How Would You Try To Destroy the Xiticix?

[say652]

1) a powerful party of adventurers.
7-12 members. Tanks and magic users a few specialized psionics.

Plan.
Strike force sneaks in does what they do.
Some plant bombs some summon thangs some draw circles a select few cause the distraction topside.

Ok phase two.
All stealth teams exit and active plans.

Boom boom BOOM!

Mop up with a large force. NonCoalition of course. Maybe a new west posse but way way bigger than Normal.

[Library Ogre]

Hmmm... wonder how the Xiticix would respond to the Summoning Circle Summon Insects...

[Shark_Force]

*sigh* you're not gonna get very far with regular brute force, or with just planting bombs and running away. we're talking about a hive complex that holds either millions or *hundreds of millions* (depending on source) of (roughly) human-sized bugs. you can no more cover that in a short period of time with a small group than you could plant bombs in every CS megacity in that time.

it is not that simple. if you spend an afternoon planting as many bombs as your team of 12 people can carry, you will detonate them, the xiticix will get very annoyed, might destroy a few nearby settlements, and life will go on for them. they'll repair the damage, new grubs will mature into adults, and you'll need to repeat that several thousand times as a bare minimum to inflict meaningful damage to a single hive (and let's face it, if you're doing something thousands of times, someone's gonna get caught eventually and just die to millions of bugs dogpiling on them)

dropping nukes on them that will hit an area several miles in radius to wipe out large numbers at once is reasonable (though again, not terribly likely to get rid of them any time soon... aerial bombing has been considered in-setting and rejected from being a good option. hand-placing bombs is just silly, unless those bombs can each level a city. in which case, good luck sneaking around with that, and you're still going to need to do it many times before having an appreciable impact.

[flatline]

How difficult is it to get to the Xiticix homeworld? Is it a widely known destination amongst shifters and other dimensional travelers?

-flatline

[Hotrod]

*sigh* you're not gonna get very far with regular brute force, or with just planting bombs and running away. we're talking about a hive complex that holds either millions or *hundreds of millions* (depending on source) of (roughly) human-sized bugs. you can no more cover that in a short period of time with a small group than you could plant bombs in every CS megacity in that time.

it is not that simple. if you spend an afternoon planting as many bombs as your team of 12 people can carry, you will detonate them, the xiticix will get very annoyed, might destroy a few nearby settlements, and life will go on for them. they'll repair the damage, new grubs will mature into adults, and you'll need to repeat that several thousand times as a bare minimum to inflict meaningful damage to a single hive (and let's face it, if you're doing something thousands of times, someone's gonna get caught eventually and just die to millions of bugs dogpiling on them)

dropping nukes on them that will hit an area several miles in radius to wipe out large numbers at once is reasonable (though again, not terribly likely to get rid of them any time soon... aerial bombing has been considered in-setting and rejected from being a good option. hand-placing bombs is just silly, unless those bombs can each level a city. in which case, good luck sneaking around with that, and you're still going to need to do it many times before having an appreciable impact.

I agree; this collective explosive-oriented mindset is very problematic against the deep tunnels of the hives. If the bugs are to be taken out with anything short of a massive war of annihilation, it'll take a more unconventional approach, like chemical weapons, biological agents, surgical strikes against key parts of their life cycles, and/or creative uses of magic.

My vote is wards and diabolists. Kill with the Quill! Scribes must scour the scum!

[Killer Cyborg]

How difficult is it to get to the Xiticix homeworld? Is it a widely known destination amongst shifters and other dimensional travelers?

-flatline

I don't believe that's ever mentioned in canon.

[Shark_Force]

in the absence of any further information, it is most likely not a dimensional hotspot (otherwise there'd be xiticix all across the megaverse), which would imply your chance to land there is about 1/the number of worlds in the megaverse that are in an active magic cycle - since iirc the xiticix life cycle incorporates ley lines, it is very probably a world with active ones.

which is to say, really really really really really really really really really really unlikely.

actually, it's slightly lower than that, because each dimensional hotspot will represent a larger chance of being a target. so basically, i'd say it isn't gonna happen randomly unless you have a thousand shifters with a thousand ley line nexuses that will eventually write the greatest story ever locate the xiticix homeworld.

[Mack]

How difficult is it to get to the Xiticix homeworld? Is it a widely known destination amongst shifters and other dimensional travelers?

-flatline

I don't believe that's ever mentioned in canon.

Lone Star p116 has a very, very brief mention of their homeworld. A SAMAS company pushed a swarm back through a Rift to their homeworld.

What's more interesting is that despite outnumbering the Sams by 50 to one, the bugs were startled and confused by the aggression. That may be something a GM might latch onto as a weakness.

[Borast]

Besides, drop a 50 MT strat nuke on the hive, and it's GONE...not that anything within 50km of ground zero is going to be safe to live in for the next century or so. (Cancer rates in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are STILL several times what they are through the rest of Japan.)

But...that is the REAL world...and what (if anything) does that have to do with the price of tea in ChiTown?

Can you back up that assertion about modern-day cancer rates in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Although victims of both bombings did have markedly higher cancer rates, I'm unaware of any study linking residual radiation from those bombs causing increased cancer rates today. In fact, the background rates in both cities, even in the parks at ground zero, are little different from any other comparable city on the planet. You'll find higher radiation levels in Denver than at either atomic bombing site.

Some of the rubble and more intact buildings were used to rebuild and repair.
Given that the effects of ionizing radiation was not well understood, debris was not simply dumped far out to sea, but the new cities were built atop ruins.

That having been said, yes, I know that if I live in a house with granite countertops, and I spend several hours a day in the kitchen, my cancer rate goes up.
I am also a Military Brat (RCAF), so am aware of the effects of increased exposure at higher altitudes. I likely spent more time as a kid in a metallic cigar than most adults do today. (Ever been in the cockpit of a C-130 Herc coming in for a landing? Sister and I were. Or, better yet, standing between the pilot and co-pilot? Mother was, same flight...she says that if not for the presence of us 2 metres behind her, the profanity she would have released at the pilot would have been epic. lol)
Any case, saw the mention of the cancer rates in a documentary about 3-4 years back. Sorry I can't be more precise

[Tor]

The Brahma Pantheon. Truly the heaviest hitters in any pantheon.

LOLwut. Russians and Dragonwright want to have a talk with you.

If you're going to invoke Starship Troopers, you should take your inspiration from the excellent book, and not those less-than-excellent movies.

How do you weigh in on the 80s 6-ep anime OVA series or 90s CGI series Roughnecks?

[Hotrod]

Besides, drop a 50 MT strat nuke on the hive, and it's GONE...not that anything within 50km of ground zero is going to be safe to live in for the next century or so. (Cancer rates in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are STILL several times what they are through the rest of Japan.)

But...that is the REAL world...and what (if anything) does that have to do with the price of tea in ChiTown?

Can you back up that assertion about modern-day cancer rates in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Although victims of both bombings did have markedly higher cancer rates, I'm unaware of any study linking residual radiation from those bombs causing increased cancer rates today. In fact, the background rates in both cities, even in the parks at ground zero, are little different from any other comparable city on the planet. You'll find higher radiation levels in Denver than at either atomic bombing site.

Some of the rubble and more intact buildings were used to rebuild and repair.
Given that the effects of ionizing radiation was not well understood, debris was not simply dumped far out to sea, but the new cities were built atop ruins.

That having been said, yes, I know that if I live in a house with granite countertops, and I spend several hours a day in the kitchen, my cancer rate goes up.
I am also a Military Brat (RCAF), so am aware of the effects of increased exposure at higher altitudes. I likely spent more time as a kid in a metallic cigar than most adults do today. (Ever been in the cockpit of a C-130 Herc coming in for a landing? Sister and I were. Or, better yet, standing between the pilot and co-pilot? Mother was, same flight...she says that if not for the presence of us 2 metres behind her, the profanity she would have released at the pilot would have been epic. lol)
Any case, saw the mention of the cancer rates in a documentary about 3-4 years back. Sorry I can't be more precise

There have been a number of alarmist studies and documentaries on the effects of low levels of radiation on the body. The problem is that, at even higher background levels of radiation, there is no statistically significant link to increased cancer rates. The figures about "how many people will get cancer from fukushima" tend to be wildly speculative extrapolations of the linear no threshold model. That model assumes that any exposure can give you cancer and ignores the body's ability to heal and repair its DNA. Other models that fit the data suggest that low levels of ionizing radiation present no risk and might even offer some mild health benefits. Most government and research organizations use the Linear No Threshold model because it's considered the most conservative approach.

[Jerell]

I'd rig up some giant magnifying glasses and giant poison ant traps first. The kind where they take food out and back to the hive for their community to eat.

Do Xiticix have any way to survive under water? I wonder if flooding their tunnels would kill them? Do they breath like earth Arthropods? Maybe covering them with soapy water (for reduced surface tension) suffocates them.

Failing that river of lava down a tunnel should make for an excellent bug bar-d-que.

Hmmm... wonder how the Xiticix would respond to the Summoning Circle Summon Insects...

That is an excellent question.

[Killer Cyborg]

Hmmm... wonder how the Xiticix would respond to the Summoning Circle Summon Insects...

That is an excellent question.

Something that Palladium really should address is the effects (or lack of effects) on animal-affecting spells/powers on sapient animals.

[Jerell]

Sounds like an excellent mysteries of magic question. Mr. Hall?

[Library Ogre]

Sounds like an excellent mysteries of magic question. Mr. Hall?

Don't have my resources handy. I know I didn't specifically address it in the manuscript, but I don't recall if the circle specifically addresses bug-like non-insects.

[Blue_Lion]

I got a 100% sure fire way. In three easy steps.
1. Win/steal 1 billion dollars.
2. Buy PB
3. write them out of rifts by some plot tool.

[eliakon]

Hmmm... wonder how the Xiticix would respond to the Summoning Circle Summon Insects...

That is an excellent question.

Something that Palladium really should address is the effects (or lack of effects) on animal-affecting spells/powers on sapient animals.

I would say that the precedent is 'not' Serpents has to make a special note that it DOES work on dragons. Which leads me to believe that the animal spells only work on....animals. If your sentient then your not an animal. Otherwise it opens the door for abuse
"I use repel animals on the psi-stalker"

"Hey he's an animal, just a sentient primate, it should work right?"

[Library Ogre]

Well, got access to my books, and it's a no on the Summon Insects circle.

"This magic does not work on sentient insect beings..."

[Blue_Lion]

What about creating a new circle greater protection from insects creatures to include self aware xit. Then drawing a giant circle around the hive and activate it? Any bug inside would then take damage.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Well, got access to my books, and it's a no on the Summon Insects circle.

"This magic does not work on sentient insect beings..."

Actually, Xitixic Invasion makes it clear that Xitixic are actually just Animal-level predators functioning on instinct and cunning rather than rational thought. even the queens with an IQ of 20+ are just exceptionally cunning nonsentient predators. I looked through every type, they are all nonsentiant predators.

[Nox Equites]

A team of nightbane with astral self and mini nukes to take out the core chambers.

[Borast]

There have been a number of alarmist studies and documentaries on the effects of low levels of radiation on the body. The problem is that, at even higher background levels of radiation, there is no statistically significant link to increased cancer rates. The figures about "how many people will get cancer from fukushima" tend to be wildly speculative extrapolations of the linear no threshold model. That model assumes that any exposure can give you cancer and ignores the body's ability to heal and repair its DNA. Other models that fit the data suggest that low levels of ionizing radiation present no risk and might even offer some mild health benefits. Most government and research organizations use the Linear No Threshold model because it's considered the most conservative approach.

Last I heard, the body couldn't heal it's DNA. The body can heal most cellular damage, but not DNA.

That being said, we are starting to meander off the original topic.

[Killer Cyborg]

Well, got access to my books, and it's a no on the Summon Insects circle.

"This magic does not work on sentient insect beings..."

Actually, Xitixic Invasion makes it clear that Xitixic are actually just Animal-level predators functioning on instinct and cunning rather than rational thought. even the queens with an IQ of 20+ are just exceptionally cunning nonsentient predators. I looked through every type, they are all nonsentiant predators.

Animals are sentient.
They're just not sapient.

[eliakon]

Well, got access to my books, and it's a no on the Summon Insects circle.

"This magic does not work on sentient insect beings..."

Actually, Xitixic Invasion makes it clear that Xitixic are actually just Animal-level predators functioning on instinct and cunning rather than rational thought. even the queens with an IQ of 20+ are just exceptionally cunning nonsentient predators. I looked through every type, they are all nonsentiant predators.

Animals are sentient.
They're just not sapient.

Since the spell would be pointless if it didn't work on anything at all....
And since the common (miss)use of the term is to conflate the two
And since the term sapient has never been AFAIK used in a palladium book while sentient is used, and used often
I would conclude that we should, in fact treat this as what it looks like. That the terms sentient and sapient are being used interchangeably.

[Blue_Lion]

Well, got access to my books, and it's a no on the Summon Insects circle.

"This magic does not work on sentient insect beings..."

Actually, Xitixic Invasion makes it clear that Xitixic are actually just Animal-level predators functioning on instinct and cunning rather than rational thought. even the queens with an IQ of 20+ are just exceptionally cunning nonsentient predators. I looked through every type, they are all nonsentiant predators.

Animals are sentient.
They're just not sapient.

?? I am use to sentient being used to refer to self aware life forms. That does seam to be the intent in the spells.
Where are you getting this information?

[Killer Cyborg]

Well, got access to my books, and it's a no on the Summon Insects circle.

"This magic does not work on sentient insect beings..."

Actually, Xitixic Invasion makes it clear that Xitixic are actually just Animal-level predators functioning on instinct and cunning rather than rational thought. even the queens with an IQ of 20+ are just exceptionally cunning nonsentient predators. I looked through every type, they are all nonsentiant predators.

Animals are sentient.
They're just not sapient.

?? I am use to sentient being used to refer to self aware life forms. That does seam to be the intent in the spells.
Where are you getting this information?

Sentient= "able to feel, see, hear, smell, or taste."
Sapient= "possessing or expressing great sagacity."

The book may well have meant "sapient," as people often confuse the two terms, but the other factor is that many people don't believe that insects and lower life forms are actually sentient either, not in any real sense, and say stuff like "grasshoppers don't feel pain if you pull off their legs," or "worms can't feel pain when you put a hook through them." I've even heard some make the same kind of claims about animals, that they don't feel "real" pain and such.

[Blue_Lion]

So you are only using one meaning of Sentient in your statement.
from your link
Full Definition of SENTIENT
1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2: aware
3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

So if they are using it to be self aware they could be using it correctly under meaning 2.

Also looking the definition of Sapience I could argue against it applying to many people.

[boxee]

I got a 100% sure fire way. In three easy steps.
1. Win/steal 1 billion dollars.
2. Buy PB
3. write them out of rifts by some plot tool.

Count me in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bestest idea ever to fix our beloved game system!

[Killer Cyborg]

So you are only using one meaning of Sentient in your statement.
from your link
Full Definition of SENTIENT
1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2: aware
3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

So if they are using it to be self aware they could be using it correctly under meaning 2.

Also looking the definition of Sapience I could argue against it applying to many people.

"Self aware" and "aware" are not the same thing.
You can be aware of all kinds of things without being "self aware."
Generally, if something is responsive or conscious of sense impressions, then they're aware, whether they're self-aware or not.

[Library Ogre]

However, I think it's clear from context that Palladium generally means "sentient" to refer to what you're calling "sapient"... which, IME, is not uncommon in science fiction.

[Killer Cyborg]

However, I think it's clear from context that Palladium generally means "sentient" to refer to what you're calling "sapient"... which, IME, is not uncommon in science fiction.

The ways that the term is used in sci fi varies widely enough that it may or may not include the xiticix.

[Jerell]

The ways that the term is used in sci fi varies widely enough that it may or may not include the xiticix.

So are we back to possibly/probably not? Or is this just going to be a GMs call kind of thing with no concrete canon answer?

[Killer Cyborg]

I'd say that "sentient" includes a broader spectrum than "sapient" does in most settings/stories, and that Xiticix would definitely qualify.
AFAIK, Palladium never defines the term as they intend it, though, so it'd be GM's call.

Although I think that it would be a bad call to let the power work on them.

[say652]

I think that if you sat down with your gaming group and presented the Xiticik nest as the adventure.

You'd be amazed at what just players could do with their current character and a little preptime.

When I gm a hardcore adventure I allow my players to use two of their vest characters.

I would use PowerSurge and Cutter.
An Immortal Godling and a Greater Norse Giant Reaver Assassin woth the Yggdrasil gift of Knowledge.

[Jerell]

How about rifting in some Zentraedi with giant fly swatters?

[Blue_Lion]

So you are only using one meaning of Sentient in your statement.
from your link
Full Definition of SENTIENT
1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2: aware
3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

So if they are using it to be self aware they could be using it correctly under meaning 2.

Also looking the definition of Sapience I could argue against it applying to many people.

"Self aware" and "aware" are not the same thing.
You can be aware of all kinds of things without being "self aware."
Generally, if something is responsive or conscious of sense impressions, then they're aware, whether they're self-aware or not.

In research it can be a poor choice to draw from only one source so here are some of the top sources for a search


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.


http://www.definitions.net/definition/sentient
Princeton's WordNet
1.sentient, animate(adj)
endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness
"the living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage"- T.E.Lawrence
2.sentient(adj)
consciously perceiving
"sentient of the intolerable load"; "a boy so sentient of his surroundings"- W A White
Wiktionary
1.sentient(Noun)
Lifeform with the capability to feel sensation, such as pain.
2.sentient(Adjective)
Conscious or aware.
3.sentient(Adjective)
Experiencing sensation or feeling.
4.sentient(Adjective)
(Primarily in Science Fiction) Possessing human-like intelligence.
Origin: From sentiens, present active participle of sentio.


Webster Dictionary(4.00 / 1 vote)
1.Sentient(adj)
having a faculty, or faculties, of sensation and perception. Specif. (Physiol.), especially sensitive; as, the sentient extremities of nerves, which terminate in the various organs or tissues
2.Sentient(noun)
one who has the faculty of perception; a sentient being
Origin: [L. sentiens, -entis, p. pr. of sentire to discern or perceive by the senses. See Sense.]

http://www.audioenglish.org/dictionary/sentient.htm
• SENTIENT (adjective)
The adjective SENTIENT has 2 senses:
1. endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness
2. consciously perceiving
Familiarity information: SENTIENT used as an adjective is rare.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sentient

adjective
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
noun
3. a person or thing that is sentient.
4. Archaic. the conscious mind.

So looking at a broader search no they are not misusing it.

According to Wiki (popular not best source.)
it use to be used by philosophers to distinguish the ability to think. (that matches PB use)
A broader definition to include just sensing is used as the key to animal rights mind set.

in definition.net they reference wikinary saying that in SI-FI it refers to human-like intelligence.(matches PB use)

Judging by the overall definitions there may be a level of subjectivity in its use and meaning.
So your knee jerk it is miss used does not match all commonly available resources. But is grounding in one of the ways it is currently being used.

The English language is a living thing and the meaning of things can and does change, as can there use. (example-Gay use to only mean happy now it often used to refer to A homosexuals B something that online gamers dislike. Using it in such a way is not misusing it but using its currant uses.)

[eliakon]

The ways that the term is used in sci fi varies widely enough that it may or may not include the xiticix.

So are we back to possibly/probably not? Or is this just going to be a GMs call kind of thing with no concrete canon answer?

No it seems pretty clear.
Xiticix Invasion page 8
"Still, the Xiticix are highly evolved and intelligent beings"
and
"The Xiticis are not like this. They are intelligent and social but in ways very different from humans, or even Splugorth."
each entry for an adult says
"IQ XdY+z and is considered to be in the same category as a supernatural predator, functioning on instinct as much as intellect"

So they are intelligent insect monsters. The circle explicitly says it does not work on that sort of monster. So the Circle doesn't work on them.

[Killer Cyborg]

The ways that the term is used in sci fi varies widely enough that it may or may not include the xiticix.

So are we back to possibly/probably not? Or is this just going to be a GMs call kind of thing with no concrete canon answer?

No it seems pretty clear.
Xiticix Invasion page 8
"Still, the Xiticix are highly evolved and intelligent beings"
and
"The Xiticis are not like this. They are intelligent and social but in ways very different from humans, or even Splugorth."
each entry for an adult says
"IQ XdY+z and is considered to be in the same category as a supernatural predator, functioning on instinct as much as intellect"

So they are intelligent insect monsters. The circle explicitly says it does not work on that sort of monster. So the Circle doesn't work on them.

Works for me.

[Killer Cyborg]

So you are only using one meaning of Sentient in your statement.
from your link
Full Definition of SENTIENT
1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2: aware
3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

So if they are using it to be self aware they could be using it correctly under meaning 2.

Also looking the definition of Sapience I could argue against it applying to many people.

"Self aware" and "aware" are not the same thing.
You can be aware of all kinds of things without being "self aware."
Generally, if something is responsive or conscious of sense impressions, then they're aware, whether they're self-aware or not.

In research it can be a poor choice to draw from only one source so here are some of the top sources for a search


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.

So... same as the definition that I posted.

http://www.definitions.net/definition/sentient
Princeton's WordNet
1.sentient, animate(adj)
endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness
"the living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage"- T.E.Lawrence
2.sentient(adj)
consciously perceiving
"sentient of the intolerable load"; "a boy so sentient of his surroundings"- W A White
Wiktionary
1.sentient(Noun)
Lifeform with the capability to feel sensation, such as pain.
2.sentient(Adjective)
Conscious or aware.
3.sentient(Adjective)
Experiencing sensation or feeling.

So... same as the definition that I posted.

4.sentient(Adjective)
(Primarily in Science Fiction) Possessing human-like intelligence.
Origin: From sentiens, present active participle of sentio.

Primarily in science fiction where they're using the term incorrectly.

Look in enough dictionaries, and you'll find that some of the definitions are incorrect, and/or are an attempt to legitimize an incorrect usage.
That's why some dictionaries today define "literally" as "virtually," aka "the opposite of the actual meaning."

Count up the number of definitions that you've found.
Count how many listings match the one that I posted.
Count how many match something like "possessing human-like intelligence."
Let me know what the final score is.

Then ask yourself, is "possessing human-like intelligence" really a good definition?
Because by that definition, Gods are not sentient. Super-advanced alien races are not sentient. Self-aware AIs are not sentient.
Because their intelligence is not "human-like."

If you feel tempted to argue, "But surely their intelligences do resemble human intelligence in some way or another," then consider how that claim might be applied to a race of humanoid insects that build and fire guns, and otherwise engage in much of the same behaviors that humans do, even if they're overall pretty alien in comparison.

[Killer Cyborg]

Oh, and...

Judging by the overall definitions there may be a level of subjectivity in its use and meaning.

Already addressed.
viewtopic.php?p=2860533#p2860533

However, I think it's clear from context that Palladium generally means "sentient" to refer to what you're calling "sapient"... which, IME, is not uncommon in science fiction.

The ways that the term is used in sci fi varies widely enough that it may or may not include the xiticix.

So your knee jerk...

You've somehow managed to confuse "informed" with "knee jerk."

[eliakon]

How about we NOT have a pissing contest about who is the most accurate user of the most correct version of a word here?
Its pretty obvious what the INTENT of the word was, and to be honest its not all that important anymore since the circle doesn't work on them because they ARE intelligent.

So why don't we get back on topic please?
Thank you

[Blue_Lion]

I was merely pointing out that the meaning of a word can be subjective and changing.
And despite his claim not all meanings matched his. Terms like endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness means there could be more to it.
Any that showed a direct conflict had to be misapplied. Despite what a dictionary says the meaning of words can change so if it is commonly used in a way that is different from what the dictionary says then it is a case of things changing in a living language.

[Blue_Lion]

So your knee jerk...

You've somehow managed to confuse "informed" with "knee jerk."[/quote]

Nope despite you knowing that it is commonly used a way differently than the dictionary you said it was wrong because it does not match your definition. So despite being informed you went with it has to be wrong and instead of it is a common or non traditional usage of the word.

[Killer Cyborg]

I was merely pointing out that the meaning of a word can be subjective and changing.

No, you weren't.
I pointed out that there is a difference between sapience and sentience.
You challenged my claim.
I supported my claim by citing the dictionary.
You challenged my support.
You haven't simply been saying, "Sometimes people use words in different ways"--something that everybody already knows--you were saying that I was incorrect.
And I was not.

And despite his claim not all meanings matched his.

I never claimed that all meanings matched mine.

Terms like endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness means there could be more to it.

Again, already covered.
By some science fiction definitions of the terms, many human beings aren't sentient. By other specific science fiction definitions, dolphins are sentient.
You can find some definition for almost any meaning.
The question is what they mean in Rifts, and the place to start is with the common definitions.

[Killer Cyborg]

So your knee jerk...

You've somehow managed to confuse "informed" with "knee jerk."

Nope despite you knowing that it is commonly used a way differently than the dictionary you said it was wrong because it does not match your definition. So despite being informed you went with it has to be wrong and instead of it is a common or non traditional usage of the word.[/quote]

It is commonly used incorrectly.
Incorrectly IS wrong.

[Killer Cyborg]

I DO agree that we're straying from the topic, though, unless somebody out there still thinks that Xiticix would fall under the effects of the spell in question?

[Blue_Lion]

Another side of this would and new gear or spells be created as part of a dedicated attempt to destroy the Xit.

For example a magic kingdom like new Lazlo may have TW make gear to fight them
Mages may create new spells though research seams possible in the megaversal system.
Given the size of the possible swarms some sort of way to deal with them may be needed for robots and PA. Perhaps auto track shoot anti air tech(think triax has one) or ranged cone shaped aoe weapons.

[Blue_Lion]

I DO agree that we're straying from the topic, though, unless somebody out there still thinks that Xiticix would fall under the effects of the spell in question?

I think if the spell works is a mater of GM call. Lets just leave it at that.

[Nekira Sudacne]

So your knee jerk...

You've somehow managed to confuse "informed" with "knee jerk."

Nope despite you knowing that it is commonly used a way differently than the dictionary you said it was wrong because it does not match your definition. So despite being informed you went with it has to be wrong and instead of it is a common or non traditional usage of the word.

It is commonly used incorrectly.
Incorrectly IS wrong.[/quote]

Words meaning changes over time.

at some point, if a word is used incorrectly often enough by enough people, the old definition becomes incorrect. languages evolve. otherwise we'd all be speaking pre-victorian english still

[Blue_Lion]

Perhaps surround a hive in a tight network of anti air mines something like the missile shooting mines in rifts merc. That way when the hive swarms they take high losses while you sustain low casualties.