Non-Metahuman Sapient Info/Rules, Couple Questions; maybe I missed it? Options

[Stahlseele]

so, in effect, you're making it not worth trying it and by default so hard to succeed that it is basically impossible if you can't burn edge like nothing good?
isn't that kinda making the rules so that it is in THEORY possible, but not in practice?
what's so different from the rules/devs just saying:"no, doesn't work. end of story"?

and come on . . are you STILL arguing over this?
how often has this been discussed? at least 10 times in the last year alone . .
for fucks sake, uncle ancient basically wrote the book on magic(literally and figuratively mind you!) and if he says:"no, deal with it", then that should tell you something . .

[Ancient History]

You're not understanding the use of taxonomy. It does not say that since it has a "Latin name" that makes it an animal.

I'm not playing the definition game. If you're trying to say that you can't use (Critter) Form to assume the shape of a plant or anything that is not an animal, that is self-evident. If you're trying to use the word "taxonomy" to denote that living things are separated into different kingdoms/orders/etc. with one of those being "Animalia" or "Metazoa," then you are in fact referring to Linnaean taxonomy, which uses Latin names to differentiate critters. If you want to use Linnaean taxonomy as a general supportive measure when trying to decide whether something is or is not an animal for purposes of the (Critter) Form spell, that's between you and your GM, because it is neither supported or denied by anything in Shadowrun.

A recent poll actually stated that more than half of people believe in the Biblical creation account, with some people believing something called the "Gap Theory" (God used evolution for the Creation), and finally with few people believing in 100% evolution. The thing is a lot of scientists believe in evolution, and they're the ones who write the books, making it seem like most people believe it. Not neccessarily so.

Your personal beliefs and faith in polls are duly noted, but also completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Whether or not the majority of people in this world belief in evolution is irrelevant to the issue at hand. In point of fact the entire digression into evolution and creationism are irrelevant to the issue at hand. You should never have brought it up to begin with, it has no place in this argument.

Let me show you how your argument should go

1) Spell description
2) Taxonomic wankery
3) Pointless Evolutionary side-note
2) Logical argument based on spell description

[/edit]
Raargh! Ancient smash puny argument!

Okay, seriously now, I've been venting a little with this. I'm not weighing in an opinion on the (Critter) Form debate itself, because the way it's written you could make an argument either way. If I have an opinion, I'll try and get in the FAQ. I do take issue with the form of your argument, Neraph, because the elements of it I've highlighted (which should be bloody self-evident) are valueless and doubleplusungoodthink. Not because of your beliefs, but because they make no bloody sense in the context of the argument. The relentless denial and attempts at supporting them have not endeared me.

[Apathy]

Raargh! Ancient smash puny argument!

Wow, I never realized that he was called 'Ancient' because he was actually a cave man. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[HappyDaze]

For a Metahuman form that does change Physical Attributes , the threshold could be based on the number of points increased. So turning into an Elf (+1 Agility) would increase the Threshold by 1 while turning into a Dwarf (+1 Body, +2 Strength) would increase the Threshold by 3. Orks and Trolls would be very difficult transformations using this system.

[Draco18s]

I'm not playing the definition game. If you're trying to say that you can't use (Critter) Form to assume the shape of a plant or anything that is not an animal, that is self-evident. If you're trying to use the word "taxonomy" to denote that living things are separated into different kingdoms/orders/etc. with one of those being "Animalia" or "Metazoa," then you are in fact referring to Linnaean taxonomy, which uses Latin names to differentiate critters.

Yeast, however, is not an animal, therefore your earlier argument is null. (Yeast) Form is the same as (Portabello Mushroom) Form and has no connection to (Critter) Form, as they're both (Fungi) Form.

Sit down, shut up, and house rule it at YOUR table.

[Neraph]

If you want to use Linnaean taxonomy as a general supportive measure when trying to decide whether something is or is not an animal for purposes of the (Critter) Form spell, that's between you and your GM, because it is neither supported or denied by anything in Shadowrun.

Wrong.

Homo sapiens pumillonis

Homo sapiens nobilis

Homo sapiens sapiens

Homo sapiens robustus

Homo sapiens ingentis

I'd say that supports using Linnaean taxonomy as an argument for something within the game. Considering the game brought it up first.

[Ancient History]

Which has nothing to do with spells! Show me in the spell description where it says the taxonomy has jack to do with anything in the spell.

[GreyBrother]

Guys, please. Quit it. For the love of the great Whatever.