CyberKnight psi-sword Primary or Backup weapon?

[grandmaster z0b]

Just a quick poll to see what people think about the CyberKnight and their psi-sword. Fairly self explanetary, is it a quick, never-ending backup weapon or is it meant to be their primary weapon?

I always thought of it as one of their main weapons. Not necessary the main weapon, but a very important weapon, and not just a ceremonial thing.

Certainly there is a fair bit of fluff text about it for a simple backup weapon and almost every CK seen in illustrations is using it.

[grandmaster z0b]

Certainly there is a fair bit of fluff text about it for a simple backup weapon and almost every CK seen in illustrations is using it.

The illustrations say so, therefor it must be their ONLY weapon...Like Psi-Stalkers...

I never said that. I was just saying that when people think of CKs obviously the image of them fighting with a psi-sword springs to mind.

[rat_bastard]

I picked F- it depends on the cyber knight....

the cyber knight is I think the best argument rifts has for using the "cut above" article from rifter #whatever.

when the enemy is 1800 feet away rock out with your glock out, but if you is going toe to toe than the psi-sword is usually better than a virbo blade. Plus it hurts everything! Vamps, Demons, Stale Tacos, tough hard to get out stains and power armor!

[RainOfSteel]

Some of the wording related to the psi-sword's description really plays it up, but nothing actually says it is the main weapon.

It just implies by quantity and tone of text that it is the most important, even though it caps off the discussion by stating it is weaker than the Mind Melter's psi-sword! Gaaaaaah! <glyph of ripping out hair at the roots />

[Killer Cyborg]

Just a quick poll to see what people think about the CyberKnight and their psi-sword. Fairly self explanetary, is it a quick, never-ending backup weapon or is it meant to be their primary weapon?

I always thought of it as one of their main weapons. Not necessary the main weapon, but a very important weapon, and not just a ceremonial thing.

Certainly there is a fair bit of fluff text about it for a simple backup weapon and almost every CK seen in illustrations is using it.

Backup weapon, yes.
Simple? No.
It's a symbol of their honor, power, and skill.

Main weapon?
Heck no. They're not stupid enough to bring a sword to a gunfight.
It's for duels of honor, for a display of power, or for when you run out of ammo or otherwise have to engage in melee combat.

[Killer Cyborg]

And, as mentioned in the other thread, CKs don't even start with WP Sword unless they specifically choose it.
This indicates that using the sword specifically is NOT part of their training.

And CKs get more WPs than any other class (at least, any class in the main book). WHY, if they're supposed to use their sword most of the time?

[Toc Rat]

I feel it was supposed to be their primary weapon against supernatural evil and dragons, however due to it's complete lack of punch it has been relegated to the role of "Back-up" weapon. Back up against a crippled kobold with a 4 inch vibro-blade perhaps, not much else would have cause to fear that weapon.

[bathawk]

well the cyber-knight in my group is annoyed his psi-sword does only 1d6 at first level, he carries a 2d6 vibrosword as his "primary" melee weapon (and a juicer sniper rifle for range)


but consider this: with the zero ISP on the psi-sword when a cyber-knight hits third level and can create two blades doing 2d6 damge +1d6 from the fencing skill for a total of two 3d6 attacks (essentialy 6d6 damage) with paired weapons

not too shabby

[sHaka]

I've only recently returned to Rifts, and I'm still unclear on several aspects of the Psi-Swords. Not to threadjack, but they seem pertinent here, so maybe someone can help me out.

• Strength bonus from Supernatural/Enhanced strength. Essentially the Psi-sword functions exactly as a physical weapon in combat, in that it has a physical presence (which explains parries and so forth) but that it cannot be thrown. As such, per normal HtH MD weapons, the SDC bonus to damage shouldn't apply to the MD output, but what about if it's wielded by someone using Supernatural or Augmented strength who already has a MD damage rating? For that matter, how about Rune weapons and so forth, do they get a damage bonus from say Zues' +damage bonus from his very high supernatural PS (ouch)? As a game mechanic, I'd say that's pretty valid and consistent, but I've heard people seem to indicate otherwise. To be clear, I'm not saying SDC damage bonuses should apply to MD melee weapons, but MD damage bonuses from great strength should apply, IMO, as long as it's not an energy sword or laser sword or some such that would be cutting more with heat and energy output than with the transfer of kinetic energy.

Strength bonuses (SN or otherwise) don't apply.

Think of a Jedi's lightsaber - Doesn't matter who swings it, it still cuts the same. It's not weighted, it's just a cutting force.

I see the Psi-sword as being much the same.

It's more than a weapon - it has hundreds of practical uses as well as being an awesome weapon in an urban SDC environ or against foes who are unprepared.

It will only be as effective however as the wits of the Player.

[ApocalypseZero]

I see the Psi-Sword as a good melee weapon for many Cyber-Knights. Granted, many NPC Cyber-Knights have a minor magical weapon, just remember that something tangible can always be removed, but the Psi-Sword is forever.

It may lack some punch, but look at the 'typical' M.D. rifle, doing around 3-5 D6 M.D. (modified with Bursts and such). Of course, everyone thinks 1D4x10 or 1D6x10 is the common, many of those are done with Hvy. Energy Weapons (like Rail Gun and Plasma Ejectors) or with the Rifle's Burst Fire. Of course, a Cyber-Knight should not use the Psi-Sword at range.

[shadrak]

It should be the primary melee weapon of the cyber knight not because it is especially powerful or because it is more effective than any other melee weapon, but because they should be most comfortable with it. It should be an extension of the body.

It would make more sense to me to down play the whole "zen combat" crap and emphasis the swordsmanship of the cyberknights...it seems intuitive that they receive WP Sword, yet they do not.

"If I had made the OCC":
I would have ditched the zen combat and given an additional attack + intuitive combat bonuses (enhanced initiative, strike, parry, disarm, etc.) for the sword.

Sure, in ranged combat it is better to use a ranged weapon...the CK should use a ranged weapon. Sure, a Rune Sword may do more damage and have more features, but that does not mean that the CK is going to be as familier with it.

For some reason most players obsess about damage capability. While it is true that the Psi-Sword is surpassed by many weapons, the fact that the CK can create it should be reason enough that he use it as his primary weapon.

Imagine a favorite pencil you write with, and you keep it on a particular spot on your desk. You have used it for years. Suddenly, you get a new one for your birthday. It is likely that, even if you replace your old pencil, you will instinctively reach for what you feel is natural.

[Greeter]

[list]
[*] They can parry energy attacks, yes or no? Probably most relevant from tech sources with the zen combat, but I mean it's actually possible to do? What about magic bolts of energy and such?[list]

Yes; if they're fast enough. The psi-sword is made of energy; regardless of type. Least thats what Rue says. In the main book I dont remember; anyone can feel free to correct me here.

I honestly couldn't tell you one way or the another. I admit I am very confused on this since there is a spell that allows you to parry energy attack. The FAQ has this in the Ranged Combat section:

Question: Does a person get their P.P. bonuses to parrying energy blasts when wielding a lesser rune weapon?
Page 127 of the Atlantis book shows there is a -6 penalty but doesn't mention bonuses.
I have found a few threads that address the issue, but I can't find a canon answer anywhere.
Answer: According to RUE, unless you have W.P. Shield, you can no longer parry energy blasts.

I would love to know if it say otherwise anywhere other then in a spell description.

[Vrykolas2k]

I think it's the main melee weapon.
I also am one of those GMs {and players} who reads that rune weapons are rare, and treat them thusly. In fact, the only player character in my game who has a rune weapon {so far} is the godling, and it's lesser.
Personally I think the zen combat should work against all foes on some level, nae just tech-users.

[rat_bastard]

the fact that the psi-sword and psi sheild according to their rue descriptions cannot parry energy blasts is really what lowers their value in my mind.

[Dead Boy]

When SoT4 came out and gave them the ability to have paired psi-swords the y became the Cyber-Knights' main weapon for most situations. This was especially doable with the 4th printing of the RGMG where they could use them to parry ranged attacks at will (-2 beyond dodge penalties v ranged). That made them jedi bad. Unfortunately I think that's what also spooked Kev for when he wrote RUE that extremely useful ability vanished, severely hurting the Knights' ability to rely on their signature weapon.

[RockJock]

I hadn't noticed that the Psi Shield can't parry energy attacks. That makes it fairly useless.

[rat_bastard]

I hadn't noticed that the Psi Shield can't parry energy attacks. That makes it fairly useless.

but get this, the magic sheild spell can parry energy blasts! huh????

[Rimmer]

I've only recently returned to Rifts, and I'm still unclear on several aspects of the Psi-Swords. Not to threadjack, but they seem pertinent here, so maybe someone can help me out.

• Strength bonus from Supernatural/Enhanced strength. Essentially the Psi-sword functions exactly as a physical weapon in combat, in that it has a physical presence (which explains parries and so forth) but that it cannot be thrown. As such, per normal HtH MD weapons, the SDC bonus to damage shouldn't apply to the MD output, but what about if it's wielded by someone using Supernatural or Augmented strength who already has a MD damage rating? For that matter, how about Rune weapons and so forth, do they get a damage bonus from say Zues' +damage bonus from his very high supernatural PS (ouch)? As a game mechanic, I'd say that's pretty valid and consistent, but I've heard people seem to indicate otherwise. To be clear, I'm not saying SDC damage bonuses should apply to MD melee weapons, but MD damage bonuses from great strength should apply, IMO, as long as it's not an energy sword or laser sword or some such that would be cutting more with heat and energy output than with the transfer of kinetic energy.

Strength bonuses (SN or otherwise) don't apply.

Think of a Jedi's lightsaber - Doesn't matter who swings it, it still cuts the same. It's not weighted, it's just a cutting force.

I see the Psi-sword as being much the same.

It's more than a weapon - it has hundreds of practical uses as well as being an awesome weapon in an urban SDC environ or against foes who are unprepared.

It will only be as effective however as the wits of the Player.

Problem being, that a true CK will not use his psi sword against sdc targets nor against foes who are not suitably equipped.

[Killer Cyborg]

well the cyber-knight in my group is annoyed his psi-sword does only 1d6 at first level, he carries a 2d6 vibrosword as his "primary" melee weapon (and a juicer sniper rifle for range)


but consider this: with the zero ISP on the psi-sword when a cyber-knight hits third level and can create two blades doing 2d6 damge +1d6 from the fencing skill for a total of two 3d6 attacks (essentialy 6d6 damage) with paired weapons

not too shabby

Oh, the fencing skill adds 1d6 to psi-swords?

Handy.

Debatable, unless I've missed a canon reference to it somewhere.

[Killer Cyborg]

perhaps the assumption is that solid objects can parry energy whereas pure energy objects cant?

I dont agree with it . . . but that might be the (weak) reasoning.

I'd assume that the magic spell gives you the ability to move the shield fast enough to block the incoming projectile, but the psi-power doesn't. It's not a matter of the material of the shield, it's that the magic spell grants the speed necessary to use it against projectiles.

On the other hand, I don't see any reason (other than shield size, perhaps) why a CK couldn't just use his psi-shield to cover his main body from attackers in front of him, making them need a called shot to get past the shield.

[Rimmer]

well the cyber-knight in my group is annoyed his psi-sword does only 1d6 at first level, he carries a 2d6 vibrosword as his "primary" melee weapon (and a juicer sniper rifle for range)


but consider this: with the zero ISP on the psi-sword when a cyber-knight hits third level and can create two blades doing 2d6 damge +1d6 from the fencing skill for a total of two 3d6 attacks (essentialy 6d6 damage) with paired weapons

not too shabby

Oh, the fencing skill adds 1d6 to psi-swords?

Handy.

Debatable, unless I've missed a canon reference to it somewhere.

RUE states an additional 1d6 damage when using swords. It does not specify SDC or MDC.

Please don't start this one again

[Killer Cyborg]

well the cyber-knight in my group is annoyed his psi-sword does only 1d6 at first level, he carries a 2d6 vibrosword as his "primary" melee weapon (and a juicer sniper rifle for range)


but consider this: with the zero ISP on the psi-sword when a cyber-knight hits third level and can create two blades doing 2d6 damge +1d6 from the fencing skill for a total of two 3d6 attacks (essentialy 6d6 damage) with paired weapons

not too shabby

Oh, the fencing skill adds 1d6 to psi-swords?

Handy.

Debatable, unless I've missed a canon reference to it somewhere.

RUE states an additional 1d6 damage when using swords. It does not specify SDC or MDC.

Please don't start this one again

I'm not allowed to answer KC's question either?

The thing is, since it doesn't specify whether it's SDC or MD, it doesn't answer my question.
Which is the point.
When I read "+1d6 damage", I assume that it's only an SDC bonus because SDC is the baseline measure of damage capacity.
When other people read it, they assume that it could go either way since it doesn't specifically say "SDC only".

(My opinion is right, of course, but I can't really prove it since the books don't give a clear example or ruling. )

[Rimmer]

well the cyber-knight in my group is annoyed his psi-sword does only 1d6 at first level, he carries a 2d6 vibrosword as his "primary" melee weapon (and a juicer sniper rifle for range)


but consider this: with the zero ISP on the psi-sword when a cyber-knight hits third level and can create two blades doing 2d6 damge +1d6 from the fencing skill for a total of two 3d6 attacks (essentialy 6d6 damage) with paired weapons

not too shabby

Oh, the fencing skill adds 1d6 to psi-swords?

Handy.

Debatable, unless I've missed a canon reference to it somewhere.

RUE states an additional 1d6 damage when using swords. It does not specify SDC or MDC.

Please don't start this one again

I'm not allowed to answer KC's question either?

NO! i'm putting foot down here, that being said, my wife never listens when i do, so i don't really expect anybody here to do any different

[Killer Cyborg]

And, as mentioned in the other thread, CKs don't even start with WP Sword unless they specifically choose it.
This indicates that using the sword specifically is NOT part of their training.

And CKs get more WPs than any other class (at least, any class in the main book). WHY, if they're supposed to use their sword most of the time?

Not to beat a dead horse but Cyber Knights don't have to use a sword, the weapon manifestation is up to the cyberknight. If you wanted you could use a battle axe, or a polearm. Heck with the new CK's write up you could summon a mace and a lance or a frying pan and a rolling pin. That is IIRC, both weapons don't have to be the same.

NOW they can.
In the main book, which I am discussing, it had to be a sword.

[grandmaster z0b]

I wouldn't care if a canon ruling came out saying fencing only adds 1d6 SDC, I would still rule that it does 1d6 MD anyway. It just makes swords more worthy in game. I'm not saying it's realistic, but hey it's no secret that I love swords so I like to see them used in game and it's fun .

[Rimmer]

NO! i'm putting foot down here, that being said, my wife never listens when i do, so i don't really expect anybody here to do any different

Well fine! *Ignores Rimmer*

Used to it

[Rimmer]

I wouldn't care if a canon ruling came out saying fencing only adds 1d6 SDC, I would still rule that it does 1d6 MD anyway. It just makes swords more worthy in game. I'm not saying it's realistic, but hey it's no secret that I love swords so I like to see them used in game and it's fun .

Same here, i also rule that if a 2 handed sword is created it gets +1d6 MDC as well, maybe i've just watched the hhighlander to many times.

[Mudang]

well the cyber-knight in my group is annoyed his psi-sword does only 1d6 at first level, he carries a 2d6 vibrosword as his "primary" melee weapon (and a juicer sniper rifle for range)


but consider this: with the zero ISP on the psi-sword when a cyber-knight hits third level and can create two blades doing 2d6 damge +1d6 from the fencing skill for a total of two 3d6 attacks (essentialy 6d6 damage) with paired weapons

not too shabby

Oh, the fencing skill adds 1d6 to psi-swords?

Handy.

Debatable, unless I've missed a canon reference to it somewhere.

RUE states an additional 1d6 damage when using swords. It does not specify SDC or MDC.

Please don't start this one again

I'm not allowed to answer KC's question either?

The thing is, since it doesn't specify whether it's SDC or MD, it doesn't answer my question.
Which is the point.
When I read "+1d6 damage", I assume that it's only an SDC bonus because SDC is the baseline measure of damage capacity.
When other people read it, they assume that it could go either way since it doesn't specifically say "SDC only".

(My opinion is right, of course, but I can't really prove it since the books don't give a clear example or ruling. )

It's a different setting, but the description of the fencing skill in the Splicers main book states that the +1d6 damage can be either SDC or MDC depending upon the nature of the weapon.

[Greeter]

well the cyber-knight in my group is annoyed his psi-sword does only 1d6 at first level, he carries a 2d6 vibrosword as his "primary" melee weapon (and a juicer sniper rifle for range)


but consider this: with the zero ISP on the psi-sword when a cyber-knight hits third level and can create two blades doing 2d6 damge +1d6 from the fencing skill for a total of two 3d6 attacks (essentialy 6d6 damage) with paired weapons

not too shabby

Oh, the fencing skill adds 1d6 to psi-swords?

Handy.

Debatable, unless I've missed a canon reference to it somewhere.

RUE states an additional 1d6 damage when using swords. It does not specify SDC or MDC.

Please don't start this one again

I'm not allowed to answer KC's question either?

The thing is, since it doesn't specify whether it's SDC or MD, it doesn't answer my question.
Which is the point.
When I read "+1d6 damage", I assume that it's only an SDC bonus because SDC is the baseline measure of damage capacity.
When other people read it, they assume that it could go either way since it doesn't specifically say "SDC only".

(My opinion is right, of course, but I can't really prove it since the books don't give a clear example or ruling. )

It's a different setting, but the description of the fencing skill in the Splicers main book states that the +1d6 damage can be either SDC or MDC depending upon the nature of the weapon.

One would think that means it is the same for Rifts, but unfortunately new rules for one Palladium system do not automatically apply to all Palladium systems (despite the Palladium system being billed as a universal system). However, it does give us a good point of reference for those of us who would like it to apply to MDC.

[grandmaster z0b]

As there is no clarification in Rifts I think it is the best evidence we have at this stage.

Also, if the skill is essentially saying that anyone who is exceptionally good with an SDC sword can make it do more damage due to their skill and not because of extra strength or anything to do with the weapon itself, it stands to reason that it should be the same for MDC.

[Killer Cyborg]

It's a different setting, but the description of the fencing skill in the Splicers main book states that the +1d6 damage can be either SDC or MDC depending upon the nature of the weapon.

Huh. So it does.
Good find!

The fact that RUE doesn't say the same thing could mean that things were tried that way then changed, or that that only applies in Splicers, or it could just mean that they forgot to mention that part in Rifts.

But unless somebody comes up with a good reason why NOT, I'll accept that as a canon ruling that Fencing is supposed to add MD to MD sword attacks.

[NMI]

I allow CK's to get a damage bonus to their Psi-Sword using their M.E. but on the P.S. chart.

[Aramanthus]

That's an interesting idea NMI! I'll have to try it out on an NPC to see how it looks.

[Nightmaster]

Then why have ranged weapon skills at all?

That's the game designer's choice, I'll not try and argue their intent because, to be frank, I can't know it nor do I presuppose to claim authority on KS's vision.

From my point of view it can work in a couple of ways: it is about knowing your enemy, how they fight, and how easy it can be to kill without feeling. It is about options, recognizing that relying upon the blade is a choice rather than sheer necessity, thereby giving that choice moral weight and value. I can see a familiarization in ranged weapons as a part of training, but definitely not the focus.

Then again, this is the style of knight I play. Your milage may vary. But this is how I imbue the class with the meaning I think a knight should have. It's not just that they follow a code, it's the why they follow the code, it's not just the blade but why they use it: for me the class is about the why so much as the how. I think it can be telling. I don't play my knights as holier than thou avengers or the kindly town sheriff, all goodness and perfection and light; I play them as people striving to impose some kind of moral sense on a nihilistic world, and finding strength in taking the hard road to it. They strive, and they fail, and in both they find their nobility.

Maybe I'm unique in this, maybe I'm not, I cannot say. But that is what the class has always been for me.

For me, the blade is a symbol. I chose it not out of mechanics or effectiveness, but because of what it means to the wielder.

To me it just tells a better story.

Cool. You play your Cyber Knights like a Jedi Knight. Loved it

I think that the main misunderstanding about CKs and the psi-sword is that fact that all illustrations that shows CKs in action, they are using their psi-sword.

Its most probably because must illustrators find inspiration in the Jedi Knights to draw the CKs. After all the similarities are easy to see since the psi-sword work like a lightsaber in every aspect.

[shadrak]

It's a different setting, but the description of the fencing skill in the Splicers main book states that the +1d6 damage can be either SDC or MDC depending upon the nature of the weapon.

This is stooooopid!!!! I mean, it makes a degree of sense, but it would make more sense if it simply gave a greater chance for a critical.

Anyway, I guess my future characters will be taking the fencing skill.

[grandmaster z0b]

It's a different setting, but the description of the fencing skill in the Splicers main book states that the +1d6 damage can be either SDC or MDC depending upon the nature of the weapon.

This is stooooopid!!!! I mean, it makes a degree of sense, but it would make more sense if it simply gave a greater chance for a critical.

Anyway, I guess my future characters will be taking the fencing skill.

I actually don't think it's stooooooopid, I know I can do a lot more damage with a sword than someone else who is stronger than me but doesn't have good technique.

[shadrak]

That is true, but I just think the damage increase should be from a critical hit.

I think of it not so much that I am so much stronger and able to strike harder (though that may be part of it), but that I am much more effective at hitting my opponent's weaknesses

Plus, if you have a sword that does 1D6 or 1D8 damage (really a large knife), does it make sense that it gets the same bonus as a Katana (3D6) ?

Should the psisword that does 1D6 damage get the same bonus as the Rune Rapier that does 6D6 damage?

[grandmaster z0b]

That is true, but I just think the damage increase should be from a critical hit.

I think of it not so much that I am so much stronger and able to strike harder (though that may be part of it), but that I am much more effective at hitting my opponent's weaknesses

Plus, if you have a sword that does 1D6 or 1D8 damage (really a large knife), does it make sense that it gets the same bonus as a Katana (3D6) ?

Should the psisword that does 1D6 damage get the same bonus as the Rune Rapier that does 6D6 damage?

Well I would say it would be a combination of hitting an opponents weaknesses and delivering more force through correct use technique like footwork and using the enitre body to move the sword rather than just the elbow and wrist.

But I do understand what your saying, it would make more sense if fencing provided a critical hit on a natural 18-20.

[rat_bastard]

Just because a CK can't parry enery blasts doesn't make them inferior to them.

Unless one reads Sourcebook One, in which case Cyber-Knights CAN parry energy blasts.

as of RUE, no parry the energy blasts. That is the official RAW. Hopefully that may change with the new sourcebook 1.

[rat_bastard]

my GM has perhaps the best system I've seen, he goes by the printed rules as much as possible, and if he runs into a item that does not make sense or has not rules he adds them a to a document that he regularly hands out to his players so we know what our rules are.

[shadrak]

Hence my cries for consistency. There are entirely too many arbitrary changes to the rules, along with rules in obscure places.

Great as long as everyone all has the same books and thus the same rules the GM has. Otherwise, you still have confusion because of where and how the rules are located and changed.

Stop stealing my lines!!!

[Toc Rat]

Just had an idea. Not sure if this has been thought of before but here goes...

It seems there is a division between people on the nature of the Cyber-Knights and their Psi-Swords. On the one hand they are called "Cyber-Knights" not "Psiber-Knights. They are really in tune with technology and just happen to have psionic abilities. Then there are those that see these psionic abilities too include the power to create a Psi-Sword unlike anything the other Master psionics can create.

Either way many in both camps feel that the Psi-Sword is under powered. However there are those that feel it is just fine the way it is and doesn't need any adjusting. I think I have a compromise that just might appeal to all sides. With the advent of Psionic technologies on Rifts Earth, why wouldnt the Cyber-Knights develope a Gauntlet that increases the power of their Unique swords?

If the Coalition can create psi-tech devices then certainly a orginization so in tune with technology they can auto-dodge it among other things can create an item that can increase their ability to inflict damage on evil doers. The other approach is that it could be a part of their "Living" Cyber-Armor. After time it (the armor)/the CK developes the ability to influence their Psi-Swords (thru the cyberarmor).

I think this would be a good compromise between simply increasing the power of their Psi-Swords and doing nothing for them at all. It keeps the SoT thing of having them be Technology of Psionics, doesn't change the power of the Psi-Sword directly (ala a rules change) but still increases the power of the sword and thus it's usefulness. Now the Cyber-Knights can be morelike the ones in every single picture ever and players will use the sword more then the latest plasma ejector.

Feedback?

[Killer Cyborg]

Just because a CK can't parry enery blasts doesn't make them inferior to them.

Unless one reads Sourcebook One, in which case Cyber-Knights CAN parry energy blasts.

as of RUE, no parry the energy blasts. That is the official RAW. Hopefully that may change with the new sourcebook 1.

Hence my cries for consistency. There are entirely too many arbitrary changes to the rules, along with rules in obscure places.

RUE cleaned a heck of a lot of that up.

[Killer Cyborg]

Just because a CK can't parry enery blasts doesn't make them inferior to them.

Unless one reads Sourcebook One, in which case Cyber-Knights CAN parry energy blasts.

as of RUE, no parry the energy blasts. That is the official RAW. Hopefully that may change with the new sourcebook 1.

Hence my cries for consistency. There are entirely too many arbitrary changes to the rules, along with rules in obscure places.

RUE cleaned a heck of a lot of that up.

But what I've seen in Conversion book 1, revised (which I believe is for use with RUE) alters or superceeds what I've seen in RUE,

Nope.
Revised CB1 came out a long time ago.

and of course you have to retrocon all of this for all the previous sourcebooks (psi-warriors parrying energy blasts with shields, not swords, etc.). I think what would help best would be a "cheaters guide" to applying RUE to previous editions, or something similar. As it stands much is open to interpretation.

Agreed.

[shadrak]

We should be able to trade in our old books...pay a small fee and get books that are consistent.

[rat_bastard]

We should be able to trade in our old books...pay a small fee and get books that are consistent.

that would require nearly as much money and manpower as getting new books.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Just because a CK can't parry enery blasts doesn't make them inferior to them.

Unless one reads Sourcebook One, in which case Cyber-Knights CAN parry energy blasts.

as of RUE, no parry the energy blasts. That is the official RAW. Hopefully that may change with the new sourcebook 1.

Hence my cries for consistency. There are entirely too many arbitrary changes to the rules, along with rules in obscure places.

RUE cleaned a heck of a lot of that up.

But what I've seen in Conversion book 1, revised (which I believe is for use with RUE) alters or superceeds what I've seen in RUE, and of course you have to retrocon all of this for all the previous sourcebooks (psi-warriors parrying energy blasts with shields, not swords, etc.). I think what would help best would be a "cheaters guide" to applying RUE to previous editions, or something similar. As it stands much is open to interpretation.

nope, Conversion Book One Revised came out years before, RUE superceeds it.

they need to make another revision to the conversion book now.

[shadrak]

they need to make another revision to the conversion book now.

No they don't, at this point it should be rewritten, not revised.

[Nekira Sudacne]

they need to make another revision to the conversion book now.

No they don't, at this point it should be rewritten, not revised.

Revised Conversion Book One, Second Edition?

[shadrak]

I could go for that...

We have 2, 3 and 4 versions of the same book and it is hard to understand which came when.

Plus, there have been three or 4 significant rules changes in the palladium system since RMB.