Forums of the Megaverse®

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

42dragon wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Trust me, i've tried to make a lot of the fluff for Rifts make sense, and it just doesn't. The entire setting is flawed at its very core. Most of the fluff is directly contradicted (a lot of times, just a few pages later in the same book).

Oh, I completely agree with you. I was just trying to posit another perspective. IMO any mage you come across in game is very, very likely combat trained. Which means in actual combat they will not likely be drawing attention to themselves that will make them a target. They will NOT have poor voice control, and will NOT be gesturing wildly while trying to cast spells. At least not until their side is in control of the fight and their mystical protections are all in place and they then feel the need to taunt their opponents that are no threat to them.

^this^
If the claim is that a mage is not "combat trained" and thus is going to engage in such behavior it becomes inherent on the claiments to prove that
1) such behavior even exists

You want it to be proved that people don't always have 100% control of their voice...?

If that control is going to have a game effect that is dictated by a specific status? Then yes, you need to prove it.
Otherwise it is simply the GM saying that the PC is nerfed in ways that the book doesn't cover because of a rule that doesn't exist.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

2) that such behavior is a symptom of not being combat trained

You need it to be proved that people who have been combat trained by the military are more likely keep calm during firefights than civilians?

Nope. Try reading what I said.
YOUR the one making up the "by the military" that is not in the books. So your particular bit of head canon has no relevance here. THAT is the problem You are confusing your personal head canon with the books.
If you want to make the claim that in the context of this game that only people with combat training (which by the books is not inherently military) can keep calm. Then your going to need to prove it.
Not just say that its obvious.
But actually prove it.
Because you are making a statement that claims that people with out a certain skill (H2H skill) are required to act in a specific way (can not keep calm) that results in an in game disadvantage (must cast spells openly in a way that attracts attention) that is not stated in the books.
That is a rules change and needs support.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

3) that the mages are, in fact, not combat trained.

Well, that's been thoroughly established insofar as the original context goes.
Mages are not as a rule military trained, nor the equivalent. There are some exceptions, but as a rule the average mage hasn't gone through basic training.

Your shifting the goal posts here again to your personal pet head canon.
Arnzo has pretty clearly established that the canon does not care about your personal opinion that only military training or equivalent is combat training. The books have set out a definition of "Combat training" and thus, if you want to change that, your going to need to prove, via in game citations, that the book is actually wrong.
Or to be blunt, sorry, by the books mages, as a rule are combat trained.
They may not be military trained, but that is not combat trained as far as Palladium is concerned.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:You want it to be proved that people don't always have 100% control of their voice...?

If that control is going to have a game effect that is dictated by a specific status?

Not sure what you mean by "status" in this context.

Then yes, you need to prove it.
Otherwise it is simply the GM saying that the PC is nerfed in ways that the book doesn't cover because of a rule that doesn't exist.

"Nerfed" implies that the books cover it.
All that this is really about is human behavior, and humans do not always retain 100% control over their voices.
Humans panic sometimes.

YOUR the one making up the "by the military" that is not in the books.

No, I'm not making that up. That really IS one definition of "combat training."
I already linked to the US Army's website once. Go back and reread if you don't believe me.
The definition in Palladium's books absolutely has no bearing on the original context of my statement.
Different terms mean different things depending on the context and the intend of the speaker, and as the speaker of the original context here, I can can flat-out tell you that I wasn't using Palladium's definition (if there is a single definition that they use).

You can keep trying to tell me what I meant, but you'll be wrong.
And the only result is that I'll eventually turn your game back on you, and I'll nitpick it to see if every word and term you use makes sense in the context of a definition that I pick.
Because if that's the game you want to play, heck, let's do it.

So your particular bit of head canon has no relevance here. THAT is the problem You are confusing your personal head canon with the books.

No. You're confusing something that I said in a general context with the context of game mechanics.

If you want to make the claim that in the context of this game that only people with combat training (which by the books is not inherently military) can keep calm. Then your going to need to prove it.

In the context of the game, people are still people, and humans still act the way that humans do unless otherwise specified.

Because you are making a statement that claims that people with out a certain skill (H2H skill) are required to act in a specific way (can not keep calm) that results in an in game disadvantage (must cast spells openly in a way that attracts attention) that is not stated in the books.

Let me count the ways that you're not recounting things accurately:
1. I have made no claims about mages having HTH skills affecting their voice. My only claim was that people who have undergone military combat training are less likely to panic in a firefight than civilians.
2. I have not claimed that mages "can not keep calm."
I have claimed that mages, being people, will not keep 100% calm, and will not always retain 100% voice control regardless of circumstances.
3. I have never claimed that mages "must cast spells openly in a way that attracts attention."
I have pointed out that by the books, mages are NOT described or depicted as hiding their spellcasting by default, that they are described as speaking magic words forcefully and drawing mystic symbols in the air when they cast spells, and that there is absolutely no canon support for the idea that they never lose full control over their voice volume when casting.

I have corrected you on all these things before, so I have increasing trouble believing that you are honestly misunderstanding the discussion to such a large degree.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:You want it to be proved that people don't always have 100% control of their voice...?

If that control is going to have a game effect that is dictated by a specific status?

Not sure what you mean by "status" in this context.

What I mean is that if having the status of being combat trained or not has a specific effect on your voice, then yes you need to prove that link

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Then yes, you need to prove it.
Otherwise it is simply the GM saying that the PC is nerfed in ways that the book doesn't cover because of a rule that doesn't exist.

"Nerfed" implies that the books cover it.
All that this is really about is human behavior, and humans do not always retain 100% control over their voices.
Humans panic sometimes.

Nerfed is the correct term
The books do not have any such limitation placed on casters, so saying that they all have it is a nerf
and yes, sometimes people panic. That is a far cry from trying to claim that most people will always panic (in a specific way at that) in all combat situations.
Nerfing mages to make them cast wildly in combat unless they are "combat trained" for example.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

YOUR the one making up the "by the military" that is not in the books.

No, I'm not making that up. That really IS one definition of "combat training."
I already linked to the US Army's website once. Go back and reread if you don't believe me.

I was not aware that the US Army wrote Palladium games canon.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The definition in Palladium's books absolutely has no bearing on the original context of my statement.

So you are openly admitting at this point that you do not care what the canon status is, and that you are now claiming that your personal definitions trump the canon. Got it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Different terms mean different things depending on the context and the intend of the speaker, and as the speaker of the original context here, I can can flat-out tell you that I wasn't using Palladium's definition (if there is a single definition that they use).

You can keep trying to tell me what I meant, but you'll be wrong.

The definition you picked though, is wrong.
Sorry it is.
Flat out you are saying that if you don't have X then you do Y. And the books define what X is. You are now saying that even though you have that you still have Y... because you were not talking about X.
If your trying to state "Mages can not fight" or "Mages must all cast wildly because my headcanon says so" then fine.
But claiming that they are not combat trained, and then claiming that you can just change the meaning of combat trained to suit your purposes is disingenuous at best (do you know what the words "moving goal posts" mean?)

Killer Cyborg wrote:And the only result is that I'll eventually turn your game back on you, and I'll nitpick it to see if every word and term you use makes sense in the context of a definition that I pick.
Because if that's the game you want to play, heck, let's do it.

If insisting that canon definitions of a word be used for a discussion is a game in your opinion then we have far deeper issues here.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

So your particular bit of head canon has no relevance here. THAT is the problem You are confusing your personal head canon with the books.

No. You're confusing something that I said in a general context with the context of game mechanics.

You chose words that have meanings. If you want to pick new words fine... but you chose to try and justify why mages get a specific nerf based on words that Palladium has defined as having a specific meaning.
Just like you cant say that your definition of PPE trumps the books...

Killer Cyborg wrote:

If you want to make the claim that in the context of this game that only people with combat training (which by the books is not inherently military) can keep calm. Then your going to need to prove it.

In the context of the game, people are still people, and humans still act the way that humans do unless otherwise specified.

A nice non-sequitur that proves nothing.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Because you are making a statement that claims that people with out a certain skill (H2H skill) are required to act in a specific way (can not keep calm) that results in an in game disadvantage (must cast spells openly in a way that attracts attention) that is not stated in the books.

Let me count the ways that you're not recounting things accurately:
1. I have made no claims about mages having HTH skills affecting their voice. My only claim was that people who have undergone military combat training are less likely to panic in a firefight than civilians.
2. I have not claimed that mages "can not keep calm."
I have claimed that mages, being people, will not keep 100% calm, and will not always retain 100% voice control regardless of circumstances.
3. I have never claimed that mages "must cast spells openly in a way that attracts attention."
I have pointed out that by the books, mages are NOT described or depicted as hiding their spellcasting by default, that they are described as speaking magic words forcefully and drawing mystic symbols in the air when they cast spells, and that there is absolutely no canon support for the idea that they never lose full control over their voice volume when casting.

I have corrected you on all these things before, so I have increasing trouble believing that you are honestly misunderstanding the discussion to such a large degree.

1) when you try and change a canon term for your own definition you are already house ruling
2) again your being disingenuous by trying to present the claim that 'sometimes panic' and 'always do something stupid' are synonyms
3) once again your trying to present your headcanon as How It Is
Mages 'speaking forcefully' is not the same as "can be detected in combat" just like "drawing symbols" is not the same as "can be seen or identified". Sure its possible... but that requires you to make a house rule. And since its not covered then yes, adding in a limitation to a person is a house rule. And make no mistake this is adding something.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:You want it to be proved that people don't always have 100% control of their voice...?

If that control is going to have a game effect that is dictated by a specific status?

Not sure what you mean by "status" in this context.

What I mean is that if having the status of being combat trained or not has a specific effect on your voice, then yes you need to prove that link

It's not an effect on your voice. It's an effect on being able to keep your cool under fire.

Nerfed is the correct term

A nerf is a change to a game that reduces the power of a weapon or skill.
In order for there to be a change, there must be a rule covering the situation in the first place.

The books do not have any such limitation placed on casters,

What limitation?
That casters don't have a specific super power that grants them complete voice control under all circumstances?
That's not a limitation. That's a lack of a super power that doesn't exist in canon.

and yes, sometimes people panic.

Except that you've been claiming that mages NEVER panic to the point of losing any voice control, regardless of circumstances.
THAt would make them super human.

That is a far cry from trying to claim that most people will always panic (in a specific way at that) in all combat situations.

Sure, but i have never made that claim.
You're making it up, and pretending that I said it.
Unless you can quote me EVER saying it...?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

YOUR the one making up the "by the military" that is not in the books.

No, I'm not making that up. That really IS one definition of "combat training."
I already linked to the US Army's website once. Go back and reread if you don't believe me.

I was not aware that the US Army wrote Palladium games canon.

They don't. But we're not discussing game rules--we're discussing human behavior.
Your claim is that mages never lose any control over their voice in combat, that they never panic.
That goes against the nature of human behavior.
My only argument is that not only does the super-power you keep insisting that they have NOT exist in canon, it doesn't even make sense with what we know of human behavior, because mages are civilians as a rule, not soldiers, and are therefore more prone to lose some level of control under combat circumstances than soldiers are.
And even soldiers sometime raise their voice accidentally during combat.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The definition in Palladium's books absolutely has no bearing on the original context of my statement.

So you are openly admitting at this point that you do not care what the canon status is, and that you are now claiming that your personal definitions trump the canon. Got it.

In the context of my statement?
Yes, because my statement was not addressing the character stats version of "combat training," but was instead addressing the kind of training that soldiers go through that makes them more resistant than civilians when it comes to panicking or losing control in various ways when they're under fire.
Context matters, yo.
Canon only wins out when I'm discussing specific rules and specific game terms, NOT when I'm discussing a general concept that happens to also include the same words that happen to be game terms.
Like if I talk about Russia attacking Germany during WWII, even in the context of the history of Rifts Earth, I am NOT talking about Russia rolling a d20 to strike, no matter how many times Palladium defines the term that way in certain contexts.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Different terms mean different things depending on the context and the intend of the speaker, and as the speaker of the original context here, I can can flat-out tell you that I wasn't using Palladium's definition (if there is a single definition that they use).

You can keep trying to tell me what I meant, but you'll be wrong.

The definition you picked though, is wrong.

It's not wrong--it's just not the definition that you incorrectly keep trying to apply.
If I insisted that you, in the above sentence, meant "picked" in the definition "take hold of and remove (a flower, fruit, or vegetable) from where it is growing," would that mean that you were wrong?
Would you be using the wrong definition?

Flat out you are saying that if you don't have X then you do Y.

Really?
Quote me.

Killer Cyborg wrote:And the only result is that I'll eventually turn your game back on you, and I'll nitpick it to see if every word and term you use makes sense in the context of a definition that I pick.
Because if that's the game you want to play, heck, let's do it.

If insisting that canon definitions of a word be used for a discussion is a game in your opinion then we have far deeper issues here.

Well, ONE of us does anyway.
Not all terms or phrases exist solely as game terms.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

So your particular bit of head canon has no relevance here. THAT is the problem You are confusing your personal head canon with the books.

No. You're confusing something that I said in a general context with the context of game mechanics.

You chose words that have meanings.

Do they?
We've been arguing for page after page after page about what those terms might mean in a strictly game context, and have yet to come to anything really solid.
Which makes it doubly pointless to try to dodge my point by ignoring the context.

What it comes down to is this:
I say that when I talked about mages "not even being combat trained," that I was referring to combat training in the military sense, in the way that the US army defines it, in the way that the term is commonly used.

YOU claim that I meant something else, that I meant "whatever in-game definition exists, even though nobody can really define it in a single clear manner."

Which, frankly, makes absolutely no sense.
You're trying to claim that you know better than I do how I meant the phrase.
You're trying to claim that I necessarily was using a term as defined by an in-game definition that we still haven't all agreed on, and that I certainly didn't even know existed when I made the claim.

All of which is has been kind of entertaining in its own bizarre and illogical way, but it is complete nonsense.
Just give it up, or try to prove that I was using the term in a way that I was unaware even existed.
As it is, you can't even get my basic claims correctly, in spite of repeated corrections about it on my part.

This is the context of the original comment that I made:
viewtopic.php?p=2949129#p2949129

Killer_Cyborg wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:A first level mage is as much a specialist in casting as a SF is in combat with +4 to save vs horror factor, not some one that is easily rattled or thrown off their game.

NOT so much.
Mages as a rule are not combat-trained characters.

Let me ask you this do you allow a lvl 1 charter to do a aimed shot in combat without penalty?

Sure.
And Mages don't get a penalty to cast spells.
They're just prone to speaking loudly sometimes in tense situations.

That's it. That's the extend of it.
I've said that mages are not as much of combat specialists as Special Forces, and (in that context) they're not even combat trained.
I've said that mages are prone to speaking loudly sometimes in tense situations.

Anything else that anybody claims I've said, unless they can quote me, is a lie.
And at this point, after over three months of me correcting people about my claims, it pretty much has to be a deliberate lie, because I've restated my claims quite a few times, and corrected quite a few people when they've misquoted me and mis-paraphrased me.

Killer Cyborg wrote:This is the context of the original comment that I made:
viewtopic.php?p=2949129#p2949129

Killer_Cyborg wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:A first level mage is as much a specialist in casting as a SF is in combat with +4 to save vs horror factor, not some one that is easily rattled or thrown off their game.

NOT so much.
Mages as a rule are not combat-trained characters.

Let me ask you this do you allow a lvl 1 charter to do a aimed shot in combat without penalty?

Sure.
And Mages don't get a penalty to cast spells.
They're just prone to speaking loudly sometimes in tense situations.

That's it. That's the extend of it.
I've said that mages are not as much of combat specialists as Special Forces, and (in that context) they're not even combat trained.
I've said that mages are prone to speaking loudly sometimes in tense situations.

Curious if it's ever happened in a game. If so, how?

Killer Cyborg wrote:What it comes down to is this:
I say that when I talked about mages "not even being combat trained," that I was referring to combat training in the military sense, in the way that the US army defines it, in the way that the term is commonly used.

Okay, so I get it.
You don't mean "Combat trained" in the sense that Palladium books uses the term.
You mean Combat trained in the sense that someone else uses the term.
But you expect that they should be considered to be totally interchangeable... at least when it allows you to defend your original (and frankly I think badly phrased) premise

Which to me shows that your not really interested in a discussion about the theory behind the statement. Your more interested in proving that you were never possibly wrong, and that your original claim that "Mages aren't even (as a rule) trained for combat" has to be right. No matter how you have to torture words, or change meanings or otherwise turn the written canon 100% on its head to do it.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:What it comes down to is this:
I say that when I talked about mages "not even being combat trained," that I was referring to combat training in the military sense, in the way that the US army defines it, in the way that the term is commonly used.

Okay, so I get it.
You don't mean "Combat trained" in the sense that Palladium books uses the term.
You mean Combat trained in the sense that someone else uses the term.

Right. In the general, standard English sense of the term.

But you expect that they should be considered to be totally interchangeable... at least when it allows you to defend your original (and frankly I think badly phrased) premise

Here you go again.
You're asserting that I intended the phrasing to reflect Palladium definitions that I wasn't aware of at the time, and that might well not exist as a single entity.
Based on what exactly...?

WHAT makes you insist that I mean the phrase specifically in a way that I wasn't aware existed, and that may not exist, instead of meaning it in the common English usage?

Which to me shows that your not really interested in a discussion about the theory behind the statement. Your more interested in proving that you were never possibly wrong, and that your original claim that "Mages aren't even (as a rule) trained for combat" has to be right. No matter how you have to torture words, or change meanings or otherwise turn the written canon 100% on its head to do it.

I've moved on several times to more esoteric "what could this phrase mean in game terms," and YOU specifically keep trying to bring up the original context, and incorrectly stating what that context was.
I don't know why, and I don't particularly care.

lather wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:This is the context of the original comment that I made:
viewtopic.php?p=2949129#p2949129

Killer_Cyborg wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:A first level mage is as much a specialist in casting as a SF is in combat with +4 to save vs horror factor, not some one that is easily rattled or thrown off their game.

NOT so much.
Mages as a rule are not combat-trained characters.

Let me ask you this do you allow a lvl 1 charter to do a aimed shot in combat without penalty?

Sure.
And Mages don't get a penalty to cast spells.
They're just prone to speaking loudly sometimes in tense situations.

That's it. That's the extend of it.
I've said that mages are not as much of combat specialists as Special Forces, and (in that context) they're not even combat trained.
I've said that mages are prone to speaking loudly sometimes in tense situations.

Curious if it's ever happened in a game. If so, how?

That's a good and fair question, and I'm curious about the same.
In my games, mages did not [as a default attempt to conceal their spellcasting, so it's never come up in any of my games.
So I suppose we'd have to ask somebody who does assume that mages as a default disguise their spellcasting, and find out whether or not they every looked at the specifics of the situation and determined if the mage might have a bit of difficulty completely disguising their forceful speech and their drawing of magic sigils in the air with their hands, or if they simply always granted those mages complete benefit of doubt when it comes to anybody noticing such behaviors.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:What it comes down to is this:
I say that when I talked about mages "not even being combat trained," that I was referring to combat training in the military sense, in the way that the US army defines it, in the way that the term is commonly used.

Okay, so I get it.
You don't mean "Combat trained" in the sense that Palladium books uses the term.
You mean Combat trained in the sense that someone else uses the term.

Right. In the general, standard English sense of the term.

Nope, nice try, but no.
First off, there is no such "standard English sense of the term"
Second off, circularly defining a term is not 'standard English' in any sense I am familiar with.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

But you expect that they should be considered to be totally interchangeable... at least when it allows you to defend your original (and frankly I think badly phrased) premise

Here you go again.
You're asserting that I intended the phrasing to reflect Palladium definitions that I wasn't aware of at the time, and that might well not exist as a single entity.
Based on what exactly...?

WHAT makes you insist that I mean the phrase specifically in a way that I wasn't aware existed, and that may not exist, instead of meaning it in the common English usage?

Well? Besides the fact that there isn't such a 'common English usage'?
Or the fact that game design theory is not generally a consideration to 'common English usage'
Or the fact that your 'common English usage' is circular?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Which to me shows that your not really interested in a discussion about the theory behind the statement. Your more interested in proving that you were never possibly wrong, and that your original claim that "Mages aren't even (as a rule) trained for combat" has to be right. No matter how you have to torture words, or change meanings or otherwise turn the written canon 100% on its head to do it.

I've moved on several times to more esoteric "what could this phrase mean in game terms," and YOU specifically keep trying to bring up the original context, and incorrectly stating what that context was.
I don't know why, and I don't particularly care.

Because there are no 'esoteric' contexts?
No seriously. There isn't one.
The books, flat out state, that mages do have combat training.
Period. Dot. Full Stop. End of sentence.
At that point, any exploration of how mages don't really have combat training is not just 'esoteric' but no longer with in the confines of the game and firmly in the land of house rules.
There are all sorts of discussions that can be had on what mages do not have...
...but it is pretty manifestly clear that "Combat Training" is not one of them.
Virtually every magic class comes with professional levels of combat training, and those that don't have the option to take that professional training if they wish.
If mages have training in something that is by its very nature defined as combat training and they have it at professional levels then it is pretty hard to make a straight faced claim that they do not, in fact possess combat training.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:What it comes down to is this:
I say that when I talked about mages "not even being combat trained," that I was referring to combat training in the military sense, in the way that the US army defines it, in the way that the term is commonly used.

Okay, so I get it.
You don't mean "Combat trained" in the sense that Palladium books uses the term.
You mean Combat trained in the sense that someone else uses the term.

Right. In the general, standard English sense of the term.

Nope, nice try, but no.
First off, there is no such "standard English sense of the term"
Second off, circularly defining a term is not 'standard English' in any sense I am familiar with.

There's nothing circular about it.
Google the term:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... t+training

Top hit is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... c_Training

In your version of reality, I apparently used the term to mean an as-of-yet-unclear Palladium definition of the term, a definition that I wasn't aware of.
In my version of reality, I meant it as the term is generally applied--that of referring to basic military training.

Do you seriously believe that it makes more sense to claim that I meant the term in a definition that I was unaware of than that I meant it in a definition that I was aware of...?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

But you expect that they should be considered to be totally interchangeable... at least when it allows you to defend your original (and frankly I think badly phrased) premise

Here you go again.
You're asserting that I intended the phrasing to reflect Palladium definitions that I wasn't aware of at the time, and that might well not exist as a single entity.
Based on what exactly...?

WHAT makes you insist that I mean the phrase specifically in a way that I wasn't aware existed, and that may not exist, instead of meaning it in the common English usage?

Well? Besides the fact that there isn't such a 'common English usage'?

See above.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Which to me shows that your not really interested in a discussion about the theory behind the statement. Your more interested in proving that you were never possibly wrong, and that your original claim that "Mages aren't even (as a rule) trained for combat" has to be right. No matter how you have to torture words, or change meanings or otherwise turn the written canon 100% on its head to do it.

I've moved on several times to more esoteric "what could this phrase mean in game terms," and YOU specifically keep trying to bring up the original context, and incorrectly stating what that context was.
I don't know why, and I don't particularly care.

Because there are no 'esoteric' contexts?
No seriously. There isn't one.
The books, flat out state, that mages do have combat training.

No, they don't.
But more importantly, everything you're talking about here was discovered after 3 months+ of searching through the books.
How the holy hell does it make any kind of sense to claim that THAT is the definition that I was using when I originally made the claim, in the context of whether or mages were better trained than Special Forces when it comes to keeping cool in firefights...?

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:.

One thing that stands out is that Fencing is listed as "combat training," even though WP Sword wouldn't qualify. This oddity could be explained by Fencing being defined as "the formal art of fighting with a sword and dagger," meaning that it is in itself combat training, while Weapon Proficiencies (as I have pointed out) are not combat training in their own right--they merely provide combat training.

A larger oddity is in your example of Cana the Blind, who is listed as having Weapon Proficiency: Blunt, but whom is described under "Weapons of Note" as not being allowed to carry weapons, and "does not really know how to use any anyway."
The implication there is that having a Weapon Proficiency doesn't mean that you "really know how" to use the weapon, which seems to go against the nature and description of WPs.

Proficiencies don't train people, they are the training.

Not according to canon.

RUE 326 (emphasis added)
Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon.

The separate listing of WP outside Combat Training doesn't necessarily declare WP not to he combat training.

Sort if like if I list Equipment then Weapons. Weapons are still a form of equipment. Giving them a different heading doesn't change that.

Hm.
I think I have to agree with your logic here.
Good point.

WP Blunt could mean Cana has experience fighting with non weapons, like brooms.

The skill WP Blunt is defined as (RUE 326) "Training with all types of blunt weapons, including maces, hammers, cudgels, steal or lead pipes, staves, and clubs."

"Combat training" is a generic term. It has no set definition in the real world, it's all dependent on context and the intent of the speaker. I don't see why you would expect it to be a game term with a precise definition.

Some RPG companies use bolded language to differentiate between background text and actual game terminology ("Trolls are large, monstrous creatures that live under bridges. They have Regeneration, 3 points per round, and a Claw Attack for 2D6+5 damage. They also are Vulnerable to Fire x2"). Palladium uses bolded text with no clear rhyme or reason ("Ley Line Walkers are men of magic!!! They use PPE to fuel their spells. They study the mystical ley lines that criss-cross the entire globe! No one on Earth knows more about the ley lines than these mysterious sorcerers!"). So, you can't always take Palladium's descriptive language as determinative as to what a certain game term means.

A medieval knight would probably have HTH Expert or something, and several ancient weapons proficiencies. He's combat trained for his day, but he wouldn't be considered so today. Not without more training. You wouldn't want him running around fighting in Syria or something without a refresher course. Most sorcerers in Rifts are going to have HTH Basic and a couple of weapon proficiencies, but I doubt if they've been through anything like boot camp. They're wizards, not soldiers. Look at their starting SDC values. They don't start with the D4x10 that men at arms do. That said, a normal 1st level Shifter could probably beat me up, even without his magic or his weapons. Because I'm a guy without a HTH skill, I get 1 attack per round and I don't have a free parry.

So, "combat training" is still going to be dependent upon the context and the intent of the speaker.

Really... REALLY!? You still are splitting hairs on THIS?
Let the thread die.
Getting sick of seeing this dren at the top of the thread pile every morning, afternoon and evening. Agree to disagree, play and run the game as you want and finish this dead-horse-beating argument.
NEITHER side is gonna convince the other and you are only annoying the rest of us.

Is it difficult to keep scrolling?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:Proficiencies don't train people, they are the training.

Not according to canon.

RUE 326 (emphasis added)
Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon.

I would view this as: proficiencies provide training by being the training themselves, being the result of training, a familiarity which then provides additional self-training as you level up and get more bonuses.

It is training, which leads to proficiency, which provides more (self) training (and resulting proficiency) via more bonuses via level-ups.

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:Proficiencies don't train people, they are the training.

Not according to canon.

RUE 326 (emphasis added)
Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon.

I would view this as: proficiencies provide training by being the training themselves, being the result of training, a familiarity which then provides additional self-training as you level up and get more bonuses.

It is training, which leads to proficiency, which provides more (self) training (and resulting proficiency) via more bonuses via level-ups.

That's not what the word provide means.

Provide can be a pretty wide concept. Opportunities can provide more opportunities while still remaining opportunities.

A skill, a proficiency, can't be a "trainer", so the way it provides training is by enabling the user to combat train themself FURTHER, since it's obviously inherently combat training to have the ability to train yourself to be better at combat.

Fun fact: The Russian Villager OCC found on page 71 of WB 17 (alternatively called the "Typical Villager/Farmer/Worker OCC and NPC; and also known as "peasants, citizens, and the Russian People) has Ancient Weapon WPs, one Modern Energy Weapon WP, and Hand to Hand basic (upgradeable to Expert for 2 OCC related or or Martial Art or Assassin for 3 OCC related skills). So, they would be "combat trained" in the sense that they have combat training. Now, the Coalition Military grunt has Expert and a couple more WPs, but - leaving aside the issue of degree - would anyone care to make the claim that every single peasant in Rifts Russia is "combat trained" in the same sense as a Coalition military grunt?

dreicunan wrote:Fun fact: The Russian Villager OCC found on page 71 of WB 17 (alternatively called the "Typical Villager/Farmer/Worker OCC and NPC; and also known as "peasants, citizens, and the Russian People) has Ancient Weapon WPs, one Modern Energy Weapon WP, and Hand to Hand basic (upgradeable to Expert for 2 OCC related or or Martial Art or Assassin for 3 OCC related skills). So, they would be "combat trained" in the sense that they have combat training. Now, the Coalition Military grunt has Expert and a couple more WPs, but - leaving aside the issue of degree - would anyone care to make the claim that every single peasant in Rifts Russia is "combat trained" in the same sense as a Coalition military grunt?

Your question is predicated on a false assumption.
That is like saying that a destroyer is not a warship because it is not as powerful as a battleship.
The question here is not one of scale. If you make a linear scale of efficiency everyone will have different values.
The question is a binary "have you surpassed threshold X or not"


-------------------------------------------X--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Trained..............................Trained......................Still Trained..............................So are these people...........................Yep them too..

Grunts all have robot combat basic, weapons systems, read sensory, pilot tank+APC, hovercraft and radio, all very useful in modern warfare.

Russian villagers are certainly a match for them in some realms of combat like hand to hand, or even shooting a rifle, but fall behind in lacking supportive skills useful in long range technological combat.

Both OCCs are combat trained. The degree of combat training differs. Sort of like how you are musically trained if you took 1semester on the recorder but that doesn't make you equally musically trained as someone who has played the clarinet for years and is part of an orchestra.

eliakon wrote:

dreicunan wrote:Fun fact: The Russian Villager OCC found on page 71 of WB 17 (alternatively called the "Typical Villager/Farmer/Worker OCC and NPC; and also known as "peasants, citizens, and the Russian People) has Ancient Weapon WPs, one Modern Energy Weapon WP, and Hand to Hand basic (upgradeable to Expert for 2 OCC related or or Martial Art or Assassin for 3 OCC related skills). So, they would be "combat trained" in the sense that they have combat training. Now, the Coalition Military grunt has Expert and a couple more WPs, but - leaving aside the issue of degree - would anyone care to make the claim that every single peasant in Rifts Russia is "combat trained" in the same sense as a Coalition military grunt?

Your question is predicated on a false assumption.
That is like saying that a destroyer is not a warship because it is not as powerful as a battleship.
The question here is not one of scale. If you make a linear scale of efficiency everyone will have different values.
The question is a binary "have you surpassed threshold X or not"


-------------------------------------------X--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Trained..............................Trained......................Still Trained..............................So are these people...........................Yep them too..

What a wonderful straw-man argument. I specifically pointed out that I was setting aside the issue of "degree" of training, and you then say that the question isn't one of "scale." I was attempting to point out that the phrase "combat trained" can be used in more than one sense.

Take myself, for example. I've been trained in the use of a bo (staff) and in Shorin-Ryu Karate. However, I never got past yellow-belt. I've also been given rudimentary training on how to use a pistol and a shot-gun by a friend. Am I technically combat trained in the broadest meaning of that phrase? Sure.

Now, if we are talking about modern combat and comparing a Marine, an Army Ranger, and me, would saying that we are all combat trained make any bloody sense? Not to me.

Axelmania wrote: snip
Both OCCs are combat trained. The degree of combat training differs. Sort of like how you are musically trained if you took 1semester on the recorder but that doesn't make you equally musically trained as someone who has played the clarinet for years and is part of an orchestra.

That is another great way illustrate this. Let's say that you have two piano players. One of them has a single semester of training. The other studied in a conservatory and plays professionally. I agree that they would both be considered "trained" musicians in the broadest sense of those terms. If we conducted a test in which people were informed that a "trained pianist" was about to play Mussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition" for them, which of the two players is likely to meet their expectations of what a "trained pianist" can do?

dreicunan wrote:Fun fact: The Russian Villager OCC found on page 71 of WB 17 (alternatively called the "Typical Villager/Farmer/Worker OCC and NPC; and also known as "peasants, citizens, and the Russian People) has Ancient Weapon WPs, one Modern Energy Weapon WP, and Hand to Hand basic (upgradeable to Expert for 2 OCC related or or Martial Art or Assassin for 3 OCC related skills). So, they would be "combat trained" in the sense that they have combat training. Now, the Coalition Military grunt has Expert and a couple more WPs, but - leaving aside the issue of degree - would anyone care to make the claim that every single peasant in Rifts Russia is "combat trained" in the same sense as a Coalition military grunt?

combat trained, yes.

Battle-trained? No.

They aren't the same thing.

But, i might add... the Russian frontier is far and away worse than all but the very most demon-infested parts of North America. So, yeah, every peasant farmer living out in the hinterlands that hasnt died up to this point..

is probably one tough son of a gun, and teaches his entire family to be. Because they have to be hard bastards to survive out there.

If people jump to wrong conclusions about trained pianists that is their mistake. The broad meaning is the default meaning unless context is established.

Axelmania wrote:If people jump to wrong conclusions about trained pianists that is their mistake. The broad meaning is the default meaning unless context is established.

No, it isn't, and you know that. When the average person is told that a "trained pianist" is going to play a concert or a "trained wilderness guide" is going to lead their expedition, they aren't assuming that means that the base level of competency to be expected is that received by completing a single training session.

The reboot of Star Trek exploited the fact that the broadest definition is NOT the default interpretation when Sulu claimed that he had combat training and then later admitted to Kirk that it was in "fencing." Sure, it met the definition in the broadest sense, but that was not what the audience was expecting to hear, and that subversion of expectations makes the joke (note that I am commenting specifically on the use of the language, not on the fact that the film later confirmed that all asians know martial arts and that in the future, fencing is done with katanas, because katanas are just better).

dreicunan wrote:

Axelmania wrote:If people jump to wrong conclusions about trained pianists that is their mistake. The broad meaning is the default meaning unless context is established.

No, it isn't, and you know that. When the average person is told that a "trained pianist" is going to play a concert or a "trained wilderness guide" is going to lead their expedition, they aren't assuming that means that the base level of competency to be expected is that received by completing a single training session.

The reboot of Star Trek exploited the fact that the broadest definition is NOT the default interpretation when Sulu claimed that he had combat training and then later admitted to Kirk that it was in "fencing." Sure, it met the definition in the broadest sense, but that was not what the audience was expecting to hear, and that subversion of expectations makes the joke (note that I am commenting specifically on the use of the language, not on the fact that the film later confirmed that all asians know martial arts and that in the future, fencing is done with katanas, because katanas are just better).

Well they did that more for a different trope (which I can't remember the name of off the top of my head), someone claiming greater expertise/training at something than they actually have in order to get selected only to run into problems down the line when they have to admit 'well I was exaggerating and really only have X and not Y as I implied/claimed'.

man 15 pages and we can't even agree of the terms to define the terms need to discuss the statement in the title.

dreicunan wrote:

Axelmania wrote:If people jump to wrong conclusions about trained pianists that is their mistake. The broad meaning is the default meaning unless context is established.

No, it isn't, and you know that. When the average person is told that a "trained pianist" is going to play a concert or a "trained wilderness guide" is going to lead their expedition, they aren't assuming that means that the base level of competency to be expected is that received by completing a single training session.

The reboot of Star Trek exploited the fact that the broadest definition is NOT the default interpretation when Sulu claimed that he had combat training and then later admitted to Kirk that it was in "fencing." Sure, it met the definition in the broadest sense, but that was not what the audience was expecting to hear, and that subversion of expectations makes the joke (note that I am commenting specifically on the use of the language, not on the fact that the film later confirmed that all asians know martial arts and that in the future, fencing is done with katanas, because katanas are just better).

Average people are often presumptuous and hold illogical beliefs. Sulu was correct in what he said. Truth contradicting bad audience assumptions is a common tool.

Axelmania wrote:

dreicunan wrote:

Axelmania wrote:If people jump to wrong conclusions about trained pianists that is their mistake. The broad meaning is the default meaning unless context is established.

No, it isn't, and you know that. When the average person is told that a "trained pianist" is going to play a concert or a "trained wilderness guide" is going to lead their expedition, they aren't assuming that means that the base level of competency to be expected is that received by completing a single training session.

The reboot of Star Trek exploited the fact that the broadest definition is NOT the default interpretation when Sulu claimed that he had combat training and then later admitted to Kirk that it was in "fencing." Sure, it met the definition in the broadest sense, but that was not what the audience was expecting to hear, and that subversion of expectations makes the joke (note that I am commenting specifically on the use of the language, not on the fact that the film later confirmed that all asians know martial arts and that in the future, fencing is done with katanas, because katanas are just better).

Average people are often presumptuous and hold illogical beliefs. Sulu was correct in what he said. Truth contradicting bad audience assumptions is a common tool.

The "truth" is that "Fencing" in modern parlance refers to a sport, not a combat system, so the "truth" did not contradict a "bad assumption" on the part of the audience. However, if it makes you feel better to act like the way language is used by average people doesn't actually matter, and to believe that basing your interpretation of what people say on how words are normally used is somehow "presumptuous" and "illogical," go right ahead and run with that. I'm sure that it will do wonders for your ability to communicate accurately.

Sulu lied.

Sulu did not lie.

Stand. No farther. No escape for you. You either leave this bois bloodied, or with my blood on your swords. Cowards!

Combat sports are also combat systems. Heck, even American football is a form of combat training because it can teach you to tackle or avoid tackles, which is a pretty useful thing to do in combat.

How regular people think DOES matter, but it doesn't dictate that language must always cater to narrow assumptions when it has broad usage.

Much like Sulu, I could be vague and use terms people would make assumptions about to 1) inspire confidence 2) inflate my importance 3) be funny but that doesn't mean I necessarily would.

In his case, I think he was having fun with the 'asians know kung fu' trope, and he was technicaly correct in what he said.

If someone asks a Japanese-American if they can cook, they might make assumptions like "I bet he cooks wontons" but whatever a majority assumes from vagueness doesn't dictate we can't be vague if their assumption isn't true.

Axelmania wrote:Sulu did not lie.

Stand. No farther. No escape for you. You either leave this bois bloodied, or with my blood on your swords. Cowards!

Combat sports are also combat systems. Heck, even American football is a form of combat training because it can teach you to tackle or avoid tackles, which is a pretty useful thing to do in combat.

How regular people think DOES matter, but it doesn't dictate that language must always cater to narrow assumptions when it has broad usage.

Much like Sulu, I could be vague and use terms people would make assumptions about to 1) inspire confidence 2) inflate my importance 3) be funny but that doesn't mean I necessarily would.

In his case, I think he was having fun with the 'asians know kung fu' trope, and he was technicaly correct in what he said.

If someone asks a Japanese-American if they can cook, they might make assumptions like "I bet he cooks wontons" but whatever a majority assumes from vagueness doesn't dictate we can't be vague if their assumption isn't true.

Wontons are Chinese, Yes Americans are often culturally blind but I can't see them going with Japanese American and going Wontons, Sushi yes.

Saitou Hajime wrote:Wontons are Chinese, Yes Americans are often culturally blind but I can't see them going with Japanese American and going Wontons, Sushi yes.

I submit my mistake as evidence that westerners can make that mixup

I mean heck... I watched the entire series of Cooking Master Boy (anime based on chinese cooking) and watch lots of anime set in Japan and I still made that mistake... blah.

Saitou Hajime wrote:man 15 pages and we can't even agree of the terms to define the terms need to discuss the statement in the title.

We're on a forum for a system where even the guy who wrote it admits that he doesn't follow his own rules. The number of pages required to reach a consensus on the issue is probably infinity+1.

Axelmania wrote:

Saitou Hajime wrote:Wontons are Chinese, Yes Americans are often culturally blind but I can't see them going with Japanese American and going Wontons, Sushi yes.

I submit my mistake as evidence that westerners can make that mixup

I mean heck... I watched the entire series of Cooking Master Boy (anime based on chinese cooking) and watch lots of anime set in Japan and I still made that mistake... blah.

I would ask how, but I realized that knowledge of both cultures is above average.

Even when you are fascinated with both cultures, you can still make a foolish gaijin mistake like mixing up their foods/words.

Just noticed someone else did this: http://www.food.com/recipe/shu-mai-japa ... tons-46466