Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Adepts and Cybereyes
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 01:38 AM
As a result of a disagreement in another thread, I sent an inquiry to info(at)shadowrunrpg.com about a couple of matters. I am including my original email, along with the official response for discussion. Both messages remain in their original state, and are not edited in content.
| QUOTE |
| Inquiry: Dear Info-person, I have a couple of questions in regards to the Shadowrun RPG. #1. Is it possible to implant the cyberware Eye Light System in natural eyes, or does it require cyber replacement? #2. If an Adept gets cybereyes implanted, what happens to any Powers he may have that pertain to vision. For example, If the Adept has Improved Sense: Low Light vision and Improved Sense: Thermographic vision, and he gets a full cyber replacement, does he still retain his Improved Senses? If not, does he get to reassign any appropriate Power Points? #3. Related to the above question, if the Adept already has cybereyes, is he permitted or eligible to acquire Improved Sense: Vision Powers? Thanks in advance for your help... Fortune |
| QUOTE |
| Response: Hi Fortune, Good questions. I'll state my opinions on all three. As you know, these aren't answered directly by the books. #1 "Unless stated otherwise, any eye modification can be purchased as a retinal modification for natural eyes or as a cyber modification to cybereyes." (MM page 44, lower left corner.) You know this. The following Eye options are described starting on Man and Machine page 13. With each, I'll say whether the Description or Game Effects indicate they go only in CyberEyes. Datajack -- Description yes -- Game Effects yes All Eye Lasers -- Description no -- Game Effects yes (stated for all under Basic Eye Laser) Eyelight -- Description yes -- Game Effects no Eyelight Brightlight -- Description yes -- Game Effects no Eyelight Superflash -- Description yes -- Game Effects not directly Eye Weapons -- Description no -- Game Effects yes It is my belief that it is an oversight that the Game Effects for the various Eyelight systems do not directly state that they are available only in CyberEyes, and the GM should follow the indication given by the Description and make them only available in CyberEyes in his/her campaign. Therefore, all the cyberware Eye Light Systems are only available in Cyber Eyes. I submitted this as a correction for the next printing of Man and Machine on October 1, 2004, but do not know if it will be accepted or will fit on the page. #2 The Adept loses the 'natural' vision powers he purchased with Power Points. The Power Points are still allocated to those powers. He can choose to lose those Adept Powers the next time he undergoes loss of a Magic Point/Power Point or can replace his cybereyes with natural regrown ones to get his improves senses back. #3 The Adept with Cyber Eyes can not spend Power Points on Improved Vision until he has his cybereyes replaced with natural eyes. I hope my opinions on these help you. Sincerely, -- ShadowFaq |
Posted by: mrobviousjosh Nov 3 2004, 01:40 AM
Great. Clears that up for future reference. Just out of curiosity, did it take them like a month give or take to answer your question? It either took me one or two months to get an answer, I can't remember.
Posted by: Kanada Ten Nov 3 2004, 01:44 AM
Considering the thread in question was yesterday, I don't think it took a month. There has been much improvement at the info@shadowrun.com from what I can tell. However, as noted, these are just suggestions, not canon answers (yet anyway).
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 02:07 AM
Oy.
So an adept purchases Improved Sense (Ultrasound Vision). He then buys cybereyes. According to these house rules, he loses the power even if it's not described as being visual in any way whatsoever. Another adept takes Improved Sense (Protective Covers) and describes it as a second eyelid like Spock had in Star Trek... but those get ripped out the moment he has a new set of eyes installed (but magically reappear if he has cloned replacements). Yet another adept takes Improved Sense (Thermographic) which he describes as being heat sensors near his nose, sorta like a rattlesnake... but poof, a pair of cybereyes remove that one, too.
And why limit it to cybereyes? Another adept purchases Improved Sense (Select Sound Filter), describing it as a meditative focus that allows him to hear only what he wants ot hear. He then has cyberears installed. Baloop, there goes that power. Same exact logic is in play; the adept has his natural ears replaced with cybernetic ones, thus he should be unable to use any natural hearing advantage he has (which isn't an issue under normal circumstances since no metahuman type has any natural augmented hearing ability).
Just more poorly concieved house rules to ignore, doubly so if/when they come out in the FAQ.
Posted by: Kanada Ten Nov 3 2004, 02:22 AM
| QUOTE |
| So an adept purchases Improved Sense (Ultrasound Vision). He then buys cybereyes. According to these house rules, he loses the power even if it's not described as being visual in any way whatsoever. |
Ultrasonic Vision? Sounds like an oxymoron to an adept. That's a hearing improvement, not sight. The adept only loses it if he replaces the ear drum (and maybe voice box depending on what it's replaced by).
| QUOTE |
| Another adept takes Improved Sense (Protective Covers) and describes it as a second eyelid like Spock had in Star Trek... but those get ripped out the moment he has a new set of eyes installed (but magically reappear if he has cloned replacements). |
Protective Covers is not an improved sense in my opinion. More like a Mystic Armor, which isn't affected here.
| QUOTE |
| Yet another adept takes Improved Sense (Thermographic) which he describes as being heat sensors near his nose, sorta like a rattlesnake... |
You mean Thermosense which is different than Themorgraphic Vision, and would not be affected by cybereyes.
| QUOTE |
| Another adept purchases Improved Sense (Select Sound Filter), describing it as a meditative focus that allows him to hear only what he wants ot hear. He then has cyberears installed. |
Sound filter I think you could convince you're GM of. In fact most of the ear's limitations are inside the mind (the ear drum hears all frequencies but the brain only bothers with a small range), while those of vision are almost all inside the eye itself.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 02:55 AM
| QUOTE |
| Ultrasonic Vision? Sounds like an oxymoron to an adept. That's a hearing improvement, not sight. The adept only loses it if he replaces the ear drum (and maybe voice box depending on what it's replaced by). |
Nope, sorry, Ultrasound Vision is clearly an optical sense 'cause, like, they're only found installed in cybereyes. So because of that amazingly narrow perception, that's the only possible way they can be used in the game even through the use of magic. And because of this ill-conceived house rule, installing cybereyes means an adept with that sense loses it.
| QUOTE |
| You mean Thermosense which is different than Themorgraphic Vision, and would not be affected by cybereyes. |
No, I most definitely meant Therographic Vision. Therosense Organs (besides being Bioware and not an option by a strict reading of the rules for Improved Sense, and yes, I know why it says Cyberware... I'm being facetious) is something else entirely. The adept is "seeing" heat signatures, just not through the use of his eyes. But that doesn't matter because of this silly black-and-white interpretation of the rules; install some cybereyes and POOF the power is lost.
| QUOTE |
| Sound filter I think you could convince you're GM of. In fact most of the ear's limitations are inside the mind (the ear drum hears all frequencies but the brain only bothers with a small range), while those of vision are almost all inside the eye itself. |
This has little to do with convincing your GM. One could convince a GM of just about anything. If these rules were expanded to encompass all of the Improved Senses as it should (there's no reason that cybereyes should be singled out), then there's no way this would get around said rule. You get the ears, you lose your natural hearing abilities. Doesn't matter how they're described or how they function.
Which just shows why this rule is completely bogus.
If it was worded more along the lines of, "any power reliant on the adept's natural eyes is lost," I wouldn't have a problem with it. But that's not the case. You lose any natural visual ability no matter what. No exceptions. It's as poorly conceived as the "you can ignore all armor by making a Called Shot" malarky.
Posted by: toturi Nov 3 2004, 03:11 AM
Please try to be a little more consistant, Funk.
If Ultrasound vision must be a Vision mod even for adepts, then Thermographic vision must be a vision mod as well.
If the GM approved the Ultrasound by ruling that Ultrasound need not be technologically based, that somehow the adept's eyes produce and recieve ultrasound, yes, he should lose that Ultrasound vision if he gets cyber eyes.
If he had ruled instead that Ultrasound as a Improved Sense is linked instead to hearing, then no, he does not lose that power.
Same thing for thermographic vision. Except that there is nothing even remotely linking thermographic vision to another sense. Themosense is by itself a seperate sense.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 03:18 AM
| QUOTE |
| If Ultrasound vision must be a Vision mod even for adepts, then Thermographic vision must be a vision mod as well. |
I think you missed my point, because that's what I was saying. Or more correctly, that's what this house rule is saying.
Am I really that hard to understand? What I'm saying is that a player should be able to describe his Improved Senses anyway he likes as long as it makes sense for the character concept. What this house rule is saying is that none of that matters; if a character's Improved Sense is a visual mod, it's lost. Doesn't matter how you want to describe it -- [insert any cybereye accessory of your choosing here] is a cybereye modification, thus if you have it, it's considered a natural visual mod and you lose it if you get a cybereye.
Posted by: Shev Nov 3 2004, 03:26 AM
IMHO, the adept shouldn't lose the powers anyways. He's paid for those cybereyes with essence, and that makes them subject to all his benefits from magic. If an adept get muscle replacement and improved strength, they stack. Why should eyes be any different?
The power isn't so much in his eyes, but in his mind, at least in my opinion. Rather than just being tethered to the meat eyeballs (and magically restored when he gets new organic ones), those powers are a part of his essence(which pays for the cyber).
From a game balance perspective, I see no problem either. Really, most adepts will want the natural stuff anyways, as they get it at the highest rating and can cram in all they want in their eyes.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 3 2004, 03:28 AM
Doc, I'm iffy on that method of description as it makes it plausible that the Adept using the non-visual Thermovision could get around the Blind flaw.
~J
Posted by: toturi Nov 3 2004, 03:32 AM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Nov 3 2004, 11:18 AM) |
| What this house rule is saying is that none of that matters; if a character's Improved Sense is a visual mod, it's lost. Doesn't matter how you want to describe it -- [insert any cybereye accessory of your choosing here] is a cybereye modification, thus if you have it, it's considered a natural visual mod and you lose it if you get a cybereye. |
Which makes perfect sense. If it can be a cyber vision mod and you have it as an adept power and if you get a cyber eye, you lose it. A harsh house rule/opinion but I can see how it can work as long as it is applied consistantly.
Shev: I think a better analogy would be the adept having Improved Strength and a Cyberarm. I do not think the Improved Strength should stack.
1) Cyber arm + Improved Strength = Cyber eye + Improved Sense
2) Muscle Replacement + Improved Sense = Cybernetic vision mod + Improved Sense
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 03:38 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Doc, I'm iffy on that method of description as it makes it plausible that the Adept using the non-visual Thermovision could get around the Blind flaw. |
I mentioned that in the thread that spawned this one. Being blind is being blind; if you have any means of getting around it (short of Astral Perception which is addressed by the flaw), then you're not blind and thus wouldn't qualify for it. At best you could get away with one of the lesser blindness flaws like Color Blind.
I just don't like where this house rule is going. Why should it be limited to cybereyes? If you have the Improved Sense (Improved Touch) power, shouldn't Dermal Sheath or Orthoskin obliterate that ability, too? Shouldn't a Chemical Analyzer & Gas Spectrometer destroy your Improved Sense (Improved Scent and Taste) powers? And why stop with Improved Sense?
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 03:43 AM
toturi: That rule would apply to all adept powers that affect your (cyber)limbs. That includes but is not limited to Killing Hands, Nimble Fingers, Improved Ability (any that deal with hand/arm movements in any degree), Smashing Blow, and Traceless Walk (for legs/feet).
Have a cyberarm but describe your Killing Hands as being chaneled through your legs? Doesn't matter. Ditto for all the other powers.
Posted by: toturi Nov 3 2004, 03:43 AM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Nov 3 2004, 11:38 AM) |
| I just don't like where this house rule is going. Why should it be limited to cybereyes? If you have the Improved Sense (Improved Touch) power, shouldn't Dermal Sheath or Orthoskin obliterate that ability, too? Shouldn't a Chemical Analyzer & Gas Spectrometer destroy your Improved Sense (Improved Scent and Taste) powers? And why stop with Improved Sense? |
I would let Improve Touch be lost if the adept had Cyber Skin. Or his Improved Scent/Taste if he had his nose or tongue replaced with cyber nose/tongue.
Funk: Which rule?
Killing Hands is a name descriptor not related to only just the hands, there is no analogous cyberware for it to replace. Basically, I see the ruling as:
If power P can be cyber in cybernetic part C -> If X body part is replaced with a cybernetic part C -> Then power P is lost.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 03:53 AM
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| Shev: I think a better analogy would be the adept having Improved Strength and a Cyberarm. I do not think the Improved Strength should stack. 1) Cyber arm + Improved Strength = Cyber eye + Improved Sense |
The rule is a blanket rule. You don't get to choose which ones you want to apply and which ones you don't.
EDIT: Improved Taste, Touch, and Scent are unique to an adept, too. Didn't stop you from outlawing them with non-existant implants you mentioned above.
EDIT 2: In that case, Reflex Recorders, Skillwires (active or not), Chipjacks and Knowsofts (as of SOTA:2064 where Knowledge Skills like Artistic Skills are viable as Improved Abilities), Mnemonic Enhancers, and Enhanced Articulation all destroy Improved Ability.
Posted by: toturi Nov 3 2004, 03:58 AM
The above opinion from Shadowfaq is a specific one, there has been no blanketing that I can see. You are extrapolating from the above ruling, which is fine, but extrapolating gets more inaccurate the further you move from the point of extrapolation.
To reply:
Improved Scent is a Improved Sense ability, if Improved Scent is a cyber enhancement in a cyber nose, when adept gets his cyber nose, he loses the Improved Scent.
Also if Improved (Skill) is part of a cyber replacement, then if adept gets cyber replacement, he loses Improved (Skill).
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 03:58 AM
I was touching on your extrapolations. My first sentence of the last post is accurate either way. Doesn't matter how you describe the cybernetic vision mod you're mimicking (rules-wise) with Improved Sense. You get a cybereye, you lose it. End o' story.
Posted by: toturi Nov 3 2004, 04:07 AM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| And why limit it to cybereyes? Another adept purchases Improved Sense (Select Sound Filter), describing it as a meditative focus that allows him to hear only what he wants ot hear. He then has cyberears installed. Baloop, there goes that power. Same exact logic is in play; the adept has his natural ears replaced with cybernetic ones, thus he should be unable to use any natural hearing advantage he has (which isn't an issue under normal circumstances since no metahuman type has any natural augmented hearing ability). Just more poorly concieved house rules to ignore, doubly so if/when they come out in the FAQ. |
My extrapolations were in reply to this. You extrapolated and I obliged you.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 04:10 AM
No, you were replying to Shev in reference to his view on why the Improved Sense powers should still work. In response, you said:
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| Shev: I think a better analogy would be the adept having Improved Strength and a Cyberarm. I do not think the Improved Strength should stack. |
And went on from there. It had nothing to do with my comments at all, and I was running off of that one.
But whatever. No one particularly cares what I have to say around here anyway.
Posted by: toturi Nov 3 2004, 04:14 AM
And I was running off Shev's extrapolation in that the ruling could be applied to Improved Strength and Muscle Replacement.
Posted by: ShadowFaq Nov 3 2004, 04:20 AM
Dr. Funkenstein, please help me with this. My job is difficult enough trying to give advice to people who ask for it without having to contend with people who extend it beyond what was my meaning and then complain bitterly about their extensions. (By the way, this is a standard tactic during political races.)
Consider an Adept power that provides 'natural thermographic vision' to an Adept. I *interpret* this as meaning 1) the eye has cones and rods that react to a lower-frequency of light than is normal for humans and 2) the brain interprets these additional signals. If you install a cybereye with no sensors for the lower-frequency light there is nothing for the brain to 'see'. That's my *interpretation* of how the Adept Power works, and why it is lost if CyberEyes are implanted.
Can you help me? Please write up a better answer to Fortune that I can post on the online FAQ that follows my interpretation.
Thank you.
-- ShadowFaq. Post #1.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 3 2004, 04:32 AM
Er, is this legit? Admins, can we get a call?
~J
Posted by: Kremlin KOA Nov 3 2004, 04:35 AM
ookay uh what happens if the adept takes the power after he gets the cyber?
Posted by: Shev Nov 3 2004, 04:55 AM
| QUOTE (Kremlin KOA) |
| ookay uh what happens if the adept takes the power after he gets the cyber? |
Precisely. The thing is, cyber doesn't nullify this sort of thing beyond the power points lost from getting it in the first place.
Posted by: OurTeam Nov 3 2004, 05:01 AM
If the Adept has CyberEyes, how would taking the Adept Power change what frequencies of light the sensors in the Cybereyes can 'see'? Let's leave out getting the Thermo Vision option for the Cybereyes, lets just argue the Adept Power.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 05:07 AM
That is the subject of my third question, to which the response was basically 'He can't'.
The reason the ruling is specific to cybereyes is because the question did not mention other senses.
I would assume that if an Adept has Improved Sense: Glands-on-his-nose-that-resembles-thermographic-vision, then replacing his eyes wouldn't affect that sense, as it isn't eyes related, but is related to the glands on the nose. If these were replaced cybernetically, the the Adept would lose the magical sense.
There has been no canon ruling in regards to Improved Sense: Ultrasonic vision, or if there has, I missed it. As such, it can be ruled to work in whatever mysyical, non-technological manner you'd like, and is not strictly limited to cybereyes.
I think the problem is semantics. Doc is saying that if a sense is listed as being a cybereye mod, then by canon that sense has to exactly correspond to the Adept's eyes. I read the canon as saying that the Improved Sense Power can mimic any sense (non-tech) available through cyber (or bio). it does not state how this sense is mimiced, nor are any limitations implied other than the technical caveat.
Posted by: Eyeless Blond Nov 3 2004, 05:11 AM
Of course this leaves entirely aside the debate over whether an ultrasound emitter can accurately be describes as a "sense" as well... how 'bout we just leave Ultrasound Vision and Thermosense out of the thread entirely, hmm?
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 05:18 AM
I didn't bring it into the thread, and was one of the people that pointed to that very lack of info in regards to UV. 
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 05:18 AM
Only based upon what you were complaining about in the other thread, Fortune. In that thread, I was saying the same thing you're now claiming; Improved Sense does not have to correspond exactly with the cybernetic equivalence. Just because it's normally a cybereye accessory (Thermographic Vision, Ultrasound Vision, etc.), that doesn't mean the Improved Sense mimicking its effects has to originate from his natural eyes.
But like I said earlier in this thread, if they do choose one that's focused on their eyes, then yeah, I'm completely behind having them lose it if they replace their eyes.
I just don't care for these blanket rules, that's all. I'd be just as up in arms if there was a FAQ/quasi-FAQ entry that said Killing Hands *had* to be focused on your hands and/or Partial Cyberlimbs would completely nullify it.
Posted by: Kremlin KOA Nov 3 2004, 05:23 AM
So adepts are mutants now? then des increased att strength make you bulkier? does strength boost turn you green and stupid? I was under the impression that adept powers were magical in nature, not variant mutant rules from the ones in critters
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 05:24 AM
I don't think they were meant to be 'blanket rules' as opposed to being answers to my (in hindsight) too specific questions.
I think they can be easily extrapolated out to include (logical) sense loss for the respective cybernetic replacements, which with ears could be argued back and forth on an individual basis.
Also remember (this isn't to you Doc) that this ruling is only for full cybernetic replacement, not retinal mods, which should be totally compatable with any Adept Powers.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 05:27 AM
Doc ... I'm surprised you have no comment about the answer to question 1, and its (possible) inclusion in upcoming canon.
Posted by: Kremlin KOA Nov 3 2004, 05:31 AM
I will admit I like the balance advantage from this but I see a can of worms being opened by it
Posted by: Kremlin KOA Nov 3 2004, 05:34 AM
of course the answer to 1 opens can of worms "why the listings for eyelights and natural low light in the vis mod table?" my ruling is that retinal mod eye lights were more like skull lights
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 06:08 AM
| QUOTE (Kremlin KOA) |
| So adepts are mutants now? then des increased att strength make you bulkier? does strength boost turn you green and stupid? I was under the impression that adept powers were magical in nature, not variant mutant rules from the ones in critters |
I'm not saying you have to describe them as physiological characteristics at all. It's the beauty of the adept concept; you can explain most of their powers in all kinds of interesting and creative ways. Improved Sense (visual sense of choice) can be an improvement to your eye, a new sensory organ altogether, or even a mystical third eye that has no physical presence whatsoever. Killing Hands can simply be you knowing where to hit a target with exceptional skill, a glowing magical aura around your fists, bone shards jutting from your hands, or anything else you like within reason.
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| Doc ... I'm surprised you have no comment about the answer to question 1, and its (possible) inclusion in upcoming canon. |
If #1 is a genuine oversight, I have no problem with it. In the other thread I was only pointing out that, as written, it's not exclusive to cybereyes for the two main reasons already mentioned (it's not in the Game Effects unlike every other mod that's specific to cybereyes, and the Visibility Modifiers Table).
| QUOTE (ShadowFaq) |
| Can you help me? Please write up a better answer to Fortune that I can post on the online FAQ that follows my interpretation. |
Assuming this was a legitimate request and not something along the lines "do better or shut up," I'd probably answer along these lines (keeping in mind that I'm not very graceful with my words and that this is meant to be a FAQ as opposed to On-the-Fly Rules Changes):
1) Normally, such as in the case of Eye Datajacks and Eye Laser Systems, the Game Effects specify if a retinal modification is only available if the user has a replacement cybereye. While this is hinted at in the description for Eye Light Systems, you'll note that the Game Effects section makes no such mention. Likewise, the Visibility Modifiers Table (p. 49, M&M) have an entry for natural Low-Light Vision modified for Eye Light Systems. It thus seems fairly clear that the original authors intended Eye Light Systems to be available as a retinal modification. Another portion of the descriptive text also goes out of its way to mention that the implant produces a very low amount of heat, which seems to reinforce that intention as well.
2 & 3) When an adept develops the Improved Sense adept power, he has the option of duplicating a sensory cyberware improvement. By default, all adept powers are supernatural in origin but become a natural part of themselves over time (p. 168, SR3), but not necessarily natural in the way a dwarf's Thermographic Vision or an elf's Low Light Vision sensory improvements are. They are still magical powers afterall.
This leads to a really big question: When is an adept's power considered magical, natural, or augmented? As you may have guessed by now, there is no detailed answer for this question. Perhaps the best way to handle any situation like this is to talk with the player and discuss with them how they envision the power working. If the player describes their Improved Sense (Thermographic Vision) as a physiological improvement to the retinas of their eyes, it's best to treat that power as a natural visual improvement for purposes of determining the consequences of installing replacement cybereyes. If not and they give a convincing and plausible explanation (keeping in mind that adepts are a type of magician, so some leeway can be allowed), you may be convinced to allow them to keep the power even if they do have a new set of cybernetic eyes installed.
In essence, use your best judgement and go with what feels right to you and your players. There is no right or wrong answer to these questions at the present time.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 06:18 AM
| QUOTE |
| 1) Normally, such as in the case of Eye Datajacks and Eye Laser Systems, the Game Effects specify if a retinal modification is only available if the user has a replacement cybereye. While this is hinted at in the description for Eye Light Systems, you'll note that the Game Effects section makes no such mention. Likewise, the Visibility Modifiers Table (p. 49, M&M) have an entry for natural Low-Light Vision modified for Eye Light Systems. It thus seems fairly clear that the original authors intended Eye Light Systems to be available as a retinal modification. Another portion of the descriptive text also goes out of its way to mention that the implant produces a very low amount of heat, which seems to reinforce that intention as well. |
Of course, that write-up is not what he asked for. He asked for one that would explain his interpretation better (which really isn't needed in any other way than expansion to include other senses).
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 06:25 AM
EDIT (and corrected -- dyslexia strikes again): Yes, he did, but as far as I'm concerned it's his answer that's flawed, not the way he says it.
In my opinion, that one is a better answer considering the purpose and nature of a FAQ. FAQs aren't -- shouldn't -- be a place where one semi-anonymous guy (much as I may respect him outside of such dealings) gets to throw down a bunch of house rules and thus give them a semi-official standing. They should answer the questions based upon the published material first, and offer suggestions on how to resolve situations not covered by that material without violating said material or inventing new rules second.
As far as I'm concerned, flat out saying that adepts should lose their Improved Sense because that's how the one semi-anonymous guy decided to interpret the rules is inappropriate for an official FAQ.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 06:31 AM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Nov 3 2004, 05:25 PM) |
| No, he asked for a better answer. |
| QUOTE |
| Can you help me? Please write up a better answer to Fortune that I can post on the online FAQ that follows my interpretation. |
Seems pretty clear to me.
[edit]No problem.
[/edit]
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 06:33 AM
See, that's his job. He's specifically there to make official rulings and post them under the Official FAQ (because, as you say, the Errata is for correcting mistakes in the text itself).
Posted by: Kremlin KOA Nov 3 2004, 06:38 AM
>>>Insert partial threadjack here<<<
Shadowfaq: I must admit to disagreeing with a few of your rulings. I was hoping however to have an honest discussion about this with you at some point to openly share views, crunch numbers, and talk about such things like rules interpretations and similar. If you would be amenable to such please PM me with a way to contact you on a IRc channel, on MSN on AIm or on Yahoo, hell on ICQ if nothing else... and please add in good times (and relavent time zone) to get in touch.
Awaiting your reply with some anticipation
Kremlin K.O.A.
>>>We now return you to your regularly schedualed thread<<<
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 06:43 AM
| QUOTE (Fortune @ Nov 3 2004, 12:33 AM) |
| See, that's his job. He's specifically there to make official rulings and post them under the Official FAQ (because, as you say, the Errata is for correcting mistakes in the text itself). |
See my correction above.
And if that's the way they wish to treat the FAQs, they need to come up with a new name for it. FAQs are meant to answer questions about the rules. They shouldn't be used as a platform to experiment with new rules, especially with answers given off the cuff.
If it were me, I'd have at least four different categories. FAQs for answering and clarifying rules questions within the boundries of the rules. Unofficial Rule Fixes for throwing up house rules for situations not covered by the official rules. Official Rules and Rule Changes for giving hardcore changes to the rules that have been well researched, discussed, and playtested to make sure they work properly. And finally Errata for fixing legitimate typos, printing errors, and possibly cut material that finds their way into the books.
But then again, I'm anal retentive.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 07:09 AM
Still, ultimately someone has to make the ruling, and put it somewhere. You know by now that I don't agree with all of the rulings contained therein (especially called shots!), just like I don't agree with all the core rules. I do think there needs to be an official ruling on certain things (for Shadowrun: Missions and the like), even if it's only a basis for comparison when making up one's own house rule. The present location for such is the Official Shadowrun FAQ. The official rules format might change in the future (and that would be a good thing in my opinion), but as it stands, it's all we've got in the way of anything that can be considered 'official'.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 07:16 AM
Ideally if they do insist on putting them together, it'd be nice if they clearly answered the question and then clearly offered a house rule. Using my response to #1 above, something like this would be cool:
Official Answer: Normally, such as in the case of Eye Datajacks and Eye Laser Systems, the Game Effects specify if a retinal modification is only available if the user has a replacement cybereye. While this is hinted at in the description for Eye Light Systems, you'll note that the Game Effects section makes no such mention. Likewise, the Visibility Modifiers Table (p. 49, M&M) have an entry for natural Low-Light Vision modified for Eye Light Systems. It thus seems fairly clear that the original authors intended Eye Light Systems to be available as a retinal modification. Another portion of the descriptive text also goes out of its way to mention that the implant produces a very low amount of heat, which seems to reinforce that intention as well.
Unofficial Answer: Personally, I don't share that belief and if the topic came up in my game, I would alter the Game Effects for Eye Light Systems so that they included the cybereye stipulation that other similar implants have. As far as the Visibility Modifiers Table goes, the entry for natural Low-Light Vision w/ Eye Light Systems would be treated as a mistake and removed.
(Format look a little familiar?) 
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 07:25 AM
I'd have no problem with that (although I'd switch the responses 
)
Posted by: Eyeless Blond Nov 3 2004, 05:15 PM
Er, I'm not really sure how you could, actually. I'd say the preponderance of evidence is in Doc's corner, and thus must be the "Official" answer. On a similar vein, the famed "Option 2" for called shots in the FAQ is also an "Unofficial" answer, because there is absolutely no concrete evidence for it in the book at all.
That said, Funk, you are being rather unfair to the "Unofficial" answer. There *is* a note made in the flavor text entry for eyelights which assumes that they are exclusively a cybereye accesory. You will note that the bonuses for LL+eyelights and Natural LL+eyelights don't really "line up" well with the bonuses in the low-light/natural low-light column, which indicates to me that the eyelights were thrown in as little more than an afterthought anyway. The arguent does exist, even if it's technically not as well supported by the RAW. Simply dismissing it out of hand like that is just as dishonest as using your opinion in place of fact, which is what you objected to in the first place.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 05:24 PM
Considering we are discussing the response from a person (ShadowFAQ) who does have the capacity to give an 'official ruling' as far as canon goes, and considering his ruling is exactly opposite that which Doc wrote, I don't see how you can claim Doc's answer in any way 'official'.
As was even written in the quote (in the first post), ShadowFAQ's ruling was submitted for inclusion in the next printing of M&M.
Posted by: Eyeless Blond Nov 3 2004, 05:34 PM
I claim it as official in the sense that it's what is written in the book. No offense to ShadowFAQ, but after the "ruling" on Called Shots that's included on the website I refuse to consider his/their opinions any more valid than the Wizards Customer Service rulings for D&D games. Note that I am *not* dissing the ruling on Called Shots included on a more recent emailing that has been posted here btw; that one is actually pretty good, so the FAQ guy(s) may actually be improving.
Either way, though, I'm still going to rely more on what the books say than some guy who may or may not be able to make official rulings on anything and everything ever written by Fanpro. And the books say that Funk is right, whatever opinion this guy may have on the matter.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 05:40 PM
To be fair, the called shot ruling in the FAQ was made by Rob Boyle, the current Line Developer of Shadowrun (ie. The Man in charge).
The books actually can be read to say either view is right, hence the need for the question in the first place. The books are unclear on the matter, so Doc's answer is in no way 'better backed by canon' than the opposite response.
Posted by: Kremlin KOA Nov 3 2004, 05:57 PM
yeah well apparently ShadowFAQ is a new FAQ guy, so let's all give him a chance, kay?
Posted by: Eyeless Blond Nov 3 2004, 05:58 PM
Even if God Himself came down from Heaven, with angels trumpetting his coming and sinners wailing in anguish as his stare, and made the Called Shot ruling on the website I'd *still* ignore it. So you can keep your Rob Boyle, and I'll live in a world where a sammie with a hold-out *can't* use a Called Shot to destroy a main battle tank in one shot. 
As for eyelights, the actual canon issue is very clear: by page 44M&M, "Unless stated otherwise, any eye modification can be purchased as a retinal modification for natural eyes or as a cyber modification for cybereyes." Further, at no less than two other places in the same book this rule was specifically invoked to ensure that noone would take an eye datajack or eye laser as a retinal modification. This condition was not met for eyelights, so therefore by canon eyelights can be a retinal modification as per the general rule on p.44. Now, should they be or were they intended to be only cybermods... that's a question that's very much up for debate. But unless it's an actual official errata I'm not going to just accept some random guy's word over what it says in my book unless he's my GM.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 07:24 PM
Except for the fact that it is obviously stated in the first sentence of the Eye Light's description.
Nobody is telling you how to run your games. There are, though, people that would like an official ruling on things, one way or the other. They are also free to ignore the ruling or not, but that in no way invalidates the ruling in the first place.
As I said, in my games I use some things from canon (whether from books or FAQ), and ignore others. I make up house rules when necessary, but like to have some basis for those rulings in the first place. YMMV
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 07:30 PM
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| Except for the fact that it is obviously stated in the first sentence of the Eye Light's description. |
...of which Vision Magification has a similar throw-away line. So, obviously, magicians cannot have Vision Magnification unless it's in a Cybereye, and then only if it's Optical Magnification. Or, if you read it alternatively, it's saying that magicians only need Optical Magnification if it's installed ina Cybereye; otherwise, Electronic Magnification works just spiffy-fine as a retinal modification.
Learn the difference between a fluff description and the rules.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 07:51 PM
Obviously I did, since the most official ruling I can find seems to back up the way I read Eye Lights working.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 07:55 PM
So then you are saying the above is true (while simultaneously confusing an email citing a suggested house rule from an official source as an actual official ruling).
Fascinating.
Posted by: OurTeam Nov 3 2004, 07:57 PM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) | ||
...of which Vision Magification has a similar throw-away line. |
| QUOTE (SR3.300 @ Vision Magnification) |
| [b]Vision Magnification: This enhancement magnifies the visual image in the same manner as an imaginc scope and can modify a target number based on range. It comes in electronic and optical versions (the latter are necessary for magicians with cybereyes). Optical systems in normal eyes have a Concealability of 9; other version are undetectable without a biotech examination. |
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 08:03 PM
"....(the latter are necessary for magicians with cybereyes)..."
Right there. It only applies to magicians, but it specifically states "cybereyes" even though it's obviously a throw-away line, just like with the Eye Light Systems. Thus, according to Fortune and ShadowFAQ, that means either 1) magicians must take cybereyes if they want to use Vision Magnification, and then they may only take the Optical Vision Magnification version or 2) magicians without cybereyes can take and use Electronic Vision Magnification with their magic.
Note that it doesn't matter if they're an adept either, or someone who doesn't use spells or rely on LOS. Any magician with cybereyes can only take Optical Vision Magnification according to that entry OR cannot take Electronic Vision Magnfiication at all, even as a retinal modifiation.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 08:03 PM
My post was solely in response to your last statement ...
| QUOTE |
| Learn the difference between a fluff description and the rules. |
What's fascinating is how you are always trying to twist people's words.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 08:05 PM
I'm not twisting any words. That statement was in direct relation to what I said before it.
Posted by: OurTeam Nov 3 2004, 08:05 PM
"....(the latter are necessary for magicians with cybereyes)..."
Dr. Funk, I read that to mean that a Magician with Natural Eyes can use Electronic Vision Mag, but if he has Cyber Eyes and Vision Mag, then that Vision Mag has to be optical. Aren't I right on this?
I see nothing there that indicates that Cybereyes are required if you want Vision Mag.
Posted by: Critias Nov 3 2004, 08:07 PM
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| What's fascinating is how you are always trying to twist people's words. |
Fascinating is one word for it.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 08:14 PM
| QUOTE (OurTeam @ Nov 3 2004, 02:05 PM) |
| Dr. Funk, I read that to mean that a Magician with Natural Eyes can use Electronic Vision Mag, but if he has Cyber Eyes and Vision Mag, then that Vision Mag has to be optical. Aren't I right on this? |
Normally you would be. But not according to Fortune and not according to this silly house rule. The fluff description dares to utter the word "cybereyes" in passing, thus it becomes a hardcore rule that cannot be read any other way despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (like the Vision Modifiers Table in M&M for Eye Light Systems).
Under the current rules, magicians who cast spells or need LOS at range can only gain that ranged LOS when using Optical Magnification. That's what that bit of fluff text is backing up. Electronic Magnification, whether in a cybereye or a retinal mod, cannot be used to establish LOS. "Cybereye" is being used as a generic term, just like in the description for Eye Light Systems.
But according to this silly rule, because the word "cybereye" was muttered as part of a fluff description, it's a hard and fast rule. Now, a magician -- any magician whatsoever, even gun-toting adepts -- must take Optical Magnification if they wish to have any type of Vision Magnification if they have a cybereye. No exceptions allowed. It said "cybereye," dammit! But on the other hand, since it specifically stated "cybereye" that obviously means Electronic Magnification is freely available to magicians -- any magicians whatsoever, even those needing magnification to establish LOS -- as a retinal mod.
Posted by: Critias Nov 3 2004, 08:18 PM
So fine. Ignore the FAQ answer in your games. You've stated you don't like it, you've stated why. So why continue to bash it, call it silly, and insult the guy who answers the SR community's questions?
If you disagree with a FAQ or Errata, that's your right -- it's your game. But you're the one making the house rule. You don't have to be a dick about everything.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 08:20 PM
I don't know why I'm bothering to waste my breath on a jackass like yourself, but I was responding to a direct question asked of me by OurTeam on a message board dedicated to the rules of the game about the rules of the game.
So once again: Fuck off.
Posted by: Critias Nov 3 2004, 08:26 PM
No, you were replying to his question about how you're exagerating the ShadowFAQ's position, reading into it examples that were never stated, and generally making an ass of yourself by going on and on about how "silly" the rule is. By putting words and rules into ShadowFAQ's mouth (and everyone else's who happen to disagree with you), you can trivialize the answer to the actual eye-light/natural eye question, batter it out of all recognizable shape, and make it look stupid. It makes for a valid, but not really legit, argument.
Every time you've posted about this rule, you've blown it more and more out of proportion, used more and more insulting adjectives about it, and generally acted more and more like a troll. You don't like it, we get it. Calm down.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 08:30 PM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) | ||
Normally you would be. But not according to Fortune and not according to this silly house rule. |
Don't fucking put words in my mouth! This is what I mean by twisting people's words, a habit you indulge in too frequently.
I never stated (as in not once!) that this rule applied to any form of Vision Magnification. My original question was specific to Eye Lights, because I wanted a specific answer (from the closest-to-official source I can find). I don't have a problem with Vision Magnification, and am fully aware of the limitations of each variety, and even agree with how they are adjudicated in canon.
Posted by: Synner Nov 3 2004, 08:32 PM
Okay guys, let's try to tone it down. Name calling gets us nowhere. Funkenstein has made his position clear and so has almost everyone else.
Just for reference though, ShadowFAQ is just doing his job and answering a question to the best of his ability- he's even referenced why he made the call which is more than you can expect from other FAQers-, so give the guy a break.
If Funkenstein deems his reply as "silly" that's his opinion and as such is perfectly acceptable, after all it's only a matter of opinion.
However, ShadowFAQs reply should by no means be considered a "house rule", it is a ruling put forth by the person officially charged to do so by FanPro - it may even be wrong (we're all human) but it's the opinion of the person charged with giving his opinion on FanPro's behalf.
If and when, that "informal" email reply is included in the FAQ, it means it's met with Shadowrun developer's approval and becomes as canon as it gets (and if necessary a clarification will be included in forthcoming reprints) - whether people like the ruling or not, use it or not, it becomes part of the references SR writers have to take into account and is accepted as equally valid as anything printed in any current book (even superceding existing material in case of contradiction). Independently of how you feel about that particular ruling it becomes the "official" reference, and from that point on other contradictory interpretations are simply incorrect "per canon". In this respect there is no significant difference between a FAQ reply and an Errata.
There is a line in almost every Shadowrun book that tells you to drop or change anything you don't like or don't want in your game, rules or setting-wise - that is every GM's and player's perrogative. However, make no mistake for the game line developer, the writers and the material they put out from that point on the FAQ answer is just as valid as any printed book and later material will reflect this.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 08:38 PM
| QUOTE (Fortune @ Nov 3 2004, 02:30 PM) |
| I never stated (as in not once!) that this rule applied to any form of Vision Magnification. My original question was specific to Eye Lights, because I wanted a specific answer (from the closest-to-official source I can find). I don't have a problem with Vision Magnification, and am fully aware of the limitations of each variety, and even agree with how they are adjudicated in canon. |
My point is that you don't (shouldn't) get to choose when you want to take a bit of meaningless fluff as a hardcore rule and when you don't. If you do it in once case, you should be consistant and do it in all cases.
You want to claim that because Eye Light Systems mention cybereyes in a generic fashion in passing while ignoring ALL THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, fine. That's your perogative. I don't give a rat's ass what you want to do in your games. But if you ARE going to use that as a hardcore rule while ignoring everything else, and then run off crying to mommy to get them to make it official (while not pointing out any of the other evidence), then you -- or more correctly, they -- need to do it across the board.
Picking and choosing when you want is just pathetic.
Posted by: Nikoli Nov 3 2004, 08:40 PM
Well said Synner.
Also, remember, just because it's in the FAQ doesn't mena it has to be in your game. If a GM really wanted to, a great dragon qwould be made of circus peanuts if they so desired.
Me for example, I feel that astral perception should not peirce an active invisibility spell (not the improved invis, just the one that'deletes' the recipient from the viewers active conscious) but should be able to trace and analyze it once it is dropped. I wrote and asked the info peeps ar SR and they said that it does in fact pierce it, I disagree and I disregard when I run a game and that's it.
Posted by: Critias Nov 3 2004, 08:41 PM
Maybe they're taking ShadowFAQ's answer as the canon material in question, and not the teeny tiny little fluff blurb from M&M. Rather than "because Eye Light Systems mention cybereyes in a generic fashion in passing," maybe Fortune's basing his acceptance of the rule on the fact it's what ShadowFAQ said.
Posted by: Jason Farlander Nov 3 2004, 08:57 PM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| Picking and choosing when you want is just pathetic. |
What, exactly, is wrong with choosing to apply a rule such that it makes sense or seems reasonable, and to not apply said rule when it doesnt? What is inherently superior about making clearcut, across-the-board rulings about things that you don't feel are really functionally comparable?
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 09:04 PM
Let me rephrase then.
Trying to argue that a bit of descriptive text (contextually and functionally) as a hardcore rule is pathetic when you run off and ask an official source for clarification without pointing out all the other material relative to the question. Then, when someone points out that another similar aspect of the game uses the same exact type of descriptive text (contextually and functionally), you try and argue that it's just meaningless fluff 'cause you're cool with it.
That's the pathetic part. Picking and choosing what rules you want to use in your own games is fine. When you try and get someone to make it official, then it does, indeed, become official and the logic used there should be used across the board.
That's why I have a problem here. I don't care what Fortune wants to do in his game anymore than I care what anyone else wants to do in their game. But when an official source comes out that affects my game (in that I will now have to come up with a house rule) to change something that doesn't need changing whatsoever and sets a baseline for changing multiple other aspects of the game... that's where my problem lies.
EDIT: Especially since if ShadowFaqs' comment is correct, he submitted it for inclusion as errata for the next printing of the book. Of course, he probably didn't even know about the Visiblity Modifiers Table because Fortune declined to mention it (since it was direct evidence contrary to his desires), so now the book *will* have *genuine* errata that needs to be corrected.
In other words, this ruling from ShadowFaq is creating an error, not fixing one.
I don't blame ShadowFaq for not realizing all the problems it causes or not realizing there were other rules contrary to his ruling (ie, the Visibility Modifiers Table). In truth, I like the guy as a person and normally respect what he has to say. My problem is with what he's saying, not who he is. Which is true most of the time when I'm making comments like what I've said in this thread.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 09:05 PM
Funk: What part of the phrase "My original question was specific to Eye Lights, because I wanted a specific answer from the closest-to-official source I can find" do you not understand?
I did not ask for a general extrapolation valid over the entire rules system.
I did not ask anything about Vision Magnification.
I did not ask for a clarification to be made on the validity of fluff text.
I inquired as to whether or not Eye Lights could be implanted as retinal modifications.
That was the entire extent of my question, to which the response was clear. 'Eye Lights, and their various components can only be installed in a Cybereye.' The response also went on to list other examples where 'Fluff' text and 'Game Effects' text might differ, but incidently did not mention Vision Magnification. No ruling was given, nor needed, in the cases of the Eye Laser, Eye Datajack, and Eye Weapons, because the answer is specifically laid out in the 'Game Effects' section.
Posted by: mfb Nov 3 2004, 09:10 PM
yes, fortune, but the basis of the answer can logically be applied to other areas. the fact that you, specifically, didn't ask about those areas has no bearing on their application. what's good for the goose is good for the gander, even if you don't want a gander.
Posted by: Critias Nov 3 2004, 09:16 PM
Right, but the fact the rule might be applied to things Fortune didn't ask about doesn't make it what Funk is claiming. He's laying blame and specifically accusing Fortune of purposefully manipulating ShadowFAQ into giving the answer he gave, just to ruin Funk's day, while simultaneously condemning ShadowFAQ for falling for the devious ploy and trying to (apparently) belittle him into changing his mind.
Which is absurd, and wholly different from a rational discussion about the repurcussions of this rules call.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 09:19 PM
But there is no discrepancy (except in Funk's mind) with Vision Magnification, or any other cybereye modification. If there is, then a specific question could be asked to clarify that particular problem, without making a blatently stupid blanket extrapolation from one of a few exceptions to the otherwise general rule that the retinal modification option could be taken for all implants.
Seriously, is anyone (obviously other than Funk) confused by the rules for Vision Magnification? Does it need official clarification?
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 09:20 PM
The shoe fits snuggly. Especially since Fortune has tried to do this exact same thing in the past when people disagreed with him about the rules.
The only errata for Eye Light Systems is that "cybereye" needs to be changed to "eye." Doing so makes it consistant with its own Game Effects, the Visibility Modifiers Table, and everything else in the game.
Posted by: Eyeless Blond Nov 3 2004, 09:28 PM
And even that doesn't *need* to happen, since the fact that the eyelight is a cybereye modification does not necessarily perclude it from being a retinal modification as well. All they're saying in that one half-line of flavor text is that the eyelight is a cybereye modification. Nowhere does it actually say that it cannot be taken as a retinal mod, which is the necessary condition for it to *not* be available as a retinal mod (see P. 44 M&M for details).
That said, I'm abandoning this topic. Despite being right Doc has once again managed to alienate even those who agree with him, not through any faults in his logic, but the flaws in his character. Learn to chill, buddy.
Posted by: mfb Nov 3 2004, 09:29 PM
honestly? yes, some kind of sense for vision magnification would be nice. specifically, the part where cybereyes work with magic because they're paid for with essence, but that magically (heh) doesn't apply to vision mag. that's an argument for another thread, though.
edit: eyeless, that's the whole point of this thread. according to the official FAQ, which is at least half canon, eyelights (and certain other mods) cannot be taken with biological eyes. they can only be installed in cybereyes.
Posted by: Nikoli Nov 3 2004, 09:31 PM
Only thing I'm confused on is why Vision mag and Smartlink had to be rendered incompatible for reasons other than it made the combo so deadly it was redicoulous. keep in mind it only becomes that way when you neglect the other potential modifiers.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 09:33 PM
Eh, Vision Magnification 3 with a Smartlink only provides a -1 TN bonus over Vision Magnification with a Laser Sight. As well it should be since, yanno, Smartlinks are supposed to be smart Laser Sights without the Laser.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 09:33 PM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| The shoe fits snuggly. Especially since Fortune has tried to do this exact same thing in the past when people disagreed with him about the rules. |
If you say so.
| QUOTE |
| The only errata for Eye Light Systems is that "cybereye" needs to be changed to "eye." Doing so makes it consistant with its own Game Effects, the Visibility Modifiers Table, and everything else in the game. |
In your opinion. Obviously others disagree with you. That is what pisses you off.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 09:35 PM
No, blatant ignorance by sycophants who have to cry to mommy because they can't come up with a decent argument on their own, and holier-than-thou people who spend half their time whining in threads about how the topic is stupid, is what pisses me off. Solid and intelligent arguments, like what indivuduals such as OurTeam and mfb often provide, do not.
Posted by: Critias Nov 3 2004, 09:37 PM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| *growl, snarl, implied insult, impotent fist-shake!* |
Man, you're fun to talk games with. Are you always like this? I bet you're a blast to hang out with IRL.
Posted by: mfb Nov 3 2004, 09:40 PM
it's worth noting that this isn't--yet--an official ruling. the author of the reply doesn't know if it will be accepted into the FAQ, or into future errata. and, incidentally, if a player had tried to foist the "it's in the fluff" argument on me, i wouldn't have accepted it. the argument is very, very weak. if it gets FAQ'd/errata'd, okay, but the argument doesn't stand on its own.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 09:44 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| it's worth noting that this isn't--yet--an official ruling. the author of the reply doesn't know if it will be accepted into the FAQ, or into future errata. |
Which is why the topic's subtitle is 'Official opinion'.
Posted by: Fortune Nov 3 2004, 09:47 PM
Nice edit. Note that my original question included no arguments either for or against the ruling. No reference to the 'fluff' was ever made. I asked a straight question containing no bias one way or the other.
Posted by: mfb Nov 3 2004, 09:51 PM
yeah, i try do the same thing when i send in questions. or, rather, i present both sides as evenly as possible. that was more a gripe against the original authors and their editors than anything; if it was intended that eyelights only be installed in cybereyes, i can't think of a less clear wording to convey that than what's in M&M.
well, i take that back. "eyelights can be installed in biological eyes" would have been a much less clear way to state that they can only be installed in cybereyes.
Posted by: hyzmarca Nov 3 2004, 09:51 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| honestly? yes, some kind of sense for vision magnification would be nice. specifically, the part where cybereyes work with magic because they're paid for with essence, but that magically (heh) doesn't apply to vision mag. that's an argument for another thread, though. edit: eyeless, that's the whole point of this thread. according to the official FAQ, which is at least half canon, eyelights (and certain other mods) cannot be taken with biological eyes. they can only be installed in cybereyes. |
That because electronic vision magnification isn't actual magnification. It just makes the object appear to be closer by making the image larger. This also has the consequence of slightly decreasing the actual resolution of the image. So, your not looking at an image filtered through your cybereyes, your looking at an image digitaly altered by specialized processors in your cybereyes
Posted by: mfb Nov 3 2004, 09:53 PM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| That because electronic vision magnification isn't actual magnification. It just makes the object appear to be closer by making the image larger. |
as opposed to actually bringing the objects closer, or what?
Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Nov 3 2004, 09:54 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) | ||
as opposed to actually bringing the objects closer, or what? |
It's the difference between the zoom option in MS Paint and a telescope. It's not hard to grasp.
Posted by: Nikoli Nov 3 2004, 09:55 PM
or a new digital camera with 20x zoom (optical) and 400x zoom (electronic)
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 09:56 PM
Although mfb knows full well why, Electronic Magnification is invalid because it digitally recreates the image; you're no longer looking at the object, but a digital representation thereof. Optical Magnification modifies the way the light is reflecting in your eye, refocusing it to make it larger. You're still "seeing" the "real" object.
LOS for magic requires that you "see" the "real" object, which is why Optical Magnification is needed to establish LOS.
Posted by: mfb Nov 3 2004, 09:58 PM
that's silly, though. for one, digital optics are, or should be, way beyond the resolution of the human eye. for another, if the resolution is that low, why doesn't it affect other ranged attacks?
and, yeah, i know about the electronic-recreation argument. i just don't like it, in light of the "paid for essence" thing.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 09:59 PM
No arguments from me on that. I was simply discussing the logic the game attempts to use between the two.
The thing that's really weird is that Vision Magnification plays no part in spellcasting. VM reduces range categories -- and spells don't have ranges other than just "LOS." Well, that and "Touch" and whatnot.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 3 2004, 10:01 PM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Nov 3 2004, 04:33 PM) |
| Eh, Vision Magnification 3 with a Smartlink only provides a -1 TN bonus over Vision Magnification with a Laser Sight. As well it should be since, yanno, Smartlinks are supposed to be smart Laser Sights without the Laser. |
But it's a significantly better combination (nonobvious, has the various secondary benefits of a smartlink, can be taken entirely with cyberware leaving no external signs, and moves base TN to 2 from 3 regardless of range, lower when combined with a rangefinder!) regardless of the apparently small TN modifier.
And Critias, having fun baiting Doc? Several people have valid complaints with him on this thread, but you aren't one of them.
~J
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 10:05 PM
Again, no argument from me. But it just seems silly that Vision Magnification can magnify where a "dumb" laser dot is, but having the Smartlink Processer compensate for the change in Magnification is nigh impossible per the rules (and since they both have eye/cybereye components, they're automatically routed together if memory serves).
The difference with VM and a Laser Sight vs. VM and a Smartlink at Extreme Range is the same as it would be at point-blank range. Doesn't make a lot of sense that a Laser Sight's effectiveness jumps dramatically at Extreme Ranges, especially considering what little I know about firearms.
Posted by: Critias Nov 3 2004, 10:07 PM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| And Critias, having fun baiting Doc? A lot of people have valid complaints with him on this thread, but you aren't one of them. |
My bad. Seeing as how my first post to him is a suggestion he calm down and stop insulting people (because his point has been made), and his reply was just calling me a jackass and a command I "fuck off," I thought I was allowed to dislike him. Especially since, after that, I explained a little more fully what I meant when I said maybe he should calm down (and changed my tone when I did it), and got a little more name calling later...
Sorry, Kag, I guess I'm still just a little fuzzy on who the TSS applies to, and when. It seemed to me like he was pretty out of line, and no one was saying anything to him about it, so I thought it was kosher for me to reply with the same sardonic smugness and self-congratulatory tone, with less cussing. My mistake. Thanks for yelling at me about it, though, not him. It clears things up a whole lot.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 3 2004, 10:09 PM
Smarlink+Rangefinder at Extreme range provides -2, for a base TN (when combined with vismag) of 0.
My personal answer would be to kill the magnification/laser sight combo.
And Critias, if there's a TOS violation, report him. Don't flame back.
~J
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 10:15 PM
Actually a Smartlink-2 with Rangefinder and Vision Mag 3 at Extreme Range is (5-3) 2. If memory serves, range modifiers are: SM is 2/3/4(6)/7. SM+RF is 2/3/3(5)/5. LS+VS is 3/3/3/3. EDIT: D'oh, nevermind, even though I said it just a few minutes ago I forgot that VM reduces ranges, not providing a -1 bonus per range. Duh.
Anyway, I think the assumption is that if you have the two working together, Rangefinders are a thing of the past (and instead assumed to already be included in the Smartlink's bonus). Thus a Smartlink with Vision Magnification 3 would be 2 across the board, where a Laser Sight with VM3 would be 3 across the board. Rangefinders would be non-existant, or available for use with other devices instead of a Smartlink (with different rules).
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)