Forums of the Megaverse®

My gaming group and I are fairly new to Rifts and I'm running them through a senario later today that involves Mystic Knights. Is the Mystic Knight ability that makes them immune to energy weapons (lasers, plasma, etc.) only relevent when the MK is hit directly (read: no armor) or does that ability negate energy attacks that hit their armor as well?

I also have the same question for the lightning rod Techno Wizard device. Thanks in advance.

Kaiser_Hound wrote:My gaming group and I are fairly new to Rifts and I'm running them through a senario later today that involves Mystic Knights. Is the Mystic Knight ability that makes them immune to energy weapons (lasers, plasma, etc.) only relevent when the MK is hit directly (read: no armor) or does that ability negate energy attacks that hit their armor as well?

I also have the same question for the lightning rod Techno Wizard device. Thanks in advance.

While nothing has, EVEN NOW, been officially stated in any Book, the vast vast majority of us Posters (yes, this subject has been brought up a kagillion times, but don't blame yourself) have come to the conclusion that the Mystic Knight's Energy Field extends to whatever he is wearing just like a magic shield cast regularly......since most MKs are SDC creatures (what, like 90+ percent Human?), and Magical Energy, even at 1/2 damage, would still do MDC damage to the Knight.

In short: we have, most of us, come to the conclusion over time that the Impervious To Energy capability of the Mystic Knights would be utterly useless in a Game/Role-Playing context if it only worked on their bodies.

EDIT: Why the Authors haven't yet explained the precise workings of MK invulnerability in any Book, even after all this time, is just as much a mystery to all of us as it must be to you.

I look it much like some of the impervious spells that are available and state that it is the caster and whatever they are carrying. Sadly PB is consistent in the wording on those spells either so that is why we end up in the quandry we have. I am with Corn though. Extends whatever they happen to be wearing and if the lose something it stops being protected.

Unfortunatly for mystic knights, their impervious to energy aura applies ONLY to their person. not their armor or anything they carry.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Unfortunatly for mystic knights, their impervious to energy aura applies ONLY to their person. not their armor or anything they carry.

Care to cite a book and page number for that?

jaymz wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Unfortunatly for mystic knights, their impervious to energy aura applies ONLY to their person. not their armor or anything they carry.

Care to cite a book and page number for that?

Hence the reason why I was VERY careful to state that we don't have an official, detailed explanation on MK invulnerability one way or the other in the Books.

Hmm, I see...I was afraid I would get a mixed response.

Well, the main reason I wanted to throw them, the Mystic Knights, in was to make my PC's think of different ways to deal with opponents. Despite hints I've dropped here and there they refuse to keep any "conventional" weaponry on hand and seem to think blasting everything with beam weapons will always work. I think for now I will assume that the MK ability extends to their armor. Like I said my group and I are new to Rifts and if it's an issue later I can just chalk it up to a rule missunderstanding.

Thanks for your help everyone.

cornholioprime wrote:

jaymz wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Unfortunatly for mystic knights, their impervious to energy aura applies ONLY to their person. not their armor or anything they carry.

Care to cite a book and page number for that?

Hence the reason why I was VERY careful to state that we don't have an official, detailed explanation on MK invulnerability one way or the other in the Books.

although the Madhaven books write up on the Wite rose MKs does come close...
seeing as they can ride the warbrirds (or war hawks cant remember the name exactly) which are able to burst into flame at will; if their gear was not impervious as well then they would arrive at the scene naked yes?

Damian Magecraft wrote:

cornholioprime wrote:

jaymz wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Unfortunatly for mystic knights, their impervious to energy aura applies ONLY to their person. not their armor or anything they carry.

Care to cite a book and page number for that?

Hence the reason why I was VERY careful to state that we don't have an official, detailed explanation on MK invulnerability one way or the other in the Books.

although the Madhaven books write up on the Wite rose MKs does come close...
seeing as they can ride the warbrirds (or war hawks cant remember the name exactly) which are able to burst into flame at will; if their gear was not impervious as well then they would arrive at the scene naked yes?

I too remember using that particular example in the last discussion we had on the subject.

The book and page number is exactly where you think it is, under the mystic knight's writeup.

It says the mystic knight is impervious to energy. it says nothing about any gear or equipment, therefore, you cann't assume it does.

Otherwise, why stop there? Maybe it covers their friends and family too.

Or maybe it covers what it says it covers. No more, no less.

There's always been a debate, but the arguments for it covering armor is just "It'd be really useful if it did cover armor". which sadly, is hardly enough justification for it. Just because it dosn't say it dosn't cover armor dosn't mean it does. that's inherently wrong way to look at it. if it dosn't say it dose, it does not. Others things that do cover armor specifically say they do.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:The book and page number is exactly where you think it is, under the mystic knight's writeup.

It says the mystic knight is impervious to energy. it says nothing about any gear or equipment, therefore, you cann't assume it does.

Otherwise, why stop there? Maybe it covers their friends and family too.

Or maybe it covers what it says it covers. No more, no less.

There's always been a debate, but the arguments for it covering armor is just "It'd be really useful if it did cover armor". which sadly, is hardly enough justification for it. Just because it dosn't say it dosn't cover armor dosn't mean it does. that's inherently wrong way to look at it. if it dosn't say it dose, it does not. Others things that do cover armor specifically say they do.

Why would it function differently from every other similiar protection in the books, the Burster ability protects the personal items so why shouldn't the Mystic Knight's protection from energy.

Also, there are impervious to X spells that include the items on the casters or targets person. Allowing the MK's ability to include what they have on their person isn't exactly earth shatteringly precedent setting. In fact the exanples given are precedents in favour of allowing it to be such.

Anthar wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:The book and page number is exactly where you think it is, under the mystic knight's writeup.

It says the mystic knight is impervious to energy. it says nothing about any gear or equipment, therefore, you cann't assume it does.

Otherwise, why stop there? Maybe it covers their friends and family too.

Or maybe it covers what it says it covers. No more, no less.

There's always been a debate, but the arguments for it covering armor is just "It'd be really useful if it did cover armor". which sadly, is hardly enough justification for it. Just because it dosn't say it dosn't cover armor dosn't mean it does. that's inherently wrong way to look at it. if it dosn't say it dose, it does not. Others things that do cover armor specifically say they do.

Why would it function differently from every other similiar protection in the books, the Burster ability protects the personal items so why shouldn't the Mystic Knight's protection from energy.

There dosn't need to be a particular reason; That's the way they wrote the ability, and it's the long and short of the matter. If all powers worked that way, then there would be a rule to the effect, rather than text in all the other powers of a similiar nature. in fact, the very fact that the rest DID have to put text in saying it covers armor, means by definition it's an exception-based rule and not a normal rule.

As you can see there are people on both sides of the debate about wether or not the imp to energy field protect more then just the Mystic Knight or not.

The reason I fall on the "it protects the stuff they are wearing also" camp is that it is the more playable of the two options.

And since there is not any hard text explicitly saying one way or the other, feel free to chose for your own games which side you will use.

Like I said earlier I think I have a solution for now. Thanks for your help everyone, it was good to see the discussion from both sides.

My group plays it that non-fully enclosed NBA (aka no helmets sealing things up) will also be impervious.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:As you can see there are people on both sides of the debate about wether or not the imp to energy field protect more then just the Mystic Knight or not.

The reason I fall on the "it protects the stuff they are wearing also" camp is that it is the more playable of the two options.

And since there is hard text explicitly saying one way or the other, feel free to chose for your own games which side you will use.

If the wording of the Ruling is vague, and subsequently leads to various interpretations, then logic demands that any Interpretation of the wording that has the character end up with a power or ability that is useless in a gaming context, should be thrown out.

It makes NO sense whatsoever in the Mega Damage world of Rifts, for a power to only work on the naked skin of a predominately (something like 90-95% IIRC) S.D.C. Character Class when magical energy still inflicts half Mega Damage.

cornholioprime wrote:If the wording of the Ruling is vague, and subsequently leads to various interpretations, then logic demands that any Interpretation of the wording that has the character end up with a power or ability that is useless in a gaming context, should be thrown out.

Agreed.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

cornholioprime wrote:If the wording of the Ruling is vague, and subsequently leads to various interpretations, then logic demands that any Interpretation of the wording that has the character end up with a power or ability that is useless in a gaming context, should be thrown out.

Agreed.

and Seconded

jaymz wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

cornholioprime wrote:If the wording of the Ruling is vague, and subsequently leads to various interpretations, then logic demands that any Interpretation of the wording that has the character end up with a power or ability that is useless in a gaming context, should be thrown out.

Agreed.

and Seconded

and here's a third...
Motion Carried.

Nice!

Yes, because the ability to survive a laser blast when your armor's been destroyed couldn't possibly be useful to the character

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Yes, because the ability to survive a laser blast when your armor's been destroyed couldn't possibly be useful to the character

That's actually why I asked the question in the first place. I thought that the ability was designed as a back up but the more I looked into similar powers the more I began to doubt that thought. I didn't even really consider magic attacks untill after the discussion here on the boards and at that point I began to see the ability as not being anywhere near as usefull as compairable powers.

The MK encounter is already poised to happen and as I stated above I want my PCs to deal with a situation they won't be comfortable with, ie lasers don't always work. For the purpose of this encounter I'm going to extend the MK ability to cover their armor but if the MKs come up again I'll give it some more thought.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Yes, because the ability to survive a laser blast when your armor's been destroyed couldn't possibly be useful to the character

It may not be COMPLETELY useless but it certainly makes the Mk nowhere NEAR the threat they would be otherwise. I don't know about anyone else but I know the people I always carry two types of weapons. A physical AND an energy for JUST this reason. Too many things can shrug off energy or physical weapons one way or another or are more susceptible to one or the other.

Furthermore, NS, you're interpretation, I am sure as shocking as this may be to you, isn't always the correct one. Or rather the ONLY correct one. No need to act all condescending because you feel yours is in fact the one and only way it could be interpreted. Palladium is notorious for being inconsistent with their wording of spells and abilities. It makes zero sense for some impervious abilities (or spells) to in fact extend to what the person is wearing while others do not. They should be consistently one way or the other not randomly one way or the other.

I'll ask you this. How would you handle an MK riding the fiery mount from Madhaven since after riding for only a few minutes anything on his person included on his person, including armour obviously, would be destroyed, leaving him riding completely naked and more or less unarmed?

You're interpretation makes using such a beast as a mount completely pointless and useless in almost all instances causing them to destroy equipment and personal items anytime they wish to use said beast yet in the book it states they use the beast quite readily and often and like using it. That only makes sense IF their ability in fact more of an aura that extends a few inches beyond their skin.

jaymz wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Yes, because the ability to survive a laser blast when your armor's been destroyed couldn't possibly be useful to the character

It may not be COMPLETELY useless but it certainly makes the Mk nowhere NEAR the threat they would be otherwise. I don't know about anyone else but I know the people I always carry two types of weapons. A physical AND an energy for JUST this reason. Too many things can shrug off energy or physical weapons one way or another or are more susceptible to one or the other.

Furthermore, NS, you're interpretation, I am sure as shocking as this may be to you, isn't always the correct one. Or rather the ONLY correct one. No need to act all condescending because you feel yours is in fact the one and only way it could be interpreted. Palladium is notorious for being inconsistent with their wording of spells and abilities. It makes zero sense for some impervious abilities (or spells) to in fact extend to what the person is wearing while others do not. They should be consistently one way or the other not randomly one way or the other.

Grammatically, there is in fact only one way to interpret it correctly. You may make the decision that interpreting it that way is not useful in a game, but the actual words on the page have meaning, you just don't like it. In short, you wanna say "I think it makes more sense if it covers the armor too" is fine as long as you don't pretend that's actually what it says. Words have meaning, "covers armor" isn't there. it's kind of deceptive to claim that.

I'll ask you this. How would you handle an MK riding the fiery mount from Madhaven since after riding for only a few minutes anything on his person included on his person, including armour obviously, would be destroyed, leaving him riding completely naked and more or less unarmed?

You're interpretation makes using such a beast as a mount completely pointless and useless in almost all instances causing them to destroy equipment and personal items anytime they wish to use said beast yet in the book it states they use the beast quite readily and often and like using it. That only makes sense IF their ability in fact more of an aura that extends a few inches beyond their skin.

Or maybe they're a bunch of daredevils.

Basically, i'm not arguing that it HAS to make sense. words have meaning, and covering armor wasn't part of it. It dosn't matter how useful it is, that's how it is. if you feel it's silly, houserule it, just don't claim it says something it dosn't.

Actually, Nekira, it doesn't definitively say one way or the other. That is the POINT of interpretation. You also didn't bother to address the fact that Palladium is notorious for it's inconsistent wording of spells and/or abilities like this and the only way for anyone to interpret such is in whatever way makes sense to them. I am not surprised you didn't though since any interpretation other than your own, in regards to any kind of rule, seems to get condescension from you any time it occurs....

EDIT - and for the record you may think there is only one way to interpret it grammatically, but when taking into account Palladium's notoriety for inconsistently explaining things of this nature, it makes Palladium's wording come into question repeatedly. For someone who is as knowledgeable of Palladium rules as you are Nekira, I'd have thought you'd fully understand that.

jaymz wrote:Actually, Nekira, it doesn't definitively say one way or the other. That is the POINT of interpretation. You also didn't bother to address the fact that Palladium is notorious for it's inconsistent wording of spells and/or abilities like this and the only way for anyone to interpret such is in whatever way makes sense to them. I am not surprised you didn't though since any interpretation other than your own, in regards to any kind of rule, seems to get condescension from you any time it occurs..

Generally, I can understand when someone sees something vauge and interprets it differently. What I have a problem is I don't rationally see how ANYONE can claim it's a valid interpretation. Especially when your strongest argument is "it's not very useful as written".

How am I supposed to take ANY argument seriously when that's your premise. "It's silly, so it can't say that"

Why can't "It's just a silly power" be a valid choice?

Look, i'm not saying that having it cover armor wouldn't be more fun or useful. But it'd also be more fun and useful to say it also lets them make jamed toast 3 times a day.

There are just no words in the power to indicate it does that. and there are no words to indicate it covers armor either.

My argument isn't that it is not very useful. However when a later book has them doing something that would make absolutely no sense to do (even for a daredevil and really THAT's you argument for them riding a fiery beast?) for any normal thinking being, then I question the original wording of the power and take into consideration that it may be wrong. Palladium has proven itself multiple times over that they are far from perfect when it comes to the writing of the rules and they themselves admit that.

jaymz wrote:My argument isn't that it is not very useful. However when a later book has them doing something that would make absolutely no sense to do (even for a daredevil and really THAT's you argument for them riding a fiery beast?) for any normal thinking being, then I question the original wording of the power and take into consideration that it may be wrong. Palladium has proven itself multiple times over that they are far from perfect when it comes to the writing of the rules.

You could just as easially say that them riding the beast was a mistake and not the aura power. Which does seem more rational to me than saying it covers gear when there's no reason to assume it does.

Regardless, I just feel that the Q&A should be answered as an actual thing of legal interpretation. that is, to convey what the rules say, even if they don't make sense.

The Q&A should not be used as a forum for houserules, that's what the GM forums are for.

Basically, my veiw is, the Q&A should say what the books say "Mystic Knights are impervious to armor, but nothing indicates anything else is"

Debates on weather or not that is a USEFUL interpretation, and possible fixes, should go elsewhere.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

jaymz wrote:My argument isn't that it is not very useful. However when a later book has them doing something that would make absolutely no sense to do (even for a daredevil and really THAT's you argument for them riding a fiery beast?) for any normal thinking being, then I question the original wording of the power and take into consideration that it may be wrong. Palladium has proven itself multiple times over that they are far from perfect when it comes to the writing of the rules.

You could just as easially say that them riding the beast was a mistake and not the aura power. Which does seem more rational to me than saying it covers gear when there's no reason to assume it does.

Regardless, I just feel that the Q&A should be answered as an actual thing of legal interpretation. that is, to convey what the rules say, even if they don't make sense.

The Q&A should not be used as a forum for houserules, that's what the GM forums are for.

Basically, my veiw is, the Q&A should say what the books say "Mystic Knights are impervious to armor, but nothing indicates anything else is"

Debates on weather or not that is a USEFUL interpretation, and possible fixes, should go elsewhere.

Well we all knwo the Q&A is far from perfect as well.....agreed there needs to be an OFFICAL location for rules clarifications.

Actually ItE doesn't say that though ItF does.....thus my point earlier about Palladium's inconsistency with it's own spells and abilities.

Prysus wrote:

Greetings and Salutations. Well, depending on what someone feels is "official," I feel I should post this link:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=116632

In there, a writer for Madhaven (The Galactus Kid for his Palladium forums name) says it extends to the armor. When a writer (even if a Freelancer) who wrote one of the books on the subject at hand (Madhaven goes into Mystic Knights again) gives it an answer, I'd consider it official (unless specifically contradicted by Kevin of someone else on Staff). Everyone doesn't need to agree that the writer of the book's answer is official, but it is at least worth mentioning in this conversation for others to make their own judgments. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Thanks for bringing it up Prysus, always good to have you chime in. However it is that book we were referring to earlier in regards to the MK's riding a fiery beast and thus it made sense that their ability was an aura around them selves and not just their physical bodies so to speak.

But as I said it is always good to have you chime in on a discussion because you are typically the most level headed of us all

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Yes, because the ability to survive a laser blast when your armor's been destroyed couldn't possibly be useful to the character

The ability to make a single 5-week-old dead halibut fall from the sky COULD be useful to a character.
But it's not the way to bet.

And if that was all a power did, I'd have to wonder what the hell the point was.
And if there was another way to interpret the power that made it actually practical to have (as opposed to handy in an odd set of unusual circumstances), then I'd go with that interpretation.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Yes, because the ability to survive a laser blast when your armor's been destroyed couldn't possibly be useful to the character

The ability to make a single 5-week-old dead halibut fall from the sky COULD be useful to a character.
But it's not the way to bet.

And if that was all a power did, I'd have to wonder what the hell the point was.
And if there was another way to interpret the power that made it actually practical to have (as opposed to handy in an odd set of unusual circumstances), then I'd go with that interpretation.

nah... not a halibet


a whale and a potted plant.