Prysus wrote:Tor wrote:Using a simultaneous strike/parry combination with paired weapons removes your ability to parry the next attack, including nullifying automatic parries.
You're just wrong. The book doesn't say that. Try fact checking. If you can provide a book quote that confirms your story, I'll admit I'm wrong, though I don't imagine that being the case.
I concede I am wrong, you're right, it only says that about dual/twin strikes. For some reason I mistakenly remembered this to apply to all paired WP maneuvers.
It sort of does replace the automatic parry in 1-on-1 fights (prob why I filed it away like that) but retaining the auto-parry with simul str+par and not retaining it when doing twin-strike is definitely a major distinction in group battles.
We don't fact-check what we think we know, that's why I'm glad to be corrected regarding false assumptions.
Now that you got me re-reading this, in addition to losing auto-parry, it sounds like twin-striking also removes the option to spend an action to parry. It says you can dodge but that costs an action (possibly negating automatic dodges? unclear on that).
Other responses like entangle/automatic body-flip aren't discussed though... does that mean you can do them?
I know you can entangle with certain weapons, not sure if you can do it with all of them though, like the ones that don't provide explicit entangle bonuses. The only weapon I explicitly know you can body-flip with is the trident (via Rifts Underseas) not sure if you can do body flips with weapons in your hand otherwise though... presumably anyone with a weapon kata (N&SS) could do it, but not sure on standard HtH forms from other games.
Prysus wrote:And since I'm here ...
Tor wrote:I provided examples of how Palladium uses "simultaneously" in contexts outside of the narrow definition you are insisting applies.
Not really.
Yes, I did, here they are again:
*SA2p181 (SLAS) "a multi-faceted laser system that could strike up to ten different targets simultaneously" (context merely means within the same melee ROUND, not attack)
*CWCp136 (Abolisher Auto-Cannons) "it can train its other four cannons on two to four different targets simultaneously" .. "it can engage the enemy from all sides simultaneously"
*JUp78 "a double blast (both weapons firing simultaneously) counts as two melee attacks" under the Laser and Particle Beam guns. If a pair of weapons is aimed at the same target simultaneously the strike counts as two melee attacks".
All three examples use 'simultaneously' in a context other than "delivered within the same melee attack" which is how I believe the opposition was saying we must interpret it.
I can readily admit that 'simultaneously' in MOST contexts does indeed mean 'within the same action', but it doesn't ALWAYS mean that, so we have no reason to assume that by default. Especially since that interpretation conflicts directly with how the paired WP skill works, in that it only delivers twin strikes, not septuplet strikes.
Prysus wrote:you DEFINITELY have not provided any examples of Palladium using "paired weapons" to mean "holding two weapons but unable to use them at the same time or use any of the techniques provided by 'paired weapons'" like you're trying to claim is the case here.
Straw sure is light and catches fire easily. No Pry that isn't anywhere near my claim. Do your research
My claim is that paired weapons means you can perform twin strikes. A maximum of two. It doesn't allow more than that, not 3, not 6, no matter how many pairs you're wielding, because the skill does not describe those maneuvers.
Prysus wrote:if we look at the section it's under "Two-Handed Paired Weapon Attack" to describe using four arms at the same time (including attacking with all four at the same time). This runs completely contrary to your arguement "Paired Weapons" only means two, since the example you gave shows Palladium using it to mean "four."
This is presented among a list of unique ability that only the Xiticix have, not something available to all 4-armed beings. No such ability was given to Bio-Borgs, Cyborgs, Necromancers, Rahu-Men, etc. Not even if they had paired weapons.
The "two-handed paired weapon attack" is clearly referring to attacking with 2 arms (doing a twin strike) but not losing the auto-parry since the other 2 arms can still parry. This is not something any 4-armed being with paired weapons can do, it is an ability unique to the Xiticix. You can see this on page 68 because it's under the bold heading "special combat movies" with the disclaimer that it is due to their 340 degree vision and antennae sensor abilities. The Jeridu don't have those advantages so there's no basis for assuming they could duplicate these feats, Xiticix are better.
The 2HPW term is not referring to the four-handed attack. This is incredibly clear on page 70 where a distinction is made between the two terms:
"The Two-Handed Paired Weapon Attack is a common fighting tactic used by Warriors (the four-handed attack is only used in desperation"
If you look beyond the basic warrior to page 72, under the Super-Warrior, an even more clear distinction is made between "Two-Handed Paired Weapon Attack" and "Four-Handed Paired Weapon Attack".'
I will concede (though you didn't point this out yet) that 'paired' is still used, although the book does drop the adjective in the description and just says "four-armed attack" later, but parried IS still there...
That aside, this is still presented as a unique ability, and has explicit wording allowing these advanced maneuvers which the Jeridu lack. Even in the Super-Warrior's exceptional case though, it is interesting to note that unlike their 4-arm attack option (which they can do on their term) they are limited to 1 or 2 limbs when countering with a simultaneous attack.
Prysus wrote:So just a different way to say 6 at once.
Being able to hold 6 things at once isn't the same as being able to attack with them all at once. Stage Magicians in HU can juggle a huge amount of thrown weapons but can't throw them simultaneously. They're still 'using' them though.
Prysus wrote:Since it also discusses "paired weapons" (same as with the Xiticix)
Xiticix explicitly discuss 4-handed striking maneuvers, and not even the 6-armed ones can do a 6-armed attack.
Prysus wrote:until you can show Palladium using "Paired Weapons" to mean "staring at both hands at the same time" or "typing on the computer with both hands but unable to fight using both" or "hold two weapons but unable to fight with both of them like with Paired Weapons even though we just said this is Paired Weapons" or something similar ... you're just making stuff up.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. I believe you're reading what I said out of context and applying some strange meaning to it.
Being able to wield multiple weapons simultaneously is not the same as being able to coordinate them into a simultaneous attack. That's what I was expressing. A lot of robots wield a lot of weapons simultaneously too, as do cyborgs. They give you added options with your melee attacks without having to put down your old weapons and pick up new ones. It allows you to maintain your defense in spite of multiple disarmings or entanglements. I'm saying that the Jeridu can be read as merely acknowledging this reality of wields-many-things and not giving some unique better-than-Super-Xiticix ability.
I mean heck, look at the art of the Jeridu, see any pictures of them thrusting all 6 knives simultaneously? Nope, you see them holding most of them in defensive positions.
Prysus wrote:Tentacles mentions striking with several of them "simultaneously." Since damage is only rolled once depending on the number that hits, this further shows it is indeed considered simultaneously. However, all it does tell us is that Palladium used "simultaneously" to mean at the same time.
You're mixing up the examples and what i was using them for. The aforementioned three world books from Rifts were being used to give "simultaneous" context outside of 1-action. Tentacles is an example I brought up regarding cost.
Although it is true that Tentacles can do a combined strike, as you were less explicit about: the 'number that hit' depend on how many strike rolls succeed, you roll once per pair, so at most a twin strike is done, like with paired WP.
I do not agree that you roll damage 'only once'. Sure, it does say "two pair 4d6" but that's only totalling things up, because it says that the damage is cumulative.
If you were attacking with 2 pairs of tentacles and rolled a natural 20 for the first pair and a non-critical strike for the second pair, you would only double the initial 2d6, not the damage of the second pair.
The reason I brought up Tentacles was to discuss melee action cost. The power does not make it clear how many attacks you have to spend to attack with 2 pairs of tentacles. It could be 1 or 2.
Prysus wrote:your extrapolation upon it is not in the book.
The closest we get is the quote: "Up to ten attacks per melee" and then changes subject.
It does not say "per melee round" despite your claim.
It could mean "per melee attack" as well.
Seriously? You're arguing this? Thank you, this is making me feel a lot better after my strike/parry+autoparry slip.
"Melee" means "melee round", this is pretty common-sense knowledge I figure, but now I feel compelled to find a book example for you so as to convey how much chaos it would create if an unspecified 'melee' were interpretable as 'melee attack' instead.
Since PF is the central setting of discussion, please check out the level 1 wizard spells on page 189. Cloud of Smoke's duration uses "melee rounds" whereas Death Trance uses "10 melees" (the term "rounds" is absent). Death Trance also explicitly says that 10 melees are 2.5 minutes, so "melees" clearly means "melee rounds". Convinced?
If you can provide an example where "melee" on its own has been used to indicate action or attack, I will be willing to continue this line of discussion.
Prysus wrote:Furthermore, even if (without ever saying it) it did mean "melee round," there's no wording on how often the automated system can attack. It might only be one attack per melee round. There's no proof here that says Palladium said "simultaneously" without actually meaning simultaneously except your wild and unsupported claims.
"Try fact checking" applies to both of us in this thread Prysus
JUp77 clearly says in the introduction (second paragraph, last sentence) "the computer with its two sets of weapons and eight attacks per melee".
JUp78 reiterates this under Weapon Systems 5 (Response Computer System) saying "Comptuer Attacks per Melee: Eight!".
So no, it does clearly say how often it can attack (8 times) and it could not possibly be 1 attack per round, unless 1 attack was all it took to annihilate a threat in which case I suppose it wouldn't keep going.
Prysus wrote:Tor wrote:"it can train its other four cannons on two to four different targets simultaneously"
"it can engage the enemy from all sides simultaneously"
Nothing in the text that I can find suggesting the text, as written, doesn't mean simlutaneously just like the book says.
I'm not sure what you're saying here Prysus, can you rephrase please?
To engage the enemy presumably means to fire upon them, but this system spends 1 attack per shot.
At most, it can shoot twice in 1 go (spending 2 actions, like with a power punch). When that is done, it is only when they are trained on the same target.
So the system in no way indicates the ability to fire on multiple opponents at once. No, not even the coolness that can sometimes be done with leap attacks or paired weapons where you hit 2 opponents in attack, the RCS can't even do that spending 2 attacks, it has to use its actions in a normal sequence. It rolls its own initiative and everything.
The computer can "track and attack two targets simultaneously" but it isn't given the ability to split shots, so 'simultaneously' in this context clearly means "within the same melee round" not "the same melee action".
Prysus wrote:providing random quotes that don't support your side of the argument doesn't help.
These quotes are not random, I chose them because they prove a particular point, that 'simultaneously' does not have a single fixed meaning, which is the impression I believe my opposition is attempting to convey.
It is not exclusively used to mean 'in the same instant' or 'in the same action' but it can also mean 'within the same melee round' or possibly other brief periods of time.
Heck, while we're on that, how often are dual/twin strikes called 'simultaneous' hits anyway? Occasionally, but not regularly, probably to avoid confusion with the "sacrifice my defense to bypass yours" maneuver more commonly associated with the term.
Your calling my selections 'random' is wrong, and I believe you know it to be a lie, it is very clear how they illustrate a different application of the adjective 'simultaneously' compared to other uses.
Prysus wrote:Just randomly searching books for "simultaneous" isn't the way to go. Just my advice.
[/quote]I didn't just look for the term, I looked for it being used in a way contrary to the way my opposition was claiming it meant.
By finding it being used in other ways, I disprove the idea that we should assume it MUST mean what the other person thinks it must mean.
I am illustrating that Palladium uses the term in a broad fashion and so we require further context to know what it means in the case of the Jeridu.
The Jeridu class provides no context saying 'spend 1 attack, stab 6 daggers into an Ogre's jugular', so lacking that, there is no reason to think they can.