see also Jon-Eric Hexum. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) . Miss that big lug.


um, at that time he and his family also were staying at their residence the Kowloon tong section of Hong Kong, so actually they were living there. And considering he was was working on 'Game of Death' at the time with Golden Harvest studios, based in Hong Kong, it's not that odd that he was in HK.

yea that movie game of death would've been his first feature film using a katana. could you imagine how sweet that would have been

still sucks they died.

Baahhhh... Kung Fu had its own Section in SR3 (Cannon Companion) and SR4 (Arsenal). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

And in order to include it here, the question remains "what would be different". I don't see how a striking form of kung fu would be radically different from things like Karate in the mechanics, nor where grappling forms (if there are any - this is a bit of a weak area in my knowledge) would be different from things like Aikido, Judo, or Jiu Jutsu in the mechanics.

The flavour may be different, but a flavour difference does not alone justify a separate mechanical write-up.

And yet they felt the need for at least THREE FORMS of Boxing and THREE FORMS of Wrestling, not counting any specialized forms of either (which I seem to recall, but cannot currently confirm as AFB). The fact that they are different in the fluff obviously warranted separate entries of each, even though mechanically, they are similar, which is exactly your argument against Kung Fu.

Actually, the various styles of Boxing and Wrestling are more mechanically different from one another than they are similar - for example, Sport and Sumo wrestling are about as similar to each other as Jiu Justsu and Krav Maga.

Forgive me if I err but did not Japan's rise continue in the SR universe and as such would not Asian martial arts which are similar all be lumped into the Japanese ones?

However, I was not referring to Sport and Sumo (or maybe I was, no book on hand) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Boxing, Boxing and Boxing are all variations on a theme. And are really not all that different. They are different approaches to the same sport. And yet, somehow, they are different enough to get their own section. Kung Fu, by dint of its history and the hundred sub-styles or so, deserves its own section on that alone. Especially because of its influence in the genre.

Sport and Sumo are two of the versions of Wrestling, and simply an easy example. Overall, however, the variations are no more similar two each other than other similar styles are to each other; they're sufficiently mechanically different. You're arguing that the flavour isn't different enough, which is a completely different argument and frankly less relevant to whether or not it should be in the book.

Actually, with the plethora of sub-styles out there, I am also arguing that Kung Fu is different enough mechanically (since there is absolutely no doubt that they differ by Fluff) than Karate (or Aikido, or Jui Jitsu, etc.) to warrant its own section. If it wasn't, it would not likely have existed for as long as it has, nor spun off as many variant sub-styles as it has. They are very different beasts stylistically.

Sadly, I will have to organize that particular project a bit later, as I have other projects on my plate currently, but eventually I will get to it. I mean really, of our current group of 5, there are at least 2 players with sub-styles of Kung Fu as their focus (both of which are very different from each other), so it is not like it is something that will never come up.

But that mechanical argument rationally requires an explanation of HOW it would differ, which you have thus far failed to provide (and when directly asked, you launched this distraction into Wrestling and Boxing).

I answered that earlier. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And I have to believe that you are intelligent enough to know that Kung Fu and Karate have far more differences than they do similarities, stylistically. Even when the basics are so similar (which can be said about a LOT of martial arts, even the ones they chose to highlight).

If you are going to say that Kung Fu is similar to Karate because they all use Strikes, Blocks and Kicks, then you would have exactly one Physical Entry for about 70% of the entries in Run and Gun (and your argument for boxing falls short at that point as well, since they are all about, you know, boxing), because they are ALL a combination of those moves. Sadly, since the various moves are scattered all aver two books and they require cross referencing, I have been unable to pursue that project as of yet. I will get to it, as I indicated many posts ago, and in the one above.

Point is, I think the design team dropped the ball on this (as mentioned). So again, someone has to pick up the slack to fill in something that probably should have been there to start with. Arguing that Karate and Kung Fu is similar would have also applied to SR3 and SR4's version of Martial Arts, and yet they were different enough to warrant their own sections in those previous editions. And that with only the limited "Maneuvers" available at the time. Now that there are two-three times (or more) maneuvers than in previous editions, you would think that the differences would be even easier to highlight. I think they took the easy way out, personally. And the solution they went with is very lacking, in my opinion.

Just to point out that Boxing (Swarmer Style) differs from Boxing (Classic Style) by a single technique. Classic has Oaken Stance (Def vs. Knockdown) and Swarmer has Two Headed Snake.

So a single technique difference is all that is needed to justify a new martial art.

I think Tai Chi compared to Wing Chun compared to Hsing-i compared to Bagua compared to Shuai Jiao compared to whatever the Shaolin train in compared to...etc. should have enough differences to justify one technique difference. Hell the Hsing-i guy almost certainly has some form of countertrike comboed with a full attack as they explode through you in a straight line while the Bagua stylist will have more of the bending the reed style counterstriking as they circle step and evade before striking from some unexpected angle.

Honestly, the Kunst Des Fechtens and Fiore Dei Liberi and Destreza seem a bit superfluous, they function with one weapon really, either the rapier or the claymore in this book (subbing the claymore in for a two handed longsword here, a generic sword may be a suitable fit too) and do a lot of people really use those? Enough to justify having three different styles for them? Not casting judgement on the styles themselves, just on whether it's going to be useful to players as much as something much more widely known like kung fu.

Though I do note there is a Drunken Boxing style in there which may well be versatile enough technique wise to cover several types of kung fu with a simple refluff.

If you really want to complain about martial arts, how about Kunst des Fechtens: The TL;DR version is "it's sword fighting, you can do sword moves", nothing more. Cool moves? Nope. Exciting news due to cyberware or super-advanced materials, which could explain why anybody would use a two-handed sword? Nope. Since somebody felt like using gratuitous German, maybe work out something around academic fencing in Germany (+5 contacts, resistance to alcohol, Uncouth, Prejudiced (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) )? Nope, nope, nope. The net gain? Somebody who wants to go medieval on his opponents can choose some MA techniques -- unless he chooses to go medieval with a combat hammer or polearm, so even assuming a sufficient number of potential reenactors this entry only covers a fraction of them.

PS: Wow, looks like somebody had the same random thought (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Thank You... This is good information to have. And I completely agree with you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I know the historical connection (and there's actually a kata that's supposed to be based on some Chinese guy's form, but that's neither here not there), but kung fu is largely a gap in my knowledge. I should correct that some day, but today is not the day for me to research kung fu.

Also, Karate's not really that much of a monolith once you get right down to it - there's a lot of styles that can accurately claim a pretty strong lineage. What's printed doesn't do a bad job of representing a common core for styles of karate, though.

And as far as an answer, I haven't seen one - I've seen you saying you didn't have an answer at the time, but I haven't seen an answer.

Also Opposing Force versus Clinch. Though it had been more, but that's what I get for eyeballing when I'm this tired. Might be a certain consideration for the influence of the technique - Clinch, for example, can be a pretty major one.

i need to get this book. any word on IRL release? will they do an errata before the release? just wondering

Hehehehehehehe, ha-haahh-hahahahahaha! Aahh-hah-haahh, hah-haahh! Ahahahaah-haahh! Ah-hah! Aahh! Haah, ha-haah-haah! Ahh-hah-hah-hah-haah-haahh-haaahhh-ah!

~Umi

I'm still waiting on them doing an errata prining for the core. PDF is fine for me with that for now, I'm not spending that kind of money on a book I know contains fixed errors.

I wouldn't put off anything too terribly important waiting on it. The second printing run of the core went to press without any corrections, and no word on if they'll even do a third, or if they'll fix anything for it.

After all, that would require paying an editor, and given the quality of their publications lately and the long lead times between pdf publication and physical publication coupled with the rapid pace of pdf publishing, I suspect Catalyst cannot afford one.

Then I'll be using my GMs PDF version from now until the end of the edition then.

Especially when Onyx Path literally put their stuff out a month in advance of formal release for purchase for those really eager people to comment and correct and suggest upon and then give out the corrected copies to those same people. I wrote a good 20 posts nitpicking on about 100 pages in Guildhalls of the Deathless. When the formally released hardcopy POD version came out (for which I got a discount equal with the amount I paid to get the early release PDF) I checked those pages I commented on and practically every single one of my suggestions was implemented. From adding lines about what happens when a character cannot spend the required amount of fuel stat in a single round, clarifying choirs and unison casting, rewriting and entire column of text to make the TONE match up with a similar bit of text from 40 pages earlier etc. Hell look at the most recent Blood and Smoke release, they changed the text HOURS before going to final release after a 100+ post thread on RPGnet pointed out a potential exploit with the Obfuscate power.

Indeed...
But Onyx Path is a much more professional Operation than CGL will ever be. And that is sad, because Shadowrun has such great potential. Maybe CGL should look into the POD paradigm. Maybe it would improve their quality, but I am doubting that. Their problems start and end with management (the freelancers, on the other hand, are pretty solid) and the decisions that they make. Until they fix that, they will continue to put out lackluster products (Yes, SR5 is very lackluster, despite the pretty cover).

Well then I stand corrected (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)



That would be pretty historical, with precedent going way back before China/Taiwan today.

The worst part is that the freelancers were aghast here when we got our hands on the .pdf, because corrections they had sent in weeks before and playtests that were supposed to have been discarded months before the final proof made it into print.

Even on the several-hundred-dollar leatherbound copies. Despite there being hundreds of pages of feedback from the very day the pdf came out about the issues, they still went to press with an unedited 2nd print run.

CGL is basically worthless as a tabletop game publishing company at this point because they give no fucks about quality as a company. My fond hope is that Topps pulls their licensing agreement next time it comes up for renewal based on what is more and more starting to appear to be an intentional attempt to run the tabletop game into the ground. I mean, they can't legitimately be this bad by accident.

You have to -try- to get to the 'quick photoshop of a non-free wikipedia article picture as published art' level.