Interrupt Actions, Have the rules been firmly established yet? Options

[Larme]

I don't mean to be annoying for the sake of it, but I want to point out that, no, RAW and an interpretation of RAW are *not* the same thing. If A = B and A = C, then B = C. However, if B does not equal C, then it must be that A does not equal B, that A does not equal C, or both.

You don't mean to, but ....

I'm afraid your argument is totally erroneous. You're saying that they're not the same because two different things can't be the same thing. That's irrelevant. What I'm saying is that you can't know what RAW says unless you interpret it. Let's write it as a logical formula:

IF the rules as written must be interpreted to be understood,

AND IF understanding the rules as written is a prerequisite to using the rules as written,

THEN you must interpret the rules as written to use the rules as written.

So semantically, sure, interpreting RAW is not the same thing as RAW, because two things that are different are indeed not the same. That's a red herring and/or straw man. The fact is, interpreting RAW is something you have to do. You can't say "you're going outside raw because you're interpreting it." That would imply that nobody can ever use RAW ever. RAW must be interpreted to be understood. The same is true of all language. It doesn't matter what people say if you can't understand what they mean. And you must interpret what they say before you can understand what they mean. Now you get it?

[deek]

You don't mean to, but ....

I'm afraid your argument is totally erroneous. You're saying that they're not the same because two different things can't be the same thing. That's irrelevant. What I'm saying is that you can't know what RAW says unless you interpret it. Let's write it as a logical formula:

IF the rules as written must be interpreted to be understood,

AND IF understanding the rules as written is a prerequisite to using the rules as written,

THEN you must interpret the rules as written to use the rules as written.

So semantically, sure, interpreting RAW is not the same thing as RAW, because two things that are different are indeed not the same. That's a red herring and/or straw man. The fact is, interpreting RAW is something you have to do. You can't say "you're going outside raw because you're interpreting it." That would imply that nobody can ever use RAW ever. RAW must be interpreted to be understood. The same is true of all language. It doesn't matter what people say if you can't understand what they mean. Now you get it?

The only beef I have is we are all debating the RAW without any of us having an actual definition of "next available action". I think this is still the root of the problem in any debate about how interrupt options can be used.

[Tarantula]

Well, in the example you gave above, a guy with one IP would drop the two guys in the first Combat Turn and then pretty much just stand there for the next 4 Combat Turns. The rules allow it, but I just think it's kinda weird and not worth the trouble. Simple is beautiful.

He wouldn't just stand there. I would describe it as something akin to being winded from such an exertion, and as such be unable to take any simple or complex actions until he recovered (caught up his passes).

I don't mean to be annoying for the sake of it, but I want to point out that, no, RAW and an interpretation of RAW are *not* the same thing. If A = B and A = C, then B = C. However, if B does not equal C, then it must be that A does not equal B, that A does not equal C, or both.

Your logic is incorrect, the rules don't equal meanings, they follow from them. A -> B and A -> C does not mean B = C.

[Nightwalker450]

So semantically, sure, interpreting RAW is not the same thing as RAW, because two things that are different are indeed not the same. That's a red herring and/or straw man. The fact is, interpreting RAW is something you have to do. You can't say "you're going outside raw because you're interpreting it." That would imply that nobody can ever use RAW ever. RAW must be interpreted to be understood. The same is true of all language. It doesn't matter what people say if you can't understand what they mean. And you must interpret what they say before you can understand what they mean. Now you get it?

If multiple interpretations of the same thing are valid, then you can't use RAW. I what he was trying to say. You interpret it one way, we interpret another your way is not more or less valid than ours.

And deek sums up what we're interpreting. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Larme]

The only beef I have is we are all debating the RAW without any of us having an actual definition of "next available action". I think this is still the root of the problem in any debate about how interrupt options can be used.

Yes, that's the root of the problem. "Next available action" is not defined, so we have to decide what it means. Does it mean "next" as in the common use of the word, or does it mean "next within an arbitrary parcel of game time" as some are arguing?

If multiple interpretations of the same thing are valid, then you can't use RAW. I what he was trying to say. You interpret it one way, we interpret another your way is not more or less valid than ours.

And deek sums up what we're interpreting. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I don't think I tried to state any categorical rule that all possible interpretations of anything are valid... In fact I'm very sure I didn't. There are valid interpretations, which I would define as meanings which can be reasonably derived from the language used. And then there are invalid inerpretations, which are of course those meanings that are not reasonably derived from the language used. If I say "good day," you can reasonably understand that I mean the day is good, or the day makes me feel good, or it is a day to be good upon. But you could not reasonably infer that I only think the day is good as long as the sun shines. You could intuit that, or arbitrarily make it up, but you wouldn't be interpreting my words, you'd be inventing things in your own head.

The problem, as I see it, is that "next within an arbitrary parcel of game time" is not an interpretation suggested by RAW. There are arguments for using it, but it feels more like a house rule. Nothing in the RAW suggests that "next" means "next within the following turn." I really don't see how you get that from just the word "next." Or take the whole phrase, "next available." What makes an action in the next combat turn available, but not one three combat turns away? Nothing at all. You can play it your way, but I prefer to follow the plain meaning of the words, which allows infinite interrupts. You have stated realism reasons why you don't like that, but that does not marshall the RAW in your favor one iota.

[deek]

Yes, that's the root of the problem. "Next available action" is not defined, so we have to decide what it means. Does it mean "next" as in the common use of the word, or does it mean "next within an arbitrary parcel of game time" as some are arguing?



The problem, as I see it, is that "next within an arbitrary parcel of game time" is not an interpretation suggested by RAW. There are arguments for using it, but it feels more like a house rule. Nothing in the RAW suggests that "next" means "next within the following turn." I really don't see how you get that from just the word "next." Or take the whole phrase, "next available." What makes an action in the next combat turn available, but not one three combat turns away? Nothing at all. You can play it your way, but I prefer to follow the plain meaning of the words, which allows infinite interrupts. You have stated realism reasons why you don't like that, but that does not marshall the RAW in your favor one iota.

Larme...its doesn't say "next action". It says "next available action". That means there has to be a difference between next and next available. One interpretation is that initiative would need to be rolled in order to give a player "available actions"...

[Nightwalker450]

The problem, as I see it, is that "next within an arbitrary parcel of game time" is not an interpretation suggested by RAW. There are arguments for using it, but it feels more like a house rule. Nothing in the RAW suggests that "next" means "next within the following turn." I really don't see how you get that from just the word "next." Or take the whole phrase, "next available."

Its "next available" is whatever action you would be able to act during next
or
"next available" is your next action has to be available for you to use it.

What makes an action in the next combat turn available, but not one three combat turns away?

The fact that its 3 combat turns away.

[Triggerz]

Your logic is incorrect, the rules don't equal meanings, they follow from them. A -> B and A -> C does not mean B = C.

Well, that was sort of what I was getting at. A does not equal B or C in the first place. So it is possible to have several clashing interpretations of RAW that are all compatible with RAW, but aren't RAW themselves. And yeah, in terms of interpreting RAW, the root of the problem, as deek said, is the interpretation of "next available action".

Personally, I'm not really as concerned about understanding RAW as I am about finding a rule that works though. The way RAW are written, as I've been saying from the beginning, I think it *does* allow for borrowing more than one IP. Whether that was intended by the developers, I have no clue.

[Tarantula]

I offered one interpretation of next available action. When the characters AP next comes up.

For a 1 IP character, it would be in IP 1, during AP (His initiative result) of every combat turn.

For a 3 IP character, it would be in IP 1, 2, and 3 during AP (His initiative result) of every combat turn.

And so on.

[Larme]

The fact that its 3 combat turns away.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif) Are you kidding me? So 1 is available, 2, 3, 4, etc, are not? You have chosen an arbitrary number to define available. You have almost literally pulled it out of thin air. How is that interpreting RAW? The word "available" does not have the meaning you suggest. The RAW does not put forth the meaning you suggest. You have crafted it out of whole cloth. There is no logical reason why 1 turn away is available, but 2 is not. Your logic does not suggest a reason why the number should be 2. Because you're setting an arbitrary point, it could logically be 22, or 222, or any random number you care to use. There are realism reasons to use 2, but those are not part of RAW. Those are your personal preference. That's a house rule.

Let's stop playing king of the RAW hill. You don't need to win the RAW to play it your way. I can clearly see that you prefer to play it your way. I have no interest in stopping you. But I'm not going to let you confuse teh noobz by telling them that your house rule is RAW, because it clearly isn't. Play your way and have fun, just recognize when you're making things up based on your own personal preferences.

[Larme]

Larme...its doesn't say "next action". It says "next available action". That means there has to be a difference between next and next available. One interpretation is that initiative would need to be rolled in order to give a player "available actions"...

Right, but that's at least not what Nightwalker wants. He wants the next turn. This interpretation says you can't borrow unless you have an action left in the current turn. I think that's a valid reading of "next available." But as we've discussed, I dislike it for other reasons. Allowing infinite interrupts is supported by RAW, and it's not broken PROVIDED that you accept that defense penalties don't reset every time you riposte. So there is no reason for requiring the next available action to be in the same turn, except if you really want to make things tough for people with low IPs and change riposte from a useful, not broken manuever, to possibly the dumbest thing ever.

[Nightwalker450]

Right, but that's at least not what Nightwalker wants. He wants the next turn. This interpretation says you can't borrow unless you have an action left in the current turn. I think that's a valid reading of "next available." But as we've discussed, I dislike it for other reasons. Allowing infinite interrupts is supported by RAW, and it's not broken PROVIDED that you accept that defense penalties don't reset every time you riposte. So there is no reason for requiring the next available action to be in the same turn, except if you really want to make things tough for people with low IPs and change riposte from a useful, not broken manuever, to possibly the dumbest thing ever.

I don't want next turn, I want next action. I have proposed a house rule before for those who would want more than 1 interrupt. But overall I support only 1 interrupt per action. And my interpretation of RAW supports it. You can't win this, and neither can I because we are both interpreting a line that noone but the developers know. I hope they know the definition at least, but considering noone has gotten an email reply and none of them have ever commented on this, they might not. (There's always the chance interrupts are an April Fools Joke?) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Once an arsenal FAQ, or erratta comes out we'll know. But they're pretty tied up it seems, and overall Unwired is more important to me than this.

EDIT: Fixed pass to action, since referring to pass confuses things

[Tarantula]

Night, adding "turn" or "pass" onto the sentence is applying your house rule to it. It says the next available action, and does not give any unit of measure. Adding a unit of measure is adding to the RAW, and creating a house rule. Its not an interpretation.

[Nightwalker450]

Night, adding "turn" or "pass" onto the sentence is applying your house rule to it. It says the next available action, and does not give any unit of measure. Adding a unit of measure is adding to the RAW, and creating a house rule. Its not an interpretation.

Bleh my bad, I consider pass and action the same thing, but considering all character can't act on all passes, then action is more appropriate than pass (otherwise you could effectively borrow passes you normally wouldn't act during).

So it would be your next action you could borrow, only if it is available... Or "Next available action". If you have already borrowed an action it is no longer available. That is the interpretation. It is not reliant on combat turns, or number of passes, just that you haven't borrowed an action yet, and thus your next action is available.

[Larme]

Tarantula has it. Next available isn't specific to one pass in the future. If you interrupted 299 times, your next available action would be 300 passes away. There's nothing about the number 300 that makes it not available anymore. Or any number. According to common usage of the English language, "next available" does not mean "next available within one pass." Have fun with your house rule, I hope it works for you (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tarantula]

Night, you almost have a point. It is not your next action only, and also only if it is available. It is your next action that is available.

I don't think many people would agree with the assertion that "next available action" means that. The normal way to say what you are trying to mean would be "next action, if available"

[Nightwalker450]

I don't think many people would agree with the assertion that "next available action" means that. The normal way to say what you are trying to mean would be "next action, if available"

No, but as they have led us to believe page space is at a premium "next available action" = 21 characters and "next action, if available" = 25 characters... And literary or english majors I doubt they are, so the phrasing isn't going to be the best. The fact that one is shorter and slides easier off the tongue could be the reason for accepting that way of writing it. And for something that is going to be written and rewritten in multiple sections it reads easier as "next available action".

I've been trying to come up with an example of this and really its difficult to do. Unfortunately the best I can come up with is a computer process (I'm a programmer (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) ), and as computer processes go you can write them however you want.

You grab the "Next available file", the files are all tied up, so there is no "Next available file", so you get no file. It doesn't sit there and spin, until someone releases a file, or another file comes along, its done.
likewise
You try and use your "Next available action", your next action is tied up, so there is no "Next available action", so you get no interrupt.


But mostly something you'd normally do in 3 minutes, I don't feel should be available to you. Acting 3/4 of a second sooner than usual, or even 3 seconds sooner than usual, thats close enough to suspend belief. I'd rather have them just be able to take as many interrupts as they want and just have to skip 1 action, rather then this borrowing of multiples. At least then they aren't sitting around for a long while afterwards, and the person with 4 IP's still has a distinct advantage over the person with 1 IP. Just have to make it clear Finishing Move doesn't repeat. That and I don't have to keep track of how many passes out they've borrowed.

[Larme]

If it works for you, then it works for you. There's not much more to be said on it.

[Muspellsheimr]

Just to be an ass, I'm going to point out another possible interpretation of "next available action".

It uses the next action you would normally be able to take. But because it is now a used action, it no longer qualifies as available, and cannot be used to interrupt, causing your interrupt uses the action after it, and so on. This means using an interrupt action, ever, takes up all future actions.

[Nightwalker450]

Ok here's the best the book has to support my own.

Note that full defense actions may be taken at any time, even before the character's Action Phase, as long as the character is not surprised--but it uses up the character's next available action. Characters may go on full defense even if they don't have an action that pass, sacrificing their first action of the next Combat Turn instead.

So to me that reads that you can pull one action ahead. And it specifically says the first action of the next Combat Turn, next available action there. So if you don't have an action that pass, you instead sacrifice the first one of the next turn. Unfortunately this is before they introduced other interrupt actions, and it doesn't have the extra sentence on the page that actually talks about Full Defense as an interrupt action. So there's some RAW support for my interpretation of next available action. And I've pointed out its own short-comings, but overall its a tip on the scales in the right direction.

[Tarantula]

You grab the "Next available file", the files are all tied up, so there is no "Next available file", so you get no file. It doesn't sit there and spin, until someone releases a file, or another file comes along, its done.
likewise
You try and use your "Next available action", your next action is tied up, so there is no "Next available action", so you get no interrupt.

Except, in this case, there is an infinite amount of available files (since time is infinite), and as such, there is always another one that is available to be used.

So to me that reads that you can pull one action ahead. And it specifically says the first action of the next Combat Turn, next available action there. So if you don't have an action that pass, you instead sacrifice the first one of the next turn. Unfortunately this is before they introduced other interrupt actions, and it doesn't have the extra sentence on the page that actually talks about Full Defense as an interrupt action. So there's some RAW support for my interpretation of next available action. And I've pointed out its own short-comings, but overall its a tip on the scales in the right direction.

Well, argueably, it always uses the first action of the combat turn following it. So your 4IP samurai can attack first get attacked by the ganger, use full defense (sacrificing his first action next combat turn) and then attack 3 more times before he loses his action. I don't think thats a very good explanation either.

[deek]

Except, in this case, there is an infinite amount of available files (since time is infinite), and as such, there is always another one that is available to be used.




Well, argueably, it always uses the first action of the combat turn following it. So your 4IP samurai can attack first get attacked by the ganger, use full defense (sacrificing his first action next combat turn) and then attack 3 more times before he loses his action. I don't think thats a very good explanation either.

I don't think that 4IP example works. The 4IP guy, after acting once in pass 1, would sacrifice his action in pass 2 (which is HIS next available action). In pass 2, it sounds like he is either stuck in full defense until pass 3, or he can attempt to interrupt in pass 2 with his 3rd pass action.

The example is giving that 1IP guy a chance to use his action in the next combat turn to go full defense. He'd likely then be full defense until the 3rd combat turn.

All in all, I think the info that nightwalker450 pulled up, complicates things even more:) It sets a precedent for players borrowing an action in an combat turn that has yet to be rolled (debunking my initial theories) but also seems to imply that an interrupt is only happening one time and it not repeatable (debunking the initial theory of infinite interrupts). Or at least that is what I am reading into the example.

It is important to note this example was out before the arsenal rules...so those can just continue to confuse this issue:)

[WeaverMount]

For a slightly different approach, tell me if you think I'm in error

-Finishing Move was developed and used by people with 1 IP, before there were any sources of extra IPs
-You can use Finishing Move if you only have 1 IP
-Therefor actions in another combat turn are available actions

[Nightwalker450]

Well, argueably, it always uses the first action of the combat turn following it. So your 4IP samurai can attack first get attacked by the ganger, use full defense (sacrificing his first action next combat turn) and then attack 3 more times before he loses his action. I don't think thats a very good explanation either.

It doesn't always use the first action of the following combat turn, only if you are unable to act during the current pass. (Which would be you don't have enough passes to act any more during this turn, otherwise you are just holding an action)

I don't think that 4IP example works. The 4IP guy, after acting once in pass 1, would sacrifice his action in pass 2 (which is HIS next available action). In pass 2, it sounds like he is either stuck in full defense until pass 3, or he can attempt to interrupt in pass 2 with his 3rd pass action.

Exactly he is in full defense until his 3rd pass, unless he interrupts. This is the way I've been interpreting it...

The example is giving that 1IP guy a chance to use his action in the next combat turn to go full defense. He'd likely then be full defense until the 3rd combat turn.

Since he only has 1 pass per turn, yes he would be in full defense until 3rd combat turn.

It sets a precedent for players borrowing an action in an combat turn that has yet to be rolled (debunking my initial theories) but also seems to imply that an interrupt is only happening one time and it not repeatable (debunking the initial theory of infinite interrupts). Or at least that is what I am reading into the example.

Exactly. It allows people with 1 IP to interrupt (pulling from the next combat turn), as well as keeps people from pulling multiples.

It is important to note this example was out before the arsenal rules...so those can just continue to confuse this issue:)

As I stated this was a short coming of it. At the time Full Defense was the only Interrupt Action (at least that I've found). With the introduction of more, there are more options. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Tarantula]

I hadn't read his full quote really, was posting in kind of a hurry. My example is wrong, I didn't realize the text specified who doesn't have any more actions that pass.

You can't interrupt more than once with anything but riposte. You can go on full defense, which lasts until your next action. So, you can only ever interrupt to go on full defense once, at most. You can use finishing move, after a successful attack, which takes an action (or riposte) to initiate, so finishing move can only ever have you borrow one pass.

Riposte lets you get ahead and borrow anywhere from 1 - however big your dice pool is for melee defense. Which is limited by how stupid enemies are, and how good you are. I don't think its particularly balance breaking, nor is it ever going to come up unless you give a riposting player waves of idiots to attack.