon Wendy, a heroine with the PU1 minor ability of Power Weapon.

She is faced with a werewolf, and hits him with a metal crowbar. The werewolf takes no damage.
She puts on her energy aura, the wolf still takes no damage.
She drops the crowbar and catches a silver sword her friend tosses to her and swings it at the wolf, it hits and damages the wolf.
She puts up her energy aura and swings it at the wolf again, the sword hits and damages the wolf...

I think we can agree on that so far. I believe the sword will inflict the same amount of damage, because it is the silver properties of that sword which makes it damage the wolf.

You believe the additional dice from "a nimbus of energy" will enhance the physical silver properties and make the sword more harmful to the werewolf?

This is interesting... I could see it as a source of arguments. It leads me to think more deeply about this power's properties...

Like for example, since it also lets a hero fire an "energy bolt" which has "the empowered weapon's full damage" then "silver damage" is an attribute part of that "full damage" (even if you and I might disagree on how much of the total sum qualifies as 'silver') in which case, could the hero's energy bolt also harm a werewolf even though no actual silver is touching the wolf when firing the bolt?

The 100:1 ratio is a rough estimate. IF you read the rules, you'll note that 1 MD /= 100 SDC.

For the most part it does. The part about rounding down SDC hits against MDC (299 inflicts 2 MD) which is ignorable. The main difference is probably how SDC remainders can be vaped (ie 2 MD destroys 299 SDC) which is more significant.

Although oddly enough, even in Psyscape a Burster was described as doing "1d6 MD (or 1d6x100 SDC)" which, if not representing this as equivalency conversion, actually gave Bursters the option to choose one or the other...

In which case, if I was a Burster assaulting a human with 199 SDC, I would choose 1d6 MD for a confirmed kill. But if I was a Burster battling a Promethean, I would choose the 1d6x100 SDC since it would be far more effective

It's showing that "damage" doesn't always, necessarily default to SDC.

You're talking about the context of what multiplication and division apply to, which is outside the context of what I was talking about, which was damage defaulting to SDC when discussing particular amounts, not modifications to amounts.

Is there a rule somewhere that states, "When dealing with pluses and minuses, the term 'damage' means X, while when dealing with multipliers or dividers, 'damage' means Y"....? No. You're just making up random crap to support your inane premise.

This is a policy understood when one is familiar with the mechanics of the game. No, it isn't explicitly spelled out for us, but it can be discerned through examples, by viewing the system as a whole. PS being one example, the prime source of damage bonuses for players, which is why it gets addressed in SB1. Damage bonuses from HtH came later and were not asked about, so they did not get addressed. I expect people used common sense to assume that other kinds of damage didn't become MD either.

If you are not arguing that HtHcombatTable 'damage' should be potentially MD, then what is the fundamental difference, looking at RUE alone, between the damage bonus in the fencing skill and the damage bonus from the HtHassassin skill? The only clear difference I can see is that one has a version in a completely different game (one Rifts players would not realistically be expected to have) which can add a MD bonus.

Skills sharing a name, just like races sharing a name, do not operate the same way in different settings. Look at the different percentile for the Prowl skill in N&SS vs Rifts for example. If Prowl can operate differently then so can Fencing.

There is a Heroes Unlimited power that subtracts 'damage' from attacks. It does not suddenly subtract mega-damage too.

Source?

The source comes from understanding what 'damage' means and looking at RBC notes.

The 'Impact Resistance' minor power (PU1p31) prevents 'points of physical damage'. This is clearly SDC/HP points, not MD points, it is printed in an MDC setting.

When powers change, when they gain MD-inflicting or MDC protection capability, they are among the powers listed in the conversion book. Powers not listed do not gain those traits. This is why people lament the lack of MDC conversion notes for post-PU2 powers, because it means they canonically remain SDC until we are told otherwise.

'Energy Resistance' did get MD conversion notes, on the other hand, since it was an older power. It was increased from an amount of damage protection to a (higher) amount of (mega) damage protection.

Reading just the points-statement literally, one could interpret this power to have NO EFFECT on SDC energy attacks. After all, it doesn't specify both the way the major Energy Absorbtion does.

Looking as a whole though, they are resistant to ALL energy attacks. So even though it specifies MD point protection, we can reasonably assume that you'd have to total 3 thousand points of energy SDC damage in a melee round to harm someone with this aura.

Dividing or multiplying mega-damage is different from adding or subtracting from it.

Source?

Source: mathematics and common logical sensibility.

If strawberries are default red when discussed, if you have 2 purple strawberries and you order 2 unspecified "strawberries" off the internet, you can reasonable be assumed to end up with 2 purple and 2 red.

But if I take half your strawberries, you end up with 1 purple. If I cast a cloning spell on your berries to double their number, you end up with 4 purple.

the vast majority of Rifts which clearly inherited damage meaning to SDC/HP as default. Mega-damage was a new thing, mega-damage was mega-damage and damage was damage.

Source?

Rifts Main Book, have already cited the various cases, like the finger gun or the PS damage bonuses (not explicitly SDC-only pre-SB1, right?) from the start authors have habitually clarified 'SDC damage' to provide contrast (because capitalized initialisms jump out to the eye better, most likely) but have also inherited "damage" statements from previous games which clearly do not become MD unless explicitly made so.

I'm saying that when MD is not explicitly specified, a damage amount is SDC damage.

That's the same thing that I just said.

So again I must explore if we are actually disagreeing about something.

Perhaps the key disagreement is: I think a setting's skill description trumps that of another setting's skill description when conflicts arise as to what a skill does.

I believe the traits of 1 setting's skill do not transfer to another setting's.

In the case of fencing, look at what Fencing does in TMNT, for example. It doesn't increase damage, it just adds a strike/parry bonus.

That's unique to TMNT, and different kinds of fencing in other books did not over-ride that. Nor did later books inherit that trait.

multiplying/dividing damage, which is tailored to original amounts. Baseline damage or addition/subtraction don't work like that.

Quit making stuff up. Find a source that states that X/ stuff is different from +- stuff, or give up the ghost of your hypothesis.

This is based on mathematics. If base damage is A and bonus damage is O, the sum is A+O. O does not take on the properties of A nor modify it. They are their own amounts. They are their own types, damage of their own nature.

Numbers used to multiply or divide damage do not have their own nature or their own types. Doubling is just doubling, it is a raw number, as is halving. That kind of equation gives you 1 end result, 1 type, because you started with 1 raw amount and its assigned type, not 2.

[Alrik Vas]

In Robotech, a zentradi can have mega damage melee weapons. Swords, clubs, knives. Are you saying the swords wouldn't benefit from mega damage bonuses (+1d6) from fencing? I don't see it if that would be your claim.

[Killer Cyborg]

That's not math.
That is you applying an arbitrary, unfounded, and incorrect assumption to the situation.
There is NOTHING in the rules of Rifts or of math that states that "damage" always defaults to SDC with addition/subtraction, but that it operates differently when multiplying/dividing.

I'll get to the rest later.

[Tor]

It's not a direct rule in Rifts that damage defaults to SDC, it is a generally observed reality of all Palladium games, including Rifts, as clear in the Finger Gun.

You are ignoring the Finger Gun. It is an ideal example of damage clearly meaning SDC without explicitly saying so.