Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => Gear => Topic started by: Padawan on <01-30-13/2014:11>
-
In the description it says "Any time the user would suffer 2 or more points of damage, the damage is instantly reduced by one point."
When does a character "suffer" damage? Before damage resistance, or after when the "final DV has been determined"?
-
It'd be after you roll for damage soak wouldn't it? Like,
Bob gets shot for 7P Physical Damage, and rolls his Body+Ballistic Armour, and gets 5 hits. Bob takes 2P damage, which is reduced by 1 by his platelet factories, to 1P damage.
I think that's how they work.
-
That is correct, Aryeonos. And platelet factories are awesome :)
-
They are and they aren't. Yeah, not taking that extra point of damage is nice but sometimes that means you are just one point away from KO or knocked down due to your physical monitor being full. Which means the next shot could flat out kill you. This assumes of course lots of damage or a terrible soak roll or both. I've seen it happen to a couple players. So use with caution.
-
Okay, that's what I figured. Just wanted to make sure. Thanks!
-
One of the main advantages is that they are not restricted or forbidden. So you can just put them in and not worry about being harrassed by the cops because of it. Also for bioware I think they're not that expensive, but there are indeed some negatives.
-
They are and they aren't. Yeah, not taking that extra point of damage is nice but sometimes that means you are just one point away from KO or knocked down due to your physical monitor being full. Which means the next shot could flat out kill you. This assumes of course lots of damage or a terrible soak roll or both. I've seen it happen to a couple players. So use with caution.
OTOH it might also mean that when you're hit by a bit hit you've avoided enough damage earlier that you a survive a hit that would have otherwise killed you...
-
They are and they aren't. Yeah, not taking that extra point of damage is nice but sometimes that means you are just one point away from KO or knocked down due to your physical monitor being full. Which means the next shot could flat out kill you. This assumes of course lots of damage or a terrible soak roll or both. I've seen it happen to a couple players. So use with caution.
Can you honestly think of any point where you wouldn't want to take one less point of damage? If you're still standing only because of PF, that's a good clue that you want to get yourself out of the line of fire. Effectively out of the fight is better than knocked out/dead.
-
I didn't say I wouldn't want to take an extra point less of damage, merely that it added a new element to taking damage and a caution on what could happen. I point this out because for the characters I've seen die due to the example I gave, the players did not factor the change in how damage could work. Ideally a character that badly wounded would get out of the line of fire. Players don't always make wise choices on that sort of thing though. ;)
-
Go add a trauma damper to it and your street sam never goes out with this combo.
-
Padawan:
Most people I know go with the reading that damage is suffered when you're actually checking off boxes after rolling soak.
But the game doesn't say one way or the other by RAW (rules as written). And there's not a lot there to go on for RAI either (rules as intended).
Similarly the wording is such that the intent seems to be for physical damage... but the exact wording of the rules operative sentence which says what to actually do can apply to either physical or stun since it only says damage.
Generally for 'pink mohawk' action hero type games... it works well as a free point of damage soak applied before rolling dice to any damage type because it makes for better over the top action. For more reserved 'trenchcoat' type games it works better applied after the soak dice. It tends to follow the GM's playstyle pick there.
-
Platelet Factories damage reduction should always be applied after damage resistance. That is how you know the user has suffered 2 or more points of damage. When you're stricken, you haven't taken any damage until after this test. That is why it's called 'Damage Value' and not just damage.
-
No offense Shadowjack... but you're basing that upon one POSSIBLE reading of the rules.
You're not wrong, but you're not right either. It's just the rules as written are not conclusive that it is the only way it can be read grammatically and intentwise.
The original posters question is the rules are unclear.... and is asking if there is a clarification. I'm telling him THERE IS NO OFFICIAL CLARIFICATION. And many groups play it either way... and neither group is 'wrong' specifically because the rules don't say enough.
When people ask rules questions... I try to give them the straight dope even when I don't like the answer. If I have a preference for one outcome, I then tell them why as my opinion. Normally based on consequences which result elsewhere in the rules when it's done one way or another. In this case... the consequences are purely stylistic... if you like more move action hero type cinematics in your games... then it works better if you do it before soak rolls... if you don't like that level of over the topness... then do it after.
-
The rule on this particular bioware is very clear as written. I don't see what makes it open for interpretation. If you take two or more boxes of damage, you then reduce the damage by 1. DV is not damage taken, it's damage which needs to be resisted. No offense taken and hopefully you won't find this offensive, either. "Thus lessening the trauma from large wounds and quickly stopping bleeding." If I hit you with a 30 DV attack and you reduce all of the damage by armor, clearly you have not bled or suffered a large wound. That only occurs when you have actually been dealt damage, and that's when Platelet Factories come into play.
-
Shadowjack's got it. The platelet factories have no reason to engage if damage hasn't been taken.
-
The problem is the word "would". If you hit me with a 30DV attack, I "would" suffer 30 damage, but it was reduced by my resistance test.
Now with that said, I personally agree that it should be after resistance, but I can see how it could be interpreted otherwise (although it would be a stretch).
-
By that reasoning, the factories would always reduce damage, because you "would" have taken 2 damage if it had been more then 1.
-
The problem is the word "would". If you hit me with a 30DV attack, I "would" suffer 30 damage, but it was reduced by my resistance test.
Now with that said, I personally agree that it should be after resistance, but I can see how it could be interpreted otherwise (although it would be a stretch).
If a player in a game (even if I'm not the GM) ever tried to make that argument, I "would" smack them in the back of the head.
-
Just to put the nail in the coffin: There are no 0 or 1 DV attacks. What that proves is Platelet Factories would affect all attacks. So if that was the case, why would it mention two or more boxes of damage?
-
Just to put the nail in the coffin: There are no 0 or 1 DV attacks. What that proves is Platelet Factories would affect all attacks. So if that was the case, why would it mention two or more boxes of damage?
Unarmed Attack with Strength 2. Shuriken with Strength 2. There are probably a few other examples.
-
Just to put the nail in the coffin: There are no 0 or 1 DV attacks. What that proves is Platelet Factories would affect all attacks. So if that was the case, why would it mention two or more boxes of damage?
Unarmed Attack with Strength 2. Shuriken with Strength 2. There are probably a few other examples.
+1 net hit.
-
Just to put the nail in the coffin: There are no 0 or 1 DV attacks. What that proves is Platelet Factories would affect all attacks. So if that was the case, why would it mention two or more boxes of damage?
Unarmed Attack with Strength 2. Shuriken with Strength 2. There are probably a few other examples.
+1 net hit.
Strictly speaking, that's not the DV of the attack, but the modified DV.
-
Ah, yes. There are a very small amount of 1 DV attacks. But it is obviously not enough to warrant platelet factories being applied before actual damage is applied. It's very clear how they work.
-
Ah, yes. There are a very small amount of 1 DV attacks. But it is obviously not enough to warrant platelet factories being applied before actual damage is applied. It's very clear how they work.
You said none.
In any case: The text isn't "would take damage", its "suffers damage". You suffer the damage you don't resist - that is to say, you experience, are subjected to, and/or are affected by the damage you do not resist. Resisting means you do not experience, are not subjected to, and are not affected by that damage.
-
The book uses the term suffer damage interchangeably between actual damage taken and initial damage before resistance. Example:
Slim, Rex, and Teak are all unlucky enough to be standing near a grenade when it goes off. The grenade is fragmentation, with a base Damage Code of 12P(f). Slim is standing 3 meters away when it detonates, so he is hit with a 9P(f) attack (DV 12 minus 1 per meter away). Rex stands 6 meters away and so suffers only 6P(f) damage. Teak happens to be 12 meters away from the blast point, so he is outside the grenade’s blast effect entirely.
That said, the text for Trauma Damper gives a good rundown of how it and Platelet Factories works together, which is extremely telling for how Platelet Factories are supposed to work to begin with.Trauma Damper is applied after soaking (it's applied when you're actually ticking off boxes on your monitor). Platelet Factories are applied after Trauma Damper. Therefore, it goes to reason Platelet Factories go after the soak roll as well.
-
Good analysis as usual, Wells. I knew Platelet Factories definitely worked the way I said.
-
Except that the example never brings a resistance roll into the question.
And the trauma damper has the exact same wording problem.
So once again... there's nothing in the text to CONCLUSIVELY state whether it's pre or post soak. There's been no word from the powers that be either to state that it should work one way or another.
Don't get me wrong I use this reading as well as it makes more sense and suits my playstye better... it's only since I can't point at the RAW and make a conclusive argument I'm not going to tell other people they're doing it wrong and house ruling if they do it the other way. I've seen it played both ways and it really is just a matter of game style. Pink Mohawk over the top... go one way. Trenchcoat crowd should go the other.
-
Not to be too anal about this but the text seems 100% clear to me. Perhaps there is no clarification offered because they felt none was needed. Not trying to piss you off or anything but what is it about the wording that isn't clear?
-
Could someone explain why the platelet factories would ever be a bad thing? I didn't understand his example. Taking 1 less damage and being 1 point from dead is a LOT better than being dead already, isn't it?
-
Could someone explain why the platelet factories would ever be a bad thing? I didn't understand his example. Taking 1 less damage and being 1 point from dead is a LOT better than being dead already, isn't it?
Essence value. About it, really. Strict reading of the rules and a strict GM would say that you couldn't feign death upon receiving a nearly fatal blow, so an attacker that will continue to fire upon active threats would kill you where he wouldn't just knock you out and move on.
That someone would argue to hold onto that scrap shows some piss poor planning, though.
-
I've not seen a rule for playing dead when almost killed. Is that in the books, or is it a house rule that most GMs have for avoiding party wipes?
-
Essence value. About it, really. Strict reading of the rules and a strict GM would say that you couldn't feign death upon receiving a nearly fatal blow, so an attacker that will continue to fire upon active threats would kill you where he wouldn't just knock you out and move on.
How exactly would a Platelet factory stop you feigning death?
Why exactly would a Platelet factory cause somebody to not ignore you once you're unconcious?
-
Yup, still can't conceive of a situation where I would want to take more damage, rather than less damage.
I've run a character with the Platelet Factory / Trauma Damper combo, and have never thought "Damn! Soaked ANOTHER point of damage! I gotta get those frakking things removed!"
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
Yup, still can't conceive of a situation where I would want to take more damage, rather than less damage.
I've run a character with the Platelet Factory / Trauma Damper combo, and have never thought "Damn! Soaked ANOTHER point of damage! I gotta get those frakking things removed!"
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
This is beautiful in both its simplicity and bluntness.
-
Except that the example never brings a resistance roll into the question.
And the trauma damper has the exact same wording problem.
So once again... there's nothing in the text to CONCLUSIVELY state whether it's pre or post soak. There's been no word from the powers that be either to state that it should work one way or another.
It specifically mentions taking place when ticking off boxes on the condition monitor. When does that occur, before or after the resistance roll?
-
Essence value. About it, really. Strict reading of the rules and a strict GM would say that you couldn't feign death upon receiving a nearly fatal blow, so an attacker that will continue to fire upon active threats would kill you where he wouldn't just knock you out and move on.
How exactly would a Platelet factory stop you feigning death?
How exactly do you not understand the difference between not being able to feign death, and being knocked out?
Why exactly would a Platelet factory cause somebody to not ignore you once you're unconcious?
Exactly how pedantic do you have to be to come up with arguments? Or are you honestly asking me to prove a negative?
-
Wells you miss my point... by RAW you can't make that distinction. The example is not RAW, they're meant to demonstrate the intent of RAW or RAI.
You can make a RAI argument that this is how it's intended to function. But you can't say that someone playing pink-mohawk and doing it the other way is ignoring the rules.. you can at best make an argument they're ignoring the intent of the rules but not the letter of the rules. But you can't go so far to say that they're house ruling because they're following the letter of the rules.
Here's another case where RAW/RAI is unclear... the first fluff sentence of the implant deals with Physical damage. But the rules sentence deals with ALL damage... is it intended that the platelets only work on physical and physical only? Or do the platelets work on all damage physical or stun?
Either way is technically correct. So it's going to come down to GM call.
-
As to feigning death...
Just get a metabolic arrester (augmentation pg. 66) so your GM stops complaining that you're trying to add rules into the game that already exist in other 'ware.
If you don't like the fact that your teammates may not know you're still alive and leave you behind, that's your fault for making fake death too effective. :-\
-
Seriously, I've checked and checked again. Where are these 'feign death' rules? How can it be RAW if it wasn't W?
-
Slab, page 76 of arsenal. It's a drug that, rigged to an auto injector, could easily allow you to feign death. Such so that you'd need to take said person to a hospital to check if they're alive.
-
There's also some other methods of arresting metabolic functions - magic and 'ware, iirc.
-
Oh, so it's not just a "drop to the ground and pretend you're dead" rule... It's something you would actually need to prepare for. Ok, thanks. :)
-
I suppose, I would guess you could make a feign death roll as a willpower+agility roll if you really wanted setting it as a threshold for your opponents perception to notice you're faking it, increasing their threshold based on your wound modifiers.
-
Wells you miss my point... by RAW you can't make that distinction. The example is not RAW, they're meant to demonstrate the intent of RAW or RAI.
You can make a RAI argument that this is how it's intended to function. But you can't say that someone playing pink-mohawk and doing it the other way is ignoring the rules.. you can at best make an argument they're ignoring the intent of the rules but not the letter of the rules. But you can't go so far to say that they're house ruling because they're following the letter of the rules.
Here's another case where RAW/RAI is unclear... the first fluff sentence of the implant deals with Physical damage. But the rules sentence deals with ALL damage... is it intended that the platelets only work on physical and physical only? Or do the platelets work on all damage physical or stun?
Either way is technically correct. So it's going to come down to GM call.
Rule 0 always applies - it is always going to come down to the GM.
That said, the rules clearly state that that Platelet Factories subtract one point from the Damage TRACK when two or more points are taken to the Damage TRACK.
Look at Trauma Dampers:
Whenever Physical or Stun damage is inflicted upon a char- acter with a trauma damper, the damper helps reduce the damage. If the damage is Physical, shift 1 box from Physical to Stun; if the trauma stems from Stun damage, subtract 1 box. For example, a character who suffers a Physical wound with a DV 6 marks off 5 boxes of Physical Damage Track and 1 box on Stun Damage Track; if it had been Stun damage with DV 6, the character would only mark off 5 boxes on his Stun Damage Track.
In characters implanted with damage compensators, the trauma damper will only operate properly after the compensators’ ability to handle Physical and/or Stun damage has been exceeded. When combined with a platelet factory, the trauma damper is applied first, then the platelet factory effect is applied (i.e., the platelet fac- tory is only beneficial if 3 or more boxes of damage are suffered).
And that is if we choose to ignore the obvious...which is that PF operates by stopping the bleeding. If you apply it before the damage is taken, you're not bleeding.
Interpreting it the other way is a serious power jump for a 0.2 essence cost.
-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate
-
Examples that are in the rulebook are most assuredly RAW. The rules obviously override the examples if there is a contradiction (such as with damaging barriers), but if there isn't a contradiction, they are just as much part of the RAW as any other text in the book. In this case there is no contradiction with the actual rules. The example clarifies exactly how the implants (and the combination of them) function, which is, after all, the entire reason for having an example.
So, unless there is a rule that states you mark the track before the soak roll, there is a clear RAW way for it to be handled and a group doing it the other way is playing wrong if they're trying to maintain a RAW game.
-
Actually the examples are not considered RAW Wells. They never have been.
The examples never cover all the functions of the rules.. they're merely supposed to clarify intent or help people conceptualize them in operation.
Secondly you're relying on an example for a completely different piece of gear which has nothing to do with the text of the rules in the main book..
In fact, it was stated a long time ago by the line dev... that the written rules should be followed first and always... they always trump the tables and examples. (the original rule book was an utter mess with things in conflict, example characters, examples, & tables). One can always argue the example does not 100% of cases... and therefor can't establish how it always works for example, while the rules cover 100% of cases... they have to.
So while you can pull an example to divine intent... you can't use it to argue RAW.
This is not an attack, just an observation. The rules as written are not always 100% and unmbiguous.. and simply because someone disagrees with you or in this case sees an alternate reading does not mean they're wrong. You have a bad habit of stringing together very far and disparate items to make the most tendentious arguments then using them to unequivocally support your position.
But this isn't a fight, and there isn't a winner/loser in all this it's a discussion... and you should give others the benefit of a doubt before you go after them even if you disagree. (i've stated numerous times i play it the same way... but based on the wording of the RAW I can't criticize others who go the other way and have even seen it played that way in over-the-top pink mohawk action type games to good effect).
Your argument does an excellent job of establishing intent... but, my point isn't the intent it's the pure wording of the actual rule in the main book and rules text. Not of a completely different piece of ware in another book then stringing it's example along.
-
Your argument does an excellent job of establishing intent... but, my point isn't the intent it's the pure wording of the actual rule in the main book and rules text.
Rules lawyer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A rules lawyer is a participant in a rules-based environment who attempts to use the letter of the law without reference to the spirit, usually in order to gain an advantage within that environment.[1] The term is commonly used in wargaming and role playing game communities,[2] often pejoratively, as the "rules lawyer" is seen as an impediment to moving the game forward.
That's all that really needs to be said about that, but let us deconstruct it, anyway.
Platelet Factories: Platelet factories increase the body’s ability to handle Physical damage by accelerating the production of platelets within bone marrow, thus lessening the trauma from large wounds and quickly stopping bleeding. Any time the user suffers 2 or more points of damage, the damage is instantly reduced by one point.
This is clearly stated. It stands alone, short of a critical fumble on reading comprehension, as being a one point reduction to Physical damage the character sustains. It even explains HOW it works.
To interpret it as the much-more-potent automatic -1 DV, which is numerically equivalent to Titanium Bone Lacing (1.5 Essence / Availability 16F) or Dermal Plating 3 (1.5 Essence / Availability 15R) for 0.2 Essence / Availability 12, you have to operate under the assumption that having more platelets in your bloodstream -- not Magic platelets, not radioactive nano-platelets, just more normal platelets -- somehow reduces the kinetic energy of incoming attacks before they strike you.
I don't think anyone can defend that as a reasonable interpretation of the RAW.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
One thing... I've never claimed not to be a rules lawyer as far as the forums go. In fact, I enjoy learning all about numerous games systems and how their mechanics function (or don't function in some cases). So from a theoretical context... yes I enjoy playing rules lawyer on the forum... though I rarely do so in game unless directly asked a relevant rules question by the GM.
What some don't realize is that unlike most who only argue from the perspective of the player and pushing the envelope out as far as it can go. I enjoy playing advocatus diaboli especially for the often ignored and outnumbered GM's point of view (though I don't often GM).
As far as your argument Joe... the problem is in the definition of when the person suffers the attack... pre or post soak. The rules never say.
Your argument by forensical standards is not an appeal to rules authority because it doesn't deal with the ambiguity within the text. (and you can't claim it's not ambiguous because many people have asked this question in the past... so it's not as crystal clear as you make it out to be). What your argument is an example of is closer referred to as an 'appeal to consequences'... Why this instead of that?
Trying to argue the intent of the authors similarly doesn't change the deficiency in the letter of the text. But it's a much stronger case for arguing the intent the author didn't communicate effectively in writing the first time. If it is as crystal clear as you make it out... then people would never ask is this pre or post soak? But I've seen people pop up with this question at least once every few months for years now. So by that standard it's not as clear, cut, and dried as you make it to be.
-
As you freely admit to being a Rules Lawyer, let's cut through the logical fallacies, misdirection, semantics, and other bullcrap and get down to brass tacks:
Platelets stop bleeding, more platelets stop more bleeding. Occam's razor, and all that.
By what mechanism does your proposed interpretation of Platelet Factories reduce damage Pre-soak?
You are suggesting an interpretation.
State simply, if you can, your defense of your claim. Don't attack everyone else's statements. Defend your own.
If you cannot propose a plausible way for it to work, your premise is, quite simply, invalid.
How do extra platelets intercept damage before it even hits? Is there anything in the entire system that works that way?
Good day, sir.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
Joe:
Actually I don't have to say... because rules are rules... they don't need to be explained... only followed.
If the rules say blue is green and green is yellow. Then it means that no more no less... it doesn't matter how realistic or not it is.
If the rules are unclear as to whether the damage is pre-soak or post-soak... they're unclear as written. It's a failing of the rules to be addressed in a future errata or reprint. You get them clarified/fixed by pointing out such inconsistencies not arguing game metaphysics such as 'how' things happen.
As proof that they are unclear I submit the number of times this has been asked on the forums over nearly the past decade since SR4 was first published. it comes up semi-regularly. If it was as self-evident as you claim... this would not occur.
-
Joe:
Actually I don't have to say... because rules are rules... they don't need to be explained... only followed.
If the rules say blue is green and green is yellow. Then it means that no more no less... it doesn't matter how realistic or not it is.
Incorrect. The rules are the groundwork for the game world. What, exactly, is going on in the game world in your interpretation?
-
Joe:
Actually I don't have to say... because rules are rules... they don't need to be explained... only followed.
If the rules say blue is green and green is yellow. Then it means that no more no less... it doesn't matter how realistic or not it is.
If the rules are unclear as to whether the damage is pre-soak or post-soak... they're unclear as written. It's a failing of the rules to be addressed in a future errata or reprint. You get them clarified/fixed by pointing out such inconsistencies not arguing game metaphysics such as 'how' things happen.
As proof that they are unclear I submit the number of times this has been asked on the forums over nearly the past decade since SR4 was first published. it comes up semi-regularly. If it was as self-evident as you claim... this would not occur.
Seriously? That is the best you can do?
A half-baked attempt at misdirection? It doesn't matter how many times people ask, if only one interpretation makes sense.
Your premise is utterly indefensible. You can't even make something up.
Rules Lawyers, by the way, are the lowest form of gamer. I wouldn't go around calling myself one, if I were you. They intentionally obfuscate the rules, bog things down, confuse novice players, and generally detract from the game for their own advantage. As a GM, I would prefer they had the guts to just straight-up cheat. They would do less harm.
Feel free to continue this farce with anyone who will still debate it with you, though I suspect you'll have trouble finding an audience now that the con is up.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
Joe:
Actually I don't have to say... because rules are rules... they don't need to be explained... only followed.
If the rules say blue is green and green is yellow. Then it means that no more no less... it doesn't matter how realistic or not it is.
If the rules are unclear as to whether the damage is pre-soak or post-soak... they're unclear as written. It's a failing of the rules to be addressed in a future errata or reprint. You get them clarified/fixed by pointing out such inconsistencies not arguing game metaphysics such as 'how' things happen.
As proof that they are unclear I submit the number of times this has been asked on the forums over nearly the past decade since SR4 was first published. it comes up semi-regularly. If it was as self-evident as you claim... this would not occur.
Seriously? That is the best you can do?
A half-baked attempt at misdirection? It doesn't matter how many times people ask, if only one interpretation makes sense.
Your premise is utterly indefensible. You can't even make something up.
Rules Lawyers, by the way, are the lowest form of gamer. I wouldn't go around calling myself one, if I were you. They intentionally obfuscate the rules, bog things down, confuse novice players, and generally detract from the game for their own advantage. As a GM, I would prefer they had the guts to just straight-up cheat. They would do less harm.
Feel free to continue this farce with anyone who will still debate it with you, though I suspect you'll have trouble finding an audience now that the con is up.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
To be fair, there is the positive form of a Rules Lawyer - someone who looks to know the rules (both as written and intended) in detail, and is an asset for the GM in terms of figuring out a particular rule whether it helps or hurts them. Difference is, that form doesn't pull anything like these sorts of arguments.
-
Joe:
Actually I don't have to say... because rules are rules... they don't need to be explained... only followed.
If the rules say blue is green and green is yellow. Then it means that no more no less... it doesn't matter how realistic or not it is.
If the rules are unclear as to whether the damage is pre-soak or post-soak... they're unclear as written. It's a failing of the rules to be addressed in a future errata or reprint. You get them clarified/fixed by pointing out such inconsistencies not arguing game metaphysics such as 'how' things happen.
As proof that they are unclear I submit the number of times this has been asked on the forums over nearly the past decade since SR4 was first published. it comes up semi-regularly. If it was as self-evident as you claim... this would not occur.
Seriously? That is the best you can do?
A half-baked attempt at misdirection? It doesn't matter how many times people ask, if only one interpretation makes sense.
Your premise is utterly indefensible. You can't even make something up.
Rules Lawyers, by the way, are the lowest form of gamer. I wouldn't go around calling myself one, if I were you. They intentionally obfuscate the rules, bog things down, confuse novice players, and generally detract from the game for their own advantage. As a GM, I would prefer they had the guts to just straight-up cheat. They would do less harm.
Feel free to continue this farce with anyone who will still debate it with you, though I suspect you'll have trouble finding an audience now that the con is up.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
To be fair, there is the positive form of a Rules Lawyer - someone who looks to know the rules (both as written and intended) in detail, and is an asset for the GM in terms of figuring out a particular rule whether it helps or hurts them. Difference is, that form doesn't pull anything like these sorts of arguments.
True. I am all for open, non-disruptive discussion and debate on the rules. Rule 0 applies, the GM is final arbiter, but people should definitely discuss any aspect of the game that they are unclear on. Heck, it is the reason forums like this exist.
Rules Lawyers - those who try to exploit the rules, rather than play fair, get my blood up, though. Power Gamers look for ways to use the rules to their advantage, and I can deal with that, but a Rules Lawyer seeks to cloud the rules to do things they know shouldn't be done that way. Intentional misinterpretation. It's disingenuous.
If you were playing chess with someone, and every time you were about to take one of their pieces they had a specially trained ferret that darted out, grabbed the threatened piece off the board, then they put it back on when it was their turn, saying "It doesn't say in the rules that I CAN'T!" ... well ... you wouldn't hesitate to call them out on it, would you? Even though there is absolutely nothing in the rules of Chess banning trained ferrets?
I'm thinking "No."
-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate
-
How is this thread still alive? Falconer, the wording is very clear, man. It seems like you just don't want to admit you're wrong. I'll take one last small shot at this. They even use the word suffer in the wording. In order to suffer, you obviously must have taken damage. If you haven't taken damage yet, you clearly have not suffered. And that should be all the proof you need. The wording is crystal clear.
-
No Joe... the lowest form of player is the one who ignores the rules and cheats. The Munchkin's guide to powergaming is quite big on that trick... cheat.
The harder thing to do is to operate purely within the context of the rules.
Do I mind that one of my GM's is having fun breaking a bunch of fundamental rules of the system to make a good story... No... Why? We're all having fun... and rolling with it. If he does things one way or another you adapt... If there's a potential balance problem, you bring it up after the game so he's aware then let him run with it.
And I take pride in being a good rules lawyer on the forums. It means I've taken the time to read and understand a lot of the game. So sorry, I take your 'insult' as a badge of honor.
What you don't like is that I've already stated numerous times *I* play it that way... after soak but still argue that the rules themselves are not complete on this point. The reason you can't make an argument is there isn't enough support in the raw text of the rules to make the unequivocal assertion. Since it can't be ruled out... the best that can be done is to divine the intent of the authors (which I think is that it be done after soak). But RAI is not RAW.
You don't rely purely on the text to support your position and disqualify mine because you can't. You instead pull in outside sources... like your theory of how exactly they work in your mind. Why? Because that makes sense to you. I on the other hand look at the raw text of the rules and ask myself... is there something here in the rules to which I can absolutely call the other guy to the carpet for houseruling (rule 0). That answer is no.
The problem is that the rule as written is unclear and slightly ambiguous. If it wasn't we would not have had the OP's or others question at all. Rules in their own way are magic... they're not always explained with common sense, sometimes they're done a certain way because from a game perspective.. that's just what works in a counter-intuitive manner.
Shadowjack:
Look at the entire text... the word suffers in reference to attacks is used both pre and post soak through the text. That's not conclusive on it's face.
-
Per your request I've read the description one last time. It mentions "lessening trauma from large wounds and quickly stopping bleeding". How can you have a large wound or blood if you haven't taken any damage at all? As I said before, if I shoot you with a 30 DV attack and you reduce that damage to 0, you haven't suffered or bled. That to me is a clear indication that it is applied post soak.
-
Sr4a page 149, step 6. Clearly states that damage is the post soak dv. End of debate.
-
A Rules Lawyer is ignoring the rules and cheating...they just try to bury it in blather and bullcrap.
I can, and did, defend my interpretation using only the text from the paragraph on Platelet Factories, SR4A 346, and a basic comprehension of the English language.
Platelet Factories work by reducing bleeding, ergo after damage is applied. Fini.
You, on the other hand, have ceded all credibility by being unable to offer even the most basic defense of your alternate theory. Instead, you continue with your parade of straw men and red herrings.
The fact that you persist even after being called out on your hollow argument can only mean that you are trolling and/or incapable of acknowledging that your position lacks merit. In either case, I now leave you to your inanities.
Good day, sir.
-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate
-
mtfeeney and shadowjack.
p154... Suppressive fire.
"... the character is hit, suffering damage at the weapon's base damage value..."
Clear evidence in the rulebook that the word 'suffer' is used both pre and post soak. You can't use it to clearly and unequivocably state before or after the soak roll.
That's why I say the rules are inconclusive as written. When the character suffer's damage... The fluff sentence doesn't do anything from a rules perspective... it establishes fluff about the device. And it could be argued that the extra platelets stop a bleed from forming in the first place and reduce bruising and the like operating at the same time that the armor does from a fluff perspective.
If it weren't for this ambiguity in the rules operative sentence... I'd agree 100% with you. The problem is the writer wasn't as clear as he should have been.
Anyhow reread my earlier post... and remember this from the perspective of a rules lawyer... fluff is flavor. It does not establish how the rules actually operate. That's the function of the sentence which tells you exactly what to do to apply the effect.
Look at my oldest posts... I've stated the rules a little ambiguous then I made two appeals to consequences...
If you do it pre-soak... it makes for a more 'action hero' type game... as it is markedly more effective so your street sams/hackers/and even mages get a big boost from it... so it allows them to play more over the top because they're less likely to limit damage.
If not, you get a more reserved game.
Having seen people play it both ways... I stick to my position... which choice is simply a matter of what style of game the GM wants to play... pink mohawk or trenchcoat. It is not a game breaking piece of gear which is why I'm so amused at the amount of vehemence I'm getting out of some posters here. In the big scheme of the game it's pretty minor overall which is why I say it's primarily a flavor pick for the GM.
-
I didn't say anything about the word suffer. I showed you that damage is after soak.
Here's a question, though. It looks like the suppressive fire rules say about didn't reduce the dv. Please tell me this has been fixed or refuted somewhere.
-
Good find, Falconer. But what about "large wound" or "bleeding"? Those terms are much more definitive than "suffers". While I see your point, the diction you would require to have a clear definition of a rule would be a word count nightmare. Regarding the 'rules operative sentence', I agree that was a mistake by the writer but sometimes as a player you need to make an educated guess about the intended meaning. Perhaps that is simply not enough to satisfy you but as I read the entire description of Platelet Factories the rule is very clear to me.
-
mtfeeney:
Suppressive fire is reduced by armor and soaked. Your cite isn't operative here. Damage is referred to at many points... in both a pre and post-soak sense throughout the rule book. You don't mark off damage until the final step.
Shadowjack:
That cite was early in this thread on the first or second page... I thought you were already aware of it.
It comes down to a matter of writing style... read many of the entries in the book. It's not uncommon for there to be a fluff sentence or paragraph which describes/flavors the toy. Then this is immediately followed by a 'hard' rules sentence or paragraphs which explain exactly how to adjudicate the effect... What does it mean to reduce bleeding? the next sentence answers it... it reduces damage suffered over 3 by 1. Which brings up the problem... what does it mean to 'suffer' damage... since the book uses suffer interchangeably pre and post soak throughout the rules.
And I'm going to reiterate this... I think you have the correct reading of INTENT... and I play it the same way. I just don't think there's enough support in the rules to look at any particular GM and say. You're house ruling that and doing it wrong! Because it is ambiguous enough to cause confusion.
To give another example... the first sentence mentions physical damage... but the sentence immediatelly after it makes no distinction between stun and physical damage. The intent can be argued that it only work for physical and not stun... but by the same token a counter-argument can be made that it also says that any damage over 2 is reduced by one.
When stuff like this comes up in the rulebook... the only thing you can do as a rules lawyer is point the player at their GM and tell them to talk to them. Because it's ambiguous and is read either way at different tables and the GM may have particular ideas about how he wants to handle it. And put yourself in the GM's pants... do you really want a bunch of internet know-it-all's in a forum which commonly produces some pretty egregious powergaming combos telling you how to run your game?
That's why when it comes to the forums I often take it upon myself to play devil's advocate for the GM.