Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

[Killer Cyborg]

Here, you're going narrow as a default, regarding narrow standards of combat training to be regarded as overall combat training.

I think you have it mixed up. High standards are exclusive, which narrows the amount of qualifiers. Narrow standards isn't the same as low standards. Low standards are wide standards because they let more people through.

"Knife Combat Training" is something specific.
"Combat Training" is something general.

You're arguing that something specific means something general.

Like, would you be honestly stumped on whether or not the girl was what he was looking for?
Or would you be able to tell from context?

A girl who actually had WP Nunchaku should be able to competently use it to hurt people.

That doesn't answer the question.

[ShadowLogan]

Also, there's a bit of whether "combat trained for the purposes of the game" fits with people's real-world view of "combat trained.

But should we be using people's real-world view of "combat trained" instead of the writer/editor of the game world when discussing a passage about said game world?

Perhaps.
Which passage do you wish to discuss?

I do not think we should be using people's real-world view in this matter since it, in this matter it clearly*, can be very subjective and would argue we should be looking at it from the perspective the writer/editor of the game so that we are all on the same page.

The problem with that though is there seems to be a disconnect from the writer/editor's perspective given we have conflicting statements and resolving them internally given points previously made (AFAIK). There might be a simple resolution to this entire issue. While both Mage CC (in general) and Men@Arms CC both exhibit combat training (game mechanically speaking), the Mage (in general) tends to be far less diverse IINM in terms of overall combat training when you consider:
-M@A IINM (is stated) also enjoy a certain level of proficiency with body armor than Mages (suiting up, movement, etc)
-M@A enjoy access to "combat orientated training" far more often than Mages (in general) both in the CC skills and from a selective standpoint. Exs Military Skill Category, Sharpshooting skill availability, # of starting WPs, etc.

Basically that all adds up to meaning that a Mage CC (in general) will be less effective at combat as a Men @ Arms CC (in general). Granted Magic when properly used can likely enhance the more limited mage CC to be more effective since the M&A will need to carry gear that the Mage can get the effect by "proofing it out of thin air" (ex. Cloud of Smoke for Smoke Grenades, Armor of Ithan/Bizare for extra protection, etc).

*While I'm sure there are matters where the real-world view is less subjective this doesn't seem to be one of them.

[Axelmania]

Combat training is sort of a general category. Kind of like cooking or fitness or teaching or science.

[eliakon]

Here, you're going narrow as a default, regarding narrow standards of combat training to be regarded as overall combat training.

I think you have it mixed up. High standards are exclusive, which narrows the amount of qualifiers. Narrow standards isn't the same as low standards. Low standards are wide standards because they let more people through.

"Knife Combat Training" is something specific.
"Combat Training" is something general.

You're arguing that something specific means something general.

I would argue that is backwards
The argument seems to be that even if you have training in a specific field that people are arguing that you don't have training at all.
Which seems as absurd as saying "Well that guys is a pediatrician (or dentist, or ophthalmologist, or oncologist or what have you) not a universal generalist so they are not medically trained"

[Nightmask]

Also, there's a bit of whether "combat trained for the purposes of the game" fits with people's real-world view of "combat trained.

But should we be using people's real-world view of "combat trained" instead of the writer/editor of the game world when discussing a passage about said game world?

Perhaps.
Which passage do you wish to discuss?

I do not think we should be using people's real-world view in this matter since it, in this matter it clearly*, can be very subjective and would argue we should be looking at it from the perspective the writer/editor of the game so that we are all on the same page.

The problem with that though is there seems to be a disconnect from the writer/editor's perspective given we have conflicting statements and resolving them internally given points previously made (AFAIK). There might be a simple resolution to this entire issue. While both Mage CC (in general) and Men@Arms CC both exhibit combat training (game mechanically speaking), the Mage (in general) tends to be far less diverse IINM in terms of overall combat training when you consider:
-M@A IINM (is stated) also enjoy a certain level of proficiency with body armor than Mages (suiting up, movement, etc)
-M@A enjoy access to "combat orientated training" far more often than Mages (in general) both in the CC skills and from a selective standpoint. Exs Military Skill Category, Sharpshooting skill availability, # of starting WPs, etc.

Basically that all adds up to meaning that a Mage CC (in general) will be less effective at combat as a Men @ Arms CC (in general). Granted Magic when properly used can likely enhance the more limited mage CC to be more effective since the M&A will need to carry gear that the Mage can get the effect by "proofing it out of thin air" (ex. Cloud of Smoke for Smoke Grenades, Armor of Ithan/Bizare for extra protection, etc).

*While I'm sure there are matters where the real-world view is less subjective this doesn't seem to be one of them.

There's a bit of trouble with this reasoning though. The armor issue for example, mages in general have access to spells that provide the benefits of armor. If you can easily conjure up magical protection from harm you don't really require training in conventional armor. So it's really not relevant in this case because mages can just magic-up armor in combat.

Meanwhile for mages spells ARE their weapons, you can't properly compare when you're comparing a mage to the non-mage by comparing both based on the use of things that are the focus of the non-mages of course the mage is going to come up short. The average mage is well trained in a number of combat-oriented spells just as the non-mage is trained in a number of combat-oriented weapons.

[ShadowLogan]

There's a bit of trouble with this reasoning though. The armor issue for example, mages in general have access to spells that provide the benefits of armor. If you can easily conjure up magical protection from harm you don't really require training in conventional armor. So it's really not relevant in this case because mages can just magic-up armor in combat.

Yes and No. While I agree that magic can be used to augment the mage in combat situations it isn't necessarily as clear cut as you are making it out for several reasons:
1. Time Factor. This can come from surprise attacks (do you have time to cast it), how long a spell lasts (requiring it to be recast if the fight goes to long), and how long it takes to cast the spell (based on the spell's level). All of which are negative compared to the "always on" physical armor (unless you obviously take it off, but presumably the mage would also take their physical armor off to making that point a wash)
2. PPE Management. Baring combat on/near Ley Line/Nexus the mage is going to have to mange their PPE.
3. Starting Equipment (at least for Rifts) does tend to include a suit of physcial body armor, so clearly the mage CC is expected to need it to some degree. And what training they do have in conventional armor is inferrior to the M@A. Don't get me wrong, I understand that the mage can just armor up faster via spell, but in terms of conventional armor use they are inferrior. One could even argue that Naruni Forcefield type equipment is on-par to casting a spell (it takes 4 seconds to change Eclips, 7seconds to change Eclip and activate per Mercenaries/DB2, vs 1 action to cast a low level spell per RUE).
4. Spell Effectiveness. Armor of Ithan (& even Bizzare) spells get the most benifit by being higher level, which means you might have to cast them a few times in a given fight after a hit or two (depending on how the dice roll and particular attacks) if you are low level.

Meanwhile for mages spells ARE their weapons, you can't properly compare when you're comparing a mage to the non-mage by comparing both based on the use of things that are the focus of the non-mages of course the mage is going to come up short. The average mage is well trained in a number of combat-oriented spells just as the non-mage is trained in a number of combat-oriented weapons.

I have to disagree, while I can agree Mages prefer to use their magic "few practicioners of magic dismiss technology out of hand" (BoM pg18, likely C&Ped from elsewhere). Even the Magic section in RUE calls out its limitations compared to technology (pg189 Step7) and combat.

In terms of "weapons" magic tends to fall short compared to conventional examples:
-range. Tech generally out ranges Spell, at least if they are using Rifles (pistols might be another matter, specific rare spells might also be better). Plus Tech weapons can be fired beyond their listed range at penalty, spells IINM can't be.
-damage potential. Tech generally out performs in terms of damage either in terms of single shot or the option to burst
-accuracy from level development. WP accuracy goes up, but Spells do not. that makes a higher level guy/gal using a tech weapon more accurate than a lower level one, but spell casters don't really have an accuracy benfit to being higher level
-magic is also dependent on the Caster's level and location, but a tech weapon will be the same regardless of level and location (granted there might be a rare exception like w/archery skill/weapons).

[Nightmask]

There's a bit of trouble with this reasoning though. The armor issue for example, mages in general have access to spells that provide the benefits of armor. If you can easily conjure up magical protection from harm you don't really require training in conventional armor. So it's really not relevant in this case because mages can just magic-up armor in combat.

Yes and No. While I agree that magic can be used to augment the mage in combat situations it isn't necessarily as clear cut as you are making it out for several reasons:
1. Time Factor. This can come from surprise attacks (do you have time to cast it), how long a spell lasts (requiring it to be recast if the fight goes to long), and how long it takes to cast the spell (based on the spell's level). All of which are negative compared to the "always on" physical armor (unless you obviously take it off, but presumably the mage would also take their physical armor off to making that point a wash)
2. PPE Management. Baring combat on/near Ley Line/Nexus the mage is going to have to mange their PPE.
3. Starting Equipment (at least for Rifts) does tend to include a suit of physcial body armor, so clearly the mage CC is expected to need it to some degree. And what training they do have in conventional armor is inferrior to the M@A. Don't get me wrong, I understand that the mage can just armor up faster via spell, but in terms of conventional armor use they are inferrior. One could even argue that Naruni Forcefield type equipment is on-par to casting a spell (it takes 4 seconds to change Eclips, 7seconds to change Eclip and activate per Mercenaries/DB2, vs 1 action to cast a low level spell per RUE).
4. Spell Effectiveness. Armor of Ithan (& even Bizzare) spells get the most benifit by being higher level, which means you might have to cast them a few times in a given fight after a hit or two (depending on how the dice roll and particular attacks) if you are low level.

Except for the most part all of that has rough equivalents when it comes to weapons: PPE management=Ammo management for example. Coming with conventional armor well just about everyone gets a set of conventional armor as part of their CC and again how well trained someone is in wearing/using armor is hardly a fair measure of someone's combat capabilities particularly when we're talking about mages who again can use magic to armor-up with a quick spell. As far as spell effectiveness goes, while being irrelevant as a measure as to how well combat-trained or experienced mages are spells that provide armor allow for a mage unlike a non-mage in conventional armor to instantly replace his 'worn out' armor with quick spell.

Meanwhile for mages spells ARE their weapons, you can't properly compare when you're comparing a mage to the non-mage by comparing both based on the use of things that are the focus of the non-mages of course the mage is going to come up short. The average mage is well trained in a number of combat-oriented spells just as the non-mage is trained in a number of combat-oriented weapons.

I have to disagree, while I can agree Mages prefer to use their magic "few practicioners of magic dismiss technology out of hand" (BoM pg18, likely C&Ped from elsewhere). Even the Magic section in RUE calls out its limitations compared to technology (pg189 Step7) and combat.

In terms of "weapons" magic tends to fall short compared to conventional examples:
-range. Tech generally out ranges Spell, at least if they are using Rifles (pistols might be another matter, specific rare spells might also be better). Plus Tech weapons can be fired beyond their listed range at penalty, spells IINM can't be.
-damage potential. Tech generally out performs in terms of damage either in terms of single shot or the option to burst
-accuracy from level development. WP accuracy goes up, but Spells do not. that makes a higher level guy/gal using a tech weapon more accurate than a lower level one, but spell casters don't really have an accuracy benfit to being higher level
-magic is also dependent on the Caster's level and location, but a tech weapon will be the same regardless of level and location (granted there might be a rare exception like w/archery skill/weapons).

That doesn't actually matter though, since again you're rating the mages combat training/skill purely on things that aren't mage-relevant. It's an unfair comparison to measure the mage solely against non-mage standards and dismiss their mage-related things as somehow being irrelevant or inferior. If we're going to discuss combat-ability of mages we have to actually look at mages not at non-mages.

[Killer Cyborg]

Here, you're going narrow as a default, regarding narrow standards of combat training to be regarded as overall combat training.

I think you have it mixed up. High standards are exclusive, which narrows the amount of qualifiers. Narrow standards isn't the same as low standards. Low standards are wide standards because they let more people through.

"Knife Combat Training" is something specific.
"Combat Training" is something general.

You're arguing that something specific means something general.

I would argue that is backwards
The argument seems to be that even if you have training in a specific field that people are arguing that you don't have training at all.
Which seems as absurd as saying "Well that guys is a pediatrician (or dentist, or ophthalmologist, or oncologist or what have you) not a universal generalist so they are not medically trained"

Not exactly.
The argument is that just because you have training in one specific field, that does not mean that you have general or universal training in the broader subject.
A dentist is trained in a specific form of medicine, yes, but that doesn't mean that they're "medically trained" in a broader, more general sense: in the common sense.
Ask a lot of doctors, and they'll likely scoff or roll their eyes if you tell them that Dentists are "fully medically trained," at least if the discussion is anything other than a discussion about dentistry.

If somebody is hit by a car, and another person yells out, "Is anybody here medically trained?"
Are they really talking about dentists?
Or are they talking about somebody who has the kind of general medical training (dealing with bleeding and bandages and such) that is appropriate for that kind of general trauma?

I'd go with the latter, unless the car hit them in the teeth.

Context is everything.

[Killer Cyborg]

Also, there's a bit of whether "combat trained for the purposes of the game" fits with people's real-world view of "combat trained.

But should we be using people's real-world view of "combat trained" instead of the writer/editor of the game world when discussing a passage about said game world?

Perhaps.
Which passage do you wish to discuss?

I do not think we should be using people's real-world view in this matter since it, in this matter it clearly*, can be very subjective and would argue we should be looking at it from the perspective the writer/editor of the game so that we are all on the same page.

a) The context of the original quote (re: mages typically not being combat trained) was about real-world view, not game technicalities. Any part of the discussion that is about the original quote must necessarily involve real-world views.
b) Any discussion that is NOT about the original quote does not have any such necessity, and pretty much everybody is all on the same page there: most people in Rifts Earth are technically "combat trained."
c) Yes, real-world views can be and are subjective. That does not mean that discussion needs to cease, though, and to claim or imply that it does is a fallacy called Loki's Wager.
d) Perspective of the writer/editor--lacking that person(s)' input--also ends up being pretty subjective.

The problem with that though is there seems to be a disconnect from the writer/editor's perspective given we have conflicting statements and resolving them internally given points previously made (AFAIK). There might be a simple resolution to this entire issue. While both Mage CC (in general) and Men@Arms CC both exhibit combat training (game mechanically speaking), the Mage (in general) tends to be far less diverse IINM in terms of overall combat training when you consider:
-M@A IINM (is stated) also enjoy a certain level of proficiency with body armor than Mages (suiting up, movement, etc)
-M@A enjoy access to "combat orientated training" far more often than Mages (in general) both in the CC skills and from a selective standpoint. Exs Military Skill Category, Sharpshooting skill availability, # of starting WPs, etc.

Basically that all adds up to meaning that a Mage CC (in general) will be less effective at combat as a Men @ Arms CC (in general). Granted Magic when properly used can likely enhance the more limited mage CC to be more effective since the M&A will need to carry gear that the Mage can get the effect by "proofing it out of thin air" (ex. Cloud of Smoke for Smoke Grenades, Armor of Ithan/Bizare for extra protection, etc).

If you're attempting to resolve the "mages are not good at combat" vs. "Mages are typically technically combat trained" by discussing authorial intent, then I agree with you on this subject, more or less.

But people in this discussion seem to want to keep this discussion focusing on RAW, without much regard to context or intent.

[RockJock]

As far as I know there is not a book definition of "combat trained".

I throw out needing to be "military" trained because classes like the Gunslinger, or Psi-Stalker would not be combat trained. That makes me lean towards more of a "combat effective" definition. A CS Technical Officer is military trained, has Basic HtH, and a couple of WPs, so I would consider one with just the basic skills combat effective, and extra skills can be spent to make them a match to pretty much any combat class. A Ley Line Walker has no WPs, but does have HtH as a Occ skill, so as is I would say not combat effective, but if they spent a few skills on WP Energy Rifle and Pistol that changes to a yes. Something like an Elemental Fusionist is a little weird because of the limit on energy weapons, but since they have WPs and HtH I would say they are all combat effective.

Just my two cents.

[Axelmania]

pretty much everybody is all on the same page there: most people in Rifts Earth are technically "combat trained."

I'm not. I have no idea what portion of people have HTH or WP. Can't use OCCs as a guide since we don't know how many people even have an OCC.

Even the lowly vagabond is probably more skilled than your average farmer/labourer.

When I think of rifts-like stories like Vampire Hunter D, Doris might have been the only one in town with training via WP Energy Rifle. Nobody else seemed necessarily skilled at fighting.

[Killer Cyborg]

pretty much everybody is all on the same page there: most people in Rifts Earth are technically "combat trained."

I'm not.

Okay, then: pretty much everybody except for Axelmania is all on the same page there.

I have no idea what portion of people have HTH or WP. Can't use OCCs as a guide since we don't know how many people even have an OCC.

Even the lowly vagabond is probably more skilled than your average farmer/labourer.

When I think of rifts-like stories like Vampire Hunter D, Doris might have been the only one in town with training via WP Energy Rifle. Nobody else seemed necessarily skilled at fighting.

Start a new thread on it, and I'll help you research.

[RockJock]

If you do that take a look at what percentage gets a WP/HtH and which COULD take a WP/HtH.

[Nightmask]

As far as I know there is not a book definition of "combat trained".

I throw out needing to be "military" trained because classes like the Gunslinger, or Psi-Stalker would not be combat trained. That makes me lean towards more of a "combat effective" definition. A CS Technical Officer is military trained, has Basic HtH, and a couple of WPs, so I would consider one with just the basic skills combat effective, and extra skills can be spent to make them a match to pretty much any combat class. A Ley Line Walker has no WPs, but does have HtH as a Occ skill, so as is I would say not combat effective, but if they spent a few skills on WP Energy Rifle and Pistol that changes to a yes. Something like an Elemental Fusionist is a little weird because of the limit on energy weapons, but since they have WPs and HtH I would say they are all combat effective.

Just my two cents.

The problem with that is it measures/focuses solely on someone's combat effectiveness centering around melee and weapon-based combat it treats magic as if it had no usefulness for combat at all and that all that matters is how well you beat up or shoot a target using anything but magic.

[eliakon]

Here, you're going narrow as a default, regarding narrow standards of combat training to be regarded as overall combat training.

I think you have it mixed up. High standards are exclusive, which narrows the amount of qualifiers. Narrow standards isn't the same as low standards. Low standards are wide standards because they let more people through.

"Knife Combat Training" is something specific.
"Combat Training" is something general.

You're arguing that something specific means something general.

I would argue that is backwards
The argument seems to be that even if you have training in a specific field that people are arguing that you don't have training at all.
Which seems as absurd as saying "Well that guys is a pediatrician (or dentist, or ophthalmologist, or oncologist or what have you) not a universal generalist so they are not medically trained"

Not exactly.
The argument is that just because you have training in one specific field, that does not mean that you have general or universal training in the broader subject.
A dentist is trained in a specific form of medicine, yes, but that doesn't mean that they're "medically trained" in a broader, more general sense: in the common sense.
Ask a lot of doctors, and they'll likely scoff or roll their eyes if you tell them that Dentists are "fully medically trained," at least if the discussion is anything other than a discussion about dentistry.

If somebody is hit by a car, and another person yells out, "Is anybody here medically trained?"
Are they really talking about dentists?
Or are they talking about somebody who has the kind of general medical training (dealing with bleeding and bandages and such) that is appropriate for that kind of general trauma?

I'd go with the latter, unless the car hit them in the teeth.

Context is everything.

Nope
This is saying that that dentist has NO medical training.
And neither does that pediatrician
After all, neither of them can do open heart surgery AND cure cancer AND do dentistry AND fit glasses... so obviously that means they have no training right?
After all, the standard being used here for the mages is that unless you have ALL the training, you don't have any (because for some bizarre reason simply having H2H and a WP are not sufficient, you also need some other mythical skill that seems to only exist by being defined as "what ever it is that mages do not have")

[ShadowLogan]

Except for the most part all of that has rough equivalents when it comes to weapons: PPE management=Ammo management for example. Coming with conventional armor well just about everyone gets a set of conventional armor as part of their CC and again how well trained someone is in wearing/using armor is hardly a fair measure of someone's combat capabilities particularly when we're talking about mages who again can use magic to armor-up with a quick spell. As far as spell effectiveness goes, while being irrelevant as a measure as to how well combat-trained or experienced mages are spells that provide armor allow for a mage unlike a non-mage in conventional armor to instantly replace his 'worn out' armor with quick spell.

Granted M@A have similar management issues. But a M@A could replenish their supplies from fallen comrades/foes, something a mage can not easily do for PPE (need a Ley Line situation or time to meditate, which might not be available).

I have to disagree about the fair measure of how well combat-trained comes when using physical armor. The same standard can be used with Psychics and Adventurer-classes. It is a RAW statement though that Mages aren't as proficient with physical armor as Men @ Arms. While said proficiency is pretty limited in impact, its still there as a way to distinguish the M@A classes from other character types. We also know both types use it, so it is fair to compare their effectiveness with said item.

That doesn't actually matter though, since again you're rating the mages combat training/skill purely on things that aren't mage-relevant. It's an unfair comparison to measure the mage solely against non-mage standards and dismiss their mage-related things as somehow being irrelevant or inferior. If we're going to discuss combat-ability of mages we have to actually look at mages not at non-mages.

I have to disagree the issue isn't strictly the combat ability of mages, it is the combat ability of mages compared to a Men @ Arms type. When we are talking about combat things like Range, damage output, and accuracy are just as relevant to the mage as a non-mage. Those are all factors that they have in common that have to be addressed in a combat situation. It is pretty much stated via the text in RUE on pg189 (emphasis in text) "The weakness of spell casting is that even offensive spells have their limitation in range, damge, etc, and the unspoken limitation that the spell caster is not the best at one on one combat action."

Now a mage does have potential options, but the biggest issue with mages in general is that we can not count on a random mage/magic-user to have a specific spell just spells. Ex. an Armor-type spell is not default for every mage class (in RUE IINM 3/4ths don't receive an Armor spell automatically leaving it to spell selection which could be restrictive). Such an issue exists with M@A types to I'll admit, but we know they will have some form of conventional armor & weapon, we can not say that about a type of spell though.

But people in this discussion seem to want to keep this discussion focusing on RAW, without much regard to context or intent.

Which is a problem. RAW is quite clear in context and intent that Mages are not supposed to be combat equal/superior to a Men @ Arms class. Mages are/can-be considered combat trained, but they are not (generally) as extensively combat trained as a M&A.

[Nightmask]

Except for the most part all of that has rough equivalents when it comes to weapons: PPE management=Ammo management for example. Coming with conventional armor well just about everyone gets a set of conventional armor as part of their CC and again how well trained someone is in wearing/using armor is hardly a fair measure of someone's combat capabilities particularly when we're talking about mages who again can use magic to armor-up with a quick spell. As far as spell effectiveness goes, while being irrelevant as a measure as to how well combat-trained or experienced mages are spells that provide armor allow for a mage unlike a non-mage in conventional armor to instantly replace his 'worn out' armor with quick spell.

Granted M@A have similar management issues. But a M@A could replenish their supplies from fallen comrades/foes, something a mage can not easily do for PPE (need a Ley Line situation or time to meditate, which might not be available).

I have to disagree about the fair measure of how well combat-trained comes when using physical armor. The same standard can be used with Psychics and Adventurer-classes. It is a RAW statement though that Mages aren't as proficient with physical armor as Men @ Arms. While said proficiency is pretty limited in impact, its still there as a way to distinguish the M@A classes from other character types. We also know both types use it, so it is fair to compare their effectiveness with said item.

Once again you're trying to measure the mage by metrics that aren't relevant. The ability to scavenge resources off your fallen comrades or foes isn't reflective of someone's combat training/skill (this isn't some FPS video game). How well someone can wear/handle armor is again not relevant for someone who doesn't NEED that kind of physical training, all he has to do is cast a spell and he's covered, the most he needs conventional armor for is to ensure he has time to cast the spell in case of an ambush and reduce the PPE cost for him in combat but he doesn't need to be uber-trained in wearing physical armor to qualify as combat-trained/worthy.

That doesn't actually matter though, since again you're rating the mages combat training/skill purely on things that aren't mage-relevant. It's an unfair comparison to measure the mage solely against non-mage standards and dismiss their mage-related things as somehow being irrelevant or inferior. If we're going to discuss combat-ability of mages we have to actually look at mages not at non-mages.

I have to disagree the issue isn't strictly the combat ability of mages, it is the combat ability of mages compared to a Men @ Arms type. When we are talking about combat things like Range, damage output, and accuracy are just as relevant to the mage as a non-mage. Those are all factors that they have in common that have to be addressed in a combat situation. It is pretty much stated via the text in RUE on pg189 (emphasis in text) "The weakness of spell casting is that even offensive spells have their limitation in range, damge, etc, and the unspoken limitation that the spell caster is not the best at one on one combat action."

Now a mage does have potential options, but the biggest issue with mages in general is that we can not count on a random mage/magic-user to have a specific spell just spells. Ex. an Armor-type spell is not default for every mage class (in RUE IINM 3/4ths don't receive an Armor spell automatically leaving it to spell selection which could be restrictive). Such an issue exists with M@A types to I'll admit, but we know they will have some form of conventional armor & weapon, we can not say that about a type of spell though.

Except that's NOT the issue, the original question was ONLY 'are mages trained for combat', not 'how well does the combat training if any of a mage compare to a non-mage man-at-arms'. It's also not part of the discussion for combat-training to act as if somehow the tools are what count, that somehow the better combat trained is determined by who can shoot farther and deal the most damage that's really not relevant. Going by that argument the 12 level Special Forces Guy stuck with a 1d6 MD pistol is inferior in combat training to the first level Glitter Boy Pilot with his 3d6x10 MD railgun which just isn't so. He's inferior ARMED but he's certainly not inferior in training or experience.

But people in this discussion seem to want to keep this discussion focusing on RAW, without much regard to context or intent.

Which is a problem. RAW is quite clear in context and intent that Mages are not supposed to be combat equal/superior to a Men @ Arms class. Mages are/can-be considered combat trained, but they are not (generally) as extensively combat trained as a M&A.

That certainly is a problem, since the effort to make it a rule that mages are inferior to warriors in combat ability rather than what amounts to fluff text requires extremely convoluted reasoning and outright illogic to try and make it valid. The actual rules don't match the hype.

[Killer Cyborg]

"Knife Combat Training" is something specific.
"Combat Training" is something general.

You're arguing that something specific means something general.

I would argue that is backwards
The argument seems to be that even if you have training in a specific field that people are arguing that you don't have training at all.
Which seems as absurd as saying "Well that guys is a pediatrician (or dentist, or ophthalmologist, or oncologist or what have you) not a universal generalist so they are not medically trained"

Not exactly.
The argument is that just because you have training in one specific field, that does not mean that you have general or universal training in the broader subject.
A dentist is trained in a specific form of medicine, yes, but that doesn't mean that they're "medically trained" in a broader, more general sense: in the common sense.
Ask a lot of doctors, and they'll likely scoff or roll their eyes if you tell them that Dentists are "fully medically trained," at least if the discussion is anything other than a discussion about dentistry.

If somebody is hit by a car, and another person yells out, "Is anybody here medically trained?"
Are they really talking about dentists?
Or are they talking about somebody who has the kind of general medical training (dealing with bleeding and bandages and such) that is appropriate for that kind of general trauma?

I'd go with the latter, unless the car hit them in the teeth.

Context is everything.

Nope
This is saying that that dentist has NO medical training.

I don't know what "this" you're referring to.

[Killer Cyborg]

But people in this discussion seem to want to keep this discussion focusing on RAW, without much regard to context or intent.

Which is a problem. RAW is quite clear in context and intent that Mages are not supposed to be combat equal/superior to a Men @ Arms class. Mages are/can-be considered combat trained, but they are not (generally) as extensively combat trained as a M&A.

[ShadowLogan]

How well someone can wear/handle armor is again not relevant for someone who doesn't NEED that kind of physical training, all he has to do is cast a spell and he's covered, the most he needs conventional armor for is to ensure he has time to cast the spell in case of an ambush and reduce the PPE cost for him in combat but he doesn't need to be uber-trained in wearing physical armor to qualify as combat-trained/worthy.

I disagree for the simple fact that not every mage class is going to have the ability/knowledge to cast an "armor" spell makes the need for physical training to be considered.

Lets look at RUE's magic using classes. Only 1 out of 4 has Armor of Ithan by default. Now I realize I'm not counting Dragons, who don't start with magic but develop it at later levels, but they don't even automatically get it. If we include RUE dragons that is 6 dragons for a 1 out of 10. And I also forgot about the Elemental Fusionist which is separated from the other 4 magic classes, they don't get AoI but they do enjoy the equivalent. So that's 2 out 11 (or 3 out of 12 depending on how you count the EF). Now aside from the EF, which can only select Elemental Magic (optionally, which also doesn't have a true equivalent AFAIK), any of these can optionally select it (or similar spell), but they do not have to either at creation or level up (or purchased). Clearly, IN GENERAL, a Mage can't be relied upon to know an armor-type spell, or even specific spells.

Except that's NOT the issue, the original question was ONLY 'are mages trained for combat', not 'how well does the combat training if any of a mage compare to a non-mage man-at-arms'. It's also not part of the discussion for combat-training to act as if somehow the tools are what count, that somehow the better combat trained is determined by who can shoot farther and deal the most damage that's really not relevant. Going by that argument the 12 level Special Forces Guy stuck with a 1d6 MD pistol is inferior in combat training to the first level Glitter Boy Pilot with his 3d6x10 MD railgun which just isn't so. He's inferior ARMED but he's certainly not inferior in training or experience.

I do not discount the tools, but I also recognize that there is also the knowledge (skill) to use said item effectively and that tools have a given/expected use (or range of) and performance.

And as I said the biggest issue in this realm is that not every mage is going to have specific spells that allow them to use magic directly for offense or defense in a combat situation (direct I mean they deal damage or are protected from damage). That is accurate for mages in general, I do not dispute that specific cases exist/created, but I am looking at this from a general standpoint, not a specific case(s) (either PCs/NPCs or CCs, and the CC can not rely on selection).

That certainly is a problem, since the effort to make it a rule that mages are inferior to warriors in combat ability rather than what amounts to fluff text requires extremely convoluted reasoning and outright illogic to try and make it valid. The actual rules don't match the hype.

Except it isn't a convoluted reason because we know:
-with few exceptions that spells get out ranged by tech weapons
-with few exceptions being able to match the damage output from tech weapons can be matched. In principle tech weapons can volley/burst/twin-strikes, something a single spell caster can not do so even those few exceptions can be reduced farther

[Blue_Lion]

Here, you're going narrow as a default, regarding narrow standards of combat training to be regarded as overall combat training.

I think you have it mixed up. High standards are exclusive, which narrows the amount of qualifiers. Narrow standards isn't the same as low standards. Low standards are wide standards because they let more people through.

"Knife Combat Training" is something specific.
"Combat Training" is something general.

You're arguing that something specific means something general.

I would argue that is backwards
The argument seems to be that even if you have training in a specific field that people are arguing that you don't have training at all.
Which seems as absurd as saying "Well that guys is a pediatrician (or dentist, or ophthalmologist, or oncologist or what have you) not a universal generalist so they are not medically trained"

Not exactly.
The argument is that just because you have training in one specific field, that does not mean that you have general or universal training in the broader subject.
A dentist is trained in a specific form of medicine, yes, but that doesn't mean that they're "medically trained" in a broader, more general sense: in the common sense.
Ask a lot of doctors, and they'll likely scoff or roll their eyes if you tell them that Dentists are "fully medically trained," at least if the discussion is anything other than a discussion about dentistry.

If somebody is hit by a car, and another person yells out, "Is anybody here medically trained?"
Are they really talking about dentists?
Or are they talking about somebody who has the kind of general medical training (dealing with bleeding and bandages and such) that is appropriate for that kind of general trauma?

I'd go with the latter, unless the car hit them in the teeth.

Context is everything.

general or universal combat training does not exist all combat training is for specific conditions weapons and fighting styles.

While a army SF is combat trained, his training is for use of specific weapons and fighting style in combat. However all his training will be useless in submarine warfare or a dog fight. A US navy seal training would do him little good if you dressed him as a spartan and had him fight with a spartan phalanx. The average modern cavalry scout would be fairly lost if you equipped him with medieval plate and weapons and told him to ride a horse into battle.(Us army cavalry scouts use APC and IFV as combat transport.)

If the requirement is to be trained for all forms of combat then no one is combat trained.
So congrats you just made every one not combat trained with some made up impossible standard.

[Killer Cyborg]

If somebody is hit by a car, and another person yells out, "Is anybody here medically trained?"
Are they really talking about dentists?
Or are they talking about somebody who has the kind of general medical training (dealing with bleeding and bandages and such) that is appropriate for that kind of general trauma?

I'd go with the latter, unless the car hit them in the teeth.

Context is everything.

general or universal combat training does not exist all combat training is for specific conditions weapons and fighting styles.

Sounds like you're saying that context is important.

If the requirement is to be trained for all forms of combat then no one is combat trained.

True.
But if you've got training in the most typical forms of combat that are most likely to be utilized, then you're generally combat trained.
If you've got training in one narrow field of combat, then you're not.

[eliakon]

If somebody is hit by a car, and another person yells out, "Is anybody here medically trained?"
Are they really talking about dentists?
Or are they talking about somebody who has the kind of general medical training (dealing with bleeding and bandages and such) that is appropriate for that kind of general trauma?

I'd go with the latter, unless the car hit them in the teeth.

Context is everything.

general or universal combat training does not exist all combat training is for specific conditions weapons and fighting styles.

Sounds like you're saying that context is important.

If the requirement is to be trained for all forms of combat then no one is combat trained.

True.
But if you've got training in the most typical forms of combat that are most likely to be utilized, then you're generally combat trained.
If you've got training in one narrow field of combat, then you're not.

I don't really see how much generally utilized than "Have a the skill necessary to engage in any sort of combat at all" is
I mean if you do not have a H2H skill then you have to use the "non combat actions" rules and the whole nine yards.
For ANYONE to engage in combat, of any kind, where they expect to use 'actions' they have to have a H2H skill.
That sounds suspiciously like the 'typical form of combat' to me.
Heck it sounds like a pretty good working definition for what is or is not combat trained.
If you have H2H skill, then you are combat trained, i.e. you can engage in combat via actions,
If you do NOT have an H2H skill, then you are NOT combat trained, and you have to use the far more limited "non-combat actions" thing.

[Blue_Lion]

If somebody is hit by a car, and another person yells out, "Is anybody here medically trained?"
Are they really talking about dentists?
Or are they talking about somebody who has the kind of general medical training (dealing with bleeding and bandages and such) that is appropriate for that kind of general trauma?

I'd go with the latter, unless the car hit them in the teeth.

Context is everything.

general or universal combat training does not exist all combat training is for specific conditions weapons and fighting styles.

Sounds like you're saying that context is important.

If the requirement is to be trained for all forms of combat then no one is combat trained.

True.
But if you've got training in the most typical forms of combat that are most likely to be utilized, then you're generally combat trained.
If you've got training in one narrow field of combat, then you're not.

The most typical form of combat depends on your roll in combat, a fighter pilot is not likely to need to shoot a rifle but is typically going to need to know how to fly a jet and shoot its weapons, so a fighter pilot lacking the skills to fly and shoot a jets weapons would not be trained for combat. A tanker in combat is most typical form of combat is to drive a tank and shoot its weapons systems, a tank crew that is not trained to operate a tank is not combat trained. The crew of an attack submarine are typically not going to shoot rifle or engage in hand to hand but locate a enemy and shoot it with torpedoes if they are not trained for their roll would not be combat trained.

A mage would likely favor his spells in combat as that is what he spends most of his training developing. Lets look at what skills a mage needs to fight he needs a way to deal damage-that is often covered by his spells and basics of self defense, covered by hand to hand or a weapon skill. So a typical mage has the training to deal with his typical roll in a fight cast spells and defend himself if he has hand to hand or a weapon skill. Looking at the most common mage a ley line walker he learns basic hand to hand as his self defense and has access to spells that can do damage or cc, so he would be trained for his roll in a fight.**So a ley line walkers while not trained to pilot a robot or as a CS grunt is trained for what he is expediting to need to do in a fight.

[Killer Cyborg]

If somebody is hit by a car, and another person yells out, "Is anybody here medically trained?"
Are they really talking about dentists?
Or are they talking about somebody who has the kind of general medical training (dealing with bleeding and bandages and such) that is appropriate for that kind of general trauma?

I'd go with the latter, unless the car hit them in the teeth.

Context is everything.

general or universal combat training does not exist all combat training is for specific conditions weapons and fighting styles.

Sounds like you're saying that context is important.

If the requirement is to be trained for all forms of combat then no one is combat trained.

True.
But if you've got training in the most typical forms of combat that are most likely to be utilized, then you're generally combat trained.
If you've got training in one narrow field of combat, then you're not.

The most typical form of combat depends on your [role] in combat,

Right; that would be context.

a fighter pilot is not likely to need to shoot a rifle but is typically going to need to know how to fly a jet and shoot its weapons, so a fighter pilot lacking the skills to fly and shoot a jets weapons would not be trained for combat. A tanker in combat is most typical form of combat is to drive a tank and shoot its weapons systems, a tank crew that is not trained to operate a tank is not combat trained. The crew of an attack submarine are typically not going to shoot rifle or engage in hand to hand but locate a enemy and shoot it with torpedoes if they are not trained for their roll would not be combat trained.

Sounds like some of the examples I posted earlier in the thread.

A mage would likely favor his spells in combat as that is what he spends most of his training developing

Lets look at what skills a mage needs to fight he needs a way to deal damage-that is often covered by his spells and basics of self defense, covered by hand to hand or a weapon skill. So a typical mage has the training to deal with his typical roll in a fight cast spells and defend himself if he has hand to hand or a weapon skill. Looking at the most common mage a ley line walker he learns basic hand to hand as his self defense and has access to spells that can do damage or cc, so he would be trained for his roll in a fight.**So a ley line walkers while not trained to pilot a robot or as a CS grunt is trained for what he is expediting to need to do in a fight.

I like where you're going, but while all first level LLWs necessarily have HTH Basic, they do NOT necessarily have any combat spells.
Also, there is a difference between knowing a combat spell, and being trained in its use in combat, just as there is a difference between having a rifle, and in being combat-trained with it.

Furthermore, this gets back to our disagreement about the nature of Basic Training in the military, where I feel that the nature of the training is such that it places you in an essentially hostile environment that helps harden you to battlefield conditions, and you feel that it's no different than if somebody learns Climbing by hanging out casually on weekends with their buddies, takes a self-defense class at the YMCA, and plinks at bottles in their leisure time.
It's something that I would like to address, but I haven't had the time to perform proper research on as of yet.

Here's a quick link for now, though:
https://war-elephant.com/military-and-v ... intense-2/

[Killer Cyborg]

If the requirement is to be trained for all forms of combat then no one is combat trained.

True.
But if you've got training in the most typical forms of combat that are most likely to be utilized, then you're generally combat trained.
If you've got training in one narrow field of combat, then you're not.

I don't really see how much generally utilized than "Have a the skill necessary to engage in any sort of combat at all" is
I mean if you do not have a H2H skill then you have to use the "non combat actions" rules and the whole nine yards.
For ANYONE to engage in combat, of any kind, where they expect to use 'actions' they have to have a H2H skill.
That sounds suspiciously like the 'typical form of combat' to me.
Heck it sounds like a pretty good working definition for what is or is not combat trained.
If you have H2H skill, then you are combat trained, i.e. you can engage in combat via actions,
If you do NOT have an H2H skill, then you are NOT combat trained, and you have to use the far more limited "non-combat actions" thing.

For general game purposes, I think you're on to something. Just having a WP wouldn't make you generally combat trained, because you'd still have to deal with the non-combat actions stuff.
You'd be technically combat trained, but not generally combat trained.

[RockJock]

Night,

I used a WP or two and a HtH as an arbitrary thing to represent some form of combat training. I agree that a Mage, or even Psychic can do damage in combat without any skills, but so can a guy with a stick or rock who never touched a weapon. Until we have HtH: Mage and WP: Magic Energy Blasts we need something to go by. I don't see how you can argue that a Light Blade, or a Psi-Sword are a lot more effective in combat with HtH basic and WP Sword then they are without.

My suggestion really would like to see a separate Magic HtH of some kind along with things like Magic Targeting. What do you suggest?

[eliakon]

If the requirement is to be trained for all forms of combat then no one is combat trained.

True.
But if you've got training in the most typical forms of combat that are most likely to be utilized, then you're generally combat trained.
If you've got training in one narrow field of combat, then you're not.

I don't really see how much generally utilized than "Have a the skill necessary to engage in any sort of combat at all" is
I mean if you do not have a H2H skill then you have to use the "non combat actions" rules and the whole nine yards.
For ANYONE to engage in combat, of any kind, where they expect to use 'actions' they have to have a H2H skill.
That sounds suspiciously like the 'typical form of combat' to me.
Heck it sounds like a pretty good working definition for what is or is not combat trained.
If you have H2H skill, then you are combat trained, i.e. you can engage in combat via actions,
If you do NOT have an H2H skill, then you are NOT combat trained, and you have to use the far more limited "non-combat actions" thing.

For general game purposes, I think you're on to something. Just having a WP wouldn't make you generally combat trained, because you'd still have to deal with the non-combat actions stuff.
You'd be technically combat trained, but not generally combat trained.

So any mage (or any other class) that starts with H2H automatically is combat trained
If you pick up H2H as an OCCr then you are combat trained.
I would say that if its a secondary skill that would be up to the player and GM to decide if it was combat trained or just something like the hypothetical sport fighter or what ever else (since it is a hobby)

[Shark_Force]

I don't really see how much generally utilized than "Have a the skill necessary to engage in any sort of combat at all" is
I mean if you do not have a H2H skill then you have to use the "non combat actions" rules and the whole nine yards.
For ANYONE to engage in combat, of any kind, where they expect to use 'actions' they have to have a H2H skill.
That sounds suspiciously like the 'typical form of combat' to me.
Heck it sounds like a pretty good working definition for what is or is not combat trained.
If you have H2H skill, then you are combat trained, i.e. you can engage in combat via actions,
If you do NOT have an H2H skill, then you are NOT combat trained, and you have to use the far more limited "non-combat actions" thing.

you absolutely *can* engage in combat with no skill. it isn't a very good idea, of course, but you can (then again, there are likely many who would argue that engaging in combat *with* the appropriate skills is still a bad idea unless you've already exhausted all other options).

[eliakon]

I don't really see how much generally utilized than "Have a the skill necessary to engage in any sort of combat at all" is
I mean if you do not have a H2H skill then you have to use the "non combat actions" rules and the whole nine yards.
For ANYONE to engage in combat, of any kind, where they expect to use 'actions' they have to have a H2H skill.
That sounds suspiciously like the 'typical form of combat' to me.
Heck it sounds like a pretty good working definition for what is or is not combat trained.
If you have H2H skill, then you are combat trained, i.e. you can engage in combat via actions,
If you do NOT have an H2H skill, then you are NOT combat trained, and you have to use the far more limited "non-combat actions" thing.

you absolutely *can* engage in combat with no skill. it isn't a very good idea, of course, but you can (then again, there are likely many who would argue that engaging in combat *with* the appropriate skills is still a bad idea unless you've already exhausted all other options).

ANYONE can 'engage in combat'
that doesn't mean they are trained for it. If the premise is "what is able to engage in combat" then anything and everything is, even non-living things that are not sentient or sapient can.

I was specifically pointing out that with out a H2H skill though you can never engage in anything remotely approaching 'trained' because you get a total of 1 offensive or defensive action per round.
One.
That means every 15 seconds you can either attack, once, OR dodge, once, OR parry, once. Pick one.

That is, barely, 'engaging in combat' at all to be honest.
Most animals with 2-3 attacks per round and the ability to parry or dodge are massively better at fighting...

[Ed]

But people in this discussion seem to want to keep this discussion focusing on RAW, without much regard to context or intent.

Which is a problem. RAW is quite clear in context and intent that Mages are not supposed to be combat equal/superior to a Men @ Arms class. Mages are/can-be considered combat trained, but they are not (generally) as extensively combat trained as a M&A.

There is a difference between being trained to fight and being trained for combat. Mages can be trained to fight. They are not trained for combat.

[Shark_Force]

ANYONE can 'engage in combat'
that doesn't mean they are trained for it. If the premise is "what is able to engage in combat" then anything and everything is, even non-living things that are not sentient or sapient can.

I was specifically pointing out that with out a H2H skill though you can never engage in anything remotely approaching 'trained' because you get a total of 1 offensive or defensive action per round.
One.
That means every 15 seconds you can either attack, once, OR dodge, once, OR parry, once. Pick one.

That is, barely, 'engaging in combat' at all to be honest.
Most animals with 2-3 attacks per round and the ability to parry or dodge are massively better at fighting...

you get one action that is directly related to combat, at level 1. it does scale up later. or, you can get quite a few actions that aren't directly related to combat (specifically what counts is not entirely clear, unfortunately... we do know that strike/parry/dodge are combat actions, and that operating machines or opening a door are not combat actions, but we don't know if, say, casting superior invisibility while in total cover counts or not).

that's certainly a crippling drawback if your combats always consist of two people sitting opposite each other taking turns punching each other in the face.

less of a problem if your combats involve a lot more running behind cover, manipulating the environment, perhaps occasionally tending to the wounded or using various skills that don't involve trying to kill other people. now, obviously, the person with no combat training would rather not get into combat... but any time the goal of the combat is not just "kill all the people who aren't on your side" it is quite possible to contribute effectively in some way, whether that means hot-wiring an electronic door to open, hacking a computer to get important information, or driving a vehicle away from danger.

frankly, i suspect for most RL people who are actually trained for combat given a choice between getting stuck with someone who is pretty accurate at the firing range and has a black belt in kung fu but hasn't been through any training designed to prepare them for a firefight, or someone who never took any sort of self-defense class and has never fired a gun in their life but has demonstrated that they won't panic and do something stupid in a firefight (knows to stay in cover, follows instructions, etc), the person who knows kung fu and spends time at the firing range is far more annoying to be stuck with in a combat situation.

or to put it another way... i suspect proper combat training has a lot less to do with knowing *how* to throw a punch or fire a bullet than it has to do with knowing whether or not now is a good time to do those things.

[eliakon]

ANYONE can 'engage in combat'
that doesn't mean they are trained for it. If the premise is "what is able to engage in combat" then anything and everything is, even non-living things that are not sentient or sapient can.

I was specifically pointing out that with out a H2H skill though you can never engage in anything remotely approaching 'trained' because you get a total of 1 offensive or defensive action per round.
One.
That means every 15 seconds you can either attack, once, OR dodge, once, OR parry, once. Pick one.

That is, barely, 'engaging in combat' at all to be honest.
Most animals with 2-3 attacks per round and the ability to parry or dodge are massively better at fighting...

you get one action that is directly related to combat, at level 1. it does scale up later. or, you can get quite a few actions that aren't directly related to combat (specifically what counts is not entirely clear, unfortunately... we do know that strike/parry/dodge are combat actions, and that operating machines or opening a door are not combat actions, but we don't know if, say, casting superior invisibility while in total cover counts or not).

You get up to 6 non-combat actions at level 6 and max out at 3 combat actions at level 9. Each combat action burns 2 non-combat actions.
as for what does or does not count... if it is a combat action it counts, if it is a non-combat action then it doesn't count.
Pretty simple.
I.e. if the proposed action is related to combat then it is a combat action. If it s not related to combat then it isn't. When not clear ask your GM to make a case by case ruling. For that invisibility spell, I as the GM would ask the player why they are casting it. If they are going to use it to run away or hide... then it will take two of their non-combat actions. If they are going to use it to sneak up and surprise someone, or are casting it on a fighter... then it takes 2 combat actions (yes, that means that intent is everything. Guess what... intent IS everything)

that's certainly a crippling drawback if your combats always consist of two people sitting opposite each other taking turns punching each other in the face.

less of a problem if your combats involve a lot more running behind cover, manipulating the environment, perhaps occasionally tending to the wounded or using various skills that don't involve trying to kill other people.

Its still pretty crippling.
Unless your battles don't involve dodging or defense rolls...
since anything that involves attacking or defending is 'combat'
so, no its not just fights where people stand around and take turns punching in the face
Its pretty much every kind of fight ever.

now, obviously, the person with no combat training would rather not get into combat... but any time the goal of the combat is not just "kill all the people who aren't on your side" it is quite possible to contribute effectively in some way, whether that means hot-wiring an electronic door to open, hacking a computer to get important information, or driving a vehicle away from danger.

frankly, i suspect for most RL people who are actually trained for combat given a choice between getting stuck with someone who is pretty accurate at the firing range and has a black belt in kung fu but hasn't been through any training designed to prepare them for a firefight, or someone who never took any sort of self-defense class and has never fired a gun in their life but has demonstrated that they won't panic and do something stupid in a firefight (knows to stay in cover, follows instructions, etc), the person who knows kung fu and spends time at the firing range is far more annoying to be stuck with in a combat situation.

or to put it another way... i suspect proper combat training has a lot less to do with knowing *how* to throw a punch or fire a bullet than it has to do with knowing whether or not now is a good time to do those things.

So your claiming that having something that is described as a "Combat skill" and "Fighting Technique" is not really 'trained for combat'
But that some how we should assume that people that don't have it can be combat trained, but that some people with it aren't...
And that combat training isn't really about your training in combat but about your ability to not panic.

Um no, I utterly reject the idea that Combat training is not about your skills or training and is really about something utterly different like your innate calmness or if you panic or not...

[Blue_Lion]

But people in this discussion seem to want to keep this discussion focusing on RAW, without much regard to context or intent.

Which is a problem. RAW is quite clear in context and intent that Mages are not supposed to be combat equal/superior to a Men @ Arms class. Mages are/can-be considered combat trained, but they are not (generally) as extensively combat trained as a M&A.

There is a difference between being trained to fight and being trained for combat. Mages can be trained to fight. They are not trained for combat.

Um Combat is a fighting between two groups or forces.
So combat is fighting.
Unarmed combat is fighting without weapon.

So training to fight is also training for combat.

Basically training to fight is always training for combat.

[Blue_Lion]

Night,

I used a WP or two and a HtH as an arbitrary thing to represent some form of combat training. I agree that a Mage, or even Psychic can do damage in combat without any skills, but so can a guy with a stick or rock who never touched a weapon. Until we have HtH: Mage and WP: Magic Energy Blasts we need something to go by. I don't see how you can argue that a Light Blade, or a Psi-Sword are a lot more effective in combat with HtH basic and WP Sword then they are without.

My suggestion really would like to see a separate Magic HtH of some kind along with things like Magic Targeting. What do you suggest?

A skill for magical combat would definitely solve such a debate but no skill exists in rifts.

I played with an idea one time of replacing PB hand to hand system with combat abilites levels with things like boxing, and various marital arts being fighting styles you can take. It is not cannon and went basic, advanced, expert and dirty fighting that replaced standard PB hand to hand skills. (It never made sense to me that hand to hand training helped you shoot faster.) Such a house rule would allow us to rate the level combat competence in classes but that is not a cannon or RAW way to resolve it.

[flatline]

There is a difference between being trained to fight and being trained for combat. Mages can be trained to fight. They are not trained for combat.

Perhaps you could explain the difference for us?

--flatline

[Axelmania]

with out a H2H skill though you can never engage in anything remotely approaching 'trained' because you get a total of 1 offensive or defensive action per round.
One.
That means every 15 seconds you can either attack, once, OR dodge, once, OR parry, once. Pick one.

I probably wouldn't call Juggling a combat skill but I just noticed in Yin Sloth Junglesit gives you autoparry with small juggleable weapons. Pretty cool


Wrestling is more of a sport than combat but teaches fighting techniques. Horsemanship General isn't combat training yet introduces unique combat maneuvers like Charge. It is a confusing thing.

Ed whatever overly specific thing you call combat IRL should be described.more elaborately in Rifts which has a very inclusive use for the term.

Battlefield tactics for example, encompassing military skills like detect ambush.

[Shark_Force]

You get up to 6 non-combat actions at level 6 and max out at 3 combat actions at level 9. Each combat action burns 2 non-combat actions.
as for what does or does not count... if it is a combat action it counts, if it is a non-combat action then it doesn't count.
Pretty simple.
I.e. if the proposed action is related to combat then it is a combat action. If it s not related to combat then it isn't. When not clear ask your GM to make a case by case ruling. For that invisibility spell, I as the GM would ask the player why they are casting it. If they are going to use it to run away or hide... then it will take two of their non-combat actions. If they are going to use it to sneak up and surprise someone, or are casting it on a fighter... then it takes 2 combat actions (yes, that means that intent is everything. Guess what... intent IS everything)

that's certainly a crippling drawback if your combats always consist of two people sitting opposite each other taking turns punching each other in the face.

less of a problem if your combats involve a lot more running behind cover, manipulating the environment, perhaps occasionally tending to the wounded or using various skills that don't involve trying to kill other people.

Its still pretty crippling.
Unless your battles don't involve dodging or defense rolls...
since anything that involves attacking or defending is 'combat'
so, no its not just fights where people stand around and take turns punching in the face
Its pretty much every kind of fight ever.

now, obviously, the person with no combat training would rather not get into combat... but any time the goal of the combat is not just "kill all the people who aren't on your side" it is quite possible to contribute effectively in some way, whether that means hot-wiring an electronic door to open, hacking a computer to get important information, or driving a vehicle away from danger.

frankly, i suspect for most RL people who are actually trained for combat given a choice between getting stuck with someone who is pretty accurate at the firing range and has a black belt in kung fu but hasn't been through any training designed to prepare them for a firefight, or someone who never took any sort of self-defense class and has never fired a gun in their life but has demonstrated that they won't panic and do something stupid in a firefight (knows to stay in cover, follows instructions, etc), the person who knows kung fu and spends time at the firing range is far more annoying to be stuck with in a combat situation.

or to put it another way... i suspect proper combat training has a lot less to do with knowing *how* to throw a punch or fire a bullet than it has to do with knowing whether or not now is a good time to do those things.

So your claiming that having something that is described as a "Combat skill" and "Fighting Technique" is not really 'trained for combat'
But that some how we should assume that people that don't have it can be combat trained, but that some people with it aren't...
And that combat training isn't really about your training in combat but about your ability to not panic.

Um no, I utterly reject the idea that Combat training is not about your skills or training and is really about something utterly different like your innate calmness or if you panic or not...

thing is, that's a fairly simple way to rule combat vs non-combat actions, but it isn't at all consistent with itself, and it certainly isn't the only way to interpret the rules. so it's simple... for you to come up with on the fly, provided you don't need to involve anyone else. for any group of people to readily agree on exactly what it means? i have my doubts.

and actually, there should be plenty of combat situations that don't involve dodging, at least not all of the time and not for all participants. if there is a wall to hide behind that provides total cover, then no dodging should be required. or if there's a ditch to hide in. or if there's a thick forest that limits visibility to a few hundred feet. or if there's a vehicle you can stay inside of. or if there is someone who can provide any of those things, like a ley line walker casting energy field or if someone has a smoke grenade.

(if none of those things are available, then the people in your group that are supposed to be combat trained are probably also quite bad at their job... though it's possible you're stuck crossing a wide open plan with nothing to hide behind and you've completely run out of resources, i suppose, that should not be remotely typical).

now, certainly i don't think combat training specifically excludes training in the use of weapons or in basic combat techniques. but if you took a group of people who have some of the basic skills but not the right mindset and put them into a fight against actual soldiers, well, why don't you open up the history books and look at what happens typically when militia goes up against professional soldiers with no backup? it would be crazy to ignore the US tech advantage in many areas, but the simple fact is, if you gave a group of marines some assault rifles and gave a group of terrorists who have as much practice shooting the same assault rifles as the marines got in their training, and pit them against each other, the marines will most likely completely and utterly crush the opposition. read that article KC posted: you learn some things about shooting and unarmed combat in boot camp, but mostly your mind is being retrained. it's about changing your mind from being the mind of a civilian to the mind of a soldier, not about teaching you how to aim and fire a gun. the skills training mostly comes *after* you've become a soldier. you can't skip boot camp by showing off trophies from marksmanship competitions or martial arts tournaments, because that's not what makes a person ready for war.

[Ed]

But people in this discussion seem to want to keep this discussion focusing on RAW, without much regard to context or intent.

Which is a problem. RAW is quite clear in context and intent that Mages are not supposed to be combat equal/superior to a Men @ Arms class. Mages are/can-be considered combat trained, but they are not (generally) as extensively combat trained as a M&A.

There is a difference between being trained to fight and being trained for combat. Mages can be trained to fight. They are not trained for combat.

Um Combat is a fighting between two groups or forces.
So combat is fighting.
Unarmed combat is fighting without weapon.

So training to fight is also training for combat.

Basically training to fight is always training for combat.

Wrong. Otherwise one could take Basic training anywhere.

[Ed]

There is a difference between being trained to fight and being trained for combat. Mages can be trained to fight. They are not trained for combat.

Perhaps you could explain the difference for us?

--flatline

Combat training involves the ability to rapidly perform complex actions and follow orders, to exact and universal specifications, under conditions of extreme stress as part of an interchangeable unit. Being able to throw a punch, fire a weapon, or climb a rope are ancillary skills.

[eliakon]

You get up to 6 non-combat actions at level 6 and max out at 3 combat actions at level 9. Each combat action burns 2 non-combat actions.
as for what does or does not count... if it is a combat action it counts, if it is a non-combat action then it doesn't count.
Pretty simple.
I.e. if the proposed action is related to combat then it is a combat action. If it s not related to combat then it isn't. When not clear ask your GM to make a case by case ruling. For that invisibility spell, I as the GM would ask the player why they are casting it. If they are going to use it to run away or hide... then it will take two of their non-combat actions. If they are going to use it to sneak up and surprise someone, or are casting it on a fighter... then it takes 2 combat actions (yes, that means that intent is everything. Guess what... intent IS everything)

that's certainly a crippling drawback if your combats always consist of two people sitting opposite each other taking turns punching each other in the face.

less of a problem if your combats involve a lot more running behind cover, manipulating the environment, perhaps occasionally tending to the wounded or using various skills that don't involve trying to kill other people.

Its still pretty crippling.
Unless your battles don't involve dodging or defense rolls...
since anything that involves attacking or defending is 'combat'
so, no its not just fights where people stand around and take turns punching in the face
Its pretty much every kind of fight ever.

now, obviously, the person with no combat training would rather not get into combat... but any time the goal of the combat is not just "kill all the people who aren't on your side" it is quite possible to contribute effectively in some way, whether that means hot-wiring an electronic door to open, hacking a computer to get important information, or driving a vehicle away from danger.

frankly, i suspect for most RL people who are actually trained for combat given a choice between getting stuck with someone who is pretty accurate at the firing range and has a black belt in kung fu but hasn't been through any training designed to prepare them for a firefight, or someone who never took any sort of self-defense class and has never fired a gun in their life but has demonstrated that they won't panic and do something stupid in a firefight (knows to stay in cover, follows instructions, etc), the person who knows kung fu and spends time at the firing range is far more annoying to be stuck with in a combat situation.

or to put it another way... i suspect proper combat training has a lot less to do with knowing *how* to throw a punch or fire a bullet than it has to do with knowing whether or not now is a good time to do those things.

So your claiming that having something that is described as a "Combat skill" and "Fighting Technique" is not really 'trained for combat'
But that some how we should assume that people that don't have it can be combat trained, but that some people with it aren't...
And that combat training isn't really about your training in combat but about your ability to not panic.

Um no, I utterly reject the idea that Combat training is not about your skills or training and is really about something utterly different like your innate calmness or if you panic or not...

thing is, that's a fairly simple way to rule combat vs non-combat actions, but it isn't at all consistent with itself, and it certainly isn't the only way to interpret the rules. so it's simple... for you to come up with on the fly, provided you don't need to involve anyone else. for any group of people to readily agree on exactly what it means? i have my doubts.

and actually, there should be plenty of combat situations that don't involve dodging, at least not all of the time and not for all participants. if there is a wall to hide behind that provides total cover, then no dodging should be required. or if there's a ditch to hide in. or if there's a thick forest that limits visibility to a few hundred feet. or if there's a vehicle you can stay inside of. or if there is someone who can provide any of those things, like a ley line walker casting energy field or if someone has a smoke grenade.

(if none of those things are available, then the people in your group that are supposed to be combat trained are probably also quite bad at their job... though it's possible you're stuck crossing a wide open plan with nothing to hide behind and you've completely run out of resources, i suppose, that should not be remotely typical).

now, certainly i don't think combat training specifically excludes training in the use of weapons or in basic combat techniques. but if you took a group of people who have some of the basic skills but not the right mindset and put them into a fight against actual soldiers, well, why don't you open up the history books and look at what happens typically when militia goes up against professional soldiers with no backup? it would be crazy to ignore the US tech advantage in many areas, but the simple fact is, if you gave a group of marines some assault rifles and gave a group of terrorists who have as much practice shooting the same assault rifles as the marines got in their training, and pit them against each other, the marines will most likely completely and utterly crush the opposition. read that article KC posted: you learn some things about shooting and unarmed combat in boot camp, but mostly your mind is being retrained. it's about changing your mind from being the mind of a civilian to the mind of a soldier, not about teaching you how to aim and fire a gun. the skills training mostly comes *after* you've become a soldier. you can't skip boot camp by showing off trophies from marksmanship competitions or martial arts tournaments, because that's not what makes a person ready for war.

Your making the imaginary claim that only professional soldiers in professional armies are combat trained and everyone else is just pretending.
I would say that since the real world disagrees with you there (hmmm, lets start with the Winter War? Or Vietnam? Afghanistan? ISIS? The American Revolution? Want to go on?)
Combat training is OBVIOUSLY not the sole provence of people who are in military units.
The idea is a nice conceit of the military yes...
...but it is utterly not true. My command was pretty clear on trying to quash that falsehood every time it reared its ugly head in our unit.

Now lets address the idea that your 'mind is being retrained'
Hmmmm. Once again that is H2H skill (Any)...
...you know the skill that lets you operate under fire four times as effectively as someone who doesn't have the training?

As for "boot camp" = "Combat Training"
Sorry, that fails on its head.
Again, yes its a nice conceit to pretend that successfully completing boot camp is the requirement for being combat trained.
Its utterly false but its a nice conceit for the professional soldier to pretend that they alone are trained.
Its a an illusion that will get them killed in the real world though.
Because in the Real World you run into people who have combat training that is not from formal boot camps... and where they don't care about marching in formation, or bayonet training, or knowing the chain of command or the army song.... they might not even care if you can put on MOPP gear in 15 seconds or pass a first aid test...
...because they are actual fighters. Not soldiers true... but fighters. It is a deadly mistake to confuse the two and imagine that only soldiers can fight.

(and just for kicks and giggles... go look at the boot camp in Mercenary Adventures... now go and tell me with a straight face that every single military OCC can honestly claim, by RAW to be equal to having passed that?)

[Blue_Lion]

Um Combat is a fighting between two groups or forces.
So combat is fighting.
Unarmed combat is fighting without weapon.

So training to fight is also training for combat.

Basically training to fight is always training for combat.

Wrong. Otherwise one could take Basic training anywhere.

I am afraid your statement is not only unsupported but fundamentally flawed.
Basic combat training can be taken any where, it only requires some one to teach it.
To save cost the US concentrates its basic training at a few posts. That is about funding not a inability to do basic training anywhere you are mistaken politics with actual combat training restrictions.

[Blue_Lion]

There is a difference between being trained to fight and being trained for combat. Mages can be trained to fight. They are not trained for combat.

Perhaps you could explain the difference for us?

--flatline

Combat training involves the ability to rapidly perform complex actions and follow orders, to exact and universal specifications, under conditions of extreme stress as part of an interchangeable unit. Being able to throw a punch, fire a weapon, or climb a rope are ancillary skills.

So let me get this straight you think combat training does not about learning to fight in combat but to mindlessly fallow orders. Wow who the heck brain washed you. That is terminally stupid mind set. As a NCO in the US army I do not expect the average soldier to be able to perform complex actions in combat. I expect them to lay down fire and call for help. Because that is all a average soldier will do in a combat. What you described as combat training is smashing an elite unit and a line unit together and calling it a working definition.


However lets take a look at the claim deeper.

The Spartans in their day where one of the most highly trained military units on the field they where not interchangeable and their tactics did not rapidly change.
Gurilla fighters in Vietnam where small cells not interchangeable units.
SF teams are not interchangeable each team trains together for weeks to months before they can perform a mission as a team and are trained with certain specialties for the team based on its members.

What makes the US military special is we try to make out troops think for themselves.

The Germans in WWII said the problem with fighting the US is you never know what they will do.

Many of the tactics we know use to protect our deployed troops came from units that did not perform a order to a universal specification. Any unit that does things by a universal specification gets blown up, because the other side learns what they will do and plans for it.

[Ed]

Um Combat is a fighting between two groups or forces.
So combat is fighting.
Unarmed combat is fighting without weapon.

So training to fight is also training for combat.

Basically training to fight is always training for combat.

Wrong. Otherwise one could take Basic training anywhere.

I am afraid your statement is not only unsupported but fundamentally flawed.
Basic combat training can be taken any where, it only requires some one to teach it.
To save cost the US concentrates its basic training at a few posts. That is about funding not a inability to do basic training anywhere you are mistaken politics with actual combat training restrictions.

Lol. So you are saying I didn't have to go to Paris Island to learn LINE? I could have walked into any McDojo anywhere and become a Marine?

The answer to both of those questions is, no.

[eliakon]

Um Combat is a fighting between two groups or forces.
So combat is fighting.
Unarmed combat is fighting without weapon.

So training to fight is also training for combat.

Basically training to fight is always training for combat.

Wrong. Otherwise one could take Basic training anywhere.

I am afraid your statement is not only unsupported but fundamentally flawed.
Basic combat training can be taken any where, it only requires some one to teach it.
To save cost the US concentrates its basic training at a few posts. That is about funding not a inability to do basic training anywhere you are mistaken politics with actual combat training restrictions.

Lol. So you are saying I didn't have to go to Paris Island to learn LINE? I could have walked into any McDojo anywhere and become a Marine?

The answer to both of those questions is, no.

Your making an imaginary equivocation there.
1) Is that "LINE" (and ONLY LINE) is what makes a Marine.
2) You are making the false argument that LINE is some how mystically tied to Paris Island.
3) you are making the false equivocation between basic training facilities and 'McDojo'

All of which basically shows that your entire argument is a logical fallacy built on a logical fallacy.
A marine is more than just their close quarters combat training. To even pretend otherwise is an insult to every Marine ever.
Next up is that YES a qualified instructor for LINE could teach you LINE anywhere. There is nothing magical about teaching it at Paris Island. Heck the MARINES train Line in San Diego
Now if the Marines wanted to they could make more training facilities. But they 1) don't want to 2) don't need to. But they could if they wished.

ALL of which though is beside the point...
...a Marine is not a Marine because they have LINE training. Nor is LINE training the one, unique factor that makes them consider themselves 'trained for combat' Which means that trying to deflect to LINE training is, on top of everything else... a Strawman.

[Killer Cyborg]

Eliakon,
I think that what Ed is saying is that the US military requires all soldiers to go through boot camp for a reason, and that reason has to do with the article that I linked to earlier (have you read it?).
The US military does NOT let anybody opt out of basic training. It doesn't matter if you learned to shoot at a really good gun club. It doesn't matter if you learned HTH combat a a good dojo. It doesn't matter if you're a skilled rock climber and a marathon runner.
The military is never going to just look at you, look at your possession of those skills, and say "Okay, you can skip boot camp!"
It doesn't matter, because those things are NOT as important to military training as the discipline and teamwork that one learns during boot camp.

[Ed]

There is a difference between being trained to fight and being trained for combat. Mages can be trained to fight. They are not trained for combat.

Perhaps you could explain the difference for us?

--flatline

Combat training involves the ability to rapidly perform complex actions and follow orders, to exact and universal specifications, under conditions of extreme stress as part of an interchangeable unit. Being able to throw a punch, fire a weapon, or climb a rope are ancillary skills.

So let me get this straight you think combat training does not about learning to fight in combat but to mindlessly fallow orders. Wow who the heck brain washed you. That is terminally stupid mind set. As a NCO in the US army I do not expect the average soldier to be able to perform complex actions in combat. I expect them to lay down fire and call for help. Because that is all a average soldier will do in a combat. What you described as combat training is smashing an elite unit and a line unit together and calling it a working definition.


However lets take a look at the claim deeper.

The Spartans in their day where one of the most highly trained military units on the field they where not interchangeable and their tactics did not rapidly change.
Gurilla fighters in Vietnam where small cells not interchangeable units.
SF teams are not interchangeable each team trains together for weeks to months before they can perform a mission as a team and are trained with certain specialties for the team based on its members.

What makes the US military special is we try to make out troops think for themselves.

The Germans in WWII said the problem with fighting the US is you never know what they will do.

Many of the tactics we know use to protect our deployed troops came from units that did not perform a order to a universal specification. Any unit that does things by a universal specification gets blown up, because the other side learns what they will do and plans for it.

Even in the Army you have to follow orders, you have SOPs, and you have to know how to do more than "lay down fire and call for help".

And, even a pogue should know that you can take any random SPC 4 mortar tech out of Bragg and drop him into any unit with the same TO&E and he should be able to function without being retrained. That's the benefit of universal specifications.

[Ed]

Um Combat is a fighting between two groups or forces.
So combat is fighting.
Unarmed combat is fighting without weapon.

So training to fight is also training for combat.

Basically training to fight is always training for combat.

Wrong. Otherwise one could take Basic training anywhere.

I am afraid your statement is not only unsupported but fundamentally flawed.
Basic combat training can be taken any where, it only requires some one to teach it.
To save cost the US concentrates its basic training at a few posts. That is about funding not a inability to do basic training anywhere you are mistaken politics with actual combat training restrictions.

Lol. So you are saying I didn't have to go to Paris Island to learn LINE? I could have walked into any McDojo anywhere and become a Marine?

The answer to both of those questions is, no.

Your making an imaginary equivocation there.
1) Is that "LINE" (and ONLY LINE) is what makes a Marine.
2) You are making the false argument that LINE is some how mystically tied to Paris Island.
3) you are making the false equivocation between basic training facilities and 'McDojo'

All of which basically shows that your entire argument is a logical fallacy built on a logical fallacy.
A marine is more than just their close quarters combat training. To even pretend otherwise is an insult to every Marine ever.
Next up is that YES a qualified instructor for LINE could teach you LINE anywhere. There is nothing magical about teaching it at Paris Island. Heck the MARINES train Line in San Diego
Now if the Marines wanted to they could make more training facilities. But they 1) don't want to 2) don't need to. But they could if they wished.

ALL of which though is beside the point...
...a Marine is not a Marine because they have LINE training. Nor is LINE training the one, unique factor that makes them consider themselves 'trained for combat' Which means that trying to deflect to LINE training is, on top of everything else... a Strawman.

Now I'm confused. You have been saying that if someone is professionally trained in hand to hand fighting (LINE) and has a weapon proficiency (rifle) then they are by definition combat trained (Marine). Now you are claiming that is not the case? There must be some other unique additional factors... (Hint: I told you what they were above.)

[Shark_Force]

Your making the imaginary claim that only professional soldiers in professional armies are combat trained and everyone else is just pretending.
I would say that since the real world disagrees with you there (hmmm, lets start with the Winter War? Or Vietnam? Afghanistan? ISIS? The American Revolution? Want to go on?)
Combat training is OBVIOUSLY not the sole provence of people who are in military units.
The idea is a nice conceit of the military yes...
...but it is utterly not true. My command was pretty clear on trying to quash that falsehood every time it reared its ugly head in our unit.

Now lets address the idea that your 'mind is being retrained'
Hmmmm. Once again that is H2H skill (Any)...
...you know the skill that lets you operate under fire four times as effectively as someone who doesn't have the training?

As for "boot camp" = "Combat Training"
Sorry, that fails on its head.
Again, yes its a nice conceit to pretend that successfully completing boot camp is the requirement for being combat trained.
Its utterly false but its a nice conceit for the professional soldier to pretend that they alone are trained.
Its a an illusion that will get them killed in the real world though.
Because in the Real World you run into people who have combat training that is not from formal boot camps... and where they don't care about marching in formation, or bayonet training, or knowing the chain of command or the army song.... they might not even care if you can put on MOPP gear in 15 seconds or pass a first aid test...
...because they are actual fighters. Not soldiers true... but fighters. It is a deadly mistake to confuse the two and imagine that only soldiers can fight.

(and just for kicks and giggles... go look at the boot camp in Mercenary Adventures... now go and tell me with a straight face that every single military OCC can honestly claim, by RAW to be equal to having passed that?)

people with a poor excuse for combat training can be a threat. heck, people with absolutely no training at all can be a threat. a person who picks up a gun for the first time in their life and has only ever seen it used from a distance or in movies can be a threat.

that doesn't mean they're trained for combat.

and true, boot camp is not the only way to get combat trained. but if your training environment hasn't included the kinds of things you see in boot camp - ie changing you from someone who generally isn't prepared to charge into danger when needed, and who knows how to recognize when it is needed - you aren't combat trained. i don't mean you need a drill sergeant screaming at you specifically - someone who's managed to survive through a few combats out of sheer luck may develop many of the things that are trained in boot camp. some rare few people may even just do many of the things that are trained in boot camp on their own. as you said, they probably don't know much about marching or inspections. and you're right, those things don't make a person combat trained.

but seriously, it sounds like you didn't read the article about boot camp that KC posted at all. it doesn't talk about the skills you learn. the purpose of boot camp is to change regular civilians into people who don't act like normal people do in the middle of combat.

combat training isn't about knowing how to fire a rifle. any idiot can do that. it isn't even about being able to fire a rifle well.

and the funny thing about your examples... let's have a look at them:

the winter war: ar you implying the soviets didn't have combat training, or the finns? because frankly, if you're trying to argue that the finns didn't have combat training but held out, have you really *looked* at the other side? the soviets had literally killed or imprisoned most of their officer corps just before the entire debacle. and not only were the remaining officers (most of whom had not been properly trained for their new responsibilities) not trained in general, but they displayed an absolutely appalling lack of understanding for what fighting a war in finland in particular would be like. furthermore, the finns did in fact have a military, it wasn't just civilians fighting. if, on the other hand, you mean the russians won and had poor combat training, then i have to point out that their lack of combat training of the officers caused them to bungle almost every aspect of the invasion for months. this war demonstrates that a comparatively small and poorly equipped group can fight a larger and better equipped group... if the larger and better equipped group has collectively no idea what they're doing. or, in other words... if the larger and better equipped group has inadequate training.

the vietnam war: if you look at the history, it turns out one of the major problems is poor training. short tours of duty and shortened training of the troops combined with leaders inexperienced in fighting a defensive war led to difficulties. later on, however, when the war shifted to offensive, the US was actually winning battles... and then lost public support, which in a democracy eventually means that (winning or not) you lose the war. as time went on, and the US withdrew (having lost public support), the poorly trained local militaries proceeded to demonstrate that combat training makes a difference, by suffering major defeats as a result of their lack of it.

afghanistan: did you actually look at what happened when coalition forces actually got to fight in pitched battle? it wasn't even close. to this day, nobody in afghanistan thinks it's a good idea to try that again. they're certainly still dangerous - as i said, people with *no* training whatsoever can be dangerous. if you think they're even remotely close to being near as dangerous as the US forces would be in a similar situation, then i have to question where you're getting your information. again, the problem here is not the military, which is in fact so much more dangerous in a fight than their opposition that the opposition does everything they can to avoid an actual fight, but US public support. well, that and the poorly trained local military and corruption in the region.

ISIS: there isn't a ton of combat, last i checked. but when the US actually does manage to find a target and initiate combat, well... i don't seem to recall hearing much about how well ISIS actually does in those situations. certainly, they still kill people (including killing and wounding some US soldiers). but in terms of being an effective fighting force? just like the previous two, the only chance they have of winning is eroding public support. which they may very well do... the US lately isn't looking much like they care about anyone except themselves. but again, if this fight is lost (which it probably will be, the US public hasn't got a good track record of supporting wars that can't be quickly decisively won lately), it isn't because ISIS is anywhere remotely close to being as effective as the US military in a fight.

the american revolution: uhhh... you *have* heard of valley forge, right? and how critical it was in turning a group of people into soldiers? you do realize that before valley forge, washington and his poorly trained troops generally didn't do so well, right? (with one exception where they caught an opponent completely by surprise as a result of their opponents failing harder at paying attention to their surroundings than the US army did at executing their own plan)? that the US army was repeatedly saved by events beyond their control as they repeatedly retreated? that a major turning point came when the french got involved with their very much trained navy?

now, a poorly trained force *can* defeat a better trained one... with a lot of luck, or some major advantages, or colossal mistakes by the other side. but it requires some pretty exceptional circumstances, it isn't common, and it isn't because knowing how to use a weapon is remotely close to being as effective as actual combat training.

[Blue_Lion]

There is a difference between being trained to fight and being trained for combat. Mages can be trained to fight. They are not trained for combat.

Perhaps you could explain the difference for us?

--flatline

Combat training involves the ability to rapidly perform complex actions and follow orders, to exact and universal specifications, under conditions of extreme stress as part of an interchangeable unit. Being able to throw a punch, fire a weapon, or climb a rope are ancillary skills.

So let me get this straight you think combat training does not about learning to fight in combat but to mindlessly fallow orders. Wow who the heck brain washed you. That is terminally stupid mind set. As a NCO in the US army I do not expect the average soldier to be able to perform complex actions in combat. I expect them to lay down fire and call for help. Because that is all a average soldier will do in a combat. What you described as combat training is smashing an elite unit and a line unit together and calling it a working definition.


However lets take a look at the claim deeper.

The Spartans in their day where one of the most highly trained military units on the field they where not interchangeable and their tactics did not rapidly change.
Gurilla fighters in Vietnam where small cells not interchangeable units.
SF teams are not interchangeable each team trains together for weeks to months before they can perform a mission as a team and are trained with certain specialties for the team based on its members.

What makes the US military special is we try to make out troops think for themselves.

The Germans in WWII said the problem with fighting the US is you never know what they will do.

Many of the tactics we know use to protect our deployed troops came from units that did not perform a order to a universal specification. Any unit that does things by a universal specification gets blown up, because the other side learns what they will do and plans for it.

Even in the Army you have to follow orders, you have SOPs, and you have to know how to do more than "lay down fire and call for help".

And, even a pogue should know that you can take any random SPC 4 mortar tech out of Bragg and drop him into any unit with the same TO&E and he should be able to function without being retrained. That's the benefit of universal specifications.

I never said there where not SOPs but there is no universal specifications to fallowing orders in a fight. Sure we may have stanards of how you operate but there is no universal specifcations. And sure you do not need formal retraining when you take a experienced mortar man from one unit to another, but there is a training period when a new soldier gets to a unit before they fully integrate to the team they are on. They need to learn the flow of the team and their place in it. (A e-4 is typically an expericed member of the military in rifts terms they would likely be some where around level 4.) The average new soldier straight out of basic takes longer to become part of the team because well he has no experience to help him.

While we do have SOP they will get you killed if they do not allow you to be flexible. If you do the same thing the same way all the time it is real easy to get killed. A VIP convoy with a SOP to not stop for anything drove around around a route clearance convoy that stopped because they found a IED in the road. Guess what happened, the IED blew up the VIP vehicle why because the SOP did not allow the common sense when some one stops to blow up a IED do not drive around them. SOPs do not make you combat trained, while they do have there place (preventing you from committing a crime or violating some ones rights) any combat effective team needs to have the ability to adapt to protect themselves and make judgement calls.

I also know that between two deploying units of the same type the combat effectiveness of the two can varry quite a bit. Example two striker units I worked with one was quite good at its job and caused a reduction in insurgent activities while the other was a soft target that got hit on a regular basis. So while people claim the two units where interchangeable in truth they could not perform the same job.

My expectations of what the average soldier will do in a fight are based on what happens in a fight. The average soldier is not combat arms and though they went through basic you are lucky if they lay down fire and call for help in a fight. The average soldier is what you refer to with terms like pouge, FOBbits and REMF although technically combat trained they are not what I would call combat effective. I am sorry if that is something your 11C brain has trouble processing. But I have seen units under attack pull their gunners into the humvees and wait for some one to help them while taking fire from insurgents with RPGs(it was a MP unit on route security so they where not FOBbits) So what I expect is for a unit under attack to call for help and protect themselves until air support or a effective combat team arrives to save them.

Formal military training is not he only way to be combat trained and not every one that is trained for combat is good at it. Being combat trained and combat effective are two different things.