Magic vs. Essense, in character creation Options

[Backgammon]

You guys are arguing about an argument about a moot point?

THIS
IS
DUMPSHOOOOOOOOOOCK!!!

/300

[Malicant]

It is, isn't it? I love this place and all the posters that gather here. No, really. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[toturi]

What is your profession?

Rules lawyer.

Min-maxer.

Munchkin.

What is your profession?

WAR!

You see, old friend, I brought more Dumpshockers.

If Leonidas brought Dumpshockers to the battle, Xerxis would be fleeing from Bubba the Love Troll.

[Jackstand]

Problem is, you can't actually build a magician that way. Magician et al are Qualities, so they have to be taken before attributes and special attributes are, as well as skills. You're also blocking out any Qualities that affect skill/attribute costs, such as Exceptional Attribute and Aptitude.

That's why, in the words before the list, I said to separate the various magician qualities (and Technomancer) from the rest. Step 2 gives access to only those Qualities. Blocking Exceptional Attribute and Aptitude is also an objective of mine in ordering the list in that way, but I didn't mention it, as it wasn't pertinent to the conversation.

[Muspellsheimr]

Let me try to clarify how the Rules as Written are worded, for those unable to do so themselves.

There are two types of actions in debate here. Triggered - on a trigger (in this case, loosing Essence), it activates (in this case, reducing Magic); and Passive - an "always on" feature, if something it affects changes, it applies to the changes.

Morrigana, you clearly think this is a triggered event. "If your Essence is reduced below 6, you loose Magic".

For each point or partial point of Essence below 6

As written, it is passive. When you gain a Magic value, you check your Essence, & reduce it accordingly. Each time your Essence changes, it reduces your Magic as normal.


There is no "reasonable interpretation" required. It is, as written, very clear on how it works, and applies regardless of when you obtain your Magic attribute (barring specific exceptions).

[Malicant]

Let me try to clarify how the Rules as Written are worded, for those unable to do so themselves.

The root of the problem is still that someone (I'm not calling names. Morrigana. doh) seriously lacks the ability to understand written word. You can't fix that by writing more for that person to read. A sledgehammer to the forehead should do the trick, though.

[toturi]

The root of the problem is still that someone (I'm not calling names. Morrigana. ups) seriously lacks the ability to understand written word. You can't fix that by writing more for that person to read. A sledgehammer to the forehead should do the trick, though.

Or more in keeping with the spirit of the season, a session with Santa Bubba with his merry Elves. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/love.gif)

[Morrigana]

There is no need to. This is the RAW literal interpretation of the text, not the reasonable interpretation of such. RAW need not necessarily reasonable but the literal wording of the rule is clear enough in this case that there is no ambigiuity.

The text clearly states that if your Essense is below 6, you lose Magic. Note that there is no timing to this rule. Therefore it is on all the time, whether now or otherwise.

Okay, this has been fun so far. Time to end it, though. It's beginning to get too rediculous with the resistance put up to even considering what's wrong with the logic. But first, a reiteration of the rule.

Characters with Magic or Resonance attributes are subject to penalties if they have an Essence lower than 6. For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1. Th e maximum rating for Magic is 6 + initiation grade (see Initiation, p. 189); for Resonance the maximum rating is 6 + submersion grade (see Submersion, p. 238).

Okay, under a literal interpretation of that, the extra points are just lost, along with the loss from max rating. Here's the problem with is: It's tied into essense. A literal reading of the rule has it that each loss is a one-time loss, connected directly with the loss of Essense itself. Thus, any magician or adept who starts the game with cyber has both a lower magic score and cap on the magic score.

The problem comes when you stop and read over the rule related to gaining magic. If someone pays the BP or karma for it, they become Awakened and, if they already have cyber, they have a reduced magic score maximum. They can't work around this maximum in chargen under the way the BBB is written, which we'll stick with for simplicity's sake. And their magic score, naturally, is already reduced as well; they have to pay the 25 BP max sooner than they would otherwise. However, the question, which has been the thing we've been discussing this entire time and the point you have been ignoring, is whether or not they have to pay for the magic points they lost. There's nothing there which states they must, nothing there which states the magic score of 1 that they paid to get will be reduced (since, technically, it already has been), and nothing there to indicate they won't be able to start the game with a magic score of 1 without spending further BP or karma beyond the normal cost to gain the magical ability to begin with. You can try to state that it will be reduced, but you still need to prove that the reduction itself is not already accounted for. Of course, post chargen, any cyberwear they get will unarguably reduce their magic score as normal.

Nothing within it states that it is active or passive, nor does anything within the wording state that this comes to apply at some later date. In fact, the way it's worded, it happens instantly and stays permanently. I'm ignoring certain work-arounds in this case for simplicity, due to what the rule was written for.

Now, the moment you argue it acts constantly as a passive change rather than a permanent one is the moment you add interpretation; there's nothing within it that states it as a passive change or one that can come around at a later date. You can argue that those points must be paid for by someone who takes a magical quality, but that is another interpretation that is not written within the rule itself. You can even attempt to argue that the loss is caused by random pixies that beat you up while you sleep at night and that you can get around it by using pixie repellant, but that is something not only not within the rule itself but also arguably deserving of whatever beating you get in real life for it.

The rule, as written, is simple: You lose essense, you lose a point of magic/resonance and your maximum magic/resonance rating lowers. It doesn't state this will happen sometime in the future when you get a magic rating and then pay it up a bit. It doesn't state you have to pay for magic points lost when you get that magic rating. It doesn't state magical pixies beat you up at night.

The problem with the rule? People trying to do things out of order in chargen (such as cybering up their characters and then going after magic) and the confusion this causes due to what the rule doesn't state.

If you have any conclusive proof to the contrary, post it. The rule itself is certainly not conclusive proof to the contrary.

You guys are arguing about an argument about a moot point?

Yes.

Let me try to clarify how the Rules as Written are worded, for those unable to do so themselves.

There are two types of actions in debate here. Triggered - on a trigger (in this case, loosing Essence), it activates (in this case, reducing Magic); and Passive - an "always on" feature, if something it affects changes, it applies to the changes.

Morrigana, you clearly think this is a triggered event. "If your Essence is reduced below 6, you loose Magic".



As written, it is passive. When you gain a Magic value, you check your Essence, & reduce it accordingly. Each time your Essence changes, it reduces your Magic as normal.


There is no "reasonable interpretation" required. It is, as written, very clear on how it works, and applies regardless of when you obtain your Magic attribute (barring specific exceptions).

Here's exactly what it says:

For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.

Each part or full point below 6 is a case of it being below 6. Thus, in this case, it is literally saying, "If your essense is reduced below 6, you lose magic, with magic lost being equal to 1 magic point per full or partial essense point below 6." It's a trigger set up to have multiple variables it keeps track of, yet have a permanent result. And it's a one-time only result, given the fact you cannot (IIRC) regain essense and have it raise magic at the same time. If it were passive, then a person who managed to regain essense would also automatically raise their magic score as well. Except, under RAW, the way to raise magic is through paying BP in chargen or Karma.

Oh, and just so you know: The difference between "passive" and "trigger" is that "passive" is a type of "trigger."

The root of the problem is still that someone (I'm not calling names. Morrigana. doh) seriously lacks the ability to understand written word. You can't fix that by writing more for that person to read. A sledgehammer to the forehead should do the trick, though.

Funnily enough, I'm not the one who's adding words and meanings to the rule that are not there or apparently practicing creative definitions of "literal."

[Malicant]

[...]It's beginning to get too rediculous with the resistance put up to even considering what's wrong with the logic.[...]

This is so beautiful. Out of context at least. In context, it's plain hilarious. I'm so exited to see how this will develope while I'm gone.

[Morrigana]

Malicant, the funny part is that this joke has four punchlines.

[Muspellsheimr]

Each part or full point below 6 is a case of it being below 6. Thus, in this case, it is literally saying, "If your essense is reduced below 6, you lose magic, with magic lost being equal to 1 magic point per full or partial essense point below 6." It's a trigger set up to have multiple variables it keeps track of, yet have a permanent result. And it's a one-time only result, given the fact you cannot (IIRC) regain essense and have it raise magic at the same time. If it were passive, then a person who managed to regain essense would also automatically raise their magic score as well. Except, under RAW, the way to raise magic is through paying BP in chargen or Karma.

Oh, and just so you know: The difference between "passive" and "trigger" is that "passive" is a type of "trigger."

Read the damn quote. It does not say "if your Essence is reduced below", it is saying "if your Essence is below" - there is no fucking timeframe or trigger.

And the difference between passive and trigger is:
Passive: x = 2y (explanation - y is always twice the value of x, regardless of it's value)
Trigger: if x changes, introduce a new variable (explanation - on an event, perform an action)

[Morrigana]

Read the damn quote. It does not say "if your Essence is reduced below", it is saying "if your Essence is below" - there is no fucking timeframe or trigger.

Which has been my point as to what caused the confusion to begin with. There isn't a timeframe. It's an instant reaction, not something that comes about as soon as you get a magic rating, under RAW. And this created a problem when people were buying cyberwear before setting stats, when they're supposed to set stats first.

And the difference between passive and trigger is:
Passive: x = 2y (explanation - y is always twice the value of x, regardless of it's value)
Trigger: if x changes, introduce a new variable (explanation - on an event, perform an action)

... You meant to tell me you do not know what a passive trigger is? The first one you listed is a passive trigger, while the second one is a different type. There's also these kinds of triggers:

Trigger: if x is reduced by n, reduce y by n as well.

Essense, in this case, is a variation on that kind of trigger.

[toturi]

Okay, this has been fun so far. Time to end it, though. It's beginning to get too rediculous with the resistance put up to even considering what's wrong with the logic. But first, a reiteration of the rule.

Okay, under a literal interpretation of that, the extra points are just lost, along with the loss from max rating. Here's the problem with is: It's tied into essense. A literal reading of the rule has it that each loss is a one-time loss, connected directly with the loss of Essense itself. Thus, any magician or adept who starts the game with cyber has both a lower magic score and cap on the magic score.

The problem comes when you stop and read over the rule related to gaining magic. If someone pays the BP or karma for it, they become Awakened and, if they already have cyber, they have a reduced magic score maximum. They can't work around this maximum in chargen under the way the BBB is written, which we'll stick with for simplicity's sake. And their magic score, naturally, is already reduced as well; they have to pay the 25 BP max sooner than they would otherwise. However, the question, which has been the thing we've been discussing this entire time and the point you have been ignoring, is whether or not they have to pay for the magic points they lost. There's nothing there which states they must, nothing there which states the magic score of 1 that they paid to get will be reduced (since, technically, it already has been), and nothing there to indicate they won't be able to start the game with a magic score of 1 without spending further BP or karma beyond the normal cost to gain the magical ability to begin with. You can try to state that it will be reduced, but you still need to prove that the reduction itself is not already accounted for. Of course, post chargen, any cyberwear they get will unarguably reduce their magic score as normal.

Funnily enough, I'm not the one who's adding words and meanings to the rule that are not there or apparently practicing creative definitions of "literal."

You are right, it is ridiculous. But there is nothing wrong with the logic, it is simply the literal interpretation. You are not paying for the magic points you have lost, you are paying for the Magic points you lose as a result of Essense loss per p62. The Magic score is reduced because your Essense is less than 6. That rule is always in force. The reduction is always accounted for because that rule always applies. It doesn't matter if you have no Magic at implantation, it is accounted for then, it will be accounted for when you buy the Awakened Qualities precisely because of the rule in p62. It only looks at your Essense. You always lose 1 point of Magic for each point of Essense or part thereof lost, it does not matter that you bought the Magic later. You do not lose the Magic now, you lose it always. The reduction is always accounted for.

Funnily enough, I'm not the one who's apparently ignoring the literal interpretation of the RAW and apparently practicing non-literal definitions of "literal".

[Jackstand]

It seems like this comes down to a difference in interpretation of the word "is." That phrase could, I suppose, be interpreted as either "When your Essence is reduced below" or "If your Essence has been reduced below."

[Morrigana]

You are right, it is ridiculous. But there is nothing wrong with the logic, it is simply the literal interpretation. You are not paying for the magic points you have lost, you are paying for the Magic points you lose as a result of Essense loss per p62. The Magic score is reduced because your Essense is less than 6. That rule is always in force. The reduction is always accounted for because that rule always applies. It doesn't matter if you have no Magic at implantation, it is accounted for then, it will be accounted for when you buy the Awakened Qualities precisely because of the rule in p62. It only looks at your Essense. You always lose 1 point of Magic for each point of Essense or part thereof lost, it does not matter that you bought the Magic later. You do not lose the Magic now, you lose it always. The reduction is always accounted for.

Except that nothing within the rule states it comes to apply as soon as a person buys a magical quality. There's nothing written within it about delaying for a state to switch from false to true; only that it has immediate effects upon a state that is true. In a case where someone becomes a mage and then gets cyberwear, this presents no problems. For those cases where it does, we have the latent awakening to fall back on for dealing with it. What you have just done within that is add statements to the rule that are not actually written within it (I've bolded them for you). What you're doing is adding interpretations to the rules instead of taking them literally.

Funnily enough, I'm not the one who's apparently ignoring the literal interpretation of the RAW and apparently practicing non-literal definitions of "literal".

Strangely enough, I have my evidence that the words you've added to your interpretation of it are not within the rule itself, and I provide it every time I post the rule itself. The words are simply not there. Where's your evidence that they are?

[toturi]

Except that nothing within the rule states it comes to apply as soon as a person buys a magical quality. There's nothing written within it about delaying for a state to switch from false to true; only that it has immediate effects upon a state that is true. In a case where someone becomes a mage and then gets cyberwear, this presents no problems. For those cases where it does, we have the latent awakening to fall back on for dealing with it. What you have just done within that is add statements to the rule that are not actually written within it (I've bolded them for you). What you're doing is adding interpretations to the rules instead of taking them literally.

Strangely enough, I have my evidence that the words you've added to your interpretation of it are not within the rule itself, and I provide it every time I post the rule itself. The words are simply not there. Where's your evidence that they are?

Exactly! I added those words simply to convey that the issue that you are bringing up is simply not there. My interpretation stands whether those words are there or not. Those bolded words simply emphasises the fact there are no additional words there. There is nothing within the rules that state that it does not apply when a person buys a magical quality. It simply is there, whether you buy the quality or not. It applies all the time.

And their magic score, naturally, is already reduced as well; they have to pay the 25 BP max sooner than they would otherwise. However, the question, which has been the thing we've been discussing this entire time and the point you have been ignoring, is whether or not they have to pay for the magic points they lost.

I have my evidence that the words you've added to your interpretation of it are not within the rule itself, and I provide it every time I post the rule itself. As you have already said, the words are simply not there. Where's your evidence that they are?

[Morrigana]

Exactly! I added those words simply to convey that the issue that you are bringing up is simply not there. My interpretation stands whether those words are there or not. Those bolded words simply emphasises the fact there are no additional words there. There is nothing within the rules that state that it does not apply when a person buys a magical quality. It simply is there, whether you buy the quality or not. It applies all the time.

I'll come back to the bolded part in a bit.

And I'm arguing that, under a literal interpretation, there is nothing which states they will have to pay for the points that are lost, which was the source of confusion when this whole mess started.

I have my evidence that the words you've added to your interpretation of it are not within the rule itself, and I provide it every time I post the rule itself. The words are simply not there. Where's your evidence that they are?

For the first part you underlined, this is my evidence:

For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.

For the second part you underlined, this is my evidence:

For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.

Now, you never posted the rule itself, so you haven't actually posted any evidence. Just your interpretations, which you openly admitted to being your interpretations (note the part I said I'd come back to). Considering the claim in your sig and the fact our discussion has ended at the exact same place it started, only with it being hours later, I'm going to go ahead and claim victory (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

If you wish to protest this victory, please make it a point to fill out the 107010X3C Skyscraper Form, in triplicate, and submit it by midnight, Central time. In case you're wondering, each form is named after what it is equal to in height, pray you never have to fill out the Astronomical Unit Form.

[toturi]

And I'm arguing that, under a literal interpretation, there is nothing which states they will have to pay for the points that are lost, which was the source of confusion when this whole mess started.

Now, you never posted the rule itself, so you haven't actually posted any evidence. Just your interpretations, which you openly admitted to being your interpretations (note the part I said I'd come back to). Considering the claim in your sig and the fact our discussion has ended at the exact same place it started, only with it being hours later, I'm going to go ahead and claim victory (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

If you wish to protest this victory, please make it a point to fill out the 107010X3C Skyscraper Form, in triplicate, and submit it by midnight, Central time. In case you're wondering, each form is named after what it is equal to in height, pray you never have to fill out the Astronomical Unit Form.

And I am arguing that under a literal interpretation, they lose the points simply because their Essense is below 6.

For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.

Your quotes do not answer those parts I underlined. In no case, does the quotes actually say that the Magic is already reduced or lost to implantation prior to Awakening, only that the character loses the Magic point.

I have posted the rule (per each reference to SR4 p62) although I have only quoted it once in verbatim. Considering synner's intention clarification and the fact our discussion has ended with your interpretation being neither canon nor RAW, I'm going to go ahead and claim victory.

If you wish to protest this victory, please make it a point to fill out the RootNegPi-Irrationality form, in quadriplicate, and submit it by noon yesterday. If you can find it and submit it out of time.

[Morrigana]

And I am arguing that under a literal interpretation, they lose the points simply because their Essense is below 6.

Literal interpretations do not add meanings that are not there.

Your quotes do not answer those parts I underlined. In no case, does the quotes actually say that the Magic is already reduced or lost to implantation prior to Awakening, only that the character loses the Magic point.

You know, you've been kinda contradicting yourself on this one. Let me quote the contradictory statement.

There is nothing within the rules that state that it does not apply when a person buys a magical quality. It simply is there, whether you buy the quality or not. It applies all the time.

So, which is it? Have they already lost the magic points and need to pay for them, or do they end up losing the points (thus having it come to apply when it hadn't) upon Awakening?

I have posted the rule (per each reference to SR4 p62) although I have only quoted it once in verbatim. Considering the claim in my sig and the fact our discussion has ended with you being abjectly wrong, I'm going to go ahead and claim victory.

Here's links to every post you've made on this thread:
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759222
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759226
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759237
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759251
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759262
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759275
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759302
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759321
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759347

You have posted the rule itself exactly 0 times. You have posted references to the rule, through page number or text reference or both, in exactly 6 posts. Your bolded claim of having stated it verbatim is disproven by your own posts. Feel free to reference the posts themselves and try to point out where you have posted the exact text of the rule and not some page reference, rewording, or interpretation of it.

You have also, by this point, failed to prove that your interpretation, which includes quite a bit that is not even part of the rule, is a literal interpretation and not a personal interpretation. In fact, you have already admitted it's a personal interpretation. Here's the proof:

Exactly! I added those words simply to convey that the issue that you are bringing up is simply not there. My interpretation stands whether those words are there or not.

Those are your own words, without a single bit of rewording. You admit to adding to the rule items that are not actually part of it and that it is a your own interpretation. If you were posting a literal interpretation, you wouldn't be adding anything to it, but merely what is already there and easily found. My own are easily found within the wording, as is, and under the literal interpretation of it without the necessity of adding in any issues of time, it coming to effect when it does not, or anything like that.

I had tried to end this with humor. Now, I'm not. Unless you have any actual evidence to support your claims, this conversation is effectively over. If you wish to have a chance of recovering your argument from this, try posting actual evidence.

[toturi]

Literal interpretations do not add meanings that are not there.

You know, you've been kinda contradicting yourself on this one. Let me quote the contradictory statement.

So, which is it? Have they already lost the magic points and need to pay for them, or do they end up losing the points (thus having it come to apply when it hadn't) upon Awakening?

Here's links to every post you've made on this thread:
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759222
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759226
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759237
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759251
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759262
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759275
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759302
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759321
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759347

You have posted the rule itself exactly 0 times. You have posted references to the rule, through page number or text reference or both, in exactly 6 posts. Your bolded claim of having stated it verbatim is disproven by your own posts. Feel free to reference the posts themselves and try to point out where you have posted the exact text of the rule and not some page reference, rewording, or interpretation of it.

You have also, by this point, failed to prove that your interpretation, which includes quite a bit that is not even part of the rule, is a literal interpretation and not a personal interpretation. In fact, you have already admitted it's a personal interpretation. Here's the proof:

Those are your own words, without a single bit of rewording. You admit to adding to the rule items that are not actually part of it and that it is a your own interpretation. If you were posting a literal interpretation, you wouldn't be adding anything to it, but merely what is already there and easily found. My own are easily found within the wording, as is, and under the literal interpretation of it without the necessity of adding in any issues of time, it coming to effect when it does not, or anything like that.

I had tried to end this with humor. Now, I'm not. Unless you have any actual evidence to support your claims, this conversation is effectively over. If you wish to have a chance of recovering your argument from this, try posting actual evidence.

And I have not added any additional meanings.

I am not contradicting myself. I am saying that if your Essense is less than 6, you lose a certain amount of Magic per SR4 p62. Each time I post "SR4 p62" I am posting that rule. I am not been quoting it verbatim everytime, that's all. And even by your standard equating quoting of the text to posting the rule, I have posted it exactly once.

Your proof simply means that I am right. I admit to pointing out the rule items that are not actually part of it and that it is but a literal interpretation thereof. You are adding to the rule with your issue of "whether or not the Magic rating would have to be bought up to a pre-ware level and then reduced or automatically assumed reduced and then bought up to a post-ware level." This issue should not even come in per SR4 p62.

Now that you have failed to have the last word in the argument using humor, you will use bluster and indignation. My aguments are backed by the evidence that I have shown, you are simply disregarding them because they do not support your claims. If you wish to have a chance of recovering your argument from this, try posting actual evidence.

[Morrigana]

And I have not added any additional meanings.

Here's what you openly admitted to adding:

It doesn't matter if you have no Magic at implantation, it is accounted for then, it will be accounted for when you buy the Awakened Qualities precisely because of the rule in p62.

does not matter that you bought the Magic later

And where you admit adding them after I challenged that they are not part of the rule itself:

Exactly! I added those words simply to convey that the issue that you are bringing up is simply not there. My interpretation stands whether those words are there or not.

I am not contradicting myself. I am saying that if your Essense is less than 6, you lose a certain amount of Magic per SR4 p62. Each time I post "SR4 p62" I am posting that rule. I am not been quoting it verbatim everytime, that's all. And even by your standard equating quoting of the text to posting the rule, I have posted it exactly once.

The bolded part has already been dealt with. Provide evidence to the contrary.

And these are the places where it has been quoted verbatim, for comparison purposes:

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=758977
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759084
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759289

As for the rest: You have posted a reference to the rule, not the rule itself. I asked you for evidence that you have posted the rule, verbatim, and you give me none. Meanwhile, I've already presented my evidence that you haven't. And, as for quoting

Your proof simply means that I am right. I admit to pointing out the rule items that are not actually part of it and that it is but a literal interpretation thereof. You are adding to the rule with your issue of "whether or not the Magic rating would have to be bought up to a pre-ware level and then reduced or automatically assumed reduced and then bought up to a post-ware level." This issue should not even come in per SR4 p62.

Actually, that part was not added to the rule itself; that part was discussing interesting consequences of the rule in question related to chargen. In fact, here's my proof of it:

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759138

Nothing within the rules you posted addressed whether or not the Magic rating would have to be bought up to a pre-ware level and then reduced or automatically assumed reduced and then bought up to a post-ware level. What they did talk about was reducing a magic or resonance rating you already have. Which, considering the question brought up the possibility of adding the magic rating to someone after the ware is bought and there is already rules in place for dealing with that possibility post-chargen, the question became whether or not that changeup in order and the resulting changes in BP spent also could apply to chargen.

Nothing you posted addressed that. Nothing in the entire rulebook addresses that. It took Magus having to outright ask the devs themselves to get an answer to that.

Note that the question is not what the rule itself actually says, but the interactions of the particular rule with other rules within the book and a lack of clarification in them. And, also, note that I admit, in that very same post, what settled the issue.

Now that you have failed to have the last word in the argument using humor, you will try anger and indignation. My aguments are backed by the evidence that I have shown, you are simply disregarding them because they do not support your claims. If you wish to have a chance of recovering your argument from this, try posting actual evidence.

Here's the thing: You've posted no evidence at all except your own interpretations, a partial quoting of the rule itself, several references to said rule, and a quote taken out of context and with its meaning changed entirely. I've got your posts, my posts, posts by others, two verbatim quotes of the rule in question in my own posts...

I'm still waiting on evidence from you. Nice try, though.

[toturi]

What I count as quoting the rule verbatim:

For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.
What I count as posting the rule:

SR4 p62

However if you insist on the full verbatim quotation of the rule(instead of posting SR4 p62 or any part quotation thereof), then I am afraid that I must insist on having the whole rule quoted to count as a posting then. Like so:

Essense Rating: All characters have a starting Essense attribute of 6. Cyberware and bioware implants reduce this rating. No character mat start with an Essense of greater than 6. Under basic Shadowrun rules, characters can never have an Essense of 0 or less. If they do, they die.

Characters with Magic or Resonance attributes are subject to penalties if they have an Essense lower than 6. For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1. The maximum rating for Magic is 6 + initiation grade (see Initiation, p. 189); for Resonance the maximum rating is 6 + submersion grade (see Submersion, p.238).

The maximum natural rating for Edge is 6(7 for humans).

For myself, in a literal RAW interpretation of the passage, it is clear to me that Magic is always reduced, whether you choose to buy it before or after you implant during chargen.

No, in the RAW literal interpretation of the passage, the person loses magic (it does not matter if they have the Magic then or later) if they have Essense lower than 6.

The Magic score is reduced because your Essense is less than 6. That rule is always in force. The reduction is always accounted for because that rule always applies. It doesn't matter if you have no Magic at implantation, it is accounted for then, it will be accounted for when you buy the Awakened Qualities precisely because of the rule in p62. It only looks at your Essense. You always lose 1 point of Magic for each point of Essense or part thereof lost, it does not matter that you bought the Magic later. You do not lose the Magic now, you lose it always. The reduction is always accounted for.

Exactly! I added those words simply to convey that the issue that you are bringing up is simply not there. My interpretation stands whether those words are there or not. Those bolded words simply emphasises the fact there are no additional words there. There is nothing within the rules that state that it does not apply when a person buys a magical quality. It simply is there, whether you buy the quality or not. It applies all the time.

The problem is, in a literal RAW interpretation of the passage, a person only loses magic points they have as they lose cyber. Thus, they can come back after they've already lost the magic, pay to get magic, and not have to subtract any points. Of course, their new magic rating is still limited by their lowered maximum magic rating.

You go ahead and add cyber to the character, with full intents of going ahead and adding in a bit of magic later on. Then you reference the rule in question. What does it say? That as you reduce essense, you also lose points of magic. You, at current, have no points of magic to lose; you can't subtract from something that doesn't exist. Now, what it doesn't state (read it over if you don't believe me) is whether or not this loss applies to any gaining of magic once you've already lost essense.

A literal reading of the rule has it that each loss is a one-time loss, connected directly with the loss of Essense itself.

Each part or full point below 6 is a case of it being below 6. Thus, in this case, it is literally saying, "If your essense is reduced below 6, you lose magic, with magic lost being equal to 1 magic point per full or partial essense point below 6." It's a trigger set up to have multiple variables it keeps track of, yet have a permanent result. And it's a one-time only result, given the fact you cannot (IIRC) regain essense and have it raise magic at the same time. If it were passive, then a person who managed to regain essense would also automatically raise their magic score as well. Except, under RAW, the way to raise magic is through paying BP in chargen or Karma.

My "admission" of additional words are not an admission to an addition to the rule itself but is instead an admission to addressing the timing issues that you have brought up. Your quotes provide the very evidence to the contrary. You have consistently insisted that the rule has timing, I have repeatedly stated that timing is not mentioned within the rule and hence is not an issue and it does not matter.

Here's the thing: You've posted no evidence at all except your own interpretations, several partial quoting of the rule itself, and several quotes taken out of context and with their meaning changed entirely. I've got your posts, my posts, and 1 full verbatim quote of the rule in question in this post.

I'm still waiting on evidence from you. Nice try, though.

[wanderer_king]

I prefer to think of issues like this threefold...

1: If I was GMing would I allow if?
2: Who does it hurt? Who does it benefit?
3: I am prepared to push my interpretation and have it turned against me every time we run into a NPC mage?

By the rules, I think you have to pay the BP first.

As a GM if someone tried this at my table it would last as long it took me to explain that they could do it that way, but as soon as they purchased the Quality (Mage, Techno, Adept, Mystic Apept) they would have their magic reduced to 0 and burnout, but that is just my personal anti-munchkin rulings.

[Morrigana]

What I count as quoting the rule verbatim:

For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.
What I count as posting the rule:

SR4 p62

However if you insist on the full verbatim quotation of the rule(instead of posting SR4 p62 or any part quotation thereof), then I am afraid that I must insist on having the whole rule quoted to count as a posting then. Like so:

I think most people would agree that section covers three rules. Still, touche. I'll cede the ground on most of this one rather than fight a battle I know I'd lose.

I will also note that you are the one who claimed to have posted the entire rule verbatim. What you have done with this is prove my challenge earlier that you had not, though you used your own countering of my posting it to do so. In disproving one claim I made, you turned around and provided evidence for a challenge I had made against you, thus disproving the claim you had made earlier about having posted it verbatim. And added another piece of evidence onto my pile for proving my counter to that claim. Thank you for that.

My "admission" of additional words are not an admission to an addition to the rule itself but is instead an admission to addressing the timing issues that you have brought up. Your quotes provide the very evidence to the contrary. You have consistently insisted that the rule has timing, I have repeatedly stated that timing is not mentioned within the rule and hence is not an issue and it does not matter.

Interestingly, the timing issues I brought up are taken directly from the rule itself and then reworded, with the issue being that it's worded in such a way that the loss itself happens with each point or partial point of essense lost. Here's my evidence for it:

For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.

The rest of it is combining the other rules together to form a cohesive statement of the complete rules interaction. I can stop and point out exactly which rules I was using, as well as the page numbers and posting exact quotes, if you want me to go there.

As for the admission: You posted the context of it, and the context did not change the meaning. You admitted to the addition, you admitted it's your own interpretation, and it's in your own words. In fact, here's the full context of it:

You are right, it is ridiculous. But there is nothing wrong with the logic, it is simply the literal interpretation. You are not paying for the magic points you have lost, you are paying for the Magic points you lose as a result of Essense loss per p62. The Magic score is reduced because your Essense is less than 6. That rule is always in force. The reduction is always accounted for because that rule always applies. It doesn't matter if you have no Magic at implantation, it is accounted for then, it will be accounted for when you buy the Awakened Qualities precisely because of the rule in p62. It only looks at your Essense. You always lose 1 point of Magic for each point of Essense or part thereof lost, it does not matter that you bought the Magic later. You do not lose the Magic now, you lose it always. The reduction is always accounted for.

Except that nothing within the rule states it comes to apply as soon as a person buys a magical quality. There's nothing written within it about delaying for a state to switch from false to true; only that it has immediate effects upon a state that is true. In a case where someone becomes a mage and then gets cyberwear, this presents no problems. For those cases where it does, we have the latent awakening to fall back on for dealing with it. What you have just done within that is add statements to the rule that are not actually written within it (I've bolded them for you). What you're doing is adding interpretations to the rules instead of taking them literally.

Strangely enough, I have my evidence that the words you've added to your interpretation of it are not within the rule itself, and I provide it every time I post the rule itself. The words are simply not there. Where's your evidence that they are?

Exactly! I added those words simply to convey that the issue that you are bringing up is simply not there. My interpretation stands whether those words are there or not. Those bolded words simply emphasises the fact there are no additional words there. There is nothing within the rules that state that it does not apply when a person buys a magical quality. It simply is there, whether you buy the quality or not. It applies all the time.

Your own words, in context, have you admitting to adding to the rule items that were not there already while accusing me of the same. You cannot say you didn't admit it because it's right there in your own words.

Here's the thing: You've posted no evidence at all except your own interpretations, several partial quoting of the rule itself, and several quotes taken out of context and with their meaning changed entirely. I've got your posts, my posts, and 1 full verbatim quote of the rule in question in this post.

Prove the bolded part. I can prove I did post evidence with links to my own posts. In fact, here's posts where I did post evidence:

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759331
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759352
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759359

I've also shown that the one quote I could have possibly changed the meaning of by taking out of context did not change meaning at all. And I have you outright proving my earlier refuting that you had not, at that time, posted a verbatim copy of the rule in question.

Thank you for adding to my pile of evidence (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[toturi]

I will also note that you are the one who claimed to have posted the entire rule verbatim. What you have done with this is prove my challenge earlier that you had not, though you used your own countering of my posting it to do so. In disproving one claim I made, you turned around and provided evidence for a challenge I had made against you, thus disproving the claim you had made earlier about having posted it verbatim. And added another piece of evidence onto my pile for proving my counter to that claim. Thank you for that.

Interestingly, the timing issues I brought up are taken directly from the rule itself and then reworded, with the issue being that it's worded in such a way that the loss itself happens with each point or partial point of essense lost.

As for the admission: You posted the context of it, and the context did not change the meaning. You admitted to the addition, you admitted it's your own interpretation, and it's in your own words.
I've also shown that the one quote I could have possibly changed the meaning of by taking out of context did not change meaning at all. And I have you outright proving my earlier refuting that you had not, at that time, posted a verbatim copy of the rule in question.

For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.

And time is never mentioned within the context of this quote. It simply states the consequences of Essense below 6. There is no timing issues within the rule itself, you added them in when you reworded it.

It doesn't matter if you have no Magic at implantation, it is accounted for then, it will be accounted for when you buy the Awakened Qualities precisely because of the rule in p62. It only looks at your Essense. You always lose 1 point of Magic for each point of Essense or part thereof lost, it does not matter that you bought the Magic later.

As I have stated, that is an admission that timing does not matter. There is, therefore, no addition at all since it is the literal interpretation of the rule. The rule never does mentions when Essense is lost. Just that that Essense is lost; if Essense less than 6, Magic is reduced by said amount. Not when Essense is lost, Magic is reduced by said amount.

Seeing that you have ceded the grounds, then it remains that you have not posted the rule to my strict standards. Indeed, in your links, all you have done is post your own interpretations, several partial quoting of the rule itself, and several quotes taken out of context and with their meaning changed entirely. There is no evidence in those posts that I will consider evidence at all, hence the bolded parts are proven.

I claimed to have posted the rule and what I defined as posting of the rule. But I concede the point that I have not posted the rule to your standards previously. I have, however, proven that I have posted the rule, to my own earlier standards as well as later standards in view of your own.

Thank you for adding to my pile of evidence.