How much does illustration accuracy matter to you?

[drewkitty ~..~]

Yep, That shows the transformation sequence. *nods*

But that does not show 'how the pilot starts the sequence up' ether.

Which my GM decided was in a pull down menu accessed with a eye-tracker curser via the HUD.

[mumah]

You have to bear in mind that typically we're not asked to draw every single thing in a book, like or not. And whatever we're asked to design we are trying to depict in a cool and interesting visual way. That might sound simple, but composing an intriguing image is challenging work. I might stare at a blank page for hours, or throw away a dozen doodles before landing on something usable.

[azazel1024]

It matters moderately. I don't want to see a sky cycle when an ocean liner is being described/stat'd.

To get a bit more in the weeds, I think the illustration should have some basic accuracy. If your Tank is described has having a dual cannon turret, with a cupola rail gun and some smoke ejectors and nothing else, it would be annoying to see a hatch gun, or nose plasma cannon or something. Or a single gun turret.

Beyond very basic accuracy, meh.

[kaid]

I would like it if the art is considered to be accurate with the text as written. Also like other people have mentioned art that is low quality, or no art provided at all, can diminish the overall quality of the book.

I know that art has caused problems in the past for some players, mostly with vehicles/PA, not just with weapons but even simple things like "where the heck is the door" or "how to I get inside this Robot/PA".

Do people always make the robots sit down first, is there an elevator hidden in the leg, an outside elevator (like NASA) that leads to an opening ? I ask because I am not really familiar with their use, because I don't use them, but I don't ever recall reading in the write up on how to get in, just how many people it can hold/takes to operate it.
If I am wrong, someone please point it out to me so I can read it.

I know there are a couple of examples for getting into PA, I always just assume that either the chest or back open up and you climb inside.

This is one reason I like chucks art so much is for bigger robots and vehicles it is usually pretty obvious how you would go about entering them. Most of the examples of PA we have seen "unbuttoned involve the chest plate opening up and them basically climbing in that way given power armor is powered body armor most would work like this. Some odd ones like the samson/delila which are way bigger than man sized now show a bit more clearly the pilots positioning in them and describe the driving position better which helps understand how they get in and drive it.

Thanks Kaid, I try to picture myself as a pilot gamer and what I would seek and that includes such factors as accessibility. PAs are a bit more challenging. After reading John Steakley's "Armor", they are so convenient in some ways, but man what happens if your PA's power supply is damaged or disconnected and you can't get it open and all that PA weight is placed on your body? You are instantly crushed if you don't lay down and wait for help. BTW, the Delilah is a HIH design, but the Samson is a HUH, so their pilot configurations are different because the chest and shoulders of the Delilah are smaller so that pilot can reach the sensors and sleeve servos and joint alignment works easier. The Samson is a bigger boy in dimensions, so I had to keep it HUH.

Given power armor is basically an articulated hard suit crushing is not a huge problem although being basically trapped in an air tight coffin is not a great deal better. My groups always assumed there was a last ditch explosive bolt system in case of catestrophic power failure or damage you could basically blow all the seals which should pop it open enough for the pilot to worm their way out although doing this really hosed the armor and would require extensive repair/refit to get it functional again.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I always envisioned a sort of "Loss of power/emergency" contingency built in too. Even if it was just "unsealing" the armor to where you could struggle to peel it open. Most power armor's aren't so huge you'd be crushed under their weight, but some like the Super Sam sure would end you up on your rear due to the weight of engines and stuff. You should still be able to disengage the armor and worm your way out. I don't know about explosive bolts, but a last ditch reserve battery in the boot or something with just enough power to disengage all the lock downs and 'open' the armor. Or just a simple pulse to do it once, sort of thing.

[azazel1024]

I haven't pictured any explosive bolts or anything, but I have imagined that the suit release system works on a seperate backup power supply and all you had to do was toggle the release (verbal, tongue switch, manual external switch/code or something).

Most PA isn't really that heavy. It is a hard suit, so it isn't going to crush you. Trapped in a coffin though, especially since most don't have actual transparent visors to see out of, but video displays. So in a coffin in the dark (except maybe the glowing button for the suit release). Also, heavy though it may be, the weight is distrubted around the suit, so even if the power died/suit died, you'd still be able to move around...a little. You might not be strong enough to take any steps, but if say 60lbs of the 600lb PA was each arm, a resonably strong person could move their arm around...some, with 60lbs of armor strapped to it. Probably enough to manually undo latches and what not to get out of the suit.

Might take a few minutes and be huffing and puffing by the time you were done though.

That and some PAs are a lot lighter. Like some are in the 200-400lb range, so an arm there might only be 20-40lbs of armor. You might even be able to walk around in a suit unpowered if it was that light. No marathons or long walks on the beach, but you could probably struggle through a couple of hundred feet before you collapsed/froze (depending on suit design) in exhaustion. I wouldn't want to know with my bad back, but I could leg press around 900lbs in a former life (call high school). That isn't all that is required in walking, but I bet most pretty fit real people (IE, the kind of people you'd find using stuff like that problem. IE Military types) could walk a short distance (very slowly) with 400lbs of hard armor strapped to them.

Of course if you got an EMP/Magic power outage killing ALL power to the suit, you are probably trapped, especially in one of the bigger/heavier suits until someone comes by an opens it for you. Considering security, it might have to be cutting you out if there is no power (you don't probably want an easy to use lever or latch to unlock and open the suit accessible on the outside, otherwise soon all the cool monsters are going to realize when they are grappling with a SAMAS all they need to do is pull the lever and the soft tasty bits inside of the suit are easily accessible). IE, electromechanical lock with some kind of security measure that has to be opened by the operator, maybe with a not terribly difficult backup measure (if there is power!) for an outside operator or someone to open the suit in an emergency (like say a coverage keypad where you can punch in a code and unlock the suit. Like if the PA operator is killed in the suit, but the suit is still salvagable/viable).

[Pepsi Jedi]

I totally agree there's 'Something'.

The lighter suits, you likely just take it off, with a reverse of how you put it on. In the heavier ones there's going to be some safty feature that you can access. Even if it's just to get one arm free, to start taking off the rest manually.

Course... there might 'Not' be. Common sense would say there is but common sense isn't always common. many suits of armor from our history take an extra person to get you into them. Maybe even two or three. You really can't get it on yourself or get out of it yourself.

I wouldn't think power armor is like that, but it might be. Especially the less expensive ones or knock offs.

[mumah]

Now, I tend to not to prefer to draw a lot of technical stuff. That is not to say that I can't or that I'm bad at them, I just like drawing creatures and more macabre things and to draw them both as being very scary and cool and often times very silly. Our jobs as illustrators is to highlight a particular thing in a book, if only to show you what it looks like. It's simple and basic, I have done this in the past, usually out of time constraint (I have generally regretted doing this). What I like to do is draw a scene and depict the subject in use as it would be used in the game. For me, that's more visually stimulating than drawing the thing as if it were in a sales catalogue. So I'll want to show some scares, scoring, dents, even some of the customizable options to show some usage and to give it a bit of a story. We don't use anything so simple like the words the keyboard monkeys like Galactus Kid do. We use more subtle and nuanced tools that allow the viewer to feature their own story.

[Rimmer]

At least to me, Illustration accuracy matter: Lots. Some people just like to visualise things, I'm one of them.

My personal little bug bears

1. Original sky cycle illustration does not match stats, either original core or Ultimate edition.
2. SAMAS Skelebots being impossible, but depicted.
3. Lasers depicted doing ten times the amount of damage that they are actually statwise capable of.

That being said, maybe i am getting old and grumpy ?

[Rimmer]

"Editorial Glitches" would imply editing of some sort, we both know that this never happens.

[mumah]

Editorial glitches are just one hiccup that can occur. More often than not it could be nothing more than simple oversight by the artist. We can get an idea in our head, not think anything of it and just put something in because it would look cool with fact checking and the next thing you know you're up here screaming Palladium's lack of editorial ability because of your oversight. I'm just saying that so many things can go wrong to cause one simple error.

[Rimmer]

Editorial glitches are just one hiccup that can occur. More often than not it could be nothing more than simple oversight by the artist. We can get an idea in our head, not think anything of it and just put something in because it would look cool with fact checking and the next thing you know you're up here screaming Palladium's lack of editorial ability because of your oversight. I'm just saying that so many things can go wrong to cause one simple error.

When the same error is re printed across three different books and I don't know how many different printings, it quickly becomes more than "simple editing" and enters the realm of farcical.

[The Galactus Kid]

At least to me, Illustration accuracy matter: Lots. Some people just like to visualise things, I'm one of them.

My personal little bug bears

1. Original sky cycle illustration does not match stats, either original core or Ultimate edition.

That has always irritated me. That rear-facing laser turret under the fin was never, ever mentioned.

It is mentioned in the errata document and changed in R:UE second priting and beyond.

[The Galactus Kid]

"Editorial Glitches" would imply editing of some sort, we both know that this never happens.

This is an incorrect statement.

[Eashamahel]

At least to me, Illustration accuracy matter: Lots. Some people just like to visualise things, I'm one of them.

My personal little bug bears

1. Original sky cycle illustration does not match stats, either original core or Ultimate edition.
2. SAMAS Skelebots being impossible, but depicted.
3. Lasers depicted doing ten times the amount of damage that they are actually statwise capable of.

That being said, maybe i am getting old and grumpy ?

For the SAMAS Skelebots, are you sure you're not seeing Skelebots with Jetpacks?

I assume the Sky Cycle issue is the lack of a statted out laser turret on the back/facing backwards despite being shown in the picture? I didn't even realize that WASN'T statted out for what has to be nearly a decade.

[The Galactus Kid]

I assume the Sky Cycle issue is the lack of a statted out laser turret on the back/facing backwards despite being shown in the picture? I didn't even realize that WASN'T statted out for what has to be nearly a decade.

Please see my above post. It has been in print with correct stats since 2007

[Dog_O_War]

Is the art important?

Well, I'll lend some facts and my opinion.

First, the art is not canon. It practically shouts "not canon" in some pictures (see the Iron Bolt Missile vehicle for an example, or the Naruni Personal Force-Field picture for another).

Second, there are bad artists (or at least, maybe some mediums are not their forte).

So this is a role-playing game where we have to take information (which is printed) and translate it into game information from these books. That would basically make the art irrelevant in regards to the game.

Those are all facts.

Now my opinion.

I probably wouldn't buy these books if there wasn't art in them. Art is what allows us (some of us at least) to conceptualize what we're reading. It draws the eye. It is basically what sells these books.

So the art is important, even if the accuracy of the art isn't so much. I mean, we all wish the art was 100% accurate, but still, it's not incredibly important.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Is the art important?

Well, I'll lend some facts and my opinion.

First, the art is not canon. It practically shouts "not canon" in some pictures (see the Iron Bolt Missile vehicle for an example, or the Naruni Personal Force-Field picture for another).

Second, there are bad artists (or at least, maybe some mediums are not their forte).

So this is a role-playing game where we have to take information (which is printed) and translate it into game information from these books. That would basically make the art irrelevant in regards to the game.

Those are all facts.

Now my opinion.

I probably wouldn't buy these books if there wasn't art in them. Art is what allows us (some of us at least) to conceptualize what we're reading. It draws the eye. It is basically what sells these books.

So the art is important, even if the accuracy of the art isn't so much. I mean, we all wish the art was 100% accurate, but still, it's not incredibly important.

You realize your 'Facts' are just your 'opinions' right? The "art is not canon" hasn't to my knowledge ever been stated in print, as canon. I asked this last week or so in one of these threads. Noone could point to anything specific. A few people claim that Kevin said it at some convention 10 or 20 years ago but noone has come forward to show it's stated as such in a book or in an official post by Kevin or Palladium. "I heard it from a guy who said Kevin said it at a convention a decade ago" is not 'canon' to -me-.

Second while I do agree that some of the art sucks, that's 'subjective'. What you or I think blows monkey chunks might be someone elses favorite bit of work. Thus it's not a 'fact' but a subjective opinion. (One I happen to share, but an artist you might love, I might hate. one I might hate, you might love.)

As for taking the information and translating it for use, there's not actually anything that says we must take the printed word over the depicted art. It's just as viable a way to take the art 'over' the printed word. I.E. if Chuck draws an awesome bot with... razor looking claws, but the claws aren't mentioned in the write up, It's just as viable to give the bot claws and claw damage, as it would be to say "Well they're not in the write up so it doesn't have them".

Your opinions are valid. As valid as anyone else's, but that doesn't make them 'Facts'.

[BuzzardB]

You realize your 'Facts' are just your 'opinions' right? The "art is not canon" hasn't to my knowledge ever been stated in print, as canon. I asked this last week or so in one of these threads. Noone could point to anything specific. A few people claim that Kevin said it at some convention 10 or 20 years ago but noone has come forward to show it's stated as such in a book or in an official post by Kevin or Palladium. "I heard it from a guy who said Kevin said it at a convention a decade ago" is not 'canon' to -me-.

Second while I do agree that some of the art sucks, that's 'subjective'. What you or I think blows monkey chunks might be someone elses favorite bit of work. Thus it's not a 'fact' but a subjective opinion. (One I happen to share, but an artist you might love, I might hate. one I might hate, you might love.)

As for taking the information and translating it for use, there's not actually anything that says we must take the printed word over the depicted art. It's just as viable a way to take the art 'over' the printed word. I.E. if Chuck draws an awesome bot with... razor looking claws, but the claws aren't mentioned in the write up, It's just as viable to give the bot claws and claw damage, as it would be to say "Well they're not in the write up so it doesn't have them".

Your opinions are valid. As valid as anyone else's, but that doesn't make them 'Facts'.

You worded exactly what I was thinking very well.

It is mentioned in the errata document and changed in R:UE second priting and beyond.

Oh hey, sweet.

[Dog_O_War]

You realize your 'Facts' are just your 'opinions' right?

They really aren't. See the responses below as to why.

The "art is not canon" hasn't to my knowledge ever been stated in print, as canon.

So what has been stated in print then?
Descriptions to the contrary of the art. That is proof in and of itself that the art is not canon.

I asked this last week or so in one of these threads. Noone could point to anything specific.

So then everyone in that thread was a bit dim that week; a lack of proof is not proof.
As I've pointed out in the examples provided in my above-post (ie: proof), the description - which is canon, differs from the art. We know the written portion of the text is canon, and as you've pointed out, there isn't a blurb stating that art is not canon, I will then point out that there is not a blurb either stating that art is canon.
However, there are clear discrepancies regarding the definite canon works of the printed medium (re: the description) and the artist's depiction of said description, except there really isn't anyone or anything stating that the art supercedes the text, now is there?

A few people claim that Kevin said it at some convention 10 or 20 years ago but noone has come forward to show it's stated as such in a book or in an official post by Kevin or Palladium. "I heard it from a guy who said Kevin said it at a convention a decade ago" is not 'canon' to -me-.

Pfft. It doesn't matter if even Kevin says it; the guy has admitted to house-ruling his own game (I don't know how often he runs it now; just rumours). His spoken word isn't exactly canon either. Only the print is. And that as the factual basis is what disproves the art as canon.

Second while I do agree that some of the art sucks, that's 'subjective'. What you or I think blows monkey chunks might be someone elses favorite bit of work. Thus it's not a 'fact' but a subjective opinion. (One I happen to share, but an artist you might love, I might hate. one I might hate, you might love.)

Straight up, if one person in a dozen likes something, that does not make that thing likeable. All that does is disallow the statement,"everyone hates it". As it stands, there is such a thing as 'bad art'. Really, the only thing that is subjective is how bad that art is; if you polled 100 people and 51 stated it is bad, then it is bad. That's how we categorize things that are 'subjective' - via consensus.

As for taking the information and translating it for use, there's not actually anything that says we must take the printed word over the depicted art.

Don't be dim; without the printed word there you wouldn't even know the books were in fact a game, and you'd just be staring at pictures *facepalm*

It's just as viable a way to take the art 'over' the printed word. I.E. if Chuck draws an awesome bot with... razor looking claws, but the claws aren't mentioned in the write up, It's just as viable to give the bot claws and claw damage, as it would be to say "Well they're not in the write up so it doesn't have them".

See, there's your mistake. The write-up is telling us what the bot has. Period. End of story. It's not telling us its potential. There isn't a blurb in every robot entry stating that said robot could potentially have 20% more MDC (re: Operator OCC), etc. So if the picture is presented and it doesn't accurately represent the description as-is, then that picture must be a representation of either potential or something else as it doesn't match the description. It's really that simple. I mean, when you see bullet impacts on a picture of something, you're not thinking,"well those must come standard" because you're not retarded. But trying to form an argument that you'd think anyone here would even find remotely plausible regarding just how canon art is, certainly feels like you're trying to convince us that we are retarded.
And I don't like that implication; I don't think anyone does.

Your opinions are valid. As valid as anyone else's, but that doesn't make them 'Facts'.

It's a good thing I separated them then

[Pepsi Jedi]

You realize your 'Facts' are just your 'opinions' right?

They really aren't. See the responses below as to why.

The "art is not canon" hasn't to my knowledge ever been stated in print, as canon.

So what has been stated in print then?
Descriptions to the contrary of the art. That is proof in and of itself that the art is not canon.

No it's not. The art could be canon and the discriptions, flawed write up's based on the art.
They could BOTH Also be canon. The write up and the art. If you see something 'extra' in the art, it could simply be an after market modification of the 'base' (whatever). Or if the art is missing something, you could be seeing a base model with out an upgrade or later model that incorperates something new. It's not a 100% black and white "YES/NO" thing. Even if it were, it could be the oppsiite of what you decide. The art might be correct and the write up wrong. Just as easy as the art wrong and the write up correct.

I asked this last week or so in one of these threads. Noone could point to anything specific.

So then everyone in that thread was a bit dim that week; a lack of proof is not proof.

The lack of proof is not proof, is my exact point. If noone could prove it, I'm not going to take it as chip truth. I stipulated I'd heard it multiple times before, but there is no prof that "Art is not canon". Untill there is, people using it as a defense are just repeating hear-say at the very best. Or just making it up at worst. I think what you're going for is 'The absence of proof is not proof of absence" but still, if noone can prove it, it's not something one must accept as truth.

As I've pointed out in the examples provided in my above-post (ie: proof), the description - which is canon, differs from the art.

But you haven't proved anything. You've made an assumption that the text, trumps the art. It's just as easy to say the art trumps the text. You've proven nothing other than they can sometimes differ. I've even postulated how they can both be right at the same time.

We know the written portion of the text is canon, and as you've pointed out, there isn't a blurb stating that art is not canon, I will then point out that there is not a blurb either stating that art is canon.

Both are presented in the book under the same ruling of Canon. Thus the art and the text are BOTH canon unless some how stated other wise. There's nothing saying 'The text is canon' Either. Other than being text instead of art.

However, there are clear discrepancies regarding the definite canon works of the printed medium (re: the description) and the artist's depiction of said description, except there really isn't anyone or anything stating that the art supercedes the text, now is there?

Sometimes there are. In the example I gave above, if Chuck drew an amazing robot that had killer claws on the hands, but it got missed by Palladium when writing it up. Many will give the bot claws and damage for the claws.

You are oprating under an assumption that text automatically trumps the art. But that's an assumption. A -dangerous- one when we're talking about Palladium text.

It's not like it's rare that they mess up text or write ups. Their editing... well I won't say it's non existent, but there's issues. Many issues. Many many issues with Palladium text/editing. Assuming it's gospel handed down from on high is making an assumption that's not in evidence.

A few people claim that Kevin said it at some convention 10 or 20 years ago but noone has come forward to show it's stated as such in a book or in an official post by Kevin or Palladium. "I heard it from a guy who said Kevin said it at a convention a decade ago" is not 'canon' to -me-.

Pfft. It doesn't matter if even Kevin says it; the guy has admitted to house-ruling his own game (I don't know how often he runs it now; just rumours). His spoken word isn't exactly canon either. Only the print is. And that as the factual basis is what disproves the art as canon.

But it doesn't. The art is printed in the same books the text is printed. By your logic they're both equally canon. They just don't always agree. There's nothing stipulating that text trumps art.

Second while I do agree that some of the art sucks, that's 'subjective'. What you or I think blows monkey chunks might be someone elses favorite bit of work. Thus it's not a 'fact' but a subjective opinion. (One I happen to share, but an artist you might love, I might hate. one I might hate, you might love.)

Straight up, if one person in a dozen likes something, that does not make that thing likeable.

Art preference is -subjective- thus making hard 100% one way or 100% other way statements are inaccurate. They're your opinion. Some people like slow country music. I think it's horrible. THat doesn't make them "wrong". (Though I surely think their opinion sucks)

All that does is disallow the statement,"everyone hates it". As it stands, there is such a thing as 'bad art'. Really, the only thing that is subjective is how bad that art is; if you polled 100 people and 51 stated it is bad, then it is bad. That's how we categorize things that are 'subjective' - via consensus.

Ohhh you've done poll work! Awesome. Show us.

It's still subjective and thus not fact. There's stuff hanging in museums, stuff that's insured for MILLIONS, that I take a look at and laugh, and point to my 11 year old and go "he could have painted that.

Subjective opinions aren't fact. Even if a majority agree. It's still a majority OPINION.

As for taking the information and translating it for use, there's not actually anything that says we must take the printed word over the depicted art.

Don't be dim;

Don't be insulting. Just because I don't agree, doesn't mean I'm stupid. Your points are your opinions. As valid as any one elses here. Your opinions are not -facts-. Facts are irrefutable. Your opinions are not.

without the printed word there you wouldn't even know the books were in fact a game, and you'd just be staring at pictures *facepalm*

That doesn't pertain to which one is correct. the words or the pictures. One could be right, the other wrong, both could be right, or both could be wrong.

As presented, the art and words are both in the same book. Thus both have just as equal a point to being canon.

It's just as viable a way to take the art 'over' the printed word. I.E. if Chuck draws an awesome bot with... razor looking claws, but the claws aren't mentioned in the write up, It's just as viable to give the bot claws and claw damage, as it would be to say "Well they're not in the write up so it doesn't have them".

See, there's your mistake.

Nope. There's the point you don't like. It doesn't make it wrong.

The write-up is telling us what the bot has.

The picture shows us what the bot has. The write up is just describing the picture. See? Works both ways.

Period. End of story.

Not at all. That's one interpretation. Not all.

It's not telling us its potential. There isn't a blurb in every robot entry stating that said robot could potentially have 20% more MDC (re: Operator OCC), etc. So if the picture is presented and it doesn't accurately represent the description as-is, then that picture must be a representation of either potential or something else as it doesn't match the description. It's really that simple.

It's really not. You're assuming that every word written by Palladium is 100% correct and everything else must be mistakes. I laugh at that.
The word isn't some sort of holy thing you're making it out to be. We're talking about make believe items and people and places and things. Nothing says written word has more credence over visual media.

You're making an ASSUMPTION That "Text trumps art" but that's an assumption on your part. Not universally held. My example above proves it. if I see wicked claws on a bot, and the editor clipped that off for space, or forgot to put it in, or any of a number of things. I can give the bot claws. In that case, the 'description' (You may want to look up that word) is incorrect.

I mean, when you see bullet impacts on a picture of something, you're not thinking,"well those must come standard" because you're not retarded. But trying to form an argument that you'd think anyone here would even find remotely plausible regarding just how canon art is, certainly feels like you're trying to convince us that we are retarded.
And I don't like that implication; I don't think anyone does.

No. I'm pointing out that your 100%black/100%white doesn't work. Your assumption that word trumps art, is just that. An assumption.

Your opinions are valid. As valid as anyone else's, but that doesn't make them 'Facts'.

It's a good thing I separated them then

You didn't though. You stated your opinion as fact. It's not. It's just your opinion. Parts of which I agree with and parts are my opinion too (Some of the art truly is hidious to me. That said some people love stuff I hate.) It's just my opinion on the art. Parts I disagree with.

Facts are different from opinions.

[Dog_O_War]

You realize your 'Facts' are just your 'opinions' right?

They really aren't. See the responses below as to why.

The "art is not canon" hasn't to my knowledge ever been stated in print, as canon.

So what has been stated in print then?
Descriptions to the contrary of the art. That is proof in and of itself that the art is not canon.

No it's not. The art could be canon and the discriptions, flawed write up's based on the art.
They could BOTH Also be canon. The write up and the art. If you see something 'extra' in the art, it could simply be an after market modification of the 'base' (whatever). Or if the art is missing something, you could be seeing a base model with out an upgrade or later model that incorperates something new. It's not a 100% black and white "YES/NO" thing. Even if it were, it could be the oppsiite of what you decide. The art might be correct and the write up wrong. Just as easy as the art wrong and the write up correct.

That's poor argument.
"art could be canon and the descriptions, flawed write up's based on the art."
If the descriptions were flawed, then they would match the art depicted. But they don't. Even the art doesn't match other artists' depictions. I mean, whose Red Borg is the real Red Borg? Whose borg railgun is the real borg railgun?
Additionally, they cannot both be canon; this is a game of data, and the data is either correct or it isn't.

But beyond this - your justifications; what is telling you that the extras or the missing 'somethings' are these things you claim? More art? A description? Or is it nothing? Are you basing your justifications on nothing? Because that's called "not providing proof".

I asked this last week or so in one of these threads. Noone could point to anything specific.

So then everyone in that thread was a bit dim that week; a lack of proof is not proof.

The lack of proof is not proof, is my exact point. If noone could prove it, I'm not going to take it as chip truth. I stipulated I'd heard it multiple times before, but there is no prof that "Art is not canon". Untill there is, people using it as a defense are just repeating hear-say at the very best. Or just making it up at worst. I think what you're going for is 'The absence of proof is not proof of absence" but still, if noone can prove it, it's not something one must accept as truth.

Guy, people (beyond myself) have provided plenty of examples over the years; citations, etc. wherein the art does not accurately represent the described item. You can choose not to accept proof, but we don't really need your approval on what difference there is between good proof, bad proof, and no proof is.

Because even bad proof beats no proof, which is what you've got in the realm of your statement that art is/could be canon.

As I've pointed out in the examples provided in my above-post (ie: proof), the description - which is canon, differs from the art.

But you haven't proved anything. You've made an assumption that the text, trumps the art. It's just as easy to say the art trumps the text. You've proven nothing other than they can sometimes differ. I've even postulated how they can both be right at the same time.

It's not an assumption. I've not read or seen a picture anywhere in the entire line of Palladium books, on its website, or in any other medium that stated even vaguely that the art is canon. No one has. Because such a thing doesn't exist.

Meanwhile, I've read the game-data, and it is consistent with itself across all the previously described mediums, and as a general consensus between both the consumer and the manufacturer as being canon in regards to the system.
As for your postulations; well I've postulated a big turd, but that only holds as much weight as your own.

We know the written portion of the text is canon, and as you've pointed out, there isn't a blurb stating that art is not canon, I will then point out that there is not a blurb either stating that art is canon.

Both are presented in the book under the same ruling of Canon. Thus the art and the text are BOTH canon unless some how stated other wise. There's nothing saying 'The text is canon' Either. Other than being text instead of art.

"the same ruling of canon" you realize that ruling extends only to rule data? That even the fluff descriptions aren't canon in regards to the rules descriptions. Otherwise the Glitterboy Killer really would be using its missiles to destroy the Glitterboy's boomgun.
But it doesn't, because that's fluff. Which is what art falls under.

However, there are clear discrepancies regarding the definite canon works of the printed medium (re: the description) and the artist's depiction of said description, except there really isn't anyone or anything stating that the art supercedes the text, now is there?

Sometimes there are. In the example I gave above, if Chuck drew an amazing robot that had killer claws on the hands, but it got missed by Palladium when writing it up. Many will give the bot claws and damage for the claws.

That's called "house-ruling" which also isn't an example of what is canon.

You are oprating under an assumption that text automatically trumps the art. But that's an assumption. A -dangerous- one when we're talking about Palladium text.

Okay, so what do the blind go by then?
Nothing? The game doesn't exist for them?

It's not like it's rare that they mess up text or write ups. Their editing... well I won't say it's non existent, but there's issues. Many issues. Many many issues with Palladium text/editing. Assuming it's gospel handed down from on high is making an assumption that's not in evidence.

Guy, even a rules mistake is canon, however much we'd like it not to be. Denouncing the editors doesn't lend weight to the art being canon, especially when you're an internet random that isn't otherwise providing proof, and only opinion.

A few people claim that Kevin said it at some convention 10 or 20 years ago but noone has come forward to show it's stated as such in a book or in an official post by Kevin or Palladium. "I heard it from a guy who said Kevin said it at a convention a decade ago" is not 'canon' to -me-.

Pfft. It doesn't matter if even Kevin says it; the guy has admitted to house-ruling his own game (I don't know how often he runs it now; just rumours). His spoken word isn't exactly canon either. Only the print is. And that as the factual basis is what disproves the art as canon.

But it doesn't. The art is printed in the same books the text is printed. By your logic they're both equally canon. They just don't always agree. There's nothing stipulating that text trumps art.

The fluff is also printed in the same books as the rules, but that doesn't make it canon.
Seriously, your arguments thus far seem like you don't even know the definition of the word canon; canon is literally defined as a 'rule'. Well the book states these rules via written text, and I have yet seen a rule presented via pictograph.
Your argument at this point is fictional and a figment of your imagination. I pretty much don't need to go any further until you can establish a rule that is conveyed via picture.

Or rather, proof please.

[mumah]

I personally, like to draw things with after market modifications. Hell, if I think something would look cool held together with duct tape. I try to stay true to the text, but that doesn't always jibe with what looks cool. All I'm saying is that the text is canonical for how a certain thing starts the game. The art usually shows how it is used after a while in the game.

[Rimmer]

At least to me, Illustration accuracy matter: Lots. Some people just like to visualise things, I'm one of them.

My personal little bug bears

1. Original sky cycle illustration does not match stats, either original core or Ultimate edition.

That has always irritated me. That rear-facing laser turret under the fin was never, ever mentioned.

It is mentioned in the errata document and changed in R:UE second priting and beyond.

Consdiering the Core book was first printed in 1990, it took them 17 years to correct an OBVIOUS error ? and only in the second print run of the new ULTIMATE core book ?

Sorry, i cannot seem to continue as my sarcasm meter just imploded.

PS: Did they fix the chaff dispenser while they were at it ?

[Rimmer]

"Editorial Glitches" would imply editing of some sort, we both know that this never happens.

This is an incorrect statement.

Well, flippant offhand statement aside. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

[Rimmer]

I personally, like to draw things with after market modifications. Hell, if I think something would look cool held together with duct tape. I try to stay true to the text, but that doesn't always jibe with what looks cool. All I'm saying is that the text is canonical for how a certain thing starts the game. The art usually shows how it is used after a while in the game.

Would a Coalition power armour and or robot, or any coalition vehicle for that matter, issued to coalition troops for coalition business by the coalition military. Even have "After Market" modifications ?

Coalition APC with big bore exhuast and spinners !

[Rimmer]

At least to me, Illustration accuracy matter: Lots. Some people just like to visualise things, I'm one of them.

My personal little bug bears

1. Original sky cycle illustration does not match stats, either original core or Ultimate edition.
2. SAMAS Skelebots being impossible, but depicted.
3. Lasers depicted doing ten times the amount of damage that they are actually statwise capable of.

That being said, maybe i am getting old and grumpy ?

For the SAMAS Skelebots, are you sure you're not seeing Skelebots with Jetpacks?

I assume the Sky Cycle issue is the lack of a statted out laser turret on the back/facing backwards despite being shown in the picture? I didn't even realize that WASN'T statted out for what has to be nearly a decade.

No, it wasent jet packs, of which skelebots dont even have the skill to use i think, it was a SAMAS style jet pack quite clearly.

Now you are going to get my OCD up and running arn't you ? Im now going to hunt around for days to find it again.

[Pepsi Jedi]

You realize your 'Facts' are just your 'opinions' right?

They really aren't. See the responses below as to why.

The "art is not canon" hasn't to my knowledge ever been stated in print, as canon.

So what has been stated in print then?
Descriptions to the contrary of the art. That is proof in and of itself that the art is not canon.

No it's not. The art could be canon and the discriptions, flawed write up's based on the art.
They could BOTH Also be canon. The write up and the art. If you see something 'extra' in the art, it could simply be an after market modification of the 'base' (whatever). Or if the art is missing something, you could be seeing a base model with out an upgrade or later model that incorperates something new. It's not a 100% black and white "YES/NO" thing. Even if it were, it could be the oppsiite of what you decide. The art might be correct and the write up wrong. Just as easy as the art wrong and the write up correct.

That's poor argument.
"art could be canon and the descriptions, flawed write up's based on the art."
If the descriptions were flawed, then they would match the art depicted. But they don't. Even the art doesn't match other artists' depictions. I mean, whose Red Borg is the real Red Borg? Whose borg railgun is the real borg railgun?
Additionally, they cannot both be canon; this is a game of data, and the data is either correct or it isn't.

But beyond this - your justifications; what is telling you that the extras or the missing 'somethings' are these things you claim? More art? A description? Or is it nothing? Are you basing your justifications on nothing? Because that's called "not providing proof".

I asked this last week or so in one of these threads. Noone could point to anything specific.

So then everyone in that thread was a bit dim that week; a lack of proof is not proof.

The lack of proof is not proof, is my exact point. If noone could prove it, I'm not going to take it as chip truth. I stipulated I'd heard it multiple times before, but there is no prof that "Art is not canon". Untill there is, people using it as a defense are just repeating hear-say at the very best. Or just making it up at worst. I think what you're going for is 'The absence of proof is not proof of absence" but still, if noone can prove it, it's not something one must accept as truth.

Guy, people (beyond myself) have provided plenty of examples over the years; citations, etc. wherein the art does not accurately represent the described item. You can choose not to accept proof, but we don't really need your approval on what difference there is between good proof, bad proof, and no proof is.

Because even bad proof beats no proof, which is what you've got in the realm of your statement that art is/could be canon.

As I've pointed out in the examples provided in my above-post (ie: proof), the description - which is canon, differs from the art.

But you haven't proved anything. You've made an assumption that the text, trumps the art. It's just as easy to say the art trumps the text. You've proven nothing other than they can sometimes differ. I've even postulated how they can both be right at the same time.

It's not an assumption. I've not read or seen a picture anywhere in the entire line of Palladium books, on its website, or in any other medium that stated even vaguely that the art is canon. No one has. Because such a thing doesn't exist.

Meanwhile, I've read the game-data, and it is consistent with itself across all the previously described mediums, and as a general consensus between both the consumer and the manufacturer as being canon in regards to the system.
As for your postulations; well I've postulated a big turd, but that only holds as much weight as your own.

We know the written portion of the text is canon, and as you've pointed out, there isn't a blurb stating that art is not canon, I will then point out that there is not a blurb either stating that art is canon.

Both are presented in the book under the same ruling of Canon. Thus the art and the text are BOTH canon unless some how stated other wise. There's nothing saying 'The text is canon' Either. Other than being text instead of art.

"the same ruling of canon" you realize that ruling extends only to rule data? That even the fluff descriptions aren't canon in regards to the rules descriptions. Otherwise the Glitterboy Killer really would be using its missiles to destroy the Glitterboy's boomgun.
But it doesn't, because that's fluff. Which is what art falls under.

However, there are clear discrepancies regarding the definite canon works of the printed medium (re: the description) and the artist's depiction of said description, except there really isn't anyone or anything stating that the art supercedes the text, now is there?

Sometimes there are. In the example I gave above, if Chuck drew an amazing robot that had killer claws on the hands, but it got missed by Palladium when writing it up. Many will give the bot claws and damage for the claws.

That's called "house-ruling" which also isn't an example of what is canon.

You are oprating under an assumption that text automatically trumps the art. But that's an assumption. A -dangerous- one when we're talking about Palladium text.

Okay, so what do the blind go by then?
Nothing? The game doesn't exist for them?

It's not like it's rare that they mess up text or write ups. Their editing... well I won't say it's non existent, but there's issues. Many issues. Many many issues with Palladium text/editing. Assuming it's gospel handed down from on high is making an assumption that's not in evidence.

Guy, even a rules mistake is canon, however much we'd like it not to be. Denouncing the editors doesn't lend weight to the art being canon, especially when you're an internet random that isn't otherwise providing proof, and only opinion.

A few people claim that Kevin said it at some convention 10 or 20 years ago but noone has come forward to show it's stated as such in a book or in an official post by Kevin or Palladium. "I heard it from a guy who said Kevin said it at a convention a decade ago" is not 'canon' to -me-.

Pfft. It doesn't matter if even Kevin says it; the guy has admitted to house-ruling his own game (I don't know how often he runs it now; just rumours). His spoken word isn't exactly canon either. Only the print is. And that as the factual basis is what disproves the art as canon.

But it doesn't. The art is printed in the same books the text is printed. By your logic they're both equally canon. They just don't always agree. There's nothing stipulating that text trumps art.

The fluff is also printed in the same books as the rules, but that doesn't make it canon.
Seriously, your arguments thus far seem like you don't even know the definition of the word canon; canon is literally defined as a 'rule'. Well the book states these rules via written text, and I have yet seen a rule presented via pictograph.
Your argument at this point is fictional and a figment of your imagination. I pretty much don't need to go any further until you can establish a rule that is conveyed via picture.

Or rather, proof please.

Other than calling me 'guy' in a derogatory way repeatedly, you're still stuck on a false assumption. Further complicated by a faulty definition. "Canon' doesn't mean 'RULE'. Other wise Star Wars Movies wouldn't be considered "Canon" as there's no rules in them. The archaic usage of the word pertains to the church and means a regulation or dogma from the church. Modern usage, as we're using it here, is something else.

"In fiction, canon is the material accepted as part of the story in an individual fictional universe. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction. The term "canon" can be used either as a noun, referring to "the original work from which the fan fiction author borrows," or as an adjective to describe whether or not certain elements are accepted as authoritative parts of the fictional universe. Fan-fiction would be described as "non-canon," while an event from the official source material would be "canon.""

Thus, the art in the Rifts books, is 'canon'. "An adjective to describe wheither or not certain elements are accepted as authoritative parts of the fictional universe".

For rifts, what's in the books published by Palladium is "Canon". There is absolutely no stipulation that 'text' is higher canon than art, and even more silly that 'fluff discriptions' are some how non canon and the only thing that is, is 'rules/stats'.

None. All are published in the books. Yes, the art sometimes contridicts from the written discription, which sometimes differs from the stats. That doesn't make the fluff and art nothing while the stats are everything.

You're just pulling that out of the air. All three are in the books equally. The art is the same level of canon as the fluff and the stats. If one chooses to they could just as easily say 'We have the art. It SHOWS You what's right. Clearly Palladium wants that to be the primary indication of canon. Thus if you see mistakes in the Fluff or the Stats, they're lessor canon.

And just as easy you can say 'Well the fluff DESCRIBES the object/species/whatever. The art is a visual representation of the Described object, the stats are a numerical representation of the description but the description -is- what the object in question is.

And just as easy one, (like yourself) can say the numbers are the higher canon because they attribute numerical value to both the description and the visual art.

There's nothing to indicate one of those options though. All three are Canon. As they're all published by Palladium. Your assumption is fine, but it's not the only possibility out there, and your choice of 'Stats" over "Fluff" or "art" is just that. A personal choice. Not the 'FACT' that you try and present it as.

There's nothing saying "Stats above all" there's nothing saying "art isn't canon" there's nothing saying "Fluff doesn't count". None of it. It's all treated equally by Palladium.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I personally, like to draw things with after market modifications. Hell, if I think something would look cool held together with duct tape. I try to stay true to the text, but that doesn't always jibe with what looks cool. All I'm saying is that the text is canonical for how a certain thing starts the game. The art usually shows how it is used after a while in the game.

Would a Coalition power armour and or robot, or any coalition vehicle for that matter, issued to coalition troops for coalition business by the coalition military. Even have "After Market" modifications ?

Coalition APC with big bore exhuast and spinners !

While CS gear described in CS sections may not have "after market" stuff. It may have "Regional differences"

I.E. A robot built in Chi-Town, may have different small accents or looks from the same basic robot built in IronHeart, and different from one built in lone Star.

If I'm not mistaken this -is- addressed at least once in the book, when pertaining to the pilots armor for one of the bots, on the cover, vs what you see elsewhere in the book of CWC. It may have been a different book. It's been 18 years. (man one feels old when they say it like that)

But yeah, while you get the same basic bot. There may be styalistic differences.

[Rimmer]

Without diffinitive statements and or publications stating which material is and is not canon, eg: disclaimers in the Rifter Magazine, all official printed, depicted material in any official Rifts book released by Palladium Books, Is Canon. This included stats, fluff and pictures.

If you have some official statement to the contrary, please present it. It would help.

[Rimmer]

I personally, like to draw things with after market modifications. Hell, if I think something would look cool held together with duct tape. I try to stay true to the text, but that doesn't always jibe with what looks cool. All I'm saying is that the text is canonical for how a certain thing starts the game. The art usually shows how it is used after a while in the game.

Would a Coalition power armour and or robot, or any coalition vehicle for that matter, issued to coalition troops for coalition business by the coalition military. Even have "After Market" modifications ?

Coalition APC with big bore exhuast and spinners !

While CS gear described in CS sections may not have "after market" stuff. It may have "Regional differences"

I.E. A robot built in Chi-Town, may have different small accents or looks from the same basic robot built in IronHeart, and different from one built in lone Star.

If I'm not mistaken this -is- addressed at least once in the book, when pertaining to the pilots armor for one of the bots, on the cover, vs what you see elsewhere in the book of CWC. It may have been a different book. It's been 18 years. (man one feels old when they say it like that)

But yeah, while you get the same basic bot. There may be styalistic differences.

So the Super SAM flown by Chi-Town pilots may be different to Super SAM pilots flown by Iron Heart pilots ? wouldn't that mean they have different stats ? or at the very least differences noted in the stat block ?

[Pepsi Jedi]

I personally, like to draw things with after market modifications. Hell, if I think something would look cool held together with duct tape. I try to stay true to the text, but that doesn't always jibe with what looks cool. All I'm saying is that the text is canonical for how a certain thing starts the game. The art usually shows how it is used after a while in the game.

Would a Coalition power armour and or robot, or any coalition vehicle for that matter, issued to coalition troops for coalition business by the coalition military. Even have "After Market" modifications ?

Coalition APC with big bore exhuast and spinners !

While CS gear described in CS sections may not have "after market" stuff. It may have "Regional differences"

I.E. A robot built in Chi-Town, may have different small accents or looks from the same basic robot built in IronHeart, and different from one built in lone Star.

If I'm not mistaken this -is- addressed at least once in the book, when pertaining to the pilots armor for one of the bots, on the cover, vs what you see elsewhere in the book of CWC. It may have been a different book. It's been 18 years. (man one feels old when they say it like that)

But yeah, while you get the same basic bot. There may be styalistic differences.

So the Super SAM flown by Chi-Town pilots may be different to Super SAM pilots flown by Iron Heart pilots ? wouldn't that mean they have different stats ? or at the very least differences noted in the stat block ?

Different as in "This one has some flash here, or the wings come to a more distinct point there, or the armor has a different shape for the forearm cowls. Not different as in this one has 2 plasma injectors but that one has 4.

Stylistic changes, minute things. A guy that learned to fly a samus in Chi-town, would still be able to fly one from Iron Heart, but... might find the targeting trigger on the oppisite hand or the water tube in the helmet on the other side. It'll still fly and shoot and do it's thing. Sorta like if you get into your friends car, you still know how to drive, but the lights might be in a different place, or they might have a gear shift on the column vs in the middle. You can still put it in drive and go, but it's a lil different. Not even as different between Automatic/stick.

[Rimmer]

I personally, like to draw things with after market modifications. Hell, if I think something would look cool held together with duct tape. I try to stay true to the text, but that doesn't always jibe with what looks cool. All I'm saying is that the text is canonical for how a certain thing starts the game. The art usually shows how it is used after a while in the game.

Would a Coalition power armour and or robot, or any coalition vehicle for that matter, issued to coalition troops for coalition business by the coalition military. Even have "After Market" modifications ?

Coalition APC with big bore exhuast and spinners !

While CS gear described in CS sections may not have "after market" stuff. It may have "Regional differences"

I.E. A robot built in Chi-Town, may have different small accents or looks from the same basic robot built in IronHeart, and different from one built in lone Star.

If I'm not mistaken this -is- addressed at least once in the book, when pertaining to the pilots armor for one of the bots, on the cover, vs what you see elsewhere in the book of CWC. It may have been a different book. It's been 18 years. (man one feels old when they say it like that)

But yeah, while you get the same basic bot. There may be styalistic differences.

So the Super SAM flown by Chi-Town pilots may be different to Super SAM pilots flown by Iron Heart pilots ? wouldn't that mean they have different stats ? or at the very least differences noted in the stat block ?

Different as in "This one has some flash here, or the wings come to a more distinct point there, or the armor has a different shape for the forearm cowls. Not different as in this one has 2 plasma injectors but that one has 4.

Stylistic changes, minute things. A guy that learned to fly a samus in Chi-town, would still be able to fly one from Iron Heart, but... might find the targeting trigger on the oppisite hand or the water tube in the helmet on the other side. It'll still fly and shoot and do it's thing. Sorta like if you get into your friends car, you still know how to drive, but the lights might be in a different place, or they might have a gear shift on the column vs in the middle. You can still put it in drive and go, but it's a lil different. Not even as different between Automatic/stick.

True, but we havent really been talking about cosmetic differences, but glaring stat differences, such as listed 2 plasma cannons but picture shows 4.

[Dog_O_War]

Other than calling me 'guy' in a derogatory way repeatedly,

Hold on a moment; I want to dissect this sentence here as to glean a bit of insight into your thought process.
So according to you, I've been calling you 'guy' in a derogatory way repeatedly.

I said it once. But I guess to you, one is many? Or are you mistaken? Derogatory may be a strong word, or I may have come across a bit strong, but sure, it wasn't entirely inaccurate.

But back to the 'guy' count; can you count? Or are you just full of hyperbole and/or fallacious statements?

I mean, if you can't count, then I'm not gonna judge, but I would offer you a piece of advice - stay away from discussions until you can, as the ability to discern one from two and three is practically necessary when discussing any given topic.

But if you can count, then what's with the lie? It's such a small thing to lie about, but it's as if you don't really have anything better to try and discredit me with. I mean, you opened with a lie, and a blatant one; we aren't idiots - myself and the other posters here; we can count.
And if you could lie about something so small and basically petty, then it begs to reason that you'd lie about other stuff too.
Like your entire 'argument'. Which I will add, you've offered zero proof on. I mean, is it really too much to ask? Even a single piece (and that's just 'one' (uno, eins, 1) by math standards, not dozens according to your apparent standards by the way).

you're still stuck on a false assumption. Further complicated by a faulty definition. "Canon' doesn't mean 'RULE'. Other wise Star Wars Movies wouldn't be considered "Canon" as there's no rules in them. The archaic usage of the word pertains to the church and means a regulation or dogma from the church. Modern usage, as we're using it here, is something else.

Canon
can·on [kan-uhn]
noun
1. an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope.
2. the body of ecclesiastical law.
3. the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art: the neoclassical canon.
4. a fundamental principle or general rule: the canons of good behavior.
5. a standard; criterion: the canons of taste.

Yeah, a "false" assumption. And a "faulty" definition.
It sure as **** looks like canon is defined as a rule in the dictionary.
And as to my "false" assumption; is that another lie/fallacious/hyperbole statement on your part again?

Because it's hard to tell, given that you never offer any proof and have been shown to lie.
Or maybe it isn't a lie you've perpetrated, but instead were misinformed, or otherwise misread my post?

"In fiction, canon is the material accepted as part of the story in an individual fictional universe. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction. The term "canon" can be used either as a noun, referring to "the original work from which the fan fiction author borrows," or as an adjective to describe whether or not certain elements are accepted as authoritative parts of the fictional universe. Fan-fiction would be described as "non-canon," while an event from the official source material would be "canon.""

Okay, so what 'story' did you read from the pictures?
How do you know about mega-damage?
The names of various races?
What stats are?
Or are these concepts not available via picture?

Thus, the art in the Rifts books, is 'canon'. "An adjective to describe wheither or not certain elements are accepted as authoritative parts of the fictional universe".

Yeah, you keep saying the same thing over and over, but you've still provided no proof and have shown to be fallacious and prone to hyperbole.
To cite yet another example; the Glitterboy. People on these boards have dissected both the description and the picture, and, based off of the ammo size listed in the picture, have determined that the hopper needed for the Boomgun would need to be the size of a fridge.
That isn't anywhere in the description - a fridge-sized hopper, nor is it shown depicted in the drawing. Though this is the standard ammo count for a Glitterboy.
Basically, the picture itself doesn't show this, and the measurements do not show this. Basically, the picture is just a picture, and is not accurate to the described object. But beyond this; the picture tries to be semi-accurate; it shows the height of the Glitterboy as an accurate number in-line with the description.

This is also a very special example because it's one of the very few appended entries in the game; it differs from one version of the books to the other, and the larger ammo-count has been propagated. yet the math does not agree with the pictoral description of the ammo-size, nor does the description. This is a very clear (likely the clearest) example of a picture shouting "not canon", as math is math; you can say math is wrong all you like, but it's a universal truth.

For rifts, what's in the books published by Palladium is "Canon". There is absolutely no stipulation that 'text' is higher canon than art, and even more silly that 'fluff discriptions' are some how non canon and the only thing that is, is 'rules/stats'.

You seem to be having difficulty understanding what canon is defined as, but that's understandable since you're prone to fallacy and hyperbole.
Because you're now trying to say that somehow a rule can be over-ridden by a non-rule.
Unfortunately for you, that's not how rules work.

None. All are published in the books. Yes, the art sometimes contridicts from the written discription, which sometimes differs from the stats. That doesn't make the fluff and art nothing while the stats are everything.

That is exactly what it makes.
I really have to ask now; can discern the difference between fluff and mechanics in a game?

You're just pulling that out of the air. All three are in the books equally. The art is the same level of canon as the fluff and the stats.

All three may be presented equally, but that does not mean they are equal.
Perhaps you'd like to reword this "counter-point"? Because as it stands, it is not a credible one at all.

If one chooses to they could just as easily say 'We have the art. It SHOWS You what's right. Clearly Palladium wants that to be the primary indication of canon. Thus if you see mistakes in the Fluff or the Stats, they're lessor canon.

"chooses to"
Chooses to what? Ignore the rules? Ignore standards, like the mechanics being the governing body within a game?
I mean, you keeps saying the word, 'canon', like it somehow has a definition other than being rules/standards given by consensus.

And just as easy you can say 'Well the fluff DESCRIBES the object/species/whatever. The art is a visual representation of the Described object, the stats are a numerical representation of the description but the description -is- what the object in question is.

You could do that, but I'm not here trying to do what's easy. I'm trying to do what's right. Are you?

And just as easy one, (like yourself) can say the numbers are the higher canon because they attribute numerical value to both the description and the visual art.

Yet another fallacious statement on your part; it's like you're make a habit of it.
I didn't say, "the numbers".
I said, "the rules". Which are represented clearly by the rules section and the statistics which translate the traits of a given thing into a method used in conjunction with the rules.

There's nothing to indicate one of those options though.

So you never, ever came across the section called game rules? Which would indicate what takes precedence?

All three are Canon. As they're all published by Palladium. Your assumption is fine, but it's not the only possibility out there, and your choice of 'Stats" over "Fluff" or "art" is just that. A personal choice. Not the 'FACT' that you try and present it as.

Do you know the difference between a publication and canon?
Because you seem to have confused the two for being one-in-the-same. But I guess that would make sense, given that you have a hard time determining the difference between one thing and two things.

There's nothing saying "Stats above all" there's nothing saying "art isn't canon" there's nothing saying "Fluff doesn't count". None of it. It's all treated equally by Palladium.

You keep telling yourself that.

[mumah]

I personally, like to draw things with after market modifications. Hell, if I think something would look cool held together with duct tape. I try to stay true to the text, but that doesn't always jibe with what looks cool. All I'm saying is that the text is canonical for how a certain thing starts the game. The art usually shows how it is used after a while in the game.

Would a Coalition power armour and or robot, or any coalition vehicle for that matter, issued to coalition troops for coalition business by the coalition military. Even have "After Market" modifications ?

Coalition APC with big bore exhuast and spinners !

Being that I've rarely drawn Coalition work, but when I have I've tried to be as accurate and homogenized as possible. All I've said was to show you my particular approach when designing something for a book to give people an idea of MY processes when it comes to art. I am not speaking for anyone else at this point. The other artists have their own methods and thought processes, some that work, some that don't. Addressing this particular complaint, when drawing Coalition tech, I rarely deviate and modify. I should have tagged my statement with a "where applicable." That statement was meant to only illustrate how I think approaching any new subject. Nor am I arguing with anyone. I am merely stating my particular approach as one of the authors which this thread is about.

[Premier]

"Editorial Glitches" would imply editing of some sort, we both know that this never happens.

This is an incorrect statement.

Well, flippant offhand statement aside. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Rimmer, I think what GK is simply stating is that Editing does transpire, just maybe not as much as we would all be pleased with, but it does actually happen so your implication of the word "never" is not correct.

There have been improvements in some areas of editing. I have seen this first hand with printed scripts that have revisions and highlights of errors or adjustments that have been caught. I have personally edited some material as well as caught and made edits and suggestions. Some things simply slip through the cracks and with such limited resources at the present time, or with large publications or a ton of major projects happening at one time, the editing process still needs some fine tuning, imho. Hopefully, we will continue to see improvements to reach an overall satisfactory level. (I have accepted that there are those who will never be 100 % satisfied).

[Premier]

OK PB Fam,

I can only speak for myself as one of the Freelancer Artist on the PB roster, but I know that I will vouch for myself to "try" and tackle any previous, current or future designs with a devoted approach to solidify the Writing with the corresponding Illustration so that both can be considered canon worthy material to the Gamers.

This doesn't mean however that I won't add a cut line here or there, a door or hatch if I feel its needed, ammo feed, lights, or connection or weapon mount, or swivel, etc. My render of the NG Sky Bunker or NG Dragon Fly versus the originals as examples. Nor do I expect other Artists to illustrate every cut line or bolt or device gadget that I've implemented into an illustration. That is impractical to expect with the amount of potential variances of aesthetic, composition, time span evolution, Artist approaches, etc., IMHO. Just thinking of a RIFTS battle scene with (2) NG Super X Behemoths being attacked by Xiticix and being defending by a commando team of NG Mantis PAs & Gunwolves for example is not going to have all of these components being exact replicas of the original designs with every detail 100% shown and accurate. Just not going to happen any time soon.

However, I do expect enough consistency of the conceptual designs to be conveyed across the board and I am confident that the current roster of Artist wont disappoint in that department. I have literally taken the Manning's rifles and pistol illustrations in NG1 and applied them as accurate as I could and approach each design as visually canon. I've counted every indent, cut line and gauged line spacing and shape distribution to get as close as possible to their illustration. I remember Apollo doing the same with my pistols that I drew in Rifts: Mystic China 2 with the Lighting Crazies. He did each pistol as a profile picture with total devotion and accuracy as if they were canon depictions. Mumah did the same with Lemuria with his rendering or the Chitin Bio Armor deploying. 100 % accurate to the original illustration. Jeff Burke was also very accurate and consistent with the recent NG PA illoes of the JAPE and Defender in NG2.

So while some inconsistencies have transpired or slipped through the cracks, please also note that we are also trying very hard to please Gamers with consistency if we can help it.

I say that,because there are also times where innovation or corrective measures may also transpire within newer illustrations or be encouraged to show an evolution in a design.

Sometimes, an older design may have design/illustration flaws that were accidentally/unintentionally implemented because of the Artist's skillset, inspiration source or aesthetic at that time, that NOW need slight modifications or corrections, which can affect or augment a design "slightly".

Example: Take the classic Rifts Glitter Boy G-10. Kevin Long is by far the incredible and gifted Artist who helped pioneer RIFTS and ROBOTECH which has brought many of us all here to this day. However,the length of neck for the pilot to comfortably have his/her head inside the G-10 helmet as depicted is not necessarily physically accurate or feasible unless we are stretching a GB pilot's neck. Another augmentation that I personally would "augment" if I could would be the GB shoulder housings which sort of make it difficult and restrict the GB's arms from swiveling and maneuvering in full rotation. The GB's Boom Gun could use a slight tweak here and there as it is too similar to another IP for my personal comfort. The fingers of the GB could be done more mechanical looking versus the organic steel look that they are sometimes depicted as. These are all my personal Artist views, however and though I might illustrate such tweaks in a GB illustration, it doesn't mean that mine is to be considered less canon or more canon, as long as the overall GB image preserve its major consistency.

This is not to tear down Long's work, but to simply point out how something that was developed back in the day worked exceptionally well, but for modern Artists, we might seek to possibly expound upon or slightly modify things while still holding true to the core illustration's concept and depiction.

As to the whole Illustration being canon or not, I will say this from an Artist's perspective:
If the said Illustration is specifically labeled something and is conveying an item and it is even copy written/trademarked as that item to the point where or should anyone else unauthorized, or unlawfully utilize that item as something else in publication or infringement, and "if" it leads to legal ramifications and that item when brought up in legal arbitration is described specifically as that item's title, then it is a canon representation that is "enough" for me.

Does this mean that there aren't editing hiccups or wont be any over sights or aftermath House adjustments made by Gamers for modifications to art or write-ups, by no means as that is something that is still slipping through hear and there, just know that we will do apply our best efforts to reduce the amount of such oversights in the future, but I am only a Freelancer and can't make any Corporate promises beyond my own suggestions, contributions and efforts.

Cheers

[The Galactus Kid]

"Editorial Glitches" would imply editing of some sort, we both know that this never happens.

This is an incorrect statement.

Well, flippant offhand statement aside. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Rimmer, I think what GK is simply stating is that Editing does transpire, just maybe not as much as we would all be pleased with, but it does actually happen so your implication of the word "never" is not correct.

That's all I was referring to. Not trying to be flippant.

[Dog_O_War]

OK PB Fam,

I can only speak for myself as one of the Freelancer Artist on the PB roster, but I know that I will vouch for myself to "try" and tackle any previous, current or future designs with a devoted approach to solidify the Writing with the corresponding Illustration so that both can be considered canon worthy material to the Gamers.

Boy do I have a list for you!

The Iron Bolt Missile Vehicle out of Rifts Mercenaries has two rows of five. It needs to have two rows of six.

The picture that I can only guess was supposed to represent Naruni personal force-fields (Rifts Mercenaries; a picture of a shirtless Crazy jumping, surrounded by what appears to be a kind of field), well that thing has two straps, or is built into armour. The guy either needs to be wearing straps, or armour, whichever is easier I guess.

The Glitterboy; the ammo size depicted needs to change. Or maybe draw an ammo hopper about the size of a truck-bed on the back? I dunno, whatever you'd prefer.

basic arrows with "insert clip here" on most guns pointing at clip ports would be extremely helpful.

A diagram of the trailer-end of the Mark-V APC showing at least one of the cargo load-outs typically listed would be nice, because that thing is seriously a clown-car or a tardis or something as-is.

Oh, and a cross-section on the foam ammunition the Death's Head transport fires from its top railgun would be cool.

I have more, but I need to go back over the books.

[mumah]

Well said, Chuck.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Other than calling me 'guy' in a derogatory way repeatedly,

Hold on a moment; I want to dissect this sentence here as to glean a bit of insight into your thought process.
So according to you, I've been calling you 'guy' in a derogatory way repeatedly.

Yeah. More than once.

I said it once. But I guess to you, one is many? Or are you mistaken? Derogatory may be a strong word, or I may have come across a bit strong, but sure, it wasn't entirely inaccurate.

But back to the 'guy' count; can you count? Or are you just full of hyperbole and/or fallacious statements?

I can count, but it's funny that you chose to attack me on this, in this way.

I mean, if you can't count, then I'm not gonna judge, but I would offer you a piece of advice - stay away from discussions until you can, as the ability to discern one from two and three is practically necessary when discussing any given topic.

Good advice. I hope you take it.

But if you can count, then what's with the lie? It's such a small thing to lie about, but it's as if you don't really have anything better to try and discredit me with. I mean, you opened with a lie, and a blatant one; we aren't idiots - myself and the other posters here; we can count.

Oh really?

And if you could lie about something so small and basically petty, then it begs to reason that you'd lie about other stuff too.
Like your entire 'argument'. Which I will add, you've offered zero proof on. I mean, is it really too much to ask? Even a single piece (and that's just 'one' (uno, eins, 1) by math standards, not dozens according to your apparent standards by the way).

Ok. You went off there for a while in a very hostile and insulting manner. And even agreed that the previous usage of "guy' was indeed purposefully derogatory. Lots of words up there implying I'm stupid and can't count, that you said it once. Not more than once and if one can't count, maybe they should stay out of threads till they can. Right?

Cool.

Posted: Tue May 27, 2014 6:38 pm

Guy, people (beyond myself) have provided plenty of examples over the years; citations, etc. wherein the art does not accurately represent the described item. You can choose not to accept proof, but we don't really need your approval on what difference there is between good proof, bad proof, and no proof is.

Because even bad proof beats no proof, which is what you've got in the realm of your statement that art is/could be canon.

Guy, even a rules mistake is canon, however much we'd like it not to be. Denouncing the editors doesn't lend weight to the art being canon, especially when you're an internet random that isn't otherwise providing proof, and only opinion.

So.... perhaps

I mean, if you can't count, then I'm not gonna judge, but I would offer you a piece of advice - stay away from discussions until you can, as the ability to discern one from two and three is practically necessary when discussing any given topic.

But if you can count, then what's with the lie? It's such a small thing to lie about, but it's as if you don't really have anything better to try and discredit me with. I mean, you opened with a lie, and a blatant one; we aren't idiots - myself and the other posters here; we can count.

Amazing, but apparently counting to two was tricky.

And if you could lie about something so small and basically petty, then it begs to reason that you'd lie about other stuff too.

Now, I was just pointing out your tone, but you made it a point to try and attack me, on not being able to count, and reading comprehension and what not. Which is very ironic as you insult my intelligence, while being... well you know. Wrong. So... you kinda just ended up shooting yourself in the foot there. Implying I couldn't count to two.... when it seems the opposite is true. Thanks though.

you're still stuck on a false assumption. Further complicated by a faulty definition. "Canon' doesn't mean 'RULE'. Other wise Star Wars Movies wouldn't be considered "Canon" as there's no rules in them. The archaic usage of the word pertains to the church and means a regulation or dogma from the church. Modern usage, as we're using it here, is something else.

Canon
can·on [kan-uhn]
noun
1. an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope.
2. the body of ecclesiastical law.
3. the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art: the neoclassical canon.
4. a fundamental principle or general rule: the canons of good behavior.
5. a standard; criterion: the canons of taste.

Yeah, a "false" assumption. And a "faulty" definition.

Indeed. We're not talking about the chruch, or church dogma.

It sure as **** looks like canon is defined as a rule in the dictionary.

No, the first definition there says "An --ecclesiastical rule or law--. Just for reference. Ecclesiastical means pertaining to the Christian Church or it's clergy. Rifts (and modern fiction) is not defined as part of the Christian Church. You may notice I did indeed say that the archaic usage was per the church. Which is the part of the definition that you're inaccurately trying to focus on.

And as to my "false" assumption; is that another lie/fallacious/hyperbole statement on your part again?

No. It's true. You've nothing what so ever that puts "Text/stats" As higher canon than pictures or flufff. You're making it up.

Because it's hard to tell, given that you never offer any proof and have been shown to lie.

You've shown no proof other than your assumptions. As for the 'lie'. Well. As shown above, That was actually you. So yeah. Might wanna quit throwing that one out there as if it's a point of proof, as it hurts you. Not I.

Or maybe it isn't a lie you've perpetrated, but instead were misinformed, or otherwise misread my post?

"In fiction, canon is the material accepted as part of the story in an individual fictional universe. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction. The term "canon" can be used either as a noun, referring to "the original work from which the fan fiction author borrows," or as an adjective to describe whether or not certain elements are accepted as authoritative parts of the fictional universe. Fan-fiction would be described as "non-canon," while an event from the official source material would be "canon.""

Okay, so what 'story' did you read from the pictures?
How do you know about mega-damage?
The names of various races?
What stats are?
Or are these concepts not available via picture?

I never said they were not. Infact I said they were canon too. You are the one saying one is canon and the other not. I've pointed out that all three, Stats, Fluff, and Pics, are in the books and thus canon. All at the same time.

Thus, the art in the Rifts books, is 'canon'. "An adjective to describe wheither or not certain elements are accepted as authoritative parts of the fictional universe".

Yeah, you keep saying the same thing over and over, but you've still provided no proof and have shown to be fallacious and prone to hyperbole.

Proof of what? It's published by the company and there's been no official statment that rules them not cannon. "Dogowar said so" is nothing.

To cite yet another example; the Glitterboy. People on these boards have dissected both the description and the picture, and, based off of the ammo size listed in the picture, have determined that the hopper needed for the Boomgun would need to be the size of a fridge.
That isn't anywhere in the description - a fridge-sized hopper, nor is it shown depicted in the drawing. Though this is the standard ammo count for a Glitterboy.
Basically, the picture itself doesn't show this, and the measurements do not show this. Basically, the picture is just a picture, and is not accurate to the described object. But beyond this; the picture tries to be semi-accurate; it shows the height of the Glitterboy as an accurate number in-line with the description.

This isn't proof of your point. I've stipulated that things in Palladium can be contradictory.

This is also a very special example because it's one of the very few appended entries in the game; it differs from one version of the books to the other, and the larger ammo-count has been propagated. yet the math does not agree with the pictoral description of the ammo-size, nor does the description. This is a very clear (likely the clearest) example of a picture shouting "not canon", as math is math; you can say math is wrong all you like, but it's a universal truth.

Or you just see a glitter boy with a smaller hopper. And if you want one with the bigger hopper you load one up.

For rifts, what's in the books published by Palladium is "Canon". There is absolutely no stipulation that 'text' is higher canon than art, and even more silly that 'fluff discriptions' are some how non canon and the only thing that is, is 'rules/stats'.

You seem to be having difficulty understanding what canon is defined as, but that's understandable since you're prone to fallacy and hyperbole.

No I get it. Your repeated insults to the contrary. You are the one trying to redefine it.

Because you're now trying to say that somehow a rule can be over-ridden by a non-rule.
Unfortunately for you, that's not how rules work.

I'm saying they're all printed and published by Palladium in the same book. All are, untill we're told other wise, equally 'correct'. Equally "endorsed" equally "personification of the intended medium". You are choosing to say Stats out weigh pictures or fluff. I'm saying that's your opinion. Not fact. There's .nothing in the books, that say such. Stats are just numbers applied to the creation. Be it art, or descriptive fluff.

None. All are published in the books. Yes, the art sometimes contridicts from the written discription, which sometimes differs from the stats. That doesn't make the fluff and art nothing while the stats are everything.

That is exactly what it makes.
I really have to ask now; can discern the difference between fluff and mechanics in a game?

Yes. I know the difference. I just don't apply the same value you seem to. You seem to think the game is nothing but numbers, with fluff added on to describe what the numbers are doing. It's a role playing game. A game of our imagination. A game of fantasy, of sci fi. Of Dragons biting the heads off robots. The numbers are not 'the game' The interaction with others, the role playing (As opposed to roll playing) is the game. Becoming your character and describing what he does in the setting and events is the game.

You know what the numbers/mechanics are?

They are simply a way to keep people from running around going "I shot you!" "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!" "No You didn't!" "Yes I did!" "No you didn't!!". The numbers represent our characters, in ways that keep people from simply succeeding 100% of the time in everything they do. It shows our characters life and what not, including their weaknesses. And it stops two guys running around doing the I shot you, no you didn't thing. The mechanics are a very inaccurate, clunky, attempt to apply numbers to life, and work, in only such a fashion as they let us determine out come, with out just saying "We do___ and it succeeds" or the GM just looking at you and telling you "You pass or fail" with nothing other than him deciding which.

You need the mechanics to keep the game from just being free from storytelling, but you need to realize that they are numbers and such, to describe the role playing. Not Role playing describing the numbers.

You're just pulling that out of the air. All three are in the books equally. The art is the same level of canon as the fluff and the stats.

All three may be presented equally, but that does not mean they are equal.

You just admitted that they're presented equally. Why are we even talking? If they're presented equally, the choice of putting one over another is just an opinion. Which is what I've been saying from the start.

Perhaps you'd like to reword this "counter-point"? Because as it stands, it is not a credible one at all.

If one chooses to they could just as easily say 'We have the art. It SHOWS You what's right. Clearly Palladium wants that to be the primary indication of canon. Thus if you see mistakes in the Fluff or the Stats, they're lessor canon.

"chooses to"
Chooses to what? Ignore the rules? Ignore standards, like the mechanics being the governing body within a game?
I mean, you keeps saying the word, 'canon', like it somehow has a definition other than being rules/standards given by consensus.

Because it is. I even gave you the modern usage when pertaining to stuff we're talking about here. You know. The one not pertaining to the christian church and it's dogma? Read back. It's there.

And just as easy you can say 'Well the fluff DESCRIBES the object/species/whatever. The art is a visual representation of the Described object, the stats are a numerical representation of the description but the description -is- what the object in question is.

You could do that, but I'm not here trying to do what's easy. I'm trying to do what's right. Are you?

lol My point remains. You agree all three are presented equally. YOU, Dog o war, are choosing to focus on one, and deeming the other two non canon. My point is you could do that for any of the three. Your assertation that 'stats trump all' is just your opinion. As valid as any other opinion. (Meaning it pertains to you, not me) but one of many opinions. What you deem 'right' I say is wrong. Your opinion is not 'fact' It's opinion. The -fact- is that opinions, are opinions, not facts.

And just as easy one, (like yourself) can say the numbers are the higher canon because they attribute numerical value to both the description and the visual art.

Yet another fallacious statement on your part; it's like you're make a habit of it.
I didn't say, "the numbers".
I said, "the rules". Which are represented clearly by the rules section and the statistics which translate the traits of a given thing into a method used in conjunction with the rules.

Which boil down to numbers. Yes. Not fallacious, simply not overly wordy. Concise. You know?

There's nothing to indicate one of those options though.

So you never, ever came across the section called game rules? Which would indicate what takes precedence?

You never ever came across art? It's all through the books. You never came across fluff? It's all through the books. You are choosing to give precedence to the rules over the fluff or art. That's your choice, but nothing says one trumps the other. You've even admitted they are presented equally.

All three are Canon. As they're all published by Palladium. Your assumption is fine, but it's not the only possibility out there, and your choice of 'Stats" over "Fluff" or "art" is just that. A personal choice. Not the 'FACT' that you try and present it as.

Do you know the difference between a publication and canon?
Because you seem to have confused the two for being one-in-the-same. But I guess that would make sense, given that you have a hard time determining the difference between one thing and two things.

Again with the insults, but as you were proving wrong, you're actually insulting yourself so..... Ouch! burn!

There's nothing saying "Stats above all" there's nothing saying "art isn't canon" there's nothing saying "Fluff doesn't count". None of it. It's all treated equally by Palladium.

You keep telling yourself that.

[/quote]

YOU said it too, but it's also true. Show me somewhere in the books it says "Stats above all" show me somewhere in the books where it says "Art isn't canon" show me where it says "The fluff doesn't count".

You can't. Now. I understand it's hard to prove a negative, but the fact remains, there's nothing there to back up your opinion, other than your opinion. Which is just one opinion. Some differ.

[Premier]

OK PB Fam,

I can only speak for myself as one of the Freelancer Artist on the PB roster, but I know that I will vouch for myself to "try" and tackle any previous, current or future designs with a devoted approach to solidify the Writing with the corresponding Illustration so that both can be considered canon worthy material to the Gamers.

Boy do I have a list for you!

The Iron Bolt Missile Vehicle out of Rifts Mercenaries has two rows of five. It needs to have two rows of six.

The picture that I can only guess was supposed to represent Naruni personal force-fields (Rifts Mercenaries; a picture of a shirtless Crazy jumping, surrounded by what appears to be a kind of field), well that thing has two straps, or is built into armour. The guy either needs to be wearing straps, or armour, whichever is easier I guess.

The Glitterboy; the ammo size depicted needs to change. Or maybe draw an ammo hopper about the size of a truck-bed on the back? I dunno, whatever you'd prefer.

basic arrows with "insert clip here" on most guns pointing at clip ports would be extremely helpful.

A diagram of the trailer-end of the Mark-V APC showing at least one of the cargo load-outs typically listed would be nice, because that thing is seriously a clown-car or a tardis or something as-is.

Oh, and a cross-section on the foam ammunition the Death's Head transport fires from its top railgun would be cool.

I have more, but I need to go back over the books.

WHEW!
I appreciate your eye for detail and solidifying the RIFTS Megaverse both written and visually speaking. However, let me catch you before you get ahead of yourself. I am only one Artist and can only augment what I am assigned and approved for. So I will do my best to apply some of the suggestions (i.e.: arrows for clips, ammo feeds/hoppers, etc.) that you have identified that can be immediately implemented while others may have to wait until I can opportunistically depict them with the corrected "modifications." This is NOT to imply that every or all suggestions or request will be applied. That will be decided by the the assigned Freelance Artist and most importantly, Palladium Books to discern. For example, diagrams are nice, but depending on page space or what is assigned by KS and what deadlines correspond with these assignments, this may or may not be done. Major visual changes to any item has to be approved by PB, so WE shouldn't go making extreme or major augmentations and expect to see them fulfilled. if not then let us maturely handle the visual representation, PLEASE.

However, with that said, and as others can attest I am all for working with "constructive" Posters to getting a stronger visual across or utilizing the "constructive" Gamers expertise to assist in visual production when applicable and allowable.

So with that being said I would like for your hard work and analytic eyes to be very useful for not just me, but for all Palladium Books Freelance Artists by suggesting that a Megaverse Visual Errata Thread be created to "constructively" suggest or notate the visual inaccuracies, contradictions or concerns or even creative suggestions to improve the unification of the product. Before a Thread is constructed to fulfill this cause (if we are going to do one), WE need a template.

EX:

Item Name:
Publication Title containing the visual item:
Publication Page Number:
Itemized Issue(s) with item via inaccuracy or contradiction:
Itemized Solution(s):
Suggested by:
Visual modification date if illustration/stats is revised:
Publication & Page number it can be viewed:

please lets devise an appropriate one.

This thread can be devoted solely for constructive critic to address and catalog visual inaccuracies that are depicted and are inaccurate form their corresponding write ups. This way, your hard work and anyone else who is willing to be constructive and helpful can help us develop a resource that us Freelance Artists or Writers can read through this collective, to see what WE can appropriately apply or affect.

Now this would not be a thread to tear down or demean any one's art work simply due to taste, style preferences or items that are depicted as being damaged or have potentially fired off rounds in the field so that the payload is not the exact same as the total number of payload described in the write up. This would not be another thread to channel flogging and disputes regarding Palladium Books' editorial process or mistakes. That would only taint the constructive process and make many of us avoid the thread, so please don't taint it. This would be to fix visual errors or inconsistencies, that is if the Writing is not modified to correspond with the visuals.

What say you Megaverse Guys & Gals?

[Premier]

Well said, Chuck.

Thanks M,
Nothing that you wouldn't have said I figure.

[Rimmer]

"Editorial Glitches" would imply editing of some sort, we both know that this never happens.

This is an incorrect statement.

Well, flippant offhand statement aside. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Rimmer, I think what GK is simply stating is that Editing does transpire, just maybe not as much as we would all be pleased with, but it does actually happen so your implication of the word "never" is not correct.

That's all I was referring to. Not trying to be flippant.

Whoa there GK.

APologies, the flippant comment i was refering to was my own use of the word "never" i am fully aware that at least some editing does in fact take place, i was just being sarcastic and overly dramatic with using "never"

Apologies for not making this clear dude.

[The Galactus Kid]

Whoa there GK.

APologies, the flippant comment i was refering to was my own use of the word "never" i am fully aware that at least some editing does in fact take place, i was just being sarcastic and overly dramatic with using "never"

Apologies for not making this clear dude.

My bad Rimmer. I misunderstood. no problem at all, bro.

[Dog_O_War]

Other than calling me 'guy' in a derogatory way repeatedly,

Hold on a moment; I want to dissect this sentence here as to glean a bit of insight into your thought process.
So according to you, I've been calling you 'guy' in a derogatory way repeatedly.

Yeah. More than once.

I said it once. But I guess to you, one is many? Or are you mistaken? Derogatory may be a strong word, or I may have come across a bit strong, but sure, it wasn't entirely inaccurate.

But back to the 'guy' count; can you count? Or are you just full of hyperbole and/or fallacious statements?

I can count, but it's funny that you chose to attack me on this, in this way.

I mean, if you can't count, then I'm not gonna judge, but I would offer you a piece of advice - stay away from discussions until you can, as the ability to discern one from two and three is practically necessary when discussing any given topic.

Good advice. I hope you take it.

But if you can count, then what's with the lie? It's such a small thing to lie about, but it's as if you don't really have anything better to try and discredit me with. I mean, you opened with a lie, and a blatant one; we aren't idiots - myself and the other posters here; we can count.

Oh really?

And if you could lie about something so small and basically petty, then it begs to reason that you'd lie about other stuff too.
Like your entire 'argument'. Which I will add, you've offered zero proof on. I mean, is it really too much to ask? Even a single piece (and that's just 'one' (uno, eins, 1) by math standards, not dozens according to your apparent standards by the way).

Ok. You went off there for a while in a very hostile and insulting manner. And even agreed that the previous usage of "guy' was indeed purposefully derogatory. Lots of words up there implying I'm stupid and can't count, that you said it once. Not more than once and if one can't count, maybe they should stay out of threads till they can. Right?

Cool.

Posted: Tue May 27, 2014 6:38 pm

Guy, people (beyond myself) have provided plenty of examples over the years; citations, etc. wherein the art does not accurately represent the described item. You can choose not to accept proof, but we don't really need your approval on what difference there is between good proof, bad proof, and no proof is.

Because even bad proof beats no proof, which is what you've got in the realm of your statement that art is/could be canon.

Guy, even a rules mistake is canon, however much we'd like it not to be. Denouncing the editors doesn't lend weight to the art being canon, especially when you're an internet random that isn't otherwise providing proof, and only opinion.

So.... perhaps

I mean, if you can't count, then I'm not gonna judge, but I would offer you a piece of advice - stay away from discussions until you can, as the ability to discern one from two and three is practically necessary when discussing any given topic.

But if you can count, then what's with the lie? It's such a small thing to lie about, but it's as if you don't really have anything better to try and discredit me with. I mean, you opened with a lie, and a blatant one; we aren't idiots - myself and the other posters here; we can count.

Amazing, but apparently counting to two was tricky.

This post of yours I was going to reduce, but I need to respond to this separately; I made the mistake here. I read my own post three times, but I missed that part every time apparently. For this, I am sorry - you can count.

You even have the ability to provide proof.

However...

And if you could lie about something so small and basically petty, then it begs to reason that you'd lie about other stuff too.

Now, I was just pointing out your tone, but you made it a point to try and attack me, on not being able to count, and reading comprehension and what not. Which is very ironic as you insult my intelligence, while being... well you know. Wrong. So... you kinda just ended up shooting yourself in the foot there. Implying I couldn't count to two.... when it seems the opposite is true. Thanks though.

So you've proven that you can count; you've even shown the ability to provide proof.

So why is it, when asked to otherwise provide proof of your claim of the art being canon to the game, you don't?
You have the ability - you've shown it here with my own mistake; but you're not providing any.
Is it because you have none?

Thank-you by the way; I was going to reduce your post to a satire, but instead I get to take my own mistake, to which you've pointed out, and use it as a means of showing that while you have the ability to provide proof of a claim, and will, you're not here. The implication being that you do not have any and that your 'argument' is fiction.

you're still stuck on a false assumption. Further complicated by a faulty definition. "Canon' doesn't mean 'RULE'. Other wise Star Wars Movies wouldn't be considered "Canon" as there's no rules in them. The archaic usage of the word pertains to the church and means a regulation or dogma from the church. Modern usage, as we're using it here, is something else.

Canon
can·on [kan-uhn]
noun
1. an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope.
2. the body of ecclesiastical law.
3. the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art: the neoclassical canon.
4. a fundamental principle or general rule: the canons of good behavior.
5. a standard; criterion: the canons of taste.

Yeah, a "false" assumption. And a "faulty" definition.

Indeed. We're not talking about the chruch, or church dogma.

Amazingly though, I didn't post just one entry from the definition; and since you've proven you can clearly count, why only point out the definitions which are not applicable?
I mean, you say I've insulted your intelligence, but I've also asked you why you're choosing to insult mine and the other posters here. Like right now; you (needlessly) pointed out the definitions that were not applicable, which we can only guess is because you figure I and/or others are dim enough to consider only the top one is "the right one".

It sure as **** looks like canon is defined as a rule in the dictionary.

No, the first definition there says "An --ecclesiastical rule or law--.

Ya don't say?!

Just for reference. Ecclesiastical means pertaining to the Christian Church or it's clergy. Rifts (and modern fiction) is not defined as part of the Christian Church. You may notice I did indeed say that the archaic usage was per the church. Which is the part of the definition that you're inaccurately trying to focus on.

Thanks, tips.
Now, did you stop there because that's the only definition that matters to you?
Or were you tired from all that hard work, breaking the first part of the definition down for us "retards", which you're so keen on hypocritically insulting the intelligence of? I mean, it's understandable that you'd not want your intelligence insulted, but reciprocation first.

And as to my "false" assumption; is that another lie/fallacious/hyperbole statement on your part again?

No. It's true. You've nothing what so ever that puts "Text/stats" As higher canon than pictures or flufff. You're making it up.

Yeah, that's it. Continue to ignore relevant information - it's certainly making your case for you

Because it's hard to tell, given that you never offer any proof and have been shown to lie.

You've shown no proof other than your assumptions. As for the 'lie'. Well. As shown above, That was actually you. So yeah. Might wanna quit throwing that one out there as if it's a point of proof, as it hurts you. Not I.

Oh, I've shown no proof other than my assumptions have I?
So I never offered about a half-dozen examples throughout this thread?/rhetorical
Back to your fallacious statements and lies I see
You know, people, myself among them, would treat you better if you were honest.
But you're not. And it's plain as day that you're not.

Or maybe it isn't a lie you've perpetrated, but instead were misinformed, or otherwise misread my post?

"In fiction, canon is the material accepted as part of the story in an individual fictional universe. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction. The term "canon" can be used either as a noun, referring to "the original work from which the fan fiction author borrows," or as an adjective to describe whether or not certain elements are accepted as authoritative parts of the fictional universe. Fan-fiction would be described as "non-canon," while an event from the official source material would be "canon.""

Okay, so what 'story' did you read from the pictures?
How do you know about mega-damage?
The names of various races?
What stats are?
Or are these concepts not available via picture?

I never said they were not. Infact I said they were canon too. You are the one saying one is canon and the other not. I've pointed out that all three, Stats, Fluff, and Pics, are in the books and thus canon. All at the same time.

So I have some questions for you then.

Is it standard in a game for a picture someone drew to override the rules of that game?
Is it standard in a game for a story someone wrote to override the rules of that game?
And by game, I am speaking universally; ie: any game, not just role-playing games.

Because in a game, there is an overriding function called "the rules".

But I am gonna dissect this further; your post - your entire argument - is based off of a dishonest premise.

No one here is disputing that these pictures and stories in Palladium books are part of the "Palladium universe".
No body here is disputing this. That very specific version of the word, "canon".
Everyone besides you, is referring to rules-canon. That these pictures are just pictures and have no overriding presence where the rules are concerned.

Except, in one of your previous posts in this thread, you've made the claim that pictures can over-rule the rules. Which is a complete and utter facsimile; a lie; a falsehood; a fallacious statement on your part.

And that is a completely dishonest way of going about things.

Thus, the art in the Rifts books, is 'canon'. "An adjective to describe wheither or not certain elements are accepted as authoritative parts of the fictional universe".

Yeah, you keep saying the same thing over and over, but you've still provided no proof and have shown to be fallacious and prone to hyperbole.

Proof of what?

That the pictures of stuff are over-ruling the rules. It was your claim.

To cite yet another example; the Glitterboy. People on these boards have dissected both the description and the picture, and, based off of the ammo size listed in the picture, have determined that the hopper needed for the Boomgun would need to be the size of a fridge.
That isn't anywhere in the description - a fridge-sized hopper, nor is it shown depicted in the drawing. Though this is the standard ammo count for a Glitterboy.
Basically, the picture itself doesn't show this, and the measurements do not show this. Basically, the picture is just a picture, and is not accurate to the described object. But beyond this; the picture tries to be semi-accurate; it shows the height of the Glitterboy as an accurate number in-line with the description.

This isn't proof of your point. I've stipulated that things in Palladium can be contradictory.

Oooooh, I must have missed that portion of text in the books where it states that if a picture is a blatant contradiction to the entry its associated with, then they both exist because Pepsi Jedi, some random on the internet said so.
Geez, I guess, what with my poor eye (I did miss that second utterance of the word "guy" when in reference to you afterall), that this is clearly my mistake and such a portion exists in one of the books, eh?

This is also a very special example because it's one of the very few appended entries in the game; it differs from one version of the books to the other, and the larger ammo-count has been propagated. yet the math does not agree with the pictoral description of the ammo-size, nor does the description. This is a very clear (likely the clearest) example of a picture shouting "not canon", as math is math; you can say math is wrong all you like, but it's a universal truth.

Or you just see a glitter boy with a smaller hopper. And if you want one with the bigger hopper you load one up.

Your statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense here, as it appears to be placed at random within this post. Because right here, in the portion you're quoting me with, it has literally nothing to do with what I said.
It might have made sense if I said I was having trouble seeing the Glitterboy with a small hopper. Or that I said you can't get a smaller hopper for the Glitterboy. Or even if I said that either thing previously mentioned was impossible.
But I didn't say those things. I was talking about the depicted ammo size in the Glitterboy drawing. And math.
Not what I was and was not able to see.

For rifts, what's in the books published by Palladium is "Canon". There is absolutely no stipulation that 'text' is higher canon than art, and even more silly that 'fluff discriptions' are some how non canon and the only thing that is, is 'rules/stats'.

You seem to be having difficulty understanding what canon is defined as, but that's understandable since you're prone to fallacy and hyperbole.

No I get it. Your repeated insults to the contrary. You are the one trying to redefine it.

That is something I'm definitely not doing. I posted the definition; however, it only just became clear to me that you were being dishonest in your responses to myself and to others in regards to how the word 'canon' was used; that they were referencing how things apply to the rules, and you were citing the specific definition relating to whether or not the pictures were considered to be a work of Palladiums'.
Bravo on that, btw; you have clearly fooled a lot of people for a long time with that one.

Because you're now trying to say that somehow a rule can be over-ridden by a non-rule.
Unfortunately for you, that's not how rules work.

I'm saying they're all printed and published by Palladium in the same book.

That's great; nobody is disputing that fact. What a non-relevant argument you've propagated; it is basically trolling in my opinion, but I'm not a mod, so I guess no worries, right?

'All are, untill we're told other wise, equally 'correct'. Equally "endorsed" equally "personification of the intended medium". You are choosing to say Stats out weigh pictures or fluff. I'm saying that's your opinion. Not fact. There's .nothing in the books, that say such. Stats are just numbers applied to the creation. Be it art, or descriptive fluff.

No, I'm not really 'choosing' to say stats out weigh pictures, I'm saying that as far as games are concerned, only the rules matter. A picture can be a canonical work of Palladium's all it likes, but it is non-relevant and superseded when it comes to comparing a picture to a rule when asking about a rule.

None. All are published in the books. Yes, the art sometimes contridicts from the written discription, which sometimes differs from the stats. That doesn't make the fluff and art nothing while the stats are everything.

That is exactly what it makes.
I really have to ask now; can discern the difference between fluff and mechanics in a game?

Yes. I know the difference. I just don't apply the same value you seem to.

Right; we've now established completely that you're arguing something no one is questioning.
How very dishonest of you.

You seem to think the game is nothing but numbers, with fluff added on to describe what the numbers are doing. It's a role playing game. A game of our imagination. A game of fantasy, of sci fi. Of Dragons biting the heads off robots. The numbers are not 'the game' The interaction with others, the role playing (As opposed to roll playing) is the game. Becoming your character and describing what he does in the setting and events is the game.

You for sure have no clue as to what I think, as indicated by this statement.
But let's address this portion of your words, "The numbers are not 'the game'". What are the numbers then? Please, define them for us. Tell us exactly what they're used for, and what they mean within the game.

You know what the numbers/mechanics are?

Yeah. They're what we use to create game data. Otherwise without them, we're just sitting around telling stories.

They are simply a way to keep people from running around going "I shot you!" "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!" "No You didn't!" "Yes I did!" "No you didn't!!".

So what would you call something that does that?
Would you call it a rule?
Let's assume for a moment that you would call such a thing a "rule"; we'll look up that word then, okay?
Rule
rule [rool]
noun
1. a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.: the rules of chess.
2. the code of regulations observed by a religious order or congregation: the Franciscan rule.
3. the customary or normal circumstance, occurrence, manner, practice, quality, etc.: the rule rather than the exception.
4. control, government, or dominion: under the rule of a dictator.
5. tenure or conduct of reign or office: during the rule of George III.

Gee, it sure looks like these "rules" have a certain weight to them; like they somehow determine which fluff and imagination takes precedence over the other. It's almost like they determine what is and is not standard or something

The numbers represent our characters, in ways that keep people from simply succeeding 100% of the time in everything they do.

So such an example could be like if I wanted to shoot a missile at something, like say a Glitterboy's boomgun, but the rules state that I can't because such an attack must be against the main body, right?
Or another example might be how I want to perform a missile volley with my missile vehicle, which we'll call... I dunno, an Iron Bolt Missile vehicle or something, and I want to shoot 14 missiles in this volley, but the numerical representation shows that I could only possibly do 12, so I can't just say 14, even though I can imagine such a vehicle with two rows of seven launchers, right?

It shows our characters life and what not, including their weaknesses. And it stops two guys running around doing the I shot you, no you didn't thing.

Ah, so it stops people from doing such a thing, does it?
Maybe you should take a look at these mechanics then, because by the sounds of it, they sure as hell would stop you from just assuming that the picture can be equally and automatically represented as a mechanical equivalent then. Especially since there isn't a rule otherwise governing art.

The mechanics are a very inaccurate, clunky, attempt to apply numbers to life, and work, in only such a fashion as they let us determine out come, with out just saying "We do___ and it succeeds" or the GM just looking at you and telling you "You pass or fail" with nothing other than him deciding which.

And yet, they're what we call the "rules of the game".
Tell me, do we call art the "rules of the game" also?

You need the mechanics to keep the game from just being free from storytelling, but you need to realize that they are numbers and such, to describe the role playing. Not Role playing describing the numbers.

Oh, so pictures from a book allow us to role-play, do they? Especially in a role-playing game?
Are you even considering what you're writing?

You're just pulling that out of the air. All three are in the books equally. The art is the same level of canon as the fluff and the stats.

All three may be presented equally, but that does not mean they are equal.

You just admitted that they're presented equally.

Yeah, because I realized what your argument actually is.
Amazingly though, nobody is actually arguing this point besides you. Everyone considers the pictures to be a Palladium work; "canon" in that regard. Yet didn't you ever find it funny as to how everyone was questioning their statistical and mechanical value?
Or did that never dawn on you?
That everyone was asking as to whether these pics were canon mechanically?

Why are we even talking? If they're presented equally, the choice of putting one over another is just an opinion. Which is what I've been saying from the start.

Why? Because you've been dishonest in your representation of your argument; choosing not to address what people are actually talking about and instead picking and choosing what definition of the word "canon" is the correct one, like you're the one who determines these things.
It's shameful.
So why are we talking? Because someone has to call you out on your ********, and it just so happens that I enjoy calling people out on their ********. I'll cite Lenwen as a reference.

Perhaps you'd like to reword this "counter-point"? Because as it stands, it is not a credible one at all.

If one chooses to they could just as easily say 'We have the art. It SHOWS You what's right. Clearly Palladium wants that to be the primary indication of canon. Thus if you see mistakes in the Fluff or the Stats, they're lessor canon.

"chooses to"
Chooses to what? Ignore the rules? Ignore standards, like the mechanics being the governing body within a game?
I mean, you keeps saying the word, 'canon', like it somehow has a definition other than being rules/standards given by consensus.

Because it is. I even gave you the modern usage when pertaining to stuff we're talking about here. You know. The one not pertaining to the christian church and it's dogma? Read back. It's there.

Yeah, picking and choosing which portion of a definition to address sure lends a ton of credibility to your 'argument'.

And just as easy you can say 'Well the fluff DESCRIBES the object/species/whatever. The art is a visual representation of the Described object, the stats are a numerical representation of the description but the description -is- what the object in question is.

You could do that, but I'm not here trying to do what's easy. I'm trying to do what's right. Are you?

lol My point remains. You agree all three are presented equally. YOU, Dog o war, are choosing to focus on one, and deeming the other two non canon.

That's not what I'm doing, so you can peddle your crap on someone else here, bud.

My point is you could do that for any of the three. Your assertation that 'stats trump all' is just your opinion. As valid as any other opinion. (Meaning it pertains to you, not me) but one of many opinions. What you deem 'right' I say is wrong. Your opinion is not 'fact' It's opinion. The -fact- is that opinions, are opinions, not facts.

The only point you've made thus far is an irrelevant one disguised as relevant because you're taking other posters' words out of context.

And, as I've said previously in this post, you're not gonna find a single poster here that will disagree that the art in Palladium books is not canon in the sense that yes, they are an official picture associated with an official product. Because that is far out of the context being used. And I believe taking things out of context is against board policy.

And just as easy one, (like yourself) can say the numbers are the higher canon because they attribute numerical value to both the description and the visual art.

Yet another fallacious statement on your part; it's like you're make a habit of it.
I didn't say, "the numbers".
I said, "the rules". Which are represented clearly by the rules section and the statistics which translate the traits of a given thing into a method used in conjunction with the rules.

Which boil down to numbers. Yes. Not fallacious, simply not overly wordy. Concise. You know?

Do you know the difference between "the rules" and "the numbers"?
Because you're showing you don't with your statement here.

There's nothing to indicate one of those options though.

So you never, ever came across the section called game rules? Which would indicate what takes precedence?

You never ever came across art? It's all through the books.

Do the books tell you to reference the art or the rules and statistics when looking up the entries for things?

You never came across fluff? It's all through the books.

Do the books tell you to refer to the the fluff or mechanical portion of an entry when determining how to govern any particular thing within a palladium book?

You are choosing to give precedence to the rules over the fluff or art. That's your choice, but nothing says one trumps the other. You've even admitted they are presented equally.

Oh, did I now? I said that "these things are presented equally".
Or did I say, "these things appear equally in the books, but they are not equal".

I'll give you a hint; I didn't say the first one.

All three are Canon. As they're all published by Palladium. Your assumption is fine, but it's not the only possibility out there, and your choice of 'Stats" over "Fluff" or "art" is just that. A personal choice. Not the 'FACT' that you try and present it as.

Do you know the difference between a publication and canon?
Because you seem to have confused the two for being one-in-the-same. But I guess that would make sense, given that you have a hard time determining the difference between one thing and two things.

Again with the insults, but as you were proving wrong, you're actually insulting yourself so..... Ouch! burn!

Yup, that's quite the burn. You got me, I'd better go put myself under some cold water
Meanwhile, you still never answered whether you can tell the difference between canon and a publication. Because Palladium has published things that are not canon in the context of whether they apply to the rules, and this is a widely known and established fact.

There's nothing saying "Stats above all" there's nothing saying "art isn't canon" there's nothing saying "Fluff doesn't count". None of it. It's all treated equally by Palladium.

You keep telling yourself that.

YOU said it too, but it's also true. Show me somewhere in the books it says "Stats above all" show me somewhere in the books where it says "Art isn't canon" show me where it says "The fluff doesn't count".

Oh I said that, did I?
Please quote me saying as such. I mean, I did say that, but you're taking my statement out of context, which is against board rules.

So please, quote me.


EDIT: fixed quotes (didn't have time yesterday)

[mumah]

Can we not have lengthy posts that point by point only show that either poster has an argument and you're arguing on how to argue, While you have to established and working artists here in this thread willing to address any questions and have tried to address any question regarding the thread topic?

[Akashic Soldier]

The only "constructive" criticism I have regarding the artwork of Palladium Books (which has been phenomenal) is I think Chuck should study the school of Mumur for a few weeks and they should have a baby. Let me explain. Chuck has excellent work and there are many scenes throughout Northern Gun 1 & 2 that are amazing and I feel like Rifts needs more of. Namely the city scene in NG1 with the various D-Bees and robots in the background. This I love, but otherwise a lot of your art Chuck is very clinical, which is normally a good thing (but not always).

Now, we see some improvement in some of the artwork in NG2. Such as men in the background doing mundane tasks, which is a really nice touch.

However, I don't feel like Chuck's art has the same dynamic EXPLOSIVE look that Mumur's does. He seems to have a better grasp of cinematic angles which I feel like you could really learn from. We see this in a lot of Mike's work, however I had not noticed until the Subs he did for Northern Gun 2 when so much of Chuck's work was so prominent. Somehow, while being "less awesome", Mike's pictures better captured the eye than a lot of the stuff Chuck's did just because of the angles and terrain placement.

The other thing I was kind of disappointed with (albeit it only in retrospect), is I miss the action scenes. I don't feel like there have been many "in the middle of a battle" or "during a dramatic moment" pictures. Except of course unless we count the Leviathan from Lemuria (excellent work and exactly the "explosive" style I would like to see more of) and Mumurs work in the Revised Vampire Kingdom's books.

Its great seeing the details, especially for a book like Northern Gun 2. However, I'd like more in your face "action" and I wasn't joking earlier. I seriously think if Chuck and Mike sat down together they'd both really grow as artists. They're two of my favorite guys and they seem to have strengths where the other has weaknesses. Maybe you should work out some sort of fusion thing.

Also, Ghost Busters 3 has started production and Murry is on board. I think he's doing it to honor the passing of his old friend.

*Snaps his fingers*

Oh! And you know who is really freaking talented that I'd like to see more from -- Amy!

I always find it really hard to critique her work because its always high quality and her style doesn't leave a lot of room for errors. Very talented lady.

As for the "accuracy of art", honestly I am pretty satisfied. I remember when Northern Gun 1 came out and I saw Chuck's robots and my jaw literally dropped. It was like seeing one of your dotty female friends get a makeover and walk out a stunner. Preceding its release I'd seen Chuck constantly ragging on himself and second guessing his ability to draw 'Bots. He'd repeatedly remark that he was more confident drawing living beings. So I had expected a few "amateur" errors, stuff the trained eye easily spots. However, it was beautiful. Absolutely astounding.

Except the cover.

Yup, I know, I know. The cover is excellent but I do not like the colors so much. I am thinking its just personal preference on this one, but I genuinely feel like Chuck's art loses something between black and white and color. I remember seeing the Dragon's head in lines and it looked great, but holding the book in my hand... it just didn't POP the same way.

Still, nothing about it seemed "inaccurate" and an honest question here, am I the ONLY G.M. that has players customize all their gear? "It looks kind of like this, but I am changing X, Y and Z". I feel like that is part of the RPG experience ("Making something your own!"). So "100% book accurate or die" never really comes up at my table.

Anyways, in closing (since I have rambled on for a bit now), I just want to say that the work all you guys do is great. Some of you are more talented than professional comic book artists I know and that is a big compliment. I'm used to being the guy that says "Did you use the 9-heads method to chart this guy out, because one leg is longer than the other". However, I never find myself doing that with any of the work I've seen in Palladium Books.

Well, except Nick and Nick is what I wanted to close on. I know a lot of people rag on Nick's art "Its too gross" and "Its all misshapen" but that is what I love about it. Nick is very much the "underdog" of the Palladium artist circuit and I don't feel like his work gets enough love. Not only can he produce it much faster than either Chuck or Mike, his unique style is so ghastly it sticks in your mind. He can make something with one arm longer than the other look like its SUPPOSED to have one arm look longer than the other. That isn't as easy as you might think. He is INCREDIBLY talented as an artist and I have a great deal of respect for the man. It takes a very special talent to do what he does and although a lot of people might arrogantly turn up their nose at him, no one does better mutants and freaks at Palladium.

Amy does the best people.
Chuck does the best monsters.
Mumur does the best characters (even his robots and vehicles have "character").
Nick does the best surrealism (the bizarre, mutants, logic defying monstrosities, etc.).

P.S. Honorable mention to Kent. A lot of folks rag on Kent too, but his work also has a lot of character and surrealism. Kent is super creative and almost daily comes up with classic designs that look like something right out of the Silver Age of Comics and I absolutely love it. I think his work is certainly the most thought provoking (and that is a great thing in an RPG).

[Dreamstreamer]

I prefer technical accuracy in illustrations, but I also understand that art direction and editing can be challenging. How often are the stats written up before the art comes in? How often are the stats written up after the art comes in? In the former, I would hope the art direction includes enough information for the artist to create an image that lines up with the text. For the latter, the writer or editor should reference the piece and include all necessary information for play. I imagine there are exceptions to the former, especially when an artist is given a large degree of creative latitude and the decision makers agree that it improves the original idea. In any case, I prefer the text to reflect the art. If it doesn't, I hope there is a very good reason! That an art director, editor, or proofer didn't catch it before going to print in a professional publication is not a very good reason to me.

[BuzzardB]

Yup, I know, I know. The cover is excellent but I do not like the colors so much. I am thinking its just personal preference on this one, but I genuinely feel like Chuck's art loses something between black and white and color. I remember seeing the Dragon's head in lines and it looked great, but holding the book in my hand... it just didn't POP the same way.

You know what, I totally agree with this. I adore Chucks art, but every one that I have seen colored just loses something. I would love to see the unpainted version of the Northern Gun 1 cover.

That power armor guy on the front, was he always part of the picture?