[Falconer]

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.

[JoeNapalm]

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

[Falconer]

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.

[JoeNapalm]

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

[Falconer]

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.

[RHat]

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?

[JoeNapalm]

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

[RHat]

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.

[JoeNapalm]

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

[Shadowjack]

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.

[Falconer]

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.

[Shadowjack]

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.

[mtfeeney = Baron]

Sr4a page 149, step 6.  Clearly states that damage is the post soak dv.  End of debate.

[JoeNapalm]

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

[Falconer]

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.