New FAQ!, 'bout time Options

[Ancient History]

Somebody finally uploaded the FAQ

Now, I've been seriously campaigning to get the FAQ updated for quite a while now, and even though I did all the work fixing the verdamnt page. Finally, after seven months of consistent bitching and me calling it quits and threatening to post it on my own site, the FAQ I mostly wrote has finally been posted! Yay!

Just for you and me, I will mention that whenever the FAQ mentions "an upcoming rulebook" in the Magic section, it was talking about a book that was planned to be written by Jennifer Harding and myself. There were actually full answers to those questions, but several of the other freelancers protested that the purpose of a FAQ is to answer questions and not rewrite or provide new rules, so they were removed. I might dig them out and post them later, just so we have something to argue about.

[Starmage21]

Somebody finally uploaded the FAQ

Now, I've been seriously campaigning to get the FAQ updated for quite a while now, and even though I did all the work fixing the verdamnt page. Finally, after seven months of consistent bitching and me calling it quits and threatening to post it on my own site, the FAQ I mostly wrote has finally been posted! Yay!

Just for you and me, I will mention that whenever the FAQ mentions "an upcoming rulebook" in the Magic section, it was talking about a book that was planned to be written by Jennifer Harding and myself. There were actually full answers to those questions, but several of the other freelancers protested that the purpose of a FAQ is to answer questions and not rewrite or provide new rules, so they were removed. I might dig them out and post them later, just so we have something to argue about.

Anything interesting in there?

[Ancient History]

Considering the last FAQ was '06? Yeah, I think so. Couple three things, anyway.

[Mantis]

You have answered a question I just posted about adepts and foci. Thank you, thank you, thank you. So yea I think there is some interesting things in there. For me anyway. Yay new FAQ.

[JM Hardy]

I was going to post a message about this, but Bobby beat me to it! As I mentioned on the blog, I appreciate the work of the many freelancers who had input into the document, but special credit needs to go to Bobby, who kept pushing for this to happen and made sure it didn't fade away. If the FAQ is helpful, thank him and every other name on the bottom of the page.

Jason H.

[darthmord]

Somebody finally uploaded the FAQ

Now, I've been seriously campaigning to get the FAQ updated for quite a while now, and even though I did all the work fixing the verdamnt page. Finally, after seven months of consistent bitching and me calling it quits and threatening to post it on my own site, the FAQ I mostly wrote has finally been posted! Yay!

Just for you and me, I will mention that whenever the FAQ mentions "an upcoming rulebook" in the Magic section, it was talking about a book that was planned to be written by Jennifer Harding and myself. There were actually full answers to those questions, but several of the other freelancers protested that the purpose of a FAQ is to answer questions and not rewrite or provide new rules, so they were removed. I might dig them out and post them later, just so we have something to argue about.

The FAQ entry for Mystic Adepts and Magic splitting are in conflict with the rules published for SR4A.

I'll read over it more over the next couple of days.

[Mantis]

Hmmm going to need a few more thank yous to cover all those names. Anyway thanks guys. This is almost as good as a new source book.

[Squinky]

Very awesome. Thanks guys!

---edit----

Genetic heritage just got more interesting, and it seems they fixed and clarified some rules on cyberlimbs. Woot!

[Fatum]

Okay, the most important thing I see this far is

When a spirit uses Possession or Inhabitation on a character, are the dual entity's attributes limited by the character's maximum augmented attribute values?
Yes. The dual entity's Physical attribute + Force of the spirit cannot be greater than the vessel's maximum augmented attribute. Inanimate vessels have no maximum limits.

That should invalidate at least some worries about the Possession traditions.

Oh, and I was right about Data Bombs after all.

[nemafow]

You legend AH, thank you

[Squinky]

Okay, the most important thing I see this far is



That should invalidate at least some worries about the Possession traditions.

Agreed. Although it does clarify that ITNW stacks with other armors now. I remember some arguing over that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[sn0mm1s]

It also appears that if you aren't astrally perceiving in some fashion you cannot use stealth skills against those who are.

[Glyph]

The FAQ entry for Mystic Adepts and Magic splitting are in conflict with the rules published for SR4A.

I'll read over it more over the next couple of days.

Correct. The example in the book (basic SR4 - not sure if SR4A has the same example) has a mystic adept with one point dedicated to adept powers using it to buy four levels of rapid healing.

This directly contradicts:

So for the example above, a mystic adept with Magic 6 with 2 points devoted to Magic skills and 4 points to adept powers, the maximum Force he can cast at is 4, and anything over Force 2 is Physical Drain. His adept powers are limited to rating 4 or lower.

Still, despite that and what I am sure will be a few other errors, it is good to see the FAQ updated, and to see them weigh in on some of the issues that have been circulating around the forums for awhile.

[crizh]

Wow, that's a fairly major change to Possession.

I seem to recall that the FAQ used explicitly say almost exactly the opposite.

I've noticed a few changes that are going to take some getting used to and might cause some controversy and I'm only half way through....

[Fatum]

Wait, how comes you can use cellular repair to regain Essence lost to HMHVV Infection, when Runner's Companion explicitly states otherwise on page 83?

[Ancient History]

<snap> Should have been "Energy Drain." It was a re-write of an old question. Always something you miss in proofing. Oh well.

[crizh]

Half-limb armour counts it's full rating. SR4A changes document in error.

Halle-goddam-lujah!

Thank you AH.

[nemafow]

Question regarding the FAQ though.

What happens if Response is reduced to 0?
If Response reaches 0, your commlink is overloaded, and slows to a snail's crawl. Think Windows 98. The commlink does not crash, and your icons are still able to act, albeit slowly.

If your Response is reduced to 0, doesnt that reduce System to 0 as well, and effectively a crashed OS?

[Ancient History]

Note the question immediately above that one.

[nemafow]

That explicity is worded regarding running too many programs, what if there were other circumstances that your Response was reduced to 0?

But nevermind, you have obviously answered my question, 'no'

[Ancient History]

Six an one, I think.

[Squinky]

Half-limb armour counts it's full rating. SR4A changes document in error.

Halle-goddam-lujah!

Thank you AH.

And seconded. I saw that old ruling lately, and it didn't make sense (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

I still don't like that ruling on Hardened Armor + Normal Armor, as it means drakes in dracoform having hardened armor 4 is still neigh useless (how often do you see attack DVs at 4 and less? Only if an unaugmented human is punching you). But it is the most reasonable method.

[hobgoblin]

nothing on how launch weapons and hardpoints interact.

[sn0mm1s]

I still don't like that ruling on Hardened Armor + Normal Armor, as it means drakes in dracoform having hardened armor 4 is still neigh useless (how often do you see attack DVs at 4 and less? Only if an unaugmented human is punching you). But it is the most reasonable method.

Well, the character can fall 4 meters without having to roll any dice to prevent damage so they have that going for them.