Judo is a striking skill

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I'm not adding anything. I'm reading the full content of his quote free from any of the bias some here bring against using Judo for strikes. Just there, you stripped away significant bits of the full statement whose significance I explained in prior posts.

Those "significant" bits are just examples. And yes, I stripped them, because a plain language reading of what he wrote, free from the clutter of the examples, is that Judo can't be used for striking. He literally says that striking is where the line is drawn. You then ignore that because it doesn't agree with your own bias, and try to apply the general rule ("Judo can substitute for DX") to the specific rule for the Weapons Table ("Weapons are grouped under the skills they are used with.") You could take the entire table and put it in paragraph format, where it would state "Punch using Brawling, Boxing, Karate, or DX. Damage is thr cr. Range is C. etc. etc." but that would be extremely inefficient, which is why it's presented in table format.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I pointed out that Kromm deliberately used quotes and those specific quotes appear at places in the rules exactly as he typed them. Doing so indicates an intention to characterize a category in a particular way. He chose the word "rules" and did not say "tables", and nothing in the tables matched a word search of the quotes he actually gave. I don't know why you want to strive so hard to avoid his meaning.

The tables are an extension of the Equipment and Weapon rules, which specifically say that weapons are grouped under the skills that they are used with. They are part and parcel of the entire rules on using weapons.

[ericbsmith]

As for where my "biases" come from, they come from the rules.

Judo does not mention punching, kicking, or striking in general in it's own description on p. B203.

Unarmed Combat on p. B370 divides unarmed combat skills into Striking and Grappling skills. Judo is on the Grappling list. Striking Skills are directed to the Weapons Table for stats.

Martial Arts p. 90 lists which attack type each of the six Unarmed Combat skills can be used for. Judo allows Grab, Grapple, Sweep, and Throw. Notably, it does *NOT* allow Punch, Kick, Elbow, or Knee; these latter four attacks are reserved for the three Striking Skills (the same ones listed on p. B370).

Every single Character Template that gives the option for Unarmed Combat skills offers one of the three Striking Skills and then one of the three Grappling skills, as outlined on p. B370. I know this because I've literally programmed several hundred character templates into GCA.

Under the heading Melee Weapons, p. B271, it states that weapons on the Weapons Table are grouped under the skill or skills that they can be used with. Notable here is that Punch and Teeth are *ALWAYS* used in Close Combat, because they have a Reach of C. If Judo was supposed to substitute for DX to strike in Close Combat there's *NO* reason to leave it off the list of allowable skills, because a Punch is always in Close Combat. It's omission suggests that it was never intended to be used to Punch.

The *ONLY* way you get to being able to Punch with Judo is by reading two rules on two different pages and then combine them in a way that is not explicitly mentioned.

Which is more likely, that Judo was left off of the Weapons Table on purpose, or that they accidentally forgot to mention that Judo can Punch in multiple pages across multiple books?

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

Those "significant" bits are just examples.

I don't know what you mean by "just" examples. As I have mentioned, they are examples the define the category Kromm means.

And yes, I stripped them, because a plain language reading of what he wrote, free from the clutter of the examples, is that Judo can't be used for striking.

Based on that remark, I think you were right earlier when you felt our discussion was not making progress.

Cheers.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I don't know what you mean by "just" examples. As I have mentioned, they are examples the define the category Kromm means.

Yes, the category he defines is a when a "rule explicitly lists the allowed skills." He didn't put any restriction on it beyond that; you did.

The Weapon Table entries explicitly list the allowed skills. Unless you can come up with a concrete reason to exclude them, it seems that they are "like" the examples he listed, in that they are an "explicit list of allowed skills."

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

Yes, the category he defines is a when a "rule explicitly lists the allowed skills." He didn't put any restriction on it beyond that; you did.

The Weapon Table entries explicitly list the allowed skills. Unless you can come up with a concrete reason to exclude them, it seems that they are "like" the examples he listed, in that they are an "explicit list of allowed skills."

I've already spoken to all those points, but you don't seem to read my remarks or acknowledge their content.

So, just to let you know, I won't be reading or replying to your comments on this subject further.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I've already spoken to all those points, but you don't seem to read my remarks or acknowledge their content.

You don't, though. You assert that it's one way because you assert it. You have yet to provide one concrete reason why that assertion should be. You've merely asserted that it's your own belief that because Kromm quoted from one type of rule that means that he meant to exclude other types of rules.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Given that Kromm quoted specific phrases that appear under specific rules, it does not seem like he meant that to be extrapolated to other usages such as the listings in the weapons table(s).

You provide no reason why Kromm would have meant for the list to be exclusive and not inclusive of other types of listings. You merely assert that he didn't intend for it to be extrapolated and then the rest of your argument from there forward has rested on your assertion that Kromm meant something that he did not say.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

So, just to let you know, I won't be reading or replying to your comments on this subject further.

That's fine. You're still wrong.

[Andrew Hackard]

Closing thread and have asked the GURPS forum mods to take a look, because it has been reported multiple times.