![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]()
Post
#276
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 ![]() |
The example of thresholds on page 56 shows 4 hits vs a threshold of 2 resulting in 2 net hits. On page 173 they clearly say you need a net hit for the spell to work in a success test, and on page 174 they imply that you don't. They also clearly say that anywhere you are using ORs is a success test, as you only use OR against inanimate objects that don't resist spells. But it's a magic success test that doesn't follow the magic success test rules. . . .
The game has other similar crazy bits where someone apparently glued together several writers work at the last second and sent it to the printer without reading it. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#277
|
|
Man Behind the Curtain ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 14,871 Joined: 2-July 89 From: End of the Yellow-Brick Road Member No.: 3 ![]() |
The game has other similar crazy bits where someone apparently glued together several writers work at the last second and sent it to the printer without reading it. I'm going to reply in the spirit that you are truly confused as opposed to be purposefully obtuse on this.The example of thresholds on page 56 shows 4 hits vs a threshold of 2 resulting in 2 net hits. This example is for an unopposed success test. To see an example of an opposed success text. Page 57 discusses opposed success tests.On page 173 they clearly say you need a net hit for the spell to work in a success test, and on page 174 they imply that you don't. They also clearly say that anywhere you are using ORs is a success test, as you only use OR against inanimate objects that don't resist spells. Again, the difference here is an unopposed success test and an opposed success test. Example: On a willing recipient, the mask spell is unopposed. On an unwilling recipient, it becomes an opposed test. But it's a magic success test that doesn't follow the magic success test rules. . . . Indirect area of effect spells simply dish out their damage to an area. (Like explosives and grenades) All other combat spells require a net success (comparable to a gunshot. Reaction vs hits. 0 net successes = miss (indirect) or fizzle (direct)) The second half of the example is simply an example of how to effect an object instead of a person. It also contracts a direct combat spell being used on an inanimate object (pg 56) as opposed to an indirect combat spell against an inanimate object (pg 196). Could the rules have been written clearer, far more concise and been more linear? yes. Are they contradictory? No. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#278
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 ![]() |
There is no such thing in the rules as an opposed success test. There are success tests (which are not opposed) and opposed tests (which are). IMNSHO the rules would work better if they had built opposed tests as extensions of success tests, but they don't. The concept of thresholds ONLY applies to success tests. Why, I have no idea - but that is what they wrote.
A spell on an inanimate object is magical success test with a threshold. But it uses different rules than that given in the book for magical success tests. These are never actually explained but you are supposed to figure out from vague hints. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#279
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 ![]() |
There are contradictory vehicle combat rules in the English version of the RAW? Oh, yes. There are actually slightly more than two sets of vehicle combat rules: Tactical Combat and Chase Combat, plus a wrinkle I'll get into in a bit. Tactical combat basically just adds rules for vehicles into normal ranged combat. It still gets a bit bogged down, however, if you've got a lot of drones and vehicles interacting with pedestrians. The problem here is that you can't accomplish a lot of things without going into Chase Combat; for example, you can't "Cut Off" someone in tactical combat. Chase combat is supposedly designed for combat solely between vehicles. The first problem here is that it operates on a totally different timeframe than normal combat, each Combat Turn representing 1 min of time, as opposed to 3 seconds. This means the actions of normal characters is going to get very confusing. The second issue is that the speed and type of the vehicles isn't factored in anywhere. For example, in one of the last games I was in, a bunch of go-gangers on motorcycles were trying to chase us in a souped-up Eurocar Westwind. I don't recall exactly how fast the Westwind went, but a quick look suggests that it has a base of 240, with engine customization, for a total of 288. It also has a base acceleration of 20/60, and NOS. The fastest bike in the books, the Suzuki Mirage, has a top speed of 200 and an accel of 20/50. Given that we're tearing down the highway at top speed, there's no way the go-gangers should be able to catch up with us, even assuming that they're all on top-speed, modified racing bikes, and not choppers. However, playing by the book, it's all abstracted into a single Opposed vehicle roll at the start of the turn. So, they were able to keep up with us, despite the fact we had a significant speed advantage. They could be chasing us on Dodge Scoots, and it wouldn't matter; if they beat us at the Vehicle test, they get to set the range. Since ranges are abstracted, this means they can suddenly move from Long Range into Close Range, allowing them to theoretically jump onto our car. Let's make this even more ridiculous. According to the BBB, you can exceed your top speed, although exactly what you roll and how much faster you go is more "GM Discretion". Let's say that our car is able to reach a nice, even speed of 300. They're still catching up, though, because they're doing good on the opposed Test. I then had a Force 10(!) spirit use the movement power on us. 3000 meters/turn= 3,600 KPH, or about 2246 mph or us Americans. That means we suddenly jumped to Mach 4.6. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/vegm.gif) Technically, this shouldn't matter; we'd need to beat them at three successive turns (requiring a minimum of three minutes) in order to Break Off. The GM, however, decided at this point that the rules were screwball, and simply let us get away. To complicate the fact that speed isn't an issue, neither is vehicle type. So, a Dodge Scoot can stay in close combat range of a fighter jet, if the driver rolls better than the pilot. Again the fighter jet requires a minimum of three minutes to get away, by the RAW. Even worse than that, however, is that the rules assume just one type of vehicle interaction: a chase. It doesn't model dogfighting very well, and it really isn't meant to handle a situation with more than two groups involved, one trying to chase down the other. In a drone war, you could have all kinds of vehicles moving about, each trying to accomplish different things. The rules completely fall apart when you involve three or more groups, each trying to accomplish something different. But the worst problem is the fact that it moves things to a different timescale. That really complicates interactions with normal combat, and makes it difficult for a person to jump into the round. For example, what happens if your driver decides to draw off the incoming enemy vehicles, while you fight the opposition? You have to resolve one combat before you can handle the other; they can't be run side-by-side, and a lot of time could pass for the pedestrians while the high-speed vehicles take several minutes to resolve everything. And the actions of passengers have been immensely slowed; they have to go on Chase time, which means they don't get nearly as many actions as they would normally. Someone pumping suppressive fire would get off substantially less rounds per minute, which means full-auto weapons suddenly suffered a massive drop in their rate of fire. This also means it's extremely difficult to ambush a vehicle. Let's say you're luring a chasing vehicle into a trap. Your street sam, with 4 IP's, is packing a rocket launcher. Well, first of all, the chase rules assume that you want to get away, so you'd have to make some house fixes to drive in a way that'd convince the other guy to continue chasing you. But because of the different timescales, the street sam theoretically has the chance to get off dozens of shots, since he's operating at 3 sec/turn, and the vehicles are at 1 min/turn. You can try and fix this by forcing things into one timescale or another, but that can lead to just as many problems, and would basically be unfair to one side or the other. Now, for the final problem: There's a third set of vehicle rules in the Rigging section of the matrix chapter. This is mostly a list of Rigger actions that are meant to be done during cybercombat. The main problem here is that it doesn't say which type of combat it applies to: Chase or Tactical. I assume it's meant for Tactical, but some of it could apply to Chase as well. The problem is that even if it applies to both, the timescale issue means you can't do some things as quickly as you could normally. How to fix this? I'd personally dump the Chase rules, and move everything back into normal combat. That'd still take a fair amount of tweaking, since you now have to calculate ranges normally, instead of abstracting them; you'd need to do a lot of math to compensate for the differences in speed between vehicles. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#280
|
|
Awakened Asset ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 ![]() |
Use the chase combat rules for chase combat, and the tactical combat rules for everything else. If something needs to be resolved in tactical combat, going for the other system is a pretty dumb idea.
Now you may be missing a modifier for vehicle speed in chase combat, but that is in no way a rules contradiction or a relevant version difference. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#281
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 ![]() |
Use the chase combat rules for chase combat, and the tactical combat rules for everything else. If something needs to be resolved in tactical combat, going for the other system is a pretty dumb idea. Now you may be missing a modifier for vehicle speed in chase combat, but that is in no way a rules contradiction or a relevant version difference. The point is that the rules are contradictory, or at least mutually-incompatible. Because of the timescale difference, you cannot integrate normal and chase combat together. It also doesn't help when one type of combat turns into the other. You've suddenly got to reconcile two different timescales, when the Citymaster chases your motorcycle into the ambush site. Or when the passengers leap from their vehicle onto ya car, and start engaging in personal combat. Neither system works very well for modeling mixed/pedestrian combat, and both bog down when there's more than a few vehicles involved, especially if they're all doing different things. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#282
|
|
Awakened Asset ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 ![]() |
You are not supposed to use both systems at the same time.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#283
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#284
|
|
Awakened Asset ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 ![]() |
If one turns into the other, I change the system. As easy and logical as that. Anyone who leaves tactical combat with a vehicle can try to escape after tactical combat is resolved. If someone distracts security by fleeing, you can describe the success of that action by having pursuit vehicles crossing the tactical combat area. You are really having two sequential fights, not a single large encounter with two different scales of movement and two different scales of time. That could never work.
Simultaneous combat within one system is not really a problem. The number of locations should be limited, else noone will be able to track the action. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#285
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 ![]() |
It doesn't help when you have a mixed vehicle/pedestrian combat, though. You can't Cut Off or Break Away in tactical combat, those rules are only for Chase combat.
Let me try this scenario on you: you have a team of runners, which includes a drone rigger. They're going up against a mixed force of people and drones. The drone combat, which may include flying vehicles, will range all over the place, and be running at the same time the other characters fight it out. Let's say that the drones are fighting for air superiority. Their combat has to take place at the same time as the regular combat, because the winning drones will immediately join the fray. However, we can't do that, because they're using the Chase Combat rules. So, we have two combats running simultaneously; one on the ground, and one in the air. Let's complicate things further. To help his side in the air, one of the teams summons a spirit, and orders to to attack the enemy drones. Now, in the middle of a chase combat round, we have to add a spirit, who operates in tactical combat. If your option is to switch systems, you'd need to drop out mid-round, and start things from scratch. Also, the other problem is that Chase Combat simply doesn't work very well. It doesn't model dogfighting effectively, and it doesn't take into account many other factors. Chase combat is only useful when you have two parties, one chasing the other, on more-or-less equally matched vehicles. Introduce three parties or more into the mix, and the rules start to break down. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#286
|
|
Awakened Asset ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 ![]() |
The drone combat might substantially extend the fighting area. Yet the drones are doing tactical combat. Should one of the parties try to flee, you can resolve that with chase combat, but in that case you have to resolve the rest of the tactical combat first. The key is that the chase combat rules are not general vehicle combat rules. Drones are very capable of tactical combat, and that is what you use for vehicle combat. Read the text under "vehicle combat" in the main book.
Now if there is actual chase combat, and someone conjures a spirit, that spirit has to act in chase combat time. Chase combat is an abstract system to resolve, well, chases. So for example, if the fleeing party changes their minds and wants to fight, they allow themselves to be catched and you change to the tactical system. It´s almost funny how all those maneuver tests can get meaningful if you think about the possibilities. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#287
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 ![]() |
Technically speaking, a spirit cannot engage in Chase Combat; you need to make Vehicle tests, which a spirit cannot do.
So, let's assume we handwave that rule away, and substitute something else. We're still faced with the fact that spirits are designed to run in tactical time, and not Chase time. By not allowing it to use its powers as often, we're nerfing the spirit; but if we allow it to act 20 times per turn, it's overpowered. Okay, let's even ignore that problem, too. Now, we've got a problem, because there's three entities involved in the combat, and the rules are designed for only two. We have Team A, who wants to get away; Team B, who wants to catch them and get away from the spirit, and Spirit C, who wants to catch Team B. The way the rules work is that each driver makes a Vehicle Test, with the winner deciding the ranges for that round. Now that we have three entities at work, how do we decide this? If Team B beats Team A, but not the spirit, what happens? I actually don't want to get into the minutae of what happens with each possible permuation; I think you get the point. Now, let's complicate this further, by adding in a fourth entity: a drone, sent to back up Team B. Now we have even more permutations that are possible. We can make this even worse, by having Team B summon a spirit of its own. See how things start to fall apart? What's more, each combat turn, ranges can change dramatically; you can jump from Long Range to Close range instantly, just by winning the opposed test. I'll add in another matter: when you're within Close range, you're within jumping distance of the other vehicle. Leaving aside the silliness of someone jumping off one fighter jet onto another, what happens if we have a guy jump from one vehicle to another, and engage the passengers in combat? We're still running a chase, but now we've got a simultaneous tactical combat to deal with. If you're forced to jump back to tactical combat, then that means the chase rules aren't working. Let's even try to model a dogfight. Using these rules, the winner gets to set the engagement range; but what happens if both want to be in the same range category? Even if you win the roll, the other guy gets the range he wants. So, there's no advantage in winning the roll; your better piloting skills don't matter. And this, of course, doesn't address the other issues. The examples so far have assumed vehicles of similar type and speed. What happens when one has a tremendous speed advantage over the other? By the rules, this doesn't matter; it takes four minutes to get away, at the very least, even if one is traveling at a speed of 60, and the other is going Mach 4.6. And what happens if a car is trying to chase an aerial vehicle? The aerial vehicle should have a significant advantage; but according to the rules, this doesn't matter. We can even add in a huge speed difference; a chase between a Dodge Scoot and a fighter jet depends on the vehicle skills, not speed and elevation. The bottom line is that the chase rules only work for a very narrow set of circumstances; and even then, they don't work very well. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#288
|
|
Awakened Asset ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 ![]() |
So decide to not run it in chase combat time. If the spirit is fast enough compared to the chased vehicle to conduct meaningful tactical combat, so be it. A constant shift between physical and astral space comes to mind. It can´t be overpowering as spirits can´t fare better than in tactical combat.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#289
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 ![]() |
So decide to not run it in chase combat time. If the spirit is fast enough compared to the chased vehicle to conduct meaningful tactical combat, so be it. A constant shift between physical and astral space comes to mind. The problem is that we need to swap from one to another, then back again. Or ignore Chase Combat entirely; but that means we're ignoring and/or house ruling yet another huge section of the rules. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#290
|
|
Awakened Asset ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 ![]() |
Sorry, added a bit to my answer while you were responding. And no, it is not ignoring or houseruling anything, it is just using tactical combat as long as spirits are involved. My suggestion of running spirits in chase combat time was an (unintentional) houserule.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#291
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 ![]() |
Ok, gotcha.
The issue here is the problems with switching back and forth between systems. Let's try a few examples: We have two parties, one chasing the other. A clear case for chase combat, yes? One side conjures a spirit, and sends it after the other. If I understand you correctly, at this point we drop out of Chase combat, and go into Tactical. They deal with the spirit, but continue the chase while everything's going on. Since we're in normal combat now, the relative speeds of vehicles matter; the pursuing vehicle is forced to drop back quite a ways, because it's not as fast. They deal with the spirit, and resume Chase Combat. The pursuing vehicle has a better driver, and wins the opposed test. That means he gets to set the range, and chooses Close Range. So, he's suddenly teleported from almost a kilometer back, to within 5 meters. Now, one of his teammates jumps from his car onto the other, and engages them in normal combat. Once again, we're forced to drop out of Chase combat mid-round, and switch to normal combat. See what happens? We're constantly flipping back and forth from one type of combat to another. This is not only a nightmare when it comes to timekeeping, it's a struggle to keep the rules straight, and causes a number of breaks in common sense. Oh, and here's one more situation for you to ponder. Technically, in Chase Combat, each *driver* is supposed to make an opposed test. What happens when we have two go-gangs involved in a chase? With ten drivers per side, we end up with too many possible permutations of who's able to enter what range with who. Technically speaking, the winner is supposed to set the ranges for everyone; but that doesn't work when there's more than two drivers involved. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#292
|
|
Awakened Asset ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 ![]() |
You can only resolve that logical conflict within the game system if you add a rule about relative speeds to chase combat.
The true way is IMO a call by the GM. If realism does not allow the pursuer to keep up with the escapist, there is no chase combat. Yet I know from previous exchanges that you dislike GM calls. I say don´t compromise with me, compromise with ease-of-use. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#293
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 829 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 770 ![]() |
A lot of systems have flaws like this.
One partial solution would be to limit the range changes to one category per test. You can get a little further away, or a little closer, but no sniper-range to melee-range and back again. Aside: Anyone ever play 7th Sea? Movement isn't even defined in that game, except that you stop if you go up a level. A legless beggar is just as fast as a racehorse. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#294
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 ![]() |
You can only resolve that logical conflict within the game system if you add a rule about relative speeds to chase combat. The true way is IMO a call by the GM. If realism does not allow the pursuer to keep up with the escapist, there is no chase combat. Yet I know from previous exchanges that you dislike GM calls. I say don´t compromise with me, compromise with ease-of-use. For ease-of-use, I find it easier to dump Chase Combat in its entirety, and resolve things using normal combat. That does mean, however, I need to house-rule in certain aspects of Chase Combat, such as the ability to Cut Off or Break Away. The end result is that my vehicle combat system may look nothing like yours, and we end up discussing different games. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#295
|
|
Awakened Asset ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 ![]() |
That will work, and make our vehicle combats more similar. I have absolutely no problem with vehicle integration or logical contradictions because I use tactical vehicle combat as default. Chase Combat is really a special case, and one that does not come up often for our game. I´m favouring storytelling solutions for matters that can be run at that level of abstraction.
But for your tactical vehicle combats: - Cut off is a maneuver test, and the rules work in both timeframes (if your tactical position permits the attempt). - Breaking off does not need a special rule. Just use maneuver-, perception/sensor- and stealth tests, per RAW (tip: bring a generic city map to the game). The party in question needs to break LOS, and then to hide. Breaking LOS will of course require some dramatic piloting moves... |
|
|
![]()
Post
#296
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 ![]() |
In general, I'm not a big fan of needing to use maps. Especially for the Shadowrun system; it's not easy to convert meters/turn into miles per hour. You'd end up having to micromanage exact distances on the map.
If that's the way you feel, why don't you dump Chase Combat as well? It's it amounts to a useless section of the rules, why not ignore it? Also: Breaking Off shouldn't just require loss of LOS. If you've got a huge speed advantage-- such as my Mach 4.6 car-- it should be automatic. Also, if you're going ground vs aerial vehicle, the aerial vehicle should be able to rapidly get out of chase ranges. In both cases, they might still be able to see me, but have no hope of catching up. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#297
|
|
Awakened Asset ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 ![]() |
I don´t need to dump a rule because I am rarely using it.
And your point about a massive disparity between opponents is exactly what makes the chase rules rarely used. I don´t permit the use of the chase rules if the pursuer has no chance of keeping up. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#298
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 ![]() |
QUOTE I don´t need to dump a rule because I am rarely using it. But if it's rarely used, you've essentially already dumped it. Add to the fact that the rules simply don't work very well, and they may as well be removed. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#299
|
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#300
|
|
Awakened Asset ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 ![]() |
Always calculate in SI. And always check your units.
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 10th July 2025 - 08:06 PM |
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.