IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Patrick Goodman
post Jun 23 2013, 03:01 AM
Post #1


Tilting at Windmills
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,636
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Amarillo, TX, CAS
Member No.: 388



Take your wife to the emergency room and spend all afternoon there, and the thread starts to get out of hand. PLEASE focus on the actual errata issues, and take the arguments about interpretation to other threads. It's already to the "Pain in the Ass" stage to gather them from this thread.

So the rock's getting hotter, is what I'm saying, and if I drop it, someone else might not pick it up.

Reason for edit: Creating separate thread for discussion
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fatum
post Jun 26 2013, 04:28 AM
Post #2


Runner
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,801
Joined: 2-September 09
From: Moscow, Russia
Member No.: 17,589



At the start of each subsequent turn, RHat.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RHat
post Jun 26 2013, 04:38 AM
Post #3


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,962
Joined: 27-February 13
Member No.: 76,875



Point, though it changes nothing. The sequence goes like this:

Light On Fire > Combat Turn Ends, 3P damage is caused > Combat Turn Starts, damage is increased by 1 but not yet caused > Combat Turn Continues, fire is not put out > Combat Turn Ends, 4P damage is caused

The first damage hit, either way, is 3P.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DMiller
post Jun 26 2013, 04:42 AM
Post #4


Moving Target
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 681
Joined: 23-March 10
From: Japan
Member No.: 18,343



QUOTE (RHat @ Jun 26 2013, 01:38 PM) *
Point, though it changes nothing. The sequence goes like this:

Light On Fire > Combat Turn Ends, 3P damage is caused > Combat Turn Starts, damage is increased by 1 but not yet caused > Combat Turn Continues, fire is not put out > Combat Turn Ends, 4P damage is caused

The first damage hit, either way, is 3P.

This was my understanding as well. So the Wombat example does seem out of place.

Also, just wonering how long until something is completly destroyed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RHat
post Jun 26 2013, 04:56 AM
Post #5


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,962
Joined: 27-February 13
Member No.: 76,875



QUOTE (DMiller @ Jun 25 2013, 10:42 PM) *
This was my understanding as well. So the Wombat example does seem out of place.

Also, just wonering how long until something is completly destroyed.


Presumably you'd use the barrier rules to determine that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post Jun 26 2013, 06:19 AM
Post #6


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



QUOTE (Shemhazai @ Jun 26 2013, 05:21 AM) *
Also, I think the "Agility roll" should be fully qualified. Agility x 2? Agility + Intuition?

QUOTE (RHat @ Jun 26 2013, 08:07 AM) *
Also, "Agility roll" would be just Agility.

The rules quoted say that to put out a fire is an Agility + Intuition test. That's the roll that Wombat is making.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RHat
post Jun 26 2013, 06:22 AM
Post #7


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,962
Joined: 27-February 13
Member No.: 76,875



QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Jun 26 2013, 12:19 AM) *
The rules quoted say that to put out a fire is an Agility + Intuition test. That's the roll that Wombat is making.


That may well be - but the terminology "Agility test" is fully qualified.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post Jun 26 2013, 06:59 AM
Post #8


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



QUOTE (RHat @ Jun 26 2013, 02:22 PM) *
That may well be - but the terminology "Agility test" is fully qualified.

I feel dumber for having read this post. What's your point?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RHat
post Jun 26 2013, 07:07 AM
Post #9


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,962
Joined: 27-February 13
Member No.: 76,875



QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Jun 26 2013, 12:59 AM) *
I feel dumber for having read this post. What's your point?


The errata suggestion was merely that the Agility test should be fully qualified. It may well be that Agility test is in error, but it is in fact fully qualified - the logic of the suggestion would hold that all cases of "(Attribute) test" would be in error.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post Jun 26 2013, 07:43 AM
Post #10


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



But the words "Agility test" are never spoken (or written) except by you. The quoted example uses "Agility roll", and this is confusing, since the rule states the roll is Agility + Intution. Perhaps you're nit-picking the terminology of "fully qualified", but the poster's intent to question the quoted example's meaning was clear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RHat
post Jun 26 2013, 07:50 AM
Post #11


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,962
Joined: 27-February 13
Member No.: 76,875



QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Jun 26 2013, 01:43 AM) *
But the words "Agility test" are never spoken (or written) except by you. The quoted example uses "Agility roll", and this is confusing, since the rule states the roll is Agility + Intution. Perhaps you're nit-picking the terminology of "fully qualified", but the poster's intent to question the quoted example's meaning was clear.


Perhaps, but I'm of the opinion that errata suggestions should be precise to better facilitate their purpose.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post Jun 26 2013, 08:06 AM
Post #12


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



QUOTE (RHat @ Jun 26 2013, 03:50 PM) *
Perhaps, but I'm of the opinion that errata suggestions should be precise to better facilitate their purpose.

Your opinions aren't well transmitted with short, one-line responses that are devoid of any signs that you understood the meaning of the poster and are just trying to enforce preciseness. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RHat
post Jun 26 2013, 08:18 AM
Post #13


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,962
Joined: 27-February 13
Member No.: 76,875



Yeah, I'll grant I dropped the ball a bit. In conciliatory spirit, here's my suggested text correction:

QUOTE
Wombat catches fire. At the end of the Combat Turn Wombat has not put out the fire and has to resist 3P damage. In his next Action Phase Wombat decides to try to put out the fire with the classic stop, drop, and roll. The gamemaster calls it a Complex Action with a Drop Prone free action and asks for an Agility roll modified by his wounds. Wombat hits the dirt, rolls—and fails. Another Action Phase comes up and Wombat keeps trying. This time he gets 1 hit, still not enough to put out the fire but enough to lessen it a little. At the end of this Combat Turn Wombat faces 2P damage again.


Should read:

QUOTE
Wombat catches fire. At the end of the Combat Turn Wombat has not put out the fire and has to resist 3P damage. In his next Action Phase Wombat decides to try to put out the fire with the classic stop, drop, and roll. The gamemaster calls it a Complex Action with a Drop Prone free action and asks for an Agility+Intuition roll modified by his wounds. Wombat hits the dirt, rolls—and fails. Another Action Phase comes up and Wombat keeps trying. This time he gets 1 hit, still not enough to put out the fire but enough to lessen it a little. At the end of this Combat Turn Wombat faces 2P damage again.


Or, alternatively, the following:

QUOTE
When something catches fire, the fire has an initial Damage Value of 3. This damage is caused at the end of each Combat Turn, and the DV increases by 1 at the start of each subsequent Combat Turn until the item is completely destroyed or the fire is put out. You can fight the fire a number of ways (water, smothering, etc.), making an Agility + Intuition Test and reducing the fire’s DV by 1 for each hit.


Should read:

QUOTE
When something catches fire, the fire has an initial Damage Value of 3. This damage is caused at the end of each Combat Turn, and the DV increases by 1 at the start of each subsequent Combat Turn until the item is completely destroyed or the fire is put out. You can fight the fire a number of ways (water, smothering, etc.), making an Agility + Intuition Test (or a different test based on the action taken) and reducing the fire’s DV by 1 for each hit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BishopMcQ
post Jun 26 2013, 01:32 PM
Post #14


The back-up plan
**********

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 8,423
Joined: 15-January 03
From: San Diego
Member No.: 3,910



Alright folks. In an effort to keep the errata thread clean of debate, please post your discussions here. When you reach a consensus, put it in the Errata thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shemhazai
post Jun 26 2013, 08:06 PM
Post #15


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 598
Joined: 12-October 05
Member No.: 7,835



If he caught fire and took 3 damage at the end of the turn, shouldn't it go up by one at the beginning of the subsequent turn? So it would be 4, reduced by 1 from the Agility Test (or possibly Agility + Intuition Test) back down to 3, not 2.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DMiller
post Jun 27 2013, 01:14 AM
Post #16


Moving Target
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 681
Joined: 23-March 10
From: Japan
Member No.: 18,343



QUOTE (Shemhazai @ Jun 27 2013, 05:06 AM) *
If he caught fire and took 3 damage at the end of the turn, shouldn't it go up by one at the beginning of the subsequent turn? So it would be 4, reduced by 1 from the Agility Test (or possibly Agility + Intuition Test) back down to 3, not 2.

That would be my understanding as well. So for clarity there are 2 changes needed in this section, the Agility roll and the damage Wombat resists at the end of turn 2.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RHat
post Jun 27 2013, 01:27 AM
Post #17


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,962
Joined: 27-February 13
Member No.: 76,875



QUOTE (Shemhazai @ Jun 26 2013, 02:06 PM) *
If he caught fire and took 3 damage at the end of the turn, shouldn't it go up by one at the beginning of the subsequent turn? So it would be 4, reduced by 1 from the Agility Test (or possibly Agility + Intuition Test) back down to 3, not 2.


Ah, now I see what you were getting at. Somehow thought you were referring to the first damage hit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shemhazai
post Jun 27 2013, 08:55 PM
Post #18


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 598
Joined: 12-October 05
Member No.: 7,835



So on the fire damage example, should we make an official errata proposal in that thread?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DMiller
post Jun 28 2013, 01:18 AM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 681
Joined: 23-March 10
From: Japan
Member No.: 18,343



Yes, I think we've hashed it out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sengir
post Jul 16 2013, 04:31 PM
Post #20


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 5,088
Joined: 3-October 09
From: Kohle, Stahl und Bier
Member No.: 17,709



To avoid clogging the errata thread:
QUOTE (Bull @ Jul 15 2013, 10:51 PM) *
We just rebalanced 'ware, for the most part.

And brought up the maximum chargen money to 450,000 ¥. No matter whether you consider it cash or non-monetary rewards from the character's past, a character can now has access nearly twice the value he had before. If soyburger and lifestyle also cost double, that's no problem. But if they don't, we get back to why the Million Dollar Samurai was removed in the first place.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Abstruse
post Jul 16 2013, 06:04 PM
Post #21


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,451
Joined: 21-April 03
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 4,488



QUOTE (Sengir @ Jul 16 2013, 10:31 AM) *
To avoid clogging the errata thread:

And brought up the maximum chargen money to 450,000 ¥. No matter whether you consider it cash or non-monetary rewards from the character's past, a character can now has access nearly twice the value he had before. If soyburger and lifestyle also cost double, that's no problem. But if they don't, we get back to why the Million Dollar Samurai was removed in the first place.

And prices on cyberware have jumped too compared to 4A. And a lot of cyberware changed what it does (stuff that used to give a flat +dice bonus now increase limits instead, giving you a reason to choose one over the other). And Adept power point costs were slashed in half almost across the board. And magic users got a huge boost in Reckless Spellcasting and totem benefits. And deckers can brick pretty much anything in combat. Pretty much everyone else I've seen complaining about sams is how they got nerfed compared to all the other archetypes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st May 2025 - 06:13 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.