Forums of the Megaverse®

Sure.

However, it isn't mega-damage unless otherwise indicated, so it'll probably only help you in SDC settings.

There is not an official text saying yes or no.

I would not because the mystical nature of the PS.

sword is a sword. I say yes, but it would not matter in MDC settings where it deals MDC.

I agree a sword is a sword but the damage should apply as M.D.C. with a M.D. blade. Splicers clarifies that point also.

That's the special Splicers-Fencing skill then, not all fencing skills

Skill can make a huge difference. It isnt jus str but also techniques. I say every cyber knight should have fencing. It applies to th weapon's damage type in my games

If a bonus is undefined, then it applies to the medium presented.

That means if your sword does mega-damage, then the non-descript bonus will add to it, because that's what undefined bonuses do.

We take things at face-value here people. And why do we do this? Because if they forgot to define it so as to exclude it from something, well that's Palladium's fault.

"damage" is not an undefined bonus, it means SDC damage, I thought for sure this was clarified somewhere

Tor wrote:"damage" is not an undefined bonus, it means SDC damage, I thought for sure this was clarified somewhere

When you can produce that clarification, then your statement will be correct. But as it stands, it's an un-typed and undefined bonus.

I'll keep looking for it, but I don't recall you addressing my counter-argument to this from a previous thread, where I pointed out how various physical and combat skills also have 'damage' without specifying SDC or MDC.

I believe you were arguing that MDC creatures take d6/10ft MD from falls while SDC creatures dake d6/10ft SDC from falls, or something along those lines? I pointed out something like 'kicks say d6 damage, so do they inflict d6 MD to MDC targets even when launched by SDC opponents?" or something to that effect.

In the midst of looking through Rifts' GMG preceding a Rifter search, something interesting pops up on page 26. Throwing-based damage doesn't specify SDC or MDC so that would mean MDC creatures take 6d6x10 from having a 1000 pound object thrown at them while an SDC creature only takes 6d6x10 SDC?

Like RUE, the GMG has numerous "damage" listings rather than "SDC damage". It's pretty clear that these were not meant to mean "inflicts MDC against MDC targets". The only context where I could see this damage being MD is if used by someone with supernatural strength, and I'm not sure if it's not clear whether or not we add strength-based damage to psi-swords. It can't seem to decide whether it's more like a laser-knife or a rune weapon.

Page 32 (bottom left) says "No damage bonuses apply to the use of energy melee weapons unless there is a physical damage component" and I don't know how to determine if a psi-sword has such a component or not. The only indication I remember seeing of that is that story in Sot4 where Thorpe uses his psi-axe to clime a GBkiller.

However... looking at the top of the right column... "with a Psi-Sword, Flaming Sword or Energy Sword, only the weapon damage applies" so that's clear enough. We must assume Thorpe's Psi-Axe must have some kind of unique property that sets it apart from normal Cyber-Knight weapons. Vibro-blades get to add PS though

Page 41 does say psi-swords are MDC items capable of parrying MD energy blasts though... so it's a confusing thing.

I don't really like the idea of indestructible psi-swords... as a house rule I say skip giving Cyberknights that silly shield and just use the shield's MDC as the psi-sword's MDC. They can re-summon it for free, so paying a melee attack every now and then is no big deal for them. Mind Melters on the other hand... I'd make their Psi-Swords indestructible

Page 100 says boiling water does "damage", so is that MD to dragons then?

Tor wrote:I'll keep looking for it, but I don't recall you addressing my counter-argument to this from a previous thread, where I pointed out how various physical and combat skills also have 'damage' without specifying SDC or MDC.

I don't recall seeing them.

Tor wrote:I believe you were arguing that MDC creatures take d6/10ft MD from falls while SDC creatures dake d6/10ft SDC from falls, or something along those lines? I pointed out something like 'kicks say d6 damage, so do they inflict d6 MD to MDC targets even when launched by SDC opponents?" or something to that effect.

I don't think that was me as I'm not very up to date on the falling damage rules. Mainly because I try to avoid falling damage like it was the plague.

Tor wrote:Like RUE, the GMG has numerous "damage" listings rather than "SDC damage". It's pretty clear that these were not meant to mean "inflicts MDC against MDC targets". The only context where I could see this damage being MD is if used by someone with supernatural strength, and I'm not sure if it's not clear whether or not we add strength-based damage to psi-swords. It can't seem to decide whether it's more like a laser-knife or a rune weapon.

I'm not saying you're wrong here, but I will point out that alluding to something is different than stating something. Since we're talking rules here, it needs to be a statement.

Tor wrote:Page 32 (bottom left) says "No damage bonuses apply to the use of energy melee weapons unless there is a physical damage component" and I don't know how to determine if a psi-sword has such a component or not. The only indication I remember seeing of that is that story in Sot4 where Thorpe uses his psi-axe to clime a GBkiller.

That entry is as clear as mud. I mean, whenever you take SDC, MDC, or HP damage, it's physical damage regardless of the source.

Ugh... now I'm wondering if I'm possibly confusing you with someone else I was arguing with about MDC creatures taking fall damage that should be SDC...

I'll only point out that if this 'damage' applies as MD then this applies to a lot of other 'damage' unspecified in books which would make for quite the interesting system.

Both knights, both have icons with blue background tones... Soldier/War having similar links... okay brain I forgive you.

Does seem like related reading though, thank you Prysus.

I agree... but the damage added would be "damage" not "Mega-Damage".

Tor wrote:I agree... but the damage added would be "damage" not "Mega-Damage".

It isn't "Structural Damage" either... It is just "Damage" which must be some strange third kind of damage that Palladium has yet to define!
Or you could just consider it dependent of the damage type, much like Splicers indicates.

"Damage" means HP/SDC damage. It has always been used this way. It has never been used to mean mega-damage. Only MD is mega-damage.

Type-dependence only occurs when explicitly stated.

Tor wrote:"Damage" means HP/SDC damage. It has always been used this way. It has never been used to mean mega-damage. Only MD is mega-damage.

Type-dependence only occurs when explicitly stated.

Not always, usually, but not always. Unless your aware of an explicit inline citation to the contrary, I do not believe that there has been any thing official about that either way.

Tor wrote:"Damage" means HP/SDC damage. It has always been used this way. It has never been used to mean mega-damage. Only MD is mega-damage.

Type-dependence only occurs when explicitly stated.

This very thread proves your interpretation wrong.
Fencing didn't used to have any damage type listed and thanks to Splicers it was clarified that that meant it did both depending on the weapon. So no, "Damage" doesn't mean H.P./S.D.C. damage - it "might" mean that in some cases (although you haven't bothered supporting the claim at all) but in at least one instance, it means "damage dependent on the weapon source".
So either "Damage" means "damage dependent on the weapon source" all of the time, or it doesn't have a consistent meaning and shouldn't be treated as if it does.

Splicers is a retcon, a change, not a clarification. It's an enhancement to a skill within a specific setting.

Prior to settings like Rifts where occasionally (and later more regularly) "SDC/HP" is added, damage was always used to mean those two things, this was well understood.

Looking to RMBp126 under Mind Bolt, we are told ISP costs for "1d6 sdc damage" then "3d6 damage" then "6d6 sdc damage" then "2d4 mega-damage". It is very clear here that 'damage' without modification meant 'SDC damage' and nothing else. Or should I think that spending 12 ISP allows your mind bolt to do twice as much MD as spending 40 ISP?

The proof could be said to be in common sense, as RUE repeatedly retains basic "damage" statements lacking the "SDC" clarification.

If we are to get overly specific then since some things might say 'HP/SDC damage' and others merely 'SDC damage' then we should assume that such damage could only deplete SDC to 0 but never actually damage HP.

On RMBp235 if I had a Finger Gun, why should I ever want to spend 500 credits for a 1d4 MD round (averaging 2.5 MD) when for a mere 40 credits I could buy 100 rounds that inflict '2d6 damage' thus averaging 700MD against MDC opponents?

The things lacking SDC/HP clarifiers are simply leftovers from the previous system that the author forgot to clarify, but those clarifications were NEVER needed. Authors put them in usually when stuff was adjacent to MD just to make sure we didn't make any wrong assumptions. But that doesn't mean a lack of clarification gives us reason to assume.

I want to see you argue that body blocks and karate kicks from even the most mundane combatant will inflict MD against MDC opponents.

I want to know why the 'damage' from the PS on the attribute table only adds MD if you're Thor or a Larhold Renegade.

Tor wrote:Splicers is a retcon, a change, not a clarification. It's an enhancement to a skill within a specific setting.

Prior to settings like Rifts where occasionally (and later more regularly) "SDC/HP" is added, damage was always used to mean those two things, this was well understood.

Looking to RMBp126 under Mind Bolt, we are told ISP costs for "1d6 sdc damage" then "3d6 damage" then "6d6 sdc damage" then "2d4 mega-damage". It is very clear here that 'damage' without modification meant 'SDC damage' and nothing else. Or should I think that spending 12 ISP allows your mind bolt to do twice as much MD as spending 40 ISP?

The proof could be said to be in common sense, as RUE repeatedly retains basic "damage" statements lacking the "SDC" clarification.

If we are to get overly specific then since some things might say 'HP/SDC damage' and others merely 'SDC damage' then we should assume that such damage could only deplete SDC to 0 but never actually damage HP.

On RMBp235 if I had a Finger Gun, why should I ever want to spend 500 credits for a 1d4 MD round (averaging 2.5 MD) when for a mere 40 credits I could buy 100 rounds that inflict '2d6 damage' thus averaging 700MD against MDC opponents?

The things lacking SDC/HP clarifiers are simply leftovers from the previous system that the author forgot to clarify, but those clarifications were NEVER needed. Authors put them in usually when stuff was adjacent to MD just to make sure we didn't make any wrong assumptions. But that doesn't mean a lack of clarification gives us reason to assume.

I want to see you argue that body blocks and karate kicks from even the most mundane combatant will inflict MD against MDC opponents.

I want to know why the 'damage' from the PS on the attribute table only adds MD if you're Thor or a Larhold Renegade.

None of the above isn't even relevant tot he discussion. If you want to try and prove your point, you need to find instances where the term "damage" is used to specifically mean H.P./S.D.C. damage and it is used as a damage modifier for existing damage types (Much like Fencing is), rather than its own source of damage that doesn't have its nature determined by the weapon in use.

Tor wrote:Splicers is a retcon, a change, not a clarification. It's an enhancement to a skill within a specific setting.

He was citing it as the only defined example available in the megaverse.

Tor wrote:Prior to settings like Rifts where occasionally (and later more regularly) "SDC/HP" is added, damage was always used to mean those two things, this was well understood.

Looking to RMBp126 under Mind Bolt, we are told ISP costs for "1d6 sdc damage" then "3d6 damage" then "6d6 sdc damage" then "2d4 mega-damage". It is very clear here that 'damage' without modification meant 'SDC damage' and nothing else.

That is definitely a figment of your imagination. An undefined bonus can mean just about anything, but unless it says what it is, then it is only ever undefined.
Your rebuttal here is insubstantial.

Tor wrote:Or should I think that spending 12 ISP allows your mind bolt to do twice as much MD as spending 40 ISP?

Maybe you should start.

Tor wrote:The proof could be said to be in common sense, as RUE repeatedly retains basic "damage" statements lacking the "SDC" clarification.

That is proof of nothing. That is only proof that there is undefined damage out there.

Tor wrote:If we are to get overly specific then since some things might say 'HP/SDC damage' and others merely 'SDC damage' then we should assume that such damage could only deplete SDC to 0 but never actually damage HP.

SDC damage and HP damage are not the same thing; they are separate entities with different values. For example, a vampire only has HP, and takes supernatural strength damage (listed as MD) on a 1:1 ratio to its hitpoints.
But it also takes damage from SDC sources as long as they too fit a criteria, making the damage taken just "damage" without SDC or MDC attached, rendering your entire point here not only wrong, but a precedent against what your argument implies.

Tor wrote:On RMBp235 if I had a Finger Gun, why should I ever want to spend 500 credits for a 1d4 MD round (averaging 2.5 MD) when for a mere 40 credits I could buy 100 rounds that inflict '2d6 damage' thus averaging 700MD against MDC opponents?

Your question of the cost of weaponry is yet another irrelevant argument; looking at Northern Gun 1, there are dozens of vehicular weapons in that book which cost millions yet are not better than their personal weaponry counter-parts.
So why would anyone ever want to spend money on them? It's the same reason and logic; some things are better than others, and cheaper too.

Tor wrote:The things lacking SDC/HP clarifiers are simply leftovers from the previous system that the author forgot to clarify, but those clarifications were NEVER needed.

Clearly you are wrong, otherwise you wouldn't have people here saying exactly the opposite of what your statement implies.

Tor wrote:Authors put them in usually when stuff was adjacent to MD just to make sure we didn't make any wrong assumptions. But that doesn't mean a lack of clarification gives us reason to assume.

Book and page number from any piece of text in anything Palladium has ever written stating this to be a fact.
Otherwise, I recommend you separate your opinions from the facts, because your opinions do not carry weight like facts do.

Tor wrote:I want to see you argue that body blocks and karate kicks from even the most mundane combatant will inflict MD against MDC opponents.

Why would anyone even bother to argue that? It has no relevance to the argument at hand; nobody is trying to convince you that "mundane combatants" will inflict MD against MDC opponents, because it's already stated in the book that SDC opponents will inflict SDC unless stated otherwise. In the case of fencing, if you have an MDC blade, well that would make for an MDC source, which in-turn would cause MDC damage.

Or more pointedly; how could you possibly assert that if your combatant had supernatural strength and performed those very same body blocks and karate kicks, that they would be SDC, based on the premise that "it doesn't say it deals MDC!"?


Because that assertion is absurd.

The issue here is. If it only adds sdc damage why pick the skill aside from strike or parry bonuses.
I will stand by my GM call in my games for the damage. It will apply to weapons damage type in my games

Giant2005 wrote:None of the above isn't even relevant tot he discussion.

I concur with your double negative sir.

Giant2005 wrote:If you want to try and prove your point, you need to find instances where the term "damage" is used to specifically mean H.P./S.D.C. damage

I already did. I am confronted with a circular argument here.

You folk appear to be arguing that if HP/SDC is not present that it is flexible. Therefore the only proof I can actually supply you is inference because if I supply examples where it does explicitly say HP/SDC then that falls outside of the argument.

A damage bonus is not a mega-damage bonus. It doesn't work that way with PS (you need supernatural PS or at least augmented to inflict MD with high PS) and there is no reason to think it applies to fencing.

That Splicers goes out of its way to specify that it can add damage or MD is all the more reason to think that explicit "inflicts MD" statements are required for something to do that.

If "damage" can be situationally MD then my examples of the ambiguous nature of body flips, punches, kicks, and finger guns are still on the table waiting to be addressed.

Dog_O_War wrote:He was citing it as the only defined example available in the megaverse.

The only defined example of what?

Tor wrote:Prior to settings like Rifts where occasionally (and later more regularly) "SDC/HP" is added, damage was always used to mean those two things, this was well understood.

Dog_O_War wrote:Looking to RMBp126 under Mind Bolt, we are told ISP costs for "1d6 sdc damage" then "3d6 damage" then "6d6 sdc damage" then "2d4 mega-damage". It is very clear here that 'damage' without modification meant 'SDC damage' and nothing else.

That is definitely a figment of your imagination. An undefined bonus can mean just about anything, but unless it says what it is, then it is only ever undefined.
Your rebuttal here is insubstantial.

I'm not clear on how you rebut here. Are you saying that what I am quoting is a figment of my imagination? I assure you, I am definitely quoting quite accurately what my RMB says.

I am giving an example of where 'damage' is used, and where it clearly means SDC damage even though this is not specified.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:should I think that spending 12 ISP allows your mind bolt to do twice as much MD as spending 40 ISP?

Maybe you should start.

"damage" does not mean "mega damage" any more than "weapon" means "magical weapon". The absurdity of your stance is obvious.

Dog_O_War wrote:That is proof of nothing. That is only proof that there is undefined damage out there.

Incorrect, damage needs no definition, mega-damage is not defined damage, it is multiplied damage, enhanced damage. Authors going out of their way to remind us something is not MD by saying HP/SDC does not mean doing so is required. Palladium has always had a base concept of "damage" and MD is the new guy on the block, and the one who needs explicit proof.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:If we are to get overly specific then since some things might say 'HP/SDC damage' and others merely 'SDC damage' then we should assume that such damage could only deplete SDC to 0 but never actually damage HP.

SDC damage and HP damage are not the same thing; they are separate entities with different values. For example, a vampire only has HP, and takes supernatural strength damage (listed as MD) on a 1:1 ratio to its hitpoints.
But it also takes damage from SDC sources as long as they too fit a criteria, making the damage taken just "damage" without SDC or MDC attached, rendering your entire point here not only wrong, but a precedent against what your argument implies.

Actually no, because vampires have explicit statements saying to convert MD to HP, meaning that is is actually required.

If they did not, they would take 100 HP for each MD.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:On RMBp235 if I had a Finger Gun, why should I ever want to spend 500 credits for a 1d4 MD round (averaging 2.5 MD) when for a mere 40 credits I could buy 100 rounds that inflict '2d6 damage' thus averaging 700MD against MDC opponents?

Your question of the cost of weaponry is yet another irrelevant argument; looking at Northern Gun 1, there are dozens of vehicular weapons in that book which cost millions yet are not better than their personal weaponry counter-parts.
So why would anyone ever want to spend money on them? It's the same reason and logic; some things are better than others, and cheaper too.

You're essentially arguing that a basic round, because it says "damage" and not "SDC damage", is more effective against MDC monsters than the explosive or even MD rounds loaded into that weapon. There's no basis for it, just as there is no basis for the stance that 'damage' can mean 'mega-damage' without a supporting statement. Unless you have something telling you 'all damage here is MD', it isn't.

Dog_O_War wrote:you are wrong, otherwise you wouldn't have people here saying exactly the opposite of what your statement implies.

Where do you get the idea that party B saying the opposite of party A is proof that A is wrong?

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:Authors put them in usually when stuff was adjacent to MD just to make sure we didn't make any wrong assumptions. But that doesn't mean a lack of clarification gives us reason to assume.

Book and page number from any piece of text in anything Palladium has ever written stating this to be a fact.

The burden of proof is yours to argue that something is mega without us being told it is mega.

Something is neutral and basic until otherwise explained to be.

Dog_O_War wrote:Otherwise, I recommend you separate your opinions from the facts, because your opinions do not carry weight like facts do.

The fact of the matter is, we must be told something is mega for it to be mega.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:I want to see you argue that body blocks and karate kicks from even the most mundane combatant will inflict MD against MDC opponents.

Why would anyone even bother to argue that? It has no relevance to the argument at hand; nobody is trying to convince you that "mundane combatants" will inflict MD against MDC opponents

No, but to interpret text the way you argue we ought to results in this application from the same logic.

Dog_O_War wrote:it's already stated in the book that SDC opponents will inflict SDC unless stated otherwise.

Oh? Where's this stated?

Dog_O_War wrote:In the case of fencing, if you have an MDC blade, well that would make for an MDC source, which in-turn would cause MDC damage.

Incorrect, there are MDC weapons that do not inflict MD. Ironwood weapons and Scathach weapons for example.

Dog_O_War wrote:how could you possibly assert that if your combatant had supernatural strength and performed those very same body blocks and karate kicks, that they would be SDC, based on the premise that "it doesn't say it deals MDC!"?

We have separate guidelines on what damage is inflicted via supernatural PS. We do not simply convert the dice into MD. The Conversion Book explained all of this. Page 24-25 had tables for Augmented/Mutant/Cyborg/Exo and Robot damages which explicitly told us what other damage was done. Robots' body blocks and tackles did half the damage of their punch, while page 26 told us that kicks from supernatural PS either did the same or sometimes d6 more than a punch.

Tor wrote:You folk appear to be arguing that if HP/SDC is not present that it is flexible. Therefore the only proof I can actually supply you is inference because if I supply examples where it does explicitly say HP/SDC then that falls outside of the argument.

A damage bonus is not a mega-damage bonus. It doesn't work that way with PS (you need supernatural PS or at least augmented to inflict MD with high PS) and there is no reason to think it applies to fencing.

That Splicers goes out of its way to specify that it can add damage or MD is all the more reason to think that explicit "inflicts MD" statements are required for something to do that.

If "damage" can be situationally MD then my examples of the ambiguous nature of body flips, punches, kicks, and finger guns are still on the table waiting to be addressed.

The problem is that the things you are finding examples of have nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.
No-one is taking the position that a lack of damage qualifiers is flexible, we are stating that it is dependent on the damage type of the weapon or damage-producing source that is being modified. You listed a bunch of examples of independent damage sources, not modifying ones.

The examples I found do have to do with the topic at hand, I explained how, those relations were not disproven.

I take it you which to narrow this "damage" argument to instead be about a "plus x to damage" type argument?

In that case, I can do that. Looking to Splicers, where this dispute focuses on, page 196 is where we find the "to damage (SDC or MD depending on the weapon)" this objection is based upon.

FAQs have established that skills operate distinctly in various settings so while this is applicable for the Fencing skill and within Splicers, it would not automatically modify the skill in other settings, unless the GM opted for it.

Looking only pages from this skill within Splicers, we find simple evidence that this fencing skill is a unique thing, that the "MD depending on the weapon" statement applies to it, not to all 'damage' statements, not even more narrowly to the 'plus damage' statements.

Page 195 right column under Aerobic Athletics gives a bonus to kicking damage. No note about MD if the kick is MD to begin with.

Page 201 left column under Pilot Wing Packs gives a bonus to hand to hand combat (including swords) with no note about the damage being MD if the melee attack is MD to begin with.

Page 203 as an intro to the weapon section states that (in Splicers) the damage bonuses from WP skills become MD bonuses with MDC weapons, much like Fencing. Yet this does not apply with AA or PWP on 195/201 because the notification is not given. It must be repeated each time.

Settings often have unique rules so I will accept that Splicers-borne skills do have this significant advantages, but it would not apply to give MD bonuses in other settings like Rifts or Robotech. Splicers was first published October 2004 and later books did not carry on this tradition so it doesn't stand to reason that the tradition was intended to carry across the Megaverse.

2005's RUE has fencing on page 316, but even though this was published AFTER the Splicers RPG, did not include that bit about the damage becoming MD according to the weapon, meaning it was not retained as a Megaversal rule, and is a unique property of Splicers skills/dimension.

2008's "The Shadow Chronicles" has the fencing skill on page 270 but unlike the version of the skill in Splicers, it lacks the special benefit of applying to MD weapons, so we must consider it a special advantage of Splicers-training, possibly applicable only in the Splicers-dimension.

Rifts/Robotech were done by Siembieda, whereas Splicers was done by Bellaire, and we know where authority lies here. Clearly what occurred was Bellaire took some license and it did not catch on, so the MD-application is a unique feature we apply to that universe and not others with MDC.

Tor wrote:The examples I found do have to do with the topic at hand, I explained how, those relations were not disproven.

I take it you which to narrow this "damage" argument to instead be about a "plus x to damage" type argument?

In that case, I can do that. Looking to Splicers, where this dispute focuses on, page 196 is where we find the "to damage (SDC or MD depending on the weapon)" this objection is based upon.

FAQs have established that skills operate distinctly in various settings so while this is applicable for the Fencing skill and within Splicers, it would not automatically modify the skill in other settings, unless the GM opted for it.

Which FAQ established this? I am curious as I may have missed an official ruling.

Tor wrote:Looking only pages from this skill within Splicers, we find simple evidence that this fencing skill is a unique thing, that the "MD depending on the weapon" statement applies to it, not to all 'damage' statements, not even more narrowly to the 'plus damage' statements.

Page 195 right column under Aerobic Athletics gives a bonus to kicking damage. No note about MD if the kick is MD to begin with.

Page 201 left column under Pilot Wing Packs gives a bonus to hand to hand combat (including swords) with no note about the damage being MD if the melee attack is MD to begin with.

Page 203 as an intro to the weapon section states that (in Splicers) the damage bonuses from WP skills become MD bonuses with MDC weapons, much like Fencing. Yet this does not apply with AA or PWP on 195/201 because the notification is not given. It must be repeated each time.

Actually the fact that the repeated it just means that it bears repeating. It does not mean that it has to be repeated, there is a difference.

Tor wrote:Settings often have unique rules so I will accept that Splicers-borne skills do have this significant advantages, but it would not apply to give MD bonuses in other settings like Rifts or Robotech. Splicers was first published October 2004 and later books did not carry on this tradition so it doesn't stand to reason that the tradition was intended to carry across the Megaverse.

2005's RUE has fencing on page 316, but even though this was published AFTER the Splicers RPG, did not include that bit about the damage becoming MD according to the weapon, meaning it was not retained as a Megaversal rule, and is a unique property of Splicers skills/dimension.

2008's "The Shadow Chronicles" has the fencing skill on page 270 but unlike the version of the skill in Splicers, it lacks the special benefit of applying to MD weapons, so we must consider it a special advantage of Splicers-training, possibly applicable only in the Splicers-dimension.

Rifts/Robotech were done by Siembieda, whereas Splicers was done by Bellaire, and we know where authority lies here. Clearly what occurred was Bellaire took some license and it did not catch on, so the MD-application is a unique feature we apply to that universe and not others with MDC.

For damage to be enhance able into MD it definitely does require repeating. Damage has always meant HP/SDC by default.

The FAQ thing on skill differences .. lesse *finally finds at the bottom of his Rifter pile, mumbles obscenities* Rifter 14 page 13 discusses it in the 2nd Q, begins with "I run a transdimensional" and mentions "skills from the various books may have different percentages"

"only the skills of the dimension they are currently in will be available, unless the characters brought with them the material to learn a more advanced skill" (though I think this refers to the learning of new skills and not the retaining of already-known ones)

"skill's base percentage will be relative to that dimension/book and not the character's native dimension"

Although this might be more about the effect of skills (example given is medieval/modern carpentry techniques) from those varying percentages.

If only the question had been broader than 'new skills' we might have received a broader answer.