Tolkeen Should Have Won

[Shark_Force]

Vanguard awesomeness aside, regarding the Coalition's Psi-Battalion, if they had ISP multipliers from BTS when encountering mages/supernaturals do you think the victory would've been plausible?

i'm not familiar with the rule, but i doubt it. psionics can do some cool things, but it's a heck of a lot weaker than magic in rifts, especially now that they removed the rule where magic basically always costs at least half your actions for the round whereas psionics was often possible to activate using a single action. if the rule does what it sounds like (gives you more ISP), it simply wouldn't do much. even if it fully increased the raw power of psionics, it wouldn't do much; it isn't a problem of power, it's a problem if what general capabilities it allows.

so, for example: do ISP multipliers allow the psi-battalion to teleport CS troops around their empire at a moment's notice to provide instant response teams to teleporting demon squads? can they make the energy weapons that almost all of the CS infantry use work on energy-immune targets? does it allow them to prevent warlocks and shifters from summoning minions? will it allow them to penetrate spells like mystic invisibility, or keep their troops from getting instantly disabled by magic net, or stop them from getting pulled into an astral realm where they will be forced to battle an equally strong enemy force created from nothing?

my guess is no. nor does it most likely prevent any of the multitude of other gigantic force multipliers open to a nation of powerful magic users working together. it might make a few places safer (the CS does have some rather small number of psychics that *can* do things like prevent spells from working, just not in anywhere near the numbers they would need to deal with the problems a magic-using opponent can present you with). but it won't really prevent the mismatch in capabilities that exist between the CS and tolkeen.

now, again: this requires that tolkeen doesn't act like a bunch of morons and fail miserably at using their magic intelligently. it also requires that they don't do something stupid like, oh, i don't know... charging headfirst into a massive conventional battle that trades a large number of deaths on both sides of the fight (unless all the deaths are summoned replaceable minions for the tolkeen side - i mean, if they somehow manage to summon half a million gargoyles to throw away in a frontal assault against half a million CS troops, then they can go ahead and do that i guess, but i doubt tolkeen could put together that many at once, and even then they'd be much better used in other ways).

but ultimately, i don't think ISP multipliers would be enough to change the situation unless they do something far beyond what the name suggests.

[Axelmania]

The way I rationalize this is that RUE is set in 109PA (a post-Tolkeen world) as page 15 explains, represented by Tarn's "Our Changing World", whereas SOT was in the earlier era beginning in 100PA represented by Tarn's "Traversing Our Modern Earth".

The stated rules in RUE (faster spell casting, easier getting PPE from ley lines, more PPE and OCC abilities for line walkers and shifters) may have only come into existence AFTER the defeat of Tolkeen, so I'm not sure we should be relying on these to re-interpret the SOT events which happened according to the original ruleset and not the new ruleset.

Sort of like we wouldn't apply the Coalition War Campaign toys to a 100PA campaign because not everything there would have necessarily been around at the time.

[Shark_Force]

The way I rationalize this is that RUE is set in 109PA (a post-Tolkeen world) as page 15 explains, represented by Tarn's "Our Changing World", whereas SOT was in the earlier era beginning in 100PA represented by Tarn's "Traversing Our Modern Earth".

The stated rules in RUE (faster spell casting, easier getting PPE from ley lines, more PPE and OCC abilities for line walkers and shifters) may have only come into existence AFTER the defeat of Tolkeen, so I'm not sure we should be relying on these to re-interpret the SOT events which happened according to the original ruleset and not the new ruleset.

Sort of like we wouldn't apply the Coalition War Campaign toys to a 100PA campaign because not everything there would have necessarily been around at the time.

they aren't presented as changes to the world, they're presented as "this is how it is". the rules section of the books were not written by erin tarn, who has no concept of attacks per melee, PPE points, etc.

that said, those rules aren't really necessary for tolkeen to do extremely well. they can still summon things with spells even if shifters no longer get the OCC ability, they'd still be able to generate absolutely ridiculous amounts of PPE, and most of the spells that make the really big difference aren't spells you cast in the middle of combat when action costs would have made a difference (and in many cases, tolkeen would be wanting to use talismans anyways if it was even remotely possible - if only because talismans and scrolls don't put their most important assets at risk, that being their spellcasters).

in any event, if you think we shouldn't be considering rules from the proper setting, i don't see how you can reconcile that with wondering whether the rules from a completely different setting should ever in any way even conceivably be relevant.

[Axelmania]

RUE presents "this is how it is" in 109PA, whereas RMB presents "this is how it is" in 100PA and Chaos Earth does so for the pre-PA calendar.

The thing about the big spells is you can store up a lot more PPE talismans for casting them if you have 10/melee ley lines to build up 400 per 10 minutes with.

BTS doesn't seem so completely different considering the past with it being like a prequel to chaos earth, even though that diverged in recent interpretations.

BTS2 came out January 2005 so since RUE came out August 2005, BTS2 is also a pre-RUE book just like SOT

[HWalsh]

RUE presents "this is how it is" in 109PA, whereas RMB presents "this is how it is" in 100PA and Chaos Earth does so for the pre-PA calendar.

The thing about the big spells is you can store up a lot more PPE talismans for casting them if you have 10/melee ley lines to build up 400 per 10 minutes with.

BTS doesn't seem so completely different considering the past with it being like a prequel to chaos earth, even though that diverged in recent interpretations.

BTS2 came out January 2005 so since RUE came out August 2005, BTS2 is also a pre-RUE book just like SOT

Incorrect. The CK, for example, has always "been that way" according to SoT4 and RUE. It is just that people didn't know about it.

[Axelmania]

Page that quote's from?

I'm reviewing the history on pg 20-31 of SOT4, all pretty vague. Coake "arrived sometime during the latter part of the Dark Ages, perhaps as far back as 70 or 80 years before the beginning of the Post Apocalyptic Calendar"

I'm not sure specifically when the "Dark Ages" began/ended, is that pretty much the entire period before the PA calendar?

We know "one of" his first "crusades" was a 3 year battle against some demon lord and at least 24 who helped him stuck around as a "formal group" (we could call them "the foundation")

They're still referred to as a "legion of heroes" even after the phrase "savage post-apocalyptic world" is used, which I think implies at this point you are into the PA calendar.

Going to the top-left of 21, you have the "warriors supreme" who Coake dubbed "knights" who "in another generation or two" would be come Cyber-Knights.

Here's the thing though: when the "knights" were founded, they explicitly DID NOT have these abilities. We know this because of the "Azure Sky" paragraph. Azure "stayed with the knights for 40 years".

That should mean that it was actually more like 40 PA when they began to be considered Cyber-Knights (which matches up with the "or two") so the 18 PA recognition must've been recognizing Coake's knights (who eventually became the CK) as a group.

Azure is the reason Cyber-Knights to eventually gain the abilities of both Psi-Sword (as in RMB) and become attuned to combat. But while (like the Techno-Wizard) this was a "piece", it doesn't actually say when this finally manifested.

Page 39 has an account of 74PA where Taloquin had just learned to summon a Psi-Sword, so we know they were doing THAT by then (as per RMB in 1990) but there's no mention of even cyber-armor, much less bonding it, or having anti-tech abilities.

The only thing I think pg 39 does support is the existence of the Dream Vision by that time. That's implied to go back much further, since Taloquin asks Segaya about his own master Gurgin helping him unravel his in the past.

Can you find any more specifics time-wise about when anti-tech / healing armor came to be, year-wise?

We know that post-SOT it is legal to be a Cyber-Knight without all the new components of that OCC, due to Arzno's Lady Night Runner on 159 not having the Cyber-Armor at all, or being able to make a Psi-Shield.

[eliakon]

@axle
Game mechanics are not inworld (for the most part)
they are the way that we simulate the in world roleplay.
They are not fundamental laws of physics that can be measured, quantified and ruleslawyerd in universe.
This is not TOotS.

[Axelmania]

Underneath her tattered robes, her body was encircled by several python-sized worms that served as mega-damage body armor
..
We would soon learn that everything on Wormwood, including its indigenous human populace, are mega-damage structures, which meant these encroaching towers were walking fortresses.

Sitting against a wall of Mega-Damage stone, I can feel the explosion's vibration rattle faintly into my spine

In many places, a canopy of steel beams, cable, Mega-Damage concrete and debris hangs overhead; some covered in grass, weeds or vines.

Within the wilderness zones are many forms of alien wildlife. These creatures are often Mega-Damage beings with natural attacks and abilities that can harm other Mega-Damage structures.

It's gotta mean something I mean, maybe when Tarn/Tyrannica/Bellamy describe mega-damage they are just talking about high SDC damage like merely 10+ instead of 100+, but Occam's Razor would be that they mean the same thing as the rules.

If we go down the path of assuming stuff in quotes means something different than the rules, then who's to say that "shifters" exclusively refer to the shifter OCC? Perhaps any use of that in a quote might refer to shapeshifters, or to anybody using portals to travel.

Certainly we know "necromancer" originally used to refer to a LLW NPC in WB1 before WB4 made it its own OCC, so it's plausible I guess.

SUPER interesting though is that Rifts vernacular that has appeared at least as early as 103 PA (anyone able to find earlier references?) has also appeared in Skraypers. Evidence of a Rift connecting the two? Coincidence?

Tarn shifted from lowercasing the M and D to uppercasing it after Tyrannica's letter which did so. Did she possibly read it? Does that mean Bellamy was influenced by Tarn of 109 over Tarn of 103?

[jaymz]

Not for nothing but game rules are in fact the physics of the world. Damages, durabilities, et al are determined by the rules. If you toss that out in that way then I can say and do anything in world by saying "narrative license" which is b/s of the highest order.

[eliakon]

Not for nothing but game rules are in fact the physics of the world. Damages, durabilities, et al are determined by the rules. If you toss that out in that way then I can say and do anything in world by saying "narrative license" which is b/s of the highest order.

They are part of the physics.
But only part.
The claim that the world 'changed in 109 PA when the rules changed" doesn't fly.
Because the world didn't change. It just retroactively always was that way.

And there is no 'physics' that says that you can measure charisma (PB) and its influence (charm impress). That's game mechanics.
Same with the argument that the GI Joe Rule is a law of physics. Or that there is a law of physics that prevents non-soldiers from learning paired weapons.

So yeah... the claim that ALL game rules are immutable physics is the BS here.

[dreicunan]

Not for nothing but game rules are in fact the physics of the world. Damages, durabilities, et al are determined by the rules. If you toss that out in that way then I can say and do anything in world by saying "narrative license" which is b/s of the highest order.

They are part of the physics.
But only part.
The claim that the world 'changed in 109 PA when the rules changed" doesn't fly.
Because the world didn't change. It just retroactively always was that way.

And there is no 'physics' that says that you can measure charisma (PB) and its influence (charm impress). That's game mechanics.
Same with the argument that the GI Joe Rule is a law of physics. Or that there is a law of physics that prevents non-soldiers from learning paired weapons.

So yeah... the claim that ALL game rules are immutable physics is the BS here.

Sometimes when the rules change they are a total retcon, such as Vampire Revised making the shadow of the cross damaging vamps always have been a myth. Sometimes it is a Spellplague. I'd have no problem with either one being the case here, and I'd be curious to hear Kevin S on it.

[Axelmania]

the world didn't change

How do you know that? You're transitioning from the massive Coalition Wars to the Minion Wars. Massive war and death is what altered the earth to begin with.

It just retroactively always was that way.

According to where? RUE is telling you the lay of the land as of ~109PA, not any earlier point.

Sometimes when the rules change they are a total retcon,
such as Vampire Revised making the shadow of the cross damaging vamps always have been a myth.

That's just Doc Reid propaganda. Revised 75 precedes his writings with the big bold "Only solid, three dimensional representations of the holy symbol can be used in this fashion" ruling out tats/paintings/sewing/shadow, but in regard to what?

"used in this fashion" means it is carrying over the preceding paragraph's topic: WEARING the symbol to prevent them from biting you.

As in, if you have a non-3D cross tattoo on your neck, the vampire will just bite around it, they won't feel compelled to remove it like a real one, since it jangles all about and might hit them.

Pg 73 still requires only to touch them with the holy symbol, so I don't see why shadows wouldn't count. If the 3D thing was meant to apply to the basic save/damage then it would've been put there and not just in a place to pertain to the neck-guarding strat.

[dreicunan]

Sometimes when the rules change they are a total retcon,
such as Vampire Revised making the shadow of the cross damaging vamps always have been a myth.

That's just Doc Reid propaganda. Revised 75 precedes his writings with the big bold "Only solid, three dimensional representations of the holy symbol can be used in this fashion" ruling out tats/paintings/sewing/shadow, but in regard to what?

"used in this fashion" means it is carrying over the preceding paragraph's topic: WEARING the symbol to prevent them from biting you.

As in, if you have a non-3D cross tattoo on your neck, the vampire will just bite around it, they won't feel compelled to remove it like a real one, since it jangles all about and might hit them.

Pg 73 still requires only to touch them with the holy symbol, so I don't see why shadows wouldn't count. If the 3D thing was meant to apply to the basic save/damage then it would've been put there and not just in a place to pertain to the neck-guarding strat.

Even a cursory read of the section "The Shadow of the Cross Myth" dispells your claims. The formatting does not support it. The language used does not support it. The fact that it offers rules in a parenthetical for Wild Vampires losing initiative and one melee attack from dodging the shadow does not support it. I doubt that you are going to claim that the parenthetical note is supposed to be Doc Reid's writing.
The idea that Doc Reid is suddenly distributining "propaganda" that would have the effect of leading people away from a way to damage vampires is patently ridiculous.
It is a retcon, pure and simple. My best guess is that it was decided that vamps had enough weaknesses, and the shadow weakness was a bit too potent.

[Axelmania]

I doubt that you are going to claim that the parenthetical note is supposed to be Doc Reid's writing.

"The Shadow of the Cross Myth" doesn't dispel anything, no writings in the hand of Doc Reid dispel anything, only things written impartially and not in the hand of NPCs are absolute rules.

Reid's journal simply serves as evidence that NPCs happen to use some of the same language we do (such as "melee attack" and "initiative") like we already know they do with "mega-damage".

[dreicunan]

I doubt that you are going to claim that the parenthetical note is supposed to be Doc Reid's writing.

"The Shadow of the Cross Myth" doesn't dispel anything, no writings in the hand of Doc Reid dispel anything, only things written impartially and not in the hand of NPCs are absolute rules.

Reid's journal simply serves as evidence that NPCs happen to use some of the same language we do (such as "melee attack" and "initiative") like we already know they do with "mega-damage".

Well, I guess that I shouldn't have doubted your capacity for taking that position.

You are wrong on this, however. There is a big old rules section which makes no mention of the shadow of the cross being able to damage a vamp, and only mentions the actual touching of the cross to the flesh of a vamp. The idea that a later section i, which an in universe character states "I've tested this extensively and it doesn't work," was actually meant to indicate that it does work is counterintuitive, to say the least. If you want to to debate this further, however, I suggest that you start a new thread as we've gotten rather off topic.

[Axelmania]

73 says "touch a vampire with the holy symbol", so I agree with you that it must touch their flesh.

The first paragraph says "any holy symbol" so that should include shadows, drawings of crosses on paper, tattoos, etc. These non-3D things just don't deter feeding well because they don't bounce around like physical objects do, which are unpredictable while flat non-bouncy crosses are predictable.

Reid has apparently improved from Diabolic (VK) to Anarchist (VS) but I don't think that means he's entirely honest.

If you don't want to discuss it anymore that's fine, but I stand by RUE only being necessarily a "state of the world" as of 109PA. We don't know how far back any of its descriptions would apply back in time. Certain OCCs like the Cyber-Knight we know don't go back more than a century, for example, and even then we don't know if the earlier forms entirely match the present form.

My point is simply that the PPE available in 109 PA could vary from the PPE available in 100PA.