Broken Rules., Or where RAW just fails. Options

[KarmaInferno]

He *is* arguing that the context of that paragraph is 'all rules', not 'Stirrup control rules'. That's false.

He's arguing that that's what the rules AS WRITTEN say.

He himself in post 451 considers it to be broken, as written.

And he's right. AS WRITTEN, they simply state "use the drone rules".

What they SHOULD say is "use the rules for piloting or controlling drones".

The rule in question is simply written badly.



-k

[Yerameyahu]

Yes, but he's also claiming that the paragraph, under the Stirrup heading, which talks all about biodrone control options, has the context of 'basic rules for biodrones in general'. That's false.

[StealthSigma]

He's arguing that that's what the rules AS WRITTEN say.

He himself in post 451 considers it to be broken, as written.

And he's right. AS WRITTEN, they simply state "use the drone rules".

What they SHOULD say is "use the rules for piloting or controlling drones".

The rule in question is simply written badly.



-k

Except it still doesn't allow a biodrone to qualify for vehicle modification rules. The first sentence you see in Arsenal for vehicle modifications.

This section covers modifications specifically meant for drones and vehicles.

Thus for a biodrone to qualify for vehicle modifications, you must prove that it is a drone and doesn't just function/behave like one. Every bit I have read on biodrones keep using the term "like". I have not read anything that says a biodrone IS a drone.

[KarmaInferno]

Except that "function" could refer to actual drone functionality, or to the rules themselves, as in "the rules function like this".

Again I'm not saying ya'lls interpretation of "what the rules intend" is wrong. Just that the text needs errata to clarify.



-k

[StealthSigma]

Except that "function" could refer to actual drone functionality, or to the rules themselves, as in "the rules function like this".

Again I'm not saying ya'lls interpretation of "what the rules intend" is wrong. Just that the text needs errata to clarify.

-k

You still haven't shown anything that supports the statement "A biodrone is a drone."

Drones are devices, and like all devices each has its own node in the Matrix.

Drones, vehicles, and some other (semi-)autonomous devices have a special System program called a Pilot program.

When observing its (physical) surroundings, a drone uses its Sensor rating.

Drone Initiative equals Pilot rating + Response, and they receive two extra Initiative Passes.

None of those sentences describing drones describe a biodrone (with the exception of the first, potentially).

Further....

Nearly any kind of vehicle--matchbox-sized cars, miniature rotorcraft, ground patrol vehicles the size of a large dog, even modified sports cars--may serve as drones.

That sentence clearly states that a drone is a vehicle. If we go back to the Combat section about Vehicle attributes we can determine which attributes are necessary for something to be a vehicle.

Condition Monitor- Vehicles do not suffer from Stun damage.
Handling Rating- Every vehicle has a Handling rating.
Sensors- Sensors are the vehicular equivalent of the Intuition attribute.
Acceleration- Vehicles have an Acceleration rating that determines their movement rates.
Speed- Speed is the reasonable high-end maximum velocity of the vehicle.

Do biodrones have all these qualities? No, they have none of those qualities.

Biodrones are not vehicles. Since biodrones are not vehicles they cannot be drones. Since they are not drones or vehicles they do not qualify for vehicle modification rules.

[KarmaInferno]

I. am. not. saying. a. biodrone. is. a. vehicle.

Just that they picked a bad wording.

Replace "functions" with "is operated" and the issue goes away.





-k

[Yerameyahu]

Neraph is saying it, KarmaInferno. The issue only exists if one deliberately ignores the context, and decides that 'functions as a vehicle' means 'becomes a vehicle' (because they obviously don't start as one). My point is precisely that, bad wording aside, the book in no way says that a biodrone becomes an actual vehicle. It is suboptimal, but that doesn't mean anything goes.

[Jaid]

Neraph is saying it, KarmaInferno. The issue only exists if one deliberately ignores the context, and decides that 'functions as a vehicle' means 'becomes a vehicle' (because they obviously don't start as one). My point is precisely that, bad wording aside, the book in no way says that a biodrone becomes an actual vehicle. It is suboptimal, but that doesn't mean anything goes.

actually, in each of those cases, the rules indicate that *is* the case when the biodrone has a pilot in it... obviously, it has it's own node. if you specifically make it a biodrone run by a pilot program, well, obviously it's run by a pilot program. in the case that it is run by a pilot program, even those who don't think it turns into a drone per the RAW agree that it's supposed to *work* like a drone, so it should indeed be using sensor, because that's the rules for operating a drone, and you explicitly use those rules when you install a pilot. and, when it is controlled by a pilot program, that would in fact be it's initiative.

the problem is that all of those rules do (per RAW) and probably *should* (per RAI) work like that. mind you, even if you do try to do that much, you'll run into problems (after all, biodrones have no listed sensor rating, but the rules do tell you to use regular drone rules and regular drone rules tell you to use a sensor rating, so the rule is broken even if you don't accept the premise that the rule tells you to mount vehicle armor on the biodrone)

[Yerameyahu]

Certainly, Jaid. But we're talking about mounting vehicle armor. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And, while you're right that it's not at all explained (i.e., an actual Broken Rule), it's not hard to sub Intuition, etc.

[Neraph]

My point is precisely that, bad wording aside, the book in no way says that a biodrone becomes an actual vehicle.

Emphasis mine.

That's my point. It's the poor wording that opens up this can of worms (biodrone worms, no less) and actually does, as per RAW like I've quoted many times, and as per RAW that Jaid pointed out again, allows biodrones to make full use of all rules that affect drones (and, by extention, vehicles, as StealthSigma pointed out with his RAW findings also).

Also, thanks to Jaid, KarmaInferno, and any others who kept up my good fight while I was at work.

Lastly, thank you Jaid for bringing up something I mentioned a few pages ago also. Even assuming that biodrones don't follow all the rules for vehicles and drones, what attributes do they use for basically anything when piloted by their Pilot or by their Rigger? Using Intuition for Sensor makes logical sense, but it is purely in the realm of conjecture. But do you use the animal's Reaction or the Stirrup Interface/Commlink's Response for Defense Tests? Do they become immune to Stun? Why or why not?

And apparently enough people also notice the same thing I do that this should be firmly in place as a Broken Rule.

[KarmaInferno]

An actual 'broken rule', of the "not enough information" variety: The rules state that humanoid drones can use meta-human sized equipment. This presumably includes armor. And as I noted in another thread, since humanoid drones also have mechanical arms, they can use cyberlimb modifications, including cyberarmor.

A drone can ALSO have vehicle armor. The Otomo notably can have as much as 18 points of such armor*.

The rules completely fail to tell us, however, how hardened armor and non-hardened armor on the same subject interact.




-k


*-Does anyone else think that a combat-specced Otomo will be pretty much immune to anything short of military levels of power?

[Yerameyahu]

No. That's what 'bad wording aside' means: however bad you think the wording is, it's totally impossible to conclude that a biodrone becomes a vehicle. There's nothing about 'full' use of 'all' rules. It is only by deliberately pretending that the paragraph isn't solely about control systems, and by deliberately pretending that 'functions exactly as a drone' means 'becomes a vehicle', that you can reach this 'Broken RAW' conclusion. There are plenty of actual Broken Rules, but this isn't one of them.

Again, Neraph, the issue of Sensor/whatever has nothing at all to do with what we've been talking about. It is its own problem, having zero bearing on the issue we're actually discussing.

[Neraph]

Does anyone else think that a combat-specced Otomo will be pretty much immune to anything short of military levels of power?

Not as bad as a Tomino is.

No. That's what 'bad wording aside' means: however bad you think the wording is, it's totally impossible to conclude that a biodrone becomes a vehicle. There's nothing about 'full' use of 'all' rules. It is only by deliberately pretending that the paragraph isn't solely about control systems, and by deliberately pretending that 'functions exactly as a drone' means 'becomes a vehicle', that you can reach this 'Broken RAW' conclusion. There are plenty of actual Broken Rules, but this isn't one of them.

Function: to perform a specified action or activity; work; operate.
Exactly: in an exact manner; precisely; accurately; in every respect; just.

'functions exactly as a drone' = 'performs/works/operates precisely, accurately, and in every respect as a drone.'

Broken Rule.

Again, Neraph, the issue of Sensor/whatever has nothing at all to do with what we've been talking about. It is its own problem, having zero bearing on the issue we're actually discussing.

I know, and my intent was to bring it up in addition to, as in this also.

[Ragewind]

The rules completely fail to tell us, however, how hardened armor and non-hardened armor on the same subject interact.

You add the total armor rating together

20 Armor
20 Hardened
=40

When determining the value to see if the shot bounces off you compare it against 20 points of hardened armor. if it exceeds it then you simply roll the remaining armor and body together to reduce damage. As for armor Pen? Who knows, it all depends on how you want the reduction to apply to the numbers. I could also be entirely wrong, if you could throw down some page numbers of what your talking about ill take a look at it.

[Jaid]

...if you could throw down some page numbers of what your talking about ill take a look at it.

i think that's the problem... there *are* no page numbers when it comes to combining hardened and non-hardened armor. (though i agree, that's how i would handle it. AP would be counted towards hardened armor first as well)

[Saint Sithney]

Ignoring the part where the paragraph is describing the biodrone's behavior, not its means of modification, it does still warrant a rundown.

I suppose that statement of "functions like a drone" implies a biodrone with a pilot program is immune to stun damage. Check on that not making sense. It still has a nervous system even though there are wires all throughout it. Perhaps it does replace the CNS to a degree that it's now fully synthetic. I'd equate it closer to a pain editor if I were statting it out.

The animal is now an object when one considers magic used against it. Less sense, but still sensible if you think of it as a machine with biological actuators. But, when you turn the pilot program off, fluffy turns back into a living creature. How's that work?

What else?

[Ascalaphus]

Well, the complexities of applying drone piloting rules to an animal would certainly warrant a bit more text and perhaps a handy attribute substitution table. As it's written right now I'd have to crawl through several books to figure out how to use a biodrone (Augmentation, Core, perhaps details from Arsenal and Unwired..) It's rather ugly. Add to that consulting Running Wild for animal base stats (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

The RAI are clear. Sure, the RAW leaves a lot to be desired, and can be (deliberately) misinterpreted, but I don't think anyone's disputing what it's supposed to mean.

[CeeJay]

As it's written right now I'd have to crawl through several books to figure out how to use a biodrone (Augmentation, Core, perhaps details from Arsenal and Unwired..) It's rather ugly. Add to that consulting Running Wild for animal base stats (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

And that's why we have broken rules. The rules just got broken and the parts were put into several different books (IMG:style_emoticons/default/read.gif)
Sometimes I think this was done purely to make me skim each and every SR book every other week... and often I find completely unrelated things in there that are nonetheless interesting and entertaining.

-CJ

[StealthSigma]

That's my point. It's the poor wording that opens up this can of worms (biodrone worms, no less) and actually does, as per RAW like I've quoted many times, and as per RAW that Jaid pointed out again, allows biodrones to make full use of all rules that affect drones (and, by extention, vehicles, as StealthSigma pointed out with his RAW findings also).

Wait, what? I'm arguing that the RAW for biodrones does not grant them that attributes required for biodrones to be a vehicle and thus qualify for vehicle modification rules. Only by focusing on a single line and ignoring all others can you reach the conclusion that biodrones can be modified like vehicles. That's rules lawyering for you.

[KarmaInferno]

Wait, what? I'm arguing that the RAW for biodrones does not grant them that attributes required for biodrones to be a vehicle and thus qualify for vehicle modification rules. Only by focusing on a single line and ignoring all others can you reach the conclusion that biodrones can be modified like vehicles. That's rules lawyering for you.

You've had multiple people arguing both sides of the issue.

That's generally a sign that a rule needs clarification or better wording.

If a rule was crystal clear in it's intent, there wouldn't BE arguments, at least not over the RAW.

I mean, yeah, there will be arguments, but over other stuff. We ARE gamers after all.



-k

[KarmaInferno]

i think that's the problem... there *are* no page numbers when it comes to combining hardened and non-hardened armor. (though i agree, that's how i would handle it. AP would be counted towards hardened armor first as well)

Yeah, that was my point - there are reasonable extrapolations of how the rules SHOULD work, but the point of this thread is to identify rules which AS WRITTEN are broken, not to make extrapolations.

I personally would not let them stack, because if you do you get absurdities like sticking a couple of human sized mechanical arms with cyberarmor on a Boston class battleship, thereby increasing it's armor by a third. But again, that's not actually spelled out in the rules, it would be my GM house ruling on the issue.

For reference, I was talking about the Otomo, though the same issue applies to any humanoid drone, or any drone with a mechanical arm.

A rules saying "X is possible" but then completely failing to explain how to do X is kinda broken in my mind.



-k

[sabs]

Do remember that in Arsenal there is a Personal armor modification for vehicles.
There is also the rigger cocoon.

So You could have
20 Vehicle armor
6 Personal Armor
8 Armor from the cocoon all between you and the bullets coming at you.

With no real idea on how those interact.

[Yerameyahu]

They stack. That's not really a problem, although it does mean you can stack up a very protected driver. It's not really a balance issue, you just have to break the vehicle *before* killing the driver.

The multi-armored Otomo, on the other hand, gets pretty silly. I'd extrapolate the 'vehicle encumbrance' penalties so that your Otomo was (literally) crawling.

Once again, 'functions as a drone' doesn't mean 'becomes a vehicle'. It is inappropriate to shoehorn definitions into an out-of-context sentence.

[sabs]

They should have worked out their barrier rules better I think.

I think I would have liked AP better if instead of a - to the AP rating of something. They gave you +hits < Armor Rating of target.

So lets say I had a gun that was:

5P +3AP
with ammo that was +1P +3AP

for a grand total of 6P +6AP

I get 4 net hits.
When I'm figuring out my penetration I do:
6+4 = 10 That's my damage value
I add +6AP OR the max rating of the armor the guy is wearing, which ever is lowest.
So in this case, that give me a total penetration of 16.

If the guy has 8 points of armor, 8 DV made it through thanks for soaking.
if the guy had 4 points of armor, I'd only have had 14 penetration, so 10 points of damage would have made it through.
So if I then had 3 points of armor from a cybertorso, I'd still take 9 DV (the extra 2ap are still there and partially punch through the cyberarmor)

[Neraph]

Once again, 'functions as a drone' doesn't mean 'becomes a vehicle'. It is inappropriate to shoehorn definitions into an out-of-context sentence.

Now here you're right. "Functions as a drone" can't mean that. "Functions exactly as a drone," on the other hand, means that, regardless of context. It is inappropriate to partially quote relevant sections.

I personally would not let them stack, because if you do you get absurdities like sticking a couple of human sized mechanical arms with cyberarmor on a Boston class battleship, thereby increasing it's armor by a third. But again, that's not actually spelled out in the rules, it would be my GM house ruling on the issue.

Outlaw Star's predecessor?